DOCSLIB.ORG

Division 4 (D4) Modifications to Accommodate Battery Electric Buses As Part of the 45 Zero Emission Bus Purchase

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Division 4 (D4) Modifications to Accommodate Battery Electric Buses As Part of the 45 Zero Emission Bus Purchase DIVISION 4 (D4) MODIFICATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES AS PART OF THE 45 ZERO EMISSION BUS PURCHASE Division 4 (D4) Modifications to Accommodate Battery Electric Buses as part of the 45 Zero Emission Bus Purchase INITIAL STUDY/PRELIMINARY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2019 1 DIVISION 4 (D4) MODIFICATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES AS PART OF THE 45 ZERO EMISSION BUS PURCHASE INITIAL STUDY – PRELIMINARY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Date: September 26, 2019 Project Title: AC Transit Division 4 Modification to Accommodate 45 New Zero Emission Buses (ZEBs) as Part of the ZEB Transition Plan Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit District Lead Agency name and address: 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 Contact Person and phone number: Mika Miyasato Project Manager Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit District 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 891-7138 Project Location: Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit District Division 4 1100 Seminary Avenue Oakland, CA 94621 Temporary Bus Parking 6235 Tevis Street Oakland CA 94621 Project Sponsor’s name and address: Mika Miyasato Project Manager Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit District 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 General Plan Designation: General Industry and Transportation Zoning: IG (Industrial General) and IG/S-19 (Industrial General/Health & Safety Protection Overlay) 2 DIVISION 4 (D4) MODIFICATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES AS PART OF THE 45 ZERO EMISSION BUS PURCHASE Table of ContentsInitial Study – Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration .................................................................. 2 1 Project Description ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Project Background ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................................................... 11 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 15 Proposed Project .............................................................................................................................................. 15 2 Cumulative Projects .................................................................................................................................................... 22 3 Project Setting ............................................................................................................................................................. 24 Oakland Zoning Code ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Oakland General Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 25 Regional Plans ................................................................................................................................................... 27 4 Summary of Environmental Effects .......................................................................................................................... 29 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................................................. 35 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................................... 37 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 42 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 48 Energy ................................................................................................................................................................ 56 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................................. 61 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................................................. 68 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................... 72 Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................................................................... 78 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................................................... 85 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 87 Noise .................................................................................................................................................................. 89 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................................... 91 Public Services ................................................................................................................................................... 92 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................................... 93 Transportation .................................................................................................................................................. 94 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 99 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................................................... 101 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................................ 106 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................................................... 107 3 DIVISION 4 (D4) MODIFICATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE BATTERY ELECTRIC BUSES AS PART OF THE 45 ZERO EMISSION BUS PURCHASE 5 Determination ........................................................................................................................................................... 109 6 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................................................ 110 Project Sponsor ............................................................................................................................................... 110 Environmental Consultants ............................................................................................................................ 110 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location of the Proposed Project ........................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2: Location of the Project Site ................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3: Existing Conditions Site Plan ............................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4: Existing Layout of D4 Site .................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5: Rendering of the Interior of the Concrete Deck ................................................................................................ 16 Figure 6: Cross section of the Proposed Deck at D4 ......................................................................................................... 17 Figure 7: Proposed Site Plan for D4 ................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 8: Location of the Demolition Areas as part of the Proposed Project .................................................................. 19 Figure 9: Location of the Proposed Construction Staging Area and Temporary Bus Parking ......................................... 21 Figure 10: Cumulative Projects........................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 11: Zoning in the Proposed Project Vicinity ..........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Review Across Us Transit Agencies
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Transportation Engineering Masters Projects Civil and Environmental Engineering 2018 ZERO-EMISSION TRANSIT BUS AND REFUELING TECHNOLOGIES AND DEPLOYMENT STATUS: A REVIEW ACROSS U.S. TRANSIT AGENCIES Aikaterini Deliali Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cee_transportation Part of the Transportation Engineering Commons Deliali, Aikaterini, "ZERO-EMISSION TRANSIT BUS AND REFUELING TECHNOLOGIES AND DEPLOYMENT STATUS: A REVIEW ACROSS U.S. TRANSIT AGENCIES" (2018). Transportation Engineering Masters Projects. 5. https://doi.org/10.7275/78av-7x59 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil and Environmental Engineering at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transportation Engineering Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ZERO-EMISSION TRANSIT BUS AND REFUELING TECHNOLOGIES AND DEPLOYMENT STATUS: A REVIEW ACROSS U.S. TRANSIT AGENCIES A Project Presented by AIKATERINI DELIALI Master of Science in Civil Engineering Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 4/5/2018 iv ABSTRACT Globally there have been considerable efforts of decarbonizing the transportation sector, as it has been found to be largely responsible for greenhouse gases and other air pollutants. One strategy to achieving this is the implementation of zero-emission buses in transit fleets. This paper summarizes the characteristics of three zero-emission bus technologies: 1) battery electric buses; 2) fuel cell battery electric buses; and 3) fuel cell plug-in hybrid electric buses. All of these technologies do not produce tailpipe emission and can potentially be emission-free in a well-to-wheel content, depending on the fuel source.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Plan Bay Area 2050 Air Quality Conformity Analysis
    DRAFT AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY AND CONSISTENCY REPORT JULY 2021 PBA2050 COMMISH BOARD DRAFT 06.14.21 Metropolitan Transportation Association of City Representatives Commission Bay Area Governments Susan Adams Alfredo Pedroza, Chair Jesse Arreguín, President Councilmember, City of Rohnert Park Napa County and Cities Mayor, City of Berkeley Nikki Fortunato Bas Nick Josefowitz, Vice Chair Belia Ramos, Vice President Councilmember, City of Oakland San Francisco Mayor's Appointee Supervisor, County of Napa London Breed Margaret Abe-Koga David Rabbitt, Mayor, City and County of San Francisco Cities of Santa Clara County Immediate Past President Tom Butt Supervisor, County of Sonoma Eddie H. Ahn Mayor, City of Richmond San Francisco Bay Conservation Pat Eklund and Development Commission County Representatives Mayor, City of Novato David Canepa Candace Andersen Maya Esparza San Mateo County Supervisor, County of Contra Costa Councilmember, City of San José Cindy Chavez David Canepa Carroll Fife Santa Clara County Supervisor, County of San Mateo Councilmember, City of Oakland Damon Connolly Keith Carson Neysa Fligor Marin County and Cities Supervisor, County of Alameda Mayor, City of Los Altos Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cindy Chavez Leon Garcia Cities of Alameda County Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Mayor, City of American Canyon Dina El-Tawansy Otto Lee Liz Gibbons California State Transportation Agency Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Mayor, City of Campbell (CalSTA) Gordon Mar Giselle Hale Victoria Fleming Supervisor, City and County Vice Mayor, City of Redwood City Sonoma County and Cities of San Francisco Barbara Halliday Dorene M. Giacopini Rafael Mandelman Mayor, City of Hayward U.S. Department of Transportation Supervisor, City and County Rich Hillis Federal D.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
    December 23, 2014 Environmental & PHASE I Engineering Due Diligence ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Property Identification: 2556 Telegraph Avenue Site Investigation & Berkeley, Alameda County, California 94704 Remediation AEI Project No. 337284 Energy Performance & Benchmarking Prepared for: East West Bank 555 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Industrial Hygiene Prepared by: AEI Consultants 2500 Camino Diablo Construction Walnut Creek, California 94597 Consulting (925) 746-6000 Construction, Site Stabilization & Stormwater Services Zoning Analysis Reports & ALTA Surveys PROJECT SUMMARY 2556 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley, Alameda County, California No Other Further Environmental Recommended Report Section Action REC CREC HREC Considerations Action Site Location and 2.1 ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Description Site and Vicinity 2.2 ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Characteristics Historical 3.1 ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Summary Regulatory 4.0 Agency Records ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Review Regulatory 5.0 Database ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ Records Review 5.2 Vapor Migration ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Previous Reports and Other 6.3 ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Provided Documentation Site 7.0 ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Reconnaissance Adjacent Site 7.2 ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Reconnaissance Asbestos- Operations and 8.1 Containing ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Maintenance Materials (O&M Plan) 8.2 Lead-Based Paint ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 8.3 Radon ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Lead in Drinking 8.4 ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Water 8.5 Mold ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Project No. 337284 December 23, 2014 Page i LIST OF COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS AST Aboveground Storage Tank AUL Activity and Use Limitation APCD Air Pollution Control District AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency
    [Show full text]
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Resource Evaluation
    ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 11-05-15 Page 1 of 44 HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION 2556 TELEGRAPH AVENUE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA TIM KELLEY CONSULTING, LLC HISTORICAL RESOURCES 2912 DIAMOND STREET #330 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94131 415.337-5824 [email protected] ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 11-05-15 HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION 2556 TELEGRAPH AVENUE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIAPage 2 of 44 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tim Kelley Consulting (TKC) was engaged to conduct an Historical Resource Evaluation (HRE) for 2556 Telegraph Avenue, a steel frame brick faced commercial building constructed circa 1946, with a 1962 addition, in Berkeley’s LeConte neighborhood. TKC conducted a field survey, background research of public records, and a literature and map review to evaluate the subject property according to the significance criteria for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and the City of Berkeley’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. Subsequent sections of this report present the detailed results of TKC’s research. Based on that research, TKC concludes that 2556 Telegraph is not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, nor does it appear eligible for listing as a City Landmark, Structure of Merit, or contributor to an identified historic district. Accordingly, 2556 Telegraph does not appear to be a historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. REV 2. MARCH 2015 TIM KELLEY CONSULTING -1- ATTACHMENT 2 LPC 11-05-15 HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION 2556 TELEGRAPH AVENUE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIAPage 3 of 44 II. METHODS A records search, literature review, archival research, consultation, field survey, and eligibility evaluation were conducted for this study. Each task is described below.
    [Show full text]
  • As a Longtime Fan of NHK World's Japan Railway Journal, I've Seen
    ISSUE 3 MAY 3, 2020 watching. Spuzz’s 2003 review also points out that there is even “a cute animated character which adds NOTHING to the film.” Who could pass on that? During World War II, the Key System temporarily expanded and ran trains directly to the Richmond Shipyard from 40th and San Pablo. The railroad was built using scrap material and decommissioned New York subway cars. The Key Route’s reign ended in 1958, and its privately-held services were replaced by public transit agencies AC Transit (which bought out the Key System) and later BART. P.S. if you want to have a good time with conspiracy theories, check out the demise of the Key Route as a factor in the GM Streetcar Conspiracy, which weirdly I had never realized is the basis for the plot of the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit?! Vestiges of the Key Route still linger on in the East Bay. I was most excited to learn that the mysterious tunnel behind the Target on the West Oakland-Emeryville border was actually a subway for Key System trains (and now leads to a sewer that is part of East Bay MUD). As a longtime fan of NHK World’s Japan train hopper serial killer who struck on NOTE: the Key System also included Railway Journal, I’ve seen the our railroad line here in 1996. Finally, ferries, which leads to my perpetual aftermath of many Shinkansen I did a deep dive into historic East Bay question: WHY IS THERE NO FERRY SERVICE derailments. I never thought I’d see railways.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-08 TIP Revision Summary
    TIP Revision Summary 2017-08 Funding Funding TIP ID Sponsor Project Name Description of Change Change ($) Change (%) System: Transit ALA090065 Bay Area Rapid Transit BART: Fare Collection Equipment Update the funding plan to add $6.2M in 5337 and $1.6M in local funds for CON in $7,763,750 25.0% District (BART) FY 17 ALA170014 Union City Transit Union City Paratransit Van Procurement Amend a new exempt project into the TIP with $846K in 5307, and $186K in TDA $1,032,000 ~% funds in CON FY 17 ALA170015 Union City Transit Union City Transit: Replace Paratransit Amend a new exempt project into the TIP with $141K in 5307, and $35K in TDA $176,300 ~% Sedan funds in CON FY 17 ALA170027 Alameda Contra Costa AC Transit: Purchase 10 Double-Decker Amend a new exempt project into the TIP with $7.9M in 5307 funds and $2.4M in $10,248,896 ~% Transit District (AC Buses local funds Transit) ALA170028 Alameda Contra Costa AC Transit: Purchase 18 40ft Hybrid-Electric Amend a new exempt project into the TIP with $10.8M in 5307 funds and $3.2M $14,040,000 ~% Transit District (AC Buses local funds Transit) ALA170029 Alameda Contra Costa AC Transit: Preventive Maintenance (Swap) Amend a new exempt project into the TIP with $5.4M in 5307 funds and $1.6M in $7,020,000 ~% Transit District (AC local funds Transit) ALA170030 Alameda Contra Costa AC Transit: Preventive Maintenance Amend a new exempt project into the TIP with $2.1M in 5307 funds and $520K local $2,600,000 ~% Transit District (AC (Deferred Comp) funds Transit) ALA170032 Alameda Contra Costa AC Transit: Purchase 19 60-ft Artic Urban Amend a new exempt project into the TIP with $14M in 5307 funds, $1.3M in 5339 $22,157,520 ~% Transit District (AC Buses funds, and $6.8M in bridge toll funds Transit) ALA170039 Union City Transit Union City: ADA Paratransit Operating Amend a new exempt project into the TIP with $134K in 5307 and $34K Local funds.
    [Show full text]
  • Short-Range Transit Plan
    ^ZϭϵͲϰϬϲ Short-Range Transit Plan Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District SRTP | Fiscal Years 2019 – 2029 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Reasons for Preparing the SRTP ................................................................................. 7 1.2 Current and Previous SRTP ........................................................................................ 7 1.3 Relationship to Other Plans, Projects, and Actions ..................................................... 7 1.4 SRTP Structure .......................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Overview, The AC Transit District and AC Transit ......................................... 9 2.1 The AC Transit district—the place where AC Transit provides service ......................... 9 2.2 Serving the AC Transit District—AC Transit and Other Operators ............................... 12 2.3 Timeline of AC Transit and Related History ................................................................ 13 2.4 Governance and Organizational Structure ................................................................. 14 2.5 Unions at AC Transit ................................................................................................. 15 2.6 Contracted Transportation Services ........................................................................... 15 2.7 Service Structure and Service Types ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CALIFORNIA RAILROADS (3) – SL 183 03.06.20 Page 1 of 23
    1 CALIFORNIA RAILROADS (3) – SL 183 03.06.20 page 1 of 23 PASSENGER STATIONS & STOPS Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe (150-174), Western Pacific (175-179), Los Angeles & Salt Lake/Union Pacific (180-185) RRs, Short Line RRs (except those associated with North Western Pacific RR, see CA 2) in alphabetical order of operating company at end of passenger service (200-251), Interurban Electric Rly (255-263) and Key System (265-273) & Tourist(ex Logging) RRs (275-280). Great Northern (Malin-Bieber) see OR 52. Based on 1858 Dinsmore Guide (x), USA Official Guide (G)1875 (y), 1893G (z), Company Public (t) & Working (w) TTs as noted, 1976G (e) & current Amtrak TTs (f); j: current Los Angeles County Metro (LAM) Gold Line; k: current MetroLink (ML) SWG: 1901 South West California Guide. TD: 1899 Travelers Directory; q: 1884G. Former names: [ ] Distances in miles Gauge 4’ 8½” unless noted (date)>(date) start/end of passenger service op. opened; cl. closed; rn. renamed; rl. relocated; tm. terminus of service at date shown; pass. passenger service Certain non-passenger locations shown in italics thus: (name) # Histories, Reference letters in brackets: (a), location shown in public timetable, but no trains stop. x-f = xyzabcdef etc. w? Working TT implies trains will make conditional stops but no s or f symbol shown. ATCHISON TOPEKA & SANTA FE (ATSF) [Haslett qz ] Based on PTTs 1896 (z), 1910 (a), 1922 (b), 1936 (c), 1954(d) 2059.5 Troy a and 1963 (e). Also,1904 (r), 1911(r2), 1916 (r3) 2065.6 Newberry za [Newbery q ] & WTTs 1896 (w), 1911 (w2), 1915 (w3), 1936 (w5) [Water ] 2071.6 Minneola za 150.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Pacific Company Records MS 10MS 10
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8154q33 No online items Guide to the the Southern Pacific Company Records MS 10MS 10 CSRM Library & Archives staff 2018 edition California State Railroad Museum Library & Archives 2018 Guide to the the Southern Pacific MS 10 1 Company Records MS 10MS 10 Language of Material: English Contributing Institution: California State Railroad Museum Library & Archives Title: Southern Pacific Company records creator: Southern Pacific Company Identifier/Call Number: MS 10 Physical Description: 478.15 Linear Feet Date (inclusive): 1860-1989 Abstract: This collection includes some of the corporate records of the Southern Pacific Railroad, its holding company, the Southern Pacific Company and certain of its subsidiaries and successors (such as the Southern Pacific Transportation Company) collected by the CSRM Library & Archives, focusing on financial and operational aspects of its functions from 1860 to 1989. Language of Material: English Language of Material: English Statewide Museum Collections Center Conditions Governing Access Collection is open for research by appointment. Contact Library staff for details. Accruals The CSRM Library & Archives continues to add materials to this collection on a regular basis. Immediate Source of Acquisition These corporate records were pieced together through donations from multiple sources. including: the Southern Pacific Transportation Company, the Union Pacific Railroad, The Bancroft Library; University of California, Berkeley, The Railway & Locomotive Historical Society, Pacific Coast Chapter, and people including: John Vios, Erik Pierson, Timothy and Sylvia Wong, Edna Hietala, John Gilmore, Philip Harrison, Carl Bradley, Betty Jo Sunshine, Dave Henry, Anthony Thompson, Lynn D. Farrar and many others between 1977 and 2009. Arrangement Arranged by department into the following series: Series 1: Motive Power Department records Subseries 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Times
    Going in service fJ.", Operators train in bus-that-bends "S~'U' Veteran drivers are learning to operate a that trailer back there. new transit vehicle - a coach 20 feet 'This bus handles beautifully. But like 1Uute longer than the standard city bus. any other bus, it does demand constant By mid-October, more than 110 District alertness - defensive driving." drivers had been taught the intricacies of I am writing again about the heaters I wish to thank all those involved in the handling the new 60-foot articulated being turned on in the coaches. It has been prompt refund of $19 to me (the remainder coaches. various drivers and various coaches but the of a $20 bill I mistakenly placed in the These vehicles have an accordian-like problem is exactly the same. Every day I farebox of the San Francisco bus from connection enabling them to bend in the have to either put up with it, find a seat Richmond). middle to better negotiate highways and where I can open a window, or nag the I also wish to congratulate everyone at byways. driver day after day to turn the heat off. AC Transit for the fine service you provide Riders will be noticing improvements in It is unbelievable to me that in this tem­ me and all who prefer to take the bus. comfort inside the new vehicles: seats for perate climate the heaters need to be on. I Valerie Alvarez up to 69 passengers, large windows for bet­ can understand heating the buses first thing San Pablo ter visibility, and air-conditioning.
    [Show full text]
  • Tri-Valley Hub Network Integration Study Final Report
    Tri-Valley Hub Network Integration Study Final Report May 20, 2021 ES-1 Final Report Tri-Valley Hub Network Integration Study Tri-Valley Hub Network Integration Study Final Report Prepared by Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) May 20, 2021 Executive Summary The 2018 California State Rail Plan envisions a network of high-speed, intercity corridor, and commuter trains integrated with local transit, providing nearly seamless connections for riders seeking to reach all parts of the state. In corridors where no trains operate, the Rail Plan calls for express buses using the existing highway systems to provide access to the state’s rail system. The Rail Plan identified the I-680 corridor between the Tri-Valley area (i.e. Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore) and Suisun City as one such corridor, where express buses could link a Tri-Valley Transit Hub with the Suisun-Fairfield Amtrak Station, a stop for the Capitol Corridor trains. This Tri-Valley Hub Network Integration Study is an effort to define what such express bus service would be: its route, stops, connections with corridor and commuter trains, as well as its likely ridership, revenue, and costs for implementation. The study investigates the BART Dublin/Pleasanton BART station as a candidate for the Tri-Valley Transit Hub, along with potential improvements that could make the facility easier, safer, and more comfortable for riders to use. The study also explores options to better connect northern San Joaquin County communities with the Tri-Valley Hub. The distance between the Suisun Amtrak Station and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is 53 miles, inclusive of a stop at the Martinez Amtrak Station.
    [Show full text]