DOCSLIB.ORG

Coast Corridor Improvements Final Program EIS/EIR

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coast Corridor Improvements Final Program EIS/EIR Appendix C Coast Corridor Service Development Plan MAY 2013 Coast Corridor SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Railroad Administration. This publication does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. FINAL SUBMITTAL May 2013 SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Coast Corridor Prepared for Prepared by California Department of Transportation AECOM 1120 N Street 2101 Webster Street #1900 P.O. Box 942874 Oakland, CA 94612 Sacramento, CA 95814 with Cambridge Systematics & Arellano Associates [This page intentionally blank] Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 Contents 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.1 Organization of the Coast Corridor SDP ................................................................................ 1-3 1.2 Relationship of the Coast Corridor SDP to Other Documents ................................................... 1-4 1.2.1 SDP Support for State Rail Plan ............................................................................................ 1-4 1.2.2 Integration with other SDPs ................................................................................................... 1-4 1.2.3 Relationship to Corridor Environmental Analyses .................................................................. 1-4 2.0 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 Need ........................................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.1 Corridor Transportation Market Challenges ........................................................................... 2-5 2.2.2 Source: Moody’s Economy.com, 2011. Corridor Transportation Market Opportunities ........ 2-6 2.2.3 Current and Forecasted Demand ........................................................................................... 2-7 2.2.4 Corridor Capacity Constraints ................................................................................................ 2-9 2.3 Scope and Objective of the Plan .............................................................................................. 2-10 2.3.1 Scope ................................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 2-11 3.0 Rationale ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Capacity Benefits ....................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Multi-Modal System Benefits ...................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Operational Benefits ................................................................................................................... 3-2 4.0 Identification of Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Previous Corridor Planning Studies ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Corridor Rail Service Plans .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Corridor Rail Service Improvements ...................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3 Build Alternative ......................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.1 Long-Term (2020–2040) Improvements ................................................................................ 4-6 5.0 Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Purpose and Need Criteria ......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Technical Feasibility ................................................................................................................... 5-5 5.3 Economic Feasibility .................................................................................................................. 5-6 5.4 Environmental Resources and Quality ....................................................................................... 5-7 5.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 5-8 6.0 Planning Methodologies ................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Planning Horizons ...................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Year 2020 (Near-Term) .......................................................................................................... 6-1 Page i Coast Corridor Service Development Plan May 2013 6.1.2 Year 2040 (Long-Term) .......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Major Overall Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2.1 Socioeconomic Data .............................................................................................................. 6-2 6.2.2 Forecasting Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 6-2 6.2.3 Freight Rail Forecasting Methodology ................................................................................... 6-4 6.2.4 Market Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 6-6 6.2.5 GIS Methodology ................................................................................................................... 6-7 6.2.6 Alternatives Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................ 6-8 7.0 Outreach Efforts ............................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Stakeholder Meetings ................................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1.1 California State Rail Plan Advisory Committee ...................................................................... 7-1 7.1.2 State Agencies/Regional Agencies ........................................................................................ 7-2 7.1.3 SDP Rail Corridor Committees and Railroads ....................................................................... 7-3 7.2 Public Meetings .......................................................................................................................... 7-4 8.0 Ridership Demand and Revenue Forecast .................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Passenger Rail Forecast ............................................................................................................ 8-1 8.1.1 Methodology and Approach ................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1.2 Study Area Definition ............................................................................................................. 8-1 8.1.3 Data Sources and Assumptions ............................................................................................. 8-2 8.1.4 Travel Demand Model ............................................................................................................ 8-3 8.1.5 Baseline and Future Scenarios Forecasted Ridership .......................................................... 8-4 8.2 Revenue Forecast ...................................................................................................................... 8-4 8.2.1 Ticket Revenue Forecast ....................................................................................................... 8-4 8.2.2 Auxiliary Revenue Forecast ................................................................................................... 8-5 9.0 Operations Modeling ...................................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 Modeling Methodology ..............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Capitol Corridor Service Performance
    CAPITOL CORRIDOR SERVICE PERFORMANCE In July 2016, the Capitol Corridor had one of its best months in the history of the service. Ridership was the highest ever, with a total of 128,655 passengers, a 1.7% year‐over‐year (YOY) increase. Revenue was up 4.6% compared to July 2015. Compared to June 2016, On‐ Time Performance (OTP) slipped slightly from 96% to 95%, yet was still above the FY16 standard of 90%. The Year‐To‐Date (YTD) results continue to be in positive territory. Compared to FY15, FYTD16 ridership and revenue are up 5.5%, with the System Operating Ratio at 55%, five percentage points above the 50% standard. YTD OTP is 94%, which keeps the Capitol Corridor in the #1 spot for service reliability in the national Amtrak intercity passenger rail network. The FYTD16 customer satisfaction scores (through June 2016) are at 89% “Highly Satisfied”, one point above the FY16 standard of 88%. The following are ridership highlights for July 2016: Average weekend ridership for July was down 7% versus July 2015. To address these continued decreases in weekend ridership, the CCJPA is modifying the weekend/holiday train schedule effective August 22, 2016, to slot trains at times that align with typical weekend travel patterns. Average July weekday ridership yielded a 9% increase thanks to continued growth on the trains serving San Jose/Silicon Valley and Placer County stations. Amtrak has sent detailed performance results (see attached) for June 2016 and provided below is a summary of the attached tables: OTP: June 2016 system end‐point OTP was a stellar 96% compared to 93% for May 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Surfliner-San Luis Obispo-San Diego-October282019
    PACIFIC SURFLINER® PACIFIC SURFLINER® SAN LUIS OBISPO - LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO SAN LUIS OBISPO - LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO Effective October 28, 2019 Effective October 28, 2019 ® ® SAN LUIS OBISPO - SANTA BARBARA SAN LUIS OBISPO - SANTA BARBARA VENTURA - LOS ANGELES VENTURA - LOS ANGELES ORANGE COUNTY - SAN DIEGO ORANGE COUNTY - SAN DIEGO and intermediate stations and intermediate stations Including Including CALIFORNIA COASTAL SERVICES CALIFORNIA COASTAL SERVICES connecting connecting NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Visit: PacificSurfliner.com Visit: PacificSurfliner.com Amtrak.com Amtrak.com Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, One Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001. One Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001. NRPS Form W31–10/28/19. Schedules subject to change without notice. NRPS Form W31–10/28/19. Schedules subject to change without notice. page 2 PACIFIC SURFLINER - Southbound Train Number u 5804 5818 562 1564 564 1566 566 768 572 1572 774 Normal Days of Operation u Daily Daily Daily SaSuHo Mo-Fr SaSuHo Mo-Fr Daily Mo-Fr SaSuHo Daily 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, Will Also Operate u 1/1/20 1/1/20 1/1/20 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, 11/28,12/25, Will Not Operate u 1/1/20 1/1/20 1/1/20 B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y On Board Service u låO låO låO låO låO l å O l å O l å O l å O Mile Symbol q SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA –Cal Poly 0 >v Dp b3 45A –Amtrak Station mC ∑w- b4 00A l6 55A Grover Beach, CA 12 >w- b4 25A 7 15A Santa Maria, CA–IHOP® 24 >w b4 40A Guadalupe-Santa Maria, CA 25 >w- 7 31A Lompoc-Surf Station, CA 51 > 8 05A Lompoc, CA–Visitors Center 67 >w Solvang, CA 68 >w b5 15A Buellton, CA–Opp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Third Crossing
    The Third Crossing A Megaproject in a Megaregion www.thirdcrossing.org Final Report, February 2017 Transportation Planning Studio Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of City and Regional Planning (DCRP) at the College of Environmental Design (CED) at UC Berkeley, the University of California Transportation Center and Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), UC Berkeley for support. A special thanks also goes to the helpful feedback from studio instructor Karen Trapenberg Frick and UC Berkeley faculty and researchers including Jesus Barajas and Jason Corburn. We also acknowledge the tremendous support and insights from colleagues at numerous public agencies and non-profit organizations throughout California. A very special thanks goes to David Ory, Michael Reilly, and Fletcher Foti of MTC for their gracious support in running regional travel and land use models, and to Professor Paul Waddell and Sam Blanchard of UrbanSim, Inc. for lending their resources and expertise in land use modeling. We also thank our classmates Joseph Poirier and Lee Reis; as well as David Eifler, Teresa Caldeira, Jennifer Wolch, Robert Cervero, Elizabeth Deakin, Malla Hadley, Leslie Huang and other colleagues at CED; and, Alexandre Bayen, Laura Melendy and Jeanne Marie Acceturo of ITS Berkeley. About Us We are a team of 15 graduate students in City Planning, Transportation Engineering, and Public Health. This project aims to facilitate a conversation about the future of transportation between the East Bay and San Francisco and in the larger Northern California megaregion. We are part of the Department of City and Regional Planning in the UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design, with support from the University of California Transportation Center and The Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • The Signal Bridge
    THE SIGNAL BRIDGE Volume 18 NEWSLETTER OF THE MOUNTAIN EMPIRE MODEL RAILROADERS CLUB Number 5B MAY 2011 BONUS PAGES Published for the Education and Information of Its Membership NORFOLK & WESTERN/SOUTHERN RAILWAY DEPOT BRISTOL TENNESSEE/VIRGINIA CLUB OFFICERS LOCATION HOURS President: Secretary: Newsletter Editor: ETSU Campus, Business Meetings are held the Fred Alsop Donald Ramey Ted Bleck-Doran: George L. Carter 3rd Tuesday of each month. Railroad Museum Meetings start at 7:00 PM at Vice-President: Treasurer: Webmaster: ETSU Campus, Johnson City, TN. John Carter Duane Swank John Edwards Brown Hall Science Bldg, Room 312, Open House for viewing every Saturday from 10:00 am until 3:00 pm. Work Nights each Thursday from 5:00 pm until ?? APRIL 2011 THE SIGNAL BRIDGE Page 2 APRIL 2011 THE SIGNAL BRIDGE Page 3 APRIL 2011 THE SIGNAL BRIDGE II scheme. The "stripe" style paint schemes would be used on AMTRAK PAINT SCHEMES Amtrak for many more years. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Phase II Amtrak paint schemes or "Phases" (referred to by Amtrak), are a series of livery applied to the outside of their rolling stock in the United States. The livery phases appeared as different designs, with a majority using a red, white, and blue (the colors of the American flag) format, except for promotional trains, state partnership routes, and the Acela "splotches" phase. The first Amtrak Phases started to emerge around 1972, shortly after Amtrak's formation. Phase paint schemes Phase I F40PH in Phase II Livery Phase II was one of the first paint schemes of Amtrak to use entirely the "stripe" style.
    [Show full text]
  • California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16
    California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16 December 2005 California Department of Transportation ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK, Secretary Business, Transportation and Housing Agency WILL KEMPTON, Director California Department of Transportation JOSEPH TAVAGLIONE, Chair STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER JEREMIAH F. HALLISEY, Vice Chair GOVERNOR BOB BALGENORTH MARIAN BERGESON JOHN CHALKER JAMES C. GHIELMETTI ALLEN M. LAWRENCE R. K. LINDSEY ESTEBAN E. TORRES SENATOR TOM TORLAKSON, Ex Officio ASSEMBLYMEMBER JENNY OROPEZA, Ex Officio JOHN BARNA, Executive Director CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1120 N STREET, MS-52 P. 0 . BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, 94273-0001 FAX(916)653-2134 (916) 654-4245 http://www.catc.ca.gov December 29, 2005 Honorable Alan Lowenthal, Chairman Senate Transportation and Housing Committee State Capitol, Room 2209 Sacramento, CA 95814 Honorable Jenny Oropeza, Chair Assembly Transportation Committee 1020 N Street, Room 112 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear: Senator Lowenthal Assembly Member Oropeza: On behalf of the California Transportation Commission, I am transmitting to the Legislature the 10-year California State Rail Plan for FY 2005-06 through FY 2015-16 by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with the Commission's resolution (#G-05-11) giving advice and consent, as required by Section 14036 of the Government Code. The ten-year plan provides Caltrans' vision for intercity rail service. Caltrans'l0-year plan goals are to provide intercity rail as an alternative mode of transportation, promote congestion relief, improve air quality, better fuel efficiency, and improved land use practices. This year's Plan includes: standards for meeting those goals; sets priorities for increased revenues, increased capacity, reduced running times; and cost effectiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • PRIIA Report
    Pursuant to Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432, Division B): Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations Covering the Quarter Ended June, 2020 (Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2020) Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation Published August 2020 Table of Contents (Notes follow on the next page.) Financial Table 1 (A/B): Short-Term Avoidable Operating Costs (Note 1) Table 2 (A/B): Fully Allocated Operating Cost covered by Passenger-Related Revenue Table 3 (A/B): Long-Term Avoidable Operating Loss (Note 1) Table 4 (A/B): Adjusted Loss per Passenger- Mile Table 5: Passenger-Miles per Train-Mile On-Time Performance (Table 6) Test No. 1 Change in Effective Speed Test No. 2 Endpoint OTP Test No. 3 All-Stations OTP Train Delays Train Delays - Off NEC Table 7: Off-NEC Host Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Table 8: Off-NEC Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Train Delays - On NEC Table 9: On-NEC Total Host and Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Other Service Quality Table 10: Customer Satisfaction Indicator (eCSI) Scores Table 11: Service Interruptions per 10,000 Train-Miles due to Equipment-related Problems Table 12: Complaints Received Table 13: Food-related Complaints Table 14: Personnel-related Complaints Table 15: Equipment-related Complaints Table 16: Station-related Complaints Public Benefits (Table 17) Connectivity Measure Availability of Other Modes Reference Materials Table 18: Route Descriptions Terminology & Definitions Table 19: Delay Code Definitions Table 20: Host Railroad Code Definitions Appendixes A.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations
    S. HRG. 111–983 Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Fiscal Year 2011 111th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION H.R. 5850/S. 3644 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2011 (H.R. 5850/S. 3644) S. HRG. 111–983 TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES AP- PROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 5850/S. 3644 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANS- PORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RE- LATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Transportation National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Nondepartmental witnesses Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 54–989 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A.
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain Governance
    Caltrain Governance JPB Special Meeting #3 on Governance June 25, 2021 Welcome to Special Meeting #3 2 • Review Meeting #3 Objectives and Special Meeting Governance Process Roadmap • Staff Presentations #3 Agenda • Approach to Regional and Non-Self Directed Relationships • Active and Emerging Discussions • Strategic Issues ~ Break ~ • Discussion • Next Steps 3 Special Meeting #3 Objectives and Process Roadmap 4 JPB Governance 2021 Roadmap Goals: Goals: - Exploration and education about the JPB’s range of structural - Discussion of selected option(s) and financial and legal analysis towards developing governance paths. the 2021 governance recommendation. - Selection of governance options and key issues to focus on in Phase 2. - Adoption of governance recommendation at December 2021 JPB meeting. 2021 January February March April May June July August September October November December Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Hoc #1 Hoc #2 Hoc #3 Hoc #4 Hoc #5 Hoc #6 Hoc #7 Hoc #8 Hoc #9 Hoc #10 Hoc #11 Board Adoption Special Special Special Special Special of 2021 Meeting #1 Meeting #2 Meeting #3 Meeting #4 Meeting #5 Governance Recommendation We Are Here 5 JPB Governance 2021 Roadmap Goals: Goals: - Exploration and education about the JPB’s range of structural - Discussion of selected option(s) and financial and legal analysis towards developing governance paths. the 2021 governance recommendation. - Selection of governance options and key issues to focus on
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Starlight
    ® Effective October 12, 2020 COAST STARLIGHT serving SEATTLE - TACOMA - PORTLAND - EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD - SACRAMENTO - SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA - SANTA BARBARA - LOS ANGELES and intermediate stations Amtrak.com BOOK TRAVEL, CHECK TRAIN STATUS, ACCESS YOUR ETICKET AND MORE THROUGH THE Amtrak app. 1-800-USA-RAIL Service on the Coast Starlight® 11 3Train Number4 14 R Coaches: Reservations required. As indicated in column 3Normal Days of Operation4 TuThSa B Business class service available. Reservations required. For R B s r R B s r more information visit Amtrak.com/business-class. 3On Board Service4 s Private rooms. For more information, visit Amtrak.com/rooms. y l O y l O r Dining service: For more information, visit Amtrak.com/dining. Read Down Mile Symbol Read Up y Café service: For more information, visit Amtrak.com/cafe. 6 5 l b Amtrak Thruway Connection—Vancouver, BC/Seattle, WA Checked baggage at select stations. O On Board Bicycle Racks: We offer a number of different ∑w- l9 45A MoWeSa 0 Dp Seattle, WA (Victoria, BC i)(PT) Ar l7 56P TuThSa services to transport your bike onboard on most routes. Each l10 37A MoWeSa 39 Tacoma, WA ∑w- p l6 50P TuThSa train has different equipment and loading procedures that dictate 11 27A MoWeSa 75 Olympia-Lacey, WA >w- 6 01P TuThSa what service will be offered. Reservations are required and l11 51A MoWeSa 94 Centralia, WA ∑w- 5 36P TuThSa additional charges apply. Visit Amtrak.com/bikes for all the 12 35P MoWeSa 137 Kelso-Longview, WA >w- 4 51P TuThSa details before you book your trip.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Surfliner® Trains Coaches: Unreserved
    PACIFIC SURFLINER® MAY 10, 2010 And Effective CALIFORNIA COASTAL SERVICES SM Enjoy the journey. PACIFIC SURFLINER® serving SAN LUIS OBISPO - SANTA BARBARA LOS ANGELES - ORANGE COUNTY 1-800-USA-RAIL SAN DIEGO Call CALIFORNIA COASTAL SERVICES serving ROSEVILLE - SACRAMENTO OAKLAND - SAN LUIS OBISPO SANTA BARBARA - LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO And intermediate stations AMTRAK.COM Visit NRPC Form W31–600M–5/10/10 Stock #02-3312 PACIFIC SURFLINER-Northbound San Diego • Orange County • Los Angeles • Santa Barbara • San Luis Obispo Train Number 5801 799 763 565 567 769 571 573 775 577 579 583 785 587 589 591 595 597 5811 Normal Days of Operation Daily Daily Daily Daily Mo-Fr Daily SaSu Mo-Fr Daily SaSu Mo-Fr Daily Daily SaSu Mo-Fr SaSu Daily FrSu Daily Will Also Operate 5/31,9/6 5/31,9/6 5/31,9/6 5/31,9/6 5/31,9/6 Will Not Operate 5/31,9/6 5/31,9/6 5/31,9/6 5/31,9/6 On Board Service ® B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y B y Mile Symbol San Diego, CA (Tijuana ) (PT) 0 Dp 6 10A 7 05A 8 10A 9 30A 10 35A 10 50A 12 00N 12 55P 1 25P 3 00P 4 00P 5 20P 5 55P 6 20P 8 20P 9 15P 210 00P San Diego, CA -Old Town 3 %§R 4 06P %§R 5 27P %§R 6 27P Solana Beach, CA 26 6 45A 7 39A 8 44A 10 04A 11 09A 11 24A 12 34P 1 29P 1 59P 3 34P 4 35P 5 56P 6 29P 6 56P 8 54P 9 49P 210 30P Oceanside, CA (LEGOLAND) %∞ 41 7 01A 7 55A 8 58A 10 18A 11 25A 11 39A 12 49P 1 44P 2 14P 3 50P 4 52P 6 10P 6 44P 7 10P 9 09P 10 04P 211 00P San Clemente Pier, CA 63 4 11P 5 15P San Juan Capistrano, CA 70 7 31A 8 28A 9 29A 10
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak Cascades Fleet Management Plan
    Amtrak Cascades Fleet Management Plan November 2017 Funding support from Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information The material can be made available in an alternative format by emailing the Office of Equal Opportunity at [email protected] or by calling toll free, 855-362-4ADA (4232). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may make a request by calling the Washington State Relay at 711. Title VI Notice to Public It is the Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) policy to assure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any person who believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated, may file a complaint with WSDOT’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For additional information regarding Title VI complaint procedures and/or information regarding our non-discrimination obligations, please contact OEO’s Title VI Coordinator at 360-705-7082. The Oregon Department of Transportation ensures compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 49 CFR, Part 21; related statutes and regulations to the end that no person shall be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Transportation on the grounds of race, color, sex, disability or national origin.
    [Show full text]
  • San Jose to Merced Project Section State's
    SUMMER 2019 SAN JOSE TO MERCED PROJECT SECTION STATE’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE OVERVIEW High-speed rail offers an unprecedented opportunity to modernize California’s transportation system and tie together the state’s economies. The San Jose to Merced Project Section will be the crucial connection between the Bay Area and the Central Valley. This fact sheet discusses the staff recommendation for the State’s Preferred Alternative to be considered by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) Board of Directors. WHAT IS A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE? Since 2008, numerous alternatives have been considered Alternative. Authority staff is seeking feedback on this for the high-speed rail alignment traveling within and recommendation before it is presented to the Authority outside of the Bay Area. Ultimately, four alternatives Board of Directors in September 2019. are being analyzed for the Draft Environmental Impact Alternative 4 will be referred to as the staff-recommended Report/Statement (EIR/EIS). The alternative determined State’s Preferred Alternative until the Authority Board to best balance tradeoffs between environmental; of Directors concurs with the staff recommendation or community; and performance, operations, and cost factors requests that a different alternative be identified as the will be identified as the State’s Preferred Alternative. State’s Preferred Alternative. The identification of the Planning, design, and analysis of the four alternatives, State’s Preferred Alternative for the Draft EIR/EIS does collaboration with landowners and agencies, and input not express or imply approval or adoption of a preferred from the public and stakeholders has led Authority staff alternative for final design or construction.
    [Show full text]