DOCSLIB.ORG

Transit Concept and Alternatives Review (TCAR) Guidance November 2016 TCAR

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transit Concept and Alternatives Review (TCAR) Guidance November 2016 TCAR TCAR Transit Concept and Alternatives Review (TCAR) Guidance November 2016 TCAR TCAR This page intentionally left blank. Transit Concept and Alternatives Review (TCAR) Guidance | November 2016 Table of Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 2 Project Development in Florida .................................................................................................. 3 Comparing FTA and FHWA/FDOT Project Development ..............................................3 FTA Funded Transit Projects ...................................................................................................... 4 Non-FTA Funded Transit Projects ............................................................................................... 4 Transit Project Delivery Process .................................................................................................. 5 TCAR Study Process .............................................................................................10 Identifying Transit Projects Appropriate for a TCAR Study ............................................................ 11 Ten Steps of Conducting a TCAR Study ..................................................................................... 12 Figures Figure 1: Project Development Process in Florida .............................................................................. 3 Figure 2: Transit Project Development (State and Federal) .................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Finding the Right Balance ................................................................................................ 9 Figure 4: Example Transit Type Evaluation ..................................................................................... 22 Figure 5: FTA New and Small Starts Process .................................................................................. 28 Figure 6: Components of a Successful FTA Project Evaluation ........................................................... 28 Tables Table 1: Summary of TCAR Evaluation Steps .................................................................................. 21 Table 2: Comparison of Capital Investment Grant Programs .............................................................. 29 Appendices Appendix A: FTA Class of Action Environmental Checklist Appendix B: Sample Letter for Entrance into FTA Project Development November 2016 | Transit Concept and Alternatives Review (TCAR) Guidance | i This page intentionally left blank. ii | Transit Concept and Alternatives Review (TCAR) Guidance | November 2016 This TCAR guidance identifies key decision points and steps for planning, programming, and preparing premium transit projects for implementation. Whether seeking local, state, or federal funding, the goal of a TCAR Study is to advance transit projects towards implementation with the greatest potential for success. Introduction WHAT IS PREMIUM TRANSIT? Premium transit is a term for transit service that The purpose of the Transit Concept and Alternatives moves a higher number of riders, longer distances, Review (TCAR) guidance is to outline the Florida more quickly as compared to local transit. Department of Transportation (FDOT) Transit Office (TO) process for early planning and early evaluation of transit projects in Florida. The guidance is intended for use by transit Project Sponsors (see page 10 for definition) and their consultants, and by FDOT staff who prepare or review planning and design for transit projects. Although the TCAR Study is not required, it is encouraged if seeking Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding and FDOT matching New Starts funds. SunRail, Orlando FL The TCAR process is a uniform approach for Commuter Rail advancing transit projects by linking early planning work to the FDOT Project Development and Environment (PD&E) and FTA Project Development (PD) processes. The result of the TCAR is a study that details the project information and requirements necessary to prepare an application for entry into the FTA PD process or development through the state project development process. The TCAR process is a streamlined planning and Bus Rapid Transit EmX, Eugene OR environmental screening process that compares transit project alternatives, potential costs, funding options, community benefits, economic development, and mobility for users of a proposed project. It also considers high level environmental effects of the alternatives. Advancing transit projects that maximize existing funding sources and have the greatest potential return on investment is paramount to the preservation and growth of an effective transportation system. Light Rail Transit Valley Metro, Phoenix AZ November 2016 | Transit Concept and Alternatives Review (TCAR) Guidance | 1 Background A transit alternative is defined as operation of one or more transit modes, such as enhanced bus, bus Transit projects can be costly; therefore transit sponsors rapid transit (BRT), automated guideway transit, often seek state or federal funding to cover a portion streetcar, light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, and of the project’s capital costs. To qualify for federal high speed rail within a specific corridor. funding, such as New or Small Starts funding through the FTA Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program, projects must undergo a thorough review. The FTA CIG National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process Program review includes Project Development (New by eliminating impractical or infeasible alternatives and Small Starts), Engineering (New Starts), and Full and conducting early environmental screening so that Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA)/Construction (New Project Sponsors can complete the FTA PD phase and Small Starts). within the required timeframe by the current federal transportation funding legislation. Current legislation FTA encourages local and state agencies to evaluate requires that PD for all New Starts and Core Capacity multiple project alternatives before entering the federal projects are completed within two years. While there grant program and the environmental review process. is no time limitation to complete PD for Small Starts This streamlines project implementation by identifying projects, the TCAR process should enable Small Starts the most appropriate projects for federal funding. In projects to be completed efficiently as well. response, FDOT created the TCAR process to link early planning and the federal process. Due to the growing complexity and cost of project implementation, as well as the need for state funding The TCAR process incorporates and complies with and strong local agency and community support, all federal and state regulations to provide consistent FDOT has frequently and increasingly been asked to guidance for Florida transit projects preparing to take a lead role in implementing large transit projects. enter the FTA or state process. A TCAR Study is Additionally, FTA relies on FDOT’s input as a partner designed to gather information and evaluate transit to ensure these major transit projects are viable. This project alternatives, including modes, alignments, leadership demand is in part a result of FDOT’s proven and end points. The TCAR Study streamlines the success in managing, designing, and building major LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA Photo Courtesy of Jacobs Engineering 2 | Transit Concept and Alternatives Review (TCAR) Guidance | November 2016 multimodal projects and garnering partner support. The TCAR process builds upon this experience, providing Comparing FTA and guidance and direction to ensure that projects with FHWA/FDOT Project greatest potential for success are advanced to the FDOT PD&E phase and FTA PD phase. Development Pages 26-27 highlight the FTA process for projects The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FTA seeking federal funding though the CIG Program. transit project delivery processes are similar in content but different in administration. As with a FDOT Project Development in Florida PD&E Study, FTA-funded projects must complete environmental compliance with NEPA and related FDOT has a prescribed five-step process for moving environmental laws, as well as sufficient preliminary all transportation projects, including road and transit, engineering to clearly define the project, its possible from concept to construction, as shown in Figure impacts, and financial resource requirements. 1. The TCAR Study supports Step 2 of the process, The FTA PD process serves the same function as programming and screening of transit alternatives, the FDOT PD&E Study. After the PD&E Study, FDOT prior to entering the PD&E Study phase where the typically advances the project into design before New Starts process is initiated in Step 3. Figure 1: Project Development Process in Florida Project Planning Programming Design Construction Development & Community & Alternatives & & & Support Screening Funding Operations Environment November 2016 | Transit Concept and Alternatives Review (TCAR) Guidance | 3 moving to construction. FTA defines the design and rating process. To qualify for federal funding, the phase as Engineering (New Starts and Core Capacity Project Sponsor must build the case for and justify Projects). The key distinction between the two the project before the project may be submitted to processes is the need
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 10 – Eurocruise - Porto Part 4 - Heritage Streetcar Operations
    10 – Eurocruise - Porto Part 4 - Heritage Streetcar Operations On Wednesday morning Luis joined us at breakfast in our hotel, and we walked a couple of blocks in a light fog to a stop on the 22 line. The STCP heritage system consists of three routes, numbered 1, 18 and 22. The first two are similar to corresponding services from the days when standard- gauge streetcars were the most important element in Porto’s transit system. See http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/pt/porto/porto-tram.htm. The three connecting heritage lines run every half-hour, 7 days per week, starting a little after the morning rush hour. Routes 1 and 18 are single track with passing sidings, while the 22 is a one-way loop, with a short single-track stub at its outer end. At its Carmo end the 18 also traverses a one-way loop through various streets. Like Lisbon, the tramway operated a combination of single- and double- truck Brill-type cars in its heyday, but now regular service consists of only the deck-roofed 4-wheelers, which have been equipped with magnetic track brakes. Four such units are operated each day, as the 1 line is sufficiently long to need two cars. The cars on the road on Wednesday were 131, 205, 213 and 220. All were built by the CCFP (Porto’s Carris) from Brill blueprints. The 131 was completed in 1910, while the others came out of the shops in the late 1930s-early 1940s. Porto also has an excellent tram museum, which is adjacent to the Massarelos carhouse, where the rolling stock for the heritage operation is maintained.
    [Show full text]
  • January–June 2005 · $10.00 / Rails To
    January–June 2005 · $10.00 / Rails to Rubber to Rails Again, Part 1: Alabama–Montana Headlights The Magazine of Electric Railways Published since 1939 by the Electric Railroaders’ Association, Inc. WWW.ERAUSA.ORG Staff Contents Editor and Art Director January–June 2005 Sandy Campbell Associate Editors Raymond R. Berger, Frank S. Miklos, John Pappas Contributors Edward Ridolph, Trevor Logan, Bill Volkmer, Columns Alan K. Weeks 2 News Electric Railroaders’ Compiled by Frank Miklos. International transportation reports. Association, Inc. E Two-Part Cover Story Board of Directors 2008 President 18 Rails to Rubber to Rails Again Frank S. Miklos By Edward Ridolph. An extensive 60-year summary of the street railway industry in First Vice President the U.S. and Canada, starting with its precipitous 30-year, post-World War II decline. William K. Guild It continues with the industry’s rebirth under the banner of “light rail” in the early Second Vice President & Corresponding Secretary 1980s, a renaissance which continues to this day. Raymond R. Berger Third Vice President & Recording Secretary Robert J. Newhouser Below: LAMTA P3 3156 is eastbound across the First Street bridge over the Los Treasurer Angeles River in the waning weeks of service before abandonment of Los Angeles’ Michael Glikin narrow gauge system on March 31, 1963. GERALD SQUIER PHOTO Director Jeffrey Erlitz Membership Secretary Sandy Campbell Officers 2008 Trip & Convention Chairman Jack May Librarian William K. Guild Manager of Publication Sales Raymond R. Berger Overseas Liason Officer James Mattina National Headquarters Grand Central Terminal, New York City A-Tower, Room 4A Mailing Address P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Portuguese Trams Imported by Gales Creek Enterprises
    Volume 25 Issue 1 Spring 2020 Reminder to members: Please be sure your dues are In This Issue up to date. 2020 dues were due Jan 1, 2020. If it has Portuguese Trams – Richard Thompson ……………..…..…………….…1 been longer than one year since you renewed, go to Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society News…………………………2 Willamette Shore Trolley Update – Dave Rowe …………………..……..12 our website: oregontrolley.com and download an Donation Request ……………..…………………………………..…..……14 application by clicking: Become a Member. Portuguese Trams It has been 25 years since the OERHS departed Glenwood, yet the following story should be of interest to Imported by Gales Creek newer members because a Portuguese streetcar joined the collection at Powerland in 2006. Porto No. 210 (renumbered Enterprises (1974-1993) 201 before arrival) is not a part of the Trolley Park story, of course, but it is similar to the streetcars that were kept there. Richard Thompson Car 210 was one of a series built during 1938-45 to replace the Brill and St. Louis Car Company classics. A sense of familiarity might also come from the fact that vintage Beginning in 1974, Gales Creek Enterprises (GCE), Portuguese trams share a kinship with our beloved Council headed by Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society Crest cars 503 and 506. (OERHS) co-founder Paul Class, provided at least 70 vintage streetcars to launch trolley operations in a half-dozen American cities. In the process Paul almost single-handedly started what we now call the “heritage streetcar” movement. His company imported many streetcars from Australia and Brazil, but the largest part of that pioneering effort involved trams from Portugal.
    [Show full text]
  • BSRA 2015-03-07 Entertainment Report
    BSRA Entertainment Report for March 7, 2015 LONG FORM (for historical record) Entertainment Report for March 7, 2015 March 7, 2015. The Bachelders' NRHS Convention Adventure, Part 1. Leonard Bachelder and his wife Nancy attended the 2013 NRHS convention in Alaska, turning this into a 6-week trip through Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon Territory, and Alaska. Len started us off in Calgary, Alberta, showing us the C-Train Transit Mall. The C-Train begain operating in 1981, and has been expanded several times since. The downtown Transit Mall consists of 7th Avenue with high-level platforms that are usually offset by a block on opposite sides for space reasons. The Transit Mall is entirely within the 7th Avenue Free Fare Zone, and is shared by both C-Train routes (the South and Northwest lines, forming route 201, and Northeast and West lines, forming route 202). As Len also showed us, Calgary Transit buses use the Transit Mall, but not the station platforms. Current rolling stock types are Siemens-Duewag U2 (#2001 - #2083, delivered from 1981 through 1984, and of which 80 of the original 83 remain in service), Siemens SD-160 Series 5 and 6 (#2201 - #2272, delivered from 2001 through 2006), and Siemens SD-160NG Series 8 (#2301 - #2338, delivered in 2007). Len showed us examples of all of these classes of cars. The C-Train also has car #2090 which was made from the remaining good sections of wrecked U2 cars #2019 and #2027, and experimental cars #2101 - #2102 (AC versions of the U2s, originally #3001 - #3002) which also served as demonstrators in Edmonton, but have been retained in revenue service in Calgary (not MU-compatible with the DC motored U2s, so inserted into the middle of SD-160 trains).
    [Show full text]
  • Bring Back the Streetcars : a Conservative Vision of Tomorrow's
    Bring Back the Streetcars! A Conservative Vision of Tomorrow's Urban Transportation by Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind .... Free~• Foundation This study of public transportation by the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation was underwritten by the private sector Business Members of the American Public Transportation Association. The views expressed are those of the authors. Public Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow Washington, DC June 2002 BRING BACK THE STREETCARS! A Conservative Vision of Tomorrow’s Urban Transportation A Study Prepared by the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation By Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind The Free Congress Foundation 717 Second Street Washington, DC 20002 (202) 546-3000 June 2002 Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction: What’s Right with This Picture? 3 Bring Back the Streetcars! 6 The Context: Restoring Our Cities and Building New Towns 6 What Is a Streetcar? 9 Vintage and Heritage Streetcars 12 Who Else Is Doing It? 13 What Does It Cost? 18 Three Case Studies: 21 Dallas, Texas 21 Memphis, Tennessee 24 Portland, Oregon 28 Conclusion 32 Appendices: 34 Appendix I: Getting Started 34 Appendix II: The Gomaco Trolley Company 37 Appendix III: Resources 39 Notes 40 E xecutive Summary For more than half a century, the context in which public transport operated was suburbanization. But recently, that has begun to change. Urban downtowns are reviving, and new towns are being built to traditional patterns. Not only can streetcars serve these non- suburban areas, they need streetcars in order to flourish. Streetcars – which we define as rail transit vehicles designed for local transportation, powered by electricity received from an overhead wire – differ from both buses and Light Rail.
    [Show full text]
  • BSRA 2015-08-01 Entertainment Report
    BSRA Entertainment Report for August 1, 2015 LONG FORM (for historical record) Entertainment Report for August 1, 2015 August 1, 2015. San Francisco's F Line. Peter Ehrlich has been an operator on San Francisco's F Line until 2005, and has operated heritage and modern streetcars, and even buses. Tonight, he presented San Francisco's famous F Line, America's most successful heritage streetcar line, with the digital slideshow being accompanied by handouts of the F Line's streetcar roster and route map. The Market Street Railway is a private booster organization that supports the F Line, but does not run it; it has offices in the Flood Building (which we got to see later in the show). It is not cirectly related to the Market Street Railway Company of 1857 - 1944, although it is named after this transit company. San Francisco's Municipal Railway (MUNI) runs the F Line, and is also responsible for maintining the streetcars, and charges the same fare for riding on them (the only MUNI vehicles that charge a different fare are the cable cars). As Peter's first images showed us, the F Line began official operation on September 1, 1995, with a 20 streetcar parade led by the Blackpool "boat tram" (built in 1934) that the F Line had at the time; however, much work had already been done to establish it by this time, for it was an outgrowth of the San Francisco Historic Trolley Festivals that started in 1983 to serve as a replacement tourist attraction while the cablecar system was shut down for major overhaul from 1982 - 1984.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Mode Primer
    TRANSIT MODE PRIMER The Regional Tampa Bay Next is a program to modernize We’re committed to providing both financial and Tampa Bay’s transportation infrastructure and prepare technical support to our local partners in their pursuit for the future. FDOT is committed to a comprehensive of better transit services. To make a robust and reliable approach to transportation planning and development transit system a reality, the Tampa Bay community for an integrated, multimodal regional transportation must work together to reach a consensus on transit system. The program includes: improvement projects and develop a viable funding plan • Interstate Modernization to construct, operate and maintain the system. To get • Transit better transit services in our community, we must answer • Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities one important question: Are we willing to pay for it? • Complete Streets • Transportation Innovation Transit Mode Characteristics • Freight Mobility Type of service provided: average distance of trip Tampa Bay’s complex transportation problems require Type of station: elevated, platform, shelter, on- comprehensive, multimodal solutions. With Tampa street, or park-and-ride Bay Next, FDOT’s interstate planning is fully integrated with transit planning. Spacing between stations: average distance between stations How can Tampa Bay make transit a Operating speeds: average operating speeds (miles reality? per hour); affected by the number of stations, weight of the vehicle, incline, and number and degree of turns Transit is a locally supported service and any major transit improvements would require investment from Capacity: optimal capacity measured in passengers the local community. When you look at successful per hour; assumes bus or train arrives at a station every transit models across the United States, you see local 10 minutes, except aerial cable transit (3 minutes) and communities prioritizing funding for transit systems.
    [Show full text]
  • US Manufacture of Rail Vehicles for Intercity
    ! "#$#!%&'()&*+(,-!.)!/&01! 2-30*1-4!).,!5'+-,*0+6! 7&44-'8-,!/&01!&'9! ",:&'!;,&'40+! ! ! !"#$%&'"()$*+"!+$%,-*-" ! ! %&,*6!B.C-?!$&.,0!;.D(.D&?!E,04+-'!F(:&6?! <('-!=>?!=@A@! &'9!G&,6!G-,-))0! ! H.'+,0:(+0'8!HGGH!,-4-&,*3-,I!;&10!;,088! ! ! ! ! ./0/"1$+&2$34&5'"62"7$*%"#')*3%'-"265"8+4'53*4,"9$--'+:'5"7$*%"$+;".5<$+"=5$+-*4" This research was prepared on behalf of Apollo Alliance with support from the Rockefeller Foundation and Surdna Foundation. The authors would like to thank Matt Mayrl of the Apollo Alliance for comments on early drafts. Many thanks also to the following reviewers: Doug Bowen, Chandra Brown, Nora Friend, Ruggero Golini, Dennis Harwig, Hatsuhiko Kageyama, Mike Mekhiche, Richard Moss, Matthew Palilla, Mike Pracht, Maryanne Roberts, Robin Stimson, and Chuck Wochele. Errors of fact or interpretation remain exclusively with the authors. We welcome comments and suggestions. The lead author can be contacted at [email protected]. List of Abbreviations APMs Automated People Movers ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act CNR China North Locomotive and Rolling Stock Industry Group CSR China South Locomotive and Rolling Stock Industry Group DMUs Diesel Multiple Units EMUs Electric Multiple Units EMD Electro Motive Diesel EWI Edison Welding Institute FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HSR High Speed Rail IAMAW International Association of Machinists IBEW International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers LRT Light Rail Transit NAICS North American Industry Classification System OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 UNIFE Union des Industries Ferroviaires Européennes U.S. PIRG Federation of State Public Interest Research Groups Photo Permissions: Cover photo by Dave Wilcox (2008), Tostie14, (2005) and Doug Beghtel (2009) © June 22, 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • (Second Draft) Heritage Trolley / Streetcar Infrastructure Standards J
    Introduction/Statement of Purpose (Second Draft) Heritage Trolley / Streetcar Infrastructure Standards J. Schantz - September 2007 Foreword This standard for Vintage / Heritage Trolley and Modern Streetcar track and overhead infrastructure is the second major component of a set of recommended practice documents covering Vintage / Heritage Trolley technology, and is the first extended to include modern streetcars. As this standard was being prepared, there were about two dozen heritage trolley or modern streetcar operations around the United States, with many more in the planning stages. All of them use electric propulsion and operate on rail typically in a mixture of street and private right of way configurations.The vehicles, be they heritage or modern, are usually lighter and lower speed than light rail vehicles so are suited to a simpler infrastructure than their larger counterparts. The rail transit industry and various engineering or self-regulatory groups have been steadily generating standards covering many technical aspects of rail infrastructure and the related electrification. However, some aspects of these standards are not ideal for the operating environment of heritage or modern streetcars. For this reason the APTA Heritage Trolley and Streetcar Subcommittee has created this standards document to outline concepts appropriate for streetcar lines built in an urban public transit environment. It is the intention of this standard to focus on design level practices, leaving many engineering aspects of preferred designs to the detailed standards prepared by groups such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE )and American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA). This subcommittee and other APTA entities are working closely with these groups on development of detailed infrastructure standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Midsize Cities on the Move
    (Inside front cover) December 2012 Midsize Cities on the Move A Look at the Next Generation of Rapid Bus, Bus Rapid Transit, and Streetcar Projects in the United States Acknowledgements We would like to thank The Rockefeller Foundation for supporting this research. We also wish to thank the review panel members for their helpful comments and suggestions: Sarah Jo Peterson, Urban Land Institute; Dennis Hinebaugh, National Bus Rapid Transit Institute; Kathy Nothstine and Brett Schwartz, National Association of Development Organizations; Jeff Hiott, American Public Transportation Association; Roger Millar, Smart Growth America; David Westendorff , Mid-Sized Cities Policy Research Institute, University of Memphis; and Leslie Wollack, National League of Cities. We are thankful for the refl ections and participation of staff from transit agencies, cities, and metropolitan planning organizations that contributed to this report. This report was written by Sarah Kline and Sasha Forbes, and edited and formatted by John Hughes, with contributions from Elizabeth Wampler, Jeff Wood and Irving Pham. Midsize Cities on the Move 3 Contents Acknowledgements2 Introduction6 Methodology7 What is a Midsize City?9 Three Types of Midsize Cities9 Midsize City Characteristics10 Supporting Economic Revitalization: Stark Area Regional Transit Authority, Canton, OH12 A Look at Midsize Regions13 Transit Investments14 Overview of Rapid Bus and Bus Rapid Transit14 Overview of Streetcars17 Planning and Implementation of Transit Projects20 Players and Partnerships 20 Transit
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Manufacture of Rail Vehicles for Intercity Passenger Rail and Urban Transit
    U.S. Manufacture of Rail Vehicles for Intercity Passenger Rail and Urban Transit A Value Chain Analysis Marcy Lowe, Saori Tokuoka, Kristen Dubay, June 24, 2010 and Gary Gereffi Contributing CGGC researcher: Tali Trigg U.S. Manufacture of Rail Vehicles for Intercity Passenger Rail and Urban Transit This research was prepared on behalf of Apollo Alliance with support from the Rockefeller Foundation and Surdna Foundation. The authors would like to thank Matt Mayrl of the Apollo Alliance for comments on early drafts. Many thanks also to the following reviewers: Doug Bowen, Chandra Brown, Nora Friend, Ruggero Golini, Dennis Harwig, Hatsuhiko Kageyama, Mike Mekhiche, Richard Moss, Matthew Palilla, Mike Pracht, Maryanne Roberts, Robin Stimson, and Chuck Wochele. Errors of fact or interpretation remain exclusively with the authors. We welcome comments and suggestions. The lead author can be contacted at [email protected]. List of Abbreviations APMs Automated People Movers ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act CNR China North Locomotive and Rolling Stock Industry Group CSR China South Locomotive and Rolling Stock Industry Group DMUs Diesel Multiple Units EMUs Electric Multiple Units EMD Electro Motive Diesel EWI Edison Welding Institute FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HSR High Speed Rail IAMAW International Association of Machinists IBEW International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers LRT Light Rail Transit NAICS North American Industry Classification System OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer PRIIA Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 UNIFE Union des Industries Ferroviaires Européennes U.S. PIRG Federation of State Public Interest Research Groups Photo Permissions: Cover photo by Dave Wilcox (2008), Tostie14, (2005) and Doug Beghtel (2009) © June 22, 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 – Passenger Rail Systems
    The Texas Department of Transportation anticipates issuing an amendment to this report in early 2014 to reflect recent CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL developments on important rail initiatives in the state. Chapter 4 – Passenger Rail Systems To improve the coordination of the planning, construction, operation and maintenance of a statewide passenger rail system in the State of Texas, S.B. 1382 (Section 201.6012- 6013, Transportation Code), an act passed by the 81st Texas Legislature and approved by the governor on June 19, 2009, requires TxDOT to prepare and update annually a long-term plan for a statewide passenger rail system. The plan must include the following information useful for the development of the vision, goals, and objectives for the passenger rail system for Texas: • A description of existing and proposed passenger rail systems; • Information regarding the status of passenger rail systems under construction; • An analysis of potential interconnectivity difficulties; • Ridership projections for proposed passenger rail projects; and • Ridership statistics for existing passenger systems. This chapter provides the information required by Section 201.6012-6013, Transportation Code, plus additional information pertinent to understanding the challenges, issues, and opportunities for developing passenger rail services in Texas. Passenger rail services are divided into six categories in this chapter and are defined as follows: • High-speed rail is defined as rail operating at speeds of at least 150 mph non- stop or with limited stops between cities. • Intercity passenger rail is defined as rail serving several cities operating at slower speeds than high speed over long-distances with more frequent stops. • Commuter and regional rail is defined as rail primarily serving work commuters between communities in an urban area or region.
    [Show full text]