DOCSLIB.ORG

Chittenden County Park-And-Ride & Intercept Facility Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chittenden County Park-And-Ride & Intercept Facility Plan Chittenden County Park­and­Ride & Intercept Facility Plan Adopted June 15, 2011 DATA ANALYSIS SOLUTIONS Report Prepared for: The Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization, in cooperation with the Vermont Agency of Transportation. The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Report Prepared by: 60 Lake Street, Suite 1E, Burlington, Vermont 05401 TEL 802.383.0118 FAX 802.383.0122 www.rsginc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT PREPARED FOR: ........................................................................................ I REPORT PREPARED BY: .......................................................................................... I Chittenden County Park‐and‐Ride/Intercept Facility Plan Advisory Committee ............................................. iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... 1 Long‐term Vision and Goals .............................................................................................................................. 1 Recommendations and Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 2 2.1 Facility Characteristics .............................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Performance Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Travel Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 18 2.4 Summary of Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 27 3.0 SURVEY ................................................................................................. 28 3.1 Survey Description and Administration ................................................................................................. 29 3.2 Characteristics of Survey Respondents .................................................................................................. 29 3.3 Responses from Frequent Park‐and‐ride Users ..................................................................................... 35 3.4 Responses from Infrequent Park‐and‐ride Lot Users ............................................................................. 40 3.5 Other Survey Response Observations .................................................................................................... 42 3.6 Summary of Survey Findings .................................................................................................................. 43 4.0 VISION AND GOALS .................................................................................. 44 4.1 Vision Statement .................................................................................................................................... 47 4.2 Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 47 5.0 PRIORITIZATION ...................................................................................... 49 5.1 Prioritization Methodology and Results for Proposed Park‐and‐Ride and Intercept Facilities.............. 49 5.2 Prioritization Methodology for Existing Park‐and‐Ride Facilities ........................................................... 56 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 58 6.1 Proposed Park‐and‐Ride Facility Recommendations ............................................................................. 58 6.2 Proposed Intercept Facility Recommendations ..................................................................................... 66 6.3 Existing Facility Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 68 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................... 69 8.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 79 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Defining Characteristics of Park‐and‐ride and Intercept Facilities .................................................. 3 Chittenden County Park‐and‐Ride/intercept Facility Plan Adopted 15 June 2011 Final Report Page i Table 2: Transit Park‐and‐ride Facilities ........................................................................................................ 5 Table 3: Type of Facility ................................................................................................................................ 5 Table 4: Ownership ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 5: Facility Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 8 Table 6: Multimodal Accessibility by Facility and Service Area .................................................................. 14 Table 7: Multimodal Accessibility by Parking Spaces and Service Area ...................................................... 14 Table 8: Performance Assessment .............................................................................................................. 16 Table 9: Where Chittenden County Employees Live ‐ Comparison of 2000 CTPP with 2006 LEHD Worker Flow Data by Corridor ........................................................................................................................ 19 Table 10: Means of Transportation to Work – 2000 CTTP .......................................................................... 24 Table 11: Express Bus Service Annual Ridership ......................................................................................... 24 Table 12: Estimated Use of Park‐and‐rides by Transit Riders ..................................................................... 25 Table 13: CATMA Employee Mode Share ................................................................................................... 26 Table 14: Parking Space Demand versus Supply ......................................................................................... 27 Table 15: Number and Grouping of Survey Respondents ........................................................................... 29 Table 16: Place of Residence for Survey Respondents by County .............................................................. 30 Table 17: Place of Residence for Survey Respondents that reside within Chittenden County ................... 31 Table 18: Employment Status of Survey Respondents ............................................................................... 32 Table 19: Cross Tabulation of Respondent Park‐and‐ride Facility Use and how often they Find a Full Park‐ and‐ride Lot ........................................................................................................................................ 38 Table 20: Respondents Reporting Use of Unofficial Lots by Commuter‐shed Corridor ............................. 38 Table 21: Place of Residence for Respondents Using the Richmond Park‐and‐ride Lot ............................. 42 Table 22: Place of Work for Respondents Using the Richmond Park‐and‐ride Lot .................................... 43 Table 23: Related Goals, Objectives and Policies from Current Plans and Studies ..................................... 46 Table 24: Criteria and Scoring Overview for New Park‐and‐Ride and Intercept Facilities .......................... 49 Table 25: AADT Point Scale ......................................................................................................................... 50 Table 26: Level of Transit Service Point Scale ............................................................................................. 50 Table 27: Bicycle and Pedestrian Connection Service Point Scale .............................................................. 51 Table 28: Interstate/Arterial Access Point Scale ......................................................................................... 51 Table 29: Proximity to Activity Center Point Scale ...................................................................................... 52 Table 30: Site Identified Point Scale ........................................................................................................... 52 Table 31: Land Acquired Point Scale ........................................................................................................... 52 Table 32: Confirmed Public/Private Partnership ........................................................................................ 53 Table 33: New Park‐and‐Ride Facility
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regional Rail Service the Vermont Way
    DRAFT Regional Rail Service The Vermont Way Authored by Christopher Parker and Carl Fowler November 30, 2017 Contents Contents 2 Executive Summary 4 The Budd Car RDC Advantage 5 Project System Description 6 Routes 6 Schedule 7 Major Employers and Markets 8 Commuter vs. Intercity Designation 10 Project Developer 10 Stakeholders 10 Transportation organizations 10 Town and City Governments 11 Colleges and Universities 11 Resorts 11 Host Railroads 11 Vermont Rail Systems 11 New England Central Railroad 12 Amtrak 12 Possible contract operators 12 Dispatching 13 Liability Insurance 13 Tracks and Right-of-Way 15 Upgraded Track 15 Safety: Grade Crossing Upgrades 15 Proposed Standard 16 Upgrades by segment 16 Cost of Upgrades 17 Safety 19 Platforms and Stations 20 Proposed Stations 20 Existing Stations 22 Construction Methods of New Stations 22 Current and Historical Precedents 25 Rail in Vermont 25 Regional Rail Service in the United States 27 New Mexico 27 Maine 27 Oregon 28 Arizona and Rural New York 28 Rural Massachusetts 28 Executive Summary For more than twenty years various studies have responded to a yearning in Vermont for a regional passenger rail service which would connect Vermont towns and cities. This White Paper, commissioned by Champ P3, LLC reviews the opportunities for and obstacles to delivering rail service at a rural scale appropriate for a rural state. Champ P3 is a mission driven public-private partnership modeled on the Eagle P3 which built Denver’s new commuter rail network. Vermont’s two railroads, Vermont Rail System and Genesee & Wyoming, have experience hosting and operating commuter rail service utilizing Budd cars.
    [Show full text]
  • Short-Range Public Transportation Plan for Addison County Transit Resources Kfh Group, Inc
    SHORT-RANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR ADDISON COUNTY TRANSIT RESOURCES KFH GROUP, INC. I SHORT-RANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR ADDISON COUNTY TRANSIT RESOURCES Final Report March 21, 2003 Prepared for State of Vermont Agency of Transportation 4920 Elm Street, Suite 350. Bethesda, Maryland. (301) 951 -8660. FAX (301) 951-0026 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION .................... ... .. .......... ......................................................... ... 1-1 Introduction ................................................................................. .... ............................. .......... 1-1 Purpose of Plans and Legislative Requirement.. ........... ........................... .. ............................ 1-2 Background ....... .. ................. ... ................................. .................................. ............ ..... ........... 1-3 Service Area ....................... .. .. .................................................................. ........... ................... 1-3 Goals for the SRPTP .......... .. .................... .......................... .... .................................. .. ............ 1-5 Previous Studies ... ....................................................... ... .. .. .... .............................. .. .. ............ 1-10 CHAPTER 2 - POPULATION PROFILE AND NEEDS ANALYSIS ...................... ................ 2-1 Population Profile .................... .. .................................................... .... ... ... ........ .....................
    [Show full text]
  • COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY for BURLINGTON, VERMONT—A SMALL METRO CASE STUDY Tony Redington
    COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY FOR BURLINGTON, VERMONT—A SMALL METRO CASE STUDY Tony Redington Introduction This Burlington-Montpelier-Charlotte Commuter Rail Passenger Service (BMC Commuter Rail Service) study examines a small metro commuter rail service feasibility for Vermont. The concept dates from a 1989 report followed by a number of further analyses and actual service 2000-2003 on a portion of the route. Market potential for commuter rail becomes measurable with more confidence after a decade of commuter bus data and successful demand management experience. The “Link” commuter buses started 2003 and in 2014 total 60 each workday to and from Burlington along four corridors. The rail route analyzed here includes the 68 km east-west segment between Burlington and the Vermont State House in downtown Montpelier and the 19 km segment south from Burlington to Charlotte, the 2000- 2003 Champlain Flyer commuter route. The overall 87 km route evaluated, Map 1, extends from Charlotte via Burlington to State House with 12 stations, eight in town and city centers. U.S. and Canada Commuter Rail The twenty-five United States and three Canadian commuter rail passenger systems reveal an under- developed facet of North American surface transportation. A historic transportation travel change away from the auto in the U.S. includes: (1) the current seven year downturn of vehicle miles of travel (FHWA 2013); time in car travel dropping among all population groups (FHWA 2011, Figure 5), and perhaps most significant, the proportion of under-age-30 eligible with driver licenses dropped about 10% since 1995 (Sivak and Schoettle 2011). These factors call for re- examining commuter rail feasibility even in small metropolitan areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Executive Summary
    City of Burlington Waterfront Transportation Plan City of Burlington Waterfront Transportation Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................. 1 Background ........................................................................................................... 2 The Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan.................................................................. 4 Waterfront Parking, Pedestrian, and Circulation Study...................................... 5 - Parking.......................................................................................................... 5 - Traffic & Circulation.................................................................................... 6 The Plan ................................................................................................................. 9 Guiding Principles .............................................................................................. 9 Access ............................................................................................................... 10 Downtown Transit Center............................................................................. 11 Transportation Demand Management........................................................... 12 Parking .............................................................................................................. 15 On Street Parking.........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • St. Albans Commuter Rail Service Feasibility Study (Study) Examines the Feasibility of Implementing a Commuter Rail Service Between Montpelier and Burlington and St
    Feasibility Study Montpelier - St. Albans Commuter Rail Service February 2017 Acknowledgements Study Advisory Committee David Armstrong – Green Mountain Transit Charles Hunter – Genesee & Wyomong Railroad Services, Inc. Seldon Houghton / Mary Anne Michaels (Alternate) – Vermont Rail Systems Bethany Remmers – Northwest Regional Planning Commisssion Charles Baker – Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Bonnie Waninger – Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission Lisamarie Charlesworth – Franklin County Regional Chamber of Commerce Cathy Davis – Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce James Stewart – Central Vermont Economic Development Corporation Bill Moore – Central Vermont Chamber of Commerce Tim Smith – Franklin County Industrial Development Corportation Curt Carter – Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation Vermont Agency of Transportation Internal Working Group Joe Segale Costa Pappis Barbara Donovan Daniel Delabruere Michele Boomhower Study Management Team Scott Bascom – Vermont Agency of Transportation David Pelletier – Vermont Agency of Transportation Ronald O’Blenis – HDR, Inc. Matthew Moran – HDR, Inc. Alexander Tang – HDR, Inc. Katie Rougeot – HDR, Inc. Thanks to the many Vermont citizens who participated in the public meetings that helped shape this study. 1 Feasibility Study: Montpelier – St. Albans Commuter Rail Service Executive Summary The Montpelier to St. Albans Commuter Rail Service Feasibility Study (Study) examines the feasibility of implementing a commuter rail service between Montpelier and Burlington and St. Albans and Burlington (Corridor). The goal of the study was to evaluate the capital costs, operating costs, and necessary conditions for operating a conceptual commuter rail system in Northwest Vermont. The study began as directive from the Vermont General Assembly, which stated that the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) shall “conduct a commuter rail feasibility study for the corridor between St.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Speed Rail: a National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States
    High-Speed Rail: A National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States A report prepared for National Railroad Passenger Corporation December 2008 High-Speed Rail: A National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States final report prepared for National Railroad Passenger Corporation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with SYSTRA Consulting, Inc. December 2008 www.camsys.com final report High-Speed Rail: A National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States prepared for National Railroad Passenger Corporation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 9015 Mountain Ridge, Suite 210 Austin, Texas 78759 with SYSTRA Consulting, Inc December 2008 High-Speed Rail: A National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Context for the Study............................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Key Players............................................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 Process and Products of This Report.................................................................. 1-2 1.4 A Word about Definitions.................................................................................... 1-3 2.0
    [Show full text]
  • Champlain Path Feasibility Study
    Champlain Path Feasibility Study CONTENTS APPENDICIES Background--------------------------------------------- 2 Appendix A: Champlain Path Concept Plan -------------------10 Methodology ------------------------------------------- 2 Appendix B: Photographs ------------------------------------------24 Public and Agency Involvement ------------------- 3 Appendix C: Environmental Analysis ----------------------------28 Context -------------------------------------------------- 3 Appendix D: Archeological Resource Assessment ----------31 Trail Design--------------------------------------------- 3 Appendix E: Typical Cross Sections-----------------------------39 Recommendations------------------------------------ 3 Appendix F: Cost Analysis -----------------------------------------42 Trail Cost ------------------------------------------------ 8 TABLES Table 1: Trail Segments Table 2: Trail Segments Outside Railroad ROW Table 3: Estimated Trail Construction Cost Alta Planning + Design Champlain Path Feasibility Study 2 Background Also, Alta Planning + Design obtained the railroad valuation or ‘val’ plans from Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO). These val plans are a map of the The Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) contracted with rail corridor prepared in 1914. Included in the val plans are the railroad centerline with Alta Planning + Design to study the feasibility of constructing a shared use path for bicycles stationing every 1000 feet, the railroad right of way or boundary lines, drainage
    [Show full text]
  • Burlington-Essex Phase IA Executive Summary
    BURLINGTON-ESSEX CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PHASE 1A REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHITTENDEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Submitted by: DMJM+HARRIS In association with: R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc. AECOM Consulting Transportation Group Resource Systems Group, Inc. Third Sector Associates August 2001 AN AECOM COMPANY The People Who Get It Done Burlington-Essex Alternatives Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 Recommendations .............................................................................................. ES-1 ES-1.1 Transportation Systems Management ...................................................................... ES-1 ES-1.2 Highway.................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES-1.3 Bus ........................................................................................................................... ES-2 ES-1.4 Commuter Rail.......................................................................................................... ES-2 ES-1.5 Costs of Recommended Alternative.......................................................................... ES-5 ES-2 Introduction.......................................................................................................... ES-6 ES-2.1 Study Background .................................................................................................... ES-6 ES-2.2 Corridor Definition....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Village of Essex Junction Trustees Regular Meeting
    VILLAGE OF ESSEX JUNCTION 2 Lincoln Street TRUSTEES Essex Junction, VT 05452 Tuesday, September 10, 2019 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 6:30 PM E-mail: [email protected] www.essexjunction .org Phone: (802) 878-6944 1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO FLAG [6:30 PM] 2. AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES 3. APPROVE AGENDA 4. PUBLIC TO BE HEARD a. Comments from Public on Items Not on Agenda 5. BUSINESS ITEMS a. Presentation of Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission annual report – Charlie Baker b. Review of grant application for re-location of the Burlington rail yard—Charlie Baker c. Approve purchase of landscape barriers at new Firebird Café location 6. CONSENT ITEMS a. Consider ordinance waivers for October 4th Essex High School Homecoming b. Consider request to Close or Obstruct a Street for Hawthorn Circle Annual Block party c. Approve minutes: August 27, 2019 d. Check Warrants #17162—08/30/19; #17163—09/06/19 7. READING FILE a. Board Member Comments b. Upcoming meeting schedule 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION a. An executive session is anticipated to discuss a personnel matter 9. ADJOURN This agenda is available in alternative formats upon request. Meetings of the Trustees, like all programs and activities of the Village of Essex Junction, are accessible to people with disabilities. For information on accessibility or this agenda, call the Unified Manager's office at 878-6944. Certification: _______________________09/06/2019 _________________ Date Posted Initials Page 1 of 1 Memorandum To: Board of Trustees; Evan Teich, Unified Manager Cc: Charles Baker, CCRPC Executive Director; Robin Pierce, Community Development Director From: Greg Duggan, Deputy Manager Re: Presentation of CCRPC annual report Date: September 6, 2019 Issue The issue is for the Trustees to receive the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission’s (CCRPC) annual report.
    [Show full text]
  • Large-Scale Planning and Capital Improvement Document Summary
    VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION Materials & Research Section Research Report EFFICIENCY IN TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY AND STATE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY PLANNING IN VERMONT Report 2012 – 03 May 2012 EFFICIENCY IN TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY AND STATE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY PLANNING IN VERMONT Report 2012 – 03 May 2012 UVM TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER for STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND PLANNING DIVISION BRIAN R. SEARLES, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION CHRIS COLE, POLICY, PLANNING AND INTERMODAL DEVELOPMENT GINA CAMPOLI, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY MANAGER Prepared By: UVM Transportation Research Center Jim Sullivan, M.S. Jennifer Kenyan Richard Watts, Ph.D. Transportation Research Center Farrell Hall 210 Colchester Avenue Burlington, VT 05405 Phone: (802) 656-1312 Website: www.uvm.edu/transportationcenter The information contained in this report was compiled for the use of the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans). Conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based upon the research data obtained and the expertise of the researchers, and are not necessarily to be construed as Agency policy. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. VTrans assumes no liability for its contents or the use thereof. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 2012-03 - - - - - - 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date EFFICIENCY IN TRANSPORTATION - May, 2012 COMMUNITY AND STATE TRANSPORTATION 6. Performing Organization Code EFFICIENCY PLANNING IN VERMONT 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jim Sullivan, M.S. Richard Watts, Ph.D. Jennifer Kenyan 2012-03 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. UVM School of Engineering 11. Contract or Grant No. Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering 213 Votey Building 33 Colchester Ave RSCH015 - 712 Burlington, VT 05405 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Shelburne Comprehensive Plan 2014
    ____________________________________________________________________________________ SHELBURNE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2014 VOLUME II DATA, BACKGROUND INFORMATION, AND ANALYSIS [As approved by Selectboard February 25th, 2014] ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ [Acknowledgements] [The significant and lasting contributions of all those who participated in the development of this Plan are hereby acknowledged,] ____________________________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. HISTORY 3 III. LAND AND ITS USE 7 IV. POPULATION 27 V. HOUSING 39 VI. ECONOMY 45 VII. TRANSPORTATION 51 VIII. COMMUNITY FACILITIES, UTILITIES, SERVICES 69 IX. EDUCATION 101 X. ENERGY 105 XI. PLAN COMPATIBILITY 113 Under separate cover Volume I Maps ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction I. INTRODUCTION The Shelburne Comprehensive Plan (“Plan”) is a policy document created to guide development and conservation in the Town. The Plan was created by a group of citizens who share deep respect for the Town's past, who understand present conditions and
    [Show full text]
  • CCMPO 2025 Metropolitan Transportation Plan
    2025 Chittenden County Metropolitan Transportation Plan Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization Adopted January 19, 2005 Communities working together to meet Chittenden County’s transportation needs Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 30 Kimball Ave., Suite 206 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 t 802-660-4071 f 802-660-4079 www.ccmpo.org/[email protected] The preparation of this document has been financed through transportation planning funds provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and by matching funds provided by Chittenden County’s 18 municipalities, the Vermont Agency of Transportation, and the Chittenden County Transportation Authority. Prepared by: CCMPO Staff with assistance from Wilbur Smith Associates Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization CCMPO Board Robert Penniman – Chair, Jericho Jeff McDonald, Charlotte – Vice Chair Michael O’Brien, Winooski – Secretary-Treasurer Gerard Mullen, Bolton Tom Buckley, Westford William Keogh, Burlington George Gerecke, Williston Jeff McDonald, Charlotte Michael O’Brien, Winooski Chris Conant, Colchester Dawn Terrill, State of Vermont Jeff Carr, Essex Dale Arango, Essex Junction Ex-officio, non-voting Andrea Morgante, Hinesburg Chris Cole, CCTA Richard Moulton, Huntington Lewis Wetzel, CCRPC Robert Penniman, Jericho John Hamilton, Burlington Int’l Airport James Manley, Milton Mike Flaherty, Vermont Transportation Virginia Clarke, Richmond Authority Phil Beliveau, St. George Jerome Hebda, Vermont Railway Jim Dudley, Shelburne Christopher Jolly, FHWA Jim Condos, South Burlington Andrew Motter, FTA Stan Hamlet, Underhill CCMPO Staff Daryl Benoit, Transportation Planner William Knight, Executive Director Paul Craven, Project Manager David Roberts, Sr., Transportation Planner Bernadette Ferenc, Executive Assistant Susan Smichenko, Sr. Transportation Christine Forde, Sr.
    [Show full text]