JTAC STAFF REPORT. Draft RTP/SCS Scenarios. Peter Imhof, Julio Perucho, Bob Leiter

Transcription

1 JTAC STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Draft RTP/SCS Scenarios MEETING DATE: October 4, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: 4 STAFF CONTACT: Peter Imhof, Julio Perucho, Bob Leiter RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the Board select Scenario 7 (TOD/Infill + Enhanced Transit) as the preferred scenario for staff to incorporate into the draft 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP-SCS). SUMMARY: We augment our prior work and conclusions with additional, more detailed analysis supporting our earlier findings, including a detailed breakdown of person miles traveled by scenario and transportation mode. We hosted a total of four public workshops and EIR scoping meetings in Santa Ynez, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara and Lompoc and summarize comments and feedback for all workshops, except Lompoc, (which occurred after staff report mailing). We will report on the Lompoc workshop at the JTAC meeting. Per JTAC direction, we have researched funding options for Scenario 7 Enhanced Transit and present results. This staff report reviews revenue sources that have been used by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in their recently adopted RTPs. From this review, it is clear that each agency has taken a different approach to the use of new or expanded revenue sources. Table 1 provides a listing of each of the new or expanded revenue sources that were included by one or more of these MPOs in their RTPs. While both SANDAG and SACOG have included a new local sales tax measure in their revenue forecasts, SANDAG has also included revenues from future public-private partnerships and value capture strategies related to public transit. Neither of these agencies assumed new or expanded federal or state revenue sources. On the other hand, SCAG has included ten new or expanded revenue sources in its revenue forecast. Of these sources, four of them would require state and/or federal legislative action, while two others would require state and federal transportation agency approvals. If SBCAG s main interest at this time is to evaluate new revenue sources that could be used for enhanced transit service, then it should consider those revenue sources in Table 1 that are identified as being flexible in their use. In addition, if SBCAG wishes to limit its evaluation to those sources that do not require federal or state legislative action, there are a few sources that would also meet this criterion.

2 In response to comments received, we have also researched and present information concerning land use incentive programs at SANDAG, SACOG and MTC, which could also potentially be funded through innovative funding sources. We request that JTAC consider the available scenarios meeting minimum SB 375 requirements based on committee members technical and planning expertise and recommend a preferred scenario for inclusion in the draft RTP-SCS. Based on our initial modeling analysis and conclusions, we recommend that Scenario 7 be selected as the preferred scenario for the following reasons: Of the four viable scenarios that meet minimum SB 375 requirements, it is the best performing on virtually all performance measures across all RTP goal categories, if only marginally on some measures. It lays the groundwork for CEQA streamlining within high quality transit corridors consistent with local government planning efforts. It relates closely to current SBCAG member agency planning efforts and is based on adopted General Plans and pending, planning efforts presently under discussion at the local level. Consistent with other COGs approaches in their adopted RTP-SCS s, it makes a compelling case for significant, additional future transit funding and identifies most likely funding sources. Since it relies on new funding, there is no opportunity cost to pursuing this option. However, JTAC should discuss whether the relatively modest additional benefits of this scenario justify the additional cost. It demonstrates a substantial, early commitment to enhanced transit, thereby heading off and addressing the concerns of potential critics. Along with selection of a preferred scenario, we request that JTAC provide any guidance on the best way to present scenario materials for the SBCAG Board s consideration. DISCUSSION: Additional Analysis In September, we presented draft findings concerning our initial modeling results. Attachment 1 shows our scenario performance results organized by RTP-SCS goal category. In the interim since the last meeting, we have continued to develop and refine our analysis. This additional analysis supports our prior conclusions, in particular, that The scenarios achieve VMT and GHG reductions primarily through land use changes, not transportation measures, and Scenarios 3 and 7 are the best performing of the scenarios meeting minimum SB 375 standards. We have compiled a detailed breakdown of person miles traveled by scenario and 2

3 transportation mode, which confirms the second finding, which shows in more detail how the scenarios achieve reductions in VMT by travel mode. Attachment 2. The greatest reduction in miles traveled is due principally to land use changes shortening trip lengths and not due to a reduction in the number single-occupancy and shared ride vehicle trips (which change less than 1% from the future baseline across the scenarios). Results show that the total number trips by all modes does not change significantly between scenarios (the greatest change ~0.5% from future baseline). Total miles travelled, however, do change significantly between scenarios (ranging as much as 15% from the future baseline). The greatest reduction in total miles is due to the reduction in single-occupancy and shared ride vehicle miles for all scenarios (greatest change <16% from baseline). Total non-sov/sr miles increases to 815,000 in Scenario 7 from 793,000 in the future baseline (a net increase of 22,000 miles); total SOV/SR miles decreases from 12.1 million to 10.2 million (a net decrease of 1.9 million). Since 1.9 million miles is far greater than 22,000 miles, reduction in miles traveled cannot be explained by an equal increase in non-sov/sr miles travelled. Therefore, the modeling indicates trip distances are decreasing at a disproportionate rate due to land use changes and account for the lion s share of the VMT reductions. Further emphasizing that land use changes result in greater decreases in vehicle miles travelled than transit alone, jobs/housing correction coupled with systematic land use zoning changes (Scenario 3) result in significant reductions in overall vehicle miles (2 million miles or ~15%) versus the future baseline. Transit Enhancements (Scenario 7) coupled with jobs/housing correction and systematic land use zoning changes (Scenario 3) result in minor additional reductions in overall vehicle miles (additional ~0.01% or 2,000 miles). Not building programmed and planned transportation projects (Scenario 2) results in slightly increased vehicle miles travelled over scenarios with transportation projects (Scenario 1). Public Workshop Comments and Feedback A total of four public workshops and EIR scoping meetings were held. In addition to the three meetings in Solvang, Santa Maria and Santa Barbara, the City of Lompoc requested its own workshop, which was held on Monday, October 1. (Results of the Lompoc workshop will be presented at the JTAC meeting, since it was held following final posting and distribution of this staff report.) Although attendance was limited, the workshops produced robust discussions by participants of the scenario modeling results and scenario options. Public comments received at the first three workshops are summarized in Attachment 3. As part of the workshops, staff conducted a poll of participants on their preference for the preferred scenario. Results of this poll follow: Workshop Scen. 3 Scen. 5 Scen. 6 Scen. 7 Abstain Total Santa Ynez Santa Maria Santa Barbara Total

4 Scenario 7 Funding Options At the September JTAC meeting, members requested additional information on funding options for the enhanced transit contemplated by Scenario 7. Total cost of this additional transit would be in excess of $733 million to 2040, which, if included, would represent just under 10% of all project costs. From a review of the recently adopted RTPs for SCAG, SACOG and SANDAG, it is clear that each of them has taken a different approach to the use of new or expanded revenue sources. Table 1 provides a listing of each of the new or expanded revenue sources that were included by one or more of these MPOs in their RTPs. While both SANDAG and SACOG have included a new local sales tax measure in their revenue forecasts, SANDAG has also included revenues from future public-private partnerships and value capture strategies related to public transit. Neither of these agencies assumed new or expanded federal or state revenue sources. On the other hand, SCAG has included ten new or expanded revenue sources in its revenue forecast; of these sources, four of them would require state and/or federal legislative action, while two others would require state and federal transportation agency approvals. If SBCAG s main interest at this time is to evaluate new revenue sources that could be used for enhanced transit service, then it should consider those revenue sources in Table 1 that are identified as being flexible in their use. In addition, if SBCAG wishes to limit its evaluation to those sources that do not require federal or state legislative action, there are a few sources that would also meet this criterion. Table 1 Possible New Revenue Sources for RTP Revenue Source Responsible Parties Use SCAG SACOG SANDAG Bond Proceeds from Current Local Sales Tax Measures Regional Flexible X New Local Sales Tax Measure Regional Flexible X* X** State and Federal Gas Excise Tax Adjustment to Maintain Historical Purchasing Power State, Federal Flexible X Mileage-based User Fee (or equivalent fuel tax adjustment) State, Federal Flexible X Highway Tolls (including toll revenue bond proceeds) Regional, State, Federal Highways X Private equity participation Regional, Flexible X X 4

5 State Freight fee / National Freight Program State, Federal, Regional Freightrelated X E-Commerce Tax State, Federal Flexible X Interest Earnings from Toll Revenue Bond Proceeds See Highway Tolls Highway X State Bond Proceeds, Federal Grants, and Other for California High Speed Rail Program Regional, State Rail X Value Capture Strategies Regional, Local Flexible X X *SACOG assumed new ½ cent sales tax for transit and system preservation only. **SANDAG assumed new ¼ cent sales tax for transit only. The following is a more detailed description of how each of the three MPOs addressed the revenue forecast in their RTP planning process. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) SCAG s RTP/ SCS contains a financial plan that identifies how much money is available to support the region s surface transportation investments. SCAG acknowledges in its Plan that there are considerable challenges associated with financing transportation investments. SCAG points out that: Nationally, we are facing a very real, near-term insolvency crisis with the Federal Highway Trust Fund, as fuel tax receipts continue to take a precipitous decline. The viability of California s State Highway Account remains in question, as only a fraction of our needs are funded through state sources. To backfill limited state and federal sources, the SCAG region continues to rely upon local initiatives (74 percent of core revenues) to meet transportation needs. SCAG concludes that the national purpose served by Southern California s transportation system particularly in the movement of goods points to the need for stronger state and federal commitment. Our transportation system is the responsibility of all levels of government. 5

6 Based on these premises, the SCAG region s financially constrained plan includes a core revenue forecast of existing local, state, and federal sources, along with a forecast of reasonably available funding sources that are expected to be available over the time horizon of the RTP/SCS: The core revenues identified are those that have been committed or historically available for the building, operation, and maintenance of the current roadway and transit systems in the SCAG region. Essentially, these revenues are existing transportation funding sources projected to FY2035. The core forecast does not include future increases in state or federal gas excise tax rates (other than the pro forma increases in the state excise tax due to the state gasoline sales tax swap) or adoption of regional gasoline taxes, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) taxes, and new tax measures. These revenues provide a benchmark from which additional funding can be identified. SCAG s reasonably available revenues include new sources of transportation funding likely to materialize within the plan timeframe. These sources include adjustments to existing state and federal gas tax rates based on historical trends and recommendations from two national commissions (National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission) created by Congress; further leveraging of existing local sales tax measures; value capture strategies; potential national freight program/freight fees; as well as passenger and commercial vehicle tolls for specific facilities. Reasonably available revenues also include innovative financing strategies, such as private equity participation. In accordance with federal guidelines, the plan includes strategies for ensuring the availability of these sources. SCAG considered a set of key guiding principles as a foundation for identifying regionally appropriate revenues that are reasonably available in developing the RTP/SCS financial strategies as follows: Establish a user fee-based system that better reflects the true cost of transportation, provides firewall protection for transportation funds, and ensures an equitable distribution of costs and benefits. Promote national and state programs that include return-to-source guarantees while maintaining flexibility to reward regions that continue to commit substantial local resources. Leverage locally available funding with innovative financing tools (e.g., tax credits and expansion of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act [TIFIA]) to attract private capital and accelerate project delivery. Promote funding strategies that strengthen federal commitment to the nation s goods movement system, recognizing the pivotal role that our region plays in domestic and international trade. Based on these guiding principles, SCAG evaluated a number of revenue options. Various combinations of these options were considered as potential revenue packages. Attachment 4a presents ten categories of funding sources and financing techniques that were considered to be reasonably available and are included in the financially constrained plan. For each funding source, SCAG examined the policy and legal context of implementation and prepared an estimate of the potential revenues generated. Attachment 4b provides a listing of all of the 6

7 revenue sources that were taken into account in SCAG s fiscally constrained plan, including both core revenues and reasonably available new revenues. Of the total of $524.7 billion in forecasted revenues for the planning period, $219.5 billion, or about 42% of total revenues, are attributable to these new revenue sources. (SCAG staff has indicated that they have taken a more conservative approach to estimating core revenue sources in their RTP than other MPOs; therefore, the percentage of forecasted revenues attributed to new revenue sources may not be directly comparable to those of the other MPOs discussed in this report.) Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) SACOG took a more conservative approach than SCAG in using reasonably available new revenue sources in its recently adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy. The only new revenue source identified by SACOG in its revenue forecast is a new ½-cent transportation sales tax for Sacramento County, which already has a ½-cent transportation sales tax in place. Of the total of $35.2 billion in forecasted revenues for the planning period, $2.2 billion, or about 6% of total revenues, are attributable to this new revenue source. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) SANDAG also took a more conservative approach than SCAG in using reasonably available new revenue sources in its recently adopted 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. SANDAG identified two new revenue sources in its RTP: 1. A new ¼-cent regional sales tax for transit operations, starting in 2016; and 2. Public private partnerships, including value-capture agreements for specified transit station development projects, and locally generated revenues (including possible public agency funding and public-private partnerships) to pay for new streetcar projects in certain neighborhoods. Of the total of $213.8 billion in forecasted revenues for the planning period, $13.1 billion, or about 6% of total revenues, are attributable to these three revenue categories. Land Use Incentive Programs SBCAG staff was asked to obtain information regarding land use incentive grant programs that are offered by other MPOs in California. We were able to obtain information on grant programs that are operated by San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), and Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). This information is included in Attachment 5. Staff Preferred Scenario Recommendation The SBCAG Board must ultimately select a preferred scenario from among the viable scenario options meeting minimum SB 375 requirements for incorporation into the RTP-SCS. We request that JTAC consider and make its preferred scenario recommendation to the Board based on committee members technical and professional planning expertise. After analyzing modeling results and considering the four, viable candidate scenarios closely, 7

8 staff recommends that Scenario 7 be selected as the preferred scenario for the following reasons: Of the four viable scenarios that meet minimum SB 375 requirements, it is the best performing on virtually all performance measures across all RTP goal categories, if only marginally on some measures. It lays the groundwork for CEQA streamlining within high quality transit corridors consistent with local government planning efforts. It relates closely to current SBCAG member agency planning efforts and is based on adopted General Plans and pending, planning efforts presently under discussion at the local level. Consistent with other COGs approaches in their adopted RTP-SCS s, it makes a compelling case for significant, additional future transit funding and identifies most likely funding sources. Since it relies on new funding, there is no opportunity cost to pursuing this option. However, JTAC should discuss whether the relatively modest additional benefits of this scenario justify the additional cost. It demonstrates a substantial, early commitment to enhanced transit, thereby heading off and addressing the concerns of potential critics. SBCAG Board Presentation At the October Board meeting, staff would like to describe and present the scenarios to Board members in a way that makes the definitions of and differences between the scenarios as clear as possible. Included in Attachment 6 is a comparison table of scenarios definitions, as well as a schematic scenarios pyramid diagram. We would appreciate JTAC comments and suggestions on the best way to present this information. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Scenario Key Performance Measure Results by RTP-SCS Goal Category 2. Person Miles Traveled by Scenario and Mode 3. Public Workshop Comments a. Santa Ynez b. Santa Maria c. Santa Barbara 4. SCAG Revenue Sources a. SCAG Summary of Revenue Sources b. SCAG New Revenue Sources and Innovative Financing 8

9 5. Land Use Incentive Programs a. FY SANDAG TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program Funding Cycle b. SACOG Community Design Program - Round 4 Approved Projects c. OneBayArea Grant Program Overview 6. Scenarios Description Comparison Table and Diagram 9

10 Attachment 1, Scenario Key Performance Measure Results by RTP-SCS Goal Category

11 Attachment 2: Person Miles Traveled by Scenario and Mode

12 Scenario 1. Future Baseline 2. No Project 3. TOD/Infill % Diff from Baseline 2035 % Diff from Baseline 2020 % Diff from Baseline 2035 % Diff from Baseline 2020 Expansion % Diff from Baseline 2035 % Diff from Baseline 2020 County weighted Housing Emphasis % Diff from Baseline 2035 % Diff from Baseline 2020 % Diff from Baseline 2035 Mode 2010 Single Occupancy/Shared Ride Vehicle Miles 9,073,764 10,480,418 12,141,289 10,576, % 12,232, % 9,498, % 10,213, % 9,698, % 10,524, % 9,767, % 10,507, % 9,490, % 10,204, % Transit Miles 385, , , , % 575, % 456, % 563, % 465, % 557, % 468, % 583, % 464, % 570, % Transit Walk Miles 17,614 20,299 22,257 20, % 22, % 20, % 25, % 20, % 24, % 20, % 26, % 22, % 27, % Bike Miles 64,234 69,763 78,950 70, % 80, % 70, % 79, % 70, % 79, % 70, % 80, % 69, % 79, % Walk Miles 112, , , , % 137, % 121, % 138, % 120, % 137, % 120, % 138, % 120, % 138, % Total Non SOV/SR Miles 580, , , , , , , , , , , , ,026 Total Miles All Modes 9,654,035 11,175,859 12,934,763 11,280, % 13,047, % 10,166, % 11,020, % 10,375, % 11,322, % 10,446, % 11,336, % 10,168, % 11,019, % Single Occupancy/Shared Ride Vehicle Trips 1,307,253 1,375,172 1,566,314 1,380, % 1,571, % 1,375, % 1,555, % 1,377, % 1,557, % 1,375, % 1,557, % 1,373, % 1,553, % Transit Trips 26,834 31,090 33,815 31, % 34, % 31, % 39, % 31, % 38, % 31, % 42, % 33, % 42, % Bike Trips 20,155 21,765 24,500 21, % 24, % 21, % 24, % 21, % 24, % 21, % 24, % 21, % 24, % Walk Trips 73,075 77,747 87,042 77, % 87, % 78, % 91, % 78, % 89, % 78, % 89, % 78, % 91, % Total Trips All Modes 1,427,316 1,505,775 1,711,671 1,511, % 1,718, % 1,507, % 1,711, % 1,508, % 1,709, % 1,507, % 1,714, % 1,508, % 1,712, % Single Occupancy/Shared Ride Vehicle Miles % of Total 93.99% 93.78% 93.87% 93.76% 0.02% 93.75% 0.12% 93.43% 0.35% 92.68% 1.19% 93.47% 0.31% 92.95% 0.92% 93.50% 0.28% 92.68% 1.18% 93.34% 0.44% 92.60% 1.26% Transit Miles % of Total 4.00% 4.34% 4.30% 4.37% 0.03% 4.41% 0.12% 4.49% 0.15% 5.12% 0.82% 4.49% 0.15% 4.92% 0.62% 4.48% 0.14% 5.15% 0.85% 4.57% 0.23% 5.18% 0.88% Transit Walk Miles % of Total 0.18% 0.18% 0.17% 0.18% 0.00% 0.17% 0.00% 0.20% 0.02% 0.23% 0.06% 0.20% 0.02% 0.22% 0.05% 0.20% 0.02% 0.23% 0.06% 0.22% 0.03% 0.25% 0.07% Bike Miles % of Total 0.67% 0.62% 0.61% 0.63% 0.00% 0.61% 0.00% 0.69% 0.06% 0.72% 0.11% 0.67% 0.05% 0.70% 0.09% 0.67% 0.05% 0.71% 0.10% 0.69% 0.06% 0.72% 0.11% Walk Miles % of Total 1.16% 1.08% 1.05% 1.07% 0.01% 1.05% 0.00% 1.19% 0.11% 1.26% 0.20% 1.17% 0.09% 1.21% 0.16% 1.15% 0.07% 1.22% 0.16% 1.19% 0.11% 1.26% 0.20% Total Non SOV/SR Miles % of Total 6.01% 6.22% 6.13% 6.24% 6.25% 6.57% 7.32% 6.53% 7.05% 6.50% 7.32% 6.66% 7.40% Total Miles All Modes % of Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% Single Occupancy/Shared Ride Vehicle Trips % of Total 91.59% 91.33% 91.51% 91.32% 0.00% 91.45% 0.06% 91.25% 0.07% 90.86% 0.64% 91.30% 0.03% 91.07% 0.44% 91.28% 0.04% 90.87% 0.64% 91.10% 0.23% 90.71% 0.80% Transit Trips % of Total 1.88% 2.06% 1.98% 2.07% 0.01% 2.01% 0.03% 2.08% 0.01% 2.33% 0.35% 2.07% 0.00% 2.27% 0.29% 2.10% 0.04% 2.47% 0.50% 2.25% 0.19% 2.50% 0.53% Bike Trips % of Total 1.41% 1.45% 1.43% 1.45% 0.00% 1.44% 0.01% 1.45% 0.00% 1.46% 0.02% 1.44% 0.00% 1.44% 0.01% 1.44% 0.01% 1.44% 0.01% 1.44% 0.00% 1.45% 0.02% Walk Trips % of Total 5.12% 5.16% 5.09% 5.16% 0.01% 5.10% 0.02% 5.22% 0.06% 5.35% 0.27% 5.19% 0.03% 5.23% 0.15% 5.18% 0.01% 5.21% 0.13% 5.21% 0.05% 5.34% 0.25% Total Trips All Modes % of Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% Conclusions: Total trips from all modes do not change significantly between scenarios (greatest change ~0.5% from baseline). Total miles travelled, however, do change significantly between scenarios (greatest change ~15% from baseline). Greatest increase in transit trips occurs in Scenario 7 (~27% increase from baseline) but corresponding transit miles only increase slightly (~3% from baseline). Greatest reduction in total miles is due to reduction in single occupancy/shared ride vehicle miles for all scenarios (greatest change <16% from baseline). This is due to land use changes shortening trip lengths and not due to an equal reduction in single occupancy/shared ride vehicle trips (<1% from baseline). Total non SOV/SR miles increases to 815k in Scenario 7 from 793k in the Baseline (net increase of 22k miles ); total SOV/SR miles decreases from 12.1m to 10.2m (net decrease of 1.9m); since 1.9m miles > 22k miles, reduction in miles traveled cannot be explained by an equal increase in non SOV/SR miles travelled which means trip distances are decreasing at a disproportionate rate due to land use changes. 5. Blended TOD/Infill + Urban Area 6. North County weighted Jobs, South 7. TOD/Infill + Enhanced Transit % Diff from Baseline

13 Scenario 5. Blended TOD/Infill + Urban Area 6. North County weighted Jobs, South 1. Future Baseline 2. No Project 3. TOD/Infill Expansion County weighted Housing Emphasis 7. TOD/Infill + Enhanced Transit Mode Single Occupancy/Shared Ride Vehicle Miles 9,073,764 10,480,418 12,141,289 12,601,530 10,576,578 12,232,064 12,684,508 9,498,700 10,213,568 10,555,175 9,698,103 10,524,370 10,988,873 9,767,241 10,507,685 10,911,075 9,490,431 10,204,671 10,545,068 Transit Miles 385, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,847 Transit Walk Miles 17,614 20,299 22,257 22,743 20,487 22,741 23,269 20,559 25,455 26,148 20,574 24,887 25,315 20,627 26,616 26,942 22,016 27,005 27,745 Bike Miles 64,234 69,763 78,950 81,277 70,634 80,230 82,710 70,002 79,340 81,749 70,018 79,045 80,704 70,075 80,571 82,598 69,755 79,058 81,470 Walk Miles 112, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,839 Total Miles All Modes 9,654,035 11,175,859 12,934,763 13,422,910 11,280,751 13,047,889 13,533,663 10,166,835 11,020,770 11,381,523 10,375,519 11,322,757 11,809,004 10,446,447 11,336,996 11,755,910 10,168,056 11,019,697 11,379,969 Difference due to Transportation Projects 104, , ,752 % Change 0.94% 0.87% 0.83% Difference due to Land Use 1,009,024 1,913,993 2,041, ,341 1,612,006 1,613, ,413 1,597,767 1,667,001 % Change 9.03% 14.80% 15.21% 7.16% 12.46% 12.02% 6.53% 12.35% 12.42% Difference due to Transit Enhancements 1,221 1,073 1,554 % Change 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% Difference due to Transit Enhancements & Land Use 1,007,803 1,915,066 2,042,942 % Change 9.02% 14.81% 15.22% Difference due to Transportation Projects = Comparison of Scenario 2: No Project vs. Scenario 1: Future Baseline; no land use or transit changes Difference due to Land Use = Comparison of Scenarios 3, 5, & 6 to Future Baseline; change due to job/housing balance correction, systematic land use zoning changes, or both Difference due to Transit Enhancements = Comparison of Scenario 3: TOD/Infill vs. Scenario 7: TOD/Infill + Enhanced Transit; change due to transit enhancements Difference due to Transit Enhancements & Land Use = Comparison of Scenario 1: Future Baseline vs. Scenario 7: TOD/Infill + Enhanced Transit; change due to transit enhancements, job/housing balance correction, & systematic land use zoning changes Conclusions: Jobs/housing correction coupled with systematic land use zoning changes (Scenario 3) result in significant reductions in overall vehicle miles ( 2 million miles or ~15%) versus the future baseline. Transit Enhancements (Scenario 7) coupled with jobs/housing correction coupled with systematic land use zoning changes (Scenario 3) results in minor additional reductions in overall vehicle miles ( additional ~0.01% or 2k miles). Turning off transportation projects (Scenario 2) results in increased vehicle miles travelled over scenarios with transportation projects (Scenario 1). Land use changes result in greater decreases in vehicle miles travelled than transit alone.

14 Attachment 3: Public Workshop Comments a RTP-SCS Public Workshop & EIR Scoping Meeting September 20, 2012 Solvang, CA Public Comments [select staff responses in brackets] Does average travel distance include commute trips for peak commute periods vs. total trips? Does average travel distance account for telecommuters and work at home? Scenario seven performs best maybe more description. Bike and pedestrian implications? More details, cost 700 million over the course of the planning period just for transit. Is it worth it? Possibly write into the plan options for funding similar to SANDAG. Put the total cost on each scenario. Seven adds list of costs that others don t have. Still don t really understand the other scenarios..want more detail. Very conceptual and broad pull out more of the details and compare so that they understand. Make presentation more personal. What does it mean in my life? Something really relevant to them for feedback. Does enhanced transit include buses on 154 or just existing routes? [Over time transit expansion could be considered since the board wants updated plan for north county transit, public input for unmet transit needs. Light rail down 101 discussed in a prior 101 in motion study. All scenarios include Amtrak commuter rail.] Commuter rail to North County? What is going to be done to make land use patterns come to fruition? Is it a fantasy? What can SBCAG or this plan do to actually make this happen? Isn t that just driven by market forces? [In the plan, land use changes and availability make it happen.] Consider using transportation funds for incentivizing good projects. How will this plan help reduce cost of living, food, and quality of life costs? Cost of transportation more efficient at reducing costs. CO2 reduced in Alaska, so no more smog checks. With new cars it s not worth it. Will meet mandate with efficient vehicles. Europe 57 MPG diesel. Your emissions model takes fleet mix into account, right? [Cannot use vehicle efficiencies, must use land use and transportation system.] 10

15 Seems unusual that efficiencies are not taken into consideration? [VMT is the measure not vehicle efficiencies.] How would plan move forward what goals.how? [Every 4 years RTP now SCS included.] State has made it a priority to go through planning process. Implementation of SCS, how is it binding? How does implementation happen? [In how the dollars are spent and RHNA is combined with Scenario. Binding on transportation front and housing front.] Do not know what s involved in the plan just housing closer to jobs. Implemented with transportation plan but were not looking at those projects. Should there be comments on the projects? What can SBCAG do to make this happen? Scenario 3 does not directly regulate zoning. Are you prepared to champion the effort? The RHNA gives us some traction. Scenario 7 transit enhancements why is it all or nothing? Can we scale enhancements? Exercise in futility? How do we implement? Train is already built in to SCS. Encourage biking. Maybe parking or rent a bike other incentives as well. Not a fine level of detail in the travel model to model that type of modeling. Good to know what we re considering cannot see the movement on this too conceptual. Maybe need a poster detailing transit projects. What s going on locally or regionally so we can relate. Make it more specific. What are the local planners going to do to put the plans in place? Looking at specific corridors and getting feedback what can we do to make it better. Why spend money on projects that don t affect the VMT? The small projects don t reduce VMT much. Land use scenario shows that there is a way out but need details to find a way out. Why commit to scenario 7 that spends more money select a scenario that is feasible. List of projects included in each scenario. Need a scale of funding. Need a menu of projects and costs that people can agree on cost benefit analysis. How far do we get with transit, there may be some ancillary benefits from transit we are not measuring. In the 70 s General Motors moved to SB..housing costs changed in 70 and 80. Did a study for traffic problems. Every ramp needs a stoplight. Signalization standards are new. Maybe need to experiment stacking lanes and onramp lights. 11

16 Presentation Questions/Comments b RTP-SCS Public Workshop & EIR Scoping Meeting September 24, 2012 Santa Maria, CA Is scenario 7 new transit or increased frequencies on existing service? How do you deal with pass-through traffic? Is there any law that says you have to add transit with development? Will the other scenarios come along for the ride after the Board selects preferred scenario? What if the Board selects a scenario that doesn t meet GHG targets? What s the percentage of transit riders compared to population? How will you force people to ride transit? Is one of the targets cost? Do you have a plan for what kind of jobs you re going to create? You re not responsible for any job creation? Do you know how we compare (with regard the transit ridership) to others in the United States? How did you determine that doubling of transit equals doubling of ridership? Does your prosperous economy include the time it takes to travel by foot to the bus stop? You re basing your per capita GHGs on the idea that individual cars have less GHGs than buses, but there are studies that this isn t true. Did you look at this? In addition to looking at increasing ridership by increasing routes, did you also look at other things like why SM has low ridership? How are you going to convince the vast majority of the people to fund transit that they don t use at all? You don t actually regulate land use, but these are land use plans? How does that work? What impact will this have on private property? Roundtable Discussion Questions/Comments Question #1 How do you imagine the region s future? Which scenario best fits your vision? I like #6, but I m not sure what it involves. More jobs in N and housing in S but transportation between the two would at least increase? 12

17 I like #7. I like the idea of bringing jobs and housing together. I favor #7 also. But I think the future I don t know exactly how to do it how do we give the general public the incentive to want to ride? I know we re talking about two entirely different areas, but when you go to SF, the transit system is old, but very effective. I m sure when it was put into place, somebody said he didn t want to ride it, but now people ride it. Maybe we won t have lots of riders in SM in my lifetime, but I think that s where we ve got to go. Driving alone is not the healthiest way to travel. Riding together makes more sense, but I m not sure how to get there. In other places there s no stigma to riding the bus, but here in SM there s a huge stigma. We ve been talking about is there a study we can do to figure out what the stigma is? Environment doesn t sell here. The incentive for transit is reduced cost, but someone is picking up that cost. Government is picking up that cost. Increasing service means increasing cost without necessarily increasing income. Staff question would you feel the same way if the federal or State government was providing money? That s just robbing James (instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul). That s still my tax money. And it s worse because then we have to comply with federal or State mandates. Better to keep taxes locally. Bigger cities were built from the inside out. The backbone was built in the initial phases. That s not true here. Even in LA that s not true. LA is still suburban commuter. As many times as they ve tried to redevelop downtown, people still live out in the suburbs. But in Chicago or cities like that, the jobs and homes are in the same place. Here, the good paying jobs are in South County and the affordable houses are in North County. It s not conducive to build high tech up here because of all the rules and regulations. I m forced to work in the South, but I can t afford to live there. Question #3 If you could, would you rather live close to your work? Under what circumstances would you be willing to live farther away and take transit to work? Money. But transit is not conducive due to time and flexibility. What about a train? A train has never happened. They ve been studying it forever. A lot of us know, when you re first offered a job, you don t have much time to find a house, so you can t consider all of these things. As someone who s worked in SF, transit is about the only way to get around. Cars just aren t efficient. One thing we haven t discussed much is the land use aspect. When I first came to town, I couldn t find multi-family housing. With limited market and limited time, I could only find single-family. 13

18 Question #2 One goal of the RTP-SCS is to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and emissions. Do you prefer a scenario that achieves this goal primarily through transportation (e.g., transit enhancements), land use changes (addressing the jobs-housing imbalance) or both? Staff question - would you rather see changes made to land use? Does that follow from the skepticism about transit? The solution is land use, but you can t force people to again, you can t get high tech jobs up here. If you had higher paying jobs up here, people would stay here. You could use the buses. But you have to have the jobs and the living go together. We had a transit system here in town that we didn t have many complaints about, but then we changed providers, and then there were lots of complaints, so then we put it back. Is it the transit itself that s creating the problems? Sometimes yes, but in general no. When I go to SF I will purposely get a motel outside town and take BART in. Yes, but here, people can t always count on the bus. Yes, it has to be reliable. So when we say there s a problem, did we help create it? And we have a huge agricultural workforce. It s not that I don t think transit is viable here, I just think we need to take a step back and think about the stigma. Some years ago, they were going to build a community near Lompoc with homes and business and banking a whole community. And that s ideal, but without jobs, you re not going to have it. Yes, that s ideal. I live very close to work. That s important to me. I didn t want to do all that driving, and I want to live in the community where I work. Santa Maria s geography is designed to need to own a vehicle. Even with the best transit schedule here, I can t run to the hardware store. Staff observation it seems we all desire this picture of small-town America where walking to Main Street is an option. Which is our history, but now we have this sprawl and unmitigated development. There s no height in Santa Maria. Our system is designed around owning your own car, and how to get back from that that s a major cultural change. 14

19 Changing culture is not just SM, it s CA. I don t like urban stack em and pack em. There are problems with that for equity, healthy living. They increase cost per parcel. Per unit cost of suburban sprawl is a lot cheaper. Density increases crime. Lower income people are agricultural workers. So they will live in dense areas and then drive out to fields. Industrial and commercial are on outskirts. Is that true for San Luis? SLO is a lot different. We re more ag. Again, cost. People can t afford to live in SLO and they commute in for jobs, too. Your stack em and pack em theory does that translate to mixed use? Business and housing together? We have some places here from old times where the barber lived upstairs from the barber shop, dentist lived upstairs from dentist office. The theory was to cut down on burglaries. They lived there because they had to. In order to afford the piece of property, they had to live where they worked. We found that it wasn t actually the same person living. They rented out. Eventually, yes, they would move out, and rent out the upstairs. Question #4 Are the scenarios and modeling results understandable and do they make sense? Any questions? Does the urban expansion scenario expand city limits or expand the sphere of influence? The only way we expand here is retail and it s not good-paying jobs. Some of the larger employers, like the city, hospital, throughout the County could create an incentive for their employees to ride a dedicated bus or transportation system. The Chumash discourage employees to drive cars to workplace. That kind of incentive might have more effect since it includes money. I don t think the most important factor is the best scenario. We need to worry about government running out of money. We need to look for the most fiscally responsible scenario. We should select the cheapest scenario. Which would be cheapest? With infill comes problems. Need more cops, judges, jails, etc. You need to think about total associated cost. 15

20 c RTP-SCS Public Workshop & EIR Scoping Meeting September 26, 2012 Santa Barbara, CA Intro Q&A [select staff responses in brackets] It doesn t mandate any land use or transportation? [RTP-SCS allocates transportation funding. It doesn t say specifically where you can build what, which is the local governments responsibility. But we do have to have a land use plan and be consistent with RHNA allocation.] One of your goals was equity, but it didn t show up in the EIR list. I would assume Scenario 7 would increase equity. I know Ventura and Oxnard aren t in planning scope, but affects housing how does that play in? Transit mode share seems higher for Scenario 6 than Scenario 3 or 7. Why? [Scenarios 3 and 7 include more walk and bike/ped trips.] Do you tell the local jurisdictions where the transportation has to be and they figure out the housing around it? Do you say to an area, we want you to increase transportation between these locations? Do the local jurisdictions have any say in that? [Yes, they do.] In Scenario 5, where there is urban edge growth, do you designate where? [Yes.] Are you dealing with current land use or are you talking about changing areas? [Scenarios 3, 5, and 7 involve changing allowable land uses; Scenario 6 does not.] So, if local gov ts don t do what you modeled, is plan ineffective? Are the climate action plans being taken into consideration? In all the scenarios, transit was about 2% - how does that change for commute trips versus other times? How does that correlate to VMT? It seems a lot of transit commute trips would be longer distance and cover more VMT. Could you explain the impact of regional greenprint? [In effect, a constraints analysis.] Forecast growth is 96,000 people to 2040? Is the growth rate higher than the 1980s? [It s about 1% per year, less than , but the same as 1990 to 2010.] What time period had similar growth? It seems like a lot of people. 16

21 It seemed like small amounts allocated to rail and bike/ped. Why is that? [Thought we would get most bang for buck with transit. Could look at other modes. Builds on 101-In-Motion.] How does Scenario 6 achieve N County jobs and S County housing, if not by land use changes? Are you saying the plans the local jurisdictions have address the imbalance? [By policy measures other than changing underlying allowable land uses, which would have to be developed further if that scenario were selected. Examples.] So policy tools? Santa Barbara already has some, but SBCAG would also recommend some? [Yes.] I think the description of Scenario 6 is a little misleading. Instead of relying on existing land use designations, it relies on policy intervention. I think Scenario 3 also misleads. Just rezoning doesn t create jobs. On Scenario 5, you stated that it, in part, relies on growth outside urban areas, but it s based on existing plans. So then growth is occurring in the county? Is it consistent with local cities and spheres of influence? [Mostly yes, but some spheres of influence would have to change.] Are any of those areas identified for development in a county plan? If land use and transportation have to sync up for model to meet criteria, what choices do local jurisdictions have in the land use? Don t you have to meet certain criteria to get funding? Roundtable Discussion Table #2 Questions #1 & #2 From a policy standpoint, 7 is best because you can t separate housing and transportation anymore. It s silly that just now people are realizing that. 7 would be the best because it brings those two policies together. Besides increase in fuel efficiency, SBCAG is also not allowed to consider rising energy prices. They can t just say gas is going to be $10/gallon and no one is going to drive. Even though that s probably what will happen. But if that happens we re going to need a lot more transit, and they re going to be able to charge more for transit and won t need to subsidize as much. So I think enhanced transit is important for more reasons than are in the model right now. The way the model is right now, it doesn t make it look like it s worth the money, but it is. I agree with #7. I hope that none of this comes to pass. Not so much growth. 7 is best of a bad lot. What is most important in process is trying to find what has most teeth. 7 combines transportation and land use, but funds may not be available. So if there s no extra $, we still have land use. Having the 17

22 most teeth is most important. N/S balance is most important. Resolving imbalance overall is most important. Secondary more transit money sure, why not. Correcting imbalance is most important. I concur that correcting imbalance is most important. Plan should go further in looking at transportation policy. Other regions do go beyond current funding and make cases why more money for bike routes and new transit could be funded. You can get it in the plan if you really try. SBCAG doesn t really need to do that to meet targets, but would be nice to do it anyway. Then we could look at the plan as real policy direction. For this to be a relevant exercise for the public, I wish there was a feedback loop, so locals would say to us that, based on analysis, yes we ll do it. I think we ve been more successful in transportation than land use in the past (e.g., transit, widen 101, etc.). But I keep seeing largely failures with land use changes needed to make this work. For example, the County rezoned about 15 sites in Goleta Valley to low density housing. Developers had the option to build suburban standards, or they would get incentives to build higher densities. Due to neighborhood objection and other things, they all build suburban densities. Suburban areas in North County are really hard to serve with transit. Until I see better indicators on the land use side, I don t believe this is going to work. It s like the market isn t there for affordable housing. We ve been arguing that with city hall, us slow growthers, through the whole Plan SB process. You don t choose the most expensive real estate to build workforce housing; it s going to be second homes for Angelenos. What I see happening in the future is the same as what I see happening in the present. I don t know, I think there s a lot of pressure for younger lower income people to live in downtown SB. We re talking about funding for all of these things, but has SBCAG thought about funding local governments to give incentives to local developers? I think the whole purpose of SB 375 is to start those conversations. Your ideas would have worked with the County example if the County hadn t given the option for suburban densities. Developers think ahead. They don t think people are going to want something smaller. But if they did have incentives Question #3 Yes. I used to live downtown and walked everyday and I loved it. Now I live on Foothill and drive a lot. Public transit would take me an hour to get downtown. I looked at biking and carpooling, but transit is not even in the equation. Spread out development makes transit hard. 18

23 If there were communities out in SYV or near SM that had nice walkable neighborhoods and cheap housing and good transit to SB, I might be willing to live there. I don t think anyone prefers to live father from work. I got a job in the 60s at UCSB and I made a decision that I wanted to live in the City of SB rather than near university. But many faculty members like living out there. It s an individual decision. I took the express bus. No one else was riding it at the time. I think most people prefer to have a short commute. Living environment is what matters. Some enjoy urban. Some people want to feel more in nature, have larger land, animals, etc. It s highly individualized. But overall, people want shorter commutes. If there s transit that s fast and efficient, people are on board. In 15 years there will be a carpool lane that buses can use and cars will just be sitting there. Nothing has been said about working from home. Summary for report-back All voted for #7 Important to tie transportation and land use More teeth desired Big question is where money will come from; will this actually get done? Carve some money for land use purposes, incentives Important to fix jobs/housing imbalance Roundtable Discussion Table #3 Question #1 Is the SY Valley part of the process. Hard to get anywhere. Hard to get out of the valley. More transportation over the pass. Every half hour. Should not need a car when in SB Rapid transit makes a big difference in AZ why not in California. Train/Transit needs to go where you want. Consider reverse commute and transit availability. Percentage of jobs working at home is there some incentive to work at home. Agree to use transit something comes up at home a guaranteed a ride back home? Build affordable housing so no need to commute. 19

24 Infill etc. hard to do in Santa Barbara County. Colorado does this through brownfield development. Apartment is expensive in south coast. Compared to AZ need more affordable housing to attract business. Scenarios counter to market forces. What level of enforceability of planned scenarios is there? They are non-binding don t take political risk. As a result region may not meet targets. Board represents each city and county talk amongst themselves for scenario they can live with. Never get scenario approved through powers that be. Was that a consideration? Question #2 Will take both land use and transit. encourage to drive less. Ideal commute is no commute at all. Land use changes are more difficult to implement. Has to be both. Open up open space, what do you build, 3rd homes? Land use is preferable to reduce VMT but has more environmental and political baggage. Go back to basics. Community with infrastructure is in viable location with amenities so don t need to drive to get services. Lure people out of single family homes to downtown market-driven must create environment that is convenient. Mixed use communities. AZ hit hard with housing crash but areas that did best had the most accessible amenities. Question #3 Some will still want to live on acreage as they like being there. Like long commute, like being alone. Workday gets too long. Increasing commute and work hours adds to the day. Commuter train can be great for reading, doing some work. Suggest high speed rail from LA to San Luis Obispo. Has anyone thought of double-decker freeways Local interests made Caltrans do it at street level to maintain views. New York they have them. Question #4 The pyramid slide made sense and clarified the relationship between scenarios. Question #5 20

25 None of the scenarios contain significant funds to develop. More money for promoting out of the box ideas. Developing these ideas outside the box- financial incentives for developers to build. Preserve ag land and open space and keep development from occurring on there with infill development. Drawback to 7 is the funding source. Costs should be shared among all economic groups. Roundtable Discussion Table #4 Question #1 It seems like it s more of a developer s vision today. Where should the 100,000 people go? How do you incentivize where people live and work? We would like it to stay where it is, but it s not going to, so you should get involved in workshops like this. Take all opinions into consideration, and accept that not everyone s going to be happy with the results of the process. We shouldn t have to accommodate every person that wants to live here. I don t want to see things that are too high (higher than three stories). Would like to see communities of duplexes, single-family dwellings, bring in well-designed housing to accommodate families. Question #2 Scenario #7 seems to be the one that hits all the measures. Younger people seem to prefer urban living. Question #3 People love their cars, want to have access to them for errands, south coast commute is 10 minutes. Walking not as much of a priority for me. Some acknowledgment of transit not working, build it and they will come (or build it and they will ride) doesn t always work. Clarifying question, does this plan do this type of thing? How would the urban limit line decisions affect this Plan? It s important to ensure that open spaces green areas (e.g. parks) are retained/kept in urban areas. Baby boomers are now looking to return to urban areas. Mixed use, can they afford to come back into the urban areas? They will drive the market in the upcoming years. Dense development, but it needs to be large enough, well planned, green enough to incentivize them to come back into the cities from suburban/rural areas. Don t want to see unincorporated areas overly urbanized, preservation is important, particularly between Goleta and Santa Barbara. 21

26 Question #4 Back to state mandate: With huge investments in transit, you still don t get much increase towards the state mandate. Being close to my job is important. I don t live in Lompoc. I ride my bike to work. It s a priority for me to live close to where I work. Question: what are the transit enhancements? [staff clarified] People are still going to want to live in rural areas just for the appeal. They still need to have the options. Zipcar is doing well at UCSB and in Isla Vista. Question #5 Modifications? 700 million into something other than transit such as carpooling, bicycling, etc. Model increases density, does not account for affordability. Plan SB does account for price points. Re-evaluate the affordable housing development model (e.g., 57 market value, 5 affordable units). Problem is that you can t get a well-designed property built affordably on the South Coast. Roundtable Discussion Table #5 Question #1 Both individuals supported Scenario 7 due to its combination of emphasis on jobs/housing balance, transit oriented development, and transit enhancements. Even though enhanced transit may not have a major effect on VMT, it should still be considered due to social justice benefits. The plan should recognize that the lead time for transit funding and changes in commute behavior is long. Question #2 Prefer scenario that addresses reduced VMT and emissions through both land use and transportation measures, although changes to land use patterns appear to be more effective. Existing barriers to efficient travel patterns in City of Santa Barbara due to lack of practical grid system. Question #3 22

27 Neither commenter willing to live further away from jobs and activities even if it was much cheaper to do so. Question #4 Information is getting clearer as the workshops and process have progressed. The pyramid slide was particularly effective. Skepticism expressed regarding the potential for local jurisdictions to follow through on planning for housing instead of additional commercial uses, because doing so might act against their financial selfinterest. It seems difficult to match appropriate jobs with appropriate housing on a policy basis. Question #5 The RTP/SCS should consider diverting funding from transportation toward land use incentives that encourage compliance with the SCS. Question #6 Two votes for scenario 7. Question #7 No additional topics for consideration in the EIR were identified. The list of EIR topics presented seemed comprehensive. 23

28 Attachment 4a, SCAG Summary of Revenue Sources 24

29 RTP/SCS Chapter 3: Financial Plan 99 Summary of Revenue Sources and Expenditures TABLE Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections Local Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) Revenue Source Revenue Projection Assumptions Revenue Estimate LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES Local Option Sales Tax Measures Transportation Development Act (TDA) Local Transportation Fund Gas Excise Tax Subventions (to Cities and Counties) Transit Farebox Revenue Highway Tolls (in core revenue forecast) Mitigation Fees Local Agency Funds Description: Locally imposed ½ percent sales tax in four counties (Imperial, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino). Permanent 1 percent (combination of two ½ cent sales taxes) plus Measure R through 2039 in Los Angeles County. Assumptions: Sales taxes grow consistent with county transportation commission forecasts and historical trends. Description: The Local Transportation Fund (LTF) is derived from a ¼ cent sales tax on retail sales statewide. Funds are returned to the county of generation and used mostly for transit operations and transit capital expenses. Assumptions: Same sales tax growth rate as used for local option sales tax measures. Description: Subventions to counties and local jurisdictions in region from the California state gas tax. Revenues for the forecast are proportionate to the percentage of streets and roads that are regionally significant. Assumptions: Fuel consumption declines in absolute terms by 1 percent due to increasing fuel efficiency in conventional vehicles and adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles. Regionally significant streets and roads (37 to 50 percent of total roads) are classified as either arterials or collectors. Description: Transit fares collected by transit operators in the SCAG region. Assumptions: Farebox revenues increase consistent with historic trends, planned system expansions, and operator forecasts. Description: Revenues generated from toll roads operated by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) and from the SR-91 Express Lanes operated by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Assumptions: Consistent with the TCA Traffic and Revenue Report, revenues grow by 1.5 percent (compared to historical growth of about 8.5 percent) in core revenue forecast scenario. Description: Revenues generated from development impact fees. The revenue forecast includes fees from the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) development impact fee program, San Bernardino County s development impact fee program and Riverside County s Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for both the Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County. Assumptions: The financial forecast is consistent with revenue forecasts from TCA, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). Description: Includes committed local revenue sources such as transit advertising and auxiliary revenues, lease revenues, and interest and investment earnings from reserve funds. Assumptions: Revenues are based on financial data from transit operators and local county transportation commissions. LOCAL SUBTOTAL $225.5 Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding $119.4 $28.7 $4.6 $26.7 $11.2 $9.5 $25.5

30 RTP/SCS Chapter 3: Financial Plan TABLE Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections State Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) Revenue Source Revenue Projection Assumptions Revenue Estimate STATE REVENUE SOURCES State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) State Highway Operation and Protection Plan (SHOPP) State Gasoline Sales Tax Swap State Transit Assistance Fund (STA) Highway Safety, Traffic, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B) Other State Sources Description: The STIP is a five-year capital improvement program that provides funding from the State Highway Account (SHA) for projects that increase the capacity of the transportation system. The SHA is funded through a combination of state gas excise tax, the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and truck weight fees. The STIP may include projects on state highways, local roads, intercity rail, or public transit systems. The Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) propose 75 percent of STIP funding for regional transportation projects in Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs). Caltrans proposes 25 percent of STIP funding for interregional transportation projects in the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). Assumptions: Funds are based upon the 2011 Report of STIP Balances County and Interregional Shares, August 4, 2011 and 2012 STIP Fund Estimate. Long-term forecasts assume no growth in fuel consumption, except in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, where the growth is less than historical trends and consistent with forecasts by the local transportation commissions. Description: Funds state highway maintenance and operations projects. Assumptions: Short-term revenues are based on overlapping 2008 and 2010 SHOPP programs. Long-term forecasts are consistent with STIP forecasts and assume no growth in fuel consumption, except in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Description: Prior to 2010, state sales tax on gasoline funded discretionary projects through the Transportation Investment Fund, which distributed revenues to the STIP, local streets and roads, and transit. In 2010, the sales tax revenues were swapped for an increased excise tax (initially 17.3 cents) recalculated each year to ensure revenue neutrality. Assumptions: The financial forecast assumes that each county receives its fair share of state gasoline sales tax swap based upon county population. Future revenues grow by 1.5 percent to be revenue neutral consistent with the gasoline sales tax swap. Description: STA is funded with 50 percent of state Public Transit Account (PTA) revenues, which come from the diesel sales tax and spillover in the gasoline sales tax swap. Funding is distributed by population share and revenue share of the transit operators. Assumptions: The forecast is based on current funding levels reported by the State Controller. Future funding declines with fuel consumption using assumptions consistent with other sources. Description: Proposition 1B authorized $19.9 billion to be spent statewide on existing and new statewide transportation-related infrastructure programs and projects through FY2014. Several programs were included under Proposition 1B. Assumptions: The forecast is consistent with Proposition 1B apportionments for the SCAG region in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) through FY2014. Description: Other state sources include Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (SAFE), Freeway Service Patrol, Air Quality Vehicle Registration Fee (AB 2766), Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation, and other miscellaneous state grants. The Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act added Proposition 116 to use state general obligation bonds to finance rail infrastructure. Assumptions: The RTP uses forecasts provided by LACMTA for Los Angeles County for consistency with the LACMTA long-range transportation plan. These state revenues are not estimated for other counties. STATE SUBTOTAL (State STIP funds include FHWA IM and NHS funding categories) $46.8 Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding $9.4 $19.5 $11.0 $2.8 $3.4 $0.8

31 RTP/SCS Chapter 3: Financial Plan 101 TABLE Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections Federal Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) Revenue Source Revenue Projection Assumptions Revenue Estimate FEDERAL REVENUE SOURCES FHWA Non-Discretionary Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program FHWA Non-Discretionary Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) FTA Formula Programs 5307 Urbanized Area Formula (Capital), 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Formula, 5311 Non-Urbanized Area Formula, 5309 Fixed Guideway Program FTA Non-Formula Program 5309 New and Small Starts, 5309 Bus & Bus-Related Grants Other Federal Funds Description: Program to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality in non-attainment areas. Assumptions: Short-term revenues are based upon the Caltrans apportionment estimates. Long-term revenues assume that the Federal Highway Trust Fund stays solvent, but fuel consumption declines by 1 percent annually. CMAQ funding is assumed to be reduced by 25 percent in 2020 and an additional 25 percent in 2025 due to improved air quality. Description: Projects eligible for RSTP funds include rehabilitation and new construction on any highways included in the National Highway System (NHS) and Interstate Highways (including bridges). Also, transit capital projects, as well as intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities, are eligible. Assumptions: Short-term revenues are based upon the Caltrans apportionment estimates. Long-term revenues assume that the Federal Highway Trust Fund stays solvent, but fuel consumption declines by 1 percent annually. Description: This includes a number of FTA programs distributed by formula is distributed annually to state urbanized areas with a formula based upon population, population density, and transit revenue miles of service. Program funds capital projects (and operations expenses in areas under 200,000 in population), preventive maintenance, and planning activities funds are allocated by formula to states for capital costs of providing services to the elderly and disabled. The 5311 program provides capital and operating expenses for rural and small urban public transportation systems. Section 5309 Fixed Guideway (FG) funds are also distributed to regions on an urbanizedarea formula. Assumptions: Formula funds are assumed to decline in proportion with the Federal Highway Trust Fund. As with the FHWA sources, the Trust Fund is expected to stay solvent, but fuel consumption declines by 1 percent annually. Description: Capital projects include preliminary engineering, acquisition of real property, final design and construction, and initial acquisition of rolling stock for new fixed guideway systems or extensions, including bus rapid transit, light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail systems. Capital investment grants of less than $75 million are considered small starts. Small starts have a separate funding category. Program funds bus acquisition and other rolling stock, ancillary equipment, and the construction of bus facilities. Also includes bus rehabilitation and leasing, park-and-ride facilities, parking lots associated with transit facilities, and bus passenger shelters. Assumptions: Operators are assumed to receive FTA discretionary funds in rough proportion to what they have received historically. The Federal Highway Trust Fund is expected to stay solvent, but fuel consumption declines by 1 percent annually. Description: Includes other federal programs, such as Regional Transportation Enhancements, Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation, Homeland Security Grants, Bus Preferential Signal Systems, Highway Earmarks, Hazard Elimination Safety, and Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing Protection (Section 130). Also includes a marginal amount from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for the first year of the forecast. Assumptions: LACMTA and OCTA provided forecasted revenues for these programs, which have been adopted in the LRTPs for Los Angeles and Orange Counties. For other counties, Highway Bridge Program revenues are estimated in the short term using program allocations provided by Caltrans through FY2014. ARRA amounts also come from programmed funding. Longer-term estimates are based upon the assumption of a 1 percent annual decline in fuel consumption as used for other federal funding sources referenced above. FEDERAL SUBTOTAL $33.0 Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding $5.0 $6.7 $14.2 $5.3 $1.8

32 RTP/SCS Chapter 3: Financial Plan TABLE Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections Innovative Financing and New Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) Revenue Source Revenue Projection Assumptions Revenue Estimate INNOVATIVE FINANCING & NEW REVENUE SOURCES Bond Proceeds from Local Sales Tax Measures State and Federal Gas Excise Tax Adjustment to Maintain Historical Purchasing Power Mileage-Based User Fee (or equivalent fuel tax adjustment) Highway Tolls (includes toll revenue bond proceeds) Private Equity Participation Freight Fees/ National Freight Program E-Commerce Tax Description: Long-term debt financing secured by locally imposed ½ percent sales tax measures for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Assumptions: Sales tax grows consistent with county historical trends. Assumes minimum debt service coverage of pledged revenue (net of any local return portion) in any year of 2.5x for Los Angeles County, 1.3x for Orange County, 1.5x for Riverside County (further restricted to a maximum of $975M outstanding), and 1.3x for San Bernardino County includes currently outstanding and new debt. No debt is assumed to be issued for Imperial County. Description: Additional 15-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax imposed by the state and federal government starting in 2017 through Assumptions: Forecast consistent with historical tax rate adjustments for both state and federal gas taxes. Description: Mileage-based user fees would be implemented to replace existing gas taxes (state and federal) by Assumptions: Consistent with recommendations from two national commissions established under SAFETEA-LU, it is assumed that a national mileage-based user fee system would be established during the latter years of the RTP/SCS. An estimated $0.05 per mile (in 2011 dollars) is assumed starting in 2025 to replace existing gas tax revenues. Description: Toll revenues generated from regional toll facilities including SR-710 North Extension, I-710 South Freight Corridor, East-West Freight Corridor, segment of the High Desert Corridor, and Regional Express/HOT Lane Network. Assumptions: Toll revenues based on recent feasibility studies for applicable corridors. Also includes toll revenue bond proceeds. Description: Private equity share as may be applicable for key initiatives. Assumptions: Private capital is assumed for a number of projects, including toll facilities; also, freight rail package assumes railroads share of costs for main line capacity and intermodal facilities such as SCIG and ICTF. Description: Establishment of a national freight program consistent with proposal under MAP-21 and/or establishment of a charge imposed nationally on cargo. Assumptions: Early estimates indicate roughly $2 billion per year nationally for the National Freight Program under MAP-21. Regional estimate assumes a conservative percentage of proposed national program. Other mechanisms may include establishment of freight fees nationally, whereby rates may be subject to timing and cashflows for qualified projects. Freight fee would be assessed in proportion to relative impacts on the transportation system and would sunset with the completion of qualified projects. Assumes establishment of a national program in scope starting in Description: E-commerce sales tax on goods and services negotiated over the Internet or other online system. Assumptions: Notwithstanding the uncertainty in the amount of revenue that is available from AB 155, the revenue could be used for transportation purposes, given the relationship between e-commerce and the delivery of goods to California purchasers. In the event the revenue is used solely for transportation, the revenue would need to be allocated to specific uses or areas within the state. One possible method would allocate the funds in proportion to population. Under this method, the SCAG region would receive an estimated $3.1 billion through 2035, assuming AB 155 statewide revenue grows at 3 percent per year. $25.6 $16.9 $110.3 (est. increment only) $22.3 $2.7 $4.2 $3.1

33 RTP/SCS Chapter 3: Financial Plan 103 Interest Earnings Revenue Source Revenue Projection Assumptions Revenue Estimate State Bond Proceeds, Federal Grants & Other for California High- Speed Rail Program Value Capture Strategies Description: Interest earnings from toll bond proceeds. Assumptions: Interest earnings are assumed from toll bond proceeds, e.g., East-West Freight Corridor. Description: Estimated total per November 1, 2011, Draft California High-Speed Rail Business Plan. Assumptions: State general obligation bonds authorized under the Bond Act approved by California voters as Proposition 1A in 2008; federal grants authorized under ARRA and the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (HSIPR); potential use of qualified tax credit bonds; and private sources. Description: Formation of special districts infrastructure financing districts and use of tax increment financing. Assumptions: This strategy refers to capturing the incremental value generated by transportation investments. Specifically, SCAG assumes the formation of special districts, including infrastructure financing districts (IFDs); also assumes the use of tax increment financing for specific projects (e.g., East-West Freight Corridor). NEW REVENUE SOURCE SUBTOTAL $219.5 GRAND TOTAL $524.7 $0.2 $33.0 $1.2 Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding The SCAG region s financially constrained RTP/SCS includes revenues from both core and reasonably available revenue sources, which sum to $524.7 billion from FY2011 through FY2035. While core revenues are comprised primarily of local sources (74 percent), the financially constrained RTP/SCS is funded by 53 percent local sources, 25 percent state sources, and 22 percent federal sources, as is illustrated in FIGURE FIGURE 3.11 Revenue Summary $524.7 Billion (in Nominal Dollars) FY2011 FY2035 Additional State $83.2 (16%) Core Local $225.5 (43%) Core State $46.8 (9%) Additional Federal $84.3 (16%) Additional Local $51.9 (10%) Core Federal $33.0 (6%) Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding

34 Attachment 4b, SCAG New Revenue Sources and Innovative Financing 25

35 RTP/SCS Chapter 3: Financial Plan 97 TABLE 3.3 New Revenue Sources and Innovative Financing Strategies (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) Revenue Source Description Amount Actions to Ensure Availability Responsible Party(ies) Bond Proceeds from Local Sales Tax Measures State and Federal Gas Excise Tax Adjustment to Maintain Historical Purchasing Power Mileage-Based User Fee (or equivalent fuel tax adjustment) Highway Tolls (includes toll revenue bond proceeds) Issuance of debt against existing sales tax revenues: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. (Note: although revenue estimates do not include new sales tax measures, this plan recognizes future opportunities including the potential for a sales tax measure in Ventura County if approved by the voters.) Additional $0.15 per gallon gasoline tax imposed at the state and the federal levels starting in 2017 to 2024 to maintain purchasing power. Mileage-based user fees would be implemented to replace gas taxes estimated at about $0.05 (in 2011 dollars) per mile starting in 2025 and indexed to maintain purchasing power. Toll revenues generated from SR-710 North Extension, I-710 South Freight Corridor, East-West Freight Corridor, segment of the High Desert Corridor, and Regional Express/HOT Lane Network. $25.6 $16.9 $110.3 (est. increment only) $22.3 Issuance of debt subject to county transportation commissions respective board policies. Requires action of State Legislature and Congress. Strategy is consistent with recommendations from two national commissions to move immediately with augmenting fuel tax resources through conventional Highway Trust Fund mechanisms. Requires action of State Legislature and Congress. Strategy is consistent with recommendations from two national commissions to move toward a mileage-based user fee system. Immediate steps necessary to take include coalescing state and national partners to fund further RD&D (research, development, and demonstration) in advance of 2025 broad-based implementation. Assembly Bill (AB) 1467 (Nunez) Chapter 32, Statutes of 2006 authorized Caltrans and regional transportation agencies to enter into comprehensive development lease agreements with public and private entities or consortia of those entities for certain types of transportation projects. Further, AB 521 (Runner) Chapter 542, Statutes of 2006 modified provisions in AB Senate Bill Second Extraordinary Session 4 (SBX2 4) Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009 (Cogdill) established the legislative authority until January 1, 2017, allowing for regional transportation agencies and Caltrans to enter into an unlimited number of public-private partnerships (PPP) and deleted the restrictions on the number and type of projects that may be undertaken. Chapter 474, Statutes of 2009 (AB 798) established the California Transportation Financing Authority (CTFA). Highway projects that meet planning and environmental review requirements are eligible for tolling subject to meeting requirements of the CTFA. AB 798 also lifts the requirement for High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane projects authorized under AB 1467 to have separate legislative approval. County Transportation Commissions CTCs (LACMTA, OCTA, RCTC, SANBAG) State Legislature, Congress State Legislature, Congress MPO, CTCs, Caltrans, CTFA, and FHWA as may be applicable

36 RTP/SCS Chapter 3: Financial Plan Revenue Source Description Amount Actions to Ensure Availability Responsible Party(ies) Private Equity Participation Freight Fee/National Freight Program E-Commerce Tax Private equity share as may be applicable for key initiatives: e.g., toll facilities; also, freight rail package assumes railroads share of costs for main line capacity and intermodal facilities such as SCIG and ICTF modernization. A national freight program is anticipated with the next federal reauthorization of the surface transportation act. The National Freight Program described in Senate-proposed transportation reauthorization bill (MAP-21) would establish federal formula funding for infrastructure improvements supporting the national freight network. Early estimates indicate roughly $2 billion per year nationally. Regional estimate assumes a conservative percentage of national totals. E-commerce sales refers to the sale of goods and services where an order is placed or where price and terms of the sale are negotiated over the Internet or other online system. Potentially, the revenue could be used for transportation purposes, given the relationship between e-commerce and the delivery of goods to California purchasers. $2.7 $4.2 $3.1 Region has authority as noted above. Current funding plans for specific intermodal facilities assume private sources. Current efforts at the local/regional level continue to endorse a federal program for freight. A national program may be formulabased as outlined in the recently proposed MAP-21. Other mechanisms to ensure the establishment of a funding program for freight may entail working with local/regional, state, and federal stakeholders to assess a national freight fee. Freight fees could be assessed in proportion to relative impacts on the transportation system. The state estimates that most residents do not report use tax and this resulted in $1.1 billion in forgone use tax revenue during A state cannot compel out-of-state retailers to pay a sales or use tax, as federal law requires that retailers have a physical presence in the state. In its FY2012 budget, the state attempted to compel out-of-state retailers that are part of a commonly controlled group or that work with affiliates to pay a use tax (through ABX1 28). In September 2011, the state repealed ABX1 28 and enacted AB 155, which includes many of the same provisions as ABX1 28, but delays implementation until September MPO, CTCs, private consortium, State Legislature, and Union Pacific/BNSF as appropriate for specific facilities Congress and potentially State Legislature as well as local/regional stakeholders State Legislature and potentially Congress Interest Earnings Interest earnings from toll bond proceeds. $0.2 See Highway Tolls. See Highway Tolls State Bond Proceeds, Federal Grants & Other for California High- Speed Rail Program Value Capture Strategies State general obligation bonds authorized under the Bond Act approved by California voters as Proposition 1A in 2008; federal grants authorized under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program; potential use of qualified tax credit bonds; and private sources. Assumes formation of special districts (infrastructure financing districts) including use of tax increment financing for specific initiatives: e.g., East-West Freight Corridor. $33.0 $1.2 Estimate for Southern California segments based on statewide system total per November 1, 2011, Draft California High-Speed Rail Business Plan. Further coordination anticipated with the California High-Speed Rail Authority in finalizing business plan; additionally, the High-Speed Rail Authority will pursue private-sector participation as a source of system financing. Pursue necessary approvals for special districts by Benefit assessment districts require majority approval by property owners; community facility districts require two-thirds approval; work with private entities for joint development opportunities as may be applicable. MPO, California High-Speed Rail Authority, local/regional stakeholders, private-sector partners MPO, CTCs, local jurisdictions, property owners along project corridors, developers

37 Attachment 5, Land Use Incentive Programs SANDAG SANDAG s TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) funds transportation-related infrastructure improvements and planning efforts that support smart growth development. The SGIP awards two percent of the annual TransNet transportation sales tax revenues for the next 40 years (approximately $7 million per year) to local governments through a competitive grant program to support projects that will help better coordinate transportation and land use in the San Diego region. The goal of the TransNet SGIP is to fund public infrastructure projects and planning activities that will facilitate compact, mixed use development focused around public transit, and that will increase housing and transportation choices. The projects funded under this program will serve as models for how modest investments in infrastructure and planning can make smart growth an asset to communities around the region. These investments should help attract private developers to build projects that, with the support of the TransNet-funded projects, create great places in the San Diego region. In May 2009, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved funding for the initial cycle of projects under this program. Projects in the FY call for projects were selected based on the criteria described in a set of program guidelines for each project type. A total of eight capital projects were approved, along with six planning projects. The eight approved capital projects are listed in Attachment 5a. SACOG SACOG s Community Design Funding Program is intended to provide financial assistance to local government agencies that seek to implement physical development that is consistent with SACOG's Blueprint Principles. As with SANDAG s Smart Growth Incentive Program, SACOG provides grant funding for both capital projects and planning projects. Approximately every two years, SACOG accepts applications for projects from cities, counties, transit districts and air districts from Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba Counties. (Please note that Placer and El Dorado Counties have their own programs that are independent of the Community Design Program). Unlike SANDAG s program, which is funded through its local transportation sales tax, SACOG s program is funding through federal and state funding sources. SACOG has administered this program since 2003, and has issued grants for four, two-year funding cycles. A list of projects that were approved in its most recent funding cycle is shown in Attachment 5b. MTC MTC has recently restructured its incentive grant programs. The OneBayArea Grant Program (OBAG) establishes program commitments and policies for investing roughly $800 million over the four-year Cycle 2 period (FYs through ), funded through federal transportation funding sources. Attachment 5c provides an overview of this program. The OneBayArea Grant Program is a new funding approach that better integrates the region s federal transportation program with California s climate law (Senate Bill 375, Steinberg, 2008) and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The program consolidates funding that was 26

38 previously allocated directly to cities and counties through incentive programs such as the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Grant Program, and distributes it directly to the County Transportation Commissions that exist within each of the counties in the Bay Area. Funding distribution to the counties will consider progress toward achieving local land-use and housing policies by: Rewarding jurisdictions that accept housing allocations through the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process and produce housing using transportation dollars as incentives. Supporting the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area by promoting transportation investments in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and by initiating a pilot program that will support open space preservation in Priority Conservation Areas (PCA). Providing a higher proportion of funding to local agencies and additional investment flexibility by eliminating required program investment targets. The OBAG program allows flexibility to invest in transportation categories such as Transportation for Livable Communities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning activities, while also providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to School (SR2S) and Priority Conservation Areas. In addition to the new OneBayArea Grant Program, MTC also administers a Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning Program. As outlined in MTC s Transit-Oriented Development Policy, future transit extensions in the Bay Area must be matched by supportive local land use plans and policies. To assist cities in meeting these goals, MTC launched a Station Area Planning grant program in 2005 to fund city-sponsored planning efforts for the areas around future stations. These station-area and land use plans are intended to address the range of transit-supportive features that are necessary to support high levels of transit ridership. MTC continues to offer these planning grants directly to cities through its PDA Planning Program. MTC has also provided $10 million in funding for the Bay Area Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH) Fund, which provides financing for the development of affordable housing and other vital community services near transit lines throughout the Bay Area. Through the Fund, developers can access flexible, affordable capital to purchase or improve available property near transit lines for the development of affordable housing, retail space and other critical services, such as child care centers, fresh food outlets and health clinics. While not a grant program, this fund provides access to financing for TOD projects that would otherwise not be able to obtain financing through conventional sources. The TOAH Fund was made possible through a $10 million investment from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Low Income Investment Fund is the Fund Manager and an originating lender, along with five other leading community development financial institutions. 27

39 Attachment 5a, FY SANDAG TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program Funding Cycle In May 2009, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved funding for the initial cycle of projects under the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program. Copies of the successful grant applications for the eight capital projects and six planning project that were awarded funding are available below. Capital Grants 8th Street Corridor Smart Growth Revitalization (National City) Improved bicycle and pedestrian access from the 8th Street Trolley to the National City Town Center, enhanced streetscape and provision for public markets and other civic events on 8th Street will be provided by this project. Grant application Lemon Grove Trolley Plaza (Lemon Grove) Improved pedestrian access from buses to the Trolley and integration of a planned mixed use development into the station area are the primary goals of this project. Grant application Park Boulevard/Essex Street Pedestrian Crossing and Traffic Calming (City of San Diego) This project provides an enhanced pedestrian crossing on this busy bus corridor. Grant application Park Boulevard/City College/San Diego High Pedestrian and Transit Access Improvements (City of San Diego) This project enhances the bus stop and pedestrian crossing near two urban schools. Grant application Fourth Avenue/Quince Street Pedestrian Crossing and Traffic Calming (City of San Diego) This Uptown pedestrian crossing will be enhanced with curb extensions and inpavement flashing crosswalks. Grant application Industrial Boulevard Bike Lane and Pedestrian Improvements (Chula Vista) This project will close a gap in the sidewalk and provide bike lanes in the vicinity of a school and the Blue Line Trolley Station. Grant application Third Avenue Streetscape Implementation Project (Chula Vista) Streetscape enhancements, traffic calming and improved pedestrian crossings will be the outcome of this project on Chula Vista s original commercial street. Grant application 4th and 5th Avenue/Nutmeg Pedestrian Crossing and Traffic Calming (City of San Diego) 28

40 This Uptown pedestrian crossing will be enhanced with curb extensions and inpavement flashing crosswalks. Grant application Planning Grants Mid-City SR 15 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Station Area Planning Study (City of San Diego) This study will provide an economic analysis of development potential, and develop urban design guidelines and a nonmotorized access plan for the SR 15 BRT station areas in Mid-City. Grant application Chollas Triangle Master Plan (City of San Diego) This master plan project will provide specific land use and mobility recommendations to encourage a mixed use transit oriented village supported by park, open space, and creek enhancements. Grant application Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan and EIR (Chula Vista) Plans for smart growth development and the EIR necessary to allow its implementation are the objective of this project around the Palomar Street Trolley Sation. Grant application Euclid and Market Village Master Plan (City of San Diego) A focused mobility and land use master plan for the Orange Line Trolley station area at Market Street is the objective of this grant. Grant application Oceanside Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan and EIR (Oceanside) This planning effort aims to transform the Crouch Street SPRINTER station area and Oceanside Blvd. corridor west to I-5 into a well-planned, beautiful, safe, prosperous and environmentally friendly place that supports the new transit service. Grant application Imperial Avenue and Commercial Street Corridor Plan (City of San Diego) This planning effort will produce a new land use and mobility strategy for the corridor with urband design guideliens for streetscape and development projects. Grant application 29

41 Attachment 5b: SACOG Community Design Program - Round 4 Approved Projects

42 Round 4: SACOG Community Design Program DESCRIPTIONS OF FUNDING PROJECTS (Awarded by SACOG Board, January 21, 2010) Click on Blue Title to See Each Application AWARDED PROJECTS City of Citrus Heights Auburn Boulevard Complete Streets Revitalization Requested amount: $3 million Amount awarded: $3 million This project will spur revitalization of an aging transportation corridor through the completion of a complete street environment. This will be achieved by constructing wide sidewalks, bike lanes, a pedestrian/bike bridge, enhanced transit stops and shelters, pedestrian-scale street lighting, raised medians and landscaping, and consolidated multiple driveways. City of Davis Fifth Street Road Diet Requested amount: $1.769 million; minimum request $836,000 Amount awarded: $836,000 This project will create a road diet or lane reduction on a strategic arterial through central Davis. Reducing the travel lanes will provide room, within the existing right-ofway, for bicycle lanes, turn pockets, and medians on Fifth Street between A and L Streets. It will also include new traffic controls for a new lane configuration. One travel lane in each direction will provide the necessary width for median islands, turn pockets at intersection, and bicycle lanes along the whole length of the corridor. City of Folsom Historic Folsom Station Public Plaza Requested amount: $1.5 million; minimum requested $500,000 Amount awarded: $500,000 This project will include a full range of landscape and hardscape improvements and pedestrian enhancements in the Historic Folsom Station Public Plaza. The plaza is an integral component of the larger Historic Folsom Station project. The plaza will include a public outdoor amphitheater, a market area, is adjacent to the Historic Sutter Street and serves as the terminus for the light rail line to downtown Sacramento. Round 4: SACOG Community Design Program Selection Committee Recommendations Page 1

43 City of Galt Deadman Gulch Trail Connection Requested Amount: $100,000 Amount awarded: $100,000 This project will construct a trail connection between two segments of a multi-use trail that are presently separated by a 4-lane arterial road with a median. The trail connects users with Galt Community Park, River Oaks Elementary School and residential areas. City of Live Oak Live Oak Community Trail Requested amount: $491,000 Amount awarded: $491,000 The Community Trail is designed as a Class 1 pedestrian/bicycle facility to serve Downtown Live Oak and surrounding neighborhoods. This project will convert one of four segments of an abandoned railroad corridor into a cohesive trail and greenway system serving the core of the community. Regional Transit Fulton Avenue Bus Shelter Project Requested amount: $292,000; minimum request: $150,000 Amount awarded: $150,000 This project will design, purchase the easements for and install 8 to 11 bus shelters along Fulton Avenue from Arden Way to Auburn Boulevard. The bus shelters will serve the business and residential areas along this corridor and help increase transit ridership. City of Sacramento Del Paso Boulevard Streetscape Improvements Requested amount: $1 million Amount awarded: $1 million This project will include aesthetic and safety enhancements along Del Paso Boulevard between State Route 160 and Arden Way. Improvements will include architecturally treated sidewalks, accessibility improvements, enhanced pedestrian crossings, bulb-outs, pedestrian scale street lighting, benches and receptacles. It will also include enhanced signage to alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians near the Globe Light Rail Station. City of Sacramento Railyards West Tunnel Requested amount: $5.266 million; minimum request: $1 million Amount awarded: $1 million This project will provide a direct pedestrian and bicycle connection between Old Sacramento, the Central Business District, and the Railyards Development and River Round 4: SACOG Community Design Program Selection Committee Recommendations Page 2

44 District. The project will help in the initial stages of construction a 247-foot tunnel beneath the re-aligned mainline Union Pacific tracks. Sacramento County Old Town Florin Streetscape Improvements Requested amount: $2.346 million Amount awarded: $2.346 million This project will provide a Complete Street segment within the Old Town Florin Town area, from Pritchard Road to McComber Road. It will construct sidewalks, transit facilities, bus turnouts, bike lanes, landscaped medians, tree canopy, street lighting, traffic signalization, and other streetscape amenities that encourage transit use, bicycling and walking. Sutter County Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan Update Requested Amount: $100,000 Amount awarded: $100,000 The updated plan will interface with and support the recently adopted plans for the cities of Yuba City and Live Oak. It will also utilize data and alternatives being considered in the current Sutter County General Plan Update. Design documents for the first phase of the improvements identified by the plan may also be included in the project. Sacramento County Fair Oaks Village Streetscape Design Requested amount: $136,200 Amount awarded: $136,200 This project will provide the design, environmental review and approval of Phase 1 improvements in the Fair Oaks Village. It will include selected improvements in curbs, gutters, sidewalks, ADA facilities, bike lanes crosswalks, and landscape improvements along Fair Oaks Boulevard between Winding Way and Bridge Street. University of California Davis Hutchison Corridor Complete Street Requested amount: $1.498 million; minimum requested $1.455 million Amount awarded: $1.455 million This project will improve the central portion of the Hutchison corridor to relieve existing deficiencies and institute key improvements. This corridor goes through the core of the campus and serves as a bike/bus boulevard. Improvements will include removal of an S- curve, provision of an adequate road section of increased transit usage, new sidewalks and critical circulation modifications. Round 4: SACOG Community Design Program Selection Committee Recommendations Page 3

45 City of West Sacramento Tower Bridge Gateway Modification Project East Phase Requested amount: $5.089 million; minimum request: $4.189 million Amount awarded: $4.189 million This project will eliminate the barrier of the former State Route 275 freeway that separates the Bridge District and the Washington Specific Plan and major riverfront development areas. It will reconstruct the Tower Bridge Gateway between Garden Street and Tower Bridge with at-grade intersections at Third Street and Fifth Street to cross the Tower Bridge Gateway and reconnect the two riverfront development areas. Accommodations for the future Downtown-Riverfront streetcar will be made. City of Winters Pedestrian Connection Project Requested amount: $100,000 Amount awarded: $100,000 This project will complete infill pedestrian facilities including curb and gutter along State Highway 128 (Grant Avenue). This will create a safe pedestrian route along the city s main transportation corridor near its public high school and other civic facilities. City of Woodland Downtown Streetscape Requested amount: $915,000 Amount awarded: $915,000 This project will construction pedestrian and streetscape improvements along the four block section of Main Street from Third to East Streets. The ultimate improvements will include: new sidewalks, bulb outs, accessible ramps at multiple locations, striping and stamped boards for crosswalks, landscaping, bikeway and other signage, concrete medians, and street furnishings. Yolo County Climate Action Plan Requested amount: $100,000 Amount awarded: $100,000 This project will assist the County in implementing some of its smart-growth policies by identifying strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, address economic and social adaptations that effect climate change. City of Yuba City Highway 20 Revitalization Strategy Requested amount: $100,000 Amount awarded: $100,000 Round 4: SACOG Community Design Program Selection Committee Recommendations Page 4

46 This project will assist the city in continuing its multiple phased revitalization project along the Highway 20 corridor. The project will conduct public outreach efforts, a corridor assessment and planning to promote a more Blueprint-oriented community. Yuba County North Beale Road Complete Street Revitalization Requested amount: $1 million; minimum request $700,000; Amount awarded: $1 million This project will provide revitalize 2.6 mile segment of North Beale Road from Lindhurst Avenue to Griffith Avenue in Linda. Curbs, gutters, wider sidewalks, landscaping, bike lanes and roundabouts will be design. Some areas will be reduced from four lanes to two. The project will lead to boosting the economic vitality of the Linda community while improving safety. Round 4: SACOG Community Design Program Selection Committee Recommendations Page 5

47 Attachment 5c: OneBayArea Grant Program Overview

48 New Surface Transportation Authorization Act: OneBayArea Grant Program A New Funding Approach The four-year, $320 million OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Program is a new funding approach that better integrates the region s federal transportation program with California s climate law (Senate Bill 375, Steinberg, 2008) and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Funding is targeted toward achieving local land-use and housing policies by: Rewarding jurisdictions that accept housing allocations through the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process. Supporting the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area by promoting transportation investments in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) Initiating a pilot program that will support open space preservation in Priority Conservation Areas (PCA). The OBAG program allows flexibility to invest in transportation categories such as Transportation for Livable Communities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning activities, while also providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to School (SR2S) and Priority Conservation Areas. MTC Funding Commitments Overview* (Millions $, rounded) Program Categories 4-Year Total Funding One Bay Area Grant $320 Regional Program Regional Planning $7 Operations (Freeway Service Patrol, Clipper Card, FasTrak, 511 Traveler Information) $95 Freeway Performance Initiative (Ramp Metering, Arterial Signal System Timing) $96 Pavement Technical Assistance to Cities and Counties $7 Priority Development Area Planning $40 Climate Initiatives $20 Safe Routes To School $20 Bus and Rail Transit Rehabilitation $150 Transit Performance Initiative $30 Priority Conservation Areas Pilot $10 TOTAL $795 * MTC receives federal funding for local programming through the State from federal surface transportation legislation currently known as SAFETEA (the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act). This includes Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) and Transportation Enhancement Program (TE) funds.

49 OneBayArea Grant Program OBAG Distribution Formula Population 50% Housing Production** (low-income housing units) 12.5% RHNA* (total housing units) 12.5% Housing Production** (total housing units) 12.5% RHNA* (low-income housing units) 12.5% OBAG County Fund Distribution (Millions $, rounded) Total County Funds Alameda $63 Contra Costa $44 Marin $10 Napa $6 San Francisco $38 San Mateo $26 Santa Clara $87 Solano $18 Sonoma $23 Regional Total $320 The OneBayArea Grant distribution formula is based on the following factors: population, past housing production and future housing commitments. This includes weighting to acknowledge jurisdiction efforts to produce low-income housing. The county Congestion Management Agencies (CMA) are responsible for local project solicitation, evaluation, and selection. * RHNA ** Housing Production Report , ABAG Eligible OBAG Projects Each county CMA may program OBAG funds to projects that meet the eligibility requirements of any one of the following six transportation improvement categories: Local Streets and Roads Preservation Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Transportation for Livable Communities Safe Routes to School Priority Conservation Areas CMA Planning Activities

50 Details OBAG Policies Priority Development Area Focus Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are infill development opportunity areas within existing communities identified by local jurisdictions. They are generally areas of at least 100 acres where there is local commitment to developing more housing along with amenities and services to meet the day-to-day needs of residents in a bicycle and pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit. PDA Investment Minimums The CMAs in larger counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara) shall direct at least 70% of their OBAG investments to the PDAs. For North Bay counties (Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma) the threshold is 50%. A project lying outside the limits of a PDA may count towards the minimum provided that it directly connects to or provides proximate access to a PDA. Refer to maps/141979, which provides a GIS overlay of the PDAs in the Bay Area. The counties will be expected to have an open decision process to justify projects that geographically fall outside of a PDA but are considered directly connected to or providing proximate access to a PDA. PDA Investment and Growth Strategy By May 1, 2013, CMAs shall prepare and adopt a PDA Investment and Growth Strategy to guide transportation investments that are supportive of PDA infill development. Affordable Housing Production and Preservation As part of the PDA Investment and Growth Strategy, CMAs will need to consider strategies for the production of affordable housing. By May 2013, CMAs will have analyzed housing production progress and completed an inventory of existing and planned housing units by income category in PDAs and affordable housing policies currently enacted for those respective jurisdictions. By May 2014, CMAs will work with PDA based jurisdictions to identify which, if any, policies/ ordinances are recommended to promote and preserve affordable housing in PDAs. Based on this information and recommendations in the PDA Growth Strategy, MTC will link the release of future cycle funding (after FY ) to the implementation of affordable housing policies around which local officials reach consensus. Additionally, the regional PDA Planning Program will assist jurisdictions to develop and implement PDA investment plans.

51 Performance and Accountability Jurisdictions receiving OBAG funds need to comply with the following: Complete Streets Policy Resolution Aside from meeting MTC s complete streets policy, a jurisdiction will need to adopt a complete streets resolution by January 31, A jurisdiction can also meet this requirement through a general plan that complies with the California Complete Streets Act of RHNA Compliant General Plan A jurisdiction is required to have its general plan housing element adopted and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for RHNA prior to January 31, If a jurisdiction submitted its housing element to the state but the state s comment letter identifies deficiencies that the local jurisdiction must address in order to receive HCD certification, then the local jurisdiction may submit a request to the Joint MTC Planning/ABAG Administrative Committee for a time extension to address the deficiencies and resubmit its revised draft housing element to HCD for re-consideration and certification. Note that jurisdictions will be required to have general plans with approved housing elements and that comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 by October 31, 2014 to be eligible for the OBAG cycle subsequent to FY Additional Information For additional information about Cycle 2 investments, policies and the OneBayArea Grant Program, go to onebayarea/ or contact Craig Goldblatt at cgoldblatt@mtc.ca.gov or Report to the Commission After OBAG programming is completed at the county level, MTC staff will present a report to the Commission in late 2013 on the performance and project selection outcomes of the OBAG program. The CMAs will also present their PDA Investment and Growth Strategies to the Joint MTC Planning/ ABAG Administrative Planning Committee. MTC Graphics/pb

52 Attachment 6: Scenarios Comparison Baseline Scenarios Scenarios Meeting SB 375 Emissions Target 1. Future Baseline 2. No Project 3. TOD/Infill 5. Blended TOD/Infill + Urban Area Expansion 6. North Countyweighted Jobs, South Countyweighted Housing Emphasis 7. TOD/Infill + Enhanced Transit Inputs Land Use Inputs Adopted Land Uses Only TOD/Infill Changes Based on Local Plans in Process Urban Edge/Greenfield Jobs/Housing Correction? No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Transportation Project Inputs All Programmed and Planned Transportation Improvem No Transportation Improvements Enhanced transit Improvements? None None None None None Increased Frequencies Financially Constrained? With Existing Revenue Sources Yes n/a Yes Yes Yes No Supplemental Revenue Sources Needed No No No No No Yes 30