DOCSLIB.ORG

Vision Implementation Plan Appendices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Capitol Corridor Vision Implementation Plan | Final Report Appendices Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority VISION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPENDICES 1 Initial Study Corridor ........................................................................................................1-1 Service Areas.......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 San Jose to Oakland Service Area .............................................................................................. 1-1 Oakland to Sacramento Service Area ........................................................................................ 1-3 Sacramento to Auburn Service Area ............................................................................................ 1-5 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 1-6 Service Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 1-6 Design Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 1-6 Recommended Capital Improvements ............................................................................................... 1-6 San Jose to CP Coast ...................................................................................................................... 1-7 CP Coast to Newark ........................................................................................................................ 1-7 Newark to Oakland ........................................................................................................................ 1-7 Jack London Square (JLS) ............................................................................................................... 1-8 Oakland to North Richmond .......................................................................................................... 1-8 North Richmond to Benicia .............................................................................................................. 1-9 Sacramento to Roseville .................................................................................................................. 1-9 Roseville to Auburn .......................................................................................................................... 1-9 Systemwide Improvements ........................................................................................................... 1-10 2 Freight Mitigation Concepts .............................................................................................2-1 Service Areas.......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 San Jose to Oakland Service Area .............................................................................................. 2-1 Oakland to Sacramento Service Area ........................................................................................ 2-1 Sacramento to Auburn Service Area ............................................................................................ 2-4 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 2-4 Service Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 2-4 Design Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 2-4 Recommended Capital Improvements ............................................................................................... 2-4 San Jose to Newark......................................................................................................................... 2-5 Newark to Oakland ........................................................................................................................ 2-5 Jack London Square (JLS) ............................................................................................................... 2-5 Martinez to Sacramento ................................................................................................................. 2-5 3 Jack London Square Alternatives Evaluation ...................................................................3-1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3-1 Issues Identified ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Alternatives Identified and Eliminated from Further Consideration ............................................ 3-2 Recommended Feasible Alternatives ................................................................................................. 3-3 Nelson\Nygaard, HDR & Strategic Economics Capitol Corridor Vision Implementation Plan | Final Report Appendices Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority 4 Operating Plan, Travel Times & Operating Costs ............................................................4-1 Operating Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Travel Times ............................................................................................................................................ 4-2 Travel Times ............................................................................................................................................ 4-9 Operating Costs ................................................................................................................................... 4-11 5 Vision Implementation Strategy .......................................................................................5-1 Project Prioritization .............................................................................................................................. 5-1 Implementation Phasing Strategy ....................................................................................................... 5-6 Project Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 5-6 6 Funding Options ..............................................................................................................6-1 Summary of Funding Needs ................................................................................................................ 6-1 Overview of Capital Funding Sources ............................................................................................... 6-2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 6-9 7 Potential Impacts of BART Plans ......................................................................................7-1 HDR, Nelson\Nygaard & Strategic Economics Capitol Corridor Vision Implementation Plan | Final Report Appendices Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority 1 INITIAL STUDY CORRIDOR The Capitol Corridor Vision Plan identified three potential corridors through which a dedicated passenger-only rail system is potentially feasible. The VIP selected and analyzed the corridor that appeared to best achieve the goals of the Vision Plan at this point in time. Further alternative analyses and environmental assessment is required before a locally preferred alternative can be selected. The initial study corridor (ISC) primarily follows the UPRR Coast, Martinez, and Roseville Subdivisions between San Jose and Auburn. The ISC was divided into three distinct service areas: San Jose to Oakland, Oakland to Sacramento, and Sacramento to Auburn. A future service to Monterey County is currently being considered, but was not included in the scope of this study. The service areas were subsequently divided into geographic segments that allow incremental service and speed increases as projects are completed within each geographic area. The service areas and geographic segments are described below. SERVICE AREAS San Jose to Oakland Service Area The CCJPA currently operates seven round trips daily between San Jose and Oakland on portions of Caltrain and the UPRR’s Coast and Niles Subdivisions (see Figure 1-1). The VIP routes Capitol Corridor trains off of the Niles Subdivision onto the Coast Subdivision between Newark and Oakland. The service area of this portion of Capitol Corridor is approximately 43 miles long and is sub-divided into four distinct geographic segments as follows: . San Jose to CP Coast (SJ-CPC): The San Jose to Control Point (CP) Coast segment begins in the vicinity of the existing Caltrain Tamien layover facility (MP 49.5) on the Coast Subdivision and extends north approximately 4.8 miles to CP Coast (MP 44.7). This segment, owned and operated by Caltrain, includes Caltrain’s Tamien, Diridon, College Park, and Santa Clara Stations. Capitol Corridor trains currently stop at Diridon and Santa Clara Stations. If CCJPA constructs a new layover facility south of Tamien, Capitol Corridor trains could potentially
Recommended publications
  • THIS STAFF REPORT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO.: 8 for the MEETING OF: April 19, 2007 TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BRIEF DESCRIPT

    THIS STAFF REPORT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO.: 8 for the MEETING OF: April 19, 2007 TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BRIEF DESCRIPT

    THIS STAFF REPORT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO.: 8 FOR THE MEETING OF: April 19, 2007 TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BRIEF DESCRIPTION: This staff report provides the status of a planning feasibility study for a future pedestrian connection tunnel between the Transbay Transit Center and the BART/MUNI Metro stations on Market Street. SUMMARY: The TJPA is conducting a study of the feasibility and estimated construction cost for a new pedestrian connection tunnel along one of the following four alternative alignments. • Beale Street (Alternative 1) • Fremont Street (Alternative 2) • First Street (Alternative 3) • Ecker Place (Alternative 4) Estimated construction costs vary for each alignment, with the Beale Street and Ecker Place alignments expected to cost less than the Fremont Street or First Street alignments due to the shorter total length of the tunnel structures. There is currently no funding identified for inclusion of the pedestrian connection tunnel in Phase 1 of the Transbay Transit Center Program. Consequently, it remains a “design option” that would be implemented during the Caltrain Downtown Extension project in Phase 2 of the Transbay Transit Center Program, as originally envisioned in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR). If adequate funding is secured, construction of the pedestrian connection tunnel appears technically feasible along any of the four alignments studied. A study report with input from City and regional stakeholders is planned for consideration by the TJPA Board at its May 2007 meeting. REPORT: FEIS/EIR Consideration of a Pedestrian Connection Tunnel The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) that was adopted during the preparation of the FEIS/EIR included a “design option” for a pedestrian connection tunnel below Fremont Street between the train mezzanine level of the new Transit Center and the mezzanine level of the existing BART/MUNI Metro Embarcadero Station, as part of the Caltrain Downtown Extension Project.
  • Capitol Corridor Service Performance

    Capitol Corridor Service Performance

    CAPITOL CORRIDOR SERVICE PERFORMANCE In July 2016, the Capitol Corridor had one of its best months in the history of the service. Ridership was the highest ever, with a total of 128,655 passengers, a 1.7% year‐over‐year (YOY) increase. Revenue was up 4.6% compared to July 2015. Compared to June 2016, On‐ Time Performance (OTP) slipped slightly from 96% to 95%, yet was still above the FY16 standard of 90%. The Year‐To‐Date (YTD) results continue to be in positive territory. Compared to FY15, FYTD16 ridership and revenue are up 5.5%, with the System Operating Ratio at 55%, five percentage points above the 50% standard. YTD OTP is 94%, which keeps the Capitol Corridor in the #1 spot for service reliability in the national Amtrak intercity passenger rail network. The FYTD16 customer satisfaction scores (through June 2016) are at 89% “Highly Satisfied”, one point above the FY16 standard of 88%. The following are ridership highlights for July 2016: Average weekend ridership for July was down 7% versus July 2015. To address these continued decreases in weekend ridership, the CCJPA is modifying the weekend/holiday train schedule effective August 22, 2016, to slot trains at times that align with typical weekend travel patterns. Average July weekday ridership yielded a 9% increase thanks to continued growth on the trains serving San Jose/Silicon Valley and Placer County stations. Amtrak has sent detailed performance results (see attached) for June 2016 and provided below is a summary of the attached tables: OTP: June 2016 system end‐point OTP was a stellar 96% compared to 93% for May 2016.
  • Climate Adaptation Report

    Climate Adaptation Report

    Caltrans CCAP: District Interviews Summary October 2019 San Joaquin Council of Governments Climate Adaptation & Resiliency Study Climate Adaptation Report APRIL 2, 2020 1 Climate Adaptation Report March 2020 Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Vulnerability Assessment: Key Findings ...................................................................................................... 10 Gaps and Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 16 Integrating Transportation Resilience into the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).............................. 17 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix A: Detailed Vulnerability Assessment Report ............................................................................. 20 Introduction

  • Pacific Surfliner-San Luis Obispo-San Diego-October282019

    PACIFIC SURFLINER® PACIFIC SURFLINER® SAN LUIS OBISPO - LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO SAN LUIS OBISPO - LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO Effective October 28, 2019 Effective October 28, 2019 ® ® SAN LUIS OBISPO - SANTA BARBARA SAN LUIS OBISPO - SANTA BARBARA VENTURA - LOS ANGELES VENTURA - LOS ANGELES ORANGE COUNTY - SAN DIEGO ORANGE COUNTY - SAN DIEGO and intermediate stations and intermediate stations Including Including CALIFORNIA COASTAL SERVICES CALIFORNIA COASTAL SERVICES connecting connecting NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Visit: PacificSurfliner.com Visit: PacificSurfliner.com Amtrak.com Amtrak.com Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, One Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001. One Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001. NRPS Form W31–10/28/19. Schedules subject to change without notice. NRPS Form W31–10/28/19. Schedules subject to change without notice. page 2 PACIFIC SURFLINER - Southbound Train Number u 5804 5818 562 1564 564 1566 566 768 572 1572 774 Normal Days of Operation u Daily Daily Daily SaSuHo Mo-Fr SaSuHo Mo-Fr Daily Mo-Fr SaSuHo Daily 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, Will Also Operate u 1/1/20 1/1/20 1/1/20 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, Will Not Operate u 1/1/20 1/1/20 1/1/20 B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y On Board Service u låO låO låO låO låO l å O l å O l å O l å O Mile Symbol q SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA –Cal Poly 0 >v Dp b3 45A –Amtrak Station mC ∑w- b4 00A l6 55A Grover Beach, CA 12 >w- b4 25A 7 15A Santa Maria, CA–IHOP® 24 >w b4 40A Guadalupe-Santa Maria, CA 25 >w- 7 31A Lompoc-Surf Station, CA 51 > 8 05A Lompoc, CA–Visitors Center 67 >w Solvang, CA 68 >w b5 15A Buellton, CA–Opp.
  • The Third Crossing

    The Third Crossing

    The Third Crossing A Megaproject in a Megaregion www.thirdcrossing.org Final Report, February 2017 Transportation Planning Studio Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of City and Regional Planning (DCRP) at the College of Environmental Design (CED) at UC Berkeley, the University of California Transportation Center and Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), UC Berkeley for support. A special thanks also goes to the helpful feedback from studio instructor Karen Trapenberg Frick and UC Berkeley faculty and researchers including Jesus Barajas and Jason Corburn. We also acknowledge the tremendous support and insights from colleagues at numerous public agencies and non-profit organizations throughout California. A very special thanks goes to David Ory, Michael Reilly, and Fletcher Foti of MTC for their gracious support in running regional travel and land use models, and to Professor Paul Waddell and Sam Blanchard of UrbanSim, Inc. for lending their resources and expertise in land use modeling. We also thank our classmates Joseph Poirier and Lee Reis; as well as David Eifler, Teresa Caldeira, Jennifer Wolch, Robert Cervero, Elizabeth Deakin, Malla Hadley, Leslie Huang and other colleagues at CED; and, Alexandre Bayen, Laura Melendy and Jeanne Marie Acceturo of ITS Berkeley. About Us We are a team of 15 graduate students in City Planning, Transportation Engineering, and Public Health. This project aims to facilitate a conversation about the future of transportation between the East Bay and San Francisco and in the larger Northern California megaregion. We are part of the Department of City and Regional Planning in the UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design, with support from the University of California Transportation Center and The Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
  • PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION March 28, 2017 Agenda ID# 15631

    PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION March 28, 2017 Agenda ID# 15631

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 March 28, 2017 Agenda ID# 15631 TO PARTIES TO RESOLUTION ST-203 This is the Resolution of the Safety and Enforcement Division. It will be on the April 27, 2017, Commission Meeting agenda. The Commission may act then, or it may postpone action until later. When the Commission acts on the Resolution, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the resolution become binding on the parties. Parties may file comments on the Resolution as provided in Article 14 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), accessible on the Commission’s website at www.cpuc.ca.gov. Pursuant to Rule 14.3, opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages. Late-submitted comments or reply comments will not be considered. An electronic copy of the comments should be submitted to Colleen Sullivan (email: [email protected]). /s/ ELIZAVETA I. MALASHENKO ELIZAVETA I. MALASHENKO, Director Safety and Enforcement Division SUL:vdl Attachment CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of Draft Resolution ST-203 on all identified parties in this matter as shown on the attached Service List. Dated March 28, 2017, at San Francisco, California. /s/ VIRGINIA D. LAYA Virginia D. Laya NOTICE Parties should notify the Safety Enforcement Division, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to ensure that they continue to receive documents.
  • California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16

    California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16

    California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16 December 2005 California Department of Transportation ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK, Secretary Business, Transportation and Housing Agency WILL KEMPTON, Director California Department of Transportation JOSEPH TAVAGLIONE, Chair STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER JEREMIAH F. HALLISEY, Vice Chair GOVERNOR BOB BALGENORTH MARIAN BERGESON JOHN CHALKER JAMES C. GHIELMETTI ALLEN M. LAWRENCE R. K. LINDSEY ESTEBAN E. TORRES SENATOR TOM TORLAKSON, Ex Officio ASSEMBLYMEMBER JENNY OROPEZA, Ex Officio JOHN BARNA, Executive Director CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1120 N STREET, MS-52 P. 0 . BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, 94273-0001 FAX(916)653-2134 (916) 654-4245 http://www.catc.ca.gov December 29, 2005 Honorable Alan Lowenthal, Chairman Senate Transportation and Housing Committee State Capitol, Room 2209 Sacramento, CA 95814 Honorable Jenny Oropeza, Chair Assembly Transportation Committee 1020 N Street, Room 112 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear: Senator Lowenthal Assembly Member Oropeza: On behalf of the California Transportation Commission, I am transmitting to the Legislature the 10-year California State Rail Plan for FY 2005-06 through FY 2015-16 by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with the Commission's resolution (#G-05-11) giving advice and consent, as required by Section 14036 of the Government Code. The ten-year plan provides Caltrans' vision for intercity rail service. Caltrans'l0-year plan goals are to provide intercity rail as an alternative mode of transportation, promote congestion relief, improve air quality, better fuel efficiency, and improved land use practices. This year's Plan includes: standards for meeting those goals; sets priorities for increased revenues, increased capacity, reduced running times; and cost effectiveness.
  • Transbay Temporary Terminal : Project Fact Sheet

    Transbay Temporary Terminal : Project Fact Sheet

    Transbay Temporary Terminal PROJECT FACT SHEET Temporary Terminal The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) continues to make exciting progress toward building the Transbay Transit Center, the “Grand Central of the West.” Groundbreak- ing commenced in December 2008 for the Temporary Terminal that will serve bus pas- sengers while the new Transit Center is un der construction. ➤ SPEAR STREET ➤ ➤ ➤ ➤ HOWARD STREET MAIN STREET ➤ Temporary Temporary Terminal Rendering + Terminal Site ➤ BEALE STREET ➤ ➤ Sign-up for Notices ➤ The TJPA is committed to mitigating traffic impacts during ➤ FOLSOM STREET the course of construction. However, traffic disruptions are FREMONT STREET expected throughout the course of the project. ➤ In order to stay informed on our progress, upcoming community meetings and potential street closures, please ➤ ➤ sign up to receive email alerts and to join our project mailing list at www.temporaryterminal.org Map of Project Area + PROJECT TIMELINE December 2008 Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Late Fall 2010 2012 2017 2018 Temporary Terminal Temporary Terminal construction completed. Demolition SamTrans Construction Construction Construction Groundbreaking. of East Loop and Golden of the of the of the Caltrain Greyhound, AC Transit, MUNI and WestCAT (Phase II of Gate Transit Caltrain Transbay Downtown Lynx operations move to the Temporary Temporary move to the Downtown Transit Rail Extension Terminal. Terminal) Temporary Rail Center to be to be Begin demolition of Transbay Terminal; completed. Terminal. Extension to completed. completed. construction of new Transit Center begins. begin. Temporary Terminal to close. For more information, please visit: www.temporaryterminal.org 06.10 PROJECT FACT SHEET Frequently Asked Questions Transbay Transit Center Rendering + WHAT IS THE TEMPORARY TERMINAL? The Temporary Terminal is the temporary replacement bus facility that will serve bus passengers while the new, multi-modal Transbay Transit Center is under construction.
  • Perseverance & Progress Work Program and Budget

    Perseverance & Progress Work Program and Budget

    2020/2021 Work Program and Budget Perseverance & Progress Built on solid ground, SJRRC will continue through this unprecedented crisis with vision and momentum. ® Table of Contents ® Executive Summary............................3 SJJPA..............................................11 ® Planning.............................................4 Organizational Chart.........................13 Operations.........................................6 Capital Budget.................................14 Stockton Diamond..............................8 ACE Operating Budget.....................15 Capital Projects..................................9 SJJPA Operating Budget .................16 The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Board of Directors Christina Fugazi Debby Moorhead Scott Haggerty Chair, City of Stockton Commissioner, City of Manteca Commissioner, Alameda County Leo Zuber Nancy Young John Marchand Vice Chair, City of Ripon Commissioner, City of Tracy Commissioner, City of Livermore Bob Elliott Doug Kuehne Commissioner, San Joaquin County Commissioner, City of Lodi Stacey Mortensen Executive Director 2020/2021 Work Program and Budget 2 Executive Summary The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission is built on a ing forward and provides much needed jobs for many private solid foundation of political leadership, staff commitment planners, engineers, architects, and construction contractors. and adaptability. The difficult years of the 1998 ACE start- The Valley Rail Program will continue to press forward in the up, the 2003 dot.com implosion, and the 2009 full recession coming year with multiple environmental processes to keep have prepared the agency to deal with the unknowns of the the entire Program on-track and set to deliver transforma- coming year. Staff is prepared to work with less, cover extra tional service expansion for both ACE and the San Joaquins. workload and find ways to leverage and share resources with Also, included in the Capital Program are key passenger other partners.
  • Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the City of Roseville 2020 Transportation System Capital Improvements Program Update

    Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the City of Roseville 2020 Transportation System Capital Improvements Program Update

    Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the City of Roseville 2020 Transportation System Capital Improvements Program Update Public Works State Clearinghouse No. 2006062086 January 2007 Prepared by: 221 Main Street Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 896-5858 Prepared for: 311 Vernon Street Roseville, CA 95678 Contact: Rob Jensen (916) 774-5331 www.roseville.ca.us/pw Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background and Purpose .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Scope of the Subsequent EIR........................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 CEQA Process....................................................................................................................1-2 1.3.1 Environmental Review Process .......................................................................... 1-3 1.3.2 CEQA Compliance for Future Project-Related Approvals............................ 1-4 1.4 City of Roseville Mitigating Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards.......................... 1-4 1.5 Levels of Significance......................................................................................................... 1-5 1.6 Organization of this Draft Subsequent EIR................................................................... 1-6 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................
  • BART to Antioch Extension Title VI Equity Analysis & Public

    BART to Antioch Extension Title VI Equity Analysis & Public

    BART to Antioch Extension Title VI Equity Analysis & Public Participation Report October 2017 Prepared by the Office of Civil Rights San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Table of Contents I. BART to Antioch Title VI Equity Analysis Executive Summary 1 Section 1: Introduction 7 Section 2: Project Description 8 Section 3: Methodology 20 Section 4: Service Analysis Findings 30 Section 5: Fare Analysis Findings 39 II. Appendices Appendix A: 2017 BART to Antioch Survey Appendix B: Proposed Service Plan Appendix C: BART Ridership Project Analysis Appendix D: C-Line Vehicle Loading Analysis III. BART to Antioch Public Participation Report i ii BART to Antioch Title VI Equity Analysis and Public Participation Report Executive Summary In October 2011, staff completed a Title VI Analysis for Antioch Station (formerly known as Hillcrest Avenue Station). A Title VI/Environmental Justice analysis was conducted on the Pittsburg Center Station on March 19, 2015. Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI Circular (Circular) 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (October 1, 2012), the District is required to conduct a Title VI Service and Fare Equity Analysis (Title VI Equity Analysis) for the Project's proposed service and fare plan six months prior to revenue service. Accordingly, staff completed an updated Title VI Equity Analysis for the BART to Antioch (Project) service and fare plan, which evaluates whether the Project’s proposed service and fare will have a disparate impact on minority populations or a disproportionate burden on low-income populations based on the District’s Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Policy (DI/DB Policy) adopted by the Board on July 11, 2013 and FTA approved Title VI service and fare methodologies.
  • Text Text Text Text Text Text Text Text Text Text Text

    Text Text Text Text Text Text Text Text Text Text Text

    CHAPTER 7: CIRCULATION CHAPTER 7 CIRCULATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 7.0-1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 7.0-1 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements ................................................................. 7.0-1 Issues and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 7.0-2 Local and Regional Requirements................................................................................... 7.0-2 Pinole’s Existing Circulation System ................................................................................ 7.0-3 Bicycling Facilities and Programs .......................................................................................... 7.0-4 Pedestrian Systems .............................................................................................................. 7.0-7 Other Transportation Systems .............................................................................................. 7.0-7 Airports............................................................................................................................ 7.0-7 Parking ............................................................................................................................ 7.0-7 Existing Transportation Programs ........................................................................................