# FINAL 

# APPENDIXIV-C TransportationControlandIndirectSource MeasureRecommendations fromthe SCAGRegionalCouncil

September 1994

sotri-i (()hTJ!i? ou:i.rr fr: :1iNI(,E’ijEi\1 T)1TRICT 

# 1C09 Y)UFIIERN C-4LIF()R1\I; iSSOCIiTiON OF GOVERN 1 MEN’rsTABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES SCAG Regional Council and Committees Transportation Control Strategy I-i Recommended Transportation Programs for the South Coast Air Basin Il-i Transportation Improvements TCM 1. Transportation improvements 11-9 Advanced Transportation Technology Measures 11-17 AU 1. Telecommunications 11-19 AU 2. Advanced Shuttle Transit 11-24 AU 3. Zero-Emission Vehicles/Infrastructure 11-30 AU 4. Alternative Fuel Vehicles/Infrastructure 11-35 AU 5. Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS) 11-41 Indirect Source Controls 11-47 ISR 1. Special Event Centers 11-49 ISR 2 Regional Shopping Centers 11-54 ISR 3 Registration and Commercial Vehicles 11-58 ISR 4 Airport Ground Access 11-66 ISR 5 Trip Reduction for Schools 11-71 tSR 6 Enhanced Rule 1501 11-76 ISR 7 Parking Cash-Out • 11-81 Market Incentive Measures 11-87 MKT 1. Emissiori/VMT 11-89 MKT 2. At the Pump Fee 11-93 MKT 3. Congestion Pricing 11-97 Future Study Strategy 11-103 FSS 1. Stage I Episode Plans 11-105 Ill. Monitoring Framework for TCMs Ill-i VIIChapterII RecommendedTransportation Programs 

### TCM-1. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY This measure includes the capital and non-capital facilities, projects, andprograms contained inthe Regional Mobility Elementand programmedthroughtheRTIPprocess to reduce emissions. DESCRIPTION This measure replaces Measures l.a. Alternate Work Schedules, 1.b. Telecommuting/Non motorized Transportation, 2.a. Employer Rideshare and Transit Incentives, 2.b. Parking Management, 2.c. Vanpool Purchase Incentives, 2.d. Merchant Transportation Incentives, 2.e. Auto Use Restrictions, 2.f. HOV Lanes, 2.g. Transit Improvements, 4. Traffic Flow Improvements, 5. Nonrecurrent Congestion, and 11. Rail Consolidation to Reduce Grade Crossings. Measure 13. Mixed Flow Improvements is included in the baseline assumptions and is notconsideredtobe aTCM action. Components containedintheRME and includedinthis measure are: Capital-based actions HOVprojects, andtheirpricing alternatives Transitimprovements (bus, rail and shuttle) ParkandRide lots/intermodal facilities Bicycle andpedestrianfacilities UrbanFreeway SystemManagementimprovements SmartCorridors TSMprograms Railroadconsolidationprograms suchas the AlamedaCorridor Non-capitalbased actions Ridesharematching and informationservices CongestionManagementPlan-baseddemandmanagement strategies Statewide rideshareprograms County/corridor-wide vanpoolprograms Telecommunicationfacilities/satelliteworkcenters Transitpass centers Seedmoney fortransportationmanagement associations TDMdemonstrationprograms/projects eligible forprogramming inthe RTIP Consistency ofthe emission reductions associated with these RME/RTIP mobility based strategies withthe appropriatemobile source emissionbudgetcontained inthe applicable SIP would serve as the basis fordetermining reasonable furtherprogress and expeditious implementation ofthis TCM. This measure is intendedto indicate the relative level ofimplementationthatis anticipated to occur that is incorporated into the SIP planning assumptions. Not included in this measure are transportationprojects andprograms whichare exclusively fundedthroughlocal funds. Under discussion is whether only the RIVIE’s and RTIPs federally funded projects and programs should be the basis for an enforceable commitment for this TCM. During conformity analysis, all AQMPAppendix IV-C September 1994

. Page 11-11Chapter II Recommended Transportation Programs projects and programs which receive federal, state and which may potentially be partially or entirely locally funded must be considered in the determination of conformity and consistency with the emission budget contained in the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP). These components of the Transportation Improvements TCM would contribute to emission reductions

consistent with the emissions budget in the applicable SIP. Moreover, in determining conformity, insufficient funding may not be used as a reason for delaying implementation of TCMs. Measures of progress in implementing these strategies could be one or more of the following (currently under discussion): (1) assessment of implementation of the first year’s schedule of projects and programs which receive federal funding (thus excluding projects and programs which use State or local funds) and have obtained all necessary environmental permits and clearances; (2) assessment of implementation of the commitments made to fund the first three years schedule of projects and programs of the seven year RTIP; or (3) the level of emission reductions which would be achieved through implementation of these types of measures in the RTIP/RME In the first approach, maximum flexibility is intended to be demonstrated through implementation of the first year’s funded commitment of the RTIP. Projects and programs beyond this year are not considered to demonstrate the level of commitment deemed necessary to satisfy EPA TCM enforceability and accountability requirements. This approach would require that all projects in the annual element be implemented in that year and be funded for implementation before other projects

could proceed forward. Annual SIP amendments to move forward the “first year” of the RTIP projects would likely be required. The second approach is intended to provide flexibility by reflecting the commitment to fund the schedule of projects and programs

- and the associated emission reductions
- which are included in the Triennial Element of the seven-year RTIP. The RTIP is prepared every two years with the opportunity to amend the document approximately once a year. In the third approach, the SIP planning assumptions would be used to determine the level of implementation necessary through those programs and projects funded through the RTIP process. Flexibility is ensured by permitting an appropriate mix of strategies to be developed which are consistent with the emission budget contained in the applicable SIP. Thus, so long as the set of projects and programs are consistent with the emissions budget contained in the applicable SIP, a positive conformity finding would not be hindered. Although this approach would have to be based on clearly defmed set of assumptions, the projects and their implementation schedules would not serve as the criteria for determining implementation progress. BACKGROUND The 1989 AQMP’s Appendix IV-G and 1991 AQMP’s Appendix IV-E for the South Coast Air Basin contained Measures l.a. Telecommuting, 1 .b. Non-motorized Transportation, 2.a. Employer Rideshare Incentives, 2.b. Parking Management, 2.c. Merchant Transportation Incentives, 2.d. Special Event Centers, 2.f. HOV Lanes, 2.g. Transit Improvements, 4. Traffic Flow Improvements, 5. Nonrecurrent Congestion, 11. Rail Consolidation, and Measure 13. Mixed Flow Improvements. These measures described vehicle trip, vehicle miles traveled, and congestion relief which could be anticipated to result from implementatiOn of these strategies. The federal Clean Air Act notes HOV lanes, traffic flow improvements, Park and Ride/fringe parking, and area-wide rideshare programs as specific TCMs which are considered to be reasonably available. AQMP Appendix IV-C September 1994- Page 11-12ChapterII RecommendedTransportation Programs EMISSIONREDUCTIONS Preliminary emissionreductionestimates areprovidedbased onthe differencebetweenforthe year 2000 an RTIP No Build scenario and a 2000 RTIP build scenario and for the year 2010 the difference between the 1993-99 RTIP plus planned mixed flow improvements and the draft RME 2010 Current Local Plan scenario. This estimates the 

### maximum degree ofemissions which could be expected from a Transportation Improvements TCM. To the extent that only those projects which require a federal action or are not federally funded, emissions reductions would need to be decreasedtoreflectonlythisportionofthe RTIP/RegionalMobility Element. 2000 Reductions (tons/day) 2010 Reductions (tons/day) VT 4,829 390,456 VMT 1,260,996 16,672,768 ROG 3.88 4.54 NOx (2.6) increase 7.57 CO 38.53 83.88 Source: Regionaltransportation model runs, draftRegional Mobility Element, December 1993 and EMFAC7F. ENFORCEABLE COMMITMENT

AGENCY ROLE SCAG Preparation ofthe Regional Mobility Element Preparation ofthe RTIP Determination ofconsistency between the projects and programs programmed in the RTIP and the RTP

. Determination ofconformity CALTRANS Programming ofprojects and programs underCaltrans’ jurisdiction CTCs Programming ofprojects and programs underCTCsjurisdiction Subregional Organizations Assist in monitoring implementation ofstrategies The first two years of constrained projects in the RTIP will be used as the initial enforceable commitment. As the biennial element ofthe RTIP is revised, the list ofconstrained projects will be updated. The list ofconstrained projects will “roll forward” and the enforceable commitment will automatically berevised to encompass the first2 years ofthe constrainedprojects contained in eachnewRTIP. IMPLEMENTINGAGENCIES

.1

j

AQMPAppendix IV-C September 1994

. Page 11-13Chapter II . Recommended Transportation Programs Transit Operators Operating identified transit infrastructure consistent with operational levels provided for in the RTIP Local Governments Identification of projects and programs through the RTIP process and their appropriate levels of implementation COST-EFFECTiVENESS To be determined. IMPLEMENTATION ASSUMPTIONS The RME provides the long-term framework for the transportation improvements planned

in the region. The RME, by law, is required to be to be updated or reaffirmed every two years. The projects and assumptions used in the RME would be the same assumptions used as the basis for the RTIP-based mobile source contributions to emission reductions. • The seven-year RTIP is required, by law, to be consistent with the RME. To the extent that the RTIP deviates significantly from the RME and either the emission budget or the implementation of the first two year’s schedule deviated significantly from the RME, the RME and/or the RTIP might have to be amended to reflect the projects and/or assumptions in the proposed plans/programs. • The first two years of constrained projects in the RTIP would be considered as the enforceable commitment for this TCM.

MONITORING The following table describes the Transportation Facilities TCM indicators and monitoring tools. TCM INDICATOR MONITORING TOOL COMPONENT HOV Lanes Miles of HOV lanes RTIP/Conformity STI P Highway System Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Transit Improvements Capital Investment Capital

- STIP/RTIP Route miles by mode and total STIP/RME/RTIP/Conformity miles, by mode

Bus Operational

- - Municipal buses Short Range Transit Plan - Dial-a-Ride Section 15 reporting - Circulators requirements Light Rail Public transportation portion of Heavy Rail Management System -Metrolink - Red Line, etc. AQMP Appendix lV-C ntmkr iqq. Pri It1AChapterII

- RecommendedTransportation Programs TCM INDICATOR MONITORINGTOOL COMPONENT Parkand Ride Facilities Numberofparking spaces perPark RTlPlConformity and Ridefacility Parking site squarefootage. Numberofparking structurelevels Traffic Signal Synchronized signal miles RMEIRTIP/Conformity

, Improvements Numberofnew signalized STIP intersections Numberofnew channelized intersections Numberofeliminated unnecessary signals and stop signs Urban Freeway AdvancedTransportation RME/RTIP/Conformity Systems ManagementSystems (ATMS) lane STIP Management miles Improvements and

-Traffic managementcenter SmartCorridors

- Office/Field Communication

- Freeway surveillance

- Closed circuitTV

- Changeablemessage signs

- Highway advisory telephone

- Highway advisory radio

- Ramp and connectormetering and

. HOVby-pass lanes

- IntelligentVehicle Highway

systems (programmedthrough the RTIP) Operational RME/RTIP/Conformity Improvements Trafficflow improvements (No Highway System through capacity enhancements) Management Plan Congestion Management System Intersection enhancements (no through capacity) Rideshare Programs Regional/CorridorlevelAverage RMEJRTIP/Conformity Vehicle Occupancy STIP Origin and Destination Funding implementation/continuation Surveys ofrideshareprograms TDM Programs Funding implementation of RME/RTIP/Conformity programs/demonstration projects STIP

AQMP Appendix IV-C September 1994 Page 11-15Chapter II . Recommended Transportation Programs TCM INDICATOR MONITORING TOOL COMPONENT Bicycle Facility

- Miles of bicycle lanes RME Improvements

- Number of bicycle sensitive loop detectors - Number of bicycle lockers - Bicycle safety and education programs - Bicycle promotions REFERENCES1 Southern California Association of Governments. Draft Regional Mobility Element. December, 1993. 2 SCAG, 1989 Regional Mobility Plan. March 1989. 3 SCAQMD, AOMP Appendix IV-G for the South Coast Air Basin. 1989. 4 SCAQMD, AOMP Appendix IV-E for the South Coast Air Basin. 1991. 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Notice of Rulemaking on Conformity Guidelines. November 24, 1993. ArMD Errini1iv IUj rI+,.rnkr IQQA . Pru ILi