March 2010 Bulletin.Pub
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Your Family's Guide to Explore NYC for FREE with Your Cool Culture Pass
coolculture.org FAMILY2019-2020 GUIDE Your family’s guide to explore NYC for FREE with your Cool Culture Pass. Cool Culture | 2019-2020 Family Guide | coolculture.org WELCOME TO COOL CULTURE! Whether you are a returning family or brand new to Cool Culture, we welcome you to a new year of family fun, cultural exploration and creativity. As the Executive Director of Cool Culture, I am excited to have your family become a part of ours. Founded in 1999, Cool Culture is a non-profit organization with a mission to amplify the voices of families and strengthen the power of historically marginalized communities through engagement with art and culture, both within cultural institutions and beyond. To that end, we have partnered with your child’s school to give your family FREE admission to almost 90 New York City museums, historic societies, gardens and zoos. As your child’s first teacher and advocate, we hope you find this guide useful in adding to the joy, community, and culture that are part of your family traditions! Candice Anderson Executive Director Cool Culture 2020 Cool Culture | 2019-2020 Family Guide | coolculture.org HOW TO USE YOUR COOL CULTURE FAMILY PASS You + 4 = FREE Extras Are Extra Up to 5 people, including you, will be The Family Pass covers general admission. granted free admission with a Cool Culture You may need to pay extra fees for special Family Pass to approximately 90 museums, exhibits and activities. Please call the $ $ zoos and historic sites. museum if you’re unsure. $ More than 5 people total? Be prepared to It’s For Families pay additional admission fees. -
Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting
Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting April 2021 Committee Members P. Foye, Chair N. Zuckerman, Vice Chair A. Albert J. Barbas N. Brown M. Fleischer R. Glucksman R. Herman D. Jones K. Law R. Linn D. Mack J. Samuelsen V. Tessitore Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting 2 Broadway, 20th Floor Board Room New York, NY 10004 Wednesday, 4/21/2021 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERIOD 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MARCH 17, 2021 CPOC Committee Minutes - Page 3 3. COMMITTEE WORK PLAN 2021 - 2022 CPOC Committee Work Plan - Page 4 4. PRESIDENT’S REPORT President's Report - Page 6 5. CAPITAL PROGRAM UPDATE Progress Report on Signals and Train Control - Page 10 IEC Project Review on Signals and Train Control - Page 14 6. CAPITAL PROGRAM STATUS Commitments, Completions, and Funding Report - Page 31 MINUTES OF MEETING MTA CAPITAL PROGRAM OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE March 17, 2021 New York, New York 10:00 A.M. Because of the ongoing COVID‐19 public health crisis, the MTA Chairman convened a one‐day, virtual Board and Committee meeting session on March 17, 2021, which included the following committees: Long Island Rail Road and Metro‐North Railroad; New York City Transit; MTA Bridges and Tunnels; ; Finance Capital Program Oversight Committee; Corporate Governance. To see a summary of the CPOC Committee meeting, please refer to the March 17, 2021 Board minutes in the April Board Book available here on the Board materials website: https://new.mta.info/transparency/board‐and‐committee‐meetings/april‐2021 ________________________________________________________________________________ Master Page # 3 of 46 - Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting 4/21/2021 2021- 2022 CPOC Committee Work Plan I. -
Transit Optimization Plan September 2017
Transit Optimization Plan September 2017 Prepared by: Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................6 Goals and Focus ........................................................................................................... 6 Study Process ............................................................................................................... 7 Report Contents ........................................................................................................... 8 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................................................9 Market Assessment ...................................................................................................... 9 Population ..........................................................................................................................9 Employment .......................................................................................................................9 Development Patterns ........................................................................................................9 Regional Growth ............................................................................................................... 10 Growth in Senior Population ............................................................................................. 10 Transit’s Role in Mobility .................................................................................................. -
Part 1: Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle
Howard Research and Development Corporation Downtown Columbia Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle Feasibility Study: Part 1 - Downtown Transit Center & Downtown Circulator Shuttle (Part of CEPPA #5) DRAFTDecember 2011 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. iv Chapter 1. Downtown Columbia Transit Center ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Downtown Columbia Circulator Shuttle ............................................................................................... 12 Appendix A. Regional Transit System Evaluation .............................................................................................. 21 Appendix B. Regional Transit Market Analysis .................................................................................................. 46 Appendix C. Transit Circulator Design ................................................................................................................ 64 Appendix D. Transit Center Site Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 764 Appendix E. Transit Development Plan ............................................................................................................... 79 DRAFT Page i• Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table of Figures Figure 1 Existing -
The Bulletin the MILEPOSTS of THE
ERA BULLETIN — JANUARY, 2017 The Bulletin Electric Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated Vol. 60, No. 1 January, 2017 The Bulletin THE MILEPOSTS OF THE Published by the Electric NEW YORK SUBWAY SYSTEM Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box by ERIC R. OSZUSTOWICZ 3323, New York, New York 10163-3323. Many of us are familiar with the chaining three former divisions (plus the Flushing and system for the tracks of the New York sub- Canarsie Lines) had one zero point. Most of For general inquiries, or way system. Each track on the system has a these signs have been removed due to vari- Bulletin submissions, marker every 50 feet based on a “zero point” ous construction projects over the years and contact us at bulletin@ for that particular track. For example, the ze- were never replaced. Their original purpose erausa.org. ERA’s ro point for the BMT Broadway Subway is is unknown, but shortly after their installation, website is just north of 57th Street-Seventh Avenue. The they quickly fell into disuse. www.erausa.org. southbound local track is Track A1. 500 feet Over the years, I have been recording and Editorial Staff: south of the zero point, the marker is photographing the locations of the remaining Editor-in-Chief: A1/5+00. One hundred fifty feet further south, mileposts before they all disappear com- Bernard Linder the marker is A1/6+50. If you follow the line pletely. These locations were placed on a Tri-State News and all the way to 14th Street-Union Square, one spreadsheet. Using track schematics show- Commuter Rail Editor: Ronald Yee will find a marker reading A1/120+00 within ing exact distances, I was able to deduce the North American and World the station. -
Review of the G Line
Review of the G Line ,. July 10, 2013 NYC Transit G Line Review Executive Summary Executive Summary The attached report provides a comprehensive review of operations on the G line. Based on NYC Transit’s standard measures of On-Time Performance and Wait Assessment, the G performs well relative to the average subway line. At the same time, the G differs from other NYC Transit subway lines because the route is relatively short and never enters Manhattan, and thus serves primarily as a feeder/distributor with most riders transferring at least once before reaching their destinations. This review identifies a number of opportunities to improve operations on the G line, with recommendations chiefly intended to provide more even train headways and passenger loading, as well as to improve customer communication. Key Findings: While G ridership has grown significantly in recent years, it still remains relatively low compared to the rest of the system, and average passenger loads on the G are within service guidelines during both peak and off-peak hours. Scheduling the G train around the busier and more frequent F train causes uneven headways and passenger loads on the G, most significantly during the afternoon peak period, when G service is scheduled at the minimum guideline frequency of 6 trains per hour (an average 10-minute headway). G riders make twice as many transfers as the average subway rider; this high transfer rate is inconvenient for customers who must wait for multiple trains. Trains shorter than the platform length cause uncertainty about where the G train stops, contributing to uneven passenger loads. -
Compilation of Concerns, Comments and Recommendations Received
Compilation of Concerns, Comments and Recommendations Received from the Legislature and the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA Pursuant to Chapter 25 of the Laws of 2009 February 1, 2011 through July 31, 2011 Metropolitan Transportation Authority Office of Legislative and Community Input Compilation of Concerns, Comments and Recommendations Pursuant to Chapter 25 of the Laws of 2009 February 1, 2011 through July 31, 2011 Senate, Legislator's Name of Date Request/Concern/ Close Out Agency/Tracking Assembly or Name (none Legislator's or Agency Response Received Recommendation Expressed Date PCAC if PCAC) PCAC Contact Complaints received about NYCT personnel at the Fresh Pond Nolan, Parking is very limited in the depot and elsewhere but they will try to have personnel park NYCT7503 Assembly Diane Ballek 10/4/10 Depot parking their private vehicles on the streets adjacent to 2/2/2011 Catherine T. in other locations. the Depot. Pheffer, NYCT8061 Assembly Mary Lou 10/6/10 Inquiry about Rockaway park line station projects Information provided. 2/2/2011 Audrey I. LIRR993 Senate LaValle, Ken Abbondola, V. 10/22/10 Late train Provided information 4/4/2011 Site walk-thru conducted with Assembly Member Farrell at Tour conducted on 11/19 and cost estimate developed. Approval letter for use of Capital Farrell, Earnestine Bell NYCT9547 Assembly 11/19/10 155th Street Station BD concerning Assembly funded station Reserve Funds for repairs discussed during 11/19 tour sent to Assemblymember Farrell 3/11/2011 Herman D. Temple improvements on 3/11/11. Approval Pending. NYCT supervisors inspected areas cited in letter. -
Operations and Financial Analysis
OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS APRIL 22, 2015 PREPARED BY: LOUIS BERGER WATER SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS A) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B) OPERATIONS ANALYSIS C) FINANCIAL ANALYSIS D) APPENDICES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Louis Berger was tasked by the Baltimore City Department of Transportation (BCDOT) to evaluate the Charm City Circulator (CCC) bus operation and analyze financial performance, and develop route operations alternatives that maximize ridership while minimizing costs. Objective The objective is to develop and evaluate alternatives to eliminate the annual deficits while providing maximum service to riders within existing financial resources. Description of Current System Existing Condition The CCC consists of four routes, Purple, Orange, Green and Banner providing “Fast. Friendly. Free.” service throughout downtown Baltimore 362 days per year, with hours of service varying by day type and by season. Key characteristics of each route: Purple Route- runs north - south from Federal Hill to Historic Mount Vernon. Ten (10) minute headways require six (6) buses to operate. Heaviest ridership of all the routes. Orange Route- runs east – west from Historic Fell’s Point and Harbor Point in the east beyond University of Maryland, Baltimore in the west. Ten (10) minute headways require five (5) buses to operate. Ridership is second best in the system. Green Route- roughly U shaped route serves Johns Hopkins University Hospital East Baltimore Campus (JHUH) connecting south to Harbor Point and Harbor East, then northwest to park and ride lots, looping down near City Center then back around. Ten (10) minute headways require six (6) buses. Longest route, least productive in terms of riders. Banner Route- angles southeast of the city past Federal Hill to Fort McHenry. -
Chapter 12: Transportation Page 231 CITY of WESTMINSTER Transportation 2009
Transportation 2009 2009 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 2009 Chapter 12: Transportation Page 231 CITY OF WESTMINSTER Transportation 2009 What is the Transportation Element? Community Vision for At the 1997 session, the General Assembly passed five Transportation pieces of legislation and budget initiatives known collectively as "Smart Growth." Maryland has adopted the principles of Smart Growth to be incorporated into the According to the 2008 Community Survey, Comprehensive Plan. Westminster drivers are concerned with the difficulties they encounter turning on and The following Smart Growth principle relates to the Transportation Element: off roads due to issues with visibility or merging. Some residents suggested that the Facilitate an adequate mix of transportation modes City should consider the addition of lanes, roundabouts, or left turn signals. A second To reduce traffic congestion throughout the City challenge with driving in Westminster is the To coordinate land use and transportation high volume of traffic. Residents describe traffic to be an issue on Route 140 during To create resiliency, and connectivity within the City commuting times in the early morning or road networks early evening because of the high number of To ensure connectivity between pedestrian, bike, commuters that leave Westminster everyday to work outside of Carroll County. transit, and road facilities From the timing to the synchronization, Revitalize existing neighborhoods into safe, residents listed challenges with traffic lights walkable, and livable communities throughout Westminster. In some cases, it is not the use of a traffic light, but rather the To mix land uses and build compactly, thus reducing lack of a traffic light that most concerned trips and make walking a more viable alternative residents. -
May 18 2016 TC Presentation Revised
Transportation Commission WORK SESSION May 18, 2016 2016 Transportation Long Range Plan Work Session Proposed Schedule April Overview / Guidance / Methodology for LRP update (Study Session) May Review draft of new LRP projects / Removed projects (Study Session) June Initial screening of projects July Finalize screening of projects (Draft LRP) Sept. Public Hearing Adoption of LRP by Transportation Commission 3 Removed Projects • #15-21 – S. Van Dorn Street Improvements • #15-23 – West End Commuter Hub 4 Projects moved to Developer Contingent List • #15-4 - Pedestrian / Bicycle connection from Potomac Yard to Four Mile Run Trail • #15-18 – Library Lane Extension • #15-22 – Elizabeth Lane Extension • #15-26 – New road to Four Mile Run Park 5 Consolidated Projects • #15-5 – Mt. Vernon at Russell Road New 01 • #15-6 – Mt. Vernon at Four Mile Road • #15-7 – Mt. Vernon at E/W Glebe Road New • #15-24 – Van Dorn at Braddock Road 02 • #15-25 – Beauregard at Braddock Road • #15-28 – Quaker at Seminary (Consolidate with New project #10) 6 Studies for Removal • #15-7 – Edsall from Van Dorn to S. Pickett • #15-8 – Commonwealth Ave / Reed Ave Signal Studies to be Consolidated • #15-3 – Feasibility of a pedestrian connection between the Braddock Metrorail station and the Northern gateway through Braddock Place development • #15-4 – Feasibility of a walking route along the road parallel to the Metrorail embankment to also include transit and bike New Study • #New 02 – Braddock Road Multimodal Connections (Removed from CIP) 7 2016 LRP New Projects • Two -
Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting
Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting November 2020 Committee Members P. Foye, Chair N. Zuckerman, Vice Chair A. Albert J. Barbas N. Brown M. Fleischer R. Glucksman R. Herman D. Jones K. Law R. Linn D. Mack J. Samuelsen V. Tessitore Capital Program Oversight Committee Meeting 2 Broadway, 20th Floor Board Room New York, NY 10004 Wednesday, 11/18/2020 10:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERIOD 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 2020 Minutes from October ‘20 - Page 3 3. COMMITTEE WORK PLAN 2020 - 2021 CPOC Committee Work Plan - Page 4 4. C&D CAPITAL PROGRAM UPDATE Update on Signals and Train Control - Page 6 IEC Project Review on Queens Boulevard CBTC - Page 10 IEC Project Review on Culver Line CBTC - Page 15 IEC Project Review on 8th Avenue CBTC - Page 19 IEC Project Review on Bus Radio System - Page 24 5. UPDATE ON OMNY, MTA’s NEW FARE PAYMENT SYSTEM Update on OMNY - Page 28 IEC Project Review on OMNY - Page 36 IEC OMNY Appendix - Page 41 6. UPDATE ON SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Small Business Development Program - Page 44 7. UPDATE M/WBE, DBE, and SDVOB PARTICIPATION on CAPITAL PROJECTS M/WBE, DBE, and SDVOB Participation - Page 74 8. CAPITAL PROGRAM STATUS Commitments, Completions, and Funding Report - Page 75 MINUTES OF MEETING MTA CAPITAL PROGRAM OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE October 28, 2020 New York, New York 10:00 A.M. Because of the ongoing COVID‐19 public health crisis, the MTA Chairman convened a one‐day, virtual Board and Committee meeting session on October 28, 2020, which included the following committees: Joint Long Island Rail Road and Metro‐North Railroad Committees; New York City Transit and MTA Bus Committee; Bridges and Tunnels Committee; Finance Committee; Audit Committee; Safety Committee; Capital Program Oversight Committee. -
Feasibility and Analysis of Fexpress Service in Brooklyn May 2016
Feasibility and Analysis of F Express Service in Brooklyn May 2016 MN F Brooklyn F Express Study Table of Contents I. Introduction 6 II. Population and Ridership 8 Recent Trends in Ridership 12 Projected Future Growth in Corridor 16 III. History of Brooklyn F Express 18 Comparisons to Other Express Corridors 20 IV. Current Express Option 21 Limits on Total F Service 26 Limits on Span of F Express 27 V. Express Ridership and Travel Time Savings 27 Potential Shift from Other Corridors 33 Loading Impacts 33 Station Impacts 35 VI. Recommendations 36 MN 1 F Brooklyn F Express Study List of Figures Figure 1 – Culver Line Track Configuration 7 Figure 2 – Population Density, F Corridor 9 Figure 3 – Labor Force as % of Population, F Corridor 10 Figure 4 – F Line Station Weekday Entries and Growth by Segment, 1998-2014 13 Figure 5 – F Line Peak Hour Load Trend 14 Figure 6 – Projected Population Growth, 2015-2035 17 Figure 7 – History of F Train Service Patterns 19 Figure 8 – Proposed F Express Pattern 22 Figure 9 – Current Conditions at Bergen St Lower Level 25 Figure 10 – AM Travel Time Savings by Entry Station, Church Av to Jay St Express 30 Figure 11 – PM Travel Time Savings by Entry Station, Church Av to Jay St Express 32 List of Tables Table 1 – Northbound AM Peak Hour Ridership Profile 11 Table 2 – 2014 Average F Peak Hour Passenger Volume and Percent of Guideline Capacity 12 Table 3 – Culver Line Change in Weekday Entries by Hour, 2007-2014 15 Table 4 – Comparison of Selected Express/Local Corridors 21 Table 5 – Test Train Travel Times (Minutes) 25 Table 6 – Travel Time Impacts Between Selected Station Pairs, AM Peak* 28 Table 7 – Impacts to Riders by Magnitude of Travel Time Impact, Jay St to Church Av Express, AM Peak Hour 29 Table 8 – Impacts to Riders by Magnitude of Travel Time Impact, Jay St to Church Av Express, PM Peak Hour 31 Table 9 – Current and Projected Northbound Departing Loads by Station, AM Peak Hour 34 MN 2 F Brooklyn F Express Study Executive Summary NYCT has prepared this study of F express service on the Culver line in Brooklyn.