DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Report North Entry Area Plan City of Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Report North Entry Area Plan City of Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California Draft Environmental Impact Report North Entry Area Plan City of Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California State Clearinghouse Number 2018062041 Prepared for: City of Healdsburg 401 Grove Street Healdsburg, CA 65448 707.431.3348 Contact: Maya DeRosa, Planning and Building Director Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.357.2562 Contact: Jason Brandman, Project Director Kelsey Bennett, Project Manager Date: November 30, 2018 NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Healdsburg—North Entry Area Plan Draft EIR Table of Contents Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... xi Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... ES-1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................. ES-1 Project Summary .................................................................................................................. ES-1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................ ES-2 Summary of Project Alternatives .......................................................................................... ES-3 Areas of Controversy ............................................................................................................ ES-4 Public Review of the Draft EIR .............................................................................................. ES-5 Executive Summary Matrix ................................................................................................... ES-6 Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 1.1 - Plan Overview .................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 1.2 - Plan Area Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 Section 1.3 - Environmental Review Process .......................................................................... 1-2 Section 1.4 - Purpose and Legal Authority ............................................................................. 1-4 Section 1.5 - EIR Document Organization ............................................................................... 1-7 Chapter 2: Project Description .................................................................................................... 2-1 Section 2.1 - Project Location and Setting .............................................................................. 2-1 Section 2.2 - Plan Objectives .................................................................................................. 2-7 Section 2.3 - Proposed Plan Components .............................................................................. 2-7 Section 2.4 - Required Approvals ......................................................................................... 2-17 Section 2.5 - Intended Uses of the Draft EIR ........................................................................ 2-18 Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Impacts ............................................................................ 3-1 Environmental Topics Addressed in this EIR ........................................................................... 3-1 Format of the Environmental Analysis ................................................................................... 3-1 Section 3.1 - Aesthetics ....................................................................................................... 3.1-1 Section 3.2 - Transportation and Traffic .............................................................................. 3.2-1 Section 3.3 - Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 3.3-1 Section 3.4 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy .......................................................... 3.4-1 Section 3.5 - Noise ............................................................................................................... 3.5-1 Chapter 4: Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 4-1 Section 4.1 - Introduction ....................................................................................................... 4-1 Section 4.2 - Plan Objectives .................................................................................................. 4-4 Section 4.3 - Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration ........................................... 4-4 Section 4.4 - Alternative 1—No Project Alternative ............................................................... 4-5 Section 4.5 - Alternative 2—General Plan Quaker Hills Alternative ....................................... 4-8 Section 4.6 - Alternative 3—North Village Project Alternative ............................................ 4-11 Section 4.7 - Alternative 4—Reduced Commercial Alternative ............................................ 4-15 Section 4.8 - Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................. 4-18 Section 5: Other CEQA Considerations ........................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 - Growth-Inducing Impacts ............................................................................................... 5-2 5.3 - Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ............................................................. 5-4 Chapter 6: Persons and Organizations Consulted/ List of Preparers ............................................. 6-1 FirstCarbon Solutions iii Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3257\32570023\EIR\3 - DEIR\32570023_0.1_TOC.docx City of Healdsburg—North Entry Area Plan Table of Contents Draft EIR Section 6.1 - Persons and Organizations Consulted ............................................................... 6-1 Section 6.2 - List of Preparers ................................................................................................ 6-1 List of Appendices Appendix A: Public Outreach A.1 - Notice of Preparation and Caltrans Scoping Comment Letter A.2 - Initial Study A.3 - EIR Scoping Meeting Presentation Appendix B: Transportation-Traffic Supporting Information B.1 - Trip Generation and Distribution Assumptions Memorandum B.2 - Traffic Volume and Turning Details B.3 - Level of Service Technical Materials B.4 - North Entry Area Plan Environmental Impact Report Traffic Analysis Memo B.5 - North Entry Area Plan Environmental Impact Report Cumulative Without Planned Improvements LOS Appendix C: Air Quality-GHG-Energy Supporting Information Appendix D: Noise-Vibration Supporting Information List of Tables Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix .............................................................................................. ES-7 Table 1-1: Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Preparation .................... 1-4 Table 2-1: Proposed Plan Area Land Use Type and Buildout Assumptions ......................................... 2-8 Table 2-2: Specific Development Summary ........................................................................................ 2-9 Table 2-3: Development Standard Summary .................................................................................... 2-11 Table 2-4: Building Height Restrictions Summary ............................................................................. 2-12 Table 3.1-1: Summary of Viewpoint Locations for Existing Views ................................................... 3.1-4 Table 3.2-1: Intersection Level of Service Criteria ............................................................................ 3.2-7 Table 3.2-2: Existing Peak hour Intersection Levels of Service......................................................... 3.2-8 Table 3.2-3: Bicycle Facilities Proximate to Plan Area .................................................................... 3.2-12 Table 3.2-4: Trip Generation Summary .......................................................................................... 3.2-19 Table 3.2-5: Trip Distribution Assumptions .................................................................................... 3.2-20 Table 3.2-6: Existing Plus Plan Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................ 3.2-24 Table 3.2-7: Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues .............................................................................. 3.2-29 Table 3.2-8: Cumulative Without Plan Intersection Levels of Service ............................................ 3.2-32 Table 3.2-9: Cumulative Plus Plan Intersection Levels of Service .................................................. 3.2-35 Table 3.3-1: Description of Criteria Pollutants of National and California Concern ......................... 3.3-2 Table 3.3-2: Description of Toxic Air Contaminants of National and California Concern ................. 3.3-4 iv FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3257\32570023\EIR\3 - DEIR\32570023_0.1_TOC.docx
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Golden Gate Transit & Golden Gate Ferry
    Golden Gate Transit & Golden Gate Ferry 2013 Passenger Study Draft Methodology Report Conducted by: Redhill Group December 23, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 1 COMMUNICATIONS SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1 FIELD SURVEY OPERATIONS COMMUNICATIONS ...................................... 1 PHONE SURVEY COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................ 2 DETAILED SAMPLING PLAN ............................................................................. 3 GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT: ............................................................................... 3 GOLDEN GATE FERRY: ................................................................................. 13 SURVEY INSTRUMENTS .................................................................................. 20 FIELD SURVEY ............................................................................................... 20 TELEPHONE SURVEY ................................................................................... 21 DATA COLLECTION: FIELD SURVEYS ........................................................... 23 RECRUITMENT .............................................................................................. 23 TRAINING ....................................................................................................... 24 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco
    Highway 101 Transit Routes Bus always stops Ferry terminal Bus sometimes stops - see timetable Parking available Bus stops weekdays only, all day Transfer to airport shuttle fare zone 2 fare zone 1 Rush hour peak direction, always stops Transfer to other bus line 2 Marin Headlands Sausalito SF 4 Mill Valley Sausalito SF Rush hour peak direction, sometimes stops fare zone 3 fare zone 2 8 Tiburon SF San Francisco Bus always stops, one direction only 27 Ross Valley SF AC Transit Amtrak BART fare zone 6 fare zone 5 SamTrans Vallejo Baylink Bus sometimes stops, one direction only 62 Santa Rosa Airport Santa Rosa 62 36 The Canal 36 WestCAT Caltrain Greyhound Major Transfer Station Ft Bragg Willits Ukiah 65 fare zone 4 fare zone 3 The first four 22 departures 17 Mill Valley Sausalito 17 become 18 at College via North Beach 72X SF 54 San Marin SF 18 22 San Anselmo Ross Kentfield Corte Madera 22 SF Express to and from San Francisco fare zone 5 fare zone 4 of Marin 2 4 8 18 24 27 54 72 Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Ave SF 56 San Marin SF 44 Lucas Valley SF Corte Madera SF Ross Departs from 101 corridor 48X Santa Rosa Ave Cotati Petaluma 48X Parallel weekend and local service provided by 48 58 Novato Hamilton SF 24 Ross Valley SF 92 Sausalito SF 44 56 58 72 72X 76 Ft Bragg Stops at this city north of map 74 Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Ave Santa Rosa Ave SF 259 49 San Marin Novato Hamilton Terra Linda Civic Center 49 259 10 Strawberry or Tam Valley Sausalito SF via Geary Boulevard GH Arcata Willits SF 222 Corte Madera 222 92 101X SF 71 71 via Van Ness 101 SF 10 70 80 101 101X 60X Parallel weekend and local service provided by 60 76 Petaluma SF 70 Sausalito SF 60X 80 Sausalito SF ) r ce) ace) 101 rpass urface) le & 101 & 101 GeyservilleSCT: 60 Healdsburg Cotati Hub DeLong & 101 MT: 259 MT: 251 MT: 257 Marin City Spencer & 101 SCT: 60 68 SCT: 60 66 14 17 18 19 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Services Transportation Plan Update for the San Francisco Bay Area
    Coordinated Public Transit– Human Services Transportation Plan Update for the San Francisco Bay Area March 2013 Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607 TEL: 510.817.5700 E-MAIL: [email protected] WEB: www.mtc.ca.gov MTC COMMISSIONERS MANAGEMENT STAFF Adrienne J. Tissier, Chair Steve Heminger San Mateo County Executive Director Amy Rein Worth, Vice Chair Ann Flemer Cities of Contra Costa County Deputy Executive Director, Policy Tom Azumbrado Andrew B. Fremier U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Deputy Executive Director, Operations Tom Bates Cities of Alameda County PROJECT STAFF David Campos City and County of San Francisco Alix Bockelman Director, Programming and Allocations Dave Cortese Santa Clara County Ken Kirkey Director, Planning Bill Dodd Napa County and Cities Jennifer Yeamans Project Manager Dorene M. Giacopini U.S. Department of Transportation Drennen Shelton Transportation Service Provider Inventory and Outreach Federal D. Glover Contra Costa County Stella Wotherspoon GIS Analysis and Mapping Scott Haggerty Alameda County AMMA Transit Planning Anne W. Halsted Demographic Research and Mapping (GISWS), Best Practices San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Research, Veterans Transportation Needs, Transportation Commission Service Provider Inventory Update Steve Kinsey This Plan update based on work originally completed by Marin County and Cities Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates in developing the 2007 MTC Coordinated Public Transit–Human Services Sam Liccardo Transportation Plan Elderly & Disabled Component San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Jake Mackenzie Sonoma County and Cities COORDINATED PLAN UPDATE TECHNICAL ADVISORY Joe Pirzynski COMMITTEE Cities of Santa Clara County Paul Branson Jean Quan Marin Transit Oakland Mayor’s Appointee Patrick Finan Bijan Sartipi U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee April 14, 2010 Item Number 2F Resolution No
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee April 14, 2010 Item Number 2f Resolution No. 3881, Revised Subject: Revisions to the Second Cycle Lifeline Program of Projects, MTC Resolution No. 3881, Revised Background: In July 2008, MTC adopted Resolution No. 3860, which established guidelines and a fund estimate for the Second-Cycle Lifeline Transportation Program for the three-year period FY 2009-2011. The Lifeline Program is intended to result in improved mobility for low-income residents of the Bay Area, and is administered by the Congestion Management Agencies. The Second-Cycle program is funded by State Transit Assistance (STA), Proposition 1B Transit funds, and federal Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funds. Each county received a funding target based on the county’s share of the region’s total population below the poverty level. Program guidelines established two funding tiers: Tier 1 for the first two years of funding, and Tier 2 for the third and final year. In January 2009, MTC adopted Resolution 3881, which approved the Tier 1 Program of Projects based on locally prioritized projects in each county. MTC approved the Tier 2 projects in December 2009. Following a supplemental call for projects in San Francisco to program the remainder of its Tier 2 Lifeline funds, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) approved an additional $1.1 million in Lifeline funding for three revised projects. Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have approved an additional $2 million in Lifeline funding for three revised projects in Santa Clara County: Original Additional Total Project / Agency Sponsor Funding Funding Funding San Francisco Balboa Park Station Eastside BART / $1,906,050 – $2,989,327 Connections SFMTA – $1,083,277 San Bruno Avenue Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) SF MTA $1,564,919 ($1,348,919) $216,000 Improvements Route 108 Treasure Island Service SFMTA $262,228 $877,600 $1,139,828 Hunters View Revitalization Transit SF Mayor’s Ofc.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Fare Policy Changes FROM
    SUBJECT: Proposed Fare Policy Changes FROM: Tony McCaulay, Director of Planning and Marketing Cyrus Sheik, Senior Transit Planner DATE: June 26, 2018 Action Requested Staff recommends the Finance and Administration Committee forward the proposed fare policy changes to the Board of Directors for consideration, and recommends that the Board open a public comment and review period and direct staff to hold three public hearings, one each in Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore in September 2018. After consideration of public input, a final staff recommendation will be brought to the Board of Directors in October with an anticipated implementation date of January 1, 2019. Background In 2016, LAVTA launched a Fare Study, conducted by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. The fare study included an analysis of agency trends, a snapshot of the current fare breakdown, an examination of potential fare policy adjustments and associated ridership/revenue impacts, and a package of recommendations. Also in the review was a comparison with other Bay Area transit properties of similar size and operating conditions. The study findings were presented to the Projects and Services Committee and the Finance and Administration Committee in May 2017 as an informational item. At that time, the committees expressed a desire to not make any changes and to instead revisit the fare policies at a later date. Following this, Staff asked the Consultant to update the fare study with one additional scenario compared with the original report. In addition, new fareboxes are being deployed fleet-wide in the LAVTA system, which bring additional functionality enabling new fare options that weren’t previously feasible, and which may help mitigate the impact of changes in fare rules.
    [Show full text]
  • General Plan Update Background Report
    Healdsburg 2030 General Plan Background Report Planning & Building Department 401 Grove Street Healdsburg, CA 95448 707.431.3346 Prepared by City of Healdsburg Planning & Building Department Earthcraft Planning Services With assistance from Jane Valerius, Environmental Consulting Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. Coastland Engineering, Inc. Joyce & Associates Adopted by the Healdsburg City Council on July 6, 2009 (Resolution 108-2009) Amended by the Healdsburg City Council on January 4, 2010 (Resolution 3-2010) Background Report Table of Contents Introduction 1 Land Use 1.1 Regional Setting...............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Planning Boundary Locations .......................................................................................................1 1.3 Existing Land Use............................................................................................................................3 1.4 Conserved Open Space ................................................................................................................5 1.5 Sonoma County General Plan .....................................................................................................5 2 Population 2.1 Historic Population Growth ..................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Projected Population Growth .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee February 12, 2014 Resolution Nos. 4053, Revised, 4084, Revised and 4086, Revised Subject: Federal Grants Status Update and Revisions to the Lifeline Transportation Program Third Cycle Program of Projects. Background: As reported at the Committee’s December 2013 meeting, FTA Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funds totaling about $2.0 million lapsed on September 30, 2013 due to delays in U.S. Department of Labor certification of the grants requesting those funds from FTA. The delays were the result of a dispute over potential conflicts between the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) and federal transit labor law. MTC submitted a letter to the FTA Administrator requesting that the lapsed funds be reinstated, but this request was denied. The lapsed JARC funds were programmed for the Lifeline Transportation Program Cycle 3 program, which funds projects that improve mobility for the region’s low-income communities, and were included in grants that had been submitted to FTA by MTC, Santa Rosa CityBus and AC Transit. In order to maintain funding for Lifeline, staff has developed a proposed plan to replace all of the lapsed funds. The plan includes the following elements, which are detailed in Attachment A: A total of $1.75 million in population-based STA funds would be allocated to subrecipients in MTC’s grant to offset the loss of FTA funds. Of the total, about $692,000 would be redirected from an allocation for the regional Means-Based Fare Study that was part of the Lifeline Cycle 3 program, and $1.05 million would come off the top of the region’s FY2013-14 Lifeline program category of population-based funds.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Integration and Efficiency Study Sonoma County Transportation Authority November 4, 2019
    Transit Integration and Efficiency Study Sonoma County Transportation Authority November 4, 2019 scta.ca.gov 1 01 Project Background 02 Project Overview 03 Goals 04 Topics Analyzed 05 Opportunities OVERVIEW 06 Phased Recommendations AGENDA 07 Related Efforts & Next Steps scta.ca.gov 2 Project Background • MTC’s Transit Sustainability Project (2012) identified need for increased multi- operator coordination in Sonoma County • Growing focus on “seamlessness” within Bay Area’s transit network – SPUR Seamless Transit report (2015) – MTC Seamless Mobility initiative • Funded by MTC and City of Santa Rosa • Conducted by SCTA with consultant support from Nelson\Nygaard and McGuire Management Consultancy • Steering Committee: Petaluma Transit, Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus, SCTA, and MTC scta.ca.gov 3 Project Background Ongoing Coordination Historical Consolidation • Regular coordination meetings, T-TAC, • Sonoma County Transit has absorbed TPCC small local operators throughout the • Schedule coordination years • Fares – Sebastopol Transit • Transfer agreements – Healdsburg Transit • Clipper® – Cloverdale Transit • Paratransit • Shared bus stop signage • Joint procurements • Funding scta.ca.gov 4 Project Background Weekday Trips Sonoma County Local Bus Ridership in 2017: 3,548,655 Source: 2017 National Transit Database Annual Report Source:scta.ca.gov Sonoma County Travel Behavior Study Project Overview • How might the three local bus transit agencies improve the quality of service through coordination or integration? • What opportunities
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum Agenda Item 3
    METRO P0 LI TAN Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter TRANSPORTATION 101 Eighth Street — Oakland, CA 94607-4700 COMMISSION TEL 510.817.5700 TDD/T1’Y 510.817. 5769 FAX 510.817.5848 E-MAIL [email protected] WEB www.rntc.ca.grw Memorandum Agenda Item 3 TO: Operations Committee DATE: March 7, 2014 FR: Executive Director W. I. 310-2700 RE: Contract Change Order — Implementation of Clipper® on Transit Operators in the East Bay and 101 Corridor and Integration of Next Generation Vehicle Devices: Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc. ($8,300,000) Project Status Report Clipper® Attachment 1 includes information about current system operations. Contract Actions Staff recommends that the Operations Committee authorize the Executive Director or his designee to negotiate and enter into the following contract action. Contract Change Order — Implementation of Clipper® on Transit Operators in the East Bay and 101 Corridor and Integration of Next Generation Vehicle Devices: Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc. ($8,300,000) The Clipper® fare payment system is currently available on eight transit agencies (AC Transit, BART, Caltrain, Golden Gate Transit and Ferry, SamTrans, SFMTA, VTA and San Francisco Bay Ferries), and accounts for 45 percent of all transit fares paid on Bay Area transit operators. MTC is currently deploying Clipper® to Mann Transit and the transit operators in Napa and Solano Counties (Soltrans. FAST, Vacaville City Coach. RioVista, and Napa VfNE). The Clipper Contractor, Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc. (Cubic), expects to complete the expansion work
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators July 2014 I
    STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF BAY AREA TRANSIT OPERATORS AREA TRANSIT OPERATORS OF SUMMARY BAY STATISTICAL Fiscal Years 2008-09 Through 2012-13 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF BAY AREA TRANSIT OPERATORS JULY 2014 I Fiscal Years 2008–09 Fiscal Years to 2012–13 JOSEPH P. BORT METROCENTER 101 EIGHTH STREET OAKLAND, CA 94607 TEL 510.817.5700 TDD/TTY 510.817.5769 FAX 510.817.5848 EMAIL [email protected] WEB WWW.MTC.CA.GOV This page intentionally left blank. Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators Fiscal Years 2008–09 through 2012–13 July 2014 Prepared by Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming & Allocations Section Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607 Tel 510.817.5700 TDD/TTY 510.817.5769 Fax 510.817.5848 Email [email protected] Web www.mtc.ca.gov This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents 2 Introduction 4 Bay Area System — Statistical Summary Totals 6 Bay Area System — Regional Totals 8 Bay Area System — Performance by Operator Comparative Charts 11 Bay Area System — Total Transit Vehicle Fleet Operator Information 12 AC Transit (Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District) 16 ACE (Altamont Corridor Express) 20 BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit District) 24 Caltrain (Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board) 28 County Connection (Central Contra Costa Transit Authority) 32 FAST (Fairfield/Suisun Transit System) 36 Golden Gate Transit (Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District)/Marin Transit 42 LAVTA (Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority/Wheels) 46 Muni (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency)
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL Short Range Transit Plan
    marin transit /// local transit /// ada paratransit /// mobility management FINAL Short Range Transit Plan FY 2011-12 – FY 2020-21 September, 2012 draft/nal final MARIN TRANSIT | 2012–2021 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Acknowledgements Board of Directors Steve Kinsey, Supervisor District 4 Barbara Heller, City of San Rafael Judy Arnold, Supervisor District 5 Susan Adams, Supervisor District 1 Madeline Kellner, City of Novato Katie Rice, Supervisor District 2 Kathrin Sears, Supervisor District 3 Stephanie Moulton-Peters, City of Mill Valley Approved by Marin Transit Board of Directors on September 17, 2012 Prepared by Marin Transit staff Federal transportation statues require that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), in partnership with state and local agencies, develop and periodically update a long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which implements the RTP by programming federal funds to transportation projects contained in the RTP. In order to effectively execute these planning and programming responsibilities, MTC requires that each transit operator in its region which receives federal funding through the TIP, prepare, adopt, and submit to MTC a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). ii MARIN TRANSIT | 2012–2021 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Contents Chapter 1: System Overview ................................................................................................................. 1-1 Agency History ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Public Transportation Systems Deployment in the United States
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Advanced Public Transportation Systems Deployment in the United States Year 2004 Update Final Report June 2005 Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation 1 Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2005 Final Report June 2004 - November 2004 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Advanced Public Transportation Systems Deployment in the United States - Year 2004 Update HW52/BK005 6. AUTHOR(S) Sari Radin 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION U.S. Department of Transportation REPORT NUMBER Research and Special Programs Administration John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING U.S. Department of Transportation AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Federal Transit Administration, TRI-10 Office of Mobility Innovation 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a.
    [Show full text]