DOCSLIB.ORG

Individual Station Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Individual Station Report Springdale URBITRANR EPORT CONTENTS: Stakeholder Interview Customer Opinion Survey Parking Inventory & Utilization Station Condition Inspection Lease Narrative and Synopsis Station Operations Review Station Financial Review URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. July 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 Customer Opinion Survey URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. Task 1.2:Technical Memorandum Customer Opinion Survey Table 29: Talmadge Hill Station – Written-In Customer Comments Comment Comment # Responses % Code 18 Need more parking areas 17 30.4% 66 Lot needs to be paved 7 12.5% 12 Could use benches & protected shelters from rain/snow with heat/air 4 7.1% 49 Overall good comments 3 5.4% 8 Entrances/Exits very difficult 2 3.6% 24 Cleaner platforms 2 3.6% 65 More trains (cars) needed 2 3.6% 76 Meters should have option for metrocard 2 3.6% 85 Only residents should be allowed parking permits 2 3.6% 7 Long wait on parking list 1 1.8% 20 Better pathways to train platform 1 1.8% 22 Cleaner trains 1 1.8% 23 Allow overnight parking 1 1.8% 29 Cell phone use is annoying 1 1.8% 39 Talmadge Hill Station generally fine 1 1.8% 42 Traffic signal not pedestrian friendly 1 1.8% 50 Parking stripes need to be painted on 1 1.8% 53 Talmadge Hill Station needs boarding platforms on both sides of the track 1 1.8% 59 Trains in terrible condition 1 1.8% 63 Snow removal on stairs & walkways 1 1.8% 68 Cleaner restrooms on trains and in stations 1 1.8% 77 Improve landscaping 1 1.8% 87 Parking meters not working properly 1 1.8% 89 Monthly parking passes 1 1.8% Total Comments 56 100.0% Springdale Springdale station experienced a very high response rate of 53% from 113 surveys distributed. As usual, the vast majority of customers surveyed were daily riders (95%), commuting to work (97%), and traveling during the peak periods (100%). Just under two-thirds of those who drove and parked held parking permits and among those who did not, 65% were on a waiting list. Although a slightly lower percentage than seen at the New Canaan and Talmadge stations, males still represented two-thirds of customers surveyed. Consistent with most stations, the dominant age group was 25-64 years, and a considerable majority (76%) of respondents reported incomes over $100,000. Ratings for the station elements were mixed at Springdale. The parking elements generally rated favorably, while the station building and amenities were rated more often ‘fair’ or ‘poor.’ Parking ratings were the highest on the New Canaan Line, but the station building and amenities ratings were the lowest rated out of the same stations. Connecticut Department of Transportation 238 Task 1.2:Technical Memorandum Customer Opinion Survey Among the parking elements, the exits and parking security were rated ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ by more than half of respondents. The remainder of the elements were rated more highly, particularly pavement condition, handicap accessibility, stairways and pathways to the station. Figure 265 shows the parking ratings at the Springdale Station. As noted, the parking ratings were the highest on the New Canaan Line. The highest rated element was the parking lot pavement condition, in stark contrast to the condition at the Talmadge Hill Station, with 97% satisfaction ratings. The exits and parking security were both rated negatively by 57% of respondents, the poorest rated parking elements in Springdale. The station does not have an overpass or an underpass. Figure 265: Springdale Station Parking Ratings Parking Ratings 70 60 50 Poor Fair 40 Good Excellent Responses 30 20 10 0 Parking Lot Stairways Pathway(s) to Parking Parking Entrances Parking Handicap Ease of Car or Parking Exits Parking Underpass Overpass Pavement St at io n Lighting Sign age Maintenance Accessibility Bus Passenger Availability Security Condition Drop-Off Attribute Springdale does not have a station building, so no ratings are listed. However, 3 elements were not rated in any other category, so their responses are presented here. Absence of graffiti was rated positively by 59% of respondents. However, map and schedule availability received only half positive ratings and seat availability received 65% negative ratings. The only station amenity rated favorably by the majority of respondents was the availability of trash containers (81%). Amenities were again rated by only a small number of respondents because the Springdale Station only consists of a platform. Eighty-four percent of respondents were unhappy with the condition of the concession stand, the lowest rated amenity. Figure 266 shows how Springdale respondents rated amenities. Connecticut Department of Transportation 239 Task 1.2:Technical Memorandum Customer Opinion Survey Figure 266: Springdale Station Amenities Ratings Station Amenities Ratings 60 50 Poor Fair 40 Good Excellent 30 Responses 20 10 0 A vailability of Tras h Cans Phones News/Magazine Stand Bus Drop-Off/Pick-Up Taxi Stand Concession Stand Attribute Finally, the platforms at Springdale received considerably more favorable marks, including favorable ratings for overall condition, handicap accessibility, lighting, and cleanliness. Eighty- one percent of respondents were pleased with the overall condition of the platform, making it the highest rated platform element at Springdale. Again, more people rated the platform elements because the station only consists of a platform. Once again, the platform element most often rated ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ was the shelter. Seventy percent of respondents rated the shelters negatively. Figure 267 shows the platform ratings in Springdale. Figure 267: Springdale Station Platform Ratings Platform Ratings 70 Poor 60 Fair Good Excellent 50 40 Responses 30 20 10 0 Overall Condition Cleanliness Platform Lighting Handicap Accessibility Platform Maintenance Working Condition of Shelters Public Address System Attribute Connecticut Department of Transportation 240 Task 1.2:Technical Memorandum Customer Opinion Survey Change Change ratings in Springdale were generally a lot lower than the ratings of the current situation. Of the conditions that received ratings, 21 elements were thought to have worsened over the past 2 years by a majority of respondents. Parking elements received reasonably good change ratings from respondents. Overpasses and underpasses were not rated because they do not exist in Springdale. Figure 268 shows how Springdale respondents perceived change in the parking situation over the previous couple of years. Parking lighting, lot pavement condition, and stairways were thought to have improved by more than 80% of respondents. Parking signage and handicap accessibility was thought to have improved by 100% of respondents. At the other end of the scale, parking security was thought to have worsened by 71% of respondents. Figure 268: Springdale Station Change in Parking Conditions Change in Parking Conditions Handicap Access ibility Parking Signage Parking Lighting Parking Lot Pavement Condition Stairways Pathway(s) to Station Parking Maintenance Improved Entrances Worsened Attribute Parking Availability Ease of Car or Bus Passenger Drop-Off Exits Parking Security Overpass Underpass 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % Response Concerning the 3 building elements mentioned where no station exists, the general view of the trend was negative. No one rated absence of graffiti and all of the respondents who rated the availably of maps/schedules and seating rated them as ‘worsened.’ As was the case with the building elements, many of the amenities listed do not exist at the Springdale Station. Figure 269 shows how respondents rated change in amenities at the Springdale Station. All of the amenities were thought to have worsened except for the availability of trash cans, which were thought to have improved by 86% of respondents. Connecticut Department of Transportation 241 Task 1.2:Technical Memorandum Customer Opinion Survey Figure 269: Springdale Station Change in Amenities Conditions Change in Amenities Conditions Availability of Trash Cans Phones Bus Drop-Off/Pick-Up Improved Worsened Amenity Taxi Stand Concession Stand News/Magazine Stand 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % Response The Springdale Station actually has a platform, so these ratings were more reliable. Four elements were thought to have worsened by a majority of respondents. Figure 270 displays the platform change situation in Springdale. Two-thirds of respondents thought that the overall condition of the platform had worsened over the previous 2 years. Three-quarters of respondents said that the shelters had worsened. Surprisingly, the working condition of the public address system was one of the most improved platform elements with two-thirds improvement ratings. Handicap accessibility also received two-thirds improvement ratings. Figure 270: Springdale Station Change in Platform Conditions Change in Platform Conditions Working Condition of Public Address System Handicap Acces sibility Platform Maintenance Improved Cleanliness Worsened Attribute Platform Lighting Overall Condition Shelters 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % Response Responsible Agencies Similar to most stations, the highest percentage of respondents thought that Metro-North was responsible for most station elements. Respondents also thought that the local municipality was responsible for some of the elements. A significant contingent
Recommended publications
  • Transit Oriented Development Final Report | September 2010

    Transit Oriented Development Final Report | September 2010

    FTA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DANBURY BRANCH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2010 In Cooperation with U.S. Department CONNECTICUT South Western Regional Planning Agency of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF Federal Transit TRANSPORTATION Administration FTA ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DANBURY BRANCH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2010 In Cooperation with U.S. Department CONNECTICUT South Western Regional Planning Agency of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF Federal Transit TRANSPORTATION Administration Abstract This report presents an evaluation of transit-oriented development (TOD) opportunities within the Danbury Branch study corridor as a component of the Federal Transit Administration Alternatives Analysis/ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FTA AA/DEIS) prepared for the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT). This report is intended as a tool for municipalities to use as they move forward with their TOD efforts. The report identifies the range of TOD opportunities at station areas within the corridor that could result from improvements to the Danbury Branch. By also providing information regarding FTA guidelines and TOD best practices, this report serves as a reference and a guide for future TOD efforts in the Danbury Branch study corridor. Specifically, this report presents a definition of TOD and the elements of TOD that are relevant to the Danbury Branch. It also presents a summary of FTA Guidance regarding TOD and includes case studies of FTA-funded projects that have been rated with respect to their livability, land use, and economic development components. Additionally, the report examines commuter rail projects both in and out of Connecticut that are considered to have applications that may be relevant to the Danbury Branch.
  • A Q U I F E R P R O T E C T I O N a R E a S N O R W a L K , C O N N E C T I C

    A Q U I F E R P R O T E C T I O N a R E a S N O R W a L K , C O N N E C T I C

    !n !n S c Skunk Pond Beaver Brook Davidge Brook e d d k h P O H R R O F p S o i d t n n l c t u i l R a T S d o i ll l t e e lv i d o t R r r d r l h t l l a H r n l t r M b a s b R d H e G L R o r re R B C o o u l e t p o n D o e f L i s Weston Intermediate School y l o s L d r t e Huckleberry Hills Brook e t d W d r e g Upper Stony Brook Pond N L D g i b R o s n Ridgefield Pond a t v d id e g e H r i l Country Club Pond b e a R d r r S n n d a g e L o n tin a d ! R d l H B n t x H e W Still Pond d t n Comstock Knoll u d a R S o C R k R e L H d i p d S n a l l F tt h Town Pond d l T te r D o e t l e s a t u e L e c P n n b a n l R g n i L t m fo D b k H r it to Lower Stony Brook Pond o r A d t P n d s H t F u d g L d d i Harrisons Brook R h e k t R r a e R m D l S S e e G E o n y r f ll H rt R r b i i o e n s l t ld d d o r l ib l a e r R d L r O e H w i Fanton Hill g r l Cider Mill School P y R n a ll F i e s w L R y 136 e a B i M e C H k A s t n d o i S d V l n 3 c k r l t g n n a d R i u g d o r a L 3 ! a l r u p d R d e c L S o s e Hurlbutt Elementary School R d n n d D A i K w T n d o O n D t f R l g d R l t ad L i r e R e e r n d L a S i m a o f g n n n D d n R o t h n Middlebrook School ! l n t w Lo t a 33 i n l n i r E id d D w l i o o W l r N e S a d l e P g n V n a h L C r L o N a r N a S e n e t l e b n l e C s h f ! d L nd g o a F i i M e l k rie r id F C a F r w n P t e r C ld l O e r a l y v f e u e o O n e o a P i O i s R w e t n a e l a n T t b s l d l N l k n t g i d u o e a o R W R Hasen Pond n r r n M W B y t Strong
  • Greenwich to Grand Central Train Schedule

    Greenwich to Grand Central Train Schedule

    Greenwich To Grand Central Train Schedule Crudest Hanan sometimes fathers his MacArthur allowably and readvertises so manly! Preterist and well-acquainted Hersch jammednever pipetted Town kinescopevisibly when clangorously Giffard grangerizes and extenuatingly. his parka. Karel usually dress artfully or halteres asymptomatically when The report tries to explain specifically what needs to be done to cut time while making the trip more convenient and enjoyable. Traveling by Amtrak train is the most comfortable way to get from Chicago to St. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Flirting with this trip? Only after World War II did the influence of railroads on community lives begin to diminish, even though they remained important in transporting freight. Not even in our cake doughnuts or cream fillings! Louis, we recommend taking a flight. Vineyard is available from Kingston. What is the cheapest way to get from Portland to Seattle? There are a variety of ways to get from San Diego to LA other than having to drive there yourself. BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. Police said the explosion may have been from a time bomb. Other features include Date Lab, etiquette blogs and chats and parenting stories. Bus or the Subway in the city. The queens midtown tunnel requires a toll both ways. With the sheer abundance of things to see, do and eat throughout the five boroughs, where do you begin? Have you tried Wanderu? Northeast Corridor is the busiest rail line in the United States. Want to Explore New York City Neighborhoods? For cheap cars and exit lists for each station with the least eight days of the last update, wanderu account using wanderu that the.
  • Customer Opinion Survey Final Report

    Customer Opinion Survey Final Report

    Task 1.2: Customer Opinion Survey Final Report URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. May 2003 Task 1.2:Technical Memorandum Customer Opinion Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................1 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................................1 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................................1 EXHIBIT 1: SURVEY SAMPLE.....................................................................................................................................2 COMPARISON TO METRO-NORTH RAILROAD CUSTOMER OPINION SURVEY ...........................................................10 CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS.........................................................12 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 .................................................................................13 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS 4, 5, 6, AND 7 .............................................................................15 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY
  • New Haven Line Capacity and Speed Analysis

    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..............................................................................................................
  • Individual Station Report

    Individual Station Report

    Individual Station Report Talmadge Hill URBITRANR EPORT CONTENTS: Stakeholder Interview Customer Opinion Survey Parking Inventory & Utilization Station Condition Inspection Lease Narrative and Synopsis Station Operations Review Station Financial Review URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. July 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 Stakeholder Interview URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. New Canaan Branch Only New Canaan was represented for the New Canaan branch, as Stamford did not participate. New Canaan According to the first selectman of the town, the agreement for Talmadge Hill and New Canaan stations are very straight-forward and work well. At Talmadge Hill station, CDOT owns only the platform, while the rest of the station area, e.g. the surface parking, is owned and maintained by the town. New Canaan station is owned by CDOT, as are the immediate parking facilities. The feeling is that the station and parking areas at New Canaan station, recently reconstructed, are well maintained. The town was concerned about liability issues and responsibilities for some activities and areas. As an example, the town evidently cleans the platforms while CDOT maintains them; sometimes the distinction between the two seems blurred. More importantly, the town feels that MNCR does not keep the track bed clean. With the new high platforms, more trash is collecting than in the past. There are also spikes, and ties left behind. Taxi activity on-site is an issue to the town. While the town can control activity, they do not feel that it is working well.
  • Annual Report - 2007

    Annual Report - 2007

    ANNUAL REPORT - 2007 CONNECTICUT METRO NORTH / SHORE LINE EAST RAIL COMMUTER COUNCIL www.trainweb.org/ct CT Rail Commuter Council Page 1 2007 Annual Report 15 January 2008 Governor M. Jodi Rell Interim CDOT Commissioner Emil Frankel Senator Donald DeFronzo Rep. Antonio Guerrera CT Public Transportation Commission NY Metro-North Rail Commuter Council Inspector General – MTA Lee Sander – MTA Exec. Director & CEO Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to Connecticut Public Act 85-239 (now Sections 13b-212b and 13b -212c of the Connecticut General Statutes), The Connecticut Metro-North Rail Commuter Council is pleased to share with you our Annual Report for 2007. As you know, our legislative mandate is to be advocates for the interests of the more than 55,000 daily riders of Metro-North in Connecticut. Toward that end, we meet monthly with railroad officials… testify regularly before the legislature… speak before civic groups and share with the media our work on behalf of riders. Our report’s narrative highlights the important issues of the past year with embedded internet links for further information. Also attached are the Minutes of our meetings and monthly Operational Reports from Metro-North. We hope you find this report useful in understanding the challenges and opportunities facing rail commuters in Connecticut. Respectfully submitted, Jim Cameron Terri Cronin / Jeffrey Steele S. Robert Jelley Jim Cameron Terri Cronin / Jeffrey Steele S. Robert Jelley Chairman Co-Vice Chairmen Secretary CT Rail Commuter Council Page 2 2007 Annual Report COUNCIL VICTORIES ON BEHALF OF COMMUTERS: True to its legislative mandate to represent the interests of rail commuters in Connecticut, the Commuter Council helped change several policy decisions in 2007 for the benefit of commuters: ¾ Halt in plans to require commuters to use “opposite platforms” during winter.
  • Darien, Connecticut

    Darien, Connecticut

    Welcome to Darien, Connecticut County: Fairfield Population: 21,114 Square Miles: 14.9 Government: Selectman Distance to Major Cities: Boston: 185 miles Hartford: 75 miles New York City: 43 miles A small, charming coastal town hugging the shoreline of Long Island Sound, Darien was once considered a summer destination for New Yorkers. Today, Darien, incorporated in 1820, has evolved into a vibrant and active community of more than 20,000 residents who have successfully integrated 21st century needs with Darien’s unique architectural and natural heritage. Darien is easily accessible to Interstate 95 and the Merritt Parkway. Travelers enjoy two Metro North stations – a commute of approximately 50 minutes from Noroton Heights and Darien. Talmadge Hill station (New Canaan Branch), and the Rowayton station (serving Norwalk), are conveniently located near town. Most trains run non-stop after Stamford into New York City's 125th Street, then Grand Central Terminal.I-95 has convenient Darien exits, and US Route 1, known locally as the Boston Post Road, runs east and west through the southern side of town. Westchester County, La Guardia, and JFK International Airports are all less than an hour’s drive. Residents enjoy a wide variety of resources, including approximately 30 acres of scenic shoreline, two public beaches, 205 acres of park and recreational facilities, a renowned indoor ice rink, and a highly respected equestrian center. Darien’s Ox Ridge Hunt Club was founded in 1914. Ox Ridge Hunt Club has hosted a number of important, nationally recognized horse shows over the years, including the Ox Ridge Charity Horse Show and the Ox Ridge Dressage Horse Show.
  • Mta Property Listing for Nys Reporting

    Mta Property Listing for Nys Reporting

    3/31/2021 3:48 PM MTA PROPERTY LISTING FOR NYS REPORTING COUNTY SECTN BLOCKNO LOTNO Property_Code PROPERTYNAME PROPERTYADDDRESS AGENCY LINE PROPERTYTYPE limaster LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIR Main Line Station Bronx bbl05200 Bronx Whitestone Bridge Hutchson River parkway BT Block/Lot Bridge Bronx 9 mha04650 ROW b 125th & Melrose XXX St MN Harlem ROW Bronx 9 mha06600 ROW b 125th & Melrose Milepost 5,Sta-Mon# 31.5 MN Harlem ROW Bronx 12 mha09500 FORDHAM STATION Fordham Rd (Fordham U) MN Harlem Station Bronx mhu00343 Perm E'ment at Yankee Stadium Sta-mon 30.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx mhu06251 Spuyten Duyvil Substation Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx 19 mhu06301 Parking at Riverdale Milepost 12 , Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Parking Bronx tbl03600 Unionport Shop Unionport Rd. NYCT White Plains Road Shop Bronx tbl65340 Con Edison Ducts East 174 St NYCT Block/Lot Ducts Bronx tbw32500 231ST 231 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32600 238 ST 238 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32700 242 ST 242 St-Van Cortlandt Pk NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tco21000 161 ST Yankee Stadium 161 St/River Ave NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21100 167 ST 167 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21200 170 ST 170 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21300 174 175 STs 174-175 Sts/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21400 TREMONT AVE Tremont Ave/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21500 182 183 STs 183 St/Grand
  • Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church

    Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church

    X MINUTES OF THB Annual Conferences Melodist Episcopal Church, South, FOB THE YEAR 1891 . Nashville, Tenn.: Publishing House oe the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Barbee & Smith, Agents. T BISHOPS OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. JOHN CHRISTIAN KEENER, D.D, , New Orleans, La. ALPHEUS WATERS WILSON, D.D, Baltimore, Md. JOHN COWPER GRANBERY, D.D, &p. Louis, Mo. ROBERT KENNON HARGROVE, D.D., Nashville, Tenn. WILLIAM WALLACE DUNCAN, D.D., Spartanburg, S. C. CHARLES BETTS GALLOWAY, D.D, Jackson, Miss. EUGENE RUSSELL HENDRIX, D.D, Kansas City, Mo. JOSEPH STAUNTON KEY, D.D., Fort Worth, Tex. ATTICUS GREENE HAYGOOD, D.D., Los Angeles, Cal. OSCAR PENN FITZGERALD, D.D, San Francisco, Cal. * * «— —* INDEX Page ALABAMA CONFERENCE 149 Arkansas Conference 99 Baltimore Conference 176 Brazil Mission Conference. 19 Central Mexico Mission Conference .’ 91 [* China Mission Conference 161 Columbia Conference 7.7 10 Denver Conference ' 11 East Columbia Conference 6 East Texas Conference. 169 Florida Conference 173 German Mission Conference 30 Holston Conference . i 23 Illinois Conference 96 Indian Mission Conference 157 Japan Mission 162 Kentucky Conference 13 Little Rock Conference 109 Los Angeles Conference 17 Louisiana Conference 87 Louisville Conference 93 Memphis Conference 57 Mexican Border Mission Conference 171 Missi b ppi Conference . 137 Missouri Conference 48 Montana Conference 5 New Mexico Conference 9 North ALabama Conference 129 North Carolina Conference 72 North Georgia Conference 76 North Mississippi Conference 65 North Texas Conference 53 Northwest Mexican Conference 163 Northwest Texas Conference 102 Pacific Conference 28 South Carolina Conference 142 South Georgia Conference 165 Southwest Missouri Conference 31 St. Louis Conference ............... 62 Tennessee Conference 39 Texas Conference 36 Virginia Conference.
  • Springdale Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007

    Springdale Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007

    SPRINGDALE TRAIN STATION VISUAL INSPECTION REPORT January 2007 Prepared by the Bureau of Public Transportation Connecticut Department of Transportation Springdale Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Overview: The Springdale Train Station is located in the Springdale section of Stamford. The station has a four- car platform with a Plexiglas shelter and a parking lot easily accessed from Hope Street. A period pedestal clock is located near the entrance amid some landscaping. There are other landscaped areas throughout the parking lot. A stone wall separates the parking lot from Hope Street. There are several paths through the wall, including access to a bus stop on the street. Springdale has a more urban setting than its two neighboring stations to the north. The attempts to landscape the area go a long way to softening this urban setting. Maintenance Responsibilities: Owner: CDOT Operator: CDOT Platform Lights: Metro-North Trash: Metro-North Snow Removal: Metro-North Shelter Glazing: Metro-North Platform Canopy: -- Platform Structure: Metro-North Parking: Town Clock at Entrance to Springdale Station Page 2 Springdale Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Station Layout: Aerial Photo by Aero-Metric, Inc. – Graphics by Urbitran as part of the Rail Governance Study Station Building State-Owned Parking Area Municipally-Owned Parking Area Page 3 Springdale Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Train Station Visual Inspection Parameters: The Connecticut Department of Transportation (Department) recently inspected all 36 New Haven Line train stations to assess their appearance, safety, means of access and overall condition. Observations have been noted in an inspection report prepared for each station.
  • Drainage Report

    Drainage Report

    ENGINEERING REPORT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 132 FLAX HILL ROAD NORWALK, CONNECTICUT September 21, 2020 Revised April 20,2021 Prepared for: Workforce Partners, LLC PO Box 692 South Norwalk, CT 06856 Prepared By: Ricardo Ceballos, P.E. Professional Engineering Consulting Services 245 Sturges Highway Westport, CT 06880 (203)635-0922 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 132 Flax Hill Road Norwalk, CT PROJECT DESCRIPTION The descriptions and computations included within this Stormwater Management Plan and Appendix are provided in support of applications submitted by Workforce Partners, LLC to the City of Norwalk for permitting purposes related to site and building improvements at 132 Flax Hill Road in Norwalk. The site's storm water management system shall be sized to accommodate runoff from a 25-year design storm and the system shall be designed so that post development peak discharge rates, and stormwater runoff volumes, do not exceed predevelopment quantities. Per City requirements, the storm water management plan has been prepared by a Connecticut-licensed professional engineer. Location The project site is located at 132 Flax Hill Road, Norwalk, Connecticut (site); As shown in Figure 1 the site is located in South Norwalk. The 0.217-acre site is a fully developed urban area. Project Location Figure 1 Project Location – 132 Flax Hill Road, Norwalk, CT. Page 2 Existing Conditions The site has 1 existing residential building, a detached garage structure, a driveway, and walkways. The site’s open space are landscaped grass areas. The purpose of the proposed project is to demolish the existing garage structure and add additional parking and driveway areas. As shown on Appendix A, there are no stormwater features, catch basins, yard drains or storm pipes.