DOCSLIB.ORG

San Francisco to San Jose Project Section

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Francisco to San Jose Project Section California High-Speed Rail Authority San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Deliberative and Confidential Draft Draft Historic Architectural Survey Report May 2019 Table of Contents Deliberative and Confidential Draft TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................1-1 1.1 Section 106 and CEQA Cultural Resources ............................................... 1-3 1.2 CEQA-Only Cultural Resources ................................................................. 1-4 1.3 Properties in the Area of Potential Effects that Require Phased Identification ............................................................................................... 1-4 2 REGULATORY SETTING .....................................................................................2-1 2.1 National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) ................ 2-1 2.1.1 Implementing Regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 C.F.R. Part 800) ............................. 2-1 2.2 National Environmental Policy Act .............................................................. 2-2 2.3 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 303) ..... 2-2 2.4 California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Public Res. Code § 21083.2) and CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.5) ........ 2-3 2.5 California Register of Historical Resources (Cal. Public Res. Code § 5024.1 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 4850) .............................................. 2-3 2.6 State-Owned Historical Resources (Cal. Public Res. Code §§ 5024 and 5024.5) ................................................................................................ 2-4 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE UNDERTAKING .............................................................3-1 3.1 San Francisco to San Jose Project Section ................................................ 3-1 3.2 Common Design Features ......................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Track and Station Modifications ................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Safety and Security Modifications to the Right-of-Way ................. 3-5 3.2.3 Signaling, Train Control, and Communication Facilities ............. 3-10 3.2.4 Traction Power Distribution ........................................................ 3-11 3.2.5 Light Maintenance Facility ......................................................... 3-11 3.3 Alternative A ............................................................................................. 3-11 3.3.1 San Francisco to South San Francisco Subsection .................... 3-12 3.3.2 San Bruno to San Mateo Subsection ......................................... 3-19 3.3.3 San Mateo to Palo Alto Subsection ............................................ 3-24 3.3.4 Mountain View to Santa Clara Subsection ................................. 3-28 3.4 Alternative B ............................................................................................. 3-30 3.4.1 San Francisco to South San Francisco Subsection .................... 3-30 3.4.2 San Bruno to San Mateo Subsection ......................................... 3-32 3.4.3 San Mateo to Palo Alto Subsection ............................................ 3-34 3.4.4 Mountain View to Santa Clara Subsection ................................. 3-36 4 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS .........................................................................4-1 4.1 Establishing the Built Resources Area of Potential Effects ......................... 4-1 5 POTENTIALLY INTERESTED PARTIES, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ....................5-1 5.1 Responses Received ................................................................................. 5-1 6 IDENTIFICATION EFFORTS AND METHODS......................................................6-1 6.1 Previously Identified Resources ................................................................. 6-1 6.1.1 Record Search Summary ............................................................. 6-1 6.1.2 Records Search Results .............................................................. 6-1 6.1.3 Background Literature Review ..................................................... 6-5 6.2 Research Methods ..................................................................................... 6-5 6.3 Field Identification Methods ........................................................................ 6-6 California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document May 2019 San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Draft Historic Architectural Survey Report Page | i Table of Contents Deliberative and Confidential Draft 6.3.1 Establishing the Survey Population .............................................. 6-6 6.3.2 Built Resources Reconnaissance Survey ..................................... 6-7 6.3.3 Identifying Built Resources Types in the Area of Potential Effects .......................................................................................... 6-7 6.4 Approach to Determining Eligibility of Traditional Cultural Properties .......... 6-7 6.5 Streamlined Documentation Guidelines ...................................................... 6-8 6.5.1 Streamlined Evaluation of Substantially Altered Properties .......... 6-8 6.5.2 Streamlined Evaluation of Properties Unlikely to be Historically Significant .................................................................. 6-8 6.5.3 Streamlined Evaluation of Minimally Altered Properties ................ 6-9 6.5.4 Streamlining Large, Multiple-Building Parcels or Tracts ................ 6-9 6.5.5 Streamlined Documentation and Context Statement Interface ....................................................................................... 6-9 6.6 Department of Parks and Recreation Evaluation Forms ........................... 6-10 7 HISTORIC CONTEXT ........................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 The Spanish and Mexican Periods ............................................................. 7-1 7.2 Nineteenth-Century Development of the San Francisco Peninsula ............. 7-4 7.3 Development of the Railway Corridor.......................................................... 7-8 7.4 Events and Trends of the Twentieth Century ............................................ 7-12 7.4.1 Highways and Freeways ............................................................ 7-12 7.4.2 Residential Development............................................................ 7-14 7.4.3 Industrial Development ............................................................... 7-15 7.4.4 Postwar Development ................................................................ 7-17 7.5 Built Resources Typologies ...................................................................... 7-19 7.5.1 Residential ................................................................................. 7-19 7.5.2 Commercial ................................................................................ 7-25 7.5.3 Industrial .................................................................................... 7-28 7.5.4 Transportation ............................................................................ 7-30 8 PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED—FINDINGS .............................................................. 8-1 8.1 Properties Listed in the NRHP/CRHR ......................................................... 8-2 8.1.1 Southern Pacific Railroad Bayshore Roundhouse (MR 07), San Francisco .............................................................................. 8-2 8.1.2 Southern Pacific Depot/Millbrae Station (MR 12), Millbrae ........... 8-3 8.1.3 Southern Pacific Railroad Depot/Burlingame Railroad Station (MR 14), Burlingame .................................................................... 8-4 8.1.4 Southern Pacific Railroad Depot/San Carlos Railroad Station (MR 18), San Carlos ..................................................................... 8-5 8.1.5 Carriage House and Water Tower, Holbrook-Palmer Estate (MR 25), Atherton ......................................................................... 8-6 8.1.6 Southern Pacific Railroad Depot/Menlo Park Railroad Station (MR 28), Menlo Park .................................................................... 8-7 8.1.7 Palo Alto Southern Pacific Railroad Depot (MR 31), Palo Alto ...... 8-8 8.2 Properties Determined Eligible for Listing in the NRHP/CRHR ................... 8-9 8.2.1 San Francisco Auxiliary Water Supply System (MR 01), San Francisco ................................................................................... 8-11 8.2.2 Central Waterfront Historic District (MR 03), San Francisco ....... 8-12 8.2.3 Southern Pacific Railroad Tunnel No. 3 (MR 05), San Francisco ................................................................................... 8-14 8.2.4 Southern Pacific Railroad Tunnel No. 4 (MR 06), San Francisco ................................................................................... 8-15 May 2019 California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document ii | Page San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Draft Historic Architectural Survey Report Table of Contents Deliberative and Confidential Draft 8.2.5 Airport Boulevard Underpass/South San Francisco Subway (MR 08), South San Francisco ................................................... 8-16 8.2.6 Jules Francard Grove/Francard Tree Rows (MR 13), Burlingame ...............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transit Information Rockridge Station Oakland
    B I R C H C T Transit N Transit Information For more detailed information about BART W E service, please see the BART schedule, BART system map, and other BART information displays in this station. S Claremont Middle Stops OAK GROVE AVE K Rockridge L School San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Schedule Information e ective February 11, 2019 Fares e ective May 26, 2018 A Transit (BART) rail service connects W 79 Drop-off Station the San Francisco Peninsula with See schedules posted throughout this station, or pick These prices include a 50¢ sur- 51B Drop-off 79 Map Key Oakland, Berkeley, Fremont, up a free schedule guide at a BART information kiosk. charge per trip for using magnetic E A quick reference guide to service hours from this stripe tickets. Riders using (Leave bus here to Walnut Creek, Dublin/Pleasanton, and T transfer to 51A) other cities in the East Bay, as well as San station is shown. Clipper® can avoid this surcharge. You Are Here Francisco International Airport (SFO) and U Oakland Oakland International Airport (OAK). Departing from Rockridge Station From Rockridge to: N (stations listed in alphabetical order) 3-Minute Walk 500ft/150m Weekday Saturday Sunday I M I L E S A V E Train Destination Station One Way Round Trip Radius First Last First Last First Last Fare Information e ective January 1, 2016 12th St. Oakland City Center 2.50 5.00 M H I G H W AY 2 4 511 Real-Time Departures Antioch 5:48a 12:49a 6:19a 12:49a 8:29a 12:49a 16th St.
    [Show full text]
  • JPB Board of Directors Meeting of October 3, 2019 Correspondence
    JPB Board of Directors Meeting of October 3, 2019 Correspondence as of October 1, 2019 # Subject 1. The Gravity of RWC Station 2. Caltrain Business Plan Long Range Service Vision 3. Redwood trees along San Carlos Station Platform 4. Caltrain 2.0 – Elevated: Save $7B+, Better SF Stations, Bike Path From: Ian Bain To: Jeremy Smith Cc: GRP-City Council; Board (@caltrain.com); Board (@samtrans.com); Warren Slocum; Sequoia Center Vision Subject: Re: The Gravity of RWC Station Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 2:58:18 PM Dear Mr. Smith, On behalf of the City Council, thank you for writing to express your thoughts on the Sequoia Station proposal. If this proposal were to go forward, it would require a general plan amendment. As part of due process, City staff will evaluate the developer's proposal, and I believe it will take a couple of months before this issue comes before the Council to consider whether to initiate an amendment process. When it does, your thoughts and concerns will be considered. Thank you again for writing to us. Respectfully, Ian Bain IAN BAIN Mayor City of Redwood City Phone: (650) 780-7565 E-mail: [email protected] www.redwoodcity.org On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:06 AM Jeremy Smith <[email protected]> wrote: Esteemed council members, I am one of the “young” people riddled with worry about climate change and how the destruction it poses to our world and local communities. Living densely around transit is one of the best ways we in the Bay Area can reduce our carbon emissions and maintain economic growth per a UC Berkeley report in 2017 and several others since then.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County Transportation Authority (Ta) 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, Ca 94070
    SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (TA) 1250 SAN CARLOS AVENUE, SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 MINUTES OF APRIL 7, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Foust (Chair), C. Groom, D. Horsley, J. Lee, K. Matsumoto, T. Nagel MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Vreeland STAFF PRESENT: R. Bolon, J. Cassman, M. Choy, G. Harrington, C. Harvey, R. Haskin, J. Hurley, R. Lake, M. Lee, M. Martinez, N. McKenna, D. Miller, S. Murphy, M. Simon Chair Rosanne Foust called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. Director Terry Nagel led the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of Minutes of March 3, 2011 b. Acceptance of Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for February 2011 The Board approved the consent calendar unanimously (Nagel/Horsley). PUBLIC COMMENT Jim Bigelow, Belmont, said this would be the last TA Board meeting for TA Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) member Pat Dixon who is moving out of the area. He said it has been fantastic working with her over the years. Her heart was in Measure A and its implementation and she was an excellent chair for the CAC. He wished her the best and warm thoughts as she leaves the area. Pat Giorni, Burlingame, asked that public comment be changed from one to three minutes. She said Caltrans refuses to fix storm drainage problems until Burlingame cuts down trees along El Camino Real. She said flooding on El Camino Real will hinder congestion management movement and asked that the TA speak to Caltrans. She said Ms. Dixon was a major mentor in all things transportation. Chair Foust said concerns about the flooding and Caltrans will be forwarded to staff.
    [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]
  • City of Menlo Park TDM Existing Conditions
    City of Menlo Park TMA Options Analysis Study: Existing Conditions ___ Client: City of Menlo Park January 2020 Our ref: 23642101 Content 3 Introduction 4 Existing Travel Options 4 Rail and Transit 5 Public and Private Shuttles 6 Existing TDM Programming 8 Travel Patterns 9 Northern Menlo Park 10 Central Menlo Park 11 Downtown Menlo Park 12 Southern Menlo Park 13 Stakeholder Outreach 13 Interviews 16 Small Business Drop Ins 18 Employee Survey 22 Conclusions 23 Next Steps 2 | January 2020 City of Menlo Park: TDM Existing Conditions Introduction TMA Options Analysis for Menlo Park Menlo Park Focus Area Zones The four zones include: The City of Menlo Park has commissioned an Options This Existing Conditions Report (and subsequent 1. Northern Menlo Park (including Bohannon Dr. Analysis for establishing a Transportation reports and analyses) focuses on four areas or area) Management Association (TMA). “zones” within the City of Menlo Park. Each zone 2. Central Menlo Park faces unique challenges due to both its location and As has been seen across Silicon Valley and generally the specific land uses and industry housed within it. 3. Downtown Menlo Park the Bay Area, recent years have brought an increase 4. Southern Menlo Park (including SLAC area) in congestion in the City of Menlo Park. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has Figure 1: Map of Menlo Park Zone Analysis been utilized for years to curb congestion by encouraging non single-occupancy vehicle travel across worksites, cities and counties in the Bay Area and beyond. As TDM is implemented in Menlo Park at a variety of levels, the City hopes that a TMA may help to better coordinate the efforts between public and private entities in the city, and potentially region-wide.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Transportation Guide
    Conference Transportation Guide February 12–15 San Francisco Think Venues Walking, shuttles, BART (Bay The best way to get around Connector Shuttle: Area Rapid Transit) — San Think venues is on foot. Check Moscone/Hilton Hours Francisco has it all. Think 2019 on distances between Think The Connector Shuttle will run Tuesday 7:30am–5:30pm is in a new city. To maximize your venues, suggested walking paths, between Moscone West and the Wednesday 7:30am–6:30pm time, ensure you know how to and wear comfortable shoes. Hilton San Francisco Union Square Thursday 7:30am–6:30pm get around. during the following times: Friday 7:30am–12:30pm Post St 2nd St Think Site Map 14 Market St Kearny St Kearny Grand St Grand Stockton St Stockton 1 Moscone West 6 Press Club Geary St New Montgomery St Registration & Information Desk (Sun–Tue am only) 7 Yerba Buena Forum Chairman’s Address General Session: Research 8 Yerba Buena Theater Science Slam Featured Sessions O’Farrell St 15 3rd St 2 Moscone North 9 AMC Metreon 13 Registration & Information Desk Breakout Sessions Code Yerba Buena Ln Minna St Think Theater (Featured Sessions) Powell St Powell Ellis St 6 Executive Meeting Center Business Partner Café 10 City View 7 Natoma St InnerCircle Lounge Market St 16 Mission St 3 Moscone South Mason St Registration & Information Desk 11 Tabletop Tap House Eddy St St Magnin Cyril Howard St Think Academy Code Café 5 8 9 Think Campus InterContinental Bookstore & Think Store 12 10 Registration 2 4 Think Park (Howard St.) Breakout Sessions Mason St Transportation Think Park Theater 11 (Featured Sessions) 13 Hilton Union Square Walking Path Mission St Be Equal Lounge Registration 4 1 3 Breakout Sessions Market St BART 5 Yerba Buena Gardens 5th St Westin St.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences
    CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES This chapter presents information on the environmental setting in the project area as well as the environmental consequences of the No-Electrification and Electrification Program Alternatives. Environmental issue categories are organized in alphabetical order, consistent with the CEQA checklist presented in Appendix A. The project study area encompasses the geographic area potentially most affected by the project. For most issues involving physical effects this is the project “footprint,” or the area that would be disturbed for or replaced by the new project facilities. This area focuses on the Caltrain corridor from the San Francisco Fourth and King Station in the City and County of San Francisco to the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy in Santa Clara County and also includes the various locations proposed for traction power facilities and power connections. Air quality effects may be felt over a wider area. 3.1 AESTHETICS 3.1.1 VISUAL OR AESTHETIC SETTING The visual or aesthetic environment in the Caltrain corridor is described to establish the baseline against which to compare changes resulting from construction of project facilities and the demolition or alteration of existing structures. This discussion focuses on representative locations along the railroad corridor, including existing stations (both modern and historic), tunnel portals, railroad overpasses, locations of the proposed traction power facilities and other areas where the Electrification Program would physically change above-ground features, affecting the visual appearance of the area and views enjoyed by area residents and users. For purposes of this analysis, sensitive visual receptors are defined as corridor residents and business occupants, recreational users of parks and preserved natural areas, and students of schools in the vicinity of the proposed project.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Clara Valley Transportation
    SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program [A Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority] Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance Examination and Budgetary Comparison Schedule For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program [A Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority] For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 Table of Contents Page(s) Independent Accountant’s Report ................................................................................................................. 1 Budgetary Comparison Schedule (On a Budgetary Basis) ........................................................................... 2 Notes to Budgetary Comparison Schedule ............................................................................................ 3 - 10 Supplementary Information – Program Summaries ............................................................................. 11 - 30 Supplementary Information – 2000 Measure A Ballot ........................................................................ 31 - 33 Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance Examination 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee 3331 North First Street San Jose, California 95134 We have examined the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) compliance with the requirements of the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program (2000 Measure A Program), a fund of VTA, for the year ended June 30, 2019. The
    [Show full text]
  • New Executive Director Leads Caltrain Authority Board of Directors, Where He Served Most Recently As Vice Chair
    Caltrain Spring 2015 ConnectionInformation for Customers New Executive Director Leads Caltrain Authority Board of Directors, where he served most recently as vice chair. "This is personal for me," said Hartnett. "I grew up on the Peninsula. I rode the train before there was a Caltrain. I believe in what transit can do to make a better life for all of us and to preserve those things we so deeply value and treasure about living and working here. I understand the important role our train system plays in main- taining our quality of life and sustaining the economic vitality of our region." Jim Hartnett, veteran trans- Scanlon who retired after more Hartnett's appointment is portation and community than 15 years of service with the result of a nationwide leader, took the wheel of the the District. recruitment that took more San Mateo County Transit Hartnett, a Redwood City than six months. District as the new General resident, served five years on Manager/CEO this spring. He both the Caltrain Board of also serves as Executive Direc- Directors, during which time he Call for Proposals tor of Caltrain and the San also had a stint as chair. He was A significant milestone in Mateo County Transportation appointed four years ago to the electrification of the Authority. He replaced Mike the California High Speed Rail Caltrain corridor has been reached with the release of the Peninsula Corridor Electrifica- Caltrain Asks Supporters to tion Project Design Build Request for Proposals. Six “Stand Up 4 Transportation” previously qualified firms, Shimmick/Alstom, CalMod Caltrain joined transit agen- events around the country, fea- Partners Elecnor/Cobra; Balfour cies from all over the Bay Area tured speakers urging Congress Beatty, Mass Electric/Siemens; at the Temporary Transbay to pass a long-term transpor- Skanska-Comstock-Aldridge, Terminal in San Francisco in tation funding bill before the Peninsula Electrification April for Stand Up 4 Transpor- current bill expires May 31.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.9 Land Use
    Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIS 5.9 LAND USE 5.9.1 INTRODUCTION An adverse effect on land use would occur if the alternatives physically divide an established community; change land use in a manner that would be incompatible with surrounding land uses; and conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation (see Table 5.9-1). Residential and nonresidential relocations associated with implementing the alternatives are discussed in Section 5.12, Socioeconomics. The alternatives would affect surrounding land use in a variety of ways, both during construction and operational phases (see Chapter 6, Construction, for discussion of effects from construction). Effects on land use include the physical effects of the ROW and station facilities, as well as ancillary facilities such as station entrances, ventilation shafts, electrical substations, park-and-ride lots, and yard and shops facilities. Two proposed park-and-ride lots are located outside of the BEP and SVRTP alternative alignments; the Downtown Sunnyvale Station park-and-ride lot and the Evelyn LRT Station park-and-ride lot. These two parcels are existing parking lots within the cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View. Their current and proposed future uses are consistent with the applicable planning and zoning designations. The proposed Downtown Sunnyvale Station park-and-ride lot is designated in the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) as retail specialty grocery store and district parking. The proposed Evelyn LRT Station park-and-ride lot is designated in the Mountain View Zoning Ordinance as general industrial, including required parking. 5.9.2 METHODOLOGY The land use analysis for the No Build, BEP, and SVRTP alternatives focuses on four primary components: the alignment, the proposed station areas, the support facilities required for operation of the line, and the yard and shops options.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Crossing Study
    Final Report Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Crossing Study Prepared for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Prepared by June 8, 2007 Final Report SANTA CLARA STATION PEDESTRIAN CROSSING STUDY PURPOSE OF REPORT The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has requested an analysis of the pros and cons of a potential temporary pedestrian grade crossing of Union Pacific Railroad (UP) tracks at the Santa Clara Caltrain Station. The station is located south of Benton Road. Access to the two Caltrain tracks adjacent to the station is from the west (geographic south). The UP tracks run parallel to and to the east of the Caltrain tracks. The Santa Clara Station is one of three stations in Santa Clara County where pedestrian access to trains is only from one side of the station1. Caltrain is designing a major capital project at the station jointly funded by Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) and the Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) that will improve train operations. This project will include a pedestrian tunnel under the Caltrain tracks to a planned “island” center passenger platform. The area of the new platform appears in Figure 1. As planned and funded, the Caltrain tunnel will not extend all the way to the eastside of the UP tracks. Rather, the tunnel will serve as access for the island platform from the Santa Clara station platform only. Construction of the tunnel is scheduled for completion within two years. A potential temporary crossing of the UP tracks would provide interim access to the planned center island platform, to be located between the Caltrain and UP tracks, from the east side of the UP tracks.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation and Traffic
    4.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This chapter describes the existing traffic conditions of the EA Study Area and evaluates the potential envi- ronmental consequences of future development that could occur by adopting and implementing the pro- posed Housing Element Update, General Plan Consistency Update, and associated Zoning Ordinances amendments, together referred to as the “Plan Components” on transportation and traffic. A summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of Plan Components and cumulative impacts. The chapter is based on the traffic analysis prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants dated March 8, 2013, herein referred to as “Traffic Study.” The future baseline traffic volumes have been developed from output of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) travel demand model run by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The travel demand associated with the Plan Components have been obtained from the C/CAG Model based upon the anticipated future land uses that have been developed resulting from the land use controls under Near-Term 2014 and 2035 condi- tions. The complete Traffic Study and technical appendices are included in Appendix F of this EA. A. Regulatory Framework 1. Federal Laws and Regulations a. Federal Highway Administration The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the agency of the United States (U.S.) Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the federally-funded roadway system, including the interstate high- way network and portions of the primary State highway network, such as Interstate 280 (I-280). b. Americans with Disabilities Act The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 provides comprehensive rights and protections to indi- viduals with disabilities.
    [Show full text]