DOCSLIB.ORG

Caltrain Electrification Program: Environmental Assessment/ Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM San Francisco to San Jose (MP 0.0 to 52.0) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Environmental Assessment/ Final Environmental Impact Report Volume I PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD July 2009 SCH No. 2000082093 CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM in the City and County of San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC §4332) 49 USC Chapter 53, 16 USC §470, 23 CFR Part 771, 23 CFR Part 450, Executive Order 12898; and California Environmental Quality Act, PRC 21000 et seq.; and the State of California CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code, 15000 et seq. by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION and the PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD For JPB:______________________________________ For FTA:_____________________________________ Michael Scanlon Date Leslie T. Rogers Date Executive Director Region IX Administrator Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Federal Transit Administration The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Ms. Stacy Cocke Mr. Eric Eidlin Senior Planner Program Specialist, Office of Planning and Programming San Mateo County Transit District U.S. Department of Transportation 1250 San Carlos Avenue Federal Transit Administration, Region IX P.O. Box 3006 201 Mission Street, Suite 2210 San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 San Francisco, CA 94105 (650) 508-6207 (415) 744-3115 ABSTRACT: The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board proposes to convert the Peninsula Commute Service (Caltrain) from diesel-hauled to electric-hauled trains and install some 130 to 140 single-track miles of overhead contact system and approximately 10 traction power station facilities for the distribution of electrical power to the electric rolling stock consisting of electric locomotives or electric multiple units. The purposes of this project are to improve Caltrain performance, reduce noise, improve regional air quality, and modernize Caltrain. Increases in Caltrain ridership, reductions in automobile congestion on parallel routes, reductions in energy consumption, reductions in train noise, and improvements in regional air quality are expected to result. Impacts include the potential for encountering hazardous wastes and disturbing sensitive archaeological resources, potential effects to special status species, noise impacts of traction power stations, visual changes, and impacts during construction. Proposed design features and mitigation measures include a Vegetation Management Plan, a Biological Resources Management Plan, a Cultural Resources Programmatic Agreement, coordination with utility providers and advance notice to customers, a Worker Health and Safety Plan, and management practices during construction. Preface PREFACE The Caltrain Electrification Program is an integral part of the Caltrain Strategic Plan, which proposes to convert a substantial portion of existing Caltrain diesel-powered passenger rail service to electric operation by 2015. Under the current scope of the Project, electrical lines would be installed along the 51 mile Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) owned right-of-way, allowing electric vehicles to provide a more modern and efficient service between San Francisco and San Jose. A total of 10 traction power stations, and approximately 140 track miles of overhead contact wires would be constructed to supply power to 114 trains per day. While the project remains essentially the same as when it was initially assessed, several project characteristics have changed since the publication of the Caltrain Electrification Program Environmental Assessment / Draft Environmental Impact Report (EA/DEIR) in 2004. The changes came about due to a refinement of operational strategy by Caltrain to focus the electrification enhancements to the more heavily traveled Peninsula portion of the service, as well as to reduce the capital cost of the project. Several project characteristics remain unchanged. For these practical and economic reasons, the project limits are now confined between San Francisco and San Jose (Tamien Station). Diesel-powered passenger service would remain in place between the San Jose Diridon station and Gilroy for the remainder of Caltrain’s total 77-mile route. Changes to the project limits were discussed by the JPB Board of Directors in several meetings between January 2006 and May 2006. It was confirmed by the Board members in April 2006 that the level of ridership south of Tamien to Gilroy did not warrant the expense of electrification by 2015. Since that time the planning, studies, engineering and environmental clearance of the project has been focused on the San Francisco to Tamien portion of the Caltrain corridor. This EA/Final EIR (EA/FEIR) represents an update to and completion of the 2004 EA/DEIR with the refined project characteristics. The changes to the project reflected herein are summarized in the Table P-1 below. Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR P-1 Preface Table P-1: 2004 EA/DEIR and 2008 EA/FEIR Project Characteristics 2004 EA/DEIR 2008 EA/FEIR Project Location and 77-mile Caltrain corridor from San 51-mile Caltrain corridor from San Limits Francisco to Gilroy Francisco to San Jose Electrification service year 2008 2015 of commencement Level of Service (LOS) No Project Alternative and No Project Alternative and Electrification Program (Project) Electrification Program (Project) Alternative have same LOS Alternative have different LOS • Year 2008 (No Project and • No Project Alternative LOS at 98 Project Alternatives) LOS at 98 tpd including 6 trains per day trains per day (tpd) including 8 between SJ and Gilroy trains per day between San Jose • Year 2035 Project Alternative and Gilroy LOS at 114 tpd including 6 diesel • Year 2020 (No Project and only trains between SJ and Gilroy Project Alternatives) LOS increase to 132 trains per day including 20 trains per day in the SJ and Gilroy. Rolling Stock Replacement of entire diesel fleet in Replacement of a portion of diesel year of electrification fleet approaching the end of their commencement (2008) useful life in 2015 Three options proposed: Identifies preferred rolling-stock • Option 1: Replace Diesel option as Option 2: Electric Multiple Locomotives with new Electric Units (EMUs) Locomotives • Option 2: Electric Multiple Units (EMUs) • Option 3: Replace Diesel Locomotives with new Electric Locomotives and existing Passenger Cars with new Passenger Cars Traction Power Facilities 13 proposed traction power facilities 10 proposed traction power facilities; several of the sites have been relocated since 2004 EA/DEIR due to development pressures along the right- of-way; 8 of 10 facility locations are within Caltrain right-of-way Electrical System • Overhead contact system Same as 2004 EA/DEIR Components • Auto-transformer power feed arrangement • Overbridge protection barriers The EA/DEIR for the Caltrain Electrification Program was circulated for public review and comment in 2004. The public review period began on April 5, 2004 and concluded on May 25, 2004 - a period of 50 days. P-2 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR Preface During the public review period, four public hearings were conducted - in San Francisco, San Carlos, Sunnyvale and Morgan Hill. The public hearings were advertised by means of direct mailings, announcements posted at Caltrain stations, newspaper display ads, and press releases. Representatives of government agencies, associations and organizations, businesses and members of the general public attended the public meetings. A total of 36 oral comments and 12 written comment cards were taken at the public hearings. The public comment period yielded the following comment letters on the Draft EA/EIR: federal agencies (2); state agencies (5); regional agencies (2); local agencies (11); transit agencies (4); associations and organizations (7); businesses (4); individuals (65). Also, a series of information meetings were conducted, from March 2000 until May 2004, for the purpose of explaining the project and soliciting input. The proposed Caltrain Electrification Program is consistent with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board's (PCJPB) Strategic Plan: 2004-2023 (adopted July, 2004). The currently proposed program is also consistent with Project 2025 (adopted by the PCJPB in November, 2006) which is a program of capital improvement plans and actions intended to carry out the objectives of the Strategic Plan: 2004-2023. This Final EA/EIR provides revised environmental impact analysis and associated mitigation measures reflecting the reduced electrification corridor length and revised project characteristics. This document also provides responses to the comments received on the 2004 Draft EA/EIR, presented in the context of the currently proposed program of improvements. Responses to comments can be found in Volume II of the document; Volume III contains the original comments. Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR P-3 Table of Contents PREFACE .............................................................................................................................. P-1 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... S-1 S.1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR CALTRAIN ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM ......... S-1 S.2 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • May 7, 2019 Media Contact: Dan Lieberman, 650-508-6385 Samtrans and Caltrain Encourage Cycling on Bike to Work Day This Thursday

    May 7, 2019 Media Contact: Dan Lieberman, 650-508-6385 Samtrans and Caltrain Encourage Cycling on Bike to Work Day This Thursday

    NEWS May 7, 2019 Media Contact: Dan Lieberman, 650-508-6385 SamTrans and Caltrain Encourage Cycling on Bike to Work Day This Thursday, May 9, Bay Area bicyclists will participate by the thousands in the 25th Annual Bike to Work Day, an annual event that encourages commuters to choose bicycles over cars for their daily commute. SamTrans buses can carry two bikes on racks at the front of each bus, and two additional bikes are allowed inside the bus, depending on passenger loads. Some things to know: only single-rider, two-wheel bicycles are permitted. There is no age limit for riders using the bike racks or bringing bikes on board the bus. However, riders must be able to load and unload their bikes without help from the operator. On Caltrain, every train is equipped with at least two bike cars. Due to the popularity of the onboard bike program, capacity for bicyclists can be a challenge. Cyclists are encouraged to choose local trains with lighter ridership to ensure they are able to board if they want to test out biking to work for the first time. Some express and limited stop trains are already operating at or near capacity for onboard bikes. Each weekday approximately 6,000 bicyclists take a bike on the train, more than any other rail service in the country. While biking and taking public transit can work well together for first- and last-mile connections, as well as getting people out of their cars and off freeways, onboard capacity may be at its limit on Bike to Work Day.
  • California Highways & Public Works, May-June 1962

    California Highways & Public Works, May-June 1962

    P ~Jmited States of America PgtOCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 07th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 108 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, 1dIAY 21, 1962 1Vo, g0 A~~' en~Zx tragic to our economy and to our etFOrts to Fourth, ovr State highway commission is The California Highway Program remain apace with our population increases composed of dedicated and intelligent men if this. total highway construction program who are appointed for overlapping terms, in were seriouslq curtailed for any reason. order to provide continuity, and they are EXTENSION OF REMARKS Second. I want to say thaw I am convinced required by law to take a statewide and not os California's Department of Public Works and a sectional viewpoint. State law spells out Division of Highways cooperate fully, com- in detail the procedure to be fflllowed by HON. GEORGE P. MILLER pleCely, and in honesty with the T7.S. Bureau the State highway commission, including OF CALIf'ORNIA of Public Roads. The regional office of the the requirement that public hearings be held Bureau of Public Roads Yor certain Western IN THE HOIISE OF REPRESENTATIVES on a rather heavy schedule. I have insisted, States is In Ban FYancisco anfl the State office as Governor Snight and Governor Warren Tuesday, M¢y 8, 1962 of the Bureau o1 Public Roads is right here insisted, that members of the highway com- in Sacramento where there is daily contact Mr. GEORGE P. MILLER. Mr. mission be nonpartisan in their conduct o1 between the California highway people and highway policy matters. Our commission is Speaker,from time to time, from various the Federal highway people.
  • ACT BART S Ites by Region.Csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7

    ACT BART S Ites by Region.Csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7

    Services Transit Outreach Materials Distribution Light Rail Station Maintenance and Inspection Photography—Capture Metadata and GPS Marketing Follow-Up Programs Service Locations Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/Saint Paul San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area Our Customer Service Pledge Our pledge is to organize and act with precision to provide you with excellent customer service. We will do all this with all the joy that comes with the morning sun! “I slept and dreamed that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy. “Tagore Email: [email protected] Website: URBANMARKETINGCHANNELS.COM Urban Marketing Channel’s services to businesses and organizations in Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco, Oakland and the Twin Cities metro areas since 1981 have allowed us to develop a specialty client base providing marketing outreach with a focus on transit systems. Some examples of our services include: • Neighborhood demographic analysis • Tailored response and mailing lists • Community event monitoring • Transit site management of information display cases and kiosks • Transit center rider alerts • Community notification of construction and route changes • On-Site Surveys • Enhance photo and list data with geocoding • Photographic services Visit our website (www.urbanmarketingchannels.com) Contact us at [email protected] 612-239-5391 Bay Area Transit Sites (includes BART and AC Transit.) Prepared by Urban Marketing Channels ACT BART S ites by Region.csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7 UnSANtit
  • Caltrain TIRCP Application Jan

    Caltrain TIRCP Application Jan

    PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPLICATION FOR 2018 TRANSIT AND INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL PROGRAM FUNDS PROJECT NARRATIVE A. Project Title Page Project Title: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Expansion Project The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Expansion Project (EEP) includes a series of incremental investments in the 51-mile Caltrain Corridor between the 4th and King Station (San Francisco) and the Tamien Station (San Jose). These investments are focused on expanding and fully converting Caltrain’s mainline diesel fleet to electric trains. This investment builds on and leverages the existing Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) and supports the goals of the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), providing increased capacity and service flexibility, supporting state and interregional connectivity, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through elimination of diesel service from the mainline Peninsula Corridor. In addition to providing immediate, direct benefits, the EEP also represents an incremental step within a larger program of development that will evolve the Peninsula Corridor in a way that supports the ridership, service levels, and connectivity goals contemplated in the draft 2018 State Rail Plan. The central component of Caltrain’s 2018 TIRCP application is the purchase of 96 additional Electric Multiple Units (EMU). This procurement will fully exercise all available options under Caltrain’s current contract with Stadler and will provide sufficient EMUs to fully electrify Caltrain’s mainline fleet, while also sustaining and expanding capacity to accommodate growing demand. In addition to requesting funds for the purchase of EMUs, Caltrain is also requesting a smaller amount funding for a series of associated projects that will equip the corridor to receive and operate a fully electrified fleet in a way that allows the railroad to reap the maximum benefit from its investments.
  • SBC Executivesummfac

    SBC Executivesummfac

    CAPITOL CORRIDOR SOUTH BAY CONNECT AUGUST 2020 Purpose Study Area and Project Elements South Bay Connect proposes to relocate the Capitol Corridor passenger rail service between the Oakland N Coliseum and Newark from the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) Niles Subdivision to the Coast Subdivision for a faster, more direct route. It will also create new transbay connections for passengers between the East Bay and Peninsula by connecting to bus and shuttle services at the Ardenwood Station. The project is not proposing an increase in Capitol Corridor service frequency or changes to UP’s freight service, but does not preclude service growth in the future. The relocation will facilitate the separation of passenger and freight rail, resulting in improved rail operations, efficiency, and reliability while minimizing rail congestion within the corridor. Proposed New Station and Railroad Potential Station Area Proposed Capitol Corridor (CC) Service Potential Station Considered and Eliminated Existing CC Service Existing Station CC Service to be Discontinued Station where CC Service Study Area to be Discontinued UP Improvement Area BART Station Benefits Reduce passenger rail travel time between Oakland and San Jose and throughout the larger megaregion to increase ridership on transit, ease congestion on the Bay Area’s stressed roadways, and decrease auto commutes. Diversify and enhance network integration by reducing duplicative capital investments and dif- ferentiating Capitol Corridor’s intercity rail service from commuter rail and other transit services, including BART’s extension to San Jose. Support economic vitality by permitting enhanced rail movement and the preservation of freight rail capacity in the Northern California market through the reduction of existing conflicts between freight rail operations and passenger rail service.
  • Oakland Road Comfort Suites Project Public Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration

    Oakland Road Comfort Suites Project Public Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration

    Oakland Road Comfort Suites Project Public Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2021 Prepared for: City of San José Planning Building and Code Enforcement 200 E. Santa Clara Street, San José, CA 95113 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 75 E. Santa Clara Street, Suite 1225 San José, CA 95113 Planning, Building and Code Enforcement ROSALYNN HUGHEY, DIRECTOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement has reviewed the proposed project described below to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment as a result of project completion. “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. PROJECT NAME: Oakland Road Comfort Suites Hotel Project PROJECT FILE NUMBER: PD18-042 & PDC18-032 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Planned Development Rezoning from the CIC Combined Industrial/Commercial Zoning District to the CIC(PD) Planned Development Zoning District and Planned Development Permit to allow to allow the construction of a 5-story, 48-room hotel with an alternative parking arrangement (mechanical lifts) on a 0.24-gross acre site. PROJECT LOCATION: northeast corner of Oakland Road and Faulstich Court ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 241-13-019 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: Pillars Architecture and Design (Attn: Alex Ross), 12 South 1st Street, Suite 808, San Jose, CA 95113, (408) 295-5667 FINDING The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement finds the project described above would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain mitigation measures are incorporated into the project.
  • Caltrain Governance

    Caltrain Governance

    Caltrain Governance JPB Special Meeting #3 on Governance June 25, 2021 Welcome to Special Meeting #3 2 • Review Meeting #3 Objectives and Special Meeting Governance Process Roadmap • Staff Presentations #3 Agenda • Approach to Regional and Non-Self Directed Relationships • Active and Emerging Discussions • Strategic Issues ~ Break ~ • Discussion • Next Steps 3 Special Meeting #3 Objectives and Process Roadmap 4 JPB Governance 2021 Roadmap Goals: Goals: - Exploration and education about the JPB’s range of structural - Discussion of selected option(s) and financial and legal analysis towards developing governance paths. the 2021 governance recommendation. - Selection of governance options and key issues to focus on in Phase 2. - Adoption of governance recommendation at December 2021 JPB meeting. 2021 January February March April May June July August September October November December Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Hoc #1 Hoc #2 Hoc #3 Hoc #4 Hoc #5 Hoc #6 Hoc #7 Hoc #8 Hoc #9 Hoc #10 Hoc #11 Board Adoption Special Special Special Special Special of 2021 Meeting #1 Meeting #2 Meeting #3 Meeting #4 Meeting #5 Governance Recommendation We Are Here 5 JPB Governance 2021 Roadmap Goals: Goals: - Exploration and education about the JPB’s range of structural - Discussion of selected option(s) and financial and legal analysis towards developing governance paths. the 2021 governance recommendation. - Selection of governance options and key issues to focus on
  • This Print Covers Calendar Item No. : 10.4 San

    This Print Covers Calendar Item No. : 10.4 San

    THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. : 10.4 SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY DIVISION: Sustainable Streets BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Amending Transportation Code, Division II, Section 702 to modify speed limits at specific locations including deleting locations from the Transportation Code to reduce the speed limit to 25 miles per hour. SUMMARY: The City Traffic Engineer is authorized to conduct engineering and traffic surveys necessary to modify speed limits on City streets subject to approval by the SFMTA Board of Directors. The proposed action is the Approval Action as defined by S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 31. ENCLOSURES: 1. SFMTAB Resolution 2. Transportation Code legislation APPROVALS: DATE 5/24/2017 DIRECTOR _____________________________________ ____________ 5/24/2017 SECRETARY ______________________________________ ____________ ASSIGNED SFMTAB CALENDAR DATE: June 6, 2017 PAGE 2. PURPOSE Amending Transportation Code, Division II, Section 702 to modify speed limits at specific locations including deleting locations from the Transportation Code to reduce the speed limit to 25 miles per hour. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS AND TRANSIT FIRST POLICY PRINCIPLES The proposed amendment to the Transportation Code to modify speed limits at specific locations supports the City’s Vision Zero Policy in addition to the SFMTA Strategic Plan Goal and Objective below: Goal 1: Create a safer transportation experience for everyone Objective 1.3: Improve the safety of the transportation system The proposed amendment to the Transportation Code also supports the SFMTA Transit-First Policy principle indicated below: Principle 1: To ensure quality of life and economic health in San Francisco, the primary objective of the transportation system must be the safe and efficient movement of people and goods.
  • San Jose to Merced Project Section State's

    San Jose to Merced Project Section State's

    SUMMER 2019 SAN JOSE TO MERCED PROJECT SECTION STATE’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE OVERVIEW High-speed rail offers an unprecedented opportunity to modernize California’s transportation system and tie together the state’s economies. The San Jose to Merced Project Section will be the crucial connection between the Bay Area and the Central Valley. This fact sheet discusses the staff recommendation for the State’s Preferred Alternative to be considered by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) Board of Directors. WHAT IS A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE? Since 2008, numerous alternatives have been considered Alternative. Authority staff is seeking feedback on this for the high-speed rail alignment traveling within and recommendation before it is presented to the Authority outside of the Bay Area. Ultimately, four alternatives Board of Directors in September 2019. are being analyzed for the Draft Environmental Impact Alternative 4 will be referred to as the staff-recommended Report/Statement (EIR/EIS). The alternative determined State’s Preferred Alternative until the Authority Board to best balance tradeoffs between environmental; of Directors concurs with the staff recommendation or community; and performance, operations, and cost factors requests that a different alternative be identified as the will be identified as the State’s Preferred Alternative. State’s Preferred Alternative. The identification of the Planning, design, and analysis of the four alternatives, State’s Preferred Alternative for the Draft EIR/EIS does collaboration with landowners and agencies, and input not express or imply approval or adoption of a preferred from the public and stakeholders has led Authority staff alternative for final design or construction.
  • 1963 1963 the the of of of of Description Description

    1963 1963 the the of of of of Description Description

    e y ~ 'rte ~ 4 ~ ~~~. ~ ~ ~L +i's 's' ~ *" a~t,y'" J ^ ,..,T+s d az' ~ 8a•. ~r ~ ~Y. r~ ,~ } ~„ ~"' y s'~ ~- ~- N ~, 4 r ~ ts~ 0 ~ i~° e~ ~" t ~ y ~ _ ~ ~ y ^: *} ~ }t. ~ `/ ~ 6~ Y ~p S d~Y R" vW # ' `i ti r n' ke~s ~ J ~ ~ ~~ +3 ~ y t ~r x. t' ~ ~~ ~i _ ~.~y ~g x ,. 9~ :~ ~ x aaa+ra.. "' ~$ .;~w~.v 'Y~1se~n ~+~.~-*a fir;.: ~. ,... §~~`" u, a ., .. ~.: w Letters of Transmittal December 9, 1963 December 9, 1963 JOHN ERRECA EDMUND G. BROWN Director of Public Works Governor of California State of California My dear Governor: Dear Sir: The 17th Annual Report of the Division of Highways, Depart- In compliance with Section 143 of the Streets and Highways ment of Public Works, which I am pleased to submit to you, Code, the 17th Annual Report of the Division of Highways for presents a broad picture of the state highway program during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, is submitted herewith fiscal year 1962-63. It describes the steady progress in planning for your approval and transmittal to Governor Edmund G. and constructing today for tomorrow's transportation needs, as Brown. well as the activities of the division's various units. The report contains information on the construction program Your attention is invited to the comments contained in the through the end of 1963 and a description of the projects in enclosed letter of transmittal from the State Highway Engineer the budget for fiscal year 1964-65 which the California High- regarding progress on the interstate system and on the network way Commission adopted in October.
  • Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences

    Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences

    CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES This chapter presents information on the environmental setting in the project area as well as the environmental consequences of the No-Electrification and Electrification Program Alternatives. Environmental issue categories are organized in alphabetical order, consistent with the CEQA checklist presented in Appendix A. The project study area encompasses the geographic area potentially most affected by the project. For most issues involving physical effects this is the project “footprint,” or the area that would be disturbed for or replaced by the new project facilities. This area focuses on the Caltrain corridor from the San Francisco Fourth and King Station in the City and County of San Francisco to the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy in Santa Clara County and also includes the various locations proposed for traction power facilities and power connections. Air quality effects may be felt over a wider area. 3.1 AESTHETICS 3.1.1 VISUAL OR AESTHETIC SETTING The visual or aesthetic environment in the Caltrain corridor is described to establish the baseline against which to compare changes resulting from construction of project facilities and the demolition or alteration of existing structures. This discussion focuses on representative locations along the railroad corridor, including existing stations (both modern and historic), tunnel portals, railroad overpasses, locations of the proposed traction power facilities and other areas where the Electrification Program would physically change above-ground features, affecting the visual appearance of the area and views enjoyed by area residents and users. For purposes of this analysis, sensitive visual receptors are defined as corridor residents and business occupants, recreational users of parks and preserved natural areas, and students of schools in the vicinity of the proposed project.
  • Caltrain Business Plan

    Caltrain Business Plan

    Caltrain Business Plan JULY 2019 LPMG 6/27/2019 What Addresses the future potential of the railroad over the next 20-30 years. It will assess the benefits, impacts, and costs of different What is service visions, building the case for investment and a plan for the Caltrain implementation. Business Plan? Why Allows the community and stakeholders to engage in developing a more certain, achievable, financially feasible future for the railroad based on local, regional, and statewide needs. 2 What Will the Business Plan Cover? Technical Tracks Service Business Case Community Interface Organization • Number of trains • Value from • Benefits and impacts to • Organizational structure • Frequency of service investments (past, surrounding communities of Caltrain including • Number of people present, and future) • Corridor management governance and delivery riding the trains • Infrastructure and strategies and approaches • Infrastructure needs operating costs consensus building • Funding mechanisms to to support different • Potential sources of • Equity considerations support future service service levels revenue 3 Where Are We in the Process? Board Adoption Stanford Partnership and Board Adoption of Board Adoption of of Scope Technical Team Contracting 2040 Service Vision Final Business Plan Initial Scoping Technical Approach Part 1: Service Vision Development Part 2: Business Implementation and Stakeholder Refinement, Partnering, Plan Completion Outreach and Contracting We Are Here 4 Flexibility and Integration 5 What Service planning work to date has been focused on the development of detailed, Understanding illustrative growth scenarios for the Caltrain corridor. The following analysis generalizes the 2040 these detailed scenarios, emphasizing opportunities for both variation and larger “Growth regional integration within the service Scenarios” as frameworks that have been developed.