EMTA-Scenario-1.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Metrorail/Coconut Grove Connection Study Phase II Technical
METRORAILICOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 & TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT Technical Memorandum Number 3 Prepared for Prepared by IIStB Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 METRORAIUCOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 Prepared for Prepared by BS'R Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY DESCRiPTION ........................................................................................ 1 3.0 TRANSIT MODES DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 4 3.1 ENHANCED BUS SERViCES ................................................................... 4 3.2 BUS RAPID TRANSIT .............................................................................. 5 3.3 TROLLEY BUS SERVICES ...................................................................... 6 3.4 SUSPENDED/CABLEWAY TRANSIT ...................................................... 7 3.5 AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSiT ....................................................... 7 3.6 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT .............................................................................. 8 3.7 HEAVY RAIL ............................................................................................. 8 3.8 MONORAIL -
__History of Kew Depot and It's Routes
HISTORY OF KEW DEPOT AND ITS ROUTES Page 1 HISTORY of KEW DEPOT and the ROUTES OPERATED by KEW Compiled and written by Hugh Waldron MCILT CA 1500 The word tram and tramway are derived from Scottish words indicating the type of truck and the tracks used in coal mines. 1807 The first Horse tram service in the world commences operation between Swansea and Mumbles in Wales. 12th September 1854 At 12.20 pm first train departs Flinders Street Station for Sandridge (Port Melbourne) First Steam operated railway line in Australia. The line is eventually converted to tram operation during December 1987 between the current Southbank Depot and Port Melbourne. The first rail lines in Australia operated in Newcastle Collieries operated by horses in 1829. Then a five-mile line on the Tasman Peninsula opened in 1836 and powered by convicts pushing the rail vehicle. The next line to open was on 18/5/1854 in South Australia (Goolwa) and operated by horses. 1864 Leonard John Flannagan was born in Richmond. After graduating he became an Architect and was responsible for being the Architect building Malvern Depot 1910, Kew Depot 1915 and Hawthorn Depot 1916. He died 2nd November 1945. September 1873 First cable tramway in the world opens in Clay Street, San Francisco, USA. 1877 Steam tramways commence. Victoria only had two steam tramways both opened 1890 between Sorrento Pier to Sorrento Back Beach closed on 20th March 1921 (This line also operated horse trams when passenger demand was not high.) and Bendigo to Eaglehawk converted to electric trams in 1903. -
Part 1: Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle
Howard Research and Development Corporation Downtown Columbia Downtown Transit Center and Circulator Shuttle Feasibility Study: Part 1 - Downtown Transit Center & Downtown Circulator Shuttle (Part of CEPPA #5) DRAFTDecember 2011 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. iv Chapter 1. Downtown Columbia Transit Center ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Downtown Columbia Circulator Shuttle ............................................................................................... 12 Appendix A. Regional Transit System Evaluation .............................................................................................. 21 Appendix B. Regional Transit Market Analysis .................................................................................................. 46 Appendix C. Transit Circulator Design ................................................................................................................ 64 Appendix D. Transit Center Site Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 764 Appendix E. Transit Development Plan ............................................................................................................... 79 DRAFT Page i• Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table of Figures Figure 1 Existing -
Operations and Financial Analysis
OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS APRIL 22, 2015 PREPARED BY: LOUIS BERGER WATER SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS A) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B) OPERATIONS ANALYSIS C) FINANCIAL ANALYSIS D) APPENDICES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Louis Berger was tasked by the Baltimore City Department of Transportation (BCDOT) to evaluate the Charm City Circulator (CCC) bus operation and analyze financial performance, and develop route operations alternatives that maximize ridership while minimizing costs. Objective The objective is to develop and evaluate alternatives to eliminate the annual deficits while providing maximum service to riders within existing financial resources. Description of Current System Existing Condition The CCC consists of four routes, Purple, Orange, Green and Banner providing “Fast. Friendly. Free.” service throughout downtown Baltimore 362 days per year, with hours of service varying by day type and by season. Key characteristics of each route: Purple Route- runs north - south from Federal Hill to Historic Mount Vernon. Ten (10) minute headways require six (6) buses to operate. Heaviest ridership of all the routes. Orange Route- runs east – west from Historic Fell’s Point and Harbor Point in the east beyond University of Maryland, Baltimore in the west. Ten (10) minute headways require five (5) buses to operate. Ridership is second best in the system. Green Route- roughly U shaped route serves Johns Hopkins University Hospital East Baltimore Campus (JHUH) connecting south to Harbor Point and Harbor East, then northwest to park and ride lots, looping down near City Center then back around. Ten (10) minute headways require six (6) buses. Longest route, least productive in terms of riders. Banner Route- angles southeast of the city past Federal Hill to Fort McHenry. -
Chapter 12: Transportation Page 231 CITY of WESTMINSTER Transportation 2009
Transportation 2009 2009 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 2009 Chapter 12: Transportation Page 231 CITY OF WESTMINSTER Transportation 2009 What is the Transportation Element? Community Vision for At the 1997 session, the General Assembly passed five Transportation pieces of legislation and budget initiatives known collectively as "Smart Growth." Maryland has adopted the principles of Smart Growth to be incorporated into the According to the 2008 Community Survey, Comprehensive Plan. Westminster drivers are concerned with the difficulties they encounter turning on and The following Smart Growth principle relates to the Transportation Element: off roads due to issues with visibility or merging. Some residents suggested that the Facilitate an adequate mix of transportation modes City should consider the addition of lanes, roundabouts, or left turn signals. A second To reduce traffic congestion throughout the City challenge with driving in Westminster is the To coordinate land use and transportation high volume of traffic. Residents describe traffic to be an issue on Route 140 during To create resiliency, and connectivity within the City commuting times in the early morning or road networks early evening because of the high number of To ensure connectivity between pedestrian, bike, commuters that leave Westminster everyday to work outside of Carroll County. transit, and road facilities From the timing to the synchronization, Revitalize existing neighborhoods into safe, residents listed challenges with traffic lights walkable, and livable communities throughout Westminster. In some cases, it is not the use of a traffic light, but rather the To mix land uses and build compactly, thus reducing lack of a traffic light that most concerned trips and make walking a more viable alternative residents. -
Route(S) Description 26 the Increased Frequency on the 26 Makes the Entire Southwestern Portion of the Network Vastly More Useful
Route(s) Description 26 The increased frequency on the 26 makes the entire southwestern portion of the network vastly more useful. Please keep it. The 57, 60, and 61 came south to the area but having frequent service in two directions makes it much better, and riders from these routes can connect to the 26 and have much more areas open to them. Thank you. Green Line The increased weekend service on the Green line to every twenty minutes is a good addition of service for Campbell which is seeing markedly better service under this plan. Please keep the increased service. Multiple Please assuage public concerns about the 65 and 83 by quantifying the impact the removal of these routes would have, and possible cheaper ways to reduce this impact. The fact is that at least for the 65, the vast majority of the route is duplicative, and within walking distances of other routes. Only south of Hillsdale are there more meaningful gaps. Mapping the people who would be left more than a half mile (walkable distance) away from service as a result of the cancellation would help the public see what could be done to address the service gap, and quantifying the amount of people affected may show that service simply cannot be justified. One idea for a route would be service from winchester transit center to Princeton plaza mall along camden and blossom hill. This could be done with a single bus at a cheaper cost than the current 65. And nobody would be cut off. As far as the 83 is concerned, I am surprised the current plan does not route the 64 along Mcabee, where it would be eq.. -
Historic Highway Bridges in Maryland: 1631-1960: Historic Context Report
HISTORIC HIGHWAY BRIDGES IN MARYLAND: 1631-1960: HISTORIC CONTEXT REPORT Prepared for: Maryland State Highway Administration Maryland State Department of Transportation 707 North Calvert Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Prepared by: P.A.C. Spero & Company 40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 412 Baltimore, Maryland 21204 and Louis Berger & Associates 1001 East Broad Street, Suite 220 Richmond, Virginia 23219 July 1995 Revised October 1995 Acknowledgements "Historic Highway Bridges in Maryland: 1631-1960: Historic Context Report" has been prepared with the generous assistance of the Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration's Environmental Management Section and Bridge Development Division, and the historic and cultural resources staff of the Maryland Historical Trust. The preparers of this report would like to thank Cynthia Simpson, Rita Suffness, and Bruce Grey of the State Highway Administration Environmental Management Section, and Jim Gatley, Alonzo Corley, and Chris Barth of the State Highway Administration Bridge Development Division for their aid in providing access to key research materials. Thanks are also extended to Ron Andrews, Beth Hannold, Bill Pencek, Mary Louise de Sarran, and Barbara Shepard--all of the staff of the Maryland Historical Trust, and to the members of the Advisory Committee appointed to review this report. In addition we extend special appreciation to Rita Suffness, Architectural/Bridge Historian for the Maryland State Highway Administration, for providing us with numerous background materials, analyses, research papers, histories, and a draft historic bridge context report which she authored, for use in preparing this report. The final report was prepared by P.A.C. Spero & Company. Research, analysis, graphics preparation, and report writing were conducted by Paula Spero, Michael Reis, James DuSel, Kate Elliot, Laura Landefeld, and Deborah Scherkoske of P.A.C. -
2019 Construction Program
2019 Construction Program PennDOT Engineering District 1 SERVING CRAWFORD, ERIE, FOREST, MERCER, VENANGO, AND WARREN COUNTIES Tom Wolf, Governor Leslie S. Richards, Secretary of Transportation James A. Foringer, P.E., District Executive Contact Information PennDOT Engineering District 1 255 Elm Street PO Box 398 Oil City, PA 16301 (814) 678-7085 Business Hours: 8:00 AM — 4:30 PM Monday — Friday PennDOT’s Engineering District 1 is responsible for the state-maintained transportation network in this region. This includes 3,689 miles of roadway and 2,064 bridges in the six-county area. 2 Overall 2019 Construction Program • Projected 2019 Program: $125.44M • 2018 Program: $92.84M 3 District 1 2019 Construction Program Thank you for your interest in the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 1 Construction Program for 2019. This publication is intended to provide a general overview of projects that currently are under construction, and those scheduled to be awarded or begin construction in 2019. The 2019 Construction Book is divided into seven sections: one representing projects spanning the entire district or multiple counties and one representing each of the six counties in the district. Award dates, expected completion dates, project descriptions, project locations, costs, and maintenance of traffic are listed. The listed estimated cost for a project is for the construction phase only. County maps have also been included for reference. Please keep this book on hand throughout the upcoming construction season. Note: All information is correct as of the distribution date of this booklet. However, all dates and costs are estimated and, therefore, are subject to change. -
Prince George's County Transit System Map Thebus
M ON TG MA D OM IN R ERY S ILL ST T M ND BO GORMAN 5 AV 2 N E M RD MANGU D C V 201 A !( A P P L InsetT 1 B E S L E 1 T D 5 IL M C N O Prince George's County TransitHER Anne Arundel County H US FederalN Courthouse RY W S LN T Y O E N C N GreenbeltV H L E ER A R A Southern District R P Y V D LN R A A R T T S I A D " 1 R G H R D 5 RO 3 T A C E I M 5 LT N BE W EN S GRE " Laurel Regional E N T Greenbelt L v® Hospital T T R P C TheBus System Map E VA K N N D N US Y E Metrorail Station A N C D T RD O 11 I R R S N D L E A T U G D L E J E E ID O R V O O R A R D !(197 C IVY LN W S D 11 15X 16 A E E P G W N D 2 B 5 E E O V E H O A L IVY D T D LN D O D R R I R 3 L R O R QU 5 N E O S £1 IS P H D ¤ S R W N I T N Y W L G HU H O D R D IL T R D O 15X N P O L E N SC S O D RE 11 R N T R N C L B U R W Y R A G 197 C O E K !( R T D E N R O N A D O P A E L S L YW H L I R N E M D B O C ER L L Muirkirk I D E 95 H E A C T B I H R §¨¦ M L I E G n¤ D C G N MARC Station G K T H S I Y O E A N R R N K I V H E G A N Y A R P R M W D R S I P H LA N S T Y K V S T E V P O O IE I R R O W T N I N C BREEZEWO N O I L OD CT F R A G R C R R R M T K H W A AP E L L P S D I D I E N L P W T O L M L N O UIRKI T A B N D E RK RD L E C E C B N T E T RD P B E N K E O L L B L A N M E T K E T D 1 BRE 16 A N £¤ A EZE D A E R N WOO I E M D DR S M L K E E O M H N A O N A E E C R N S I S M O H I R T T L T H S O W W I G M D L T N Y O E D C V A U T A L B E R PARATRANSIT DISTRICT 1 O N A D P S T K R O D B IT H E M L E W Y C O I A L L D L F R L Beltway Plaza 495V A E E E D ¨¦§E I R A R S R R BR -
Romania's Long Road Back from Austerity
THE INTERNATIONAL LIGHT RAIL MAGAZINE www.lrta.org www.tautonline.com MAY 2016 NO. 941 ROMANIA’S LONG ROAD BACK FROM AUSTERITY Systems Factfile: Trams’ dominant role in Lyon’s growth Glasgow awards driverless contract Brussels recoils from Metro attack China secures huge Chicago order ISSN 1460-8324 £4.25 Isle of Wight Medellín 05 Is LRT conversion Innovative solutions the right solution? and social betterment 9 771460 832043 AWARD SPONSORS London, 5 October 2016 ENTRIES OPEN NOW Best Customer Initiative; Best Environmental and Sustainability Initiative Employee/Team of the Year Manufacturer of the Year Most Improved System Operator of the Year Outstanding Engineering Achievement Award Project of the Year <EUR50m Project of the Year >EUR50m Significant Safety Initiative Supplier of the Year <EUR10m Supplier of the Year >EUR10m Technical Innovation of the Year (Rolling Stock) Technical Innovation of the Year (Infrastructure) Judges’ Special Award Vision of the Year For advanced booking and sponsorship details contact: Geoff Butler – t: +44 (0)1733 367610 – @ [email protected] Alison Sinclair – t: +44 (0)1733 367603 – @ [email protected] www.lightrailawards.com 169 CONTENTS The official journal of the Light Rail Transit Association MAY 2016 Vol. 79 No. 941 www.tautonline.com EDITORIAL 184 EDITOR Simon Johnston Tel: +44 (0)1733 367601 E-mail: [email protected] 13 Orton Enterprise Centre, Bakewell Road, Peterborough PE2 6XU, UK ASSOCIATE EDITOR Tony Streeter E-mail: [email protected] WORLDWIDE EDITOR Michael Taplin 172 Flat 1, 10 Hope Road, Shanklin, Isle of Wight PO37 6EA, UK. E-mail: [email protected] NEWS EDITOR John Symons 17 Whitmore Avenue, Werrington, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs ST9 0LW, UK. -
Prince George's County Transit System Map Thebus
5 2 E MANGUM RD N Prince George's County Transit V D C 201 A A P !( P T L B S E In1 set 1 L E T D 5 IL M N O A n n e A r u n d e l C o u n t y H US FedN eral Courthouse W S Y T E O N N L V E A R P A V G reenbelt SouthDern District R A T A R T S I A D 1 H G R DR " TheBus 5 O System Map C 3 R T A I E 5 M N ELT W B S EN GRE " E N T L T Greenbelt T R C P E K N N Y A T Metrorail Station D I R S 11 R L D A E U L G D J E ID O R V R O O A C W S D A IVY LN E E 15X G W N 11 16 P 2 D 5 E B E O V E H O A L T IVY L D D N I R O D RO 3 L R Q 5 N U S OI P H S R W ST N IN L G Y 1 H H ¤£ U D D RO IL T R N 1O 5X L CEN S O D ES T R N CR L 11 W B Y A R E K C R T R OD N E A E O L S P 197 W Y I H L E (! R N D B C R L L E I D E H T E C H M E L D G K T Y O R E N R K H I A N V P R A W M S P T H L N 16 Y A S S T K O E O P VI I R R O EW Muirkirk T N I N C L BREEZEWOOD CT N O F IR A R G C 95 T R H R W R MA MARC Station K E A P n¤ S D D L P L § I I P E ¨¦ N T L W L L N O T A C B N OD L E N E C B T E B T E N K O L L B T K N M T E BRE D A N A A EZ E E S I M o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y WOO M L K E E D DR H O N N A E E C R N I S O S L R T T H W I H S O W D G T M N D Y O E U C V T E R A L O N A D S T K R B I H T E E Y C A L F R V L A 1 495 E E Beltway Plaza E I ¤£ BR § R S A ¨¦ P NCHVILLE RD T O D D I R (!212 N R " T 5 193 R D 8 5 D 6 G R ! T 9 RE ( C 0 EN T H B R R E 201 A T LT H R D E P A H D !( K V A B A M L E V E E V E A A V E L E V T A H E 15X E W A V O V H G A D L A T N 7 I S H D R 193 5 N G 3 O REENB T N ELT RD N 6 ! ( 1 6 6 2 SEMINO H 5 U 6 LE ST W 16C Y RUATAN -
2020 Construction Program
2020 Construction Program PennDOT Engineering District 1 SERVING CRAWFORD, ERIE, FOREST, MERCER, VENANGO, AND WARREN COUNTIES Tom Wolf, Governor Yassmin Gramian, P.E., Secretary of Transportation James A. Foringer, P.E., District Executive 1 2020 Construction Book Contents Section Page(s) COVID-19 Response 3 District and County contact information 4 Construction Book Overview 5 2020 comparison to 2019 6 Crawford County Projects 7 - 15 Erie County Projects 16 - 25 Forest County Projects 26 - 29 Mercer County Projects 30 - 38 Venango County Projects 39 - 43 Warren County Projects 44 - 49 Districtwide and Multi County Projects 50 - 53 District Press Office Contacts 53 2 COVID-19 Response Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented times for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) statewide as well as in the District 1 Northwest Region, which includes Crawford, Erie, Forest, Mercer, Venango, and Warren counties. PennDOT now faces a unique situation as we review our construction, design and maintenance contract plans, determine the new project timelines, and revise the scope of work, all while upholding our responsibility to provide a safe and efficient transportation system. Because travel overall is down, less fuel is being purchased. We are seeing significant decreases in revenues. This is forcing us to adjust the county maintenance operations we can perform and limiting expenditures by significantly reducing resurfacing efforts. We are focusing on lower cost preservation activities such as patching, crack sealing, skin patching, and seal coats needed to preserve the system. These core activities will remain our focus throughout 2020 and into 2021 as revenue is expected to be down by at least 30 percent.