DOCSLIB.ORG

Cmap Fy 2016-2020 Cmaq Project Application Other Projects I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cmap Fy 2016-2020 Cmaq Project Application Other Projects I CMAP FY 2016-2020 CMAQ PROJECT APPLICATION OTHER PROJECTS I. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Project Sponsor Contact Information – Name, Title, Agency, Address, Chicago Department of Transportation Phone, e-mail (e-mail required) Other Agencies Participating in Project Primary/Public Agency Sponsor: Chicago Water Taxi Keith Privett, Coordinating Planner, Chicago DOT (a division of Wendella Sightseeing Co. Inc.) 30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60602 312/744-1981 [email protected] ☐ New Project TIP ID if project already has one ☒ Existing CMAQ Project 01-00-0040 Secondary/Private Sector Partner: ☐ Add CMAQ to Existing Project (“Chicago River Commuter Andrew Sargis, Chief of Operations, Boat Service”) Chicago Water Taxi / Wendella Sightseeing Co. Inc., 400 N Michigan Suite 100, Chicago, IL 60611 312/337-1446 ext. 113 [email protected] • II. PROJECT LOCATION Projects not readily identified by location must provide a title on the last line of this section • Attach a map sufficient to accurately locate this project in a GIS system Name of Street or Facility to be Improved Marked Route # Chicago River Commuter Boat Service Chicago River Project Limits: North/West Reference Point/Cross St/Intersection Marked Route # Municipality & County North Ave dock @ 1530 N Cherry St. / 1132 W Blackhawk St. Chicago River Chicago/Cook (Wrigley Center, across ped bridge to Goose Island from 1101 W. North Ave) (North Branch) Project Limits: South/East Reference Point/Cross St/Intersection Marked Route # Municipality & County South: Chinatown Dock @ Ping Tom Park (300 W. 19th St) Chicago River Chicago/Cook East: Mag Mile Dock @ 400 N. Michigan Ave (Wrigley Bldg.) (South Branch, Main Branch) Other Project Location Information or Project Title “Chicago Water Taxi - Fleet - Diesel-Electric Hybrid Vessels” III. PROJECT FINANCING & CMAQ FUNDING REQUEST Please review the instructions. Other Federal Funds Starting Federal (New) CMAQ Including prior CMAQ awards Fiscal Year* Total Phase Costs Funds Requested Fund Type Amount Engineering Phase 1 $ $ $ Engineering Phase 2 $ $ $ Right-Of-Way Acquisition $ $ $ Construction (Including $ $ $ Construction Engineering) Engineering (For $ $ $ Implementation Projects) 2016 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,120,000 Implementation CMAQ (FY 99) $ 526,000 2018 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,120,000 (for vessel “Bravo” ) Alternatives Analysis $ $ $ *Phase must be accomplished within 3 years $ 2,800,000 $ 2,240,000 Total Project Costs Source Of Local Matching Funds Private: Wendella Sightseeing Co. Inc. Indicate if sponsor intends to apply for Transportation Development Credits. No If soft matching funds are intended to be used, please contact CMAP staff. Have Matching Funds Been Secured? Yes, Wendella has committed match from Chicago Water Taxi (Provide Details): operational revenues and fuel economy savings. CMAP FY 2016-2020 CMAQ PROJECT APPLICATION OTHER PROJECTS – PAGE 2 IV. PROJECT EMISSIONS BENEFIT DATA Auto trips eliminated per day (round trips): 13.4 average Length of auto trips eliminated (one-way miles to the nearest tenth): 1.8 mi Auto trips diverted to the new facility (round trips): 14.4 average Line-haul length of trips diverted (one-way miles to the nearest tenth): 24.3 mi Affected days per year: 287 (after service increase) Project life (years): 40 yrs Current traffic volume (ADT – indicate year): N/A 2 vessels, which allow increase in operational Length of project or number of units provided: hours from 9210 to 13844 per year Utilization rate (percent): N/A Describe method used to estimate benefits. Provide basis for parameters used to estimate benefits (e.g., diversion rate, auto occupancy, trip length. See instructions) New Riders: 404,000 projected for 2018 - 325,301 actual in 2014 = 78,699/year //287 days/year = 239.7/day average. [Wendella Table 1 attached] Diversion rates: “Up to 6.7% of Wendella trips are diversions from taxis. In addition, up to 7.2% of trips are diverted to Metra” [August 1999 passenger survey Tom Murtha for CATS, reported in 9/3/99 memo to CDOT] Eliminated = 239.7 new riders * 6.7% “from taxis”/ 1.2 vehicle occupancy= 13.38 Diverted = 239.7 new riders * 7.2% “to Metra” / 1.2 vehicle occupancy = 14.38 Eliminated Length = per Google Maps auto directions from Union Station (Canal St) to NBC tower Diverted Length = Eliminated Length + Average Metra Trip Length of 22.45 miles (in 2013) [http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/about_metra/planning_records_reports/ridership_reports/monthlyannualridership.html] Project Life: per Wendella-CDOT passthrough grant agreement in 2000. [This is a compromise between the 25 years suggested minimum service in FTA Circular 5010.1D Chapter IV, Subsection 3.f.(2)(d) and Wendella statement that “Due to construction material, equipment has indefinite lifetime”] Units provided: per Wendella Tables 1 & 2 attached For Direct Emissions Benefits, see attached: copy of Direct Emissions CMAQ application Section IV, Appendix 2, and Table 2. V. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION Is Right-Of-Way Acquisition required for this project? ☐ Yes ☒ No If so, has it been acquired? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ N.A. ☐ Not Begun ☐ Agreement executed by Central Office ☐ Engineering Underway ☐ Submitted for review ☐ Responding to review comments Preliminary Design Status: ☐ Agreement sent to District 1for signatures ☐ Design approval granted Date approval is anticipated or was granted:____________________ Estimated Completion Year/Year Vehicles in Service: Vessel Charlie in 2016, Delta in 2018 VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Please describe the project. For outreach, promotion or marketing efforts give specific details of the campaign. Describe the coordination of this project with respect to other such campaigns CDOT has agreed to serve as the required public-sector sponsor for a proposal by Wendella to acquire two diesel- electric hybrid passenger ferryboats for the fleet used by its Chicago River commuter boat service, which is marketed as “Chicago Water Taxi” (CWT). Air quality benefits from this proposal would come from both transit- based auto trip elimination (via a 24% increase in ridership) and engine-based direct emissions reduction (reducing service hours for the fleet’s most polluting boat by 85%). A more detailed purpose statement of the proposal is attached as Appendix 1. CWT originated with commuter shuttles to Michigan Avenue from its main dock outside the Riverside Plaza entrance to Metra/UP’s Ogilvie Transportation Center (and one block from Madison St. Entrance to Union Station). Additional Service has been added to LaSalle Street, North Avenue/Goose Island (weekdays) and Chinatown (weekends). In 2013, it became a partner in RTA’s Transit Benefit Fare Program, allowing fares to be paid with pre-tax payroll deductions. Both vessels will be used to increase transit ridership by expanding Chicago Water Taxi service capacity. A longer, nine-month operating season will be possible due to climate controlled passenger cabins, engine reliability and reinforced ice cutter hulls. A larger fleet will permit additional departures and express runs at peak periods and during special events and the ability to serve additional destinations in response to the growing number of business and residential developments along the Chicago River in Chicago’s greater Central Area. Details of projected service increases are described in Appendix 2 and quantified in Tables 1 and 2. These vessels will allow retirement to limited service for the Sunliner, the Wendella vessel that began water taxi service in Chicago in 1962, and was returned to service in recent years to address ridership growth in Water Taxi Service – 62% greater than projected in the FY99 CMAQ grant application. Her World War II-surplus Detroit Diesel Grey Marine 671s engines are considered “Tier 0” as they predate the current emissions classification system. Manufacturer data indicate that these GM671s emit NOx at almost six times the rate of a non-hybrid Tier III engine and CO2 at 2.5 times a non-hybrid Tier III engine. (PM information is not available from vendor, but CDOT and Wendella wish to work with CMAP to find an appropriate measurable analogue.) Table 3 quantifies the reduced operational hours for Sunliner after addition of new vessels while Appendix 3 provides further vessel history and emissions data. The two new vessels will be built to use hybrid technology in order to minimize emissions and maximize energy efficiency. One or both Tier III engines will operate only as necessary to charge an electric motor and battery bank that would, in turn, propel the vessel and provide power for the “hotel load” (The base amount of electricity needed to work the ship). To further minimize energy use, solar panels and/or wind technology will be installed to assist with auxiliary power needs and “channel coolers” will direct engine heat to the vessel and its passenger deck as needed. Available data from tug boat fleet conversions indicate that hybrid technology in marine use can cut CO 27%, NOx 51% and PM 73% from a Tier II/III baseline; in this project, reductions will also come from the Sunliner’s “Tier 0” engines. Appendix 3 also provides further specifications for new vessels and procurement strategy. CDOT has agreed to serve as the public sector sponsor for this proposal for both practical and policy reasons. CDOT already has a passthrough grant agreement with Wendella from the FY99 CMAQ grant, and reports CWT ridership and safety data to the National Transit Database and the project also supports one of the Guiding Principles of the Transportation Chapter of the Chicago Central Area Plan (2003): “Alternative Transportation – Encourage alternative modes such as bicycles and water taxis” (p. 57). Further, CWT’s aspiration to have the most energy efficient and environmentally-friendly passenger vessels in the City contributes to several goals of the Sustainable Chicago 2015 Plan, including “Improve Citywide Energy Efficiency,” “Strengthen The Infrastructure To Advance Vehicle Efficiency,” “Increase Average Daily Transit Ridership,” “Reduce Carbon Emissions From All Sectors,” and “Transform The Chicago River Into Our Second Waterfront.” Wendella’s has provided details of their environmental initiatives, which are attached as Appendix 4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) for Dhaka, Bangladesh
    Final Report on Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) for Dhaka, Bangladesh Prepared By: NOOR-E-ALAM Superintending Engineer Roads and Highways Department Dhaka, Bangladesh October 2018 Sustainable Urban Transportation Index (SUTI) for Dhaka, Bangladesh Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Study area .................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Objectives of the study ................................................................................................ 3 CHAPTER 2: CURRENT STATE OF URBAN TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ............................ 4 2.1 Major transport network and systems ......................................................................... 4 2.2 Key connection points of DMA .................................................................................. 5 2.3 Existing transport situation of Dhaka city ................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Major transport modes of Dhaka city .................................................................. 7 2.3.2 Modal share in Dhaka city ................................................................................... 8 2.3.3 Environmental perspective ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Port of San Francisco Water Taxi Feasibility Study
    PortPort ofof SanSan FranciscoFrancisco WaterWater TaxiTaxi FeasibilityFeasibility StudyStudy Presentation to San Francisco Port Commission Water Taxi December 8, 2009 Veronica Sanchez Consulting Walther Engineering Services ScopeScope ofof StudyStudy ¾ IsIs therethere ridershipridership demanddemand forfor waterwater taxitaxi service?service? ¾ WhatWhat cancan wewe learnlearn fromfrom otherother otherother citycity’’ss waterwater taxitaxi systems?systems? ¾ WhatWhat areare capitalcapital andand operatingoperating requirementsrequirements forfor PSFPSF toto startstart thisthis service?service? Port of San Francisco Water Taxi Feasibility Study Veronica Sanchez Consulting September 2009 Walther Engineering Services IsIs therethere RidershipRidership Demand?Demand? ¾ #1 Market Niche: F-Line Diversions ¾ F-Line has overcapacity problems. Wait times are longer than travel time at peak. • Conservative Assumption: 522-576 daily riders • Aggressive assumption 1306-1440 daily riders Compare: Harbor Bay: 620 daily riders. Port of San Francisco Water Taxi Feasibility Study Veronica Sanchez Consulting September 2009 Walther Engineering Services IsIs therethere RidershipRidership Demand?Demand? ¾ #2 Market Niche: Repeat visitors (17.5%) may be looking for a different shoreline experience ¾ #3 Visitor Attractions & Destinations z Example: Exploratorium Opening in 2014. z Special events Port of San Francisco Water Taxi Feasibility Study Veronica Sanchez Consulting September 2009 Walther Engineering Services IsIs therethere RidershipRidership Demand?Demand?
    [Show full text]
  • Water Transit Strategic Plan June 22, 2015
    i Baltimore Water Transit Strategic Plan June 22, 2015 Acknowledgments This report is prepared for the Baltimore City Department of Transportation (BCDOT) with assistance from Whitman, Requardt and Associates, LLP and funded through a grant provide by the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, the Maryland Department of Transportation and the US Department of Transportation. City of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Mayor William M. Johnson, Director of Transportation Lindsay Wines, Deputy Director, Administration Veronica P. McBeth, Transit Bureau Chief Valorie LaCour, RLA, LEED AP, Division Chief, Transportation Planning Project Team BCDOT Linda Taylor-Newton, City Planner II Ciara M. Willis, Transit Services Administrator Frances Knauff - Dockmaster Whitman, Requardt and Associates, LLP Thomas J. Hannan, PE, Senior Vice President James M. Ritchey, Vice President Patrick R. Christian, Transit Technical Specialist Andrea Trabelsi, AICP, Transportation Planner Wendy Haubert, Geographic Information System Specialist Abbi Hoff, Graphics Artist Special thanks to eleven business and community leaders who participated in a Water Transit Workshop on February 24, 2015 including representatives from Greater Baltimore Committee, Waterfront Partnership, Under Armour, Legg Mason, Workshop Development, Watermark Cruises, Baltimore Development Corporation, Locust Point Civic Association, Baltimore Zipcar, and Cruise Maryland. Harbor Care, LLC the operator of the Water Taxi and Harbor Connector cooperated fully over the course of the study providing
    [Show full text]
  • Ferry & Water Taxi Handout 1
    Port of San Francisco To Vallejo FERRY SYSTEM Since 1875 ferries have been a primary means of transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area. The historic Ferry Building at the foot of Market Street, was established as the main terminus for people Ferry Service Routes boarding and disembarking ferries to various locations in the Bay and Delta areas. Today, it continues to serve San Francisco’s financial, commercial, and tourism centers, providing transportation to over Larkspur Port of San Francisco 16,000 passengers daily. Ferry terminals at China Basin and Pier 41 primarily serve visitor attractions Landing June 13, 2016 at AT&T Ballpark and Fisherman’s Wharf with access to the lightrail system along The Embarcadero. Ferry Services & Routes San Francisco Bay Ferry Blue & Gold Fleet Golden Gate Ferry Tiburon www.sanfranciscobayferry.com www.blueandgoldfleet.com www.goldengateferry.org San Francisco Sausalito Bay Alameda Main St. AT&T Park Pier 41 Sausalito San Francisco Sausalito Ferry Building Ferry Building Larkspur Pier 41 Sausalito Pier 41 South Pier 41 Jack London Square, San Francisco Tiburon Ferry Building Oakland AT&T Park Alameda San Francisco Tiburon Downtown Terminal Oakland Ferry Building Pier 41 Vallejo Ferry Building Harbor Bay Ferry Building Alameda AT&T Park Oakland AT&T Park Terminals Ferry Building Pier 41 South San Francisco Downtown Ferry Terminal and Golden Gate Ferry Terminal Downtown Terminal San Francisco Harbor Bay Ferry Building Alameda are located behind the Ferry Oakland San Francisco Vallejo Building at the
    [Show full text]
  • Inner Harbor Connector Ferry
    Inner Harbor Connector Ferry Business Plan for New Water Transportation Service 1 2 Inner Harbor Connector Contents The Inner Harbor Connector 3 Overview 4 Why Ferries 5 Ferries Today 7 Existing Conditions 7 Best Practices 10 Comprehensive Study Process 13 Collecting Ideas 13 Forecasting Ridership 14 Narrowing the Dock List 15 Selecting Routes 16 Dock Locations and Conditions 19 Long Wharf North and Central (Downtown/North End) 21 Lewis Mall (East Boston) 23 Navy Yard Pier 4 (Charlestown) 25 Fan Pier (Seaport) 27 Dock Improvement Recommendations 31 Long Wharf North and Central (Downtown/North End) 33 Lewis Mall (East Boston) 34 Navy Yard Pier 4 (Charlestown) 35 Fan Pier (Seaport) 36 Route Configuration and Schedule 39 Vessel Recommendations 41 Vessel Design and Power 41 Cost Estimates 42 Zero Emissions Alternative 43 Ridership and Fares 45 Multi-modal Sensitivity 47 Finances 51 Overview 51 Pro Forma 52 Assumptions 53 Funding Opportunities 55 Emissions Impact 59 Implementation 63 Appendix 65 1 Proposed route of the Inner Harbor Connector ferry 2 Inner Harbor Connector The Inner Harbor Connector Authority (MBTA) ferry service between Charlestown and Long Wharf, it should be noted that the plans do not specify There is an opportunity to expand the existing or require that the new service be operated by a state entity. ferry service between Charlestown and downtown Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Boston to also serve East Boston and the South and the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) were Boston Seaport and connect multiple vibrant both among the funders of this study and hope to work in neighborhoods around Boston Harbor.
    [Show full text]
  • Juicing the “Seattle Squeeze” Lessons Learned from Seattle’S SR-99 Closure
    Juicing the “Seattle Squeeze” Lessons Learned from Seattle’s SR-99 Closure APTA Sustainability & Multimodal Operations Planning Workshop BenjaminDepartment Smith of Transportation July 29, 2019 Presentation overview • Seattle transit overview • The “Seattle Squeeze” • SR-99 Closure • Preparation for closure • Coordination during closure • Lessons learned Department of Transportation Seattle transit overview • King County Metro • Local and commuter bus • RapidRide BRT and electric trolleybus • Water taxi • Sound Transit • Link light rail • ST Express regional bus • Sounder commuter rail • City of Seattle • Seattle Center Monorail • Seattle Streetcar Department of Transportation The “Seattle Squeeze” • One of fastest growing cities in U.S. • ~250K employment in greater downtown (HQ1) • Transit ridership investment and growth • Infrastructure and development projects Department of Transportation The “Seattle Squeeze” - Timeline • • • • D2 Roadway • SR-99 Tunnel •• CenterAlaskan City Way open Convention Center Madison East Link, closes open Connectorto buses open RapidRide Lynnwood and • • Convention • Alaskan Way • mayConnect open 2020 Northgate Link G Line Federal Way (on hold) Center Viaduct (currentlyconstruction on hold) open open Link open • • construction demolition • Alaskan Way open North Portal Alaskan Way open begins • Alaskan Way to buses* streets open to traffic • construction Seattle Arena begins renovation • DSTT buses shift complete to surface • SR-520 “Rest of the West” project begins SR-99 Closure activities Department of
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Transit Needs Assessment
    Appendix A: Public Survey What Did People Tell Us They Want? As part of the Transit Needs Assessment, BMC conducted a 12-question survey to collect public opinion on issues facing Baltimore regional transit. The survey was conducted from September 21, 2015 through October 13, 2015 and resulted in 467 responses. Appendix A - Public Survey Survey Responses Transit Needs Assessment Survey Q1 What jurisdiction do you live in? Answered: 467 Skipped: 1 Anne Arundel Baltimore City Baltimore County Carroll County Harford County Howard County Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Anne Arundel 15.20% 71 Baltimore City 48.61% 227 Baltimore County 31.69% 148 Carroll County 1.28% 6 Harford County 1.28% 6 Howard County 0.86% 4 Other (please specify) 1.07% 5 Total 467 1 / 12 A-2 Appendix A - Public Survey Transit Needs Assessment Survey Q2 How often do you ride transit (MARC, metro, light rail, bus, Circulator, water taxi) Answered: 462 Skipped: 6 More than once a week More than once a month A couple times a year Very rarely Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses More than once a week 19.48% 90 More than once a month 19.26% 89 A couple times a year 24.89% 115 Very rarely 29.65% 137 Other (please specify) 6.71% 31 Total 462 2 / 12 A-3 Appendix A - Public Survey Transit Needs Assessment Survey Q3 What modes of transit do you use? Answered: 432 Skipped: 36 MTA Bus MTA Commuter Bus Local Bus service MARC trains Baltimore Metro (Subway) Light Rail Charm
    [Show full text]
  • Frog Ferry Presentation
    Frog Ferry Portland-Vancouver Passenger Water Taxi Service Frog= Shwah-kuk in the Chinookan Tribal Language, Art: Adam McIssac CONFIDENTIAL-Susan Bladholm Version 2018 Q1 Canoes and Frog Mythology on the Columbia & Willamette Rivers The ability to travel the waters of the Columbia and Willamette rivers has allowed people to become intertwined through trade and commerce for centuries by canoe. The journal entries of Lewis and Clark in 1805 described the shores of the Columbia River as being lined with canoes elaborately carved from cedar trees. The ability to navigate these waterways gave the Chinook people control over vast reaches of the Columbia River basin for hundreds of years. The area surrounding the Columbia and Willamette rivers is steeped in a rich mythology told to us through early ethnographers who traveled the river documenting Native American inhabitants and their culture. According to Chinookan mythology, Frog (Shwekheyk in Chinook language), was given the basics of weavable fiber by his relatives, Snake and omnipotent Coyote. With this fiber, Frog was given the task of creating the cordage for the weaving of the first fishing net. With this net, made from fibers of nettle plants, Frog had made it possible for the new human beings to catch their first salmon. Coyote tested the net, with the guidance and wisdom of his three sisters, thereby establishing the complex set of taboos associated with the catching of the first salmon of the season. The Chinook people would never eat or harm Frog for his association to them would always protect him. That is why you should always step around frogs and never over them.
    [Show full text]
  • WT RPT Mstr 92709 Draft
    DRAFT WATER TAXI SYSTEM CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY THE NEWPORT BEACH WATER TAXI EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE September 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS 3 TECHNICAL REPORT 18 BACKGROUND & PURPOSE OF THE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 19 NEED/ SUPPORT /MARKET DEMAND FOR A WATER TAXI SYSTEM 24 OTHER WATER TAXI SYSTEMS RELEVANT TO NEWPORT HARBOR 33 EXISTING & POTENTIAL DOCKS/STOPS IN NEWPORT HARBOR 52 WATER TAXI VESSEL TYPES SUITABLE FOR NEWPORT HARBOR 65 POTENTIAL NEWPORT HARBOR ROUTES, SERVICE TYPES 76 COST, REVENUES AND FUNDING SOURCE CONSIDERATIONS 84 THREE CONCEPTS FOR A NEWPORT HARBOR WATER TAXI SYSTEM 90 2 9/28/09 Draft EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 3 9/28/09 Draft Purpose & Scope of the Newport Harbor Water Taxi System Feasibility Analysis The City of Newport Beach has incorporated the concept of a water taxi system for Newport Harbor in several key policy decisions and documents, including its General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and in the strategic plans of the City’s Economic Development Committee and Harbor Commission. This water taxi system would supplement city land transportation street networks and existing cross-harbor ferry service with additional on-water access serving Newport Harbor (NH) and its adjacent visitor-serving and recreation areas during peak summer visitor traffic and usage levels when the existing land transportation network is extremely congested. A May 2009 City Council Resolution called for the formation of a Water Taxi Exploratory Committee of interested individuals from the Economic Development Committee, the Harbor Commission and local maritime and tourism industry to advise and make recommendations to the City Council on policies, projects and programs to accomplish the Committee’s objectives: a.
    [Show full text]
  • Forgotten Transit Modes CARLY QUEEN MS-CE / MCRP CANDIDATE, GEORGIA INSTITUTE of TECHNOLOGY
    Forgotten Transit Modes CARLY QUEEN MS-CE / MCRP CANDIDATE, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Agenda Problem Statement Research Questions Name that Mode! Transit Modes Overview Safety Economy Forgotten Modes Aerial Modes Surface Modes Water Modes Transit Mode Selection Guidelines Liamdavies Problem Statement Cities in the U.S. are falling further behind in the global transit race. Our transit systems are generally less comprehensive, multi-modal, and innovative than many other cities around the world. Possible reasons include: Lack of knowledge and experience Liability concerns Low density and demand Car-centric development and culture Cost of transit Research Questions How do decision-makers choose which transit mode to use for a project? Transit Mode Selection Survey Interviews How do transit modes, including unconventional modes, compare to each other, and under what conditions should each mode be used? Compile global examples for database, meta-analysis, case studies, and comparison Develop transit mode selection guidelines Create context-sensitive decision-support tools to help transit planning authorities identify appropriate transit modes for their projects Name that Mode! Trolleybus Name that Mode! Light rail Name that Mode! Gondola Name that Mode! Bus Rapid Transit Mariordo (Mario Roberto Duran Ortiz) Name that Mode! Water Bus Gary Houston Name that Mode! Maglev Transit Modes Overview Aerial Modes Surface Modes Jitney Water Modes Aerial Tramway Bus Light Rail Ferryboat Funitel* Bus Rapid
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices
    Comprehensive Boston Harbor Water Transportation Study & Business Plans: Best Practices December 2017 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Best Practices ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Time and Fare Competitiveness ................................................................................................................ 4 System Integration .................................................................................................................................... 5 Sustainable Funding .................................................................................................................................. 8 Service Delivery Model ............................................................................................................................ 9 Type of Service Offered .......................................................................................................................... 10 Operating Characteristics to Maximize Efficiency ................................................................................. 10 Contribution to System Resiliency ......................................................................................................... 11 Environmental Practices ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Getting to and from Logan International Airport to Boston
    Getting to and from Logan International Airport to Boston: The Boston Logan Airport is located approximately 3-5 miles from downtown Boston, depending on which neighborhood you are traveling to/from. Taxi or App/TNC: o Depending on your destination, taxi fair will cost between $20-35 one way. o As of February 1, 2017, both Uber and Lyft will drop off and pick up from Logan Airport. Customers using a TNC service may only be dropped off at any departure location, and picked up in areas designated for TNCs. The designated pick up areas are all located on the lower level (Arrivals) at the airport. All designated pick up areas are signed "App Ride/TNC." MBTA - Silver Line o The Silver Line on the MBTA stops at every terminal at Boston Logan Airport and is free traveling inbound from the airport into South Station. (this also includes a free transfer to the Red Line) The Silver Line SL1 is the most convenient option and your best connection to and from the Airport with drop-off and pick-up directly in front of each Logan Terminal. o For service to Logan Airport using the Silver Line SL1, take the MBTA Red Line or Commuter Rail to South Station and transfer to the Silver Line Route SL1. The Silver Line SL1 will drop you off in front of your Logan terminal. The Silver Line SL1 runs from approximately 5:30AM to 12:30AM every day of the week. o General cost for riding the MBTA: $2.75 single fare (CharlieTicket/Onboard Cash), $2.25 with preloaded Charlie Card.
    [Show full text]