|
1994 Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area
Click HERE for graphic. Regional Transportation Plan June 1994 Prepared by: Metropolitan Transportation Commission Published by: Metropolitan Transportation Commission Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, California 94607-4700 Tel. 510/464-7700 TDD/TTY 510/464-7769 FAX 510/464-7848 MTC Commissioners (June 1994) EDWARD R. CAMPBELL ROD DIRIDON Alameda County Santa Clara County E. WILLIAM WITHROW JAMES T. BEALL, JR. Cities of Alameda County Cities of Santa Clara County THOMAS M. POWERS JAMES P. SPERING Contra Costa County Solano County SHARON J. BROWN PETER C. FOPPIANO Cities of Contra Costa County Sononia County DOUG WILSON DIANNE MCKENNA - Vice Chair Marin County Association of Bay Area Governments FRED NEGRI ANGELO J. SIRACUSA Napa County S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission TOM HSIEH San Francisco County JOE BROWNE State Business, Transportation and Housing RUBIN GLICKMAN Agency City of San Francisco (Vacant) MARY GRIFFIN U.S. Department of Housing & San Mateo County Urban Development JANE BAKER -Chairwoman WILLIAM P. DUPLISSEA Cities of San Mateo County U.S. Department of Transportation Executive Staff LAWRENCE D. DAHMS WILLIAM F. HEIN FRANCIS CHIN Executive Director Deputy Executive Director General Counsel Table of Contents Page Number Overview of the Regional Transportation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Chapter 1: Regional Setting and Travel Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Regional Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Regional Passenger Travel Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Freight Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Chapter 2: Context for RTP Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Evolution of Transportation Planning-From Builders to Managers . . 34 State and Federal Policy Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Development of the Regional Transportation Plan. . . . . . . . . . 46 Chapter 3: Policy Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Description of Goals and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Chapter 4: Financial Element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Setting the Stage: ISTEA Policy Directives for Financially Constrained Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 The Billion Dollar Question: How Much Money Is There?. . . . . . . 53 The Other Billion Dollar Question: How Expensive Is the Existing Metropolitan Transportation System?. . . . . . . . 54 Key Financial Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Who Gets What-Matching Costs and Funds Among Projects and Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 The Bottom Line: Implications and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . 61 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -i- June 22, 1994 Table of Contents Page Number Chapter 5: Action Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Track 1 Investment Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Summary of Track 1 Investment Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 County-Level Details of the RTP Investment Strategy. . . . . . . . 75 Results of RTP Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Addressing ISTEA Planning Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 RTP implementation Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Continuing Focus Areas for RTP implementation. . . . . . . . . . . 99 Attachment A: RTP Baseline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1 Attachment B: Metropolitan Transportation System. . . . . . . . . . . .B-1 Attachment C: Federal and State Transportation Control Measures . . . .C-1 The following appendices can be found in the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan Appendices, bound as a separate document. Appendix A: Record of Public Involvement in Developing the 1994 RTT,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1 Appendix B: Financial Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1 Appendix C: Transportation Conformity Analysis for Air Quality. . . . .C-1 Appendix D: MTC Certification Criteria for ADA Plans. . . . . . . . . .D-1 Appendix E: Regional Airport System Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E-1 Appendix F: San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan . . . . . . . . . . . .F-1 Appendix G: MTC Resolution Adopting the 1994 RTP. . . . . . . . . . . .F-1 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -ii- June 22, 1994 List of Tables Page Number Table 1-1: Jobs/Employed Residents Ratios by County . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 1-2: Growth in Employed Residents by County . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 1-3: Growth in jobs by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 1-4: Regional Travel Activity Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 1-5: Regional Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy. . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 1-6: Growth in Interregional Commuting to the Bay Area: 1980-1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 4-1: Projected Regional Transportation Expenditures: 1994-2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Table 5-1: RTP Investment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Table.5-2: RTP Investments That implement Transportation Control Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Table 5-3: Alameda County RTP Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Table 5-4: Contra Costa County RTP Investments. . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Table 5-5: Marin County RTP Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Table 5-6: Napa County RTP Investments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Table 5-7: San Francisco County RTP Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Table 5-8: San Mateo County RTP Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Table 5-9: Santa Clara County RTP Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Table 5-10: Solano County RTP Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Table 5-11: Sonoma County RTP Investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Table 5-12: Consideration of ISTEA Planning Factors in the RTP. . . . . 89 Table 5-13: RTP Implementation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -iii- June 22, 1994 List of Figures Page Number Figure 1-1: Bay Area Major Transportation Facilities. . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 1-2: Bay Area Major Transportation Facilities (Core Area). . . . 12 Figure 1-3: Regional Indicators of Growth in the Bay Area (1980- 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 1-4: Growth in Employed Residents and jobs, by County. . . . . . 16 Figure 1-5: Developed Acres as a Percent of Total Land Area in 1990 . . 18 Figure 1-6: Population Density by County (1980-1990). . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 1-7: Net Employment Density by County (1980-1990). . . . . . . . 19 Figure 1-8: Area Shares for Developed and Available Acres . . . . . . . 20 Figure 1-9: Percent of Workers Working in County of Residence (1960-2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 1-10: Greatest Volumes in Commuting: 1990 and 2010 . . . . . . . 24 Figure 1-11: Commuters by Trip Length Category (1980-1990). . . . . . . 26 Figure 1-12: Commute Times by Superdistrict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 1-13: Hourly Traffic Distribution As a Percentage of the 24- Hour Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 2-1: Plan and Program Development Process. . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 4-1: Projected 20-Year Revenues by Source. . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 4-2: Projected 20-Year Public Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 5-1: Distribution of Track 1 Investment Strategy Funding . . . . 69 Figure 5-2: Passenger Rail and Ferry Systems in Year 2013 (with RTP improvements) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Figure 5-3: Year 2013 Passenger Rail and Ferry Systems (detailed maps) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Figure 5-4: Year 2013 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane System. . . . . 74 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -iv- June 22,1994 Overview of the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan Scenic beyond description, economically vibrant, environmentally gifted, ethnically rich-these words capture the still-incomparable San Francisco Bay Area in the waning years of the 20th century. Whether they will continue to apply in the 21st century depends on a complex mix of forces, some of a national or even global scale, others regional in scope. It is the regional forces-travel, growth and development patterns, in particular-that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is attempting to address through the 20-year Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the Bay Area. The 1994 document now before you has several forebears-formulating, updating and ensuring adherence to the Regional Transportation Plan has been a mainstay of MTC's work since the agency was founded in 1970. But while the title is the same, the 1994 document has little resemblance to earlier editions. What sets the current version apart are new federal directives embodied in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requiring that such long-range metropolitan plans only include projects that can actually be delivered with funds that are expected to be available over the 20- year time frame of the plan. This stipulation signals the federal government's new get-tough approach to cleaning up the air in the nation's cities. In order to remain eligible for federal transportation funding, a region must demonstrate that the highway and transit projects embodied in its long-range transportation plan collectively will help attain and maintain federal air quality standards. Not only must the plan be quite specific in terms of projects, but also, the air quality impacts of the investment program must be evaluated via computer modeling-a complex, time-consuming and costly process. In the transportation lexicon, this process is referred to as demonstrating "conformity" with federal air quality standards. Projects must have a strong likelihood of being funded in order to be factored into the conformity equation. in turn translates to a strict dollar cap on what the RTP can contain. More than ever before, the RTP is now a transportation budget, and the MTC region must live (and plan) within its means. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -1- June 22, 1994 Because of the funding limitations MTC developed the 1994 RTP keeping in mind two tracks: Track 1, which is the RTP that is constrained by the funds expected to be available from all local, regional, state and federal sources, and which must be ill be an advocacy document to argue conformed" for air quality; and Track 2, which will be an advocacy document to argue for new transportation funding and mobility strategies. The Track 2 document is being developed with our partners and is intended to be integrated with the California Consensus Project that is being proposed for consideration by the California Legislature in 1995. The Funding Picture Crafting an RTP that responds to regional needs and fiscal realities is a delicate balancing act requiring difficult tradeoffs. But to understand the extent of the challenge, it is necessary to first grasp the magnitude of the funding constraints. Some $74 billion in transportation funding is projected to flow to the nine Bay Area counties between now and the year 2014. While this is indeed a large sum, $70 billion of it, or 95 percent, has already been accounted for. Much of it has been committed by MTC and other agencies to the ongoing operation, management and maintenance of the region's existing transportation infrastructure, which encompasses 1,400 miles of state highways, eight major bridges, 18,000 miles of local streets and roads, and some two dozen transit operators with more than 4,000 vehicles and 200 miles of rail. Included in this calculation is funding to help transit operators achieve full accessibility of their fixed-route systems as well as develop a parallel paratransit network (taxi and van services for elderly and disabled riders not able to use fixed- route systems) in accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Another chunk of the $70 billion is earmarked for projects that are so far along in the planning/funding/engineering/construction pipeline that there is virtually no turning back. Falling into this category are highway improvements, rail extensions and bikeways that are part of MTC's Resolution 1876 Regional Rail Plan or county half-cent sales tax expenditure plans; state-sponsored highway projects like the Interstate 80 transit/carpool lanes; and bridge-corridor improvements outlined in the voter approved Regional Measure 1. These existing obligations leave MTC just under $4 billion in discretionary funds for investment over the next 20 years-in other words, for new projects or programs to be funded from the Track 1 pot. But simple arithmetic masks the true story behind these 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 2- June 22, 1994 numbers. As it is, the $70 billion for existing commitments won't fully meet the above described needs: The region's overall transit operating/maintenance budget and ADA program are underfunded, the Resolution 1876 rail-expansion program is short of cash, not all the projects listed in county sales-tax plans can be built with expected revenues, and there is a large shortfall for maintaining local streets and roads. Similarly, several of the management strategies for squeezing more capacity out of the existing freeway, arterial and transit network are underfunded. A critical question facing MTC policy makers, then, is whether to first direct the $4 billion in discretionary funds to g prior commitments and maintaining and operating the existing system, or rather to undertake ambitious new commitments. Most longtime Bay Area residents no doubt remember the "freeways to nowhere" in San Jose and San Francisco that were artifacts of abrupt changes in public policy. We would again face a similar specter ff we were to pull the plug on projects currently under construction or in the late stages of engineering-projects that not only are good for commuters, but friendly to the environment as well. Moreover, we would risk a crisis of confidence if we reneged on promises made to voters through sales tax measures, Regional Measure 1, and statewide transportation bond and gas-tax measures that are part of the California "Transportation Blueprint," not to mention advisory measures in favor of extending and improving BART and CalTrain. We need to maintain voters' faith in government's ability to deliver on its promises, or they won't deliver the votes the next time we ask for funding. As for the perils of postponed maintenance, we have the newspaper images of crumbling bridges and decaying transit systems back East- and our own collapsed Bay Bridge in the aftermath of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake-as an early warning of what can happen here. And the longer maintenance is ignored, the higher the bill in the end: It costs only $17,000 per mile to seal the cracks in a four-lane road; but if the road is allowed to deteriorate to the point where reconstruction is needed, repairs can cost nearly $400,000 a mile. Nor can we afford to further delay implementation of emerging technologies that can ease traffic congestion-technologies that are gaining a foothold elsewhere in the country and in Europe and Japan. If after meeting all of the "prior commitments," some discretionary funding is left over, what then? 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -3- June 22, 1994 For starters, $4 billion will not stretch very far when it comes to transportation facilities and programs, especially when you consider that it has to be spread over 20 years among 100 cities and nine counties that together span 7,179 square miles. The five BART extensions planned or under construction (Colma, San Francisco International Airport, Dublin/Pleasanton, Pittsburg/Antioch, Warm Springs) together win cost $2.5 billion, or $70 million a mile. By that measure, the region's discretionary pot would build 57 miles of BART, with nothing left over for the additional operating costs stemming from the extensions. The Tasman Corridor light-rail line in Santa Clara County will cost $480 million, or $39 million a mile. The $4 billion would go somewhat further with this mode, buying 103 miles of light rail. A single, clean-burning bus costs $240,000, and easily $190,000 a year to run in terms of drivers' time, maintenance, overhead and fuel. On the highway side, relocation and reconstruction of the earthquake-damaged Cypress viaduct is going to cost $695 million, or $386 million a mile for the 1.8-mile freeway. By that measure, the region's discretionary pot would buy 10.4 miles of a similar facility and nothing more. A project to add a special lane for express buses and carpools along a 10-mile stretch of Interstate 80 rings up at $318 million, or $32 million a mile. By that measure, the region's discretionary pot would buy 125 miles of a similar facility. The region's $4 billion pot would buy just 12 new interchanges if they were of the complexity of the Interstate 680/Highway 24 interchange, which is costing $310 million to reconstruct. A modem traffic signal alone can cost $150,000. And in most cases it takes a dozen or more of such state-of-the art signals arrayed in a row to smooth the flow of traffic and reduce emissions. And while not yet earmarked for particular projects, this $4 billion comes with strings attached. For instance, virtually all of it is classified as "capital" money-meaning for construction purposes- and as such cannot be applied to operating purposes. The dearth of operating funds not only limits the introduction of new transit services, but also may force some transit operators to cut service, hike fares, or both. So what is the bottom line of this complex equation? Our new RTP investments will be on the margins of the region's already vast transportation network; they will have to be strategic ones that fill in the gaps, deploy new technologies, increase capacity of existing facilities and improve the overall functioning of the system. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -4- June 22, 1994 Crafting a Vision Periodically over the last half of the century, the Bay Area citizenry and leaders together with their representatives in Sacramento-have engaged in collective soul searching about the region's destiny. Indeed, it was such self-analysis that resulted in the construction of BART and the formation of MTC over two decades ago. The most recent manifestation of this preoccupation with preserving the region's quality of life was the Bay Vision 2020 exercise that began in 1989, in which a broad-based panel representing community and environmental groups, academia, and corporations brainstormed for a year on ways to better manage the region's growth. Where does the RTP fit into this ongoing process of defining a vision for the region? Federal laws-specifically, ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Amendments-now require a 20-year budget plan, and by extension, a project-level focus for the RTP. However, if the RTP is examined from a broader perspective, some unifying themes emerge: - The RTP can be viewed as a visionary document if you define vision as something that is at once forward-looking and pragmatic - The RTP is guided by vision if you interpret that to mean the ability to clearly see the weaknesses and missing links in the existing system, and indeed to perceive a Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) where others are content to see nothing more than a series of independent fiefdoms of streets, roads, freeways, and bus, ferry and rail lines all functioning independently of each other. - The RTP has vision if you define that to mean the realization that maintenance and operation of the existing MTS is essential to preserving and enhancing the vitality of our urban centers, and that a robust core is the best defense against chaotic sprawl. - The RTP has vision if you mean the ability to recognize the missed potential in the form of new technologies not yet tapped, or old technologies inadequately applied. - The RTP has vision if you interpret that to mean the willingness to give operational strategies a chance to work. - And the RTP has vision ff you understand that to mean the capacity to distinguish between good and bad decisions, and the wisdom to follow through with the good ones. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -5- June 22, 1994 By no means, however, does the pragmatic, near-term vision articulated here signal complacency. Rather, this document aims to make systematic progress toward some fundamental regional goals that the Commission has established for the RTP: - improve mobility for persons and freight; - promote equity for system users; - enhance sensitivity to the environment; - support economic vitality of the region; ù support community vitality in the region. And it aims to do so within the very real fiscal constraints that are upon us. The above notwithstanding, the RTP recognizes and identifies with the regional ethic and the collective longing for a long-term "vision" in the more traditional sense of the word. As part of the development of Track 2, a more ambitious program will emerge, in part, from a series of in-depth corridor planning studies. These studies will provide MTC the opportunity to work with county congestion management agencies, Caltrans, environmental and business interests, and the Association of Bay Area Governments on reinforcing the transportation/land-use linkage. At the same time, Track 2 will have to continue to honor and advance the fundamental policies that underlie Track 1: promoting an integrated, multimodal system; balancing the need for improvements on a regional scale with community-level values; and putting operational, management and maintenance programs on equal footing with new construction. The "Project Alternative" In the summer of 1993, MTC issued a discussion document offering three approaches to selecting transportation investments over the next two decades: Track la: pursuing an expansion program that largely relies on regional and local transportation plans, or "existing commitments," to guide new investments; Track 1b: favoring maintenance and operation of the region's considerable investment in transportation infrastructure, services and equipment over construction of major expansion projects; and exploiting emerging management strategies and technologies to squeeze more capacity out of the system; 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -6- June 22, 1994 Track 1c: weaving a tighter connection between transportation and land-use decisions while reinforcing economically important urban centers. This trio of investment strategies, and a list of Track 1 projects to go along with each, was subjected to extensive public scrutiny at a series of well-attended community forums. What emerged from the forums and a series of staff meetings with local officials and policy makers was a growing consensus that the three investment scenarios are m fact complementary, and all necessary to varying degrees. The considerable public comment helped to shape the- document. The RTP described in the following pages is more than the sum of its parts: It combines elements of all three investment strategies in such a way as to create a coherent, cohesive and ultimately attainable vision for the region's transportation network. At the same time, it addresses state and federal clean air laws by including a number of Transportation Control Measures (TCMS) to help reduce the length and number of trips by single-occupant automobiles. And it acknowledges ISTEA's new focus on intermodalism by including projects to speed the movement of freight through the Bay Area. First and foremost, the RTP honors prior commitments, with the understanding that maintenance and operation of the existing MTS is our most fundamental commitment. These past commitments form a solid foundation on which to layer the next generation of transportation investments. Additionally, the RTP recognizes that Track 1 options "a" and "b" as laid out in the discussion draft of the RTP are in fact inseparable-you can't honor past commitments without first stressing maintenance and operation of the underlying infrastructure. The RTP further honors long-standing commitments by supporting: - projects in the Transportation Improvement Program that are now under way or past the reasonable point of reversal; - voter-approved county sales tax measures where the commitment are clear, and where the authorities that are in charge of the sales tax dollars still support the commitments; - the region's share of seismic retrofitting of Bay Area bridges; operational strategies like Caltrans' Traffic - Operations System, traffic signalization programs, transit coordination projects such as the TransLink universal ticket and 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -7- June 22, 1994 other innovative approaches still to emerge from a state-of- the-art MTS Management Strategy now under development; - MTC's Resolution 1876, the landmark regional rail extension agreement. This last item merits er explanation. Adopted in 1988, Resolution 1876 is designed not only to extend the reach of the regions commuter and rapid rail systems, but also to better interconnect them. It enjoys the broad support of the region's legislative and congressional delegations. This policy statement has been the driving force for local initiatives for rail funding. A recent court ruling invalidating Santa Clara County's Measure A sales tax expenditure plan may affect the RTP financial assumption. However, the state Supreme Court is reviewing the ruling. Until the issue is resolved, the RTP will maintain a commitment to the Measure A program. Final disposition of the appeal is not expected until late 1994. Any decision by the Supreme Court that might adversely affect Measure A funding (and not otherwise mitigated) will be addressed in the next regular RTP revision in 1996. Track 2: The Next Frontier Track 2 acknowledges there is more to be done. Much of what is needed in Track 2 is not grandiose, but basic to the health and efficiency of the region's MTS-for instance, completing the job of rehabilitating the region's primary streets and roads, converting diesel bus lines to electric-trolley or light-rail lines, or instituting express bus service to take advantage of new carpool/transit freeway lanes. Track 2 must make the case not only for capital funds, but also for the operating funds needed to sustain new and existing service. In fact, because none of the Track 1 money can be used for such day- to-day costs as bus drivers' salaries or fuel, all operating deficits for the region's transit operators must be addressed in Track 2. Additional operating funds also are needed if we are to have the flexibility to choose capital projects that expand transit. As was the case with the Resolution 1876 rail program, a regional consensus on Track 2 is essential if we are to persuade our state legislative and congressional delegations and equally important, the region's voters-to support our investment program. Also essential to building that support is a common understanding of the implications of Track 1 and Track 2 status. The division between the two tracks is more of a membrane 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 8- June 22, 1994 than a wall, being somewhat permeable. A project can progress from Track 2 to Track 1 as consensus coalesces around it, and funding is identified. This point, the subject of considerable concern and discussion, deserves some emphasis: Projects do not necessarily have to be included in Track 1 to be considered for implementation over the next 20 years; or, put another way, Track 2 projects do not have to wait until year 2014 to move forward. In sum, the RTP attached here represents the beginning of a process, not an end. It is meant to be a living document that will be updated every two years to reflect a changing funding picture and the changing status of projects in Track 1, as well as to address new findings that emerge from corridor studies and Track 2 consensus building. It is our intent that as an embodiment of a broad, regional consensus, document will guide not only MTC's decisions in the years to come, but also any new transportation investments for the San Francisco Bay Area by cities, counties, private entities, the state and Congress. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -9- June 22, 1994 Chapter 1: Regional Setting and Travel Trends This section describes the context in which the region's transportation system operates and raises key issues that must be considered in proposals to improve the system's performance. The major components of the region's transportation system are shown in Figures 1-1 and 1-2: Bay Area Major Transportation Facilities. The system is comprised of major highways, transit and freight rail lines, ferry routes, airports, and seaports. improvements to the region's transportation system must address the changing demographics, travel patterns and development patterns of the Bay Area, while taking into account environmental and social factors and the need to promote economic vitality. Regional Setting Over the past few decades, the Bay Area's population has grown and decentralized, spurring the rise of suburban centers outside the urban core. jobs followed the population shift into the suburbs, creating new employment centers in central Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara counties. Interregional commuting also increased as Bay Area workers sought more affordable housing in communities outside the region. These changing demographic patterns created more diffuse and dispersed travel patterns for Bay Area residents. The new trips are extremely difficult for transit to serve effectively. Thus, the trend in dispersed trip-making, in combination with rising household incomes and vehicle ownership, has resulted in increased reliance on the automobile. A more detailed look at the region's demographics, density patterns and commute characteristics provides a basis for understanding these trends in regional mobility. The year 2010 demographic growth projections cited in this chapter are from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections '94 series. Because detailed information from Projections '94 was not yet available for transportation modeling of the 1994 RTP, the analysis included in the Environmental Impact Report relies on ABAG Projections '92 data for the year 2010. The overall differences between the two ABAG projections for the year 2010 are relatively small. Estimates of population and employed residents varied by less than 1 percent, and Projections '94 estimates of total jobs were 4 percent less than the Projections '92 estimate. The reduced job growth estimate accounts for the statewide recession and economic restructuring in the 1990s. Population and Growth Characteristics The Bay Area's population is projected to grow at a slower annual rate between 1990 and 2010 than it did between 1980 and 1990. The 2010 regional population is projected to be 7.5 million, about 1.5 million more than in 1990. However, the dynamics driving future population growth are very different from those that drove growth during the last three decades. In particular, in migration to the Bay Area, as a share of total population increase, is expected 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -10- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -11- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -12- June 22, 1994 to decline in the future, with births accounting for about 80.4 percent of the projected 1990-2010 population growth. Certain segments of the general population require special attention in transportation planning, because of their limited access to transportation services. These include youth, elderly, people with low incomes and persons with disabilities- all segments of the population that may lack access to a car. Mobility disadvantaged persons rely on transit systems for many trip purposes, such as shopping, work, personal business, education and recreation. The 1990 Census revealed that 11 percent of the Bay Area population was 65 years or older, and that 9.7 percent of the civilian, non-institutionalized population over 16 years of age reported a mobility limitation. About 39 percent of those persons reporting a mobility limitation are also over the age of 65. The 1990 Census also indicates that 24.6 percent of Bay Area households reported incomes of less than $22,500 (1989 dollars). Job Growth and Labor Force Characteristics Demographic changes will significantly affect the growth and composition of the labor force over the forecast period. The labor force is expected to include a higher percentage of older workers. The percentage of the labor force over 45 years of age in 1990 was just over 28 percent, while the projected percentage of this same group in 2010 is over 36 percent. Labor force participation rates rose dramatically over the last three decades as more women entered the work force, but this trend is not expected to continue, as the female participation rate levels off. Overall, labor force participation rates are expected to decrease over the next two decades and return to about 67 percent, the 1990 level of participation, by the year 2010. The next two decades also are expected to bring slower job growth than the previous decade. While jobs were added at an average rate of 2.3 percent per year in the 1980s, they are only projected to increase 1.4 percent per year between 1990 and 2010. Slower job growth reflects the economic restructuring that is expected to continue through the mid- 1990s. Decreased rates of projected growth in population, labor force participation and jobs do not necessarily imply proportionate decreased growth in travel, however. While growth in Bay Area person-trips also is expected to slow over the forecast period,.(growing at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent from 1990-2010, compared with a rate of 2.2 percent from 1980- 1990), it does not slow as much as do other demographic growth indicators. One explanation for this is the projected continued rise in household income and vehicle ownership over the forecast period. (See Figure 1-3: Regional Indicators of Growth in the Bay Area.) 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -13- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. It is interesting to note that while trip-making is on the rise, the relative shares by trip purpose remain steady over time. This is consistent with the leveling off of the labor force participation rate over the forecast period. Though only a quarter of all trips, the commute trip is very important to Bay Area residents and employers. Its share belies its significant peaking characteristics that make it so important to understanding regional travel patterns. Notably, for the commute trip, job growth is expected to outpace growth in employed residents in the region, resulting in about 82,280 more jobs than employed residents in 2010. This represents a significant change from 1990 when employed residents outnumbered jobs by 45,513. The projected surplus of jobs is largely attributable to local land-use planning policies that favor employment-generating development over housing. While the region's inability to meet projected housing demands could result in some job growth moving outside the region, it is likely that the Bay Area will still become a significant net importer of employees by 2010. While the region as a whole has a jobs/employed residents ratio of close to 1.0, the situation differs greatly by county. Table 1-1: Jobs/Employed Residents Ratios by County provides a picture of the balance between jobs and employed residents by county in 1990 and 2010. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -14- June 22, 1994 Table 1-1 Jobs/Employed Residents Ratios by County County 1990 2010 Alameda 0.95 1.03 Contra Costa 0.75 0.76 Marin 0.80 0.89 Napa 0.90 1.06 San Francisco 1.49 1.51 San Mateo 0.90 0.98 Santa Clara 1.06 1.08 Solano 0.74 0.77 Sonoma 0.79 0.89 Source.- ABAG Projections '94 Figure 1-4: Growth in Employed Residents and Jobs, by County shows the growth that is predicted in jobs and employed residents at the county level. Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 include 1980-1990 growth in jobs and employed residents, by county. The most significant shares of growth in regional employed residents are forecast for Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties, which combine to capture 42 percent of the total expected regional growth in employed residents. The suburban employment centers that emerged during the 1980s will accommodate much of the projected job growth. Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties accounted for nearly 64 percent of regional job growth in the 1980s. Their dominance is projected to continue through the next 20 years, with about 56 percent of job growth locating in these three counties. Solano and Sonoma counties will experience the fastest rates of growth, both in employed residents and in jobs, although their shares are small to begin with. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -15- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -16- June 22, 1994 Table 1-2 Growth in Employed Residents by County Net Rate of County 1990 2010 Growth Growth Alameda 648,461 776,600 128,139 20% Contra Costa 409,351 565,300 155,949 38% Marin 127,579 145,400 17,821 14% Napa 52,683 68,400 15,717 30% San Francisco 391,292 441,600 50,308 13% San Mateo 353,626 401,700 48,074 14% Santa Clara 812,345 967,900 155,555 19% Solano 162,219 252,700 90,481 56% Sonoma 194,387 269,500 75,113 39% Region 3,151,943 3,889,100 737,157 23% Source: ABAG Projections '94 Table 1-3 Growth in Jobs by County Net Rate of County 1990 2010 Growth Growth Alameda 617,320 796,240 178,920 29% Contra Costa 305,140 430,120 124,980 41% Marin 102,240 129,540 27,300 27% Napa 47,590 72,260 24,670 52% San Francisco 582,010 667,570 85,560 15% San Mateo 319,120 393,540 74,420 23% Santa Clara 864,110 1,046,360 182,250 21% Solano 119,300 194,760 75,460 63% Sonoma 153,600 240,990 87,390 57% Region 3,110,430 3,971,380 860,950 28% Source: ABAG Projections '94 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -17- June 22, 1994 Development Patterns Growth in employed residents and jobs must be interpreted carefully. Different land-use and density patterns in each county influence how growth is distributed geographically, resulting in very different travel patterns. In general, the pattern of decentralized development, which dominated Bay Area growth in the 1980s, is expected to continue over the next two decades. Figure 1-5: Developed Acres as a Percent of Total Land Area, shows the current level of development in the region. San Francisco County is the most developed county, with almost 85 percent of its land developed, followed by Alameda and Contra Costa counties, with 26.' 1 percent and 25.9 percent, respectively. Overall, 14.8 percent of the region's total land area has been developed. Click HERE for graphic. Population and employment densities are shown in Figures 1-6 and 1-7. San Francisco is almost four times as dense in both population and employment as any other county. While employment densities rose during the past decade for almost all counties, population densities fell 0.3 percent region wide. Existing local land use policies suggest that most of the land available for future development is located in North Bay counties and the eastern portions 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -18- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -18- June 22, 1994 of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. An estimated 290,000 acres will be available for development ' between 1990 and 2010, amounting to 6.5 percent of the region's total land area. The North Bay counties, where densities are lowest, contain 52 percent of the total available acres for future development; Sonoma County alone has 31 percent of the acreage available for development in the region. (See Figure 1-8: Area Shares for Developed and Available Acres.) Click HERE for graphic. Regional Passenger Travel Activity General measures of regional travel activity for 1990 and 2010 are shown in Table 1-4. Year 2010 measures reflect projected travel demand on the future transportation system with the improvements outlined in the RTP Investment Strategy found in Chapter 5. MTC has extrapolated data from 2010 to 2013 to provide a 20-year estimate of travel as required in the federal metropolitan planning regulations. Travel Volumes Population and job growth drive the projected increase in travel activity and serve as rough "benchmarks" for comparing different measures. Most indicators that measure travel volume, such as person trips, vehicle trips and 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -20- June 22, 1994 vehicle miles traveled, are projected to increase by rates similar to those for projected population and job growth. Commercial vehicle trips, including trucks, delivery vans and taxis, are estimated to increase by nearly 44 percent, the greatest rate of growth among major travel volume measures. Linked transit trips are projected to grow. by 17.6 percent, about half the rate of total person trips. Growth in travel time increases at lesser rates than growth in related travel volumes, indicating slight improvements in convenience for Bay Area travelers. For example, total person hours of transit travel would increase by 15 percent whereas total person trips on transit would grow by 17.6 percent. Likewise, total person hours of auto travel would increase by just under 30 percent, whereas person trips by auto and average daily vehicle miles traveled would increase by 32 percent and 35 percent, respectively. Mode Split In general, mode split in the Bay Area is following national trends. Transit market share in.the Bay Area has declined over time as auto ownership has increased and development has occurred farther away from the urban core areas, which are better served by transit systems. Table 1-5 shows 1990 and projected 2010 mode share for work trips and all other trips. The transit share is expected to decline from 10.6 percent to 9.3 percent for commute trips and from 5.7 percent to 5.1 percent for all other trips. Carpooling is projected to hold a fairly steady share of work trips, while driving alone is projected to increase slightly from 75 percent to 76.5 percent. A 1993 survey conducted by RIDES for Bay Area Commuters asked commuters the reasons for their choice of mode. The top three reasons for individuals' mode choice decisions were: no other practical options, convenience/flexibility, and irregular hours/overtime. Morning peak period average vehicle ridership, which includes transit riders, is projected to remain steady at 1.4 persons per vehicle. Likewise, morning peak period average vehicle occupancy, which includes only passengers -in private autos, is expected to remain at 1.1 persons per vehicle. Intraregional Commuting Decentralized growth has produced a complex web of commuting patterns in the Bay Area, despite the trend toward more even ratios of jobs to employed residents in most parts of the region. This is reflected in the declining percentage of Bay Area commuters living and working in the same county shown in Figure 1-9: Percent of Workers Working in County of Residence. In 1960, 82 percent of all commuters lived and worked in the same county. By 1980 this share had fallen to 76.2 percent, and in 1990, it was 72.6 percent. In general, San Mateo, Marin, Contra Costa and Solano counties lead the region in the share of out-commuters, while Santa Clara County provides the most job opportunities for its residents. MTC forecasts a small increase in the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -21- June 22,1994 Click HERE for graphic. Source: ABAG Projections '92, April 13,1994 memo from Ray Brady to Chuck Purvis, MTC. (1) Extrapolated from year 2010 forecasts, based on ABAG sketch planning figures for year 2015. percentage of employees working in their county of residence for all countries by 2010 as more job growth occurs in outlying counties. The largest intraregional commutes for 1990 and 2010 are shown in Figure 1-10. All commutes shown are greater than 50,000 trips daily. While some change occurs within counties, the primary growth in commuting between 1990 and 2010 occurs between counties. Santa Clara County has the largest number of trips in both 1990 and 2010, exceeding one million intracounty trips per day. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -22- June 22, 1994 Table 1-5 Regional Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Mode Split (home-based work trips) -Transit 10.6% 9.3% 9.0% -Shared ride 14.4% 14.2% 14.0% -Drive alone 75.0% 76.5% 77.0% Mode Split (all other trips) -Transit 5.7% 5.1% 5.0% -Auto 94.3% 94.9% 95.0% Average Vehicle Ridership 1.4 1.4 1.4 Source:ABAG, MTC (1) Extrapolated from year 2010 forecasts, based on ABAG sketch planning figures for year 2015. Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -23- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -24- June 22, 1994 Interregional Commuting Out-commuting from the Bay Area to other regions is much less significant than in-commuting to the Bay Area. In 1990, approximately 21,800 Bay Area residents commuted to jobs outside the region, whereas 75,800 workers came into the Bay Area from outside. Growth in interregional commuting to the Bay Area is indicated in Table 1-6. The largest county to county interregional commute was from Santa Cruz County to Santa Clara County, a total of 17,700 workers. The fastest growing commute is from the Central Valley, where the lure of affordable housing has made it a desirable residential location for many Bay Area employees. As a result, the San Joaquin County-to-Alameda County commute over the Altamont Pass is the second largest and fastest growing of all commutes. It grew from 2,500 commuters in 1980 to 12,500 commuters in 1990, an increase of 374 percent. Expanding suburban employment centers and continued high costs and low supply of housing in the region will increase the attractiveness of living in the Central Valley and commuting to the Bay Area. Table 1-6 Growth in Interregional Commuting to the Bay Area: 1980 to 1990 1980 1990 Net County of Residence Workers Workers Change Mendocino 570 1,200 630 Lake 560 1,590 1,030 Northern Counties 1,130 2,790 1,660 Colusa 10 130 120 Yolo 1,780 3,430 1,650 Placer 560 1,220 660 Sacramento 3,510 8,900 5,390 I-80 Corridor 5,860 13,680 7,820 San Joaquin 4,210 20,320 16,110 Stardslaus 1,040 10,330 9,290 Merced 360 1,030 670 Central Valley 5,610 31,680 26,070 San Benito 1,420 3,980 2,560 Monterey 1,600 3,090 1,490 Santa Cruz 14,660 20,600 5,940 Monterey Bay Area 17,680 27,670 9,990 All Neighboring Counties 30,280 75,820 45,540 Source: MTC 1990 Census Working Paper #4 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -25- June 22, 1994 Travel Time The average work trip time in the region increased from 24.3 minutes to 25.6 minutes between 1980 and 1990. This increase was primarily due to the increase in commutes over 45 minutes, which represented about 17 percent of all commute trips in 1990. Figure 1-11: Commutes by Trip Length Category indicates that over 60 percent of all 1990 commute trips were less than 30 minutes and over 80 percent were less than 45 minutes. Mean travel times to work increased in every county except Marin, which saw a 1 percent decrease from 1980 to 1990. Solano County commuters saw the greatest increase in travel times, with the average trip length increasing 27 percent. Shorter trip lengths are found in San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, the counties with the most job opportunities. Click HERE for graphic. Figure 1-12 displays year 2010 commute times by superdistrict, and significant changes in projected commute times by superdistrict between 1990 and 2010. MTC projects that in 2010, San Francisco County and Santa Clara County residents will still have the shortest commute times, while residents from Solano and Contra Costa counties will have the longest ones. In general, trip times are expected to increase most for districts farthest from the urban core, suggesting that increased average trip times may be due more to increasing trip distances than worsening congestion. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -26- June 22,1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -27- June 22,1994 Intercity Passenger Rail Amtrak currently runs several intercity rail services that connect the Bay Area with other parts of the state and country. The newest of these services is the Capitols line, which operates three round-trips between San Jose and Auburn, including stops in Oakland and Sacramento. The average monthly ridership in 1993 was about 20,000 passengers. The state has been ins ental in funding the Capitols service, along with the San Joaquins service between Oakland-Stockton- Bakersfield (with bus service to Los Angeles). The Capitols service will be increased to six round-trips per day when the new California Rail Cars come on line in 1995, with more stations in the Bay Area. The state also is examining the feasibility of different high speed rail services through the California High Speed Ground Transportation Study. The Los Angeles Bay Area-Sacramento corridor is a prime candidate for high speed rail service. Air Passenger Transportation The Bay Area regional airport system is comprised of 49 airports, including several major commercial airports, a number of general aviation airports, some military airfields and special- and private-use airports. The five commercial airports in the Bay Area served 42.8 million passengers in 1990. Of these five airports, San Francisco International, Metropolitan Oakland International and San Jose International Airport carried over 99 percent of au air passengers; San Francisco International Airport alone enplaned 71.5 percent of the region's total air passengers. For the period 1990 to 2010, the number of air passengers in the region is expected to reach between 70 and 84 million travelers per year (low- and high-end forecasts). As a result of this growing passenger demand, along with increases in freight demand, the defining issue for the Bay Area's airport system is the need for new capacity. Expansion plans for either existing airport facilities or entirely new facilities must be considered against numerous financial, environmental and community constraints. MTC's Regional Airport System Plan Update (1994) provides a more comprehensive look at the major issues and recommendations for the region's air transportation system. Freight Movement The freight sector plays a crucial role in the Bay Area's economy. Freight movement in the Bay Area is dominated by four modes: - Trucking, the backbone of the freight sector, handles a range of short- and longhaul movements. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -28- June 22, 1994 - Shipping, which primarily consists of trade with other countries through the region's six public-use seaports. - Air cargo, which primarily handles high-value freight that requires rapid delivery, such as overnight package deliveries. - Freight railroads, which are primarily used for longer- haul freight movements with one end of the trip being outside the region. The region's largest freight facilities are shown on Figures 1.1 and 1.2: Bay Area Major Transportation Facilities. Some Basic Facts and Figures Trucking Trucking is the most essential component of the freight sector and carries the greatest share of freight in the region. Virtually every commodity that is moved involves one or more trucks on its journey. The Bay Area has virtually no through- truck movements with both origin and destination outside of the region. A 1992 Caltrans survey of trucks at five weigh stations and four toll bridges revealed that only 1 percent of all journeys started and ended outside the Bay Area. Another 14 percent of trucks surveyed had one end of their trip within the Bay Area and the other end outside the region. The remaining 85 percent of trucks were traveling exclusively within the nine counties of the Bay Area. Of those trucks with origins and destinations in the Bay Area, about 40 percent were "garage-based' trips, which traveled to only one destination, while another 58 percent were "linked trips" with multiple destinations before returning to their base of operations. Average trip times ranged between 24 minutes and 40 minutes for garage-based trips and between 16 minutes and 29 minutes for linked trips. In both cases, larger trucks exhibited longer average travel times. The study also found that peak activity for large trucks (six or more tires) occurred during the midday periods from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., primarily due to the demands of shippers and receivers who operate on normal weekday hours. Peak truck volumes crest between the two daily commute peaks, as shown in Figure 1-13 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -29- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. Figure 1-13 illustrates two important considerations for regional transportation planning. First, there is a distinct difference in the vehicle mix and use of the system by time of day. Second, there is a danger for the peaks to "spread" over a longer time period and result in substantially worse congestion, particularly between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. Trucks of all sizes account for an estimated 4 percent of total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the region's highways and arterials. Truck VMT in 1990 was estimated at about 9.8 million miles per weekday, rising to a projected 14 million miles per week day in the year 2010. Shipping Bay Area seaports handled about 12.8 million metric tonnes of dry cargo in 1990. This volume is projected to grow by more than three times to over 43 million metric tons in the year 2020. The percentage of dry cargo shipped by containers in 1990 was 60 percent, a share that is projected to grow to 75 percent of year 2020 cargo volumes. The projected growth in waterborne cargo will place significant demands on port capacities and the efficiency of intermodal freight movement. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 30- June 22, 1994 Air Cargo Air cargo accounts for only a small share of total freight in the region, but is a rapidly growing component within the freight sector. MTC's Regional Airport System Plan Update, being reviewed with the public concurrently with the RTP, indicates that air cargo tonnage passing through San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose airports combined grew by an average of 7.4 percent per year from 1980 to 1985, and 11.4 percent per year from 1986 to 1990. The Airport Plan projects tonnage at these three airports to increase at between 3.5 percent and 6.1 percent per year between 1990 and 2010. The highest growth market for air cargo passing through Bay Area airports will come from transpacific routes. Most air cargo travels in the baggage holds of passenger aircraft. However, Oakland Airport has several all-cargo airline operations and has projected an annual tonnage increase of 10 percent through the year 2010, based largely on an expanded direct distribution and two-day to three-day delivery services. Freight Railroads Freight railroad operations in the Bay Area are dominated by port activities and a few large manufacturers and distributors. Railroads have played an increasingly important role in freight movement since the development of double-stack container trains over 20 years ago. Freight rail connections at the ports of San Francisco and Oakland are particularly important in the intermodal transport of containers. Intermodal Freight Perhaps nowhere else in the region is the concept of a seamless intermodal system better illustrated than by the physical and institutional linkages within the freight sector. The degree of intermodalism already achieved in the freight sector has been possible because of a few key innovations over the past 20 years. Containerization of freight, which was pioneered by the Port of Oakland beginning in the 1950s, is now the norm for most long-haul movements. With the establishment of standard-size containers as shipping units, ports, shipping firms, trucking companies, and railroad operators have been able to develop equipment and operational strategies to efficiently transfer containers between modes. Containerization also was the principal factor behind the revitalization of freight railroads over the past few decades, mainly through their ability to reduce longhaul costs by double-stacking containers on freight cars. Intermodal freight movement also has been greatly enhanced by the development of electronic data interchange that allows shippers and receivers to monitor freight moving through the various modes. Many containers now have transponders that can be scanned to determine essential information 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 31- June 22, 1994 about their contents, origin, destination and special handling instructions. As the communications industry further develops and refines electronic data interchange technologies, instantaneous tracking of freight movements throughout the world will become the norm, allowing for even more efficiency and flexibility in freight movement. As the global and national economies change, so must freight movement. Growth in transpacific trade will only strengthen the Bay Area's role as a center of international commerce and trade. Bay Area retailers and manufacturers will continue to make their own operations more efficient through innovative ways such as "just-in-time" production, thus placing higher demands on freight system flexibility and reliability. Environment The Bay Area is well known for its natural beauty and high quality of life. These characteristics continue to attract new residents to the region, but care must be taken to ensure that continued urban growth does not compromise the natural environment. In particular, transportation planning must consider the potential impacts on air quality, fragile lands and open space. Air quality There are literally millions of sources of air pollution in the Bay Area, ranging from industrial smoke stacks and motor vehicles, to individual use of personal grooming products, household cleaners and paints. The earth itself, and its plant and animal life, are natural sources of air pollutants. The most troublesome pollutants for the Bay Area are ozone (a major contributor to smog), and carbon monoxide (CO). Ozone problems most typically occur in the Santa Clara Valley and the Diablo (Livermore) Valley on hot days, while carbon monoxide problems typically occur during winter months in congested downtown areas with high volumes of cars. Carbon monoxide concentrations, or "hotspots," can also be found near some freeways. Another health concern is small particulate matter (PM10), which is very small particles of dust. Automobiles produce PM10 by stirring up dust particles on freeways and local streets. The Bay Area is subject to two different sets of air quality standards-the state and the federal standards. Air quality in the Bay Area has been improving over the past two decades. MTC, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) believe that the region has already achieved federal standards for ozone, and await concurrence from the federal Environmental Protection Agency on this. Recent air monitoring data also shows the federal standard for carbon monoxide has been attained and plans are being prepared to submit a redesignation request to the EPA for this pollutant as 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 32- June 22,1994 well. State and federal standards for carbon monoxide are the same, while the state standards are more stringent for ozone and PM10. The most significant reductions in mobile source emissions over the past 20 years have been due to improvements in the internal-combustion engine. The average light-duty motor vehicle has become much cleaner due to strong "tailpipe"' controls, cleaner fuels and the biennial Inspection and Maintenance program, or "smog check." With these controls in place, cars today are about 90 percent cleaner than their counterparts of 20 years ago. The California Air Resources Board has adopted regulations that will result in even cleaner vehicles over the coming decade. These regulations, coupled with the natural turnover in the vehicle fleet, will continue to reduce mobile source emissions (except PM10) in the future. In addition, the BAAQMD, ABAG and MTC have adopted various Transportation Control Measures (TCMS) to help achieve air quality standards. These TCMs embrace a wide range of strategies to eliminate vehicle trips, shorten driving distances, or reduce inefficient vehicle operations such as stop-and-go travel on streets and highways. Fragile Lands and Open Space The transportation system can have negative impacts on fragile lands and open space by the direct impact of locating transportation infrastructure on the land itself, or by increasing pressure for development on land as a result of accessibility improvements. A particular concern in transportation planning is the potential impacts on wetlands, which support an abundance of aquatic species. The RTP Environmental Impact Report addresses the impact of proposed transportation projects on wetlands and open space. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -33- June 22,1994 Chapter 2: Context for RTP Development Evolution of Transportation Planning--From Builders to Managers Interstate Era of Construction The "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways Act"-a Congressional action in 1954-moved the nation, particularly the developing West, inexorably toward an automobile dominated society. By serving all states and connecting all major cities, the 42,500-mile Interstate system did link the United States together, and was truly a national vision in every sense. While Congress eventually gave the nod to other modes of transportation, especially urban rail systems in the 1970s and 1980s, it was the federal government's focus on highway planning and continuous investment in the Interstate that affected the shape of the transportation network we have today. Planners of the 1950s were principally concerned that the construction program keep pace with the growth of automobile traffic. The country's focus on the Interstate system and California's booming growth and economic prosperity in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s led to the development of the most sophisticated freeway system in the country, if not the world. In the Bay Area, however, land acquisition for freeways raised serious environmental issues and in the 1960s, many Bay Area localities rejected a freeway master plan proposed by the state Division of Highways. With the freeway revolt came renewed interest in mass transportation. Most significant was the commitment to build BART-the Bay Area Rapid Transit system-in Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties. The Bay Area's retreat from freeway development accelerated in the 1970s as inflation eroded the buying power of the highway program, and fiscal constraints forced a sharp reduction in new highway construction. Equally important to transportation in the 1970s was the energy crisis and the commitment to environmental conservation. Gas lines and gas prices gave rise to a significant increase in ridesharing and transit use. The present involvement of employers in traffic mitigation is a by-product of partnerships developed during the energy crisis to facilitate carpooling, vanpooling and subscription bus service. As a result of these changes, conservation goals entered the planning mainstream, increased vehicle occupancy was institutionalized as a planning objective, and workplace ridesharing campaigns emerged as a possible strategy for traffic mitigation and for modification of the travel habits of suburban commuters. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -34- June 22, 1994 The Interstate system served the two basic objectives of transportation: mobility and access. It facilitated unprecedented additional travel. By allowing perhaps too many suburban interchanges, the Interstate system provided more local access than originally intended, and in the process created congestion, which now hampers mobility. Job growth is stymied in some urban areas as companies relocate or expand elsewhere to escape urban congestion. The challenge today is to manage and operate urban systems in order to reverse these trends-to once again provide comparatively better mobility and access for urban America. With the Bay Area, the system to be managed is the Metropolitan Transportation System, or MTS, which was first defined in the 1991 RTP. The MTS is a multimodal system of highways, major arterials, transit services, rail, ports, airports, and transfer hubs critical to the region's movement of people and freight (see Attachment B for MTS criteria and county maps and back cover pocket for regional MTS map). The 1994 RTP confronts the financial realities of maintaining and operating the MTS, and proposes strategies to improve its performance. Underlying these strategies is the recognition that longterm traffic relief will hinge on the effectiveness of MTS management as much as on new investment. ISTEA Era of New Opportunities and Challenges The landmark federal transportation legislation-the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)-signed into law by the president in 1991, closed the chapter on the American transportation policy of directing federal dollars largely toward building an Interstate highway system. ISTEA (pronounced "iced tea" in transportation circles) demands a new way of doing business, and creates an entirely new dynamic: - from a focus on facilities to a focus on the consumer, - from construction to management, - from low tech to high tech, - from narrow choices to flexible choices, and - from a few players to many players working together in partnership. ISTEA quenches local policy-makers' thirst for greater autonomy and flexibility in spending federal transportation funds now that the Interstate highway.system is largely complete. It does this by providing: - flexibility to transfer funds among various transportation modes; - a greater role for state and metropolitan areas in deciding how funds are spent; - uniform federal matching ratios, thus eliminating the federal bias toward freeway building; and - a new focus on reducing urban and suburban congestion and on linking transportation planning with land-use and clean air objectives. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 35 - June 22, 1994 Partnership Key to Producing Improvements Even before Congress committed to the construction of an Interstate system in 1954, the Bureau of Public Roads (a predecessor to the Federal Highway Administration) considered an interregional highway system. The Bureau argued that such highways must penetrate cities, rather than bypass them, because the preponderance of traffic on rural highways was bound for urban destinations. Who did it recommend build these highways? In the Bureau's 1944 blueprint for the Interstate system, Interregional Highways, the Bureau proposed that the "urban extensions of the Interstate system be built by a metropolitan authority rather than State Highway Departments." This was to achieve "proper relation in location and character to other parts of the street system-" and to plan roads that would function as "a part of the sum total of urban transportation facilities." Fifty years after the Bureau of Public Roads signaled the need for a metropolitan authority to integrate interregional and urban systems, Congress defined, in the landmark ISTEA legislation, a partnership between states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to solve the interregional/urban dilemma. For the first time, Congress acknowledged that how the various components of the Metropolitan Transportation System interconnect-and how their sponsors interact-is as important as the kinds of investments we choose. And the authors of ISTEA injected into transportation decision- making processes renewed concern for how transportation investments impact land use and how the resulting projects blend with the surrounding landscape, putting much of the responsibility for investment decisions squarely on the shoulders of metropolitan planning organizations like MTC. But while MPOs take center stage, they are not to act in isolation. There are many players with individual responsibilities for mobility within a metropolitan area. Efficient system management, of necessity, becomes a partnership enterprise. The Bay Area Partnership In January 1992, barely one month into ISTEA, MTC assembled the heads of some three dozen federal, state, regional and local institutions responsible for highways and roadways, transit, seaports and airports, ridesharing and air quality management. Known simply as The Bay Area Partnership, the consortium came together in order to take advantage of new and improved institutional arrangements called for in both ISTEA and the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Partnership activities focus on planning decisions and projects that involve two or more agencies. The mission of this regional alliance is to improve working relationships in order to provide mobility and to clean the air. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 36 - June 22, 1994 More than a paper exercise, The Partnership's work program is an effort appropriate named "JUMP Start," which stands for the joint Urban Mobility Program. It spotlights a number of fast-track projects designed to squeeze more capacity out of the existing transportation network or streamline planning practices. The Partnership Board has identified five objectives: - build a partnership for performance; - define a systems management focus for the Metropolitan Transportation System; - advance technological adaptation; - develop better methods and decisions; - initiate new directions for the future. To meet those objectives, The Partnership established three committees, - Plans and Programs Committee, - Legislation Committee, and - System Operations and Management Committee Blue Ribbon Advisory Council The Partnership also created a Blue Ribbon Advisory Council of business, environmental, public interest, academic research, and community leaders to complement the Partnership Board. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Council meets regularly to advise the Partnership on policy and fiscal issues and assist in the development and implementation of the Partnership's agenda. Freight Advisory Council This new spirit of partnering percolated beyond JUMP Start to other aspects of planning and programming in the Bay Area. In the fall of 1992, MTC convened a Freight Advisory Council made up of representatives of trucking, shipping, rail, and air cargo interests. The Partnership's Major Achievements and Challenges While The Partnership has a broad agenda for improving transportation planning in the region, two initiatives stand out as defining the new spirit of cooperation: the Multimodal Priority Setting Process and the MTS Management Strategy. The former stands as the Partnership's most significant achievement to date while the latter is probably the organization's biggest challenge in the future. Multimodal Priority Setting One of the Partnership's early challenges was defining a process to program the flexible funds made available by ISTEA. In the spring of 1992, MTC assembled a working group of the region's transit operators, cities and 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 37- June 22, 1994 counties, local congestion management agencies, seaports and airports, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the state Air Resources Board, and the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to develop a' method of selecting multimodal projects for flexible funding under two ISTEA programs. The goal of the task force was to develop criteria that would lead to the selection of the best and most cost-effective eligible transportation projects that serve regional transportation needs, be they on the state highway system, local arterials or transit systems. The group developed an innovative ranking system that grades projects based on their ability to meet four goals: to maintain/sustain the metropolitan transportation system, or MTS; improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the MTS; expand the system to meet demand; and address external factors. The Ad Hoc Committee has since evolved into the Plans and Programs Committee, which continues to oversee the multimodal priority setting process as well as other planning and programming activities. MTS Management Strategy Finally, as part of the Partnership work, MTC and Bay Area transportation managers will be developing a first-ever system management strategy, designed to garner the most efficiency from the region's transportation investments. The Partnership's System Operations and Management Committee has made the development of the MTS Management Strategy its most important task. The region's Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS)-that network of highways, major arterials, transit services, rail, ports, airports and transfer hubs critical to the region's movement of people and goods-is managed by individual operating agencies and not as a single, integrated system. To manage congestion and maintain mobility, however, the region must move beyond the day-to-day operation of streets, highways and transit services to a management strategy that coordinates both the operating program and the capital improvement schedule of each component of the MTS. Interagency and intermodal coordination is essential, especially in the Bay Area with its sheer number of operating agencies. The MTS Management Strategy will promote the coordinated development and implementation of various approaches to managing the existing system, and will address potential conflicts that may exist among the separate operators of the region's transportation network. State and Federal Policy Direction The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) must take into account federal and state planning requirements and other agency plans. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -38 - June 22, 1994 Metropolitan Planning Under ISTEA just as ISTEA changed the landscape for federal transportation funding decisions, so did it change the planning guidelines for development of MTC's RTP. ISTEA requires MTC to "...identify transportation facilities (including but not limited to major roadways, transit, and multimodal and intermodal facilities) that should function as an integrated metropolitan transportation system, giving emphasis to those facilities that serve important national and regional transportation functions." This plan win serve as the blueprint for transportation choices over the next 20 years. Major requirements from the legislation include: Fifteen Planning Factors The RTP is required to consider, at a minimum, 15 "planning factors" addressing a variety of transportation and environmental topics. These include preserving existing transportation facilities and using them more efficiently, enhancing freight movement, expanding and enhancing transit services, and considering the overall social, economic and environmental effects of transportation decisions. Table 5-12 in Chapter 5 relates the 15 planning factors to the RTP and other MTC activities. ISTEA Management Systems ISTEA requires the state to develop and implement, in cooperation with metropolitan planning organizations and local transit operators, a system for managing each of the following: - congestion, - intermodal transportation facilities and systems, - public transportation facilities and equipment, - highway pavement, - bridges, - highway safety. The management systems, to be developed by October 1995, must include information and strategies to improve the performance of the existing and future facilities, and should establish an explicit link between the needs identified through the management systems and the available finances. The results of the six management systems should be integrated into the regional planning and programming processes. MTC's general approach to integrating the management systems with these processes is shown in Figure 2-1. Major Metropolitan Investment Analyses ISTEA also established a new process for considering major capital investment decisions. The process stresses a level playing field for developing information on highway, transit and operational solutions to urban traffic and 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 39 - June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 40 - June 22, 1994 mobility problems, as well as comparable information on cost effectiveness and environmental/land-use impact analysis. The process also stresses an open decision-making process with full involvement from interested agencies and the public. This process will be used where federal funds are proposed to finance significant new transportation facilities or programs. More details on MTC's proposed approach to the major investment analyses are provided in Chapter 5. Public Involvement Procedures On the proposition that no one individual or organization has a monopoly on good ideas, MTC seeks to engage the public early and often in the development of the region's transportation plans and programs. ISTEA underscores the need for public involvement, calling on metropolitan planning organizations to provide citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment" on transportation plans and programs. In January 1994, MTC adopted a set of procedures that outline policies concerning MTC meetings and public comment, MTC's public information program, MTC publications, MTC citizen advisory groups and other public participation efforts. State Transportation Plan ISTEA required that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) develop a long-range transportation plan in cooperation with metropolitan planning organizations and with extensive citizen participation. Known as the California Transportation Plan, the first CTP was submitted to the governor in December 1993. Approval of the plan is pending. Although the plan does not describe specific transportation projects, the policies, strategies and recommendations contained in the state plan are intended to influence decisions made at the local levels. Federal and State Air Quality Plans The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the California 1988 Clean Air Act continue to have a major influence on transportation planning and development. Both of these laws require the region to have plans showing how clean, healthy air will be achieved. Under federal air quality procedures, MTC must show how long-range transportation plans (the RTP), fund progranuning documents (the TIP), and projects help achieve the national air quality standards. This process is called demonstrating "conformity" with air quality plans. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 41- June 22, 1994 The federal air quality plan is known as the State Implementation Plan, or SIP. The state air quality plan, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan (CAP), contains an additional set of air quality objectives designed to achieve the more stringent state air quality standards. The Bay Area Clean Air Plan was adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in 1991 in cooperation with the MTC and ABAG. The plan recommends implementing every feasible strategy to reduce the frequency and magnitude of air quality violations. Some applicable state requirements for the Bay Area are: - average vehicle ridership of 1.4 during weekday commute hours by 1999, - no net increase in motor vehicle emissions after 1997, - substantially reduced rate of increase in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. Thanks to a concerted effort by citizens and business throughout the region, and strict state regulation of auto emissions, the Bay Area has requested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formally declare the region in compliance with federal standards for ozone. Better known as smog, ozone results from a chemical reaction that takes place in the atmosphere, under the influence of sunlight. Motor vehicles produce about half of the man-made precursors to ozone. Reduced carbon monoxide levels due to vehicle technology and fuels has also made it possible for the region- to submit a request to the EPA for CO attainment based on two years of no violations. However, the Bay Area may be classified by EPA as a non-attainment area for federal PM lo standards in the future and does not always meet the stricter state ozone and PM10 standards. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), strategies to reduce auto trips and mileage along with congestion and idling, are part of both the state and federal air quality plans, and are shown in Attachment C. TCMs are not required for attainment of the national ozone standard. The TCMs in the State Clean Air Plan are more comprehensive and include market-based pricing measures to help achieve the performance requirements above. Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 Process (Wetlands) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) both require that the impacts of transportation projects on wetland areas and associated sensitive species be addressed. Many of the transportation projects in the RTP Investment Strategy will require NEPA analysis and documentation in the project development phase. Failure to identify critical wetlands and water quality issues early in the project planning process has sometimes resulted in difficulties further along in the project"s development. This has been the case when agencies with wetlands/water quality protection responsibilities were not involved at the early stages of project development. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 42- June 22, 1994 A number of federal agencies have taken action to address this problem. The Federal Highways Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, and other federal resource agencies recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State Transportation Departments in California, Arizona and Nevada. The purpose of the MOU is to improve the coordination of transportation planning and wetlands/water quality protection, particularly through early consultation among responsible agencies over potentially significant issues. Ultimately, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will include these coordination procedures in its memorandums of understanding with metropolitan planning organizations throughout the state RTP projects that may be subject to this MOU are identified in the RTP Environmental Impact Report Congestion Management Programs and Countywide Plans Legislation passed in 1988 gave counties the authority to prepare countywide transportation plans. The plans are not mandatory, and not every Bay Area county has prepared one. As required by state law, countywide plans serve as the primary basis for the RTP with respect to those counties that have adopted them. However, state law requires the RTP to also consider issues of regional significance that may not be addressed by countywide plans. In addition, State law requires each Bay Area county to develop a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMPs must establish levels of service standards for roadways, set transit service standards, develop trip-reduction and travel demand management programs, perform land-use impact analyses, formulate capital improvement programs, and monitor conformance in the county with the CMP. MTC reviews Bay Area counties' CMPs for consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan. MTC also incorporates the CMP's Capital Improvement Program into the regional process for programming projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Projects for certain state funds must come from adopted Congestion Management Programs. Therefore, local jurisdictions that seek major state assistance for highways and rail transit must comply with CMP requirements. Additionally, the counties' Congestion Management Programs will serve as the building blocks to the ISTEA required Congestion Management System. Short Range Transit Plans Each transit operator prepares a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) in order to obtain federal funds. The SRTP establishes operating plans and provides the foundation for capital improvement programs and financial plans. The plans are updated annually, and are reviewed by MTC for consistency with the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 43- June 22, 1994 Regional Transportation Plan. The transit operators' capital projects that are found in the RTP are drawn from the capital plans contained in the SRTPs. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)--essentially a civil rights act for the disabled--calls on public transit systems to make their services more fully accessible as well as to underwrite a parallel network of paratransit service for those riders whose physical or mental condition prevents them from using regular fixed-route service. The most significant barrier to implementing the paratransit provisions of the ADA is lack of funding, particularly for operating costs. In order to maximum use of limited resources, MTC and transit operators will focus on improving coordination between federal social service programs that fund paratransit services and transit operators who provide these services. MTC also encourages use of state-of-the-art technology for paratransit services, funding promising demonstration projects, and promoting regional coordination of ADA and non-ADA paratransit services. Each transit operator is required to annually update its Complementary Paratransit Service Plan, which estimates necessary levels of service and establishes milestones toward full compliance with ADA by 1997. MTC is required to review these plans and certify that they conform with the RTP. See Appendix D for goals and criteria used in certification of the plans. Regional Airport System Plan/Regional Seaport Plan The Regional Airport System Plan and the Bay Area Regional Seaport Plan were developed as individual components of the Regional Transportation Plan. Because of the unique policy and planning issues associated with the airport and seaport plans, each plan has its own environmental study. The Seaport Plan addresses port development sites, dredging issues, and the adequacy of ground access to ports. The Regional Airport System Plan is primarily concerned with future demand for air passenger, air cargo and general aviation facilities, and airport ground access improvements. The airport and seaport facilities and the relevant ground connections are shown on the Metropolitan Transportation System maps in the RTP. The Regional Airport System Plan and Bay Area Regional Seaport Plan are incorporated as reference documents into the 1994 RTP in Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively. Transportation Improvement Program The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) identifies specific projects to be funded in the region. The investment priorities for highways and transit set forth in the TIP are developed by MTC with the assistance of its many partners. The overall selection of projects is intended to achieve an orderly implementation of the Regional Transportation Plan's goals and objectives. The 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 44 - June 22, 1994 TIP must be consistent with funding reasonably expected to be available during the relevant period; projects in the TIP must be consistent with the region's long-range plan; and the TIP must be consistent with the federal air quality plan, the State Implementation Plan (SIP). State Transportation Improvement Program The State Transportation Improvement Program is a seven-year program of transportation projects to be funded from state revenues. Regional transportation planning agencies throughout the state develop Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs), which propose projects for state funding. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) considers the various RTIPs along with the state Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) requests for state funding of projects. The CTC's decisions on state funding become embodied in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The STIP is updated every two years by adding projects from Caltrans and the regions in the last years of the program. Due to the state's lack of transportation funds, however, no new non-maintenance projects were added for the fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 of the 1994 STIP. Bay Plan The Bay Conservation and Development Commission's Bay Plan figures prominently in two components of the Regional Transportation Plan-the airport and seaport long-range plans. Because numerous airport and seaport terminals ring the Bay, expansion of these facilities can potentially affect the 100- foot band of shoreline under BCDC's jurisdiction. Any expansion of these facilities that requires filling of the Bay would be permitted only if no feasible alternatives are available and there is no other location for a new airport. If fill is justified, the adverse impacts must be mitigated in accordance with mitigation policies of the BCDC and the Army Corps of Engineers. The same general principles also apply to seaport projects. Airport and seaport priority uses are listed in the Bay Plan and airport and seaport policies are periodically reviewed. Other transportation projects, such as roads, can also call into play BCDC policies and permit requirements. Development of the Regional Transportation Plan Citizen Involvement in the RTP Public outreach for the Regional Transportation Plan began early on in the process, before recommendations or decisions were made. In developing the current update of the RTP, MTC held a series of community forums in August 1993. Fliers announcing the meetings were sent out to some 7,000 citizens from a specially prepared database of citizen, business, 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -45- June 22,1994 environmental, low-income and minority groups. The meetings were also flagged in a special issue of MTC's monthly newsletter devoted to the RTP. To begin the environmental analysis and to provide a basis for public discussion, MTC staff developed three alternatives for the draft RTP Capital Investment Plan. These three alternatives (called Track 1a, 1b and 1c) emphasized different policy options, namely: Track la, Prior Commitments/Local Plans; Track lb, Maintenance and Operations Management; and Track lc, Transportation /Land Use Coordination. Citizens from throughout the Bay Area participated in discussion groups where they offered comments on these different investment options and answered questions on regional transportation priorities. One exercise asked citizens how they would " spend" $100 of available funds to cover $200 in transportation needs-illustrating the competing transportation needs and difficult tradeoffs facing the region. These initial forums also served as "scoping" meetings for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), developed in conjunction with the RTP, i.e., citizens were given an opportunity to comment upon the "scope" of the EIR. In addition to holding these MTC community gatherings, MTC staff made numerous presentations at public meetings of various policy boards, including public transit agencies and county congestion management agencies. Special presentations also were made to various public interest groups. To garner comments from MTC's Minority Citizens Advisory Committee, Elderly and Disabled Advisory Committee and Freight Advisory Council, MTC staff held special workshops with the committees where details of the RTP were discussed. Beyond making special presentations, MTC staff has worked closely in developing the RTP with members of the Bay Area Partnership, a confederation of transportation and environmental protection agencies formed in 1992, as well as The Partnership's Blue Ribbon Advisory Council. MTC staff used comments from these initial meetings in developing the draft 1994 RTP "Project" Alternative that constituted the focal point for the environmental analysis. A second series of 10 community forums, as well as two public hearings, were held throughout the region in April and May 1994, to give interested citizens an opportunity to comment upon the specifics of the draft plan. Environmental Impact Report Process In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), MTC prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the draft 1994 Regional Transportation Plan. Because the EIR project is, in this case, a longrange plan, the EIR assessment of physical and social impacts emphasized regional and 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 46- June 22, 1994 corridor-scale impacts associated with the construction and/or implementation of new transportation facilities and activities. The EIR compared 1990 conditions with five future-year alternatives: -a "No Project" alternative as required by CEQA; and -a "Track 1 Project Alternative;" plus three additional Track 1 alternatives, which were discussed in the scoping meetings: Track 1a; Track 1b; Track 1c. Each of the alternatives were constrained according to reasonably assumed revenue totals. The Track 1 Project Alternative is a composite of the other "build" alternatives. It honors prior commitments, with the understanding that maintenance and operation of the existing MTS is the most fundamental commitment. Substantial investment is proposed for maintaining transit fleets and facilities and rehabilitating streets and roads in each county. The Project Alternative also includes projects to improve freight mobility. Track 1a looked at whether the region should continue on the course set by local officials and voters in county sales tax plans and by regional and state spending programs. Track 1b considered whether the region should focus more intently on maintaining and managing the transportation system it already has. Track lc looked at whether the region can begin to weave closer ties between transportation investments and land-use planning in order to focus development in some areas and not others. Amending the RTP The RTP is a living document that will be periodically updated to reflect new plans and mandates, financial conditions and policy directions. Because it is a 20-year road map for the region, the later years are less defined, and a number of future improvements will require better information and analysis. A focal point for generating this information will be the ISTEA corridor/subarea studies, which will be undertaken to determine preferred capital and operational strategies in various high priority transportation corridors that have been identified in the RTP (see Chapter 5). While MTC is required under state statutes to consider revisions annually, major updates of the RTP would be undertaken every two years. This schedule will mesh with the schedule for the preparation of several other important documents, such as the federal and state fund programming documents and the county Congestion Management Programs. Each revision will continue to require a "conformity" assessment to ensure that the RTP continues to meet federal air quality objectives. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 47- June 22,1994 (This page intentionally left blank) 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 48- June 22,1994 Chapter 3: Policy Element Description Of Goals and Objectives The Regional Transportation Plan's Policy Element directly reflects the legislative, planning, financial and institutional history that has shaped the region's transportation system. The Policy Element is intended to frame and drive actions that will affect the direction and nature of transportation, and its impact on the Bay Area community. This can be accomplished in two ways; by either -reinforcing positive opportunities and trends already in place; or -stimulating change in a new direction to achieve certain outcomes. The Policy Element has two distinct components: goals and objectives. Goals Five goals define the broad, desirable effects of the transportation system: - Improve mobility for persons and freight - Promote equity for system users - Enhance sensitivity to the environment - Support economic vitality of the region - Support community vitality in the region Objectives To target achievement of these goals in a meaningful way, more specific objectives have been identified for each. The five goals and their companion objectives are elaborated below. Goal: Improve Mobility for Persons and Freight: The ability to move with a reasonable degree of ease and predictability on a Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) in the Bay Area is key to the region's economy and quality of life. The MTS should be the focus of the many partner agencies who operate it. See the MTS definition and criteria in Attachment B. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 49 - June 22,1994 Objectives 1. Develop a Metropolitan Transportation System Management Strategy in collaboration with the Bay Area Partnership. 2. Improve Metropolitan Transportation System convenience, efficiency, and safety for passengers and freight. 3. Ensure the Metropolitan Transportation System is adequately maintained. 4. Support Bay Area Partnership efforts to maintain and improve other parts of the region's transportation system Goal: Promote Equity for System Users Equitable access to the region's transportation system, and the decision making process that governs it, should be provided for all persons. Objectives 1. Provide for an equitable decision-making process 2. Support equitable distribution of costs and benefits of the transportation system among its users. 3. Provide for mobility needs of the transportation disadvantaged, including the youth, elderly, disabled and economically disadvantaged. Goal: Enhance Sensitivity to the Environment The environmental impacts, both short- and long-term, of transportation decisions should be fully analyzed and considered, and adverse impacts mitigated whenever possible. Objectives 1. Promote a transportation system that supports a healthful environment. 2. Minimize-by avoidance or mitigation-potential adverse impacts of transportation systems and projects. Goal: Support Economic Vitality of the Region The relationship between a productive regional economy and the ability of the transportation infrastructure to move individuals, commodities, and information should be recognized and reinforced. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 50 - June 22, 1994 Objectives 1. Support the local and regional economy by improving the performance of a multimodal Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS). 2. Support national and regional economic linkages by improving system performance and reducing congestion of passengers and freight on the National Transportation System, intercity rail and airport system. 3. Maintain the international competitiveness of the Bay Area by investing in the region's international airports, seaports and related transportation infrastructure. 4. Encourage transit investments that are matched and supported by land use plans that designate development intensities sufficient to support viable transit. Goal: Support Community Vitality of the Region Transportation improvements should be used to help create more livable communities and enhance the Bay Area quality of life. Objective 1. Support transportation investments that promote community social and economic objectives. 2. Mitigate adverse community impacts to the extent possible. 3. Encourage development concepts that support alternatives to use of personal autos. 4. Support transportation investments and improvements that bolster the long-term, sustained economic vitality of the core of the region. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 51- June 22,1994 Chapter 4: Financial Element Setting the Stage: ISTEA Policy Directives for Financially Constrained Plans One of the most significant changes wrought by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) is the requirement that long-range transportation plans be financially constrained. Specifically, the law states that the 20-year regional plan will "include a financial plan that demonstrates how the longrange plan can be implemented, indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan, and recommends any innovative financing techniques as value capture, tolls and congestion pricing." With this clause, ISTEA transformed the plan from an illustrative list of projects and programs into a decision-making document with real clout. Prior to ISTEA, the Regional Transportation Plan had been viewed largely as inconsequential, generating little interest on the part of our transportation partners, politicians and the general public. Even ground-breaking agreements such as MTC's Resolution 1876 "New Rail Starts" Program were seen as stand-alone efforts, and not part of an integrated, cohesive long-range plan. However, the requirement for a financially constrained plan gave rise to a host of questions and choices that would completely redefine the parameters of the RTP: - What are the most "reasonable" assumptions for revenues over the long term? - How would the costs of maintaining the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) be defined? What would be included, and what would be left as "new investment" opportunities? How would these be balanced? - How would MTC determine priorities among competing projects for limited funds? What would be the role of partner agencies in making these decisions? - Given limited revenues, how would equity be determined? Among modes? Among geographic subregions of the Bay Area? - How would MTC handle projects and programs that "didn't make the funding list"? What would distinguish the RTP from the shorter term programming of actual funds in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and related state programming exercises? - If there aren't sufficient funds to operate and sustain our existing or expanded system, what can/should MTC do? 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -52- June 22,1994 Addressing these questions has proved much more difficult than expected. The exercise of developing financial limits, and cutting the investment choices to fit was at once sobering and enlightening. Perhaps more than any other provision of ISTEA, the call for fiscally responsible long-range planning has made it clear to all involved that expansive and expensive construction programs cannot be the only strategies for addressing mobility problems now and in the future. MTC embraced this challenge, and developed a Financial Element (Chapter 4) and Action Element (Chapter 5) that responds in kind. The following sections in Chapter 4 address the financial conditions of tile plan, specifically: - the major costs associated with the existing and expanded Metropolitan Transportation System; - the revenue growth assumptions and characteristics of various fund sources, which define the "Track 1" investment level for the long-range plan; and - the implications and conclusions drawn from the cost/revenue relationship. These conditions provide the background against which project and program choices are matched with MTC's estimates of "reasonably available" revenues. The outcomes of these investment priorities- and the associate actions that must be taken to fill the gap where money cannot-are the heart of the Action Element in Chapter 5. The Billion-Dollar Question: How Much Money Is There? The first hurdle in developing a financially constrained plan was to determine how much money would potentially be available to sustain and improve the Metropolitan Transportation System. In order to comply with ISTEA requirements, explicit assumptions had to be made to project each revenue source. The major the 1994 RTP are: financial assumptions governing ù existing sources of federal, state and regional revenues will continue throughout the 20-year time frame; ù state and local revenue contributions to maintain existing services are expected to continue, with funding levels based on existing plans and budgets; ù county transportation 1/2 cent sales tax measures sunset before the year 2013, as dictated by their enabling legislation (assumes Measure A in Santa Clara County is valid). No new additional revenue sources are assumed to become available. The sum of these revenues over 20 years amounts to $74 billion, and constitutes the financial resources for the RTP. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -53- June 22, 1994 While this might initially appear to be a significant amount of money, several issues soon became apparent. Most importantly, a majority of these funds can only be spent for specific purposes. Capital dollars cannot be spent for operating purposes. And while ISTEA made strides in establishing spending flexibility, a great deal of road money still cannot be used for transit (e.g. under the state constitution, state gas tax derived revenue can only be used for highway related purposes, and some limited fixed guideway purposes). Basically, $70 billion out of the $74 billion is dedicated to prescribed uses and is quickly accounted for when the price tag is written up for the existing system. Only $4 billion is uncommitted, and consequently available to address investment options over the long term. Basic Math for the Big Picture: 70 + 4 = 74 Seventy billion dollars of RTP funding represents fund sources and amounts primarily dedicated or programmed for specific purpose operations, maintenance, capital rehabilitation and replacement, and the capital and operating requirements for projects in the committed 1993-94 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and adopted county sales tax transportation programs. These funds include state and federal capital and operating grant programs, fare revenues, bridge tolls, various local revenues, and some portions of county sales taxes (see Appendix B, Table B-1 for a more complete description of fund types). The remaining RTP funds-$4 billion-consist of the uncommitted amounts of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds; and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Transportation System Management (TSM) funds. These funds are flexible among modes and programs for capital investment but cannot be used for transit operating costs, which is a major constraint to planning transit improvements. These conditions on the "70 + 4 = 74" equation set the defining parameters for the region's RTP investment choices. Projected 20-year revenue amounts by source are indicated in Figure 4-1. The Other Billion-Dollar Question: How Expensive Is the Existing Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS)? The full impact of working with a constrained budget is truly appreciated when matching available revenues against the costs incurred in keeping the existing system going. The "Baseline" costs for the RTP include two main elements: - the cost of ongoing operation, management, maintenance and rehabilitation of the region's transportation infrastructure and services already in place; and 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -54- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -54- June 22, 1994 - the capital and operating costs associated with prior funding commitments to transportation improvements included in the 1994 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and county 1/2 cent sales tax authority expenditure programs in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The projected costs of the RTP Baseline system components include: ù Transit system operating requirements for existing transit systems; ù Transit capital replacement and minor enhancements for existing systems; . Local streets and roads pavement rehabilitation and maintenance requirements-MTS and non-MTS components; ù Other local streets and roads maintenance and improvements, such as lighting, road signs, storm drains and road construction; . State Highway Operations Protection Program (SHOPP) and Caltrans state highway maintenance program; . Fully funded projects from county 1/2 cent sales tax transportation authority programs in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. (Not included in the Baseline costs are those projects in local expenditure plans that are not funded. Assumes Measure A in Santa Clara County is valid.); . Toll bridge seismic retrofit, operations and maintenance, and capital improvements contained in Regional Measure 1, and; . MTC Resolution 1876 rail extension and improvement program. The Baseline was defined according to the transportation investments and costs that MTC could ascertain with some degree of certainty, and to develop the financial details that MTC needed to inform the investment decisions made in Track 1. While the Baseline covers much of the region's projected transportation expenses it does not capture the 'universe" of transportation spending in the region. For example, the Baseline does not include airport, seaport and freight rail operations. Neither does it include the tremendous private expenditure on transportation, largely through "out-of-pocket" costs for automobiles, gasoline, insurance, etc. Details on the RTP Baseline are included in Attachment A, at the end of the RTP. While significant, these other costs and expenditures do not direct impact the investment decisions outlined in the RTP. On the other hand, the magnitude of the RTP Baseline costs identified have significant implications. Table 4-1 indicates how approximately $70 billion will be spent on this baseline system. It reveals also where basic system maintenance and operating deficits remain even after using over $1 billion of the discretionary $4 billion for maintenance purposes. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 56- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. Key Financial Assumptions MTC's assumptions guiding the definition and estimation of "reasonably available" revenues obviously affect this outcome of limited new investment opportunities for the region over the 20- year planning period. Consequently, MTC discussed these assumptions in detail with agencies participating in the development of the RTP. The full description of assumptions is contained in Appendix B , bound as a separate document. The key related financial assumptions are: - an annual inflation rate of 5 percent; - projected revenues and project costs in inflated year-of- expenditure dollars; - state funding consistent with the 1994 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) fund estimate; - federal ISTEA funding equal to authorized funding levels with ISTEA apportionment factors held constant; - gas tax derived revenue sources projected to grow at a rate equal to one-half the assumed 5 percent inflation rate beyond the current federal ISTEA authorization period. This translates into assumed federal and state gas tax increases in the years 2003 and 2013; - transit operator fare structures that keep pace with inflation; - air quality attainment was assumed to be achieved in 1997 and therefore no Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding was assumed available in 1998 and beyond. (MTC is seeking a change in federal law that would extend CMAQ eligibility to air quality "maintenance" areas.); - projected revenues were assumed to equal projected costs for toll bridge operations and maintenance, State Highway Operations Protection Program, State Highway Maintenance, and local streets and roads non-pavement maintenance and improvements. Who Gets What-Matching Costs and Funds Among Project and Programs The "Baseline" Program As mentioned above, Baseline costs were mostly concerned with maintaining and sustaining the existing MTS. For the highway system, a significant share of dollars invested in Bay Area infrastructure is under the control of the state through the State Highway Operations Protection Program (SHOPP) and State Highway Maintenance funds taken off the top of the STIP. Costs are 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 58- June 22, 1994 assumed to equal the funding made available through the State Highway Account for these purposes. Local streets and roads are the responsibility of cities and counties. Pavement maintenance and rehabilitation costs were estimated from the region's Pavement Management System at the county level, on the basis of road miles. Local funds available for pavement purposes were assigned against appropriate county costs to estimate any shortfalls. These funds include significant contributions of state gas tax revenues "subvented" or distributed to counties and cities annually, and locally generated revenues budgeted for pavement rehabilitation. In addition to pavement costs, local jurisdictions incur substantial other costs for streets and roads, such as traffic lighting, road signs, storm drains and new construction. These costs were estimated based on a factor that relates pavement to non-pavement streets and road costs for all jurisdictions in the region. For transit, a priority was established to first fund existing transit services and their asset replacement and rehabilitation requirements before funding proposed service expansions. MTC Resolution No. 1876 rail extension corridors with regional financial commitments were considered to be priority projects and existing funding commitments were maintained even where significant project scope modifications were anticipated. Specifically, the CalTrain extension to downtown San Francisco and Fremont-South Bay (Warm Springs) corridor projects may have to be rescoped to comply with their existing funding commitments. Operating and capital costs for transit operators were assigned to the county for which the service was provided. Transit capital funding from state and federal transit programs was apportioned among transit operators based on relative demand for capital funds as measured by their 10-year capital improvement programs and MTC asset replacement schedules for years 11 through 20, excluding major expansion projects. Multicounty transit operator costs and funding were apportioned among constituent counties on the basis of existing regional policies or agreements to ensure equity among the affected jurisdictions. Given the limited investment opportunities in the RTP budget, and the upfront financial demand the existing system places on those funds, the deciding basis for apportioning 20-year revenues among competing needs was a significant task. While the actual distribution of the $70 billion in dedicated revenues is for the most part prescribed by existing federal and state formulas, the outcome of distributing the burden of financing MTS commitments has varying impacts on different areas of the region. Once Baseline program and project expenditure dollars were matched against available revenues, MTC was able to determine for each county if an investment 'surplus" or "shortfall" existed after current system demands and prior funding commitments were funded with the county's share of the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -59- June 22, 1994 $70 billion in "dedicated" revenues. This set the stage for major decisions to be made as part of the RTP Track 1 Investment Strategy. The Track 1 Investment Strategy Identified Baseline project or program costs that could not be met with "dedicated" Baseline revenues were calculated as a shortfall and assigned on a county by county basis. Several policy decisions were then open for MTC and its partners to address: ù Should or could Baseline shortfalls be addressed in whole or in part with the county's share of the $4 billion "flexible" Track 1 investment funds? ù In situations where remaining project or program shortfalls could not be eliminated with available Track 1 investment funds, can/should the project or program be (a) reduced in scope to a fundable operable segment, or (b) removed from the Track 1 project alternative and required to compete with other projects for future funds, if and when new revenue sources become available? ù What other new projects are on each county's priority investment list? How does the county's share of unmet Baseline costs stack up against these other projects? What tradeoffs can be made and how should these be decided? As MTC and its partners asked these questions, some universal conclusions were reached: . Transit Baseline operating shortfalls can not be covered within Track 1, and are left unfunded. There simply are not any additional operating funds that could be identified within the 20-year planning period. Consequently, service reductions are assumed to account for significant shortfalls. . The scope of local streets and roads pavement maintenance needs is so great that to fully fund them would require commitment of nearly all the region's discretionary revenues. Consequently, the RTP only requires that the MTS portion of streets and roads pavement needs-roughly 13 percent of the total-be fully funded through the planning period. ù Transit Baseline capital needs focused on those necessary for essential maintenance and rehabilitation-those necessary to ensure a) the safety of the system's users; and b) a schedule of maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement that does not defer needed improvements to the point that problems are significantly more expensive to rectify in the future. Capital requirements for major transit system expansions were not included in the Baseline. Even so, the degree and amount of unfunded transit capital needs so varied across the board that the extent to which they were funded from 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 60 June 22, 1994 flexible sources would have to be determined on an operator by operator basis. Projected 20-year RTP expenditures by category are indicated in Figure 4-2. The flip side of assigning costs is apportioning the 20-year Track 1 investment revenues, done as follows: - State and federal highway project funding in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) are apportioned to counties based on county minimum factors. - For RTP planning purposes, other flexible funding sources (Surface Transportation Program [STP] funds, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality [CMAQ] funds, Transportation system Management [TSM] funds) are distributed among counties based on population to approximate equitable levels of investment throughout the region. Actual Distribution and programming of funds will be consistent with the more complex formulas outlined in adopted regional policies, and consistent with ISTEA direction. MTC spent a considerable amount of time working with its constituent local jurisdictions and transit operators to match Track 1 investment options to available dollars, and make the policy choices implied therein. The outcomes of these deliberations are outlined in the Action Element. In the end, all counties did have some margin of new investment opportunity available through the flexible $4 billion STIP, STP and CMAQ funds. New projects were introduced into the planning process at the county level. Within the limits of the Track 1 budget, considerations were given to Clean Air Act mandated Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the ISTEA emphasis on management of the transportation system. This overall process resulted in an RTP project alternative to be used for air quality conformity analysis completely funded with projected revenues from existing sources of funding. The Bottom Line: Implications and Conclusions The region anticipates spending $74 billion on transportation investments and operating and maintenance costs over the next 20 years. Most of this is needed to sustain the existing system, with just under $4 billion of the $74 billion being available to fund programs or projects that are presently only partially funded, or new projects not included in transit operator, county or state transportation programs. Essentially, it will take 20 years at existing levels of funding to implement the projects contained in current 10-year transit operator plans, voter 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 61 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 61 June 22, 1994 approved county 1/2 cent sales tax initiatives that sunset between 2002 and 2015, and the 1994-2001 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). There are several other specific program- and project-level findings related to this general conclusion: - Since the late 1960s, there has been a steady erosion of state transportation revenues relative to transportation demand and maintenance/construction costs. Much of this was due to a dramatic decrease in real terms for state gas tax revenues as fuel tax rates did not keep pace with inflation and automobile improvements increased fuel efficiencies. One result of this was a major shift in transportation funding in this region from state to local sources, primarily urban counties using voter-approved sales tax initiatives. County authority transportation sales tax revenues are expected to bring almost $8 billion worth of investment capacity to the region. However, the expenditure programs are currently oversubscribed due, in part, to the financial impact of a depressed California economy on sales tax revenues. Because these sales tax revenues all sunset, the RTP financial plan has had to substitute projected future ISTEA and state funding for reduced sales tax revenues to fund priority projects agreed to between MTC and the sales tax counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. Even so, projected future funding from existing sources will not be sufficient to deliver all of the projects in the county programs, and additional funding from new sources not assumed in Track 1 will be required if all projects are to be implemented within the 20-year RTP time frame. Furthermore, the RTP assumes that the 1/2 cent sales tax voter initiative in Santa Clara County, which was passed in 1993 and is currently under review by the courts, will be found to be constitutional. Should this not be the case, $3 billion of planned transportation projects in Santa Clara county would be put at risk. - State and federal transit funding, with the exception of the federal Section 9 and State Transit Assistance programs, cannot be used to fund transit operations, but must be used for capital purposes. In the current recession, which has depressed local sales tax-based transit funding, this has required that transit fares be substantially increased even as the price of gasoline has dropped to a post-war low. This inability to fund transit operations with federal and state categorical funding programs reduces the ability of transit to compete with the automobile and sharply limits the future expansion of transit service. As a result, transit operating funds, including fare revenues, federal Section 9 and state operating assistance, and local funding from dedicated sales tax and General Fund sources, are not projected to be sufficient to maintain existing transit service levels for all transit operators over the next 20 years. This is exacerbated by the total lack of alternative funding sources that can be used for operating purposes. This has required a projected 5 percent service cutback from planned service levels for AC Transit and Golden Gate Transit. The RTP also assumes fare structure increases for Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and San Francisco 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -63- June 22, 1994 Municipal Railway (Muni) that would require fare levels to increase with inflation and, in the case of Muni, increases in General Fund subsidies equal to inflation. Projected shortfalls for other transit operators are not large enough to trigger significant service cutbacks, although the operators would need to realize some margin of cost-savings to continue existing services. Service cutbacks would be restored if new funding were to become available from future new revenue sources, or if transit operators were able, through increased operating efficiencies, to reduce the costs of providing service. On the downside, service cutbacks could be increased from those projected, especially if BART and S.F. Muni do not implement assumed fare increases. - Transit operator capital improvement program projects to rehabilitate and enhance the existing Baseline system are concentrated in the first 10 years of the RTP (1994-2003), with only scheduled asset replacement requirements estimated for years 11 through 20 (2004-2013). Even so, capital funding shortfalls are projected at the end of 20 years for BART, Muni, AC Transit, Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA) and Golden Gate Transit. This is after all applicable 'dedicated' transit capital funding has been applied to these systems. As indicated in the previous section above, Baseline transit capital shortfalls were carried over as Track 1 Investment options, to be funded in whole or in part with STIP, STP or CMAQ funds. RTP Track 1 funds were used to resolve the resulting system capital shortfalls for AC Transit, Muni, CCCTA and Golden Gate Transit. In the case of BART, sufficient funds were available to fund 75 percent of the 20- year capital shortfall. BART will therefore require additional funding or face the need to defer or finance essential replacement and rehabilitation projects beyond 2013. - Local streets and roads pavement funding is based on actual local expenditures of General Funds, state gas tax subventions, applicable portions of county transportation 1/2 cent sales tax revenues in counties that have levied the tax, and special assessment district funds. Estimated needs are as projected by MTC staff based on a sample of 25 cities and counties in the region accounting for 25 percent of total local street and road miles. The analysis indicated a $,550 million backlog to bring all local streets and roads pavement up to standard during the first five years. The RTP fully funds the MTS local streets and roads pavement component, which comprises 13 percent of the total and includes arterials and major collectors. However, woeful lack of sufficient local funds for streets and roads pavement maintenance is expected to increase the rate of deferred maintenance throughout the planning period. This would produce a cumulative $2 billion deficit in the remaining local streets and roads pavement funds at the end of 20 years, unless additional flexible dollars are diverted to this deficit, or significant new additional revenues are secured. - The Regional Measure 1 program of new toll bridges and toll bridge improvements is funded entirely by toll revenues and bonds secured by toll 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 64- June 22, 1994 revenues. In addition, the RTP assumes that $700 million of toll bridge seismic retrofit projects will be funded with State Highway Account funds. Funding seismic retrofit from the State Highway Account would allow Regional Measure 1 voter-approved toll bridge improvements to proceed on schedule. Planning within a 20-year investment budget introduces discipline and difficult choices into the RTP. As a result, the selection, phasing, and conditions for receiving funding for any individual project or program becomes very critical. The region's shorter- term programming process must address these issues and reconcile the broader investment blueprint of the RTP with individual funding cycles. This link between planning and programming is discussed further in Chapter 5. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -65- June 22, 1994 Chapter 5: Action Element The Action Element defines the Regional Transportation Plan Track 1 Investment Strategy for the region's projected discretionary transportation funds over the next 20 years. The Action Element also discusses some of the significant mobility and air quality results of the investment strategy and outlines MTC's key activities for implementing the RTP goals and objectives. Track 1 Investment Strategy Considerations in the Development of the Investment Strategy The Track 1 Investment Strategy considers the regional growth projections, RTP policies and objectives, and financial information presented in the previous chapters of the RTP. The following points summarize the most important of these considerations that led to the development of the Investment Strategy: - Substantial population and job growth is projected over the next 20 years which will place significantly higher demands on Metropolitan Transportation System performance. - The five RTP goals outlined in Chapter 3 define the broad, desirable effects of the MTS, given MTC's role in regional transportation planning and investments decisions. - About $4 billion is available to the region for new transportation investments over the next 20 years. - Financial shortfalls for maintaining and sustaining the existing system need to be addressed in the Investment Strategy. The Track 1 Investment Strategy was developed through an extensive process that considered different emphases for system maintenance and improvement. This process, described in more detail in Chapter 1, resulted in an Investment Strategy that emphasizes the following points: 1. Maintain and sustain the MTS by funding projected financial shortfalls for the region's transit systems, streets and roads, and bridges; 2. Honor longstanding prior commitments to the public for specific transportation improvements that are unfunded or underfunded; and 3. Improve the operation of the MTS by investing in strategies that squeeze better performance out of the existing system, and that improve mobility through selected expansion of the system. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 66- June 22, 1994 Many investments overlap these three categories, illustrating that most projects and strategies serve multiple purposes. For example, the region's most fundamental commitment for transportation is the maintenance of the existing system. Likewise, maintaining and sustaining the existing system is essential in order to fully realize improved mobility through operational improvements. In addition, many investments are state or federal Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). Summary of Track 1 Investment Strategy Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 summarize the Track 1 Investment Strategy by broad categories. Each county includes a mixture of investments in regional projects and strategies, along with investments that are more local in nature. The different categories of investments are summarized below. Investments to Maintain and Sustain the MTS Thirty one percent of Track 1 Investment Strategy funding goes to shortfalls identified in the Financial Element for maintaining and sustaining the existing transportation system. While this level of funding does not cover an shortfalls for the existing system, it does cover some of the most essential maintenance for the Metropolitan Transportation System, including: Streets and Roads Maintenance The Track 1 Investment Strategy includes $516 million for maintaining local streets and roads. This level of investment would fully fund the projected shortfall for maintaining MTS streets and roads (about 13 percent of the entire Bay Area road network), with about an additional $200 million for maintaining streets and roads off the MTS. Non-MTS streets and roads funding in the RTP would cover only about 9 percent of the estimated shortfall for these roads. Bridge Seismic Retrofit $125 million in State Transportation Improvement Program funds to Bay Area counties are included to complement additional state funding for seismic retrofit of the seven state-owned bridges in the Bay Area. These estimates are based on the FY 1993-94 state budget. The outcome of the seismic retrofit bond measure on the June 1994 ballot may alter the budget agreement. The Golden Gate Bridge is not owned by the state, and its retrofit costs are not included in the Investment Strategy. The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District is setting aside its own funds and seeking federal funds toward seismic retrofit for the bridge. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -67- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -68- June 22, 1994 Transit Capital Replacement Over $534 million is included to fund shortfalls for replacing and rehabilitating the capital assets of existing transit systems over the next 20 years. Click HERE for graphic. Transit Improvements Thirty percent of the Track 1 Investment Strategy funds are invested in upgrades or expansions of transit systems in the region. These include funding to expand light-rail systems in Santa Clara and San Francisco counties, improve the CalTrain connection with downtown San Francisco, and extend BART to serve the San Francisco International Airport. The Joint Powers Board (JPB) has recommended electrification of CalTrain and the 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -69- June 22, 1994 extension of CalTrain to a new Beale Street and Market Street terminal in downtown San Francisco. The draft RPT assumes a "baseline" BART to SFO extension. The preliminary engineering study and environmental analysis currently underway will define the final project. Upgrades of existing transit services are also funded, such as increasing the frequency of CalTrain operations, converting two AC Transit diesel bus lines to electric trolley service, and additional shuttle bus services to CalTrain. Transit centers and park-and-ride lots are also funded. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 highlight the proposed major transit system improvements to be made over the next 20 years. Operational Improvements About 11 percent of Track 1 Investment Strategy funding goes toward a variety of strategies and projects designed to improve the way the MTS operates. Funding is included for the MTS Corridor Operations System, which includes a variety of strategies to better integrate different components of the transportation system and improve how it operates. One example of this is the Traffic Operations System (TOS) program, which includes traffic monitoring and management tools to smooth traffic flows and allow better incident management on a 500-mile network of Bay Area highways and related corridor facilities. The Bay Area Partnership will further develop plans for MTS Corridor Operations Strategies, including the TOS program, within the MTS Management Strategy. Full funding is included for TransLink, a universal fare collection system for bus and rail transit operators in the region. The RTP invests in traffic signal timing improvements throughout the region, a relatively low-cost way to significantly improve mobility on the MTS. Likewise, funding is included for arterial improvements throughout the region, such as left turn channels and spot widenings to improve traffic flows. Freight mobility is improved through better rail-to-seaport connections, a truck bypass lane at the confluence of I-580 and I-205, and new technology that allows trucks to be weighed without stopping at truck scales. Highway Improvements About 25 percent of funding is for improvements to the region's highways. These improvements include new High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, which will reduce congestion for express buses and carpools traveling throughout the region. Figure 5-5 shows the extent of the region's future HOV lane system. Funding also is included for interchange improvements, overcrossings and widenings of highly congested portions of the MTS. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -70- June 22, 1994 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements The Track 1 Investment Strategy includes about $59 million for bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the region. This is a general investment category to fund improvements that local agencies will determine through their own planning processes. En addition to the Track 1 funding, bicycle and pedestrian improvements are also typically funded through the state administered ISTEA Transportation Enhancements Program, State Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, and other local sources of funding. Also, bicycle and pedestrian improvements are often included as part of larger system improvements in Track 1, such as arterial maintenance and widenings and transit centers. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -71- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -72- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -73- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -74- June 22, 1994 RTP Investments That Implement TCMs Transportation Control Measures, or TCMS, were discussed in the Chapter 2 section on state and federal air quality plans. About $2.3 billion, or 60 percent of Investment Strategy funds, are for investments that help implement TCMs in these plans. Table 5-2 indicates the investment categories that support TCMS. Nearly three-quarters of these investments are exclusively for transit, including the maintenance of existing systems, improvements to existing services, and system expansion. Additional HOV lanes benefit both carpools and express buses, while the Traffic Operations System and signal programs reduce vehicle emissions through smoother traffic flow. Table 5-2 RTP Investments That Implement Transportation Control Measures RTP Funding Investment Category (millions of dollars) Transit Capital Program Shortfalls 543.4 Transit System Upgrades 328.3 Transit System Expansion 812.8 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes 327.6 MTS Corridor Operations System (includes 116.8 Traffic Operations System) TransLink 28.0 Arterial Signalization 100.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 58.8 Total 2,309.3 County-Level Details of the RTP Investment Strategy County-level details on the RTP Investment Strategy are included in Tables 5-3 through 5-11. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -75- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -76- June 22,1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -77- June 22,1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -78- June 22,1994 Click HERE for graphic. Footnotes: RTP Track 1 Funds include the amount from STIP and from STP/CMAQ funds required over the next 20 years to fund the project or program. Track 1 Funds do not contain any new funds for transit operations. Thus, the 20-year operating shortfall of $81.1 million for Golden Gate Transit and Marin County Transit must be funded from any Track 2 revenues. These shortfalls include costs for fixed route and ADA services on the operators' existing systems. Other Funds includes local sales tax revenues, local subventions and other non-RTP funding sources. Projects currently fully funded with STIP, STP/CMAQ or local sales tax monies are not shown. *State or federal Transportation Control Measure(TCM). All figures in millions of escalated dollars, based on estimated mid-point year of construction for projects, or the stream of annual costs associated with the project or program. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -79- June 22,1994 Click HERE for graphic. Footnotes: RTP Track 1 Funds include the amount from STIP and from STP/CMQ funds required over the next 20 years to fund the project or program. Track 1 Funds do not contain any new funds for transit operations. Thus, the county's share of AC Transit's 20-year operating shortfall of $42.5 million must be funded from any Track 2 revenues. This shortfall include costs for fixed route and ADA services on the existing system. Other Funds includes local sales tax revenues, local subventions and other non-RTP funding sources. Projects currently fully funded with STIP, STP/CMAQ or local sales tax monies are not shown. * State or federal Transportation Control Measure (TCM). All figures in millions of escalated dollars, based on estimated mid-point year of construction for projects, or the stream of annual costs associated with the project or program. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -80- June 22,1994 Click HERE for graphic. Footnotes: RTP Track 1 Funds include the amount from STIP and from ST?/CMAQ funds required over the next 20 years to fund the project or program. Track 1 Funds do not contain any new funds for transit operations. Thus, MUNI's 20-year operating shortfall for fixed route and ADA services on the existing system must be funded from any Track 2 revenues. Other Funds includes local sales tax revenues , local subventions and other non-RTP funding sources. Projects currently fully funded with STEP, STP/CMAQ or local sales tax monies are not shown. * State or federal Transportation Control Measure (TCM). All figures in millions of escalated dollars, based on estimated mid-point year of construction for projects, or the stream of annual costs associated with the project or program. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -81- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. Footnotes: RTP Track 1 Funds include the amount from STIP and from STP/CMAQ funds required over the next 20 years to fund the project or program. Track 1 Funds do not contain any new funds for transit operations. Thus, MUNI's 20-year operating shortfall for fixed route and ADA services on the existing system must be funded from any Track 2 revenues. San Mateo County's ADA services are fully funded. Other Funds includes local sales tax revenues , local subventions and other non-RTP funding sources. Projects currently fully funded with STEP, STP/CMAQ or local sales tax monies are not shown. * State or federal Transportation Control Measure (TCM). All figures in millions of escalated dollars, based on estimated mid-point year of construction for projects, or the stream of annual costs associated with the project or program. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -82- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -83- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. Footnotes: RTP Track 1 funds include STIP, STIP/CMAQ and TSM match (for CMAQ), and Measure A CalTrain project funds required over the next 20- years to fund the project or program. Santa Clara County Transit District's Short Range Transit Plan shows no operating shortfalls during the 20-year time frame for fixed route and ADA services, assuming Measure A is validated. Other Funds includes local sales tax revenues, local subventions, Resolution 1876 funds for the Fremont-South Bay rail connection, and other non-RTP funding sources. Projects currently fully funded with STIP, STP/CMAQ or local sales tax monies, such as the Tasman and Capitol light-rail transit projects, are shown. * State or federal Transportation Control measure (TCM). All figures in millions of escalated dollars, based on estimated mid-point year of construction for projects, or the stream of annual costs associated with the project or program. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -84- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. Footnotes: RTP Track 1 Funds include the amount from STIP and from STP/CMAQ funds required over the next 20 years to fund the project or program. Track 1 Funds do not contain any new funds for transit operations. Thus, the 20-year operating shortfalls of $17.5 million for Vallejo, Benicia, Fairfield and Vacaville transit must be funded from any Track 2 revenues. This shortfall includes costs for fixed route and ADA services on the operators' existing system. Other Funds includes local sales tax revenues, local subventions and other non-RTP funding sources. Projects currently fully funded with STIP, STP/CMAQ or local sales tax monies are not shown. *State or federal Transportation Control Measure (TCM). All figures in millions of escalated dollars, based on estimated mid-point year of construction for projects, or the stream of annual costs associated with the project or program. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -85- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. Footnotes: (1) The MTS and non-MTS local streets and roads shortfall is projects for all of Sonoma County using MTC's Pavement Management System in the city of Santa Rosa and the unincorporated county. Assumption of $347 million of local funding is based on historic local funding levels and may be optimistic. (2) Estimated Track I revenues are based on a 20-year, escalated (5%) estimate of funding from the following sources: $172 million from STIP and $96.5 million from STP/CMAQ, for a total of $268.5 million. Track 1 Funds do not contain any new funds for transit operations. Thus, the 20-year operating shortfall of $42.2 million for Sonoma County, Petaluma, Santa Rosa and Golden Gate transit systems must be funded from any Track 2 revenues. These shortfalls include costs for fixed route and ADA services on the operators' existing systems. Other Funds include local sales tax revenues, local subventions and other non-RTP funding sources. Projects currently fully funded with STIP, STP/CMAQ or local sales tax monies are not shown. * State or federal Transportation Control Measure (TCM). All figures in millions of escalated dollars, based on estimated mid-point year of construction for projects, or the stream of annual costs associated with the project or program. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -86- June 22, 1994 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 86- June 22,1994 Results of RTP Investments The RTP investments, added to the Baseline (committed) projects, win produce a wide range of changes that are described at length in the accompanying Environmental Impact Report. Highlights extracted from this analysis are summarized here. Mobility Mobility benefits cannot be sustained unless the existing system is well maintained. Seventy-six percent of the Baseline and 30 percent of Track 1 funds are spent on transit and roadway maintenance. The Environmental Impact Report compares the RTP investments for improving the regional transportation system with the unimproved system that exists today. - The improvements are expected to reduce daily travel time by 490,000 hours, which translates to a daily savings of $3.5 million dollars (the imputed value of travel time for work, non-work and commercial trips) compared to an unimproved system. - Those transit riders who would already use the unimproved system would expect to save about 20,000 hours a day with the improved system, or after implementation of the RTP transit projects. - The amount of peak period vehicle travel (miles of vehicle travel) occurring on freeway segments operating over capacity (Level of Service F) would decrease 12 percent with the RTP investments; the amount of peak period travel occurring on local expressways and arterials operating over capacity would decrease 17 percent with the RTP. - While the RTP provides significant improvements in volumes and speeds on key truck routes compared to the unimproved system, even the improved system suffers a decline in the traffic to capacity ratios at the 21 highway locations ("screenlines") used to sample the most important truck routes in the Bay Area. - Bay Area rail, bus and ferry operators would experience increased use of their systems due to the RTP investments. Transit improvements in the RTP will yield about 14,000 additional daily riders for all Bay Area transit operators, or about a 1 percent increase on top of a base of some 1,440,000 transit trips (not counting transfers between transit systems). This is in addition to the 204,000 additional riders attributed solely to population growth. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 87- June 22, 1994 Air Quality The predominant factor affecting vehicle emissions in the future will be the turnover of the automobile fleet to newer cars with cleaner burning engines. The air quality gains from mobility improvements in the RTP will be modest in comparison to the technological advances in automobile engines. The level of emissions from vehicles in the region will be well below the level required to maintain attainment of the federal air quality standards, and the RTP will contribute positively to progress towards achieving the stricter state air quality standards for ozone. The figures below compare the 2010 emissions from the RTP investments with the unimproved condition (see the EIR for further discussion of air quality issues and see Appendix E for the RTP conformity demonstration required by the federal Clean Air Act Amendments). . Hydrocarbons: -6.9 percent . Nitrogen Oxides: -1.3 percent . Carbon Monoxide: -4.3 percent Increases in small particulate matter are projected to occur in 2010 as a result of growth in vehicle travel in the region. PM10 differences between the RTP and unimproved conditions would be minimal. Addressing ISTEA Planning Factors ISTEA specifies 15 factors to be considered in the metropolitan transportation planning process. The RTP consideration for each factor is summarized in Table 5-12. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 88- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 89- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 90- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 91- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 92- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 93- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. RTP Implementation Strategy The RTP investment strategy defines the projects and programs necessary to maintain the existing MTS and provide system improvements. This 20-year investment plan is supported by a wide range of implementation activities. Table 5-13 provides a summary of these activities and shows how they relate to the plan's goals. Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 94- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 95- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 96- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 97- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 98- June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. Continuing Focus Areas for RTP Implementation Two implementation activities that deserve further discussion are the role of corridor/major investment analyses in further defining the RTP investment strategy and the need to establish closer ties between the long range plan's investment strategy and MTC's shorter range fund programming activities. Corridor Studies/ Major Investment Analyses Corridor studies are an integral part of the transportation planning process in the region. Corridor studies should determine the appropriate investments/strategies to meet the transportation goals of a corridor, including land use and environmental factors, and should implement improvements that support community consensus. The metropolitan planning regulations of the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA) put a new emphasis on corridor studies under the name of "major investment analyses." These regulations stipulate that where the need for a major metropolitan transportation investment is identified, and federal funds are potentially involved, major investment analysis shall be undertaken to lead to decisions by the MPO, in cooperation with participating agencies, on the design concept and scope of the investment. The general principles that underlie the ISTEA major investment analysis regulations are: - a cooperative process should be used to determine the need and scope of a major investment analysis, including the state, MPO, affected transit operators and local officials, and environmental and federal funding agencies; 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 99- June 22, 1994 - the analyses are intended to broaden the consideration of options early in the planning process; - the studies should be undertaken with the intent that they will improve the linkage between the planning process and the environmental review process (National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA); and - the analyses replace the Federal Transit Administration "alternatives analysis" requirements. The following multicounty corridors are examples of where major regional investment analyses would be beneficial: - Fremont-South Bay Corridor - Interstate 80 in Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano counties - Marin/Sonoma Route 101 - Santa Clara County Route 101 - Altamont Pass /San Joaquin and Alameda counties MTC anticipates playing a significant role in these corridor studies. Factors to be considered in adding new studies are as follows: - The magnitude of forecasted travel demand in the corridor as well as the significance of existing mobility and environmental issues; - The magnitude of investment being considered, and potential availability of federal, state, and local funding for alternative investment options; - Consistency with financial assumptions in the RTP; - Agency and public support for the study; and - Adequacy of funding available to conduct the investment analyses. The studies will conclude with recommendations for investments to be included in the RTP and a financing plan that will indicate the sources of funding to implement the recommended investments. For the federal funding agencies, the corridor analyses will be used to focus the subsequent engineering and environmental documentation for federally funded projects. Strengthening the Link Between the RTP and Programming MTC's fund progranuning activities have up to now functioned fairly autonomously within the broad policy framework of the regional plan and federal/state regulations. The 1994 RTP alters the traditional separation of planning and programming. The 20 year, revenue constrained, project 1994 Regional Transportation Plan - 100 - June 22, 1994 specific plan contained in Track 1 is, in effect, programming on a strategic or "macro" level. While fund progranuning activities will continue to determine priorities for specific fund sources and produce the required fund programming documents (Transportation improvement Program, Regional Transportation Improvement Program, Transit Capital improvement program, etc.), they must now do so within the quite specific planning/programming framework of the RTP. Track 1 of the 1994 RTP contains a list of projects that can be delivered with funds that are expected to be available over the next 20 years, but the plan does not indicate precisely when and how the projects are to be delivered. Current fund progranuning processes, on the other hand, have a much narrower focus and a. shorter (3-7 year) time horizon. The MTS Strategic Finance Plan will serve as a bridge between the longrange plan and shortrange programming activities, to ensure that the individual fund programming activities function in a consistent manner to implement the direction and specific projects contained in the RTP, and, conversely, that planning should be cognizant of the limits and opportunities offered by specific programming rules and regulations. While the details of bringing current fund programming processes into full conformance with the new programming framework of the RTP have yet to be determined, the direction of these changes are likely to be: - More emphasis on screening and programming, less on scoring. Since "project merit" is a major consideration in RTP priorities, project merit evaluations through a separate scoring process should be viewed as a second level of refinement of the RTP rather than an independent assessment. - Greater linkage between the STP/CMAQ/FCR and Transit Capital Priorities processes, since projects and programs will be increasingly funded with multiple funding sources. - Greater emphasis on project scheduling and delivery as resource management becomes more important. Thus, fund programming under the 1994 RTP will become more directly related to the implementation of the specific transportation investments envisioned in the RTP. Specific fund programming procedures will be examined and modified to reflect the new direction articulated above to guide the next TIP/RTIP programming cycle. Develop Strategies for Funding Indicated Shortfalls Among the specific financial issues the Strategic Finance Plan must address are: 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -101- June 22, 1994 - Funding transit operating deficits, including the costs of complying with ADA requirements. - Funding the BART rehabilitation/replacement program shortfall in a timely manner, and developing better strategies to anticipate and address capital rehabilitation/replacement demands for all the region's operators. - Addressing the streets and roads maintenance shortfall. - Addressing the costs to seismically retrofit Bay Area transportation infrastructure. - Funding projects that emerge from the MTS Management Strategy. - Developing traditional and innovative financial strategies for other improvements beyond those planned in Track 1. In order to accomplish these activities, we must revise and expand the Transit Finance model to incorporate other modes and update the various data inputs. Conduct Related Activities to Implement RTP Action Element Related activities required to refine and implement the RTP Action Element include: - Further detail and program projects within the 20-year time horizon. - Revise the New Rail Starts (MTC Resolution No. 1876) financial plan to conform to the new RTP and pending rail planning activities. - Incorporate financial requirements identified through ongoing and future corridor studies into the regional plan. - Monitor and advise on use of toll bridge revenues in the implementation of Regional Measure 1 program. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan -102- June 22, 1994 Attachment A: RTP Baseline Details The RTP Baseline was described in Chapter 4, the Finance Element. All projects and programs in the RTP Baseline are part of the 1994 RTP. The RTP Baseline includes: - Projects in the 1994 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The attached RTP Baseline tables for each county list only the major projects. Additional details for each county may be found in the 1994 TIP. - Transit capital replacements and minor enhancements as reflected in operators' Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs). Transit expansion projects are not included in the RTP Baseline, but are considered in the Track 1 Investment Strategy. Transit capital replacement needs beyond the 10- year SRTP timeframe are estimated by MTC's transit finance model. Transit capital replacement and minor enhancement needs that cannot be funded with dedicated local, regional, state, and federal transit funding in the RTP Baseline are addressed in the Track 1 Investment Strategy. The RTP does not distinguish which items in an operator's overall capital replacement or minor enhancement program would be included in the RTP Baseline vs. the Track 1 Investment Strategy. - Transit operating programs for existing services, including complementary paratransit services required by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Transit operating programs are funded over the 20-year period to the extent that there are sufficient projected local, regional, state, and federal operating revenues. Some transit operators face projected operating shortfalls which cannot be funded in the RTP Baseline or Track 1 Investment Strategy. - Fully funded projects not using state or federal funds and assumed by local sponsors, such as county sales tax authorities, to be built before year 2013. - State Highway and Operations Protection Program (SHOPP)for the state highway system within the Bay Area. SHOPP cost and revenue projections are based on the 1992 State Transportation improvement Program (STIP). The program is assumed to be a fully funded over the RTP period. SHOPP is not itemized on the attached county tables, but is assumed for all state highways in each county. - State highway maintenance within the Bay Area. State highway maintenance cost and revenue projections are based on the 1994 STIP Fund Estimate. The program is assumed to be a fully funded over the RTP period. State highway maintenance is not itemized on the attached county tables, but is assumed for- state highways in each county. - State-Owned Toll bridge maintenance and operations. Toll bridge maintenance and operations costs and revenues were assumed to be the residual of projected bridge 1994 Regional Transportation Plan A-1 June 22, 1994 tolls less Regional Measure One expenditures and transfers to transit agencies. Toll bridge maintenance and operations are assumed to be a fully funded over the RTP period. Toll bridge maintenance and operations is not itemized on the attached county tables. but is assumed for state-owned toll bridges in the region. - Local streets and roads pavement maintenance programs, to the extent fundable with dedicated pavement maintenance revenues for cities and counties in the region. Estimated costs and dedicated revenues for streets and roads maintenance were developed by MTC's Pavement Management System. Non-pavement maintenance and improvements for local streets and roads, such as traffic lighting, road signs, storm drains, and road construction. Projected non-pavement expenditures were based on the ratio of non-pavement to pavement expenditures for all Bay Area cities in FY 1991/92, multiplied by projected pavement expenditures from MTC's Pavement Management System. For purposes of establishing the RTP Baseline, non-pavement local streets and roads maintenance and improvements are assumed to be fully funded. Non-pavement maintenance is not itemized on the attached county tables, but is assumed for local streets and roads in each country. County-Level RTP Baseline Details The following tables include details for the RTF Baseline within each county. The tables include only the major investments, such as capacity-increasing projects and major programs. Additional details on individual county investments may be found in the 1994 Transportation Improvement Program, transit operator Short Range Transit Plans, and County Sales Tax Programs. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan A-2 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan A-3 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan A-4 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan A-5 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan A-6 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan A-7 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan A-8 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan A-9 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan A-10 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan A-11 June 22, 1994 Attachment B Metropolitan Transportation System Criteria and Maps The Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) is the centerpiece of MTC's regional transportation planning, management and investment decisions. It defines a multimodal system of regional significance-that is, those facilities and services that are crucial to the freight and passenger mobility needs of the nine- county Bay Area Region. The MTS was first defined in the 1991 Regional Transportation Plan and has been updated for the 1994 RTP. Maps illustrating the MTS by individual counties are included at the end of this section. A regional map of the MTS is included in the back cover pocket of the RTP. Definition of the Metropolitan Transportation System was guided by six key principles: - The MTS must function as a multimodal, integrated system, and address both passenger and freight mobility needs. - Decisions to maintain and enhance the MTS must seek to balance mobility with environmental, equity and economic objectives. - The MTS is designed primarily to serve interregional trips and all trips within the region to major activity centers. - Maintenance, rehabilitation and safety of the existing system must be assured. - Operating and maintenance decisions must be integrated with capital improvement decisions. - Flexible funding is essential to developing and maintaining a system that achieves the above principles. Functional Definition of MTS Regional significance to the MTS hinges on a functional rather than a purely geographic definition of regional travel. For the MTS, a facility is considered important ff it permits access to any activities crucial to the social or economic health of the Bay Area; such facilities may be located wholly in one jurisdiction. This definition recognizes the Bay Area as a single, integrated, unique economic and social unit-not simply the disjointed aggregation of separate cities and counties. Therefore, those links that weave parts of the Bay Area together by crossing county or city lines are critical to the MTS concept. In addition to these links, any link that accesses major Bay Area activity centers, regardless of the trip's length or origin, is also important to the region as a whole. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-1 June 22, 1994 MTS Criteria In deciding what should be included in the Metropolitan Transportation System, MTC developed criteria reflecting this functional concept of regional travel as it applies to freight and passengers. Consequently, the criteria identified for the street and highway, transit, freight, and transfer point systems-are not based on geometric design, size, any single mode of transportation or other physical -characteristics. Rather, the criteria focus on what the different parts of the MTS do. Specifically, the criteria identify facilities that: - provide access for persons and freight to major Bay Area activity centers; - facilitate travel through convenient and efficient connections within system and between them; - provide options to relieve overburdened or congested sections of the system; - provide efficient travel or transfer opportunities by accommodating high volume demand; and - provide essential services for which limited alternatives exist. These five broad functions are tailored to the different modes as appropriate. MTC and its transportation partners have subsequently applied the criteria to identify the highway, transit corridor, freight and transfer components that make up the multimodal Metropolitan Transportation System. The MTS Arterial Street and Highway System 1. Serves a major Bay Area activity center. - a major activity center is a development that generally attracts trips from many areas of the region and/or outside the region, in addition to attracting significant local trips. Major activity centers include regional employment centers, regional business and financial centers, regional sporting, entertainment, and recreation facilities, regional retail centers, major universities or colleges, major government facilities, military facilities, major recreational centers, and regional cultural attractions. In urban counties there may be dozens of activity centers, though in suburban and rural counties there are probably fewer. - a highway or arterial is considered to serve a development if it is within 1 mile of the activity center. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-2 June 22, 1994 2. Provides important intercounty and/or interregional connections. - highways and arterials needed to provide connections between adjacent MTC counties, or counties bordering the MTS region 3. Serves as a reliever for a - arterials in freeway corridors that could reasonably serve longer local trips that might otherwise be attracted to the freeway 4. Provides important connections in the MTS street and highway system. - highways that connect other highways - arterials that connect highways - arterials that connect regional arterials to the highway system - arterials that provide important connections within the regional arterial system 5. Serves as a major cross-town arterial for relieving congestion. - arterials that serve significant intracity travel 6. Provides access to regional passenger and freight transfer facilities. - highways and arterials that provide access to major passenger and freight transfer facilities, including rail stations and inter-city bus transfer facilities, airports and seaports. MTS streets and highways provide for bicycle travel unless safety-related restrictions apply. The MTS Transit System: Rail, Bus, and Ferry 1. Serves a major Bay Area activity center. - a major activity center is a development that generally attracts trips from many areas of the region and/or outside the region, in addition to attracting significant local trips. Major activity centers include regional employment centers, regional business and financial centers, regional sporting, entertainment, and recreation facilities, regional retail centers, major universities or colleges, major government facilities, military facilities, major recreational centers., and regional cultural attractions. In urban counties there may be dozens of activity centers, though in suburban and rural counties there are probably fewer. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-3 June 22, 1994 2. Provides important intercounty and/or interregional connections. - routes needed to provide connections between adjacent MTC counties, or counties bordering the MTS region 3. Serves as a reliever for a freeway or rail service. - transit routes in freeway or rail corridors that provide additional capacity for overburdened freeways or rail service 4. Provides important connections between various elements and operating entities of the regional transit system. - routes that serve "Regional Transit Connection" points, and other significant transit transfer facilities 5. Serves a high-volume transportation corridors - provides frequent service along freeway or MTS arterial corridors, or other corridors of significant traffic movements. The attached county MTS maps illustrate transit corridors while the regional MTS map in the back cover pocket depicts transit service areas. The MTS Freight Transport System: Seaports, Airports, Freight Rail, Trucking 1. Bay Area facilities for intermodal transfers of freight. - Active commercial seaports identified in MTC/BCDC San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan - Active air cargo terminals identified in MTC/ABAG Regional Airport System Plan - Significant truck terminals - Intermodal rail yards 2. Provides access to major Bay Area facility for intermodal transfers of freight. - MTS Highway System link which does not prohibit truck traffic 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-4 June 22,1994 - Truck route providing access between intermodal facilities and MTS highway system - Freight rail corridor providing access to intermodal facility 3. Provides access for major freight movements between region and areas outside region. - Interregional highway or arterial truck routes with significant truck volumes - Interregional freight rail corridors 4. Serves to expedite mobility on corridors and facilities used for both passenger and freight movement. - Separate or restricted access truck lanes with highway corridors - Separate or restricted access truck routes between intermodal facilities and mixed flow arterials or highways - Facilities which mitigate or overcome conflicts between freight and passenger transport at seaports, airports, or along rail corridors The MTS Transfer Point System 1. Provides for significant intermodal transfers of passengers and freight between components of MTS (e.g. car to rail, bus to rail (key points), bus to ferry, car to ferry, rail to truck, ship to rail). 2. Provides for high-volume passenger-transfers between or within transit systems of MTS. - for rail station transfer points: is a rail terminus, and/or provides high volume connections with other rail lines, and/or provides rail transfer with multiple bus operators, particularly those that provide intercounty connections, and/or provides significant, high-volume transfers with a single bus operator - for bus only transfer points: provides multiple bus operator transfers, and/or provides for coordinated (e.g. timed transfer), high-volume intraoperator connections among multiple lines 3. Provides for passenger transfers to special modes such as air, ship, and inter-city passenger rail. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-5 June 22, 1994 Relationship of MTS to other systems While the Metropolitan Transportation System is the centerpiece of the regional planning process, many other transportation systems have been defined as part of federal or state laws. Each of these other systems was designated with a specific purpose in mind, and each overlaps with the Metropolitan Transportation System to some extent. The primary differences between the MTS and each of these other systems, along with the policy implications which result from these differences, are noted below: MTS vs. Local Systems A facility or service not designated as part of the Metropolitan Transportation System is identified as serving primarily local travel. Planning and operational decisions concerning these types of facilities or services have generally been carried out by cities, counties, and (in the case of transit) transit districts, with little direct influence or direction from MTC. These local facilities and services contribute to overall mobility, and sufficient, locally controlled resources are needed to underwrite their maintenance and development. MTC continues to advocate for sources of revenue that will be used for overall transit operation and the maintenance and improvement of local streets and roads. MTS vs. Congestion Management Program (CMP) Systems For the most part, the Congestion Management Program systems designated by the nine Congestion Management Agencies in the Bay Area are a subset of the MTS Streets and Highway Network. In some cases, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) systems contain local road facilities that are not part of the MTS. CMP systems do not necessarily have to specify other modal components, such as transit and freight. The legal requirements for monitoring traffic levels on CMP systems and addressing system deficiencies are defined by state law, while there are no similar legal requirements for the MTS. Multimodal strategies to improve the NHS are often initiated in CMP development. Consistency between the CMP and RTP is required. MTS vs. National Highway System (NHS) ISTEA calls for Congress to designate a National Highway System (NHS) by December 1995. The purpose of the NHS is to 'provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which will serve major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transportation facilities and other major travel destinations, meet national defense requirements, and serve interstate and interregional travel". The NHS was proposed primarily to address post Interstate development highway needs and to focus state transportation agencies on using federal funds to improve a limited number of high priority 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-6 June 22, 1994 routes. The NHS is expected to include about 158,000 miles nationwide, virtually all of which is existing route miles. A proposed National Highway System has been developed by states and regions throughout the country and submitted to Congress. The proposed NHS component within the Bay Area is a subset of the MTS and includes only the region's most strategic Interstates and highways. The proposed NHS for the Bay Area was developed cooperatively by Caltrans, the Congestion Management Agencies and MTC. While ISTEA authorizes certain funding for the NHS, this funding may be spent flexibly on other parts of the transportation system, including transit. One of the primary distinctions of NHS highways is the requirement for all construction and rehabilitation to conforming to federal standards, which are generally stricter than local and state standards. MTS vs. National Transportation System (NTS) U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Penia proposes development of a National Transportation System (NTS), incorporating from all the modes the most significant elements of the nation's transportation system. The federal Department of Transportation plans to establish an NTS that would include publicly- and privately-owned systems for moving people and freight, such as the National Highway System, airports, seaports, rail, intercity bus lines, local transit systems with regional and national impact. MTC has and advocated that the MTS serve as the metropolitan component of the National Transportation System and that the two systems be entirely consistent within the Bay Area. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-7 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-8 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-9 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-10 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-11 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-12 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-13 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-14 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-15 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-16 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-17 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-18 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-19 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-20 June 22, 1994 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-21 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-22 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-23 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-24 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-25 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-26 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-27 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-28 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan B-29 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan C-1 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan C-2 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan C-3 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan C-4 June 22, 1994 Click HERE for graphic. 1994 Regional Transportation Plan C-5 June 22, 1994
