DOCSLIB.ORG

Transit Times

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transit Times FIVE GOOD MONTHS - Rich­ Senior citizens keep low fare mond Division operators bettered the safe-driving goal for five months The ten-cent fare for senior citizens during 1970 showed no appreciable in­ in a row, so Santa rewarded them on AC Transit buses during off-peak crease in riding on the part of people with coffee, doughnuts and candy hours will continue for at least one over 65, although there was some in­ canes. Getting their cups filled are, more year. crease in certain areas and on certain fl'Om left; Ira Fuller, Vic Bright, lines. Wardell Miles, Jess McGowan and Continuation of the fare reduction for Bud DeSoto. Santa is Richmond persons over 65 was approved for an The loss in revenue to the district, Divisi.on Superintendent Nick Ale additional year by the District's Board with no significant increase in riding vizos. of Directors this month. on the part of senior citizens, was esti­ At the same time, a campaign was mated at $496,500 for the year. District has "safest driving" year launched to obtain state and federal Under the special fare rate, senior help to offset the costs of local trans­ citizens who present Medicare cards or A new safe driving record was set by nuts for exceeding the goal in November portation assistance for the elderly. special AC Transit identification cards AC Transit operators during the first 11 was Emeryville Division, with 13,828 State Senator Nicholas C. Petris, Ala­ can ride East Bay buses for 10 cents months of 1970-13,009 miles per acci­ miles per accident. Emeryville drivers meda County Democrat, pledged he between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. and from dent. topped the goal four months out of five would sponsor legislation to obtain 7 p.m. to 3 a.m. on weekdays, and The record tops last year's 11,428 safe state financial aid and also encourage around the clock on weekends. The 10- driving miles and is a dramatic change assistance on the federal level. cent fare also is in effect on major holi­ from the 9,041 miles per accident estab­ The reduced fare was inaugurated for days. lished by bus drivers in 1961, first full a one-year trial period on Jan. 1, 1970, No zone charges are made, permitting year of AC Transit operations. and would have expired Dec. 31 without oldsters to roll up some of the longest Richmond Division operators led by board action to extend it. rides in transit history, from Hayward topping the new goal of 13,250 miles since July, when the new mark was set. Warren E. Robinson, transportation in Alameda County to San Pablo and per accident for five months in a row. During the year, Richmond operators engineer for AC Transit, reported at EI Sobrante in west Contra Costa Their latest mark, for November, was went over the top every month except the meeting that riding surveys taken County. 15,054. March. June wasn't counted because of Also earning free coffee and dough- the 19-day strike. New buses ordered to meet rider growth AC Transit hoped to start the New the buses will have ceiling paneling to Year with 15 new buses equipped with the top of standee windows, eliminating experimental smog control kits and more traditional advertising frames. attractive interiors. Five of the new buses will have the Another 15 are expected to be de­ complete Environmental Improvement livered in the late Spring, aiding the sys­ Program package, including an improved tem in keeping up with growth. fuel injector, air filter, rubber engine Purchase of the 30 buses is in line mounting to reduce noise and a vertical with the property's projections of how exhaust stack to eliminate diesel exhaust many coaches will be needed for the odors. network requirements when BART goes The other 25 will have the anti-smog into operation. kit, except for the catalytic muffier. A strike at the General Motors plant Directors approved purchase of the held up the cfelivery of the first 15, which additional 15 coaches after Alan L. Bing­ were awaiting finishing touches when ham, general manager, said lack of equip­ facilities were shut-down. ment would pose serious operating prob­ In the meantime, directors approved lems, with either an increase in mainte­ "w" STANDS FOR WEDDING-Mr. and Mrs. Robert Brough exercising an option for an additional 15 nance expense because of over-time work were regular commuters aboard AC Transit's Alameda South Shore Line W-l when a chance encounter led to the discOl;ery buses, at a cost of $539,000. or a change in policy of providing "seats of a mutual interest in boating, a date and, fillall", a marriage Along with anti-smog packages, all of for all passengers." proposal. The wedding, the second for both, took place last month. 2 3 Rerouting proposals Preliminary plans to serve BART stations under study NETWORK of 82 AC Transit bus lines would provide service to BART sta­ A tions in Alameda and west Contra Costa counties, under preliminary rerouting proposals currently being studied. The entire present system of 112 bus lines was analyzed to develop initial plans for serving the 18 BART stations in AC Transit's 11-city service area. This is what has been proposed for East Bay communities: 1. Forty-five local lines would be realigned to serve one or more BART stations. 2. Sixteen local lines already serve BART station sites and would not have to be rerouted. 3. Two new local lines would be inaugurated to take riders direct to BART (50) (81S) . NETWORK OF FUTURE?-Detailing proposals for realigning AC Transit bus lines to serve future BART stations are, from left, E. Sam Davis, manager of research and planning, 4. Seven small East Bay neighborhood lines would continue to provide purely and Alan L. Bingham, general manager. local service. (46) (46A) (56A) (59C) (63) (71) (87) . East Bay intercity express lines would be affected as follows: Direct connector service also would be provided for a number of schools, in­ 1. Of the ten existing express lines, two connecting Albany, Oakland, Berkeley, El cluding the California State College at Hayward, Chabot College, Mills College, Cerrito and Richmond would be abandoned (31) (33). Alameda College, University of California and Contra Costa College. 2. Four express lines serving San Leandro and Hayward, Castro Valley, San Proposals have been submitted to numerous public agencies, including super­ Lorenzo area would be cut back to provide connector service to neighborhood visors, mayors and city councils, and to organizations, to aid in determining what BART stations (30) (32) (34CV) (36). the people want in the way of future bus service. After public suggestions are con­ 3. Four intercity express lines would continue in operation, two connecting the sidered, AC Transit directors will adopt final rerouting plans. MacArthur Blvd. corridor with Oakland (34) (34A). One would connect the Directors early last month analyzed preliminary realignment plans in southern Bancroft Ave. area and East 14th St. with Oakland (38). The fourth provides Alameda County. They then reviewed proposals for the following areas: commute service from the east end of Alameda to downtown Oakland (33A). All would serve BART stations. The 38 transbay lines operated by the District would be affected as follows: Alameda, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont 1. Seven trans bay lines would be abandoned. (FX) (KH) (LX) (RD) (RF) A total of 38 bus lines serving the between Bay Farm Island and Fruitvale (S) SW). four communities would be realigned BART station. Park St. line (64) would 2. Five lines would be cut back, to serve instead as connectors to BART stations to coordinate with BART service. An­ serve Fruitvale station. (A-I) (A-2) (R) (RCV) (RH). other 23 lines already serve BART sta­ EMERYVILLE -- Service extensions 3. Ten transbay lines would have triple functions, providing connector service tion sites. on two lines would connect industrial to BART stations, local service, and transbay service for areas not convenient- Ten transbay lines to San Francisco area with MacArthur and Ashby BART ly served by BART (F) (C) (E) (H), (HX) (K) (L) (N) (NX) (T). would either be abandoned or realigned stations. Local service would continue 4. Sixteen would continue under present routing. Of the sixteen, only two are to provide feeder service to BART sta­ along San Pablo Ave. basic routes (B) (0). The others operate during commute hours only (BX) tions. Transbay service would continue OAKLAND - A small line in Mont­ (CBX) (CHX) (EX) (FXX) (G) (GX) (L-IA) (L-2A) (N-IX) (OX) to be operated in those areas not as clair, one in Maxwell Park and three (W) (W-l) (V). conveniently served by BART. along Arthur St. on 82nd Ave. in East The suggested network was planned with the goal of retaining present riders, Realignment proposals are: Oakland would continue to provide local while attracting additional passengers from cars through more convenient service, ALAMEDA - All intercity East Bay neighborhood service exclusively. The no matter what mode of public transportation was used. lines serving Alameda would provide remaining 42 local lines would operate A primary objective was to utilize, to full advantage, the high speed potential connector service with either Fruitvale to BART stations. Express and transbay of BART operations. At the same time, careful consideration was given to meeting or 12th St. BART stations in Oakland. service along MacArthur Blvd. corridor other transit needs in and between neighborhoods and communities. Four existing trans bay lines would con­ would continue, as well as trans bay Network rerouting would directly link residential neighborhoods, shopping and tinue in operation due to relatively rapid commuter service to Montclair, due to industrial districts, public buildings, hospitals, medical facilities and recreational travel time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0.0 Cover January 2010.Ai
    Berkeley Pedestrian Master Plan Final Draft January 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 2. GOALS AND POLICIES ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 3. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING AND POLICY DOCUMENTS ............ 3-1 4. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN NETWORK ........................................................................................ 4-1 5. PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL, DEMAND AND SAFETY ............................................................ 5-1 6. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS ......................................................................................................... 6-1 7. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................... 7-1 8. ACCESSIBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 8-1 9. ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 9-1 10. IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING .................................................................................... 10-1 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 3-1 Berkeley Area Plans ............................................................................................................................ 3-6 Figure 4-1 Pedestrian Network (Northeast Quadrant) ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: a Literature Review
    Transit Cooperative Research Program Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration RESEARCH RESULTS DIGEST October 2002—Number 52 Subject Area: VI Public Transit Responsible Senior Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review This digest summarizes the literature review of TCRP Project H-27, “Transit-Oriented Development: State of the Practice and Future Benefits.” This digest provides definitions of transit-oriented development (TOD) and transit joint development (TJD), describes the institutional issues related to TOD and TJD, and provides examples of the impacts and benefits of TOD and TJD. References and an annotated bibliography are included. This digest was written by Robert Cervero, Christopher Ferrell, and Steven Murphy, from the Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley. CONTENTS IV.2 Supportive Public Policies: Finance and Tax Policies, 46 I INTRODUCTION, 2 IV.3 Supportive Public Policies: Land-Based I.1 Defining Transit-Oriented Development, 5 Initiatives, 54 I.2 Defining Transit Joint Development, 7 IV.4 Supportive Public Policies: Zoning and I.3 Literature Review, 9 Regulations, 57 IV.5 Supportive Public Policies: Complementary II INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, 10 Infrastructure, 61 II.1 The Need for Collaboration, 10 IV.6 Supportive Public Policies: Procedural and II.2 Collaboration and Partnerships, 12 Programmatic Approaches, 61 II.3 Community Outreach, 12 IV.7 Use of Value Capture, 66 II.4 Government Roles, 14
    [Show full text]
  • Friends of Five Creeks Letters Re Restoration of Codornices Creek
    The letters below deal with F5C’s early involvement in Codornices Creek. They shed some light on challenges that faced efforts to restore our area’s only trout stream, and the role citizens played. These are by no means the whole story. Most credit for the big projects on Codornices west of San Pablo goes to the partnership of creek-restoration pioneers Carole Schemmerling, who headed the now defunct Urban Creeks Council, and consulting hydrologist Dr. Ann Riley, whose now defunct private consulting firm Watershed Restoration Institute. The two shared offices; UCC was effectively the nonprofit arm of WRI, able to receive grants and similar government support. Credit also goes to longtime environmental visionary Richard Register, who with UCC played a large role in bringing Codornices out of its pipe between 8th and 9th Streets in 1994-5. This was one of Berkeley’s pioneer “daylighting” projects. Friends of Five Creeks 1000 San Pablo Ave. Albany, CA 94706 412 7257 October 4, 1998 Mr. Ron Gervason San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 1515 Clay St., 14th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 [email protected] Re: Triannual Review of Water Quality Control Plan of San Francisco Bay Basin Friends of Five Creeks is a grassroots organization that seeks to protect and restore creeks in Albany, California. While Albany’s natural creeks are mostly in culverts, one, Codornices, is substantially free flowing and has a small trout population. Efforts are ongoing to restore another, Cerrito Creek. We believe that the few creeks in our urbanized area that can or do support relatively natural aquatic life, especially cold-water or anadromous fish, should receive the highest possible degree of protection, including that of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Communications (3)
    Late Communications Planning Commission September 1, 2021 Supplemental Communications (3) (The following are communications received after 4pm on September 1.) Late Communications Planning Commission September 1, 2021 Communication From: Andrew Beahrs <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 7:48 PM To: Pearson, Alene Subject: North Berkeley BART housing now WARNING: This is not a City of Berkeley email. Do not click links or attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners: As a Berkeley homeowner I understand the desire for convenient parking at the North Berkeley and Ashby stations, which I have taken advantage of on many occasions (Ashby was my local station for a decade, and North Berkeley is now). That said, I *strongly* support immediately moving ahead with construction of transit‐friendly housing at both stations. While my preference is for affordable units, I would also love to see more market‐rate units that might play a small but real role in filling the deep need for more housing of all kinds in our region. I welcome the prospect of new, diverse neighbors renting apartments on the sites. As a community, we regularly issue statements of support in favor of respecting the value of Black lives and adapting and/or mitigating to climate change. We speak loudly of our openness to accepting refugee communities, and decry the state of homelessness in our town, region, and state. All these words are entirely empty without a willingness to build transit‐friendly housing. THIS is what we need to do; THIS is the place to do it; THIS is the time to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • THE STORY of OSCAR GRANT Preview
    DARE TO BE KING: PreviewWHAT IF THE PRINCE LIVES? A Survival Workbook for Adolescent African American Males Purposes Only By David Miller Introduction by Cephus Johnson, Executive Director of the Oscar Grant Foundation Table of Contents “No matter the circumstances that you may be going through, just push through it” Preview Ray Lewis, Former NFL Line Backer- Baltimore Ravens INTRODUCTION Open Letter to Organizations ............................................................................11 Getting Started ..................................................................................................13 Using Dare To Be King ......................................................................................17 Facilitator’s Guide ..............................................................................................18 Evaluation & Documenting the Work ...............................................................34 Dare To Be King Book Club Project ...................................................................37 SESSIONSPurposes Session 1. Orientation .......................................................................................42 Session 2. Art of War .........................................................................................48 Session 3. Confronting the School Bully ............................................................53 Session 4 & 5. The Oscar Grant Story ...............................................................60 Session 6. Whose the Greatest ...........................................................................67
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco East
    San Francisco-East Bay Rail Lines, 1939-1941 calurbanist.com Key System SP IER (Southern Pacific Interurban Electric Railway) Thousand Oaks Station Transbay Colusa & Solano Albany Solano A Downtown Oakland/12th St 5 3 9 2 7 Oakland/7th St/Dutton East H B Trestle Glen/Grand Ave (Local & Express) Santa Fe & Key Route Blvd Bay C Piedmont/40th St 3 9 Berkeley/Shattuck G (Local & Express) University of E Claremont G California 4 6 Shattuck Alameda/Encinal Sacramento & Telegraph & F South Berkeley/Adeline (4 EB, 6 WB) Delaware Bancroft H Alameda/Lincoln Berkeley K Berkeley/Sacramento (4 WB, 6 EB) 9th St 5 Shuttles Berkeley/9th St G Westbrae Dinky Claremont Hotel S College Ashby & Claremont Sacramento Northern Sacramento K College Ave E Alcatraz F K Adeline & Alcatraz Stanford Claremont Adeline 55th St Transbay Terminal Mission & 1st St Emeryville A B C E F H S 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Shafter 40th St BRIDGE Piedmont Ave S BAY C Oakland Ave 16th St Station & Latham to Sacramento San 16th & Wood Oakland via Walnut Creek Poplar & Concord Piedmont Francisco Grand 12th St Lakeshore 7th St B Underhills Station Underhills Rd A 2nd Ave A Brief History of Transbay Trains & 16th St 4 West Alameda 6 Station 1851-1939 Transbay transit service is limited 1941 The SP IER, Sacramento Northern to ferries. Starting in 1869, “moles” or Railway, and Key System G and H lines are causeways are extended from the East Bay abandoned. At the same time, the Key System shore to rail/ferry terminals miles out.
    [Show full text]
  • Measure RR Small Business Outreach
    Measure RR Small Business Outreach VTA River Oaks Campus Thursday, November 9, 2017 Agenda DBE Program - Small Business Elements • Measure RR Background • Measure RR Upcoming Projects • How to do business with BART • Economic Opportunity Programs • Resources • Q&A 2 Measure RR Background • $3.5B Measure RR Bond passed in 2016 to improve BART’s aging transit infrastructure: . Repair and replace critical safety infrastructure . Relieve passenger crowding, reduce traffic congestion, expand opportunities to safely access stations 3 Measure RR Upcoming Projects Program FY18* FY19* Total* Renew Track $45.9 $47.3 $93.2 Renew Power Infrastructure $85.2 $117.2 $202.4 Repair Tunnels & Structures $19.1 $25.6 $44.7 Renew Mechanical $7.0 $5.5 $12.5 Replace Train Control/Increase Capacity $5.2 $3.0 $8.2 Renew Stations $4.6 $13.6 $18.2 Expand Safe Access to Stations $14.0 $23.0 $37.0 Design/Engineer to Relieve Crowding $9.1 $14.9 $24.0 Total $190.1 $250.1 $440.2 * In millions. Represents a portion of the total project cost (RR funds only) 4 Upcoming Procurement/Construction Contract Awards Advertisement Substantial Est. Contract Project Date Completion Value ($ millions) RENEW TRACK Rail Procurement*** - 15CQ-200 FY18 – Qtr 1 FY23 – Qtr 3 $18 M03 Track Construction – 15CQ-100 FY18 – Qtr 1 FY19 – Qtr 1 $4.1 M03 Track Material FY18 – Qtr 1 FY19 – Qtr 2 $1 Rail Procurement (Frogs) – 6M3378A FY18 – Qtr 1 FY19 – Qtr 2 $0.2 A15 Portal Grout Project (DFS) FY18 – Qtr 1 FY19 – Qtr 3 $0.8 C55 Material Procurement FY18 – Qtr 2 FY19 – Qtr 3 $1.1 Wheel Rail Interface Optimize FY18 – Qtr 2 FY20 – Qtr 3 $4.9 System Joint Elimination FY18 – Qtr 2 TBD $5 C35 Interlocking Track Construction FY18 – Qtr 2 FY20 – Qtr 3 $13 Yard Track Replacement Construction FY19 – Qtr 2 TBD $200 Renew Track Sub-Total $248.1 *** Project funded by RR and other funding sources 5 UpcomingUpcoming Procurement/Construction Procurement/Construction ContractContract Awards Awards Advertisement Substantial Est.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Public-Private Partnership Opportunities for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District 
    Public-Private Partnership Opportunities for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Report Prepared by Peyser Associates LLC Bay Area Council Economic Institute Roy Kienitz LLC Pursuant to BART Agreement No. 6M6064 March 2013 Acknowledgements This report has been prepared by the teams at Peyser Associates LLC, the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, and Roy Kienitz LLC under contract to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). It is intended to serve as a broad survey of opportunities in the area of Public-Private Partnerships (P3) for BART leadership to explore. Our writing is based on our varied experience in transportation and economic policy in the Bay Area and nationally and on research we conducted in recent months. Our research included interviews with several members of the BART staff; key leaders in the agency; and other transportation, real estate and investment experts in the region and in the federal government. We would particularly like to thank BART General Manager Grace Crunican for commissioning this work and for making available to us her management team and staff. In addition, we are very appreciative of the efforts of our own team members in researching and writing this paper, including Beth Boehlert at Peyser Associates; Peter Luchetti, Megan Matson and Dana Marohn at Table Rock Capital; and Robert Goldsmith and Jay Mancini at G&S Realty Ventures. We look forward to a robust discussion of our findings and recommendations. Peter A. Peyser Peyser Associates LLC New York, NY 646-688-2720 [email protected] Sean Randolph Bay Area Council Economic Institute San Francisco, CA 415-981-7117 [email protected] Roy Kienitz Roy Kienitz, LLC Washington, DC 240-595-8828 [email protected] Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]