ADOPTED APRIL 2012

Southern California Association of Governments
Image 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

Contents

mission statement viii

SCAG REGIONAL COUNCIL ix

CURRENT POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERS x

past regional council and policy committee members xii

resolution xiii

Executive Summary 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. transportation Investments 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. FINANCIAL PLAN 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. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY (SCS) 107

Introduction 107

Goals and Benefits 112

Creating the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 113

2012–2035 RTP/SCS Next Steps 151

05. measuring 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. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 198

Introduction 198

07. STRATEGIC PLAN 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. ECONOMIC AND JOB CREATION ANALYSIS 213

Executive Summary 213

GLOSSARY 228

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 237
2012 Regional Transportation Plan | Executive Summary v

List of Figures, tables, AND EXHIBITS

Table 1 Transportation Investments (Nominal Dollars, Billions) 5

Table 2 New Revenue Sources and Innovative Financing Strategies

(Nominal Dollars, Billions) 7

Figure 1 Revenue Summary $524.7 Billion (Nominal Dollars) FY2011–FY2035 8

Figure 2 Expenditure Summary $524.7 Billion (Nominal Dollars) FY2011–FY2035 8

Table 1.1 RTP/SCS Goals 13

Exhibit 1.1 SCAG Region 14

Table 1.2 RTP/SCS Policies 15

Table 1.3 RTP/SCS Goals and Related Performance Outcomes 15

Table 1.4 Annual Average Growth Rate of the SCAG Region 

During Growth Periods (1850–2010) 17

Table 1.5 County Share of Regional Population (1990–2010) 17

Figure 1.1 Projection of Population, Household, and 

Employment Growth (2008–2035) 18

Figure 1.2 California Mileage Death Rate (1933–2009) 19

Table 1.6 Urban Rail Ridership 20

Figure 1.3 Mode of Travel for Total Trips (2009) 22

Figure 1.4 Historical Trend and Forecasts of Air Passenger Activity

(1960–2035) 22

Figure 1.5 Commute Trip Carpool Rates (1980–2010) 24

Figure 1.6 California Population, Travel, and Gas Tax Revenue Trends 25

Figure 1.7 Preservation Cost-Effectiveness 26

Figure 1.8 San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volume Trend and Projections 26

Table 1.7 SCAG Region Non-Attainment and Maintenance Areas 28

Table 1.8 Stakeholders in the Development of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 33

Figure 2.1 Mobility Pyramid 35

Figure 2.2 Annual Collisions on the State Highway System in the SCAG Region 37

Figure 2.3 Preservation and Operations Funding 39

Table 2.1 TSM Categories and Benefits 41

Table 2.2 Major Highway Completion Projects 42

Table 2.3 Major HOV Projects 43

Table 2.4 Arterial Investment Summary (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 44

Exhibit 2.1 Major Highway Projects 45

Exhibit 2.2 Rail Transit System (1990) 46

Exhibit 2.3 Rail Transit System (2010) 47

Exhibit 2.4 Rail Transit System (2035) 48

Table 2.5 Major Transit Projects 49

Exhibit 2.5 Regional Bicycle Network 54

Table 2.6 Express/HOT Lane Network 56

Exhibit 2.6 Express/HOT Lane Network 57

Table 2.7 2035 Airport Forecasts (Million Annual Air Passengers) 58

Figure 2.4 2035 Air Passenger Demand Airport Allocations 59

Figure 2.5 2035 Air Cargo Demand Airport Allocations 59

Figure 2.6 GDP Contribution of Goods Movement-Dependent Industries (2010) 65

Exhibit 2.7 Existing Regional Goods Movement System 67

Exhibit 2.8 Rising Truck Volumes on Key Truck Corridors 

(2008 and 2035 Baseline) 69

Exhibit 2.9 Potential East-West Freight Corridor 70

Table 2.8 Benefits of an East-West Corridor Strategy 71

Table 2.9 Peak Day Train Volumes 2010, 2035 

(Metrolink Volumes in Parentheses) 72

Table 2.10 Benefits of the SCAG Regional Rail Strategy 73

Figure 2.7 Timeline to Implement a Zero- and Near-Zero-Emission Freight System 74

Table 2.11 Environmental Benefits 76

Figure 3.1 Historical Inflation Trends 88

Figure 3.2 Highway Project Costs 89
vi

Figure 3.3 Status of the Federal Highway Trust Fund 90

Figure 3.4 Status of the State Highway Operation and Protection Program 91

Figure 3.5 Growth in Transit Operating and Maintenance Costs 92

Table 3.1 Multimodal System Preservation and Maintenance Needs

(in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 93

Table 3.2 Core Revenue Forecast FY2011–FY2035 

(in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 94

Figure 3.6 Core Revenues (in Nominal Dollars) $305.3 Billion Total 94

Figure 3.7 Core Revenues by County (in Nominal Dollars) $305.3 Billion Total 95

Figure 3.8 Core Revenues, Local Sources (in Nominal Dollars) 

$225.5 Billion Total 95

Figure 3.9 Core Revenues, State Sources (in Nominal Dollars) 

$46.8 Billion Total 95

Figure 3.10 Core Revenues, Federal Sources (in Nominal Dollars) 

$33.0 Billion Total 96

Table 3.3 New Revenue Sources and Innovative Financing Strategies 

(in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 97

Table 3.4.1 Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—

Local Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 99

Table 3.4.2 Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—

State Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 100

Table 3.4.3 Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—

Federal Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 101

Table 3.4.4 Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—Innovative 

Financing and New Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 102

Figure 3.11 Revenue Summary $524.7 Billion (in Nominal Dollars) 

FY2011–FY2035 103

Figure 3.12 Expenditure Summary $524.7 Billion (in Nominal Dollars) 

FY2011–FY2035 104

Figure 3.13 Revenues Compared to Costs by Mode 104

Table 3.5 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Revenues (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 105

Table 3.6 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Expenditures (in Nominal Dollars, Billions) 106

Figure 4.1 Anticipated Future Growth (2008–2035) 108

Exhibit 4.1 Population Growth SCAG Region (2008–2035) 109

Exhibit 4.2 Employment Growth SCAG Region (2008–2035) 110

Exhibit 4.3 Household Growth SCAG Region (2008–2035) 111

Figure 4.2 Workshop Scenario Elements 116

Figure 4.3 Workshop Scenarios (2035) 117

Exhibit 4.4 Compass Blueprint Demonstration Projects 123

Exhibit 4.5 Urban Centers SCAG Region 127

Table 4.1 Summary of Total Households Forecasted in RTP/SCS 128

Table 4.2 Summary of Total Jobs Forecasted in RTP/SCS 129

Exhibit 4.6 Natural Resource Areas SCAG Region 132

Exhibit 4.7 Open Space SCAG Region 133

Exhibit 4.8 Farmland SCAG Region 134

Exhibit 4.9 High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) SCAG Region 136

Exhibit 4.10 Transit Network SCAG Region 137

Exhibit 4.11 Proposed Bikeway Network SCAG Region 138

Exhibit 4.12 Proposed Highway Improvements SCAG Region 139

Exhibit 4.13 Land Use Pattern SCAG Region (2035) 143

Exhibit 4.14 Land Use Pattern Ventura County (2035) 144

Exhibit 4.15 Land Use Pattern Los Angeles County (2035) 145

Exhibit 4.16 Land Use Pattern San Bernardino County (2035) 146

Exhibit 4.17 Land Use Pattern Orange County (2035) 147

Exhibit 4.18 Land Use Pattern Riverside County (2035) 148

Exhibit 4.19 Land Use Pattern Imperial County (2035) 149

Table 4.3 Land Use Actions and Strategies 152

Table 4.4 Transportation Network Actions and Strategies 154

Table 4.5 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Actions and Strategies 155

Table 4.6 Transportation System Management (TSM) Actions and Strategies 156

Table 4.7 Clean Vehicle Technology Actions and Strategies 156

Table 4.8 Sustainable Communities Strategy Requirements Matrix 158

Table 5.1 Adopted 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Outcomes and 

Performance Measures/Indicators 166

Figure 5.1 Daily Person-Hours of Delay by Facility Type 169

Figure 5.2 Daily Person Delay per Capita by County (Minutes) 170

Figure 5.3 Daily Heavy-Duty Truck Hours of Delay 170

Figure 5.4 Non-Recurrent Congestion Share by County (2009) 171
2012 Regional Transportation Plan | Executive Summary vii

Exhibit 5.1 Base Year 2008 Freeway Speed – PM Peak (3pm–7pm) 172

Exhibit 5.2 Baseline 2035 Freeway Speed – PM Peak (3pm–7pm) 173

Exhibit 5.3 Plan 2035 Freeway Speed – PM Peak (3pm–7pm) 174

Figure 5.5 Percentage of PM Peak Period Home-Based Work Trips 

within 45 Minutes 175

Figure 5.6 Illustrative Highway Productivity Losses 176

Figure 5.7 Highway System Productivity (Lost Lane-Miles) 176

Figure 5.8 Ratio of Transit Passenger Miles/Seat Miles 177

Figure 5.9 Difference between Reliability and Mobility 177

Table 5.2 Estimated Improvements in Reliability 178

Table 5.3 Employment Impact from Construction and 

Maintenance Expenditures (Per Year) 179

Figure 5.10 Results of Regional Benefit/Cost Analysis 180

Table 5.4 Demographic and Economic Categories 187

Table 6.1 Participatory Non-Governmental Groups 199

figure 6.1 Sample of Question Used at RTP/SCS Public Workshops, 

Summer 2011 203

figure 6.2 Sample of Question Used at RTP/SCS Public Workshops, 

Summer 2011 204

Table 7.1 Major Strategic Plan Projects 208

table 8.1 Logistics Contribution to Southern California’s Economy, 2009 219

table 8.2 Net Expenditures (in Millions of Nominal Dollars) 220

table 8.3 Employment Impact from Construction and 

Maintenance Expenditures (Per Year) 220

Table 8.4 Total Employment Impact 223

Appendices

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 Southern Californians.

The Association will accomplish this Mission 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.

Mission Statement
 ix

SCAG Regional Council

Officers

President Pam O’Connor, Santa Monica

First Vice President Glen Becerra, Simi Valley

Second Vice President Greg Pettis, Cathedral City

Immediate Past President Larry McCallon, Highland

Members

Imperial County Jack Terrazas, Imperial County | Cheryl Viegas-Walker, El Centro 

Los Angeles 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

Orange 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

San 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 

Ventura County Linda Parks, Ventura County | Glen Becerra, Simi Valley 

Bryan A. MacDonald, Oxnard | Carl Morehouse, San Buenaventura 

Tribal Government Representative Mark Calac, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians

Orange County Transportation Authority Jerry Amante, Huntington Beach

Riverside County Transportation Commission Mary Craton, Canyon Lake

San Bernardino Associated Governments Brad Mitzelfelt, County of San Bernardino | 

Alan Wapner, Ontario

Ventura County Transportation Commission Keith Millhouse, Moorpark

Transportation Corridors Agency Lisa Bartlett, Dana Point
x 

current policy committee members

Community, Economic, and Human Development Committee

Chair *Hon. Bill Jahn, City of Big Bear Lake

Vice 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

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

Chair *Hon. Margaret Clark, City of Rosemead

Vice 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

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

Chair *Hon. Paul Glaab, City of Laguna Niguel

Vice 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
REGIONAL COUNCIL MEMBERS

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

POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

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 

PAST REGIONAL COUNCIL AND POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
 xiii

RESOLUTION NO. 12-538-2

A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF 

GOVERNMENTS APPROVING THE

2012–2035 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION

PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

STRATEGY (2012–2035 RTP/SCS); RELATED

CONFORMITY DETERMINATION; AND

RELATED CONSISTENCY AMENDMENT

#11-24 TO THE 2011 FEDERAL 

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM

WHEREAS, the Southern California 

Association of Governments (SCAG) is a 

Joint Powers Agency established pursuant to 

California Government Code §6500 et seq.; 

and 

WHEREAS, 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

WHEREAS, 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 pursuant 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

WHEREAS, 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

WHEREAS, 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 emissions levels by 2020 and 13% below 2005 

per capita emissions levels by 2035; and

WHEREAS, 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 planning 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 transportation 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 

WHEREAS, 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

WHEREAS, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS must 

be consistent with all other applicable provisions 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 high 

and 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

WHEREAS, 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 federally supported highway and transit project 

RESOLUTION
xiv 

activities conform to the purpose of the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); and

WHEREAS, 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) financial constraint, and (4) interagency consultation and public involvement; and

WHEREAS, 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 

WHEREAS, on September 2, 2010, in 

accordance with federal and state requirements, , 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 transportation projects which covers six fiscal years and 

includes a priority list of projects to be carried out in the first four fiscal years; and

WHEREAS, 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 

WHEREAS, 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 strategies 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

WHEREAS, 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 attendees, including residents, elected officials, 

representatives of public agencies, community organizations, and environmental, 

housing and business stakeholders; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the interagency consultation requirements, 40 C.F.R. 

93.105, SCAG consulted with the respective 

transportation and air quality planning agencies, including but not limited to, extensive 

discussion of the Draft Conformity Report 

before the Transportation Conformity Working 

Group (a forum for implementing the interagency consultation requirements) throughout 

the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS update process; and

WHEREAS, 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

WHEREAS, 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 

WHEREAS, as part of a “bottom up” planning process, SCAG followed the provisions of 

its adopted Public Participation Plan regarding 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, distribution of public information materials, six 

duly-noticed public hearings, and twelve subregional 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

WHEREAS, 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

WHEREAS, 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

WHEREAS, 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

WHEREAS, SCAG staff responses to 

each comment are provided in the Final 

2012–2035 RTP/SCS, Public Participation 

and Consultation Appendix; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the interagency consultation requirements, 40 C.F.R. 

93.105, SCAG consulted with the respective 

transportation and air quality planning agencies, 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 implementing the interagency consultation requirements) throughout the update process; and

WHEREAS, 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 implementation. 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

WHEREAS, the Final 2012–2035 RTP/

SCS includes a financial plan identifying the 

revenues committed, available or reasonably 

available to support the SCAG region’s surface 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

WHEREAS, 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 transportation conformity tests; and

WHEREAS, 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 consistency with the Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS; 

and

WHEREAS, conformity of Amendment 

#11-24 to the FTIP has been determined 

simultaneously with the 2012 Final RTP/SCS 

in order to address the consistency requirement of federal law; and

WHEREAS, 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

WHEREAS, 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.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,

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 purpose 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: transportation demand, operational and management strategies, safety and security, 

environmental mitigation, the need for a 

financially constrained plan, consultation 

and public participation, and transportation conformity; and

b. The Final 2012–2035 RTP/SCS complies 

with the emission reduction targets established 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 determination 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; financial 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.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED 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

Executive Summary

Image courtesy of Metro © 2012 LACMTA
 1

Our Vision

Towards a Sustainable Future

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 deployment 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 emphasis 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 neighborhoods and our array of open spaces for future generations to enjoy.

The Setting

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.

Economic Recession

[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

Population Growth

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 percent in 2035), the region will have a greater need for more efficient modes of transportation for those who can no longer drive as their main form of transportation.

Image courtesy of Metro © 2012 LACMTA

Multimodal Transportation System

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.

The System at a Glance

[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 transportation. 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 complex 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.

The Region in Motion

[446 million] 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 industry
2012–2035 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.

Mobility Challenges

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.

Safety Challenges

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 successfully 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 sustainable future that includes plenty of active transportation, we must address the safety 

deficiencies in all modes of transportation.

Air Quality Challenges

In addition, 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.

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.

Senate Bill 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 reducing carbon emissions.
4 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Executive Summary

Financial Challenges

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 increasing 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 continue 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, sustainable 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 transportation 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 system where there is room to grow in order to provide the region with the mobility it needs. 

These improvements are outlined in Table 1.

Image courtesy of the Riverside Transit Agency
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Executive Summary 5

Table 1 Transportation Investments (Nominal Dollars, Billions)

Component Description Cost

Transit $55.0 billion

 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) New BRT routes, extensions, and/or service enhancements in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, 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 High-Speed 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

Phase 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

Active Transportation $6.7 billion

 Various Active Transportation Strategies Increase our bikeways from 4,315 miles to 10,122 miles, bring significant amount of sidewalks into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), safety improvements, and various other strategies$6.7 billion

Transportation Demand Management (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

 Other “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 Description Cost

Transportation Systems Management (TSM) (includes Intelligent Transportation Systems (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

Highways $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

Arterials $22.1 billion

 Various Arterial Improvements Spot widenings, signal prioritization, driveway consolidations and relocations, grade separations at high-volume intersections, new bicycle lanes, and other design features such as lighting, landscaping, and modified 

roadway, parking, and sidewalk widths

$22.1 billion

Goods Movement (includes Grade Separations) $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

Aviation and Airport Ground Access 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

Operations and Maintenance $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 billion
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Executive Summary 7

Financial Plan

The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS financial plan identifies how much money is available to support 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 accordance with federal guidelines, the plan includes strategies for ensuring the availability of 

these sources.

Table 2 presents ten categories of new revenue sources and innovative financing 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 Sources and Expenditures

Figures 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.

Table 2 New Revenue Sources and Innovative Financing Strategies

(Nominal Dollars, Billions)

Revenue Source Description Amount

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 maintain 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 railroads’ 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 between 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 & Other 

for 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

Figure 1 Revenue Summary

$524.7 Billion (Nominal Dollars) FY2011–FY2035

Core Federal

Additional Federal $33.0 (6%)

$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

Figure 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

Sustainable Communities Strategy

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 Thompson
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Executive Summary 9

Measuring Up

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 activity 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 GHG 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 reduction 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, integrating 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 residents 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.

Mobility

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.

Safety

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 average of 174,500 new jobs will be generated by the construction and operations expenditures 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 meeting 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 committees, 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.

Strategic Plan—Looking Ahead—

Beyond 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 system. 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 elements 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 Sustainable Future

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, particularly by elevating air quality considerations in the plan. This evolution has now culminated 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 competitiveness 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 – Mobility, Economy, Sustainability

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. VISION

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 summer 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.

Mobility

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 infrastructure 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.

Economy

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 economic 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, distribution, 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 affordable 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 competitive region where employers want and are able to do business over the long term.

Sustainability

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, including 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 – Goals 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 advantages. 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.

Regional Goals

The regional goals reflect the wide-ranging challenges facing transportation planners 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.

Table 1.1 RTP/SCS Goals

RTP/SCS Goals

 Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development 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 

Exhibit 1.1 SCAG Region
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 1: Vision 15

RTP/SCS Guiding Policies

The 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 (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2 RTP/SCS Policies

RTP/SCS 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

Performance Measures

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. Table 1.3 describes the relationship 

between the RTP/SCS goals and performance measures.

Table 1.3 RTP/SCS Goals and Related Performance Outcomes

RTP/SCS Goals

Mobility/Accessibility

ReliabilityLocation EfficiencyProductivitySafety and HealthEconomic Well-BeingCost EffectivenessSystem 

Sustainability

Environmental Quality

Align the plan investments and policies 

with improving regional economic development 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

✓ ✓

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*

* 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 Setting

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 behavior, 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 approximately 132,000 jobs. Congestion relief will be a major contributing factor to our future 

employment growth.

Population Growth

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 implications 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 population. 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 (Table 1.4). The slow growth 
2012–2035 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).

Table 1.4 Annual Average Growth Rate of the SCAG Region 

During Growth Periods (1850–2010)

Very Rapid 

Growth 

1850–1910

Rapid 

Growth 

1910–1960

Average 

Growth 

1960–1990

Slow 

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-recession job levels. The stability of future growth depends in part on how the region successfully 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 (Table 1.5). The suburban inland counties of 

Riverside and San Bernardino together accounted for 23.4 percent of the region’s population 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.

Table 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%

SCAG Total 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 (Figure 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

Figure 1.1 Projection of Population, Household, and Employment Growth 

(2008–2035)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Population Employment Households

Millions

2008 2035

Source: SCAG

Another major demographic trend is the growing racial and ethnic diversity of the population. 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 perspective, the region is expected to recover fully from the recession and return to reasonable 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.

Safety

The safety of people and goods is one of the most important considerations in developing, 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 (Figure 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 registered 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

Figure 1.2 California Mileage Death Rate (1933–2009)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

19331937194119451949195319571961196519691973197719811985198919931997200120052009

Per 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 stakeholders 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 targets 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.

Multimodal System

HIGHWAYS AND ARTERIALS

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 congestion has increased dramatically, leading to a less productive transportation system with 

negative consequences such as wasted time and fuel and poor air quality.

TRANSIT

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 continues 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. Table 1.6 depicts rail ridership by passenger 

boardings and passenger miles for 2000 and 2008.

Table 1.6 Urban Rail Ridership

Urban Rail Operators 2000 2008 Difference

Metro Subway 

Passenger Boardings 27,957,650 43,584,566 56%

Passenger Miles 74,729,093 217,964,955 192%

Metro Light Rail 

Passenger Boardings 29,859,558 43,122,565 44%

Passenger Miles 208,824,385 306,848,462 47%

Metrolink 

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 opportunity 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 traveled (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

Passenger and High-Speed RAIL

The SCAG region is served by a network of intercity passenger and commuter rail services 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 implemented 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 federal 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 corridors. 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 TRANSPORTATION

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 (Figure 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 expansion of active transportation infrastructure. As the population in the SCAG region grows 

and 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

Figure 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 Ground 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. Figure 1.4 shows historical growth in regional air passenger 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 conservative 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.

Figure 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

180,000

19601970198019902000201020202030

Passenger 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 constrained. 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 enforceable 
2012–2035 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 improving 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 challenge is complicated by the fact that the regional roadway system will become increasingly 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 utilizing 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 challenges 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 Management

Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies are designed to reduce congestion, particularly during peak periods, by managing or reducing demand on the system. 

This can be accomplished by a variety of strategies, including increasing carpooling, 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-occupancy 

vehicle (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 (Figure 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.

Figure 1.5 Commute Trip Carpool Rates (1980–2010)

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

18%

21%

1980 1990 2000 2008-2010

Carpool Rate

United States California SCAG

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

Transportation System Management

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 traveler 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 strategies 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 preceding 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 Finance

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. Figure 1.6 highlights 

the decline in the gas tax in relation to growing population and travel demand.

Figure 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 2030

Index

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 responsibility of all levels of government.
26 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 1: Vision

System 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 investments 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 (Figure 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.

Figure 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

Time

Pavement Condition

Goods Movement

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 (Figure 1.8), the region’s 

economic competitiveness depends upon a transportation system that facilitates the safe 

and reliable movement of goods.

Figure 1.8 San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volume Trend and Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2007 (actual) 2010 (actual) 2015 2020 2030 2035

Freight Containers (Millions 20-Ft Equivalent Units, TEUs)

Source: Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 1: Vision 27

To continue growing, the SCAG region’s businesses must be cost-competitive in producing their goods and shipping them to market. The same is true for raw materials, components, 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 associated 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 deploying clean trucks over the last several years. Additionally, planning efforts are underway to 

establish a regional zero-emission freight system.

Integrated Land Use 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 percent 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 governments 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 provisions. 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 significant trend of development policies supporting better integrated land use and transportation 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 corridors, 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.

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY

The SCAG region contains 14 non-attainment and maintenance areas in parts of four air 

basins that are administered by five air districts (Table 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 projects can be delayed and federal funding interrupted or curtailed.

Table 1.7 SCAG Region Non-Attainment and Maintenance Areas

Criteria Pollutant Air Basin

Ozone

SCCAB, Ventura County portion

SCAB

MDAB, Western portion

SSAB, Coachella Valley portion

SSAB, Imperial County portion

PM10

SCAB

SSAB, Coachella Valley portion

MDAB, San Bernardino portion

MDAB, Searles Valley portion

SSAB, Imperial County portion

PM2.5

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 increasingly 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 environment due to the time it takes for federal action on air plans combined with the requirement 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

EMISSION REDUCTION CHALLENGE

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 approximately 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.

OPPORTUNITIES

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 support Southern California industries and universities as technology innovators that serve 

emerging global needs. The region can give our industries and universities every opportunity 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 transportation 

sector, 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 supports 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 transportation and land use planning, building design can also affect energy use. Electricity generation, 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 development 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 pedestrian 

fatalities 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 opportunity 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, project 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 content. 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 conditions 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 technically 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 communities’ General Plans and growth input.

Stakeholder Involvement and Public Participation 

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 

(Table 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

Table 1.8 Stakeholders in the Development of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS

County Transportation Commissions (CTCs)

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)

Subregional Councils of Governments (COGs)

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 Tribal Governments

Other Operators and Implementing Agencies

Caltrans Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA)

Airport Authorities Transit/Rail Operators

Port Authorities

Resource/Regulating Agencies

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.

Alternatives Development and Evaluation

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 indicators. 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 partner 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 environmental 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 strategies, 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.

Strategies 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 supports 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 transportation 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 investments 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 environmental 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 strategic 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 transportation 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 

Figure 2.1.

Figure 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. transportation Investments
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 implementing 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 investments 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 system with improved access to the vast opportunities this region has to offer.

Getting the Most Out of Our System

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 investments 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.

Safety and Security First

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 partnership 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 technology 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 transportation network, and the regional economy.

Safety

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 roadways nationally become as safe as those in California. Figure 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

Figure 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 2005 2006 2007 2008 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 fatality 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 fatalities further with a new SHSP in development.

Security

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 during 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 projects 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 availability 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 operations, 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 or 

longer) 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 beginning 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.

System 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 expenditures 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 continue 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.

Figure 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 allocation for transit includes funding to both preserve and operate the transit system. 
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 39

Figure 2.3 Preservation and Operations Funding

State Highways

26%

Regionally 

Significant Arterials

10%

Transit

64%

Smart Land Use

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 Management

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 stations 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 strategies 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 Management 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 elements 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 capacity 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 congestion (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 Systems Management

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 traffic 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 Table 2.1.

Table 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 accidents 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, alternative routing, and transportation choices 

to the public

Improved Data Collection

Allows agencies to monitor system performance and optimize the impact of transportation 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 destinations, 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 movement planning in the future.

Corridor System Management 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 development 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 System

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. Table 2.2 highlights some of these highway completion projects. The full list of RTP/SCS projects is provided in the Project List Appendix.

Table 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 Authority
2012–2035 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 chapter. 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. Table 2.3 highlights some of the Plan’s major HOV projects and 

Exhibit 2.1 provides a glance of major highway improvements proposed by the Plan.

Table 2.3 Major HOV Projects

County Route From To Completion 

Year*

HOV Lane Additions

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.

Table 2.4 Arterial Investment Summary (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

County Investment

Imperial $ 1.6

Los Angeles $ 6.7

Orange $ 4.4

Riverside $ 6.1

San Bernardino $ 2.6

Ventura $ 0.7

Total $22.1

Strategically Expanding Our System

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 movement. 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 economic 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. Exhibits 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 Exhibit 2.2, the region did not have any passenger rail service at all. Exhibit 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 Exhibit 2.4.
 45

Exhibit 2.1 Major Highway Projects
46 

Exhibit 2.2 Rail Transit System (1990)
 47

Exhibit 2.3 Rail Transit System (2010)
48 

Exhibit 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.

Table 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 policies 

will 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 priority 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.

Transit Policies

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 circulators 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-Speed 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, eventually 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.

Implementation of Phase I of 

the California High-Speed Train (HST) Project

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 LACMTA
2012–2035 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 new 

business 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 regionalizing air travel in Southern California. Phase I will also provide excellent regional connectivity. 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 connections will complement and feed each other, thereby boosting rail and transit ridership 

across our region.

Improvements to the LOSSAN Rail Corridor

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 investment 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 implementation 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 improvements. 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

Improvements to the Existing Metrolink System

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.

Rail Policies

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.

Bus 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 Authority
2012–2035 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, tricycle, 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 congestion 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 commuters 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 percent). 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 transportation. 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 transportation 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 

Exhibit 2.5 Regional Bicycle Network
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 55

Coastal Trails

In addition to bikeways, local trails have played an important role in increasing accessibility 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 transportation,” 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.

Safe Routes 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 consumption, 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.

Complete Streets

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 transportation 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 planning 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 Network

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 (Figure 2.1), 

recent planning efforts have focused on enhanced system management, including integration 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 complementary 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.

Table 2.6 and Exhibit 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.

Table 2.6 and Exhibit 2.6 display the segments in the proposed Express Lane network.

Table 2.6 Express/HOT Lane Network

County Route From To

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

Exhibit 2.6 Express/HOT Lane Network
58 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

Meeting 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 remaining 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 commuter airports in the region, Oxnard and Imperial airports.

Table 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 conservative 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. Figure 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 constraints 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 settlement 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). Figure 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.

Table 2.7 2035 Airport Forecasts (Million Annual Air Passengers)

Airport Low Baseline High

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

Total 130.0 145.9 164.0
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 59

Figure 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 Oxnard

Passengers (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

Figure 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

Logistics

Air 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 metropolitan 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 alternate 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.

General 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 general aviation demand forecast and methodology can be found in the Aviation and Airport 

Ground Access Appendix.

Airport Ground Access Strategy

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 improvements 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 communities in the San Fernando Valley.

While the cost of significantly reducing freeway travel times beyond those improvements 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 being 
2012–2035 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.

Airport Financial Strategy

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 funding 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

Airport Marketing Strategy

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 alternatives 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.

Airport Policies and Action Steps

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 Ground 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 composition of the market should be identified

 A regional consensus should be developed on how best to support the development 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 system, 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 improvement 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 survey 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 modeling capabilities
2012–2035 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 airports in the region, as well as an integrated regional system of remote air terminals 

(“FlyAways”)

Airport Economics, Finance, and Funding

The following policies are related to Airport Economics, Finance, and Funding:

 New funding mechanisms should be identified for implementing regional infrastructure 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 transportation 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 benefits 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 Use 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 practices” 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 New Technologies

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

 Modifications to the regional airspace system that reduce potential airspace conflicts, 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 airspace 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

Goods Movement System

System 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, supplying 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 Southern 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

Key Function and Markets

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

International Trade

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 transportation system including a highly developed network of roadways and railroads, air 

cargo facilities, intermodal facilities, and an abundance of regional distribution and 

warehousing clusters.

Domestic and Local Goods Movement

An overwhelming majority of the goods movement activity in the SCAG region is generated by local businesses moving goods to local customers and supporting national 

domestic trade systems. These businesses are sometimes referred to as “goods movement-dependent industries.” In 2010, these industries, including manufacturing, wholesale 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) (Figure 2.6).2

 These industries are anticipated to grow substantially, with manufacturing 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.

Figure 2.6 GDP Contribution of Goods Movement-Dependent Industries 

(2010)

Manufacturing 11%

Retail Trade 7%

Wholesale Trade 7%

Construction 4%

Transportation and

Warehousing 3%

Utilities 1%

Mining 1%

Forestry, Fishing and

Related Activities 0%

Service

Industries 66%

Goods Movement

Dependent

Industries 34%

Manufacturing 11%

Goods Movement

Dependent

Industries 34%

Logistics Activities—Including Warehouse and

Distribution Facilities

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 attracting 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 Goods Movement System

Exhibit 2.7 depicts the region’s multimodal goods movement system. This system is 

comprised of the following major elements:

 Seaports (Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Hueneme): 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 commercial 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.

 Air 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.

 Interstate, Highways, 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, averaging 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 arterial 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 US 

Customs 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 operates 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 Distribution Centers: In 2008, the region had about 837 million 

square feet of warehousing space5

 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 (Exhibit 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 warehouse development. 7 Some domestic warehouse space may include use by domestic shippers mixing internationally 

sourced and domestically sourced goods.
 67

Exhibit 2.7 Existing Regional Goods Movement System
68 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

Image courtesy of the Port of Long Beach

Goods Movement 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 Economic 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 Exhibit 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 Expansion of International Trade: 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 20358

—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, additional main line capacity improvements will be required. Mitigating the impacts of 

increased train traffic on communities will continue to be a considerable challenge.

 Continued Expansion of Warehouse and Logistics Activity: 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 capacity, 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.

 Air Quality Issues: Much of the SCAG region does not meet federal ozone and 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air quality standards. Goods movement emissions 

contributes to regional air pollution problems (NOx and PM2.5). 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

Exhibit 2.8 Rising Truck Volumes on Key Truck Corridors (2008 and 2035 Baseline)
70 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments

Goods Movement Strategy

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 projects with newly developed regional initiatives advanced through the study. Some of these 

strategies are highlighted below.9

Regional Clean Freight Corridor System

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 communities 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 connections 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 Exhibit 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.

Exhibit 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 employment 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 Table 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 general 
2012–2035 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 component of this project.

Table 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 PM2.5, and 2,401 tons CO2 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.

Bottleneck Relief Strategy

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 downturn.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 bottlenecks 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 evaluated. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS allocates an estimated $5 billion toward goods movement 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

Rail Strategy

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 transportation 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 tonnage 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 passenger 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 Table 2.9.

14

Table 2.9 Peak Day Train Volumes 2010, 2035 

(Metrolink Volumes in Parentheses)

Line Segments Type 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 strategies 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:

Main line rail improvements and capacity expansion: This includes rail-to-rail grade 

separations, double or triple tracking certain rail segments, implementing new signal systems, 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 construction 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 Table 2.10, these strategies could eliminate almost 6,000 hours of vehicle delay per day at grade crossings, decrease emissions 

(NOx, CO2, and PM2.5) by almost 23,000 lb. per day, and reduce overall train delay to 

2000 levels.

Table 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 (CO2, NOx, and PM2.5

combined) from idling vehicles at grade crossings

 Facilitates on-dock rail

 Reduces truck trips to downtown railyards and associated 

emissions

Goods Movement Environmental Strategy

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 (PM2.5) 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 goods 

movement 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 communities planning.

The two air pollutants of greatest concern in Southern California are nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). 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 standards, the region will need broad deployment of zero- and near-zero-emission transportation 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 support 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 market 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 FIGURE 2.7. This path is discussed in greater 

detail in the Goods Movement Appendix.

Figure 2.7 Timeline to Implement a Zero- and Near-Zero-Emission 

Freight System

pre-2012 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 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 practicable, 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 technologies
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 75

Near-Term Zero-Emission Technology 

Demonstration and Initial Deployment

Description: 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 Freeway and connecting routes to the Ports, (or alternative routes serving 

the same locations).

Schedule: 

 By 2013 – Demonstration: Develop and build trucks and wayside power infrastructure sufficient for demonstration within the transport corridor consisting 

of the Terminal Island Freeway and connecting routes to the Ports (or alternative routes serving the same locations); commence demonstration upon 

completion of trucks and infrastructure.

 By 2015 – Initial Operational Deployment: Build wayside power infrastructure 

sufficient for operation on the Terminal Island Freeway and connecting routes 

to the Ports (or alternative routes serving the same locations), and build maximum number of trucks for initial operational deployment allowed by available 

funding (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: AQMD will actively partner in supporting this effort by providing available funding for vehicle technology or infrastructure (staff will make a proposal 

to the AQMD Board in 2012), seeking funding partners, and developing other support. Additionally, SCAG 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 AB 118 program

 California Air Resources Board

 California greenhouse gas cap and trade auction revenues

 Federal grants

 In-kind contributions and public private partnerships with technology developers, drayage companies, etc.

 Funds available for project mitigation

Project Rationale: The Ports, vehicle manufacturers, and other entities are currently 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. Wayside 

technology has been used for many decades to power electric buses, mining 

trucks, and rail systems. It is thus a particularly proven and promising technological 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 

Freeway, 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. Such vehicles thus could provide zero emissions where most needed, and would have range to travel long distances in other 

modes. The Terminal Island Freeway corridor, as a short, high-volume transport 

corridor with substantial air pollution impacts to local communities, is an important 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 Scoping – continue to build on current regional research and technology testing efforts.

Phase II: Evaluation, Development, and Prototype Demonstrations – convene working 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: Initial Deployment and Operational Demonstration – truck fleet evaluation 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-Scale Demonstrations and Commercial Deployment – includes 

implementation of regulatory and market mechanisms needed to launch commercialization. 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 technologies. As summarized in Table 2.11, zero-emission vehicles on the East-West Freight 

Corridor would eliminate 4.7 tons of NOx, 0.16 tons of PM2.5, and 2,401 tons of CO2

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 concept at this point, would remove comparable amounts of NOx, PM2.5, and CO2. 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 PM2.5, and 3,200 tons of CO2 daily.

Table 2.11 Environmental Benefits

Strategy Impact

NOx PM2.5 CO2

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 Strategy
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 2: Transportation Investments 77

2012–2035 RTP/SCS Environmental Mitigation

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 mitigation 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, conservation, and historic preservation concerning the development of a long-range transportation 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 environmental 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.

Mitigation Strategies

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 implementation 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 regulatory 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 environmental 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 transportation 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 acquisition 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 specific mapping parameters (for example, geographic scale). In addition, this type of strategic planning approach could also be applied to address impacts to other resource areas. Summary of the Environmental Mitigation Program

As required by SAFETEA-LU, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes an environmental mitigation 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 identifying 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.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND OPEN SPACE

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 roads 
2012–2035 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 minimize 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 communities) 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, displacement 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, improving/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.

Locations for Mitigation

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 Mitigation 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 transportation 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 existing 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 elements such as wildlife crossings.

GREENHOUSE GASES

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 passenger 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 transportation 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 QUALITY

The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes programs, policies and measures to address air emissions. 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 emissions, identified mitigation measures, and compared alternatives in the PEIR. The mitigation 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.

TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY

The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS takes into account the population, households, and employment 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 population 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 emissions 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. The 

SCAG 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, collaboration 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 following 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 coordination with transportation agencies; and

 Working to enhance emergency preparedness awareness among public agencies 

and with the public at large.

POPULATION AND HOUSING

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 transportation 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 following 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.

LAND USE

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.

AESTHETICS

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 following 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.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

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 limited 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 consumption 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, environmental, 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.

GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY

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.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Impacts to cultural resources generally include substantial adverse changes to historical and archaeological resources and direct or indirect changes to unique paleontological 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, archaeological, and paleontological resources; 

 Implementing design and siting measures that avoid disturbance of cultural and 

paleontological resource areas, such as creating visual buffers/landscaping or capping/filling the site to preserve the contextual setting of the resource;

 Monitoring construction activity in areas with moderate to high potential to support 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.

WATER RESOURCES

Impacts to water resources from the 2012–2025 RTP/SCS include potential water quality impairment from increased impervious surfaces. Increased impervious surfaces in 

water recharge areas potentially impact groundwater recharge and groundwater quality. Cumulative impacts include increased impervious surfaces; increased development 
2012–2035 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 conditions, 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 wetlands 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.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

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 coordination 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 complies, when applicable and feasible, with all 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.

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 exposure 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.

NOISE

Some of the principal noise generators within the SCAG region are associated with transportation (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 generally 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 construction 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 construction noise impacts;

 Conducting a project-specific noise evaluation as part of the appropriate environmental 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 improvements, 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 implementing the region’s transportation vision.

SCAG acknowledges the considerable challenges associated with financing transportation 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 transportation 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. FINANCIAL PLAN
In 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 further 

examining 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 forecasts, 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 documentation 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 conservative 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.

Figure 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 2010

Annual 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. 

FIGURE 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, inflation 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-expenditure) 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. 

FIGURE 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.

Figure 3.2 Highway Project Costs

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Index Value

3.2% increase

Source: California Department of Transportation

Retail Sales Growth

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
Fuel 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 consumption. The financial plan assumes that increases in vehicle fuel efficiency will reduce fuel 

consumption by 1 percent per year during the planning period.

Status of the Federal Highway Trust Fund

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.

FIGURE 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 spending on programs financed by the Trust Fund.

Figure 3.3 Status of the Federal Highway Trust Fund

(125)

(100)

(75)

(50)

(25)

0

25

50

75

1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019

$ Billions

Year

Revenues, Interest, and General Fund Transfers Outlays End of Year Balance or Shortfall

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 maintaining 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
Status of the State 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 projects 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 Figure 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 annually. Increased fuel efficiency will further erode State Highway Account funding available 

over the RTP/SCS planning period.

State Gas Tax Swap

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.

Figure 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 SHOPP

Value ($ Billions)

Programming Cycle

Annual Value of Programmed Projects (Capital Outlay plus 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 attainment 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 Sales Tax Measures

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 projects. 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 transportation 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 Maintenance (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 Figure 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.

Figure 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 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Cost 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

Multimodal System Preservation and Maintenance

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 conducted 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. Table 3.1 summarizes the total system preservation and maintenance needs 

92 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 3: Financial Plan
assumed 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.

Table 3.1 Multimodal System Preservation and Maintenance Needs

(in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

System State of Good Repair Needs

Included in Estimate

Estimated State 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

Total $216.9

Debt Service

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 transportation 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 commercial 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 forecasts. 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 systems 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 funding likely to materialize within the plan timeframe. These sources include adjustments 

to existing 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 accordance 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 forecasts 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. Table 3.2 shows these core revenues 

in five-year increments by county.

As shown in Figure 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.

Table 3.2 Core Revenue Forecast FY2011–FY2035 

(in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

County

FY2011–FY2015FY2016–FY2020FY2021–FY2025FY2026–FY2030FY2031–FY2035

Total

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

Total $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

Figure 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

Figure 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
Figure 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 

Figure 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 FIGURE 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.

Figure 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

Figure 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 95
As shown in FIGURE 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.

Figure 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 transportation, 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 credits 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. Table 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 implementation 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 provided in the Transportation Finance Appendix. 

96 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 3: Financial Plan
Table 3.3 New Revenue Sources and Innovative Financing Strategies (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

Revenue Source Description Amount Actions to Ensure Availability 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 Commissions—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 Extension, 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 applicable

2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 3: Financial Plan 97
98 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 3: Financial Plan

Revenue Source Description Amount Actions to Ensure Availability Responsible Party(ies)

Private Equity 

Participation

Private equity share as may be applicable for key 

initiatives: e.g., toll facilities; also, freight rail package 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 consortium, State Legislature, and 

Union Pacific/BNSF as appropriate for specific facilities

Freight Fee/National 

Freight Program

A national freight program is anticipated with the next 

federal reauthorization of the surface transportation 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 a 

federal 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 relationship 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 potentially Congress

Interest Earnings Interest earnings from toll bond proceeds. $0.2 See Highway Tolls. See Highway Tolls

State Bond Proceeds, 

Federal Grants & Other 

for 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

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; additionally, 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 financing 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 owners; community facility districts require two-thirds approval; work 

with private entities for joint development opportunities as may be 

applicable.

MPO, CTCs, local jurisdictions, property owners along 

project corridors, developers
Summary of Revenue Sources and Expenditures

Table 3.4.1 Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—Local Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

Revenue Source Revenue Projection Assumptions Revenue Estimate

LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES

Local Option Sales Tax Measures

Description: 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.

Assumptions: Sales taxes grow consistent with county transportation commission forecasts and historical trends. 

$119.4

Transportation Development Act 

(TDA)—Local Transportation Fund

Description: 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.

Assumptions: Same sales tax growth rate as used for local option sales tax measures.

$28.7

Gas Excise Tax Subventions 

(to Cities and Counties)

Description: Subventions to counties and local jurisdictions in region from the California state gas tax. Revenues for the forecast are proportionate to the percentage of streets and roads that are regionally significant.

Assumptions: Fuel consumption declines in absolute terms by 1 percent due to increasing fuel efficiency in conventional vehicles and adoption 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 Description: Transit fares collected by transit operators in the SCAG region. 

Assumptions: Farebox revenues increase consistent with historic trends, planned system expansions, and operator forecasts. $26.7

Highway Tolls (in core revenue 

forecast)

Description: 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). 

Assumptions: 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

Description: 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 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for both the Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County.

Assumptions: 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

Description: Includes committed local revenue sources such as transit advertising and auxiliary revenues, lease revenues, and interest and 

investment earnings from reserve funds.

Assumptions: Revenues are based on financial data from transit operators and local county transportation commissions.

$25.5

LOCAL SUBTOTAL $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

Table 3.4.2 Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—State Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

Revenue Source Revenue Projection Assumptions Revenue Estimate

STATE REVENUE SOURCES

State Transportation Improvement 

Program (STIP)

Description: 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 Highway 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).

Assumptions: 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)

Description: Funds state highway maintenance and operations projects.

Assumptions: 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

Description: Prior to 2010, state sales tax on gasoline funded discretionary projects through the Transportation Investment Fund, which distributed 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.

Assumptions: 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)

Description: STA is funded with 50 percent of state Public Transit Account (PTA) revenues, which come from the diesel sales tax and “spillover” in the gasoline sales tax swap. Funding is distributed by population share and revenue share of the transit operators.

Assumptions: The forecast is based on current funding levels reported by the State Controller. Future funding declines with fuel consumption using assumptions consistent with other sources.

$2.8

Highway Safety, Traffic, Air Quality, 

and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 

(Proposition 1B)

Description: Proposition 1B authorized $19.9 billion to be spent statewide on existing and new statewide transportation-related infrastructure programs and projects through FY2014. Several programs were included under Proposition 1B.

Assumptions: The forecast is consistent with Proposition 1B apportionments for the SCAG region in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) through FY2014.

$3.4

Other State Sources

Description: 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 Transportation Improvement Act added Proposition 116 to use state general obligation bonds to finance rail infrastructure.

Assumptions: The RTP uses forecasts provided by LACMTA for Los Angeles County for consistency with the LACMTA long-range transportation plan. These state revenues are not estimated for other counties.

$0.8

STATE SUBTOTAL (State STIP funds include FHWA IM and NHS funding categories) $46.8

Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 3: Financial Plan 101

Table 3.4.3 Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—Federal Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

Revenue Source Revenue Projection Assumptions Revenue Estimate

FEDERAL REVENUE SOURCES

FHWA Non-Discretionary

Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality (CMAQ) Program

Description: Program to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality in non-attainment areas.

Assumptions: 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)

Description: 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.

Assumptions: 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

Description: 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 rural and small urban public transportation systems. Section 5309 Fixed Guideway (FG) funds are also distributed to regions on an urbanizedarea formula.

Assumptions: 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

Description: Capital projects include preliminary engineering, acquisition of real property, final design and construction, and initial acquisition 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 rehabilitation and leasing, park-and-ride facilities, parking lots associated with transit facilities, and bus passenger shelters.

Assumptions: 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

Description: Includes other federal programs, such as Regional Transportation Enhancements, Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation, 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.

Assumptions: 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

FEDERAL SUBTOTAL $33.0

Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding
102 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 3: Financial Plan

Table 3.4.4 Core and Reasonably Available Revenue Projections—Innovative Financing and New Revenue Sources (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

Revenue Source Revenue Projection Assumptions Revenue Estimate

INNOVATIVE FINANCING & NEW REVENUE SOURCES

Bond Proceeds from Local Sales 

Tax Measures

Description: Long-term debt financing secured by locally imposed 1⁄2 percent sales tax measures for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and 

San Bernardino Counties.

Assumptions: 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 

Description: Additional 15-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax imposed by the state and federal government starting in 2017 through 2024.

Assumptions: 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)

Description: Mileage-based user fees would be implemented to replace existing gas taxes (state and federal) by 2025.

Assumptions: 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)

Description: 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.

Assumptions: Toll revenues based on recent feasibility studies for applicable corridors. Also includes toll revenue bond proceeds.

$22.3

Private Equity Participation

Description: Private equity share as may be applicable for key initiatives.

Assumptions: 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

Description: Establishment of a national freight program consistent with proposal under MAP-21 and/or establishment of a charge imposed 

nationally on cargo.

Assumptions: 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 relative 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

Description: E-commerce sales tax on goods and services negotiated over the Internet or other online system.

Assumptions: Notwithstanding the uncertainty in the amount of revenue that is available from AB 155, the revenue could be used for transportation 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. 

$3.1
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 3: Financial Plan 103

Revenue Source Revenue Projection Assumptions Revenue Estimate

Interest Earnings Description: Interest earnings from toll bond proceeds.

Assumptions: Interest earnings are assumed from toll bond proceeds, e.g., East-West Freight Corridor. $0.2

State Bond Proceeds, Federal 

Grants & Other for California HighSpeed Rail Program

Description: Estimated total per November 1, 2011, Draft California High-Speed Rail Business Plan.

Assumptions: State general obligation bonds authorized under the Bond Act approved by California voters as Proposition 1A in 2008; federal 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

Description: Formation of special districts—infrastructure financing districts and use of tax increment financing.

Assumptions: 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

NEW REVENUE SOURCE SUBTOTAL $219.5

GRAND TOTAL $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 FIGURE 3.11.

Figure 3.11 Revenue Summary $524.7 Billion 

(in Nominal Dollars) FY2011–FY2035

Core Federal

Additional Federal $33.0 (6%)

$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

Figure 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 FIGURE 3.12, capital projects total $262.8 billion in nominal dollars. 

Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs total $216.9 billion, while debt service obligations 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 Figure 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 investments 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 revenues 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.

Figure 3.13 Revenues Compared to Costs by Mode

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Revenues Costs

In $ Billions

Transit Flexible Highway Other Debt Service

Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding

Table 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 Table 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

Table 3.5 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Revenues (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

REVENUE SOURCES FY2011–

FY2015

FY2016–

FY2020

FY2021–

FY2025

FY2026–

FY2030

FY2031–

FY2035 TOTAL

LOCAL

 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 

LOCAL TOTAL $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 TOTAL $10.8 $9.0 $8.7 $9.0 $9.4 $46.8 

FEDERAL

 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

FEDERAL TOTAL $5.9 $6.1 $6.5 $6.9 $7.5 $33.0 

INNOVATIVE FINANCING & 

NEW REVENUE SOURCES

 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 FINANCING & NEW REVENUE SOURCES TOTAL $14.1 $24.5 $46.1 $69.6 $65.2 $219.5

REVENUE TOTAL $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

Table 3.6 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Expenditures (in Nominal Dollars, Billions)

RTP COSTS FY2011–

FY2015

FY2016–

FY2020

FY2021–

FY2025

FY2026–

FY2030

FY2031–

FY2035 TOTAL

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

Operations and Maintenance: $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

Debt Service $2.8 $7.3 $10.3 $12.2 $12.5 $45.1

COST TOTAL $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 projecting 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 Figure 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 environment. Exhibits 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. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY (SCS)

Image courtesy of City of Oxnard and The Daily Group
The recent passage of Senate Bill 375 directs SCAG with an additional area of responsibility 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 intensity—help determine the need for travel.

Therefore, SCAG’s SCS includes not only projections regarding the transportation network, 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 without alteration into the regional 2012 RTP/SCS.

Figure 4.1 Anticipated Future Growth (2008–2035)

0

5

10

15

20

25

2008 2035

Millions

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

Exhibit 4.1 Population Growth SCAG Region (2008–2035)
110 

Exhibit 4.2 Employment Growth SCAG Region (2008–2035)
 111

Exhibit 4.3 Household Growth SCAG Region (2008–2035)
Goals and Benefits

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 automobiles 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 marketplace, 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-oriented 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 walking 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 Taxpayers 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 communities 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 Health and the Environment

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, maintains wildlife habitat, decreases air pollution, and improves opportunities for green 

stormwater solutions that will improve water quality.

4. Greater Responsiveness to Demographics and the Changing Housing Market

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 Lancaster
2012–2035 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, residents 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 transportation choices provides a response to these newly emerging market forces.

5. Improved Access and Mobility

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—especially 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/SCS

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 jurisdictions 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 jurisdictions, subregional Councils of Government (COGs), County Transportation Commissions 

(CTCs), air districts, and a wide array of stakeholders.

Data Collection

Integrated Growth Forecast

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.

Local Planning Sessions

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 management (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.

County Transportation Commissions

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 transportation planning with land use planning in order for this region to develop a truly sustainable 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 Use Scenarios

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 transportation 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:

 Development Location (Dispersed Growth vs. Focused Development): 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 Irvine
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 115

was represented by the proportion of Greenfield versus Refill (infill and redevelopment) growth in each of the scenarios.

 Community/Neighborhood Design (Auto-Oriented 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 dominant 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.

 Housing Options and Mix (Single-Family Subdivision vs. Multifamily Focus):

The scenarios varied in future housing mix in order to depict the impacts of meeting (or not meeting) future housing demand, especially given the changing demographics 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.

 Transportation Investments (Road/Highway vs. Transit/Non-Auto Strategies):

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 automobile 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 relative 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 Figure 4.2, the four scenarios 

illustrate different land use “themes” for how the region can grow and the transportation system which supports that growth. Figure 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 SCS process, SCAG developed the Local Sustainability 

Planning Tool (LSPT), a GIS-based sketch planning tool that allows users to 

create land use scenarios and analyze their impacts. SCAG made the LSPT 

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 GHG emissions. This allowed the local government participation in the development of the SCS to be far more fruitful than 

it otherwise would have been. Image courtesy WRCOG
116 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

Scenario 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 transportation 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. 

Scenario 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 demand 

for 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).

Scenario 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-centric. 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.

Scenario 4. This scenario maximizes growth in urban and mixed-use configurations in 

already developed areas and around existing and planned transit investments. To support 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

Figure 4.2 Workshop Scenario Elements 
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 117

Figure 4.3 Workshop Scenarios (2035)

DEVELOPMENT LOCATION COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN HOUSING OPTIONS AND MIX

S

CEN

A

RIO 1

S

CEN

A

RIO 2

S

CEN

A

RIO 3

S

CEN

ARIO 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 generation 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. 

Scenario Outcomes

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 (CO2e) 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 configurations 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 Workshops

The four scenarios were developed specifically to be presented at a series of public workshops 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, neighborhood 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 objectives 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 transportation 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/SCS Overall Land Use Pattern

SCAG used the feedback from local planning sessions, public outreach workshops, and 

consultation with local jurisdictions to work collaboratively with policymakers, stakeholders, 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 collaboration 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

Unique to SCAG is a special provision within SB 375 that allows any subregional Council of Governments (COGs) the option of developing its own subregional SCS within the region. SCAG adopted a Subregional Framework and Guidelines (see Appendix 20) to establish standards for preparing and submitting a subregional SCS, while laying out SCAG’s role in facilitating and supporting the subregional effort with data, tools, and other assistance.

The Orange County Council of Governments and the Gateway Cities Council of Governments chose to develop their own SCS and entered into Memoranda 

of Understanding with SCAG specifying submission schedules and standards for each component of the subregional SCS. While the subregional COGs were 

responsible for conducting their own research and outreach to develop their subregional SCS, they worked closely with SCAG through workshop preparation, data and information sharing, and regular meetings. SCAG’s Local Sustainability 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 SCS documents can be 

found, in their entirety, in Appendix: Subregional SCS Strategies. No adjustments were made to the land use input in either subregional SCS. 
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 strategies 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 progressive 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 jurisdictions, agencies, and groups to link transportation and land uses through an array of processes 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 congestion during peak periods of demand.

components of the Overall Land Use Pattern

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:

 Identify regional strategic areas for infill and investment – Identify strategic opportunity areas for infill development of aging and underutilized areas and 

increased investment in order to accommodate future growth.

 Structure 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.

 Develop “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.

 Develop 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.

 Ensure 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 development patterns.

 Incorporate 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 prosperity 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 complete 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

Since 2004, Compass Blueprint has been a model for integrating land use and transportation planning and turning regional vision into 

local reality. Guided by four core principles–Mobility, Livability, Prosperity and Sustainability–the program has effectively given the 

region a “jump-start” in building its sustainable communities, and implementing this SCS in partnership with our local partners. At the 

core of Compass Blueprint are Demonstration Projects–incentive-based, voluntary partnerships between SCAG and local governments 

that apply innovative approaches and tools to local plans that support regional priorities. As of January 2012, SCAG 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. Exhibit 4.4 shows all completed Compass Blueprint 

Demonstration Projects to date. A complete list of past and current Compass Blueprint Demonstration Projects can be found in Appendix: 

SCS Background Documentation. 

Future Demonstration Projects will continue to serve as models for the region by focusing on regionally significant local plans that 

directly implement the SCS and its goal of translating policy to on-the-ground land use changes and multi-modal transportation improvements. Concurrently, Compass Blueprint will further incentivize local implementation of the SCS through the Compass Blueprint 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
Exhibit 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 transportation. 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 corridors; 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 following 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 currently 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 developed for the purpose of modeling performance only. The growth and land use assumptions 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 separate 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 Design
2012–2035 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).

Urbanized 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.

Exhibit 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, redevelopment 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 Market 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 than 

80 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 moderate-income category.

The regional target determined by HCD considered projected household growth and socioeconomic 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, distribution 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/SCS are not intended to represent detailed land use policies, but are used to describe the general conditions 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: SCS Background Documentation.

Urban

Urban areas are the highest intensity Community Types. These centrally 

located districts have significant amounts of employment and corresponding residential uses and retail, typically located in a dense cluster 

of multistory buildings and high-rise buildings. Urban 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 

Urban 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. 

Town

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. Sidewalks and 

bike facilities are adequate and the areas benefit from one high-capacity 

transit facility and local buses.

Suburban

Suburban areas contain a mix of uses, but often have one predominant 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 employment 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

Exhibit 4.5 Urban Centers SCAG Region
adjusted 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 overconcentration 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 households and 1.7 million jobs will be added. The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS land use pattern contains sufficient residential capacity to accommodate the region’s future growth, including 

the eight-year regional housing need, as shown in Table 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 Table 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.

Table 4.1 Summary of Total Households Forecasted in RTP/SCS

Community 

Type

Existing 

Households 

(2008)

Total 

Forecasted 

Households 

(2020)

New 

Households 

(2008–

2020)

Total 

Forecasted 

Households 

(2035)

New 

Households 

(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

Total 5,814,000 6,458,000 644,000 7,325,000 1,511,000

Local Efforts

El Centro Downtown Revitalization

Downtown El Centro is a historic and distinct part of Imperial 

County that contains many businesses, restaurants, shops, services, 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 collaborative visioning effort, undertaken in partnership with SCAG’s 

Compass Blueprint, 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 Centro
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 129

Table 4.2 Summary of Total Jobs Forecasted in RTP/SCS

Community 

Type

Existing 

Jobs 

(2008)

Total 

Forecasted 

Jobs

(2020)

New 

Jobs 

(2008–

2020)

Total 

Forecasted

Jobs 

(2035)

New 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

Total 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 forming 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 development 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 products 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 “gentrification,” 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 housing 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 jurisdictions and community stakeholders to seek resources and provide assistance to address 

possible gentrification effects of new development on existing communities and vulnerable 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.

Main Streets, 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 commercial 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 Farmland

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. Exhibits 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 designated 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 Stations 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 Exhibit 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 School
2012–2035 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 communities with a variety of transportation and housing choices, while reducing the negative 

impacts of automobile use on public health and the environment.

transportation network and strategies

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 Network

The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS calls for an expanded transportation network that will complement 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 development, can reduce travel time and relieve road congestion.

2. Lower Cost to Taxpayers and Families

Developing more compact neighborhoods and placing everyday destinations 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 Health and the Environment

Better 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 Demographics and 

the Changing Housing Market

More walkable neighborhoods with varied housing options and transportation choices will be more responsive to the changes in market demand 

being driven by the region’s demographic changes.

5. Improved Access and Mobility

Enhancing critical auto connections and increasing alternative transportation options can improve people’s ability to move around the region and 

provide easy access to everyday destinations. 
132 

Exhibit 4.6 Natural Resource Areas SCAG Region
 133

Exhibit 4.7 Open Space SCAG Region
134 

Exhibit 4.8 Farmland SCAG Region
As shown in Exhibit 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 transportation network, as shown in Exhibit 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 existing highways (as shown in Exhibit 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 benefits due to higher walk/bike mode share, more transit use, and shorter auto trips.

Local Efforts

Feasibility Study of San Bernardino 

Mountain-Valley Railway System

SCAG recently partnered with the San Bernardino Associated 

Governments (SANBAG) and Inland Valley Development Agency 

(IVDA) to study the feasibility of a San Bernardino Mountain-Valley 

railway system that would provide a reliable, clean form of transportation for residents and visitors between the San Bernardino 

Valley and the mountain communities, including Big Bear Lake, with 

connecting travel options at both ends.

Los Angeles County’s Measure R

The 2012 RTP/SCS’s network includes all projects funded by the 

region’s newest sales tax measure, Los Angeles County’s Measure 

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 Metrolink capital 

improvements, extensions to several Metro Rail lines, and new 

clean-fuel bus purchases.

Photograph courtesy of Metro. ©2012 LACMTA
136 

Exhibit 4.9 High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) SCAG Region
 137

Exhibit 4.10 Transit Network SCAG Region
138 

Exhibit 4.11 Proposed Bikeway Network SCAG Region
 139

Exhibit 4.12 Proposed Highway Improvements SCAG Region
Local Efforts

Fullerton Transportation Center and Corridor Redevelopment

The City of Fullerton has embraced sustainability as a framework for planning 

its future in both the transportation and land use arenas. Most notably, the 

area around the Fullerton 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. Furthermore, 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 Beach Boulevard Corridor, out-of-date parking standards have 

hindered development and impacted housing affordability. To address this, the 

City of Long Beach began a multi-phase project to implement a new zoning code 

that facilitates transit-oriented development along the Metro Blue 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. 

Temecula Old Town Specific Plan 

For 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 Specific 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 Temecula
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 141

Local Efforts

Ventura Downtown Parking Management District

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 Management (TDM)

In addition to the transportation network, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS also relies on strategic 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 leaders 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 System Management (TSM)

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

South Bay Cities Council of Governments Neighborhood-Oriented Design Program

The South Bay Cities Council of Governments adopted the Sustainable South Bay 

Strategy in September 2010 to promote sustainable land use and transportation 

investment in the South Bay. Founded on the concept of Neighborhood-Oriented 

Development (NOD), this plan will create compact, mixed commercial nodes in the 

center of each residential neighborhood. Specifically, 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 walking 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 land use pattern maps

The following maps, Exhibit 4.13 through Exhibit 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

Exhibit 4.13 Land Use Pattern SCAG Region (2035)
144 

Exhibit 4.14 Land Use Pattern Ventura County (2035)
 145

Exhibit 4.15 Land Use Pattern Los Angeles County (2035)
146 

Exhibit 4.16 Land Use Pattern San Bernardino County (2035)
 147

Exhibit 4.17 Land Use Pattern Orange County (2035)
148 

Exhibit 4.18 Land Use Pattern Riverside County (2035)
 149

Exhibit 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 GHG emissions. 

Generally, two types of projects are eligible for streamlined CEQA review 

once a compliant RTP/SCS has been adopted: (1) residential/mixed-use 

projects (consistent with the SCS) or (2) a Transit Priority Project (TPP). 

See Appendix: SCS Background Documentation for more information on 

CEQA streamlining incentives through SB 375.

Residential/Mixed-Use Projects

Residential and mixed-use projects that are consistent with the SCS

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 

SCS, 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.

Transit Priority Projects (TPP)

A Transit Priority Project (TPP) is eligible for CEQA streamlining if it is 

consistent with the SCS; 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 analyzed under a new environmental document created by SB 375, called the 

Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA), or through an 

EIR for which the content requirements have been reduced. Alternatively, 

a TPP can be considered a Sustainable Communities Project (SCP) 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 project with the SCS. SCAG staff may provide a lead agency at the time of its 

request readily available data and documentation to help support its finding upon request.
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 151

2012–2035 RTP/SCS Next Steps

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 government 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

Ontario New Model Colony General Plan

Since 1998, the City of Ontario has been developing a bold vision for 

its future growth, including the adoption of its General Plan and adding 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 roadways and a large central park. Emphasizing connections to corridors 

and transit, the City is creating a major regional center for Southern 

California.

Image courtesy of City of Ontario
152 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy

Table 4.3 Land Use Actions and Strategies

Proposed Action/Strategy 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 agreements, 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 Jurisdictions
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 153

Proposed Action/Strategy 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

Table 4.4 Transportation Network Actions and Strategies

Proposed Action/Strategy 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-effective 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 opportunities 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 neighborhood 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.

State
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 155

Proposed Action/Strategy 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 transportation and land use goals to produce a unified transportation strategy.SCAG, State

Table 4.5 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Actions and Strategies

Proposed Action/Strategy 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 commercial 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, walking/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

Table 4.6 Transportation System Management (TSM) Actions and Strategies

Proposed Action/Strategy 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

Table 4.7 Clean Vehicle Technology Actions and Strategies

Proposed Action/Strategy 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 information).

SCAG, Local Jurisdictions
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 157

Other Supportive Strategies

Regional and Local Efforts to Adopt Near-Zero and ZeroEmission Vehicle Technology

SCAG 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 transportation 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 assistance 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, installation, 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 introduction 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 availability, 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.

Monitoring 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 continue 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

Sustainable Communities Strategy Requirements Matrix

The following table outlines the requirements of SB 375 and how each is addressed in the 2012 RTP/SCS. 

Table 4.8 Sustainable Communities Strategy Requirements Matrix

Required Element Addressed

CGC Section 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 Section 65080(b) (2).(B) i. Identify the general location of uses, residential densities, and building intensities within the regionThe 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 Section 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 Section 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 Documentation
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 159

Required Element Addressed

CGC Section 65080(b) (2).(B) iv. Identify a transportation network to service the transportation needs of the regionThe 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 Element Addressed

CGC Section 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 alternative 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 Section 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, transportation advocates, neighborhood and community groups, environmental advocates, 

home builder representatives, broad-based business organizations, landowners, commercial 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 population 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 planning 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 different 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 Consultation
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 4: Sustainable Communities Strategy 161

Required Element Addressed

(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 Section 65080(b) (2).(F) In preparing a sustainable communities strategy, the metropolitan 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 Section 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 Section 65080(b) (2).(J) Neither a sustainable communities strategy nor an alternative 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 communities 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 transportation plan or an alternative planning strategy. Nothing in this section requires a metropolitan 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 section 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 Element Addressed

CGC Section 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 December 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 Section 65080(b) (4).(C) The metropolitan planning organization or county transportation 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, whichever 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 Section 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 Section 30103 of the Public Resources Code, shall coordinate with the State Coastal Conservancy, 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 Element Addressed

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 officials, 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 transportation 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 proximity to jobs and commercial activity centers.

(2) Encouraging public transit usage, ridesharing, walking, bicycling, and transportation demand 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 Element Addressed

(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 subparagraph (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 objectives 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 counties 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 requirements regarding Environmental Justice, SB 375, and transportation conformity.

Performance Outcomes

This section summarizes how well the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS performs. Table 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 encouraging 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 programs 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. measuring up
166 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 5: Measuring Up

Table 5.1 Adopted 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Outcomes and Performance Measures/Indicators

Outcome Performance Measure/Indicator Definition Performance Target Data Sources 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/pedestrian, and fatality/killed)Improvement over 

Base Year

CHP Accident Data 

Base, Travel Demand 

Model Mode Split 

Outputs

Criteria pollutants emissions CO, NOx, PM2.5, PM10, and VOC Meet Transportation 

Conformity requirements

Travel Demand Model/

ARB EMFAC Model
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 167

Outcome Performance Measure/Indicator Definition Performance Target Data Sources Used

Environmental 

Quality

Criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas 

emissions

CO, NOx, PM2.5, PM10, and VOC

Per capita greenhouse gas emissions (CO2)

Meet Transportation 

Conformity requirements and SB 375 per 

capita GHG-reduction 

targets

Travel Demand Model/

ARB EMFAC Model

Economic WellBeingAdditional jobs supported by improving 

competitiveness

Number of jobs added to the economy as a result of improved transportation conditions which make the region more competitiveImprovement over 

No Project Baseline

Regional Economic 

Model REMI

Additional jobs supported by transportation investmentTotal number of jobs supported in the economy as a result of transportation expendituresImprovement 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 transportation costsGreater 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 coordination 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 of growth in High-Quality Transit Areas (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.

Land consumption

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.

Average distance for work or non-work trips

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.

Percent of work trips less than three miles

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.

Work trip length distribution

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

Mobility 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.

Mobility

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 that 

cannot 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 Facility Type (Mixed-Flow Freeways, 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 

Figure 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.

Figure 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 Average

Millions

2008 Base Year 2035 Baseline 2035 Plan
170 2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 5: Measuring Up

Person Delay per Capita

Figure 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.

Figure 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 Facility Type (Highway, Arterials)

This measure estimates the average daily truck delay by facility type for freeways and 

arterials (Figure 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.

Figure 5.3 Daily Heavy-Duty Truck Hours of Delay

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Freeway/Expressway Arterial

Thousands

2008 Base Year 2035 Baseline 2035 Plan
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 171

Highway Non-Recurrent Delay

This 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 investments such as traveler information, incident management, and ramp metering. Figure 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.

Figure 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 Los 

Angeles County had just over 40 percent of its total congestion represented by nonrecurring incidents.

Speed Maps

Exhibits 5.1 through 5.3 depict the region’s freeway speed conditions during the afternoon 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 

Exhibit 5.1 Base Year 2008 Freeway Speed – PM Peak (3pm–7pm)
 173

Exhibit 5.2 Baseline 2035 Freeway Speed – PM Peak (3pm–7pm)
174 

Exhibit 5.3 Plan 2035 Freeway Speed – PM Peak (3pm–7pm)
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 175

Accessibility

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 percentage of commute or home-based work trips that are completed within 45 minutes. 

Figure 5.5 shows these results. In all cases, the 2035 Plan improves accessibility for 

home-based work trips over the baseline.

Figure 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 Vehicle (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 indicator. 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.

Productivity

The productivity outcome reflects the degree to which the transportation system performs 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 Figure 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

Figure 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

80

14:0014:3015:0015:3016:0016:3017:0017:3018:0018:3019:0019:3020:0020:30

Flow 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.

Figure 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 management 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.

Figure 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 Period
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 177

Figure 5.8 shows the percentage of transit passenger miles traveled compared to the 

total number of seat miles provided, a measure of transit productivity.

Figure 5.8 Ratio of Transit Passenger Miles/Seat Miles

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Passenger Miles/Seat Miles

Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside

San Bernardino Ventura Regional Average

Reliability

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, reliability focuses on how much mobility and accessibility vary from day to day. This variability is illustrated in Figure 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.”

Figure 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, Table 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.

Table 5.2 Estimated Improvements in Reliability

Hour

Average 

Travel 

Time 

(minutes)

Variability 

of Travel 

Time

Travel Time Based on Level of 

Confidence of Arriving on Time (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 

Safety 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 estimated 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 Well-Being

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 investment in transportation infrastructure, but also the efficiency gains in terms of worker and 

business economic productivity and goods movement. The 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 transportation 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 clusters. Over the twenty-three 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 
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 5: Measuring Up 179

construction and operations expenditures that are specified in the RTP program (table 

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 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.

Table 5.3 Employment Impact from Construction and Maintenance 

Expenditures (Per Year)

2011–

2015

2016–

2020

2021– 

2025

2026–

2030

2031–

2035 Total

Los 

Angeles 112.2 89.1 90.1 93.4 76.4 92.2

Orange 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

San 

Bernardino 18.0 15.5 18.5 21.4 18.0 18.3

Ventura 3.8 3.4 3.0 3.6 3.2 3.4

Imperial 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 infrastructure 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 operating 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 dollars and added together. These are divided by the total incremental costs of the Plan’s 

transportation improvements to produce a ratio. Figure 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

Figure 5.10 Results of Regional Benefit/Cost Analysis

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

1

Benefits Accrued per Dollar Invested

B/C Ratio

$2.90

Benefits of 

RTP greater 

than costs

System Sustainability

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 decisions 

today 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 transportation 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/SCS Performance for Co-Benefits

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 benefits 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 closely 

follows 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 performance measures, these performance results were derived using the single framework 

model described in the SCS Background Documentation Appendix.

Better 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 emissions, 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 Families

Local Infrastructure Capital and Operations 

and Maintenance Costs

Increased land consumption can lead to higher costs for local and subregional infrastructure, 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 developed areas can reduce costs significantly, as demonstrated by adding up capital infrastructure 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.

Local Revenues

To determine the RTP/SCS’s impact on local revenues, SCAG utilized estimates of potential 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.

Household Costs

If the land use patterns of the past decades persist, average household costs associated 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.

Benefits to Public Health and the Environment

Land Consumption

New land consumption includes all land that will be newly urbanized, including residential 

and employment areas, roadways, open space, and public lands. Through infill, redevelopment, 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 accommodate growth through 2035.

Building Energy Use

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 electricity 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

Residential Water Use

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 household’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 increasingly 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.

Health Incidences and Costs

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 valuations 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.

Greater Responsiveness to Demographics 

and the Changing Housing Market

There is little question that the demographic profile of Southern California is changing, 

resulting in different housing and transportation needs. The traditional suburban development 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 Justice

Title VI and Environmental Justice Overview

The concept of Environmental Justice is about equal and fair access to a healthy environment, with the goal of protecting underrepresented and poorer communities from incurring 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 financial 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 discrimination), 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 populations. 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 minority 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, recommendations for public involvement, and mitigation.

1 See Title VI Legal Manual, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (2001), page 59.

Major Environmental Justice 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-occupied 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 household’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 traveled 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 PM2.5 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 prevalence 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.

SCAG’s Title VI and Environmental Justice 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 process 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 populations 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 revisions 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 VI 
2012–2035 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 populations 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 directives. Nonetheless, SCAG complies with the framework provided to integrate the principles 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 development 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 methodology to include new areas of analysis, including gentrification and  displacement.

SCAG’s Title VI and Environmental Justice 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 opportunity 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 participants with the Environmental Justice analysis process. The workshop drew representatives 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 necessary 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 analysis and planning process, including:

 PM2.5 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 subsequent public workshops. Many of those who attended the Environmental Justice workshops 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-oriented 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 along 

heavily 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.

Identifying Demographic Groups

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 effective 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. Table 5.4 lists the demographic categories 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.

Table 5.4 Demographic and Economic Categories

Ethnic/Racial/Other Categories

(persons)

Income Categories

 (Households)

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 Baseline

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 projects 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

Performance Measures

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 measures analyzed as part of the Environmental Justice Report. The full results can be found 

in the Environmental Justice Appendix.

Performance Measure 1: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS Revenue Sources in 

Terms of Tax Burdens

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 examination 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, respectively. 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 Measure 2: Share of Transportation System Usage

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 Measure 3: 2012–2035 RTP/SCS 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 communities. 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 putting 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 Measure 4: Impacts of Proposed VMT Fees

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 Measure 5: Distribution of Travel Time 

and Travel Distance Savings

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 auto 

mode. 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 transportation 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 Measure 6: Jobs-Housing Imbalance 

or Job Housing Mismatch

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 without 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 that 
2012–2035 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 Measure 7: Accessibility to Employment and Services

Accessibility is a foundation for social and economic interactions. As an indicator, accessibility is measured by the spatial distribution of potential destinations; the ease of reaching 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 residential 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 transportation 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 Measure 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 population 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 accessibility 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 Measure 9: Gentrification 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 increasing 

opportunities 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 significant 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 Measure 10: Environmental Impact Analyses 

(Air, Health, Noise)

Historical Air Quality and Health Impacts

Emissions Impact on Environmental Justice 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 traveled 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 PM2.5 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 matter 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, additional analysis has been included in the final Environmental Justice Appendix that documents 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.

Environmental Impacts along freeways 

and highly traveled corridors

The concentration of air pollutants along heavily traveled corridors, particularly PM10 and 

PM2.5, 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 highlight 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.

Environmental Impacts of Plan and Baseline Scenarios

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 measures being taken to meet air quality standards. Since the Plan must demonstrate conformity 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 corridors 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 significant. 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.

Noise Impacts

Roadway Noise

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 percentage 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 compared 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 reduction) 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 analysis 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 Noise

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 corresponding 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 disseminating 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 Measure 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 separation projects. The train traffic index and related analysis provided in the Environmental 

Justice Appendix includes data from both passenger and freight rail traffic.

Additional SCAG Strategies: Environmental Justice

Mitigation Toolbox

New to the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, SCAG has developed a toolbox of potential mitigation 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 Mitigation for Noise 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 roadway 

lanes, 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 Mitigation 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 PM2.5 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 Mitigation for Rail-Related Impacts

 Construct sound-reducing barriers, where feasible and applicable, between noise 

sources and noise-sensitive land use

Potential Mitigation for Road Pricing Mechanisms

 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 holidays16

 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 public17

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 review19

Potential Mitigation for Environmental Justice 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 Gentrification 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 Publications20

 PolicyLink, Equitable Development Toolkit21

 National Association of Realtors, Field Guide to Inclusionary Zoning22

 The Partnership for Working Families, Community Benefits Agreements23

 Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, LAX Community Benefit Agreement24

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 Greenhouse Gas 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 emissions 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 federally 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 violations, 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 involvement 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 policymakers 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 involvement, 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 

Table 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. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
of 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 communications, and website postings.

Table 6.1 Participatory Non-Governmental Groups

Participatory Non-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 information 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 throughout 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 consultation 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 

Figures 6.1 and 6.2 for a sample of questions and responses from these workshops.) 

2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 6: Public Participation 199
Residents, elected officials, representatives of public agencies, and community organizations, 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 consumption, water consumption, and other costs in the region.

Following the presentations, the groups engaged in discussions of objectives and priorities 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.

New Issues, New Strategies

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 transportation 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 development 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 Participation
in November 2011 and has targeted additional outreach after the release of the Draft 

2012–2035 RTP/SCS.

Raising the Bar

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 understanding 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 sections 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 transportation 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 public outreach, as well as expand the number of videoconferencing sites.

SCAG’s new interactive RTP/SCS website called iRTP resulted in improved public feedback. 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 participation. 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

figure 6.1 Sample of Question Used at RTP/SCS Public Workshops, Summer 2011
204 

figure 6.2 Sample of Question Used at RTP/SCS Public Workshops, Summer 2011
Looking Ahead—Beyond the Horizon

T

he RTP/SCS strategies discussed in Chapter 2: Transportation Investments, represent 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 additional 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 recognition 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 envisioned 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 Investments – 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.

 Operations Investments (TSM) – The 2008 Strategic Plan recommended increasing 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.

 Dedicated Lanes for Clean-Technology Trucks on the East-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 funding for it.

205

07. STRATEGIC PLAN
 Metrolink and LOSSAN Rail Improvements – 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.

 The Westside Purple Line Extension – 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 strategies 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 Strategies 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 PM2.5 goods movement-related emissions, respectively. Mitigation of rail emissions 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 electrification, battery-hybrid systems, and fuel cells. Since 2008, SCAG has worked with representatives 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.

 Electric Catenary Rail Systems – 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.

 Dual-Mode Locomotives – These have been deployed for passenger rail applications, 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 Synchronous Motors – 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 Strategies 

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 PM2.5 emissions. In the near term, the RTP/SCS proposes an aggressive 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 performance 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 batteries 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.

Unfunded 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 improvements, auxiliary lanes, ramp widening, and others. The recent Caltrans CSMP development 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.

Unfunded Capital Improvements

Regionally significant major corridor improvements and strategies in the Strategic Plan 

are identified in Table 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
Table 7.1 Major Strategic Plan Projects

Strategic Plan Project Description

 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

Ultimate Vision for a High-Speed Rail System

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 previous 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, including Ontario International Airport, the March Inland Port, and possibly San Bernardino 

International and Corona airports, helping to meet SCAG’s long-term goal of regionalizing 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 connecting 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 Plan
2012–2035 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-speed 

alternative 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.

Greater Vision for Our Commuter Rail System

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 escalates 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 intensive 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 network 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 encourages 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 pedestrian 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 Beyond 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 compliance on all sidewalks.

Bikeways

Further enhancements to the active transportation system should be considered to make 

bicycling and walking a more feasible and desirable transportation option. The strategic 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 will 
2012–2035 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 considered 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.

Pedestrians

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 more 

prominent 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.

Strategic Finance

Following the adoption of the 2008 RTP, SCAG initiated a comprehensive study of congestion 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 transportation 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 establish 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 Fast Forward

Upon the passage of Measure R in 2008, MTA has also been looking for ways to accelerate 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 innovative 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 mayors 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 administration 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, investment 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 support 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

Southern California’s transportation infrastructure paves the way for 

economic recovery and job creation.

Executive Summary

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 important as now. SCAG has thus chosen to view the 2012 RTP/SCS as an economic development 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 transportation 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 implementation, SCAG used data and software from Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) to 

produce county-level and statewide models depicting the economic and demographic 

08. ECONOMIC AND JOB CREATION ANALYSIS

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 competitiveness 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 RTP 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.

 Increases 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 impossible 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, congestion 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.

 Amenities 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, amenities 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 investments will cost Southern California economically and the region’s business competitiveness 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 infrastructure 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 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.

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 million 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 second 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.

Southern 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 at 

least 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 territory. 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.

Infrastructure Investment, Economic Development, 

and Quality of Life

As indicated, SCAG has chosen to view the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS as an economic development 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 competitiveness, 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 companies located in a region can be measured by investments in its transportation infrastructure. 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

Infrastructure Investment and

Construction Related Impacts

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 construction activity are the beginning point. Economic impact models such as the sophisticated 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.

Infrastructure Investment, Cost, and Net Impact

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 creation, prosperity and quality of life are estimated and explained in detail.

Economic Impact of SCAG’s Policies and Strategies

As implementation of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS involves large financial investments in the 

region’s transportation infrastructure, it has become increasingly important to understand 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

Goods Movement, the Economy, and

Southern California’s Transportation System

Southern California’s goods movement dependent sectors create considerable economic 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 Southern 

California’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.

Macro-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 majority 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 GDP 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.

table 8.1 Logistics Contribution to Southern California’s Economy, 2009

Metric Southern California Logistics Logistics 

Share

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%

Total Output $1,760,981,224,092 $238,503,892,404 13.5%

Source: IMPLAN, analysis by Economics & Politics, Inc.

Project Expenditures – Mapping 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 estimated to be associated with debt service and right-of-way acquisition, which represent 

exchange of assets and are excluded from our analysis in table 8.2.

Economic and job impacts

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 TABLE 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

table 8.2 Net Expenditures (in Millions of Nominal Dollars)

FY2011–15 FY2016–20 FY2021–25 FY2026–30 FY2031–35 Total % of SCAG Total

Total $ 53,046,850 $ 63,210,971 $ 88,778,040 $ 120,811,690 $ 127,547,303 $ 453,394,855 100.0

table 8.3 Employment Impact from Construction and Maintenance Expenditures (Per Year)

2011–2015 2016–2020 2021–2025 2026–2030 2031–2035 Total

Los Angeles 112.2 89.1 90.1 93.4 76.4 92.2

Orange 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

San Bernardino 18.0 15.5 18.5 21.4 18.0 18.3

Ventura 3.8 3.4 3.0 3.6 3.2 3.4

Imperial 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.0

194.4 164.7 173.2 185.7 154.4 174.5

Methods

Short 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 industries 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 construction 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 multipliers for the nation as a whole, and can be different from year to year, particularly during 
2012–2035 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 for 

transit 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 substituting 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 competitiveness 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 New Jobs: Results from REMI Model

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, government 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, accessibility 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

Commuting Costs

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 productivity 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 market 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.

Accessibility Costs

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 intermediate 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.

Transportation Costs

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 intermediate 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.

Amenity/Externality

Under 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 employees. SCAG’s estimates included the cost of emissions, lost travel time due to congestion, and safety benefits. These all, in sum, add to the attractiveness of a region, which 

amenity quantifies in REMI.

Operations Costs

Transportation improvements can have a big influence on business/household economies 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 commuting, accessibility, and transport costs as defined above) and amenity and operations 

benefits (from the changes in amenities and the reductions in operations costs.) The 
2012–2035 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 consumer 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.

Full Results

The full economic results of the RTP/SCS investment are summarized below, with millions 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—construction impacts and changes in the region’s economic competitiveness, are shown on the 

bottom row.

Table 8.4 Total Employment Impact

2011–

2015

2016–

2020

2021–

2025

2026–

2030

2031–

2035

Annual 

Average

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 Gains Versus Revenue 

Required to Implement 2012–2035 RTP/SCS

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 sustainability of modern infrastructure. It would face stiff penalties for being out of compliance 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 transportation improvements can increase regional economic competitiveness.

1. Improved Labor Market Matching: Reducing travel time allows firms to hire from a 

larger geographic catchment area. This effectively increases the firm’s labor market—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. Firms Move into the SCAG 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, eventually, 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) Wage:

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 locations. 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 illustrations 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 the 
2012–2035 RTP/SCS | Chapter 8: Economic and Job Creation Analysis 225

results of economic impact modeling results and is not intended to be a policy statement on wages.

4. Increased Market for Firms’ 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 serving 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 growing 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 interact 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 investments 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 innovation 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 metropolitan 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 competitors, 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 magnitudes of each effect and the tradeoffs that ensue.

Quantified Estimates of Gains from 

Economic Competitiveness

To capture productivity effects, the results of SCAG’s travel model were used in conjunction 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 congestion 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 channels 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. Firms move into the SCAG region in response to enhanced economic competitiveness: REMI’s market share models allow it to estimate how changes in production 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) Wage: 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 metropolitan 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 competitiveness 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 estimating relationships between a region’s stock of highway or transportation infrastructure and 

economic productivity. That larger strand of the literature cannot illuminate how transportation 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 statistically 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 product.) 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 were 

typically 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 congestion 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 respect 
2012–2035 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 percent 

increase 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 reasonable 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 theUrban 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
Glossary

AASHTO | American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials – A nonprofit, non-partisan association representing highway and transportation departments in the 

50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

AB 32 | Assembly Bill 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.

AB 169 | Assembly Bill 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.

ACE | 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 transcontinental railroad network.

Active Transportation | 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 government services, and telecommunications. It prescribes federal transportation requirements 

for transportation providers.

AJR | Assembly Joint Resolution No. 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 PM2.5, and to direct steps 

necessary to address the emergency.

ANCA | Federal Airport Noise 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.

Antelope Valley AQMD | Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District – The air pollution 

control agency for the portion of Los Angeles County north of the San Gabriel Mountains.

AQMP | Air Quality Management Plan – Regional plan for air quality improvement in compliance with federal and state requirements.

ARB | Air Resources Board – Refer to CARB, California Air Resources Board.

ATIS | Advanced Traveler Information Systems – Technology used to provide travelers with 

information, both pre-trip and in-vehicle, so they can better utilize the transportation system.

ATMS | Advanced Transportation Management Systems – 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.

BLS | Bureau of Labor Statistics – The principal fact-finding agency for the federal government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics.

BNSF | Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company

BRT | Bus Rapid Transit – Bus transit service that seeks to reduce travel time through measures such as traffic signal priority, automatic vehicle location, dedicated bus lanes, limitedstop service, and faster fare collection policies.

BTA | Bicycle Transportation Account – Provides state funds for city and county projects that 

improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters.

CAA | Clean Air Act (CAA) – 1970 federal act that authorized EPA to establish air quality standards to limit levels of pollutants in the air. EPA has promulgated such standards (or NAAQS) 

for six criteria pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2

), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), 

ozone, lead, and particulate matter (PM10). All areas of the United States must maintain ambient 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.

CAFR | Comprehensive Annual Financial Report – Official annual financial report that 

encompasses all funds and financial components associated with any given organization.

Cal B/C Model | California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) – Was 

developed for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as a tool for benefit-cost 

228 
2012–2035 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.

CARB | California Air Resources Board – State agency responsible for attaining and maintaining 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 Demand | 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.

CEHD | 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.

CEQA | California Environmental Quality Act – State law providing certain environmental 

protections that apply to all transportation projects funded with state funds. 

CETAP | 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.

CHSRA | California High-Speed Rail Authority – Agency responsible for planning, designing, 

constructing, and operating a state-of-the-art high-speed train system in California.

CIP | Capital Improvement Program – Long-range strategic plan that identifies capital projects; provides a planning schedule and financing options.

CMAQ | Congestion Mitigation 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.

CMIA | Corridor Mobility 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.

CMP | Congestion Management Program – Established by Proposition 111 in 1990, requires 

each county to develop and adopt a CMP that includes highway and roadway system monitoring, multimodal system performance analysis, transportation demand management program, 

land-use analysis program, and local conformance.

CNSSTC | California-Nevada Super-Speed Train Commission – Public-private partnership 

developed to promote a high-speed link between California and Nevada.

CO | Carbon Monoxide – 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.

COG | Council of Governments – Under state law, a single or multi-county council created by 

a joint powers agreement.

COMPASS/Growth Visioning | 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 Management 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 congested roadways.

Constant Dollars | Dollars expended/received in a specific year adjusted for inflation/deflation 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.

CTC | California Transportation Commission – A nine-member board appointed by the governor to oversee and administer state and federal transportation funds and provide oversight 

on project delivery.

CTIPS | California Transportation Improvement Program System – 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

CTP | 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.

CVO | Commercial Vehicle Operations – Management of commercial vehicle activities 

through ITS.

Deficiency 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 Model – A vehicle emissions forecasting model.

EDF | Environmental Defense Fund – A national non-profit organization that seeks to protect 

the environmental rights of all people, including future generations.

EIR | 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 reasonable alternatives to the project.

EIS | Environmental Impact Statement (federal) – National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requirement for assessing the environmental impacts of federal actions that may have a significant impact on the human environment.

EMFAC | Emission Factor – Model that estimates on-road motor vehicle emission rates for 

current year as well as backcasted and forecasted inventories.

EPA | 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.

FAA | Federal Aviation Administration – Federal agency responsible for issuing and enforcing safety regulations and minimum standards, managing air space and air traffic, and building and maintaining air navigation facilities.

FHWA | Federal 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.

FRA | Federal 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.

FTA | Federal 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.

FTIP | Federal Transportation Improvement Program – A three-year list of all transportation 

projects proposed for federal transportation funding within the planning area of an MPO.

FY | Fiscal Year – 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.

GAO | Government 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.

GHG | Greenhouse Gases – 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.

GIS | Geographic Information System – Powerful mapping software that links information 

about where things are with information about what things are like. GIS allows users to examine relationships between features distributed unevenly over space, seeking patterns that may 

not be apparent without using advanced techniques of query, selection, analysis, and display.

GNP | Gross National Product – An estimate of the total value of goods and services produced 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.

HCP | 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.

HICOMP | Highway Congestion Monitoring Program (Caltrans) – A report that measures the 

congestion that occurs on urban area freeways in California.

Home-Based Work Trips | 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.

HPMS | Highway Performance Monitoring System – A federally mandated program designed 

by FHWA to assess the performance of the nation’s highway system.

HSIPR | High-Speed 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.

HSR | High-Speed Rail – Intercity passenger rail service that is reasonably expected to reach 

speeds of at least 110 mile per hour.

HUD | U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Federal agency charged with 

increasing homeownership, supporting community development, and increasing access to 

affordable housing free from discrimination.

ICAPCD | 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.

ICTC | Imperial County Transportation Commission – Agency responsible for planning and 

funding countywide transportation improvements and administering the county’s transportation sales tax revenues.

IGR | Intergovernmental Review Process – The review of documents by several governmental agencies to ensure consistency of regionally significant local plans, projects, and programs 

with SCAG’s adopted regional plans.

Infrastructure | The basic facilities, equipment, services, and installations needed for the 

growth and functioning of a community.

IOS | Initial Operating Segment

ISTEA | Intermodal Surface 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.

ITIP | Interregional Transportation Improvement Program – The portion of the STIP that 

includes projects selected by Caltrans (25 percent of STIP funds).

ITS | Intelligent Transportation Systems – Systems that use modern detection, communications and computing technology to collect data on system operations and performance, communicate 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).

JPA | Joint Powers Authority – Two or more agencies that enter into a cooperative agreement 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.

LACMTA | Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, also referred to as 

“Metro” – Agency responsible for planning and funding countywide transportation improvements, administering the county’s transportation sales tax revenues, and operating bus and 

rail transit service.

LAUPT | Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal, also known as Union Station.

LAWA | Los Angeles World Airports – Aviation authority of the City of Los Angeles. LAWA 

owns and operates Los Angeles International (LAX), Ontario International, Van Nuys, and 

Palmdale Airports.

LCVs | Longer-Combination Vehicles − Includes tractor-trailer combinations with two or 

more trailers that weigh more than 80,000 pounds.

LEM | Location Efficient Mortgage – 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

LRT | Light Rail Transit – A mode of transit that operates on steel rails and obtains its power 

from overhead electrical wires. LRT may operate in single or multiple cars on separate rightsof-way or in mixed traffic.

LTF | Local Transportation Fund – A fund which receives TDA revenues. 

MAP | Million Annual Passengers – Used to quantify airport activity.

Market Incentives | Measures designed to encourage certain actions or behaviors. These 

include 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.

MDAB | Mojave Desert Air Basin – Area defined by state law as comprising the desert portions of Los Angeles, Kern, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.

MDAQMD | Mojave Desert Air Quality Management 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.

Measure A | Revenues generated from Riverside County’s local half-cent sales tax.

Measure D | Revenues generated from Imperial County’s local half-cent sales tax.

Measure I | Revenues generated from San Bernardino County’s local half-cent sales tax.

Measure M | Revenues generated from Orange County’s local half-cent sales tax.

Measure 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 temporary local sales tax (Measure R).

Metrolink | Regional commuter rail system connecting Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, 

San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties and operated by SCRRA.

MIS | Major Investment Study – 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.

Mixed Flow | Traffic movement having autos, trucks, buses, and motorcycles sharing 

traffic lanes.

Mode | A particular form of travel (e.g., walking, traveling by automobile, traveling by bus, or 

traveling by train).

Mode Split | The proportion of total person trips using various specified modes of 

transportation.

Model | A mathematical description of a real-life situation that uses data on past and present 

conditions to make a projection.

MPO | Metropolitan Planning Organization – A federally required planning body responsible 

for transportation planning and project selection in a region.

MTS | Metropolitan Transportation System – Regional network of roadways and transit 

corridors.

Multimodal | A mixture of the several modes of transportation, such as transit, highways, 

non-motorized, etc.

NAAQS | National Ambient Air Quality Standards – Targets established by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the maximum contribution of a specific pollutant in 

the air.

NAFTA | North American Free 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.

NCCP | Natural 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.

NEPA | National Environmental Protection Act – Federal environmental law that applies to 

all projects funded with federal funds or requiring review by a federal agency. 

NIMS | National Incident Management System – Nationwide template that enables all 

government, private-sector, and non-governmental organizations to work together during a 

domestic incident.

Nominal Dollars | Actual dollars expended/received in a specific year without adjustments 

for inflation/deflation.

NOx | Nitrogen 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 | National Transit Database – The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) national database for transit statistics.

O&M | Operations and Maintenance – 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

OCTA | Orange County Transportation Authority – Agency responsible for planning and funding countywide transportation improvements, administering the county’s transportation sales 

tax revenues, and operating bus transit service.

OLDA | Orangeline Development Authority – Joint exercise of powers authority developed by 

the cities located along the Orangeline corridor.

OnTrac | Orange-North 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.

Open Space | 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.

OWP | Overall Work Program – SCAG develops an OWP annually, describing proposed transportation planning activities for the upcoming fiscal year, including those required by federal 

and state law.

Parking Cash-Out 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 Subsidy | 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.

PATH | 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.

PEIR | Program Environmental Impact Report – Environmental review process used to 

evaluate the potential environmental effects of large-scale plans or programs.

PeMS | Freeway Performance Measurement System – 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 Trip | A trip made by a person by any mode or combination of modes for any purpose.

PM10 | Particulate Matter – 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.

PM2.5 | Particulate Matter – 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.

PMD | 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 organized and invited to review and comment on various technical issues and processes used in 

the planning process.

Proposition 1A | 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 Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security State 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 temporary 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 temporary local sales tax (Measure R).

PSR | Project Study 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

PTA | 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 Utilities Commission – Regulates privately owned telecommunications, electric, 

natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies. 

Railroad Siding | 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.

RCTC | Riverside County Transportation Commission – Agency responsible for planning and 

funding countywide transportation improvements and administering the county’s transportation sales tax revenues.

RHNA | Regional Housing Needs 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 categories including short-haul, medium-haul, long-haul, and international flights.

ROG | Reactive Organic Gas – Organic compounds assumed to be reactive at urban/regional 

scales. Those organic compounds that are regulated because they lead to ozone formation. 

RSTIS | Regionally Significant Transportation Investment Study – 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.

RSTP | Regional Surface Transportation Program – Established by California state statute 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.

RTMS | Regional Transportation Monitoring System – Internet-based transportation monitoring system. The RTMS will be the source for real-time and historical transportation data 

collected from local, regional, and private data sources. 

RTP | 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.

RTSS | Regional Transit Security Strategy – Strategy for the region with specific goals 

and objectives related to the prevention, detection, response, and recovery of transit 

security issues.

SAFETEA-LU | Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users – 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.

SANBAG | San Bernardino Associated Governments − 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.

SANDAG | San Diego Association of Governments.

SB 45 | Senate Bill 45 (Chapter 622, Statutes of 1997, Kopp) – Established the current STIP 

process and shifted control of decision-making from the state to the regional level. 

SB 375 | Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Steinberg) – 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.

SB 974 | Senate Bill 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.

SBD | San Bernardino International Airport – International airport located in San Bernardino.

SCAB | South Coast Air Basin – 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

SCAG | Southern California Association of Governments – The metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO) for six counties including Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San 

Bernardino, and Ventura.

SCAQMD | South Coast Air Quality Management District – The air pollution control agency 

for Orange County and major portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties 

in Southern California. 

SCCAB | South Central Coast Air Basin – Comprises San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and 

Ventura Counties.

SCRIFA | Southern California Railroad Infrastructure Financing Authority

Scrip | A form of fare payment transferrable among transportation providers, often issued by 

Dial-A-Ride transit service providers to be used on taxis.

SED | Socioeconomic Data – Population, employment, and housing forecast.

SHA | State 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. 

SHOPP | State Highway Operation and Protection Program – A four-year capital improvement program for rehabilitation, safety, and operational improvements on state highways. 

SIP | State 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 demonstrate conformity with the SIP.

Smart 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 | Single-Occupant Vehicle – Privately operated vehicle that contains only one driver 

or occupant.

SOx | Sulfur oxide – Any of several compounds of sulfur and oxygen, formed from burning 

fuels such as coal and oil.

SSAB | Salton Sea Air Basin – Comprises the Coachella Valley portion of Riverside County 

and all of Imperial County. 

STA | State Transit Assistance – State funding program for mass transit operations and 

capital projects. Current law requires that STA receive 50 percent of PTA revenues. 

STIP | State 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. 

STP | Surface 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.

TAC | Technical Advisory Committee – A SCAG committee that provides ideas and feedback 

on the technical integrity of the Regional Transportation Plan.

TANN | Traveler Advisory News Network – Provides real-time traffic and transportation 

information content to communications service providers and consumer media channels both 

nationally and internationally.

TAZ | Traffic Analysis Zone – Zone system used in travel demand forecasting.

TC | 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.

TCM | Transportation Control Measure – A project or program that is designed to reduce 

emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources. TCMs are referenced in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the applicable air basin and have priority for 

programming and implementation ahead of non-TCMs.

TCWG | Transportation Conformity Working Group – 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 purposes. In non-urban areas, funds may be used for streets and roads under certain conditions. 

TDM | Transportation Demand Management – 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.

TEU | Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit, a measure of shipping container capacity.

TIFIA | Transportation Infrastructure Finance 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 investments by creating the density around stations to boost ridership.

TP&D | Transportation Planning and Development Account – A state transit trust fund that 

is the funding source for the STA program.

Trantrak | RTIP Database Management System

TSWG | Transportation Security Working Group – Advises the operating organizations on 

transportation safety matters associated with the transfer or shipment of hazardous materials.

TUMF | Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee – Ordinance enacted by the Riverside County 

Board of Supervisors and cities to impose a fee on new development to fund related transportation improvements.

UP | Union Pacific Railroad

Urban Growth Boundary | A regional boundary that seeks to contain outward urban expansion 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 infrastructure and transportation investments.

US DOT | U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal agency responsible for the development 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.

VCTC | Ventura County Transportation Commission – Agency responsible for planning and 

funding countywide transportation improvements.

Vehicle Hours of Delay | 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 Miles 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.

VOC | 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

Transportation PLANNING

Rich Macias, Director

Transportation

Naresh Amatya, Manager | Mike Armstrong | Stephen Fox | Matt Gleason | Philip Kehres 

Ryan Kuo | Philip Law | Margaret Lin | Alan Thompson

Goods Movement & Transportation Finance

Annie Nam, Manager | Mike Jones | Alison Linder | Rajeev Seetharam | Warren Whiteaker 

Akiko Yamagami

Federal Transportation Improvement Program (ftip)

Rosemary Ayala, Manager | Mervin Acebo | John Asuncion | Pablo Gutierrez 

Betty Mann | Kurt Walker

Transportation Modeling, 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

Land Use & Environmental Planning

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 Services

Jacob Lieb, Manager | Greig Asher | Ping Chang | Christine Fernandez | Diana Gould 

Pamela Lee | Sarah Palmer | Jennifer Sarnecki

Research, Analysis & Information Services

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

SCAG Management

Executive Director Hasan Ikhrata

Deputy Executive Director, Administration Debbie Dillon

Deputy Executive Director, Strategy, Policy & Public Affairs Sharon Neely

Deputy Executive Director, Planning & Programs (Former) Douglas Williford

Chief Counsel, Director of Legal Services Joann Africa
Strategy, Policy & Public Affairs

Sharon Neely, Deputy Executive Director

Tracy Young, Chief Media Advisor 

Legislation

Jeff Dunn | Houston Brooks Laney

Ruby Moreno, Administration

REGIONAL SERVICES & Public Affairs

Sylvia Patsaouras, Director (Interim)

 Media & 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 Support

Deby Salcido, Officer | Tess Rey-Chaput

Regional Services

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 Services

Joann Africa, Chief Counsel, Director

Justine Block, Deputy Legal Counsel II

Alex Lozano, Administration

Administration

Debbie Dillon, Deputy Executive Director

Tonia Reeves Jackson, Administration

Information Technology

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 Services

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

Finance

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

 Budget and Grants

Bernice Villanueva, Lead | Alfonso Hernandez | Fiona Ly | Andrew Mora

Internal Auditing

Richard Howard, Internal Auditor

Carmen Summers, Administration

238 2012 Regional Transportation Plan | Acknowledgments
The 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 Offices

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