DOCSLIB.ORG

Ridership Report (January 2020)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ridership Report (January 2020) Ridership Report (January 2020) FY20 Year to Date Summary Category FY20 YTD FY19 YTD Difference % Change Trailing 12 Month Trend Bus 6,172,715 5,812,472 360,242 6.2% 11,500,000 Light Rail 6,538,014 6,185,385 352,629 5.7% Rail Bus System Total 12,710,729 11,997,857 712,871 5.9% 11,000,000 10,500,000 Current Month Summary 10,000,000 Category January 2020 January 2019 Difference % Change Bus 909,004 813,453 95,551 11.7% 9,500,000 Light Rail 907,018 890,563 16,455 1.8% System Total 1,816,022 1,704,016 112,006 6.6% 9,000,000 Daily Summary Category January 2020 January 2019 Difference % Change Bus (M-F) 37,527 34,044 3,483 10.2% Bus (Sat) 14,597 11,369 3,228 28.4% Bus (Sun) 10,265 7,098 3,167 44.6% January Ridership by Mode Light Rail (M-F) 37,016 35,860 1,156 3.2% 6% Light Rail (Sat) 15,361 16,400 (1,039) -6.3% Light Rail Light Rail (Sun) 10,869 11,400 (531) -4.7% Fixed Route 49% Other Services 45% E-Tran Ridership Summary (E-Van included) Category Current Year Prior Year Difference % Change E-Tran (YTD) 466,820 439,796 27,024 6.1% Other services include E-Tran, Folsom, SmaRT Ride, CBS E-Tran (Monthly) 65,292 57,380 7,912 13.8% and Special Services E-Tran (Weekday) 2,996 2,613 383 14.7% Route Level Ridership Comparison (Bus) Weekday Route Comparison Saturday Route Comparison Route Jan 2020 Jan 2019 Difference % Change Route Jan 2020 Jan 2019 Difference % Change 1 1,651 1,562 89 6% 1 700 774 (74) -10% 11 929 589 340 58% 11 452 265 187 70% 13 716 240 476 199% 13 464 - 464 15 737 1,042 (305) -29% 15 410 494 (84) -17% 19 364 581 (217) -37% 19 175 294 (119) -40% 21 1,264 934 330 35% 21 570 497 73 15% 23 1,691 1,469 222 15% 23 1,047 1,096 (49) -4% 25 1,289 947 342 36% 25 572 361 211 58% 26 1,472 998 474 48% 26 703 294 409 139% 30 1,697 1,723 (26) -2% 30 274 522 (249) -48% 33 228 217 10 5% 38 219 174 45 26% 38 713 376 336 89% 51 1,669 1,547 122 8% 51 3,111 2,939 172 6% 56 426 514 (88) -17% 56 900 956 (56) -6% 61 365 - 365 61 984 489 496 101% 62 252 322 (69) -22% 62 956 875 81 9% 67 252 322 (69) -22% 67 1,445 1,036 410 40% 68 1,007 531 476 90% 68 1,831 1,061 770 73% 72 257 227 30 13% 72 1,260 982 278 28% 75 160 123 37 30% 75 411 159 252 158% 81 1,173 1,088 85 8% 81 3,003 2,389 614 26% 82 493 512 (20) -4% 82 1,527 1,413 114 8% 84 797 352 445 127% 84 1,534 687 847 123% 86 447 353 94 27% 86 1,216 1,039 177 17% 87 469 362 108 30% 87 1,093 1,037 56 5% 88 302 254 48 19% 88 766 742 24 3% 93 366 293 73 25% 93 827 761 66 9% 102 241 - 241 103 203 69 134 195% Sunday Route Comparison 105 52 - 52 Route Jan 2020 Jan 2019 Difference % Change 106 146 - 146 1 578 573 4 1% 107 139 - 139 11 332 - 332 109 105 97 8 8% 13 347 - 347 113 60 - 60 15 280 394 (114) -29% 129 122 - 122 19 143 224 (81) -36% 134 157 - 157 21 381 324 57 17% 161 15 - 15 23 756 714 42 6% 170 249 196 54 28% 25 372 - 372 171 92 59 33 56% 26 353 190 163 85% 172 180 137 43 32% 30 191 243 (52) -21% 174 77 - 77 #DIV/0! 38 170 130 41 31% 175 29 28 1 5% 51 1,271 1,002 268 27% 176 29 32 (3) -10% 56 271 303 (32) -10% 177 139 105 34 32% 61 301 - 301 193 75 - 75 62 154 - 154 205 41 32 10 31% 67 499 418 81 19% 206 48 28 20 71% 68 645 442 203 46% 210 55 38 17 44% 72 204 175 29 17% 211 96 87 9 11% 75 124 99 25 25% 212 99 85 14 16% 81 755 627 128 20% 213 58 - 58 #DIV/0! 82 339 406 (67) -16% 214 42 30 12 42% 84 494 - 494 226 25 - 25 #DIV/0! 86 357 238 119 50% 227 28 19 10 51% 87 325 233 92 39% 228 40 33 7 23% 88 251 228 23 10% 246 63 40 23 58% 93 275 254 21 8% 247 15 - 15 #DIV/0! 248 39 24 15 62% 252 56 31 25 80% Please note: 255 77 43 34 79% SmaRT Ride 408 461 (52) -11% Only Routes operating post SacRT forward are shown above. Folsom FR 310 326 (16) Folsom DAR 43 - 43 Average Weekday Boardings by Station by Line Station Name Jan20 Jan19 Difference % Change BLUE LINE - Total 18,978 18,800 178 0.95% 12TH & I STATION 467 473 (6) -1.24% 13TH STREET STATION 511 522 (11) -2.14% 16TH STREET STATION 1,569 1,623 (54) -3.32% 47TH AVENUE STATION 556 558 (2) -0.29% 4TH AVE/WAYNE HULTGREN STATION 703 553 150 27.06% 7TH & CAPITOL STATION 744 729 15 1.99% 8TH & CAPITOL STATION 391 393 (2) -0.64% 8TH & O STATION 774 771 2 0.28% ALKALI FLAT/LA VALENTINA STA 661 695 (34) -4.93% ARCHIVES PLAZA STATION 526 517 9 1.68% ARDEN/DEL PASO STATION 806 793 13 1.61% BROADWAY STATION 663 661 2 0.34% CATHEDRAL SQUARE STATION 739 785 (47) -5.92% CENTER PARKWAY STATION 337 267 70 26.44% CITY COLLEGE STATION 813 922 (109) -11.83% CRC STATION 1,334 1,321 12 0.93% FLORIN STATION 940 902 38 4.18% FRANKLIN STATION 776 708 68 9.54% FRUITRIDGE STATION 537 454 83 18.29% GLOBE AVENUE STATION 238 262 (24) -9.25% MARCONI/ARCADE STATION 681 706 (24) -3.44% MEADOWVIEW STATION 892 895 (2) -0.26% ROSEVILLE ROAD STATION 684 643 41 6.37% ROYAL OAKS STATION 366 398 (32) -7.95% ST ROSE OF LIMA PARK STATION 611 604 7 1.15% SWANSTON STATION 243 249 (6) -2.54% Watt/I-80 Station 1,206 1,183 23 1.95% WATT/I-80 WEST STATION 150 137 13 9.26% GOLD LINE - Total 17,484 16,700 784 4.69% 13TH STREET STATION 638 613 25 4.09% 16TH STREET STATION 1,625 1,591 34 2.15% 23RD STREET STATION 479 474 5 1.13% 29TH STREET STATION 1,450 1,340 110 8.20% 39TH STREET STATION 256 259 (3) -1.15% 48TH STREET STATION 224 216 8 3.71% 59TH STREET STATION 255 241 14 5.71% 7TH & CAPITOL STATION 987 880 107 12.15% 7TH & I/COUNTY CENTER STATION 377 335 42 12.61% 8TH & CAPITOL STATION 53 53 1 1.09% 8TH & H STATION 72 73 (1) -0.72% 8TH & K STATION 80 75 4 5.56% 8TH & O STATION 715 707 7 1.02% ARCHIVES PLAZA STATION 603 573 31 5.36% BUTTERFIELD STATION 494 501 (7) -1.32% COLLEGE GREENS STATION 591 598 (6) -1.06% CORDOVA TOWN CENTER STATION 454 438 17 3.77% GLENN STATION 259 240 19 8.03% HAZEL STATION 154 157 (2) -1.54% HISTORIC FOLSOM STATION 474 458 16 3.49% IRON POINT STATION 449 422 27 6.50% MATHER FIELD/MILLS STATION 1,300 1,242 57 4.60% POWER INN STATION 555 487 68 14.00% SACRAMENTO VALLEY STATION 480 475 5 1.13% STARFIRE STATION 304 279 25 9.06% SUNRISE STATION 772 763 9 1.13% TIBER STATION 303 268 35 13.13% UNIVERSITY/65TH STREET STATION 1,290 1,290 0 0.04% WATT/MANLOVE STATION 981 932 49 5.26% ZINFANDEL STATION 804 711 92 12.99% GREEN LINE - Total 554 360 194 53.89% 13TH STREET STATION 119 83 36 42.85% 7TH & CAPITOL STATION 36 23 13 58.16% 7TH & I/COUNTY CENTER STATION 30 22 8 35.52% 8TH & CAPITOL STATION 26 16 10 61.51% 8TH & K STATION 53 44 9 21.15% 8TH & O STATION 36 20 16 78.32% ARCHIVES PLAZA STATION 35 23 12 53.07% TOWNSHIP 9 STATION 218 128 90 70.01% All Stations 37,016 35,860 1,156 3.22% Average Weekday Alightings by Station by Line Station Name Jan20 Jan19 Difference % Change BLUE LINE - Rt#533 19,000 17,630 1,370 7.77% 12TH & I STATION 523 471 52 10.99% 13TH STREET STATION 547 514 33 6.47% 16TH STREET STATION 1,628 1,570 58 3.70% 47TH AVENUE STATION 601 540 61 11.22% 4TH AVE/WAYNE HULTGREN STATION 576 424 152 35.88% 7TH & CAPITOL STATION 633 606 27 4.39% 8TH & CAPITOL STATION 503 464 39 8.43% 8TH & O STATION 748 666 82 12.31% ALKALI FLAT/LA VALENTINA STATION 678 654 24 3.68% ARCHIVES PLAZA STATION 518 450 67 14.94% ARDEN/DEL PASO STATION 844 784 60 7.70% BROADWAY STATION 713 644 69 10.70% CATHEDRAL SQUARE STATION 772 778 (6) -0.79% CENTER PARKWAY STATION 256 203 54 26.62% CITY COLLEGE STATION 839 797 42 5.23% CRC STATION 1,375 1,310 65 4.97% FLORIN STATION 937 856 81 9.47% FRANKLIN STATION 759 641 118 18.44% FRUITRIDGE STATION 578 425 153 35.99% GLOBE AVENUE STATION 247 258 (10) -4.01% MARCONI/ARCADE STATION 664 641 24 3.69% MEADOWVIEW STATION 892 837 56 6.66% ROSEVILLE ROAD STATION 638 619 20 3.18% ROYAL OAKS STATION 360 379 (19) -4.89% ST ROSE OF LIMA PARK STATION 530 482 48 10.00% SWANSTON STATION 237 242 (5) -2.08% Watt/I-80 Station 1,201 1,176 25 2.13% WATT/I-80 WEST STATION 142 132 10 7.24% GOLD LINE - Rt#507 17,511 17,698 (187) -1.06% 13TH STREET STATION 525 538 (13) -2.48% 16TH STREET STATION 1,679 1,702 (23) -1.36% 23RD STREET STATION 460 491 (31) -6.35% 29TH STREET STATION 1,405 1,393 11 0.80% 39TH STREET STATION 264 268 (4) -1.49% 48TH STREET STATION 235 247 (12) -4.81% 59TH STREET STATION 257 272 (14) -5.26% 7TH & CAPITOL STATION 58 58 (0) -0.22% 7TH & I/COUNTY CENTER STATION 24 26 (2) -7.84% 8TH & CAPITOL STATION 647 680 (33) -4.90% 8TH & H STATION 360 344 16 4.71% 8TH & K STATION 696 672 24 3.54% 8TH & O STATION 648 655 (7) -1.05% ARCHIVES PLAZA STATION 596 618 (22) -3.58% BUTTERFIELD STATION 473 515 (42) -8.13% COLLEGE GREENS STATION 572 609 (37) -6.09% CORDOVA TOWN CENTER STATION 450 433 16 3.79% GLENN STATION 233 242 (9) -3.82% HAZEL STATION 141 160 (19) -12.17% HISTORIC FOLSOM STATION 476 480 (4) -0.85% IRON POINT STATION 425 432 (7) -1.52% MATHER FIELD/MILLS STATION 1,255 1,257 (2) -0.13% POWER INN STATION 551 508 43 8.49% SACRAMENTO VALLEY STATION 426 434 (8) -1.87% SACRAMENTO VALLEY STATION 276 238 38 15.82% STARFIRE STATION 282 262 20 7.61% SUNRISE STATION 737 781 (44) -5.64% TIBER STATION 280 272 8 2.86% UNIVERSITY/65TH STREET STATION 1,300 1,364 (64) -4.70% WATT/MANLOVE STATION 975 977 (2) -0.21% ZINFANDEL STATION 803 764 39 5.07% GREEN LINE - Rt#519 505 532 (27) -5.01% 13TH STREET STATION 155 171 (16) -9.36% 7TH & CAPITOL STATION 55 43 13 29.86% 7TH & I/COUNTY CENTER STATIO 58 59 (1) -2.46% 8TH & CAPITOL STATION 7 11 (4) -32.51% 8TH & K STATION 19 32 (12) -39.51% 8TH & O STATION 24 26 (2) -7.40% ARCHIVES PLAZA STATION 20 27 (7) -26.56% TOWNSHIP 9 STATION 166 163 3 2.01% All Stations 37,016 35,860 1,156 3.22% Average Saturday Boardings by Station by Line Station Name Jan20 Jan19 Difference % Change BLUE LINE - Rt#533 7,995 7,600 395 5.20% 12TH & I STATION 130 154 (24) -15.41% 13TH STREET STATION 201 193 8 3.92% 16TH STREET STATION 696 694 2 0.33%
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Save the Cost of Parking and Take Sacrt to The
    SAVE THE COST OF PARKING AND TAKE SACRT TO THE MARAFUNRUN 5K! Thanks to a partnership between the Runnin' for Rhett Foundation and SacRT, MaraFUNrun 5K participants and attendees can ride free on SacRT buses and light rail trains on Saturday,December 1, 2018, with a printed MaraFUNrun flyer (only one flyer needed per couple). A copy of the flyer is on the back of this paper and is your pass to ride for free on Saturday, December 1. GETTING THERE § SacRT recommends parking at one of our key light rail stations for better service (Sunrise, Watt/Manlove, Franklin or Roseville Road) § On weekends, light rail trains operate every 30 minutes. § Visit sacrt.com. for light rail schedules. DOWNTOWN ARRIVAL STATIONS (Closest to the race start on 13th & L Streets) § Passengers riding to the maraFUNrun race start (13th & L Streets) on the Blue Line from Citrus Heights/Roseville, from South Sacramento/Elk Grove, OR on the Gold Line from Folsom/Rancho Cordova should exit the train at the 13th Street Station. DOWNTOWN DEPARTURE STATIONS (Closest to the race start on 13th & L Streets) § Passengers taking the Blue Line toward Citrus Heights/Roseville should board a “Watt/I-80” train (check the train sign) at the 13th Street Station. § Passengers taking the Blue Line toward south Sacramento/Elk Grove should board a “Cosumnes River College” train (check the train sign) at the 13th Street Station. § Passengers taking the Gold Line toward south Folsom/Rancho Cordova should board a "Sunrise" or “Historic Folsom” train (check the train sign) at the 13th Street Station.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Elk Grove Public Transit Fares
    AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.2 CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: Consider 1) approving a proposal by MV Transportation for a new reverse commute service rate of $25/hour; and 2) authorizing staff to notice new fare rates and services for reverse commuting MEETING DATE: January 25, 2012 PREPARED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD: Richard Shepard, Public Works Director / City Engineer RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Staff recommends the City Council consider: 1) Approving a proposal by MV Transportation for a new reverse commute service rate of $25/hour; and 2) Authorizing staff to notice new fare rates and services for reverse commuting. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On December 14, 2011, City Council heard an item discussing costs of implementing reverse commute services between Elk Grove and Downtown Sacramento in order to support the relocation of the California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS) Department. Consistent with existing contract requirements, it was estimated that the net cost of this service would be approximately $94,000 per year. This net cost was estimated assuming the following: 1 Elk Grove City Council January 25, 2012 Page 2 of 6 Estimated Cost of New Reverse Commute Service New service costs at the $190,000 contracted rate of $53.09/hour Less new revenue based on 100 new monthly permits at a reduced <$96,000> cost of $80/month Estimated net annual cost $94,000 Since a majority of the reverse commute service would come from using buses that are “dead-heading” (returning empty), Council requested that staff negotiate with MV Transportation, Inc. (MV) to reduce the contracted rate to a level that would make the service revenue neutral to the City.
    [Show full text]
  • Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California
    Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California Hollie M. Lund, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Robert Cervero, Ph.D. Professor of City and Regional Planning University of California at Berkeley Richard W. Willson, Ph.D., AICP Professor of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Final Report January 2004 Funded by Caltrans Transportation Grant—“Statewide Planning Studies”—FTA Section 5313 (b) Travel Characteristics of TOD in California Acknowledgements This study was a collaborative effort by a team of researchers, practitioners and graduate students. We would like to thank all members involved for their efforts and suggestions. Project Team Members: Hollie M. Lund, Principle Investigator (California State Polytechnic University, Pomona) Robert Cervero, Research Collaborator (University of California at Berkeley) Richard W. Willson, Research Collaborator (California State Polytechnic University, Pomona) Marian Lee-Skowronek, Project Manager (San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit) Anthony Foster, Research Associate David Levitan, Research Associate Sally Librera, Research Associate Jody Littlehales, Research Associate Technical Advisory Committee Members: Emmanuel Mekwunye, State of California Department of Transportation, District 4 Val Menotti, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, Planning Department Jeff Ordway, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, Real Estate Department Chuck Purvis, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Doug Sibley, State of California Department of Transportation, District 4 Research Firms: Corey, Canapary & Galanis, San Francisco, California MARI Hispanic Field Services, Santa Ana, California Taylor Research, San Diego, California i Travel Characteristics of TOD in California ii Travel Characteristics of TOD in California Executive Summary Rapid growth in the urbanized areas of California presents many transportation and land use challenges for local and regional policy makers.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment Determinations and Compliance Findings for HUD-Assisted Projects 24 CFR Part 58
    Environmental Assessment Determinations and Compliance Findings for HUD-assisted Projects 24 CFR Part 58 Project Information Project Name: Sage at Folsom (Scholar Way Senior Apartment Community) Project Responsible Entity: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency Preparer: Michael Baker International, Incorporated Certifying Officer Name and Title: La Shelle Dozier, Executive Director, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency Consultant (if applicable): Michael Baker International, Incorporated Direct Comments to: Stephanie Green, Environmental Coordinator, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency [email protected] 916-440-1302 Project Location: The Project Site is comprised of approximately 4.2 acres of undeveloped, previously disturbed land located immediately east of the intersection of Scholar Way and East Bidwell Street in the City of Folsom in Sacramento County, California. The address for the Project Site is 89 Scholar Way, Folsom, California, Sacramento County (Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 072-0270-157). The Project Site is surrounded by Scholar Way, College Point Business Park, and Folsom Lake College to the north; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (church), Cavitt Drive, and a residential neighborhood to the east; the Broadstone Marketplace commercial center to the south; and Southern Pacific Railroad/Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad track, bike trail, and East Bidwell Street to the west. Description of the Proposed Project [24 CFR 50.12 & 58.32; 40 CFR 1508.25]: The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) is proposing to use HUD HOME Investment Partnership funds to support construction of the Sage at Folsom project (Project), which would consist of the construction of 109 one-bedroom/one-bathroom units of affordable housing for seniors with one additional unit reserved for management staff (for a Project total of 110 units).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix G-1: Frameworks for the 2016 MTP/SCS Update Process
    Appendix G-1: Frameworks for the 2016 MTP/SCS Update Process Table of Contents 1) Schedule of Board Actions Leading to Final Plan Adoption ………………………………….. 2 2) Policy Framework for the MTP/SCS Update Process ………………………………………… 3 3) MTP/SCS Approach to Scenario Development ………………………………………………… 27 4) Framework for a Draft Preferred Scenario ……………………………………………………… 30 5) Endorse 2016 Draft Preferred Scenario …………………………………………………………. 53 Appendix G-1 Draft 8/19 Page 1 2016 MTP/SCS Update: Schedule of Board Actions Leading to Final Plan Adoption Board Action Date of Action Contents/Direction Framework 1.0: Adopted December 2013 • Set implementation-focused theme for plan update with Policy Framework five policy themes: transportation funding, investment strategy, investment timing, land use forecast, plan effects. • Set region-level growth projections of population, employment and housing for the plan horizon year (2036). • Set overall schedule for the plan update. Framework 1.5: Adopted March 2014 • Set parameters for three regional land use and Scenarios transportation scenarios for use in public workshops and Development plan development. Framework • Initiated phasing analysis of transportation investments in current plan. • Initiated analysis of different levels and types of transportation revenue sources. • Set schedule for creation of Framework 2.0. Framework 2.0: Targeted for November or • Sets guidelines, task and process for developing a draft December 2014 adoption Draft Preferred preferred scenario (land use forecast, revenue forecast, Scenario project list, performance outcomes). Framework • Sets a minimum of six weeks for review and vetting of a preliminary draft preferred scenario. Framework 3.0: Targeted for April 2015 • Sets details of Draft Preferred Scenario (for years 2020, Draft Preferred 2035, and 2036) for use in development of Draft Plan and Scenario EIR: o Land use forecast o Revenue Forecast o Budget and Project List o Performance Outcomes Draft Plan (2016 Targeted for September 2015 • Release Draft 2016 MTP/SCS for public comment.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2011-2012 Capital Budget Represents the One Year Capital Spending Plan for RT
    Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................ 1 General Manager/CEO Budget Message ........................................... 3 Board of Directors Board of Directors .................................................................................6 Budget Adoption Resolutions................................................................7 Budget Presentation Award......................................................................8 Executive Management Team ............................................................. 9 Organizational Structure ................................................................... 10 District Overview District Profile ......................................................................................11 Service Area Map................................................................................15 Strategic Plan......................................................................................17 Long-Term Financial Policies ..............................................................19 Budget Process...................................................................................27 Voting System .....................................................................................29 Trends.................................................................................................31 Peer Comparison ................................................................................34
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION August 16, 2017 Advice Letter 5042-E Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations Pacific Gas An
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 August 16, 2017 Advice Letter 5042-E Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Mail Code B10C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 SUBJECT: Encroachment Agreement with Sacramento Regional Transit District Request for Approval Under Section 851 and General Order 173 Dear Mr. Jacobson: Advice Letter 5042-E is effective as of August 10, 2017, per Resolution E-4856 Ordering Paragraph. Sincerely, Edward Randolph Director, Energy Division Erik Jacobson Pacific Gas and Electric Company Director 77 Beale St., Mail Code B10C Regulatory Relations P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 Fax: 415-973-1448 March 30, 2017 Advice 5042-E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company ID U 39 E) Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Subject: Encroachment Agreement with Sacramento Regional Transit District – Request for Approval Under Section 851 and General Order 173 Purpose Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) requests approval under Public Utilities Code Section 851 (Section 851) and General Order 173 to grant an encroachment agreement (Agreement) to the Sacramento Regional Transit District, a Public Corporation (RT). The Agreement permits the encroachment of a light rail system and passenger station platform (Improvements) within PG&E’s Easement Area (PG&E Easement). A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Attachment 1. PG&E has inspected the encroachment agreement and has determined that granting the encroachment will not interfere with PG&E’s operations or its ability to provide utility services to its customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Sac County Folsom Blvd Butterfi
    Applicant: Sacramento County Department of Transportation Project: Butterfield Way @ Folsom Blvd Intersection Bike Lanes P. PROJECT APPLICATION Project Title Butterfield Way @ Folsom Blvd Intersection Bike Lanes SACOG ID number (if available) 30433 PPNO and/or EA number (if applicable) N/A Federal ID number (if applicable) N/A Responsible Project Manager/Contact Name: Ron Vicari II, P.E. Position: Principle Civil Engineer Address: 906 G Street, Suite 510, Sacramento CA 95814 Phone: (916) 874-5164 desk, (916) 591-2257 cell E-mail: [email protected] Co-sponsor/Partner Agencies N/A Project Location In Rosemont at the intersection of Butterfield (Also attach a map) Way and Folsom Boulevard adjacent to the Butterfield light rail station and the Franchise Tax Board. (See Context Map) Project Scope/ Description (250 word limit) Modify the intersection at Butterfield and Folsom to eliminate the barrier presented by a high voltage steel power pole between Folsom Blvd and the light rail right-of-way and extend the bike lanes to the crosswalks and stop bars on Folsom Blvd. The proposed modification will reconfigure the traffic lanes and medians to accommodate bike lanes on the Folsom Blvd approaches and departures to the intersection with Butterfield within existing right-of-way. This can be accomplished by removing one of the two westbound left turn lanes on Folsom Blvd, increasing the length of the remaining left turn lane, and optimizing the signal timing for the improved intersection geometry. Project Schedule (estimated month and year): 1. Start environmental/preliminary engineering 1. Environmental process is underway, 2. Final ED approved - Start preliminary engineering is complete engineering/design 2.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan
    CITY OF ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of Governments Prepared For: City of Elk Grove ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of City of Elk Grove Governments 1415 L Street, Suite RAQUEL CHAVARRIA, TRANSIT PLANNER 300 EDWARD COVIELLO, TRANSIT PLANNER Sacramento, CA 95814 JEAN C. FOLETTA, TRANSIT MANAGER Tel: 916.321.9000 Fax: 916.321.9551 BETH MARASIGAN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT www.sacog.org KARA REDDIG, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER RICHARD SHEPARD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Prepared for: City of Elk Grove Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 8401 Laguna Palms Way SHARON SPROWLS, SENIOR PROGRAM SPECIALIST (PROJECT MANAGER) Elk Grove, CA 95758 LAURA BELL, ASSISTANT RESEARCH ANALYST VICTORIA CACCIATORE, PLANNING ANALYST 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, ASSISTANT PLANNER GARY TAYLOR, SENIOR PLANNER BARBARA VAUGHANBECHTOLD, ASSOCIATE PLANNER THIS SRTP WAS COMPLETED AS PROJECT #14-003-17 OF THE SACOG OVERALL WORK PROGRAM (OWP) WITH GENEROUS FUNDING PROVIDED BY CALTRANS THROUGH THE STATEWIDE OR URBAN TRANSIT PLANNING STUDIES GRANT PROGRAM. City of Elk Grove Short Range Transit Plan Page i ELK GROVE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2020 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ES-1 Chapter 1—Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Ridership Report (October 2019)
    Ridership Report (October 2019) Year to Date Summary Category FY20 YTD FY19YTD Difference % Change Trailing 12 Month Trend Bus 3,518,921 3,415,852 103,069 3.0% 11,500,000 Light Rail 3,848,176 3,641,112 207,064 5.7% Rail Bus System Total 7,367,097 7,056,964 310,133 4.4% 11,000,000 10,500,000 Current Month Summary 10,000,000 Category October 2019 October 2018 Difference % Change Bus 1,059,668 1,014,352 45,316 4.5% 9,500,000 Light Rail 1,063,740 1,025,613 38,127 3.7% System Total 2,123,408 2,039,965 83,443 4.1% 9,000,000 Daily Summary Category October 2019 October 2018 Difference % Change Bus (M-F) 41,415 40,275 1,140 2.8% Bus (Sat) 15,390 13,266 2,124 16.0% Bus (Sun) 10,371 7,915 2,456 31.0% October Ridership by Mode Light Rail (M-F) 40,939 40,510 429 1.1% 6% Light Rail (Sat) 17,127 13,500 3,627 26.9% Light Rail Light Rail (Sun) 12,229 9,500 2,729 28.7% Fixed Route 48% Other Services E-Tran Ridership Summary (E-Van included) 46% Category Current Year Prior Year Difference % Change E-Tran (YTD) 280,319 266,440 13,879 5.2% E-Tran (Monthly) 84,775 81,648 3,127 3.8% Other services include E-Tran, Folsom, SmaRT Ride, CBS and Special Services E-Tran (Weekday) 3,560 3,426 134 3.9% Route Level Ridership Comparison (Bus) Weelday Route Comparison Saturday Route Comparison Route Oct 2019 Oct 2018 Difference % Change Route Oct 2019 Oct 2018 Difference % Change 1 2,067 2,190 (124) -6% 1 768 777 (9) -1% 11 972 715 257 36% 11 447 282 165 59% 13 678 315 362 115% 13 426 - 426 15 795 1,215 (420) -35% 15 381 558 (176) -32% 19 423 658 (234) -36% 19 209 271
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
    - 2021-2024 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program SACOG MISSION BOARD MEMBERS AND MEMBER JURISDICTIONS Provide leadership and a Karm Bains, Sutter County dynamic, collaborative public Krista Bernasconi, City of Roseville forum for achieving an efficient regional transportation system, Gary Bradford, Yuba County innovative and integrated Chris Branscum, City of Marysville regional planning, and high quality of life within the greater Pamela Bulahan, City of Isleton Sacramento region. Trinity Burruss, City of Colfax Jan Clark-Crets, Town of Loomis Rich Desmond, Sacramento County Lucas Frerichs, City of Davis Sue Frost, Sacramento County Jill Gayaldo, City of Rocklin Lakhvir Ghag, City of Live Oak Bonnie Gore, Placer County Martha Guerrero, City of West Sacramento Shon Harris, City of Yuba City Rick Jennings, City of Sacramento Paul Joiner, City of Lincoln Patrick Kennedy, Sacramento County Mike Kozlowski, City of Folsom Rich Lozano, City of Galt Porsche Middleton, City of Citrus Heights Pierre Neu, City of Winters David Sander, City of Rancho Cordova Michael Saragosa, City of Placerville Don Saylor, Yolo County Jay Schenirer, City of Sacramento Matt Spokely, City of Auburn Tom Stallard, City of Woodland Darren Suen, City of Elk Grove Wendy Thomas, El Dorado County Rick West, City of Wheatland Amarjeet Benipal, Ex-Officio Member 2021-2024 MTIP Contents A Guide to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Contents Page Number Introduction .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Folsom Short Range Transit Plan Update Project Appendix G.1 Public
    Folsom Short Range Transit Plan Update Project Appendix G .1 Public Comments Summary BUS SERVICE Commuter Feeder Service to Folsom Light Rail Stations Feeder bus essential for Folsom residents to take advantage of light rail; should run all day. Need fast, quick feeders to/from light rail during peak commuter hours only . Local feeder routes need to be within walking distance of residences, not just businesses. Draft bus service plan seems to cater to commercial traffic much more than commuters . Why can't the commuter public be covered during peak time (i.e ., 6 AM - 7 :30 PM & 4 PM - 5 :30 PM) and commercial traffic off-peak. Consider different routes for commuters (5am - 9 am, 3pm - 7pm) than for in-town customers (run all day). Commute routes should be designed to serve largest neighborhood populations possible and travel quickly to L.R. stations . Daytime in-town routes would serve major retail, city hall, college, etc. Early a.m. pick up (bus stop) at East Natoma & Briggs Ranch to light rail to get me to work by 6:30 a.m. Maintain service on Folsom-Auburn Road from Folsom Dam Road and provide feeder service to Historic Folsom light rail station. Add a peak-only loop up Folsom-Auburn, Oak Avenue Parkway, American River Canyon, Greenback, right on Folsom-Auburn, up unused center lane ramp to the Historic Folsom light rail station. Residents in Orangevale seemed to get better service even though they already have current RT service ; RT and Folsom could make arrangements so Folsom would no longer have to loop out to Madison/Main (e .g.
    [Show full text]