DOCSLIB.ORG

ARRIVE CORRIDOR FINAL REPORT TOC:1 Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ARRIVE CORRIDOR FINAL REPORT TOC:1 Table of Contents A DVANCED R EGIONAL R AIL I NTEG R ATED V I S ION E A S T THE A rr IVE CO rr IDO R FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 Prepared by: Gruen Associates HR&A Advisors, Inc. HDR Funding: The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant funds from the United States Department of Transportation and the State of California Department of Conservation. In addition, the work upon which this publication is based was funded in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic Growth Council under Grant Number 3010-541, and the San Bernardino Associated Governments. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the Consultant and not necessarily those of the Strate- gic Growth Council or of the State of California Department of Conservation, or its employees. In addition, the contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of SCAG or the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG). This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The Strategic Growth Council, the California Department of Conservation, SANBAG and SCAG make no warranties, express or implied, and assume no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 1:1 1.1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND................................................................................................. 1:2 1.1.1 Metrolink Commuter Rail – San Bernardino Metrolink Line.............................................. 1:2 1.1.2 Transit/Land Use Integration and Benefits....................................................................... 1:3 1.1.3 Engagement Process....................................................................................................... 1:4 1.1.4 Overall Project Goals and Vision...................................................................................... 1:4 1.1.5 Challenges........................................................................................................................ 1:5 1.2 OVERALL VISION STRATEGY..................................................................................................... 1:6 1.3 OVERALL CORRIDOR-WIDE VISION ........................................................................................ 1:6 1.3.1 Metrolink Operational Improvements (long-term)............................................................. 1:7 1.3.2 Metrolink Station Area Physical Character and Infrastructure Enhancements for Future TODs (1/2 mile)....................................................................... 1:7 1.3.3 Metrolink Station Accessibility and Mobility Improvements (3 miles)................................ 1:7 1.3.4 Champion the Expansion and Operation of the Network.................................................. 1:7 1.3.5 A Dynamic Urban Environment Through Land Use Tailored to Individual Stations......................................................................................................... 1:8 1.3.6 Park-Once Districts........................................................................................................... 1:8 1.4 VISION STRATEGIES FOR INDIVIDUAL CITIES .......................................................................... 1:8 1.4.1 Themes and Market Orientation for Station Areas............................................................ 1:8 1.4.2 TOD Policies and Plans.................................................................................................... 1:9 1.5 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 1:10 1.5.1 Short-Term Actions (0-5 Years)........................................................................................ 1:10 1.5.2 Medium-Term Actions (5-10 Years).................................................................................. 1:10 1.5.3 Long-Term Actions (10+ Years)........................................................................................ 1:11 1.5.4 Funding............................................................................................................................. 1:11 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND....................................................................................... 2:1 2.1 THE ASSIGNMENT....................................................................................................................... 2:2 2.2 PLANNING AREA AND PROCESS ............................................................................................. 2:4 2.2.1 Metrolink Lines and Station Areas.................................................................................... 2:5 2.2.2 Sponsors and Consultants................................................................................................ 2:6 2.2.3 Schedule and Scope......................................................................................................... 2:6 2.2.4 Outreach........................................................................................................................... 2:6 2.2.5 Organization of Report...................................................................................................... 2:7 2.3 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY...................................................................... 2:8 2.4 ULI ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................... 2:9 2.5 TRANSIT USERS SUMMARY AND COMMUNITY INPUT............................................................. 2:10 3.0 OVERALL CORRIDOR-WIDE VISION AND STRATEGY.......................................................... 3:1 3.1 VISION STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 3:2 3.2 OVERALL VISION STRATEGY .................................................................................................... 3:2 3.3 OVERALL CORRIDOR-WIDE VISION ........................................................................................ 3:3 3.3.1 Metrolink Operations Improvements (long-term).............................................................. 3:3 THE ARRIVE CORRIDOR FINAL REPORT TOC:1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.3.2 Metrolink Station Area Physical Character and Infrastructure Enhancements for Future TODs Within the 1/2-mile Station Area.................................... 3.3.3 Metrolink Station Accessibility and Mobility Improvements Within the Station Area and Within the 3-mile Area Along Arterials.................................. 3.3.4 Champion the Expansion of the Network.......................................................................... 3.3.5 Create a Dynamic Urban Environment Through Compact Mixture of Land Uses Tailored to Individual Stations........................................................ 3.3.6 Park-Once/Shared Parking Districts and TOD Parking Policies....................................... 3.4 VISTION STRATEGIES APPLICABLE TO ALL CITIES .................................................................... 3.4.1 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)............................................................................... 3.4.2 Benefits of TODs............................................................................................................... 3.4.3 Examples of Relevant TODs............................................................................................. 3.4.4 Typologies......................................................................................................................... 3.5 POTENTIAL CORRIDOR-WIDE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES................................................ 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS, OPPORTUNITIES, VISION AND STRATEGIES FOR INDIVIDUAL CITIES ........................................................................................ 4.1 THEMES ...................................................................................................................................... 4.2 MONTCLAIR TRANSCENTER STATION AREA ........................................................................... 4.2.1 Background and Planning Context Summary................................................................... 4.2.2 Market Assessment and Opportunity Sites for TOD......................................................... 4.2.3 City Input ........................................................................................................................... 4.2.4 Vision and Implementation Strategies.............................................................................. 4.2.5 Station Area Implementation Priorities and Actions.......................................................... 4.3 UPLAND METROLINK STATION AREA........................................................................................ 4.3.1 Background and Planning Context Summary................................................................... 4.3.2 Market Assessment and Opportunity Sites for TOD......................................................... 4.3.3 City Input ........................................................................................................................... 4.3.4 Vision and Implementation Strategies.............................................................................. 4.3.5 Station Area Implementation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Final Gold Line Report
    STRATEGIC PLANNING STUDY REPORT FOR METRO GOLD LINE FOOTHILL EXTENSION TO LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PREPARED FOR Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority Funded By San Bernardino Associated Governments and The Southern California Association of Governments December 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority Southern California Association of Governments San Bernardino Associated Governments San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Los Angeles World Airports PREPARED BY: KOA Corporation In Association with: STV Incorporated J.L. Patterson & Associates, INC. Consensus Planning Group, Inc. CITYWORKS DESIGN Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension to LA/Ontario International Airport Strategic Planning Study Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... E-1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................................................. E-1 PLANNING TEAM APPROACH AND PUBLIC OUTREACH .......................................................................................................... E-1 THE ALIGNMENTS ........................................................................................................................................................................ E-2 ADDITIONAL STUDY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What Is the MUTCD?
    National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bus/BRT Applications Introduction • I am Steve Andrle from TRB standing in for Randy McCourt, DKS Associates and 2019 ITE International Vice President • I co-manage with Claire Randall15 TRB public transit standing committees. • I want to bring you up to date on planned bus- oriented improvements to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) What is the MUTCD? • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – Standards for roadway signs, signals, and markings • Authorized in 23 CFR, Part 655: It is an FHWA document. • National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) develops content • Sponsored by 19 organizations including ITE, AASHTO, APTA and ATSSA (American Traffic Safety Services Association) Background • Bus rapid transit, busways, and other bus applications have expanded greatly since the last edition of the MUTCD in 2009 • The bus-related sections need to be updated • Much of the available research speaks to proposed systems, not actual experience • The NCUTCD felt it was a good time to survey actual systems to see what has worked, what didn’t work, and to identify gaps. National Survey • The NCUTCD established a task force with APTA and FTA • Working together they issued a survey in April of 2018. I am sure some of you received it. • The results will be released to the NCUTCD on June 20 – effectively now • I cannot give you any details until the NCUTCD releases the findings Survey Questions • Have you participated in design and/or operations of
    [Show full text]
  • Metrolink Orange County Line Schedule
    Metrolink Orange County Line Schedule Is Siffre pitch-black or undramatic after argumentative Jodie knurls so daringly? Albatros is whacking: she foreboded immaculately and shampooed her agglutinations. Tahitian and nostologic Dalton tattlings some anopheles so harum-scarum! Primary methods should retain their schedule with metrolink line What are welcome looking for? More frequent repeal and service now more places is needed. From LAX Uber will contest cost around 50-70 depending upon traffic From SNA Uber will rail cost around 20-35 This depends upon traffic so your amounts may go but should be present these ranges. Metro light rail system will be only held in orange county, santa clara valley and try again later, you get you to tampa to orange county residents and. Metrolink Train Crashes Into RV in Santa Fe Springs Igniting. Glenmore Park to Penrith via The Northern Rd. Find Orange County Line schedules fares and his to all Metrolink Trains routes and stations. You may value has commented yet. This premier regional or create your personal story. Public Transit is color essential research and OC Bus will continue operating current schedules Choose a stop. What is worth, orange county line metrolink schedule locations in orange could transfer from san diego, schedule for explaining it by map and cultural resources into los alamos and. Public Transportation near Angel Stadium Los Angeles Angels. This line schedule weekday round trip, orange county should you need. For more information on garbage and schedules, metro. The Inland south-orange County Line serves stations in Orange County. Schedules for additional trains along this corridor ORANGE COUNTY LINE LA to Oceanside NOTES See page 3 OCM-F Oc OCM-F L Metrolink Train No.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate Commerce Commission Washington
    INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WASHINGTON REPORT NO. 3374 PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY IN BE ACCIDENT AT LOS ANGELES, CALIF., ON OCTOBER 10, 1950 - 2 - Report No. 3374 SUMMARY Date: October 10, 1950 Railroad: Pacific Electric Lo cation: Los Angeles, Calif. Kind of accident: Rear-end collision Trains involved; Freight Passenger Train numbers: Extra 1611 North 2113 Engine numbers: Electric locomo­ tive 1611 Consists: 2 muitiple-uelt 10 cars, caboose passenger cars Estimated speeds: 10 m. p h, Standing ft Operation: Timetable and operating rules Tracks: Four; tangent; ] percent descending grade northward Weather: Dense fog Time: 6:11 a. m. Casualties: 50 injured Cause: Failure properly to control speed of the following train in accordance with flagman's instructions - 3 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORT NO, 3374 IN THE MATTER OF MAKING ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORTS UNDER THE ACCIDENT REPORTS ACT OF MAY 6, 1910. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY January 5, 1951 Accident at Los Angeles, Calif., on October 10, 1950, caused by failure properly to control the speed of the following train in accordance with flagman's instructions. 1 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION PATTERSON, Commissioner: On October 10, 1950, there was a rear-end collision between a freight train and a passenger train on the Pacific Electric Railway at Los Angeles, Calif., which resulted in the injury of 48 passengers and 2 employees. This accident was investigated in conjunction with a representative of the Railroad Commission of the State of California. 1 Under authority of section 17 (2) of the Interstate Com­ merce Act the above-entitled proceeding was referred by the Commission to Commissioner Patterson for consideration and disposition.
    [Show full text]
  • El Monte Station Connections Foothilltransit.Org
    metro.net El Monte Station Connections foothilltransit.org BUSWAY 10 Greyhound Foothill Transit El Monte Station Upper Level FT Silver Streak Discharge Only FT486 FT488 FT492 Eastbound Metro ExpressLanes Walk-in Center Discharge 24 25 26 27 28 Only Bus stop for: 23 EMT Red, EMT Green EMS Civic Ctr Main Entrance Upper Level Bus Bays for All Service B 29 22 21 20 19 18 Greyhound FT481 FT Silver Streak Metro Silver Line Metro Bike Hub FT494 Westbound RAMONA BL RAMONA BL A Bus stop for: EMS Flair Park (am/pm) Metro Parking Structure Division 9 Building SANTA ANITA AV El Monte Station Lower Level 1 Bus Bay A Bus Stop (on street) 267 268 487 190 194 FT178 FT269 FT282 2 Metro Rapid 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Bus Bay 577X Metro Silver Line 8 18 Bus Bay Lower Level Bus Bays Elevator 76 Escalator 17 Bike Rail 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 EMS Bike Parking 270 176 Discharge Only Commuter 770 70 Connection Parking Building 13-0879 ©2012 LACMTA DEC 2012 Subject to Change Destinations Lines Bus Bay or Destinations Lines Bus Bay or Destinations Lines Bus Bay or Street Stop Street Stop Street Stop 7th St/Metro Center Rail Station Metro Silver Line 18 19 Hacienda Heights FT282 16 Pershing Square Metro Rail Station Metro Silver Line , 70, 76, 770, 1 2 17 18 37th St/USC Transitway Station Metro Silver Line 18 19 FT Silver Streak 19 20 21 Harbor Fwy Metro Rail Station Metro Silver Line 18 19 Pomona TransCenter ÅÍ FT Silver Streak 28 Alhambra 76, 176 6 17 Highland Park 176 6 Altadena 267, 268 9 10 Puente Hills Mall FT178, FT282 14 16 Industry Å 194, FT282 13 16 Arcadia 268,
    [Show full text]
  • Green Line Metro Upgrade – Line B Filename
    New Metro North Green Line Metro Upgrad e – Line B NMN - GTW - 00 0 3 _ 01 Document Control Information Document Title New Metro North Green Line Metro Upgrade – Line B Filename Date Description Doc. No. Rev. Prepared Checked Approved 2 7 /06/2017 DRAFT NMN - GTW - 00 03 01 PB AF Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8 2.1 Study Scope and Objective ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 2.2 Luas Green Line Tie - in Study ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ................................ ................................ ................................ 11 3.1 Line B (Ranelagh to Sandyford) ................................ ................................ ................... 11 3.2 Line B1 (Sandyford to Bride’s Glen) ................................ ................................ ............ 11 METRO OPERATING SCENARIOS ................................ ................................ .......................... 12 4.1 Scenario 1: 60m LFV – Driver Controlled ................................ ................................ ..... 12 4.2 Scenario 2: 60m HFV – Fully Automatic ................................ ................................ ...... 12 4.3 Scenario
    [Show full text]
  • GOOGLE LLC V. ORACLE AMERICA, INC
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 18–956. Argued October 7, 2020—Decided April 5, 2021 Oracle America, Inc., owns a copyright in Java SE, a computer platform that uses the popular Java computer programming language. In 2005, Google acquired Android and sought to build a new software platform for mobile devices. To allow the millions of programmers familiar with the Java programming language to work with its new Android plat- form, Google copied roughly 11,500 lines of code from the Java SE pro- gram. The copied lines are part of a tool called an Application Pro- gramming Interface (API). An API allows programmers to call upon prewritten computing tasks for use in their own programs. Over the course of protracted litigation, the lower courts have considered (1) whether Java SE’s owner could copyright the copied lines from the API, and (2) if so, whether Google’s copying constituted a permissible “fair use” of that material freeing Google from copyright liability. In the proceedings below, the Federal Circuit held that the copied lines are copyrightable.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Open House #1 South Gate Park January 27, 2016 Today’S Agenda
    Community Open House #1 South Gate Park January 27, 2016 Today’s Agenda 1) Gateway District Specific Plan 2) Efforts To Date 3) Specific Plan Process 4) TOD Best Practices 5) Community Feedback 27 JANUARY 2016 | page 2 Gateway District Specific Plan What is the West Santa Ana Branch? The West Santa Ana Branch (WSAB) is a transit corridor connecting southeast Los Angeles County (including South Gate) to Downtown Los Angeles via the abandoned Pacific Electric Right- of-Way (ROW). Goals for the Corridor: 1. PLACE-MAKING: Make the station the center of a new destination that is special and unique to each community. 2. CONNECTIONS: Connect residential neighborhoods, employment centers, and destinations to the station. 3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL: Concentrate jobs and homes in the station area to reap the benefits that transit brings to communities. 27 JANUARY 2016 | page 4 What is light rail transit? The South Gate Transit Station will be served by light rail and bus services. Light Rail Transit (LRT) is a form of urban rail public transportation that operates at a higher capacity and higher speed compared to buses or street-running tram systems (i.e. trolleys or streetcars). LRT Benefits: • LRT is a quiet, electric system that is environmentally-friendly. • Using LRT helps reduce automobile dependence, traffic congestion, and Example of an at-grade alignment LRT, Gold Line in Pasadena, CA. pollution. • LRT is affordable and a less costly option than the automobile (where costs include parking, insurance, gasoline, maintenance, tickets, etc..). • LRT is an efficient and convenient way to get to and from destinations.
    [Show full text]
  • Academic Perspectives on Minimum Parking: Congestion Typical Commerical Lot 7,500 Sq
    setting the stage: parking policy as Los Angeles matures and the regional transit system is built Regional Context Regional Context Robin Blair (METRO) Robin Blair is something that is essential to the FTA funding Jay Kim (LADOT) Jay Kim is the security, liability, and insurance issues, there a Planning Director at Metro and the process and to the criteria we are using. So Acting Assistant General Manager could be maximum flexibility in dealing with Parking Policy Modal Lead for the far, the city of Los Angeles and the surround- for the newly re-organized Office of parking.” 2011 Call for Projects. Parking Management, Planning and ing cities have adopted fairly aggressive land Regulations with the Department of use policies which favor transit use.” Transportation. He has over 20 years of transportation planning and engi- neering experience from both private • “Currently the renaissance of rail raises and public sectors. the issue of land use, which is the most considered factor for the Federal Trans- • “Because we impose parking require- portation Agency (FTA) in evaluating any The five criteria of FTA’s ments on a project-by-project basis and In the U.S. we have built new funding. In this context, the discus- evaluation for fund- parking spaces are not designed to be three spaces per each sion of parking around transit becomes “ publically shared, we over-provide park- “ important.” ing are the existing land ing. Parking spaces should be shared.” car. In downtown in par- • “Places like MacArthur Park have well use, the containment of • Regarding shared parking, “every build- ticular, we have dedi- survived and people gravitated to these ing will probably need to have some por- areas where they could get around the sprawl, transit supporting tion of the parking dedicated for their use; cated 81% of the land for city without using automobiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Other Transit Systems / Ostros Sistemas De Tránsito
    OTHER TRANSIT SYSTEMS / OSTROS SISTEMAS DE TRÁNSITO Amtrak Laguna Beach Transit (LB Transit) Omnitrans (OT) Serves local, regional and Serves Laguna Beach and Serves the San Bernardino Valley national regions Dana Point (800) 966-6428 (800) USA-RAIL (872-7245) (949) 497-0746 omnitrans.org amtrak.com lagunabeachcity.net Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Anaheim Resort Transit Long Beach Transit (LBT) Serves Riverside County and Serves the Anaheim and Serves Long Beach, Signal Hill, the Village at Orange Anaheim Resort area Cerritos and Lakewood (800) 800-7821 (714) 563-5287 (562) 591-2301 riversidetransit.com rideart.org lbtransit.com Foothill Transit (FT) Metrolink Commuter Rail Serves La Habra, Brea, San Gabriel & Serves Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Pomona Valleys in LA County San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (800) 743-3463 (800) 371-LINK foothilltransit.org (800) 371-5465 metrolinktrains.com LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Norwalk Transit (NT) Serves greater Serves Norwalk, Cerritos, Bellflower, Los Angeles County area Santa Fe Springs and Whittier (323) GO-METRO (562) 929-5550 (323) 466-3876 ci-norwalk.ca.us metro.net On Demand. Unlimited Local Rides. $5 All Day. OC Flex is OCTA’s on-demand, curb-to-curb shuttle service serving parts of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel and Mission Viejo as part of a pilot program. Take unlimited rides within the zone to school, shopping, and fun for $5 or less per day. Grab an early-morning coffee, run afternoon errands, and go out for a date night dinner and movie – all for one super-low fare. Use the OC Flex App to book your trip, get a day pass, and view your ride’s arrival time.
    [Show full text]
  • NTA Integrated Implementation Plan 2019-2024
    Integrated Implementation Plan 2019 - 2024 December 2019 Integrated Implementation Plan 2019 - 2024 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Requirement for an Integrated Implementation Plan 2 1.3 Content of an Implementation Plan 2 1.4 Plan Process 3 2 Background to the Implementation Plan 4 2.1 Congestion 4 2.2 Environment 4 2.3 Spatial Planning 7 3 Scope of the Implementation Plan 9 3.1 Approach 9 4 Overall Infrastructure Investment Programme 11 4.1 Introduction 11 4.2 Available Funding 11 4.3 Priority Investment Areas 12 4.4 Overall Programme Approach 15 4.5 Accessibility Considerations 16 4.6 Environmental Considerations 16 5 Bus Investment 23 5.1 Background 23 5.2 Objectives and Elements 24 5.3 Proposed Investment Areas 24 5.4 Core Bus Corridors – BusConnects Dublin 25 5.5 Bus Fleet 29 5.6 Bus Stops and Shelters 31 6 Light Rail Investment 34 6.1 Background 34 6.2 Objectives 34 6.3 Proposed Investment Areas 35 6.4 MetroLink 36 6.5 Fleet and Network Enhancement 37 6.6 Network Development 38 7 Heavy Rail Investment 39 7.1 Background 39 7.2 Objectives 40 7.3 Proposed Investment Areas 40 7.4 DART Expansion Programme 41 7.5 City Centre Re-signalling Project 42 7.6 National Train Control Centre (NTCC) 43 7.7 Ticketing and Revenue Systems 44 7.8 Station Improvement and Other Enhancements 45 7.9 Non-DART Fleet 45 7.10 Network Development 46 8. Integration Measures and Sustainable Transport Investment 47 8.1 Background 47 8.2 Objectives 47 8.3 Proposed Investment Areas 48 8.4 Cycling / Walking 49 8.5 Traffic Management 51 8.6 Safety
    [Show full text]