DOCSLIB.ORG

City of Redwood City

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City of Redwood City City of Redwood City Proposal for Ferry Financial Feasibility Study & Cost-Benefit and Economic Impact Analyses October 11, 2018 Acknowledgments City of Redwood City Council Members Project Team Diane Howard, Mayor Christopher Dacumos, Management Analyst II, City of Redwood City Shelly Masur, Vice Mayor Jessica Manzi, Transportation Manager, City of Alicia C. Aguirre, Council Member Redwood City Ian Bain, Council Member Radha Mehta, Management Fellow, City of Janet Borgens, Council Member Redwood City Giselle Hale, Council Member Kristine A. Zortman, Executive Director, Port of Redwood City Diana Reddy, Council Member Kevin Connolly, Planning & Development Port of Redwood City Commission Manager, WETA Arthi Krubanandh, Transportation Planner, Ralph A. Garcia, Chair WETA Richard (Dick) Claire, Vice Chair Chad Mason, Senior Planner & Project R. Simms Duncan, Port Commissioner Manager, WETA Richard “Dick” Dodge, Port Commissioner James Connolly, Project Manager, COWI Jessica Rivas, Marine Engineer, COWI Lorianna Kastrop, Port Commissioner Ashleigh Kanat, Executive Vice President, EPS San Mateo County Transportation Jason Moody, Principal, EPS Authority Kate Traynor, Senior Associate, EPS Jennifer Williams, Analyst II, San Mateo County Lindsey Klein, Project Planner, PlaceWorks Transportation Authority Charlie Knox, Principal, PlaceWorks Peter Skinner, Director of Grants and Funding, Bill Hurrell, Vice President, CDM Smith San Mateo County Transportation Authority Piyali Chaudhuri, Project Manager, CDM Smith Peter Martin, Project Technical Lead, CDM Smith Sean R. Vienna, Senior Transportation Planner, CDM Smith Eric McClellan, Senior Economist, CDM Smith Evan Bigos, Economist, CDM Smith Chiranjivi S. Bhamidipati, Transportation Planner, CDM Smith Paula F. Hirsch, Lead Administrative Assistant, CDM Smith Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Transportation Context .................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Regional Commute Patterns ................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.2 Transportation Demand Management ................................................................................. 2-4 2.2.3 Transportation Providers and Future Projects ...................................................................... 2-5 2.3 Future Transportation Projects ...................................................................................................... 2-11 2.3.1 San Mateo 101 Express Lanes Project ................................................................................ 2-11 2.3.2 Dumbarton Transportation Corridor .................................................................................. 2-12 2.3.3 BART to Silicon Valley Extension ......................................................................................... 2-12 2.3.4 BART Second Transbay Rail Crossing .................................................................................. 2-12 2.4 Redwood City ................................................................................................................................. 2-13 2.4.1 City Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 2-13 2.4.2 Major Employers in Redwood City ...................................................................................... 2-14 2.4.3 Development Trends and Pipeline ...................................................................................... 2-14 2.5 Proposed Ferry Terminal Site ......................................................................................................... 2-18 2.5.1 Ferry Terminal Requirements ............................................................................................. 2-20 2.5.2 Site Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 2-21 Section 3 Public Outreach ................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Phase One ........................................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.1 Public Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Phase Two ........................................................................................................................................ 3-7 3.2.1 Employer Outreach ............................................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.2 Water Users Outreach .......................................................................................................... 3-8 3.2.3 Chamber of Commerce Outreach ....................................................................................... 3-11 3.3 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................... 3-11 Section 4 Ferry User Demand ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Development of Service Scenarios ................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Service Scenario 1: Oakland to Redwood City ...................................................................... 4-5 4.1.2 Service Scenario 2: San Francisco to Redwood City .............................................................. 4-6 4.1.3 First and Last Mile Access Connections ................................................................................ 4-7 4.2 Travel Demand Modeling and Ridership Estimates ......................................................................... 4-8 4.2.1 Ridership Travel Demand Model .......................................................................................... 4-8 4.3 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................... 4-17 Section 5 Terminal Facility (Engineering Report)............................................................... 5-1 5.1 Ferry Terminal Requirements .......................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.1 Design Vessels ....................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.2 Terminal Components ........................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2 Option 1 - North Side at Westpoint Slough Location ....................................................................... 5-6 5.3 Option 2 - West Side at Westpoint Slough Location ........................................................................ 5-8 i Table of Contents • 5.4 Comparison of Options .................................................................................................................. 5-11 5.4.1 Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................... 5-11 5.5 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................... 5-13 Section 6 Financial Analysis ............................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Evaluation Metrics ................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1.2 Route Summaries ................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1.3 Ferry Services........................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1.4 WETA .................................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.1.5 Other Considerations ........................................................................................................... 6-2 6.2 Assumptions .................................................................................................................................... 6-3 6.2.1 Terminal Costs ...................................................................................................................... 6-3 6.2.2 Ferry Costs ............................................................................................................................ 6-4 6.2.3 Ridership ............................................................................................................................... 6-5 6.3 Financial Feasibility .........................................................................................................................
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]
  • Final Program Environmental Impact Report
    Executive Summary Final Program Environmental Impact Report Expansion of Ferry Transit Service in the San Francisco Bay Area Prepared by: URS Corporation June 2003 Prepared for: Executive Summary ES.1 INTRODUCTION This document is a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing the San Francisco Water Transit Authority’s (WTA) Proposed Project to implement expanded ferry service in the Bay Area. The WTA began operation as a new regional agency in 2000, with the directive of evaluating options to improve and expand Bay Area ferry service and to report back to the California Legislature with a recommended plan of action. As a result, the preparation of WTA’s Implementation and Operations Plan (IOP) initiated a wide range of studies, consultation, and public outreach that provided input to the decision-making process of developing the plan. From August 2002 through January 2003, the WTA circulated a Draft Program EIR for public review and comment. That EIR did not identify a proposed project or preferred alternative; rather, it addressed a range of alternatives for expanding ferry service in the Bay Area. In March 2003, the WTA recirculated the Draft EIR in order to include analysis of the IOP Alternative, which is now identified as the Proposed Project, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. ES.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES/NEED ES.2.1 Purpose and Objectives The primary purpose of the WTA system IOP is to increase Bay Area regional mobility and transportation options by providing new and expanded water transit services and related ground transportation terminal access in the Bay Area. ES.2.2 Need The Bay Area is home to a highly diverse population and historically strong economy that is served by a complex transportation network.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2019 TRIVALLEY San Francisco Business Times Publication
    SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT AUGUST 2, 2019 Leaders of three thriving Tri-Valley companies met at the new City Center complex in San Ramon (from left): Scott Walchek, founder and CEO of Trōv; Ben Hindson, co-founder and CSO of 10x Genomics; Burton Goldfield, president and CEO of TriNet. TRI-VALLEY The heart of the matter Darrell Jobe of Vericool 10 Ken Gitlin of Robert Half 13 Derek Maunus of GILLIG 13 Lauren Moone of Mirador 16 SPONSORS: A Sunset Development Project 2 ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT TRI-VALLEY | THE HEART OF THE MATTER SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES A relationship aged to perfection. Proudly celebrating 55 years in the Tri-Valley. Fremont Bank is uniquely positioned as the only independent, locally Proud to offer 5 convenient owned, full-service community bank in the San Francisco Bay Area. From Tri-Valley locations: our 55 years of partnering with our Tri-Valley communities, to offering Danville Branch unprecedented access to local decision makers who understand your Pleasanton Branch goals, Fremont Bank is proud to be the Tri-Valley’s trusted financial Livermore Branch partner. San Ramon Branch Dublin Branch Call or stop by one of our Tri-Valley Branches to experience The Bay Area’s Premier Community Bank for yourself. (800) 359-BANK (2265) | www.fremontbank.com Equal Housing Lender | Member FDIC | NMLS #478471 | LCOM-0277-0719 AUGUST 2, 2019 ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT 3 Talent, innovation and heart drive success in the Tri-Valley ositioned at the geographic center of the Northern Cal- ifornia Mega-Region, the Tri-Valley innovation hub is lo- P cated at the heart of the region and delivering significant economic benefit.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
    12/10/2015 San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area ­ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia San Francisco Metropolitan Area officially known as the "San Francisco­Oakland­Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area" is a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) within the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes a number of its core cities and counties. It is defined by the Office of Management and Budget to include core areas more directly economically influenced by San Francisco rather than outlying cities such as San Jose which has its own MSA, the San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara, CA MSA. Until 2013, this MSA was known as the San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, CA MSA.[1][2] The Federal Government definition states that it consists of 5 counties, grouped into three divisions.[2] Those 5 counties are San Francisco, Alameda, Marin, Contra Costa, and San Mateo County.[2] The three divisions are Oakland–Hayward–Berkeley (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco–Redwood City–South San Francisco (San Francisco and San Mateo Counties), and San The component Metropolitan Statistical Rafael (Marin County).[2] Areas and their geographical location within the San Jose–San Francisco– The MSA is a subset of the 9 county San Francisco Bay Area, as Oakland, CSA. The San Francisco– well as the 12 county Combined Statistical Area, the San Jose–San Oakland–Hayward, CA MSA is in red. Francisco–Oakland, CA CSA. Three North Bay counties are
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources
    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
    [Show full text]
  • Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority
    Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Steering Committee Draft | Ocotber 2020 Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority Prepared By: 1625 Shattuck Avenue Suite 300 Berkeley, California 94709 510.848.3815 ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO www.placeworks.com Table of Contents List of Figures & Tables ii Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction 13 1.1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Lifeline Transportation Program 13 1.2 CBTP Guidelines 14 1.3 2004 Richmond-Area CBTP 15 1.4 Current Richmond Area CBTP 15 1.5 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 17 2. Study Area Profile 18 2.1 Demographic Analysis 18 2.2 Transportation Patterns 24 2.3 Transportation Network 28 3. Previous Studies and Mobility Gaps 33 3.1 Local Studies 33 3.2 Countywide Studies 37 3.3 Current Studies 39 3.4 Thematic Mobility Challenges 40 4. Outreach and Engagement Summary 43 4.1 CBTP Advisor Groups 43 4.2 Outreach Strategy 44 4.3 Outreach Awareness 44 4.4 Outreach Results 46 4.5 Outreach Summary 54 5. Methodology and Recommendations 56 5.1 COVID-19 and CBTP Development 56 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 57 5.3 Evaluation Process 60 5.4 Recommended Projects and Plans 62 Appendix A Existing Conditions Report Appendix B Outreach Materials and Results Appendix C Recommendations Scoring Results Richmond Area Community-Based Transportation Plan i Contra Costa Transportation Authority List of Figures
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Redwood City
    Port of Redwood City Critical Port Property Management Issues Port Property Management & Pricing Seminar June 25-27, 2008 Toronto, Ontario Battling Encroachment From Development Since 1850 In the 1850’s, the Port was founded along a natural channel, “Redwood Creek”, in what is today downtown Redwood City. 70 years ago the Port relocated about two miles east due to the growth of downtown and the need to deepen the channel for larger ships. The “New Port” Seemed Safe From Encroachment By 1937, well entrenched in the so-called industrial area, the Port appeared “safe” from the kind of development encroachment that surrounded it when it was in downtown during Redwood City’s pioneering days. Nearly $1 Billion In Development Built Around The Port Since 1985 Since 1985, and continuing today, major R&D and office park development has occurred on both sides of the Port. In fact, in the past 2 years both major developments were sold to new owners – for a combined $932,000 million. And the buyers of the older R&D are pledging to spend another $100 million to upgrade, bringing the total value to more than $1 BILLION DOLLARS. PortPort of of Redwood Redwood City City Pacific Shores Seaport Centre Seaport Centre: First Major High Tech Development When this project was approved by the City Council, the Port Commission fought to win these benefits: – Three acres of land donated to the Port for use as a public boat launch ramp. – 500,000 gallons per day capacity at the local wastewater plant, which today is valued at close to $700,000.
    [Show full text]
  • About WETA Present Future a Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service
    About WETA Maintenance Facility will consolidate Central and South Bay fleet operations, include a fueling facility with emergency fuel The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation storage capacity, and provide an alternative EOC location, Authority (WETA) is a regional public transit agency tasked with thereby significantly expanding WETA’s emergency response operating and expanding ferry service on the San Francisco and recovery capabilities. Bay, and is responsible for coordinating the water transit response to regional emergencies. Future Present WETA is planning for a system that seamlessly connects cities in the greater Bay Area with San Francisco, using Today, WETA operates daily passenger ferry service to the fast, environmentally responsible vessels, with wait times cities of Alameda, Oakland, San Francisco, Vallejo, and South of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. WETA’s San Francisco, carr4$)"(*- /#)тѵр million passengers 2035 vision would expand service throughout the Bay Area, annually under the San Francisco Bay Ferry brand. Over the operating 12 services at 16 terminals with a fleet of 44 vessels. last five years, SF Bay Ferry ridership has grown чф percent. In the near term, WETA will launch a Richmond/San Francisco route (201ш) and new service to Treasure Island. Other By the Numbers terminal sites such as Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda, Berkeley, Mission Bay, Redwood City, the South Bay, and the Carquinez *- /#)ǔǹǒ --$ ./-).+*-/0+ Strait are on the not-too-distant horizon. ($''$*)-$ -. /*ǗǕǑ$& .-*.. 0. 4 --4 /# 4 #4ǹ 1 -44 -ǹ A Plan for Expanded Bay Area Ferry Service --4-$ -.#$+ 1 )! --$ . Vallejo #.$)- . /*!' / /2 )ǓǑǒǘ CARQUINEZ STRAIT Ǚǖʞ.$) ǓǑǒǓǹ )ǓǑǓǑǹ Hercules WETA Expansion Targets Richmond Funded Traveling by ferry has become increasingly more popular in • Richmond Berkeley the Bay Area, as the economy continues to improve and the • Treasure Island Partially Funded Pier 41 Treasure Island population grows.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Roster of Appointments
    2021 ROSTER OF APPOINTMENTS BY THE SAN MATEO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE David J. Canepa, President Sue Vaterlaus, Chairperson San Mateo County Board of Supervisors City Selection Committee Sukhmani S. Purewal, Secretary City Selection Committee Northern Judicial Cities Central Judicial Cities Southern Judicial Cities Brisbane Belmont Atherton Colma Burlingame East Palo Alto Daly City Foster City Menlo Park Pacifica Half Moon Bay Portola Valley San Bruno Hillsborough Redwood City South San Francisco Millbrae San Carlos San Mateo Woodside TABLE OF CONTENTS 2021 VACANCY LISTING ..................................................... 3 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) .............................. 4 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (BAAQMD) ........................ 5 CALIFORNIA IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (CAL-ID) .................................. 6 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNCIL (DVC) .......................................... 7 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE .......................... 9 HOUSING ENDOWMENT AND REGIONAL TRUST (HEART) .......................... 11 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCo) .............................. 12 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC) .......................... 13 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD (CALTRAIN) ....................... 15 SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (SAMTRANS) ........................... 16 SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SMCTA) ..................... 17 ADDITIONAL APPOINTMENTS BY CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE ...................
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain TIRCP Application Jan
    PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPLICATION FOR 2018 TRANSIT AND INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL PROGRAM FUNDS PROJECT NARRATIVE A. Project Title Page Project Title: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Expansion Project The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Expansion Project (EEP) includes a series of incremental investments in the 51-mile Caltrain Corridor between the 4th and King Station (San Francisco) and the Tamien Station (San Jose). These investments are focused on expanding and fully converting Caltrain’s mainline diesel fleet to electric trains. This investment builds on and leverages the existing Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) and supports the goals of the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), providing increased capacity and service flexibility, supporting state and interregional connectivity, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through elimination of diesel service from the mainline Peninsula Corridor. In addition to providing immediate, direct benefits, the EEP also represents an incremental step within a larger program of development that will evolve the Peninsula Corridor in a way that supports the ridership, service levels, and connectivity goals contemplated in the draft 2018 State Rail Plan. The central component of Caltrain’s 2018 TIRCP application is the purchase of 96 additional Electric Multiple Units (EMU). This procurement will fully exercise all available options under Caltrain’s current contract with Stadler and will provide sufficient EMUs to fully electrify Caltrain’s mainline fleet, while also sustaining and expanding capacity to accommodate growing demand. In addition to requesting funds for the purchase of EMUs, Caltrain is also requesting a smaller amount funding for a series of associated projects that will equip the corridor to receive and operate a fully electrified fleet in a way that allows the railroad to reap the maximum benefit from its investments.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Packet Is Available for Download at Weta.Sanfranciscobayferry.Com
    Members of the Board SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA WATER EMERGENCY TRANSPORATION AUTHORITY James Wunderman, Chair BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING Jessica Alba Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. Jeffrey DelBono Anthony J. Intintoli, Jr. VIDEOCONFERENCE Monique Moyer Join WETA BOD Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89718217408 Meeting ID: 897 1821 7408 Password: 33779 Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) The full agenda packet is available for download at weta.sanfranciscobayferry.com AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVE FY 2022-2024 TITLE VI PROGRAM Action 4. PRELIMINARY FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 OPERATING AND CAPITAL Information BUDGETS 5. WETA BUSINESS PLAN CONCEPT AND ORGANIZATION Information ADJOURNMENT All items appearing on the agenda are subject to action by the Board of Directors. Staff recommendations are subject to action and change by the Board of Directors. CHANGES RELATED TO COVID-19 Consistent with Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20, effective immediately and until further notice, meetings will be conducted through virtual participation to promote social distancing and reduce the chance of COVID-19 transmission. PUBLIC COMMENTS As this is a special meeting of the Board, public comments are limited to the listed agenda items. If you know in advance that you would like to make a public comment during the videoconference, please email [email protected] with your name and item number you would like to provide comment on no later than 15 Water Emergency Transportation Authority May 20, 2021 Meeting of the Board of Directors minutes after the start of the meeting.
    [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]