DOCSLIB.ORG

Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis FINAL REPORT July 2008 Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis July, 2008 Special Acknowledgments to the Project Steering Committee Salt Lake City D.J. Baxter Janneke House Kevin Young, P.E. Russell Weeks Mack McDonald South Salt Lake City Jim Davis Larry Gardner Dennis Pay P.E. Dave Carlson Utah Department of Transportation Richard Manser, P.E. Utah Transit Authority G.J. LaBonty Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... ES 1. PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ...............................................................................1 1.1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT.......................................................................................................................1 1.2. PUBLIC PROCESS...........................................................................................................................................1 2. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS.....................................................................................5 2.1. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS.....................................................................................................5 2.2. LAND USE AND FUTURE PROJECTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................................................6 2.3. TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION...........................................................................................................................8 2.4. TRANSIT ROUTES AND USAGE ....................................................................................................................11 2.5. NON-MOTORIZED TRAVEL ..........................................................................................................................11 2.6. TRAVEL DEMAND .......................................................................................................................................12 3. PURPOSE AND NEED AND MARKET OBJECTIVES ................................................................15 3.1. PURPOSE AND NEED....................................................................................................................................15 3.2. MARKET OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................16 4. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................18 4.1. PROCESS .....................................................................................................................................................18 4.2. FIRST LEVEL SCREENING - UNIVERSE TO LONG LIST ALTERNATIVES.........................................................18 4.3. LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................20 4.4. SECOND LEVEL SCREENING - LONG LIST TO SHORT LIST OF ALTERNATIVES .............................................21 5. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................24 5.1. SHORT LIST ALTERNATIVES DETAILED DESCRIPTION ................................................................................24 5.2. THIRD LEVEL SCREENING CRITERIA ...........................................................................................................30 5.3. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION OF A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) ..........31 6. THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..............................................................................34 6.1. DETAILED DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................34 6.2. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON TRAFFIC.................................................................................38 6.3. FUNDING OPTIONS ......................................................................................................................................40 6.4. ADDITIONAL STUDY NECESSARY ...............................................................................................................41 APPENDIX TOC-1 FIGURES FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA.............................................................................................................................4 FIGURE 2: FUTURE LAND USE INCLUDING FUTURE ACTIVITY CENTERS....................................................7 FIGURE 3: EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS......................................................................10 FIGURE 4: EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND .............................................................................14 FIGURE 5: SHORT LIST ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................................................29 FIGURE 6: THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE................................................................................35 FIGURE 7: ILLUSTRATIVE CROSS SECTIONS ............................................................................................37 FIGURE 8: TERMINI OPTIONS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION. ...............................................................43 TABLES TABLE 2.1 STUDY AREA POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS AND EMPLOYMENT ..............................................5 TABLE 2.2 2007 P.M. PEAK HOUR LOS AND DELAY ..................................................................................9 TABLE 2.3 2030 P.M. PEAK HOUR LOS AND DELAY ..................................................................................9 TABLE 4.1 LEVEL 1 SCREENING RESULTS..................................................................................................19 TABLE 4.2 LEVEL 2 SCREENING RESULTS..................................................................................................23 TABLE 5.1 COMPARISON OF RAIL VEHICLES..........................................................................................27 TABLE 5.2 SHORT LIST ALTERNATIVES – GENERAL DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY ...................28 TABLE 5.3 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR SCREENING CATEGORIES................................................................32 TABLE 5.4 AGGREGATE SCORE AND RANKING OF SHORT LIST ALTERNATIVES....................................32 TABLE 6.1 2007 CONDITIONS + STREETCAR PM PEAK HOUR LOS AND DELAY .....................................39 TABLE 6.2 2007 CONDITIONS + STREETCAR + PEDESTRIAN CROSSING P.M. PEAK HOUR LOS AND DELAY ..............................................................................................................................................39 TOC-2 Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis Executive Summary Project Background Salt Lake City and the City of South Salt Lake, in cooperation with Utah Transit Authority (UTA), are considering extending a higher-frequency, higher-capacity transit service along an east-west corridor that extends from the Central Pointe TRAX Station at approximately 200 West and 2100 South to approximately 1100 East, and between 1700 South and 2700 South. Through a joint selection by UTA and the cities, the consultant firm of Fehr & Peers, along with LTK, was chosen to conduct the study. The study scope was broad and considered many possible modes and alignments through a comprehensive alternatives analysis process. Included among the alignments within the study area that were considered was an existing rail right- of-way. UTA currently owns this rail right-of-way at approximately 2300 South. This rail corridor is no longer actively used for freight and is considered for a potential fixed-guideway transit solution in this analysis. Purpose and Need for the Project The purpose established for this project includes: reducing automobile congestion on 2100 South, providing multi-modal travel choices, providing access to a regional fixed guideway transit network, supporting community and economic redevelopment, and the enhancement and support of community goals for growth in the area. The project will increase mobility for shorter trips as well as provide a connection to the larger regional transportation system. In addition, this project will preserve the cultural identity within the Sugar House area of Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake. The project will enhance the unique community identity with a transportation improvement that is pedestrian friendly and compatible with the traditional character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The need for this project is to increase local and regional mobility and reduce automobile congestion in the corridor through the year 2030. The project will increase multi-modal trip options and reduce automobile travel, thereby decreasing congestion and pollution. In addition to the purpose and need, the local communities jointly agreed to the following outline of specific characteristics of the selected transit technology including: • Slow speeds • Frequent stops • Accommodates an urban linear park (trail) • Safe and standardized pedestrian crossings • Broad local support • Varied funding options • Promotes transit to transit connections Public Outreach Almost one third of the effort in this study involved public outreach and education. Through a series of community groups, one on one interviews, and visits with the public at large, the communities built their own goals
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Light Rail Transit (LRT)
    Transit Strategies Light Rail Transit (LRT) Light rail transit (LRT) is electrified rail service that operates in urban environments in completely exclusive rights‐of‐way, in exclusive lanes on roadways, and in some cases in mixed traffic. Most often, it uses one to three car trains and serves high volume corridors at higher speeds than local bus and streetcar service. Design and operational elements of LRT include level boarding, off‐board fare payment, and traffic signal priority. Stations are typically spaced farther apart than those of local transit services and are usually situated where there are higher population and employment densities. MAX Light Rail (Portland, OR) The T Light Rail (Pittsburgh, PA) Characteristics of LRT Service LRT is popular with passengers for a number of reasons, the most important of which are that service is fast, frequent, direct, and operates from early morning to late night. These attributes make service more convenient—much more convenient than regular bus service—and more competitive with travel by automobile. Characteristics of LRT service include: . Frequent service, typically every 10 minutes or better . Long spans of service, often 18 hours a day or more . Direct service along major corridors . Fast service Keys reasons that service is fast are the use of exclusive rights‐of‐way—exclusive lanes in the medians of roadways, in former rail rights‐of‐way, and in subways—and that stations are spaced further apart than with bus service, typically every half mile (although stations are often spaced more closely within downtown areas). Rhode Island Transit Master Plan | 1 Differences between LRT and Streetcar Light rail and streetcar service are often confused, largely because they share many similarities.
    [Show full text]
  • Metrorail/Coconut Grove Connection Study Phase II Technical
    METRORAILICOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 & TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT Technical Memorandum Number 3 Prepared for Prepared by IIStB Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 METRORAIUCOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 Prepared for Prepared by BS'R Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY DESCRiPTION ........................................................................................ 1 3.0 TRANSIT MODES DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 4 3.1 ENHANCED BUS SERViCES ................................................................... 4 3.2 BUS RAPID TRANSIT .............................................................................. 5 3.3 TROLLEY BUS SERVICES ...................................................................... 6 3.4 SUSPENDED/CABLEWAY TRANSIT ...................................................... 7 3.5 AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSiT ....................................................... 7 3.6 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT .............................................................................. 8 3.7 HEAVY RAIL ............................................................................................. 8 3.8 MONORAIL
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit
    Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) Performance Characteristics Stations Mixed Traffic Lanes* Service Characteristics Newest Corridor End‐to‐End Travel Departures Every 'X' Travel Speed (MPH) City Corridor Segment Open length (mi) # Spacing (mi) Miles % Time Minutes BRT Systems Boston Silver Line Washington Street ‐ SL5 2002 2.40 13 0.18 1.03 42.93% 19 7 7.58 Oakland San Pablo Rapid ‐ 72R 2003 14.79 52 0.28 14.79 100.00% 60 12 14.79 Albuquerque The Red Line (766) 2004 11.00 17 0.65 10.32 93.79% 44 18 15.00 Kansas City Main Street ‐ MAX "Orange Line" 2005 8.95 22 0.41 4.29 47.92% 40 10 13.42 Eugene Green Line 2007 3.98 10 0.40 1.59 40.00% 29 10 8.23 New York Bx12 SBS (Fordham Road ‐ Pelham Pkwy) 2008 9.00 18 0.50 5.20 57.73% 52 3 10.38 Cleveland HealthLine 2008 6.80 39 0.17 2.33 34.19% 38 8 10.74 Snohomish County Swift BRT ‐ Blue Line 2009 16.72 31 0.54 6.77 40.52% 43 12 23.33 Eugene Gateway Line 2011 7.76 14 0.55 2.59 33.33% 29 10 16.05 Kansas City Troost Avenue ‐ "Green Line" 2011 12.93 22 0.59 12.93 100.00% 50 10 15.51 New York M34 SBS (34th Street) 2011 2.00 13 0.15 2.00 100.00% 23 9 5.22 Stockton Route #44 ‐ Airport Corridor 2011 5.50 8 0.69 5.50 100.00% 23 20 14.35 Stockton Route #43 ‐ Hammer Corridor 2012 5.30 14 0.38 5.30 100.00% 28 12 11.35 Alexandria ‐ Arlington Metroway 2014 6.80 15 0.45 6.12 89.95% 24 12 17.00 Fort Collins Mason Corridor 2014 4.97 12 0.41 1.99 40.00% 24 10 12.43 San Bernardino sbX ‐ "Green Line" 2014 15.70 16 0.98 9.86 62.79% 56 10 16.82 Minneapolis A Line 2016 9.90 20 0.50 9.90 100.00% 28 10 21.21 Minneapolis Red Line 2013 13.00 5 2.60 2.00 15.38% 55 15 14.18 Chapel Hill N‐S Corridor Proposed 8.20 16 0.51 1.34 16.34% 30 7.5 16.40 LRT Systems St.
    [Show full text]
  • Director of Capital Development $146,000 - $160,000 Annually
    UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY Director of Capital Development $146,000 - $160,000 annually Utah Transit Authority provides integrated mobility solutions to service life’s connection, improve public health and enhance quality of life. • Central Corridor improvements: Expansion of the Utah Valley Express (UVX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line to Salt Lake City; addition of a Davis County to Salt Lake City BRT line; construction of a BRT line in Ogden; and the pursuit of world class transit-oriented developments at the Point of the Mountain during the repurposing of 600 acres of the Utah State Prison after its future relocation. To learn more go to: rideuta.com VISION Provide an integrated system of innovative, accessible and efficient public transportation services that increase access to opportunities and contribute to a healthy environment for the people of the Wasatch region. THE POSITION The Director of Capital Development plays a critical ABOUT UTA role in getting things done at Utah Transit Authority UTA was founded on March 3, 1970 after residents from (UTA). This is a senior-level position reporting to the Salt Lake City and the surrounding communities of Chief Service Development Officer and is responsible Murray, Midvale, Sandy, and Bingham voted to form a for cultivating projects that improve the connectivity, public transit district. For the next 30 years, UTA provided frequency, reliability, and quality of UTA’s transit residents in the Wasatch Front with transportation in the offerings. This person oversees and manages corridor form of bus service. During this time, UTA also expanded and facility projects through environmental analysis, its operations to include express bus routes, paratransit grant funding, and design processes, then consults with service, and carpool and vanpool programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Borough of Ambler, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
    Transit Revitalization Investment District Study Borough of Ambler Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Carter van Dyke Associates Doylestown, PA Urban Partners Philadelphia, PA Taylor Wiseman Taylor Chalfont, PA Orth-Rodgers & Associates, Inc. Newtown Square, PA February 2012 2 BOROUGH OF AMBLER Contents Executive Summary . .4 Housing conditions . .24 Introduction . .5 Summary of development potential . .25 Why go through this process? . .6 Rental housing market potential . .25 What is a TRID? . .6 Office development potential . .25 Transit-oriented development (TOD) . .7 Entertainment development potential . .25 The general TRID planning process . .7 Retail development opportunities . .25 Planning Phase . .7 Recommendations . .27 Program Management Phase . .7 Planning goals . .27 Implementation Phase . .8 General recommendations for The TRID in Ambler . .8 TRID study area . .28 TRID benefits in Ambler . .8 Streetscape amenities and pedestrian and The TRID Process in Ambler . .8 bicycle access . 28 Ambler’s TRID boundaries . .9 Transit . .28 Parking . .29 Existing Conditions . .11 Zoning and design guidelines for Site description and history . .11 new development . .30 Regulatory issues . .12 Site-specific redevelopment strategies . .32 Community facilities & infrastructure . .12 SEPTA Parking Lot at Main Street and Butler . .32 Existing land use . .12 North Maple Street . .34 Zoning . .12 South Maple adjacent to the Train Station . .34 Environmental issues . .14 Post Office West End Square Site . .36 Natural resources . .14 Northwest Gateway . .36 Threatened and endangered species . .16 Cavalier Parking Lot . .37 Historic resources . .16 Plaza . .37 Environmental impacts and land use suitabilities . .17 Streetscape Expansion . .37 Transportation and circulation . .19 Summary of Findings . .38 Public transportation . .19 TRID improvement infrastructure phasing . .38 Traffic and roadways .
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Year in Review from the General Manger
    2010 Year in Review From the General Manger UTA marked its 40th anniversary in 2010. I am honored to have been part of UTA for more than 30 of those years. I remember when we were a small, 67-bus operation with one garage. Now we are a vibrant, multimodal transit system serving six counties with 118 bus routes, 20 miles of TRAX light rail lines and 44 miles of FrontRunner commuter rail. Despite the current economic challenges, I have never been more excited about our future. We're working hard to place a major transit stop within reach of every resident in the counties we serve. We are even closer to that goal with the FrontLines 2015 program, which will add 25 miles of light rail in Salt Lake County and 45 miles of FrontRunner commuter rail in Salt Lake and Utah counties. In 2010 we completed more than half of the FrontLines 2015 program and announced the openings of the Mid-Jordan and West Valley TRAX lines for summer 2011. We're on track to complete the rest of the lines in this massive project by 2015, as promised. None of these major projects would be possible without the support of community members along the Wasatch Front. So as we celebrate 40 years of service, remember our best years are yet to come. Warm Regards, Michael Allegra General Manager Utah Transit Authority 2010 Progress Frontlines 2015 Progress in 2010 FrontLines 2015 Progress UTA has been busy constructing the largest transit Line Percent Complete project in its history—the $2.8 billion FrontLines 2015 FrontRunner South 74 project—making significant progress in 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • 720 Light Rail Time Schedule & Line Route
    720 light rail time schedule & line map To Central Pointe View In Website Mode The 720 light rail line (To Central Pointe) has 2 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) To Central Pointe: 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM (2) To Fairmont: 5:12 AM - 11:27 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest 720 light rail station near you and ƒnd out when is the next 720 light rail arriving. Direction: To Central Pointe 720 light rail Time Schedule 7 stops To Central Pointe Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday 6:17 AM - 8:17 PM Monday 6:17 AM - 11:47 PM Fairmont Station 2206 S Mcclelland St, Salt Lake City Tuesday 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM Sugarmont Station Wednesday 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM 2201 S 900 E, Salt Lake City Thursday 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM 700 East Station Friday 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM 2200 S 700 E, Salt Lake City Saturday 6:17 AM - 11:47 PM 500 East Station 2229 S 440 E, Salt Lake City 300 East Station 2233 S 300 E, Salt Lake City 720 light rail Info Direction: To Central Pointe South Salt Lake City Station Stops: 7 55 E Central Point Pl, South Salt Lake Trip Duration: 9 min Line Summary: Fairmont Station, Sugarmont Central Pointe Station Station, 700 East Station, 500 East Station, 300 East 2212 S West Temple St, South Salt Lake Station, South Salt Lake City Station, Central Pointe Station Direction: To Fairmont 720 light rail Time Schedule 7 stops To Fairmont Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday 6:02 AM - 8:02 PM Monday 6:02 AM - 11:32 PM Central Pointe Station 2212 S West Temple St, South Salt Lake Tuesday 5:12 AM - 11:27 PM South Salt
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 in Review.Cdr
    2011 Year in Review From the General Manger The past year has been momentous for the Utah Transit Authority. With a dedicated and talented team and strong community participation, we marked a year of progress and transformation. We simultaneously opened two new light rail lines ahead of schedule and under budget in August, while increasing system-wide ridership to more than 41 million trips—a six percent increase relative to the previous year. In conjunction with the new TRAX openings, we modified bus services. Community input played a critical role as we planned our bus service transitions. As we plan for the future, the public remains the richest resource for research and needs analyses. We will continue to invite public participation as we prepare the openings of our newest FrontLines 2015 projects. This past year we also renewed our pledge to keep safety our highest priority, as we will every year. We work hard to plan and engineer the safest possible transportation systems. To supplement our engineering, we will continue to do our utmost to educate and enforce measures designed to keep our riders and the public safe. It remains our number-one priority. For example, working with the international organization Operation Lifesaver, UTA team members will be seen throughout our service areas at schools, businesses and community groups talking about how to be safe around trains. We will remember 2011 as an incredible year. With hard work and continued community support, 2012 will be just as transformative and memorable. Michael Allegra General Manager Utah Transit Authority FrontLines 2015 Progress Frontlines 2015 Progress in 2011 UTA continues to make substantial progress on the $2.8 billion FrontLines 2015 project.
    [Show full text]
  • Light Rail Transit (LRT) ♦Rapid ♦Streetcar
    Methodological Considerations in Assessing the Urban Economic and Land-Use Impacts of Light Rail Development Lyndon Henry Transportation Planning Consultant Mobility Planning Associates Austin, Texas Olivia Schneider Researcher Light Rail Now Rochester, New York David Dobbs Publisher Light Rail Now Austin, Texas Evidence-Based Consensus: Major Transit Investment Does Influence Economic Development … … But by how much? How to evaluate it? (No easy answer) Screenshot of Phoenix Business Journal headline: L. Henry Study Focus: Three Typical Major Urban Transit Modes ■ Light Rail Transit (LRT) ♦Rapid ♦Streetcar ■ Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Why Include BRT? • Particularly helps illustrate methodological issues • Widespread publicity of assertions promoting BRT has generated national and international interest in transit-related economic development issues Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) Widely publicized assertion: “Per dollar of transit investment, and under similar conditions, Bus Rapid Transit leverages more transit-oriented development investment than Light Rail Transit or streetcars.” Key Issues in Evaluating Transit Project’s Economic Impact • Was transit project a catalyst to economic development or just an adjunctive amenity? • Other salient factors involved in stimulating economic development? • Evaluated by analyzing preponderance of civic consensus and other contextual factors Data Sources: Economic Impacts • Formal studies • Tallies/assessments by civic groups, business associations, news media, etc. • Reliability
    [Show full text]
  • The Bulletin the MILEPOSTS of THE
    ERA BULLETIN — JANUARY, 2017 The Bulletin Electric Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated Vol. 60, No. 1 January, 2017 The Bulletin THE MILEPOSTS OF THE Published by the Electric NEW YORK SUBWAY SYSTEM Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box by ERIC R. OSZUSTOWICZ 3323, New York, New York 10163-3323. Many of us are familiar with the chaining three former divisions (plus the Flushing and system for the tracks of the New York sub- Canarsie Lines) had one zero point. Most of For general inquiries, or way system. Each track on the system has a these signs have been removed due to vari- Bulletin submissions, marker every 50 feet based on a “zero point” ous construction projects over the years and contact us at bulletin@ for that particular track. For example, the ze- were never replaced. Their original purpose erausa.org. ERA’s ro point for the BMT Broadway Subway is is unknown, but shortly after their installation, website is just north of 57th Street-Seventh Avenue. The they quickly fell into disuse. www.erausa.org. southbound local track is Track A1. 500 feet Over the years, I have been recording and Editorial Staff: south of the zero point, the marker is photographing the locations of the remaining Editor-in-Chief: A1/5+00. One hundred fifty feet further south, mileposts before they all disappear com- Bernard Linder the marker is A1/6+50. If you follow the line pletely. These locations were placed on a Tri-State News and all the way to 14th Street-Union Square, one spreadsheet. Using track schematics show- Commuter Rail Editor: Ronald Yee will find a marker reading A1/120+00 within ing exact distances, I was able to deduce the North American and World the station.
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Location Database Technical Documentation and User Guide
    SMART LOCATION DATABASE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION AND USER GUIDE Version 3.0 Updated: June 2021 Authors: Jim Chapman, MSCE, Managing Principal, Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. (UD4H) Eric H. Fox, MScP, Senior Planner, UD4H William Bachman, Ph.D., Senior Analyst, UD4H Lawrence D. Frank, Ph.D., President, UD4H John Thomas, Ph.D., U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization Alexis Rourk Reyes, MSCRP, U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization About This Report The Smart Location Database is a publicly available data product and service provided by the U.S. EPA Smart Growth Program. This version 3.0 documentation builds on, and updates where needed, the version 2.0 document.1 Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. updated this guide for the project called Updating the EPA GSA Smart Location Database. Acknowledgements Urban Design 4 Health was contracted by the U.S. EPA with support from the General Services Administration’s Center for Urban Development to update the Smart Location Database and this User Guide. As the Project Manager for this study, Jim Chapman supervised the data development and authored this updated user guide. Mr. Eric Fox and Dr. William Bachman led all data acquisition, geoprocessing, and spatial analyses undertaken in the development of version 3.0 of the Smart Location Database and co- authored the user guide through substantive contributions to the methods and information provided. Dr. Larry Frank provided data development input and reviewed the report providing critical input and feedback. The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance, review, and support provided by: • Ruth Kroeger, U.S. General Services Administration • Frank Giblin, U.S.
    [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]