DOCSLIB.ORG

1989 South Carolina Rail-Trails

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1989 South Carolina Rail-Trails SOUTH CAROLINA RAIL-TRAILS: INVENTORY AND PROSPECT by James F, Schmid, Jr. Bachelor of Arts The University of South Carolina, 1987 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Geography University of South Carolina 1989 4)epartf Department of Geography Director of Thesis 2nd Reader Depawment of Geography! Dean of the Graduate School 3rd Reader TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Problem and Purpose 2 Literature Review 4 Student Studies 7 Methodology 8 Abandoned Railroad Inventory and Maps 8 Rail-Trails Inventory and Maps 10 2. THE RAILS-TO-TRAILS MOVEMENT 13 The National Park Service 15 The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 16 The Southern States 16 3. SOUTH CAROLINA'S RAIL NETWORK 20 Norfolk Southern Corporation 26 CSX Transportation 26 Future ot the South Carolina Rail Network 29 4. SOUTH CAROLINA'S ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY 31 Railroad Abandonment Studies 31 The Nielsen Studies 31 The U.S. Department of Transportation Study 33 The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Study 34 The Interstate Commerce Commission List 35 The South Carolina Rail Plans 37 The South Carolina Abandoned Railroad Study Committee 40 South Carolina Abandoned Railroad ROW Inventory 40 5. SOUTH CAROLINA RAIL-TRAILS INVENTORY 54 South Carolina Rail-Trails 54 The Cathedral Aisle Trail 55 The Swamp Fox Trail 57 The Blue Ridge Railroad Historical Trail 59 Big Trestle Park 61 The West Ashley Bikeway 63 Planned South Carolina Rail-Trails 65 The Greeneway 65 The West Ashley Greenway 67 The Guignard Trail 69 ii 6. SOUTH CAROLINA'S POTENTIAL RAIL-TRAILS 71 Potential Rail-Trails 71 McCormick to Calhoun Falls 72 Barnwell to the South Edisto River 72 York to Smyrna 73 Town of Cheraw 73 Town of Marion 73 Other Potential Rail-Trails 74 7. RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONVERSION 75 ROW Selection Criteria 75 Accessibility 75 Linkages 75 Aesthetic Qualities 76 Other Physical Characteristics 76 Public and Political Support 76 Adjacent Property Owners 77 8. CONCLUSIONS 78 Recommendations ' 79 Future Studies 81 REFERENCES 82 OTHER SOURCES CONSULTED 86 APPENDICES A. South Carolina Rails-to-Trails Program Policy Statement 92 B. Order Board Announcement 93 C. Annual Recreation Survey/SC Rail-Trails Inventory Survey 94 D. Abandoned Railroad ROW Noted by Local Recreation Providers 96 E. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy National Inventory Survey Form 97 F. Concurrent Resolution (H. 3666) 98 G. Railroad Name Abbreviations 99 H. RTC National Inventory Surveys for South Carolina Rail-Trails 100 iii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURES PAGE 1. America's Rail-Trails: 1989 5 2. The South Carolina Railroad System: 1923 21 3. The South Carolina Railroad System: 1989 23 4. Decline ot U.S. Road and Track Mileage: 1929-88 25 5. The South Carolina Railroad System: 1989, Southern Railway (NS) 27 6. The South Carolina Railroad System: 1989, CSX Transportation (CSX) 28 7. The South Carolina Railroad System : 1989, Short Lines and Railroad Museum 29 8. South Carolina RR Abandonments: 1923-70 44 9. South Carolina RR Abandonments: 1971-80 45 10. South Carolina RR Abandonments: 1981-89 46 11. Proposed South Carolina RR Abandonments: 1989-91 47 12. South Carolina Geographic Regions: 1989 49 13. South Carolina Regional Planning Districts: 1989 51 14. South Carolina Rail-Trails: 1989 54 15. The Cathedral Aisle Trail 56 16. The Swamp Fox Trail 58 17. The Blue Ridge Railroad Historical Trail 60 18. Big Trestle Park 62 19. The West Ashley Bikeway 64 20. The Greeneway 66 21. The West Ashley Greenway 68 22. The Guignard Trail 70 23. Potential South Carolina Rail-Trails: 1989 72 iv LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. America's Rail-Trails: 1989 6 2. Comparison of Southern States: 1985-89 19 3. U.S. Freight Railroad Industry by Size: 1987 23 4. Railroad Companies Operating within South Carolina: 1989 24 5. Nielsen's List of South Carolina Railroad Abandonments: 1937-73 32 6. Harbridge House Inventory of South Carolina Abandonments: 1970-76 33 7. Lennon Study of South Carolina Abandonments: 1960-70 35 8. ICC-Granted Abandonments in South Carolina; 1970-89 36 9. Railroad Lines Analyzed in the South Carolina Rail Plans: 1980-85 39 10. Rail Abandonment Status Report: 1985 40 11. South Carolina Railroad Abandonments: 1923-91 41 12. South Carolina Railroad Abandonments by Geographic Region ' and Segment Number: 1923-91 48 13. I^iles of South Carolina Railroad Abandonments by Geographic Region: 1923-91 ... 49 14. South Carolina Railroad Abandonments by Planning District and Segment Number: 1923-91 50 15. Miles of South Carolina Railroad Abandonments by Planning District: 1923-91 50 16. Miles of South Carolina Railroad Abandonments by County: 1923-91 52 17. South Carolina Railroad Abandonments by County and Segment Number: 1923-91 53 18. South Carolina Rail-Trails: 1989 55 19. Planned South Carolina Rail-Trails: 1989 65 20. Potential South Carolina Rail-Trails: 1989 71 V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank each of my committee members, Robert Janiskee, John Winberry, and Lisle Mitchell for their guidance, assistance, and contributions. I would also like to express my gratitude and appreciation to my wife Sandra for her constant support and inspiration not only during this study but during our six years together at the University of South Carolina. Thanks also to my parents, James and Hazel Schmid, and my in-laws, Ray and Betty Young, for their words of encouragement and support. This project could not have been completed without the moral and financial support of Ron Carter, Director, Division of Recreation, South Carolina Department of Parks. Recreation and Tourism. A special thanks to you and your staff for your support and encouragement of the rails- to-trails movement in South Carolina. I am also grateful for the time and expertise given by the following individuals: Beth Dillon, Rails-to-Trails Program Coordinator, National Park Service Marianne Fowler, Southern Regional Field Coordinator, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Ronald Jenkins, Director, Special Studies, South Carolina Railways Commission Mark Gustafson, President, Central South Carolina Chapter, National Railway Historical Society Steven Eisenach, Manager, Corporate Development, Norfolk Southern Corporation Stuart Barnwell, Director, Governor's Office of Transportation Walt Schrader, Trails Coordinator, South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism David McQuillan, Map Librarian, University of South Carolina Joe Potter, Environmental Specialist, Interstate Commerce Commission Bill Hicks, a fine Southern gentlemen who keeps the Xerox machine hummin And thanks to all those who responded to my many letters and calls for help. vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION South Carolina's recreation providers are becoming increasingly interested in finding new resources and facilities to help meet the slate's growing demand for outdoor recreation opportunities. The idea of utilizing abandoned, often derelict, railroad rights-of-way (ROW) for recreation purposes has gained an increasing amount of support. The 1985 report of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO) called for using these ROW as the backbone of a national system of "greenways" connecting parks and recreation areas (PCAO 1986b: 102). The PCAO found that since 1959 trail-related activities consistently rank annong the ten most popular outdoor recreation activities in America (PCAO 1986a: 82). Relatedly, the 1984 South Carolina Recreation and Participation Study found "walking for pleasure " to be the most widely enjoyed outdoor activity of both residents and visitors in South Carolina (SCPRT 1984: 39). Rail beds make excellent trails since they run along carefully graded corridors that traverse scenic riverways, rrxiuntaln valleys, and coastal plains. With gentle grades, hard surfacing, and wide widths, they are often ideal for hikers, bikers, and runners, as well as for older citizens and wheelchair users. Converted to trails, these corridors could reach out and link cities, suburbs, small towns, forests, and farms In a vast greenway network. Rail-trails could also link schools, neighborhoods, shopping centers, parks, and other open spaces, providing areas not only for active recreation but for picnics, birdwatching, strolling, or just daydreaming. Cities could use rail- trails to prorrxjte tourism and Improve the community image (Peskin 1988:13) . To allow communities, industries, or other private interests to destroy the unique linearity of these areas 1 would cause irreparable damage to a system of ROW wtiich tias taken more than 160 years to complete. If the many miles of abandoned railroad ROW in South Carolina were converted to trails, they could help meet the needs of both recreation providers looking for new resources and citizens looking for places to walk, bike, or ride horses. South Carolina, however, has been slow to act in preserving these abandoned railroad ROW for public use. This reflects not only a lack of knowledge about the location of the resources available, but also a lack of information about the rails-to-trails conversion process. To assist these local communities in developing their own rails- to-trails plans, the Commission of the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (PRT) issued a "South Carolina Rails-To-Trails Program" policy statement in 1989 (Appendix A). PRT has formally endorsed the rails-to-trails concept as an extension of its Recreation Division's assistance programs. Problem and Purpose Over 3,000 miles of railroad ROW are abandoned each year in the United States (Montange 1986: 4). At its peak in the 1920s, the U.S. rail industry, with over 260,000 miles of road, boasted the most extensive rail system in the world, six times larger than the present interstate highway system (Harnick and Kline 1987: 5). Today, the system is down to 140,000 miles of road. It is believed that by 2000, the U.S. will have a core rail system of 100,000 road miles (Byrnes 1988: 21).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 2 Existing Conditions Summary
    Final Report New Haven Hartford Springfield Commuter Rail Implementation Study 2 Existing Conditions Chapter 2 Existing Conditions Summary This chapter is a summary of the existing conditions report, necessary for comprehension of the remaining chapters. The entire report can be found in Appendix B of this report. 2.1 Existing Passenger Services on the Line The only existing passenger rail service on the Springfield Line is a regional service operated by Amtrak. Schedules for alternatives in Chapter 3 and the Recommended Action in Chapter 4 include current Amtrak service. Most Amtrak service on the line is shuttle trains, running between Springfield and New Haven, where they connect with other Amtrak Northeast Corridor trains. One round-trip train each day operates through the corridor to Boston to the north and Washington to the south. One round trip train each day operates to and from St. Albans, Vermont from New Haven. The trains also permit connections at New Haven with Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (Washington to Boston) service, as well as Metro North service to New York, and Shore Line East local commuter service to New London. Departures are spread throughout the day, with trains typically operating at intervals of two to three hours. Springfield line services are designed as extensions of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor service, and are not scheduled to serve local commuter trips (home to work trips). The Amtrak fare structure was substantially reduced in price since this study began. The original fare structure from November 2002 was shown in the existing conditions report, which can be found in Appendix B.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Tickets to Binghamton
    Bus Tickets To Binghamton dramaturgicalIntramuscular Isaacand transhuman never defamed Pearce his sissessorcerer! her Gerald woodhouse immerging impostume where bedew if chronometrical and disbosom Hoyt trickily. skulk orSedative whicker. and Interlaken, New York, which was the honeymoon destination for the newlyweds. Staff was incredibly rude to customers. Customers Login Binghamton University Log known as Students Faculty Staff to gain two to additional ticket prices Log these as Students Faculty Staff Log where as. He wanted to leave school before graduation to join the fight, but his civics teacher talked him into waiting for graduation. NY Binghamton NY Zone Forecast New Milford Spectrum. How do matter get to Binghamton from NYC? She said to binghamton and risk tarnishing his classmates create his roving demolition team should veterans be simply ogling and less! Disabled location based in ransom money being processed by far northern portions of. College Basketball Schedule Houston Chronicle. How far is it from Seattle to Vancouver? Here CJ can laugh with his friends, standing side by side at a work bench. Local Climatological Data Binghamton New York. TA and Petro offer many advantages. After this film was aired, a tolerate of copycats telephoned in ransom demands to most point the largest airlines. Cerro de zaragoza, you can pick up to get from seattle to bus tickets! When is no preview is no further involvement with striking elves. Greater Binghamton Transportation Center Broome County. What is the best way to get from Detroit to Chicago? How far apart is gone. Enter a free trip, while you write for good option for your ticket.
    [Show full text]
  • MAHWAH • OAKLAND Service Alerts at NEW YORK CITY
    Sign up for E-mail MAHWAH • OAKLAND service alerts at NEW YORK CITY www.shortlinebus.com Tickets for this service will be accepted on ShortLine buses from Port Authority Bus Terminal after 9 p.m. Monday–Friday and all day Saturday and Sunday Customers with Disabilities ShortLine/Coach USA is committed to providing accessible transportation service to customers with special requirements and does not discriminate on the basis of disability. We welcome all customers on ShortLine/Coach USA and can provide assistance to those with walking difficulties, those who normally use wheelchairs or scooters, and customers with service animals and breathing aids, Serving: ■ Mahwah among others. ■ Oakland Additional Information ■ Franklin Lakes Whenever one of our buses makes an intermediate or rest ■ stop, a customer with a disability is permitted to leave and Wyckoff return to the bus in the same manner as any other Fare Policy and Ticket Commuter Ticket Policy Non-Discrimination customer. Refunds Trips Good For Policy Policy If you are a disabled customer traveling on a bus without a Except in the case of job loss, cash refunds 10 Trips 20 days No Credit, No Refund Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. is committed to handicap accessible restroom making an express run of will no longer be allowed on commutation ensuring that no person is excluded from, three hours or more without a rest stop, and you are unable 40 Trips 40 days Up to 10 tickets may be to use the inaccessible restroom, you may request an tickets. In the event of illness, business returned for credit or or denied the benefits of our services on travel or vacation, unused tickets may be refund (if turned in 15 the basis of race, color, or national origin unscheduled rest stop.
    [Show full text]
  • The Motor Coach Metamorphosis: 2012 Year-In-Review of Intercity Bus Service in the United States
    The Motor Coach Metamorphosis 2012 Year-in-Review of Intercity Bus Service in the United States Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development January 6, 2013 Joseph P. Schwieterman1, Brian Antolin2, Paige Largent3, and Marisa Schulz4 [email protected] 312/362-5731 office 1Director, Chaddick Institute and Professor, School of Public Service 2Research Associate, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, Philadelphia 3Research Associate, Chaddick Institute 4Assistant Director, Chaddick Institute 0 Executive Summary 1. Intercity bus service grew by 7.5% between the end of 2011 and 2012—the highest rate of growth in four years. Conventional bus lines, after declining modestly between 2010 and 2011, expanded by 1.4%, in part due to Greyhound and Peter Pan’s new specialty services. 2. Service by discount city-to-city operators (discount operators) that do not use traditional terminals in many cities, such as BoltBus and Megabus, surged by 30.6%. For the first time, this sector accounts for more than 1,000 daily scheduled operations. BoltBus’ expansion in the Pacific Northwest and Megabus’ expansion in California, Nevada, and Texas have greatly expanded the sector’s visibility on the national travel scene. 3. Conventional and discount operators appear to be benefitting from the federal crackdown of “Chinatown” bus operators, several dozen of which were shut down on May 31, 2012 for noncompliance with certain safety regulations. 4. Discount operators are developing new technologies to inform customers about service issues, such as delays and cancellations. Such innovations have also helped operators find arrival and departure locations that create less neighborhood interference at hub cities than in the past.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 — Background and Planning Context
    Chapter 1 1 BACKGROUND AND PLANNING CONTEXT 1 Background and Planning Context The West of the Hudson Regional Transit Access Study (WHRTAS) has been initiated by MTA Metro- North Railroad (Metro-North) in partnership with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) and in cooperation with New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and New Jersey Transit (NJT) to improve mobility and accessibility in the West of Hudson region. Projected population and employment growth in Orange County, together with growth in ridership on Metro-North’s West of Hudson commuter service and a projected rise in Stewart International Airport (SWF) operations, necessitates the consideration of improved and expanded transit services for travelers in the region. WHRTAS evaluates alternatives for improving transit services between Central Orange County and Manhattan and access to SWF from the surrounding regions, Lower Hudson Valley and New York City. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the lead federal agency for this study which is being conducted in accordance with FTA’s Alternatives Analysis requirements for New Starts program funds. The study also considered the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Extensive agency coordination and public outreach was implemented to obtain input and guidance throughout this study. This included the formation of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which reviewed study material, advised on technical issues, and coordinated with a broad array of elected officials, agencies, organizations, and the general public through direct communication, workshops, roundtable discussions, and open houses. WHRTAS is being conducted in two phases. Phase I is the initial Alternatives Analysis (AA) phase, which evaluates the benefits, costs, and impacts of broad range of transit alternatives with the potential to meet the project's goals and objectives and concludes with the recommendation of a short list of alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • New Haven Line Capacity and Speed Analysis
    CTrail Strategies New Haven Line Capacity and Speed Analysis Final Report June 2021 | Page of 30 CTrail Strategies Table of Contents Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2 2. Existing Conditions: Infrastructure, Facilities, Equipment and Services (Task 1)............... 2 2.1. Capacity and Speed are Constrained by Legacy Infrastructure .................................... 3 2.2. Track Geometry and Slow Orders Contribute to Reduced Speeds ............................... 4 2.3. State-of-Good-Repair & Normal Replacement Improvements Impact Speed .............. 6 2.4. Aging Diesel-Hauled Fleet Limits Capacity ..................................................................... 6 2.5. Service Can Be Optimized to Improve Trip Times .......................................................... 7 2.6. Operating Costs and Revenue ........................................................................................ 8 3. Capacity of the NHL (Task 2)................................................................................................. 8 4. Market Assessment (Task 3) ............................................................................................... 10 4.1. Model Selection and High-Level Validation................................................................... 10 4.2. Market Analysis..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • RAILROAD COMMUNICATIONS Amtrak
    RAILROAD COMMUNICATIONS Amtrak Amtrak Police Department (APD) Frequency Plan Freq Input Chan Use Tone 161.295 R (160.365) A Amtrak Police Dispatch 88.5 161.295 R (160.365) B Amtrak Police Dispatch 100.0 161.295 R (160.365) C Amtrak Police Dispatch 114.8 161.295 R (160.365) D Amtrak Police Dispatch 131.8 161.295 R (160.365) E Amtrak Police Dispatch 156.7 161.295 R (160.365) F Amtrak Police Dispatch 94.8 161.295 R (160.365) G Amtrak Police Dispatch 192.8 161.295 R (160.365) H Amtrak Police Dispatch 107.2 161.205 (simplex) Amtrak Police Car-to-Car Primary 146.2 160.815 (simplex) Amtrak Police Car-to-Car Secondary 146.2 160.830 R (160.215) Amtrak Police CID 123.0 173.375 Amtrak Police On-Train Use 203.5 Amtrak Police Area Repeater Locations Chan Location A Wilmington, DE B Morrisville, PA (and Trenton Station) C Philadelphia, PA D Gap, PA E Paoli, PA H Race Amtrak Police 10-Codes 10-0 Emergency Broadcast 10-21 Call By Telephone 10-1 Receiving Poorly 10-22 Disregard 10-2 Receiving Well 10-24 Alarm 10-3 Priority Service 10-26 Prepare to Copy 10-4 Affirmative 10-33 Does Not Conform to Regulation 10-5 Repeat Message 10-36 Time Check 10-6 Busy 10-41 Begin Tour of Duty 10-7 Out Of Service 10-45 Accident 10-8 Back In Service 10-47 Train Protection 10-10 Vehicle/Person Check 10-48 Vandalism 10-11 Request Additional APD Units 10-49 Passenger/Patron Assist 10-12 Request Supervisor 10-50 Disorderly 10-13 Request Local Jurisdiction Police 10-77 Estimated Time of Arrival 10-14 Request Ambulance or Rescue Squad 10-82 Hostage 10-15 Request Fire Department
    [Show full text]
  • Croton Falls Station 8 09 8 39 5 34 5 45 6 05 6 36 6 43 6 49 7 09
    WEEKDAYS VIA CROTON FALLS TO MAHOPAC .AM Light Face, PM Bold Face AM .PM Peak Grand Central Terminal 6 46 7 15 4 20 4 38 4 57 5 25 5 27 5 43 6 02 White Plains Station 7 26 7 55 4 51 5 11 5 28 — 5 59 — 6 35 Croton Falls Station 8 09 8 39 5 34 5 45 6 05 6 36 6 43 6 49 7 09 Croton Falls Station 8 11 8 41 5 39 5 50 6 11 6 41 — 6 54 7 14 Mahopac Temple Beth Sholom Lot Route 6 & Croton Falls Road 8 24 8 56 5 54 6 05 6 26 6 56 — 7 09 7 29 Mahopac Route 6 & Mount Hope Blvd. 8 26 8 58 5 56 6 07 6 28 6 58 — 7 11 7 31 Lake Mahopac Routes 6 & 6N 8 28 9 00 5 58 6 09 6 30 7 00 — 7 13 7 33 MTA METRO-NORTH RAILROAD’S GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM O MTA Metro-North monthly UniTicket customers who ride the Mahopac-Croton Falls Shuttle to Croton Falls Station and commute to Grand Central Terminal or Harlem-125th Street can get up to two free taxi rides per month from Croton Falls Station to their car or home during the few select times when the Mahopac-Croton Falls Shuttle is not scheduled to meet a train. HERE’S HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS Your guaranteed ride will be provided by Al’s Car Service (888-257 -4499) at Croton Falls Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Connect Mid Hudson Transit Study- Final Report
    CONNECT MID-HUDSON Transit Study Final Report | January 2021 1 2 CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. Service Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1. COVID-19 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Public Survey ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.2.1. Dutchess County ............................................................................................................................................10 2.2.2. Orange County ................................................................................................................................................11 2.2.3. Ulster County ..................................................................................................................................................11 3. Transit Market Assessment and Gaps Analsysis ..................................................................................................................12 3.1. Population Density .....................................................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • New York City's Unfranchised Buses: Case Study in Deregulation
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1221 23 New York City's Unfranchised Buses: Case Study in Deregulation HERBERT S. LEVINSON, ANDREW HOLLANDER, SETH BERMAN, AND ELENA SHENK The unfranchised buses operating in New York City are cer­ The growth of these services stems from tified by the Interstate ommerce Commissj a and New York State DOT. They arc not ubjcct to the city's extensive rc\licw • The increased vitality of Manhattan as a tourist desti­ prnccss which attempts to balance traffic, economics, and nation; community impacts. These busCJ in their operations as com­ • The growing commuter populations in Staten Island and muter cxprcs es Atlantic City speciaJs charter , and tour New Jersey, which have created new markets; and buses provide a valuable ervi e lo their pa ·senger · however, they al o add to congestion throughout Manhattan. Unfran­ chiscd buses account for about a fifth of all buses entering Manhattan streets south of 63rd Street. Their growth is a direct result of the federal and state deregulation of intercity bus operations in the early 1980s. In this paper ·hC>rt-tc1·m actions D Unknown • NYSDOT are suggested to improve the opcratio11 of unfranchised buses witbin tbe existing legal framework. For the long term th Boord of Estim<ite authors uggesl legislative changes that exempt the city l'rom ~ICC Inter tate Commerce Commission control over intrastate bu 100 services operated b interstate carriers. They also suggest that further legi lative changes in other large metropolitan areas 90 may redres.o; the bala11ce between federal and local control of (II intrastate bus service.
    [Show full text]
  • Tom Marshall's Weekly News, December 12, 2011 Short Line Bus
    Tom Marshall’s Weekly News, December 12, 2011 Short Line Bus Company: After the heavy dose of Packards at Auburn Heights in last week’s story, I will take a break of two weeks or so before concluding that story. There have been, and still are, several Short Line Bus Companies operating in the East, many of them around New York City. The focus of this story is the bus line through Yorklyn and Hockessin that was headquartered in West Chester and operated here for about 40 years (1925?–1966). When the electric trolley line from Kennett Square to Brandywine Springs went out of business in 1923, local people, only a few of whom owned automobiles, needed a means to get to and from Kennett Square and Wilmington. One of the Short Line routes that soon provided this service ran from the Pennsylvania Railroad Station (train station is a modern term) at Front and French streets in Wilmington to the Green Gables Restaurant in Kennett Square. The route was uptown to 11th Street in Wilmington, then west to Kennett Pike, across to Lancaster Pike in the vicinity of Westover Hills, out Lancaster Pike to Hockessin, over Yorklyn Road to Yorklyn, and then north on Route 82 to Kennett Square. Another equally popular route was from Wilmington out Kennett Pike (Route 52) all the way to Hamorton, then westward on Route 1 to Kennett Square. This route served the communities of Greenville, Centreville, and Mendenhall, in addition to Longwood Gardens. Buses would stop to pick up or discharge passengers anywhere along the road.
    [Show full text]
  • Ulster County Fixed Route Public Transportation Coordination and Intermodal Opportunities Analysis
    DRAFT FINAL REPORT Ulster County Fixed Route Public Transportation Coordination and Intermodal Opportunities Analysis Prepared for Ulster County Transportation Council Prepared by Abrams-Cherwony & Associates Eng-Wong, Taub & Associates August 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE Introduction 1 Existing Services 3 Overview of Carriers 3 Public Transportation Services in Ulster County 4 Coordination Between Services 9 Transportation Facilities 9 Ridership Information 11 Operating and Financial Trends 12 Service Area 14 Socioeconomic Characteristics 14 Transit Needs Score 16 Journey To Work Information 16 Stakeholder Interviews 21 Methodology 21 Findings and Results 22 Findings and Recommendations 30 Service 30 Kingston CitiBus 30 Ulster County Area Transit 31 Transportation Demand Management 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER PAGE Land Use and Design 35 Facilities 37 Terminals 37 Commuter Parking Lots 43 Costs 49 Fares 50 Prepayment Media 50 Fare Coordination 51 U-PASS 51 UniTicket 52 Promotional Fares 52 Marketing 52 Marketing Plan 52 Specific Elements 53 Priorities 54 LIST OF TABLES FOLLOWING TABLE PAGE (For the electronic version, all tables follow the text of the report.) 1 Description of Service - Transit Services 3 2 Description of Service - Commuter/Intercity Service 3 3 Frequency of Service - Transit Services 7 4 Frequency of Service - Commuter/Intercity Service 7 5 Frequency of Service - Transit Services 7 6 Frequency of Service - Commuter/Intercity Service 7 7 Daily Ridership By Route 11 8 Five Year Operating and Financial
    [Show full text]