DOCSLIB.ORG

FBI Headquarters Consolidation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FBI Headquarters Consolidation FBI Headquarters Consolidation Appendix C: Draft Transportation Impact Assessment: Greenbelt Appendix C Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters Consolidation Draft Transportation Impact Assessment Greenbelt Site Alternative Prepared by for October 2015 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 NEPA Requirements ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.4 Local Land Use Plans ................................................................................................................ 2-4 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................. 2-4 Planning Context .................................................................................................................. 2-6 Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital .............................. 2-6 Plan Prince George’s 2035 ................................................................................................... 2-7 Greenbelt Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment ...................................................... 2-8 City of Greenbelt Pedestrian and Bicyclist Master Plan ...................................................... 2-9 2.5 Regulatory Requirement and Transportation Assumption Agreement ................................... 2-10 National Capital Planning Commission Requirements ...................................................... 2-10 Jurisdictional Agreement ................................................................................................... 2-10 EXISTING CONDITION: GREENBELT STUDY AREA ............................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 Study Area Description ........................................................................................................ 3-1 Project Area Accessibility and Roadway Functional Classification ...................................... 3-2 Roadway Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 3-4 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 3-9 3.2 Pedestrian Network ............................................................................................................... 3-15 Overall Sidewalk Observations .......................................................................................... 3-15 Accessibility Compliance .................................................................................................... 3-16 3.3 Bicycle Network .................................................................................................................... 3-17 3.4 Public Transit ......................................................................................................................... 3-20 Metrorail ............................................................................................................................ 3-20 Commuter Rail ................................................................................................................... 3-30 Bus: Local ........................................................................................................................... 3-30 Bus: Intercity ...................................................................................................................... 3-45 Bus: Commuter .................................................................................................................. 3-45 Shuttles .............................................................................................................................. 3-45 Ridesharing (Slugging) ........................................................................................................ 3-45 Carsharing .......................................................................................................................... 3-45 3.5 Parking .................................................................................................................................. 3-45 3.6 Truck Access .......................................................................................................................... 3-48 3.7 Traffic Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 3-48 Analysis Tools ..................................................................................................................... 3-48 Intersection Operations Analysis Method ......................................................................... 3-49 FBI Headquarters Consolidation U.S. General Services Administration i Transportation Impact Assessment Greenbelt Intersection Queuing Analysis Method.............................................................................. 3-54 Existing Condition Intersection Operations Analysis ......................................................... 3-55 Existing Condition Intersection Queue Analysis ................................................................ 3-66 Freeway Volumes Results .................................................................................................. 3-70 3.8 Crash Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 3-70 ANALYSIS OF NO-BUILD CONDITION ................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 No-action Alternative (All Other EIS Resource Areas) ............................................................... 4-2 4.2 No-build Condition Improvements .......................................................................................... 4-4 Planned Developments ........................................................................................................ 4-4 Planned Roadway Improvements: ....................................................................................... 4-6 4.3 Pedestrian Network ............................................................................................................... 4-13 4.4 Bicycle Network .................................................................................................................... 4-13 4.5 Public Transit ......................................................................................................................... 4-16 Projected Transit Growth ................................................................................................... 4-16 Metrorail Analysis .............................................................................................................. 4-16 Metrobus Analysis .............................................................................................................. 4-19 Greenbelt Metro Station Bus Bays ..................................................................................... 4-21 Level of Impact ................................................................................................................... 4-21 4.6 Parking .................................................................................................................................. 4-22 4.7 Truck Access .......................................................................................................................... 4-23 4.8 Traffic Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 4-24 Background Growth ........................................................................................................... 4-24 Development of Existing Vehicle Volumes through Proposed North and South Core Roadway Network .............................................................................................................. 4-25 Trip Generation/Modal Split .............................................................................................. 4-35 Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................. 4-39 Development of No-build Condition .................................................................................. 4-45 No-build Condition Operations Analysis ............................................................................ 4-51 No-Build Condition Queuing Analysis ................................................................................ 4-67 No-build Condition Freeway Volumes ............................................................................... 4-73 ANALYSIS OF BUILD CONDITION ....................................................................................................... 5-1
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Journals | Penn State Libraries Open Publishing
    I I • I • I• .1.1' D . , I * ' PA « ~** • * ' > . Mechanized streetcars rose out ofa need toreplace horse- the wide variety ofdifferent electric railway systems, no single drawn streetcars. The horse itselfpresented the greatest problems: system had yet emerged as the industry standard. Early lines horses could only work a few hours each day; they were expen- tended tobe underpowered and prone to frequent equipment sive to house, feed and clean up after; ifdisease broke out within a failure. The motors on electric cars tended to make them heavier stable, the result could be a financial catastrophe for a horsecar than either horsecars or cable cars, requiring a company to operator; and, they pulled the car at only 4 to 6 miles per hour. 2 replace its existing rails withheavier ones. Due to these circum- The expenses incurred inoperating a horsecar line were stances, electric streetcars could not yet meet the demands of staggering. For example, Boston's Metropolitan Railroad required densely populated areas, and were best operated along short 3,600 horses to operate its fleet of700 cars. The average working routes serving relatively small populations. life of a car horse was onlyfour years, and new horses cost $125 to The development of two rivaltechnological systems such as $200. Itwas common practice toprovide one stable hand for cable and electric streetcars can be explained by historian every 14 to 20horses inaddition to a staff ofblacksmiths and Thomas Parke Hughes's model ofsystem development. Inthis veterinarians, and the typical car horse consumed up to 30 pounds model, Hughes describes four distinct phases ofsystem growth: ofgrain per day.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington D.C
    Calvin College Off Campus Programs Semester in Washington D.C. Important Numbers and Information Cell phone number for Professor Koopman: 616/328-4693 Address for Professor Koopman: 114 11th St., SE; Unit A Washington D.C. 20003 Washington Intern Housing Network (WIHN): 202/608-6276 Greystone House Address: 1243 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. Washington DC 20001 Maintenance emergency in House: 202/579-9446 (leave a message if no one picks up) Non-emergency in building (repairs, etc.): email notification to [email protected] Wifi access—information posted at the house inside the front door Quiet Hours: 9:00 pm to 7:00 am daily Internship Supervisor at your workplace: Name: _________________________________ Phone Number: __________________________ Ellen Hekman at Calvin College: 616/526-6565 Others: _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ CALVIN COLLEGE SEMESTER IN WASHINGTON DC Spring 2018 Introduction 1 Course Information Prerequisites 1 General Internships 1 Social Work Program 2 Preparation Clothing 2 Climate 4 Medical Issues 4 Semester Schedule 4 Housing Information Washington Intern Housing Network (WIHN) 4 WIHN Rules and Policies 6 Food and Meals 9 Travel Travel to Washington DC 10 Directions to Greystone House 10 Travel within Washington DC 12 Professor’s Housing and Contact Information 13 The City of Washington DC Directions and Maps 13 Visitor Information 13 Neighborhoods 13 Leaving the City 14 Cultural Information Group Outings 15 Cultural Opportunities and Site-seeing 15 Safety 17 Churches 18 Behavior and Health 21 Visitors 22 Attitude and Inclusiveness 22 communicate issues, problems and feelings. Furthermore, the entire group is responsible INTRODUCTION for each other during the semester.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating a Future for Greenbelt Road/MD-193
    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL REPORT Creating a Future for Greenbelt Road/MD-193 WASHINGTON, DC SPONSORED BY: City of Greenbelt City of College Park Town of Berwyn Heights Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments June 4-5, 2018 Washington ABOUT ULI WASHINGTON A DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE ULI Washington is a district council of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), a nonprofit education and research organization supported by its members. Founded in 1936, the Institute today has over 32,000 members worldwide representing the entire spectrum of land use planning and real estate development disciplines working in private enter-prise and public service. As the preeminent, multidisciplinary real estate forum, ULI facilitates the open exchange of ideas, information, and experi- ence among local, national, and international industry leaders and policy makers dedicated to creating better communities. ULI’s mission is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creat- ing and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. ULI Washington carries out the ULI mission locally by sharing best practices, building consensus, and advanc- ing solutions through educational programs and community outreach initiatives. ABOUT THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL (TAP) PROGRAM The objective of ULI Washington’s Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) program is to provide expert, multidisciplinary, and objective advice on land use and real estate is-sues facing public agencies and nonprofit organizations in the Metropolitan Washing-ton Region. Drawing from its extensive membership base, ULI Washington conducts one and one-half day Panels offering objec- tive and responsible advice to local decision-makers on a wide variety of land use and real estate issues, ranging from site-specific projects to public pol- icy questions.
    [Show full text]
  • County of Essex Transit Assessment Report, Phase 2 Project No
    County of Essex Transit Assessment Report, Phase 2 Project No. 29-46B FINAL A u g u s t 2 0 1 1 Final Report Transit Solutions GENIVAR Consultants LP. 2800 Fourteenth Avenue, Suite 210, Markham, Ontario L3R 0E4 Telephone: 905.946.8900 Fax: 905.946.8966 www.genivar.com Contact: Dennis J. Fletcher, M.E.S. E-mail: [email protected] 29-46B August 8, 2011 Mr. T. Bateman County Engineer County of Essex 360 Fairview Avenue West Essex, ON N8M 1Y6 Re: Transit Assessment Report Phase 2 Final Report Dear Mr. Bateman: GENIVAR Inc. is pleased to present this final report on the implementation of transit services for the County of Essex. This report builds on the Phase 1 Feasibility Study submitted in April 2010, and identifies a detailed implementation plan for the short-term to operate inter-municipal transit services in the County. A brief summary of the major conclusions relevant to Phase 2 of the study are outlined in Section 1. This document refines the details in the Phase 2 Interim Report submitted in August 2010, and addresses the comments made by stakeholders, provides additional governance considerations, identifies an initial marketing strategy, and provides Transportation Demand Management mechanisms to encourage transit use. We hope this report provides a helpful source when you proceed with the next stage of work, and we hope to have the opportunity to work together soon. Yours truly, GENIVAR Inc. Dennis J. Fletcher, M.E.S. Director, Transit Solutions DJF/ml 2800 Fourteenth Avenue, Suite 210, Markham, Ontario L3R 0E4 Telephone: 905.946.8900 Fax: 905.946.8966 www.genivar.com Transit Assessment Report Phase 2 Final Report Table of Contents GENIVAR ii Table of Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • News and Notes Prince George's County J § 'W
    News and Notes Prince George's County J § 'W . CO , Historical Society ! = = 3 e 'MaritlU' February 1997 Our 45th Year Volume XXV Number 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1997 President - Jane Eagen Directors 1997-1999 Past Presidents Vice President - Eugene Roberts, Jr. Mildred Ridgeley Gray John Giannetti Secretary - Sarah Bourne Melinda Alter Paul T. Lanham Treasurer - John Bourne Katherine Clagett Warren Rhoads Historian - Frederick DeMarr Directors 1996-1998 W.C. (Bud) Button Editor - Sharon Howe Sweeting Julie Bright Joyce MacDonald John Mitchell William Uber Illustration by Fred H. Greenberg from Washington Itself by E. J. Applewhite, 1986 JOIN US on SATURDAY, MARCH 8 at 2:00 pm at the Glenn Dale Community Center Mr David J. Danelski, Supreme Court Historian, will speak on Sons of Maryland on the United States Supreme Court: Thomas Johnson, Samuel Chase, Gabriel Duvall, Roger Brooke Taney and Thurgood Marshall. Mr. Danelski has researched, taught and written extensively about the United States Supreme Count. He will share little know stories and attempt to undo some popular misconceptions about these men. We have invited the members of the Duvall Society to join us for this celebration of Gabriel Duvall. The reception following the program will be at Marietta, home of Gabriel Duvall. FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK Happy New Year. You will notice on the cover the new/old Board of Directors of the Historical Society and an announcement of the meeting on Saturday, March 8 (2:00 pm, Glenn Dale Community Center) on "Sons of Maryland on the United States Supreme Court." This issue begins with the continuation of a column called Meet the Meet the Board Board written by Secretary Sarah Bourne.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Flat Fare Collection System Alternative
    SCRTD METRO RAIL PROJECT Preliminary Engineering ANALYSIS OF THE FLAT FARE COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE WES 16 CAE 11 Prepared by BOOZALLEN & HAMILTON INC. January 1984 SL\(ITA . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY i CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1 CHAPTER 2: Description of Alternatives 3 2.1 Adopted Graduated-Fare Collection System 3 2.2 Alternative Flat-Fare Collection System 6 CHAPTER 3: Evaluation of Alternatives 11 3.1 Capital Cost 11 3.2 Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost 15 3.3 System Reliability and Patron Convenience 18 3.4 Administrative Requirements 21 3.5 Ridership and Revenue 22 3.6 Fare Equity 26 CHAPTER 4: Conclusions 33 . StIIVINARY This report presents an analysis of the feasibility of instituting a flat-fare collection system for the Metro Rail line. Both the adopted graduated-fare collec- tion system and the alternative flat-fare system are described. The alternatives are then evaluated in terms of capital cost; annual O&1V1 cost; system reliability; passenger convenience; administrative requirements; ridership and revenue; and fare equity. The results of the analysis indicate several important conclusions. Relative to the graduated-fare system, a flat-fare system would result in capital cost savings of 47 percent and O&M cost savings of 18 percent. The flat- fare system would also be significantly more reliable, provide greater convenience to the patron, and enjoy slightly reduced administrative requirements. Moreover, the flat-fare system produces greater revenues: $2.0 million additional Metro Rail revenues and $17.7 million additional total SCRTD (bus and rail) revenues. Counterbalancing these advantages, however, is the fact that the flat-fare system is less equitable than the graduated-fare system.
    [Show full text]
  • Baltimore Region Rail System Plan Report
    Baltimore Region Rail System Plan Report of the Advisory Committee August 2002 Advisory Committee Imagine the possibilities. In September 2001, Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari appointed 23 a system of fast, convenient and elected, civic, business, transit and community leaders from throughout the Baltimore region to reliable rail lines running throughout serve on The Baltimore Region Rail System Plan Advisory Committee. He asked them to recommend the region, connecting all of life's a Regional Rail System long-term plan and to identify priority projects to begin the Plan's implemen- important activities. tation. This report summarizes the Advisory Committee's work. Imagine being able to go just about everywhere you really need to go…on the train. 21 colleges, 18 hospitals, Co-Chairs 16 museums, 13 malls, 8 theatres, 8 parks, 2 stadiums, and one fabulous Inner Harbor. You name it, you can get there. Fast. Just imagine the possibilities of Red, Mr. John A. Agro, Jr. Ms. Anne S. Perkins Green, Blue, Yellow, Purple, and Orange – six lines, 109 Senior Vice President Former Member We can get there. Together. miles, 122 stations. One great transit system. EarthTech, Inc. Maryland House of Delegates Building a system of rail lines for the Baltimore region will be a challenge; no doubt about it. But look at Members Atlanta, Boston, and just down the parkway in Washington, D.C. They did it. So can we. Mr. Mark Behm The Honorable Mr. Joseph H. Necker, Jr., P.E. Vice President for Finance & Dean L. Johnson Vice President and Director of It won't happen overnight.
    [Show full text]
  • Senior Mobility and Accessibility Needs and Barriers Study
    Senior Mobility and Accessibility Needs and Barriers Study Draft Report June 7, 2017 Prepared for National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board Transportation/Land-Use Connections (TLC) Technical Assistance Program and the City of Greenbelt Photo credit: www.pedbikeimages.org / Laura Sandt (2009) Prepared by KFH KFH Group, Inc. Ciii•l1111 Bethesda, Maryland Senior Mobility and Accessibility Needs and Barriers Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Senior Mobility and Accessibility Needs and Barriers Study, funded through the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board Transportation/Land-Use Connections (TLC) Technical Assistance Program, brought together stakeholders in the Greenbelt community and solicited residents’ input to: Identify key areas where Greenbelt’s older adult and disabled populations are underserved, and Recommend transportation projects to best serve these populations. To accomplish this, a Needs and Barriers Assessment was conducted to identify transportation needs and barriers for older adults and people with disabilities living in Greenbelt. The assessment includes a review of demographic and land use data, outreach to the community through a survey and meetings with stakeholders in the Greenbelt community. Following these efforts, options were developed to address the needs and barriers identified. The Needs and Barriers Assessment found that the majority of older adults live in the northwest section of Greenbelt. The percent increase in population for the age 90 and over group from 2000 to 2010 is significantly
    [Show full text]
  • Howard County Transportation
    Howard County Transportation September MTB Meeting September 29, 2020 Today’s Agenda 1) Approval of Agenda for Meeting – Chairperson Schoen 2) Approval of AUGUST 25, 2020 Meeting Minutes – Chairperson Schoen 3) Public Comment – General Topics (Participants that have signed up in advance will have 3 minutes each to address the MTB) 4) Follow up on Roadway Safety Plan Comments (verbal) – David Cookson & Cindy Burch Chris Eatough 5) Approval No presentation will be provided. For review of Complete of materials please see: Streets https://www.howardcountymd.gov/Depart Engagement ments/County- Plan – Administration/Transportation/Complete- Streets/Community-Engagement Bruce Gartner MDOT CTP Statewide book – includes overview 6) MDOT CTP and capital program for all business units with the Overview and exception of MDOT-SHA County capital programs. MTA Service Link for document: Reductions http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/newMDOT/Plann ing/CTP/CTP_21_26/Draft_Documents/Entire%20 FY%2021-26%20CTP.pdf Long Term State Funding Decisions Negatively Impact Baltimore Region • Significant Transit Reductions in Baltimore Region versus limited impact to Central MD Transit Plan Washington Suburbs creates a concern about regional equity. • How will the Purple Line legal and contracting problems impact Baltimore Region? • What Can MDOT and Governor Hogan do to reallocate existing state or future federal funds to scale back some of the transit reductions being proposed in this CTP? MDOT Consolidated Transportation Program Reductions MDOT’s draft 6-year Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) for FY2021-2026. shows a $2.9 billion reduction over the last 6-year plan • While the cuts are distributed across MDOT modes, Maryland’s contribution to WMATA is 100% funded for capital and operating (as of 9-25-20) • $150 million in cuts to MTA on top of last year’s $303 million reduction to the 6-year CTP will further impact the failing transit network in the Baltimore region • Cuts to system preservation budgets for all MDOT modes has a longer term fiscal impact on our transportation network.
    [Show full text]
  • $250,000,000 Washington Suburban Sanitary District, Maryland (Montgomery and Prince George’S Counties, Maryland) Consolidated Public Improvement Bonds of 2012
    OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 5, 2012 NEW ISSUE – Book-Entry Only Fitch Ratings: AAA Moody's Investors Service: Aaa Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services: AAA See “Ratings” In the opinion of Bond Counsel, (i) under existing law, the Bonds are exempt from taxation by the State of Maryland and its counties and municipalities; no opinion is expressed as to estate or inheritance taxes or any other taxes not levied or assessed directly on the interest on the Bonds; and (ii) assuming compliance with certain covenants described herein, interest on the Bonds will be excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes under existing statutes, regulations and decisions. Interest on the Bonds for federal income tax purposes is not includable in the alternative minimum taxable income of individuals, corporations or other taxpayers as an enumerated item of tax preference or other specific adjustment; however, interest on the Bonds may be taken into account in determining “adjusted current earnings” for purposes of computing the alternative minimum tax for corporations, and interest on the Bonds will be subject to the branch profits tax imposed on foreign corporations engaged in a trade or business in the United States of America. See “TAX MATTERS.” $250,000,000 WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY DISTRICT, MARYLAND (MONTGOMERY AND PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTIES, MARYLAND) CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 2012 Dated: Date of Delivery Due: June 1, as shown on the inside front cover Interest Payment Date: June 1 and December 1, beginning June 1, 2013 Denomination: $5,000 or any integral multiples thereof Form: Registered, book-entry only through the facilities of The Depository Trust Company Optional Redemption: Bonds maturing on or after June 1, 2023 are subject to redemption prior to maturity without premium.
    [Show full text]
  • New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment
    New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment May 2011 New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment Final Report Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Department of Planning and Joint Development Office of Station Area Planning and Asset Management May 2011 Lead Agency: Consultant: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Parsons Brinckerhoff Authority Dudley Whitney, AICP, Project Manager Station Area Planning and Asset Management 1401 K Street NW Steven E. Goldin, Director Suite 701 Robin McElhenny, Manager of Station Area Planning Washington, DC 20005 John Magarelli, PE, Project Manager 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment Contents Executive Summary ES-1 Assessment of Existing Conditions ES-1 Future Bus Bay Requirements ES-3 Introduction 1 Existing Conditions 7 Station Characteristics 7 Rail Service 9 Bus Service 10 Assessment of Existing Conditions at New Carrollton Metro Station and Recommended Short-Term Improvements 15 Estimate of Future Bus Bay Requirements 25 Future Land-Use 26 Methodology 29 Bus Bay Requirements 30 Future Estimates 31 Appendix A: Calculation of Future Bus Bay Requirements 35 New Carrollton Station Future Bus Facility Needs and Short-Term Access Assessment List of Figures Figure ES-1: Passenger Queues on the East Side ES-2 Figure 1: New Carrollton Metrorail Station Surrounding Area 1 Figure 2: Overview of the New Carrollton Bus Bays 7 Figure 3: Overview
    [Show full text]
  • December 2010 Bulletin.Pub
    TheNEW YORK DIVISION BULLETIN - DECEMBER, 2010 Bulletin New York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association Vol. 53, No. 12 December, 2010 The Bulletin THIRD AVENUE’S SOUTH FERRY BRANCH Published by the New DISCONTINUED 60 YEARS AGO York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association, Third Avenue trains started running from Willets Point — 4 — 5 — Incorporated, PO Box South Ferry to Grand Central on August 26, Express 3001, New York, New 1878. At first, trains operated from 7:35 AM to Astoria Local — 8 (B) — 8 (B) — York 10008-3001. 8:00 PM leaving South Ferry. Trains operated on a 10-minute headway from 3:00 to 7:00 (A) Shuttles between Canal Street and South Ferry For general inquiries, PM and a 15-minute headway at other times. (B) Rerouted to City Hall September 18, 1939 contact us at nydiv@ Fare was 5 cents in the rush hour, 5:30-7:30 At Unification, June 12, 1940, Second Ave- erausa.org or by phone nue service was discontinued and replaced at (212) 986-4482 (voice AM and 5:00-7:00 PM, and 10 cents in non- rush hours. by midday Astoria Locals and rush hour Wil- mail available). The lets Point Expresses. The May 19, 1941 Division’s website is Second Avenue trains, which started run- www.erausa.org/ ning on March 1, 1880, did not run during the schedule provided for a 6-minute headway to nydiv.html. midnight hours. Third Avenue trains contin- Astoria. Expresses to Willets Point operated ued running to South Ferry during midnight on a 4-minute headway in the AM rush and a Editorial Staff: 5-minute headway in the evening rush.
    [Show full text]