# ADOPTED APRIL 2012 Southern California Association of GovernmentsImage of bus station courtesy of Metro © 2012 LACMTA Image of Irvine Village courtesy of MVE & Partners, Irvine, CA

## Southern California Association of Governments

### iv 2012 Regional Transportation Plan 

## | Executive Summary 

# C o n te n t s

**mission statement** viii **S C**  **A G R**  **E G**  **IONA L C**  **O U**  **N C**  **I L**  ix **CURR ENT**  **P O**  **L I**  **CY C OMMITTEE**  **MEM B**  **E R**  **S** x **p ast**  **r e**  **g iona**  **l c**  **o u**  **n c**  **i l**  **and p**  **o l**  **i cy**  **c ommittee mem**  **b e**  **r s**  xii **r eso**  **lu tion**  xiii



### E **xe cu**  **tive Su**  **mma ry**  **1** Our Vision 1 Transportation Investments 4 Financial Plan 7 Sustainable Communities Strategy 8 Measuring Up 9 Public Participation 10 Strategic Plan—Looking Ahead—Beyond the Horizon 10 

### 01. **VISION 11**  Towards a Sustainable Future 11 The Setting 16 Challenges and Opportunities 24 Plan Overview 32 

### 02. **t r**  **ans p**  **o r**  **tation I**  **nvestments 35** 
Introduction 35 Getting the Most Out of Our System 36 Completing Our System 42 Strategically Expanding Our System 44 Meeting Our Airport Demand 58 Goods Movement System 64 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Environmental Mitigation 77 

### 03. F **INAN C**  **IA L PL**  **AN 87** 
Introduction 87 Economic Outlook 88 Revenue and Expenditure Categories 93 Core Revenues 94 Reasonably Available Revenues 96 Summary of Revenue Sources and Expenditures 99 

### 04. **S U**  **STAINA BL**  **E C**  **OMM U**  **NITIES ST**  **R ATE**  **GY ( S**  **C S**  **) 107** 
Introduction 107 Goals and Benefits 112 Creating the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 113 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Next Steps 151 

### 05. **meas ur**  **in g**  **up 165** 
Introduction 165 Performance Outcomes 165 RTP/SCS Performance for Co-Benefits 180 Environmental Justice 182 SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets 197 Transportation Conformity 197 

### 06. PUBL **I C P**  **A R**  **TI C**  **I P**  **ATION 198** 
Introduction 198 

### 07. **ST R**  **ATE G**  **I C PL**  **AN 205**  Looking Ahead—Beyond the Horizon 205 Long-Term Emission-Reduction Strategies for Rail 206 Long-Term Emission-Reduction Strategies for Trucks 207 Unfunded Operational Improvements 207 Unfunded Capital Improvements 207 Strategic Finance 211


### 08. **E C**  **ONOMI C**  **AND J**  **O B CR**  **EATION ANA**  **LY SIS**  **213** Executive Summary 213

**GL OSSA**  **RY** 228 **A CK**  **NO WL**  **ED G**  **MENTS** 2372012 Regional Transportation Plan 

## | Executive Summary 

### v 

# L i s t o f Fi gu re s, ta b le s, A N D EXHI B IT S

**T a**  **bl e 1**  Transportation Investments (Nominal Dollars, Billions) 5 **T a**  **bl e 2**  New Revenue Sources and Innovative Financing Strategies (Nominal Dollars, Billions) 7 **Fi gur**  **e 1** Revenue Summary $524.7 Billion (Nominal Dollars) FY2011–FY2035 8 **Fi gur**  **e 2** Expenditure Summary $524.7 Billion (Nominal Dollars) FY2011–FY2035 8 **T a**  **bl e 1.1**  RTP/SCS Goals 13 **E xhi**  **b it 1.1**  SCAG Region 14 **T a**  **bl e 1.2**  RTP/SCS Policies 15 **T a**  **bl e 1.3**  RTP/SCS Goals and Related Performance Outcomes 15 **T a**  **bl e 1.4**  Annual Average Growth Rate of the SCAG Region During Growth Periods (1850–2010) 17 **T a**  **bl e 1.5**  County Share of Regional Population (1990–2010) 17 **Fi gur**  **e 1.1** Projection of Population, Household, and Employment Growth (2008–2035) 18 **Fi gur**  **e 1.2** California Mileage Death Rate (1933–2009) 19 **T a**  **bl e 1.6**  Urban Rail Ridership 20 **Fi gur**  **e 1.3** Mode of Travel for Total Trips (2009) 22 **Fi gur**  **e 1.4** Historical Trend and Forecasts of Air Passenger Activity (1960–2035) 22 **Fi gur**  **e 1.5** Commute Trip Carpool Rates (1980–2010) 24 **Fi gur**  **e 1.6** California Population, Travel, and Gas Tax Revenue Trends 25 **Fi gur**  **e 1.7** Preservation Cost-Effectiveness 26 **Fi gur**  **e 1.8** San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volume Trend and Projections 26 **T a**  **bl e 1.7**  SCAG Region Non-Attainment and Maintenance Areas 28 **T a**  **bl e 1.8**  Stakeholders in the Development of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 33 **Fi gur**  **e 2.1** Mobility Pyramid 35 **Fi gur**  **e 2.2** Annual Collisions on the State Highway System in the SCAG Region 37 **Fi gur**  **e 2.3** Preservation and Operations Funding 39 **T a**  **bl e 2.1**  TSM Categories and Benefits 41 **T a**  **bl e 2.2**  Major Highway Completion Projects 42 **T a**  **bl e 2.3**  Major HOV Projects 43 **T a**  **bl e 2.4**  Arterial Investment Summary (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 44 **E xhi**  **b it 2.1**  Major Highway Projects 45 **E xhi**  **b it 2.2**  Rail Transit System (1990) 46 **E xhi**  **b it 2.3**  Rail Transit System (2010) 47 **E xhi**  **b it 2.4**  Rail Transit System (2035) 48 **T a**  **bl e 2.5**  Major Transit Projects 49 **E xhi**  **b it 2.5**  Regional Bicycle Network 54 **T a**  **bl e 2.6**  Express/HOT Lane Network 56 **E xhi**  **b it 2.6**  Express/HOT Lane Network 57 **T a**  **bl e 2.7**  2035 Airport Forecasts (Million Annual Air Passengers) 58 **Fi gur**  **e 2.4** 2035 Air Passenger Demand Airport Allocations 59 **Fi gur**  **e 2.5** 2035 Air Cargo Demand Airport Allocations 59 **Fi gur**  **e 2.6** GDP Contribution of Goods Movement-Dependent Industries (2010) 65 **E xhi**  **b it 2.7**  Existing Regional Goods Movement System 67 **E xhi**  **b it 2.8**  Rising Truck Volumes on Key Truck Corridors (2008 and 2035 Baseline) 69 **E xhi**  **b it 2.9**  Potential East-West Freight Corridor 70 **T a**  **bl e 2.8**  Benefits of an East-West Corridor Strategy 71 **T a**  **bl e 2.9**  Peak Day Train Volumes 2010, 2035 (Metrolink Volumes in Parentheses) 72 **T a**  **bl e 2.10**  Benefits of the SCAG Regional Rail Strategy 73 **Fi gur**  **e 2.7** Timeline to Implement a Zero- and Near-Zero-Emission Freight System 74 **T a**  **bl e 2.11**  Environmental Benefits 76 **Fi gur**  **e 3.1** Historical Inflation Trends 88 **Fi gur**  **e 3.2** Highway Project Costs 89

### vi

**Fi gur**  **e 3.3** Status of the Federal Highway Trust Fund 90 **Fi gur**  **e 3.4** Status of the State Highway Operation and Protection Program 91 **Fi gur**  **e 3.5** Growth in Transit Operating and Maintenance Costs 92 **T a**  **bl e 3.1**  Multimodal System Preservation and Maintenance Needs (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 93 **T a**  **bl e 3.2**  Core Revenue Forecast FY2011–FY2035 (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 94 **Fi gur**  **e 3.6** Core Revenues (in Nominal Dollars) $305.3 Billion Total 94 **Fi gur**  **e 3.7** Core Revenues by County (in Nominal Dollars) $305.3 Billion Total 95 **Fi gur**  **e 3.8** Core Revenues, Local Sources (in Nominal Dollars) $225.5 Billion Total 95 **Fi gur**  **e 3.9** Core Revenues, State Sources (in Nominal Dollars) $46.8 Billion Total 95 **Fi gur**  **e 3.10** Core Revenues, Federal Sources (in Nominal Dollars) $33.0 Billion Total 96 **T a**  **bl e 3.3**  New Revenue Sources and Innovative Financing Strategies (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 97 **T a**  **bl e 3.4.1**  Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections— Local Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 99 **T a**  **bl e 3.4.2**  Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections— State Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 100 **T a**  **bl e 3.4.3**  Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections— Federal Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 101 **T a**  **bl e 3.4.4**  Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—Innovative Financing and New Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 102 **Fi gur**  **e 3.11** Revenue Summary $524.7 Billion (in Nominal Dollars) FY2011–FY2035 103 **Fi gur**  **e 3.12** Expenditure Summary $524.7 Billion (in Nominal Dollars) FY2011–FY2035 104 **Fi gur**  **e 3.13** Revenues Compared to Costs by Mode 104 **T a**  **bl e 3.5**  2012–2035 RTP/SCS Revenues (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 105 **T a**  **bl e 3.6**  2012–2035 RTP/SCS Expenditures (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 106 **Fi gur**  **e 4.1** Anticipated Future Growth (2008–2035) 108 **E xhi**  **b it 4.1**  Population Growth SCAG Region (2008–2035) 109 **E xhi**  **b it 4.2**  Employment Growth SCAG Region (2008–2035) 110 **E xhi**  **b it 4.3**  Household Growth SCAG Region (2008–2035) 111 **Fi gur**  **e 4.2** Workshop Scenario Elements 116 **Fi gur**  **e 4.3** Workshop Scenarios (2035) 117 **E xhi**  **b it 4.4**  Compass Blueprint Demonstration Projects 123 **E xhi**  **b it 4.5**  Urban Centers SCAG Region 127 **T a**  **bl e 4.1**  Summary of Total Households Forecasted in RTP/SCS 128 **T a**  **bl e 4.2**  Summary of Total Jobs Forecasted in RTP/SCS 129 **E xhi**  **b it 4.6**  Natural Resource Areas SCAG Region 132 **E xhi**  **b it 4.7**  Open Space SCAG Region 133 **E xhi**  **b it 4.8**  Farmland SCAG Region 134 **E xhi**  **b it 4.9**  High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) SCAG Region 136 **E xhi**  **b it 4.10**  Transit Network SCAG Region 137 **E xhi**  **b it 4.11**  Proposed Bikeway Network SCAG Region 138 **E xhi**  **b it 4.12**  Proposed Highway Improvements SCAG Region 139 **E xhi**  **b it 4.13**  Land Use Pattern SCAG Region (2035) 143 **E xhi**  **b it 4.14**  Land Use Pattern Ventura County (2035) 144 **E xhi**  **b it 4.15**  Land Use Pattern Los Angeles County (2035) 145 **E xhi**  **b it 4.16**  Land Use Pattern San Bernardino County (2035) 146 **E xhi**  **b it 4.17**  Land Use Pattern Orange County (2035) 147 **E xhi**  **b it 4.18**  Land Use Pattern Riverside County (2035) 148 **E xhi**  **b it 4.19**  Land Use Pattern Imperial County (2035) 149 **T a**  **bl e 4.3**  Land Use Actions and Strategies 152 **T a**  **bl e 4.4**  Transportation Network Actions and Strategies 154 **T a**  **bl e 4.5**  Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Actions and Strategies 155 **T a**  **bl e 4.6**  Transportation System Management (TSM) Actions and Strategies 156 **T a**  **bl e 4.7**  Clean Vehicle Technology Actions and Strategies 156 **T a**  **bl e 4.8**  Sustainable Communities Strategy Requirements Matrix 158 **T a**  **bl e 5.1**  Adopted 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Outcomes and Performance Measures/Indicators 166 **Fi gur**  **e 5.1** Daily Person-Hours of Delay by Facility Type 169 **Fi gur**  **e 5.2** Daily Person Delay per Capita by County (Minutes) 170 **Fi gur**  **e 5.3** Daily Heavy-Duty Truck Hours of Delay 170 **Fi gur**  **e 5.4** Non-Recurrent Congestion Share by County (2009) 1712012 Regional Transportation Plan 

## | Executive Summary 

### vii

**E xhi**  **b it 5.1**  Base Year 2008 Freeway Speed – PM Peak (3pm–7pm) 172 **E xhi**  **b it 5.2**  Baseline 2035 Freeway Speed – PM Peak (3pm–7pm) 173 **E xhi**  **b it 5.3**  Plan 2035 Freeway Speed – PM Peak (3pm–7pm) 174 **Fi gur**  **e 5.5** Percentage of PM Peak Period Home-Based Work Trips within 45 Minutes 175 **Fi gur**  **e 5.6** Illustrative Highway Productivity Losses 176 **Fi gur**  **e 5.7** Highway System Productivity (Lost Lane-Miles) 176 **Fi gur**  **e 5.8** Ratio of Transit Passenger Miles/Seat Miles 177 **Fi gur**  **e 5.9** Difference between Reliability and Mobility 177 **T a**  **bl e 5.2**  Estimated Improvements in Reliability 178 **T a**  **bl e 5.3**  Employment Impact from Construction and Maintenance Expenditures (Per Year) 179 **Fi gur**  **e 5.10** Results of Regional Benefit/Cost Analysis 180 **T a**  **bl e 5.4**  Demographic and Economic Categories 187 **T a**  **bl e 6.1**  Participatory Non-Governmental Groups 199 **f i**  **gur e 6.1**  Sample of Question Used at RTP/SCS Public Workshops, Summer 2011 203 **f i**  **gur e 6.2**  Sample of Question Used at RTP/SCS Public Workshops, Summer 2011 204 **T a**  **bl e 7.1**  Major Strategic Plan Projects 208 **ta bl**  **e 8.1** Logistics Contribution to Southern California’s Economy, 2009 219 **ta bl**  **e 8.2** Net Expenditures (in Millions of Nominal Dollars) 220 **ta bl**  **e 8.3** Employment Impact from Construction and Maintenance Expenditures (Per Year) 220 **T a**  **bl e 8.4**  Total Employment Impact 223 

### A **ppendices** Project List Active Transportation Aviation and Airport Ground Access Congestion Management Environmental Justice Goods Movement Growth Forecast Highways and Arterials Intelligent Transportation Systems Passenger Rail Performance Measures Public Participation and Consultation SCS Background Documentation Subregional Sustainable Communities Strategies Transit Transportation Conformity Analysis Transportation Demand Management Transportation Finance Transportation Safety Transportation Security Vehicle Technology

### viii



# Leadership 

# | Vision 

# | Progress Leadership, vision and progress which promote economic growth, personal well-being, and livable communities for all S outhern Californians.

T he Ass ociatio n w ill acco m pli s h thi s Mi ss io n by:

 Developing long-range regional plans and strategies that provide for efficient movement of people, goods and information; enhance economic growth and international trade; and improve the environment and quality of life.

 Providing quality information services and analysis for the region.

 Using an inclusive decision-making process that resolves conflicts and encourages trust.

 Creating an educational and work environment that cultivates creativity, initiative, and opportunity.

Funding: The preparation of this document was financed in part through funds from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. Additional financial assistance was provided by the California Department of Transportation. 

# Mi ss io n State m e n t

### ix


# S CA G R e g io n al C o un cil

Officers

**President** Pam O’Connor, Santa Monica **First V**  **ice President** Glen Becerra, Simi Valley **S econd**  **V ice President**  Greg Pettis, Cathedral City **I mmediate Past President**  Larry McCallon, Highland 

## M embers

**I mperial County**  Jack Terrazas, Imperial County 

## | Cheryl Viegas-Walker, El Centro
**Los A**  **ngeles County** Mike Antonovich, Los Angeles County 

## | Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County 

## | Richard Alarcón, Los Angeles 

## | Bruce Barrows, Cerritos 

## | Joe Buscaino, Los Angeles 

## | Tony Cardenas, Los Angeles 

## | Stan Carroll, La Habra Heights 

## | Margaret Clark, Rosemead 

## | Gene Daniels, Paramount 

## | Lillie Dobson, Compton 

## | Judy Dunlap, Inglewood 

## | Mitchell Englander, Los Angeles 

## | Margaret E. Finlay, Duarte 

## | David Gafin, Downey 

## | Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles 

## | James Gazeley, Lomita 

## | Frank Gurulé, Cudahy Keith W. Hanks, Azusa 

## | Mario F. Hernandez, San Fernando 

## | Carol Herrera, Diamond Bar Steve Hofbauer, Palmdale 

## | José Huizar, Los Angeles 

## | James Johnson, Long Beach 

## | Paul Koretz, Los Angeles 

## | Paul Krekorian, Los Angeles 

## | Tom LaBonge, Los Angeles 

## | Paula Lantz, Pomona 

## | Barbara Messina, Alhambra 

## | Judy Mitchell, Rolling Hills Estates 

## | Steven Neal, Long Beach 

## | Pam O’Connor, Santa Monica 

## | Bernard Parks, Los Angeles 

## | Jan Perry, Los Angeles 

## | Frank Quintero, Glendale 

## | Ed P. Reyes, Los Angeles 

## | Bill Rosendahl, Los Angeles 

## | Mark Rutherford, Westlake Village 

## | Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles Donald Voss, La Cañada Flintridge 

## | Herb J. Wesson, Jr., Los Angeles 

## | Dennis Zine, Los Angeles
**O range County**  Shawn Nelson, Orange County 

## | Leslie Daigle, Newport Beach Paul Glaab, Laguna Niguel 

## | Matthew Harper, Huntington Beach 

## | Sukhee Kang, Irvine Joel Lautenschleger, Laguna Hills 

## | Michele Martinez, Santa Ana 

## | Leroy Mills, Cypress Brett Murdock, Brea 

## | Kris Murray, Anaheim 

## | John Nielsen, Tustin 

## | Andy Quach, Westminster 

## | Sharon Quirk-Silva, Fullerton **Riverside County** Jeff Stone, Riverside County 

## | Jim Hyatt, Calimesa Darcy Kuenzi, Menifee 

## | Ron Loveridge, Riverside 

## | Greg Pettis, Cathedral City Lupe Ramos Watson, Indio 

## | Ron Roberts, Temecula
**S an Bernardino County**  Gary Ovitt, San Bernardino County 

## | Ginger Coleman, Apple Valley 

## | Glenn Duncan, Chino 

## | Paul Eaton, Montclair 

## | Jon Harrison, Redlands 

## | Bill Jahn, Big Bear Lake 

## | Larry McCallon, Highland 

## | Deborah Robertson, Rialto
**V entura County**  Linda Parks, Ventura County 

## | Glen Becerra, Simi Valley Bryan A. MacDonald, Oxnard 

## | Carl Morehouse, San Buenaventura
**T ribal Government Representative**  Mark Calac, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians
**O range County**  **T ransportation**  **A uthority**  Jerry Amante, Huntington Beach **Riverside County T**  **ransportation Commission** Mary Craton, Canyon Lake
**S an Bernardino**  **A ssociated Governments**  Brad Mitzelfelt, County of San Bernardino | Alan Wapner, Ontario
**V entura County**  **T ransportation Commission**  Keith Millhouse, Moorpark
**T ransportation Corridors**  **A gency**  Lisa Bartlett, Dana Point

### x


# c u rre n t polic y co mm ittee m e mb er s

C o mmun it y, E co n o m ic , a n d Hum a n D evelop m e n t C o mm ittee

**Chair** *Hon. Bill Jahn, City of Big Bear Lake **V ice Chair**  *Hon. Paula Lantz, City of Pomona

Hon. Sam Allevato, City of San Juan Capistrano Hon. Josue Barrios, City of Cudahy Hon. James Butts, Jr., City of Inglewood Hon. Don Campbell, City of Brawley Hon. Carol Chen, City of Cerritos *Hon. Ginger Coleman, Town of Apple Valley Hon. Laurie Ender, City of Santa Clarita *Hon. Margaret Finlay, City of Duarte Hon. Ron Garcia, City of Brea *Hon. James Gazeley, City of Lomita Hon. Joseph J. Gonzales, City of South El Monte Hon. Elba Guerrero, City of Huntington Park Hon. Julie Hackbarth-McIntyre, City of Barstow *Hon. Jon Harrison, City of Redlands *Hon. Steven Hofbauer, City of Palmdale Hon. Elaine Holmes, City of Indio *Hon. Sukhee Kang, City of Irvine *Hon. Darcy Kuenzi, City of Menifee Hon. Randon Lane, City of Murrieta *Hon. Joel Lautenschleger, City of Laguna Hills Hon. Mike Leonard, City of Hesperia *Hon. Ronald Loveridge, City of Riverside *Hon. Bryan A. MacDonald, City of Oxnard Hon. Charles Martin, Morongo Band of Mission Indians *Hon. Larry McCallon, City of Highland Hon. Kathryn McCullough, City of Lake Forest Hon. Susan McSweeney, City of Westlake Village Hon. John Mirisch, City of Beverly Hills *Hon. Carl Morehouse, City of Ventura Hon. Gene Murabito, City of Glendora *Hon. Kris Murray, City of Anaheim Hon. Ray Musser, City of Upland *Hon. John Nielsen, City of Tustin Hon. Laura Olhasso, City of La Cañada/Flintridge Hon. John Palinkas, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians *Hon. Linda Parks, County of Ventura Hon. R. Rex Parris, City of Lancaster *Hon. Jan Perry, City of Los Angeles *Hon. Andy Quach, City of Westminster *Hon. Ed Reyes, City of Los Angeles Hon. Bob Ring, City of Laguna Woods *Hon. Deborah Robertson, City of Rialto Hon. Gino Sund, City of Altadena Hon. Cathy Warner, City of Whittier 

## E N ER GY A N D E N VIRO NM E N T CO MM ITTEE

**Chair** *Hon. Margaret Clark, City of Rosemead **V ice Chair**  *Hon.Cheryl Viegas-Walker, City of El Centro

*Hon. Lisa Bartlett, City of Dana Point Hon. Denis Bertone, City of San Dimas Hon. Brian Brennan, City of Ventura *Hon. Mark Calac, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians Hon. Jordan Ehrenkranz, City of Canyon Hill *Hon. Mitchell Englander, City of Los Angeles Hon. Larry Forester, City of Signal Hill *Hon. David Gafin, City of Downey *Hon. Keith Hanks, City of Azusa *Hon. James Johnson, City of Long Beach Hon. Abbe Land, City of West Hollywood Hon. Phil Luebben City of Cypress Hon. Thomas Martin, City of Maywood Hon. Dan Medina, City of Gardena *Hon. Judy Mitchell, City of Rolling Hills Estates Hon. Sam Pedroza, City of Claremont *Hon. Lupe Ramos Watson, City of Indio Hon. Edward Scott, City of Rialto *Hon. Jack Terrazas, County of Imperial Hon. Sam Toles, City of Cathedral City Hon. Mark Waldman, City of La Palma Hon. Edward Wilson, City of Signal Hill *Hon. Dennis Zine, City of Los Angeles

* Regional Council Member

### xi



## TRA NS PORTATIO N CO MM ITTEE

**Chair** *Hon. Paul Glaab, City of Laguna Niguel **V ice Chair**  *Hon. Keith Millhouse, City of Moorpark

*Hon. Jerry Amante, City of Tustin *Hon. Michael Antonovich, County of Los Angeles *Hon. Bruce Barrows, City of Cerritos *Hon. Glen Becerra, City of Simi Valley Hon. Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs *Hon. Stan Carroll, City of La Habra Heights Hon. Jeff Cooper, City of Culver City *Hon. Mary Craton, City of Canyon Lake *Hon. Gene Daniels, City of Paramount Hon. Steve Diels, City of Redondo Beach *Hon. Glenn Duncan, City of Chino *Hon. Judy Dunlap, City of Inglewood *Hon. Paul Eaton, City of Montclair Hon. Thomas Glancy, City of Thousand Oaks Hon. Mario Guerra, City of Downey *Hon. Frank Gurulé, City of Cudahy Hon. Bert Hack, City of Laguna Woods *Hon. Matthew Harper, City of Huntington Beach *Hon. Carol Herrera, City of Diamond Bar *Hon. Jose Huizar, City of Los Angeles *Hon. Jim Hyatt, City of Calimesa Hon. Ryan Kelley, City of Brawley Hon. Trish Kelley, City of Mission Viejo Hon. James C. Ledford, City of Palmdale Hon. Steven Ly, City of Rosemead *Hon. Michele Martinez, City of Santa Ana Mr. James McCarthy, Caltrans - District 7 Hon. Brian McDonald, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Hon. Ryan McEachron, City of Victorville Hon. Marsha McLean, City of Santa Clarita *Hon. Barbara Messina, City of Alhambra *Hon. Leroy Mills, City of Cypress *Hon. Brad Mitzelfelt, County of San Bernardino *Hon. Brett Murdock, City of Brea *Hon. Steven Neal, City of Long Beach *Hon. Shawn Nelson, County of Orange *Hon. Pam O’Connor, City of Santa Monica *Hon. Gary Ovitt, County of San Bernardino *Hon. Bernard C. Parks, City of Los Angeles *Hon. Gregory Pettis, City of Cathedral City *Hon. Frank Quintero, City of Glendale *Hon. Sharon Quirk-Silva, City of Fullerton *Hon. Ron Roberts, City of Temecula Hon. Don Robinson, City of Banning Hon. Mark Rutherford, City of Westlake Village Hon. Damon Sandoval, Morongo Band of Mission Indians Hon. David Spence, City of La Cañada/Flintridge Hon. Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Hon. Tim Spohn, City of Industry *Hon. Jeff Stone, County of Riverside Hon. Jess Talamantes, City of Burbank *Hon. Donald Voss, City of La Cañada/Flintridge Hon. Alan Wapner, City of Ontario

* Regional Council Member

## RE G IO N AL CO UN CIL M E MB ER S
Supervisor John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Council Member Don Hansen, City of Huntington Beach Congresswoman and Former Council Member Janice Hahn, City of San Pedro Council Member Barbara Calhoun, City of Compton Council Member Marsha McLean, City of Santa Clarita Supervisor Louis Fuentes, Imperial County Council Member Susan Rhilinger, City of Torrance Council Member Dennis Washburn, City of Calabasas Council Member Greig Smith, City of Los Angeles Council Member Richard Dixon, City of Lake Forest Council Member Marsha McLean, City of Santa Clarita Supervisor John M. W. Moorlach, Orange County Council Member Art Brown, City of Buena Park Council Member Robin Lowe, City of Hemet Council Member Kelly Chastain, City of Colton Council Member Bonnie Flickinger, City of Moreno Valley Council Member Pat Gilbreath, City of Redlands Council Member Robert Hernandez, City of Anaheim Council Member John Beauman, City of Brea Council Member Val Lerch, City of Long Beach Council Member Tonia Reyes Uranga, City of Long Beach Council Member Thomas Buckley, City of Lake Elsinore Council Member Gil Coerper, City of Huntington Beach Council Member Melanie Fesmire, City of Indio 

## POLIC Y CO MM ITTEE M E MB ER S Community, Economic and Human Development
Council Member Gwen Norton Perry, SANBAG Council Member Bea Cortez, SANBAG Council Member Jan Horton, OCCOG Council Member Laura Lee, GCCOG Council Member Scott Malsin, WSCCOG Council Member Paul Marchand, CVAG Council Member Maricela Morales, VCOG Council Member Joseph Mosca, SGVCOG Council Member Allan Songstad, OCCOG Council Member Daniel Tabor, SBCCOG Council Member Luis Ayala, SGVCOG 

## Energy and Environment Committee
Council Member Sheryl Ade, WRCOG Council Member Layne Baroldi, GCCOG Council Member Jerri Graham-Mejia, OCCOG Council Member George Mirabal, GCCOG Council Member Mitch Ward, SBCCOG Council Member Jeff Williams, SANBAG Council Member Carlos Valdez, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

## Transportation Committee Council Member Tom King, SGVCOG Council Member Micheal O’Leary, WSCCOG Council Member Joel Bishop, OCCOG Council Member Cathy Green, OCCOG Council Member Malcolm Miller, WRCOG Council Member John Pomierski, SANBAG 

### xii


# PA S T RE G IO N AL CO UN CIL A N D POLIC Y CO MM ITTEE M E MB ER S

### xiii



## RE S OL U TIO N N O. 12-538-2

**A R**  **ESO LU**  **TION O**  **F THE**  **SO U**  **THE R**  **N C**  **A L**  **I F**  **O R**  **NIA ASSO**  **C IATION**  **O F**  **G OVE**  **R NMENTS**  **A PPR**  **OVIN G**  **THE 2012–2035 R**  **E G**  **IONA L**  **T R**  **ANS P**  **O R**  **TATION PL**  **AN /**  **S U**  **STAINA BL**  **E C**  **OMM U**  **NITIES ST**  **R ATE**  **GY (2012–2035 R T**  **P/ S**  **C S**  **); R E**  **L ATED**  **C ON**  **F O**  **R MIT**  **Y DETE**  **R MINATION**  **; AND**  **R E**  **L ATED**  **C ONSISTEN**  **CY AMENDMENT**  **#11-24 TO**  **THE 2011 F**  **EDE R**  **A L**  **T R**  **ANS P**  **O R**  **TATION IM**  **PR OVEMENT**  **PR O**  **GR AM** 

**W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Agency established pursuant to California Government Code §6500 et seq.; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** SCAG is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §134(d) for the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Orange, and Imperial, and as such, is responsible for preparing and updating the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §134 et seq., 49 U.S.C. §5303 et seq., and 23 C.F.R. §450.312; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** SCAG is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) under state law, and as such, is responsible for preparing, adopting and updating the RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy every four years pursu

ant to Government Code §65080 et seq., and for preparing and adopting the FTIP (regional transportation improvement program, under state law) every two years pursuant to Government Code §§ 14527 and 65082, and Public Utilities Code §130301 et seq.; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375 (Steinberg, 2008) as codified in Government Code §65080(b) et seq., SCAG must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that demonstrates how the region will meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets as set forth by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and that will be incorporated into the RTP. As provided by Government Code §65080(d), the subregional Sustainable Communities Strategy for the subregions of Orange County Council of Governments and Gateway Cities Council of Governments are incorporated in their entirety into the Final 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** pursuant to SB 375, ARB set the per capita GHG emission reduction targets from passenger vehicles for the SCAG region at 8% below 2005 per capita emis

sions levels by 2020 and 13% below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** pursuant to Government Code §65080(b)(2)(B), the SCS must: (1) identify the general location of uses, residential densities, and building intensities within the region; (2) identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region, including all economic segments of the population, over the course of the plan

ning period of the regional transportation plan taking into account net migration into the region, population growth, household formation and employment growth; (3) identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the regional housing need for the region pursuant to Government Code Section 65584; (4) identify a transportation network to service the transportation needs of the region; (5) gather and consider the best practically available scientific information regarding resource areas and farmland in the region as defined in subdivisions (1) and (b) of the Government Code Sections 65080 and 65581; and (6) consider the statutory housing goals specified in Sections 65580 and 65581, (7) set forth a forecasted development pattern for the region which when integrated with the transpor

tation network, and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce the GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks to achieve the GHG reduction targets, and (8) allow the RTP to comply with air quality conformity requirements under the federal Clean Air Act; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** SCAG is further required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) in preparing the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS must be consistent with all other applicable provi

sions of federal and state law including: (1) The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (23 U.S.C. §134 et seq.); (2) The metropolitan planning regulations at 23 C.F.R. Part 450, Subpart C; (3) California Government Code §65080 et seq.; Public Utilities Code §130058 and 130059; and Public Utilities Code §44243.5; (4) §§174 and 176(c) and (d) of the federal Clean Air Act [(42 U.S.C. §§7504 and 7506(c) and (d)] and EPA Transportation Conformity Rule, 40 C.F.R. Parts 51 and 93; (5) Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Title VI assurance executed by the State pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §324; (6) The Department of Transportation’s Final Environmental Justice Strategy (60 Fed. Reg. 33896; June 29, 1995) enacted pursuant to Executive Order 12898, which seeks to avoid disproportionately highand adverse impacts on minority and lowincome populations with respect to human health and the environment; (7) Title II of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§12101 et seq.) and accompanying regulations at 49 C.F.R. §27, 37, and 38; (8) Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg, 2008) as codified in California Government Code §65080(b) et seq.; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** in non-attainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants, the MPO, as well as the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), must make a conformity determination on any updated or amended RTP in accordance with the federal Clean Air Act to ensure that feder

ally supported highway and transit project 

# RE S OL U TIO N

### xiv

activities conform to the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (SIP); and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** transportation conformity is based upon a positive conformity finding with respect to the following tests: (1) regional emissions analysis, (2) timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures, (3) finan

cial constraint, and (4) interagency consulta

tion and public involvement; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** on May 8, 2008, the SCAG Regional Council found the 2008 RTP to be in conformity with the State Implementation Plans for air quality, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Transportation Conformity Rule. Thereafter, FHWA and FTA made a conformity determination on the 2008 RTP with said determination to expire on June 5, 2012; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** on September 2, 2010, in accordance with federal and state require

ments, , the SCAG Regional Council approved the 2010/11–2015/16 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2011 FTIP), which was federally approved on December 14, 2010. The 2011 FTIP represents a staged, multi-year, intermodal program of transporta

tion projects which covers six fiscal years and includes a priority list of projects to be car

ried out in the first four fiscal years; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** SCAG staff has engaged in the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process mandated by 23 U.S.C. §134(c) (3) and 23 C.F.R. §450.312, resulting in the development of the 2012– 2035 RTP/SCS; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** pursuant to Government Code §65080(b)(2)(F) and federal public participation requirements, including 23 C.F.R. §450.316(b)(1)(iv), SCAG must prepare the RTP, including its SCS, by providing adequate public notice of public involvement activities and time for public review. In March 2007, SCAG approved and adopted a Public Participation Plan, to serve as a guide for SCAG’s public involvement process. SCAG staff further enhanced the outreach program by incorporating the public participation requirements of SB 375 and adding strate

gies to better serve the underrepresented segments of the region. As a result of this process, the SCAG Regional Council adopted Amendments #2 and #3 to the Public Participation Plan on December 3, 2009 and January 5, 2012, respectively; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** pursuant to Government Code §65080(b)(2)(F)(iii), during the summer 2011, SCAG held a series of Sustainable Communities Strategy public workshops throughout the region, with over 700 attend

ees, including residents, elected officials, representatives of public agencies, com

munity organizations, and environmental, housing and business stakeholders; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** in accordance with the inter

agency consultation requirements, 40 C.F.R. 93.105, SCAG consulted with the respective transportation and air quality planning agen

cies, including but not limited to, extensive discussion of the Draft Conformity Report before the Transportation Conformity Working Group (a forum for implementing the inter

agency consultation requirements) throughout the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS update process; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** SCAG released the Draft 2012–2035 RTP/SCS and the associated Draft Amendment #11-24 to the 2011 FTIP and issued a Notice of Availability, for a 55-day public review and comment period that began on December 20, 2011 and ended on February 14, 2012; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS (PEIR), was released on December 30, 2011 for a 45-day public review and comment period ending on February 14, 2012; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** as part of a “bottom up” plan

ning process, SCAG followed the provisions of its adopted Public Participation Plan regard

ing public involvement activities for the Draft 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. Public outreach efforts included publication of the Draft 2012–2035 RTP/SCS on an interactive web site, distribu

tion of public information materials, six duly-noticed public hearings, and twelve sub

regional workshops within the SCAG region to allow stakeholders, elected officials and the public to comment on the Draft 2012–2035 RTP/SCS and the Draft PEIR; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** during the public review and comment period, SCAG received over 260 individual communications (over 1,800 separate comments) in total, regarding either the Draft 2012–2035 RTP/SCS or Draft PEIR, or both; and approximately 2 comments on the Draft Amendment 11-24 to the 2011 FTIP; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** SCAG staff presented an overview of the comments received on the Draft PEIR, and a proposed approach to the responses, to the Policy Committees and Regional Council at a joint meeting on February 21, 2012; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** SCAG staff further presented an overview of the comments received on the Draft 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, and a proposed approach to the responses, to the RTP Subcommittee on February 28, 2012 and to the Policy Committees and Regional Council at a joint meeting on March 1, 2012. Each of the comments, letters, and e-mails received was made available on the SCAG web page on March 1, 2012; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** SCAG staff responses to each comment are provided in the Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, Public Participation and Consultation Appendix; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** in accordance with the inter

agency consultation requirements, 40 C.F.R. 93.105, SCAG consulted with the respective transportation and air quality planning agen

cies, including but not limited to, extensive discussion of the Draft 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Conformity Report before the Transportation Conformity Working Group (a forum for imple

menting the interagency consultation require

ments) throughout the update process; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** the Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes a financially constrained plan and a strategic plan. The constrained plan includes transportation projects that have committed, available or reasonably available revenue sources, and thus are probable for implemen

tation. The strategic plan is an illustrative list of additional transportation investments that the region would pursue if additional funding and regional commitment were secured; and such investments are potential candidates for inclusion in the constrained RTP/SCS through future amendments or updates. The strategic plan is provided for information purposes only and is not part of the financially constrained

### xv

and conforming Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** the Final 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS includes a financial plan identifying the revenues committed, available or reasonably available to support the SCAG region’s sur

face transportation investments. The financial plan was developed following basic principles including incorporation of county and local financial planning documents in the region where available, and utilization of published data sources to evaluate historical trends and augment local forecasts as needed; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** the Transportation Conformity Report contained in the Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS makes a positive transportation conformity determination. Using the final motor vehicle emission budgets released by ARB and found to be adequate by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this conformity determination is based upon staff’s analysis of the applicable transporta

tion conformity tests; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** each project or project phase included in the FTIP must be consistent with the approved RTP, pursuant to 23 C.F.R. §450.324(g). Amendment #11-24 to the 2011 FTIP has been prepared to ensure consis

tency with the Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** conformity of Amendment #11-24 to the FTIP has been determined simultaneously with the 2012 Final RTP/SCS in order to address the consistency require

ment of federal law; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** prior to the adoption of this resolution, the Regional Council certified the Final PEIR prepared for the 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS to be in compliance with CEQA; and **W HE**  **R EAS**  **,** the Regional Council has had the opportunity to review the 2012 Final RTP/ SCS and its related appendices as well as the staff report related to the 2012 Final RTP/ SCS, and consideration of the 2012 Final RTP/SCS was made by the Regional Council as part of a public meeting held on April 4, 2012. **NO W,**  **THE R**  **E F**  **O R**  **E B**  **E IT**  **R ESO**  **L VED**  **,** by the Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments, as follows: 1. The Regional Council approves and adopts the Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS for the pur

pose of complying with the requirements of SAFETEA-LU and all other applicable laws and regulations as referenced in the above recitals. In adopting this Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, the Regional Council finds as follows:

a. The Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS complies with all applicable federal and state requirements, including the SAFETEA-LU planning provisions. Specifically, the Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS fully addresses the requirements relating to the development and content of metropolitan transportation plans as set forth in 23 C.F.R.§450.322 et seq., including issues relating to: trans

portation demand, operational and man

agement strategies, safety and security, environmental mitigation, the need for a financially constrained plan, consultation and public participation, and transporta

tion conformity; and b. The Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS complies with the emission reduction targets estab

lished by the California Air Resources Board and meets the requirements of Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg, 2008) as codified in Government Code §65080(b) et seq. by achieving per capita GHG emission reductions relative to 2005 of 9% by 2020 and 16% by 2035; and 2. The Regional Council hereby makes a positive transportation conformity deter

mination of the Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS and Amendment #11-24 to the 2011 FTIP. In making this determination, the Regional Council finds as follows:

a. The Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS and Amendment #11-24 to the 2011 FTIP passes the four tests and analyses required for conformity, namely: regional emissions analysis; timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures; finan

cial constraint analysis; and interagency consultation and public involvement; and 3. In approving the Final 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS, the Regional Council also approves and adopts Amendment #11-24 to the 2011 FTIP, in compliance with the federal requirement of consistency with the RTP; and 4. In approving the Final 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS, the Regional Council incorporates all of the foregoing recitals into this Resolution; and 5. SCAG’s Executive Director or his designee is authorized to transmit the Final 2012– 2035 RTP/SCS and its conformity findings to the FTA and the FHWA to make the final conformity determination in accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act and EPA Transportation Conformity Rule, 40 C.F.R. Parts 51 and 93.

**A PPR**  **OVED AND**  **ADO P**  **TED** by the Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments at its regular meeting on the 4th day of April, 2012.

Pam O’Connor President Council Member, City of Santa Monica

Attested by:

Hasan Ikhrata Executive Director

Joann Africa Chief Counsel

### xvi 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Executive Summary


# E xec u tive S umm ar y

Image courtesy of Metro © 2012 LACMTA

### 1



# Our Vision
Towards a S ustainable F uture
For the past three decades, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has prepared Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) with the primary goal of increasing mobility for the region’s residents and visitors. While mobility is a vital component of the quality of life that this region deserves, it is by no means the only component. SCAG has placed a greater emphasis than ever before on sustainability and integrated planning in the 2012–2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/ SCS), whose vision encompasses three principles that collectively work as the key to our region’s future: mobility, economy, and sustainability. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with SB 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as set forth by the federal Clean Air Act. As such, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS contains a regional commitment for the broad deploy

ment of zero- and near-zero emission transportation technologies in the 2023–2035 time frame and clear steps to move toward this objective. This is especially critical for our goods movement system. The development of a world-class zero- or near-zero emission freight transportation system is necessary to maintain economic growth in the region, to sustain quality of life, and to meet federal air quality requirements. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS puts forth an aggressive strategy for technology development and deployment to achieve this objective. This strategy will have many co-benefits, including energy security, cost certainty, increased public support for infrastructure, GHG reduction, and economic development. Never before have the crucial linkages and interrelationships between the economy, the regional transportation system, and land use been as important as now. For the first time, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes a significant consideration of the economic impacts and opportunities provided by the transportation infrastructure plan set forth in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, considering not only the economic and job creation impacts of the direct investment in transportation infrastructure, but also the efficiency gains in terms of worker and business economic productivity and goods movement. The 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS outlines a transportation infrastructure investment strategy that will benefit Southern California, the state, and the nation in terms of economic development, competitive advantage, and overall competitiveness in the global economy in terms of attracting and retaining employers in the Southern California region. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS provides a blueprint for improving quality of life for our residents by providing more choices for where they will live, work, and play, and how they will move around. Its safe, secure, and efficient transportation systems will provide improved access to opportunities, such as jobs, education, and healthcare. Its empha

sis on transit and active transportation will allow our residents to lead a healthier, more active lifestyle. It will create jobs, ensure our region’s economic competitiveness through strategic investments in our goods movement system, and improve environmental and health outcomes for its 22 million residents by 2035. More importantly, the RTP/SCS will also preserve what makes the region special, including our stable and successful neigh

borhoods and our array of open spaces for future generations to enjoy. 

## The S etting
In order to successfully overcome the challenges that lie before us, this RTP/SCS first recognizes the impacts that recent events and long-term trends will have on how people choose to live and move around.


## E co n o m ic R ece ss io n 

# [ **800,000** ] jobs have been lost in the region due to the Great Recession

The economic turmoil faced by many of the region’s residents is likely to impact their housing choices and travel behavior, including their transportation mode choice and day-to-day travel patterns. This will potentially require different types of transportation solutions.

### 2 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Executive Summary



## P op u latio n Gro w th

The region will add 

# [ **4 million** ] people by 2035

This growth in population will only exacerbate our region’s existing mobility challenges. The SCAG region is already home to 18 million people, or 49 percent of California’s population. If it were its own state, the SCAG region would be the fifth most populous in the nation. Furthermore, this expected growth will occur mainly in the suburban inland counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, adding to the existing imbalance of jobs and housing in the region, and requiring people to travel, which contributes to transportation and air quality challenges. In addition, with the aging of the Baby Boomer generation (the share of the population 65 years or older will increase from 11 percent in 2010 to 18 per

cent in 2035), the region will have a greater need for more efficient modes of transporta

tion for those who can no longer drive as their main form of transportation.

Image courtesy of Metro © 2012 LACMTA 

## M u lti m odal T ra ns portatio n S ys te m Over the past few decades, the region has invested heavily in a multimodal transportation system that serves as the backbone of the region’s economic well-being.



### T he S ys te m at a Gla n ce 

# [ **21,690** ] miles of highways and arterials 

# [ **470** ] miles of passenger rail 

# [ **6** ] air carrier airports

Nine out of ten trips in the region utilize our extensive highway and arterial network, which supports a host of modes, including the automobile, transit, and active transporta

tion. The region is also home to a growing number of passenger rail lines, none of which existed 20 years ago. Our regional aviation system is the nation’s largest and most com

plex in terms of number of airports and aircraft, and our goods movement industry plays a critical role in sustaining the economy of our region. The importance of this system to our region cannot be overstated.



## T he R e g io n i n Motio n 

# [ **446 m illion**  ] miles driven each day 

# [ **81 million** ] air passengers each year 

# [ **45%** ] more urban rail riders between 2000 and 2006 

# [ **34%** ] of our jobs depend on the goods movement industry2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Executive Summary 

### 3



## Challenges
The challenges facing the region are daunting. When combined, our mobility, air quality, and funding challenges present an imposing threat to the quality of life for both current and future residents.


## Mo b ilit y C halle ng e s

The region wastes over 

# [ **3 million** ] hours each year sitting in traffic

The region’s roadways are the most congested in the nation, and traffic relief is critical, even more so in our current economic situation. By failing to address our congestion, we have foregone jobs—every 10 percent decrease in congestion can bring an employment increase of about 132,000 jobs.


## Sa f et y C halle ng e s On the brighter side, our roadways are among the nation’s safest, with rate of fatal and injury collisions declining dramatically since the 1930s. But as we continue to success

fully improve safety for our motorists, we cannot neglect the alarming fatality rates of those traveling on other modes of transportation. 

# [ **21%** ] of all traffic-related fatalities involve pedestrians

This fatality rate is unacceptable, and if we plan to successfully move toward a more sus

tainable future that includes plenty of active transportation, we must address the safety deficiencies in all modes of transportation. 

## A ir Qu alit y C halle ng e s In addition, while Southern California is a leader in reducing emissions, and ambient lev

els of air pollutants are improving, the SCAG region continues to have the worst air quality in the nation, and air pollution still causes thousands of premature deaths every year, as well as other serious adverse health effects. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) estimates the monetary cost of air pollution in Southern California to be at least $14.6 billion annually. Even with ongoing aggressive control strategies, ever more stringent national ozone standards require further oxide of nitrogen (NOx) emission reductions in the SCAG region. In the South Coast Air Basin, for example, it is estimated that NOx emissions will need to be reduced by approximately two-thirds in 2023 and three-quarters in 2030. This is a daunting challenge. The level of emission reduction required is so significant that 2030 emissions forecasted from just three sources—ships, trains, and aircraft—would lead to ozone levels near the federal standard. Because most sources, including cars and factories, are already controlled by over 90 percent, attainment of ozone standards will require broad deployment of zero- and near-zero emission technologies in the 2023–2035 time frame.


## S enate B ill 375
New to this RTP, California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, or Senate Bill (SB) 375, calls for this RTP to include an SCS that reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from passenger vehicles by 8 percent per capita by 2020 and 13 percent per capita by 2035 compared to 2005, as set by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). SB 375 enhances the State’s goals of Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Meeting the required targets will not be easy, but it must be done for the health and quality of life of current and future generations. Meeting these targets will point the region toward overall sustainability and will provide benefits beyond reduc

ing carbon emissions.

### 4 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Executive Summary



## Fi n a n cial C halle ng e s Of all the challenges facing us today, there is perhaps none more critical than funding. With the projected growth in population, employment, and demand for travel, the costs of our multimodal transportation needs surpass projected revenues available from our historic transportation funding source—the gas tax.


## State and federal gas taxes have not changed in nearly 

# [ **20** ] years Yet, highway construction costs have grown by 

# [ **82%** ]

As a result of years of underinvestment, a significant number of our roadways and bridges have fallen into a state of disrepair. It is imperative that this situation be addressed. The rate of deterioration will only accelerate with continued deferral, significantly increas

ing the cost of bringing our transportation assets back into a state of good repair. Furthermore, with recent declines in transit funding, the region’s transit operators con

tinue to face major obstacles to providing frequent and convenient transit service.



## Rail operating costs have increased by
over 

# [ **40%** ] in the past decade
Intercity transit operators have been forced to cut service by up to 

# [ **20%** ]

The region must consider ways to stabilize existing revenue sources and supplement them with reasonably available new sources. This region needs a long-term, sustain

able funding plan that ensures the region receives its fair share of funding, supports an efficient and effective transportation system that grows the economy, provides mobility choices, and improves our quality of life. 

## Our Approach
To address these challenges, SCAG performed a careful analysis of our transporta

tion system, the future growth of our region, and potential new sources of revenue, and embarked on a massive outreach undertaking to hear what the region had to say. While SCAG continued to work closely through hundreds of meetings with stakeholder agencies with which it has always collaborated, it also conducted a series of planning sessions throughout the region to find out what Southern Californians want to see in their future. The result of this multi-year effort is the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, a shared vision for the region’s sustainable future. 

# Transportation Investments
The RTP/SCS contains a host of improvements to our multimodal transportation system. These improvements include closures of critical gaps in the network that hinder access to certain parts of the region, as well as the strategic expansion of our transportation sys

tem where there is room to grow in order to provide the region with the mobility it needs. These improvements are outlined in **T a**  **bl e 1** 

.

Image courtesy of the Riverside Transit Agency2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Executive Summary 

### 5

**T a**  **bl e 1**  

### Transportation Investments (Nominal Dollars, Billions) **Component D**  **escription Cost**  **T ransit**  $55.0 billion Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) New BRT routes, extensions, and/or service enhancements in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardi

no, and Ventura Counties $4.6 billion

Light Rail Transit (LRT) New Light Rail routes/extensions in Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties $16.9 billion

Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) Heavy Rail extension in Los Angeles County $11.8 billion

Bus New and expanded bus service in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties $21.7 billion

**Passenger and H**  **igh- S**  **peed Rail** $51.8 billion Commuter Rail Metrolink extensions in Riverside County and Metrolink systemwide improvements to provide higher speeds $4.1 billion

High-Speed Rail Improvements to the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor with an ultimate goal of providing San Diego-Los Angeles express service in under two hours
P hase I of the California High-Speed Train (HST) project that would provide high-speed service from Los Angeles to the Antelope Valley $47.7 billion

**A ctive**  **T ransportation**  $6.7 billion Various Active Transportation Strategies Increase our bikeways from 4,315 miles to 10,122 miles, bring significant amount of sidewalks into compli

ance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), safety improvements, and various other strategies $6.7 billion

**T ransportation**  **D emand**  **M anagement (**  **TDM )**  $4.5 billion Various TDM Strategies Strategies to incentivize drivers to reduce solo driving:

 Increase carpooling and vanpooling

 Increase the use of transit, bicycling, and walking

 Redistribute vehicle trips from peak periods to non-peak periods by shifting work times/days/locations

 Encourage greater use of telecommuting

 O ther “first mile/last mile” strategies to allow travelers to easily connect to and from transit service at their origin and destination. These strategies include the development of mobility hubs around major transit stations, the integration of bicycling and transit through folding-bikes-on-buses programs, triple bike racks on buses, and dedicated racks on light and heavy rail vehicles $4.5 billion

### 6 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Executive Summary

**Component D**  **escription Cost**  **T ransportation**  **S ystems**  **M anagement (**  **TSM ) (includes**  **I ntelligent**  **T ransportation**  **S ystems (**  **ITS ))**  $7.6 billion Various TSM Strategies Enhanced incident management, advanced ramp metering, traffic signal synchronization, advanced traveler information, improved data collection, universal transit fare cards (Smart Cards), and Transit Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) to increase traffic flow and reduce congestion $7.6 billion

**H ighways**  $64.2 billion Mixed Flow Interchange improvements to and closures of critical gaps in the highway network to provide access to all parts of the region $16.0 billion

High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/ High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Closure of gaps in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane network and the addition of freeway-to-freeway direct HOV connectors to complete Southern California’s HOV network A connected network of Express/HOT lanes $20.9 billion

Toll Facilities Closure of critical gaps in the highway network to provide access to all parts of the region $27.3 billion **A rterials**  $22.1 billion Various Arterial Improvements Spot widenings, signal prioritization, driveway consolidations and relocations, grade separations at high-vol

ume intersections, new bicycle lanes, and other design features such as lighting, landscaping, and modified roadway, parking, and sidewalk widths $22.1 billion

**Goods M**  **ovement (includes Grade S**  **eparations)** $48.4 billion Various Goods Movement Strategies Port access improvements, freight rail enhancements, grade separations, truck mobility improvements, intermodal facilities, and emission-reduction strategies $48.4 billion

**A viation and**  **A irport Ground**  **A ccess**  Included in modal investments Various Airport Ground Access Improvements Rail extensions and improvements to provide easier access to airports, and new express bus service from remote terminals to airports Included in modal investments **O perations and**  **M aintenance**  $216.9 billion Transit Operations and maintenance to preserve our multimodal system in a good state of repair $139.3 billion Highways $56.7 billion Arterials $20.9 billion2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Executive Summary 

### 7



# F inancial Plan
The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS financial plan identifies how much money is available to sup

port the region’s transportation investments. The plan includes a core revenue forecast of existing local, state, and federal sources along with funding sources that are reasonably available over the time horizon of the RTP/SCS. These new sources include adjustments to state and federal gas tax rates based on historical trends and recommendations from two national commissions (National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission) created by Congress, further leveraging of existing local sales tax measures, value capture strategies, potential national freight program/freight fees, as well as passenger and commercial vehicle tolls for specific facilities. Reasonably available revenues also include innovative financing strategies, such as private equity participation. In accor

dance with federal guidelines, the plan includes strategies for ensuring the availability of these sources.

**T a**  **bl e 2**  presents ten categories of new revenue sources and innovative financ

ing techniques that are considered to be reasonably available and are included in the financially constrained plan. For each funding source, SCAG has examined the policy and legal context of implementation, prepared an estimate of the revenue potential, and identified action steps to ensure the funds are available to implement the region’s transportation vision. 

## Revenue S ources and Expenditures

**Fi gur**  **es 1** and **2** provide a summary of the plan’s forecasted revenues and expenditures. As shown in these figures, the region’s budget over the next 25 years totals an estimated $524.7 billion. **T a**  **bl e 2**  

### New Revenue Sources and Innovative Financing Strategies (Nominal Dollars, Billions)
**Revenue S**  **ource D**  **escription A**  **mount** Bond Proceeds from Local Sales Tax Measures Issuance of debt against existing sales tax revenues: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. $25.6 bil

State and Federal Gas Excise Tax Adjustment to Maintain Historical Purchasing Power Additional $0.15 per gallon gasoline tax imposed at the state and federal levels starting in 2017 to 2024—to main

tain purchasing power. $16.9 bil

Mileage-Based User Fee (or equivalent fuel tax adjustment) Mileage-based user fees would be implemented to replace gas taxes—estimated at about $0.05 (in 2011 dollars) per mile starting in 2025 and indexed to maintain purchasing power. $110.3 bil (est. increment only) Highway Tolls (includes toll revenue bond proceeds) Toll revenues generated from SR-710 North Extension, I-710 South Freight Corridor, East-West Freight Corridor, segment of the High Desert Corridor, and Regional Express/ HOT Lane Network. $22.3 bil

Private Equity Participation Private equity share as may be applicable for key initiatives: e.g., toll facilities; also, freight rail package assumes rail

roads’ share of costs for main line capacity and intermodal facilities. $2.7 bil

Freight Fee/National Freight Program A national freight program is anticipated with the next federal reauthorization of the surface transportation act. The U.S. Senate’s proposal would establish federal formula funding for the national freight network. $4.2 bil

E-Commerce Tax Although these are existing revenue sources, they generally have not been collected. Potentially, the revenue could be used for transportation purposes, given the relationship be

tween e-commerce and the delivery of goods to California purchasers. $3.1 bil

Interest Earnings Interest earnings from toll bond proceeds. $0.2 bil State Bond Proceeds, Federal Grants & Otherfor California HighSpeed Rail Program State general obligation bonds authorized under the Bond Act approved by California voters as Proposition 1A in 2008; federal grants authorized under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program; potential use of qualified tax credit bonds; and private sources. $33.0 bil

Value Capture Strategies Assumes formation of special districts including use of tax increment financing for specific initiatives. $1.2 bil

### 8 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Executive Summary

**Fi gur**  **e 1** 

### Revenue Summary $524.7 Billion (Nominal Dollars) FY2011–FY2035

Core Federal $33.0 (6%) Additional Federal

$84.3 (16%) Core State $46.8 (9%) Additional State

$83.2 (16%) Core Local $225.5 (43%)

Additional Local $51.9 (10%)

Source: SCAG Revenue Model 2011 Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding

**Fi gur**  **e 2** 

### Expenditure Summary $524.7 Billion (Nominal Dollars) FY2011–FY2035

Capital Projects $262.8 (50%) Debt Service $45.1 (9%) O&M Highway $56.7 (11%)

O&M Transit $139.3 (27%)

O&M Local Roads

$20.9 (4%)

Source: SCAG Revenue Model 2011 Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding 

# S ustainable Communities S trategy
Within the RTP, the SCS demonstrates the region’s ability to attain and exceed the GHG emission-reduction targets set forth by the ARB. The SCS outlines our plan for integrating the transportation network and related strategies with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands. The regional vision of the SCS maximizes current voluntary local efforts that support the goals of SB 375, as evidenced by several Compass Blueprint Demonstration Projects and various county transportation improvements. The SCS focuses the majority of new housing and job growth in high-quality transit areas and other opportunity areas in existing main streets, downtowns, and commercial corridors, resulting in an improved jobs-housing balance and more opportunity for transit-oriented development. This overall land use development pattern supports and complements the proposed transportation network that emphasizes system preservation, active transportation, and transportation demand management measures. Finally, the RTP/SCS fully integrates the two subregional SCSs prepared by the Gateway Cities and Orange County Council of Governments.

Photo by Alan Thompson2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Executive Summary 

### 9



# M easuring U p
The investments in this RTP/SCS are expected to result in significant benefits to the region with respect to transportation and mobility, as well as air quality, economic activ

ity and job creation, sustainability, and environmental justice. They will result in better placemaking, lower overall costs, improvements in public health and the environment, responsiveness to a changing housing market, and improved accessibility and mobility. 

## Air Quality and G H G Targets

We will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 

# [ **9%** ] by 2020, and by 

# [ **16%** ] by 2035

This RTP/SCS successfully achieves and exceeds our greenhouse gas emission-reduction targets set by ARB by achieving a 9 percent reduction by 2020 and 16 percent reduc

tion by 2035 compared to the 2005 level on a per capita basis. This RTP/SCS also meets criteria pollutant emission budgets set by the EPA. With each passing year, Southern Californians should expect to breathe cleaner air and live healthier lives. This air quality benefit is made possible largely by more sustainable planning, integrat

ing transportation and land use decisions to allow Southern Californians to live closer to where they work and play, and to high-quality transit service. As a result, more resi

dents will be able to use transit and active transportation as a safe and attractive means of travel. 

## Location Efficiency

Over 

# [ **twice** ] as many households will live near high-quality transit

Share of households living in the High-Quality Transit Area will more than double over the plan period, signaling a more efficient overall development pattern in the future. 

## M obility

Delay on our roadway system will improve over today’s condition

Our roadways will be less congested, allowing our region’s residents to spend less time in traffic onboard a bus or behind the wheel, and more time with their families. 

## S afety
Not only will residents be more mobile, they will also be safer. This RTP/SCS’s emphasis on safety will result in significantly lower accident rates, giving our residents the peace of mind to travel freely throughout the day and come home to their loved ones every night. 

## Economy

We will generate 

# [ **500,000** ] jobs per year

Not only will the region be more mobile, it will also be more prosperous. An annual aver

age of 174,500 new jobs will be generated by the construction and operations expendi

tures in the RTP/SCS, and an additional 354,000 annual jobs will be created in a broad cross-section of industries by the region’s increased competitiveness and improved economic performance as a result of the improved transportation system. 

## Investment Effectiveness

We will get 

# [ **$2.90** ] back for every $1 spent

The RTP/SCS makes dollar sense. While overall expenditures by 2035 are a significant investment, the region will recover $2.90 for every $1 this RTP/SCS commits, which will only help propel the region to more prosperous days ahead.

### 10 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Executive Summary



# Public Participation
The development of the Draft 2012–2035 RTP/SCS involved implementation of one of the most comprehensive and coordinated public participation plans ever undertaken by SCAG. The public and stakeholder involvement program went above and beyond meet

ing the requirements of SB 375 and the SAFETEA-LU. SCAG engaged the widest range of stakeholder groups, elected officials, special interest groups, and the general public through a series of workshops and public meetings, as well as SCAG’s policy commit

tees, task forces, and subcommittee structure. The input received through this process has truly shaped the Draft 2012–2035 RTP/SCS in a meaningful way. Furthermore, SCAG continued to involve and engage the stakeholders and the public in the process of refining and finalizing the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS through the close of the formal comment period in February 2012. SCAG developed a state-of-the-art video and the iRTP, an interactive RTP/SCS website, that enhanced our capability to engage and involve the stakeholders and the public in shaping the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS in an unprecedented way. 

# S trategic Plan—Looking Ahead— B eyond the Horizon
The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS proposes investing over $524 billion over the next 25 years to improve the quality of life of the region’s residents by enhancing our transportation sys

tem. However, additional strategies and projects are needed. The Strategic Plan identifies additional long-term initiatives such as zero- and/or near zero emission transportation strategies, new operational improvements, expanded transit investments and high-speed rail system, as well as increased commitment to active transportation. Although ele

ments of these strategies are included in the financially constrained plan, further work is needed to ensure there is regional consensus and commitment to fund the balance in subsequent RTPs.

### 11



# Towards a S ustainable F uture 

# S CAG has prepared and adopted Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) since 1976. Throughout this history, SCAG has considered the RTP primarily as an investment in the six-county (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) region’s mobility. The RTP identifies infrastructure projects and improvements in order to reduce traffic and generally make it easier to get around. As the process has evolved and RTPs have been updated, we have gradually broadened our viewpoint, par

ticularly by elevating air quality considerations in the plan. This evolution has now culmi

nated in the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which has mobility as an important component of a much larger picture that incorporates added emphasis on sustainability and integrated planning. The vision for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS encompasses three principles as the key to our region’s future: mobility, economy, and sustainability. The RTP/SCS is an investment in the region’s future well-being through 2035. It contains projects, policies, and strategies that will achieve a range of positive outcomes when implemented. In one sense, the RTP/SCS is an accounting of revenues and expenditures. It identifies our available and reasonably foreseeable sources of funding and directs that funding to multimodal transportation projects that benefit our communities. The RTP/SCS strategies and policies are designed to assure that, to the greatest extent possible, the money we invest has the best chance of achieving our shared objectives. In a broader sense, the RTP/SCS is a blueprint for improving the quality of life for our residents by making the best transportation and land use choices for the future and supporting those choices with wise investments. The RTP/SCS will result in more and better travel choices as well as safe, secure, and efficient transportation systems that provide improved access to opportunities, such as jobs, education, and healthcare for our residents. Furthermore, the RTP/SCS will create jobs, ensure our region’s economic com

petitiveness through strategic investments in our goods movement system, and improve environmental and health outcomes for our region’s 22 million residents by 2035. 

## Our Vision – M obility, Economy, S ustainability
Our vision is built upon themes regional leaders discussed at the 2011 General Assembly. The vision has been further shaped by an unprecedented level of outreach and direct 

# 01

. VI S IO N

Image courtesy of Metro © 2012 LACMTA<No data from link> Image courtesy of Metro © 2012 LACMTA

### 12 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision

engagement with stakeholders. For example, the public workshops held through the sum

mer of 2011 gathered distinct feedback from a wide range of stakeholders on objectives for this plan. Taking all input into account, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS sets forth a vision to advance Southern California’s mobility, economy, and sustainability through 2035.


## Mo b ilit y A successful transportation plan allows the residents of the region to access daily needs, including work, school, shopping, and recreation, without undue burdens of cost, time, or physical danger. This includes the pressing need to preserve and maintain our infrastruc

ture at adequate levels. Residents should be able to rely on their ability to get from one place in the region to another in a safe and timely manner. They should be able to choose from a variety of transportation modes that suit their preferences and needs, including active, non-motorized modes such as biking and walking that allow for physical activity and greater health.


## E co n o my A successful RTP/SCS creates opportunities for business, investment, and employment in Southern California. This plan does so by proposing over $524 billion of investment in the next 25 years. This constitutes the largest regional-scale infrastructure jobs program in Southern California’s history. This will put thousands of Southern Californians back to work in much-needed jobs, not only in construction, but also in a broad cross-section of industry clusters. Over the twenty-five-year period, the plan will generate 4.2 million jobs in the six-county region. This represents the direct economic effect of designing, building, and maintaining projects, as well as the indirect and induced benefits of the investments. Moreover, the economic benefits of the RTP/SCS are likely far broader and greater. The recommended investments and strategies in the draft RTP/SCS set the conditions for eco

nomic activity in the region by improving mobility and reducing congestion and commute times, allowing businesses in the region to operate more efficiently and maintain their competitiveness. The plan does so by addressing the needs for logistics, shipping, distri

bution, and goods movement in the region—a key component of the Southern California Economic Recovery and Job Creation Strategy adopted by the Regional Council in June 2011. These investments not only serve local businesses, but also allow the region to further capitalize on its unique position as a center for international trade. Also, through the integration of a regional housing policy, residents will have better access to afford

able housing in all communities, and residents will have lower overall combined costs for housing and transportation. In more subtle ways, the RTP/SCS encourages continued investment and job creation by ensuring a more livable, efficient, desirable, and competi

tive region where employers want and are able to do business over the long term.


## S us tai n a b ilit y The RTP/SCS is subject to specific requirements for environmental performance. The strategies and projects identified in the following chapters satisfy those requirements. However, this RTP/SCS will be successful only if we define sustainability in the broadest manner possible. A successful RTP/SCS allows future residents to enjoy a better quality of life than we do today, including the ability to lead a healthy lifestyle and enjoy clean air and water and ample opportunities for recreation and physical activity. It will have direct and substantial benefits to public health by reducing pollutant emissions and expanding the opportunities for active transportation. It also demonstrates how we can transition from things we know to be unsustainable over the long term and beyond the term of this RTP/SCS—such as reliance on fossil fuels—to new technologies for the future. Finally, a successful RTP/SCS establishes how we preserve what makes the region special, includ

ing our stable and successful neighborhoods and our array of open spaces for future generations to enjoy.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision 

### 13



## Realizing the Vision – G oals and Objectives
Developing the RTP/SCS is no simple task, particularly given the economic struggles we are facing today. Transportation funds are limited for sustaining our existing system, and the regional initiatives that reduce pollution and congestion while increasing mobility and economic development require more money. Cities, businesses, and taxpayers are coping with an acute economic struggle. We are also a large region with a diversity of views and a diffuse decision-making structure. Nevertheless, the RTP/SCS provides an opportunity to set a course for 2035 that not only accomplishes what we are required to do, but also delivers a future that benefits residents, cities, and businesses. In crafting a plan to address these challenges, SCAG and the region have several advan

tages. These include local commitments to dramatically increase the reach of transit, ongoing progress in creating new voluntary templates for growth and development, and our existing rich and vibrant neighborhoods. Our ability to succeed will also be the result of layering projects, programs, and strategies that leverage each other to achieve better results. To guide the development of these projects, programs, and strategies, the Regional Council adopted specific goals and objectives that help carry out the RTP/SCS vision for improved mobility, economy, and sustainability.


## R e g io n al Goal s
The regional goals reflect the wide-ranging challenges facing transportation plan

ners and decision-makers in achieving the RTP/SCS vision. The goals demonstrate the need to balance many priorities in the most cost-effective manner. These goals and overarching policies were discussed and approved by the RTP Subcommittee and the Transportation Committee. They will be adopted by the Regional Council as part of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS.

**T a**  **bl e 1.1**  

### RTP/SCS Goals

**R T**  **P/ S**  **C S**  **Goals**

 Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic develop

ment and competitiveness

 Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region

 Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region

 Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system

 Maximize the productivity of our transportation system

 Protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality and

encouraging active transportation (non-motorized transportation, such as bicycling and walking)

 Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible

 Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non-motorized

transportation

 Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system

monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies

### 14

**E xhi**  **b it 1.1**  

### SCAG Region2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision 

### 15



## RTP/ S C S G u idi ng P olicie sThe 2012–2035 RTP/SCS guiding policies help to focus future investments on the bestperforming projects and strategies that seek to preserve, maintain, and optimize the performance of the existing system ( **T a**  **bl e 1.2**  ).

**T a**  **bl e 1.2**  

### RTP/SCS Policies

**R T**  **P/ S**  **C S**  **Policies**

**1** Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG’s adopted regional Performance Indicators

**2** Ensuring safety, adequate maintenance, and efficiency of operations on the existing multimodal transportation system should be the highest RTP/SCS priorities for any incremental funding in the region

**3** RTP/SCS land use and growth strategies in the RTP/SCS will respect local input and advance smart growth initiatives

**4** Transportation demand management (TDM) and non-motorized transportation will be focus areas, subject to Policy 1

**5** HOV gap closures that significantly increase transit and rideshare usage will be supported and encouraged, subject to Policy 1

**6** Monitoring progress on all aspects of the Plan, including the timely implementation of projects, programs, and strategies, will be an important and integral component of the Plan



## P er f or m a n ce Mea su re s
In accordance with RTP/SCS Policy 1, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS is a performance-based plan. Performance measures allow us to quantify regional goals, estimate the impacts of proposed investments, and evaluate progress over time. The performance indicators for the RTP/SCS represent a continuing evolution that builds upon earlier successes and adds refinements to meet expanded policy objectives. **T a**  **bl e 1.3**  describes the relationship between the RTP/SCS goals and performance measures. **T a**  **bl e 1.3**  

### RTP/SCS Goals and Related Performance Outcomes

**R T**  **P/ S**  **C S**  **Goals M** **obility/ A** **ccessibility Reliability** **Location E** **fficiency Productivity** **S afety and** **H ealth** **E conomic Well-Being** **Cost E** **ffectiveness S** **ystem S** **ustainability E** **nvironmental Quality**

Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic develop

ment and competitiveness 

### ✓

Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region 

### ✓ ✓
Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region 

### ✓ ✓
Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system 

### ✓ ✓
Maximize the productivity of our transpor

tation system 

### ✓ ✓

Protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation 

### ✓ ✓

Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible 

### ✓
Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non-motorized transportation 

### ✓

Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery plan

ning, and coordination with other security agencies*
* SCAG does not yet have an agreed-upon security performance measure; therefore it is not included in the table.

### 16 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision



# The S etting
The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS vision was developed by taking into account recent events and long-term trends. This includes the recent recession and its aftermath; continuing growth in population and demand on the transportation system; and a growing expectation by planners, policymakers, and the general public that a comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing the region’s transportation issues is needed. This setting provides the backdrop for the challenges and opportunities facing the region. 

## Economic Recession
Approximately 800,000 jobs have been lost in the region since the last Plan due to the continuing economic downturn. This could have a long-term effect on where and how people choose to live, work, and play. It could also impact people’s travel behav

ior, including mode choice and travel patterns, potentially requiring different types of transportation solutions. This downturn may also provide an opportunity to plan a more comprehensive approach for leveraging our infrastructure investments to improve the region’s economic competitiveness and to create much-needed jobs by expediting project delivery through innovative financing. There is an opportunity to put more people to work sooner with implementation of this plan. Without the projects and strategies in the RTP/SCS, the region would fail to meet critical investment needs, increasing congestion and travel time delay to the detriment of our economy. By doing nothing, the SCAG region would forego approximately $580 billion in gross regional product (GRP) through 2035. To compete effectively in the global economy, we should invest strategically in our transportation infrastructure, while ensuring that we obtain the maximum return on investment. SCAG’s analysis also indicates that every 10 percent decrease in congestion is associated with an employment increase of approxi

mately 132,000 jobs. Congestion relief will be a major contributing factor to our future employment growth. 

## Population G rowth
The region’s mobility challenges are driven and exacerbated by the anticipated growth in population, households, and employment over the next 25 years. While this growth will increase the demand on the already-strained transportation system, there are also impli

cations for land use consumption. Furthermore, demographic changes such as the aging and diversity of the population will affect the future demand for certain types of housing and transportation services. According to the 2010 Census, the SCAG region is now home to 18 million people, or approximately 5.8 percent of the U.S. population and 49 percent of California’s popula

tion. The region includes the second-largest metropolitan area in the country after New York City. If it were a state, the SCAG region would rank fifth in population, just behind Florida and ahead of Illinois. After experiencing different growth stages with growth rates above the U.S. national average, the region entered a period of slow growth in 1990 ( **T a**  **bl e 1.4**  ). The slow growth2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision 

### 17

period (1990–2010) represents the mature stage of regional growth and urbanization, during which the region added 3.4 million people and grew at a rate comparable to that of both the state and the nation. The growth was a result of natural increase (adding 3.56 million) and net migration (subtracting 130,000).

**T a**  **bl e 1.4**  

### Annual Average Growth Rate of the SCAG Region During Growth Periods (1850–2010)

**V ery Rapid** 

**Growth 1850–1910**  **Rapid Growth**  **1910–1960 A**  **verage Growth**  **1960–1990 S**  **low Growth**  **1990–2010**
SCAG region 311.0% 21.6% 2.9% 1.2%

California 41.1% 11.2% 3.0% 1.3%

United States 5.0% 1.9% 1.3% 1.2%

Source: U.S. Census, 1850–2010

Migration and population growth are affected by the economy. While economic growth is typically a major source of net domestic and international migration, in a similar fashion, economic downturns can also have a serious impact on the region’s growth. Although the recession officially ended in 2009, the region is still struggling to get back to pre-reces

sion job levels. The stability of future growth depends in part on how the region success

fully addresses these economic challenges. Although the rate of regional growth has stabilized in the last 20 years, urbanization and suburbanization of the region have continued ( **T a**  **bl e 1.5**  ). The suburban inland counties of Riverside and San Bernardino together accounted for 23.4 percent of the region’s popula

tion in 2010, up from 17.7 percent in 1990. Over this same period, Los Angeles County grew more slowly and its share of the region’s population declined from 60.5 percent in 1990 to 54.4 percent in 2010. The fast growth of population relative to employment in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties highlights the imbalance of jobs and housing in the region. It also poses a serious transportation and air quality challenge to local and regional planners. **T a**  **bl e 1.5**  

### County Share of Regional Population (1990–2010)

**County 1990**  **2000 2010** 
Imperial 109 0.7% 142 0.9% 175 1.0%
Los Angeles 8,863 60.5% 9,519 57.6% 9,819 54.4%
Orange 2,411 16.5% 2,846 17.2% 3,010 16.7%

Riverside 1,170 8.0% 1,545 9.4% 2,190 12.1%

San Bernardino 1,418 9.7% 1,709 10.4% 2,035 11.3%

Ventura 669 4.6% 753 4.6% 823 4.6%

**S C**  **A G**  **T otal**  **14,641 100.0%**  **16,516 100.0%**  **18,052 100.0%** 

Population in thousands Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding Source: SCAG

Although the latest 2010 Census data indicates slower growth in population, households, and employment than forecasted in the 2008 RTP, the region is still expected to grow over the RTP/SCS planning period—adding four million new residents by 2035 ( **Fi gur**  **e 1.1** ). The projected annual growth rate is only 0.9 percent, lower than the past 20-year growth rate. Most of this growth is through natural increase. The aging of the population is one of the major demographic changes expected in the region. With the aging of the Baby Boomer generation (those born between 1946 and 1964), the median age of the population will increase from 34.2 years in 2010 to 36.7 years in 2035. The share of the population 65 years or older will increase from 11 percent in 2010 to 18 percent in 2035. Meanwhile, the working-age population (ages 16 to 64 years) will sharply decline, implying a future shortage in the regional labor force and a sharp increase in the old-age dependency ratio from 17 percent in 2010 to 30 percent in 2035.

### 18 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision

**Fi gur**  **e 1.1** 

### Projection of Population, Household, and Employment Growth (2008–2035)

0 5 10 15 20 25

Population Employment HouseholdsMillions

2008 2035
Source: SCAG

Another major demographic trend is the growing racial and ethnic diversity of the popula

tion. The region’s diversity was already high in 2010, with 45 percent of the population Hispanic, 34 percent non-Hispanic White, 14 percent non-Hispanic Asian/Other, and 7 percent non-Hispanic Black. By 2035, there will be a majority Hispanic population (56 percent) while the non-Hispanic White population will drop to 22 percent. Economic recessions and globalization of the economy were major factors contributing to slow growth in the region over the past 20 years. However, employment in the region is still expected to increase over the RTP/SCS period from 7.2 million jobs in 2010 to 9.4 million in 2035. This is an annual rate of over 1 percent. From a longer-term perspec

tive, the region is expected to recover fully from the recession and return to reason

able labor force participation rates and employment levels. But, the region’s industrial mix will experience continuous change over time due to globalization. The region will also transform its industrial structure from manufacturing-oriented industries to service-oriented industries. 

## S afety
The safety of people and goods is one of the most important considerations in develop

ing, maintaining, and operating our multimodal transportation system. This section briefly describes the trends in accidents on our transportation system. The rate of fatal and injury collisions on California’s highways has declined dramatically since the California Highway Patrol began keeping such data in the 1930s ( **Fi gur**  **e 1.2** ). California has led the nation in roadway safety for much of the past 20 years. Only recently have roadways nationally become as safe as those in California. California’s 2008 mileage death rate (MDR)—fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT)— is 1.05, much lower than the national MDR of 1.25. The SCAG region has an extensive transportation system with about 67,000 freeway and arterial lane-miles. The region had 11.1 million licensed drivers and 13.4 million regis

tered vehicles in 2008. The same year, over two million people rode public transit daily. Unfortunately, 1,533 people died and 124,975 were injured in traffic collisions in the SCAG region.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision 

### 19

**Fi gur**  **e 1.2** 

### California Mileage Death Rate (1933–2009)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2019331937194119451949195319571961196519691973197719811985198919931997200120052009Per 100 Million Miles of Travel

Source: California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)

In 2005, Congress passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which required states to develop Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) responded by developing its SHSP through a participatory process with over 300 stake

holders throughout California. The overarching goal was to reduce the California roadway fatality rate to less than 1.0 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 2010. In 2006, the State of California initiated its SHSP to reduce transportation fatalities in the state in absolute numbers by 2010. Targets were set for strategies in 16 challenge areas (impaired driving, street crossing, bicycling, older drivers, etc). While the targets in most challenge areas were met by 2010, the SHSP Steering Committee is establishing new tar

gets to reduce fatalities even further. The new targets will be finalized in 2012. While the California SHSP sets various actions that state agencies can perform to reduce fatalities, there are complementary strategies that can be performed by local governments. As we continue to successfully improve the safety of our motorists, we cannot neglect the alarming fatality rates of those traveling on other modes of transportation. As safety is a multimodal issue, walking and bicycling safety are included in the SHSP as challenge areas. Based on data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), in 2008, 21 percent of all traffic-related fatalities in the SCAG region involved pedestrians, and 5.7 percent of traffic-related injuries involved pedestrians. Additionally, 4 percent of all traffic-related fatalities in the SCAG region involved bicyclists, and 4.3 percent of all traffic-related injuries involved bicyclists. 

## M ultimodal S ystem

HI G H W A YS A N D ARTERIAL S
The region’s highway and arterial system extends for 67,000 lane-miles and serves 62 million trips each weekday. It is the backbone of the region’s economic well-being and facilitates the movement of people and goods via multiple modes of transportation, including automobiles, public transit, and active transportation. According to SCAG’s Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM), nine out of every ten trips rely either entirely or in part on the highway and arterial system. The RTDM also estimates the following:

 3.6 million vehicle-hours of daily delay,

 5.1 million person-hours of daily delay, and

 17.3 minutes of daily delay per capita. Despite the importance of the system, improvements have not kept pace with the region’s increasing population and transportation demand. As a result, the region’s traffic conges

tion has increased dramatically, leading to a less productive transportation system with negative consequences such as wasted time and fuel and poor air quality.


## TRA NS IT Despite a common perception of an auto-oriented culture, the region’s transit system includes an extensive network of services provided by dozens of operators that includes fixed-route local bus, community circulators, express bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), demand response, commuter rail, heavy rail, and light rail. Ridership in our region con

tinues to grow, and significant progress is being made in making transit more available

### 20 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision

and attractive by virtue of a burgeoning rail network, transit-oriented development (TOD), and other service improvements. Between 2000 and 2008, bus ridership increased by 17 percent, and urban rail ridership increased by 50 percent. Furthermore, there was an 81 percent growth in Metrolink ridership. **T a**  **bl e 1.6**  depicts rail ridership by passenger boardings and passenger miles for 2000 and 2008.

**T a**  **bl e 1.6**  

### Urban Rail Ridership

**Urban Rail O**  **perators 2000**  **2008 D**  **ifference**
**M etro**  **S ubway**  Passenger Boardings 27,957,650 43,584,566 56% Passenger Miles 74,729,093 217,964,955 192%
**M etro Light Rail**  Passenger Boardings 29,859,558 43,122,565 44% Passenger Miles 208,824,385 306,848,462 47%
**M etrolink**  Passenger Boardings 6,978,588 12,680,973 82% Passenger Miles 256,386,730 436,565,493 70%

Source: 2000 & 2008 National Transit Database

The recent and future improvements to the region’s transit system are accompanied by land use developments around transit centers and stations and along transit corridors that encourage transit usage. Many residential and commercial developments have been built or are planned alongside transit facilities to offer residents and employees an oppor

tunity to make a trip by transit, or bicycling or walking, instead of by car. These developments have been significantly undermined by recent revenue declines and cutbacks in funding. Since Fiscal Year 2007–2008, transit providers within the SCAG region have seen a decrease in State Transit Account (STA) funds of approximately $759 million. By February of 2011, half of the agencies providing intercity service had cut service by anywhere from 2 percent to 20 percent. During this same period, 14 out of 25 of the intercity operators saw boardings fall between 2 percent and 27 percent. To offset this large revenue decline, almost all operators have raised fares, which reduces the incentive to ride transit. In parallel with the revenue setbacks, costs for transit providers are rising faster than inflation. Every transit mode has experienced increases in cost per passenger mile trav

eled (PMT) over the past decade: bus service by 24 percent, Metro Rail by 41 percent, and Metrolink by 48 percent. Fare revenue, or “farebox recovery,” has decreased from 32 percent of the cost of service to just 27 percent since 2000. These cost and revenue trends weaken the long-term stability of transit services in the SCAG region. Unless transit operators in our region find ways to improve the ratio of fare revenue to costs, transit services will require much greater subsidies or cuts in services. This conflict will grow as new capital projects currently in development are ready for revenue service.

Image courtesy of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink)2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision 

### 21



## P a ss e ng er a n d H i g h

- Speed RAIL The SCAG region is served by a network of intercity passenger and commuter rail ser

vices which operate on the region’s rail network, often sharing facilities with freight rail. They operate at higher speeds and have less frequent station stops than traditional transit services, and are more likely to serve intercity and interregional trips. Amtrak operates interregional and intercity passenger rail service. Four of Amtrak’s fifteen long-distance routes serve our region, and of these, only two offer daily service. Amtrak provides much more frequent intercity passenger rail service via the Pacific Surfliner. This 351-mile-long service traverses the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) corridor. Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner is the second-most-used service in Amtrak’s national fleet, moving nearly 9 percent of the system’s total national ridership. Pacific Surfliner ridership is growing at a rate of over 8 percent a year. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) is the sole operator of the Metrolink system, which serves primarily as a commuter rail service in our region. Metrolink provides service on 512 track miles along seven routes in Ventura, Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. Five routes (i.e., the Ventura County Line, the Orange County Line, the Antelope Valley Line, the Inland Empire/ Orange County Line, and the SR-91 Line) share portions of the LOSSAN Corridor with the Pacific Surfliner. Metrolink has recently been pursuing innovative marketing, ticket pricing, and operations strategies to increase ridership and reduce costs. In May 2011, Metrolink started express service demonstration programs on its San Bernardino and Antelope Valley lines. This service shaves a large amount of time off conventional trips. By skipping most stops, travel time is reduced by 33 percent to just one hour on the San Bernardino Line, and by 25 percent to an hour-and-a-half on the Antelope Valley Line. Metrolink has also imple

mented specific train service for sporting, as well as other special events. Despite these services, fast and efficient interregional and intercity ground transportation remains an issue within our region. One potential solution is high-speed rail. In November of 2008, California voters passed Proposition 1A, authorizing nearly $9 billion in bonds to build a statewide high-speed train (HST) system and an additional $950 million to upgrade connectivity of current rail services to the proposed HST. Subsequently, the fed

eral government committed $3.6 billion through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. Phase I of the HST program will connect San Francisco with Los Angeles and Anaheim and include several intermediate stops. Phase I is expected to be implemented during the RTP/SCS timeframe. Phase II will add connections to Sacramento, Ontario, Riverside, and San Diego. The HST program presents an enormous opportunity for the state and the region, but faces significant challenges. The latest total costs for Phase I are estimated at $98.5 billion, and the state has secured only $12.6 billion in funds for Phase I to date. The California High-Speed Rail Authority, in partnership with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), has chosen to begin construction in the San Joaquin Valley, using federal High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail funds. Due to the federal mandate of building the initial operating segment in the San Joaquin Valley, local stakeholders are seeking to divert a portion of unallocated Proposition 1A revenues to fund and construct speed improvements to the LOSSAN and Metrolink cor

ridors. This would provide faster speeds and better service to our region sooner and act as a phased high-speed rail implementation. Once the high-speed train is built, three different rail passenger markets will be served through complementary systems.


## ACTIVE TRA NS PORTATIO N
Active transportation modes (e.g., bicycling and walking) are essential and increasingly important modes of transportation. These non-motorized modes are low-cost, do not emit greenhouse gases, help reduce roadway congestion, and increase health and the quality of life. As the region works toward reducing congestion and air pollution, walking and bicycling will become more essential to meet the future needs of our residents. National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data indicate that approximately 21 percent of all trips in the region in 2009 were conducted by walking (19 percent) or bicycling (2 percent), representing an approximately 75 percent increase from the 12 percent active transportation mode share in 2000 ( **Fi gur**  **e 1.3** ). The 2009 NHTS data also showed that there was an 11 percent decrease in driving, from 84 percent to 75 percent. More active transportation has placed a greater focus on the preservation, maintenance, and expan

sion of active transportation infrastructure. As the population in the SCAG region growsand matures, and as parts of the region move toward denser, mixed-use, and transitoriented development, the demand for and use of active transportation will increase.

### 22 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision

**Fi gur**  **e 1.3** 

### Mode of Travel for Total Trips (2009)

Drive 75% Transit 3%

Bike 2%

Walk 19%

Other 1%

Source: National Household Travel Survey, 2009



## Aviation and G round Access
The SCAG region supports the nation’s largest regional airport system with the most airports and aircraft operations, operating in a very complex airspace environment. The system has six air carrier airports, including Los Angeles International (LAX), Bob Hope (formerly Burbank), John Wayne, Long Beach, Ontario, and Palm Springs. There are also four new and emerging air carrier airports in the Inland Empire and North Los Angeles County, as well as 44 general aviation airports and two commuter airports, for a total of 56 public-use airports. The events of September 11, 2001, and the Great Recession have significantly impacted regional air passenger demand. **Fi gur**  **e 1.4** shows historical growth in regional air pas

senger activity since 1960 and the marked slowdown in regional air passenger demand growth over the last decade. The exhibit also illustrates three potential scenarios for growth: High Growth, Medium Growth/Baseline, and Low Growth Scenarios. The Medium Growth/Baseline scenario is the aviation demand forecast adopted for this plan. At 145.9 million annual air passengers (MAP) in 2035, the adopted forecast is much more conser

vative than the 165.3 MAP 2035 forecast adopted for SCAG’s last (2008) RTP and the 170 MAP 2030 forecast adopted for SCAG’s 2004 RTP. The adopted forecast reflects recent trends in the region and in the airline industry, and its 2.5 percent annual air passenger growth rate to 2035 is lower than growth rates in recent passenger forecasts published by the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing, and Airbus. **Fi gur**  **e 1.4** 

### Historical Trend and Forecasts of Air Passenger Activity (1960–2035)

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,00019601970198019902000201020202030Passenger Volume (in Thousands)

High (164 MAP) Baseline (145.9 MAP) Low (130 MAP) Historical Trend Forecast

Source: SCAG

Despite the slowdown in aviation demand growth, meeting the future airport capacity needs of Southern California is still challenging. Even with a much more conservative regional air passenger forecast, an Aviation Decentralization Strategy is needed to meet forecasted air passenger demand. All four urban air carrier airports in Los Angeles and Orange Counties—LAX, Bob Hope, Long Beach, and John Wayne—are highly con

strained. Their collective acreage amounts to 5,540 acres, which is less than 17 percent of the 34,000 acres of Denver International and less than the 7,700 acres of Chicago O’Hare. Despite being the third-busiest airport in the country and fifth-busiest in the world in terms of passengers served, LAX is a very small international airport, with only 3,500 acres. The urban airports in the SCAG region have little room to expand because of severe encroachment by surrounding communities. In addition, two of these airports— Long Beach and John Wayne—have strict limits on allowable flights. These limits (one is a city ordinance and the other is a court settlement agreement) are legally enforceable2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision 

### 23

because they predate the Federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). Air passenger growth at LAX is also limited by a settlement agreement constraint. The challenge of meeting future aviation demand in the SCAG region is tied to improv

ing regional airport ground access. To meet that demand, future air passengers from the urban areas of Los Angeles and Orange Counties need convenient access to available airport capacity at airports in the Inland Empire and North Los Angeles County. This chal

lenge is complicated by the fact that the regional roadway system will become increas

ingly congested and unreliable unless we are successful in implementing improvements proposed in this plan. This will require air passengers to allow more time to get to the airport to meet flights in a timely fashion. An unreliable and unpredictable airport ground access system will make it difficult to accommodate future aviation demand by fully utiliz

ing the region’s airports with available capacity. They will have higher ground access time and costs associated with them. Until they fully mature, they will have few alternative flights to offer air travelers who miss their flights because of unreliable ground access. Southern California airports play a crucial role in international trade, particularly with Pacific Rim countries, and to the regional economy. Unless the regional airport ground access system is substantially improved, many potential air passengers will choose not to fly at all, and growing ground access congestion could hamper the ability of air cargo trucks to access airports and make timely deliveries. This will translate to substantial economic loss to the region and a threat to our regional economy and well-being. A regional airport ground access strategy is therefore needed to help address the chal

lenges posed by a highly constrained regional aviation system. The recession has had a substantial impact on airports in the regional system. Ontario Airport, for example, lost about a third of its air passenger activity from 2007 to 2010. It is in the region’s interest to help sustain and preserve airports like Ontario that have ample capacity to serve future aviation demand until economic conditions improve and they can provide significant capacity relief to constrained urban airports in the region. The challenge is to identify how best to support the development of new air services at uncongested and unconstrained airports like Ontario and to develop appropriate regional marketing strategies and economic incentives that can sustain these airports into the future. 

## Transportation Demand M anagement
Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies are designed to reduce conges

tion, particularly during peak periods, by managing or reducing demand on the system. This can be accomplished by a variety of strategies, including increasing carpool

ing, supporting active transportation modes, promoting telecommuting, and shifting demand to off-peak periods. TDM strategies help to make the most efficient use of our existing resources. The SCAG region has a long history of investing in a comprehensive High-occupancyvehicle (HOV) lane system to support and promote carpooling. Additionally, park-andride facilities, rideshare matching and vanpooling services, and Guaranteed Ride Home programs support carpooling as a viable travel alternative. However, a review of Census journey-to-work data suggests that the carpool rate for commute trips has been on a downward trend for at least three decades ( **Fi gur**  **e 1.5** ).

### 24 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision

While the national average of carpooling rates dropped from about 20 percent in 1980 to 10 percent in 2010, the regional carpooling rate remained above 15 percent through 2000. However, by 2010, it too had dropped to just under 12 percent. Over the same period, work trip drive-alone rates for the region increased from 70 percent to 74 percent, while at the national level they rose from 64 percent to 76 percent. The only other mode to see an increase in this period was work-at-home, or telecommuting, which increased dramatically over the past decade. Nearly 2.6 percent of all workers in the SCAG region telecommute. An even greater number telecommute at least one day per month. Investments in high-speed Internet accessibility could increase full-time (equivalent) telecommuters to 5 percent in 2020 and 10 percent in 2035.

**Fi gur**  **e 1.5** 

### Commute Trip Carpool Rates (1980–2010)

0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18% 21%

1980 1990 2000 2008-2010Carpool Rate

United States California SCAG

Source: U.S. Census, 1980–2000; American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates (2008–2010) 

## Transportation S ystem M anagement
Transportation system management (TSM) strategies increase the efficiency of the existing transportation system and reduce the need for costly system expansion. TSM strategies often use intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies. These measures include signal synchronization, ramp metering, “at-speed” truck scales, and 5-1-1 trav

eler information systems. Strategic application of ITS technology on our transportation system can increase system productivity by as much as 5 percent. Projects expected to significantly increase single-occupancy vehicle capacity are required to implement strategies (TDM and TSM) to mitigate the capacity increase. Key TSM strat

egies in the RTP/SCS include:

 Enhanced Incident Management

 Advanced Ramp Metering

 Traffic Signal Synchronization

 Advanced Traveler Information

 Improved Data Collection The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recently implemented a statewide effort to develop Corridor System Management Plans (CSMPs) for corridors funded under the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA). This integration of transportation planning and operations seeks to maintain over the long term, through identification of multimodal, operational, and minor capacity enhancements, the mobility benefits gained from major corridor projects. 

# Challenges and Opportunities
Within the economic, demographic, and transportation setting described in the preced

ing section, SCAG developed the RTP/SCS vision in response to the challenges facing our region today. These challenges are a combination of recent events since the 2008 RTP and ongoing long-term trends. Taken together, they present an imposing threat to the quality of life for both current and future residents. The RTP/SCS vision is linked to these challenges, but also seeks to build upon the strengths and opportunities that the region provides to address them.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision 

### 25



## Transportation F inance
Perhaps the most critical challenge is the need for sustainable transportation funding sources. With the projected growth in population, employment, and demand for travel, the costs of our multimodal transportation system needs surpass projected revenues available from our historic transportation funding source—the gas tax. Improved fuel efficiency and the growth of alternative-fuel vehicles have reduced fuel consumption and eroded gas tax revenues. Additionally, state and federal gas taxes have not kept up with inflation—the latest adjustments occurred nearly two decades ago. **Fi gur**  **e 1.6** highlights the decline in the gas tax in relation to growing population and travel demand.

**Fi gur**  **e 1.6** 

### California Population, Travel, and Gas Tax Revenue Trends

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030Index

Vehicle Miles Traveled Index Population Index Gas Tax Index **Historical Trend Forecast** 

Source: Caltrans, California Department of Finance, California State Board of Equalization, White House Office of Management and Budget To backfill limited state and federal gas tax revenues, our region has continued to rely upon local initiatives (74 percent of core revenues) to meet transportation needs. With a total of seven sales tax measures throughout the region since the 1980s, we have shifted the burden to local agencies. However, the national purpose served by Southern California’s transportation system—particularly in the movement of goods—points to the need for stronger state and federal commitment. Our transportation system is the respon

sibility of all levels of government.

### 26 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision



## S ystem Preservation
The region’s aging transportation system is facing increasing preservation costs in the face of diminishing revenues. These regional assets represent trillions of dollars of invest

ments that must be protected in order to serve current and future generations. The loss of even a small fraction of these assets could significantly compromise the region’s mobility. Unfortunately, the region and the state have underinvested in system preservation and deferred critical maintenance of our multimodal transportation system. The inevitable consequences of deferred maintenance include deficient road pavement conditions, particularly evident on our highways. The rate of deterioration is expected to accelerate significantly with continued deferral. In turn, the cost of bringing these assets back into a state of good repair is projected to grow exponentially ( **Fi gur**  **e 1.7** ). SCAG estimates the cost to maintain our transportation system at current conditions, which are far from the ideal, will be in the tens of billions of dollars beyond currently committed funds.

**Fi gur**  **e 1.7** 

### Preservation Cost-Effectiveness

Good

Failed **Surface Damage 4–7 Years** 

**Minor Damage**

**5–7 Years**

**Major Damage**

**10+ Years Each $1 spent here**  Seals, thin overlays (Preventive Maintenance)

**Delays spending $6 here** Thicker overlays (CAPM)

or
**Delays spending $20 here** Rehabilitation/Reconstruction



### TimePavement Condition 

## G oods M ovement
The SCAG region is the largest international trade gateway in the U.S., supported by marine ports, air cargo facilities, railroads, regional highways, and state routes. In 2010, the LA Customs District (Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Hueneme and Los Angeles International Airport) handled $336 billion of maritime cargo and $78 billion in air cargo. In the same year, $10.4 billion of trade passed through the international ports of entry (POEs) between the U.S. and Mexico in Imperial County. In 2010, five major sectors contributed the majority of freight demand in the SCAG region: manufacturing, retail trade, wholesale trade, construction, and transportation and warehousing. These sectors are dependent on goods movement and comprised $253 billion, or 34 percent of the regional gross domestic product (GDP). These same sectors employed 2.9 million people, or 34 percent of the SCAG region’s employment. With port traffic expected to triple during the timeframe of the RTP/SCS ( **Fi gur**  **e 1.8** ), the region’s economic competitiveness depends upon a transportation system that facilitates the safe and reliable movement of goods.

**Fi gur**  **e 1.8** 

### San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volume Trend and Projections

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

2007 (actual) 20 10 (actual) 2015 2020 2030 2035Freight Containers (Millions 20-Ft Equivalent Units, TEUs)

Source: Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision 

### 27

To continue growing, the SCAG region’s businesses must be cost-competitive in pro

ducing their goods and shipping them to market. The same is true for raw materials, com

ponents, and other inputs transported to the region for manufacturing and processing. Reduced congestion and improved travel time reliability are critical. However, the economic benefits of the industry must be balanced, given the significant mobility, community, and environmental costs associated with goods movement. Goods movement is a major source of emissions that contribute to the region’s air pollution. An essential element to improving the region’s goods movement system is to reduce its current and long-term impacts on public health and the environment. The RTP/SCS goods movement strategy ensures that investments in transportation infrastructure and associ

ated transportation programs contribute to achievement of the region’s air quality goals. Efforts are already underway, as the San Pedro Bay Ports have invested heavily in deploy

ing clean trucks over the last several years. Additionally, planning efforts are underway to establish a regional zero-emission freight system. 

## Integrated Land U se and Transportation
California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, or Senate Bill (SB) 375, requires SCAG to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing, and environmental planning. The SCS provides a plan for meeting the greenhouse gas emission-reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) for the SCAG region. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS achieves a 9 per

cent per capita reduction for 2020 and 16 percent per capita reduction for 2035. The SCS is envisioned to integrate transportation and land use strategies to meet the GHG-reduction targets and must:

 Identify existing land use,

 Identify areas to accommodate long-term housing needs,

 Identify areas to accommodate an eight-year projection of regional housing needs,

 Identify transportation needs and the planned transportation network,

 Consider resource areas and farmland,

 Consider state housing goals and objectives,

 Set forth a forecasted growth and development pattern, and  Comply with federal law for developing an RTP. The SCS requirements are meant to lay a regional policy foundation that local govern

ments may build upon, and do not take away local land use authority. The Gateway Cities COG and Orange County COG each developed a subregional SCS under SB 375 provi

sions. The subregional SCS documents submitted by Gateway Cities COG and OCCOG are incorporated into the regional 2012–2035 RTP/SCS in their entirety, and as such, the policies and strategies included are endorsed by the regional plan for implementation in the sub-region. Based on SCAG’s analysis of recent land use trends in the region, it is clear that a signifi

cant trend of development policies supporting better integrated land use and transporta

tion planning has emerged over time. Some of these recent trends include:

1. Changing demographics and housing market demand, 2. Redevelopment of main streets, downtowns, and corridors to vibrant mixed-use places, 3. Transit-oriented development adjacent to rail station areas and along major bus cor

ridors, and 4. Protection of resource areas and farmland.

Image courtesy of Metro © 2012 LACMTA

### 28 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision

The RTP/SCS does not envision a wholesale redevelopment of the Southern California region. The vast majority of neighborhoods and business districts that will exist in 2035 are already on the ground, and most of them—especially residential neighborhoods, which include large-lot single-family homes—will be unchanged in the next 25 years. Rather, the RTP/SCS envisions a new development pattern for new neighborhoods and revitalized neighborhoods and business districts that builds upon the current pattern to give residents more choices and more opportunities as they consider where to live and work in the future. 

## Air Quality
While Southern California is a leader in reducing emissions, and ambient levels of air pollutants are improving, the SCAG region continues to have the worst air quality in the nation, and air pollution still causes thousands of premature deaths every year, as well as other serious adverse health effects. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) estimates the monetary cost of air pollution in Southern California to be at least $14.6 billion annually.


## TRA NS PORTATIO N CO NF OR M IT Y The SCAG region contains 14 non-attainment and maintenance areas in parts of four air basins that are administered by five air districts ( **T a**  **bl e 1.7**  ). SCAG must demonstrate that the RTP/SCS complies with the Clean Air Act (CAA) for each of these areas pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Transportation Conformity Regulations, including demonstrating that emissions from on-road mobile sources stay within emission budgets set forth by local air districts and the ARB for each of the 14 federally designated non-attainment and maintenance areas. Without a conforming RTP, transportation proj

ects can be delayed and federal funding interrupted or curtailed. **T a**  **bl e 1.7**  

### SCAG Region Non-Attainment and Maintenance Areas

**Criteria Pollutant A**  **ir Basin**

Ozone SCCAB, Ventura County portion SCAB MDAB, Western portion SSAB, Coachella Valley portion SSAB, Imperial County portion

PM 10 SCAB SSAB, Coachella Valley portion MDAB, San Bernardino portion MDAB, Searles Valley portion SSAB, Imperial County portion

PM 2.5 SCAB SSAB, Imperial County portion

CO SCAB

NO2 SCAB

SCCAB: South Central Coast Air Basin; SCAB: South Coast Air Basin; SSAB: Salton Sea Air Basin; MDAB: Mojave Desert Air Basin

Complying with the Transportation Conformity Regulations is a complicated and increas

ingly challenging effort. As passenger vehicles have become cleaner, the positive air quality impacts of transportation strategies that reduce vehicle use or change congestion conditions (i.e., non-fuel or engine-based strategies) have been significantly diminished. Furthermore, the CAA process creates a confusing and uncertain regulatory environ

ment due to the time it takes for federal action on air plans combined with the require

ment to review and set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every five years. Addressing these transportation-related and other issues in implementing the CAA should be a high priority for all stakeholders and particularly for federal agencies.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision 

### 29



## E M I SS IO N RED U CTIO N CHALLE NG E A key component of air pollution is nitrogen oxides (NOx). NOx is emitted whenever fuel is combusted and reacts in the air to form ozone (smog) and fine particulates. Cars, trucks, trains, power plants, and refineries are examples of sources that generate NOx. Even with ongoing aggressive control strategies, ever more stringent national ozone standards require further reductions of NOx emissions in the SCAG region. In the South Coast Air Basin, for example, it is estimated that NOx emissions will need to be reduced by approxi

mately two-thirds in 2023 and three-quarters in 2030. This is a daunting challenge. Emissions from most sources, including cars and factories, have already been reduced by over 90 percent. Emissions forecasted for 2030 from just three sources—ships, trains, and aircraft—would lead to ozone levels near the federal standard.


## OPPORT UN ITIE S
The air quality challenge also provides opportunities for the region. As an innovator and leader, Southern California can develop solutions to mobility and air quality problems that help set important national policies. To support a shared long-term vision for Southern California, decisions and actions should be part of an integrated strategy that addresses multiple needs with single investments, wherever possible. We can start by aligning our actions to improve mobility and air quality with efforts to reduce petroleum consumption. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS sets forth a roadmap to this end through the comprehensive set of transit, active transportation, TDM, pricing, goods movement, and land use strategies. The air quality challenge also creates an opportunity for economic leadership, since technologies for global climate protection, air quality improvement, and energy security are needed for Southern California to attain federal air quality standards. We should sup

port Southern California industries and universities as technology innovators that serve emerging global needs. The region can give our industries and universities every oppor

tunity to succeed by developing partnerships and accelerating demand for clean air and energy solutions. SCAG and its partners can implement the vision and programs of the 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS by continued collaborations. 

## Energy
Gasoline is the most-used transportation fuel in California. Within the transportationsector, gasoline is used primarily by light-duty vehicles. In 2009, 98 percent of the lightduty vehicle fleet was powered by gasoline, and 82 percent of the fleet was for personal trips. In 2010, California consumed gasoline at a rate of 40.7 million gallons per day, or 10.7 percent of the national demand of 379.4 million gallons per day. 1 Environmental and geopolitical factors are causing energy and climate experts to question the long-term viability of continued reliance on fossil fuels. The RTP/SCS recognizes the uncertainty of a petroleum-based future and lays out the implications of future energy constraints. Travel demand forecasts generally assume that the future will include an abundant and relatively inexpensive supply of transportation fuels. However, this

1 California Energy Commission. Transportation Energy Forecasts and Analyses for the 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report, Draft Staff Report. CEC-600-2011-007-SD. August 2011. Last accessed September 30, 2011, from http://energy.ca.gov/2011publications/CEC-600-2011-007/CEC-600- 2011-007-SD.pdf.

### 30 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision

assumption is in question based on the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) 2010 World Energy Outlook. The IEA forecasts that the emerging economies of India and China will drive global energy demand higher. The IEA further states that China overtook the United States in 2009 as the world’s largest energy consumer and their consumption will continue to grow. If governments act more vigorously to increase fuel efficiency and promote demand for alternative fuels, the demand for oil will decrease, avoiding price increases and supply disruptions. 2 However, if fuel prices continue to increase, it would have a ripple effect on numerous areas, including construction costs, gas tax revenue, travel and aviation demand, air emissions, mode choice, and growth patterns. In response, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS sup

ports the increased adoption of near-zero- and zero-emission technologies to lessen the region’s exposure to fossil fuel price spikes resulting from an uncertain energy future and reduce GHGs and emissions of criteria pollutants. In addition to reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through the integration of transporta

tion and land use planning, building design can also affect energy use. Electricity genera

tion, both in state and out of state, and other residential and commercial energy use account for 32 percent of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This contribution is second only to the transportation sector. 3 Energy efficiency reduces energy costs for owners, increases reliability and availability of electricity for the state, improves building occupant comfort, and reduces environmental impact. Furthermore, improving energy efficiency through both performance-based and prescriptive improvements could reduce emissions of pollutants for which federal and state standards exist. 4 The RTP/SCS includes the following actions to address energy uncertainty and reduce the region’s contribution to global climate change:

2 International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2010. November 2010. Last accessed October 6, 2011, from http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org.
3 California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Sacramento: California Air Resources Board. October 2008. Last accessed October 11, 2011, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf.
4 California Energy Commission. Energy Aware Planning Guide. CEC– 600-200-013. February 2011. Last accessed October 5, 2011, from http://www.energy.ca.gov/energy_aware_guide/index.html.  Supporting new automobile technologies to increase fuel efficiency

 Planning for the electrification or other near zero alternatives of the vehicle fleet

 Adopting mitigation measures to reduce household energy consumption

 Testing an informal alternative that examines plan performance should the price of fuel double compared to what is assumed in other alternatives 

## Public Health
The RTP/SCS recognizes the impact that transportation and land use decisions have on the health of the region’s residents. A substantial body of research shows that certain aspects of the transportation infrastructure, including public transit, sidewalks and safe street crossings near schools, and bicycle paths, are associated with more walking and bicycling, greater physical activity, and lower obesity rates. A 2004 analysis of develop

ment patterns, travel behaviors, and health in the Atlanta region found that higher land use densities and greater connectivity resulted in reduced rates of obesity. The study also found that each additional hour spent in a car per day was associated with a 6 percent increase in the likelihood of obesity. 5 A recent study of the health costs of transportation policies found that the health expenditure reductions from meeting federal air quality standards for NOx and ozone could reach $22 billion per year within the South Coast Air Basin. 6 The RTP/SCS supports the integration of transportation and land use policies as well as initiatives to promote a cleaner fleet of vehicles to address a range of public health issues. The RTP/SCS allocates over $6 billion for active transportation projects, which is a 200 percent increase over expenditures in the 2008 RTP. It also seeks to promote active transportation options, increased funding, and a decrease in bicycle and pedestrianfatalities and injuries. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS also sets forth a vision for a less-carbonintensive vehicle fleet. Through near-zero- and zero-emission vehicle technologies, the RTP/SCS promotes a more sustainable future that creates an economic leadership oppor

tunity for the region.

5 Frank LD, Andresen MA, Schmid TL. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine . 2004 Aug;27(2):87–96.
6 American Public Health Association. The Hidden Health Costs of Transportation. February 2010. Last accessed October 6, 2011, from http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/E71B4070-9B9D-4EE1-8F43- 349D21414962/0/FINALHiddenHealthCostsShortNewBackCover.pdf.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision 

### 31

Lastly, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS analyzes environmental justice (EJ) impacts to address equitability of the costs and benefits of the Plan. The Environmental Justice Appendix includes an analysis of pollution exposure within 500 feet of highly traveled corridors in the region, i.e., urban roads with more than 100,000 vehicles per day or rural roads with more than 50,000 vehicles per day. Additionally, SCAG conducted a Health Risk Assessment as part of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report. This analysis evaluated emissions and cancer risk impacts resulting from transportation-related toxic emissions. The results are contained within the Program Environmental Impact Report. In partnership with our regional stakeholders, these actions will support a healthy future for Southern California. 

## Adaptation
Climate change mitigation means reducing or sequestering greenhouse gases, whereas adaptation is preparing for known impacts of climate change. Over the coming century, some climate change studies, such as the 2009 California Adaptation Strategy, proj

ect that Southern California will be expected to manage extremes of precipitation and temperature, increased storm frequency and intensity, and sea-level rise. These climate changes would impact streamflow, flooding, water supply, sea level, and soil water con

tent. These impacts would affect agriculture, stormwater, waste-water treatment, wildfire risk, roads, forest health, and biodiversity. These impacts will also have consequences for public health, economic livelihoods, the financial sector, the insurance industry, individual comfort, and recreation. In practice, these impacts would mean coping with:

 Longer and hotter heat waves,

 Increased urban heat island impacts, such as heat-related illness and higher cooling demand and costs,

 More damaging storms and storm surges,

 Greater river flooding,

 Increased frequency and intensity of combined sewer overflows,

 More intense and extended duration of droughts,

 Longer water supply shortages, and

 Declines in local ecosystem services, such as species loss or the loss of specific ecosystem types (e.g., forests or coastal wetlands). 7 The associated impacts on buildings, water and transportation infrastructure, emergency preparedness, planning, and quality-of-life issues have only now begun to be considered. Climate and impact modeling can offer a scientific basis for more informed planning, including improved data gathering. However, additional monitoring, development of improved management practices, and coordination among state and local agencies and the private sector are critical needs as well. Failure to anticipate and plan for climate variability and the prospect of extreme weather and related events could have serious

7 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. Available at http://resources.ca.gov/climate_adaptation/ docs/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf Photo by Gary Leonard

### 32 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision

impacts on the regional economy and quality of life. Starting now and continuing in the years and decades ahead, we can adapt to these risks through resilient resource and land use choices. 

# Plan Overview
The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS is based on a careful analysis of our transportation system, the future growth of our region, and our vision for a sustainable future. The RTP/SCS is a living document that must be updated to reflect the most current information and condi

tions in order to remain relevant and useful. Updating the plan requires us to examine the progress we are making as a region, not just in terms of delivering projects, but also in terms of meeting our vision, goals, and objectives. 

## Our Approach
SCAG is the federally designated MPO for the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. As the MPO, SCAG develops the RTP/SCS and updates it every four years through a bottom-up and comprehensive, cooperative, and continuous (“3-C”) process involving numerous stakeholders. Transportation investments in the SCAG region that receive state and federal funds or require federal approvals (such as environmental clearance) must be consistent with the RTP/SCS and must be included in SCAG’s Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) when ready for funding. The FTIP is a four-year program and represents the immediate, near-term commitments of the RTP/SCS. The development of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS has required a greater level of collaboration than in past plans. SCAG has worked together with stakeholders to develop a techni

cally solid growth forecast, multimodal transportation and land use strategies, economic impact analysis, and a realistically achievable financial plan. The RTP/SCS has been developed using a “bottom-up” approach respecting local com

munities’ General Plans and growth input. 

## Sta k eholder In volve m e n t a n d Pub lic P articipatio n SCAG develops the RTP/SCS in close coordination with stakeholder agencies such as the county transportation commissions (CTCs), subregional councils of governments (COGs), transit operators, Caltrans, local jurisdictions, port authorities, air quality management districts, state and federal resource agencies, and other transportation stakeholders ( **T a**  **bl e 1.8**  ). More stakeholder groups are identified and listed in the Public Participation Chapter (Chapter 6) and the supporting technical report. Each of the six counties in the SCAG region has a CTC responsible for countywide transportation planning and implementation, allocating locally generated transportation revenues, and, in some cases, operating transit services. Additionally, the SCAG region includes 15 COGs, which are groups of neighboring cities and communities that work together to identify, prioritize, and seek transportation funding for needed investments in their respective areas. The SCAG region includes all or part of 14 air quality non-attainment or maintenance areas in five air basins. Federal law requires that transportation and air quality planning are coordinated in these non-attainment and maintenance areas. The SCAG region further includes the Caltrans Districts 7, 8, and 12, and the Imperial County portion of District 11.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision 

### 33

**T a**  **bl e 1.8**  

### Stakeholders in the Development of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS

**County T**  **ransportation Commissions (C T**  **Cs)** Imperial County Transportation Commission (ICTC) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) **S ubregional Councils of Governments (C**  **O Gs)**  Arroyo Verdugo Cities SANBAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments San Fernando Valley COG Gateway Cities COG San Gabriel Valley COG ICTC South Bay Cities COG Las Virgenes-Malibu-Conejo COG Ventura County COG City of Los Angeles Western Riverside County COG North Los Angeles County Westside Cities COG Orange County COG **Local, County, and T**  **ribal Governments O**  **ther O**  **perators and I**  **mplementing A**  **gencies** Caltrans Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) Airport Authorities Transit/Rail Operators Port Authorities **Resource/Regulating A**  **gencies** US Department of Transportation

 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

 Federal Transit Administration (FTA)  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) California Air Resources Board (ARB) California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) California Transportation Commission Air Districts In accordance with federal and state requirements, including new public participation requirements identified in SB 375, SCAG implements a public involvement process to provide complete information, timely public notice and full public access to key decisions, and to support early and continuing public involvement in developing its regional plans. Since its inception, SCAG has engaged in a public involvement process in developing its regional transportation plans and programs. The RTP/SCS is developed in consultation with all interested parties, and SCAG ensures that they have a reasonable opportunity to comment on the contents of the RTP/SCS. SCAG’s broad-based participation activities are outlined in the adopted Public Participation Plan.


## A lter n ative s D evelop m e n t a n d E val u atio n Beginning in January 2011, SCAG conducted a series of 13 planning sessions to gather critical data from local jurisdictions on transportation and land use efforts to be used as the basis, or starting point, for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. Planning sessions were conducted in each subregion, with a nearly 90 percent participation rate by jurisdictions. Prior to that, SCAG had been working with local jurisdictions since 2009, focusing on the local growth forecasts for 2020 and 2035. Utilizing information from these planning sessions and additional survey responses, SCAG developed four preliminary RTP/SCS scenarios representing different conceptual futures of land use and transportation through 2035. SCAG modeled the impact of these scenarios using a set of high-level transportation, economic, and environmental indica

tors. During July and August 2011, SCAG held a series of 18 public outreach workshops throughout the region to present the major components of the four scenarios and gather feedback from a wide range of stakeholders and the general public. The interactive format of these public outreach workshops offered a variety of methods for input that included facilitating small group discussions, real-time polling, and staffing information kiosks. In total, more than 700 individuals participated at these workshops. The input gathered from these workshops along with continued extensive input from part

ner agencies and key stakeholders allowed for a further refinement and development of specific alternatives for more detailed evaluation and assessment. The guiding principles used to keep these alternatives realistic are:

 Alternatives should strongly consider regional economic competitiveness and overall economic development to help the region recover and prosper,

### 34 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 1: Vision

 Transportation investment commitments made by the CTCs through local sales tax expenditure plans, adopted long-range plans, and board-adopted resolutions will be fully respected,

 The subregional SCS submitted by the Gateway COG and the Orange County COG will be respected and integrated into the alternatives,

 New investment strategies proposed over and beyond the CTC commitments will be funded only through new funding sources identified and approved by the Regional Council,

 Ensuring an appropriate level of funding for system preservation will be given a priority, and

 Each of the alternatives will be evaluated using a set of accepted performance
measures. Based on these considerations, three alternatives were defined and compared against a “No Project Baseline” representing projects in the 2011 FTIP that have received full envi

ronmental clearance. Out of this evaluation, a preferred alternative was selected for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. The preferred alternative builds on the region’s success over the last four years in implementing the previous 2008 RTP and moves the region forward in meeting mobility, air quality, public health, integrated land use and transportation strate

gies, and other regional goals. The components of the RTP/SCS are described briefly in the next section and in more detail in the succeeding chapters of this document. 

## S trategies and Investments
Given the setting and the challenges our region is facing, this Plan recognizes that our approach must be balanced, systematic, multimodal, and at the same time targeted to yield the best performance outcomes based on the established set of performance measures. Additionally, we recognize that much of the groundwork has already been laid out by our stakeholder agencies, particularly the CTCs in their countywide, long-range transportation plans and local sales tax expenditure plans. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS sup

ports and builds upon these local commitments. We start first with the transportation investments, described in Chapter 2. This chapter proposes an integrated approach that would first make the most out of our existing trans

portation system by investing in system preservation and maintenance, transportation demand management, and transportation systems management, followed by completing the system and closing critical gaps, and finally, strategic system expansion. The invest

ments outlined in this chapter will provide more efficient and attractive travel choices for future generations on multiple modes of transportation. In Chapter 3, we lay out a strategy to establish a long-term, sustainable funding plan. While recognizing financial constraints, the Plan sets forth funding strategies that are reasonably available within the timeframe of the RTP/SCS. The financial plan ensures that the region can afford to implement the region’s near-term commitments as identified in the FTIP, the county commitments as identified in countywide transportation plans and sales tax measures, and the regional investments which are the focus of Chapter 2. In Chapter 4, the SCS identifies a future land use and development pattern, integrated with the future transportation network and other transportation strategies, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The outcomes and benefits of the RTP/SCS are presented in Chapter 5 in the form of performance measures that attempt to quantify the mobility, economic, and environmen

tal benefits of the Plan investments. SCAG further recognizes that there are numerous co-benefits to implementing the RTP/SCS, not only in terms of transportation and the environment, but also public health and livable communities. Chapter 5 also addresses the statutory requirements of the RTP/SCS, including environmental justice outcomes, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation conformity. The public participation plan for developing the RTP/SCS is described in Chapter 6. Finally, recognizing that despite our best efforts, there simply may not be enough money to implement solutions for all of our transportation needs, the RTP/SCS includes a strate

gic component in Chapter 7. The Strategic Plan identifies projects that cannot be funded at this point, but merit further consideration in future plan updates based on additional studies, funding support, and stakeholder consensus.

### 35



# Introduction 

# S CAG has consistently advocated a system management approach that aims to protect, maximize the productivity of, and strategically expand our region’s trans

portation system. This approach recognizes that we can no longer afford to rely on system expansion alone to address our mobility needs. Rather, an integrated approach is needed, based upon comprehensive system monitoring and evaluation and the use of performance measures to ensure that the best-performing projects and strategies are included in the RTP/SCS. This approach is depicted as the mobility pyramid shown in
**Fi gur**  **e 2.1**

.

**Fi gur**  **e 2.1** 

### Mobility Pyramid

**System Completion**  **and Expansion**

**Smart Land Use Demand Management / Value Pricing** 

**Maintenance and Preservation**

**System Monitoring and Evaluation Operational**  **Improvements**

PREVENTION AND SAFETY PREVENTION AND SAFETY PREVENTION AND SAFETY
**Intelligent Transportation Systems Traveler Information / Traffic Control**  **Incident Management**

Over the course of developing the plan, we have heard from our stakeholders that we need to make sure we are investing our scarce transportation dollars more efficiently and effectively before we expect our taxpayers to pay more. Making sure that every dollar 

# 02

. tra ns portatio n In ve s t m e n t s

### 36 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

available is spent wisely is at the heart of this philosophy. At the bottom of this pyramid is System Monitoring and Evaluation. In order to be effective system managers, we must have an in-depth understanding of how our system performs and why it performs the way it does. Only by understanding these causes can we identify the optimal mix of strategies and projects that yield the highest returns on our investments. Next, we must take care of what we have and make sure that what we have is performing at the most efficient level possible. So, the basic idea as you move up the “mobility pyramid” is to implement less capital intensive strategies or less invasive strategies before we consider implement

ing more drastic measures to deal with our challenges. At the same time, we must be realistic about our ability to address our challenges with “soft solutions” alone in the face of the tremendous growth that we anticipate over the next 25 years. Therefore, at the top of the pyramid are the capital improvement projects that will allow us to expand our system strategically to accommodate such future growth and maintain and improve our economic prosperity. Following the system management philosophy, this chapter sets forth the investments and strategies that constitute the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. First, transportation invest

ments should seek to optimize the performance of the existing system, and this includes system maintenance and preservation, integrated land use, operational improvements, transportation demand management, and transportation systems management strategies. Second, investments should seek to complete the system by addressing gaps. Finally, our investments should expand the system strategically. As a result, Southern Californians will enjoy more and better travel choices via an efficient multimodal transportation sys

tem with improved access to the vast opportunities this region has to offer. 

# G etting the M ost Out of Our S ystem
Over the past half century, the SCAG region has invested billions of dollars into building and expanding the multimodal transportation system that we have and rely on today. This investment must be protected. Under the system management approach, priority should be given to maintaining and preserving this system, as well as ensuring that it is being operated as safely, efficiently, and effectively as possible. Protecting our previous invest

ments in developing the region’s transportation system and getting the most out of every one of its components is the highest priority for this RTP/SCS. 

## S afety and S ecurity F irst
SCAG recognizes how important the safety and security of our transportation system is to our residents. The good news is we have made significant progress in improving safety, particularly highway safety, which accounts for the majority of transportation-related accidents, around the state and in our region. But, we can do more. SCAG continues to support the implementation of the State Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and works in part

nership with Caltrans and the CTCs around the region to improve the safety and security of our transportation system. Safety improvements are intricately woven into the RTP/SCS at all levels. Many of the strategy and investment categories in this RTP/SCS aim to improve the safety of our multimodal transportation system. For instance, enhancing maintenance and preservation of the region’s buses, rail track, bridges, and roadway pavements will contribute toward reduced accidents and improved safety. Similarly, expanding the network of bike lanes and sidewalks and bringing them into ADA (American with Disabilities Act) compliance will reduce accidents directly related to these modes. Furthermore, deploying technol

ogy such as advanced ramp metering to manage traffic flow also reduces collisions at on-ramps and critical freeway-to-freeway interchanges. In short, almost every category of investments discussed in this chapter leads to safety benefits. SCAG has two main safety and security goals:

 Ensure transportation safety, security, and reliability for all people and goods in the region.

 Prevent, protect, respond to, and recover from major human-caused or natural events in order to minimize the threat and impact to lives, property, the transporta

tion network, and the regional economy.


## Sa f et y The rate of fatal and injury collisions on California’s highways has declined dramatically since the California Highway Patrol began keeping such data in the 1930s. California has led the nation in roadway safety for much of the past 20 years. Only recently have road

ways nationally become as safe as those in California. **Fi gur**  **e 2.2** shows the improvement in roadway accidents in the SCAG region over the last 10 years.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 37

While the trend indicates a long-term decline in fatalities compared to VMT, it remains an unacceptable personal burden to those involved. In 2008, over 1,500 people died on roadways in the SCAG region, and just under 125,000 were injured. The average costs for each traffic death, traffic injury, or 2012–2035 RTP property damage crash were (in 2005):

 Death – $1,150,000

 Nonfatal Disabling Injury – $52,900

 Property Damage, Including Non-Disabling Injuries – $7,500

**Fi gur**  **e 2.2** 

### Annual Collisions on the State Highway System in the SCAG Region

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20 05 2006 2007 20 08 2009 2010
Annual Collisions SAFETEA-LU required states to develop Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) responded by developing its SHSP through a participatory process with over 300 stakeholders throughout California. The overarching goal was to reduce the California roadway fatality rate to less than 1.0 fatal

ity per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 2010. The efforts culminated with 17 challenge areas and over 150 actions designed to reduce fatalities in each challenge area. The state achieved its goal in 2009 and is now focusing on reducing transportation fatali

ties further with a new SHSP in development. 

## Sec u rit y Currently, there are numerous agencies that participate in the response to incidents and assist with hazard preparedness for individual jurisdictions. Collaboration occurs between many of these agencies. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) oversees coordination. However, FEMA defines metropolitan areas and coordination differently than the U.S. Department of Transportation, limiting SCAG’s ability to participate at an agency level. SCAG seeks to utilize its strengths and organization to assist planners, first responders, and recovery teams in a supporting role. There are three areas in which SCAG can assist both before a major emergency and dur

ing the recovery period:

 Provide a policy forum to help develop regional consensus and education on security policies and emergency responses

 Assist in expediting the planning and programming of transportation infrastructure repairs from major disasters

 Encourage integration of transportation security measures into transportation proj

ects early in the project development process by leveraging SCAG’s relevant plans, programs, and processes, including regional ITS architecture Beginning in 2008, SCAG participated in the development of the draft Southern California Catastrophic Earthquake Preparedness Plan. The Plan was based on the 2007 Operation Golden Guardian scenario, which SCAG also assisted in developing, and envisioned a 7.8 earthquake starting in the Salton Sea area and traveling across the SCAG region to the Grapevine area where I-5 meets SR-138. The Plan examines the initial impacts, inventory of resources, and care for the wounded and homeless, and it developed a long-term recovery process. The process of Long-Term Regional Recovery (LTRR) provides a mechanism for coordinating federal support to state, tribal, regional, and local governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector to enable recovery from the long-term consequences of extraordinary disasters. The LTRR process accomplishes this by identifying and facilitating avail

ability and use of sources of recovery funding and providing technical assistance (such as impact analyses) for recovery and recovery planning support. “Long-Term Regional Recovery” refers to the need to reestablish a healthy, functioning region that will sustain

### 38 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

itself over time. Long-term recovery is NOT debris removal and restoration of utilities, which are considered immediate or short-term recovery actions. Once a disaster has been proclaimed, the LTRR process may be activated for incidents that require a coordinated federal, state, tribal, regional, and local government response to address significant long-term impacts (e.g., impacts on housing, government opera

tions, agriculture, businesses, employment, regional infrastructure, the environment, human health, and social services) to foster sustainable recovery. The three main focus areas of LTRR are:

 Housing,

 Infrastructure, and

 Economic Development. When a disaster occurs, the initial operational focus is centered on response activities. This effort may last from a few hours to an extended period of time (several days orlonger) depending on the situation. As response activities begin to taper off and non-lifethreatening safety issues begin to be addressed, the operational focus begins to shift from response to recovery. Federal and state support will be heaviest during the begin

ning phase of the recovery effort when:

 Long-term impact analyses are performed,

 Necessary technical support to establish local long-term recovery strategies and/or plans is provided, and

 Coordination of long-term recovery resources needed by the region to launch its recovery efforts are complete. Federal and state support lessens by the later stages of the LTRR process once the region has sufficient capacity to implement its long-term recovery plan. 

## S ystem Preservation
Recognizing that deferring the maintenance of our transportation system will only result in much costlier repairs in the future, preserving our assets now is a critical priority of this RTP/SCS. Approximately $217 billion, or almost half of all of its proposed expendi

tures through 2035, is allocated to system preservation and maintenance. As indicated in Chapter 1, to a great extent, this high cost is a result of three decades of preservation underinvestment. Deficient road conditions are all too familiar to the region’s drivers, and without a renewed commitment to improving the condition of our transportation infrastructure, costs will increase even more dramatically. Therefore, SCAG will con

tinue to work with its stakeholders, particularly county transportation commissions and Caltrans, to identify new funding sources and/or increased funding levels for preservation and maintenance.

**Fi gur**  **e 2.3** presents the allocation of these expenditures among the transit system, the state highway system, and arterials of regional significance within the 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS. Note that the allocation for the state highway system includes bridges and the allo

cation for transit includes funding to both preserve and operate the transit system.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 39

**Fi gur**  **e 2.3** 

### Preservation and Operations Funding

State Highways 26% Regionally Significant Arterials 10% Transit 64%



## S mart Land U se Since initiating one of the nation’s first large-scale regional growth visioning efforts in 2000, SCAG has sought to integrate land use and transportation by working with subregions and local communities to increase development densities and improve the jobs/housing balance. Implementing such smart land use strategies encourages walking, biking, and transit use, and therefore reduces vehicular demand. This saves travel time, reduces pollution, and leads to improved health. The SCS (in Chapter 4) describes the successes of the previous smart land use efforts in the region and lays the foundation for significant further improvements moving forward. 

## Transportation Demand M anagement
Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies reduce vehicular demand and thereby congestion, particularly during peak periods. Successful TDM combines two complementary strategies: “soft,” or “pull,” strategies—such as vanpool subsidies and preferential parking for carpools, with “hard,” or “push,” strategies—such as congestion pricing. The first encourages or incentivizes travelers to reduce automobile use by making alternatives more desirable. The second discourages travelers from using automobiles by increasing out-of-pocket travel costs. The RTP/SCS financial plan (Chapter 3) identifies reasonably available revenue sources that provide much-needed funding for infrastructure preservation and critical regional projects. Increasing driving costs over the RTP/SCS timeframe will also encourage some to look for more cost-effective travel options. In total, the RTP/SCS allocates $4.5 billion to TDM strategies to target such drivers and others and incentivize them in three ways:

 Increase carpooling and vanpooling. Carpooling is supported by a host of strategies. High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and convenient park-and-ride lots increase carpool usage. Other strategies include vanpool services for larger employers and rideshare matching services. Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties jointly sponsor a regional “Guaranteed Ride Home Program,” which provides transportation for carpoolers and transit users in emergency situations.

 Increase the use of transit, bicycling, and walking. The RTP/SCS extends the reach of transit by focusing on “first mile/last mile” solutions. One of the biggest challenges in attracting new riders to transit is providing a reasonable and practical means of accessing transit at the origin and destination. “First mile/last mile” strategies are TDM strategies that offer reasonable and practical solutions to this problem, resulting in higher ridership for our transit services. Specific “first mile/

### 40 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

last mile” strategies include development of mobility hubs around major transit sta

tions to provide easier access to destinations. Other strategies include integrating bicycling and transit through folding bikes on buses programs, triple racks on buses, and dedicated racks on light and heavy rail vehicles. A study by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (Metro) indicates that 1.3 percent of all annual Metro Rail riders access transit stations via bicycle. The percentage of bicyclists accessing transit is expected to increase as investments are made. The RTP/SCS commits $6.7 billion to active transportation, which will expand bikeways, improve local streets, and address ADA requirements. Additional strate

gies include traffic calming and Complete Streets strategies, particularly near transit stations and schools, so as to further reduce vehicle trips by improving safety and desirability of active transportation.

 Redistribute vehicle trips from peak demand periods to non-peak periods by shifting work times/days/locations. The TDM investments also aim to reduce peak-hour congestion by promoting flexible work schedules and telecommuting, where applicable. Flexible work schedules allow employees to work fewer days in exchange for longer hours on the days they do work. For example, many employers offer a 9/80 schedule, where employees work 9 hours each day and have one extra day off every two weeks. Telecommuting has increased dramatically over the past decade. Nearly 2.6 percent of all workers in the SCAG region telecommute most of the time, and an even greater number telecommute at least one day per month. Strategic investments put forth by the private sector that would remove barriers associated with telecommuting are expected to increase the number of full-time (equivalent) telecommuters to 5 percent in 2020 and 10 percent in 2035. 

## Congestion M anagement Process
The federal requirement for a Congestion Management Process (CMP) was initially enacted in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and continued in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998 and subsequently in SAFETEA-LU. CMP requires monitoring, performance measures, and, in certain cases, mitigation measures. Above all, CMP requires and ensures that highway capacity projects that significantly increase the capacity for single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) be developed in a comprehensive context that considers all possible alternatives, including transit, TDM, and TSM strategies. Furthermore, if alternative strategies are demonstrably neither practical nor feasible, appropriate mitigation strategies must be considered in conjunction with significant roadway capacity improvement projects that would increase SOV capacity. Each county transportation commission (CTC) in the SCAG region, with the exception of Imperial County, is also designated a Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and is required to develop Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089 and update it every two years. Imperial County, the least-populated county in the region, has not reached the population threshold that would require them to opt in or out of the state CMP process at present. Nevertheless, Imperial County has embraced the spirit of CMP and is actively seeking to incorporate its key ele

ments into their next long-range transportation plan update. So, effectively, SCAG’s CMP is comprised of the CMPs developed by each of the CTCs integrated into the RTP/SCS and FTIP process as a unified response to reducing congestion in our region. SCAG is proposing two critical improvements to our current CMP process, partly in response to the federal certification review that was concluded in the spring of 2010. First, SCAG will incorporate a requirement into the FTIP Guidelines that calls for submittal of documentation by the sponsoring agencies associated with significant roadway capac

ity projects (greater than $50 million) to ensure documentation of all the alternatives considered in defining the project as well as identifying appropriate mitigations that would be implemented in conjunction with the project. Second, this RTP/SCS recognizes the importance of addressing non-recurring conges

tion (collisions, stalled cars, severe weather). Non-recurring congestion accounts for almost 50 percent of all congestion on our roadway system. So, for the first time, this RTP/SCS identifies non-recurring congestion delay on the state highway system, both for general purpose lanes and carpool lanes, as a key performance metric that will be monitored and reported over time to ensure we are making progress toward addressing this critical issue. A more complete discussion of our regional CMP is provided in a separate technical report.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 41



## Transportation S ystems M anagement
Transportation systems management (TSM) increases the productivity of the existing multimodal transportation system, thereby reducing the need for costly system expansion. TSM relies in part on intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies to increase traf

fic flow and reduce congestion. This RTP/SCS dedicates up to $7.6 billion to TSM. Examples of TSM categories and their associated benefits are described in **T a**  **bl e 2.1** 

.

**T a**  **bl e 2.1**  

### TSM Categories and Benefits

**Category Benefit** 

Enhanced Incident Management Reduces incident-related congestion which is estimated to represent half of the total congestion in urban areas

Advanced Ramp Metering Alleviates congestion and reduces acci

dents at on-ramps and freeway-to-freeway interchanges Traffic Signal Synchronization Minimizes wait times at traffic signals and therefore reduces travel time

Advanced Traveler Information Provides real-time traffic conditions, alter

native routing, and transportation choices to the public

Improved Data Collection Allows agencies to monitor system perfor

mance and optimize the impact of transpor

tation investments
Universal Transit Fare Cards (Smart Cards) Reduces time required to purchase transit tickets and allows interoperability among transit providers Transit Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Enables monitoring of transit vehicles and ensures on-time performance TSM will also play an increasingly larger role in regional goods movement improvements. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have identified ITS technologies, specifically automated vehicle location (AVL), as a major component in their proposed air quality mitigation strategies. Advanced monitoring will assist in achieving system efficiencies in ports and intermodal operations, reducing delays and wait times at gates and destina

tions, and allowing for more flexible dispatching, all of which reduce emissions. Weigh-in motion systems and enhanced detection will allow for better enforcement of commercial vehicles rules, reducing pavement damage, and identifying critical paths for goods move

ment planning in the future. 

## Corridor S ystem M anagement Plans
With the passage of Proposition 1B by California voters in November 2006, a program of funding called the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) was created to improve mobility on the state highway system. The California Transportation Commission adopted guidelines for the CMIA program that required the development of Corridor System Management Plans (CSMPs) for those projects receiving CMIA funding to ensure that mobility improvements would be maintained over time. In the SCAG region, CSMPs were developed by Caltrans for the following corridors:

 I-5 and I-405 in Los Angeles County;

 SR-57, SR-91, and SR-22/I-405/I-605 in Orange County;

 SR-91 and I-215 in Riverside County;

 I-10 and I-215 in San Bernardino County; and

 US-101 in Ventura County.

### 42 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

The CSMPs include several key components: a comprehensive corridor description and understanding; a performance assessment and bottleneck identification; identification of operational and minor infrastructure improvements to relieve congestion; and develop

ment of simulation models to estimate improvements from those projects and strategies. The recommended improvements include TSM investments such as ramp metering and enhanced incident management. The recommendations also include small infrastructure improvements such as auxiliary lanes and ramp and interchange improvements. The RTP/ SCS includes $840 million of funding for the CSMP-recommended improvements. 

# Completing Our S ystem
Southern California’s highways and arterials extend for almost 22,000 center-line miles and 67,000 lane-miles and serve 62 million travelers each weekday. However, there are still critical gaps in the network that hinder access to certain parts of the region. Closing these gaps to complete the system will allow our residents to enjoy improved access to opportunities such as jobs, education, healthcare, and recreation. 

## Highways and Local Arterials
The expansion of highways and local arterials has slowed down over the last decade. This has occurred in part due to increasing costs and environmental concerns. However, there are still critical gaps and congestion chokepoints in the network that hinder access to certain parts of the region. Locally developed county transportation plans have identified projects to close these gaps, eliminate congestion chokepoints and complete the system. They are included in the RTP/SCS. **T a**  **bl e 2.2**  highlights some of these highway comple

tion projects. The full list of RTP/SCS projects is provided in the Project List Appendix. **T a**  **bl e 2.2**  

### Major Highway Completion Projects

**County Project**  **Completion Year***
Imperial SR-115 Expressway 2030
Los Angeles SR-710 North Extension (tunnel) (alignment TBD) 2030
Los Angeles, San Bernardino High Desert Corridor 2020 Orange SR-241 Improvements 2030

Riverside SR-79 Realignment and I-215 Improvements 2018

Ventura US-101 and SR-118 Improvements 2018

* Represents the Plan network year for which the project was analyzed for the RTP/SCS modeling and regional emissions analysis

Image courtesy of the Orange County Transportation Authority2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 43

Image courtesy of Metro © 2012 LACMTA

Southern California’s heavy investment in high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes has given it one of the nation’s most comprehensive HOV networks and highest rideshare rates. The Plan proposes strategic HOV gap closures and freeway-to-freeway direct HOV connectors to complete the system. The HOV lane network will serve as the backbone of the regional HOT lane system proposed in the “HOT Lanes Network” section later in this chap

ter. Another key HOV strategy in the Plan is the conversion of certain HOV lanes in the region to allow for continuous access. Orange County has taken a leadership role on this over the past few years, and their recent studies have concluded that continuous-access HOV lanes do not perform any worse than limited-access HOV lanes. At the same time, they provide carpoolers with greater freedom of movement in and out of HOV lanes. As a result, nearly every HOV lane in Orange County will be converted to allow for continuous access by the year 2013. **T a**  **bl e 2.3**  highlights some of the Plan’s major HOV projects and
**E xhi**  **b it 2.1**  provides a glance of major highway improvements proposed by the Plan. **T a**  **bl e 2.3**  

### Major HOV Projects

**County Route**  **From T**  **o Completion**  **Year*** **HOV Lane**  **A dditions**  Los Angeles I-10 I-605 Puente Ave 2014 Los Angeles I-10 Puente Ave SR-57/I-210 2018 Los Angeles I-5 LA/OC County Line I-605 2018 Los Angeles I-5 Pico Canyon Parker Rd 2030 Los Angeles I-405 I-10 US-101 2018 Los Angeles SR-14 Ave P-8 Ave L 2030 Orange I-5 Avenida Pico San Juan Creek Rd 2018 Orange I-5 SR-55 SR-57 2018 Orange SR-73 I-405 MacArthur 2035 Riverside I-215 Riv/SB County Line Spruce St 2014 Riverside I-215 Nuevo Rd Box Springs Rd 2030 Riverside SR-91 Adams St SR-60/I-215 2018 Riverside I-15 Riv/SB County Line I-15/I-215 2020 San Bernardino I-10 Haven Ave Ford St 2020 San Bernardino I-10 Ford St Riv/SB County Line 2030 San Bernardino I-215 Orange Show Rd Riv/SB County Line 2014 San Bernardino I-215 SR-210 I-15 2030 San Bernardino I-15 Riv/SB County Line SR-18/Mojave River 2020 **Freeway-to-Freeway HOV**  **Connectors** Los Angeles I-5/SR-14 Connector 2014 Los Angeles I-5/I-405 Connector (partial) 2030 Orange I-405/SR-73 Connector 2035
* Represents the Plan network year for which the project was analyzed for the RTP/SCS modeling and regional emissions analysis

### 44 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

Our region’s local streets and roads account for over 80 percent of the total road network and carry almost 50 percent of total traffic. They serve different purposes in different parts of the region, or even in different parts of the same city. Many streets serve as major thoroughfares or even alternate parallel routes to congested freeways. At the same time, within our urban areas, where a street right-of-way can account for as much as 40 percent of the total land area, streets shape the neighborhoods they pass through and often support different modes of transportation besides the automobile, including bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. The RTP/SCS contains a host of arterial projects and improvements to achieve different purposes in different areas. In all parts of the region, it includes operational and technological improvements to maximize system productivity in a more cost-effective way than simply adding capacity. Such strategic improvements include spot widening, signal prioritization, driveway consolidation and relocation, and grade separations at high-volume intersections. Finally, in a quickly growing number of areas, street improvement projects include new bicycle lanes and otdher design features such as lighting, landscaping, and modified roadway, parking, and sidewalk widths that work in concert to achieve both functional mobility for multiple modes of transportation and a great sense of place.

**T a**  **bl e 2.4**  

### Arterial Investment Summary (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

**County I**  **nvestment** Imperial $ 1.6 Los Angeles $ 6.7 Orange $ 4.4 Riverside $ 6.1 San Bernardino $ 2.6 Ventura $ 0.7 **T otal**  **$22.1** 

# S trategically Expanding Our S ystem
While the RTP/SCS’s multimodal strategy aims to reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) over the next 25 years, total demand to move people and goods will continue to grow due to the region’s population increase. A strategic expansion of our transportation system is needed in order to provide the region with the mobility it needs. The RTP/SCS targets this expansion around transportation systems that have room to grow, including transit, high-speed rail, active transportation, Express/HOT lanes, and goods move

ment. Some of these systems, such as transit, active transportation, and Express/HOT lanes, have proven over the years to be reliable and convenient forms of transportation for those who are able to easily access them. However, these systems must be improved and expanded in order to provide the accessibility and connectivity needed to become a truly viable alternative for the region as a whole. Other systems, such as high-speed rail, are new to the region and are needed to expand the number of choices available to our residents for convenient longer-haul travel. In addition, to address both the need to move more goods throughout the region for our growing population and maintain regional eco

nomic benefits of our goods movement industry, we must strategically expand our goods movement system in a way that addresses the associated quality of life issues. 

## Transit
The Plan calls for an impressive expansion of transit facilities and services over the next 25 years. The local county sales tax programs, most recently Measure R in Los Angeles County, are providing for most of this expansion in facilities and services. The region should be proud of what it has accomplished so far and what it plans to accomplish beyond that by 2035. **E xhi**  **b its 2.2**  , **2.3** , and **2.4** demonstrate this point. All three exhibits present the passenger rail system in the region. In 1990, as shown in **E xhi**  **b it 2.2**  , the region did not have any passenger rail service at all. **E xhi**  **b it 2.3**  shows how successful the region had been in building an extensive passenger rail network by 2010, a mere 20 years later. This RTP/SCS builds upon this success and proposes to strategically expand our rail system over the next 25 years. A more robust network in 2035 is depicted in **E xhi**  **b it 2.4** 

.

### 45

**E xhi**  **b it 2.1**  

### Major Highway Projects

### 46

**E xhi**  **b it 2.2**  

### Rail Transit System (1990)

### 47

**E xhi**  **b it 2.3**  

### Rail Transit System (2010)

### 48

**E xhi**  **b it 2.4**  

### Rail Transit System (2035)2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 49

Once built out, Los Angeles County will have a greatly expanded rail network, adding entire new corridors and lengthening existing ones. Orange County will greatly improve its Metrolink service and implement a host of new bus rapid transit (BRT) routes, Riverside County will introduce various extensions to its Metrolink line, and San Bernardino County will introduce Redlands Rail.

**T a**  **bl e 2.5**  

### Major Transit Projects

**County Project**  **Completion Year** * Los Angeles Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor 2018 Los Angeles Gold Line Eastside Transit Corridor–Phase 2 2035 Los Angeles Exposition Line–Phase 2 to Santa Monica 2018 Los Angeles Gold Line Extension to Glendora 2018 Los Angeles Gold Line Extension to Montclair 2035 Los Angeles Green Line LAX Extension 2030 Los Angeles South Bay Green Line Extension 2035 Los Angeles Regional Connector 2020 Los Angeles San Fernando Valley North/South Transitways 2018 Los Angeles San Fernando Valley Orange Line Canoga Extension 2014 Los Angeles West Santa Ana Branch Corridor 2030 Los Angeles Westside Subway Extension to La Cienega 2023 Los Angeles Westside Subway Extension to Century City 2030 Los Angeles Westside Subway Extension to Westwood 2035 Orange Anaheim Rapid Connection 2020 Orange Bristol/State College, Harbor, and Westminster BRT 2030 Orange Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway 2020

Riverside Metrolink Perris Valley Line Extensions to San Jacinto and Temecula 2035
San Bernardino E Street BRT (sbX) 2014 San Bernardino Redlands Rail–Phase 1 2018 San Bernardino Redlands Rail–Phase 2 2020
* Represents the Plan network year for which the project was analyzed for the RTP/SCS modeling and regional emissions analysis These capital transit projects will provide our region with a much more mature public transportation system. Operational improvements and new transit programs and policieswill also contribute greatly to attracting more trips to transit and away from singleoccupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. First, the expanding HOV and Express/HOT lane networks call for the development of an extensive express bus point-to-point network. Second, transit-oriented and land use developments call for increasing the frequency and quality of fixed-route bus service by virtue of adding new BRT service, limited-stop service, increased frequencies along targeted corridors, and the introduction of local community circulators to provide residents of smart growth developments with the option of taking transit over using a car to make short, local trips. Another emphasis on transit network improvements includes transit priority facilities, such as bus lanes and traffic signal priority. Our region has few existing dedicated bus lanes, but has implemented the Metro Orange Line, Harbor Transitway, and El Monte Busway. The Los Angeles County Metro Rapid Bus network employs bus signal prior

ity that gives buses up to 10 percent more green light time from the normal green light phase. This should be expanded to other counties in our region. Additional enhancements to our region’s transit services include expanding bike-carrying capacity on transit vehicles; implementing regional and intercounty fare agreements and media, such as LA County’s EZ Pass; and expanding and improving real-time passenger information systems.


## T ra ns it P olicie s
In addition to the specific transit plans, projects, and programs proposed, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS also supports the following policies and actions:

 Encourage the development of new transit modes in our subregions, such as BRT, rail, limited-stop service, and point-to-point express services utilizing the HOV and Express/HOT lane networks,

 Encourage transit providers to increase frequency and span of service in TOD and High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) and along targeted corridors where there is latent demand for transit service,

 Collaborate with local jurisdictions to provide a network of local community cir

culators that serve new TOD and HQTAs, providing an incentive for residents and employees to make trips on transit,

### 50 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

 Develop “first mile/last mile” strategies on a local level to facilitate access to the transit system via local circulators, active transport, scrip, or vehicle sharing. Continue partnering with member cities and subregions to do localized “first mile/ last mile” planning,

 Encourage transit fare discounts and local vendor product and service discounts for residents and employees of TOD/HQTAs or for a jurisdiction’s local residents in general who have fare media,

 Advocate for increased operational funding for transit service from state sources,

 Encourage transit properties to pursue cost-containment strategies,

 Work with cities to identify and mitigate choke points in the regional transportation system that affect transit, and

 Work with county transportation commissions, municipalities, and transit operators to develop dedicated bus facilities. 

## Passenger and High- S peed Rail
The Plan proposes three Passenger Rail strategies that will provide additional travel options for long-distance travel within our region and to neighboring regions. These are improvements to the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor, improvements to the existing Metrolink system, and the implementation of Phase I of the California High-Speed Train (HST) project. The recent release of the Draft 2012 California HST Business Plan confirmed the funding and implementation challenges of the project. The plan now estimates a statewide Phase I cost of $98.5 billion (in year of expenditure dollars). Within the draft Business Plan, there are a variety of strategies to connect Northern and Southern California to the state network. This plan assumes that Phase I will be completed in 2033, but that incremental improvements can be made in advance of and in preparation for that connection. Further, a Central Valley Initial Operating Segment (IOS) may connect to the Metrolink system in Palmdale as early as 2021. Therefore, stakeholders throughout Southern California are seeking to implement a phased and blended implementation strategy for high-speed rail by employing state and federal high-speed rail funds to improve existing services, eventu

ally meeting the Federal Rail Administration’s (FRA) 110 MPH definition of high-speed service. These speed and service improvements to the existing LOSSAN and Metrolink corridors will deliver the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s (Authority) new blended approach and at the same time permanently improve our region’s commuter and intercity rail services.


## Im ple m e n tatio n o f P ha s e I o f the C ali f or n ia H i g h

- Speed T rai n (H S T) P ro j ect The Authority has worked since 1996 to plan and build an HST system linking Northern and Southern California. In 2005, the Authority issued a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) selecting a Phase I alignment that would travel from Anaheim to Los Angeles, on to the Antelope Valley via the San Fernando Valley, along SR-99 through the San Joaquin Valley, and into the Bay Area via San Jose and along the San Francisco Peninsula. In January 2012, the Authority passed a resolution dropping the Grapevine alignment as an alternative to the Antelope Valley alignment after completing a second study comparing the two. This is supported by Metro, SCAG and the North Los Angeles County Subregion. Phase II would add connections to the Inland Empire, San Diego, Image courtesy of Metro © 2012 LACMTA2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 51

Sacramento, and possibly the East Bay. In November of 2008, California voters approved Proposition 1A (Prop 1A), allocating $9 billion in bond funds for the project and another $950 million in funds for connecting projects. In 2009 and 2010, the FRA awarded the Authority $3.6 billion in High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail discretionary grants that will be used in the San Joaquin Valley as per FRA direction. As mentioned above, the newbusiness plan has put total statewide Phase I construction costs at $98.5 billion (in yearof-expenditure dollars). Prop 1A also included $950 million for upgrading and improving connectivity for current rail services that will connect with the HST project, so the need to make speed and service improvements for our current rail services, coupled with the CHSRA’s new blended implementation approach, calls for the need to spend these funds in the next few years. The primary benefits of Phase I will be realized on a statewide level; however, our region’s interregional travel facilities will also benefit. If successful, the HST system will attract many interregional trips now made by car or airplane, providing an alternative to congested interregional highways and relieving ground congestion near local airports. The Los Angeles to the Bay Area travel market is currently the nation’s seventh-busiest aviation corridor and our region’s second busiest. Phase I has the potential to free up gate space at regional airports for more international and long-haul routes, and relieve some airfield congestion. Similarly, when both Phase I and II are complete, the system will offer connectivity to Palmdale, Bob Hope (Burbank), Los Angeles, Ontario International, and San Bernardino International Airports, helping to meet SCAG’s long-term goal of regional

izing air travel in Southern California. Phase I will also provide excellent regional connec

tivity. The planned HSR stops at Palmdale, Sylmar, Burbank Airport, Los Angeles Union Station, Norwalk, and Anaheim will readily connect with a robust network of intercity and commuter rail, subway and light rail, and fixed-route transit systems. All these connec

tions will complement and feed each other, thereby boosting rail and transit ridership across our region.


## Im prove m e n t s to the LO SS A N R ail C orridor Currently the SCAG region is served by a network of intercity passenger and commuter rail services. These services operate on the region’s rail network, often sharing facilities with freight rail. They operate at higher speeds and have less frequent station stops than traditional transit services and are more likely to serve intercity and interregional trips. As discussed in Chapter 1, intercity passenger rail service is operated by Amtrak, and commuter services are operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink). Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner traverses the 351-mile-long Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) corridor. The Pacific Surfliner is the second-most-used service in Amtrak’s national fleet, moving nearly 9 percent of the system’s total national ridership. Surfliner ridership is growing over 8 percent a year. While Amtrak service remains a small portion of all transit trips in the region, it does provide a significant option for travel between regions. Since the 1990s, stakeholders along the LOSSAN corridor have been participating in the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency, a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that coordinates planning along the corridor with the goal of increasing safety, ridership, revenue, and reliability. In early 2010, the agency released a Strategic Assessment, which found that capital invest

ment in speed and capacity improvements could serve latent demand along the corridor. As such, the LOSSAN JPA partners have begun work on a Strategic Implementation Plan, which will guide service and business planning and provide a corridor-wide implementa

tion plan for capital improvement projects. Strategies in the LOSSAN program will include intersection safety improvements such as installation of quad gates and raised medians, grade separations, the installation of sidings and double tracks, electronic and positive train control technologies, track straightening, and other speed and capacity improve

ments. Ultimately, it is hoped that express services in the corridor will travel between San Diego and Los Angeles in under two hours.

Image courtesy of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink)

### 52 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments



## Im prove m e n t s to the E xi s ti ng Metroli nk S ys te m Similarly, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority is currently the sole operator of the Metrolink system, which serves primarily as a commuter rail service in our region. Metrolink operates 512 track miles of service along seven routes in Ventura, Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. Metrolink passengers travel much further than most transit passengers, having an average trip length of 36.9 miles. In Fiscal Year 2008–2009, Metrolink reported serving 12,241,830 passengers. Five routes, the Ventura County Line, the Antelope Valley Line, the Orange County Line, the Inland Empire/Orange County Line, and the SR-91 Line, share portions of the LOSSAN Corridor with the Pacific Surfliner. Metrolink’s service will also share a corridor with Phase I of the California High-Speed Train Project. The CA HST will provide a high-speed travel option to the Bay Area and the Central Valley via the existing Valley Subdivision, which is currently used by the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line (AVL). A recent express service demonstration project revealed that the Metrolink AVL travel time between Palmdale and Los Angeles Union Station could be shortened by 33 percent simply by skipping selected station stops. A study is underway to look at how to reduce this travel time even more significantly, and could include track straightening, grade separations, and track and siding expansions. When Phase I of the state HST project is completed, Metrolink and Amtrak routes will serve as feeders, providing access to a new long-distance travel mode. Travelers are expected to access the state HST project at stations in the cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, San Fernando, Palmdale, Norwalk, and Anaheim. The Authority’s 2009 Business Plan posits that passengers will travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours for about 80 percent of comparable airfare.


## R ail P olicie s In addition to the specific plans, projects, and programs proposed, the 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS supports the following policies and actions related to our passenger and high-speed rail program:

 Implement cooperative fare agreements and media between Amtrak and LOSSAN, and California HST when it begins revenue service,

 Implement cooperative marketing efforts between Amtrak and LOSSAN, and California HST when it begins revenue service,  Encourage regional and local transit providers to develop rail interface services at Metrolink, Amtrak, and high-speed rail stations, and

 Work with the California High-Speed Rail Authority and local jurisdictions to plan and develop optimal levels of retail, residential, and employment development that fully take advantage of new travel markets and rail travelers. 

## B us Transit
The RTP/SCS allocates additional funding to bus transit in the region. Fixed-route bus lines in the region are continuously evaluated and adjusted. Los Angeles County also offers bus rapid transit (BRT) on many of its core corridors. In addition, new services are planned across the region, including:

 Orange County’s first BRT services and new trolley systems in Santa Ana, Anaheim, and Garden Grove,

 Riverside and San Bernardino Counties’ first BRT services,

 Development of an extensive express bus point-to-point network based on the expanding HOV and Express/HOT lane networks,

Image courtesy of the Victor Valley Transit Authority2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 53

 Increasing the frequency and quality of fixed-route bus service and the introduction of local community circulators to provide residents of smart growth developments with the option of taking transit over using a car to make short, local trips, and

 The implementation of transit priority facilities, such as bus lanes and traffic signal priority. 

## Active Transportation
Active transportation refers to transportation such as walking or using a bicycle, tri

cycle, velomobile, wheelchair, scooter, skates, skateboard, push scooter, trailer, hand cart, shopping car, or similar electrical devices. For the purposes of the RTP/SCS, active transportation generally refers to bicycling and walking, the two most common methods. Walking and bicycling are essential parts of the SCAG transportation system, are low cost, do not emit greenhouse gases, can help reduce roadway congestion, and increase health and the quality of life of residents. As the region works toward reducing conges

tion and air pollution, walking and bicycling will become more essential to meet the future needs of Californians. The majority of commuters within the SCAG region commute via car, truck, or van. According to the American Community Survey, in 2009, more than 85 percent of all com

muters traveled to work by car, truck, or van, and less than 4 percent traveled to work via an active transportation mode (0.7 percent bicycled and 2.5 percent walked to work). In addition, the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data indicate that approximately 20.9 percent of all trips were conducted by walking (19.2 percent) or bicycling (1.7 per

cent). This represents an approximately 75 percent increase from the 11.9 percent active transportation mode share in 2000. In addition, NHTS data indicate that 75.0 percent of all trips in 2009 were conducted by driving, and this is an approximately 10.6 percent decrease from the 83.9 percent mode share in 2000. Additional analysis regarding active transportation needs to be conducted in order to develop a better understanding of the users and their needs. The current level of data is extremely limited and does not provide a comprehensive overview of the current active transportation community. Active transportation users have differing levels of experience and confidence, which influences their decision to utilize active transportation. SCAG recognizes that there are a number of factors that motivate people to use active transpor

tation. Increased data collection may provide a clearer understanding of the needs and deficiencies associated with active transportation. Active transportation is not only a form of transportation in itself; it is also a means by which to access rail and bus service. Accessibility is one of the primary performance measures used to evaluate active transportation, by measuring how well the current infrastructure provides individuals with the opportunity to access destinations or facilities. Using a two-mile buffer for bicyclists and a half-mile buffer for pedestrians, we found that our current transit infrastructures provides 97 percent of our residents access to transit via bicycle and 86 percent access to transit by walking. While many individuals have access to transit stations by biking or walking, numerous other factors may influence an individual’s decision to use active transportation. Safety is an important factor that individuals consider when determining whether or not they should walk or bike to their destination. Based on data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), in 2008, 4.0 percent of all traffic-related fatalities in the SCAG region involved bicyclists, and 4.3 percent of all traffic-related injuries involved bicyclists. In addition, 20.9 percent of all traffic-related fatalities in the SCAG region involved a pedestrian, and 5.7 percent of traffic-related injuries involved pedestrians. While each of the counties in the SCAG region currently has its own active transporta

tion plan, the RTP/SCS aims at developing a regional active transportation system that closes the gaps and provides connectivity between counties and local jurisdictions. While bicyclists are legally allowed to use any public roadway in California unless specifically prohibited, many bicyclists may be more inclined to utilize bikeways. Currently, 42.6 percent of the region’s residents have easy access to 4,315 miles of bikeways. Local jurisdictions in the region have proposed an additional 4,980 miles of bikeways in this RTP/SCS that would increase this access to 62.4 percent of all residents. In order to close the remaining gaps in the bikeway network, this RTP/SCS goes a step further to include an additional 827 miles of bikeways to complete the SCAG Regional Bikeway Network. In order to make active transportation a more attractive and feasible mode of travel for the different users in our region, additional infrastructure improvements need to be made. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS calls for improvements that would bring significant amount of deficient sidewalks into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Given that all trips, including vehicular trips, start with walking, it is important to ensure that the sidewalks and streets are accommodating to all users. In all, the RTP/SCS’s active transportation improvements exceed $6.7 billion.

### 54

**E xhi**  **b it 2.5**  

### Regional Bicycle Network2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 55



## C oa s tal T rail s
In addition to bikeways, local trails have played an important role in increasing acces

sibility and providing opportunities for active transportation. Trails along the coast of California have been utilized as long as people have inhabited the region. In an effort to develop a “continuous public right-of-way along the California coastline, a trail designed to foster appreciation and stewardship of the scenic and natural resources of coastal trekking through hiking and other complementary modes of non-motorized transporta

tion,” the California Coastal Trail (CCT) was established. SCAG proposes the completion of the CCT to increase active transportation access to the coast. Completion of the CCT would provide 183 miles of multipurpose trails.


## Sa f e R o u te s to School SAFETEA-LU established the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to “enable and encourage primary and secondary school children to walk and bicycle to school” and to support infrastructure-related and behavioral projects that are “geared toward providing a safe, appealing environment for walking and bicycling that will improve the quality of our children’s lives and support national health objectives by reducing traffic, fuel consump

tion, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools.” Safe Route to School programs can play a critical role in eliminating some of the vehicle trips that occur during peak periods to drop off or pick up students by ensuring safe routes to bike or walk to school.


## C o m plete Street s The Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) requires cities and counties to incorporate the concept of Complete Streets in their General Plan updates to ensure that transpor

tation plans meet the needs of all users of our roadway system. SCAG supports and encourages implementation of Complete Streets policies in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. SCAG will work with the local jurisdictions as they implement Complete Streets strategies within their jurisdictions by providing information and resources to support local plan

ning activities. SCAG also supports the following policies and actions related to active transportation:

 Encourage and support local jurisdictions to develop “Active Transportation Plans” for their jurisdictions if they do not already have one,  Encourage and support local jurisdictions to develop comprehensive educational programs for all road users,

 Encourage local jurisdictions to direct enforcement agencies to focus on bicycling and walking safety to reduce multimodal conflicts,

 Support local advocacy groups and bicycle-related businesses to provide bicyclesafety curricula to the general public,

 Encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school,

 Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt and implement the proposed SCAG Regional Bikeway Network,

 Support local jurisdictions to connect all of the cities within the SCAG region via bicycle facilities,

 Encourage local jurisdictions to complete the California Coastal Trail,

 Encourage the use of intelligent traffic signals and other technologies that detect slower pedestrians in signalized crosswalks and extend signal time as appropriate,

 Support the facilitation, planning, development, and implementation of projects and activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic and air pollution in the vicinity of primary and middle schools, and

 Encourage local jurisdictions to prioritize and implement projects/policies to comply with ADA requirements.

### 56 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments



## Express/HOT Lane N etwork
Despite our concerted effort to reduce traffic congestion through years of infrastructure investment, the region’s system demands continue to exceed available capacity during peak periods. Consistent with our regional emphasis on the mobility pyramid ( **Fi gur**  **e 2.1** ), recent planning efforts have focused on enhanced system management, including inte

gration of pricing to better utilize existing capacity and to offer users greater travel time reliability and choices. Express/HOT Lanes that are appropriately priced to reflect demand can outperform non-priced lanes in terms of throughput, especially during congested periods. Moreover, revenue generated from priced lanes can be used to deliver the needed capacity provided by the Express/HOT Lanes sooner and to support complemen

tary transit investments. Based on recent analysis of critical corridors performed for the CSMPs, intercounty trips comprise more than 50 percent—suggesting the value of a regional network of Express Lanes that would seamlessly connect multiple counties. As such, the 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS includes a regional Express/HOT Lane network that would build upon the success of the SR-91 Express Lanes in Orange County and two demonstration projects in Los Angeles County planned for operation in late 2012. Additional efforts underway include the extension of the SR-91 Express Lanes to I-15 in Riverside County along with planned Express Lanes on I-15. Also, traffic and revenue studies are proceeding for I-10 and I-15 in San Bernardino County.

**T a**  **bl e 2.6**  and **E xhi**  **b it 2.6**  display the segments in the proposed Express Lane network. Additional efforts underway include the extension of the SR-91 Express Lanes to I-15 in Riverside County along with planned Express Lanes on I-15. Also, traffic and revenue studies are proceeding for I-10 and I-15 in San Bernardino County.

**T a**  **bl e 2.6**  and **E xhi**  **b it 2.6**  display the segments in the proposed Express Lane network.

**T a**  **bl e 2.6**  

### Express/HOT Lane Network

**County Route**  **From T**  **o** Los Angeles I-405 I-5 (North SF Valley) LA/OC County Line Los Angeles I-110 Adams Blvd (s/o I-10) I-405 Los Angeles I and SR-110/ Adams Blvd US-101 Los Angeles US-101 SR-110 I-10 Los Angeles I-10 US-101 I-710 Los Angeles I-10 I-710 I-605 LA, Orange SR-91 I-110 SR-55 LA, SB I-10 I-605 I-15 Orange I-405 LA/OC Line SR-55 Orange I-5 SR-73 OC/SD County Line Orange SR-73 I-405 MacArthur Riverside SR-91 OC/RV County Line I-15 Riverside I-15 Riv/SB County Line SR-74 Riverside I-15 SR-74 Riv/SD County Line San Bernardino I-10 I-15 SR-210 San Bernardino I-10 SR-210 Ford St San Bernardino I-15 SR-395 Sierra Ave San Bernardino I-15 Sierra Ave 6th St San Bernardino I-15 6th St Riv/SB County Line The Express/HOT Lane Network is assumed to be operational by 2035. Implementation plans, including corridor limits, will be refined through the Express Travel Choices Phase II Study. Image courtesy of the Orange County Transportation Authority

### 57

**E xhi**  **b it 2.6**  

### Express/HOT Lane Network

### 58 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments



# M eeting Our Airport Demand
Although at a rate much slower than those seen in previous decades, air travel in the SCAG region continues to grow and is expected to pick up the pace when the region economically recovers. This RTP/SCS’s regional air passenger demand forecast of 145.9 million annual air passengers (MAP) in 2035 is a very conservative forecast compared to forecasts adopted by past SCAG RTPs, such as the 165.3 MAP 2035 forecast adopted by the 2008 RTP. However, like previous forecasts, this new long-range forecast is also based on interim forecasts that show the urban capacity-constrained airports of Los Angeles International (LAX), Bob Hope, Long Beach, and John Wayne all reaching their defined legally allowable or physical capacity constraints well before 2035. The remain

ing air travel demand is served by the other, suburban airports with ample capacity to serve future demand, including Ontario International, San Bernardino International, March Inland Port, Palmdale Regional, Southern California Logistics, and Palm Springs airports. A small amount of future air passenger demand would also be served by the two com

muter airports in the region, Oxnard and Imperial airports.

**T a**  **bl e 2.7**  displays Low Growth, Baseline/Medium Growth, and High Growth air passenger forecast scenarios that were considered for inclusion in this RTP/SCS. At 164 MAP in 2035, the High Growth Scenario is only slightly less than the 165.3 MAP forecast adopted for the 2008 RTP in 2035, and its average annual growth rate is consistent with recent industry forecasts developed by the FAA, Boeing, and Airbus. This Plan’s regional air passenger demand forecast is the Baseline/Medium Growth Forecast that is more conser

vative than the High Growth Scenario and is consistent with recent passenger trends. At 145.9 MAP, it is virtually identical to the Constrained/No Project Scenario that was modeled for the 2008 RTP. **Fi gur**  **e 2.4** shows the airport allocations for this RTP/SCS’s regional air passenger demand forecast. The Plan’s regional air passenger demand forecast recognizes defined legally allowable and physical capacity constraints at the constrained urban airports, including LAX, Bob Hope, Long Beach, and John Wayne. However, the legal settlement agreement con

straints at both LAX and John Wayne expire in the 2015–2020 time period. Relaxation or elimination of these constraints could significantly impact forecast allocations of aviation demand at other airports in the region. For example, relaxation of the 78.9 MAP settle

ment agreement constraint at LAX could significantly impact the future demand at nearby Bob Hope Airport. (The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority does not think that Bob Hope Airport will exceed 8.0 MAP in 2035 because of the likelihood that LAX will exceed its settlement agreement constraint before that date.) Future updates of the regional aviation passenger demand forecast, such as for the 2016 RTP, will incorporate any new information provided by local authorities on revised legally-allowable or physical capacity constraints at capacity-constrained airports in the region. At 5.61 million tons of cargo in 2035, this RTP/SCS’s regional air cargo demand forecast is also much more conservative than what was adopted by the 2008 RTP for 2035 (8.28 million tons). **Fi gur**  **e 2.5** shows the airport allocations for this RTP/SCS’s regional air cargo demand forecast. A more complete discussion of the methodology used to develop these forecasts can be found in the Aviation and Airport Ground Access Appendix.

**T a**  **bl e 2.7**  

### 2035 Airport Forecasts (Million Annual Air Passengers)

**A irport**  **Low Baseline**  **H igh**  Bob Hope 9.4 9.4 9.4 John Wayne 10.8 10.8 10.8 LAX 78.9 78.9 78.9 Long Beach 4.2 4.2 4.2 March Inland Port 0.4 0.6 2.5 Ontario 19.2 30.7 31.6 Palmdale 1.6 2.6 6.1 Palm Springs 2.6 4.1 9.6 San Bernardino 1.8 2.8 6.7 SoCal Logistics 0.4 0.7 1.6 Imperial 0.6 0.9 2.1 Oxnard 0.1 0.2 0.5 **T otal**  **130.0 145.9**  **164.0**2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 59

**Fi gur**  **e 2.4** 

### 2035 Air Passenger Demand Airport Allocations

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Bob Hope John Wayne LAX Long Beach March Inland Port Ontario Palmdale Palm Springs San Bernardino SoCal Logistics Imperial OxnardPassengers (in millions)

Airports 9.4 | 10.8 |

4.2 | 0.6 | 30.7 |

2.6 | **4.1** | 2.8 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 78.9 **Fi gur**  **e 2.5** 

### 2035 Air Cargo Demand Airport Allocations

0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 2,800 3,200 3,600 4,000

Bob Hope John Wayne LAX Long Beach March Inland Port Ontario Palmdale Palm Springs San Bernardino SoCal LogisticsAir Cargo (by thousand tons)

Airport 108 | 46 | 3,647 |

94 | 147 | 1,314 |

34 | >100 tons | 146 | 68 |

The past few years have seen deep cutbacks in flights by the airlines, particularly at mid-sized airports. There have also been several significant mergers in the U.S. airline industry. These mergers will likely lead to the elimination of duplicate service that may decrease airline competition, increase fares, and reduce the number of flights in many markets. However, the merged carriers may find it advantageous to offer service at multiple airports in a given market, rather than add frequency at LAX. The other recent dynamic in the aviation industry has been the transition of the low-cost carriers, as they have gained market share, from primarily serving secondary airports in large metropoli

tan regions to competing directly with the legacy network carriers at the primary airport. A recent example is the decision by both Virgin America and Southwest to introduce or expand service at LAX, rather than primarily serve the region through the secondary airports. One consequence of this strategy has been a significant decline in passenger traffic at both Bob Hope Airport and Ontario International Airport.

### 60 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

These and other recent trends call into question the ability to shift air traffic from the existing constrained airports in the urban core to the outlying/suburban airports that have the capacity to accommodate the forecast growth, which is necessary to meet this RTP/ SCS’s 145.9 MAP forecast in 2035. In order to attract the number of passengers to the suburban airports envisaged in the 2035 regional air passenger demand forecast, some incentives are likely to be needed to encourage airlines to offer service at these airports. Potential incentives fall into three broad categories:

1. Improvements to the airport ground access system that would make the alternate airports more accessible to travelers from those parts of the region that currently find the core urban airports more convenient, 2. Measures that would reduce the cost to the airlines of offering service at the alter

nate airports, either through direct subsidy or by reducing airport fees and charges relative to the more congested airports, and 3. Marketing programs to encourage air travelers to consider using the air services at the alternate airports. 

## G eneral Aviation
SCAG also updated regional general aviation demand forecasts for the 44 general aviation airports in the region, as well as for the 10 commercial airports in the region that support general aviation activity. Regional general aviation demand forecasts were last developed by SCAG in 2003. The new forecasts employed a sophisticated “cohort” methodology that considers the amount of flying done by pilots as they pass through different age groups and the extent to which older pilots are replaced by new pilots. The forecast shows a decline in regional general aviation operations by about 32 percent from 2010 to 2035. The main reason for the anticipated decline is the fact that the aging pilot population is not expected to be adequately replenished by new student pilot starts. The regional gen

eral aviation demand forecast and methodology can be found in the Aviation and Airport Ground Access Appendix. 

## Airport G round Access S trategy
Improvements to airport ground access (and egress) fall under SCAG’s domain of responsibility. SCAG works closely with the airport authorities and county transportation commissions to identify and pursue implementation of specific projects. To be effective in attracting passengers to air service at the alternate airports, ground access improve

ments will need to significantly reduce the travel time and/or cost of accessing the alternate airports. This is likely to be a particular concern with airports such as Palmdale, which is almost 70 miles from downtown Los Angeles and around 50 miles from commu

nities in the San Fernando Valley. While the cost of significantly reducing freeway travel times beyond those improve

ments that will be implemented for other reasons would be prohibitive, particularly for the relatively small number of travelers likely to use the alternate airports, there may be opportunities to take advantage of improved transit and rail services that are being2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 61

planned. These include the extension of the Metro Gold Line to Ontario and improvements to Metrolink service on the Antelope Valley and San Bernardino lines. While the volume of airport passengers alone would not justify the cost of these projects, if they are being done anyway to address other travel needs, SCAG can collaborate with the relevant agencies to ensure that the connections to the alternate airports are well planned and marketed. In the case of Ontario Airport, airport passenger volumes may be high enough to support express bus service from remote terminals at such locations as the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, Los Angeles Union Station, and the Van Nuys FlyAway terminal in the San Fernando Valley. These facilities all currently exist or will by 2035, so it would only be necessary to operate the bus service. These services may need to be subsidized until ridership reaches a level where the fare revenue can support the operation. SCAG could work with local airport authorities and regional transportation agencies to develop a regional consensus for identifying new sources of funding for these services. Potential sources of funding could include charging fees for private vehicles picking up and dropping off passengers at the congested airports. This would have a number of advantages:

 It would encourage resident passengers to use airport parking instead of being dropped off and picked up, which would increase airport revenues,

 By discouraging pick-up and drop-off trips, it would reduce vehicle trips generated by the airport on surrounding streets, and

 It would encourage more passengers to use public transportation or express buses from remote terminals, which would reduce vehicle miles of travel (VMT) on the region’s arterial and freeway system. It is unlikely that the volumes of air passengers at the other three alternate airports would be high enough to support dedicated express bus service. It might be feasible to serve San Bernardino International Airport as an extension of express bus service to Ontario Airport from Union Station or Van Nuys. A more thorough discussion and listing of recommended ground access projects for each airport, both roadway and public transit projects, can be found in the Airport Ground Access Element in the Aviation and Airport Ground Access Appendix. 

## A irport Fi n a n cial Strate gy SCAG does not have a source of funding to provide subsidies for air service or to reduce airport fees and charges to the airlines. SCAG can work with the various airport authorities in the region and build a regional consensus to establish a regional fund

ing mechanism to support the development of airport facilities and infrastructure at the alternate airports, using revenues generated at the congested airports as part of efforts to limit traffic growth at those airports. This strategy is currently prohibited by the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations on airport revenue diversion, except in cases where both airports are operated by the same airport authority. If a regional consensus of airport authorities is developed for advancing a regional airport financial strategy, SCAG can work with the congressional representatives from the region to obtain legislation that allows joint programs by congested and uncongested airports, even if they are operated by different agencies. Over the long term, congested airports may have an interest in shifting traffic to less-congested airports. For airports like LAX, which has a significant component of international traffic that generates more revenue than domestic flights, it may be more efficient to limit domestic flights that could be accommodated at other airports in the region, thereby freeing up capacity for more lucrative international flights.

### 62 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments



## A irport Mar k eti ng Strate gy SCAG does not have a source of funding to support marketing efforts to encourage air travelers in the region to consider using air service at the alternate airports. There is potential for the various airport authorities and the region’s business community to develop a regional consensus to initiate a region-wide marketing effort to promote alter

natives to the use of congested airports. This program could be funded through a variety of sources, such as airport parking and rental car transactions. SCAG would need to work with the various stakeholders to identify the benefits of an effective marketing program to all the region’s airports and develop a regional consensus on how to fund and implement such a program.


## A irport P olicie s a n d A ctio n Step s
This section outlines the additional policies and action steps associated with the aviation program contained in this RTP/SCS. 

## Regional Aviation Demand, Airport Infrastructure, and Airport G round Access The following outlines key policies:

 The capability of uncongested secondary airports in the region to accommodate future aviation demand, where such growth is desired, should be preserved during periods of declining or stagnant air traffic

 Uncongested secondary airports in the region, where additional activity is desired, should be supported through appropriate incentives, marketing, and projects that enhance their capacity and regional accessibility

 The factors that most influence the growth in demand for air travel and the composi

tion of the market should be identified

 A regional consensus should be developed on how best to support the develop

ment of new air services at uncongested secondary airports, where such growth is desired

 State-of-the-art aviation demand forecast methodologies should be employed to accurately forecast future aviation demand in the region’s complex multi-airport sys

tem, and regional aviation demand forecasts should be regularly updated to address changing conditions

 Existing and planned regional highway and high-occupancy transit improvements should be leveraged to the extent possible to increase the regional accessibility of uncongested secondary airports, where traffic is desired, while minimizing improve

ment needs The following outlines additional action steps to improve aviation and airport ground access in the region:

 Work with the region’s airport operators to conduct a region-wide air passenger sur

vey on an ongoing basis, designed to enhance and inform regional aviation demand forecasting and airport marketing efforts

 Develop an in-house aviation demand forecasting model that can support the development of future forecasts and allocation of forecast demand to airports in a complex multi-airport regional system. The model should be fully integrated with SCAG’s regional transportation model and should have airport ground access model

ing capabilities2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 63

 Work with the region’s airport operators and business community to define a regionwide marketing effort to promote alternatives to increased use of congested urban airports, consistent with the policy directions of airport operators

 Identify and define incentives that airports can effectively use to encourage airlines to provide new air service

 Establish a Regional Airport Ground Access Task Force to define potential projects and programs to improve airport accessibility to secondary airports and reduce vehicular traffic generated by the large urban airports. The task force would help plan and promote rail and express bus service improvements and extensions to air

ports in the region, as well as an integrated regional system of remote air terminals (“FlyAways”) 

## Airport Economics, F inance, and F unding
The following policies are related to Airport Economics, Finance, and Funding:

 New funding mechanisms should be identified for implementing regional infrastruc

ture and airport ground access improvements

 Efforts by airport operators to develop strategic financial plans and explore nonaeronautical revenue-generating use of underutilized airport property should be supported

 Strategies that enhance the economic contribution of aviation to the regional economy should be identified and implemented The following are recommended action steps:

 Sponsor and support new legislation that allows for more flexible use of airport revenues for off-airport ground access projects when requested by airport operators

 The Airport Ground Access Task Force should explore and develop potential new funding sources to support specific projects they have identified for improving regional airport accessibility

 Coordinate with the region’s county transportation commissions and other transpor

tation agencies to include joint funding of airport ground access projects identified in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan in those agencies’ plans

 Conduct regional aviation economic impact studies that identify the economic ben

efits to the region of different types and levels of regional aviation activity and the likely economic impacts of implementing alternative policy options for serving future regional aviation demand 

## Airport Land U se Compatibility and Environmental Impacts The following policies are related to Land Use Compatibility and Environmental Impacts:

 Promote increased coordination between airport planning and land use planning on both regional and local levels

 Regional support and coordination should be extended to the region’s airport land use commissions

 Disseminate information on aviation environmental “best practices”

 Support mechanisms for promoting cleaner and quieter aircraft at the region’s The following are related action steps:

 Continue to pursue airport “smart growth” projects, using the Airport Smart Growth Framework developed for the Chino Airport Smart Growth Demonstration Project and applying it to different airport settings

 Incorporate airport “smart growth” land use principles in land use forecasts used by future regional transportation plans

 Periodically conduct information sharing forums for the region’s airport land use commissions in cooperation with the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on “best prac

tices” for airport land use compatibility planning

 Serve as a clearinghouse for information on aviation environmental “best practices” by airports for mitigating air, noise, and water pollution; and reducing greenhouse gas emissions

 Support legislation for creating substantial incentives for airlines to upgrade their aircraft fleets to cleaner, quieter aircraft and NextGen-compatible aircraft 

## Airspace Planning and N ew Technologies
The following are policies related to Airspace Planning and New Technologies:

 Modifications to the regional airspace system that reduce potential airspace con

flicts, increase passenger safety, reduce costs to airlines, and reduce noise and air quality impacts should be identified and promoted Opportunities should be pursued

### 64 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

for increasing the region’s airspace capacity, reducing potential future airspace conflicts, and increasing airline efficiencies through new navigation and air traffic control technologies

 Existing and potential future airspace constraints should be incorporated into regional aviation planning The following are related action steps:

 Continue to coordinate and provide input to the FAA’s Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM) Program for Southern California and similar airspace modernization activities, including updated operational forecasts

 SCAG Aviation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) should continue and enhance its coordination with the Southern California Airspace Users Working Group (SCAUWG) on airspace issues of regional importance

 Continue to advocate that the region should serve as an early “test bed” for the phased implementation of new airspace technologies, including new satellite-based NextGen technologies developed by the FAA, that have the potential to reduce air

space conflicts and reduce noise and air quality impacts on local communities

 Explore how new navigation and air traffic control technologies can contribute to the region’s airspace capacity and should incorporate potential airspace constraints in aviation demand forecasts developed for future regional transportation plans 

# G oods M ovement S ystem
S ystem Vision
Improving Southern California’s global competitiveness is critical to a vibrant economy. Reliable freight transportation infrastructure, to move goods to market, is essential to support the SCAG regional economy and quality of life. In 2010, over 1.15 billion tons of cargo valued at almost $2 trillion moved across the region’s system. 1 Whether carrying imported goods from the San Pedro Bay Ports to regional distribution centers, supply

ing materials for local manufacturers, or delivering consumer goods to SCAG residents, the movement of freight provides the goods needed to sustain regional industries and consumer needs on a daily basis. Working with its public and private-sector partners, SCAG has established a vision for the goods movement system that is reflected in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS.



## A world-class, coordinated S outhern California goods movement system that accommodates growth in the throughput of freight to the region and nation in ways that support the region’s economic vitality, attainment of clean air standards, and the quality of life for our communities

1 FHWA Freight Analysis Framework: http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/Extraction0.aspx.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 65



## K ey F unction and M arkets
The goods movement system has developed in the SCAG region to serve a wide range of user markets. Each of these markets has unique performance needs that dictate the com

ponents of the system that they will use. A brief summary of these markets follows.


## In ter n atio n al T rade The SCAG region is the largest international trade gateway in the U.S. In 2010, the Los Angeles Customs District (which includes the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Hueneme and Los Angeles International Airport) handled $336 billion of maritime cargo and $78 billion of air cargo. In the same year, $10.4 billion of trade passed through the international ports of entry (POEs) between the U.S. and Mexico in Imperial County. Trade moving through these international gateways is supported by an extensive trans

portation system including a highly developed network of roadways and railroads, air cargo facilities, intermodal facilities, and an abundance of regional distribution and warehousing clusters.


## D o m e s tic a n d L ocal Good s Move m e n t An overwhelming majority of the goods movement activity in the SCAG region is gen

erated by local businesses moving goods to local customers and supporting national domestic trade systems. These businesses are sometimes referred to as “goods move

ment-dependent industries.” In 2010, these industries, including manufacturing, whole

sale and retail trade, construction and warehousing, employed over 2.9 million people throughout the region and contributed $253 billion to the regional gross domestic product (GDP) ( **Fi gur**  **e 2.6** ). 2 These industries are anticipated to grow substantially, with manu

facturing forecasted to increase its GDP contribution 130 percent by 2035 and wholesale trade growing 144 percent.

2 SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy, REMI. **Fi gur**  **e 2.6** 

### GDP Contribution of Goods Movement-Dependent Industries (2010)

**M a**  **n u**  **f a**  **c t**  **u r**  **i n**  **g 1**  **1 %**  **R e**  **t a**  **i l**  **T r**  **a d**  **e 7**  **%**

**W h**  **o l**  **e s**  **a l**  **e T**  **r a**  **d e**  **7 %** 

**C o**  **n s**  **t r**  **u c**  **t i**  **o n**  **4 %** 

**T r**  **a n**  **s p**  **o r**  **t a**  **t i**  **o n**  **a n**  **d W**  **a r**  **e h**  **o u**  **s i**  **n g**  **3 %** 

**U t**  **i l**  **i t**  **i e**  **s 1**  **%**
**M i**  **n i**  **n g**  **1 %**  **F o**  **r e**  **s t**  **r y**  **, F**  **i s**  **h i**  **n g**  **a n**  **d R**  **e l**  **a t**  **e d**  **A c**  **t i**  **v i**  **t i**  **e s**  **0 %**  **S e**  **r v**  **i c**  **e I**  **n d**  **u s**  **t r**  **i e**  **s 6**  **6 %**  **G o**  **o d**  **s M**  **o v**  **e m**  **e n**  **t D**  **e p**  **e n**  **d e**  **n t**  **I n**  **d u**  **s t**  **r i**  **e s**  **3 4**  **% M**  **a n**  **u f**  **a c**  **t u**  **r i**  **n g**  **1 1**  **%**

**G o**  **o d**  **s M**  **o v**  **e m**  **e n**  **t**

**D e**  **p e**  **n d**  **e n**  **t I**  **n d**  **u s**  **t r**  **i e**  **s 3**  **4 %** 



## L o g i s tic s A ctivitie s—In cl u di ng Wareho us e a n d D i s tri bu tio n Facilitie s The SCAG region hosts one of the largest clusters of logistics activity in North America. Logistics activities, and the jobs they provide, depend on a network of warehousing and distribution facilities, highway and rail connections, and intermodal railyards. In addition to carrying needed inventories, many warehouses and distribution centers in the SCAG region provide transloading services, or the deconsolidation and reloading of freight from marine containers to domestic containers. Because domestic containers are larger than marine containers, importers and shippers are able to realize significant cost savings in transportation costs through economies of scale by transloading. In addition, regional warehouse and distribution facilities may provide value added services. The abundance of warehousing and distribution facilities, along with the highly developed highway and rail network, serves as a competitive advantage for the SCAG region by attract

ing transloading activities that supply numerous local and regional jobs and revenue. Trucking access is particularly critical to warehousing and logistics businesses and the transloading industry.

### 66 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments



## Components of the Regional G oods M ovement S ystem

**E xhi**  **b it 2.7**  depicts the region’s multimodal goods movement system. This system is comprised of the following major elements:

 **S eaports (Ports of Los**  **A ngeles, Long Beach, and**  **H ueneme):**  Serving as the largest container port complex in the U.S., the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handled just under 120 million metric tons of cargo inports and exports, valued at $336 bilion in 2010. 3 Port Hueneme, in Ventura County, specializes in the import and export of automobiles, fresh fruit, and produce and serves as the primary support facility for the offshore oil industry.

 **Land Ports:** The international border crossings in Imperial County are busy com

mercial land ports responsible for over $7 billion in imports and $5 billion in exports in 2007 driven by the maquiladora trade and movement of agricultural products.

 **A ir Cargo Facilities:**  The SCAG region is home to numerous air cargo facilities, including Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and Ontario International Airport (ONT), that together handled over 96 percent of the region’s air cargo in 2010.

 **I nterstate,**  **H ighways, and Local Roads:**  The region has about 53,400 road miles, 1,630 miles of which are interstate and freeway type. 4 Sections of I-710, I-605, SR-60, and SR-91 carry the highest volumes of truck traffic in the region, averag

ing over 25,000 trucks per day in 2008. Other major components of the regional highway network also serve significant numbers of trucks, including I-5, I-10, I-15, and I-210, some with sections that carry over 20,000 trucks per day. These roads carry a mix of local, domestic trade, and international cargoes. The arte

rial roadway system also plays a critical role, providing “last mile” connections to regional ports, manufacturing facilities, intermodal terminals and warehouses, and distribution centers.

 **Class I**  **Railroads:** Critical to the growth of the region’s economy, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) carry international and

3 American Association of Port Authorities, U.S. Waterborne Foreign Trade, 2010 Ranking of USCustoms Districts by Value of Cargo and by Volume of Cargo, November 23, 2011, http://www.aapaports.org/Industry/content.cfm?ItemNumber=900&navItemNumber=551 (last accessed February 2012)
4 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hpms/hpmslibrary/hpmspdf/2009PRD.pdf (last accessed on December 10, 2010. domestic cargo to and from distant parts of the country. The BNSF main line oper

ates on the Transcontinental Line (and San Bernardino Subdivision) while the UP operates on the Coast Line, Santa Clarita Line, Alhambra Line, LA Subdivision, and El Paso Line. Both railroads operate on the Alameda Corridor that connects directly to the San Pedro Bay Ports. The San Pedro Bay Ports also provide several on-dock rail terminals along with the six major intermodal terminals operated by the BNSF and UP.

 **Warehouse and D**  **istribution Centers:** In 2008, the region had about 837 million square feet of warehousing space 5 and another 185 million square feet in developable land. 6 An estimated 15 percent of the occupied warehouse space served port-related uses, while the remaining 85 percent supported domestic shippers. 7 Many of these warehouses are clustered along key goods movement corridors ( **E xhi**  **b it 2.7**  ). Portrelated warehousing is concentrated in the Gateway Cities subregion, while national and regional distribution facilities tend to be located in the Inland Empire.

5 SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy.
6 Potentially developable warehouse space is estimated based on land zoned and suitable for ware

house development.
7 Some domestic warehouse space may include use by domestic shippers mixing internationally sourced and domestically sourced goods.

### 67

**E xhi**  **b it 2.7**  

### Existing Regional Goods Movement System

### 68 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

Image courtesy of the Port of Long Beach



## G oods M ovement Trends and Drivers
There are a number of key trends that are anticipated to have major impacts on the goods movement system. These trends include:

 **Population and General E**  **conomic Growth:** Despite a current economic downturn brought on by challenging global conditions, population and employment in the SCAG region are expected to grow by approximately 24 percent and 22 percent by 2035, respectively. This growth will create increased consumer demand for products and the goods movement services that provide them. The increased demand will drive stronger growth in freight traffic on shared highway and rail facilities. Truck traffic on many key corridors is anticipated to grow substantially. Truck volumes on major corridors are shown in **E xhi**  **b it 2.8**  for both 2008 and the 2035 baseline forecast. Without an increase in capacity, truck and auto delay will increase substantially, truck-involved accidents will be more frequent, and the levels of harmful emissions will rise. Moreover, growing demand for commuter rail services on rail lines owned by the freight railroads will create needs for expanded capacity on these facilities.  **Recovery and E**  **xpansion of I**  **nternational T**  **rade:** Within the RTP/SCS time horizon, international trade is anticipated to recover with renewed demand for both import and export capabilities. Despite increasing competition with other North American ports and the expansion of the Panama Canal, the San Pedro Bay Ports anticipate cargo volumes to grow to 43 million containers by 2035 8 —more than tripling from current levels. This will create the need to expand marine terminal facilities, improve highway connections (particularly those connecting directly to the San Pedro Bay Ports, like I-710 and SR-47), and address on-dock and off-dock intermodal terminal capacities. If port-related rail traffic and commuter demand are to be satisfied, addi

tional main line capacity improvements will be required. Mitigating the impacts of increased train traffic on communities will continue to be a considerable challenge.

 **Continued E**  **xpansion of Warehouse and Logistics A**  **ctivity:** Southern California is an ideal place for expanded distribution and logistics activity and will continue to be a significant source of good-paying jobs in the region through 2035. Demand for port-related warehouse space is projected to grow at a faster pace than demand for domestic warehousing. As space near the San Pedro Bay Ports reaches capac

ity, port warehousing will push out to the Inland Empire. Expansion in national and regional distribution facilities is also likely to occur in the Inland Empire, resulting in substantial congestion problems due to the increased truck volumes on regional highways. By 2035, the region may experience a shortfall of more than 228 million square feet in warehouse space relative to demand.

 **A ir Quality**  **I ssues:**  Much of the SCAG region does not meet federal ozone and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) air quality standards. Goods movement emissions contributes to regional air pollution problems (NOx and PM 2.5 ). While emissions from goods movement are being reduced through efforts such as the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan, these reductions are unlikely to be sufficient to meet regional air quality goals.

8 San Pedro Bay Ports Container Forecast.

### 69

**E xhi**  **b it 2.8**  

### Rising Truck Volumes on Key Truck Corridors (2008 and 2035 Baseline)

### 70 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments



## G oods M ovement S trategy
To ensure global competitiveness and realize the benefits of efficient and sustainable goods movement, it is critical to identify strategies and projects that address expected growth trends. Recent regional efforts have focused on strategies to develop a coherent, refined, and fully integrated regional goods movement system. Following the completion of the 2008 RTP, SCAG initiated the Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. This effort, involving diverse regional stakeholders, is intended to identify a multimodal regional freight plan that integrates existing strategies and proj

ects with newly developed regional initiatives advanced through the study. Some of these strategies are highlighted below. 9


## R e g io n al C lea n Frei g ht C orridor S ys te m In past RTPs, SCAG has envisioned a system of truck-only lanes extending from the San Pedro Bay Ports to downtown Los Angeles along I-710, connecting to an east-west segment, and finally reaching I-15 in San Bernardino County. Such a system would address the growing truck traffic on core highways through the region and serve key goods movement industries in a manner that mitigates negative impacts on communi

ties and the environment. Truck-only freight corridors are effective, as they add capacity in congested corridors, improve truck operations and safety by separating trucks and autos, and provide a platform for the introduction and adoption of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies. Significant progress toward a regional freight corridor system has continued, as evidenced by recent work on an environmental impact report (expected to be completed in 2013) for the I-710 segment. As part of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, SCAG includes a refined concept for the east-west corridor component of the system and con

nections to an initial segment of I-15. While numerous potential east-west freight corridor options were examined, the 2012– 2035 RTP/SCS identifies a corridor concept to be explored further that could fall within a five-mile span of the route illustrated in **E xhi**  **b it 2.9**  . More information on the corridor selection process is available in the Goods Movement Appendix.

9 For more detailed information on the SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy, please see the Goods Movement Appendix. **E xhi**  **b it 2.9**  

### Potential East-West Freight Corridor

Non-freeway alignments may provide an opportunity to move the facility away from neighborhoods and closer to the industrial uses that it would serve. Approximately 50 percent of the region’s warehousing space and 25 percent of its manufacturing employ

ment lie along the identified route. After adoption of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, additional study of alignments will be conducted, including an alternatives analysis completed as part of a full environmental review. The East-West Freight Corridor would carry between 58,000 and 70,000 clean trucks per day that would be removed from adjacent general purpose lanes and local arterial roads. As highlighted in **T a**  **bl e 2.8**  , the corridor would benefit a broad range of goods movement markets: Between 25–40 percent of the trucks would be port-related, almost 40 percent would serve local goods movement-dependent industries, and the remainder would support domestic trade. Truck delay would be reduced by up to 11 percent, while speeds for autos on SR-60 would be improved by 11–12 percent. Truck traffic on SR-60 general2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 71

purpose lanes would be reduced by 42–82 percent, depending on location; by as much as 33 percent on I-10; and by as much as 20 percent on adjacent arterials. Separating trucks and autos would also reduce truck-involved accidents on east-west freeways that currently have some of the highest accident levels in the region (20–30 accidents a year on certain segments). 10 For the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, the regional freight corridor system also includes an initial segment of I-15 that would connect to the East-West Freight Corridor, reaching just north of I-10. Additional study will be undertaken to complete specification of the I-15 compo

nent of this project.

**T a**  **bl e 2.8**  

### Benefits of an East-West Corridor Strategy

Mobility  Truck delay reduction of approximately 11%

 All traffic delay reduction of approximately 4.3%

 Reduces truck volumes on general purpose lanes—42–82% reduction on SR-60
Safety  Reduced truck/automobile accidents (up to 20–30 per year on some segments)

Environment  100% zero-emission truck utilization removes 4.7 tons NOx, 0.16 tons PM 2.5 , and 2,401 tons CO 2 daily (2.7–6% of region’s total)

Community  Preferred alignment has least impact on communities

 Removes traffic from other freeways

 Zero- and/or near- zero-emission technology (ZET)—reduces localized health impacts

Economic  Supports mobility for goods movement industries, which comprise 34% of SCAG regional economy and jobs

10 SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. 

## Bottle n ec k R elie f Strate gy
In recent analysis of critical issues affecting the trucking industry conducted by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), traffic congestion ranked near the top in 2011 after being less of a concern in 2009–2010 as a result of the economic down

turn. 11 Besides causing delays to other highway users, heavy truck congestion results in wasted labor hours and fuel. In 2010, it was estimated that the cost of truck congestion in 439 major urban areas was approximately $23 billion. 12 Truck congestion in urban areas within the SCAG region resulted in approximately $2.6 billion in costs. 13 Given that driver wages and fuel costs represent over 50 percent of total motor carrier costs, truck congestion has major impacts on the bottom line of the trucking industry. Truck bottle

necks are also emission “hot spots” and generally have significantly degraded localized air quality caused by increased idling from passenger vehicles and trucks. A coordinated strategy to address the top-priority truck bottlenecks is a cost-effective way to improve the efficiency of goods movement in the SCAG region. Bottleneck projects may also be easier to implement since they are often less intrusive than other types of projects; contribute to the region’s environmental goals (by reducing emissions “hot spots”); and result in substantial, tangible benefits to commuters and goods movement industries alike. SCAG recently studied key regional truck bottlenecks and associated projects. Through this analysis, project concepts that may address the highest-priority truck bottlenecks and have the most significant impact on delay were identified and continue to be evalu

ated. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS allocates an estimated $5 billion toward goods move

ment bottleneck-relief strategies. Examples of bottleneck-relief strategies include ramp metering, extension of merging lanes, ramp and interchange improvements, capacity improvements, and auxiliary lane additions. Annually, over 1 million hours of heavy truck delay during the most congested time periods on area roadways could be eliminated if the highest-priority truck bottlenecks in the region are addressed. Additional information is provided in the Goods Movement Appendix.

11 http://www.atri-online.org/2011_top_industry_issues.pdf.
12 Texas Transportation Institute 2011 Urban Mobility Report.
13 Texas Transportation Institute 2011 Urban Mobility Report. Urban areas as defined in the report include Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Riverside-San Bernardino, Lancaster-Palmdale, Bakersfield, Indio-Cathedral City-Palm Springs, and Oxnard-Ventura.

### 72 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments



## R ail Strate gy
The health of the Southern California economy depends on an efficient railroad system that has the capacity to accommodate projected growth in international and domestic freight. The railroad system in the SCAG region provides a critical connection between the largest port complex in the country and producers and consumers throughout the U.S. Over half of the international cargo arriving at the San Pedro Bay Ports utilizes rail (including on-, near-, and off-dock). Railroads also serve a myriad of domestic industries, predominantly for long-haul freight leaving the region. The extensive rail network in the SCAG region is a critical link in the regional supply chain, offering shippers the ability to move large volumes of goods over long distances at lower costs versus other transporta

tion options. The SCAG region is served by two Class I freight railroads: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP). BNSF operates a single main line extending from connections to the Alameda Corridor near downtown Los Angeles to Barstow with a terminus in Chicago. UP operates two main lines between downtown Los Angeles and the City of Colton. Both railroads share trackage rights on rail segments between West Riverside and Barstow through existing agreements. The Alameda Corridor, a 20-mile, multitrack freight rail expressway, connects the San Pedro Bay Ports with railyards and BNSF and UP rail lines in downtown Los Angeles. The railroad network connects the SCAG region with many locations in the U.S. Major rail hubs in Illinois (Chicago in particular) and Texas constitute over 50 percent of total ton

nage moving to and from the SCAG region. In order to deliver the benefits of rail transport to the region and the nation, the Southern California freight rail system needs to address future capacity needs on both the Class I main lines and at intermodal terminals where capacity is likely to be strained in light of future demand. The investments needed to meet these capacity needs will be made largely by the private railroads. At the same time that the rail system is expanding to meet future demand, rail emissions need to be reduced further in order to contribute to the region’s goal of meeting ambient air quality standards for the South Coast Air Basin. In addition, issues of grade crossing delay and safety in communities will need to be addressed. Lastly, growth in passen

ger rail services is an important component of regional mobility strategies and this will require expanded capacity. To the extent that passenger rail shares space on the freight rail system, the ability of the public sector to achieve regional goals within this capacityconstrained environment will be challenged. SCAG’s recent analysis of train volumes for selected rail segments is shown in **T a**  **bl e 2.9** 

. 14

**T a**  **bl e 2.9**  

### Peak Day Train Volumes 2010, 2035 (Metrolink Volumes in Parentheses)

**Line S**  **egments T**  **ype 2010**  **2035** BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision Hobart-Fullerton Passenger 54(28) 77(51) Freight 45 90 BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision Atwood-W. Riverside Passenger 26(24) 42(40) Freight 49 99 BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision W. Riverside-Colton Passenger 10(8) 42(40) Freight 67 147 BNSF Cajon Subdivision San Bernardino-Silverwood PLUS UP Mojave Subdivision W. Colton-Silverwood Passenger 2(0) 2(0)

Freight 93 147 UP Los Angeles Subdivision East LA-Pomona PLUS UP Alhambra Subdivision Yuma Jct.-Pomona Passenger 13(12) 21(20)
Freight 52 98
UP Los Angeles Subdivision Pomona-W. Riverside PLUS UP Alhambra Subdivision Pomona-West Colton Passenger 13(12) 21(20)

Freight 51 109 UP Yuma Subdivision Colton-Indio Passenger 1(0) 1(0) Freight 45 93

14 These forecasts are based upon simulation analysis conducted for planning purposes only as part of the SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. BNSF and UP do not forecast train volumes through 2035. Passenger volume totals include Amtrak and Metrolink.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 73

As part of the Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy, SCAG worked closely with regional stakeholders to develop a set of rail strate

gies aimed at increasing freight and passenger mobility, promoting job creation and retention, improving safety, and mitigating environmental impacts. Several different components comprise this rail package:
**M ain line rail improvements and capacity expansion:**  This includes rail-to-rail grade separations, double or triple tracking certain rail segments, implementing new signal sys

tems, building universal crossovers, and constructing new sidings. These improvements would benefit both freight rail and passenger rail service, depending on their location. **Railyard improvements:** This includes upgrades to existing railyards as well as con

struction of new yards. These projects would provide vital improvements to the region’s ability to handle the projected growth in cargo volumes. **Grade separations of streets from rail lines:** These projects reduce vehicular delay, improve emergency vehicle access, reduce the risk of accidents, and lower emissions levels. **Rail operation safety improvements:** This includes technology such as Positive Train Control (PTC) that can greatly reduce the risk of rail collisions. Key rail projects in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS include:

 Rail-to-rail grade separation at Colton Crossing

 Additional main line tracks for the BNSF San Bernardino and Cajon Subdivisions and the UPRR Alhambra and Mojave Subdivisions

 Southern California International Gateway (SCIG)

 Modernization of the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF)

 Highway-rail grade separations

 Port-area rail improvements, including on-dock rail enhancements The benefits of the rail strategies to the region are considerable and include mobility, safety, and environmental gains. As shown in **T a**  **bl e 2.10**  , these strategies could elimi

nate almost 6,000 hours of vehicle delay per day at grade crossings, decrease emissions (NOx, CO 2 , and PM 2.5 ) by almost 23,000 lb. per day, and reduce overall train delay to 2000 levels. **T a**  **bl e 2.10**  

### Benefits of the SCAG Regional Rail Strategy

Mobility  Reduces train delay to 2000 levels

 Provides main line capacity to handle projected demand in 2035 (includes 43.2 million twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEUs, port throughput)

 Eliminates 5,782 vehicle hours of delay per day at grade crossings in 2035 Safety  Eliminates 71 at-grade railroad crossings

Environment  Reduces 22,789 lb. of emissions per day (CO 2 , NOx, and PM 2.5 combined) from idling vehicles at grade crossings

 Facilitates on-dock rail

 Reduces truck trips to downtown railyards and associated emissions


## Good s Move m e n t En viro nm e n tal Strate gy In Southern California, goods movement and air quality are inextricably linked. Much of the SCAG region (and nearly all of the urbanized area) does not meet federal ozone and fine particulate (PM 2.5 ) air quality standards. Goods movement is a major source of emissions that contributes to these regional air pollution problems as well as localized air pollution “hot spots” that can have adverse health impacts. Goods movement is also a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to global climate change. Although reduction in GHG emissions from goodsmovement is not required under California Senate Bill 375 (which focuses solely on lightduty vehicle emissions), the State has established GHG-reduction goals under California Assembly Bill 32. Clean goods movement activities can contribute to these goals. As such, the region’s goods movement strategy is complementary to sustainable communi

ties planning. The two air pollutants of greatest concern in Southern California are nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ). The South Coast Air Basin is classified as an extreme non-attainment area per the federal ambient ozone standard, with a required

### 74 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

attainment date of 2023. By approximately 2031, a second, more stringent federal ozone standard must be attained. The federal Clean Air Act requires the region to demonstrate timely attainment of these standards or federal sanctions may result, such as interruption or curtailment of funding for transportation projects. To attain the federal ozone stan

dards, the region will need broad deployment of zero- and near-zero-emission transpor

tation technologies in the 2023 to 2035 timeframe. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes a path forward to achieve this objective. Integration of advanced technologies into the region’s goods movement strategies can contribute to other regional objectives, such as energy security, economic development opportunities, and potentially broader public sup

port for infrastructure initiatives. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS focuses on a two-pronged approach for achieving an efficient freight system that reduces environmental impacts. For the near term, the regional strategy supports the deployment of commercially available low-emission trucks and locomotives while centering on continued investments into improved system efficiencies. For example, heavy-duty hybrid trucks and natural gas trucks are already in use, but mar

ket penetration can be increased. In the longer term, the strategy focuses on advancing technologies—taking critical steps now toward phased implementation of a zero- and near-zero-emission freight system. SCAG’s planning efforts are cognizant of the need to incorporate evolving technologies into new infrastructure. These include technologies to fuel vehicles, as well as to charge batteries and provide power. As noted in the text box, the constrained RTP/SCS includes a near-term project for the demonstration and initial operational deployment of zero-emission trucks receiving wayside power. Substantial investment will be required to develop and deploy the technologies needed for a zero- and near-zero emission goods movement system. A regional approach to meet this objective follows and is summarized in **F I**  **GUR E**  **2.7** . This path is discussed in greater detail in the Goods Movement Appendix. **Fi gur**  **e 2.7** 

### Timeline to Implement a Zero- and Near-Zero-Emission Freight System

2014 2015 2016 2012 pre-2012 2013 2019 2020 2018 2017 2021 2035 PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV



##  

Major Milestones • 2012 – Identify potential funding to support early demonstration efforts; incorporate into financially constrained RTP/SCS • 2012 – Implement plan of advocacy to secure action by federal or other governments • 2012–2013 – Continue to evaluate truck technology implementation and funding mechanisms; initiate testing of zero-emission container movement system along the Terminal Island Freeway and connecting routes to the Ports (or alternative routes serving the same locations)• 2012–2013 – Continue to evaluate practicability of applying electrified rail or other zero-/near-zeroemission technologies and evaluate funding and implementation mechanisms • 2015–2016 – Incorporate decisions on wayside power and technology direction, including strategy, funding, and timeframe into 2016 RTP update and SIP revisions; if existing rail technologies are practi

cable, identify technologies, infrastructure, and implementation mechanisms in RTP update and SIP • 2015–2016 – Begin deployment of appropriate zero- and/or near-zero-emission trucks and continue operational demonstration • 2018–2020 – If existing rail applications were not practicable, resolve need for new rail technologies and incorporate planning into the 2020 RTP
• 2017–2035 – Full deployment of appropriate zero-and near-zero-emission trucks for substantially all regional transport; if existing electrified rail technologies can be practicably applied to the region, fully deploy such technologies2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 75



## Near-Term Zero-Emission Technology Demonstration and Initial Deployment

**D escription:**  This project is for near-term demonstration and, if successful, initial operational deployment of zero-emission trucks receiving wayside power. **Location:** The project will be located in Los Angeles County along the Terminal Island F reeway and connecting routes to the Ports, (or alternative routes serving the same locations). **S chedule:** 

 B y 2013 – Demonstration: Develop and build trucks and wayside power infra

structure sufficient for demonstration within the transport corridor consisting of the Terminal Island F reeway and connecting routes to the Ports (or alter

native routes serving the same locations); commence demonstration upon completion of trucks and infrastructure.

 B y 2015 – Initial Operational Deployment: B uild wayside power infrastructure sufficient for operation on the Terminal Island F reeway and connecting routes to the Ports (or alternative routes serving the same locations), and build maxi

mum number of trucks for initial operational deployment allowed by availablefunding (with all feasible leveraging of private resources), unless a zeroemission technology not utilizing wayside power is determined to be superior and can be implemented in a similar or earlier time frame. In the latter case, remaining funds allocated to this project will be applied to demonstration and deployment of zero-emission trucks not utilizing wayside power. **Cost:** Project cost is $35 million, for both demonstration and initial operational deployment phases. This includes construction of infrastructure, design and build of demonstration trucks, and acquisition of a small fleet for initial operational deployment. **Funding:** AQ M D will actively partner in supporting this effort by providing avail

able funding for vehicle technology or infrastructure (staff will make a proposal to the AQ M D B oard in 2012), seeking funding partners, and developing other sup

port. Additionally, S CA G will work with local transportation agencies, the Ports, and other private and public stakeholders in 2012 to identify funding for this project. Other potential co-funding sources include:

 California Energy Commission A B 118 program

 California Air Resources B oard

 California greenhouse gas cap and trade auction revenues

 F ederal grants

 In-kind contributions and public private partnerships with technology devel

opers, drayage companies, etc.

 F unds available for project mitigation **Project Rationale:** The Ports, vehicle manufacturers, and other entities are cur

rently demonstrating new zero-emission truck technologies, including batteryelectric, fuel-cell, and hybrid-electric trucks with all electric range (AER). The purpose of this project is to demonstrate and initially deploy wayside power technology to provide power to these and other types of vehicles along certain high-volume corridors, thus allowing extended zero-emission range. W ayside technology has been used for many decades to power electric buses, mining trucks, and rail systems. It is thus a particularly proven and promising technologi

cal approach to achieving zero-emission transport. If coupled with hybrid AER technologies currently in use for passenger cars and now being demonstrated for heavy trucks, wayside power could provide flexibility, range, and compatibility with current port, railyard, and warehouse operations. Hybrid AER trucks could produce zero-emissions along key high-volume corridors (e.g. Terminal Island F reeway, I-710, east-west freight corridor), but could operate off the electrified corridor powered by conventional natural gas or diesel fuels, by fuel cells, or— within certain range—by batteries. S uch vehicles thus could provide zero emis

sions where most needed, and would have range to travel long distances in other modes. The Terminal Island F reeway corridor, as a short, high-volume transport corridor with substantial air pollution impacts to local communities, is an impor

tant and ideal venue to initially deploy such technology. Deployment of wayside power technology is compatible with, and builds upon, the current Port efforts to develop and demonstrate electric and hybrid-electric trucks.

### 76 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

**Phase I**  **: Project S**  **coping** – continue to build on current regional research and technol

ogy testing efforts.
**Phase II**  **: E**  **valuation, D**  **evelopment, and Prototype D**  **emonstrations** – convene work

ing groups and increase understanding of operational needs. Evaluate, develop, and test prototype trucks and wayside power options. Continue to evaluate feasibility of zero- and/ or near-zero-emission rail technologies. Work with public and private-sector partners to secure funding commitments for the development of new technology prototypes and demonstrations. Evaluation in this phase will address technology readiness, operational feasibility and funding availability.
**Phase III**  **: I**  **nitial D**  **eployment and O**  **perational D**  **emonstration** – truck fleet evalua

tion testing and deployment of zero-emission trucks along the Terminal Island Freeway and connecting routes to the Ports (or alternative routes serving the same locations). Additional deployment of zero- and/or near-zero emission trucks where feasible. Advanced technology locomotive prototype testing and demonstrations.
**Phase IV**  **: Full- S**  **cale D**  **emonstrations and Commercial D**  **eployment** – includes implementation of regulatory and market mechanisms needed to launch commercializa

tion. The phase 4 timeframe accommodates the different technology readiness levels of various applications. It is important that the region work collaboratively to pursue advanced technologies and secure funding for their development and deployment. Although several regional forums currently exist, SCAG anticipates building on these efforts by establishing a logistics working group with key stakeholders. Participants may include government agencies, logistics industry representatives, and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Future evaluation will ensure that any technology implemented meets regional emissions objectives while maintaining the efficiency, safety, and reliability of the goods movement system. Modeling of environmental strategies has determined that significant emissions benefits could be achieved from implementation of different zero- and/or near-zero-emission tech

nologies. As summarized in **T a**  **bl e 2.11**  , zero-emission vehicles on the East-West Freight Corridor would eliminate 4.7 tons of NOx, 0.16 tons of PM 2.5 , and 2,401 tons of CO 2 emissions daily and would set the stage for broader regional deployment of zero- and/or near-zero-emission technologies. Full electrification of the rail system, though still a con

cept at this point, would remove comparable amounts of NOx, PM 2.5 , and CO 2 . Regionally, a 20 percent market penetration of plug-in hybrid trucks would achieve a reduction of 8.3 tons of NOx, 0.16 tons of PM 2.5 , and 3,200 tons of CO 2 daily.

**T a**  **bl e 2.11**  

### Environmental Benefits

**S trategy**  **I mpact**  **NO x**  **P M**  **2.5 C**  **O 2** East-West Freight Corridor with 100% ZeroEmission Vehicles (ZEVs) 4.7 0.16 2,401
Full Railroad Main Line Electrification* 10.4 0.19 2,400 20% Penetration of Plug-in Hybrid Trucks 8.3 0.16 3,200

* Further evaluation is required to determine feasible options for implementation of rail electrification or other zero- and/or near-zero-emission rail systems. Table source: SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 77



# 2012–2035 RTP/ S C S Environmental M itigation
SAFETEA-LU, the reauthorization of TEA-21, was enacted into law on August 10, 2005. Pursuant to Section 6001 of this legislation, statewide or metropolitan long-range plans must include a discussion of “types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the plan.” As such, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes a discussion of mitigation in order to comply with this requirement. As a public agency in California, SCAG first and foremost fulfills mitiga

tion requirements by complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and as such this discussion includes a summary of mitigation as laid out in the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) accompanying the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. In addition, as part of the planning process, states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPOs) “shall consult, as appropriate, with state and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, con

servation, and historic preservation concerning the development of a long-range trans

portation plan.” They also must consider, if available, “conservation plans and maps” and “inventories of natural or historic resources.” California law requires SCAG to prepare and certify a PEIR prior to adopting the 2012– 2035 RTP/SCS. The PEIR evaluates the environmental impacts of the 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS when compared to existing conditions and proposes measures at the program level to mitigate impacts to the maximum extent feasible for those resources areas that would be affected by the Plan (and associated growth). These impact areas include, but are not limited to, land use, biological resources and open space, water and greenhouse gases. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS also acts as a “self-mitigating” plan in certain impact areas, in that its policies and strategies lead to improved environmental outcomes for air quality, public health, congestion and other indicators, while accommodating population growth. The section below summarizes the mitigation program contained within the PEIR for this plan. The general purpose of the mitigation measures included in the PEIR is to identify how to protect the environment, improve air quality, promote energy efficiency and enhance public health in concert with the proposed transportation improvements and related planning. It should be clearly noted that the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS itself leads to improved environ

mental outcomes for greenhouse gases, open space preservation, and improved public health among other key environmental indicators. Nevertheless, the implementation of plan projects and strategies may lead to environmental impacts. Transportation project implementation and development decisions are subject to their own environmental review processes. This mitigation discussion, along with more detailed information in the PEIR, is laid out as an informational resource as localized impacts are identified and mitigated. 

## M itigation S trategies
The PEIR provides a list of mitigation measures which would be implemented by SCAG on a regional level, in order to assist in reducing environmental impacts related to implemen

tation of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. SCAG is also responsible for developing a mitigation monitoring plan to track progress on implementation of these measures at the regional level. SCAG’s mitigation is consistent with the general role played by a MPO including developing and sharing information, collaborating with partners, and developing regional policies. SCAG works with member agencies and stakeholders but does not implement projects or project-specific mitigation. In addition, an Appendix to the PEIR (Appendix G) is included which extensively lists example measures that lead agencies may consider when identifying mitigation to reduce impacts on a project-specific basis. This list is meant to serve as a resource and base of information, which does not imply feasibility or applicability for any specific project. Some of the mitigation measures included in the appendix restate or describe, whole or in part, legal requirements and regulations affecting project implementation. These are included for informational purposes, and are not intended to supersede compliance with existing law or regulation. These mitigation measures help explain to the public the existing regu

latory framework that could assist in mitigating potential environmental impacts. 

## Conservation Planning Policy
SAFETEA-LU requires that the RTP contain a discussion of types of potential environ

mental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these activities. This includes activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain environmental functions affected by the plan [Sec. 6001(i)(2)(B)(i)]. As such, this is being addressed in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS and is separate and distinct from the mitigation measures

### 78 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

addressed in the PEIR. SCAG could demonstrate progress and satisfy SAFETEA-LU requirements through development of a program with the goal of large-scale acquisition and management of important habitat lands to mitigate impacts related to future trans

portation projects. Suggested steps to develop a conservation policy of this type could include the following:

 Engage in a strategic planning process to determine the critical components and implementation steps for identifying and addressing open space resources;

 Identify and map regional priority conservation areas based on the most recent land use data for future consideration and potential inclusion in future plans;

 Engage with various partners, including CTCs, and build from existing local efforts to identify priority conservation areas and develop an implementable plan; and

 Develop regional mitigation policies or approaches for the 2016 RTP/SCS. This strategy supports natural land restoration, conservation, protection and acquisi

tion offering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction benefits. Post-2012–2035 RTP/ SCS strategic planning efforts would include addressing various aspects of this proposed approach such as identifying appropriate agencies to partner with and determining spe

cific mapping parameters (for example, geographic scale). In addition, this type of strate

gic planning approach could also be applied to address impacts to other resource areas. 

## S ummary of the Environmental M itigation Program
As required by SAFETEA-LU, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes an environmental mitiga

tion program that links transportation planning to the environment. Building on its strong commitment to the environment as demonstrated in the 2008 RTP, SCAG’s mitigation program is intended to function as a resource for lead agencies to consider in identify

ing mitigation measures to reduce impacts anticipated to result from future projects as deemed applicable and feasible by such agencies. This mitigation discussion also utilizes documents created by federal, state and local agencies to guide environmental planning for transportation projects. The following discussion focuses on specific resource areas and example approaches to mitigate impacts in these areas.


## B IOLO G ICAL RE S O U RCE S A N D OPE N S PACE
The PEIR includes two regional scale maps that identify sensitive environmental resources, such as protected lands and sensitive habitats. According to the Federal Highway Administration, there are more than 3.9 million centerline miles of public roads2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 79

that span the United States. Each year, millions of vertebrates – birds, reptiles, and amphibians, are killed on roads, making road kill the greatest human cause of wildlife mortality in the country. 15 As in previous RTPs, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS seeks to mini

mize transportation-related impacts on wildlife, and also better integrate transportation infrastructure into the environment. Impacts to biological resources generally include displacement of native vegetation and habitat on previously undisturbed land; habitat fragmentation and decrease in habitat connectivity; and displacement and reduction of local, native wildlife including sensitive species. Building new transportation routes and facilities through undisturbed land or expanding facilities and increasing the number of vehicles traveling on existing routes will directly injure wildlife species, cause wildlife fatalities, and disturb natural behaviors such as breeding and nesting. Without appropriate mitigation, this will result in the direct reduction or elimination of species populations (including sensitive and special-status species) and native vegetation (including special-status species and natural communi

ties) as well as the disruption and impairment of ecosystem services provided by native habitat areas.

15 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Wildlife and Highways: An Overview. The biological resources mitigation program includes the following types of example
measures:

 Planning transportation routes to avoid/minimize removal of native vegetation, dis

placement of wildlife, and impacts to regionally and locally significant habitat types such as oak woodlands, vernal pools, estuaries, lagoons, and other riparian areas;

 Including provisions for habitat enhancement such as mitigation banking, improv

ing/retaining habitat linkages, preserving wildlife corridors and wildlife crossings to minimize the impact of transportation projects on wildlife species and habitat fragmentation;

 Conducting appropriate surveys to ensure no sensitive species’ habitator special status natural communities is unnecessarily destroyed;

 Avoiding and minimizing impacts to wildlife activities (such as breeding, nesting, and other behaviors) during construction of the project by avoiding construction during critical life stages or sensitive seasons;

 Avoiding and minimizing impacts to habitat during project construction through actions such as fencing off sensitive habitat, minimizing vehicular accessibility, and salvaging native vegetation and topsoil; and

 Minimizing further impacts to wildlife and their habitats after project construction by replanting disturbed areas; providing vegetation buffers at transportation facilities with heavy traffic; and restoring local, native vegetation.


## L ocatio ns f or Miti g atio n As part of the development of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, SCAG prepared maps of natural resources areas, protected open space, and farmland (see Chapter 4, Exhibits 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8). These maps also show the location of county-level conservation efforts such as Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCPs). For example, Riverside County’s Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan efforts in WRCOG and CVAG were included in the inventory of county-level conservation plans. In addition, as part of the 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan, SCAG mapped locations of the protected and unprotected areas in relation to wildlife linkages, linkage design areas, park and recreation areas (from SCAG’s 2008 land use inventory), agricultural lands, and developed lands. Together, these maps form the region’s open space infrastructure. These maps will be updated as a function of post-RTP/SCS planning efforts, including identification of appropriate areas based on input from stakeholders.

### 80 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

Specifically, those areas that are “unprotected” could be possible locations for future mitigation. SCAG does not have the authority to purchase or manage lands. Conservation of these areas will build upon already-established programs, including but not limited to OCTA’s Measure M Mitigation Program, which ensures open space conservation in a voluntary manner working with willing land owners. SCAG will continue to work with its regional partners to help facilitate conservation. 

## Types of M itigation Activities
The mitigation program of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS generally includes strategies to reduce impacts where transportation and sensitive lands intersect and also encourages smart land use strategies that maximize the existing system and eliminate the need for new facilities that might impact open space and habitat. Potential mitigation programs include planning of transportation projects to avoid or lessen impacts to open space, recreation land, and agricultural lands through information and data sharing, increasing density in developed areas and minimizing development in previously undeveloped areas that may contain important open space. The mitigation program also emphasizes the importance of integrating consideration of wildlife and habitat into the design of transportation facilities in those areas where impacts cannot be avoided. SCAG encourages project sponsors to review Ventura County’s Wildlife Crossing Guidelines and FHWA’s Critter Crossings. Both documents provide examples of context-sensitive solutions (CSS) which is a way of involving all stakeholders to develop transportation facilities that fit their physical setting and preserve scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility. CSS is an approach that considers the total context within which a transpor

tation improvement project will exist. CSS principles include the employment of early, continuous, and meaningful involvement of the public and all stakeholders throughout the project development process. Additional information on CSS is available on FHWA’s website at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/index.cfm. In summary, the biological resources and open space mitigation program includes, but is not limited to, the following types of example measures:

 Identifying open space areas that can be preserved and developing mitigation measures such as mitigation banking, transfer of development rights (for agricultural lands), and payment of in lieu fees;  Updating General Plan information from cities to provide the most recent land use data to the region;

 Coordinating with cities and counties on growth strategies that maximize the exist

ing transportation network;

 Evaluating project alternatives and alternative route alignments where projects intersect with sensitive habitats; and

 Integrating the planning of transportation facilities with context-sensitive design ele

ments such as wildlife crossings.


## G REE N HO US E G A S E S California is the fifteenth largest emitter of GHGs on the planet. The transportation sector, primarily, cars and trucks that move goods and people, is the largest contributor with 36.5 percent of the State’s total GHG emissions in 2008. On road emissions (from pas

senger vehicles and heavy duty trucks) constitute 93 percent of the transportation sector total. Emissions from passenger vehicles, which are subject to SB 375 and this 2012– 2035 RTP/SCS, constitute 78 percent of the state’s GHG emissions from the transporta

tion sector. In order to disclose potential environmental effects of the 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS, SCAG has prepared an estimated inventory of the region’s existing GHG emissions, identified mitigation measures, and compared alternatives in the PEIR. Although the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS demonstrates a reduction in per capita greenhouse gas emissions and meets SB 375 targets, mitigation is identified here in summary form, and in the PEIR, to provide information on how GHG can be reduced from other sectors as well as through subsequent planning and implementation. The GHG mitigation program includes, but is not limited to, the following types of example
measures:

 Land use changes included in the SCS that reduce the number and length of trips;

 Encouragement of green construction techniques such as using the minimum amounts of GHG emitting construction equipment;

 Public outreach campaigns publicizing the importance of reducing GHG emissions; and

 Promotion of pedestrian and bicycle as modes of transportation.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 81



## AIR Q U ALIT Y The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes programs, policies and measures to address air emis

sions. Measures that help mitigate air emissions are comprised of strategies that reduce congestion, increase access to public transportation, improve air quality, and enhance coordination between land use and transportation decisions. SCAG’s vision includes the introduction of a high-speed, high-performance regional transport system that may potentially reduce airport and freeway congestion and provide an alternative to the single-occupancy automobile. In order to disclose potential environmental effects of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, SCAG has prepared an estimated inventory of the region’s emis

sions, identified mitigation measures, and compared alternatives in the PEIR. The mitiga

tion measures seek to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reductions in emissions. As noted above under “Greenhouse Gases,” the Plan shows across-the-board improvements air emissions. Nevertheless, mitigation is identified for information and to aid in subsequent planning and project delivery. The air quality mitigation program includes, but is not limited to, the following example
measures:

 ARB measures that set new on-road and off-road engine standards and accelerate turnover of higher emitting engines from the in-use fleet;

 Project specific measures to reduce impacts from construction activities such as the use of water and dust suppressants and restrictions on trucks hauling dirt, sand and soil; and

 Incorporating planting of shade trees into construction projects where feasible. In addition, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), which are those projects that reduce congestion and improve air quality in the region. For a comprehensive discussion and details of TCMs, please see the Transportation Conformity Analysis appendix.


## TRA NS PORTATIO N A N D S A F ET Y The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS takes into account the population, households, and employ

ment projected for 2035, and therefore the largest demand on the transportation system expected during the lifetime of the plan. In accounting for the effects of regional popula

tion growth, the model output provides a regional, long-term and cumulative level of analysis for the impacts of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS on transportation resources. The regional growth, and thus, cumulative impacts, is captured in the vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and heavy-duty truck VHT data. Implementation of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes a series of projects which are described in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. Consistent with SB 375 Regional Target Advisory Committee’s final report to the California Air Resources Board, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes projects and strategies “to smooth extreme congestion to more carbon friendly speeds.” A subset of projects included in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS reduces GHG emis

sions by providing relief of existing and projected congestion. Those include toll roads, express lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, and dedicated truck toll lanes. Congestion pricing is a transportation demand management tool incorporated into the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS for reducing GHG emissions. More information on SCAG’s congestion

### 82 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

management efforts can be found in Chapter 2, Transportation Investments. Orange County’s Toll Road Network is a prime example of priced congestion relief projects. The 2035 transportation system performance is compared to the performance of the existing (2011) system for the purpose of determining the significance of impacts. TheSCAG region is vulnerable to numerous threats that include both natural and humancaused incidents. As such, a mitigation program related to safety is included in the PEIR. The mitigation program for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS aims for extensive coordination, col

laboration and flexibility among all of the agencies and organizations involved in planning, mitigation, response and recovery. The transportation and safety mitigation program includes, but is not limited to, the fol

lowing types of example measures:

 Increasing rideshare and work-at-home opportunities to reduce demand on the transportation system;

 Investments in active transportation and maximizing the benefits of the land use transportation connection;

 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures;

 Goods movement capacity enhancements;

 Key transportation investments targeted to reduce heavy-duty truck delay;

 Establishing transportation infrastructure practices that promote and enhance security;

 Helping to enhance the region’s ability to deter and respond to terrorist incidents, and human-caused or natural disasters by strengthening relationships and coordina

tion with transportation agencies; and

 Working to enhance emergency preparedness awareness among public agencies and with the public at large. 

## POP U LATIO N A N D HO US I NG
Transportation projects including new and expanded infrastructure are necessary to improve travel time and can enhance quality of life for those traveling throughout the region. The package of transportation improvements in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS is designed to accommodate total growth while allowing for mobility. The Plan would not affect the total growth in population in the region. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS can affect the distribution of that growth. Land use and housing impacts associated with transporta

tion projects, such as dividing established communities through right-of-way acquisition, can occur at a localized scale. The population and housing mitigation program includes, but is not limited to, the follow

ing types of example measures:2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 83

 Encourage project implementation agencies to provide relocation assistance, as required by law, for residences and businesses displaced; and

 Encourage project implementation agencies to design new transportation facilities that consider existing communities.


## LA N D US E The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as a forecasted pattern of development described in detail in the SCS (Chapter 4). These transportation projects are generally consistent with the county- and regional-level general plan data available to SCAG; however, general plans are not updated consistently. The Plan includes a projected pattern of development that, in order to maximize the effectiveness of the transportation system, differs from local General Plan land uses beyond 2020. The land use mitigation program includes, but is not limited to, the following types of example measures:

 Encourage cities and counties to update their general plans and provide the most recent plans to SCAG;

 Work with member cities to encourage that transportation projects are consistent with the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS and general plans; and

 Work with cities and counties to encourage general plans reflect 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS policies.


## AE S THETIC S The SCAG region includes several highway segments that are recognized by the State as designated scenic highways or are eligible for such designation. Construction and implementation of projects in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS could impact designated scenic highways and restrict or obstruct views of scenic resources such as mountains, ocean, rock outcroppings, etc. In addition, some transportation projects could add urban visual elements, such as transportation infrastructure (highways, transit stations) to previously natural areas. In summary, the aesthetics mitigation program includes, but is not limited to, the follow

ing types of example measures:  Encourage project implementation agencies to implement design guidelines to protect views of scenic corridors; encourage project implementation agencies to use construction screens and barriers that complement the existing landscape;

 Encourage project implementation agencies to complete design studies for projects in designated or eligible scenic highways; and

 In visually sensitive areas, encourage local land use agencies to apply development standards and guidelines that maintain compatibility.


## P UB LIC S ERVICE S A N D U TILITIE S As noted above under “Population and Housing,” the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS will not affect the total amount of growth in the region, nor will it increase growth for any jurisdiction beyond local input. As such, any impacts to public services and utilities are identified only in relation to existing conditions or at a localized scale. These impacts generally include additional demands on fire and police services, schools and landfills. Additional police and fire personnel would be needed to adequately respond to emergencies and routine calls, particularly on new or expanded transportation facilities. Other potential impacts at a localized scale could entail demands on public schools, solid waste facilities and disposal facilities. In summary, the public services and utilities mitigation program includes, but is not lim

ited to, the following types of example measures:

 Encourage the project implementation agencies to identify police protection, fire service, emergency medical service, waste collection and public school needs and coordinate with local officials to ensure that the existing public services would be able to handle the increase in demand for their services;

 Encourage the project implementation agencies to identify the locations of existing utility lines and avoid all known utility lines during construction;

 Encourage green building measures to reduce waste generation and reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills; and

 Encourage the use of fire-resistant materials and vegetation when constructing projects in areas with high fire threat. As the region continues to add more people, households and jobs, the demand for energy will continue to grow. Every day, the SCAG region consumes more than 23 million gallons

### 84 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

of oil and the SCAG region’s vehicle fuel consumption has increased 20 percent over the last ten years. In the face of this growth in energy demand and concerns about future oil supplies, there is the mounting realization that we are living in an energy-constrained world. As such, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes strategies to reduce VMT, and as a result, per capita energy consumption from the transportation sector. The PEIR also includes measures relating to energy designed to reduce consumption and increase the use and availability of renewable sources of energy in the region. Since these measures not only reduce energy consumption but also reduce GHG emissions they are addressed above under the GHG section. SCAG acknowledges the substantial efforts occurring locally to reduce energy con

sumption including, but not limited to, the Palmdale Energy Action Plan, the City of San Bernardino Energy Efficiency Conservation Strategy, and energy efficiency partnerships in the San Gabriel Valley, South Bay Cities Council of Governments, Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Ventura County, and Los Angeles County. These efforts demonstrate a commitment to achieving energy efficiency and sustaining economic, envi

ronmental, and physical health at the local and regional levels. They also provide a good starting point for any subsequent planning and analysis at the regional level.


## G EOLO GY , S OIL S , A N D S EI SM ICIT Y Impacts to geological resources generally include the disturbance of unstable geologic units (rock type) or soils, causing the loss of topsoil and soil erosion, slope failure, subsidence, project-specific seismic activity and structural damage from expansive soils. These activities, in addition to building projects on and around Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones and other local faults, could expose people and/or structures to the risk of loss, injury, or death. The geological mitigation program includes, but is not limited to, the following types of example measures:

 Employing appropriate grading, construction practices, siting, and design standards, such as adherence to the California Building Code and State of California design standards;

 Obtaining site-specific geotechnical data from qualified geotechnical experts; and  Encouraging compliance with all relevant local, state, and federal construction and design requirements for structures located on or across Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones and other local faults.


## C U LT U RAL RE S O U RCE S
Impacts to cultural resources generally include substantial adverse changes to histori

cal and archaeological resources and direct or indirect changes to unique paleontologi

cal resources or sites or unique geological features. Similar to the discussion under “Land Use and Housing,” these impacts can occur at the localized scale and in relation to existing conditions, as the Plan itself does not affect the total amount of growth in the region. Adverse changes include the destruction of culturally and historically (recent or geologic time) significant and unique historical, archaeological, paleontological, and geological features. The cultural resources mitigation program includes, but is not limited to, the following types of example measures:

 Obtaining consultations from qualified cultural and paleontological resource experts to identify the need for surveys and preservation of important historical, archaeo

logical, and paleontological resources;

 Implementing design and siting measures that avoid disturbance of cultural and paleontological resource areas, such as creating visual buffers/landscaping or cap

ping/filling the site to preserve the contextual setting of the resource;

 Monitoring construction activity in areas with moderate to high potential to sup

port paleontological resources and overseeing salvage operations of paleontological resources; and

 Consulting local tribes and the Native American Heritage Commission for project impacts to sacred lands and burial sites.


## W ATER RE S O U RCE S
Impacts to water resources from the 2012–2025 RTP/SCS include potential water qual

ity impairment from increased impervious surfaces. Increased impervious surfaces in water recharge areas potentially impact groundwater recharge and groundwater qual

ity. Cumulative impacts include increased impervious surfaces; increased development2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 

### 85

in alluvial fan floodplains; and increased water demand and associated impacts, such as drawdown of groundwater aquifers. Similar to the discussion under “Land Use and Housing,” these impacts can occur at the localized scale and in relation to existing condi

tions, as the Plan itself does not affect the total amount of growth in the region. Increased output of greenhouse gases from the region’s transportation system impacts the security and reliability of the imported water supply. The water resources mitigation program includes, but is not limited to, the following types of example measures:

 Utilizing advanced water capture and filtration techniques, showing a preference for naturalized systems and designs, to control stormwater at the source;

 Avoiding any new construction of impervious surfaces in non-urbanized areas, such as wetlands, habitat areas, parks, and near river systems;

 Avoiding any new construction that provides access to flood-prone areas, such as in alluvial fans and slide zones;

 Protection and preservation of existing natural flood control systems, such as wet

lands and riparian buffers, and expansion of such systems in areas where they do not currently exist;

 Constructing projects according to Best Management Practices for water quality protection and water conservation, including low-impact development and green building standards; and

 Coordinating project development and construction efforts across jurisdictional, agency, and departmental boundaries, to increase project benefits.


## HAZARDO US M ATERIAL S Implementation of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS would affect the transportation and handling of hazardous materials in the SCAG region. Expected significant impacts include risk of accidental releases due to an increase in the transportation of hazardous materials and the potential for such releases to reach neighborhoods and communities adjacent to transportation facilities. The hazardous materials mitigation program aims to minimize the significant hazard to the public or the environment that involves the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Potential mitigation programs include active coordina

tion with regulatory agencies and first responders in order to ensure proper handling and transport of hazardous materials and their containers. Mitigation measures also involve ensuring that the project implementation agency com

plies, when applicable and feasible, with all laws, regulations, and health and safety stan

dards set forth by federal, state, and local authorities that regulate the proper handling of such materials and their containers and that the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials does not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The hazardous materials mitigation program includes, but is not limited to, the following types of example measures:

 Coordinating with regulatory agencies and first responders in order to continue to govern goods movement and hazardous materials transportation throughout the region;

 Considering existing and known planned school locations when determining the alignment of new transportation projects and modifications to existing transportation facilities;

 Encouraging project sponsors to consider published lists of contaminated properties, which are continually updated, in order to identify cases where new development would involve the disturbance of contaminated properties;

 Developing applicable mitigation measures to assure that worker and public expo

sure is minimized to an acceptable level and to prevent any further environmental contamination as a result of construction; and

 Encouraging that project implementation agencies comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and health and safety standards set forth by federal, state, and local authorities that regulate the proper handling of such materials and their containers and that the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials does not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.


## N OI S E Some of the principal noise generators within the SCAG region are associated with trans

portation (i.e., airports, freeways, arterial roadways, seaports, and railroads). Additional noise generators include stationary sources, such as industrial manufacturing plants and construction sites. Noise impacts resulting from the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS gener

ally include exposure of sensitive receptors to noise in excess of normally acceptable noise levels or substantial increases in noise as a result of the operation of expanded or new transportation facilities. As such, the noise mitigation program includes measures

### 86 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

designed to minimize the impact of noise on sensitive receptors. These measures include encouraging that project implementing agencies, when applicable and feasible, comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations, and ordinances; utilizing the best available noise control techniques (including mufflers, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) in order to minimize construc

tion noise impacts; and utilizing land use planning measures, such as zoning, restrictions on developments, buffers, etc., to minimize exposure to sensitive receptors. The noise mitigation program includes, but is not limited to, the following types of example measures:

 Encouraging project implementing agencies to comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations, and ordinances;

 Developing the best available noise control techniques in order to minimize con

struction noise impacts;

 Conducting a project-specific noise evaluation as part of the appropriate environ

mental review of each project; and

 Encouraging project implementation agencies to maximize the distance between noise-sensitive land uses and new roadway lanes, roadways, rail, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and other new noise-generating facilities.

# Introduction 

# T he financial plan identifies how much money is available to support the region’s surface transportation investments, including transit, highways, local road improve

ments, system preservation, and demand management goals. It also addresses the need for investment in goods movement infrastructure. Improving ground access in and around major goods movement facilities and enhancing major highways and railways are critical to maintaining the health of Southern California’s economy. The 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS calls for traditional and non-traditional revenue sources for implementing a program of infrastructure improvements to keep freight and people moving. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes a number of reasonably available revenue sources to supplement existing transportation dollars. The SCAG region’s financially constrained plan includes a core revenue forecast of existing local, state, and federal sources along with funding sources that are reasonably available over the time horizon of the RTP/SCS. The financial plan also includes action steps to obtain the revenues necessary for implement

ing the region’s transportation vision. SCAG acknowledges the considerable challenges associated with financing transporta

tion investments. The plan highlights the importance of finding new and innovative ways to pay for transportation, including our ever-expanding backlog of investment needs just to maintain the existing transportation system. Nationally, we are facing a very real, near-term insolvency crisis with the Federal Highway Trust Fund, as fuel tax receipts continue to take a precipitous decline. Additionally, the viability of California’s State Highway Account remains in question, as only a fraction of our needs are funded through state sources. To backfill limited state and federal sources, our region continues to rely upon local initiatives (74 percent of core revenues) to meet transportation needs. With a total of seven sales tax measures throughout the region, including the passage of Measure R in Los Angeles County since the adoption of the 2008 RTP, we are increasingly becoming self-reliant. However, the national purpose served by Southern California’s transporta

tion system—particularly in the movement of goods—points to the need for stronger state and federal commitment. Our transportation system is the responsibility of all levels of government. 

### 87 

# 03

. F I N A N CIAL PLA NIn the SCAG region, our decision-makers continue to take a leadership role in advancing innovative transportation solutions. The financial plan establishes a framework toward a more sustainable funding future with emphasis on continued research and development for transitioning our fuel tax-based system toward a more direct, user fee approach. Such a change requires additional investigation and legislative action by state and federal leaders over the time horizon of the plan. Our region has undertaken numerous policy and technical studies in recent years and will continue to make a commitment toward furtherexamining and demonstrating user fee systems, including toll networks and mileagebased user fees. We have successfully implemented toll systems in the past with the Transportation Corridor Agencies’ network of privately financed toll roads and the SR-91 Express Lanes in Orange County. This kind of innovation in transportation continues and offers further opportunities to leverage, including public-private partnerships, as neighboring counties within our region consider a broader network of toll systems. Moreover, federal programs have recently supported demonstration initiatives in the region (e.g., I-110 and I-10 Congestion Reduction Demonstration Program in Los Angeles County). We have secured the necessary resources identified to support transportation investments proposed in past RTPs. This plan will continue to meet the necessary milestones for implementation. In developing the financial plan, SCAG followed a few basic principles to guide its regional financial forecast:

 Incorporate financial planning documents developed by local county transportation commissions and transit operators in the region, where available

 Ensure consistency with both local and state planning documents

 Utilize published data sources to evaluate historical trends and augment local fore

casts, as needed

 Recommend new, reasonably available funding sources that target beneficiaries of transportation investments The rest of the financial plan outlines our financial strategies and provides documen

tation of the financial assumptions and methodologies used for forecasting revenues and expenditures. 

# Economic Outlook
Overall economic conditions play a large role in determining the level of revenues available for transportation through 2035. SCAG’s financial model takes a conserva

tive approach when forecasting the latter years of the RTP/SCS planning horizon. The approach also reflects historical growth trends and reasonable future expectations for key revenue sources, including locally generated sales tax revenues as well as state and federal gas excise tax revenues. The inability of existing excise taxes to keep pace with increasing transportation needs and the detrimental effects of increasing fuel economy on traditional revenue sources are key considerations in the financial plan.

**Fi gur**  **e 3.1** 

### Historical Inflation Trends

-4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Annual Inflation

Year-Over-Year Inflation Annualized Inflation to 2010 Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011 Budget (FY2011) 

### 88 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan

## Inflation
SCAG’s revenue model takes into account historical inflation trends measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Deflator—an approach consistent with the one used by the Federal Office of Management and Budget in preparing the Budget of the United States Government. Inflation can have a profound effect over the long term, particularly during the final years of the plan, when inflation has had nearly 25 years to erode the value of money.

**F I**  **GUR E**  **3.1** shows the trends in inflation since World War II as measured by the GDP Price Deflator. Inflation rates have varied considerably over the time period. However, infla

tion has dropped dramatically since the late 1970s, when the Federal Reserve needed to adopt measures to “tame” inflation. The recession has put additional downward pressure on the inflation rate and caused some economists to worry about the potential eroding effects of deflation, but inflation has remained positive. Over the long term, inflation has trended between 2 and 4 percent. On the basis of this information, a 2.9 percent inflation rate is used to adjust constant dollar (revenue) forecasts into nominal (or year-of-expendi

ture) dollars.


## Construction Cost Increases
While inflation clearly affects the nominal dollars reported for future revenues, the rise in construction costs can further erode the purchasing power of transportation revenues. After spiking dramatically in 2007, construction costs have corrected in recent years.
**F I**  **GUR E**  **3.2** shows the increase and decline in California highway construction costs since the early 1970s. The United States Army Corps of Engineers Index for Roads, Railroads, and Bridges shows similar trends. While the recent correction in construction costs has slowed the longer-term increase in costs, the growth still remains above general inflation. The financial plan uses a 3.2 percent annual inflation factor to estimate future, nominal costs. The faster increase in construction costs than in revenues contributes to a decline in purchasing power for transportation funding over the planning period. **Fi gur**  **e 3.2** 

### Highway Project Costs

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Index Value

3.2% increase

Source: California Department of Transportation


## Retail S ales G rowth
Changes in personal consumption, population, available land, and retail locations are the biggest contributors to the growth in retail sales. The recession has dealt a blow to retail sales, which reached their peak in FY2007. Retail sales have begun to improve and are expected to rise over the RTP/SCS planning period. Over the 30-year period from FY1979 to FY2009, retail sales grew 1.4 percent in real terms (when the effects of inflation are eliminated). However, the growth was uneven. The financial plan assumes uneven growth will continue to occur, with retail sales growth ranging from 1.2 percent to 3.9 percent in real terms. 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan 

### 89

## F uel Consumption
Excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuels are the basis of most available federal and state transportation funding sources. Since these taxes are levied on a cents-per-gallon basis, they are dependent solely on fuel consumption and are not indexed to inflation or construction costs. Over the last several decades, total fuel consumption and the excise taxes generated grew due to increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). While changes in VMT will continue to play a role during the planning period, increases in conventional fuel economy and the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles will reduce overall fuel consump

tion. The financial plan assumes that increases in vehicle fuel efficiency will reduce fuel consumption by 1 percent per year during the planning period.


## S tatus of the F ederal Highway Trust F und
The Federal Highway Trust Fund provides federal highway and transit funding from a nationally imposed 18.3-cent-per-gallon gasoline excise tax. The health of the Trust Fund is of significant concern. Expenditures authorized under the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) have outstripped revenues generated by the excise tax. Since 2008, the Trust Fund has failed to meet its obligations and has required the United States Congress to authorize $34.5 billion in transfers from the General Fund to keep it solvent.

**F I**  **GUR E**  **3.3** shows a chart from a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the Federal Highway Trust Fund. The negative balances shown on the chart illustrate the projected inability of the Trust Fund to pay its obligations into the highway account as incurred by the states. Since the Trust Fund cannot incur negative balances under current law, the difference would need to be made up by General Fund transfers or slower spend

ing on programs financed by the Trust Fund. **Fi gur**  **e 3.3** 

### Status of the Federal Highway Trust Fund

( 1 2 5 ) ( 1 0 0 ) ( 7 5 ) ( 5 0 ) ( 2 5 )

0 2 5 5 0 7 5

1 9 8 3 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 8 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 7 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 9$Billions

Y e a r

R e v e n u e s , I n t e r e s t , a n d G e n e r a l F u n d T r a n s f e r s O u t l a y s E n d o f Y e a r B a l a n c e o r S h o r t f a l l Actual Projected

Source: Congressional Budget Office At the time of the RTP/SCS, Congress is on its ninth extension to SAFETEA-LU without substantive agreement on a long-term solution to provide adequate funding for the Trust Fund despite two national commissions established under SAFETEA-LU that called for immediate action to increase fuel taxes and transition to a mileage-based user fee over the longer term. The financial plan assumes that Congress will reach agreement on main

taining solvency of the Trust Fund over the planning period. However, the core revenues available from the Trust Fund are expected to decline due to increasing fuel efficiency. 

### 90 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan

## S tatus of the S tate Highway Account
The viability of the State Highway Account remains another critical issue. Despite a recent “Gas Tax Swap,” the effective state fuel excise tax rates have remained unadjusted for more than 15 years. The excise tax revenues, however, remain the only source of funding for the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), which finances proj

ects to maintain the State Highway System. Despite the entire State Highway Account being dedicated to the SHOPP in some years, previous levels of funding have been considerably less than actual needs (see **Fi gur**  **e 3.4** ). Continued underinvestment in the rehabilitation and maintenance needs of the State Highway System has serious ramifications—rapidly increasing the number of distressed lane-miles on the State Highway System and eroding the condition of the state’s bridges. As a result, the cost of bringing the highway assets back to a state of good repair is expected to grow exponentially. Statewide, the 2011 Ten-Year SHOPP Plan identifies $7.4 billion in statewide annual needs, while expenditures programmed for the next four years are only $1.8 billion annu

ally. Increased fuel efficiency will further erode State Highway Account funding available over the RTP/SCS planning period.


## S tate G as Tax S wap In 2010, state gasoline sales tax revenues were “swapped” for an increased state excise tax. Effective July 1, 2010, the gasoline excise tax increased by 17.3 cents. On July 1, 2011, sales taxes on diesel fuel increased by 1.75 percent and the excise tax decreased by a corresponding amount. To partially backfill the State Transit Assistance funding to local transit operators, their share increased from two-thirds to 75 percent. Each year, the California State Board of Equalization is required to adjust the excise tax so that the state Gas Tax Swap remains revenue neutral. As a result, the financial plan assumes that the state Gas Tax Swap generates the same revenues as generated under the prior state sales tax on gasoline. **Fi gur**  **e 3.4** 

### Status of the State Highway Operation and Protection Program

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8

2004 SHOPP 2006 SHOPP 2008 SHOPP 2010 SHOPP 2012 SHOPPValue ($ Billions)

Programming Cycle Annual Value of Programmed Projects (Capital Outlay pl us Capital Outlay Support) Annual Value of Ten-Year Need (Capital Outlay plus Capital Outlay Support) Source: California Department of Transportation, 2011 Ten-Year SHOPP Plan 

## Air Quality Attainment
Air quality determines the amount of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding available to the SCAG region. SCAG expects that the region will be in attain

ment for a number of pollutants and the severity level for other pollutants will lessen as a result of air quality initiatives. The financial plan assumes that CMAQ funding will decline by 25 percent in 2020 and another 25 percent in 2025 as a result of these air quality improvements. 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan 

### 91

## Local S ales Tax M easures As a means of backfilling declining federal and state sources, the SCAG region continues to rely heavily on local sales tax measures for the timely delivery of transportation proj

ects. Most counties in the region voted to support local sales taxes to fund transportation projects. Ventura County is the only county in the region without a dedicated sales tax for transportation. While most counties impose a 0.5 percent sales tax to fund transporta

tion projects, Los Angeles County levies a permanent 1 percent tax (a combination of two half-cent sales taxes). Since the 2008 RTP, voters in Los Angeles County have passed Measure R, which imposes an additional 0.5 percent sales tax to fund transportation projects. Unlike the other Los Angeles County sales taxes, Measure R is not permanent and expires in 2039. Additionally, several local sales taxes have been renewed in recent years. Prior to the 2008 RTP, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties extended their sales tax measures through 2039 or beyond. Since the 2008 RTP, Imperial County has renewed its Measure D through 2050. As a result of these extensions, revenues from the local sales tax measures will be available for the entire RTP/SCS planning period. 

## Transit Operating and M aintenance (O& M ) Costs
Future transit O&M costs are difficult to predict because they depend on a variety of factors, such as future revenue-miles of service, labor contracts, and the age of rolling stock. The addition of new transit service and capital projects, such as the Exposition Transit Corridor, can add to ongoing O&M costs. Over the last decade, these O&M costs grew 1 to 10 percent annually, depending on the transit operator (see **Fi gur**  **e 3.5** ). Some of the differences in O&M growth are due to rapid expansion among the newer operators and outsourcing among the older operators. For the RTP/SCS, transit O&M costs are estimated based upon historical increases:

 The regional average increase (3.6 percent) is used for most operators. This assumes that some of the extraordinary increases for individual operators due to rapid expansion will not continue into the future.

 For Los Angeles County, the financial plan relies on detailed forecasts from the county transportation commission. These forecasts are consistent with historical data and take into account large shifts in O&M costs due to major capital projects. **Fi gur**  **e 3.5** 

### Growth in Transit Operating and Maintenance Costs

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20 05 2006 2007 2008 2009Cost Index (O&M Costs Relative to 1996)

Antelope Valley Transit Authority City of Los Angeles (LADOT) Foothill Transit LACMTA - Metro Long Beach Transit Montebello Bus Lines Southern California Regional Rail Authority Santa Clarita Transit Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus Orange County Transportation Authority Riverside Transit Agency SunLine Transit Agency Omnitrans Gold Coast Transit Source: SCAG Analysis of National Transit Database Statistics


## M ultimodal S ystem Preservation and M aintenance
Along with deferred maintenance on the State Highway System, the SCAG region faces the need to improve the state of good repair on local streets and roads and in the transit system. In an effort to quantify the extent of transit needs, the California Transit Association in conjunction with Caltrans and the Federal Transit Administration con

ducted a study of California’s unmet transit funding needs. In a similar vein, the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties estimated future system preservation and maintenance needs to bring the local streets and roads to a state of good repair. **T a**  **bl e 3.1**  summarizes the total system preservation and maintenance needs 

### 92 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Planassumed in the RTP/SCS to bring transit, local streets and roads, and the State Highway System to a state of good repair. While the plan includes long-term resources for system preservation, mechanisms to ensure local control will continue to be developed through subsequent implementation efforts.

**T a**  **bl e 3.1**  

### Multimodal System Preservation and Maintenance Needs (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

**S ystem**  **S tate of Good Repair**  **N eeds**  **I ncluded in**  **E stimate**  **E stimated**  **S tate of**  **Good Repair Cost**

Transit O&M Existing Service; O&M Service Expansion; O&M Major New Service; Preservation $139.3

Local Streets and Roads Pavement; Essential Components; Bridges $20.9

State Highway Bridges, Pavement, Roadside; Mobility, Collision Reduction; Mandates, Facilities; Emergency Response $56.7

**T otal**  **$216.9**



## Debt S ervice
Local agencies in the SCAG region have historically relied on debt financing to ensure that revenues are available to meet the cashflow requirements of future expenditures. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has a detailed county financial model that estimates debt service on a project basis. Other county transporta

tion commissions prepare debt service forecasts for rating agencies and report current debt service in their comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs). The financial plan includes all outstanding commitments and interest payments on future bonds and com

mercial paper. Issued debt is expected to remain under debt ceilings. 

# Revenue and Expenditure Categories
Core and Reasonably Available Revenues
For the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS financial plan, SCAG prepared two types of revenue fore

casts. Both are included in the financially constrained plan:

 Core revenues

 Reasonably available revenues
The core revenues identified are those that have been committed or historically available for the building, operation, and maintenance of the current roadway and transit sys

tems in the SCAG region. Essentially, these revenues are existing transportation funding sources projected to FY2035. The core forecast does not include future increases in state or federal gas excise tax rates (other than the pro forma increases in the state excise tax due to the state gasoline sales tax swap) or adoptions of regional gasoline taxes, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) taxes, and new tax measures. These revenues provide a benchmark from which additional funding can be identified. The region’s reasonably available revenues include new sources of transportation fund

ing likely to materialize within the plan timeframe. These sources include adjustments to existing state and federal gas tax rates based on historical trends and recommen

dations from two national commissions (National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission) created by Congress; further leveraging of existing local sales tax measures; value capture strategies; potential national freight program/freight fees; as well as pas

senger and commercial vehicle tolls for specific facilities. Reasonably available revenues also include innovative financing strategies, such as private equity participation. In accor

dance with federal guidelines, the plan includes strategies for ensuring the availability of these sources. 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan 

### 93

## Expenditure Categories
Transportation expenditures in the SCAG region can be summarized into three main categories:

 Capital costs for state highways, regionally significant arterials, local streets and roads, as well as transit

 Operating and maintenance costs for state highways, regionally significant arterials, local streets and roads, as well as transit

 Debt service payments for current and anticipated bond issuances


# Core Revenues
A regional revenue model was developed to forecast the revenues over the entire plan time horizon. The revenue model is comprehensive and supports analysis by county or funding source. The basic process for developing the revenue forecast is to:

 Build on the revenue forecasts provided by the county transportation commissions.

 Add assumptions based on historical data.

 Compare historical data to Short-Range Transit Plans and other agency documents.

 Conduct Monte Carlo sensitivity testing of assumptions.

 Work with the county transportation commissions to modify assumptions and fore

casts as needed. The region’s revenue forecast horizon for the financial plan is FY2011 through FY2035. Consistent with federal guidelines, the plan takes into account inflation and reports statistics in nominal (year of expenditure) dollars. **T a**  **bl e 3.2**  shows these core revenues in five-year increments by county.
As shown in **Fi gur**  **e 3.6** , the majority of revenues in the SCAG region come from local sources. The share of state sources (15 percent) has declined since the last RTP (20 percent) as a result of the forecasted decline in fuel consumption and the increased share of local funds resulting from adoption of an additional sales tax in Los Angeles County. **T a**  **bl e 3.2**  

### Core Revenue Forecast FY2011–FY2035 (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

**County FY2011–** **FY2015 FY2016–** **FY2020 FY2021–** **FY2025 FY2026–** **FY2030 FY2031–** **FY2035 T**  **otal**

Imperial $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $0.4 $0.5 $1.9 Los Angeles $29.4 $32.7 $38.5 $46.2 $53.4 $200.2 Orange $7.3 $8.1 $9.5 $11.3 $13.4 $49.6 Riverside $4.2 $4.6 $5.1 $5.9 $6.8 $26.6 San Bernardino $3.4 $4.0 $4.4 $5.0 $5.6 $22.4 Ventura $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $1.0 $1.2 $4.6 **T otal**  **$45.3 $50.3**  **$58.7 $69.7**  **$80.9 $305.3** 

Source: SCAG Revenue Model 2011 Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding

**Fi gur**  **e 3.6** 

### Core Revenues (in Nominal Dollars) $305.3 Billion Total

Local $225.5 (74%) State $46.8 (15%)

Federal $33.0 (11%)

Source: SCAG Revenue Model 2011 Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding

**Fi gur**  **e 3.7** shows the breakdown of revenues by county. With the adoption of Measure R, Los Angeles accounts for nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of the funding available in the SCAG region. This is an increase from the 56 percent share in the 2008 RTP. 

### 94 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan**Fi gur**  **e 3.7** 

### Core Revenues by County (in Nominal Dollars) $305.3 Billion Total

Imperial $1.9 (1%) Los Angeles $200.2 (66%) Orange $49.6 (16%)

Riverside $26.6 (9%)

San Bernardino

$22.4 (7%)

Ventura $4.6 (1%)

Source: SCAG Revenue Model 2011 Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding Local option sales taxes provide the largest single source of local funding, as shown in
**Fi gur**  **e 3.8** . When local sales taxes in all five counties with such measures are included, these taxes account for more than half (53 percent) of local sources and nearly two-fifths (39 percent) of overall funding for the RTP/SCS. Local sales tax revenues have been boosted by the adoption of Measure R, which provides an additional 0.5 percent sales tax in Los Angeles County through 2039. Also, Imperial County extended its tax measure through 2050. State sources generate a smaller share of revenues than in the 2008 RTP, due mostly to the assumption that fuel consumption declines in the future as a result of increased fuel efficiency. As shown in **F I**  **GUR E**  **3.9** , the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP), and the State Gasoline Sales Tax Swap account for the largest portions of the state funding available. The adjustments to the State Transit Assistance (STA) available under the Gas Tax Swap are included in the State Gasoline Sales Tax Swap category. **Fi gur**  **e 3.8** 

### Core Revenues, Local Sources (in Nominal Dollars) $225.5 Billion Total

Local Sales Tax $119.4 (53%) TDA $28.7 (13%) Gas Tax Subvention $4.6 (2%) Farebox Revenue $26.7 (12%)

Highway Tolls

$11.2 (5%)

Mitigation Fees

$9.5 (4%)

Other Local $25.5 (11%)

Source: SCAG Revenue Model 2011 Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding

**Fi gur**  **e 3.9** 

### Core Revenues, State Sources (in Nominal Dollars) $46.8 Billion Total

STIP $9.4 (20%) SHOPP $19.5 (41%) State Gasoline Sales Tax Swap $11.0 (24%)

State Transit Assistance $2.8 (6%)

Proposition 1B (Infrastructure Bonds) $3.4 (7%)

Other State $0.8 (2%)

Source: SCAG Revenue Model 2011 Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan 

### 95As shown in **F I**  **GUR E**  **3.10** , federal sources are anticipated to represent a small portion of overall transportation funds ($33.0 billion). The Federal Highway Trust Fund is expected to remain solvent, but as with state funding, federal funding will decline due to increases in fuel efficiency. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding represents a larger share of federal funding due to large-scale New Starts in the SCAG region and a recent emphasis on transit allocations. The financial plan also assumes that CMAQ funding will decline in 2020 and 2025 due to the region achieving attainment for a number of pollutants and reducing the severity level of other pollutants.

**Fi gur**  **e 3.10** 

### Core Revenues, Federal Sources (in Nominal Dollars) $33.0 Billion Total

CMAQ $5.0 (15%) RSTP $6.7 (21%) FTA Formula $14.2 (43%)

FTA Discretionary $5.3 (16%)

Other Federal

$1.8 (5%)

Source: SCAG Revenue Model 2011 Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding 

# Reasonably Available Revenues
There are several new funding sources that are reasonably expected to be available for the plan. SCAG considered a set of key guiding principles as a foundation for identifying regionally appropriate revenues that are reasonably available in developing the RTP/SCS financial strategies as follows:

 Establish a user fee based system that better reflects the true cost of transporta

tion, provides firewall protection for transportation funds, and ensures an equitable distribution of costs and benefits.

 Promote national and state programs that include return-to-source guarantees while maintaining flexibility to reward regions that continue to commit substantial local resources.

 Leverage locally available funding with innovative financing tools (e.g., tax cred

its and expansion of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act [TIFIA]) to attract private capital and accelerate project delivery.

 Promote funding strategies that strengthen federal commitment to the nation’s goods movement system, recognizing the pivotal role that our region plays in domestic and international trade. Based on these guiding principles, SCAG evaluated a number of revenue options. Various combinations of these options were considered as potential revenue packages. **T a**  **bl e 3.3**  presents 10 categories of funding sources and financing techniques that were evaluated for the financial plan. These were selected on the basis of their use in other areas of the state, the burgeoning potential, historical precedence, and their likelihood of implementa

tion within the timeframe of the plan. These funding sources are considered to be reasonably available and are included in the financially constrained plan. For each funding source, SCAG has examined the policy and legal context of implementation and has prepared an estimate of the potential revenues generated. Additional detail on all funding sources included in the financial plan are pro

vided in the Transportation Finance Appendix. 

### 96 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan**T a**  **bl e 3.3**  

### New Revenue Sources and Innovative Financing Strategies (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)
**Revenue S**  **ource D**  **escription A**  **mount A**  **ctions to E**  **nsure A**  **vailability Responsible Party(ies)** 

Bond Proceeds from Local Sales Tax Measures Issuance of debt against existing sales tax revenues: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. (Note: although revenue estimates do not include new sales tax measures, this plan recognizes future opportunities including the potential for a sales tax measure in Ventura County if approved by the voters.) $25.6 Issuance of debt subject to county transportation commissions’ respective board policies. County Transportation Com

missions—CTCs (LACMTA, OCTA, RCTC, SANBAG)

State and Federal Gas Excise Tax Adjustment to Maintain Historical Purchasing Power Additional $0.15 per gallon gasoline tax imposed at the state and the federal levels starting in 2017 to 2024—to maintain purchasing power. $16.9 Requires action of State Legislature and Congress. Strategy is consistent with recommendations from two national commissions to move immediately with augmenting fuel tax resources through conventional Highway Trust Fund mechanisms. State Legislature, Congress

Mileage-Based User Fee (or equivalent fuel tax adjustment) Mileage-based user fees would be implemented to replace gas taxes—estimated at about $0.05 (in 2011 dollars) per mile starting in 2025 and indexed to maintain purchasing power. $110.3 (est. increment

only) Requires action of State Legislature and Congress. Strategy is consistent with recommendations from two national commissions to move toward a mileage-based user fee system. Immediate steps necessary to take include coalescing state and national partners to fund further RD&D (research, development, and demonstration) in advance of 2025 broad-based implementation. State Legislature, Congress

Highway Tolls (includes toll revenue bond proceeds) Toll revenues generated from SR-710 North Exten

sion, I-710 South Freight Corridor, East-West Freight Corridor, segment of the High Desert Corridor, and Regional Express/HOT Lane Network. $22.3 Assembly Bill (AB) 1467 (Nunez) Chapter 32, Statutes of 2006 authorized Caltrans and regional transportation agencies to enter into comprehensive development lease agreements with public and private entities or consortia of those entities for certain types of transportation projects. Further, AB 521 (Runner) Chapter 542, Statutes of 2006 modified provisions in AB 1467. Senate Bill Second Extraordinary Session 4 (SBX2 4) Chapter 2, Statutes of 2009 (Cogdill) established the legislative authority until January 1, 2017, allowing for regional transportation agencies and Caltrans to enter into an unlimited number of public-private partnerships (PPP) and deleted the restrictions on the number and type of projects that may be undertaken. Chapter 474, Statutes of 2009 (AB 798) established the California Transportation Financing Authority (CTFA). Highway projects that meet planning and environmental review requirements are eligible for tolling subject to meeting requirements of the CTFA. AB 798 also lifts the requirement for High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane projects authorized under AB 1467 to have separate legislative approval. MPO, CTCs, Caltrans, CTFA, and FHWA as may be ap

plicable 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan 

### 97

### 98 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan

**Revenue S**  **ource D**  **escription A**  **mount A**  **ctions to E**  **nsure A**  **vailability Responsible Party(ies)** 

Private Equity Participation Private equity share as may be applicable for key initiatives: e.g., toll facilities; also, freight rail pack

age assumes railroads’ share of costs for main line capacity and intermodal facilities such as SCIG and ICTF modernization. $2.7 Region has authority as noted above. Current funding plans for specific intermodal facilities assume private sources. MPO, CTCs, private consor

tium, State Legislature, and Union Pacific/BNSF as appro

priate for specific facilities

Freight Fee/National Freight Program A national freight program is anticipated with the next federal reauthorization of the surface transporta

tion act. The National Freight Program described in Senate-proposed transportation reauthorization bill (MAP-21) would establish federal formula funding for infrastructure improvements supporting the national freight network. Early estimates indicate roughly $2 billion per year nationally. Regional estimate assumes a conservative percentage of national totals. $4.2 Current efforts at the local/regional level continue to endorse afederal program for freight. A national program may be formulabased as outlined in the recently proposed MAP-21. Other mechanisms to ensure the establishment of a funding program for freight may entail working with local/regional, state, and federal stakeholders to assess a national freight fee. Freight fees could be assessed in proportion to relative impacts on the transportation system. Congress and potentially State Legislature as well as local/regional stakeholders

E-Commerce Tax E-commerce sales refers to the sale of goods and services where an order is placed or where price and terms of the sale are negotiated over the Internet or other online system. Potentially, the revenue could be used for transportation purposes, given the relation

ship between e-commerce and the delivery of goods to California purchasers. $3.1 The state estimates that most residents do not report use tax and this resulted in $1.1 billion in forgone use tax revenue during 2010. A state cannot compel out-of-state retailers to pay a sales or use tax, as federal law requires that retailers have a physical presence in the state. In its FY2012 budget, the state attempted to compel out-of-state retailers that are part of a commonly controlled group or that work with affiliates to pay a use tax (through ABX1 28). In September 2011, the state repealed ABX1 28 and enacted AB 155, which includes many of the same provisions as ABX1 28, but delays implementation until September 2012. State Legislature and poten

tially Congress

Interest Earnings Interest earnings from toll bond proceeds. $0.2 See Highway Tolls. See Highway Tolls

State Bond Proceeds, Federal Grants & Otherfor California HighSpeed Rail Program State general obligation bonds authorized under the Bond Act approved by California voters as Proposition 1A in 2008; federal grants authorized under Ameri

can Recovery and Reinvestment Act and High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program; potential use of qualified tax credit bonds; and private sources. $33.0 Estimate for Southern California segments based on statewide system total per November 1, 2011, Draft California High-Speed Rail Business Plan. Further coordination anticipated with the California High-Speed Rail Authority in finalizing business plan; ad

ditionally, the High-Speed Rail Authority will pursue private-sector participation as a source of system financing. MPO, California High-Speed Rail Authority, local/regional stakeholders, private-sector partners

Value Capture Strategies Assumes formation of special districts (infrastructure financing districts) including use of tax increment fi

nancing for specific initiatives: e.g., East-West Freight Corridor. $1.2 Pursue necessary approvals for special districts by 2016. Benefit assessment districts require majority approval by property own

ers; community facility districts require two-thirds approval; work with private entities for joint development opportunities as may be applicable. MPO, CTCs, local jurisdic

tions, property owners along project corridors, developers

# S ummary of Revenue S ources and Expenditures

**T a**  **bl e 3.4.1**  

### Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—Local Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

**Revenue S**  **ource Revenue Projection**  **A ssumptions**  **Revenue E**  **stimate L**  **O C**  **A L R**  **EVEN U**  **E SO**  **URC ES** 

Local Option Sales Tax Measures **D escription:**  Locally imposed 1⁄2 percent sales tax in four counties (Imperial, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino). Permanent 1 percent (combination of two 1⁄2 cent sales taxes) plus Measure R through 2039 in Los Angeles County. **A ssumptions:**  Sales taxes grow consistent with county transportation commission forecasts and historical trends. $119.4

Transportation Development Act (TDA)—Local Transportation Fund **D escription:**  The Local Transportation Fund (LTF) is derived from a 1⁄4 cent sales tax on retail sales statewide. Funds are returned to the county of generation and used mostly for transit operations and transit capital expenses. **A ssumptions:**  Same sales tax growth rate as used for local option sales tax measures. $28.7

Gas Excise Tax Subventions (to Cities and Counties) **D escription:**  Subventions to counties and local jurisdictions in region from the California state gas tax. Revenues for the forecast are propor

tionate to the percentage of streets and roads that are regionally significant. **A ssumptions:**  Fuel consumption declines in absolute terms by 1 percent due to increasing fuel efficiency in conventional vehicles and adop

tion of electric and hybrid vehicles. Regionally significant streets and roads (37 to 50 percent of total roads) are classified as either arterials or collectors. $4.6

Transit Farebox Revenue **D escription:**  Transit fares collected by transit operators in the SCAG region. **A ssumptions:**  Farebox revenues increase consistent with historic trends, planned system expansions, and operator forecasts. $26.7

Highway Tolls (in core revenue forecast) **D escription:**  Revenues generated from toll roads operated by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) and from the SR-91 Express Lanes operated by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). **A ssumptions:**  Consistent with the TCA Traffic and Revenue Report, revenues grow by 1.5 percent (compared to historical growth of about 8.5 percent) in core revenue forecast scenario. $11.2

Mitigation Fees **D escription:**  Revenues generated from development impact fees. The revenue forecast includes fees from the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) development impact fee program, San Bernardino County’s development impact fee program and Riverside County’s Transpor

tation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for both the Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County. **A ssumptions:**  The financial forecast is consistent with revenue forecasts from TCA, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). $9.5

Local Agency Funds **D escription:**  Includes committed local revenue sources such as transit advertising and auxiliary revenues, lease revenues, and interest and investment earnings from reserve funds. **A ssumptions:**  Revenues are based on financial data from transit operators and local county transportation commissions. $25.5

**L O**  **C A**  **L S**  **UB TOTA**  **L $225.5** 
Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan 

### 99

### 100 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan

**T a**  **bl e 3.4.2**  

### Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—State Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

**Revenue S**  **ource Revenue Projection**  **A ssumptions**  **Revenue E**  **stimate STATE**  **R EVEN**  **U E**  **SO URC**  **ES**

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) **D escription:**  The STIP is a five-year capital improvement program that provides funding from the State Highway Account (SHA) for projects that increase the capacity of the transportation system. The SHA is funded through a combination of state gas excise tax, the Federal High

way Trust Fund, and truck weight fees. The STIP may include projects on state highways, local roads, intercity rail, or public transit systems. The Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) propose 75 percent of STIP funding for regional transportation projects in Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs). Caltrans proposes 25 percent of STIP funding for interregional transportation projects in the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). **A ssumptions:**  Funds are based upon the 2011 Report of STIP Balances County and Interregional Shares, August 4, 2011 and 2012 STIP Fund Estimate. Long-term forecasts assume no growth in fuel consumption, except in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, where the growth is less than historical trends and consistent with forecasts by the local transportation commissions. $9.4

State Highway Operation and Protection Plan (SHOPP) **D escription:**  Funds state highway maintenance and operations projects. **A ssumptions:**  Short-term revenues are based on overlapping 2008 and 2010 SHOPP programs. Long-term forecasts are consistent with STIP forecasts and assume no growth in fuel consumption, except in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. $19.5

State Gasoline Sales Tax Swap **D escription:**  Prior to 2010, state sales tax on gasoline funded discretionary projects through the Transportation Investment Fund, which dis

tributed revenues to the STIP, local streets and roads, and transit. In 2010, the sales tax revenues were “swapped” for an increased excise tax (initially 17.3 cents) recalculated each year to ensure revenue neutrality. **A ssumptions:**  The financial forecast assumes that each county receives its fair share of state gasoline sales tax swap based upon county population. Future revenues grow by 1.5 percent to be revenue neutral consistent with the gasoline sales tax swap. $11.0

State Transit Assistance Fund (STA) **D escription:**  STA is funded with 50 percent of state Public Transit Account (PTA) revenues, which come from the diesel sales tax and “spill

over” in the gasoline sales tax swap. Funding is distributed by population share and revenue share of the transit operators. **A ssumptions:**  The forecast is based on current funding levels reported by the State Controller. Future funding declines with fuel consump

tion using assumptions consistent with other sources. $2.8

Highway Safety, Traffic, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B) **D escription:**  Proposition 1B authorized $19.9 billion to be spent statewide on existing and new statewide transportation-related infrastruc

ture programs and projects through FY2014. Several programs were included under Proposition 1B. **A ssumptions:**  The forecast is consistent with Proposition 1B apportionments for the SCAG region in the Federal Transportation Improve

ment Program (FTIP) through FY2014. $3.4

Other State Sources **D escription:**  Other state sources include Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (SAFE), Freeway Service Patrol, Air Quality Vehicle Registration Fee (AB 2766), Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation, and other miscellaneous state grants. The Clean Air and Transpor

tation Improvement Act added Proposition 116 to use state general obligation bonds to finance rail infrastructure. **A ssumptions:**  The RTP uses forecasts provided by LACMTA for Los Angeles County for consistency with the LACMTA long-range transporta

tion plan. These state revenues are not estimated for other counties. $0.8

**STATE S**  **UB TOTA**  **L ( S**  **tate STI**  **P funds include F H**  **W A**  **IM and**  **NHS funding categories)**  **$46.8**

Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan 

### 101

**T a**  **bl e 3.4.3**  

### Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—Federal Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

**Revenue S**  **ource Revenue Projection**  **A ssumptions**  **Revenue E**  **stimate F**  **EDE R**  **A L R**  **EVEN U**  **E SO**  **URC ES** 
FHWA Non-Discretionary Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program **D escription:**  Program to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality in non-attainment areas. **A ssumptions:**  Short-term revenues are based upon the Caltrans apportionment estimates. Long-term revenues assume that the Federal Highway Trust Fund stays solvent, but fuel consumption declines by 1 percent annually. CMAQ funding is assumed to be reduced by 25 percent in 2020 and an additional 25 percent in 2025 due to improved air quality. $5.0

FHWA Non-Discretionary Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) **D escription:**  Projects eligible for RSTP funds include rehabilitation and new construction on any highways included in the National Highway System (NHS) and Interstate Highways (including bridges). Also, transit capital projects, as well as intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities, are eligible. **A ssumptions:**  Short-term revenues are based upon the Caltrans apportionment estimates. Long-term revenues assume that the Federal Highway Trust Fund stays solvent, but fuel consumption declines by 1 percent annually. $6.7

FTA Formula Programs 5307 Urbanized Area Formula (Capital), 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Formula, 5311 Non-Urbanized Area Formula, 5309 Fixed Guideway Program **D escription:**  This includes a number of FTA programs distributed by formula. 5307 is distributed annually to state urbanized areas with a formula based upon population, population density, and transit revenue miles of service. Program funds capital projects (and operations expenses in areas under 200,000 in population), preventive maintenance, and planning activities. 5310 funds are allocated by formula to states for capital costs of providing services to the elderly and disabled. The 5311 program provides capital and operating expenses for ru

ral and small urban public transportation systems. Section 5309 Fixed Guideway (FG) funds are also distributed to regions on an urbanizedarea formula. **A ssumptions:**  Formula funds are assumed to decline in proportion with the Federal Highway Trust Fund. As with the FHWA sources, the Trust Fund is expected to stay solvent, but fuel consumption declines by 1 percent annually. $14.2

FTA Non-Formula Program 5309 New and Small Starts, 5309 Bus & Bus-Related Grants **D escription:**  Capital projects include preliminary engineering, acquisition of real property, final design and construction, and initial acquisi

tion of rolling stock for new fixed guideway systems or extensions, including bus rapid transit, light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail systems. Capital investment grants of less than $75 million are considered “small starts.” “Small starts” have a separate funding category. Program funds bus acquisition and other rolling stock, ancillary equipment, and the construction of bus facilities. Also includes bus rehabili

tation and leasing, park-and-ride facilities, parking lots associated with transit facilities, and bus passenger shelters. **A ssumptions:**  Operators are assumed to receive FTA discretionary funds in rough proportion to what they have received historically. The Federal Highway Trust Fund is expected to stay solvent, but fuel consumption declines by 1 percent annually. $5.3

Other Federal Funds **D escription:**  Includes other federal programs, such as Regional Transportation Enhancements, Highway Bridge Replacement and Reha

bilitation, Homeland Security Grants, Bus Preferential Signal Systems, Highway Earmarks, Hazard Elimination Safety, and Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing Protection (Section 130). Also includes a marginal amount from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for the first year of the forecast. **A ssumptions:**  LACMTA and OCTA provided forecasted revenues for these programs, which have been adopted in the LRTPs for Los Angeles and Orange Counties. For other counties, Highway Bridge Program revenues are estimated in the short term using program allocations provided by Caltrans through FY2014. ARRA amounts also come from programmed funding. Longer-term estimates are based upon the assumption of a 1 percent annual decline in fuel consumption as used for other federal funding sources referenced above. $1.8

**F EDE**  **R A**  **L S**  **UB TOTA**  **L $33.0** 
Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding

### 102 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan

**T a**  **bl e 3.4.4**  

### Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—Innovative Financing and New Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

**Revenue S**  **ource Revenue Projection**  **A ssumptions**  **Revenue E**  **stimate INNOVATIVE**  **F INAN**  **C IN**  **G & NE**  **W R EVEN**  **U E**  **SO URC**  **ES**

Bond Proceeds from Local Sales Tax Measures **D escription:**  Long-term debt financing secured by locally imposed 1⁄2 percent sales tax measures for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. **A ssumptions:**  Sales tax grows consistent with county historical trends. Assumes minimum debt service coverage of pledged revenue (net of any local return portion) in any year of 2.5x for Los Angeles County, 1.3x for Orange County, 1.5x for Riverside County (further restricted to a maximum of $975M outstanding), and 1.3x for San Bernardino County—includes currently outstanding and new debt. No debt is assumed to be issued for Imperial County. $25.6

State and Federal Gas Excise Tax Adjustment to Maintain Historical Purchasing Power **D escription:**  Additional 15-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax imposed by the state and federal government starting in 2017 through 2024. **A ssumptions:**  Forecast consistent with historical tax rate adjustments for both state and federal gas taxes. $16.9

Mileage-Based User Fee (or equivalent fuel tax adjustment) **D escription:**  Mileage-based user fees would be implemented to replace existing gas taxes (state and federal) by 2025. **A ssumptions:**  Consistent with recommendations from two national commissions established under SAFETEA-LU, it is assumed that a national mileage-based user fee system would be established during the latter years of the RTP/SCS. An estimated $0.05 per mile (in 2011 dollars) is assumed starting in 2025 to replace existing gas tax revenues. $110.3 (est. increment only)

Highway Tolls (includes toll revenue bond proceeds) **D escription:**  Toll revenues generated from regional toll facilities including SR-710 North Extension, I-710 South Freight Corridor, East-West Freight Corridor, segment of the High Desert Corridor, and Regional Express/HOT Lane Network. **A ssumptions:**  Toll revenues based on recent feasibility studies for applicable corridors. Also includes toll revenue bond proceeds. $22.3

Private Equity Participation **D escription:**  Private equity share as may be applicable for key initiatives. **A ssumptions:**  Private capital is assumed for a number of projects, including toll facilities; also, freight rail package assumes railroads’ share of costs for main line capacity and intermodal facilities such as SCIG and ICTF. $2.7

Freight Fees/ National Freight Program **D escription:**  Establishment of a national freight program consistent with proposal under MAP-21 and/or establishment of a charge imposed nationally on cargo. **A ssumptions:**  Early estimates indicate roughly $2 billion per year nationally for the National Freight Program under MAP-21. Regional estimate assumes a conservative percentage of proposed national program. Other mechanisms may include establishment of freight fees nationally, whereby rates may be subject to timing and cashflows for qualified projects. Freight fee would be assessed in proportion to rela

tive impacts on the transportation system and would sunset with the completion of qualified projects. Assumes establishment of a national program in scope starting in 2015. $4.2

E-Commerce Tax **D escription:**  E-commerce sales tax on goods and services negotiated over the Internet or other online system. **A ssumptions:**  Notwithstanding the uncertainty in the amount of revenue that is available from AB 155, the revenue could be used for trans

portation purposes, given the relationship between e-commerce and the delivery of goods to California purchasers. In the event the revenue is used solely for transportation, the revenue would need to be allocated to specific uses or areas within the state. One possible method would allocate the funds in proportion to population. Under this method, the SCAG region would receive an estimated $3.1 billion through 2035, assuming AB 155 statewide revenue grows at 3 percent per year. $3.12012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan 

### 103

**Revenue S**  **ource Revenue Projection**  **A ssumptions**  **Revenue E**  **stimate**
Interest Earnings **D escription:**  Interest earnings from toll bond proceeds. **A ssumptions:**  Interest earnings are assumed from toll bond proceeds, e.g., East-West Freight Corridor. $0.2

State Bond Proceeds, FederalGrants & Other for California HighSpeed Rail Program **D escription:**  Estimated total per November 1, 2011, Draft California High-Speed Rail Business Plan. **A ssumptions:**  State general obligation bonds authorized under the Bond Act approved by California voters as Proposition 1A in 2008; fed

eral grants authorized under ARRA and the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (HSIPR); potential use of qualified tax credit bonds; and private sources. $33.0

Value Capture Strategies **D escription:**  Formation of special districts—infrastructure financing districts and use of tax increment financing. **A ssumptions:**  This strategy refers to capturing the incremental value generated by transportation investments. Specifically, SCAG assumes the formation of special districts, including infrastructure financing districts (IFDs); also assumes the use of tax increment financing for specific projects (e.g., East-West Freight Corridor). $1.2

**NE W R**  **EVEN U**  **E SO**  **URC E**  **S UB**  **TOTA L**  **$219.5 GR**  **AND TOTA**  **L $524.7** 

Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding

The SCAG region’s financially constrained RTP/SCS includes revenues from both core and reasonably available revenue sources, which sum to $524.7 billion from FY2011 through FY2035. While core revenues are comprised primarily of local sources (74 percent), the financially constrained RTP/SCS is funded by 53 percent local sources, 25 percent state sources, and 22 percent federal sources, as is illustrated in **F I**  **GUR E**  **3.11**

. **Fi gur**  **e 3.11** 

### Revenue Summary $524.7 Billion (in Nominal Dollars) FY2011–FY2035

Core Federal $33.0 (6%) Additional Federal

$84.3 (16%) Core State $46.8 (9%) Additional State

$83.2 (16%) Core Local $225.5 (43%)

Additional Local $51.9 (10%)

Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding

### 104 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan

**Fi gur**  **e 3.12** 

### Expenditure Summary $524.7 Billion (in Nominal Dollars) FY2011–FY2035

Capital Projects $262.8 (50%) Debt Service $45.1 (9%) O&M Highway $56.7 (11%)

O&M Transit $139.3 (27%)

O&M Local Roads

$20.9 (4%)

Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding
As shown in **F I**  **GUR E**  **3.12** , capital projects total $262.8 billion in nominal dollars. Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs total $216.9 billion, while debt service obliga

tions total $45.1 billion. Transit-related costs comprise the largest share of O&M costs for the region, totaling $139.3 billion.
As shown in **Fi gur**  **e 3.13** , transit expenditures account for almost half of the plan costs at 47 percent. Highway expenditures account for 26 percent of the plan costs. About 18 percent of costs are attributable to an “other” category, reflecting proposed invest

ments in goods movement, grade separations, active transportation, transportation demand management, and transportation system management improvements. Consistent with historical practice, agencies in the region are expected to bond against future rev

enues to provide additional funding in the early years of the plan. As a result, debt service equal to historical payments and future bonding needs has been included as part of the financial plan. Anticipated debt service payments make up 9 percent of total costs. **Fi gur**  **e 3.13** 

### Revenues Compared to Costs by Mode

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Revenues CostsIn $ Billions

Transit Flexible Highway Other Debt Service

Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding

**T a**  **bl e 3.5**  provides details of the SCAG region’s financial plan revenue forecast by source in five-year increments from FY2011 through FY2035. This is followed by **T a**  **bl e 3.6**  , which provides details of the region’s expenditures by category in five-year increments.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan 

### 105

**T a**  **bl e 3.5**  

### 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Revenues (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

**R EVEN**  **U E**  **SO URC**  **ES FY2011–**  **FY2015 FY2016–**  **FY2020 FY2021–**  **FY2025 FY2026–**  **FY2030 FY2031–**  **FY2035 TOTA**  **L L** **O C** **A L**  Sales Tax $16.3 $22.1 $28.7 $36.2 $44.7 $148.0 – County $13.1 $17.8 $23.1 $29.2 $36.1 $119.4 – Transportation Development Act $3.3 $4.3 $5.5 $6.9 $8.6 $28.7 Gas Tax (Subvention to Cities & Counties) $1.0 $1.0 $0.9 $0.9 $0.8 $4.6 Other Local Funds $5.3 $4.6 $4.7 $5.6 $5.2 $25.5 Transit Fares $3.2 $4.3 $5.3 $6.4 $7.5 $26.7 Tolls $1.4 $1.7 $2.1 $2.6 $3.3 $11.2 Mitigation Fees $1.4 $1.8 $1.9 $2.1 $2.3 $9.5 **L O**  **C A**  **L TOTA**  **L $28.7**  **$35.4 $43.5**  **$53.9 $64.0**  **$225.5 STATE**  State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) $3.7 $4.2 $4.0 $3.8 $3.6 $19.5 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) $1.9 $2.0 $1.9 $1.8 $1.7 $9.4 – Regional – RTIP $1.3 $1.4 $1.3 $1.2 $1.2 $6.4 – Interregional – ITIP $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.5 $3.0 State Gasoline Sales Tax Swap $1.4 $1.7 $2.1 $2.6 $3.3 $11.0 State Transit Assistance (STA) $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $2.8 Proposition 1B (Infrastructure Bonds) $3.0 $0.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.4 Other State Funds (1) $0.3 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.8 **STATE TOTA**  **L $10.8**  **$9.0 $8.7**  **$9.0 $9.4**  **$46.8 F** **EDE R** **A L**  Federal Transit $3.0 $3.6 $3.9 $4.3 $4.7 $19.5 – Federal Transit Formula $2.3 $2.6 $2.8 $3.1 $3.4 $14.2 – Federal Transit Non-Formula $0.7 $1.0 $1.1 $1.2 $1.3 $5.3 Federal Highway & Other $2.9 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $2.8 $13.5 – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $1.3 $1.1 $0.9 $0.8 $0.9 $5.0 – Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $1.1 $1.2 $1.3 $1.5 $1.6 $6.7 – Other Federal Funds (2) $0.5 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $1.8 **F EDE**  **R A**  **L TOTA**  **L $5.9**  **$6.1 $6.5**  **$6.9 $7.5**  **$33.0 INNOVATIVE** **F INAN** **C IN** **G & NE** **W R EVEN** **U E** **SO URC** **ES** Bond Proceeds from Local Sales Tax Measures $9.4 $10.4 $5.9 $0.0 $0.0 $25.6 State and Federal Gas Excise Tax Adjustment $0.0 $8.6 $8.3 $0.0 $0.0 $16.9 Mileage-Based User Fee $0.0 $0.0 $8.9 $48.5 $52.9 $110.3 Highway Tolls (including bond proceeds) $3.0 $0.0 $9.8 $3.8 $5.7 $22.3 Private Equity Participation $1.3 $0.1 $0.1 $1.2 $0.0 $2.7 Freight Fees/National Freight Program $0.1 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.2 $4.2 E-Commerce Tax $0.3 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.9 $3.1 Interest Earnings $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 California High-Speed Rail Program Funding $0.0 $3.9 $10.2 $14.3 $4.5 $33.0 Value Capture Strategies $0.0 $0.0 $1.2 $0.0 $0.0 $1.2 **INNOVATIVE F**  **INAN C**  **IN G &**  **NE W R**  **EVEN U**  **E SO**  **URC ES**  **TOTA L**  **$14.1 $24.5**  **$46.1 $69.6**  **$65.2 $219.5**  **R EVEN**  **U E**  **TOTA L**  **$59.5 $75.0**  **$104.8 $139.3**  **$146.1 $524.7** 

Notes: ( 1) Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (SAFE), Freeway Service Patrol, Air Quality Vehicle Registration Fee (AB 2766), Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation. (2) Includes other federal programs, e.g., Regional Transportation Enhancements, Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation, Homeland Security Grants, Bus Preferential Signal Systems, Highway Earmarks, local assistance, Hazard Elimination Safety, and Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing Protection (Section 130). Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding

### 106 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 3: Financial Plan

**T a**  **bl e 3.6**  

### 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Expenditures (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

**R T**  **P C OSTS**  **FY2011**

**– FY2015**  **FY2016**

**– FY2020**  **FY2021**

**– FY20**  **25 FY2026** 

**– FY20**  **30 FY2031** 

**– FY20**  **35 TOTA**  **L**
**Capital Projects: $37.3**  **$44.8 $57.1**  **$63.4 $60.2**  **$262.8** Arterials $4.4 $3.8 $3.8 $4.7 $5.4 $22.1 Grade Separations & Goods Movement $8.1 $7.9 $12.9 $14.6 $5.0 $48.4 High-Occupancy Vehicle/High-Occupancy Toll Lanes $5.2 $2.5 $0.6 $4.2 $8.4 $20.9 Mixed-Flow and Interchange Improvements $3.4 $4.5 $5.0 $2.7 $0.5 $16.0 Toll Facilities $1.5 $10.9 $5.8 $3.3 $5.8 $27.3 Transportation System Management (including ITS) $1.3 $1.2 $0.8 $1.9 $2.4 $7.6 Transit $11.6 $13.1 $27.3 $28.5 $26.4 $106.9 Active Transportation $0.7 $0.4 $0.3 $1.9 $3.4 $6.7 Transportation Demand Management $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $1.3 $2.5 $4.5 Other (1) $0.7 $0.4 $0.6 $0.4 $0.4 $2.5 **O perations and**  **M aintenance:**  **$19.4 $22.9**  **$37.4 $63.7**  **$73.5 $216.9**  Highway $3.4 $3.0 $12.5 $18.8 $19.1 $56.7 Transit $14.9 $18.8 $23.8 $37.0 $44.8 $139.3 Local Streets and Roads $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $7.9 $9.6 $20.9 **D ebt**  **S ervice**  **$2.8 $7.3**  **$10.3 $12.2**  **$12.5 $45.1**  **C OST**  **TOTA L**  **$59.5 $75.0**  **$104.8 $139.3**  **$146.1 $524.7** 

Note: (1) Includes: environmental mitigation, landscaping, and project development costs. Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding

# Introduction 

# S outhern California today faces unprecedented challenges in accommodating the additional population and economic activity expected over the next 25 years. Once a major destination for people from other states, Southern California now sees population growth driven mostly by natural increase from within the region—births over deaths—and by international immigration. Over the last generation it has become one of the most diverse and multicultural regions in the world. Southern California is now home to 18 million people. The region is seen by some as crowded, congested, and—despite the recent downturn in the housing market—an expensive place to build a life. While the region was once known worldwide as the “capital of sprawl,” today it is project

ing growth on only a small fraction of its available raw land. Moreover, the region has struggled in its efforts to generate true economic growth over the past two decades. In the face of all these long-term trends, Southern California is expected to accommodate an additional 4 million people over the next 25 years, with equally significant household and employment growth (see **Fi gur**  **e 4.1** ). This future growth will put additional pressure on an already congested transportation system, on communities and neighborhoods that have been in existence for many decades, and on the region’s fragile natural environ

ment. **E xhi**  **b its 4.1**  , **4.2** , and **4.3** show the geographical distribution of the region’s future growth in 2035. Addressing these challenges successfully will require a major effort and coordination by the region’s people, institutions, and public agencies. These “regional players” will have to agree on a common vision for the future and then work together to make that vision a reality. Through this effort, Southern California will be able to not only accommodate additional growth, but also create an improved quality of life, a resilient economy, and a healthy natural environment. Since 2000, SCAG has worked actively with the people and institutions of Southern California to create a dynamic regional growth vision based on four principles of mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability . Charged by federal law with preparing a Regional Transportation Plan every four years, SCAG has traditionally focused on the mobility impacts of the region’s growth. Under state law, SCAG is also charged with planning for an adequate regional housing supply in coordination with local governments. 

### 107 

# 04

. SUS TAI N A B LE CO MMUN ITIE S S TRATE GY ( S C S )

Image courtesy of City of Oxnard and The Daily GroupThe recent passage of Senate Bill 375 directs SCAG with an additional area of respon

sibility and provides the region with a renewed opportunity for integrated planning for the future. The purpose of SB 375 is to implement the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goals in the sector of cars and light trucks. This mandate requires the California Air Resources Board to determine per capita GHG emission reduction targets for each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the state at two points in the future—2020 and 2035. In accordance with Govt. Code Section 65080(b)(2)(B)(vii), the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS will achieve GHG emission reductions of 9 percent per capita in 2020 and 16 percent per capita in 2035 (surpassing both reduction targets of 8 and 13 percent for the years 2020 and 2035, respectively). Because greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector are closely related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), a mandated GHG reduction essentially requires SCAG to devise a regional plan and a series of strategies that will produce a per capita reduction in VMT over the next 25 years. Under SB 375, SCAG and California’s 17 other MPOs must address GHG reduction in a “Sustainable Communities Strategy,” or SCS, that is part of each MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan. Transportation strategies contained in the RTP—managing transportation demand and making certain transportation system improvements are major components of the SCS. However, the SCS also focuses on the general land use growth pattern for the region, because geographical relationships between land uses—including density and inten

sity—help determine the need for travel. Therefore, SCAG’s SCS includes not only projections regarding the transportation net

work, but also regarding land use. Under SB 375, an SCS must, in summary:

 Identify existing and future land use patterns;

 Consider statutory housing goals and objectives;

 Identify areas to accommodate long-term housing needs;

 Identify areas to accommodate 8-year housing needs;

 Consider resource areas and farmland;

 Identify transportation needs and the planned transportation network;

 Set forth a future land use pattern to meet GHG emission reduction targets; and

 Comply with federal law for developing an RTP. These requirements, as outlined in California Government Code Section 65080(b)(2) (B), do not mean that the SCS creates a mandate for certain land use policies at the local level. In fact, SB 375 specifically states that the SCS cannot dictate local General Plan policies (see Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(J)). Rather, the SCS is intended to provide a regional policy foundation that local governments may build upon as they choose and generally includes the quantitative growth projections from each city and county in the region going forward. In addition, some projects consistent with the SCS may be eligible for a streamlined environmental review process. One aspect of SB 375 that is unique to the SCAG region is that subregions within SCAG have the option of creating their own subregional SCS. Of SCAG’s 15 subregions, two accepted this option: the Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG) and the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG). The underlying land use, socioeconomic, and transportation data provided in the subsequent subregional SCSs was incorporated with

out alteration into the regional 2012 RTP/SCS.

**Fi gur**  **e 4.1** 

### Anticipated Future Growth (2008–2035)

0 5 10 15 20 25

2008 2035Millions

People Jobs Households change of 4.2 million

change of 1.7 million change of 1.5 million 

### 108 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

### 109

**E xhi**  **b it 4.1**  

### Population Growth SCAG Region (2008–2035)

### 110

**E xhi**  **b it 4.2**  

### Employment Growth SCAG Region (2008–2035)

### 111

**E xhi**  **b it 4.3**  

### Household Growth SCAG Region (2008–2035)

# G oals and B enefits
Under SB 375, the primary goal of the SCS is to provide a vision for future growth in Southern California that will decrease per capita greenhouse gas emissions from automo

biles and light trucks. As stated above, this leads to strategies that can help reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled over the next 25 years. The strategies contained in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS will produce benefits for the region far beyond simply reducing GHG emissions. Because it is the latest refinement of an evolving regional blueprint that SCAG began in 2000, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS will help the region contend with many ongoing issues across a wide range of concerns, including placemaking, the cost of living, the environment, health, responsiveness to the market

place, and mobility.

1. **Better Placemaking** As Southern California becomes more congested and crowded, creating better places to live and work has become increasingly important. A completely car-ori

ented lifestyle made sense in Southern California a couple of generations ago, when the region was less dense and there were few options other than driving. Indeed, Southern Californians still need their cars and highly value the freedom of using them, but because of traffic congestion and the hassle factor, more people today are seeking good “placemaking”—that is, the process of developing options for locations where they can live and work that include a pleasant and convenient walk

ing environment that reduces their reliance on their car. Communities that promote walkable environments and alternative transportation create more opportunities for an active lifestyle, improve safety and accessibility for marginalized communities, and help preserve natural areas and resources. The strategies outlined in the 2012– 2035 RTP/SCS promote the development of better places to live and work through measures that encourage more compact development, varied housing options, bike and pedestrian improvements, and efficient transportation infrastructure. 2. **Lower Cost to T**  **axpayers and Families** While attractive in many ways, the traditional suburban lifestyle is expensive both to families and taxpayers. The cost of maintaining a large house and yard and multiple vehicles can consume most of a family’s income. The cost of building the roads, water and sewer lines, and other infrastructure required for low density communi

ties is very high, and taxpayers usually pay at least part of the bill, especially for ongoing maintenance. By including options that create more compact neighborhoods and placing everyday destinations closer to homes and closer to one another, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS’s strategies can reduce the cost of development for taxpayers and reduce the everyday costs of housing and transportation. 3. **Benefits to Public H**  **ealth and the E**  **nvironment** Public health and environmental protection have long been linked to the way our region is planned and the way public services are delivered. Many strategies in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS will provide widespread benefits within the region for both public health and environmental protection. Municipal water and sewer systems, for example, ensure clean water. Better placemaking will allow people to walk and bicycle more regularly in their daily lives, and promotes the development of urban parks, thus providing more opportunities for recreation and exercise. Reducing the footprint of new development protects farmland that provides regional food, main

tains wildlife habitat, decreases air pollution, and improves opportunities for green stormwater solutions that will improve water quality. 4. **Greater Responsiveness to D**  **emographics and the Changing H**  **ousing M**  **arket** The traditional suburban development pattern that characterizes much of Southern 

### 112 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

Image courtesy of City of Lancaster2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 113

California was appropriate when it was built and still works well for millions of residents. But the demographic profile of the region is changing and the market for housing is changing with it. The number of empty-nesters (parents whose children have grown and left home) is significantly increasing. Many of these empty-nesters are looking for smaller housing and a more manageable, walkable lifestyle. Recent trends suggest that many will be looking to live near their families and other local institutions and amenities rather than commuting long distances. In addition, resi

dents will be looking for a “value lifestyle” in which both housing and transportation costs are minimized even as they maintain a high-quality of life. Strategies focused on high-quality places, compact infill development, and more housing and transpor

tation choices provides a response to these newly emerging market forces. 5. **I mproved**  **A ccess and**  **M obility**  Southern California congestion is ever present and additional road construction cannot solve all of the region’s mobility challenges. Strategies contained within the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS will help the region confront congestion and mobility issues in a variety of ways, including improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The transportation strategies contained within the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS will focus on “the most bang for the buck” solutions by improving critical road connections in the region and increasing public transit capacity. Land use strategies in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS will improve mobility and access by placing destinations closer together and decreasing the time and cost of traveling between them. It is important to note that the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS does not envision a wholesale redevelopment of the Southern California region. The vast majority of neighborhoods and business districts that will exist in 2035 already exist today, and most of them—espe

cially residential neighborhoods—will be unchanged in the next 25 years. Rather, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS envisions a new development pattern for new neighborhoods and revitalized neighborhoods and business districts that will build upon the current pattern to give residents more choices and opportunities as they consider where to live and work in the future. 

# Creating the 2012–2035 RTP/ S C S
The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS contains ambitious goals to meet the region’s challenges, yet these ideas and strategies are not new. In recent years, SCAG and its local jurisdic

tions have laid the groundwork for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS by engaging in a variety of efforts to plan for more sustainable communities. In order to build on this foundation, SCAG’s first steps have been to coordinate with its local and regional partners in both information gathering and strategy development in order to create a highly realistic and implementable 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. The “bottom-up” approach has included local juris

dictions, subregional Councils of Government (COGs), County Transportation Commissions (CTCs), air districts, and a wide array of stakeholders. 

## Data Collection

In te g rated Gro w th Foreca s t The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS depends heavily on an accurate and credible forecast for future growth in population, housing, and employment. Beginning in summer 2009, SCAG conducted a series of one-on-one meetings with 175 cities and six counties to gain local input on the integrated population, household, and employment growth forecast for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. Over the last two years, the Integrated Growth Forecast has been updated to reflect the 2010 Census, employment data from the California Employment Development Department, and population and household data from the California Department of Finance. It also underwent an extensive peer-review process over the same two-year period. Ongoing discussions with local jurisdictions led to some additional adjustments, which resulted in SCAG’s ability to obtain a consensus on the Integrated Growth Forecast to serve as the foundation for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS.


## L ocal P la nn i ng Se ss io ns In 2011, SCAG conducted a series of planning sessions with local governments to gather all relevant land use and transportation policies, plans, and data required to formulate the SCS. Using survey instruments, one-on-one discussions, and Geographical Information System (GIS) software, the local governments provided up-to-date information including

### 114 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

growth opportunities, local land use plans and measures, transportation demand man

agement (TDM) measures, transportation systems management (TSM) measures, and other local transportation strategies. Results from these local planning sessions can be found in Appendix: Public Participation and Consultation.


## C o un t y T ra ns portatio n C o mm i ss io ns
As the agencies statutorily responsible for the implementation of transportation projects in their respective counties, SCAG’s six County Transportation Commissions played an invaluable role in the development of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. Early in the development process, the CTCs worked closely with SCAG to identify county priorities for consideration in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS’s alternatives analysis process. The CTCs remained actively involved throughout the entire analysis process, offering meaningful input as SCAG decision-makers considered the various policy alternatives. Given the new requirements of SB 375, it will be critical for the CTCs to embrace the concept of integrating transpor

tation planning with land use planning in order for this region to develop a truly sustain

able 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. Fortunately, the CTCs within the SCAG region were moving in this direction long before the passage of SB 375 and served as excellent partners in the development of this 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. 

## Creation of Land U se S cenarios
Once SCAG collected all relevant data and information from local governments and CTCs, the agency began developing scenarios using a process that would engage the entire region in envisioning a more sustainable future. A single framework model was used, allowing SCAG’s technical staff to load the data and research-based assumptions about the future, and to test a variety of land use patterns and their transportation implications. A detailed documentation of the development of the land use scenarios can be found in Appendix: SCS Background Documentation. Using this model, SCAG created four scenarios for the future of the region. The scenarios were designed to explore and clearly convey the impact of both where the six-county SCAG region grows over the next 25 years—to what extent growth is focused within existing cities and towns, and how it grows—the shape and style of the neighborhoods and transportation systems that will shape growth over the period. These scenarios were precursors to the 2012 RTP/SCS alternatives. The scenarios facilitated public dialogue and feedback, which in turn allowed SCAG to develop substantially more detailed and refined Plan alternatives. These Plan alternatives were extensively analyzed in the 2012– 2035 RTP/SCS and the potential impacts of the RTP/SCS Plan alternatives were evaluated in the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). Note that the Plan alternatives are separate and distinct from the scenarios discussed here. The four scenarios vary in their land use assumptions and in the package of transporta

tion investments that support the quality and location of growth in the scenarios. The range of the four workshop scenarios can be described by how they address the following key elements: **D evelopment Location (**  **D ispersed Growth vs. Focused**  **D evelopment):**  The four

scenarios vary in the proportion of growth accommodated at the edges of cities and the region’s urbanized areas versus growth located in and around existing cities and towns, particularly in the region’s designated High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA). An HQTA is generally a walkable transit village or corridor, consistent with the adopted RTP/SCS, and is within one half-mile of a well-serviced transit stop or a transit corridor with 15-minute or less service frequency during peak commute hours. This

Image courtesy of City of Irvine2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 115

was represented by the proportion of Greenfield versus Refill (infill and redevelop

ment) growth in each of the scenarios.

 **Community/ N**  **eighborhood D**  **esign ( A**  **uto- O**  **riented vs. Walkable):** The shape and quality of growth in the scenarios vary from a focus on walkable and transit-oriented places where most daily needs are within walking, biking, or short driving distance from homes to new communities which are centered around the car as the domi

nant form of transportation for nearly all trips. This was represented across the four scenarios by the proportion of Standard Suburban, Mixed-Use/Walkable, and Urban Infill development in each of the scenarios.

 **H ousing**  **O ptions and**  **M ix (**  **S ingle-Family**  **S ubdivision vs.**  **M ultifamily Focus):**  The scenarios varied in future housing mix in order to depict the impacts of meet

ing (or not meeting) future housing demand, especially given the changing demo

graphics and preferences of current and future Southern Californians. Housing that focuses more on large-lot (>5,500 SF) single-family options are at one end of the spectrum, as compared to varying mixes of townhome and multifamily options at the other.  **T ransportation**  **I nvestments (Road/**  **H ighway vs.**  **T ransit/**  **N on-**  **A uto**  **S trategies):**  While all scenarios are supported by a range of transportation options, they vary in the proportion of new investments that are focused on transit and non-auto modes versus highway and roadway improvements that facilitate local and regional auto

mobile travel. These transportation “packages” are informed by past and present RTPs and incorporate a range of transit emphasis up to and including Los Angeles County’s recent Measure R and 30/10 Initiative. The scenarios were designed to capture a range of potential strategies and investments by considering the rela

tive emphasis on investment by mode or the inclusion of policy mechanisms such as TDM or congestion pricing. The scenarios do not consider or evaluate specific transportation networks or individual projects. Based on the four elements above, which are illustrated in **Fi gur**  **e 4.2** , the four scenarios illustrate different land use “themes” for how the region can grow and the transporta

tion system which supports that growth. **Fi gur**  **e 4.3** illustrates the land use themes for each scenario. In turn, each has a different impact on critical fiscal, environmental, and transportation challenges facing the region, as detailed in Appendix: SCS Background Documentation.



## Local Sustainability Planning Tool
As part of the S C S process, S CA G developed the Local S ustainability Planning Tool (L S PT), a G I S -based sketch planning tool that allows users to create land use scenarios and analyze their impacts. S CA G made the L S PT available to each of its jurisdictions, trained hundreds of users, and worked one on one with planners to assist in their use of the tool. Provided with preliminary scenarios of their planning areas for the years 2008, 2020, and 2035, local planners were then able to create, modify, and compare a variety of scenarios and their subsequent impacts on vehicle ownership, vehicle miles traveled, mode use, and G H G emissions. This allowed the local govern

ment participation in the development of the S C S to be far more fruitful than it otherwise would have been. Image courtesy WRCOG

### 116 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

**S cenario 1.**  This scenario is based on the General Plans prepared by cities and compiled by SCAG, with assistance from local planners, using the Local Sustainability Planning Tool (LSPT). It includes a significant proportion of suburban, auto-oriented development, but also recognizes the recent trend of increased growth in existing urban areas and around transit. New housing is mostly single-family (58 percent), with an increase in smaller-lot single-family homes, as well as an increase in multifamily homes (42 percent). The trans

portation system is based on the package of improvements in the 2008 RTP. While these investments tend to favor automobile infrastructure, they also support new transit lines and other non-auto strategies and improvements.
**S cenario 2.**  This scenario focuses more growth in walkable, mixed-use communities and in existing and planned High-Quality Transit Areas. Under this scenario, there would be an increase in investments in transit and non-auto modes as compared to the 2008 RTP. Employment growth is focused in urban centers, around transit. Fewer new homes (29 percent) are single-family homes, as this scenario comes closer to meeting demandfor a broader range of housing types, with new housing weighted less toward largelot single-family homes (2 percent) and more towards smaller-lot single-family homes (27 percent) and multifamily condos, townhomes, and apartments (70 percent). **S cenario 3.**  This scenario builds on the walkable, mixed-use focus of the growth in Scenario 2 and also aims to improve fiscal and environmental performance by shifting even more of the region’s growth into areas that are closer to transit and less auto-cen

tric. Like Scenario 2, this scenario aims to meet demand for a broader range of housing types, with new housing weighted toward smaller-lot single-family homes, townhomes, multifamily condos, and apartments. In terms of percentage, the mix of housing types is very similar to Scenario 2, but the location of the growth within the region is shifted more toward transit-rich locations. Also like Scenario 2, transportation system investments would be more weighted toward transit investments, TDM, and non-auto strategies, which would support the move away from more auto-oriented development patterns.
**S cenario 4.**  This scenario maximizes growth in urban and mixed-use configurations in already developed areas and around existing and planned transit investments. To sup

port this shift, transportation system investments are heavily weighted toward transit infrastructure and operational improvements (i.e., higher frequencies and more transit feeder service), as well as improvements to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. In order to maximize the transit investments and accommodate population in already developed areas, the vast majority of new housing (96 percent) is multifamily, while 4 percent is single-family development. 

### DEVELOPMENT LOCATION

Dispersed Growth Focused Development Auto-Oriented Walkable Single Family Subdivisions Multifamily Focus Roads/ Highways Transit and NonAuto Strategies 

### COMMUNITY/ NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN HOUSING OPTIONS and MIX TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS **Fi gur**  **e 4.2** 

### Workshop Scenario Elements2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 117

**Fi gur**  **e 4.3** 

### Workshop Scenarios (2035)

**D E**  **V E**  **L O**  **P ME**  **N T**  **L O**  **C A**  **T I**  **O N**  **C OM**  **MU N**  **I T**  **Y /**  **N E**  **I G**  **H B**  **O R**  **H O**  **O D**  **D E**  **S I**  **G N**  **H O**  **U S**  **I N**  **G O**  **P T**  **I O**  **N S**  **A N**  **D M**  **I X** **S C** **E N** **A R** **I O 1** **S C** **E N** **A R** **I O 2** **S C** **E N** **A R** **I O 3** **S C** **E N** **A RI** **O 4** 

### Standard Suburban Mixed-Use Walkable

Urban Infill 41% 45% 14%
**72% 28%** 

Refill Growth Greenfield Land Consumption

Large Lot Small Lot Townhome Multifamily Resulting Housing Mix 2035 New Growth to 2035
**31% 27%**  **8% 34%** 

**38% 19%**  **8% 35%** 



### Standard Suburban Mixed-Use Walkable

Urban Infill 6% 75% 19% **83% 17%** 

Refill Growth Greenfield Land Consumption

Large Lot Small Lot Townhome Multifamily Resulting Housing Mix 2035 New Growth to 2035
**2% 27%**  **22% 48%** 

**31% 19%**  **11% 39%** 



### Standard Suburban Mixed-Use Walkable

Urban Infill 4% 73% 23% **88% 12%**  Greenfield Land Consumption

Refill Growth

Large Lot Small Lot Townhome Multifamily Resulting Housing Mix 2035 New Growth to 2035
**1% 23%**  **22% 53%** 

**31% 18%**  **11% 40%** 



### Standard Suburban Mixed-Use Walkable

Urban Infill 2% 56% 42% **93% 7%**  Greenfield Land Consumption

Refill Growth

Large Lot Small Lot Townhome Multifamily Resulting Housing Mix 2035 New Growth to 2035
**1% 3%**  **8% 88%** 

**31% 14%**  **8% 47%** 

### 118 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

Although transportation system pricing, vehicle and fuels technology, and power genera

tion policies will also play a role in meeting the region’s goals, these factors were all held constant in the scenarios in order to more clearly communicate the impacts of land use and infrastructure policy options.


## Sce n ario Ou tco m e s
Once the four scenarios were created, the model was used to estimate a broad set of fiscal, environmental, and transportation impacts across the four scenarios in order to facilitate comparison. The comparative metrics generated included the following:

 Land consumption;

 GHG (CO 2 e) emissions from cars and buildings ;

 Air pollution and public health impacts;

 Fuel use and cost;

 Building energy and water use and cost; and

 Fiscal impacts, including capital infrastructure costs, operations and maintenance costs, and local revenues. As each of these metrics was measured across the scenarios, a clear improvement in impacts was observed from Scenario 1 to Scenario 4. For instance, Scenario 1 consumes 251 square miles of undeveloped land—nearly twice as much as Scenario 2, which consumes 127 square miles—to accommodate growth to 2035. Scenario 3 consumes 84 square miles and Scenario 4, which maximizes growth in urban and mixed-use configura

tions in already developed areas, brings that number down to 46 square miles. Additional results for all of the metrics can be found in Appendix: SCS Background Documentation. 

## Public Outreach W orkshops
The four scenarios were developed specifically to be presented at a series of public work

shops during the summer of 2011. These 18 workshops, required under SB 375, were held throughout the region. SCAG sought to make these workshops as transparent and interactive as possible and obtained input from over 700 participants, including residents; public agencies; elected officials; community organizations; and environmental, housing, and business stakeholders.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 119

Through PowerPoint presentations and handouts, participants were provided with a description of each scenario and an understanding of how development location, neigh

borhood design, housing options and mix, and transportation investments compared between scenarios and resulted in varying impacts for the region. With these intrinsic tradeoffs in mind, the group then engaged in a discussion of objec

tives and priorities for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, including mobility, environment, health, modes of travel, economy, safety, equity, and housing. Input was collected through anonymous remote polling instruments (the results of which were presented in real time) and group discussions. Collective input from all of the workshops showed the economy, environment, and trans

portation as top priorities for the region. Discussions focused on mobility, modes of travel, environmental and community impacts, and potential funding mechanisms. Polling results indicated a preference that future employment and commercial and residential areas be located in mixed-use areas. Most participants also indicated a desire for increased travel mode choice in the region and for transportation investments to be made in all modes (auto, bus, rail, bicycle, etc.). Additional results from the workshops can be found in Appendix: Public Participation and Consultation. 

## 2012–2035 RTP/ S C S Overall Land U se Pattern
SCAG used the feedback from local planning sessions, public outreach workshops, and consultation with local jurisdictions to work collaboratively with policymakers, stake

holders, and local governments to develop and analyze a series of 2012–2035 RTP/SCS alternatives and eventually arrive at the regional RTP/SCS. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS was built primarily from local General Plans and input from local governments using the Local Sustainability Planning Tool, from the subregional COGs and from the County Transportation Commissions. The adopted Subregional SCSs of the Gateway Cities COG and Orange County COG, including all underlying land use, socioeconomic, and transportation data, were incorporated without alteration into the regional 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. These subregional SCSs were developed in close collabo

ration with SCAG and include various strategies to help achieve estimated GHG reduction targets. The Gateway Cities COG (GCCOG) Subregional SCS, found in Appendix: Subregional SCS, was built with each local jurisdiction selecting GHG emission reduction strategies that are a blend of efforts that GCCOG and its communities have been pursuing over the last decade and future efforts that each jurisdiction plans to implement over the next



## Delegated Subregions

U nique to S CA G is a special provision within SB 375 that allows any subregional Council of G overnments (CO G s) the option of developing its own subre

gional S C S within the region. S CA G adopted a S ubregional F ramework and G uidelines (see Appendix 20) to establish standards for preparing and submit

ting a subregional S C S , while laying out S CA G ’s role in facilitating and supporting the subregional effort with data, tools, and other assistance.
The Orange County Council of G overnments and the G ateway Cities Council of G overnments chose to develop their own S C S and entered into M emoranda of U nderstanding with S CA G specifying submission schedules and standards for each component of the subregional S C S

. W hile the subregional CO G s were responsible for conducting their own research and outreach to develop their subregional S C S , they worked closely with S CA G through workshop prepara

tion, data and information sharing, and regular meetings. S CA G ’s Local S ustainability Planning Tool was also made available to the subregions along with trainings and one-on-one working sessions to assist in the review and revision of the preliminary scenarios. The two subregional S C S documents can be found, in their entirety, in Appendix: S ubregional S C S S trategies. N o adjustments were made to the land use input in either subregional S C S

.

### 120 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

25 years. GCCOG implemented an outreach program that provided stakeholders and community members various opportunities to learn about the SCS process and provide feedback. The outreach program included a stakeholder briefing to provide information about the SCS process and to address questions on related topics and public information open houses to present basic information and provide a forum for one-on-one dialogue with project team members. The Gateway Cities COG SCS combines the following five bundles of strategies to meet estimated GHG reduction targets:

 Transportation Strategies;

 Transportation Demand Management Strategies;

 Land Use Strategies;

 Regional Transportation Projects, including Measure R; and

 Interactive Effects between Land Use and Regional Transit Projects. The OCCOG Subregional SCS, also found in Appendix: Subregional SCS, combines strate

gies that show a collective effort by many Orange County jurisdictions, agencies, and groups to link transportation and land uses through a variety of processes and progres

sive measures. OCCOG conducted a series of outreach events to provide information and to solicit input on the development of the subregional OCCOG SCS. The outreach program included public meetings at various milestones in the development of the OCCOG SCS; a series of roundtable discussions with Orange County non-profit organizations; and a Web tool to facilitate and document public engagement. Each component of the outreach program introduced SB 375 and the OCCOG SCS process, provided status reports, and facilitated the opportunity for public review and comment. Central to the OCCOG SCS are the strategies identified to reduce GHG emissions. These strategies illustrate that there is already a collective effort among Orange County jurisdic

tions, agencies, and groups to link transportation and land uses through an array of pro

cesses and measures. The sustainability strategies are compiled as completed projects, ongoing projects, future projects, and General Plan policies. The scope of current and planned strategies is broad and encompasses significant investment by both the public and private sectors for implementation strategies, including:

 Promoting a land use pattern that accommodates future employment and housing needs;2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 121

 Using land in ways that make developments more compact and improve linkages among jobs, housing, and major activity centers;

 Protecting natural habitats and resource areas;

 Implementing a transportation network of public transit, managed lanes and highways, local streets, bikeways, and walkways built and maintained with available funds;

 Managing demands on the transportation system (TDM) in ways that reduce or eliminate traffic congestion during peak periods of demand;

 Managing the transportation system (TSM) through measures that maximize the efficiency of the transportation network; and

 Utilizing innovative pricing policies to reduce vehicle miles traveled and traffic con

gestion during peak periods of demand.


## co m po n e n t s o f the O verall L a n d U s e P atter n A review of local plans and subregional strategies points to the common ground that is inherent in SCAG’s 2008 Advisory Land Use Policies. The advisory land use policies are a foundation for the overall regional land use development pattern:

 **I dentify regional strategic areas for infill and investment**  – Identify strate

gic opportunity areas for infill development of aging and underutilized areas and increased investment in order to accommodate future growth.

 **S tructure the plan on a three-tiered system of centers development**  – Identify strategic centers based on a three-tiered system of existing, planned, and potential, relative to transportation infrastructure.

 **D evelop “complete communities”** 

– Create mixed-use districts, or “complete communities,” in strategic growth areas through a concentration of activities with housing, employment, and a mix of retail and services, located in close proximity to each other.

 **D evelop nodes on a corridor**  – Intensify nodes along corridors with people-scaled, mixed-use developments.

 **Plan for additional housing and jobs near transit** – Support and improve transit use and ridership by creating pedestrian-friendly environments and more compact development patterns in close proximity to transit.  **Plan for a changing demand in types of housing** – Address shifts in the labor force that will likely induce a demand shift in the housing market for additional development types such as multifamily and infill housing in central locations, which will appeal to the needs and lifestyles of these large populations.

 **Continue to protect stable, existing single-family areas** – Continue to protect stable, existing single-family neighborhoods as future growth and a more diverse housing stock are in infill locations near transit stations.

 **E nsure adequate access to open space and preservation of habitat**  – Ensure access to open space and habitat preservation despite competing quality-of-life demands driven by growth, housing and employment needs, and traditional develop

ment patterns.

 **I ncorporate local input and feedback on future growth**  – Continue public outreach efforts and incorporate local input through public workshops, scenario planning, and stakeholder outreach. These policies have evolved over time and serve as the basis for SCAG’s Compass Blueprint, a regional voluntary program that offers innovative planning tools, creative strategies, and collaborative partnerships to all local governments within the region. Since its inception, Compass Blueprint has supported local Demonstration Projects that seek to improve mobility for all residents, foster livability in all communities, enable pros

perity for all people, and promote sustainability for future generations. In addition to Compass Blueprint, cities and counties within the SCAG region continue to implement their own local land use and transportation projects that support the goals of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. These local efforts were considered in the development of the overall land use pattern of the RTP/SCS. Throughout this chapter, there are examples of plans and projects that advance the goals of the RTP/SCS at the local level. A com

plete list of RTP/SCS supportive projects can be found in Appendix: SCS Background Documentation and a complete list of transportation projects can be found in Appendix: Project List. SCAG reviewed the input received from local jurisdictions between May 2009 and August 2011 and analyzed land use trends that have been occurring within the region in recent years. It is clear that there has been, and continues to be, a significant trend of local

## Compass Blueprint

S ince 2004, Compass B lueprint has been a model for integrating land use and transportation planning and turning regional vision into local reality. G uided by four core principles– M obility, Livability, Prosperity and S ustainability–the program has effectively given the region a “jump-start” in building its sustainable communities, and implementing this S C S in partnership with our local partners. At the core of Compass B lueprint are Demonstration Projects–incentive-based, voluntary partnerships between S CA G and local governments that apply innovative approaches and tools to local plans that support regional priorities. As of J anuary 2012, S CA G has provided over $13.6 million in incentive funds for 134 Demonstration Projects in 95 jurisdictions. Projects have included transit-oriented development plans for station areas along new light-rail alignments, downtown revitalization efforts, community visioning projects in low-income communities, and other projects that support shared local and regional goals. **E xhi**  **b it 4.4**  

### shows all completed Compass B lueprint Demonstration Projects to date. A complete list of past and current Compass B lueprint Demonstration Projects can be found in Appendix: S C S B ackground Documentation.

F uture Demonstration Projects will continue to serve as models for the region by focusing on regionally significant local plans that directly implement the S C S and its goal of translating policy to on-the-ground land use changes and multi-modal transportation improve

ments. Concurrently, Compass B lueprint will further incentivize local implementation of the S C S through the Compass B lueprint Awards Program, recognizing models of innovative planning in the region, and through the Toolbox Tuesdays program–free, monthly, professional training events for local planners in cutting-edge planning tools and approaches developed in Demonstration Projects.

Image courtesy of SANBAG Image courtesy of City of Los Angeles**E xhi**  **b it 4.4**  

### Compass Blueprint Demonstration Projects

### 124 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

development policies and decisions toward increased integration of land use and trans

portation. Signs of this trend include:

 Changing demographics and housing market demand;

 Redevelopment of main streets, downtowns, and corridors to vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods;

 Transit-oriented development adjacent to rail station areas and along major bus cor

ridors; and

 Protection of resource areas and farmland. In most cases, current adopted local General Plans do not go out as far in time as the plan’s horizon year of 2035. Thus, in developing the overall land use development pattern, SCAG identified strategic opportunity areas within city and county boundaries to logically continue recent development trends to 2035. While maintaining local jurisdictions’ input for growth totals for both 2020 and 2035, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS incorporates the fol

lowing within the regional model:

 Compass Blueprint Demonstration Projects that can reasonably be expected to be implemented by 2035;

 Additional local growth that jurisdictions have indicated subsequent to the local input process being completed in 2011;

 Future multiple family residential and employment growth that are emphasized in planned High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) post-2020 to a greater extent than cur

rently portrayed in current General Plans, which do not go out to 2035;

 Future multiple family residential and employment growth that is also emphasized along main streets, historic downtowns, and other appropriate corridors post-2020 to create mixed-use and walkable “transit-ready” communities to a greater extent than currently portrayed in current General Plans, which do not go out to 2035; and

 A shift from single-family residential development toward multifamily residential development post-2020 to a greater extent than currently portrayed in General Plans to reflect recent trends seen during the past 20 years.
(Note: Land use inputs for OCCOG and GCCOG SCS were unchanged.) 

## Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) and Community/Development Types To conduct required modeling analysis for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, SCAG distributes the growth forecast data to transportation analysis zones (TAZs) to capture localized effects of the interaction of land use and transportation. The TAZ-level maps have been devel

oped for the purpose of modeling performance only. The growth and land use assump

tions for the RTP/SCS are to be adopted at the jurisdictional level. Based on statutory requirements of SB 375 (Government Code Section 65584.04(i), subparagraphs (1) and (3)), the Regional Housing Needs Assessment must be consistent with the RTP/SCS land use development pattern. The RHNA allocation being adopted at the jurisdictional level necessitates that the SCS be based on a jurisdictional level growth distribution. To further facilitate regional modeling of land use information from nearly 200 sepa

rate jurisdictions, SCAG developed a simplified series of Community Types to represent the various land use categories contained in the region’s many General Plans. Each Community Type is comprised of various characteristics related to employment and housing density, urban design, mix of land uses, and transportation options. The land

Image courtesy of Humane Design2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 125

use pattern maps presented in this chapter use five Community Types: urban, city, town, suburban, and rural. These five are further divided into 13 Development Types that each articulates use designations, densities, and building intensities. Details describing the characteristics contained within each of the five Community Types and 13 Development Types are available in Appendix: SCS Background Documentation. Utilizing TAZs and Community/Development Types and incorporating local input and land use trends, the overall land use pattern considers the following factors:

 Urbanized Core vs. Periphery;

 Changing Demographics and Housing Market Demand;

 Adjustments for Housing Capacity;

 Main Streets, Downtowns, and Corridors;

 Resource Areas and Farmland; and

 Transit Stations and High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA).


## U rbanized Core vs. Periphery As the largest Metropolitan Planning Organization in the nation, SCAG encompasses a geographical area of great diversity. From its population to its industries, lifestyles, environments, and political climates, planning for a region of this size and scope is never a “one size fits all” approach. The greatest distinction is between the region’s urbanized core and its peripheral areas.

**E xhi**  **b it 4.5**  shows the locations of urban centers within the SCAG region. These are areas where strategies such as compact community design, mixed-use development, redevel

opment of aging retail areas, greater housing variety, and additional transit service are more likely to succeed. Conversely, less dense areas in the periphery may benefit from different strategies. The overall land use pattern takes these differences into account. 

## Changing Demographics and Housing M arket Demand SB 375 combines transportation and housing planning by integrating the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process with the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. Specifically, Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(B), subparagraphs (iii) and (vi), requires that the SCS identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the regional housing need and consider the state housing goals specified in Government Code Sections 65580 and 65581. SCAG has been engaged in the RHNA process concurrently with the development of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. This process requires SCAG to work with its member agencies to identify areas within the region that can provide sufficient housing for all economic segments of the population and ensure that the state’s housing goals are met. The SCAG region’s official regional housing need from the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) for the planning period 2014–2021 is 409,000–438,000 housing units. Of these, approximately 164,000–176,000 are expected to be in the very low- and low-income category (affordable to those who make less than80 percent of area median income), 72,000–77,000 are expected to be in the moderateincome category (affordable to those who make between 80 percent and 120 percent of median income), and 173,000–185,000 are expected to be offered at the above moder

ate-income category. The regional target determined by HCD considered projected household growth and socio

economic data based on local input, the 2010 Census, and the California Department of Finance. As part of its determination, HCD considered current economic conditions, which have contributed to a high number of vacancies for many communities, often in excess of a healthy market rate. For this reason, HCD permitted the application of a one-time excess vacancy credit due to abnormal market conditions, slightly lowering preliminary housing unit growth expectations for the eight-year planning period. The RHNA Allocation was developed with reliance on local input on projected household growth and responses to local surveys. Results from the surveys support consistency with the state housing goals by encompassing a variety of planning factors that identify opportunities and constraints for jurisdictions to plan for housing at all income levels. These factors include the availability of suitable land, market demand for housing, dis

tribution of household growth along transit corridors, and replacement need. To address increasing concerns regarding affordability, each jurisdiction’s future housing need is

### 126 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy



## Community Types
The Community Types employed in the RTP/ S C S are not intended to represent detailed land use policies, but are used to describe the general condi

tions likely to occur within a specific area. The following Community Types are each comprised of specific characteristics related to jobs and housing density, urban design and mix of land uses, and transportation options. These five are further divided into 13 Development Types, which additionally express land use designations, densities, and building intensities. Detailed descriptions of these Community Types and more specific Development Types are found in Appendix: S C S B ackground Documentation.

**Urban** U rban areas are the highest intensity Community Types. These centrally located districts have significant amounts of employment and corre

sponding residential uses and retail, typically located in a dense cluster of multistory buildings and high-rise buildings. U rban areas are also typically located at the convergence of a number of high-capacity transit facilities complemented by non-auto infrastructure that also provides access and connectivity. **City** The City Community Type is on average one-half the intensity of the U rban Community Type. These areas contain significant employment centers and a mix of medium- and high-density housing, supported by retail and daily services. One to two high-capacity transit facilities, a number of bus routes, and non-auto infrastructure provide access and connectivity to a range of activities and locations.
**T own**  The Town Community Type provides low- to medium-density housing opportunities that are located close to local-serving retail and daily services. These areas are characterized by an employment core or an independent job center in low- to mid-rise structures. S idewalks and bike facilities are adequate and the areas benefit from one high-capacity transit facility and local buses. **S uburban**  S uburban areas contain a mix of uses, but often have one predomi

nant use, such as residential or office. Residential areas are typically low density with larger lots and are separated from retail and other daily service uses. Though these areas are predominantly served by automobiles, bus service and commuter rail may also operate in certain neighborhoods.
**Rural** Rural areas include both jobs and housing, though these two uses are rarely found in close proximity to each other. Housing is characterized by acreage lots and ranches and is often far from commercial and employ

ment activities, which occur in isolated nodes located on rural crossroads and highway services zones. Transit and non-auto facilities rarely serve these areas, making automobile use the most frequent mode of travel.

### 127

**E xhi**  **b it 4.5**  

### Urban Centers SCAG Regionadjusted to balance the proportion of affordable housing by county across the region. This adjustment considers areas that have a high proportion of certain income groups and adjusts future household growth toward a goal of social equity. This mitigates overcon

centration of income groups and encourages planning for affordable housing in areas with limited opportunities in affordable housing. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS incorporates the overall RHNA target for the SCAG region and provides a land use pattern that shows where new housing growth can be accommodated in the future. In 2008, the SCAG region was comprised of about 17.9 million people, 5.8 million homes, and 7.7 million jobs. The 2035 Integrated Growth Forecast projects that the region will grow by another 4 million people by 2035, and nearly 1.5 million house

holds and 1.7 million jobs will be added. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS land use pattern con

tains sufficient residential capacity to accommodate the region’s future growth, including the eight-year regional housing need, as shown in **T a**  **bl e 4.1**  . The land use pattern accommodates approximately 644,000 additional households in the SCAG region by 2020 and a total of 1.5 million additional households by 2035. As shown in **T a**  **bl e 4.2**  , the land use pattern also encourages improvement in the jobs-housing balance by accommodating 676,000 additional jobs by 2020 and approximately 1.7 million additional jobs by 2035.

**T a**  **bl e 4.1**  

### Summary of Total Households Forecasted in RTP/SCS

**Community T** 

**ype E**  **xisting H**  **ouse**   ** holds** **(2008) T**  **otal Forecasted**  **H ouseholds**  **(2020) N**  **ew H**  **ouse**   ** holds** **(2008– 2020)**  **T otal**  **Forecasted**

**H ouse**  **** **holds (2035)**  **N ew**  **H ouseholds** 

**(2008– 2035)** 
Urban 138,000 183,000 44,000 224,000 86,000 City 685,000 755,000 70,000 948,000 263,000 Town 2,496,000 2,744,000 248,000 3,088,000 592,000 Suburban 2,333,000 2,562,000 229,000 2,781,000 448,000 Rural 162,000 215,000 53,000 284,000 122,000 **T otal**  **5,814,000 6,458,000**  **644,000 7,325,000**  **1,511,000** 

## Local Efforts

**E l Centro**  **D owntown Revitalization**  Downtown El Centro is a historic and distinct part of Imperial County that contains many businesses, restaurants, shops, ser

vices, and public spaces. After many years of focusing on new development in other portions of El Centro, the City and local stakeholders recognized a need for revitalization. A highly col

laborative visioning effort, undertaken in partnership with S CA G ’s Compass B lueprint, resulted in a new Downtown Plan that contains incentives and design guidelines for improved walkability and mixed-use development, including housing.

Image courtesy of City of El Centro2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 129

**T a**  **bl e 4.2**  

### Summary of Total Jobs Forecasted in RTP/SCS

**Community T** 

**ype E**  **xisting Jobs**  **(2008) T**  **otal Forecasted**  **Jobs (2020)**  **N ew**  **Jobs (2008–**  **2020) T**  **otal Forecasted**  **Jobs (2035)**  **N ew Jobs**  **(2008– 2035)** 
Urban 503,000 534,000 31,000 577,000 74,000 City 1,029,000 1,078,000 49,000 1,228,000 199,000 Town 2,872,000 3,077,000 205,000 3,493,000 621,000 Suburban 3,185,000 3,530,000 345,000 3,895,000 710,000 Rural 149,000 195,000 46,000 248,000 99,000 **T otal**  **7,738,000 8,414,000**  **676,000 9,441,000**  **1,703,000**

Currently, SCAG is home to approximately 6 million households, 55 percent of which live in detached single-family homes. The region is expected to add 644,000 new households by 2020 and a total of 1.5 million new households by 2035. The changing nature of these households means that there will most likely be less demand for single-family homes on large lots. In the postwar era that shaped the popular image of Southern California, most households consisted of parents with children. In the 21st century this no longer holds true, and today, only a small number of households have children at home, and the number of households without children—including senior citizens and young people form

ing their first household—is dramatically increasing. As a result, there is an expected increase in demand for small-lot single-family houses and multifamily housing in close proximity to amenities, including local shopping and transit service. This shift in demographics and household demand is apparent in the land use devel

opment pattern of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, which assumes a significant increase in small-lot single-family and multifamily housing that will mostly occur in infill locations near transit infrastructure. In some cases, the land use pattern assumes that more of these housing types will be built than is currently anticipated in local General Plans, and, in most cases, this shift in housing type—especially the switch from large-lot to small-lot single-family homes—will occur naturally in the marketplace as developers shift to prod

ucts in high demand. In 2008, 45 percent of total households were multifamily products. The RTP/SCS projects that in 2035, 68 percent of new homes built in the SCAG region will be multifamily units. Of the 644,000 new households expected in 2020, 28 percent will be at a minimum 30 dwelling units per acre, and of the 1.5 million new households expected by 2035, 33 percent will be at a minimum 30 dwelling units per acre. In accordance with Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(B)(ii), these projected housing densities will help the region accommodate the projected housing needs at all income levels over the life of the RTP, especially at the lower-income categories. Additionally, SCAG moves toward improving the current distribution of households by income category in the region through the allocation of projected housing needs at the local level. Appendix: SCS Background Documentation lists the draft local RHNA allocations by jurisdiction. When the final RHNA plan is adopted in October 2012, SCAG jurisdictions will revise their Housing Elements to accommodate their respective allocations. The SCS’s strategies will inform the development of those Housing Elements. As significant changes occur in existing communities, there is potential for “gentrifica

tion,” or the displacement of lower-income residents, if new development raises housing costs in a neighborhood. As the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS is implemented, jurisdictions in the SCAG region must be sensitive to the possibility of gentrification and work to employ strategies that can ameliorate it. One strategy is the general approach of higher-density infill development, which means that neighborhoods will be adding to the local hous

ing stock rather than maintaining the current stock and simply changing the residential population. A second is the development of permanently affordable housing, through deed restrictions or development by non-profit developers, which will ensure that some units will remain affordable to lower-income households. SCAG will work with local jurisdic

tions and community stakeholders to seek resources and provide assistance to address possible gentrification effects of new development on existing communities and vulner

able populations. 

## Adjustments for Housing Capacity As SCAG and its partner jurisdictions created the overall land use pattern in the Plan, it became apparent that some parts of the urbanized core planned for household growth greater than the amount in the Integrated Growth Forecast, while some areas in the region’s periphery had less housing capacity than the forecast assumptions. For this

### 130 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

reason, the land use development pattern of the RTP/SCS shifts an additional 15,000 households from the periphery into the urbanized core by 2020 and an additional 50,000 households by 2035, per consultation with the local jurisdictions. The areas receiving additional growth between 2020 and 2035 are well served by transit with a mix of uses and other design elements that will relatively reduce the need for auto travel. This adjustment allowed the land use pattern to conform more closely to local General Plans, while reducing the amount of vehicle miles traveled.


## M ain S treets, Downtowns, and Corridors
The demand for smaller lots and multifamily housing often goes hand in hand with a desire to be close to amenities, retail, restaurants, and recreation. The land use pattern places a high percentage of new housing and jobs in main streets, downtowns, and along corridors where infrastructure already exists. This geographical placement makes sense given the SCAG region’s trend toward revitalization of these older, traditionally commer

cial areas. Such a pattern has many co-benefits, including walking access to community amenities, lower VMT, lower transportation costs for both cities and individuals, and lower overall infrastructure cost.


## Resource Areas and F armland In identifying the overall land use pattern, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS also considers areas to be protected from development, as required by Government Code Section 65080(b)(2) (B)(v). These parklands, open space, natural resource areas, and farmland, are critical for the region’s environmental and economic health. **E xhi**  **b its 4.6, 4.7,**  and **4.8** show the locations of these areas. Data gathered from the sources listed below were provided to local jurisdictions in the region for review and revision. The updated information was then used to ensure the protection of resource areas in the development of the overall land use pattern.

 California Natural Diversity Database (California Department of Fish and Game);

 Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Federal Emergency Management Agency);

 Natural Community Conservation Planning Program (California Department of Fish and Game);

 California Protected Areas Database (GreenInfo); and  Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (Division of Land Resource Protection in California Department of Conservation). SCAG is also developing a natural lands acquisition and open space conservation by des

ignated conservancies strategy that encourage acquisition and management of important habitat lands to mitigate impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, related to future transportation projects. The strategy will identify appropriate agencies to collaborate with to develop a regional conservation plan based on identified priority areas. SCAG will include a regional mitigation plan for inclusion in the 2016 RTP.


## Transit S tations and High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA)
The overall land use pattern focuses jobs and housing in the region’s designated HighQuality Transit Areas (HQTA), as illustrated in **E xhi**  **b it 4.9**  . An HQTA is generally a walkable transit village, consistent with the adopted SCS, and is within one-half mile of a well-serviced transit stop, and includes transit corridors with minimum 15-minute or less service frequency during peak commute hours. Within these boundaries, this adjusted growth distribution within a given juridiction is consistent with the Integrated Growth Forecast for that jurisdiction and is distributed according to the jurisdiction’s land

Image courtesy of Safe Routes to School2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 131

use plans. Thus, while areas within 1⁄2 mile of a transit stop or corridor are walkable in relation to transit, not all such areas are targeted for growth and/or land use changes. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS assumes that 51 percent of new housing developed between 2008 and 2035 will be within HQTAs, along with 53 percent of new employment growth (compared with 39 and 48 percent, respectively, in 2008). Aligning a high-quality transit network with new housing and jobs offers Southern Californians more complete com

munities with a variety of transportation and housing choices, while reducing the negative impacts of automobile use on public health and the environment.


## tra ns portatio n n et w or k a n d s trate g ie s The land use and housing mix in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS is inextricably linked to a transportation network and a set of transportation strategies that, as required by Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(B)(iv), services the transportation needs of the region. Chapter 2 of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS incorporates the following transportation network enhancements and management approaches that offer a variety of mode choices, increase efficiency and mobility, and improve access for all users in the region: 

## Transportation N etwork The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS calls for an expanded transportation network that will comple

ment the overall land use pattern’s focus on locating new growth in High-Quality Transit Areas and other opportunity areas, which in turn allows the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS to leverage greater improvement in transportation capacity and system operations than would otherwise be the case. Working together, these complementary land use and transportation strategies can significantly reduce VMT—a primary goal of SB 375—by increasing transit ridership, increasing walking and biking, and reducing the length of auto trips.



## Benefits of Integrating Land Use and Transportation

**1. Better Placemaking**  Creating better places for people to live and work, such as walking and bicycling opportunities, varied housing options, and more compact devel

opment, can reduce travel time and relieve road congestion.
**2. Lower Cost to**  **T axpayers and Families**  Developing more compact neighborhoods and placing everyday destina

tions closer together can reduce the burden of development to taxpayers and reduce the everyday costs of housing and transportation for all.
**3. Benefits to Public**  **H ealth and the**  **E nvironment**  B etter placemaking and reducing the footprint of new development will provide more opportunities for an active lifestyle and protect natural resources and greenfield sites. **4. Greater Responsiveness to**  **D emographics and**  **the Changing H**  **ousing M**  **arket** M ore walkable neighborhoods with varied housing options and transpor

tation choices will be more responsive to the changes in market demand being driven by the region’s demographic changes.
**5. I**  **mproved A**  **ccess and M**  **obility** Enhancing critical auto connections and increasing alternative transpor

tation options can improve people’s ability to move around the region and provide easy access to everyday destinations.

### 132

**E xhi**  **b it 4.6**  

### Natural Resource Areas SCAG Region

### 133

**E xhi**  **b it 4.7**  

### Open Space SCAG Region

### 134

**E xhi**  **b it 4.8**  

### Farmland SCAG RegionAs shown in **E xhi**  **b it 4.10**  , the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS calls for an expansion of the public transit network and transit service on new and existing routes, resulting in greater transit accessibility and connectivity throughout the region—a complement to the strategy of focusing new growth in HQTAs. Funded in large part by local county sales tax programs, transit network expansion includes the addition of new corridors and lengthening existing ones in Los Angeles County through Measure R; introduction of the first bus rapid transit (BRT) systems and increasing Metrolink service in Orange County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County; establishment of new trolley systems in the cities of Santa Ana, Anaheim, and Garden Grove; and the introduction of the rail connection from Downtown San Bernardino to Redlands. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS also proposes three passenger rail strategies that will provide additional travel options for long distance travel within the region and to neighboring regions. These include improvements to the LOSSAN Corridor, improvements to the existing Metrolink system, and implementation of the California High- Speed Train (HST) project. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS also includes a notable increase in the regional active transpor

tation network, as shown in **E xhi**  **b it 4.11**  . Rainfall in the SCAG region typically averages only 30 days per year, which provides ideal conditions for walking and bicycling. Active transportation is an essential part of the SCAG transportation system, is low cost, does not emit greenhouse gases, can help reduce roadway congestion, and increases health and the quality of life of residents. Active transportation will receive a total of $6.7 billion in available revenues under the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS compared to $1.8 billion in the 2008 RTP, which represents an increase of more than 200 percent. This emphasis signifies an important opportunity to advance the goals of SB 375 by increasing non-motorized modes of transportation, thereby expanding access to a variety of land uses and transit and improving public health and air quality. Along with strategic capacity enhancements and technological improvements to exist

ing highways (as shown in **E xhi**  **b it 4.12**  ) and local streets, including the implementation of a high-occupancy toll (HOT) network, these transit, rail, and active transportation expansions complement the preferred land use pattern and support the expected growth throughout the region. The overall land use pattern’s focus on locating additional growth in High-Quality Transit Areas relies on the development of high-capacity transit stations and efficient transportation corridors, lead to significant VMT reductions and other ben

efits due to higher walk/bike mode share, more transit use, and shorter auto trips. 

## Local Efforts
**Feasibility S**  **tudy of S**  **an Bernardino M**  **ountain- V**  **alley Railway S**  **ystem** S CA G recently partnered with the S an B ernardino Associated G overnments ( S A NB A G ) and Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA) to study the feasibility of a S an B ernardino M ountain-Valley railway system that would provide a reliable, clean form of trans

portation for residents and visitors between the S an B ernardino Valley and the mountain communities, including B ig B ear Lake, with connecting travel options at both ends.

**Los A**  **ngeles County’s M**  **easure R** The 2012 RTP/ S C S ’s network includes all projects funded by the region’s newest sales tax measure, Los Angeles County’s M easure R. This measure provides more funding to transit than any other category, with about a dozen projects that improve and expand the region’s transit system. These projects include M etrolink capital improvements, extensions to several M etro Rail lines, and new clean-fuel bus purchases.

Photograph courtesy of Metro. ©2012 LACMTA

### 136

**E xhi**  **b it 4.9**  

### High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) SCAG Region

### 137

**E xhi**  **b it 4.10**  

### Transit Network SCAG Region

### 138

**E xhi**  **b it 4.11**  

### Proposed Bikeway Network SCAG Region

### 139

**E xhi**  **b it 4.12**  

### Proposed Highway Improvements SCAG Region

## Local Efforts

**Fullerton T**  **ransportation Center and Corridor Redevelopment** The City of F ullerton has embraced sustainability as a framework for planning its future in both the transportation and land use arenas. M ost notably, the area around the F ullerton Transportation Center is a model of transit-oriented design that encourages walking, bicycling, and transit. The City’s ongoing plans in this area continue to attract development of housing, restaurants, retail, and other amenities. F urthermore, its commitment to redeveloping its auto-oriented corridors serves to improve connections to nearby hospitals, schools, and employment centers.
**Long Beach Boulevard Corridor** Along the Long B each B oulevard Corridor, out-of-date parking standards have hindered development and impacted housing affordability. To address this, the City of Long B each began a multi-phase project to implement a new zoning code that facilitates transit-oriented development along the M etro B lue Line. The City also continues its commitment to respond to the changing needs of the area by seeking grant funding for new bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

**T emecula**  **O ld**  **T own**  **S pecific Plan**  F or the residents of Temecula, Old Town represents a place where tradition and new opportunities combine to form the heart of the community. To support this vision, the City updated the Old Town S pecific Plan to encourage a pedestrianoriented, urban downtown that allows for a variety of land uses. The plan sets forth land use designations and development standards for more flexible and creative uses of properties and provides for a balance between commercial and residential development in the area. Image courtesy of City of Fullerton

Image courtesy of City of Long Beach

Image courtesy of City of Temecula2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 141



## Local Efforts

**V entura**  **D owntown Parking**  **M anagement**  **D istrict**  In order to solve the apparent parking shortage in its downtown area, the City of Ventura completed a downtown parking study. The study revealed that plenty of spaces were available in nearby city-owned lots, while other prime spaces in close proximity to local businesses were in high demand and always occupied. Local business employees were parking in the spaces most coveted by customers and patrons. The City’s solution to the problem: a flexible, demand-responsive paid parking district. Parking in downtown Ventura has since improved, contributing to a better downtown experience. 

## Travel Demand M anagement (TD M ) In addition to the transportation network, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS also relies on strate

gic and extensive Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures that support the expected land use pattern. These cost-effective strategies improve the effectiveness and capacity of the transportation system by supporting a shift from single-occupancy vehicle use to other alternatives. Many local jurisdictions in our region have become national lead

ers in the implementation of TDM strategies. For example, SCAG is working with local jurisdictions to close the gaps in the regional bikeway network and bring 12,000 miles of deficient sidewalks into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). TDM measures will receive a total of $4.5 billion in available revenues compared to $1.3 billion in 2008, a more than 200 percent increase. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS employs the following TDM measures to improve mobility and access:

 Bringing the majority of sidewalks and intersections in our region into American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance to increase the usability and effectiveness of our active transportation system;

 Promoting telecommuting and flexible work schedules;  Development of mobility hubs for first mile/last mile connectivity;

 Expanding parking cash out programs in urban areas; and

 Promoting Guaranteed Ride Home programs. 

## Transportation S ystem M anagement (T SM ) Transportation System Management (TSM) measures also support the goals of the RTP/ SCS by making improvements to increase capacity and improve operational efficiency. These techniques contribute to improved traffic flow, better air quality, and improved system accessibility and safety. The following TSM measures support the forecasted land use development pattern of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS:

 Enhanced incident management;

 Advanced ramp metering;

 Corridor System Management plans;

 Traffic signal synchronization; and

 Improved data collection.

Image courtesy of Rachel So

### 142 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy



## Local Efforts

**S outh Bay Cities Council of Governments**  **N eighborhood-**  **O riented**  **D esign Program**  The S outh B ay Cities Council of G overnments adopted the S ustainable S outh B ay S trategy in S eptember 2010 to promote sustainable land use and transportation investment in the S outh B ay. F ounded on the concept of N eighborhood-Oriented Development ( N OD), this plan will create compact, mixed commercial nodes in the center of each residential neighborhood. S pecifically, it will intensify commercial uses at the corners of major arterials, transition mid-block strip commercial to residential, and encourage street-fronting buildings with parking at the rear. The resulting development pattern will provide a cluster of destinations within walk

ing distance of every residence, with mid-range trips accessible by local use (electric) vehicles. 

## Transportation Conformity The policy objectives and strategies in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS are aimed at reducing travel distances and providing additional travel choices. In accordance with Govt. Code Section 65080(b)(2)(B)(viii), the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS complies with the conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act, as further detailed in Appendix: Transportation Conformity.


## overall la n d us e patter n m ap s
The following maps, **E xhi**  **b it 4.13**  through **E xhi**  **b it 4.19**  , identify the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS overall forecasted land use pattern for the region and its counties in 2035. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS land use development pattern accommodates over 50 percent of new housing and employment growth in High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA), while keeping jurisdictional totals consistent with local input. The Plan includes more compact, mixed-use development, leading to more opportunities for walking and biking, more transit use, and shorter auto trips. The Plan includes the demand for a broader range of housing types, including the development of smaller lot single-family homes, townhomes, and multifamily condominiums and apartments. A detailed description of the general location of uses, residential densities, and building intensities can be found in Appendix: SCS Background Documentation pursuant to Govt. Code section 65080(b)(2) (B)(i). Photograph courtesy of Safe Routes to School

### 143

**E xhi**  **b it 4.13**  

### Land Use Pattern SCAG Region (2035)

### 144

**E xhi**  **b it 4.14**  

### Land Use Pattern Ventura County (2035)

### 145

**E xhi**  **b it 4.15**  

### Land Use Pattern Los Angeles County (2035)

### 146

**E xhi**  **b it 4.16**  

### Land Use Pattern San Bernardino County (2035)

### 147

**E xhi**  **b it 4.17**  

### Land Use Pattern Orange County (2035)

### 148

**E xhi**  **b it 4.18**  

### Land Use Pattern Riverside County (2035)

### 149

**E xhi**  **b it 4.19**  

### Land Use Pattern Imperial County (2035)

## CEQA Incentive

SB 375 provides incentives in the form of CEQA streamlining to encourage community design that supports reduction in per capita G H G emissions. G enerally, two types of projects are eligible for streamlined CEQA review once a compliant RTP/ S C S has been adopted: (1) residential/mixed-use projects (consistent with the S C S ) or (2) a Transit Priority Project (TPP). S ee Appendix: S C S B ackground Documentation for more information on CEQA streamlining incentives through SB 375.

**Residential/ M**  **ixed-Use Projects** Residential and mixed-use projects that are consistent with the S C S qualify for streamlined CEQA review if at least 75 percent of the total building square footage consists of residential use (or a project that is a TPP). If a project meets these requirements and is consistent with the use designation, density, building intensity and applicable policy of the S C S , any environmental review conducted will not be required to discuss growth inducing impacts; any project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light duty truck trips generated by the project upon its completion on climate change or the regional transportation network; or a reduced density alternative. **T ransit Priority Projects (**  **T PP)**  A Transit Priority Project (TPP) is eligible for CEQA streamlining if it is consistent with the S C S ; contains at least 50 percent residential use; is proposed to be developed at a minimum 20 dwelling units per acre; and is located within 1⁄2 mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor that is included in the RTP. If a project meets these criteria, it may be ana

lyzed under a new environmental document created by SB 375, called the S ustainable Communities Environmental Assessment ( S CEA), or through an EIR for which the content requirements have been reduced. Alternatively, a TPP can be considered a S ustainable Communities Project ( S CP) and be eligible for a new full CEQA exemption if it further meets the additional requirements beyond the base criteria.
Lead agencies (including local jurisdictions) maintain the discretion and will be solely responsible for determining consistency of any future proj

ect with the S C S

. S CA G staff may provide a lead agency at the time of its request readily available data and documentation to help support its find

ing upon request.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 151



# 2012–2035 RTP/ S C S N ext S teps
The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS is first and foremost a transportation plan. However, the transportation network in the RTP/SCS and the growth patterns envisioned in the Plan Alternative must complement each other. Integration of transportation and land use is essential for improved mobility and access to transportation options. SB 375 calls for the integration of land use policies with transportation investments and asks that Metropolitan Planning Organizations identify, quantify, and highlight co-benefits throughout the process. SB 375 provides CEQA incentives for development projects that are consistent with the regional SCS and help meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Lead agencies (including local jurisdictions) maintain the discretion and will be solely responsible for determining consistency of any future project with the SCS. Cities and counties maintain their existing authority over local planning and land use decisions, including discretion in certifying the environmental review for a project, regardless of eligibility for streamlining. To achieve the goals of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, public agencies at all levels of govern

ment may implement a wide range of strategies that focus on four key areas:

 A Land Use growth pattern that accommodates the region’s future employment and housing needs and protects sensitive habitat and natural resource areas;

 A Transportation Network that consists of public transit, highways, local streets, bikeways, and walkways;

 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures that reduce peak-period demand on the transportation network; and

 Transportation System Management (TSM) measures that maximize the efficiency of the transportation network. The following tables list specific implementation strategies that local governments, SCAG, and other stakeholders may consider in order to successfully implement the SCS.



## Local Efforts

**O ntario**  **N ew**  **M odel Colony General Plan**  S ince 1998, the City of Ontario has been developing a bold vision for its future growth, including the adoption of its G eneral Plan and add

ing 3,303 acres of former agricultural land into its sphere of influence. The City’s recent plans call for 13,000 new housing units across a broad range of housing types and a mix of business spaces oriented toward three mixed-use centers that are served by pedestrian-friendly road

ways and a large central park. Emphasizing connections to corridors and transit, the City is creating a major regional center for S outhern California.

Image courtesy of City of Ontario

### 152 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

**T a**  **bl e 4.3**  

### Land Use Actions and Strategies

**Proposed A**  **ction/ S**  **trategy Responsible Party(ies)** 

Coordinate ongoing visioning efforts to build consensus on growth issues among local governments and stakeholders. SCAG Provide incentives and technical assistance to local governments to encourage projects and programs that balance the needs of the region SCAG Collaborate with local jurisdictions and agencies to acquire a regional fair share housing allocation that reflects existing and future needs. SCAG, Local Jurisdictions, HCD Expand Compass Blueprint program to support member cities in the development of bicycle, pedestrian, Safe Routes to Schools, Safe Routes to Transit, and ADA Transition plans. SCAG, State

Continue to support, through Compass Blueprint, local jurisdictions and sub-regional COGs adopting neighborhood-oriented development, suburban villages, and revitalized main streets as livability strategies in areas not served by high-quality transit. SCAG, State, Local Jurisdictions, COGs

Encourage the use of range-limited battery electric and other alternative fueled vehicles through policies and programs, such as, but not limited to, neighborhood oriented development, complete streets, and Electric (and other alternative fuel) Vehicle Supply Equipment in public parking lots. Local Jurisdictions, COGs, SCAG, CTCs

Continue to support, through Compass Blueprint, planning for new mobility modes such as range- limited Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) and other alternative fueled vehicles. SCAG, State

Collaborate with the region’s public health professionals to enhance how SCAG addresses public health issues in its regional planning, programming, and project development activities. SCAG, State, Local Jurisdictions

Support projects, programs, and policies that support active and healthy community environments that encourage safe walking, bicycling, and physical activity by children, including, but not limited to development of complete streets, school siting policies, joint use agree

ments, and bicycle and pedestrian safety education. Local Jurisdictions, SCAG

Seek partnerships with state, regional, and local agencies to acquire funding sources for innovative planning projects. Local Jurisdictions, SCAG, State Update local zoning codes, General Plans, and other regulatory policies to accelerate adoption of land use strategies included in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Plan Alternative, or that have been formally adopted by any sub-regional COG that is consistent with regional goals. Local Jurisdictions
Update local zoning codes, General Plans, and other regulatory policies to promote a more balanced mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and institutional uses located to provide options and to contribute to the resiliency and vitality of neighborhoods and districts. Local Jurisdictions

Support projects, programs, policies and regulations that encourage the development of complete communities, which includes a diversity of housing choices and educational opportunities, jobs for a variety of skills and education, recreation and culture, and a full-range of shopping, entertainment and services all within a relatively short distance. Local Jurisdictions, SCAG

Pursue joint development opportunities to encourage the development of housing and mixed-use projects around existing and planned rail stations or along high-frequency bus corridors, in transit-oriented development areas, and in neighborhood-serving commercial areas. Local Jurisdictions, CTCs

Working with local jurisdictions, identify resources that can be used for employing strategies to maintain and assist in the development of affordable housing. SCAG, Local Jurisdictions

Consider developing healthy community or active design guidelines that promote physical activity and improved health. Local Jurisdictions2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 153

**Proposed A**  **ction/ S**  **trategy Responsible Party(ies)**  Support projects, programs, policies, and regulations to protect resources areas, such as natural habitats and farmland, from future development. Local Jurisdictions, SCAG

Create incentives for local jurisdictions and agencies that support land use policies and housing options that achieve the goals of SB 375. State, SCAG Continue partnership with regional agencies to increase availability of state funding for integrated land use and transportation projects in the region. State, SCAG

Engage in a strategic planning process to determine the critical components and implementation steps for identifying and addressing open space resources, including increasing and preserving park space, specifically in park-poor communities. Local Jurisdictions, SCAG

Identify and map regional priority conservation areas for potential inclusion in future plans. SCAG Engage with various partners, including CTCs and local agencies, to determine priority conservation areas and develop an implementable plan. SCAG, CTCs

Develop regional mitigation policies or approaches for the 2016 RTP. SCAG, CTCs

### 154 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

**T a**  **bl e 4.4**  

### Transportation Network Actions and Strategies

**Proposed A**  **ction/ S**  **trategy Responsible Party(ies)**  Perform and support studies with the goal of identifying innovative transportation strategies that enhance mobility and air quality, and determine practical steps to pursue such strategies, while engaging local communities in planning efforts. SCAG, CTCs

Cooperate with stakeholders, particularly county transportation commissions and Caltrans, to identify new funding sources and/or increased funding levels for the preservation and maintenance of the existing transportation network. SCAG, CTCs, Local Jurisdictions

Expand the use of transit modes in our subregions such as BRT, rail, limited-stop service, and point-to-point express services utilizing the HOV and HOT lane networks. SCAG, CTCs, Local Jurisdictions

Encourage transit providers to increase frequency and span of service in TOD/HQTA and along targeted corridors where cost-effec

tive and where there is latent demand for transit usage. SCAG, CTCs

Encourage regional and local transit providers to develop rail interface services at Metrolink, Amtrak, and high-speed rail stations. SCAG, CTCs, Local Jurisdictions Expand the Toolbox Tuesdays program to include bicycle safety design, pedestrian safety design, ADA design, training on how to use available resources that expand understanding of where collisions are happening, and information on available grant opportu

nities to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. SCAG, State

Prioritize transportation investments to support compact infill development that includes a mix of land uses, housing options, and open/park space, where appropriate, to maximize the benefits for existing communities, especially vulnerable populations, and to minimize any negative impacts. SCAG, CTCs, Local Jurisdictions

Explore and implement innovative strategies and projects that enhance mobility and air quality, including those that increase the walkability of communities and accessibility to transit via non-auto modes, including walking, bicycling, and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) or other alternative fueled vehicles. SCAG, CTCs, Local Jurisdictions

Collaborate with local jurisdictions to plan and develop residential and employment development around current and planned transit stations and neighborhood commercial centers. SCAG, CTCs, Local Jurisdictions

Collaborate with local jurisdictions to provide a network of local community circulators that serve new TOD, HQTAs, and neighbor

hood commercial centers providing an incentive for residents and employees to make trips on transit. SCAG, CTCs, Local Jurisdictions

Similar to SCAG’s partnership with the City of Los Angeles and LACMTA, offer to all County Transportation Commissions a mutually funded, joint first mile/last mile study for each region. SCAG, CTCs

Develop first-mile/last-mile strategies on a local level to provide an incentive for making trips by transit, bicycling, walking, or neighborhood electric vehicle or other ZEV options. CTCs, Local Jurisdictions

Encourage transit fare discounts and local vendor product and service discounts for residents and employees of TOD/HQTAs or for a jurisdiction’s local residents in general who have fare media. Local Jurisdictions

Work with transit properties and local jurisdictions to identify and remove barriers to maintaining on-time performance. SCAG, CTCs, Local Jurisdictions Develop policies and prioritize funding for strategies and projects that enhance mobility and air quality. State Work with the California High-Speed Rail Authority and local jurisdictions to plan and develop optimal levels of retail, residential, and employment development that fully take advantage of new travel markets and rail travelers. State2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 155

**Proposed A**  **ction/ S**  **trategy Responsible Party(ies)**  Work with state lenders to provide funding for increased transit service in TOD/HQTA in support of reaching SB 375 goals. SCAG, State Continue to work with neighboring Metropolitan Planning Organizations to provide alternative modes for interregional travel, including Amtrak and other passenger rail services and an enhanced bikeway network, such as on river trails. SCAG, State

Encourage the development of new, short haul, cost-effective transit services such as DASH and demand responsive transit (DRT) in order to both serve and encourage development of compact neighborhood centers. CTCs, Municipal Transit Operators

Work with the state legislature to seek funding for Complete Streets planning and implementation in support of reaching SB 375 goals. SCAG, State

Continue to support the California Interregional Blueprint as a plan that links statewide transportation goals and regional transpor

tation and land use goals to produce a unified transportation strategy. SCAG, State

**T a**  **bl e 4.5**  

### Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Actions and Strategies

**Proposed A**  **ction/ S**  **trategy Responsible Party(ies)**  Examine major projects and strategies that reduce congestion and emissions and optimize the productivity and overall performance of the transportation system. SCAG

Develop comprehensive regional active transportation network along with supportive tools and resources that can help jurisdictions plan and prioritize new active transportation projects in their cities. SCAG, CTCs, Local Jurisdictions

Encourage the implementation of a Complete Streets policy that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads and highways – including bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, neighborhood electric vehicle (NEVs) users, movers of commer

cial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation and seniors – for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the suburban and urban contexts within the region. Local Jurisdictions, COGs, SCAG, CTCs

Support work-based programs that encourage emission reduction strategies and incentivize active transportation commuting or ride-share modes. SCAG, Local Jurisdictions

Develop infrastructure plans and educational programs to promote active transportation options and other alternative fueled vehicles, such as neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), and consider collaboration with local public health departments, walk

ing/biking coalitions, and/or Safe Routes to School initiatives, which may already have components of such educational programs in place. Local Jurisdictions

Encourage the development of telecommuting programs by employers through review and revision of policies that may discourage alternative work options. Local Jurisdictions, CTCs

Emphasize active transportation and alternative fueled vehicle projects as part of complying with the Complete Streets Act (AB 1358). State, SCAG, Local Jurisdictions

### 156 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

**T a**  **bl e 4.6**  

### Transportation System Management (TSM) Actions and Strategies

**Proposed A**  **ction/ S**  **trategy Responsible Party(ies)**  Work with relevant state and local transportation authorities to increase the efficiency of the existing transportation system SCAG, Local Jurisdictions, State Collaborate with local jurisdictions and subregional COGs to develop regional policies regarding TSM SCAG, COGs, Local Jurisdictions Contribute to and utilize regional data sources to ensure efficient integration of the transportation system. SCAG, CTCs Provide training opportunities for local jurisdictions on TSM strategies, such as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). SCAG, Local Jurisdictions Collaborate with local jurisdictions and subregional COGs to continually update the ITS inventory. SCAG, COGS, Local Jurisdictions Collaborate with CTCs to regularly update the county and regional ITS architecture. SCAG, CTCs, Local Jurisdictions Collaborate with the state and federal Government and subregional COGs to examine potential innovative TDM/TSM strategies. SCAG, State, COGs

**T a**  **bl e 4.7**  

### Clean Vehicle Technology Actions and Strategies

**Proposed A**  **ction/ S**  **trategy Responsible Party(ies)**  Develop a Regional PEV Readiness Plan with a focus on charge port infrastructure plans to support and promote the introduction of electric and other alternative fuel vehicles in Southern California. SCAG

Support subregional strategies to develop infrastructure and supportive land uses to accelerate fleet conversion to electric or other near zero-emission technologies. The activities committed in the two subregions (Western Riverside COG and South Bay Cities COG) are put forward as best practices that others can adopt in the future (See Appendix: Vehicle Technology, for more informa

tion). SCAG, Local Jurisdictions2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 157



## Other S upportive S trategies

R e g io n al a n d L ocal Eff ort s to A dopt Near -Z ero a n d Z ero

Em i ss io n V ehicle T ech n olo gySCAG is leading a regional effort with the goal of accelerating fleet conversion to nearzero and zero-emission transportation technologies. To accommodate the anticipated increase in alternative fueled vehicles, a significant expansion of infrastructure is needed throughout the region, among other preparedness steps. SCAG’s policy with regard to alternative fuels is technology neutral and does not favor any one technology over any other. SCAG’s alternative fuel goals are to promote emissions reduction and improved mobility in ways that are effective and cost-effective. Alternative fuels for transporta

tion include, but are not limited to: biodiesel, electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, natural gas, propane, biobutanol, biogas, hydrogenation-derived renewable diesel (HDRD), methanol, P-Series, and xTL Fuels (Fischer-Tropsch). In support of the goal to promote emissions reduction, SCAG has developed a robust work program to prepare for the influx of new vehicle technology. With funding assis

tance from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the California Energy Commission and in collaboration with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Southern California Edison, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), and the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), SCAG will develop a Regional Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Readiness Plan with two complementary subregional plans for WRCOG and SBCCOG. The subregional plans will serve as models for other subregions as they begin to develop their own PEV Readiness Plans. A key outcome of the planning effort will be charge port infrastructure plans, including updated maps of prime charging locations and strategies for accelerating the deployment of PEV charging equipment. It will include best practices for “PEV-ready” buildings and guidelines for streamlining the permitting, instal

lation, and inspection of charging equipment. In addition, the Southern California Clean Cities Coalition is currently assisting with the marketing and outreach for three projects. These projects include the UPS Ontario–Las Vegas Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Corridor Expansion Project, the Heavy-Duty Natural Gas Drayage Truck Replacement Initiative and a partnership with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. to deploy 202 heavy-duty natural gas trucks and construct two LNG fueling stations. These efforts promote emissions reduction and improved mobility in ways that are effective and cost-effective. In conclusion, this RTP/SCS includes policies supporting and promoting the introduc

tion of near-zero and zero-emission vehicles, commits to the work program and pending studies as part of an implementation effort to facilitate acceleration of fleet turnover, and estimates the impact of regional, subregional, and local activities on transportation GHG in the region. Additional information regarding air quality and energy is included in Chapter 1 and Appendix: Vehicle Technology. 

## Evaluation and Revision
SCAG will update its RTP/SCS in 2016, in accordance with applicable federal and state laws. As part of this update, SCAG will be reviewing its own progress in implementing the strategies identified in this Plan. In addition, the GHG emission reduction targets are reevaluated at least every eight years and may be revised every four years by ARB. This will enable the state and SCAG to consider changes in circumstances, funding availabil

ity, technological advances, new legislation, and other considerations that could arise over time. SCAG will also track its own progress in implementing its 2012–2035 RTP/SCS strategies in conjunction with the preparation and adoption of its Overall Work Program and Annual Budget. The OWP/Budget process provides an opportunity for SCAG to allocate staff resources and funding to implement short-term and mid-term strategies contained within the RTP/SCS. In addition, SCAG will periodically monitor the progress being made by the state, the CTCs, local jurisdictions, and other agencies and entities in implementing the strategies identified in this plan. 

## M onitoring Progress
While SB 375 places a great deal of attention on meeting GHG emission reduction targets, SCAG has also established other important goals in its 2012–2035 RTP/SCS aimed at improving the overall quality of life in the region. It will be important for SCAG to con

tinue to improve its performance monitoring programs, such as the State of the Region report, to track how well the region is doing in terms of overall progress toward meeting these goals.

### 158 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy



# S ustainable Communities S trategy Requirements M atrix
The following table outlines the requirements of SB 375 and how each is addressed in the 2012 RTP/SCS.

**T a**  **bl e 4.8**  

### Sustainable Communities Strategy Requirements Matrix

**Required E**  **lement A**  **ddressed CGC**  **S ection 65080(b) (2).(B)**  Each metropolitan organization shall prepare a sustainable communities strategy, subject to the requirements of Part 450 of Title 23 of, and Part 93 of Title 40 of, the Code of Federal Regulations, including the requirement to utilize the most recent planning assumptions considering local General Plans and other factors. The RTP/SCS complies with all requirements.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy **CGC S**  **ection 65080(b) (2).(B) i.** Identify the general location of uses, residential densi

ties, and building intensities within the region The SCS identifies the future land use pattern of the SCAG region in Exhibit 4.13– Exhibit 4.19 and additional exhibits in Appendix: Background Documentation. Residential densities and building intensities are determined by Development Types, which are made up of information relating to the characteristics of the landscape, including jobs and housing density, urban design, and mix of land uses.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: SCS Background Documentation 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Growth Forecast **CGC S**  **ection 65080(b) (2).(B) ii.** Identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region, including all economic segments of the population, over the course of the planning period of the regional transportation plan taking into account net migration into the region, population growth, household formation and employment growth The SCS identifies areas sufficient to house the entire population in the region in Exhibit 4.13–Exhibit 4.19 and additional exhibits in Appendix: Background Documentation. Projected capacity for these areas utilized the Integrated Growth Forecast for population, jobs, and households as contained in Appendix: Growth Forecast. Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 show projected housing capacity by Community Type for 2020 and 2035.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: SCS Background Documentation 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Growth Forecast **CGC S**  **ection 65080(b) (2).(B) iii.** Identify areas within the region sufficient to housing an eight-year projection of the regional housing need for the region pursuant to Section 65584 The RTP/SCS identifies areas sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the regional housing need in Exhibit 4.13–Exhibit 4.19 and additional exhibits in Appendix: SCS Background Documentation. Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 show projected housing capacity by Community Type for 2020 and 2035.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: SCS Background Documentation2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 159

**Required E**  **lement A**  **ddressed CGC**  **S ection 65080(b) (2).(B) iv.**  Identify a transportation network to service the trans

portation needs of the region The RTP/SCS identifies the regional transportation network in Exhibit 4.10, Exhibit 4.11, and Exhibit 4.12. Detailed descriptions of SCAG’s transportation network are found in Chapter 2 of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 2: Transportation Investments **CGC S**  **ection 65080(b) (2).(B) v.** Gather and consider the best practically available scientific information regarding resource areas and farmland in the region as defined in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 65080.01 The RTP/SCS lists sources for the best available scientific information regarding resource areas and farmland in the region and identifies these areas in Exhibit 4.6, Exhibit 4.7, and Exhibit 4.8.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 2: Transportation Investments **CGC S**  **ection 65080(b) (2).(B) vi.** Consider the state housing goals specified in Sections 65580 and 65581 The RTP/SCS considers the state housing goals as specified in Sections 65580 and 65581.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: SCS Background Documentation **CGC S**  **ection 65080(b) (2).(B) vii.** Set forth a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network, and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks to achieve, if there is a feasible way to do so, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets approved by the state board Exhibit 4.13–Exhibit 4.19 of the SCS identifies the forecasted development pattern for the region. Along with the identified transportation network in Exhibit 4.10–Exhibit 4.12, the identified land use pattern exceeds the GHG emission reduction targets of 8% in 2010 and 13% in 2035. Detailed analysis and performance results of the integrated land use pattern and transportation network and strategies are found in Chapter 5 and Appendix: Performance Measures.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 5: Measuring Up 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Transportation Conformity Analysis 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Performance Measures **CGC S**  **ection 65080(b) (2).(B) viii.** Allow the regional transportation plan to comply with Section 176 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7506) The RTP/SCS complies with this requirement.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Transportation Conformity Analysis

### 160 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

**Required E**  **lement A**  **ddressed CGC**  **S ection 65080(b) (2).(**  **D )**  The metropolitan planning organization shall conduct at least two informational meetings in each county within the region for members of the board of supervisors and city councils on the sustainable communities strategy and alter

native planning strategy. SCAG has adopted a public participation plan that includes at least two informational meetings in each county for members of city councils and boards of supervisors.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 6: Public Participation Plan 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Public Participation and Consultation **CGC S**  **ection 65080(b) (2).( E**  **)** Each metropolitan planning organization shall adopt a public participation plan, for development of the sustainable communities strategy and an alternative planning strategy, if any, that includes the following: SCAG has adopted a public participation plan.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 6: Public Participation Plan 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Public Participation and Consultation (i) Outreach efforts to encourage active participation of a broad range of stakeholder groups in the planning process, consistent with the agency’s adopted Federal Public Participation Plan, including, but not limited to, affordable housing advocates, trans

portation advocates, neighborhood and community groups, environmental advocates, home builder representatives, broad-based business organizations, landowners, com

mercial property interest, and homeowner associations. The public participation plan details planning efforts that comply with and exceed the requirements. SCAG met extensively with partner agencies and non-profit, advocacy, neighborhood, and community groups beginning with target setting consultation and continuing through the workshop process.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 6: Public Participation Plan 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Public Participation and Consultation (ii) Consultation with congestion management agencies, transportation agencies, and transportation commissions. The public participation plan includes consultation with these agencies.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 6: Public Participation Plan 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Public Participation and Consultation (iii) Workshops throughout the region to provide the public with the information and tools necessary to provide clear understanding of the issues and policy choices. At least one workshop shall be held in each county in the region. For counties with a popula

tion greater than 500,000, at least three workshops shall be held. Each workshop, to the extent practicable shall include urban simulation computer modeling to create visual representation of the sustainable communities strategy and the alternative plan

ning strategy. The public participation plan details planning efforts that comply with and exceed the requirements. SCAG held 18 workshops throughout the region, in addition to countless local agency planning sessions.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 6: Public Participation Plan 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Public Participation and Consultation (v) At least three public hearings on the draft sustainable communities strategy in the regional transportation plan and alternative planning strategy, if one is prepared. If the metropolitan transportation organization consists of a single county, at least two public hearings shall be held. To the maximum extent feasible, the hearings shall be in differ

ent parts of the region to maximize the opportunity for participation by members of the public throughout the region. The public participation plan includes at least three public hearings on the draft RTP/SCS.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 6: Public Participation Plan 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Public Participation and Consultation2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 161

**Required E**  **lement A**  **ddressed** (vi) A process for enabling members of the public to provide a single request to receive notices, information and updates. The public participation plan includes a process for members of the public to provide a single request to receive notices, information, and updates on the RTP/SCS.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 6: Public Participation Plan 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Public Participation and Consultation **CGC S**  **ection 65080(b) (2).(F)** In preparing a sustainable communities strategy, the met

ropolitan planning organization shall consider spheres of influence that have been adopted by the local agency formation commissions within its region. SCAG’s Growth Forecast considers the spheres of influence adopted by the local agency formation commission.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Appendix: Growth Forecast **CGC S**  **ection 65080(b) (2).(G)** Prior to adopting a sustainable communities strategy, the metropolitan planning organization shall quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions projected to be achieved by the sustainable communities strategy and set forth the difference, if any, between the amount of that reduction and the target for the region established by the state board. The RTP/SCS complies with this requirement.

Reference: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

**CGC S**  **ection 65080(b) (2).(J)** Neither a sustainable communities strategy nor an alterna

tive planning strategy regulates the use of land, nor, except as provided by subparagraph (I), shall either one be subject to any state approval. Nothing in a sustainable communi

ties strategy shall be interpreted as superseding the exercise of the land use authority of cities and counties within the region. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit the state board’s authority under any other provision of law. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize the abrogation of any vested right whether created by statute or by common law. Nothing in this section shall require a city’s or county’s land use policies and regulations, including its general plan, to be consistent with the regional transporta

tion plan or an alternative planning strategy. Nothing in this section requires a metro

politan planning organization to approve a sustainable communities strategy that would be consistent with Part 450 of Title 23 of, or Part 93 of Title 40 of, the Code of Federal Regulations and any administrative guidance under those regulations. Nothing in this sec

tion relieves a public or private entity or any person from compliance with any other local, state, or federal law. The RTP/SCS complies with this requirement.

### 162 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

**Required E**  **lement A**  **ddressed CGC**  **S ection 65080(b) (2).(K)**  Nothing in this section requires projects programmed for funding on or before December 31,2011, to be subject to the provisions of this paragraph if they (i) are contained in the 2007 or 2009 Federal Statewide Transportation Investment Program, (ii) are funded pursuant to Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 8879.20) of Division 1 of Title 2, or (iii) were specifically listed in a ballot measure prior to Decem

ber 31, 2008, approving a sales tax increase for transportation projects. Nothing in this section shall require a transportation sales tax authority to change the funding allocations approved by the voters for categories of transportation projects in a sales tax measure adopted prior to December 31, 2010. For purposes of this subparagraph, a transportation sales tax authority is a district, as defined in Section 7252 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, that is authorized to impose a sales tax for transportation purposes. The RTP/SCS complies with this requirement.

**CGC S**  **ection 65080(b) (4).(C)** The metropolitan planning organization or county transpor

tation agency, whichever entity is appropriate, shall consider financial incentives for cities and counties that have resource areas or farmland, as defined in Section 65080.01, for the purposes of, for example, transportation investments for the preservation and safety of the city street or county road system and farm to market and interconnectivity transportation needs. The metropolitan planning organization or county transportation agency, which

ever entity is appropriate, shall also consider financial assistance for counties to address countywide service responsibilities in counties that contribute towards the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets by implementing policies for growth to occur within their cities. The RTP/SCS complies with this requirement.

**CGC S**  **ection 65080.1** Each transportation planning agency designated under Section 29532 or 29532.1 whose jurisdiction includes a portion of the California Coastal Trail, or property designated for the trail, that is located within the coastal zone, as defined in Sec

tion 30103 of the Public Resources Code, shall coordinate with the State Coastal Conser

vancy, the California Coastal Commission, and the Department of Transportation regarding development of the California Coastal Trail, and each transportation planning agency shall include provisions for the California Coastal Trail in its regional plan, under Section 65080. The RTP/SCS complies with this requirement.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 

### 163

**Required E**  **lement A**  **ddressed CGC Section 65080.3**  (a) Each transportation planning agency with a population that exceeds 200,000 persons may prepare at least one “alternative planning scenario” for presentation to local offi

cials, agency board members, and the public during the development of the triennial regional transportation plan and the hearing required under subdivision (c) of Section 65080. (b) The alternative planning scenario shall accommodate the same amount of population growth as projected in the plan but shall be based on an alternative to attempts to reduce the growth in traffic congestion, make more efficient use of existing transpor

tation infrastructure, and reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure. (c) The alternative planning scenario shall be developed in collaboration with a broad range of public and private stakeholders, including local elected officials, city and county employees, relevant interest groups, and the general public. In developing the scenario, the agency shall consider all of the following: (1) Increasing housing and commercial development around transit facilities and in close prox

imity to jobs and commercial activity centers. (2) Encouraging public transit usage, ridesharing, walking, bicycling, and transportation de

mand management practices. (3) Promoting a more efficient mix of current and future job sites, commercial activity centers, and housing opportunities. (4) Promoting use of urban vacant land and “brownfield” development. (5) An economic incentive program that may include measures such as transit vouchers and variable pricing for transportation. N/A The SCAG region has chosen to prepare an SCS, which is in Chapter 4 of the 2012 RTP/ SCS.

### 164 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

**Required E**  **lement A**  **ddressed** (Continued) (d) The planning scenario shall be included in a report evaluating all of the following: (1) The amounts and locations of traffic congestion. (2) Vehicle miles traveled and the resulting reduction in vehicle emissions. (3) Estimated percentage share of trips made by each means of travel specified in subpara

graph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080. (4) The costs of transportation improvements required to accommodate the population growth in accordance with the alternative scenario. (5) The economic, social, environmental, regulatory, and institutional barriers to the scenario being achieved. (e) If the adopted regional transportation plan already achieves one or more of the objec

tives set forth in subdivision (c), those objectives need not be discussed or evaluated in the alternative planning scenario. (f) The alternative planning scenario and accompanying report shall not be adopted as part of the regional transportation plan, but it shall be distributed to cities and coun

ties within the region and to other interested parties, and may be a basis for revisions to the transportation projects that will be included in the regional transportation plan. (g) Nothing in this section grants transportation planning agencies any direct or indirect authority over local land use decisions. (h) This section does not apply to a transportation plan adopted on or before September 1, 2001, proposed by a transportation planning agency with a population of less than 1,000,000 persons.

# Introduction 

# T he investments identified in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS are expected to result in significant benefits to the region, not only with respect to transportation and mobility, but also air quality, economic activity and job creation, sustainability, and Environmental Justice. This chapter describes the benefits and outcomes projected to result from the implementation of the RTP/SCS with respect to the adopted performance measures. This chapter also describes how the RTP/SCS addresses the statutory require

ments regarding Environmental Justice, SB 375, and transportation conformity. 

# Performance Outcomes
This section summarizes how well the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS performs. **T a**  **bl e 5.1**  lists the performance outcomes and associated measures used to forecast performance using the SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM). In addition, this section provides estimates of performance improvements for two different outcomes that do not rely on the RTDM: productivity and reliability. While this chapter includes summaries of the performance improvements expected from the implementation of the RTP/SCS, more detail is provided under separate cover in the Performance Measures Appendix. Two new outcomes have been added in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS: location efficiency and public health. The location efficiency outcome reflects the degree to which land use is improved to provide shorter and easier access to desired destinations, therefore encour

aging the transit and active transportation modes. The health outcome monitors pollution emitted from transportation, which causes health problems such as asthma and even premature deaths. In the discussion of performance and outcomes, three scenarios are referenced: Base Year, Baseline, and Plan. The 2008 Base Year represents existing conditions and is based on the transportation system on the ground and in service in 2008. The 2035 Baseline assumes current land use trends and represents a future in which only committed pro

grams and projects are implemented and is based on projects programmed in the 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) that have received environmental clearance. The 2035 Plan represents future conditions in which the 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS investments and strategies are fully realized. The specific projects associated with Baseline and Plan are identified in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Project List report. 

# 05

. m ea su ri ng u p

### 166 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up

**T a**  **bl e 5.1**  

### Adopted 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Outcomes and Performance Measures/Indicators

**O utcome**  **Performance M**  **easure/ I**  **ndicator D**  **efinition Performance**  **T arget**  **D ata**  **S ources Used** 

Location Efficiency Share of growth in High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) Share of the region’s growth in households and employment in HQTAs Improvement over No Project Baseline Census (including annual American Community Survey), InfoUSA Land consumption Additional land needed for development that has not previously been developed or otherwise impacted, including agricultural land, forest land, desert land, and other virgin sites Improvement over No Project Baseline Rapid Fire Model

Average distance for work or non-work trips The average distance traveled for work or non-work trips separately Improvement over No Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Percent of work trips less than 3 miles The share of total work trips which are fewer than 3 miles Improvement over No Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Work trip length distribution The statistical distribution of work trip length in the region Improvement over No Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Mobility and Accessibility Person delay per capita Delay per capita can be used as a supplemental measure to account for population growth impacts on delay Improvement over No Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Person delay by facility type (mixed flow, HOV, arterials) Delay—excess travel time resulting from the difference between a reference speed and actual speed Improvement over No Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Truck delay by facility type (highway, arterials) Delay—excess travel time resulting from the difference between a reference speed and actual speed Improvement over No Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Travel time distribution for transit, SOV, HOV for work and non-work trips Travel time distribution for transit, SOV, HOV for work and non-work trips Improvement over No Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Safety and Health Collision/accident rates by severity by mode Accident rates per million vehicle miles by mode (all, bicycle/pedes

trian, and fatality/killed) Improvement over Base Year CHP Accident Data Base, Travel Demand Model Mode Split Outputs Criteria pollutants emissions CO, NOx, PM 2.5 , PM 10 , and VOC Meet Transportation Conformity require

ments Travel Demand Model/ ARB EMFAC Model2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 167

**O utcome**  **Performance M**  **easure/ I**  **ndicator D**  **efinition Performance**  **T arget**  **D ata**  **S ources Used** 

Environmental Quality Criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions CO, NOx, PM 2.5 , PM 10 , and VOC Per capita greenhouse gas emissions (CO 2 ) Meet Transportation Conformity require

ments and SB 375 per capita GHG-reduction targets Travel Demand Model/ ARB EMFAC Model

Economic WellBeing Additional jobs supported by improving competitiveness Number of jobs added to the economy as a result of improved trans

portation conditions which make the region more competitive Improvement over No Project Baseline Regional Economic Model REMI Additional jobs supported by transporta

tion investment Total number of jobs supported in the economy as a result of transpor

tation expenditures Improvement over No Project Baseline Regional Economic Model REMI Net contribution to gross regional product Gross regional product due to transportation investments and increased competitiveness Improvement over No Project Baseline Regional Economic Model REMI Investment Effectiveness Benefit/cost ratio Ratio of monetized user and societal benefits to the agency transpor

tation costs Greater than 1.0 California Benefit/ Cost Model System Sustainability Cost per capita to preserve multimodal system to current and state of good repair conditions Annual costs per capita required to preserve the multimodal system to current conditions Improvement over Base Year Estimated using SHOPP Plan and recent California Transportation Commission 10-Year Needs Assessment

Notes: Performance measures tied to goals for reliability, preservation, productivity, health, energy efficiency, and security cannot currently be reliably forecasted and are not included in Table 5.1. However, SCAG has identified related measures to be used for monitoring purposes, and these are discussed in the Performance Measures technical report. Performance measures are assessed at the regional level. SCAG encourages, but does not require, agencies to be consistent with the RTP/SCS performance measures to the extent practical in their subregional and project-level planning studies.

### 168 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up



## Location Efficiency

This is a new outcome for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. This outcome has several associated performance measures that reflect the impact of improved land use and transportation coordination in support of the Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) required under SB 375. This outcome reflects the degree to which improved land use and transportation coordi

nation measures impact the efficient movement of people and goods. The measures used to describe this outcome include:

 Share of growth in High-Quality Transit Areas

 Land consumption (total and per capita),

 Average distance for work or non-work trips,

 Percent of work trips less than three miles, and

 Work trip length distribution. There are several additional measures that will be used for ongoing monitoring, and these will be discussed in the appendix.


## Share o f g ro w th i n H i g h -Qu alit y T ra ns it A rea s (HQTA) Between 2008 and 2035, growth in both household and employment in the HQTAs is projected to increase from the Baseline scenario to the Plan scenario. Specifically, the share of growth in households in HQTAs increases from 24 percent under the Baseline to 51 percent under the Plan. During the same period, the share of growth in employment in HQTAs increases from 31 percent under the Baseline to 53 percent under the Plan. 

## L a n d co nsum ptio n Greenfield land consumption refers to development that occurs on land that has not previously been developed or otherwise impacted, including agricultural land, forest land, desert land, and other virgin sites. As discussed above, the Plan directs more growth into the HQTAs than the Baseline. The vast majority of HQTAs are within the existing urbanized areas. Accordingly, the Plan consumes 408 square miles less “greenfield” land than the Baseline, 334 square miles compared to 742 square miles.


## A

vera g e di s ta n ce f or w or k or n o n-w or k trip s
The average distance for work trips is projected in 2035 to decrease from 14.8 miles under the Baseline to 14.7 miles under the Plan. The average distance for non-work trips is projected to increase from 7.3 miles under the Baseline to 7.5 miles under the Plan.


## P erce n t o f w or k trip s le ss tha n three m ile s The vast majority of work trips in Southern California have consistently relied on the single-occupant automobile. When the work trip length becomes shorter, particularly within a few miles, it increases the likelihood of using alternative modes such as transit or biking. By 2035, the share of work trips less than three miles is projected to increase from 14.8 percent under the Baseline to 15.4 percent under the Plan, which accounts for effects of landuse and investment in active transportation.


## Wor k trip le ng th di s tri bu tio n Under the Plan, more than half (51 percent) of the total work trips are less than 10 miles. Thirteen percent of the total work trips are longer than 25 miles. Additional information on work trip length distribution is provided in the Performance Measures Appendix.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 169



## M obility and Accessibility
In the 1998 California Transportation Plan, this outcome is defined as, “Reaching desired destinations with relative ease within a reasonable time, with reasonable choices.” In prior RTPs, mobility and accessibility were included as separate outcomes. For the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, these have been combined into a single outcome with multiple performance measures. This section discusses the mobility and accessibility performance indicators and provides results based on outputs from the SCAG RTDM.


## Mo b ilit y
The mobility performance measure relies on the commonly used measure of delay. Delay is the difference between the actual travel time and the travel time at some predefined reference or “optimal” speed for each mode alternative under analysis. It is measured in vehicle-hours of delay (VHD), which can then be used to derive person-hours of delay. This is a relatively straightforward measure to calculate using real-world and modeled data, is understandable by both transportation professionals and the general public, and can be forecasted for the 2035 future scenarios. The mobility measures used to evaluate alternatives for this outcome are:

 Person Movement Delay by Facility Type (Mixed Flow, HOV, Arterials),

 Person Delay per Capita, and

 Truck delay by facility (Highway, Arterial). One additional measure for delay that is readily available for ongoing monitoring, but thatcannot be readily forecasted, is non-recurrent delay. Recurrent congestion is the day-today congestion that occurs because too many vehicles are on the road at the same time. Non-recurrent congestion is the congestion that is caused by accidents, weather, special events, or other atypical incidents. Non-recurrent congestion can be mitigated or reduced by improving incident management strategies. Other smart uses of technologies such as traffic signal coordination and the provision of real-time information about unexpected delays allow travelers to make better decisions about available transit or other alternatives. 

## Person Delay by F acility Type ( M ixed- F low F reeways, HOV, Arterials)
For the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, this measure has been expanded to differentiate between single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) delay. As shown in
**Fi gur**  **e 5.1** , person-hours of delay is expected to increase from Base Year to Baseline, but overall the Plan will improve on Baseline conditions by 45 percent, to conditions that are better than what is experienced today.

**Fi gur**  **e 5.1** 

### Daily Person-Hours of Delay by Facility Type

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Freeway/Expressway HOV Arterial Regional AverageMillions

2008 Base Year 2035 Baseline 2035 Plan

### 170 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up



## Person Delay per Capita

**Fi gur**  **e 5.2** shows the person delay per capita for each of the six counties in the region and for the SCAG region as a whole. Normalizing delay by the number of people living in an area provides insight as to how well the region is mitigating traffic congestion in light of increasing population growth. Delay per capita is expected to grow considerably, particularly in the Inland Empire counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, under the Baseline conditions. However, implementation of the Plan is expected to reduce delay substantially, to below 2008 levels. The regional average delay per capita is expected to improve from over 20 minutes under the Baseline to over 10 minutes under the Plan. Not only does this represent a 45 percent improvement over Baseline, but a 24 percent improvement over Base Year as well.

**Fi gur**  **e 5.2** 

### Daily Person Delay per Capita by County (Minutes)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Regional Average
2008 Base Year 2035 Baseline 2035 Plan 

## Truck Delay by F acility Type (Highway, Arterials)
This measure estimates the average daily truck delay by facility type for freeways and arterials ( **Fi gur**  **e 5.3** ). The RTP/SCS includes significant investments in a regional freight corridor and other improvements to facilitate goods movement. The Plan is estimated to reduce truck delay by approximately 40 percent over Baseline on the freeway system and by approximately 55 percent on the arterial system. However, the truck delay under the Plan will still be above Base Year levels.

**Fi gur**  **e 5.3** 

### Daily Heavy-Duty Truck Hours of Delay

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Freeway/Expressway ArterialThousands

2008 Base Year 2035 Baseline 2035 Plan2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 171



## Highway N on-Recurrent DelayThis indicator identifies how much congestion can be considered to be atypical. Nonrecurrent congestion is the congestion caused by accidents, weather, special events, or other incidents. This type of congestion can be addressed by strategic operational invest

ments such as traveler information, incident management, and ramp metering. **Fi gur**  **e 5.4** shows the relative amount of freeway congestion that is estimated to be caused by non-recurrent events. Region-wide, approximately 45 percent of freeway congestion is estimated to be non-recurrent, but this estimate varies widely by county.

**Fi gur**  **e 5.4** 

### Non-Recurrent Congestion Share by County (2009)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Regional Average
2009 More suburban or rural areas with less overall congestion have a higher percentage of all congestion represented by non-recurring events. San Bernardino County, for example, is estimated to have a majority of its congestion as non-recurrent in 2009. (The actual percentage is likely exaggerated due to the manner in which PeMS handles some data; more research is needed to verify this assessment.) In contrast, the more urbanized LosAngeles County had just over 40 percent of its total congestion represented by nonrecurring incidents.


## S peed M aps

**E xhi**  **b its 5.1**  through **5.3** depict the region’s freeway speed conditions during the after

noon peak period (3 pm to 7 pm) based upon the SCAG RTDM results for Base Year 2008, Baseline 2035, and Plan 2035. Additional speed maps are provided in the Highways and Arterials Appendix.

### 172

**E xhi**  **b it 5.1**  

### Base Year 2008 Freeway Speed – PM Peak (3pm–7pm)

### 173

**E xhi**  **b it 5.2**  

### Baseline 2035 Freeway Speed – PM Peak (3pm–7pm)

### 174

**E xhi**  **b it 5.3**  

### Plan 2035 Freeway Speed – PM Peak (3pm–7pm)2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 175



## A cce ss i b ilit y Accessibility is used to capture how well the transportation system performs in providing people access to opportunities. Opportunities can include anything from jobs, education, medical care, recreation, shopping, or another activity that helps improve a person’s life. For the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, accessibility is simply defined as the distribution of trips by mode by travel time. As with the 2008 RTP, accessibility is measured by taking afternoon or PM peak period travel demand model results for the base and forecast years and identifying the per

centage of commute or home-based work trips that are completed within 45 minutes.
**Fi gur**  **e 5.5** shows these results. In all cases, the 2035 Plan improves accessibility for home-based work trips over the baseline.

**Fi gur**  **e 5.5** 

### Percentage of PM Peak Period Home-Based Work Trips within 45 Minutes

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Transit High-Occupancy Vehi cle (HOV) Single-Occupancy Vehicle (SOV)
2008 Base Year 2035 Baseline 2035 Plan The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS provides a more comprehensive measure of accessibility by including transit and HOV accessibility as well as non-work and work trips in the indi

cator. Results for the following were added to the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS based upon stakeholder input:

 Distributions of travel time (i.e., not just percentage completed within 45 minutes),

 High-occupancy vehicles (HOV) for each of the three modeled years,

 AM, midday, evening, and night accessibility for each of the three modeled years for all three modes (transit, SOV, and HOV), and

 Non-work trips for each of the three modeled years for all three modes (transit, SOV, and HOV) for all five time periods. 

## Productivity and Reliability
As with the non-recurrent congestion measure described in the previous section, the productivity and reliability outcomes cannot be readily forecasted and are not used for alternatives analysis in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. They do, however, provide some guidance on how much benefit can be obtained by regional investments in operational improvements. The productivity and reliability estimates presented here are based in part on Corridor System Management Plans (CSMPs) developed recently in the SCAG region. Productivity and reliability are critical since they reflect the improvements in efficiency and non-recurrent congestion, respectively. SCAG plans to monitor the progress achieved in improving productivity and reliability on a regular basis moving forward.


## P rod u ctivit y The productivity outcome reflects the degree to which the transportation system per

forms during peak demand conditions. It is a system efficiency measure. The productivity indicator is defined as the percentage of utilization during peak demand conditions. For highways, productivity is particularly important because when we need capacity the most, we often get the lowest “production” from our system. On some corridors throughput can decline as much as 50 percent during peak periods, and most congested urban corridors typically lose 25 percent of their capacity during rush hour. This loss of productivity is shown in **Fi gur**  **e 5.6** , which depicts how much vehicle throughput declines (i.e., productivity is lost) during rush hour.

### 176 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up

**Fi gur**  **e 5.6** 

### Illustrative Highway Productivity Losses

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8014:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:30Flow Rate (VPHPL)Speed

Time Speed <35mph Lost Productivity

Flow

Source: Caltrans Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) for Los Angeles I-5 southbound; postmile 11.54, Washington Blvd; 10/19/2011; vehicle detector station 716924. **Fi gur**  **e 5.7** summarizes the current estimate for productivity losses on the region’s freeway system and the expected improvements due to Plan investments. Maximizing the system’s productivity is a critical goal of this RTP/SCS, and the overall system manage

ment approach aims to recapture lost productivity. The incremental investment of $6.2 billion to implement advanced operational strategies on our freeways and arterials is projected to recapture 20 percent of the lost productivity. These projections are based on recent studies indicating that investments in ramp metering, arterial signal coordination, traveler information, and incident management can achieve such improvements and more.

**Fi gur**  **e 5.7** 

### Highway System Productivity (Lost Lane-Miles)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

2008 Base Year Plan 2035
AM Peak Period PM Peak Period2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 177

**Fi gur**  **e 5.8** shows the percentage of transit passenger miles traveled compared to the total number of seat miles provided, a measure of transit productivity.

**Fi gur**  **e 5.8** 

### Ratio of Transit Passenger Miles/Seat Miles

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Passenger Miles/Seat Miles

Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Regional Average 

## R elia b ilit y
Reliability captures the relative predictability of the public’s travel time. Unlike mobility, which measures how fast the transportation system is moving people and goods, and accessibility, which addresses how much time people must spend traveling in total, reli

ability focuses on how much mobility and accessibility vary from day to day. This variabil

ity is illustrated in **Fi gur**  **e 5.9** , where Highway “A” and Highway “B” both have the same average travel time, meaning that they experience the same level of mobility. However, when each day’s travel time is taken into account, one sees that Highway “A” has lower variability than Highway “B.”

**Fi gur**  **e 5.9** 

### Difference between Reliability and Mobility

**Delay**Travel Time

10

5 15 20



### Same Mobility (same travel time and delay), but Highway “A” is much more reliable **Delay** Highway “A” Highway “B”

Reliability is the level of variability in transportation service between the expected travel time and the actual travel time between origin-destination (OD) pairs. Reliability can be calculated by using statistical tools. The standard deviation is one such tool that provides an estimate of how much the travel time on any given day will “deviate” from the average travel time. It provides the probable range of time that a motorist will arrive within his or her scheduled time. Dividing the standard deviation by the average time spent traveling produces the percentage of variability for an OD pair.

### 178 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up

Reliability can only be monitored and not forecasted. This is because travel demand models cannot evaluate variations in travel times, but can only estimate average travel times and delay (i.e., mobility). However, **T a**  **bl e 5.2**  presents the estimated improvements in reliability for three different hours during the day. These improvements are expected as a result of the TSM investments, especially as they relate to incident management. These estimates are based in part on the recently completed Corridor System Management Plans (CSMPs) in the SCAG region.

**T a**  **bl e 5.2**  

### Estimated Improvements in Reliability

**H our**  **A verage**  **T ravel**  **T ime**  **(minutes) V**  **ariability of**  **T ravel** 

**T ime**  **T ravel**  **T ime Based on Level of**  **Confidence of A**  **rriving on T**  **ime (minutes)**
**67% 95%**  **99%**
8:00 AM 23 29% 30 37 43

Noon 20 16% 24 27 30 5:00 PM 27 38% 38 48 59


## S afety and Health
The safety outcome for evaluating projects has been carried over from the 2008 RTP, but the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS effort also includes a new health outcome. Safety addresses how well the transportation system minimizes accidents and is measured in fatalities, injuries, and property damage accidents per million vehicle miles by mode. Safety and health impacts of regional transportation improvements cannot be easily forecasted, but total accidents can show a reduction in future years if people shift from modes with higher accident risk to modes with lower accident risk. Total number of accidents is generally used as the performance measure and can be partially projected by using mode-specific accident rates (e.g., for highways, arterials, transit). This approach is used for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, but it is important to note that this approach does not take into account safety improvements for each mode. It just reflects the changes based on modal or facility shifts. It is not possible to forecast this measure by ethnicity or income group. Finally, for monitoring, this measure can be reported historically by time period month and by mode (including for non-motorized transportation), but it cannot be projected at this level of detail. The safety outcome results are discussed in further detail in the Performance Measures Appendix.
Health is a new outcome for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. There are health measures that will be used for ongoing monitoring for the region, but to evaluate alternatives, the health measure will be the tons of pollutants emitted, since these are highly correlated to health problems such as asthma. This measure supports both the Health outcome as well as the Environmental Quality outcome. 

## Environmental Quality
This outcome is measured in terms of criteria pollutant emissions. Emissions are esti

mated using the SCAG RTDM results, which are input to the ARB’s Emission Factors (EMFAC) model. Pollutant emissions are reported in detail as part of the Transportation Conformity Appendix. 

## Economic W ell- B eing
Never before have the crucial linkages and interrelationships between the economy, the regional transportation system, and land use been as important as now. For the first time, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes a significant consideration of the economic impacts and opportunities provided by the transportation infrastructure plan set forth in the RTP/ SCS, considering not only the economic and job creation impacts of the direct invest

ment in transportation infrastructure, but also the efficiency gains in terms of worker and business economic productivity and goods movement. The RTP/SCS outlines a transpor

tation infrastructure investment strategy that will beneficially impact Southern California, the state, and the nation in terms of economic development, competitive advantage, and overall competitiveness in the global economy in terms of attracting and retaining employers in the Southern California region. Implementation of SCAG’s RTP/SCS will create or sustain jobs today to build transporta

tion infrastructure projects for tomorrow. SCAG’s RTP/SCS totaling more than $500 billion in transportation investments will put thousands of Southern Californians back to work in much-needed jobs, not only in construction, but in a broad cross-section of industry clus

ters. Over the twenty-three year period and six-county SCAG region, the plan will gener

ate significant employment. An annual average of 174,500 new jobs will be generated by2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 179

construction and operations expenditures that are specified in the RTP program ( **ta bl**  **e 5.3**  ), and the indirect and induced jobs that flow from those expenditures. An additional 354,000 annual jobs will be created by the SCAG region’s increased competitiveness and improved economic performance that will result from congestion reduction and improve

ments in regional amenities due to implementation of the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS. The rest of the state of California and nation will benefit from spillover impacts of additional accrued jobs.

**T a**  **bl e 5.3**  

### Employment Impact from Construction and Maintenance Expenditures (Per Year)

**2011– 2015**  **2016– 2020**  **2021– 2025**  **2026– 2030**  **2031– 2035**  **T otal** 
**Los A**  **ngeles** 112.2 89.1 90.1 93.4 76.4 92.2
**O range**  36.1 34.0 35.5 37.8 32.3 35.1 **Riverside** 23.5 22.0 25.0 28.0 23.7 24.4 **S an**  **Bernardino** 18.0 15.5 18.5 21.4 18.0 18.3
**V entura**  3.8 3.4 3.0 3.6 3.2 3.4 **I mperial**  0.7 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.0 **194.4 164.7**  **173.2 185.7**  **154.4 174.5** 

The goods movement, logistics & distribution, tourism, manufacturing, and many other transportation-reliant sectors are heavily dependent on efficient transportation infra

structure and are key Southern California job generators for all six SCAG-region counties. Without making the investments in Southern California’s transportation system outlined in this plan, economic recovery and job creation will be markedly slower throughout the region. Longer term, failure to make sufficient regional transportation investments will cost Southern California economically and the region’s business competitiveness will be at risk. 

## Investment Effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness outcome indicates the degree to which the Plan’s expenditures generate benefits that transportation users can experience directly. This outcome is important to the public because it describes how the Plan’s transportation investments make productive use of scarce funds. The benefit/cost ratio is the indicator for the cost-effectiveness outcome, and it compares the incremental benefits to the incremental costs of the modal investments. The benefits are divided into several categories, including:

 Delay savings,

 Air quality improvements, and

 Reductions in vehicle operating costs. For these categories, travel demand and air quality models are used to estimate the benefits of the Plan compared to the Baseline. Most of these benefits are a function of changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle hours traveled (VHT). For example, a highway project that increases VMT would negatively impact air quality and vehicle oper

ating costs, while a transit project that decreases VMT would have the opposite effect. Not all impacts are linear, so reductions in congestion can increase or decrease vehicle operating costs and emissions. Delay savings are reflected directly in the VHT statistics. To estimate the benefit/cost ratio, the benefits in each category are converted into dol

lars and added together. These are divided by the total incremental costs of the Plan’s transportation improvements to produce a ratio. **Fi gur**  **e 5.10** summarizes the results of this analysis. The investments in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS provide a return of $2.90 for every dollar invested. For this analysis, all benefits and costs are expressed in 2011 dollars. Benefits are estimated over the 25-year RTP/SCS planning period from 2011 to 2035. The user benefits are estimated using California’s Cal-B/C benefit/cost framework and incorporate SCAG’s RTDM outputs. The costs include the incremental public expenditures over the entire RTP/SCS planning period.

### 180 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up

**Fi gur**  **e 5.10** 

### Results of Regional Benefit/Cost Analysis

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50

1Benefits Accrued per Dollar Invested

B/C Ratio 

### $2.90

Benefits of RTP greater than costs



## S ystem S ustainability
A transportation system is sustainable if it maintains its overall performance over time with the same costs for its users. Sustainability, therefore, reflects how our decisionstoday affect future generations. The indicator for sustainability is the total inflationadjusted cost per capita to maintain overall system performance at current conditions. The performance measures presented in this chapter show that the planned transporta

tion system in 2035 will perform better compared to today. This RTP/SCS commits itself to maintaining a sustainable system by allocating $217 billion to maintaining the system in a state of good repair over the period of the plan. This is an average annual per capita investment of more than $400 per person for each year of the plan period. 

# RTP/ S C S Performance for Co- B enefits
In addition to the transportation performance results discussed above, the RTP/SCS’s more focused land pattern, increased investments in transit, and support for communities that foster walk and bike modes as serious transportation options leads to additional ben

efits in fiscal, economic, environmental, and other quality-of-life performance measures. These results compare the RTP/SCS with a future trend-based scenario that more closelyfollows the development trends of the past decades. Unlike the RTP/SCS, this trendbased future scenario relies more heavily on growth in undeveloped lands at the edges of cities and beyond and focuses more new housing toward single-family products in suburban patterns. Different from the modeling process used for the mobility-based per

formance measures, these performance results were derived using the single framework model described in the SCS Background Documentation Appendix. 

## B etter Placemaking
The challenges of traffic congestion and long commutes make the value of including optioons for better places to live and work even more important. The RTP/SCS focuses over 50 percent of new housing and job growth for 2035 in areas served by high-quality transit, as well as other opportunity areas in existing main streets, downtowns, and along corridors where infrastructure already exists. This more compact land use pattern, combined with the identified transportation network improvements and strategies, results in improved pedestrian and bicycle access to community amenities, lowers average trip length, and reduces vehicle miles traveled. These outcomes not only reduce GHG emis

sions, but also support the development of more livable communities that provide more housing choices, conserve natural resources, offer transportation options, and promote a better quality of life. 

## Lower Cost to Taxpayers and F amilies

L ocal Inf ra s tr u ct u re C apital a n d O peratio ns a n d Mai n te n a n ce C o s t s
Increased land consumption can lead to higher costs for local and subregional infra

structure, as new development in “greenfield” lands (areas, including agricultural lands,2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 181

not previously developed) requires significant capital investments to extend or build new local roads, water and sewer systems, and parks. Conversely, growth focused in urban areas often takes advantage of existing infrastructure and more efficient service to higher concentrations of jobs and housing. This cost difference increases when operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are taken into account. O&M costs include the ongoing city expenditures required to operate and maintain the infrastructure serving new residential growth. More dispersed development, which requires greater lengths of roads and sewer pipes, incurs higher O&M costs to local jurisdictions than more compact development, which capitalizes on shared infrastructure capacity. The RTP/SCS shows that growth in urban and mixed-use developments in already devel

oped areas can reduce costs significantly, as demonstrated by adding up capital infra

structure and ongoing O&M costs to 2035. If the development trend of the past decades continues, new growth would require $33.2 billion in capital infrastructure and O&M costs. By contrast, local jurisdictions following the land use pattern included in the RTP/ SCS leads to $27.2 billion in costs, representing a savings of $6 billion.


## L ocal R eve nu e s
To determine the RTP/SCS’s impact on local revenues, SCAG utilized estimates of poten

tial revenues from property and property transfer taxes, sales taxes, and vehicle license fees generated by new households. By 2035, the RTP/SCS’s more compact development generates $13,800 per acre in local revenues, which is approximately $4,000 per acre more than a land use pattern of more dispersed development.


## H o us ehold C o s t s
If the land use patterns of the past decades persist, average household costs associ

ated with driving and residential energy and water use will be up to $19,000 in 2035. By comparison, the RTP/SCS would cost each household $16,000. Over time, the differences in annual expenditures would amount to a significant sum for each household, which increases further if the effect of local infrastructure cost burdens, which are typically passed on to homeowners and renters in the form of taxes, fees, home prices, and assessments, is considered. 

## B enefits to Public Health and the Environment

L a n d C o nsum ptio n
New land consumption includes all land that will be newly urbanized, including residential and employment areas, roadways, open space, and public lands. Through infill, redevel

opment, and more efficient use of new greenfield land to accommodate new growth, a land use pattern with a greater share of urban infill and compact development consumes less land overall. By contrast, a pattern that places a greater share of new growth in dispersed standard development patterns consumes more land. The development trend of the past decades would consume approximately 740 square miles of land, nearly twice as much as the RTP/SCS, which consumes approximately 330 square miles, to accom

modate growth through 2035.


## B u ildi ng En er gy U s e Building energy use is determined by the mix of housing types and the proportion of development in temperate climate zones within the SCAG region. A land use pattern that contains more mixed-use/walkable and urban infill development accommodates a higher proportion of growth in more energy-efficient housing types like townhomes, apartments, and smaller single-family homes, as well as more compact commercial building types. By contrast, a large proportion of standard development leads to a higher proportion of larger single-family homes, which are typically less energy efficient. Location also comes into play—buildings in the warmer areas of the region and beyond use more energy each year, in part because they require more energy to cool during the summer months. Differences in land use patterns lead to substantial differences in the amount of electric

ity and natural gas used. These differences will vary depending on policies regulating how efficient buildings become. Assuming the same efficiency standards, the RTP/SCS uses 8 percent less energy per year when compared to a land use pattern that more closely aligns with the past development trend. Additionally, the overall energy savings that come from developing more compactly translate to meaningful savings in residential energy bills. On average, the RTP/SCS saves approximately $950 million per year in total by 2035, or about $130 per household.

### 182 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up



## R e s ide n tial Water U s e Variations in land use patterns and their related building profiles also lead to substantial differences in residential water use and cost. Residential water use is a function of both indoor and outdoor water needs, with outdoor use (landscape irrigation) accounting for the majority of the difference among housing types. Because homes with larger yards require more water for landscape irrigation, lot size is generally interrelated with a house

hold’s overall water consumption. Thus, a land use pattern with a greater proportion of the standard development, which includes more large-lot single-family homes, requires more water than a land use pattern with a greater proportion of compact and urban infill development, which includes more attached and multifamily homes. And, as is the case for energy use, the location of new development has a significant bearing on water use— homes in warmer areas use more water to maintain lawns and other landscaping. Water use will vary based on efficiency and conservation policies, which will be increas

ingly important as California faces future constraints to water supply. Assuming the same modest improvements, the RTP/SCS uses approximately 970 billion gallons of water (6 percent less than a land use pattern based on past development trends). Saving water also saves on costs, and the RTP/SCS saves approximately $245 million per year in total by 2035.


## H ealth In cide n ce s a n d C o s t s
Auto-related air pollution contributes to a spectrum of health incidences, including cases of chronic bronchitis; respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; respiratory-related ER visits; acute bronchitis; work loss days; premature mortality; asthma exacerbation; and acute, lower, and upper respiratory symptoms. Using research-based rates and valu

ations produced by the American Lung Association, the RTP/SCS results in a 24 percent reduction in total health incidences and saves over $1.5 billion per year in total costs. 

## G reater Responsiveness to Demographics and the Changing Housing M arket
There is little question that the demographic profile of Southern California is changing, resulting in different housing and transportation needs. The traditional suburban develop

ment pattern that characterizes most of the region is still appropriate for many residents and homeowners, but the increasing demand for small-lot and multifamily housing, walkable and bikeable environments, and shorter commutes calls for more varied housing options located in more compact developments. The RTP/SCS responds to this emerging need through an overall land use pattern that focuses new housing growth in urban centers served by various transportation options, including high-quality transit and active transportation. Approximately 70 percent of this new housing will be multifamily products. 

# Environmental J ustice
Title VI and Environmental J ustice Overview
The concept of Environmental Justice is about equal and fair access to a healthy environ

ment, with the goal of protecting underrepresented and poorer communities from incur

ring disproportionate negative environmental impacts. Consideration of Environmental Justice in the transportation planning process stems from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Title VI establishes the need for transportation agencies to disclose to the public the benefits and burdens of proposed projects on minority populations. The understanding of civil rights has expanded to include low-income communities, as further described below. Title VI states that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal finan

cial assistance.” Additionally, Title VI not only bars intentional discrimination, but also unjustified disparate impact discrimination. Disparate impacts result from policies and practices that are neutral on their face (i.e., there is no evidence of intentional discrimina

tion), but have the effect of discrimination on protected groups.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 183

A 1994 Presidential Order (Executive Order 12898) directed every federal agency to make Environmental Justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing the effects of all programs, policies, and activities on underrepresented groups and low-income popula

tions. Reinforcing Title VI, this Presidential Order ensures that every federally funded project nationwide considers the human environment when undertaking the planning and decision-making process. The Presidential memorandum accompanying E.O. 12898 identified Title VI as one of several federal laws that should be applied “to prevent minor

ity communities and low-income communities from being subject to disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects.” Given the overlap in Title VI and Environmental Justice policies, this report will use the term “Environmental Justice” as an inclusive term to mean minority and low-income populations. 1 In addition to federal requirements, SCAG must comply with California Government Code Section 11135, which states that “no person in the State of California shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state.” The State of California also provides guidance for those involved in transportation decision-making to address Environmental Justice. In 2003, Caltrans published the Desk Guide on Environmental Justice in Transportation Planning and Investments to provide information and examples of ways to promote Environmental Justice. The Desk Guide identified requirements for public agencies, guidance on impact analyses, recommenda

tions for public involvement, and mitigation.

1 See Title VI Legal Manual, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (2001), page 59. 

## M ajor Environmental J ustice Issues in the Region
The SCAG region is experiencing major challenges to quality of life and affordability. For example, the region’s residents have a high cost burden, with 45 percent of owner-occu

pied households and 54 percent of renter-occupied households spending 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing. In the SCAG region, less than 55 percent of households own their homes, a 2 percentage point decline from 2007 and 11 percent below the national average for homeownership (66 percent). There were 8.1 million renters in the region in 2009. 2 In general, housing is considered affordable if it costs 30 percent or less of a house

hold’s income. However, a more refined indicator called the Housing + Transportation Affordability Index was developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology to better gauge the true cost of housing based on its location. Based on this index, 67 percent of households in the SCAG region spend 45 percent or more of their incomes on housing and transportation, among the highest percentages in the nation. 3 The poverty rate in the SCAG region stands at 15 percent, with 2.6 million residents living in poverty. This is 3 percentage points higher than the national average. In 2009, per capita income was $42,784, which is about $17,000 less than that in the San Francisco Bay Area. Adding to the high poverty rate, real average wages (adjusted for inflation) have been stagnant for a decade. Further, for the past three years the SCAG region has experienced unemployment rates over 12 percent, about 3 percentage points higher than the national average. The lower income levels are associated in part with the educational attainment levels in the region. Only 25 percent of adults have a bachelor’s degree or higher in the SCAG region, compared to almost 40 percent in the San Francisco Bay Area. In Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, 17 percent of adults have a bachelor’s degree or higher. In Imperial County, only 12 percent of adults have a bachelor’s degree or higher. 4 Additional environmental concerns include exposure to toxic pollutants and obesity levels. Exposure to air pollutants is an Environmental Justice issue due to the disproportionate

2 U.S. Census. American Community Survey. 2009.
3 Center for Neighborhood Technology. Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. Last accessed October 15, 2011, from http://htaindex.cnt.org/.
4 U.S. Census. American Community Survey. 2009.

### 184 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up

share of minority and low-income populations living in close proximity to heavily trav

eled corridors, particularly near port and logistics activity. This exposure to unhealthy air results in 5,000 premature deaths and 140,000 children with asthma and respiratory symptoms. More than half of Americans exposed to PM 2.5 pollution exceeding the national standard reside in the SCAG region. 5 Additionally, populations living in areas without access to parks, safe walking environments, and fresh food have a greater prevalence of obesity and associated ailments such as diabetes. 6 Although the SCAG region’s level of obesity (24 percent) is lower than the national average of 33.8 percent, there are still disparities among racial groups, based on data from the CDC. For example, the preva

lence of obesity among non-Hispanic White women is 33 percent, whereas the obesity rates among non-Hispanic Black women and Mexican American women is 49.6 percent and 45.1 percent, respectively. 7 This raises policy questions about the opportunities for physical activity, access to healthy foods, and safety. 

## S CA G ’s Title VI and Environmental J ustice Policy & Program
As a government agency that receives federal funding, SCAG is required to conduct an Environmental Justice analysis for its RTP. SCAG’s Environmental Justice program includes two main elements: technical analysis and public outreach. Specifically, it is SCAG’s role to ensure that when transportation decisions are made, low-income and minority communities have ample opportunity to participate in the decision-making pro

cess and that they receive an equitable distribution of benefits and not a disproportionate share of burdens.
SCAG adheres to all directives on Environmental Justice. The Environmental Justice movement stems from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides one very significant means by which the public can seek greater accountability from transportation agencies. Title VI states that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from

5 California Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Southern California Association of Governments. Powering the Future. August 2011.
6 Sonia Caprio, MD, et.al. Diabetes Care November 2008 vol. 31 no. 11 2211–2221
7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Diabetes Surveillance System. Last accessed October 18, 2011, from http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/DDTSTRS/default.aspx and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of Overweight, Obesity, and Extreme Obesity Among Adults: United States, Trends 1960–1962 through 2007–2008. June 2010. participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Under federal policy, all federal agencies must make Environmental Justice part of their mission and adhere to three fundamental Title VI/Environmental Justice principles:

 To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority popu

lations and low-income populations.

 To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process.

 To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income populations. In the 1990s, the federal executive branch issued orders on Environmental Justice that amplified Title VI, in part by providing protections on the basis of income as well as race. These included President Clinton’s Executive Order 12898 (1994) and subsequent U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Highway Administration orders (1997 and 1998, respectively), along with a 1999 DOT guidance memorandum. On August 4, 2011, seventeen federal agencies signed the “Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12898.” The signatories, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), agreed to develop Environmental Justice strategies to protect the health of people living in communities overburdened by pollution and provide the public with annual progress reports on their efforts. The MOU advances agency responsibilities outlined in 1994 Executive Order 12898 and directs each of the federal agencies to make Environmental Justice part of its mission and to work with other agencies on Environmental Justice issues as members of the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice. In response to this MOU, the DOT revised its Environmental Justice Strategy. The revi

sions reinforce the DOT’s programs and policies related to Environmental Justice and strengthen its efforts to outreach to minority and low-income populations. Further, on September 29, 2011, the Federal Transit Authority issued two proposed circulars on Title VI and Environmental Justice to clarify the requirements and offer guidance. FTA Circular 4702.1A, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (Docket No. FTA-2011-0054), provides information required in the Title VI2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 185

Program, proposes changing the reporting requirement from every four years to every three years, and adds a requirement for mapping and charts to analyze the impacts of the distribution of state and federal public transportation funds. SCAG has reviewed the proposed Circulars as additional guidance for the development of the RTP/SCS. The FTA Circular 4703.1, Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (Docket number FTA-2011-0055), provides recommendations to MPOs (and other recipients of FTA funds) on how to fully engage Environmental Justice popula

tions in the public transportation decision-making process; how to determine whether Environmental Justice populations would be subjected to disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects as a result of a transportation plan, project, or activity; and how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these effects. The proposed Environmental Justice Circular does not contain any new requirements, policies, or direc

tives. Nonetheless, SCAG complies with the framework provided to integrate the prin

ciples of Environmental Justice into our decision-making processes. Finally, under Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), SCAG is required to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy within the RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS represents the collective vision of the six counties in the SCAG region and provides a framework for the future develop

ment of our regional transportation system. Through SB 375, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) established per capita targets for GHG reduction for cars and light trucks for the SCS. The targets for the SCAG region are 8 percent in 2020 and 13 percent in 2035, from 2005 levels. As part of the early target-setting process, the ARB appointed a Regional Target Advisory Committee (RTAC) to recommend factors to be considered and methodologies to be used for setting the targets. The RTAC report was finalized in September 2009 and included a recommendation on housing and social equity. The report recognized the impact policies to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) could have on social equity, specifically calling for appropriately located affordable housing match local wage levels. The RTAC further recommended that displacement and gentrification, as a result of changing land uses and increased housing costs, should be addressed and specifically avoided to the extent possible in the SCS. As a result of this recommendation and input from our Environmental Justice stakeholders, SCAG has updated its methodol

ogy to include new areas of analysis, including gentrification and  displacement. 

## S CA G ’s Title VI and Environmental J ustice Outreach
A key component of the RTP/SCS development process is seeking public participation. Public input from our Environmental Justice stakeholders helped SCAG prioritize and address needs in the region. As part of the Environmental Justice outreach effort, SCAG compiled a list of key stakeholders to be contacted regarding RTP/SCS programs and policies. This list is comprised of over 300 individuals and organizations involved with the 2008 RTP as well as additional stakeholders, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Environmental Justice Working Group, which included new groups such as local community advocates, air quality interest groups, and unions. SCAG maintains this list regularly and allows interested persons to sign up online for the mailing list. SCAG held two Environmental Justice workshops and convened focus groups on the Environmental Justice analysis to ensure that all members of the public have an opportu

nity to participate meaningfully in the planning process. All the workshops were properly noticed and advertised. A majority of the region’s Environmental Justice organizations were represented at both workshops. In addition to the special Environmental Justice workshops, SCAG held a workshop for Resource Agencies during development of the RTP/ SCS, where Environmental Justice was a primary focus. Furthermore, Environmental Justice stakeholders have been involved throughout the planning process. On June 24, 2010, SCAG held a workshop to review the planning process and familiarize the par

ticipants with the Environmental Justice analysis process. The workshop drew repre

sentatives of all major Environmental Justice groups from throughout the region, with video conferencing made available from SCAG’s regional offices. Attendance totaled 37 participants. The following is a summary of the main topics discussed at the workshop:

 SCAG was requested to conduct a presentation on SCAG’s modeling process,

 The Environmental Justice analysis should include baseline data of major issues facing the region,

 Public health was identified as a topic that should be further analyzed,

 SCAG was requested to include the housing plus transportation affordability index in its analysis, and

### 186 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up

 Gentrification needs to be addressed, particularly with SB 375’s emphasis on transit-oriented development. As a result of these workshops, SCAG determined that new analysis areas were neces

sary to capture the concerns raised by our stakeholders. These new areas are discussed in greater depth below, but include impacts from rail transportation, gentrification and displacement, pollution exposure along heavily traveled corridors, and impacts from revenue-generating mechanisms such as congestion pricing. On June 30, 2011, SCAG held a follow-up workshop to discuss the proposed new analysis areas with our stakeholders and seek further input. In response to comments from the first workshop, SCAG also included a summary of the modeling process. This workshop drew 45 participants from all six regional offices. The participants provided thoughtful comments and feedback on SCAG’s proposed analy

sis and planning process, including:

 PM 2.5 should be analyzed in the Environmental Justice report,

 The Environmental Justice community should be included early in the decisionmaking processes and advisory committees,

 The report should identify communities of concern and compare those areas with the location of investments,

 SCAG should produce maps that show long-range trip projections compared to system capacity,

 Housing should be included in the performance measures, including housing/jobs fit (costs vs. wages), and

 The impacts of freight movement should be analyzed and mitigated. In response to comments made at the workshop, SCAG followed up by organizing focused meetings to further discuss the methodology and ensure it addressed the concerns raised by Environmental Justice stakeholders. Also, participants were urged to attend subse

quent public workshops. Many of those who attended the Environmental Justice work

shops did attend the RTP/SCS workshops. Furthermore, to address the comments made during SCAG’s workshops, the Environmental Justice analysis will be updated from prior cycles as follows:  Focus more on non-motorized transportation,

 Identify and quantify the primary Environmental Justice challenges in transportation in the region, including the development of a baseline for key issues such as poverty, exposure to pollutants, and concentration of pollutants,

 Bring public health to the forefront—focus on pollutants and cancer concentration in communities of concern,

 Begin to analyze potential gentrification impacts from urban infill and transit-ori

ented development, and

 Provide an Environmental Justice mitigation toolbox with recommended mitigation measures for subsequent projects. 

## Technical Analysis
SCAG has been recognized for its technical approach to understanding the benefits and burdens in our regional plan. Each planning cycle presents new and emerging concerns for the region to address. For example, in the 2008 RTP, SCAG analyzed accessibility to public parks, including the distribution of parks by income and park accessibility by travel mode and income. In keeping with the trend of developing robust environmental analyses, the current RTP/SCS analyzes impacts from rail transport, exposure to pollutants alongheavily traveled corridors, gentrification and displacement, and impacts from revenuegenerating mechanisms such as a VMT fee. As with previous RTPs, the goal of the 2012– 2035 RTP/SCS is to ensure that when transportation decisions are made, low-income and minority communities have ample opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and receive an equitable distribution of benefits and not a disproportionate share of burdens.


## I de n ti fy i ng D e m o g raphic Gro u p s

Executive Order 12898 and the DOT and FHWA Orders on Environmental Justice define “minority” as persons belonging to any of the following groups, as well as “other” categories that are based on self-identification of individuals in the U.S. Census: 8 Black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian and Alaskan Native. SCAG bases its analysis on

8 Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Environmental Justice Emerging Trends and Best Practices Guidebook, Document Number: FHWA-HEP-11-024. August 2011.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 187

the latest census data for ethnic/racial groups in the SCAG region by census tract and by transportation analysis zone (TAZ). Identifying low-income and minority populations is necessary both for conducting effec

tive public participation and for assessing the distribution of benefits and burdens of transportation plans and projects. For the purposes of this analysis, SCAG focused on all low-income groups and minority populations. The minority population in the SCAG region comprises 65 percent of the total population. The predominant minority groups are Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders, which combine to account for over 50 percent of the total minority population within the SCAG region. Poverty level is a federally established income guideline used to define persons who are economically disadvantaged as defined by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services guidelines. 9 The poverty level applicable to the SCAG region is chosen on the basis of regional average household size for the census year. For example, for a regional mean of 2.98 persons—rounded to 3—per household, the threshold would consist of the sum of the value for the first person plus two additional people. The household counts in each income range are then used to determine the number and percentage of households in each census tract below the poverty level. In 2010, a family of three earning less than $17,374 was classified as living in poverty. 10 In addition to complying with federal guidance, SCAG also conducts income equity analyses based on five income quintiles. A quintile, by definition, is a category into which 20 percent of the ranked population falls. For each new analysis, SCAG defines regional income quintiles based on the most recent census data on household income. Once the income quintiles are established, the incidence of benefits and costs can be estimated and compared across these income categories. **T a**  **bl e 5.4**  lists the demographic catego

ries used in SCAG’s Environmental Justice analysis.

9 Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Environmental Justice Emerging Trends and Best Practices Guidebook, Document Number: FHWA-HEP-11-024. August 2011.
10 Weighted average threshold. U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty Thresholds. Last accessed October 14, 2011 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html. **T a**  **bl e 5.4**  

### Demographic and Economic Categories
**E thnic/Racial/**  **O ther Categories**  **(persons) I**  **ncome Categories (**  **H ouseholds)**  White (Non-Hispanic) Below Poverty Level

African-American Income Quintile 1 (lowest) American Indian Income Quintile 2 Asian/Pacific Islander Income Quintile 3

Hispanic (Latino) Income Quintile 4 Other Racial Categories Income Quintile 5 Disabled/Mobility Limited Age 65 and Above Non-English speaking Individuals without High School Diploma Households without a car Foreign-Born Population Young Children 5 and Under (Provided in Additional Analysis/Data) Sensitive Receptors: Hospitals,

Daycare Facilities, Schools, Senior Centers, Parks/Open Space



## Plan versus B aseline
As with the other performance outcomes presented in this chapter, the comparison of the Plan versus Baseline is the primary focus of the Environmental Justice analysis for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. The Plan represents the selected strategy to guide the region’s transportation planning over the next few decades, while the Baseline represents “business as usual” and assumes current land use trends and the completion of proj

ects programmed in the 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) that have received environmental clearance. The data for the analysis is based on the SCAG RTDM results.

### 188 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up



## P er f or m a n ce Mea su re s
In the development of this report, SCAG identified eleven performance measures to analyze existing social and environmental equity in the region and to address the impacts of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS on various Environmental Justice population groups. Detailed analysis is presented for the following eleven performance measures:

1. 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Revenue Sources In Terms of Tax Burdens 2. Share of Transportation System Usage 3. 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Investments 4. Impacts of Proposed VMT Fees 5. Distribution of Travel Time and Travel Distance Savings 6. Jobs-Housing Imbalance or Jobs-Housing Mismatch
7. Accessibility to Employment and Services 8. Accessibility to Parks 9. Gentrification and Displacement 10. Environmental Impact Analyses (Air, Health, Noise)
a. Air Quality and Health Impacts

 Historic Performance At the Regional Level

 Environmental Impacts along Freeways and Highly Traveled Corridors

 Environmental impacts of Plan and Baseline Scenarios b. Noise impacts

 Aviation

 Roadway 11. Rail-Related Impacts The following section summarizes the findings for each of the eleven performance mea

sures analyzed as part of the Environmental Justice Report. The full results can be found in the Environmental Justice Appendix. 

## Performance M easure 1: 2012–2035 RTP/ S C S Revenue S ources in Terms of Tax B urdens Different funding sources (i.e., income taxes, property taxes, sales, fuel, etc.) can impose disproportionate burdens on lower-income and minority groups. Sales and gasoline taxes, which are the primary sources of funding for the region’s transportation system, were evaluated for the purposes of this analysis. The amount of taxes paid was analyzed to demonstrate how tax burdens fall on various demographic groups. As in previous RTP Environmental Justice Reports, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Environmental Justice analysis examined in detail the incidence or distribution of, the burden of taxation. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Environmental Justice analysis performed a comparative exam

ination of the amount of taxes (sales, gasoline, and income) paid by the five respective income groups and by ethnicity. The analysis indicates that taxes paid as a percentage of each group’s disposable income puts the heaviest burden on lower-income groups. This is the so-called “regressive” nature of the excise gasoline tax and retail sales tax levy on primarily consumer durable and non-durables that are necessities of daily living. The lower quintile groups (Quintile 1 and Quintile 2) are anticipated to pay 38.7 percent and 9.9 percent of their gross adjusted income on regional sales and gasoline taxes, respec

tively. By comparison, the higher quintile groups (Quintile 4 and 5) are anticipated to pay 6.6 percent and 3.0 percent of their income on all regional sales and gasoline taxes, respectively. Although the lower income quintile groups pay a larger percentage of their income on taxes than other quintiles, their contribution of the total share of sales and gasoline taxes is the smallest of the group at 8.4 percent for Quintile 1 and 12.8 percent for Quintile 2. Quintile 4 and Quintile 5, in contrast, pay 23.4 percent and 37.7 percent of the total sales and gasoline taxes in the region. Thus, those with limited financial means will not pay a disproportionate amount of overall taxes under the Plan compared with their usage of the transportation system and their shares of RTP/SCS investment. The analysis indicates that tax burdens are expected to fall more heavily on non-minority groups, with non-Hispanic Whites paying 48.8 percent of the income taxes and 40.8 percent of the retail and gasoline tax.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 189



## Performance M easure 2: S hare of Transportation S ystem U sage In order to determine the existing level of system usage, SCAG analyzed the 2010 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). The NHTS is a household-based travel survey conducted periodically by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The NHTS is the authoritative source of national data on the travel behavior of the American public. SCAG then analyzed the transportation system usage by mode by race/ethnicity and income quintile. The data show that most bus and urban rail riders are lower-income quintile households—the lowest two income quintile households combined account for 84 percent of bus riders and 93 percent of urban rail riders. By ethnicity, Hispanics use disproportionately more bus, urban rail, and pedestrian facilities than their share of total households or population, while non-Hispanic Whites use disproportionately more auto and bike modes, similar to their mode usage for work trips.


## Performance M easure 3: 2012–2035 RTP/ S C S Investments One of the most prominent Environmental Justice issues is the transportation investment strategy, which can impact the transportation choices of low-income and minority com

munities. A disproportionate allocation of resources for various transit investments can indicate a pattern of discrimination. As a regional MPO, SCAG aims to identify and address Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Environmental Justice implications of its planning processes and investment decisions. This analysis intends to determine where the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS is put

ting its investments and will evaluate whether resources are being allocated equitably. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS utilized a benefit assessment method that considered to what extent various socioeconomic groups were receiving value from existing and funded transportation investments. SCAG compared the total share of transportation funding borne by low-income households against other income groups. In this analysis, SCAG reported expenditure distribution in several ways. First, SCAG estimated the share of total RTP/SCS expenditures allocated to each category of household income. This was done by totaling expenditures on each type of mode (bus, HOV lanes, commuter/high-speed rail, highways/arterials, and light/heavy rail). These expenditures were then allocated to income categories based on each income group’s use-share of these modes. The results in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS revealed that approximately 25 percent of Plan investments will be allocated to the lowest quintile group (compared with the group system usage of just under 17 percent), while 19 percent will be invested for the highest income category (Quintile 5), with total transportation system usage of almost 25 percent. In other words, transportation investments would go to modes likeliest to be used by lower-income households. The current analysis for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS further reveals that Plan investments will be distributed equitably on the basis of system usage by ethnic/racial groups. The full analysis is available in the Environmental Justice Appendix.


## Performance M easure 4: Impacts of Proposed V M T F ees This is a new analysis area based on the finance strategy in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, which recommends a vehicle mile traveled (VMT)–based user fee. This VMT user fee would be implemented to replace the gasoline tax and is estimated to cost about $0.05 (in 2011 dollars) per mile and indexed to maintain purchasing power starting in 2025. The implementation of this strategy requires actions of both the State Legislature and Congress. This section discusses the land use impact from the “VMT fee” scenario. This is a cursory analysis using SCAG’s PECAS land use model. To parameterize the VMT fee scenario for a model run, the following assumptions were applied:

 Current gasoline tax, $0.364 per gallon, would gradually increase until 2025 to $0.50 per gallon.

 After then, a $0.05 per mile of VMT fee would replace the gasoline tax at year 2026.

 Relative to the Production, Exchange, and Consumption Allocation System (PECAS) model’s base year, 2007, the travel cost would be 10 percent higher at year 2025 than in 2007. Between 2008 and 2024, this cost increase is linear. At year 2026, the travel cost would be 20 percent higher than in 2007 and thereafter stabilized. In general, the results suggest that with higher travel costs region-wide as reflected in the VMT-based user fees, people and households will tend to move to nearby local centers where accessibility to job opportunities is plentiful, so as to offset the impacts from an increase in travel costs. On the other hand, employers will relocate to key

### 190 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up

locations to better align themselves with the newly emerging concentration of workers and households.


## Performance M easure 5: Distribution of Travel Time and Travel Distance S avings SCAG assessed both the distribution of travel time and distance savings that are expected to result from the implementation of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS by analyzing demographic data and the associated mode usage statistics for each Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) in the region. With this input, an estimate for the time savings for each income and ethnic group can be identified for trips involving transit (i.e., local bus and all transit) and automobiles. The analysis resulted in the following observations:

 Share of travel times savings by income groups are generally consistent with the mode usage for each income group. Higher-income quintile groups captured more savings in person-hours traveled proportionally to their relative higher usage of automode. On the other hand, lower-income groups received more benefits from transitrelated time savings for their higher usage in the transit mode.

 Similarly, person-mile travel changes are also in line with usage by income groups in terms of auto mode.

 The outcomes for share of travel time savings and person-mile benefits by ethnic groups are also very balanced and in line with each ethnic group’s use of the trans

portation system.

 In terms of relative improvements by income/ethnicity group, lower-income quintile groups received greater improvements in person-mile travel reductions and local bus travel time savings than higher-income groups and about the same level of improvement in person-hour savings as higher-income households. Alternatively, higher-income households enjoyed a moderately better improvement in all transit mode time savings.

 The improvements in mobility and person-mile travel benefits are fairly similar and close for all ethnic groups. 

## Performance M easure 6: J obs-Housing Imbalance
or J ob Housing M ismatch
In the practice of urban and transportation planning, the subject of job-housing imbalance and job-housing mismatch is considered a key contributor to traffic congestion and, some argue, an impediment to Environmental Justice. Among the arguments:

 Workers are priced out of the job rich areas, which makes long-distance travel and congestion inevitable for many

 Coastal counties have not built enough housing, forcing workers to move to inland counties where housing is affordable. This results in long distance commuting and traffic congestion While this analysis is not expecting to allay all concerns of the jobs-housing imbalance and/or jobs-housing mismatch, the statistics are provided to investigate socioeconomic profiles of long-distance commuters—defined here as “intercounty commuters—such that stakeholders and policymakers can better understand the demographic composition of long-distance commuters. From an economic point of view, transportation and driving are expensive; workers with

out a car or people with less income who cannot afford a vehicle have to either live close to their jobs where they can have access to transit or can walk or bike. Moreover, since long-distance commuting is expensive, people do not partake in it unless subsidies exist to own a dependable vehicle, access is available to relatively fast and cheap transit, or they have a good-paying job.
The statistics indicate that, almost without exception, all intercounty commuters command much higher wages than those commuters who work and live in the same county. Those commuters also command wages higher than workers who work and reside in their destination work counties. From an Environmental Justice perspective, this research does not provide definitive results. Rather, it raises additional questions that2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 191

could be investigated to better understand how jobs, workers, housing, and associated income distribution could impact travel patterns of low income and minority populations.


## Performance M easure 7: Accessibility to Employment and S ervices
Accessibility is a foundation for social and economic interactions. As an indicator, acces

sibility is measured by the spatial distribution of potential destinations; the ease of reach

ing each destination; and the magnitude, quality and character of the activities at the destination sites. Travel costs are central: The lower the costs of travel, in terms of time and money, the more places that can be reached within a certain budget and thus, the greater the accessibility. Destination choice is equally crucial: The more destinations and the more varied the destinations, the higher the level of accessibility. Job and shopping accessibility calculations are presented in the Environmental Justice Appendix. Summary highlights from the analysis include the following:

 The elderly population showed only above average accessibility to job opportunity by auto; all other measures come out slightly below average for both job and shopping accessibility. As mentioned earlier, staff plan to research and further study resi

dential location and land uses in the surrounding areas for this population group, in particular because the region is facing an aging population in the next 20–25 years.

 In general, lower-income quintile households and populations below poverty all showed higher job and shopping accessibility in Base Year 2008 under every trans

portation mode.

 As in the case of distance-based accessibility, non-Hispanic Native Americans and non-Hispanic other, similar to non-Hispanic White, are below average in both job and shopping accessibility.

 Nonetheless, through the implementation of recommended strategies in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, the elderly, non-Hispanic Native Americans, and non-Hispanic others will experience greater improvements than the average population in both employment and shopping opportunities.


## Performance M easure 8: Accessibility to Parks Similar to the method in measuring job accessibility, park accessibility is defined as the percentage of park acreage reachable within 45-minute travel time via 1) automobile; 2) local bus; and 3) all transit options. SCAG’s existing typical weekday model was utilized for the analysis, as there is currently no weekend transportation model for the region. The results of this park accessibility analysis by auto, local bus, and all transit modes for 45 minutes of travel are presented in the Environmental Justice Appendix. General conclusions from the table and figures include:

 Park accessibility statistics indicate that park accessibility by transit is much lower than that by automobile for all groups. This is true for all parks—national, state, or local parks. By transit, there is almost no access to national parks, and very limited access to state parks in all scenarios—Base Year 2008, Baseline, or under the Plan. This observation is consistent with the conclusions of the 2008 RTP Environmental Justice Report that there is a near complete lack of public transportation services into, in particular, the national forests.

 Income quintiles 4 and 5 will have moderately higher access to either state and/or local parks in the region via automobile. Population groups showing marginally lower accessibility to national parks by auto include non-Hispanic Black, income Quintile 1 and 5, and population below poverty. As to state park accessibility by auto, all popu

lation groups show slightly lower than average accessibility except for non-Hispanic White and the two higher-income quintile households. More Environmental Justice population groups, including Hispanics, non-Hispanic Asians, income Quintile 2, and the disabled population, show higher than average accessibility to local parks than the average population in the region.

 In addition to the elderly, non-Hispanic Native Americans, and non-Hispanic other, further analysis should also focus on non-Hispanic Blacks where their park acces

sibility by auto is below the average for all parks. However, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS provides improvements for these population groups at a greater rate than the rest of the region’s population groups.


## Performance M easure 9: G entrification and Displacement
The integration of transportation and land use has been recognized for its ability to reduce vehicle miles traveled, air pollution, and greenhouse gases, while increasingopportunities for physical activity. However, there are concerns associated with transitoriented development (TOD). Specifically, there has been criticism of smart growth in relation to affordability. Some opponents have suggested that concentrating growth in

### 192 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up

cities and towns to avoid sprawl can lead to higher household costs, an effect completely opposite of what was intended. In some cases where transit service has spurred signifi

cant new TOD, the result can be that people with average incomes are unable to afford to buy homes in or near the new developments. This highlights the need for strategies that, at a minimum, set aside some portion of new development and surrounding households as affordable housing adjacent to transit and in surrounding households. 11 In response to these concerns, SCAG developed a methodology to model and monitor the demographic trends in and around transit-oriented communities. With this methodology, SCAG has the ability to track demographic changes over time in those areas designated as key growth areas. The results will help SCAG and our partners better understand what demographic shifts occurred from the development of TOD along urban and commuter rail lines. It will also serve as Baseline data for comparison in future RTP cycles. More information on this methodology can be found in the Environmental Justice Appendix. Resources to address gentrification and displacement are provided for informational purposes only. Local agencies may consider them at their discretion.


## Performance M easure 10: Environmental Impact Analyses (Air, Health, N oise)

H i s torical A ir Qu alit y a n d H ealth Im pact s
Emissions Impact on Environmental J ustice Populations at the Regional Level Exposure to air pollutants is an Environmental Justice issue due to the disproportionate share of minority and low-income populations living in close proximity to heavily trav

eled corridors, particularly near port and logistics activity. This exposure to unhealthy air results in 5,000 premature deaths and 140,000 children with asthma and respiratory symptoms. More than half of Americans exposed to P M 2.5 pollution exceeding the national standard reside in the SCAG region. 12

11 Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Environmental Justice Emerging Trends and Best Practices Guidebook, Document Number: FHWA-HEP-11-024. August 2011.
12 California Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Southern California Association of Governments. Powering the Future. August 2011. New to the Title VI and Environmental Justice analysis for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, SCAG has mapped data for existing exposure to ozone, concentration of particulate mat

ter emissions, cancer risks, and respiratory hazard risks. In order to assess the historical impacts of emissions on various demographic groups throughout the region, emissions information was summarized to the Environmental Justice communities. Further, addi

tional analysis has been included in the final Environmental Justice Appendix that docu

ments the health and emissions data for children age 5 or under. The analysis compares the performance of the Plan scenario with the Baseline scenario for children age 5 or under within 500 feet of freeways and highly traveled corridors and in areas affected by roadway noise, aviation noise, and near rail lines. It also includes historical air quality and health factors for areas that have a concentration of young children that is higher than the region at large. These findings are available in the Environmental Justice Appendix.


### En viro nm e n tal Im pact s alo ng f ree w a ys a n d hi g hl y traveled corridor s The concentration of air pollutants along heavily traveled corridors, particularly PM 10 and PM 2.5 , is a major concern in Southern California. SCAG identified major corridors defined as urban roads with 100,000 average daily trips and rural roads with 50,000 daily trips. Next, SCAG overlaid the income and racial and ethnic composition of those households within 500 feet of the corridor. This analysis allows SCAG to better understand the impacted populations and allow for greater outreach to those communities of concern. After the release of the Draft RTP/SCS, SCAG also prepared additional analysis to high

light the emissions exposure in buffer areas within 500 feet of freeways and high volume roads, and also added analysis of the areas within 1000 feet. The analysis illustrated the distribution of Environmental Justice communities residing within 500 feet of a heavily traveled corridor. Low-income groups comprise 7 percent of the population living within 500 feet of a heavily traveled corridor, while 7.1 percent of minorities reside in these areas. This is higher than the regional level, which shows that 5.7 percent of the region’s population lives within 500 feet of a heavily traveled corridor. These findings are available in the Environmental Justice Appendix.


### En viro nm e n tal Im pact s o f P la n a n d Ba s eli n e Sce n ario s SCAG’s air pollutant emissions analysis was based on emission estimates for pollutants that have localized health effects: carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM).2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 193

An analysis was also conducted for PM exhaust emissions from heavy-duty vehicles: an indicator for diesel toxic air contaminants. The results were calculated based on the estimated emissions at the TAZ level. It is important to note that total emissions of all pollutants in the region will decrease compared to existing conditions with or without the Plan, due to the combination of mea

sures being taken to meet air quality standards. Since the Plan must demonstrate confor

mity with regional air quality management plans that call for reductions in emissions of air pollutants, the Plan itself will likewise result in reductions of pollutant emissions. This is generally because the Plan investments will alleviate roadway congestion and provide a greater range of transportation alternatives. The analysis in the Appendix, however, is based on a comparison of Plan to Baseline conditions, rather than a comparison of Plan to current conditions. Data and analysis included in the Environmental Justice Appendix does not account for Plan improvements in vehicle technology particularly for truck only corridors. These corri

dors in the Plan are exclusively for zero and/or near-zero emission vehicles. Furthermore, the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) accompanying the 2012-2035 RTP/ SCS includes mitigation measures that would reduce impacts associated with health risk within 500 feet of freeways and high-traffic volume roadways to less than signifi

cant. Analysis included in the Environmental Justice Appendix also does not account for emissions improvements through the implementation of these mitigation measures. As such, emissions and exposure analysis shown in the Appendix is abundantly conservative and demonstrates worst-case scenario outcomes. If these emissions improvements had been accounted for, we believe the analysis would show little or no areas with worsened emissions (“hot spots”) associated with the Plan. Moreover, the currently available data on emissions and on the distribution of households and population is imprecise such that the overlay with emissions and Environmental Justice populations will tend to overstate any potential impacts. Nevertheless, given on-going concerns and evolving information on health impacts, SCAG encourages project sponsors to be cognizant of any potential health risks in project design and delivery. Consistent with the mitigation identified and to be implemented as part of the proposed final PEIR, SCAG will assist in disseminating information and identifying effective strategies to reduce risk at the project level. 

### Noi s e Im pact s
Roadway N oise The SCAG region has an extensive roadway system with nearly 21,000 centerline miles and 65,000 lane miles. It includes one of the country’s most extensive high-occupancy vehicle lane systems and a growing network of toll lanes, as well as high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. The region also has a vast network of arterials and other minor roadways. Roadway facilities noise may cause significant environmental concerns. Noise associated with highway traffic depends on a number of factors that include traffic volumes, vehicle speed, vehicle fleet mix (cars, trucks), as well as the location of the highway with respect to sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, daycare facilities, parks, etc.). According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance, noise impacts occur when noise levels increase substantially when compared to existing noise levels. For the purposes of this analysis (consistent with FHWA guidance), noise increases of 3 dB along highways where noise levels are currently, or would be in the future, above 66 dB are considered to be significant, regardless of adjacent land use. Highways that would be expected to have an increase of 3 dB or more include those where any of the following would occur: (1) the total traffic volumes increase by 100 percent compared to existing conditions; (2) the medium/heavy truck traffic volumes increase by 130 percent compared to existing conditions; or (3) the medium/heavy truck traffic volumes increase by 100 percent and there is an increase in other traffic volumes by 50 percent. These highway segments were identified using the results of SCAG’s regional transportation model. On some highways, there is no potential for noise levels to reach 66 dB. To eliminate these from the analysis, the following criteria were applied: (1) arterials where the FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM) indicated that the motor vehicle volume (and the percentage of medium/heavy trucks) would result in traffic noise levels less than 66 dB; (2) arterials where the calculated motor vehicle speed was less than 17 mph; or (3) freeways where the average volume-to-capacity ratio was equal to or greater than 1.0, which would result in vehicle speeds of less than 30 mph. If a highway met any one of these criteria, it was eliminated from further consideration.

### 194 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up

For each highway segment where a significant increase in noise would occur, a 150-foot impact zone was determined on either side (see the Environmental Justice Appendix for roadway segments selected from the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS). Using GIS, the percentage of each affected TAZ’s land area that fell within this zone was identified, and this percent

age was applied to the demographic data forecast for this TAZ. This methodology was utilized in both the 2008 and 2004 RTP. The results show that minority populations were primarily affected by highway noise impacts. As indicated by the distribution of households in highway noise areas by ethnic/ racial category, minority populations, specifically Hispanics, would be disproportionately impacted by highway noise. Approximately 60 percent of Hispanics would be residing in highway noise areas by 2035. This is a 1 percent increase from the results of the 2008 RTP Environmental Justice analysis. SCAG further investigated the impacts on areas and the number of people affected by improvement of roadway noise from the proposed 2012–2035 RTP/SCS as it com

pared with the 2035 Baseline conditions. As illustrated in the roadway segment maps where noise impacts are identified for both Baseline and for the proposed Plan, areas or number of segments under the proposed Plan are much smaller/fewer than those under the Baseline condition. Thus, it is projected that there will be 183,000 fewer people (13.9 percent reduction) and 63,000 fewer households (15.3 percent reduc

tion) affected by roadway noise than those under the Baseline condition (1,321,600 people/426,700 households). While the proposed 2012–2035 RTP/SCS improves the roadway noise conditions by reducing the areas, roadway segments, and the number of people affected by roadway noise, the benefits are not proportionally shared by each Environmental Justice category as observed in the roadway noise impacted areas or in the region as whole. SCAG’s anal

ysis found that the roadway noise reductions will disproportionately benefit non-Hispanic Whites and the two highest-income quintile groups. Several other Environmental Justice communities also receive greater benefits from roadway noise improvements, including non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic other, elderly, and the disabled.


### Aviation N oise The SCAG region supports the nation’s largest regional airport system in terms of number of airports and aircraft operations, operating in a very complex airspace environment. The system has six established air carrier airports including Los Angeles International (LAX), Bob Hope (formerly Burbank), John Wayne, Long Beach, Ontario, and Palm Springs. There are also four emerging air carrier airports in the Inland Empire and North Los Angeles County. These include San Bernardino International Airport (formerly Norton AFB), March Inland Port (joint use with March Air Reserve Base), Southern California Logistics Airport (formerly George AFB), and Palmdale Airport (joint use with Air Force Plant 42). The regional system also includes 45 general aviation airports and two commuter airports, for a total of 57 public use airports. Although the projected demand for airport capacity has decreased compared to the 2008 RTP, there is still moderate growth for the future. The challenge is striking a balance between the aviation capacity needs of Southern California with the local quality of life for the affected populations. Projected noise impacts from aircraft operations at the region’s airports in 2035 were modeled for inclusion in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the RTP/ SCS. For each airport, modeling produced a contour, or isoline, for the 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), a measure of noise that takes into account both the number and the timing of flights, as well as the mix of aircraft types. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considers residences to be an “incompatible land use” with noise at or above 65 dB. To identify potentially impacted populations, the anticipated population within the 65 dB CNEL contour was calculated using the following steps:

1. Calculate the percentage of TAZs that would lie within a 65 dB CNEL contour. 2. Assign the SCAG projected population to the TAZ. 3. Apply the demographic breakdown of the TAZ as a whole to the population within the 65 dB CNEL contour. It should be noted that after 9-11 and the Great Recession experienced since 2008, the global aviation industry remains in a depressed state. SCAG region air passenger demand and cargo forecasts have been revised downward repeatedly in 2004 RTP and 2008 RTP from the aviation scenario and forecasts adopted in the 2001 RTP. Currently for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, projections of aviation demand and air cargo remained significantly less than those projected and adopted in the 2001 RTP. Thus the downward revisions in projected demand at airports resulted in the reduction of airport noise areas and the cor

responding communities that will be studied.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 195

For the purposes of this study, aviation noise areas are defined as areas that are adversely affected by aircraft and airport noise. As part of the Environmental Justice analysis, special attention will be paid to income, disability, age, and race/ethnicity of affected populations. The analysis indicates that the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS results in a disproportionate aviation noise impact to low-income and minority populations. Under the 2012–2035 RTP, the lowest-income group (Quintile 1) will represent 27 percent of the households impacted by noise above the 65 dB CNEL, while the highest-income group (Quintile 5) will represent only 13 percent of the households impacted by noise above the 65 dB CNEL. Similarly, a disproportionate number of households below the poverty threshold will be affected by airport noise levels above the 65 dB CNEL. While 14 percent of the SCAG region households are projected to be living below the poverty level, 19 percent of those that live within the noise contour areas will be below the poverty line. In terms of race/ethnicity, the aviation plan of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS is projected to have a disproportionate aviation noise impact on minority groups, who make up 89 percent of population within the noise contours, compared with a regional average of 76 percent of minority population in 2035. Specifically, Hispanic and African-American populations are disproportionately affected. These two groups will make up 55 percent and 6 percent of the regional population in 2035, respectively, but represent 62 percent and 21 percent of those that will live within the impacted noise contour area. Consistent with mitigation identified in the proposed Final PEIR, SCAG will assist in disseminat

ing information and identifying effective strategies to reduce impacts at the project level. Potential mitigation measures for noise impacts are included for reference in the Environmental Justice Mitigation Toolbox.


## Performance M easure 11: Rail-Related Impacts As described in the Goods Movement Technical Appendix (p 32), freight rail emissions are 5 percent and 4 percent of regional goods movement related NOx and PM emissions, respectively. When compared to all regional PM and NOx sources, the contribution of freight rail emissions is even lower. However, environmental pollution from locomotives, rail yards and other rail facilities must be considered as concentrations of rail activities can cause localized rail pollution. In response to input from our federal partners, SCAG developed a summary analysis to address potential environmental justice impacts in areas adjacent to railroads and rail facilities, although further discussion and analysis is recommended. This section includes an analysis of Environmental Justice communities adjacent to railroads and rail facilities, rail impacts to sensitive receptors, and a summary examination of potential environmental justice concerns that are alleviated by grade sepa

ration projects. The train traffic index and related analysis provided in the Environmental Justice Appendix includes data from both passenger and freight rail traffic.


## A dditio n al S CA G Strate g ie s: En viro nm e n tal J us tice Miti g atio n T ool b ox New to the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, SCAG has developed a toolbox of potential mitiga

tion measures to address potential impacts to Environmental Justice communities. The toolbox presents optional mitigation recommendations that may be effective in addressing project-specific Environmental Justice impacts after a comprehensive review of impacts and consultation with all stakeholders. These measures were identified through a review of the literature, the PEIR, and recent planning activities. 13 Measures incorporating or referring to compliance with existing regulations are for informational purposes only and do not supersede existing regulations.


## Potential M itigation for N oise Impacts
Project sponsors may voluntarily, to the extent feasible and applicable, and where their jurisdictional authority permits:

 As part of the appropriate environmental review of each project, conduct a projectspecific noise evaluation and identify and implement applicable mitigation.

 Employ land use planning measures, such as zoning, restrictions on development, site design, and use of buffers, to ensure that future development is compatible with adjacent transportation facilities.

13 The EJ Mitigation Toolbox draws from, among other sources, mitigation measures included in the Draft 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), particularly for air quality and noise impacts. As captured here, Environmental Justice mitigation is geared toward reducing impacts for Environmental Justice communities as defined in this appendix, whereas PEIR measures are more broadly geared to sensitive receptors as defined in the PEIR. Mitigation activities cited here (e.g., performing corridor-specific analysis) are consistent between this toolbox and the Final PEIR Appendix G.

### 196 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up

 Maximize the distance between noise-sensitive land uses and new roadwaylanes, roadways, rail lines, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and other new noisegenerating facilities.

 Construct sound-reducing barriers, where feasible and applicable, between noise sources and noise-sensitive land uses. Sound barriers can be in the form of earth berms or soundwalls. Constructing roadways as appropriate and feasible so that they are depressed below-grade of the existing sensitive land uses also creates an effective barrier between the roadway and sensitive receptors.

 Maximize distance of new route alignments from Environmental Justice communities.


## Potential M itigation for Air Quality Impacts along Heavily Traveled Corridors
Local air districts, local jurisdictions, and project sponsors may voluntarily implement measures adopted by ARB designed to attain federal air quality standards for PM 2.5 and eight-hour ozone. ARB’s strategy includes the following elements:

 Set technology forcing new engine standards;

 Require clean fuels and reduce petroleum dependency;

 Work with US EPA to reduce emissions from federal and state sources;

 Pursue near-term advanced technology demonstration and deployment such as:

 Zero- or near zero emissions heavy-duty trucks (2013 and beyond) 14

 Tier 4 marine engine repowers and replacements (2014 and beyond)

 Tier 4 and zero-emissions railyard equipment (2015 and beyond) 15

 Pursue long-term advanced technology measures;

 In addition, consider proposed new transportation-related SIP measures include:

 Improvements and Enhancements to California’s Smog Check Program

 Expanded Passenger Vehicle Retirement

 Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline Program

 Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks

 Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing and Other Clean Technology

14 Please see Chapter 2, Transportation Investments for more information regarding a heavy-duty truck demonstration project in partnership with SCAQMD.
15 For more information, see http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/marine.php and http://www. dieselnet.com/standards/us/loco.php.  Cleaner Ship Main Engines and Fuel

 Port Truck Modernization

 Clean Up Existing Commercial Harbor Craft

 Conduct corridor-level analysis for proposed projects in areas where air quality impacts may be concentrated among Environmental Justice communities

 Project sponsors should consider identifying the Environmental Justice impacts of each project. In consultation with the affected community, mitigation measures can be identified to best address the project’s impacts.

 Participate in statewide and regional discussions seeking to balance multiple policy objectives affecting air quality and the siting of transit-oriented development.


## Potential M itigation for Rail-Related Impacts

 Construct sound-reducing barriers, where feasible and applicable, between noise sources and noise-sensitive land use


## Potential M itigation for Road Pricing M echanisms

 Transit, vanpools, or other options as alternatives in locations not served by transit

 Upper limits on road pricing

 Exemptions or discounts for persons who are disadvantaged people such as those whose earnings are below a certain income level and people with disabilities

 Limits on the number of priced crossings in a period for cordon charges

 Allowances for unlimited use of priced facilities in certain periods, typically off-peak hours and holidays 16

 Develop detailed program design including billing and collection technology, rate structure, enforcement, spillover guards, revenues and gas tax replacement strategy, and mitigation for perceived geographic inequity before communicating with public 17

16 Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Environmental Justice Emerging Trends and Best Practices Guidebook, Document Number: FHWA-HEP-11-024. August 2011.
17 National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 686. Road Pricing: Public Perceptions and Program Development (2011).2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 

### 197

 Develop an explicit benefit plan for increased revenues dovetailing with goals and mitigation concerns (e.g., enhanced transit, spillover protections, better enforcement) 18

 Include Environmental Justice mitigation actions as part of the NEPA review 19


## Potential M itigation for Environmental J ustice Impacts

 Fund proactive measures to improve air quality in neighboring homes, schools, and other sensitive receptors

 Provide public education programs about environmental health impacts to better enable residents to make informed decisions about their health and community

 Engage in proactive measures to train and hire local residents for construction or operation of the project to improve their economic status and access to health care


## Potential Resources Related to G entrification and Displacement Trends observed in areas with transit oriented developments (TODs) are inconclusive. However, the following resources are provided for informational purposes only. Local agencies may consider them at their discretion.

 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Inclusionary Housing Publications 20

 PolicyLink, Equitable Development Toolkit 21

 National Association of Realtors, Field Guide to Inclusionary Zoning 22

 The Partnership for Working Families, Community Benefits Agreements 23

 Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, LAX Community Benefit Agreement 24

18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Please see http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/inclusionary.pdf
21 Please see http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136575/k.39A1/Equitable_ Development_Toolkit.htm
22 Please see http://www.realtor.org/library/library/fg806
23 Please see http://www.communitybenefits.org/section.php?id=155
24 Please see http://www.communitybenefits.org/section.php?id=155 

# SB 375 G reenhouse G as Emission Targets
California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, or SB 375, requires SCAG to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy to reduce per capita GHG emis

sions through integrated transportation, land use, housing and environmental planning. Pursuant to SB375, ARB set per capita GHG emission reduction targets from passenger vehicles for each of the state’s 18 MPOs. For the SCAG region, the targets are set at eight percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2020 and 13 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS achieves per capita GHG emission reductions relative to 2005 of nine percent in 2020 and 16 percent in 2035. 

# Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required under CAA section 176(c) to ensure that feder

ally supported highway and transit project activities “conform to” the purpose of the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are designated non-attainment, and those re-designated to attainment after 1990, maintenance areas, with plans developed for the specific transportation related criteria pollutants. Conformity for the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality viola

tions, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS. The conformity tests and analyses are: regional emissions analysis, timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures, financial constraint analysis, and public involvement (see Transportation Conformity appendix for details). The Regional Council makes the conformity determination finding as part of the approval of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS.

# Introduction 

# S CAG values public participation in the development of its RTP/SCS. Public involve

ment is essential to ensure that stakeholders gain a clear understanding of SCAG, its role as a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), critical elements of the RTP/ SCS, and its development process. Furthermore, public involvement helps SCAG policy

makers and staff better understand the needs and concerns of stakeholders, leading to more meaningful planning efforts and activities. In compliance with federal and state requirements and to guide effective public involve

ment, SCAG utilizes its Public Participation Plan. The Public Participation Plan provides the direction for public participation activities, outlining the processes and strategies SCAG uses to reach out to a broad range of stakeholders and gain their input. SCAG’s Public Participation Plan was most recently amended to incorporate requirements of SB 375 for a Sustainable Communities Strategy and make appropriate revisions with respect to the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Amendment No. 3 of the Public Participation Plan in January 2012. The full Public Participation Plan is included in the Public Participation and Consultation Appendix. 

## Activities
The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS was developed in consultation with interested parties from the private and public sectors, academia, and other stakeholders, including those listed in **T a**  **bl e 6.1**  . SCAG values public participation in the development of its regional plans and programs and aims to ensure that the various stakeholders have a reasonable opportunity to comment on the contents of the RTP/SCS. To ensure compliance with federal and state requirements, SCAG implements a public involvement process to provide information, timely public notice and full public access to key decisions, and to support early and continuing public involvement in developing its regional plans. Since its inception, SCAG has engaged in a public involvement process in developing its regional transportation plans and programs. As a result of changes in SAFETEA-LU in 2005, SCAG has broadened its current participation activities to engage a more extensive group of stakeholders in its planning and programming processes, as reflected in SCAG’s current Public Participation Plan first adopted by the Regional Council in March 2007. In subsequent amendments, SCAG has continued to consult with a range 

### 198 

# 06

. P UB LIC PARTICIPATIO Nof interested parties to refine the agency’s public participation strategies, procedures, and techniques and solicit comments from a diverse number of stakeholders through mailings, email correspondence, workshops, presentations, meetings, telephone commu

nications, and website postings.

**T a**  **bl e 6.1**  

### Participatory Non-Governmental Groups

**Participatory N**  **on-Governmental Groups** Bicycle users and advocates Citizens Educational institutions Environmental groups Ethnic and minority groups Freight shippers Freight transportation service providers Non-profit organizations Older and retired persons Pedestrians Private sector Private transportation providers Public transit users Representatives of the disabled Special-interest non-profit agencies Transportation advocates Urban and rural advocacy groups Women’s organizations

By using the Public Participation Plan, SCAG has continued to enhance the techniques and strategies for RTP/SCS outreach, including:

 Developing presentation materials for public outreach in a variety of formats to reach broad audiences, including interactive PowerPoint presentations, fact sheets, surveys, brochures, and maps,  Enhancing website capabilities that allow SCAG to post all RTP/SCS-related informa

tion on its website to ensure that it is accessible and transparent to the public (the website is compliant with the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act),

 Coordinating outreach efforts with other stakeholder organizations to maximize outreach opportunities,

 Developing an outreach schedule that notifies individuals and groups through

out the region of activities where SCAG will be presenting the RTP/SCS and encouraging attendance,

 Supporting multiple committees and task forces involving SCAG partners, stakeholders, and interested groups to develop the key components of the Plan,

 Holding multiple public workshops before the release of the Draft RTP/SCS to allow direct participation by interested parties,

 Reaching out to traditionally underrepresented and/or underserved audiences,

 Considering comments received in the deliberations regarding proposed plans and programs, and

 Evaluating public participation activities to continually improve the outreach process. In addition to these targeted outreach efforts, all regular and special meetings of the RTP/SCS task forces, the Transportation Committee (TC), the Community, Economic and Human Development Committee (CEHD), the Energy and Environment Committee (EEC); the Legislative/Communications and Membership Committee; the Executive Administration Committee; and the SCAG Regional Council are publicly noticed and opportunities for public comment are provided. Federally required interagency consulta

tion is done through the monthly meetings of the Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG). Specific public comments on the Draft RTP/SCS are being recorded and considered by SCAG in the development of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. Across the region, hundreds of Southern Californians from all walks of life helped shape the Draft 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. From January through March 2011, SCAG conducted eleven Subregional Planning Sessions to receive input on projected population, household, and employment growth in the respective areas. From these policies, plans, and data, four planning scenarios were developed and presented in a series of 18 public workshops held during the summer of 2011. These Sustainable Community Strategy workshops were held throughout the SCAG region, with over 700 individuals in attendance. (Please see
**Fi gur**  **es 6.1** and **6.2** for a sample of questions and responses from these workshops.) 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 6: Public Participation 

### 199Residents, elected officials, representatives of public agencies, and community organiza

tions, as well as environmental, housing, and business stakeholders truly made this a “bottom up” process. Participants were provided with a description of the four scenarios and how development location, neighborhood design, housing options and mix, and transportation investments within each scenario would impact greenhouse gas emissions, land use, fuel consump

tion, water consumption, and other costs in the region. Following the presentations, the groups engaged in discussions of objectives and priori

ties for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, including mobility, environment, health, modes of travel, economy, safety, equity, and housing. Attendees were also surveyed on current transportation habits and access to public transportation, as well as priorities for their community. Results from the workshops can be found in the Public Participation and Consultation Appendix. 

## N ew Issues, N ew S trategies
From comments relating to the 2008 RTP, SCAG staff identified Environmental Justice as a key concern for further follow-up, and a special focus group was convened in June 2011. Approximately 60 participants, including residents and representatives of local community organizations, attended the meeting and provided valuable feedback on a variety of issues, such as gentrification and health impacts near transporta

tion corridors. A summary of this workshop is available in the Public Participation and Consultation Appendix. As illustrated in Chapter 2, a greater emphasis has been given in the 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS to active transportation solutions to help address public health issues and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To better address these issues, SCAG used innovative public participation strategies to develop the active transportation portion of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. Much of the active transportation plan was developed online using a Wiki—a managed website that allows for collaborative creation and editing. As of November 2011, the Wiki had over 1,000 registered users who represent various bicycle advocacy groups, county transportation officials, and other stakeholders. In addition, the Bike/Ped Twitter account actively engages over 500 followers, providing them with updates on the RTP/ SCS and other planning items in the region. 

## Recognizing Diversity
To help inform the region’s stakeholders of opportunities for public input on the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, SCAG posted announcements and videos on its website, blog sites, and its social networking pages (e.g., Facebook, Twitter); prepared fact sheets and other outreach materials in English, Spanish, and Chinese; placed ads and public service announcements in newspapers, government access cable television stations, and e-newsletters; and sent announcements to the media, including the ethnic press. SCAG has strived to ensure that the Native American voice is heard during the develop

ment of the RTP/SCS. There are 16 federally recognized tribes within the SCAG region. Seven are represented on the Regional Council and Policy Committees and have voting power. In addition to presentations made by staff to individual tribes, SCAG conducted a workshop for the regional, state, and federal resource agencies and tribal governments 

### 200 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 6: Public Participationin November 2011 and has targeted additional outreach after the release of the Draft 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. 

## Raising the B ar The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS is a grand vision with many components. SCAG understands that access to relevant information is necessary for greater awareness and understand

ing among stakeholders. Therefore, SCAG has put great effort into developing visual tools and utilizing new technologies to enhance public engagement in the planning process. SCAG’s website is the organization’s most important tool in disseminating information and is its primary interface with the public. In 2010, SCAG began exploring ways to provide better access to the RTP/SCS, which was projected to exceed 200 pages in printed form. Rather than have visitors download PDF files individually, SCAG developed plans for a new website that would allow visitors to navigate easily through the various chapters and view all the ancillary maps, tables, and data visualizations without leaving the page they were reading. This new interactive RTP/SCS website allows users to navigate to various sec

tions and also allow for custom PDF downloads of specific pages and sections of interest. The use of video has helped create greater awareness and visibility for the RTP/SCS. An introductory video was produced and screened at the RTP/SCS workshops in the summer of 2011, included in subsequent staff presentations, and also made available on the SCAG website. In clear and simple terms, the video explained the need for a regional transpor

tation plan, the role of SCAG, and the purpose of the workshop. The result was a more dynamic presentation that helped participants visualize and better understand the Plan, as well as engage in a high level of interaction between staff and workshop participants. SCAG took this approach a step further and released a new RTP/SCS video to coincide with the release of the 2012 Draft RTP/SCS in December of 2011 and the beginning of the public comment period. This new RTP/SCS video discusses SCAG’s role, the contents of the 2012 Draft RTP/SCS, and the benefits of implementing the Plan. As a highlight, it features interviews with key stakeholders, residents of the SCAG region, and community leaders. SCAG showcased this video at presentations throughout the region as well as continue to make it accessible on the SCAG website. 

## Looking Ahead
To ensure that as many people as possible are able to participate in the regional planning process going forward, SCAG is committed to increasing public participation opportunities and creating greater access. 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 6: Public Participation 

### 201

### 202 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 6: Public Participation

SCAG’s videoconferencing facilities (located at five regional offices and three videoconferencing sites across the Southern California region) have enabled more people to participate in the public outreach than in previous RTP cycles. SCAG will continue to utilize this technology to conduct public workshops, meetings, and other forms of pub

lic outreach, as well as expand the number of videoconferencing sites. SCAG’s new interactive RTP/SCS website called iRTP resulted in improved public feed

back. The website allows visitors to submit comments on specific sections of the Draft from almost any page of the site. In designing the website, SCAG followed the three most prominent sources and standards for website accessibility guidelines:

 The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C),

 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and

 Legal guidelines in conformance with the US Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As part of its redesign of the main website, SCAG has ensured Americans with Disabilities Act compliance so that all Web content is accessible to all people regardless of disability. Following the adoption of the RTP/SCS, the website will be updated to reflect any changes or amendments to the RTP/SCS, and continue to serve as an easy-to-navigate digital, searchable resource for the public. While technology, including the utilization of social media, is important to public outreach, SCAG will continue to use traditional methods and techniques that have proven effective in ensuring wide participation. These include in-person, face-to-face engagement with residents, businesses, and community groups in urban and rural areas; representatives and advocacy groups for underrepresented and/or low-income communities; and direct work with ethnic media. SCAG will conduct a survey to obtain feedback on the effectiveness of its outreach for continued improvement and enhancement of its outreach efforts. SCAG is committed to constantly evaluating its strategies and approaches to enhance public participa

tion. As the nation’s largest metropolitan planning organization, SCAG must address the broad range of interests, regional priorities, and needs of diverse populations within the Southern California region. Public engagement and participation have become an organization-wide value.

### 203

**f i**  **gur e 6.1**  

### Sample of Question Used at RTP/SCS Public Workshops, Summer 2011

### 204

**f i**  **gur e 6.2**  

### Sample of Question Used at RTP/SCS Public Workshops, Summer 2011

# Looking Ahead— B eyond the Horizon 

# T he RTP/SCS strategies discussed in Chapter 2: Transportation Investments, rep

resent the region’s collective vision for addressing our transportation needs within the constraints of committed, available, or reasonably available revenue sources. Despite the substantial commitments of over $500 billion contained in the RTP/SCS and the associated benefits discussed in Chapter 5: Measuring Up, this level of investment does not meet the full needs identified through the RTP/SCS development process. If we truly want to address all the needs set forth in this RTP/SCS, we must look toward addi

tional strategies and investments to get us there. Often this will entail controversial and difficult choices that will push the envelope and test the boundaries of what is politically acceptable. For now, these elements are contained in the Strategic Plan with the recogni

tion that they merit further study and that, over time and with further consensus-building, these programs and policies may move forward into the constrained RTP/SCS. The concept of a Strategic Plan was first incorporated into the 2008 RTP. It was envi

sioned that the 2012 and subsequent RTPs would draw from the projects contained in the Strategic Plan. This has, in fact, occurred. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS investments discussed in Chapter 2 attest to the success of the 2008 Strategic Plan, since several of its projects and strategies have now moved to the constrained portion of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. These include:

 **Preservation I**  **nvestments** – The 2008 Strategic Plan called for a higher level of investment to preserve the region’s multimodal system. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes $70 billion in additional preservation funding.

 **O perations**  **I nvestments (**  **TSM )**  – The 2008 Strategic Plan recommended increas

ing funding to the cost-effective transportation system management strategies that increase the productivity of the existing system. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS allocates $7.6 billion to TSM.

 **D edicated Lanes for Clean-**  **T echnology**  **T rucks on the**  **E ast-West Corridor**  – The 2008 Strategic Plan called for more detailed study of the different east-west corridors and recommending one for inclusion in the RTP/SCS. The 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS includes the recommended East-West Freight Corridor and provides full fund

ing for it. 

### 205 

# 07

. S TRATE G IC PLA N **M etrolink and L**  **OSSAN Rail**  **I mprovements**  – The 2008 Strategic Plan included unfunded improvements to the Metrolink and LOSSAN rail corridors. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS fully funds these improvements, partially using newly available federal and state funds.

 **T he Westside Purple Line**  **E xtension**  – The 2008 Strategic Plan included the unfunded Purple Line Extension to Westwood. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS now fully funds this extension, relying on the recently adopted Measure R in Los Angeles. The 2008 Strategic Plan strongly influenced the 2012 Constrained Plan as originally intended. Moving forward, it is again envisioned that updates to the 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS would draw from the projects contained in this Strategic Plan; exceptions would be handled on a case-by-case basis. The remainder of this chapter provides a brief illustrative overview of the additional strat

egies and investments that the region would pursue if additional funding were to become available and after further consensus-building to solidify commitment around specific projects and policies. 

# Long-Term Emission-Reduction S trategies for Rail
Included in this strategic RTP/SCS is a recommendation to continue ongoing work with railroads, air quality management agencies, and other stakeholders to reach our goal of a zero-emissions rail system. Freight rail activity emits 5 percent and 4 percent of regional NOx and PM 2.5 goods movement-related emissions, respectively. Mitigation of rail emis

sions is currently underway with agreements to upgrade engines and reduce idling at certain railyards. More can be done to improve regional air quality, help meet federal requirements, and reduce health impacts for communities near rail activity. There are several options for a zero- and/or near-zero-emission rail system, including electrifica

tion, battery-hybrid systems, and fuel cells. Since 2008, SCAG has worked with repre

sentatives from major rail lines, the AQMD, and the ARB to carefully evaluate potential zero- and/or near-zero-emissions options for freight rail. In particular, three forms of electrification have been considered to date.  **E lectric Catenary Rail**  **S ystems**  – These are perhaps the most technologically ready; however, construction of an electrified rail system in Southern California would be a major undertaking in terms of labor, timeline, and cost for the SCAG region and would require a large investment as well as cooperation and investment by the BNSF and UP railways.

 **D ual-**  **M ode Locomotives**  – These have been deployed for passenger rail applica

tions, but would need development for freight applications. They have the ability to operate both on a catenary or with traditional diesel power. The ability to operate in both modes could potentially reduce operational difficulties associated with the need to remove the engine at the end of the electrified system. However, additional operational considerations remain to be addressed.

 **Linear S**  **ynchronous M**  **otors** – This technology propels rail cars by creating an electromagnetic field from motors embedded in the railway. One advantage of LSM is that overhead electric lines would not be needed, allowing the electric rail system to extend further into ports and railyards. LSM technology is in its early stages and costs cannot be estimated, however demonstration projects are underway. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS specifies the need for further study of these technologies to resolve operational challenges and to better quantify the costs of implementation and potential savings or cost increases of eliminating diesel fuel. In addition, several other technologies such as hybrid diesel-electric locomotives and battery-electric tender cars will be considered. Such technologies have the potential to reduce or even eliminate the need for catenary wire infrastructure. Please see the Goods Movement Appendix and refer to the Environmental Strategy and Action Plan. The Action Plan identifies further study, prototype development and demonstration efforts, upon the availability of funds, to address issues such as technology readiness and operational application to freight systems. 

### 206 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 7: Strategic Plan

# Long-Term Emission-Reduction S trategies for Trucks
Equally important to SCAG’s long-term vision of a zero-emission goods movement system is the reduction or elimination of emissions from heavy-duty trucking. Heavy-duty trucks comprise 75 percent of regional goods movement NOx emissions and 58 percent of goods movement-related PM 2.5 emissions. In the near term, the RTP/SCS proposes an aggres

sive program to bring more currently available clean fuel trucks and hybrid trucks into service. In the longer term, we suggest that our infrastructure serve as a catalyst for the development and deployment of zero-emission trucks such as those powered by hybrid, fuel-cell, or battery technologies. The trucking market offers unique challenges due to heavy weights, operational perfor

mance requirements, and high incremental costs. However, several reduced-emissions trucks are currently commercially available and many zero- and near-zero-emission trucks are under development for future deployment. For instance, reduced-emission natural gas trucks have already been deployed at the ports, and several hundred hybrid electric trucks are on the road due to the ARB’s Hybrid Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP). Other promising technologies include plug-in hybrid-electric trucks, which have bat

teries that are charged through an external power source, and battery-electric trucks, which can generate their own power or receive power from an outside source. Plans for zero- and/or near-zero-emission truck lanes on I-710 and the East-West Freight Corridor offer the opportunity to include wayside power systems that could extend the range of these trucks. The provision of zero- and/or near-zero emission corridors may also provide the certainty needed for original equipment manufacturers to more heavily invest in new technology. More research is needed to determine if wayside power is the right strategy for our region, but the RTP/SCS plans for flexible design of new infrastructure to allow for this use. SCAG intends to work closely with our partners and continue existing collaborative efforts to facilitate development of these technologies. Stakeholder input will be critical to understand the performance needs of the technology and any operational concerns. As technologies are developed, appropriate funding support and other incentive mechanisms should be applied. Existing efforts are proposed to lead to the formation of a logistics working group to promote, evaluate, and secure funding for these technologies. For more information on steps toward development and deployment of these technologies, please see the Appendix. 

# U nfunded Operational Improvements
It has been shown around the state and the region that some well-targeted investments in physical operational improvements on roadway system (both highway and arterials) can significantly improve their productivity. These investments include interchange improve

ments, auxiliary lanes, ramp widening, and others. The recent Caltrans CSMP develop

ment process identified a number of these projects for a subset of the State Highway System. Between now and the 2016 RTP, SCAG will work with its stakeholders and partners to identify additional cost-effective investments and seek funding. 

# U nfunded Capital Improvements
Regionally significant major corridor improvements and strategies in the Strategic Plan are identified in **T a**  **bl e 7.1**  . A more complete list is contained in the RTP/SCS Project List available at www.scag.ca.gov/rtp2012. 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 7: Strategic Plan 

### 207**T a**  **bl e 7.1**  

### Major Strategic Plan Projects

**S trategic Plan Project**  **D escription** 

 Additional Transit Station Improvements to Irvine Station, Fullerton Transportation

Center, and Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center

 Bus Rapid Transit on Beach, Edinger, La Palma, and Katella, and in South

Orange County

 California High-Speed Train System Phase II

 California/Nevada Super-Speed Train Anaheim to Las Vegas

 Coachella Valley Daily Rail Service between Downtown Los Angeles and Indio

 Cordon Pricing Demonstration Projects (locations to be determined)

 DesertXpress High-Speed Rail between Palmdale-Victorville-Las Vegas

 Expanded Express/HOT Lane Network

 Express Bus Service throughout Orange County and between Orange County and Los

Angeles and Riverside Counties

 Long-Term Goods Movement Emission-Reduction Strategies for Rail and Trucks

 Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension Beyond Phase II Terminus

 Metro Gold Line Extension to Ontario International Airport

 Metro Green Line Extension to San Pedro, Long Beach, and LA/Orange County Line

 Metro Purple Line Extension Further West

 Metrolink and LOSSAN Strategic Plans

 Mileage-Based User Fee Demonstration Projects and Implementation Strategy

 Orangeline High-Speed Transit (Union Station to Santa Clarita)

 San Bernardino Mountain-Valley Railway System between San Bernardino/Highland

and Big Bear Lake

 Santa Paula Branch Line

 US-101 HOV Lanes from Route 23 to Topanga Canyon 

## U ltimate Vision for a High- S peed Rail S ystem
Our ultimate vision for a true high-speed train system that would link major urban areas and activity centers within our region and beyond would be incomplete without Phase II of the proposed California High-Speed Train (HST) system. Phase II would link Los Angeles Union Station to San Diego via the Inland Empire in our region. The project is being planned in segments, which are all in different degrees of project readiness. This corridor is approximately 160 miles long, stretching from Union Station in downtown Los Angeles through San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, and terminating in San Diego County. With 20.8 million residents, these four counties make up approximately 56 percent of the state’s current population and will grow significantly by 2050. Phase II of the California HST project, by adding connections to the Inland Empire and San Diego County, completes the backbone of a true regional high-speed transport system. The LOSSAN, Metrolink system, and California HST Phase I investments discussed in pre

vious chapters will provide high-speed travel alternatives in northern Los Angeles County, the San Fernando Valley, the Gateway Cities, and Orange County; Phase II will extend those alternatives to the San Gabriel Valley and the Inland Empire. Upon completion, Phase II will provide important access to planned and existing regional centers, includ

ing Ontario International Airport, the March Inland Port, and possibly San Bernardino International and Corona airports, helping to meet SCAG’s long-term goal of regional

izing air travel in Southern California. Furthermore, Phase II may one day be the basis for further high-speed rail extensions into Nevada or Arizona. The California HST system will provide excellent connectivity to our region by connect

ing with a robust network of intercity and commuter rail, subway and light-rail, and fixed-route transit systems. The proper planning and service levels of these connecting services will allow them and the California HST to feed and complement each other. While commuter, intercity, and interregional rail services are distinct travel markets, the proper coordination of their schedules will further increase the region’s rail and transit ridership by attracting crossover passengers to these different markets. It will also significantly relieve capacity constraints of the existing air and highway transportation system as increases in intercity travel demand in California occur. By attracting a large number of trips from current auto and air travel markets, a significant decrease in GHG emissions will be achieved in our region. In addition, the HST project will provide a much cheaper 

### 208 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 7: Strategic Plan2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 7: Strategic Plan 

### 209

alternative to building additional airport and highway capacity to serve intrastate aviation routes and auto trips. In addition, several other high-speed rail transportation projects are part of the Strategic Plan that, if completed, would deliver a robust regional high-speed transport system. The DesertXpress project would link our region with Las Vegas, providing a high-speedalternative to the highly congested I-15 corridor and relieving traffic in our region’s fifthlargest domestic air travel market. This project might eventually connect to the California HST system in the City of Palmdale, and work is progressing on this connection on behalf of the High Desert Corridor Joint Powers Authority. DesertXpress received a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Record of Decision (ROD) in July 2011 for its environmental review documents, and additional permits were obtained from the Surface Transportation Board, Bureau of Land Management, and FHWA in subsequent months. Another proposal is a high-speed transport system connecting Anaheim with Las Vegas, with stations in Ontario, Victorville and Barstow in our region, linking important regional destinations. Similarly, daily Amtrak corridor service to the Coachella Valley would link an additional SCAG subregion to our regional rail network. 

## G reater Vision for Our Commuter Rail S ystem
Metrolink provides our region’s commuter rail service, operating 163 trips on seven lines carrying 42,000 passengers on weekdays. With the investments proposed within the Constrained and Strategic Plans, we expect to achieve more than double the ridership by 2035. But, we believe, the Metrolink system has even greater untapped potential for our region. Our region boasts 4.32 commuter rail route miles per 100,000 residents, which is over 2.5 times the median for large metropolitan regions. However, in 2008, residents of the SCAG region took only 0.7 per capita trips on the commuter rail system, well below the national median of 0.82. Chicagoans, by contrast, took 8.28 trips per capita annually, on a network that provides 11.8 route miles for every 100,000 residents. Residents of Baltimore took 34 percent more commuter rail trips per capita on a network similar to that of the SCAG region. The average speed for Metrolink is about 40 mph today. The average speeds vary by line, and while top speeds are 79 mph, the number of stops and physical capacity and geographic constraints result in this average system speed. This shows the need to fund capital projects in order to speed up the service and make Metrolink more attractive to the SOV commuter. The recent release of the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s draft 2011 Business Plan puts off the arrival of the California HST system in our region until 2033 and greatly esca

lates the official project cost. This confirms long-standing stakeholder concerns of the project’s implementation timeline and viability and therefore confirms the need to spend HSR dollars on our region’s current rail services. In fact, the new Business Plan calls for “blended” rail services whereby incremental operating segments of the California HST system will connect with existing rail services until the entire project gets built. Our Strategic Plan vision for Metrolink speed and service improvements calls for an inten

sive investment in capital projects to further increase speed and service levels over and above the Constrained Plan. The Strategic Plan results in even more segments of the net

work operating at speeds of 110 mph or greater. These projects include additional double tracking, sidings, station improvements, grade separations, and grade crossings. Not only will this benefit commuter rail trips in our region, but it will benefit Amtrak intercity and California HST interregional trips also, as the three systems feed and complement each other. While these are three distinct travel markets, improving all three networks encour

ages cross-over rail travel market trips. In addition to capital improvements, our strategic vision calls for:

 A doubling of system use by 2020 and possibly doubling again by 2035,

 Considerably more express trips,

 Regular special event services,

 A connection to Ontario International Airport,

 The implementation of new BRT services that directly connect with the Metrolink system,

 A robust growth of TOD around Metrolink stations, and

 The implementation of “first mile/last mile” policies for robust bicycle and pedes

trian improvements around Metrolink stations.

### 210 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 7: Strategic Plan

Image courtesy of the California High-Speed Rail Authority



## Our Vision for Active Transportation B eyond 2035 The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Constrained Plan proposes investing over $6.7 billion toward active transportation, including the development of over 5,700 miles of bikeways and improvements to significant amount of sidewalks in our region. In addition to these projects, SCAG hopes to substantially increase bicycling and walking in the region by creating and maintaining an active transportation system that includes well-maintained bicycle and pedestrian facilities, easy access to transit facilities, and increased safety and security for all users. The active transportation vision for the strategic transportation system is one where bicycling or walking is simply the most logical and efficient choice for most short trips. To achieve that vision, SCAG and local jurisdictions must create the conditions by which active transportation is more attractive than driving for short trips (less than three miles for bicycles, one-half mile for walking). The goals are to develop and build a dense bicycle network so that all SCAG residents and visitors can easily find and access a route to their destination—incorporate Complete Streets policies in street design/redesign and Compass Blueprint strategies for land use—and ensure ADA compli

ance on all sidewalks. 

## Bi k e w a ys
Further enhancements to the active transportation system should be considered to make bicycling and walking a more feasible and desirable transportation option. The strate

gic bikeway plan envisions a three-tiered system to achieve those goals: an expanded regional bikeway network, citywide bikeways in each city, and neighborhood bikeways.

 The Regional Bikeway Network is expanded over the constrained plan, developing a grid pattern where possible in urbanized areas. Each designated regional bikeway links to other regional bikeways and to city bikeways for commuters and recreational riders. Although not as free-flowing as freeways, the Regional Bicycle Network links the cities in the region in a similar manner. To the greatest extent possible, the regional bikeway network should be Class 1, Class 2 bikeways/cycle tracks, or even painted sharrows with appropriate signage and wayfinding.

 Citywide bikeways link neighborhood bikeways to regional bikeways and major city destinations, such as employment, retail, and entertainment centers. These will2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 7: Strategic Plan 

### 211

often be on arterial and collector streets, which are already part of the grid system. Bikeways will likely need to be either Class 2 bikeways (painted or unpainted) or Cycle tracks. When going through large suburban areas, they can be designated bicycle boulevards. Citywide bikeways should be no farther than one-half mile apart.

 Neighborhood bikeways link neighborhoods to local amenities, such as schools, parks, grocery stores and local retail, eating, and entertainment. These facilities will be primarily on low-speed streets and be identified through sharrows, bicycle boulevards, and wayfinding signage. While every residential street should be con

sidered a neighborhood bikeway, the focus should be on streets that connect across blocks and neighborhoods. In addition, neighborhood bikeways should link to other neighborhood bikeways, providing a low-speed, low-stress environment for families and youths to bicycle with minimal interaction with faster, busier streets. Completion of this system will require coordination among cities as well as parallel improvements within each city and in unincorporated areas of counties. It will involve roughly a doubling of the bicycle network beyond the constrained plan to 24,000 miles, with a cost estimated at around $12 billion. 

## P ede s tria ns
Pedestrian accessibility and mobility may be addressed through increased safety and security and land use. Integration of Safe Routes to School strategies, Safe Routes to Parks programs, incorporating active transportation in SCAG’s Compass Blueprint Projects, and developing active transportation best practices around transit stations may further enhance the walking environment. In addition, local jurisdictions can integrate active transportation and Complete Streets concepts with their land use decisions. Inclusions of bulb-outs, median sanctuaries, and traffic calming can increase pedestrian safety by reducing collisions, particularly at intersections. Other strategies include moreprominent deployment of left-turn signals and no-right-turn-on-red signals in highpedestrian environments. In addition, SCAG encourages and is prepared to work with appropriate implementation agencies to map, develop, and implement recreational trails throughout the region, including the SCAG portion of the California Coastal Trail, river trails, urban, and wilderness hiking areas/trails. The cost for completion of this element varies widely, depending upon the level of improvements and methodologies used, and ranges from $6 billion to $35 billion. 

# S trategic F inance
Following the adoption of the 2008 RTP, SCAG initiated a comprehensive study of conges

tion pricing strategies, which has come to be known as the Express Travel Choices Study. The emerging regional congestion pricing strategy is structured to help the region meet its transportation demand management and air quality goals while providing a reliable and dedicated revenue source. The pricing strategy could allow users of the transporta

tion system to know the true cost of their travel, resulting in informed decision-making and more efficient use of the transportation system. Pricing strategies evaluated through the Express Travel Choices Study include a regional high-occupancy toll (HOT or Express) lane network and a mileage-based user fee, both of which are incorporated into the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. Nevertheless, these strategies still face a number of significant hurdles before their full benefits can be realized. A second phase of the Express Travel Choices Study will continue beyond the adoption of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS and estab

lish an implementation plan for the regional congestion pricing strategy. SCAG will also participate in state and national efforts to address the long-term transition of excise fuel taxes to mileage-based user fees.

### 212 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 7: Strategic Plan

In addition to SCAG’s regional congestion pricing initiative, a number of local efforts to establish additional transportation revenues are underway or may be in the near future. In 2004, the voters in Ventura County were asked to approve a local sales tax measure for transportation. While the voters did not approve the sales tax increase, it remains a popular option for the region’s counties to generate a significant amount of revenues dedicated to transportation. All of the other counties in the SCAG region have a local sales tax measure dedicated to transportation. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is evaluating the feasibility of a Congestion Mitigation Fee as part of a proposed restructuring of its Congestion Management Program (CMP). If enacted, the fee would be imposed on new development and would generate new revenue to assist MTA in addressing congestion caused by growth. 

## America F ast F orward
Upon the passage of Measure R in 2008, MTA has also been looking for ways to accel

erate the implementation of a 30-year transportation program over the next 10 years through innovative federal loan and bonding mechanisms. This program, if implemented, would be an alternative to traditional federal grant programs and provide an innova

tive way for the federal government to assist self-help counties that have adopted local funding mechanisms. This program, originally known as the 30/10 Initiative, gained broad attention from federal policymakers and is now known nationally as the America Fast Forward Initiative. America Fast Forward is being increasingly embraced by may

ors and chambers of commerce around the nation as a program that should be enacted through the next federal surface transportation bill. Currently, over 120 mayors and over three dozen chambers of commerce, from red and blue states, have endorsed America Fast Forward. Congressionally appointed national commissions, professional engineering organizations, academic think tanks, and national business groups have all documented the national imperative for a new era of federal investment in transportation infrastructure. A new era of federal financing of critical transportation infrastructure must take place within the context of fiscal and budget realities confronting both the federal administra

tion and Congress. These fiscal realities require smart, targeted, and innovative financing mechanisms that achieve two national priorities: minimize impacts on the federal budget and maximize the generation of new jobs, particularly in the small business sector. A new federal financing approach, leveraging transportation projects at the state and local levels, can achieve both of these priorities. This is the innovative thinking behind America Fast Forward. America Fast Forward would support the creation of a 21st century national surface transportation system. It contains two federal innovative and proven investment methods: tax code incentives and credit assistance. The specific legislative proposals are: (1) Qualified Transportation Improvement Bonds and (2) an Enhanced Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Program. America Fast Forward offers economic revitalization by stimulating infrastructure, invest

ment to create jobs, and aggressively renewing the aging surface transportation system:

 Job Creation

 Cost Savings

 Project Acceleration

 Economic Development

 Infrastructure Improvements

 Resource Maximization Enactment of America Fast Forward would be beneficial to the SCAG region and sup

port many of the goals of the Regional Transportation Plan. In particular, by accelerating transportation projects, America Fast Forward will create an important new mechanism for job creation, not to mention attaining regional mobility and air quality goals earlier than anticipated. As a result, SCAG will actively advocate in support of the America Fast Forward plan as a component of the next federal surface transportation bill.

### 213

Economic Advisors: Wallace Walrod, PhD, Christine Cooper, PhD, John Husing, PhD and Marlon Boarnet, PhD



### S outhern California’s transportation infrastructure paves the way for economic recovery and job creation.



# Executive S ummary 

# S outhern California faces its toughest economic climate in modern times. High unemployment, lack of job growth, waning competitiveness, aging infrastructure and environmental challenges have combined to present today’s leaders with unparalleled challenges. Never before have the crucial linkages and interrelationships between the economy, the regional transportation system, and land use been as impor

tant as now. SCAG has thus chosen to view the 2012 RTP/SCS as an economic develop

ment strategy as well as a transportation, infrastructure and sustainability strategy. For the first time, SCAG’s RTP includes a significant consideration of the economic impacts and opportunities provided by the transportation infrastructure plan set forth in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. This analysis considers not only the economic and job creation impacts of the direct investment in transportation infrastructure, but also the efficiency gains in terms of worker and business economic productivity and goods movement. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS outlines a transportation infrastructure investment strategy that will beneficially impact Southern California, the state, and the nation in terms of economic development, competitive advantage, and overall competitiveness in the global economy in terms of attracting and retaining employers in the Southern California region. Implementation of SCAG’s RTP/SCS will create or sustain jobs today to build trans

portation infrastructure projects for tomorrow. SCAG’s 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, totaling more than $500 billion in transportation investments, will put thousands of Southern Californians back to work in much needed jobs, not only in construction, but in a broad cross-section of industries. To quantify the economic impact of the plan’s implemen

tation, SCAG used data and software from Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) to produce county-level and statewide models depicting the economic and demographic 

# 08

. ECO N O M IC A N D J O B CREATIO N A N AL YS I S

Image courtesy of California Department of Transportation © 2012

### 214 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis

activity of the region. All of the economic analysis of the plan was conducted using REMI models. The findings show that over the twenty-five year period and six-county SCAG region, the plan will generate significant employment. An annual average of 174,500 new jobs will be generated by construction and operations expenditures that are specified in the RTP program, and the indirect and induced jobs that flow from those expenditures. An additional 354,000 annual jobs will be created by the SCAG region’s increased competi

tiveness and improved economic performance that will result from congestion reduction and improvements in regional amenities due to implementation of the 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS. The rest of the state of California and nation will benefit from spillover impacts of additional accrued jobs.

 **Job growth from building the R T**  **P infrastructure projects: average of 174,500 jobs per year**  Over the 2012–2035 period, the RTP/SCS calls for the spending of over $500 billion on transportation improvement projects. The economic analysis shows this will create an average of 174,500 jobs per year across SCAG’s six county region. The main beneficiaries will be construction workers, placing an employment floor under this volatile sector. However, job increases will also include workers in professional, supply and service firms that support the effort. Further, workers throughout the economy will feel the impact as construction-related workers and firms increase their spending in sectors like retailing and consumer services.

 **I ncreases in economic competitiveness and efficiency from completion of the**  **projects: an average of 354,000 jobs per year** When investments are made in the transportation system, the economic benefits go far beyond the jobs created building it. Today’s regional economy would be impossi

ble if routes like Foothill Boulevard, rather than the Interstate system, were the only way to move people and goods within Southern California or to the rest of the U.S. In addition, unlike spending to satisfy current needs, infrastructure delivers benefits for decades. The increased long term efficiency of the system is thus a crucial result, delivering higher economic activity and job creation from three sets of activities:

 Reduced travel time. Whether it is a commuter, a truck driver, a tourist or a firm awaiting crucial goods, lost time due to congestion is a cost to the economy. Reducing congestion thus adds economic activity and jobs.  Increased labor access. Southern California is a huge geographic area. The friction of distance means employers in one sub-area cannot easily access workers living in another. A more efficient transportation system, with increased mass transit systems, will create a more efficient and competitive labor market and add economic activity and jobs into the economy.

 Enhanced Transportation. Supply chain managers favor Southern California because of the speed and reliability that goods can be moved around the region and from it to the rest of the U.S. As the economy expands, conges

tion robs the area of this competitive advantage. Increasing the efficiency of throughput would maintain and enhance these advantages and create extra economic activity and jobs.

 **A menities and infrastructure system operations: an average of an additional**  **64,000 jobs per year**

 Amenities. As the infrastructure system becomes increasingly completed, including its sustainable community provisions and pollution reductions, ame

nities such as lower health costs from improved air quality will add 46,000 jobs per year on average.

 Operations. As investments are made in an enhanced Southern California transportation system, its operation will add an average of 18,000 jobs per year over the 2012–2035 period as transit systems come online and road maintenance and repair becomes necessary. Looking forward, the socio-economic forecasts for the SCAG 2012–2035 RTP/SCS show that the region must not only recover from the devastation of the Great Recession, it must also prepare for the area’s long term growth. Without making the investments in Southern California’s transportation system outlined in this plan, economic recovery and job creation will be markedly slower throughout the region. The area would not enjoy the benefits of the long term competitiveness, efficiency and sustainability of modern infrastructure. In the longer term, failure to make sufficient regional transportation invest

ments will cost Southern California economically and the region’s business competitive

ness will be at risk.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis 

### 215



## Introduction
Never before have the crucial linkages and interrelationships between the economy, regional transportation system, and land use been as apparent or important as now. For the first time, this RTP includes a significant consideration of the economic impacts and opportunities provided by the transportation infrastructure plan set forth in the 2012– 2035 RTP/SCS, specifically considering not only the economic and job creation impacts of the direct investment in transportation infrastructure, but also the efficiency gains in terms of improved worker and business economic productivity and goods movement. The Goods Movement, Logistics & Distribution, Tourism, Manufacturing, and many other transportation reliant sectors are heavily dependent on efficient transportation infrastruc

ture and are key Southern California job generators for all six SCAG-region counties. To illustrate this point, this chapter later drills down on the importance of goods movement to the SCAG regional economy. Also, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS outlines a transporta

tion infrastructure investment strategy that will beneficially impact Southern California, the state, and the nation in terms of economic development, competitive advantage, and overall competitiveness in the global economy in terms of attracting and retaining employers in the Southern California region. During the 2007–2009 time period, the nation experienced the deepest and longest recession since the 1930’s. Two years after the recession was officially determined to have ended, nearly 13 million Americans are still out of work, including more than 5.5 mil

lion who have been jobless for over six months. Job seekers outnumber available jobs by more than four-to-one. Most economists forecast that the nation will not generate enough jobs to return unemployment to 5 percent until the end of 2018, possibly 2020. California has been hit even harder, enduring a jobs crisis not seen since the Great Depression. As the epicenter of the subprime mortgage industry and housing bubble, California entered the Great Recession earlier than most states, suffers from the sec

ond highest unemployment rate in the country (behind only Nevada), and is in the midst of one of the slowest economic and job recoveries in the nation. According to the state Employment Development Department (EDD), nearly 2 million Californians are officially unemployed, and the real number is likely much higher. California has 964,000 people who have been unemployed more than six months, with the majority of those (718,000) out of work a year or longer. 

## S outhern California Economic Challenges
In Southern California, job losses have been devastating. In the 6-county SCAG region, over 1 million residents are officially unemployed. Although the real unemployment rates are probably much higher, as of January 2012, unemployment levels for the 6-county SCAG region are as follows:

Imperial County 26.4% Los Angeles County 12.1%

Orange County 8.0% Riverside County 12.5% San Bernardino County 12.3% Ventura County 9.7%

Source: California Employment Development Department

Several factors are responsible for Southern California’s slower growth coming out of the 2007–2009 recession:

 Housing markets are not rebounding due to the overhang of foreclosures, “shadow inventory,” and weak demand. UCLA economists recently predicted that Southern California home prices will not reach previous peaks until the 2017–2020 time period

 Rising oil prices

 End of federal stimulus programs

 The prospect of Government layoffs Muted demand from Southern California consumers (consumer spending represents atleast two-thirds of economic activity) who are still worried about their individual employment, home values, and financial situations.

### 216 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis

The consequences of the Great Recession have battered the Southern California economy and impacted major economic sectors which traditionally have been key job generators throughout the SCAG region:

 Construction, finance and insurance, and management; and the professional and business services group performed much worse than the nation.

 Manufacturing and employment agencies had large absolute declines, but their percentage job losses were only a little larger than the nation.

 The large logistics sector lost a significant number of jobs, but that represented only a single digit percentage decrease. Recovery has been slow and uneven throughout the SCAG region, resulting in Southern California facing both short and long term economic challenges.

 Significant job losses

 High unemployment rates

 Declining incomes

 Increased poverty Most local and regional economic forecasts such as those produced by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, University of California Los Angeles Anderson School, California State University, Long Beach, California State University, Fullerton, and other leading institutions, do not project significant local/regional job growth until at least the 2014–2015 time period, and some particularly hard hit areas of Southern California will likely remain under economic pressure until the end of the decade. Many Southern Californian’s ask—when recovery finally takes hold, where will the region’s job growth likely come from? Implementation of SCAG’s 2012–2035 RTP/SCS will create or sustain jobs today to build transportation infrastructure projects for tomorrow. The more than $500 billion in transportation investments of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS will put thousands of Southern Californian’s back to work in much needed jobs, not only in construction, but in a broad cross-section of industries highlighted later in this chapter. Without making these investments in Southern California’s transportation system, economic recovery and job creation will be markedly slower throughout the region. In the longer term, failure to make sufficient regional transportation investments will cost Southern California economically and the region’s business competitiveness will be at risk. The SCAG region is home to approximately 18 million people, and supplies nearly 7.75 million jobs—making the SCAG region California’s largest population and economic terri

tory. Between now and 2035, SCAG forecasts project that job growth will increase nearly 1.2 percent a year, outpacing the rate of population growth over the same period. The SCAG region will grow to 22.1 million people by 2035, a 22.3 percent increase from 2010, or an average of 0.9 percent growth per year. Employment will grow to 9.4 million jobs by 2035, a 30.6 percent increase over 2010.


## Inf ra s tr u ct u re In ve s t m e n t , E co n o m ic D evelop m e n t , a n d Qu alit y o f L i f e
As indicated, SCAG has chosen to view the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS as an economic devel

opment strategy as well as a transportation, infrastructure and sustainability strategy. It has done so to deal with the profound challenges affecting the employment, prosperity, long term growth and air quality issues facing Southern California. Fundamental to using the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS as an economic development strategy is an understanding of the relationship between infrastructure investment and the com

petitiveness, costs and efficiency of an economy. When a large region is knitted together by relatively uncongested freeway corridors and transit systems, economic life can be smoother and faster:

 Workers, otherwise in lengthy commutes, spend more leisure time with families and friends or more productive time at work.

 Companies have access to employees living throughout the region.

 Professionals and retailers can efficiently access clients in a wider geographic area.

 Importers, exporters, warehouses and producers see their supplies and products moving with the speed and reliability their schedules require.

 Amenities like concert halls, theaters, sports arenas or recreation areas are more easily accessed by residents from throughout the region and by tourists.

 Lower congestion means lower levels of pollution and the costs they impose on a society.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis 

### 217

Whether measured in dollars, time or health, the benefits to workers, families and compa

nies located in a region can be measured by investments in its transportation infrastruc

ture. Given these additional economic benefits, more advanced economic models such as REMI are used to estimate the impacts on economic activity and job creation. Often, Southern Californians are reminded of the importance of infrastructure to the cost and efficiency of their economy when one of the region’s major arteries is shutdown. This occurred when the 1994 Northridge earthquake caused an overpass to collapse closing the Santa Monica freeway. The result was to slow down economic and personal life in the affected area. Infrastructure investment is unique in that it improves the lives of people and businesses from the moment it is available in addition to the activity generated by its construction and operations. As a result of these considerations, in the analysis of measuring the economic impact of the over $500 billion infrastructure investment proposed for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, important attention is paid to several measurable impacts and the jobs it would create:

 Reduction of time lost to congestion

 Ability of employers to access a larger and deeper labor force

 Ability of goods to move with speed and reliability

 Reduction in costs related to air quality difficulties

 Enhanced quality of life


## Inf ra s tr u ct u re In ve s t m e n t a n d C o ns tr u ctio n R elated Im pact s If the SCAG region invests over $500 billion on projects that can increase the efficiency of its transportation system, the most obvious economic impact will be the creation of construction jobs in the six county region. Here, standard regional economic modeling allows the determination of the full impact of such activity:

 Direct jobs are created with the companies that design and construct the facilities.

 Indirect jobs are created when those companies buy professional services, supplies, equipment and non-professional services from other firms to complete their work.

 Induced jobs are created when the firms and workers who directly build the project or indirectly supply goods and services to it, in turn, spend the money they receive in the general economy to support themselves and their families. Each tier of this activity can be measured. The amounts of money going directly into con

struction activity are the beginning point. Economic impact models such as the sophis

ticated REMI model for this project can then determine the extent to which that direct spending will set off the rounds of indirect and induced spending and job creation. This work is explained below. A similar calculation was made for the funds that would flow to operate and maintain the transit and road systems once they have been created.


## Inf ra s tr u ct u re In ve s t m e n t , C o s t , a n d Net Im pact During the deliberations about the economic impact of SCAG’s 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, a key issue was the extent to which additional local revenues, over those already flowing into the region’s infrastructure investment, would be needed to finance the over $500 billion in projects. These were carefully assessed as to what measures would be used to raise these funds and during what time period. Because such added taxes or fees would tend to reduce local spending by businesses and/or consumers, estimates were then made of the job level reductions such measures would cause. With the job losses from the added revenue measures estimated, they were deducted from the job creation from the construction and operation of the expanded transportation system plus the job creation due to the enhanced efficiency and quality of life created for the region’s economy. The result was the net potential economic impact of SCAG’s 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. In the next section, the quantitative impact which the investments proposed in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan will have on the region’s economic performance, job cre

ation, prosperity and quality of life are estimated and explained in detail. 

## Economic Impact of S CA G ’s Policies and S trategies
As implementation of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS involves large financial investments in the region’s transportation infrastructure, it has become increasingly important to under

stand both the short and long term economic impacts that the plan will have on the SCAG region. Fundamentally, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS is designed to increase the efficiency and decrease the environmental impact of the region’s transportation system.

### 218 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis



## Good s Move m e n t , the E co n o my, a n d So u ther n C ali f or n ia ’s T ra ns portatio n S ys te m Southern California’s goods movement dependent sectors create considerable eco

nomic impact due to the wide variety of activities involved in moving goods within and through the region. According to analysis of EDD data, in 2011 these sectors directly employed 638,252 workers in the area. The facilities involved include the region’s four ports (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Port Hueneme, San Diego), its numerous airports led by Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), its two long-haul (Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway; Union Pacific Railroad) and four short-haul rail lines, several intermodal rail yards, hundreds of cross-docks and thousands of warehouses. The system is largely tied together by trucks that move most goods the “last mile” to retailers or consumers. Trucks also transfer cargo from the ports and airports to the intermodal yards, cross-docks and warehouses. 

## Challenges While Southern California has the best logistics network in the United States, it does face two serious challenges. The first of these is the 2014 expansion of the Panama Canal. This doubling of capacity will allow ships carrying up to 13,000 TEUs versus the current 4,500 TEU’s, to go directly from Asia to the East Coast rather than using West Coast ports. As a result, ports and corridors on the Gulf and East Coast are investing over $30 billion in their infrastructure to draw cargo directly to them, bypassing Los Angeles and Long Beach. The local response has been the “Beat the Canal” strategy to ensure that Southern California’s competitive position is retained, if not enhanced. This has included:

 Serious efforts by the ports to reach out to their beneficial cargo owners to make sure they are being responsive to their needs, and that those companies understand the cost savings of using Southern California’s ports.

 Continuation of the Clean Truck Program at the ports which has significantly lowered the adverse environmental impact they have had on the surrounding communities.

 Continued planning and investment in landside infrastructure to allow cargo to efficiently move through the region. Most recently, efforts have included release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Southern California International Gateway (SCIG) near-dock rail project of BNSF Railway. Also, the ports have been deepening their channels, building on-dock rail facilities and are about to replace the Gerald Desmond Bridge. The region has also undertaken considerable work (EIR /EIS underway) to provide for the expansion of the I-710 freeway. Meanwhile, a second major difficulty for the logistics sector is the fact that SouthernCalifornia’s transportation infrastructure frequently becomes clogged by traffic congestion. This is a crucial problem for supply chain managers since the speed and reliability with which they can move their cargo to the appropriate national markets is a critical determinant of where they choose to import, export and store their cargo. Implementing solutions to improve the timeliness and efficiency of the region’s goods movement throughput is a key economic development necessity.


## M acro-Economic Impact In the SCAG region, goods movement-dependent industries comprise 34 percent of the region’s GDP, and 34 percent of regional jobs. Five industries comprise the vast major

ity of these benefits: manufacturing, construction, retail trade, wholesale trade, and transportation and warehousing. These five industries dominate the region in terms of contribution to GDP, employment, and prospects for growth. 

## Regional G DP Contribution In terms of GDP, goods movement-dependent industries contribute a total of $253 billion to the region’s economy. The top five goods movement-dependent industries in terms of GDP contribution are:

 Manufacturing ($84 billion);

 Retail trade ($54 billion);

 Wholesale trade ($53 billion);

 Construction ($27 billion); and

 Transportation and warehousing ($21 billion).2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis 

### 219



## Employment Contribution Goods movement-dependent industries contribute a total of 2.96 million jobs to the region’s economy. The top five goods movement-dependent industries in terms of employment are:

 Retail trade (950,000 jobs);

 Manufacturing (744,000 jobs);

 Construction (431,000 jobs);

 Wholesale trade (429,000 jobs); and

 Transportation and warehousing (330,000 jobs). Even when isolating the sectors that rely solely on the movement of goods, the impacts are significant. For the seven Southern California counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura), the output of the sectors related to these industries totaled $130.1 billion out of the region’s full output of $1.76 trillion in 2009. Using the IMPLAN model to analyze the economic activity attributed to the $130.1 billion output associated with goods movement in Southern California, the model demonstrated the following results.

**ta bl**  **e 8.1** 

### Logistics Contribution to Southern California’s Economy, 2009

**M etric**  **S outhern California**  **Logistics Logistics**  **S hare**  Gross Regional Product $1,045,341,256,738 $146,699,940,876 14.0% Total Employment 11,307,735 1,387,728 12.3% Employee Compensation $543,707,789,826 $86,753,281,440 16.0% Proprietor Income $92,433,783,666 $14,386,878,484 15.6% Other Property Type Income $330,967,058,325 $39,778,255,582 12.0%
Indirect Business Taxes $78,232,624,920 $20,168,403,854 25.8%
**T otal**  **O utput**  **$1,760,981,224,092 $238,503,892,404**  **13.5%**

Source: IMPLAN, analysis by Economics & Politics, Inc. 

## Project Expenditures – M apping the RTP’s Investment Plan
A mix of transportation projects are planned in each of the six counties over the twentyfive year span of the plan. Of the total RTP expenditures exceeding $500 billion, more than half will be spent on projects in Los Angeles County. Not all expenditures will have an economic impact. We have deducted expenditures esti

mated to be associated with debt service and right-of-way acquisition, which represent exchange of assets and are excluded from our analysis in **ta bl**  **e 8.2**

. 

## E co n o m ic a n d j o b i m pact s
Net expenditures are categorized by function into three broad industries: construction, transit operations, and architectural and engineering services. Highway operations and maintenance expenditures are included with construction given their similarity. The total employment impact of the transportation plan is shown in **TA BL**  **E 8.3** 

. Over the twenty-five year period, the plan will generate an annual average of 593,500 annual jobs in the six-county region. Almost 54 percent of these will fall in Los Angeles County, with 21 percent in Orange County and 12.5 percent in Riverside County. In addition to the SCAG region, the rest of the state of California and U.S. will benefit from spillover impacts of additional jobs.

### 220 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis

**ta bl**  **e 8.2** 

### Net Expenditures (in Millions of Nominal Dollars)

**FY2011–15 FY2016–20**  **FY2021–25 FY2026–30**  **FY2031–35 T**  **otal % of**  **S C**  **A G**  **T otal** 
Total $ 53,046,850 $ 63,210,971 $ 88,778,040 $ 120,811,690 $ 127,547,303 $ 453,394,855 100.0

**ta bl**  **e 8.3** 

### Employment Impact from Construction and Maintenance Expenditures (Per Year)

**2011–2015 2016–2020**  **2021–2025 2026–2030**  **2031–2035 T**  **otal Los**  **A ngeles**  112.2 89.1 90.1 93.4 76.4 92.2 **O range**  36.1 34.0 35.5 37.8 32.3 35.1 **Riverside** 23.5 22.0 25.0 28.0 23.7 24.4 **S an Bernardino**  18.0 15.5 18.5 21.4 18.0 18.3 **V entura**  3.8 3.4 3.0 3.6 3.2 3.4 **I mperial**  0.7 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.0 **194.4 164.7**  **173.2 185.7**  **154.4 174.5** 


## Method s
S hort Term impact
The most commonly used tool for conducting economic impact analysis is input-output modeling. Using detailed data on the distribution of sales and purchases between indus

tries and households (available from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis), the regional economy is mathematically represented as a series of flows of employees, goods and services, and capital between economic agents. Using this model, the analyst can provide an initial increase in activity, such as a new transportation infrastructure investment, and trace the route that the project expenditures make through the supply chain, from the construction contractor to his employees (direct impacts), to his suppliers and to their employees and suppliers (indirect impacts), and so on; and from the employees to their household purchases (induced impacts). The original spending is thus multiplied by the additional activity it motivates. Of course, not all needs in the supply chain can or should be filled locally. A construc

tion company that purchases specialized equipment may order this from a manufacturer in another state or country. It may also choose to buy supplies from other areas if more competitive prices are offered elsewhere. The workers themselves may commute from outlying suburbs, representing an import of labor. Similarly, not all household spending occurs locally. Employees may purchase home insurance from Connecticut, table wine from France, and cigars from Cuba. Spending that occurs outside of the economic region is a leakage from the system and reduces the local economic impact. To simplify analysis, regional models that have already been constructed by analysts or consultants are reduced to their multipliers, which are then more easily used by planners, engineers or policymakers to estimate the job impacts of their proposed projects. Users of such multipliers should be cautioned that the underlying models depend on the economic region that is defined and the vintage of the data used to construct the model. For example, multipliers for the Southern California region are quite different from multi

pliers for the nation as a whole, and can be different from year to year, particularly during2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis 

### 221

periods of technological or structural change. This leads to a confusion of job creation estimates, some of which range dramatically. Rather than rely on externally-sourced multipliers, we use models constructed using data and software from Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). In our input-output analysis, we assume that the initial project spending occurs within the SCAG region, and allow the model to estimate the leakage from the region based on historical data and estimated trade flows among neighboring counties. In addition to the flows of goods and services, the model incorporates estimates of workers who commute from other regions—the household spending of these workers would in large part occur close to their residences as opposed to their place of employment. Because supply chains differ across industries, the transportation project expenditure data is sorted by category, such as construction services, operations and maintenance fortransit operations, and architectural and engineering services. The allocation of expenditures among these categories was estimated by knowledgeable transportation planners. Right-of-way acquisition costs are excluded since these represent a transfer of assets and are generally considered to have no economic impact. Each category of spending was modeled separately and their impacts summed. Employment estimates are measured on a job-count basis for wage-and-salary workers and for self-proprietors regardless of the number of hours worked, and are reported on an annual basis, i.e., the number of full and part time jobs generated in one year. In our REMI analysis, we allocate the construction spending to counties in proportion to their relative output shares in the region. Expenditures for transit operations are expected to occur in the counties in which the projects are located. 

## Long-Term Impacts and Efficiency Improvements
Input-output analysis is useful for estimating the immediate economic impacts of a project. However, because this modeling is based upon fixed production relationships and does not incorporate behavioral decisions made by households or businesses to price signals, it is incapable of estimating dynamic responses such as businesses substitut

ing towards capital in the face of rising labor costs, or labor migrating into the region as wage rates rise. To capture these full general equilibrium impacts a more complex methodology is needed. In addition to these considerations, there are longer term impacts on the efficiency of the transportation system. The infrastructure, once built, can enhance the economic competitiveness of a region. Projects that reduce congestion may help firms produce at lower cost, or allow those firms to reach larger markets or hire more capable employees. An economy with a well-functioning transportation system can be a more attractive place for firms to do business, enhancing the economic competitiveness of the SCAG region. The RTP/SCS can boost employment in two ways—providing jobs for persons in highway and rail construction, operation, and maintenance, and boosting the economic competi

tiveness of the SCAG region by making it a more attractive place to do business. As an example, policies that could reduce congestion while creating no or minimal construction jobs can still increase the economic competitiveness of the region. Congestion pricing is one possible example. 

## Competitiveness and N ew J obs: Results from RE M I M odel
SCAG’s regional travel forecasting model was used to generate inputs for the REMI model. The forecasting model from REMI includes historical data from public, govern

ment sources like the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Energy Information Administration (EIA), and the United States Census Bureau.The model relies on four different quantitative methodologies of regional analysis: inputoutput tabulation (which captures inter-industry relationships), econometrics (which estimates behavioral responses), computable general equilibrium (which will estimate long-term effects), and New Economic Geography (which relates economic growth to market areas as measured based on travel times and shipping or travel costs.) SCAG worked closely with REMI experts to run over 20 complex simulations of the region’s economy with different elements of the RTP/SCS plan, compared to a “no build” or “no project” scenario. Using vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and number of trips from a travel demand model, REMI’s TranSight module calculated how consumer, household, and business behavior responds to changes within a travel network. This allowed forecasts of future economic impacts. The model inputs were from SCAG’s travel model and analysis. Inputs included reductions in commuting costs, acces

sibility costs, transportation costs, and operations costs and improvements in amenities or reductions in externalities. Each are defined below:

### 222 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis



## C o mmu ti ng C o s t s REMI TranSight quantifies changes to commuting patterns from the travel demand data as a change in “commuting costs.” The primary interaction is VHT/trips—that is, the average length of trip for personal automobiles. Shorter trips assume a greater ease of commute throughout the region and between different regions. From there, TranSight quantifies an increase in labor productivity as an increase in “labor pooling” and a better match between employees and employers. This leads to an expanded labor productiv

ity throughout the SCAG regions, which initially reduces the amount of employment. Businesses will do “more with less”; however, in short order, lower labor costs creates a competitive advantage for the Southern California region, which leads to expanded mar

ket shares and increased output for local businesses. From there, employers continue to expand and hire more workers into the future, which forms a large bulk of the economic gains in the SCAG region.


## A cce ss i b ilit y C o s t s
Accessibillity is the concept of the availability of intermediate inputs for businesses. That is, increased access means a better match for businesses in terms of their intermedi

ate suppliers, which leads to increased productivity, larger market shares, and a greater clustering effect within a region. The travel demand interaction in this case is number of trips/VHT—again, this being the “average number of deliveries per hour” via truck. The model assumes that a faster rate of delivery means a greater ease of access in a region or between regions, which means better and cheaper access to the intermediate goods that businesses need.


## T ra ns portatio n C o s t s
Transportation costs are a similar concept to accessibility, but these quantify the expenses involved in the delivery of finished goods, rather than the movement of inter

mediate inputs amid different businesses and industries. The travel interaction is VMT/ VHT, or the average system speed, for trucks, assuming that a higher system speed means a higher ease of transportation for sellers to buyers between regions. This builds on the gravity concepts of trade flows in the model, and also the concept of “relative delivered prices.” That is, the model includes both a “relative cost of production” (RCP, which access lowers) and a “relative delivered price” (which is the RCP plus the cost of transporting a good to the shelf. The differences are transportation costs, which a higher speed for the system makes cheaper for the region inside of the TranSight model.


## Am e n it y/E xter n alit yUnder normal circumstances, TranSight automatically quantifies the user- and agencycosts of transportation from travel demand data. However, in this case, as SCAG had an internal estimate of the same, REMI used the same information as the estimation of amenity benefits inside of the model. The variable in question, which is non-pecuniary amenity, goes into the model as an increase in the attractiveness of a region to migrants. For instance, people are willing to locate themselves in Florida for lower wages given the high overall attractiveness of the area’s culture and climate. With this variable, we can enter a calculated number of externality benefits into specific regions. This will move migrants into the region, lower wages, and create a bigger cluster of labor for businesses to choose from. By extension, this is rather important to the industrial competitiveness of a region, as employers can charge less money for the same (or better) work from employ

ees. SCAG’s estimates included the cost of emissions, lost travel time due to conges

tion, and safety benefits. These all, in sum, add to the attractiveness of a region, which amenity quantifies in REMI.


## O peratio ns C o s t s Transportation improvements can have a big influence on business/household econo

mies in terms of their fuel and vehicular repair purchases. TranSight normally quantifies this, but SCAG had an external estimate in provided data. To illustrate the influence of fuel savings on the economy, this goes into the model as reduced consumer or business spending on gasoline and oil. As an extension, saving an entity $50/year on fuel “frees up” $50 to spend on other priorities. For households, this means an increase in consumer spending and a decrease in the cost of living. For a business, this would mean increased competitiveness, as enterprises in SCAG counties no longer have to pay as much for fuel in the future. This allows them to expand their market shares and eventually have more output and hire more workers in the out years. The results of the model effort yielded network benefits (flowing from reduced com

muting, accessibility, and transport costs as defined above) and amenity and operations benefits (from the changes in amenities and the reductions in operations costs.) The2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis 

### 223

network benefits summarize the bulk of the economic competitiveness impacts from improvements to the transportation system that result from the plan, while the amenity benefits are largely the impact of measurable quality of life changes or increased con

sumer spending power that results from lower transportation costs.
The REMI model results showed that the network benefits would result in an annual average of 512,000 jobs in the SCAG region during the 2011–2035 time period. Note that those jobs are in addition to construction jobs, and the jobs are economic opportunities available to SCAG region residents as a result of increased competitiveness that would flow from full implementation of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. SCAG believes the REMI model results constitute a high end of the possible network benefits, as some behavioral responses, such as increases in telecommuting as an adaptation to high congestion levels, likely are not fully captured in the REMI model. SCAG validated the REMI results against a comparison with the literature and believes a better estimate of job gains from the network benefits of fully implementing the RTP are 354,000 jobs per year, on average. This is described in the last section of this chapter. 

## F ull Results
The full economic results of the RTP/SCS investment are summarized below, with mil

lions of new jobs (annual average) resulting from the plan in five year time periods and an annual average for 2011–2035 shown. The construction job gains (direct, indirect, and induced) effects are shown on the top row. The network benefits and amenity and construction benefits are also shown, and the full program economic impact—construc

tion impacts and changes in the region’s economic competitiveness, are shown on the bottom row. **T a**  **bl e 8.4**  

### Total Employment Impact
**2011–**

**2015 2016–**  **2020 2021–**  **2025 2026–**  **2030 2031–**  **2035 A**  **nnual A**  **verage** Construction 194 165 173 186 154 174.5
All Network Benefits 21 71 263 543 852 354
Amenity & Operations 17 40 65 88 108 64

Draft 2012– 2035 RTP/SCS 232 276 501 819 1,114 593.5

### 224 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis



## Impact of Economic G ains Versus Revenue Required to Implement 2012–2035 RTP/ S C S

593,500 jobs – 67,000 jobs = 526,500 net gain in jobs per year

Implementing the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS would create an average of 593,500 jobs a year over the 2012–2035 period. However, infrastructure investment is not free. It requires fees and taxes from within the region plus added state and federal revenue. Some, but not all, of these flows of funds exist. The modeling carefully traced them to determine the negative impact that increased local taxes and fees would have on the ability of Southern California’s consumers and businesses to spend locally. The net cost from these taxes and fees is estimated to be a loss of 67,000 jobs on average per year. Implementation of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS’s net gain would thus average 526,500 jobs per year. Should the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS not be implemented, the cost to Southern California would be immense. The area would forfeit long term competitiveness, efficiency and sus

tainability of modern infrastructure. It would face stiff penalties for being out of compli

ance with federal environmental law. 

## How Transportation Improves Economic Competitiveness
Transportation can improve economic competitiveness in several ways. Canvassing the literature and available economic models gives five possible paths through which trans

portation improvements can increase regional economic competitiveness.

1. Improved Labor M arket M atching: Reducing travel time allows firms to hire from a larger geographic catchment area. This effectively increases the firm’s labor mar

ket—particularly so in a large urban area like the SCAG region, where reductions in commuting time can yield possibly many more potential employees. Increasing the size of the labor pool allows the firm to hire better employees, as the firm can find a better match for its needs. By hiring employees who better suit their needs, the firm can produce more (employees are more productive) for the same cost, allowing the firm to capture a larger market share. That, in turn, can lead to increased hiring if the increase in market share countervails the fact that the firm can produce more with fewer employees due to the improved employer-employee job match. (See e.g., Kohlhase and Finney, 2008.) 2. F irms M ove into the S CA G Region in Response to Enhanced Economic Competitiveness: This effect flows in part from the first effect. If the SCAG region’s transportation system allows longer commutes and hence a larger labor market pool, and if that larger employee pool allows firms to hire better employees, eventu

ally, firms will move into the region in response to those improved hiring prospects. Hence, the increases in firm productivity that initially result from improved labor market matching result in firms moving into the SCAG region from other locations over longer time horizons. 3. Reduced Congestion Reduces Employees’ Asking (or Reservation) W age: Employees have a reservation wage—a wage below which they will not work in a particular job. Congestion reductions can lower reservation wages in two ways. First, metropolitan areas compete for mobile labor, and metropolitan regions with lower traffic congestion will, all else equal, lure more migrants into the region due to the amenity value of lower traffic congestion. This increases the supply of available labor—an advantage for firms looking for to hire employees. Second, employees typically have to be compensated for undesirable characteristics of particular loca

tions. In metropolitan areas with high traffic congestion, the labor pool will have to be compensated either in the form of higher wages, lower house prices, or both (e.g. Roback, 1982). These two effects are one and the same—the higher wages in high congestion metropolitan areas reflect the need to lure in a labor pool that otherwise might choose to locate in lower congestion locales. Reduced congestion can attract more workers to a region, allowing a firm to hire quality workers at lower reservation wages. Note that this does not mean that congestion reduction will lower wages paid. The effect of congestion on wages flows through multiple channels. As firms move into the SCAG region in response to the metropolitan area’s enhanced competitiveness, that competition for labor will drive wages up. On net, employee wages may increase in the long run. Each of the paths described here are illustra

tions of isolated links from a complex economic system with multiple feedback loops, and the description here is intended to illustrate, in part, how advanced computer models can forecast the economic and job creation impacts of congestion reduction. Saying that employee reservation wages will be lower if their commute is less costly does not imply that, in the long run after the economy has fully adjusted, those employees are paid less. This information is provided as an explanation to the2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis 

### 225

results of economic impact modeling results and is not intended to be a policy state

ment on wages. 4. Increased M arket for F irms’ Products: Reductions in travel time can allow firms to supply a larger market area. If production exhibits constant returns to scale, this will not increase employment per se. Instead, local markets might be served by fewer, larger firms that can reach a larger customer base as congestion delays are reduced. The exception occurs when production exhibits increasing returns to scale, which means that larger firms can produce at lower cost. For many locally serv

ing products—eating establishments, consumer products, services—production is likely to have constant returns to scale, and larger firms likely have no particular cost advantage over smaller firms. An important exception might be the shipping traffic through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Larger ports can build infrastructure that may allow faster and hence lower cost processing of freight movements. Reductions in landside freight shipping times from the ports to points within and beyond the SCAG region may contribute to shipping volumes that could allow lower costs and hence lead to higher productivity, making the SCAG ports more cost effective than other points of entry. 5. Learning: Cities are engines of economic innovation. Virtually all economic advances—in consumer products, electronics, biotechnology, consumer services, entertainment, and fine arts—are created in metropolitan areas. A large and grow

ing literature argues that much of the economic advantage of cities is the learning that is possible when persons and firms are in close proximity (e.g., Puga, 2010, Glaeser, 2011, Storper and Venables, 2004). The engineers in Silicon Valley inter

act regularly, within and across different firms, creating a hub of knowledge and innovation that is unrivaled in the computing industry. The movie industry in Los Angeles provides the same center for knowledge and learning. Such learning effects are central to many industries, including manufacturing processes and services that increasingly rely on innovations to remain competitive. Transportation invest

ments that reduce traffic congestion can allow persons to interact more readily with a larger pool of like-minded experts, increasing the learning and innovation in a regional economy. That can allow local firms to innovate in ways that lowers costs, improves products, and leads to larger market share. Over time, improved innova

tion environment will attract mobile labor and capital (workers and firms) from other regions, further boosting economic activity. Overall, these five effects paint a rich picture of the regional economy—one in which firms can access larger labor and product markets as congestion is reduced, and those effects can translate in the short-run into higher productivity, lower costs, larger market share, and higher employment and, in the longer run new firms may move into the met

ropolitan region in response to that enhanced competitiveness. Beyond those “market size” effects, learning and innovation can be enhanced by policies that allow persons to interact more quickly and easily with a broad range of economic collaborators and com

petitors, reducing traffic congestion—the range of movement of workers and business owners—can enhance that learning environment. The nature of any one of these effects, and whether employment would increase or decrease in particular sectors or specific locations within the SCAG region, requires assessing complicated details of the magni

tudes of each effect and the tradeoffs that ensue. 

## Quantified Estimates of G ains from Economic Competitiveness
To capture productivity effects, the results of SCAG’s travel model were used in con

junction with REMI to estimate employment impacts that would result not from direct construction jobs and the multiplier effect of those jobs, but instead from the enhanced economic competitiveness of the SCAG region that results from the reductions in conges

tion delays and improvements in air quality that will be fostered by the plan. Estimating efficiency gains from transportation projects is a frontier topic in practice, and REMI is an advanced model that allows the sophisticated ability to measure some of the chan

nels through which transportation improvements can lead to job growth from increased regional competitiveness. The list below compares how REMI can address each of the five economic competitiveness channels described in the previous section.

1. Improved labor market matching: REMI models how metropolitan labor markets expand when network travel times decrease. Changes in highway and transit travel times are both modeled. From increases in labor market catchment areas, REMI estimates improved employer-employee job matches and hence improved firm labor productivity and lower production costs. This channel is modeled well in REMI. 2. F irms move into the S CA G region in response to enhanced economic competi

tiveness: REMI’s market share models allow it to estimate how changes in produc

tion costs affect firm market shares. That effectively addresses the question of firm in- or out-migration. REMI does not model the number of firms, but the key question

### 226 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis

is the size of particular industry sectors, and REMI models market share effects that include changes in the location of production in response to changes in wages and the productivity of intermediate inputs. 3. Reduced Congestion Reduces Employees’ Asking (or Reservation) W age: REMI’s approach captures some but possibly not all of this effect. When employees migrate into a metropolitan area in response to changes in employment opportunities, that expansion of labor supply and the resulting downward pressure on wages will be captured by REMI. A second effect is that employees are willing to work for lower wages when their commuting costs fall—a phenomenon predicted by economic theory. REMI’s ability to capture that may be incomplete, as migration across metro

politan areas in the REMI model is more in response to wages and job opportunities in different metropolitan areas and migration for local amenities, including lower traffic congestion, is apparently not modeled in REMI. Recall that other competi

tiveness effects, including larger market areas and in-migration of firms into the SCAG region, will increase demand for labor. On net, wages may go up after all adjustments in the economy are accounted for. REMI has an ability to model some of those feedback channels, including the geographic market size for firm output and in-migration of firms due to the increased economic competitiveness of the SCAG region. 4. Increase market size for firms’ products: The REMI model balances supply and demand within metropolitan areas, and in the broader economy, and so accounts for ways that transportation access changes firms’ market size. As noted earlier, a key question for “market size” impacts is whether firms experience increasing returns to scale. Here the ability of the REMI model to capture productivity improvements due to market size is unclear, and particular issues of interest to the region, including the economically important ports, will require additional modeling and analysis in the future. 5. Learning: The REMI model has virtually no ability to capture learning improvements that lead to innovations in production processes or, in the extreme, to new products. Forecasting such effects at a regional level is difficult, yet such effects exist and are increasingly important in knowledge based economies. 

## The Literature
While there is a large academic literature that studies the effect of transportation infrastructure on economic productivity, only a few of those studies draw links to congestion reduction and economic gains. The bulk of the academic literature is focused on estimat

ing relationships between a region’s stock of highway or transportation infrastructure and economic productivity. That larger strand of the literature cannot illuminate how transpor

tation infrastructure relates to productivity gains, and the effect of congestion reduction in particular is not modeled. Because congestion reduction is a key path through which transportation investment in the SCAG region could improve economic competitiveness, we focus on the relatively few studies that have drawn links from congestion to regional economic performance. Note that those studies typically aimed to test a hypothesis using retrospective data, often asking whether measures of economic performance are statisti

cally related to traffic congestion. The goal in the academic literature, to date, has not been to forecast magnitudes of economic impacts from future congestion reduction, but instead to use retrospective data to test for a relationship. Boarnet (1997) estimated labor productivity and output in the 58 counties in California with annual data from 1977 to 1988. He developed a congestion measure for each county based on peak hour measures of traffic volume relative to highway capacity. Boarnet found that congestion is negatively associated with county output (or gross county prod

uct.) Converting the regression estimates into elasticities, Boarnet found an effect only for the most congested counties in the state, typically the counties that comprised the San Francisco Bay Area and SCAG region. During the time period being studies, those weretypically the only counties that had highway networks with meaningful levels of congestion. The elasticity of output with respect to a measure of congestion suggested that a 10 percent reduction in highway congestion was associated with county output increases in a range from 2 percent to 5 percent. Hymel (2009) used data from the 85 largest U.S. metropolitan areas from 1982 through 2003. He used regression analysis to examine how employment growth is influenced by several factors, including congestion. Highway congestion measures were drawn from annual reports produced by the Texas Transportation Institute. Hymel found that conges

tion reduces employment growth, and the effect is non-linear. More congested metropolitan areas experienced larger employment penalties for increases in congestion. Hymel’s estimates imply an elasticity of employment growth, from 1990 to 2003, with respect2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis 

### 227

to congestion of -0.466 for the Los Angeles-Orange County metropolitan area, suggested that a 10 percent reduction in traffic congestion is associated with a 4.66 percentincrease in employment growth during that 14-year period. Note that the Los AngelesOrange County elasticity is almost twice the size of the elasticity for San Diego, which is -0.248. In San Diego, during this time period, a 10 percent reduction in traffic congestion is associated with a 2.48 percent increase in employment growth. This illustrates the non-linear nature of congestion’s economic penalty. Mildly congested regions experience more moderate reductions in employment growth, but as congestion grows the reduction in employment, based on Hymel’s estimates, grows faster than linearly. 

## Literature Comparison
Because this exercise—estimating economic benefits and competitiveness gains that result from transportation system improvements – is somewhat new, the SCAG economic team cross-checked the result with the academic literature. Hymel’s (2009) paper, which uses regression analysis to estimate retrospectively the job gains that would result from congestion reduction, is the best comparison point in the literature. Hymel’s results are based on the 1990 to 2003 time period—a shorter time period than the analysis here which focuses on 2011 to 2035. More importantly, Hymel’s results suggest that the economic gains from congestion reduction grow larger as congestion increases, and so a simple application of Hymel’s results from the less congested time period of the 1990s to the more congested circumstance in 2035 if the “no project” future were to occur (no RTP/SCS related transportation improvements) needs to account for the faster-than-linear growth of the economic gains from congestion reduction. SCAG used Hymel’s results, adjusted to reflect the more congested network that would result if the RTP/SCS is not implemented, and estimated that Hymel’s regression analysis implies that the RTP/SCS, if fully implemented, would generate 196,000 annual jobs from improved competitiveness. SCAG considers the REMI estimate of 512,000 annual jobs a reasonable upper bound for network benefits and the Hymel method which estimates 196,000 annual jobs a reason

able lower bound for network benefits. Hymel’s estimates, based on econometric analysis from 1990 to 2003, could easily understate the network benefits of the 2012–2035 RTP/ SCS in 2035. The congestion levels in the 2011–2035 timeframe for the no project case will be outside of (and more congested than) anything Hymel observed in his 1990-2003 observations of U.S. metro areas. The REMI results, on the other hand, likely exclude some behavioral responses (e.g. increases in telecommuting) that would mitigate the impacts of increased traffic congestion. SCAG judges that a mid-point between the two estimates, 354,000 annual jobs from network benefits, is the most reasonable estimate. 

## References
Boarnet, Marlon G. 1997. Infrastructure Services and the Productivity of Public Capital: The Case of Streets and Highways. National Tax Journal 50(1): 39–57. Glaeser, Edward L. 2011. The Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. Penguin Press. Hymel, Kent. 2009. Does traffic congestion reduce employment growth? Journal of Urban Economics 65: 127–135. Kohlhase, Janet, and Miles Finney. 2008. The Effect of Urbanization on Labor Turnover. Journal of Regional Science, 48(2): 311–328. Puga, Diego. 2010. The Magnitude and Causes of Agglomeration Economies. Journal of Regional Science 50,1: 203–220. Storper, Michael and Anthony J. Venables. 2004. Buzz: Face-to-Face Contact and theUr

ban Economy. Journal of Economic Geography 4: 351–370. 

## Acknowlegments
Regional Economic Models, Inc. – Billy Leung, Vice President, Scott Nystrom, Associate Economist, and Zilin Cui, Assistant Economist

# G lossary

**AASHTO** 

## | American Association of S tate Highway and Transportation Officials – A non

profit, non-partisan association representing highway and transportation departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. **A B 32**  

## | Assembly B ill 32 – Signed into law on September 26, 2006, it requires that the state’s global warming emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on global warming emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. In order to effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop appropriate regulations and establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor global warming emissions levels. **A B 169**  

## | Assembly B ill 169 – Provides for the sixteen federally recognized tribes in the SCAG region to join the SCAG Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to participate in the Southern California Association of Governments by voting at the SCAG General Assembly. **A C**  **E** 

## | Alameda Corridor East – A 35-mile corridor extending through the San Gabriel Valley between East Los Angeles and Pomona and connecting the Alameda Corridor to the transcon

tinental railroad network. **A ctive**  **T ransportation**  

## | A mode of transportation that includes walking, running, biking, skateboarding, and other self-propelled forms of transportation. **ADA** 

## | Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 – Guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local gov

ernment services, and telecommunications. It prescribes federal transportation requirements for transportation providers. **A JR**  

## | Assembly J oint Resolution N o. 40 – Introduced on August 23, 2007, the resolution calls upon the governor to declare a state of emergency in respect to the air quality health crisis in the South Coast Air Quality Basin related to emissions of PM 2.5 , and to direct steps necessary to address the emergency. **AN C**  **A** 

## | F ederal Airport N oise and Capacity Act of 1990 – Establishes a national aviation noise policy that reviews airport noise and access restrictions on operations for Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft. **A ntelope**  **V alley**  **A Q**  **MD** 

## | Antelope Valley Air Quality M anagement District – The air pollution control agency for the portion of Los Angeles County north of the San Gabriel Mountains. **A Q**  **M P**  

## | Air Quality M anagement Plan – Regional plan for air quality improvement in compli

ance with federal and state requirements. **A RB**  

## | Air Resources B oard – Refer to CARB, California Air Resources Board. **ATIS** 

## | Advanced Traveler Information S ystems – Technology used to provide travelers with information, both pre-trip and in-vehicle, so they can better utilize the transportation system. **ATMS** 

## | Advanced Transportation M anagement S ystems – Technology used to improve the operations of the transportation network. **AVO** 

## | Average Vehicle Occupancy – Calculated by dividing the total number of travelers by the total number of vehicles. **Base Year** 

## | The year 2008, used in the RTP performance analysis as a reference point for current conditions. **Baseline** 

## | Future scenario which includes only those projects that are existing, undergoing right-of-way acquisition or construction, come from the first year of the previous RTP or RTIP, or have completed the NEPA process. The Baseline is based upon the adopted 2011 FTIP. The Baseline functions as the “No Project” alternative used in the RTP Program EIR. **BL S**  

## | B ureau of Labor S tatistics – The principal fact-finding agency for the federal govern

ment in the broad field of labor economics and statistics. **B NS**  **F** 

## | B urlington N orthern and S anta F e Railway Company **BR T**  

## | B us Rapid Transit – Bus transit service that seeks to reduce travel time through mea

sures such as traffic signal priority, automatic vehicle location, dedicated bus lanes, limitedstop service, and faster fare collection policies. **B TA**  

## | B icycle Transportation Account – Provides state funds for city and county projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. **C AA**  

## | Clean Air Act (CAA) – 1970 federal act that authorized EPA to establish air quality stan

dards to limit levels of pollutants in the air. EPA has promulgated such standards (or NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, lead, and particulate matter ( PM 10 ). All areas of the United States must maintain ambi

ent levels of these pollutants below the ceilings established by the NAAQS; any area that does not meet these standards is a “non-attainment” area. States must develop SIPs to explain how they will comply with the CAA. The act was amended in 1977 and again in 1990. **C A**  **FR** 

## | Comprehensive Annual F inancial Report – Official annual financial report that encompasses all funds and financial components associated with any given organization. **Cal B/C M**  **odel** 

## | California Life-Cycle B enefit/Cost Analysis M odel (Cal- B /C) – Was developed for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as a tool for benefit-cost 

### 2282012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Glossary 

### 229

analysis of highway and transit projects. It is an Excel (spreadsheet) application structured to analyze several types of transportation improvement projects in a corridor where there already exists a highway facility or a transit service (the base case). **Caltrans** 

## | California Department of Transportation – State agency responsible for the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the California State Highway System, as well as that portion of the Interstate Highway System within the state’s boundaries. **C A**  **RB** 

## | California Air Resources B oard – State agency responsible for attaining and main

taining healthy air quality through setting and enforcing emissions standards, conducting research, monitoring air quality, providing education and outreach, and overseeing/assisting local air quality districts. **Catalytic D**  **emand** 

## | Additional aviation demand that is created by companies that locate in the proximity of expanding airports with developable land around them to reduce airport ground access time and costs for their employees and clients. Catalytic demand is greatest for large hub airports, particularly international airports. **C EHD**  

## | Community, Economic and Human Development Committee – A SCAG committee that studies the problems, programs, and other matters which pertain to the regional issues of community, economic and human development, and growth. This committee reviews projects, plans, and programs of regional significance for consistency and conformity with applicable regional plans. **C E**  **Q A**  

## | California Environmental Quality Act – State law providing certain environmental protections that apply to all transportation projects funded with state funds. **C ETA**  **P** 

## | Community Environmental and Transportation Acceptability Process – Part of the Riverside County Integrated Project that is examining where to locate possible major new multimodal transportation facilities to serve the current and future transportation needs of Western Riverside County, while minimizing impacts on communities and the environment. **C HS**  **R A**  

## | California High- S peed Rail Authority – Agency responsible for planning, designing, constructing, and operating a state-of-the-art high-speed train system in California. **C I**  **P** 

## | Capital Improvement Program – Long-range strategic plan that identifies capital proj

ects; provides a planning schedule and financing options. **C MA**  **Q** 

## | Congestion M itigation and Air Quality Program – Federal program initiated by ISTEA to provide funding for surface transportation and other related projects that contribute to air quality improvements and reduce congestion. **C MIA**  

## | Corridor M obility Improvement Account – These funds would be allocated by the California Transportation Commission to highly congested travel corridors in the state. Projects in this category must be a high priority; be able to start construction by 2012; improve mobility in a highly congested corridor by improving travel times and reducing vehicle hours of delay; connect the State Highway System; and improve access to jobs, housing, markets, and commerce. **C M**  **P** 

## | Congestion M anagement Program – Established by Proposition 111 in 1990, requires each county to develop and adopt a CMP that includes highway and roadway system monitor

ing, multimodal system performance analysis, transportation demand management program, land-use analysis program, and local conformance. **C NSST**  **C** 

## | California- N evada S uper- S peed Train Commission – Public-private partnership developed to promote a high-speed link between California and Nevada. **C O**  

## | Carbon M onoxide – A colorless, odorless, poisonous gas formed when carbon in fuels is not burned completely. It is a byproduct of highway vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 60 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. **C O**  **G** 

## | Council of G overnments – Under state law, a single or multi-county council created by a joint powers agreement. **C OM**  **P ASS**  **/Growth V**  **isioning** 

## | A planning process guided by input from the public and initiated by SCAG to develop a regional strategy for addressing future growth in Southern California. **Congestion M**  **anagement Process** 

## | Systematic approach required in transportation management areas (TMAs) that provides for effective management and operation, based on a cooperatively developed and implemented metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and existing transportation facilities eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S.C. and Title 49 U.S.C., through the use of operational management strategies. **Congestion Pricing** 

## | User fee imposed on vehicles during peak demand periods on con

gested roadways. **Constant D**  **ollars** 

## | Dollars expended/received in a specific year adjusted for inflation/defla

tion relative to another time period. **Corridor** 

## | In planning, a broad geographical band that follows a general directional flow or connects major sources of trips. It may contain a number of streets and highways, as well as transit lines and routes. **C T**  **C** 

## | California Transportation Commission – A nine-member board appointed by the gov

ernor to oversee and administer state and federal transportation funds and provide oversight on project delivery. **C TI**  **P S**  

## | California Transportation Improvement Program S ystem – A project programming database system used to efficiently and effectively develop and manage various transportation programming documents as required under state and federal law.

### 230 2012 Regional Transportation Plan 

## | Glossary

**C T**  **P** 

## | California Transportation Plan – A statewide, long-range transportation policy plan that provides for the movement of people, goods, services, and information. The CTP offers a blueprint to guide future transportation decisions and investments that will ensure California’s ability to compete globally, provide safe and effective mobility for all persons, better link transportation and land-use decisions, improve air quality, and reduce petroleum energy consumption. **C VO**  

## | Commercial Vehicle Operations – Management of commercial vehicle activities through ITS. **D eficiency Plan**  

## | Set of provisions contained in a Congestion Management Plan to address congestion when unacceptable levels of congestion occur. Projects implemented through the Deficiency Plan must, by statute, have both mobility and air quality benefits. **DTIM** 

## | Direct Travel Impact M odel – A vehicle emissions forecasting model. **ED F**  

## | Environmental Defense F und – A national non-profit organization that seeks to protect the environmental rights of all people, including future generations. **EI R**  

## | Environmental Impact Report – An informational document, required under CEQA, which will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, possible ways to minimize significant effects, and reason

able alternatives to the project. **EIS** 

## | Environmental Impact S tatement (federal) – National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirement for assessing the environmental impacts of federal actions that may have a sig

nificant impact on the human environment. **EM F**  **A C**  

## | Emission F actor – Model that estimates on-road motor vehicle emission rates for current year as well as backcasted and forecasted inventories. **E P**  **A** 

## | Environmental Protection Agency – Federal agency established to develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment. **F AA**  

## | F ederal Aviation Administration – Federal agency responsible for issuing and enforc

ing safety regulations and minimum standards, managing air space and air traffic, and build

ing and maintaining air navigation facilities. **F H**  **W A**  

## | F ederal Highway Administration – Federal agency responsible for administering the Federal-Aid Highway Program, which provides federal financial assistance to the states to construct and improve the National Highway System, urban and rural roads, and bridges. **Financially Constrained** 

## | Expenditures are said to be financially constrained if they are within limits of anticipated revenues. **FR A**  

## | F ederal Railroad Administration – Federal agency created to promulgate and enforce rail safety regulations, administer railroad assistance programs, conduct research and development in support of improved railroad safety and national rail transportation policy, and consolidate government support of rail transportation activities. **F TA**  

## | F ederal Transit Administration – The federal agency responsible for administering federal transit funds and assisting in the planning and establishment of areawide urban mass transportation systems. As opposed to FHWA funding, most FTA funds are allocated directly to local agencies, rather than to Caltrans. **F TI**  **P** 

## | F ederal Transportation Improvement Program – A three-year list of all transportation projects proposed for federal transportation funding within the planning area of an MPO. **FY** 

## | F iscal Y ear – The twelve-month period on which the budget is planned. The state fiscal year begins July 1 and ends June 30 of the following year. The federal fiscal year begins October 1 and ends September 30 of the following year. **G AO**  

## | G overnment Accountability Office – Congressional agency responsible for examining matters related to the receipt and payment of public funds. **Gentrification** 

## | Gentrification, while holding many definitions, is commonly understood as a change process in historically low-wealth communities that results in rising real estate values coupled with shifts in the economic, social, and cultural demographics and feel of the communities. **G H**  **G** 

## | G reenhouse G ases – Components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. **G IS**  

## | G eographic Information S ystem – Powerful mapping software that links information about where things are with information about what things are like. GIS allows users to exam

ine relationships between features distributed unevenly over space, seeking patterns that may not be apparent without using advanced techniques of query, selection, analysis, and display. **G N**  **P** 

## | G ross N ational Product – An estimate of the total value of goods and services pro

duced in any specified country in a given year. GNP can be measured as a total amount or an amount per capita. **Grade Crossing** 

## | A crossing or intersection of highways, railroad tracks, other guideways, or pedestrian walks, or combinations of these at the same level or grade. **Greenfield** 

## | Also known as “raw land,” land that is privately owned, lacks urban services, has not been previously developed, and is located at the fringe of existing urban areas. **H CP**  

## | Habitat Conservation Plan – Established under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act to allow development to proceed while protecting endangered species.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Glossary 

### 231

**HDT** 

## | Heavy-Duty Truck – Truck with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or more. **HI C**  **OM P**  

## | Highway Congestion M onitoring Program (Caltrans) – A report that measures the congestion that occurs on urban area freeways in California. **H ome-Based Work**  **T rips**  

## | Trips that go between home and work, either directly or with an intermediate stop. Home-based work trips include telecommuting, working at home, and nonmotorized transportation work trips. **HOT Lane**  

## | High-Occupancy Toll Lane – An HOV lane that single-occupant drivers can pay to drive in, also referred to as “Express Lanes.” **HOV Lane**  

## | High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane – A lane restricted to vehicles with two (and in some cases three) or more occupants to encourage carpooling. Vehicles include automobiles, vans, buses, and taxis. **H P**  **MS** 

## | Highway Performance M onitoring S ystem – A federally mandated program designed by FHWA to assess the performance of the nation’s highway system. **HSI PR**  

## | High- S peed Intercity Passenger Rail Program – A Federal Railroad Administration program created to invest in new high-speed rail corridors and existing rail corridors to improve speed and service. **HS R**  

## | High- S peed Rail – Intercity passenger rail service that is reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 mile per hour. **H U**  **D** 

## | U

. S . Department of Housing and U rban Development – Federal agency charged with increasing homeownership, supporting community development, and increasing access to affordable housing free from discrimination. **I C**  **A PC**  **D** 

## | Imperial County Air Pollution Control District – Local air pollution control agency mandated by state and federal regulations to implement and enforce air pollution rules and regulations. **I C**  **T C**  

## | Imperial County Transportation Commission – Agency responsible for planning and funding countywide transportation improvements and administering the county’s transporta

tion sales tax revenues. **I GR**  

## | Intergovernmental Review Process – The review of documents by several governmen

tal agencies to ensure consistency of regionally significant local plans, projects, and programs with SCAG’s adopted regional plans. **I nfrastructure**  

## | The basic facilities, equipment, services, and installations needed for the growth and functioning of a community. **IOS** 

## | Initial Operating S egment **ISTEA** 

## | Intermodal S urface Transportation Efficiency Act – Signed into federal law on December 18, 1991, it provided authorization for highways, highway safety, and mass transportation for FYs 1991−1997 and served as the legislative vehicle for defining federal surface transportation policy. **ITI P**  

## | Interregional Transportation Improvement Program – The portion of the STIP that includes projects selected by Caltrans (25 percent of STIP funds). **ITS** 

## | Intelligent Transportation S ystems – Systems that use modern detection, communica

tions and computing technology to collect data on system operations and performance, com

municate that information to system managers and users, and use that information to manage and adjust the transportation system to respond to changing operating conditions, congestion, or accidents. ITS technology can be applied to arterials, freeways, transit, trucks, and private vehicles. ITS include Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS), Advanced Public Transit Systems (APTS), Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS), Advanced Vehicle Control Systems (AVCS), and Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO). **JP A**  

## | J oint Powers Authority – Two or more agencies that enter into a cooperative agree

ment to jointly wield powers that are common to them. JPAs are a vehicle for the cooperative use of existing governmental powers to finance and provide infrastructure and/or services in a cost-efficient manner. **L A**  **C MTA**  

## | Los Angeles County M etropolitan Transportation Authority , also referred to as “Metro” – Agency responsible for planning and funding countywide transportation improve

ments, administering the county’s transportation sales tax revenues, and operating bus and rail transit service. **L A**  **UP T**  

## | Los Angeles U nion Passenger Terminal , also known as Union Station. **L A**  **W A**  

## | Los Angeles W orld Airports – Aviation authority of the City of Los Angeles. LAWA owns and operates Los Angeles International (LAX), Ontario International, Van Nuys, and Palmdale Airports. **LC V**  **s** 

## | Longer-Combination Vehicles − Includes tractor-trailer combinations with two or more trailers that weigh more than 80,000 pounds. **L EM**  

## | Location Efficient M ortgage – Allows people to qualify for larger loan amounts if they choose a home in a densely populated community that is well served by public transit and where destinations are located close together so that they can also walk and bike instead of driving everywhere. **Livable Communities** 

## | Any location in which people choose may be viewed as “livable.” However, communities that contain a healthy mix of homes, shops, workplaces, schools, parks, and civic institutions coupled with a variety of transportation choices, give residents greater access to life’s daily essentials and offer higher quality of life to a wider range of residents.

### 232 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Glossary

**LR T**  

## | Light Rail Transit – A mode of transit that operates on steel rails and obtains its powerfrom overhead electrical wires. LRT may operate in single or multiple cars on separate rightsof-way or in mixed traffic. **L T**  **F** 

## | Local Transportation F und – A fund which receives TDA revenues. **MA P**  

## | M illion Annual Passengers – Used to quantify airport activity. **M arket**  **I ncentives**  

## | Measures designed to encourage certain actions or behaviors. Theseinclude inducements for the use of carpools, buses, and other HOVs in place of singleoccupant automobile travel. Examples include HOV lanes, preferential parking, and financial incentives. **MDA B**  

## | M ojave Desert Air B asin – Area defined by state law as comprising the desert por

tions of Los Angeles, Kern, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. **MDA Q**  **MD** 

## | M ojave Desert Air Quality M anagement District – Local air agency mandated by state and federal regulations to implement and enforce air pollution rules and regulations; encompasses the desert portion of San Bernardino County from the summit of the Cajon Pass north to the Inyo County line, as well as the Palo Verde Valley portion of Riverside County. **M easure**  **A** 

## | Revenues generated from Riverside County’s local half-cent sales tax. **M easure**  **D** 

## | Revenues generated from Imperial County’s local half-cent sales tax. **M easure**  **I** 

## | Revenues generated from San Bernardino County’s local half-cent sales tax. **M easure**  **M** 

## | Revenues generated from Orange County’s local half-cent sales tax. **M easure R**  

## | Revenues generated from Los Angeles County’s local half-cent sales tax. Los Angeles County has two permanent local sales taxes (Propositions C and A) and one tempo

rary local sales tax (Measure R). **M etrolink**  

## | Regional commuter rail system connecting Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties and operated by SCRRA. **MIS** 

## | M ajor Investment S tudy – The preliminary study, including preliminary environmental documentation, for choosing alternative transportation projects for federal transportation funding. An MIS is a requirement, which is conducted cooperatively by the study sponsor and the MPO. **M ixed Flow**  

## | Traffic movement having autos, trucks, buses, and motorcycles sharing traffic lanes. **M ode**  

## | A particular form of travel (e.g., walking, traveling by automobile, traveling by bus, or traveling by train). **M ode**  **S plit**  

## | The proportion of total person trips using various specified modes of transportation. **M odel**  

## | A mathematical description of a real-life situation that uses data on past and present conditions to make a projection. **M P**  **O** 

## | M etropolitan Planning Organization – A federally required planning body responsible for transportation planning and project selection in a region. **MTS** 

## | M etropolitan Transportation S ystem – Regional network of roadways and transit corridors. **M ultimodal**  

## | A mixture of the several modes of transportation, such as transit, highways, non-motorized, etc. **NAA Q**  **S** 

## | N ational Ambient Air Quality S tandards – Targets established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the maximum contribution of a specific pollutant in the air. **NA F**  **TA** 

## | N orth American F ree Trade Agreement – An agreement between the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States to eliminate barriers to trade and facilitate the cross-border movement of goods and services. **N CCP**  

## | N atural Communities Conservation Plan – Program under the Department of Fish and Game that uses a broad-based ecosystem approach toward planning for the protection of plants, animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. **NE P**  **A** 

## | N ational Environmental Protection Act – Federal environmental law that applies to all projects funded with federal funds or requiring review by a federal agency. **NIMS** 

## | N ational Incident M anagement S ystem – Nationwide template that enables all government, private-sector, and non-governmental organizations to work together during a domestic incident. **N ominal**  **D ollars**  

## | Actual dollars expended/received in a specific year without adjustments for inflation/deflation. **NO x**  

## | N itrogen oxides – A group of highly reactive gases, all of which contain nitrogen and oxygen in varying amounts. NOx are a major component of ozone and smog, and they are one of six principal air pollutants tracked by the EPA. **NTD** 

## | N ational Transit Database – The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) national data

base for transit statistics. **O &**  **M** 

## | Operations and M aintenance – The range of activities and services provided by the transportation system and for the upkeep and preservation of the existing system.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Glossary 

### 233

**O C**  **TA** 

## | Orange County Transportation Authority – Agency responsible for planning and fund

ing countywide transportation improvements, administering the county’s transportation sales tax revenues, and operating bus transit service. **O L**  **DA** 

## | Orangeline Development Authority – Joint exercise of powers authority developed by the cities located along the Orangeline corridor. **O n**  **T rac**  

## | Orange- N orth America Trade Rail Access Corridor – Formed in April of 2000 to build and support the Orangethorpe Avenue Grade Separation and Trade Corridor project, a 5-mile-long railroad-lowering project that will completely grade separate 11 rail crossings in the cities of Placentia and Anaheim. **O pen**  **S pace**  

## | Generally understood as any area of land or water which, for whatever reason, is not developed for urbanized uses and which therefore enhances residents’ quality of life. However, note that each county and city in California must adopt an open space element as part of its general plan. The element is a statement of local planning policies focusing on the use of unimproved land or water for: 1) the preservation or managed production of natural resources, 2) outdoor recreation, and 3) the promotion of public health and safety. Therefore, open space will be defined by each jurisdiction based on their own unique resources and environment. **O WP**  

## | Overall W ork Program – SCAG develops an OWP annually, describing proposed trans

portation planning activities for the upcoming fiscal year, including those required by federal and state law. **Parking Cash- O**  **ut Program** 

## | An employer-funded program under which an employer offers to provide a cash allowance to an employee equivalent to the parking subsidy that the employer would otherwise pay to provide the employee with a parking space. **Parking S**  **ubsidy** 

## | The difference between the out-of-pocket amount paid by an employer on a regular basis in order to secure the availability of an employee parking space not owned by the employer and the price, if any, charged to an employee for use of that space. **P ATH**  

## | Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways – Joint venture of Caltrans which includes the University of California and other public and private academic institutions and industries. **P EI**  **R** 

## | Program Environmental Impact Report – Environmental review process used to evaluate the potential environmental effects of large-scale plans or programs. **Pe MS**  

## | F reeway Performance M easurement S ystem – A service provided by the University of California, Berkeley, to collect historical and real-time freeway data from freeways in the state of California in order to compute freeway performance measures. **Person T**  **rip** 

## | A trip made by a person by any mode or combination of modes for any purpose. **P M**  **10** 

## | Particulate M atter – A mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air 10 micrometers or less in size (a micrometer is one-millionth of a meter). These coarse particles are generally emitted from sources such as vehicles traveling on unpaved roads, materials handling, and crushing and grinding operations, as well as windblown dust. **P M**  **2.5** 

## | Particulate M atter – A mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air 2.5 micrometers or less in size (a micrometer is one-millionth of a meter). These fine particles result from fuel combustion from motor vehicles, power generation, and industrial facilities, as well as from residential fireplaces and wood stoves. **P MD**  

## | LA/Palmdale Regional Airport – Regional airport located in Palmdale. **PPP** 

## | Public-Private Partnership – Contractual agreements formed between a public agency and private-sector entity that allow for greater private-sector participation in the delivery of transportation projects. **PRC** 

## | Peer Review Committee – An “informal” committee of technical experts usually orga

nized and invited to review and comment on various technical issues and processes used in the planning process. **Proposition 1 A**  

## | Passed by voters in 2006, Proposition 1A protects transportation funding for traffic congestion relief projects, safety improvements, and local streets and roads. It also prohibits the state sales tax on motor vehicle fuels from being used for any purpose other than transportation improvements and authorizes loans of these funds only in the case of severe state fiscal hardship. **Proposition 1B** 

## | Highway S afety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port S ecurity S tate of California – Passed in November 2006, Proposition 1B provides $19.9 billion to fund state and local transportation improvement projects to relieve congestion, improve movement of goods, improve air quality, and enhance safety and security of the transportation system. **Proposition A**  

## | Revenues generated from Los Angeles County’s local half-cent sales tax. Los Angeles County has two permanent local sales taxes (Propositions C and A) and one tempo

rary local sales tax (Measure R). **Proposition C** 

## | Revenues generated from Los Angeles County’s local half-cent sales tax. Los Angeles County has two permanent local sales taxes (Propositions C and A) and one tempo

rary local sales tax (Measure R). **P S**  **R** 

## | Project S tudy Report – Defines and justifies the project’s scope, cost, and schedule. PSRs are prepared for state highway projects and PSR equivalents are prepared for projects not on the State Highway System. Under state law, a PSR or PSR equivalent is required for STIP programming.

### 234 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Glossary

**P TA**  

## | Public Transportation Account – The major state transportation account for mass transportation purposes. Revenues include a portion of the sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuels. **PUC** 

## | Public U tilities Commission – Regulates privately owned telecommunications, electric, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies. **Railroad S**  **iding** 

## | A short stretch of railroad track used to store rolling stock or enable trains on the same line to pass; also called sidetrack. **RC** 

## | Regional Council – Conducts the affairs of SCAG; implements the General Assembly’s policy decisions; acts upon policy recommendations from SCAG policy committees and external agencies; appoints committees to study specific problems; and amends, decreases or increases the proposed budget to be reported to the General Assembly. **RCP** 

## | Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) – Developed by SCAG, the RCP is a vision of how Southern California can balance resource conservation, economic vitality, and quality of life. It will serve as a blueprint to approach growth and infrastructure challenges in an integrated and comprehensive way. **RC T**  **C** 

## | Riverside County Transportation Commission – Agency responsible for planning and funding countywide transportation improvements and administering the county’s transporta

tion sales tax revenues. **R HNA**  

## | Regional Housing N eeds Assessment – Quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction of the SCAG region based on population growth projections. Communities then address this need through the process of completing the housing elements of their General Plans. **Robust Flight Portfolio** 

## | Providing a range of flight offerings in different haul length catego

ries including short-haul, medium-haul, long-haul, and international flights. **R O**  **G** 

## | Reactive Organic G as – Organic compounds assumed to be reactive at urban/regional scales. Those organic compounds that are regulated because they lead to ozone formation. **R STIS**  

## | Regionally S ignificant Transportation Investment S tudy – Involves identifying all reasonable transportation options, their costs, and their environmental impacts. RSTIS projects are generally highway or transit improvements that have a significant impact on the capacity, traffic flow, level of service, or mode share at the transportation corridor or sub-area level. **R ST**  **P** 

## | Regional S urface Transportation Program – Established by California state stat

ute utilizing federal Surface Transportation Program funds. Approximately 76 percent of the state’s RSTP funds must be obligated on projects located within the 11 urbanized areas of California with populations of 200,000 or more. **R TMS**  

## | Regional Transportation M onitoring S ystem – Internet-based transportation moni

toring system. The RTMS will be the source for real-time and historical transportation data collected from local, regional, and private data sources. **R T**  **P** 

## | Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) – Federally required 20-year plan prepared by metropolitan planning organizations and updated every four years. Includes projections of population growth and travel demand, along with a specific list of proposed projects to be funded. **R TSS**  

## | Regional Transit S ecurity S trategy – Strategy for the region with specific goals and objectives related to the prevention, detection, response, and recovery of transit security issues. **SA F**  **ETEA -LU**  

## | S afe, Accountable, F lexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for U sers – Signed into law by President Bush on August 10, 2005, it authorized the federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period of 2005–2009. **SAN B**  **A G**  

## | S an B ernardino Associated G overnments − The council of governments and transportation planning agency for San Bernardino County. SANBAG is responsible for cooperative regional planning and developing an efficient multimodal transportation system countywide. **SANDA G**  

## | S an Diego Association of G overnments

. **S B 45**  

## | S enate B ill 45 (Chapter 622, S tatutes of 1997, K opp) – Established the current STIP process and shifted control of decision-making from the state to the regional level. **S B 375**  

## | S enate B ill 375 (Chapter 728, S teinberg) – Established to implement the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission-reduction goals, as set forth by AB 32, in the sector of cars and light trucks. This mandate requires the California Air Resources Board to determine per capita GHG emission-reduction targets for each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the state at two points in the future—2020 and 2035. In turn, each MPO must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG reduction target through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. **S B 974**  

## | S enate B ill 974 – Introduced by Senator Alan Lowenthal, SB 974 would impose a $30 fee on each shipping container processed at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland for congestion management and air quality improvements related to ports. **S B**  **D** 

## | S an B ernardino International Airport – International airport located in San Bernardino. **S C**  **A B**  

## | S outh Coast Air B asin – Comprises the non–Antelope Valley portion of Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, and the non-desert portion of San Bernardino County.2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Glossary 

### 235

**S C**  **A G**  

## | S outhern California Association of G overnments – The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for six counties including Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. **S C**  **A Q**  **MD** 

## | S outh Coast Air Quality M anagement District – The air pollution control agency for Orange County and major portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties in Southern California. **S CC**  **A B**  

## | S outh Central Coast Air B asin – Comprises San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. **S CR**  **I F**  **A** 

## | S outhern California Railroad Infrastructure F inancing Authority **S crip**  

## | A form of fare payment transferrable among transportation providers, often issued by Dial-A-Ride transit service providers to be used on taxis. **SED** 

## | S ocioeconomic Data – Population, employment, and housing forecast. **SHA** 

## | S tate Highway Account – The major state transportation account for highway purposes. Revenues include the state excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel and truck weight fees. **SHO PP**  

## | S tate Highway Operation and Protection Program – A four-year capital improve

ment program for rehabilitation, safety, and operational improvements on state highways. **SI P**  

## | S tate Implementation Plan – State air quality plan to ensure compliance with state and federal air quality standards. In order to be eligible for federal funding, projects must demon

strate conformity with the SIP. **S mart Growth Principles**  

## | The following principles developed by the Smart Growth Network, a partnership of government, business, and civic organizations created in 1996: 1. Mix land uses 2. Take advantage of compact building design 3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices 4. Create walkable neighborhoods 5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place 6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas 7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices 9. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective 10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions **SOV** 

## | S ingle-Occupant Vehicle – Privately operated vehicle that contains only one driver or occupant. **SO x**  

## | S ulfur oxide – Any of several compounds of sulfur and oxygen, formed from burning fuels such as coal and oil. **SSA B**  

## | S alton S ea Air B asin – Comprises the Coachella Valley portion of Riverside County and all of Imperial County. **STA** 

## | S tate Transit Assistance – State funding program for mass transit operations and capital projects. Current law requires that STA receive 50 percent of PTA revenues. **STI P**  

## | S tate Transportation Improvement Program – A four-year capital outlay plan that includes the cost and schedule estimates for all transportation projects funded with any amount of state funds. The STIP is approved and adopted by the CTC and is the combined result of the ITIP and the RTIP. **ST P**  

## | S urface Transportation Program – Provides flexible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects on any federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. A portion of funds reserved for rural areas may be spent on rural minor collectors. **TA C**  

## | Technical Advisory Committee – A SCAG committee that provides ideas and feedback on the technical integrity of the Regional Transportation Plan. **TANN** 

## | Traveler Advisory N ews N etwork – Provides real-time traffic and transportation information content to communications service providers and consumer media channels both nationally and internationally. **TA Z**  

## | Traffic Analysis Zone – Zone system used in travel demand forecasting. **T C**  

## | Transportation Committee – Committee used to study problems, programs, and other matters which pertain to the regional issues of mobility, air quality, transportation control measures, and communications. **T C**  **M** 

## | Transportation Control M easure – A project or program that is designed to reduce emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources. TCMs are refer

enced in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the applicable air basin and have priority for programming and implementation ahead of non-TCMs. **T CWG**  

## | Transportation Conformity W orking G roup – Forum used to support interagency coordination to help improve air quality and maintain transportation conformity. **TDA** 

## | Transportation Development Act – State law enacted in 1971 that provided a 0.25 percent sales tax on all retail sales in each county for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian pur

poses. In non-urban areas, funds may be used for streets and roads under certain conditions. **TDM** 

## | Transportation Demand M anagement – Strategies that result in more efficient use of transportation resources, such as ridesharing, telecommuting, park-and-ride programs, pedestrian improvements, and alternative work schedules. **TEA -21**  

## | Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century – The predecessor to SAFETEA-LU, it was signed into federal law on June 9, 1998. TEA-21 authorized the federal surface

### 236 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 

## | Glossary

transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the six-year period of 1998−2003. TEA-21 builds upon the initiatives established in ISTEA. **TE U**  

## | Twenty- F oot Equivalent U nit , a measure of shipping container capacity. **TI F**  **IA** 

## | Transportation Infrastructure F inance and Innovation Act of 1998 – Established a new federal credit program under which the US DOT may provide three forms of credit assistance—secured (direct) loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit—for surface transportation projects of national or regional significance. The program’s fundamental goal is to leverage federal funds by attracting substantial private and other non-federal co-investment in critical improvements to the nation’s surface transportation system. Sponsors may include state departments of transportation, transit operators, special authorities, local governments, and private entities. **TOD** 

## | Transit-Oriented Development – A planning strategy that explicitly links land-use and transportation by focusing mixed housing, employment, and commercial growth around bus and rail stations (usually within 1⁄2 mile). TODs can reduce the number and length of vehicle trips by encouraging more bicycle/pedestrian and transit use and can support transit invest

ments by creating the density around stations to boost ridership. **T P&**  **D** 

## | Transportation Planning and Development Account – A state transit trust fund that is the funding source for the STA program. **T rantrak**  

## | RTIP Database M anagement S ystem **TS WG**  

## | Transportation S ecurity W orking G roup – Advises the operating organizations on transportation safety matters associated with the transfer or shipment of hazardous materials. **T U**  **M F**  

## | Transportation U niform M itigation F ee – Ordinance enacted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and cities to impose a fee on new development to fund related transpor

tation improvements. **UP** 

## | U nion Pacific Railroad **Urban Growth Boundary** 

## | A regional boundary that seeks to contain outward urban expan

sion by limiting development outside of the boundary, while focusing new growth within the boundary. Urban growth boundaries lead to the preservation of open space and agricultural lands, redevelopment and infill in existing communities, and optimization of existing infra

structure and transportation investments. **U S**  **DOT** 

## | U

. S . Department of Transportation – Federal agency responsible for the develop

ment of transportation policies and programs that contribute to providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the lowest cost consistent with those and other national objectives, including the efficient use and conservation of the resources of the United States. US DOT is comprised of ten operating administrations, including FHWA, FTA, FAA, and FRA. **V C**  **T C**  

## | Ventura County Transportation Commission – Agency responsible for planning and funding countywide transportation improvements. **V ehicle**  **H ours of**  **D elay**  

## | The travel time spent on the highway due to congestion. Delay is estimated as the difference between vehicle hours traveled at a specified free-flow speed and vehicle hours traveled at a congested speed. **VHDD** 

## | Vehicle Hours of Daily Delay – Hours of delay attributed to congestion for vehicles each day. **VMT** 

## | Vehicle M iles Traveled – On highways, a measurement of the total miles traveled by all vehicles in the area for a specified time period. It is calculated by the number of vehicles times the miles traveled in a given area or on a given highway during the time period. In transit, the number of vehicle miles operated on a given route or line or network during a specified time period. **VO C**  

## | Volatile Organic Compounds – Organic gases emitted from a variety of sources, including motor vehicles, chemical plants, refineries, factories, consumer, and commercial products, and other industrial sources. Ozone, the main component of smog, is formed from the reaction of VOCs and NOx in the presence of heat and sunlight.

### 237



## T ra ns portatio n PLA NN I NG Rich Macias, Director 

## Transportation Naresh Amatya, Manager 

## | Mike Armstrong 

## | Stephen Fox 

## | Matt Gleason 

## | Philip Kehres Ryan Kuo 

## | Philip Law 

## | Margaret Lin 

## | Alan Thompson 

## G oods M ovement & Transportation F inance Annie Nam, Manager 

## | Mike Jones 

## | Alison Linder 

## | Rajeev Seetharam 

## | Warren Whiteaker Akiko Yamagami 

## F ederal Transportation Improvement Program ( f tip ) Rosemary Ayala, Manager 

## | Mervin Acebo 

## | John Asuncion 

## | Pablo Gutierrez Betty Mann 

## | Kurt Walker 

## Transportation M odeling, Air Quality & Conformity Jonathan Nadler, Manager 

## | Mike Ainsworth 

## | Hao Cheng 

## | Guoxiong Huang 

## | Rongsheng Luo 

## | Sreedhar Nambisan 

## | Mana Sangkapichai 

## | Teresa Wang 

## | Sungsu Yoon 

## | Daji Yuan Yongping Zhang Mariana Pulido, Administration 

## | Cheryl Leising, Administration 

## L a n d U s e & En viro nm e n tal P la nn i ng Huasha Liu, Director 

## Comprehensive Planning Mark Butala, Manager 

## | Marco Anderson 

## | Peter Brandenburg 

## | Joe Carreras Arlene Granadosin 

## | Pria Hidisyan 

## | Ma’Ayn Johnson 

## | Christopher Tzeng 

## | JungA Uhm 

## Environmental & Assessment S ervices Jacob Lieb, Manager 

## | Greig Asher 

## | Ping Chang 

## | Christine Fernandez 

## | Diana Gould Pamela Lee 

## | Sarah Palmer 

## | Jennifer Sarnecki 

## Research, Analysis & Information S ervices Frank Wen, Manager 

## | Javier Aguilar 

## | Sungbin Cho 

## | Simon Choi 

## | Kimberly Clark Hsi-Hwa Hu 

## | Cheol-Ho Lee 

## | SeongHee Min 

## | Javier Minjares 

## | Sung Ho Ryu 

## | Jung Seo Matthew Stafford 

## | Ping Wang 

## | Ying Zhou Cathy Alvarado, Administration Ed Rodriguez, Administration 

# Acknowledgments

S CA G M anagement

**E xecutive**  **D irector**  Hasan Ikhrata
**D eputy**  **E xecutive**  **D irector,**  **A dministration**  Debbie Dillon
**D eputy**  **E xecutive**  **D irector,**  **S trategy, Policy & Public**  **A ffairs**  Sharon Neely
**D eputy**  **E xecutive**  **D irector, Planning & Programs (Former)**  Douglas Williford **Chief Counsel, D**  **irector of Legal S**  **ervices** Joann Africa

## S trategy, Policy & Public Affairs Sharon Neely, Deputy Executive Director Tracy Young, Chief Media Advisor 

## Legislation
Jeff Dunn 

## | Houston Brooks Laney Ruby Moreno, Administration


## RE G IO N AL S ERVICE S & Pub lic Aff air s Sylvia Patsaouras, Director (Interim) 

## M edia & Public Affairs Angela Rushen, Manager 

## | Tiffany Abrahms 

## | Natalie Andres 

## | Heather Brehm 

## | Ludlow Brown 

## | Diane Franco 

## | Charli Harris 

## | Carolyn Hart 

## | Jeff Liu 

## | Diana Tse 

## | Tiquet Wan 

## Office of Regional Council S upport Deby Salcido, Officer 

## | Tess Rey-Chaput 

## Regional S ervices
Matt Horton 

## | Linda Jones 

## | John Procter 

## | Arnold San Miguel 

## | Denise Silva Jane Embry, Administration 

## Executive Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director Darin Chidsey, Assistant to the Executive Director Judy Owens, Administration 

## Legal S ervices Joann Africa, Chief Counsel, Director Justine Block, Deputy Legal Counsel II Alex Lozano, Administration 

## Administration Debbie Dillon, Deputy Executive Director Tonia Reeves Jackson, Administration


## Inf or m atio n T ech n olo gy Catherine Chavez, Chief Information Officer (Acting) Lisa Grundy 

## | Leigh Guannu 

## | Royalan Swanson 

## | Tami Tsao 

## Application Development Alex Yu, Manager (Acting) 

## | Gurpreet Kaur 

## | Dan Nguyen 

## | Jon Raymond 

## | Ravi Srivastava Jianhong Sun 

## IT S ervices Sandra Bresson, Manager (Interim) 

## | Pat Camacho 

## | Jennifer Martinez 

## | David Milner Chris Serrano 

## | Catherine Rachal 

## | Anthony Taylor 

## Human Resources Rhonda Lawrence, Manager 

## | Corine Milner 

## | Adriana Madrigal-Muñoz 

## | Mari Muñoz


## Fi n a n ce Wayne Moore, Chief Financial Officer 

## Accounting Basil Panas, Manager 

## | Debbie Chen 

## | Joan Chen 

## | Rochelle Johnson 

## | Judith Kim Jimmy Lim 

## | Carol Ng Marion Russell 

## | Yichin Wu 

## Contracts Leyton Morgan, Manager 

## | Laura Aguilar 

## | Ted Dorjee 

## | Sandee Scott 

## | Lori Tapp Ranjini Zucker 

## B udget and G rants Bernice Villanueva, Lead 

## | Alfonso Hernandez 

## | Fiona Ly 

## | Andrew Mora 

## Internal Auditing Richard Howard, Internal Auditor Carmen Summers, Administration 

### 238 2012 Regional Transportation Plan 

## | AcknowledgmentsThe information and content contained in this publication is provided without warranty of any kind, and the use of or reliance on any information or content contained herein shall be at the user’s sole risk. In no event shall SCAG be responsible or liable for any consequential, incidental or direct damages (including, but not limited to, damages for loss of profits, business interruption, or loss of programs or information) arising from or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information or content of this publication.

### Regional O ffices Imperial County 1405 North Imperial Avenue Suite 1 El Centro, CA 92243 Phone: (760) 353-7800 Fax: (760) 353-1877 Orange County OCTA Building 600 South Main Street Suite 906 Orange, CA 92863 Phone: (714) 542-3687 Fax: (714) 560-5089 Riverside County 3403 10th Street Suite 805 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: (951) 784-1513 Fax: (951) 784-3925 San Bernardino County Santa Fe Depot 1170 West 3rd Street Suite 140 San Bernardino, CA 92410 Phone: (909) 806-3556 Fax: (909) 806-3572 Ventura County 950 County Square Drive Suite 101 Ventura, CA 93003 Phone: (805) 642-2800 Fax: (805) 642-2260 818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 236-1800 Fax: (213) 236-1825 www.scag.ca.gov

please recycle 2347 2012.05.01