DOCSLIB.ORG

2017 Triennial On-Site Safety Review of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (Vta)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017 Triennial On-Site Safety Review of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (Vta) 2017 TRIENNIAL ON-SITE SAFETY REVIEW OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) RAIL TRANSIT SAFETY BRANCH SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 September 19, 2018 Final Report Daren Gilbert, Manager Rail Transit Safety Branch Safety and Enforcement Division 287047411 2017 TRIENNIAL ON-SITE SAFETY REVIEW SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The California Public Utilities Commission’s Rail Transit Safety Branch (RTSB) conducted this system safety program review. Staff members directly responsible for conducting safety review and inspection activities include: Daren Gilbert, Rail Transit Safety Branch Program Manager Stephen Artus, Program and Project Supervisor Steven Espinal, Senior Utilities Engineer Rupa Shitole, CPUC Representative to VTA, Utilities Engineer Michael Borer, Rail Transit Operations Safety Section Supervisor Debbie Dziadzio, Senior Transportation Operations Supervisor Matthew Ames, Senior Transportation Operations Supervisor John Madriaga, Track Inspector Salvador Herrera, Track Inspector Michael Rose, Operating Practices Inspector Richard Fernandez, Operating Practices Inspector Adam Freeman, Equipment Inspector (Mechanical) James Matus, Equipment Inspector (Mechanical) Shane Roberson, Signal and Train Control Inspector Claudia Lam, Senior Utilities Engineer Specialist – Risk Assessment Jamie Lau, Utilities Engineer Arun Mehta, Utilities Engineer Howard Huie, Utilities Engineer Joey Bigornia, Utilities Engineer Daniel Kwok, Utilities Engineer Michael Warren, Utilities Engineer i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1 2. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 2 3. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3 VTA Rail System Description ...................................................................................................... 3 VTA 2014 Triennial Review Recommendations Status ........................................................... 7 4. SAFETY REVIEW PROCEDURE ................................................................................................ 8 5. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 9 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 20 A. Abbreviation and Acronym List ...................................................................................... 20 B. VTA 2017 Triennial Safety Review Checklist Index ...................................................... 21 C. VTA 2017 Triennial Safety Review Recommendations List ......................................... 24 D. VTA 2017 Triennial Safety Review Checklists ............................................................... 26 ii 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The California Public Utilities Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division (SED), Rail Transit Safety Branch staff (Staff), conducted an on-site system safety program review of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in November 2017. The review focused on verifying VTA’s implementation of its System Safety Program Plan (SSPP), as well as VTA’s compliance with State and Federal rules and regulations. This report details Staff’s investigatory actions, findings, and recommendations. The review revealed areas of non-compliance, as discussed below. An opening conference meeting between VTA personnel and Staff immediately preceded the initial on- site review activities, which began on Monday, November 6, 2017. The review continued through November 17, 2017. A post-review conference with VTA personnel took place on December 14, 2017, with Staff providing VTA personnel with a summary of all findings. Staff identified 38 findings of non- compliance. From these findings, Staff issued 26 recommendations for corrective actions. Section 2 of this report, titled Introduction, provides a summary of the authority under which the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission) performs the triennial reviews and presents a brief chronology of the review. Section 3, Background, includes a description of the VTA system. Section 4 explains the procedures used by Staff during the System Safety Review. Staff’s 38 findings of non-compliance and 26 recommendations are presented in Section 5, organized by source checklist numbers. Finally, the Appendices include a list of abbreviations and acronyms used in the report and checklists, tabulated findings and recommendations, and the complete set of review checklists with summaries of all review activities and the original comments, findings, and recommendations. This report reflects Staff’s triennial safety review of VTA. The VTA on-site triennial security review report is contained in a separate Report and is brought before the Commission for approval in a separate Resolution. 1 1 Staff’s security review and report, “2017 Triennial Security Review of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority,” is being brought before the Commission concurrently in Resolution ST-209. 1 2. INTRODUCTION The Commission’s General Order (GO) 164-E2 Rules and Regulations Governing State Safety Oversight of Rail Fixed Guideway Systems, and the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Rule, Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 659, Rail Fixed Guideway Systems: State Safety Oversight, require the designated State Safety Oversight Agencies (SSOAs) to perform a review of each rail transit agency’s system safety program at a minimum of once every three years. The triennial review verifies compliance and evaluates the effectiveness of each rail transit agency’s SSPP and assesses the level of compliance with GO 164-D and other Commission safety requirements. Staff conducted the previous on-site safety review of VTA in November 2014. On October 6, 2017, Staff advised the VTA General Manager by a letter of the pending review for scheduling purposes. The letter included 39 checklists that served as the basis for the review. Staff conducted an opening conference on November 6, 2017 with the VTA General Manager, Executive Management of Transit System Compliance, Superintendents, Supervisors and Protective Services. Staff conducted the on-site safety inspections and records review on November 6-17, 2017. At the conclusion of each review activity, Staff provided VTA personnel with a verbal summary of the preliminary findings and discussed potential recommendations for corrective actions. On December 14, 2017, Staff conducted a post-review exit meeting with VTA’s executive and department managers. Staff provided the attendees a summary of the findings of non-compliance from the 39 checklists and discussed the need for corrective actions where applicable. 2 GO 164-D was in effect at the time Staff initiated the review. It has since been updated by GO 164-E. There is no significant difference between GO 164-D and GO 164-E with respect to the requirements regarding Triennial Safety and Triennial Security Reviews for Rail Transit Agencies. 2 3. BACKGROUND VTA Rail System The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is an independent special transit district that provides sustainable, accessible, community-focused transportation options that are innovative, environmentally responsible, and promote the vitality of the region. VTA provides bus, light rail, and paratransit services, as well as participates as a funding partner in regional rail service including Caltrain, Capitol Corridor, and the Altamont Corridor Express. As the county’s congestion management agency, VTA is responsible for countywide transportation planning, including congestion management, design and construction of specific highway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvement projects, as well as promotion of transit-oriented development. The Board of Directors has 18 members, including six ex-officio members, all of whom are elected officials appointed to serve on the Board by the jurisdictions they represent. Fifteen Directors are city council members and three are county Supervisors. Twelve Directors serve as voting members, with six Directors serving as alternates. The ex-officio members are non-voting members and three of them represent Santa Clara County on the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC). VTA currently operates an urban transit service with a fleet of diesel, hybrid diesel-electric buses and light rail vehicles within Santa Clara County. VTA’s service coverage is 346 square miles, serving 15 cities in Santa Clara County with a population of nearly 2 million. Historic trolley service may be provided in the downtown San Jose Transit Mall on a seasonal basis. The VTA rail system consists of the Guadalupe, Tasman West, Tasman East, Capitol and Vasona Lines (See VTA Light Rail System Map) with two other proposed extensions. The total operating system is about 42.2 miles with 61 Light Rail Stations. The average weekday ridership of the light rail system was approximately 29,262 passengers per day in Fiscal Year 2017. 3 VTA LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM MAP Guadalupe Line The 21-mile Guadalupe light rail line began service in 1991, which extends from south San Jose, into downtown and continues to employment centers of north San
Load more

Recommended publications
  • VTA Daily News Coverage for Monday, April 29, 2019 1
    From: VTA Board Secretary <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 3:56 PM To: VTA Board of Directors <[email protected]> Subject: From VTA: April 29, 2019 Media Clips VTA Daily News Coverage for Monday, April 29, 2019 1. Milpitas Police Department Eyeing BART Contract (Milpitas Beat) 2. Chief of troubled Muni system to step down in August, under pressure from mayor (San Francisco Chronicle) 3. Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris gets ‘more specific,’ calls for ban of ‘right to work’ laws (Bizpacreview.com) 4. SEPTA, VTA seek public input on proposed budgets (Progressive Railroading) 5. 2019 Bike Commuter of the Year Winners Announced (Chestnut Post) Milpitas Police Department Eyeing BART Contract (Milpitas Beat) At April 2, 2019’s City Council meeting, Milpitas Police Chief Armando Corpuz addressed the City Council in regard to a request from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for supplemental law enforcement at the upcoming Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations. Milpitas’ new BART station is scheduled to open this coming December. At present, VTA is contracted with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office to provide supplemental law enforcement services for VTA properties, which include the Light Rail and bus stations, as well as the Milpitas and Berryessa BART stations. That contract, however, is set to expire on June 30, 2019. Through its research, the Milpitas Police Department has come to expect that the BART station’s presence will have a public safety impact, as well as an accordant impact on public resources. If the Milpitas PD gets the VTA contract for Milpitas’ station, they’ll get added funding from the VTA for resources including equipment and personnel.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Triennial On-Site Safety Review of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (Vta)
    2017 TRIENNIAL ON-SITE SAFETY REVIEW OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) RAIL TRANSIT SAFETY BRANCH SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 September 19, 2018 Final Report Daren Gilbert, Manager Rail Transit Safety Branch Safety and Enforcement Division 287047411 2017 TRIENNIAL ON-SITE SAFETY REVIEW OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The California Public Utilities Commission’s Rail Transit Safety Branch (RTSB) conducted this system safety program review. Staff members directly responsible for conducting safety review and inspection activities include: Daren Gilbert, Rail Transit Safety Branch Program Manager Stephen Artus, Program and Project Supervisor Steven Espinal, Senior Utilities Engineer Rupa Shitole, CPUC Representative to VTA, Utilities Engineer Michael Borer, Rail Transit Operations Safety Section Supervisor Debbie Dziadzio, Senior Transportation Operations Supervisor Matthew Ames, Senior Transportation Operations Supervisor John Madriaga, Track Inspector Salvador Herrera, Track Inspector Michael Rose, Operating Practices Inspector Richard Fernandez, Operating Practices Inspector Adam Freeman, Equipment Inspector (Mechanical) James Matus, Equipment Inspector (Mechanical) Shane Roberson, Signal and Train Control Inspector Claudia Lam, Senior Utilities Engineer Specialist – Risk Assessment Jamie Lau, Utilities Engineer Arun Mehta, Utilities Engineer Howard Huie, Utilities Engineer Joey Bigornia, Utilities Engineer
    [Show full text]
  • 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..
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 520 Almanor Ave.Indd
    520 ALMANOR Sunnyvale, California 520±231,000ALMANOR sf 4 Story building Kenneth J Candelaria David Hiebert 1950 University Avenue, Suite 220 Senior Vice President Managing Principal Palo Alto, CA 94303 +1 408 921 9999 +1 650 320 0250 T: +1 650 852 1200 [email protected] [email protected] F: +1 650 856 1098 LIC #00946634 LIC #1189320 cushmanwakefi eld.com 520 ALMANOR Sunnyvale, California • New construction cold shell delivery as • Full height exterior glass early as Q1, 2018 • Secure open air amenity space • We can deliver a warm shell by Q2 2018 • Covered parking ratio of 3.00/1000 • 4 Story building totaling approximately 231,000 sf including 7,000 sf outdoor • On site café terrace and 2,500 sf of retail • Designed by Korth Sonseri Hagey • LEED Gold • 14” Clear height ceiling • Large fl oor plans with ample glass line • Shuttle to Caltrain approximately 53,000 sf Kenneth J Candelaria David Hiebert 1950 University Avenue, Suite 220 Senior Vice President Managing Principal Palo Alto, CA 94303 +1 408 921 9999 +1 650 320 0250 T: +1 650 852 1200 [email protected] [email protected] F: +1 650 856 1098 LIC #00946634 LIC #1189320 cushmanwakefi eld.com 520 ALMANOR Sunnyvale, California 520 ALMANOR Sunnyvale, California Legend VTA Light Rail Caltrain Avenue Borregas Station Moffett Federal N. Mathilda Airfield East Java Driv 237 Lockheed Martin Station e Crossman Martin Station 10 Minute Walk to Moffett@237 rive Moffett Park D Bayshore NASA Station Borregas Avenue Vienna Station Reamwood Station Moffett Park Station
    [Show full text]
  • Grading California's Rail Transit Station Areas: A
    GRADING CALIFORNIA’S RAIL TRANSIT STATION AREAS: A Ranking of How Well They Accommodate Population Growth, Boost Economic Activity and Improve the Environment October 6, 2015 A Report Prepared for Next 10 by the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at UC Berkeley School of Law Ethan N. Elkind1 Michelle Chan2 Tuong-Vi Faber3 I. Introduction: Thriving Rail Transit Station Neighborhoods Help Meet California’s Economic and Environmental Objectives What are California’s rail transit station areas? Each of California’s major metropolitan areas, including Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego and Sacramento, has a rail transit system. Rail is designed to move large numbers of people to their destinations with frequent service, through either “heavy rail” trains that receive power from electrified third rails below, or less-expensive “light rail” trains that receive power from overhead lines. This report studies and grades the neighborhoods within 1/2-mile radius of 489 existing stations in 6 distinct California rail transit systems, serving over 60 percent of the state’s 1 Ethan Elkind is the Associate Director of the Climate Change and Business Program at the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) at UC Berkeley School of Law. He researches and writes on land use, renewable energy, and transportation policies, among other topics related to business solutions to combat climate change. His book Railtown on the history of the modern Los Angeles Metro Rail system was published by University of California Press in January 2014. 2 Michelle Chan is a practicing Canadian lawyer and researcher with CLEE.
    [Show full text]
  • Grading California's Rail Transit Station Areas
    GRADING CALIFORNIA’S RAIL TRANSIT STATION AREAS I. Executive Summary: How well do California’s rail transit station areas perform as thriving, walkable areas that encourage transit ridership? How well do California’s rail transit station areas encourage transit ridership, connect to amenities, and create walkable, equitable, and thriving locales? This report grades 489 neighborhoods within 1/2-mile radius of rail transit stations based on factors like these in 6 California systems: • Los Angeles County Metro Rail • Sacramento Regional Transit (RT) • San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) • San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) • San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) This report also separately examines the busiest bus stops in the two largest San Joaquin Valley cities of Fresno and Bakersfield and includes the bus rapid transit Orange Line in Los Angeles, given its rail-like qualities. The grades do not cover long-distance Amtrak, cable cars, or less frequent commuter rail lines. Why grade these neighborhoods? The most effective rail systems with the highest ridership serve significant concentrations of jobs, retail, services, and housing around the stations and along the corridors they travel, particularly those within one-half mile of the station. Better station-area development also addresses important environmental and quality-of-life needs, by accommodating growth in a sustainable manner and meeting increasing market demand for rail-oriented neighborhoods. Grading rail transit station areas helps highlight strong performers and alerts underperformers about the need to improve. Methodology: Grades are determined by dividing rail transit stations based on three place types, which appear color-coded on the grading sheet: Group 1 - Primarily residential, 33.3% or less workers relative to workers and residents Group 2 - Mixed between 33.4% to 66.6% of workers relative to workers and residents Group 3 - Primarily employment: 66.7% or more workers relative to workers and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Light Rail Transit Implementation Perspectives for the Future: Lessons Learned in Silicon Valley
    Light Rail Transit Implementation Perspectives for the Future: Lessons Learned in Silicon Valley Robert L. Bertini, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Jan L. Botha, San Jose State University K. Odila Nielsen, Santa Clara County Transit District The implementation of the Tasman Corridor Light Rail ince 1974 the Santa Clara County Transit District Transit (LRT) Project is described from inception through (SCCTD) has played an important role in serving final design. First, the project goals and the system layout S the transportation needs of the 1.5 million resi• and operating characteristics are discussed. Subsequently, dents of Santa Clara County. With a 33.8-km (21-mi) developments in the physical configuration, corridor land light rail transit (LRT) system and 72 bus routes, use, costs, institutional environment, and funding arrange• SCCTD serves more than 150,000 passengers a day ments are presented, followed by the lessons that may be with light rail that connects residential areas with re• learned from the implementation of the project. The Tas• gional employment centers and express and local bus man Corridor is a 20-km (12.4-mi) $530 million light rail service. As one of three counties forming the Peninsula extension of the Guadalupe Corridor LRT system in Santa Corridor Joint Powers Board, the SCCTD also partici• Clara County, California, and is an important part of a pates in the 125.6-km (78-mi) CalTrain commuter rail multimodal regional transportation network that is system between Gilroy and San Francisco. SCCTD is planned in Santa Clara County. The Tasman Corridor also responsible for the implementation of the county- Project's 2-year final engineering phase is essentially com• wide transportation plan, which includes a commitment plete.
    [Show full text]
  • 897 Independence Avenue Mountain View, CA 94043
    Independence Avenue Wyandotte Street 897 Independence Avenue Mountain View, CA 94043 DON SUNG Senior Vice President +1 650 380 5188 [email protected] CA License No. 01935797 897 Independence Avenue TABLESECTION OF CONTENTS Table of Contents I. Property Highlights II. Return on Equity Analysis III. Development Analysis IV. Sales Comparables V. Property Description VI. Demographic Information COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL | MULTIFAMILY PROPERTYSECTION HIGHLIGHTS Property Highlights LOCATION: 897 Independence Avenue Mountain View, CA 94043 > Rarely available ±2.57 acre site with possibility for current development as standalone parcel or future assemblage. > AAA strategic location in Mountain View bordering Palo Alto, the epicenter of technology innovation. > Property located within one block south of Palo Alto and two blocks west of US 101 Rengstorff/Amphitheatre Parkway exit. > Current zoning: MM-40 (General Industrial/ Storage Use). Potential for future development of residential: R3-2 (Residential Use or Other Commercial Uses). > Site offers excellent intrinsic value: $241/land foot and $734/foot on existing improvements. > Multi-tenant property offers diversified income stream with below-market rents, plus tremendous future development potential given strategic location. > Attractive assumable financing: $4.78 million assumable loan at 3.8%. COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL | MULTIFAMILY PROPERTYSECTION HIGHLIGHTS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Property Summary AAA+ Location in the Heart of Mountain View AAA+ Location in the HeartSignificant of Mountain Future Development View Potential | Significant Future Colliers International is pleased to present 897 Independence Ave, located in the Heart of Mountain View, CA.This AAA+ location provides easy access to Highway 101, and it is within a quarter mile of the Google HQ. The subject property was built in 1979, and it consists of Forty (40) total units, Two (2) of which are Storage Units.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit-Oriented Development: an Examination of America’S Transit Precincts in 2000 & 2010
    Gulf Coast Research Center for Evacuation and Transportation Resiliency LSU / UNO University Transportation Center Transit-Oriented Development: An Examination of America’s Transit Precincts in 2000 & 2010 Final Report John L. Renne, Ph.D., AICP University of New Orleans with Reid Ewing, Ph.D. University of Utah Sponsoring Agency United States Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Washington, DC Project # 12-06 June 2013 GULF COAST RESEARCH CENTER FOR EVACUATION AND TRANSPORTATION RESILIENCY The Gulf Coast Research Center for Evacuation and Transportation Resiliency is a collaborative effort between the Louisiana State University Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the University of New Orleans' Department of Planning and Urban Studies. The theme of the LSU-UNO Center is focused on Evacuation and Transportation Resiliency in an effort to address the multitude of issues that impact transportation processes under emergency conditions such as evacuation and other types of major events. This area of research also addresses the need to develop and maintain the ability of transportation systems to economically, efficiently, and safely respond to the changing demands that may be placed upon them. Research The Center focuses on addressing the multitude of issues that impact transportation processes under emergency conditions such as evacuation and other types of major events as well as the need to develop and maintain the ability of transportation systems to economically, efficiently, and safely respond to the changing conditions and demands that may be placed upon them. Work in this area include the development of modeling and analysis techniques; innovative design and control strategies; and travel demand estimation and planning methods that can be used to predict and improve travel under periods of immediate and overwhelming demand.
    [Show full text]
  • GRADING CALIFORNIA's RAIL Transit Station Areas
    GRADING CALIFORNIA’S rail TransiT STATION AREAS October 2015 Ethan N. Elkind Michelle Chan Tuong-Vi Faber ABOUT THIS REPOrt T his report was prepared by the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE) at UC Berkeley School of Law and issued by Next 10. ABOUT CLEE T he Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE) channels the expertise of the Berkeley Law community into pragmatic policy solutions to environmental and energy challenges in California and across the nation. The Center works with government, business, and communities on initiatives that focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, advancing the transition to renewable energy, and ensuring clean water for California’s future. ABOUN0 T EXT 1 Next 10 is an independent, nonpartisan organization that educates, engages and empowers Californians to improve the state’s future. With a focus on the intersection between the economy, the environment, and quality of life, Next 10 employs research from leading experts on complex state issues and creates a portfolio of nonpartisan educational materials. ABOU T THE AUTHORS E than Elkind is the Associate Director of the Climate Change and Business Program at CLEE, focusing on land use, renewable energy, and transportation policies. His book Railtown on the history of the modern Los Angeles Metro Rail system was published by University of California Press in January 2014. Michelle Chan is a practicing Canadian lawyer and researcher with CLEE. Her previous research contributions include publications with the Harvard Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. Tuong-Vi Faber is a practicing attorney at a US law firm and a former Visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley School of Law.
    [Show full text]