HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7499
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7499)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 11/28/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Plan Bay Area Update
Title: Plan Bay Area Update
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This is an informational report. No action is requested.
Executive Summary
On October 4, 2016, staff provided the City Council with an informational report regarding the
draft “preferred scenario” disseminated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for their ongoing update to Plan Bay
Area, the regional transportation and land use plan.
The regional agencies have now provided a revised preferred scenario, which they will consider
for adoption on November 17, 2016. Following adoption, the preferred scenario will form the
basis of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which will be circulated for comments in the
Spring of 2017. A Final EIR will follow, with adoption of the updated Plan Bay Area in the
Summer of 2017.
The revised preferred scenario includes higher household and job growth between 2010 and
2040 than prior iterations, although the totals are still less than in past ABAG projections, and
are generally consistent with what the City itself expects the future to hold.
Table 1 and 2 below compare the new, revised numbers from ABAG/MTC to ABAG Projections
2013 and the City’s Comp Plan Update EIR scenarios and update the comparisons provided in
the October 4, 2016 informational report.
Please note that the numbers provided express the regional agencies’ expectations in terms of
future households and jobs; they do not predict new square footage or parking ratios. Also, the
current update to Plan Bay Area does not include development of a new Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA), and thus has no immediate effect on the City’s Housing Element.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Transportation funding priorities articulated in the plan update are not anticipated to change
dramatically, and will continue favoring Priority Development Areas (PDAs), of which the City
has one near California Avenue. The ABAG/MTC scenario assumes 340 of our new households
and 1,040 of our new jobs will be in our PDA near Cal Ave.
Planning staff is available to answer any questions regarding the summary tables below or the
attached materials from ABAG/MTC.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Table 1. Comparison of the Plan Bay Area “Preferred Scenario” and Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2013
ABAG Projections
2013
Plan Bay Area
Preferred Scenario
REVISED
Nov 2016
Santa Clara County
2010 Households a 604,204 597,100 604,204
2040 Households a 818,400 846,600 860,800
2010-2040 Households (% Change) a 35.45% 249,500 (41%)
256,596 (42%)
2010 Jobs 926,270 911,500 911,530
2040 Jobs 1,229,520 1,269,700 1,289,900
2010-2040 Jobs (% Change) 32.74% 358,200 (39%)
378,370 (42%)
City of Palo Alto
2010 Households a 26,493 26,550 26,493
2040 Households a 34,370 29,150 32,900
2010-2040 Households (% Change) a 7,877 (29.73%) 2,600 (9.79%)
6,407 (24%)
2010 Jobs 89,690 102,000b101,940b
2040 Jobs 119,470 123,200126,500
2010-2040 Jobs (% Change) 29,780 (33.20%) 21,200 (20.78%)
24,560 (24%)
Notes: (a) Households are not directly comparable to housing units. Household is defined as an
occupied Housing Unit. In Palo Alto, a 5% vacancy rate is assumed on Housing Units to estimate
number of Households.
(b) Staff will be requesting an explanation of this change in the baseline. MTC provided staff with
a technical explanation for the increase in the 2010 baseline number of jobs and the plan’s focus
is on the net change between 2010 and 2040, which is less than in prior projections.
Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, November 2016
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Table 2. Comparison of the Plan Bay Area “Preferred Scenario” and Palo Alto’s
Comprehensive Plan Update EIR Scenarios
Palo Alto
Comp Plan EIR
Scenarios 1-4a
Palo Alto
Comp Plan EIR
Scenarios 5-6 a
Plan Bay Area
Preferred Scenario
REVISED
Nov 2016
City of Palo Alto
2010 Households b 26,493 26,493 26,550 26,493
2040 Households b 30,013-33,041 31,485-35,856 29,150 32,900
2010-2040 Households (% Change) b 3,520-6,548
(13.29-24.72%)
4,992-9,363
(18.84-35.34%)
2,600 6,407
(9.79%) (24%)
2010 Jobs 89,690 89,690 102,000 101,940
2040 Jobs 108,159-119,470 106,318 123,200 126,500
2010-2040 Jobs (% Change) 18,469-29,780
(20.59-33.20%)
16,628
(18.54%)
21,200 24,560
(20.78%) (24%)
Notes: (a) To allow an apples-to-apples comparison, Comp Plan EIR scenarios, which include growth
projections to 2030 have been extrapolated to 2040.
(b) Households are not the same as housing units, which is the metric used in the Comp Plan EIR. In Palo
Alto, a 5% vacancy rate is assumed to estimate number of Households.
Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, November 2016
Attachments:
Attachment A: PBA 2040 Final Preferred Scenario and Investment Strategy_Nov 4_2016
(PDF)
TO: MTC Planning Committee and the
ABAG Administrative Committee
DATE: October 28, 2016
FR: ABAG Deputy Executive Director and MTC Executive Director
RE: Plan Bay Area 2040 Final Preferred Scenario and Investment Strategy
Background The Plan Bay Area 2040 Preferred Scenario encompasses a 2040 regional pattern of household and employment growth and a prioritized set of transportation investments comprising $310 billion of anticipated revenues. Staff presented the Draft Preferred Scenario in September and
provided an update on local jurisdiction and stakeholder feedback in October. At today’s
meeting, staff seeks the Joint Committee’s referral of the Final Preferred Scenario and Investment Strategy to the MTC Commission and ABAG Executive Board for approval on November 17th.
Comments Received on the Draft Preferred Scenario Between the Draft Preferred Scenario’s release in late August and the end of the comment period in mid-October, staff received 63 letters from local jurisdictions, transportation agencies, stakeholder organizations, and individuals. These comments with initial staff responses are summarized in Attachment A and all comments have been posted at http://planbayarea.org/your-
part/your-comments.html. Staff will provide formal responses to all commenters before the end
of December. Staff has also engaged directly with local jurisdictions via planning director workshops in all nine counties and over twenty one-on-one meetings. Staff coordinated with the Congestion
Management Agencies and transit operators regarding the investment strategy and land use
projections, and met with numerous stakeholder organizations to discuss various issues including the Preferred Scenario’s approach to jobs/housing balance, housing production, affordability, and open space. Staff has also presented the Draft Preferred Scenario to various committees and working groups, including the Partnership Board, the Regional Advisory Working Group,
Regional Equity Working Group, Policy Advisory Council, the ABAG Regional Planning
Committee and Executive Board. The comments reflect a range of issues about the Draft Preferred Scenario’s approach to identifying a feasible pattern for regional growth and investment. Comments on land use varied
widely, but generally focused on the Plan’s strategies to drive a more efficient regional
distribution of housing and employment while respecting local plans and aspirations. While several local jurisdictions expressed concern about housing projections in excess of local expectations, a greater number of jurisdictions expressed concern that the Draft Preferred Scenario had not adequately accounted for “pipeline development”— permitted or entitled
housing or commercial space expected to occur in the near-term. Numerous jurisdictions also
Agenda Item 5a
MTC Planning Committee and the ABAG Administrative Committee Agenda Item 5a
October 28, 2016 Page 2 expressed concern that employment projections fell short of expectations. An overarching
concern of many commenters is how severe constraints on the supply of housing, particularly workforce housing, near major job centers will affect the livability of the region for future generations.
As context and an important reminder, the Final Preferred Scenario does not mandate any
changes to local zoning rules, general plans or processes for reviewing projects, nor is it an enforceable direct or indirect cap on development locations or targets in the region. As is the case across California, the Bay Area’s cities, towns and counties maintain control of all decisions to adopt plans and permit or deny development projects. Plan Bay Area 2040 does not establish
new state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers for each jurisdiction.
RHNA operates on an eight-year cycle, with the next iteration not due until the 2021 RTP/SCS. Because RHNA numbers are not at stake this cycle, MTC and ABAG are characterizing this update to the region’s long-range plan as limited and focused.
Comments from transportation agencies and stakeholders also reflected a range of issues
including the effect of the housing and employment distribution upon the efficiency, reliability, and resiliency of the transportation network. Some commenters expressed concern about the Plan’s level of proposed investments in transit, express lanes, active transportation, and investments benefitting lower-income communities. A number of commenters also expressed
concern that a continuing regional jobs/housing imbalance could perpetuate issues of highway
congestion, transit crowding, and long commutes for many Bay Area residents. Final Preferred Scenario Modifications Staff worked to incorporate much of the feedback received into the Final Preferred Scenario. In
terms of land use, staff made a series of modifications to the set of regional strategies influencing
the housing and employment growth distribution and revised the 2010 household counts for consistency with the 2010 U.S. Census. The final list of strategies assumed in the Final Preferred Scenario is included in Attachment B1. Staff also worked to adjust assumptions on the square footage of office space per employee, incorporated available information on pipeline
development, and made some technical corrections based on local input. For transportation, staff
worked closely with the congestion management agencies, transit operators and stakeholders to clarify the investment strategy’s funding assumptions. Staff also incorporated some modifications to the final project list (Attachment C1), most notably the inclusion of a number of express lanes segments that had not been included in the draft.
Final Preferred Scenario- Summary of Household and Employment Distributions Incorporating the changes described above, the Final Preferred Scenario modifies the housing and employment growth distribution described previously in the draft. Based on the regional sub-geographies of “Big 3 Cities,” “Bayside,” and “Inland, Coastal, Delta,” the most significant
changes between the final and draft versions can be summarized as follows:
• More overall employment and housing growth in the Big 3. Overall, the Big 3 cities experience a slightly higher share of employment growth (43% vs 40% in the draft) and
housing growth (46% vs 43% in the draft). San Jose and Oakland’s employment forecasts
have increased relative to the draft, a change resulting largely from changes in the office square foot per employee assumption, adjustments to zoning in priority development areas (PDAs), and incorporation of potential opportunity sites.
MTC Planning Committee and the ABAG Administrative Committee Agenda Item 5a
October 28, 2016 Page 3
• More balanced jobs/housing ratios between Bayside and Inland, Coastal, Delta. The
Final Preferred Scenario forecasts a slightly higher share of employment growth in the Inland, Coastal, Delta communities (17% vs 14% in draft) and a lower share of employment growth in Bayside communities (40% vs 46% in draft). This change reflects
a more thorough accounting of pipeline projects, as well as overall modifications to
regional forecasting assumptions.
• PDAs are forecast to take on more housing and employment growth. The Final Preferred Scenario forecasts 77% of household growth and 55% of employment growth to occur
within PDAs, an increase of 2-3 percentage points over the draft. This change reflects
adjustments to some PDA zoning, and other regional strategies assumed in the forecast. Tables 1 and 2 below describe the changes in the Final Preferred Scenario across these three geographies. Attachment B2 describes the Final Preferred Scenario’s household and
employment projections by local jurisdiction, including PDA totals.
Table 1: Comparison of Final Preferred Scenario Household Forecast Summary
Subarea1 Households 2010 (000s)
Households 2040 Draft (000s)
Households 2040 Final (000s)
Share of Regional Growth Draft
Share of Regional Growth Final Grand Total 2,608 3,427 3,427 100% 100%
Big 3 Cities 801 1,151 1,174 43% 46%
Bayside 1,035 1,319 1,313 33% 33%
Inland, Coastal, Delta 772 957 940 24% 21%
in PDA 553 1,172 1,182 75% 77%
outside PDA 2,055 2,255 2,244 25% 23%
Table 2: Comparison of Final Preferred Scenario Job Forecast Summary
Subarea1 Jobs 2010 (000s)
Jobs 2040 Draft (000s)
Jobs 2040 Final (000s)
Share of Regional Growth Draft
Share of Regional Growth Final
Grand Total 3,423 4,698 4,698 100% 100%
Big 3 Cities 1,144 1,648 1,700 40% 43%
Bayside 1,410 2,002 1,917 46% 40%
Inland, Coastal, Delta 869 1,048 1,081 14% 17%
in PDA 1,433 2,094 2,140 52% 55%
outside PDA 1,989 2,605 2,559 48% 45%
Note(s):
1) *Big 3 Cities (the region’s three largest cities – San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland)\ *Bayside (generally cities directly adjacent to San Francisco Bay – e.g., Hayward, San Mateo, San Rafael and Richmond) *Inland, Coastal, and Delta (generally cities just outside of Bayside – e.g., Walnut Creek, Dublin, Santa Rosa, Antioch, Brentwood, Dixon)
MTC Planning Committee and the ABAG Administrative Committee Agenda Item 5a
October 28, 2016 Page 4 Transportation Investment Strategy
As the transportation component of Plan Bay Area 2040, the Draft Investment Strategy comprises a 24-year fiscally constrained set of transportation projects and programs that support the region’s land use and transportation goals. The total plan investment totals $310 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Of this total, roughly $74 billion is considered to be
discretionary revenue. Additionally, $19 billion in revenue and projects from upcoming local
transportation measures on the November 8th ballot are assumed. Attachments C1-9 describe the numerous funding assumptions and detail the specific investments. Similar to Plan Bay Area 2013, Plan Bay 2040’s proposed investment strategy focuses largely on
maintenance and modernization of the existing system, as opposed to expanding it via roadway
capacity expansion or extension of fixed guideway transit. In fact, 90 percent of the Plan’s total investment, 90 percent of the Plan’s regional discretionary investment, and 86 percent of the November measures focus on maintenance and modernization activities, a continuing reflection of the region’s “fix-it-first” priority with an additional focus on upgrading and enhancing our
existing infrastructure to boost capacity, improve service, and relieve congestion. Specifically,
the investment strategy elevates the importance of Core Capacity transit and goods movement investments, which are further described in Attachments C1-9. The investment strategy’s focus on operations and maintenance results in the Plan moving in the
right direction toward its state of good repair goals— however, much of this success hinges on
the successful passage of the upcoming local transportation measures in next week’s election. Without these investments included in the Plan, positive movement toward these goals will be more challenging. Staff is closely monitoring these measures and, if necessary, will modify the Investment Strategy to reflect the results prior to the MTC Commission and ABAG Executive
Board meeting on November 17th.
Performance Target and Equity Measure Results Similar to the Draft Preferred Scenario, the Final Preferred Scenario meets 5 targets, moves in the right direction on 5 targets, and falls short on 3 targets. This breakdown underscores the
challenges the region faces in terms of equity and affordability going forward, even as we meet
our environmental goals and make progress in improving our regional transportation system. While regional affordability and displacement are expected to worsen over the coming years, the Final Preferred Scenario either performs on par or better than other scenarios previously analyzed, indicating that adverse trends are being mitigated to the extent financially feasible
given significant constraints on the supply of housing. Note that the complete table of target and
equity results for all scenarios is included in Attachments D1 and D2. With regards to equity measures, we can see that the Plan makes progress for lower-income communities and communities of concern in terms of improving access to jobs, improving health
outcomes, and growing jobs in middle-wage industries. Notably, like the Draft Preferred
Scenario, the Final Preferred Scenario minimizes displacement risk in communities of concern to a greater extent than in other more affluent Bay Area communities. Still, the most important finding of the equity analysis is that housing affordability remains the most significant regional challenge – and that lower-income communities will be hit the hardest over the coming years.
Given these results, staff recommends prioritizing work on this topic area as part of Plan
implementation in 2017.
MTC Planning Committee and the ABAG Administrative Committee Agenda Item 5a
October 28, 2016 Page 5 Next Steps
Next week, Bay Area voters will cast their ballots on five transportation ballot measures, as well as several bond measures focused on affordable housing. In addition to integrating feedback heard at today’s meeting, staff will work to incorporate the results of these ballot initiatives prior to the joint meeting of the Commission and Executive Board on November 17. At this time, the
Final Preferred Scenario assumes passage of all transportation measures and incorporates
funding assumptions for housing that align with the housing bonds on the ballot. Success or failure of these measures at the ballot box may require some revisiting of assumptions included in the preferred scenario.
Once adopted, the preferred scenario will be subject to an environmental assessment under
CEQA to inform decision-makers, responsible and trustee agencies, and Bay Area residents of the range of potential environmental impacts that could result from its implementation. This analysis along with federal air quality conformity requirements will incorporate a deeper level of transportation analysis that will be factored in when generating the final 2040 air quality results
and other transportation-related performance results of the preferred scenario. The environmental
analysis will also analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the adopted preferred scenario that could feasibly attain most of the Plan’s objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts. Staff plans on discussing potential alternatives for the environmental analysis at your December 2016 or January 2017 meeting.
Recommendation We recommend your referral for approval of the Final Preferred Scenario described herein.
Brad Paul Steve Heminger
Attachments:
• Presentation Slides
• Attachment A: Draft Preferred Scenario Summary of Comments
• Attachment B1: Land Use Policies Included in the Preferred Scenario
• Attachment B2: Distribution of 2040 Household and Employment Forecasts
• Attachment C1: Plan Bay Area 2040 Expenditure Plan – Total Plan Revenue
• Attachment C2: Plan Bay Area 2040 Expenditure Plan – Regional Discretionary Funding
• Attachment C3: Needs Assessment – Transit Operations Funding Detail
• Attachment C4: Needs Assessment – Transit Capital Funding Detail
• Attachment C5: Needs Assessment – Local Streets and Roads Funding Detail
• Attachment C6: Goods Movement Projects in Plan Bay Area 2040
• Attachment C7: Core Capacity Transit Projects in Plan Bay Area 2040
• Attachment C8: Climate Program in Plan Bay Area 2040
• Attachment C9: Transportation Project List
• Attachment D1: Performance Target Results
• Attachment D2: Results for Equity Target Measures
SH:MM J:\COMMITTE\Planning Committee\2016\11_PLNG_Nov 2016\5a_PBA 2040 Preferred Scenario memo_v2.docx
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/1flatworld/12224999016
FINAL PREFERRED SCENARIO:UPDATES TO THE REGIONAL GROWTH PATTERN & INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Ken Kirkey, MTC –November 4, 2016Joint MTC Planning Committee with the ABAG Administrative Committee1
November is an important month for Plan Bay Area 2040.
August 31Draft Preferred Scenario Released
September 9Joint Committee
September 7 -29County Workshops & One-on-One Meetings
October 14Joint Committee & End of Public Comment Period
November 4Joint Committee
November 17Commission and Executive Board Consider Adoption
2
Local jurisdictions, stakeholders, and members of the public provided robust feedback on the Draft Preferred Scenario.
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/smadness/5036967711/Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markhogan/12317139805
Specific issues included:
•Technical corrections on pipeline data, opportunity sites, and zoning assumptions to better match local plans
•Requests to increase jobs-housing ratios to improve commutes and to boost regional affordability
•Requests for implementation action plans on issues like affordability, physical activity, preservation of open space, and transportation funding advocacy
20 staff-to-staff meetingswith individual cities 9 county-level meetingswith planning directors 3
Image Source: The Noun Project
Most comments received on the Draft Preferred Scenario came from local jurisdictions.
63 letters total
Summary and responses can be found in Attachment A.
40 from cities and counties
16 from stakeholder organizations
5 from other public agencies (incl. CMAs)2 from individuals 4
In response, staff updated strategies in the Final Preferred Scenario, as well as baseline data inputs, when appropriate.
CHANGES TO POLICIES/STRATEGIES INFINALPREFERREDSCENARIO
CHANGES TO BASELINE DATA ANDMODELASSUMPTIONS
Icon Sources: The Noun Project
Adjusted zoning in PDAs to align with PBA 2040 performance targets
Incorporated or added office or commercial development caps to reduce employment growth in job-rich cities
Updated employee office space density to trends more similar to status quo
Incorporated missing pipeline projects to better reflect current development underway
Made technical corrections on other land use baseline data (e.g., current zoning)
Added back select express lane projects not included in Draft Preferred Scenario
Staff continues to evaluate the feasibility and viability of adding housing bonds to the Final Preferred Scenario.
Staff is also updating forecasts for several jurisdictions where the Final Preferred Scenario has less growth than their current RHNA allocation.5
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/97408355@N06/15178052123
The Final Preferred Scenario builds upon the Draft Preferred –with a few notable changes.
6
Land use strategies influence the location of future housing and jobs.
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/neighborhoods/4283507357; Icon Sources: The Noun Project (Mint Shirt, Creative Stall, Avery, Boatman, Gomez)
The Final Preferred Scenario has the following key strategiesfor land use:
•Assign higher densities than currently allowed by cities to select PDAs.
•Keep current urban growth boundaries in place.
•Preserve and incorporate office space caps in job-rich cities.
•Assume for-profit housing developments make 10 percent of units deed-restricted in perpetuity.
•Reduce the cost of building in PDAs and TPAs through eased parking minimums and streamlined environmental clearance.
•Assume subsidies stimulate housing and commercial development within PDAs.
•Assess commercial development fee based on VMT to improve jobs-housing ratio and to fund affordable housing in PDAs.7
25%
75%
24%
33%
43%
23%
77%
21%
33%
46%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
outside PDA
in PDA
Inland, Coastal,
Delta
Bayside
Big 3 Cities
Compared to the Draft Preferred Scenario, the Final Preferred Scenario boosts housing growth in the “Big 3” cities.
Where will the region plan for the 820,000new households?30%
40%
30%
2010: 2.6 millionhouseholds
34%
38%
28%
2040: 3.4 million households
8
Draft
Draft
Draft
Draft
Draft
48%
52%
14%
46%
40%
45%
55%
17%
40%
43%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
outside PDA
in PDA
Inland, Coastal,
Delta
Bayside
Big 3 Cities
New strategies included in the Final Preferred Scenario shifted some job growth away from Bayside communities.
Where will the region plan for the 1.3 millionnew jobs?33%
41%
26%
36%
41%
23%
2010:3.4 million jobs
2040:4.7 million jobs
9
Draft
Draft
Draft
Draft
Draft
More information for local jurisdictions interested in detailed forecasts is publicly available.
Primary changes as a result of policy and technicalchanges since September’s draft release include:
Reduced job growth in San Francisco
Increased job growth in San Jose (and Oakland), with lower job forecasts for other Silicon Valley cities
Reduced housing growth in North Bay, especially in Sonoma County
Shifted housing growth from Contra Costa to other high-population, job-rich counties
10
As noted previously, the Final Preferred Scenario assumes passage of transportation ballot measures next Tuesday.
$29B $48B $44B $156B $14B $19B
Federal State Regional Local Anticipated 2016 Transportation Ballot Measures
$310 billion
Year of Expenditure $
Revenue Envelope for Plan Bay Area 2040
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/beejjorgensen/3495038
11
The Final Preferred Scenario allocates over 90 percent of funds towards maintenance and modernization, similar to Plan Bay Area.
$158 billion
51%
$67 billion
22%
$54 billion
17%
$31 billion
10%
Total Plan Bay Area 2040 Expenditures -$310 billion
(in billions of $YOE)
Operate and Maintain -
Transit
Operate and Maintain -
Roads/Freeways/Bridges
Modernize
Expand
90%
10%
Operate, Maintain, and Modernize
Expand Existing System
12
Future regional discretionary revenues support maintaining the existing system while balancing modernizing and expanding.
$39.7B,
54%
$8.0B,
11%
$18.8B,
25%
$7.5B,
10%
Regional Discretionary Revenue -$74 billion
(in billions of $YOE)
Operate and Maintain -
Transit
Operate and Maintain -
Roads/Freeways/Bridges
Modernize
Expand
Major Discretionary Fund Sources Amount (in billions)
FTA Formula Funds + Other Cond. Discr. Sources $30.5
STP-CMAQ $4.7
New Starts/Small Starts/ Core Capacity $5.0
Cap and Trade $4.8
STA-Pop $1.9
ATP + ITIP $1.2
High Speed Rail $0.7
Future Regional Measures $8.9
Other Federal $2.3
Anticipated/Unspecified $14.0
13
Discretionary revenue is used to close the gaps on transit operating expenses over the next 24 years.
$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0 $35.0 $40.0
AC Transit
BART
Caltrain
GGBHTD
SFMTA
SamTrans
VTA
Draft Transit Operating Needs and Funding, 2017 -2040
(In billions of YOE$)
Committed Revenue Regional Discretionary Revenue (e.g. TDA/STA/AB1107)
$3.9
$5.5
$32.7
$13.4
= 24-Year Operating Need & Revenue
$15.7
$5.4
$35.2
$X.X
OVERVIEW OF REGIONALTRANSITOPERATIONS:SERVICE & FUNDING
Icon Sources: The Noun Project (Clarke; Aarthus)
Service Levels+7.5%
greater than the original Plan Bay Area
Annual Costs+25%
greater than the original Plan Bay Area
Note: statistics cited focus solely on operating existing service. Funding for projects that increase service is included within the modernize and expand investment categories.14
Maintenance funding is directed to highest asset need, but does not fully achieve a state of good repair for transit capital.
$1.1
$6.4
$0.7
$0.5
$0.8
$5.1
$0.1
$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0
AC Transit
BART
Caltrain
GGBHTD
SamTrans
SFMTA
VTA
Draft Transit Capital Needs and Funding, 2017 -2040
(In billions of YOE$)
Committed Investment November Ballot Measures
Discretionary Investment Remaining Need (State of Good Repair)15
Funding for local streets and roads also brings us closer, but not completely, to a state of good repair.
$2.4
$0.7
$0.7
$0.3
$1.3
$2.3
$1.8
$2.6
$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0
Alameda
Contra Costa
Marin
Napa
San Francisco
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Solano
Sonoma
Draft Local Streets and Roads Needs and Funding, 2017 -2040
(In billions of YOE$)
Committed Investment November Ballot Measures
Discretionary Investment Remaining Need (State of Good Repair)16
Future regional funding is also directed to three key issue areas for Plan Bay Area 2040.
Closing the GHG Gap Sustainable Goods Movement Core Capacity Transit 17
Most of the Plan’s GHG emission reductions will come from MTC’s Climate Initiatives Program.
Transportation and land use strategies are not enough to meet the climate goals of SB375, requiring the following additional programs:
Transportation Demand Management Alternative Fuel/Vehicle Strategies Car Sharing and Vanpool Incentives
18
Strategy Local/Comm.Regional Discr.Total Plan Investment
Regional Climate Initiatives Program $36 million $490 million $526 million
Total = 11%reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005
Almost $3 billion of discretionary funding would go toward modernizing the region’s goods movement network.
The draft investment strategy seeks to improve goods movement operations while also increasing the environmental sustainability of the sector.
Strategy Local/Comm.Regional Discr.Total Plan Investment
Modernizing Infrastructure $2,300 million $2,200 million $4,500 million
Clean Fuels and Impact Reduction $350 million $350 million
Smart Deliveries and Operations $300 million $300 million
Increase efficiency within the Port of Oakland Reduce emissions of small trucks Reduce neighborhood impacts
Fund strategic highway investments
19
The Final Preferred Scenario investment strategy would provide transit crowding relief throughout the region’s core.
Major investments include:
•Extending BART to Silicon Valley
•Extending Caltrain to downtown San Francisco
•Increasing frequencies and capacity on BART
•Electrifying and modernizing Caltrain
*Includes funding from local/committed sources, regional discretionary sources and November 2016 ballot measures 20
•Bus rapid transit in San Francisco and Silicon Valley
•More vehicles for SFMTA, AC Transit, VTA and WETA
•Transit priority infrastructure in San Francisco and along the Bay Bridge approaches
Location Total Plan Investment*
Transbay Corridor $5.8 billion
Peninsula Corridor $7.3 billion
Within San Francisco $3.9 billion
Within Santa Clara County $8.3 billion
Planning for future capacity projects $0.8 billion
Changes between the Draft Preferred and Final Preferred did not have any significant impacts on overall performance results.
TARGET ACHIEVED (5)
Final performance results will differ slightly from those shown here, as the final scenarios will incorporate successful housing bonds and a complete network of all transportation projects. The final results will also be analyzed against the 2040 Plan horizon year.
Climate Protection
Adequate Housing
Open Space and Agricultural Preservation
Middle-Wage Job Creation
Goods Movement/ Congestion Reduction
RIGHT DIRECTION (5)
Healthy and Safe Communities
Affordable Housing
Non-Auto Mode Shift
Road Maintenance
Transit Maintenance
WRONG DIRECTION (3)
Housing + Transportation Affordability
Displacement Risk
Access to Jobs
PERFORMANCETARGETSUMMARY
FOR THE FINALPREFERREDSCENARIO
Refer to Attachment D1 for detailed results.
21
Transportation investments are being targeted to benefit low-income Bay Area residents…
Share of Population
Share of Investment Benefit
Transit Roadway Total
Low-Income 24%48%27%40%
Minority 59%61%52%57%
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ALLOCATIONFOR FINAL PREFERRED SCENARIO
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pfsullivan_1056/4487394472; https://www.flickr.com/photos/24208255@N07/3802154159; https://www.flickr.com/photos/bootleggersson/7946832080
22
… but ultimately transportation isn’t the primary challenge –rather, it’s finding an affordable place to live.
Share of Population
Share of Investment Benefit
Transit Roadway Total
Low-Income 24%48%27%40%
Minority 59%61%52%57%
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ALLOCATIONFOR FINAL PREFERRED SCENARIO EQUITY MEASURE SUMMARYFOR FINAL PREFERRED SCENARIO
Equity Measure
Are DisadvantagedCommunities Outperforming the Region?
AreDisadvantaged Communities Making Progress?
Access to Jobs Yes Yes
Risk of Displacement Yes No
Healthy and Safe Communities No Yes
Middle-Wage Job Creation n/a Yes
Housing + Transport Affordability No No
Affordable Housing No No
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pfsullivan_1056/4487394472
23
While the Final Preferred Scenario makes progress on many fronts, regional affordability challenges remain. Implementation actions on this front are a key priority for MTC and ABAG in 2017.
Photo Credit: D. Vautin24
Staff requests that the MTC Planning and ABAG Administrative Committees refer the Final Preferred Scenario to the Commission and Executive Board for approval.
Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/smadness/5036967711/25
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Cities and Counties Alameda County Community
Development Agency
The Alameda County Community Development Agency recommends specific
policies to be incorporated into UrbanSim, including anti-displacement
policies, second unit allowances, compliance with the Surplus Land Act for
publicly-owned land, and inclusionary zoning assumptions.
The Final Preferred Scenario includes inclusionary zoning within all PDAs and
subsidies for affordable housing in PDAs. Additional policy suggestions will be
assessed as staff develops the Plan document in advance of final Plan
adoption.
Cities and Counties
City and County of San Francisco,
San Francisco County Transportation
Authority, and San Francisco
Municipal Ttansportation Agency
Officials from San Francisco expressed concern that the household and
employment projections for San Francisco are too high. They expressed
concern with housing affordability and displacement, recommending specific
legislative actions to address the housing crisis.
The Final Preferred Scenario incorporates a strict maintenance of Prop M and
decreased upzoning in PDAs. Staff acknowledges the regional concern
regarding housing and transportation affordability. Staff will work to address
these policy issues further in the Plan Bay Area 2040 document.
Cities and Counties City of Alameda
The City of Alameda projects lower household growth than does the Draft
Preferred Scenario, particularly in areas outside the City's PDAs, due to lower
levels of transit accessibility.
The Final Preferred Scenario includes reduced PDA upzoning for households,
which should align more closely with local expectations.
Cities and Counties City of Benicia The City of Benicia projects higher employment levels than what are shown
in the Draft Preferred Scenario.
The Final Preferred Scenario takes some steps toward improving
jobs/housing balance in the Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of the region. Due to
constraints on the total number of forecast regional jobs and available
building stock, it was not always possible to match local employment
aspirations.
Cities and Counties City of Brentwood
The City of Brentwood projects higher employment levels than the Draft
Preferred Scenario. This concern was raised during the last Plan Bay Area
process as well.
The Final Preferred Scenario takes some steps toward improving
jobs/housing balance in the Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of the region. Due to
constraints on the total number of forecast regional jobs and available
building stock, it was not always possible to match local employment
aspirations.
Cities and Counties City of Brisbane The City of Brisbane expressed concern that housing in the Bi-County PDA
significantly exceeds local expectations.
In an attempt to respond to the housing production and affordability
challenge of the region, one of the goals of Plan Bay Area 2040 is to focus
growth within PDAs. The Final Preferred Scenario reflects this planning
objective.
Cities and Counties City of Cloverdale
The City of Cloverdale expressed concern on the accuracy of DPS
employment forecasts, noting a projected decrease in total employment and
the number of PDAs.
The Final Preferred Scenario incorporates a refined employment growth
model to better forecast growth in cities like Cloverdale, which results in
employment growth more commensurate with household growth forecast.
Cities and Counties City of Cupertino
The City of Cupertino expressed concern that the Draft Preferred Scenario
(DPS) employment growth forecast exceeds local planning expectations. The
City requests parcel-level data for further analysis.
The Final Preferred Scenario reflects corrected development projects
records, lowered PDA upzoning, and included a cap on commerical
development for the City of Cupertino.
1
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Cities and Counties City of Dublin
The City stated that the DPS 2040 household projections are lower than
what exists today around the Dublin Transit Center / Dublin Crossing PDA
and downtown Dublin.
The final preferred scenaro has incorporated pipeline projects and increased
PDA upzoning, which results in increased housing projections in some
communities.
Cities and Counties City of East Palo Alto
The City of East Palo Alto is concerned with several outcomes of the draft
preferred scenario, including jobs-housing balance, mobility management,
displacement, traffic, and poor air quality. The City requests one more public
meeting before formally adopted by MTC and ABAG boards.
Staff recognizes that housing affordability and jobs-housing balance is a
regional concern. Compared to the draft, the final preferred scenario
achieves higher household growth overall in San Mateo County. Issues
related to housing affordability, displacement, and support for middle-wage
jobs will continue to be evaluated in the preparation of the Plan document.
Cities and Counties City of Gilroy The City of Gilroy expressed concern that both household and employment
projections are too low.
The Final Preferred Scenario projects more jobs in Santa Clara County than
the draft preferred, increasing the jobs-housing ratio of the county.
Cities and Counties City of Lafayette The City of Lafayette requests lower household growth and changes to the
2010 base year.
The Final Preferred Scenario modifies the 2010 base year for housing and
also reflects lowered PDA upzoning for households.
Cities and Counties City of Livermore
The City of Livermore expressed concern that the housing totals outlined in
the DPS are lower than the City's expectations and requests addition of the
BART to Livermore project, which will include a new PDA increase housing.
The Final Preferred Scenario has incorporated pipeline projects and increased
PDA upzoning, which results in increased housing projections in some
communities. BART to Livermore/ACE Project Development and Construction
Reserve is included in the Plan's investment strategy.
Cities and Counties City of Los Altos
The City of Los Altos generally supports the Draft Preferred Scenario but
requests slightly higher households in their PDA and lower employment
levels to reflect the City's certified Housing Element.
The Final Preferred Scenario takes some steps toward improving
jobs/housing balance in parts of Santa Clara county. Due to constraints on
the total number of forecast regional households jobs and available building
stock, it was not always possible to match local household or employment
aspirations.
Cities and Counties City of Mill Valley
The City of Mill Valley stated they look forward to reviewing the numbers in
the Final Preferred Scenario, and that they may provide additional
comments.
Comment noted.
2
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Cities and Counties City of Mountain View
The City of Mountain View expressed concern that the DPS 2040 projections
for employment are too low while the projections for housing are too high,
especially compared to other cities in Santa Clara County.
The final preferred scenario projects more households and jobs in Santa Clara
County relative to the draft preferred, and achieves an improved
jobs/housing balance in some of the County's communities.
Cities and Counties City of Novato
The City of Novato is concerned with changes between PBA 2013 and PBA
2040, the decrease in concentration of development in PDAs between the
two Plans, and the feasibility of affordable housing subsidies.
Plan Bay Area 2040 uses a slightly different methodology for 2010 baseline
employment numbers relative to Plan Bay Area 2013- information on this
methodology has been supplied to all local jurisdictions. The Final Preferred
Scenario increases levels of household and employment growth in PDAs
relative to the draft. It also includes a set of regional strategies in an effort to
move toward the region's housing production and affordability goals. Staff
acknowledges that the implementation of specific housing policies remains a
local decision.
Cities and Counties City of Oakland
The City of Oakland expressed concerns that the household estimates in the
DPS are too high while the employment estimates are too low. The City
recommends several policy levers to incorporate in the Final Preferred,
including "by-right" legislation, regional jobs-housing linkage fee, housing
trust fund, stronger connections between transportation funding and
housing policy, among other suggestions.
The latest projections incorporate adjusted assumptions on employee
density in Oakland and some PDA upzoning for some commercial
development opportunities. The DPS assumes a commercial development
fee based on VMT to improve jobs-housing ratio and to fund affordable
housing in PDAs.
Cities and Counties City of Petaluma Household and employment forecasts for the PDAs in the City of Petaluma
exceed expectations relative to the rest of the City.
The Final Preferred Scenario made a number of technical corrections and
reduced PDA upzoning for households, which should align more closely with
local expectations.
Cities and Counties City of Pleasanton
The City of Pleasanton projects lower household growth due to a growth
management ordinance and questions 2010 baseline data for housing and
employment.
The final preferred scenario made some adjustments to PDA zoning which
should align more closely with growth expectations. The Final Preferred
Scenario will untilize the same baseline housing information (based upon the
U.S. Census) that served as the baseline for PBA 2013. ABAG's updated
regional forecast revised 2010 baseline employement information and that is
reflected in minor changes between PBA 2013 and PBA 2040 in some
jurisdictions.
Cities and Counties City of Pleasanton The City of Pleasanton expressed concern about specific parcels in the
UrbanSim land use model.
The Final Preferred Scenario has made a series of technical corrections to
parcels, and reflects lower PDA zoning for housing for the City, which should
better reflect growth expectations.
Cities and Counties City of San Carlos
The City of San Carlos expressed concern that the DPS household and
employment figures are lower than the numbers in San Carlos' 2030 General
Plan. New housing and commercial development in San Carlos recently
approved or under construction exceeds the figures listed in the DPS.
Because we are using an economically-based model (UrbanSim) to test out
development feasibility for every parcel in the region, data forecasts for a
given city/town/PDA may differ from local plans and may be different from
the prior Plan Bay Area.
Cities and Counties City of San Jose
The City of San Jose believes the DPS's employment forecast is low
compared to the City's local planning targets, as well as historic growth
patterns and long-term regional goals.
Several policy changes have been made in the final preferred scenario,
including a modification on the assumption on square feet per employee,
increased commercial upzoning and decreased residential upzoning in San
Jose PDAs, updated development projects records, and incorporation of
employment growth caps in some neighboring cities.
3
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Cities and Counties City of San Leandro
The City of San Leandro expressed concern that the household and
employment numbers in PDAs declined substantially from PBA 2013 to the
DPS while city-wide job growth projections are much higher than PBA 2013.
Since PBA 2040 uses revised housing and employment control totals, as well
as an economically-based model (UrbanSim) to test out development
feasibility for every parcel in the region, data forecasts for a given
city/town/PDA may differ from local plans and may be different from the
prior Plan Bay Area.
Cities and Counties City of San Pablo
The City of San Pablo would like to further consider the implications of
inclusionary zoning for future residential housing development as well as the
possibility of easing residential parking minimums.
The Final Preferred Scenario includes a set of regional strategies in an effort
to move toward the region's housing production and affordability goals. Staff
acknowledges that the implementation of specific housing policies remains a
local decision.
Cities and Counties City of San Rafael
The City expressed concerns about DPS employment growth projections and
questioned whether the estimated growth can be accommodated without
transportation and utility infrastructure improvements. They also question
the use of 2010 as a baseline for the Plan.
Plan Bay Area 2040 includes a preferred growth distribution as well as a
fiscally constrained set of corresponding transportation investments,
including a number of major capital investments in Marin County. Similar to
Plan Bay Area 2013, Plan Bay Area 2040 uses the same time horizon of 2010-
2040, in keeping with the Plan's approach as a limited and focused update.
Cities and Counties City of San Ramon
The City of San Ramon expressed concern that employment and household
projections are lower than the City's General Plan and the distribution of
growth is too heavily concentraed in the PDA.
The Final Preferred Scenario incorporates a number of pipeline development
projects and more accurate employment zoning in the PDA.
Cities and Counties City of Santa Rosa
The City of Santa Rosa believes that DPS household projections are higher
than local expectations and employment is lower than the Santa Rosa
General Plan. The City believes the DPS should be amended to recognize
Santa Rosa's role as a regional jobs center.
The Final Preferred Scenario includes reduced PDA upzoning for households
in Santa Rosa, which should align more closely with local expectations. It
also takes some steps toward improving jobs/housing balance in many parts
of the region, including the Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of the region. Due to
constraints on the total number of forecast regional jobs and available
building stock, it was not always possible to match local employment
aspirations.
Cities and Counties City of Sausalito
The City of Sausalito expressed concern that both household and
employment projections in the DPS exceed local expectations. The City has
specific parcels designated for conservation that should be off-limits to
development in a regional forecast.
A number of technical corrections at the parcel-level were made in the Final
Preferred Scenario.
Cities and Counties City of South San Francisco
The City of South San Francisco projects higher household and employment
growth than the DPS. The City anticipates significant transit-oriented
development due to Caltrain and other transit improvements.
The Final Preferred Scenario has incorporated available information on
pipeline projects, increasing the housing and/or employment projections for
some places.
Cities and Counties City of Sunnyvale The City of Sunnyvale is concerned that the number of households is too high
relative to their recently updated Land Use and Transportation Element.
The Final Preferred Scenario forecasts a higher share of both jobs and
housing in jobs-rich areas like Silicon Valley. This reflects the Plan's
performance targets, including improving access to job opportunities.
4
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Cities and Counties City of Vallejo
The City of Vallejo expressed concern that household and employment
projections in the DPS are lower than Vallejo’s own draft General Plan, but
generally supports the Plan's principles.
The Final Preferred Scenario takes some steps toward improving
jobs/housing balance in many parts of the region, including Bayside and the
Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of the region. Due to constraints on the total
number of forecast regional households jobs and available building stock, it
was not always possible to match local household or employment
aspirations.
Cities and Counties Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County expressed concern that the DPS projects an increase in
households over PBA 2013 but a reduction in employment. The County
requests a better jobs/housing balance to bring jobs to the area and improve
congestion, and would like a Priority Production Areas program in the Plan.
The Final Preferred Scenario achieves an improved jobs-housing balance in
the Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of the region. Due largely to the
incorporation of pipeline projects, Contra Costa sees an forecasted increase
in employment relative to the Draft.
Cities and Counties Mayors Lee, Edwin M; Liccardo,
Sam; Schaaf, Libby
The mayors of Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose would like to see
balanced, walkable, and bikable communities with jobs and housing linked by
regional transit. They also expressed concern with the housing affordability
performance of the DPS and the need to grow middle-wage jobs and invest
in transit.
The Plan's investment strategy makes a considerable investment in transit,
including operations and maintenance to several multi-billion dollar
expansions of BART and Caltrain. The investment strategy also provides
significant funding for multimodal streetscapes. Staff acknowledges that the
Final Preferred Scenario does not overcome the region's housing affordability
crisis. Staff will work to address these policy issues in the Plan Bay Area 2040
document.
Cities and Counties Solano County
Solano County expressed concern that DPS household projections exceed
local expectations. The County is primarily agricultural with no urban services
and therefore should have lower household projections.
The Final Preferred Scenario reflects lower household growth in
unincorporated Solano County. The preferred scenario uses consistent
jurisdictional boundaries between 2010 and 2040- some development
currently shown in county unincorporated areas will likely be in local
jurisdictions.
Cities and Counties Town of Corte Madera The Town of Corte Madera believes the growth forecasts to be inaccurate
based on an analysis of specific parcels.
The Final Preferred Scenario reflects numerous technical fixes at the parcel
level- while the Land Use model uses local general plans as a foundation, it
will not capture perfect information about every single parcel in the region.
Cities and Counties Town of Hillsborough The Town of Hillsborough projects lower employment levels in the baseline
and in 2040 than those shown in the Draft Preferred Scenario.
The Final Preferred Scenario includes an update to employment data for the
Town of Hillsborough.
Cities and Counties Town of Los Gatos The Town of Los Gatos supports the household and employment projections
provided in the DPS. Comment noted.
Cities and Counties Town of Portola Valley
The Town of Portola Valley assumes a significantly lower 2010 employment
number, and also projects lower employment levels than the Draft Preferred
Scenario.
The Final Preferred Scenario incorporates an adjustment to the base year
employment number, which in turn affects the 2040 employment projection.
5
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Cities and Counties Town of San Anselmo
The Town of San Anselmo is concerned that the DPS is based on inaccurate
Town General Plan data and that household growth should be focused in
PDAs.
The Final Preferred Scenario has removed some hillside parcels from
development consideration in the regional forecast.
Individuals Eklund, Pat
Ms. Eklund expressed concern and asked for more information related to
base year household and jobs counts, in particular what changed in ABAG's
employment counts; a reduction in PDA growth relative to PBA 2013;
additional information on UrbanSim; and additional information on the
assumed land use strategies.
2010 household base year figures have been revised since the draft. The
Final Preferred Scenario achieves a higher level of PDA growth for
households and employment relative to the draft. Since PBA 2040 uses
revised housing and employment control totals, as well as an economically-
based model (UrbanSim) to test out development feasibility for every parcel
in the region, data forecasts for a given city/town/PDA may differ from local
plans and may be different from the prior Plan Bay Area. Staff has provided
information on methodogy and the incorporation of regional policies, and can
provide more details as requested.
Individuals Severinghaus, Jean Ms. Severinghaus expressed concern that the targets for the Draft Preferred
Scenario fall short on ideal health and activity goals.
The Final Preferred Scenario makes a modest improvement toward meeting
the Healthy and Safe Communities Target. In a mature region, increasing
regional non-auto mode share is a difficult target to achieve. This and other
policy objectives will be addressed in the Plan Bay Area 2040 document.
Stakeholder
Organizations 6 Wins for Social Equity Network
The 6 Wins for Social Equity Network expressed concern on issues related to
affordability and displacement, funding for transit operations including youth
and means-based fare passes, the need for development growth in all "high-
opportunity" areas, and support for middle-wage jobs.
Staff acknowledges the regional concern regarding housing and
transportation affordability. The final preferred scenario continues significant
investment in existing transit operations with several projects related to
implementing the means-based fare study. Issues related to housing
affordability, displacement, and support for middle-wage jobs will continue
to be evaluated in the preparation of the Plan document.
Stakeholder
Organizations
Bay Area Water Supply and
Conservation Agency (BAWSCA)
The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency expressed concern of
the increase in growth compared to Plan Bay Area, and the impact this
additional growth may have on water supply.
Staff acknowledges the concern for water management and the impact of
household growth on existing water supplies. Adoption of the Preferred
Scenario will initiate the EIR analysis, which will include an analysis of surface
water and groundwater resources in relation to the proposed Plan. The
focused growth pattern of the preferred scenario will generally result in
lower water use per capita than greenfield development.
Stakeholder
Organizations
Building Industry Association (BIA)
Bay Area
The Building Industry Association (BIA) expresses concern that although the
region needs many new rental units, we should also be mindful of the
economic security and opportunity offered by home ownership.
The land use model for the scenario developmental process differentiates
between single-family and multi-family, but does not differentiate between
rental and ownership housing units.
Stakeholder
Organizations
Ditching Dirty Diesel Collaborative
(DDDC)
The Ditching Dirty Diesel Collaborative (DDDC) expressed concern about
some differences in projects, programs, and investment levels between the
Regional Goods Movement Plan and PBA 2040.
The Final Preferred Scenario and Investment Strategy includes many of the
same projects and programs included in the Regional Goods Movement Plan,
including future programs to encourage and fund the deployment of zero-
emissions freight and reduce impacts on local communities. Due to fiscal
constraint, the investment strategy is not able to incorporate all aspects of
the Goods Movement Planning work.
Stakeholder
Organizations Greenbelt Alliance
The Greenbelt Alliance believes the DPS needs to more explicitly identify
policy gaps for open space preservation, affordable housing, transit and PDA
infrastructure and include clear actions and measures to close the gap.
Staff recognizes the concern for open space preservation, affordable housing,
and transit infrastructure. Staff will work to address these policy issues
further in the Plan Bay Area 2040 document.
6
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Stakeholder
Organizations Greenbelt Alliance et al.
The Greenbelt Alliance expressed support for the DPS' ability to direct
growth to the urban footprint, but would like to see additional emphasis on
policies to: redirect growth from "edge" jurisdictions; improve social equity,
including the environment, health, affordcability, displacement, and open
space; and implementation.
The Preferred Scenario continues to focus regional growth, including 45% of
household growth in the Big 3 cities, and 77% of growth within PDAs. Staff
acknowledges the regional concern regarding housing and production
affordability. Staff will work to address these policy issues further in the Plan
Bay Area 2040 document.
Stakeholder
Organizations
Non Profit Housing Association of
Northern California (NPH)
The Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California expressed concern
on housing affordability and displacement, a better balance between jobs
and housing particularly in jobs-rich communities, and the need for further
analysis and public outreach. NPH suggests including additional policy
strategies to encourage housing production and affordability and an
implementation plan(s) to further address these policy issues.
The Final Preferred Scenario takes some steps toward increasing housing in
some jobs-rich areas. Due to technical and resource limitations, staff is
unable to include many of the requested strategies, but public feedback is
being used to help identify policies that would support improved
performance to expedite implementation – above and beyond what is
reflected in the adopted Plan and its associated performance results. Staff
acknowledges the regional concern regarding housing and transportation
affordability. Staff will work to address these policy issues further in the Plan
Bay Area 2040 document.
Stakeholder
Organizations
Rose Foundation for Communities
and the Environment
The Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment expressed
concern on affordable housing, displacement, transit service and passes, and
an implementation/action plan.
Staff acknowledges the regional concern regarding housing and
transportation affordability. The final preferred scenario continues significant
investment in existing transit operations with several projects related to
implementing the means-based fare study. Issues related to housing
affordability, displacement, and support for middle-wage jobs will continue
to be evaluated in the preparation of the Plan document.
Stakeholder
Organizations
Safe Routes to School National
Partnership et al.
The Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy,
Walk SF, Center for Climate Protection, Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, and
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition jointly expressed concern on physical activity
and public health goals, invesments to achieve them, and the need for an
implementation plan.
Staff notes that the final preferred scenario makes a modest improvement
toward meeting the Healthy and Safe Communities Target. In a mature
region, increasing regional non-auto mode share is a difficult target to
achieve. This and other policy objectives will be addressed in Plan Bay Area
2040 as part of the Plan Document process and implementation efforts
Stakeholder
Organizations
San Mateo County Union
Community Alliance (SMCUCA)
SMCUCA expressed concern that MTC's model for middle-wage jobs
projections is inaccurate. They state that current census data shows that the
Bay Area is on a path to greater income inequality, and that PBA should focus
on incentives, policy changes, and programs (such as OBAG) to create more
middle-wage jobs.
Staff recognizes the concern from stakeholders about the future outlook for
middle-wage jobs, especially in a region with a rapidly rising cost of living. As
was noted during the target-setting process, ABAG and MTC do not currently
have the ability to forecast jobs by wage. Future implementation work, which
is not constrained by model limitations, may be able to better incorporate
policy ideas or monitoring actions to spotlight this issue at the intersection of
the regional economy and social equity.
Stakeholder
Organizations Santa Clara Valley Water District The Santa Clara Valley Water District expressed concern on water usage and
management.
Staff acknowledges the concern for water management and the potential
benefit of water use efficiency practices. Adoption of the Preferred Scenario
will initiate the EIR analysis, which will include an analysis of surface water
and groundwater resources in relation to the proposed Plan.
7
Plan Bay Area 2040
Summary of Comments and Responses on the Draft Preferred Scenario (DPS)
Attachment A
Agency Type Sender Name Comment Summary Response Summary
Stakeholder
Organizations Sierra Club
The Sierra Club expressed concerns about the Draft Preferred Scenario's
accomplishment of SB 375 goals, in particular in-commuting;
implementation; housing affordability; and more information on specific
projects and plan development process.
The Plan scenarios forecast a supply of housing to accomodate the in-
commute, and staff acknowledges long commute times are a major regional
concern. Adoption of the Preferred Scenario will initiate the EIR analysis,
which will include further analysis of the impact of the proposed plan on
environmental resources. Staff acknowledges the regional concern regarding
housing and transportation affordability. Staff will work to address these
policy issues further in the Plan Bay Area 2040 document.
Stakeholder
Organizations SPUR
SPUR sugguests that MTC/AGAG use the PBA 2040 as an opportunity to
explore possibilities for new legislation, affordable housing strategies, and
providing further incentives to communities willing to take on a greater
share of housing. SPUR requests that MTC add an implementation chapter at
the end of the plan that will address specific housing targets.
Staff acknowledges the regional concern regarding housing production and
affordability. Staff will work to address these policy issues further in the Plan
Bay Area 2040 document and implementation efforts moving forward.
Stakeholder
Organizations SV@Home
SV@Home expressed concern with household projections, stating they are
lower than housing plans approved by local jurisdictions and that the DPS will
exacerbate the existing jobs-housing imbalance in Santa Clara County.
The final preferred scenario projects more households and jobs in Santa Clara
County relative to the draft preferred, and achieves an improved
jobs/housing balance in some of the County's communities.
Transportation and
Other Govt. Agencies
Alameda County Transportation
Commission (Alameda CTC)
The Alameda County Transportaiton Commission expressed support for the
goods movement strategy, requested modification of their express lane
project, and requested more information on the implementation plan for
specific regional transportation programs and potential funding advocacy.
The I-680 NB Sunol express lane has been added to the final preferred
scenario with future express lane segments included as environmental and
design phases. As we move into plan implementation, staff will work to
further clarify regional programs.
Transportation and
Other Govt. Agencies
Contra Costa Transportation
Authority
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority expressed concern with low
employment projections and high housing growth in Contra Costa County
and similar estimates for Solano County. The agency also expressed support
for Priority Production Areas.
The final preferred scenario projects more jobs in Contra Costa County than
the draft preferred, increasing the jobs-housing ratio of the county.
Transportation and
Other Govt. Agencies
San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency supports the DPS's
emphasis on transit operations, state of good repair, transit modernization
and core capacity-enhancing projects.
Comment noted.
Transportation and
Other Govt. Agencies
Solano Transportation Authority
(STA)
The Solano County Transportation Agency requests modifications to their
express lane project, an update to the housing distribution between the
county and the City of Fairfield, and increased employment in Solano County.
The I-80 Express Lane project from Airbase Parkway to I-505 is included in
the final investment strategy, with the remaining express lanes includes as
environmental and design phases. The preferred scenario uses consistent
jurisdictional boundaries between 2010 and 2040- some development
currently shown in county unincorporated areas will likely be in local
jurisdictions. In general, the Final Preferred Scenario takes some steps
toward improving jobs/housing balance in the Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of
the region.
Transportation and
Other Govt. Agencies
Sonoma County Transportation
Authority
The Sonoma County Transportation Authority expressed concern that
housing projections have increased since the last Plan, and expressed
concern about parcel-level discrepencies. SCTA requests more collaboration
to verify and validate UrbanSim inputs.
The Final Preferred Scenario reflects numerous technical fixes at the parcel
level. It also takes some steps toward improving jobs/housing balance in
many parts of the region, including the Inland, Coastal, Delta parts of the
region.
8
Attachment B1: Land Use Policy Assumptions included in Final Preferred Scenario
Plan Bay Area 2040 Final Preferred Scenario
The Final Preferred Scenario incorporates current zoning as its most fundamental planning assumption. However, the 2015 PDA Assessment emphasized that in their current form, many PDAs may not be able
to accommodate forecasted growth and require additional policy interventions to increase their development potential. As a result, staff assumed a range of regional policy and investment strategies in the draft preferred land use scenario to increase development potential in PDA’s, and influence the overall regional pattern.
Zoning Assumes upzoning of residential lands in some Priority Development Areas (PDAs) to increase development potential.
Urban Growth Boundaries
Assumes 2010 Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs), Urban Limit Lines (ULLs) or city boundaries if no UGB/ULLs exist are maintained. Assumes any new development avoids all Priority
Conservation Areas (PCAs).
Commercial / Office
Development Caps
Assumes San Francisco’s office cap (Proposition M) of 1 million
square feet of total space allowed annually is maintained.
Inclusionary Zoning Assumes inclusionary zoning in all jurisdictions with PDAs and requires that new housing developers set aside 10% of all new units
as affordable housing.
Subsidies and Streamlining
• Assumes $200 million available annually to subsidize housing
construction within any PDA throughout the region.
• Assumes California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Tiering or Streamlining will increase development profitability by 1% in Transit Priority Areas (TPAs).
• Assumes the CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR) move from a Level of Service (LOS) traffic impact analysis to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) via Senate Bill (SB) 743 will result in slightly more development profitability for areas with efficient
VMT and slightly less profitability in inefficient VMT areas.
Vehicle Miles Traveled Fee
Assumes a fee is assessed on new commercial developments in areas that generate high VMT. The funds generated by this fee are
available regionally to subsidize housing construction in PDAs. The
subsidized units in PDAs are assumed to be deed-restricted.
Parking Policies
Assumes Regional Parking Minimums are decreased in the Bay
Area’s core PDAs to make residential development projects 1% more profitable.
Attachment B2: Distribution of 2040 Household and Employment Forecasts
Plan Bay Area 2040 Final Preferred Scenario
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Total 30,123 35,100 29,260 42,400
PDA 1,780 5,500 6,940 16,900
Total 7,401 7,850 4,420 5,190
PDA 320 470 2,160 2,230
Total 46,029 55,400 90,350 121,700
PDA 6,620 12,900 28,600 36,400
Total 14,913 26,500 18,080 31,100
PDA 3,090 11,000 4,970 13,600
Total 5,694 18,900 15,860 20,000
PDA 2,350 15,100 13,490 14,700
Total 71,004 90,200 86,150 118,500
PDA 23,190 40,700 38,120 56,500
Total 45,365 54,300 60,870 77,800
PDA 4,380 9,500 7,570 8,490
Total 29,134 39,700 42,710 45,850
PDA 860 10,400 24,040 23,690
Total 12,972 14,050 17,340 22,900
PDA 220 470 390 420
Total 153,791 241,500 179,070 272,800
PDA 112,600 197,700 158,200 241,200
Piedmont Total 3,801 3,850 1,820 1,930
Total 25,245 30,600 60,090 75,400
PDA 1,300 5,150 12,600 23,300
Total 30,717 37,300 49,710 59,600
PDA 4,630 10,300 9,750 9,960
Total 20,433 22,850 20,990 28,100
PDA 500 2,200 270 230
Total 48,516 56,300 28,820 29,680
PDA 10,110 13,100 6,780 7,440
Total 545,138 734,200 705,540 952,900
PDA 171,950 334,500 313,880 455,100
County Total
Alameda Alameda
Albany
Berkeley
Dublin
Emeryville
Fremont
Hayward
Livermore
Newark
Oakland
Pleasanton
San Leandro
Union City
Alameda County
Unincorporated
November 4, 2016 Attachment B2
Final Preferred Scenario
Page 2 of 6
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Alameda Alameda Total 32,252 40,300 20,110 25,700
PDA 1,390 5,300 2,010 2,720
Brentwood Total 16,494 26,100 11,620 11,990
Clayton Total 4,006 4,100 1,990 2,090
Total 44,278 64,400 54,270 95,500
PDA 3,890 21,300 10,430 40,300
Danville Total 15,420 16,020 11,840 13,100
Total 10,142 12,100 5,320 5,910
PDA 740 2,150 3,800 4,060
Total 8,115 9,650 4,950 5,420
PDA 870 1,700 1,140 1,140
Total 9,223 9,970 8,990 9,940
PDA 1,700 2,240 6,550 7,500
Total 14,287 15,300 20,710 26,100
PDA 710 1,040 6,800 9,400
Total 5,570 5,920 4,570 5,700
PDA 30 180 1,420 1,630
Total 10,727 16,400 3,410 5,350
PDA 770 5,900 1,610 3,050
Total 6,553 6,830 4,840 5,500
PDA 230 330 2,660 3,150
Total 6,775 7,290 6,700 8,500
PDA 360 640 5,180 6,200
Total 19,527 26,500 11,840 15,600
PDA 5,130 8,550 5,130 6,700
Total 13,708 14,310 16,360 19,800
PDA 860 1,030 6,370 7,600
Total 36,093 54,900 30,680 61,800
PDA 8,360 24,000 13,370 35,300
Total 8,761 9,800 7,430 9,100
PDA 1,990 2,570 4,870 5,870
Total 25,284 30,300 47,950 71,800
PDA 220 1,950 25,530 44,900
Total 30,443 37,500 50,860 58,100
PDA 4,940 10,400 27,410 29,150
Total 57,706 67,700 35,790 41,100
PDA 4,340 12,000 8,650 11,150
Total 375,364 475,400 360,230 498,100
PDA 36,500 101,200 132,920 219,900
San Ramon
Walnut Creek
Contra Costa County
Unincorporated
County Total
San Pablo
Contra Costa Antioch
Concord
El Cerrito
Hercules
Lafayette
Martinez
Moraga
Oakley
Orinda
Pinole
Pittsburg
Pleasant Hill
Richmond
November 4, 2016 Attachment B2
Final Preferred Scenario
Page 3 of 6
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Alameda AlamedaBelvedere Total 928 990 310 320
Corte Madera Total 3,793 4,280 6,500 7,160
Fairfax Total 3,379 3,700 1,550 1,660
Larkspur Total 5,908 6,420 7,500 7,670
Mill Valley Total 6,084 6,380 5,980 6,550
Novato Total 20,279 21,200 26,380 28,300
Ross Total 798 840 360 380
San Anselmo Total 5,243 5,520 3,310 3,420
Total 22,764 25,550 43,430 49,000
PDA 1,670 2,560 9,070 10,020
Sausalito Total 4,112 4,370 5,220 5,880
Tiburon Total 3,729 3,900 2,840 2,930
Total 26,193 28,450 18,410 21,650
PDA 1,410 1,790 660 740
Total 103,210 111,600 121,790 135,000
PDA 3,080 4,350 9,730 10,750
Total 5,657 6,300 5,380 8,150
PDA 410 490 1,290 1,600
Calistoga Total 2,019 2,110 2,220 2,360
Total 28,166 30,600 33,920 42,900
PDA 370 710 5,440 12,600
St. Helena Total 2,401 2,700 5,700 5,980
Yountville Total 1,050 1,100 2,770 2,820
Napa County
Unincorporated
Total 9,583 11,850 20,690 21,110
Total 48,876 54,600 70,680 83,400
PDA 780 1,210 6,740 14,100
Total 345,811 483,700 576,850 872,500
PDA 182,430 310,100 473,990 741,700
Napa American Canyon
Napa
County Total
San Francisco San Francisco
Marin
San Rafael
Marin County
Unincorporated
County Total
November 4, 2016 Attachment B2
Final Preferred Scenario
Page 4 of 6
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Alameda AlamedaAtherton Total 2,330 2,460 2,140 2,170
Total 10,575 11,600 7,920 9,450
PDA 2,870 3,480 3,590 3,840
Total 1,821 6,400 5,220 16,900
PDA 0 4,350 560 9,500
Total 12,361 13,750 28,020 42,600
PDA 7,010 8,250 11,500 17,200
Total 412 940 3,930 4,320
PDA 320 760 1,510 1,960
Total 31,090 35,800 18,430 22,500
PDA 8,540 11,550 4,640 4,790
Total 6,940 8,700 5,130 6,650
PDA 820 1,580 980 1,370
Foster City Total 12,016 15,100 15,800 27,200
Half Moon Bay Total 4,149 4,580 4,920 5,380
Hillsborough Total 3,693 3,910 2,120 2,270
Total 12,347 17,700 34,630 42,500
PDA 180 870 6,220 11,400
Total 7,994 9,750 5,920 11,600
PDA 590 2,150 2,890 8,100
Pacifica Total 13,967 14,520 5,930 7,100
Portola Valley Total 1,746 1,800 1,500 1,520
Total 27,957 38,100 59,290 86,700
PDA 650 8,500 20,640 24,100
Total 14,701 17,950 12,890 14,800
PDA 3,710 6,550 9,280 10,300
Total 11,524 14,000 16,300 19,150
PDA 40 110 1,210 1,740
Total 38,233 50,800 50,970 68,000
PDA 11,320 19,600 25,370 32,900
Total 20,938 25,300 38,720 54,200
PDA 5,390 9,100 8,290 9,110
Woodside Total 1,977 2,130 1,970 2,000
Total 21,066 22,750 21,610 25,050
PDA 2,380 3,170 3,320 3,310
Total 257,837 318,000 343,330 472,000
PDA 43,830 80,000 99,990 139,500
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo
South San Francisco
San Mateo County
Unincorporated
County Total
San Mateo
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Millbrae
Redwood City
November 4, 2016 Attachment B2
Final Preferred Scenario
Page 5 of 6
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Alameda Alameda Total 16,163 18,750 25,450 32,700
PDA 580 1,470 5,190 6,650
Total 20,181 22,950 26,810 38,000
PDA 2,170 3,450 9,810 12,250
Total 14,175 19,600 17,840 22,300
PDA 1,390 3,850 4,560 4,750
Total 10,745 11,720 14,140 17,250
PDA 10 40 2,240 2,750
Los Altos Hills Total 2,829 3,020 1,580 1,670
Los Gatos Total 12,355 13,040 18,890 20,600
Total 19,184 30,400 42,020 58,000
PDA 790 9,600 5,630 9,850
Monte Sereno Total 1,211 1,320 530 560
Total 12,326 15,800 19,290 19,600
PDA 260 1,350 1,530 1,260
Total 31,957 58,300 48,480 73,300
PDA 5,780 27,300 25,200 40,100
Total 26,493 32,900 101,940 126,500
PDA 510 840 3,910 4,950
Total 301,366 448,300 387,510 554,900
PDA 67,550 203,600 229,160 340,400
Total 43,021 57,000 102,950 170,600
PDA 330 6,900 10,300 10,780
Saratoga Total 10,734 10,960 8,750 9,090
Total 53,384 84,200 65,720 108,600
PDA 6,340 35,800 21,820 33,100
Santa Clara County
Unincorporated
Total 28,080 32,450 29,640 36,200
Total 604,204 860,800 911,530 1,289,900
PDA 85,710 294,200 319,340 466,800
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
County Total
Santa Clara Campbell
Cupertino
Gilroy
Los Altos
Milpitas
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
November 4, 2016 Attachment B2
Final Preferred Scenario
Page 6 of 6
County Jurisdiction Summary
Level
Households
2010
Household
Forecast 2040
Employment
2010
Employment
Forecast 2040
Alameda Alameda Total 10,686 11,850 12,840 17,100
PDA 620 1,290 9,250 12,850
Total 5,856 7,250 4,850 5,400
PDA 450 600 280 340
Total 34,484 40,200 43,170 50,000
PDA 2,260 4,500 6,330 6,700
Rio Vista Total 3,454 6,300 2,350 2,520
Total 8,918 10,000 2,500 2,860
PDA 1,090 1,850 1,090 1,000
Total 31,092 33,600 29,310 33,550
PDA 860 2,000 4,970 4,570
Total 40,559 46,900 30,900 35,050
PDA 390 1,550 2,630 2,770
Solano County
Unincorporated
Total 6,709 13,300 4,240 4,510
Total 141,758 169,400 130,160 151,000
PDA 5,680 11,800 24,550 28,250
Total 3,182 4,850 1,710 2,100
PDA 800 2,450 590 630
Total 2,978 4,150 2,630 2,960
PDA 350 1,330 690 570
Healdsburg Total 4,385 4,620 8,330 8,980
Total 21,737 24,500 29,990 39,800
PDA 510 1,170 3,520 5,800
Total 15,808 21,000 12,130 13,900
PDA 1,300 5,050 5,130 4,860
Total 63,591 80,000 76,570 92,100
PDA 16,740 30,000 41,160 45,900
Total 3,276 3,840 4,970 5,280
PDA 2,040 2,560 4,650 4,790
Sonoma Total 4,955 5,270 7,140 7,980
Total 8,962 10,750 7,720 8,900
PDA 1,110 2,250 870 1,150
Sonoma County
Unincorporated
Total 56,951 60,000 51,540 61,600
Total 185,825 219,100 202,730 243,600
PDA 22,860 44,800 56,600 63,700
Total 2,608,000 3,427,000 3,423,000 4,698,000
PDA 552,800 1,182,200 1,437,700 2,139,800Regional Total
County Total
Sonoma Cloverdale
Cotati
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Windsor
County Total
Solano Benicia
Dixon
Fairfield
Suisun City
Vacaville
Vallejo
Attachment C.1
Plan Bay Area 2040 Expenditure Plan - Total Plan Revenue ($310 billion)
(in Millions of $YOE, sorted by regional discretionary funding)
Investment Strategy Amount in the RTP Local/ Committed
Nov. 2016 Measures
Regional
Discretionary
Operate and Maintain
Transit Capital Preservation $31,213 $5,947 $3,685 $21,581
Transit Operations $121,792 $105,741 $16,051
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $37,152 $25,768 $3,604 $7,780
Cost Contingency and Debt Service $5,100 $3,000 $2,100
Highway and Bridge Preservation $30,331 $30,081 $250
Modernize
Transit Efficiency and Service Improvements $22,576 $8,705 $4,821 $9,050
Goods Movement $5,432 $2,494 $124 $2,814
Highway Operations and Interchanges $6,976 $3,400 $1,220 $2,356
Multimodal and Bike Ped $6,140 $3,257 $1,288 $1,595
Regional and County Access Initiatives $2,056 $652 $215 $1,189
Planning, Local Road Operations, and Safety Improvements $3,661 $1,876 $1,007 $778
Climate $819 $141 $25 $653
Express Lanes (Conversions) and Pricing $6,411 $6,026 $47 $338
Expand
Transit Expansion $20,579 $12,777 $1,596 $6,206
Express Lanes (Expand) and Roadway Expansion $10,055 $7,777 $1,029 $1,249
Total $310,293 $217,642 $18,661 $73,990
Notes: Amount in the RTP does not include project costs and funding that occurred before the Plan period (e.g. before FY 2016-17) Local/committed fund sources are any locally generated transportation funding source, like county sales tax, vehicle registration fees, and impact fees. This category also includes future extensions of county sales tax measure and
anticipated state regional transportation improvement program (RTIP) funds per county. November 2016 measures include upcoming sales tax measures for Contra Costa, San Francisco and Santa Clara
counties, BART’s bond measure, and AC Transit’s parcel tax measure. After a measure passes, it will be considered local/committed for the final Plan Bay Area 2040 adoption.
Regional discretionary fund sources include future STP/CMAQ, Cap and Trade, New/Small Starts, future bridge tolls, a regional gas tax, and anticipated/unspecified funding
Total revenue is higher than what was presented in September due to the addition of express lanes segments that generate revenue.
Attachment C.2
Plan Bay Area 2040 Expenditure Plan – Regional Discretionary Funding ($74 billion)
(in Millions of $YOE, sorted by regional discretionary funding)
Investment Strategy
Federal State Regional Other
STP-CMAQ
New/ Small Starts
Other Federal1
Cap and Trade HSR ATP/ ITIP STA-Pop Future Reg.Measures2 Cond. Discr.3 Anticipated Total
Operate and Maintain
Transit Capital Preservation $1,590 $1,130 $13,974 $4,887 $21,581
Transit Operations $100 $695 $15,256 $16,051
Local Streets Preservation and Operations $840 $3,940 $3,000 $7,780
Cost Contingency and Debt Service $550 $1,100 $450 $2,100
Highway and Bridge Preservation $250 $250
Modernize
Transit Efficiency and Service Improvements $558 $1,859 $2,421 $113 $461 $940 $711 $1,987 $9,050
Goods Movement $2,063 $501 $250 $2,814
Highway Operations and Interchanges $140 $210 $269 $555 $1,182 $2,356
Multimodal and Bike Ped $70 $663 $591 $230 $40 $1,595
Regional and County Access Initiatives $93 $697 $399 $1,189
Planning, Local Road Operations, and Safety Improvements $371 $407 $778
Climate $334 $319 $653
Express Lanes (Conversions) and Pricing $50 $229 $60 $338
Expand
Transit Expansion $10 $3,140 $750 $557 $397 $126 $1,226 6,206
Express Lanes (Expand) and Roadway Expansion $220 $27 $119 $40 $843 1,249
Total $4,733 $4,999 $2,300 $4,847 $670 $1,208 $1,853 $8,893 $30,506 $13,983 $73,990
Notes 1)Other Federal includes FAST; Cap and Trade includes TIRCP, LCTOP-Pop, AHSC, Goods Movement2)Future regional measures include potential increases to bridge tolls and a regional gas tax.3)Conditioned Discretionary and Existing Bridge Tolls includes FTA Formula Funds, TDA, AB1107, AB664, 2% Bridge Toll, and 5% State General Fund
Attachment C.3
Needs Assessment - Transit Operations Funding Detail
(in millions of $YOE)
The following table presents the amount of funding required to sustain existing service levels (year 2015) for every year in the plan period (e.g. through 2040) by transit operator. Note that in this plan period, the total need is equal to the revenue available to fund existing transit service levels. Projects that increase service levels above year 2015 conditions are funded in specific projects in the plan and are not included in this table.
Transit Operator Service Levels (in revenue vehicle hours) Total Need Committed Investment Discretionary Investment Total Investment
ACE 1,117,485 $1,300 $1,221 $79 $1,300
AC Transit 40,513,851 $13,416 $10,046 $3,370 $13,416
BART 49,139,746 $32,654 $32,640 $14 $32,654
Caltrain 5,286,000 $5,484 $5,484 $0 $5,484
CCCTA 7,125,552 $1,332 $582 $750 $1,332
City of Dixon 186,291 $39 $3 $35 $38
ECCTA 5,307,150 $786 $203 $583 $786
City of Fairfield 2,287,392 $355 $125 $230 $355
GGBHTD 6,908,679 $3,915 $3,549 $366 $3,915
LAVTA 3,366,264 $522 $176 $346 $522
Marin Transit 6,059,722 $972 $677 $295 $972
NCTPA 2,647,608 $310 $56 $254 $310
City of Petaluma 710,836 $82 $23 $59 $82
City of Rio Vista 96,000 $15 $2 $13 $15
SFMTA 91,585,085 $35,199 $32,074 $3,125 $35,199
SamTrans 16,272,000 $5,377 $3,957 $1,420 $5,377
SMART 245,316 $713 $713 $0 $713
City of Santa Rosa 2,481,912 $536 $141 $395 $536
Solano County Transit 2,623,440 $455 $185 $270 $455
Sonoma County Transit 3,069,116 $496 $77 $419 $496
Union City Transit 2,211,407 $211 $68 $144 $211
City of Vacaville 1,120,654 $166 $13 $153 $166
VTA 49,893,621 $15,734 $12,251 $3,483 $15,734
WCCTA 2,578,325 $312 $161 $151 $312
WETA 404,701 $1,413 $1,315 $98 $1,413
TOTAL 303,238,153 $121,792 $105,741 $16,051 $121,792
Attachment C.4
Needs Assessment - Transit Capital Funding Detail
(in millions of $YOE) The following table presents the expenditure plan for transit capital preservation in Plan Bay Area 2040 by transit operator. With the proposed investments,
several transit operators would exceed the funding required to maintain current asset condition levels. Only two operators would be able to fund replacements and maintenance at a rate large enough to achieve optimum asset condition. The region would carry a $16 billion state of good repair backlog.
Transit Operator
Total Transit Capital Need Amount Funded in the Expenditure Plan Remaining Need/Surplus
State of Good Repair Committed Investment November 2016 Ballot Measures Discretionary Investment5 State of Good
Repair
AC Transit $2,934 $306 $600 $951 ($1,076)
ACE $291 $1 $176 ($114)
BART3 $18,121 $214 $2,700 $8,826 ($6,381)
CalTrain4 $3,634 $1,472 $1,444 ($718)
CCCTA County Connection $263 $68 $195 $0
Delta Breeze $9 $0 $4 ($5)
Dixon $8 $2 $5 ($1)
ECCTA Tri Delta Transit $134 $51 $83 ($0)
FAST $95 $57 $7 ($30)
GGBHTD $990 $84 $373 ($533)
LAVTA $183 $10 $109 ($64)
Marin Transit $147 $0 $65 ($83)
NCTPA $82 $0 $61 ($21)
Petaluma Transit $32 $18 $14 ($0)
SamTrans $1,208 $1 $442 ($765)
Santa Rosa CityBus $72 $2 $21 ($49)
SCT $197 $24 $104 ($69)
SFMTA $12,664 $1,536 $385 $5,615 ($5,129)
SMART $629 $569 $60 $0
SolTrans $240 $1 $139 ($99)
Union City Transit $32 $0 $18 ($14)
Vacaville City Coach $54 $0 $22 ($32)
VTA $3,495 $1,455 $1,907 ($133)
WestCAT $92 $1 $34 ($58)
WETA $1,442 $73 $804 ($565)
Attachment C.4
Transit Operator
Total Transit Capital Need Amount Funded in the Expenditure Plan Remaining Need/Surplus
State of Good Repair Committed Investment November 2016 Ballot Measures Discretionary Investment5 State of Good Repair
Grand Total $47,050 $5,947 $3,685 $21,478 ($15,939)
Total = $31,110 million
Notes: 1) There is approximately $100 million in transit capital revenues that could not be assigned to a specific operator, but are projected to be available for transit capital maintenance in the region. 2) Revenue from San Francisco's Transportation Sustainability Fee, Proposition B, and sales tax reauthorization is assumed to be distributed to BART, Caltrain, and SFMTA according to current Prop K proportions. 3) $900 million in capital replacement needs for BART train control was transferred to "Transit Efficiency and Service Improvements” within the Modernize investment category of Attachment C.1. 4) $315 million in capital replacement needs for Caltrain vehicles was transferred to "Transit Efficiency and Service Improvements” category of Attachment C.1. 5) Discretionary funding has been distributed by a combination of formula and remaining need.
Attachment C.5
Needs Assessment - Local Streets and Roads Funding Detail
(in Millions of $YOE)
The following table presents the expenditure plan for local streets and roads (LS&R) operations and maintenance in Plan Bay Area 2040 by county. With the proposed investments, only San Francisco County would meet and exceed its funding need to reach optimal pavement conditions and state of good repair of remaining roadway assets. All other counties would have a remaining need of at least $400 million to maintain existing conditions, with a regional shortfall of almost $6 billion.
County
Total LS&R Need Amount Funded in the Expenditure Plan Remaining Need/Surplus
To State of Good Repair Committed Investment November 2016 Ballot Measures Discretionary Investment* To State of Good Repair
Alameda $8,649 $4,683 $1,546 ($2,420)
Contra Costa $6,116 $3,338 $917 $1,133 ($729)
Marin $1,722 $831 $221 ($670)
Napa $1,473 $969 $168 ($335)
San Francisco $7,903 $5,988 $1,267 $966 $318
San Mateo $3,935 $2,012 $657 ($1,266)
Santa Clara $11,320 $5,492 $1,420 $2,097 ($2,311)
Solano $2,963 $782 $429 ($1,752)
Sonoma $4,846 $1,672 $564 ($2,610)
REGION TOTAL $48,926 $25,768 $3,604 $7,780 ($11,775)
Total = $37,152 million
* Regional discretionary funds distributed by OBAG 2 formula
Attachment C.6
Goods Movement Projects in Plan Bay Area 2040
The projects in the plan related to goods movement support the recommendations of the Regional Goods Movement Plan, which was adopted in March of 2016. The Regional Goods Movement Plan recommended improvements for the Port of Oakland, strategic highway operations benefiting truck corridors and programs for reducing the impact of freight activity on adjacent neighborhoods.
In the materials presented to the MTC Planning and ABAG Administrative Committees in September 2016, approximately $5 billion of project funded was classified as “goods movement.” Of that amount, about $2 billion of funding would come from future local funding and previously committed funding amounts. Almost $3 billion would
come from regional discretionary funding, which is primarily federal and state sources. The following table presents goods movement categories and a funding breakdown between local/committed funding and regional discretionary funding. The highest amount of regional discretionary funding is assumed to go toward projects that improve operations within and around the Port of Oakland, ITS projects on the freight highway network, interchange
reconstructions, and a future program on increasing the proliferation of zero and near-zero emission trucks as well as other neighborhood impact reduction initiatives.
Goods Movement Investment Strategy, sorted by Regional Discretionary Funding (all values in millions
of $YOE)
Goods Movement Investment Amount in the RTP*
Local/
Committed Funding
Nov. 2016
Measure
Regional
Discretionary Funding
Global Competitiveness in Goods Movement Suite of projects to improve operations and increase rail access at the Port of Oakland such as 7th Street Grade
Separation, Outer Harbor Intermodal Terminal, and Oakland Army Base transportation components
$1,177 $52 $1,125
Smart Deliveries and Operations Future program for deploying communications infrastructure to increase active traffic management along freight corridors and to/from the Port of Oakland
$300 $300
Modernizing Infrastructure Set of highway projects and interchange improvements along freight corridors such as along I-880, I-80, US-
101, I-580, I-680, and SR-4.
$3,348 $2,187 $124 $1,037
Sustainable Goods Movement Future program for implementing the recommendations of the Freight Emission Reduction Action Plan and
developing programs for impact reduction in neighborhoods with high levels of freight activity.
$350 $350
Other Freight and Rail Program and projects for minor freight improvements and rail operations on track operated by public operators. $255 $255
Grand Total $5,430 $2,494 $124 $2,812
* Amount in the RTP does not include project costs and funding that occurred before the Plan period (e.g. before FY 2016-17)
Attachment C.7
Core Capacity Projects in Plan Bay Area 2040
The projects in the plan related to increasing capacity in the core of the region are linked to on-going planning on the
Core Capacity Transit Study (CCTS), a multi-agency study to identify and prioritize major transit investments serving the San Francisco Core. The CCTS is a collaboration of five transit operators (SFMTA, BART, AC Transit, WETA, and Caltrain), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. Although not yet complete, initial planning work has informed the project list in terms of near-term and medium-term
priorities. As a placeholder for other short, mid and long term projects currently under consideration in CCTS, the Plan also includes reserve funding for further implementation of recommendations developed after Plan Bay Area 2040 is adopted. Additionally, there is on-going work on increasing transit capacity to connect housing and jobs within Santa Clara County.
The following table presents the investment strategy for core capacity projects, organized by corridor. There is also a placeholder for planning and design work for recommendations that may come out of the study and that may be in any of the corridors. The Core Capacity investment strategy includes projects that are a subset of several investment categories in the expenditure plan of Attachment C.1, namely Transit Efficiency and Transit Expansion.
Core Capacity Investment Strategy (all values in millions of $YOE)
Core Capacity Investment Amount in the RTP*
Local/
Committed Funding
Nov.
2016 Measure
Regional
Discretionary Funding
Transbay Corridor Investments include BART service increases, WETA ferry service increases, new ferry terminals at Berkeley, Mission
Bay, and Alameda Point, AC Transit service increases and Bay Bridge operational projects.
$5,764 $1,306 $1,200 $3,258
Peninsula Corridor Investments include the Transbay Transit Center, extending Caltrain to the Transbay Transit Center, electrifying Caltrain, and station improvements in the Peninsula
$7,281 $2,387 $572 $4,322
Within San Francisco Investments include Muni service increases, bus rapid transit on Van Ness Avenue and Geary Boulevard, Muni
Forward, and other operational improvements for SFMTA.
$3,858 $1,629 $1,060 $1,169
Planning for future capacity improvements Placeholder for future planning and design work for additional capacity increasing projects identified through the Core Capacity Transit Study and other planning work.
$785 $120 $250 $415
Core Connectivity in Santa Clara County Investments include extending BART to San Jose,
increasing VTA core bus routes, El Camino Real BRT, extending light rail to Eastridge Transit Center and Winchester, as well as a reserve for future transit
improvements in the SR-85 corridor and to the San Jose International Airport.
$8,292 $3,648 $2,319 $2,325
Grand Total $25,980 $9,090 $5,401 $11,489
* Amount in the RTP does not include project costs and funding that occurred before the Plan period (e.g. before FY 2016-17)
Attachment C.8
Climate Program in Plan Bay Area 2040
Plan Bay Area 2040 transportation investments and land-use development patterns alone will not be sufficient to reach the region’s statutory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. It is anticipated that over 11
percentage points of the Plan’s 2035 target will be achieved through climate strategies that are part of MTC’s Climate Initiatives Program, such as transportation demand management programs, alternative fuel/vehicle strategies and car sharing. These types of climate strategies are referred to as “off-model” because the region’s travel demand and land use models that factor in the region’s future transportation investments and land-use development patterns
are not sensitive to these types of initiatives. The plan includes $526 million of funding for the regional Climate Initiatives Program, as well as another $56 million for incentivizing higher levels of carpooling, and $237 million for county-sponsored initiatives.
The types of projects and programs that would be funded through implementation of this category include: 1 Various transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, car sharing, vanpool incentives, alternative fuel/vehicle initiatives, targeted transportation alternatives, trip caps and existing commuter benefits ordinances.
2 Regional carpool incentives such as private sector ride-matching applications that target utilization of express lane corridors as well as first/last mile solutions to transit. 3 Various county-sponsored climate programs such as additional transportation demand management strategies and promotion of emission reduction technology.
Climate Initiative Program Funding in Plan Bay Area 2040 (all values in millions of $YOE)
Climate Initiative Amount in the RTP* Local/Committed Funding
Regional
Discretionary Funding
1. Regional Climate Initiatives Program $526 $36 $490
2. Regional Carpool Program $56 $8 $48
3. County-Sponsored Climate Programs in Alameda, San Francisco, Solano,
and Marin counties $237 $122 $115
Grand Total $819 $166 $653
* Amount in the RTP does not include project costs and funding that occurred before the Plan period (e.g. before FY 2016-17)
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-01-0001 Alameda Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $658 $79 $360 $219
17-01-0002 Alameda Climate Program: TDM and Emission Reduction
Technology Modernize Climate $150 $55 $10 $85
17-01-0003 Alameda County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $732 $23 $618 $91
17-01-0004 Alameda Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $461 $71 $300 $90
17-01-0005 Alameda PDA Planning Modernize Planning and Programs $61 $6 $50 $5
17-01-0006 Alameda Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $203 $175 $28
17-01-0007 Alameda Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $203 $66 $110 $27
17-01-0008 Alameda Minor Transit Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $762 $135 $572 $55
17-01-0009 Alameda New Alameda Point Ferry Terminal Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $177 $177
17-01-0014 Alameda I-680 Southbound Express Lanes (SR-237 to SR-84)
Upgrades Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $39 $21 $18
17-01-0015 Alameda 7th Street Grade Separation East Modernize Goods Movement $558 $3 $555
17-01-0016 Alameda Oakland Army Base transportation infrastructure
improvements Modernize Goods Movement $314 $213 $26 $75
17-01-0017 Alameda Outer Harbor Intermodal Terminal (OHIT) Phases 2 and
3 Modernize Goods Movement $205 $26 $179
17-01-0018 Alameda 7th Street Grade Separation West Modernize Goods Movement $171 $3 $168
17-01-0019 Alameda I-580 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM)Modernize Goods Movement $146 $146
17-01-0020 Alameda SR-262 Mission Boulevard Cross Connector
Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $112 $111 $1
17-01-0021 Alameda I-880 Whipple Road Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $80 $77 $3
17-01-0022 Alameda Outer Harbor Turning Basin Modernize Goods Movement $65 $65
17-01-0023 Alameda I-880 Industrial Parkway Interchange Reconstruction Modernize Goods Movement $57 $55 $2
17-01-0024 Alameda I-880 A Street Interchange Reconstruction Modernize Goods Movement $54 $52 $2
17-01-0025 Alameda Oakland International Airport Perimeter Dike Modernize Goods Movement $53 $3 $0 $50
17-01-0026 Alameda Minor Freight Improvements Programmatic Modernize Goods Movement $51 $2 $49
17-01-0027 Alameda Middle Harbor Road Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $33 $33
17-01-0028 Alameda I-580/I-680 Interchange Improvement Project Modernize Goods Movement $300 $300
17-01-0029 Alameda SR-84/I-680 Interchange Improvements and SR-84
Widening Modernize Goods Movement $278 $5 $121 $152
17-01-0030 Alameda I-880 Broadway/Jackson Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $244 $2 $242
17-01-0031 Alameda I-880 at 23rd/29th Avenue Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $111 $67 $44
17-01-0032 Alameda SR-84 Widening (Ruby Hill Drive_to Concannon
Boulevard)Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $88 $59 $29
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-01-0033 Alameda I-580 Vasco Road Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $81 $76 $5
17-01-0034 Alameda I-580 Greenville Road Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $68 $64 $4
17-01-0035 Alameda I-580 First Street Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $62 $59 $3
17-01-0036 Alameda SR-92/Clawiter Road/Whitesell Street Interchange
Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $62 $53 $9
17-01-0037 Alameda Ashby I-80 Interchange with Bicycle and Pedestrian
Ramps Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $60 $59 $1
17-01-0038 Alameda I-580 Interchange Improvement at Hacienda/Fallon
Road - Phase 2 Modernize Goods Movement $58 $49 $9
17-01-0039 Alameda I-580 SR-84/Isabel Interchange Improvements Phase 2 Modernize Goods Movement $43 $40 $3
17-01-0040 Alameda I-80 Gilman Street Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $42 $2 $37 $3
17-01-0041 Alameda I-880 Winton Avenue Interchange Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $41 $35 $6
17-01-0042 Alameda I-680 Overcrossing Widening and Improvements (at
Stoneridge Drive)Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $19 $16 $3
17-01-0043 Alameda 42nd Ave & High St Access Improvement at I-880
On/Off Ramp Modernize Goods Movement $18 $8 $9 $1
17-01-0044 Alameda I-680 Sunol Interchange Modification Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $18 $15 $3
17-01-0045 Alameda Santa Rita Road I-580 Overcrossing Widening Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $10 $9 $1
17-01-0046 Alameda Coliseum City Transit Hub Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $181 $9 $133 $39
17-01-0047 Alameda I-880 to Mission Boulevard East-West Connector Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $236 $41 $195
17-01-0048 Alameda Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $89 $76 $13
17-01-0049 Alameda Fruitvale Avenue (Miller Sweeney) Lifeline Bridge
Project Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $86 $73 $13
17-01-0050 Alameda SR-84 Mowry Avenue Widening (Peralta Blvd to
Mission Blvd)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $51 $43 $8
17-01-0051 Alameda Tassajara Road Widening from N. Dublin Ranch Drive
to City Limit Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $48 $41 $7
17-01-0052 Alameda Auto Mall Parkway Widening and Improvements Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $30 $26 $4
17-01-0053 Alameda Dougherty Road Widening Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $23 $4 $17 $2
17-01-0054 Alameda Union City Boulevard Widening (Whipple to City Limit)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $17 $15 $2
17-01-0055 Alameda SR-84 Peralta Boulevard Widening (Fremont Blvd to
Mowry Ave)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $15 $13 $2
17-01-0056 Alameda Thornton Avenue Widening (Gateway Boulevard to
Hickory Street)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $15 $13 $2
17-01-0057 Alameda Dublin Boulevard Widening - Sierra Court_to Dublin
Court Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $6 $1 $5
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-01-0058 Alameda Irvington BART Station Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $256 $153 $103
17-01-0059 Alameda Union City Intermodal Station Phase 4 Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $78 $66 $12
17-01-0060 Alameda East Bay BRT Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $180 $178 $2
17-01-0061 Alameda Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway BRT Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $10 $8 $2
17-01-0062 Alameda BART to Livermore/ACE Project Development and
Construction Reserve Expand Transit Expansion $553 $7 $435 $111
17-01-0063 Alameda Broadway Shuttle Expansion Expand Transit Expansion $37 $29 $8
17-02-0001 Contra Costa Access and Mobility Program Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $391 $259 $132
17-02-0002 Contra Costa Innovative Transportation Technology Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $128 $128
17-02-0003 Contra Costa Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $369 $123 $206 $40
17-02-0004 Contra Costa County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $139 $87 $47 $5
17-02-0005 Contra Costa Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $792 $1 $318 $449 $24
17-02-0006 Contra Costa Additional Local Road Preservation/Rehab Operate and
Maintain
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $917 $917
17-02-0007 Contra Costa Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $527 $4 $523
17-02-0008 Contra Costa Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $44 $44
17-02-0009 Contra Costa Minor Transit Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $749 $4 $351 $340 $54
17-02-0010 Contra Costa SR4 Integrated Corridor Mobility Modernize Goods Movement $15 $15
17-02-0011 Contra Costa I-80 ICM Project Operations and Maintenance Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $3 $3
17-02-0012 Contra Costa
I-680 Northbound Managed Lane Completion through
680/24 and Operational Improvements between N.
Main and Treat Blvd
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $99 $85 $14
17-02-0013 Contra Costa I-680 Northbound HOV lane extension between N.
Main and SR-242 Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $54 $54
17-02-0014 Contra Costa Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Climbing Lane,
Clearbrook Drive to Crest of Kirker Pass Road Modernize Goods Movement $19 $19
17-02-0015 Contra Costa Vasco Road _ Byron Highway Connector Road
(Formerly named: SR-239: Airport Connector)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $89 $89
17-02-0016 Contra Costa Construct SR 242/Clayton Road on and off-ramps Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $66 $5 $61
17-02-0017 Contra Costa SR-239 Feasibility Studies and Project Development Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $42 $42
17-02-0018 Contra Costa I-80/SR4: New I-80 EB off-ramp at Sycamore Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $15 $15
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-02-0019 Contra Costa I-680/SR4 Interchange Improvements - All Phases Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $599 $158 $107 $334
17-02-0020 Contra Costa SR-4 Operational Improvements - All Phases Modernize Goods Movement $303 $164 $124 $15
17-02-0021 Contra Costa Reconstruct I-80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $120 $56 $64
17-02-0022 Contra Costa I-680 Southbound HOV Lane between N. Main and
Livorna Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $83 $83
17-02-0023 Contra Costa State Route 4 Widening and Balfour Road IC
Construction Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $69 $69
17-02-0024 Contra Costa
I-80/SR-4 Interchange Improvements - New Eastbound
Willow Avenue Ramps, replace SR-4 to I-80 Ramp, and
new EB off ramp at Sycamore
Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $68 $68
17-02-0025 Contra Costa SR-24/Brookwood Ramp Modifications Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $48 $20 $28
17-02-0026 Contra Costa I-80/Central Avenue Interchange Modification - Phases
1 & 2 Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $26 $20 $6
17-02-0027 Contra Costa Construct Additional Auxiliary Lanes on I-680 - South of
I-680/SR-24 Interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $20 $20
17-02-0028 Contra Costa I-80 Eastbound and Westbound Pinole Valley Road On-
ramp Improvement Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $10 $10
17-02-0029 Contra Costa Eastbound SR-24: Construct Auxiliary Lane, Wilder
Road to Camino Pablo Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $7 $7
17-02-0030 Contra Costa Widen Brentwood Boulevard - Havenwood Way to
north city limit; and Chestnut to Fir Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $34 $34
17-02-0031 Contra Costa Widen Willow Pass Road, Lynwood Drive to SR 4 Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $20 $20
17-02-0032 Contra Costa Widen Ygnacio Valley Road-Kirker Pass Road, Cowell to
Michigan Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $20 $20
17-02-0033 Contra Costa Widen Camino Tassajara Road, Windemere to County
Line Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $17 $17
17-02-0034 Contra Costa West Leland Road Extension Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $16 $16
17-02-0035 Contra Costa Lone Tree Way Widening Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $16 $16
17-02-0036 Contra Costa Pittsburg-Antioch Highway Widening Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $15 $15
17-02-0037 Contra Costa Widen Main St, SR 160 to Big Break Rd Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $13 $13
17-02-0038 Contra Costa Main Street Bypass Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $4 $4
17-02-0039 Contra Costa Hercules Train Station - All Phases Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $97 $15 $82
17-02-0040 Contra Costa Martinez Intermodal Project: Phase 3 Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $7 $7
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-02-0041 Contra Costa
Privately Run Ferry Service including Small-Scale (non-
WETA complying) Landside Improvements from
Antioch, Martinez, and Hercules to San Francisco
Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $73 $58 $15
17-02-0042 Contra Costa Richmond-San Francisco Ferry Service Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $53 $53
17-02-0043 Contra Costa BART Capacity, Access and Parking Improvements -
non vehicles Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $46 $46
17-02-0044 Contra Costa Landside Improvements for Richmond Ferry Service Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $25 $25
17-02-0045 Contra Costa El Cerrito del Norte BART Station Modernization, Phase
1 Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $22 $22
17-02-0046 Contra Costa Civic Center Railroad Platform Park & Ride Complex Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $8 $8
17-02-0047 Contra Costa East County Rail Extension (eBART), Phase 1 Expand Transit Expansion $525 $525
17-02-0048 Contra Costa East County Rail Extension (eBART), Phase 2 -
environmental and reserve Expand Transit Expansion $111 $81 $30
17-02-0049 Contra Costa West County High Capacity Transit Investment Study
Implementation - Phase 1 Expand Transit Expansion $15 $15
17-02-0050 Contra Costa Brentwood Intermodal Transit Center Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $52 $52
17-02-0051 Contra Costa I-680 Transit Improvements including Express Bus
Service, ITS components, and Park & Ride Lots Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $130 $130
17-02-0052 Contra Costa Widen San Ramon Valley Boulevard form 2 to 4 lanse -
Jewel Terrace to Podva Road Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $1 $1
17-03-0001 Marin Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $30 $9 $21
17-03-0002 Marin Climate Program: TDM and Emission Reduction
Technology Modernize Climate $1 $1
17-03-0003 Marin County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $4 $4
17-03-0004 Marin Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $20 $20
17-03-0005 Marin Minor Transit Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $42 $6 $36
17-03-0006 Marin Implement Marin Sonoma Narrows HOV Lane and
corridor improvements Phase 2 (Marin County)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $136 $111 $25
17-03-0007 Marin US 101/580 Interchange Direct Connector - PAED Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $15 $15
17-03-0008 Marin Tiburon East Blithedale Interchange - PAED Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $12 $12
17-03-0009 Marin Access Improvements to Richmond San Rafael Bridge Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $7 $7
17-03-0010 Marin Highway Improvement Studies Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $5 $5
17-03-0011 Marin Widen Novato Boulevard between Diablo Avenue and
Grant Avenue Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $17 $13 $4
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-03-0012 Marin
Sir Francis Drake Boulevard/Red Hill Avenue/Center
Boulevard (known as "The Hub") - project
development
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $6 $6
17-03-0013 Marin San Rafael Transit Center (SRTC) Relocation Project Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $36 $36
17-03-0014 Marin Larkspur Ferry Terminal Parking Garage - Planning
Study Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $1 $1
17-03-0015 Marin SMART Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur Rail
Extension Expand Transit Expansion $42 $2 $40
17-03-0016 Marin Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $49 $49
17-04-0001 Napa Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $98 $35 $63
17-04-0002 Napa County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $7 $7
17-04-0003 Napa Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $4 $1 $3
17-04-0004 Napa Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $51 $10 $41
17-04-0005 Napa Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $30 $0 $23 $7
17-04-0006 Napa Minor Transit Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $246 $156 $90
17-04-0007 Napa Countywide Intelligent Transportation Systems
Program Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $9 $9
17-04-0008 Napa State Route 29 Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $35 $35
17-04-0009 Napa Soscol Junction Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $61 $5 $56
17-04-0010 Napa SR29 Gateway Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $32 $12 $20
17-05-0001 San Francisco Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $887 $16 $598 $243 $30
17-05-0002 San Francisco Climate Program: TDM and Emission Reduction
Technology Modernize Climate $118 $83 $25 $10
17-05-0003 San Francisco County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $418 $290 $100 $28
17-05-0004 San Francisco Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $383 $279 $90 $14
17-05-0005 San Francisco PDA Planning Modernize Planning and Programs $51 $2 $47 $2
17-05-0006 San Francisco Additional Local Road Preservation/Rehab Operate and
Maintain
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $1,267 $1,267
17-05-0007 San Francisco Transit Preservation/Rehabilitation Operate and
Maintain Transit Capital Preservation $2,256 $1,871 $385
17-05-0008 San Francisco Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $906 $43 $863
17-05-0009 San Francisco Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $182 $137 $45
17-05-0010 San Francisco Minor Transit Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $1,121 $110 $144 $867
17-05-0011 San Francisco San Francisco Late Night Transportation Improvements Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $91 $10 $39 $42
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-05-0012 San Francisco SFgo Integrated Transportation Management System Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $89 $48 $17 $24
17-05-0013 San Francisco Expand SFMTA Transit Fleet Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $1,488 $814 $193 $481
17-05-0014 San Francisco Muni Forward (Transit Effectiveness Project)Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $612 $208 $159 $245
17-05-0015 San Francisco Rail Capacity Long Term Planning and Conceptual
Design - All Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $450 $100 $250 $100
17-05-0016 San Francisco Better Market Street - Transportation Elements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $415 $0 $215 $200
17-05-0017 San Francisco Core Capacity Implementation - Planning and
Conceptual Engineering Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $335 $20 $315
17-05-0018 San Francisco Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion -
Phase II Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $43 $43
17-05-0019 San Francisco Establish new ferry terminal at Mission Bay 16th Street Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $17 $17
17-05-0020 San Francisco HOV/HOT Lanes on U.S. 101 and I-280 in San Francisco Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $90 $22 $47 $21
17-05-0021 San Francisco Geary Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $300 $0 $57 $243
17-05-0022 San Francisco Presidio Parkway Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $1,595 $859 $736
17-05-0023 San Francisco Yerba Buena Island (YBI) I-80 Interchange
Improvement Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $169 $105 $64
17-05-0024 San Francisco Balboa Park Station Area - Southbound I-280 Off-Ramp
Realignment at Ocean Avenue Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $11 $1 $10
17-05-0025 San Francisco Balboa Park Station Area - Closure of Northbound I-280
On-Ramp from Geneva Avenue Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $6 $6
17-05-0026 San Francisco Bayshore Station Multimodal Planning and Design Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $13 $13
17-05-0027 San Francisco Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point Local
Roads Phase 1 Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $501 $14 $487
17-05-0028 San Francisco Southeast San Francisco Caltrain Station -
Environmental Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $11 $1 $10
17-05-0029 San Francisco Downtown Value Pricing/Incentives - Pilot, Transit
Service, Supportive Infrastructure Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $876 $826 $50
17-05-0030 San Francisco
Treasure Island Mobility Management Program:
Intermodal Terminal, Congestion Toll, Transit Service,
Transit Capital
Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $974 $925 $49
17-05-0031 San Francisco Southeast Waterfront Transportation Improvements -
Phase 1 Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $406 $406
17-05-0032 San Francisco Geneva-Harney Bus Rapid Transit Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $256 $156 $100
17-05-0033 San Francisco Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $215 $215
17-05-0034 San Francisco Arena Transit Capacity Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $137 $137
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-05-0035 San Francisco EN Trips: All Components Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $122 $101 $21
17-05-0036 San Francisco Regional/Local Express Bus to Support Express Lanes in
SF Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $82 $56 $26
17-05-0037 San Francisco Parkmerced Transportation Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $76 $76
17-05-0039 San Francisco Geneva Light Rail Phase I: Operational Improvements,
Planning and Environmental Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $18 $18
17-05-0040 San Francisco T-Third Mission Bay Loop Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $7 $7
17-05-0041 San Francisco T-Third Phase II: Central Subway Expand Transit Expansion $1,578 $1,578
17-05-0042 San Francisco Historic Streetcar Extension - Fort Mason to 4th & King Expand Transit Expansion $87 $4 $83
17-06-0001 San Mateo Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $247 $21 $138 $88
17-06-0002 San Mateo County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $41 $1 $28 $12
17-06-0003 San Mateo Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $289 $14 $197 $78
17-06-0004 San Mateo Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $58 $1 $46 $11
17-06-0005 San Mateo Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $64 $43 $21
17-06-0006 San Mateo County-wide Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
and Traffic Operation System Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $93 $80 $13
17-06-0007 San Mateo Modify existing lanes on U.S. 101 to accommodate
HOV/T lane Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $365 $15 $250 $100
17-06-0008 San Mateo
Add northbound and southbound modified auxiliary
lanes and/ or implementation of HOT lanes on U.S. 101
from Oyster Point to San Francisco County line
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $222 $5 $172 $45
17-06-0009 San Mateo Improve operations at U.S. 101 near Route 92 - Phased Modernize Goods Movement $258 $2 $250 $6
17-06-0010 San Mateo Improve U.S. 101/Woodside Road interchange Modernize Goods Movement $171 $7 $98 $66
17-06-0011 San Mateo US 101 Produce Avenue Interchange Modernize Goods Movement $146 $10 $100 $36
17-06-0012 San Mateo U.S. 101 Interchange at Peninsula Avenue Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $89 $9 $65 $15
17-06-0013 San Mateo Reconstruct U.S. 101/Broadway interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $83 $83
17-06-0014 San Mateo Reconstruct U.S. 101/Willow Road interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $80 $60 $8 $12
17-06-0015 San Mateo Construct auxiliary lanes (one in each direction) on U.S.
101 from Marsh Road to Embarcadero Road Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $79 $79
17-06-0016 San Mateo
Improve access to and from the west side of
Dumbarton Bridge on Route 84 connecting to U.S. 101
per Gateway 2020 Study - Phased
Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $39 $3 $13 $23
17-06-0017 San Mateo Route 101/Holly St Interchange Access Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $34 $1 $25 $8
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-06-0018 San Mateo Improve local access at I-280/I-380 from Sneath Lane
to San Bruno Avenue to I-380 - Environmental only Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $32 $30 $2
17-06-0019 San Mateo State Route 92-82 (El Camino) Interchange
Improvement Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $30 $25 $5
17-06-0020 San Mateo
Hwy 1 operational & safety improvements in County
Midcoast (acceleration/deceleration lanes; turn lanes;
bike lanes; pedestrian crossings; and trails)
Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $29 $4 $21 $4
17-06-0021 San Mateo Environmental Studies for 101/Candlestick Interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $25 $5 $15 $5
17-06-0022 San Mateo Westbound slow vehicle lane on Route 92 between
Route 35 and I-280 - Environmental Phase Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $25 $20 $5
17-06-0023 San Mateo Route 1 Improvements in Half Moon Bay Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $19 $10 $7 $2
17-06-0024 San Mateo Reconstruct U.S. 101/Sierra Point Parkway interchange
(includes extension of Lagoon Way to U.S. 101)Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $17 $8 $9
17-06-0025 San Mateo US 101/University Ave. Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $11 $7 $4
17-06-0026 San Mateo Implement incentive programs to support transit-
oriented development Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $106 $100 $6
17-06-0027 San Mateo
Implement supporting infrastructure and Automated
Transit Signal Priority to support SamTrans express
rapid bus service along El Camino Real
Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $1 $1
17-06-0028 San Mateo Make incremental increase in SamTrans paratransit
service - Phase Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $377 $289 $88
17-06-0029 San Mateo
Add new rolling stock and infrastructure to support
SamTrans bus rapid transit along El Camino Real-
Phase
Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $228 $205 $23
17-06-0030 San Mateo Environmental Clearance and Design of the Redwood
City Ferry Terminal and Service Expand Transit Expansion $8 $8
17-06-0031 San Mateo Implement Redwood City Street Car - Planning Phase Expand Transit Expansion $1 $0 $1
17-06-0032 San Mateo Route 1 San Pedro Creek Bridge Replacement and
Creek Widening Project Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $14 $14
17-06-0033 San Mateo
Widen Route 92 between SR 1 and Pilarcitos Creek
alignment, includes widening of travel lanes and
shoulders
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $8 $0 $6 $2
17-06-0034 San Mateo
Construct Route 1 (Calera Parkway) northbound and
southbound lanes from Fassler Avenue to Westport
Drive in Pacifica
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $58 $9 $35 $14
17-06-0035 San Mateo I-280 improvements near D Street exit Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $1 $1
17-06-0036 San Mateo Widen Skyline Boulevard (Route 35) to 4-lane roadway
from I-280 to Sneath Lane - Phased Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $25 $17 $8
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-06-0037 San Mateo
Widen Millbrae Avenue between Rollins Road and U.S.
101 soutbound on-ramp and resurface intersection of
Millbrae Avenue and Rollins Road
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $11 $11
17-06-0038 San Mateo
Construct a 6-lane arterial from Geneva
Avenue/Bayshore Boulevard intersection to U.S.
101/Candlestick Point interchange - Environmental
phase
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $17 $1 $15 $1
17-06-0039 San Mateo Grade Separations Modernize Planning and Programs $265 $5 $221 $39
17-06-0040 San Mateo Extend Blomquist Street over Redwood Creek to East
Bayshore and Bair Island Road Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $28 $19 $5 $4
17-07-0001 Santa Clara Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $874 $295 $300 $279
17-07-0002 Santa Clara Caltrain Grade Separations Modernize Planning and Programs $800 $800
17-07-0003 Santa Clara Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $446 $196 $250
17-07-0004 Santa Clara Additional Local Road Preservation/Rehab Operate and
Maintain
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $1,420 $1,420
17-07-0005 Santa Clara Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $980 $436 $544
17-07-0007 Santa Clara Affordable Fare Program Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $44 $44
17-07-0008 Santa Clara Implement System Operations and Management
Program for Santa Clara County Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $899 $600 $299
17-07-0009 Santa Clara SR 87 Technology-based Corridor Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $52 $30 $22
17-07-0010 Santa Clara Hwy. Transportation Operations System/Freeway
Performance Initiative Phase 1 & 2 Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $20 $10 $10
17-07-0012 Santa Clara BART Silicon Valley Extension - San Jose (Berryessa) to
Santa Clara (escalated capital cost is $5.175 billion)Expand Transit Expansion $5,467 $1,717 $1,500 $2,250
17-07-0013 Santa Clara Implement El Camino Rapid Transit Project Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $267 $192 $75
17-07-0021 Santa Clara Alviso Wetlands Doubletrack Modernize Goods Movement $196 $196
17-07-0022 Santa Clara Environmental Studies for SR-152 New Alignment Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $30 $30
17-07-0023 Santa Clara US 101/Zanker Rd./Skyport Dr./Fourth St. Interchange
Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $161 $75 $86
17-07-0024 Santa Clara Lawrence/Stevens Creek/I-280 Interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $140 $70 $70
17-07-0025 Santa Clara I-280/Winchester Blvd Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $100 $50 $50
17-07-0026 Santa Clara I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $97 $40 $57
17-07-0027 Santa Clara US 101/Mabury Rd./Taylor St. Interchange
Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $82 $21 $61
17-07-0028 Santa Clara I-280 Mainline Improvements from County line to
Sunnyvale Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $60 $30 $30
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-07-0029 Santa Clara I-280/Saratoga Avenue Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $60 $30 $30
17-07-0030 Santa Clara I-280 Northbound Braided Ramps between Foothill
Expressway and SR 85 Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $54 $34 $20
17-07-0031 Santa Clara US 101 Southbound/Trimble Rd./De La Cruz
Blvd./Central Expressway Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $53 $20 $33
17-07-0032 Santa Clara I-680/ Alum Rock/ McKee Road Interchange
Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $47 $47
17-07-0033 Santa Clara SR 237/Mathilda Ave. and US 101/Mathilda Ave.
Interchange Improvement Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $42 $42
17-07-0034 Santa Clara US 101 Interchanges Improvements: San Antonio Rd.
to Charleston Rd./Rengstorff Ave.Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $40 $20 $20
17-07-0035 Santa Clara US 101/Buena Vista Ave. Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $40 $20 $20
17-07-0036 Santa Clara SR 85 Northbound to Eastbound SR 237 Connector
Ramp and Northbound SR 85 Auxiliary Lane Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $39 $9 $30
17-07-0037 Santa Clara SR 85/El Camino Real Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $28 $28
17-07-0038 Santa Clara US 101/Blossom Hill Rd. Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $28 $28
17-07-0039 Santa Clara US 101/Old Oakland Rd. Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $28 $7 $21
17-07-0040 Santa Clara US 101/Shoreline Blvd. Interchange Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $20 $20
17-07-0042 Santa Clara SR 237/Great America Parkway WB Off- Ramps
Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $15 $15
17-07-0043 Santa Clara SR 237/El Camino Real/Grant Rd. Intersection
Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $6 $6
17-07-0044 Santa Clara Double Lane Southbound US 101 off-ramp to
Southbound SR 87 Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $3 $3
17-07-0051 Santa Clara Widen Calaveras Blvd. overpass from 4 to 6 lanes Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $85 $50 $35
17-07-0056 Santa Clara Bus Stop Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $47 $47
17-07-0057 Santa Clara Frequent Core Bus Network - 15 minutes Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $658 $200 $458
17-07-0058 Santa Clara SR 85 Corridor Improvements - reserve amount Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $450 $450
17-07-0059 Santa Clara Implement Stevens Creek Rapid Transit Project Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $254 $254
17-07-0060 Santa Clara North First Street light rail speed Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $12 $12
17-07-0061 Santa Clara Extend Capitol Expressway light rail to Eastridge
Transit Center - Phase II Expand Transit Expansion $386 $386
17-07-0062 Santa Clara Extend light-rail transit from Winchester Station to
Route 85 (Vasona Junction)Expand Transit Expansion $256 $256
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-07-0063 Santa Clara Mineta San Jose International Airport APM connector -
planning and environmental Expand Transit Expansion $50 $50
17-07-0064 Santa Clara County Safety, Security, Noise and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $25 $10 $15
17-07-0065 Santa Clara Caltrain Station and Service Enhancements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $722 $150 $572
17-07-0066 Santa Clara Future Transit Corridor Studies Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $5 $5
17-07-0067 Santa Clara SR 17 Corridor Congestion Relief in Los Gatos Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $30 $15 $15
17-07-0068 Santa Clara 237 WB Additional Lane from McCarthy to North First Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $52 $12 $40
17-07-0069 Santa Clara US 101/SR 25 Interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $185 $150 $35
17-07-0070 Santa Clara SR 237 Express Lanes: North First St. to Mathilda Ave.Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $27 $27
17-07-0074 Santa Clara SR 85 Express Lanes: US 101 (South San Jose) to
Mountain View Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $198 $198
17-07-0075 Santa Clara US 101 Express Lanes: Whipple Ave. in San Mateo
County to Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $507 $507
17-07-0076 Santa Clara Santa Clara County Express Lanes Operations and
Maintenance Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $720 $720
17-07-0077 Santa Clara BART – Warm Springs to Berryessa Extension (SVBX)Expand Transit Expansion $2,522 $2,324 $197
17-07-0078 Santa Clara Envision Expressway (Tier 1 Expressway Plan) Major
and Minor Projects Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $821 $821
17-07-0079 Santa Clara Envision Highway Minor Projects Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $56 $56
17-07-0080 Santa Clara Alum Rock/Santa Clara Street Bus Rapid Transit Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $115 $115
17-07-0081 Santa Clara I-880 Express Lanes: SR-237 to US-101 Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $28 $28
17-07-0082 Santa Clara SR-87 Express Lanes: I-880 to SR-85 Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $43 $43
17-07-0083 Santa Clara I-680 Express Lanes: SR-237 to US-101 Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $91 $91
17-07-0084 Santa Clara I-280 Express Lanes: US-101 to Magdalena Avenue Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $113 $113
17-07-0085 Santa Clara Santa Clara County Express Lanes - Environmental and
Design Phase for Future Segments Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $200 $200
17-07-0086 Santa Clara Santa Clara County Express Lanes - Reserve Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $384 $384
17-07-0087 Santa Clara Widen San Tomas Expressway to 8 Lanes from Stevens
Creek Blvd to Campbell Ave Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $44 $44
17-07-0088 Santa Clara Senter Road Widening from Umbarger to Lewis Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $8 $2 $6
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-07-0089 Santa Clara South Bascom Complete Streets Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $40 $8 $32
17-07-0090 Santa Clara Widen Brokaw Bridge over Coyote Creek Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $29 $6 $23
17-07-0091 Santa Clara Widen Oakland Road from 4-lanes to 6-lanes between
U.S. 101 and Montague Expressway Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $15 $3 $12
17-08-0001 Solano Access and Mobility Program Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $113 $94 $19
17-08-0002 Solano Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $20 $10 $10
17-08-0003 Solano Climate Program: TDM and Emission Reduction
Technology Modernize Climate $23 $4 $19
17-08-0004 Solano County Safety, Security and Other Modernize Planning and Programs $17 $2 $3 $12
17-08-0005 Solano Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $2 $2
17-08-0006 Solano PDA Planning Modernize Planning and Programs $17 $2 $15
17-08-0007 Solano Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $10 $10
17-08-0008 Solano Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $59 $1 $58
17-08-0009 Solano I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange (Packages 2-7)Modernize Goods Movement $380 $5 $90 $285
17-08-0010 Solano
Improve interchanges and widen roadways serving
Solano County Fairgrounds, including Redwood
Parkway
Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $100 $55 $45
17-08-0011 Solano Provide auxiliary lanes on I-80 in eastbound and
westbound directions from I-680 to Airbase Parkway Modernize Goods Movement $57 $20 $37
17-08-0012 Solano Construct 4-lane Jepson Parkway from Route 12 to
Leisure Town Road at I-80 Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $85 $59 $26
17-08-0013 Solano Conduct planning and design studies along SR-12
corridor in Solano County Modernize Goods Movement $58 $10 $48
17-08-0014 Solano Construct train station building and support facilities at
the new Fairfield / Vacaville multimodal station Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $81 $63 $18
17-08-0015 Solano Solano MLIP Support Projects Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $115 $10 $105
17-08-0016 Solano Vallejo Station Parking Structure Phase B Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $30 $30
17-08-0017 Solano I-80 WB Truck Scales Modernize Goods Movement $170 $170
17-09-0001 Sonoma Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $173 $123 $50
17-09-0002 Sonoma SMART Rail Freight Improvements Modernize Goods Movement $10 $10
17-09-0003 Sonoma Multimodal Streetscape Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $28 $18 $10
17-09-0004 Sonoma Minor Roadway Expansions Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $176 $19 $157
17-09-0005 Sonoma Roadway Operations Modernize Planning and Programs $272 $152 $120
17-09-0006 Sonoma Implement Marin Sonoma Narrows Phase 2 (Sonoma
County)Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $243 $120 $123
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-09-0008 Sonoma Arata Lane Interchange Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $4 $4
17-09-0009 Sonoma Cotati US 101/Railroad Avenue Improvements (incl.
Penngrove)Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $56 $56
17-09-0010 Sonoma Hearn Avenue Interchange Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $36 $36
17-09-0011 Sonoma Shiloh Road Interchange Reconstruction Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $27 $27
17-09-0012 Sonoma Cotati Highway 116 Cotati Corridor Improvements Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $20 $20
17-09-0013 Sonoma Petaluma Crosstown Connector and Rainier
Interchange Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $123 $123
17-09-0014 Sonoma Farmers Lane extension between Bennett Valley Rd
and Yolanda Avenue Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $72 $5 $67
17-09-0015 Sonoma Road Diet Extension - Petaluma Boulevard South Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $3 $3
17-09-0016 Sonoma SMART Petaluma Infill Station Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $11 $11
17-09-0017 Sonoma Enhance bus service frequencies in Sonoma County Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $409 $80 $329
17-09-0018 Sonoma SMART Rail Extension to Windsor + Environmental to
Cloverdale + Bike Path Expand Transit Expansion $49 $49
17-10-0001 AC Transit AC Transit Fleet Expansion and Major Corridors Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $340 $340
17-10-0003 AC Transit San Pablo Avenue BRT Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $300 $25 $275
17-10-0004 AC Transit Environmental Studies for Bay Bridge Contraflow Lane Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $20 $20
17-10-0005 BART BART Metro Program + Bay Fair Connector Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $1,055 $267 $200 $588
17-10-0006 BART BART Transbay Core Capacity Project Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $3,419 $769 $1,000 $1,650
17-10-0007 CAHSR California HSR in the Bay Area Expand Transit Expansion $8,489 $8,489
17-10-0008 Caltrain Caltrain Electrification Phase 1 + CBOSS Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $2,360 $1,120 $1,240
17-10-0009 GGBHTD Golden Gate Bridge Capital and Operations Operate and
Maintain
Highway and Bridge
Preservation $2,031 $2,031
17-10-0010 GGBHTD Bus and Ferry Service Expansion Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $199 $199
17-10-0011 Multi-County Lifeline, Community Based Transportation Program,
and Mobility Management Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $890 $890
17-10-0012 Multi-County Means-Based Fare Study Implementation Modernize Regional and County Access
Initiatives $150 $150
17-10-0013 Multi-County Transportation Management Systems Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $500 $500
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-10-0014 Multi-County Bay Trail - non toll bridge segments Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $220 $8 $212
17-10-0015 Multi-County Climate Program: TDM and Emission Reduction
Technology Modernize Climate $535 $9 $36 $490
17-10-0016 Multi-County Cost Contingency Operate and
Maintain
Cost Contingency and Debt
Service $1,000 $1,000
17-10-0017 Multi-County Capital Projects Debt Service Operate and
Maintain
Cost Contingency and Debt
Service $4,100 $3,000 $1,100
17-10-0018 Multi-County Goods Movement Clean Fuels and Impact Reduction
Program Modernize Goods Movement $350 $350
17-10-0019 Multi-County Goods Movement Technology Program Modernize Goods Movement $300 $300
17-10-0020 Multi-County New/Small Starts Reserve Expand Transit Expansion $640 $640
17-10-0021 Multi-County Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning Grants Modernize Planning and Programs $200 $200
17-10-0022 Multi-County Local and Streets and Roads - Existing Conditions Operate and
Maintain
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $20,698 $12,918 $7,780
17-10-0023 Multi-County Local Streets and Roads - Operations Operate and
Maintain
Local Streets Preservation and
Operations $12,850 $12,850
17-10-0024 Multi-County Regional and Local Bridges - Exisiting Conditions Operate and
Maintain
Highway and Bridge
Preservation $14,550 $14,300 $250
17-10-0025 Multi-County Regional State Highways - Existing Conditions Operate and
Maintain
Highway and Bridge
Preservation $13,750 $13,750
17-10-0026 Multi-County Regional Transit Capital - Existing Conditions Operate and
Maintain Transit Capital Preservation $28,957 $4,076 $3,300 $21,581
17-10-0027 Multi-County Regional Transit Operations Operate and
Maintain Transit Operations $121,792 $105,741 $16,051
17-10-0028 Multi-County Clipper Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $1,735 $661 $1,074
17-10-0029 Multi-County 511 Traveler Information Program Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $280 $41 $239
17-10-0030 Multi-County SAFE Freeway Patrol Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $150 $150
17-10-0031 Multi-County Regional Transportation Emergency Management
Program Modernize Planning and Programs $25 $25
17-10-0032 Multi-County Regional Rail Station Modernization and Access
Improvements Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $370 $210 $160
17-10-0033 Multi-County
Bay Area Forward - Active Traffic Management,
Arterial Operations , Connected Vehicles, Shared
Mobility, Transbay Operations, Managed Lanes
Implementation Plan Operations, Transit and
Commuter Parking
Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $995 $129 $866
17-10-0034 Multi-County
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge West Span Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Maintenance Path - Environmental
Only
Modernize Multimodal and Bike Ped $30 $10 $20
17-10-0036 Multi-County I-580 Access Improvements Project Modernize Highway Operational and
Interchanges $74 $74
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-10-0037 Multi-County Highway 37 Improvements and Sea Level Rise
Mitigation PSR Modernize Goods Movement $24 $12 $12
17-10-0038 TJPA Caltrain/HSR Downtown San Francisco Extension
(capital cost is $3.999 billion)Expand Transit Expansion $4,250 $109 $1,058 $3,083
17-10-0039 TJPA
Implement Transbay Transit Center/Caltrain
Downtown Extension (Phase 1 - Transbay Transit
Center)
Expand Transit Expansion $2,259 $2,200 $59
17-10-0040 WETA North Bay Ferry Service Enhancement Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $220 $220
17-10-0041 WETA Central Bay Ferry Service Enhancement Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $212 $212
17-10-0042 WETA Albany/Berkeley Ferry Terminal Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $143 $143
17-10-0043 Multi-County Regional Carpool Program Modernize Climate $60 $3 $8 $48
17-10-0044 Multi-County I-80 Express Lanes in both directions: Airbase Parkway
to Red Top Road Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $44 $15 $29
17-10-0045 Multi-County I-80 Express Lanes: Westbound Bay Bridge Approaches Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $18 $0 $18
17-10-0047 Multi-County I-680 Express Lanes: Northbound from Marina Vista to
SR 242 Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $15 $2 $13
17-10-0048 Multi-County I-680 Express Lanes: Southbound from Marina Vista to
Rudgear Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $36 $36
17-10-0049 Multi-County I-680 Express Lanes in both directions:
Livorna/Rudgear to Alcosta Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $56 $56
17-10-0050 Multi-County SR-84 Express Lanes: Westbound from I-880 to
Dumbarton Bridge Toll Plaza Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $6 $2 $4
17-10-0051 Multi-County SR-92 Express Lanes: Westbound from Hesperian to
San Mateo Bridge Toll Plaza Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $7 $2 $5
17-10-0052 Multi-County I-880 Express Lanes in both directions:
Hegenberger/Lewelling to SR-237 Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $78 $40 $38
17-10-0053 Multi-County I-80 Express Lanes in both directions: Carquinez Bridge
to Bay Bridge Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $81 $41 $40
17-10-0054 Multi-County MTC Express Lane Program Cost Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $113 $60 $53
17-10-0055 Multi-County East and North Bay Express Lanes Operations and
Maintenance Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $1,512 $1,512
17-10-0056 Multi-County East and North Bay Express Lanes Reserve Modernize Express Lanes (Conversions)
and Pricing $2,164 $2,164
17-10-0057 Multi-County I-880 Express Lanes: Northbound from Hegenberger to
Lewelling and bridge improvements Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $221 $221
17-10-0058 Multi-County I-680 Express Lanes: Northbound from SR-84 to SR-237 Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $394 $394
17-10-0059 Multi-County I-80 Express Lanes in both directions: Airbase Parkway
to I-505 Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $136 $136
17-10-0060 Multi-County I-680 Express Lanes: Northbound from Rudgear to SR
242 and operational improvements Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $57 $57
Plan Bay Area 2040
Transportation Project List
values in millions of YOE $
Attachment C.9
RTPID Sponsor Title Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Total Project
Cost
Pre2017
Funding
Post 2017 Local/
Committed
Funding
Nov. 2016
Ballot
Measure
Regional
Discretionary
Funding
17-10-0061 Multi-County
I-680 Express Lanes: I-80 westbound to I-680
southbound and I-680 northbound to I-80 eastbound
direct connectors
Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $140 $140
17-10-0062 Multi-County East and North Bay Express Lanes - Environmental and
Design Phases for Future Segments Expand Express Lanes (Expand) and
Roadway Expansion $200 $200
17-10-0063 BART BART Seismic Safety Augmentation Modernize Planning and Programs $90 $10 $80
17-10-0064 BART Hayward Maintenance Complex Phase 1 Modernize Transit Efficiency and Service
Improvements $433 $254 $179
Goal Target*%
Climate Protection 1 Reduce per-capita CO2 emissions -15%
Adequate Housing 2 House the region’s population 100%
Healthy and Safe
Communities 3 Reduce adverse health impacts -10%
Open Space and
Agricultural
Preservation 4 Direct development within urban footprint 100%
Equitable Access 5 Decrease H+T share for lower-
income households
6 Increase share of affordable housing +15%
7 Do not increase share of households at risk of displacement +0%
Economic Vitality 8 Increase share of jobs accessible in
congested conditions +20%
9 Increase jobs in middle-wage industries +38%
10 Reduce per-capita delay on
freight network
Transportation System
Effectiveness 11 Increase non-auto mode share +10%
12 Reduce vehicle O&M costs due to
pavement conditions -100%
13 Reduce per-rider transit delay due
to aged infrastructure -100%
Draft Performance Target Results
Notes: *Target results are subject to change as scenarios are further refined and finalized. Note that select targets have not yetbeen analyzed for the final horizon year of 2040 and are currently using year 2035 as the best available proxy. Final target results released in mid-November will reflect the ultimate horizon year. Complete target language as adopted by the Commission and ABAG Board can be found at http://planbayarea.org/the-plan/plan-details/goals-and-targets.html. Target language shown above is summarized for brevity.
-4%-16%-19%-20%
100%100%100%100%
-0%-0%-1%-1%
85%96%100%100%
+14%+13%+13%+13%
+1% +1%+2%-0%
+20%+11%+14%+19%
-2%-1%-1%-1%
+43%+43%+43%+43%
+10%-30% -26%-36%
+2%+2%+3%+3%
+47%-65%-9%+15%
ConnectedNeighbor-hoods Big Cities
No Project
Main Streets
Performance moving in wrong direction from target Performance moving in right direction, but falls well short of target
Target achieved
Symbols used in summary tables:
-10%
-18%
100%
-1%
100%
+13%
+2%
+9%
-0%
+43%
-29%
+3%
+20%
FinalPreferred
-20%
-16%
-0% +1%
-61%-78%-77%-78%-80%
Attachment D.1
Equity Measures %
-10%Reduce adverse
health impacts3
-10%5 Decrease H+T share for lower-
income households
6 Increase share of affordable
housing +15%
7 Do not increase share of
households at risk of
displacement +0%
8 Increase share of jobs accessible
in congested conditions
9 Increase jobs in middle-wage
industries +43%
Draft Results for Equity Measures
Notes: Equity measure results are subject to change as scenarios are further refined this fall. Note that select equity measures have not yet been analyzed for the final horizon year of 2040 and are currently using year 2035 as the best available proxy. Final equity measure results released in fall 2016 will reflect the ultimate horizon year. For equity measures #3 and #5, low-income households earn less than $30,000 in year 2000 dollars, lower-income households earn less than $60,000 in year 2000 dollars, high-income households earn more than $100,000 in year 2000 dollars, and higher-income households earn more than $60,000 in year 2000 dollars. For equity measures #6 and #7, the measures are specific to Priority Development Areas, Transit Priority Areas, or High-Opportunity Areas. Note that Communities of Concern do not generally overlap with High-Opportunity Areas.
-1%-1%-1%-1%
-0%-0%-0%-1%
+4%+4%+4%+4%
+14%+13%+13%+13%
+0%+1%+2%-0%
+1%+1%-1%-2%
+16%+13%+14%+15%
+30%+9%+14%+31%
-2%-1%-1%-1%
-1%-0%-0%-2%
+43%+43%+43%+43%
+43%+43%+43%+43%
ConnectedNeighbor-hoods Big Cities
No Project
Main Streets
Stronger performance in Communities of Concern orfor lower-income households
Weaker performance in Communities of Concern or for lower-income households
Similar performance inCommunities or Concern orfor lower-income households
Symbols used in summary tables:
-1%
-1%
+4%
+13%
+2%
-1%
+11%
+6%
-0%
+1%
+43%
+20%
FinalPreferred
+20%
+43%
-1%-1%
Geography
High-Income Households
Low-Income Households
Higher-Income Households
Lower-Income Households
Outside Communities of Concern
Inside Communities of Concern
Outside Communities of Concern
Inside Communities of Concern
Outside Communities of Concern
Inside Communities of Concern
Outside Communities of Concern
Inside Communities of Concern
Attachment D.2