System Line Miles Owner Or Controller BART Ebart 9.3 BART Capital

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Publicly-Owned Commuter/Regional Rail Lines in the U.S. System Line Miles Owner or Controller BART eBART 9.3 BART Capital Metro MetroRail Red Line 32 Capital Metro DCTA A-train 21 DCTA FDOT SunRail 61 FDOT LIRR Atlantic Branch 15.7 LIRR LIRR Central Branch 7 LIRR LIRR Far Rockaway Branch 7.1 LIRR LIRR Hempstead Branch 6.5 LIRR LIRR Long Beach Branch 5.4 LIRR LIRR Main Line 96.1 LIRR LIRR Montauk Branch 117 LIRR LIRR Oyster Bay Branch 14.4 LIRR LIRR Port Jefferson Branch 32.6 LIRR LIRR Port Washington Branch15 LIRR LIRR W. Hempstead Branch 3.2 LIRR MARC Penn 77 Amtrak MBTA Fairmont 8.1 MBTA MBTA Fitchburg 49.6 MBTA MBTA Framingham/Worcester 43 MBTA MBTA Franklin 30.3 MBTA MBTA Greenbush 27.6 MBTA MBTA Haverhill 33 MBTA MBTA Kingston/Plymouth 60.3 MBTA MBTA Lowell 25.4 MBTA MBTA Needham 8.7 MBTA MBTA Newburyport/Rockport 53.2 MBTA MBTA Providence 62.9 MBTA/Amtrak MBTA Stoughton 4.1 MBTA Metro North Danbury Branch 23.9 ConnDOT Metro North Harlem 76.7 Metro North Metro North Hudson 74 Metro North Metro North New Haven 62.1 Metro North/ConnDOT Metro North Waterbury Branch 28.5 ConnDOT Metro North New Caanan Branch 8.2 ConnDOT Metrolink Antelope Valley Line 76.6 SCRRA Metrolink Orange County Line 61 SCRRA Metrolink Perris Valley Line 24 SCRRA Metrolink San Bernardino Line 56.5 SCRRA Metrolink Ventury County Line 47 SCRRA NCTD Coaster 51 NCTD NCTD Sprinter 22 NCTD NICTD South Shore Line 90 NICTD NJ Transit Bergen County 11.8 NJ Transit NJ Transit Gladstone Branch 22.2 NJ Transit NJ Transit Montclair-Boonton 49.6 NJ Transit NJ Transit Morristown 28.9 NJ Transit NJ Transit Northeast Corridor 58.1 Amtrak NJ Transit Pascack Valley 23 Metro North/NJ Transit NJ Transit Princeton Branch 4.3 NJ Transit NJ Transit River LINE 34 NJ Transit NJ Transit Atlantic City 67.9 NJ Transit NJ Transit Main Line 57 Metro North/NJ Transit NJ Transit North Jersey Coast 50 NJ Transit NJ Transit Raritan Valley 21.9 NJ Transit PCJPA Caltrain 48.4 PCJPA Rio Metro NM Rail Runner 97 NMDOT RTA MD-N 49.7 RTA RTA MD-W 40 RTA RTA Metra Electric 31 RTA RTA North Central 11.4 RTA RTA RI-Suburban Line 6.6 RTA RTA Rock Island District 16.4 RTA RTD A Line 23.5 RTD RTD B Line 6.2 RTD RTD G Line 11.2 RTD SEPTA Airport Line 7.6 SEPTA SEPTA Chestnut Hill East 10.8 SEPTA SEPTA Chestnut Hill West 10.4 SEPTA SEPTA Cynwyd 5.2 SEPTA SEPTA Fox Chase 6.6 SEPTA SEPTA Lansdale/Doylestown 27.1 SEPTA SEPTA Manayunk/Norristown Line16 SEPTA SEPTA Media/Elwyn 13.3 SEPTA SEPTA Paoli/Thorndale 35.2 SEPTA SEPTA Trenton 32.5 Amtrak SEPTA Warminster 20.4 SEPTA SEPTA West Trenton 41.5 SEPTA SEPTA Wilmington/Newark 38.7 Amtrak SFRTA Tri-Rail 70.9 SFRTA SMART SMART 70 SMART Trinity Metro TEXRail 27.2 Trinity Metro Trinity Metro/DARTTrinity Railway Express 34 Trinity Metro/DART UTA FrontRunner 88 UTA Total Miles 2953.5.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Can Public Transit Revitalize Detroit? the Qline and the People Mover”
“Can Public Transit Revitalize Detroit? The QLine and the People Mover” John B. Sutcliffe, Sarah Cipkar and Geoffrey Alchin Department of Political Science, University of Windsor Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4 Email: [email protected] Paper prepared for presentation at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC. June 2019. This is a working draft. Please do not cite without permission. 1 “Can Public Transit Revitalize Detroit? The QLine and the People Mover" Introduction On May 12, 2017 a new streetcar – the QLine – began operating in Detroit, running along a 3.3- mile (6.6-mile return) route on Woodward Avenue, one of the central north-south roads in the city. This project is one example of the return to prominence of streetcars in the (re)development of American cities. Having fallen into disuse and abandonment in hundreds of American cities during the early part of the 20th century, this form of public transit has returned in many cities including, for example, Dallas, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Portland. As streetcar services have returned to prominence, so too has the debate about their utility as a form of public transit, the function they serve in a city, and who they serve (Brown 2013; Culver 2017). These debates are evident in the case of Detroit. Proponents of the QLine – most prominently the individuals and organizations that advocated for its creation and provided the majority of the start-up capital – have praised the streetcar for acting as a spur to development, for being a forward-thinking transit system and for acting as a first step towards a comprehensive regional transit system in Metro Detroit (see M-1 Rail 2018).
[Show full text]
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]
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION March 28, 2017 Agenda ID# 15631
STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 March 28, 2017 Agenda ID# 15631 TO PARTIES TO RESOLUTION ST-203 This is the Resolution of the Safety and Enforcement Division. It will be on the April 27, 2017, Commission Meeting agenda. The Commission may act then, or it may postpone action until later. When the Commission acts on the Resolution, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the resolution become binding on the parties. Parties may file comments on the Resolution as provided in Article 14 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), accessible on the Commission’s website at www.cpuc.ca.gov. Pursuant to Rule 14.3, opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages. Late-submitted comments or reply comments will not be considered. An electronic copy of the comments should be submitted to Colleen Sullivan (email: [email protected]). /s/ ELIZAVETA I. MALASHENKO ELIZAVETA I. MALASHENKO, Director Safety and Enforcement Division SUL:vdl Attachment CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of Draft Resolution ST-203 on all identified parties in this matter as shown on the attached Service List. Dated March 28, 2017, at San Francisco, California. /s/ VIRGINIA D. LAYA Virginia D. Laya NOTICE Parties should notify the Safety Enforcement Division, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to ensure that they continue to receive documents.
[Show full text]
31-Thirty Hunters Point Avenue
31-THIRTY HUNTERS POINT AVENUE FACTORY DISTRICT / LONG ISLAND CITY, NY 11101 / FOR LEASE FIRST FLOOR FLOOR PLAN VAN DAM STREET 18,000 SF FEATURES: • 18,000 sf first floor (additonally 4,000 sf can be made available on the second floor) • 16’ ceiling • 1 drive-in door (can create another drive-in EXISITING DRIVE-IN or loading dock) AMENITIES: • 25’ x 30’ column spacing • Bus Line • Built in 1962 • Metro/Subway • Zone M2-1 HUNTER’S POINT AVENUE POTENTIAL LOCATION & TRANSIT: LOADING DOCK OR DRIVE-IN Subway: #7 (33rd Street Rawson stop) Buses: Q67, Q32, & Q60 bus lines 31ST PLACE Facing LIE with easy access BQE, Midtown Tunnel & 59th Street Bridge FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Commission computed and earned in accordance with the rates and conditions of our agency agreement with our MICHAEL DEUTSCH JOSEPH MEYERSON JOSEPH GROTTO JR. principal, when received from our principal, will be paid to a cooperating broker who consummates a sublease which 914 299 1302 718 512 2620 212 318 9727 is unconditionally executed and delivered by and between sublandlord and subtenant. (A copy of the rates and [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] conditions referred to above are available upon request.) 31-THIRTY HUNTERS POINT AVENUE FACTORY DISTRICT / LONG ISLAND CITY, NY 11101 / FOR LEASE Transit/Subway Distance 33 Street (7 Line) Transit Stop 0.7 mi Hunters Point Avenue Transit Stop 0.8 mi Queens Plaza Transit Stop (E, M, R) 0.9 mi 40 Street-Lowery Street Transit Stop (7) 0.9 mi Long Island City-Court Square Transit Stop (G) 1.0 mi Commuter Rail Distance Hunter’s Point Avenue Station Commuter Rail(Oyster Bay 0.8 mi Branch, Hempstead Branch) Woodside Station Commuter Rail (Ronkonkoma Branch,Long Beach Branch, Port Jefferson Branch, 3.6 mi Hempstead Branch, Montauk Branch, Babylon Branch) Airport Drive Distance La Guardia Airport 10 min 5.9 mi John F.
[Show full text]
Metrolink Orange County Line Schedule
Metrolink Orange County Line Schedule Is Siffre pitch-black or undramatic after argumentative Jodie knurls so daringly? Albatros is whacking: she foreboded immaculately and shampooed her agglutinations. Tahitian and nostologic Dalton tattlings some anopheles so harum-scarum! Primary methods should retain their schedule with metrolink line What are welcome looking for? More frequent repeal and service now more places is needed. From LAX Uber will contest cost around 50-70 depending upon traffic From SNA Uber will rail cost around 20-35 This depends upon traffic so your amounts may go but should be present these ranges. Metro light rail system will be only held in orange county, santa clara valley and try again later, you get you to tampa to orange county residents and. Metrolink Train Crashes Into RV in Santa Fe Springs Igniting. Glenmore Park to Penrith via The Northern Rd. Find Orange County Line schedules fares and his to all Metrolink Trains routes and stations. You may value has commented yet. This premier regional or create your personal story. Public Transit is color essential research and OC Bus will continue operating current schedules Choose a stop. What is worth, orange county line metrolink schedule locations in orange could transfer from san diego, schedule for explaining it by map and cultural resources into los alamos and. Public Transportation near Angel Stadium Los Angeles Angels. This line schedule weekday round trip, orange county should you need. For more information on garbage and schedules, metro. The Inland south-orange County Line serves stations in Orange County. Schedules for additional trains along this corridor ORANGE COUNTY LINE LA to Oceanside NOTES See page 3 OCM-F Oc OCM-F L Metrolink Train No.
[Show full text]
Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options
Advocacy Sustainability Partnerships Fort Washington Office Park Transportation Demand Management Plan Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options Prepared by GVF GVF July 2017 Contents Executive Summary and Key Findings ........................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 ArcMap Geocoding and Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 6 Travel Times Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 7 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Employee Commuter Survey Results ................................................................................................ 7 2. Office Park Companies Outreach Results ......................................................................................... 7 3. Office Park
[Show full text]
Metrorail/Coconut Grove Connection Study Phase II Technical
METRORAILICOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 & TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT Technical Memorandum Number 3 Prepared for Prepared by IIStB Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 METRORAIUCOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 Prepared for Prepared by BS'R Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY DESCRiPTION ........................................................................................ 1 3.0 TRANSIT MODES DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 4 3.1 ENHANCED BUS SERViCES ................................................................... 4 3.2 BUS RAPID TRANSIT .............................................................................. 5 3.3 TROLLEY BUS SERVICES ...................................................................... 6 3.4 SUSPENDED/CABLEWAY TRANSIT ...................................................... 7 3.5 AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSiT ....................................................... 7 3.6 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT .............................................................................. 8 3.7 HEAVY RAIL ............................................................................................. 8 3.8 MONORAIL
[Show full text]
May 2020 Update
PTC Dashboard - LIRR and MNR (May 2020) System Software Baseline Releases PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP) Release Purpose Deadline Status RR Planned Current 3.5 MNR System Level Software (Wayside, Office, Onboard Equipment) May-19 May-19 (A) PTCSP submitted to LIRR Jun-19 Jun-19 (A) 3.5 LIRR Supports RSD on pilots and ERSD on non-pilot segments Jun-19 Jun-19 (A) LIRR submits PTCSP to the FRA Jul-19 Jul-19 (A) 3.6 LIRR Supports ERSD for non-pilot segments Oct-19 Oct-19 (A) LIRR PTCSP in review by FRA for Approval Oct-20 3.6 MNR System Release for Variance Fix (Wayside, Office) Jun-20 PTCSP submitted to MNR Jul-19 Jul-19 (A) 3.7 LIRR Supports ERSD for non-pilot segments with B2B Mar-20 Mar-20 (A) MNR submits PTCSP to the FRA Aug-19 Aug-19 (A) 3.8 LIRR HMAC and STS-STS Interface Jun-20 MNR PTCSP in review by FRA for Approval Oct-20 3.9 LIRR Operational Improvements Sep-20 Line Segments in Revenue Service Railroad Segment Planned Current MNR Tenants Interoperability date Status LIRR/3.5 Port Washington Branch (Pilot Line 2) Dec-18 Dec-18 (A) Amtrak Dec-20 LIRR/3.5 Montauk Branch - Babylon to Patchogue (Pilot Line 1) Dec-18 Dec-18 (A) CSX Dec-20 LIRR/3.5 Oyster Bay Branch Oct-19 Oct-19 (A) Providence & Worcester (P&W) Dec-20 LIRR/3.5 Hempstead Branch Oct-19 Aug-19 (A) PanAm Dec-20 LIRR/3.5 Long Beach Branch Oct-19 Oct-19 (A) Cdot Dec-20 LIRR/3.5 Far Rockaway Branch Nov-19 Oct-19 (A) LIRR TenantsInteroperability date Status Oct-20 LIRR/3.5 West Hempstead Branch Nov-19 Oct-19 (A) Amtrak (was Sep-20) LIRR/3.5 Port Jefferson Branch Nov-19 Nov-19 (A) NYAR
[Show full text]
Union Depot Tower Interlocking Plant
Union Depot Tower Union Depot Tower (U.D. Tower) was completed in 1914 as part of a municipal project to improve rail transportation through Joliet, which included track elevation of all four railroad lines that went through downtown Joliet and the construction of a new passenger station to consolidate the four existing passenger stations into one. A result of this overall project was the above-grade intersection of 4 north-south lines with 4 east-west lines. The crossing of these rail lines required sixteen track diamonds. A diamond is a fixed intersection between two tracks. The purpose of UD Tower was to ensure and coordinate the safe and timely movement of trains through this critical intersection of east-west and north-south rail travel. UD Tower housed the mechanisms for controlling the various rail switches at the intersection, also known as an interlocking plant. Interlocking Plant Interlocking plants consisted of the signaling appliances and tracks at the intersections of major rail lines that required a method of control to prevent collisions and provide for the efficient movement of trains. Most interlocking plants had elevated structures that housed mechanisms for controlling the various rail switches at the intersection. Union Depot Tower is such an elevated structure. Source: Museum of the American Railroad Frisco Texas CSX Train 1513 moves east through the interlocking. July 25, 1997. Photo courtesy of Tim Frey Ownership of Union Depot Tower Upon the completion of Union Depot Tower in 1914, U.D. Tower was owned and operated by the four rail companies with lines that came through downtown Joliet.
[Show full text]
3.5: Freight Movement
3.5 Freight Movement 3.5 Freight Movement A. INTRODUCTION This section describes the characteristics of the existing rail freight services and railroad operators in the project area. Also addressed is the relationship between those services and Build Alternative long-term operations. The study area contains several rail freight lines and yards that play key roles in the movement of goods to and from the Port of New York and New Jersey, the largest port on the east coast, as well as in the movement of goods vital to businesses and residents in multiple states. However, no long-term freight movement impacts are anticipated with the Build Alternative, and no mitigation measures will be required. B. SERVICE TYPES The following freight rail services are offered in the project area: • Containerized or “inter-modal” consists primarily of containers or Example of Doublestack Train with Maritime truck trailers moved on rail cars. Containers Intermodal rail traffic is considered the fastest growing rail freight market, and is anticipated to grow in the region between 3.9 and 5.6 percent annually through 2030, based on the NJTPA Freight System Performance Study (see Table 3.5-1). • Carload traffic consists of products that are typically moved in boxcars, hopper cars, tank cars, and special lumber cars over a long distance by rail, and then either transported directly by rail or Example of Carload Rail Traffic shifted to truck for delivery to more local customers. The characteristics of these commodities (e.g., bulk, heavy or over- dimensional) make rail the preferred option for long-distance movement.
[Show full text]
BART to Antioch Extension Title VI Equity Analysis & Public
BART to Antioch Extension Title VI Equity Analysis & Public Participation Report October 2017 Prepared by the Office of Civil Rights San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Table of Contents I. BART to Antioch Title VI Equity Analysis Executive Summary 1 Section 1: Introduction 7 Section 2: Project Description 8 Section 3: Methodology 20 Section 4: Service Analysis Findings 30 Section 5: Fare Analysis Findings 39 II. Appendices Appendix A: 2017 BART to Antioch Survey Appendix B: Proposed Service Plan Appendix C: BART Ridership Project Analysis Appendix D: C-Line Vehicle Loading Analysis III. BART to Antioch Public Participation Report i ii BART to Antioch Title VI Equity Analysis and Public Participation Report Executive Summary In October 2011, staff completed a Title VI Analysis for Antioch Station (formerly known as Hillcrest Avenue Station). A Title VI/Environmental Justice analysis was conducted on the Pittsburg Center Station on March 19, 2015. Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI Circular (Circular) 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (October 1, 2012), the District is required to conduct a Title VI Service and Fare Equity Analysis (Title VI Equity Analysis) for the Project's proposed service and fare plan six months prior to revenue service. Accordingly, staff completed an updated Title VI Equity Analysis for the BART to Antioch (Project) service and fare plan, which evaluates whether the Project’s proposed service and fare will have a disparate impact on minority populations or a disproportionate burden on low-income populations based on the District’s Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Policy (DI/DB Policy) adopted by the Board on July 11, 2013 and FTA approved Title VI service and fare methodologies.
[Show full text]
2000 LIRR Report Card Results of the Annual, Independent Rider Survey from the Long Island Rail Road Commuters' Council
The 2000 LIRR Report Card Results of the Annual, Independent Rider Survey from the Long Island Rail Road Commuters' Council Michael T. Doyle Associate Director Joshua Schank Transportation Planner October 2000 Long Island Rail Road Commuters' Council 347 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017 (212) 878-7087 • www.lirrcc.org © 2000 LIRRCC Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the members of the LIRRCC for their invaluable efforts in performing survey research in the field, and the Long Island Rail Road for its cooperation during survey activities. The authors also gratefully acknowledge technical assistance provided by former PCAC Associate Director Alan Foster. The Long Island Rail Road Commuters' Council (LIRRCC) is the legislatively mandated representative of the ridership of MTA Long Island Rail Road. Our 12 volunteer members are regular users of the LIRR system and are appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of the Nassau and Suffolk County Executives, and Brooklyn and Queens Borough Presidents. The Council is an affiliate of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA (PCAC). For more information, please visit our website: www.lirrcc.org. Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Methodology 3 Results for Performance Indicators 5 Systemwide Results 5 Results by Branch 10 Results for Customer Comments 17 Systemwide Results 17 Results by Branch 20 Representative Customer Comments 25 Service Delivery 25 Service Requirements 25 Scheduling 28 On-Time Performance 31 Operations 32 Maintenance of Service During Severe
[Show full text]