Streetcar Land Use Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Ucr Rides Free with the Token Transit
UCR RIDES FREE WITH THE PLAN YOUR TRIP TODAY VISIT US TOKEN TRANSIT APP RiversideTransit.com The Riverside Transit Agency has switched to a contactless fare system available through the Token Transit app. UCR students and staff will no longer swipe their R’Card to board the RTA bus. To get your free transit pass CONTACT US you will be required to log in to UCR’s Transportation Services website and Customer Information Center enroll in the U-PASS Program. Once registered, you will receive your free pass via the Token Transit app for unlimited rides anywhere RTA buses go, at (951) 565-5002 anytime they operate. And yes, you can take your bike or skateboard with you on the bus. WE’RE OPEN Getting your pass is easy. After you enroll online, UCR will send your registration to RTA. Staff passes will be processed immediately and within Until 10 p.m. every day three to five days you will receive a text message from Token Transit with a link to download the pass. After that, simply use your phone’s mobile pass whenever you board and enjoy the ride. Student passes will be issued STAY SAFE beginning September 24 and valid through the end of the term. RTA is asking customers to With trained drivers, clean vehicles and a commitment to customer safety, practice social distancing, say hello to a better way to travel. Plus, there’s comfortable seating, free wear face masks and travel for Wi-Fi service and USB charging ports to make your trip even better. -
4606 – Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) Passes
No. 4606 Rev.: 5 Policies and Procedures Date: December 14, 2017 Subject: Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) Passes 1. Purpose .................................................................................................................... 1 2. Policy ........................................................................................................................ 1 3. Responsibilities ......................................................................................................... 2 4. Procedures ............................................................................................................... 2 4.1 Obtaining the HRT GoSemester Pass .............................................................. 2 4.2 Obtaining Para-Transit Passes ......................................................................... 2 4.3 Staff and Non-Credit Student Purchase of HRT Passes .................................. 2 4.4 Use of HRT Services ........................................................................................ 2 4.5 Lost, Stolen, and/or Damaged HRT Passes ..................................................... 3 5. Definitions ................................................................................................................. 3 6. References ............................................................................................................... 3 7. Review Periodicity and Responsibility ...................................................................... 3 8. Effective Date and Approval .................................................................................... -
American Maglev Technology (AMT) Proposal
American Maglev Technology (AMT) Proposal: Staff Review and Recommendation Approved by the MetroPlan Orlando Board at the meeting on December 12, 2012 American Maglev Technology (AMT) Proposal: Staff Review and Recommendation Background American Maglev Technology (AMT) has proposed to build, operate and maintain a privately- financed transit project in the Orlando metropolitan area with no public funding. The 40-mile project has an estimated capital cost of $800 million. The project is a fully automatic train system that is powered by magnetic levitation, or maglev technology. This technology lifts the vehicle from the guideway and provides directional motion. The first phase of the proposed system would operate between the Orange County Convention Center/International Drive area (utilizing the planned intermodal center) and Orlando International Airport with stops at The Florida Mall and the Sand Lake Road SunRail Station. Subsequent phases would include stations in the Lake Nona/Medical City area and along the Osceola Parkway corridor leading to Walt Disney World. AMT has spearheaded efforts thus far to advance the implementation of this project. However, the intention is to form a new publicly traded company called Florida EMMI, Inc. (Florida Environmental Mitigation and Mobility Initiative) that will design, build, finance, operate and maintain the project. At that point, AMT will become the company’s maglev technology provider. Florida EMMI, Inc. will bring together an array of strategic partners and more than 120 private companies, some of which are well-known in the transportation industry. The new company will be based here in Central Florida with an advisory board that includes some prominent individuals from our region. -
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. -
H/Benning Historic Architectural Survey
H Street/Benning Road Streetcar Project Historic Architectural Survey Prepared for: District Department of Transportation Prepared by: Jeanne Barnes HDR Engineering, Inc. 2600 Park Tower Drive Suite 100 Vienna, VA 22180 FINAL SUBMITTAL April 2013 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Project Background ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1. Overhead Catenary System ................................................................................................... 2 1.1.2. Car Barn Training Center ....................................................................................................... 4 1.1.3. Traction Power Sub‐Stations ................................................................................................. 5 1.1.4. Interim Western Destination ................................................................................................ 6 1.2. Regulatory Context ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.1. DC Inventory of Historic Sites ............................................................................................... 7 1.2.2. National Register cof Histori Places ...................................................................................... 8 1.3. District of Columbia Preservation Process ................................................................................... -
A Review of Reduced and Free Transit Fare Programs in California
A Review of Reduced and Free Transit Fare Programs in California A Research Report from the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies Jean-Daniel Saphores, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Department of Urban Planning and Public Policy, University of California, Irvine Deep Shah, Master’s Student, University of California, Irvine Farzana Khatun, Ph.D. Candidate, University of California, Irvine January 2020 Report No: UC-ITS-2019-55 | DOI: 10.7922/G2XP735Q Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. UC-ITS-2019-55 N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date A Review of Reduced and Free Transit Fare Programs in California January 2020 6. Performing Organization Code ITS-Irvine 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jean-Daniel Saphores, Ph.D., https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9514-0994; Deep Shah; N/A and Farzana Khatun 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Institute of Transportation Studies, Irvine N/A 4000 Anteater Instruction and Research Building 11. Contract or Grant No. Irvine, CA 92697 UC-ITS-2019-55 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered The University of California Institute of Transportation Studies Final Report (January 2019 - January www.ucits.org 2020) 14. Sponsoring Agency Code UC ITS 15. Supplementary Notes DOI:10.7922/G2XP735Q 16. Abstract To gain a better understanding of the current use and performance of free and reduced-fare transit pass programs, researchers at UC Irvine surveyed California transit agencies with a focus on members of the California Transit Association (CTA) during November and December 2019. -
Transit Element
Town of Cary Comprehensive Transportation Pllan Chapter 6 – Introduction At the time of the 2001 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the Town of Cary had no bus service other than Route 301 operated by the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA). Since then, Cary has expanded its transit Transit services considerably, with a new local fixed-route service for the public and demand-responsive paratransit for seniors and persons with disabilities. TTA has added routes as well. As the Town’s Element population continues rising and travel demand increases, the Town plans to expand its local service, capturing riders coming from and going to planned residential and commercial developments. Situated amidst the Research Triangle of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, Cary is served today by multiple transit providers. Fixed route bus services within Cary are provided by C-Tran and TTA. C-Tran, Wake Coordinated Transportation Services (WCTS), and the Center for Volunteer Caregiving provide demand-responsive paratransit services. WCTS also provides rural general public transit via its TRACS service program; however, services are not provided for urban trips within Cary. Amtrak operates daily train service. This chapter describes current fixed-route transit and paratransit conditions, projected growth in the Town, and proposed future service changes. C-Tran Overview C-Tran is the Town of Cary’s sponsored transit service which originated as a door-to-door service for seniors and disabled residents in 2001. In July 2002, door-to-door services were expanded -
Americaspeaks
AMERICASPEAKS ENGAGING CITIZEN VOICES IN GOVERNANCE Skyland Town Hall Meeting Report to the National Capital Revitalization Corporation November 13, 2004 Made Possible in part by a Grant from the Annie E. Casey Foundation Summary Report of Proceedings District residents from Wards 7 and 8 came together on Saturday, November 13 to set priorities for the redevelopment of Skyland Shopping Center. Over the course of the five hour meeting, participants listened to presentations about the redevelopment process, discussed the retail mix of the future site, considered its look and feel, and discussed how the community could best take advantage of economic opportunities created by the redevelopment. When asked to evaluate the Town Meeting, 100 percent of participants said they had learned something from their participation in the Town Meeting. Eighty-four percent of participants rated the meeting as “excellent” or “good” (49 percent rating it as “excellent”.) Ninety-one percent of participants rated the use of technology at the Town Meeting as “excellent” or “good” (82 percent rating it as “excellent). Seventy percent of participants said they were “very unsatisfied” with the mix of stores currently at Skyland. Similarly, 66 percent of participants said they were “very unsatisfied” with the physical condition of Skyland and 63 percent said they were “very unsatisfied” with the level of safety there. The heart of the meeting was a discussion of the future retail mix for the new Skyland Shopping Center. Participants first considered the kinds of stores that they would like to see in the site. After prioritizing the kinds of stores to go on the site, they identified specific brands for each of the top categories. -
District Columbia
PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN for the Appendices B - I DISTRICT of COLUMBIA AYERS SAINT GROSS ARCHITECTS + PLANNERS | FIELDNG NAIR INTERNATIONAL TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A: School Listing (See Master Plan) APPENDIX B: DCPS and Charter Schools Listing By Neighborhood Cluster ..................................... 1 APPENDIX C: Complete Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization Study ............................................... 7 APPENDIX D: Complete Population and Enrollment Forecast Study ............................................... 29 APPENDIX E: Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................ 51 APPENDIX F: Cluster Demographic Summary .................................................................................. 63 APPENDIX G: Complete Facility Condition, Quality and Efficacy Study ............................................ 157 APPENDIX H: DCPS Educational Facilities Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI) ...................................... 195 APPENDIX I: Neighborhood Attendance Participation .................................................................... 311 Cover Photograph: Capital City Public Charter School by Drew Angerer APPENDIX B: DCPS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS LISTING BY NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER Cluster Cluster Name DCPS Schools PCS Schools Number • Oyster-Adams Bilingual School (Adams) Kalorama Heights, Adams (Lower) 1 • Education Strengthens Families (Esf) PCS Morgan, Lanier Heights • H.D. Cooke Elementary School • Marie Reed Elementary School -
A Tale of Two Systems: Education Reform in Washington D.C
A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. BY DAVID OSBORNE A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. 2 PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. BY DAVID OSBORNE PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE 3 A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS David Osborne would like to thank the Walton Family Foundation and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation for their support of this work. He would also like to thank the dozens of people within D.C. Public Schools, D.C.’s charter schools, and the broader education reform community who shared their experience and wisdom with him. Thanks go also to those who generously took the time to read drafts and provide feedback. Finally, David is grateful to those at the Progressive Policy Institute who contributed to this report, including President Will Marshall, who provided editorial guidance, intern George Beatty, who assisted with research, and Steven K. Chlapecka, who shepherded the manuscript through to publication. 4 PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................. ii A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS: EDUCATION REFORM IN WASHINGTON D.C. HISTORY AND CONTEXT.............................................................. 1 MICHELLE RHEE BRINGS IN HER BROOM .................................................. 4 THE POLITICAL -
Replace Or Modernize?
Payne ES 1896 Draper ES 1953 Miner ES 1900 Shadd ES 1955 Ketcham ES Replace1909 Moten or ES Modernize1955 ? Bell SHS 1910 Hart MS 1956 Garfield ETheS Future191 0of theSharpe District Health of SE Columbia' 1958 s Thomson ES 191Endangered0 Drew ES Old and 195Historic9 Smothers ES 1923 Plummer ES 1959 Hardy MS (Rosario)1928 Hendley ESPublic 195School9 s Bowen ES 1931 Aiton ES 1960 Kenilworth ES 1933 J.0. Wilson ES May196 12001 Anacostia SHS 1935 Watkins ES 1962 Bunker Hill ES 1940 Houston ES 1962 Beers ES 1942 Backus MS 1963 Kimball ES 1942 C.W. Harris ES 1964 Kramer MS 1943 Green ES 1965 Davis ES 1943 Gibbs ES 1966 Stanton ES 1944 McGogney ES 1966 Patterson ES 1945 Lincoln MS 1967 Thomas ES 1946 Brown MS 1967 Turner ES 1946 Savoy ES 1968 Tyler ES 1949 Leckie ES 1970 Kelly Miller MS 1949 Shaed ES 1971 Birney ES 1950 H.D. Woodson SHS 1973 Walker-Jones ES 1950 Brookland ES 1974 Nalle ES 1950 Ferebee-Hope ES 1974 Sousa MS 1950 Wilkinson ES 1976 Simon ES 1950 Shaw JHS 1977 R. H. Terrell JHS 1952 Mamie D. Lee SE 1977 River Terrace ES 1952 Fletche-Johnson EC 1977 This report is dedicated to the memory of Richard L. Hurlbut, 1931 - 2001. Richard Hurlbut was a native Washingtonian who worked to preserve Washington, DC's historic public schools for over twenty-five years. He was the driving force behind the restoration of the Charles Sumner School, which was built after the Civil War in 1872 as the first school in Washington, DC for African- American children. -
Ward 7 Heritage Guide
WARD 7 HERITAGE GUIDE A Discussion of Ward 7 Cultural and Heritage Resources Ward 7 Heritage Guide Text by Patsy M. Fletcher, DC Historic Preservation Office Design by Kim Elliott, DC Historic Preservation Office Published 2013 Unless stated otherwise, photographs and images are from the DC Office of Planning collection. This project has been funded in part by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund grant funds, administered by the District of Columbia’s Historic Preservation Office. The contents and opinions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Department of the Interior. This program has received Federal financial assistance for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the District of Columbia. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its Federally assisted programs. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction......................................................................................................................5