DOCSLIB.ORG

San Mateo County Transit District Final Report | November 2017 Photo By: Staticflicker.Com

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Mateo County Transit District Final Report | November 2017 Photo By: Staticflicker.Com San Mateo County Transit District Final Report | November 2017 Photo By: Staticflicker.com Photo By: Clui.org ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) AC Transit Board of Directors: Nathan Landau Rose Guilbault (Chair) Charles Stone (Vice Chair) CDM Smith Jeff Gee Camille Tsao Carole Groom Bill Hurrell Zoe Kersteen-Tucker Justin Fox Karyl Matsumoto Claudia Lea Dave Pine Fabian Gallardo Josh Powell Peter Martin Peter Ratto Paula Hirsch Executive Team: Juan Ramirez Jim Hartnett, Chief Executive Officer April Chan, Executive Officer, Planning & WSP (formerly Parsons Brinckerhoff) Development Danny Wu Seamus Murphy, Chief Communications Bryce Little Officer Alistair Sawers Nicholas Amrhein Project Team Auden Kaehler Caitlin Ghoshal Melissa Reggiardo Kyra Tao Doug Kim Matthew Woodhouse David Pape John Lowery Daniel Shockley William Hwang Brent Tietjen Bryce Little Lori Low Hilda Lafebre Fehr & Peers Joe Hurley Jerry Walters Pam Kwan Ian Barnes Lindsey Kiner Kara Vuicich Matt Verhoff Jennifer Ziebarth Chiachi Chen Arup Facebook (Funding Partner) Aidan Hughes Lewis Knight Tony Bruzzone Kevin Mathy Megan Gee Alameda County Transportation Commission HDR Engineering Matthew Bomberg Cathy LaFata Wayne Short Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Need and Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2 Existing and Future Conditions ............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.3 Alternatives Development ....................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.4 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates ............................................................................................ 1-11 1.5 Travel Forecasting .................................................................................................................................... 1-12 1.6 Comparative Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 1-16 1.7 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 1-17 1.8 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 1-19 1.9 Financing Options ..................................................................................................................................... 1-22 1.10 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-24 2 Introduction and Background ........................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study .................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Previous Dumbarton Corridor Studies .............................................................................................. 2-3 2.3.1 Previous Rail Studies ........................................................................................................................ 2-3 2.3.2 Facebook-Led Studies ...................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.4 Feasibility Study Process ......................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.4.1 Stakeholder and Public Outreach ................................................................................................ 2-8 2.5 Report Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 2-10 3 Need and Purpose ......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Need for Transportation Improvements ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Jobs-Housing Imbalance .................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.2 Lack of Regional Transportation Connectivity and Limited Transbay Travel Options.........................................................................................................................................................................3-3 3.2.3 Roadway Congestion and Lengthy Travel Times for Local and Transbay Commuters ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-5 3.3 Purpose of Transportation Improvements ...................................................................................... 3-8 3.3.1 Enhance Mobility for Local and Regional Travelers ........................................................... 3-8 3.3.2 Cost-Effective Improvements with a Return on Investment ........................................... 3-9 3.3.3 Manage and Minimize Environmental Impacts and Financial Risk, and Maximize Safety……………………………. .................................................................................................................................. 3-9 3.3.4 Ensure Local Communities are Protected from Adverse Impacts .............................. 3-10 4 Existing and Future Conditions ...................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Transportation Infrastructure ............................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Transportation System Performance ................................................................................................. 4-3 4.2.1 Rail System and Service ................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Other Transit Systems and Services......................................................................................... 4-11 4.2.3 Roadways............................................................................................................................................. 4-21 4.2.4 Highways ............................................................................................................................................. 4-25 i Table of Contents 4.3 Current Demographic Analysis ........................................................................................................... 4-36 4.3.1 Ethnicity .............................................................................................................................................. 4-36 4.3.2 Low-Income ....................................................................................................................................... 4-36 4.3.3 Population Density .......................................................................................................................... 4-38 4.3.4 Employment Density ...................................................................................................................... 4-41 4.3.5 Single-Car Household .................................................................................................................... 4-42 4.4 Travel Market Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 4-44 4.4.1 Sources of Dumbarton Traffic .................................................................................................... 4-47 4.4.2 Composition of Dumbarton Traffic .......................................................................................... 4-50 4.4.3 Potential for Increased Transit Share ..................................................................................... 4-52 5 Initial Improvement Options ......................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 No Build Alternative ................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Short-Term Highway Bridge and Approach Improvements ..................................................... 5-1 5.3.1 Short-Term East Bay Bridge Approach Improvements ..................................................... 5-1 5.3.2 Short-Term Peninsula Bridge Approach Improvements ................................................... 5-2 5.3.3 Short-Term Transit Service Improvements ............................................................................ 5-2 5.3.4 Short-Term Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements ............................................................ 5-3 5.3.5 Other Short-Term Enhancements ..............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AGENDA BOARD of DIRECTORS MEETING SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Bacciocco Auditorium, 2Nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070
    BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2020 DON HORSLEY, CHAIR EMILY BEACH, VICE CHAIR CAROLE GROOM JULIA MATES KARYL MATSUMOTO RICO E. MEDINA CARLOS ROMERO JIM HARTNETT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AGENDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070 January 9, 2020 – Thursday 5:00 pm 1) Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance 2) Swearing-in: a) Don Horsley (Board of Supervisors Representative) b) Emily Beach (Cities-at-Large Representative) c) Rico Medina (Northern Cities Representative) 3) Roll Call 4) Election of 2020 Officers MOTION 5) Public Comment For Items Not on the Agenda Public comment by each individual speaker shall be limited two (2) minutes. Items raised that require a response will be deferred for staff reply. 6) Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee 7) Consent Calendar Members of the Board may request that an item under the Consent Calendar be considered separately a) Approval of Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting of MOTION December 5, 2019 b) Acceptance of Statement of Revenues and Expenses for MOTION November 2019 8) Report of the Chair 9) San Mateo County Transit District Liaison Report 10) Joint Powers Board Liaison Report Note: All items appearing on the agenda are subject to action by the Board. Staff recommendations are subject to change by the Board. Page 1 of 3 San Mateo County Transportation Authority Meeting Agenda for January 9, 2020 11) Report of the Executive Director 12) Program a) Adoption of 2020 Legislative Program MOTION b)
    [Show full text]
  • AC Transit Director Elsa Ortiz Planning Committee
    Meeting Notice Commission Chair Councilmember At-Large Rebecca Kaplan, City of Oakland Commission Vice Chair Paratransit Advisory and Mayor Bill Harrison, City of Fremont AC Transit Director Elsa Ortiz Planning Committee Alameda County Monday, September 26, 2016, 1:30 p.m. Supervisor Scott Haggerty, District 1 Supervisor Richard Valle, District 2 Supervisor Wilma Chan, District 3 1111 Broadway, Suite 800 Supervisor Nate Miley, District 4 Supervisor Keith Carson, District 5 Oakland, CA 94607 BART Director Rebecca Saltzman City of Alameda Note that the Monday, September 26, 2016 PAPCO Mayor Trish Spencer City of Albany meeting is from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. The meeting will now Mayor Peter Maass start 30 minutes later than usual. Please plan your City of Berkeley Councilmember Laurie Capitelli transportation accordingly. City of Dublin Mayor David Haubert City of Emeryville Mission Statement Councilmember Ruth Atkin The mission of the Alameda County Transportation Commission City of Hayward Mayor Barbara Halliday (Alameda CTC) is to plan, fund and deliver transportation programs and City of Livermore projects that expand access and improve mobility to foster a vibrant Mayor John Marchand and livable Alameda County. City of Newark Councilmember Luis Freitas City of Oakland Public Comments Councilmember Dan Kalb City of Piedmont Public comments are limited to 3 minutes. Items not on the agenda are Acting Mayor Jeff Wieler covered during the Public Comment section of the meeting, and items City of Pleasanton specific to an agenda item are covered during that agenda item Mayor Jerry Thorne discussion. If you wish to make a comment, fill out a speaker card, hand City of San Leandro Mayor Pauline Cutter it to the clerk of the Commission, and wait until the chair calls your City of Union City name.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Information Rockridge Station Oakland
    B I R C H C T Transit N Transit Information For more detailed information about BART W E service, please see the BART schedule, BART system map, and other BART information displays in this station. S Claremont Middle Stops OAK GROVE AVE K Rockridge L School San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Schedule Information e ective February 11, 2019 Fares e ective May 26, 2018 A Transit (BART) rail service connects W 79 Drop-off Station the San Francisco Peninsula with See schedules posted throughout this station, or pick These prices include a 50¢ sur- 51B Drop-off 79 Map Key Oakland, Berkeley, Fremont, up a free schedule guide at a BART information kiosk. charge per trip for using magnetic E A quick reference guide to service hours from this stripe tickets. Riders using (Leave bus here to Walnut Creek, Dublin/Pleasanton, and T transfer to 51A) other cities in the East Bay, as well as San station is shown. Clipper® can avoid this surcharge. You Are Here Francisco International Airport (SFO) and U Oakland Oakland International Airport (OAK). Departing from Rockridge Station From Rockridge to: N (stations listed in alphabetical order) 3-Minute Walk 500ft/150m Weekday Saturday Sunday I M I L E S A V E Train Destination Station One Way Round Trip Radius First Last First Last First Last Fare Information e ective January 1, 2016 12th St. Oakland City Center 2.50 5.00 M H I G H W AY 2 4 511 Real-Time Departures Antioch 5:48a 12:49a 6:19a 12:49a 8:29a 12:49a 16th St.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Crossings Study Recommendation Summary
    RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY San Fran c isco Bay July 2002 -----=~Jro:;~~~~ ~ ___________________Crossings Study After more than a year of careful study, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is preparing final recommendations for a strategy to not only ease the congestion plaguing various routes across San Froncisco Bay but to help deal with a projected 40 percent increase in transbay travel by 2025. Responding to a request by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein that a 1991 study be updated, MTC launched the San Francisco Bay Crossings Study in late 2000 and began analyzing the costs, travel impacts and environmental issues associated with a long list of options for three primary trans bay corridors: San Francisco-Oakland, San Mateo-Hayward and the Dumbarton Bridge corridors. Study Team Tackles Tough Questions The Bay Crossings Study team, which includes staff from MTC While the policy committee's draft recommendations focus on and other agencies, is led by a 13-member policy committee lower-cost improvements that could start going into place with­ (see box on page 6). The team's mission was to balance limit­ in months - and could be paid for with existing funds or a pos­ ed funds with the growing need for congestion relief on the sible $1 increase in tolls on state-owned toll bridges - it also three existing bridges and in BART's transbay tube. This raised recommends further investigation of a new mid-Bay bridge and a series of critical questions: Should we build a new crossing other big-ticket projects that could take many years to complete or try to move more people through existing corridors? Should and for which no funding sources have yet been identified.
    [Show full text]
  • California Highways & Public Works, May-June 1962
    P ~Jmited States of America PgtOCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 07th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 108 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, 1dIAY 21, 1962 1Vo, g0 A~~' en~Zx tragic to our economy and to our etFOrts to Fourth, ovr State highway commission is The California Highway Program remain apace with our population increases composed of dedicated and intelligent men if this. total highway construction program who are appointed for overlapping terms, in were seriouslq curtailed for any reason. order to provide continuity, and they are EXTENSION OF REMARKS Second. I want to say thaw I am convinced required by law to take a statewide and not os California's Department of Public Works and a sectional viewpoint. State law spells out Division of Highways cooperate fully, com- in detail the procedure to be fflllowed by HON. GEORGE P. MILLER pleCely, and in honesty with the T7.S. Bureau the State highway commission, including OF CALIf'ORNIA of Public Roads. The regional office of the the requirement that public hearings be held Bureau of Public Roads Yor certain Western IN THE HOIISE OF REPRESENTATIVES on a rather heavy schedule. I have insisted, States is In Ban FYancisco anfl the State office as Governor Snight and Governor Warren Tuesday, M¢y 8, 1962 of the Bureau o1 Public Roads is right here insisted, that members of the highway com- in Sacramento where there is daily contact Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER. Mr. mission be nonpartisan in their conduct o1 between the California highway people and highway policy matters. Our commission is Speaker,from time to time, from various the Federal highway people.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Calmod Local Policy Maker Group (LPMG) Agenda
    CalMod Local Policy Maker Group (LPMG) Thursday, September 25, 2014 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM SamTrans Offices ‐ Bacciocco Auditorium 2nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Ave., San Carlos Agenda 1. JPB Staff Report 2. Information/Discussion a. EMU Procurement – (Attachment A) b. CBOSS PTC Program Update – (Attachment B) 3. Public Comments 4. LMPG Member Comments/Requests 5. Next Meeting E‐Update: October 23, 2014 In‐person: November 20, 2014 at 6:00pm Memorandum Date: September 25, 2014 To: CalMod Local Policy Maker Group (LPMG) From: Marian Lee, CalMod Executive Officer Re: Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Procurement Process _________________________________________________ At the August JPB meeting, CalMod staff provided an update on the Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) procurement process and shared information learned from the Request for Information (RFI) meetings, which were completed in June. The LPMG will receive a similar presentation, which is attached. The RFI is a critical step in the procurement process and provides up-to-date information about the EMU industry. With this information, staff can begin to more clearly understand the availability of “off-the-shelf” EMUs that can be best utilized for electrified Caltrain service. There are two phases of public outreach related to the design of the EMUs. The first phase, which kicked-off at the August Board meeting, involves soliciting input on key structural and capacity elements such as bathrooms, seats and standees, and bike capacity. Public feedback during the Phase I outreach will be coupled with technical analysis to inform staff recommendations to the Board for the EMU Request for Proposal, scheduled to be released in early 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Inner Harbor Specific Plan and Harbor View Project Draft
    4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning 4.9 Land Use and Planning This section addresses the physical aspects of land use and the regulatory planning framework that guides future development under the Inner Harbor Specific Plan Area (“Plan Area”) and, at a project level, the Harbor View project. The discussion focuses on the land use and planning implications of adoption of and development under both the Plan and the project. Presented is a summary of existing land uses in and around the Plan Area and project site, a list of applicable City of Redwood City General Plan land use policies, and an assessment of any conflicts of the proposed Specific Plan and the Harbor View project with the adopted General Plan and other applicable plans and policies pertaining to physical land use and planning consideration factors. 4.9.1 Environmental Setting The following description of existing land use conditions of the Plan Area and the Harbor View project summarize and in some cases elaborates on that which is presented in sections 3.2 and 3.6.1, respectively, in Chapter 3 (Project Description) of this EIR. Regional and Local Setting and Boundaries The City of Redwood City is located in eastern San Mateo County, adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, as show in Figure 3-1 (in Chapter 3, Project Description). Redwood City sits along Highway 101, approximately five miles west of the cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto.1 . Specific Plan Area The Specific Plan Area contains approximately 99.7 acres located on the San Francisco Bay side of Highway 101, which is the southern boundary of the Plan Area.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ACT BART S Ites by Region.Csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7
    Services Transit Outreach Materials Distribution Light Rail Station Maintenance and Inspection Photography—Capture Metadata and GPS Marketing Follow-Up Programs Service Locations Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/Saint Paul San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area Our Customer Service Pledge Our pledge is to organize and act with precision to provide you with excellent customer service. We will do all this with all the joy that comes with the morning sun! “I slept and dreamed that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy. “Tagore Email: [email protected] Website: URBANMARKETINGCHANNELS.COM Urban Marketing Channel’s services to businesses and organizations in Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco, Oakland and the Twin Cities metro areas since 1981 have allowed us to develop a specialty client base providing marketing outreach with a focus on transit systems. Some examples of our services include: • Neighborhood demographic analysis • Tailored response and mailing lists • Community event monitoring • Transit site management of information display cases and kiosks • Transit center rider alerts • Community notification of construction and route changes • On-Site Surveys • Enhance photo and list data with geocoding • Photographic services Visit our website (www.urbanmarketingchannels.com) Contact us at [email protected] 612-239-5391 Bay Area Transit Sites (includes BART and AC Transit.) Prepared by Urban Marketing Channels ACT BART S ites by Region.csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7 UnSANtit
    [Show full text]
  • SBC Executivesummfac
    CAPITOL CORRIDOR SOUTH BAY CONNECT AUGUST 2020 Purpose Study Area and Project Elements South Bay Connect proposes to relocate the Capitol Corridor passenger rail service between the Oakland N Coliseum and Newark from the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) Niles Subdivision to the Coast Subdivision for a faster, more direct route. It will also create new transbay connections for passengers between the East Bay and Peninsula by connecting to bus and shuttle services at the Ardenwood Station. The project is not proposing an increase in Capitol Corridor service frequency or changes to UP’s freight service, but does not preclude service growth in the future. The relocation will facilitate the separation of passenger and freight rail, resulting in improved rail operations, efficiency, and reliability while minimizing rail congestion within the corridor. Proposed New Station and Railroad Potential Station Area Proposed Capitol Corridor (CC) Service Potential Station Considered and Eliminated Existing CC Service Existing Station CC Service to be Discontinued Station where CC Service Study Area to be Discontinued UP Improvement Area BART Station Benefits Reduce passenger rail travel time between Oakland and San Jose and throughout the larger megaregion to increase ridership on transit, ease congestion on the Bay Area’s stressed roadways, and decrease auto commutes. Diversify and enhance network integration by reducing duplicative capital investments and dif- ferentiating Capitol Corridor’s intercity rail service from commuter rail and other transit services, including BART’s extension to San Jose. Support economic vitality by permitting enhanced rail movement and the preservation of freight rail capacity in the Northern California market through the reduction of existing conflicts between freight rail operations and passenger rail service.
    [Show full text]