DOCSLIB.ORG

Financial Analyses Included Herein Present the Operating Revenues and Expenses Only for Those Properties Governed by the State Lease Agreements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Financial Analyses Included Herein Present the Operating Revenues and Expenses Only for Those Properties Governed by the State Lease Agreements SSSeeewwwaaarrrddd aaannnddd Monde CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS RAIL GOVERNANCE STUDY Task 4.3 – Financial Review Connecticut Department of Transportation Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 1 - 3 OVERVIEW OF ALL STATIONS ............... ............... ......................... ............... 4 - 8 STATION COMPARISON ANALYSIS Five Year Totals ............... ............... ......................... ............... 9 Year end June 30, 1996 ............... ............... ......................... ............... 10 Year end June 30, 1997 ............... ............... ......................... ............... 11 Year end June 30, 1998 ............... ............... ......................... ............... 12 Year end June 30, 1999 ............... ............... ......................... ............... 13 Year end June 30, 2000 ............... ............... ......................... ............... 14 STATIONS - NEW HAVEN LINE Main Line New Haven Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 15 - 19 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 20 - 22 Milford Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 23 - 25 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 26 - 28 Stratford Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 29 - 31 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 32 - 34 Fairfield & Southport Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 35 - 39 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 40 - 42 Westport & Green's Farms Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 43 - 46 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 47 - 49 East Norwalk Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 50 - 52 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 53 - 55 South Norwalk Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 56 - 57 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 58 - 60 Rowayton Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 61 - 63 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 64 - 66 Darien & Noroton Heights Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 67 - 69 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 70 - 72 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Connecticut Department of Transportation Old Greenwich / Riverside / Cos Cob Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 73 - 75 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 76 - 78 Greenwich Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 79 - 80 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 81 - 83 New Canaan Branch New Canaan & Talmadge Hill Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 84 - 86 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 87 - 89 Glenbrook & Springdale Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 90 - 91 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 92 - 94 Danbury Branch Danbury Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 95 - 97 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 98 - 100 Bethel Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 101 - 103 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 104 - 106 Redding Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 107 - 109 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 110 - 112 Branchville Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 113 - 114 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 115 - 117 Cannondale Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 118 - 119 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 120 - 122 Wilton Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 123 - 124 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 125 - 127 Merritt 7 Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 128 - 129 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 130 - 132 Waterbury Branch Waterbury Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 133 - 134 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 135 - 137 Naugatuck Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 138 - 139 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 140 - 142 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Connecticut Department of Transportation Beacon Falls Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 143 - 144 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 145 - 147 Seymour Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 148 - 149 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 150 - 152 Ansonia Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 153 - 154 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 155 - 157 Derby Finances ........... ............... ............... ......................... ............... 158 - 159 Station and Parking Operations Profit (Loss) - 1996--2000 ............... 160 - 162 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Connecticut Department of Transportation INTRODUCTION In connection with Task 4.3 – Financial Review of the Rail Governance Study, a consulting engagement was performed to determine the cost of operating the station buildings and parking facilities and the revenues generated for the properties located along the New Haven, New Canaan, Danbury and Waterbury railroad commuter lines. The Stamford and Bridgeport railroad stations and parking operations have been excluded from this task. As the result of this engagement, financial information is presented in this report for comparing costs between these railroad properties. The financial information was gathered to present the following items for each station for the five fiscal years ending June 30, 1996 to 2000: The source and adequacy of revenue at each station, The type of expenses at each station, The accounting systems and procedures, and A written financial analysis overview. The information was also used to present: A comparisons of costs and revenues between the properties along the commuter lines, A financial comparative summary total of the five-years and A written summary overview. The financial information presented herein was provided by the various reporting entities who are responsible for maintaining and operating the properties under the governance of a lease agreement with the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation (the State). The financial information as reported by the entities is presented here in a format for comparative and analytic purposes. This study did not include an audit or application of auditing procedures to the financial information presented. A standard reporting format and standard classifications were used for comparative purposes. As a result, certain stations and parking finances show zero amounts for certain standard classifications while other stations show financial activity for the same classification. There are certain properties used for railroad parking operations that are not subject to a lease agreement with the State. This fact is noted in this presentation when applicable. The financial comparison is presented in summary form and separately for each station or group of stations under a common lease. The detailed classification of revenues and expenses, and presentation of statistical measures (square footage, spaces, etc.) are not generally required to be reported by or are they readily complied by the local governments. The general absence of detailed financial classifications of data has precluded the calculation herein of financial ratios based on detailed statistical measures. Connecticut Department of Transportation 1 An explanatory narrative is included for each property. The narrative is an overview that addresses the following financial topics and includes comments and other topics as deemed necessary: Accounting Entity And Basis Of Accounting Financial Reporting Revenues Expenses Expense Allocation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transit Oriented Development Final Report | September 2010
    FTA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DANBURY BRANCH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2010 In Cooperation with U.S. Department CONNECTICUT South Western Regional Planning Agency of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF Federal Transit TRANSPORTATION Administration FTA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DANBURY BRANCH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2010 In Cooperation with U.S. Department CONNECTICUT South Western Regional Planning Agency of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF Federal Transit TRANSPORTATION Administration Abstract This report presents an evaluation of transit-oriented development (TOD) opportunities within the Danbury Branch study corridor as a component of the Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis/ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FTA AA/DEIS) prepared for the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT). This report is intended as a tool for municipalities to use as they move forward with their TOD efforts. The report identifies the range of TOD opportunities at station areas within the corridor that could result from improvements to the Danbury Branch. By also providing information regarding FTA guidelines and TOD best practices, this report serves as a reference and a guide for future TOD efforts in the Danbury Branch study corridor. Specifically, this report presents a definition of TOD and the elements of TOD that are relevant to the Danbury Branch. It also presents a summary of FTA Guidance regarding TOD and includes case studies of FTA-funded projects that have been rated with respect to their livability, land use, and economic development components. Additionally, the report examines commuter rail projects both in and out of Connecticut that are considered to have applications that may be relevant to the Danbury Branch.
    [Show full text]
  • Danbury Branch Improvement Program Task 5
    W FTA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DANBURY BRANCH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TASK 5 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM STATE PROJECT 302-008 SECTION 18: VISUAL RESOURCES MAY 2009 State Project No. 302-008 Connecticut Department of Transportation Danbury Branch Improvement Program AA/DEIS SECTION 18. VISUAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section describes the visual resources in the study corridor. Visual resources contribute greatly to environmental quality, shaping the views and aesthetic experiences of people’s daily lives. Visual resources include natural landscape elements as well as features of the built environment. The quality of the visual experience depends on many factors, including the physical attributes of objects, the combination of objects and features in view, the location of visual elements in relation to the viewer, the condition of the elements, their uniqueness, viewer perceptions, and cultural connotations, among many others. Descriptions of landscape characteristics and features under existing conditions lay the groundwork for evaluating the effects of a project on the visual environment. Regulatory Context There are no federal and state laws that specifically protect visual resources across the board. There are, however, several important references to visual resources within the context of historic preservation and coastal zone management statutes. The implications of these legal protections are described below. At the Federal level, the following legislation is relevant to the project:
    [Show full text]
  • Train Station Models Building Guide 2018
    Building Guide for Season’s Greenings: All Aboard! 1 Index of buildings and dioramas Biltmore Depot North Carolina Page 3 Metro-North Cannondale Station Connecticut Page 4 Central Railroad of New Jersey Terminal New Jersey Page 5 Chattanooga Train Shed Tennessee Page 6 Cincinnati Union Terminal Ohio Page 7 Citrus Groves Florida Page 8 Dino Depot -- Page 9 East Glacier Park Station Montana Page 10 Ellicott City Station Maryland Page 11 Gettysburg Lincoln Railroad Station Pennsylvania Page 12 Grain Elevator Minnesota Page 13 Grain Fields Kansas Page 14 Grand Canyon Depot Arizona Page 15 Grand Central Terminal New York Page 16 Kirkwood Missouri Pacific Depot Missouri Page 17 Lahaina Station Hawaii Page 18 Los Angeles Union Station California Page 19 Michigan Central Station Michigan Page 20 North Bennington Depot Vermont Page 21 North Pole Village -- Page 22 Peanut Farms Alabama Page 23 Pennsylvania Station (interior) New York Page 24 Pikes Peak Cog Railway Colorado Page 25 Point of Rocks Station Maryland Page 26 Salt Lake City Union Pacific Depot Utah Page 27 Santa Fe Depot California Page 28 Santa Fe Depot Oklahoma Page 29 Union Station Washington Page 30 Union Station D.C. Page 31 Viaduct Hotel Maryland Page 32 Vicksburg Railroad Barge Mississippi Page 33 2 Biltmore Depot Asheville, North Carolina built 1896 Building Materials Roof: pine bark Facade: bark Door: birch bark, willow, saltcedar Windows: willow, saltcedar Corbels: hollowed log Porch tread: cedar Trim: ash bark, willow, eucalyptus, woody pear fruit, bamboo, reed, hickory nut Lettering: grapevine Chimneys: jequitiba fruit, Kielmeyera fruit, Schima fruit, acorn cap credit: Village Wayside Bar & Grille Wayside Village credit: Designed by Richard Morris Hunt, one of the premier architects in American history, the Biltmore Depot was commissioned by George Washington Vanderbilt III.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut State Rail Plan, 2012
    DRAFT 2012 CONNECTICUT STATE RAIL PLAN __________________________________________________________________ THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK Page 1 DRAFT 2012 CONNECTICUT STATE RAIL PLAN __________________________________________________________________ State of Connecticut Department of Transportation 2012-2016 Connecticut State Rail Plan Prepared by: BUREAU OF PUBLIC TRANSPORATION, OFFICE OF RAIL CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 50 UNION AVENUE, FOURTH FLOOR WEST NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06519 Page 2 DRAFT 2012 CONNECTICUT STATE RAIL PLAN __________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 7 CHAPTER 1 – STATE RAIL VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES .............................. 9 1.1 MISSION STATEMENT, VISION, AND VALUES ........................................................................ 9 1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR RAIL SERVICE IN CONNECTICUT ..................................... 10 CHAPTER 2 – FEDERAL AND STATE MANDATES .................................................. 13 2.1 FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND PLANNING REQUIREMENTS ................................................ 14 2.2 STATE LEGISLATION AND PLANNING REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 15 CHAPTER 3 – DESCRIPTION OF RAIL SYSTEM IN CONNECTICUT ....................... 18
    [Show full text]
  • Customer Opinion Survey Final Report
    Task 1.2: Customer Opinion Survey Final Report URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. May 2003 Task 1.2:Technical Memorandum Customer Opinion Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................1 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................................1 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................................1 EXHIBIT 1: SURVEY SAMPLE.....................................................................................................................................2 COMPARISON TO METRO-NORTH RAILROAD CUSTOMER OPINION SURVEY ...........................................................10 CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS.........................................................12 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 .................................................................................13 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS 4, 5, 6, AND 7 .............................................................................15 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY
    [Show full text]
  • Mta Property Listing for Nys Reporting
    3/31/2021 3:48 PM MTA PROPERTY LISTING FOR NYS REPORTING COUNTY SECTN BLOCKNO LOTNO Property_Code PROPERTYNAME PROPERTYADDDRESS AGENCY LINE PROPERTYTYPE limaster LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIR Main Line Station Bronx bbl05200 Bronx Whitestone Bridge Hutchson River parkway BT Block/Lot Bridge Bronx 9 mha04650 ROW b 125th & Melrose XXX St MN Harlem ROW Bronx 9 mha06600 ROW b 125th & Melrose Milepost 5,Sta-Mon# 31.5 MN Harlem ROW Bronx 12 mha09500 FORDHAM STATION Fordham Rd (Fordham U) MN Harlem Station Bronx mhu00343 Perm E'ment at Yankee Stadium Sta-mon 30.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx mhu06251 Spuyten Duyvil Substation Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx 19 mhu06301 Parking at Riverdale Milepost 12 , Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Parking Bronx tbl03600 Unionport Shop Unionport Rd. NYCT White Plains Road Shop Bronx tbl65340 Con Edison Ducts East 174 St NYCT Block/Lot Ducts Bronx tbw32500 231ST 231 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32600 238 ST 238 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32700 242 ST 242 St-Van Cortlandt Pk NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tco21000 161 ST Yankee Stadium 161 St/River Ave NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21100 167 ST 167 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21200 170 ST 170 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21300 174 175 STs 174-175 Sts/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21400 TREMONT AVE Tremont Ave/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21500 182 183 STs 183 St/Grand
    [Show full text]
  • HVCEO Regional Bike Plan
    January 2015 PREPARED FOR: HVCEO Housatonic Valley Council of Elected O f f i c i a l s BY: HARTransit GREATER DANBURY REGIONAL BIKE PLAN FINAL REPORT January 2015 This document was prepared in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration and the Connecticut Department of Transportation. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Connecticut Department of Transportation or the Federal Transit Administration. Prepared for HVCEO by Eric C. Bergstraesser, Chief Executive Officer Report Staff Richard A. Schreiner, Director of Service Development Stephanie A. Scavelli, Transportation Planner Andrew C. O’Connell, Marketing and Public Relations Coordinator George Blake, HVCEO Geographic Information Systems Manager ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge the following people for their expertise, invaluable support, and generous assistance on the development of this project. Apologies extended for any omissions: Betty Brosius Jonathan Chew Jacqui Dowd Dave and Marti Fine Sandy Fry Francisco Gomes (Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.) Stuart Green Lukas Herbert Alex Karman Amy Mangold Tom O’Brien Sharon Okoye David Pattee John Pilner Katherine Rattan Paul Roche Cover Photo: A sharrow marking on the pavement alerts drivers to a designated shared roadway along Housatonic Avenue in New Milford, CT. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 OVERVIEW AND POLICY OBJECTIVES …………………………… 1 1.1 Introduction ……...................................................................................... 1 1.2 Relevant Federal and State of Connecticut Programs and Policies …….. 4 1.3 Demographics …………………………………………………………... 8 1.4 Bicycle Crash Data ……………………………………………………... 10 1.5 Special Concerns in Bicycle Planning …….............................................. 15 2 INVENTORY OF ROUTES AND PLANS ……………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • Branchville 2017 TOD Plan
    Branchville Transit Oriented Development Plan February 2017 Project Team Fitzgerald & Halliday Inc. Harriman Tighe & Bond Greg Wies & Gardner Architects AMS Consulting Acknowledgements This plan was made possible through the commitment of many dedicated individuals including Jon Chew and Dave Hannon of WestCOG, First Selectman Rudy Marconi of Ridgefield, and other members of the TOD Task Force including: Charles Fisher, Betty Brosius, Adam Schnell, and Joanne Meder from the Town of Ridgefield; Anna Bergeron, Molly Parsons, and Roxanne Fromson from CTDOT; First Selectwoman Julia Pemberton from the Town of Redding; Dave Goldenberg, Dennis Grimaldi, Devon Pettitt, Gene Nazarro, Joe Ancona, Joe Chelednik, Magda Fincham, Nathan Zezula, and Alex Karsanidi. Branchville Transit Oriented Development Plan Contents Executive Summary...........................................................1 Introduction......................................................................9 Existing Conditions Analysis.........................................13 Charrette ..........................................................................47 Planning Strategies..........................................................57 Build Out Analysis..........................................................65 Recommended Development Plan...............................79 Mobility Plan...................................................................89 Stormwater & Floodplain Management Plan..............95 Zoning Recommendations...........................................101
    [Show full text]
  • Route 7 Corridor Study Existing Conditions and Trends Technical Memorandum
    Transportation and ROUTE Land Use Study Existing Conditions and Trends Technical Memorandum 6 I-84 Danbury 302 Bethel 7 35 53 Redding 58 Ridgefield 107 102 57 33 Weston Wilton 136 123 106 15 124 33 New 137 Westport Canaan 53 1 104 I-95 Norwalk Prepared for SWRPA and HVCEO HOUSATONIC VALLEY Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. COUNCIL OF E LECTED SSouth WWestern RegionalRPA Planning Agency February 2010 O FFICIALS Route 7 Corridor Study Existing Conditions and Trends Technical Memorandum Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 3 Study Area Overview/Regional Context............................................................................... 3 Overview of Memo Organization.......................................................................................... 5 Transportation System and User Profile.................................................................................. 7 Transportation System Network........................................................................................... 7 Transportation System Demand .......................................................................................... 7 Transportation System Choices......................................................................................... 11 Planned and Programmed Projects in the Study Corridor ................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Branchville TOD Plan 031417
    Branchville Transit Oriented Development Plan February 2017 Project Team Fitzgerald & Halliday Inc. Harriman Tighe & Bond Greg Wies & Gardner Architects AMS Consulting Acknowledgements This plan was made possible through the commitment of many dedicated individuals including Jon Chew and Dave Hannon of WestCOG, First Selectman Rudy Marconi of Ridgefield, and other members of the TOD Task Force including: Charles Fisher, Betty Brosius, Adam Schnell, and Joanne Meder from the Town of Ridgefield; Anna Bergeron, Molly Parsons, and Roxanne Fromson from CTDOT; First Selectwoman Julia Pemberton from the Town of Redding; Dave Goldenberg, Dennis Grimaldi, Devon Pettitt, Gene Nazarro, Joe Ancona, Joe Chelednik, Magda Fincham, Nathan Zezula, and Alex Karsanidi. Branchville Transit Oriented Development Plan Contents Executive Summary...........................................................1 Introduction......................................................................9 Existing Conditions Analysis.........................................13 Charrette ..........................................................................47 Planning Strategies..........................................................57 Build Out Analysis..........................................................65 Recommended Development Plan...............................79 Mobility Plan...................................................................89 Stormwater & Floodplain Management Plan..............95 Zoning Recommendations...........................................101
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbury Station
    TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES IN SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT KNOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO KNOWfor HOW TO GOSENIORS, PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO GO WITH KNDISABILITIESOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO and VETERANS www.knowhowtogoct.org Waterbury Station Naugatuck Station Beacon Falls Danbury Station Station Seymour Station Seymour Danbury Bethel Station Ansonia Station Ansonia Monroe Derby Shelton Redding Station Station Derby Redding Ridgefield Branchville Station Shelton Trumbull Milford Easton Cannondale Station Weston Bridgeport Wilton Wilton Station Milford New Merritt 7 Station Canaan Station Fairfield BridgeportStratford Station Stratford Station New Canaan Westport Station Fairfield Metro Station Fairfield Station Stamford Norwalk Southport Station Talmadge Hill SERVICE SERVICE AREA Station Green’s Farms Station Springdale Westport Station Station Darien E. Norwalk Station Glenbrook S. Norwalk Station Greenwich Station Rowayton Station Darien Station Noroton Heights Station Long Island Sound Stamford Station Old Greenwich Station Riverside Station Cos Cob Station Greenwich Station 1 Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Ferry ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study Regional Report
    Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study Regional Report SEPTEMBER 2012 PREPARED FOR: Norwalk River Valley Trail Steering Committee PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Stantec Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study Acknowledgements Norwalk River Valley Trail Committee Members Mike Cunningham, Danbury Holt McChord, Wilton Kathy Miville, Danbury Donna Pratt, Wilton Rob Gutman, Ridgefield Patricia Sesto, Wilton Richard Kent, Ridgefield Jim Snedeker, Wilton Ben Oko, Ridgefield Jim Carter, Norwalk Victor DeMasi, Redding Dan Landau, Norwalk Pam Elkow, Redding Deborah Lewis, Norwalk Stuart Green, Redding David Park, Norwalk David Pattee, Redding Alex Karman, SWRPA Susan Robinson, Redding Will Palmquist, SWRPA Lisa Bogan, Wilton Greg Waters, NPS Patrice Gillespie, Wilton Linda Cook, NPS Mike Lindberg, Wilton Study Team Jeff Olson, Principal, Alta Planning + Design Phil Goff, Project Manager and Planner, Alta Planning + Design Shannon Simms, Project Designer, Alta Planning + Design Gary T. Sorge, Principal, Stantec John Eberle, Project Engineer, Stantec Marcy Miller, Public Outreach Planner, Fitzgerald & Halliday The development of the Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study was made possible through a Recreational Trail Program Grant from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). The NRVT Committee thanks CTDEEP for its support. Regional Report| i Norwalk River Valley Trail Routing Study Table of Contents Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]