DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Technical Assumptions Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Technical Assumptions Report DRAFT TECHNICAL ASSUMPTIONS REPORT MAY 2021 Metropolitan Transportation Association of City Representatives Commission Bay Area Governments Nikki Fortunato Bas Alfredo Pedroza, Chair Jesse Arreguín, President Councilmember, City of Oakland Napa County and Cities Mayor, City of Berkeley London Breed Nick Josefowitz, Vice Chair Belia Ramos, Vice President Mayor, City and County of San Francisco San Francisco Mayor's Appointee Supervisor, County of Napa Tom Butt Margaret Abe-Koga David Rabbitt, Mayor, City of Richmond Cities of Santa Clara County Immediate Past President Pat Eklund Supervisor, County of Sonoma Eddie H. Ahn Mayor, City of Novato San Francisco Bay Conservation Maya Esparza and Development Commission County Representatives Councilmember, City of San José David Canepa Candace Andersen Carroll Fife San Mateo County Supervisor, County of Contra Costa Councilmember, City of Oakland Cindy Chavez David Canepa Neysa Fligor Santa Clara County Supervisor, County of San Mateo Mayor, City of Los Altos Damon Connolly Keith Carson Leon Garcia Marin County and Cities Supervisor, County of Alameda Mayor, City of American Canyon Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cindy Chavez Liz Gibbons Cities of Alameda County Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Mayor, City of Campbell Dina El-Tawansy Otto Lee Giselle Hale California State Transportation Agency Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Vice Mayor, City of Redwood City (CalSTA) Gordon Mar Barbara Halliday Victoria Fleming Supervisor, City and County Mayor, City of Hayward Sonoma County and Cities of San Francisco Rich Hillis Dorene M. Giacopini Rafael Mandelman Planning Director, City and U.S. Department of Transportation Supervisor, City and County County of San Francisco Federal D. Glover of San Francisco Dave Hudson Contra Costa County Nate Miley Mayor, City of San Ramon Sam Liccardo Supervisor, County of Alameda Matthew Mahan San José Mayor's Appointee Karen Mitchoff Councilmember, City of San José Nate Miley Supervisor, County of Contra Costa Raul Peralez Alameda County Stephanie Moulton-Peters Councilmember, City of San José Gina Papan Supervisor, County of Marin Carlos Romero Cities of San Mateo County James P. Spering Mayor, City of East Palo Alto David Rabbitt Supervisor, County of Solano Loren Taylor Association of Bay Area Governments Vacant Councilmember, City of Oakland Hillary Ronen County of San Mateo Lori Wilson City and County of San Francisco Mayor, City of Suisun City Libby Schaaf Vacant Oakland Mayor's Appointee Cities in Sonoma County James P. Spering Vacant Solano County and Cities City and County of San Francisco Amy R. Worth (Mayor's Appointee) Cities of Contra Costa County Vacant Advisory Member U.S. Department of Housing Jayne Battey and Urban Development Board Member, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board i Association of Bay Area Governments 375 Beale Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105-2066 www.abag.ca.gov | 415.820.7900 Metropolitan Transportation Commission 375 Beale Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105-2066 www.mtc.ca.gov | 415.778.6700 Draft Plan Bay Area 2050: Technical Assumptions Report Project Staff Dave Vautin Plan Bay Area 2050 Project Manager Raleigh McCoy Technical Assumptions Report Project Manager Ben Botkin, Michael Germeraad, Rachael Hartofelis, Johnny Jaramillo, Adam Noelting, Mark Shorett Regional Planning Program Technical Assumptions Report Contributors Bill Bacon, Craig Bosman, Shruti Hari, Bryan Redmond, Theresa Romell Funding Policy and Programs Report Contributors Acknowledgements Cover Design Miguel Osorio Editor John Goodwin Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................. 1 Transportation Element ........................................................................ 1 Environment Element ........................................................................... 3 Housing Element ................................................................................. 3 Economy Element ............................................................................... 4 Technical Assumptions Regarding Post-COVID-19 Conditions ............................. 5 Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................ 7 Chapter 2: Technical Assumptions for the Transportation Element ................... 8 Introduction ...................................................................................... 8 Transportation Revenue Forecast ............................................................. 8 Federal Funding ................................................................................. 9 New Starts, Small Starts and Core Capacity ...................................................... 9 Fixing American’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act ........................................... 9 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Funding ............................................... 10 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Funding ................................................... 10 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Funding ....................... 10 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) Funding ................................................................................................ 10 American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021 Funding ............................................... 10 State Funding .................................................................................. 10 Senate Bill 1 Revenue Programs ................................................................... 11 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ............................................. 11 High-Speed Rail ....................................................................................... 11 Regional Funding .............................................................................. 11 Assembly Bill 1107 (AB 1107) ....................................................................... 11 Bridge Tolls ........................................................................................... 11 Regional Express Lanes .............................................................................. 12 Local Funding .................................................................................. 12 Sales Taxes ............................................................................................ 12 Local Streets and Roads Funds ..................................................................... 13 Anticipated/Unspecified Funding ........................................................... 13 New Revenues for Transportation .......................................................... 13 Mega Measure ......................................................................................... 13 Draft Plan Bay Area 205 0 Page | i Revenues Generated by Plan Strategies .......................................................... 13 Transportation Revenue Forecast Summary Table ....................................... 15 Roadway Operations and Maintenance Needs ............................................. 26 Local Streets and Roads ............................................................................. 26 State Highways ....................................................................................... 29 Local Bridges .......................................................................................... 31 Regional Bridges ...................................................................................... 32 Transit Operating Needs...................................................................... 33 Impact of COVID-19 on Transit Operating Needs and Revenues ............................... 34 Transit Asset Maintenance Needs ........................................................... 35 Inputs .................................................................................................. 36 Outputs ................................................................................................ 37 Aligning Funding with Strategies ............................................................ 40 Requirements ......................................................................................... 41 Approach .............................................................................................. 41 Strategy Costs ........................................................................................ 45 Funding Summary .................................................................................... 48 Consistency with Near-Term Programming Documents ......................................... 53 Chapter 3: Technical Assumptions for the Environment Element..................... 54 Introduction .................................................................................... 54 Sea Level Rise Adaptation .................................................................... 54 Height of Sea Level Rise ............................................................................ 54 Adaptation Design Height ........................................................................... 56 Revenue Forecast for Sea Level Rise Adaptation ................................................ 57 Strategy Costs ........................................................................................ 59 Residential and Commercial Property Retrofits .......................................... 63 Revenue Forecast for Residential and Commercial Property Retrofits ......................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • JPB Board of Directors Meeting of June 4, 2020 Correspondence As Of
    JPB Board of Directors Meeting of June 4, 2020 Correspondence as of May 21, 2020 # Subject 1 Excessive Idling at San Francisco Caltrain Station 2 Diridon Cooperative Agreement 3 Caltrain Sales Tax 4 BATWG Newsletter – May 2020 5 SSF Virtual Town Hall From: Chad Hedstrom <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 1:51 AM To: Public Comment <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Excessive Idling at San Francisco Caltrain station Observed the 912 San Bruno and 923 Baby Bullet, as well as the 913 (THREE (3) train engines) fast idling (very loudly) at the Caltrain station at 4th and King. I walked the entire perimeter of the yard, was not able to determine that any work was being done on any of the three engines. Last train to leave the station was 9:37pm on Sunday night, was last observed at 1:45am Monday morning, still idling. As I am writing this at nearly 2am all three trains continue to idle in an empty yard, resonating for blocks in every direction. 1. Why are these trains idling more than 60 minutes before departure? 2. Why are these trains not using Wayside power? 3. If wayside power is not available, when will wayside power be restored to San Francisco Station? I would ask that trains continue to use wayside power! Several thousand people are directly impacted by the noise. Caltrain has committed to using wayside power when at the station to reduce idling. Now more than ever citizens of San Francisco are staying at home and having to endure excessive idling not just at night, but during the day as well.
    [Show full text]
  • PROJECT GREEN LIGHT: Moving California's Critical Transportation
    PROJECT GREEN LIGHT: Moving California’s Critical Transportation Improvements Forward MAY 2016 202-466-6706 www.tripnet.org Founded in 1971, TRIP ®, of Washington, DC is a nonprofit organization that researches, evaluates and distributes economic and technical data on surface transportation issues. TRIP is sponsored by insurance companies, equipment manufacturers, distributors and suppliers; businesses involved in highway and transit engineering and construction; labor unions; and organizations concerned with efficient and safe surface transportation. Executive Summary California’s transportation system plays a significant role in the state’s development, providing mobility and access for residents, visitors, businesses and industry. The state’s roads, highways, rails, public transit systems, ports, bicycle paths and walking routes are the backbone of the Golden State’s economy. California’s transportation system also provides for a high quality of life and helps make the state a desirable place to live and visit. The condition and quality of its transportation system will play a critical role in California’s ability to continue to capitalize on its economic advantages and meet the demands of the 21st Century. But, ensuring that California achieves its goals for a high quality of life as well as civic and economic growth will require the ability to “green light” the transportation projects in the state that are critically needed to improve key roads, bridges, highways, public transit systems, rail networks and other transportation facilities. Improving critical segments of California’s transportation system will enhance economic competitiveness and improve the quality of life for the state’s residents and visitors by reducing travel delays and transportation costs, improving access and mobility, enhancing safety, and stimulating sustained job growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain Update Caltrain System
    CALTRAIN UPDATE CALTRAIN SYSTEM • 77 Miles, 32 Stations • 92 Weekday Trains Caltrain owns (SF to SJ) • Tenants (Altamont Corridor Express, Capitol Corridor, Amtrak, Freight) Union Pacific owns (SJ to Gilroy) 2 ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT Area Project Service 51 miles Electrification: Up to 79 mph • Overhead Wiring Service Increase San Francisco to • Traction Power • 6 trains / hour / direction San Jose (Tamien Facilities • More station stops / reduced travel time Station) • Restore weekday Atherton & Broadway Electric Trains (EMUs) service • 19 seven-car trainsets Mixed-fleet service (interim period) (133 cars) Continue tenant service • Altamont Corridor Express, Capitol Corridor, Amtrak, Freight 3 CONSTRUCTION / BUILDING ELECTRIC TRAINS Over 600+ foundations, 300+ poles installed; 8 train cars at the new Utah facility SCHEDULE Caltrain Business Plan Project Update July 2018 through Spring 2019 What Addresses the future potential of the railroad over the next 20-30 years. It will assess the benefits, impacts, and costs of different What is service visions, building the case for investment and a plan for the Caltrain implementation. Business Plan? Why Allows the community and stakeholders to engage in developing a more certain, achievable, financially feasible future for the railroad based on local, regional, and statewide needs. 7 8 What Will the Business Plan Cover? Technical Tracks Service Business Case Community Interface Organization • Number of trains • Value from • Benefits and impacts to • Organizational structure • Frequency of service
    [Show full text]
  • Transbay Transit Center
    Transbay Transit Center TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Transbay Transit Center Why do we need the Transbay Transit Center? It is time for public infrastructure to meet the needs of the 21st century. The project will centralize a fractured regional transportation network—making transit connections be- tween all points in the Bay Area fast and convenient. The new Transit Center will make public transit a convenient option as it is in other world-class cities, allowing people to travel and commute without the need for a car, thereby decreasing congestion and pollution. The Transit Center will provide a downtown hub in the heart of a new transit- friendly neighborhood with new homes, parks and shops, providing access to public transit literally at the foot of people’s doors. When will I be able to use the Transit Center? The Transit Center building will be completed in 2017 and will be a bustling transit and retail center for those who live, work and visit the heart of downtown San Francisco. When will I be able to take Caltrain into the new Transit Center? The construction of the underground rail extension for the Caltrain rail line and future High Speed Rail is planned to begin in 2012. It is estimated to be completed and operational, along with the Transit Center’s underground rail station, in 2018 or sooner if funding becomes What is the Transbay Transit available. Center Project? How many people will use it? When the rail component is complete, it is estimated that The Transbay Transit Center Project is a visionary more than 20 million people will use the Transit Center transportation and housing project that will transform annually.
    [Show full text]
  • Railyard Alternatives & I-280 Boulevard
    Railyard Alternatives & I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study 1 Railyard Alternatives & i-280 Boulevard (rab) Feasibility Study Phase I: Preliminary Options Analysis San Francisco Planning Department San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority Board of Directors April 5, 2016 Railyard Alternatives & I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study 22 About the study 2 Railyard Alternatives & I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study 3 Background: Why This Study NOW - Major Pieces of New Infrastructure planned Caltrain Electrification High-Speed Rail (HSR) Downtown Rail Extension (DTX) Transbay Transit Center (under construction Jan 2016) Railyard Alternatives and I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study 3 Railyard Alternatives & I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study 4 Background: California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) – 2016 Draft Business Plan . Silicon Valley to Central Valley – Operational by 2025 – San Jose – North of Bakersfield – $20.7Billion – Fully Funded . Extension to San Francisco and Bakersfield – Operational by 2025 – Additional $2.9Billion . San Francisco – LA/Anaheim – Operational by 2029 Source: CHSRA 2016 Railyard Alternatives & I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study 5 Potential Grade-Separation of 16th Street Potential Grade-Separation of Mission Bay Drive Source: CHSRA, 2010 Railyard Alternatives & I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study 6 Challenges tHat Face San Francisco Coordinate Partner Efforts Knit together City Fabric Improve Local and Regional Connections Consideration of Benefits/Impacts Opportunities for Housing, Open Space, and Jobs Railyard Alternatives & I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study 7 Study goals . Understand and coordinate the projects holistically. Help shape the urban environment for the public’s benefit. Photo: Manu Cornet Railyard Alternatives & I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study 8 8 Study COMPONENTS 8 Railyard Alternatives & I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study 9 RAB STUDY COMPONENTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Status Report
    Capital Projects Quarterly Status Report 1st Quarter FY2014 : July 1 – September 30, 2013 Report prepared for the December 5, 2013 TA Board Meeting San Mateo County Transportation Authority SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY QUARTERLY CAPITAL PROGRAM STATUS REPORT Status Date: September 30, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Traffic Light Report ........................................................................................................................... 1 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project ............................................................................ 3 00613 / 00741 - Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project ............................................................................ 4 TA – Caltrain Project ...................................................................................................... 7 00727 - Downtown Extension Project .............................................................................................. 8 00737 - Caltrain Electrification Project ............................................................................................. 9 Railroad Grade Separations ........................................................................................ 11 00759 - Grade Separation Project – San Bruno ............................................................................ 12 Streets and Highways .................................................................................................. 13 00615 - State Route 1 - Fassler Ave to Westport Project ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a of the Caltrain Corridor Vision Plan
    THE CALTRAIN CORRIDOR VISION PLAN Appendix A Rail: Existing Conditions and Vision Plan Methodology Appendix A describes today’s Caltrain rail system and service. It also explains the assumptions and methodology used to develop the Caltrain Corridor Vision Plan recommendations for future rail service in the corridor. 1. Caltrain Today The following existing conditions form what this study assumes to the baseline conditions that the Vision Plan elements are built upon. This information and the assumptions were based on what was available in 2016. 1.1 Physical Infrastructure The Caltrain Corridor is an approximately 48-mile rail corridor between the San Francisco 4th and King Station and San Jose Diridon Station. Between San Francisco and CP (Control Point) Coast1, a short distance north of the Santa Clara station, the corridor is owned and controlled by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (i.e., Caltrain). Between CP Coast and Diridon Station, the corridor is a portion of Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) Coast Subdivision (i.e., its rail line from Oakland to San Luis Obispo). The entire right-of-way and all main tracks in this section are owned by Caltrain, with the exception of Main Track 1, which is owned and maintained by UP2. Caltrain owns all stations in the corridor, all of which it received from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in 19933. The corridor is primarily a two main track corridor. Major track infrastructure components and stations are shown in Figure 1. At eight locations, the corridor includes main tracks or sidings other than two main tracks, also shown in Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Railyard Alternatives and I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study (RAB
    The Railyard Alternatives and I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study (RAB) The Railyard Alternatives and I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study (RAB) is a multi-agency analysis of transportation and land use alternatives in the most rapidly growing areas of the City: South of Market, Mission Bay, and Showplace Square/Lower Potrero Hill. San Francisco has committed to significant transit and infrastructure investments in this area. The Downtown Rail Extension (DTX), the electrification of Caltrain and High-Speed Rail service are planned around existing infrastructure that includes an elevated freeway, a half-mile long railyard, and street-level commuter rail tracks. However, this infrastructure was built in a time when the area was primarily an industrial neighborhood. This presents a number of challenges that potentially divides these densifying neighborhoods, reduces connectivity and exacerbate congestion for public transit, cars, pedestrians and cyclists. Further, these facilities inhibit the opportunity for transit-oriented jobs and housing in this central city location, an important consideration in an age where climate change, lack of affordable housing, congestion and loss of open space due to regional sprawl are growing concerns. Rather than simply considering how to build each project independently in the existing circumstances, the City wants to coordinate these projects into a unified vision for the area. The RAB will evaluate whether these challenges can be addressed through a comprehensive, regional approach to building a future that integrates land use with local and regional transportation and builds a high-quality urban environment. The study is divided in two phases: Phase I: Technical Feasibility Assessment; and Phase II: Alternatives Development Phase I of the RAB studies four distinct components.
    [Show full text]
  • Transbay Transit Center Project Presentation to Capital Planning
    Transbay Transit Center Project Presentation to Capital Planning Committee Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) Controller’s Office of Public Finance San Francisco Department of Public Works April 24, 2017 Request for Approval • Resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of one or more series of Special Tax Bonds for City and County of San Francisco Community Facilities District No. 2014-1 (Transbay Transit Center); and • Ordinance appropriating $152,000,000 of Special Tax Bond proceeds for the Transbay Transit Center Project Controller's Office City and County of San Francisco 2 Transbay Transit Center Phase 1 Includes: Transit Center, Temporary Terminal, Bus Storage, Train Box component of the rail extension Six-Story Rooftop Park Bus Deck Second Level Ground Level Lower Concourse Train Station Platform Controller's Office City and County of San Francisco 3 Map of Transbay Project Area Controller's Office City and County of San Francisco 4 Phase 1 Estimate at Completion Controller's Office City and County of San Francisco 5 Project Funding Sources Sources Budgeted Amount Anticipated Amount ($mil) ($mil) Land Sales $515.6 $515.6 Federal Grants 471.2 471.2 Local Bridge Tolls 347.4 347.4 Local Prop K Sales Tax 139.3 139.3 AC Transit Contributions 39.4 39.4 Local San Mateo Sales Tax 4.5 4.5 Federal TIFIA Loan 171.0 171.0 Direct Bank Loan 154.0 154.0 State RTIP Funds 10.2 10.2 Other Miscellaneous Local 12.7 12.7 SF COP Financing 247.5 179.3 CFD Bond Proceeds 146.6 105.4 Total Funds $2,259.4 $2,150.0 Controller's Office City and County of San Francisco 6 Community Facilities District No.
    [Show full text]
  • June 30, 2020 the Honorable Scott
    Item 5 June 30, 2020 The Honorable Scott Haggerty Chair, MTC Bay Area Metro Center 375 Beale Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105-2066 Re: Support for the Downtown Rail Extension (DTX) incorporation into Stage 1 of Plan Bay Area 2050 Dear Chair Haggerty, As the State Legislative Delegation representing a majority of San Francisco, we write to you in strong support of the Caltrain Downtown Rail Extension (DTX) Project’s inclusion into Plan Bay Area 2050’s first plan period, which consists of the years 2021 through 2035. The DTX project is a priority for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA), is consistent with Caltrain’s Business Plan Service Vision, and is consistent with the California High Speed Rail Authority’s (CHSRA) 2020 Draft Business Plan. Through the DTX program, Caltrain and High-Speed Rail (HSR) will become interconnected with the rest of the Bay Area and the State via AC Transit, BART, Golden Gate Transit, Muni, SamTrans, WestCAT Lynx, Amtrak, paratransit, and Greyhound. This interconnection fills a major gap in our transit system, regionally and beyond, while facilitating a better jobs-housing balance. Additionally, this project will allow for much needed traffic decongestion in the Bay Area’s road and freeway systems. As you both know, we have some of the worst traffic in the State, if not the Country, and residents, visitors, and super- commuters are growing increasingly frustrated with their inability to maneuver into or within the region. This harms potential business, deters tourists, and poses major safety concerns. With regards to impacts in the immediate area, DTX will spur massive growth in Priority Development Areas such as the Downtown SF, South of Market, and Mission Bay areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Phasing and Partial 15% Design and Appropriate $2,636,109 in Prop K Sales Tax Funds for Rail Program Oversight and Project Development Support
    BD041420 RESOLUTION NO. 20-XX RESOLUTION ALLOCATING $11,906,558, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR DOWNTOWN RAIL EXTENSION – PHASING AND PARTIAL 15% DESIGN AND APPROPRIATE $2,636,109 IN PROP K SALES TAX FUNDS FOR RAIL PROGRAM OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT WHEREAS, In late 2019, The Transportation Authority convened an expert panel review of the governance, oversight, management, funding, and project delivery of the Downtown Rail Extension (DTX), which resulted in a series of recommendations presented to the Transportation Authority Board on October 22, 2019; and WHEREAS, To implement those recommendations, Transportation Authority staff, together with other major stakeholders, developed the San Francisco Peninsula Rail Program Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which proposes a new management structure and defines a work program for the development of the project to ready-for-procurement status; and WHEREAS, The Transportation Authority has received the two requests for a total of $14,542,667 in Prop K local transportation sales tax funds, as summarized in Attachments 1 and 2 and detailed in the attached allocation request forms; and WHEREAS, The requests seek funds from the DTX to a Rebuilt Transbay Terminal category of the Prop K Expenditure Plan and will provide funding to cover the Transbay Joint Powers Authority and Transportation Authority’s respective involvement for the first eighteen months of the implementation of the work program defined in the aforementioned MOU; and WHEREAS, The adopted Prop K Strategic plan has funds programmed to the named projects such as DTX to a Rebuilt Transbay Terminal, which have no requirement for adoption of a 5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPP); and WHEREAS, The Prop K Strategic Plan establishes that all remaining funds for the DTX to a Rebuilt Transbay Terminal, beyond those already programmed for Page 1 of 5 BD041420 RESOLUTION NO.
    [Show full text]
  • RAIL ALIGNMENT and BENEFITS STUDY Executive Summary Report September 2018
    RAIL ALIGNMENT AND BENEFITS STUDY Executive Summary Report September 2018 Source: Flickr user Joey Parsons CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations C Glossary D Introduction 1 Component #1: Rail Alignment to Salesforce Transit Center 5 Rail Alignment Option 1: Future with Surface Rail: DTX + Trenched Streets 8 Rail Alignment Option 2: Pennsylvania Avenue: DTX + Extended Tunnel 12 Rail Alignment Option 3: Mission Bay: Modified DTX + 3rd Street Tunnel 18 Component #2: Railyard Reconfiguration / Relocation 26 Component #3: Urban Form and Land Use Considerations 32 Component #4: Transit Center (SFTC) Extension/Loop 36 Component #5: Boulevard I-280 40 Preliminary Findings and Recommendations: 43 Next Steps 45 End Notes 46 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Rail Connections in California and the Bay Area 2 Exhibit 2: Population and Employment Growth 2 Exhibit 3: RAB Study Components 3 Exhibit 4: Three Rail Alignments to Salesforce Transit Center in Component #1 7 Exhibit 5: Future with Surface Rail: DTX + Trenched Streets Alignment (Option 1) 8 Exhibit 6: Future with Surface Rail: DTX + Trenched Streets Alignment (Option 1) Cross Sections 9 Exhibit 7: Pennsylvania Avenue: DTX + Extended Tunnel Alignment (Option 2) 12 Exhibit 8: Pennsylvania Avenue: DTX + Extended Tunnel Alignment (Option 2) Cross Sections 13 Exhibit 9: Elements of the DTX evaluated in the TJPA SEIS/EIR 14 Exhibit 10: Location of Tunnel Stub Box in DTX Plans 15 Exhibit 11: Mission Bay: Modified DTX + 3rd Street Tunnel Alignment (Option 3) 19 Exhibit 12: Mission Bay: Modified DTX + 3rd Street
    [Show full text]