HomeMy WebLinkAbout0302.091,
~-~
: •
,
•
"i
-
•
---~~----'-
Kay 30 , 1991
HONOP.ABLE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto. California
Metrmo1 itan TransportAtion COmmission IS pra.ft Regional Tran.!l?Dftation Plan
(or the Scm FrrmFiyro Bay .A!ea
Members of the Council and Commission:
BEPORT IN BRIEl
The topic of this report is the April .1991. draft update of the
Regional TrAnsportatign clan (RTP) , preparp4 by the Metropolitan
Transportation Co_ission (MTC). HTC' is currently solicitinq
public comment on the RTP.. This staff report highlights the BOst
important aspects or the RTP. For further reference, the full
docuaent v.s transmitted to the Council and c~mmission in the Kay
23 and 24 packets. This report also discuSB~S the relationship of
the RTP to other current transportation stUdies and aqencies# and
to the 1991 Clean Air Plan.. The impacts ot the RTP on Palo Alto
are noted. Staff recomm~nds that Council endorse the !991 draft
RTP 1 with speCific statements of support and opposition regarding
certain projects and programs.
BACKGROOND
One of MTC's key statutory duties is to prepare a regional
transportation plan for the nine-county San .Francisco Bay Area. as
a necessary prerequisite for eligibility for federal and state
transportation funds. The :first plan was adopted in 1973:
subsequent Updates bave generally been produced on an annual basis.
The April 1991 draft RTP is the most extensive update ever. The
1991 RTP is MTC's blueprint for Bay Area transportation to year
2010. It will quide MTC's allocation of federal and state funds
toz the next 20 years. A draft proqram environmental impact report
(EIR) has also been prepared which describes the environmental
iapacts of the projects recommended in the RTP.
CMR:30~ :91
i
i
o o
puBLIC R,JVI:EW SClIEPUU
XTC is soliciting public comments on the dr-aft RTP and the
accompanying EIR until June 14, 1991. The Final RTP and the Final
RTP EIR are expect~d to be adopted by MTC on July 24, and to be
forwarded to the California Transportation Commission in August.
However .. HTC's public outreach regarding long-range tl'"ansportati~n
planning will continue during the cominq year, in order tor HTC to
better define the long-term recommendations contained in the RTP.
These rerine~ent8 will then be incorporated in next year's revision
of the RTP.
QUTI,ItlIi OF THE ]991 RTP
The 1991 RTP is a complex, somewhat convoluted document. Chapters
One and Two of the RTP provide the context tor the remainder of the
plan: a discussion of key issues (congestion, ene~, air
pollution) that have changed reg-ional transportation planning
90a16, and a summary of recent leqi~laticn that has signIficantly
affected MTCJs role and responsibilities. Chapter Three, the
·Policy Element-, is an explicit statement of the goals and
policies of the RTP~ The. four .ajor goals of the RTP are to
provide .ability, promote system equity, be sensitive to the
environment, and support economic vltality~ The heart of the RTP
is Chapter Four, the -Action Eleaent-, ~hich defines future
transportation projects for eacb of four subareas of the Bay Area.
Finally, Chapter Five, the -Financial Element~, presents the costs
ot the proposed projects and discusses funding sources. Chapters
Four and Five are discussed in more detail belovo
RTf ENYIROJRIEHTAJ. IMPACT REPORT
In order to determine what ~rovements would be needed by 2010,
JI'l'C prepared a Draft Program EIR as the basis of the RTP.. The EIR
describes ~ere qrowth in population, jObe ~Jld housinq is expected
to occur over the naxt 20 years, along with the associated growth
in travel demand~ The EIR then examined the performance of four
possible future alternative transportation networks in handling' the
2010 travel demand: -no project-(i.e., existing network), ·add
hiqhway capacity only-, -add transit capacity only·, and -add a
blend of highway and transit capacity" (tids latter alternative was
considered to be the ·project-for the EIR analysis). The EIR
analyzed the benefits and drawbacks of implementing these four
alternatives in terms of mobility, air quality, and other physical
and social impacts. The EIR concludes that the -no project
alterna~ive would have the fewest adverse environmental impacts,
including the least energy consumption, because it represents no
new construction. But it would result in the most significant
increases in traffic congestion and reqional economic costs from
excessive travel time, and the highest level of emissions. It was
judged to be the -$nvironmentally superior alternative-, primarily
CMR:J02:91 5/30/91
Paqe 2
•
•
, .,
1
1
• •
o c
because it bas the fewest project elements (economic and social
i8pacts ot a project cannot be considered as environaental impacts
in an !:IR because they are not physical impacts). Amonq the
reaaininq alternatives, the environmentally supe~ior alternative
wa. judged to be the -transit capacity· alternative, aqain, because
it has siqniticantly fewer project elements than the other two
remaininq alternatives. Both the ·project-and the -highway
capacity· alternatives demonstrate e.uperior performance in the
areas of access, .obility, and reqional economy. The E.IR thus
shows that an ambitious proqraJI o-t future transportation
improvements is needed (with associated physical environmental
lapacts), in order to handle the projected qrowth in travel demand
to 2010 without substantial deg-radation in access, mobility,
regional economy, and air qual i ty in the Bay Area ~ These
improvements are part ot the ·Action Element· of the RTP.. For more
details on the EIR analys!., please refer to the -Introduction-and
-summary-chapters of the EIR which are included as Attachment 2 to
this staff report .
THE RTf -ACTION ELEMENT-
The -MetropolitAn Transportation system-
The Metropolitan Transportation system (KTS) is the centerpiece of
the Action Element. The KTS is defined as a multi-modal
transportation system of regional significance for the nine Bay
Area counties.. ,The emphasis of the MTS is on innovative, multi
aodal strategies to facilitate regional travel. The MTS hing-es Oi'l
ill new definition of -regional facility·, based on functi~n rather
than geographic location. A -regional facility-is any
transportation facility that perwits access to any activities
crucial to the social or economic heal tb of the Bay Area.
Facilities and trips that cross county or city lines are crucial to
the HTS concept. rn addition, AnY trip or transportation facility
that accesses a major activity center, regardless of whether or not
it crosses a city or county boundary, is also considered to be
important to the region as a whole. Thus a transportation facility
vbicb is located wholly within one jurisdiction, and which serves
a major activity center, is considere~ to be a regional facility (p
28 J 1; • The elements of the MTS are described on page 9 41-101. They
are the highways, streets, transit lines, transfer points,
bikeways, airports, and seaports that are considered essential to
regional aobility.
Tbe current MTS in Palo Alto is discussed and illustrated on pages
91-101 (Southern Subarea), and includes University Avenue, San
Antonio Road, Page Kill Road between Route 280 and Skyline
Boulevard, El Camino Real, Page Mill/Oregon Expressway, Foothill
1 Page references refer to the Draft RTP.
CMR:302:91 5/30/91
Page 3
•
\ ,
la·
I
l
I ,
~
"A_--.-.
~ !
~ : r '
-
-~--~------~-----'-
.. --
o o
EXpressway. Skyline Boulevard, Routes 101 and 280~ calTrain, other
major transit corridors, and the key transit service area comprised
of downtown Palo Alto, Stant'ord. lTniver.ity~ and t..~e Palo Alto
CalTTain station.
start believes that neither University Avenue nor Page Mill Road
should be included in tbe MTS. university Avenue is desiqnated a&
a scenic corridor, passes through a sensitive residential area, and
operates at near capacity conditions during peak hours. Its
function as a designated arterial street should not be further
emphasized by its inclusion in the MTS. Paqe Mill Road is also a
designated scenic road, passes only through residential and park
lands, and Is a narrow, winding and steep rural road~ Page Mill
Road should not be emphasized as a reqional traffic carrier. Staff
recommends removal of both ~ roods from the MTS.
Tiered Approach
'I'he Action Element details Wh4t improvements will be needed to
enable the Metropolitan Transportation Systeb to meet the travel
deaands of 2010. MT~ has recommended i!I two-tiered approach (pp 33-
38, 103-130). Neither tier of projects corresponds directly to any
of the four alternatives eX&mined in the RTP EIR, i!llthouqh all Tier
1 and 2 projects are included in one or more of the EIR
alternatives. The first tier oL improvements~ termed ·currently
programmed commitments-, 1& a set o~ reoo .. ended projects that are
currently planned and have some level of prior fundinq commitment.
This tier represents the foundation of the 20-year Metropolitan
Transportation System improvement plan~ HTC recommends
implamentation of Tier 1 projects if they satisfy the required
testa ot fea8ibility~ which are that Ca) partially-funded projects
.uat secure full funding: (bJ projects must satisfy all
environaental requirements; and (c) capacity-expanding hiqhv8Y
projects .ust aeet all conformity requirements under the federal
Clean Air Act.
The second tier of projects, termed -improvement options for 2010·
is tentatively comprisecS of All improvements examined for All. three
u.proveMnt alternatives in the EIR. Tier 2 projects, then ..
represent a tentative ·wish list-from which KTC could select in
the COJIinq 20 years when recOlIUIlendinq transportation improvements.
Tier 2 projects are considered tentative at this time because MTC
believes that acre time is needed to evaluate the ramifications of
these futUre choices. There are currently too many funding
uncertainties and changinq institutional relationships to risk
:making specific recommendations now. mc recommends that selection
of final specific Tier 2 recommendations be carried over to the
next RTP update cycle, schedulecS for the 1991-92 fiscal year CP.
173) •
0IR:30Z:91 5/30/91
Paqe 4
•
:
j
1
j
•
o
Tier 1 And a Projects .Affecting Palo Alto
While .ost f if not all, Tier 1 and 2 projects in the Bay Area could
potentially att.ct palo Alto residents and employees to some
deqree, Palo A1to is specifically included in the Southern Subarea,
Table rv-s Cpp 126-130), and is immediately adjacent to the western
Subarea, Table IV-J (pp 115-119).
The followinq Tier 1 projects (-currently programmed commitments-)
in these two subareas, if i.plement~d, would have some effect on
Palo Al to. Staff m:ommendatUms regillding Tier 1 and 2 projects are contained in me
'Summary of _/Condwion' section of .Itis sraff report.
• O\mbarton Bridqe approach roads improvements: (aJ widen
Riqhvay 8. (BayLront Expressway) in Menlo Park to six lanes
froll Dumbarton Brir:iqe to Karsh Road; (b) Widen University
Avenue in East palo Alto to six lanes fra. Dumharton eridqe
to Route 101; (c) widen Woodside Road to fou~ lanes between
Routas 101 and se in Henlo Park: (d) extend Bayfront
Expressway (six lanes) froD Marsh ~oad to Woodside Road4
MTC has indicated to statt that there are several alstakes
and problems in this listing of projects. MTC's intent is
that this list reflect San Hateo County's Measure A projects.
llowev&-r, there are no six-lane Measure A projects, except the
improveaents to Woodside Roa4. Item (b) is aeant to be in
Tier 2 and aay be the Measure A study of alternatives tor
iaproved traffic flow from the Bri6qe to destinationa south
or the Briclqe. nell (e) is a Redwood City project, which .ay
be part of the Tier :2 project mentioned belovo Tne reference
to Route 84 should be to Route 82 eEl camino Real). MTC
needs to aake appropriate corrections.
• Eliainate express SaJDTrans bus service to downtown San
Francisco (two routes from Palo AltoJ.
• Extend CalTrain to downtown San Francisco.
• Increase calTrain frequency from the current 54 to 114 trains
daily.
• Provide 10 daily round trips of Amtrak service between
Sacramento and San Jose.
• Extend BART to san Francisco Airport.
• construct Tasman Corridor light rail axtension.
CMR:JO~:91 5/30/91
Paqe 5
. "
i
o
The follovinq Tier .2 projects (-2010 improvement options-), it
Impleaented, would 4180 have some effect on Palo Alto:
• Upgrade beadway. on Santa Clara county Transit buses.
• Extend CaiTrain to Gilroy.
• Extend BART to santa Clara/San Jose. Iaplement ne~ transfer
stations between CalTrain, BART and County Transit lic;ht
rail.
• Increase frequency and speed of Amtrak &ervice between San
Jose, Santa Clara, and Sacramento.
• Add aUXiliary lanes on Route 101 in San Mateo County, for a
total of ten lanes.
• Widen Dumbarton Bridqe approach to six lanes froD Route 101
to Route 8Z (El camino Real) and rebuild Route 84/101
intercha.nqe. (MTC indicates that this is meant to be the
Measure A Woodside Road improvement project.)
• Operate rail service from Irvington BART station (in Fremont)
to Atherton C&lTrain station via the existing railroad bridge
HOUth of the Owabarton Bridqe. (The O\mbarton Bridge bus
s~rvice has not been ineludea in either the Tier 1 or 2
projects.)
• Electrify CalTrain 5ysteD:, incraase service to 1.56 trains
daily, and construct new stations at Palou Avenue (in San
Francisco}, Brisbane, and San Francisco Airport.
There Is no mention in either Tier 1 or Tier :2 projects of the
connection between Routes 280 and 101 via the Sand Hil1/Willow
Roads cQrridor. P".cimarily bec.!:~se of Palo Alto's inSistence,
caltrans deleted this corridor from the streets and Highways Code.
other RTP PrQj,ets and Prograas
MTC ~yB that the Metropolitan Transportation syste. is multimodal
-arterial streets, freeways, transit (rail, bus, ferry), transit
transfer points, bicycles, airports, seaports, and freight
transport--plus a host of special programs (p 33). However, the
list of specific Tier 1 and 2 projects includes only streets,
freeways, transit lines, and transit transfer points. The
remaining .odes and all special programs are relegated to a vague
cateqory of lesser importance and emphasis, not clearly part of
either Tier 1 or 2 projects, with no clear timing for
apleJlellto. ti on.
CMR:30z:n 5/30/91
Page 6
\.
i
-
.. -
. , H1I4: __ -__ 4.'
o
page. 131-183 11.t theae other modes and special programs, which
are summarized below. Staft has noted below if specific projects
or locations are ~ntioned, especially if they affect Palo Alto.
MTC recomaends imp18lllentation of all these proqrams. SraJ/
~ ftgrlTdjnr Iheu programs are contained in the "Summary 0/
Imu:slConc/JclotI" S«tion of Jhi.r SID!! ~
1. Arter1Al Street •. Specitic arterial streets and expressways are
listed as rreevay reliever routes, including Central Expressway
in santa Clara county. statt believes that designating arterial
streets A& freeway reliever routes could also have many negative
ilDpacts. While improvemants in SIqnAl tlaing would generally be
beZ'\eficial, other .teps to upgrade arterials miqht not be.
Adding lanes may discourage bicycle and pedestrian usage or
degrade the satety of these users. Consolidating bus stops may
not be beneficial to transit users. Increased traffic volume
and speed may be detrimental to adjacent businesses. Drivers
may seek local residential streets as access to these routes or
as shortcuts around conqested points. Staff believes that
upqrading Central Expressway to a freeway reliever route is
acceptable, provided that the upqrade ends well before San
Antonio Road. (such as at Shoreline Boulevard), to provide a
substantial buffer zone before the beginning of Alma streeti a
standard arterial road.
2. strut;s and Hic;hwaysj Related Programs~ This includes
caltrana' Traffic Operations system (electronic surveillance l
motorist Intoraation l and ramp meterinq on freeways--the first
stage of aplementation includes Route 101 in San Mateo and
northern santa Clara Counties), HOV lane operations, freeway
call boxes (being installed now) I traffic signal JIIanagement
program (siqnal tiainq on arterial streets--40 signals are
currently being re-timed along El Camino Real in San Mateo
County), and the pavement management Bystem.
3. transit System/Transfer Points; Related Programs. This
includes paratr~slt, transit service coordination, and transit
marketing.
4. Traffic Mitiqation/Ridesharing. This is transportation demand
lDanaqeJIe.nt (trip redu'Ction). The RTP recommends that existinq
trip reduction programs be monitored, and that mo~e information
is needed reqarding market-oriented pricing mechanisJllS 1 such as
e.ployer parking fees and transportation allowances. Staff
believes that enouqh information is now available to implement
transportation allowances from employers eto be used by
employees as they wish for any purpose, whether related to
transportation or not), coupled with the imposition of employee
parking fees (where the transportation allowance is available),
and BUpports greater emphasis of and cOmllli bent to these
proqraJIIS in the RTP,
CMR:302:91 5/30/9i
Page 7
•
\
:~
:;.;.;.... ...... -------~----<-,<----.. -~<.~----
5. Bigycles.
encourage
providinq
o
The HP recoJlQllenda a numl:!er of specific
bicyclinq (not locationally apacific
access on bridges).
proqrams to
except for
6. Airporto. Seaports ond ladgbt TrAnsport. The Palo Alto airport
Is not named here. One ot the recommendations 1s to evaluate
potential uses cf ailitary airports that aight be abandoned.
The RTP states that qround access to airports (bus, railJ will
be further evaluated in the Regional Airport system Plan Update.
Finally, in a subsection ot the summary of the Action Element,
discussions of additional ·supportinq actions· are tound (pp 175-
la3). Their relationship to the RTP and the tiered implementation
process is v~que. The RTP states that it i. uncertain how these
actions will celie into pl ay • StaJ! r<eonII7JE1IdDtiun.r regarding ~ programs are
C<JnIlJiMd in tr.e "SlJmmaJy of bs=s/ConcllLrion" «<lion of thi.J staJ! repon.
4. New Technologies. These include electronic communication
between the roadbed and the vehicle~ fuel efficient cars~ high
speed rail, and others~ staff encouraqes the aqqressive pursuit
of one or mor£ high-technology demonstration projects in the Bay
Area related to vehicle travel on regional freeways and
highways, and qreater emphasis of and commitment to these
programs in tha RTP ~
b~ rransportatiQD And Land Use. The RTP supports regional and
local land use plans by identifying transit and hiqhway
investments best suited to accommodate growth. A number of land
use strategies are listed.
c. Pricing the TranepoTtation Sy~. Market-based pr1c1ng
strategies (-1. e .. conqestion pricill9) have been proposed by the
Bay Area Economic Forum" and have been studied in MTC's
transportation control measure plan related to air quality
requirements. The RTP considers pricinq strategies to be.
-supporting actions" ~ because new authority would need to be
qranted by the State Legislature to implement them. Staff
believes that this is a weak reason not to include pricing
strategies as a Tier 2 project~ Ther-e are challenges of a
similar difficulty (but different type] associated with many of
the traditional projects listed in Tiers 1 and 2. MTC's studies
have shown pricing strategies to be the ~ost effective
transportation control measure. staff encouraqes the aggressive
pursuit of deJllonstration projects in the Bay Area related to
pricing strategies" and qreater emphasis of and commitment to
these proqrams in the RTP.. More information on the Forum's
proposal is contained in Attachment 3 of this staff report ..
CMR:302:9l 5/30/91
Page a
\
-
'r
~ " f_.
--.:.';...._.;;,; ......... _£11 •• · ......... " .. _" .... _ • __ ._
o
d .. support fro-other Agencies and Bod' ea.. Other agencies are
listed that impact the development and implementation of
proqraas described in the Action Element. still other planninq
et:torta and activities are listed as -tutur-e issues for the RTP"
on pp 185-192, and are generally ~t dealt with or inteqrated
into the RTP.. A following section of this sta:tt report provides
some additional information.
'{HARCIAL ELJKEHT
This element includes strategies .tor financing 2010 (Tier 2)
transportation improvements.. The Metropolitan Transportation
systea (MTS) ia desiqned to focus MTC's decisions about future
transportation investments. MTC is hopeful that the multiaodal t
r~ional XTS approach will convince the federal government.,
currently involved in decisions over re-authorizing the Surface
Transportation Act., of tbe illlportance ot adopting flexible funding
aechanlsma. The total capital and operating cor:.ts tor the existing
XTS sy.ta r plus all currently progrCUllDled cODl!llitments., plus all
2010 transportation improvement options., is $54 billion (p. 195J.
Twenty-year projections of revenues inaicate that a.bout $36 billion
may be available., leaving a shortfall of $18 billion. The RTP
lists strateqies which MTC would pursue in order to help reduce
(but not eliloinate) the shortfall (p. 200).
MLAIroHSBIP gr RTf TO OTHER RIGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PlANS AND
ACTIVITIU
There are a host of other active planning efforts, agencies., and
activities whicb are addressing and influencinq reqional
transportation planninq to varyinq degrees. Following is a brier
discussion of how the RTP relates to these.
lay Vision 2020 (BY 2020), a citizen panel that Is making
recommendations on Bay Area growth manaq~ent issues., is described
on pages 185-186 of the RTP, but is otherwise not considered in the
RTP.. The RTP notes that the recom::nendations of BV 2020, if
l.plemented.,. could dramatically change the way me operates.
Transportation and land use., one o~ the key issues of BV 2020, is
described as a ·.upportinq action-on pages 178-180, which is an
action that KTC is uncertain how to relate to tbe RTP.
Bay Area 'COMaie Forum is a private sector business advocacy
qrouPr vhich stronqly enoouraqes the use of market-based pricing
strategies aa a way to reduce air pollution anCi traffic congestioh
(refer to Attachment 3J. The Porum and pricing strateqies are
described as a "supporting action" on paqe 181 of the RTP. MTC
concludes that there is little popular support for pricing measures
at the present time. stafr recommends that pricing strateqies be
qiven ~reat.r emphasis in the RTP.
CMR,302'91 5/30/91
Page 9
\ ,
•
-
o
Congestion MADAggaent ProgrADs tCMps) were enacted last year as
part of the voter-approved state gas tax increase. They are
discussed on page. 16-17, 191# and A-10 of the RTP. By law, MTC
.uat ensure that 0MPa are consistent with the RTP and has adopted
quidance tor all cities and counties to t"ollow in order to
facilItate this consistency. This consistency viII not be fully
eat4bll8bed by the time the RTP ia adopted in July. so MTC will be
analyzing CMP reco..andations alonq with subsequent revisions to
the RTP.
hninsula CArridQr study Joint Powerlj soard was established to
oversee the transition of cal Train manage.ent and operation frOD
southern Pacific:: and calt.ran. to an independent agency representing
San Yranciaco, San Mateo, and santa Clara counties. The Joint
Powers Board i. listed aa an MTC advisory qroup on page A-7 of the
RTP. cal Train i. included as I!l major transit operator in the west
and South SubareaB~ In a cursory review, it appears t.."'at the major
operational laprovements sought by the Joint Powers Board are
included in the Tier 1 and 2 improvements (extensions to downtown
San Francisco and Gilroy, increased frequency, electrification, and
new statIons]. Grade separations are not mentioned in the RTP~
santa Claro Cqunty T-2010 is a countywide transportation planning
effort adciresslnq iaprovellents to all transportation modes to 2010,
the salle planning horizon as the RTP.. This plan is not mentioned
specifically in the RTP~ However .. countywide transportation plans
are discussed In qeneral on paqe 16 or the RTP, where it is noted
that such plans may be prepared by counties for inteqration in the
RTP. In a cursory review, it appears that there is consistency
between the RTP and T-2010.
filum,n Corridor Alternatlyes Analysis is a Santa Clara county study
which is evaluating transit improvements in a corric1or between
Milpitas and Mountain View or S~~yvale. Public hearings on the
environmental iapact statement are expected to begin at the end of
May 1991, with local selection of a preferred alternative being
made later this summer. This project is included in the RTP as a
Tier 1 project for the southern subarea~
RELATIONSHIP QF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO FEDERAL AND
CATJ1QENZA eIRA! AIR Acts
In response to federal requirements, 12 transportation control
measures (TCMa) were impleaented in the Bay Area in 1982. TCMs
seek to reduce trafric congestion, vehicle trips, and vehicle
.il~B, thus reducing air pollution~ The Bay Area failed to meet
federal air pollution standards, so, in 1987, HTC adopted 16 new
contingent TCMs. 'I'bese TCMs are now in various stages of
iapleaentation~ A new federal Clean Air Act was passed in 1990,
setting forth more stringent federal standards, for which more new
rcxs may be needed by 199J (p A-14) •
CHR: 30l:91 5/30/91
•
. ,
Page 10 .....
I
o
The 1988 California Clean Air Act defines a process which
metropolitan areas must ~ollow to meet state air quality standards
(which are even .ore strinqent than the federal standards]. The
california act bas required. the Bay Area Air Qual tty Management
District (BAAQMD) to prepare the draft Bay Area 1991 clean Air Pl~n
(CAP). which is due to be adopted by BAAQMD in ltid-1991. The CAP
details how the Bay Area plana to attempt to meet California air
quality requireaents~ One major component ot the CAP is a large
n~ ot tronsportation oontro1 measures, which are intended to
control vehicle trip-making more stringently than the federal TCMs
mentioned above. These state TCMs are divided into three phases.
Phase 1 consists of -reasonably available-TCMs, based on existing
authority and funding, to be implemented by 1994. Pl"o..ase 2 consists
of -aciditional-TCHs, :most ot which require additional funding., and
SOlD. of which require additional leqislative authority, to be
apll9le11ted by 1997. Phase 3 consists of -market-based-TCMs
which, except for parking manaqement., require new legislative
authority, with an unspecified implementation date~ The table on
the followinq paqe is an excerpt from the CAP, and lists all state
TCMS in their respective phases. More details about the CAP and
TCMs can be found in CKR:301:91., May 30, 1991, praft Bay Area 1991
Clean Air P1AB.
In constructinq the Action Element of the RTP, MTC paid particular
attention to the TCHs.. Becaus.& TCXs directly impact transportation
planning and proqraaminq, XTC bas Included specific references to
theee TCMs in the Action and Financial Elements of the RTP. The
RTP does not specifically state how each TCM is addressed by RTP
recomaendations, but the R'I'P appears to address most of thelll.
SUMMARy or ISSUES/CONCLQSION
The Draft ~99~ RTP contains many projects and programs and raises
a variety of issues, some of which staff believes are sufficiently
important to warrant Council consideration and possible action~
These issues have been discussed in the precedinq sections of this
report ~ Staff suqge.sts that Council talce positions r.egardinq
projects and programs in the RTP, as follows~
1. Request reaoval ot unIversity Avenue in Palo Alto and Page Xill
Road between Route 280 and Skyline Boulevard from the
Metropolltan Transportatlon system.
2.. Support investment in and upgrade. of CalTrain, including
extensions to Gilroy and downtown San Francisco ..
3. Oppose the elimination of SamTrans express bus service to
do.-ntovn San Francisco until CalTrain has been extended to
downtown San Francisco, and frequency has been increased from
the current 54 trains to the planned 114 trains daily.
CI!R:302:91
•
5/30/91
Page 11
"
/1
60
" /.
+!.~
____ ~. __ ~~_~~:JI'YIr_~.:!r ......
Figure 11 ·reM Plan: January 1991
Phlsa 1 -Re.lOI1IIbly Available TeMs
... _.,. .. /Illng _" Ind Irmdlng
EI!'4IIOYW aUld Tltp _dOlI
(TClh f.2)
· e~ IIIist .... PfOtItrrll
• T~l'Idudiofl"
IndlflCt _"_
(Tell /6)
• New dtwlllopmtn,
• F.llillngdeYfIoptnent
MobIIlIy [partially IIrIdedI
(TCMs ~, 7, 8, 9, ")
• Ralleltenllonl
• FIIIT'fUMC8
• HOVIIMI
• Bicyola aa:eI8
• FfMWIiIY ros
Impl ....... don Support
o Public III1lQ1b" (TCAI'l)
• 1lowIop._,....". .. P_2 ........
mRBUNI (TCM 21}
• """"'" """. Ai' qooIly""" (TCM It)
• High dnity lOM8l1lfanu"_'oM (TCM IS)
• MOfIlloting
Phasl' 2 -Additional MobllKy, Trame Operallonsand
InctIillVas Packaga
"'R"I""'_IIgI"'"IIf~
IIOOIIIIy 1m,... ..... ,.
(TClhJ.IO)
• A ........ "tneiI tInIioIlmprovttnlnll
• EJpMd IIIW rail...."
• lfl¥ltfJ~ IIODnIIo rIIIlY'S11mli
• 1~ ... 1Irry teMce
• Imrdyflll
• HOVI_I ....
• BIcyde ~ftlWfI'IW~1
• Sludntl IfampoltatiDn
rlllfto O!IonI/OIIl1Wgomon'
(rCAU ", 12)
• FlMWIlylnoirMnll1taftllgemeni
• Altltll' !faffle mMlI~1
U..,IMentivtl
(TCAft '3, ,i, 1$)
• Tr.wlllNr«IuI:IIIIIn
'V ....... """" .. ...-
· c..poot..-.. ...
Impiemlfttltlon Support
• E_".."._ion(TCII1n
• RI¥enue ~1nI (1'CM2IJ!rIglltrailon .... gillin, NoI* bftdp loll
, --_.(TCM2<J1
Pha,. 3 -.... 11<.1 Based TeMs
... ~ IfIIIIOIU/nv logIoI ...... 'ICI/I'
PMfd"fl1llllllgfllllll
Prtclng Stl'llOQltI
• Smoolel
·Gattu~
· c...o-"", ...
• ToIl'DIIII
·p~~nI
--......,~ -,.,..-"... ..........
Bav "r •• '91 Ol.an AI, Plan (CAP): ImplefMntlng All ·P' ••• IbIe· CQnvoIe •
". .
'. ,.
"~
.. ,
'-'r
)
"
-:;~~,,:/ ,.
l,
. ...:':-.;..;;...IIIIII ••• ilI.i!sl'l!li$,.,t:" ... """ ... -----lt>-__ .
o
... SUpport 8qgressive pursuit ot demonstration ~rojects in the Bay
Area related to aarket-based pricinq atrsteqle8 1 and greater
emph •• ls of and cOmBi tment to theBe programs in the RTP.
5. Support transportation allowances t"r01l _ployers (to be useQi by
e.ploye-ea as they wish tor any purpose, whether related to
trana:portation or not), coupled with the imposition of employee
parking fees (where the transportation _llowance is available},
and qreater emphasis of and cOlZlDlitment to these proqrams In the
RTP.
6. Support one or acre high-teChnology demonstration projects in
the Bay Area related to vehicle travel on reqional fre'Sways and
hiqhvaYII, and greater emphasis of and commitment to these
proqrams in the RTP.
7. Request and. support inclusion of Dumbarton Bridge bus service ...
plus future t.provements l in the Metropolitan Transportation
Systea ..
8. (al Support the upqradinq of the existing portion of the
Bayfront Expressway fram the Dumbarton B~idge to Marsh Road,
but only to a .axiaum of fOUT lane8 1 plus shoulders, which is
consistent with San Mateo county Measure A.. (b) Oppose the
extension of the Bayfront Expressway (a new road) to Woodside
Road--an approved, but not yet constructe4 1 Measure A project.
ee) SUpport UiprovementB to University Avenue 1n East Palo
~to, consistent with the desires of East Palo Alto (th4re are
no Measure A projects calling tor improvements to University
Avenue 1 except for the University Avenue/Route 101
Interchanqe) • (d) Support the Keasure A study to identify
alternatives to allow traffic to flow ~ore directly fro. the
Bridqe to destinations south of the Bric!qe, but oppose
alternatives which call for the construction of roadways on new
alignaents l especially in w~tland areas. (e) Oppose six-lane
cross sections for existing or new approach roads l as they,
taken in total, would exceed the capacity of the Bridge. efl
Request that MTC correct the descriptions and locations in
Tiers 1 and 2 of Dumbarton Bridge approach road projects.
9. Support the RTP's non-inclusion of a direct highway connection
between Routes 280 and 101 via the Sand HillfWillow Roads
corridor.
10. Support the Tasman and other light rail extensions in Santa
Cl.a.ra COUnty.
11. Support increaSed Amtrak service between San Jose/Santa Clara
and Sacramento.
0IR:302:91 5/30/91
page 12
..
\
o
./
(
.'
12. Support BART extensions to San Jose/Santa Clara and San
Franclaco AIrport.
13. Support. In concept, rail service between the Irvington BART
station (in Fremont) and the Atberton Cal TraIn atation via the
existing railroad bridqe located just south o~ the Dumbarton
Bridge.
14. Oppose the ¥hol •• ale expansion of Route 101 in San Mateo County
through the addition of auxiliary lanes (the Tier 2 project).
Support auxiliary lanes for select locations where there are
particularly severe oonq~~tion problems.
15. Support programs Which facilitate bicycling and walking.
16. SUpport. transportatil)n demand management proqraas.
17. Support traffic Signal coordination programs.
18. Support freeway reliever project~ on Santa clara County
expressways. Support the upqradinq of central Expressway to a
freeway reliever route up tv approxiJiately Shoreline Boulevard.
Oppose freeway reliever projects on other santa Clara County
and Bay Area arterials it such projects would adversely impact
businesses, adjacent residential streets, or other users such
as bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders~
BEmrnngmATIORS
Staff recoamends that council endorse the draft ~991 RTP, and that
Council direct the Mayor to send a letter to the Metropol i tan
Transport6.tion Com.i.sion communicatinq Palo Alto'. support of and
opposition to various projects and proqrams as noted above~
CJIR:302:91 5/30/91
Page 13
Respecttully sub.itted,
~$~
CARL STOF7EL
Transportation Engineer
~~~ ~~1~y Manager
AttacbJoanta,
/
~#d /--/;;~<y
KENNETH R. SCllRZI BEll
Director Planning and
community Environment
1. Regional trAnsPOrtatign Plan for the San francisco BAY Area,
Draft, April 1991, MTC.
2. prart lnyironaeotAl Tmwu;t Report. Regional Transportation
ElAn, April 1991, JHK and Associates, Chapters 1. and 2.
3. HaT"1sfE+--M,.d splutions to the transportatign Crisis:
Incentives to CleAr the Air And Eas.e CongestioD, May 1990, Bay
Area Econo.ic Forum.
cc: Architectural Review Boardi
stanford University Planninq Department
Falo Alto Cha-her of Comaerce
california Avenue Area Development Association
Related staff reports: CMR:301:91, Kay 30, 1991, praft Boy Area
1"1 Clean Air Plap
CMR:302:91 5/30/91
Paqe 14
---------
I
I,
~(
/
~ .. .0<0'
Attachment 1, Regional TrAnsportAtion PlAn for the San
FrnDgi§Q9 BAy Area, Draft, April 1991, prepared by MTC, was
distributed to the city Council in ito May 23rd packet, ami to
the Planning Commission in its May 24th packet.
Tbe docUment ia available .tor viewinq in the public area of
the Office of the CIty Clerk, Seventh Floor, city Hall, 250
aaaIlton Avenue.
,-"fIACHl<E>'T 2
-r-; -
~;
.-,:.~
o "£xceypts from documEnt)
DRAYI' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
roJ:' the
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Prepared lor Ibe
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MetroCenter
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, California 946'J7
(415) 464-7700
Prepared by
JHK & ASSOCIATES
2000 PoweD Street, Suite 1090
Emeryville, Calirornia 94608
(415) 428-2550
In AssociatioD Wrth
Brady aud Associates, Inc.
Cambrillle Systemati<:s. Int.
Systems ApplicatioDS International
~lResoun:. CODSUhaots, Int.
HDhnan and Associ.a1es, loc.
lllin&worth aDd Rodkin. 1nt.
Api"i11991
""
.'
o
1. lNTROOUcnON
PVlU'OSE
lb. RqioNI TransporUIion PUn (UP) repr...",. lb. trampO<totioa poIi<y otatemont 0(
lb. MdrOpOlfwI Trampo!UIioJ1 Commissioa (MTC). ·lb. PUn provides • bluoprial foe !be furore
transponIIIoII developmetll ill lb • ...,ma Ibrouzb its policy, actioa aDd 1ilwlc;;.J elemoms. lb.
bask snaI of MTC ill develop"" th. RTP is 10 develop 1 traDSpOrtatioa .)'IIom 1hoI
• • • •
MTC reeoJ!!iuo 1hoI trampor1aIio. docismDS have a rol. ill iIIIIu"""iDi !be economic ""wth
oUbe "I1on, dI. Iocatioa 0( Iill>a.' actiyi,i .. and th. a<complishmcot of wb.m plannin, JOaI.. lbe
RTf r<pRSOIl!J MTC', bes! ofrvrt 10 euld. lb • ...,io. ill th. developm.... of. IraIIspO!Urion
1)'1lOIII thll ...... th ... ...,mool development ,oal5 ,..h~. prot«tin, th. environment aDd aIIowilli
equitable KCeSS 10 an residmts.
The pu:pose of lb. Enyironmental Imp.ct Report (Ell) is to identify !be poIemiai
edVironmentai Impacts of the Plan, evaluate alternatives lO 1he Plan, and ideotif,y mitig.lttoD
measures to reduce or avoid environme:tltal impJCts. The ~ifornia ErlYironmenLiJ Quality Act
(CEQAJ bas Ill. funowing specific stlled pOtpOSOI: .
(I) To inform ,oytmmental decision-makers and th. public about Ill. poten'ial,
penirlWU: environmetluj effects of proposrd activities;
0) To tdentil} the WJ)'S that eD\liroltrnenta! damage C;UI be ilyoided Of sienificantJ)'
reduced;
(3) To PleYe:nI lipificam, avoidable damil&e to the environment by requiring chan,~
in projects through t1:Ie use of alternatives or miti,;uioD measures wb en !be
goyernmenlal 1l00cy finds the changes In be r""ibl.; and
(4) To d"'sclos. 10 th. public the r .... ns why a ,Oyemmenlal ll00cy '!'Proyed Ill.
project ia the manner the aeency cl'Jose if lignifu:.w environmental effects are
mvoiyed.
(CEQA Guidelines, Articl. I, Sectioa 15002J
J .1
/
o /,
Tho ErR process provid .. for • coIDProbonsiv. check on the poum;lI impocts of Ill. PW>
III • 1II&1II>« ..... ideotifioo wIIore &evere a.Mne impacts may resWL 'lb. ErR process also provid ..
.. oppotIlIDity 10 iclaXiCy 1r&IISpOn&IHm, oamomic and soeIa! benefits of 11>. PI"" t!UiI miaht
boIaDce IOlDO ___ impacu.
PROGRAM EIlI.
The ErR prepored for I!le ltTP Is considered ."proararn ErR" rather th.m • "project ElR. "
A procT>II1 ErR may be preporod for. series or actions th.s are "bled 'in ""nnec:tion with
issu.mce of rules. rquJatioas. plans, or od'ler Jenera] criteria 10 ,JOVem zhe coDdLld of I Qontinuin,
ptOII"Im.' 'lb. CEQA Guide!iDa """ ...... proaran> E!R may be pr'l'arecI for. series of actio ..
..... con be clwot!erizod as ODe 1"'1' project ODd are related either -
(I) ,...,-.pblcally.
(2) .. loJioal pmU ill Ill. chaio of coDlemplalod actions,
(3) iII.."",...,y", with Issuance of ruI .. , l'i\lliltions. pi ..... or other ,enera! criteria 10
_ 11>0 _ of. colllinuinC promm, or
(4) u incfividua! activitil:S carried out UDder the same authoririnc stalUIOr)' or rqulatocy
autboriIy &DC! llav'olII C"""'Y similar environmemaI eff_ Ill .. COl) be mitigated
ill _ "'"7' (CEQA Guidelines. Article 10. Stctioo 15168).
CEQA provid .. for "tierinC" of EIRs where "uerinC'is defmed IS 11>. ""'erJie of , .......
matten ODd _iromnez:III eff_ in '" ""iro=ta1 impact report prepared for. policy. plm,
p!O&fIDl or onflJl&llCC fonowed by narrower Oi project--specific environmental im~ reports. ElR.s
preporod for opec:IfIc: projeca may 11>00 iDcorpo..... by reference the clUMl .. ioo ill .. y prior
euviro_ ImpI<I report &DC! m.y COllCellIrJIO DO the _ironmem.l effects ..... (I) are capabl.
of beiDc milip!ed. or (1)) .. ere DOl aoaIyzocl as ,ieniticanl effects 00 the enviroomem 10 the
pro""" ErR (Sectioo 21061.5).
CEQA GoideliDa """"",0 ageoci.. to tier EIRs thill Illey prepore for 1eparII. but
related projeca ioclOOIlll ,eoerII plans. woiDg changes md developmeot projeclS. TI:is opproadl
con 01_ R!JCIlIive diIcm&ioos 01 the wo. Issoes ODd focus the ErR OD I!le actual Issues ripe
for cledsioo ...... level 01 euviroDDlOlltal review (Article 10. Sectioo 15152).
1.1
•
'\ ,
;)
.
I
J
\
/
The pro,ram ElR provide:s lenenJ erlViroomemal as.sasmecl of tlI e proposed lle&lonal
TrIDSpOftIIIoa Plan and IIlerDa1lves, will! Ill. 1SIIIIDP'i"" dI.. iDdi\idull oompoaents of lb.
rectooll ~ system would receive (or have .... iyed III lb. pasl) d...ned eDVironmeo<a!
evaluation III proj<a-opeci!ic: EIRs. lb. proenm EIR identifies ,enerII rqioI>J! effects of lb.
proposed pIm, and iclemitles ,eneral ...... of enviro.......r oen<itiyil)'!or more deuiled evllualieD
In lb. proj<ct-opeci!ic: EIlts .
lb. primIry 1IIv1ll\li' of Ibe prosnm ElRll'I'road> for lb. ll11' EIR il.lhat iI aIlo ... for
&D ... lIuaDon of r.,;ooll transportation lllornatiyes Ihat would DO! be (easibi, fOr III EIR DC I
liDale tompODeDI: of the ovet1l1 traDSpOr'tIti:: .ys«';ItI. It abo ... '1ows an coviromnental overview
of lb, .....,011 pllll nih« IllIII eDViroomental evoluation of each compo."" of Ill' plan and
oIternatives, wbicll would be I proj... of enormous S<OpC and cost, beyood the apabUities of Ill.
agency.
tHE PROJECI'
lbe Pro]'" !hat is Ill. subjOC! of Ibis E/R. is the Propo<ed R'Ilion.al TrmsponatioD PlIO of
MTC. The Plan bas been prepared CODCUrreDI with 1l1e preparation of the Draft. EIR (.DEIR) w
I W<1y ~ has allowed me use of evaluation reswts to ruide obe preparation of the Plan.
The ll11' <:<lIISisl> of I policy el....... .. _ e!= aDd • financial element Ill" ar.
desi~ to ruide me developmem of rqional tnmponatiOD improvements to maintain mobility
~ .support economic development of the rqioD for the DeJ:t 20 years. The Project represeDts a
biiJance. ofpubIic: transportation improvements, highway capacity improvements • .and transpolUlion
lystem lIWlaIemenI improv.,.."". lb. d.,.ils of lb. proposed plan are pr05erued III Chap'" 3
of this dOQUnent~ but the major demerItS of the plan,. ilIustrattd in Figure 1.1, are 15 fonows:
• five BAl.T extensions;
• three licht rail u.tmsions in" SanUi C1ara County;
• atensioD of CatTniu into downtOWD San francisco and south from San Jose to
Gilroy;
1.3
\ . ,
•
" !.
o
LEGEND -=== "P<I'.~ c lor __ T_ (BART)
---CoITlIin
... -..
Figure 1.1
Proposed Plan
---Son _ WIricipII ~ tv..n lit"')
---SonIa CIlIa LlQICIIaI T_ (SCUll) . __ ._ .... --
1Iood-*'v
I'"II"II~ .... RIICdInIian
RIi_
,"
o
• UPJrO<fUl, of AMTRAK ..moe bmoIoen San Jose, o.Jdaod, aod Sacr_;
• tweIv~ tJIOjects iDvo1vinc new freewlY or expressway fJciI ities or major extensions
0( aistmJ bcmties;
• llddltio. 0( HOY Lan .. o. 12 major fr ..... y IX expressway bcDities;
• roadway wideninp on )5 major freeway Je,rments;
• Idd1tiO.D. or recoD.SU1JctiOD of 31 freeway inte:r~an&a; ed
• impJemmtatiOD of the. traffic: operations 1)"Stem lDcludin, clos.e circ:uit television
surveillance. ramp meter in,. chanzwte mr.as&ie &lans. aDd central operations and
wotrol faci] hies with operations controls OIl 2.2 major freeway corridors.
Three alternatives hIVe been formulated for wmp.atisob ..-lth the Project. The .aJt.emath'e5
..... _ desi,.ed 10 rdloct .iJoificaot differences in Ihe leoeraJ approach 10 provKr"'l mobDily
fur Ibe ",ion aod 10 demollStrote bow ell"".. 10 Ihe Project .u,h, ...... It in til ... ,.. ill Ih. revel
of awironmmt:al impac:ts of the p\m. The three alternatives are defined. IS fonoWJ:
No Project -This alternative, iJlustrJIed in Fi,fUre 1.2, is evaluated IS. basel ine for
comparison and includes DO DeW Of improved fadBties otber tbln those currently
UDder ~nstnu=Km 01'" expected 10 begio constructio~ by the time tb~ dr.dt EIR. is
circulated.
JIl&bwa1 Emphasis AlternaU •• -Uoder Ihi' a!tmwiv. Ih. BIY Area bi,bwIY
DOIWOrk WOII!d be .ignificamly expaoded for !he yoar 2010 in III attempt 10
..... lllIIIOd... projected Bay Area travel crowtb Ihro<:gh ....... 'n of highway
o.pans.ion. Extemive high occupancy vehicle lanes would also be added througboul
the region but only currently committed transit improv=ments wo'Uld be IMde. The
Hi,Jbway Empbasis Al[ernative is illustrated in Fi,iW'f 1.3.
Tnnsil Capodtl Emphasis AlhrNti .. -This altenWi.e UiLatrl!ed io Fifll" 1.4,
would add .DO DeW bilbwiY improvements except for mase included m the No
Project ilhemative. Instead, an resources would be devoted to.an expansion in lhe
Bay Area', raIl, bus and ferry transit services. The a!,eroativ< Would rep'''-an
Iltcmp< 10 KalIlllllOd .. e projected srowtb in Ih. Bay Area woogh troosit expansion
wi!b 00 incr .... in tighway apocily.
These alternati\les to the Project repre.sent three major alternati\le directions: providing no
Idcfruona1 ttanspo!\alion services or infrastructure, attempt! De to accommodate mobil Uy waugh
o
Figure 1.2
No Project Alternative
LEGEND
1tpoJ.~
=== loy AM """" T_ (W!'IJ
---ColT...,
---Son-........ -.{It..n ......
----CIora UgHRoI T_ {SCUnJ ...... _ ........ -
----~
11 .... 11111 MlwAIISlNlce ---'RoI_
1.5
, "
/' ;.., ______ -c
o
Figure 1.3
Highway Capacity EmphasIs Alternative
LEGEND
---~-7"EaiAn'l === Bay __ TIWi\ \I!AATl
---torr .....
---$wi rnn::Sec ~ Raiwa) twlri W."Oj
---s.nJa aa.. Ug/lI Roi T_ISWITj ............ --
----~
" • " " ,," New Rail SetviI:e
--"····Rd_
..... ""'-
1.7
,-
o
Figure 1.4
TrBnslt espsclty EmphB.'s Alternative
LEGEND
---~.Exiofng
:::::: Boy -FIo!'id Tnnoi! (BARl) ColT ...
---.. F<w ••• U....,;,;,oJ~(lok.r'j ..... 1
---_ an LiItI All T_ (SCUI!J
.. _ ................ RDadI -----...
IIIHIlIIII .... FWStnIb ---AII_
1.8
[]
1
1
j
I
. : --t
> .... " . <'
biibway oxplllSion, IlId cryin& '" acroaunodlle mobility Ihrouib ",pansio. of traruit rxm~.. md
aavice&. EadI of these alternatives h» beea da;ip.ed to be wialin me finaacial c:apabil jties of
Ill. meII'<lpOrlW1 ar.. md '" ,!p,esent ,rallsti< options '" Ill. propo<ed plIO.
ASSFSSMENT OF IMPACJ'S
A rwl ... olllle poteatjol envirolllllCZltl! imp..... bas beta undertal:ez> '" provide tile MTC
deckioo-maken with aD w.essment of 'the major urvironmental blues usociaJed with prcpcsed
reJiooW md bi&bwIY corridor development -;I.. md '" do so ...itbill Ill. ",idelill .. established
by CEQA. Th. JOolysis ot imp ..... """en 12 majo, impO<1 Jreas. They are .. follows:
• Aceess and Mobilirv
• Air Quality •
• Enern • Geoion md S.ismIcity
• BiololiCal Re:sour!;eS
• Water Resources
• YuuaJ Resources
• Noise
• C1lllunl ROSO\!fC<S
• Social Environment
• Populllioa Growth aDd Land U ..
• Regional &anomy
A _ate chapler is devoted '" 0JCb cftll ... impKl areas beiinning willi Cbap'er 4. Eacll
chapter provides I d:escripdoD of the existing eondltioQS and environmemaJ setting, a dacussion of
tbe areas in which ~a1 impacts wert considued. and I summary of me impacts deemtd 10 be
poIOnlially ligrufianl for Ill. Project. Th. <fISCUS' ion ot poIOnlill imp ..... in 0JCb cb..,'er also
includes a descriptioD of critma used to determine whether potential impiCtS .are deemed
ItJrufJalrt. 'Where. potentially significant imp.aas are identified. mIti,atioD mWure5 .we described.
In most cases, mirigatioD measures are IYall.abJt to reduce Ibe .impacts to • Ies.s.-than-significant
level'. These measures may be available to MTC? IVillable through cxlstinj: authority of other
lleocies. or require ~ authority. Where this is DO( the cau. die: remainirli: si&1liticaru: impacts
are identified as ·unavoidabJe significant impict5.· CEQA rqulatIons require, where JPpTicmle.
that four lpeC:ia! c:ate&:ories olimp ... "'tS be idenlified: "cumulati\le i.mpicts~-·'i,rufiu.nt irreversible
dI.an&f'.:5~ -• Jrowth inducin& impacts,-md -the rdationship between the Ibort tam uses and kmg
term prt>duct.i\lKy.·
1-
\ '.
(
"
o
Cumutadn Impacts -CumuI;atjI:l'~ impacts au defi.oed u two or more. iDdivich.w
cffeC:ts thai: when cocsidued weemer are considerable or that annpoUDd or increase
OIlIer ~ impods. Individual effects may ~ cIwl&eo resulliDi from a
Iiql. project or a _ of...,mte projects, This EIR oonsiders \he ~v.
impact of III of !be pro]"'" lncluded in lb. Plan. In cenain _. lb.
azmulative impact of individual proj«1S within I ccrridol may differ from die
~. impaa of lb. Plan: wh". this cumulative impact is Ji&Dif.~. it is
ide!ltified in lb. Om. In som. cases. public policy or public proJ1'llDS might Iffecr.
\he rebniv. impact of lb. RTP 01=_. This is een .... lly lb. cos. for relatod Ioal
traDsponatio.c. improvemems DOt included in 'the R.TP aDd public. and: private
devdopmem plans accommoltarina: me grow expe:cted in !be reeioD. 'Where such
other pro,gnms are Q)ns.jdend lignificant ini1u~ OD 'the impacts o( me RTP. 'ChI.
likely nature of the impld is DOled. but I tun CVaiumOD of these other inf1UIMces
was not feasible within me resou.r~ of MTC.
SipUllcan1lrreven1b1e CIw1Jes -Th ... are any primary 0< oecoDdarJI aff .... of lb.
proposed plan that ...m commit .DOlrrenewable resources to uses that furore
,eneratiom wil1 probably be UDable to revene. These c:bqe5. include bo1h the
actual e:x.penditure of'D01Henewable resources web as petroleum for tramporUtioD ""gy., but also resourc<s such as aificulrural Itnd. public open space, or visual
Z"C$O\lfces for whicll the cost of recovery b:y reversing a major hi,ibway or transit
t.ci1ity construction would be oonsidered fuwlciaIly infeasiblo,
Growth Induc:inJ Impacts -Within the chapter <overinl pop".lation IlOWIh and land
a.se, che D.E.lR ideDtifies 1he ways in which t1Ie Project could foster OIXJDOmic O[
population IfOWIh or lb. construction of a4<frtional bouIinI ellber directly or
indincdy in lb. surrouoclm, erMrorunen.. In thlI! dapter. the DEIR. desttibes how
tbe pllll mieht eoc::oura&:e D[ facilitate activities thai: either iDdlviduan, or
cumulatively III»' affect !he <miromnent Ihroulh J'O"'!h inducement.
lIeIalicmsbip _ Local Sb<wl-Term Uses and Long·Y ..... Productivity -Tho !ina!
ar .. in wild speciaI impods are considered is tho relationship beew_ Ioal ohort
term uses and 100,...". productivily. Wh". appropriat.. impacts IhJt IWTOW the
rang. of benoficiaI environmentaI us .. or thlI! pose 10",= risk 10 public hoaIth
aocI ufecy arc idonlified.
As • ProlfllD .ElK, th. idontification of potentiaI imp..,., in many of the ..... must be
,ClIeraI. ideiltifyinl where !be poIeotial exists for imp:.::" but DOl p"",idinl • quanti..uvc prediction
of' the poteDtiaJ impKts. For ma:oy of' the physical areas eumjned in lhis DEIR, 5Uch IS visual .
........ , biolOJica1 and cultural """"'"". the specific lIIIUte of lb. en\'irol1illmlla! impacts willdepeud
upoA the precise lIiiDJDeDl aDd sizing of faciHttes. me destgtl. of dle faci1itiel~ !he WDSU'UcUO:c
methods us«! aDd lb. specifie l>IIl1r. of lb. mitigation measures implemeotecl. For areas .uch as
these. cmJy , ...... aI quaI"lUlivo ...... ments of the pottnlial impacts are possible, In th .. e areas.
1.10
o
dI. focus .... buD primarily DO id<ntifyin, dI. Jccatjons "her. potentially "iDificw impacts could
oa:ur. In ocher areas 1hI1 do DOC depend OD tbe ,spetific: location or Aature of me improvements,
.. dI .. mobilit} and ICOOSS, air quali!)" enerJ)',1IOd '<lio"" eoooomy, more qoaIlUtive 1SSeSSm."..
.flb. poto:ntjal affe<Is .ftll. proposed plan or. provided. Allhougli the natUre and level of lIllI1ysis
varia ICl"OSS the 12 major impact areas, the analysis in each area is comptebensive aDd twed .:In
lb. __ • _ods reasooably available for dI. lIllI1ysis.
NOTICE OF PltEPARAnoN
In w:onl= with CEQA JlUidolin .. , MTe circulated I Notic. Of Prep>ntion (NOP) for
die Project in February 1990. The NOP .... ..." '" the Swe Cl=iosh""" foc diltJibutiOD 10 all
appropriate review lIeDCies. The circulatioD of the NOP served as DOtir~joIl 1h.u an EIR was
heioJ _oc! for die It.,.,,,,, Traosport3liop Plan. On Much I, 1990, mc bold I ""'Pin.!
meeting to dIscuss the proposed definioorl of transportatioll aJ1eruJllvei for lbe RTP EDt. Copies
of both oral and written tommt:Dts in res.pome 10 '!lie $.COpml meeti1l& pt't:5.tnwion an av'lilabte
in 'the MTC library for review by !he public. Key issues identifIed 11 the time of the scoping
meetinr ineludoc! -
• the CEQA defmition of "feasible alternatives". and iIJ applic.aIJOD to dais project;
• I:be darifi.citioD of whal would be included undu the "No Project" alternative;
• the J't.anJre of the socio-economic assumptions for the year 20JO used in the EIR
an&Iysis;
• me issue of examinine alternative land u.se patterns u part DC the environmental
analysis;
• che considerafion of pridng or other w.alegies to constrain transportatioa demand,
as opposed to transporut"i-on supply when examinin, mitic.ations;
• Ill. tremDent of (eden! and >Ut. air Cj1Ulity s""dard1 .. put of iii. EIIl
These issues Ite addressed .II various Je'o'els lhrouihout the Draft EIR. Also, wee techni~
repons; Environmc;ot&I Amdnb $emjtjvjry Tar AltmJative Land' Us Scenario, EnvitQDlDrntaJ
ArW»is $ensjtjyUY Tcg. TUDSQQOmiQD C0rttiO! MwUfes. and Project Ahern,rivcs Financial
~. provide additioc.al information in response to ~.pme me:etin, inquIres. Copies .:>f th.ese
repcr..; ar~ ii'ii.ilGble at me MTC library and Joal' libraries for public rt\liew. to accompany the
DEIIl
1.11
•
...
~--:
/
o
EEPORT ORGANlZADON
The remaJ.ad.cr oIlhe EIR is Ofjanize'd iota 19 cil.apten. Chapter 2 providm III executive
I\IIII.IDIry of !he DEIR. 'IbiJ iDdu4es brief stllemen" of potential impad areas. impodJ identified
IS poI<IltiaII1 IigDi!ic&DI prior Ie mitiption, mitiptio. meosur.. defioed and poteatiaI aipifioonce
aIIec mitiprion QopIot 2 o!so _ • ~ of Ib, litemllives 10 the Project lI!ld Ib,
oxpe<:tod II:DpmI of each.
A doWled IIUDIIIIl)" of the Project is provided in Chapter 3· Project ~cription. Th'
doWled malysa ofpotallial impacts m each oflbe 12 major impact areas u. provided m ClIapters
4 _aD IS. Choptec 16 provides • IIUDIIIIl)" of finding. on ImpaeIs of lb. Projoct. This inclttd ..
idemification of the ~y signifioanl edv.,.. impll<lS. lllIIVOidabl, .ilDffiWl! adverse impll<lS.
reWionship botwoeu local mort-te:m ..... and 100,....., productivity •• igJIifkont irrevenibl'
ell.., .. , and. &rowtb _cing impodJ.
In Olap!Ol 171b, Project is compared 10 the three project alternatives: (I) No ProjO<t (2)
Hi",way CopaelIy Emphnis. and (3) Transit c.p..:ity EmpIwis. 1n;:1u4ed iD Ibis ch>pter is Ibe
Jelecrlon of an emhObJLtDUIIy ruperior alt.emati\le and I JustifK:a1ioa for its se2ection. CJapIU 18
provides. Iisl of the orpnizations and pmons ccDl&cted and • list of sWf memben who worted
on til. project. ChJpter 19 iDdud.. • biblio~ilphy of on sour<eo and refer_ used in lbe
prepmtioo of Ihe OEIR.
AcId"rtiouai tedmical iDformatioIl iD support of Ib, OEm is also avollabl. from MTC. This
includes ten IOdlnicaI appcodices Ibll are refereru:ed iD Ill. various cllapters of illEs documom. two
tecbnical reports _in&" semilivity ..... will! I1nd use assumptions and IrIDSpCmatioD CCDtrol
..... ur... and • tedmical report provid"1Di • IinanciaI malys;, of the alternatives.
1.12
2.0
Summary
-, < . . ~ ~
.'
o
J'1l0P0Sm J'IlOJECT
.' .. '
, ;
.~ ..
l. SUMMARY
./
Th. project evaluoted in Ibis doc:umen' is lb. propoud Jlqional TransporutiOD Plan (RlJ')
of m. Metropolitan Transportation Comlllis>;on (MTC). Th. RlJ' eslJl>lishes Ibe Comlllis>ioo',
polioy for th. dove1opmem of C'anspOrUtion improvemeots ond opentiollS programs, Th. Project
Iw been desilned to meet the uptcted JTOwtb and economic el:pansio.n or the nine-<:owlty ~ion
for lb. nex, 20 years, OuriD, Ibat period. the popul.nOD is expOCled 10 ina .... by 17.8 per=
and emptoyme.ru is expected to increase by 34. ] perctnt. The total' nwnbcr of pctSOD triVS in the
aine-c::ounty iIU'eaS for work. shop. recreation,. etc. is expected to increase by 24.7 percent.
The Re,:lonaJ Transportation Plan includes. a policy element, wbicll ~Iishea: regiona1 &:<ws
and objectives; an action dement. which defLM:S specific transportation improvements and
programs.; and a (manc.Lal elemtnt. wbicl! identifies the funding for the action element. The focus
of \his document is on dle potential environmer.W imp~C1s of the projects in the action tlement.
The action dement includes -
• expansion of the rail rapid traN [r. system;
• Mhanc.ement of the express~ Jocal .and feeder bus services;
• expansion of tlIe ferry services;
• expansion of highway {aciliti-es for hiih (Kc.\lPa,nq vebtr;.1~ \l.s.c~
• expansion or the mixed flow bighway facilitiC'$; and
• Operational' improvements 10 increas.e traffic 110w aD high '\Iolume highway facilities.
The .RegionaJ Transportat10D Plan is designed to met( four .spt.cific obje.."1ive5 of llle
Commission as stated in the ponl:Y element: 10 enb.ance mobility in the rca:ion. to d'emorutrale
sensitivity 10 Ole environmCIlt. to provide. mobiHf) on an equitable bas.is, and 1(1 maintain the
economic· '\IitaJity of the regkm. The Project s1lould pr<lvide sign i ficanc b-tneficial impacts in tlle
areas of mobility and .regional economic \liaHry ... iDtended 10 ao;onunodate the expected wcreas.e
in population and empJoyment without a significant deJTadatioll iII InIrupOrution JC\lel of servke
on a reaionaJ basis. With the Project, average daily speeds. would iol:re.ase .as would' Iverage daily
commute speod.s. \Vbile the Project would result ill m ovet'all increase in '\Iehides :bours of delay.
the Iverage delay per person trip would increase by less than 1 percent.
1.1
I
-
o
PROJECT IMPACTS
This do........ !w been prepared as. pro~ m U1Ider me CEQA reruJatiollS Illat
permit • tiered system of impact oval.....,.. ..... pro~ Elll, Ibis _. kleatifies lhose
areas In _ &Ip!ficInI advone OIlViro_ impoa> are likely 10 oo:ur 1IId. wIIere pos>il>le.
_ .!he likely mapitude of Ibe impact. lle<mue lbe Reiio'" TransportltioD P1aa. IS •
,.,.,... -. is.eoeral In aature. .ite opecilic impJCtS CIDDO! be deletmiaed UDtil. apecilic
a1igamem IIId delill' are developed to< Individual projocu. ]a !he tieriDI .yst=, Ihose project
sPoom< Impaou will be ideatified in an EIR developed to< each apecific projoct.
Table 2.1 provideo • summary of Ibe poteIItial project 1mp1l<U. n, IOble idealifies tIlos,
areas in wIIidi potlOllially slJnlfiemI adverse impacts are pos>ible. measures !hat call be
implemented 10 mitiiate !he advone impJCtJ of m. project, and an ........ m of w!lel!ler advene
imp .... can be mitillalod or are UD<voidable impacts. n, analysis in Ibis cIo<umm and
IUDmlarized In'Table 2.I.provi<l ... comprehensive ....... mem cfthe c:umulativ. impacts of lb.
full Jd of plIO d.....".. The Project is collSidered as. DeIWork of tnasportoOOD Improvements
opcndn, lO,eI!ler 10 provide region.al D1Obility. ne impacts ideatified in !he lObI. reflect iIle
eIf_ of dI. -. lldWork. The environmental impacts of Individual tl_. If Implemmed
in isolatioD. miglll be siplfic.ntly different.
The Project would have lOme. potentially sipifiean.r ~ impacts, It least DD • corridor
basis if DO< au • rqionaI basis. in ead! of lb. 12 ar .... defiaed in Ille table. MitiialioD Dl"""'"
would roduco the poIemi>I ad ..... impacts. but to< some imp ... areas anavoidable I<1v.", impacts
would occ;ur. 1biI .. most likely for me areas of e:ce:gy resources, leolo&>, and seismicity •.. -ate:'
teJOIIrCOI. bioJoPca! ,...,.".... visual resources and population IIId r.oo use.
ALTERNA1lVE'l
Tb.ree Ilu:rnatlves 10 tbe Projea were &1so evaluated. The altema1ives were Jdem:ified to
r'PrestI>! aipifialllly c!ilferem approach .. 10 pro,'iamg regie'" D1ObDity. A No Project aI'emativ •
.... evaluated that included only existine faciliti .. IIId <hose !acUities already under construction
It !he rime of lbe m prq>arIItioa. A Hi&J>wa, Capacity Empbasis a1~. ..... defiaed '"
""r<Sell! an IPJIlOICh 10 mobOity that 'rdied more ...... ivdy on additiOD of mixed flow hiJhwoy
r-copacky. Th. IhinI al<emativo. the Transk Clj>acity EmplWis aItmllltive. was delilQed '"
npr.....r an approadI IIw would .... DlD1Odat. mobUity Ihroo&h sipi!iQnr expansion
1.1
•
,
} ,
,
I
r lfHf 0 I 0 r" . r III , 1 ! IfJlI i H i 1
J .. ] .. Iff jli J' h hi il.l! • • % "
.1'; .. 11 El U E
c! ! .;j ! I =i ~ ~] I S I 11 11 ,:f 11 I-.• n ~I 1
~ n o!ic ! If ~ p • •. ! .0: H 0
r...s -.! Ii j • • t!-0 r~ ~ .. '21,1 1 5.0 ; S
I
1= I,!! ~ .; 8 .: ..
51 11;0 .... 14 i.!~ .J.~ ." -~1 •
11"11 -.l! E 1-.3' J ~ .S U" I §S.
;,. ,;11 .. ~ 111 f '" l'i,J . hni1 '1 i q -~ ! .. :o J ~.!I -"~ .~ :I! 1 ·f1 ~'O .... .... 0 • • • • • .!1,. ..... .: ...
0
~ j 'j: = r:: 0= · "
toE
IC i i o. .q , i Z. • e < ·-1 • • I~
:Ii: .i ! "1 " :n u~ .~ ~f :IE ~H! " . : Ii
~ ! i. H~ I I : • .; e .~
i 1:. ... !.'I ro·. 1
i 0 'OI-&' III·g -I · ~ f ~ :!lEi !r IIf.l 1 ~i • 1i1 • I r..=! 'Ott • i .. i 'r.; ~ fi ~ J; i! ,5 ~ i
H • ro, I . -! I: ; .. I = .5
~a; ~!dJ " . Ii!.! .. ~ .~ I ; I 1-.e~ .. f I" ~ j'.'. .S I; Iii ." j j 1 · ~ . I £,1 .". i U 1! "f.. I .. ! I I 11.5 8 ~ ,!!h r il .• II r J} • i U.s ~ij • ....
z :0 ~ z ~L ~ 8 I
• • • • • • • •
.. f I~ I
:0 j 1 ~
Ol:j " i ,,-i r i ~ .,
'" .. ,.;
2.3 -----.,-_._-_ .. ,------
. ,
-----~~~ ----.'
"
" i '" , , , ,
"
"
.} . .. .. /
f' HUl o t,
,!~~
r • : I ji j
" ~li!; .1 11 § ~~i ~ JI 'JH
.; ·h!ii J1 I , IfiJ l ••• 'j ~
~ l' 1 I .. I [1 1 , ! I t u~ l! j 1 " f II I 1
!i i l] j • r I B '" ~ .. c f J 1 til .. 1 1= i B
~ 5i! r-J
~ ;
0 ~ 5',g ! -I ..
If
1j I .... .. 1 .. !~ U H .. -.. .H 11k! ~= • • • • • • • "'0: Na. .... ~o = :I';~ ~ljl A IH i 'iii h ~ , .
ii: .. a I i "i II 11 I~" jt it J f'O·1 -.
I~ It!! .p !J .o:~jl
! "1 ! - -. ., Ii) !1' ",Hi :-~,: : ~ .. r,; " ji"p -.,.:
l;l • .8'1 Pi d 'Iil! ,'. ~! "j "', :lh I 1'0 ';"'1] II I~p I' I ~.u"J :> i .3.. S
• • • •
~ .' I; :I
E ,,<-,
! J l'
ra . .. ! i ~ ,
~ (
.; ,;
o
.. ." • • •
• • •
j
1 ..
.';,. ;.-.-
, ',/ \._-;
.//
-' } -, . . ..
~
-/., .
t 0 J :--:""-~
IJji ~. jilt :II ..... '
fl z hE ., ,J 11 it § Ud l ~ 11 f if 'iP! • nUl h I fll! Q:; ;; . :> .. lj
.q p '"1 ~ 1
1· tt • .1
Ht in I .. I I ~ ;!j
f 1 1 J '; '; z '01 ] t .1 ., '" IH 1 J j ~ t i ~l'; II ·1 1 1 I R :~ f • t: ~ ] iJ • ~ i :lI 1 .1 • ~ i .. 1 '; ~ i .~ 1 ~ 1 ~J-JO-• i Ii! 0 1 •• l! J • ! j • f ~J f J.lJ r ~ -i 1 1 .. 1 1 ~ f :i H .. ~",.1 Ali ... ~
:;~ • ! ~ ~ .I ~s oil < ... ~ ~H I-~
;1£: • • • .. • • • • • • • • • •
21 r~1 il _I '; • I q 11 IJ .::~
.5.1 Ii! S
.I • 11. :~ • • h.!
l'§ Ii e • Ij ~11 • •
• 0 ~ f ~i j l .1 ~ ~ e "'1 ~ .
1-·1 lJ~ " t: :i. .. 0 ~ ..
.Ir~ . p i-!] 1--=-~ 8 is
• § ;n • ~ .. 1 J I J _1 '; 1 I )1 '1-0; · " ~ • ti ..i • .§ -= J:' ihP,. 1 .: LI : r'!:; • · . HH~ -.
~ ! I;! 1 i~ r i • •• .l! .. ~1 : 8 E .. .::,1 ~. a u 8
• • • • •
~.
i I • ~~ ! I .-J i i1 ~ •
0 1 z v
,.; '" !!
2.6
'"!'-~ I
/ ,
ENVIRONMEPn'AL
ISSU>;S
II. I'bp.latton a~h and
.... """ \.I.
12. Re,;o".1 E-rHl"')'
•
•
•
•
T.W.l.14CGIIt.,
SUMMARYOF rRQJECTUPttTS
SIGNlPlCANT .mCT
Conn6et with or aUM,-,"1a1 preuuN In
-"r lAnd UN pnliay
Lo" Or aPultunl of "p"" _pice II.ftd
f'aoilUIInI ,mwth wflieh ina,. ... ~
NquirernG1tl for local ~vllmmmt.
N"pl'" mi .. , "hi, Wiler and .ir qU.lilY
lMpeab on IdjHa'll lind Diet
•
•
•
IMJ'nGA'nON
CMtin~ .M:JrtI."....... NTC .... Iooal
F'NJft1MlMt .., eoopenIiwl, ,..., knd lIN
.net tNMpllrtMloa ....... , ...
APPI'OJ'riMe 1imiRt: 0' im~ 10
_iMide wilt Iooal pleenlrq 1'1_'_
AppmpriMe OOnM""",ton ........ 10
Nd_ OOftItlUCllioft ..at... 4ult, emiaioNl,
and 'ra(l". inrrin....,...... on NIIljive 'nIIIII
• No rw,ionaU, ai",ir_nt IIdwrw. ~I. • 0..-................ _ ... _ 10 lWiuoe:
cunCUlioft .. -rncir. oorridon: (MIl Aooe.
IIItf Mobility)
The pmpoMd pll.. would ,.,..... in III
inc_ .. "'.w.nq _peed Ind I ~_ in
a..,... commurl hip lirM. Wilhl"
-reaiflo _rridnl"l, mnJMIion ~uld
',xn_l. ,..ullin. in additinn .. 1 tl'r+'el ca"'.
llid Ndudionl in 1I00r fk.w ,I!fTIDiene-iOIf.
CONCWSION
Lu. of .piMbNl IMd' qd ...
..... tJrvm ......,..... .f .... ....,......,. ............ _ .. .,.
tram MW de I P 4'1"~_
wkh odw land .. ,..., deal ....
o
Nn ~ ........ u,. .""i'"-t;t --
<)
~
..,
_._-_____ ~---------~---~--------------"':"!'\""""'!"":":""""11111
of tho nil npi4 tt...n ay.um and commuter nil ra.:Diti .. wlth olll, very l~ expansion of lb.
hi&llway capadI)'.
Th. _ of lb. <omparisoo of th. oltenwiv.. to lb. Project IC. m\lltt1ll.ed in Tabl. 2.2.
'The No Project oltenwiv.. b=. k repreums no ..... _ction, would Iav. lb' fewest
adven. pbysicaJ eoviromneD:al imp...... k would also resul' in the low"" level of =1)'
consumption because of the lack of eDergy consumption in CO./lStrt.lcOOn. There would be •
'lpi!lcant eDerI)' imp"'" with lb. Project and each of lb. orb., two O\,mwiv... The No Project
aIternaaive: would result in the most significw iDatase in traffic coDgestion and rqio:caI ecQoomic
...... (roll' ... _iv. tnvel time and would produce lb. hi&bes< level of emis.s;"os of lOy of tb.
ol1emaIIveo.
The HIPway Capacity Emphasis alternative would provide lb. highest level of.= and
mobility as measured by \rOVe! .peed, me! vobicl. hou" of dday. B<eallse of tb. slJl1lificant
addltioo of DeW hIPwoy fa<:Uities. this altmwiv. would resul' in th. hlehest Jevel of OIletgy
COIlSUDIptioD and lb. hiehesl level of advene phyoicaJ environmental imp.",_ Also. due to lb. scal.
of bIPway "'I'wloo. 11115 Ilternativ. is libly to produce the most significam W<W. population and
hod us. Impocts.
The. Transit CapKity Emphasis altemative would result in • lo.wer level of Kiverse
__ imp_ Iban tb. Proj"" and would provide • hieher level of mobility to resideo"
with trip patUrDs 1hJI couJd be acrommodated by trim" service. Th. improvement in mobility
would be particularly sipificaDt to low income and elderly populatlOIlS or orber trJIlSn dq>tDd3llt
_. The Transit Copacity Emphasis a1ternatlve would resul' ill • 10 ..... levels of mobility 00 til.
h;pway ay.um at _eel by averag. apee4s and vobi<l. bours of del.y. This would also 'esult
in adverse rcaiooal tKXmOmic impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
'The CEQA Gui4e1lnes requires that _ EIR identify an 'eoviroome.atal1y ,uperior
a1terrWiv.' (AnkI. 9, SectioD ISI2/ib). In dotermininr the ..,,,JroDl'lOOUlly superior alternativ.,
lb. Ouidel_ limber ..... Ibat 'oc:cno",;c or &o<ial effects of. prcj«l sIWI DOt be treated IS
•
'.
\ , •
o o
Tobie 1.1
AItt:rnI!IY .. lmpad Comparison
Hiehway Transit
Type of ImpIOl No Projod Emphasis Emplwls Projea
ACCESS AND MOBIUTY
Transil Board"", 1,059,000 1,059,000 2,341.000 2,183,000
Commuto Drive AID"" Shue 7O.a 10.0~ 61.9" 69.4~
Vehicle Miles of Trzvet 124,103,00 J24,OlS,OOO 122,068,000 122,915,000
0
Aveng. Daily Speed 11.3 21.1 19.4 21.2
Vehicle Hours of Travel 6,116.000 S,66S,OOO 6,276,000 5,787.000
Vehicle Rours of Delay 3,3ll,OOO 2,290,000 2.168,000 2,426,000
Mil .. of eo"llestod Freeway 619 522 S8J SS7
AJRQUAUTY
Da/Iy Emluions (Tons Per
Day)
He B2.4 129.3 130.7 129.6
NO. 156.3 ISS.l 153.1 154,3
co 970.9 947.9 955.8 948.4
ENERGY
Consumption (Millions of
IITUs)
On Road Vehicles· Daily 933,415 930,465 916,184 922,513
Passenger Rail • Daily 12,150 16,488 46,555 22,736
Construcdon -Project 21.301,196 438,490,S29 751,216,028 716,047,326
Rold Maintenance -AMUaJ 6';,892 31l,l09 63,892 198,551
1.'
_=-___ .,"._IIIIU"" _ ....... _.~.~ .. ~ .. ___ ~-.
o
• Hiahway Trmsit
Type of ImpacI No Projec;t ~is Empb .. is FrojO<!
GEOwGv a'mSMic:nY' , " ."" ",' , , "
No. of improvcmez>cs 4 -Lowost 2 -S«ond ] -Second 1-Hiahest
aposod to bazarcls bl", ... JoW<lt
Slop< imtabDity 4·Low ... 1-Hiah'" ] -S<cond 2 -Second
loweSt hish'"'
BroLOGlCAL JlESO{;acml:" ,,' .,. ,', ", :., , ,,' .
Impac:u on sensitive ]_.11& 141oco1io .. 31oc::miObS IS locWons
species
ImpacII "" ..... itiv. 6 corridor II corridor 6 corridor II corridor
or ... ~ ,egm-":ments sep>ents
WATil;cu:SoUitci:S ':., ,,:;, ", " '"', ." ,',
Runoff, poIIutantsa 4-Low ... 1-Hishest 3 -S=nd 2 -Socond
eroWn, 1%01ID'I-low ... bishest
and 5IreaIII impacts
VISliALIMPACF ' , ',:' " , ,
Now bishWl)'S I IB I 12
New rail extensions 3 ] 30 10
Four.JiDe wickninp 0 II 0 2
NOISE ", , , .. ".
N .... llishways I 18 J 12
New nD extmsioDS ] 3 30 10
QooIi1J for No .. Some None Some
IOUDdwaIls
HISI'ORICAL AND CUL1l/IIAL RESOURcml "
lleamIOil lites, 3 corridor Z2 c:orridor 16 oorridoc 24 corridor
_tollish segmems .. ""_ segments segments
poteIIIiaI for DOW
discoveries, or boIh
1.10
-
•
, .
o
Hi&hw,y Transit
Type of Impaa No Project ~hasis EmDbasis Project
SOCIAL JlNVIRONMENl'
Diopl ........ S corridor 20 (X)rrid'Of 10 corridor 20 corridor
IeJlIWIIs ..".,.,.. Iql!ICDIS .qme:m
Disrup<ioD Appro>. 10 Appro •. 52 Appro>. 26 :52 corridor
corridor oorridor corridor segment5
sepenlS segments SeatneJJL1.
I'OPVLA. nON GROWlll AND LAND USE
C<mceoIratWDI 3 -Secood I -Most 4 -Most 2 -S.."nd
.rospm;"n mo<I dlspersioD conceotratlon most
C<lDcentra-dispersion
lion
Acrommodotion roc Limltod Predominantly Pred<JmUwttly Balanced
""WIlt in outJyina: ill uro.n
ar ... cent ...
REGIONAL ECONOMY
Average vehicle speed 18.3 mpb 21.1 mph 19.4 mph 21.2 mph
Vehicle operatin, cost $0.91 SO.88 SO.91 $0.89
per trip
c"st of """lestiOD per S2.lS $1.48 $1.86 SLS7
vehicle per trip
Ac«ss to employment 4 3 2 I
centers or future s~
Z.ll
---.'--"--~ -.. ,--.... ,--
' ..
•
f ,
'.
. -.-
-"!:--~-~--
-'~. ,
. , .
o
a!&nl-e!fecIs on lb. _",,' (Anicl. IO,Secti<J1> 15131). Based on 10 aulysis ofollly lb.
pbyslea! offecI oflb. 1Itema!lv<, !he No Project a!ternativ. Is coasidend 10 be lb. envirollDlmtal1y
oupcrIor alternative -.. II bas lb. _ project 01_.
WbaJ !he enviromDemaI1y superioraltenl3liv. is lb. No Project alternative. lb. CEQ"
Guidolin« require IhIt an _1 tuperior aItomativ. be ideotifiod omollJ lb. ocher
_ (AJticl. 10. Section 151261». AmollJ lb. altetDativa illvolviDJ Dew pi .. elements. Ibe
Trmsit Capacity Emphasis a!ternative is eovironmImaIIy superior based on lb. upecud imp_'" of
_ alternative on lb. pb)'Siea! _. ApiD, Ibis is clue primary 10 lb. T,'IDSit Copacity
Emphasis baviDJ 'fioiliClllll)-fewer new ph)"llcaJ 01_. Both lb. Project and lb. HiJh .... y
Capacity Emphasis aItenl3live demo.astrole IIIP"rior ~ ill lb. areas of accest ODd
mobBiIy ODd reg;onl! ocollOllly.
l.U
-
~---u.-----------~--~--~-------.-~---------------
ATTACHMENT 3
SAY AREA
ECONOMIC
FORUM
-
Market-Based Solutions to
the Transportation Crisis:
Incentives to Clear the Air
and Ease Congestion
1f,.b< ~a'H><
j."" ,.,.,.
~.; ... ~ rlr'..,.J..A~
.'.t:...tA>4.( ,...cd~
UwP~
S-:~~,",f~
I
...
\
Summary
!
•
.',
o __ ~':)L-__
M.rtcet·B .... d Tr.noportalion
SoIutiOM
Th..e Bay Anea Economic Forum ofTen its rt'CM!
mendations fur transportation rontrol measures
ITeMs} to meet air quality stilndiirds mand;:;tE'd by
la .... · Tht' mandate will ~ an t$ti.rna.t~ no
ductionol35'l, in motor ... ehideemiMloru. hI,· 1997,
which means that drastic [[u,"asures must ~ CQn~
side:red:.
The Fof\ll'r\ u.rgH-«,1ian~ on eccnomic incentives.
thata:re typio::atof a fret'markf'teconom ...... measures
thai give individuals t"COnomic tea5On5 to J'!duce
.ili pcDution.. By directly linking the SOIlK'e of pol
Iution with payment for tlle poDuticm. tile fOt"Um
approa.:h steers peof'l.! toward less-poDuting be
havior. while maint:.Jining freedom of choice
Rt>venue gPneTated by the 1nU5W1$ o.:t Fund
improve:ttent! (such as incTea5ed tnnsit and: car
pool 1a.N:S) in tM sam.e transp<Jrtatioto. corridors.
when! they are roneco.ed and mnedy any equity
probIem..
'The Forum recommends against extreme regut.
tory 1lteaSUn!S scrn as dnving I15trictions ilm!
capadty restrict:ions. Such ~ would ~
dange1' tN ~0tI'!I econtllny and.are e?Ccesslvely
bureaucntic ~ive, "rfaillD addrHS the bask
cause of the problem.
EKh propoNlisratecl onfivecrittria: (1) impact on
air quality, (2) tmpacton the ecnnomy, (3) impact
on mubility, (4) implementation or feasibility. and
(5) pollti<2I and public a=pt>bwty. RKom
mended tneaS'W'eS include.:
Primaty :Recommended Meuures: lnC1!ntives to
diTedIy reduce emiSslOn:s.
1. Smog fee.. Charge a. fee based on~ns level
oJ uch "2hide.
2. Enhanced .,ehide inspection .and maintenance
program. Reduao emissions by tougher stir.
datds. acui ~ts fOt OJ1I\pnana..
~nd.uy R«ODlDUmded Mu'Iwr.;:: mcentives
..... ruct-. ~\l>:e emi!&G!\5 ird1nctly through f@dl.lced
trips and \·ehklf"-mil~.
Higher-brid' gt' " ro!Id to!ls, esptriln.", during peak
hoon
2 HlgheI gasoline talC.
) Employer-b,ued financia:i mcentives, including
m'lF!.oyee tra ~l aDowances and p.uiting dw'ges.
4 Regional t\letwarl of high .. «ClJ~ vehkle
'larn!::!i.
Pofih"caJ ~«ptIllH1ity. We adIlowIedge that our
re:ommendations will be difficult to .accept potiti
cally. Butuis Iik.f'Iy that any alterna.tive proposals.
:if the.~' are 5oe1'iClu~ efforts to meet the' goals, will be
even more difficult politically. Tbe J"eC'e'Tlt earth
qualu-has ptthaps changed the t1u-6hold of politi
cal acceptability by openislg up nrw opportunities
1M! h,avoE'pre-.-wusly bKndi..smissed as impossible.
Eairneu camideraticnts fa \lor OW' recommend&
tioru.. because -unlikt' most ccmpetrng proposals
-they generate revE'nlJe!t toaddress potential equity
problems. The fundamental equity L5We" is ..... hether
the polluter ~hould pay. Our measures dosely lin):
payment tD ~h'e the problem ..... ith U1e ponuoon
saUro!. Many other mea.s.llr~ break t.~e link be
tweIm pollution s.outce and pa~t and they
pen.a.!i..ze thE: low-income driver indirectly through
higher ptia-s, taxt'S. iIInd lost economic opportu
ruty. Economic IDcentives.addn'SS other equity' is
.suts. such oI!; equal tre.ltment IOI' ~ employees,.
whilli!' ~tory D'\E'a.5'W"eS tend to plact! most of
the burden em only I small ~t of drivers,
based on the size of their emr~yer
Eml"O!Jer-p'lIlMli COWlmlitt pr~a~ a1l!' measures
w}.lch have potl!rttiaJ t.o Il'\.ixe a "-,iii) amtribution.
But they can work only if ~COlJlpaxtied bysubstanc
til.llmprc>vemt'1ll in the commute options employ
er.; aR' asked fQ promote.
-------.. ~ .. -
Produ~ &y rhe Bay AI'Cl Eamtmlic FOnJl1l
""1oy 199Q
mUAZS $1 j
---------ra.-c---g Ail Act reqv;nn reduc;,., rebict.
What"'.
Transportation
Control
Measures?
.,
HlisaiotlS 6y ~lhi"I, W. hie. trNJgIJ deci·
#ions. 1M natus quo ;$ nat.n Gpt;"tI.
To meet thestringe'1lt;lirquality Mane:! am:5 ad opted
under the 1988 C"lifomia Clean Ai!' Act, the Bay
AreaAtrQuanty M1nagemeru-District (8AA~
I\"u btoen giver. the authority .. nd tM mandate by
the Stoore to impose "transportation COTttrol zneas....
ares" ITCMs) on 1M Bay Area. The TCMs must
reduce tU.aI trips, vehicle ~ traveled. and traI
fie congestion. .and will become part of the Reo
gional Air Quality PLm. which.!fms to reduce VI'!
hkJe emi!.5\ons by 35", in 1997. The TCM plan .is
due}une 1990
Theseunbitious redlJctions mandated b)' law .... in
rtq'1lire ~inary. pe:rh.tps painful, changes..
Any dft'Cti\'e program wiD. b!o unpopular at first
until tho public and polky-nulw> begi., to view'
as the best among difficult chokes..
YIfhile WI'!' d(l no!: argue that the ecooomkor "m.u-
k.et~n approach rt>pre5ents thesole u.swerto
tfleprobierr., nor tNt i.I: willautoma ticaIly mett the
ambitious dGn air targets. we do conter.d that
sud! an approad! must be tJle key e1P.Ine:'1t of any
SlJcces.sluJ 5trategy.
How AI. Measu,es Evaluatea?
The Bay Area. Economic Forum offen. :ideas for
transportation control measun!S which .... ill mair ...
lain the region's ecOllomy.and quality of life.
Implementation of any ft'\Ut\lngful TCM program
will require legisl.iition at tM state lrvd. The fo..
rt.Ul"I int-ends to beactiVt! Ln advoca.<')' forenactn\erJ.
of such legislation..
"I'M-Forum c.:arnined ma.;or ~res under con
sideration. and focuses primaruy on ~eral that
employ economic .incentives and' U\ini.m.izt' polen
Iial &mage to the regionaJ economy.
Proposed lneiUUTes were evaluated by these Ii .. ""e
aitma-
Impact on air q~ty,
impact on the e:onomy,
impact on mobility.
• feuibility rll'npkmen.liIbility, and
pu~b,/political acceptability.
Measu~ are plilced it; three categories:
Primary: Direct1y and unequrvocal1y cause reduc
tion of vehicle mtisslons.
~J)o~ Likely to rt'duce total dnvirlg, thereby
indirectly reducing; emissions and also reducing
traffic congestion..
•
\
",'-------------
Ncm-RLccmmru'1i. Should' not be .adopted. be
C<liuse the..-SoIrn.fic-to othrr vatues to an extTeme
degr-... Ti! C05.!-indfecti"e, adntinistr.Hively in
fraslb.le, or f'\Iftl COUMl"I'prod uct:ivt'_
Are These Me.,ures Acceptable?
(h'B IOOdlfferenl mt'a$un!'S are nowunder("oru-icl
Nation. Mlny ~t radical departures Itom
tht-!tatus q'lJ0, But 1M !i14~ 'flO" is no hmgc om
opttof!. TM roNm-.s recommended ~ea51Jre5 are
tt'lO!'t"a rtractivt'wNmCOlT.pared to othera~
to arri\'~ at thl! u.me g04l. 1: Z!; ni!l:PSSilJ)' to com
pare aD altmlabve> and judgE' them by ~e same
standatd.5 oj political acceptability and effective
nbS. as 1M Forum has done.
The October 17 t'artJo.quake created an opfOrtunll)-
to char.ge the dl"finitjon of whit is acceptable, In
responsE' to the earthqwlt!. literally O\"erni.ght.
tTaruil ser.-iceswer-ecrealrd. rughlO.·ay!.a.ne:s pav~.
private par~glotsopened Iothepubtic.and msti
rutional ~non adtievrd Pi!1"$On.l.! trave] be
flaviorchanged to cope 'IOoith the~ency" Pre.
viouslyun!hinkabw ideas are nQwM!ngproposed
by mains~m political Iead~ and I:ilKen seri-
ouslv, So ...... deveT, is the tiall'wnen OOid soluhbru
h.a\l~ a c. ..... nre to b!o accepted.
The Forum"j m9SUres ill1!' mere effucti.Vf'. more
attept.a.b!e L'l. a frH"$CIdety, and fairer than major
a.llern.ative approoaches. AJthough 110 plan r:a.11
perlectly satisfy everyone'J. ddinitiOll of fairness.
included b. special d:iscu:.s:Roo em if"'iUity to argue
the greater fairness of CUt' proposal:5. compared to
both the status quo and to alternative proposills.
If tf,e pui.;;;;;: "nd policy"makers are fully infor.n~
about the re1Jtive merits of competing .alte-rnati ves,
they will "'entuaIly accept measure that ma~
initiany beresisted. Thepurpose of thls noport is to
bring bold' .idas into the public policy arena and
m.ab them serious contenden. in the debau>, ..
,
\ ,
--------------~C)~---------------~L----------
E.iuion:l .. lHtud chrgflS nw.rd til. dri.,.,.,
Primary
Recommended
Measures
.trIM tl ..... c.rs and "'"k" 1M owriM'S at
... rlirtiM clIn ,.y.
• $""'11 F.-Clwp 1m propornonaI to -' ..rude =is
.tWns.. tJs.e-t\'Vertues ,generated to pay !or improvms opticms todriving.lonrand tooflset: hardships
on low-inrome driver,
Fat O&mplr, ~ whicle emitting 12/parts per mil
Jioo1 (ppm) kydnxarlxms would be dwgod '"
extra 5150 to~, 11!:pprn a.t'I tttn Sloo. 10(
ppm .an extra 550, under S/ppm pays r.othin~
Charge either by ~ion levet onl~" or by emis
sicln level time miles driven sina last wpection.
It mileage' is I factor. mwtipry poilu tion rating
tiJnes Dtiies: e.g., OM C'e'nl/rniIe I: 10.,000 miles '"
'100 smog fee:. The calculatioo and billing can be
done routinely .as part of the regularly scheduled
~ in:specticm program Using the mlleage
factor is preferable, because i:I: gives I d"tn'ct,. un
equivocal tnt.!l\tivetodrive cleaner CiU"5 and drive
!es&.
Ail ......
• Pro~ strong Ulce-ntive fur vehicllll! m.llIufa,c.
turers to build 1'f\ud\ cleaner an, ti Cahfol'1lioill
provides one-tenth of Us. auto markt-t;
• Provides incentives for vehidl!' OwneT"5 to U2
.. ~ "'eludes Ie.!. often and p~ t.'w!m oYt
""'"' qukkly;
• Revenue can be used Ii;J improve tnnspart;
non options (:none transit" carp:cl4mes, ri:c.llnd
tD mitigatz. hardships em Iow-incotne-drivers..
s-. hes .. V .. ~ "',ti .. -AiI...-r: Substarlti.II 1mI!~ tlIolppt emissions
JeductO' IhIlMIiufly.
""-r; Nttliiibj, c:mltllllcaro:amy,M;QIntJll.u~
Ifom Ins d&mlil'l auud try air poGvDcIn.
~ Nad'llnQII
, $ 7 , Eny: in:s~~Qr'I m.chnisms .1te1d'J 111
pliCe. but IlHd Illlll"~
~TIty: A: cllpbbll, if II lDOb brtttr 'Chan a!tlml
trvts. Fairness ttl mlkiltg PO~~1"$ Pl"t, ISlolIg IS iU\l4! al
law-income drivtr i$ olIddreSHd
• Enhane.d V.hicle Inspection
Pos.s.fote enhancements ino:lude_
increased inspection fnoquency.
higher spending limit to brtrlg vehicles up to
rod"
tighten emission standards.
require more sophi$ticated ~tin8 te'qu.:pment
and in.o;.pector mining "nd enfofC1!:J'ne"nL
for example, rf"quire ,i.ru,.ual inspection (CUl"T'mt1}"
every twoyeanl. ralse.repair cost ceiling bS400 to
bringupto !litllnd.ard lcompar!d to currmt S50-J()(),
depending on "e~ IgE'l.
""'-IS
• ReduCt'S du-ed:ly what comes out of the bIllpipe_
• Greatest impact in ctmtrolllilg eM Tetatively few
.. dirt.iel~ vehicles. which do d"isproportiDNtely
greater dama~ to air qualitv_ One recent study
Ihowt'd that more-than halfa! vehicle arbon 1J1On
o"idE' is caused by lOr;;; of the v~dl!5.
Thto program ran be imp~ted m the short
term. bec.ause the ... ehid~ in.o;.pedlon $}"$temand in
frastructure are atrFady in plaCE' in California
(stricter fnspections are «lmmon in many other
states).
-Bea, ",imlryM".~~:5 Cilllll.lP t!a 'I!di-ecrtywm, mll1l·
mil cott ttl ttJt !J'tOerllllt:tJrlOm-,. cr lllll"'ltU c~mata. Tnt
only pote~11"1i111.M ect>TlOO11'c e".~ iJ I I1Id\l~ of
rItI~ purchlS'ng P'OWI'r CUSld hy II"IOllt'Y ~ITI 011 br"Hl~
in'.! vehlt:J.S\J~tDstJndlrd 0ve'bmc .• ~or.·b'5.d m ...
clI"TtMI$wollld ~s!1 mctM1ft$'tDwI,d clrrtNlll cIU'1e. c.lr~
I"d drrv~ IUs ove ... ~. nus would ,ISIl gill!! manufactur·
Irs.n Icorlllmic 11"$On m bu~d clell1er tJlfS to,-lttI! mal·
t~I .. c.1
•
•
•
• ~\ ,
------",~--------------~.-" ----------o~------C/MtJiIIf .. ...,. •• eat :c •• n"l r.t:i_.,,..·-. HIps __
~ lIH/'i,,.n.titHt.
---------------------------
Secondary
Recommended
Measures
• Tolls on Bridgeo .ncI HIgh_yo
0wPI-'" high<>' """ on bridges, """ IUgh' WlIys,aNI~_o{-..ItilhWll'"
is. di:m:t way to link thE coets of vthide-ausf'd poIlu_" Os """""' ~ .... poilu"" pay.
0,0;.'
fiis!w: bricIp _ "" poak houn. coapIod witII
..... ~-yeltid<(HOV) ...... , .......
trai.'"IS, part-.nd-ridt lots. u~ bridse toIll"!'Y'el1ue
ta PlY for theIe ~tion improvm'letlts..
"'" Odmplo. bridge ",n. mlght bo ..-., $3 foe
_"""J'inI' .... thu\tNeel'"'""'gonduring
""'"'"'& poak houn (5.10 LmJ. boa"", "'" " ...
most aibclt.l time-lor air poDution lronNHon... T1w
te'\'mll.fS U"t then used to pay for more transbay
bus -. BAItT _. pod....Hidt lots. and
transit tare:reductiOn
0,0;.2
NewtoDroads or loBs otI ~roads,p!Ilk-hour
pri«<L I/..".-ltigh-ys(",~~
of ~ highwa)'!1 became ron roads, • mud!
gna .... .,....mage 0{ -' dri""'s wuld bo of
r.ct.d thaD byonJy<:hargmg on bridp Inex"...
sive ~/".a1read:y anila.hle and in 1ZH'rz,.
~ofloati0n5tNtdoesawaywitfll:ollbooths.
A devn m d\e whM:iI!-l"I!gi:stets .al • poi1If in the
roadWly,anc! thr yehicJeowner ~ iI biD pe
ri<><IQIIy ID pay"" .... go afth. toll rood. ----..-aer: ~1It.1 .. ea notl'ihcl~,...~
~ ,.~ UIIIlD .tonomy. I'oIIibirI r.c CO'II
Dtnft~~~llpcwIwt.It..-'Ihr;
c:t.oo.. 1owI'"~ ~ s.n.m. N"IWIUIS fIN'
b!t:M ~ ~ IfNI 1I>.ddrea: ..... ill·
...-,: ~."tarncn r'ItionIl_rl~ . ..,1 1 Easy. c.r. M 110M &OOn. ~
aftItctv in plIc-. For IWW IIIfI fllCiiOu (0pD0n a _chi·
IIIisrm !QUIt toe :insDIId.
• • l i6 j. Acc..,tlW.. if illDDb bt1w 1fI&n ... rn.
Ii\ou ~ at INDftIL pol\utm: P'Y. For new mIs
fn p(ion 2)u..r. ~ M obfIIctiar.s to chlrging for .... -
1hing Nt hid ~ bHn fret..
• GaT ..........
A hi&Mr gu tax ',,"ould rMua' drivin& 'IO'D'WW~
but thr price inc::re.ue Inust be ligruficant to INib.
~ The rennues must bt' IUI!'d for im·
proved~""" optioN (HOV ..... , bw.s,
tRw, park-.and-ride. &..) and toof&etburdi!'7l:5 em
1ow·~~ri\le"$. ~ulI!5 should be returTIN
10 kaI areas whtn! they an-~ted .
The main ldvantage-is I:h.JI the gas tax is l long
aQ'oiUhed USIe1 fee forwhich dw coBectior. frItl"CN...
nism" already iII ~ The disAdYUltagt is that
the ~ a the sa:me fCIr aD driving and does rIOt
reSect the-dif&nntW burden "faced on tlw system
by d:rivi.n& 01\ rongested "5. DOtI<OTIge:sted ~ ....
GaT ....... -... ......,., ~Im. jf ~r1I""lriih InOVfh-
~ N.;igIbil cottrDIC"QfIOny. Could be ~ CIm
• inlividulillftll ~"I ,.. pvrc"'-ma pcMOII. if no I'f'Id
ctl t"aYI~ betui""nr. bile WQVld &11/11 motley. 'I UI~I~
IhifD" 'tD obr tfIWIlhDIIrH.
.......,. ProbItM inprIMmtlnL Wll iITIprcwtI cI)tioos
ItnuQh 1"IWtI'IUH tenenlr.d.
..", .. bId_ Easy ..... Cl\lnism anatfor ifI pI.tt.
I ,'T", Marllicbccb-r1hM1 ~ Ann
tlbished. ~ UMf fiM. PoIuter I»f1o I~'
~ in ~ 'ID poIutioI1 e.aUMd.
..
.. -~--.---
I
I
j
. ,;.'.
------------~-------,,'--------'
-
ClInWtrt ,netic. enCOIl,.,.5 mqIIoyeQ to
dliw .1"".. W, D"d differe"t inCflntivn,
SD IHftplofHS wifl try SlHfNthing differHt
• Financi.llncentIves For EmproyeeS
Instituleanempt..'yet'travel.aDowance, Employer
p\les I!1nployee iI ctImmute ailowar.ce. ",-hkh can
be spent as employee choo5es. This ilppr-ooch 81 yes
employees maximum chooce ilnd den «onomic
incentives to choose ~s po!h.: ting commute op
tions.
'For rxampk, the employer give employees ol S75
monthly tra .... el a[!OWi.lK'I!. tutdwrges S75 forpark+
ins. ",'hich had formerly been free. Employee can
dri .... e alone and park as usual ",·itil no nel loss or
~ or carpool with two others, split the parking
costs,and pockt-ts.=="{); or take transit and pocket the
differt'nC~ betwe.m transit tickeot and parking. and
rut car operation cos~
The City of West HoDvwCX>d recent1v instituted;ll
travti ahowance plan: provjding S4.5 monthly; oW
addihonallS'1.: ofits II!7TIployees stopped dri,in,g
.alone..
Tax law changes would make employee trdve1
OIDowances even more attnKti .... e. CWTe:ndy, en\+
ptoyer-pa;d travl!l allo ..... ances are treated as tall:·
OIbb! income, mucing their vaIW!' to tM employee
cormderably. yet,.empioyer·provided "&.I!~ pari.
ing ~ ol totaDy tall.~free benefit.. Thest! Lax POhdes
represent inamtives to d!"ive alonoe -precit.ely the
opposlte of what the Gear Air Art mcourages-
Another option is simply to start charging lot-ml+
p10yee parking with no trawl ar1owance. Chars
inS fc:;: employee parking would send ;II clear ecQ-
1\Om1c signal about the value of land used for
parking and thecostoi "free" parking to the trans-
portation 5)'stem.. U empk>yt"'!S were chargl!d to
park where it had formerly be.!n provided free, tM
money ,generated could be used oti oHsetting COIr.
pensarion tl:l emploYee5 or ~ subsidize options to
driving alont' (£O.I'I', "allpoo~, low-cost transit
tickets).
ThE" employe wocki Simply ~rt. c:h.ugirog for
spacein thPemployee parlti.ng lot. This has proven
effective in practire. For examplf>. two side-by-side
office low~ in Los Angeleshouseabout 1.700 em
ploye.!:!! each. The COlllpany inane bulldingsperuis
over $1 million in extl!rtSive emptoyee commute
programs, but gives free employee parking. The
other spends httle ona program. b\l t charges about
S60 monthly for pa!'king They h.a.vevirtuany iden
tical ridesharin,g rates i59'l-}.
Umitations-Affectsonly tht-end ofthe trip. butnot
necessarily the number 01 mill'S or hours driven,.
and it has no effl!td: on noIH:ommute c-aveL
c-"'-•••••• ~C ... _ .... Drhillg
TCQlTnps . -.
J"c
--
"
-Cammllbl tlips -AJI oth.r triP:f
""'" -''-
~..-..I~..,2n ,{1aU'rrip&. ..., ; ' ... ·,rcat,. ..... ....., ... c-. .. -."..,.
iMplopr laclMins --.... .....-rtr: CcluJoj till 1Tl1OC"1'I irT\~r(I1Irc!.. f:~ec:.a1Jv ItJf cn%i-
Ul m(lml~ ~ .. I::.
~ ~as:tnl't W,Orl! purctlu~g p~1 for Dttler
am:&. WON!' l,rI(! IIV'Ijl.ble ter YU'S Other ttlilrl j:,.rkiT1g
..... rty:"lmprCWe<l
lillfll 1 fDlt nt-~ndm; Or'< ;aye:T1mer.t n;:~ s, ~cuk1
be simp:e t)!' car!!~ln.
~TItf Gaa~ la doe$ nat c.t.lSe SigrnfiCint low·
..-mgof emplOye!' llenfftts ar amplorer CO$t5 t:I riu-grutt,o
Frudam of cl\con oIttrCld!Y!l!. h~1TIHJ; c1 m~k:il\; inc,.,....
Ir¥'n lYail.b~ ttl .. n.
•
.. ~ -
-'
--------<O.#r--
IIDV 1Ha,.,., Uti ", mil mO$l CoM-#lfflCti"
fInTS III Un:/'Uu bighws .. clIp,clfy.
• Hlgh-Occclpency-V.lllcl. Lane
Network
u... RI!'W ~ oSsting highway lane to cealt ~.
~ ~ vl!bide QiOV) or "car
pool-Ian<netwm. ~y d"""3pW'houn.
sodrivenwiIlw.e ride:sh4rins;optiom. No toIls for
HQV ... HOVt&r.es.uealready workmg wen m the.
liay An!o (to. .,..".p'-. th.liay 8ridge 'PI'""ch
and xveraI :stretz:hes of hrg."W>'Iy in s.nt.. Clara
.and. Marin ~J. Tht prob~ is tt-..at thn-e is
DOtyetu~vt..~~HOV ~network
in the npm. ~ only .. patcb .... "Orlr. of .. ftw miles
~ and there. Art. extensive Mtwork would pw
ride potft\l:ial U:Sen with much grster irIcf!rltiv£5
IJ\~ ____ ,
c-in hi8h""Y lane> .,.. d.,;gnaled fur ... by
carpoak, .."pocband bwoo only. Those tones are
amoiderabIy leo congeotal than th< ,... of the
hip-y.
For iDdivi4ualf;, edvanfages include:
...... of timoaved by -. HOV lan6. and
• D'IOIlItYsaV1l!d &om IowervelUde operatingcost:s. _ ... -....... ""--~ No ClJltlll ICMlomy. wry iMJttI'IMift ~Il;acity nn. .... C1IIItIPtretl adltrinfrHtrtld.u~ $noa matiitt' hlr
ftd"McMliIL
btaiRiag ,"Rid"1 Chaices
)
. ,
----.....:.-..
'-, _._-_._-----
Ad V&lIta,gf5 for th!' transportation sy!olem
• cheaper to cfesigNteor buad HOV!&nes than to
~ MW hlshways or nil lines., and:
• INn)' mort people-can mo"'e through exiSting
fiK'ihties. &rod 1.heftfore it: IS tnudo. tnore' I:05l-e'fitc·
ti;v~
A bus. tPes 'UF the "IM 1'CAd Io~ as-lhree cars,
but !l .I: is canyin; 3(l passengers. it t5 tefI times
D'\Of'I!' efflcim;. .ill '"people--moving" th.In are the
tI'lrft W'lst.-occupam c.m. it ~Iaces. If the bus
~ ridingonanHOV lanrnetwork.~e"
III 'bornaofw .... lnB ctmSider:ab1.e rommu~ tImt-, th;,ry
iIn" much more likdy to IZR' tfW, option. HOY lanes
are I by factor in improving the attractiveness of
pubIk transit and, 01 C'OW"Se. oupools .. net v.m
por~.I$ well Such I M'twod would contnru!C' to
ron~ R!dUC!iora and air quality.
A high-ocruP""')' .ehicI<!on< netwwk Ihrougb
out the-Bay Ana would ptovuh ~ major incentive
for travelers to .save-both time.and money. The
wmw the congestion. tMgrea~the-ldvantige rn
"""t; HOY w....
•• m~r Imprtoll'ld
Ie' .' bI)' W,chlniJmI; 11m'" irl pUce. W.ry
I"IIquirllllOJl HigtlwIr PwoI omcmtD.nfof-ce.
k , ? T j. ~ IC:t1IPbI_ ~rtd UllltII!mriYr;
-no crll".a Cgn llId minim,1 ~ on 11411"'10",1 tr .. !tont.
Fllmas:s dlNking beMfit lYBiI.tlittD d.
TN P'r8rr nd SeclNlury MUSllra rac_Dded .Iry ...... c: __ n.grKilm: thy lit, IIA indilidHr
cltIIIieb ¥rill ...... rbfJIlllce araten. TIle t.acti .. ~,.r1C 'lJ"Cin II_ A'tCbItt" nYlrolllMlll widli.a
willa ~",..n. 14 daIt .. iNMtIllaJ is~d towml dJcIicn"dial ponmluJt .. ruI life m.-cm-cf
lactiM .
....... Ikltralet'f islMlie1-orilnbd, icwm IIq.lllreporrtic:llr del::iliMlIO cre.te ·pricn· ill tillI" IMrftet Gel ... ___ ..... sat., • .,.... iaw\kk,ricn dl-lrpd .... t refl,cr"lInIt CHts ofproridingth Slf'IIiclS ""cr.
HCnUlY ~ ildiridaal dririDg .... vloc. This aIIS1 incl .. I.1 costJ ce.f"li1Nl .n" poDutilHl ilrfIIOSIt IMI eMIr ....
11Iese s.c ..... ry u.iIhnS 1111 n~l:Sdirect: ibcr'lnin, HIe .ir .. tile PrilNlryMlasares, MCause Ibe, IGlIII« c ..
III ...... pet .. " drrren. """",."lNr are fdllry lit"""'" HIe air br rtdLtC:i,... tIM ImICIIIIYI of drilling .~
toopStilML ,.,. SlCHdary Meu .. ,a.bo bit,... tIM r.6JOI Hlled bona et imprnilll1be c.rryi .. ca,Mrto, otlbe
~"""IIh .......
•
--~,------
"
-------C>----------.-~--------
BHis lilt c.k:II1d ...
'"icr..,......~
24 clt1t3lm~e
So.urr; ... u.s. fi.ove"ntmmtt.
!!f$::=r,Jllll.l9/J9.
r .... 01~· ....
SJllfh.aur. (A~.I alr.l.rea
salary average is S141h"Lff.
so Slrdi1tlYl' is cl)nWNl'tnlr.)
$o.urus: BlJrHU at
Ecanomie An.rIrIi:s. !I.s.
tJ.pt. Df t:omtrr.f~e: As:f~
af8.1" ..... ~
~ ..... ~ _ ... ,....-=
I,OOOMiu
Sourc.: AhtropoJi(411 T!~N
porar1oll CcrmmUitm.
WcftUp pu-ynr:
24D:5o cliyslweek mr ca
_I
--~>'.' ~ '" .--..~
How The Market-Based Subulb-to-Subu.b Commute.
Approach Wou,ld Affect
allY Arel Commuters
'What IoUoww are ~ oJ how OW' marbt·
baed: ~ would affect :hypothetical rom
IllUta'swith. .. vatietyof~. ~
tNt the prosraD1.mustCOttlplywUh the mand.teto
reduce ~ tmisIkms cme--third by 1m. Our
prog:n.m is mild COlJ'Ipared to the-ntreme ~
tionJ needed under-• ~tory progtlIm :Joe'V«!ft
enougfl to cui drivirlg by ene-third.
~ Isa rosI~t.aC'C.'OlJI!.ting 01 thre-edifll!J"l!J\t
semarios. Not included in the moM'tMy oKC:JUIll·
fng In So.')!M diffkulI to quantify non-mortetary
benefHs tblc may be of evm greatn' varue: Less
commute 5tra5. grs~ prOOLlct:ivity. !nOf'e per~ ...w Ome lOr lomiJy and """" pumlil>. __
air, better-health.. Thete benefits are iI vaiJabtr to the
commute:n in aD the following: c.unptes, if thty
choaIoe .. non-dri\le-Wne option much of the time.. .... -.........
~ .... or up lID 1!tJfo~. tHud CI'1 rattidlf
......" .... tiNs mills driYtn.
8ridtt IDIIdD!lur{ng ~ PHI:-to.our rs.1D '.111.1. w
ImIsitlnd cllpoo/s do not pay roPJ cIurint petll~. IS
,~,
WHblIY~ Pt.k·!tourtDII affivt ur'FtSlrna.ciI.r~
0't1ht1'l'lOSl~ IlIOmilSafhilllMaVl'1tMlWtiof!;
't8Iic:1n clwlrpdthraltgh ~c idltlTlfficttioomtM
Ind own..-biI.a ptriDI5Clly.
o.s.,n.t. OI'IIIitaftafhigh-occl/1IoInr:y-.. hicle IHD\I}I .....
an~ ponioMOfB.,. An_ IT"",""" wi'dl1I.I~
ftg "",--Md~.t ItfItrInCl:l; I-.:l tD/I far ~ ill _ ......
~ trrtIi ~ insfucI tf IT'I, PI~
Un fu* fIM~ .by tDrIl III inC,..." trJ"sit rr.qu.n..
tin IIrId ~u(e hlrn in the Nlm. torriOG'"5 """-re 1M mil
is; tabetic!..
"r.tor.. 1'hI:JIsIJlUU»ilrJf,~~af""l.w<D.lr.tm
._~aIflrcoForum·'''''''''''(JT~~
Uvermore tD Sunnyvale
EmplD,Yftaurenlly IpmdJOM-houran4 lamin
ain clririn&: the 42·miliI' trip hell wp)t. and has
frft pulcing at work.
TrtmtI Allaw.zI1Ct. Under our program, the em
ployee.is gi\'en ~ SlS/month tra,,~ allowance in
stead of free parking. !:Jut ischargedS7S/month for
• parking plaa. hl5tead of drivtrlg alone, th~
employee can arpooi with two ro-worlers. split
cost of. parking ptac-e-with oth.t7 Itmployecs and
pod:et 2/3 cftM !:Ta\"el anowance, or SSO/month..
SSO/DlOnth x 12 months = $6OO/year
Vdtidt Oprr-atmg GIsts: A:5 a result of c:;;upooling..
annUA! commute drivin& reduced by 13,440 miles
a/3 II: 84 mile. II: 24{) days -Ii: 13,440). AI 24 cents/
mile, t:Msavingis $3.226 C24ct!1'lts II: 13,440: $3,.22:6).
TtmeSavirrg: As II result oJus-ing HOV f.anes,saYes
15 minutes ud! way,30 mmutt5 I!3<:h day, 0:120
lIours/yur. Valuing the person"' tim~ ~t $10/
hoUl', the DlO.1-I!tuy nlue DE time saved is 51...200.
Srrwg Fte: A.sswru! maployet" pays • mid·r.llrtg'@'
"'smog ftt-of .me-cent/mil~ em ve-hic~ r:ruIeage of
14.720 miles (6 .... ""20 commute miles plus 8))X) non
commuterniles). One emt x: 14,720 miles = 5147.
rolls: P~ys a toll on tlu.-reg:iOll'S ton roads occas:iun·
any,even thPllgncommuteisnon-toU a5a ~It of
carpooling. A..'\S\lme''' mU;ceD.a:neous 1..000 miles
on toO roads: five cent:s; x 1))00 miles = $50.
btnC_
• ]47 Smog fPe
L.2Q Road ton
$]91 ToW Costs
Extn Benefits
$ 600 Empl~yee travel aDoW3l1C!'
S3.2L6 Red UM vehicle costs
UW Valu~oftimesaYed
55.-02'6 T otll Benefits
.,#"
-'
•
. .
• ~':-____ i1 _____ ~ ..
-------0).-----c-, _______ _
Suburb-to·City Commuter Clty-to-Clty Commut ...
._-------._----------
0eIcIMd to San !'no_
~..".".,. ..... 1IAJtr ............... Sa _3D __ >ny. $!.5C WI,
........ Irip fan. No ..... \oy«-poid ~
Tnmd ~ ka:ives. $1.5/month anployee
............... allowana. _Isal! profit to tho
""J>Iaye<. wbohad ""~ -. ~
viously. S15/month:li 12 months.. S9OO/year.
T,..u Stt:uint': BART fare art redu.c:ed l~i as ..
.aWl 01 new ........... _to<! by !tip Bay
Bridge tolls. TMteNlt: is .. sa ringolS.J5/ II. yx 2-'0 aa,... $84/yeu.
T .... s.m..g, Also /rom bridp tons. IRin _
~ saYing five D'IiDut:eI MdI way. 10 min·
utes/day:ll: 240 days ~ 40 boun/yar .. 01' $400.
SfIOIlIJ Fee .Ase\maco rn1d-f'Ul&~ smog 1ft rate, ODI!
tml/mik. 8)n) non-commutI! IniJe!l/year:ll: on!'
""" • J8O.
T«ls: None,5ince tnm;it is: sc:ili!o romrnut1: mode.
I'<uj«td c-6< ~
Emo"-b
S 80 SalogFoe
Emo_
S 900 EmpIoyor ""va.now.r.c.
S 1M BART .... rodU<tioa
1.Jl!2 V ..... of""" savod
Sl.l84 TOIal-..
NET BENEFIT, 51,304
San Aafael to Sen Francisco
Emplorft CUIftftIIyilpmCh 50 mhtuta driYtnt: &10M udI _.,. OlIo 2S-tD.Dt"
"'PdarinsPUk-Employ ....... po,..Sl ............. <mpIoyoopck
lft8 ill CIf6r:..o ~. prar.. 'but lb. will chanp IIJId.u OW' J"l'OIRDL
JHno aft tM ft'IlIDlIomI C'O'mpIrlns driv....tcme q. ridnMrin& dloica.
Dptioa1-Drift AIoae
Trn>tl MOWII'lCr. f(<<"riVe5 S7S1
mont!! transportaticm &DoWJ.nC'! in
lieu 01 rmptoy...po;d paning. but
derives 1\0 net beillt6.t. bK:a~ i:I goes
towud paying the-garage-'s $100
monthly Plrkins fee.. to pe)'! Addi
tionaIS2S......nlyoutafpoa.t. 1025/
tnontll :II: 12 moniha ~ S3OO.
Vl!hjcJr Opmdiptl COsts ~ruf Tilnt' s..m" N. chango.
Smcy Frr. Asswrw mid-nnge smog
fee ~ of one amJatile and 2IJ.{XX)
milll!5/yar on the tlehicJe (12,(0)
cotnmut2zniies,8,DIXJnDtH'OmJnUte}.
~ cent. 2O.OOJ eWes :r. SlOO.
Toll:s: PIIysthennvS3bridgeton.SI
exI:nI perday x2tOdaYi ... $240. Pays
fh"1l! ern!! (mile-road to!l on the most
congested lie!! D'liIes of the trip: 50
~ts/dalI12todays.. $120,.
&tEa eo.a. IcIriYe: alonel
S)OJ Parlang!..
S 200 Smog r..
S 2<0 ~bridge"'D
Lll2 Roo<! toll
f 860 T 0Ial ea.ts
Emo_
Non<
D,PCioG 2 -Rid .... ri ... (8w; Tnnsit)
Trrmd J\.'1cra:ma-; Podr.ets ~
betweenmemp\oyft """""""'_
.t\ow;tnttar.d monthly bustare-oIS60:
SIS/month II 12. months '"' SI80/year.
V.mcr. """''''': Come Redu<Y ~
eration by 12,.(100 miles/yearast1!5U..ll
of not using veNde for a:munuU!. 24
cm~ .. 12..000 znD.ts • S2.880/yur-.
Tim< _go Using HO\I tan.. and
:trypu.dna: to~ "YeS tim min
utes each ~. 20 mlnutts/ cay. or 80
haun/ yur J: $1 O/hour • MOO.
Smog F~ Assume 8,lD} non-mm-
mu~ IrIile. One cent JC 8.000 mi11!§ =
$80.
Tolk """"'" ~ 1.000
loG l"Cad mile. nve CJmt$ JC t,.coo
miIe·55O.
EnnCo.u
S 80 S>wgr..
L..;Q J<ood IDlb
S 130 TotIl Costs
Emo_
t 180 Emptoyff travel &DoWimCl!
$2.880 lWuad velUcIe ~
l.....MlQ VaIue of time Solved
$3.860 Total Benefits
lI.TI BENEFIT, $3.130
_ ....
-------------~~---------,,",\ -------'-'
Slit. extrfllne tfIHSIIIW .. miG"iltg ,n
_nil nbiel. ~, .,..1so Hhr, tt1n~
.id.red.
N ;;,o:,,:.-------CDrivin;· ri·;g~RR;.;otI;"';otIO;·;;;;no;·--------,"";:nh:;::-;m~.~"";;;;-..,;:;-~"";;tn<M~. . g perwnal freedom. But
it prob.lbly will.not Inslead, i1 comp~ patchwork Recomm ended Reg;u4lti0n5 to ration road space. vdUclr o .... :ner· or compromises. m terpretations. and nmtptiOI'\i.
Measures ship.orvehkleuw&reLtnd.ercoruidnation. It-Ir..dY would grow up around the program. Ifoadini to
be done through direct ratloolng: vehkJ~ .... ,th much disa~t. finger-pointing. and litip
odd-numben<d lk:etue plate an be drive'lonly otl tion. The complexity and t:he acrimcny may even
ocid-!!umbered datE'S, even-numben>d plates C.alI be-~ enousb to give the quest for de:ir, air a
drive 011 even-numbert'd daU5,; Ql each driver biiid name.
would be anowed only ~ gallons ofgas p!!'r"wt"ek.:
or CI!I'tilin areas rna)' be declared off-limits to Ciilni. PubUc ~!1ce of any sud! restrictive scheme
wauld be ,"l>.tremety d'i1fkult 10 achieve.
~ta ... Such mechani.smsan likdy to be hJghlydetrimen
Ccost-oI-lh'ing ~ up, attractiveneu.oftivingolM tal to the K'OnIlmV, BlL~tn.?sses wO\l.ld have dUfi
doing busimoss in the region goe down; the poor culty dealirlg with emploYft mobi!ity <In<! '!:iKlvt'-
are hurtdisproportionately by both. No revenues mft1f of goods ilI1d servjcl'S.. Deabn,g with the bu
are created to improve options to drivins. but naucracyforenforcementandmontton..'1gislikeiy
conside:rabl!' resowce:s are spe%lt on maintaining to be ~ve_ The region·s economy would
the burgeoning regulatory 5tr;,u:tu~. become less ilttractive to rxisting M new busi·
Air po:u60n might be reduced. but only if the ~
politkal synem is willing to ruthlessly I!1'Iforce
om;",,-Ait~ M"l!trtwori,.ifriGorovwylflfor:.t b~lIr~~tlly
UNfIfotc'Ib/t.
~ Olrn&ging.
Mit _ Public Tnosil?
...... liIy: SubstarTf1;f1 tlrt~'iorl!lron
\ " lib .. : lie", u:~n$~
....... ...... e.,. HIIilh!y W1acc!l'tlIbrt. ~n ;.uurods cf !"II·
dGm .• tflJ"V.1I4 UC"tssN,e bU'efU~rleji
It ts saml'fimes argued that Ith .. money merwise-'116m an ro.d"s were SPIn!. an transiT: inmad, '!ht:l good transit
optiansWOu),j exist .nd Jlea;;1e would OCJ ionglrl'HliKI to dnve Thlt ma'l' be-true in milt long-run, blit only .lter the
transit OJftiOru Ire in piICI. Ill!' riM! IlCtI!n~ns carl tIIk,. dec .d. GrtnQ •• ; IMtn ptaviding rIlW bus servit:cl! is after
fa rfrom instantllnltQU$. lind UiII pmems'!lm:provide densilliitl t1ig" I!lClugh tDSullllOn rransit.tt a reasona ble cost
IMll taU m.rTy years tD ch .. nge. j 111...,. IIlJjpt" 11 .Il
Even wilen frltquerttand ... spans~ tra~ servica is ''1.ibJblt, tnnSft Stin mtJst cc;mp~ with the private .lIttImo
bile in tvml!i cf factors that ara leu r.ngibJa bvt SIlll important comfort. priva ey. sec L.1I"Tty. etI:.
Transit can and s!lould be improved. Butit(:;lnl'lat bevi.-we-d I$theant,o al\$Mrfarrveryonl!. Norwiltimprovements
be imm!!dlata;tr.n.sits.eNiC:Is will imprvve graduI!lyovertImt tn ttl. m .. ntime.ulcng IS populatio.n Ind eCOf1omic
growtll conti~l!'. somllt Idgmanal ro.d capacity WIll probably be ""ded.
•
, -------Il-I-Od-~j2,.IISIlS in rolld ClI,lIdrr lIn.cb
tIN symptDms, not 1M taw. "t """$!J0rr.·
Ii •• ptOIJl._
Capoclty Restrictions
A less dlJ'ect way to attempt to n!SuIate driving is
to restrict capacity improwmftlt!., I!SpI!'CiaDy by
ceasing construction of road improvemmts. The
theory .is that the lad of capadty will cau:oe i=udi
KUI~ trUfu:: rongetion that many people will
berolJ\t' frustrated ~ t.-.ey will jus! stop driving;
ThtcoroI1uytou.e theory is thattrafflc congestion
is a.ctua.Ily a positive social value.
The-mainOaws in the theory are: (ll it ignores the
I'Njor ccntributiotl of congestion itself to the air
ponution. prob~ (2) hunoeffecton theundt"rly
ing demand for capacity; (3) a",umt'S that ~ other"
considerations. such as cast. time, C'Olwt!!tiena,
freec!am at cho~ and mobility, ha .... e any value;
(4) provides no opt:i~ns Jor tM dri ..... '!!'
'The-amount of time ~t with 01: vehlde engine
running is & major factor CMtributing to ~
!ions. The more-time a vehk:le Isstuddn traJfic" the
greater-the emissions. Therefore, trafficconge!ition
is coufttoerproductive to c..1ean air.
The mainargwnent against I!)(panding capacity Es
thatitis '"g:rmvth-i..-.dw:ing." and therefOf't the b$
way to han: growth is to halt road improvetl'1fT.t!.
This view ronfu3e causes and effects.. 'The de
mand forM"N road capacity is aused by a series of
fundamental f:acton: population growth, vehicles,
li.censed drivers, pbhoIders, two-eamer ~es,
dKposJb6eincome.landUSf'patmns,housing~,
IThestyI.e pibS bU, etc. Wllhout addresinS th.!
und.erfyins f"acton;. restriction of road capacity does
"'" oolvo the J"OOlem.
Clearly, Sovemment land use d~ions are a
domInant factor in setti."'\zr; the volume 2nd pattern
of tr.msportati¢rl demand. lfpr{'venting: growth is
the desired POllC)' objective, the logical way il:l do if
Air~ Unp~rI ",alu, Millm mIIke ~ingl wtlrR
&-r Worsarl busif,ess c~ml Ie.
IIIiIIIIIr Dlfinitaty""gatJve Ie. gtledslTlOYtlment,.pret:.
bIy~ for peepfe lftOI/ernem unless musr.t. simur·
tIfllOtlS improvemlm: in eptJ~
IIILpIseae:: •• ' Euy Just ~ ~ Ing.
~iIy WIll becemt incrusingfy un;tCcep· ... able
cwtr tmIr:!, U MllaDvt caru,l:j.I.!.nu<s !Jt.com. clul
I,
istochange the dect=;wl'\:!! and the dedsion+making
process that cause it-ie., don't make land USE' df'
dsions permitting more people, jobs, or comIne
rial .activity.
Tlw dehbmltr strangulation of ttansportation ar+
Ie:!ies is not only illogkal, it can bt> countetproduc
tivt'. The Bay Area has ~enced, in effect,. a
virtual moratorium In .adding highway capacity
Oess thzn 1" growth peryear-) founoS:: of the past
two decades. Ye'tjDbanc:l population growth hd-.re
continued un.ahilted in the region, excepl that
growt1l colltrols (t!:!opea..Dy on housing and tAns-
portation capacity) hcrve pushed grov.'1h out 10 the
peripher1ei. of thP rrog;on. Thee is much evidence
10 suggest th.tt the results ol such policin illdude
longer commutes. bigger traffic jams, ""'on.e aU"
quality, and the !ass (If open !Opace.
Capadty restrictions do not in themseh'lc"S create
travel options, nor do the)" create revenues tv pay
fur those aptions. Orivef'S mig;', seek. attll!'rNtives
10 congested roads, but only if .attracti .. 'e ('ptiON.
are available immediately. Until thosealteTrulhves
all'" m place. trying to(:ompe1 drivers tostay offtne
road as a result of deliberate resbiction of capaci t.",
is doomed to hOuT'll!
•
•
----------~O~-------------:L-----------
Employer"
Bned
Commute
Programs
~ ___ ..... lfI. bot o.1r iI
..,.".. ,,. m.de to UJIIXIt1. cOllllltflle
.~
~-bued rommutrpt'Ogt4mSconstitute tfle
h9rt of the tn.nsportaticm control measwe plan
TI!'(ftlttyadopted by Los Angeles. Such a mandate
i5 under s.eriou! considention by Bay Area agen
cie5. and .. ~ of locaI Bay kea jurodktions
haVe!.aIrncly iitdopted 5Uchordinances. The Forum
doesnot designAte thisas "~ed" or'"'acm"
~ed," but virw5 thee P''''F4Iru as po
teto.tially po$ltiV1! -dependIng on how they an'.ad
~.
Such progtamI generaD.yrequ.irremploycs to: (l}
dt'\lelop .. program eo change employee d."iving
holn!., and (2) report periodiaI1y on J"08"'" to
ward .. nwneri.algoal ~ ~&$. per
centage using difh!nmt travel modes or &lI avel'
.age-~ ratio.
Ilw public agency must approw the employer'!
plan. II it is deemed ~equatl!' at" is not makin8
!latis£adory progress toward the numerical goal.
th@agency CiUI ~ the pIan and -require impJem..
entatiO%'! of mOTe rigorous 'lr.1!a.SUf'@S. In practice.,
this usually IrIe.uu; i:hl!' employer mU5t.spend InOfI!'
moneyor ~pre:s.suNon~"e!!:Itl'Idwmge
C'ODmIute behaviot". The-~ fOl tmpioy
et'SCiUI be severe; in Lo5 A.ngU!srl!'!ftpiO)'E'J'!icm be
.fined 52S1XYJ per day .for noo-comp1imce..
It has not been proven tI'LiIt sud! ~ Ci11UIIe
widespread and susWneddwtge in travel behav
ior. Even the most eotrunitted II!'mployer finds it
ha.d '" d>ang< the "mod< shano" Iry ..... than •
few perc:enI. lNX'07'I:flng to .. 1989 repnt to the
~!etropoIitan Tr.uwponation CommissiorI. To our
knowledge. then!: an!' no c:ases whatson'e-of .any
geographkal.uea in which .anything cJoMo to the
1Wl goal of a 35'10 redUCbon in total vehlcle--miJe
or trips has been khieved,
~ ...... -"~~~~.c~nied
try IUjDr infraIrruc1ultl m~ Mel prAlle poky
cf'ungu ...... of ttnpIOym;' COITln:Il.
~ tcua bt~~upon!law" -'JIIMiiq; .... rginlf ftI)IfO\"HIeftt.
Ie' High pcIIIntIaI tar bUl"ulJcraq.
~ ~sO\'lhowllutu\lCmc._'''''C+
tiott, howll'llK'h mWI.Irl ..... ~ ICClptId b'(lP'Ibic -.
EmpIoye.-s an do iOmrlhing. b",t theycannotdoit
alone 'ftoe mtplc>ye:r-be5ed stra~ an hr>pe to
ha .... e' • .at b5t. only marginal reults. W\les.s it is
IkCOmpanied simultl.neowJy by t'naS5i\"e' improve
ments in the options to driVing alON!'. B~ most 01
t.'!ose improvements art' ~t:S<lk rM J'lfD.J" of tk
tmpluyer !D amtrol. IndH'd, they.an the' re5ponsibil
ityo1 t.'1epubI.icSoedor. They include S1JbstantiaJ in
fuJ.structurr inYe$tmmt!.; rail tines. bus service,.
HOV 1anes, parll:-and-ride-Iot:s. They also indud@'
chanSe5 in law, :5uchas tax e.:.~ption C>fempll)~
expm.se; 011 these programs and on em.jXoyee trave1
a~es. different JocaI parldng ras~ts,
and transit agency COOl"Wnation.
.-~""£ooo ......
WhIII WOIlId IVIri:; Sdllilg b'arulit tid:ets al the
worhi~, if there is con ve:nlent transit ~ce-.il:voUl-
.able; ~tft\siv~ ridemdchrng progratTl!I for car
pools, if carpoohng is a significant time-saver due
to HOVlar.es; flnliJruo work schedules, ifoff-peak
trarWt improves. Se-.-eral of the forum's Secon
daly Recouunended Ml!MU1'e:5-theempIoyertravel
.a~'a!\C!' and parkinB chal'8e5 -would 61 espe
ciaDy wen .as components of an emplop.r-biuied
strategy. if federal and state incomt" tall: taw are
chang:N to support lhetrL
'*-
T'he-planning. reporting..mJ promotional process
can become a costly undert:akirlg for ~ployeB.
When the highly ambitious targets of.a few yeaJ'$
hence are:not met (as is likely). anployers wiD be
squeeud harder to do more.. The c:omequ~
could be substantial effort m exchange: fur rela
tively tneaS'!! results, olCCc>mparW!d by increasing
ill will betwffn etnployers atld empIoye-e and be
tweerI ~ and govErnment If tr..e am and
red-tape become too burdmsome, this will be an.
other discouragmg factor for business to remain.
~ or locate frI the ~011.
Comm.ut1ng~ts only a reliltiveJysman me
ticm of total trips -26 .. of weekday trips;llnd 20"
of tDtal trips. ThLL~. ~n the most suctessful
employer-based ~ would le.ave the vast
majority of reog:ional travel comp!.ete-ly untouched.
,
'~<, .. ;':,~~-.
i
t
(
i.
~
•
\
-------IOJ--------,-·
hil'l»6S tlict.les 111M ~onllt.tS shouJ;1
---------
The Fairness
Issue
".,. wIIicJ is w6.t rhfllMrk.,·b5"d
.""..,.cA_
F.wnas ia an imporbintconsirl:erati01'l whm tI1.lI.1..
ing publk polioc)' '!hetY.ilrr 5e"enl [mportant dl
me!tlians offairntoss r.tised bf tM D'WIrUt appt'Oilch
!:hat cieserw sp«ial atte-ntion.
Should the ponuter Poy1
The lundamentill fairness issue 15 "who should
pay?"' If ~:IOUrCt' of poUution to be controlled is
the motor Vl"Jtide, t:Mr. tM \It'rucle.llnd its driver
are ~ ponut'!n.. Our f'eI..-pmmenc:btions dearly
link the SOIll'ttwith the cost Foe statioNzy poDu
tUm. the 5OI.1J'tt (such as • factory w1th a SJnOle.
stad:J pays for tU cleanup <If it:!i own pollution,
and it cannot wist the costs on Us tlon-polhrting
neighbors. ~,mobile poDuticm source
should .,.y thN OWl! W4I y.
Paymen.tcal1 tab nwIy Ionns. 'T'hE'most.pparmt
is paying cash cfuectly ou~ of one's pocht: for I ~
cific product or:5e:r'Vic:e.. But payment can .. !so be
exacted indire:tly through hlglI" Wtes 10 support
• "'XUIa""Y """"""'" lUg"'" 00>b olg""'" "'"
services, Of incon,,·~.nd 1Oo"aSt:ed time.
A 1990 J:ePOrt by CallIomiaru ~ 8riter Transpor
tation shows that trafr~ ..:ong~tion no .... ' costs tlIe
averaS" Ca1ifom1a driver .about 51200 ~ yur,
just m wasted gasoIlM and tM ,'alue of wasted
time. The awrage cost .is opectt"d 10 double or
trip!< by the you 200Q
The problem with D'IO:St indirect farms of payment
~ t.'lat there is IittJe .apparent cnnnection between
the poIl_ "'" /he paymen~ "'" ~ ,ttl<
lncmtiVt to redw::e one'l ow:! individual pollu
tion. Rmance on I:ndin!ct costs mea1\S, ill ~
that 5OIneCI1Il' ottwr-than the f"JDuter-pays..
An proposals wh.idl break the link between who
poDutH and who pays should be subjectf'd to a
high burdefl ofproof toprove-they are more -fife""
in L"J .sense than our ~ded measures.
What About u,w-Income Drivon~
One posst"ble COncerti. about some m.ubt:~
measw"I!S ts that they Me too cost1y 10 tM Iow
income driver. We too at1!' cuncerned, and ourpl.ul
Ns mnecn.. 1m this.
The first crucial difference between OW' 1'K'Om
mended measu:res and most regulatol')' scl'lemesis
thit our me..sures generate revenues to remed'l eq
uity problems, while others do not. for n.a~ple,
the n!'Venues raised by • 5m0£; fee an be used to
off:!etthe C05b;of1ow-~driventhrough a Qll
cnedlf 01 direc:t fina.nc:ia1 assistana! to bring their
nhic~ up to code.
How. WD4.Iflll Work
A pet'5OlI "'i.th All income below Klme defined
amount, who needs to con-.mutr by car, could bt
gi'llell a voucher-for $200, payabte to the lepdir
shop. which redeems its. lI.i1ue from thr gO~'l"rtI
~nt. o. the low-income dri\'1I!T could receive a tu
credle
Rewnues ral5oe-d through. bridge ton CMld ~
USl'd to pay fur «!):poU1ded bus setvicr or lower bus
fares over the bridgeo! for park-Mld-ride lots near
the entrances. TheN' an many possible variations
em the theme. The point is tMllnO:'te)' paid by the
ponuter becomesavaiIabll! both for transportation
optioru. oUld w offset kaTdsrupson tM low-income
driver
Theseamd c:ruda! diHerence is that mH5UJ"e!5 which
reI)' on regula tion. while superliciaDy treating e\'
l!J"Vone alike. often ha'll!' a much worse but hidden
effect on the Iow-.inco~edrivet. If regulations add'
generafi)' to tnil!' cost of !i"ing, they esped.i'llly hurt
those wllh ww-in.come. Thf f'OO!" still pay the bill.
probably iI mu.:h hignll!'r one averan. bu~ only
pmnies at a fune., conceated in hlgher pric~. If
ta~are r.IIised to pay for-transit or other means til
rrduce air poilution, 1!Vt'f')'0I'"M.' pays. includmg those
who dOll'1 evenoWl'l a vehicle. The relative Tt'Spon
sLbwty fot" creating the poDu.tion problem:is rotany
disconn«ted from paying to sofve it.
Any dl!terioraool'1 in the overaD regionaJ buslnMs
climate can have a disproportiONlte efftoct: or. the
low-income person. ~ dis.appur and leave the
regien. Recenl Say Area experience demoru.trates
that it tends 10 be the Tower-income job§.. not the
E'l:.ecutive Jobs. thatleave this high-cMt region and
end IIp U, SacraDlI!l1Io, Texas. 01" Tai .... lln. E\len
\oI.ithin tberegion, tMd~persion of pbs wthemore
di.mn t-ruburbs, in pari due totnnsportation prob
lems, reduces oppo;turuti~ for ,genera"y poo~
cer.traJ dry residents..
In ~ gWseof protectiIlg Iow-fncome d'rjveTSIrom
a ponun.on-reT.:! ted fee., the proponl'Tlts or a regula
toryapproad! may punish them wilh .. higheT cost
of·t:ivin,g and perllilps take away their JObs alto
go<he.-.
"
-,
------
"
~----~--~-\
--------_.-...\----------'}---_ .. _---v .....;. ..
What Abollt the High_nl. Dri.er?
The-wealthy own mc:me vehicles and dri\l~ .croore
miles than the poor. Market-based zneiSUJ"eS rely
ing on fees on YI!!hicle!s,. gas. at tons mean the
wealthy wiD pay D'Klre tha..."t the poor-.OO cmainly
pay mud! more than they pay oow.
Currently. tIM: owner of two BMW" whose famiIy
drives 40.,(10(1 miles-per year pays .II muimum of
between.sso and S300 per ve-hide every two yean.
1:0 clean up the .air <maximum tf'qUired ftpmd":I
turF undl!T the new smog inspecfun p;ognm.).
TMoWrtel'ofa Ford wbo5e fam.iJy drivesonIy 8.(100
miles per year abo pays sse ttl S3OO. ThU5, ~
BMW familv ,joes five tiJ:nes 01$ m"Kh dama~ tl)iltt
quality and mobility as the Foro fiunily Yet the
heaithof all is mdangered equany by ilir poDution.
and an are inconvenienced by congestion..
Ow-proposal makes th~who drive the mostpay
the most lei mitigate the damilge dont' by their
driving. especiafiy on the ~ C'Mge:st.ed f.acilities
82 peak-hours. Under present d.rrumstances. tIwy
do not pay for the d.un.agt' caused to ether air
quality or to mobility.
Which Driving Is AffOC10d7
MI!itSUl'es which affect only commuti:lg but isnDf1!'
the vast tNljority oftravel ..... hlc:.." is non-commutt",
raise .. 5eYe"e.fairness issue as well as an effective-
ness issue. Most of our Tl!CQmmen<ied market-
n. ........ _ ... __ _
.............
""----., ....
N' ..... '''''
hued me.J5Um; reduce ponUtion. regardless of the
pwposeo1tfwdriving. ~toryD'1t'.a:S\ueaimed
only at wor-.mg people-pLK"t' .. dlSprot"'Jrlionate
buidm on this group.
Dtffe:l"\"nt b"eatment of different unploym and
ernploye1!S 'raise.another bask talmess 1sSUII!'. :Em
ployer-based m.andat~ naturany concentrate on
larpr empfuyen,a.sthe logica!W<lIyto deploy 80ll
ernmmfsreguIalDrjeiforts. Bul it meam.thate:n
ptoyee who happen to work for largerrornparues
(only abou.thalflhe latah are iOUbjected toderrwu:ls
for d!.ange, whik ot:hen who work for str.aDer em
ployers. are :seU-employed,or do not have towork
escape With no burd"?r\.
b can ~ argued that work-t:r:ips are among th.! least
discretionary trips taken.. Most people hat/e" 1.0
work for. lh.ing, On the other hand. much :non
COIr'.lr.ute drl"lng is somrwhat alSC1'e'bOJWy and
OUI be modifi..-"d if there is an economic incenI:f1'e" to
do so: e.g .. Lnstead of taking three wpaciI.tE-tri~ to
tWee diffl!n!Ilt shopping ~ters, shopptr.g tnlght
be better planned and combined mto one trip.
Once again. ourmarket-ba~ measures, Nsed on
ih.'1uaI m-.l.'"'5ions or-actual dnvmg. ter"Id to reduce
the rnequitie!i ar.'IOfIg peoplein diffe:re\tworksitu
.ooMaMp~eana~~~~onoo~
work and I'IOll-wora travel
s..n.. 1_ c-...::
w.w....."r,_ '-
, __________ ~C)~.~------.----~r.~----------
The Marlcet
Choice
The marIcet-oriented approach -smog fees, toIls, L'aJl>portationaDowances, HOY lane
networb. etc. -uses clear pria signals to motivate individuals to reduce air poDuting
and~behavior.ltpreservesfreedomolchoiceto.muchgtuterdegree
than noguIatory methods, and mshs the driver /ponuter pay in relationship to the
burden p1aced on the system.
Relatively little bureaucracy is needed to maintain the nwket-based system. because
posi!i~changes are the consequence 0( millions 01 choices made by indlviduals every
day. When individuals !Mke • transportation choice that is beneficial to the commu
nity, they are rewarded, in terms 0( money orconvenience; when they make. transpor
tationchoicedetrimental to the ronunurJty. they pay. Themain results are: (1) poDuting
and traIfic.. congesting behavior is reduced substantiaDy, and (2) revenues are gener
ated 10 improve transportation options and to ease any undue Impacts on those least
able to al!ozd them.
The marI<ei choice is the right choice fa< the Boy Area. The Boy Area Economic Forum
mges the region'. polilicalleaders to choose this path and become. model 10< other re
gions around the nation.
:) ..
. -/:>-:
"","
,.'
~ ..... ' ~ ,-~/"
i
!
'r
I
------------~~--------""""'I~:------
'-'
_T.P...,.
I'reoid<m" CEO
F<denoJ a-v. 8&n>.
0/ San haocis<o
.E.m:'KIiw DmdDr: Mic:bMt.s. McGill
BAY AREA·
ECONOMIC
FORUM
•• 7 5A~$O.( ~~.[(T
,.." "'."'''O$c"C! C .... '''1
lL~["'HCl"'[ .,,-~.,· •• a(l
This report is eme ",1. two-part report on ~
Bad SoltltiDn.s to tN~tim!:Crisis, produad
by the Bay Aru E.conomk Forum. for additioNJ
~ caD 415/981-6600, 0'1' 5ftld requests to W
~ Strm" San FranciKo. CA. 941! 1.
Principrl ,.,.."",", J ..... 80wprt
Vk!PrHidmt
l!ayAreo~
T""""""",", r""
Fora ChWnn.JI1I: Ron. Tom Nolan
SupeMs<»
San Moteo Couruy
The Bay ~ Economic Forum ~ its ap
pn!'Ci;Ition to P.adIic Gas and Electric Compomy
fw .. pnerosIly if> printmg this .. port.