DOCSLIB.ORG

NCHRP 08-36, Task 109 Guidebook for Estimating the Cost of Non-Rail Infrastructure Upgrades Due to Passenger Rail Implementation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NCHRP 08-36, Task 109 Guidebook for Estimating the Cost of Non-Rail Infrastructure Upgrades Due to Passenger Rail Implementation NCHRP 08-36, Task 109 Guidebook for Estimating the Cost of Non-Rail Infrastructure Upgrades due to Passenger Rail Implementation Bonnie Nelson, Founding Principal Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 and Steve Wilson, Principal SRF Consulting Group, Inc. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 September, 2012 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 08-36, Task 109, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). Special Note: This report IS NOT an official publication of the NCHRP, the Transportation Research Board or the National Academies. Acknowledgements This study was conducted for the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning, with funding provided through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 08-36, Research for the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 08-36 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the Standing Committee on Planning. The report was prepared by Bonnie Nelson, Founding Principal at Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates and Steve Wilson, Principal at SRF Consulting Group, Inc. The project was managed by Lori L. Sundstrom, NCHRP Senior Program Officer. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsoring agencies. This report has not been reviewed or accepted by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee or the Governing Board of the National Research Council. GUIDEBOOK FOR ESTIMATING THE COST OF NON-RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE | 8-36, TASK 109 NCHRP Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1-1 Key Issues Addressed in this Guidebook........................................................................................... 1-1 An Overview of Non-Rail Infrastructure and Agency Roles and Responsibilities ..................... 1-2 How to Use this Guidebook ................................................................................................................. 1-3 2 Planning for Non-Rail Infrastructure Related to Passenger Rail Implementation .............2-1 Passenger Rail Planning and Development Process........................................................................ 2-1 Systems Planning .................................................................................................................................... 2-8 Alternatives Analysis (AA)/Planning and Environmental Processes ............................................. 2-8 Preliminary Engineering (PE) ................................................................................................................ 2-9 Final Design ........................................................................................................................................... 2-10 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 2-10 3 Non-Rail Infrastructure Related to Passenger Rail Rights-of-Way ...................................3-1 Impacts Due to Rail Rights-of-Way .................................................................................................... 3-2 Exclusive Rights-of-Way ....................................................................................................................... 3-2 Case Study: Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Jennings Avenue Grade Separation ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-3 Case Study: City of Fremont Grade Separation and BART Warm Springs Extension ...... 3-4 Segregated Rights-of-Way ................................................................................................................ 3-5 Case Study: SMART Integrated Signal System in Downtown San Rafael, Santa Rosa and Petaluma ............................................................................................................................................ 3-7 Case Study: Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) East Rail Line and Peoria Street Grade Separation ........................................................................................................................... 3-8 Shared Rights-of-Way ....................................................................................................................... 3-11 Case Study: Portland Streetcar Loop Project ........................................................................... 3-12 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 3-17 4 Non-Rail Infrastructure Related to Rail Stations ...............................................................4-1 Rail Station Access ................................................................................................................................. 4-1 Determining Station Access Priorities ................................................................................................. 4-2 Case Study: BART Station Access Guidelines and Station Profile Studies ........................... 4-4 Station Access Infrastructure Improvements ...................................................................................... 4-7 Case Study: Denver RTD East Rail Line Peoria-Smith Station ................................................ 4-11 Case Study: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvements ................................................................................................. 4-13 Case Study: Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan Transit Improvements ............................................................................................. 4-18 Station Area Planning and Development ........................................................................................ 4-19 Case Study: City of San Rafael Downtown Station Area Plan (SMART) ............................ 4-20 Case Study: Peoria-Smith Station Area Plan ............................................................................ 4-24 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 4-28 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i GUIDEBOOK FOR ESTIMATING THE COST OF NON-RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE | 8-36, TASK 109 NCHRP Appendices Appendix A: Non-Rail Infrastructure Cost Estimates and Considerations Appendix B: Station Area Planning Case Studies Appendix C: Additional Resources for Rail Station Access and Station Area Planning Guideline Table of Figures Page Figure 1-1 Agency Roles and Responsibilities ..................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 2-1 Summary of Rail Project Planning and Development Process...................................... 2-4 Figure 3-1 Typical Impacts and Non-Rail Infrastructure Needs for Exclusive Rail Rights-of-Way ....................................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-2 Typical Impacts and Non-Rail Infrastructure Needs for Segregated Rail Rights-of- Way ........................................................................................................................................ 3-9 Figure 3-3 Relocation and Improvement of Bicycle Facilities Necessitated by the Portland Streetcar Loop Project ....................................................................................................... 3-13 Figure 3-4 Typical Impacts and Non-Rail Infrastructure Needs for Shared Rail Rights-of-Way ..................................................................................................................... 3-15 Figure 4-1 Average Distance to Rail Station by Access Mode ........................................................ 4-2 Figure 4-2 BART Access Hierarchy ........................................................................................................ 4-4 Figure 4-3 Home Locations of BART Passengers Boarding at El Cerrito Del Norte Station ...... 4-5 Figure 4-4 Non-Home Locations of BART Passengers Boarding at 16th Street Mission Station 4-6 Figure 4-5 Project Types and Typical Agency Roles ......................................................................... 4-8 Figure 4-6 Near-Term Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvements in the Peoria-Smith Station Area ......................................................................................................................... 4-12 Figure 4-7 Shady Grove Metrorail Station – Issues and Observations ....................................... 4-14 Figure 4-8 Aerial View of Shady Grove MetroRail Station .......................................................... 4-15 Figure 4-9 Shady Grove Field Assessment Diagram ....................................................................... 4-16 Figure 4-10 Shady Grove Metrorail Station – Infrastructure Recommendations ......................... 4-17 Figure 4-11 Downtown San
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study
    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Central Building Anchor Full Block Between Se 8Th & 9Th / Se Morrison & Belmont 808 Se Morrison Street | Portland | Oregon | 97214
    GRAND CENTRAL BUILDING ANCHOR FULL BLOCK BETWEEN SE 8TH & 9TH / SE MORRISON & BELMONT 808 SE MORRISON STREET | PORTLAND | OREGON | 97214 APPROXIMATELY 20,617 SQUARE FOOT ANCHOR SPACE WITH OFF-STREET PARKING AVAILABLE ANCHOR SIGNAGE OPPORTUNITY PRIME LOCATION IN THE CENTRAL EASTSIDE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ANCHOR SIGNAGE OPPORTUNITY SE MORRISON STREET Looking East From SE 7th & Morrison CENTRAL EASTSIDE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT | SE 8TH & MORRISON / SE 9TH & BELMONT THE GRAND CENTRAL BUILDING Building Overview | A Contributing Historic Property to Portland’s Fruitpacking District The Grand Central Building is a Spanish Colonial Revival building originally constructed in 1929 as a public market in Portland’s fruitpacking district and featured 23 separate vendors. Available Space | Anchor Space Total: Approximately 20,617 Square Feet First Floor: 15,617 Square Feet Mezzanine: 5,000 Square Feet Parking | The Grand Central Building features an underground parking garage with 76 parking spaces as well as a surface lot on the west side of the building with 28 additional parking spaces. Building Co-Tenants | West Face of Building Area Retailers | Building Location | Located between SE Morrison & Belmont Streets, SE 8th & 9th Avenues The Central Eastside Industrial District (CEID), the area bound by Interstate 84 to the North, the Willamette River to the west, Powell Blvd / Hwy 26 to the south, and NE/SE 12th Avenue to the east, was once the fruitpacking center of Portland. Located immediately east across the Burnside, Morrison, and Hawthorne Bridges from Downtown Portland, the CEID provides a convenient - and often more spacious - alternative to the CBD for office users and retailers looking to locate in the Central City.
    [Show full text]
  • Streetcar Plan Posters
    WELCOME Welcome! The purpose of this open house is to present draft recommendations from the Bicycle Master Plan and the Streetcar System Plan to the public. City sta! and citizen volunteers are here to present the material and to answer questions. The room is divided into three sections: one for the Bicycle Master Plan, one for the Streetcar System Plan, and one called “Integration Station,” where we tie the two concepts together. Refreshments and child care services are also available. The bicycle and streetcar networks will play a key role in Portland’s future. Together, they will reduce reliance on the automobile for daily tasks, they will reinforce urban land use patterns, and they will help the City achieve its goals to combat climate change. This is the beginning of a transportation transformation. WHY PLAN? PORTLAND HAS A HISTORY OF SUCCESSFUL LONG-RANGE PLANNING In 1904, landscape architect John C. Olmsted produced a report for the City Among the parks that resulted from the Olmsted Plan are Holladay Park, Irving Parks Board. The plan served as a blueprint for development of the highly Park, Mt. Tabor (shown above), Overlook Park, Rocky Butte, Sellwood Park, valued park system we enjoy today. Washington Park, and several others. Interstate MAX Opened 2004 Airport MAX Hillsboro MAX Opened 2001 Opened 1998 Portland Streetcar Opened 2001 MAX to Gresham Opened 1986 Clackamas MAX Opens fall 2009 Westside Express Service Opened Feb. 2009 In 1989, three years after the "rst MAX line opened from downtown to Gresham, 20 years later the regional rail system is well on its way to being constructed as planners laid out a vision for a regional rail system.
    [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]
  • Frog Ferry Presentation
    Frog Ferry Portland-Vancouver Passenger Water Taxi Service Frog= Shwah-kuk in the Chinookan Tribal Language, Art: Adam McIssac CONFIDENTIAL-Susan Bladholm Version 2018 Q1 Canoes and Frog Mythology on the Columbia & Willamette Rivers The ability to travel the waters of the Columbia and Willamette rivers has allowed people to become intertwined through trade and commerce for centuries by canoe. The journal entries of Lewis and Clark in 1805 described the shores of the Columbia River as being lined with canoes elaborately carved from cedar trees. The ability to navigate these waterways gave the Chinook people control over vast reaches of the Columbia River basin for hundreds of years. The area surrounding the Columbia and Willamette rivers is steeped in a rich mythology told to us through early ethnographers who traveled the river documenting Native American inhabitants and their culture. According to Chinookan mythology, Frog (Shwekheyk in Chinook language), was given the basics of weavable fiber by his relatives, Snake and omnipotent Coyote. With this fiber, Frog was given the task of creating the cordage for the weaving of the first fishing net. With this net, made from fibers of nettle plants, Frog had made it possible for the new human beings to catch their first salmon. Coyote tested the net, with the guidance and wisdom of his three sisters, thereby establishing the complex set of taboos associated with the catching of the first salmon of the season. The Chinook people would never eat or harm Frog for his association to them would always protect him. That is why you should always step around frogs and never over them.
    [Show full text]
  • [email protected]
    January–June 2002 • $10.00 / Portland Progress Report: The Portland Streetcar, Airport MAX and More The Magazine of Electric Railways Published since 1939 by the Electric Railroaders’ Association, Inc. Volume 65, Number 1–6 January–June, 2002 JANUARY Staff editor and art director JUNE Sandy Campbell contributors COLUMNS Raymond R. Berger, James N. J. Henwood, 2002 Frank S. Miklos News Electric Railroaders’ Streetcars proposed for Washington, D.C., Grove Street Extension 3 Association, Inc. opens in Bloomfi eld, N.J., and other transit news from around the world. E Book Reviews Offi cers & Directors James N. J. Henwood reviews Arkansas Valley Interurban: 8 president The Electric Way by Robert Collins. Frank S. Miklos first vice president Charles A. Akins FEATURE second vice president; corresponding secretary Raymond R. Berger Portland Progress Report third vice president; recording secretary Frank S. Miklos returns to Portland, Ore. to report on the new 10 William K. Guild Portland Streetcar line, MAX extensions and Vintage Trolley happenings. director Randy Litz ON THE COVER treasurer Michael Glikin Vintage Trolley in Portland, Oregon. Replica vintage car 513 rounds the bend librarian on N.W. Lovejoy Street and N.W. 11th Avenue. frank s. miklos. Richard C. Evans Interstate MAX Construction. Portland Tri-Met MAX Blue Line car 118, trip & convention chairman Jack May outbound from Hillsboro (below), passes the Interstate MAX under construction membership secretary at N.E. Interstate Avenue and N.E. Holladay Street. raymond r. berger Lewis Hitch National Headquarters Grand Central Terminal, Room 4A, New York City Mailing Address P.O. Box 3323, Grand Central Station New York, NY 10163-3323 Website electricrailroaders.org E-Mail [email protected] Subscriptions Headlights is sent free to members of the ERA.
    [Show full text]
  • Date: December 11, 2013 To: Board of Directors From
    Date: December 11, 2013 To: Board of Directors From: Neil McFarlane Subject: RESOLUTION 13-12-73 OF THE TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON (TRIMET) AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF VINTAGE TROLLEY CARS 511 AND 512 TO THE ST. LOUIS LOOP TROLLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ___ 1. Issue or Purpose of Item. The purpose of this item is to request that the TriMet Board of Directors (“Board”) authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with the St. Louis Loop Trolley Transportation Development District (“Loop Trolley”) transferring Vintage Trolley cars 511 and 512 to the Loop Trolley, subject to approval by the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”). 2. Reason for Board Action. Board authorization for this transfer is required by FTA Circular 5010.1D, Grant Administration Requirements. The attached Resolution authorizing this transfer includes specific content required by Chapter IV, Section 3(l)(7)(b) of FTA Circular 5010.D. 3. Background. In August 2013, Loop Trolley contacted TriMet, expressing interest in using TriMet's Vintage Trolley cars for operation on the new Loop Trolley Project (“Project”), which will bring heritage streetcar service to downtown St. Louis. The Project is scheduled to begin construction in early 2014 and begin operations in mid-2015, and will run 2.2 miles along Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue in downtown St. Louis, with 10 stops, including two connecting with St. Louis MetroLink light rail. The Project has $25 million of FTA grant funding, and a total Project budget of $43 million. Loop Trolley representatives visited TriMet early in September 2013 to assess the suitability of TriMet's Vintage Trolley cars for the Loop Trolley.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Streetcar
    PBOT PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION 1516 NW Northrup Portland, Oregon 97209 503-823-2901 Fax 503.865.3022 TTY 503.823.6868 www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation Chloe Eudaly Commissioner Chris Warner Interim Director REPORT TO COUNCIL DATE: February 27, 2019 TO: Commissioner Chloe Eudaly FROM: Kathryn Levine, Division Manager, Portland Streetcar SUBJECT: Portland Streetcar Annual Report for 2018 The fifth annual report from Portland Streetcar has been scheduled for February 27, 2019, at 9:45 a.m. The purpose of this report is to provide Council members with an update on Portland Streetcar performance, transit service, ridership, economic development and housing. Attached please find the 2018 Annual Report, which includes performance metrics from the five-year Portland Streetcar Strategic Plan . Presenters will include Dan Bower, Executive Director of Portland Streetcar, Inc. (PSI) and Kathryn Levine, Portland Streetcar Division Manager. We appreciate the opportunity to share with Council the latest data on Streetcar performance and ridership, an update on the purchase of 3 new vehicles from Brookville, and a possible extension into Northwest Portland. The Pore/and Bureau of Transportation f(Jl/y complies with Ti(le VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA Title II, and relored srowtes and regulations in o/1 programs ond oaivities. For occommodations, complain1s and information, coll (503) 823-5185, City TTY (503) 823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. Portland Streetcar 2018 ANNUAL REPORT Connecting Community Portland Streetcar is at the forefront of Portland’s growth. When city officials planned the first streetcar line in the 1990s, they knew that the success of our transit system was interdependent with housing and job development.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation
    Transportation TriMet Public Transportation: http://www.trimet.org/fares/index.htm MAX Light Rail: Portland's light rail system runs about every 15 minutes most of the day, every day. Service is less frequent in the early morning, mid-day and evening. Catch the MAX from Portland International Airport and pay only $2.50 for a 40 minute ride to the Nines Hotel. Exit at Pioneer Courthouse Square and the Nines is located across the street at 525 SW Morrison. TriMet Buses: TriMet buses serve much of the Portland metro area. Many bus lines connect with MAX Light Rail, WES Commuter Rail and the Portland Streetcar. Contact our concierge for a bus schedule and rates. TriMet WES: TriMet's WES (Westside Express Service) is a commuter rail line serving Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin and Wilsonville. WES runs every 30 minutes during the weekday morning and afternoon rush hour. Streetcar: The Portland Streetcar connects Northwest Portland, the Pearl District, Portland City Center, PSU, RiverPlace and the South Waterfront District. The Streetcar is owned and operated by the City of Portland. Taxis: Taxis are readily available at the entrance of the Nines Hotel. The approximate cost from Portland International Airport to the Nines Hotel is $40. Private Transportation: Town Car: Our concierge team can assist with scheduling town car or private car service. Our preferred vendor is Lucky Limousine & Town Car Service, which costs $99 for a one-way transfer to or from the airport to the hotel. A round-trip service will cost $198. Please contact the concierge desk at 503-802-3705 to schedule a vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Streetcar System Concept Plan a Framework for Future Corridor Planning and Alternatives Analysis
    PORTLAND STREETCAR SYSTEM CONCEPT PLAN A Framework for Future Corridor Planning and Alternatives Analysis Adopted September 9, 2009 by Portland City Council This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration How this document will be used This document will be used to identify and select corridors for future Alternatives Analysis and planning studies as funding becomes available. No funding plan or schedule has been identified for any of the potential streetcar projects. Transit corridors citywide were assessed to determine which corridors have the best potential for future streetcar investment. Corridors that are shown in this document represent the best opportunities for streetcar infrastructure. Detailed corridor by corridor analysis, study and discussions with corridor neighborhoods are necessary to determine if a streetcar investment is warranted. No individual corridor can move forward without a detailed analysis and planning study to address the purpose and need of a streetcar project and to comprehensively evaluate project impacts. The Portland Bureau of Transportation fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA Title II, and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For accommodations and additional information, contact the Title II and Title VI Coordinator at Room 1204, 1120 SW 5th Ave, Portland, OR 97204, or by telephone 503-823-2559, City TTY 503-823-6868, or use Oregon Relay Service: 711. PORTLAND STREETCAR SYSTEM CONCEPT PLAN A Framework for Future Corridor Planning and Alternatives Analysis Adopted by Portland City Council September 9, 2009 Resolution 36732 Acknowledgements City of Portland Bureau of Transportation Sam Adams, Mayor, Commissioner of Public Utilities Susan D.
    [Show full text]
  • Facts About Trimet
    Facts about TriMet Ridership TriMet is a national leader in providing transit service. TriMet carries more people than nearly every other U.S. transit system its size. Weekly ridership on buses and MAX has increased for all but one year in the past 23 years. TriMet ridership has outpaced population growth and daily vehicle miles traveled for more than a decade. During fiscal year 2011 Residents and visitors boarded a bus, MAX or WES train 100 million times: • 58.4 million were bus trips • 41.2 million were MAX trips • 370,800 were WES trips TriMet’s service area covers 570 square miles within the tri-county region with a Weekday boardings averaged population of 1.5 million people. 318,500 trips: • 190,300 were bus trips Portland is the 24th-largest metro easing traffic congestion and helping • 126,800 were MAX trips area in the U.S., but transit ridership keep our air clean. That adds up to • 1,450 were WES trips is 7th per capita. 28.6 million fewer car trips each year. Weekend ridership: More people ride TriMet than transit TriMet’s MAX and buses combined systems in larger cities, such as eliminate 207,300 daily car trips, or • Bus and MAX ridership averaged Dallas, Denver and San Diego. 65 million trips each year. 343,900 trips. For each mile taken on TriMet, 53% Maintaining livability less carbon is emitted compared to Easing traffic congestion driving alone. MAX carries 26% of evening rush- Annual Ridership Growth Bus, MAX & WES hour commuters traveling from 105 downtown on the Sunset Hwy.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 SSO Workshop Introduction of Ssoas
    2018 SSO Program Workshop Introduction of State Safety Oversight Agency Attendees Dr. Alfonz Ruth Office of Administration Federal Transit Administration May 15, 2018 ARIZONA Arizona Department of Transportation Valley Metro Valley Metro Rail Light Rail Streetcar* City of Tucson Sun Link Streetcar 2 ARKANSAS Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department Rock Region Metro Metro Streetcar Streetcar 3 CALIFORNIA California Public Utilities Commission Bay Area Rapid Transit BART Heavy Rail Automated Guideway Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail North County Transit District SPRINTER Hybrid Rail Orange County Transportation Authority OC Streetcar Streetcar* Continued on Next Page 4 CALIFORNIA California Public Utilities Commission Continued…. Riverfront Authority Downtown Riverfront Streetcar Streetcar* Sacramento Regional Transit District Regional Transit Light Rail San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Trolley Light Rail 5 CALIFORNIA California Public Utilities Commission Continued…. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Muni Metro Light Rail Cable Car Streetcar Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Light Rail 6 COLORADO Colorado Public Utilities Commission Regional Transportation District RTD Rail Light Rail 7 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA D.C. Fire and Emergency Management Services D.C. Department of Transportation DC Streetcar Streetcar 8 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARYLAND VIRGINIA Tri-State Oversight Committee Metrorail Safety Commission
    [Show full text]