View all photos from the Transportation Choices Summit at our Facebook page.

Transportation Choices Summit Gets Statewide Movement Off to a Running Start

Advocates from Across California Visit Every Legislative Office!

View all the photos from the Summit.

A Powerful Movement is Born

Across California regions are adopting Sustainable Communities Strategies to combat climate change and create healthy walkable communities.  But these amazing plans won’t ever become real without state funding and policies that support public transit and affordable homes. 

150 people gathered for TransForm’s first statewide Transportation Choices Summit and Advocacy Day focused on making sure Sacramento is behind us.

“These two days were great,” said Denny Zane, executive director of Move LA.  “This is exactly what we need to be doing.  All of us, from all these different places and interests, banding together to make sure our state leaders finally prioritize transportation choices.” 

The room was packed with leaders from labor, disability rights groups, youth as well as the social justice, health and environmental advocates that have been a major force recently in regional planning.

“Real transportation choices,” said Stuart Cohen, TransForm’s executive director, “address so many of our most urgent problems – the climate crisis, obesity epidemic, affordability, access for seniors and people with disabilities.  The list goes on and on.  It was incredibly exciting to see us all join together to fight for change in Sacramento.”

Real Opportunities for Reform

The Summit steering committee (see members below) had selected three priority bills and two regional bills to support – and Wednesday at noon 32 teams were unleashed to meet with legislators and their staff at all of the Capitol’s 120 offices! 

The teams led off with the biggest current opportunity to expand transportation choices; the upcoming Cap and Trade Program developed by the Air Resources Board under AB 32 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  Initial estimates are that the program could bring in over $1 billion the first year and then ultimately up to $10 billion each year.

TransForm and Housing California have been circulating a proposal to spend a significant portion of that funding on public transit, vanpools, walking and bicycling infrastructure, and affordable homes near transit.  With transportation accounting for 38% of all GHG emissions in the State, it needs to be a priority.

Teams were given regional maps that show the powerful correlation between  strong public transit access, and reduced households spending on transportation and climate benefits.  These fact sheets, based on TransForm’s Windfall for All report, show that Bay Area residents with the best transit access arespending $5,450 less per year, on average, while emitting 42% fewer CO2 emissions. 

Download the fact sheets on the connection between public transportation, climate, and cost savings for four of California’s major regions: Greater Los Angeles, San Diego County, Sacramento Region, and the Bay Area.

Also on the radar were four other bills:

  • AB 441 (Monning) would require the state’s Regional Transportation Guidelines to highlight the programs and plans that could promote better health and address health inequities. 
  • AB 485 (Ma) would give a desperately needed shot-in-the-arm to affordable housing by making it easier to create Infrastructure Financing Districts.
  • AB 1446 (Feuer) would allow voters to extend Measure R, a tax measure in LA County, in perpetuity in order to accelerate a massive expansion of the County’s rail and bus system.
  • SB 1339 (Yee) would expand public transportation commuter benefits programs in the Bay Area.

First-Time Citizen Lobbyists Learn What an Impact These Visits Make

Rachel Donovan had never lobbied – or even set foot in the state capitol – until yesterday.

“I loved it,” gushed Rachel. “I went to seven legislators’ offices.  It was so easy to be passionate about these issues.”

When Rachel told one legislative aide it was her first time lobbying, the aide told her that all offices keep a detailed log of every single visit: who came, what they care about, and the bills they lobbied on.  This information is then used when a legislator is considering how to vote on a bill.  “If you care about an issue, this is exactly what you should be doing,” said the aide.  “Who walks in these doors shapes how decisions are made.”

“When I learned this,” said Rachel, “I felt like, gee, we ought to come back here to lobby every month!”

Rachel’s right – and we’re excited to keep growing and building the momentum of the Transportation Choices campaign so our legislators hear from us a lot.  

That’s why TransForm decided to convene the first-ever Transportation Choices Summit in the first place.  

“I really feel part of a movement,” said Rachel.

“I found my first lobbying experience invigorating!” said Miroo Desai, a city planner. “Working locally, one forgets the critical role that Sacramento plays when it comes to land use and transportation.”

What’s Next in the Movement for Transportation Choices

Like State Senator Mark DeSaulnier said at the Summit, “We can change California in a meaningful way, and indeed we are.”  This week was an incredibly successful start to building a strong, consistent movement that pushes our legislators to think differently about transportation.  

And we need to keep the momentum.  Here’s some ways you can help:

Big Thanks

The Advocacy Day was made possible by TransForm’s major donors and supporters – thank you!

The Summit Day was made possible with support from the Ford Foundation, Irvine Foundation, and Surdna Foundation.  The California Endowment and Resources Legacy fund not only support TransForm’s state efforts, but gave critical support for Summit scholarships – allowing more diverse participation from across the State.

And last but not least, we had an awesome steering committee that guided the effort:

• Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association of CA

• Jim Brown, California Bicycle Coalition 

• Jeff Thom, California Council for the Blind

• Rebecca Saltzman, California League of Conservation Voters

• Ruben Cantu, California Pan Ethnic Health Network

• Josh Shaw, California Transit Association 

• Chanell Fletcher, ClimatePlan

• Stuart Baker, Edenred

• Denny Zane, Move LA

• Elyse Lowe, Move San Diego

• Justin Horner, NRDC 

• Chione Flegal, PolicyLink

• Marty Martinez, Safe Routes To School National Partnership

• Ryan Wiggins, Transportation for America

Recommendations on the Draft Transportation Investment Strategy

We have finally hit the point in the Sustainable Communities Strategy process where MTC has developed a comprehensive Transportation Investment Strategy. We have just sent MTC a letter with six recommendations, one for each of the ‘investment strategies’ in staff’s presentation of the overall funding package.

The recommendations are:

  1. Fund the Climate Innovative Grants program, based on evidence from the first round of funding, to follow through on commitments made in the last RTP.
  2. Impose special requirements on at least BART and Muni to develop a funding plan to demonstrate how they will achieve a State of Good Repair, or at least how they will continue to maintain the existing level of repair. In the meantime, MTC should give greater scrutiny to capital expansion projects by the two agencies.
  3. Revise the One Bay Area Grant program to provide more guidance to counties to make the program better address displacement, encourage affordable housing, and support sustainable and equitable growth in PDAs.
  4. Dramatically increase funding for the BART Metro project, the most cost-effective project MTC analyzed. 
  5. In the Bay Area Express Lane Network, eliminate the projects that would widen I-80 to Yolo County line and I-580 to the San Joaquin County line. Commit to a transparent public planning process to ensure the network creates more transportation choices and supports access for low-income residents.
  6. Increase investments in the Transit Performance Initiative and the Lifeline Transportation Program.

Timeline:

For more information, see:

New High Speed Rail plan offers great benefits to Bay Area

TransForm encourages the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay Area agencies, and the High Speed Rail Authority to move forward with the Bay Area strategy that will offer great benefits to the region.

The California High Speed Rail Authority will soon release a new Business Plan to completely revamp this massive infrastructure project. TransForm has been participating in extensive conversations leading up to this new plan, and there are still some issues that need resolution, on the overall statewide approach and some specific geographic areas. TransForm will update our position on the entire Business Plan after it is released.

The new high speed rail plan’s Bay Area strategy offers great benefits to our region and deserves our strong support. On March 28, MTC will vote on a Memorandum of Understanding with the High Speed Rail Authority (“the Authority”), local cities and transit agencies (see MTC agenda, item 7.c.). The MOU is based on the new business plan’s “blended approach” strategy and only deals with projects in the Bay Area. The MOU includes a policy commitment and detailed funding proposal for $1.5 billion worth of projects, TransForm wanted to state a position now, in support of this MOU and the strategy within it.

Since 2000, TransForm has supported all of the major elements of this MOU; Electrification of the Caltrain Corridor, Advanced Signal Systems, and a connection to the Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco Together, the elements would provide cleaner, quieter, faster trains between San Francisco and Silicon Valley while also preparing the region for high-speed rail.

High Speed Rail’s New Business Plan

Led by their new Chair, Dan Richard, the Authority is developing a clear-eyed strategy to phase the development of high speed rail in California. The new Business Plan will ditch the $10+ billion, 220 MPH “test track” to nowhere. Instead it will focus on upgrading existing train systems to ensure there are major near-term benefits, even if future phases and the 220 MPH “bullet train” fail to materialize.

Specifically, the new plan combines the existing commitment to proceed with construction of the first rail segment in the Central Valley with a “bookend” strategy that simultaneously makes improvements in California’s most populous regions and economically vibrant regions, the Bay Area and Southern California.

All of these investments would be designed to allow trains using existing technology to use the tracks while also allowing future high speed trains to use the same tracks. This “blended approach” makes tremendous sense from a transportation perspective. It will bring benefits to millions of existing commuters within just a few years and eliminate the risk of having a massive “stranded asset” – in this case a useless, multi-billion dollar track with no funding source to complete the sections to Los Angeles or San Francisco  – stuck in the middle of the state.

By crafting a plan that will make near-term improvements to a (primarily) two-track system in the Bay Area and Southern California, the new Business Plan should gain the project much needed political support in the urban areas.

Additional Bay Area Considerations:

In the Bay Area, the most controversial part of the original Bay Area proposal was to turn the Caltrain corridor into a 4 track-system, significantly impacting the character of many of the downtowns along the line. This controversy has threatened to derail the entire project.

The new Business Plan provides an elegant solution. The project investments specified in the MOU will be “limited to infrastructure necessary to support a blended system, which will primarily be a two-track system shared by both Caltrain and high-speed rail.” Using two tracks for almost all the Caltrain corridor should avoid much of the opposition that faced the 4-track approach. Occasional passing tracks will allow high-speed trains to share tracks with Caltrain’s Baby Bullet and Local services. It is important that the environmental review cover only this primarily two-track system, to obviate concern that this MOU may be a cover for the Authority’s original proposal.

TransForm is grateful to all the leaders, such as Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, State Senator Joe Simitian, and Assemblymember Rich Gordon, who pushed on the Authority to develop a plan that is financially responsible and that will reduce community impact. We are thrilled that MTC and the other entities signing the MOU were able to work through the specific issues quickly.

The MOU lays out a funding plan that will electrify the Caltrain corridor and install Advanced Signal Systems. Both of these improvements will not only prepare the region for high speed rail, but will also reduce Caltrain’s operating costs and improve performance. The MOU also includes a commitment to build the connection to the Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco. The downtown connection would dramatically improve Caltrain’s usefulness and, combined with electrification it would provide cleaner, quieter, faster trains between San Francisco and Silicon Valley.

MTC and the other agencies should pass this resolution and support the MOU now. The Authority is is in a race to get the project off the ground to meet impending deadlines; including legislative approval this spring and deadlines to spend the federal stimulus dollars.  Several transit agencies in Southern California are now supporting a blended approach for that region, including on MetroLink’s corridor connecting Palmdale to LA’s Union Station. 

It is also important to note that the MOU specifies that all the Bay Area projects will go through project-level environmental reviews (CEQA and NEPA) regulations. The Authority will not seek exemptions from environmental review at the project level. These reviews will allow additional community concerns and environmental impacts to be addressed.

Next Steps

California is going to grow. By 2050, we may have 60 million neighbors. We need to decide how we want to accommodate the growing travel demand. If we don’t provide access through effective transit, that demand will lead to wider highways and more airports.

The incremental approach of the new Business Plan makes sense. There are still statewide and geographic-specific issues TransForm is discussing with the Authority. These include the financing plan, mitigations for low-income communities in the Central Valley, strategies to improve land uses and connectivity (especially in the Central Valley), and loss of habitat. We will have a statement on the overall Business Plan soon after it is released.

Right now, the Authority, MTC, and other Bay Area agencies should move the Bay Area MOU forward.

Analysis of Proposed reauthorization of Alameda County Measure B

Alameda County faces a big decision in November. Transportation officials plan to ask voters to double the existing transportation sales tax (often known as “Measure B”), extend it in perpetuity, and approve a $7.8 billion plan for the next 30 years of spending. This would be the largest transportation funding measure ever in northern California.

TransForm has completed a 16-page analysis of the measure (PDF). For the one-page Executive Summary, see the first page of the analysis or read the remainder of this blog post. 

TransForm was intimately engaged in efforts to shape the spending plan, working with a diverse coalition since 2010. The final plan, passed in January, included some changes we and others recommended. We recognize that it is extremely unlikely that the plan will change before it is placed on the ballot by the County Board of Supervisors. Now is the time to decide whether or not to support the final plan.

If the plan passes, it would fund numerous important improvements: restore cut bus service, start a new youth bus pass, repair potholes, and make unprecedented investments for pedestrian and bicycle safety and infrastructure as well as for transit-oriented development. At the same time, the plan has some components that raise concern: most significantly, a proposed BART to Livermore project could divert other needed funds from fixing BART and place even more burdens on an already-stressed system.

TransForm is now considering our position on the measure. In doing so, two key considerations are:

  • What happens if the new Measure B plan passes?
  • If the new Measure B does not pass, what would happen? Are there other potential fund sources to address the same needs? When would a revised plan come back to voters? Would that revised plan be better or worse than the plan now in front of us?

TransForm staff and Board of Directors are using this analysis as we consider our position. We are releasing this analysis before finalizing our position to provide information to others who are following the process and to solicit feedback that may inform our own position.

In the meantime, TransForm will also work in other venues to protect the BART system and to secure funding and protections that were not included in the final sales tax plan. We will:

  • Advocate for the BART Board to take additional steps to prioritize the system’s State of Good Repair and to ensure that BART’s alternatives analysis for the proposed Livermore project includes a full range of alternatives; and
  • Advocate at MTC that the construction phase of the Livermore project is not included in Plan Bay Area, the upcoming update of the Regional Transportation Plan. BART intends to begin an alternatives analysis and environmental review to identify the preferred project for the I-580 corridor and Livermore residents, and that will identify the preferred project for the corridor and the level of funding needed.
  • Advocate at MTC that BART improvements should focus on BART Metro (the most cost-effective project in the region) to improve BART’s core capacity, as well as urgently needed funding for the maintenance shortfalls of BART and other transit agencies.

How these issues are resolved will contribute to TransForm’s final position on Measure B.

What You Can Do:

  • Share this analysis with others considering the merits of the proposed new Measure B.
  • To share your comments, suggestions, and corrections about all the facts and opinions presented in this paper: contact Manolo González-Estay.

MTC respects Performance instead of Politics

On February 22, a majority of MTC commissioners honored their prior decisions and rejected an attempt to prioritize politics over performance.

As described in a previous post, MTC was considering how to use the “Project Performance Assessment” (PPA) of 80 of the biggest projects in the region to inform the selection of specific transportation projects for the preferred transportation investment package for Plan Bay Area (the Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy). The draft process would have used the PPA to identify low-performing projects that should be excluded. And it would also have allowed each county to present a “compelling case” for specific low-performing projects, based on one of two arguments: if MTC’s travel model didn’t properly recognize the project’s benefits or because the project is needed to meet federal requirements.

At the February 17 MTC Planning Committee meeting, a few commissioners tried to add a third category of reasons (“Category 3”) to allow more low-performing projects to make a case for their eligibility. The Planning Committee debated but did not decide, and sent the item along to the full commission. TransForm sent another letter to MTC objecting to “Category 3”. We argued that “Category 3” would let too many more projects off the hook, often on the basis of polls and politics instead of performance. We pointed out that MTC will already have to make tough decisions about how to allocate scarce money among many high-performing projects; the region should not add more low-performing targets to the mix.

We are pleased to report that after much discussion and deliberation, the full commission decided on February 22 to reject the new “Category 3.” Thank you to the 9 commissioners who placed performance over politics: Commissioners Bates, Campos, Dodd, Halsted, Kinsey, Liccardo, MacKenzie, Wiener, and Worth. Please help us thank them by clicking here. The discussion got started when Commissioner Wiener urged his colleagues not to change the rules of the game part-way through just because someone doesn’t like some of the outcomes. Among other comments, Commissioner Liccardo also stated that MTC is a regional body and needs to act like one.

Now the counties will decide which low-performing projects to make a “compelling case” for. And MTC will put together a financially-constrained package of transportation improvements. As they do so, we will encourage them to include the slam-dunk high performers, such as the BART Metro Project, and exclude poor performers (see our recent report for a list!).

 

What you can do:

1.  Thank your commissioner(s)

2.  Watch your county CMA’s agenda for when they will discuss whether and how to create a “compelling case” for specific low-performing projects. Speak out for performance! For more info, see our page on the RTP in your county.

3.  Be ready to comment at the March/April Planning Committee meeting, where county agencies will be asked to “justify” low-performing projects.

4.  Contact us to find out how else you can get involved.

Posted February 28, 2012, by Jeff Hobson and Manolo González-Estay.

BART Protects Existing System while Moving to Study Livermore Project

The BART Board did a good thing on Thursday, February 9th. While passing a motion to start an alternatives analysis for the Livermore project, they also took several steps to protect the overall system and to ensure the Livermore analysis considers a wide range of alternatives. This was a big step in the right direction and may contribute to making it less likely that a Livermore project does serious damage to the BART system. But there are still many more steps to go.

As the process moves forward, we need to ensure that BART is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Livermore project (see TransForm’s follow-up letter to BART). We will also need to make sure BART actually does move forward with other steps envisioned in the Board’s final motion: an investment analysis to to demonstrate BART can maintain its State of Good Repair, and to evaluate the effectiveness of other capacity and infill projects, not just the Livermore project.

The final motion (see our transcription) addresses all of the main points in TransForm’s Feb 8th letter to the BART Board. Many thanks to the BART Directors who spoke, in some cases passionately, about the need to protect the existing system. Directors revised the motion significantly during the meeting. Directors Radulovich and Raburn both distributed suggested language. Director Keller provided great historical context about the need to consider all alternatives, not be wedded to BART’s traditional technology, and along with Director Franklin encouraged the Livermore analysis to consider the whole corridor. Director Murray voiced support for the car replacement program and knowing BART can maintain its State of Good Repair. BART President McPartland, who made the final motion, accepted the proposed amendments and recognized the importance of keeping BART’s existing system in good shape while also trying to move forward with a connection to Livermore.

For background on BART’s State of Good Repair needs and the Livermore project, see the Save BART! page on TransForm’s website.

What’s next:

  • Contact your BART Director to say thank you and urge that BART should be the lead agency for the environmental review of the Livermore project.  We need to keep BART fast, reliable, and affordable, not promise more and more extensions we can’t afford.

Posted February 23, 2012, by Jeff Hobson.

Good Projects, Bad Projects: Results of the Project Performance Analysis

We’re getting close to decision time: which projects to include in or exclude from Plan Bay Area (the Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy).

That’s why TransForm just sent MTC a letter to draw Commissioners’ attention to three projects we recommend should be excluded from the RTP plus a host of “slam dunk” projects we feel should definitely be included.

At the February 17 Planning Committee meeting, MTC Commissioners will consider how to apply the results of a “Project Performance Assessment” (PPA) to inform the selection of specific transportation projects for the preferred transportation investment package.

TransForm has been active throughout the PPA process (see our previous post). We recognize that this assessment was a dramatic improvement over the one done for the previous RTP. But our letter also points out three key shortcomings that need to be considered as MTC applies the assessment to final project selection.

Our letter is based on a longer analysis of the PPA process: what worked well, the three key shortcomings, and detailed analyses of the projects we recommend be included or excluded.

After Friday’s meeting, county agencies will have a few weeks to “justify” low-performing projects and present those arguments at the March Planning Committee meeting. 

What you can do:

  1. Speak out at the MTC Planning Committee, Friday Feb 17, 9:30am [agenda]
  2. Call or write your Commissioner
  3. Be ready to comment at the March 9 Planning Committee meeting, where county agencies will be asked to “justify” low-performing projects.
  4. Contact us to find out how else you can get involved.

Posted February 16, 2012, by Stuart Cohen and Jeff Hobson. Updated Feb 17.

Will the Metropolitan Transportation Commission rethink some of the largest transportation projects on the books?

Groundbreaking analysis by MTC looks at which projects will get the Bay Area towards social and environmental goals, but overstates the benefits of “congestion relief”

By Stuart Cohen, TransForm Executive Director

This Friday, November 4, staff at the Metropolitan Transportation Committee will release a groundbreaking analysis that could call into question some of the biggest transportation projects on the books.  This “project performance assessment” dives deep into 80 of the largest projects that are being considered for inclusion in the 2013 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).  The question is, how good is their assessment?

In the assessment, every project will receive 2 scores:

  • A benefit/cost ratio where, for example, a project scoring “5” is estimated to provide five times as much benefit as its total cost.
  • A goals assessment that qualitatively considers how well the project contributes towards MTC’s ten adopted targets – from greenhouse gas reduction to increase in physical activity.  A perfect project would get a score of 10, one point for each goal.  The lowest score can be negative, since MTC appropriately considered adverse impacts as well as positive ones.

While the assessment won’t definitively decide what projects are in or out of the RTP, we hope it will provide critical information as Commissioners grapple with how to take these $180 billion worth of projects and whittle it down to less than $70 billion of funding that is discretionary (i.e. available to fund these projects).

It seems likely that the takeaways from the assessment will be on “outliers,” i.e., projects that have a benefit/cost ratio of 10 may be seen as priorities for funding.  For projects that have a score under 1 (meaning they are projected to have less benefits than cost) or lead to greenhouse gas increases, it will – and should - bring on intense scrutiny.

So does the assessment — some incredibly complicated and cutting edge analysis – reflect reality and take a hard look at these potential projects?  Are the benefit/cost ratios realistic, and are the targets MTC is supposed to be working towards accurate? It is a mixed bag.  On October 31, along with other members of the technical committee, I got a preview of the draft analysis.

Here are my takeaways so far:

  • The qualitative assessments do a good job of connecting projects to the actual goals of the RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategies.  This is the case even though the answers by nature are somewhat subjective and reflect limitations in the travel model (as outlined below).  Projects based on efficiency measures, and most transit projects, do very well.
  • The congestion reduction benefits of highway and suburban transit projects are overstated.
    • The travel model doesn’t make any changes in “tour destinations” based on transportation improvements.  In reality, faster roads through expansion or efficiency will lead to longer trips – either as people move or decide on more distant schools or jobs.  As vehicle travel grows, this would reduce some of the congestion relief benefits of both road expansion or road efficiency projects. In some situations this could even lead to cost instead of a benefit, if increases in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) outweigh congestion reduction on that particular segment.  Many public transit projects, especially suburban expansions in high growth areas, would also show less congestion relief over time.
    • The land uses stay static.  Even though a capacity expansion project may lead to more growth in an area over time (and thus diminish or negate the congestion relief benefits) no change in growth is modeled.  Conversely, a transit project that serves the urban core doesn’t lead to more dense land use in the model, and thus is not given any of monetized benefits derived from such growth.

This doesn’t just skew the b/c ratio, but the qualitative assessment is greatly impacted as well.  An increase in VMT results in adverse impacts in at least five of the ten goals.  But the model understates that increase.

  • Travel time savings dwarf all other quantitative benefits. 

In total there were 15 benefits that were first quantified, and then multiplied by a dollar value or “monetized”. These benefits are broken into four categories in MTC’s spreadsheets: travel time; travel cost; air pollution reduction; and collisions, active transport, and noise reduction.

But for almost all of the projects analyzed, the benefits of travel time absolutely dwarf the others, often counting for 10x all the other benefits put together. If this in fact reflected reality that would alright, but there is a good chance it doesn’t and skews the results.

This is because both of the factors that create the travel time benefit are skewed upwards.  First, as discussed above, the travel model overestimates the long-term congestion relief of many projects.

Second, the monetary valuations are high if compared to what consumers are actually willing to pay. Travel time reductions are valued at $16 per hour for people in cars and $26 per hour per truck. Transit travelers waiting for their vehicles are valued at $35 per hour as they wait, since they are exposed to the elements and uncertainty.

There are really two main problems with this. The first is that travel time savings for vehicle passengers are not even one of MTC’s ten goals, though time savings for non-auto modes are. There is good reason for this, since faster vehicle travel leads to more vehicle travel which runs counter to so many of the other regional goals such as reducing asthma.  MTC’s goals are smart in that they reward access, health, prosperity and equity rather than simply “mobility” for the sake of mobility.

The other problem is that most people would not be willing to pay that very high price to forego that hour, so should the numbers be this high?  As Todd Litman recently wrote at his new report on www.vtpi.org, “Only a minority of total vehicles are typically engaged in high-value trips, even under urban-peak conditions.”

This was not an intentional bias towards expansion projects or roads, since these travel time benefits accrue to public transportation and other alternatives. Rather MTC staff are trying to follow and develop best practices. Still, if it shows skewed results, how can it be remedied?

One way is a “sensitivity analysis” that instead of pivoting off of average salaries is based on other factors. This could be estimates of consumer’s willingness to pay, after tax salary, or simply putting together an additional b/c ratio that leaves out travel time benefits altogether. This is a relatively easy adjustment.

More difficult is to vary the other time savings factor; the loss of congestion relief over time.  Ultimately, this issue of induced growth and loss of congestion benefit is more easily and meaningfully dealt with at the regional level.  Hopefully we can get some of that clarity when MTC’s regional scenarios, which include different land uses, are released soon.  But since that regional assessment won’t inform and change this project-level one, it still leaves this assessment as biased.  There could be ways to adjust for this, and they should be explored.

While there are dozens of other fine points that affect the assessment, the net result of the three main points raised here is that highway projects, on the whole, end up scoring much higher on the b/c ratio than most other projects.  The “bubble charts” that portray this all on one page, therefore, don’t look much different than they did four years ago.

Beyond these 80 large projects, there is also an assessment by category of all 700 of the potential RTP projects, including the smaller ones.

As mentioned above, this Project Assessment is not determinative but is just one component of this political process.  Staff will frame the results; Commissioners will ingest the staff positions; the public will comment and lobby… and ultimately, this winter, a draft RTP alternative will be formed. Of course, this information is also likely to be used by stakeholders in other venues – such as when a county is reauthorizing a transportation sales tax.

To help stakeholders understand how to interpret this data, TransForm commissioned Dr. Deb Niemeier, a Professor of Civil and Environmental engineering at UC Davis, to provide a critical evaluation of this project-level assessment. You can find that report here. Note that it is probably good to read the latest materials from MTC first, as it assumes some level of knowledge. You can also see the critique of the project assessment done for MTC’s Express Lane proposal.
MTC’s latest information can be found here in their packet for this Friday’s 10 a.m. Planning Committee. This assessment is the primary agenda item.

TransForm will continue to work with Dr. Niemeier to produce analyses to help understand strengths and weaknesses of this approach.  While far from perfect, the results of MTC’s Performance Analysis are a real attempt to connect the excellent targets that were adopted last year for a sustainable, equitable and healthy region to specific investments.

The precedent is incredibly important and may lead to smarter decision-making here in the Bay Area, and ultimately other regions.  The timing couldn’t be better as we face tremendous funding shortfalls and will need to invest transportation funds more strategically than ever.

Finally, I’d like to thank the Resources Legacy Fund and the Clarence E. Heller Foundation that made TransForm’s work on the assessments possible.  I also want to give MTC staff some very strong kudos on this process as they:

  • Set up a diverse technical group, had a truly open process and listened to many of our recommendations.
  • Included more benefits than four years ago, such as benefits of greater physical activity, reduced vehicle ownership costs and more.
  • Included adverse impacts, which more typically apply to highway expansion projects.
  • Make the information much more accessible, providing both significant detail as well as clear summary sheets.
  • Are much more forthcoming with crucial caveats including an explanation of where their model may not be accurate or complete.

Let the marathon begin: San Diego adopts California’s first SCS

By Autumn Bernstein, Stuart Cohen, and Eliot Rose

Many SB 375 watchers have opined that the law’s success will require a “marathon, not a sprint” since the inertia of existing transportation and land use plans is so powerful. But as others have pointed out, the challenges faced by our communities and our planet are so great we simply cannot wait that long.

Today’s approval of the first-ever sustainable communities strategy (SCS) in San Diego, shows how true both statements are.  For months, advocates have been pushing SANDAG, the San Diego area’s regional transportation planning agency, to roll back sprawl-inducing highway expansions and redirect those funds to accelerate public transit and bicycle projects.  SANDAG received letters from the California Attorney General and Air Resources Board, as well as almost 4,000 comments from the public on the draft plan, and many of these called on SANDAG to take meaningful action now.

In a clear signal that this public input has had an impact, today the Board approved a number of last-minute improvements designed to strengthen the plan’s commitments to active transportation and transit-oriented development, including:

  • Development of an early action program for active transportation (bike/ped) projects within two years;
  • Development of a regional complete streets policy;
  • Creation of a transit-oriented development policy

But the final plan leaves one of the most fundamental issues unaddressed.  Due in large part to the constraints imposed by San Diego’s countywide voter-approved sales tax, TransNet, which is the primary source of dollars for transportation projects in the region, none of the expensive highway projects that the region had previously committed to funding were on the table for reconsideration during this process. This left very few discretionary dollars (roughly three percent of the total RTP budget) on the table to fund new public transit and active transportation projects in the early years of the plan, which would have put the San Diego region on a faster track to reducing GHG emissions.  And due to bad timing – SANDAG was halfway through the process before ARB issued GHG reduction targets – the agency had already made key decisions about land use and housing without receiving any guidance from the state. That’s where this SCS starts to feel like the first leg of a marathon.

So perhaps the most encouraging thing to happen today was not the changes that SANDAG approved to this plan, but the commitments it made for the next go-round.  In response to concerns about “backsliding” of GHG emission reductions over time (the plan achieves the greatest gains in 2020, but these gains erode over the next several decades), SANDAG agreed to develop a scenario for their upcoming Regional Comprehensive Plan update that would address this issue.  For such a scenario to succeed in steadily reducing GHG emissions over time, it would almost certainly require reconsideration of some big-ticket road expansion projects, significant additional investments in transit, and strong policies to encourage transit-oriented development.

This is an important opportunity, but developing a scenario for informative purposes and implementing that scenario are two very different things.  The new scenario will only have an impact if SANDAG develops its next RTP/SCS using an effective planning process that includes robust scenario planning and deep community engagement.  It also needs to evaluate all scenarios using a wider variety of performance measures, such as public health impacts, household travel costs and natural resource protection, so people understand how smart policies to reach climate goals can make our regions healthier and more prosperous.

As the rest of California – and the nation – dissects the San Diego case study, there is rich fodder for both those who want to see SB 375 hit the ground running and for those who are calling for slow and steady implementation. In several weeks we will release a retrospective that unpacks the best and worst of the San Diego SCS and the key lessons learned.

Southern California and Sacramento are poised to adopt their SCSes in early 2012, with the Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley not far behind. Each faces its own set of constraints and opportunities, yet there are similarities between regions that are too important to overlook.  It will likely take some time for California’s grand experiment in regional sustainability to take hold, but at the same time we need bold and quick action in order to reverse decades of planning that’s been focused on accommodating cars and sprawl.  SANDAG may not have sprinted out of the blocks with this RTP/SCS, but at least it figured out which direction it needs to be running in.