DOCSLIB.ORG

Regulatory Setting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regulatory Setting TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION | 3 Regulatory Setting Federal Safe and Complete Streets Act of 2011 (HR 1780 & S 1056) On May 5, 2011, Representatives Matsui and LaTourette of California introduced HR 1780, the Safe and Complete Streets Act of 2011, on the U.S. House floor. On May 24, 2011, Senator Harkin of Iowa and several other senators introduced a companion bill, S 1056, on the U.S. Senate floor. These bills were crafted to ensure that all users of the transportation system, including bicyclists, pedestrians, children, transit users, older adults, and disabled people, are able to travel safely and conveniently on the nation’s roadways. At present, the bills remain in committee awaiting approval to be reviewed by their respective whole legislative bodies. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Other Federal laws which affect the design, construction, alteration, and operation of facilities include the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) of 1968 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These laws apply to all Federally-funded facilities. The ADA applies to facilities, both public (Title II) and private (Title III), which are not Federally-funded. Newly constructed and altered facilities covered by Titles II and III of the ADA must be readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. In July 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued an Accessibility Policy Statement pledging a fully accessible and multimodal transportation system. Accessibility in Federally-assisted programs is governed by the USDOT regulations (49 CFR part 27) implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794). State California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Caltrans adopted the 2012 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) to provide uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California. This action was taken pursuant to the provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 21400 and the recommendation of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC). The CTCDC has requested and received a letter to confirm substantial conformance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for the 2012 California MUTCD. Public Review Draft Existing Conditions Report Page 3-63 Page 3-63 October 2015 SIA PLAN UPDATE California Vehicle Code The California Vehicle Code was most recently updated in January 2015. The code contains state statutes governing vehicle ownership, registration, and operation. Bicycles are one classification of vehicle that is defined and regulated by this legislation. California Complete Streets Act of 2008 On September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, the California Complete Streets Act of 2008. Complete streets are characterized in the act in terms of a “balanced, multimodal transportation network.” Upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of their general plans, local jurisdictions are required by this law to plan for a network that “meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan” (Gov. Code § 65302(b)). California Streets and Highways Code (Section 890-894.2) This section of California Code is also known as the California Bicycle Transportation Act. This legislation establishes the responsibilities of State and local agencies with regard to bicycle safety, signage, traffic control, right-of-way, and other matters related to non-motorized and particularly bicycle transportation. The California Bicycle Act establishes minimum efforts in data collection and planning that local government must accomplish to remain compliant. The State also maintains a State Transportation Fund allocation called the Bikeway Account. These funds are dedicated to the construction and maintenance of bicycle facilities. Local Placer County General Plan The County General Plan provides goals, policies, and implementation programs for non- motorized transportation (Goal 3.D and 5.D) to provide a safe, comprehensive, and integrated system of facilities for non-motorized modes of transportation. Sunset Industrial Area Plan The Sunset Industrial Area Plan was developed to address the issues affecting the development of the Sunset Industrial Area which was set aside for industrial development. The 1997 plan’s circulation plan diagram depicted the functional classification of existing and proposed streets, roadways, and highways in the Sunset Industrial Area. The plan refined and implemented the goals and polices of the Placer County General Plan. Page 3-64 Public Review Draft Existing Conditions Report October 2015 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION | 3 The Placer County Regional Transportation Plan and Sacramento Area Council of Governments Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) developed and adopted the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). As the forum for making decisions about the regional transportation system in Placer County, the PCTPA develops and adopts various plans and strategies that serve to not only make the best use of State and Federal transportation funds, but also to fulfill the requirements of the agency’s State designation as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Placer County. Regional Transportation Plan documents the policy direction, actions, and funding recommendations that are intended to meet the short- and long- range transportation needs of Placer County. The PCTPA is part of a larger metropolitan planning jurisdiction (El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties), which is coordinated by SACOG. The PCTPA’s two most recent RTPs are incorporated into SACOG’s regional planning processes through the 2012 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan As the regional transportation planning agency for Placer County, the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) developed and adopted the Placer County Regional Bikeway Plan in 2002. The plan was established to provide a regional system of bikeways for transportation and recreational purposes. The plan focuses on regional connectors and key routes to provide access to activity centers within the county. Placer County Transition Plan for County-Maintained Roadways Placer County adopted a Transition Plan to comply with the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. The plan was conducted as a self-evaluation of all handicap ramps within the county and created a database rating each ramp within the county to identify deficiencies. The plan identified a list of priorities for ramp upgrades and developed a capital improvement list to make modifications, repairs, and/or replacements. Public Review Draft Existing Conditions Report Page 3-65 Page 3-65 October 2015 SIA PLAN UPDATE SECTION 3.5 RAILWAYS FACILITIES Existing Conditions In California, Amtrak operates all State-supported intercity rail services. Caltrans provides operating funds to Amtrak for the in-state rail services. Amtrak operates three in-state routes: Capital Corridor (Auburn to San Jose), San Joaquin (Bay Area/Sacramento to Bakersfield), and Pacific Surfliner (San Luis Obispo to San Diego). These routes connect with each other and with Amtrak’s four long-distance train routes that link California to other states. The Capital Corridor provides one daily round trip train service between Auburn and Sacramento. The Civic Center Amtrak station in Roseville is the nearest rail station that connects the SIA to the regional rail services. There are two daily trains currently running between Sacramento- Roseville-Auburn with a plan for potential service increase. The rail station can be accessed from the SIA using a fixed-route bus service operated by the City of Roseville. Park-and-ride lots at all three Amtrak stations in Placer County have been experiencing overflow for daily commuters. These lots have recently expanded their capacity. Within the SIA, Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) owns the right-of-way for both passenger and freight rail services and operates freight trains through Placer County. Current rail network serves freight transport between the area and other regions in California, as well as 22 other states. The Roseville Yard, located in the city of Roseville just south of the project site, is the largest rail facility on the U.S. west coast, with a capacity of 1,800-2,300 cars per day on eight receiving and departure tracks. Figure 3-10 shows the existing rail network in the SIA. Page 3-66 Public Review Draft Existing Conditions Report October 2015 LIA I CALEDON H Sunset Area Plan | Figure 3-10 rn Ravine Existing Railroad Facilities bu PERDITA Au LINCOLN PLACER COUNTY Freight Railroad Facilities Planning Area Aitken Aitken Rd Twelve Bridges Dr City Limits BAYBERRY y Western Regional Sanitary Landfill w FiddymentRd k P er E Catlett Rd in o J E «¬65 Athens Ave t C y e ll a V r e d n u h T Western Regional Sanitary Landfill N BlvdFoothills IndustrialAve SPUR Sunset Blvd W TY PIUTE Cyber Ct Wildcat Blvd E G S A Tara Ct ROCKLIN Sunset Blvd Sunset Blvd Y E S R JE At Menlo Drh erto Tinker Rd n Rd Nichols Dr West
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 7.2 Transit Lines
    User Guide and Model Documentation for SACSIM19 – June 2020 Transit Lines The major fixed route transit services in the SACOG region are explicitly represented in the transit networks as “lines”, or series of stops served by a transit vehicle at a specified service frequency. Table 7-1 provides a listing of the operators included. Each line operating on a fixed (or largely fixed) route, and with a published schedule, is coded into the SACSIM transit networks. 7.2.1 Transit Service Periods SACSIM fixed-route transit considers five different service periods: • Period 1, spanning from 5:00am until 9:00am • Period 2, from 9:00am until 3:00pm • Period 3, from 3:00pm until 6:00pm • Period 4, from 6:00pm until 8:00pm • Period 5, from 8:00pm until 11:00pm By breaking up transit service into these periods, SACSIM aims to accurately represent how transit service varies throughout the day, e.g.: • Transit availability and frequency differences throughout the day • How transit is affected by changes in highway traffic congestion throughout the day 7.2.2 Transit Line Attributes Table 7-2 provides a listing of the key variables coded for each transit line. • The NAME of the line. o For lines existing in the base year, the first 4 characters refer to the operator name: . AMTR – Amtrak Capitol Corridor service . AUBT – Auburn Transit . CSUS – California State University Sacramento Hornet Shuttle . ELDO – El Dorado Transit . ETRN – E-Tran, in Elk Grove . FOLS – Folsom Stage Line . PLAC – Placer County Transit . RSVL – Roseville Transit . SCTL – South County Link (serving south Sacramento County) .
    [Show full text]
  • Copy of LCTOP 14-15 Cycle 2 Final Projects.Xlsx
    LCTOP ITEM I J Fiscal Year 2014-15 Cycle 2 Project List Disadvantaged Community (DAC) Ref. Project title Project Description Project Lead Total benefit? Reduce Fare Project for Mendocino College This funding will be used to subsidize the bus fares for 1 Students Mendocino College students. No DAC Mendocino Transit Authority $ 31,142 No Expansion of express Expand express route transit services provided by Redding 2 services Area Bus Authority. No DAC Shasta Regional Transportation Agency $ 62,657 No To install 27 shelters throughout the regional transit Tehama County Transportation 3 Bus Shelter Install service area. Commission $ 20,762 Yes Provide means of information (signage, info boxes, Increase Awareness of displays) at bus stops, social services, senior agencies, 4 Transit System connection locations. No DAC Trinity County - Transit $ 4,618 No To upgrade an existing transit stop to include a bus shelter Auburn Transit- Municipal within the newly expanded airport route in order to Airport Route - Earhart & increase active transportation and encourage ridership. 5 Rickenbacker Bus Shelter No DAC City of Auburn $ 3,782 No City of Davis/Unitrans Weekend Service To increase service (extend transit routes, increase 6 Expansion frequency of service, extend service hours). No DAC City of Davis/Unitrans $ 30,977 No E-tran Local Route 156 Improve headways from 30 minutes to 15 minutes to Transit Service Frequency complement Sacramento RT's New Blue Line Light Rail 7 Improvements Service. City of Elk Grove $ 59,300 Yes Louis Orlando Transfer Reconstruction of the Louis Orlando Transfer Point will Point Improvements and allow for transit service expansion, enhancement and Fixed Route Service upgrades to encourage ridership, mode sharing and to 8 Enhancements support and encourage active transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapters 5C—Transit and Non-Motorized
    Chapter 5A Transportation Trends & Performance 103 Chapter 5C Trends & Performance Transit, Bicycling, & Walking 104 Chapter 5A Transportation Trends & Performance Chapter 5C Trends & Performance—Transit, Bicycling, and Walking 105 Introduction Background on Transit, Bicycling, Building on the performance overview in Chapter 5A, and Walking this chapter describes the performance of the MTP/SCS transportation system in terms of transit and non-motorized Travel by transit offers many benefits to the performance travel. Chapter 5C is divided into three sections. The first of the regional transportation network in the Sacramento section provides background on the transit and non-mo- region. First, transit provides an opportunity for substantially torized (i.e., bicycling and walking) systems in the region; reducing VMT, through shifts from low-occupancy modes the second section describes past performance of the like driving alone to a very high occupancy mode of travel. transit and non-motorized systems and future performance Second, for commute trips, which tend to occur at peak with the implementation of this MTP/SCS; the third section periods of travel demand when congestion is highest, tran- focuses on transit system productivity under this MTP/SCS. sit can provide substantial congestion relief. High quality transit service can also provide necessary mobility for both transit-dependent and choice riders, and residents and employees in higher density, mixed use areas where auto travel can be impractical. Like fuel prices, transit fares have gone from a trend line of relative stability in real terms to significant spikes in recent years. Operators increase fares to offset operating revenues lost from other sources.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2018-19 SGR Project List
    2018-19 State Of Good Repair Approved Project List 2018-19 Recipient Sub-Recipient Project Title Estimated total SGR Allocation Amount* San Joaquin Council of Governments San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission - to Altamont Facility Upgrades and Improvements $256,937 Corridor Express (ACE) Metropolitan Transportation Commission Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority - to Facility Upgrades and Improvements $31,362 Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Metropolitan Transportation Commission Alameda County Congestion Management Agency - to Facility Upgrades and Improvements $40,599 Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) San Joaquin Council of Governments San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority - to Altamont Facility Upgrades and Improvements $44 Corridor Express (ACE) Metropolitan Transportation Commission Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority - to Facility Upgrades and Capital Improvements $0 Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) San Joaquin Council of Governments San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission - to Altamont Railcar Midlife Overhaul $0 Corridor Express (ACE) Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission Clipper®/Clipper® 2.0 $10,250,287 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) $3,053,265 Metropolitan Transportation Commission San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District STA SGR Preventative Maintenance $5,980,007 Metropolitan Transportation Commission City of San Francisco Muni Facility Rehabilitation Campaign $9,794,303 Metropolitan Transportation
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation
    Chapter 16—Transportation 16.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing conditions (environmental and regulatory) and assesses the potential transportation impacts of the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (proposed MTP/SCS). Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts. The information presented in this chapter is based on review of existing information and is regional in scope. Data, analysis, and findings provided in this chapter were considered and prepared at a programmatic level. In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), SACOG received several comments related to transportation from Sierra Club (Placer County), Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), ECOS, Sierra Club (Placer County), and Delta Protection Commission. The commenters expressed that the Draft EIR should consider the following: . Different transportation improvements for Placer County, . Relationship between planned transportation improvements and the goals of the MTP/SCS, . Increased transit service, . Induced vehicle miles traveled, . Multiple lanes as a part of consideration of managed lanes, . Increased funding for active transportation projects, . Shared modeling with member jurisdictions, . Relationship between vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gases (GHG), . Equity and environmental justice concerns related to transit access, . VMT impacts, and . Delta Trail Master Plan. The CEQA Guidelines note that comments received during the NOP scoping process can be helpful in “identifying the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in an EIR and in eliminating from detailed study issues found not to be important.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15083.) Neither the CEQA Guidelines nor Statutes require a lead agency to respond directly to comments received in response to the NOP, but they do require they be considered.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2012 Short Range Transit Plan: FY 2012-2022
    Attachment 1 DRAFT Short Range Transit Plan: FY 2011 FY Plan: Transit Range Short FY 2012 – FY 2022 - 2021 November 2012 Short Range Transit Plan: FY 2012-2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ----------------------------------------------------4 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND VISION------------------------------------------------------5 2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE DISTRICT AND THE TRANSIT SYSTEM -----------8 3.0 SERVICE PLANNING AND EVALUATION------------------------------------- 20 4.0 OPERATING PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------- 32 5.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING ----------------------------------------- 53 6.0 STRATEGIC PLANNING AND MARKETING---------------------------------- 65 7.0 CONCLUSION ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70 TABLES 2.1 SACRAMENTO’S TRANSIT HISTORY ------------------------------------------8 2.2 DISTRICT FACTS AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS------------- 11 2.3 FARE PAYMENT METHODS BY DURATION--------------------------------15 2.4 USE OF DISCOUNT FARES------------------------------------------------------16 2.5 SPECIAL PASSES AND NON-PAYING PASSENGERS------------------- 17 4.1 NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES BY DAY ------------------------------------------ 32 4.2 BUS HEADWAYS -------------------------------------------------------------------- 33 4.3 AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP BY LIGHT RAIL STATION--------------- 38 4.4 RIDERSHIP, REVENUE, REVENUE HOUR, AND COST TRENDS TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS THROUGH FY 2021 ----------------------41 4.5 PRODUCTIVITY TRENDS
    [Show full text]
  • 2018-19 State of Good Repair Approved Project List
    2018-19 State Of Good Repair Approved Project List 2018-19 Project Location Estimated total # Recipient Sub-Recipient Project Title Project Description City SGR Allocation Amount* 1 San Joaquin Council of Governments San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission - to Altamont Facility Upgrades and Improvements The Western Pacific Depot building, adjacent to the Robert Stockton Corridor Express (ACE) J. Cabral Station, is currently in a state of disrepair due to a fire. The building will be rehabilitated for future use by ACE $256,937 passengers and SJRRC employees. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority - to Facility Upgrades and Improvements The Western Pacific Depot building, adjacent to the Robert Stockton Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) J. Cabral Station, is currently in a state of disrepair due to a fire. The building will be rehabilitated for future use by ACE $31,362 passengers and SJRRC employees. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Alameda County Congestion Management Agency - to Facility Upgrades and Improvements The Western Pacific Depot building, adjacent to the Robert Stockton Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) J. Cabral Station, is currently in a state of disrepair due to a fire. The building will be rehabilitated for future use by ACE $40,599 passengers and SJRRC employees. San Joaquin Council of Governments San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority - to Altamont Facility Upgrades and Improvements The Western Pacific Depot building, adjacent to the Robert Stockton Corridor Express (ACE) J. Cabral Station, is currently in a state of disrepair due to a fire. The building will be rehabilitated for future use by ACE $44 passengers and SJRRC employees. 2 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission Clipper®/Clipper® 2.0 Replacement and modernization of the San Francisco Bay All 101 cities of the San Area's Clipper electronic transit fare payment system Francisco Bay Area $10,250,287 which is used by 22 transit operators.
    [Show full text]
  • Triennial Performance Audit
    El Dorado County Transit Authority Triennial Performance Audit for Fiscal Years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 Prepared for the El Dorado County Transit Authority Prepared by TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT of the EL DORADO COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY for Fiscal Years 2015-16 through 2017-18 Final Prepared for the El Dorado County Transportation Commission 2828 Easy Street Placerville, California 95667 530 • 642-5260 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 5875 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C Tahoe City, California 96145 530 • 583-4053 May 15, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1 Performance Audit Report and Organization .................................................................................. 1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1 EDCTA Operating and Financial Statistics ........................................................................................ 1 Review of Compliance Requirements .............................................................................................. 2 Status of Prior Audit Recommendations ......................................................................................... 2 Detailed Review of Transit Operator Functions ............................................................................... 2 Findings ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2017-18 Approved SGR Project List (PDF)
    2017-18 State of Good Repair Approved Project List 2017-18 Recipient Sub-Recipient Project Title Estimiated Total SGR Allocation Amount* Metropolitan Transportation Commission Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) $ 3,149,541 Metropolitan Transportation Commission San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Railcar Procurement Project $ 10,247,507 Metropolitan Transportation Commission San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District STA SGR Preventative Maintenance $ 6,102,066 Metropolitan Transportation Commission City of San Francisco Muni Facility Rehabilitation Campaign $ 9,513,519 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Central Contra Costa Transit Authority Intelligent Transportation System Security Maint $ 119,162 Metropolitan Transportation Commission City of Dixon - Funds to Soltrans $ - Metropolitan Transportation Commission Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority Replacement of Damaged or Missing Bus Shelters $ 55,157 Metropolitan Transportation Commission City of Fairfield Local Bus Fleet Replacement $ 26,276 Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation Metropolitan Transportation Commission District MS Marin Ferry Boat Repower and Dry Dock $ 578,261 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority Bus Shelter and Stop Maintenance $ 55,640 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Marin County Transit District Purchase One Shuttle Vehicle $ 130,000 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Marin County Transit District MCTD: Replace Four (4) Rural cutaway vehicles $
    [Show full text]
  • OVERALL WORK PROGRAM SACOG-11-001 Fiscal Year 2011-12
    OWP OVERALL WORK PROGRAM SACOG-11-001 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Adopted May 19, 2011 Sacramento Area Council of Governments 1415 L Street Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 tel: 916.321.9000 fax: 916.321.9551 www..sacog.org SACOG MISSION BOARD MEMBER Provide leadership MEMBERS COUNTIES & and a dynamic, CITIES Susan Peters Kevin Johnson collaborative public (Chair) City of Sacramento Sacramento County El Dorado County forum for achieving John Knight Placer County Peter Hill El Dorado County Sacramento County an efficient (Vice Chair) Sutter County City of Rocklin Joe Krovoza Yolo County regional City of Davis Yuba County John Allard City of Auburn transportation City of Roseville Roberta MacGlashan City of Citrus Heights Sacramento County system, innovative City of Colfax Harold Anderson City of Davis Leslie McBride and integrated City of Winters City of Elk Grove City of Yuba City City of Folsom Christina Billeci City of Galt regional planning, Steve Miklos City of Marysville City of Isleton City of Folsom and a high quality City of Lincoln Linda Budge City of Live Oak of life within the City of Rancho Cordova Steve Miller City of Citrus Heights Town of Loomis City of Marysville Christopher Cabaldon greater Sacramento City of Placerville City of West Sacramento Larry Montna City of Rancho Cordova region. Sutter County Steve Cohn City of Rocklin City of Roseville City of Sacramento Barbara Payne City of Galt City of Sacramento Tom Cosgrove City of West Sacramento City of Lincoln Suzanne Roberts City of Wheatland City of Colfax City of Winters Gary
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment A
    ATTACHMENT A Agency State 128 Business Council MA 9 Town Transit CT AAATA MI Aberdeen Ride Line SD ABQ RIDE NM AC Transit CA Access Services CA Addison County Transit Resources VT Advance Transit VT Airport (MAC) MN Airport Valet Express CA Alachua County Regional Transit System FL Albany Transit System GA Albany Transit System OR Alexandria Transit Company (DASH) VA Alhambra Community Transit CA Allegany County Transit MD Allen County Regional Transit Authority OH Altamont Commuter Express CA Amador Transit CA Amarillo City Transit TX Amtrak AMTRAN PA Anaheim Resort Transportation CA Anchorage People Mover AK Annapolis Transit MD Annett Bus Lines Anoka County MN Antelope Valley Transit Authority CA Arcata & Mad River Transit System CA Area Transportation Authority of North Central PA PA Areawide Community Transportation System (ACTS) AL Arlington Transit VA Asheville Redefines Transit NC Ashland Bus System KY Atascadero Transit / North County Shuttle CA Athens Public Transit OH Athens Transit GA Atlanta Streetcar GA Atlantic Station Shuttle GA Atomic City Transit NM Auburn Transit (Placer County Department of Public Works) CA Augusta Public Transit GA Avila Trolley CA Baker City Community Connection OR Banning Transit CA Barstow Area Transit CA Bart Bus WI Basin Transit Service OR Battle Creek Transit MI Bay Area Rapid Transit CA Bay Area Transportation Authority MI Bay Metro MI Bay State Cruise Company MA Bay Town Trolley FL Baylink CA BCTA (Beaver County Transit Authority) PA BE Line CA Beach Cities Transit - City of Redondo Beach (BCT)
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Master Plan
    Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Transit Master Plan for South Placer County CTSA • Auburn Transit • Lincoln Transit • Placer County Transit • Roseville Transit • Consolidated Transportation Services Agency Prepared by URS CORPORATION With the assistance of DKS Associates, Inc. June 2007 Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Transit Master Plan for South Placer County TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND OPPORTUNITIES ................................... S-1 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................1 1.1 Background and Purpose.................................................................................... 1 1.2 Master Plan Objectives ....................................................................................... 1 1.3 Master Plan Participants and Development Process........................................... 2 1.4 Organization of This Document........................................................................... 2 2.0 Existing Transit Service and Public Perceptions.................................3 2.1 Existing Transit Service....................................................................................... 3 2.2 Public Outreach Findings .................................................................................... 3 3.0 Conceptual Long-Range Service Plan ..................................................8 3.1 Background and Approach.................................................................................. 8
    [Show full text]