DOCSLIB.ORG

Martha's Vineyard Regional Transportation Plan 2020–2040

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Martha's Vineyard Regional Transportation Plan 2020–2040 Martha’s Vineyard Regional Transportation Plan 2020–2040 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW June 23, 2019 Notes: The section on public outreach will be completed following the public review. The sections on financial constraints and proposed projects will be completed based on discussions with the Joint Transportation Committee. Underlined sections indicate information that was unavailable as of this draft. An earlier draft of this plan was approved by the Joint Transportation Committee on June 19, 2019. 1 Contents Participants and Endorsement Executive Summary (10) Transportation Planning Organizations (13) Section 1: Transportation Systems at a Glance (14) Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority Martha’s Vineyard Airport Roads and Automobiles Vineyard Transit Authority Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Section 2: RTP Guidance and Process (15) Federal Legislation MAP-21 and FAST Act Title VI and Environmental Justice State Legislation and Guidance Regional Planning weMove Massachusetts GreetDOT Policy Directive Greenhouse Gas Analysis Metropolitan Planning Organizations and the Global Warming Solutions Act Regional Greenhouse Gas Tracking and Evaluation in RTPs Planning and Outreach Performance Measures for Martha’s Vineyard Criteria for Project Prioritization Section 3: Martha’s Vineyard Overview (22) Introduction Demographics Population Age and Gender Population Projections Economy Economic Development Locations Notes on the Seasonal Economy Establishments and Employees Income and Earnings Housing and Seasonality Land Use and Transportation Estimates of Future Growth Section 4: The Regional Transportation Network (34) 2 General Objectives Transportation Demand Projections Water Transportation Freight Transportation Air Transportation Roads and Automobiles Bus and Van Service Taxis and Ride-Share Bicycles and Pedestrians Section 5: Environmental Issues (37) Overview Environmental Mitigation (General) Climate Change Overview Sea-Level Rise Mitigation and Adaptation Climate Change Legislation Local Planning Other Concerns Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Economic Impacts Transportation Improvement Projects and Climate Change Objectives Proposed Actions Section 6: Water Transportation (50) Overview List of Harbors Vessels Operating in Vineyard Waters Trends and Issues Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority Seasonal Passenger Ferries The Chappy Ferry Cruise Ships Recent Developments (Completed) Objectives Proposed Actions Section 7: Freight Transportation (68) Overview Trends and Issues Objectives Proposed Actions Section 8: Air Transportation (72) 3 Overview Trends and Issues Objectives Proposed Actions Section 9: Roads and Automobiles (77) Overview Trends and Issues Automobiles Parking Pavement Looking Ahead: Key Locations Five Corners Upper State Road Edgartown-Vineyard Haven Road The Triangle Oak Bluffs Downtown Aquinnah Circle Menemsha Capstone Project in West Tisbury Context-Sensitive Design Objectives Proposed Actions General Traffic Mitigation Roads and Bridges Parking Section 10: Bus and Van Service (97) Overview Trends and Issues Vineyard Transit Authority Organization and Funding Electrification of the VTA Fleet Other Bus Services Other Issues Objectives Proposed Actions Short-Term Actions Other Actions Section 11: Taxis and Ride-Share (105) Overview Trends and Issues Objectives 4 Proposed Actions Section 12: Bicycles and Pedestrians (108) Overview Description and Analysis of Existing Facilities Roadways Sidewalks Shared-Use Paths Trails Trends and Issues Developments Objectives General Specific Proposed Actions Short-Term Actions Bicycles Pedestrian Facilities Section 13: Mopeds (118) Overview Trends and Issues Objectives Proposed Actions Section 14: Safety and Security (120) Section 15: Livability (125) Overview Livability in Transportation Livability in Development and TIP Projects Complete Streets Multimodal Links Objectives Proposed Actions Inter-modality Transportation Information Section 16: Financial Information and Projects (131) Financial Analysis and Constraints Highway Funding Projections Transit Funding Projections Proposed Projects, Costs, and Timeframes Summary and Conclusion (134) 5 Appendix (135) 6 Participants and Endorsement Martha’s Vineyard Committee of Signatories Alice Butler Chairman, Vineyard Transit Authority Jonathan Gulliver Administrator, MassDOT Highway Division Stephanie Pollack Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, MassDOT Douglas Sederholm Chairman, Martha’s Vineyard Commission Martha’s Vineyard Joint Transportation Committee Voting Members Leon Brathwaite County of Dukes County Richard Combra, Jr. Town of Oak Bluffs Keith Emin Town of Chilmark Angela Grant Vineyard Transit Authority Jennifer Rand Town of West Tisbury Ray Tattersall Town of Tisbury Adam Turner Martha’s Vineyard Commission Durwood Vanderhoop Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head/Aquinnah Vacant Town of Aquinnah Vacant Town of Edgartown Non-voting members Pamela Haznar, P.E. MassDOT District 5 Timothy Kochan MassDOT District 5 Jeffrey McEwen Federal Highway Administration Mary Beth Mello Federal Transit Administration Bryan Pounds MassDOT Simon Shapiro Oak Bluffs (Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee) Derek Shooster MassDOT William Veno, AICP Martha’s Vineyard Commission Vacant Steamship Authority Vacant Martha’s Vineyard Airport Martha’s Vineyard Commission Staff Adam Turner Executive Director Sheri Caseau Water Resources Planner Dan Doyle Special Projects Planner Alex Elvin General Planner Christine Flynn Economic Development and Affordable Housing Planner Michael Mauro Transportation Program Manager Lucy Morrison Executive Assistant Curt Schroeder Administrator and Chief Fiscal Officer Chris Seidel Cartographer and GIS Coordinator 7 Jo-Ann Taylor Coastal Planner and DCPC Coordinator William Veno, AICP Senior Planner 8 Endorsement [INSERT PDF WITH SIGNATURES] 9 Executive Summary This Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for 2020–2040 comes at a time of transition for Martha’s Vineyard. As seasonal crowds continue to grow, and more and more vehicles strain the Island’s roadways and other infrastructure, transportation planning has focused more intently on alternatives to single-occupant automobile use. At the same time, state and global action in regard to climate change has helped generate Islandwide advocacy and planning efforts that aim in part to reduce fossil fuel use in the transportation sector. Building upon the previous Martha’s Vineyard RTP, issued in 2015, this update provides both general and detailed analyses of the Island transportation network, including all regular modes of travel to and within Dukes County. It also draws from the MVC’s 2019 Martha’s Vineyard Statistical Profile, which collects a large amount of data related many aspects of Island life, including transportation. Beginning with section 6, the plan examines each mode of transportation in terms of trends and issues, and for each mode we offer a series of objectives and proposed actions that were developed in collaboration with transportation system administrators, MVC staff, members of the MVC’s Joint Transportation Committee and Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and the public at large. Section 5, on environmental issues; and section 15, on the concept of livability, also include objectives and proposed actions, since both topics should figure prominently in the transportation planning process. Based on our analysis of trends and issues (and within the constraints of state and federal budget projections), this plan recommends X projects totaling $X, for the years 2020–2040. Section 16 includes a table of estimated budgets and a general timeframe for each project, although funding at this point is not guaranteed. The proposed projects will be reviewed by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), and those that are approved will be included in the Island’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which is updated every year and details all funded transportation projects over a four-year period. [GRAPH: BREAKDOWN OF SPENDING RECOMMENDATIONS] The Vineyard’s isolation from the mainland, along with its tourism economy, scenic roads, and widely dispersed town centers, housing, and other destinations, create many opportunities for multimodal transportation. A summer visitor departing the ferry in Oak Bluffs, for example, may catch a taxi or ride-share at the terminal, rent a bicycle in town, take a shared-use-path to Edgartown for lunch, walk to the beach, and take a bus up-Island for the sunset. In light of the existing infrastructure and diverse modes of transportation already in use, this RTP encourages a comprehensive approach to transportation planning, focusing on intermodal travel options and creating a seamless travel experience for Island residents and visitors. Global warming and rising sea levels present by far the greatest long-term challenge to the Island’s transportation network, and should serve as the primary context for all such planning. Massachusetts has made considerable progress toward the goals of its 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), which mandates greenhouse gas reductions of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Thanks largely to a series of state laws, regulations, and initiatives since 2008, greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts have fallen to about 20% of 1990 levels, and are on track to meet the goal for 2020, However, more work must be done to meet the goal for 2050. 10 In a major step forward for the Island,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Volume 39 April 2008 Number 3 the Presi
    ______________________________________________________________________________ VOLUME 39 APRIL 2008 NUMBER 3 INDEX TO THIS ISSUE days of lively, interactive sessions were again superbly chaired by Professor Weiss PRESIDENT’S CORNER…………...….....……….Page 1 and the SMA’s Austin Dooley, PhD. THE HIDDEN TRUTH……………………...….….Page 2 Also in February, NYMAR put on a D.G.HARMONY DECISION……….……….……..Page 3 vivid afternoon lecture/discussion by simu- ANDREW J. BARBERI DECISION……………….Page 5 lating the COSCO BUSAN accident (alli- sion with a bridge in San Francisco Bay and THE APPLICATION OF COGSA TIME BAR IN NEW YORK ARBITRATION………..….Page 7 subsequent oil spill) as having taken place in A COMMERCIAL MAN……...…………….……..Page 9 New York harbor: How prepared would New York be? The US Coast Guard CLEAN SHIPS…………………………...………..Page 12 (USCG) representatives from the New York HALL STREET V. MATTEL – EXPANDED JUDICIAL REVIEW…………………….…..Page 16 and New Jersey environmental agencies (EPA), spill responders, P&I Club, port au- SMA LUNCHEON SPEECHES…………......……Page 16 thority, pilot association, Owner and Char- OIL SPILL RESPONSE UPDATE..…………..…..Page 17 terer’s representatives all made this frighten- SMA WORKSHOP REPORT……….…….………Page 19 ingly real, but demonstrating that New York PUBLISH WE DO!...................................................Page 20 would be prepared to deal with such a mess, (MORE ON) SMA AWARDS……..………………Page 21 literally speaking. Further details on both BOOK REVIEW………………………..………….Page 21 events are provided in this issue. PEOPLE AND PLACES……………….………….Page 21 Then in March the whole shipping SOME PERSONAL NOTES………………………Page 23 world, at least so it seemed, came together in Stamford for CMA’s Shipping 2008 Confer- IN MEMORIAM – Neil J. Carey..…………...……Page 23 ence.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 3-‐1 Historic Resources Evaluation
    Appendix 3-1 Historic Resources Evaluation HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION SEAWALL LOT 337 & Pier 48 Mixed-Use Development Project San Francisco, California April 11, 2016 Prepared by San Francisco, California Historic Resource Evaluation Seawall Lot 337 & Pier 48 Mixed-Use Project, San Francisco, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Methods ................................................................................................................................... 1 III. Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................... 3 IV. Property Description ................................................................................................... ….....6 V. Historical Context ....................................................................................................... ….....24 VI. Determination of Eligibility.................................................................................... ……....44 VII. Evaluation of the Project for Compliance with the Standards ............................. 45 VIII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 58 IX. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 59 April 11, 2016 Historic Resource Evaluation Seawall
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources
    April 2017 Section 4.D. Cultural Resources 4.D CULTURAL RESOURCES This section discusses the potential of the proposed Mission Rock Project to adversely affect cultural resources. The section describes the applicable regulatory and environmental setting for cultural resources within and around the project site, and analyzes the project’s potential to adversely affect cultural resources, including historical resources, archeological resources, and human remains. The City and County of San Francisco (City) received one comment related to cultural resources in response to the notice of preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) asking for an evaluation of potential impacts to submerged cultural resources in the project area. This section is based on the background information, historical resource evaluations, and information regarding potential project impacts on historical and other cultural resources provided in the following documents: Historic Resource Evaluation, Seawall Lot 337 and Pier 48 Mixed-Use Development Project, San Francisco, California (HRE);1 the associated Historic Resource Evaluation Response prepared by the Planning Department;2 Geoarcheological Assessment for the Seawall Lot 337/Pier 48 Mixed-Use Project (Geoarcheological Assessment);3 and the Environmental Planning Preliminary Archeological Review: Checklist for the Mission Rock Pier 48 and Seawall Lot 337 Project (PAR).4 These reports are included as Appendix 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3, 3-4, respectively. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site’s environmental setting consists of the prehistoric and historical context for as yet unidentified archeological resources and a description of known historical resources within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) study area. For purposes of this analysis, the study area includes the project site and a surrounding one-block radius (approximately 0.1 mile) of the project site.
    [Show full text]
  • State City/County Project Improvement Amount Wilcox Gee's Bend
    State City/County Project Improvement Amount Upgrade ferry lines and Alabama Wilcox Gee’s Bend Ferry build new terminal at $1,419,000 Camden Replacement of aging Alaska Hoonah Hoonah Ferry structures to allow for safer $3,059,507 and more reliable service Replace aging tugboats to Arkansas Marion Peel Ferry provide safer and more $350,000 reliable service Ferry landing California San Francisco Sausalito Ferry improvements to include $3,200,000 better access Terminal improvements to Florida Duval Mayport Ferry include ramp upgrades for $3,000,000 safety Georgia Chatham Savannah River Ferry Construct new ferry boat $1,000,000 Construction and rehabilitation of ferry Kentucky Crittenden Cave-in-Rock Ferry $90,000 landing to reduce service delays Turkey Neck Bend Replace aging ferry and Kentucky Monroe $300,000 Ferry trailer Kentucky Butler Reeds Ferry Construct new ferry boat $300,000 Improve landing Plaquemine/Sunshine infrastructure with Louisiana Iberville $350,000 Ferry upgraded hydraulic systems Replace ferry boat engines with energy- Plaquemines Parish efficient/alternative fuel Louisiana Plaquemines $1,856,930 Ferry engines that improve speed and reduce emissions Replace main engine of Plaquemine/Sunshine M/V Ascension ferry boat Louisiana Iberville $650,000 Ferry to improve speed, efficiency and reliability M/V Acadia, M/V Replace navigational radar Iberville, Pointe Ascension, M/V St. systems on the four ferry Louisiana Coupee, and West Charles, M/V St. $300,000 boats to improve safety Feliciana Parishes Francisville Radar and efficiency
    [Show full text]
  • Ports Handbook for Orkney 6Th Edition CONTENTS
    Ports Handbook for Orkney 6th Edition CONTENTS General Contact Details 4 Introduction 5 Orkney Harbour Authority Area Map 6 Pilotage Services & Pilotage Index to PIERS & HARBOURS 45 Exemption Certificates 7 Main Piers Data 46-47 Orkney VTS 8 Piers: Reporting Points 9 Burray 48-49 Radar & AIS Coverage 10-11 Burwick 50-51 Port Passage Planning 12 Backaland 52-53 Suggested tracks Egilsay 54-55 Scapa Flow, Kirkwall, Stromness 13-15 Gibraltar 56-57 Prior notification requirements 16 Sutherland 58-59 Preparations for Port Entry 17 Graemsay 60-61 Harbour Craft 18 Holm 62-63 Port Security - (ISPS code) 19 Houton 64-65 Port Health 20 Longhope 66-67 Port Medical Officers Services 21 Lyness 68-71 Port Waste Reception Facilities 22 Moaness 72-73 Traffic Movements in Orkney 23 Kirkwall 74-78 Ferry Routes in & around Orkney 24 Hatston 79-83 Fishing Vessel Facilities 25 Hatston Slipway 84-85 Diving Support Boats 26 Nouster 86-87 Principal Wreck & Dive Sites Moclett 88-89 in Scapa Flow 27 Trumland 90-91 Towage & Tugs 28-31 Kettletoft 92-93 Ship to Ship Cargo Transhipments 32 Loth 94-95 Flotta Oil Terminal 34-38 Scapa 96-97 Guide to good practice for small Scapa Flow 98-99 vessel bunkering operations 39 Balfour 100-101 Guide to good practice for the Stromness 102-106 disposal of waste materials 40 Copland’s Dock 107-111 Fixed Navigation lights 41-44 Pole Star 112-113 Stronsay 114-115 Whitehall 116-117 Tingwall 118-119 Marinas 126-130 Pierowall 120-121 Tidal Atlas 131-144 Rapness 122-123 Pollution Prevention Guidelines 145 Wyre 124-125 2 3 PORTS HANDBOOK – 6TH EDITION The Orkney County Council Act of 1974 As a Harbour Authority, the Council’s aim, authorised the Orkney Islands Council through Marine Services, is to ensure that to exercise jurisdiction as a Statutory Orkney’s piers and harbours are operated Harbour Authority and defined the in a safe and cost effective manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Martha's Vineyard Regional Transportation Plan 2020–2040
    Martha’s Vineyard Regional Transportation Plan 2020–2040 July 2019 Prepared by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission and the Martha’s Vineyard Joint Transportation Committee in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Massachusetts Department of Transportation Martha’s Vineyard MPO / Joint Transportation Committee c/o The Martha’s Vineyard Commission P.O. Box 1447 Oak Bluffs, MA 02557 Phone: 508-693-3453 Fax: 508-693-7894 The preparation of the Martha’s Vineyard Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Please note: All maps are included in this RTP for illustrative purposes only, and are available in higher quality from the MVC staff if requested. Cover (clockwise from top right): A Steamship Authority ferry docking in Vineyard Haven, taxis staging at the Vineyard Haven Terminal, bicyclists along Ocean Drive in Oak Bluffs, solar canopies at Cronig’s Market in West Tisbury. Martha’s Vineyard Regional Transportation Plan 2020–2040 July 2019 CONTENTS Participants and Endorsement 1 Executive Summary 3 Transportation Planning Organizations 5 Section 1: Transportation Systems at a Glance 6 Woods Hole, Martha’s
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Section 7
    NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (10-90) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section number 7 January 2006 Port of San Francisco Embarcadero Historic District Page 1 ============================================================================== TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 7 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 10 ORGANIZATION OF SECTION 7 ............................................................................................. 12 CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 13 SEAWALL ....................................................................................................................... 13 Description............................................................................................................ 14 History................................................................................................................... 16 BULKHEAD WHARF ..................................................................................................... 19 Introduction........................................................................................................... 19 Description................................................................................................ 19 History......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Form
    Form No 10-306 (Rev 10-74) UNlTEDSTAThS DEPARTMENT OF THt INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM FOR FEDERAL PROPERTIES SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS ____________TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS______ | NAME HISTORIC Ferryboat Eureka (formerly Ukiah) AND/OR COMMON Eureka LOCATION STREETS.NUMBER Historic Ships Unit, Hyde Street Pier, National Maritime Museum _NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY. TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT San Francisco VICINITY OF Fifth STATE CODE COUNTY CODE California 06 San Francisco 075 CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE _DISTRICT X.PUBLIC —OCCUPIED —AGRICULTURE JXMUSEUM _BUILDING(S) —PRIVATE XUNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL _PARK —STRUCTURE —BOTH —WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE _SITE v PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS _OBJECT _IN PROCESS XYES: RESTRICTED ^GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED — YES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION _NO —MILITARY —OTHER: AGENCY REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS inapplicable) National Park Service, Western Regional Office STREET & NUMBER 450 Golden Gate Avenue. Box 36063 CITY. TOWN STATE San Francisco VICINITY OF California 94102 LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEos.ETc Golden Gate National Recreation Area STREET & NUMBER Building 201, Fort Mason CITY. TOWN STATE San Francisco, California 94123 REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE National Register of Historic Places DATE February 28, 1973 -^FEDERAL —STATE _COUNTY _LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS National Park Service CITY. TOWN STATE Washington D.C DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE —EXCELLENT —DETERIORATED —UNALTERED —ORIGINAL SITE .XGOOD —RUINS FALTERED —MOVED HATF N/A _FAIR _UNEXPOSED DESCRIBETHE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The historic ferry Eureka (formerly known as Ukiah) is moored in an early 20th Century ferry slip at Hyde Street Pier, a unit of the National Maritime Museum, San Francisco.
    [Show full text]
  • Allision of Staten Island Ferry Andrew J. Barberi St
    Allision of Staten Island Ferry Andrew J. Barberi St. George, Staten Island, New York October 15, 2003 Marine Accident Report NTSB/MAR-05/01 PB2005-916401 Notation 7628A National Transportation Safety Board Washington, D.C. Marine Accident Report Allision of Staten Island Ferry Andrew J. Barberi St. George, Staten Island, New York October 15, 2003 NTSB/MAR-05/01 PB2005-916401 National Transportation Safety Board Notation 7628A 490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W. Adopted March 8, 2005 Washington, D.C. 20594 National Transportation Safety Board. 2005. Allision of Staten Island Ferry Andrew J. Barberi, St. George, Staten Island, New York, October 15, 2003. Marine Accident Report NTSB/MAR-05/01. Washington, DC. Abstract: This report discusses the allision of the passenger ferry Andrew J. Barberi with maintenance pier B-1 at the Staten Island ferry terminal on October 15, 2003. The ferry carried an estimated 1,500 passengers and 15 crewmembers. Ten passengers died in the accident and 70 were injured. An eleventh seriously injured passenger died 2 months later. Damages totaled more than $8 million, with repair costs of $6.9 million for the Andrew J. Barberi and $1.4 million for the pier. From its investigation of the accident, the Safety Board identified the following safety issues: actions of the assistant captain and captain, oversight of ferry operations by the New York City Department of Transportation, medical oversight of mariners, safety management systems, and the potential contribution of navigation technology to the safety of ferry operations. On the basis of its findings, the Safety Board made recommendations to the New York City Department of Transportation, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL REGISTER OF
    NPS FORM 10-900 ro cr <"- £T S \ / J%^- -3 OMB NO, 1024-0018 (Rev. 10-90) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service /i SEP 2 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM______________ This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual propertie^w^gjj^fi^^j^SeelnstfuctiQ^s in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Regisrei^Q^fm^fc$^/ Complete each item by marking "X" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any itemtW^^?Qgpl/to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classificatiSn>fQ^tefllals, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries ana narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor or computer to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Pier One_________________________________________________ other names/site number: N/A______________________________________________ 2. Location street & number Pier One. The Embarcadero fat Washington Street) not for publication N/A__________ city or town San Francisco_________________________vicinity ___N/A state California______ code CA___county San Francisco code 075 zip code 94111 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this __X__ nomination .____ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedurai and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property X_____ meets ______ does not meet the National Register Criteria, recommend that this property be considered significant ____ nationally ____ statewide _x__ locally.
    [Show full text]
  • The Train Sheet Preserving the Feather River Route"
    The Train Sheet Preserving The Feather River Route" NOVEKBER DECEKBER 1959 ISSUE NO. lio $1.50 Western Pacific car ferry LAS PLUMAS waits for its next load of freight cars to take from WP's San Francisco 25th Street Yard. A tug and barge No. 3 are still on standby in this WP photo taken in March, 1960. COVER STORY LAS PLUMAS by NORMAN HOLMIS Prior to the time Western Pacific's One of the two WP tug boats, the cE:1- ferry "LAS PLUMAS" was placed in service, HERCULES, has been preserved at the WP operated two steam tug boats to barge National Maritime Museum in San Fran- freight cars between Oakland and. San Fran- cisco. Located at the Hyde Street Pier, cisco. The tug and barge operation not she is undergoing restoration by only srved 25th Street yard, but also volunteers who hope to once again place delivered cars to the State Belt Railroad her into operating condition. near Fisherman's Wharf and serviced Information for this article was Alameda Belt's slip in Alameda. Due to gleaned from Pacific News, Western Rail- their age and limited capacity (11 cars on roader, WP Mileposts and the National a barge), management arranged for con- Maritime Museum news letter. Thanks to struction of a new self propelled car George Comer for assistance. ferry. The new LAS PLUMAS passed under the Golden Gpte bridge at 11 PM on July 10, 1957, on its way down from Portland, Oregon. It was believed this was the first train ferry to operate on thePacific Ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Invitation for Bids San Francisco Bay Area Water
    INVITATION FOR BIDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA WATER EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2021 VALLEJO FERRY TERMINAL DREDGING PROJECT IFB #21-008 VOLUME 2 DIVISION 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS MAY 6, 2021 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Volume 2 IFB #21-008 SECTION 00001 ORDER OF WORK PART 1 - GENERAL 1.1 SCOPE OF WORK A. Order of Work shall be as delineated below. The Contractor may submit an alternative order of Work for review by the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA). WETA reserves right of refusal or acceptance of the order of Work other than as noted below. Order of Work shall conform to the provisions in Section 5-1.05, “Order of Work,” of the Standard Plans and Specifications of the State of California, Transportation Agency, Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, May 2006 edition and these special provisions. B. Proposed sequence of Work: Vallejo Ferry Terminal: Contractor shall submit a sequence of Work to WETA for review. The Contractor shall base the sequence of Work on the following proposed sequence of Work, and shall include all necessary items, details and order of Work whether or not listed herein or on the plans. 1. Contractor shall set up operational communication protocol with San Francisco Bay Ferry - Vallejo Operations Manager, Peter Belden (telephone number (415)-850-0413) prior to the start of construction. Required communication will be determined before the start of construction and will include at least one telephone call to the Vallejo Operations Manager each day throughout the duration of the Project to confirm dredging events and other operations planned for the following day.
    [Show full text]