DOCSLIB.ORG

Successful Strategies for Managing the Complex Ebart Extension 1 Maurice “Ric” Rattray, PE  Group Manager, Capital Program  BART 1 Andy Kleiber, PE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Successful Strategies for Managing the Complex Ebart Extension 1 Maurice “Ric” Rattray, PE  Group Manager, Capital Program  BART 1 Andy Kleiber, PE Successful Strategies for Managing the Complex eBART Extension 1 Maurice “Ric” Rattray, PE Group Manager, Capital Program BART 1 Andy Kleiber, PE Principal Construction Manager MNS Engineers, Inc. AGENDA 0 1 Introduction 2 Project Background 3 Management of Complex Project 4 Planning and Implementation 5 Project Success 6 Questions and Answers 1 Team PROJECT BACKGROUND 2 2 Project Background Adopted by BART Board in April 2009 Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) technology State Route 4 median alignment Facilities Ten-mile extension to City of Antioch . Transfer Platform at Pittsburg/Bay Point . Pittsburg Center Station . Antioch Station . Maintenance Facility 2 Project Background Pittsburg Center Station Transfer Platform BART/eBART Antioch Station Existing Alignment eBART Extension Transfer Platform Pittsburg Center Station Antioch Station 2 Technologies Evaluated Conventional BART Conventional BART Light Rail Vehicle DMU Trains DMU Bus Rapid Transit 2 Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Technology Service proven EPA Tier 4 compliant Self propelled Reliable – redundancy Light weight Low floor Capable of operating at 75 mph 2 Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Technology Capacity Bio Diesel 3 car consists Crash Energy Management 2 Vehicle Layout Description Dimension Fixed Seats 88 Flip Up Seats 16 Total Seats 104 Standing Area 26 m² Standees (4 Pers/m²) 96 Total Passenger Capacity, max 200 MANAGEMENT OF COMPLEX PROJECT 3 3 Construction Complexity 15 overlapping construction contracts 12 agencies 10 utility companies 6 years of environmental, design, and Caltrans coordination 7 years of construction 3 Multiple Contracts BART Construction CCTA/Caltrans/ BART Procurement Contracts Highway Contracts Contracts . Transfer Platform . Caltrans . Vehicles Segment 0 . Maintenance . Rail Procurement Facility Shell and . Caltrans . Station Equipment Parking Lot Segment 1 . Parking Lot Solar . Trackwork, . Caltrans Panels Systems, and Segment 2 Station Finishes . Caltrans . Sanitary Sewer Segment 3A . Final Paving . Caltrans Segment 3B . Landscaping 3 Multiple Agencies Funding Agencies Support Agencies . The Metropolitan . City of Pittsburg Transportation . City of Antioch Commission (MTC) . City of Oakley . Contra Costa . City of Brentwood Transportation . Contra Costa Authority (CCTA) County . East Contra Costa . Tri Delta Transit Regional Fee and Finance Authority . Caltrans (ECCRFFA) . The State of California 3 Packaging . Scopes Strategies to – Structures and underground early Minimize Risk – BART interface isolated – Early procurement for long lead items 3 Packaging . Contract Milestone Strategies to – 9 included in main BART contract Minimize Risk . Access and availability dates – 19 included in main BART contract . Area 1 and Area 2 for vehicle testing 3 Pittsburg Center Station Increased eBART ridership by 20% Complies with BART’s system expansion policy and MTC’s TOD policy Low incremental operating costs for additional riders PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION 4 4 Schedule First Vehicle On Site Pre-Revenue and Simulated Testing MAY 2018 4 Project Budget Description Budget Conventional BART Conceptual/Environmental $11.2 $11.2 Preliminary Engineering $14.9 $20 Final Design $38.5 $45 Construction and Procurement $384.1 $1015 Construction Management (CM) & Design Service During Construction $49.0 $55 (DSDC) Right-of-Way $13.0 $31 Program Reserve $14.2 $45 TOTAL $524.9 $1,222.2 4 BART/CCTA/Caltrans Cooperation Median Guideway Utility Duct Banks Bridges Pedestrian Overcrossing Bridges 4 Antioch Station 4 Antioch Station and Pedestrian Bridge 4 eBART Maintenance Facility 4 eBART Maintenance Facility 4 Management Strategies CM software MS access PDFs with hyperlinks Inspector workbooks weekly check-in meetings with ALL involved 4 Vehicle Fabrication 2 9 4 Vehicle Journey 3 0 4 Vehicle Journey 4 Vehicle Unloading—Maintenance Facility 3 2 PROJECT SUCCESS 5 5 Project Success . More than double the ridership – Predicted 3,995 trips/day $525M vs $1B – More than traditional BART 8,000 trips/day currently Cost-effective, timely . solution New parking lot being planned already QUESTION AND ANSWER.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION March 28, 2017 Agenda ID# 15631
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 March 28, 2017 Agenda ID# 15631 TO PARTIES TO RESOLUTION ST-203 This is the Resolution of the Safety and Enforcement Division. It will be on the April 27, 2017, Commission Meeting agenda. The Commission may act then, or it may postpone action until later. When the Commission acts on the Resolution, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the resolution become binding on the parties. Parties may file comments on the Resolution as provided in Article 14 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), accessible on the Commission’s website at www.cpuc.ca.gov. Pursuant to Rule 14.3, opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages. Late-submitted comments or reply comments will not be considered. An electronic copy of the comments should be submitted to Colleen Sullivan (email: [email protected]). /s/ ELIZAVETA I. MALASHENKO ELIZAVETA I. MALASHENKO, Director Safety and Enforcement Division SUL:vdl Attachment CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of Draft Resolution ST-203 on all identified parties in this matter as shown on the attached Service List. Dated March 28, 2017, at San Francisco, California. /s/ VIRGINIA D. LAYA Virginia D. Laya NOTICE Parties should notify the Safety Enforcement Division, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to ensure that they continue to receive documents.
    [Show full text]
  • BART to Antioch Extension Title VI Equity Analysis & Public
    BART to Antioch Extension Title VI Equity Analysis & Public Participation Report October 2017 Prepared by the Office of Civil Rights San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Table of Contents I. BART to Antioch Title VI Equity Analysis Executive Summary 1 Section 1: Introduction 7 Section 2: Project Description 8 Section 3: Methodology 20 Section 4: Service Analysis Findings 30 Section 5: Fare Analysis Findings 39 II. Appendices Appendix A: 2017 BART to Antioch Survey Appendix B: Proposed Service Plan Appendix C: BART Ridership Project Analysis Appendix D: C-Line Vehicle Loading Analysis III. BART to Antioch Public Participation Report i ii BART to Antioch Title VI Equity Analysis and Public Participation Report Executive Summary In October 2011, staff completed a Title VI Analysis for Antioch Station (formerly known as Hillcrest Avenue Station). A Title VI/Environmental Justice analysis was conducted on the Pittsburg Center Station on March 19, 2015. Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI Circular (Circular) 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (October 1, 2012), the District is required to conduct a Title VI Service and Fare Equity Analysis (Title VI Equity Analysis) for the Project's proposed service and fare plan six months prior to revenue service. Accordingly, staff completed an updated Title VI Equity Analysis for the BART to Antioch (Project) service and fare plan, which evaluates whether the Project’s proposed service and fare will have a disparate impact on minority populations or a disproportionate burden on low-income populations based on the District’s Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Policy (DI/DB Policy) adopted by the Board on July 11, 2013 and FTA approved Title VI service and fare methodologies.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, Chapter 7
    7.0 ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION & Fig. 7 Resolution 3434 EVALUATION — STEP-BY-STEP Step One: Base Network Healdsburg Sonoma Recognizing that Resolution 3434 represents County 8 MTC’s regional rail investment over the next 25 Santa years as adopted first in the 2001 Regional Trans- Rosa Napa portation Plan and reaffirmed in the subsequent County Vacaville 9 plan update, Resolution 3434 is included as part Napa of the “base case” network. Therefore, the study Petaluma Solano effort focuses on defining options for rail improve- County ments and expansions beyond Resolution 3434. Vallejo Resolution 3434 rail projects include: Marin County 8 9 Pittsburg 1. BART/East Contra Costa Rail (eBART) San Antioch 1 Rafael Concord Richmond 2. ACE/Increased Services Walnut Berkeley Creek MTC Resolution 3434 Contra Costa 3. BART/I-580 Rail Right-of-Way Preservation County Rail Projects Oakland 4. Dumbarton Bridge Rail Service San 1 BART: East Contra Costa Extension Francisco 10 6 3 2 ACE: Increased Service 5. BART/Fremont-Warm Springs to San Jose Daly City 2 Pleasanton Livermore 3 South Extension BART: Rail Right-of-Way Preservation San Francisco Hayward Union City 4 Dumbarton Rail Alameda 6. Caltrain/Rapid Rail/Electrification & Extension San Mateo Fremont County 5 BART: Fremont/Warm Springs 4 to Downtown San Francisco/Transbay Transit to San Jose Extension 7 Redwood City 5 Center 6 & Extension to Downtown SF/ Mountain Milpitas Transbay Transit Center View Palo Alto 7. Caltrain/Express Service 7 Caltrain: Express Service Sunnyvale Santa Clara San San Santa Clara 8 Jose 8. SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) Mateo Cupertino County 9 County 9.
    [Show full text]
  • BART-To-Oakland International Airport Title VI Equity Analysis
    BART-to-Oakland International Airport Title VI Equity Analysis May 2014 Prepared for: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Prepared by: CDM Smith Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Section 2 Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Public Comments ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.1 New Service Input .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Fare Preference Input ................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Limited English Proficient (LEP) Community Comments ........................................................................ 2-3 2.4 Airport Employee Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2-3 Section 3 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Project New Fare ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reinvestment Needed for Major BART Rehabilitation
    BART Creates American Jobs continued continued San Francisco BART and other transit agencies have It Happened in 2011 Cars State of Good Repair benefited from federal efforts to stim- reduction priorities, divergent approaches to the surface transportation of capital reinvestment projects to determine rehabilitation needs. BART Bay Area Rapid Transit ulate the economy, like the American Sending a Message for Full Funding Solar Parking authorization, the demise of congressional earmarks, and no identified and other public transit agencies need the guarantee of full federal fund- Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Last September, BART sponsored an event and postcard campaign to The latest example of BART’s commitment to sustainability is a solar ener- source to replenish an exhausted Highway Trust Fund. ing support in order to keep their systems in a state of good repair in and American jobs resulted from such show Congress that the Bay Area supports continued full fund- gy project taking shape at the sun-drenched Lafayette BART Station. The order to prevent breakdowns, higher costs to riders, the loss of ridership, That’s why fighting to keep the “current levels” for transit in the autho- 2012 Report To Congress efforts. Many economists still say the ing for public transit and surface transportation programs. At a press BART system already has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per pas- less access for transit dependents, increased traffic congestion and other rization legislation is so important. With the help of our congressional federal government needs to pump conference then- BART Board President Bob Franklin said: “We have a senger of any large transit system in the nation, and now a new solar negative environmental impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D: Transit Network Recommendations
    Appendix D Technical Memorandum #5 Transit Network Recommendations Draft Transit Network Recommendations Countywide Transit Plan FINAL Technical Memo #5 Prepared for: Alameda County Transportation Commission Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff With Cambridge Systematics Community Design & Architecture Strategic Economics Approved October 2015 Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Opportunities and Challenges ............................................................................. 2 Opportunities – Alameda County has a Strong Overall Transit Market ................................ 2 Challenges – Strong Transit Markets Don’t Necessarily Result in High Tranist Ridership ... 3 Organization of this Technical Memorandum .......................................................................... 5 Transit Tier Structure ............................................................................................................... 6 Why Create Transit Tiers? ...................................................................................................... 6 Service Characteristicsof Transit Tiers ................................................................................... 8 Inter-Regional Tier .................................................................................................................10 Distinguishing features of the Inter-regional tier .................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Or Zero-Emission Multiple-Unit Feasibility Study
    Low- or Zero-Emission Multiple-Unit Feasibility Study FEASIBILITY REPORT December 30, 2019 Prepared for: San Bernardino County Transportation Authority 1170 W. 3rd Street, 2nd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92410 Prepared by: Center for Railway Research and Education Eli Broad College of Business Michigan State University www.railway.broad.msu.edu 3535 Forest Road Lansing, MI 48910 USA Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom www.railway.bham.ac.uk Authors: Stephen Kent - BCRRE Raphael Isaac - MSU CRRE Nick Little - MSU CRRE Andreas Hoffrichter, PhD - MSU CRRE Executive Summary The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) is adding the Arrow railway service in the San Bernardino Valley, between San Bernardino and Redlands. SBCTA aims to improve air quality with the introduction of zero-emission rail vehicle technology by procuring a new zero-emission multiple unit (ZEMU) train and converting one of the diesel multiple unit (DMU) trains that will be used to provide Arrow service. Using a Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) grant, SBCTA will demonstrate low- or, ideally, zero-emission rail service on the Arrow route. The ZEMU is expected to be in service by 2024 and demonstrate low- or zero-emission railway motive power technology for similar passenger rail service in California as well as a possible technology transfer platform for other railway services. SBCTA commissioned the Center for Railway Research and Education (CRRE) at Michigan State University (MSU) in collaboration with the Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education (BCRRE) at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, to assist with the comparison of low- and zero-emission technology suitable for railway motive power applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Forty BART Achievements Over the Years
    CELEBRATING 40 YEARS OF SERVICE 1972 • 2012 Forty BART Achievements Over the Years 1) January 1947 – Joint Army-Navy report recommends action for underwater transit tube beneath San Francisco Bay to help address growing bridge and freeway congestion. 2) June 4, 1957 – California Legislature approves creation of five-county Bay Area Transit District. 3) November 6, 1962 – $792 million General Obligation Bond issues approved by District voters for construction of 75-mile system, including 3.5-mile Muni Metro line. 4) June 19, 1964 – President Lyndon B. Johnson presides at official start of construction in Concord. 5) January 24, 1966 – Construction begins in Oakland subway. 1969 – Final section of 6) July 25, 1967 – Construction begins on Market Street subway in San Francisco. the Transbay Tube is placed, rail laying begins. 7) August 1969 – Transbay Tube structure complete. 8) November 5, 1971 – Delivery of first production car for revenue service. 9) September 11, 1972 – OPENING DAY OF REVENUE PASSENGER SERVICE. BART opened with Fremont to Oakland service including 28 miles of tracks and 12 stations. BART carried 100,000 during the first week of revenue service with eight two- and three-car trains. 10) September 27, 1972 – President Nixon rides the BART system. 11) January 29, 1973 – Opening of Oakland-to-Richmond service, the second segment of the BART system to go into operation. This extends the operating BART postcard, system to 39 miles and 18 stations. circa early 1970s. 12) May 21, 1973 – Concord line opens, adding 17 miles. The system now has 56 miles and 24 stations. 13) August 10, 1973 – First test train travels through Transbay Tube to Montgomery Station averaging 70-mph westward and 80-mph eastward.
    [Show full text]
  • BART Sustainable Communities Operations Analysis Executive Summary
    Study Funding Provided By: BART Sustainable Communities Operations Analysis Metropolitan Transportation Commission June 2013 Table of Contents Contents Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 6 2. Existing Infrastructure and Demand Conditions and Constraints 17 3. Land Use and Projected Ridership 27 4. Alternatives Considered to Meet Future Demand 35 5. Service Plan Development 37 6. Development of Phased Service Plans 48 7. Phase 1 and 2 Service Plans 49 8. Capital Projects Triggered by Programmed Projects and Future Demand 61 9. Enhancement and Capital Projects List 62 10. Findings, Funding and Implementation 64 Appendices (separate document) A. Existing Infrastructure Conditions B. Top 20 Ridership Increases C. Alternative Service Strategies D. Key Performance Indicators E. Cursory Title VI Analysis Arup June 2013 3 Executive Summary Background – The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail Metro Core and Metro Commute Strategy – Plan Bay The overall service design objective – and the guiding system has provided 40 years of frequent and fast transit Area allocates growth to locally-identified areas near principles for the development of the scenarios and service service. Over the last 20 years, BART has increased service transit, and reinforces development within the Bay Area’s plans – seeks to provide a high quality transit service by and reliability, fulfilling its original mandate to help shape central cities. In response, BART ridership increases more maximizing service (trains per hour), while minimizing the growth and development in the Bay Area and reduce the dramatically in the Bay Area core, leading to changes in amount of train miles incurred (cars per train). By striking region’s dependence on the automobile.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Grade Crossing Safety and Addressing Commu- Nity Concerns
    TRACKING TOWARD ZERO: IMPROVING GRADE CROSSING SAFETY AND ADDRESSING COMMU- NITY CONCERNS (116–51) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 5, 2020 Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ( Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-transportation?path=/ browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 42–574 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020 VerDate Aug 31 2005 19:10 Dec 09, 2020 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\HEARINGS\116\RR\2-5-20~1\TRANSC~1\42574.TXT JEAN TRANSPC154 with DISTILLER COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chair ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, SAM GRAVES, Missouri District of Columbia DON YOUNG, Alaska EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington BOB GIBBS, Ohio GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOHN GARAMENDI, California RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia ROB WOODALL, Georgia ANDRE´ CARSON, Indiana JOHN KATKO, New York DINA TITUS, Nevada BRIAN BABIN, Texas SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana JARED HUFFMAN, California DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JULIA BROWNLEY, California MIKE BOST, Illinois FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey DOUG LAMALFA, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas MARK DESAULNIER, California LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania STACEY E.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Introduction
    Section 1 Introduction 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) is proposing to extend transit services into east Contra Costa County from its existing Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station in the unincorporated community of Bay Point near the City of Pittsburg. The project is generally known as “eBART” in reference to the extension of service to the “East” portion of Contra Costa County. This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the purpose of which is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts that could occur if the transit extension were constructed and to evaluate alternatives and mitigation measures which could avoid or reduce significant adverse impacts. Existing BART Service and Future Extensions BART has been in operation since 1972 and currently operates in four Bay Area counties: San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo. The entire BART system is illustrated in Figure 1-1. The most recent extensions to the BART system are the extensions to Dublin/Pleasanton in eastern Alameda County, to Pittsburg/Bay Point in east Contra Costa County, and to San Francisco International Airport in San Mateo County, with a terminus in Millbrae. In east Contra Costa County, BART service extends as far east as the Pittsburg/Bay Point Station, which is located in the median of State Route 4 (SR 4) just west of Bailey Road. BART opened the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station in 1996. This station offered east Contra Costa County residents a transit alternative for travel between the City of Pittsburg and the rest of the BART service area.
    [Show full text]
  • System Line Miles Owner Or Controller BART Ebart 9.3 BART Capital
    Publicly-Owned Commuter/Regional Rail Lines in the U.S. System Line Miles Owner or Controller BART eBART 9.3 BART Capital Metro MetroRail Red Line 32 Capital Metro DCTA A-train 21 DCTA FDOT SunRail 61 FDOT LIRR Atlantic Branch 15.7 LIRR LIRR Central Branch 7 LIRR LIRR Far Rockaway Branch 7.1 LIRR LIRR Hempstead Branch 6.5 LIRR LIRR Long Beach Branch 5.4 LIRR LIRR Main Line 96.1 LIRR LIRR Montauk Branch 117 LIRR LIRR Oyster Bay Branch 14.4 LIRR LIRR Port Jefferson Branch 32.6 LIRR LIRR Port Washington Branch15 LIRR LIRR W. Hempstead Branch 3.2 LIRR MARC Penn 77 Amtrak MBTA Fairmont 8.1 MBTA MBTA Fitchburg 49.6 MBTA MBTA Framingham/Worcester 43 MBTA MBTA Franklin 30.3 MBTA MBTA Greenbush 27.6 MBTA MBTA Haverhill 33 MBTA MBTA Kingston/Plymouth 60.3 MBTA MBTA Lowell 25.4 MBTA MBTA Needham 8.7 MBTA MBTA Newburyport/Rockport 53.2 MBTA MBTA Providence 62.9 MBTA/Amtrak MBTA Stoughton 4.1 MBTA Metro North Danbury Branch 23.9 ConnDOT Metro North Harlem 76.7 Metro North Metro North Hudson 74 Metro North Metro North New Haven 62.1 Metro North/ConnDOT Metro North Waterbury Branch 28.5 ConnDOT Metro North New Caanan Branch 8.2 ConnDOT Metrolink Antelope Valley Line 76.6 SCRRA Metrolink Orange County Line 61 SCRRA Metrolink Perris Valley Line 24 SCRRA Metrolink San Bernardino Line 56.5 SCRRA Metrolink Ventury County Line 47 SCRRA NCTD Coaster 51 NCTD NCTD Sprinter 22 NCTD NICTD South Shore Line 90 NICTD NJ Transit Bergen County 11.8 NJ Transit NJ Transit Gladstone Branch 22.2 NJ Transit NJ Transit Montclair-Boonton 49.6 NJ Transit NJ Transit Morristown
    [Show full text]