DOCSLIB.ORG

SBC Executivesummfac

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CAPITOL CORRIDOR SOUTH BAY CONNECT AUGUST 2020 Purpose Study Area and Project Elements South Bay Connect proposes to relocate the Capitol Corridor passenger rail service between the Oakland N Coliseum and Newark from the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) Niles Subdivision to the Coast Subdivision for a faster, more direct route. It will also create new transbay connections for passengers between the East Bay and Peninsula by connecting to bus and shuttle services at the Ardenwood Station. The project is not proposing an increase in Capitol Corridor service frequency or changes to UP’s freight service, but does not preclude service growth in the future. The relocation will facilitate the separation of passenger and freight rail, resulting in improved rail operations, efficiency, and reliability while minimizing rail congestion within the corridor. Proposed New Station and Railroad Potential Station Area Proposed Capitol Corridor (CC) Service Potential Station Considered and Eliminated Existing CC Service Existing Station CC Service to be Discontinued Station where CC Service Study Area to be Discontinued UP Improvement Area BART Station Benefits Reduce passenger rail travel time between Oakland and San Jose and throughout the larger megaregion to increase ridership on transit, ease congestion on the Bay Area’s stressed roadways, and decrease auto commutes. Diversify and enhance network integration by reducing duplicative capital investments and dif- ferentiating Capitol Corridor’s intercity rail service from commuter rail and other transit services, including BART’s extension to San Jose. Support economic vitality by permitting enhanced rail movement and the preservation of freight rail capacity in the Northern California market through the reduction of existing conflicts between freight rail operations and passenger rail service. Improve service between megaregional markets by enhancing connections between high demand destinations, overcoming existing geographic service gaps between job centers and affordable housing on the Peninsula and the Capitol Corridor route. Promote environmental sustainability by reducing greenhouse gas emissions through reduced train idling, potential increased ridership and travel mode shift from cars to transit which will lower vehicle miles traveled on freeways and lower emissions. During early analysis, potential station locations along the new Capitol Station Location Corridor route were identified and examined as a future option. Locations included Ardenwood, Hayward and Newark Junction. Each station was Alternatives evaluated against four categories to identify the most feasible location including: Capitol Program Benefits, Environmental, Design Feasibility, and Station Area. LEGEND 1 ARDENWOOD Railroad Track Bicycle Network The ARDENWOOD STATION Class 1 study area is located where Class 2 State Route 84 passes over Class 3 the Coast Subdivision on the Transit Network border between the cities of Fremont and Newark. This AC Transit Lines location also offers a direct AC Transit Stops transbay connection by Footprint ARDENWOOD BLVD KAISER DR linking to the existing public 1/2 - Mile and private bus and shuttle Environmental Footprint services that stop at the Park- and-RideRailroad Tracks lot, a much needed Landuse Bicycle Network DUMBARTON CIR LIDO BLVD linkClass 1between the East Bay and Commercial Class 2 HWY 84 destinationsClass 3 on the Peninsula. Transit Network Industrial JARVIS AVE AC Transit Lines AC Transit Stops Open Space Footprint 1/2 - Mile Public Facility Ardenwood Environmental Footprint ¯ Land Use Commercial Residential 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet Industrial Open Space 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles Public Facility Residential © 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2019 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2019) Distribution Airbus DS 2 HAYWARD 3 NEWWARK INDUSTRIAL BLVD CHERRY ST DAIRY AVE THORNTON AVE SLEEPY HOLLOW SYCAMORE ST HWY 92 CORPORATE AVE Railroad Track Bicycle Network Class 2 Railroad Tracks Class 3 ENTERPRISE AVE Bicycle Network Transit Network INVESTMENT BLVD Class 3 AC Transit Lines Transit Network AC Transit Stops AC Transit Lines Footprint AC Transit Stops 1/2 - Mile Footprint Hayward Environmental Footprint 1/2 - Mile Landuse CENTRAL AVE Newark Environmental Footprint ¯ Commercial Land Use ¯Industrial 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet Commercial Open Space The HAYWARD STATION study area is The0 250 NEWARK500 1,000 1,500 STATION2,000 Feet study area is located Industrial Public Facility 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles Open Space located at the State Route 92 overpass of whereResidential the Dumbarton Rail Corridor connects 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Miles Public Facility the coast Subdivision© 2019line. Microsoft Corporation Multiple © 2019 DigitalGlobe locations ©CNES (2019) Distribution Airbus DS with the Coast Subdivision and Centerville Residential © 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2019 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2019) Distribution Airbus DS within the study area were analyzed, however lines. A station at this location would require due to station space requirements, a location re-alignment of existing tracks, and rail adjacent to the State Route 92 freeway to configurations and limited right-of-way space connect to Transbay bus services is not is a challenge. feasible. Evaluation and Criteria The three potential station locations were evaluated across the following criteria: TIRCP Benefits Environmental 1 • Reduce GHG Emissions and 3 • Land Use Consistency Improve Air Quality • Sensitive Air Quality and Noise • Increase Ridership Based on System Receptors and Efficiency Improvements • Community Cohesion • Coordinate and Integrate with • Visual and Aesthetic Resources State Rail and Transit Operations • Natural Resources • Improve Safety • Protected Section 4(f) Public Parks, Refuges, and Historic Properties • Access and Circulation • Environmental Justice Design Feasibility Station Area • Constructability • Bicycle and Pedestrian Accessibility 2 • CCJPA Station Standards 4 • Existing Parking • UPRR Acceptability • Local Traffic Impacts • Stakeholder Approval • Priority Development Area • Non-Rail ROW Required (PDA) Designation • Cost • Service Optimization • Schedule • State and Local Plan Consistency Results ARDENWOOD HAYWARD NEWARK Max Criteria Group Ardenwood Hayward Newark Junction Possible TIRCP Benefits 12 12 8 8 Design Feasibility 21 21 12 9 Environmental 24 23 18 17 Station Area 18 17 13 11 TOTAL 75 73 51 45 Schedule MILESTONE 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Project Definition Report Planning Notice of Preparation (June 2020) Draft Environmental Impact Report (Early/Mid 2021) Environmental Final Environmental Impact Report (Late 2021) Public Engagement Ongoing through project Anticipated Future Phases 35% Design 100% Design Design Construction Cost and Funding IDENTIFIED SOURCES FOR CCJPA-LED ELEMENTS 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 TOTAL State Rail Assistance (SRA) $2,100,000 $2,100,000 State Transportation Improvement Program $15,363,000 $15,363,000 STATE (STIP-ITIP) Transit and Intercity Rail $3,200,000 $17,431,121 $7,000,000 $23,368,879 $51,000,000 Capital Program (TIRCP) REGIONAL RM3 $90,000,000 $90,000,000 LOCAL Measure BB $4,641,762 $35,358,238 $40,000,000 TOTAL IDENTIFIED $3,200,000 $19,531,121 $7,000,000 FUNDING $198,463,000 @ southbayconnect.com [email protected] (510) 244-3667 (Sign up to receive electronic updates!) CCJPA is a partnership among six local transit agencies and provides fast, reliable, and affordable train service to 18 stations in eight Northern California counties. Capitol Corridor Join Powers Authority • 300 Lakeside Dr, Oakland, CA 94612 • (510) 874-7333.
Recommended publications
  • ACT BART S Ites by Region.Csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7

    ACT BART S Ites by Region.Csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7

    Services Transit Outreach Materials Distribution Light Rail Station Maintenance and Inspection Photography—Capture Metadata and GPS Marketing Follow-Up Programs Service Locations Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/Saint Paul San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area Our Customer Service Pledge Our pledge is to organize and act with precision to provide you with excellent customer service. We will do all this with all the joy that comes with the morning sun! “I slept and dreamed that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy. “Tagore Email: [email protected] Website: URBANMARKETINGCHANNELS.COM Urban Marketing Channel’s services to businesses and organizations in Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco, Oakland and the Twin Cities metro areas since 1981 have allowed us to develop a specialty client base providing marketing outreach with a focus on transit systems. Some examples of our services include: • Neighborhood demographic analysis • Tailored response and mailing lists • Community event monitoring • Transit site management of information display cases and kiosks • Transit center rider alerts • Community notification of construction and route changes • On-Site Surveys • Enhance photo and list data with geocoding • Photographic services Visit our website (www.urbanmarketingchannels.com) Contact us at [email protected] 612-239-5391 Bay Area Transit Sites (includes BART and AC Transit.) Prepared by Urban Marketing Channels ACT BART S ites by Region.csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7 UnSANtit
  • Hayward Transit Routes Map (PDF)

    Hayward Transit Routes Map (PDF)

    Verdese Carter Rec. Ctr. Snow Bldg. Elmhurst NX3 98 Comm. Prep Hellman Transit Park ELMHURST Holly Elmhurst- 40 NXC Mini- Lyons Field 75 Dunsmuir Information Elmhurst INTERNATIONALPark BLVD 57 Foothill Plaza Square 45 East Bay House & 1 0 6 T H A V M V Gardens Lake Chabot A A Reg’l Parks 9 8 T H A V 45 C H Municipal A 08T BANCROFT AV R 1 Hq Golf Course 98 T H UR Hayward 45 1 0 4 T H A V B NX4 Dunsmuir Ridge LV D 75 Open Space Clubhouse NXC 0 0.5mi Station Durant Stonehurst D Square L V V A D M B Victoria A Park O O O R REVE R E EDE 1 0 5 T H A V B R Park S A Roosevelt V 45 Plgd. Farrelly NX3 0 0.5km Hayward SAN LEANDRO BLVD 1 75 Shefeld 45 Pool Rec. Ctr. San Leandro BART N McCartney 75 Milford Park Park SHEFFIELD Tyrone D U T T O N A V 1 10 75 85 89 Carney 75 Onset A 40 VILLAGE Map Key Park C Park A Chabot L R A E E 1 4 T H S T Park Shuttles NL SL N N D E You Are Here S Vets. W D Siempre R O 75 Mem. G Verde Park O R BART D Bldg. A D 45 City N Willow Park BART Memorial R R CAPISTRANO DR D Hall Bancroft T D L A O Public R Park B C A L L A N A V A K D Root Library Mid.
  • 2015 Station Profiles

    2015 Station Profiles

    2015 BART Station Profile Study Station Profiles – Non-Home Origins STATION PROFILES – NON-HOME ORIGINS This section contains a summary sheet for selected BART stations, based on data from customers who travel to the station from non-home origins, like work, school, etc. The selected stations listed below have a sample size of at least 200 non-home origin trips: • 12th St. / Oakland City Center • Glen Park • 16th St. Mission • Hayward • 19th St. / Oakland • Lake Merritt • 24th St. Mission • MacArthur • Ashby • Millbrae • Balboa Park • Montgomery St. • Civic Center / UN Plaza • North Berkeley • Coliseum • Oakland International Airport (OAK) • Concord • Powell St. • Daly City • Rockridge • Downtown Berkeley • San Bruno • Dublin / Pleasanton • San Francisco International Airport (SFO) • Embarcadero • San Leandro • Fremont • Walnut Creek • Fruitvale • West Dublin / Pleasanton Maps for these stations are contained in separate PDF files at www.bart.gov/stationprofile. The maps depict non-home origin points of customers who use each station, and the points are color coded by mode of access. The points are weighted to reflect average weekday ridership at the station. For example, an origin point with a weight of seven will appear on the map as seven points, scattered around the actual point of origin. Note that the number of trips may appear underrepresented in cases where multiple trips originate at the same location. The following summary sheets contain basic information about each station’s weekday non-home origin trips, such as: • absolute number of entries and estimated non-home origin entries • access mode share • trip origin types • customer demographics. Additionally, the total number of car and bicycle parking spaces at each station are included for context.
  • Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences

    Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences

    CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES This chapter presents information on the environmental setting in the project area as well as the environmental consequences of the No-Electrification and Electrification Program Alternatives. Environmental issue categories are organized in alphabetical order, consistent with the CEQA checklist presented in Appendix A. The project study area encompasses the geographic area potentially most affected by the project. For most issues involving physical effects this is the project “footprint,” or the area that would be disturbed for or replaced by the new project facilities. This area focuses on the Caltrain corridor from the San Francisco Fourth and King Station in the City and County of San Francisco to the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy in Santa Clara County and also includes the various locations proposed for traction power facilities and power connections. Air quality effects may be felt over a wider area. 3.1 AESTHETICS 3.1.1 VISUAL OR AESTHETIC SETTING The visual or aesthetic environment in the Caltrain corridor is described to establish the baseline against which to compare changes resulting from construction of project facilities and the demolition or alteration of existing structures. This discussion focuses on representative locations along the railroad corridor, including existing stations (both modern and historic), tunnel portals, railroad overpasses, locations of the proposed traction power facilities and other areas where the Electrification Program would physically change above-ground features, affecting the visual appearance of the area and views enjoyed by area residents and users. For purposes of this analysis, sensitive visual receptors are defined as corridor residents and business occupants, recreational users of parks and preserved natural areas, and students of schools in the vicinity of the proposed project.
  • BART Hayward Station Closure Monday, February 6Th, 2017

    BART Hayward Station Closure Monday, February 6Th, 2017

    BART Hayward Station Closure Monday, February 6th, 2017 5:04 PM There is a station closure and trains are holding out at Hayward station due to police activity. -- 6:00 PM There is a 10-minute delay between 24th St. Mission and Balboa Park on the Daly City Line in the SFO, Millbrae and East Bay directions due to an equipment problem on the track. There is a station closure and trains are holding out at Hayward station due to police activity. There is a major delay at Hayward on the Fremont Line in the Fremont, Richmond and Daly City directions due to police activity. Parallel service is available via AC Transit. Bus #10 between Hayward and Bayfair. Bus#99 from Hayward to South Hayward and beyond. -- 6:30 PM There is a 10-minute delay between 24th St. Mission and Balboa Park on the Daly City Line in the SFO, Millbrae and East Bay directions due to an equipment problem on the track. This advisory is sent in the event anyone is still in their office monitoring BART progress tonight. There is a station closure and trains are holding out at Hayward station due to police activity. There is a major delay at Hayward on the Fremont Line in the Fremont, Richmond and Daly City directions due to police activity. Parallel service is available via AC Transit. Bus #10 between Hayward and Bayfair. Bus#99 from Hayward to South Hayward and beyond. There is a major delay on the Richmond Line in the Fremont direction due to police activity.
  • Santa Clara Valley Transportation

    Santa Clara Valley Transportation

    SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program [A Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority] Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance Examination and Budgetary Comparison Schedule For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program [A Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority] For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 Table of Contents Page(s) Independent Accountant’s Report ................................................................................................................. 1 Budgetary Comparison Schedule (On a Budgetary Basis) ........................................................................... 2 Notes to Budgetary Comparison Schedule ............................................................................................ 3 - 10 Supplementary Information – Program Summaries ............................................................................. 11 - 30 Supplementary Information – 2000 Measure A Ballot ........................................................................ 31 - 33 Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance Examination 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee 3331 North First Street San Jose, California 95134 We have examined the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) compliance with the requirements of the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program (2000 Measure A Program), a fund of VTA, for the year ended June 30, 2019. The
  • View Reducing Parking at Transit Stations

    View Reducing Parking at Transit Stations

    Rail~Volution Salt Lake City, Utah 8-10 September, 2005 Reducing Parking at Transit Stations Jeffrey Tumlin EVALUATING PARKING AT TRANSIT STATIONS • Effects on transit ridership – Transit Oriented Development (TOD): New households & transit trips – Parking: Park-&-Ride participants – Implications for encouraging future growth in ridership • Effects on traffic congestion – Walking, cycling & transit trips to station – Proportion and amount of vehicle trips to station – Implications in allocating of street right-of-way • Effects on revenue generation – Lease or sale of land: Land value with higher density & mixed use compared to parking – Development of land: Joint development, economic vitality – Productive use of land: Economic productivity, sales tax Reduced Transit Parking at Rail Stations Jeffrey Tumlin, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING TRANSIT PARKING • SkyTrain system in Vancouver, BC (TransLink) – Land use concentration around SkyTrain – Transportation supply – Transportation demand including low to no parking • Metrorail stations in Arlington County, VA (WMATA) – Urban village development – Multimodal transportation – Shared parking only (No park-&-ride) • South Hayward station in Northern California (BART) – Plans to develop area around station and improve pedestrian, bicycle and bus access – Determining amount of replacement parking Reduced Transit Parking at Rail Stations Jeffrey Tumlin, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting TRANSLINK SKYTRAIN SYSTEM Reduced Transit Parking at Rail Stations Jeffrey Tumlin, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Greater Vancouver Reduced Transit Parking at Rail Stations Canada – US BorderJeffrey Tumlin, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Vancouver’s Regional Planning Context • GVTA Act – Support Livable Region Strategic Plan • Transport strategy aims to increase choice through 3 “levers” – Land use i.e. town centers, employment, , residential density – Transportation supply-side e.g rapid transit network – Transportation demand- side e.g.
  • Transportation Demand Management Plan

    Transportation Demand Management Plan

    SoHay Mixed Use Development Project Transportation Demand Management Plan Hayward, California February 28, 2018 SoHay Mixed Used Development Table of Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................1 Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................1 Parking ...................................................................................................................................................2 Report Organization .............................................................................................................................3 Existing Transportation Facilities and Services ..................................................................................6 Transit Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 BART ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Bus Routes .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................................
  • Bart at Twenty: Land Use and Development Impacts

    Bart at Twenty: Land Use and Development Impacts

    ffional Development BART@20: Land Use and Development Impacts Robert Cervero with research assistance by Carlos Castellanos, Wicaksono Sarosa, and Kenneth Rich July 1995 University of California at Berkeley - 1 BART@20: Land Use and Development Impacts Robert Cervero with Research Assistance by Carlos Castellanos, Wicaksono Sarosa, and Kenneth Rich This paper was produced with support provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) through the University of California Transportation Center. University of California at Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development Table of Contents ONE: BART at 20: An Analysis of Land Use Impacts 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 TWO: Research Approach and Data Sources 3 THREE: Employment and Population Changes in BART and Non-BART Areas 6 3.1. Population Changes 6 3.2. Employment Changes 3.3. Population Densities 15 3.4. Employment Densities 15 3.5. Summary 20 FOUR: Land Use Changes Over Time and by Corridor 21 4.1. General Land-Use Trends 23 4.2. Pre-BART versus Post-BART 25 4.3. Early versus Later BART 30 4.4. Trends in Non-Residential Densities 33 4.4. Summary 37 FIVE: Land-Use Changes by Station Classes 38 5.1. Grouping Variables 38 5.2. Classification 38 5.3. Station Classes 41 5.4. Trends in Residential and Non-Residential Growth Among Station Classes 44 5.5. Percent Growth in Early- versus Later-BART Years Among Station Classes 46 5.6. Trends in Non-Residential Densities Among Station Classes 46 SLX: Matched-Pair Comparisons of Land-Use Changes near BART Stations Versus Freeway Interchanges 51 6.1.
  • Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study

    Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study

    Draft Summary Report Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study October 2019 Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study Summary Report Background ......................................................................... 1 Figure 1: Location and Components of the Existing Project History ................................................................ 1 Transit Center................................................................. 3 Figure 2: Existing Transit Center Site Configuration – Project Goals ................................................................... 2 Looking Northeast from El Camino Real .................... 13 Study Description............................................................ 4 Figure 3: Phase 1 – Short Term: Existing Transit Center Site Improvements ...................................................... 15 Existing Conditions ............................................................. 5 Figure 4: Phase 2 – Long Term: Existing Transit Center Existing Transit Services ................................................ 5 Site Improvements ....................................................... 17 Parking ............................................................................ 6 Figure 5: Perry Street and Caltrain Parking Lot Configuration – View from the Arguello Street Transit Center Amenities ................................................ 6 Side of the Site ............................................................. 18 Land Use and Zoning ...................................................... 6 Figure
  • 18-311 ,:/1 Meeting Date: December 12, 2018 Alameda-Contracosta Transit District

    18-311 ,:/1 Meeting Date: December 12, 2018 Alameda-Contracosta Transit District

    ReportNo: 18-311 ,:/1 Meeting Date: December 12, 2018 Alameda-ContraCosta Transit District STAFF RE PO RT TO: ACTransit Board of Directors FROM: Michael A. Hursh, General Manager SUBJECT: Operator Restroomsat BARTStations ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Consider authorizing the GeneraIManager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the Bay Area RapidTransit District (BART)for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of Operator restrooms. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT This project will be added to the current fiscal year Capital Budget and Capital Improvement Planwith $638,826 in District Capital funds. Capital Planning and Grants will continue to seek externalfunding to support this project. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE AC Transit provides fixed route serviceto and from many Bay Area RapidTransit District IBART) stations located in the East Bay.AC Transit Operators and Road Supervisors rely on the ability to utilize BART station restroom facilities during a scheduled break. On several occasions, employees were not able to use the public restrooms because of long lines or the restroom being closed for repairs. At the April 4, 2018 BART/AC Transit Interagency Liaison Committee jtLC) both agencies agreed to collaborate on developing a process to provide restroom access for AC Transit personnelat BARTstations. Station Restroom Assessment Staff conducted an assessmentof fourteen BART stations where AC Transit buses have scheduled layovers and are utilized by District employees for restroom breaks during the peak period between 3:00pm and 9:00pm. Listed on the table below are the BARTstations with the highest amount of buses scheduled for layover during the evening: 1 of 23 Report No. 18-311 Page2 of4 BARTStation LayoversPerPeak Period Fruitvale fremont Bay Fair West Oakland Coliseum EI Cerrito Plaza SanLeandro The following BARTstations were determined to be least utilized with lessthan 25 scheduled busesthat layover: DeINorte, South Hayward, Castro Valley, Richmond and North Berkeley.
  • Town of Atherton ATHERTON RAIL COMMITTEE MINUTES TUESDAY, June 2, 2020 Regular Meeting 6:00 P.M

    Town of Atherton ATHERTON RAIL COMMITTEE MINUTES TUESDAY, June 2, 2020 Regular Meeting 6:00 P.M

    Town of Atherton ATHERTON RAIL COMMITTEE MINUTES TUESDAY, June 2, 2020 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. This meeting was held virtually This meeting is compliant with the Governors Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 4, 2020 allowing for deviation of teleconference rules required by the Brown Act. The purpose of this is to provide the safest environment for staff and the public while allowing for public participation. The meeting will be held by tele or video conferencing. The public may participate via: Zoom Meeting. Join Zoom Meeting: Remote Public Comments: One tap mobile Meeting participants are encouraged to submit +16699006833,,97996012676# US (San Jose) public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. The following email address will be Dial by your location monitored during the meeting and public +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) comments received will be read into the record. Meeting ID: 979 9601 2676 Email: [email protected] Weblink: https://ci-atherton-ca.zoom.us/j/97996012676 1. ROLL CALL Committee Members: Alex Keh (Chair), Scott Lane (Vice Chair), Malcolm Dudley, Jack Ringham, Greg Conlon, Paul Jones, Nerissa Dexter, Jim Janz, John Maulbetsch, James Massey Councilmember Liaisons: Council Member Cary Wiest Staff: Robert Ovadia 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS – For items not on the agenda. (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Committee on any matter on the agenda that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Rail Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from acting on items not listed on the Agenda.) None. 3.