DOCSLIB.ORG

Structurally Deficient

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Structurally Deficient Top 10 Most Traveled U.S. Structurally Deficient Bridges by State, 2014 2014 State State County Year Built Daily Crossings Type of Bridge Location Rank 1 Alabama Jefferson 1970 136,370 Urban Interstate I-65 over US-11, railroad and city streets 2 Alabama Mobile 1964 85,510 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over Halls Mill Creek 3 Alabama Jefferson 1972 78,675 Urban Interstate I-59/20 over US-31, railroads and city streets 4 Alabama Mobile 1966 75,350 Urban Interstate I-10 WB & EB over the Southern Drain Canal 5 Alabama Baldwin 1969 52,690 Rural Interstate I-10 over D'Olive Stream 6 Alabama Mobile 1964 43,710 Rural Interstate I-10 over Warren Creek 7 Alabama Jefferson 1968 41,015 Urban Interstate I-59/20 over Arron Aronov Drive 8 Alabama Jefferson 1936 39,710 Urban other principal arterial US-78 over Village Creek & the Frisco Railroad 9 Alabama Houston 1958 34,500 Urban other principal arterial SR 210 over a stream 10 Alabama Mobile 1967 33,770 Urban Interstate I-65 over Hells Swamp Creek 1 Alaska Anchorage 1976 23,751 Urban other principal arterial Muldoon Road over Glenn Highway 2 Alaska Anchorage 1966 21,225 Urban other principal arterial Lake Otis Road over Campbell Creek 3 Alaska Fairbanks North Star 1963 17,904 Urban other principal arterial University Avenue over the Chena River 4 Alaska Ketchikan Gateway 1955 17,125 Urban minor arterial South Tongass Highway over the Water Street Viaduct 5 Alaska Ketchikan Gateway 1957 16,530 Urban minor arterial South Tongass Highway over Hoadley Creek 6 Alaska Fairbanks North Star 1953 11,343 Urban minor arterial Wendell Street over the Chena River (N Hall Street) 7 Alaska Ketchikan Gateway 1975 5,209 Urban minor arterial North Tongass Highway over Ward Creek 8 Alaska Anchorage 1967 4,852 Rural Interstate Seward Highway over Portage Creek No 2 9 Alaska Anchorage 1966 4,852 Rural Interstate Seward Highway over Portage Creek No 1 10 Alaska Anchorage 1966 4,778 Rural Interstate Seward Highway over Peterson Creek 1 Arizona Maricopa 1961 123,000 Urban Interstate I-17 over 19th Avenue 2 Arizona Maricopa 1962 113,000 Urban Interstate I-17 NB & SB over Central Avenue 3 Arizona Pima 1965 76,500 Urban Interstate I-10 EB over Ruthrauff Rd 4 Arizona Pima 1965 39,000 Urban Interstate I-10 WB over Ina Road 5 Arizona Pima 1965 38,500 Urban Interstate I-10 EB over Ajo Way 6 Arizona Pima 1965 38,500 Urban Interstate I-10 WB over Ajo Way 7 Arizona Pima 1966 37,000 Urban other principal arterial 22nd Street over the Southern Pacific Railroad; Aviation Highway 8 Arizona Pima 1965 37,000 Urban Interstate I-10 EB over Ina Road 9 Arizona Coconino 1934 36,000 Urban other principal arterial I-40 SB over Rio De Flag 10 Arizona Pima 1970 35,500 Rural Interstate I-19 NB & SB over Wash 1 Arkansas Pulaski 1961 116,000 Urban Interstate I-30 over the Union Pacific Railroad 2 Arkansas Pulaski 1977 54,500 Urban Interstate I-630 WB over Mississippi Avenue and Rushing Creek 3 Arkansas Pulaski 1977 54,500 Urban Interstate I-630 EB over Mississippi Avenue and Rushing Creek 4 Arkansas Pulaski 1972 45,000 Urban Interstate I-430 NB over Breckenridge Drive 5 Arkansas Pulaski 1972 45,000 Urban Interstate I-430 SB over Breckenridge Drive 6 Arkansas Garland 1977 35,200 Rural arterial US-270 over Bull Bayou 7 Arkansas Prairie 1958 30,000 Rural Interstate US-67 NB over Redmond Road and the Union Pacific Railroad 8 Arkansas Pulaski 1968 30,000 Urban freeway/expressway I-40 over the White River 9 Arkansas Saline 1958 27,000 Rural Interstate I-30 WB over the Saline River Relief 10 Arkansas Saline 1958 27,000 Rural Interstate I-30 EB over the Saline River Relief Data from the 2014 National Bridge Inventory, released in January 2015 by FHWA. © 2015 The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of ARTBA. Top 10 Most Traveled U.S. Structurally Deficient Bridges by State, 2014 2014 State State County Year Built Daily Crossings Type of Bridge Location Rank 1 California Los Angeles 1959 296,000 Urban Interstate I-405 over Olympic Boulevard 2 California Los Angeles 1963 294,000 Urban Interstate I-405 over Sepulveda Boulevard 3 California Los Angeles 1960 294,000 Urban Interstate I-405 over McDonald Street 4 California Los Angeles 1956 289,000 Urban freeway/expressway I-110 over Exposition Boulevard 5 California Orange 1959 286,000 Urban Interstate I-5 over Aliso Creek 6 California Los Angeles 1957 283,000 Urban Interstate I-405 over Constitution Avenue 7 California Los Angeles 1961 283,000 Urban Interstate I-5 over E2-N5 and W2-S5 connecting ramps 8 California Los Angeles 1962 274,000 Urban Interstate I-405 over Sepulveda Boulevard 9 California Los Angeles 1960 273,760 Urban Interstate I-110 over Dominguez Channel 10 California Los Angeles 1960 273,760 Urban Interstate I-110 over SR 91 1 Colorado Denver 1964 183,000 Urban Interstate I-70 over Havana Street and the Union Pacific Railroad 2 Colorado Denver 1956 137,000 Urban freeway/expressway US-6 over the South Platte River 3 Colorado Denver 1956 137,000 Urban freeway/expressway US-6 over the BNSF Railroad 4 Colorado Denver 1958 131,000 Urban freeway/expressway US-6 over Bryant Street 5 Colorado Jefferson 1964 102,000 Urban freeway/expressway US-6 over Garrison Street 6 Colorado Jefferson 1972 101,000 Urban freeway/expressway US-6 over SH 121 7 Colorado Jefferson 1967 84,000 Urban Interstate I-70 over Harlan Street 8 Colorado Denver 1973 83,000 Urban freeway/expressway US-85 SB over the South Platte River 9 Colorado Denver 1964 65,000 Urban Interstate I-70 WB over the Union Pacific Railroad 10 Colorado Denver 1964 65,000 Urban Interstate I-70 EB over SH 35 1 Connecticut Fairfield 1999 161,100 Urban Interstate I-95 over Metro North Railroad and City Street S 2 Connecticut New Haven 1957 151,500 Urban Interstate West River Bridge 3 Connecticut Fairfield 1957 149,400 Urban Interstate Yankee Doodle Bridge 4 Connecticut New Haven 1958 136,100 Urban Interstate I-95 over the Wepawaug River 5 Connecticut Fairfield 1957 133,200 Urban Interstate I-95 over Route 33 6 Connecticut Fairfield 1958 131,300 Urban Interstate I-95 over US-1 SB 7 Connecticut Fairfield 1958 129,600 Urban Interstate I-95 over the Byram River and S Water Street 8 Connecticut New Haven 1964 127,400 Urban Interstate I-91 over N Front St and the Quinn River 9 Connecticut Fairfield 1958 126,400 Urban Interstate I-95 & I-95 ramps over the Metro North Railroad & local roads 10 Connecticut Fairfield 1958 112,500 Urban Interstate I-95 over the Housatonic River and Naugatuck Avenue 1 Delaware New Castle 1978 68,304 Urban other principal arterial SR 141 over the Christina River, Amtrak and SR 4 2 Delaware New Castle 1960 47,350 Urban Interstate I-295 SB over Abandoned Prison Road 3 Delaware New Castle 1960 47,350 Urban Interstate I-295 SB over Norfolk Southern Railroad - abandoned 4 Delaware New Castle 1958 46,057 Urban Interstate I-295 NB over the area of old ramp 6117 5 Delaware New Castle 1955 34,091 Urban other principal arterial Capitol Trail/SR 2 over White Clay Creek 6 Delaware New Castle 1978 31,205 Urban other principal arterial SR 4 to SR 141 S over Ayres Street 7 Delaware Sussex 1916 29,085 Rural arterial US-113/Dupont Boulevard over the Iron Branch 8 Delaware New Castle 1958 28,557 Urban other principal arterial Dupont Highway/US-13 over Baylor Boulevard 9 Delaware New Castle 1965 22,555 Urban minor arterial Foulk Rd/SR 261 over South Branch Naamans Creek 10 Delaware New Castle 1963 21,307 Urban other principal arterial Basin Rd/SR 141 SB over I-95, I-295 and 6099 Data from the 2014 National Bridge Inventory, released in January 2015 by FHWA. © 2015 The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of ARTBA. Top 10 Most Traveled U.S. Structurally Deficient Bridges by State, 2014 2014 State State County Year Built Daily Crossings Type of Bridge Location Rank 1 District of Columbia District of Columbia 1932 60,300 Urban local road Arlington Memorial Bridge 2 District of Columbia District of Columbia 1963 58,000 Urban freeway/expressway Anacostia Freeway over Park Road Connection 3 District of Columbia District of Columbia 1950 53,800 Urban freeway/expressway Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge (also known as the South Capitol Street Bridge) 4 District of Columbia District of Columbia 1958 30,100 Urban other principal arterial 16th Street, NW over Military Road 5 District of Columbia District of Columbia 1934 13,383 Urban local road Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway over NPS Storage Area 6 District of Columbia District of Columbia 1956 8,600 Urban collector 44th Street, NE over the Watts Branch 7 District of Columbia District of Columbia 1964 7,000 Urban Interstate Ramp 1 of the Whitehurst Freeway over I-66 to the Whitehurst Freeway 8 District of Columbia District of Columbia 1955 5,000 Urban other principal arterial Ramp from Benning Road over Kenilworth Avenue SB 9 District of Columbia District of Columbia 1951 2,900 Urban minor arterial Division Avenue over the Watts Branch 10 District of Columbia District of Columbia 1963 2,250 Urban freeway/expressway Ramp 6 over the Park Road Connection 1 Florida Duval 1959 146,000 Urban Interstate Fuller Warren Bridge 2 Florida Miami-Dade 1968 104,000 Urban
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transportation
    visionHagerstown 2035 5 | Transportation Transportation Introduction An adequate vehicular circulation system is vital for Hagerstown to remain a desirable place to live, work, and visit. Road projects that add highway capacity and new road links will be necessary to meet the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for growth management, economic development, and the downtown. This chapter addresses the City of Hagerstown’s existing transportation system and establishes priorities for improvements to roads, transit, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities over the next 20 years. Goals 1. The city’s transportation network, including roads, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, will meet the mobility needs of its residents, businesses, and visitors of all ages, abilities, and socioeconomic backgrounds. 2. Transportation projects will support the City’s growth management goals. 3. Long-distance traffic will use major highways to travel around Hagerstown rather than through the city. Issues Addressed by this Element 1. Hagerstown’s transportation network needs to be enhanced to maintain safe and efficient flow of people and goods in and around the city. 2. Hagerstown’s network of major roads is generally complete, with many missing or partially complete segments in the Medium-Range Growth Area. 3. Without upgrades, the existing road network will not be sufficient to accommodate future traffic in and around Hagerstown. 4. Hagerstown’s transportation network needs more alternatives to the automobile, including transit and bicycle facilities and pedestrian opportunities. Existing Transportation Network Known as “Hub City,” Hagerstown has long served as a transportation center, first as a waypoint on the National Road—America’s first Dual Highway (US Route 40) federally funded highway—and later as a railway node.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2020 Status of the Appalachian Development Highway System
    Status of the Appalachian Development Highway System as of September 30, 2020 December 2020 Status of the Appalachian Development Highway System as of September 30, 2020 APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM as of September 30, 2020 N EW Y ORK W ISCONSIN T M ICHIGAN T U-1 U P ENNSYLVANIA P O-1 P-1 O M M I LLINOIS I NDIANA O HIO M O EW N N ERSEY M J C E AR WARE C-1 YLAND A D D H EL C D B-1 WEST VIRGINIA D B L B G R I B ENTUCKY V IRGINIA K I HART Q B Q J F J F B S J-1 B T ENNESSEE N ORTH C AROLINA J K K A W V V V A-2 A A-1 S OUTH C AROLINA X X-1 MISSISSIPPI G EORGIA A LABAMA ADHS Miles Open to Traffic ADHS Miles Not Open to Traffic Interstate Highway System Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) FY 2020 Accomplishments & Future Outlook Status of Completion of the ADHS At the end of FY 2020, a total of 2,814.0 miles, or 91.1 percent of the 3,090.1 miles authorized for the ADHS, were either complete, currently meeting traffic needs, open to traffic or under construction; 44.7 miles were in the final design or right-of-way acquisition phase, and 231.4 miles were in the location studies phase (pre- environmental). See Table 1 for the latest mileage totals by status category and state. See Appendix A for the latest mileage totals by ADHS Corridor, status category and state.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Routes, Customers Will Be Able to Use a New App to Flag Or Call the Next Available Bus to Alternate Pickup Locations
    T&E COMMITTEE #1-10 April 25, 2019 MEMORANDUM April 23, 2019 TO: County Councileo FROM: Glenn Orlin, Deputy Director SUBJECT: FYI 9-24 Capital Improvements Program (CIP): amendments FY20 Operating Budget: Department of Transportation (DOT), Vacuum Leaf Collection Fund, General Fund, and Mass Transit Fund; Homeowners' Association Road Maintenance Reimbursement NDA; Rockville Parking District NDA; Vision Zero NDA, and Snow Removal and Storm Cleanup NDA Supplemental Appropriation to the FY19 Operating Budget, Montgomery County Government: Snow Removal/Wind and Rain Storm Cleanup, Department of Transportation- $11,584,423; Department of General Services - $3,641,663 Supplemental Appropriation to the FY19 Capital Budget, Montgomery County Government: Resurfacing: Residential/Rural Roads - $3,885,000 PURPOSE: Develop recommendations on CIP amendments and on the above portions of the FY20 Operating Budget1 Those expected to attend this worksession include: Al Roshdieh, Director, DOT Emil Wolanin, Deputy Director, DOT Christopher Conklin, Deputy Director for Transportation Policy, DOT Tim Cupples, Chief, Division of Transportation Engineering, DOT Richard Dorsey, Chief, Division of Highway Services, DOT Dan Hibbert, Chief, Division of Transit Services, DOT Fred Lees, Chief, Management Services, DOT Michael Paylor, Chief, Division of Transportation Engineering and Operations, DOT Brady Goldsmith, Alison Dollar-Sibal, and Deborah Lambert, Budget Analysts, Office of Management and Budget (0MB) I. FY19-24 CIP: transportation amendments (except Parking Lot Districts) 1. Resurfacing: Residential/Rural Roads (©I-4). In January the Executive recommended accelerating $1 million from FY22 to FYI 9-for which he requested a supplemental appropriation-and accelerating $400,000 in FY23 and $ I million from FY24 to FY20. The six-year total would be unchanged.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA District 1964-Present
    Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2021 By Jonathan Belcher with thanks to Richard Barber and Thomas J. Humphrey Compilation of this data would not have been possible without the information and input provided by Mr. Barber and Mr. Humphrey. Sources of data used in compiling this information include public timetables, maps, newspaper articles, MBTA press releases, Department of Public Utilities records, and MBTA records. Thanks also to Tadd Anderson, Charles Bahne, Alan Castaline, George Chiasson, Bradley Clarke, Robert Hussey, Scott Moore, Edward Ramsdell, George Sanborn, David Sindel, James Teed, and George Zeiba for additional comments and information. Thomas J. Humphrey’s original 1974 research on the origin and development of the MBTA bus network is now available here and has been updated through August 2020: http://www.transithistory.org/roster/MBTABUSDEV.pdf August 29, 2021 Version Discussion of changes is broken down into seven sections: 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA 2) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Eastern Mass. St. Ry. Co. Norwood Area Quincy Area Lynn Area Melrose Area Lowell Area Lawrence Area Brockton Area 3) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Middlesex and Boston St. Ry. Co 4) MBTA bus routes inherited from Service Bus Lines and Brush Hill Transportation 5) MBTA bus routes initiated by the MBTA 1964-present ROLLSIGN 3 5b) Silver Line bus rapid transit service 6) Private carrier transit and commuter bus routes within or to the MBTA district 7) The Suburban Transportation (mini-bus) Program 8) Rail routes 4 ROLLSIGN Changes in MBTA Bus Routes 1964-present Section 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) succeeded the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) on August 3, 1964.
    [Show full text]
  • Click on Directory to Download
    2021.directory.pages_Layout 1 10/13/20 10:45 AM Page 5 We hope you find this edion of the Directory of Maryland Community Colleges useful. The Maryland Associaon of Community Colleges (MACC) staff makes every effort to keep this informaon accurate and up­to­date. Please help us maintain this valuable resource; if your college’s informaon changes during the year, please send your updates to Jane Thomas at: [email protected] or contact her at 410­974­8117. Throughout the year, your changes will be made to the online PDF version of the directory that is posted on the MACC website at www.mdacc.org. We appreciate your support and look forward to a successful year ahead for our colleges and the students we serve. i 2021.directory.pages_Layout 1 10/13/20 10:45 AM Page 6 ii 2021.directory.pages_Layout 1 10/13/20 10:46 AM Page 7 Foreword..................................................................................................................... i Purpose, Philosophy, and Mission ............................................................................1 Staff of the Maryland Associaon of Community Colleges.....................................3 Direcons to the MACC office ...................................................................................4 Execuve Commiee .................................................................................................5 Board of Directors ......................................................................................................6 Affinity Groups and Chief Officers.............................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Route(S) Description 26 the Increased Frequency on the 26 Makes the Entire Southwestern Portion of the Network Vastly More Useful
    Route(s) Description 26 The increased frequency on the 26 makes the entire southwestern portion of the network vastly more useful. Please keep it. The 57, 60, and 61 came south to the area but having frequent service in two directions makes it much better, and riders from these routes can connect to the 26 and have much more areas open to them. Thank you. Green Line The increased weekend service on the Green line to every twenty minutes is a good addition of service for Campbell which is seeing markedly better service under this plan. Please keep the increased service. Multiple Please assuage public concerns about the 65 and 83 by quantifying the impact the removal of these routes would have, and possible cheaper ways to reduce this impact. The fact is that at least for the 65, the vast majority of the route is duplicative, and within walking distances of other routes. Only south of Hillsdale are there more meaningful gaps. Mapping the people who would be left more than a half mile (walkable distance) away from service as a result of the cancellation would help the public see what could be done to address the service gap, and quantifying the amount of people affected may show that service simply cannot be justified. One idea for a route would be service from winchester transit center to Princeton plaza mall along camden and blossom hill. This could be done with a single bus at a cheaper cost than the current 65. And nobody would be cut off. As far as the 83 is concerned, I am surprised the current plan does not route the 64 along Mcabee, where it would be eq..
    [Show full text]
  • Centennial District TROLLEY SERVICE CONCEPT EVALUATION
    Centennial District TROLLEY SERVICE CONCEPT EVALUATION OCTOBER 2019 MD dDELAWARE VALLEY DVR PC's vision for the Greater Philadelphia Region is a prosperous, innovative, equitable, e'J.,JffPC resilient, and sustainable region that increases PLANNING COMMISSION mobility choices by investing in a safe and modern transportation system; that protects and preserves our natural resources while creating healthy communities; and that fosters greater opportunities for all. DVRPC's mission is to achieve this vision by convening the widest array of partners to inform and facilitate data-driven decision-making. We are engaged across the region, and strive to be leaders and innovators, exploring new ideas and creating best practices. TITLE VI COMPLIANCE / DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 7964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 7987, Executive Order 72898 on Environmental Justice, and related nondiscrimination mandates in all programs and activities. DVRPC's website, www.dvrpc.org, may be translated into multiple languages. Publications and other public documents can usually be made available in alternative languages and formats, if requested. DVRPC's public meetings are always held in ADA-accessible facilities, and held in transit-accessible locations whenever possible. Translation, interpretation, or other auxiliary services can be provided to individuals who submit a request at least seven days prior to a public meeting. Translation and interpretation services for DVRPC's projects, products, and planning processes are available, generally free of charge, by calling (275) 592-7800. All requests will be accommodated to the greatest extent possible. Any person who believes they have been aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice by DVRPC under Title VI has a right to file a formal complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • Anne Arundel County Transportation Center Feasibility Study
    Anne Arundel County Transportation Center Feasibility Study January 2020 Anne Arundel County Transportation Center Feasibility Study January 2020 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Existing Service and Previous Studies ................................................................................. 4 3.1 AAOT ............................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Annapolis Transit .............................................................................................................. 6 3.2 Regional Transportation Agency (RTA) Existing Service .................................................. 8 3.3 Other Transit Services .....................................................................................................10 3.4 MDOT MTA .....................................................................................................................10 3.4.1 MDOT MTA LocalLink 67: Marley Neck (Energy Parkway) to Downtown (City Hall) ..11 3.4.2 MDOT MTA LocalLink 69/70: Patapsco Light Rail Station to Annapolis/Jumpers Hole .......................................................................................................................................12 3.4.3 MDOT MTA LocalLink 75: Patapsco
    [Show full text]
  • INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT of 1991 [Public Law 102–240; December 18, 1991] [As Amended Through P.L
    G:\COMP\INFRA\INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ....XML INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991 [Public Law 102–240; December 18, 1991] [As Amended Through P.L. 116–94, Enacted December 20, 2019] øCurrency: This publication is a compilation of Public Law 102–240. It was last amended by the public law listed in the As Amended Through note above and below at the bottom of each page of the pdf version and reflects current law through the date of the enactment of the public law listed at https:// www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/comps/¿ øNote: While this publication does not represent an official version of any Federal statute, substantial efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of its contents. The official version of Federal law is found in the United States Statutes at Large and in the United States Code. The legal effect to be given to the Statutes at Large and the United States Code is established by statute (1 U.S.C. 112, 204).¿ AN ACT To develop a national intermodal surface transportation system, to author- ize funds for construction of highways, for highway safety programs, and for mass transit programs, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Sec. 1. Short title. Sec. 2. øRepealed.¿ Sec. 3. Secretary defined. TITLE I—SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PART A—TITLE 23 PROGRAMS Sec. 1001. Completion of interstate system. Sec. 1002. Obligation ceiling. Sec. 1003. Authorization of appropriations. Sec. 1004. Budget compliance.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Square Bus Access and Circulation Study
    Final Report Central Square Access and Circulation Study Prepared for City of Cambridge by IBI Group with CDM Smith July 14, 2015 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT CENTRAL SQUARE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION STUDY Prepared for City of Cambridge Document Control Page CLIENT: City of Cambridge PROJECT NAME: Central Square Access and Circulation Study REPORT TITLE: Central Square Existing Conditions Analysis IBI REFERENCE: 36888 DELIVERABLE NUMBER: 4 VERSION: ORIGINATOR: Nihit Jain REVIEWER: Duncan Allen AUTHORIZATION: CIRCULATION LIST: HISTORY: JULY 14, 2015 2 IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT CENTRAL SQUARE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION STUDY Prepared for City of Cambridge Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Study Purpose and Scope ............................................................................ 5 1.2 Study Process ............................................................................................... 8 1.3 Report Structure and Contents ..................................................................... 8 1.4 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................... 8 2 Identification of Issues .......................................................................................... 10 2.1 Methodology ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Board Action/Information Summary
    Report by Finance and Capital Committee (A) 11-19-2020 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board Action/Information Summary MEAD Number: Resolution: Action Information 202224 Yes No TITLE: FY2021 Budget Amendment PRESENTATION SUMMARY: Staff will review public outreach results related to the proposed service changes, request Board acceptance of the Public Outreach and Input report, seek approval of the Title VI Equity Analysis, as well as the FY2021 Operating Budget amendment, and repeal the previously approved FY2021 fare and service adjustments. PURPOSE: To seek Board acceptance and approval of the Public Outreach and Input report, Title VI Equity Analysis, and amendment to the FY2021 Operating Budget, and to repeal the previously approved FY2021 fare and service adjustments that have not been implemented due to Covid-19. DESCRIPTION: Identification of Parties with an interest in Metro’s budget: The following list includes Metro's top non-personnel multi-year contractors through FY2021 and to date ($500 million) as well as the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). Some vendors have contracts spanning through FY2022 as well. l Kiewit Infrastructure Company l Kawasaki Rail Car Inc. l PNC Bank National Association l SunTrust Bank l C3M Power Systems, LLC l Transdev Services, Inc. l Gannett Fleming-Parsons Joint Venture II l Mott MacDonald I&E, LLC l New Flyer of America, Inc. l Bank of America NA l Wells Fargo Commercial Services l Clerk, U.S. Court l Motorola Solutions Inc. l M.C. Dean, Inc. l Mythics, Inc. l Potomac Yard Constructors l First Transit, Inc. l Diamond Transportation Service, Inc. l Dell Marketing LP l HNTB Corporation l Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) A full list of Procurement Awards is available at: https:// www.wmata.com/business/procurement/solicitations/index.cfm#main-content Metro has labor agreements with the following collective bargaining units: l Fraternal Order of Police/Metro Transit Police Labor Committee, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Services Chapter 4 Existing Services
    Chapter 4: Existing Services Chapter 4 Existing Services OVERVIEW OF EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES This TDP is intended to address future transit services over a five-year period in Howard County and Anne Arundel County, and this chapter provides an overview of existing transit services in the region. Howard and Anne Arundel Counties are jointly served by the Regional Transit Agency of Central Maryland (RTA), which provides fixed-route service in both counties, ADA complementary paratransit, and demand-response service for seniors and persons with disabilities in Howard County. The RTA also provides fixed-route service in Prince George’s County, which is addressed in this plan as it is an integral part of RTA service offerings. The study region is also served by other transit providers. Central Maryland is located between the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metropolitan areas, and there are transit routes from each urban area linking them with the RTA, including Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) services from Howard and Anne Arundel Counties to Baltimore; and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) services providing connections from Anne Arundel County (Thurgood Marshall Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) and Crofton) to the Washington Metro rail system; and in the City of Laurel and Prince George’s County. In addition, there are regional services provided by the MTA through its MARC commuter rail services and commuter bus program. There are also intercity connections in the region, including Amtrak. Specialized transportation services, including demand-response service for seniors and persons with disabilities are provided by the Anne Arundel County Office of Transportation (OOT), and similar services are provided by the RTA for Howard County.
    [Show full text]