A whole-system approach to evaluating urban transit investments

Transport Reviews

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 141-179

  Richmond, Jonathan ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INVESTMENT; RAILWAY TRANSPORT; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING; URBAN TRANSPORT;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0035013645     PISSN: 01441647     EISSN: 14645327     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01441640116962     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. APTA (American Public Transit Association), 1990, OffTrack, Response of the American Public Transit Association and the Transit Industry to the UMTA Report ‘Urban Rail Transit Projects: Forecast Versus Actual Ridership and Costs (Washington, DC: APTA).
2. Arrington, G. B., 1995, Beyond the field of dreams: light rail and growth management in Portland. In Seventh National Conference on Light Rail Transit, Vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, September), pp. 42-51.
3. Baltimore Metropolitan Council, 1994, Central Light Rail Survey, Vol. 1: Methodology and Results. Cornelius Nuworsoo, Project Manager. Task Report 94-2.
4. Beach, C., 1995, Sacramento Regional Transit’s Light Rail: approaching middle age. In Seventh National Conference on Light Rail Transit, Vol. 1, (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board), vol. 1: pp. 15-20.
5. Biehler, A. D., 1988, Exclusive busway versus light rail: a comparison of new fixed guideways. In Light Rail Transit: New System Successes at Affordable Prices. Special Report 221 (Washington, DC: Transport Research Board), pp. 89-98.
6. Bi-State Development Agency, 1996a, 1996 Annual Report. St. Louis, MO.
7. Bi-State Development Agency, 1996b, Quarterly Performance Indicators, Period Ending June, 1996.
8. Buckstein, S., 1996, Top Ten Light Rail Myths [http://www.cascadepolicy.org/transit/topten.htm] (Cascade Policy Institute), 30 January.
9. Caltrans, 1981, Long Beach to Los Angeles Light Rail Transit Feasibility Study (Los Angeles: (California Department of Transportation District 7-Public Transportation Branch).
10. Crain & Associates, Inc., 1985, Martin Luther King Jr. East Busway-Background and Description, March.
11. Cunneen, M. J., n.d., Max, Lies and Videotapes: How ‘Oregonians for Roads and Rails’ is Lying to Oregonians to Sell the Measure 32 Gravy Train (Portland, OR).
12. DeLeuw Cather, 1976, Comparative Analysis Study of Alternative Transit Systems South Hills Corridor. Prepared for the Port Authority of Allegheny County, PA.
13. Dunphy, R. T., 1995, Review of recent American light rail experiences. In Seventh National Conference on Light Rail Transit, Vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board), pp. 104-113.
14. FHWA/Odot US Department Of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Oregon Department of Transportation, 1978, Banfield Transitway Project, Multnomah County, Oregon. Administrative Action. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, February 13.
15. GOmez-IbANez, J. A. 1985, A dark side to light rail?. Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer, 337-351.
16. Henk, R. H., Morris, D. E. and Christiansen, D. L. 1995, An Evaluation of High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes in Texas, 1994. Report FHWA/TX-96/1353-3 (College Station: Texas Transportation Institute).
17. Howell Research Group, 1995a, Regional Transportation District I-25/Broadway Park-n-Ride Survey, March.
18. Howell Research Group, 1995b, Regional Transportation District Light Rail Passenger Survey, May.
19. Kain, J. F., Gittell, R., Daniere, A., Daniel, S., Somerville, T. and Zhi, L., 1992, Increasing the Productivity of the Nation’s Urban Transportation Infrastructure. Measures to Increase Transit Use and Carpooling. Final Report (Washington, DC: University Research and Training Program, Federal Transit Administration), January.
20. Kain, J. F. and Liu, Z., 1995, Secrets of Success: How Houston and San Diego Transit Providers Achieved Large Increases in Transit Ridership. Prepared for Federal Transit Administration, May.
21. LACTC (Los Angeles County Transportation Commision), 1984, The Long Beach-Los Angeles Rail Transit Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report (Los Angeles: LACTC), May.
22. LACTC, 1985, The Long Beach-Los Angeles Rail Transit Project, Final Environmental Impact Report (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Transportation Commission), March.
23. Lieberman, W., 1986, Illuminating the dark side of light rail. Letter to the editor. Journal of the American Planning Association, 87-89.
24. Mass Transit Administration, Maryland Department Of Transportation, 1988, Environmental Effects Report for the Central Light Rail Line.
25. McSpedon, E., 1989, Building light rail transit in existing rail corridors-panacea or nightmare? The Los Angeles experience. In Light Rail Transit, New System Successes at Affordable Prices. Special Report 221 (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board), pp. 426-441.
26. Metro (Houston), 1997, Summary of HOV Lane Development and Rail Studies in Houston.
27. Mills, J. R. and Larwin, T. F., 1988, The San Diego Light Rail Transit program. Transit Australia, March, 43-50.
28. MTA (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority), 1996a, Facts At A Glance (Los Angeles: MTA), February.
29. MTA, 1996b, The Metro Green Line turns one. News release (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority), August 12.
30. MTA, 1996c, Response to data request from Supervisor Antonovich’s office (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority), September 13.
31. MTA, 1996d, Memorandum to Supervisor Antonovich’s office (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority), November 1.
32. MTDB, 1990, Metropolitan San Diego, Short Range Transit Plan, FY1991-1995 (San Diego: Metropolitan Transit Development Board).
33. Mundle & Associates, Inc., 1986, Review of Transportes Amarillo y Rosa. Prepared for the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board.
34. NFTA (Niagra Frontier Transportation Authority, Buffalo), 1987, Light Rail Rapid Transit System. Memorandum of light rail capital cost estimates, ridership forecasts, fleet size and running times (projected vs. actual).
35. OC Transpo, 1997, Comparison of express service network with the extended hub and spoke service design for peak period services. Appendix E, Memorandum from General Manager to Members of the Commission. April 10.
36. Padron & Associates, 1990, Blue Line FY1991 Budget (Revised). Letter from Manuel Padron to Sharon Neely, LACTC. Atlanta, GA, June 26.
37. Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas, 1982, Summary Report, The Los Angeles-Long Beach Light Rail Project and Evaluation of Other Rapid Transit Opportunities (Santa Ana: Parsons, Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas).
38. Pat (Port Authority Of Allegheny County), 1996, Light Rail and Busway Statistical Overview (Based on Fiscal Year 1995 Operations), May.
39. Pickrell, D., 1990, Urban Rail Transit Projects: Forecast Versus Actual Ridership and Cost (Washington, DC: Office of Grants Management, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, US Department of Transportation), October.
40. Post, B., 1988, Interoffice Memorandum to R. Higbee, D. Porter and G. Arrington on the subject of‘US DOT Banfield Visit’. Tri-Met, September 16.
41. Richmond, J. E. D., 1991, Transport of delight-the mythical conception of rail transit in Los Angeles. Doctoral dissertation, Massachussets institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
42. Richmond, J. E. D., 1998a, Simplicity and complexity in design for transportation systems and urban forms. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(3), 220-230.
43. Richmond, J. E. D., 1998b, New rail transit investments-a review. A. Alfred Taubman Center for State and Local Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
44. Richmond, J. E. D., 1998c, The mythical conception of rail transit in Los Angeles. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 15(4), 294-320.
45. Rossetti, M. A. and Eversole, B. S., 1993, Journey to Work Trends in the USA and Its Major Metropolitan Areas, 1960-1990. FHWA-PL-94-012 (Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration).
46. RT (Sacramento Regional Transit District), 1987, Sacramento Light Rail Overview.
47. RT, 1993, Sacramento Regional Transit District Transit Master Plan, october 25.
48. Sandag (San Diego Association Of Governments), 1991, 1990 San Diego Regional Transit Survey, vol. 1, October.
49. Schumann, J. W. and Tidrick, S. R., 1995, Status of North American light rail systems: 1995 update. In Seventh National Conference on Light Rail Transit (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board), vol. 1, pp. 314.
50. SCRTD (Southern California Rapid Transit District), 1990, Proposed Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 1991, 7 June.
51. Tri-Met (Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon), n.d., Max Forecast Evaluation.
52. Tri-Met, 1977, East Side Transit Operations, December.
53. Tri-Met, 1978, Staff Recommendation to the Tri-Met Board of Directors on the Banfield Transitway Project, August.
54. Tri-Met, 1980, Banfield Light Rail Project Grant Application, June.
55. Tri-Met, 1989, Tri-Met 1988 Origin & Destination Survey Results, December.
56. Tri-Met, 1990a, Max Light Rail Line Patronage Profile, March.
57. Tri-Met, 1990b, Portland’s Metropolitan Area Express: Forecast Versus Actual Ridership and Costs. Public Services Division. Unnumbered cover and three text sheets, June.
58. Tri-Met, 1991, Tri-Met Five Year Plan FY 9397, Phase I. Foundation Document No. 1. Comprehensive Service Analysis, September.
59. Tri-Met, 1996a, FTA National Transit Database Report, June 30, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of oregon.
60. Tri-Met, 1996b, Tri-Met Fixed Route Service and Ridership, 4 December 1996.
61. UMTA/DART (US Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration and Dallas Area Rapid Transit), 1990, South Oak CliffCorridor, Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement, September.
62. UMTA/East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (US Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administrtion and East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis), 1984, St. Louis Central/Airport Corridor. St. Louis City and County, Missouri. East St. Louis and St. Clair County, Illinois. Alternatives Analysis & Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Major Transit Capital Investments, May.
63. UMTA/East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, 1987, St. Louis Metro Link Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement, September.
64. UMTA/SACOG (US Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, and Sacramento Area Council of Governments), 1981, Draft Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report on Prospective Interstate Substitution Transportation Improvements in Northeast Sacramento, California.
65. UMTA/SDTA (US Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration and Sacramento Transit Development Agency), 1983, Sacramento Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement.
66. Voorhees, A. M. & Associates, 1976, Metro for Buffalo. Transit Alternatives for the Buffalo/ Amherst Corridor. Technical Report, June.
67. Wohlwill, D. E., 1996, Development Along a Busway. A Case Study of Development Along the Martin Luther King, East Busway in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June.