Guideway transit and intermodalism

previous item | next item

Guideway transit and intermodalism

Material Information

Guideway transit and intermodalism function and effectiveness
Frasier, Fredalyn M
Cotten, Forrest E
Happel, Shelly
Viloria, Fadhely
United States -- Federal Transit Administration
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Lehman Center for Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
58 p. : ill, maps (chiefly col.) ; 28 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Street-railroads -- Louisiana -- New Orleans ( lcsh )
Personal rapid transit -- Louisiana -- New Orleans ( lcsh )
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (p. 57-58).
Additional Physical Form:
Online version available.
General Note:
" May 1995."
General Note:
"... This document is disseminated under the sponsorhip of the Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration ..."
General Note:
"Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University"--Cover.
Updated 2020-08-28 6:11 PM.
Statement of Responsibility:
Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida ; project manager, Fredalyn M. Frasier ; project staff, Forrest Cotten, Shelly Happel, Fadhely Viloria.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
029179662 ( ALEPH )
268770630 ( OCLC )
C01-00303 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.303 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader cam 2200385Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029179662
005 20110825120100.0
008 081104s1995 fluab b 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00303
b C37 1995
0 245
Guideway transit and intermodalism :
function and effectiveness.
p Case study New Orleans /
Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida ; project manager, Fredalyn M. Frasier ; project staff, Forrest Cotten, Shelly Happel, Fadhely Viloria.
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
58 p. :
ill, maps (chiefly col.) ;
28 cm.
" May 1995."
Includes bibliographical references (p. 57-58).
Online version available.
"... This document is disseminated under the sponsorhip of the Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration ..."
"Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University"--Cover.
z Louisiana
New Orleans.
Personal rapid transit
New Orleans.
1 700
Frasier, Fredalyn M.
Cotten, Forrest E.
Happel, Shelly.
Viloria, Fadhely.
United States.
Federal Transit Administration.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Lehman Center for Transportation Research.
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


.;,.:: . .. ..... ,'::. ,,. .: .,. -:: . .. . .. "' ,; .... .. . . ... : '; . . : '. . ,. , :J',:': .: .... ... ', .. .. .... ;. . ... ,_ .. .,.. \' ,,, ... : :{ : , .. : : -: -, : :1 : ; <::.: ... ;:'_ : . ::_:E ,: _, ::-_; _ _:_; _ . ... _ : ... / : (' : : :._: .' .:: : .. .: .. : . :,; : t:,; .... ,. A ',' 1 . . ,-> .. ... :.. .... ,_._, ........ -;->.,; ....... : . . ..:.... : ... ........ . .. ... ... .......... . . -, . : .... . .. . . .'" ' . .... .... .;. ... > .. ,. .... : ... \ . , '.'.r' ._ .:: . .. .. it.C:< .. ,. ... . .... ,: . ... ; . . .. : _,_ .. ;:,;:c : . : ... : ..... ; _,: : .., : . r . : .. : : .. :-:. . ... :': .. :: ' .. ( . :; ... . .. . ; . . . .. . ' .' . : . r ... : ....... . .. ,,,,.' . , : . ::. :., . , '. .f. .. . .:.: j .. .... .... ... ;. .


Guideway Trans i t and lntsnnodalism: Function and Effectiveness Case Study New Orleans i. CU1R Center for Urban TrwnaporUtlon Research 4202 E. FowtorAvenue,ENB1 18 Tampa, FL 3:3620&350 (813) 974-3120, SunCom 57420, Fax (813) 974-5168 email: GillY t. Bro!C/1, Olreclot On1ft May 1995 ,..,S/afl FOtTettCotten Shelly Hoppel Tile COiltsntsollhls 10port renoctll!o vfowrol t ho author$, who are rosponoitllo lor 1M facts and f h& I<'CUiliCY olll!o ln/olmol/cn ptesentod llolofn. This ctoc:ument /$ dlsstJnl,..tod un

Guideway Tl'lnllt amllntormWall.,: FunotJon 11nd ... 2


Guldoway Transit and /ntennodalism: Function and Effectiveness Preface Over the pas t few decades more than a dozen U.S. cities have implemented new guideway public transit systems and virtually every major urban area has or is considering increasing of pubiic transp o rtation infrastructure investments, frequently including the consideration o f guideway transit investments. T he country's dramatic suburbanization and socio-economic changes have placed new challenges on public transportati on. Various guideway inveslments are among the solutions that local communities have considered to meet the changing transportation needs of the i r communities. The result has been growing guideway transit ridership and an increase in the importance of guideway in the overall transportation system. Guideway transit investments are perceived as the public transit inveslment that provides an excellent opportun ity to compete with auto travel Influence land use, motivate public and business financial support and address air quality and environmental goals. This report does not advocate guideway solutions or discourage careful consideration of non-guideway transportation investments, but provides a knowledge base to support those involved in guideway p l anning and implementation. With the development of numerous systems over the past few years a great deal of experience and knowledge has been gained about all aspects of using guideway investments to meet transportation and other local goals. Much of thi s know l edge resides with local planning agency staffs and is of great value to other urban areas if the most relevant information can be captured and communicated to the ever growing and changing group of professionals that are involved in guideway project planning and decision making This report is one of several that are being produced as part of a study funded by the Federal Transit Administration on intermodalism and guideway effect iven ess. This multi year effort is being conducted by the Lehman Center for Transportation Research at Florida International University and the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida The broadly-defined research project, a response to a U.S. congressional authorization, focuses on the examination of factors that Influence the effectiveness and efficiency of guideway trans i t systems and passenger intermodal transportation. The work program is driven by eight primary research tasks, each of which Is being addressed through a variety of research methodologies The overall 3


objective Is to assemble existing and new infonnatlon and interpret and communicate that infonnation in a manner that supports the planning and decisionmaking efforts of public transportation planners. Knowledge gained in this project will provide useful infonnation for the many communities and transportation professionals that are planning or considering guideway transit as a key component in their transportation system. In addition, many of the issues and much of the infonnation will have application for all public transportation planning. The products of this research effort in 1995 include technical reports. case studies, and data books 4


Guldftwy Ttanslt and lntennodalism: Function and Efloctiveness T able of Contents Page List of T ables ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... . 7 Lis t of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The Study Area .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 15 Physical Character i stics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteris tics . . . . . . . . . . 16 Urban Land Use and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Trans i t Systems In New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Regional TransH Authority (RTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Administrative Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Evolution of New Orleans Streetcars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 System Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 System Operat i ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 System Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 E x isting lntermodal Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Setting the S t age for lntermodal i sm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Planning For Guideway and lntermodalism . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 42 Canal Street Corridor Project .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . 42 Un i on Passenger Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Opportunities and Threats to lntermodalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Appendix A : St. Charles Streetcar Renovation Project-specifications . . . . . 53 Appendix B : Canal Street Project Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 References ..................... ............. .......... : .. .. . . 57 5




Table 1 T able 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 T able 8 Table 9 Table 10 Gu;dfWnty Transit and lntermodali$m: Function and Effectiveness List of Tables Page 1990 Urbanized Area Parish Population . . . . . . . . 19 Household I ncome Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Vehicle Ownership and Work Trip Characteristics . . . . . . 21 Demographic Changes in the New Orleans Area: 1960-1990 . 21 New Orleans City-Wide Land Use: 1980 . . . . . . . . . 22 900 Series Perley Thomas Streetcar . . . . . . . . . . . 36 New Orleans Regional Transit Authority-Guideway Characteristics 37 RTA Ridership and Operating Data by Mode . . . . . . . 39 RTA Measures of Efficiency and Effectiveness by Mode . . . 40 Evaluation for Rail Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . 47 7




Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Guideway Tf'BttSit and lntetmoftll6m: Function and List of Figures Page Ne w Orleans Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 Transit Route Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 St. Char1es Avenue Streetca r . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 St. Charles Avenue Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Riverfront Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 New Orleans Guideway with Proposed Fa c ilities . . . . . . 45 9




Guideway Transit and lntermodansm: FunctJon and EffecUveness Foreword This is one in a series of case studies examin i ng guideway trans i t and intermoda l ism it is but one component in a broadly defined research project to examine factors that have resulted in implementing successful guideway transit systems and to examine how intermodalism can enhance the role of public transportation. These two goals are interrelated through the consideration of gu i deway transit where it Is present as a core transportation element i n cities and metropolitan areas Knowledge teamed in this project will provide useful information for the many communities that are planning or cons i dering guideway transit as a key component in their transportation system Each case study in this series focuses on an urbanized area The criteria for selection of the case study areas has been the presence of one or more elements of g u ideway transit. Guideway transit is often equated with rail, but it is more that what is commonly recognized as rail techno l ogy. Commuter rail heavy or rapid rail, and light rail are the most widely occurring types of guideway transit. There are other types of physical guideway that do not fit with the normal definition of rail. Monorails, automated people movers suspended cableway and busways are systems can also be considered ftxed guideway dependent upon the structure/platform on which the vehicle moves This may include concrete or steel beams, overhead cables, or an exclusive paved surface Ught rail, heavy rail and commuter rail are the most common technologies in use in North America. They account for over 98 percent of the route miles, rolling stock, ridership and i nvestment. Fourteen metropolitan areas in the U S have constructed one or more of these three techno l ogies since 1960. Dallas will join this list when its light rail system opens in 1996. A dozen cities are extending existing systems. Another fo i y are In various stages of planning o r developing a rail transit system I Guideway transit does not function in isolation. The guideway transit trip is usually only one leg of the traveler's journey. The whole trip may involve one or more other modes (bus, auto, ferryboat, bicycle walking), or perhaps even two guideway modes. The ability to make a connection between the modes is crucial to completion of the trip. lntermodalism emphasizes how these various modes fit together as a system and recognizes that the facilities whe r e transfers from one mode to another take place are critical components. 11


The case studies are designed to provide useful infonnation for others considering new guideway transit investments, or looking for ways to enhance and i mprove existing systems through intennodalism The case studies must also be viewed in the context of the larger study The research project contains policy, planning and technology elements The case studies are also structured as vehicles for collecting infonnalion in a systematic way that will feed into the process of analysis which leeds to conclusions in eight research subject task areas. Consequently the case studies penni! the careful identification of influential factors in particular situations which in tum, will be used to construct an overall paradigm of the implementation process for guideway systems and intennodal connections. Comb i ning the goals of providing examples of lessons learned that may benefit others along with providing the base data and preliminary analysis for the tasks in the broader project has led to a focus on technology, pol i cy and planning i n the case stud i es. The case study begins with an overview of the guideway transit components in the reg i on. Th i s follows with a discussion of intennodalism. Both of these sect i ons can be considered snapshots in lime. Planning history that h as led to the present picture i s examined from a process perspect ive related to a context that can be stable or dynamic. The need to understand factors that affect the use a n d perfonmance of transit l eads to i nvestigation of related pol i cies. L astly, how communities measure the impact of transit is important because it feeds back into the cont i nuous and Oll-90ing planning and decision-making p r ocess. The research approach began with a literature review conducted through a computer search via Transportation Research l nfonnation System (TRIS) and Transportation Ubrary Subti l e (TUB) A search was made of trade pubOcations to identify transit events and activities occurring in the New Orleans Area over the l ast few years. A field trip in January 1995 included visits to the guideway transit system and the metropolitan planning organization. This provided an opportunity to observe system operat i ons, visit with key resource people and collect reports and other data for the case study. l nfonnation gathered in this visit has been supplemented with new materials and updates as the research has progressed. Agencies contacted during the data collection process include the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) the Regional Plann i ng Commission/Metropo l itan Planning Organization the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development the 12


Guideway Transit and Jntwmodall$m: FuncUon and Effectiveness Port of New Orleans, New Departmen t, Tchoupltoulas George D. Hopkins, and !lie Neiifbileans Downtown Development Authority Other information used in preparation of this case study has come from Federal Transit Adm inistration Section 15 reports, Bureau of the Census and other federal publications 13


c..wtwtteM 14


Guideway Transit and lrrfermodal/.sm: Function and Effectiveness New Orleans Gase Study Introduction The City of New Orleans is renowned for its uniqueness and historic charm The presence of street cars (which are considered light rail in the context of this case study) have contribUted considerably to the vitality and rich history of the city. New Orleans boasts a extensive rail history that reaches back to 1831 when the first rail transportation west of the Alleghenies was established by the Pontchartrain Railroad Company. According to historian Louis C. Hennick, the r ai l line was more than a streetcar line in that it connected downtown New Orleans to the neighboring shore of lake Pontchartrain. As such, the Pontchartrain Railroad was one of the earliest suburban railroads in the U nited States. The streetcars of New Orleans have served an important role in the city's transportation needs as well as economic needs. However, the depression of 1929-1933 and the era of private vehicle ownership had a severe impact upon street railway in New Orleans The street railway system that had peaked in 1926 with 26 street railway lines and 5 motorbus lines with a total annual ridership of 148 million had by 1964 experienced drastic cuts, with all but one street railway line-the st. Charles Avenue Line eliminated. There have been several efforts over the years to re-establish some of the old streetcar lines within the City of New Orleans. Aside from the historic 134-year old st. Charles Avenue Line, there has been a recent addition, the Riverfront Streetcar. Inaugurated in 1988, the Riverfront streetcar l i ne is the first rail line to open in New Orleans since 1926. The recent streetcar restoration and revitalization efforts of the City and the Regional Transit Authority, along with the plans for future light rail development and an intermodal passenger facility, make New Orleans a prime setting for examining the policy and planning processes involved in establishing lntermoda l guideway. The sections that follow will provide an overview of the environment in which rail operates and will address in greater detail the policy and planning issues facing New Orleans. The Study Area Overview of the New Orleans Region The City of New Orleans located in southeastern Louisiana, was founded in 1718 is one ofthe nation's oldest cities (see Figure 1). Its central core-the Vieux Carre or the" old 15


square" has been continuously inhabHed for 277 years. The CHy of New Orleans was incorporated in 1805. The metropolitan area consists of six parishes (the Louisiana equivalent of counties) they lndude: Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. John the Baptist and St. Tammany. The City of New Orleans Is approximately 198 square miles In area and comprises the entire Orleans Parish. The present New Orleans can be characterized as a major tourist destination, shipping port, and headquarters for the oil and gas industry. Physical Characteristics New Orleans is bound by large masses of water-the M ississippi River, the Gulf of Mexico, and Lake Pont chartrain. Land elevations for the urban area range from two to three feet above sea level to about two feet below. Only 57 percent of the land mass of the Orleans Parish is considered dry land. As a result of the physical limHations of this unique geography, transportation has consistently remained a key issue throughout the evolution of New Orleans area. The limHed land mass and expanses of water have strongly influenced the transportation infrastructure of bridges railways, ports, levees, and roads and, in tum, the land development patterns of the area. The extensive drainage system and the era of the automobile and bridge construction facilitated the development of outlying parishes of St. Be"'!ard Jefferson, and St. Tammany, and represented the slow decline the central Orleans parish. The result of limHed land supply is evident In the high densHy of development wHhin New Or1eans. This type of land pattern becomes an important factor in the development of a transportation Infrastructure for a growing multi-nuclear urban area. Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics Demographic information from the 1990 census is presented for the New Orleans urbanized area (UA) because th i s area accounts for the vast majority of the reg ion 's population and I s the area through which the transH system operates. The New Orleans UA includes 98.7 percent (1.04 million) of the four surrounding parishes (counties) that help define it (Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bernard, and St. Charles Parishes). 16


Figure 1 New Region .... ., .. m New Orleans Urbanized Area Primary Service Area for R.T .A. 17


CMw,_.,...... T .. ...... AIJIJ"C. 18


Guideway Transit snd lntermodallsm: Function and Effec1Jveness Population growth in the New Orleans UA has remained fairly stable for the past 35 years; however, the area has shown signs of decline in the last decade. Tl)e populat ion tota l in 1960 was 868,480 for the New Orleans UA. There was a significant population increase during the period between 1960 and 1970 where the New Orleans area grew by 20 percent. The growth trend for the urbanized area continued betwee n 1970 and 1980, but at lower rate of eight percent. However the UA has experienced a decreased population by nearly four percent since 1980 A closer examination at the parish level, presented in Table 1, reveals the shift in population growth from Orleans parish to the surrounding areas Between 1980 and 1990, Orleans parish experienced a 12 percent decline in population. Table 1 Urbanized Area Parish Population 1980-1990 Parish 1990 1990 1980 1981).1990 % Population Composition Population Change Jefferson 448,306 42.4% 454,592 .7% Orleans 496,938 47.1% 557,927 -12% St. Bernard 66,631 6 .3% 64,097 4.5% St. Charles 44,372 4 .2% 37,259 19% Total 1 ,056,247 100.00% 1,113,875 Nearly two-thirds of the New Orleans UA population live within the of New Orleans and Metairie. The population density of the New Orleans Ul.\ (3,852 per square mile) is greater t han the United States urban average (2,594) Wrthin the New Orleans UA, the age distributions of the population are fairly r eflective of the national average. Thirty-three percent of the population in the UA fall between the ages of 25 to 44 The percentage of 65 or o lder persons in the New Orleans UA (11. 5 percent) is only slightly below the national average of 12.1 percent. Wrthin the New Orleans UA, 59 percent of the population are white, while 38 percent of the population are of African-American origin. The African-American population in the Conqr tor tlrtl.w:l Tr.Mspol''/on Rosoorclt 19


Guideway Tronslt and lntllffffOdeJism: F-'/on and Err.ctlveness New Orleans UA is nearly three times the Unijed States urban average of 14.3 percent. There is a great disparity in median household incomes in the New Orleans UA and the average median household income f o r other urban areas in the nation. The median household i ncome for the New Orleans UA is $23,590. This fiQure is 22 percent less than the national average of $30,056. In terms of median family income, St. Charl es and Jefferson Parishes exceeds the national average wijh a median income over $35,000. St. Bernard Parishes has a median incomes relatively close to the national average$29,234. However, Orleans Parish falls below the nationa l average with a median family income of $22,182. In the New Orleans UA, 22 percent of the population fall below the poverty level. The poverty leve l for a family of four was $12,674 in 1989. The poverly rate for the New Orleans UA is neat1y twice the national average of 13 percent. In the New Orleans UA, 75 percent of households had wage income and 25 percent reporled social security income. Within the urbanized area, Orleans Parish has the la rgest percentage of individuals living below the poverty level with an estimated population 32,616 famil i es or 27 percent. The household characteristics at the parish level are presented in Table 2. Table 2 New Orleans U rbanized Area Parishes Household Income Characteristics PlltiSh Median FMily P6/c6nt Btlf'JW Pefrent Percent with 1ncomo PoVOfty Below Social Security $25,000 Income Jefferson $32,446 11 44 14 Orleans $22,182 27 61 17 St. Bernard $29,234 12 49 17 StCharles $35,355 13 39 12 ""-" ... Twenty percent of households in the New Orleans UA reported not having any vehicles available. This figure is nearly 50 percent higher than the national average of 14 percent. In addition, of those workers that did have a vehicle available t o them 70 percent drove alone to work. Work trips examined at the parish level are indicative of suburban travel characteristics. As presented in Table 3, each parish with the exception of Ot1eans. has 20


Guideway Transit and /ntermodell!lm: Function and Effectiveness more cars per household fewer transportation, and more work trips by single occupant vehicles. : Table 3 New Orleans Urbanized Area Vehicle Ownership and Work Trip Characteristics Pan.h AV

Guldrltly Transit anrllnfetmoallsm: Function and Ef'fectlvenus applications submitted indicate the need for an imp roved land use plan that would better regulate development. To address the current ad hoc development-driven process the City is currentl y establishing a new land use planning process; however, this information will not be available for some time. The existing land use information presented in Tab le 5 reflects the 1980 data . TableS New Orleans Citywide Land Use-1980 car Ac, %of Total Residential 13,654 37 2 Industrial 4,740 12. 9 Commercial 1 ,940 5.3 PubUc & Semi-Public Parks 4,904 13. 4 Streets 11,332 31.2 Total Developed Acreage 33.621 100. 0 NtwVf!MM Ltnel u .. Plto'l. 1980. Long range comprehensive planning for the urban core, Orleans Parish, is based on a land use policy framework that makes up the City's Managed Growth Plan. The Managed Growth Plan weighs the issues of economic development and revitalization with the limita t ion of developable land and environmental constraints to produce general development schemes that will stimulate growth and the economy of the Central Business District {CBD) and allow for limit ed growth in designated sensitive areas The following policy considerat i ons are key points of the Managed Growth Plan. Reinforce the goal of the CBD as a regional center and a "2 4 -hour-a-day" urban center. Promote transit facilities and services and reduce emphasis on the automobile as the primary transportation mode. Expand industrial development-and employment-opportunities by prov id in g land both w ith in the developed sections of the City and in developing sections. 22


Guideway Transit and lntermodallsm: Function and Effectiveness Recogn ize environmentally sensitive area an provide appropriate regulat i on and opportunities for limited development. Provide for the physical expansion of the City generally within the hurr i cane protection levee system Newly develo p ing areas shou l d prov ide a variety of housing options t o be available to all socio-economic leve ls. Emphasize o n conservation of existing neighborhoods genera ll y at their current densHies, while providing f!)r selected redevelopment In particu l ar l o cati o ns where condition warrant. Source: Can a l street. Corridor Project BurkKlienpeter, Inc. As noted i n the Major lnvastment (MIS) for the Canal Street Corr idor, the C ity has exp erienced a positive turnaround in new downtown development p arti c ularly along the riverfront with projects such as the $40 million aquarjum, the Riverfront Convention Center which Includes plans to develop the worl d 's largest land-based easlno, and the new Riverfront streetcar line. Other significant developmen t s include a 20,000 seat sports arena prop osed as a joint development projec t in conjunct i on with the expansi o n and renovation of the New Orleans Un i on Passenger Termina l (NOUPT). However in comparison to th e deve l opment and econom i c components of the Managed Growth Plan the recommendation to emphasize transit facilities and services as an a l ternat i ve mode of transportat i on has had a limited impact on travel behav i or. According to the MIS, the downtown area of New Orl eans remains highly congested with commu ter automobile traffic from the outlying parishes of Jefferson, St. Tammany and St. Bernard, and the ability t o accomm o date Mure road development Is limited Although it has been noted that progress toward the Regional Transit Authority's goal t o become a t ruly regional transit system has been slow and arduous, it appears the rec e nt economic resurgence and proposed investments alon_g the riverf r ont, along with the flexible funding prov i sions of l ntermodal Surface Trans p ortation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) for major transit and interrnQdal i nvestments, may provide the necessary incentives for RTA to move toward the realization of its regional and intermodal goals 23


Gulthfway Transit and lntwmo<*llsm: Function and Elftct/v., The New Orleans area is clearly embar1

..... Ul c I-N ::l Ol u.. '\ -' .... .. . I : ( l f e "' '5 < ::> c c c I! !! '!! ,.. i 1 :m i;i "' ;;; j / I I I




Guideway Tnmslt and lntennodsllsm: Function and Effec:tivemlss RTA's reported service area population is approximately 496,938. Most of RTA's major transit lines operate on a 24-hour basis, wHh regular and peak hour service on the remaining lines. The CBD serves as the service focal point where the majority of routes meet faci li tating transfers and access to almost the entire city. Outlying areas are connected to Orleans Parish and the CBD via the City of Kenner service, operated by RTA, which serves the northern and southern parts of Kenner and provides access to the New Orleans International Airport through connections with the Jefferson and louisiana Transit routes. In addition, a new park-and-ride transit facility in the City of Kenner offers direct transit service to downtown New Orleans. In general, the West Bank transit coverage is more extensive than the service provided on the East Bank The major terminal and park-and-ride facility for the West Bank (the Van Trump terminal) serves as the Jefferson Transit route's terminus and/or the connection to downtown Currently, RTA is working on establishing a transit link to Van Trump terminal via its Algiers route. The Metairie Road and Canal Boulevard stop serves as the major service connector to and from the East Bank Jefferson routes and RTA routes. As reported in RTA s 1994 Service and Patronage Forecasting Methodology, RTA 's share of the total metropolitan transit riders hip by weekdays is approximately 92 percent; the combined share for Westside Transit and louisiana Transit combined share is approximately 7 peroent; and St. Bernard Urban Rapid Transit makes up the remaining fraction of weekday ridership, with less than a one percent share. Administrative Structure The Regional Transit Authority is a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana and Is controlled by a board appointed by the City of New Orleans and the Jefferson Parish Council. RTA was created in 1 979 and assumed management of transit from the New Orleans Public Service, Inc., in 1983. In addition to managing its bus and streetcar operations, RTA supervises bus operations of other routes contracted out to private transportation providers. 27


Evolution of New Orleans Streetcars The streetcar lines represent a significant component of the RTA system in both historical character and functional r ole. As noted In previous sections, these streetcars played a prominent role in the early years of New Orleans development. The renewed interest in returning this historic form of light rail to New Orleans may once again place streetcars as a distinct and preferred mode of transportation for the The first streetcar line began in 1835 as a joint effort between the New Orleans and Carrollton Rail roads. The line now commonly referred to as the St. Charles Avenue Streetcar, was called the CarroiRon Figure 3-St. Charles Streetcar Rotation of the Trolley Pole line in the early years. The cars were powered by steam and served as v ital transportation link to the canal Street district, the outlying "suburbs" and the resort town of Carro iRon. Between 1873 and 1893 the steam-powered cars were replaced by horse drawn streetcars. The year 1893 marked a significant advancement in New Orleans' streetcar operati ons -th e introduction of cars that used an overhead electric wire system for power. The age of electric street cars had arrived, and the development of New Orleans' elaborate system of e l ectric streetcars soon followed In 1922, a total reorganization of the power companies and railway i nterests occurred which led to the New Orleans Public Service, Inc. (NOPSI) assuming operation of the streetcars. It was during this time that the Perley A. Thomas Series 900 cars (1923) which currently run on the existing streetcar lines, were introduced The latter part of the 1920s represented the gradual elimination of streetcar routes as transij buses became the preferred mode of transportation As mentioned in the introduction the Canal Street line was abandoned in 1964 and the St. Charles Avenue Line became New Orleans sole remain ing streetcar l ine in operation. 28


In 1973, the St. Charles Une was Register of Historic Places Ten years later, man

Transit and Func:tJon Md Etrectlveness locally preferred alternative. The planning process and intermodal elements of this project are examined in the latter part of this report. Figures 4 and 5 present the current streetcar network for New Orleans. System Characteristics Both the St Char1es Avenue and the Riverfront streetcars are electrically powered. An overhead catenary system with 600 volts DC is used to power the cars. The streetcars are not air-conditioned. The gauge for the St. Charles Avenue line is 5'2'-1/2" and has a route length of 6.56 miles. The St. Char1es Avenue streetcars are street-running vehicles that operate on at-grade, exclusive right-of-way in a center reserved median Passengers on the St. Charles Avenue line board at the track/street level. The Riverfront line is standard gauge and is 1.9 miles in length The Riverfront streetcars operate on exclusive right-of-way that parallels the Public Belt Railway corridor fronting the Mississippi River. In to the three Perley Thomas streetcars that operate on the line. RTA acquired three Australian Melbourne W-2 streetcars that were constructed in 1924 & 1925. The wide center, floor level doors of the W-2 allowed for easy modification for handicapped The Riverfront line uses floor level station platforms for passenger boarding. An example of the elevated platforms and shelters located along the Riverfront route is presented in the following photo of the Poydras Street platform. 30 Poydras Street Stop Platform Riverfront Line


* r:IS} Tra n sfer Locations w ith R T A Buses St. Charles St reet car Figure 4 St. Cha rles Avenue Line /; -'---7/ I 1 -I / I i' l\ I \ \ \\ \ \ ---..: ;! r ""-I \\ / -------=----t: --.__ I -rr ....__ .,; \ l ...... ::i./ l z ,..., I OJ ---Fre re! st \\ -g 1 -"" ''"' f}t I n g \ I :; I I n tt li H \ i '' \: I I lf , 31 .._..,e oW r \.o'i / -t-e"' ?' <;,'-\ ;., 0 :1 l."fl' .. j : ..... l I '-\I '-, '<. -t----J... '.. I : "'J ... i 0.75 -


CMfw lot tHirrM T,..ll;l! I WIIIM Rr r I I 'OM 32


Riverfront --Streetcar Line Streetcar Stop E ra\Ost .. Figure 5 Riverfront Line 33




Guideway Transit and lntemrodaii$1JJ; Function and Effectiveness The St. Charles Avenue line which is approximately 6.5 miles i n length consists of 104 stops/stations that are approx imalel y two blocks apart. This route Is more than a tourist attraction. A true "working line" providing an important link between residential areas and the downtown, the St. Charles Avenue line boasts a 4-to-1 ridership ratio of residents to tourists. For most of its route the St. Charles Avenue streetcar proceeds along a center reserved median through the residential and light commercial districts of the Carrollton area. It continues past Loyola and Tulane Uni versities, the Audubon Pari< and Zoological Garden, and a l ong the historic-oak-lined St. Charles Avenue to the Central Business Distr ict. The Riverfront line has 10 scheduled stops along its route. A significant tourist and conventioneer population utilizes this route, which I ncludes strategic stops at key attractions along the growing commercial, r etail and recreation corridor s uch stops Include the Warehouse District, the New Orleans Convention Center, the Aquarium of the Americas R l verwalk Marl

Ta!Me S 900 S.riH Peney Thomae s-Year 1923 & 1924 Location: Hlgh Point, North Carol ina Seating Capacity : 52 D i mensions : length 47'8"; width T1 0" ; height 1 1'4" Power. 50-horsepower General Electric 11263 Weight: 42,000 pounds Average Speed: 9 mph Maximum Speed : 27 mph Breaking Oistence: 5 mph -29' l1o mph 54' 15 mph -83' I 20 mph -133' As previously noted, the vast majority of transit trips in the New Orleans urbanized area are provided through RTA's fixed-route bus system that i ncludes 70 routes. There are 462 vehicles in the RTA fleet. Seventy six percent of the fleet consists of two models-184 GMC veh i cles and 165 MAN 792 (1985/86) vehicles The remainder of the fleet consists of 59 Grumman 870 buses; 36 Bluebirds ( 1 986/87) ; 16 Carpenter (1984) buses, 13 Orion V; 1 1 AMG buses; and 8 each of Axette buses and Trolley Replicas. The streetcars of New Orleans serve two distinct populations The transit dependent population within a walking and bus transfer vicinity and a strong tourist popu l ation. As noted, three-fourths of the St. Charles Avenue passengers are local residents The service area of this historic line Is distinguished by the densely residential area of CaroiHon. the universities, a growing medical district and the commercial and business district of the city The Riverfront line is primarily used by visitors to the city and workers along this retail d i strict Since its inception In 1988, the actua l ridership numbers for R i verfront line have exceeded projections by almost 1 op percent. In addition to the hotels and convention center, the Riverfront line includes several major tourist attractions along its route. The present New Orleans streetcar system is not designed to compete with highway travel or city to suburb commuting as are many rail services that are being developed in other parts of the United States However, this ridership profile may soon change as New Orleans has begun to seriously consider projects that will expand guideway to areas such as the airport and severa l suburban communities. The characteristics of RTA's gui deway system are summarized in the following table. 36


Guideway Tran&Jt and lntwmodelism: Functi on and ElfectlvenO$$ T a b l e 7 NEW O RLEANS REGIONAL TRANSIT AUT H ORITY (RTA ) Serviee Area S i ze (sq miles) : n SeMce Area Population: 496 ,938 System Characlerlstlcs St. Charles R.tverfront Ugllt Rail Ligh t Rail (hlolorlc streetcon (rep lica &treetcsr ) Opening Year of Syste m 1 835 1988 Mileage ( totaQ 6 6 1.6 At grade separ ate rlw N/A 1 6 AJ. grade street 6 6 NIA I n s u bway or t u nnei N/A N/A Elevated N/A NIA 104 stops 10 wgh parking none N/A Wilh tra n sit 22 1 Number of Routes 1 1 Service Frequency P

System Operations The St. Charles Avenue an d t he Riverfro n t streetcars operate seven days a week. The St. Charles Avenue li ne provides 24-hour service w"h an approximate headway of 4-5 m i nutes during peak hours a n d 7 m i nutes during non-peak hours. The Riverfront streetcar operates 18 5 hour weekday schedule from 6 : 00-12:30 a m Saturday and Sunday operation begins slightly l ater running from 7:45a. m. to 12:30 a.m. The RTA operates its maj o r bus routes on a 24 hour basis, with regular and peak hour service on the remaining lines. The base fare is $1.00 for local RTA buses and the St. Charles Avenue streetcar $ 1.25 for express buses and the Riverfront streetcar, and $0.50 fo r the Ke n ner Loop Reduced fares ($0 40, $0 50, a n d $0.25, respectively) are offered to the elderly and handicapped Bus and streetcar transfers are $0.10 and $0 02 for the reduced fare passengers. RTA provides pre purchased tokens, transfer ticket books and monthly passes which cost $40.00 RTA also provides VisiTour Passes available as a one-day or three-day pass. The V i siTour Passes allow unlimited rides on the streetcars and buses. Exact change is r equired for both the buses and streetcars. System Performance According to Section 15 data from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 RTA s motorbus operates close to 12 million annual vehicle miles and just slightly over 1 m ill ion annual vehicle hours The streetcar lines combined operate 696,3n annual veh i cle miles and 87 910 annual vehicle hours as of FY 1993 I n FY 1993, RTA carried a tota l of 62.5 mill i on passengers. The motorbus operation accounted for the majority of passengers with over 56 million in ridership. The streetcar operation carried close to 6.5 million passengers during the same period. Table 8 summarizes RTA's 38


Guideway TransJt and lntmodalism: Function and Effectiv&ness r i dership and operating data by mode and provides a comparison . . between 1989 and 1993 measures. Table 8 RTA Ridership and Operating Data by Mode Mode Motorbus Light raDStreetcar 1989 1993 %Change 1989 1993 %Change Ridership 64,526,400 56,101,398 (13.06) 5 079,400 6 440,087 26. 79 Vehicle Miles 13,048,800 11,806 664 ( 9 52) 646,100 696,3n 27.52 Vehicle Hours 1,196, 800 1,059,797 (11.'\5) 61, 100 87,910 43.88 Operating Expense $63,927 000 $70,491 263 10.27 $3,405,600 $5,527,149 62.30 Passenger $24,074,943 $33,955 118 41.04 Revenue (Mb & Lr) The streetcar r idership is slightly over 6 million and acoounts for 11 percent of RTA's total ridership. This percentage is significant when the relatively small size and service area of the streetcar lines is compared to the motorbus operation. Over the past several years RTA has experienced a decline in total ridership Ridership for motorbuses has declined by 13 percent since 1989. However the streetcar ridership continues to grow at a steady rate. Since 1989 the streetcar ridership has increased by almost 27 percent. Passenger miles per vehicle mile, a measure of effectiveness, is 14.7 for the RTA system. Figures by mode are 14.2 for motorbus, and 21. 7 for the streetcars. The operating expense per passenger mile has declined for each mode since 1989. The 1993 figures by mode are $0.42 for motorbus and $0.37 for streetcar. Table g provides a comparison of efficiency and effectiveness measures for RTA 39


Table9 RTA Measures of Efficiency and Effectlvenby Mode Mode Motorbus Light rail Streek:ars 1989 1993 %Change 1989 1993 %Change Passenger Milas 170,983,400 168,155,722 (1. 6) 8,179,000 15,128,149 85.0 OperaUng Expense per $0.49 $0.42 (14 5) $0.42 $0.37 (11.1) Passenger Mile Trip per 59,900 42.990 (28.2) 37.300 49,923 33.8 Employee Passenger Miles per 13.1 14.2 8.4 14.9 21.7 45. 4 Vehicle Mile Fat&box Recovery 35 8 44.7 25.0 Ratio(%) (Mb & Lr) ........... Existing lntennodal Linkages The concept of intermodalism focuses on facilitating mobility at the individual trip level through the use of the best possible combination of transportation modes. The transportation system currently exists in New Orleans has intermodallinkages. Each streetcar line operates as a sole -a direct linkage between the two lines does not exist. The situation is the same among other modes as well, there are no direct links between the streetcars and the airport, or the New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal (NOUPl) where the Amtrak and Greyhound terminal is located. However, the proposed plans for streetcar expansion and the multimodal Union Passenger Termina l present the opportunity to enhance the intermodal connections guideway (the streetcars} assuming a significant role. The St Charles Avenue streetcar interfaces RTA transit buses and provides transfer capability at seven points along route. The Riverfront streetcar offers one transfer location along its route at Canal Street. These transfer locations represent very informa l modal linkages as there are no conventional stop platforms stations, or parking facilities provided at the sites where the two modes meet. For the most part, the existing parlling areas developed for the business and commercial establishments in the downtown and particularly along the riverfront, are also used for transit parlling. The integration of modes with a in this case automobiles and transit buses exists with c. .... "" (.t1loM ,,_ .... II D'J jltJ J I & a\ 40


Guideway Transit omllntermodollsm: FUIK1/on otHI Effectlvetreu the two RTA pall<-and-ride outlying areas of North Kenner and Algiers Setting the Stage for tntermodalism As noted In the previous case studies that are a part of this series : If transit is to be attractive and usable, parlicularly for those who may have alternate means of making the trip, then the components of the system must be easily integrated. This is the practical essence of intermodalism. This concept is clearly evident in the expressed goal of the lntermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) to enhance the mobility of people through the promotion of "seamless" transportation. At the state level, the current draft of the Statewide lntermodal Transportation Plan for the State of Louisiana identifies the current challenges to intermodalism throughout the state and presents a strategic action plan for the implementation of intermodalism. The draft plan includes the recommendation to create a new DMsion of lntermodalism within the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD) that would serve as initiator and implementator of specific surface intermodal passenger projects. The plan also suggests the eventual evolution of this Division into a statewide entity that would be responsible for "developing and potentially operating new surface-passenger transportation systems." Additionally, the draft plan calls for the development of a l ntermodallntercity Passenger Plan. As stated, such a plan should i ntegrate the automobile, bus, air, and rail facilities for the entire state into an effective system that presently does not exist. The proposed plan would incorporate a project evaluation methodology as a means of prioritizing projects for funding. Interestingly, LDOTD currently does not have a procedure in place to evaluate the economic and social elements of competing projects. The other surface-passenger goals presented in the statewide plan include addressing inter-city connections, hubs and mulitimodal finkages in urban areas In the New Orleans urbanized area, the current planning efforts for developing a streetcar system 41


linking the CBD, the riverfront area, and an expanded mulitmodal transportation hub at the New Or lea ns Union Passenger Termin a l (NOUPn demonstrate the proposed strategies of statewide policy in action and provides a unique opportunity to examine the early evolution of intermodalism Planning For Guideway and lntermodalism The components that make up a transit system not only have a geographical dimension but also a hierarchical one. Some serve a local area, others may connect several lo cal areas and be considered sub-regional, others connect several subregions and can be considered to be regional. but not area wide. 1/Vithin this context, the New Orleans transit network can be characterized as a loca l transit system in transition. The New Orleans urbanized area has taken the lead in planning for a truly "seamless" system that is designed to meet the State's goal to provide multimodal transportation hubs for intercity and in tracity transportation. Although it is a relatively small guideway system, approximately 15 miles in leng1h, the proposed projects for New Orleans will form the basis of a loca l and future sub-regional intermoda l guideway system. The existing guideway system with its proposed elements i s illustrated in Figure 6. Canal Street Corridor Project In January 1992 the RTA Board of Commissioners entered into an agreement with the Federal Transit Administration to conduct a Major Investment Analysis for the Canal Street Streetcar/Ugh! Rail concept. The consultant firm of Burk Kleinpeter Inc. was selected as the lead for the Major Investment Analysis. The concept of returning streetcars to the Canal Street dates back to the 1989 Urban Land Institute study, Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana: An Evaluation of Revitalization Strategies for the City of New Orleans and the Downtown Development District The study recommended the use of streetcars as a means of developing transportation system that would unify the various commercial and retail areas and address congestion and pollution while providing an economic stimulus to the downtown. Subsequent studies conducted by RTA and the Regional Planning Commission reinforced the concept of streetcars along Canal Street as a viable transportation option. 42


Guideway Ttanolt and lntermodansm: Function and EffecUVOMSS March 1995 marked the final route from what orig i nally had been a pool of 14 route alternatives. the RTA Board of Directors sel ected streetcar alterna1ive RA-14, the "Canal Corridor, CBD Loop, City Park Spur'' as the Locally Preferred Alternative. The consultants summarized the i r recommendation of the Route Alternative -14 as the alterna1ive that best met the objectives of the project by providing access to the CBD and within the CBD, and which would provide a sti mulus to economic growth and redevelopment in the downtown growth areas-Canal Street and Loyola Avenue-as well as the Carrollton Avenue/St. Louis Corridor nexus." In addition, the route would serve two other traffic generators, Delgado Community College and City Park The evaluation criteria for the rail alternatives included quantitative and qualitative measures The screening of alternatives was conducted in the three phases. The first two screening phases used a weighted system tha1 resulted In each alternative receiv i ng a final score. The final evaluation was not used to assign specific scores rather, the criteria were used for the basis of comparing distinct a l ternatives. The evalua1ion criteria used in this three phase process in presented in Table 1 0 It was clearly eVident throughout the project seeping and major investment study that public i nvolvement would be a critical component of the planning process and was strongly emphasized by RTA and the project planning team. While Route Alternative-14 fared much better in terms of addressing the ec o n o m i c, environmental, and transportation/ ridership criteria, it was also the most costly a l ternative. In this instance, the strong pub l ic support for the Canal Corridor, CBD Loop, City Park Spur was a major factor in the final selection As presented in the pre li minary plans, the Canal Street line would occupy the existing RTA center-median bus ways. The line would consist of Pres i dential Conference Cars (PCCs) that will be retrofitted by RTA craftsmen to resemble the Perley Thomas 900 series that presently operate on the St. Charles Avenue line. 43




F igure 6 N ew Orleans Guideway with Proposed F acilities Canal Street Stops &. Landmarks Proposed Canal Street Line St. Charles Ave. U n e Riverfron t Une 45


T""'slt and lntwmocMJism: Fun

Guldtrway Ttansit and lntermodallsm: Function and Effectiveness Table 10 Evaluation Criteria for Rail Alternatives New Orleans Separate Trad

projected to attract over 18,000 new riders A summary of the project characteristics, as outlined by the consultants, is presented in Appendix B. The estimated total capijal cost for the project is $122.6 million and assumes an 80 percent federaV 20 percent local funding match. This ambitious project will be im plemented in five phases over a seven-year period (19952001 ), wijh the first segment scheduled to begin operation by 19g8 Union Passenger Terminal The New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal (NOUPT) is another major RTA project that Is currently in the preliminary eng i neering and design phase. As wijh the Canal Street streetcar, lhe concept of establishing the terminal as a multi-modal center was also introduced In the 1g89 Urban Land Institute study. In November 1g94, with a $200,000 grant from Federal Transportation Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration, RTA inij iated a feasibi lity study and the development of a strategic plan for the financing, design, and construction of a Multimodal Transportation Center at the Union Passenger Terminal. Presently, the NOUPT is used for intercijy rail and bus service as the Greyhound Bus and Amtrak terminal. Also, the facilijy functions as the downtown heliport. The NOUPT eonstructed in 1g53, was the last Union Passenger Station to be bum in the United States. The goal of this ambitious program to convert the NOUPT is the deve l opment of a "world class multi-modal, multi-purpose transportation center that provides direct access links to adjacent, eXisting, and planned developments such as the Superdome, the New Orleans Centre shopping mall, the CBD, the Warehouse District and the planned Sports Arena." In addition to the exterior and interior restoration of the terminal, renovation plans for the NOUPT include: lhe rea l ignment and consolidation of track; the extension of city streets on the property to accomodate intermodal transportation services; and 48


Guideway Ttfllslt omllntennodallsm: Fun.Uon and Effectl110noss improvements to pedestrian access and linkages to adjacent commerical development. The expansion plans for NOUPT inc lude designs for: a termina l and maintenance facility for the Canal Street Streetcar, a commuter parking garage, an RTA transfer facility wnh increased bus and rail capacity, and a proposed airport rapid light rail line and regional light rail service. The parameters developed as part of the planning and design process for the NOUPT clearly reflect the relationsh ip between transportation and land development arid provide an illustration of how the two must be planned together. Opportunities and Threats to lntennodalism New Orleans is on the verge of realizing its potential as a major intermodal transportation center The cnys rich rail and port history has significantly shaped its present transportation system. The New Orleans guideway system Is unique in that the community has provided strong support in terms of ridership and finance. And while streetcar nostalgia has contributed to the acceptance of rail; this seemingly rich passenger rail history does not necessarily translate into contemporary intermodal success. New Orleans has experienced the rise and decline of surface passenger transportation. Decisionmakers and the public alike recognize that the current conditions such as: the geographica l constraints of the urbanized area; the shift in urban demographic compositi o n due to "white flighf'; a highway corridor that is becoming increasingly congested; and the development of major activity centers such as the world's largest land based casino and a 20,000 seat sports arena, 49


require the fonnulation of transportation solutions that address the interrelationships of economic development, land system networkslintennodal connections and social condijions. These relationships should become integral elements of all future transportation projects for New Orleans. The City has demonstrated, quite how to leverage transportation investments through joint developments and planning methods that take full advantage of dense and compact downtown area. Other policies such as those in the New Century New Orleans Master Policy Plan ( 1992), which support the Comprehensive Plan (currently under development) and in tum, the specific policies for the zoning ordinance, will provide guidance for the future development of the regional as well as the transportation networ1<. The following policies address guideway and intennodal issues from the perspective: Reduce auto congestion through effective land use planning that strengthens the role of transit and other alternative to drive alone vehicles. Address highway constraints by increasing the role of ridesharing. Implement pari< and ride at strategic locations. Strengthen the regional role of transij through capijal improvements and increased transij options. Build cooperation between the parishes. Enhance the transportation system to improve access to and movement within the Central Business District. Link pedestrian, bicycle, transij, and transportation routes as components of the recreational system. Maximize the economic development of the Central Business District by providing a welcoming environment for everyone. Provide for rapid rail into the Central Business District from outlying areas. Provide for a multi-modal transij station that minimizes transfers. These policies represent the preliminary framewor1< for addressing intennodalism within Orleans Parish As the City moves toward a more formalized planning process, the specific strategies that evolve from these policies will prove to be cmical links in the development of future streetcarnighl rail projects. 50


Gulchlway Transit and lntiNmodaJism: Function and Effectivetrus The Regional Transit Authority arid' Regional Planning Commission/Metropolitan Planning Organization have expressed similar goals, and their current development ventures for guideway complement the City's efforts. Much of RTA's success can be attributed to the incrementa l approach it has taken toward implementing what will hopefully become a major intermodal guideway system. Unlike many existing and proposed guideway projects, RTA's streetcar projects are entirely located in one jurisdiction-Orleans Parish. As a result, the intergovernmental coordination process is greatly streamlined. Another observation of the planning approach is that RTA has not extended or expanded streetcar service unless the ridership existed. Although this is not a novel practice, it is unique in that RTA's focus has been on serving what is considered by conventional standards small, limited areas with specialized populations such as tourists, neighborhood residents, and businesses. The City's distinctive and compact arrangement of districts and neighborhoods lends itself well to this approach. The challenges that lay ahead for RTA revolve around the plans to implement a sub regional light rail system that will extend beyond Orleans Parish to the airport and outlying areas to serve a broader market area and on RTA assuming the role as a truly regional interrnodal authority. 51




Guldflway Transit and ltttetmodal/.sm: Function and EHoctiveneas Appendix A The New Ort&ans 1988 Streetcar Renovation Project (Funded by the Federal Transit Administration) The following information was derived from the Regional Transit Authority's summary of the Perley Thomas Streetcar Renovation project. MECHANICAL MODIFICATIONS Air Compressors: New heads were obtained utilizing readi ly available reed valves. Armature and field coils were replaced with improved coils, updati ng the insulation to increase life and reliability. Trucks: Long wearing Nylatron and other self-lubricating plastics were used in high wear areas to increase life and reduce maintenance costs. New self-adjusting slack adjusters were installed to replace malfunctioning original equipment. A new type brake shoe was installed to reduce maintenance and ensure availability. Traction Motors: Antifriction ball and roller bearings replaced old journal bearings for the armature shaft, thereby reducing replacement costs and down time. Wick-type lubrication was installed in the saddle bearings system to reduce wear and to ensure a continuous supply of lubrication. Auxiliary Power: An auxi liary power supply was added to provide 110 volt AC and 12 volt DC power. This reduces wear on the air compressors by removing the load of the old 12 volt alternators on the compressors. It also increases vehicle reliability by providing a continuous source of 12 volt power independent of the air compressor. Safety: The vestibules of the streetcar were redesigned to meet the 2 "G" requirement of the Federal Transit Administration, the federal agency that funds mass transit. New exane-type wiring was used to rewire the cars. Single-strength glass was replaced with tempe re d safety glass and Lexan. BODY RENOVATIONS Working with preservationists, the RTA returned to the classic app earance of the streetcar by changing certain design and color elements. All exterior and interior body work was completed in the Carrollton shop by the talented craftsmen and artisans employed there. Exterior: The exterior of the streetcar now appears more like it did In the 1920's. The black rubber window gaskets were replaced with beveled aluminum frames with square 53


comers. The tra d itional olive g r een body was retained while the color of the doors and window sashes were retumed to a red oxide. The roof has been a variety of colors over ti me, so a color was selected that was analogous to the olive green. The yellow s i gns added in the 1960's were replaced with s liver type and pin-strip i ng, a graph i c style more compatible w ith the orig i nal appearance. Interior: The orig inal heart of pine tongue-and-groove flooring was rep l aced with a plywood substrate and an oak tongue-and-groove top floor to reduce maintenance Wooden floor supports were placed with steel beams to reduce maintenance. The floors are painted gray, in keeping with the origina l color scheme. Walls and bulkheads are red oxide color, whi l e the roof remains white. The yellow signs were rep l aced with white type on the red oxide walls. The handmade mahogany seats were rebuilt and refinished, using as much of the original wood as was salvageable 54


Guldoway Transi t and lntenn<>



Guldew.y Transit and ln1.errnodallsm: Function and ElfectlwJness References Babbitt, Robert Thomas. Transit Supply Behavior and Political Influences. 1984. Berechman, J. and Paa swell R. E. "Rail Rapid Transit Investment and CBD Revitalization: Methodology and Results." Report Number UCI-JTS-SP-82-4 Irvine CA: California University, Irvine, Institute of Transportation Studies. 1982. Cervera, Robert. "Light Rail Transit and Urban Development Journal of the American Planning Association 50(2). City of New Orleans, City Planning Commission. "Master Policy Plan for New Orleans." June 1992. City of New Orleans, City Planning Commission. Land Use Plan. 1980. HopKins, George D. "Tchoupitoulas Corridor." A presentation at the National Conference on lntermodallsm, sponsored by the Transportation Research Board, New Orleans, LA. January 1995. Kunz, Richard. "The Crescent City Looklng Forward." Passanger Train Journal, 1619 1991 Regional Planning Commission, Annual Transportation Report : 1994. Regional Transit Authority. "Canal Street Corridor Project -Scop lng Document." June 1994. Regional Transit Authority. "Canal Street Corridor Project -Major Investment Study." March 1995. Regional Transit Authority. "Canal Engineering and Design St. Charles S1reetcar Line Revitalization March 1985. Regional Transit Authority. "New Orleans Union Passenger Terrn inai-S1rategic P l an May 1994. 57


Regional Transit Authority "New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal Current Conditions Report." March 1995 "st. Charles Streetcar Renova t ion Nearly Complete New Orleans Now Looks at Cana l Street. "Passenger Transport, June 1 994. State of Louisiana Department of Transporta1ion and Development. "Statewide lntermoda l Transportation Plan Draft ", January 1993 U S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960 1990, Summary File 3C (STF 3C) United States Summary Urban i zed Area and Their Componen t s 1990 Urban Land Institute. "Canal StreetNew Orleans Aprll1989 58


Regional Transit Authority "New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal Current Conditions Report." March 1995 "st. Charles Streetcar Renova t ion Nearly Complete New Orleans Now Looks at Cana l Street. "Passenger Transport, June 1 994. State of Louisiana Department of Transporta1ion and Development. "Statewide lntermoda l Transportation Plan Draft ", January 1993 U S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960 1990, Summary File 3C (STF 3C) United States Summary Urban i zed Area and Their Componen t s 1990 Urban Land Institute. "Canal StreetNew Orleans Aprll1989 58


Download Options


  • info Info

    There are both PDF(s) and Images(s) associated with this resource.

  • link PDF(s)

  • link Image(s)

    <- This image

    Choose Size
    Choose file type

Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.