DOCSLIB.ORG

Board Action/Information Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Board Action/Information Summary Report by Finance and Capital Committee (A) 11-19-2020 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board Action/Information Summary MEAD Number: Resolution: Action Information 202224 Yes No TITLE: FY2021 Budget Amendment PRESENTATION SUMMARY: Staff will review public outreach results related to the proposed service changes, request Board acceptance of the Public Outreach and Input report, seek approval of the Title VI Equity Analysis, as well as the FY2021 Operating Budget amendment, and repeal the previously approved FY2021 fare and service adjustments. PURPOSE: To seek Board acceptance and approval of the Public Outreach and Input report, Title VI Equity Analysis, and amendment to the FY2021 Operating Budget, and to repeal the previously approved FY2021 fare and service adjustments that have not been implemented due to Covid-19. DESCRIPTION: Identification of Parties with an interest in Metro’s budget: The following list includes Metro's top non-personnel multi-year contractors through FY2021 and to date ($500 million) as well as the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). Some vendors have contracts spanning through FY2022 as well. l Kiewit Infrastructure Company l Kawasaki Rail Car Inc. l PNC Bank National Association l SunTrust Bank l C3M Power Systems, LLC l Transdev Services, Inc. l Gannett Fleming-Parsons Joint Venture II l Mott MacDonald I&E, LLC l New Flyer of America, Inc. l Bank of America NA l Wells Fargo Commercial Services l Clerk, U.S. Court l Motorola Solutions Inc. l M.C. Dean, Inc. l Mythics, Inc. l Potomac Yard Constructors l First Transit, Inc. l Diamond Transportation Service, Inc. l Dell Marketing LP l HNTB Corporation l Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) A full list of Procurement Awards is available at: https:// www.wmata.com/business/procurement/solicitations/index.cfm#main-content Metro has labor agreements with the following collective bargaining units: l Fraternal Order of Police/Metro Transit Police Labor Committee, Inc. (FOP) l Office and Professional Employees International Union Local No.2, AFL- CIO (Local 2) l Local 639, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Law Enforcement Division (Local 639) l Local Union 689 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO (Local 689) l Local 922, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Local 922) Key Highlights: l As a result of Covid-19 impact on local governments, school districts, businesses, and individual riders, the ridership outlook for the remainder of FY2021 is lower than was assumed in the May approved FY2021 operating budget l At current funding utilization rate, CARES Act funds will not support the full fiscal year l The expected budget gap, absent additional federal assistance or a significant improvement in ridership, is projected at $176.5 million by the end of FY2021 l To offset these budget pressures, staff proposes $30.5 million of management actions l Board actions of $146 million are required to balance the budget, including approval to cut service changes effective February 13, 2021 and to defer capital projects to achieve the level of savings to ensure a FY2021 balanced budget Background and History: On April 2, 2020, the Board approved the FY2021 Budget, which included a $2.08 billion operating budget and subsidy requirements of $1.25 billion. Following the Covid-19 pandemic, the Board revised the FY2021 operating budget on May 28, 2020 to $2.052 billion and subsidy requirements to $1.12 billion. The amended budget utilized $546M of CARES Act funding, deferred implementation of the previously approved service and fare adjustments for six months, took additional management actions to reduce expenses, and provided a one-time credit that reduced jurisdictional subsidy contributions by $135 million. These actions enabled the Authority to balance its budget amidst a greatly reduced ridership outlook and constrained funding environment. CARES Act funding was previously estimated to be depleted around the end of the calendar year but due to aggressive cost management, Metro has been able to extend the funding for two additional months. Continuing Covid-19 impacts has further diminished the Authority’s financial outlook. To address this anticipated shortfall, the GM/CEO is proposing $30.5 million of management actions to reduce FY2021 expense, in addition to the $88 million included in the amended FY2021 budget. The actions include greater contracting efficiencies, eliminating meal relief for station managers, as well as non- represented employee performance pay deferment and discretionary reductions. In addition, Board actions of $146 million are required to ultimately balance the budget in FY2021. Board deferral of capital projects will yield $30 million savings; with an additional $116 million in cost savings from service reductions, proposed effective February 13, 2021, to achieve the required savings. The Board previously authorized a compact public hearing on the proposed service changes which was held virtually on October 13, 2020. Discussion: Outreach Results Metro received 3,000 responses, of which nearly 30 percent were from Title VI populations (respondents were 28% minority and 9% low income). Despite the ongoing pandemic, in-person outreach was conducted for one day at twelve locations, targeting stations with high average weekday, low-income, minority, limited English proficient ridership, and rail-to-bus transfers. Outreach teams spoke with 5,100 customers, with one in five interactions in languages other than English. Public comments were collected between September 26 – October 19 through surveys, written/uploaded comments, and at the virtual public hearing on Tuesday, October 13. The survey emphasized that these proposals were being considered due to budgetary pressures, and respondents were asked if proposals were “unacceptable,” “acceptable” or, alternately, “acceptable if temporary.” Survey results showed that the proposals are acceptable to large majorities of respondents. All proposed Metrorail changes are acceptable to most respondents. A reduction of Metrorail service hours was acceptable to 56 percent of respondents. l Frequency, turnbacks, and weekend service changes are acceptable to 8 out of 10 respondents l Maintaining current Metrobus service levels is acceptable to 7 out of 10 respondents Yes Yes No Acceptable Unacceptable (acceptable if (acceptable) (unacceptable) temporary) Metrorail 12-minute weekday 80% 18% 31% 49% 18% headways Sunday Service on 84% 14% 42% 42% 14% Saturdays Red Line Turnbacks 82% 14% 63% 18% 14% Yellow Line 76% 19% 58% 17% 19% Turnbacks Reduce Operating 56% 41% 30% 26% 41% Hours Metrobus Retain August 72% 24% 32% 41% 24% Service Plan FY2021 Funding Gap and Operating Budget Amendment Based on FY2021 Q1 actuals, the revised funding gap is expected to total $176.5M. Furthermore, based on feedback from the public participation process, staff has identified $30.5 million in management actions, $30 million in capital projects that can be delayed without negatively impacting safety and state of good repair, and $116 million in service reductions to balance the FY2021 budget. Recommended Service Levels and Adjustments Thanks to aggressive cost management, the recommended service reductions are less than originally proposed in September and will be effective on February 13, 2021. Metrorail l Standardize weekday and off-peak rail service frequencies on each line l Retain 11 pm system closure seven days per week l Open Silver Line Phase 2: July 1, 2021 Metrobus l Retain the August 2020 service plan l Bus Service Improvements on 20 lines to address needed additional capacity No longer recommended are proposals to implement turnbacks on the Red and Yellow Lines, as well as the earlier 9 pm closing of the Metrorail system Monday-Thursday. On Metrobus, the August 2020 service plan provides approximately 75 percent of pre-pandemic service, along with targeted enhancements to address passenger crowding and provide supplemental capacity where needed. In addition, front-door boarding and fare collection on bus will re-start in January 2021 as approved by the Board in September. The recommended service levels do not include changes requested by the jurisdictions to nine Metrobus lines requested by Maryland and Virginia which are currently not funded in the proposed amended budget. Title VI Equity Analysis The service changes do not result in a disparate impact (DI) for minority populations or disproportionate burden (DB) for low-income populations. FY2021 Fare Adjustments Repeal On April 2, 2020, when the Board adopted the FY2021 operating budget, it approved fare changes to be effective by July 1, 2020 that included the following: Metrorail l Peak base and peak max fare increase to $2.35 and $6.50 respectively l Simplification of mileage tiers l Weekend flat fare of $2.00 Metrobus l Lower Price for the 7-Day Regional Bus Pass to $12 Metrobus + Metrorail l Transfer Discount of $1.00 On May 28, 2020, the Board amended the FY2021 operating budget in light of the Covid-19 impacts and as part of the revisions required to balance the budget, the Board approved a six-month deferral of the fare changes. Ridership and revenues continue to be significantly below pre-Covid levels. Through Q1 FY2021, passenger revenue was 89 percent less than the prior year and 20 percent below budget. The proposed fare adjustments would further reduce fare revenues by approximately $1.9 million over six months at current ridership levels, while Metro is preparing significant service reductions, related
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transportation
    visionHagerstown 2035 5 | Transportation Transportation Introduction An adequate vehicular circulation system is vital for Hagerstown to remain a desirable place to live, work, and visit. Road projects that add highway capacity and new road links will be necessary to meet the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for growth management, economic development, and the downtown. This chapter addresses the City of Hagerstown’s existing transportation system and establishes priorities for improvements to roads, transit, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities over the next 20 years. Goals 1. The city’s transportation network, including roads, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, will meet the mobility needs of its residents, businesses, and visitors of all ages, abilities, and socioeconomic backgrounds. 2. Transportation projects will support the City’s growth management goals. 3. Long-distance traffic will use major highways to travel around Hagerstown rather than through the city. Issues Addressed by this Element 1. Hagerstown’s transportation network needs to be enhanced to maintain safe and efficient flow of people and goods in and around the city. 2. Hagerstown’s network of major roads is generally complete, with many missing or partially complete segments in the Medium-Range Growth Area. 3. Without upgrades, the existing road network will not be sufficient to accommodate future traffic in and around Hagerstown. 4. Hagerstown’s transportation network needs more alternatives to the automobile, including transit and bicycle facilities and pedestrian opportunities. Existing Transportation Network Known as “Hub City,” Hagerstown has long served as a transportation center, first as a waypoint on the National Road—America’s first Dual Highway (US Route 40) federally funded highway—and later as a railway node.
    [Show full text]
  • Maple Grove Transit 2016 “Expressbusservice”
    Maple Grove Transit 2016 “Express Bus Service” Customer Survey Report of Results December 2016 Prepared by: 2955 Valmont Road • Suite 300 • Boulder, Colorado 80301 • t: 303-444-7863 • www.n-r-c.com Maple Grove Transit “Express Bus Service” Customer Survey December 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Survey Background ...................................................................................................................4 Survey Results ...........................................................................................................................4 Appendix A: Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Survey Questions .................................... 34 Appendix B: Select Results Compared by Respondent Race/Ethnicity .................................. 92 Appendix C: Copy of Survey Questionnaire .......................................................................... 107 National Research Center, Inc. Report of Results Prepared by Maple Grove Transit “Express Bus Service” Customer Survey December 2016 List of Tables Table 1: Question 1................................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 2: Question 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3: Question 3 Compared by Question 1 ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices for the Maternal Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIEHCV) Needs Assessment for Washington DC September 2020
    Appendices for the Maternal Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIEHCV) Needs Assessment for Washington DC September 2020 Prepared by: Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development Prepared for: District of Columbia Department of Health Child and Adolescent Health Division Child, Adolescent, School Health Bureau Community Health Administration 899 North Capitol Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 September 20, 2020 Copy for HRSA Review and Comment Only Do Not Disseminate Without Permission 1 Table of Contents for Appendices Appendix 1: Defining At-Risk Communities Appendix #1a………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3 Appendix #1b………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Appendix #1c………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 Appendix #1d……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..7 Appendix #1e……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…8 Appendix #1f………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9 Appendix #1g…………………………………………………………………………………………………….….11 Appendix 2: Home Visiting Capacity Assessment Appendix #2a……………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 Appendix #2b……………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 Appendix #2c……………………………………………………………………………………………………….20 Appendix 3: SUD/MH Capacity Assessment Appendix #3a……………………………………………………………………………………………………….22 Appendix #3b………………………………………………………………………………………………….……26 Appendix #3c……………………………………………………………………………………………………….30 Appendix 4: Interim Findings from the American Community Survey …………………….…………..32 2 Appendix 1: Defining At-Risk Communities Appendix #1a: Original HRSA/UIC Domains and
    [Show full text]
  • NASA Urban Air Mobility Market Study
    Urban Air Mobility Market Study Colleen Reiche, Ph.D., Booz Allen Hamilton Rohit Goyal, Booz Allen Hamilton Adam Cohen, University of California, Berkeley Jacqueline Serrao, J.D., Booz Allen Hamilton Shawn Kimmel, Ph.D., Booz Allen Hamilton Chris Fernando, Booz Allen Hamilton Susan Shaheen, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley November 21, 2018 SUBMITTED TO: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Attn: Nancy Mendonca Jonnelle Goff SUBMITTED BY: Booz Allen Hamilton 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean, VA 22102 Contract Number: BPA No. NNH13CH54Z TIN: 36-2513626 DUNS: 00-692-8857 CAGE: 17038 doi:10.7922/G2ZS2TRG Acknowledgments The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) generously funded and made this research possible. The authors give special thanks to the members of the strategic advisory group for their role in supporting this research. We also thank Dr. Philippe Bonnefoy of BlueSky and Dr. Sarah Nilsson of Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University for their help in the development of this market study. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily indicate sponsor acceptance. Aeronautical Systems Services in Support of NASA Headquarters, Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 6 2.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report Summary
    STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Summary of Public Participation Public Hearing Testimony for the 2011 Twelve Year Program Revised December 28, 2009 2011 Twelve Year Transportation Program Public Hearing Testimony ‐ Summary By Planning Partner Revised 12/28/2009 Sample Report and Format Instructions This list reflects project requests or comments regarding the 2011 Twelve Year Program submitted at public hearings and through other written and electronic submissions to the State Transportation Commission during the fall of 2009. This list is sorted alphabetically by Planning Organization. Below is a sample of the State Transportation Commission Public Hearing Testimony list. Requested Presented Project PE FD UTL ROW CON Total Total Action ID Program Estimated $000 $000 DVRPC MPO Chester Ms. Judy L. DiFilippo, Chairman Chester County Planning Commission French Creek Parkway Support 57659 1 1 2 2 $23,850 $45,300 Stated in the upper left corner of every page is the name of the Planning Partner. The County for which the testimony pertains is located along the left side of the page. The next line in the body of the report contains the name and organization of the testifier. After each testifier are a specific project(s) requests or comments. Each project is listed with six pieces of information placed in separate columns on the report. These are: REQUESTED ACTION – Is the action that the testifier would like to see happen to the project regarding its status in the Twelve Year Program. General categories of action are added, retain, advance, oppose, delete, and support. PRESENTED - If the Project was presented at a Scheduled Public Hearing a check is printed.
    [Show full text]
  • District Columbia
    PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN for the Appendices B - I DISTRICT of COLUMBIA AYERS SAINT GROSS ARCHITECTS + PLANNERS | FIELDNG NAIR INTERNATIONAL TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A: School Listing (See Master Plan) APPENDIX B: DCPS and Charter Schools Listing By Neighborhood Cluster ..................................... 1 APPENDIX C: Complete Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization Study ............................................... 7 APPENDIX D: Complete Population and Enrollment Forecast Study ............................................... 29 APPENDIX E: Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................ 51 APPENDIX F: Cluster Demographic Summary .................................................................................. 63 APPENDIX G: Complete Facility Condition, Quality and Efficacy Study ............................................ 157 APPENDIX H: DCPS Educational Facilities Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI) ...................................... 195 APPENDIX I: Neighborhood Attendance Participation .................................................................... 311 Cover Photograph: Capital City Public Charter School by Drew Angerer APPENDIX B: DCPS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS LISTING BY NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER Cluster Cluster Name DCPS Schools PCS Schools Number • Oyster-Adams Bilingual School (Adams) Kalorama Heights, Adams (Lower) 1 • Education Strengthens Families (Esf) PCS Morgan, Lanier Heights • H.D. Cooke Elementary School • Marie Reed Elementary School
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Year 2021 Committee Budget Report
    FISCAL YEAR 2021 COMMITTEE BUDGET REPORT TO: Members of the Council of the District of Columbia FROM: Councilmember Mary M. Cheh Chairperson, Committee on Transportation & the Environment DATE: June 25, 2020 SUBJECT: DRAFT Report and recommendations of the Committee on Transportation & the Environment on the Fiscal Year 2021 budget for agencies under its purview The Committee on Transportation & the Environment (“Committee”), having conducted hearings and received testimony on the Mayor’s proposed operating and capital budgets for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021 for the agencies under its jurisdiction, reports its recommendations for review and consideration by the Committee of the Whole. The Committee also comments on several sections in the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Support Act of 2020, as proposed by the Mayor, and proposes several of its own subtitles. Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................... 3 A. Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................... 3 B. Operating Budget Summary Table .................................................................................................. 7 C. Full-Time Equivalent Summary Table ............................................................................................. 9 D. Operating & Capital Budget Ledgers ........................................................................................... 11 E. Committee Transfers ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MARC TRAIN SERVICE OVERVIEW Frederick Co
    MARC TRAIN SERVICE OVERVIEW Frederick Co. Transportation Services Advisory Council MARC Today .202 Route-miles of commuter rail services .46 locomotives and 177 commuter rail coaches .42 Stations, MD, DC & WV .96 Trains per weekday • 18 Brunswick Line (+ 1/Fri.) • 21 Camden Line • 57 Penn Line .18 Saturday, 12 Sunday .(Penn only) .Weekday passengers .~38,000 .Weekend passengers .~3,000-6,000 or more Andrea Farmer Dep. Chief Op. Officer – Contracted Services Dean Del Peschio Director Paul Brian Amos David Johnson Matt Mitchell Josh Wolf Krysowaty Chief Chief Budget and Contract Chief Facilities Mechanical Transportation Finance Compliance Officer Officer (Acting) Officer Manager Manager Katherine Read Asst. Chief Transportation Officer PENN LINEMARC Today Avg. Daily Boardings Maryland Department of Transportation. (2019). Marc Cornerstone Plan. Baltimore, MD. CAMDEN MARCLINE Today Avg. Daily Boardings Maryland Department of Transportation. (2019). Marc Cornerstone Plan. Baltimore, MD. MARC Today BRUNSWICK LINE Avg. Daily Boardings Maryland Department of Transportation. (2019). Marc Cornerstone Plan. Baltimore, MD. MARC Train 101 A Camden Unlike other commuter Line Train departs railroads, MARC is a “virtual Riverside Yard in the railroad” 1990’s. .MTA- MARC does not own any track, except for 3.2 mile Frederick Branch .MTA- MARC does not employee any train or mechanical crews .MTA- MARC does not dispatch or A Penn Line control any trains Train discharges passengers at Perryville .How is this possible? Station .Contracted Partners Linking 13 Great States, with the Nation History of MARC traces to the beginning of railroads in the United States, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (1830)… A B&O Train bound for Washington passes Relay, Maryland in the 1940’s The B&O railroads original station in Washington on New Jersey Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • MARC Train Time Schedule & Line Route
    MARC train time schedule & line map MARC Camden - Washington View In Website Mode The MARC train line (Camden - Washington) has 3 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Baltimore Camden: 6:32 AM - 7:45 PM (2) Dorsey: 3:30 PM (3) Washington: 5:00 AM - 6:15 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest MARC train station near you and ƒnd out when is the next MARC train arriving. Direction: Baltimore Camden MARC train Time Schedule 11 stops Baltimore Camden Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday Not Operational Monday 6:32 AM - 7:45 PM Union Station 50 Massachusetts Avenue Ne, Washington Tuesday 6:32 AM - 7:45 PM Riverdale Wednesday 6:32 AM - 7:45 PM College Park Thursday 6:32 AM - 7:45 PM Friday 6:32 AM - 7:45 PM Greenbelt 5717 Greenbelt Metro Drive, Greenbelt Saturday Not Operational Muirkirk Laurel 22 Main Street, Laurel MARC train Info Direction: Baltimore Camden Savage Stops: 11 Dorsey Run Road, Maryland City Trip Duration: 71 min Line Summary: Union Station, Riverdale, College Jessup Park, Greenbelt, Muirkirk, Laurel, Savage, Jessup, 7996 Old Jessup Road, Jessup Dorsey, St. Denis, Camden Station Dorsey 7000 Rt 100, Elkridge St. Denis Railroad Avenue, Arbutus Camden Station Direction: Dorsey MARC train Time Schedule 8 stops Dorsey Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday Not Operational Monday 3:30 PM Union Station 50 Massachusetts Avenue Ne, Washington Tuesday 3:30 PM Riverdale Wednesday 3:30 PM College Park Thursday 3:30 PM Friday 3:30 PM Greenbelt 5717 Greenbelt Metro Drive, Greenbelt Saturday Not Operational Muirkirk Laurel 22 Main Street, Laurel MARC train Info Direction: Dorsey Savage Stops: 8 Dorsey Run Road, Maryland City Trip Duration: 50 min Line Summary: Union Station, Riverdale, College Dorsey Park, Greenbelt, Muirkirk, Laurel, Savage, Dorsey 7000 Rt 100, Elkridge Direction: Washington MARC train Time Schedule 11 stops Washington Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday Not Operational Monday 5:00 AM - 6:15 PM Camden Station Tuesday 5:00 AM - 6:15 PM St.
    [Show full text]
  • Country State Business
    Spotted Lanternfly Permit Participants These Participants have been trained on and found to be compliant with standards listed in the Order of Quarantine and Treatment regarding Spotted Lanternfly for operating in the quarantine area. The companies listed here have agreed to participate in and comply with the terms and conditions of the Order of Quarantine and Treatment which is designed to stop the movement of Spotted Lanternfly within or out of the current quarantine zone. Country State Business Canada AB 1763579 ON INC Canada AB 624889 BC LTD Canada AB 9958169 CANADA INC/LOHGARH TRANSPORT Canada AB ADMIRAL MERCHANTS MOTOR FREIGHT Canada AB BCD AB TRANSPORT LTD Canada AB CANEDA TRANSPORT LTD Canada AB CARAVAN AB INC Canada AB CBS TRUCKING INC Canada AB CERTARUS LTD Canada AB CODE LOGISTICS LTD Canada AB DAY AND ROSS INC Canada AB GILBERT TRUCKING LTD Canada AB JJ TRANSPORT INC Canada AB LANDSTAR Canada AB LOADSAFE CROSSBORDER FREIGHT INC Canada AB LOADSAFE/SL TRANSPORT LTD Canada AB MULLEN TRUCKING CORP Canada AB NORD-DECK TRANSPORT INC Canada AB SNOWY OWL TRANSPORTATION Canada BC 1063282 BC LTD Canada BC BERRY AND SMITH TRUCKING LTD Canada BC I-5 LOGISTICS SERVICES LTD Canada BC INTERNATIONAL MACHINE TRANSPORT INC Canada BC KDMS HOLDINGS INC Canada BC LODEXO LOGISTICS INC Canada BC MAVEN TRANSPORT LTD Canada BC PISTON TRANSPORT LTD Canada BC POWERLANE LOGISTICS INC Canada BC SKY BLUE TRANSPORT Canada BC SRT LOGISTICS Canada BC SYER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LTD Canada BC TEN FOUR TRUCKING Canada BC THE DAY & ROSS TRANSPORTATION GROUP
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2020 Status of the Appalachian Development Highway System
    Status of the Appalachian Development Highway System as of September 30, 2020 December 2020 Status of the Appalachian Development Highway System as of September 30, 2020 APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM as of September 30, 2020 N EW Y ORK W ISCONSIN T M ICHIGAN T U-1 U P ENNSYLVANIA P O-1 P-1 O M M I LLINOIS I NDIANA O HIO M O EW N N ERSEY M J C E AR WARE C-1 YLAND A D D H EL C D B-1 WEST VIRGINIA D B L B G R I B ENTUCKY V IRGINIA K I HART Q B Q J F J F B S J-1 B T ENNESSEE N ORTH C AROLINA J K K A W V V V A-2 A A-1 S OUTH C AROLINA X X-1 MISSISSIPPI G EORGIA A LABAMA ADHS Miles Open to Traffic ADHS Miles Not Open to Traffic Interstate Highway System Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) FY 2020 Accomplishments & Future Outlook Status of Completion of the ADHS At the end of FY 2020, a total of 2,814.0 miles, or 91.1 percent of the 3,090.1 miles authorized for the ADHS, were either complete, currently meeting traffic needs, open to traffic or under construction; 44.7 miles were in the final design or right-of-way acquisition phase, and 231.4 miles were in the location studies phase (pre- environmental). See Table 1 for the latest mileage totals by status category and state. See Appendix A for the latest mileage totals by ADHS Corridor, status category and state.
    [Show full text]
  • Rock Creek West Area Element ROCK CREEK WEST Colonial Village AREA ELEMENTS
    AREA ELEMENTS Chapter 23 Rock Creek West Area Element ROCK CREEK WEST Colonial Village AREA ELEMENTS Hawthorne Rock Barnaby Woods Creek Park ROCK CREEK EAST Chevy Chase MILITARY RD Friendship Heights Friendship Brightwood Park Heights CHAPTER 23: ROCK CREEK WEST CREEK ROCK CHAPTER 23: American University Tenleytown Park Crestwood Forest Hills MASSACHUSETTS AVE North Tenleytown-AU Van Ness Van Ness-UDC Crestwood Spring Valley NEBRASKA AVE McLean Gardens PORTER ST CLARA BARTON PKY Cleveland Park Cathedral Heights Mount Cleveland Park Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Pleasant Battery Palisades Kemble Wesley Heights Park Woodley Park Lanier Mass. Ave. Heights Heights Woodley Park-Zoo/ Foxhall Adams Morgan Adams Crescents Woodland- Morgan Glover Park Normanstone Terr CANAL RD Kalorama Heights Burleith/ Hillandale NEAR NORTHWEST Dupont Circle Foxhall Georgetown Village West End 16TH ST K ST Connecticut Avenue/K Street Foggy Bottom NEW YORK AVE AREA ELEMENTS AREA ELEMENTS Rock Creek West Area Element CHAPTER 23: ROCK Overview 2300 he Rock Creek West Planning Area encompasses 13 square Tmiles in the northwest quadrant of the District of Columbia. The Planning Area is bounded by Rock Creek on the east, Maryland on the north/west, and the Potomac River and Whitehaven Parkway on the south. Its boundaries are shown in the Map at left. Most of this area has historically been Ward 3 although in past and present times, parts have been included in Wards 1, 2, and 4. 2300.1 Rock Creek West’s most outstanding characteristic is its stable, attractive neighborhoods. These include predominantly single family neighborhoods like Spring Valley, Forest Hills, American University Park, and Palisades; row house and garden apartment neighborhoods like Glover Park and McLean Gardens; and mixed density neighborhoods such as Woodley Park, Chevy Chase, and Cleveland Park.
    [Show full text]