DOCSLIB.ORG

California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. The plan: describes California's intercity rail network and connecting bus service. presents Caltrans' ten-year recommendations regarding the level of state-supported service on specific routes, as well as the capital and operational funding needed to support such service. discusses rail planning and marketing, programming, funding processes for operations and capital improvements, freight rail, and potential new service and routes. In reviewing Caltrans' Draft 2006 ten-year plan, the Commission at its!November 2005 meeting advised Caltrans, which Caltrans has included in its final ten-year plan, to: Honorable Alan Lowenthal Honorable Oropeza December 27, 2005 Page2 discuss the benefits of a stable funding source and increased funding to address future capital and operating requirements. discuss the need for a dedicated and reliable funding source to perform the major overhaul oflocomotives and passenger cars and acquisition of new equipment. The Connnission adopted its Advice and Consent resolution (attached) at its November 2005 meeting. (Caltrans is responsible for transmitting the ten-year plan. after it has prepared the plan for publication.) The Connnission appreciates the opportunity to give advice and consent on Caltrans' 2005 IO-year California State Rail Plan. The Connnission intends its advice to be constructive in producing a plan that identifies current and potential future issues for the Administration and the Legislature. The Connnission intends to continue, in cooperation with Caltrans and local agencies, to implement and expand intercity rail service in California. Sincerely, Joseph Tavaglione Chair California Transportation Connnission Attachment adviccandconsent06 transmittaltr.doc PASSED BY CTC \ NOV o 3 2005 CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMtSSION CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Commission Consent to the Department's Ten-Year California State Rail Plan Resolution G-05-11 1.1 WHEREAS, the California Transportation Commission (Commission) is required by Govemmtnt Code Section 14036 to give its advice and consent on the Department of Transportition (Department) 10-year State Rail Plan; and 1.2 WHEREAS, the Department has prepared the 2005 Cal•fornia State Rail Plan for FY 2005-06 through FY 2015-16 in order to provide a comprehensive 10-year plan; and 1.3 WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the California State Rail Plan at its November 2005 meeting; and 1.4 WHEREAS, the Commission advised the Department that the State Rail Plan should include: • a discussion of the benefits of a stable funding source and increased funding to address future capital and operating requirements. • a discussion on the need for a dedicated and reliable funding source to perform the major overhaul of locomotives and passenger cars and acquisition of new equipment. 1.5 WHEREAS, the Department has agreed to incorporate the Commission's advice into its final ten-year report. 2 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission does hereby consent to the information contained in the California State Rail Plan and directs the Department to transmit to the Legislature, the Governor, and the Public Utilities Commission the 10-year State Rail Plan for FY 2005-06 through FY 2015-16. Castaterailplanl 105resolution.doc CALIFORNIA STATE RAIL PLAN 2005-06 TO 2015-16 December 2005 California Department of Transportation 2005-06 – 2015-16 California State Rail Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 1 Introduction................................................................................................... 1 Part I - Passenger Rail Element .................................................................. 3 Chapter - I California’s Vision for Intercity Passenger Rail ................... 5 GoCalifornia ........................................................................................................ 5 The Department’s Mission and Goals.................................................................. 6 Interregional Strategic Planning........................................................................... 6 The Department’s Vision for Intercity Passenger Rail ........................................ 6 Relationship of Department’s Goals to Intercity Passenger Rail......................... 8 Chapter II - Capital Program...................................................................... 9 Capital Program Goals ......................................................................................... 9 Unconstrained Ten-Year Capital Program........................................................... 9 Projected Capital Projects.............................................................................. 10 Projected Capital Projects.............................................................................. 11 Corridor Strategic Planning ........................................................................... 12 Constrained Capital Program ............................................................................. 13 Capital Program Funding ................................................................................... 14 Background.................................................................................................... 14 Outlook .......................................................................................................... 17 Rolling Stock Program....................................................................................... 18 Rolling Stock Fleet ........................................................................................ 18 Rolling Stock Maintenance and Overhaul Program...................................... 18 Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Improvement and Separation Programs ........... 21 Federal Section 1010/1103(c) Railway-Highway Crossing Hazard Elimination in High Speed Rail Corridors Program..................... 21 Federal Section 130 Crossing Improvement Program................................... 21 State Section 190 Grade Separation Program................................................ 23 Station Programs ................................................................................................ 24 Parking Facilities at Intercity Rail Stations ................................................... 24 Decrepit Stations............................................................................................ 25 Chapter III - Operations Program............................................................ 27 Operations Program Goals ................................................................................. 27 Ten-Year Intercity Rail Service Levels and Operations Financial Plan ............ 27 Progress In Meeting Route Objectives .......................................................... 29 Administration and Marketing Costs............................................................. 35 i 2005-06 – 2015-16 California State Rail Plan Table of Contents (continued) Operations Program............................................................................................ 35 Operational Efficiency and Schedule Planning............................................. 35 Passenger Amenities...................................................................................... 36 Connecting Amtrak Bus Services.................................................................. 39 Multimodal Connectivity............................................................................... 41 Rail 2 Rail Program ....................................................................................... 42 Airport Access ..............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SFO to San Francisco in 45 Minutes for Only $6.55!* in 30 Minutes for Only $5.35!*
    Fold in to the middle; outside right Back Panel Front Panel Fold in to the middle; outside left OAK to San Francisco SFO to San Francisco in 45 minutes for only $6.55!* in 30 minutes for only $5.35!* BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) from OAK is fast, easy and BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) provides one of the world’s inexpensive too! Just take the convenient AirBART shuttle Visitors Guide best airport-to-downtown train services. BART takes you bus from OAK to BART to catch the train to downtown San downtown in 30 minutes for only $5.35 one-way or $10.70 Francisco. The entire trip takes about 45 minutes and costs round trip. It’s the fast, easy, inexpensive way to get to only $6.55 one-way or $13.10 round trip. to BART San Francisco. The AirBART shuttle departs every 15 minutes from the The BART station is located in the SFO International Terminal. 3rd curb across from the terminals. When you get off the It’s only a five minute walk from Terminal Three and a shuttle at the Coliseum BART station, buy a round trip BART 10 minute walk from Terminal One. Both terminals have ticket from the ticket machine. Take the escalator up to the Powell Street-Plaza Entrance connecting walkways to the International Terminal. You can westbound platform and board a San Francisco or Daly City also take the free SFO Airtrain to the BART station. bound train. The BART trip to San Francisco takes about 20 minutes. Terminal 2 (under renovation) Gates 40 - 48 Gates 60 - 67 Terminal 3 Terminal 1 Gates 68 - 90 Gates 20 - 36 P Domestic Want to learn about great deals on concerts, plays, Parking museums and other activities during your visit? Go to www.mybart.org to learn about fantastic special offers for BART customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Commuter Rail System Study
    TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Commuter Rail System Study Transit Committee March 11, 2010 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Study Purpose Study Requested by MAG Regional Council in 2008 Commuter Rail Study Funding in 2004 RTP Study Feasibility of Commuter Rail Service in MAG Region Ridership Forecasting and Cost Effectiveness Capital and Operating Cost Estimates Vehicle Technology Recommendation Implementation Requirements Copyright © 2009 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Peer Regions ~ Commuter Rail Systems WHAT IS COMMUTER RAIL? Peak Period, Peak Direction Service. Traditionally caries less daily riders than light rail, but for longer distances. Similar market and characteristics with Bus Rapid Transit / Express. SOUNDER-Seattle CALTRAIN-San Francisco ALTAMONT COMMUTER EXPRESS – San Jose Can share ROW and track with freight railroads and can operate concurrently (does not require exclusive right-of-way) . Typically longer station spacing (every 3-7 miles on average) than light rail (1-2 miles) with emphasis on park-and-rides and traditional city CBDs. Locomotive technology (diesel or clean/green hybrid Genset). Passenger coaches (push-pull). Engines and cars meets federally mandated structural requirements for rolling stock crash resistance Larger, heavier profile than light rail vehicles. METROLINK – Los Angeles COASTER – San Diego FRONT RUNNER – Salt Lake City-Ogden Higher max.speed (79mph), slower acceleration and deceleration than light rail. Average speed approx 44mph. Lower capital cost per mile ($10-$20M) due to existing right of way use / reuse. Light
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain Business Plan
    Caltrain Business Plan PROJECT UPDATE – SPRING 2019 What Addresses the future potential of the railroad over the next 20-30 years. It will assess the benefits, impacts, and costs of different What is service visions, building the case for investment and a plan for the Caltrain implementation. Business Plan? Why Allows the community and stakeholders to engage in developing a more certain, achievable, financially feasible future for the railroad based on local, regional, and statewide needs. 2 What Will the Business Plan Cover? Technical Tracks Service Business Case Community Interface Organization • Number of trains • Value from • Benefits and impacts to • Organizational structure • Frequency of service investments (past, surrounding communities of Caltrain including • Number of people present, and future) • Corridor management governance and delivery riding the trains • Infrastructure and strategies and approaches • Infrastructure needs operating costs consensus building • Funding mechanisms to to support different • Potential sources of • Equity considerations support future service service levels revenue 3 Where Are We in the Process? Board Adoption Stanford Partnership and Board Adoption of Board Adoption of of Scope Technical Team Contracting 2040 Service Vision Final Business Plan Initial Scoping Technical Approach Part 1: Service Vision Development Part 2: Business Implementation and Stakeholder Refinement, Partnering, Plan Completion Outreach and Contracting We Are Here 4 Electrification is the Foundation for Growth with Plans for
    [Show full text]
  • JPB Board of Directors Meeting of June 4, 2020 Correspondence As Of
    JPB Board of Directors Meeting of June 4, 2020 Correspondence as of May 21, 2020 # Subject 1 Excessive Idling at San Francisco Caltrain Station 2 Diridon Cooperative Agreement 3 Caltrain Sales Tax 4 BATWG Newsletter – May 2020 5 SSF Virtual Town Hall From: Chad Hedstrom <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 1:51 AM To: Public Comment <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Excessive Idling at San Francisco Caltrain station Observed the 912 San Bruno and 923 Baby Bullet, as well as the 913 (THREE (3) train engines) fast idling (very loudly) at the Caltrain station at 4th and King. I walked the entire perimeter of the yard, was not able to determine that any work was being done on any of the three engines. Last train to leave the station was 9:37pm on Sunday night, was last observed at 1:45am Monday morning, still idling. As I am writing this at nearly 2am all three trains continue to idle in an empty yard, resonating for blocks in every direction. 1. Why are these trains idling more than 60 minutes before departure? 2. Why are these trains not using Wayside power? 3. If wayside power is not available, when will wayside power be restored to San Francisco Station? I would ask that trains continue to use wayside power! Several thousand people are directly impacted by the noise. Caltrain has committed to using wayside power when at the station to reduce idling. Now more than ever citizens of San Francisco are staying at home and having to endure excessive idling not just at night, but during the day as well.
    [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]
  • An Evaluation of Projected Versus Actual Ridership on Los Angeles’ Metro Rail Lines
    AN EVALUATION OF PROJECTED VERSUS ACTUAL RIDERSHIP ON LOS ANGELES’ METRO RAIL LINES A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master In Urban and Regional Planning By Lyle D. Janicek 2019 SIGNATURE PAGE THESIS: AN EVALUATION OF PROJECTED VERSUS ACTUAL RIDERSHIP ON LOS ANGELES’ METRO RAIL LINES AUTHOR: Lyle D. Janicek DATE SUBMITTED: Spring 2019 Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning Dr. Richard W. Willson Thesis Committee Chair Urban and Regional Planning Dr. Dohyung Kim Urban and Regional Planning Dr. Gwen Urey Urban and Regional Planning ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not have been possible without the support of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. I am especially indebted to Dr. Rick Willson, Dr. Dohyung Kim, and Dr. Gwen Urey of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, who have been supportive of my career goals and who worked actively to provide me with educational opportunities to pursue those goals. I am grateful to all of those with whom I have had the pleasure to work during this and other related projects with my time at Cal Poly Pomona. Each of the members of my Thesis Committee has provided me extensive personal and professional guidance and taught me a great deal about both scientific research and life in general. Nobody has been more supportive to me in the pursuit of this project than the members of my family. I would like to thank my parents Larry and Laurie Janicek, whose love and guidance are with me in whatever I pursue.
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison Report
    Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison Report Public Review Draft October 2017 Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison October 2017 Research and Peer Review Research and Peer Review .................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 A Note on TCRP Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Elasticity of Demand for Commuter Rail ............................................................................... 3 Definition ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Commuter Rail Elasticity ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Comparison with Peer Systems ............................................................................................ 4 Fares ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Employer Programs ..................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission's
    Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission’s Elderly & Disabled Transportation Advisory Committee (Also serves as the Social Service Transportation Advisory Council) AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING 1:30pm - 3:30pm Tuesday, November 5, 2019 Regional Transportation Commission Santa Cruz Office 1523 Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA, 95060 (2nd Floor) 1. 1:30pm — Call to Order 2. 1:30pm — Introductions 3. 1:35pm — Oral communications 4. 1:40pm — Additions or deletions to the consent or regular agenda 1:42pm- CONSENT AGENDA All items appearing on the consent agenda are considered to be minor or non-controversial and will be acted upon in one motion if no member of the E&D TAC or public wishes an item be removed and discussed on the regular agenda. Members of the E&D TAC may raise questions, seek clarification or add directions to Consent Agenda items without removing the item from the Consent Agenda as long as no other E&D TAC member objects to the change. 5. Approve Minutes from August 13, 2019 — pg.5 6. Receive Transportation Development Act Revenues Report — pg.9 7. Receive RTC Meeting Highlights — pg.11 8. Appointments - None 9. Receive Information Items — pg.13 a. Letter from Commission of Disabilities to County Board of Supervisors Regarding Santa Cruz Metro Board of Directors Membership Criteria, June 12, 2019 b. Mark Swobodzinski & Amy Park, “Electronic Opportunities for Visually Impaired Travelers”, August 2019 c. Josh Cohen, “Seattle's 'microtransit' experiment drives people to light rail. Is it working?,” Streets Blog, August 22, 2019 d. Tony Nunez, “Plan to revitalize downtown Watsonville is in the works”, Register Pajaronian, September 27, 2019 e.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Railroad Administration Fiscal Year 2017 Enforcement Report
    Federal Railroad Administration Fiscal Year 2017 Enforcement Report Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Summary of Inspections and Audits Performed, and of Enforcement Actions Recommended in FY 2017 A. Railroad Safety and Hazmat Compliance Inspections and Audits 1. All Railroads and Other Entities (e.g., Hazmat Shippers) Except Individuals 2. Railroads Only B. Summary of Railroad Safety Violations Cited by Inspectors, by Regulatory Oversight Discipline or Subdiscipline 1. Accident/Incident Reporting 2. Grade Crossing Signal System Safety 3. Hazardous Materials 4. Industrial Hygiene 5. Motive Power and Equipment 6. Railroad Operating Practices 7. Signal and train Control 8. Track C. FRA and State Inspections of Railroads, Sorted by Railroad Type 1. Class I Railroads 2. Probable Class II Railroads 3. Probable Class III Railroads D. Inspections and Recommended Enforcement Actions, Sorted by Class I Railroad 1. BNSF Railway Company 2. Canadian National Railway/Grand Trunk Corporation 3. Canadian Pacific Railway/Soo Line Railroad Company 4. CSX Transportation, Inc. 5. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company 6. National Railroad Passenger Corporation 7. Norfolk Southern Railway Company 8. Union Pacific Railroad Company III. Summaries of Civil Penalty Initial Assessments, Settlements, and Final Assessments in FY 2017 A. In General B. Summary 1—Brief Summary, with Focus on Initial Assessments Transmitted C. Breakdown of Initial Assessments in Summary 1 1. For Each Class I Railroad Individually in FY 2017 2. For Probable Class II Railroads in the Aggregate in FY 2017 3. For Probable Class III Railroads in the Aggregate in FY 2017 4. For Hazmat Shippers in the Aggregate in FY 2017 5.
    [Show full text]
  • 05-2017 Agendas Ec 05-04-2017 Bd 05-11-2017
    1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101-7490 619.231.1466 FAX 619.234.3407 Agenda MEETING OF THE SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 11, 2017 9:00 a.m. James R. Mills Building Board Meeting Room, 10th Floor 1255 Imperial Avenue, San Diego This information will be made available in alternative formats upon request. To request an agenda in an alternative format, please call the Clerk of the Board at least two working days prior to the meeting to ensure availability. Assistive Listening Devices (ALDs) are available from the Clerk of the Board/Assistant Clerk of the Board prior to the meeting and are to be returned at the end of the meeting. ACTION RECOMMENDED 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes - April 13, 2017 Approve 3. Public Comments - Limited to five speakers with three minutes per speaker. Others will be heard after Board Discussion items. If you have a report to present, please give your copies to the Clerk of the Board. -1- CONSENT ITEMS 6. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Sale of 2014 Ford E450 Starcraft Approve Paratransit Bus to First Transit, Inc. Action would authorize the negotiated sale of MTS Vehicle No. 3910 (2014 Ford E450 Starcraft, VIN #1FDFE4FS2EDB10510) to First Transit, Inc. 7. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Program of Projects for Federal Approve Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 Funding, Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 and FY 2018 Action would approve Resolution No. 17-7, authorizing the use of and application for $275,000 of FY 2017 and $275,000 of FY 2018 Section 5311 funds for operating assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Monterey Bay Area Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan
    Monterey Bay Area Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan Approved by the AMBAG Board of Directors October 2013 Prepared by: Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iii I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Transportation Services and Providers ....................................................................................... 3 A. Regional ............................................................................................................................. 6 B. San Benito County .............................................................................................................. 7 C. Santa Cruz County ............................................................................................................ 10 D. Monterey County ............................................................................................................. 13 III. Human Services Transportation Needs .................................................................................... 16 A. Regional ............................................................................................................................ 16 B. San Benito County ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transbay Transit Center, San Francisco
    CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN Transit-Oriented Development Case Studies Prepared for City of Laguna Niguel 27781 La Paz Road Laguna Niguel, California 92677 Prepared by PBS&J 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 November 2007 Contents CASE STUDIES Introduction.................................................................................................................................1 CASE STUDY 1 Downtown Arlington Heights, Illinois......................................................................................3 CASE STUDY 2 Del Mar Station, Pasadena.....................................................................................................7 CASE STUDY 3 EmeryStation, Emeryville, CA............................................................................................... 11 CASE STUDY 4 North Hollywood Commercial Core ................................................................................... 17 CASE STUDY 5 Rail Station District, Santa Ana............................................................................................ 21 CASE STUDY 6 Grossmont Transit Station, La Mesa ................................................................................... 25 CASE STUDY 7 Pleasant Hill BART Transit Village ...................................................................................... 29 CASE STUDY 8 Rincon Hill Area Plan, San Francisco .................................................................................. 33 CASE STUDY 9 Transbay Transit
    [Show full text]