Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Dashboard Project Locations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Chapter 3: Description of Construction Methods and Activities A. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 3: Description of Construction Methods and Activities A. INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the construction process for the Second Avenue Subway. Potential envi- ronmental impacts that could result from its construction, as well as mitigation measures to lessen their effects, are discussed in subsequent technical chapters. A preliminary sequencing plan for the proposed construction activities is also identified, although this plan could still change as engineering evolves and depending on the availability of funding. At this time, design of the Second Avenue Subway is still ongoing, and will continue to evolve over the next year. Consequently, this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) assesses the range of construction methods and activities that may be required, using a reasonable worst case approach throughout to describe potential impacts. In other words, where a variety of construction techniques could reasonably be used to build a particular project element, the method that would result in the worst overall impacts is the one that has been selected for analysis. The Second Avenue Subway would consist largely of twin tunnels with outside diameters of up to 23½ feet. (The tunnels described in the SDEIS would have had outside diameters of 21 feet.) Each tunnel would be approximately 8.5 miles long, running from East Harlem to Lower Manhattan. Sixteen new stations, numerous fan plants and ventilation cooling facilities, pumping stations, electrical power substations, new train storage yards, and various other elements would also be built. As described later in this chapter, where possible, construction would take place underground to minimize disruptions at the surface. Between approximately 92nd and 4th Streets (instead of 6th Street as described in the SDEIS), and again from Maiden Lane south, where Manhattan’s hard bedrock is relatively close to the surface, tunnels and stations would mostly be constructed underground in the rock, by one of several mining techniques. -
1 of 1 Forecast of Contracts to Be Advertised and Proposals to Be Solicited
Welcome to the latest MTA "Eye on the Future," in which we present currently funded capital projects that are planned to be advertised from September 2017 through August 2018. The "Eye" is hosted along with other information and resources about the MTA Capital Program in one convenient location. It is part of our commitment to improve business practices and we hope that it is useful to you. The MTA Capital Program is very important for the safety and reliability of the MTA transportation system and is vital for the regional economy. As described in this issue of the "Eye," the MTA is preparing to undertake 145 projects valued at approximately $4.71 billion in capital work. This work spans many areas, including civil, structural, and electrical, as well as new technologies. These projects are crucial for the reliability, growth and resiliency of the system and contribute to the regional economy. This amount of investment is projected to generate approximately $8.29 billion in economic activity for the New York region. We want to make sure you’re aware of our recently-launched web-portal: MyMTA.info. This portal enables suppliers and bidders to the MTA to search procurement opportunities and information across all MTA agencies, respond to sourcing events online, select categories for the goods and services your sell and more. Contractors and suppliers have a critical stake in the success of the Capital Program. We appreciate your interest in and support of the projects included in this issue of the "Eye," and we look forward to your participation. -
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions
Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions A. INTRODUCTION This chapter analyzes whether the proposed actions would result in changes in residential and economic activity that would constitute significant adverse socioeconomic impacts as defined by the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual.1 The proposed actions would result in the redevelopment of an underutilized site with an approximately 214,000- square-foot (sf), 60-foot-tall commercial building currently anticipated to be a BJ’s Wholesale Club along with up to three other retail stores on the second level, 690 parking spaces, and approximately 2.4 acres of publicly accessible waterfront open space. The Brooklyn Bay Center site (“project site”) is located at 1752 Shore Parkway between Shore Parkway South to the east, Gravesend Bay (Lower New York Bay) to the west, and between the prolongation of 24th Avenue to the north and the prolongation of Bay 37th Street to the south. The objective of the socioeconomic conditions analysis is to determine if the introduction of the retail uses planned under the proposed actions would directly or indirectly impact population, housing stock, or economic activities in the local study area or in the larger retail trade area. Pursuant to the CEQR Technical Manual, significant impacts could occur if an action meets one or more of the following tests: (1) if the action would lead to the direct displacement of residents such that the socioeconomic profile of the neighborhood would be substantially altered; (2) if the action would lead to the displacement of substantial numbers of businesses or employees, or would displace a business that plays a critical role in the community; (3) if the action would result in substantial new development that is markedly different from existing uses in a neighborhood; (4) if the action would affect real estate market conditions not only on the site anticipated to be developed, but in a larger study area; or (5) if the action would have a significant adverse effect on economic conditions in a specific industry. -
Fixing the L Train and Managing the Shutdown a Community Consensus Proposal
Fixing the L Train and Managing the Shutdown A Community Consensus Proposal November 2016 Contents Executive Summary / 3 Summary of Recommendations / 3 Introduction / 6 Impact on Commuters and Residents / 8 Implications/how to prepare for the shutdown / 10 Impact on Businesses / 11 How much do local businesses depend on the L train? / 11 How to prepare for the shutdown / 11 Providing the Best Travel Alternatives / 12 Prepare adjacent subway lines for higher ridership / 12 New rapid bus services with dedicated preferential treatments and auto-free zones / 13 Transform streets in Brooklyn to better connect people and cyclists to transit / 17 Improve ferry service and reduce fares to serve Williamsburg residents / 18 Making the Most of the Shutdown: Transforming the L Train / 19 Capital improvements at five stations / 20 Timing and funding / 20 Procurement and design / 21 An Inclusive Process / 22 Community Profiles /23 Manhattan / 24 Williamsburg/Greenpoint / 25 Bushwick/Ridgewood / 26 East New York/Brownsville/Canarsie / 27 2 Fixing the L Train and Managing the Shutdown: A Community Consensus Proposal | November 2016 Executive Summary The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has said it will shut ⊲ State Senator Martin M. Dilan down the L train tunnels under the East River for more than a ⊲ Council Member Stephen Levin year to repair the severe damage caused by Superstorm Sandy. ⊲ Council Member Antonio Reynoso That is grim news for the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers ⊲ Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer who rely on the L and who will have few easy alternatives to get ⊲ Brooklyn Borrough President Eric L. Adams to where they’re going every day. -
March 2012 Photo Notes
The Newsletter of the Park West Camera Club Photo Notes Our 75th Year March/April 2012 Presidentʼs Letter Flower Power! Spring is in the air. It has actually been in the air for much of this past winter with temperatures in the 40s and 50s many days and abundant sun- shine, but for PWCC it means a time to speak anew of many things such as more field trips, the Club auction on April 9th, return of the Florida contingent, annual election of officers, planning the Otto Litzel Dinner and awards, short pants, sleeveless dresses, sandals, sun block, longer days for shooting pictures, Chuck’s Expanding Visions class, the Manhattan Borough President’s Office In This Issue show and whatever I’ve left out, such as shoes, ships, sealing wax, cabbages and kings1. President’s Letter.................................1 Who’s Who & What’s What........2 & 3 So instead of winding down, the Club is heating Club Info..................................3, 5 & 10 up, invigorated by the warmer weather and an- Rules of Photography..........................4 ticipation of all our upcoming events and activi- B&H Space............................................5 ties, photographic and otherwise. Competition...................................6 & 7 Sitzfleisch..............................................8 I’m particularly looking forward to the Otto Litzel Election Procedures.............................9 Dinner this year. It’s dedicated to the Club’s 75th Inquiries..............................................10 Anniversary and we’re still looking for sugges- Business Meeting Minutes................11 tions for a restaurant roomy enough to display Call for Entries...................................14 Club memorabilia or at least to project a slide- Expanding Visions 18........................15 show. Please give your suggestions to Sid Geor- Auction................................................16 giou. -
Recchia Based on New York City Council Discretionary Funding (2009-2013)
Recchia Based on New York City Council Discretionary Funding (2009-2013) Fiscal Year Source Council Member 2012 Local Recchia Page 1 of 768 10/03/2021 Recchia Based on New York City Council Discretionary Funding (2009-2013) Legal Name EIN Status Astella Development Corporation 112458675- Cleared Page 2 of 768 10/03/2021 Recchia Based on New York City Council Discretionary Funding (2009-2013) Amount Agency Program Name 15000.00 DSBS Page 3 of 768 10/03/2021 Recchia Based on New York City Council Discretionary Funding (2009-2013) Street Address 1 Street Address 2 1618 Mermaid Ave Page 4 of 768 10/03/2021 Recchia Based on New York City Council Discretionary Funding (2009-2013) Postcode Purpose of Funds 11224 Astella Development Corp.’s “Mermaid Ave. Makeover Clean Streets Campaign†will rid Mermaid Ave. sidewalks and street corners of liter and surface dirt and stains. Astella will collaborate with the NYC Department of Sanitation, the Coney Island Board of Trade, and Mermaid Ave. merchants to provide these services. Members of the Coney Island Board of Trade, in which Astella helped to revitalize and provides technical assistance, have noted that while most merchants keep the sidewalk area in front of their stores free of liter according to city law, additional liter and sidewalk dirt and stains accumulate throughout the remainder of the day. In addition, according to a survey of Mermaid Ave. merchants conducted by an Astella intern in 2010, cleanliness of Mermaid Ave. was cited as the number one concern among merchants on Mermaid Ave. A cleaner commercial corridor will inspire confidence and pride in the neighborhood, provide a welcoming environment for shoppers, a boost for Mermaid Ave. -
2000 LIRR Report Card Results of the Annual, Independent Rider Survey from the Long Island Rail Road Commuters' Council
The 2000 LIRR Report Card Results of the Annual, Independent Rider Survey from the Long Island Rail Road Commuters' Council Michael T. Doyle Associate Director Joshua Schank Transportation Planner October 2000 Long Island Rail Road Commuters' Council 347 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017 (212) 878-7087 • www.lirrcc.org © 2000 LIRRCC Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the members of the LIRRCC for their invaluable efforts in performing survey research in the field, and the Long Island Rail Road for its cooperation during survey activities. The authors also gratefully acknowledge technical assistance provided by former PCAC Associate Director Alan Foster. The Long Island Rail Road Commuters' Council (LIRRCC) is the legislatively mandated representative of the ridership of MTA Long Island Rail Road. Our 12 volunteer members are regular users of the LIRR system and are appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of the Nassau and Suffolk County Executives, and Brooklyn and Queens Borough Presidents. The Council is an affiliate of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA (PCAC). For more information, please visit our website: www.lirrcc.org. Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Methodology 3 Results for Performance Indicators 5 Systemwide Results 5 Results by Branch 10 Results for Customer Comments 17 Systemwide Results 17 Results by Branch 20 Representative Customer Comments 25 Service Delivery 25 Service Requirements 25 Scheduling 28 On-Time Performance 31 Operations 32 Maintenance of Service During Severe -
Long Island Rail Road Committee Monday, May 20, 2019
Joint Metro-North and Long Island Committees Meeting June 2019 Joint Metro-North and Long Island Committees Meeting 2 Broadway, 20th floor Board Room New York, NY Monday, 6/24/2019 8:30 - 10:00 AM ET 1. Public Comments Period 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 20, 2019 MNR Minutes MNR Minutes - Page 5 LIRR Minutes LIRR Minutes - Page 13 3. 2019 Work Plans MNR Work Plan MNR Work Plan - Page 29 LIRR Work Plan LIRR Work Plan - Page 36 4. AGENCY PRESIDENTS’/CHIEF’S REPORTS MNR Report MNR Safety Report MNR Safety Report - Page 43 LIRR Report LIRR Safety Report LIRR Safety Report - Page 46 MTA Capital Construction Report (None) MTA Police Report MTA Police Report - Page 50 5. AGENCY ACTION ITEM MNR Action Item Westchester County DPW&T Fare Increase Westchester County DPW&T Fare Increase - Page 59 6. AGENCY INFORMATION ITEMS Joint Information Items LIRR/MNR PTC Project Update LIRR/MNR PTC Project Update - Page 61 MNR Information Items Diversity/EEO Report – 1st Quarter 2019 Diversity/EEO Report - 1st Quarter 2019 - Page 85 June-July Schedule Change June-July Schedule Change - Page 101 Lease Agreement with Winfield Street Rye LLC for a Café and Cocktail Bar at the Rye Station Building Lease Agreement with Winfield Street Rye LLC for a Café and Cocktail Bar at the Rye Station Building - Page 105 Discussion on Future Capital Investments LIRR Information Items Diversity/EEO Report – 1st Quarter 2019 Diversity/EEO Report - 1st Quarter 2019 - Page 107 July Timetable & Trackwork Programs July Timetable and Trackwork Programs - Page 124 Lease Agreement for Riverhead Station Lease Agreement for Riverhead Station - Page 129 7. -
Reopening Closed Subway Entrances Using High Entry/Exit Turnstiles
REOPENING CLOSED SUBWAY ENTRANCES USING HIGH ENTRY/EXIT TURNSTILES Suggestions from the New York City Transit Riders Council November 2001 New York City Transit Riders Council 347 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017 (212) 878-7087 • www.pcac.org © 2001 NYCTRC Table of Contents Introduction 1 Methodology 2 Findings 3 Closed Fare Control Areas 3 Open Exit-Only Fare Control Areas 6 Open Fare Control Areas with HEETS but No MVMs 8 Summary of Recommendations 10 Appendix: Surveyed Stations 12 List of Tables Table One: Status of Fare Control Areas 3 Table Two: Closed Fare Control Areas 3 Table Three: Open Exit-Only Fare Control Areas 6 Table Four: Open Fare Control Areas With HEETs but No MVMs 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Council would like to thank former PCAC Transportation Planner Joshua Schank for his efforts in the research and writing of this report and Associate Director Mike Doyle for final editorial assistance. ABOUT US The New York City Transit Riders Council is the independent, legislatively mandated representative of NYC Transit riders. Our 15 volunteer members are regular users of the transit system and are appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of the Mayor, Public Advocate, and Borough Presidents. The Council is an affiliate of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA. For more information about us, please visit our website at: www.pcac.org. INTRODUCTION New York subway stations tend to be quite large. Although these stations are often named after one cross street, the stations stretch so far that they often take up several blocks and multiple cross streets. -
Valley Forge Ins. Co. V Allstate Indem. Co
Valley Forge Ins. Co. v Allstate Indem. Co. 2014 NY Slip Op 31968(U) July 25, 2014 Sup Ct, Kings County Docket Number: 504449/2013 Judge: David I. Schmidt Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* FILED:1] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2014 03:42 PM INDEX NO. 504449/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2014 :1 At an lAS Term, Part Comm 2 ofthe Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at 360 Adams Street , Brooklyn, New York, on the 9th day of July, 2014. PRE SENT: HON. DAVID I. SCHMIDT, Justice. ----------- ----- - --- -- -- --- --------x VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE C,OMPANY FOR ITSELF AND AS SUBROGEE OF GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC., Plaintiff, . - against- Index No. 504449/13 ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant. ------------- --- --- --::-- --- ----- --- -x ,I The following papers numbered 1 to 10 read on the motions.herein: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Ann,exed ~ _ 1-2,3-4 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations ) _ 5 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) _ 6,7,8,9,10 _____ Affidavit (Affif111ation) _ Other Papers _ Upon the foregoing papers, plaintiff Valley Forge Insurance Company (VFI) moves ., I I~ for summary judgment declaring that defendant Allstate Indemnity Company (Allstate) is an insurer for Granite Construction Inc. -
NYC TRANSIT's RESPONSE to DECEMBER 2010 BLIZZARD INTRODUCTION on Sunday, December 26, 2010 and the Early Hours of Monday, Dece
MTA/OIG Report #2011-07 December 2011 NYC TRANSIT’S RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 2010 BLIZZARD Barry L. Kluger MTA Inspector General State of New York INTRODUCTION On Sunday, December 26, 2010 and the early hours of Monday, December 27, over two feet of snow fell on the New York metropolitan area accompanied by high winds. The blizzard was not predicted until just 24 hours before and hit New York City with even more force than anticipated. New York City Transit (NYC Transit) service was dramatically curtailed on both buses and subways by 9:00 PM. Many customers and employees traveling aboard subway cars and buses became stranded during the evening of the blizzard and as the night wore on. Their isolation increased by having little to no communication with outside parties. NYC Transit estimates that approximately 650 buses were stuck in the snow, while some 500 people were stranded aboard subway cars overnight. The recovery process was lengthy, with passengers still being rescued on Monday morning. Full service was not restored for several days. Following the storm and subsequent clean up, the Chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) charged the various MTA agencies (including NYC Transit) with conducting internal reviews of their responses to the December blizzard to identify weaknesses and make recommendations for improvement. Best practices from other transit properties were to be analyzed by MTA along with the need for long-term technological improvements in communication and storm response capability. In June 2011, MTA officials presented to the MTA Board the proposed final agency report on MTA Storm Performance Review. -
Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA District 1964-Present
Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2021 By Jonathan Belcher with thanks to Richard Barber and Thomas J. Humphrey Compilation of this data would not have been possible without the information and input provided by Mr. Barber and Mr. Humphrey. Sources of data used in compiling this information include public timetables, maps, newspaper articles, MBTA press releases, Department of Public Utilities records, and MBTA records. Thanks also to Tadd Anderson, Charles Bahne, Alan Castaline, George Chiasson, Bradley Clarke, Robert Hussey, Scott Moore, Edward Ramsdell, George Sanborn, David Sindel, James Teed, and George Zeiba for additional comments and information. Thomas J. Humphrey’s original 1974 research on the origin and development of the MBTA bus network is now available here and has been updated through August 2020: http://www.transithistory.org/roster/MBTABUSDEV.pdf August 29, 2021 Version Discussion of changes is broken down into seven sections: 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA 2) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Eastern Mass. St. Ry. Co. Norwood Area Quincy Area Lynn Area Melrose Area Lowell Area Lawrence Area Brockton Area 3) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Middlesex and Boston St. Ry. Co 4) MBTA bus routes inherited from Service Bus Lines and Brush Hill Transportation 5) MBTA bus routes initiated by the MBTA 1964-present ROLLSIGN 3 5b) Silver Line bus rapid transit service 6) Private carrier transit and commuter bus routes within or to the MBTA district 7) The Suburban Transportation (mini-bus) Program 8) Rail routes 4 ROLLSIGN Changes in MBTA Bus Routes 1964-present Section 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) succeeded the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) on August 3, 1964.