DOCSLIB.ORG

III. Responses to Comments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
III. Responses to Comments III. Responses to Comments III. Responses to Comments A. Introduction CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) states that “The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments that were received during the notice comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.” In accordance with these requirements, this section of the Final EIR provides responses to each of the written comments received regarding the Draft EIR. Topical responses have been prepared to address commonly raised topics. These topical responses are provided in Section III.B, Topical Responses, of this section of the Final EIR and include the following: Topical Response 1: Project Objectives and Selection of Alternatives Topical Response 2: Feasibility of Preservation Alternatives Topical Response 3: Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Resident Retention Plan Topical Response 4: Relationship of Density to Environmental Impacts Topical Response 5: Open Space Topical Response 6: Summary of Traffic Impacts, Project Features, Mitigation Measures, and Area Improvements Topical Response 7: Circulation Topical Response 8: Summary of Construction Impacts A matrix providing an overview of the environmental topics raised by each commentor is provided in Table FEIR III-2 on page III-67 in Section III.C, Comments Matrix, of this section of the Final EIR. This matrix is followed by responses to each of the written comments received. City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012 Page III-1 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments B. Topical Responses 1. Project Objectives and Selection of Alternatives Several comments on the Draft EIR raise concerns regarding the adequacy of project objectives under CEQA, claiming that the project objectives are “narrowly defined” to “favor demolition” rather than preservation of the existing Wyvernwood community. These comments misconstrue the purpose of the project objectives, as defined by CEQA, and the way the objectives relate to each of the alternatives to the proposed project. This topical response provides an explanation of the requirements for the selection of project objectives under CEQA, a description of the process by which the alternatives were properly identified and analyzed under CEQA, and a summary of the findings of the Draft EIR’s alternatives analysis, including the ability of the alternatives to meet the project objectives. Identification of Project Objectives CEQA Guidelines §15124(b) states that the project description shall contain “a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project.” CEQA Guidelines §15124(b) further states that “the statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.” As stated on page II-12 of the Draft EIR, the underlying purpose of the proposed project is to create a mixed-use community featuring a substantial amount of new, upgraded, and modernized housing stock integrated with retail, office, and neighborhood- oriented uses to serve the local and regional communities, as well as considerable open space and recreational facilities, resulting in an attractive, cohesive, planned development, with no net loss of rental housing, and no involuntary displacement of existing residents. Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR includes the complete list of the project’s specific objectives. The objectives of the project are listed within the following categories: (a) Development and Site Design Objectives; (b) Community Objectives; and (c) Economic Objectives. The Development and Site Design Objectives are further grouped into the following subcategories: (1) Housing; (2) Civic Uses and Open Space/Recreational Uses; (3) Design, Parking, and Circulation; and (4) Infrastructure and Energy Efficiency. In accordance with CEQA, the project objectives include specific goals that would enable the proposed project to achieve its underlying purpose as stated above. City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012 Page III-2 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments Some comments indicate a concern that in order to reject rehabilitation alternatives, page V-88 in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR misstates the project’s objective as seeking to create “substantial amount of new housing stock.” The use of the word “new” in this context was intended to indicate “additional housing” as compared to “new construction.” Purpose of Project Objectives and Relationship to Project Alternatives The primary purpose of the project objectives is to help the Lead Agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary (CEQA Guidelines §15124(b)). As discussed in Section V, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, the identification and analysis of alternatives to a project is a fundamental aspect of the environmental review process under CEQA. Public Resources Code §21002.1(a) establishes the need to address alternatives in an EIR by stating that in addition to determining a project’s significant environmental impacts and indicating potential means of mitigating or avoiding those impacts, “the purpose of an environmental impact report is... to identify alternatives to the project.” The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed program, “even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.” The Guidelines further direct that the range of alternatives be guided by a “rule of reason,” such that only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice are addressed. CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a) states: “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives, which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.” In selecting project alternatives for analysis, potential alternatives must pass a test of feasibility. CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1) states that: City of Los Angeles Boyle Heights Mixed-Use Community Project SCH. No. 2008061123 December 2012 Page III-3 WORKING DRAFT – Not for Public Review III. Responses to Comments “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site....” It should be noted that when assessing feasibility in connection with the alternatives analysis in the EIR, the initial question is whether the alternative is potentially feasible. A number of factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are listed in CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1). Like mitigation measures, potentially feasible alternatives “are suggestions which may or may not be adopted by the decisionmakers.” (No Slo Transit, Inc. v. City of Long Beach (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 241, 256, 242 Cal.Rptr. 760; accord, Native Sun/Lyon Communities v. City of Escondido (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 892, 908, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 344, questioned on another point in Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 698, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 149, 23 P.3d 43.) When it comes time to decide on project approval, the public agency’s decision-making body evaluates whether the alternatives are actually feasible. (Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 308; Guidelines, §15091, subd. (a)(3).) As indicated above, the intent of the alternatives analysis is to reduce the significant impacts of a project. As summarized in Section VI, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR, implementation of the project would result in significant and unavoidable short- term construction impacts with regard to air quality (for both regional and local emissions) and noise. Implementation of the project would also result in significant and unavoidable long-term operational impacts with regard to aesthetics/visual quality (due to the removal of an identified historic resource from the project site), air quality (regional emissions only), historic resources, traffic (at six study intersections and intrusion into nearby neighborhoods (to the extent the neighborhoods are unable to reach consensus on the required mitigation plan), and solid waste generation. Based on the significant environmental impacts of the project,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Smart Location Database Technical Documentation and User Guide
    SMART LOCATION DATABASE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION AND USER GUIDE Version 3.0 Updated: June 2021 Authors: Jim Chapman, MSCE, Managing Principal, Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. (UD4H) Eric H. Fox, MScP, Senior Planner, UD4H William Bachman, Ph.D., Senior Analyst, UD4H Lawrence D. Frank, Ph.D., President, UD4H John Thomas, Ph.D., U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization Alexis Rourk Reyes, MSCRP, U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization About This Report The Smart Location Database is a publicly available data product and service provided by the U.S. EPA Smart Growth Program. This version 3.0 documentation builds on, and updates where needed, the version 2.0 document.1 Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. updated this guide for the project called Updating the EPA GSA Smart Location Database. Acknowledgements Urban Design 4 Health was contracted by the U.S. EPA with support from the General Services Administration’s Center for Urban Development to update the Smart Location Database and this User Guide. As the Project Manager for this study, Jim Chapman supervised the data development and authored this updated user guide. Mr. Eric Fox and Dr. William Bachman led all data acquisition, geoprocessing, and spatial analyses undertaken in the development of version 3.0 of the Smart Location Database and co- authored the user guide through substantive contributions to the methods and information provided. Dr. Larry Frank provided data development input and reviewed the report providing critical input and feedback. The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance, review, and support provided by: • Ruth Kroeger, U.S. General Services Administration • Frank Giblin, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Homelessness in Transit Environments Volume I: Findings from a Survey of Public Transit Operators
    UC Office of the President ITS reports Title Homelessness in Transit Environments Volume I: Findings from a Survey of Public Transit Operators Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/55d481p8 Authors Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia Wasserman, Jacob Caro, Ryan et al. Publication Date 2020-12-17 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California RESEARCH REPORT Institute of Transportation Studies Homelessness in Transit Environments Volume I: Findings from a Survey of Public Transit Operators Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, PhD, Distinguished Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs Jacob Wasserman, Research Project Manager Ryan Caro, Graduate Student Researcher Hao Ding, Graduate Student Researcher UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies December 2020 Report No.: UC-ITS-2021-13 | DOI: 10.17610/T6V317 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. UC-ITS-2021-13 N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Homelessness in Transit Environments December 2020 Volume I: Findings from a Survey of Public Transit Operators 6. Performing Organization Code UCLA-ITS 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Ph.D., https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0186-4751; Jacob N/A Wasserman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2212-5798; Ryan Caro, https://orcid. org/0000-0002-2795-7270; Hao Ding, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5286-3367 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Institute of Transportation Studies, UCLA N/A 3320 Public Affairs Building 11. Contract or Grant No. Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656 UC-ITS-2021-13 12.
    [Show full text]
  • JOINT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS for RTA and SLO TRANSIT Working Paper One: Overview of Existing Transit Service
    JOINT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS FOR RTA AND SLO TRANSIT Working Paper One: Overview of Existing Transit Service Prepared for the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority and for SLO Transit Prepared by Joint Short Range Transit Plans for RTA and SLO Transit WORKING PAPER ONE: OVERVIEW OF EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE _________________________ Prepared for the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority 179 Cross Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 • 781-4465 and for SLO Transit 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-781-7121 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C P. O. Box 5875 Tahoe City, California 96145 530 • 583-4053 and by AECOM, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 History and Governance of Transit Operators ............................................................ 1 2 San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority Services ....................................................... 5 San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority ................................................................ 5 Overall Service Description ......................................................................................... 5 Financial Information ................................................................................................ 18
    [Show full text]
  • Listing of PTMISEA Projects Allocated October 2011
    Proposed PTMISEA Bond Allocation Assembly Senate Congressional CT Ref # County Grantee Project Total Distict District District Dist Del Norte Local Transportation Replacement Buses for Redwood Coast 1 Del Norte 1 4 1 1 $ 309, 447 Commission Transit 2 Humboldt City of Arcata 1 2 1 1 Replacement 35 foot Transit Bus $ 219, 006 3 Humboldt City of Eureka 1 2 1 1 GPS Tracking System $ 122, 982 4 Humboldt City of Eureka 1 2 1 1 Bus Stop Improvement Project $ 100,000 5 Humboldt Humboldt Transit Authority 1 2 1 1 GPS Tracking System $ 164,264 6 Humboldt Humboldt Transit Authority 1 2 1 1 Bus Stop Improvement Project $ 105,810 Purchase Five Replacement Buses for 7 Lake Lake Transit Authority 1 2 1 1 $ 309,288 LTA Plumas County Transportation 8 Plumas 1 3 4 2 Plumas County Bus Yard $ 243,930 Commission Passenger Accessibility & Loading 9 Shasta Redding Area Bus Authority 4 2 2 2 $ 260,000 Improvements 10 Shasta Redding Area Bus Authority 4 2 2 2 Downtown Transit Center Expansion $ 180,000 11 Shasta Redding Area Bus Authority 4 2 2 2 Maintenence Facility Lobby Renovation $ 57,181 Siskiyou County Local Transportation 12 Siskiyou 4 2 2 2 Purchase of Bus $ 219,272 Comm. Tehama County Transportation 13 Tehama 2 4 2 2 Bus Stop Improvements $ 148,134 Commission Tehama County Transportation 14 Tehama 2 4 2 2 Dispatching Software $ 70,000 Commission Tehama County Transportation 15 Tehama 2 4 2 2 Replace Small Paratrax Vehicle $ 60,000 Commission Trinity County Transportation 16 Trinity 1 4 2 2 Trinity Transit Bus $ 120,989 Commission Butte County Association of Design & Construction of Transit 17 Butte 2,3 4 2 3 $ 1,717,305 Governments Maintenance, Admin, & Operations Facility 18 El Dorado El Dorado County Transit Authority 4,10 1 4 3 Automatic Vehicle Location System $ 456,295 Gold Country Stage Bus Stop 19 Nevada County of Nevada 4 3 4 3 $ 322,501 Improvements Gold Country Stage Vehicle 20 Nevada County of Nevada 4 3 4 3 $ 55,000 Replacement Placer Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Fy19-20 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Allocation Award List
    Caltrans-Division of Rail and Mass Transportation FY19-20 LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM ALLOCATION AWARD LIST Disadvantaged Low 1/2 Mile Low- Community Income Income Buffer Total Project Project Benefit Benefit Benefit Request SB 1119 District Project ID Lead Agency: Project Name: Type: Project Description (Short): FY19-20 City of Arcata (Arcata Mad River Transit To allow Free Transit to encourage ridership on Arcata Mad River Transit NO YES NO #N/A 1 19-20-D01-001 System) AMRTS Free Fares Operations System $13,339 This project will provide reduced fares and free ticket vouchers to raise Humboldt Transit Reduced Fares and Free awareness of public transportation. This will give riders an opportunity to NO YES NO #N/A 1 19-20-D01-002 Authority Ticket Vouchers Operations try transit at no cost. $303,307 This project provides for the purchase and installation of a solar canopy to cover the bus parking lot. The canopy will provide enough electricity to power four electric buses and the operations facility. The canopy will also shade the lot, reducing the time buses are idling prior to inspection and NO YES NO #N/A 1 19-20-D01-003 Lake Transit Authority Solar Canopy Project Capital start-up. $102,736 The project will provide unlimited free use of Lake Transit Authority bus routes anywhere in Lake, Napa, or Mendocino counties for the following: Free Fares for Community (1) any Mendocino College or Woodland College student displaying a College Students and the valid student identification and (2) any child between the age of 7 and 17 NO YES NO #N/A 1 19-20-D01-004 Lake Transit Authority Summer Cruisin' Program Operations between June 15 and August 31 (known as the Summer Cruisin' Program) $23,351 RCTA will use LCTOP funding in a three-year bus electrification project, planning an installing an electric recharge facility and augmenting an FTA bus grant to purchase an electric powered vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning and Operations
    Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM pts 14 SYNTHESIS 85 Effective Use of Citizen INE COPY = TCRP P Advisory Committees for for Committees Advisory S A Synthesis of Transit Practice Transit Planning and Operations 92+ pages; Perfect Bind with TCRP SYNTHESIS 85 Effective Use of Citizen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning and Operations TRB INE WIDTH P EED S N TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Pantone 648 C o. XXXX N Job TCRP OVERSIGHTACRP OVERSIGHTAND PROJECT COMMITTEE*TRANSPORTATIONTRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD RESEARCH2010 EXECUTIVE BOARD COMMITTEE* 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* SELECTION COMMITTEE* Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: CHAIR OFFICERS CHAIR OFFICERS AAAE American Association of Airport Executives ANN AUGUST James Wilding Chair: MichaelCH AIRR. :Morris,Adib K. Director Kanafani, of CahillTransportation, Professor of North Civil CentralEngineering, Texas University Council of California, Berkeley AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials Santee WatereeIndependent Regional Transportation Consultant Authority Governments,VICE ArlingtonCHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Vice Chair: NeilGovernments, J. Pedersen, ArlingtonAdministrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America VICE CHAIR MEMBERS Executive Director:EXECUTIVERDobertIRECTOR E.: RobertSkinner, E. Jr., Skinner, Transportation Jr., Transportation Research ResearchBoard Board ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program JOHN BARTOSIEWICZJeff Hamiel ADA Americans with Disabilities Act McDonald Transit Associates Minneapolis–St. Paul MEMBERS MEMBERS APTA American Public Transportation Association MICHAEL BLAYLOCKMetropolitan Airports Commission ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers Jacksonville Transportation Authority J. BARRY BARKER,J.
    [Show full text]
  • System Map & Timetables
    To Oakland/ Southern California Seattle San Luis Obispo San Luis County Passenger Rail A A Obispo to Oakland/Sacramento Bakersfield C A SYSTEM MAP & A Grover Beach L Kern I County F O TIMETABLES Guadalupe-Santa Maria A R N Schedule information for trains between: I A • San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara County • Santa Barbara Lancaster A Lompoc-Surf M • Ventura • Los Angeles M Palmdale • Orange County Ventura County M Vincent Grade/Acton • San Diego Goleta Santa Barbara A A Santa ClaritaVia Princessa A Carpinteria M A M M Los Angeles Effective April 8, 2019 Moorpark Sylmar/ County San Bernardino Passenger Rail Station Ventura M Newhall San Fernando A Ventura-East M M to Albuquerque/ M A A M County ® A A M Sun Valley Chicago A Amtrak Coast Starlight M M M M M Burbank Airport North A A A M Burbank A A A Downtown A Amtrak Pacic Suriner® A M Simi Valley Chatsworth Northridge M Oxnard A PomonaClaremontMontclairUpland FontanaRialto C COASTER Camarillo Van Nuys El Monte Baldwin ParkCovina Rancho Cucamonga M San Bernardino Airport A Cal State L.A.M M M M M M M M M M PacificSurfliner.com A M M M San Miguel Island M M Metrolink Hollywood Burbank Glendale facebook.com/PacicSuriner M M M Pedley M M Riverside- S Montebello/ Downtown twitter.com/PacSuriners SPRINTER (Light Rail) Montebello/Commerce E. Ontario M Hunter Park/ CommerceIndustry Pomona Riverside Santa Rosa Island L.A. Union Station M Downtown UCR M Commerce M Anaheim M M M Canyon Moreno Valley/ Passenger Rail Service A M M Norwalk/ March Field N.
    [Show full text]
  • SANTA MARIA-SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIVITY STUDY Final Report
    SANTA MARIA-SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIVITY STUDY Final Report September 2017 Funding provided by: California Department of Transportation Strategic Partnerships Grant Program SANTA MARIA-SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIVITY STUDY FINAL REPORT Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Table of Contents Page 1 Executive Summary .........................................................................................................1-1 Analysis and Outreach ......................................................................................................................... 1-2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 1-4 2 Planning Context .............................................................................................................2-1 SBCAG Plans .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 SLOCOG Plans ....................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Short-Range Transit Plans .................................................................................................................... 2-6 3 Existing Services and Facilities ........................................................................................3-1 Fixed-Route Transit ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account Program Annual Legislative Report Fiscal Year 2017–18
    Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account Program Annual Legislative Report Fiscal Year 2017–18 Report to the Legislature 2018 [This page intentionally left blank.] Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 2 Background ................................................................................................................................ 3 Statutory Reference and Purpose ........................................................................................ 3 Program Background ........................................................................................................... 3 Program Status/Program Accomplishments ............................................................................... 4 Intercity Rail Improvement Program Projects ........................................................................ 4-10 Table 1: Open Intercity Rail Improvement Program Projects ................................................ 8 Table 2: Completed/Closed Intercity Rail Improvement Program Projects ....................... 9-10 Mass Transportation Program Proposition 1B Bond Fund .........................................................10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................11 Appendix A. Statutory Reporting Reference .............................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Short Range Transit Plan
    SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSIT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo’s SLO Transit Prepared by SLO Transit Short Range Transit Plan _________________________ Prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805‐781‐7121 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C P. O. Box 5875 Tahoe City, California 96145 530 • 583‐4053 and by AECOM, Inc. August 10, 2016 LSC #157040 The document was prepared using Federal Transit Administration (FTA) discretionary funds, awarded by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (Sustainable Communities Program) to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. The recommendations and findings presented in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the FTA or Caltrans. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page Executive Summary Existing Demographics ............................................................................................. ES‐1 Overview of SLO Transit ........................................................................................... ES‐1 Short Range Transit Plan Elements .......................................................................... ES‐3 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 Study Setting ....................................................................................................................... 3 Existing Demographics .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program
    2006 State Transportation Improvement Program Current Official STIP - (STIP funds, RIP and IIP, only) Alameda County Entire State PPNO / EA State Funds by Fiscal Year & Component (IIP & RIP Funds Only) CTIPS ID RESPONSIBLE AGENCY - PROJECT TITLE FUND PEND VOTE VOTED FUNDS PROG (Programmed Dollars in Thousands) DIST CO RTE ELEMENT LOCATION/DESCRIPTION SOURCE LAST DATE TOTAL AMOUNT 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 R/WCON PA&EDPS&E R/W ENG CON ENG 04 ALA 0016Q Alameda County Congestion Management Agency - AB : PM: 106-0000-0972 3090 Reimbursement Project - AB 3090 Reimbursement RIP : 07/20/06 25,037 25,037 25,037 25,037 KP: Local Assistance Project the Route 880 Widening project (PPNO 0016F) : TOTAL: 25,037 25,037 25,037 25,037 04 ALA 1014 0U8601 Bay Area Rapid Transit District - BART Transbay Tube : PM: 106-0000-0750 Seismic Retrofit - In Alameda County from the Transbay RIP : 05/02/01 10,200 48,200 38,000 38,000 10,200 KP: Rail Tube to the West Portal of the Berkeley Hills Tunnel - : seismic joints, one at-grade station and one aerial station TOTAL: 10,200 48,200 38,000 38,000 10,200 04 ALA 1022 072584 City of Oakland - 42nd Ave/High St Access to I-880 - : PM: 106-0000-0722 Oakland - 42nd Avenue/High Street access improvements to RIP : 04/13/01 1,000 6,990 5,990 5,990 1,000 KP: Local Assistance Route 880 - preliminary engineering : TOTAL: 1,000 6,990 5,990 5,990 1,000 04 ALA 2009A T161TA Alameda Contra Costa Transit District - AC Transit : PM: 0.0/ 0.0 206-0000-2155 Maintenance Facilities Upgrade - In Alameda County: AC RIP : 09/07/06 3,705 3,705 3,705 3,705 KP: 0.0/ 0.0 Mass Transit Transit District-wide facilities & equipment upgrades.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Profiles: 2014 Report Year Summary
    2014 Report Year NTD National Transit Database Transit Profiles: 2014 Report Year Summary Office of Budget and Policy March 2016 Federal Transit Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Transit Profiles: 2014 Report Year Summary Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. i Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Profile Details ............................................................................................................... 1 Sections ....................................................................................................................... 5 Additional National Transit Database Publications ....................................................... 6 Full Reporting Agencies for Report Year 2014 ................................................................ 7 Small Systems Reporting Agencies .............................................................................. 29 Separate Service Reporting Agencies........................................................................... 41 Planning Reporting Agencies ........................................................................................ 41 Building Reporting Agencies ......................................................................................... 41 Rural General Public Transit Reporting Agencies ........................................................
    [Show full text]