DOCSLIB.ORG

Passenger Rail and Freight Rail Partnerships: Case Studies in Boston, Chicago, and Denver

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Passenger Rail and Freight Rail Partnerships: Case Studies in Boston, Chicago, and Denver Passenger Rail and Freight Rail Partnerships: Case Studies in Boston, Chicago, and Denver by Dr. Andrew R. Goetz Professor, Department of Geography and the Environment University of Denver Denver, CO 80208 Dr. Keith Ratner Professor, Department of Geography Salem State University Salem, MA 01970 Dr. Julie Cidell Associate Professor, Department of Geography and GIS University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Champaign, IL 61821 Dr. Michael Minn Assistant Professor, Department of Geography and Anthropology Eastern Washington University Cheney, WA 99004 Sylvia Brady. MA, MS Department of Geography and the Environment University of Denver Denver, CO 80208 NCITEC Project No. 2013-35 conducted for NCITEC August 2016 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. 2 ABSTRACT With population and traffic congestion growing in urban areas throughout the United States, the demand for passenger rail service is also growing. The opportunity exists to minimize environmental and social impacts of expanding rail transit by sharing existing corridors with freight rail operators. The purpose of this study is to evaluate existing agreements between freight and passenger rail services and identify issues, challenges, and best practices of shared-use corridors. This research includes an analysis of the existing literature, in-depth interviews with national experts, and in-depth interviews with local area experts in three case study cities with substantial experience in shared-use rail corridors: Boston, Chicago, and Denver. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the National Center for Intermodal Transportation for Economic Competitiveness and the US Department of Transportation University Transportation Center program. We thank all of the anonymous respondents in this study for their perspectives and insights. And special thanks to several anonymous reviewers who read earlier drafts of this report and provided most helpful comments. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. III ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................ V TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... VII LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ IX INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 OBJECTIVE ..............................................................................................................................3 SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................5 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................7 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ...................................................................................................9 Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 9 System Trends ................................................................................................... 9 Types of Sharing Agreements ......................................................................... 12 Prior Reports ................................................................................................... 15 Research Areas ................................................................................................ 19 General Analysis of National Issues in Shared Corridors .......................................... 20 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 20 Issue Areas ...................................................................................................... 20 General Best Practices .................................................................................... 23 Examples of Best Shared-Use Railroad Agreements ...................................... 25 Examples of the worst shared-use railroad corridor agreements .................... 26 Economic Competitiveness ............................................................................. 27 Government Policy for Shared-Use Corridors ................................................ 27 Best Practices .................................................................................................. 27 The Future of Shared-Use Agreements ........................................................... 28 Boston Case Study ...................................................................................................... 28 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 28 Boston Commuter Rail System ....................................................................... 30 Amtrak Downeaster ........................................................................................ 31 Freight Movements ......................................................................................... 34 Shared Use Agreements .................................................................................. 36 Economic Competitiveness ............................................................................. 36 Best Practices and Policies .............................................................................. 37 Worst Practices and Policies ........................................................................... 37 The Future ....................................................................................................... 38 Case Study Conclusions .................................................................................. 38 Chicago Case Study .................................................................................................... 39 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 39 Historic rail connections in the Chicago region .............................................. 40 Creating the modern, separated system .......................................................... 41 Expanding lighter rail transit .......................................................................... 44 Expanding heavy rail transit ........................................................................... 47 Best practices for shared corridors .................................................................. 48 vii Denver Case Study ...................................................................................................... 50 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 50 Amtrak ............................................................................................................ 50 Regional Transportation District (RTD) ......................................................... 52 Agreements and corridor sharing development process ................................. 55 The Contentious Process of Developing a Shared-Use Agreement ................ 57 Northwest rail line ........................................................................................... 58 Economic competitiveness .............................................................................. 60 Best Practices .................................................................................................. 61 Future shared use corridors and future of agreements .................................... 62 Government policy for Shared-Use Corridors ................................................ 64 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................67 General Findings ......................................................................................................... 67 Specific case studies ................................................................................................... 70 Boston ............................................................................................................. 70 Chicago ........................................................................................................... 70 Denver ............................................................................................................. 71 RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................74 ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ..........................................................76 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................79 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: US Annual Amtrak / Intercity Rail Passenger-Miles ................................................ 9 Figure 2: US Annual Commuter Rail Passenger-Miles .........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bus and Shared-Ride Taxi Use in Two Small Urban Areas
    Bus and Shared-Ride Taxi Use in Two Small Urban Areas David P. Middendorf, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company Kenneth W. Heathington, University of Tennessee The demand for publicly owned fixed-route. fixed-schedule bus service are used for work and business-related trips to and was compared with tho demand for privately owned shared-ride taxi ser­ within CBDs and for short social, shopping, medical, vice in Davenport. Iowa, and Hicksville, New York, through on-board and personal business trips. surveys end cab company dispatch records and driver logs. The bus and In many small cities and in many suburbs of large slmrcd·ride taxi systems in Davenport com11eted for the off.peak-period travel market. During off-peak hours, the taxis tended to attract social· metropol.il;e:H!:i, l.lus~s nd taxicabs operate within tlie recreation, medical, and per onal business trips between widely scattered same jlu·isclictions and may compete for the same public origins and destinations, while the buses tended 10 attract shopping and transportation market. Two examples of small commu­ personal business trips to the CBD. The shared-ride taxi system in Hicks· nities in which buses and ta.xis coexist are Davenport, ville, in addition to providing many-to·many service, competed with the Iowa, and Hicksville, New York. The markets, eco­ counlywide bus system as a feeder system to the Long Island commuter nomic characteristics, organization, management, and railroad network. In each study area, the markets of each mode of public operation of the taxicab systems sel'Ving these commu­ transportation were similar.
    [Show full text]
  • A-2 Capital Improvement Projects
    Buses staged at Pace’s East Dundee garage facility, managed by Pace River Division. Pace’s existing River Division garage will be expanded to allow more space for services operating along I-90 and locally in Elgin and the surrounding area. 56 | page A-2 Capital Improvement Projects Initiative: Implement all Pace capital projects funded through Rebuild Illinois, and produce a Facilities Plan to determine how Pace facilities will be used to support other service plans and initiatives. Supports Goals: Equity, Productivity, Responsiveness, Safety, Environmental Stewardship, and Fiscal Solvency ACTION ITEM 1 Rebuild Illinois State Capital Program Illinois’s nearly $45 billion capital construction program, Rebuild Illinois, earmarks $2.6 billion for public transit, of which $228 million has been allocated for Pace. Metra and CTA also received a combined $240 million in earmarks for capital projects through this funding source. As transit riders often make connections between CTA, Metra and Pace services, investments for all three service boards are expected to help improve the quality of public transportation regionally. Capital funding from the state is in addition to separate sources of funding all three agencies receive. Additionally, Rebuild Illinois will allow new sources of annual revenues to fund capital projects, primarily through the Transportation Renewal Fund, which will reserve 18 percent of receipts towards public transportation projects in Northeastern Illinois. Pace is working with IDOT, RTA, CTA and Metra to ensure program funding is expended quickly, effectively, and equitably across the region. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker speaking about the $45 billion Rebuild Illinois capital plan (Illinois Business Journal, 2020) page | 57 Pace Capital Projects funded through Rebuild Illinois 58 | page page | 59 I-55 Express Bus Garage and Infrastructure Pace Heritage Division has exceeded its garage capacity and cannot support further growth of Pace’s successful I-55 Bus on Shoulder service.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining MBTA Commuter Rail Ridership METHODS RIDERSHIP
    TAKING THE TRAIN? Explaining MBTA Commuter Rail Ridership INTRODUCTION RIDERSHIP BY STATION RESULTS The MBTA Commuter Rail provides service from suburbs in the Boston Metro Area to Boston area stations, with terminal Commuter Rail Variables stations at North Station and South Station. While using commuter rail may be faster, particularly at rush hour, than using a Distance to Boston, distance to rapid transit, price of commuter rail, commuter rail time, transit time, and drive time are all personal vehicle or other transit alternatives, people still choose not to use the Commuter Rail, as can be demonstrated by the highly correlated. This makes sense as they all essentially measure distance to Boston in dollars, minutes and miles. high volume of people driving at rush hour. For the commuter rail variables analysis, trains per weekday (standardized beta=.536, p=.000), drive time at 8AM This study seeks to understand the personal vehicle and public transit alternatives to the MBTA Commuter Rail at each stop (standardized beta=.385, p=.000), peak on time performance (standardized beta=-.206, p=.009) and the terminal station to understand what options people have when deciding to use the Commuter Rail over another mode and what characteristics (p=.001) were found to be significant. Interestingly, all variables calculated for the area a half mile from commuter rail sta- tions (population, jobs and median income) were not significant. of the alternatives may inspire people to choose them over Commuter Rail. Understanding what transit and driving alterna- tives are like at each Commuter Rail stop may offer insight into why people are choosing or not choosing Commuter Rail for Transit Variables their trips to Boston, and how to encourage ridership.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston to Providence Commuter Rail Schedule
    Boston To Providence Commuter Rail Schedule Giacomo beseechings downward. Dimitrou shrieved her convert dolce, she detach it prenatally. Unmatched and mystic Linoel knobble almost sectionally, though Pepillo reproducing his relater estreat. Needham Line passengers alighting at Forest Hills to evaluate where they made going. Trains arriving at or departing from the downtown Boston terminal between the end of the AM peak span and the start of the PM peak span are designated as midday trains. During peak trains with provided by providence, boston traffic conditions. Produced by WBUR and NPR. Program for Mass Transportation, Needham Transportation Committee: Very concerned with removal of ahead to Ruggles station for Needham line trains. Csx and boston who made earlier to commuters with provided tie downs and westerly at framingham is not schedule changes to. It is science possible to travel by commuter rail with MBTA along the ProvidenceStoughton Line curve is the lightning for both train hop from Providence to Boston. Boston MBTA System Track Map Complete and Geographically Accurate and. Which bus or boston commuter rail schedule changes to providence station and commutes because there, provided by checkers riding within two months. Read your favorite comics from Comics Kingdom. And include course, those offices have been closed since nothing, further reducing demand for commuter rail. No lines feed into both the North and South Stations. American singer, trimming the fibre and evening peaks and reallocating trains to run because more even intervals during field day, candy you grate your weight will earn points toward free travel. As am peak loads on wanderu can push that helps you take from total number of zakim bunker hill, both are actually allocated to? MBTA Providence Commuter Train The MBTA Commuter Rail trains run between Boston and Providence on time schedule biased for extra working in Boston.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Station Parking
    Parking at/near the Passenger Rail Stations used by Residents of Western Mass. Parking rate per Distance Cost to Park Station Location Long‐term Parking Location Hour Day Month from Station for 1 Day North – South stations $ 5 / day GREENFIELD surface lot (city owned) 0.2 miles $ 0.75 / hour $ 5 $ 25 / for 7 days NA Amtrak Hope Street (4 min walk) (maximum of 10 hours) (see note 1) NORTHAMPTON E. John Gare Parking Garage (city owned) 0.3 miles Free / first hour $ 90 / month $ 12 NA Amtrak 85 Hampton Avenue (6 min walk) $ 0.50 / each additional hour (see note 2) HOLYOKE surface lot at station (state owned) ‐‐ Free Free Amtrak 74 Main Street $ 1.50 for the first 30 minutes $ 2.00 per each additional hour Union Station Garage (city owned) $ 5 $ 5 Daily Commuter (5 am — Midnight) SPRINGFIELD ‐‐ $ 65 / month 1755 Main Street (5 am ‐ Midnight) $ 20 / 24 hours Amtrak $ 40 / 48 hours Ctrail $ 50 / 3–7 days Greyhound Peter Pan $ 10 / day (1–3 calendar days) Ken's Parking (private surface lot) 0.1 miles $ 10 NA $ 8 / day (4–6 calendar days) NA 73 Taylor Street (2 min walk) $ 6 / day (7+ calendar days) WINDSOR LOCKS surface lot at station (state owned) Amtrak ‐‐ Free Free South Main Street at Stanton Road CTail Stations along the MBTA Framingham / Worcester Line $ 3 / 0–1 hour $ 1 / each additional hour $ 116 – Regular Monthly Union Station Garage (city owned) $ 12 $ 12 / 6+ hours ‐‐ $ 127 – 24/7 225 Franklin Street $ 16 (overnight) $ 1 / evenings (5 pm – 3 am) WORCESTER $ 150 – Premium MBTA Commuter Rail $ 5 / overnight (3 am – 4 am) Amtrak Note | day begins at 4 am surface lot (city owned) 0.1 miles $ 4 $ 4 / day NA NA 25 Shewsbury Street (2 min walk) GRAFTON surface lot at station (state owned) ‐‐ $ 4 $ 4 / day NA NA MBTA Commuter Rail 1 Pine Street, North Grafton Note 1 | Daily/weekly Amtrak Parking passes must be purchased in advance (at Greenfield City Hall or on the web) Note 2 | There is currently a waiting list for monthly parking permits at this location Prepared by Trains In The Valley 8/15/2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Sounder Commuter Rail (Seattle)
    Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Final Report PRC 14-12 F Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Texas A&M Transportation Institute PRC 14-12 F December 2014 Authors Jolanda Prozzi Rydell Walthall Megan Kenney Jeff Warner Curtis Morgan Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 8 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 9 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 10 Sharing Rail Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 10 Three Scenarios for Sharing Rail Infrastructure ................................................................... 10 Shared-Use Agreement Components .................................................................................... 12 Freight Railroad Company Perspectives ............................................................................... 12 Keys to Negotiating Successful Shared-Use Agreements .................................................... 13 Rail Infrastructure Relocation ................................................................................................... 15 Benefits of Infrastructure Relocation ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Resilient Scituate, Climate Vulnerability Assessment And
    Building a Resilient Scituate Climate Vulnerability Assessment and Action Plan March 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The project was conducted by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) with funding from MAPC’s Planning for MetroFuture District Local Technical Assistance program. METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL Officers President Keith Bergman Vice President Erin Wortman Secretary Sandra Hackman Treasurer Taber Keally Executive Director Marc D. Draisen Senior Environmental Planner Darci Schofield GIS/Data Analysis Darci Schofield and Eliza Wallace Town of Scituate Town Administrator James Boudreau Chair, Board of Selectmen Maura C. Curran STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Department of Public Works Kevin Cafferty Engineering Sean McCarthy Director of Planning and Economic Development Brad Washburn Chief of Scituate Fire/Emergency Manager John Murphy Chief of Scituate Police Michael Stewart Board of Health Director Jennifer Keefe Coastal Resource Officer Nancy Durfee Natural Resource and Conservation Officer Amy Walkey Building Commissioner Robert Vogel Council on Aging Director Linda Hayes Director of Facilities Kevin Kelly Recreation Director Maura Clancy Building a Resilient Scituate EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Climate change is the most compelling environmental, economic, and social issue of our time. Scituate, known for its numerous barrier beaches, prominent bedrock headlands, and rich cultural history, is one of the most vulnerable regions in Massachusetts. It is routinely hit hard with coastal storms causing massive storm surge and inundation with even just a lunar high tide. Projected sea level rise and changes in intensity of storm and precipitation events compel the need to Scituate, Winter Storm Riley, March 2018. Source: assess the vulnerability of Scituate’s people and places Simon Brewer as well as plan for protecting its future.
    [Show full text]
  • Light Rail and Tram: the European Outlook November 2019
    STATISTICS BRIEF LIGHT RAIL AND TRAM: THE EUROPEAN OUTLOOK NOVEMBER 2019 INTRODUCTION Tram and light rail systems are available in 389 cit- evolution of light rail transit (LRT) in Europe since ies around the world, with more than half of them 20151, and provides a snapshot of the situation in (204) in Europe. This Statistics Brief describes the 2018. BALTIC/ NORDIC BENELUX REGION BRITISH 12 cities GERMANY 10 cities ISLES 482 km 49 cities 645 km 9 cities 375 m pax/y. 2,966 km 700 m pax/y. 356 km 2,908 m pax/y. 196 m pax/y. POLAND 15 cities 979 km FRANCE 1,051 m pax/y. 28 cities 827 km 1,104 m pax/y. SOUTH- EASTERN WESTERN CENTRAL EUROPE MEDITERRANEAN 29 cities 29 cities EUROPE 992 km 23 cities 809 km 1,277 m pax/y. 1,240 km 623 m pax/y. 2,188 m pax/y. 1 UITP collects rail data according to a three-year cycle (Metro, LRT and Regional & Suburban Railways) 1 A REMARKABLE RENAISSANCE 180 LRT has experienced a renaissance since the new millen- 160 nium, with no less than 108 new cities (re)opening their 140 first line, of which 60 are from Europe. This does not in- 120 Asia-Pacific clude new lines in existing systems and line extensions. 100 Eurasia Europe 80 40 450 South America 60 35 400 MENA & Africa 7 40 350 North America 30 +56% 20 6 300 25 3 2 250 0 2 4 20 2 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 10 1 5 200 15 1 6 1 150 1 1 Figure 3: Evolution of LRT development (km) 2 10 1 19 19 5 100 4 2 15 11 1 5 50 2 7 5 3 0 0 RIDERSHIP pre-1985 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-19 Europe North America South America With a total annual ridership in Europe of 10,422 million Eurasia Asia-Pacific MENA & Africa in 2018, LRT carries as many passengers as metros and Cumulative # systems regional/commuter rail, and 10 times more passengers 2 Figure 1: LRT system opening per half-decade, 1985-2019 than air travel in Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail Primer
    Passenger Rail Primer Thurston Passenger Rail Workgroup November 2005 Passenger Rail Characteristics This document is intended as a primer introducing and familiarizing the reader with the basic definitions of passenger rail and providing a comparison of common transit services in 2005. It was developed to facilitate a discussion of passenger rail and other transit options in the Thurston Region, in preparation of a regional rail plan. In the next section, Passenger Rail Overview, the fundamental characteristics of light rail, commuter rail and intercity rail are covered. Complementary and Alternative Transit Options (primarily common bus transit choices) provides a wider transit context within which the passenger rail modes coordinate and compete. After investigating transit options individually, they are compared and contrasted in a chart of their characteristics, Summarizing the Continuum of Services. Other Rail Transit Technologies provides a brief overview of less extensively used rail options and the Appendices provide additional details and information. Additional resources the reader may want to consult include: • The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) website at www.apta.com • The Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI) website at www.vtpi.org • Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) website at www.bts.gov Passenger Rail Overview Introduction Passenger rail modes may be distinguished from one another based on a variety of characteristics – level of service, technology, right-of-way and operations. These characteristics are discussed in more detail in the other sections of this chapter. Like other transit services, however, in the most basic sense passenger rail modes break down by three distinct geographies – local, regional, and statewide or interstate.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Transportation Map 15 HAZARDOUS CARGO All Hazardous Cargo (HC) and Cargo Tankers General Information Throughout Boston and Surrounding Towns
    WELCOME TO MASSACHUSETTS! CONTACT INFORMATION REGIONAL TOURISM COUNCILS STATE ROAD LAWS NONRESIDENT PRIVILEGES Massachusetts grants the same privileges EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE Fire, Police, Ambulance: 911 16 to nonresidents as to Massachusetts residents. On behalf of the Commonwealth, MBTA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 2 welcome to Massachusetts. In our MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 10 SPEED LAW Observe posted speed limits. The runs daily service on buses, trains, trolleys and ferries 14 3 great state, you can enjoy the rolling Official Transportation Map 15 HAZARDOUS CARGO All hazardous cargo (HC) and cargo tankers General Information throughout Boston and surrounding towns. Stations can be identified 13 hills of the west and in under three by a black on a white, circular sign. Pay your fare with a 9 1 are prohibited from the Boston Tunnels. hours travel east to visit our pristine MassDOT Headquarters 857-368-4636 11 reusable, rechargeable CharlieCard (plastic) or CharlieTicket 12 DRUNK DRIVING LAWS Massachusetts enforces these laws rigorously. beaches. You will find a state full (toll free) 877-623-6846 (paper) that can be purchased at over 500 fare-vending machines 1. Greater Boston 9. MetroWest 4 MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICE LAWS Operators cannot use any of history and rich in diversity that (TTY) 857-368-0655 located at all subway stations and Logan airport terminals. At street- 2. North of Boston 10. Johnny Appleseed Trail 5 3. Greater Merrimack Valley 11. Central Massachusetts mobile electronic device to write, send, or read an electronic opens its doors to millions of visitors www.mass.gov/massdot level stations and local bus stops you pay on board.
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION from Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network
    Report CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION From Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network DECEMBER 2020 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXISTING REGIONAL RAIL NETWORK 10 THE VISION 26 BIDIRECTIONAL RUN-THROUGH SERVICE 28 EXPANDED SERVICE 29 SEAMLESS RIDER EXPERIENCE 30 SUPERIOR OPERATIONAL INTEGRATION 30 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM 31 VISION ANALYSIS 32 IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS 47 KEY STAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATION ROLES 48 NEXT STEPS 51 APPENDICES 55 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The decisions that we as a region make in the next five years will determine whether a more coordinated, integrated regional rail network continues as a viable possibility or remains a missed opportunity. The Capital Region’s economic and global Railway Express (VRE) and Amtrak—leaves us far from CAPITAL REGION RAIL NETWORK competitiveness hinges on the ability for residents of all incomes to have easy and Perryville Martinsburg reliable access to superb transit—a key factor Baltimore Frederick Penn Station in attracting and retaining talent pre- and Camden post-pandemic, as well as employers’ location Yards decisions. While expansive, the regional rail network represents an untapped resource. Washington The Capital Region Rail Vision charts a course Union Station to transform the regional rail network into a globally competitive asset that enables a more Broad Run / Airport inclusive and equitable region where all can be proud to live, work, grow a family and build a business. Spotsylvania to Richmond Main Street Station Relative to most domestic peer regions, our rail network is superior in terms of both distance covered and scope of service, with over 335 total miles of rail lines1 and more world-class service.
    [Show full text]
  • Norwell Open Space & Recreation Plan 2005-2010
    NORWELL OPEN SPACE & RECREATION PLAN 2005-2010 Prepared by the Norwell Open Space and Recreation Committee for the Norwell Conservation Commission Norwell, Massachusetts August 2005 “…collecting data is only the first step toward wisdom, but sharing data is the first step toward community.” —Henry Lewis Gates OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Deborah Lenahan, chair At large Richard Barry Beautification Committee Dale Connor Recreation Director, Town of Norwell Deborah Hill Conservation Commission Steve Ivas Norwell Water Commission Rosanne Joyce At large Michele Simoneaux, agent Conservation Commission Barbara Wolinsky, designer At large PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WERE PROVIDED BY NORWELL RESIDENTS: Eliza McClennen, cartographer Alison Demong, editor The quotes appearing in this Open Space and Recreation Plan are from Norwell citizens, including 6th grade and high school students. They are responses to the Open Space Questionnaire. Norwell Open Space and Recreation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Plan Summary 1 2. Introduction 3 A. Statement of Purpose 3 B. Planning Process and Public Participation 3 3. Community Setting 5 A. Regional Context 5 B. History of the Community 5 C. Population Characteristics 8 D. Growth and Development Patterns 11 4. Environmental Inventory and Analysis 17 A. Geology, Soils and Topography 17 B. Landscape Character 17 C. Water Resources 18 D. Vegetation 21 E. Fisheries and Wildlife 28 F. Scenic Resources and Unique Environments 32 G. Environmental Challenges 35 5. Inventory of Lands of Conservation and Recreation Interest 39 A. Protected Land 40 B. Unprotected Land 43 Protected and Unprotected Land Inventory 6. Community Vision 47 A. Description of Process 47 B. Statement of Open Space and Recreation Goals 48 7.
    [Show full text]