TR Circular E-C058_9th LRT Conference_2003.pdf - Florida ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

406 Transportation Research Circular E-C058: 9th National Light Rail Transit Conference The relocation of the PSEG cables in the tunnel was a joint effort between FKSB and PSEG. FKSB prepared the trench. PSEG then laid the new conduits and FKSB installed the steel reinforcing and poured the concrete for the ductbank. After the duckbank installation was complete, PSEG placed the cables, one ductbank at a time. The cables in the second ductbank were not installed until the first set of cables were installed and up and running. This work was started in October 2002 and completed in January 2003. The work on the elevator shaft vertical bore was started in December 2002. The initial work was the drilling of an 8 in. (20.3 cm) pilot hole from the surface to the tunnel crown. After the completion of the pilot hole, an 8-ft (2.4 m) diameter raise bore was drilled from the tunnel crown to the surface plaza. This work was done in January 2003. The enlargement of the shaft to final outside diameter of 42 ft (12.8 m) was completed in August 2003. This was done in maximum blast sections of 8 ft (2.4 m). After blasting immediate support in the new shaft comprised systematic epoxy-coated-cemented grouted rock dowels, welded were mesh and 4 in. (10 cm) of steel-fiber reinforced wet mix Shotcrete. In the first quarter of 2003, the rock excavation at the plaza level began and work progressed in filling the existing open construction shaft. Work on removal of the brick lining and blasting for enlargement of the tunnel began in April 2003. The rock from the plaza blasting operation is key pushed through the raise bore shaft and removed via the tunnel. In June 2003, drill and blast excavation of the station transition zone started. Future Construction The current N30 schedule calls for the following milestone dates: Targeted Milestone Baseline Schedule Complete all blasting 12/03 Signal Room complete to Allow Work by Signal Contractor 10/04 Release Tunnel, Station, and Plaza for Systems Work 10/04 Complete Trackwork 1/05 Complete Headhouse, Utility Building, and Plaza 1/05 Complete Station 12/04 Complete All Work 1/05 This work, upon its completion, will allow the vision of the early railroaders of providing access through the Palisades to continue. The revenue ready status of HBLR MOS-2 Phase 2B, which includes Design Unit N30, is scheduled at this time for June, 2005 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writers would like to thank NJ Transit for its support in the preparation of this paper and Anna Parciak for the word processing of the document.
CIVIL DESIGN Floating Slab Trackbed Design to Control Groundborne Noise from Newark–Elizabeth Rail Link Light Rail Transit N RICHARD A. CARMAN Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. PETER SMOLUCHOWSKI URS Corporation HARVEY L. BERLINER Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas J Transit is in the process of final design for the Newark–Elizabeth Rail Link (NERL) project, a new light rail transit alignment that will connect with the existing Newark City subway system. A regional Performing Arts Center is adjacent to a portion of the new rail alignment and at some point in the future, the Performing Arts Center may also construct a concert hall directly adjacent to the new rail line. Detailed analysis of the potential for groundborne noise from ground vibration generated by light rail vehicles was performed by Wilson, Ihrig and Associates, Inc. (WIA) working with the BRW/Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) Joint Venture team. WIA determined the track support system adopted for the NERL project would result in higher levels of groundborne noise than appropriate for the Performing Arts Center. The goal of the team’s work was to determine an effective mitigation measure, which would control ground vibration and avoid interference from groundborne noise. The tracks will be at-grade and accessible by the public which was a significant consideration. Different track support systems were evaluated for their effectiveness in resolving the issues. A sealed floating slab system was selected as the most effective and offered ultimate protection should the concert hall be built at a later date. A unique construction technique developed by BRW/PB Joint Venture and KS Engineers for the concrete slabs supporting the track will also be presented. INTRODUCTION The Newark–Elizabeth Rail Link (NERL) Minimum Operable Segment 1 (MOS-1) is an approximately 1-mi, four-station extension of the Newark City Subway (NCS) that is currently being constructed by NJ Transit in downtown Newark, New Jersey. The NCS extension or NERL MOS-1 connects Newark’s Penn Station on the Northeast Corridor with Newark’s Broad Street Station on the Morris and Essex Lines as shown Figure 1. Between these two commuter rail stations the NERL MOS-1 runs through Newark’s Arts District servicing the Washington Park office area, the Newark Art Museum, Newark Library, Riverfront Baseball Stadium, and the New Jersey Performing Arts Center (NJPAC). The NJPAC is a $180-million performance center with two theaters that opened in October 1997. The opening of the NJPAC marked the return of Newark as a regional cultural 407
Page 1 and 2:
9 th National Light Rail Transit Co
Page 3 and 4:
E Foreword xperience, Economics and
Page 5 and 6:
Contents OPENING GENERAL SESSION St
Page 7 and 8:
Shared-Use Corridors: A Survey of C
Page 9:
LIGHT RAIL ELECTRIFICATION Feederle
Page 13 and 14:
T OPENING GENERAL SESSION Status of
Page 15 and 16:
Schumann and Loetterle 5 SEATTLE/TA
Page 17 and 18:
Schumann and Loetterle 7 Current Co
Page 19 and 20:
Schumann and Loetterle 9 Current Co
Page 21 and 22:
Schumann and Loetterle 11 Current C
Page 23 and 24:
Schumann and Loetterle 13 In early
Page 25 and 26:
Schumann and Loetterle 15 CALGARY F
Page 27 and 28:
Schumann and Loetterle 17 9. http:/
Page 29 and 30:
TABLE 3 Right of Way Locations km o
Page 31 and 32:
TABLE 5 Revenue Service Vehicles Ch
Page 33 and 34:
PLANNING AND FORECASTING FOR LIGHT
Page 35 and 36:
Thompson 27 These ideas appealed to
Page 37 and 38:
Thompson 29 beginning, however, tha
Page 39 and 40:
Thompson 31 in the interviews becau
Page 41 and 42:
Thompson 33 San Diego San Diego was
Page 43 and 44:
Thompson 35 to the National Confere
Page 45 and 46:
S PLANNING AND FORECASTING FOR LIGH
Page 47 and 48:
Day and Stauder 39 Pre-1996 Transpo
Page 49 and 50:
Day and Stauder 41 part of the gene
Page 51 and 52:
Day and Stauder 43 Comparability Ac
Page 53 and 54:
Kaplan, Englisher, and Warner 45 PR
Page 55 and 56:
Washington Park Fairview Heights Me
Page 57 and 58:
FIGURE 3 TAZ splits in St. Clair Co
Page 59 and 60:
Kaplan, Englisher, and Warner 51 lo
Page 61 and 62:
Kaplan, Englisher, and Warner 53 to
Page 63 and 64:
Kaplan, Englisher, and Warner 55 No
Page 65 and 66:
Kaplan, Englisher, and Warner 57 Co
Page 67 and 68:
Straus and Watry 59 then, Muni has
Page 69 and 70:
Straus and Watry 61 Various factors
Page 71 and 72:
Straus and Watry 63 Francisco Count
Page 73 and 74:
Straus and Watry 65 where it would
Page 75 and 76:
Straus and Watry 67 require lifting
Page 77 and 78:
Straus and Watry 69 TABLE 2 In-Vehi
Page 79 and 80:
Straus and Watry 71 FIGURE 5 Bay Vi
Page 81 and 82:
Straus and Watry 73 LESSONS LEARNED
Page 83 and 84:
Marchwinski, Spitz, and Adler 75 BA
Page 85 and 86:
Marchwinski, Spitz, and Adler 77 re
Page 87 and 88:
Marchwinski, Spitz, and Adler 79 QU
Page 89 and 90:
Marchwinski, Spitz, and Adler 81 St
Page 91 and 92:
Marchwinski, Spitz, and Adler 83 TA
Page 93 and 94:
Marchwinski, Spitz, and Adler 85 It
Page 96 and 97:
LOW-FLOOR LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES Struc
Page 98 and 99:
Sarunac and Zeolla 91 STRUCTURAL ST
Page 100 and 101:
Sarunac and Zeolla 93 LRV-LFE DESIG
Page 102 and 103:
Sarunac and Zeolla 95 The values no
Page 104 and 105:
Sarunac and Zeolla 97 to evaluate a
Page 106 and 107:
Sarunac and Zeolla 99 TABLE 1 Summa
Page 108 and 109:
Sarunac and Zeolla 101 Comparison o
Page 110 and 111:
Sarunac and Zeolla 103 approach, ap
Page 112 and 113:
Morgan 105 concept can be readily i
Page 114 and 115:
Morgan 107 DART LRVs are all relati
Page 116 and 117:
Morgan 109 trailer truck with 4-dis
Page 118 and 119:
Morgan 111 Conclusion Because of th
Page 120 and 121:
Morgan 113 TABLE 1 Comparison of Se
Page 122 and 123:
Morgan 115 After the real estate, t
Page 124 and 125:
Morgan 117 Fleet Maintenance Standa
Page 126 and 127:
LOW-FLOOR LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES Integ
Page 128 and 129:
Fraser, Leary, Marianeschi, and Pel
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138:
Page 142 and 143:
D LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AND OTHER MODE
Page 144 and 145:
McBrayer 137 As of September 2002,
Page 146 and 147:
McBrayer 139 Understandable Route T
Page 148 and 149:
McBrayer 141 and reward investment
Page 150 and 151:
McBrayer 143 The results of this ap
Page 152 and 153:
McBrayer 145 of transit improvement
Page 154:
McBrayer 147 system, the use of ali
Page 158 and 159:
A LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT TRAFFIC ENGINE
Page 160 and 161:
Boorse 153 use could be problematic
Page 162 and 163:
Boorse 155 Section 10C.10—Do Not
Page 164 and 165:
Boorse 157 purpose. In fact, to the
Page 166 and 167:
Boorse 159 (a) (b) FIGURE 3 Figures
Page 168 and 169:
Boorse 161 Section 10D.05—Traffic
Page 170 and 171:
Boorse 163 (a) (b) FIGURE 4 Example
Page 172 and 173:
Boorse 165 practices. This resulted
Page 174 and 175:
Black 167 FIGURE 1 Hudson-Bergen LR
Page 176 and 177:
Black 169 Return Phases may also be
Page 178 and 179:
Black 171 FIGURE 5 Naztec preemptio
Page 180 and 181:
Black 173 FIGURE 8 Split times cann
Page 182 and 183:
Koonce, Urbanik, and Mishra 175 inh
Page 184 and 185:
Koonce, Urbanik, and Mishra 177 EXI
Page 186 and 187:
Koonce, Urbanik, and Mishra 179 TAB
Page 188 and 189:
Koonce, Urbanik, and Mishra 181 FIG
Page 190 and 191:
Koonce, Urbanik, and Mishra 183 (a)
Page 192:
Koonce, Urbanik, and Mishra 185 CON
Page 196 and 197:
O LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AND TRANSIT-OR
Page 198 and 199:
Arrington 191 FIGURE 2 Eastside Vil
Page 200 and 201:
Arrington 193 restricted to propert
Page 202 and 203:
Arrington 195 Portland’s Westside
Page 204 and 205:
Arrington 197 FIGURE 4 Orenco Stati
Page 206 and 207:
Arrington 199 FIGURE 5 America Plaz
Page 208 and 209:
Arrington 201 with 2,600 units. Und
Page 210 and 211:
Arrington 203 TABLE 2 Ten Steps to
Page 212 and 213:
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AND TRANSIT-ORIE
Page 214 and 215:
Fitzsimmons and Birch 207 FIGURE 1
Page 216 and 217:
Fitzsimmons and Birch 209 pockets o
Page 218 and 219:
Fitzsimmons and Birch 211 The Futur
Page 220 and 221:
Fitzsimmons and Birch 213 The state
Page 222 and 223:
M LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AND TRANSIT-OR
Page 224 and 225:
H UNTERSPOINTSHIPYARD Beatty 217 H
Page 226 and 227:
HUNTERS POINT EXPWY Beatty 219 WILL
Page 228 and 229:
Beatty 221 an attractive alternativ
Page 230 and 231:
Beatty 223 Bayshore Boulevard at Su
Page 232 and 233:
Beatty 225 secondary bus type. The
Page 234 and 235:
Beatty 227 SUNNYDALE AVENUE Platfor
Page 236 and 237:
Beatty 229 SUNNYDALE AVENUE 18' 12'
Page 238 and 239:
Beatty 231 The Southern Terminal is
Page 240 and 241:
Edwards and Phillips 233 means for
Page 242 and 243:
Edwards and Phillips 235 Road corri
Page 244 and 245:
Edwards and Phillips 237 viable nei
Page 246 and 247:
Edwards and Phillips 239 recreation
Page 248 and 249:
Edwards and Phillips 241 bridge). T
Page 250 and 251:
Edwards and Phillips 243 Additional
Page 252 and 253:
Edwards and Phillips 245 • Serve
Page 254 and 255:
Edwards and Phillips 247 • Ensure
Page 256 and 257:
CROSSINGS AND SHARED CORRIDORS “L
Page 258 and 259:
Ames and Gamlen 253
Page 260 and 261:
TABLE 1 Third Street LRT Project Ra
Page 262 and 263:
Ames and Gamlen 257 Condition Freig
Page 264 and 265:
Ames and Gamlen 259 TABLE 2 Third S
Page 266 and 267:
Ames and Gamlen 261 where the light
Page 268 and 269:
Ames and Gamlen 263 Table 4 shows t
Page 270 and 271:
Ames and Gamlen 265 CONCLUSION Impl
Page 272 and 273:
Irwin 267 recommendations. TriMet
Page 274 and 275:
Irwin 269 TRIMET STANDARDS TriMet h
Page 276 and 277:
Irwin 271 FIGURE 2 Pedestrian warni
Page 278 and 279:
Irwin 273 Channeling Figure 4 detai
Page 280 and 281:
Irwin 275 FIGURE 5 Typical crossing
Page 282 and 283:
Irwin 277 The disadvantages of swin
Page 284 and 285:
Irwin 279 FIGURE 8 Standard detail
Page 286 and 287:
Irwin 281 FIGURE 9 Audible or visua
Page 288 and 289:
Irwin 283 . FIGURE 10 Audible or vi
Page 290 and 291:
Irwin 285 In general, ODOT Rail dis
Page 292 and 293:
Irwin 287 FIGURE 12 Pedestrian sigh
Page 294 and 295:
CROSSINGS AND SHARED CORRIDORS Reso
Page 296 and 297:
Ryan, Rabiner, and Trumbull 291 The
Page 298 and 299:
Ryan, Rabiner, and Trumbull 293 FIG
Page 300 and 301:
Ryan, Rabiner, and Trumbull 295 The
Page 302 and 303:
Ryan, Rabiner, and Trumbull 297 FIG
Page 304 and 305:
Ryan, Rabiner, and Trumbull 299 REF
Page 306 and 307:
Sela, Resor, and Hickey 301 opportu
Page 308 and 309:
Sela, Resor, and Hickey 303 TABLE 1
Page 310 and 311:
City Atlanta Baltimore Operating Ag
Page 312 and 313:
TABLE 2 (continued) Transit Systems
Page 314 and 315:
Sela, Resor, and Hickey 309 Time Se
Page 316 and 317:
Sela, Resor, and Hickey 311 Grade C
Page 318 and 319:
Sela, Resor, and Hickey 313 records
Page 320 and 321:
Sela, Resor, and Hickey 315 recomme
Page 323 and 324:
CRITIQUES: HOW ARE WE DOING? Riders
Page 325 and 326:
Polzin and Page 321 NTD ID TABLE 1
Page 327 and 328:
Polzin and Page 323 35 30 Ridership
Page 329 and 330:
Polzin and Page 325 As an indicatio
Page 331 and 332:
D allas TX Denver CO 100 100 80 80
Page 333 and 334:
Polzin and Page 329 Passengers per
Page 335 and 336:
Polzin and Page 331 TABLE 3 Percent
Page 337 and 338:
Polzin and Page 333 Figure 10 graph
Page 339 and 340:
Polzin and Page 335 3500 Passenger
Page 341 and 342:
Polzin and Page 337 productivity tr
Page 343 and 344:
Cooper and Furmaniak 339 PROJECT OV
Page 345 and 346:
Cooper and Furmaniak 341 less than
Page 347 and 348:
Cooper and Furmaniak 343 substation
Page 349 and 350:
Cooper and Furmaniak 345 120,000 10
Page 351 and 352:
Cooper and Furmaniak 347 failures,
Page 353 and 354:
Cooper and Furmaniak 349 creatively
Page 355 and 356:
D CRITIQUES: HOW ARE WE DOING? Peak
Page 357 and 358:
Demery and Higgins 353 The finding
Page 359 and 360: Demery and Higgins 355 TABLE 1 Regr
Page 361 and 362: Demery and Higgins 357 TABLE 3 Regr
Page 363 and 364: Demery and Higgins 359 have to be s
Page 365 and 366: Demery and Higgins 361 regularly ex
Page 367 and 368: Demery and Higgins 363 passengers (
Page 369 and 370: Demery and Higgins 365 92-ft (28-m)
Page 371 and 372: Demery and Higgins 367 NOTES 1. The
Page 373 and 374: Demery and Higgins 369 18. Moore, J
Page 375 and 376: M CRITIQUES: HOW ARE WE DOING? Ligh
Page 377 and 378: Henry 373 SUCCESS MEANS FAILURE? De
Page 379 and 380: Henry 375 trolley car” for their
Page 381 and 382: Henry 377 Cox’s claims appear to
Page 383 and 384: Henry 379 ATTACK ON SMART GROWTH AN
Page 385 and 386: Henry 381 But another question is r
Page 387 and 388: Henry 383 FIGURE 1 Average proporti
Page 389: Henry 385 REFERENCES 1. Layton, Lyn
Page 393 and 394: CIVIL DESIGN Design and Constructio
Page 395 and 396: Berliner, Campo, Dickerson, and Mac
Page 409: Berliner, Campo, Dickerson, and Mac
Page 413 and 414: Carman, Smoluchowski, and Berliner
Page 421 and 422: FIGURE 5 Plan view of NERL MOS-1 FS
Page 425 and 426: CIVIL DESIGN Fitting Light Rail Tra
Page 427 and 428: Emili, Spadaccino, Risoldi, Tuzi, a
Page 429 and 430: FIGURE 3 Aerial view of the constru
Page 433 and 434: FIGURE 6 Piazza Vittorio Emanuele u
Page 435 and 436: FIGURE 8 Vibration measurement resu
Page 439 and 440: FIGURE 11 Side and central precast
Page 441 and 442: T CIVIL DESIGN Embedded Track Desig
Page 443 and 444: FIGURE 1 Configuration 1: Rail full
Page 445 and 446: Daniels 441 Configuration 2: Rail o
Page 447 and 448: FIGURE 4 Idealizations for modeling
Page 449 and 450: Daniels 445 Results Available from
Page 451 and 452: Note: Fatigue life is calculated on
Page 453 and 454: 35 Note: Fatigue life is calculated
Page 455 and 456: Daniels 451 Pressures: Rail Support
Page 457 and 458: 12 10 Slab Pressure on Ground Suppo
Page 459 and 460: RAIL UPLIFT FORCE FROM THERMAL EFFE
Page 461 and 462:
Daniels 457 SUMMARY Analysis of emb
Page 463 and 464:
T CIVIL DESIGN Debate of At-Grade V
Page 465 and 466:
Li and Tertadian 461 \ FIGURE 1 Exp
Page 467 and 468:
Li and Tertadian 463 FIGURE 2 Exist
Page 469 and 470:
Li and Tertadian 465 navigability.
Page 471 and 472:
Li and Tertadian 467 being consider
Page 473:
Li and Tertadian 469 TABLE 1 Estima
Page 476 and 477:
474 Transportation Research Circula
Page 478 and 479:
Page 480 and 481:
Page 482 and 483:
Page 484 and 485:
Page 486 and 487:
Page 488 and 489:
Page 490 and 491:
Page 492 and 493:
Page 494 and 495:
Page 496 and 497:
Page 498 and 499:
Page 500 and 501:
Page 502 and 503:
Page 504 and 505:
Page 506 and 507:
Page 508 and 509:
Page 510 and 511:
Page 512 and 513:
Page 514 and 515:
Page 516 and 517:
OPERATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS From
Page 518 and 519:
Swiecick, Van Dyke, and O’Connor
Page 520 and 521:
Page 522 and 523:
Page 524 and 525:
Page 526 and 527:
Page 528 and 529:
Page 530 and 531:
P OPERATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Imp
Page 532 and 533:
Page 534 and 535:
Page 536:
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Page 539 and 540:
Page 541 and 542:
Page 543 and 544:
Page 545 and 546:
Page 547 and 548:
Page 549 and 550:
Page 551 and 552:
Page 553 and 554:
Page 555 and 556:
Page 557 and 558:
Page 559 and 560:
Page 561 and 562:
Page 563 and 564:
Page 565 and 566:
Page 567 and 568:
Page 569 and 570:
Page 571 and 572:
Page 573 and 574:
Page 575 and 576:
Page 577 and 578:
PROJECT MANAGEMENT Design-Build Con
Page 579 and 580:
Page 581 and 582:
Page 584:
PORTLAND POSTER SESSION
Page 587 and 588:
Page 589 and 590:
Page 591 and 592:
Page 593 and 594:
Page 595 and 596:
Page 597 and 598:
Page 599 and 600:
Page 601 and 602:
Page 603 and 604:
T PORTLAND POSTER SESSION Special P
Page 605 and 606:
Page 607 and 608:
Page 609 and 610:
Page 611 and 612:
Page 613 and 614:
Page 615 and 616:
Page 617 and 618:
Page 619 and 620:
Page 621 and 622:
Page 623 and 624:
Page 625 and 626:
Page 627 and 628:
Page 629 and 630:
Page 631 and 632:
Page 633 and 634:
Page 635 and 636:
Page 638:
LIGHT RAIL ELECTRIFICATION
Page 641 and 642:
Page 643 and 644:
Page 645 and 646:
Page 647 and 648:
Page 649 and 650:
Page 651 and 652:
LIGHT RAIL ELECTRIFICATION Operatio
Page 653 and 654:
Page 655 and 656:
Page 657 and 658:
Page 659 and 660:
Page 661 and 662:
Page 663 and 664:
Page 665 and 666:
Page 667 and 668:
Page 669 and 670:
Page 671 and 672:
Page 673 and 674:
Page 675 and 676:
Page 677 and 678:
Page 679 and 680:
L LIGHT RAIL ELECTRIFICATION Built-
Page 681 and 682:
Page 683 and 684:
Page 685 and 686:
Page 687 and 688:
Page 689 and 690:
Page 691 and 692:
Page 693 and 694:
Page 695 and 696:
Page 697 and 698:
T LIGHT RAIL ELECTRIFICATION One Br
Page 699 and 700:
FIGURE 1 Light rail in Portland.
Page 701 and 702:
Page 703 and 704:
Page 705 and 706:
Page 707 and 708:
FIGURE 2 Voltage profile.
Page 709 and 710:
Page 711 and 712:
Page 713 and 714:
Page 715 and 716:
Page 717 and 718:
Page 719 and 720:
Page 721 and 722:
Page 723 and 724:
Page 725 and 726:
Page 727 and 728:
Page 729 and 730:
Page 731 and 732:
Page 733 and 734:
Page 735 and 736:
Page 737 and 738:
Page 739 and 740:
Page 741 and 742:
Page 743 and 744:
Page 745 and 746:
Page 747 and 748:
Page 749 and 750:
Page 751 and 752:
Page 753 and 754:
Page 755 and 756:
Page 757 and 758:
Page 759 and 760:
Page 761 and 762:
Page 763 and 764:
Page 765 and 766:
Page 767 and 768:
Page 769 and 770:
Page 771 and 772:
Page 773 and 774:
Page 775 and 776:
Page 777 and 778:
Page 779 and 780:
Page 781 and 782:
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2003
Page 783 and 784:
Officers George F. Dixon, III, Chai
Page 785:
APTA Officers and Board of Director
Page 788 and 789:
The National Academy of Sciences is
show all

TR Circular E-C058_9th LRT Conference_2003.pdf - Florida ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?