4.0 EXISTING TRANSIT PROFILE 33 These Services
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Transit Service Design Guidelines
Transit Service Design Guidelines Department of Rail and Public Transportation November 2008 Transit Service Design Guidelines Why were these guidelines for new transit service developed? In FY2008 alone, six communities in Virginia contacted the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation about starting new transit service in their community. They and many other communities throughout Virginia are interested in learning how new transit services can enhance travel choices and mobility and help to achieve other goals, such as quality of life, economic opportunity, and environmental quality. They have heard about or seen successful transit systems in other parts of the state, the nation, or the world, and wonder how similar systems might serve their communities. They need objective and understandable information about transit and whether it might be appropriate for them. These guidelines will help local governments, transit providers and citizens better understand the types of transit systems and services that are available to meet community and regional transportation needs. The guidelines also help the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) in making recommendations to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for transit investments, by 1) providing information on the types of systems or services that are best matched to community needs and local land use decisions, and 2) ensuring that resources are used effectively to achieve local, regional, and Commonwealth goals. Who were these guidelines developed for? These guidelines are intended for three different audiences: local governments, transit providers and citizens. Therefore, some will choose to read the entire document while others may only be interested in certain sections. -
Intercity Bus Program Section 5311 (F) Presented By: FTA Region 4 Staff Lorna Wilson, HQ Juan Morrison, HQ
Federal Transit Administration Intercity Bus Program Section 5311 (f) Presented by: FTA Region 4 Staff Lorna Wilson, HQ Juan Morrison, HQ Federal Transit Administration OBJECTIVE Support the connection between nonurbanized areas and the larger regional or national system of intercity bus service. Support services to meet the intercity travel needs of residents in nonurbanized areas. Support the infrastructure of the intercity bus network through planning and marketing assistance and capital investment in facilities. FTA encourages States to use the funding under 49 U.S.C. 5311(f) to support these national objectives, as well as priorities determined by the State. FTA TPM ver3.1 2 GOVERNOR’S CERTIFICATION A State is required to expend at least 15 percent of its apportionment for an intercity bus program, unless “the chief executive officer of the State certifies to the Secretary of Transportation, after consultation with affected intercity bus service providers, that the intercity bus service needs of the State are being met adequately.” FTA TPM ver3.1 3 INTERCITY BUS The legislative history indicates that the assessment of intercity bus needs be made “relative to other rural needs in the State.” A State certifying that its needs are adequately met must demonstrate that it has assessed statewide intercity mobility needs no more than four years before the date of the certification The State must document in the State Management Plan (SMP) its consultation process and any process that it develops for periodically assessing statewide -
Concord Coach (NH) O Dartmouth Coach (NH) O Peter Pan Bus Lines (MA)
KFH GROUP, INC. 2012 Vermont Public Transit Policy Plan INTERCITY BUS NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND POLICY OPTIONS White Paper January, 2012 Prepared for the: State of Vermont Agency of Transportation 4920 Elm Street, Suite 350 —Bethesda, MD 20814 —(301) 951-8660—FAX (301) 951-0026 Table of Contents Page Chapter 1: Background and Policy Context......................................................................... 1-1 Policy Context...................................................................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2: Inventory of Existing Intercity Passenger Services.......................................... 2-1 Intercity Bus......................................................................................................................... 2-1 Impacts of the Loss of Rural Intercity Bus Service......................................................... 2-8 Intercity Passenger Rail.................................................................................................... 2-11 Regional Transit Connections ......................................................................................... 2-11 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 2-13 Chapter 3: Analysis of Intercity Bus Service Needs............................................................ 3-1 Demographic Analysis of Intercity Bus Needs............................................................... 3-1 Public Input on Transit Needs ....................................................................................... -
Development. Map OSAGE ST 36 83 Only Includes Renovations If the Building Changed Use
T S A I N R O F I WASHINGTON ST L A C DOWNING ST DOWNING T S N E 25TH ST 25TH D G O COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE 39 SugarSquare 40 1 Block A/Hotel Born The Boathouse 41 24TH ST 2 The LAB Dairy Block HUMBOLDT ST E 42 V The Nichols Building A 3 H the ART, a hotel T 7 43 DOWNTOWN 1 4 Union Tower West Triangle Building E PARK AVE MARION ST RESIDENTIAL DOWNING ST ENTERTAINMENT + CULTURE FOX ST ARAPAHOE 44 1000 Speer 77 CPV 46 5 Denver Art Museum North Building 45 22ND ST SQUARE Alexan 20th Street Station PROSPECTHURON ST 6 Kirkland Museum T S T BALLPARK ST CALIFORNIA 46 E 53 TREMONT PL S S V PL GLENARM Alexan Arapahoe Square I ST WELTON 7 A 63 A T 59 Rocky Mountain PBS Media Center H 65 T 47 T R 4 T DENVER E Alta City House 3 INCA ST V U 68 OGDEN ST A 7 A C W R H W 21ST ST B D DEVELOPMENT MAP COORS R 48 T E CLARKSON ST AMLI Riverfront Green 9 O T 2 69 W A GOVERNMENT + N W FIELD D W WASHINGTON ST 49 O 55 AMLI Riverfront Park A EMERSON ST M 64 Y 45 E K V PENNSYLVANIA ST ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS A 50 C Ascent Union Station H L O T 0 P R 2 8 67 20TH ST E AHEC 5th Street Parking Garage 51 Ashley Union Station T U 2013-2018 L 9 N O E 17TH AVE Community College of Denver 52 19 T 57 G Balfour at Riverfront Park S A N 49 E E 19TH AVE S Confluence 53 H T Broadstone Blake Street C 50 E 10 19TH T V CU Denver Wellness Center 54 ST 19TH ST 19TH S 11 A E 16TH PEARLAVE ST H Cadence Apartments T 8 11 Downtown Denver Expeditionary School 55 40 60 1 Curtis Street Lofts 47 51 2 66 E LARIMER ST LARIMER LAWRENCE ST LAWRENCE BLAKE ST BLAKE WAZEE ST WAZEE ARAPAHOE ST ARAPAHOE -
Downtown Denver Partnership, Inc
STATE OF DOWNTOWN DENVER SEPTEMBER 2012 Downtown Denver Partnership, Inc. With support from: STATE OF 1 DOWNTOWN DENVER INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Letter .................................................1 Dear Downtown Denver Stakeholder, Key Facts ...............................................................2 Thank you for picking up a copy of the Downtown Denver Partnership’s annual State of Downtown Denver report, a fact-driven report that provides timely, Denver’s Downtown Area Plan ..............................3 objective and accurate data about Downtown Denver. This year we are proud Notable Rankings ..................................................4 to collaborate with Newmark Knight Frank Frederick Ross to bring you the most complete statistics and analysis about Downtown Denver. Office Market .................................................... 6-7 Employers & Employees ..................................... 8-9 In his 2012 State of the City address, Mayor Michael B. Hancock remarked that a vibrant downtown core is essential to the health of the city. At the 2012 Retail & Restaurants .............................................11 Rocky Mountain Urban Leadership Symposium, Governor Hickenlooper and Downtown Residents ..................................... 12-13 other leaders in the Rocky Mountain West stressed the importance of urban centers in creating strong place-based economies that attract and retain top Transportation ............................................... 14-15 talent. Downtown Denver is one -
Trams Der Welt / Trams of the World 2020 Daten / Data © 2020 Peter Sohns Seite/Page 1 Algeria
www.blickpunktstrab.net – Trams der Welt / Trams of the World 2020 Daten / Data © 2020 Peter Sohns Seite/Page 1 Algeria … Alger (Algier) … Metro … 1435 mm Algeria … Alger (Algier) … Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Algeria … Constantine … Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Algeria … Oran … Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Algeria … Ouragla … Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Algeria … Sétif … Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Algeria … Sidi Bel Abbès … Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Argentina … Buenos Aires, DF … Metro … 1435 mm Argentina … Buenos Aires, DF - Caballito … Heritage-Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Argentina … Buenos Aires, DF - Lacroze (General Urquiza) … Interurban (Electric) … 1435 mm Argentina … Buenos Aires, DF - Premetro E … Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Argentina … Buenos Aires, DF - Tren de la Costa … Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Argentina … Córdoba, Córdoba … Trolleybus … Argentina … Mar del Plata, BA … Heritage-Tram (Electric) … 900 mm Argentina … Mendoza, Mendoza … Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Argentina … Mendoza, Mendoza … Trolleybus … Argentina … Rosario, Santa Fé … Heritage-Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Argentina … Rosario, Santa Fé … Trolleybus … Argentina … Valle Hermoso, Córdoba … Tram-Museum (Electric) … 600 mm Armenia … Yerevan … Metro … 1524 mm Armenia … Yerevan … Trolleybus … Australia … Adelaide, SA - Glenelg … Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Australia … Ballarat, VIC … Heritage-Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm Australia … Bendigo, VIC … Heritage-Tram (Electric) … 1435 mm www.blickpunktstrab.net – Trams der Welt / Trams of the World 2020 Daten / Data © 2020 Peter Sohns Seite/Page -
Intercity Bus Feeder Project Program Analysis
Intercity Bus U.S. Department of Transportation Feeder Project Program Analysis September 1990 Intercity Bus Feeder Project Program Analysis Final Report September 1990 Prepared by Frederic D. Fravel, Elisabeth R. Hayes, and Kenneth I. Hosen Ecosometrics, Inc. 4715 Cordell Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814-3016 Prepared for Community Transportation Association of America 725 15th Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 Funded by Urban Mass Transportation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590 Distributed in Cooperation with Technology Sharing Program Research and Special Programs Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 DOT-T-91-03 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE s uh4h4ARY . S-l Background and Purpose ............................................. S-l CurrentStatusoftheProgram ......................................... S-3 Identification of Participant Goals ....................................... S-3 Analysis of Participants .............................................. S-8 casestudies ...................................................... s-11 Program Costs and Benefits ........................................... S-l 1 Conclusions ...................................................... S-13 Goals and Objectives for the Rural Connection ............................. S-15 Identification of Potential Future Changes ................................. S-17 1 -- INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OFTHE PROBLEM . 1 BackgroundandPurpose............................................. -
Intercity Buses the Forgotten Mode by Randal O’Toole
No. 680 June 29, 2011 Intercity Buses The Forgotten Mode by Randal O’Toole Executive Summary The debate over President Obama’s fantasti- transportation mode, with ridership growing cally expensive high-speed rail program has ob- almost twice as fast as Amtrak. scured the resurgence of a directly competing Intercity buses carry at least 50 percent mode of transportation: intercity buses. Entre- more passenger miles than Amtrak in Amtrak’s preneurial immigrants from China and recently showcase Northeast Corridor. They do so with privatized British transportation companies almost no subsidies and at fares that are about have developed a new model for intercity bus a third of Amtrak’s regular train fares and little operations that provides travelers with faster more than 10 percent of Amtrak’s high-speed service at dramatically reduced fares. Acela fares. Intercity buses are safe and environ- New-model bus companies save money by mentally friendly, suffering almost 80 percent selling tickets over the Internet and loading fewer fatalities per billion passenger miles than and unloading passengers at curbsides rather Amtrak and using 60 percent less energy per than in expensive bus stations. They speed ser- passenger mile than Amtrak. vice by running most buses non-stop between Policymakers can encourage expansion of major cities rather than making numerous in- intercity bus services by ending subsidies to termediate stops. Some companies distinguish Amtrak and minimizing regulatory barriers to themselves from their competition by provid- new bus start-ups. Cities concerned about con- ing leather seats, free wireless Internet, more gestion and parking problems caused by curb- legroom, and—in a few cases—onboard meal side bus operations can sell curb rights—the service and movies. -
6.0 Transportation Impacts This Section Describes the Transportation Impacts Expected with the No‐Build and Build Alternatives
Section TRANSPORTATION 6 IMPACTS 6. Transportation Impacts6. Transportation 6.0 Transportation Impacts This section describes the transportation impacts expected with the No‐Build and Build Alternatives. The Service Development Plan and expected travel benefits are presented. Year 2030 ridership projections and operating revenues for passenger rail service are presented for each alternative. Projected annual person trips for air, bus, and automobile intercity travel are also presented. In addition to the intercity passenger information, impacts to future freight and commuter rail operations and vehicular traffic are discussed, including impacts from construction and vehicular impacts associated with the changes proposed at the highway‐railroad at‐grade crossings in the corridor. 6.1 Service Development Plan In accordance with FRA High Speed Rail guidance referred to in 74 Fed. Reg. 29900 (June 23, 2009), this section outlines the Service Development Plan (SDP) for the potential improvements on the Chicago – St. Louis corridor described by this Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement. The following items are addressed within this subsection: Intercity travel options Service levels/frequencies Capital program needs Ridership/revenue forecasted, including number of passengers and boardings/disembarking at stations 6.1.1 Intercity Travel Options Intercity travel by auto, bus, and air represent alternative travel options to high‐speed intercity rail. Air travel offers the advantage of relatively shorter time in flight but further analysis shows that travel to the airport and time required to prepare for boarding add substantially to total trip time. The time advantage is diminished for trips under 500 miles and is reduced further for shorter trips. The private automobile offers extreme convenience with door‐to‐door service. -
Denver Apartments
Denver Apartments A 174-unit, LEED®-Gold, Mixed-Use, Multi-Family Apartment Building Denver, CO 80211 September 2013 PROPOSED LOAN TERMS Denver’s Cherry Creek Neighborhood A to-be-formed single-purpose entity Managing Member: Apartment Community Development, LLC Borrower Co-Managing Member : Denver Apartments, LLC (an open-ended Fund formed in 2004 with a gross asset value of $1 billion) Guarantors Apartment Community Development, LLC Completion Guaranty provided by Guarantors. Requesting quotes for the Partial Repayment Guaranty being provided by: Guarantee - Guarantors only - Guarantors and Denver Apartments, LLC. Commitment Date October 7, 2013 Up to 75 percent loan-to-cost Loan-to-Cost Up to $44,000,000 Loan Amount First, for the recapitalization of the borrower after the acquisition of the land in an amount of 75 percent loan to cost. Second, for the construction Loan Purpose of the improvements. Vertical construction shall commence on or about December 2013 - January 2014. December 1st, 2013 Loan Closing Construction Substantial Completion: 20 months Period Either a: 1. Five-year total term (3+1+1) Term 2. Twelve- (12) year construction/perm loan with maximum interest only flexibility. Best rate available. Interest Rate Most competitive percentage possible. Lender Fees Prepayment No pre-payment penalty at any time Penalty Lender Memorandum Page 3 1 Project Summary 4 1.1 Overview 4 1.2 Project Schedule 7 1.3 Building Program 7 2 Financials 10 2.1 Capital Structure 10 2.2 Project Income and Expenses 13 2.3 Project Budget 15 3 Market -
16.0 Intercity Travel
16.0 INTERCITY TRAVEL In addition to daily travel within the region, many Kansas City area residents travel to other regional and national destinations. While the automobile is the most common transportation mode for those traveling from place to place within the region, other modes are often used for intercity travel. Understanding the Kansas City region’s connections to other metropolitan areas by bus, rail, air and automobile will help people make informed decisions about travel options. An efficient transportation network with strong intercity connections helps promote the economic vitality of the region by providing businesses with access to external markets and attracting visitors to the region. Intercity connections The Kansas City region’s geographic location is near the center of the contiguous United States. Kansas City is near seven other major metropolitan areas, including the major transportation hubs of Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Minneapolis-St. Paul and Memphis. Intercity travel was examined using a 550-mile radius from Downtown Kansas City, Missouri. This radius is commonly used to define one- day travel, or about an eight-hour driving distance. Two other major metropolitan areas — Denver and Milwaukee — were also included in the intercity travel analysis, as Kansas City has direct connections to Denver, and Milwaukee is just outside the 550-mile radius. Within the radius, 44 cities and metropolitan areas are identified as “connected” to theDRAFT Kansas City metro area, either directly or with one to two connections/layovers when traveling by auto, bus, rail or airplane. These 44 cities comprise a population of just over 43 million. 16.0 Intercity Travel l Transportation Outlook 2040 16.1 2015 Update Figure 15.6: One-day travel intercity radius This chapter examines travel information using a 550‐mile Minneapolis radius from Downtown Kansas City, Milwaukee Madison Missouri. -
DENVER UNION STATION Master Plan September 2004
DENVER UNION STATION Master Plan September 2004 PART I Introduction 2 Introduction Dear Fellow Citizens and Interested Readers: Denver Union Station’s unique assets make it an ideal The Master Plan is one of several major initiatives location for this new type of multimodal transportation needed to advance the redevelopment. The Denver We proudly present the Denver Union Station facility. Denver Union Station will create an exciting Planning Board has reviewed the Master Plan as the fi rst Master Plan. This document was developed through transportation crossroads, improving connections step toward City Council adoption as a supplement to an unprecedented collaboration among four public among all transportation modes, respecting the character the City and County of Denver’s Comprehensive Plan. agencies – the City and County of Denver, the and historical signifi cance of this handsome station and Concurrent with the adoption of the Master Plan, City Colorado Department of Transportation, the Denver its adjacent neighborhoods, and providing a stimulating Council will be asked to rezone the 19.5-acre Denver Regional Council of Governments, and the Regional environment for public activity and economic vitality. Union Station site as a new Transit Mixed-Use (T-MU- Transportation District – along with many organizations 30) District and designate the building and a portion of and individuals in the community and the region. Their Focusing on transportation and connectivity, the Master the site as a historic landmark in the City and County of participation, strong support, and donation of countless Plan identifi es and evaluates potential transportation, Denver. hours of their time were essential to this project.