DOCSLIB.ORG

Star Transit Transit Development Plan: Fiscal Years 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Star Transit Transit Development Plan: Fiscal Years 2010 SSTTAARR TTRRAANNSSIITT TTRRAANNSSIITT DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT PPLLAANN:: FFIISSCCAALL YYEEAARRSS 22001100 –– 22001155 Prepared for: Prepared by: Under contract to: November 2009 Contents 1.0 STAR TRANSIT SYSTEM OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 History ........................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.2 Governance ................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 Organizational Structure ............................................................................................... 1‐3 1.4 Transit Services Provided and Areas Served ................................................................. 1‐4 1.5 Fare Structure ................................................................................................................ 1‐9 1.6 Fleet ............................................................................................................................. 1‐10 1.7 Existing Facilities .......................................................................................................... 1‐10 1.8 Transit Security Program ............................................................................................. 1‐11 1.9 Public Outreach ........................................................................................................... 1‐11 2.0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STANDARDS ............................................................................ 2-1 2.1 STAR Vision and Mission ............................................................................................... 2‐1 2.2 TDP Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................. 2‐2 2.3 Service Performance Standards .................................................................................... 2‐5 3.0 SERVICE AND SYSTEM EVALUATION ................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Historical and Existing Service Perspective ................................................................... 3‐1 3.2 Peer System Review ...................................................................................................... 3‐6 3.3 On‐Board Passenger Survey .......................................................................................... 3‐9 3.4 Level of Support for Transit ........................................................................................... 3‐9 3.5 Focus Groups and General Community Input ............................................................... 3‐9 3.6 Recent Changes in Patronage, Operating Costs, and Operating Revenue ................. 3‐10 3.7 Deviations from Service Standards and Potential Remedies ...................................... 3‐10 3.8 Potential Solutions to Gaps or Service Deficiencies .................................................... 3‐22 3.9 Potential Remedies for Equipment and Facility .......................................................... 3‐22 3.10 Title VI Report and FTA Triennial Review ................................................................ 3‐22 4.0 SERVICE EXPANSION PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Demographics Analysis of Anticipated Population and Employment Changes ............ 4‐1 4.2 Potential Service Expansion and Facility Needs ............................................................ 4‐3 5.0 SERVICE AND FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Service Recommendations ............................................................................................ 5‐1 5.2 Facility Recommendations ............................................................................................ 5‐2 STAR Transit i November 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 5.3 Vehicle Fleet Recommendations ................................................................................... 5‐2 6.0 CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Vehicle Replacement Program ...................................................................................... 6‐1 6.2 Vehicle Expansion Program ........................................................................................... 6‐1 6.3 Facility Improvement Program ..................................................................................... 6‐1 7.0 FINACIAL PLAN .................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Operation & Maintenance Costs and Funding Sources ................................................ 7‐1 7.2 Bus Purchase Cost and Funding Sources ....................................................................... 7‐3 7.3 Facility Improvement Costs and Funding Sources ........................................................ 7‐4 8.0 TDP MONITORING AND EVALUATION .............................................................................. 8-1 8.1 Coordination with Other Plans and Programs .............................................................. 8‐1 8.2 Service Performance Monitoring .................................................................................. 8‐2 8.3 Annual TDP Monitoring ................................................................................................. 8‐2 Appendices A. FTA Triennial Review Report* B. Title VI Report* C. Fleet Inventory from DRPT’s On‐Line Grant Application system (OLGA) D. Operating and Capital Expenses and Revenues – A 3‐Year Retrospective E. Transit Rider On‐Board Survey Results F. STAR Transit Project Stakeholder Meeting *Currently defined as a service that is provided in a rural portion of the Commonwealth, STAR Transit is not required to prepare and submit its own separate Title VI report or the associated FTA Quadrennial Review; therefore, Appendix A and Appendix B are not included as part of this document. STAR Transit ii November 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 List of Tables Table 1‐1: STAR Transit Board of Directors ......................................................................................... 1‐3 Table 1‐2: Summary of STAR Transit Operation ................................................................................. 1‐5 Table 1‐3: STAR Transit Existing Vehicle Inventory ........................................................................... 1‐10 Table 3‐1: Historical Operating Statistics for STAR Transit, FY2006‐2008 .......................................... 3‐2 Table 3‐2: Annual Ridership of STAR Transit System .......................................................................... 3‐5 Table 3‐3: STAR Transit – Peer Group Comparison Summary ............................................................ 3‐7 Table 3‐10: Minimum Levels for Consideration of Transit Service ................................................... 3‐14 Table 3‐11: Maximum Policy Headway ............................................................................................. 3‐15 Table 3‐12: Span of Service (Start and End Times) ........................................................................... 3‐16 Table 3‐13: Maximum Load Factors .................................................................................................. 3‐16 Table 3‐14: Bus Stop Spacing ............................................................................................................ 3‐17 Table 3‐15: Transit Travel Time......................................................................................................... 3‐18 Table 3‐16: Schedule Adherence ...................................................................................................... 3‐19 Table 3‐17: Trip Availability .............................................................................................................. 3‐19 Table 3‐18: Financial Guidelines ....................................................................................................... 3‐20 Table 3‐19: Productivity .................................................................................................................... 3‐21 Table 4‐1: Existing Study Area Population and Employment ............................................................. 4‐2 Table 4‐2: Study Area Population Forecasts ....................................................................................... 4‐2 Table 4‐3: Future Year Study Area Elderly Population Forecasts ....................................................... 4‐3 Table 4‐4: Projected No Action Scenario Operating Statistics ............................................................ 4‐4 Table 4‐5: Scenario 1 – Return of Ruby Route Operating Statistics ................................................... 4‐7 Table 4‐6: Scenario 2 – Saturday Service Operating Statistics ........................................................... 4‐8 Table 4‐7: Scenario 3 – Hampton Roads Connector Operating Statistics ........................................... 4‐9 Table 7‐1: Projected Annual Operating Cost and Funding Sources .................................................... 7‐3 Table 7‐2: TDP Financial Plan for Funding Bus Purchases .................................................................. 7‐4 Table 7‐3: Capital Cost of Expansion Buses .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • __History of Kew Depot and It's Routes
    HISTORY OF KEW DEPOT AND ITS ROUTES Page 1 HISTORY of KEW DEPOT and the ROUTES OPERATED by KEW Compiled and written by Hugh Waldron MCILT CA 1500 The word tram and tramway are derived from Scottish words indicating the type of truck and the tracks used in coal mines. 1807 The first Horse tram service in the world commences operation between Swansea and Mumbles in Wales. 12th September 1854 At 12.20 pm first train departs Flinders Street Station for Sandridge (Port Melbourne) First Steam operated railway line in Australia. The line is eventually converted to tram operation during December 1987 between the current Southbank Depot and Port Melbourne. The first rail lines in Australia operated in Newcastle Collieries operated by horses in 1829. Then a five-mile line on the Tasman Peninsula opened in 1836 and powered by convicts pushing the rail vehicle. The next line to open was on 18/5/1854 in South Australia (Goolwa) and operated by horses. 1864 Leonard John Flannagan was born in Richmond. After graduating he became an Architect and was responsible for being the Architect building Malvern Depot 1910, Kew Depot 1915 and Hawthorn Depot 1916. He died 2nd November 1945. September 1873 First cable tramway in the world opens in Clay Street, San Francisco, USA. 1877 Steam tramways commence. Victoria only had two steam tramways both opened 1890 between Sorrento Pier to Sorrento Back Beach closed on 20th March 1921 (This line also operated horse trams when passenger demand was not high.) and Bendigo to Eaglehawk converted to electric trams in 1903.
    [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]
  • Summary of the Current Revitalization of Brownfields Sites Where EPA
    Report Date: 7 Feb 08 Summary of the Current Revitalization of Brownfields Sites where EPA Funded Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBAs) Have Been Completed­ EPA Region III Compiled by Jerry Curtin (3HW51) Land Revitalization Team; Brownfields and Land Revitalization Branch 1 Items of Interest 1. The cover page shows the Stainless site in Perkasie, PA before a Targeted Brownfields Assessment (TBA) was performed (upper photo) and the site after a TBA and appropriate revitalization (lower photo). The site is discussed in Table A of this report, item 8. Over an 80­year period, the site was used as an old site mill, a truck body manufacturing company and a stainless steel production facility. It is now the First Savings Bank Administrative Building. The cover photo is from the following website: http://www.gjdonovan.com/current.htm 2 Table of Contents Page A. Preface and Abbreviations 5 B. Background 9 C. Sites included in this report and their Table location 11 D. Results of the Evaluation 15 Table 1 Overall Revitalization Results 17 Table 2 Category of Revitalization for each site 18 E. Some of the Success Stories (Completely Redeveloped Sites) 19 F. Status of Sites 21 Table A: Completed TBAs and their status 23 Table B: Completed State Led SSAs and their status 39 Table C: Completed State SSAs overseen by the States 53 Table D: GAO specified TBAs­1998­99 101 G. Acknowledgements 105 H. Photos of Some of the Success Stories 107 I. Maps: Locations of Sites in Each State 123 Enclosures/Attachments/Appendices In a Separate Document 3 4 A.
    [Show full text]
  • DVRPC FFY 2019 Annual Obligation Report Highway & Bridge
    List of fy2019 federally obligated projects DVRPC REGIONAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM Date: 12/12/19 7:55AM FFY 2019 DVRPC TIP Page 1 of 12 Rpt # TIP302 FHWA Obligation Report Obligations 10/1/18 to 9/30/19 MPMS PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR PHASE DISTRICT COUNTY STATE ROUTE OBLIGATION* PROG. TOTAL FED FUNDS REMAINING FFY 2019 FFY 2019 TO 2022 110407 ADA Ramp STY (Districtwide) ADA Ramp Study PENNDOT Study 6 Bucks $300,000 $1,100,000 $800,000 Districtwide 87088 Chalfont Boro SRS(F) Chalfont Borough Safe Routes to School PENNDOT Construction 6 Bucks $(19,788) $0 $0 Pedestrian Facilities Chalfont Borough, Bucks County. 104302 Rt 13 Stscape Croydon Ph2(F) Route 13 Streetscape Croydon Section Phase 2 PENNDOT Construction 6 Bucks $90,000 $90,000 $0 Bristol Township, Bucks County Pedestrian Improvements 108002 Moland Park Trail (C) Moland Park Trail PENNDOT Construction 6 Bucks $500,000 $500,000 $0 Warwick Township Multi-use trail This project involves the creation of a pedestrian/bicycle trail under Route 263 to allow visitors access to recreational and cultural amenities near Moland Park. 102830 Neshaminy Greenway Trail (C) Neshaminy Greenway Trail (NGT) PENNDOT Construction 6 Bucks $2,000,000 $2,225,026 $225,026 New Britain Township, Bucks County Construction of the NGT 13549 US1: Old Linc - PA413 US Route 1: Old Lincoln - PA 413 PENNDOT Final Design 6 Bucks 1 $477,750 $15,925,000 $15,447,250 Bensalem and Middletown Townships, Bucks County Bridge Deck Rehabilitations 106989 SR 0001 @ SR 0032 Interchange (F) SR 0001 at SR 0032 Interchange PENNDOT Construction 6 Bucks 1 $250,000 $250,000 $0 Bucks County, Falls Twp.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route
    Resource Study & Environmental Assessment WASHINGTON–ROCHAMBEAU REVOLUTIONARY ROUTE Northeast and National Capital Regions National Park Service—U.S. Department of the Interior October 2006 ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT This document is the Resource Study and Environmental Assessment (study/EA) for the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route. It describes the National Park Service’s preferred approach to preserving and interpreting route resources and one other alternative. The evaluation of potential environmental impacts that may result from imple- mentation of these alternatives is integrated in this document. This study/EA is available for public review for a period of 30 days. During the review period, the National Park Service is accepting comments from interested parties via the Planning, Environment and Public Comment website http://parkplanning.nps.gov/, at public meetings which may be held, and at the address below. At the end of the re- view period, the National Park Service will carefully review all comments and determine whether any changes should be made to the report. No sooner than thirty (30) days from the end of the review period, the National Park Service will prepare and publish a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) to explain which alternative has been selected, and why it will not have any significant environmental impacts. A summary of responses to public comments will be prepared. Factual corrections or additional material submitted by commentators that do not affect the alternative may be incorporated in errata sheets and attached to the study/EA. The study/EA and FONSI will be transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior who will make a recommendation to Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Infrastructure Strategy Report
    September 2009 ST EDMUNDSBURY GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY Final Report Prepared for St Edmundsbury Borough Council by Land Use Consultants ST EDMUNDSBURY GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY – FINAL REPORT Prepared for St Edmundsbury Council by Land Use Consultants September 2009 43 Chalton Street London NW1 1JD Tel: 020 7383 5784 Fax: 020 7383 4798 [email protected] CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 1 A Definition of green infrastructure....................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and scope of the GI Strategy ................................................................................................... 2 Report structure......................................................................................................................................... 2 PART ONE: CONTEXT AND EVIDENCE BASE ............................... 7 2. POLICY AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT.......................................... 9 Overview - Promotion of green infrastructure in planning policy .................................................. 9 Growth........................................................................................................................................................11 Existing green infrastructure strategies ...............................................................................................18 Policy and guidance relating to green infrastructure environmental themes – key messages
    [Show full text]
  • Draft II Baltimore Link
    A Plan to Connect Baltimore What is BaltimoreLink? . Improve service quality and reliability Linking Modes . Maximize access to high-frequency transit Places People . Strengthen connections between the MTA’s bus and rail routes Improving Safety . Align the network with existing and emerging Efficiency job centers Reliability . Involve riders, employees, communities, and Customer Service elected officials in the planning process 2 Existing Service We’ve heard the existing transit system is… Broken Disconnected Crowded Unclean Major Problems: Unreliable • Lengthy Routes – Long east-west and north-south routes Not connected to • Highly Congested – Buses bottleneck due to jobs network design • Unreliable – Network design hinders MTA’s ability to provide reliable service 3 The Solution - The BaltimoreLink Network . High-frequency routes into and throughout urban core • Color-coded routes • All lines access Downtown • 24 hours of service per day • Designed to connect to all other CityLink routes and to Rail Stations . Local Routes connecting to CityLink routes • Neighborhood connectivity • Suburb-to-urban core connectivity . Limited stop routes into urban core and suburb-to-suburb • Connecting to Regional Job Centers and Downtown To be integrated seamlessly with: 4 1st Draft Outreach October 2015 – February 2016 . BaltimoreLink Outreach built upon the effort accomplished as part of the 2013 Baltimore Network Improvement Project (BNIP) 13 public workshops over 790 and 4 pop- attendees . MTA gathered over 1,280 ups comments from 67 key events 26 24 elected stakeholder officials and briefed community group meetings 5 st 4% 1 Draft Outreach 6% Comment Submittal and Topic 7% 9% 61% submitted online (mySideWalk or Survey Monkey) 60% 11% 24% submitted comment form 11% Specific BaltimoreLink Route Proposal 15% submitted in other formats Forced Transfer (hotline, email, verbal, or other) Safety/Cleanliness Information/ Resources .
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 of the Countywide Greenway Plan
    Volume II: Countywide Greenway Plan Chapter 3: Primary Trail Network Chapter 3: Primary Trail Network OVERVIEW The Countywide Primary Trail Network is comprised of the Recreation Greenways identified through the process described in Chapter 2 of this Plan. They were identified at a large scale; as such, they show potential segments, but not specific alignments. The Primary Trails can be considered “planning corridors” for more detailed trail studies in the future. While several Primary Trails have already been constructed, many are just conceptual. As more detailed studies are completed on these trails, alternate routes may need to be considered. The Primary Trails identified in this plan (see Map 3-1) are intended to be Type I and Type II (hard- surface) off-road connector trails owned or managed at the County, municipal, or multi-municipal level. Existing earthen and/or crushed stone trails that represent long-distance routes or continuations of paved trails are included in this category, and should be considered for paving as degree of use warrants. It is recommended that newly developed Primary Trails be designed to meet ADA standards where feasible (exceptions may include extremely sensitive natural features or limited use). If an entirely off-road trail is not feasible, some sections may be sited on sidewalks, roadsides, and/or roadway in the interim. The Primary Trails serve as the main spokes in the countywide network of trails. The purpose behind creating the Primary Trail Network is to direct the energies of the County and municipalities into developing their trail systems in such a manner that they either construct segments of the Primary Trail Network or design their internal trail network to connect to Primary Trails.
    [Show full text]
  • Benefit Cost Analysis
    Appendix D: Benefit Cost Analysis 35 North Avenue Rising Benefit-Cost Analysis Economic Analysis Supplementary Documentation Prepared for Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) 2016 TIGER Discretionary Grant Program April 28, 2016 Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A benefit-cost analysis (BCA) was conducted for the North Avenue Rising Complete Streets project for submission to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) as a requirement of a discretionary grant application for the TIGER 2016 program. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the benefit-cost methodology as recommended by the U.S. DOT in the 2016 TIGER Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance.1 The period of analysis corresponds to 34 years and includes 4 years of construction and 30 years of benefits after operations begin in 2021. Sponsored by the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) and City of Baltimore, the North Avenue Rising project is a unique suite of proposed transportation investments intended to improve corridor and regional mobility and leverage these transportation improvements with other State, City and private development initiatives to revitalize the surrounding area. Over the past several decades, North Avenue and the communities that surround it have suffered from economic disinvestment. Today the corridor is characterized by a mixture of vacant residential and commercial property and deteriorating sidewalk and roadway infrastructure, but it is also home to long-standing institutions like Coppin State University and an emerging arts district which includes the Maryland Institute College of Art. The corridor has a rich cultural history which should be celebrated, and just beneath the surface of its disrepair it is brimming with potential.
    [Show full text]
  • Route 1 / Ruta 1 - Juan Tabo Juan 1 - / Ruta 1 Route Effective 12/19/2009 Route 2 / Ruta 2 Effective 12/19/2009 Eubank Blvd
    Route 1 / Ruta 1 - Juan Tabo Effective 12/19/2009 66 A C D E F 7 5 11 12 13 6 8 7 5 B 93 I G N H ALL BUSES ARE WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE Route 1 - Weekday Southbound Route 1 - Weekday Northbound & MONTGOMERY & MONTGOMERY WARM SANDS PARK & RIDE PARK & RIDE & ACADEMY & MAVERICK & TRAMWAY & TRAMWAY & TRAMWAY & TRAMWAY & ACADEMY JUAN TABO JUAN TABO JUAN TABO JUAN TABO & CENTRAL JUAN TABO JUAN TABO JUAN TABO JUAN TABO & CENTRAL & MENAUL WENONAH WENONAH WENONAH & MENAUL WENONAH & LOMAS & LOMAS EUBANK LOWELL EUBANK & SPAIN A B C D E F G H I I G F E D C A 608a 612a 616a 621a 626a 630a 638a ..... ..... ..... 556a 602a 606a 611a 616a 622a 626a 630a 634a 639a 644a 648a 656a 700a 704a ..... 621a 627a 631a 636a 641a 647a 651a 655a 659a 704a 709a 713a 721a 725a 729a ..... 646a 652a 656a 701a 706a 712a 723a 727a 731a 736a 741a 745a 753a ..... ..... 711a ..... 717a 721a 726a 731a 737a 748a 752a 756a 801a 806a 810a 818a ..... ..... 736a ..... 742a 746a 751a 756a 802a 813a 817a 821a 826a 831a 835a 843a ..... ..... ..... 801a 807a 811a 816a 821a 827a 838a 842a 846a 851a 856a 900a 908a ..... ..... ..... 826a 832a 836a 841a 846a 852a 928a 932a 936a 941a 946a 950a 958a ..... ..... ..... 851a 857a 901a 906a 911a 917a 1038a 1042a 1046a 1051a 1056a 1100a 1109a ..... ..... ..... 1010a 1016a 1020a 1025a 1030a 1036a 1148a 1152a 1155a 1203p 1209p 1214p 1223p ..... ..... ..... 1120a 1126a 1130a 1135a 1140a 1146a 1258p 102p 105p 113p 119p 124p 133p ..... ..... ..... 1231p 1237p 1241p 1246p 1251p 1257p 208p 212p 215p 223p 229p 234p 243p ..... ..... ..... 151p 157p 201p 206p 211p 217p 233p 237p 240p 248p 254p 259p 308p 312p 316p ....
    [Show full text]
  • Opens... Leith Next?
    THE INTERNATIONAL LIGHT RAIL MAGAZINE www.lrta.org www.tramnews.net JULY 2014 NO. 919 EDINBURGH TRAMWAY OPENS... LEITH NEXT? Operational simulation on the Munich S-Bahn Major manufacturers to merge? Luxemburg tramway approved Tram society triumphs in Stockholm ISSN 1460-8324 £4.10 Tampa Bern 07 Streetcar service Respecting a city, but with community supporting growth 9 771460 832036 London, 1 October 2014 ENTRIES OPEN NOW Best Customer Initiative Best Environmental and Sustainability Initiative Employee/Team of the Year Manufacturer of the Year Most Improved System Operator of the Year Outstanding Engineering Achievement Award Project of the Year <EUR50m Project of the Year >EUR50m Significant Safety Initiative Supplier of the Year <EUR10m Supplier of the Year >EUR10m Technical Innovation of the Year Judges’ Special Award Vision of the Year For advanced booking and sponsorship details contact: Geoff Butler – t: +44 (0)1733 367610 – @ [email protected] www.lightrailawards.com CONTENTS The official journal of the Light Rail Transit Association July 2014 Vol. 77 No. 919 www.tramnews.net EDITORIAL 277 EDITOR Simon Johnston Tel: +44 (0)1733 367601 E-mail: [email protected] 13 Orton Enterprise Centre, Bakewell Road, 294 Peterborough PE2 6XU, UK ASSOCIATE EDITOR Tony Streeter E-mail: [email protected] 308 WORLDWIDE EDITOR Michael Taplin Flat 1, 10 Hope Road, Shanklin, Isle of Wight PO37 6EA, UK. E-mail: [email protected] NEWS EDITOR John Symons 17 Whitmore Avenue, Werrington, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs ST9 0LW, UK. E-mail: [email protected] SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR Neil Pulling WORLDWIDE CONTRIBUTORS Tony Bailey, James Chuang, Paul Nicholson NEWS 276 COMMENT 293 (Australia), Richard Felski (Spain), Ed Havens, Bill Alstom and AnsaldoBreda takeover talks; Why the Edinburgh Tramway is the most Vigrass (USA), Andrew Moglestue (Switzerland), Edinburgh tramway opens; Inekon to import significant UK industry project in a decade.
    [Show full text]