DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 2 Alternatives DES 12 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Izembek National Wildlife Refuge Land Exchange/Road Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Alternatives U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission Statement The Mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Refuge System Mission Statement The Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. ––National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 On the Cover: Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, 2007 Photo from the NCTC Image Library CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Alternative Development Process ........................................................................ 2-1 2.2.1 Step 1: Development of Range of Alternatives .................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Step 2: Development of Screening Criteria .......................................... 2-3 2.2.2.1 Screening Criteria Based on Purpose and Need .................... 2-3 2.2.2.2 Other Considerations ............................................................. 2-4 2.2.2.3 Criteria Dismissed .................................................................. 2-4 2.2.3 Step 3: Mode of Transit Screening ....................................................... 2-5 2.2.4 Step 4: Identification of Alternative Routes by Mode of Transit ......... 2-5 2.2.4.1 Road ....................................................................................... 2-6 2.2.4.2 Hovercraft .............................................................................. 2-7 2.2.4.3 Air ........................................................................................ 2-12 2.2.4.4 Marine .................................................................................. 2-12 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis ........................ 2-14 2.3.1 Road Alternatives ................................................................................ 2-14 2.3.2 Hovercraft Alternatives ....................................................................... 2-16 2.3.3 Air Alternatives ................................................................................... 2-17 2.3.4 Marine Alternatives............................................................................. 2-18 2.3.5 Other Alternatives ............................................................................... 2-18 2.4 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Evaluation in the EIS ............................. 2-20 2.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................... 2-20 2.4.2 Alternative 2 – Land Exchange and Southern Road Alignment ......... 2-25 2.4.3 Alternative 3 – Land Exchange and Central Road Alignment............ 2-38 2.4.4 Alternative 4 – Hovercraft Operations from the Northeast Terminal to Cross Wind Cove (Six days per week) ........................................... 2-45 2.4.5 Alternative 5 – Lenard Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay Dock Improvements...................................................................................... 2-49 2.4.6 Lands Involved in Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................ 2-54 2.5 Selection of the Preferred Alternative................................................................ 2-55 2.6 Environmentally Preferable Alternative ............................................................ 2-55 2.7 Mitigation and Monitoring ................................................................................. 2-56 2.8 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................... 2-57 2.9 Incomplete and Unavailable Information .......................................................... 2-75 IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 2-i LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Table 2.3-1 Summary of Alternatives Dismissed in 2003 EIS ................................................. 2-15 Table 2.3-2 Summary of Additional Road Alternatives Dismissed ......................................... 2-16 Table 2.3-3 Summary of Additional Marine Alternatives Dismissed ...................................... 2-18 Table 2.4-1 Comparative Summary of Alternatives ................................................................. 2-24 Table 2.4-2 Comparative Summary of Road Alternatives........................................................ 2-27 Table 2.4-3 Stream Crossings-Alternative 2 Southern Road Alignment .................................. 2-35 Table 2.4-4 Stream Crossings-Alternative 3 Central Road Alignment .................................... 2-42 Table 2.4-5 Summary of Alternative 5: Lenard Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay Dock Improvements ....................................................................................................... 2-51 Table 2.4-6 Land Exchange Parcels and Lands Potentially Affected under Alternatives 2 and 3 ...................................................................................................................... 2-55 Table 2.4-7 Lands Potentially Affected under Alternatives 4 and 5 ......................................... 2-56 Table 2.8-1 Impact Summary by Alternative ........................................................................... 2-59 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Road Alternatives Considered But Dismissed .......................................................... 2-8 Figure 2-2 Alternative 2 – Southern Road Alignment ................................................................ 2-9 Figure 2-3 Alternative 3 – Central Road Alignment ................................................................ 2-10 Figure 2-4 Hovercraft Alternatives Considered ........................................................................ 2-11 Figure 2-5 Marine Alternatives Considered ............................................................................. 2-13 Figure 2-6 Proposed National Wildlife Refuge Boundary Administrative Adjustment ........... 2-26 Figure 2-7 Typical Bollard With Sign and Chain Details......................................................... 2-30 Figure 2-8 Typical Roadway Section and Turnout Details ...................................................... 2-33 Figure 2-9 Typical Bridge and Box Culvert Details ................................................................. 2-34 Figure 2-10 Alternative 4 (Hovercraft from Northeast Terminal) ............................................ 2-46 Figure 2-11 Alternative 5 (Lenard Harbor Ferry with Cold Bay Dock Improvements) ........... 2-50 IZEMBEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 2-ii LAND EXCHANGE/ROAD CORRIDOR EIS CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Introduction Chapter 2 describes the process of developing alternatives for the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge Land Exchange/Road Corridor Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The chapter includes the alternatives carried forward for detailed evaluation, including 2 alternatives that address the proposed action, 2 additional action alternatives, and the No Action alternative; mitigation measures; and other alternatives considered and eliminated from detailed analysis. The alternative development process complies with the requirements as stated in the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The following information is included in this chapter: • A discussion of how alternatives were developed; • Descriptions of alternatives considered but dismissed from further analysis; • Descriptions of alternatives considered in detail, including the No Action alternative; • A discussion of mitigation measures, best management practices, and associated monitoring practices that would eliminate or lessen adverse environmental impacts by alternative; • A summary comparison of the effects of the alternatives (a detailed assessment of effects is given in Chapter 4); and • Identification of incomplete and unavailable information and an examination of the impact of these data limitations on the environmental consequences analysis. 2.2 Alternative Development Process A stepwise approach was taken to develop and assess action alternatives that would meet the project purpose and needs as described in Chapter 1. The first step developed a range of alternatives that address the project purpose and need, including the issues and alternative proposals identified during the scoping process, and also comply with federal, Tribal, state, and local regulations. Alternatives carried forward for detailed consideration were guided by the key legislative directives, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Act) and NEPA. Key points of the Act and NEPA, relative to alternative development, are summarized in this section; other applicable laws and regulations are summarized in Chapter 1. The steps in the alternative screening process are also summarized in this section. The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notice of Adjustments to Service Obligations
    Served: May 12, 2020 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN AIR SERVICE PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW NO. 116-136 §§ 4005 AND 4114(b) Docket DOT-OST-2020-0037 NOTICE OF ADJUSTMENTS TO SERVICE OBLIGATIONS Summary By this notice, the U.S. Department of Transportation (the Department) announces an opportunity for incremental adjustments to service obligations under Order 2020-4-2, issued April 7, 2020, in light of ongoing challenges faced by U.S. airlines due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) public health emergency. With this notice as the initial step, the Department will use a systematic process to allow covered carriers1 to reduce the number of points they must serve as a proportion of their total service obligation, subject to certain restrictions explained below.2 Covered carriers must submit prioritized lists of points to which they wish to suspend service no later than 5:00 PM (EDT), May 18, 2020. DOT will adjudicate these requests simultaneously and publish its tentative decisions for public comment before finalizing the point exemptions. As explained further below, every community that was served by a covered carrier prior to March 1, 2020, will continue to receive service from at least one covered carrier. The exemption process in Order 2020-4-2 will continue to be available to air carriers to address other facts and circumstances. Background On March 27, 2020, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Recovery, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) into law. Sections 4005 and 4114(b) of the CARES Act authorize the Secretary to require, “to the extent reasonable and practicable,” an air carrier receiving financial assistance under the Act to maintain scheduled air transportation service as the Secretary deems necessary to ensure services to any point served by that air carrier before March 1, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stepped Hull Hybrid Hydrofoil
    The Stepped Hull Hybrid Hydrofoil Christopher D. Barry, Bryan Duffty Planing @brid hydrofoils or partially hydrofoil supported planing boat are hydrofoils that intentionally operate in what would be the takeoff condition for a norma[ hydrofoil. They ofler a compromise ofperformance and cost that might be appropriate for ferq missions. The stepped hybrid configuration has made appearances in the high speed boat scene as early as 1938. It is a solution to the problems of instability and inefficiency that has limited other type of hybrids. It can be configured to have good seakeeping as well, but the concept has not been used as widely as would be justified by its merits. The purpose of this paper is to reintroduce this concept to the marine community, particularly for small, fast ferries. We have performed analytic studies, simple model experiments and manned experiments, andfiom them have determined some specljic problems and issues for the practical implementation of this concept. This paper presents background information, discusses key concepts including resistance, stability, seakeeping, and propulsion and suggests solutions to what we believe are the problems that have limited the widespread acceptance of this concept. Finally we propose a “strawman” design for a ferry in a particular service using this technology. BACKGROUND Partially hydrofoil supported planing hulls mix hydrofoil support and planing lift. The most obvious A hybrid hydrofoil is a vehicle combining the version of this concept is a planing hull with a dynamic lift of hydrofoils with a significant amount of hydrofoil more or less under the center of gravity. lit? tiom some other source, generally either buoyancy Karafiath (1974) studied this concept and ran model or planing lift.
    [Show full text]
  • Woodland Ferry History
    Woodland Ferry: Crossing the Nanticoke River from the 1740s to the present Carolann Wicks Secretary, Department of Transportation Welcome! This short history of the Woodland Ferry, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, was written to mark the commissioning of a new ferryboat, the Tina Fallon, in 2008. It is an interesting and colorful story. TIMELINE 1608 Captain John Smith explores 1843 Jacob Cannon Jr. murdered at the the Nanticoke River, and encounters wharf. Brother Isaac Cannon dies one Nanticoke Indians. Native Americans month later. Ferry passes to their sister have resided in the region for thousands Luraney Boling of years 1845 Inventory of Luraney Boling’s 1734 James Cannon purchases a estate includes “one wood scow, one land tract called Cannon’s Regulation at schooner, one large old scow, two small Woodland old scows, one ferry scow, one old and worn out chain cable, one lot of old cable 1743? James Cannon starts operating a chains and two scow chains, on and ferry about the wharves” 1748 A wharf is mentioned at the 1883 Delaware General Assembly ferry passes an act authorizing the Levy Court of Sussex County to establish and 1751 James Cannon dies and his son maintain a ferry at Woodland Jacob takes over the ferry 1885 William Ellis paid an annual 1766 A tax of 1,500 lbs. of tobacco salary of $119.99 by Sussex County for is paid “to Jacob Cannon for keeping operating the ferry a Ferry over Nanticoke River the Year past” 1930 Model “T” engine attached to the wooden ferryboat 1780 Jacob Cannon dies and
    [Show full text]
  • FSX/Prepar3d Airport: 7AK Akutan, Alaska, USA
    FSX/Prepar3D Airport: 7AK Akutan, Alaska, USA Airport: 7AK - Akutan Airport Location: Akutan Island, Alaska USA Creator: Wayne Roberts ([email protected]) Revised: Conrad F. Staeheli, CH-8807 Freienbach, Switzerland This is a NEW airport. Location: Akutan Airport (IATA: KQA[2], ICAO: PAUT, FAA LID: 7AK) is a state owned, public use airport serving Akutan, a city on Akutan Island in the Aleutians East Borough of the U.S. state of Alaska. The airport is located on Akun Island, 6 miles (10 km) east of Akutan Island. Scheduled air service is subsidized by the Essential Air Service program. https://skyvector.com/airport/7AK/Akutan-Airport http://www.airnav.com/airport/7AK History: The airport was opened in 2012. Akutan was previously served by amphibious airplane service to Akutan Seaplane Base, located on Akutan Island, however, in 2012 operator PenAir announced that they would retire their Grumman Goose aircraft and as a result the traditional airport on Akun Island was built to serve Akutan. The new airport is connected to Akutan by a hovercraft. Boats and amphibious aircraft, hovercraft, or helicopter are the only means of transportation into and out of Akutan. A 200-foot (61 m) dock and a small boat mooring basin are available. Meanwhile the Hovercraft has been sold due to high costs, an Helicopter-Service has been established by Maritime Helicopters. Grant Aviation offers daily flights from Unalaska/Dutch Harbour (ICAO: PADU) to Akutan (7AK, ICAO: PAUT) and back again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akutan_Airport Changes were made based on 2012 construction plans. Custom models have been added.
    [Show full text]
  • A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry System
    A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry System Final Implementation & Operations Plan July 2003 San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority Dear Governor Davis and Members of the California Legislature: After two years of work, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Finally, as the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Authority (WTA) is delivering an Implementation and Operations details, this system is environmentally responsible. Plan. It is a viable strategy to improve Bay Area public transit with an environmentally friendly ferry system. It is a well- From beginning to end, this plan is built on solid, conservative thought-out plan calling for a sensible transportation investment. technical data and financial assumptions. If the State of California It shows how the existing and new individual ferry routes can adopts this plan and it is funded, we can begin making expanded form a well-integrated water-transit system that provides good water transit a reality. connections to other transit. The current economy makes it tough to find funds for new When you enacted Senate Bill 428 in October 1999, the WTA programs, even those as worthy as expanded Bay Area water was formed and empowered to create a plan for new and expanded transit. The Authority understands the economic challenges it water transit services and related ground transportation faces and is already working hard to overcome that hurdle. terminal access services. It was further mandated that the Today, the Authority’s future is unclear, pending your consideration. Authority must study ridership demand, cost-effectiveness But the prospects for expanded Bay Area water transit — and and expanded water transit’s environmental impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Conditions of Carriage of Calmac Ferries Limited
    CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE OF CALMAC FERRIES LIMITED Preamble These Conditions of Carriage (the “Conditions”) of CalMac Ferries Limited (the “Company”) are incorporated within and form part of any and all contracts of carriage entered into by Passengers, Shippers and Users (as defi ned below) with the Company. The Conditions are set out in 5 sections as follows:- A. PRELIMINARY Definitions; Interpretation; Carriage undertaken; Principal forms of Contract of Carriage; Agency in respect of Passengers; Deemed ticketing or Deemed consignment. B. CONDITIONS IN RESPECT OF VESSELS/SERVICES Discretion as to Carriage; Variations with regard to sailing; Impediments to Loading, Carriage, etc; Compliance with C. LIABILITY, ETC Liability under the Athens Convention; Athens Convention explanatory note; Liability in other situations, Death/Personal injury; Livestock; Time Limit for Claims; Dogs and other Pet Animals; Defect/Failure of any Services; Additional loss or damage; Benefi t of all rights and exemptions; Company acting as agent; Medical attention; Refrigerated trailers; Lighterage expense/Livestock Consignment; No undertaking as to Notice of Arrival of Goods, etc; No undertaking as to safe custody of jewellery, etc; The Company’s right to hold Goods, etc; Damage caused by Passengers, Shippers and Users; Maximum protection allowed by Law/Time Limits; D. REGULATIONS IN RESPECT OF DANGEROUS GOODS AND SUBSTANCES Dangerous Goods and Substances; Shipment of Dangerous Goods and substances explanatory note; Regulations for the conveyance of petrol, fuel oil, and cylinders and cartridges of liquefi ed hydrocarbon gas in vehicles on board Vessels; Breach of Regulations; E. GENERAL MATTERS Luggage entitlement; Miscellaneous; Storekeepers/warehousemen; Instructions and searches; Ticketing Conditions, etc; Governing Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Invitation to Bid Invitation Number 2519H037
    INVITATION TO BID INVITATION NUMBER 2519H037 RETURN THIS BID TO THE ISSUING OFFICE AT: Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Statewide Contracting & Procurement P.O. Box 112500 (3132 Channel Drive, Suite 350) Juneau, Alaska 99811-2500 THIS IS NOT AN ORDER DATE ITB ISSUED: January 24, 2019 ITB TITLE: De-icing Chemicals SEALED BIDS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE STATEWIDE CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT OFFICE AND MUST BE TIME AND DATE STAMPED BY THE PURCHASING SECTION PRIOR TO 2:00 PM (ALASKA TIME) ON FEBRUARY 14, 2019 AT WHICH TIME THEY WILL BE PUBLICLY OPENED. DELIVERY LOCATION: See the “Bid Schedule” DELIVERY DATE: See the “Bid Schedule” F.O.B. POINT: FINAL DESTINATION IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you received this solicitation from the State’s “Online Public Notice” web site, you must register with the Procurement Officer listed on this document to receive subsequent amendments. Failure to contact the Procurement Officer may result in the rejection of your offer. BIDDER'S NOTICE: By signature on this form, the bidder certifies that: (1) the bidder has a valid Alaska business license, or will obtain one prior to award of any contract resulting from this ITB. If the bidder possesses a valid Alaska business license, the license number must be written below or one of the following forms of evidence must be submitted with the bid: • a canceled check for the business license fee; • a copy of the business license application with a receipt date stamp from the State's business license office; • a receipt from the State’s business license office for
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac River Transporation Plan.Indd
    Potomac River Transportation Framework Plan Washington DC, Virginia, Maryland Water transportation is the most economical, energy effi cient and environmentally friendly transportation that exists for major cities today. The vast river network that was the original lifeblood of the Washington, DC region remains underutilized. The Potomac River Transportation Framework Plan is a comprehensive master plan outlining a water based transportation network on the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia, for commuters, tourists and the federal government (defense and civilian evacuations). This plan outlines an enormous opportunity to expand the transportation network at a fraction of the cost (both in dollars and environmental impact) of other transportation modes. The plan includes intermodal connections to the existing land based public transportation system. See Detail Plan GEORGETOWN REGIONAL PLAN KENNEDY CENTER RFK STADIUM NATIONAL MALL THE WHARF BASEBALL The plan to the left GEORGETOWN STADIUM NAVY YARD PENTAGON BUZZARD POINT/ SOCCER STADIUM POPLAR POINT illustrates the reach of FORT MCNAIR JBAB the transporation plan KENNEDY CENTER that includes Virginia, NATIONAL AIRPORT RFK STADIUM JBAB / ST. ELIZABETHS SOUTH Maryland, and the DAINGERFIELD ISLAND NATIONAL MALL GENON SITE District of Columbia, CANAL CENTER ROBINSON TERMINAL NORTH fully integrated with THE OLD TOWN- KING STREET existing land based WHARF ROBINSON TERMINAL SOUTH BASEBALL PENTAGON STADIUM NAVY YARD JONES POINT transporation. NATIONAL HARBOR POPLAR POINT BUZZARD POINT/SOCCER STADIUM FORT MCNAIR JBAB A TERMINAL ‘A’ Both Plans illustrate B TERMINAL ‘B’ C TERMINAL ‘C’ potential routes and landings for D TERMINAL ‘D’ MOUNT VERNON FORT WASHINGTON Commuters, Tourists NATIONAL AIRPORT and the Federal JBAB / ST.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Get to Capri Town How to Get to Capri Town Upon Arrival at the Marina Grande Port, Take the Funicular to the Center of Capri (A Four Minute Ride)
    How to get to Capri Town How to Get to Capri Town Upon arrival at the Marina Grande port, take the funicular to the center of Capri (a four minute ride). Once you have exited the funicular, instead of climbing the stairs to the scenic terrace, pass through the Navigational companies: gate on the left. You will find yourself in a narrow lane; walk down a few meters and Capri Town is on the Aliscafi SNAV +39 081 8377577 right. Caremar Spa +39 081 8370700 NLG Navigazione Libera del Golfo Roma +39 081 8370819 To transport baggage on the funicular, you must buy a supplementary ticket for €1.80 per piece. Port Authority +39 081 8370226 If you choose to take a taxi to get here, keep in mind that the car can't reach directly the door of Capri Town, since it is situated in a pedestrian area. Ask the driver to leave you in Piazzetta (and not at the beginning of Tourist Information Offices Via Acquaviva). From here follow the stairs that go down between Piccolo Bar and Bar Caso. In this way you +39 081 8370686 have to walk only a short downhill section. Napoli Sorrento Positano Capri Hydrofoils and ferries to Capri depart from Naples and Sorrento. In the summer months, How long will the journey take? sea crossings are also available from From Rome airport: minimum 3 hours Positano, Amalfi, Salerno and the island of (traveling by fast train and without missing a Ischia. Times of crossings are subject to variation and it’s always a good idea to check single connection) the hydrofoil and ferry schedule before you From Naples airport: 90mins travel to the port.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 AASP Executive Summary
    The Continuous Aviation System Planning Process, 2015 D ep artm en t of T ra n sp o rta tio n an d P u b lic F a cilitie s S T A T E W ID E A V IA T IO N P.O. Box 196900 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6900 Main: 907.269.0730 Fax: 907.269.0489 dot.state.ak.us From the desk of Deputy Commissioner Binder I am pleased to present the 2015 Alaska Aviation System Plan Executive Summary - a compilation of highlights and accomplishments from the past year of aviation system planning in the State of Alaska. Given Alaska’s size, its sparse population, and the vast territory inaccessible by road, it is no surprise that aviation has been a big part of life in the 49th state almost since the invention of the airplane. Noel Wien fl ew an open cockpit biplane from Anchorage’s Park Strip to Fairbanks in July of 1924. He later became the founder of Wien Alaska Airways, which was among the fi rst commercial airliners in the United States. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), other airport sponsors, and the FAA have made great strides in developing and improving the airport system since statehood. During that time and to date, Alaska’s population continues to grow, passenger enplanements increase, and advancing aviation technology contributes to safer and more reliable access by air. Today, the aviation industry generates $3.5 billion and more that 47,000 Alaskan jobs annually, accounting for 10% of all the jobs in Alaska.
    [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]
  • Terms and Conditions for Purchasing/Travel
    TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PURCH ASING/TRAVEL Adriatic Fast Ferries d.o.o (called AFF here under), Croatia with web site www.splitexpress.com, Terms and Conditions for Purchasing (the “Terms”) apply to all contracts for purchase of travel and associated additional services entered with AFF. You can purchase a ticket on our website www.splitexpress.com or via agents in our ports. You, the Customer, are responsible for ensuring that your booking is correct. You are also responsible to have enough time if you have a connection. Read these Terms and check your booking details. You should also familiarise yourself with Conditions for the Carriage of Passengers by Sea. Select “Pay” to complete the purchase. Once you have completed the purchase you have accepted the Terms. The Terms apply to all purchases of tickets directly from AFF on our website www.splitexpress.com . When you purchase a ticket from a travel agent or other agent, the terms and conditions applicable to that purchase shall apply but with minimum requirement stated in our term here, the price can differ from www.splitexpress.com When travelling with us, AFF General Terms and Conditions for the Carriage of Passengers by Sea apply. AFF does not assume liability for losses that passengers have to sustain due to delay or cancellation of the transportation, events that are caused randomly, by force majeure, bad weather conditions, strikes, technical faults due to force majeure or other reasons beyond the company’s scope of influence. The Master is entitled to change the intended course of the ship if events occur that may put the safety of the ship and the passengers at risk.
    [Show full text]