DOCSLIB.ORG

Regional Monorail Exploratory Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regional Monorail Exploratory Study Regional Monorail Exploratory Study prepared by Lea+Elliott, Inc. in association with HNTB Corporation SG Associates, Inc. Remline Corporation Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott, LLP for Wilmington Area Planning Council (WILMAPCO) February 2004 Regional Monorail Exploratory Study Final Report CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................ES - 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Report Organization..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background..................................................................................................................1 1.3 The Study Process........................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Study Methodology ..................................................................................................... 3 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Description of the Study Area ..................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Major Roads..................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Major Rail Lines.............................................................................................. 5 2.1.3 Demographic and Housing Characteristics ..................................................... 7 2.1.4 Major Environmental Features ........................................................................ 7 2.1.4.1 State Parks..........................................................................................7 2.1.4.2 Wetlands and Flood Region ...............................................................7 2.1.4.3 Air Quality..........................................................................................8 2.2 Recent Studies ............................................................................................................. 8 2.3 Regional Goals and Plans ............................................................................................ 9 3.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................... 11 3.1 Purpose and Need Statement ..................................................................................... 11 3.2 WILMAPCO’S Principal Concerns .......................................................................... 12 4.0 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSIT TECHNOLOGIES.................................... 15 4.1 Automated Guideway Transit.................................................................................... 15 4.1.1 Service Proven Systems................................................................................. 16 4.1.2 Emerging Systems ......................................................................................... 17 4.2 Monorail/AGT Implementation and Local Implications........................................... 18 4.2.1 Las Vegas Monorail System.......................................................................... 18 4.2.2 Seattle Monorail System................................................................................ 20 4.2.3 Jacksonville Monorail System....................................................................... 20 4.2.4 Vancouver Rapid Transit System .................................................................. 21 4.2.5 Summary of Planning and Implementation Issues ........................................ 21 5.0 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS................................................................................................ 23 5.1 Alignment Corridor Development............................................................................. 23 5.1.1 Corridor Evaluation Criteria.......................................................................... 23 5.2 Identification of the Initial Corridor .......................................................................... 26 5.3 Technical Feasibility Assessment.............................................................................. 29 5.3.1 Feasibility Evaluation Criteria....................................................................... 29 5.3.2 Assessment of Technical Feasibility ............................................................. 29 5.3.3 Capital, Operating and Life Cycle Costs ....................................................... 30 5.3.4 Feasibility of Monorail/AGT in the Initial Corridor...................................... 31 Lea+Elliott, Inc. i September 2003 Regional Monorail Exploratory Study Final Report 5.4 Feasibility Under Land Use Scenarios ...................................................................... 32 5.4.1 Smart Growth INDEX Model Results........................................................... 33 5.5 Recommendations for Monorail/AGT in the Region ................................................ 34 5.6 Interface Potential between Monorail/AGT System and Proposed Wilmington-Dover Passenger Rail Service............................................................... 34 6.0 OTHER MAJOR IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES.............................................................. 35 6.1 Sources of Funding.................................................................................................... 35 6.1.1 Public Finance Tools ..................................................................................... 35 6.1.2 Local Considerations ..................................................................................... 37 6.2 Managing Development Pressures ............................................................................ 39 6.2.1 Relationship Between Land Use and Transportation .................................... 40 6.2.2 Guidelines on Development and Development Levels ................................. 40 6.3 Environmental Impacts.............................................................................................. 41 6.4 Public Involvement.................................................................................................... 44 6.4.1 Summary of Key Meetings............................................................................ 45 6.4.2 Direction from the Public .............................................................................. 45 6.4.3 Future Public Involvement ............................................................................ 46 7.0 FINDINGS AND NEXT STEPS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION ................................. 47 APPENDICES A – Capital And Operating Cost Estimates .................................................................................. 49 B – Meeting Minutes .................................................................................................................... 55 C – Unscientific Survey Results ................................................................................................... 65 D – Stakeholder Comments .......................................................................................................... 69 E – Press Reports .......................................................................................................................... 71 F – Technical Memorandum: Feasibility Analysis ....................................................................... 90 LIST OF SELECTED TABLES AND EXHIBITS Figure 1.3-1: Work Schedule......................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2.1-1: Environmental Features ............................................................................................6 Figure 5.1-1: Inner-District Work Trip Volumes .........................................................................24 Figure 5.1-2: Segments Identified Map ........................................................................................25 Figure 5.1-3: Initial Alignment Corridor ......................................................................................28 Table 4.2-1: Existing And Planned Urban AGT Systems ............................................................19 Table 5.3-1: Feasibility Criteria Assessment Summary ...............................................................31 Table 5.4-1: Smart Growth Index Model Results including Proposed Monorail-2025................33 Table 6.2-1: Current and Project Population and Employment New Castle County, Delaware ..39 Table 6.2-2: Land Use by Major Zoning Category.......................................................................39 Table 6.3-1: Environmental Subjects Considered in NEPA Studies ............................................42 Table 6.3-2: Potential Environmental Impacts of Proposed Alignment.......................................43 Lea+Elliott, Inc. ii September 2003 Regional Monorail Exploratory Study Final Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Wilmington Area Planning Council (WILMAPCO) Regional Exploratory Study was designed to answer specific questions regarding the technical feasibility of monorail. Since the early 1980s, there have been discussions among some state officials about monorail service connecting a number of tourist, recreational, cultural centers, and several suburban office parks surrounding and to the north of Wilmington. Leaders in the Delaware Legislature recently
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transit Project Delivery CBT Transcript
    NEPA Introduction Course: Transit Project Delivery Welcome to the National Environmental Policy Act also known as NEPA Introduction Course on Transit Project Delivery provided by the Florida Department of Transportation’s or FDOT’s Office of Environmental Management, as covered in Part 1, Chapter 14 of the Project Development and Environment (or PD&E) Manual. This course provides an overview of the transit project delivery process, agency roles in the environmental review process, an overview of FDOT’s five-step process, which includes planning and community support, concept development and alternatives screening, PD&E study phases, and the Federal Transit Administration’s, or FTA’s, funding programs. Lesson 1 provides an overview of transit projects and NEPA, including definitions used for transit projects, an introduction to the FTA, and a comparison of how NEPA is conducted for FTA versus the Federal Highway Administration, or FHWA. If a federal action is required or federal funding is being used, the project must comply with NEPA and other applicable environmental laws and regulations, including those related to historic preservation and protection of public lands. FTA is typically the lead agency for transit projects, when FTA funding is being used to construct the project or purchase vehicles. Other agencies may be involved in the NEPA process, such as Federal Highway Administration, or FHWA, if the project involves an interstate facility or bridge, or the Federal Railroad Administration or FRA, if the project involves a freight or passenger railroad corridor, such as Amtrak. FTA has its own procedures for NEPA compliance, including requiring the NEPA or project development phase to be completed within two years for certain funding programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study
    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
    [Show full text]
  • Bite Reminder & Transportation Tips 2017
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Megan Postiglione July 20, 2017 Festivals Inc. (425) 295-3262 [email protected] THIS WEEKEND: Catch a Ride to the Groupon Bite of Seattle® The Groupon Bite of Seattle®, July 21-23 at Seattle Center, is a summer favorite! The Bite celebrates its 36th Anniversary this year and features 60+ restaurants and vendors, local chefs performing live cooking demonstrations and mystery ingredient cook-offs on The Bite Cooks! stage, all-new Bite Cooks! Lounge where guests can wine & dine with local chefs, local Craft Beer and Cider Tasting, The Wine Bar, 4 live music stages, a free movie night on Friday, July 21st at 8:30pm featuring Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and much more! With so much going on guests should plan for crowded streets as high attendance is anticipated for the 2017 festival. These transportation tips can help you save time, gas and some very sore feet! PLAN AHEAD The Groupon Bite of Seattle® is located at Seattle Center in the Uptown Neighborhood. Street address is 305 Harrison Street, Seattle, WA 98109. (See map for more details). Allow for time to park and maneuver through the crowds. Arriving early will ensure that you don’t miss out on any of the Bite events! There is possibility for continuation of ongoing Mercer Corridor road work affecting access to Seattle Center. Information on current road construction and alternate routes during construction may be found at www.seattlecenter.com. USE METRO SERVICE Bus service to Seattle Center is available via Metro routes 1 , 2, 3, 4, 8, 13, 29 & 32 and the RapidRide D Line.
    [Show full text]
  • Intercity Bus Transportation System and Its Competition in Malaysia
    Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.8, 2011 Intercity Bus Transportation System and its competition in Malaysia Bayu Martanto ADJI Angelalia ROZA PhD Candidate Masters Candidate Center for Transportation Research Center for Transportation Research Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Engineering University of Malaya University of Malaya 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Fax: +603-79552182 Fax: +603-79552182 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Raja Syahira RAJA ABDUL AZIZ Mohamed Rehan KARIM Masters Candidate Professor Center for Transportation Research Center for Transportation Research Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Engineering University of Malaya University of Malaya 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Fax: +603-79552182 Fax: +603-79552182 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Abstract : Intercity transportation in Malaysia is quite similar to other countries, which involve three kinds of modes, namely, bus, rail and air. Among these modes, bus transportation continues to be the top choice for intercity travelers in Malaysia. Bus offers more flexibility compared to the other transport modes. Due to its relatively cheaper fare as compared to the air transport, bus is more affordable to those with low income. However, bus transport service today is starting to face higher competition from rail and air transport due to their attractive factors. The huge challenge faced by intercity bus transport in Malaysia is the management of its services. The intercity bus transport does not fall under one management; unlike rail transport which is managed under Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB), or air transport which is managed under Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB).
    [Show full text]
  • TRANSIT SYSTEMS and SERVICES in SEATTLE Author: Peter Lindsay Updated: May 20, 2015
    TRANSIT SYSTEMS AND SERVICES IN SEATTLE Author: Peter Lindsay Updated: May 20, 2015 INTRODUCTION On a typical weekday about 40 percent of commuters ride a bus or take a train to work in downtown Seattle. While the City of Seattle does not directly operate transit systems, the City does own transit assets. The City of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan (page 3.9), states that “providing convenient and accessible transit service can help reduce reliance on single- occupant vehicles, slow the increase in environmental degradation associated with their use, and increase mobility without building new streets and highways.” On April 16, 2012, the City Council passed Resolution 31367, which adopted the Seattle Transit Master Plan (TMP). The TMP provides a 20-year look (through 2030) to the type of transit system that will be required to meet Seattle’s transit needs. It is an extensive update of the 2005 TMP, which identified key corridors linking urban villages and established performance standards for transit service. The 2012 TMP expanded that work and includes an evaluation of rail modes, rapid bus services, light rail station design, and capital infrastructure. The TMP addresses many critical issues, including: • Identification of the city’s most important transit corridors that carry high ridership today, as well as potential new ridership markets that will emerge as Seattle grows in jobs and new residents. • Selection of transit modes, such as bus rapid transit, light rail or streetcar that would work best on those corridors. • Integration of transit capital facilities and services with walking and biking infrastructure, as well as using transit to make great places.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of High-Speed Rail Station Development Into Destination and Multi-Use Facilities: the Case of San Jose Diridon
    MTI A Comparative Analysis of Funded by U.S. Department of Services Transit Census California of Water 2012 High-Speed Rail Station Transportation and California Department of Transportation Development into Destination and Multi-Use Facilities: The Case of San Jose Diridon MTI ReportMTI 12-02 December 2012 MTI Report 12-75 MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE MTI FOUNDER LEAD UNIVERSITY OF MNTRC Hon. Norman Y. Mineta The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) was established by Congress in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation MTI/MNTRC BOARD OF TRUSTEES Equity Act (ISTEA) and was reauthorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA-21). MTI then successfully competed to be named a Tier 1 Center in 2002 and 2006 in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Founder, Honorable Norman Joseph Boardman (Ex-Officio) Diane Woodend Jones (TE 2019) Richard A. White (Ex-Officio) Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Most recently, MTI successfully competed in the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 to Mineta (Ex-Officio) Chief Executive Officer Principal and Chair of Board Interim President and CEO be named a Tier 1 Transit-Focused University Transportation Center. The Institute is funded by Congress through the United States Secretary (ret.), US Department of Amtrak Lea+Elliot, Inc. American Public Transportation Transportation Association (APTA) Department of Transportation’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), University Transportation Vice Chair
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Station Usage in Wales, 2018-19
    Rail station usage in Wales, 2018-19 19 February 2020 SB 5/2020 About this bulletin Summary This bulletin reports on There was a 9.4 per cent increase in the number of station entries and exits the usage of rail stations in Wales in 2018-19 compared with the previous year, the largest year on in Wales. Information year percentage increase since 2007-08. (Table 1). covers stations in Wales from 2004-05 to 2018-19 A number of factors are likely to have contributed to this increase. During this and the UK for 2018-19. period the Wales and Borders rail franchise changed from Arriva Trains The bulletin is based on Wales to Transport for Wales (TfW), although TfW did not make any the annual station usage significant timetable changes until after 2018-19. report published by the Most of the largest increases in 2018-19 occurred in South East Wales, Office of Rail and Road especially on the City Line in Cardiff, and at stations on the Valleys Line close (ORR). This report to or in Cardiff. Between the year ending March 2018 and March 2019, the includes a spreadsheet level of employment in Cardiff increased by over 13,000 people. which gives estimated The number of station entries and exits in Wales has risen every year since station entries and station 2004-05, and by 75 per cent over that period. exits based on ticket sales for each station on Cardiff Central remains the busiest station in Wales with 25 per cent of all the UK rail network.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Rail Station Access in Australia
    Improving Rail Station Access in Australia CRC for Rail Innovation [insert date] Page i Improving Rail Station Access in Australia DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET Document: CRC for Rail Innovation Old Central Station, 290 Ann St. Title: Improving Rail Station Access in Australia Brisbane Qld 4000 Project Leader: Phil Charles GPO Box 1422 Brisbane Qld 4001 Authors: Ronald Galiza and Phil Charles Tel: +61 7 3221 2536 Project No.: R1.133 Fax: +61 7 3235 2987 Project Name: Station Access www.railcrc.net.au Synopsis: This document on improving rail station access in Australia is the main document for the CRC project on Station Access. The document reviews Australian and international planning guides to identify key elements important in planning for station access. Best practice elements were identified for inclusion in an access planning methodology for the Australian context. An evaluation framework featuring a checklist of station access principles associated with each access mode is provided to assess existing station access. Case studies are presented from Brisbane, Perth, and Sydney so as to illustrate the framework. This document presents a new perspective for Australian rail agencies, including access in the overall design process and provides a best practice approach, building on available station access-related planning in Australia and developments in Europe and North America. REVISION/CHECKING HISTORY REVISION DATE ACADEMIC REVIEW INDUSTRY REVIEW APPROVAL NUMBER (PROGRAM LEADER) (PROJECT CHAIR) (RESEARCH DIRECTOR) 0 23 September 2013 DISTRIBUTION REVISION DESTINATION 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Industry x Participant for Review Established and supported under the Australian Government’s cooperative Research Centres Programme Copyright © 2013 This work is copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Authority Monitoring and Oversight
    Transportation Authority Monitoring and Oversight Transit Authorities Fiscal Year 2019 Report A Report by the Florida Transportation Commission Commission Members Ronald Howse Jay Trumbull John Browning Chairman Vice Chairman Richard Burke Julius Davis David Genson Teresa Sarnoff www.ftc.state.fl.us 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450, MS 9 (850) 414-4105 * Fax (850) 414-4234 Florida Transportation Commission iii Transportation Authority Monitoring and Oversight-Transit Authorities Page Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year Report Annual 2019 Fiscal Transportation Authority Monitoring and Oversight Transportation Authority Monitoring and Oversight This page intentionally left blank. Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report Page iv Transportation Authority Monitoring and Oversight Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report Page v Transportation Authority Monitoring and Oversight This page intentionally left blank. Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report Page vi Transportation Authority Monitoring and Oversight EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report Page 1 Transportation Authority Monitoring and Oversight • Granting, denial, suspension, or revocation of Executive Summary any license or permit issued by FDOT Background The Commission may, however, recommend standards and policies governing the procedure for selection and prequalification of consultants and The Florida Transportation Commission contractors. (Commission) was charged with an expanded oversight role as a result of provisions contained in The Commission, in concert with the designated House Bill (HB) 985 that was passed by the 2007 authorities, adopted performance measures and legislature. This legislation amended Section objectives, operating indicators, and governance 20.23, Florida Statutes, requiring the Commission criteria to assess the overall responsiveness of to monitor the transportation authorities each authority in meeting their responsibilities to established in Chapters 343 and 348, Florida their customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Monorail Project the New Plan
    Seattle Monorail Project The New Plan Overview of the Monorail Ballot Measures In September 2005, the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (Seattle Monorail Project or SMP) Board of Directors approved placing two ballot measures before the voters this November. The first measure (Proposition 1) would modify the 2002 Seattle Popular Monorail Plan, authorizing an initial monorail phase of 10 miles and 12 stations. Phasing would save over $330 million from the original plan, resulting in an estimated project cost of $1.7 billion. The second measure (Proposition 2) would provide for a majority of the Board to be elected rather than appointed. These materials have been prepared to inform the general public about factual issues relevant to these propositions. They are not intended to influence voters to support or oppose either measure. Proposition 1 - Phased Construction Proposition 1 asks voters for authorization to construct an initial 10-mile, 12-station monorail line. If approved by the voters, SMP will initially construct a rapid transit system that links Dravus Station (Interbay) and Alaska Junction Station (West Seattle) to Downtown. With connections to light rail, streetcar and buses, the initial line will serve an expected 42,200 riders per day at start-up in 2010 and 57,000 riders per day in 2030. Stations will serve major activity centers and Downtown, with trains departing every six minutes during the commute hours from all stations. The remainder of the 14-mile Green Line will be completed if the City approves construction permits following review of SMP’s Finance Plan. Project costs have been reduced by over $330 million to an estimated $1.7 billion.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Center Monorail Braking System Upgrade
    Seattle Center Monorail Braking System Upgrade Seattle, Washington ORIGINALLY BUILT TO SHOWCASE AMERICAN INNOVATION FOR THE 1962 WORLD’S FAIR, THE SEATTLE CENTER MONORAIL IS THE OLDEST AND MOST FAMOUS OF ALL U.S. MONORAIL SYSTEMS. AFTER PERFORMING RELIABLY FOR MORE THAN 43 YEARS, THE AGING SYSTEM WAS IN NEED OF AN UPGRADE PROGRAM TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH TODAY’S PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. SCHWAGER DAVIS, INC. HAS BEEN PROVIDING ESSENTIAL SOLUTIONS EVER SINCE. The contract was performed on schedule, within budget and to the full satisfaction of the client. The Seattle Center Monorail in Washington State is the oldest operational monorail in the United States. Originally built to showcase American transportation innovation for the 1962 World’s Fair, the Alweg-designed system has since continued to operate as a downtown Seattle people mover and tourist attraction throughout five decades.. Although the monorail had undergone numerous upgrades and renovations over the years, in 2005 it was still operating in its original configuration as a driver-controlled, manually-operated system with few modern automated safety features. In early 2006, Schwager Davis, Inc. was contracted to review potential system safety hazards and to provide a solution to lower the g-forces of the existing emergency braking system. At the time, the emergency braking system stopped the trains too abruptly when applied, and was known to present a potential safety hazard. SDI provided a two-phase solution. Phase I involved analysis of the existing overly-abrupt emergency brakes and working with the owner’s control system integrator to provide a solution for the brakes along with measures to enable the semi-automated controls to provide a method of monitoring the operator’s speed and station approach performance.
    [Show full text]