DOCSLIB.ORG

BART-To-Oakland International Airport Title VI Equity Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BART-To-Oakland International Airport Title VI Equity Analysis BART-to-Oakland International Airport Title VI Equity Analysis May 2014 Prepared for: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Prepared by: CDM Smith Corey, Canapary & Galanis Research Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Section 2 Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Public Comments ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.1 New Service Input .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Fare Preference Input ................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Limited English Proficient (LEP) Community Comments ........................................................................ 2-3 2.4 Airport Employee Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2-3 Section 3 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Project New Fare ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Alternative Modes ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Prospective Project Ridership .............................................................................................................................. 3-2 Section 4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 New Fare Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Demographic Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Service Change Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.1 Demographic Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Travel Time Assessment for Systemwide Population .................................................................... 4-6 Section 5 Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 New Fare Analysis Findings ................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Demographic Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Service Change Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.1 Demographic Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.2 Travel Time Assessment for Systemwide Population .................................................................... 5-3 Project Benefits ............................................................................................................................................... 5-4 Other Improvements Benefitting Protected Riders ........................................................................ 5-4 5.3 Overall Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 5-5 List of Figures Figure 3-1 AirBART Riders ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-5 Figure 3-2 Oakland Airport Air Passenger Catchment Area ........................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 4-1 Percent Minority by Census Tract ........................................................................................................................ 4-9 Figure 4-2 Percent Low-Income by Census Tract ............................................................................................................. 4-10 i 101152 Table of Contents List of Tables Table 2-1: Respondent Fare Preference .................................................................................................................................. 2-2 Table 3-1 AirBART and Project Service Levels ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 Table 3-2 Alternative Modes Service Levels .......................................................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-3 AirBART Ridership Demographics ........................................................................................................................ 3-3 Table 3-4 AirBART Ridership – Trip Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 4-1 Low Income Definition (Existing AirBART Ridership)................................................................................. 4-2 Table 4-2 Estimated Minority Share of the Project: Scenario A .................................................................................... 4-5 Table 5-1 Protected Share of Ridership (New Fare Analysis) ....................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-2 Protected Share of Ridership (Service Change Analysis: Census) .......................................................... 5-2 Table 5-3 Protected Share of Ridership (Service Change Analysis: Survey) ........................................................... 5-3 Table 5-5 Average Travel Time Comparison (Systemwide Populations) ................................................................. 5-4 Table 5-4 Project and Systemwide Protected Share of Ridership ............................................................................... 5-5 Appendices Appendix A Additional Assessments Appendix B Systemwide Population Calculations Appendix C Existing AirBART Ridership Calculations Appendix D Public Participation Report Appendix E Outreach Publicity Materials Appendix F List of General and Fare Comments Appendix G BART Rail Expansion Projects ii 101152 Section 1 Introduction The New Service and New Fare Title VI Equity Analysis for the BART-to-Oakland International Airport Project (Project) provides an evaluation of how the Project may affect low-income and minority riders. This analysis is undertaken in connection with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. While low-income riders are not a protected class under Title VI, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), also requires recipients to evaluate proposed service and fare changes to determine whether low-income riders will bear a disproportionate burden of the changes. Accordingly, the FTA has adopted regulations and reporting compliance requirements for agencies that receive federal financial assistance to ensure that the programs and activities of each respective agency comply with the requirements of Title VI.1 The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of the new service and new fare of the Project based on the FTA’s Title VI requirements and guidelines, including but not limited to, FTA Circular 4702.1B (Circular), which requires an analysis of impacts of the new service and fares on minority and low- income riders. This report determines if the new service and new fare would have a disparate impact on minority riders or place a disproportionate burden on low-income riders based on BART’s Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Policy (DI/DB Policy). The DI/DB Policy was developed pursuant to the Circular, following an extensive public participation process, and adopted by the BART Board of Directors on July 11, 2013. In accordance with the adopted DI/DB Policy, for new service and new fares, a disparate impact to minority riders or a disproportionate burden on low-income riders will be found if the applicable difference between the proportion of Project riders that are protected and the proportion of protected systemwide riders is equal to or greater than 10%.2 The Project falls under the new service and new fare guidelines as it provides service between the Coliseum BART station and the Oakland International Airport (OAK) that was not previously served by a fixed guideway system. This report includes the following sections. Public Outreach: An overview of the public outreach efforts and feedback received for the BART-to-Oakland
Load more

Recommended publications
  • C<Uoln I£ »-I<;U Q£O SKU Op <U Rtf Uu> L, . 3 Kl 5 Z
    c <u o Ln I £ f—i »-i <; u Z Q O £ p o < S u K Z U 3 rtf 2 §u u > L, u £ a o . 3 Kl 5 z « £ > r A couple of visits by you to City Council meetings on June 2 and June 9 will almost certainly mean $15*000 worth of free hot lunches for Washington School children next year. On June 2 the Community Development Commission recom­ mendation to spend $1 5 ,0 0 0 next year for these children will be on Council agenda. The Council will probably send it to committee. The staff will probably recommend its passage and also funding for free hot lunches for two other schools. Then it will probably come up for a vote June 9 or maybe June 1 6 . We are doing trail-breaking work here. These lunches will be paid for by Federal block-grant funds and matched by Federal Nutri­ tion funds. The city has the money because the Potrero project cost less than expected. It won't cost the school district a cent. And it won't raise your property taxes. Thirty-three percent (33%) of these kids are on welfare. But they are our kids - they go to school in our community. Our community includes these children as well as people who are threatened by ammonia tanks. So even if you don't have children, and maybe especially if you don't have children - PLEAoE GO TO THESE MEETINGS. You people in Brickyard Cove - and on Western Drive - the councilmen know who you are.
    [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]
  • PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION March 28, 2017 Agenda ID# 15631
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 March 28, 2017 Agenda ID# 15631 TO PARTIES TO RESOLUTION ST-203 This is the Resolution of the Safety and Enforcement Division. It will be on the April 27, 2017, Commission Meeting agenda. The Commission may act then, or it may postpone action until later. When the Commission acts on the Resolution, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the resolution become binding on the parties. Parties may file comments on the Resolution as provided in Article 14 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), accessible on the Commission’s website at www.cpuc.ca.gov. Pursuant to Rule 14.3, opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages. Late-submitted comments or reply comments will not be considered. An electronic copy of the comments should be submitted to Colleen Sullivan (email: [email protected]). /s/ ELIZAVETA I. MALASHENKO ELIZAVETA I. MALASHENKO, Director Safety and Enforcement Division SUL:vdl Attachment CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of Draft Resolution ST-203 on all identified parties in this matter as shown on the attached Service List. Dated March 28, 2017, at San Francisco, California. /s/ VIRGINIA D. LAYA Virginia D. Laya NOTICE Parties should notify the Safety Enforcement Division, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to ensure that they continue to receive documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Birding Northern California by Jean Richmond
    BIRDING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Site Guides to 72 of the Best Birding Spots by Jean Richmond Written for Mt. Diablo Audubon Society 1985 Dedicated to my husband, Rich Cover drawing by Harry Adamson Sketches by Marv Reif Graphics by dk graphics © 1985, 2008 Mt. Diablo Audubon Society All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means without prior permission of MDAS. P.O. Box 53 Walnut Creek, California 94596 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . How To Use This Guide .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Birding Etiquette .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Terminology. Park Information .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 One Last Word. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 Map Symbols Used. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Acknowledgements .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Map With Numerical Index To Guides .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 The Guides. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 Where The Birds Are. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 158 Recommended References .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 165 Index Of Birding Locations. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 166 5 6 Birding Northern California This book is a guide to many birding areas in northern California, primarily within 100 miles of the San Francisco Bay Area and easily birded on a one-day outing. Also included are several favorite spots which local birders
    [Show full text]
  • BART to Antioch Extension Title VI Equity Analysis & Public
    BART to Antioch Extension Title VI Equity Analysis & Public Participation Report October 2017 Prepared by the Office of Civil Rights San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Table of Contents I. BART to Antioch Title VI Equity Analysis Executive Summary 1 Section 1: Introduction 7 Section 2: Project Description 8 Section 3: Methodology 20 Section 4: Service Analysis Findings 30 Section 5: Fare Analysis Findings 39 II. Appendices Appendix A: 2017 BART to Antioch Survey Appendix B: Proposed Service Plan Appendix C: BART Ridership Project Analysis Appendix D: C-Line Vehicle Loading Analysis III. BART to Antioch Public Participation Report i ii BART to Antioch Title VI Equity Analysis and Public Participation Report Executive Summary In October 2011, staff completed a Title VI Analysis for Antioch Station (formerly known as Hillcrest Avenue Station). A Title VI/Environmental Justice analysis was conducted on the Pittsburg Center Station on March 19, 2015. Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI Circular (Circular) 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (October 1, 2012), the District is required to conduct a Title VI Service and Fare Equity Analysis (Title VI Equity Analysis) for the Project's proposed service and fare plan six months prior to revenue service. Accordingly, staff completed an updated Title VI Equity Analysis for the BART to Antioch (Project) service and fare plan, which evaluates whether the Project’s proposed service and fare will have a disparate impact on minority populations or a disproportionate burden on low-income populations based on the District’s Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Policy (DI/DB Policy) adopted by the Board on July 11, 2013 and FTA approved Title VI service and fare methodologies.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, Chapter 7
    7.0 ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION & Fig. 7 Resolution 3434 EVALUATION — STEP-BY-STEP Step One: Base Network Healdsburg Sonoma Recognizing that Resolution 3434 represents County 8 MTC’s regional rail investment over the next 25 Santa years as adopted first in the 2001 Regional Trans- Rosa Napa portation Plan and reaffirmed in the subsequent County Vacaville 9 plan update, Resolution 3434 is included as part Napa of the “base case” network. Therefore, the study Petaluma Solano effort focuses on defining options for rail improve- County ments and expansions beyond Resolution 3434. Vallejo Resolution 3434 rail projects include: Marin County 8 9 Pittsburg 1. BART/East Contra Costa Rail (eBART) San Antioch 1 Rafael Concord Richmond 2. ACE/Increased Services Walnut Berkeley Creek MTC Resolution 3434 Contra Costa 3. BART/I-580 Rail Right-of-Way Preservation County Rail Projects Oakland 4. Dumbarton Bridge Rail Service San 1 BART: East Contra Costa Extension Francisco 10 6 3 2 ACE: Increased Service 5. BART/Fremont-Warm Springs to San Jose Daly City 2 Pleasanton Livermore 3 South Extension BART: Rail Right-of-Way Preservation San Francisco Hayward Union City 4 Dumbarton Rail Alameda 6. Caltrain/Rapid Rail/Electrification & Extension San Mateo Fremont County 5 BART: Fremont/Warm Springs 4 to Downtown San Francisco/Transbay Transit to San Jose Extension 7 Redwood City 5 Center 6 & Extension to Downtown SF/ Mountain Milpitas Transbay Transit Center View Palo Alto 7. Caltrain/Express Service 7 Caltrain: Express Service Sunnyvale Santa Clara San San Santa Clara 8 Jose 8. SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) Mateo Cupertino County 9 County 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Solanoexpress Bus Routes Transit Information Fairfield Transportation Center Fairfield
    Regional Transit Map Transit REGIONAL TRANSIT DIAGRAM To To Eureka Clearlake Information Mendocino Transit DOWNTOWN AREA TRANSIT CONNECTIONS Authority To Ukiah Lake Oakland Mendocino Transit 12th Street Oakland City Center BART: Greyhound BART, AC Transit FA FA 19th Street Oakland BART: FA BART, AC Transit Cloverdale San Francisco Yolobus To Davis Civic Center/UN Plaza BART: Winters Fairfi eld and Suisun Transit SolanoExpress is Solano SolanoExpress is Solano BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans Fairfield 101 Embarcadero BART & Ferry Terminal: County’s intercity transit connection. County’s intercity transit connection. BART, Golden Gate Transit, Muni, SamTrans, (FAST) is the local transit system Baylink, Alameda/Oakland Ferry, Alameda Harbor Faireld and Healdsburg Bay Ferry, Blue & Gold Fleet, Amtrak CA Thruway Suisun Transit SolanoExpress routes connect cities SolanoExpress routes connect cities Transit To Sacramento for Fairfi eld and Suisun City and also Mongomery Street BART: Healdsburg BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans Dixon within the county and provide service within the county and provide service Calistoga Readi- operates many of the SolanoExpress (Operated by FAST) (Operated by SolTrans) Handi Powell Street BART: Transportation Ride Van Calistoga BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans regional routes. Please visit www.fasttransit. to neighboring counties, BART, and the ferry. to neighboring counties, BART, and the ferry. San Francisco Caltrain at 4th & King: Dixon Windsor Deer Caltrain, Muni, Amtrak CA Thruway org or call 707-422-BUSS (707-422-2877) for For more information, call (800) 535-6883 or For more information, call (800) 535-6883 or Park Transbay Temporary Terminal: Guerneville AC Transit, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans, 80 visit www.solanoexpress.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Adaptation Study APPENDIX
    City of Richmond Climate Change Adaptation Study APPENDIX City of Richmond Climate Action Plan Appendix F: Climate Change Adaptation Study Acknowledgements The City of Richmond has been an active participant in the Contra Costa County Adapting to Rising Tides Project, led by the Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) in partnership with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the State Coastal Conservancy, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, the San Francisco Estuary Institute, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and consulting firm AECOM. Environmental Science Associates (ESA) completed this Adaptation Study in coordination with BCDC, relying in part on reports and maps developed for the Adapting to Rising Tides project to assess the City of Richmond’s vulnerabilities with respect to sea level rise and coastal flooding. City of Richmond Climate Action Plan F-i Appendix F: Climate Change Adaptation Study This page intentionally left blank F-ii City of Richmond Climate Action Plan Appendix F: Climate Change Adaptation Study Table of Contents Acknowledgements i 1. Executive Summary 1 1.1 Coastal Flooding 2 1.2 Water Supply 2 1.3 Critical Transportation Assets 3 1.4 Vulnerable Populations 3 1.5 Summary 3 2. Study Methodology 4 2.1 Scope and Organize 4 2.2 Assess 4 2.3 Define 4 2.4 Plan 5 2.5 Implement and Monitor 5 3. Setting 6 3.1 Statewide Climate Change Projections 6 3.2 Bay Area Region Climate Change Projections 7 3.3 Community Assets 8 3.4 Relevant Local Planning Initiatives 9 3.5 Relevant State and Regional Planning Initiatives 10 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Solano Express Bus Routes Transit Information Pleasant Hill Station Area Contra Costa Centre
    Fare Information effective January 1, 2016 Senior3 Adult/ (65+) Youth2 County Connection & (6-64) For more detailed information about BART Disabled service, please see the BART Schedule, BART 1 Transit CASH FARES (exact change only) Regional Transit Map System Map, and other BART information REGIONAL TRANSIT DIAGRAM displays in this station. Regular Ride $2.00 $1.00 To To Express Ride (900 series route numbers) $2.25 $1.00 Eureka Clearlake Information Mendocino Transit DOWNTOWN AREA TRANSIT CONNECTIONS PREPAID FARES Authority To Ukiah Lake Oakland ® 4 $2.00 $1.00 Mendocino Transit 12th Street Oakland City Center BART: Clipper Cash Value Greyhound BART, AC Transit 19th Street Oakland BART: 5 $3.75 $1.75 BART, AC Transit Day Pass Cloverdale San Francisco Yolobus To Davis Discount Regular/Express 20-Ride Pass N/A $15.00 Civic Center/UN Plaza BART: Winters BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans Commuter Card (20 Regular+BART Transfer-Rides) $40.00 N/A Pleasant Hill 101 Embarcadero BART & Ferry Terminal: BART, Golden Gate Transit, Muni, SamTrans, Baylink, Alameda/Oakland Ferry, Alameda Harbor Faireld and 6 $60.00 N/A Healdsburg Bay Ferry, Blue & Gold Fleet, Amtrak CA Thruway Suisun Transit East Bay Regional Local 31-Day Transit To Sacramento Mongomery Street BART: Healdsburg BART, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans Dixon 6 $70.00 N/A Calistoga Readi- County Connection (CCCTA) effective January 1, 2016 East Bay Regional Express 31-Day Handi Powell Street BART: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Fare Information Station Area Ride BART Red* Ticket
    [Show full text]
  • Volume I - Finalfinal Eireir
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT POINT MOLATE MIXED-USE TRIBAL DESTINATION RESORT AND CASINO FEBRUARY 2011 VOLUMEVOLUME I - FINALFINAL EIREIR LEAD AGENCY City of Richmond 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA 94804 LEAD AGENCY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT POINT MOLATE MIXED-USE TRIBAL DESTINATION RESORT AND CASINO FEBRUARY 2011 VOLUMEVOLUME I - FINALFINAL EIREIR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT POINT MOLATE MIXED-USE TRIBAL DESTINATION RESORT AND CASINO VOLUMEVOLUME I - FINALFINAL EIREIR FEBRUARY 2011 LEAD AGENCY: PREPARED BY: City of Richmond Analytical Environmental Services 450 Civic Center Plaza 1801 7th Street, Suite 100 Richmond, CA 94804 Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 447-3479 www.analyticalcorp.com TABLE OF CONTENTS POINT MOLATE MIXED-USE TRIBAL DESTINATION RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT FINAL EIR VOLUME I – FINAL EIR 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Organization of the Final EIR ....................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Changes and Edits to Draft EIS/EIR ............................................................................................ 1-2 2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS/EIR ................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Organization of Comments ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Castro Point Railway the PLUNGE’S ORIGINAL 1926 CLOCK IS RE-HUNG TODAY September 1, 2010
    www.PointRichmondHistory.org Vol. XXIX No. 2 September/October, 2010 $3.00 Castro Point Railway THE PLUNGE’S ORIGINAL 1926 CLOCK IS RE-HUNG TODAY September 1, 2010 Meeting outside the locked Plunge this morning at 10 am were “The Clockman” Steve Kowalski, “Pony- tail Bruce" Audrestech, and David Vincent. A city employee happened to arrive at the same time, allowing entry to the building. The old clock was reinforced on the back by Steve with a new wooden cover. A ½ inch wooden frame on the back, with a steel top cross bar had been added. This allows the electric cord to hide in its recesses as the new plug outlet was flush with the new wall. The old clock originally was a key wind-up, but was long-ago converted to electricity. The little sticker on the face of the clock for the clock repair service has an Oakland address, without a zone number or zip code; the telephone has Highgate as the prefix to the number. Finding two more extension ladders was easier than expected, and two quick trips to Whale Point Marine Supply supplied the final requirements. Steve then added two lag bolts with large fender-washers to the studs in the wall. Returning to the floor all then signed their names to the new frame and dated the event. With three 20 foot extension ladders, side by side, Bruce and Steve walked the clock up the ladder. David’s feet rested on the bottom of the ladders to stabilize the climb, and with his free hand, taking photos of the installation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Survey Report for the San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate, Contra Costa County, California
    Appendix D CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT Cultural Resources Survey Report for the San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate, Contra Costa County, California Prepared on Behalf of: Prepared By: East Bay Regional Park District NCE 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, P.O. Box 1760 P.O. Box 5381 Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 Oakland, CA 94605 NCE Project Number: 567.04.55 March 2018 Jeremy Hall With Contributions From: Cultural Resources Specialist Chad Moffett and Tim Smith NCE Architectural Historians Mead & Hunt ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY In 2009, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) entered into an agreement for the donation of an easement for the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) along the shoreline of their southernmost property on the San Pablo Peninsula at Point Molate. In 2013-14, the EBRPD hired NCE to conduct an alignment study for a Class I bike path and as a result, recorded the trail easement. Recently, the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) approved the installation of a bike and pedestrian path on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to Marine Street, near Point Richmond, which would connect to the EBRPD’s easement at Stenmark Drive. The combined projects will connect trail users from both Richmond and Marin County to the San Pablo Peninsula. The proposed Bay Trail at Point Molate will be approximately 2.5 miles and extend north along the shoreline, through Chevron’s property, to the Point Molate Beach Park and Navel Fuel Depot property, owned and managed by the City of Richmond, giving the public access to the shoreline and the ability to connect to the Park via foot or bicycle.
    [Show full text]