DOCSLIB.ORG

Kacey Lizon a Achments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kacey Lizon a Achments Land Use and Natural Resources Committee Meeting Date: 9/6/2018 Agenda Item No.: 2018-September-2. Subject: 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Discussion Scenario (Est. time: 45 minutes) Informaon Prepared by: Clint Holtzen Approved by: Kacey Lizon Aachments: Yes 1. Issue: This item provides a briefing on the Discussion Scenario for the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), including the development of a land use forecast, a list of transportation investments, and a summary of initial performance results. 2. Recommendation: This is for information, however, staff is seeking input on the transportation project selection criteria. 3. Background/Analysis: As presented to the board in April and June, the purpose of the Discussion Scenario is to examine what it will take to maintain, or improve, the performance of the current MTP/SCS, and meet a new higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction target set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The new target will require more land use and transportation efficiency than in the already high performing 2016 plan. Through the Policy Framework adopted by the board in December 2017, staff is also exploring other strategies to improve the performance of the plan. These strategies, which staff will bring to the board in the next three months, include investment in electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, innovative transit solutions, transportation demand management, and pricing (see Attachment E). The Discussion Scenario is a way to discuss the effects and trade-offs of policies in the 2020 MTP/SCS update, and decide which policies should be used to develop the growth assumptions and transportation investments in the 2020 MTP/SCS. The Discussion Scenario is not a Preferred or Final Scenario, Draft Plan, or staff recommendation; rather, it is a mechanism for discussion. 4. Discussion/Analysis: There are three foundation elements of the Discussion Scenario: 1) Land Use Forecast The land use assumptions of the Discussion Scenario were shared and discussed with the board in June and are provided again in Attachment A for reference. In May and June, a few jurisdictions and board members raised concerns about the growth assumptions in the Discussion Scenario for their specific community. SACOG has been following up with local agency staff to further discuss these concerns. In addition, staff is continuing to engage all member agency staff and stakeholders to collect more information that will help inform the final land use forecast for the plan update. Specifically, we are continuing to research and analyze the various hurdles to infill development, as well as potential solutions. Staff has also sent a survey to member agencies focused on collecting detailed information on the greenfield areas throughout the region. 2) Transportation Investments Since June, staff has worked to pair a package of transportation investments, based on local input and SACOG’s own performance analysis, with the discussion draft land uses to create a complete Discussion Scenario for 2035 and 2040. The transportation investments of the Discussion Scenario are included as Attachment B. The process that staff used to select projects for inclusion in the scenario mirrors the process we used in the 2016 MTP/SCS. This process begins with the full list of transportation projects nominated by local agency staff, then uses project screening criteria to evaluate the timing, or the phasing, of projects. This methodology is described in Attachment C. The screening questions allow SACOG staff to refine an initial set of transportation projects that can be used to model the Discussion Scenario. Refining which transportation projects are ultimately included in the draft plan is an iterative process that will go through spring of next year. The Discussion Draft transportation project list is the beginning of this process. SACOG sent the attached Discussion Scenario transportation project list to member agencies last week. This began an initial one month vetting period during which time local agencies are asked to review the project list and provide comment. SACOG staff are available to meet with local agency staff to discuss the Discussion Scenario, the screening criteria, and any questions or concerns local agency staff may have. These meetings will continue through this fall on an “as requested” basis. For the jurisdictions in El Dorado and Placer Counties, the project list review will be coordinated by the El Dorado County Transportation Commission and Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. 3) Performance Outcomes A partial summary of the land use and transportation inputs and the performance measures for the Discussion Scenario is included in Attachment D. Staff will provide a more complete summary at the committee meeting, and will spend more time next month on a performance outcomes briefing and how it affects board policy choices for this plan update. The inputs and performance outcomes described in the attachment are intended to give the board information needed to understand the implications and tradeoffs of various policy decisions facing the MTP/SCS. Specifically, the attachment serves as a snapshot of how the land use and transportation assumptions included in the Discussion Scenario affect the plan’s ability to meet performance objectives such as state greenhouse gas reduction targets, mode shares, congestion relief, transit productivity, natural resource consumption, and access to jobs and services. The board can use this information to provide direction to staff on major policy elements of the plan, such as the allocation of housing and jobs, strategies for managing the transportation system, and how to prioritize investments among different budget categories, including transit, road, and highway capacity, active transportation, and system maintenance and preservation. In December, staff anticipates requesting action on a framework reflecting the board's major policy interests in the final scenario. Attachment E describes the information coming to the board over the next few months in anticipation of that action. 5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: There is no anticipated fiscal impact to SACOG’s operating budget beyond the staff and consulting resources already included in the board adopted agency budget for Fiscal Year 2018-2019. 6. This staff report aligns with the following SACOG Work Plan Goals: 1. Advance Economic Prosperity ATTACHMENTS: Descripon Aachment A - Discussion Dra Land Use Forecast Aachment B - Discussion Dra Project List Aachment C - Screening Quesons Aachment D - Discussion Dra Performance Indicators Aachment E - Board Calendar Attachment A Draft as of August 1, 2018 All estimates are rounded; subtotals may not sum exactly due to rounding. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable 2020 MTP/SCS Discussion 2020 MTP/SCS Discussion 2016 MTP/SCS (this is for 2020 MTP/SCS Discussion 2020 MTP/SCS Discussion Communities Strategy Update Existing Conditions Draft TOTAL Draft TOTAL reference only) Build Out Estimate Draft GROWTH Draft GROWTH Growth from 2016 to Growth from 2016 to Discussion Draft Land Use Scenario Estimates for 2035 and 2040 Total in Year 2016 Total in Year 2035 Total in Year 2040 Total in Year 2036 Total at Build Out 2035 2040 Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Jurisdiction/Community Type Jobs Units Jobs Units Jobs Housing Units Jobs Units Jobs Units Jobs Units Jobs Units Placerville Center and Corridor Communites 4,260 190 4,400 210 4,430 240 4,240 230 4,940 320 140 20 170 50 Established Communitites 5,250 4,360 5,650 4,830 5,760 5,010 7,300 5,220 7,100 5,370 400 480 510 650 Jurisdiction Total 9,520 4,540 10,050 5,040 10,190 5,240 11,550 5,460 12,030 5,690 540 500 680 700 El Dorado County Unincorporated Center and Corridor Communities (listed below) El Dorado Hills Town Center 3,050 - 3,870 260 3,870 260 3,510 260 3,870 270 820 260 820 260 Pleasant Valley Rd (between Missouri Flat Rd and Hwy 99) 170 100 250 100 280 100 490 100 610 110 80 - 100 - Established Communities 22,110 29,600 27,810 31,940 29,110 32,300 32,600 34,680 49,390 51,530 5,700 2,330 7,000 2,700 Rural Residential Communities (includes agricultural areas) 8,020 23,420 8,070 24,070 8,120 24,220 9,640 26,140 13,930 28,830 50 660 100 800 Developing Communities (listed below) Bass Lake Hills 80 140 90 1,010 110 1,140 120 950 110 1,460 10 860 30 1,000 Carson Creek 40 460 40 1,060 240 1,160 230 1,160 3,880 1,700 - 600 200 700 El Dorado Hills (including Serrano) 2,120 3,690 2,370 4,480 2,470 4,690 2,030 4,560 3,370 6,160 250 800 350 1,000 1 Marble Valley - - - 390 - 390 - 400 - 400 - 390 - 390 Missouri Flat (El Dorado Rd to Pleasant Valley Rd) 3,620 450 3,770 450 3,770 450 3,710 450 6,500 850 140 - 140 - Valley View 150 1,390 150 2,840 150 2,840 160 1,630 160 2,840 - 1,450 - 1,450 Projects Not Identified for Growth in the 2020 MTP/SCS Discussion Draft by 2040 (listed below) Lime Rock Valley - - - - - - - - 60 800 - - - - Jurisdiction Total 39,360 59,250 46,420 66,610 48,100 67,560 52,490 70,340 81,860 94,930 7,050 7,360 8,740 8,310 EL DORADO COUNTY TOTAL 48,880 63,790 56,470 71,660 58,290 72,800 64,040 75,800 93,900 100,620 7,590 7,860 9,420 9,010 1The Build Out Estimate shown reflects adopted planning documents. However, the county is processing an application for this area that could result in a change to these estimates. 1 Attachment A Draft as of August 1, 2018 All estimates are rounded; subtotals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Resolution #20-9
    BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BALTIMORE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD RESOLUTION #20-9 RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE THE UPDATED BALTIMORE REGION COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Baltimore region, encompassing the Baltimore Urbanized Area, and includes official representatives of the cities of Annapolis and Baltimore; the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Queen Anne’s; and representatives of the Maryland Departments of Transportation, the Environment, Planning, the Maryland Transit Administration, Harford Transit; and WHEREAS, the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Baltimore region, has responsibility under the provisions of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act for developing and carrying out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process for the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration, a modal division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, requires under FAST Act the establishment of a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. Previously, under MAP-21, legislation combined the New Freedom Program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program into a new Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program, better known as Section 5310. Guidance on the new program was provided in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.1G released on June 6, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration requires a plan to be developed and periodically updated by a process that includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Served Proposed Station(S)
    CURRENT PROPOSED ROUTE NAME JURISDICTION PROPOSED MODIFICATION STATION(S) STATION(S) SERVED SERVED Discontinue Service -N ew proposed Routes 21 and 99 would provide service along Jesse Hill Ave., Coca Cola Pl. and Piedmont Ave. segments. New proposed Route 99 would provide service along the Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. segment. New proposed Routes 32 and 51 would provide service on Marietta St. between Forsyth St. and Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd. New proposed Route 12 would provide service on the Howell Mill Rd segment between 10th St. and Marietta Chattahoochee Ave.. New proposed Route 37 would provide service on Chattahoochee Ave. between Hills Ave. and Marietta Blvd and Marietta Blvd City of Atlanta, 1 Boulevard/Centennial between Bolton Dr. and Coronet Way. New proposed Routes 37 and 60 would provide service on Coronet Way between Marietta Blvd and Bolton Rd Georgia State Fulton County Olympic Park segments. Service will no longer be provided on Edgewood Ave. between Piedmont Ave. and Marietta St.; Marietta St. between Edgewood Ave. and Forsyth St.; Marietta St. between Ivan Allen, Jr. Blvd and Howell Mill Rd; Howell Mill Rd between Marietta St. and 10th St.; Huff Rd, Ellsworth Industrial Blvd and Marietta Blvd; Chattahoochee Ave. between Ellsworth Industrial Blvd and Hill Ave.; Bolton Pl., Bolton Dr.; Coronet Way between Defoors Ferry Rd and Moores Mill Rd, and Moores Mill Rd between Bolton Rd and Coronet Way. Proposed modification includes Route 2 operate from Inman Park station via Moreland Ave. (currently served by Route 6-Emory) Freedom Parkway and North Avenue, North Avenue City of Atlanta, 2 Ponce De Leon Avenue Ralph McGill Blvd (currently served by Route 16-Noble), continuing via Blvd,and North Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regions of Maine MAINE the Maine Beaches Long Sand Beaches and the Most Forested State in America Amusements
    the Regions of Maine MAINE The Maine Beaches Long sand beaches and The most forested state in America amusements. Notable birds: Piping Plover, Least Tern, also has one of the longest Harlequin Duck, and Upland coastlines and hundreds of Sandpiper. Aroostook County lakes and mountains. Greater Portland The birds like the variety. and Casco Bay Home of Maine’s largest city So will you. and Scarborough Marsh. Notable birds: Roseate Tern and Sharp-tailed Sparrow. Midcoast Region Extraordinary state parks, islands, and sailing. Notable birds: Atlantic Puffin and Roseate Tern. Downeast and Acadia Land of Acadia National Park, national wildlife refuges and state parks. Notable birds: Atlantic Puffin, Razorbill, and The Maine Highlands Spruce Grouse. Maine Lakes and Mountains Ski country, waterfalls, scenic nature and solitude. Notable birds: Common Loon, Kennebec & Philadelphia Vireo, and Moose River Downeast Boreal Chickadee. Valleys and Acadia Maine Lakes Kennebec & and Mountains Moose River Valleys Great hiking, white-water rafting and the Old Canada Road scenic byway. Notable birds: Warbler, Gray Jay, Crossbill, and Bicknell’s Thrush. The Maine Highlands Site of Moosehead Lake and Midcoast Mt. Katahdin in Baxter State Region Park. Notable birds: Spruce Grouse, and Black-backed Woodpecker. Greater Portland and Casco Bay w. e. Aroostook County Rich Acadian culture, expansive agriculture and A rich landscape and s. rivers. Notable birds: Three- cultural heritage forged The Maine Beaches toed Woodpecker, Pine by the forces of nature. Grossbeak, and Crossbill. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Scale of Miles Contents maine Woodpecker, Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, Philadelphia Vireo, Gray Jay, Boreal Chickadee, Bicknell’s Thrush, and a variety of warblers.
    [Show full text]
  • Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Division I, Title I, Section 125 Surface Transportation Priorities
    Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Division I, Title I, Section 125 Surface Transportation Priorities Designated Amounts Obligation Authority in Explanatory Allocation of 56A0 Funds This Memorandum Project Description in Explanatory Statement State Demo ID Statement This Memorandum (DELPHI Code Accompanying Pub. L. No. 111-8 Accompanying 15X0561B50.0000.05056A0500) Pub. L. No. 111-8 Project State Total Project State Total Alabama AL190 4-Laning of Airport Road, Gadsden, AL 475,000 475,000 475,000 Alabama AL191 Church Street Overpass, AL 950,000 950,000 950,000 City of Tuscaloosa Downtown Revitalization Project -University Alabama AL192 Blvd and Greensboro Avenue, AL 3,800,000 3,800,000 3,800,000 Design and Planning of the North Perimeter Transportation Alabama AL193 Corridor, Opelika, AL 213,750 213,750 213,750 Alabama AL194 Highway 75 Revitalization Project, AL 237,500 237,500 237,500 Alabama AL195 Holmes Avenue Bridge Overpass, AL 475,000 475,000 475,000 Pedestrian Bridge Over State Hwy 21 at Jacksonville State Alabama AL196 University, Jacksonville, AL 237,500 237,500 237,500 Roadway improvements to Winston County Industrial Park Road, Alabama AL197 Winston County, AL 95,000 95,000 95,000 Alabama AL198 US Hwy 43 Lighting Upgrades, Thomasville, AL 380,000 380,000 380,000 Alabama AL199 West Veterans Boulevard Auburn, AL 237,500 237,500 237,500 Alabama AL200 Widening of County Road 222, Cullman, AL 285,000 285,000 285,000 Alabama 7,386,250 7,386,250 Arkansas AR139 Bella Vista Bypass (Arkansas portion), Bella Vista, AR 380,000 380,000 380,000
    [Show full text]
  • Circulation and Scenic Highways Element
    CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT Prepared by: Imperial County Planning & Development Services Department 801 Main Street El Centro, CA 92243 in collaboration with the Imperial County Public Works Department 155 South 11th Street El Centro, CA 92243 WILLIAM S. BRUNET, P.E. Director of Public Works JURG HEUBERGER, AICP Planning & Development Services Director Approved by: Board of Supervisors January 29, 2008 Appendix i CIRCULATION AND SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION 4 A. Preface 4 B. Purpose of the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element 4 C. Other Related Transportation Planning Documents and Programs 5 D. Public Participation/Intergovernmental Coordination 8 E. Roadway Classification System 9 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS 18 A. Preface 18 B. Existing Conditions 18 C. Future Traffic Volume Forecasts 34 D. Roadway Classification Recommendations 35 E. Financial Recommendations 36 III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 46 A. Preface 46 B. Goals and Objectives 46 C. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements 51 IV. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS AND POLICIES 52 A. Preface 52 B. Programs and Policies 52 APPENDICES A. Glossary/Definitions/Abbreviations 66 A1. Intersection Standards 68 A2. Intersection Illustration 69 B. California Scenic Highway Program Question 86 C. Guidelines for the Official Designation of Scenic Highways 90 D. County of Imperial Bicycle Master Plan 115 E. 2002 Imperial County 20 Yr Transportation Plan 116 F. Greater Calexico Area Arterial Needs and Circulation Analysis 117 G. References
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Transportation History
    Arizona Transportation History Final Report 660 December 2011 Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers' names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-AZ-11-660 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date December 2011 ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION HISTORY 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author 8. Performing Organization Report No. Mark E. Pry, Ph.D. and Fred Andersen 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. History Plus 315 E. Balboa Dr. 11. Contract or Grant No. Tempe, AZ 85282 SPR-PL-1(173)-655 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.Type of Report & Period Covered ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 206 S. 17TH AVENUE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Project Manager: Steven Rost, Ph.D. 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract The Arizona transportation history project was conceived in anticipation of Arizona’s centennial, which will be celebrated in 2012. Following approval of the Arizona Centennial Plan in 2007, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) recognized that the centennial celebration would present an opportunity to inform Arizonans of the crucial role that transportation has played in the growth and development of the state.
    [Show full text]
  • CVS National Vaccine Network Pharmacies Current As of 9/1/19
    CVS National Vaccine Network Pharmacies Current as of 9/1/19 PhcyName Address City ST Zip Phone County CVS PHARMACY 1200 N MULDOON RD STE F ANCHORAGE AK 99504 9072692101 ANCHORAGE CVS PHARMACY 150 W 100TH AVE ANCHORAGE AK 99515 9072677501 ANCHORAGE CVS PHARMACY 1801 E PARKS HWY WASILLA AK 99654 9076317201 MATANUSKA SUSITNA CVS PHARMACY 520 HIGHWAY 119 S ALABASTER AL 35007 2056635405 SHELBY CVS PHARMACY 250 S COLONIAL DR ALABASTER AL 35007 2055642609 SHELBY CVS PHARMACY 6181 US HIGHWAY 431 ALBERTVILLE AL 35950 2568783502 MARSHALL CVS PHARMACY 113 3RD ST SE ALICEVILLE AL 35442 2053738475 PICKENS CVS PHARMACY 1204 DR MLK EXPRESSWAY ANDALUSIA AL 36420 3342220518 COVINGTON CVS PHARMACY 1407 QUINTARD AVE ANNISTON AL 36201 2562363012 CALHOUN CVS PHARMACY 1404 GOLDEN SPRINGS RD ANNISTON AL 36207 2568320046 CALHOUN CVS PHARMACY 1204 N BRINDLEE MOUNTAIN PKWY ARAB AL 35016 2565866021 MARSHALL CVS PHARMACY 215 US HIGHWAY 31 S ATHENS AL 35611 2562330797 LIMESTONE CVS PHARMACY 315 3RD ST NW ATTALLA AL 35954 2565389699 ETOWAH CVS PHARMACY 770 E GLENN AVE AUBURN AL 36830 3348877043 LEE CVS PHARMACY 1888 OGLETREE RD AUBURN AL 36830 3345028363 LEE CVS PHARMACY 1498 OPELIKA RD AUBURN AL 36830 3348777636 LEE CVS PHARMACY 333 S COLLEGE ST AUBURN AL 36830 3344668200 LEE CVS PHARMACY 208 MCMEANS AVE BAY MINETTE AL 36507 2519374267 BALDWIN CVS PHARMACY 12900 N WINTZELL AVE BAYOU LA BATRE AL 36509 2518243692 MOBILE CVS PHARMACY 901 9TH AVE N BESSEMER AL 35020 2054261664 JEFFERSON CVS PHARMACY 2901 MORGAN RD BESSEMER AL 35022 2054251837 JEFFERSON CVS PHARMACY
    [Show full text]
  • State Road Speed Limit by Route RTE TEMP DIR
    State Road Speed Limit By Route RTE TEMP DIR. START FROM APPRVD STC / OSTA SM REMARKS DIST TOWN SPEED Number END TO 1 B0.00 NEW YORK STATE LINE 7/19/1990 056‐9004‐03 NO CHANGE 1.59 GREENWICH 35 1.59 BROOKSIDE DRIVE 1 B1.59 BROOKSIDE DRIVE 7/19/1990 056‐9004‐03 NO CHANGE ‐ STC# 056‐0201‐03 1.07 GREENWICH 30 2.66 OLD CHURCH ROAD 1 B2.66 OLD CHURCH ROAD 4/16/2002 056‐0201‐03 CHANGE FROM 35 TO 30 MPH 0.84 GREENWICH 30 3.50 TAYLOR DRIVE 1 N2.77 350' W/O WEST CURBLINE 9/14/2017 056‐1708‐01 SCHOOL HOURS CHANGED 0.31 GREENWICH 25 OVERLOOK DRIVE FROM 056‐1509‐01;SCH. ZONE ‐ 25 MPH WHEN FLASHING 3.08 EAST CURBLINE WOODSIDE DRIVE(SCH. ZONE ‐ FLASH. SIGNS) 1 S2.77 WEST CURBLINE BROOKRIDGE 9/14/2017 056‐1708‐01 SCHOOL HOURS CHANGED 0.37 GREENWICH 25 DRIVE FROM 056‐1509‐01;SCH. ZONE ‐ 25 MPH WHEN FLASHING 3.14 325' W/O WEST CURB OVERLOOK DR(SCH. ZONE‐ FLASH. SIGN) 1 B3.50 TAYLOR DRIVE 7/19/1990 056‐9004‐03 NO CHANGE 0.28 GREENWICH 30 3.78 ORCHARD STREET 1 S3.66 720' E/O EAST CURBLINE 2/26/2016 056‐1509‐02 SCH. ZONE ‐ 25 MPH WHEN 0.26 GREENWICH 25 ORCHARD STREET FLASHING 3.92 EAST CURBLINE SUBURBAN AVE. (SCH. ZONE ‐ FLASH. SIGN) Thursday, June 20, 2019 Page 1 of 282 RTE TEMP DIR. START FROM APPRVD STC / OSTA SM REMARKS DIST TOWN SPEED Number END TO 1 N3.66 70' W/O WEST CURBLINE 2/26/2016 056‐1509‐02 SCH.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 America's 9/11 Ride Friday, August 16
    2013 AMERICA’S 9/11 RIDE FRIDAY, AUGUST 16 Start: Highland HD, Somerset, Pennsylvania DEPARTS 7:15am • Right turn out of Highland HD onto Center Street • Left turn onto Stoystown Road (Rt 281 North) • Right turn onto Pompey Hill Road • Right turn onto Lambertsville Road • Left turn onto Skyline Drive • Right onto Buckstown Road • Left onto Lambertsville Road • Left onto Main Street • Right on Bridge Street • Left on Main Street • Main Street turns into Cornerstone Road • Take left fork to stay on Cornerstone Road • Right onto Huckleberry Hwy (Rt 160) • Route 160 become Route 47 crossing into MD • Left onto Route 36 • Route 36 turns into Route 40 which turns into Mechanic Street • Follow Mechanic Street into downtown Cumberland • Turn Left onto Frederick Street (beside the Police/Fire Department). • Continue on Frederick St. to Naves Cross Road and turn right (beside Sheets) • Continue – following signs to 68 East • Merge onto I-68 East • Take Exit 50 and turn left onto Lake Shore Dr. (ROCKY GAP STATE PARK) Stop: Rocky Gap State Park, Cumberland, Maryland • Depart the park • Turn left onto I-68 East – travel about 30miles • Merge onto I-70 East • Exit 28 – at bottom of ramp turn left onto 632 (Downsville Pike) • Follow through first light and then bear right • Turn right on West Oak Ridge Dr. • Lunch stop is on the right. – Follow directions. • FUEL AT SHEETS (stright ahead at the light) and EXXON (inside the Mall area) Stop: Hagerstown Prime Outlets, Hagerstown, Maryland (LUNCH) 2013 AMERICA’S 9/11 RIDE FRIDAY, AUGUST 16 FROM PRIME OUTLET
    [Show full text]
  • Item #13-2-2 Transportation Committee Action
    Item #13-2-2 Transportation Committee Action January 31, 2013 Unmet Transit Needs Findings for Sacramento Regional Transit District, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties, and the Cities Therein Issue: The Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that SACOG make an annual unmet transit needs finding for the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD) and for jurisdictions eligible to use TDA funds. Jurisdictions outside of the SRTD are permitted to use TDA funds on streets and roads projects, if they have filled all transit requests that meet SACOG’s adopted definitions of “unmet transit need” and “reasonable to meet.” Recommendation: That the Transportation Committee recommend that the Board: (1) approve the minutes of the five previously held public hearings (see Attachments F-H) on unmet transit needs in Sacramento County, including the cities therein and the SRTD; and in Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties, and the cities therein; and (2) adopt the attached resolutions regarding unmet transit needs in each county, cities therein, and the SRTD. Discussion: State TDA statute established a Local Transportation Fund (LTF) for each county. LTF revenues are derived from 1/4 cent of the state retail sales tax and are returned to each county according to the amount of tax collected. LTF funds are apportioned to jurisdictions within each county on a population basis. In Sacramento County, the LTF apportioned to jurisdictions located within the SRTD may only be used for transit service. However, jurisdictions located outside of the SRTD
    [Show full text]
  • Division I—Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009
    [House Appropriations Committee Print] Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105; Public Law 111–8) DIVISION I—TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 (1941) VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:55 Mar 27, 2009 Jkt 047494 PO 00000 Frm 00677 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A494P2.XXX A494P2 rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING VerDate Nov 24 2008 04:55 Mar 27, 2009 Jkt 047494 PO 00000 Frm 00678 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A494P2.XXX A494P2 rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING CONTENTS, DIVISION I Page Legislative Text: Title I—Department of Transportation .......................................................... 1947 Title II—Department of Housing and Urban Development .......................... 1982 Title III—Related Agencies .............................................................................. 2015 Title IV—General Provisions—This Act ......................................................... 2019 Explanatory Statement: Title I—Department of Transportation .......................................................... 2023 Title II—Department of Housing and Urban Development .......................... 2115 Title III—Related Agencies .............................................................................. 2156 Title IV—General Provisions—This Act ......................................................... 2158 (1943) VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:05 Mar 27, 2009 Jkt 047494 PO 00000 Frm 00679 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 0483 E:\HR\OC\A494P2.XXX A494P2 rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING VerDate Nov 24 2008 06:05 Mar 27, 2009 Jkt 047494 PO 00000 Frm 00680 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 0483 E:\HR\OC\A494P2.XXX A494P2 rfrederick on PROD1PC65 with HEARING [CLERK’S NOTE: Five sections which precede division I in the Omnibus Appropriations Act apply to all divisions of the Act, in- cluding this one. The text of these sections is as follows:] SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009’’.
    [Show full text]
  • Baltimore Region Maryland Coordinated Public Transit- Human Services Transportation Plan
    Baltimore Region Maryland Coordinated Public Transit- Human Services Transportation Plan Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford and Howard Counties Final Plan October 2015 Prepared for Maryland Transit Administration By KFH Group, Inc. Bethesda, Maryland Table of Contents Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Background Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1 Plan Contents ................................................................................................................ 1-3 Coordinated Transportation Plan Elements ................................................................ 1-3 Section 5310 Program ................................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2 – Outreach and Planning Process Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2-1 Regional Coordinating Body ........................................................................................ 2-1 Baltimore Area Coordinated Transportation Planning Workshops .......................... 2-2 Workshop Follow-up ..................................................................................................... 2-2 Maryland Coordinated Community Transportation Website ..................................... 2-2 Chapter 3 – Demographic Analysis and Previous Plans and Studies Introduction ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]