DOCSLIB.ORG

Physical Environment $3.7 Billion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Physical Environment $3.7 Billion GENERAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND 17% HUMAN SERVICES 19% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 21% LAW SAFETY AND JUSTICE 11% PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 32% Airport & Ferry Permitting & Facilities Environmental 2% Review Fleet Administration 1% Parks & Recreation 2% 7% Roads Solid Waste & 6% Closure 8% Water Transit Management 44% 30% Organization of the Pie Chart: The following agencies were combined to make the pie chart more readable. Roads: Roads and Roads Construction Transfers Parks & Recreation: Parks & Recreation, Youth Sports Facilities Grants, Open Space and Trails Levy Solid Waste & Closure: DNRP Admin., Solid Waste, Post‐Closure Landfill Maintenance, Historic Preservation Program Water Management: Intercounty River Improvement, Water & Land Resources, Surface Water Management Local Drainage, Wastewater Treatment, Noxious Weeds, Flood Control District Fleet Administration: Fleet Motor Pool, Fleet Management Equipment, Fleet Wastewater Equipment Repair & Replacement Airport & Ferry Facilities: Airport and Marine Services Transit: Transit and DOT Director Due to rounding, figures may not add to 100%. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM AREA INTRODUCTION The King County Physical Environment departments support services related to building and land use permitting; community and regional parks; various recreational programs; solid waste disposal; surface water management; wastewater treatment; road and bridge maintenance and improvement in the unincorporated area; and transit operations. These services are delivered by three county departments: Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP), Department of Permitting and Environmental Review (DPER), and Department of Transportation (DOT). These departments are supported by dedicated funding sources and provide services that enhance the quality of life and economic vitality of the Puget Sound region. The Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) serves as the steward of the region’s environment. DNRP protects the region’s water and land and natural habitats by ensuring the safe disposal of and reuse of wastewater and solid waste, and providing natural areas, parks, regional trails and recreation programs. It provides these services through five divisions: DNRP Administration, Wastewater Treatment Division, Water and Land Resources Division, Solid Waste Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division. The Department of Permitting and Environmental Review (DPER) is responsible for regulating and permitting all building and land use activity in unincorporated King County. DPER is primarily an enterprise fund, with a permit review and inspection program that supports itself with fees charged to permit applicants. In addition, DPER’s code enforcement program is supported primarily by the General Fund. The Department of Transportation (DOT) provides services related to public transportation, community outreach on transportation issues, road construction and maintenance, regional aviation, passenger ferry service, and fleet management. It provides these services through six divisions: the DOT Director’s Office, Transit Division, Marine Division, the King County International Airport, Road Services Division, and Fleet Administration. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM AREA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS ADMINISTRATION Mission Provide regional parks and trails, protect the region’s water, air, land, natural habitats and historic properties, and reduce, safely dispose of, and create resources from wastewater and solid waste. Overview The Department of Natural Resources and Parks Administration (DNRP Admin) provides leadership, oversight, and support to the department’s four operational divisions: Parks and Recreation, Solid Waste, Wastewater Treatment, and Water and Land Resources. In addition, DNRP Admin provides oversight and administration to the King County Historic Preservation Program (HPP), Community Service Area Program (CSA), and the County’s Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP). DNRP Admin is organized into four main sections: Administration, the King County Historic Preservation Program, the Community Service Area Program, and the Strategic Climate Action Plan section. HPP is responsible for designating and protecting significant historic and archaeological sites within the unincorporated area of King County and in eighteen cities that have agreements with the County for these services. HPP is funded primarily by a $1 document recording fee surcharge accounted for in the Historical Preservation and Historic Programs Fund (HPHP) created in 2010. The CSA program is aimed at increasing public engagement with unincorporated areas of King County and is funded by various agencies through the CSA allocation model. The SCAP section’s climate goals are advanced by several initiatives that are designed to improve King County’s environmental stewardship of its resources and create the foundation from which the Department can launch other climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives. The SCAP is funded by various agencies through the climate allocation model which is based on greenhouse gas emissions of the paying agencies. The DNRP Admin appropriation unit A38100 is located in the Solid Waste Operating Fund 000004040. The HPHP Fund is Fund number 000001471. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM AREA 2017-2018 Problems, Opportunities and Priorities The 2017‐2018 DNRP Admin budget includes a consolidation of SCAP costs into a central climate cost center. Previously, these costs were budgeted and paid for by several divisions throughout the County. This change will lead to increased efficiencies in paying invoices and reporting on costs. These central climate related costs include regulatory dues to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency; funding to support climate partnerships, memberships, reporting and consulting; and funding for four climate staff positions, three of which use existing FTE authority. These positions are the major addition from last biennium; three of the four were recommended in the 2015 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP) and the fourth is the existing Director of Climate and Energy Initiatives who is responsible for leading the effort on confronting climate change in the County. These costs are charged to departments based on their operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with DNRP and the Department of Transportation paying the majority and Facilities Management Division paying a smaller amount. Alignment with Executive Strategic Initiatives Equity and Social Justice DNRP Admin provides leadership and coordination of department Equity and Social Justice (ESJ) efforts by: Providing technical assistance for Divisions in applying the Equity Impact Review process/tool, community engagement guide, and related tools Mapping the status and trends of determinants of equity that align to DNRP functions. Evaluating employee survey data and using ESJ audit tools to guide and track workplace practice improvements. Developing and delivering training that informs, engages and empowers staff, sections and work units in advancing the ESJ policy intent. Coordinating department ESJ team and work program development and monitoring and Serving as DNRP liaison to the ESJ Inter‐branch team and committees. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM AREA Strategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP) In addition to the creation of the SCAP section described above, DNRP Admin is taking these actions in 2017‐2018: Continue the Carbon Neutral Pilot program to help the department achieve carbon neutrality by 2017. Each division sets aside funds based on a proportion of its energy consumption that is then invested in energy efficiency and GHG reduction projects. Continue the Energy Conservation Initiative, which includes providing support and guidance to county agencies on how to reduce energy usage, helping with applying for energy grants, and conducting energy audits at several DNRP facilities to determine where improvements can be made. Establish a Green Bond Program to expand the base of investors who invest in King County and generate greater awareness of the climate centric initiatives underway at the County. Best Run Government DNRP Admin has created a new Chief Administrative Officer who in addition to tracking division level efforts related to ESJ, SCAP, efficiency, and employee engagement goals within the department, will also ensure that the department’s business functions and administrative operations are effectively managed to successfully support the department’s services and goals and the County Strategic Plan. This position will increase coordination and collaboration inside and outside of the department. Higher employee engagement corresponds with increased attendance productivity, lower rates of absenteeism, lower turnover, and improved service to customers. 2017-2018 Executive Proposed Operating Budget NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARKS ADMINISTRATION (EN_A38100) Operating Budget Summary Expenditures Revenues Reg FTE TLT 2015-2016 Revised Budget 13,436,591 13,412,187 29.3 0.0 Base Budget Adjustments 267,354 148,933 (0.5) 0.0 Decision Package Adjustments 2,544,645 2,687,470 3.3 0.0 2017-2018 Executive Proposed Budget 16,248,590 16,248,590 32.0 0.0 2017-2018 Executive Proposed Ordinance 16,249,000 16,249,000 32.0 0.0 Notes 1. The 2015-2016 Revised Budget equals the 2015-2016 Adopted Biennial Budget plus all Adopted Supplementals as of the publication of this document. 2. Base Budget Adjustments include the removal of one-time changes from the Revised Budget, the annualization
Recommended publications
  • Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project

    Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project

    Submitted by: Kiewit Pacific Co. Statement of Qualifications Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Specification No. PW10-0128F Submitted to: Purchasing Office, Tacoma Public Utilities 3628 South 35th Street, Tacoma, WA 98409 June 8, 2010 Tab No. 1 - General Company Information & Team Structure Murray Morgan Bridge Rehabilitation Design-Build Project Project TAB NO.1 - GENERAL COMPANY INFORMATION AND TEAM STRUCTURE Kiewit Pacific Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kiewit Infrastructure Group, Inc., will be the contracting party for this project, as indicated on Forms 3 and 4 in Tab No. 4 - Appendix C. As a wholly-owned subsidiary, none of the officers of Kiewit Pacific Co. (Kiewit) own stock. Incorporated on May 18, 1982, we can trace our history back to 1884, when Peter and Andrew Kiewit formed Kiewit Brothers, an Omaha masonry contracting partnership. Today, we are part of one of North America's largest and most respected construction and mining organizations. We take our place in the corporate structure of our parent company, Kiewit Infrastructure Group Inc., alongside Kiewit Construction Company and Kiewit Southern Co. Our affiliates and subsidiaries, as well as those of our parent company, operate from a network of offices throughout North America. We draw upon the Kiewit Corporation’s collective experience and personnel to assemble the strongest team possible for a given project. Therefore, work experience of such affiliates and subsidiaries is relevant in demonstrating our capabilities. For the Murray Morgan Bridge, we are supplementing our local talent with extensive moveable bridge expertise from our east coast operations, Kiewit Constructors, Inc. We are also utilizing our local subsidiary, General Construction Company (General), for mechanical and electrical expertise.
  • Environmental Checklist

    Environmental Checklist

    Spokane St Swing Bridge Access Project Seattle, Washington SEPA Checklist December 8, 2020 Spokane St Swing Bridge Access Project SEPA Checklist Page 2 of 24 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Spokane St Swing Bridge Access Project 2. Name of applicant: Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Sara Zora, Project Manager Seattle Department of Transportation Project Development Division 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3800 P.O. Box 34996 Seattle, WA 98124 206-733-9973 4. Date checklist prepared: December 12, 2020 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Access restrictions on the Spokane St Swing Bridge began in April 2020, shortly after the West Seattle High-Rise Bridge was closed due to safety concerns on March 23, 2020. These access restrictions were enforced by the Seattle Police Department until January 11, 2021, and since then by an automated photo enforcement system. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are concurrent project activities to strengthen the Spokane St Swing Bridge, construct a new telecommunications system, and replace the control systems. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A capacity analysis and traffic study were completed for the project in December 2020. Spokane St Swing Bridge Access Project SEPA Checklist Page 3 of 24 9.
  • Arterial Transit Modes

    Arterial Transit Modes

    Metro Transit Arterial Transitway Corridors Study Technical Memorandum #2 Arterial Transit Modes 10/25/2011 Prepared by the SRF Consulting Group Team Arterial Transitway Corridors Study Technical Memorandum #2: Arterial Transit Modes Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Applicable Modes ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Local Bus .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Rapid Bus ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Modern Streetcar ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Comparison of Modes ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Rapid Bus Peer Review ........................................................................................................................................ 8
  • Transportation Operators Committee April 26, 2017 • 10:00 A.M

    Transportation Operators Committee April 26, 2017 • 10:00 A.M

    Transportation Operators Committee April 26, 2017 • 10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. PSRC Conference Room • 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 • Seattle, WA 98104 10:00 1. Welcome and Introductions – Trinity Parker, Chair 2. Public Comment 10:05 3. Discussion: Change in TOC Vice-Chair – Gil Cerise, PSRC 10:10 4. Report on PSRC Committee and Board Activities – Trinity Parker, Chair 10:15 5. Action: 2017 FTA Regional Competition: Project Recommendations* – Sarah Gutschow, PSRC 10:25 6. Action: FTA Funding Redistribution Request: Everett Transit* – Sarah Gutschow, PSRC 10:30 7. Discussion: Regional Centers Framework Update – Ben Bakkenta, PSRC Discuss and clarify two transit-related topics including, 1) span of transit service and 2) “planned” transit service. 10:50 8. Discussion: Transportation 2040 Plan Update Financial Strategy: Progress in Estimating Non-HCT Transit Capital Investments – Ben Brackett, PSRC 11:00 9. Discussion: 2017 Transit Integration Report Initiation – Alex Krieg, PSRC 11:10 10. Discussion: Washington State Transit Coordination Grant – Don Chartock, WSDOT 11:20 11. Discussion: DRAFT Regional Access to Remix Evaluation Report* – Gil Cerise, PSRC 12. Next Meeting: May 24, 2017: 10:00 am – 11:30 am Upcoming Meeting Topics: T2040 Plan Update; Transit Asset Management Performance Targets; T2040 Financial Plan Update; 2017 Transit Integration Report; and Transit MOU Update Discussion. 11:30 13. Adjourn *Supporting materials attached Sign language and communication material in alternate formats can be arranged given sufficient notice
  • Questions for Seattle Mayoral Candidates – Magnolia Chamber of Commerce

    Questions for Seattle Mayoral Candidates – Magnolia Chamber of Commerce

    Questions for Seattle Mayoral Candidates – Magnolia Chamber of Commerce The Magnolia Chamber of Commerce believes that an educated, engaged electorate is one of the key aspects of a thriving community. To assist our members, the local business community, and Magnolia residents better understand our Seattle mayoral candidates, we are asking each candidate to please fill out the questionnaire covering topics important to the Magnolia neighborhood AND/OR be interviewed one-on-one by our executive director, relying on the techniques we have developed for our Chamber Chat series (see Chamber Chat interview with Councilmember Andrew Lewis) Each mayoral candidate will be asked the exact same questions. We will post your video and/or your written answers on our website and make available to our members via a special election newsletter that will go out before the primary election date. About the Magnolia Chamber of Commerce. The Magnolia Chamber represents just over 370 Magnolia businesses and family members. Our mission is to add to the vibrancy of our community by fostering connections between Magnolia’s businesses, residents, and community groups. Our purpose is to promote civic and commercial progress in our business districts and neighborhood. Learn more about the Magnolia Chamber by visiting https://discovermagnolia.org/ For questions and/or to set up a video interview, please contact Jason Thibeaux, Executive Director, Magnolia Chamber of Commerce. Seattle Mayoral Candidate Questions (these questions can be answered either by video with our Executive Director, Jason Thibeaux at 206-618-1589 or [email protected] and/or filled out and sent to the Magnolia Chamber, 3213 West Wheeler Street, #42, Seattle, WA 98199 Good Governance, Effective Leadership 1.
  • SOUND TRANSIT MOTION NO. M99-46 Revised Policy Regarding

    SOUND TRANSIT MOTION NO. M99-46 Revised Policy Regarding

    SOUND TRANSIT MOTION NO. M99-46 Revised policy regarding advertising on Sound Transit vehicles and at transit facilities and stations BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS Meeting: Date: Type of action: Staff contact: Phone: Public & Government 7/2/99 Discussion Betty Laurs 206-398-5120 Affairs Recommendation Board of Directors 7/8/99 Discussion/Possible Action Tim Healy 206-398-5062 ACTION: Motion No. M99-46 would revise and supersede Motion No. 98-79 adopting a policy allowing advertising on Sound Transit vehicles and at transit facilities and stations to: 1. Exempt coaches leased or purchased from partner agencies that already have revenue-generating advertising on them from a six-month moratorium period allowing only Sound Transit self- promotion advertising, and 2. Allow Sound Transit the option of contracting directly with an outside vendor to sell, produce, install, maintain and remove advertising on any or all of its fleet after the six-month period of self-promotion on new vehicles. BACKGROUND: In negotiating agreements with Community Transit, King County Metro and Pierce Transit to operate Sound Transit services, it has become evident that the agency’s adopted advertising policy requires some minor modifications. 1. Exempt coaches leased or purchased from partner agencies that already have revenue-generating advertising on them from a six-month moratorium period allowing only Sound Transit self- promotion advertising The previously adopted policy stipulates that only advertising for the agency and its services be allowed for six months after service is launched to avoid distract from Sound Transit's identity. It was originally assumed that ST would only use new coaches purchased directly from manufacturers.
  • WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE CLOSURE Transit Action Plan FINAL

    WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE CLOSURE Transit Action Plan FINAL

    WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE CLOSURE Transit Action Plan FINAL July 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Transit Action Plan .................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction/Problem Statement ................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose of Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Mobility Planning for 2021 and Beyond ................................................................................................... 6 Goals & Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Challenges/Opportunities ......................................................................................................................... 7 Travel Markets .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Data Analytics ............................................................................................................................................
  • Literature Review on Transit Bus Maintenance Costs

    Literature Review on Transit Bus Maintenance Costs

    Appendix G Literature Review on Transit Bus Maintenance Cost Table of Contents Contents Page A. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 B. Typical Bus Maintenance Costs ............................................................................ 4 C. Literature Review of Available Bus Studies ........................................................... 7 1) Foothill Transit Battery Electric Bus Study - 2016 ................................................. 7 Summary of Electric Drive System Costs ................................................................. 8 2) King County Metro Articulated Diesel Hybrid Bus Study - 2006 ............................ 9 Summary of Electric Drive System Costs ............................................................... 10 3) NYCT Diesel Hybrid Bus Study - 2006 ................................................................ 11 Summary of Electric Drive System Costs ............................................................... 12 4) NYCT Diesel Hybrid Bus Study - 2008 ................................................................ 13 Summary of Electric Drive System Costs ............................................................... 14 5) AC Transit Fuel Cell Electric Bus Study - 2015 ................................................... 15 Summary of Electric Drive System Costs ............................................................... 16 6) SunLine Transit FCEB Study - 2015 ..................................................................
  • Metropolitan King County Council Physical Environment Panel of the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee Tuesday, October 11, 2016 – 9:30 A.M

    Metropolitan King County Council Physical Environment Panel of the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee Tuesday, October 11, 2016 – 9:30 A.M

    Metropolitan King County Council Physical Environment Panel of the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee Tuesday, October 11, 2016 – 9:30 A.M. Councilmembers: Rod Dembowski (Chair), Dave Upthegrove (Vice-Chair), Claudia Balducci, Reagan Dunn, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Kathy Lambert, Pete von Reichbauer Staff: Hiedi Popochock, (477-1842), Panel Lead; Wendy Soo Hoo (477-0890), Budget Manager; Analysts: Mary Bourguignon (477-0873), Paul Carlson (477-0875), Patrick Hamacher (477-0880), Lise Kaye (477-6881), Miranda Leskinen (477-0950), Beth Mountsier (477-0885), Mike Reed (477-0888), Davin Simmons (477-3644), Panel Assistant: Angélica Calderón (477-0874) To show a PDF of the written materials for an agenda item, click on the agenda item below. INDEX Page No. Briefing No. 2016-B0183 Physical Environment Panel of the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee. Hiedi Popochock, Panel Lead Agency Overview and Highlights Cultural Development Authority 5 Mary Bourguignon Natural Resources & Parks Administration 9 Mary Bourguignon Historic Preservation Program 12 Mary Bourguignon Critical Area Mitigation CIP 13 Mary Bourguignon Parks and Recreation Operating 14 Mary Bourguignon Parks, Open Space and Trails Levy 17 Mary Bourguignon Parks CIP 19 Mary Bourguignon Open Space CIP 27 Mary Bourguignon Water and Land Resources CIP 31 Mary Bourguignon REET 1 34 Mary Bourguignon REET 2 37 Mary Bourguignon Page 1 of 3 Physical Environment Panel Packet Materials - Page 1 INDEX Page No. Transfer of Development Credit 39 Mary Bourguignon Youth Sports Facilities Grants
  • SOUND TRANSIT STAFF REPORT MOTION NO. M2007-76 Contract to Purchase New Flyer Articulated Hybrid Buses PROJECT NAME ST Express F

    SOUND TRANSIT STAFF REPORT MOTION NO. M2007-76 Contract to Purchase New Flyer Articulated Hybrid Buses PROJECT NAME ST Express F

    SOUND TRANSIT STAFF REPORT MOTION NO. M2007-76 Contract to Purchase New Flyer Articulated Hybrid Buses Meeting: Date: Type of Action: Staff Contact: Phone: Finance Committee 7/19/07 Discussion/Possible Action Ellen Gustafson, (206) 398-5094 Acting Director of Transportation Services Timothy Dunn, 206) 398-5016 ST Express Operations Manager Contract/Agreement Type: Requested Action: Competitive Procurement Execute New Contract/Agreement Sole Source Amend Existing Contract/Agreement Agreement with Other Jurisdiction(s) Budget Amendment Real Estate Property Acquisition PROJECT NAME ST Express Fleet Program PROPOSED ACTION Authorizes the chief executive officer to execute a contract with New Flyer Corporation to purchase two 60-foot New Flyer articulated hybrid buses in the amount of $1,600,000 with a 10% contingency of $160,000, for a total authorized contract amount not to exceed $1,760,000. KEY FEATURES of PROPOSED ACTION • The proposed action would authorize procurement of two 60-foot articulated hybrid buses by piggybacking on a contract King County Metro has with New Flyer. • These buses will provide the ability to implement planned service improvements. • Articulated hybrid buses provide fleet flexibility for equipment assignment in the King County Metro operated system. BUDGET IMPACT SUMMARY There is no action outside of the Board-adopted budget; there are no contingency funds required, no subarea impacts, or funding required from other parties other than what is already assumed in the financial plan. BUDGET and FINANCIAL PLAN DISCUSSION The proposed action would authorize Sound Transit to acquire two buses from the New Flyer Corporation, for a total cost of $1,760,000.
  • READINESS to EXECUTE SSGA REVIEW Seattle Department of Transportation Madison Street Bus Rapid Transit Final Report – June 23, 2020

    READINESS to EXECUTE SSGA REVIEW Seattle Department of Transportation Madison Street Bus Rapid Transit Final Report – June 23, 2020

    READINESS TO EXECUTE SSGA REVIEW Seattle Department of Transportation Madison Street Bus Rapid Transit Final Report – June 23, 2020 PMOC Contract Number: DTFT6014D00021 Task Order Number: 01 Project Number: DC-27-5304 Work Order: 29 Notice to Proceed: July 1, 2019 FTA Oversight Procedures (OPs) Referenced: 01, 20, 21, 32C, 33, 34, 40, 52 Prepared by: PMA Consultants LLC, 455 Market Street, Suite 1270 San Francisco, CA 94105 Prepared By: Bruce Stephan (917) 842-1970, [email protected] Checked By: Sarah Rios (646) 606-3202, [email protected] Length of Time Firm Assigned to Project: 0 Years 11 Months Length of Time Person Assigned to Project: 0 Years 11 Months 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. Introduction The Madison Street Bus Rapid Transit (MBRT) is a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts project sponsored by the City of Seattle’s Department of Transportation (SDOT) that will provide a vital east-west connection between Seattle’s Central District and First Hill/Capitol Hill, with connections to other high-capacity transit corridors in downtown Seattle. Design is advanced beyond 90% with a construction Notice to Proceed (NTP) forecast in April 2021 and corridor work complete in approximately a 2-year timeframe 1.2. PMOC Review The purpose of this report is to provide FTA with the Project Management Oversight Contractor’s (PMOC) professional opinion regarding the Sponsor’s readiness to execute a Small Starts Grant Agreement (SSGA). The PMOC’s report follows the guidelines of Oversight Procedure (OP) 52 Readiness to Execute a SSGA and is based on a review of the documents listed in Appendix B.
  • The Us Transit Bus Manufacturing Industry

    The Us Transit Bus Manufacturing Industry

    MTI Funded by U.S. Department of Services Transit Census California of Water 2012 Transportation and California The US Transit Bus Department of Transportation Manufacturing Industry MTI ReportMTI 12-02 December 2012 MTI Report 12-66 MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE MTI FOUNDER LEAD UNIVERSITY OF MNTRC Hon. Norman Y. Mineta The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) was established by Congress in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation MTI/MNTRC BOARD OF TRUSTEES Equity Act (ISTEA) and was reauthorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA-21). MTI then successfully competed to be named a Tier 1 Center in 2002 and 2006 in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Founder, Honorable Norman Joseph Boardman (Ex-Officio) Diane Woodend Jones (TE 2019) Richard A. White (Ex-Officio) Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Most recently, MTI successfully competed in the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 to Mineta (Ex-Officio) Chief Executive Officer Principal and Chair of Board Interim President and CEO be named a Tier 1 Transit-Focused University Transportation Center. The Institute is funded by Congress through the United States Secretary (ret.), US Department of Amtrak Lea+Elliot, Inc. American Public Transportation Transportation Association (APTA) Department of Transportation’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), University Transportation Vice Chair Anne Canby (TE 2017) Will Kempton (TE 2019) Centers Program, the California Department of