DOCSLIB.ORG

Request for Proposals No. 16-016 Fare Restructuring Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Request for Proposals No. 16-016 Fare Restructuring Study Proposal Receipt Deadline November 5, 2015 2:00 p.m. 6232616 RFP No. 16-016 Fare Restructuring Study PART I. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS SEC. 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Foothill Transit is issuing this Request for Proposals No. 16-016 (RFP) seeking Proposals from qualified firms or individuals to conduct a fare restructuring study that will evaluate Foothill Transit’s current fare structure and that will function as a predictive tool to be applied in the future as needed. The new fare structure should align with Foothill Transit’s fare policy goals. These goals include, but are not limited to: Developing an overall fare policy Ensuring operator and passenger safety Creating simplicity Increasing system ridership Increasing total fare revenues Reducing cash transactions Aligning fares regionally The proposed Scope of Work is set out in Part III of this RFP. SEC. 2 DEFINITIONS As used in this Request for Proposals: A. Contract. The term "Contract" means the agreement to be entered into by Foothill Transit and the successful Proposer for the scope of services described in this RFP. B. Consultant. The term “Consultant” means the individual, firm, company, corporation, partnership, or association executing the Contract as an entity providing the scope of services specified in this RFP. C. Days. Unless otherwise indicated, the term “days” means business days. If, however, a period of time designated in this RFP ends on any of the following days, the period shall end on the next business day: (a) any alternating Monday that Foothill Transit is closed; (b) Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, President’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and the day after Thanksgiving Day; (c) any holiday recognized by Foothill Transit on a weekday when that holiday falls on a weekend; and (d) December 24th through January 1st. A complete list of Monday office closures and weekday holidays can be found at http://www.foothilltransit.org/connect/office-hours. D. Foothill Transit. The term “Foothill Transit” means the local transportation entity created under a joint powers agreement pursuant to California State law with its principal place of business in West Covina, California. E. Interested Party. The term “interested party” means any person (1) who is an actual or prospective Proposer in this procurement; and (2) whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the Contract or by a failure to award the Contract. 6232616 RFP No. 16-016 Fare Restructuring Study F. Proposal. The term “Proposal” means a response to this RFP submitted by a Proposer. G. Proposer. The term ”Proposer” means any individual or entity that actually submits a Proposal to Foothill Transit in response to this RFP. H. Prospective Proposer. The term "Prospective Proposer" shall refer to any person who takes one or more of the following actions: (1) receives this RFP by direct mail; or (2) registers with Foothill Transit as a vendor of the services being solicited in this RFP. I. RFP. The term "RFP" means this Request for Proposals. SEC. 3 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Event: Date Request for Proposals issued by Foothill Transit 09/17/15 Pre-proposal conference -10:00 a.m. PDT 09/24/15 Deadline for receipt of written questions and requests for addenda - 10/01/15 2:00 p.m. PDT Foothill Transit responses and/or addenda issued 10/08/15 Proposals due – 2:00 p.m. PST 11/05/15 Interviews Week of 11/30/15 Tentative Contract Approval Week of 12/07/15 Foothill Transit reserves the right to alter the dates shown above by written notice. SEC. 4 GENERAL PROPOSAL CONDITIONS A. Notice of Informal Solicitation Notwithstanding any other provision of this RFP, all Proposers are hereby specifically advised that this RFP is an informal solicitation for proposals only, and is not intended and is not to be construed as an offer to enter into an agreement or engage into any formal competitive bidding or negotiation pursuant to any statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation. B. Method of Response Responses to the RFP shall be made according to the instructions contained herein. Failure to adhere to instructions may be cause for rejection of any Proposal. C. Acceptance of Terms and Conditions Proposers understand and agree that submission of a Proposal will constitute acknowledgment and acceptance of, and a willingness to comply with, all the terms, conditions, and criteria contained in this RFP, except as otherwise specified in the Proposal. Any and all parts of the submitted Proposal may become part of any subsequent contract between the selected Proposer and Foothill Transit. D. False, Incomplete, or Non-responsive Statements False, misleading, incomplete, or non-responsive statements in connection with a Proposal may be sufficient cause for rejection of the Proposal. The evaluation and determination of the fulfillment of the above requirement will be Foothill Transit's responsibility, and its judgment shall be final. E. Clear and Concise Proposal Proposals shall provide a straightforward, concise delineation of the Proposer's capability to satisfy the requirements of this RFP. Each Proposal shall be submitted in the requested format and provide all pertinent information, including but not limited to information relating to capability, experience, and other information as specified in Section 6 and otherwise required in this RFP. Each Proposal shall be signed in ink by a duly authorized officer of the Proposer. SEC. 4A PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE A pre-Proposal conference will be held on September 24, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., PDT. Attendees should assemble on the second floor of Foothill Transit’s Administrative Offices located at 100 South Vincent Avenue, West Covina, California. Foothill Transit will provide all Prospective Proposers with a copy of the transcript from the pre-Proposal conference; however, Foothill Transit is not bound to any information provided in the verbal responses to questions that may be posed during the pre-Proposal Conference. Attendance at the pre- Proposal conference is not mandatory. Prospective Proposers are invited to participate via conference call. The call-in number and instructions are as follows: Call Toll-Free: United States and Canada: +1 (866) 951-1151 Conference Room Number: 3478518 SEC. 6 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS A. Proposal Receipt Proposals in response to this RFP shall be considered received at the time actually received by the addressee. All Proposals and other communications should be addressed to Foothill Transit as follows: Jarrett Stoltzfus Procurement Director Foothill Transit 100 South Vincent Avenue Suite 200 West Covina, CA 91790 (626) 931-7336 (Facsimile) Email: [email protected] B. Proposal Format Proposals, consisting of one unbound original and seven (7) unbound copies of the signed original, and one copy on a compact disk or flash drive must be received by Foothill Transit at its office address listed in paragraph A of this Section by 2:00 p.m., PST, November 5, 2015. Proposals received after this specified date and time shall be considered late and shall not be considered for evaluation. Late Proposals shall be returned to the sender unopened. Proposers should specifically note that proposals are required to be submitted at the reception desk at Foothill Transit and that the reception desk is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., excluding alternating Mondays. A complete list of Monday office closures can be found at http://foothilltransit.org/connect/office-hours/. C. Required Quantities Forms and Elements Checklist; General Information; Statement of Qualifications, Experience, and Organizational Relationships; Project Understanding; Work Plan and Technical Approach; In-House Capabilities; Addenda to the RFP; and Required Forms: One (1) unbound, signed1 original and seven (7) bound copies per the provisions of Part I, Sections 6.A., 6.B., 6.C., 6.D., 6.E., and Part IV of this RFP; and Price Proposal: One (1) unbound, signed original in a separate, sealed envelope accompanying the Proposal per the provisions of Part I, Section 6.E. of this RFP. D. Required Markings Each Proposal shall be in the form specified in this RFP, and in a sealed envelope with outside markings stating: (1) RFP 16-016; and (2) DO NOT OPEN WITH REGULAR MAIL addressed as indicated in Subsection A of this Section. SEC. 6 REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF PROPOSALS Each Proposer shall provide a written Proposal which includes the required elements, both in content and sequence, set forth in this Section. Each section of the Proposal as described herein shall be segregated and identified by a tabbed insert as to identify the item being addressed in the Proposal. A Proposal may be rejected and not reviewed by Foothill Transit if it modifies or fails to conform to each of the requirements set forth in this Section. A. General Information. Each Proposer shall submit all information listed on the “General Information Required of Proposer” form. The information must be submitted on the “General Information Required of Proposer” form included in Part IV of this RFP. B. Statement of Qualifications, Experiences and Organizational Relationships. This Statement shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: 1 Signature requirement applies to “General Information Required of Proposer” form and addenda only. 1. Experience. Each Proposer must briefly state their experience in this type of project. Each Proposer must provide a general history of the Proposer, including specific experience in conducting fare studies. 2. Past Performance. Each Proposer must describe a minimum of five (5) projects it has performed within the last five (5) years which are similar in nature to that contemplated in this RFP, including a short narrative describing the project and the outcome, the names and specific experience of the facilitator for each project, and the name of the entities for which the services were provided, including the name, address, and phone number of the project manager for the client.
Recommended publications
  • Ten-Year Bus Fleet Management Plan JUNE 2015 Ten-Year Bus Fleet Management Plan (FY 2016 – FY 2025)

    Ten-Year Bus Fleet Management Plan JUNE 2015 Ten-Year Bus Fleet Management Plan (FY 2016 – FY 2025)

    ten-year bus fleet management plan JUNE 2015 Ten-Year Bus Fleet Management Plan (FY 2016 – FY 2025) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.0 TRANSIT OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 6 1.1 TRANSIT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 6 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE TYPES ........................................................................................... 7 1.3 BUS SERVICE TYPE & LINE IDENTIFICATION......................................................................... 14 1.4 PROGRAMMED TRANSIT PROJECTS..................................................................................... 16 1.5 TRANSIT ACCESS PASS (TAP)................................................................................................ 31 1.6 ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ATMS)........................................ 31 2.0 VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 33 2.1 GENERAL FLEET STATISTICS ................................................................................................. 33 2.2 SPARE RATIO ........................................................................................................................ 35 2.3 CONTINGENCY FLEET ..........................................................................................................
  • Los Angeles Orange Line

    Los Angeles Orange Line

    Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation OCTOBER 2011 FTA Report No. 0004 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Jennifer Flynn, Research Associate Cheryl Thole, Research Associate Victoria Perk, Senior Research Associate Joseph Samus, Graduate Research Assistant Caleb Van Nostrand, Graduate Research Assistant National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida CCOOVVEERR PPHHOTOOTO LLooss AAnnggeelleess CCoouunnttyy MMeettrrooppololiittanan TTransransppoorrttaattioionn AAuutthhoorriittyy DDIISCSCLLAAIIMMEERR TThhiis ds dooccuumemennt it is is inntteennddeed ad as a ts teecchhnniiccaal al assssiissttaanncce pe prroodduucctt. I. It it is dsiiss ssdeemmiinnaatteed udnn ddueer tr thhe sepp oosnnssoorrsshhiip opf tf tohhe Ue..SS U.. DDeeppaarrttmemennt ot of Tf Trraannssppoorrttaattiioon in in tn thhe ie inntteerreesst ot of if innffoorrmamattiioon enxxcc ehhaannggee. T. Thhe Uenn iittUeed Sdttaa Sttees Gsoo vvGeerrnnmemennt atss ssauumemes nso nlo liiaabbiilliittyy ffoor ir itts cs coonntteenntts os or ur usse te thheerreeooff. T. Thhe Ue Unniitteed Sd Sttaattees Gs Goovveerrnnmemennt dtoo eeds nsoo tn et ennddoorrsse perroo pdduucctts osf mfo aa nnmuuffaaccttuurreerrss. T. Trraadde oerr o mamannuuffaaccttuurreerrss’ n’ naamemes as appppeeaar her herreeiin sn soolleelly by beeccaauusse te thheey ayrre a ceoo nncssiiddeerreed edssss eeennttiiaal tl to tohh et oebb jjeeoccttiivve oef tf tohhiis rs reeppoorrtt.. Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation OCTOBER 2011 FTA Report No. 0004 PREPARED BY Jennifer Flynn, Research Associate Cheryl Thole, Research Associate Victoria Perk, Senior Research Associate Joseph Samus, Graduate Research Assistant Caleb Van Nostrand, Graduate Research Assistant National Bus Rapid Transit Institute Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620 SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation U.S.
  • The Value of Bus Rapid Transit: Hedonic Price Analysis of The

    The Value of Bus Rapid Transit: Hedonic Price Analysis of The

    The Value of Bus Rapid Transit: Hedonic Price Analysis of the EmX in Eugene, Oregon Peter Hodel & Megen Ickler Presented to the Department of Economics, University of Oregon, as partial fulfillment of requirements for honors in Economics. Under the supervision of Professor Joe Stone Abstract Transportation investments can increase the welfare of a city or region in order to create economic development. Often public transportation has the potential for economic development in three ways; sustaining and maintaining dense development and growth in the downtown core; allocating land use and development; creating and stimulating economic growth and employment opportunities. These are measured along the transit line through increase in property values, increased development projects, and changes in business activity (Neuwirth, 143). Other contributing factors to transit decisions include objectives and values, effects on various groups, downtown development and environmental quality. Different modes accomplish these goals with various efficiencies depending on their characteristics. This paper will introduce an examination of the bus rapid transit (BRT) line in the Eugene area based on changes in residential property values. Specifically, the purpose is to determine benefits in terms of the property values changes before and after the implementation of the line. We considered residential sale prices from 2002- 2012 and analyzed trends of house values across varying distances. We found a significant, negative correlation between distance from a property and the Franklin EmX line. There was no significant trend to draw from in regards to the Gateway extension but this value may have simply not had enough time to capitalize into the surrounding properties.
  • Evolution of the Silver Streak “BRT- Like” Service

    Evolution of the Silver Streak “BRT- Like” Service

    Evolution of the Silver Streak “BRT- Like” Service BRT Conference June 18, 2018 FOOTHILL TRANSIT FACTS • 327 Square Miles • 359 Buses In Fleet • San Gabriel Valley • 329 CNG Buses • Pomona Valley • 30 All Electric Proterra Buses • 37 Lines SLOW POPULATION GROWTH FOOTHILL TRANSIT FACTS • Began Service in December of 1988 • Formed to provide improved service • Increase local control of regional transit • UniqueSLOW Public/Private POPULATION Partnership GROWTH • Public: Joint Powers Authority • 22 member-cities • Los Angeles County • Administration Foothill Transit Employees • Private: Contracted Operations • Pomona Operation Facility – Keolis • Irwindale/ Arcadia Operations Facility – TransDev • Call Center/ Transit Stores/ Bus Stop Technicians- TransDev JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY 22 Cities and the County of Los Angeles Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 • Claremont • Azusa • Arcadia • La VerneSLOW POPULATION• Baldwin GROWTH Park • Bradbury • Pomona • Covina • Duarte • San Dimas • Glendora • Monrovia • Walnut • Irwindale • Pasadena Cluster 4 • West Covina • Temple City • Diamond Bar Cluster 5 • El Monte • First District, County of L.A. • Industry • Fourth District, County of L.A. • La Puente • Fifth District, County of L.A. • South El Monte What is the Silver Streak • A high-speed bus system which operates like a rail line on rubber tires • Incorporates high-tech vehicles, uniform fare structure, stations not stops, and frequent service Vehicles • 60-foot articulated buses • 58-passenger seating capacity • SmartBUS equipped • Boarding through three doors Service • Replace current Line 480 • Easy connections to Metro, Metrolink, Omni, and Foothill Transit local routes Service Map • Reduce travel time by 30-40 minutes • Simple, easy to understand route SILVER STREAK BRT FEATURES (2007) • Unique Branding • Dedicated Fleet • WiSLOW-Fi POPULATION GROWTH • All Door Boarding • Exclusive Right of Way • El Monte Busway (El Monte – Union Station) TAP CARD (2009) SLOW POPULATION GROWTH .
  • Transit Access Pass (Tap) & Rail Fare Gate Status

    Transit Access Pass (Tap) & Rail Fare Gate Status

    Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza 213.922.9200 Tel Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 213.922.9201 Fax rnetro.net 41 REVISED OPERATIONS COMMITTEE APRIL 16,2009 SUBJECT: TRANSIT ACCESS PASS (TAP) & RAIL FARE GATE STATUS ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report on the Transit Access Pass (TAP) and Rail Fare Gate Status ISSUE TAP staff was directed to provide a regular status update of project milestones and deployment activities on the Transit Access Pass (TAP@)regional smart card. Also, with the inception of the Metro Rail Fare Gate project, staff was directed to report monthly on the progress of this project. This report serves to fulfd these requests. DISCUSSION There has been significant progress on TAP regional implementation: Municipal Operators - Culver CityBus and Santa Clarita Transit have successfully migrated their UFS systems with full TAP capabilities. Norwalk successfully installed UFS fareboxes with TAP capability on April 3. Foothill, Gardena, and Montebello are in the process of conversion between May and June, 2009. Reduced Fare TAP - Over 60,000 Senior, Disabled, and College/Vocational TAP cards have been produced and mailed to applicants. Day Pass - TAP cards, equipment, and supplies delivered to divisions for scheduled day pass conversion to TAP on March 15. At the point of writing this Board report, the conversion process has gone fairly uneventfully with the exception of card volumes requiring replenishment at bus divisions since customer education and training to re-cycle cards on subsequent usage needs further reinforcement. Metro Pass Sales Outlets - compact point of sales devices have been installed at over 400 pass sales outlets and additional devices are currently being installed at Cities and Senior Centers.
  • Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2015 - 2017

    Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2015 - 2017

    Short Range Transportation Plan FY 2015 - 2017 City of Montebello Transportation Department City of Montebello – Transportation Department FY 2015 - 2017 SHORT RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Table of Contents SECTION 1 – OVERVIEW OF THE TRANSIT SYSTEM 1.1 History of the City of Montebello and Montebello Bus Lines ................................ 3 1.2 Governance and Organizational Structure ............................................................. 4 1.3 Transit Services and Areas Served .......................................................................... 5 1.4 Ridership ................................................................................................................. 7 1.5 Fare Structure ......................................................................................................... 7 1.6 Fleet, Facility and Equipment ................................................................................. 8 SECTION 2 – BUDGET, FUNDING, AND REGULATION 2.1 Operating and Capital Budget............................................................................... 10 2.2 Funding Sources.................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Regulatory Requirements ..................................................................................... 11 SECTION 3 – ACCOMPLISHMENTS, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 3.1 Past Accomplishments........................................................................................... 13 3.2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................
  • Request for Proposals for Operation of Union

    Request for Proposals for Operation of Union

    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR OPERATION OF UNION STATION, VAN NUYS, AND ORANGE LINE FLYAWAY BUS SERVICE Release Date: November 20, 2014 Pre-Proposal Conference: December 2, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. Pacific Time Los Angeles World Airports Administration West Building 7301 World Way West, Room 420 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Deadline for Submission of Questions/Requests for Clarification: Submit all questions and requests for clarification in writing to [email protected] no later than 3 p.m. Pacific Time on December 10, 2014 Proposal Due Date: January 22, 2015 no later than 3 p.m. Pacific Time at: Commercial Development Attn: Christine Kalamaros 6053 W. Century Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................... 3 A. THE OPPORTUNITY .............................................................................. 3 SECTION 2 – BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................... 4 A. LAWA ..................................................................................................... 4 B. DESCRIPTION OF LAX ......................................................................... 4 C. DESCRIPTION OF FLYAWAY FACILITIES ........................................... 4 D. FLEET .................................................................................................... 5 E. FARES ................................................................................................... 5 F. CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS ..............................................................
  • Torrance Bus Service Reliability and Improvement Strategies

    Torrance Bus Service Reliability and Improvement Strategies

    TORRANCE BUS SERVICE RELIABILITY AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master In Urban and Regional Planning By Jose M. Perez 2019 i SIGNATURE PAGE PROJECT: TORRANCE BUS SERVICE RELIABILITY AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES AUTHOR: Jose M. Perez DATE SUBMITTED: Spring 2019 Department of Urban and Regional Planning Dr. Alvaro M. Huerta Project Committee Chair Professor of Urban Planning Richard Zimmer Committee Member Lecturer of Urban Planning David Mach Senior Transportation Planner Torrance Transit i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author thanks the Torrance Transit Employees for the data they furnished and their participation in the client project, especially Senior Transportation Planner David Mach. The author would also like to thank the City of Torrance for providing information on future development and specific goals of their circulation plan. Special thanks to Dr. Alvaro M. Huerta and Professor Richard Zimmer for their help and guidance in completing the client project. i ABSTRACT A city’s transportation infrastructure directly affects the mobility of the people, goods, and services, of all who live within its’ limits. Bus transit lines are a key element of a balanced transportation system that can improve or detract from the quality of life of its’ populous. Transit networks that are poorly implemented eventually become impractical and difficult to maintain; and thus, a burden upon the city it’s meant to help. In addition the service reliability of a transit line is critical to both the transit agency and its users in order to maintain a healthy transportation system.
  • Regional Bike Share Implementation Plan

    Regional Bike Share Implementation Plan

    Regional Bike Share Implementation FOR LOS ANGELES Plan COUNTY PREPARED BY PREPARED FOR 600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213.261.3050 April 22, 2015 [This page intentionally blank] TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................ 6 Business Plan .............................................................................................. 8 Vision ............................................................................................................................ 9 System Overview ...................................................................................................13 Capital Ownership .................................................................................................14 Operations Model .................................................................................................14 Fare Structure..........................................................................................................14 TAP Integration ......................................................................................................19 Mobility Hubs Coordination .............................................................................23 Equity .........................................................................................................................25 Operations Funding..............................................................................................28
  • Union Station Area Connections

    Union Station Area Connections

    metro.net Union Station Area Connections 1 Destinations Lines Stops Scale One Unit: /4 Mile Chinese Historical Lincoln/Cypress Station Society Chinatown Alhambra 76, 78, 79, 378, 485 B CL 5 8 7 BE Heritage and Altadena via Lake 485 7 A 1 Metro Local Stop RN Visitors Center Arcadia 78, 79, 378 B C AR T Metro Local and D S Artesia Transit Center n Metro Silver Line n J 1 S A RapidL Stop Y T G Baldwin Park Metro Silver Line n to 190 N Å K A W I ST I Chung King Chinese R E Beverly Hills Metro Purple Line o to 20, 720; 704 5 Metro Rapid Line UM Bamboo R Los Angeles S N I Cultural P EY T D Road Art Plaza State S W S Bob Hope Airport (BUR) ÅÍ 94, 794, Metrolink Å, Amtrak Í W 2 N A BA T C Center D Galleries HU M N Metro Silver Line Stop S NG B Historical 110 D K o E I O A U Boyle Heights Metro Gold Line , 30, 68, 770 B R N CP T G C O G T L A N T S I N Park N A Mandarin K G 5 7 I N Broadway 30, 40, 42, 730, 740, 745 A O N FIN G L E IN L N N Metro Silver Line G W N B U Y Plaza P R H E Burbank Å 94, 96, 794 W 2 O C I E E Paci>c L L N C Y D T T E Cal Poly Pomona Metro Silver Line n to 190, 194 K Metro Rail StationT A S M E JU L S W Alliance N Y U G J R Y I W F N and Entrance G L n S W W Y Carson Metro Silver Line to 246 J Medical Y N G U R B O N E T M A I R O L N P A N I 5 6 O E T Center U L Y Century City 704, 728, CE534 E 3 O W R E D S D S M L A E E W I T Metro Red LineA C M U S E IN O O W G A N Y U S City Terrace 70, 71 E B C I P L V O F LE L T n N M Covina Å Metro Silver Line to 190 K Metro Purple Line G L IN E A S Crenshaw District 40, 42, 740
  • System-Wide Transit Corridor Plan for the San Bernardino Valley

    System-Wide Transit Corridor Plan for the San Bernardino Valley

    System-Wide Transit Corridor Plan for the San Bernardino Valley sbX E Street Corridor BRT Project Prepared for: Omnitrans Prepared by: Parsons Patti Post & Associates October 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5 1.1 SAFETEA-LU ............................................................................................................ 6 1.2 2004 System-Wide Plan ............................................................................................ 7 1.3 Development of the E Street Corridor ....................................................................... 7 1.4 California SB 375 .................................................................................................... 17 1.5 San Bernardino County Long Range Transit Plan ................................................... 18 1.6 Regionally Approved Travel Demand Model ........................................................... 21 1.7 Roles and Responsibilities ...................................................................................... 21 1.8 Opportunities to Shape Development/Redevelopment ............................................ 21 1.8.1 Economic Development ............................................................................. 21 1.8.2 Transit-Oriented Developments ................................................................
  • Safety and Operations Committee J U L Y 2 6 , 2 0

    Safety and Operations Committee J U L Y 2 6 , 2 0

    SAFETY AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE JULY 26, 2013 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ROSTER SAFETY AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE COUNTY MEMBER San Bernardino: Paul Eaton (Chair) 1 vote Mayor, City of Montclair Larry McCallon Mayor, City of Highland Riverside: Karen Spiegel (Vice Chair) 1 vote Mayor, City of Corona Andrew Kotyuk Councilmember, City of San Jacinto Orange: Shawn Nelson 1 vote Supervisor, 4th District County of Orange Los Angeles: Richard Katz 1 vote Metro Appointee Don Knabe Supervisor, 4th District County of Los Angeles Robert T. Bartlett Metro Appointee Tom Lackey Mayor Pro Tem, City of Palmdale Ventura: Brian Humphrey 1 vote Commission Member VCTC One Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY SAFETY AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE FRIDAY, JULY 26, 2013 10:00 A.M. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY UNION STATION CONFERENCE ROOM ONE GATEWAY PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 AGENDA DESCRIPTIONS The agenda descriptions are intended to give notice to members of the public and a brief general description of items of business to be transacted or discussed. The posting of the recommended actions does not indicate what action will be taken. The Committee may take any action that it deems appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any way by the notice of the recommended action. The Chair reserves the right to discuss the items listed on the agenda in any order. A person with a disability may contact the Committee Secretary's office at (213) 452-0219 or via e-mail [email protected] at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to request receipt of an agenda in an alternative format or to request disability-related accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting.