DOCSLIB.ORG

AECOM RFP Proposal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AECOM RFP Proposal #2020-014 Architecture and Engineering Services for the CHESTNUT STREET MULTIMODAL STATION & SHARED SERVICES FACILITY & CITY OF OXFORD PASSENGER RAIL PLATFORM Chicago Dyer RensselaerTECHNICAL PROPOSAL Lafayette Crawfordsville Oxford Washington Indianapolis Connersville Clifton Ashland Forge Cincinnati Alderson Culpepper Marysville Charlottesville Huntington White Staunton October 19, 2020 Sulpher Chaleston Springs Submitted to: Submitted by: Buttler County Regional AECOM Services of Thurmond Transit Authority Ohio, Inc. 3045 Moser Court, 525 Vine Street, Hamilton, OH 45011 Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 01 RFP Cover Page 01 RFP Cover Page AECOM 513.651.3440 tel 525 Vine Street 877.660.7727 fax Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 www.aecom.com October 19, 2020 Procurement Department Butler County RTA 3045 Moser Court Hamilton, OH 45011 RE: #2020-014 Architecture and Engineering Services for the Chestnut Street Multimodal Station and Shared Services Facility and City of Oxford Passenger Rail Platform Dear Selection Committee, Creating the Chestnut Street Facility and Passenger Rail Platform is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Butler County, the City of Oxford, and all of your community stakeholders to realize a best-in-class gateway to your community. The importance of getting this project right is paramount and we are grateful for the opportunity to submit AECOM’s qualifications to you. As the premier transportation firm in the nation, ranked #1 in Transportation in Engineering News-Record’s 2020 “Top 500 Design Firms”, we know that we have above and beyond what it takes to bring your vision to life. BCRTA wishes to create a welcoming multimodal transit facility connecting BCRTA routes serving Oxford and the University with interurban buses, passenger rail, and bicyclist and commuter students to help your riders get where they need to go in their daily lives. BCRTA’s mission is to support Butler County’s quality of life and economic development through public transportation solutions and we understand the critical importance of this facility establishing an identity for the City of Oxford and Miami University as a progressive transit-oriented community. The shared services facility will support the BCRTA, Talawanda School District and the University to maintain their vehicle fleets in a centralized state of the art facility increasing operational efficiency and reducing costs. The Chestnut Street Facility and the Amtrak platform is more than purely a transportation investment. This facility can be leveraged to catalyze economic development and placemaking, enhance quality of life, and improve economic, social, and environmental sustainability. With Miami University, small businesses, cultural attractions, the historically significant downtown, and Oxford residents in mind, this facility can be utilized to maximize benefits to each of these constituencies. The AECOM team has been coordinating with the City, and more recently the BCRTA, to assist with expertise, strategies, and tools to advance the implementation of BCRTA’s vision. The Chestnut Fields shared services facility is the largest capital construction project the BCRTA has undertaken and we know you will need a reliable and capable partner to provide assistance from the conceptual design through construction and commissioning. WHY AECOM? National Expertise, Ohio Presence. We provide planning, design and construction services under the auspice of the FTA and FRA project development process to transit agencies, municipalities and governmental clients throughout Ohio and the nation. Our legacy firms have served the greater Cincinnati community since 1947 including work for the City of Oxford and Butler County. Our team will be led by Steve Robinson, AIA and an experienced team of Ohio and Indiana-based subject matter experts and designers, some of whom you are already familiar with. We will deliver a transit and passenger rail facility incorporating the leading edge of sustainability and technology in similar facilities nationally with a multidisciplinary team located less than two hours from Oxford. Fully Integrated Services. AECOM offers BCRTA something no other firm can under one roof: peerless transit and railroad design expertise fully integrated with a multi-disciplinary, award-winning architecture, transportation planning, landscape architecture, engineering, environmental services and sustainability design services. This diversity of experience enables the AECOM team to approach BCRTA’s goals through a unique lens that will lead to superior, innovative outcomes. Innovative Approach. As a global firm driven by innovation, our reach and experience is one of the primary reasons our clients seek us out as their partners. To innovate, it is important to look at all opportunities with a beginner’s mind. Our size and global reach are only an asset if it is matched with a project team that knows the community, the stakeholders and the opportunities and challenges of the site. Our project manager Steve Robinson along with our key leaders described in our proposal are that team. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss our proposal with you in detail and to help you achieve your vision of the Chestnut Street Multimodal Station and Shared Services Facility and City of Oxford Passenger Rail Platform project. Please feel free to contact me directly at (614) 975-0767 or at [email protected]. AS A RESPONSIBLE PROPOSER, AECOM: Sincerely, Has adequate financial resources, as required during performance of the Contract. AECOM Services of Ohio, Inc. Is able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing business commitments. Has a satisfactory record of past performance. Michael Bongiorno, AIA, LEED AP BD+C Has necessary technical capability to perform. Vice President, Managing Principal - Design Director Certifies that we are not on the U.S. Comptroller General’s list of ineligible T: (614) 975-0767 proposers. N/A E: [email protected] Is qualified as a manufacturer or regular provider of the equipment being offered. Is otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations. This page left intentionally blank Butler County Regional Transit Authority and City of Oxford #2020-014 Architecture and Engineering Services for the Chestnut Street Multimodal TECHNICAL PROPOSAL Station and Shared Services Facility and City of Oxford Passenger Rail Platform Evaluation Criteria To assist the review and evaluate AECOM’s technical response, we’ve provided the following roadmap of our response in relation to the evaluation criteria for this project. EVALUATION AECOM CRITERIA ADVANTAGE General Experience: Prior experience with projects of similar scale and complexity, specifically planning rail platforms, multimodal stations, and bus maintenance AECOM combines our leading national practice in transit facilities that were successfully implemented and the design with a strong, local, experienced transit design team reliability of past cost estimations. Demonstrated to bring you world-class experience and hands-on local competence with NEPA and other federal requirements. support. Satisfactory evidence and references provided with proposal. (20%) Current Trends: Understanding of current trends in passenger rail development, multimodal stations, public transit bus maintenance infrastructure, and transit-oriented development. (20%) We list some of trends we know from our work in the field including recent trends arising out of the pandemic that will – Architecture (10%) effect transit design for years to come. – Engineering (5%) –E nvironmental (NEPA, LEED, Carbon Emission Impact) (5%) Performance History: For the last five years with respect AECOM Services of Ohio, Inc. strives to avoid litigation and to: (a) termination for default, (b) litigation by or against the has a risk management program in place that includes early Proposer and/or its consultants, and (c) judgments entered recognition of situations that might give rise to a claim, open for or against Proposer and/or its consultants. (15%) lines of communication and proactive dispute resolution. Key Personnel & Professional Diversity: Professional qualifications and experience of individuals assigned to Our highly experienced AECOM team combines with the Project. A project team with a diverse skill set, including partners from disadvantaged and other businesses to bring professions and/or experience in Landscape Architecture, you the multi-disciplined team that will make this project Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering and Real Estate successful. Valuation. (15%) Beyond the Minimum: Commitment to developing a rail platform, multimodal stations, and bus maintenance facility that provides functional transportation, is aesthetically Our project experience highlights the commitment we pleasing, and accessible to a broad user base of different make to designing exciting projects that contribute to their ages and abilities. At least 50% of work completed by prime. communities while meeting project goals. Quality engagement and cooperation with available DBE’s and EDGE. (10%) Jurisdictions: Experience with complex permitting Members of our local team have worked in Butler County procedures of overlapping jurisdictions such as City, County, before, have worked within the context of FTA and FRA State, Amtrak, CSX, Federal Railroad Administration, and requirements, and know how to negotiate the regulatory Federal
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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]