DOCSLIB.ORG

Existing Public Transit Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

# 94309 v2 210-1016 AB/SD/sd/mlh 2/17/09 Preliminary Draft SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning Report No. 281 KENOSHA COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2010-2014 Chapter II EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEMS INTRODUCTION This chapter describes in detail the characteristics of both the City of Kenosha-operated Kenosha Area Transit and the County-operated Western Kenosha County Transit. Both systems’ service operations, equipment and facilities, ridership, and costs are presented. A summary of the other major public transit service providers in the County follows, including local and intercity bus service, rail passenger service, taxicab service, and human services transportation providers for elderly and disabled persons. THE KENOSHA AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM Urban public transit service has been available in the City of Kenosha since 1903, when streetcar operations began. Public transit service in the Kenosha area was provided exclusively by streetcars until 1932, when that service was replaced by a system of electric trolley bus—or “trackless trolley”—routes. The trolleybus system was converted to motor bus operation after World War II. Continuous declines in ridership and profits during the postwar period resulted in a series of private ownerships until February 1971, when, because of extreme financial difficulties, the last private operator ceased local bus operations. In September 1971, after almost eight months without local transit service, the City of Kenosha acquired the transit system, which it had subsidized for the previous two years, and began public operation of the Kenosha transit system. Administrative Structure The City of Kenosha owns Kenosha Area Transit and operates it using public employees under the direct supervision of the City of Kenosha Department of Transportation. The policy-making body of the transit system is the Kenosha Transit Commission, consisting of seven members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Common Council. The powers of the Transit Commission are substantial, including essentially all the powers necessary to acquire, operate, and manage the transit system. The Kenosha Common Council has the ultimate responsibility for review and approval of certain important matters, including the annual budget for the public transit program. Fixed-Route Bus Service Kenosha Area Transit provides fixed-route bus service using a system of regular bus routes, shown on Map 2-1. The current operating characteristics, service levels, and fares for the system are summarized below. Regular Routes Kenosha Area Transit operates ten regular bus routes. Seven of these routes are downtown-oriented and either start from, or pass through, the Downtown Transit Center, located along 54th Street between 6th and 8th Avenues on the north side of the Kenosha Central Business District (CBD). All seven of these downtown-oriented routes have small segments that pass through portions of the Town of Somers and/or the Village of Pleasant Prairie. Three of the regular bus routes are not downtown-oriented and start at Southport Plaza at Green Bay Road and 75th Street, which is also a transfer point for several of the downtown-oriented routes. The three routes serve development west of Green Bay Road (STH 31) in the Town of Bristol, the Town of Somers, and/or the Village of Pleasant Prairie, in addition to the western portion of the City of Kenosha. All the principal routes – Route Nos. 1 through 6 and 30 -- serve a common transfer point at the Downtown Transit Center. The schedules of Route Nos. 1 through 6 are designed so that all routes meet at the Downtown Transit Center every half hour during weekday peak periods and every hour at all other times, according to their headways. This cycle, or “pulse,” scheduling allows passengers the opportunity to transfer conveniently between bus routes and complete a trip with a minimum of delay. Route No. 30 also serves the Downtown Transit Center and meets the other routes of the system, but because it is operated with a lower service frequency than Route Nos. 1 through 6, it meets these routes less often. Peak-Hour Tripper Routes The peak-hour tripper routes are designed to accommodate the movement of junior and senior high school students and alleviate overcrowding on the regular bus routes. During the 2008-2009 school year, the transit system operated 24 tripper routes between 6:30 and 8:15 a.m. and 27 tripper routes between 2:30 and 4:30 p.m. on schooldays. Because the routes are designed to provide direct service between the homes and schools of students, the routes, for the most part, are operated independently of the regular routes and most do not serve the downtown transfer point. 2 SD/rm Doc # 123838 02/18/09 Map 2-1 FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE PROVIDED BY KENOSHA AREA TRANSIT: 2009 ! SEE INSET ! ROUTE NO. 1 ROUTE NO. 6 STREETCAR (SEE INSET) ROUTE NO. 2 ROUTE NO. 30 DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER (SEE INSET) ROUTE NO. 3 ROUTE NO. 31 ! NORTH AND SOUTH TRANSFER POINTS METRA COMMUTER RAIL STATION ROUTE NO. 4 ROUTE NO. 35 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 .5 1 MIL E ROUTE NO. 5 ROUTE NO. 36 ONE QUARTER-MILE WALK ACCESS AREA 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 FEET 2a Source: City of Kenosha Department of Transportation and SEWRPC. ³ 0 0.5 1 2 Miles AAB/SD/rlm 2/18/09 Doc#118870 Inset for Map 2-1 50TH ST. PL. 51ST. 51ST. PL. 52ND ST. DOWNTOWN SHER TRANSIT a T. CENTER . 53RD S IDAN 2N 54TH ST RR. 3 D R 4TH A D 5T V ST. 6TH E. H H 54T A 7 VE TH ST. ST. 55TH 8 T H ST. 56TH AVE. ST. AVE. AVE. 57TH . PACIFIC ST A V E AV . 58TH . AV E E . V E A . ST. H T 6 59TH AVE. R 4TH D 59TH . LAKE PL. 60TH ST. ST. MICHIGAN AVE. AVE. AVE. ST. 61ST ST. 61ST AVE. 9TH AVE. 10TH 11TH AVE. 62ND ST. 13TH 3RD 5TH UNION 12TH ROUTE NO. 1 ROUTE NO. 30 STREETCAR ROUTE NO. 2 ROUTE NO. 31 (SEE LARGE MAP) DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER ROUTE NO. 3 ROUTE NO. 35 (SEE LARGE MAP) ! NORTH AND SOUTH TRANSFER POINTS (SEE LARGE MAP) ROUTE NO. 4 ROUTE NO. 36 (SEE LARGE MAP) METRA COMMUTER RAIL STATION ROUTE NO. 5 ONE QUARTER-MILE WALK ACCESS AREA ROUTE NO. 6 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 500 1000 FEET aALL ROUTES TRAVEL THROUGH THE DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ROUTES 31, 35, AND 36. Source: City of Kenosha Department of Transportation and SEWRPC. 2b Service Levels The current operating characteristics and service levels for the regular routes of the transit system are presented in Table 2-1. Local bus service over Route Nos. 1 through 31 is provided six days a week, excluding Sundays and holidays. Operating headways for Route Nos. 1 through 6 are 30 minutes during weekday peak periods and 60 minutes during weekday off-peak periods and all day Saturdays. Route No. 30 operates between the common transfer point and Southport Plaza with operating headways of 80 minutes all day, while Route No. 31 shuttles from Southport Plaza to the Factory Outlet Center with operating headways of 40 minutes during weekday peak periods and 80 minutes at all other times. Route No. 35 is limited to four trips during weekday peak periods, and Route No. 36 to five trips during weekday peak periods. Fares As shown in Table 2-2, the current cash fares charged for fixed-route bus service are $1.25 per trip for adults 18 through 64 years of age, $0.70 per trip for students ages five through 17, and $0.60 per trip for elderly persons 65 and older and disabled individuals ages five and over. Children under five ride free if accompanied by an adult. The Kenosha Unified School District subsidizes the fares of a limited number of students residing two or more miles from the school they are entitled to attend. They are provided with bus passes which allow them to use the transit system on regular school days at no direct cost to them. Passengers may also purchase a monthly pass, good for unlimited riding during all hours of system operation during the month, and a special Saturday “Super Transfer,” good for unlimited riding on Saturdays. Free one-hour transfers are issued upon request at the time the fare is paid and may be used to transfer to any route, including the route from which the transfer was issued. The historic transit fares for Kenosha Area Transit since it began public operation in 1971 are shown in Figure 2-1 in both actual dollars and constant 1971 dollars. After being reduced in September 1971 to promote transit ridership, passenger fares remained stable through January 1979, but have been increased several times since then in response to increasing costs of operation and declining Federal operating subsidies. The City increased fares for the first time in 12 years in January 2009, when the price of an adult cash fare went from $1.00 to $1.25 per trip; the elderly and disabled cash fare went from $0.50 to $0.60; and the student cash fare went from $0.60 to $0.70. Even with this series of past fare increases, the current adult cash fare in constant dollars is about the same as the fare of $0.25 per trip in effect when the City began public operation of the system in 1971. Kenosha Streetcar Since 2000, Kenosha Area Transit has operated a 1.7-mile streetcar loop in downtown Kenosha (see Map 2-1 inset). The streetcar leaves the downtown Transit Center every 15 minutes and serves the Metra commuter rail station, the HarborPark residential development, the Kenosha Public Museum, and other downtown locations.
Recommended publications
  • 1 Republic of Kazakhstan Almaty Trolleybus Project

    1 Republic of Kazakhstan Almaty Trolleybus Project

    OFFICIAL USE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN ALMATY TROLLEYBUS PROJECT FEASIBILITY AND DUE DILIGENCE STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE 1. BACKGROUND The City of Almaty (the “City”) with population of 1.8 million is the country’s largest and most important business and financial centre, contributing around 25 per cent of the national GDP. As most of rapidly growing conglomerates, the city is experiencing deficit of convenient “green” public transportation aggravated by an increasing number of private cars. Almaty is the only city in Kazakhstan with trolleybus system. Current trolleybus fleet was purchased 10 years ago, and it is close to its full depreciation. Subsequently, the City approached the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the “EBRD” or the “Bank”) to finance renewal of the trolleybus fleet through the purchase of 200 new hybrid trolleybuses and associated depot equipment (the “Project”). EBRD loan would be provided for the benefit of Almatyelectrotrans LLP (the “Company” or “AET”). The City sees the Project as an important measure to improve the environmental situation via expanding electric transport. The Project will allow the Company to improve passenger services by replacing the existing deteriorating fleet and providing vehicles for new lines, should the City decide to expand the trolleybus network. Better public transport services will prevent further modal shift from public transport to personal cars. The City’s public transport carries over 450 million passengers annually. The bulk of passenger traffic (86 per cent) is carried by buses operated by private and municipal companies. Trolleybuses account for 11 per cent of traffic, and the metro for 3 per cent.
  • Kenosha County on the Movex

    Kenosha County on the Movex

    Kenosha County on the Move Beyond the KRM On June 15th, 2010 the Legislative Committee of the Kenosha County Board heard citizen comments on resolution number 8 submitted by Supervisor Erin Decker. Supervisor Decker’s resolution called for a county wide ballot referendum about the Kenosha Racine Milwaukee commuter rail line (KRM). Resolution 8 comes as a response to three bills that have been considered by the Wisconsin State Legislature, Senate Bill 205 (SB-205)/Assembly Bill 282 (AB-282), Assembly Bill 723 (AB-723)/Senate Bill 511 (SB- 511) and Assembly Bill 75 (AB-75). All three bills deal with Regional Transportation Authorities (RTA) and specifically the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Transportation Authority (SERTA). AB-75 passed the legislature. After hearing citizens comments at the Legislative Committee meeting it became quite clear that not enough information has been disseminated both to locally elected officials and citizens. The disparity between the amount of information and its distribution needed a deeper inquiry as to what information was used to create SB-205/AB-282, AB-723/ SB-511, and AB-75. This inquiry revealed that strict focus on the taxation of the KRM prevented full discussion at the legislative committee meeting of the issues underlying the three bills moving through the legislature. This brief address questions raised by citizens during the citizen comments portion of the June 15th meeting of the Legislative Committee, and it addresses items that surfaced throughout the crafting of AB- 282/SB-205, AB-723/SB-511,
  • Feasibility Study on Introducing Trolleybus System in Hong Kong

    Feasibility Study on Introducing Trolleybus System in Hong Kong

    Agreement No. CE 72/99 Feasibility Study of Introducing a Trolleybus System in Hong Kong LIST OF CONTENTS Page 1. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 1 1.1 Study Objectives and scope 1 1.2 Case Studies 1 2. TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY 1 2.1 What is a Trolleybus? 1 2.2 Components of Trolleybus Systems for Hong Kong 1 2.3 Trolley Vehicles 2 2.4 The Power Distribution System 3 2.5 Infrastructure and Planning Requirements 4 2.6 Operating a Trolleybus System 5 2.7 Network Planning 6 2.8 Conclusions 6 3. FINANCIAL VIABILITY 6 3.1 Introduction 6 3.2 South East Kowloon Development 6 3.3 Central and Wan Chai 7 3.4 Aberdeen 7 3.5 Conclusions on Financial Viability 8 3.6 Possible Means to Achieve Viability 8 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ISSUES 8 4.1 Air Quality Assessment Methodology 8 4.2 South East Kowloon Air Quality Assessment 9 4.3 Central and Wan Chai and Aberdeen Air Quality Assessments 9 4.4 Other Air Quality Issues 9 4.5 Noise Levels 9 4.6 Landscape and Visual Assessment 10 5. REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS 11 5.1 The Granting of Franchises 11 5.2 Legislative Requirements 11 Transport Department Atkins China Ltd. 3089/OR33/00/E427, May 2001 page i Agreement No. CE 72/99 Feasibility Study of Introducing a Trolleybus System in Hong Kong LIST OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6. THE WAY FORWARD 11 6.1 Introduction 11 6.2 On-road and off-road trials 11 6.3 Requirements of a Pilot Scheme 12 6.4 Locational Options for a Pilot Scheme 12 6.5 The Implementation Process 12 6.6 Additional Investigations 12 Transport Department Atkins China Ltd.
  • Trolleybuses: Applicability of UN Regulation No

    Trolleybuses: Applicability of UN Regulation No

    Submitted by the expert from OICA Informal document GRSG-110-08-Rev.1 (110th GRSG, 26-29 April 2016, agenda item 2(a)) Trolleybuses: Applicability of UN Regulation No. 100 (Electric Power Train Vehicle) vs. UN Regulation No. 107 Annex 12 (Construction of M2/M3 Vehicles) for Electrical Safety 1. At 110th session of GRSG Belgium proposes to amend UN R107 annex 12 by deleting the requirements for trolleybuses (see GRSG/2016/05) and transfer the requirements into UN R100 (see GRSP/2016/07), which will be on the agenda of upcoming GRSP session in May 2016. 2. Due to the design of a trolleybus and stated in UN Regulation No. 107, trolleybuses are dual- mode vehicles. They can operate either: (a) in trolley mode, when connected to the overhead contact line (OCL), or (b) in bus mode when not connected to the OCL. When not connected to the OCL, they can also be (c) in charging mode, where they are stationary and plugged into the power grid for battery charging. 3. The basic principles of the design of the electric powertrain of the trolleybus and the connection to the OCL is based on international standards developed for trams and trains and is implemented and well accepted in the market worldwide. 4. Due to the fact that the trolleybus is used on public roads the trolleybus has to fulfil the regulations under the umbrella of the UNECE regulatory framework due to the existing national regulations (e.g. European frame work directive). 5. Therefore the annex 12 in UN R107 was amended to align the additional safety prescriptions for trolleybuses with the corresponding electrical standards.
  • Competitiveness of Trolleybus in Urban Transport

    Competitiveness of Trolleybus in Urban Transport

    Transactions on the Built Environment vol 52, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 Competitiveness of trolleybus in urban transport G. ~sten~o',R. ~ozzo~, M. ~alaverna~ & G. sciutto2 'Sciro S.r. l., Genova, Italy ZDepart?nentof Electrical Engineering, University of Genova, Italy Abstract In the search for alternative transportation modes in urban public transport, this paper suggests a comparison between the competitiveness of trolleybus and diesel bus transport modes. This evaluation is based on the relevant life-cycle costs, highlighting that trolleybus transport has a starting high charge of vehicles and wiring purchase as well as the disadvantage arising, in Italy, from the higher price of electric energy compared with diesel oil. Because of these factors, the trolleybus is less competitive than the diesel bus for the Italian urban centres although more friendly for the environment. In the last part of the paper, a case study shows that energy prices and car purchase have a negative influence on the present competitiveness of the trolleybus. 1 Introduction After the Second World War, advanced technology and oil low price encouraged the employment of the diesel bus instead of the trolleybus, which was penalised by its overhead contact line that could not meet the requirements of the quick traffic growth in urban centres. Most trolleybus networks were dismantled between the 60's and 70's. Today, the urgent need to reduce air and acoustic pollution in urban areas as well as a greater environmental awareness, also backed by governmental policies, bring about a renewed interest for the trolleybus. As to the drive development, trolleybus vehicles followed, during the years, the same evolution achieved in the field of light rail EMUS.
  • Electric Trolleybuses for the Lacmta's Bus System

    Electric Trolleybuses for the Lacmta's Bus System

    ARIELI ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING CONSULTING Report No. 1302 ELECTRIC TROLLEYBUSES FOR THE LACMTA’S BUS SYSTEM PREPARED FOR THE ADVANCED TRANSIT VEHICLE CONSORTIUM UNDER CONTRACT NO. OP 3320661 - 2 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California Air Resources Board (CARB) Adopted Urban Bus Transit Rule for 2010 Emission Standards requires that MTA, starting in 2010, set aside 15% of all bus purchases to acquire Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs). Currently, none of the buses in the MTA’s inventory can be classified as ZEV, nor there are any transit buses [defined as propelled by an internal combustion engine (ICE) powered by either diesel or alternate fuels] available on the market that can be classified as ZEV. The California emission standards are well ahead of those for the rest of the United States and the manufacturers will not develop suitable vehicles on their own unless incentivized by large customers such as LACMTA. Failure to meet the 2010 Emission Standards will result in regulatory punitive fines and potentially litigation. It is important to note here that this is not the first time that the subject of incorporating electric trolleybuses into the MTA’s bus system comes before the MTA Board of Directors. In the 1992 30-Year Integrated Transportation Plan, electric trolleybuses were the preferred solution to meet CARB air regulations. The Plan provided for 18 routes, 300 miles of overhead wires and 400 peak electric trolleybuses by 2004 to be increased to 1,100 peak electric trolleybuses by 2010. Eventually, the Board voted to terminate the project. After reviewing the various technologies that might qualify as zero emissions under CARB rule, the report focuses on electric trolleybuses as the technology of choice.
  • Tychy Trolleybuses Electromobility Since 1982

    Tychy Trolleybuses Electromobility Since 1982

    Photo Arkadiusz ŁawrywianiecPhoto Tychy Trolleybuses Electromobility Since 1982 Text ARTUR CYWIŃSKI, ZBIGNIEW BRUD Poland is a country, in which trolleybuses are very seldom used in the urban public transport. Now only three cities have a trolleybus traction in the country with anearly forty-million population: Tychy, Gdynia, and Lublin. What is interesting, the history of this means of public transport started in Poland in ... 1930. ill 1999 trolleybuses were running in 12 cit- fuels, resulted in gradual liquidation of this means ies: Dębica (1988-1993), Gdynia (from of urban transport in most of 12 cities, where it was 1943), Legnica (1943-1956), Lublin (from operating. Three centres remained, in which trolley- T 1953), Olsztyn (1939-1971), Poznań buses won the fight for survival. Now, when people (1930-1970), Słupsk (1985-1999), Tychy (from talk louder and louder about the necessity to reduce 1982), Wałbrzych (1944-1973), Warsaw (1946- pollution and the CO2 emission, and also due to the 1973), and Piaseczno (1983-1995) [1]. Unfortu- support under projects co-financed by the European nately, high costs of the traction network operation, Union, they have found their opportunity for fur- do that? do they how the lack of modern vehicles and the lack of ecological ther development. awareness and responsibility for the natural environ- Tychy is an example of a city, where the fate ment confronted with the cheaper and more avail- of the trolleybus network and the ecological public able bus transport, operating based on oil-derivative transport is inseparably related to the latest history 55 Streszczenie Summary Przedstawiony poniżej tekst opisuje historię powstania, rozbudo- Tychy trolleybuses – electric vehicle network since 1982 /2017 wę oraz modernizację sieci trakcyjnej tyskich linii trolejbusowych.
  • Transformation of Trolleybus Transport in Poland. Does In-Motion Charging (Technology) Matter?

    Transformation of Trolleybus Transport in Poland. Does In-Motion Charging (Technology) Matter?

    sustainability Article Transformation of Trolleybus Transport in Poland. Does In-Motion Charging (Technology) Matter? Marcin Wołek 1,* , Agnieszka Szmelter-Jarosz 1 , Marcin Koniak 2 and Anna Golejewska 1 1 Faculty of Economics, University of Gda´nsk,Armii Krajowej 119/121, 81-824 Sopot, Poland; [email protected] (A.S.-J.); [email protected] (A.G.) 2 Faculty of Transport, Warsaw University of Technology, Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warszawa, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 5 November 2020; Accepted: 19 November 2020; Published: 22 November 2020 Abstract: Transport in cities is one of the most important sources of emissions. Electromobility is an essential element in the catalogue of activities of local authorities aimed at combating climate change. Over the years trolleybus transport has been characterised by both phases of development and regression and is still an essential component of zero-emission urban transport in about 300 cities worldwide. The development of electricity storage technology, especially in the form of a battery, has opened up new prospects for this mode of transport. A trolleybus equipped with a battery (in-motion charging technology) gains unique characteristics for operation independent of the catenary. This study presents the approach for assessing the development of in-motion charging for trolleybuses in all Polish cities operating this means of transport. A set of KPIs has therefore, been set and analysed. The analysis covers a comparison between 2014 and 2019, aimed at showing the development of technological innovations in this field. The results clearly show that in-motion charging technology leads to the development of trolleybus transport, although this development has mainly a qualitative dimension.
  • Kenosha County Transit Planning Advisory Committee

    Kenosha County Transit Planning Advisory Committee

    - 1 - Minutes of the Third Meeting KENOSHA COUNTY TRANSIT PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Date: August 27, 2009 TIME: 1:00 p.m. PLACE: Community Idea Center Gateway Horizon Center 4940 88th Avenue Kenosha, WI 53144 Committee Members Present Len Brandrup ........................................................ Director, City of Kenosha Department of Transportation Kimberly Breunig .................................................................................. Supervisor, Kenosha County Board Dr. Arthur I. Cyr ................................................................................................ Professor, Carthage College Pam Devuyst ............................................................................................................ Citizen, City of Kenosha Dennis DuChene II ............................................. President, Kenosha Area Convention and Visitors Bureau Carolyn Feldt ............................................................................... Manager, Elderly and Disability Services, Kenosha County Department of Human Services Adelene Greene ....................................................................................Director, Kenosha County job Center William Jordan .................................................................................Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 998 Lenny Klaver ................................................................ Vice Chancellor, University of Wisconsin Parkside Jeff Labahn.........................................................................
  • Benchmarking Presentation

    Benchmarking Presentation

    City Services Benchmarking: Public Transportation CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Office of the Controller City Services Auditor Peg Stevenson | Joe Lapka 06.03.2014 Performance Measurement Mandate 2 Appendix F, Section 101 of the City Charter The Controller shall… • Monitor the level and effectiveness of services provided to the people of San Francisco, • Review performance and cost benchmarks, and • Conduct comparisons of the cost and performance of City government with other cities, counties, and public agencies that perform similar functions Prescribed Service Areas (areas covered by previous benchmarking reports) Condition of urban environment Transportation Human resources Public health & human services Criminal justice City management Parks, cultural & recreational facilities Fire and paramedic services Public works March 2014 Benchmarking Report – Public Transportation 3 Purpose Compare the cost and performance of directly-operated light rail, bus, and trolleybus service provided by SFMTA with similar services in metropolitan areas Peer Selection Methodology • Followed methodology outlined in Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 141 – A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry • Designed to provide a robust, practical, and transparent process for selecting peer agencies based on uniformly defined and readily available data • Underwent multiple rounds of review and testing by numerous transit agencies, regional transportation authorities, and state departments of transportation

  • Horario Y Mapa De Ruta De Autobús Efectivo En Febrero 1, 2020 Militares Activos O Retirados Y Titulares De Tarjetas VA VIAJAN GRATIS

    Horario y Mapa de Ruta de Autobús Efectivo en Febrero 1, 2020 Militares activos o retirados y titulares de tarjetas VA VIAJAN GRATIS. Lunes - Viernes Downtown detail Route number 52nd Street Start of route City Hall Point of interest Metra Station Museum Court House treet 56th S . Lakeside . d e Towers R v Lunes-Viernes A n a h 60th Street t d i 7 Centros de Rutas de r e h Simmons Transferencias Conexión S Library 63rd Street Kenosha Hospital 1oDonwntown 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & Medical Center 2 Kenosha Market 2, 5 3 Glenwood Crossing 1, 4, 5 7 Festival Foods 1, 3 Amazon 9 Southport 2, 4, 31, 35 16 Gateway 1 20 Indian Trail 3, 5, 31 Gordon Foods Detention Center e. Museum Av Business Park of 104th 58th Place Kenosha KTEC West Lakeside Towers 51Kenosha Hospital 31 St. Catherine’s Meijer Hospital Festival Foods Para Información Llamar Estacionamientos: Se requieren permisos mensuales de estacionamiento en los siguientes estacionamientos de la ciudad: 653-4BUS (653-4287) • Lot # 6 - 21st Ave. & 63rd St. • Lot # 9 - 5th Ave. & 57th St. Para Información en Español Hable El costo es de $25 por mes. Los permisos se pueden comprar en Kenosha Transit, 4303 - 39th Ave. al Telf. 652-2111 Estacionamientos METRA para viajeros diarios Social • Lot # 23 - 54th St. & 13th Ave. Services For bus route and bus pass information, El estacionamiento adyacente a la estación Metra requiere permisos de estacionamiento que visit www.kenosha.org están disponibles en los nuevos parquímetros frente a la estación Metra en la isla. El costo or call 653-4287 for details es de $60 por 30 días.
  • Tram Vs Trolleybus: They Can't Be Seen As Enemies

    Tram Vs Trolleybus: They Can't Be Seen As Enemies

    LRT Alternatives Tram vs trolleybus: They can’t be seen as enemies Trolleybuses fell out of fashion in the Left: The Solaris Trollino operates in UK in the 1950s, but they are ‘cleaner’ a number of cities in Eastern Europe than motor buses and can pave the way and on the new for trams. Robert Davidson puts the line in Landskrone, Sweden. Solaris case for their place in the transport mix also supplies Swiss systems also he recent announcement of UK Government plans to providing some of electrify nearly 300 miles (500km) of ‘heavy’ railway these elegant buses over the next decade was accompanied by the Prime to the new system TMinister’s statement that “This will reduce carbon dioxide in Rome. Solaris emissions and mean faster and more reliable services for millions.” This recognises that electric public transport is more TROLLEYBUSES... Critics allege that generating electricity from fossil fuels efficient and attractive, and that the state is investing to simply shifts pollution up the energy chain to the power improve the environment. To hit the UK’s planned 80% ...have lower station. However, the University of California found that target cut in carbon emissions however, it will not be and more even with low-grade coal producing large amounts of CO2 enough to rely on renewables and technical ‘fixes’ – we also predictable (as used in Germany) electric traction almost completely have slash our daily energy consumption by 40%. operating costs. eliminates carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. Diesel Transport has a vital role in achieving this. While it is Diesel fuel is engines are only 40% efficient at best and if you include true that motor buses are not the only vehicles which create imported, and we idling and part loads, this plummets to below 30%.