DOCSLIB.ORG

Fy19-20 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Allocation Award List

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Caltrans-Division of Rail and Mass Transportation FY19-20 LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM ALLOCATION AWARD LIST Disadvantaged Low 1/2 Mile Low- Community Income Income Buffer Total Project Project Benefit Benefit Benefit Request SB 1119 District Project ID Lead Agency: Project Name: Type: Project Description (Short): FY19-20 City of Arcata (Arcata Mad River Transit To allow Free Transit to encourage ridership on Arcata Mad River Transit NO YES NO #N/A 1 19-20-D01-001 System) AMRTS Free Fares Operations System $13,339 This project will provide reduced fares and free ticket vouchers to raise Humboldt Transit Reduced Fares and Free awareness of public transportation. This will give riders an opportunity to NO YES NO #N/A 1 19-20-D01-002 Authority Ticket Vouchers Operations try transit at no cost. $303,307 This project provides for the purchase and installation of a solar canopy to cover the bus parking lot. The canopy will provide enough electricity to power four electric buses and the operations facility. The canopy will also shade the lot, reducing the time buses are idling prior to inspection and NO YES NO #N/A 1 19-20-D01-003 Lake Transit Authority Solar Canopy Project Capital start-up. $102,736 The project will provide unlimited free use of Lake Transit Authority bus routes anywhere in Lake, Napa, or Mendocino counties for the following: Free Fares for Community (1) any Mendocino College or Woodland College student displaying a College Students and the valid student identification and (2) any child between the age of 7 and 17 NO YES NO #N/A 1 19-20-D01-004 Lake Transit Authority Summer Cruisin' Program Operations between June 15 and August 31 (known as the Summer Cruisin' Program) $23,351 RCTA will use LCTOP funding in a three-year bus electrification project, planning an installing an electric recharge facility and augmenting an FTA bus grant to purchase an electric powered vehicle. LCTOP funds will be Redwood Coast Transit Electric Bus Infrastructure used to purchase a single overnight bus charge station ('19-'20) and pay for NO YES NO #N/A 1 19-20-D01-005 Authority Project Capital the costs of upgrading a new bus from gas to electric power ('20-'21). $52,066 Completion of project to purchase two zero-emission Mendocino Transit electric buses to replace old MTA is going to replace two old gas-powered buses with zero-emission NO YES NO #N/A 1 19-20-D01-006 Authority gas-powered buses. Capital buses. $176,103 Trinity County Looking forward to the Innovative Clean Transit goals, accrue 4 years of Department of LCTOP funding towards a zero-emissions van or small bus to replace NO YES NO Yes 2 19-20-D02-007 Transportation Trinity Transit ZEB Vehicle Capital current gas small bus. $26,137 Siskiyou Transit and The proposed project includes upgrades to 50 bus stops including but not General Express Bus Stop limited to 12 Semmi Seats, One Full Size Bus Stops, Bus Schedule NO YES NO #N/A 2 19-20-D02-008 County of Siskiyou Enhancement Project Capital Holders, and ADA Concrete Work. $84,191 CALTRANS-DIVISION OF RAIL AND MASS TRANSPORTATION 1 Caltrans-Division of Rail and Mass Transportation FY19-20 LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM ALLOCATION AWARD LIST Disadvantaged Low 1/2 Mile Low- Community Income Income Buffer Total Project Project Benefit Benefit Benefit Request SB 1119 District Project ID Lead Agency: Project Name: Type: Project Description (Short): FY19-20 ShastaConnect Sunday On- Expansion of the ShastaConnect Sunday On-Demand Transit service area Shasta Regional Demand Transit Service to include the cities of Anderson and Shasta Lake, additional areas in the NO YES NO #N/A 2 19-20-D02-009 Transportation Agency Expansion Project Operations city of Redding, and some nearby unincorporated county areas. $135,848 ShastaConnect CTSA Rider Shasta Regional Eligibility Expansion Expansion of rider eligibility for ShastaConnect Monday-Friday CTSA NO YES NO #N/A 2 19-20-D02-010 Transportation Agency Project Operations service. $191,144 Zero-Emissions Vehicle Redding Area Bus Charging Infrastructure Upgrade the existing electrical infrastructure at the maintenance facility in NO YES NO #N/A 2 19-20-D02-011 Authority Project Capital order to accommodate zero-emission bus purchases $21,321 Plumas Transit Systems - Plumas County West Portola Bus Shelter Purchase and construct one (2) solar illuminated bus shelters for a transit Transportation and Replacement Bus stop located in the west side of the incorporated city of Portola and in the NO YES NO #N/A 2 19-20-D02-012 Commission Shelter in Quincy Capital community of Quincy. $38,973 Purchase, construct, and install bus stop enhancements including but not Lassen County limited to benches, shelters, trash cans, solar lighting, bus shelter concrete Transportation Lassen County Bus Stop pads, sidewalks, and curb gutters at stops and park and ride facilities NO YES NO #N/A 2 19-20-D02-013 Commission Improvements Capital within the County of Lassen. $57,266 Tehama County Transit Agency Board/ Continuation of an interregional transit route, the Tri-County Route, Transportation Interregional Transit Route expanding existing TRAX services to connect the County of Tehama with NO YES NO #N/A 2 19-20-D02-014 Commission Operations Operations Glenn and Butte. This route expands rural regional connectivity. $139,189 1 Electric bus to replace gas operated bus that has reached the end of its NO YES NO #N/A 3 19-20-D03-015 City of Auburn Auburn Transit Electric Bus Capital useful life in accordance with Short Range Transit Plan. $63,570 Zero-emission electric bus BCAG is replacing one CNG bus with one zero-emission electric bus and Butte County and installation of applicable equipment/charging infrastructure to begin the transition to an Association of equipment and charging all-electric fleet. This project is a continuation of the 18-19-D03-018 YES YES YES #N/A 3 19-20-D03-016 Governments infrastructure Capital LCTOP project. $437,431 CALTRANS-DIVISION OF RAIL AND MASS TRANSPORTATION 2 Caltrans-Division of Rail and Mass Transportation FY19-20 LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM ALLOCATION AWARD LIST Disadvantaged Low 1/2 Mile Low- Community Income Income Buffer Total Project Project Benefit Benefit Benefit Request SB 1119 District Project ID Lead Agency: Project Name: Type: Project Description (Short): FY19-20 Colusa County Transit Offer Free Fare Days to all patrons on all routes we offer to help reduce NO YES NO #N/A 3 19-20-D03-017 Agency Free Fare Day Operations greenhouse emissions. $41,819 Unitrans Electric Bus Purchase six electric-propulsion buses to replace existing fixed route NO YES NO #N/A 3 19-20-D03-018 ASUCD-Unitrans Purchase Capital transit buses that have surpassed their useful lives. $170,429 Nevada County Department of Public Works, Transit Services Nevada County Transit Free Fare incentive program offering increased opportunities to utilize the NO YES NO #N/A 3 19-20-D03-019 Division Fare Program Operations public transit system. $80,000 Truckee TART Regional Provide employee and general public transit service between Truckee, NO NO NO #N/A 3 19-20-D03-020 Town of Truckee Night Service Operations eastern Placer County, and local area resorts. $110,821 The South Placer County Transit Project will provide bus service between the city of Lincoln and the Watt/I-80 light rail station. The new bus service Placer County will begin in Lincoln before continuing along the Highway 65 corridor Transportation Planning South Placer County Transit with stops at the Galleria Mall, Sutter Hospital and Kaiser Hospital. The YES YES NO #N/A 3 19-20-D03-021 Agency Project Operations bus will then travel on Interstate 80 to the Watt/I-80 light rail station. $588,848 Zero Emission Construction of Electric Infrastructure that would support zero emission Infrastructure for Elk bus fleet, to begin implementation of California Air Resources Board's YES YES YES #N/A 3 19-20-D03-023 City of Elk Grove Grove's Transit System Capital (CARB) Innovative Clean Transit Regulation Plan. $183,498 On September 8, 2019 Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) implement is new SacRT Forward service improvements which included increasing Route 11 days of operation, frequency during both midday and Sacramento Regional Operating Assistance for peak hour and extending the route south from downtown to City College YES YES YES #N/A 3 19-20-D03-024 Transit District expanded Route 11 Service Operations Light Rail Station. $574,544 On September 8, 2019 Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) implement is new SacRT Forward service improvements which included Sacramento Regional increasing Route 13 days of operation, frequency and service area YES YES YES #N/A 3 19-20-D03-025 Transit District Expanded Route 13 Service Operations extending north and west in to Natomas. $732,325 CALTRANS-DIVISION OF RAIL AND MASS TRANSPORTATION 3 Caltrans-Division of Rail and Mass Transportation FY19-20 LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM ALLOCATION AWARD LIST Disadvantaged Low 1/2 Mile Low- Community Income Income Buffer Total Project Project Benefit Benefit Benefit Request SB 1119 District Project ID Lead Agency: Project Name: Type: Project Description (Short): FY19-20 On September 8, 2019 Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) implement is new SacRT Forward service improvements which included Sacramento Regional increasing Route 68 frequency during pm peak and on Saturday to 30 YES YES YES #N/A 3 19-20-D03-026 Transit District Expanded Route 68 Service Operations minutes and route improvements to connect to major trip generators. $1,059,629 Expanding service on light rail segment between Sunrise and Historic Expanded Evening Light Folsom stations accommodating mobility needs of those traveling to and Sacramento Regional Rail Service Sunrise to from locations along the impacted segment while mitigating regional NO NO NO #N/A 3 19-20-D03-027 Transit District Folsom Stations- Year 3 Operations traffic and air quality impacts.
Recommended publications
  • Transit Information Rockridge Station Oakland

    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.
  • Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan

    Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan

    Lake Country Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan Energy Use Reduction, Capital Expenditure, Funding and Management/Training Plan December 2015 Prepared by ICF International 620 Folsom St, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94107 415.677.7100 Lake Country Transit Energy Use Reduction Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 Energy Use Reduction Plan ............................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Facility ......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Review of Existing Facility and Operations .................................................................................6 1.2.2 Facility, Operations and Maintenance Strategies .......................................................................7 1.3 Vehicle Fleet and Alternative Fuels .......................................................................................... 16 1.3.1 Review of Fleet Operations ...................................................................................................... 16 1.3.2 Alternative Fuel Options .........................................................................................................
  • Makerere University Annual Report 2016

    Makerere University Annual Report 2016

    MAKERERE UNIVERSITY ANNUAL REPORT 2016 VISION To be the leading institution for academic excellence and innovations in Africa MISSION To provide innovative teaching, learning, research and services responsive to national and global needs. CORE VALUES 1. Allegiance to the institution. 2. Integrity. 3. Customer responsiveness. 4. Professionalism. 5. Openness to diversity. A Publication of the Planning and Development Department Makerere Universsity P.O Box 7062, Kampala Website: www.mak.ac.ug / http://pdd.mak.ac.ug 2 MESSAGE FROM CHAIRPERSON OF COUNCIL n behalf of Makerere University Council, I congratulate the Vice Chancellor and the Management team, all staff and students upon the achievements realized in Othe Year 2016. My special appreciation goes to Members of Makerere University Council for the commitment and teamwork in steering this institution. The University Council has continued to provide strategic oversight aligned to the University Vision - To be the leading institution of academic excellence and innovations in Africa. The University Council warmly welcomed Professor Ezra Suruma who was installed as Chancellor of Makerere University on 18th January 2016. Professor Suruma succeeded, Professor George Mondo Kagonyera who successfully completed his eight (8) year term of service as Chancellor. Prof. Ezra Suruma, is a renowned scholar of Economics and Management. I look forward to his dedicated service to this great institution. Taking stock of the year 2016, Makerere University Council received and considered business from the relevant Committees and other University organs. Council deliberations underscore the core functions of the University whose key highlights include: A major restructuring of Academic programmes undertaken in response to the national development needs.
  • Woodland Transit Study

    Woodland Transit Study

    Woodland Transit Study Prepared for the Yolo County Transportation District Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Woodland Transit Study Prepared for the Yolo County Transportation District 350 Industrial Way Woodland, CA 95776 530 402-2819 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 5875 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C Tahoe City, California 96145 530 583-4053 April 27, 2016 LSC #157020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1 Introduction and Key Study Issues ............................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 Study Issues ................................................................................................................ 1 2 Existing Community Conditions .................................................................................... 3 Geography of Yolo County .......................................................................................... 3 Demographics ............................................................................................................. 3 Economy ................................................................................................................... 13 3 Review of Existing Transit Services ............................................................................ 19 Yolo County Transportation District ........................................................................... 19 Existing Woodland
  • Ventura/Lompoc Smart Card Demonstration Evaluation: Final Report Volume 1 Technical Performance, User Response, and Institutional Analysis Genevieve Giuliano, James E

    Ventura/Lompoc Smart Card Demonstration Evaluation: Final Report Volume 1 Technical Performance, User Response, and Institutional Analysis Genevieve Giuliano, James E

    CALIFORNIA PATH PROGRAM INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Ventura/Lompoc Smart Card Demonstration Evaluation: Final Report Volume 1 Technical Performance, User Response, and Institutional Analysis Genevieve Giuliano, James E. Moore II, Jacqueline Golob California PATH Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-99-30 This work was performed as part of the California PATH Program of the University of California, in cooperation with the State of California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation; and the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Report for RTA 65V313-7 August 1999 ISSN 1055-1425 CALIFORNIA PARTNERS FOR ADVANCED TRANSIT AND HIGHWAYS Ventura/Lompoc Smart Card Demonstration Evaluation: Final Report Volume 1 Technical Performance, User Response, and Institutional Analysis Genevieve Giuliano, James E. Moore II, Jacqueline Golob Research Report MOU RTA 65V313-7 July 1999 DISCLAIMER This work was performed as part of the California PATH Program of the University of California, in cooperation with the State of California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation; and the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California.
  • Intelligent Transportation Systems: Helping Public Transit Support Welfare to Work Initiatives

    Intelligent Transportation Systems: Helping Public Transit Support Welfare to Work Initiatives

    INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS: HELPING PUBLIC TRANSIT SUPPORT WELFARE TO WORK INITIATIVES Jill A. Hough* Crystal Bahe Mary Lou Murphy Jennifer Swenson Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute North Dakota State University P.O. Box 5074 Fargo, ND 58105 701.231.7767 www.ugpti.org May 2002 *Hough is an Associate Research Fellow, Bahe is a Student Research Assistant, Murphy and Swenson are former UGPTI Student Research Assistants that assisted with this study. Acknowledgments The report has been prepared with funds provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through the Intelligent Transportation System Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) and by the Mountain Plains Consortium (MPC). The MPC receives funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Other MPC member universities include North Dakota State University, Colorado State University, University of Wyoming, and Utah State University. The authors would like to thank Bridgewater State College and the Community Transportation Association of America for providing mailing lists. Thanks are extended to the many transit operators that completed the questionnaires. Thank you to Laurel Benson for assistance with the data entry. Thanks also are extended to Kiel Ova and Matthew Martimo for technical assistance in the follow-up Web-based survey. Thank you to Paul Colton of the Metropolitan Council in St. Paul, Minn., for hosting the site visit to Metro. Finally, thank you to Ayman Smadi for his helpful suggestions. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the author, who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, and the Federal Transit Administration, in the interest of information exchange.
  • Alameda Countywide Transportation Model

    Alameda Countywide Transportation Model

    ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL PLAN BAY AREA 2040 UPDATE Draft Documentation Report January, 2019 Alameda Countywide Travel Model Project #: 19752 January 10, 2019 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Alameda Countywide Transportation Model .......................................................................... i Plan Bay Area 2040 Update.................................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. v Summary ................................................................................................................................. vii Key Features ......................................................................................................................................................... vii Key Updates .......................................................................................................................................................... ix Selected Consistency Results ............................................................................................................................
  • COVER-FINAL PBA Project List.Indd

    COVER-FINAL PBA Project List.Indd

    Strategy for a Sustainable Region July 2013 Association of Bay Area Governments Metropolitan Final Plan Bay Area Transportation Commission Project List Metropolitan Association of Transportation Bay Area Commission Governments Representatives From Cities Amy Rein Worth, Chair Supervisor Mark Luce, In Each County Cities of Contra Costa County County of Napa President Mayor Bill Harrison, Dave Cortese, Vice Chair City of Fremont Santa Clara County Mayor Julie Pierce, Alameda City of Clayton Alicia C. Aguirre Vice President Mayor Tim Sbranti, Cities of San Mateo County City of Dublin Tom Azumbrado Alameda U.S. Department of Housing Representatives Mayor Julie Pierce, and Urban Development From Each County City of Clayton Tom Bates Contra Costa Supervisor Richard Valle Cities of Alameda County Councilmember Dave Hudson, Alameda David Campos City of San Ramon Supervisor Scott Haggerty City and County of San Francisco Contra Costa Alameda Bill Dodd Mayor Pat Eklund, Supervisor Karen Mitchoff Napa County and Cities City of Novato Contra Costa Marin Dorene M. Giacopini Supervisor John Gioia U.S. Department of Transportation Mayor Leon Garcia, Contra Costa City of American Canyon Federal D. Glover Supervisor Katie Rice Napa Contra Costa County Marin Mayor Edwin Lee Scott Haggerty Supervisor Mark Luce City And County of San Francisco Alameda County Napa Jason Elliott, Director, Legislative/ Anne W. Halsted Supervisor Eric Mar Government Affairs, Office of the Mayor San Francisco Bay Conservation San Francisco City And County of San Francisco and
  • City of Menlo Park TDM Existing Conditions

    City of Menlo Park TDM Existing Conditions

    City of Menlo Park TMA Options Analysis Study: Existing Conditions ___ Client: City of Menlo Park January 2020 Our ref: 23642101 Content 3 Introduction 4 Existing Travel Options 4 Rail and Transit 5 Public and Private Shuttles 6 Existing TDM Programming 8 Travel Patterns 9 Northern Menlo Park 10 Central Menlo Park 11 Downtown Menlo Park 12 Southern Menlo Park 13 Stakeholder Outreach 13 Interviews 16 Small Business Drop Ins 18 Employee Survey 22 Conclusions 23 Next Steps 2 | January 2020 City of Menlo Park: TDM Existing Conditions Introduction TMA Options Analysis for Menlo Park Menlo Park Focus Area Zones The four zones include: The City of Menlo Park has commissioned an Options This Existing Conditions Report (and subsequent 1. Northern Menlo Park (including Bohannon Dr. Analysis for establishing a Transportation reports and analyses) focuses on four areas or area) Management Association (TMA). “zones” within the City of Menlo Park. Each zone 2. Central Menlo Park faces unique challenges due to both its location and As has been seen across Silicon Valley and generally the specific land uses and industry housed within it. 3. Downtown Menlo Park the Bay Area, recent years have brought an increase 4. Southern Menlo Park (including SLAC area) in congestion in the City of Menlo Park. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has Figure 1: Map of Menlo Park Zone Analysis been utilized for years to curb congestion by encouraging non single-occupancy vehicle travel across worksites, cities and counties in the Bay Area and beyond. As TDM is implemented in Menlo Park at a variety of levels, the City hopes that a TMA may help to better coordinate the efforts between public and private entities in the city, and potentially region-wide.
  • The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan Promotes a More Efficient

    The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan Promotes a More Efficient

    CHAPTER 5 STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS – VERSION 5 CHAPTER 5 STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS INTRODUCTION This chapter sets forth plans of action for the region to pursue and meet identified transportation needs and issues. Planned investments are consistent with the goals and policies of the plan, the Sustainable Community Strategy element (see chapter 4) and must be financially constrained. These projects are listed in the Constrained Program of Projects (Table 5-1) and are modeled in the Air Quality Conformity Analysis. The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan promotes Forecast modeling methods in this Regional Transportation a more efficient transportation Plan primarily use the “market-based approach” based on demographic data and economic trends (see chapter 3). The system that calls for fully forecast modeling was used to analyze the strategic funding alternative investments in the combined action elements found in this transportation modes, while chapter.. emphasizing transportation demand and transporation Alternative scenarios are not addressed in this document; they are, however, addressed and analyzed for their system management feasibility and impacts in the Environmental Impact Report approaches for new highway prepared for the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan, as capacity. required by the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(f) and 15126.6(a)). From this point, the alternatives have been predetermined and projects that would deliver the most benefit were selected. The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan promotes a more efficient transportation system that calls for fully funding alternative transportation modes, while emphasizing transportation demand and transporation system management approaches for new highway capacity. The Constrained Program of Projects (Table 5-1) includes projects that move the region toward a financially constrained and balanced system.
  • December 8, 2020 the Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor, State Of

    December 8, 2020 the Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor, State Of

    December 8, 2020 The Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor, State of California State Capitol, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Governor Newsom: Bay Area transit systems continue to struggle in the face of dramatically reduced ridership and revenues due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This challenge was already the most significant crisis in the history of public transportation, and now it has persisted far longer than any of us would have predicted. Since the beginning, our workers have been on the front lines, doing their jobs as essential workers, responsible for providing other front line workers with a way to safely travel to and from essential jobs. Now that the availability of a vaccine is on the horizon, we are proud to echo the attached call from the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU). Specifically, we urge you to work to ensure that transit, paratransit, and school transportation workers are prioritized along with other essential workers to receive the vaccine following the critical need to vaccinate the State’s healthcare workers. Even with reduced ridership, an average of 8 million monthly riders continue to depend on Bay Area transit services. These riders are the healthcare workers, grocery clerks, caregivers, emergency services personnel and others doing the critical work that has kept California functioning during the pandemic. They cannot continue to do so without access to reliable public transportation, and are therefore dependent on the health of the transit workers that serve them every day. Our agencies have worked hard to ensure the public health of riders and transit workers during this crisis. We coordinated to develop the Riding Together: Bay Area Healthy Transit Plan, which includes a baseline set of measures aimed at minimizing virus transmission on our systems.
  • Updated Default Values for Transit Dependency and Average Length

    Updated Default Values for Transit Dependency and Average Length

    Updated Default Values for Transit Dependency and Average Length of Unlinked Transit Passenger Trips, for Calculations Using TAC Methods for California Climate Investments Programs Summary Report California Climate Investments Quantification Methods Assessment California Air Resources Board Agreement #16TTD004 Prepared by: Elisa Barbour with Susan Handy, Alissa Kendall and Jamey Volker Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis August 13, 2019 Background Under California’s Cap-and-Trade program, the State’s portion of the proceeds from Cap-and-Trade auctions is deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). The Legislature and Governor enact budget appropriations from the GGRF for State agencies to invest in projects that help achieve the State’s climate goals. These investments are collectively called California Climate Investments. Senate Bill (SB) 862 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop guidance on reporting and quantification methods for all State agencies that receive appropriations from the GGRF. CARB may review and update quantification methods, as needed. CARB has developed quantification methods to provide project-level greenhouse gas (GHG) and co-benefit estimates for administering agencies to use when selecting projects for funding from California Climate Investments programs. To measure GHG emission reductions from transportation projects, CARB relies on a method it published with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in 2005 for evaluating motor vehicle fee registration projects and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement (CMAQ) projects, specifically transit and connectivity (TAC) features.1 This report addresses whether and how CARB might update two adjustment factors in the TAC methods that apply to transit facility and/or service expansion projects.