DOCSLIB.ORG

I-70 Coalition Land Use Planning Study for Rail Transit Alignment Throughout the I-70 Corridor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I-70 Coalition Land Use Planning Study for Rail Transit Alignment Throughout the I-70 Corridor I-70 Coalition Land Use Planning Study For Rail Transit Alignment Throughout the I-70 corridor Final Report March 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................9 1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Study Process............................................................................................. 10 1.2.1 Phase 1 - Listening and Generating Ideas................................................. 10 1.2.2 Phase 2 - Develop Specifications and Strategies Phase 2 ............................ 12 1.2.3 Phase 3 - Integrating Transit and Land Use Planning.................................. 13 1.2.4 Phase 4 – Conclusion and Reporting of Findings ........................................ 14 2.0 I-70 corridor Organization and Involvement..............................................................................................15 2.1 County Working Groups ............................................................................... 15 2.2 On-going Communication ............................................................................. 15 3.0 I-70 Corridor Vision .....................................................................................................................................17 3.1 I-70 Coalition Preferred Alternative................................................................ 17 3.2 I-70 Collaborative Effort............................................................................... 18 3.3 Working Group Priorities .............................................................................. 18 3.3.1 Jefferson County .................................................................................. 18 3.3.2 Clear Creek County............................................................................... 19 3.3.3 Summit County .................................................................................... 20 3.3.4 Eagle County ....................................................................................... 20 3.3.5 Garfield County .................................................................................... 21 3.4 Preferences for Service and Freight................................................................ 21 4.0 Regional Station Locations.........................................................................................................................24 4.1 Development of Guidelines and Criteria .......................................................... 24 4.1.1 I-70 corridor Wide Criteria ..................................................................... 27 4.1.2 Regional Criteria (County Level) ............................................................. 27 4.1.3 Site-Specific Criteria ............................................................................. 28 4.2 Initial Preferences for Station Locations.......................................................... 29 4.3 Screening of Initial Station Locations ............................................................. 31 4.3.1 Web-Based Location Screening and Preferences ........................................ 32 4.3.2 Focused Siting Criteria and Screening ...................................................... 33 4.3.3 Jefferson County .................................................................................. 34 4.3.4 Clear Creek County............................................................................... 36 4.3.5 Summit County .................................................................................... 40 4.3.6 Eagle County ....................................................................................... 44 4.3.7 Garfield County .................................................................................... 48 4.4 Summary of Tier 1 Regional Station Locations ................................................. 50 5.0 Example Specifications for Tier 1 Regional Stations ...............................................................................53 5.1 Background................................................................................................ 53 5.2 Function and Features ................................................................................. 53 5.2.1 Platform .............................................................................................. 58 5.2.2 Bus Interface ....................................................................................... 62 5.2.3 Passenger Drop-off ............................................................................... 63 5.2.4 Parking ............................................................................................... 64 TOC-ii 3/4/2009 5.2.5 Bicycle Parking..................................................................................... 66 5.2.6 Ticketing ............................................................................................. 67 5.2.7 Baggage.............................................................................................. 67 5.2.8 Train Depot ......................................................................................... 68 5.2.9 Stormwater ......................................................................................... 69 5.2.10 Utilities ............................................................................................... 69 6.0 Transit-Supportive Development and Land Use Planning.......................................................................70 6.1 Transit Friendly Planning and Development Forum ........................................... 70 6.2 Best Practices ............................................................................................. 72 6.2.1 Development at Transit Stations ............................................................. 72 6.2.2 Development at Transit Stations in Mountain Communities ......................... 74 6.3 Integrating Land Use and Transit................................................................... 77 6.3.1 Land Use Review and Community Action Plans.......................................... 77 6.3.2 Jefferson County .................................................................................. 79 6.3.3 Clear Creek County............................................................................... 82 6.3.4 Summit County .................................................................................... 86 6.3.5 Eagle County ....................................................................................... 92 6.3.6 Garfield County .................................................................................... 97 6.4 Land Use Toolbox.......................................................................................100 6.4.1 Community Visioning ...........................................................................100 6.4.2 Comprehensive Planning.......................................................................100 6.4.3 Transit-Oriented Development Policies and Strategies ...............................102 6.4.4 Station Area Sub-Plans.........................................................................104 6.4.5 Zoning Strategies ................................................................................108 6.4.6 Financial Strategies..............................................................................110 7.0 Path Forward..............................................................................................................................................113 APPENDICES Appendix A: Comments and Correspondence Also included by reference and available on the I-70 Coalition website: Task 3 Technical Memorandum – Summary of Existing Studies Task 4 Technical Memorandum – Summary of Similar Projects/Best Practices Task 5 Technical Memorandum – I-70 Coalition Meetings and Develop Guidelines Task 6 Technical Memorandum – Define Project Purpose and Jurisdiction Dialog Task 7 Technical Memorandum – Review of Land Use Plans and Zoning Codes Task 8 Technical Memorandum – Station Site Identification Task 9 Technical Memorandum – Technical Specifications of a Transit Center Task 10 Technical Memorandum – Action Plans Task 12 Technical Memorandum – Land Use Toolbox LIST OF FIGURES Section Page Figure 1: I-70 Coalition Land Use Planning Study Area ................................................ 9 Figure 2: Initial Station Locations Considered ...........................................................31 TOC-iii 3/4/2009 Figure 3: County Working Group Recommended Tier 1 Regional Station Locations (Red Dots).....................................................................................................52 Figure 4: Plan View of the First Floor of an Example Tier 1 Regional Station at Copper Mountain Ski Area ...................................................................................55 Figure 5: Visual Simulation Representing an Example Tier 1 Regional Station at Copper Mountain Ski Area ...................................................................................56 Figure 6: Visual Simulation Representing an Example Tier 1 Regional Station at Copper Mountain Ski Area ...................................................................................57
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Solent Connectivity May 2020
    Solent Connectivity May 2020 Continuous Modular Strategic Planning Page | 1 Page | 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 The Solent CMSP Study ................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Scope and Geography....................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Fit with wider rail industry strategy ................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Governance and process .................................................................................................................. 12 3.0 Context and Strategic Questions ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Strategic Questions .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Economic context ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.3 Travel patterns and changes over time ............................................................................................ 18 3.4 Dual-city region aspirations and city to city connectivity ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Members and Parish/Neighbourhood Councils RAIL UPDATE
    ITEM 1 TRANSPORT COMMITTEE NEWS 07 MARCH 2000 This report may be of interest to: All Members and Parish/Neighbourhood Councils RAIL UPDATE Accountable Officer: John Inman Author: Stephen Mortimer 1. Purpose 1.1 To advise the Committee of developments relating to Milton Keynes’ rail services. 2. Summary 2.1 West Coast Main Line Modernisation and Upgrade is now in the active planning stage. It will result in faster and more frequent train services between Milton Keynes Central and London, and between Milton Keynes Central and points north. Bletchley and Wolverton will also have improved services to London. 2.2 Funding for East-West Rail is now being sought from the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA) for the western end of the line (Oxford-Bedford). Though the SSRA have permitted a bid only for a 60 m.p.h. single-track railway, excluding the Aylesbury branch and upgrade of the Marston Vale (Bedford-Bletchley) line, other Railtrack investment and possible developer contributions (yet to be investigated) may allow these elements to be included, as well as perhaps a 90 m.p.h. double- track railway. As this part of East-West Rail already exists, no form of planning permission is required; however, Transport and Works Act procedures are to be started to build the missing parts of the eastern end of the line. 2.3 New trains were introduced on the Marston Vale line, Autumn 1999. A study of the passenger accessibility of Marston Vale stations identified various desirable improvements, for which a contribution of £10,000 is required from this Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Dev-Plan.Chp:Corel VENTURA
    On Track for the 21st Century A Development Plan for the Railways of Wales and the Borders Tua’r Unfed Ganrif ar Ugain Cynllun Datblygu Rheilffyrdd Cymru a’r Gororau Railfuture Wales 2nd Edition ©September 2004 2 On Track for the 21st Century Section CONTENTS Page 1 Executive summary/ Crynodeb weithredol ......5 2 Preface to the Second Edition .............9 2.1 Some positive developments . 9 2.2 Some developments ‘in the pipeline’ . 10 2.3 Some negative developments . 10 2.4 Future needs . 10 3 Introduction ..................... 11 4 Passenger services .................. 13 4.1 Service levels . 13 4.1.1 General principles .............................13 4.1.2 Service levels for individual routes . ................13 4.2 Links between services: “The seamless journey” . 26 4.2.1 Introduction .................................26 4.2.2 Connectional policies ............................27 4.2.3 Through ticketing ..............................28 4.2.4 Interchanges .................................29 4.3 Station facilities . 30 4.4 On-train standards . 31 4.4.1 General principles .............................31 4.4.2 Better trains for Wales and the Borders . ...............32 4.5 Information for passengers . 35 4.5.1 Introduction .................................35 4.5.2 Ways in which information could be further improved ..........35 4.6 Marketing . 36 4.6.1 Introduction .................................36 4.6.2 General principles .............................36 5 Freight services .................... 38 5.1 Introduction . 38 5.2 Strategies for development . 38 6 Infrastructure ..................... 40 6.1 Introduction . 40 6.2 Resignalling . 40 6.3 New lines and additional tracks / connections . 40 6.3.1 Protection of land for rail use ........................40 6.3.2 Route by route requirements ........................41 6.3.3 New and reopened stations and mini-freight terminals ..........44 On Track for the 21st Century 3 Section CONTENTS Page 7 Political control / planning / funding of rail services 47 7.1 Problems arising from the rail industry structure .
    [Show full text]
  • Capacity Utilisation and Performance at Railway Stations
    Capacity Utilisation and Performance at Railway Stations John Armstrong a,b,1, John Preston a a Transportation Research Group, Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, Southampton Boldrewood Innovation Campus, University of Southampton Burgess Road, Southampton SO16 7QF, UK b Arup, 13 Fitzroy Street, London W1T 4BQ, UK 1 E-mail: [email protected], Phone: +44 (0) 23 8059 9575 Abstract As traffic levels increase on railways in Britain and elsewhere, improved understanding of the trade-offs between capacity provision/utilisation and service quality is increasingly important, as Infrastructure Managers and Railway Undertakings seek to maximise capacity provision without an unacceptable loss of service reliability and punctuality. This is particularly true of the stations and junctions forming the nodes of railway networks, as they tend to be the capacity bottlenecks, and the relationships between capacity utilisation and performance are less well understood for nodes than for their intermediate links. Following on from initial work undertaken for the OCCASION project on the calculation of nodal Capacity Utilisation Indices, and on the application of the techniques developed for OCCASION to the recalibration of the Capacity Charge element of the Track Access Charges on Britain’s railways, one of the objectives of the DITTO Rail Systems project is the further investigation of the relationship(s) between capacity utilisation and performance, as indicated by levels of congestion-related reactionary delay, at railway stations and junctions. Historic timetable and delay data for selected stations have been used to investigate these relationships, which take the expected form and tend to suggest lower maximum capacity utilisation levels for stations than for the links between them.
    [Show full text]
  • General Guidelines for the Design of Light Rail Transit Facilities in Edmonton
    General Guidelines for the Design of Light Rail Transit Facilities in Edmonton Robert R. Clark Retired ETS Supervisor of Special Projects 1984 2 General Guidelines for the Design of Light Rail Transit Facilities in Edmonton This report originally published in 1984 Author: Robert R. Clark, Retired ETS Supervisor of Special Projects Reformatting of this work completed in 2009 OCR and some images reproduced by Ashton Wong Scans completed by G. W. Wong In memory of my mentors: D.L.Macdonald, L.A.(Llew)Lawrence, R.A.(Herb)Mattews, Dudley B. Menzies, and Gerry Wright who made Edmonton Transit a leader in L.R.T. Table of Contents 3 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.0 The Role Of Light Rail Transit In Edmonton's Transportation System ................................................. 6 2.1 Definition and Description of L.R.T. .................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Integrating L.R.T. into the Transportation System .............................................................................. 7 2.3 Segregation of Guideway .................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Intrusion and Accessibility ................................................................................................................ 10 2.5 Segregation from Users (Safety) ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maidenhead Bridge Proposed Work
    W01-W05.Maidenhead 25/8/04 5:19 PM Page 1 W1.1 Maidenhead Bridge Proposed Work The Maidenhead Bridge over the River Thames at Maidenhead is a Grade II* listed structure. Installation of overhead electrification on top of the structure would be required. The design is being undertaken in conjunction with heritage specialists to help ensure that the impact on the structure is acceptable. Once installed, the gantries are likely to be visible on the bridge from viewpoints along the river and nearby. As an example, electrification for the Heathrow Express involved the provision of overhead electrification over Wharncliffe Viaduct in Ealing. Wharncliffe Viaduct Example of similar overhead electrification installations. Maidenhead Bridge www.crossrail.co.uk Helpdesk 0845 602 3813 Crossing the Capital Connecting the UK W01-W05.Maidenhead 25/8/04 5:19 PM Page 2 W2.1 Maidenhead Maidenhead Stabling & Turnback It is proposed that a stabling facility be provided for up I Operational noise from the use of the sidings to 6 Crossrail trains in the former goods yard to the I Dust impact on nearby buildings during west of Maidenhead station, immediately beyond the construction. Appropriate dust mitigation junction of the Bourne End Branch. techniques would be incorporated within the The proposals are to modify the track layout and train Crossrail Construction Code in order to reduce sidings at Maidenhead to enable Crossrail trains to be the risk of a dust nuisance being caused. The reversed with a new siding to be developed within the Construction Code would require the establishment existing Network Rail sidings.
    [Show full text]
  • HSL Report Template. Issue 1. Date 04/04/2002
    Harpur Hill, Buxton, SK17 9JN Telephone: 01298 218000 Facsimile: 01298 218590 E Mail: [email protected] A survey of UK tram and light railway systems relating to the wheel/rail interface FE/04/14 Project Leader: E J Hollis Author(s): E J Hollis PhD CEng MIMechE Science Group: Engineering Control DISTRIBUTION HSE/HMRI: Dr D Hoddinott Customer Project Officer/HM Railway Inspectorate Mr E Gilmurray HIDS12F Research Management LIS (9) HSL: Dr N West HSL Operations Director Dr M Stewart Head of Field Engineering Section Author PRIVACY MARKING: D Available to the public HSL report approval: Dr M Stewart Date of issue: 14 March 2006 Job number: JR 32107 Registry file: FE/05/2003/21511 (Box 433) Electronic filename: Report FE-04-14.doc © Crown Copyright (2006) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To the people listed below, and their colleagues, I would like to express my thanks for all for the help given: Blackpool Borough Council Brian Vaughan Blackpool Transport Ltd Bill Gibson Croydon Tramlink Jim Snowdon Dockland Light Railway Keith Norgrove Manchester Metrolink Steve Dale Tony Dale Mark Howard Mark Terry (now with Rail Division of Mott Macdonald) Midland Metro Des Coulson Paul Morgan Fred Roberts Andy Steel (retired) National Tram Museum David Baker Geoffrey Claydon Mike Crabtree Allan Smith Nottingham Express Transit Clive Pennington South Yorkshire Supertram Ian Milne Paul Seddon Steve Willis Tyne & Wear Metro (Nexus) Jim Davidson Peter Johnson David Walker Parsons Brinkerhoff/Permanent Way Institution Joe Brown iii Manchester Metropolitan University Simon Iwnicki Julian Snow Paul Allen Transdev Edinburgh Tram Andy Wood HM Railway Inspectorate Dudley Hoddinott Dave Keay Ian Raxton iv CONTENTS 1 Introduction.............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Overarching CP5 Enhancements Plan
    Strategic Business Plan: Definition of CP5 enhancements January 2013 Page Introduction 3 Summary 7 England & Wales CP5 enhancement programme 9 England & Wales - Committed Projects 10 England & Wales - funds to deliver specific outcomes 37 The Electric Spine 51 London and the South East 66 North East 84 London North West 94 Wales 98 Western 101 Scotland CP5 enhancement programme 112 Scotland - Committed Projects 113 Scotland - Funds to deliver specific outcomes 120 Scotland - Other Scottish projects 128 Page 3 Introduction This document provides more detail of the enhancements proposed for Control Period 5 as summarised in Network Rail’s Strategic Business Plan (SBP). Projects within this document are grouped into a number of categories: “Committed” Projects – These are projects that the England & Wales, and Scottish governments committed to providing funding for ahead of publishing their High Level Output Specifications. Funds to Deliver Specific Outcomes – Experience of using funds in CP4 has demonstrated the value of such an approach giving the industry flexibility to determine the most cost effective way to deliver outputs. The Electric Spine - A major north-south rail electrification and capability enhancement, increasing regional and national connectivity and supporting economic development by creating a high-capability 25kV electrified passenger and freight route from the South Coast via Oxford and the Midlands to South Yorkshire. Other projects (those projects “named” in the High Level Output Specifications and projects required
    [Show full text]
  • Making Meaningful Connections Consultation Technical Report Chapters 8 – 12
    Making Meaningful Connections Consultation Technical Report Chapters 8 – 12 East West Rail Consultation: 31 March – 9 June 2021 This document contains the full Consultation Technical Report, without the Appendices. To access the Appendices, please visit www.eastwestrail.co.uk 01. Introduction 18 - 26 1.1. Chapter Summary 18 1.2. East West Rail 19 1.3. The Project 19 1.4. Consultation 23 1.5. Technical Report 26 02. The Case for East West Rail 27 - 31 2.1. Chapter Summary 27 2.2. The overall case for East West Rail 28 2.3. Benefits of railways over road improvements 31 03. Project Objectives 32 - 42 3.1. Chapter Summary 32 3.2. Introduction 33 3.3. Safety 34 3.4. Environment 34 3.5. EWR Services 34 3.6. Connectivity 36 3.7. Customer Experience and Stations 37 3.8. Powering EWR Services 38 3.9. Freight on EWR 38 3.10. Depots and Stabling 38 3.11. Telecommunications 42 04. Additional Works and Construction 43 - 52 4.1. Chapter Summary 43 4.2. Additional Works 43 4.3. Construction 45 05. Approach to Developing the Designs 53 - 67 5.1. Chapter Summary 53 5.2. Assessment Factors 54 5.3. Developing Designs in Project Sections A and B: 58 Identifying the need for upgrade works (Oxford to Bedford) 5.4. Developing Designs in Project Sections C, D and E: 58 New railway development from Bedford to Cambridge 06. Project Section A: Oxford to Bicester 68 - 99 6.1. Chapter Summary 69 6.2. Oxford Area 70 6.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial West Area Information
    5393_W01.R3.1_Maidenhead 01/02/05 18:38 Page 1 W1.R3.1 Maidenhead Bridge The Maidenhead Bridge over the River As an example, electrification for the Thames at Maidenhead is a Grade II* listed Heathrow Express involved the provision structure. Overhead electrification on top of of overhead electrification over Wharncliffe the structure will be installed. The design is Viaduct in Ealing. being undertaken with advice from heritage specialists to help ensure that the impact on the structure is acceptable. Once installed, the gantries would be visible on the bridge from viewpoints along the river and nearby. Wharncliffe Viaduct at present Example of similar overhead electrification installations. Maidenhead Bridge at present Crossing the Capital Helpdesk 0845 602 3813 Email: [email protected] Connecting the UK 24 hours a day, 7 days a week www.crossrail.co.uk 5393_W02.R3.1_Maidenhead 01/02/05 18:39 Page 1 W2.R3.1 Maidenhead Maidenhead Stabling & Turnback A stabling facility will be provided for 6 The likely environmental effects of the Crossrail trains in the former goods yard west proposals will be: of Maidenhead station, immediately beyond ■ Operational noise from the use of the sidings the junction of the Bourne End Branch. ■ Lighting of the stabling area. (This will be Six tracks will be laid out as single sidings. designed to control light pollution into the Between alternate tracks, a platform will be sky or toward adjacent buildings in provided to allow access to the trains for accordance with best practice) drivers and other staff. The eastbound Relief line track will be realigned northwards (and re-routed through platform 5 at Maidenhead station).
    [Show full text]
  • Little Prethrick by Nick Wood
    THE HOME OF GARDEN RAILWAYS G SCALE SOCIETY JournalVOL 33 NO 2 | SUMMER 2019 | £4.50 Little Prethrick By Nick Wood SAMPLE COPY Inside l The Show Plan l More on the Harz l 25 Years of Whiteleaf PAGE 19 PAGEG Scale 24 Society Summer 2019 1 SAMPLE COPY Welcome to the Summer edition of The G Scale Journal. From the footplate By the Editor Contents MAIN FEATURES Gerry Pedder has assembled a good selection of exhibitors and Patricia Harz Surprises 6 Moore has got a good selection of Problem at Maple Cross 10 traders, this promises to be a good show well worth travelling to. We have Meccano Train 13 booked an extra carpark and this year Ochitildhu 17 there is no other event in the next hall. Scotlands railway show piece 19 Sadly this may be the last show for a while as no one has answered our call The Lohr and Gartenhaus Bahn 24 for an organiser. My Favourite Loco 34 Once again thanks for the many and varied articles sent in, Its good to see Rollbocken 40 that some of our articles have inspired Rewiring my favourite loco 56 people to send in follow up articles. Wenlock’s Workshop 62 I’m having a table at the show and look forward to meeting some of The Story of Whiteleaf 66 you and would welcome comments his issue includes the Society on what you would like to see in the REGULAR Annual Report and details of Journal and anything that you don’t Committee reports 4 the AGM which will be at the want to see.
    [Show full text]
  • Documented 8/15/2016 Total News Articles 112 Total Engagements
    Documented 8/15/2016 Total News Articles 112 Total Engagements 18860 Total Surveys Taken 15569 Total Comments Collected 3291 Survey Responses Collected Total Surveys 15569 "Decide Your Ride" Metroquest Survey 9386 "Transit Attitudes" Survey 298 "Trade-offs" Survey 1702 "1-Minute Values" Survey 2415 "Values: Phase 2" Survey 1050 Regional Outreach Survey 630 Senior Outreach Survey 42 Spanish Outreach Survey 46 Comment Source Comments Collected Total Comments 3291 nMotion Public Meeting Comments 481 nMotion Website Comments 570 nMotion Social Media Comments 1550 News Outlet Comments 690 Outlet Date News Story The Tennessean 2-May-15 Move Nashville area transit debate forward The Tennessean 3-May-15 Nashville can learn from Salt Lake's transit success The Tennessean 4-May-15 Nashville's real-time bus app coming this year The Tennessean 1-Jun-15 Make Nashville traffic smarter, save commuters time The Tennessean 5-Jun-15 Nashville region must plan for future mobility needs The Tennessean 10-Jun-15 Nashville’s MTA youth ridership up 11 percent The Tennessean 13-Jun-15 Regional transit solutions topic of 10-county summit The Tennessean 14-Jun-15 Nashville council majority to mayor: Your term is over The Tennessean 18-Jun-15 Without better roads in Nashville, transit options will fail The Tennessean 19-Jun-15 Transportation leaders: If plan is right, funds follow Brentwood Home Page 19-Jun-15 Mayor Anderson plans Williamson transit summit How to fix Nashville’s traffic problems, transportation pro Nashville Business Journal 19-Jun-15 offers his tips Gov. Haslam says proceeds from raising Tenn. gas tax would WATE 26-Jun-15 also go toward funding transit projects Nashville Business Journal 2-Jul-15 Contain your rage: Here's how bad Nashville's traffic bites Nashville Business Journal 3-Jul-15 Rush hour: It’s even worse than you think Nashville Post 10-Jul-15 MTA poll yields ..
    [Show full text]