DOCSLIB.ORG

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District April 29, 2021 ACEC-East Bay Webinar

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District April 29, 2021 ACEC-East Bay Webinar San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District April 29, 2021 ACEC-East Bay Webinar 0 BART Overview Response to COVID-19 Ridership & Financials Progressive Policing & Community Engagement Alliance for Girls Partnership Addressing the Needs of the Unhoused RR Program Updates Link21 Upcoming Construction, IFB & Professional Services Contracts 2021 Infrastructure Report Card MTC Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force 1 BART’s Response to COVID-19 • Reduced service to reflect lower ridership while enabling social distancing • Focus on employee and rider safety • Implemented aggressive cleaning protocols • Worked with labor partners to control costs, increase safety and provide essential service • Quickly cut costs through hiring freeze, eliminating vacant positions, retirement incentive program and reduced allocations • Accelerated capital projects where safe and feasible • 34.5kv cable replacement • Track replacement • Traction power substations • National leader in conversation around COVID and transit, advocating for our needs at local, state, and federal levels 2 Who is riding BART? 3 Ridership Recovery Projection Financial Outlook: Long-Term Challenge BART’s fiscal crisis is driven by the collapse of ridership and fare revenue • Projected $1B revenue loss through FY22 • $377M CARES Act + $378M CRRSAA offsets part of impact • Near term, federal emergency funding allows us to continue to provide reliable service to essential workers • 40% service reduction, but costs do not scale proportionally with service changes • Ridership and revenue uncertainty to persist for years • Lower operating revenue increases risks to capital program Six Priorities to Balance Tradeoffs in Service Modifications Prioritization changes over different time horizons (e.g. 6 months, 12 months, 24 months) Priorities Key Question Metrics Ridership How can BART match service effectively to post-pandemic ridership How service matches projected patterns and demand? ridership recovery Financial What is the net financial impact of different levels of service provision? Operating expense less revenue generated Equity How can BART minimize impacts to protected populations? Risk of equity impact Capacity Can BART scale up service to support ridership growth when needed? Frontline staff levels recovery Health While health directives are in effect, does BART provide adequate space for Projected demand served within guidance riders to socially distance? public health guidance thresholds Capital What is the impact on BART’s ability to continue to accelerate capital re- Cost and efficiency of capital project reinvestment investment? delivery FY22 Service Scenarios Under Consideration Scenario Name Service Notes 30 min headways, 9:00pm close A Current Service Additional commute trains Restore 15 Minute 15 min headways, 9:00pm close B Headways 30 min weekend headways + Sat peak trips 30 min headways, midnight close Extend System Hours to C 6 nights/week, additional commute trains Midnight 6:00am Sat opening, some Sat peak trains 15 Minute Headways and Combine scenarios B + C D Midnight Close 15 min headways, midnight close (6 nights/week) Financial Impact of Service Increase Over Scenario A (current service) ($ millions) Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Revenue Fare revenue 5.1 4.3 9.2 Other revenues 5.3 3.2 7.8 Subtotal - Revenue 10.5 7.5 17.2 Expense Transportation 5.7 10.6 12.5 Maintenance and Engineering 0.0 32.6 32.6 Rolling Stock and Shops 6.3 1.2 7.5 Traction power 5.0 3.2 7.0 Subtotal - Expense 17.0 47.6 59.6 Net Budget Impact 6.5 40.1 42.6 • BART’s FY22 Preliminary Budget, which funds Scenario D, shows a ~$31M deficit. • Shortfall will be balanced by a combination of District Retirement Incentive Program (DRIP) ongoing savings, targeted cost reductions and forthcoming federal stimulus funds. Scenario D Best Supports the Bay Area’s Recovery Improves service when many Bay Area residents will be establishing post- pandemic routines More frequent mid-day service to attract more non-work trips and better serve workers on non-peak schedules Evening service to restore mobility for workers on non-peak schedules, supports reopening of entertainment and restaurant industries Invests in regional economic recovery and long-term BART ridership return Progressive Policing & Community Engagement Bureau • Staffed by 47 FTEs • De-emphasizes the use of sworn personnel to respond to homelessness, behavioral health and substance use • Expands efforts to implement progressive and equitable policing practices • Re-emphasizes and strengthens community-oriented policing practices: includes Transit Ambassadors, Crisis Intervention, and Community-Oriented Policing units • Crisis Intervention & Community Outreach Supervisors (2 FTEs) • Crisis Intervention Specialists (20 FTEs) + Transit Ambassadors (10 FTEs) • Community Oriented Policing & Problem Solving (COPPS) (2 FTEs) • Crisis Response Officers (10 FTEs) + Crisis Response Sergeants (2 FTEs) 10 BART Partnership with Alliance for Girls . BART partnered with the Alliance for Girls for a first of its kind community driven initiative centering girls and gender expansive youth to combat sexual harassment and gender-based violence on transit. Developed by 500 Bay Area youth and includes bystander intervention training, posters, and resources materials. Serves as an engagement model for transit systems across the world. 11 Addressing Needs of the Unhoused • Hired a new position – Senior Manager for Social Service Partnerships, reporting to General Manager • BART Strategic Homeless Action Plan - top 5 Action Items 1. Proactively engage and advocate at Federal, State, regional, county & local levels 2. Develop public/private partnerships 3. Create Statewide Transit Advocacy Coalition 4. Integrate & coordinate with related BART priorities, such as Progressive Policing & Be The Change Recommendations, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Work Plan, and others 5. Continue to follow & incorporate evidence-based practices from all over • Regional Impact Council (formed in 2020 by Tomiquia Moss, All Home) • Develop regional strategies for homelessness and economic and social mobility • BART GM sits on Steering Committee with Mayors Breed, Schaaf and Liccardo, MTC ED Therese McMillan, Assemblymember David Chiu and many other leaders • BART supporting San Francisco Proposition C, Our City, Our Home Measure RR Investment Summary 13 RR Program Update – Small Business SB Total RR SB Total RR Total RR SB # of SB RR Payments Program Commitment Payments on Payment Commitment Commitment Contracts to SBs % RR Contracts % Renew Track $105,408,244 $31,927,676 30% 114 $70,048,277 $14,125,295 20% Renew Power $167,333,843 $82,140,285 49% 166 $116,121,335 $73,488,532 63% Repair Tunnels & $111,321,795 $27,786,857 25% 120 $67,975,279 $10,856,041 16% Structures Renew Mechanical $31,271,563 $10,830,252 35% 59 $17,755,726 $6,761,919 38% Replace Train Control/Increase $15,032,534 $2,555,378 17% 59 $8,887,262 $1,409,327 16% Capacity Renew Stations $145,100,083 $27,260,058 19% 87 $23,995,707 $6,489,866 27% Expand Safe Access to $15,702,940 $4,341,623 28% 92 $9,265,666 $3,333,150 36% Stations Design/Engineer to $68,034,554 $16,667,148 24% 64 $27,010,079 $6,759,783 25% Relieve Crowding Total $ 659,205,557 $203,509,278 31% 760 $341,059,331 $123,223,912 36% Notes: All amounts are based on RR fund percent only. Amounts are updated to March 3, 2021. Includes formal contracts only; does not include informal purchases or work performed by BART’s own forces. SB totals include DBEs, MSBEs, SBs, and LSBs. Sources: RR commitments are based on RR Requisitions report, Procurement Sealed Bids Report and PeopleSoft Work Plans application. RR% for each project is based on Financial Analysts’ report, RR Funds / Total Project Budget. Payments based on PeopleSoft and B2GNow. 14 RR Program Update – Outreach • Recently Completed Events • BART SBSS – Post Award Services Introduction • BART SB Outreach - Meet Project Staff and Learn About Upcoming RR Opportunities • BART SBSS – BART B2Gnow (Vendor Payment Tracking System) Training • BART SB Outreach - How to do Business with BART • BART SBSS – Elations Workshop • Upcoming Events • BART SB Outreach – Learn About Upcoming Stations Opportunities • BART SB Outreach – Learn About BART’s Procurement Process Examples of Active RR Projects in November 2020 – January 2021 *Updated projects 16 Projects with Accelerated work due to COVID-19 service reduction Measure RR Cashflow ($ Millions) – Mid-Term & Long-Term Outlook % Forecast Expenditures Period Expended Expended Expended Cashflow Program (thru (thru out of Total SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM (Nov 2020 - MID-TERM Oct 2020) Jan 2021) Bond (thru Sept (thru End of Jan 2021) (thru 2025) Investment 2023) Bond) Renew Track $223.8 $243.0 $19.2 39% $382 $400 $625 Renew Power $258.7 $300.9 $42.2 25% $573 $608 $1,225 Infrastructure Repair Tunnels & $63.5 $85.2 $21.8 15% $136 $268 $570 Structures Renew $39.0 $47.2 $8.2 35% $77 $65 $135 Mechanical Replace Train Control/Increase $28.2 $32.1 $3.9 8% $89 $286 $400 Capacity Renew Stations $24.1 $31.5 $7.5 15% $125 $148 $210 Expand Safe Access to $19.5 $22.9 $3.4 17% $37 $86 $135 Stations Design/Engineer to Relieve $33.5 $39.5 $6.0 20% $76 $69 $200 Crowding Total $690.2 $802.2 $112.0 23% $1,495 $1,930 $3,500 17 RR Overall Program Budget Progress The Need for the Link21 Program • Fifth largest megaregional economy in the country • Inconvenient, disconnected rail service and limited routes • Bay Area is limited by a single rail crossing (BART’s Transbay Tube) • Persistent traffic congestion • Jobs and affordable housing imbalance • Climate and health-damaging air pollution 19 Link21:Vision Link21 is a program of projects that will transform the passenger rail network in the Northern California Megaregion into a faster, more integrated system that provides a safe, efficient, equitable, and affordable means of travel for all types of trips. A major project within the Link21 Program is a new transbay passenger rail crossing between Oakland and San Francisco.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Plan Bay Area 2050 Air Quality Conformity Analysis
    DRAFT AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY AND CONSISTENCY REPORT JULY 2021 PBA2050 COMMISH BOARD DRAFT 06.14.21 Metropolitan Transportation Association of City Representatives Commission Bay Area Governments Susan Adams Alfredo Pedroza, Chair Jesse Arreguín, President Councilmember, City of Rohnert Park Napa County and Cities Mayor, City of Berkeley Nikki Fortunato Bas Nick Josefowitz, Vice Chair Belia Ramos, Vice President Councilmember, City of Oakland San Francisco Mayor's Appointee Supervisor, County of Napa London Breed Margaret Abe-Koga David Rabbitt, Mayor, City and County of San Francisco Cities of Santa Clara County Immediate Past President Tom Butt Supervisor, County of Sonoma Eddie H. Ahn Mayor, City of Richmond San Francisco Bay Conservation Pat Eklund and Development Commission County Representatives Mayor, City of Novato David Canepa Candace Andersen Maya Esparza San Mateo County Supervisor, County of Contra Costa Councilmember, City of San José Cindy Chavez David Canepa Carroll Fife Santa Clara County Supervisor, County of San Mateo Councilmember, City of Oakland Damon Connolly Keith Carson Neysa Fligor Marin County and Cities Supervisor, County of Alameda Mayor, City of Los Altos Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cindy Chavez Leon Garcia Cities of Alameda County Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Mayor, City of American Canyon Dina El-Tawansy Otto Lee Liz Gibbons California State Transportation Agency Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Mayor, City of Campbell (CalSTA) Gordon Mar Giselle Hale Victoria Fleming Supervisor, City and County Vice Mayor, City of Redwood City Sonoma County and Cities of San Francisco Barbara Halliday Dorene M. Giacopini Rafael Mandelman Mayor, City of Hayward U.S. Department of Transportation Supervisor, City and County Rich Hillis Federal D.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction This document is a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR), prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.) (referred to herein as CEQA Guidelines). CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines are referred to herein collectively as CEQA. This SEIR is a supplement to the BART Warm Springs Extension Environmental Impact Report that was certified on September 15, 1992. The SEIR is an informational document intended to inform the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Board of Directors, public agencies, and the public about the potentially significant environmental effects that may result from implementation of the BART Warm Springs Extension (WSX) (herein called the Proposed Project). See Section 1.6 for an explanation of the relationship of this SEIR to the EIR certified in 1992. The environmental analysis incorporated herein identifies the environmental impacts of an extension of the BART system in the City of Fremont (Fremont), from its current terminus in central Fremont to the Warm Springs district of Fremont. Once certified, this SEIR will provide the basis for BART to adopt a project. This analysis will support the development of an effective mitigation program for site-specific mitigation of potentially significant environmental impacts, and provide information to interested members of the public and public agencies about modifications to the 1992 Adopted Project and various potential impacts resulting from the modified project. Through the formal public review process, the public and various organizations and agencies will have an opportunity to comment on this document.
    [Show full text]
  • EMMA Official Statement
    NEW ISSUE – BOOK ENTRY ONLY RATINGS: Moody’s (2020 Bonds): Aaa Long Term Standard & Poor’s (2020C-1 Bonds): AAA Short Term Standard & Poor’s (2020C-2 Bonds): A-1+ See “Ratings” herein. In the opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bond Counsel to the District, based upon an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions, and assuming, among other matters, the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants, interest on the 2020C-1 Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the 2020C-1 Bonds is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax. Bond Counsel is also of the opinion that interest on the 2020 Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income taxes. Bond Counsel further observes that interest on the 2020C-2 Bonds is not excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Code. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any other tax consequences related to the ownership or disposition of, or the amount, accrual or receipt of interest on, the 2020 Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS.” $700,000,000 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS $625,005,000 $74,995,000 (ELECTION OF 2016), (ELECTION OF 2016), 2020 SERIES C-1 2020 SERIES C-2 (FEDERALLY TAXABLE) (GREEN BONDS) (GREEN BONDS) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: As shown on inside cover The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District General Obligation Bonds (Election of 2016), 2020 Series C-1 (Green Bonds) (the “2020C-1 Bonds”) and 2020 Series C-2 (Federally Taxable) (Green Bonds) (the “2020C-2 Bonds” and, together with the 2020C-1 Bonds, the “2020 Bonds”) are being issued to finance specific acquisition, construction and improvement projects for District facilities approved by the voters and to pay the costs of issuance of the 2020 Bonds.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.9 Land Use
    Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIS 5.9 LAND USE 5.9.1 INTRODUCTION An adverse effect on land use would occur if the alternatives physically divide an established community; change land use in a manner that would be incompatible with surrounding land uses; and conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation (see Table 5.9-1). Residential and nonresidential relocations associated with implementing the alternatives are discussed in Section 5.12, Socioeconomics. The alternatives would affect surrounding land use in a variety of ways, both during construction and operational phases (see Chapter 6, Construction, for discussion of effects from construction). Effects on land use include the physical effects of the ROW and station facilities, as well as ancillary facilities such as station entrances, ventilation shafts, electrical substations, park-and-ride lots, and yard and shops facilities. Two proposed park-and-ride lots are located outside of the BEP and SVRTP alternative alignments; the Downtown Sunnyvale Station park-and-ride lot and the Evelyn LRT Station park-and-ride lot. These two parcels are existing parking lots within the cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View. Their current and proposed future uses are consistent with the applicable planning and zoning designations. The proposed Downtown Sunnyvale Station park-and-ride lot is designated in the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) as retail specialty grocery store and district parking. The proposed Evelyn LRT Station park-and-ride lot is designated in the Mountain View Zoning Ordinance as general industrial, including required parking. 5.9.2 METHODOLOGY The land use analysis for the No Build, BEP, and SVRTP alternatives focuses on four primary components: the alignment, the proposed station areas, the support facilities required for operation of the line, and the yard and shops options.
    [Show full text]
  • BART WARM SPRINGS EXTENSION FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR – ADDENDUM 2 July 2019 MODIFICATIONS to IRVINGTON STATION and GALLEGOS WINERY COMPONENTS
    BART WARM SPRINGS EXTENSION FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR – ADDENDUM 2 Modifications to Irvington Station and Gallegos Winery Components San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District July 2019 APPENDIX A: 2006 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE BART WARM SPRINGS EXTENSION Prepared by: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Amended September 2006 BART SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the BART Warm Springs Extension AmendedSeptember 2006 Prepared by: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612 BART WARM SPRINGS EXTENSION FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR – ADDENDUM 2 July 2019 MODIFICATIONS TO IRVINGTON STATION AND GALLEGOS WINERY COMPONENTS BART WARM SPRINGS EXTENSION FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR – ADDENDUM 2 July 2019 MODIFICATIONS TO IRVINGTON STATION AND GALLEGOS WINERY COMPONENTS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the BART Warm Springs Extension. Amended September 2006. Oakland, CA. Prepared by the San Francisco Rapid Transit District. 300 Lakeside Drive, Oakland, CA. Contents Page Section 1 Introduction........................................................................................ 1-1 1.1. Purpose and Need for Monitoring............................................................. 1-1 1.2. Project Description................................................................................... 1-2 1.3. Mitigation Monitoring Program ................................................................. 1-2 1.4. Mitigation Actions....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Executive Summary Project Background The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) has been in operation since 1972 and currently operates in four Bay Area counties: San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo. The most recent extensions to the BART system are the extensions to Dublin/Pleasanton in eastern Alameda County, to Pittsburg/Bay Point in eastern Contra Costa County, and to Colma in San Mateo County. BART is currently completing construction on a four-station extension from Colma to the San Francisco International Airport in San Mateo County, with a terminus in Millbrae, California. In response to public support for the extension of BART in southern Alameda County, BART is proposing a 5.4-mile extension of the BART system south from the existing Fremont BART Station to a proposed new station in the Warm Springs district of the City of Fremont (Fremont). (See Figure ES-1.) An optional station at Irvington is also being considered. In 1991, BART prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Warm Springs Extension (WSX) analyzing a series of alternatives for extending BART to the Warm springs area. In 1992, the BART Board of Directors certified the Final EIR and adopted a project for the WSX (referred to herein as the Adopted Project). As then proposed, the Adopted Project consisted of a 5.4-mile, two- station extension of the existing BART system, with stations at Irvington and Warm Springs and an aerial BART alignment over Lake Elizabeth in Fremont Central Park. In addition, the BART Board also approved a subway alignment under Lake Elizabeth as a design option.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.7 Aesthetics
    Section 3.7 Aesthetics 3.7.1 Introduction This section of the SEIR describes the existing aesthetic characteristics in the Proposed Project area, analyzes the nature and extent of physical changes resulting from the Proposed Project, the visibility of these changes, and their effects on the viewing public. This section reflects information and analysis presented in the 1992 EIR while addressing changes in aesthetic resources since preparation of that document. Visual changes that have occurred within and adjacent to the Proposed Project alignment over the past 10 years are primarily related to new residential development on previously vacant parcels. In addition, this section addresses anticipated future alterations in scenic views due to other projects such as the City of Fremont’s grade separations project. Project-related aesthetic impacts are also being reanalyzed to assess changes that have occurred in the design of the Proposed Project since preparation of the 1992 EIR. Major visual elements of the Proposed Project differ significantly from the 1992 Adopted Project. Most significantly, the Proposed Project alignment is routed under Lake Elizabeth rather than on an aerial structure above it, with the remainder on an at-grade trackway within an existing railroad corridor rather than an aerial structure. The result of these design changes is a less visually intrusive project compared to the 1992 Adopted Project. 3.7.2 Methods of Analysis Methodology for Assessment of Existing Conditions The identification of existing visual resources and viewing conditions in the area through which the Proposed Project traverses entails two steps. 1. Objective identification of visual features and resources of the landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.9 Transportation
    Section 3.9 Transportation 3.9.1 Introduction This section describes the existing transportation conditions in the study area, analyzes the Proposed Project’s potential transportation-related impacts, and identifies mitigation measures associated with the significantly adverse impacts. The existing conditions for roadways, traffic, transit services, pedestrian and bicycle facilities are reviewed. The primary areas of analysis for project-related impacts are transit, traffic and parking. The traffic-related impacts resulting from construction of the Proposed Project are also presented in this section. The analysis in this section is based on the Transportation Technical Report for the Proposed BART Warm Springs Extension, included as Appendix N to this document. 3.9.2 Environmental Setting Assessment of Existing Conditions In preparing this analysis, the transportation analysis prepared for the 1992 EIR was reviewed. The changes in transportation conditions and transportation impact analysis procedures since the 1992 EIR was certified have also been reviewed. The setting, with respect to transportation conditions, has changed substantially since the preparation of the 1992 EIR. Therefore, this analysis does not include transportation-related setting information from the 1992 EIR in detail. In general, vehicular traffic has increased throughout the transportation study area, which is the same as the Proposed Project area, as described in Chapter 1 (Introduction). Also, the level of service (LOS) at local intersections has deteriorated, and traffic congestion on local roadways has increased. Part of this analysis specifically focuses on the localized (microscale) traffic circulation impacts at the station sites, as opposed to generally beneficial impacts on the rest of the roadway system.
    [Show full text]
  • Bart Warm Springs Extension Final Supplemental Eir
    BART WARM SPRINGS EXTENSION FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR – ADDENDUM 2 Modifications to Irvington Station and Gallegos Winery Components San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District July 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 A. Background / Previous Environmental Review ................................................................. 1 B. 2019 Modifications .......................................................................................................... 2 C. Purpose of Addendum ..................................................................................................... 3 D. Determination ................................................................................................................. 3 II. REVISIONS TO THE WSX PROJECT/2019 MODIFICATIONS .................................................. 5 A. 2019 Irvington Station Design and Modifications ............................................................ 5 B. 2019 Gallegos Winery Site Modifications ....................................................................... 26 C. Approval of Modifications .............................................................................................. 33 III. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 35 A. Aesthetics .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bart Wsx Dseir Draft Technical Report - Transportation
    BART WSX DSEIR DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT - TRANSPORTATION Prepared for Jones & Stokes By DKS Associates 1956 Webster Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 763-2061 March 19, 2003 DKS Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SETTING AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ..........................................................1-1 1.1 Regional Roadway Access...............................................................................1-1 1.1.1 Interstate Highways......................................................................................1-1 1.1.2 State Routes..................................................................................................1-3 1.1.3 Arterials........................................................................................................1-3 1.2 Transit Services................................................................................................1-6 1.3 Adequacy of Roadway Network......................................................................1-7 1.4 Pedestrian Facilities........................................................................................1-15 1.5 Bicycle Facilities............................................................................................1-16 1.6 Parking Facilities............................................................................................1-16 2. 2010 – NO PROJECT..............................................................................................2-1 2.1 Description.......................................................................................................2-1
    [Show full text]
  • EMMA Official Statement
    NEW ISSUE – BOOK-ENTRY ONLY RATINGS: Standard & Poor’s: “AA+” Fitch: “AA+” See “RATINGS” herein. In the opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bond Counsel to the District, based upon an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions and assuming, among other matters, the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants, interest on the Series 2019A Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”). In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Series 2019A Bonds is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax. Bond Counsel is also of the opinion that interest on the Series 2019 Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income taxes. Bond Counsel further observes that interest on the Series 2019B Bonds is not excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Code. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any other tax consequences related to the ownership or disposition of, or the amount, accrual or receipt of interest on, the Series 2019 Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS” herein. $303,310,000 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS $223,020,000 $80,290,000 2019 SERIES A 2019 REFUNDING SERIES B (FEDERALLY TAXABLE) (GREEN BONDS) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: July 1, as shown on the inside cover The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, 2019 Series A (the “Series 2019A Bonds”) are being issued by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (the “District”) to provide sufficient funds (i) for the acquisition, construction, renovation, improvement and equipping of facilities which will serve as the District’s new headquarters; (ii) to capitalize interest through July 1, 2021; and (iii) to fund costs of issuance associated with the Series 2019A Bonds.
    [Show full text]
  • SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 300 Lakeside Drive, P
    SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 300 Lakeside Drive, P. O. Box 12688, Oakland, CA 94604-2688 BOARD MEETING AGENDA June 23, 2011 9:00 a.m. A regular meeting of the Board of Directors will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, June 23, 2011, in the BART Board Room, Kaiser Center 20t'' Street Mall - Third Floor, 344 - 20th Street, Oakland, California. Members of the public may address the Board of Directors regarding any matter on this agenda. Please complete a "Request to Address the Board" form (available at the entrance to the Board Room) and hand it to the Secretary before the item is considered by the Board. If you wish to discuss a matter that is not on the agenda during a regular meeting, you may do so under General Discussion and Public Comment. Any action requiring more than a majority vote for passage will be so noted. Items placed under "consent calendar" are considered routine and will be received, enacted, approved, or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from a Director or from a member of the audience. Please refrain from wearing scented products (perfume, cologne, after-shave, etc.) to these meetings, as there may be people in attendance susceptible to environmental illnesses. BART provides service/accommodations upon request to persons with disabilities and individuals who are limited English proficient who wish to address BART Board matters. A request must be made within one and five days in advance of Board meetings, depending on the service requested.
    [Show full text]