DOCSLIB.ORG

Chicago-Main TIF District Advisory Committee Meeting Thursday, August 21, 2014 7:00 PM Lorraine H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chicago-Main TIF District Advisory Committee Meeting Thursday, August 21, 2014 7:00 PM Lorraine H Chicago-Main TIF District Advisory Committee Meeting Thursday, August 21, 2014 7:00 PM Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Ave, Aldermanic Library AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF May 15, 2014 3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. Request for TIF Financial Assistance from O’Donnell Investments B. Next Steps 4. ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting: Thursday, August 28, 2014 Order of Agenda Items is subject to change. Information about the Chicago-Main TIF Committee is available at http://www.cityofevanston.org/government/boards- commissions/chicago-main-tif-advisory-committee/index.php Questions can be directed to Johanna Nyden at 847.448.8014. The City of Evanston is committed to making all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Any citizen needing mobility or communications access assistance should contact the City Manager’s Office 48 hours in advance of the scheduled meeting so that accommodations can be made at 847-866-2936 (Voice) or 847-448-8064 (TYY). DRAFT – NOT APPROVED CHICAGO-MAIN TIF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES MAY 15, 2014 Attendees: Committee Members: A. Ford, R. Wootton, A. Minick, S. Chinsky, D. Geyer, J. Szostek Committee Members Absent: M. Turley Staff: J. Nyden, C. Plante Aldermen: D. Wilson 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Ford called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2014 Ms. Ford moved to approve the minutes of the April 17th meeting. Ms. Wootton seconded. The committee voted 5-0 to approve the minutes from April 17th. 3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Draft application for TIF funding Ms. Wootton showed the committee a capital spending evaluation matrix from another organization where she serves on the board, pointing out that it does a good job of incorporating the organization’s goals into the scoring for projects seeking funding which fosters a sense of transparency by letting applicants know exactly what the committee is looking for. Ms. Ford pointed out that although the application places a heavy emphasis on goals, it also pays attention to ROI. Ms. Wootton conceded that the application she brought as an example is for an entirely different type of organization, but wanted to make an example of the connection to organizational mission an ranking format that was used in the application. Ms. Nyden reminded the committee that the “but for” element is legally required where TIF funding is involved – anyone seeking funds has an obligation to show that the project would not be completed but for TIF financing. Staff incorporated the stated goals and values expressed in prior committee meetings in the draft application but included DRAFT – NOT APPROVED the “but for” section because it is required by state law. The rest of the application is modeled after TIF applications in used in neighboring jurisdictions. Best practice is that TIF funding should make up no more than 20% of funding for a new project. Ms. Ford asked if the committee was free to make changes. Ms. Nyden said yes, though it would more likely take the form of making additions in order to ensure that staff and the committee has access to all the necessary data. Mr. Szostek commended everyone who took part in the discussion at the April 17th meeting based on his reading of the meeting minutes. Ms. Ford asked Mr. Szostek to share any ideas or suggestions he had for the application since he had missed the prior meeting. Mr. Szostek asked whether nonprofits would be permitted to apply since there wasn’t a separate project heading for nonprofits. Although property tax generation is important to a TIF, nonprofits do generate economic benefit. Ms. Nyden agreed and pointed out that some nonprofits do pay property tax, including Rotary International. This could be dealt with by adding an unspecified “other” category or checkbox on the application. Mr. Minick said he also liked the idea of an “other” box, which could include uses like a bowling alley Ms. Wootton asked why “industrial” was included in the categories and questioned whether there were any industrial uses in the district currently. Ms. Nyden said that the area actually has 2 industrial locations currently, including a lumber yard and FEW Spirits. Ms. Ford suggested that in addition to adding an “other” category, there should be categoris for “entertainment’ or “service” because “office” doesn’t seem specific enough. Ms. Nyden suggested that the confusion about uses could be dealt with by requiring applicants to submit their zoning analysis with the TIF application. Mr. Szostek expressed some confusion over how mixed-use projects were dealt with on the form and suggested including clearer instructions that mixed use applicants need to fill out all applicable sections. Ms. Ford agreed. Mr. Szostek asked whether the public art component was meant to only physical art projects like outdoor sculptures or murals, or whether programming or financial support could be included. Ms. Ford said she thought of it as mostly applying to physical art installations DRAFT – NOT APPROVED Ms. Nyden agreed but suggested that the question about financial support and arts programming could be directed to the City’s arts coordinator at a later time. Ms. Wootton asked about whether the public art portion would deal with only art attached to a particular building or project seeking funding or whether it might include a commitment to public art elsewhere in the TIF district. Ms. Nyden suggested breaking it out to avoid the confusion; including an art installation as part of a building or site design should be considered as part of the application. Mr. Geyer suggested moving the public art question to the public benefit heading rather than the “commercial projects” section. Ms. Ford and Ms. Wootton agreed. Mr. Minick suggested moving the traffic study and market appraisal study sections to public benefit as well and said that the traffic piece should only be required for new construction projects, not things like façade grants. Mr. Szostek asked about transit oriented development and parking rules. Ms. Nyden said that Evanston’s particular rules were silent on whether paring could be reduced in areas near transit. Ms. Ford asked whether there was new parking being built in the area because of a house being demolished. Ms. Nyden said that the surface lot being created was to be a private lot for the adjacent apartment building. Even though it’s a private lot, this should still free up street parking because residents would no longer need to park cars on the street. Ms. Ford asked if there should be more about the committee’s goals in the project info. Mr. Szostek asked if this would take a narrative form. Mr. Geyer said that the only part that deals with committee’s goals in the current draft is the public benefit section. Ms. Ford said that it might be a good idea to add another section to speak more to the committee’s goals, but wasn’t sure how to go about it in terms of formatting on the application form. Ms. Nyden asked how everyone felt about the example that Ms. Wootton had brought. Ms. Ford said yes, but suggested designing a new format on the whiteboard. Ms. Wootton created columns for residential and business impact and then rows for new people, economic considerations, traffic & parking, and quality of place. She then added columns for existing businesses and infrastructure. DRAFT – NOT APPROVED Ms. Ford said that the top concerns for each category are in the last page of minutes from the previous meeting; traffic and new people were the top two concerns for residential projects but was unsure about new businesses. Steve asked why residential was even being discussed, since they usually don’t qualify for TIF funds unless the project involves affordable housing. Ms. Ford said that she generally agrees that we don’t need more housing in the area. Mr. Geyer said he didn’t expect to see many housing requests if any, only affordable housing. Ms. Nyden agreed that most housing projects wouldn’t count. Ms. Ford asked why it was included in the application then, and whether mixed use projects were a way for developers to get around the requirements. Ms. Nyden responded that TIF money can’t be used for new residential construction, but said that it could be used for expenses specified in the statute, like site preparation and professional fees. Mr. Szostek asked if this meant it could be used for preparation but not construction. Ms. Nyden said this was correct. Ms. Wootton questioned whether residential impact really refers to a residential building. To us it’s more about impact on neighbors, which would apply to a new residential building but would apply to other projects too. Mr. Minick agreed. Ms. Ford suggested renaming the category to “community impact” to alleviate the confusion. Mr. Minick said he disliked the matrix idea Ms. Wootton was trying to draw on the whiteboard on the grounds that it had become too confusing. As an alternative he proposed asking for additional narratives in the public benefit section to address quality of place, community impact, impact on businesses, and innovation/sustainability. Ms. Ford agreed and said that traffic and parking should be dealt with elsewhere. Mr. Geyer pointed out that sustainability was already included. Ms. Ford concurred and thanked Mr. Minick for his insight. Mr. Geyer expressed concern that there weren’t enough quantitative questions and that the way for applicants to succeed could simply be writing good narratives. DRAFT – NOT APPROVED Ms. Ford said that there was room for change based on the kind of responses the committee sees to the application.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • June 2020 Project Management Oversight Report
    Project Management Oversight June 2020 REPORT ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT – JUNE 2020 Executive Summary This semi‐annual Report on Project Management Oversight details Service Board efforts in implementing their capital programs. Included are details on all state‐funded projects, regardless of budget, and all systemwide projects with budgets of $10 million or more, regardless of funding source. Information in this report was collected by direct interviews, project meetings, and documented submissions from Service Board project management teams. The RTA’s 2018‐2023 Regional Transit Strategic Plan, Invest in Transit, highlights $30 billion of projects that are needed to maintain and modernize the region’s transit network. To maintain and preserve the current system in a State of Good Repair (SGR), as well as address the backlog of deferred SGR projects, requires a capital investment of $2 to $3 billion per year. The Rebuild Illinois funding is planned to expedite overdue repair and replacement projects, reduce the backlog of deferred improvements, and move the system toward a state of good repair. It nearly doubles the previous five‐year regional capital program of $4.3 billion. The new funds enable real progress on the state of good repair, by allowing improvements and in some cases replace aging system assets. Due to the current events, there is a level of uncertainty around the PAYGO and State Bond funding, which is dependent on revenues that may not reach the previously projected levels in the current economy. At this time the Service Boards are continuing with the implementation of their capital programs and working through the grant application process for the Rebuild Illinois funding.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2019 Project Management Oversight Report
    REPORT ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT – JUNE 2019 Executive Summary This semi‐annual Report on Project Management Oversight details Service Board efforts in implementing their capital programs. Included are details on all state‐funded projects, regardless of budget, and all systemwide projects with budgets of $10 million or more, regardless of funding source. Information in this report was collected by direct interviews, project meetings, and documented submissions from Service Board project management teams. The RTA’s 2018‐2023 Regional Transit Strategic Plan, “Invest in Transit,” highlights $30 billion of projects that are needed to maintain and modernize the region’s transit network. To maintain and preserve the current system in a State of Good Repair (SGR), as well as address the backlog of deferred SGR projects, requires a capital investment of $2 to $3 billion per year. After nearly a decade without a State of Illinois capital program, transit in the RTA region will get a much‐needed infusion from the Rebuild Illinois bill passed on June 1, 2019 by the General Assembly. The RTA is looking forward to the implementation of this new state capital plan however there is a concern that the proposed funding for transit does not meet the current needs as identified in “Invest in Transit.” The 55 projects detailed in this report together represent $5,712,260,030 worth of construction, maintenance, and procurement. Many of these projects address outstanding capital needs, while others are directed toward compliance with federal requirements or enhancing customer experience, safety, and security. All of the state funded projects are within budget.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2020 Project Management Oversight Report
    Project Management Oversight December 2020 REPORT ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT – DECEMBER 2020 Executive Summary This semi‐annual Report on Project Management Oversight details Service Board efforts in implementing their capital programs. Included are details on all state‐funded projects, regardless of budget, and all systemwide projects with budgets of $10 million or more, regardless of funding source. Information in this report was collected by direct , interviews project meetings, and documented submissions from Service Board project management teams. The RTA’s 2018‐2023 Regional Transit Strategic Plan, Invest in Transit, highlights $30 billion of projects that are needed to maintain and modernize the region’s transit network. To maintain and preserve the current system in a State of Good Repair (SGR), as well as address the backlog of deferred SGR projects, requires a capital investment of $2 to $3 billion per year. The Rebuild Illinois funding is planned to expedite overdue repair and replacement projects, reduce the backlog of deferred improvements, and move the system toward a state of good repair. It nearly doubles the previous five‐year regional capital program of $4.3 billion. The funds enable real progress on the state of good repair, by allowing improvements and in some cases replace aging system assets. Although this has been a difficult year due to operating funding shortfalls related to COVID‐19, the Service Boards are continuing with the implementation of their capital programs. This report includes, for the first time, 13 Rebuild Illinois projects representing $655 million in Rebuild Illinois funding. The 13 projects reported on have begun during this reporting period and have ongoing activities.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2018 Project Management Oversight Report
    June 2018 Project Management Oversight Prepared by the Department of Finance, Innovation & Technology REPORT ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT – JUNE 2018 Executive Summary This semi‐annual Report on Project Management Oversight details Service Board efforts in implementing their capital programs. Included are details on all state‐funded projects, regardless of budget, and all systemwide projects with budgets of $10 million or more, regardless of funding source. Information in this report was collected by direct interviews, project meetings, and documented submissions from Service Board project management teams. The State of Good Repair backlog for the region currently stands at $19.4 billion, and the 10‐ year capital need for normal reinvestment is $18.3 billion, which results in total 10‐year capital need of $37.7 billion. The 60 projects detailed in this report together represent $3,861,547,183 worth of construction, maintenance, and procurement. Many of these projects will address outstanding capital needs, while others are directed to compliance with federal requirements or enhancing customer experience, safety, and security. The majority of state funded projects are within budget, one project is under budget. 80% of the state funded projects are on schedule. Regarding change orders, some of the added budget came from decisions by the Service Boards to add value to projects or comply with federal requirements. Other change orders were mostly for unforeseen conditions, and a minimal amount was due to errors and omissions. There were also change orders that provided credit for value engineering and for unused allowance and deleted work. Although the progress being made on these projects is significant, current capital funding will not support much needed renewal of the region’s aging transit infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Budget Recommendations
    MODERNIZING TRANSIT FOR THE FUTURE PRESIDENT’S 2014 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS (THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) CTA FY14 Budget Table of Contents Letter from the President ........................................................................................................................................ 1 CTA Organizational Chart ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 7 2013 Operating Budget Performance 2012 Operating Budget Performance Summary ........................................................................................ 25 2012 Operating Budget Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 34 President’s 2014 Proposed Operating Budget President’s 2013 Proposed Operating Budget Summary ....................................................................... 35 President’s 2013 Proposed Operating Budget Schedule ......................................................................... 42 President’s 2015-2016 Proposed Operating Financial Plan President’s 2015-2016 Proposed Operating Financial Plan Summary ............................................. 43 President’s 2015-2016 Proposed Operating Financial Plan Schedule .............................................. 47 2014-2018 Capital
    [Show full text]
  • CTA: BUILDING a 21ST CENTURY TRANSIT SYSTEM PRESIDENT’S 2016 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS CTA FY16 Budget Chicago Transit Board
    CTA: BUILDING A 21ST CENTURY TRANSIT SYSTEM PRESIDENT’S 2016 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS CTA FY16 Budget Chicago Transit Board Terry Peterson, Chairman Appointed by: Mayor, City of Chicago Ashish Sen, Vice Chairman Appointed by: Governor, State of Illinois Arabel Alva Rosales Appointed by: Governor, State of Illinois Andre Youngblood Appointed by: Governor, State of Illinois Rev. Charles E. Robinson Appointed by: Mayor, City of Chicago Alejandro Silva Appointed by: Mayor, City of Chicago Kevin Irvine Appointed by: Mayor, City of Chicago Dorval R. Carter Jr., President CTA FY16 Budget Table of Contents Letter from the President ............................................................................................................................................... 1 CTA Organizational Chart ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 2015 Operating Budget Performance 2015 Operating Budget Performance Summary ..............................................................................................31 2015 Operating Budget Schedule.............................................................................................................................40 President’s 2016 Proposed Operating Budget President’s 2016 Proposed Operating Budget Summary ............................................................................41
    [Show full text]
  • Intent to Prepare an Environmental
    Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices 207 the SPR funds apportioned annually CTA operates the rapid transit system in a.m. at CTA Headquarters, in must be used for research, development, Cook County, Illinois. The proposed Conference Room 2A, 567 W. Lake and technology transfer activities. In project, described more completely Street, Chicago, IL 60661. accordance with government-wide grant within, would bring the North Red and Representatives of Native American management procedures, a grant Purple lines up to a state of good repair Tribal governments and Federal, State, application must be submitted for these from the track structure immediately regional, and local agencies that may funds. In addition, recipients must north of Belmont Station in Chicago, have an interest in any aspect of the submit periodic progress and financial Illinois to the Linden terminal in project will be invited to be reports. In lieu of Standard Form 424, Wilmette, Illinois. The purpose of this participating or cooperating agencies, as Application for Federal Assistance, the Notice of Intent is to (1) alert interested appropriate. FHWA uses a work program as the grant parties regarding the intent to prepare ADDRESSES: Comments will be accepted application. The information contained the EIS, (2) to provide information on at the public scoping meetings or they in the work program includes task the nature of the proposed project and may be sent to Mr. Steve Hands, descriptions, assignments of possible alternatives, and (3) to invite Strategic Planning and Policy, Chicago responsibility for conducting the work public participation in the EIS process.
    [Show full text]
  • Metra & Amtrak Trains from Union Station
    Metra & Amtrak to Chicago’s North Shore Metra Trains Metra From Ogilvie Station Metra Train Line & Amtrak Metra Train Line Metra/Union Pacific North Line Trains From Amtrak Station Stop Metra/Union Pacific North Line Suburban Train services the Union Station (same track) Public Transportation east North Shore. Trains leave from Chicago Ogilvie Station located at Madison and Canal Streets (see other side). The Metra/Milwaukee District North Line Guide Metra Main Street and Davis Street stops in Evanston are Amtrak Hiawatha located next to their corresponding CTA Purple Line stops Metra/Milwaukee District North Line services the west North (see other side). Train lines not drawn to scale. Shore. Amtrak also makes a stop in Glenview. Both trains depart from Chicago Union Station, located on Canal between Adams ▼ Chicago Botanic Garden, Downtown Evanston and Jackson (see other side). Train lines not drawn to scale. RAVINIA PARK 48 ▼ The Glen Town Center, Wagner Farm MIN • Ravinia Festival NORTHBROOK 43 MIN BRAESIDE 46 • Northbrook Court MIN • Downtown Northbrook Shops • Chicago Botanic Garden — one mile walk GLENCOE 43 MIN • Chicago Botanic Garden — NORTH GLENVIEW 38 trolley available for summer MIN weekends and special events • The Glen Town Center • Kohl Children’s Museum WILMETTE 31 MIN • Village Center Merchants • Wilmette Theatre GLENVIEW 35 MIN • Wagner Farm • Downtown Glenview Shops MINUTES FROM MINUTES FROM DOWNTOWN CHICAGO DOWNTOWN CHICAGO DOWNTOWN DAVIS STREET/EVANSTON 25 MIN • Downtown Evanston Easy access to Chicago’s North Shore MAIN STREET/EVANSTON 22 via CTA, Metra and Amtrak MIN • Main/Chicago Retail visitchicagonorthshore.com Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) to Evanston, Skokie & Wilmette Downtown Chicago Central Business District Map LINDEN STATION, WILMETTE 53 with train lines servicing Evanston, Skokie & Wilmette Traveling to MIN Evanston and • Baha’i House of Worship Wilmette Purple Line Red Line The CTA Purple Line operates express service during morning and evening rush hour.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase One: Lawrence to Bryn Mawr Modernization
    Next Steps The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) will evaluate the Environmental Assessment, and the agency’s final decision documentation Building a better will allow CTA to move forward into the next phase of the project implementation transit experience (engineering) and qualify for federal funding. for our customers There are multiple opportunities to provide feedback throughout this process, including When completed, the RPM Program a public hearing. Phase One: would deliver all the benefits of modern service and infrastructure for Red Ahead Lawrence to customers. RPM is part of the CTA’s Red Ahead Bryn Mawr • Faster, smoother rides – New track, program, a comprehensive initiative for bridges, and viaducts, as well as maintaining, modernizing, and expanding Modernization electrical upgrades along the entire Chicago’s most-traveled rail line. Red-Purple corridor would allow CTA to safely increase the speeds The Red Ahead program also includes for all trains while also offering a the Red Line South Reconstruction smoother, quieter ride. Project (completed 2013), the 95th Street Terminal Project (began summer 2014), • Modern, comfortable, fully ADA the Wilson Station Reconstruction Project accessible stations along the (began fall 2014) and the Red Line entire corridor with elevators, Extension Project, which would extend wider platforms, and vastly the line south to 130th Street (currently improved amenities. in planning). • Less crowding and more frequent service – With wider, longer station [email protected] platforms along the entire line and upgraded electrical and signal transitchicago.com/rpmproject capacity, CTA can run longer and more frequent trains during rush facebook.com/thecta hour, reducing passenger wait times and alleviating overcrowding.
    [Show full text]
  • ASAP Strategic Plan - July 2018 I
    All Stations Accessibility Program (ASAP) Strategic Plan Final ASAP Strategic Plan - July 2018 i TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. IV ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................... VII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... ES-1 CHAPTER 1: STRATEGIC PLAN OVERVIEW ............................................................... 1 Program Goal and Development .......................................................................................... 1 Background and Context ........................................................................................................ 9 CHAPTER 2: PRIORITIZATION PROCESS .................................................................. 13 Needs and Complexity .......................................................................................................... 13 Scoring Process ........................................................................................................................ 15 Scoring Results ......................................................................................................................... 19 Elevator Replacement Program Prioritization ..................................................................... 23 CHAPTER 3: DESIGN APPROACH .......................................................................... 26
    [Show full text]
  • Skokie Swift North Shore Corridor Travel Market Analysis
    Skokie Swift North Shore Corridor Travel Market Analysis final report prepared for City of Evanston in association with Village of Skokie Regional Transportation Authority prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. in association with Valerie S. Kretchmer & Associates, Inc. Bernadette Schleis & Associates, Inc. July 2007 www.camsys.com final report Skokie Swift North Shore Corridor Travel Market Analysis prepared for City of Evanston in association with Village of Skokie Regional Transportation Authority prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 in association with Valerie S. Kretchmer & Associates, Inc. Bernadette Schleis & Associates, Inc. July 2007 Skokie Swift North Shore Corridor Travel Market Analysis Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 Study Approach ............................................................................................................ ES-1 Population, Employment, Land Use, and Demographics....................................... ES-2 Existing Transportation Network............................................................................... ES-4 Travel Patterns............................................................................................................... ES-6 Market Evaluation ........................................................................................................ ES-8 Station Alternatives .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Project Requirements for Red and Purple
    PROJECT NO. 2014-0017.06 PART 3 – PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR RED AND PURPLE MODERNIZATION (RPM) PHASE ONE DESIGN-BUILD CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY Issued for Execution December 12, 2018 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BY: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SUPERVISED BY: CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION - CONSTRUCTION Red and Purple Modernization (RPM) Phase One Issued for Execution Design-Build December 12, 2018 PART 3 - PROJECT REQUIREMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 3.1 General Project Description 1 3.1.1 Project Limits 2 3.1.1.1 Overall Guideway Improvement Limits 3.1.1.2 At-Grade Civil Improvement Limits 3.1.1.3 Signal Corridor Improvement Limits 3.1.2 Pre-Stage Work 3 3.1.2.1 Existing Retaining Wall, Wing Wall and Ballast Curb Rehabilitation 3.1.2.2 CTA-Provided Materials 3.1.2.3 Pre-Stage Interlockings 3.1.2.4 Miscellaneous Traction Power Elements 3.1.2.5 Miscellaneous Trackwork 3.1.2.6 Signal System Elements 3.1.2.7 Communication Elements 3.1.2.8 Temporary Stations and Platforms 3.1.3 Red Purple Bypass (RPB) Work 10 3.1.3.1 Temporary Track RVT 3.1.3.2 Bypass Track NM5 3.1.3.3 Kenmore Interlocking 3.1.3.4 Existing Residential and Commercial Building Demolition 3.1.3.5 North Mainline (NM) Track 3.1.3.6 RV1/RV2 Structure Rehabilitation and Track Improvements 3.1.3.7 Miscellaneous Improvements 3.1.3.8 Vautravers Building Relocation and Rehabilitation 3.1.4 Lawrence to Bryn Mawr Modernization (LBMM) 12 3.1.4.1 Embankment and Retaining Walls 3.1.4.2 Winona Relay Room 3.1.4.3 North Mainline (NM) Track 3.1.4.4
    [Show full text]