DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplemental Agenda Item No. 34

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supplemental Agenda Item No. 34 Supplemental Agenda Item No. 34 Board of Directors Meeting January 9, 2019 10:30 a.m. Location: San Bernardino County Transportation Authority First Floor Lobby Board Room Santa Fe Depot, 1170 W. 3rd Street San Bernardino CA. 92410 DISCUSSION CALENDAR Transit 34. Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2B Project Update That the Board, acting as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority: A. Receive and file an update on the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2B Project. B. Provide direction to staff on the need to work with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority to develop Diesel Multiple Unit Service to meet the transit and transit-oriented development needs in Montclair in case the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2B terminates west of the San Bernardino County/Los Angeles County line. This agenda item was made available after the posting of the agenda. Minute Action SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEM: 34 Date: January 9, 2019 Subject: Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2B Project Update Recommendation: That the Board, acting as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority: A. Receive and file an update on the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2B Project. B. Provide direction to staff on the need to work with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority to develop Diesel Multiple Unit Service to meet the transit and transit-oriented development needs in Montclair in case the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2B terminates west of the San Bernardino County/Los Angeles County line. Background: The Metro Foothill Gold Line Phase 2B Project (Project) includes 12.3 miles of light-rail track construction primarily in Los Angeles County, except for 0.6 miles of construction in San Bernardino County, which contains the planned eastern terminus station at the Montclair Transit Center, as shown in Attachment A. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) is responsible for the funding of the Project in Los Angeles County and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) is responsible for funding the portion in San Bernardino County. Through state legislation, the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority (Construction Authority) was formed for the purposes of overseeing all design and construction contracts for completion of the Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Gold Line as well as any future extension eastward to Claremont. In 2012, legislation was passed that extended the terminus further east to Montclair in San Bernardino County. In addition to being the responsible funding entities, as the County Transportation Commissions, LA Metro and SBCTA are responsible for planning of mass transit systems in our respective counties. On June 22, 2017, the LA Metro Board of Directors approved a Life of Project Budget for their portion of the Project in the amount of $1.41 billion and authorized execution of a Project Funding Agreement with the Construction Authority, including provisions to apply for $249 million in State Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) funds as a LA Metro priority. In December 2018, LA Metro led the effort to submit a TIRCP grant for the remaining funding needed in Los Angeles County, $249 million, as well as the remaining funding needed in San Bernardino County, which was $41 million. The TIRCP grant application was successful with the award of $290 million, and the Construction Authority initiated the design-build procurement process to enter into a contract for design and construction of the Project. The Construction Authority recently completed the initial procurement process for award of the design-build contract. As reported to their Board on November 13, 2018, they shortlisted four teams, all of which had cost proposals substantially over the budget established in June 2017. Based on the two lowest cost proposals received, Construction Authority staff estimates an additional $570 million is needed to construct the Project to Montclair, and recommended a Entity: San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Board of Directors Agenda Item January 9, 2019 Page 2 phased approach to delivering the project while additional funding is secured. The Construction Authority Board approved moving forward with the phased approach to the project as identified in Attachment A, with the intent of delivering the initial phase to La Verne by 2024 and allowing two additional years to build the remaining phases to Montclair, with the final completion slated for 2028 instead of 2026. Construction Authority staff cited two main reasons for the high cost proposals: market saturation and exacerbated conditions such as high material costs, limited work force availability, and risk associated with building in the Metrolink Corridor. As currently planned, the Project will enter the Metrolink Corridor near the Pomona North Metrolink Station and requires removal and reconstruction of three miles of Metrolink rail infrastructure. SBCTA requested an updated estimate and rate of expenditure for the work in San Bernardino County in an effort to accurately define the revised funding needed. The Construction Authority advised us that they will not provide an update until after they receive the revised cost proposals from the design-build teams in May 2019. In the meantime, they advised us to expect a 30-40% increase. SBCTA anticipates the total estimated cost for delivery of the Project in San Bernardino County, including Advanced Conceptual Engineering and SBCTA Oversight, could increase from $74 million to $100 million based on the information provided by the Construction Authority, as well as applying a 6% escalation rate to the expenditures that are being delayed two years and allowing for a 10% increase to right-of-way acquisition. Prior to the cost increase, the work in San Bernardino County was fully funded with receipt of the $41 million of TIRCP funding earmarked for work in San Bernardino County and a combination of non-federal formula funding. It should be noted that the $100 million could be further refined up or down once the Construction Authority provides the requested cost information and after receipt of the best and final cost proposals from the design-build teams. The initial phasing now proposed includes an interim terminus at La Verne, which could be completed by 2024. The Construction Authority has identified three additional phases-- construction to Pomona North, then to Claremont, and finally to Montclair--based on future funding availability, but targeted for completion by 2028. The Construction Authority is required to complete a re-evaluation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) because they did not include potential project phasing in the original environmental clearance. They are currently going through the steps to complete a Supplemental EIR (SEIR). The public outreach process kicked off in December 2018, adding the four phases as identified in Attachment A, while also proposing to move a parking lot at the Pomona North Metrolink Station The TIRCP grant criterion focuses on greenhouse gas reduction as well as benefits to disadvantaged communities. As such, the introduction of phasing calls into question the availability of the full amount of TIRCP awarded. However, on December 6, 2018, the LA Metro Board unanimously approved a motion to reiterate their support of the full Project, directed staff to come back in January with a proposed funding plan, and oppose the introduction of any new service in the Gold Line Corridor (included as Attachment B). SBCTA staff is concerned the Project may not receive the additional funding necessary to build to Montclair. We also harbor concerns with duplication of transit services in the same corridor where they are publicly subsidized at significantly different levels, as is the case with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Board of Directors Agenda Item January 9, 2019 Page 3 introduction of Gold Line service in the Metrolink corridor. Currently, it costs $1.75 to ride the Gold Line anywhere, regardless of whether a rider is traveling five miles or forty miles. This translates to the ticket fare contributing approximately 20% of the cost of the ride. Alternatively, Metrolink utilizes a distance-based fare, which results in a one-way ticket fare of $5.75 (after implementation of the 25% fare discount program) between Montclair and Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) with Metrolink passengers contributing approximately 40% of the cost of the ride through the purchase of tickets. Due to the disparity in the cost to the riders, SBCTA staff is concerned there will be a substantial shift of Metrolink riders to the Gold Line. A shifting of riders has been demonstrated already, with the introduction of the Gold Line service in Azusa, where the Gold Line Station is located four miles north of the Covina Metrolink Station and accessed from the same arterial roadway. The difference in travel time to LAUS is approximately four (4) minutes longer on the Gold Line. The Metrolink Covina Station realized a 25% ridership decline when the Gold Line service was introduced. This is much higher than the overall 7.6% decline in ridership experienced for the Metrolink San Bernardino Line during that same time period. The funding available for transit operations is extremely limited and constrained. Any substantial decline in Metrolink ridership and the associated fare box revenue will impact SBCTA’s ability to fund the existing rail service in San Bernardino County, which serves all the communities along the existing Metrolink Corridor between Montclair and San Bernardino, and eventually east to Redlands. With the introduction of Diesel Multiple Units (DMU) in San Bernardino County as part of the future Arrow Service between San Bernardino and Redlands, there is an alternative available that could meet the needs of the communities in the existing Metrolink Corridor between Pomona and Montclair should the Project not receive the additional funding needed to proceed past La Verne or Pomona.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • February 2006 Metrolink Matters
    FEB RUA RY ’0 6 Dear Metrolink Riders, January 26 is a sad day for Metrolink. January 26 is the day that an individual, for reasons we do not hope to understand, poured gasoline on his car and then parked it on the Metrolink right-of-way in Glendale triggering events that ended with two of our trains derailed. Ten of our passengers and one of our crew members died on that horrible day. Many others were hurt and still others were wounded by the loss of friends, family members and colleagues. We want to acknowledge that day by recognizing these terrible losses and expressing our gratitude to you, our passengers for your loyalty and support throughout this past year. We have worked fi ercely throughout this last year to implement a variety of changes to our rights-of-way and our equipment to ensure, to the best of our abilities, that nothing like January 26 ever happens to Metrolink passengers again. All transportation has risks, and Metrolink is already 20 times safer than riding in any automobile. However, if the opportunity exists to even incrementally increase our level of safety – we will absolutely pursue it. Forty percent of the Metrolink staff commutes every day by train. We work at Metrolink. We ride Metrolink. And even on days like January 26 when our hearts are completely broken, we believe in what we do. Thank you for being a part of the Metrolink family. David Solow Art Brown Metrolink CEO Metrolink Board Chairman ((800)8 0 0 ) 3371-LINK7 1 - www.metrolinktrains.com Metrolink Matters February ’06 Inside Metrolink Metrolink considers the safety of our passengers our number-one priority, n Environment—Metrolink is studying an innovative approach involving and we’re proud to provide our almost 42,000 weekly riders with a secure and sealed corridors.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Cost Estimate Memo Technical Note Project: Hybrid Rail Study
    Appendix F: Capital Cost Estimate Memo Technical Note Project: Hybrid Rail Study Prepared by: Amjad Hussain Date: 4/30/18 Approved by: Eric Banghart Checked by: Darlene Gonzalez Subject: Capital Cost Estimate Memo 1 Background and Purpose The Double tracking cost estimate is a based on the preliminary 5% level of design. The following describes the methodology used to develop this cost estimate. This report describes the development of capital cost estimates for infrastructure increase to accompany the Hybrid DMU vehicles. Rough order-of-magnitude capital cost estimates were developed for the following scenarios: ● Supplementing Existing Service between Pomona North and University of Redlands ● Limited bi-directional blended scenarios between El Monte and University of Redlands – 30-Minute service – 15-Minute service ● Limited bi-directional blended scenarios between Pomona North and University of Redlands – 30-Minute service – 15-Minute service ● Unconstrained scenarios between terminus station (El Monte, Pomona North, or Montclair) and University of Redlands – 30-minute service – 20-minute service – 15-minute service ● Ontario Airport Total (Escalated to 2018) Prepare from previous capital cost estimates Each scenario includes an estimate of the probable cost of construction with appropriate increase in vehicles and new/modifications to the existing platforms. The cost estimate addresses double tracking route alignment, existing track shifts, infrastructure improvements and other system costs. The cost estimates will include appropriate design allowances, allocated and unallocated contingency mark-ups as individual line items. A Basis of Estimate Report explaining the scope, assumptions and limitations of the estimating process will accompany the cost estimate. 2 Estimate Definition In order to estimate project capital cost quantities, further conceptual engineering design development double tracking improvements and station modifications where necessary as part of the 15, 20 and 30- minute route planning scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • Covina General Plan Circulation Element
    COVINA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT CIRCULATION ELEMENT COVINA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT PREPARED BY COVINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION STAFF APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION - March 14, 2000 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL - April 18, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES B-III LIST OF PICTURES B-V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B-VII I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND B-1 II. OVERVIEW OF KEY EXISTING CIRCULATION/ TRANSPORTATION ISSUES B-3 A. General B-3 B. Key Existing Circulation/ Transportation Issues B-3 III. INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS B-5 A. Major Thoroughfares and Transportation Routes B-5 1. Streets and Highways B-5 a. General information, street types, and street characteristics and amenities B-5 b. Existing traffic volumes and traffic flow quality or level of service (LOS) B-6 c. Future traffic volumes and traffic flow quality or level of service (LOS) B-7 d. Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) B-10 e. Potential street deficiency mitigation measures B-11 2. Truck Routes B-13 3. Bus Routes B-14 4. Commuter Rail/Railroad Line B-15 5. Bicycle Routes and Lanes B-15 6. Pedestrian Routes B-16 B. Transportation Terminals B-17 1. Truck B-17 2. Bus B-17 3. Commuter Rail/Railroad B-17 C. City Transportation Programs B-18 D. Parking Facilities B-19 E. Transportation Demand Management B-20 B-I F. Transportation System Management B-21 G. Sewer and Storm Drainage Systems B-21 1. Sewer System B-21 2. Storm Drainage System B-21 H. Local Public Utilities and Facilities B-22 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Agenda 3 CC 1. City Council to Approve Minutes Of
    Table of Contents Agenda 3 CC 1. City Council to approve minutes of the September 15, 2015 Regular meeting of the City Council/Successor Agency to the Covina Redevelopment Agency/Public Finance Authority/Housing Authority. Minutes of September 15, 2015 9 CC 2. City Council to approve the payment of demands in the amount of $3,288,615.54. Payment of Demands 19 CC 3. Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency to approve payment of demands in the amount of $13,513.11. Payment of Demands 29 CC 4. City Council to approve Change Orders for Pedestrian and Metrolink Station Improvements. Resolution No. 15-7397 33 CC 5. City Council to consider agreement with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for MTA Transit- Oriented Development Planning Grant. LACMTA Agreement 55 CC 6. City Council to approve Change Orders for Glendora Avenue and Cienega Street Traffic Signal Installation. Resolution No. 15-7402 103 CC 7. City Council to approve Final Acceptance and filing of Notice of Completion for Resurfacing of Streets at Hollenbeck Avenue, Cypress Street, et al. Resolution No. 15-7403 113 CC 8. City Council to authorize Second Amendment to Absolute Security International Agreement for security services at Covina Metrolink Station and Parking Complex. Resolution No. 15-7404 123 CC 9. City Council to confirm the continued existence of an emergency condition for Roycove Reservoir and Pump Station. Resolution No. 15-7405 157 CC 10. City Council to amend Fiscal Year 2015-16 Parks and Recreation Department, Library Services Division Budget by $19,500 for the purchase of books and periodicals utilizing the Joseph J.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMUTER RAIL in SUBURBAN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA a Thesis
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE THE GROWTH EFFECT: COMMUTER RAIL IN SUBURBAN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in Geography By Matthew E. Nordstrom August 2015 Signature Page The thesis of Matthew Nordstrom approved: ________________________________________ _______________ Dr. James Craine Date ________________________________________ _______________ Dr. Mintesnot Woldeamanuel Date ________________________________________ _______________ Dr. Ronald Davidson, Chair Date California State University, Northridge ii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Ron Davidson who has been a mentor for me since my undergraduate days. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Dr. James Craine and Mintesnot Woldeamanuel for their support. I also want to thank my wife who has given me tremendous support and has helped push me through so I can do what I need to do to chase my dreams. Lastly, I also want to thank my mother, a schoolteacher who is passionate about education and has stuck by my side throughout my schooling years, always giving me support and bringing out the best in me. iii Table of Contents Signature Page ................................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Bernardino Line
    SAN BERNARDINO LINE 57.94 S. Arrowhead Ave./1.20 42.4 CP ROCHESTER 45 mph t/o 57.82 S. D St./1.10 42.12 RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATION *DIB 57.76 CP REDLANDS 40.65 Hermosa Ave. 57.67 S. E St./1.00 40.2 CP ARCHIBALD 45 mph t/o 57.58 SAN BERNARDINO TRANSIT CENTER 40.14 Archibald Ave. 57.48 Ped. xing QZ 39.64 Hellman Ave. 57.42 S. G St./0.70 QZ 39.13 Vineyard Ave. 57.4 CP MORRIS 20 mph x/o 38.63 Baker Ave. 57.14 W. Rialto Ave./0.50 QZ SIGNAL 38.1/38.2 56.98 W. 2nd St./0.27 QZ 38.13 Grove Ave. 56.7 CP KENDALL 25 mph c/o 10 mph t/o 37.38 Campus Ave. 56.53 SAN BERNARDINO DEPOT 37.05 UPLAND STATION *DIB E/B Metrolink San Gabriel Sub. 87/87 36.98 2ND Ave. 56.3 CP VERNON 25 mph t/o c/o 36.81 Euclid Ave.* count as 2 str. N & S 55.3 CP RANCHO 53.9 E/B 45 MPH SIGNAL 36.1/36.2 55.24 Rancho Ave. 36.27 San Antonio Ave. 54.9 DETECTOR (talk) HB/DE 35.73 Mountain Ave. 54.54 Rialto Ave. 35.11 Benson Ave. SIGNAL 53.1/53.2 34.61 Central Ave. 53.95 Pepper Ave. 34.6 CP CENTRAL 40 mph t/o 53.70 Eucalyptus Ave. 34.26 MONTCLAIR STATION 53.45 Acacia St. 34.05 CP VISTA 15 mph t/o 53.19 Sycamore Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • 707 N Barranca Ave 301 E Front St
    RARE ±8.34 ACRE BARRANCA AVE METRO ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT E CYPRESS ST OPPORTUNITY N CITRUS AVE E FRONT ST Metro Station Metro Parking E SAN BERNARDINO RD Structure Within Walking Distance to Downtown Covina 707 N BARRANCA AVE & 301 E FRONT ST | Covina, California 91723 707 N BARRANCA AVE 301 E FRONT ST Covina, California 91723 01 02 03 04 PROPERTY POTENTIAL AREA MARKET SUMMARY CONVERSIONS OVERVIEW OVERVIEW 707 N BARRANCA AVE 301 E FRONT ST Covina, California 91723 01 PROPERTY SUMMARY TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) EXCEPTIONAL SAN GABRIEL VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AND/OR OWNER-USER OPPORTUNITY THE HOTTEST MARKET THE OFFERING CBRE, Inc. is pleased to present for sale a rare, transit-oriented development opportunity totaling approximately 8.34 acres of land located adjacent to the Covina Metro TODAY station, one of the busiest Metro stops in all of Los Angeles. Two of these parcels are zoned light industrial and the other two parcels are located in the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP), which allows for residential/mixed use development. MINUTES TO ALL OF ASKING PRICE: $21,000,000 DOWNTOWN LA Metro E CYPRESS ST Station NOT A PART E FRONT ST E SAN BERNARDINO RD BARRANCA AVE Offering Memorandum | 7 E COVINA BLVD 8430-015-018 PROPERTY OVERVIEW BARRANCA AVE E EDNA PL 8430-018-013 APN 8430-015-018 8430-018-009 8430-018-021 8430-018-017 8430-018-013 TOTAL LAND SIZE* ±258,026 SQ. FT. ±58,782 SQ. FT. TBD** ±1,562 SQ. FT. ±44,895 SQ. FT. ±363,265 SQ. FT. (±8.34 AC) B YEAR BUILT 1947 1988/1989 TBD** 1920 1964 C E CYPRESS ST A D ZONING CVM1YY CVM1 TBD** CVM1 CVM1YY E *Per Assessor’s Office E FRONT ST ** Call broker for details F 8430-018-009 G BUILDING MEASURMENTS BUILDING A BUILDING D BUILDING G E SAN BERNARDINO RD Door #1 36’x60’ = 2,160 Old Cooler (Out Of Service) Packing House Office ±1,460 Sq.
    [Show full text]
  • EIR Scoping Report LA-SD Via Inland Empire-DRAFT April-2010
    Project Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement DRAFT Scoping Report Sacramento San Francisco Stockton Transbay Terminal Millbrae-SFO Downtown Modesto Los Angeles to San Diego San Jose Redwood City Diridon Downtown Merced or Palo Alto via the Inland Empire Gilroy High-Speed Train Fresno Project EIR/EIS Visalia/Tulare/Hanford (Potential Station) April 2010 Bakersfield Palmdale Sylmar Burbank Industry Ontario Airport Los Angeles Riverside Norwalk Anaheim Murrieta Escondido University City San Diego CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT (CAHST) SCOPING REPORT LOS ANGELES TO SAN DIEGO VIA THE INLAND EMPIRE SECTION April 2010 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/EIS DRAFT SCOPING REPORT LOS ANGELES TO SAN DIEGO SECTION Table of Contents Summary ................................................................................................................................ S-1 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Description of Project ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Project Alternatives ................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Purpose of Public Scoping .......................................................................................... 1-5 1.4 Notification of EIR/EIS Scoping ................................................................................... 1-5 1.5 Public Scoping
    [Show full text]
  • San Gabriel Valley Transit Restructuring Study
    San Gabriel Valley Transit Restructuring Study Final Technical Report No. 3 - Service Restructuring Plan Prepared for: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority San Gabriel Valley Service Sector 3369 Santa Anita Avenue El Monte, CA 91731 Prepared by: IBI Group 18401 Van Karman Avenue, Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92612 March 2006 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 2.0 Study Goals and Principles..................................................................................................4 3.0 Needs and Opportunities.....................................................................................................4 4.0 Restructuring Strategies ......................................................................................................6 4.1 Types Of Service.......................................................................................................6 4.2 Strategic Hubs...........................................................................................................7 4.3 Service Strategies .....................................................................................................8 5.0 Recommended Service Changes........................................................................................8 5.1 Northwest San Gabriel Valley ...................................................................................8 5.2 Southwest San Gabriel Valley.................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary January 2009
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority LOS ANGELES WESTSIDE EXTENSION TRANSIT CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDY > Executive Summary January 2009 Introduction three years from 2003 to 2006 and is now being The Metro Westside Extension has been an developed as a separate project. integral element of local, regional, and federal transportation planning since the early 1980s. In October 2005, at the request of Metro and Extending westward from the Los Angeles Cen- the City of Los Angeles, the American Public tral Business District (CBD), the Westside Exten- Transportation Association (APTA) organized sion has been the subject of in-depth technical a Peer Review Panel of experts to reconsider studies and extensive community involvement the feasibility of tunneling along the federally during this period. Ultimately, the transit invest- precluded Wilshire Boulevard segment of the ment has been envisioned to extend toward Westside Corridor. As a result of this review Beverly Hills, Century City, Westwood (UCLA), (which concluded that tunnels can be safely con- West Los Angeles, and Santa Monica. structed and operated in the Wilshire Boulevard corridor), legislation was approved in Congress In the early 1990s, plans were underway to repealing the federal prohibition on subway con- extend the Metro Red Line to the west. Con- struction along Wilshire Boulevard in December struction was already underway on the Metro 2007. Red Line from Union Station to Westlake/Mac- Arthur Park, to Wilshire/Western Station, and In July 2006, the Metro Board of Directors to Hollywood/Vine Station. The new planning authorized an Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study effort to avoid the federally prohibited methane for all reasonable fixed-guideway transit alterna- gas hazard zone—a zone that was designated tives, including the previously excluded subway in 1985 after naturally occurring methane gas alternatives, for the portion of the Westside Cor- caused a fire in the Fairfax District—examined ridor north of the Exposition Corridor.
    [Show full text]
  • MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING in CORRIDORS a Recommendations Report for the Arrow Highway Corridor in the San Gabriel Valley
    MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING IN CORRIDORS A Recommendations Report for the Arrow Highway Corridor in the San Gabriel Valley Developed on behalf of SCAG as part of the Compass Blueprint Program Funding: The preparation of this report was financed in part through grants from the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). A VISION. A PLAN. A COURSE. Contents Compass Blueprint Program Acknowledgements Introduction and Summary ............. 1 Outreach and Workshops ............... 3 This project was funded by the Southern This project was a collaborative effort involving California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) the participation of regional, subregional, Site Context .................................. 7 Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project and local agencies. The San Gabriel Valley Program. Compass Blueprint assists Southern Council of Governments (SGVCOG) helped Opportunities and Constraints ......... 13 California cities and other organizations in select the project location and identify a evaluating planning options and stimulating core group of jurisdictions to form the Arrow Retail Market Analysis ................... 19 development consistent with the region’s goals. Highway Corridor Working Group. This working Compass Blueprint tools support visioning group participated in scoping and visioning Design Concepts and Strategies ...... 21 efforts, infill analyses, economic and policy workshops, provided individual assistance, and analyses, and marketing and communication conducted interviews. Representatives from Implementation
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix L: Traffic Impact Analysis & Supplemental Vmt Analysis
    Covina Bowl Specific Plan Appendices APPENDIX L: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS & SUPPLEMENTAL VMT ANALYSIS Covina Bowl Specific Plan Appendices This page intentionally left blank. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY COVINA BOWL SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT City of Covina, California July 1, 2020 Prepared for: Trumark Homes, LLC 450 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, California 92660 LLG Ref. 1-19-4348-1 Prepared by: Under the Supervision of: 600 South Lake Avenue Suite 500 Chin S. Taing, PTP Clare M. Look-Jaeger, P.E. Pasadena, CA 91106 Transportation Planner III Principal TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Overview of Senate Bill 743 ........................................................................................... 4 1.3 Congestion Management Program Status ....................................................................... 4 2.0 Project Description.................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Existing Project Site ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Planning Areas 1 and
    [Show full text]