FINAL

APPENDIX IV-C

Transportation Control and Indirect Source

Measure Recommendations from the

SCAG Regional Council

September 1994

sotri-i (()hT J!i? ou:i.rr

fr: :1iNI(,E’ijEi\1 T)1TRICT

1C09

Y)UFIIERN C-4LIF()R1\I;

iSSOCIiTiON OF GOVERN 1MEN’rs
TABLE 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

VII
Chapter II Recommended Transportation Programs

TCM-1. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

SUMMARY

This measure includes the capital and non-capital facilities, projects, and programs contained in the

Regional Mobility Element and programmed through the RTIP process 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

not considered to be a TCM action.

Components contained in the RME and included in this measure are:

Capital-based actions

HOV projects, and their pricing alternatives

Transit improvements (bus, rail and shuttle)

Park and Ride lots/intermodal facilities

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities

Urban Freeway System Management improvements

Smart Corridors TSM programs

Railroad consolidation programs such as the Alameda Corridor

Non-capital based actions

Rideshare matching and information services

Congestion Management Plan-based demand management strategies

Statewide rideshare programs

County/corridor-wide vanpool programs

Telecommunication facilities/satellite work centers

Transit pass centers

Seed money for transportation management associations

TDM demonstration programs/projects eligible for programming in the RTIP

Consistency of the emission reductions associated with these RME/RTIP mobility based strategies

with the appropriate mobile source emission budget contained in the applicable SIP would serve as

the basis for determining reasonable further progress and expeditious implementation of this TCM.

This measure is intended to indicate the relative level of implementation that is anticipated to occur

that is incorporated into the SIP planning assumptions. Not included in this measure are

transportation projects and programs which are exclusively funded through local 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

AQMP Appendix IV-C September 1994 . Page 11-11
Chapter 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 11-12
Chapter II Recommended Transportation Programs

EMISSION REDUCTIONS

Preliminary emission reduction estimates are provided based on the difference between for the 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 of emissions 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

decreased to reflect only this portion of the RTIP/Regional Mobility 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: Regional transportation model runs, draft Regional Mobility Element, December 1993 and EMFAC 7F.

ENFORCEABLE COMMITMENT

AGENCY ROLE

SCAG Preparation of the Regional Mobility Element

Preparation of the RTIP

Determination of consistency between the projects and

programs programmed in the RTIP and the RTP

. Determination of conformity

CALTRANS Programming of projects and programs under Caltrans’

jurisdiction

CTCs Programming of projects and programs under CTCs jurisdiction

Subregional Organizations Assist in monitoring implementation of strategies

The first two years of constrained projects in the RTIP will be used as the initial enforceable

commitment. As the biennial element of the RTIP is revised, the list of constrained projects will

be updated. The list of constrained projects will “roll forward” and the enforceable commitment

will automatically be revised to encompass the first 2 years of the constrained projects contained in

each new RTIP.

IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES

.1

j

AQMP Appendix IV-C September 1994 . Page 11-13
Chapter 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 It1A
Chapter II - Recommended Transportation Programs

TCM INDICATOR MONITORING TOOL

COMPONENT

Park and Ride

Facilities Number of parking spaces per Park RTlPlConformity

and Ride facility

Parking site square footage.

Number of parking structure levels

Traffic Signal Synchronized signal miles RMEIRTIP/Conformity

, Improvements

Number of new signalized STIP

intersections

Number of new channelized

intersections

Number of eliminated unnecessary

signals and stop signs

Urban Freeway Advanced Transportation RM E/RTI P/Conformity

Systems Management Systems (ATMS) lane STIP

Management miles

Improvements and -Traffic management center

Smart Corridors - Office/Field Communication

- Freeway surveillance

-Closed circuit TV

-Changeable message signs

- Highway advisory telephone

- Highway advisory radio

-Ramp and connector metering and

. HOV by-pass lanes

- Intelligent Vehicle Highway

systems (programmed through

the RTIP)

Operational RME/RTIP/Conformity

Improvements Traffic flow improvements (No Highway System

through capacity enhancements) Management Plan

Congestion Management

System

Intersection enhancements (no

through capacity)

Rideshare

Programs Regional/Corridor level Average RMEJRTIP/Conformity

Vehicle Occupancy STIP

Origin and Destination

Funding implementation/continuation Surveys

of rideshare programs

TDM Programs Funding implementation of RME/RTI P/Conformity

programs/demonstration projects STIP

AQMP Appendix IV-C September 1994 Page 11-15
Chapter 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

REFERENCES

1 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