DOCSLIB.ORG

View the Project Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
View the Project Report Institutional Response to Transit Oriented Development in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area: Understanding Local Differences through the Prism of Density, Diversity, and Design Final Report METRANS PROJECT 17-09 December 6, 2018 Tridib Banerjee (P.I.) Deepak Bahl (Co-P.I.) Kevin Barrow Andrew Eisenlohr Janet Rodriguez Quinn Wallace Huê-Tâm Webb Jamme Sol Price School of Public Policy University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90007 Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the accuracy of the data and information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, the California Department of Transportation and the METRANS Transportation Center in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government, the California Department of Transportation, and the University of Southern California assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California, USC, or the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. ii Abstract This study explores local initiatives and institutional responses to promote transit-oriented development (TOD) around the rail transit stations in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The primary objective is to understand the extent and circumstances of municipal responses to achieve TOD. Secondarily, the study examines what inferences can be drawn about local response to the design and planning of TODs, their relative success, and future outlook. The methodology includes both qualitative and quantitative components. It draws on in-depth structured interviews of senior planners from seven case study cities. The quantitative analysis examines variable policy landscape enfolding 93 stations. A Guttman scalogram analysis ranks the likely application of various policy tools identified by LA Metro. The findings underscore the primacy of local policies and plans for consistency, effectiveness, and flexibility in implementation. Second, over time municipalities become increasingly sophisticated in application of TOD policies. Third, while TOD-supportive policies are necessary for development, their mere presence is not always sufficient. Fourth, fewer Guttman errors for higher density downtown locations and older stations correspond to a multi-faceted approach to TOD promotion. Lastly, the relative success or failure of TOD seemingly is the byproduct of a proactive city and market demand, coupled with community engagement. (200 words) iii Table of Contents Disclaimer ..................................................................................................................................................... ii Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures and Tables .............................................................................................................................. v Disclosure ...................................................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 9 Re-visiting the Transit Neighborhood through the 3-D Prism .................................................................. 9 Joint Development and Market Responses ............................................................................................. 10 Critical Perspectives on Market-Driven TODs ....................................................................................... 11 Towards a Supply Side Story of Transit Neighborhoods ........................................................................ 12 Rail Transit Development and TOD in the L.A. Area ............................................................................ 13 Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 15 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 15 Scope and Case Study Selection ............................................................................................................. 15 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Database of TOD-supportive policies and 3-D characteristics ........................................................... 17 Interviews with local representatives .................................................................................................. 18 Chapter 4: Qualitative Analysis of Selected Institutional Responses .......................................................... 20 Compton .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Inglewood ............................................................................................................................................... 21 Long Beach ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Los Angeles ............................................................................................................................................ 24 Monrovia ................................................................................................................................................. 25 Pasadena .................................................................................................................................................. 26 Santa Monica .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 5: Quantitative Analysis of Institutional Responses ...................................................................... 33 5.1 Providing Descriptive Statistics for Station Areas ............................................................................ 33 5.2 An Introduction to Guttman Analysis ............................................................................................... 35 5.3 General Results of Guttman Analysis ............................................................................................... 36 5.4 Guttman Errors and Station Area Characteristics ............................................................................. 37 5.5 Using Factor Analysis to Identify Similar Policies ........................................................................... 39 5.6 Identifying Similar and Dissimilar Station Areas per Factor Analysis ............................................. 41 5.6.1 Land Use and Planning Factor Scores ....................................................................................... 42 5.6.2 Transportation and Parking Factor Scores ................................................................................. 42 5.6.3 Urban Design Factor Scores ...................................................................................................... 43 5.6.4 Financing ................................................................................................................................... 43 Chapter 6: Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 63 Chapter 7: Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 67 Appendix 1: Example of Data Request on TOD policies ....................................................................... 67 Appendix 2: Example of Data Request on 3 Ds in Case Station Area .................................................... 69 Appendix 3: Semi-Directed Interview Guide ......................................................................................... 71 Appendix 4: TOD Policy by City ........................................................................................................... 72 References ................................................................................................................................................... 78 iv List of Figures and Tables Figure 3.1 – L.A. Metro stations by type .................................................................................................... 16 Table 3.1 – Initial case study selection (16 stations, 5 station area types, 7 jurisdictions) ......................... 17 Table 3.2 – Interviews schedule (7 jurisdictions + Metro transit agency)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Community Open House #1 South Gate Park January 27, 2016 Today’S Agenda
    Community Open House #1 South Gate Park January 27, 2016 Today’s Agenda 1) Gateway District Specific Plan 2) Efforts To Date 3) Specific Plan Process 4) TOD Best Practices 5) Community Feedback 27 JANUARY 2016 | page 2 Gateway District Specific Plan What is the West Santa Ana Branch? The West Santa Ana Branch (WSAB) is a transit corridor connecting southeast Los Angeles County (including South Gate) to Downtown Los Angeles via the abandoned Pacific Electric Right- of-Way (ROW). Goals for the Corridor: 1. PLACE-MAKING: Make the station the center of a new destination that is special and unique to each community. 2. CONNECTIONS: Connect residential neighborhoods, employment centers, and destinations to the station. 3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL: Concentrate jobs and homes in the station area to reap the benefits that transit brings to communities. 27 JANUARY 2016 | page 4 What is light rail transit? The South Gate Transit Station will be served by light rail and bus services. Light Rail Transit (LRT) is a form of urban rail public transportation that operates at a higher capacity and higher speed compared to buses or street-running tram systems (i.e. trolleys or streetcars). LRT Benefits: • LRT is a quiet, electric system that is environmentally-friendly. • Using LRT helps reduce automobile dependence, traffic congestion, and Example of an at-grade alignment LRT, Gold Line in Pasadena, CA. pollution. • LRT is affordable and a less costly option than the automobile (where costs include parking, insurance, gasoline, maintenance, tickets, etc..). • LRT is an efficient and convenient way to get to and from destinations.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Service Plan
    Attachment A 1 Core Network Key spines in the network Highest investment in customer and operations infrastructure 53% of today’s bus riders use one of these top 25 corridors 2 81% of Metro’s bus riders use a Tier 1 or 2 Convenience corridor Network Completes the spontaneous-use network Focuses on network continuity High investment in customer and operations infrastructure 28% of today’s bus riders use one of the 19 Tier 2 corridors 3 Connectivity Network Completes the frequent network Moderate investment in customer and operations infrastructure 4 Community Network Focuses on community travel in areas with lower demand; also includes Expresses Minimal investment in customer and operations infrastructure 5 Full Network The full network complements Muni lines, Metro Rail, & Metrolink services 6 Attachment A NextGen Transit First Service Change Proposals by Line Existing Weekday Frequency Proposed Weekday Frequency Existing Saturday Frequency Proposed Saturday Frequency Existing Sunday Frequency Proposed Sunday Frequency Service Change ProposalLine AM PM Late AM PM Late AM PM Late AM PM Late AM PM Late AM PM Late Peak Midday Peak Evening Night Owl Peak Midday Peak Evening Night Owl Peak Midday Peak Evening Night Owl Peak Midday Peak Evening Night Owl Peak Midday Peak Evening Night Owl Peak Midday Peak Evening Night Owl R2New Line 2: Merge Lines 2 and 302 on Sunset Bl with Line 200 (Alvarado/Hoover): 15 15 15 20 30 60 7.5 12 7.5 15 30 60 12 15 15 20 30 60 12 12 12 15 30 60 20 20 20 30 30 60 12 12 12 15 30 60 •E Ğǁ >ŝŶĞϮǁ ŽƵůĚĨŽůůŽǁ ĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ>ŝŶĞƐϮΘϯϬϮƌŽƵƚĞƐŽŶ^ƵŶƐĞƚůďĞƚǁ
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Document Overview.Cdr
    Section 2. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND ! Local & Regional Setting ! Historical Context ! Physical Context: Land Use ! Physical Context: Mobility ! Physical Context: Urban Design ! Socio-economic Context ! Policy Context ! Community Values Section 2 CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND 11 Local & Regional Setting Regional Setting Pasadena is situated at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains in the western San Gabriel Valley, approximately 10 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles. This location offers numerous advantages, including convenient freeway and airport access that will continue to provide the City a competitive advantage as a regional business hub. Moreover, few localities can match the physical beauty afforded by the backdrop of the San Gabriels. San Gabriel Mountains Local Setting Located in the heart of the City, the Central District’s approximately 960 acres essentially correspond to the area recognized by Pasadena’s residents as “Downtown.” (Downtown and Central District will be used interchangeably in this document.) Included within its boundaries are the activity centers popularly known as Old Pasadena, the Civic Center, the Playhouse District, and South Lake Avenue; each makes a special contribution to this urban setting with an active mixture of uses. The Central District’s boundaries are clearly marked to the north and west by the 210 and 710 Freeways respectively, and it’s buildings are prominent features along these highways. Approaching the campuses of the California Institute of California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Pasadena City College (PCC), the eastern Technology boundary lies one to two blocks east of Lake Avenue. The southern limit roughly follows California Boulevard, except that the Specific Plan area includes the Arroyo Parkway corridor extending from the 110 Freeway into the midst of Downtown.
    [Show full text]
  • Metro Public Hearing Pamphlet
    Proposed Service Changes Metro will hold a series of six virtual on proposed major service changes to public hearings beginning Wednesday, Metro’s bus service. Approved changes August 19 through Thursday, August 27, will become effective December 2020 2020 to receive community input or later. How to Participate By Phone: Other Ways to Comment: Members of the public can call Comments sent via U.S Mail should be addressed to: 877.422.8614 Metro Service Planning & Development and enter the corresponding extension to listen Attn: NextGen Bus Plan Proposed to the proceedings or to submit comments by phone in their preferred language (from the time Service Changes each hearing starts until it concludes). Audio and 1 Gateway Plaza, 99-7-1 comment lines with live translations in Mandarin, Los Angeles, CA 90012-2932 Spanish, and Russian will be available as listed. Callers to the comment line will be able to listen Comments must be postmarked by midnight, to the proceedings while they wait for their turn Thursday, August 27, 2020. Only comments to submit comments via phone. Audio lines received via the comment links in the agendas are available to listen to the hearings without will be read during each hearing. being called on to provide live public comment Comments via e-mail should be addressed to: via phone. [email protected] Online: Attn: “NextGen Bus Plan Submit your comments online via the Public Proposed Service Changes” Hearing Agendas. Agendas will be posted at metro.net/about/board/agenda Facsimiles should be addressed as above and sent to: at least 72 hours in advance of each hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Westside Cities Subregion Project List 6/23/2015
    Westside Cities Subregion Project List 6/23/2015 Non‐ Estimated Estimated Project ID Project/Program Category Jurisdiction Project Description Prioritized Minimum Cost Maximum Cost Los Angeles ‐ Westside, Santa 1WS‐119 Transit Metro Purple Line Extension Westwood/VA to City of Santa Monica $825,679,520 $1,238,519,280 Monica Los Angeles ‐ Westside, West Crenshaw Bl Corridor Extension (beyond segment funded by Measure R) all 2WS‐22 Transit $2,336,400,000 $6,365,700,000 Hollywood the way to West Hollywood/Hollywood Los Angeles ‐ Westside, Beverly 3WS‐23 Transit Metro Purple Line Extension West Hollywood Extension $2,395,760,000 $3,593,640,000 Hills, West Hollywood I‐405/Sepulveda Pass ‐ Alternative multimodal linkage from the Westside 4WS‐282 Transit Los Angeles ‐ Westside $1,294,720,318 $5,996,262,922 to the San Fernando Valley and LAX, taking pressure off of the I‐405 Los Angeles ‐ Westside, I‐405‐ Express Bus Improvements (e.g., peak period shoulder lane) on I‐ 5WS‐294 Transit Unicorporated ‐ Westside, $240,000,000 $360,000,000 405 Culver City Sepulveda Pass – Increase express bus service over Sepulveda Pass, with 6WS‐301 Transit Los Angeles ‐ Westside collector/feeder service throughout West LA and the San Fernando Valley. Los Angeles ‐ Westside, Green Line Extension on Florence Av/ BNSF Railway ‐ Build rail to connect 7WS‐316 Transit $1,276,042,367 $1,389,588,510 Unicorporated ‐ Westside Harbor and Crenshaw Corridors to LAX utilizing existing BNSF rail line Implement City of LA Transit Enhanced Network as defined in the Mobility 8WS‐3161 Transit Los Angeles ‐ Westside $60,962,660 $12,802,158,600 Plan 2035.
    [Show full text]
  • Gold Line Allen Station Connections
    Allen Connections metro.net Destinations Lines Stops IYWb[DcZJc^i/&$'B^aZ JJ;CFB;7BO;CFB; 7BO C;HH;JJIJC;HH;JJ IJ ;L;BODFB;L;BOD FB BEC7L?IJ7IJBEC7 L?IJ7 IJ Alhambra 485 B BEC7L?IJ7IJ Altadena 180, 485, 686 AJ 8EOBIJEDIJ D;BIED7BO L L L MH?=>J7L Av 64 256 K 7 7 ; BC F7BEC7IJ ? H 7L Azusa FT690 B 7 I Cal State LA Station Å 485 B J :KD>7C7BO California Bl 177, ARTS 20 BK Cal Tech 485, ARTS 10, 20 BGHL EH7D=;=HEL;8B EH7D=;=HEL;8B Å B Claremont TransCenter FT690 9H7M<EH:7BO Colorado Bl 180, 256, 686, ARTS 10 BGH ;7HB>7CIJ ; E B7IBKD7IIJ KL : D 8 H ? 7 E BGH ; Del Mar Station 177, 686, ARTS 20 B 9B?<JED7BOED 7BO 7 E 7 L A E D KL B H I7DJ787H87H7IJ 7 CEDJ;L?IJ7IJL?IJ7 IJ ; C 7 E L H B >?BB7 B >EBB?IJED Downtown Los Angeles 485 B Je=ersonsonn ; D D;MJED7BO >7C?BJED7L B B ? ? B7A;7L C?9>?=7D7L 7 9>;IJ;H7L C;DJEH7L M?BIED7L 97J7B?D77L C7HL?IJ77L 9B7HA7BO Park 887B:M?D7BO7B:M?D 7BO I?;HH78ED?J77L I I I?D7BE77L ; ;BCEB?DE7L 7 Eastern Av 256 K ; 7BB;D7L C F7BEL;H:;7L F El Sereno 256 K L?BB7IJ L?BB7IJIJ O Villa Gardens Kaiser B Encino CE549 B 7 Retirement Clinic JOB;H7BO : I Fremont Av 485 B Commmunity < M7=D;HIJM7=D;H IJ J = J >K:IED7L ; Glendale via 134 Fwy CE549 B 8;JJI7BO 8 K C7FB;MO Lake Avenue Church C7FB;IJ; IJ Highland Park 256 87HJB;JJ7BO 7bb[dIjWj_ed G C[ceh_WbFWhaIjWj_ed C7FB;IJ JPL 177 <MO '&% 7 BWa[IjWj_ed <EEJ>?BB LA County+USC 485 B IJJ 9EHIEDD L Medical Center Station @ 7 8 A 7 I L L 9EHIEDIJ > E La Verne FT690 B 7 H 7 B 7L O 7 B A L 7 BEGH BE9KIJIJIJ : 7 Memorial Park Station 180, 686, ARTS 10, 40 L J 9 7 BE9KIJIJ D D E7A
    [Show full text]
  • SCAG Final 2021 FTIP Technical Appendix Volume III of III Part A
    FINAL 2021 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TECHNICAL APPENDIX VOLUME III OF III/PART A FY 2020/21 - 2025/26 March 2021 REGIONAL COUNCIL OFFICERS President Rex Richardson, City of Long Beach First Vice President Clint Lorimore, City of Eastvale Second Vice President Jan C. Harnik, Riverside County Transportation Commission Immediate Past President Alan D. Wapner, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority MEMBERS Imperial County VISION Luis Plancarte, County of Imperial Cheryl Viegas-Walker, El Centro Southern California’s Catalyst Los Angeles County for a Brighter Future. Kathryn Barger, County of Los Angeles Paula Devine, Glendale Hector Andres Pacheco, San Fernando Holly Mitchell, County of Los Angeles Margaret E. Finlay, Duarte Curren D. Price, Jr., Los Angeles Cindy Allen, Long Beach Alex Fisch, Culver City Nithya Raman, Los Angeles Adele Andrade-Stadler, Alhambra Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles Rita Ramirez, Victorville Sean Ashton, Downey James Gazeley, Lomita Rex Richardson, Long Beach* MISSION Bob Blumenfield, Los Angeles Ray Hamada, Bellflower Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles Mike Bonin, Los Angeles Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Los Angeles Monica Rodriguez, Los Angeles To foster innovative regional Drew Boyles, El Segundo Mark E. Henderson, Gardena Ali Saleh, Bell Joe Buscaino, Los Angeles Paul Koretz, Los Angeles Tim Sandoval, Pomona solutions that improve the lives Juan Carrillo, Palmdale John Lee, Los Angeles David J. Shapiro, Calabasas Gilbert Cedillo, Los Angeles Steven Ly, Rosemead José Luis Solache, Lynwood of Southern Californians through Jonathan C. Curtis, La Canada Flintridge Jorge Marquez, Covina Steve Tye, Diamond Bar Kevin de Leon, Los Angeles Nury Martinez, Los Angeles Frank Aurelio Yokoyama, Cerritos inclusive collaboration, visionary Steve De Ruse, La Mirada Mitch O’Farrell, Los Angeles planning, regional advocacy, Orange County Donald Wagner, County of Orange Michael C.
    [Show full text]
  • Art Guide a Tour of Metro’S Artwork Metro Commissions Artists to Create Engaging and Thought-Provoking Artworks to Make Your Journey More Inviting and Pleasurable
    metro.net Art Guide A tour of Metro’s artwork Metro commissions artists to create engaging and thought-provoking artworks to make your journey more inviting and pleasurable. The artworks weave a multi-layered cultural tapestry that mirrors Los Angeles County’s rich contemporary and popular cultures. Established in 1989, the Metro Art program has commissioned over 250 artists for a wide variety of both temporary and permanent projects. explore Artists are selected through a peer review process with community input; all works are created especially for their transit related sites. This guide is intended to help you discover artworks throughout the Metro system. For more detailed information on the artwork and the artists, please visit metro.net/art. Artwork copyrighted, all rights reserved. Metro Lines and Transitways Metro Contents Art’s a Trip. Art’s a Trip Metro Environments Free Metro Rail Tours Tours are o=ered the >rst Saturday, > Thursdays – Meet at 7pm at Sunday and Thursday of each month. the street level entrance to the Metro Rail Metro Customer Center It’s free. It’s provocative. The tours are roundtrip and last Hollywood/Highland Metro l Metro Red Line Metro Vehicles It’s a great ride. approximately two hours. Rail Station. Union Station Bus Plaza l Metro Purple Line Tours for groups of 15 or more are > Saturdays – Meet at 10am at > Each tour is unique, visits l Metro Gold Line Metro Headquarters available by special arrangement. the street level entrance to the di=erent stations and is led Metro Division 3 Hollywood/Highland Metro by a member of the Metro Art l Metro Blue Line Call 213 .922.2738 for information Rail Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Line 60 (12/15/19) -- Metro Local
    Saturday Effective Dec 15 2019 60 Northbound (Approximate Times) Southbound (Approximate Times) COMPTON LYNWOOD SOUTH GATE VERNON DOWNTOWN ANGELES LOS DOWNTOWN ANGELES LOS VERNON SOUTH GATE LYNWOOD COMPTON 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Artesia Station Long Beach & Rosecrans Long Beach & Imperial Long Beach & Firestone & Pacific Slauson 7th & Central Sunset & Figueroa Sunset & Figueroa 7th & Central & Pacific Slauson Long Beach & Firestone Long Beach & Imperial Long Beach & Rosecrans Artesia Station 4:43A 4:55A 5:02A 5:09A 5:20A 5:34A 5:47A 3:56A 4:18A 4:33A 4:44A 4:52A 5:00A 5:12A 5:08 5:20 5:27 5:35 5:46 6:01 6:15 4:47 5:01 5:16 5:27 5:34 5:41 5:53 5:22 5:34 5:41 5:49 6:00 6:16 6:30 5:12 5:26 5:41 5:52 5:59 6:06 6:18 5:35 5:47 5:54 6:02 6:14 6:30 6:44 5:34 5:49 6:04 6:15 6:22 6:29 6:41 5:48 6:00 6:08 6:16 6:28 6:44 6:58 5:55 6:11 6:27 6:39 6:46 6:54 7:06 6:02 6:14 6:22 6:30 6:42 6:58 7:12 6:11 6:27 6:43 6:55 7:02 7:10 7:22 6:16 6:28 6:36 6:44 6:56 7:12 7:26 6:24 6:41 6:57 7:09 7:16 7:24 7:36 6:30 6:42 6:50 6:58 7:10 7:26 7:40 6:38 6:55 7:11 7:23 7:30 7:38 7:51 6:44 6:56 7:04 7:12 7:24 7:40 7:55 6:52 7:09 7:25 7:37 7:45 7:53 8:06 6:57 7:10 7:18 7:26 7:38 7:54 8:09 7:06 7:23 7:39 7:51 7:59 8:08 8:21 7:10 7:23 7:31 7:39 7:52 8:08 8:23 7:20 7:37 7:53 8:05 8:13 8:22 8:35 7:24 7:37 7:45 7:53 8:06 8:22 8:37 7:34 7:52 8:08 8:20 8:28 8:37 8:50 7:38 7:51 7:59 8:07 8:20 8:36 8:51 7:48 8:07 8:23 8:35 8:43 8:52 9:05 7:51 8:04 8:13 8:21 8:34 8:50 9:06 8:01 8:21 8:37 8:49 8:57 9:06 9:20 8:05 8:18 8:27 8:35 8:48 9:04 9:20 8:14 8:34 8:50 9:02 9:11 9:20
    [Show full text]
  • LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BID TABULATION Bid No: OP33673069 Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Services
    LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BID TABULATION Bid No: OP33673069 Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Services Bids Out: 02/14/13 Total 15 Bids Opened: 03/21/13 Total 6 Lincoln Training Center Diversified Landscape Co. Woods Maintenance Service, Inc. Advertisement Date(s): 02/14/13 Newspaper: LA Daily News FACILITY/LOCATION 36 MONTH BASE A. BUS DIVISIONS, TERMAINALS AND LAYOVER LOTS MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY SAN FERNANDO $535.25 $444.00 $1,506.00 SAN GABRIEL VAL $540.50 $888.00 $1,506.00 DIVISION 1 $1,635.75 $1,110.00 $4,438.00 DIVISION 2 $420.79 $444.00 $1,163.00 DIVISION 3 $357.27 $333.00 $986.00 DIVISION 4 $325.95 $888.00 $889.00 DIVISION 5 $335.35 $1,332.00 $1,035.00 DIVISION 6 $219.36 $444.00 $617.00 DIVISION 7 $239.36 $444.00 $655.00 DIVISION 8 $375.98 $1,332.00 $1,026.00 DIVISION 9 $170.25 $888.00 $479.00 DIVISION 10 $646.50 $2,664.00 $1,751.00 DIVISION 12 $175.80 $666.00 $493.00 DIVISION 15 $1,300.00 $2,220.00 $3,558.00 TERMINAL 17 $197.25 $222.00 $547.00 DIVISION 18 $645.85 $1,554.00 $1,751.00 TERMINAL 19 $1,235.55 $222.00 $3,354.00 TERMINAL 26 $180.00 $222.00 $506.00 TERMINAL 27 $190.00 $222.00 $533.00 LOCATION 30 $2,479.59 $444.00 $6,735.00 LOCATION 31 $170.95 $222.00 $479.00 TERMINAL 37 $105.27 $222.00 $288.00 TERMINAL 38 $257.39 $222.00 $711.00 TERMINAL 39 $174.95 $222.00 $479.00 TERMINAL 40 $629.36 $222.00 $1,711.00 TERMINAL 42 $238.07 $222.00 $657.00 TERMINAL 44 $340.75 $222.00 $932.00 TERMINAL 45 $192.75 $222.00 $531.00 TERMINAL 47 $388.29 $222.00 $1,058.00 LOCATION 53 $335.36 $222.00 $889.00 LAYOVER LOT $270.40 $222.00 $751.00 BUS DIVISIONS MONTHLY SUBTOTAL $15,309.89 (A) $19,425.00 (A) $42,014.00 (A) FACILITY/LOCATION MONTHLY MONTHLY MONTHLY B.
    [Show full text]
  • M E M O R a N D U M Gold Line Grade-Separation
    Attachment A – Nelson/Nygaard Memorandum Report M E M O R A N D U M To: Fred Dock and Bahman Janka From: Paul Moore and Steve Boland Date: February 6, 2018 Subject: City Funding Request to Metro (SR-710 Early Action Projects) This memorandum briefly describes the projects the City of Pasadena Department of Transportation is proposing to include in the City’s SR-710 Early Action Projects funding request to Metro. The projects were selected based on: . review of the SR-710 North Environmental Impact Report/Statement (EIR/EIS); . recommendations of the SR-710 Working Group; . other existing City plans, including the Mobility Element of the General Plan; . additional project development by City staff; . Nelson\Nygaard evaluation; . discussions with representatives of the Cities of South Pasadena and Alhambra; and . discussions with the Transportation Advisory Commission in its October 26 meeting. Consistent with Metro direction, many of the proposed projects are Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) projects, while others are multimodal in nature. Many of the projects are in advanced stages of project development or are part of adopted policies, while others are newer concepts requiring further community discussion and project development (note that cost estimates for these projects are by necessity preliminary, based on professional judgment). The projects are presented in no particular order. Given the scale of funding available, it is our hope that most if not all projects can be funded by Metro. GOLD LINE GRADE-SEPARATION This project would consist of grade-separation of the existing at-grade Metro Rail Gold Line crossing at California Boulevard.
    [Show full text]
  • Gold Line Final Report April 9, 2007
    Final Report GOLD LINE CORRIDOR STUDY March 2007 Prepared by Ralph & Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies University of California, Los Angeles Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Principal Investigator Douglas Houston, Project Manager Ava Bromberg, Director of Fieldwork for Southern California Association of Governments 818 W. Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 GOLD LINE CORRIDOR STUDY FINAL REPORT Prepared by Ralph & Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies University of California, Los Angeles Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Principal Investigator Douglas Houston, Project Manager Ava Bromberg, Director of Fieldwork Graduate Research Assistants Christine Aure Jane Choi Michelle Coulter John Kenyon Lily Song Paul Travis for Southern California Association of Governments 818 W. Seventh Street 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 The preparation of this report was funded in part through grants from the United States Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration – under provisions of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century. Additional financial assistance was provided by the California State Department of Transportation. Gold Line Corridor Study Final Report i Gold Line Corridor Study Final Report ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements iv Executive Summary 1 Section 1. Gold Line Corridor Baseline Profile and Trends 12 1.1 Overview of the Gold Line 12 1.2 Ridership Patterns 13 1.3 Demographic & Socioeconomic Characteristics and Trends of Station Areas 15 1.4 Housing Patterns of Station Areas 23 1.5 Commute Patterns of Station Areas 23 1.6 Jobs & Economic Base of Station Areas 27 1.7 Land Use Characteristics and Trends of Station Areas 31 1.8 Development Activity: Building Permit and Property Sale Patterns 43 1.9 Vacant Properties in Station Areas 50 1.10 Station Area Typologies Classifications 63 1.11 Development Goals & Plans 67 1.12 Overview of Development Projects 72 1.13 References 77 Section 2.
    [Show full text]