DOCSLIB.ORG

June 1996 Board Meeting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
June 1996 Board Meeting JUNE6, 1996 TO: BOARD OF DIRE _ ../~,)~~ Los Angeles County ,, FROM: ’ " Metropolitan JOSEPHE. DREff’2~ [’¢’VWI~ Transportation Authority SUBJECT: ~;ER~EvEXE/FCU2~VE~FFICEEzE’THEPROJECT SCOPE OF WORK ON THE PASADENABLUE LINE (PBL) One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 RECOMMENDATION 2,3.922.6000 Approveand freeze the PBLProject scope of work and final budget. ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT Mailing Address: RO. Box ~94 Approvalof this scope of workwill allow the project to be staffed and to Los Angeles, CA90053 complete the PBLProject within the $803.9MBudget and May2001 ROD. BUDGETIMPACT No additional ftmds are being requested. A modification of Project Scopeis containedwithin this report. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Board maydisapprove freezing the project scope of workas modified herein. This mayresult in additional scope being addedinto the project resulting in an increase to budget and delay in the schedule. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION At the February28, 1996, BoardMeeting, the Boarddirected staff to report back on a "... quarterly (basis) with a status of the cost reduction effort with budgetand schedule forecasts"; "... to report back in June 1996to give a status and final effort required to completethe final design for the PBLProject"; and to "freeze" the project scope from further changes. Attachment1 provides more detailed information on the Project Budget and Cost Forecast. The forecast remains at $803.9M Attachment2 provides detail on the Project Schedule. Althougha negative 28-dayfloat is forecast, staff believes this can be madeup. Attachment3 restates the February 26, 1996, forecast for EMCcosts at $115.2M.This will be addressedin greater detail in future months. Attachment4 explains the CommunityInvolvement process and the positive results from meetings held. Finally, a motionwas madeat the FebruaryBoard meeting to freeze the project scope as of June 26, 1996. Staff believes that this has been accomplishedwith communitysupport for all items except for the ChinatownStation. The Chinatowncommunity has requested a second elevator be provided. The proposed design would accommodatea future elevator if needed. The refinement of design will nowproceed with continuedcommunity review. It is staff’s position that, with the agreements reached, the project can be completed within the $803.9Mbudget and with Revenue Service to commencein May2001. DBE PARTICIPATION DBEparticipation is not expectedto changesignificantly. This will be discussed in detail as the various design consultant changes and construction/procurementcontracts are presented for Board approval. ATTACHMENTS 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 4A, 4B, 4C. Prepared by: DavidJ. Sievers, P.E., Frank Barbagallo flVI/ES DE LA LOZA Executive Officer, Construction In, rim Executive Officer, Regional xlransportation Planning and Development REIC~IERT Executive Officer, " Operations [R05-PA123]c:\brdrptdun Attachment 1 PROJECT BUDGET/COST FORECAST The project budget of $803.9Mwas approved by the Board on February 28, 1996, subject to further verification of the cost reductions and input from the impacted communities. The verification process and communityinput sessions resulted in an increase to projected project cost of $2.98Mwhich reduces the project contingency by the same amount of $2.98M. The ChinatownStation is budgeted at $5.05Mwhich has not been agreed to by the community. Staff believes the project can be completed within the $803.9Mbudget with the amendedscope as identified in this report. A line item comparisonof the February 28, 1996, versus the current May1996 Forecast is shown in Attachment 1A. Attachment 1B explains the differences between the two forecasts. In addition, MarmionWay features and costs are given in Attachment 1C and more detailed Station Cost comparisons are given in Attachment 1D. Attachment 1A . PASADENA BLUE LINE $803.9M BASELINE FORECAST WITH ADJUSTMENTS REVENUE OPERATIONS DATE - MAY 2001 BOARD APPROVED $803.9M F1 EMENr I LINE ITEM $803o9M F~RECAST BUDGET W/ADJUSTMENTS T - CO~UCTION 01 GUIDEWAYAND STATIONS 188.20 1.65 189.85 02 M/IdNTENANCE FAClLHY 24.80 3.99 28.79 03 SPEClAL’IY 8.30 8.30 O4 UTILITY RELOCATION 12.20 12.20 05 PASSENGER VEHICLE 0.00 0.00 06 t=l t=CTRIFICATION 26.90 1.11 28.01 07 SY~|’EId~DE EQUIPMENq" 27.50 - 27.50! 08 "II~CKWORK 31.40 -- 31.40 ~ ~NG ~O PRE-R~ OPtiONS 7.60 - 7.60~ lo O~B’S iN~ i 27.50~ 0.84 28.34 S -- PRO~ION~ S~C~ G~E~ ~NE~ING 11 115.20 - ~ 115.20 ~z m~u~o~ ~a~ 59.70 - ~ 59.70~ ~7 ~a~ A~o~ 0.20 i - 0.20 D -- SP~ PR~ c - ~~ 37.30 [ - 37.30 ~ . ~ .................. ................ ~0~~0..................... ............................ ~ ..................... ~9~6 ~TION 57.20[ - 57.201 C - CONTINGENCY (BOARD APPROVAL,REQUIRED) 17.80i (3.36) 14.44i DESIGN ALLOWANCE(BOARD APPROVAL RJEO TffJ[I~ED 22.401 - i 22.401 TOTAL = 803.90! 0.001 i803.90 Attachment 1B ADJUSTMENTS TO $803.9M BUDGET LINE ITEMS (Note: Only change line items are noted.) T - Construction 01 Guideway& Stations C6490Union Station. $(0.90M) Further savings have been estimated which include somepotential savings derived by using design/build construction methodologyfor this contract. C6390 ChinatownAerial. 1.58M Further study indicates that the guidewaywidth could not be reduced, therefore previous savings are being put backinto the forecast.. C6480Chinatown Station. 1.87M An agreement was previously reached with the ChinatownCommunity to add a plaza, atop a City fundedgarage, and a pedestrian bridge that was not included in the previous budgets. C6490 Glendale Connector. (6.50M) The Glendale transitway is not in MTA’s20 year plan, therefore, two newbridges are not required for a future non-revenueconnection to this transitway. This action does not preclude a future non-revenueconnection. C6420 Modify Marmion/Figueroa Grade Separation. (6.15M) This shortens the length of the grade separation by using 5%grades rather than 4%. This also allows moving French AvenueStation so French Avenuecan remain open to traffic whichthe Communityprefers. C6420Operational Characteristics along Marmion 2.55M Way,Avenue 50 to Avenue57. Wewill pave this portion of the transitway consistent with community concems. This increase is minimizedby reduced real estate requirementsfor a net estimated increase of $2.55M.See Attachment1C for greater detail. C6500 Del Mar Station MOU. 1.OOM An agreement was previously approved by the MTA Boardto provide the City of Pasadena$1M for the developmentof the transportation center’s parking structure, but the cost did not get includedin previous budgets. Attachment 1B ADJUSTMENTSTO $803.9M BUDGET LINE ITEMS (Note: Only change line items are noted.) C6460 Line Segmentfrom MemorialPark to Sierra 1.OOM MadreVilla. The City of Pasadenahas requested that the Lake AvenueStation’s western entrance be included in the project scope. Platform Foundations. 1.25M The $1.5Msavings identified by replacing cast in place station foundations with concrete masonryunits is not achievable. Also, the redesign at $0.25Mis, therefore, not required. Station Savings. 1.95M The original February 1996 savings was estimated to be $4.60Mand nowis projected to be only $2.65M,a difference of $1.95M. See AppendixE. Contract Repackaging. (2.00M) In the February Board Report, Staffrecommendedand the Board approved reducing the numberof construction packages. At that time, the savings were not determined because the numberand description of the packages were not known. This is now defined and the resulting savings is approximately$2M. QAYQCCriteria Changes. 6.00M The cost containmentmeasures have resulted in the requirement to redefine the PBLCriteria. Therefore, to fully complywith the Design Procedures Manual, "The process shall not be overridden by any of the affected parties in the process chain unless written authorization for deviation is obtained from the committeewith MTAQA concurrence." Staffwill develop a plan to modifythe criteria in steps to minimizethe impact to the project schedule and the $6Mcost if the schedule slips. 01 Guideway& Stations $1.65M Attachment 1B ADJUSTMENTS TO $803.9M BUDGET LINE ITEMS (Note: Only change line items are noted.) 02 MaintenanceFacility C6400 Yard & Shops. $2.78M The Peer Review Committeerecommended that the Yard& Shop be a full service stand alone facility. Approximately $1Mwas included in the $803.9M budget to accomplishthis. Additional elements including a paint booth, additional storage capability, heavy maintenance area and machine equipment are required, totaling an additional $2.78M. P0210 Maintenance of Way(MOW) Facility 1.21M Glenatm. The MOWis a required facility to support the maintenance of the PBLwhich was overlooked in the PBLproject budget. 02 MaintenanceFacility $3.99M 06 Electrification H0070Traction Power Supply System. $1.11M A significant savings ($14.9M)resulted by reducing the numberof substations. To minimizethe impact of service interruption, a mobilesubstation is recommendedto be available for the temporary replacementof an out-of-service substation. 10 Owner’sInsurance. ¯ Uponfurther evaluation, it is estimated that the $0.84M insurance cost will increase. Attachment 1B ADJUSTMENTSTO $803.9M BUDGETLINE ITEMS (Note: Only change line items are noted.) S - Professional Services 13 MTASpeciality Consultants FM014 PMO/PMAServices. $2.63M The original and current budget for these services was established using 0.5%of construction costs. Based on current information,it is estimatedthat his cost should be $0.4Mper year whichresults in a $2.63Mincrease. LS137 Labor Compliance Consultant. Basedon current informationit
Load more

Recommended publications
  • University of California Transportation Center UCTC-FR-2012-05
    University of California Transportation Center UCTC-FR-2012-05 A New-found Popularity for Transit-oriented Developments? Lessons from Southern California Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, University of California, Los Angeles April 2012 This article was downloaded by: [University of California, Los Angeles] On: 25 June 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918974530] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Urban Design Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713436528 A New-found Popularity for Transit-oriented Developments? Lessons from Southern California Anastasia Loukaitou-Siderisa a Department of Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles, USA Online publication date: 18 January 2010 To cite this Article Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia(2010) 'A New-found Popularity for Transit-oriented Developments? Lessons from Southern California', Journal of Urban Design, 15: 1, 49 — 68 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13574800903429399 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574800903429399 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Framework of Sustainable Transit Communities
    FRAMEWORK OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSIT COMMUNITIES OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, CITY OF LOS ANGELES FEBRUARY 2011 This is a project for the City of Los Angeles (City) with funding provided by the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Compass Blueprint Program. Compass Blueprint assists Southern California cities and other organizations in evaluating planning options and stimulating development consistent with the region’s goals. Compass Blueprint tools support visioning efforts, infill analyses, and marketing and communications programs. The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant(s) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in accordance with the provision under the Metropolitan Planning Program as set forth in Section 104(f) of Title 23 of the U.S. Code. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author, who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG, DOT, or the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. SCAG shall not be responsible for the City’s future use or adaptation of the report. FRAMEWORK OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSIT COMMUNITIES OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, CITY OF LOS ANGELES FEBRUARY 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 3 OVERVIEW OF THE FRAMEWORK 4 Mix and Vitality of Uses 9 Well-Defined Sense of Place 11 Walkability and the Pedestrian Realm 14 Multimodal
    [Show full text]
  • Art Guide a Tour of Metro’S Artwork Metro Commissions Artists to Create Engaging and Thought-Provoking Artworks to Make Your Journey More Inviting and Pleasurable
    metro.net Art Guide A tour of Metro’s artwork Metro commissions artists to create engaging and thought-provoking artworks to make your journey more inviting and pleasurable. The artworks weave a multi-layered cultural tapestry that mirrors Los Angeles County’s rich contemporary and popular cultures. Established in 1989, the Metro Art program has commissioned over 250 artists for a wide variety of both temporary and permanent projects. explore Artists are selected through a peer review process with community input; all works are created especially for their transit related sites. This guide is intended to help you discover artworks throughout the Metro system. For more detailed information on the artwork and the artists, please visit metro.net/art. Artwork copyrighted, all rights reserved. Metro Lines and Transitways Metro Contents Art’s a Trip. Art’s a Trip Metro Environments Free Metro Rail Tours Tours are o=ered the >rst Saturday, > Thursdays – Meet at 7pm at Sunday and Thursday of each month. the street level entrance to the Metro Rail Metro Customer Center It’s free. It’s provocative. The tours are roundtrip and last Hollywood/Highland Metro l Metro Red Line Metro Vehicles It’s a great ride. approximately two hours. Rail Station. Union Station Bus Plaza l Metro Purple Line Tours for groups of 15 or more are > Saturdays – Meet at 10am at > Each tour is unique, visits l Metro Gold Line Metro Headquarters available by special arrangement. the street level entrance to the di=erent stations and is led Metro Division 3 Hollywood/Highland Metro by a member of the Metro Art l Metro Blue Line Call 213 .922.2738 for information Rail Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Incentivizing Zero-Emission Vehicle Ride-Hail/Public Transit Commutes in Los Angeles
    Incentivizing Zero-Emission Vehicle Ride-Hail/Public Transit Commutes in Los Angeles April 2018 By Juan M. Matute Herbie Huff Riley O’Brien Brian D. Taylor 1 Acknowledgements The research team received funding from the UCLA ​ ​ Sustainable Los Angeles Grand Challenge. From ​ ​ understanding future climate patterns and maximizing the region's solar potential, to understanding how gender plays a role in reducing our daily water use and revolutionizing plant and animal conservation management, we are spearheading the research necessary to define the region's pathway to sustainability. The research team also received support from the UCLA ​ Institute of Transportation Studies. The mission of the ​ UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, one of the leading transportation policy research centers in the United States, is to support and advance cutting-edge research, the highest-quality education, and meaningful and influential civic engagement on the many pressing transportation issues facing our cities, state, nation, and world today. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 2 Introduction 6 Project Research Objectives 6 Prior Research and Background 7 Transportation Network Companies 7 Overview 7 TNC-Transit Integration 10 Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) Adoption 11 Clean Vehicle Adoption Overview 11 Plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles 11 Hydrogen fuel cell incentives 13 TNCs and ZEVs 13 Employee Commutes 13 Policy Setting and Background 14 State Policy Setting 14 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and 2016 Update 14 Governor’s Zero
    [Show full text]
  • Gold Line Final Report April 9, 2007
    Final Report GOLD LINE CORRIDOR STUDY March 2007 Prepared by Ralph & Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies University of California, Los Angeles Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Principal Investigator Douglas Houston, Project Manager Ava Bromberg, Director of Fieldwork for Southern California Association of Governments 818 W. Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 GOLD LINE CORRIDOR STUDY FINAL REPORT Prepared by Ralph & Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies University of California, Los Angeles Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Principal Investigator Douglas Houston, Project Manager Ava Bromberg, Director of Fieldwork Graduate Research Assistants Christine Aure Jane Choi Michelle Coulter John Kenyon Lily Song Paul Travis for Southern California Association of Governments 818 W. Seventh Street 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 The preparation of this report was funded in part through grants from the United States Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration – under provisions of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century. Additional financial assistance was provided by the California State Department of Transportation. Gold Line Corridor Study Final Report i Gold Line Corridor Study Final Report ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements iv Executive Summary 1 Section 1. Gold Line Corridor Baseline Profile and Trends 12 1.1 Overview of the Gold Line 12 1.2 Ridership Patterns 13 1.3 Demographic & Socioeconomic Characteristics and Trends of Station Areas 15 1.4 Housing Patterns of Station Areas 23 1.5 Commute Patterns of Station Areas 23 1.6 Jobs & Economic Base of Station Areas 27 1.7 Land Use Characteristics and Trends of Station Areas 31 1.8 Development Activity: Building Permit and Property Sale Patterns 43 1.9 Vacant Properties in Station Areas 50 1.10 Station Area Typologies Classifications 63 1.11 Development Goals & Plans 67 1.12 Overview of Development Projects 72 1.13 References 77 Section 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Master List of Mta Divisions Locations Stations 073009
    METRO DIVISIONS, LOCATIONS, TERMINALS FACILITY CODE NAME Address City State Zip DIVISIONS - LOCATIONS - TERMINALS DIVISION 0001 ACTIVE BUS OPERATING DIVISION 1130 E. 6TH ST LOS ANGELES CA 90021 DIVISION 0002 ACTIVE BUS OPERATING DIVISION 720 E. 15TH ST. LOS ANGELES CA 90021 DIVISION 0003 ACTIVE BUS OPERATING DIVISION 630 W. AVENUE 28 LOS ANGELES CA 90065 DIVISION 0004 NON-REVENUE VEHICLE DIVISION 7878 TELEGRAPH RD. DOWNEY CA 90240 DIVISION 0005 ACTIVE BUS OPERATING DIVISION 5425 VAN NESS AVE. LOS ANGELES CA 90062 DIVISION 0006 ACTIVE BUS OPERATING DIVISION 100 SUNSET AVE. VENICE CA 90291 DIVISION 0007 ACTIVE BUS OPERATING DIVISION 8800 SANTA MONICA BLVD. LOS ANGELES CA 90069 DIVISION 0008 ACTIVE BUS OPERATING DIVISION 9201 CANOGA AVE. CHATSWORTH CA 91311 DIVISION 0009 ACTIVE BUS OPERATING DIVISION 3449 SANTA ANITA AVE. EL MONTE CA 91731 DIVISION 0010 ACTIVE BUS OPERATING DIVISION 742 N. MISSION RD. LOS ANGELES CA 90033 DIVISION 0011 BLUE LINE MAIN YARD 4350 E. 208th ST. LONG BEACH CA 90810 DIVISION 0012 INACTIVE BUS OPERATING DIVISION 970 W. CHESTER PL. LONG BEACH CA 90813 LOCATION 0014 SOUTH PARK SHOPS 5413 AVALON BLVD. LOS ANGELES CA 90011 DIVISION 0015 ACTIVE BUS OPERATING DIVISION 11900 BRANFORD ST. SUN VALLEY CA 91352 TERMINAL 0017 MAPLE LOT - BUS LAYOVER 632 MAPLE AVE. LOS ANGELES CA 90014 DIVISION 0018 ACTIVE BUS OPERATING DIVISION 450 W. GRIFFITH ST. GARDENA CA 90248 TERMINAL 0019 EL MONTE STATION 3501 SANTA ANITA AVE. EL MONTE CA 91731 DIVISION 0020 RED LINE MAIN YARD 320 SO. SANTA FE AVE. LOS ANGELES CA 90013 DIVISION 0021 PASADENA GOLD LINE YARD(MIDWAY) 1800 BAKER ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Bicycling in the Arroyo Seco Corridor
    Connecting Communities: Improving Cycling within the Arroyo Seco Corridor Courtesy North East Trees 1st Edition by Marcus Renner and Claudine Chen 6/4/05 Table of Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. 1 Preface................................................................................................................................. 2 1. Los Angeles River to Avenue 35 / Pasadena Avenue / Marmion Way.................... 15 2. Avenue 35 / Pasadena Avenue to Avenue 52 / 50.................................................... 30 3. Avenue 50 / 52 to York Boulevard / Pasadena Avenue............................................ 37 4. York Boulevard / Pasadena Avenue to 134 / 210 Freeway ...................................... 47 Additional Research Needed............................................................................................. 57 Summary Table: Improving Cycling in the Arroyo Seco Corridor .................................. 60 Appendix 1........................................................................................................................ 67 Acknowledgements This document is a testament to the individuals who have been working for a number of years on cycling issues within the Arroyo Seco Corridor. More than anything else this document seeks to capture their experience, ideas and knowledge for the benefit of others. We would like to thank Nishith Dhandha and Joe Linton for sharing their detailed knowledge of
    [Show full text]
  • Florida State University College of Social Sciences
    FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PUBLIC POLICY MULTI-SCALAR ASSESSMENT OF BUILT-ENVIRONMENT AND BUS NETWORKS INFLUENCE ON RAPID-TRANSIT PATRONAGE - THE CASE OF LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSIT NETWORK - By LUIS ENRIQUE RAMOS SANTIAGO A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Urban and Regional Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2018 Luis Enrique Ramos Santiago defended this dissertation on June 19, 2018. The members of the supervisory committee were: Jeffrey Brown Professor Directing Dissertation Mark Horner University Representative Michael Duncan Committee Member John Felkner Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii I dedicate this doctoral dissertation to a group of special people who have supported me in a variety of ways throughout my doctoral studies. To my mother, Carmen Luz Santiago de Ramos, for her unrelenting love and support of my personal, professional, and intellectual pursuits. To my wife, Yasha N. Rodríguez Meléndez, for her continuous encouragement, patience, and work ethic. You have been and exemplary model to our daughter and myself as we make progress towards better life conditions from fast changing and uncertain economic circumstances at our homeland. To my parents-in-law, Don Angel Rodríguez and Doña Carmen Meléndez, for their continuous and unwavering support to my family and myself during the years of doctoral studies as well as preceding ones when our well-being and that of many other young Puerto Rican families was (and still is) challenged by exceptional economic and environmental circumstances, and where grandparents emerged as stable foundations from which a new generation of Puerto Ricans begin to rebuild a centuries-old noble, resilient, and unique nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Highland Park Guidebook
    ANGELS WALK® LA ANGELS WALK LA SPECIAL THANKS SUPPORTERS SELF-GUIDED HISTORIC TRAILS HONORARY CHAIRMAN LOS ANGELES MAYOR ERIC GARCETTI Bureau of Street Services, City of Los Angeles Nick Patsaouras CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES President, Polis Builders LTD Department of Transportation, City of Los Angeles COUNCILMEMBER GIL CEDILLO, CD1 BOARD HIGHLAND PARK HERITAGE TRUST Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Deanna Molloy, Founder & Board Chair HIGHLAND PARK-GARVANZA HPOZ Authority (Metro) Richard Kiwan, Retired LAUSD Teacher HISTORIC HIGHLAND PARK NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL Board of Directors Stanley Schneider, C.P.A. NORTH FIGUEROA ASSOCIATION Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of Los Angeles STAFF VIRGINIA NEELY, HIGHLAND PARK HISTORICAL ARCHIVE Brian Lane, Co-Director Sheila Kuehl, Los Angeles County Supervisor Tracey Lane, Co-Director ADVISORS + FRIENDS Deanna Molloy, Director, Programs James Butts, City of Inglewood Mayor Kenny Hoff, Technology & Research Erin Behr Kathryn Barger, Los Angeles County Supervisor Spencer Green, Research & Administration Robin Blair, Senior Director of Operations Support, Metro Mike Bonin, Council Member CD11 CONTRIBUTORS Ferdy Chan, Bureau of Street Services Adilia Clerk, Bureau of Street Services John E. Molloy, Urban Planner & Consultant Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker Charles J. Fisher, Historian & Contributing Writer Carol Colin, Highland Park Ebell Club John Fasana, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Duarte Eric Brightwell, Researcher & Contributing Writer Greg Fischer Kathy Gallegos, Avenue 50 Studio Walter
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Report OCTOBER 2012 HISTORIC ARROYO SECO PARKWAY CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP PLAN
    Initial Report OCTOBER 2012 HISTORIC ARROYO SECO PARKWAY CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP PLAN Planning Strategies and Community Goals for State Route 110, a National Scenic Byway and California State Historic Parkway IBI Group in association with The Arroyo Guild AFSHA Consulting, Inc. Cardno ENTRIX Paul Daniel Marriott + Associates Sharon Lowe OCTOBER 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY HISTORIC ARROYO SECO PARKWAY CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP PLAN Planning Strategies and Community Goals for State Route 110, a National Scenic Byway and California State Historic Parkway Prepared for: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 7 (Los Angeles and Ventura Counties) and California State Scenic Byways Program through a cooperative agreement with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Prepared by: IBI Group With: The Arroyo Guild AFSHA Consulting Cardno-Entrix Paul Daniel Marriott + Associates Sharon Lowe (For a detailed list of preparers, please see page 141.) In Association with: City of Los Angeles City of Pasadena City of South Pasadena County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Arroyo Seco Foundation United States Army Corps of Engineers Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority (MRCA) Council of Arroyo Seco Agencies (CASA) Council of Arroyo Seco Organizations (CASO) California Highway Patrol Congressman Xavier Becerra’s Office Special Assistance Provided by: Linda Taira, Caltrans Project Manager and Philip Law, SCAG Contract Manager Through Federal Grants from: • National Scenic Byways Program of the Federal Highway Administration, Grant Number CA06 003 • Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), High Priority Project, Grant Number CA602, SAFETEA-LU Section 1702, HPP#2713 These grants were secured for the purpose of completing a Corridor Management Plan for the Arroyo Seco National Scenic Byway, consistent with the National Scenic Byways Program (http://www.bywaysonline.org/grants/).
    [Show full text]
  • Go Metro Summer Guide
    metro.net Summer Guide Go Metro Guía de verano SANTA MONICA PIER MANHATTAN BEACH CHINATOWN HOLLYWOOD HIGHLAND LONG BEACH AQUARIUM NOKIA THEATER AT LA LIVE Summer Guide Metro Red Line/Purple Line 9 Vermont/Sunset Station ● Metro Gold Line Metro Blue Line 1 Union Station ●●● Take the LADOT Griffith Observatory Shuttle, on 19 Union Station ●●● 30 Pico Station ● weekends only to: Barnsdall Art Park/Hollyhock House, Avila House, Olvera Street (El Pueblo de Griffith Observatory Avila House, Olvera Street (El Pueblo de LA LIVE, LA Convention Center, Lucky Strike Lanes Summer 2009 Los Angeles), Old Plaza Fire House, Olvera Street, Los Angeles), Old Plaza Fire House, Olvera Street, & Lounge, Nokia Theatre, Staples Center, Sepulveda House 10 Hollywood/Western Station ● Sepulveda House The Grammy Museum 2 Civic Center Station ●● Thai Town 20 Chinatown Station ● 31 103rd Street Station ● Take Dash A from 1st/Hill to: Ahmanson Theatre/Mark 11 Hollywood/Vine Station ● Chinatown Art Galleries, Old Chinatown, Los Angeles City Library, Watts Towers Art Center, Taper Forum, Dorothy Chandler Pavillion, Little Tokyo, Amoeba Music, Arclight Cinerama Dome, Ford Los Angeles State Historic Park Watts Towers of Simon Rodia Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA), Walt Disney Amphitheatre, Henry Fonda Theatre, Hollywood Walk 21 Lincoln/Cypress Station ● 32 Artesia Station ● Concert Hall, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels of Fame, Los Angeles Fire Department Museum, Pantages Theatre Arroyo Seco Bike Path, Cypress Park, LA River Gateway Towne Center 3 Pershing Square Station ●● Center and Gardens Grand Central Market, Pershing Square Historic 12 Hollywood/Highland Station ● 33 1st Street Station ● 22 Heritage Square Station ● Center, Richard J.
    [Show full text]
  • October 1996 Board Meeting
    Revised: October 2 1996 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: SUBJECT: Los Angeles County COMMUNITY ISSUES Metropolitan Transportation Authority RECOMMENDATION Approvethe staff report for the PasadenaBlue Line (PBL)regarding resolution OneGateway Plaza outstanding communityissues which conformto the recommendedfinal budget of Los Angeles,CA $803.9million.. 90012 ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT 213.922.6000 Adoptionof the staffrecommendationwill movethis important project forward, Mailing Address: helping achieve the TAs goal of~ncreasmgmobility in this corridor and meeting RO.Box ~94 the direction mandatedby the Boardin June, 1996. Los Angeles,CA 90053 BUDGET IMPACT Adoptionof the staff recommendationwill not have an impact on the MTAbudget since the recommendationdoes not propose a budget increase. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Noalternatives were considered since the Boarddirected at its June, 1996 meeting that this workbe conducted. BACKGROUNDAND/OR DISCUSSION At the June meeting, the Board approved freezing the PasadenaBlue Line (PBL) scope of work with a report back in 60 days on resolution of outstanding communityissues and adoption of the final budget. Over the past three months, MTAstaff has met with local elected officials, communitygroups and city staff membersrepresenting the five communitiesalong the PBLalignment. A list of identified issues raised at these meetings, along with any previously unresolved items are listed in Attachment1. Staffworkedwithin the limitations of the previously defined construction budget to resolve manyof these issues. A total of four meetings were held with Chinatownrepresentatives addressing station issues, including pedestrian connectionsto various locations within the communityand the enhancementof the public plaza adjacent to the station (Attachment2). Staffregularly attended and participated in the HighlandPark Historic Preservation OverlayZone Association meetings to resolve issues such as the configuration of MarmionWay.
    [Show full text]