DOCSLIB.ORG

Ferry Questions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ferry Questions QUESTION QUESTIONS RESPONSE NUMBER See Section 9(n) of the Draft Ferry Services Operations and Maintenance Agreement included in Addendum II (hereinafter referred to as the "Draft In section 2.1.1 it states "Selected proposer must retain the crew staff currently performing operations and maintenance Agreement"). None of the incumbent contractor's staff performing ferry services." Request clarification exactly what that statement means. For example: How long is proposer required to retain 1 services are union members. During negotiations, RTA will approve a staffing the current crew? Is proposer required to provide the same pay and benefits to the current crew? Is the proposer required to plan, which may be reevaluated during the Transition Period. A current be union employer? organizational chart provided by the incumbent contractor will be posted to www.norta.com/ferryrfp. 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 Request to know if the term of the contract can be made to five (5) years, with two consecutive, three (3)‐ 2 Contract term will not be changed. year extensions. 3 2.3.1 Is the monthly payment in advance of the coming month? No, see Section 8 of the Draft Agreement describing the invoice procedure. See Section 8(f) of the Draft Contract. Costs may be determined to be dis‐ 2.3.2 What are the guidelines and/or process for determining which costs are dis‐allowable, dis‐allowable, and/or allowable, dis‐allocable according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles 4 unreasonable...? or as provided for in the Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Transit Agency regulations, and other applicable federal regulations. Refer to Section 3.5 of RFP for guidance on DBE Participation Plan: "proposers must submit a DBE Participation Plan with the Volume 2 Technical Proposal that sets forth binding commitments to utilize DBE subcontractor(s) and/or 3.5 DBE Participation Plan: Given the short time frame for responding to this RFP, request to clarification if proposer can 5 demonstrates good faith efforts (as defined in Appendix A to 49 Code of agree/commit to meeting DBE goals in lieu of providing DBE contracts, etc? Federal Regulations Part 26)." A committment to perform good faith efforts (as defined in Appendix A to 49 CFR Part 26) towards a percentage of DBE participation will be an allowable proposed plan. 4.2.4 Given the short term frame of responding to the RFP, can proposer commit to providing Key Personnel that meet the Proposals will be evaluated based on qualifications presented in the proposal, 6 experience requirements of proposal? as described in Section 5.1.4 of RFP See Section 10(f) of the Draft Agreement. The Contractor shall be responsible for regularly collecting and reviewing all transaction logs, pull‐out sheets, 4.2.5 Can you describe and/or expand the specifications of the Data Collection Device System Management and Operations incident logs, and other information collected or reported on the data reporting 7 Plan. system provided by RTA, and for making all such information available to the Regional Transit Authority upon its request. RTA shall provide the Contractor with templates and reporting software to prepare these reports. 1. In the provided RFP 2019‐30 Ferry Transit Services Attachment.pdf there is an inspection booklet for Subchapter T vessels. This booklet is not applicable to the other vessels that are Subchapter H vessels that RTA operates. There is a difference with Refer to RTA website (http://www.norta.com/Maps‐Schedules/New‐Orleans‐ 8 inspection and equipment requirements. Shouldn't other proposers should be made aware of this? 2. In the provided RFP Ferry) for the most up‐to‐date operating schedules. 2019‐30 Ferry Transit Service.pdf section 2.1.3 Operations, the Saturday and Sunday start times seem incorrect compared to your website. Which times are correct? 10/30/2019 1 3. In the provided RFP 2019‐30 Ferry Transit Service.pdf section 2.1.4 Maintenance, it mentions washing the vessels twice a The incumbent contractor has been requested to provide this information week. This is excessive for vessels of this size. The smaller vessel this may be possible. The larger vessels it will be impossible which will be posted to www.drivertaforward.com/operating‐information to wash the outside of the vessels twice a week. The larger vessels would require specialized equipment to reach the higher and/or www.norta.com/ferryrfp as it becomes available, and other information levels. A. Where would this washing take place? B. Does any of the RTA assets, such as docks or piers allow a movable scissor will be posted as it is received. Information and documents resulting from lift to be moved up and down the docks to reach the outside of the vessel? C The Mississippi River is a U.S Navigable previous requests for information are available at 9 Waterway, washing down vessels could violate Vessel General Permitting 2013, the Clean Water Act and NTVRP. Operators www.drivertaforward.com/operating‐information. Regardless, proposals must are required to minimize the discharge of rust, cleaning compounds, paint chips, non skid fragments and other materials be received by 4:00 pm on November 7, 2019, pursuant to the RFP. See associated with top side maintenance. All soaps must be phosphate free and biodegradable. Washdowns produce oily response to question #33. The exterior of the ferries are pressure washed in residue. D. Does RTA already have this equipment in place? E. How will the washdown be captured? Tank and treated by an reachable areas. The ferry facilities do not have a movable scissor lift or Oily Water Separator? F. When captured, how is the washdown treated? On site or removed off the facility? equipment to capture washdown. 4. The USCG has the applicable ferries NTVRP expiration of November 24, 2019. The contract is scheduled to be executed December 18‐31, 2019. The vessels require NTVRP in place prior to the execution of the contract. 5. What is the current level 10 See response to question #9. of staffing for Management, administration, vessel crews and the maintenance? 6. Is there an organizational chart available? 7. What are the current pay rates for all staffing? 8. Since RTA has 5 vessels in the CEA, what is the procedure for vessels not in operation? a. The vessels that are out of service or laid up for extended periods, are they sufficiently manned to get underway immediately? The best common marine practice would have each vessel manned to maintain the vessel readiness. 9. We have observed the Alvin Stumpf moored at Jackson Avenue for four years. a. Our understanding is the Alvin Stumpf was last dry docked in 2010. Is this correct? b. Was 11 the vessel dry docked in 2015 as scheduled? Considering the vessel has been moored at Jackson Ave for the last four years, See response to question #9. should we assume the vessel has not been dry docked timely? c. If dry docking of the Alvin Stumpf has not been completed in the last 9 years, then what is the long term plan with the vessel? d. Was the vessel manned the last four years, to maintain it's current equipment? e. With no dry docking since 2010 has there been marine survey of the vessel to determine feasibility to place the vessel back into operation? f. With no inspections completed the last four years and no completed dry docking since 2010, this may be cost prohibitive to get the vessel in compliance with USCG current standards. Older vessels are usually grandfathered as long as inspections and See Table 10 of the Transit Asset Management Plan which can be found at drydockings are maintained. According to the Coast Guard's Port State Information Exchange, their last contact with the www.norta.com/ferryrfp and/or www.drivertaforward.com/operating‐ 12 vessel was February 2, 2016. 1. Does RTA have the funding to dry dock the vessel and repower the vessel's main propulsion information. Also, see response to question #105. See Section 6(d) for a engines, service generators and other capital improvements? 10. Since the Alvin Stumpf and Captain Levy have the same description of the procedure for initial vessel inspection. general arrangements. a. What capital improvements are planned for this vessel? The previous RFP references a conditional assessment of the vessels completed sometime in 2012. b. Has the vessel been repowered? 11. What is the status of the St. John? We have observed it located at Bollinger Harvey Quick Repair since 2017. According to the Coast Guard's Port State Information Exchange, their last contact with the vessel was May 31, 2017. 5 year dry docking was also due for this vessel in 2017. Since this vessel was constructed in 1977, it also was grandfathered unless the vessel 13 See response to question #105. completed periodic inspections and dry dockings. This vessel will be required to be in compliance with modern Coast Guard standards for Subchapter H passenger vessels. a. What are the plans for this vessel? b. Is there funding to repower and modernize this vessel? 10/30/2019 2 11. What is the status of the Thomas Jefferson? According to the Coast Guard's Port State Information Exchange, their last See responses to questions #9 and #15. The following capital improvements contact with the vessel was April 25, 2019. This vessel appears to be properly inspected and dry docked in a timely manner. have been made to the Thomas Jefferson since 2014: Repowered mains to 14 a. Has this vessel been, repowered since 2012? We're basing this off the documentation provided during the first RFP? b.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ferry Privatization Study
    August 2012 Public Private Partnership Opportunities Study Prepared for: Regional Planning Commission RPC Project Number: LA-FB-OPS2 FTA Grant Number: LA 90X377 Jefferson-Orleans-St. Bernard Parishes, LA Crescent City Connection Ferry Public Private Partnership Opportunities Study RPC Project Number: LA-FB-OPS2 FTA Grant Number LA 90X337 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 I. Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................................... 5 II. Project Area ...................................................................................................................................... 5 III. Planning Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 6 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 8 I. Equipment ......................................................................................................................................... 8 II. Facilities............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arch Thesis Inventory.Xlsx
    Page 1 ARCHITECTURE SCHOOL THESES YEAR AUTHOR TITLE 2012 Aditi, Padhi Urban Centre for Justice Re-Investment: Rehabilitation in Treme-Seventh Ward, New Orleans 2012 Asher, Mira Post-Postal: Making Physical Public Space in a Digital World 2012 Bardwell, Kristy Evidence-Bases Design: A New Recovery and Rehabilitation Facility Typology 2012 Berman, Leland Bailey Stitching Houston: Degradation and Creation of Place in the Contemporary Muli-Nodal City 2012 Brooks, Nicholas The Motor City: Networking Density Amongst Decay: Detroit, MI 2012 Cho, Hee Kyung Rebuilding Traditions: A new cemetary for Seoul, South Korea 2012 Coles, Samuel Valu(able)Access(able) Architecture 2012 Dardant. Marie Sophie independence through Integration: Encouraging Variation within a Regulated Environment Manufactured Innovation: A study of community revitalization through systemic manufacturing and creative 2012 Davis, Elizabeth incubation 2012 David. Alexandra Building as threshold: Houston Transitional Center: An architectural nexus 2012 DeCotiis, Matt Planning for Death: A celebration of life through the redesign of the cities of the dead 2012 Diiorio, Laura Take me to the river!: facilitating access to the Mississippi in New Orleans 2012 Faircloth, Gillian Performance of the Collective Memory: Rejuvinating a Culture Through Adaptive Reuse 2012 Finkelstein, Rachel Amplifying Awareness: Atlantic City Re-treat 2012 Fisher, Sean Individual Experience & Collective Memory: The Sports Stadium in Place Making Page 2 2012 Franke, Patrick Flux Capacity: asymmetrical activity
    [Show full text]
  • New Links Concept Sketches
    New Links Comprehensive Operations Analysis System Report September 2020 Contents Introduction and Project Overview . 1 .5 What is New Links? . 1 .6 What is the purpose of this report? . 1 .6 Why are we doing a bus redesign? . 1 .7 Key Trends, 2012-2019 . 1 .10 What key questions need answering? . 1 .13 Recent crises have introduced new challenges for service planning . 1 .15 System Updates . 1 .15 Key Concepts and Choices . 1 .17 Key transit planning concepts . 1 .18 Access . 1 .20 Frequency . 1 .24 Span . 1 .28 Speed . 1 .28 Better service for the same budget: . 1 .29 System Analysis . 1 .33 Overview . 1 .34 Transit and the built environment . 1 .34 The Network . 1 .37 Downtown Service . 1 .39 Downtown Service - March 2020 Updates . 1 .41 Service Frequency and Span . 1 .42 Peak vs . base service levels . 1 .44 Productivity by Time of Day . 1 .46 Frequency and Productivity . 1 .47 Ridership by Stop . 1 .49 Structure of the network . 1 .50 Direct and indirect routes . 1 .54 Duplicating Service . 1 .56 Exceptions and Outliers . 1 .58 Stop Spacing . 1 .60 Analysis and Service Strategies . 1 .63 System performance . 1 .64 Design and scheduling . 1 .65 Fares and Transfers . 1 .66 Infrastructure . 1 .66 Planning and operations issues . 1 .67 1.3 Figures Figure 1 - Annual ridership for RTA, JET and SBURT services . 1 .6 Figure 2 - Changes to RTA Service and Weekday Hours, 2012-2019 . 1 .9 Figure 3 - % Change in Service Levels for RTA and JET lines, 2012-2018 . 1 .10 Figure 4 - % Change in Annual Ridership, 2012-2018 .
    [Show full text]
  • Crescent City Connection Operations Devolution Or Evolution
    1 Crescent City Connection Operations Devolution or Evolution Presentation February 18, 2013 Contents 1. Recent Legislation 2. CCCD Restructuring 3. Toll Funded Services 4. Toll Operations 5. Estimated Annual Revenue and Costs 6. Future Plans 2 ACT No. 866 • Effective January 1, 2013 • Abolishes Mississippi River Bridge Authority MRBA • Terminates Crescent City Connection Division CCCD DOTD 3 ACT No. 866 • Transfers From CCCD To DOTD – Books, records, paper – Funds (previously appropriated) – Property (movable and immovable) – Buildings and Improvements • Abolishes Crescent Connection City Oversight Authority CCCOA 4 ACT No. 866 • Creates Crescent City Transition Fund – Toll Fund Balance as of December 31, 2012 – First $4M for CCCD Ferry Capitalization – Balance to NORPC for lighting, landscaping, grass cutting, trash pickup, improvements to ingress/egress 5 ACT No. 866 • DOTD may take over, control, operate, and regulate the Crescent Connection City Ferries • DOTD may privatize, franchise, or enter into a contract for ferry services – Alone or jointly with parishes or municipalities – Appoints NORPC as an advisor to ferry service contractor 6 ACT No. 865 • Effective January 1, 2013 • Creates a Special Fund, Crescent City Connection (CCC) Toll Fund – Source is Tolls, Administrative Fees, and Late Charges Collected – Not less than $10 M Annually into CCC Capital Projects (CP) Fund – Not to Exceed $2 M Annually to DPS for Police Functions 7 ACT No. 865 • Creates a Special Fund, Crescent City Connection (CCC) Toll Fund (Continued) – Operations and Maintenance Costs – Unexpended Monies transfer to CP Fund – All Monies in the Fund are Subject to Annual Appropriations by the Legislature 8 ACT No. 865 • CP Fund for Projects – “Pay-As-You-Go”, Match for Federal Funds, or Bond Payments – All Monies in the Fund are Subject to Annual Appropriations by the Legislature 9 ACT No.
    [Show full text]
  • New Orleans RTA System
    Our Commitment In and Around New Orleans Passenger Information Fares and Passes/Tarifas y pases Reduced Fare Card ID Program Points of Interest Points of Interest Planning your trip is simple with the Regional Transit RTA is committed to getting you from uptown to downtown and Fares Standard Reduced RTA Buses and Streetcars offer reserved seating and reduced No. Location Served by Line Grid Ref No. Location Served by Line Grid Ref Delivering safe, efficient, courteous, Tarifas Normal Reducida dependable and reliable public transportation Authority(RTA) trip planner found at www.norta.com. all around town. That’s why timetables are available on all of our fares for Seniors 65 and older, People with Disabilities, and vehicles, at pass outlets, public libraries and at www.norta.com. Local Bus and Streetcar Lines Medicare Card Holders. Regional Transit Authority Hospitals When you are ready to go, arrive at your stop 5 minutes before $1.25 $0.40 Servicio local RTA RTA Adminstrative Office 94, 47, 48 F-3 H1 Ochsner Baptist Hospital 15, 16, 24 G-2 RTA New Orleans Social Media your bus or streetcar is scheduled to arrive. Have your fare ready People with Disabilities and Medicare Card Holders require an Express Bus to and from New Orleans Connect with us on all social media platforms to find out the latest when you board and consider purchasing one of our convenient Holidays - Reduced Service Schedule RTA Reduced Fare Card to receive the reduced fare. Call RTA at H2 University Medical Center 39, 84, 47, 48 F-3 East (Lines 62, 63, 64 and 65) $1.50 $0.40 RTA RTA ID Center 94, 47, 48 F-3 504-827-8345 to apply or apply at RTA’s Offices (2817 Canal (Reduced Fare ID cards) news, Rider Alerts and system status updates.
    [Show full text]
  • The Algiers/ Canal Street Ferry a Critical Transportation & Economic Link
    THE ALGIERS/ CANAL STREET FERRY A CRITICAL TRANSPORtatION & ECONOMIC LINK Ride New Orleans is an independent non-profit organization. We advocate for safe, convenient and affordable transportation for all New Orleanians. Learn more - 504.345.8360 / www.rideneworleans.org THE SITUATION AND WHAT WE’RE DOING ABOUT IT New Orleans Ferries are in Crisis What We’re Doing About it In 2012, the Louisiana State Legislature voted to strip When Ride New Orleans first discovered that ferry ser- the ferries of their dedicated funding source by prohib- vice was in danger, because we work so closely with iting any future Crescent City Connection bridge tolls transit dependent populations, we knew that service from funding them, but failed to provide other funding cuts would mean a devastating loss of mobility for New sources in order to maintain ferry service long-term. Orleans and Algiers residents lacking a personal vehi- cle. After discovering that there has not been a com- The State will end funding for the Algiers - Canal Street prehensive effort to understand the human story of our ferry in June 2013, putting ferry service in danger of ferries, and that decisions about cutting service would being drastically reduced or cut altogether. likely be made without considering the true impact, we decided to collect as much information as we could about who rides the New Orleans - Algiers ferry and Why the Ferry Matters why. The Mississippi River poses a significant barrier be- So, with the help of over 40 volunteers, we conducted tween East and West Bank neighborhoods. While the a survey of 1,575 ferry riders on the Algiers - Canal Crescent City Connection bridge (built in 1958) pro- Street ferry in April 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Canal Street Study
    Canal Street Study City of New Orleans City Planning Commission Robert D. Rivers, Executive Director Prepared by: Leslie T. Alley, Deputy Director Larry W. Massey, Jr. Joseph A. Colón Prepared on: 10/16/2018 Paul Cramer Stephen Kroll Revised on: 10/31/2018 Travis Martin Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Study Goals ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 10 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Early Canal Street history ................................................................................................................. 13 1950 – 1979 Plans and Studies ...................................................................................................... 16 1980s Plans and Studies ................................................................................................................... 31 1990s Plans and Studies ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Canal Street Study
    Canal Street Study City of New Orleans City Planning Commission Robert D. Rivers, Executive Director Prepared by: Leslie T. Alley, Deputy Director Larry W. Massey, Jr. Joseph A. Colón Prepared on: 10/16/2018 Paul Cramer Stephen Kroll Travis Martin Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Study Goals ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 10 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Early Canal history .............................................................................................................................. 13 1950 – 1979 Plans and Studies ...................................................................................................... 16 1980s Plans and Studies ................................................................................................................... 31 1990s Plans and Studies ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • AMEND-DOCUMENT-2017.Pdf (5.478Mb)
    Applying Ecological Gap Analysis as a Tool for Restoration Planning The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Amend, Meredith. 2017. Applying Ecological Gap Analysis as a Tool for Restoration Planning. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33826360 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Applying Ecological Gap Analysis as a Tool for Restoration Planning Meredith E. Amend A Thesis in the Field of Sustainability and Environmental Management for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University May 2017 Copyright 2017 Meredith E. Amend Abstract Following oil spills, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, or the release of other hazardous materials, natural resources and their services can be lost or diminished. Under several federal statutes, natural resource trustees (e.g., federal and state governments) responsible for managing these resources may assess natural resource damages and devise restoration projects to compensate for those losses (U.S.C. §2701 et seq.). During the traditional restoration planning process, natural resource trustees rely on submissions from resource managers as well as the public to identify potential restoration projects. While human resources such as these can be valuable sources of local information, a number of shortcomings have been identified with this process.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY Addendum II to Request for Proposals # 2019-030
    NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY Addendum II to Request for Proposals # 2019-030 Ferry Transit Services Operations and Maintenance October 11, 2019 REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY PUBLIC NOTICE RFP 2019-030 Ferry Transit Services Addendum II Acknowledge receipt of this addendum in the proposal submission. This addendum is a part of the Contract Documents and shall be included in the Contract Documents. Changes made by the addenda take precedence over information published at an earlier date. 1. The relevant sentence in Section “2.1.1. Ferry Service Operations and Maintenance Agreement” is amended to read as follows: “The selected proposer shall enter into an Agreement for Ferry Service Operations and Maintenance with the RTA which will substantially conform to Attachment 9 Draft Ferry Service Operations and Maintenance Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”) and which will allow the RTA to perform as obligated under the CEA, or as obligated under a new or amended cooperative endeavor agreement.” 2. The list of Attachments underneath the Table of Contents is amended to include “Attachment 9: Draft Ferry Service Operations and Maintenance Agreement” which is found on the following pages in this Addendum II. 3. The relevant sentence in Section “3.3 Pre-proposal Conference, Facility Tour, Procurement Website, Questions, Clarifications,” having been amended in Addendum I, is now amended to read as follows: “All questions or requests for clarifications must be submitted via the ProcureWare system at https://norta.procureware.com
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Ferry Boat and Highway Bridge Energy Use
    Energies 2011, 4, 239-253; doi:10.3390/en4010239 OPEN ACCESS energies ISSN 1996-1073 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies Article Comparison of Ferry Boat and Highway Bridge Energy Use Wayne D. Cottrell Department of Civil Engineering and Construction Engineering Management, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840, USA; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-562-985-5118 Received: 18 November 2010; in revised form: 15 January 2011 / Accepted: 20 January 2011 / Published: 27 January 2011 Abstract: Passenger ferries serve a variety of transport needs in the U.S., such as providing vital links across bodies of water, and supplementing highway bridges. In some cases in which there is a ferry connection but no bridge, a bridge would be impractical; in other cases, a bridge might be feasible. The paper compares the energy consumption of ferries and motor vehicles on bridges, to determine which link is more fuel efficient. One finding is that limited data are available on ferry boat fuel consumption: despite there being 208 ferry boat operators in the U.S. as of 2008, only eight were providing energy use data to the National Transit Database. Examinations of three of the systems found that the passenger-MPG of the ferries ranged from 2.61 to 14.00 (1.11 to 5.95 km/L), while that of the motor vehicles on adjacent highway bridge connections ranged from 25.34 to 32.45 (10.77 to 13.79 km/L). Data from the eight systems are used to develop a ferry MPG model.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Ballot: the Crescent City Connection Toll Proposition
    A Report from the Bureau of Governmental Research THEOBALLOTN The Crescent City Connection Toll Proposition INTRODUCTION at $1 for drivers paying cash and 40 cents for drivers using electronic toll tags. They generated $20.7 million Voters in Jefferson, Orleans and Plaquemines parishes in fi scal 2011, which accounted for 80% of the CCC will decide whether to renew tolls on the Crescent City Division’s total budget.3 Connection bridge (CCC). If approved, tolls would con- tinue for the next 20 years, until December 31, 2033. In the past, the CCC Division has spent only a small share of toll revenues on the bridge itself. In its April Toll revenues could be used only on the bridge and 2011 report, Over the River: The Future of the Cres- “along” the rest of U.S. 90Z, which includes a portion cent City Connection Bridge and Ferries, BGR calcu- of the Pontchartrain Expressway and all of the West- lated that for every dollar of bridge tolls paid in fi scal bank Expressway. The revenue would be dedicated 2010, only 19 cents went to maintaining and policing solely to the following purposes: “operations, mainte- the bridge. The largest slice, 32 cents, went to operating nance, landscaping, grass cutting, trash pickup, func- and maintaining the ferries; 16 cents went to collecting tional and ornamental lighting, policing, inspections, and administering the tolls; and 5 cents went to beauti- motorist assistance patrols and capital projects on the fi cation services, such as grass cutting and trash pickup, bridge, approaches and roadways.” on surrounding roadways. Another 9 cents went to debt service and 6 cents to various capital projects, with the If voters reject the measure, tolls on the bridge will ex- remaining 13 cents going to a capital reserve fund.4 pire at the end of 2012.
    [Show full text]