DOCSLIB.ORG

Do Tods Make a Difference?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Do Tods Make a Difference? Portland State University PDXScholar Transportation Research and Education Center TREC Final Reports (TREC) 12-2015 Do TODs Make a Difference? Arthur C. Nelson University of Utah Matt Miller University of Utah Dejan Eskic University of Utah Keuntae Kim University of Utah Reid Ewing University of Utah See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/trec_reports Part of the Transportation Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Miller, Arthur C., Matt Miller, Dejan Eskic, Keuntae Kim, Reid Ewing, Jenny Liu, Matt Berggren, Zakari Mumuni. Do TODs Make a Difference? NITC-RR-547/763. Portland, OR: Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC), 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.15760/trec.7 This Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in TREC Final Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Authors Arthur C. Nelson, Matt Miller, Dejan Eskic, Keuntae Kim, Reid Ewing, Jenny H. Liu, Matt Berggren, and Zakari Mumuni This report is available at PDXScholar: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/trec_reports/7 FINAL REPORT Do TODs make a difference? NITC-RR-547/763 December 2015 NITC is the U.S. Department of Transportation’s national university transportation center for livable communities. DO TODs MAKE A DIFFERENCE? Final Report NITC-RR-547 and NITC-RR-763 by Arthur C. Nelson University of Utah and University of Arizona Matt Miller Dejan Eskic Keuntae Kim Joanna P. Ganning Reid Ewing University of Utah Jenny Liu Matt Berggren Zakari Mumuni Portland State University for National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 December 2015 ! ! ! ! Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date National Study of BRT Development Outcomes December 7, 2015 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Arthur C. Nelson, Matt Miller, Dejan Eskic, Keuntae Kim, Joanna P. Ganning, Reid Ewing, Jenny Liu, Matt Berggren, Zakari Mumuni 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Arthur C. Nelson c/o Metropolitan Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No. University of Utah 375 South 1530 East Room 235, NITC-UU-14-650 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) Final Report P.O. Box 751 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Portland, Oregon 97207 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract In this report, we present research that measures the outcomes of TOD areas in relation to their metropolitan area controls with respect to (1) jobs by sector, (2) housing choice for household types based on key demographic characteristics, (3) housing affordability based on transportation costs, and (4) job-worker balance as a measure of accessibility. Prior literature has not systematically evaluated TOD outcomes in these respects with respect to light rail transit (LRT), commuter rail transit (CRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), and streetcar transit (SCT) systems. Our analysis helps close some of these gaps. We apply our analysis to 23 fixed guideway transit systems operating in 17 metropolitan areas in the South and West that have one or more of those systems. We find: (1) most TOD areas gained jobs in the office, knowledge, education, health care and entertainment sectors, adding more than $100 billion in wages capitalized over time; (2) in assessing economic resilience associated with LRT systems, jobs continued to shift away from TOD areas before the Great Recession, the pace slowed during the Recession, but reversed during recovery leading us to speculate that LRT TOD areas may have transformed metropolitan economies served by LRT systems; (3) rents for offices, retail stores and apartments were higher when closer to SCT systems, had mixed results with respect LRT systems, but were mostly lower with respect to CRT systems (our BRT sample was too small to evaluate); (4) SCT systems performed best in terms of increasing their TOD area shares of metropolitan population, households and householders by age, housing units, and renters with BRT systems performing less well while LRT and CRT systems experienced a much smaller shift in the share of growth; (5) household transportation costs as a share of budgets increase with respect to distance from LRT transit stations to seven miles suggesting the proximity to LRT stations reduces total household transportation costs; (6) emerging trends that may favor higher-wage jobs locating in transit TOD areas over time than lower or middle wage jobs perhaps because TOD areas attract more investment which requires more productive, higher-paid labor to justify the investment; and (7) the share of workers who commute 10 minutes or less to work increases nearly one-half of one percent for each half-mile their resident block group is to an LRT transit station, capping at a gain of 1.3 percent, which is not a trivial gain. Our report summarizes case studies of 23 transit systems and three journal articles based on our research. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Transit Oriented Development, Light Rail Transit, Bus Rapid Transit, Commuter No restrictions. Copies available from NITC: Rail Transit, Streetcar, Employment, NAICS, Industry, Sectors, Economic www.nitc.us Development, Affordability, Household Income, HUD, Longitudinal-Household Employment Database, Employment Change, Transportation planning, 19. Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 237 i! ! ii! ! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), in addition to the following partners: Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake County, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainlands Association of Governments, University of Utah, Portland State University, and University of Arizona. Additionally, we acknowledge and thank the anonymous peer reviewers who provided immensely helpful insights and corrections to this report. DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are solely responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the material and information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation University Transportation Centers Program and the partners mentioned above in the acknowledgements in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government and mentioned partners assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the U.S. Government or the other partners. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. iii! ! iv! ! TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE!SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................3 CHAPTER!1 .................................................................................................................................................6 Transit!and!the!Rise!of!Urban!Areas ................................................................................. 6 Employment!Change!within!TODs!of!Transit!Systems .................................................. 8 Summary!Assessment ....................................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER!2 ...............................................................................................................................................22 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 22 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 22 Resiliency ............................................................................................................................ 22 Transformability .................................................................................................................. 24 Transit!and!Resiliency ....................................................................................................... 24 A!Theory!of!Transit!and!Economic!Resilience ............................................................... 25 A!Theory!of!Transit!and!Economic!Transformability ..................................................... 26 Research!Question ............................................................................................................ 26 Research!Design ................................................................................................................ 28 Results ................................................................................................................................. 29 CHAPTER!3 ...............................................................................................................................................35 Transit!and!Real!Estate!Rents
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Capitol Corridor-Auburn-Sacramento-San
    Now Serving! Temporary Terminal Transbay CAPITOL ® MARCH 1, 2015 CORRIDOR SCHEDULE Effective AUBURN / SACRAMENTO ® – and – SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA – and – Enjoy the journey. SAN JOSE 1-877-9-RIDECC Call 1-877-974-3322 SAN FRANCISCO - SAN JOSE - OAKLAND - EMERYVILLE SACRAMENTO - ROSEVILLE -AUBURN - RENO And intermediate stations NEW SAN FRANCISCO THRUWAY LOCATION The Amtrak full service Thruway bus station has moved to the Transbay Temporary Terminal, 200 Folsom Street, from the former station at the Ferry Building. CAPITOLCORRIDOR.ORG NRPC Form W34–150M–3/1/15 Stock #02-3342 Schedules subject to change without notice. Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corp. Visit Capitol Corridor is a registered service mark of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority. National Railroad Passenger Corporation Washington Union Station, 60 Massachusetts Ave. N.E., Washington, DC 20002. page 2 CAPITOL CORRIDOR-Weekday Westbound Service on the Train Number 521 523 525 527 529 531 533 Capitol Corridor® Will Not Operate 5/25, 7/3, 9/7, 11/26, 11/27, 12/25, 1/1 Coaches: Unreserved. y y Q y Q y Q y Q y Q y Q Café: Sandwiches, snacks On Board Service y å and beverages. å å å å å å Q Amtrak Quiet car. å Mile Symbol Wi-Fi available. @™ Transfer point to/from the Sparks, NV–The Nugget 0 >w Dpp ∑w- Coast Starlight. Reno, NV 3 @∞ BART rapid transit connection Truckee, CA 38 >v >v available for San Francisco Colfax, CA 102 and East Bay points. Transfer >w- Auburn, CA (Grass Valley) 0 6 30A to BART at Richmond or >v- Rocklin, CA 14 6 53A Oakland Coliseum stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Noise and Vibration
    SECTION 4.10 Noise and Vibration This section describes the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the RSP Area, and evaluates the potential for construction and operation of the proposed projects to result in significant impacts associated with noise and vibration. The NOP for this Draft SEIR was circulated for public review beginning on June 26, 2015. During the public comment period, one letter was received that included comments associated with noise issues related to the proposed MLS Stadium. The comments expressed concerns related to the potential for excessive noise that would result from the proposed MLS Stadium, especially during soccer matches and other events that were not studied in the 2007 RSP EIR (comment letter from the River District, see Appendix B). This issue has been addressed (see Section 4.10.3). The analysis included in this section was developed based on field investigations to measure existing noise levels, as well as data provided in the 2007 Railyards Specific Plan (RSP) Draft Environmental Impact Report,1 the City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan,2 the City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report,3 the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,4 and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Prediction Model based upon vehicular trip data provided by Fehr & Peers and reported in section 4.12, Transportation and Circulation. Issues Addressed in the 2007 RSP EIR The 2007 RSP EIR focused on the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the RSP Area and the potential for the RSP to significantly increase noise and vibration levels due to project construction and operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Years 2012 Through 2017
    Folsom Stage Line SHORT-RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Fiscal Years 2012 through 2017 Final Draft Report – June 2012 Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of Governments Prepared for: City of Folsom Project 12-003-09 Folsom Stage Line SHORT-RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Fiscal Years 2012 through 2017 Draft Report – June 2012 Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of Governments 1415 L Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: 916.321.9000 Fax: 916.321.9551 www.sacog.org Prepared for: City of Folsom 50 Natoma Street Folsom, CA 95630 This SRTP was completed as Project #12-003 -09 in the SACOG Overall Work Program with generous funding provided by Caltrans through the Rural or Small Urban Transit Planning Studies program. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Folsom City Council Kerri Howell, Mayor Steve Miklos, Vice Mayor Andy Morin, Council Member Ernie Sheldon, Council Member Jeff Starsky, Council Member City of Folsom Evert Palmer, City Manager Jim Francis, Finance Director/CFO Richard Lorenz, Public Works and Utilities Director Cindy Winslow Patrinellis, Senior Management Analyst Kent Gary, Public Works/Utilities Operation Manager Adrienne Nelson, Transit Division Coordinator Justin Langes, Transit Scheduler Allen Turley, Transit Trainer Michelle Bell, Transit Office Assistant Scott Johnson, Planning Manager Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Gary Taylor, Senior Planner (Project Manager) Jim Brown, Principal Program Expert (Project Supervisor) Laura Bell, Assistant Research Analyst Victoria Cacciatore, Planning Analyst Edward Coviello, Assistant Planner Renée DeVere-Oki, Senior Planner Tina Glover, Associate Research Analyst Gayle Greene, Administrative Assistant III Clint Holtzen, Assistant Planner Amy Martin, Transit Planning Intern Christine O’Rourke, Junior Planner Scott Overton, Administrative Clerk III Sharon Sprowls, Senior Program Specialist TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • High-Speed Rail: Big Changes Afoot? Afoot? Changes Big Rail: High-Speed
    PAGES 4-5: A SACRAMENTO REGIONAL RAIL STRATEGY Volume 29 Number 1 May 2019 – August 2019 High-Speed Rail: Big Changes Afoot? By David Schonbrunn TRAC Vice President, Policy The Governor’s startlingly candid admission that “Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacra- mento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to LA” has triggered what could become a major reassessment of the State’s commitment to this project. Governor Newsom’s candor was a total break from eight years of uncompromising support by Jerry Brown for a project that still has no realistic long-term funding. The release of the California High- Speed Rail Authority’s (CHSRA) 2019 Project Update Report. and the Trump Administration’s cancellation of a $929 million grant to the project, when added to the Governor’s statement, combine to create a highly dynamic situation. While the State has sued the federal Daniel Schwen, own work 2008.. Creative Commons Attribution/Share 4.0 International government to recoup the funds, no one knows where any of this will end up. HSR system will never be more than a The private sector has wanted to standalone Bakersfield-to-Merced line. invest in passenger rail in California, CHSRA’s new plan calls for HSR but has been blocked by politicians service between Bakersfield and While transportation projects are promoting CHSRA’s project. CHSRA was Merced. This $20 billion plan would judged on their cost/benefit ratio, the cost $15 billion more than the $5 billion new plan completely flunks that test. (continued on Page Two) that has already been spent.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Transit Study
    March 2010 REGIONAL TRANSIT STUDY Final Report Prepared for: Capital Region Transportation Planning Agency 408 N. Adams Street, 4th Floor Tallahassee, FL 32301 Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. 1180 Peachtree Street, Suite 2210 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3531 February 2010 REGIONAL TRANSIT STUDY Executive Summary Prepared for: Capital Region Transportation Planning Agency 408 N. Adams Street, 4th Floor Tallahassee, FL 32301 Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. 1180 Peachtree Street, Suite 2210 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3531 CAPITAL REGION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY REGIONAL TRANSIT STUDY Executive Summary Prepared for: Capital Region Transportation Planning Agency 408 N. Adams Street, 4th Floor Tallahassee, FL 32301 Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. 1180 Peachtree Street, Suite 2210 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3531 February 2010 Capital Region Transportation Planning Agency Regional Transit Study Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Baseline Conditions ......................................................................................................... 3 4.0 Transit Services Improvements ...................................................................................... 5 5.0 Institutional Structure and Funding ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pneumatic Coupler………………………………………….…………………8 Iv
    TCRP Project E-07 TCRP E-07 Establishing a National Transit Industry Rail Vehicle Technician Qualification Program: Building for Success Appendixes A to D Transportation Learning Center Silver Spring, MD February 2014 This page is intentionally left blank. TCRP Project E-07 Appendix A: National Rail Vehicle Training Standards Committee – Membership List A-1 This page is intentionally left blank. Membership List Committee Co-Chairs John Costa International Vice President, ATU Jayendra Shah NYCMTA, Co-Chair of APTA Rail Vehicle and Maintenance Committee Committee Members Wendell Hardy Instructor Railcar Maintenance, MARTA Atlanta, GA Frank Harris Executive Board Member, ATU 732 Atlanta, GA Mike Keller Executive Board Member, ATU 589 Boston, MA Robert Perry Maintenance Instructor, MBTA Boston, MA James Plomin Manager, Maintenance & Training (retired), CTA Chicago, IL Phil Eberl Manager, Light Rail Vehicle Maintenance, RTD Denver, CO James Avila Maintenance Supervisor, LACMTA Los Angeles, CA Gary Dewater Sr. Rail Maintenance Instructor, LACMTA Los Angeles, CA Jim Lindsay Recording Secretary, ATU 1277 Los Angeles, CA Jerry Blackman Acting Assistant Director, Miami‐Dade Transit Miami, FL Dan Wilson Chief, Miami‐Dade Transit Miami, FL Steve Cobb QA Maintenance Training Instructor, Metro Transit Minneapolis, MN Jack Shaw Shop Forman, Metro Transit Minneapolis, MN Paul Swanson QA Maintenance Training Supervisor, Metro Transit Minneapolis, MN Frank Grassi Car Inspector, TWU 100 NY, NY Hector Ramirez Director, Training and Upgrade Fund TWU 100 NY,
    [Show full text]
  • Mp Final 4-9-09
    The Changing Value of Proximity to Light Rail in Sacramento Patrick McLaughlin UNC Department of City and Regional Planning 4/9/2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview......................................................................................................................................... 1 History of Sacramento Regional Transit and the 2005 Light Rail Impacts Study...................... 1 Literature of Previous Studies......................................................................................................... 2 Purpose – Guiding Transit-Oriented Development ........................................................................ 6 The Changing Transportation-Land Use Connection in Sacramento............................................. 8 Congestion .................................................................................................................................. 8 Completed Expansion ................................................................................................................. 9 Future Expansions..................................................................................................................... 11 Smart Growth............................................................................................................................ 12 Methodology................................................................................................................................. 14 BAE Methodology - 2005........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SACOG Regional Transportation Monitoring Report April 2010
    REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MONITORING REPORT SACOG-10-004 April 15, 2010 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 Kevin Johnson COUNTIES & and a dynamic, City of Sacramento CITIES Leslie McBride collaborative (Chair) John Knight El Dorado County City of Yuba City El Dorado County public forum for Placer County Susan Peters Roberta MacGlashan Sacramento County achieving an (Vice Chair) Sacramento County Sutter County Sacramento County Yolo County efficient regional Steve Miklos Yuba County Harold Anderson City of Folsom City of Auburn transportation City of Winters City of Citrus Heights system, innovative Steve Miller City of Colfax Christina Billeci City of Citrus Heights City of Davis and integrated City of Marysville City of Elk Grove Larry Montna City of Folsom regional planning, Linda Budge Sutter County City of Galt City of Rancho Cordova City of Isleton and a high quality Gene Resler City of Lincoln Christopher Cabaldon City of Isleton City of Live Oak City of West Sacramento of life within the Town of Loomis Pierre Rivas City of Marysville greater Darryl Clare City of Placerville City of Galt City of Placerville City of Rancho Cordova Sacramento Suzanne Roberts City of Rocklin Steve Cohn City of Colfax region. City of Sacramento City of Roseville Rocky Rockholm City of Sacramento Tom Cosgrove Placer County City of West Sacramento City of Lincoln City of Wheatland Don Saylor City of Winters
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    FINAL REPORT Do TODs make a difference? NITC-RR-547/763 December 2015 NITC is the U.S. Department of Transportation’s national university transportation center for livable communities. DO TODs MAKE A DIFFERENCE? Final Report NITC-UU-05-547 and NITCN-UU-01-763 by Arthur C. Nelson University of Utah and University of Arizona Matt Miller Dejan Eskic Keuntae Kim Reid Ewing University of Utah Jenny Liu Matt Berggren Zakari Mumuni Portland State University for National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 December 2015 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date National Study of BRT Development Outcomes December 7, 2015 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Arthur C. Nelson, Matt Miller, Dejan Eskic, Keuntae Kim, Reid Ewing, Jenny Liu, Matt Berggren, Zakari Mumuni 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Arthur C. Nelson c/o Metropolitan Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No. University of Utah 375 South 1530 East Room 235, NITC-UU-14-650 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) Final Report P.O. Box 751 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Portland, Oregon 97207 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract In this report, we present research that measures the outcomes of TOD areas in relation to their metropolitan area controls with respect to (1) jobs by sector; (2) housing choice for household types based on key demographic characteristics; (3) housing affordability based on transportation costs; and (4) job-worker balance as a measure of accessibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of an Alternative Approach to Transit Demand Modeling
    DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO TRANSIT DEMAND MODELING BY ILYA K. CHISTYAKOV THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban Planning in Urban Planning in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2017 Urbana, Illinois Master’s Committee: Associate Professor Arnab Chakraborty Associate Professor Bumsoo Lee ABSTRACT Development of transit systems around the nation faces limitations in funding and strict scrutiny of the proposed projects and their potential impact on urban environment. Potential ridership of the proposed transit route becomes one of the key indicators for analysis of investment projects. Transit demand depends on many multifaceted parameters affecting the mode choice of individual commuters. The urban planning as a field faces the demand in creation of a universal model which would allow to estimate transit demand of the areas of different scales and geographies, be simple to interpret and to replicate in any conditions. The research is discussing the process of development of a model able to predict potential transit demand under provision of a certain level of service based on the socio-economic parameters of the area within walking distance of a transit station. The modeling approach is based on the analysis of real transit ridership of rail stations in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Denver and the parameters possibly contributing to the number of passengers using them. The selection of the variables of the model was based on the most recent research in the field and relied on the multidimensional approach including regional and local scales of socio-economic and transit data.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Bakersfield Transit System Long-Range Plan
    Golden Empire Transit District | Kern Council of Governments METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD TRANSIT SYSTEM LONG-RANGE PLAN Final Report April 2012 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD LONG-RANGE TRANSIT PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE Golden Empire Transit • Karen King, Chief Executive Officer • Gina Hayden, Marketing Manager • Emery Rendez, Planner Kern Council of Governments • Rob Ball, Interim Director • Ron Brummett, Executive Director (Retired December 2011) • Bob Snoddy, Regional Planner CONSULTANT TEAM Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates • Linda Rhine, Project Manager • Paul Jewel, Deputy Project Manager • Steve Boland, Lead Service Planner • Kara Vuicich, Financial Planner • Anneka Imkamp, GIS /Cartographer Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants • Richard Lee, Modeler • Kyle Cooke, Assistant Modeler VRPA Technologies, Inc. • Georgiena M. Vivian, Marketing Specialist • Dena Graham, Marketing Assistant Table of Contents Page 1 Executive Summary .........................................................................................................1-1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Best Practices .......................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Public Outreach .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Capitol Corridor-Auburn-Sacramento
    CAPITOL CORRIDOR ® CAPITOL CORRIDOR ® MAY 21, 2012 MAY 21, 2012 SCHEDULE SCHEDULE Effective Effective AUBURN / SACRAMENTO AUBURN / SACRAMENTO SM – and – SM – and – SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA – and – – and – Enjoy the journey. SAN JOSE Enjoy the journey. SAN JOSE 1-877-9-RIDECC 1-877-9-RIDECC Call Call 1-877-974-3322 1-877-974-3322 SAN FRANCISCO - SAN JOSE SAN FRANCISCO - SAN JOSE OAKLAND - EMERYVILLE OAKLAND - EMERYVILLE SACRAMENTO - ROSEVILLE SACRAMENTO - ROSEVILLE AUBURN - RENO AUBURN - RENO And intermediate stations And intermediate stations CAPITOLCORRIDOR.ORG CAPITOLCORRIDOR.ORG Capitol Corridor is a registered service mark of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Capitol Corridor is a registered service mark of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority NRPC Form W34–125M–5/21/12 Stock #02-3347 NRPC Form W34–125M–5/21/12 Stock #02-3347 Visit Schedules subject to change without notice. Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Visit Schedules subject to change without notice. Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corp. National Railroad Passenger Corporation Washington Union Station, 60 Massachusetts Passenger Corp. National Railroad Passenger Corporation Washington Union Station, 60 Massachusetts Ave. N.E., Washington, DC 20002. Ave. N.E., Washington, DC 20002. page 2 CAPITOL CORRIDOR-Weekday Westbound Service on the Train Number 521 523 525 527 529 531 533 535 Capitol Corridor® 5/28,7/4, 5/28,7/4, 5/28,7/4, 5/28,7/4, 5/28,7/4, 5/28,7/4, 5/28,7/4, 5/28,7/4, Will Not Operate 9/3 9/3 9/3 9/3 9/3 9/3 9/3 9/3 Coaches: Unreserved.
    [Show full text]