DOCSLIB.ORG

New Haven Streetcar

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Haven Streetcar NEW HAVEN STREETCAR PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL REPORT JANUARY 2011 City of New Haven John DeStefano, Jr., Mayor Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS New Haven Streetcar Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY ................................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.3 STAKEHOLDERS ....................................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.4 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................... 1‐2 2. INTERNAL PROJECT COORDINATION ............................................................ 2‐1 2.1 KICK‐OFF MEETING ................................................................................................................................ 2‐1 2.2 PROJECT TEAM MEETINGS ................................................................................................................. 2‐1 2.3 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS .................................................................................................................. 2‐1 2.3.1 Stakeholder Meeting 1................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.3.2 Stakeholder Meeting 2................................................................................................................... 2‐2 2.3.3 Additional Stakeholder Outreach ............................................................................................. 2‐2 2.4 UTILITIES MEETINGS............................................................................................................................. 2‐2 2.4.1 South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority ..................................................... 2‐2 2.4.2 Southern Connecticut Gas ............................................................................................................ 2‐3 2.4.3 United Illuminating Company .................................................................................................... 2‐4 2.4.4 Additional Utility Coordination ................................................................................................. 2‐5 2.5 FTA BRIEFING AND SITE VISIT ......................................................................................................... 2‐5 2.5.1 Agenda .................................................................................................................................................. 2‐5 2.5.2 Attendees ............................................................................................................................................ 2‐6 2.5.3 Meeting Notes ................................................................................................................................... 2‐6 2.6 COMPARISON TO PROVIDENCE ..................................................................................................... 2‐11 2.6.1 Peer Exchange ................................................................................................................................ 2‐12 2.7 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................. 2‐13 3. PUBLIC OUTREACH .............................................................................................. 3‐1 3.1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH PLAN ........................................................................................................ 3‐1 3.2 PROJECT WEBPAGE ................................................................................................................................ 3‐1 3.3 PUBLIC MEETING ..................................................................................................................................... 3‐2 3.3.1 Public Meeting Materials .............................................................................................................. 3‐2 3.3.2 Meeting Notes ................................................................................................................................... 3‐3 3.3.3 Public Comments ............................................................................................................................. 3‐3 3.3.4 Media Coverage ................................................................................................................................ 3‐7 3.4 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................... 3‐8 4. NEW HAVEN STREETCAR .................................................................................. 4‐1 4.1 WHY OPERATE A STREETCAR IN NEW HAVEN? ....................................................................... 4‐1 4.1.1 Development ..................................................................................................................................... 4‐2 4.1.2 Travel Market .................................................................................................................................... 4‐5 4.1.3 Demographics ................................................................................................................................... 4‐6 4.1.4 Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................................. 4‐11 4.1.5 Park and Ride Potential ............................................................................................................. 4‐13 i New Haven Streetcar Final Report 4.1.6 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 4‐14 4.2 SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................... 4‐14 4.2.1 Service Area .................................................................................................................................... 4‐14 4.2.2 Conceptual Service Schedule ................................................................................................... 4‐15 4.2.3 Fare Collection ............................................................................................................................... 4‐15 4.2.4 Operations and Maintenance .................................................................................................. 4‐17 4.3 ALIGNMENT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 4‐17 4.3.1 Proposed Stops .............................................................................................................................. 4‐18 4.3.2 Maintenance Facility ................................................................................................................... 4‐22 4.4 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................. 4‐24 5. STREETCAR OVERVIEW ..................................................................................... 5‐1 5.1 DEFINITION ................................................................................................................................................ 5‐1 5.2 DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................ 5‐2 5.2.1 Horizontal Curves ............................................................................................................................ 5‐2 5.2.2 Vertical Curves .................................................................................................................................. 5‐2 5.2.3 Grades ................................................................................................................................................... 5‐3 5.2.4 Platform Considerations ............................................................................................................... 5‐3 5.2.5 Vehicle Clearance Envelope ........................................................................................................ 5‐3 5.2.6 Cross Slope (Roadway) ................................................................................................................. 5‐3 5.2.7 Lane Width ......................................................................................................................................... 5‐3 5.2.8 Traction Power/Overhead System .......................................................................................... 5‐4 5.2.9 Structural Loading .......................................................................................................................... 5‐4 5.2.10 Traffic Operations/Signals ........................................................................................................ 5‐4 5.2.11 Utilities .............................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Transfer Newsletter Spring 2013.Cdr
    Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society Volume 18 503 Issue 2 Spring 2013 Reminder to members: Please be sure your dues In this issue: are up to date. 2013 dues were due Jan 1, 2013. Willamette Shore Trolley - Back on Track.................................1 If it has been longer than one year since you renewed, Interpretive Center Update - Greg Bonn...............................2 go to our website: oerhs.org and download an Vintage Trolley History - Richard Thompson.............................3 application by clicking: Become a Member Pacific NW Transit Update - Roy Bonn...............................8 Spotlight on Members: Charlie Philpot ................................11 Setting New Poles - Greg Bonn..............................................12 Willamette Shore Trolley ....back on track! See this issue in color on line at oerhs.org/transfer miles from Lake Oswego to Riverwood Crossing with an ultimate plan to extend to Portland. Also see the article on page 3 on the history of the cars of Vintage Trolley. Dave Rowe installing wires from Generator to Trolley. Hal Rosene at the controls of 514 on a training run emerging Gage Giest painting from the Elk Rock Tunnel on the Willamette Shore line. the front of Trolley. Wayne Jones photo The Flume car in background will be After a several-year hiatus, the Willamette Shore our emergency tow Trolley is just about ready to roll. Last minute electrical and vehicle if the Trolley mechanical details and regulatory compliance testing are breaks down on the nearing completion. With many stakeholders involved and mainline. many technical issues that had to be overcome, it has been a challenge to get the system to the 100% state. Dave Rowe and his team have been working long hours to overcome the obstacles of getting Gomaco built Vintage Trolley #514, its Doug Allen removing old stickers from side tag-along generator, track work, electrical systems, crew of Trolley training, safety compliance issues, propulsion, braking, and so many other details to a satisfactory state to begin revenue service.
    [Show full text]
  • Streetcarsstreetcars Development-Orienteddevelopment-Oriented Transittransit
    STREETCARSSTREETCARS DEVELOPMENT-ORIENTEDDEVELOPMENT-ORIENTED TRANSITTRANSIT It’s all about easy transit connections: The Portland streetcar connects the South Waterfront redevelopment district (foreground) with downtown Portland (center) and the Pearl (top right). Bruce Forster Photography/Viewfi nders. (Opposite) San Francisco’s F-Line is this country’s most successful new streetcar line, with 20,000 riders a day. A PCC car, dressed in the yellow-and-orange “livery” of the old Los Angeles Yellow Cars, stops at the Embarcadero. Photo by Zach Maggio. WHY STREETCARS STREETCARS AND WHY NOW? By Shelley Poticha and Gloria Ohland, Reconnecting America Streetcar systems were ubiquitous at the turn of the last cen- Central West End in St. Louis, and Midtown Sacramento. Enter, or rather reenter, the streetcar. Almost every U.S. city tury and are uniquely suited now to serve all the high-density once had an extensive streetcar system, which extended the development underway in downtowns across the United States. pedestrian environment out into neighborhoods, served as a collector for intercity rail systems, and stopped at every street They’re much cheaper than light rail, are hugely successful in corner to stimulate a density and an intensity of uses that made for promoting development and street life, and fi t easily into built exemplary and engaging downtowns. If the high cost of providing parking drives development today, streetcars make it possible for environments with little disruption to existing businesses, resi- developers to provide less parking and put their money into high- dents, and traffi c. They can provide high-quality transit service quality design, building materials, and community benefi ts like affordable housing and parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint International Light Rail Conference
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C145 July 2010 Joint International Light Rail Conference Growth and Renewal April 19–21, 2009 Los Angeles, California Cosponsored by Transportation Research Board American Public Transportation Association TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Vice Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010–2011 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Associate Administrator and Director, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Jeannie G. Beckett, Director of Operations, Port of Tacoma, Washington, Marine Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair Ronald R. Knipling, Principal, safetyforthelonghaul.com, Arlington, Virginia, System Users Group Chair Edward V. A. Kussy, Partner, Nossaman, LLP, Washington, D.C., Legal Resources Group Chair Peter B. Mandle, Director, Jacobs Consultancy, Inc., Burlingame, California, Aviation Group Chair Mary Lou Ralls, Principal, Ralls Newman, LLC, Austin, Texas, Design and Construction Group Chair Daniel L. Roth, Managing Director, Ernst & Young Orenda Corporate Finance, Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Rail Group Chair Steven Silkunas, Director of Business Development, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Public Transportation Group Chair Peter F. Swan, Assistant Professor of Logistics and Operations Management, Pennsylvania State, Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania, Freight Systems Group Chair Katherine F.
    [Show full text]
  • Bring Back the Streetcars : a Conservative Vision of Tomorrow's
    Bring Back the Streetcars! A Conservative Vision of Tomorrow's Urban Transportation by Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind .... Free~• Foundation This study of public transportation by the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation was underwritten by the private sector Business Members of the American Public Transportation Association. The views expressed are those of the authors. Public Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow Washington, DC June 2002 BRING BACK THE STREETCARS! A Conservative Vision of Tomorrow’s Urban Transportation A Study Prepared by the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation By Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind The Free Congress Foundation 717 Second Street Washington, DC 20002 (202) 546-3000 June 2002 Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction: What’s Right with This Picture? 3 Bring Back the Streetcars! 6 The Context: Restoring Our Cities and Building New Towns 6 What Is a Streetcar? 9 Vintage and Heritage Streetcars 12 Who Else Is Doing It? 13 What Does It Cost? 18 Three Case Studies: 21 Dallas, Texas 21 Memphis, Tennessee 24 Portland, Oregon 28 Conclusion 32 Appendices: 34 Appendix I: Getting Started 34 Appendix II: The Gomaco Trolley Company 37 Appendix III: Resources 39 Notes 40 E xecutive Summary For more than half a century, the context in which public transport operated was suburbanization. But recently, that has begun to change. Urban downtowns are reviving, and new towns are being built to traditional patterns. Not only can streetcars serve these non- suburban areas, they need streetcars in order to flourish. Streetcars – which we define as rail transit vehicles designed for local transportation, powered by electricity received from an overhead wire – differ from both buses and Light Rail.
    [Show full text]
  • Date: December 11, 2013 To: Board of Directors From
    Date: December 11, 2013 To: Board of Directors From: Neil McFarlane Subject: RESOLUTION 13-12-73 OF THE TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON (TRIMET) AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF VINTAGE TROLLEY CARS 511 AND 512 TO THE ST. LOUIS LOOP TROLLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ___ 1. Issue or Purpose of Item. The purpose of this item is to request that the TriMet Board of Directors (“Board”) authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with the St. Louis Loop Trolley Transportation Development District (“Loop Trolley”) transferring Vintage Trolley cars 511 and 512 to the Loop Trolley, subject to approval by the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”). 2. Reason for Board Action. Board authorization for this transfer is required by FTA Circular 5010.1D, Grant Administration Requirements. The attached Resolution authorizing this transfer includes specific content required by Chapter IV, Section 3(l)(7)(b) of FTA Circular 5010.D. 3. Background. In August 2013, Loop Trolley contacted TriMet, expressing interest in using TriMet's Vintage Trolley cars for operation on the new Loop Trolley Project (“Project”), which will bring heritage streetcar service to downtown St. Louis. The Project is scheduled to begin construction in early 2014 and begin operations in mid-2015, and will run 2.2 miles along Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue in downtown St. Louis, with 10 stops, including two connecting with St. Louis MetroLink light rail. The Project has $25 million of FTA grant funding, and a total Project budget of $43 million. Loop Trolley representatives visited TriMet early in September 2013 to assess the suitability of TriMet's Vintage Trolley cars for the Loop Trolley.
    [Show full text]
  • Melbourne-Metropolitan-Tramways-Board-Building- 616-Little-Collins-Street-Melbourne
    Melbourne Metropolitan Tramway Study Gary Vines 2011 List of surviving heritage places Contents Horse Tramways ...................................................................................................... 2 Cable Tram engine houses..................................................................................... 2 Cable Tram car sheds ............................................................................................. 6 Electric Tram Depots .............................................................................................. 8 Waiting Shelters ...................................................................................................... 12 Substations .............................................................................................................. 20 Overhead and electricity supply ............................................................................ 24 Sidings and trackwork ............................................................................................ 26 Bridges ..................................................................................................................... 29 Workshops ............................................................................................................... 32 Offices ...................................................................................................................... 32 Recreation buildings ............................................................................................... 33 Accommodation
    [Show full text]
  • St.Charles Streetcar FARE - 80C Transfers Additional 10A E&H FARE - WI Transfem Additional 2U
    P& Construction Costs USDepartment of Transportation and Operating Characteristics of Vintage Trolleys March 1992 1 Construction Costs and Operating Characteristics of Vintage Trolleys Final Report March 1992 Prepared by Marta Jewell KPMG Peat Marwick 8150 Leesburg Pike, Suite 800 Vienna, VA 22182 Prepared for Federal Transit Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 Distributed in Cooperation with Technology Sharing Program U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 DOT-T-92-20 Introduction Study Objective and Scope In recent years, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (PTA), has received an increasing number of requests to fund the start-up and operation of vintage trolley services. FTA implemented this study to research the institutional arrangements, service characteristics and costs associated with vintage trolley systems currently being operated in order to provide a base of information with which to make informed funding decisions for future projects. FTA also requested that comparable information be obtained for several downtown bus circulator systems which might bean alternative to the implementation of vintage trolley services. Background In 1917, there were 44,800 miles of electric railway trackage in the United States. The combination of growing automobile usage and improved roads led to the demise of electric railway transportation from the 1920s through 1950s. Today, the United States is witnessing a growing renaissance of vintage trolley systems. Vintage trolleys have been successfully integrated into the public transportation systems in several cities. Businessmen in many areas have pursued vintage trolley service as a means to stimulate local business in redeveloped or historic areas.
    [Show full text]
  • 1717Brochure.Pdf
    Drawn by George McGinnis Battery-Powered, Seven-Bench, Open-Style Trolley with Five-Bench, Non-Powered Trailing Car Gomaco Trolley Company, in Ida all across the United States, including: The bright, richly colored and made for Lowell, Massachusetts in the Grove, Iowa, began building trolley cars Denver, Colorado; Little Rock, Arkansas; ornate cars were conceptionally drawn by early ‘80s. in 1982 when the company received its Mount Pleasant, Iowa; St. Louis, George McGinnis. Mr. McGinnis has the The success of the trolley and first contract from the United States Missouri; Memphis, Tennessee; honor of being the last Imagineer hired trailing car in Glendale prompted the Department of the Interior. The contract Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Charlotte, by Walt Disney, himself. Mr. McGinnis’ owner to contact Gomaco Trolley called for the construction of two open- North Carolina; Tampa, Florida; and designs bring out the best aspects of Company again. This time for a style double-truck electric trolley cars. Fresno, Glendale and Los Angeles, vintage trolleys, from highly polished refurbishing project for a double-decker Historical accuracy and attention to California. brass fixtures, to stained glass panels, to trolley. Trolley #1759 was totally detail were key factors in the production The Glendale trolley is a seven- new modern features which included a repainted, all of the original woodwork of the trolleys. They were to be built as bench, open-style trolley that is battery- hideaway wheelchair lift. refinished, new flooring and steps were replicas of the J.G. Brill trolley, the 1597 powered and self-propelled. It was named His ideas and technical drawings installed, new brass handrails were built, to 1600 series trolley, built in 1902.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstruction and Electrification of Trolley Track
    Final Report Reconstruction and Electrification of Trolley Track City of Kingston M ay 2008 This document was prepared for the ew York State Department of State with funds provided under Title II of the Environmental Protection Fund. RECONSTRUCTION AND ELECTRIFICATION OF TROLLEY TRACK I Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………1 II Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..... 5 Scope of work ……………………………………………………………………………….5 Special Considerations……………………………………………………………………..6 Utility Concerns ……………………………………………………………………..6 Environmental Considerations …………………………………………………….6 III Evaluation of Existing Infrastructure …………………………………………………………..7 Field Survey – Track and Rights-of-way …………………………………………………7 Analysis of Existing Rail Infrastructure Condition ……………………………….7 Primary Track Study Area: Kingston Point Line & West Strand Line …7 Overall Track Conditions …………………………………………..8 West Strand Line State of Existing Track ………………………10 Kingston Point Line State of Existing Track ……………………11 Areas of Concern ………………………………………………….11 Secondary Study Area: Brickyard and Kingston City Lines …………..12 Kingston City Line Extents ...……………………………………..12 Brickyard Line Extents ……………………………………………12 Existing Conditions – Secondary Track Study Subject Areas in General……… ………………………………………………….13 Existing Conditions – Kingston City Line ……………………….13 Existing Conditions – Brickyard Line ……………………………15 Areas of Concern ………………………………………………….15 Kingston City Line …………………………………………15 Brickyard Line to Hudson’s Landing …………………….15 Field Survey Streetcars …………………………………………………………………..18
    [Show full text]
  • 2014-08-08 FINAL Report – Streetcar Feasibility
    FINAL REPORT Table of Contents 1.0 Project Background and Conceptualization 1-1 3.10 Conclusions of the Economic Development Impact Assessment 3-31 1.1 Summary of Recent Planning Efforts 1-2 4.0 Ridership Estimation 4-1 1.2 Study Format 1-2 4.1 Background 4-2 1.3 Development Context 1-3 4.2 Methodology 4-2 1.4 Case Study Summaries 1-4 4.3 Regional Mode Analysis Results 4-8 2.0 Preliminary Screening of Conceptual Alignments 2-1 4.4 Impact of Added Innovation Square Development 4-9 2.1 Identification of Initial Streetcar Corridors 2-2 4.5 Summary Insights on Ridership 4-9 2.2 Assessment Criteria and Analysis 2-6 4.6 Potential Local Bus Service Modification 4-10 2.3 Preliminary Screening - Summary Results and Preferred 5.0 Vehicle Technology Assessment 5-1 Conceptual Alignment 2-7 5.1 Introduction to Streetcar Vehicles 5-2 3.0 Economic Development Assessment 3-1 5.2 Current Trends in Streetcar Vehicles 5-2 3.1 City of Gainesville: Overview 3-2 5.3 Streetcar Vehicles - Features and Technology 5-3 3.2 Route Alternatives / Preferred Conceptual Alignment 3-7 5.4 Sample of Streetcar Vehicles 5-10 3.3 Expert / Institutional Studies Influencing the Streetcar Models 3-8 5.5 Vehicle Considerations for Gainesville 5-16 3.4 Calculation Methodologies 3-11 6.0 Operating Plan 6-1 3.5 Summary of Findings 3-16 6.1 Introduction 6-2 3.6 Summary of Comparison of the Base Model and Streetcar 6.2 Service Span and Days of Service 6-2 Models Results 3-17 6.3 Service Frequencies and Travel Times 6-2 3.7 Incremental Property Tax Revenue/Tax Increment Financing 3-17
    [Show full text]
  • Weyrich Report
    BRING BACK THE STREETCARS! A Conservative Vision of Tomorrow’s Urban Transportation A Study Prepared by the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation By Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind The Free Congress Foundation 717 Second Street Washington, DC 20002 (202) 546-3000 June 2002 Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction: What’s Right with This Picture? 3 Bring Back the Streetcars! 6 The Context: Restoring Our Cities and Building New Towns 6 What Is a Streetcar? 9 Vintage and Heritage Streetcars 12 Who Else Is Doing It? 13 What Does It Cost? 18 Three Case Studies: 21 Dallas, Texas 21 Memphis, Tennessee 24 Portland, Oregon 28 Conclusion 32 Appendices: 34 Appendix I: Getting Started 34 Appendix II: The Gomaco Trolley Company 37 Appendix III: Resources 39 Notes 40 E xecutive Summary For more than half a century, the context in which public transport operated was suburbanization. But recently, that has begun to change. Urban downtowns are reviving, and new towns are being built to traditional patterns. Not only can streetcars serve these non- suburban areas, they need streetcars in order to flourish. Streetcars – which we define as rail transit vehicles designed for local transportation, powered by electricity received from an overhead wire – differ from both buses and Light Rail. Streetcars can be modern, Vintage (antique) or Heritage (reproduction) vehicles. All around the country, cities are building new streetcar lines. The most successful are tied in closely w i t h the local transit system. Construction costs for streetcar lines vary widely, although operating costs are almost always l o w.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Cedar Hill City Center Transit-Oriented Development Plan
    City of Cedar Hill City Center Transit-Oriented Development Plan Task 4: Circulator Plan Technical Memorandum July 2014 Prepared by: Task 4 City Center Circulator Plan Outline 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Circulator Context................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Service Analysis .................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Circulator Alignments ............................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Operational Analysis Assumptions & Service Structure .................................................................................. 6 2.2.1 Travel Time Estimates ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Operating Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 11 3.0 Circulator Mode Evaluation ............................................................................................... 19 3.1 Vehicle Options ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]