San Jose to San Francisco Caltrain Schedule
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16
California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16 December 2005 California Department of Transportation ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK, Secretary Business, Transportation and Housing Agency WILL KEMPTON, Director California Department of Transportation JOSEPH TAVAGLIONE, Chair STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER JEREMIAH F. HALLISEY, Vice Chair GOVERNOR BOB BALGENORTH MARIAN BERGESON JOHN CHALKER JAMES C. GHIELMETTI ALLEN M. LAWRENCE R. K. LINDSEY ESTEBAN E. TORRES SENATOR TOM TORLAKSON, Ex Officio ASSEMBLYMEMBER JENNY OROPEZA, Ex Officio JOHN BARNA, Executive Director CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1120 N STREET, MS-52 P. 0 . BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, 94273-0001 FAX(916)653-2134 (916) 654-4245 http://www.catc.ca.gov December 29, 2005 Honorable Alan Lowenthal, Chairman Senate Transportation and Housing Committee State Capitol, Room 2209 Sacramento, CA 95814 Honorable Jenny Oropeza, Chair Assembly Transportation Committee 1020 N Street, Room 112 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear: Senator Lowenthal Assembly Member Oropeza: On behalf of the California Transportation Commission, I am transmitting to the Legislature the 10-year California State Rail Plan for FY 2005-06 through FY 2015-16 by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with the Commission's resolution (#G-05-11) giving advice and consent, as required by Section 14036 of the Government Code. The ten-year plan provides Caltrans' vision for intercity rail service. Caltrans'l0-year plan goals are to provide intercity rail as an alternative mode of transportation, promote congestion relief, improve air quality, better fuel efficiency, and improved land use practices. This year's Plan includes: standards for meeting those goals; sets priorities for increased revenues, increased capacity, reduced running times; and cost effectiveness. -
Warm Springs Extension Title VI Equity Analysis and Public Participation Report
Warm Springs Extension Title VI Equity Analysis and Public Participation Report May 7, 2015 Prepared jointly by CDM Smith and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Office of Civil Rights 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Section 1: Introduction 6 Section 2: Project Description 7 Section 3: Methodology 14 Section 4: Service Analysis Findings 23 Section 5: Fare Analysis Findings 27 Appendix A: 2011 Warm Springs Survey 33 Appendix B: Proposed Service Options Description 36 Public Participation Report 4 1 2 Warm Springs Extension Title VI Equity Analysis and Public Participation Report Executive Summary In June 2011, staff completed a Title VI Analysis for the Warm Springs Extension Project (Project). Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI Circular (Circular) 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (October 1, 2012), the District is required to conduct a Title VI Service and Fare Equity Analysis (Title VI Equity Analysis) for the Project's proposed service and fare plan six months prior to revenue service. Accordingly, staff completed an updated Title VI Equity Analysis for the Project’s service and fare plan, which evaluates whether the Project’s proposed service and fare will have a disparate impact on minority populations or a disproportionate burden on low-income populations based on the District’s Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Policy (DI/DB Policy) adopted by the Board on July 11, 2013 and FTA approved Title VI service and fare methodologies. Discussion: The Warm Springs Extension will add 5.4-miles of new track from the existing Fremont Station south to a new station in the Warm Springs district of the City of Fremont, extending BART’s service in southern Alameda County. -
EMMA Official Statement
NEW ISSUE – BOOK ENTRY ONLY RATINGS: Moody’s (2020 Bonds): Aaa Long Term Standard & Poor’s (2020C-1 Bonds): AAA Short Term Standard & Poor’s (2020C-2 Bonds): A-1+ See “Ratings” herein. In the opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bond Counsel to the District, based upon an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions, and assuming, among other matters, the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants, interest on the 2020C-1 Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the 2020C-1 Bonds is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax. Bond Counsel is also of the opinion that interest on the 2020 Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income taxes. Bond Counsel further observes that interest on the 2020C-2 Bonds is not excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Code. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any other tax consequences related to the ownership or disposition of, or the amount, accrual or receipt of interest on, the 2020 Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS.” $700,000,000 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS $625,005,000 $74,995,000 (ELECTION OF 2016), (ELECTION OF 2016), 2020 SERIES C-1 2020 SERIES C-2 (FEDERALLY TAXABLE) (GREEN BONDS) (GREEN BONDS) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: As shown on inside cover The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District General Obligation Bonds (Election of 2016), 2020 Series C-1 (Green Bonds) (the “2020C-1 Bonds”) and 2020 Series C-2 (Federally Taxable) (Green Bonds) (the “2020C-2 Bonds” and, together with the 2020C-1 Bonds, the “2020 Bonds”) are being issued to finance specific acquisition, construction and improvement projects for District facilities approved by the voters and to pay the costs of issuance of the 2020 Bonds. -
Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Crossing Study
Final Report Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Crossing Study Prepared for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Prepared by June 8, 2007 Final Report SANTA CLARA STATION PEDESTRIAN CROSSING STUDY PURPOSE OF REPORT The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has requested an analysis of the pros and cons of a potential temporary pedestrian grade crossing of Union Pacific Railroad (UP) tracks at the Santa Clara Caltrain Station. The station is located south of Benton Road. Access to the two Caltrain tracks adjacent to the station is from the west (geographic south). The UP tracks run parallel to and to the east of the Caltrain tracks. The Santa Clara Station is one of three stations in Santa Clara County where pedestrian access to trains is only from one side of the station1. Caltrain is designing a major capital project at the station jointly funded by Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) and the Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) that will improve train operations. This project will include a pedestrian tunnel under the Caltrain tracks to a planned “island” center passenger platform. The area of the new platform appears in Figure 1. As planned and funded, the Caltrain tunnel will not extend all the way to the eastside of the UP tracks. Rather, the tunnel will serve as access for the island platform from the Santa Clara station platform only. Construction of the tunnel is scheduled for completion within two years. A potential temporary crossing of the UP tracks would provide interim access to the planned center island platform, to be located between the Caltrain and UP tracks, from the east side of the UP tracks. -
Semi-Annual Report June 2017
2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report June 2017 2000 Measure A Program Semi-Annual Report – June 2017 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PROJECT COSTS A. Executive Summary .............................................................................1-2 B. Project Costs .........................................................................................1-5 C. Measure A Fund Exchange ................................................................1..-8 D. Funding................................................................................................1-.9 2 PROJECT SUMMARY REPORTS 1 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit 1. BART SV Program Development Implementation & 2-1-1 Warm Springs 2. BART SV Corridor Establishment and Maintenance ..........................2-1-2 3. Berryessa Extension Project SVBX - Phase 1 ................................2-1-3.... 4 Future Extension to Santa Clara – Phase II and NMF .........................2-1-4 5. BART Core Systems Modifications (BCS) ................................2-........1-5 6. Other Supporting Project ………………………………….. 2-1-6 2. Mineta San Jose Airport People Mover ..............................................2-2 3. Capitol Expressway Light Rail to Eastridge .......................................2-3 4. Low Floor Light Rail Vehicles.............................................................2-4 5. Caltrain – Capacity Improvements & Electrification ...........................2-5 6. Caltrain Service Upgrades ................................................................2...-6 -
2009 Draft EIS Chapter 5.14: Visual Quality and Aesthetics
Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor EIS 5.14 VISUAL QUALITY AND AESTHETICS This section assesses the visual affects of the alternatives and associated facilities and alignment features. Viewpoints along the corridor where the project alternatives and options could affect existing visual quality are identified and evaluated with and without a project. These include corridor locations possessing sensitive viewer groups or offering scenic views. 5.14.1 INTRODUCTION Adverse effects to visual and aesthetic resources would include substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the SVRTC and its surroundings, substantial contrast with the scale or visual context of the surrounding landscape, creation of a substantial new source of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and substantially altering a scenic vista. Visual resource change is analyzed in terms of visual dominance and other specific visual effects of facilities that would be constructed under the BEP and SVRTP alternatives, together with the change in visual quality. Viewer responses to these changes are interpreted based on the sensitivity of the viewer types identified and the duration of views. Three terms are used to describe effects on visual quality, including: ■ Vividness – Refers to the visual power of memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking and distinctive visual patterns. Effects would be evaluated based on the degree to which they affect the visual power or memorability of the landscape components. ■ Intactness – Refers to the visual integrity of the natural and man-made landscapes. Effects would be evaluated based on the degree to which they encroach into the visual integrity of the landscape. -
Route(S) Description 26 the Increased Frequency on the 26 Makes the Entire Southwestern Portion of the Network Vastly More Useful
Route(s) Description 26 The increased frequency on the 26 makes the entire southwestern portion of the network vastly more useful. Please keep it. The 57, 60, and 61 came south to the area but having frequent service in two directions makes it much better, and riders from these routes can connect to the 26 and have much more areas open to them. Thank you. Green Line The increased weekend service on the Green line to every twenty minutes is a good addition of service for Campbell which is seeing markedly better service under this plan. Please keep the increased service. Multiple Please assuage public concerns about the 65 and 83 by quantifying the impact the removal of these routes would have, and possible cheaper ways to reduce this impact. The fact is that at least for the 65, the vast majority of the route is duplicative, and within walking distances of other routes. Only south of Hillsdale are there more meaningful gaps. Mapping the people who would be left more than a half mile (walkable distance) away from service as a result of the cancellation would help the public see what could be done to address the service gap, and quantifying the amount of people affected may show that service simply cannot be justified. One idea for a route would be service from winchester transit center to Princeton plaza mall along camden and blossom hill. This could be done with a single bus at a cheaper cost than the current 65. And nobody would be cut off. As far as the 83 is concerned, I am surprised the current plan does not route the 64 along Mcabee, where it would be eq.. -
Milpitas Transit Routes
W Y P K A L L O M A U T Arroyo Agua Caliente Park 239 P L V D A B O S C E L L R D R B S 212 M E 239 E 239 R I M O S G P 215 680 Transit W A C U R I E S T 215 D PACIFIC A R E R COMMONS M Information 880 S 239 P R C I U N S N G H O S I N R B G T L P H V K P D Milpitas W 215 O Y R T 217 0 1mi Station FREMONT BLVD Warm Springs BART 215 E WARREN AVE 239 Warm B E N I C I A S T Springs 0 1km 215 217 239 Milpitas 217 Park BART 215 WARM Map Key SPRINGS Booster BAYSIDE PKWY DISTRICT Park WARM SPRINGS BLVD San Francisco Bay You Are Here National Wildlife Lone Tree Refuge Creek Park FREMONT 3-Minute Walk 880 500ft/150m Radius 680 BART PAGE M I K A T O RL D L M 239 IRVINGTON D O R ACE K N EE 217 CR DISTRICT T TT CO D S R R Amtrak Train K ATO RD Ed R. Levin 239 Park Caltrain D I X O NARIZONA R D 217 AC Transit 66 E S C U Amtrak Thruway E 17 L A Motorcoach WASHINGTON D 217 R 86 Monterey-Salinas Transit N J A C K L I N R D P San Francisco Bay 66 A R National Wildlife K 23 VTA Bus Service Refuge V MILPITAS I N C T M O VTA Light Rail R B I L P I I T A A D Alan B. -
Grading California's Rail Transit Sta on Areas Appendix LEGEND
! Grading California's Rail Transit Sta3on Areas Appendix LEGEND: CONTENTS: Group 1 - Residen<al • BART Final Scores • LA Metro Final Scores Group 2 - Mixed • Sacramento RT Final Scores • San Diego MTS Final Scores • San Francisco MUNI Final Scores Group 3 - Employment • Santa Clara VTA Final Scores A+ 95% A 80% A- 75% B+ 70% B 55% B- 50% C+ 45% C 30% C- 25% D+ 20% D 5% D- 2% F below 2% Appendix | www.next10.org/transit-scorecard Next 10 ! BART FINAL SCORES AVERAGE: C Final City Line Sta3on Raw Score Grade San SFO-MILLBRAE Civic Center/UN Plaza BART 90.60 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE Montgomery St. BART 88.20 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE 24th St. Mission BART 87.30 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE 16th St. Mission BART 84.30 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE Powell St. BART 84.10 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE Embarcadero BART 83.80 A Francisco Oakland FREMONT Lake Merri] BART 77.60 A DUBLIN/PLEASANTON Berkeley Downtown Berkeley BART 74.50 A TO DALY CITY Berkeley RICHMOND Ashby BART 75.30 A- Berkeley RICHMOND North Berkeley BART 74.30 A- San SFO-MILLBRAE Glen Park BART 74.10 A- Francisco Oakland FREMONT Fruitvale BART 73.50 A- Oakland SFO-MILLBRAE 19th St. Oakland BART 72.90 B+ San SFO-MILLBRAE Balboa Park BART 69.80 B+ Francisco 12th St. Oakland City Center Oakland SFO-MILLBRAE 71.70 B BART Contra Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Costa SFO-MILLBRAE 66.20 B Centre BART Centre Appendix | www.next10.org/transit-scorecard Next 10 ! Oakland PITTSBURG/BAY POINT MacArthur BART 65.70 B Fremont FREMONT Fremont BART 64.20 B El Cerrito RICHMOND El Cerrito Plaza -
Downtown-Diridon CWG Presentation 9-10-19
VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project Downtown-Diridon Community Working Group November 12, 2019 Agenda • Follow-Up Items & 2020 Work Plan • CWG Member Report Back • Government Affairs • Phase I Update • Phase II Update • Related Planning Efforts • Construction Education & Outreach Plan • Design Development Framework • Next Steps 2 Role of the CWG • Be project liaisons • Receive briefings on technical areas • Receive project updates • Build an understanding of the project • Collaborate with VTA • Contribute to the successful delivery of the project 3 Your Role as a CWG Member • Attend CWG meetings – Bring your own binder • Be honest • Report back and provide feedback • Get informed • Disseminate accurate information • Act as conduits for information to community at large 4 Role of the CWG Team CWG Team Member Role Eileen Goodwin Facilitator Gretchen Baisa Primary Outreach Contact Jill Gibson Phase II Planning Manager Kate Christopherson CWG Coordinator 5 Upcoming Meetings • CWG Dates – February 11, 2020, 4:00-6:00 PM – May 12, 2020, 4:00-6:00 PM – September 15, 2020, 4:00-6:00 PM – November 17, 2020, 4:00-6:00 PM • VTA Board of Directors (https://www.vta.org/about/board-and-committees) – December 5, 2019, 5:30 PM – January 9, 2020, 5:30 PM – February 6, 2020, 5:30 PM • Joint Policy Advisory Board (JPAB) (http://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Board/1074-Diridon-Station-Joint-Policy-Advisory- Board) – November 15, 2019, 3:00 PM 6 Follow-Up Items & 2020 Work Plan 7 Follow-Up Items • Links to the Downtown San José development tools were included in the September meeting summary. -
Schedules & Fares
® Transit Information GA GA GA Great America Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Amtrak Capitol Corridor Schedule Information effective March 29, 2021 The Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) service provides weekday and Saturday commuter trains along the Altamont Corridor. ACE Capitol Corridor intercity rail & Lick Mill trains additionally stop at Santa Clara, Fremont, Pleasanton, Livermore, Vasco Road, Tracy, and Lathrop/Manteca. For more serves 18 stations along a 170- Capitol Corridor information visit www.acerail.com or call 1-800-411-RAIL. mile rail corridor, and offers a convenient way to travel between the Transit Center ACE operates free shuttles every weekday to provide convenient connections with major employment sites in Santa Clara Sierra Foothills, Sacramento, the San County. Shuttles are scheduled to provide service immediately following the rst three morning ACE train arrivals with timely to Sacramento Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley/San q to Auburn return service in the evening. Shuttles will arrive after the fourth incoming train and passengers should expect to wait for Jose. For information call 1-877-9-RIDECC Mon-Fri Sat-Sun/Holidays shuttles. All vehicles operating this service have bike racks, are lift-equipped, and are accessible to persons with disabilities. GA GA (1/2) RD,or visit CO, capitolcorridor.org. GA, SJD Train Depart Train Depart Santa Clara 524 6:31a 724 8:18a 528 9:01a 728 10:18a Fare Information effective January 2, 2019 Schedule Information effective March 29, 2021 Fare Information effective June 9, 2014 532 11:18a 736 3:18p q 511 Real-Time Departures Amtrak tickets are purchased for the length of each 538 3:19p q 742 5:18p 511 provides free, up-to-the-minute ACE Fares ACE passenger’s journey. -
Vta's Bart Silicon Valley— Phase Ii Extension Project
VTA’S BART SILICON VALLEY— PHASE II EXTENSION PROJECT LOCATION HYDRAULIC STUDY P REPARED FOR : Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration P R E P A R E D B Y : WRECO 1000 Broadway, Suite 415 Oakland, CA 94607 November 2017 WRECO. 2017. VTA’s BART Silicon Valley—Phase II Extension Project Location Hydraulic Study. November. San Jose, CA. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, San Jose, CA, and the Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C. Errata E.1 Introduction This Errata reflects the modifications to the Phase II Extension Project – Location Hydraulic Study that may have resulted from comments received during the public review of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension (Phase II) Project or that were required for purposes of clarifications. Changes to the Location Hydraulic Study shown in strikeout text for deletions and in underline text for additions. These modifications do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis such that new significant environmental impacts have been identified, nor do they constitute significant new information. The modifications are provided by chapter and indicated with the page number from the Location Hydraulic Study that they would replace. This Errata is intended to be used in conjunction with the Location Hydraulic Study. E.2 Chapter/Section Changes E.2.1 Global Changes to the Study Two station names from the Phase I Extension have been renamed: Berryessa Station (or Berryessa BART Station) is now Berryessa/North San Jose Station.