DOCSLIB.ORG

FY2010 Monthly Financial Report (November 2009)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FY2010 Monthly Financial Report (November 2009) Finance, Administration and Oversight Committee Information Item IV-B January 14, 2009 FY2010 Monthly Financial Report (November 2009) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Fiscal 2010 Financials Monthly Financial Report November 2009 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT FY2010 November 2009 _________________________________________________________________ REPORT SECTIONS Operating Budget • Ridership • Revenue • Expense Capital Finances • Revenues • Costs • Projects Outstanding Debt Appendix Operating budget variances, by mode Ridership analysis Capital expenditures, by project Capital budget and expenditures, Metro Matters by ARRA Jurisdictional balances on account Transit Infrastructure Investment Fund Grant Activity (November 2009) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority November 2009 Monthly Financial Report -- FY2010 OPERATING BUDGET Summary Total operating revenue in November was $54.3 million, $4.9 million or 8 percent less than budget. The greatest shortfall for the month occurred in passenger and parking revenues which totaled $47.9 million, $4.1 million or 8 percent below the budgeted total of $52.0 million. Non-passenger revenues for the month were $6.4 million, $0.9 million less than the budgeted amount of $7.3 million. Following recent trends, in November rail passenger revenues totaled $36.3 million, $2.7 million or 7 percent below the budgeted amount of $39.0 million. Bus passenger revenue was $7.8 million, $1.2 million or 13 percent below the budget amount of $9 million. MetroAccess revenue for November was $0.3 million, 10 percent less than budgeted. Total expenses for the month of $113.3 million were unfavorable by $2.1 million. Jurisdictional subsidy for the month was unfavorable by $7 million or 13 percent, and through the first five months of Fiscal 2010, jurisdictional subsidy of $267.8 million was unfavorable by $29.6 million or 12 percent. Nov 2008 Nov 2009 Budget ($ Millions) Actual Actual Budget Variance November Budget Variance Variance Revenue $54.7 $54.3 $59.2 ($4.9) -8% Expense $101.9 $113.3 $111.2 ($2.1) -2% Subsidy $47.2 $59.0 $52.0 ($7.0) -13% Cost Recovery 54% 48% 53% Year to Date Budget Variance Variance Revenue $316.0 $307.0 $329.2 ($22.2) -7% Expense $545.2 $574.8 $567.4 ($7.4) -1% Subsidy $229.2 $267.8 $238.2 ($29.6) -12% Cost Recovery 58% 53% 58% Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority November 2009 Monthly Financial Report -- FY2010 Ridership Average weekday ridership in November was 709,321 trips, a decrease of 1 percent below the same period last year. Rail ridership declined in every weekday time- period this month, with the largest decline, -1.73 percent, in the evening. However, year-to-year comparisons of growth rates show some improvements, with November’s decline the lowest since the beginning of the fiscal year. Average Saturday rail ridership increased almost 2 percent over last year, while average Sunday ridership of 191,272 trips is almost the same as last year. Through the first five months of FY2010, total rail ridership was 91.6 million trips, 1.9 million trips below the same period last year and 5.3 million trips below budget. Changes in Average Weekday and Average Weekend Rail Ridership FY2010 Avg. AM Peak Avg. Midday Avg. PM Peak Avg. Evening Avg. Weekday Avg. Sat. Avg. Sun. Growth Rate Compared to FY09 July -5.14% -1.29% -4.03% -4.02% -3.82% 7.30% 4.91% August -3.73% -0.69% -1.95% -3.83% -2.49% -6.65% -8.56% September -4.84% 0.80% -3.27% -1.33% -2.83% 13.19% -4.89% October -3.45% 1.65% -1.78% 0.51% -1.42% -5.96% 2.84% November -1.08% -0.78% -1.24% -1.73% -1.15% 1.72% 0.31% Average Metrobus ridership in November was 399,143 trips, a decrease of 9 percent below last year and 12 percent below budget. Bus ridership fell in all periods, with average Saturday and Sunday trips decreasing by 12 and 6 percent, respectively. For the month, total bus trips of 9.5 million trips were almost 700,000 trips below the same month last year, even though November had one extra weekday when compared with last year. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority November 2009 Monthly Financial Report -- FY2010 Nov 2008 Nov 2009 Above/(Below) Actual Actual Budget Last Year Budget Trips Average Weekday Ridership Growth Rate Metrorail 717,571 709,321 742,333 -1% -4% Metrobus 436,756 399,143 453,134 -9% -12% MetroAccess 6,542 7,727 7,589 18% 2% System Total 1,160,869 1,116,191 1,203,057 -4% -7% Trips (Thousands) Year to Date Ridership Growth Rate Metrorail 93,519 91,637 96,986 -2% -6% Metrobus 58,290 54,851 60,596 -6% -9% MetroAccess 834 993 951 19% 4% System Total 152,643 147,482 158,533 -3% -7% Revenues Rail passenger revenue of $36.3 million was $2.7 million lower than expected, contributing to an average fare of $2.22, five cents below the budgeted average fare of $2.27. The year-to-date rail average fare is $2.24, $0.04 below the budgeted $2.28. On Metrobus, the passenger revenue shortfall of $1.2 million translated to a shortfall in the average fare of $0.01. Expenses Authority wide operating expenses are over budget by $2.1 million for the month of November and ($7.4 million) over budget year to date. YTD includes work associated with the red line accident. Total personnel expenses are over budget by ($2.4 million) or -3% for the month. Total labor is ($1.6 million) over budget in November. Straight time salary and wages are over budget by ($567,000) for the month. The continuing accrual for the labor arbitration and lighter than anticipated capitalization of engineering expenses, combine for the variance. Overtime for the month is over budget by $1 million; almost evenly split in bus and rail. The majority of the overtime is associated with coverage for vacant positions or absenteeism coverage. Fringe benefits are ($789,000) over budget for the month. This is due to Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority November 2009 Monthly Financial Report -- FY2010 timing issues in the health care payments and an unbudgeted charge for DC workers compensation special assessment of $300,000 per month. Non-personnel expenses are under budget by $318,000 for the month. Services and Materials and Supplies are over budget, but this is offset by savings in fuel and power. Services are over budget by $461,000 for the month, with the ADA variance of ($848,000) being the primary driver. Materials and supplies are over budget by ($1.5 million) for the month. Energy and utilities are under budget by $2.5 million in November due to favorable rates/pricing of $764,000 in diesel fuel and the remainder due to lighter usage and better electricity rates. Casualty and liability is over budget by ($225,000) due to higher insurance premium payments. Leases and miscellaneous items are over budget by ($131,000) due to a $200,000 charge for settling a rail vendor dispute. CAPITAL FINANCES Revenues Revenues received to date for the FY2010 capital budget total $387 million. The State and Local Contributions were received, totaling $78 million. The FY2010 debt balance is $59 million. Note: That total revenue increased by $61 million to include Security Grants. Federal grants are $8 million higher and miscellaneous funds are $7 million lower than anticipated. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority November 2009 Monthly Financial Report -- FY2010 Costs The capital budget for FY2010 is $825 million. Capital spending through November is as follows: $445 million has been obligated, and $137 million has been expended. Note, the FY2010 approved budget was increased by $95 million, $34 million due to the annual roll-over of unexpended budget and $61 million in the Security Program. The appendix includes budget and spending data for each capital project. Capital Revenues FY2010 (dollars in millions) Received To be Metro Matters Program Budget to Date Received Federal Grants $ 282 $ 42 $ 240 State & Local Contributions 188 78 110 Miscellaneous 33 2 31 Debt Issuance 59 59 - Subtotal $ 562 $ 181 $ 381 Security Grants 61 6 55 Subtotal $ 623 $ 187 $ 436 ARRA Program Federal Grants $ 202 $ 200 $ 2 Total $ 825 $ 387 $ 438 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority November 2009 Monthly Financial Report -- FY2010 Capital Spending FY2010 Year to Date (dollars in millions) Metro Matters Program Budget Obligated Expended Unexpended Infrastructure Renewal Program $ 461 $ 265 $ 99 $ 362 Eight-Car Train Initiative 39 26 10 29 Bus Improvement Initiative 10 3 1 9 Program Management 31 25 17 14 Borrowing Expense 21 9 - 21 Subtotal $ 562 $ 328 $ 127 $ 435 Security Program 61 - - 61 Sub-Total $ 623 $ 328 $ 127 $ 496 ARRA Program Vehicles and Vehicle Parts $ 40 $ 39 $ 4 $ 36 Maintenance Facilities 62 23 2 60 Passenger Facilities 20 17 - 20 Safety and Security 12 9 3 9 Maintenance and Repair Equipment 30 7 - 30 Operations System 26 20 - 26 Information Technology 10 2 - 10 Miscellaneous 2 - - 2 Subtotal $ 202 $ 117 $ 10 $ 192 Total $ 825 $ 445 $ 137 $ 688 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority November 2009 Monthly Financial Report -- FY2010 PROJECTS MetroAccess Van Procurement Funding for eighty (80) vehicles has been allocated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Contracts were awarded on July 16, 2009. First Article Inspection of the pilot vehicle was performed on October 7, 2009. Production of the remaining 79 vehicles commenced November 9, 2009. Deliveries are on schedule to begin late-December 2009 and continue through the end of January 2010. Bus Procurement As of November 17, Metrobus has received 163 buses in its procurement of 203 diesel-electric hybrid buses, 135 of which are in revenue service.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011
    Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities August 2011 Shuttle Services at Metro Facilities Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Bus Planning August 2011 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Bus Planning Jim Hamre, Director of Bus Planning Krys Ochia, Branch Manager 600 5th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Parsons Brinckerhoff Brian Laverty, AICP, Project Manager Nicholas Schmidt, Task Manager 1401 K Street NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20005 Contents Executive Summary ES-1 Existing Conditions ES-1 Policies and Procedures ES-2 Future Demand ES-3 Recommendations ES-4 Introduction 1 Study Process 3 Coordination 3 On-Site Observations 3 Operating Issues 3 Future Demand 4 Permitting and Enforcement 4 Existing Conditions 7 Key Observations 8 Operating Issues 9 Policies and Procedures 17 Permitting 17 Enforcement 19 Future Demand 25 Methodology 25 Results 28 Recommendations 33 Facility Design 34 Demand Management 37 Permitting 39 Enforcement 42 Contents | i Figures Figure ES-1: Future Shuttle Demand Estimate ES-4 Figure 1: Location of Peer U.S. Transit Agencies 4 Figure 2: Study Stations 7 Figure 3: Vehicles in Tight Turning Areas May Block Bus Bay Entrances (New Carrollton Station) 11 Figure 4: Long Kiss & Ride Queue (New Carrollton Station) 11 Figure 5: Pedestrian Shortcut (Southern Avenue Station) 11 Figure 6: Shuttle Blocking Kiss & Ride Travel Lane (King Street Station) 12 Figure 7: Shuttle Blocking Bus Stop (Anacostia Station) 13 Figure 8: Typical Signs Prohibiting Non-Authorized Access to Station Bus Bays
    [Show full text]
  • 2 Line, D Line, F8 and P12 Evaluation
    WMATA SERVICE EVALUATION STUDY Final Report June 2009 Prepared by: P2D WMATA Service Evaluation Study Final Report Contents GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS ............................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 4 PROJECT PURPOSE..................................................................................................................................... 4 PROJECT PROCESS..................................................................................................................................... 4 Analysis of Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................4 Public Involvement ...............................................................................................................................5 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 5 Service Planning...................................................................................................................................5 Traffic Operations .................................................................................................................................7 Customer Communications ..................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth Transportation Board Shannon Valentine 1401 East Broad Street (804) 786-2701 Chairperson Richmond, Virginia 23219
    Commonwealth Transportation Board Shannon Valentine 1401 East Broad Street (804) 786-2701 Chairperson Richmond, Virginia 23219 Agenda item # 21 RESOLUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD September 18, 2018 MOTION Made By: Ms. Hynes, Seconded By: Mr. Kasprowicz Action: Motion Carried Title: Approval and Authorization for the Commissioner of Highways to Execute a Letter Agreement with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to provide funding for WMATA’s Reimbursable Costs, and a Project Principles Agreement between WMATA, the Virginia Department of Transportation, I-66 Express Mobility Partners, and FAM Construction, LLC for the Transform 66 Outside the Beltway Project WHEREAS, the Transform 66 Outside the Beltway Project (Project) entails multimodal transportation improvements on the approximately 22-mile corridor on I-66 between U.S. Route 29 near Gainesville in Prince William County and the I-495 Capital Beltway in Fairfax County (Outside the Beltway Component) and is designed to address existing and future transportation challenges in the I-66 Corridor in a cost-effective and timely manner, to improve multimodal mobility by providing diverse travel choices through an efficient network of park-and-ride, HOV, transit, and Express Lane opportunities, and to enhance transportation safety and travel reliability for the public; and WHEREAS, the Project will be designed, built, financed, maintained, and operated by I- 66 Express Mobility Partners LLC (the Concessionaire or Developer), pursuant to a Comprehensive
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph M. Sussman
    Factors Influencing Land Development Around Rail Transit Stations by Jeffrey Jan Sriver B.S., Civil Engineering Purdue University, 1993 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN TRANSPORTATION at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology August, 1995 ©1995 Jeffrey Jan Sriver All rights reserved The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. r>" i, Signature of Author . .. ................ i/' : A;IparTnnt of CiIl and EnvironmentalEngineering i. Xa! r 1 August, 1995 Certified by ........... .. ... Nigel H. M. Wilson Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Thesis Advisor Accepted By. .. ri~. ..·.... ..Joseph . ...M.Sussman Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies ,.,A;A; UJS[{"rTs IN'i' "U'i'F Or 'fEC!4NOLOGY OCT25 1995 Factors Influencing Land Development Around Rail Transit Stations by Jeffrey Jan Sriver Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on 1 August, 1995, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Transportation Abstract Many of the factors which have influenced development around transit stations over the past thirty years differ from those that shaped the nature of land development at the dawn of rail transit technology, 100 years ago. Rapid transit systems which have been built in the modem era represent investments in a mode of transport that nearly all other political, economic, institutional, and regulatory factors have been aligned to defeat. However, construction of a rail transit network does provide the opportunity to re-orient metropolitan area development in a manner which will take advantage of the travel efficiencies afforded by this transit mode and affect regional travel behavior and quality of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Responses to Local / Regional Agency Comments on I-66 Corridor Improvements Tier 2 Draft Environmental Assessment
    APPENDIX D RESPONSES TO LOCAL / REGIONAL AGENCY COMMENTS ON I-66 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS TIER 2 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I-66 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS TIER 2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT State Project: 0066-96A-297; UPC 105500 From: US 15 To: I-495 Prince William and Fairfax Counties, Virginia Federal Highway Administration Virginia Department of Transportation Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation Except for a few minor editorial corrections, the text in this appendix is unchanged from what was presented in the Tier 2 Revised EA. New substantive comments (i.e., those on the Tier 2 Revised EA) are addressed in Appendix G of the Tier 2 Final EA. This page intentionally left blank. Virginia Railway Express (VRE) – 6/17/15 Responses to Local/Regional Agency Comments D-1 1.) The Preferred Alternatives is indeed a combination of elements that were identified as part of Alternatives 2A and 2B. Recognizing the cost and complexity of the proposed improvements, VDOT has recommended that the project be implemented in phases. The proposed first phase extends the express lanes for 22 of the original 25 miles, from I-495 to Gainesville (University Boulevard), and then transitions to a traditional HOV lane in each direction. Efforts will be made to minimize expansion of VDOT right of way at University Boulevard and other areas in proximity to the B Line railroad corridor so as not to preclude options to expand the railroad corridor at a future time. 2.) In the Tier 2 Draft EA, park-and-ride lots were proposed at University Boulevard in Gainesville and in Haymarket.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Income Job Accessibility to Silver Line Extension (Sle) Job Center, Washington Dc Metro Area
    LOW INCOME JOB ACCESSIBILITY TO SILVER LINE EXTENSION (SLE) JOB CENTER, WASHINGTON DC METRO AREA BY SUNHYEONG SHIN CAPSTONE REPORT Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban Planning in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2018 Urbana, Illinois Adviser: Dr. Jesus Barajas 1 CONTENTS 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1. Job access and unemployment ...................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Accessibility as an indicator of social equity ................................................................................ 5 2.3. Theories about job-housing-transport mode mismatch ................................................................. 6 2.4. Other Example Extensions ............................................................................................................ 6 3. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1. Metrorail in Washington DC Metropolitan Area .......................................................................... 7 3.2. Phase 1 Silver Line Extension (SLE) ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 4920 John Ticer Drive Alexandria, VA 22304
    1 Transportation Issues in Northern Virginia FINAL: April 26, 2005 Introduction Hello, this is (FIRST AND LAST NAME) calling from QSA Research on behalf of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority, a group of public officials that makes decisions about transportation spending. They have asked us to conduct a survey to give residents like you a voice in some important decisions about transportation improvements and methods for funding them. If Necessary • The survey averages about 10 minutes. • The survey is a good opportunity for you to have your voice heard by public officials who decide which transportation projects to fund and how to pay for them. • We are not selling anything or raising funds for any organization. We only want your opinions. • Your answers will be used for statistical purposes only. You will never be identified as a respondent. Screening Questions S-1 We are surveying only certain areas in Northern Virginia. In what county or independent city is your home located? (READ LIST.) Alexandria City 1 CONTINUE n=100 Arlington County 2 CONTINUE n=100 Fairfax County 3 CONTINUE n=411 Fairfax City 4 CONTINUE n=100 Falls Church City 5 CONTINUE n=100 Loudoun County 6 CONTINUE n=100 Manassas City 7 CONTINUE n=100 Manassas Park City 8 CONTINUE n=100 Prince William County 9 CONTINUE n=134 Other 10 CLARIFY. THANK AND CLOSE Refused 11 THANK AND CLOSE 920 John Ticer Drive Alexandria, VA 22304 voice: 703-567-7655 fax: 703-567-6156 www.qsaresearch.com 1 2 S-2 I need to speak to the adult in your household – that is, a person who is 18 years of age or older – who had the most recent birthday.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses to Supervisors Questions
    COUNTY OF LOUDOUN, VIRGINIA TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: April 26, 2012 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Andrew Beacher, Director, Transportation Services Mark Adams, Director, Management & Financial Services RE: Responses to Supervisor Delgaudio’s Metrorail Questions Submitted 3/5/12 CC: Tim Hemstreet, Linda Neri, Charles Yudd, John Sandy, Leslie Hansbarger, Julie Grandfield, Danny Davis, Ben Mays, Anna Nissinen 1. What are the population and employment densities of planned Loudoun County Metro station areas? Provide current and projected one mile, three mile, five mile radius data in 5 year increments to year 2040. Tables showing population and employment as of 2010, and forecasted through 2040, are attached (Attachment 1). Both total figures and density per square mile are provided for one, three, and five mile radii of the three stations that would be located within Loudoun County (Route 772, Route 606, and Dulles Airport), and for the Route 28 station, which would be located in Fairfax County near the Loudoun County border. Population, employment, and associated densities are only for the areas within Loudoun County. Data for the county as a whole are also provided, for comparison purposes. The attached map shows the location of the one, three, and five mile radii. The buffered areas encircling each station overlap, but population and employment are not double counted in these instances. To illustrate forecasted development in the vicinity of each station, tables for the one mile radius around individual stations (Route 772, Route 606, and Route 28) are also provided. Since the one mile radius around the Dulles Airport station encompasses only airport property, a table is not provided for this station.
    [Show full text]
  • 1[TPZ Ctaa^A at ^Ac AT[Tpbts
    M V 8C0;80=9>1)6gbVc^Wg^c\hZVhnZaZ\VcXZidB^aVc;Vh]^dcLZZ`q?PVT"( • MERENGUE • TANGO • FOXTROT • WALTZ • CHA CHA • SALSA • RUMBA Y Youou CCanan BBee Alex/Landmark Tysons Corner RUMBA T Thehe SStartar TThathat • I Iss DDancing!ancing! Bethesda • Gaithersburg SAMBA SALSA • Silver Spring • Hwy 29 N. MAMBO 1-800-503-6769 CHA • • SWING WALTZ • • HUSTLE WWW.ARTHURMURRAYDC.COM Classes Forming Now NIGHTCLUB • BALLROOM • COUNTRY & WESTERN & COUNTRY • BALLROOM • NIGHTCLUB • FOXTROT • :IN;EB<:MBHGH? u EBO>:EE=:R:MPPP'K>:=>QIK>LL'<HFu L > I M > F ;> K +0% + ) ) / u --5A44++ P^]g^l]Zr 1[TPZCTaa^aAT_^acAT[TPbTS fhk^]bo^kl^%e^Z]bg`mh :ll^llf^gm\ZeelBkZjpZkZÌ\Znl^\^e^[k^Í_hk^qmk^fblml bg\k^Zlbg`ZmmZ\dlphke]& F0B78=6C>=kMa^pZkbgBkZjaZl[^\hf^Z ma^mak^Zm_khfBleZfb\^qmk^fblmlaZllik^Z] pb]^%ËZ\\hk]bg`mhma^ Ê\Znl^\^e^[k^Ë_hkBleZfb\^qmk^fblml%[k^^]& [hmabggnf[^klZg]bg`^h`kZiab\k^Z\a' ]h\nf^gm' bg`]^^ik^l^gmf^gmh_ma^N'L'maZmikh[Z[er ;nlaZg]ablZ]obl^klaZo^lZb]ma^Zll^ll& ;nlalZb]\kbmb\lpah pbee`^mphkl^[^_hk^bm`^ml[^mm^k%_^]^kZe f^gmh_`eh[Zem^kkhkblflniihkm^]ma^bkZk`n& [^eb^o^ma^BkZjpZkaZl bgm^eeb`^g\^ZgZerlml\hg\en]^bgZk^ihkmZm f^gmlmaZmma^phke]bllZ_^k[^\Znl^h_ma^ phkl^g^]m^kkhkblfZk^ h]]lpbmaIk^lb]^gm;nlaÍl\hgm^gmbhgh_Z pZk';nmfhk^maZgmak^^iZ`^lh_lmZkdcn]`& "USH gZbo^Zg]fblmZd^g' 0%4%2-!#$)!2-)$'%449)-!'%3 phke]maZmÍl`khpbg`lZ_^k' f^gmlpZkgbg`Z[hnmma^lik^Z]h_m^kkhkblf ÊMhln``^lmmaZmb_p^ 4ONY"LAIRRECEIVESAPPLAUSEAFTERHISSPEECH Bgma^[e^Zdk^ihkm%]^\eZllb_b^]Zg] \hgmkZlm^]pbmama^Z]fbgblmkZmbhgÍl`eZll& p^k^gÍmbgBkZjp^phne]l^^Zkhlb^kl\^gZk& k^e^Zl^]Mn^l]Zrhg;nlaÍlhk]^kl%ma^gZmbhgÍl
    [Show full text]
  • 1986 Comprehensive Plan, 1989 Reprint
    THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA This document consists of the Area II Plan, adopted August 26, 1975, and all amendments adopted through October 27,1986. Any subsequent amend­ ments are available from Maps and Publications Sales, Massey Building, Fair­ fax, Virginia 246-2974. The Board of Supervisors has established a regular Annual Plan Review and updating process to insure the continuing relevance of the Plan. For infor­ mation regarding the Annua! Plan Review, please call 246-1200. This document, which is to be used in conjunction with the Area Plan maps, provides background information and planning policy guidelines for Fairfax County, as required by the Code of Virginia, as amended. 1986 EDITION (As Amended Through October 27th, 1986) 1989 REPRINT (Including, bound at the rear of this volume, the complete text and map for each amendment pertaining to this volume adopted through July 24, 1989) Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 1986 Edition, 1989 Reprint - Area II BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Audrey Moore, Chairman Martha V. Pennine Centreville District Vice Chairman Joseph Alexander, Lee District Katherine K. Hanley, Providence District Sharon Bulova, Annandale District Gerry Hyland, Mount Vernon District Thomas M. Davis, III, Mason District Elaine McConnell, Springfield District Lilla Richards, Dranesville District J. Hamilton Lambert, County Executive PLANNING COMMISSION Peter F. Murphy, Jr., Springfield District Chairman John R. Byers, Mt. Vernon District Maya A. Huber, At-Large David P. Bobzien, Centreville District William M. Lockwood. At-Large Patrick M. Hanlon, Providence District Carl L. Sell, Jr., Lee District Suzanne F. Harsel, Annandale District Henry E. Strickland, Mason District Stephen J.
    [Show full text]
  • WMATA Inspection Reports September 2016
    Inspection Form Form FTA-IR-1 United States Department of Transportation FOIA Exemption: All (b)(6) Federal Transit Administration Agency/Department Information YYYY MM DD Inspection Date Report Number 20160901-WMATA-TW-1 2016 09 01 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Rail Agency Rail Agency Name ROCC Sub- Department Authority Department Name Email Office Phone Mobile Phone Rail Agency Department Contact Information Inspection Location Carmen Turner Facility – Technical Training Inspection Summary Inspection Activity # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Activity Code OPS –TNG – OBS Inspection Units 1 Inspection Subunits 1 Defects (Number) 0 Recommended Finding No Remedial Action Required No Recommended Reinspection No Activity Summaries Inspection of Track Walkers Inspection Refresher Inspection Activity # 1 Inspection Subject Activity Code OPS TNG OBS Class Job Briefing Accompanied Out Brief 0900 - Outside Employee No No Time No Inspector? Conducted 1230 Shift Name/Title FTA-Rail-2-16-A Related Reports Related CAPS / Findings Ref Rule or SOP Standard Other / Title Checklist Reference Related Rules, SOPs, Standards, or Other Main RTA FTA Yard Station OCC At-grade Tunnel Elevated N/A Track Facility Office Inspection Location Track Type X X From To Track Chain Marker Line(s) Number and/or Station(s) Head Car Number Number of Cars Vehicles Equipment Inspector in Charge - Signature Digitally signed by TERRELL A WILLIAMS Date DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DOT Headquarters, 9/06/2016 TERRELL A WILLIAMS ou=FTAHQ, cn=TERRELL A WILLIAMS Date: 2016.09.06 10:46:49 -04'00' Inspector in Charge – Name Inspection Team Terrell Williams Terrell Williams, Patrick Richardson Form FTA-IR-1 Version date: 1/19/16 Form FTA-IR-1 United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration FWSO Inspectors observed the last day of the 4 day Track Walker Inspection 0 refresher course taught at Carmen Turner Training Facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Vienna, Virginia Comprehensive Plan 2008
    TOWN OF VIENNA, VIRGINIA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2008 Approved as amended by the Planning Commission: February 13, 2008 Adopted by the Mayor and Town Council: April 7, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ……………………………………………………………………….... 1 Statutory Requirement ……………………………………………………….… 1 HISTORY ……………………………………………………………………….…..… 3 DEMOGRAPHICS …………………………………………………………………… 6 Table D-1: Total Population – Vienna and Fairfax County …………………..... 6 Table D-2: Vienna’s Population by Age ……………………………………….. 7 Table D-3: Comparison of Average Household Size ……………………….….. 8 Table D-4: Comparative 2000 Income Levels …………..……………………… 8 Table D-5: Vienna’s Population by Race ……………………..…………….….. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES …………………………………………….…….. 10 Map EF-1: Environmental Features …………………………………………….. 14 Map EF-2: Chesapeake Bay Areas Map …………………………….………….. 15 EXISTING LAND USE ………………………………………………........................ 16 Table LU-1: Land Use Distribution ………….………………..…………….….. 17 Table LU-2: Residential Unit Distribution …………………….……………….. 18 Table LU-3: Non-Residential Floor Area by Square Foot ……………………… 18 Table LU-4: Register of Vienna Historic Structures, Sites and Places …………. 22 Map LU-1: Historic Areas Map ……………….……………….……………….. 23 Map LU-2: Land Use Patterns in the Town …………………………………….. 25 Map LU-3: Adjacent County Land Uses …………………………………..……. 26 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: CONDITIONS AND TRENDS …….…………… 27 Map T-1: Street Inventory, Classification and Major Street Plan ……………...... 28 Map T-2: Truck Routes …………………………………………………….…….. 30 Map T-3: Existing Walkway Inventory
    [Show full text]