DOCSLIB.ORG

Metropolitan Bakersfield Transit System Long-Range Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metropolitan Bakersfield Transit System Long-Range Plan Golden Empire Transit District | Kern Council of Governments METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD TRANSIT SYSTEM LONG-RANGE PLAN Final Report April 2012 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD LONG-RANGE TRANSIT PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE Golden Empire Transit • Karen King, Chief Executive Officer • Gina Hayden, Marketing Manager • Emery Rendez, Planner Kern Council of Governments • Rob Ball, Interim Director • Ron Brummett, Executive Director (Retired December 2011) • Bob Snoddy, Regional Planner CONSULTANT TEAM Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates • Linda Rhine, Project Manager • Paul Jewel, Deputy Project Manager • Steve Boland, Lead Service Planner • Kara Vuicich, Financial Planner • Anneka Imkamp, GIS /Cartographer Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants • Richard Lee, Modeler • Kyle Cooke, Assistant Modeler VRPA Technologies, Inc. • Georgiena M. Vivian, Marketing Specialist • Dena Graham, Marketing Assistant Table of Contents Page 1 Executive Summary .........................................................................................................1-1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Best Practices .......................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Service Plans ........................................................................................................................................... 1-4 Financial Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 1-9 Implementation and Next Steps ....................................................................................................... 1-12 2 Existing Conditions ..........................................................................................................2-1 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................ 2-1 Opportunities for Enhancing Transit Service ..................................................................................... 2-4 3 Best Practices ...................................................................................................................3-1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 3-1 Alternative Service Delivery Models ................................................................................................. 3-1 High Capacity Transit/Quality Bus Service ...................................................................................... 3-3 University and Transit Agency Partnerships ..................................................................................... 3-7 4 Outreach ..........................................................................................................................4-1 Stakeholder Interviews ......................................................................................................................... 4-1 "Smithville" Planning Game ................................................................................................................. 4-3 Roundtable Meetings ............................................................................................................................ 4-5 Operator Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 4-6 Public Outreach ...................................................................................................................................... 4-6 5 Service Plans....................................................................................................................5-1 Service Plans Guidelines ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 Short-Term Service Plan (2013-2020) .............................................................................................. 5-2 Midterm (2021-25) & Long-Term (2026-2035) Service Plans .................................................. 5-14 6 Financial Plan ..................................................................................................................6-1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6-1 Short-Term Service Plan Cost Projections .......................................................................................... 6-1 Midterm Service Plan Cost Projections ............................................................................................ 6-10 Long-Term Service Plan Cost Projections ........................................................................................ 6-20 Existing Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................... 6-21 Potential New Funding Sources ......................................................................................................... 6-23 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 6-30 7 Implementation and Next Steps .......................................................................................7-1 Phasing Schedule ................................................................................................................................... 7-1 What are the major tasks to implement the Short-Term Service Plan? ...................................... 7-1 Service Planning ..................................................................................................................................... 7-3 Operations .............................................................................................................................................. 7-6 Bus Stops and Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 7-7 Marketing/Public Information ............................................................................................................. 7-8 Recommended Transit-Supportive Policies ....................................................................................... 7-9 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 7-12 Appendix A: Travel Demand Modeling Methodology ............................................................ A-1 Appendix B: CSUB Transit Center ............................................................................................B-1 Background .............................................................................................................................................. B-1 Appendix C: Proposed Additional Service Priorities and Productivity Standards ................... C-1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD TRANSIT SYSTEM LONG-RANGE PLAN | DRAFT FINAL REPORT Golden Empire Transit District | Kern Council of Governments Table of Figures Page Figure 1-1 Draft Proposed Short-Term Route Network .................................................................... 1-6 Figure 1-2 Draft Proposed Midterm Route Network & Population-Employment Density (2020) ........................................................................... 1-7 Figure 1-3 Draft Proposed 2050 Route Network & Population-Employment (2035) ................ 1-8 Figure 1-4 Short-Term Funding Strategy ........................................................................................... 1-10 Figure 2-1 Busiest GET Stops .................................................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 3-1 Bus Rapid Transit in Eugene, Oregon ............................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2 Approximate Subsidy per Trip: Heavy Rail, Light Rail, BRT and Commuter Rail .... 3-5 Figure 4-1 “Smithville” Transit Planning Game© in action at GET District offices ....................... 4-3 Figure 4-2 Public Outreach Events ........................................................................................................ 4-7 Figure 4-3 Completed Surveys .............................................................................................................. 4-8 Figure 4-4 Frequency of Use by Respondents .................................................................................... 4-8 Figure 4-5 Response to New Structure ................................................................................................. 4-9 Figure 5-1 Map of Proposed GET Fixed-Route Service (Short-Term) ............................................ 5-7 Figure 5-2 Calculation of Revenue Hours (Short-Term) ..................................................................... 5-8 Figure 5-3 Map of Proposed GET, Enhanced KRT, and Commuter Rail Fixed-Route Service (Midterm) .............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Personal to Mass Transit
    From personal to mass transit Prof. em. Ingmar Andreasson [email protected] 40 years in transportation • Transit network planning - VIPS • Taxi fleet management - Taxi80 • Multi-discipline PRT research - Chalmers • Road traffic research – KTH • 5 PRT patents • VP, Advanced Transit Association Storyline • A challenging podcar application • Five strategies to cope with large demand • => Mass transit with podcars The challenge • Dense urban area in California • Very large employers • Severe highway congestion • Promote non-car modes • Transfers from Train and LRT • Connecting buildings (horizontal elevator) Contract with PRTConsulting Legend Staon 6 28 mph main guideway 22 mph main guideway 24 21 16 ONE MILE 12 15 4 3 25 10 DOWNTOWN 6 STADIUM PARKING 14 9 2 34 18 13 8 5 TRANSIT 20 19 7 22 11 32 MEDICAL CENTER 23 26 31 33 27 28 1 RAIL STATION Legend Staon 51 28 mph main guideway 22 mph main guideway 22 mph feeder guideway (with slowing at staons) 500 Feet Our tentative design • 50 stations • 48 kms main guideway (6 % double) • 4 bi-level intersections out of 54 • Speeds 36 and 45 kph • Headway 3 secs (as certified) • 900 vehicles with 6-seats Morning peak hour demand • 13 000 passengers • 30 % of trips from 3 transfer stations • 400 passengers from one train • Many dispersed destinations Train / PRT station Morning peak demand 13 000 / h Personal Rapid Transit • Average 1.5 passengers per vehicle • Can carry 4 800 passengers • 24 mins waiting Ride-matching at departure • System knows requested destinations • First passenger determines
    [Show full text]
  • Short Range Transit Plan (PDF)
    Short Range Transit Plan FY 2020/21 - 2024/25 Golden Empire Transit District Adopted September 2020 Golden Empire Transit District Board of Directors Cindy Parra Jim Baldwin Chair Vice Chair City of Bakersfield County of Kern Carlos Bello Leasa Engel Rueben Pascual Director Director Director City of Bakersfield At-Large County of Kern A five-member Board of Directors governs Golden Empire Transit District. Two members are appointed by the Bakersfield City Council, two members are appointed by the Kern County Board of Supervisors, and one member is appointed at-large by the four other Board members. GET coordinates with City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern, and the Kern Council of Governments. Karen King Chief Executive Officer Short Range Transit Plan FY 20/21 – 24/25 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... iv CHAPTER 1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ......................................................1 CHAPTER 2 SERVICE & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ......................... 28 CHAPTER 3 SERVICE ANALYSIS .......................................................... 39 CHAPTER 4 PREVIOUS SERVICE REVISIONS ........................................ 77 CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN ...................................... 81 CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................ 93 CHAPTER 7 GLOSSARY ...................................................................... 98 REFERENCE MAPS .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • East Bakersfield
    Recommendations to Improve Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety for the Community of East Bakersfield October 2017 Recommendations to Improve Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety for the Community of East Bakersfield By Austin Hall, Tony Dang, Wendy Ortiz, California Walks; Jill Cooper, Katherine Chen, Ana Lopez, UC Berkeley Safe Transportation Research & Education Center (SafeTREC) Introduction At the invitation of the Kern County Department of Public Health, the University of California at Berkeley’s Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) and California Walks (Cal Walks) facilitated a community-driven pedestrian and bicycle safety action-planning workshop in East Bakersfield to improve pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, walkability, and bikeability across the East Bakersfield community. Prior to the workshop, Cal Walks staff conducted an in-person site visit on Friday, July 14, 2017, to adapt the Community Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Training program curriculum to meet the local communities’ needs and to provide context-sensitive example strategies for the community’s existing conditions. Cal Walks facilitated the workshop on August 22, 2017, which consisted of: 1) an overview of multidisciplinary approaches to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety; 2) three walkability and bikeability assessments along three routes; and 3) small group action-planning discussions to facilitate the development of community-prioritized recommendations to inform East Bakersfield’s active transportation efforts. This report summarizes the workshop proceedings, as well as ideas identified during the process and recommendations for pedestrian and bicycle safety projects, policies, and programs. Background Community Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Training Program The Community Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Training (CPBST) program is a joint project of UC Berkeley SafeTREC and Cal Walks.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Time Arrival Information Using the Farebox How to Plan Your Trip
    Real Time Arrival Information How to Plan Your Trip Smart phones: Use the Golden Empire Transit Start by finding your destination on the Free App for iphones and androids System Map located in the middle of the Computers/tablets: Go to getbus.org book. Regular phones: Using the number on the GET offers trip planning at getbus.org. stop, call 869-2GET (2438) and put in the stop Next, find the starting point where you will number. board the bus. To speak with a Customer Service Representa- Decide which route or routes you need to take. tive, call 869-2GET (2438) Some trips require more than one bus, which Customer Service Representatives are on duty means you will need to transfer from one bus Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 to another. If you will need to transfer, find the intersection of the two routes. This is where you p.m. and on Saturday and Sunday from 6:30 will exit the first bus and board the second. a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Check the schedule to determine what time GET now offers Real Time Information on you need to arrive at your bus stop. The buses computers and mobile devices travel through the schedule from left to right. Computer/Tablets: Click on real time infor- Choose the timetable section that refers to mation at getbus.org. Choose a route. Hold the direction you will be traveling, for example the clicker over a stop (red dot) for location Route 21- Bakersfield College/Eastbound.
    [Show full text]
  • Gateway Freeway 99 & Hosking Road Announcing
    BAKERSFIELD GATEWAY FREEWAY 99 & HOSKING ROAD ANNOUNCING • Bakersfield Gateway will offer 800,000 square feet of mixed use retail to be anchored by Bass Pro Shops • Excellent Freeway 99 location with both visibility and access via a new interchange to Freeway 99 • Located 20 miles from the new TEJON OUTLETS, another Freeway 99 traffic generator • Approximately 152,000 cars travel daily on Freeway 99 • Bakersfield Gateway will feature lifestyle amenities including a central gathering area for various family-oriented activities, upscale landscaping, fountains and park benches LIFESTYLE AMENITIES LOCATION COMMUNITY DUANE KEATHLEY VINCE ROCHE JOSH SHERLEY KARI STURGEON STACY BURT PACIFIC COMMERCIAL REALTY ADVISORS Executive Director | Principal Executive Director | Principal Director Sales Associate Sales Associate Lic. #01919464 (661) 633 3816 (661) 633 3817 (661) 633 3840 (661) 633 3820 (661) 633 3833 5060 California Avenue, Suite 1000 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Bakersfield, CA93309 Lic. #00935011 Lic. #01155079 Lic. #01876855 Lic. #01463739 Lic. #01938710 www.paccra.com The depiction in the included photograph of any person, entity, sign, logo or property, other than Cushman & Wakefield’s (C&W) client and the property offered by C&W, is incidental only, and is not intended to connote any affiliation, connection, association, sponsorship or approval by or between that which is incidentally depicted and C&W or its client. This listing shall not be deemed an offer to lease, sublease or sell such property; and, in the event of any transaction for such property, no commission shall be earned by or payable to any cooperating broker except if otherwise provided pursuant to the express terms, rates and conditions of C&W’s agreement with its principal, if, as and when such commission (if any) is actually received from such principal.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan Promotes a More Efficient
    CHAPTER 5 STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS – VERSION 5 CHAPTER 5 STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS INTRODUCTION This chapter sets forth plans of action for the region to pursue and meet identified transportation needs and issues. Planned investments are consistent with the goals and policies of the plan, the Sustainable Community Strategy element (see chapter 4) and must be financially constrained. These projects are listed in the Constrained Program of Projects (Table 5-1) and are modeled in the Air Quality Conformity Analysis. The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan promotes Forecast modeling methods in this Regional Transportation a more efficient transportation Plan primarily use the “market-based approach” based on demographic data and economic trends (see chapter 3). The system that calls for fully forecast modeling was used to analyze the strategic funding alternative investments in the combined action elements found in this transportation modes, while chapter.. emphasizing transportation demand and transporation Alternative scenarios are not addressed in this document; they are, however, addressed and analyzed for their system management feasibility and impacts in the Environmental Impact Report approaches for new highway prepared for the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan, as capacity. required by the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(f) and 15126.6(a)). From this point, the alternatives have been predetermined and projects that would deliver the most benefit were selected. The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan promotes a more efficient transportation system that calls for fully funding alternative transportation modes, while emphasizing transportation demand and transporation system management approaches for new highway capacity. The Constrained Program of Projects (Table 5-1) includes projects that move the region toward a financially constrained and balanced system.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapters 2I-2N
    2009 Edition Page 299 CHAPTER 2I. GENERAL SERVICE SIGNS Section 2I.01 Sizes of General Service Signs Standard: 01 Except as provided in Section 2A.11, the sizes of General Service signs that have a standardized design shall be as shown in Table 2I-1. Support: 02 Section 2A.11 contains information regarding the applicability of the various columns in Table 2I-1. Option: 03 Signs larger than those shown in Table 2I-1 may be used (see Section 2A.11). Table 2I-1. General Service Sign and Plaque Sizes (Sheet 1 of 2) Conventional Freeway or Sign or Plaque Sign Designation Section Road Expressway Rest Area XX Miles D5-1 2I.05 66 x 36* 96 x 54* 120 x 60* (F) Rest Area Next Right D5-1a 2I.05 78 x 36* 114 x 48* (E) Rest Area (with arrow) D5-2 2I.05 66 x 36* 96 x 54* 78 x 78* (F) Rest Area Gore D5-2a 2I.05 42 x 48* 66 x 72* (E) Rest Area (with horizontal arrow) D5-5 2I.05 42 x 48* — Next Rest Area XX Miles D5-6 2I.05 60 x 48* 90 x 72* 114 x 102* (F) Rest Area Tourist Info Center XX Miles D5-7 2I.08 90 x 72* 132 x 96* (E) 120 x 102* (F) Rest Area Tourist Info Center (with arrow) D5-8 2I.08 84 x 72* 120 x 96* (E) 144 x 102* (F) Rest Area Tourist Info Center Next Right D5-11 2I.08 90 x 72* 132 x 96* (E) Interstate Oasis D5-12 2I.04 — 156 x 78 Interstate Oasis (plaque) D5-12P 2I.04 — 114 x 48 Brake Check Area XX Miles D5-13 2I.06 84 x 48 126 x 72 Brake Check Area (with arrow) D5-14 2I.06 78 x 60 96 x 72 Chain-Up Area XX Miles D5-15 2I.07 66 x 48 96 x 72 Chain-Up Area (with arrow) D5-16 2I.07 72 x 54 96 x 66 Telephone D9-1 2I.02 24 x 24 30 x 30 Hospital
    [Show full text]
  • Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’S Report (Final) July 2011
    Barrier system (from TOA) Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Consultant’s Report (Final) July 2011 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COUNTYWIDE BUS RAPID TRANSIT STUDY Consultant’s Report (Final) July 2011 Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Key additional elements of BRT network ...................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Relationship to land use ........................................................................................ 2 1.1.2 Station access ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1.3 Brand identity ........................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Organization of report .................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ 5 2 Study Methodology ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 High-level roadway screening ...................................................................................... 9 2.2 Corridor development and initial
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution #20-9
    BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BALTIMORE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD RESOLUTION #20-9 RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE THE UPDATED BALTIMORE REGION COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Baltimore region, encompassing the Baltimore Urbanized Area, and includes official representatives of the cities of Annapolis and Baltimore; the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Queen Anne’s; and representatives of the Maryland Departments of Transportation, the Environment, Planning, the Maryland Transit Administration, Harford Transit; and WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Baltimore region, has responsibility under the provisions of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act for developing and carrying out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process for the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration, a modal division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, requires under FAST Act the establishment of a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. Previously, under MAP-21, legislation combined the New Freedom Program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program into a new Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program, better known as Section 5310. Guidance on the new program was provided in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.1G released on June 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration requires a plan to be developed and periodically updated by a process that includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Stress Bikeway Network in The
    Bakersfield LOW STRESS BIKE NETWORK PLAN PROPOSAL TO CREATE A LOW-STRESS BIKEWAY NETWORK IN THE VICINITY OF THE BAKERSFIELD HIGH-SPEED RAIL STATION ALIFORNIA 81CYCLE COALITION CONTENTS Executive Summary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1 Summary of Implementation Objectives � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �1 Recommended Projects � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �2 Methodology � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �3 Existing Conditions � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �3 Community Outreach � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �3 Introduction � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 4 Site Area � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �4 Project Team � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �4 Existing Conditions � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �4 Demographics and Mode Share � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �5 Goals � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �6 Public Health � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �7
    [Show full text]
  • Home at Last! Kern County's Plan to End Homelessness
    HOME AT LAST! KERN COUNTY’S PLAN TO END HOMELESSNESS BY 2028 Prepared For The Citizens of Kern County By United Way of Kern County And The Kern County Homeless Collaborative May 2018 “It is my strong belief that every individual and family deserves safe, af- fordable housing. I know the caring and compassionate people of Bak- ersfield and Kern County share this goal. It can be achieved through proactive, coordinated action and investments in cost-effective initiatives that solve homelessness. We have developed the plan. Now the real work begins. I am asking that you please join us now in ending homelessness in our community.” Harvey Hall, 2008 Mayor of Bakersfield, 2000-2016 Dedicated to: Harvey L. Hall, 1941-2018 Bakersfield Mayor, Businessman, Visionary Leader, Humanitar- ian, and Friend Executive Summary Home At Last! Kern County’s Plan to End Homelessness by 2028 ii The Kern County Homeless Collaborative believes that home- lessness is a solvable social problem and that through collabo- rative planning and action, we can eventually ensure that every individual and family has safe, affordable housing. Solving homelessness is the morally correct thing to do and will improve the life of the community. We look forward to the day when homelessness becomes a rare, brief and non-recurring event. During the past decade, Kern County saw an overall decrease of almost 40% in its home- less population, despite challenges brought on by Great Recession of 2008-2010. This was in large part due to the work of the Kern County Homeless Collaborative (KCHC) and its partner agencies, guided by the 2008 Home First! A Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, which was prepared at the request of then Bakersfield Mayor Harvey L.
    [Show full text]
  • Indianapolis Street Transportation Album Ca
    Collection # P 0523 INDIANAPOLIS STREET TRANSPORTATION ALBUM CA. 1890–CA. LATE 1940S Collection Information Historical Sketch Scope and Content Note Contents Cataloging Information Processed by Barbara Quigley 26 August 2013 Manuscript and Visual Collections Department William Henry Smith Memorial Library Indiana Historical Society 450 West Ohio Street Indianapolis, IN 46202-3269 www.indianahistory.org COLLECTION INFORMATION VOLUME OF One album with 16 photographs plus one loose photograph COLLECTION: COLLECTION Ca. 1890–ca. late 1940s (includes later copies of some of the DATES: earlier images) PROVENANCE: Transferred from the Indiana Historical Society's education library in December 2011 RESTRICTIONS: None COPYRIGHT: REPRODUCTION Permission to reproduce or publish material in this collection RIGHTS: must be obtained from the Indiana Historical Society. ALTERNATE FORMATS: RELATED HOLDINGS: ACCESSION 2011.0349 NUMBER: NOTES: See also: Indianapolis Street Railways Collection (OMB 20, BV 3038–3049) HISTORICAL SKETCH The Citizens' Street Railway Company operated mule-drawn streetcars on Illinois Street in downtown Indianapolis in 1864, and this service grew as the city expanded. The Citizens' Street Railroad Company, founded by investors from Chicago, bought the system in 1888 and converted it from animal to electric power. The Indianapolis Street Railway Company purchased the system in 1899, allowed interurban electric trains to use its lines in 1900, and bought control of the Indianapolis–Broad Ripple line in 1902. The company began operating buses in 1925. In 1932 Indianapolis Railways, Inc. bought the system and became the first transit operator anywhere to use the trackless trolley in downtown traffic. The trackless trolley completely replaced the traditional streetcar in Indianapolis in January 1953.
    [Show full text]