AECOM RFP Proposal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
III. Approval of Minutes of March 16, 2006
MINUTES ~ 1303rdMeeting of the Board of Directors March 16, 2006 Mrs. Mack called the meeting to order at 11:15 A.M. Present were: DIRECTORS At TERNATE DIRECTORS Mrs. Gladys Mack Mr.WilliamEuille Mr.Charles Deegan Mr.Gordon Linton Mr.Christopher Zimmerman Mrs. Catherine Hudgins Mr.Jim Graham Mr. Marcell Solomon Mr. Robert Smith Mr. Dana Kauffman STAFF Mr. Daniel Tangherlini Mr. Emeka Moneme Mr.James Hughes Ms. Leona Agouridis Mr.Takis Salpeas Mr. Edward Thomas Ms. Carol O'Keeffe Mr. Steve Feil Mr.Charles Woodruff Mr.Jack Requa Mr.WilliamScott Mr. Frederick Goodine Ms. Polly Hanson Ms. Judy O'Leary ',mwI'iJII ;~!m!W,!laO <if,!I 'SH .'if!(Jt'!V APPROVALOF AGENDA: Mrs. Mack requested that Agenda Item XI. (10) Approval of Paratransit Customer Service Contract be withdrawnfrom the agenda. The Agenda was accepted with that deletion. -1- - --- -- n- n_-- - -- --- - n APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr.Zimmerman requestedthe Minutes of the February 16,2006 meeting, page 5, be revised to state "Mr. Zimmerman proposed an amendment to Appendix I, Standards of Conduct: (1) Article III. (F)..." to replace "Mr. Zimmerman amended Appendix I, Standards of Conduct: (1) Article III. (F)..." The Minutes were approved as amended. REPORT BY RIDERS ADVISORY COUNCIL (RAC): Mr. Jaffe noted the Riders Advisory Council met on March 1, 2006. The RAC hosted two sessions of MetroAccess public forums on March 13, 2006, which gave MetroAccess riders an opportunity to communicate with service providers, MetroAccess drivers, WMATA Board, and staff members. The Ad Hoc MetroAccess Advisory Committee will provide a 45-day interim report and a gO-dayfinal report to WMATA's Board of Directors outlining specific ways to improve MetroAccess. -
Washington Metropolitan Region Transportation Demand
Item #3 [Type text] Page 1 FY15 Washington Reg. TDM Resource Guide & Strategic Mktg Plan Final Report 12-16-14 Page 2 FY15 Washington Reg. TDM Resource Guide & Strategic Mktg Plan Final Report 12-16-14 Page 3 BACKGROUND The Washington metropolitan region initiated its first formal transportation demand management efforts in the early 1970s with Commuter Club, which was established by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG), the General Services Administration, and the Greater Washington Board of Trade to provide basic ridematching for carpools and vanpools. In subsequent years, the program grew into a COG-coordinated network of local rideshare agencies, and in 1989, it became the Ride Finders Network which provided free information and computerized ride matching services to area residents seeking to join car or vanpools or locate appropriate transit arrangements and park-and-ride locations. In 1996, the regional network was renamed Commuter Connections. In 1997, Commuter Connections expanded its services to include regional telework assistance and resources, its first website, a regional Guaranteed Ride Home program, information on bicycling to work, InfoExpress commuter information kiosks, and free assistance to employers for the development and implementation of alternative commute programs and benefits. In 1998 Commuter Connections began to honor employers in the region through the Employer Recognition Awards program. In 2000, Commuter Connections rolled out Bike to Work Day as a regional entity, initially started as a DC based event by the Washington Area Bicyclist Association. In 2003, Commuter Connections expanded its marketing efforts through the implementation of a regional mass marketing measure. The purpose of the measure was to brand the Commuter Connections name as the umbrella organization for commuter transportation information in the Washington Metropolitan area and to subsequently increase the use of alternative forms of commuting. -
Finding of No Significant Impact Double Track NWI Project
Finding of No Significant Impact for the Double Track NWI Project Gary to Michigan City, Indiana prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration and the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District pursuant to: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC § 4332) and Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC § 303) Double Track Northwest Indiana Project Finding of No Significant Impact November 1, 2018 Federal Transit Administration Region V DOUBLE TRACK NORTHWEST INDIANA PROJECT Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Approved November 1, 2018 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document provides the basis for a determination by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed Double Track Northwest Indiana (DT-NWI) Project. This determination is made in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); 42 United States Code (USC) § 4331 et seq; FTA’s implementing procedures (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 771.121); Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, 49 USC § 303; and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 54 USC § 300101 et seq. As lead federal agency, FTA jointly prepared the Environmental Assessment (EA), Section 4(f) Evaluation, and Section 106 findings (of the NHPA) with the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD), as the local project sponsor. These documents describe potential adverse effects on the human and natural environment and the integrity of historic resources that may result from the proposed Project. The EA was prepared pursuant to 23 CFR § 771.119 and issued by FTA on September 21, 2017. -
Joint International Light Rail Conference
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C145 July 2010 Joint International Light Rail Conference Growth and Renewal April 19–21, 2009 Los Angeles, California Cosponsored by Transportation Research Board American Public Transportation Association TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Vice Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010–2011 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Associate Administrator and Director, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Jeannie G. Beckett, Director of Operations, Port of Tacoma, Washington, Marine Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair Ronald R. Knipling, Principal, safetyforthelonghaul.com, Arlington, Virginia, System Users Group Chair Edward V. A. Kussy, Partner, Nossaman, LLP, Washington, D.C., Legal Resources Group Chair Peter B. Mandle, Director, Jacobs Consultancy, Inc., Burlingame, California, Aviation Group Chair Mary Lou Ralls, Principal, Ralls Newman, LLC, Austin, Texas, Design and Construction Group Chair Daniel L. Roth, Managing Director, Ernst & Young Orenda Corporate Finance, Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Rail Group Chair Steven Silkunas, Director of Business Development, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Public Transportation Group Chair Peter F. Swan, Assistant Professor of Logistics and Operations Management, Pennsylvania State, Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania, Freight Systems Group Chair Katherine F. -
Elegant Report
Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee PENNSYLVANIA STATEWIDE PASSENGER RAIL NEEDS ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2001 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................................4 1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................5 1.1 Study Background........................................................................................................................................5 1.2 Study Purpose...............................................................................................................................................5 1.3 Corridors Identified .....................................................................................................................................6 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................7 3.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON CANDIDATE CORRIDORS .................................................14 3.1 Existing Intercity Rail Service...................................................................................................................14 3.1.1 Keystone Corridor ................................................................................................................................14 -
Long Range Transportation Plan 2016
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.” -- Benjamin Franklin 2016 PENNSYLVANIA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Message................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose of ‘PA On Track’ .................................................................................................................................................3 History of Transportation Planning in Pennsylvania .........................................................................................................4 Document Navigator ........................................................................................................................................................5 Outreach Summary ................................................................................................................................ 7 Stakeholder Involvement .................................................................................................................................................7 Public Outreach ...............................................................................................................................................................7 Planning Context ................................................................................................................................. -
Broad Street Rapid Transit Study Economic Impacts
BROAD STREET RAPID TRANSIT STUDY ECONOMIC IMPACTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the past decade, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), GRTC Transit System (GRTC), and the Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (RAMPO) have initiated various planning efforts with the aim of upgrading transit options in the Richmond region. Broad Street consistently emerges from those studies as an ideal candidate for public transit improvement. Broad Street remains one of the main thoroughfares in the region, with significant economic activities in the surrounding corridor. The corridor includes or is adjacent to large commercial centers, office parks, prominent entertainment and convention venues such as Richmond Center Stage and the Richmond Convention Center, various state and local government agencies such as the State Capitol and Richmond City Hall, and the academic and medical campuses of Virginia Commonwealth University. This corridor is currently supported by a high density of local bus routes, with as many as 48 buses in one segment of Broad Street during the peak hour. The current congested network of converging and overlapping transit routes contributes to inefficiencies in service and impedes traffic flow within the Broad Street Corridor. DRPT and GRTC are nearing completion of the Broad Street Rapid Transit Study which recommends the establishment of a bus rapid transit (BRT) route along the Broad Street Corridor. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to identify the potential economic benefits derived from the Broad Street BRT Build Alternative, which is planned to run 7.6 miles from Willow Lawn to Rocketts Landing (Figure 1). Although the majority of the route resides within the City of Richmond, the western and eastern termini are located in Henrico County. -
FHWA Categorical Exclusion
Form EQ-104 (Revised 05/07/09) TO: Mr. John Simkins, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) FROM: John Muse, VDOT District Environmental Manager DATE: 09/27/2011 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (CE) Date CE level document approved by VA FHWA Division: 07/26/10 FHWA Contact: Mr. John Simkins Route: Columbia Pike (Route 244) Route Type: Primary Project Type: Construction State Project Number: 0244-000-120, P101, N501 Federal Project Number: STP-5401(771) UPC: 80359 From: Fairfax County Line To: Washington Boulevard County/City: Arlington County District / Residency: Northern Virginia Project in STIP: Yes Project in Long Range Plan: Yes No N/A Project Outside of MPO Area Project Description: The proposed Columbia Pike Multimodal Street Improvements project encompasses approximately 3 miles of Columbia Pike from the Fairfax County Line near South Jefferson Street to Washington Boulevard near the Pentagon. Project improvements will include providing a standardized street cross-section (two travel lanes in each direction with a center median or left-turn lane), on-street parking, bicycle accommodations, wider sidewalks, enhanced pedestrian crossings, landscaped median areas, and street trees where practicable. The standardization of the cross-section is anticipated to require acquisition of additional public right-of-way with impacts to curb lines and drainage structures; however, no impacts to significant building structures or relocation of residences or businesses are anticipated as a result of construction. CE Category 23 CFR 771.117: (d)(1) Description -
Columbia Pike Transit Initiative
COLUMBIA PIKE TRANSIT INITIATIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM FORMAL COMMENT PERIOD: MAY 22, 2012 – JUNE 21, 2012 Arlington County and Fairfax County, in conjunction with the Federal Transit Administration, issued an Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment (AA/EA) for the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative. They conducted public meetings to seek comments on the document on June 6, 2012, at Patrick Henry Elementary School in Arlington and on June 7, 2012, at Goodwin House Baileys Crossroads in Falls Church. Both meetings were identical in format and were conducted from 7:00-9:00 PM. The formal comment period for written comments on the AA/EA was from May 22, 2012 through June 21, 2012. The public submitted comments through many venues, including comment forms, registered speakers’ oral comments at the public meetings, online comment form at www.piketransit.com, emails to [email protected], and mail sent to Columbia Pike Transit Initiative, P.O. Box 3915, Oakton, VA 22124. Attached are the public comments received during the formal comment period by unique commenter identification number (ID #). An index of the commenters and their ID # is shown in Appendix A, which follows the public comments. WMATA 1 600 Fifth Street, NW, Room 6F-16 www.piketransit.com Washington, DC 20001 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative June 2012 Public Comments Received during Formal Comment Period (5/22/12-6/21/12) ID Comment 001.01 Although I am supportive of public transportation in the case of the streetcar I oppose the project. The streetcar is limited in routes, not flexible, extremely costly to build and maintain. -
Regional Inventory of Projects Planned High Capacity Surface Transit Improvements in the WMATA Service Area
Regional Inventory of Projects Planned High Capacity Surface Transit Improvements in the WMATA Service Area DRAFT Project Summaries May 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECTS ..................................................................................................... 3 2.1 DC Streetcar Phases I-V .............................................................................................3 2.2 Columbia Pike Streetcar ............................................................................................7 2.3 Corridor Cities Transitway .......................................................................................11 2.4 Crystal City/Potomac Yard Transitway .....................................................................14 2.5 Purple Line ..............................................................................................................18 2.6 U.S. 301/MD 5 Corridor Mass Transitway ................................................................22 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Surface Transit Projects and the Existing Metrorail System ..................................... 2 Figure 2-1: DC Streetcar Phases I-V ........................................................................................... 4 Figure 2-2: Columbia Pike Streetcar .......................................................................................... 8 Figure 2-3: Corridor Cities Transitway .................................................................................... -
Local Planning and High-Speed Rail: Responses and Perceptions in a Developing Amtrak Corridor
Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 12-2014 Local Planning and High-Speed Rail: Responses and Perceptions in a Developing Amtrak Corridor John-Luke D'Ambrosio Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Geographic Information Sciences Commons, Human Geography Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation D'Ambrosio, John-Luke, "Local Planning and High-Speed Rail: Responses and Perceptions in a Developing Amtrak Corridor" (2014). Master's Theses. 542. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/542 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LOCAL PLANNING AND HIGH-SPEED RAIL: RESPONSES AND PERCEPTIONS IN A DEVELOPING AMTRAK CORRIDOR by John-Luke D’Ambrosio A thesis submitted to the Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Geography Western Michigan University December 2014 Thesis Committee: C. Scott Smith, Ph.D., Chair Benjamin Ofori-Amoah, Ph.D. David Lemberg, Ph.D. LOCAL PLANNING AND HIGH-SPEED RAIL: RESPONSES AND PERCEPTIONS IN A DEVELOPING AMTRAK CORRIDOR John-Luke D’Ambrosio, M.A. Western Michigan University, 2014 Incremental speed increases have been a main focus of Amtrak in recent years. Now operating at 110 mph within three different service lines in the United States, Amtrak is making progress toward achieving maximum speeds within rail corridors. -
Draft Historic Property Report for the NICTD Double Track NWI Project, Michigan City to Gary, Indiana
Draft Historic Property Report for the NICTD Double Track NWI Project, Michigan City to Gary, Indiana Segment 1 of 3, LaPorte County LaPorteCounty,IN DHPANo.19318 March 30, 2017 Draft Historic Property Report for the NICTD Double Track NWI Project; Segment 1 of 3, LaPorte County PREPARED FOR Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District 33 E. U.S. Highway 12 Chesterton, IN 46304 PREPARED BY 2600 Park Tower Suite 100 Vienna, VA 22180-7342 AUTHORS Diana Garnett Jeanne Barnes March 30, 2017 Draft Historic Property Report for the NICTD Double Track NWI Project; Segment 1 of 3, LaPorte County Table of Contents 1.0 ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Area of Potential Effects ................................................................................................................ 3 2.4 Survey Personnel .......................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................