# FINAL



# APPENDIX IVC

2003 AQMP



# REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION

STRATEGY AND

CONTROL

MEASURES

AUGUST 2003

# Mission Statement

Leadership, vision and progress that promote economic growth,

personal well being and livable communi ties for all Southern California.

The Association will accomplish this mission by:

• Developing long-range regional pl ans and strategies that provide

for efficient movement of people, goods and information; enhance

economic growth and internat ional 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.

# Regional Council Members

President:

Mayor Bev Perry, Brea



# First Vice President:

Supervisor Charles Smith, County of Orange



# Second Vice President:

Councilmember Ron Roberts, Temecula



# Immediate Past President:

Councilmember Hal Bernson, Los Angeles



# Imperial County:

• Hank Kuiper, Imperial County

• Jo Shields, Brawley



# Los Angeles County:

• Yvonne Brathwaite Burke,

Los Angeles County

• Zev Yaroslavsky, Los

Angeles County

• Melanie Andrews, Compton

• Harry Baldwin, San Gabriel

• Hal Bernson, Los Angeles

• Paul Bowlen, Cerritos

• Gene Daniels, Paramount

• Mike Dispenza, Palmdale

• Judy Dunlap, Inglewood

• Ruth Galanter, Los Angeles

• Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles

• Wendy Greuel, Los Angeles

• James Hahn, Los Angeles • Janice Hahn, Los Angeles

• Nate Holden, Los Angeles

• Sandra Jacobs, El Segundo

• Tom LaBonge, Los Angeles

• Bonnie Lowenthal, Long

Beach

• Keith McCarthy, Downey

• Llewellyn Miller, Claremont

• Cindy Miscikowski, Los

Angeles

• Paul Noatka, Torrance

• Pam O'Connor, Santa

Monica

• Nick Pacheco, Los Angeles

• Alex Padilla, Los Angeles • Jan Perry, Los Angeles

• Beatrice Proo, Pico Rivera

• Ed Reyes, Los Angeles

• Karen Rosenthal, Claremont

• Dick Stanford, Azusa

• Tom Sykes, Walnut

• Paul Talbot, Alhambra

• Sidney Tyler, Jr., Pasadena

• Dennis Washburn,

Calabasas

• Jack Weiss, Los Angeles

• Bob Yousefian, Glendale

• Dennis P. Zine, Los Angeles

• Frank Gurule, Cudahy



# Orange County:

• Charles Smith, Orange County

• Ron Bates, Los Alamitos

• Art Brown, Buena Park

• Lou Bone, Tustin

• Richard Chavez , Anaheim

• Debbie Cook , Huntington Beach • Cathryn DeYoung, Laguna Niguel

• Richard Dixon, Lake Forest

• Alta Duke, La Palma

• Bev Perry, Brea

• Tod Ridgeway, Newport Beach



# Riverside County:

• Bob Buster, Riverside County

• Ron Loveridge, Riverside

• Greg Pettis, Cathedral City • Ron Roberts, Temecula

• Jeff Miller, Corona

• Charles White, Moreno Valley



# San Bernardino County:

• Bill Alexander, Rancho Cucamonga

• Paul Biane, San Bernardino County

• Lawrence Dale, Barstow

• Lee Ann Garcia, Grand Terrace • Susan Longville, San Bernardino

• Gary Ovitt, Ontario

• Debra Robertson, Rialto



# Ventura County:

• Judy Mikels, Ventura County

• Glen Becerra, Simi Valley

• Carl Morehouse, San Buenaventura

• Toni Young, Port Hueneme

Riverside County Transportation Commission:

• Robin Lowe, Hemet

Ventura County Transportation Commission:

• Bill Davis, Simi Valley

# i 

# SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION

OF GOVERNMENTS

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

SCAG MANAGEMENT

Mark Pisano, Executive Director

Hasan Ikhrata, Director Planning and Policy

Jim Sims, Director, Information Services

Rich Macias, Manager, Aviation and Environment

Sylvia Patsaouras, Manager, Plan Implem entation Performance Assesment &

Monitoring

PROJECT STAFF

Main Authors

Molly Hoffman, Senior Regional Planner, Air Quality

Ashwani Vasishth, Associate Regional Planner, Air Quality

Other Contributors

Ted Harris, Associate Regional Planner, Environmental

Brett Sears, Associate Regional Planner, Environmental

Hong Kim, Senior Regional Modeler, Modeling

Charles Keynejad, Senior Regional Planner, Conformity

Rosemary Ayala, Senior Regional Planner, RTIP

# ii 

# Table of Contents

SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ...................................2

LINKING REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PL ANNING TO AIR QUALITY PLANNING..................3

K EY 

# P LANNING 

# F ACTORS 

# : C HALLENGES AND 

# O BJECTIVES 

# ................................................................................4

IMPLEMENTING A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY .......................................................5

H ISTORIC 

# T RENDS 

# : C ONTEXT AND 

# C ONDITIONS 

# ................................................................................................6

G ROWTH 

# F ORECASTS 

# : L INKING 

# S OCIO 

# -E CONOMIC 

# P ROFILES TO 

# L AND 

# U SE 

# P ATTERNS 

# ....................................6

REGIONAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS................................................................................................... .......7

TRANSPORTATION CONT ROL MEASURES..............................................................................................9

B ACKGROUND



# ............................................................................................................................... .....................9

2003 AQMP TCM S



# ............................................................................................................................... ..........11

R OLLOVER AND 

# S UBSTITUTION OF 

# TCM P ROJECTS 

# .........................................................................................12

TCM I MPLEMENTATION



# ............................................................................................................................... ....14

HOV Measures................................................................................................................... ........................16

Transit and Systems Management Measures ........................................................................................ .....17

Information-based Measures ..................................................................................................... ................19

R ELATION OF 

# C URRENT 

# TCM C OMPONENTS 

# T O 

# P REVIOUS 

# P LANS 

# ..................................................................23

ENFORCEABILITY, MONI TORING AND FUNDING...............................................................................26

TCM E NFORCEABILITY AND 

# M ONITORING 

# ......................................................................................................26

TCM F UNDING



# ............................................................................................................................... ..................27

TCM R OAD 

# M AP 

# : L INKING 

# TCM E LEMENTS TO 

# SCAG D OCUMENTS 

# .............................................................28

ATTACHMENT 1................................................................................................................... ...........................30

2003 AQMP

- T RANSPORTATION 

# C ONTROL 

# M EASURES 

# (TCM S 

# ) ....................................................................30

ATTACHMENT 2................................................................................................................... ...........................50

F ISCALLY 

# C ONSTRAINED 

# P ROJECTS FROM THE 

# 2001 RTP ...............................................................................50

ATTACHMENT 3................................................................................................................... ...........................62

R EASONABLY 

# A VAILABLE 

# C ONTROL 

# M EASURE 

# (RACM) A NALYSIS 

# ..............................................................62

# 1 

# This Page Left Intentionally Blank

# 98 

# SUMMARY

This Appendix describes the Southern Califor nia Association of Government’s (SCAG’s)

transportation strategy and transportation control measures (TCMs) to be included as part of the

2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and State Implementation Plan (SIP). This

strategy was developed in consultation with Federal, State and local transportation and air

quality planning agencies and other stakeholders. The four County Transportation

Commissions, namely Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Riverside

County Transportation Commission, Orange Count y Transportation Authority and the San

Bernardino Associated Governments, were actively involved in the development of the TCM

strategy of this Appendix.

Consistent with past practices and in response to the inter-Agency consultation process, the

Regional Transportation Strategy and Transportation Control Measures portion of the 2003

AQMP/SIP consists of the following four related elements.

• Transportation Strategy and Emission Reduction Demonstration – Total regional emission

reductions from transportation projects in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) are

demonstrated based on the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In addition, emission

reductions are quantified separately for TCM projects based on the most recent Regional

Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) . The emission reductions from the TCMs

make up a subset of the total emission reductions from the RTP.

The long-term planning requirements for emission reductions from on-road mobile sources

are met by the RTP process, while the short-term implementation requirements are met by

the RTIP process.

• TCM Project Identification — The TCMs included in the 2003 AQMP are derived from

TCM projects listed in the first two years of the most recently approved RTIP. In the event

of a conformity lapse, only Federally approved TCMs and exempt projects, in the first two

years (fiscally constrained portion) of the most recent (currently 2002) RTIP, will be allowed

to proceed.

Formal substitution language within this Appendix will allow for TCM revisions and

replacements without triggering the need for an amendment to the SIP. The substitution

language will allow for both the substitutions of individual TCMs as well as the replacement

of TCMs in the case of the RTIP rollover. When SCAG adopts a new RTIP the TCM list

will be updated to reflect new and ongoing projects.

• Timely Implementation – The formal timely implementation reporting process by which the

RTIP assures implementation of the RTP be used as a compliance and reporting mechanism

# 3 

# for TCM implementation tracking. Once a TCM project is listed in an RTIP, the

implementation status must be reported on in subsequent RTIPs until the project has been

completed. The purpose of this reporting is to track the timely implementation of TCMs, and

to demonstrate that any project for which emission reduction credits were claimed has either

been implemented or is being implemented. A timely implementation report is generated

each time a conformity determination is made.

• Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis – The Federal Clean Air Act

(CAA) requires that a RACM analysis will be included as part of the overall TCM strategy in

the SIP. This analysis ensures that all potential TCMs that exist are evaluated for

implementation and that justification is provided for those measures that are not

implemented. In accordance with EPA procedures, this analysis will consider TCM

measures that are suggested during public comments, relevant measures adopted in other

nonattainment areas of the country, and measures identified by EPA.



# LINKING REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING TO AIR QUALITY

PLANNING

The air quality conformity requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act, the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st 

# Century

(TEA-21) establish a need to integrate air quality planning and regional transportation planning.

This integration presents the challenge of balancing the real need for improved mobility with the

equally important goals of cleaner air and the enhanced social and economic well being of

communities. As the Federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the

six-county Southern California region, the Sout hern California Association of Governments

(SCAG) is required by law to ensure that transportation activities “conform” to, and are

supportive of, the goals of regional and state air quality plans to attain the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition, SCAG is a co-producer, with the South Coast Air

Quality Management District (AQMD), of the tr ansportation strategy and transportation control

measure sections of the AQMP for the Basin.

The SCAG Region is the largest metropolitan planning area in the United States, encompassing

38,000 square miles. The Region is divided into 14 subregions and is one of the largest

concentrations of population, employment, income, business, industry and finance in the world.

The six-county SCAG Region is home to more than 17 million people, nearly half of the

population of the state of California. The Gr oss National Product (GNP) equivalent for the

Region shows that Southern California is the 12th largest economy in the world, with 7.4 million

jobs, while the State, as a whole, constitutes the 6th largest economy in the world. The South

Coast Air Basin (Basin) has the worst air quality of the four air basins contained in the SCAG

region.

SCAG is responsible for the creation of the Region’s long-range (20 year planning horizon)

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and its shor t-term (six year planning horizon) Regional

Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The 2001 RTP represents the culmination of

more than two years of work involving dozens of public agencies, 184 cities, hundreds of local,

# 4 

# county, regional and state officials, the business community, environmental groups, as well as

various nonprofit organizations, and was founded on a broad-based public outreach effort. A

comprehensive list of Task Forces and Advisory Committees is included in Appendix L of the

2001 RTP [pp. L1-L20 <http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtp/webpdfs/appendix_L.pdf > 

# ].

The 2001 RTP constitutes the required three-year update to the 1998 Regional Transportation

Plan (98 RTP), and was formally adopted by the SCAG Regional Council in April 2001, and

approved by the federal agencies on June 8, 2001. This provides a basis for the 2003 South

Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), by establishing consistent estimates of projected

regional growth, and forecast increases in transportation activities. It also provides the

framework for aggregating sub-regional and local efforts to institute measures aimed at

mitigating the adverse air pollution impacts from increased transportation activities. These

measures are known as Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), and are the focus of this

Appendix.

The RTIP <http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtip/ >, is the vehicle used to implement the RTP. The 2002

RTIP was approved by federal agencies on October 4, 2002. The TCMs in the 2003 AQMP are

derived from the first two years of the approved RTIP. The RTIP also provides the schedule and

framework for the timely implementation of the Region’s TCM strategies.



# Key Planning Factors: Challenges and Objectives

As the 2001 RTP points out, the central challenge facing the Region is the prospect that the

regional population is expected to increase by almost 7 million people (40%), from 1997 to

2025, employment by 3 million jobs (43%), and the number of households by 2.2 million (30%).

Other demographic factors, such as the rapi d aging of the region’s population profile and

proportional redistribution amongst the region’s et hnic groups, may affect residential location

decisions and affect commute and general transportation choices as well.

Accommodating this anticipated growth in a sustainable way—by taking account of ecological,

economic and social factors, while enhancing quality-of-life indicators for present and future

generations—represents the central challenge facing regional transportation planning in Southern

California. Improvements in transportation mobility, both for people and for goods and services,

and in progress toward meeting the NAAQS, must meet the goals of cost-effectiveness,

environmental protection, and energy-efficiency.

It should be recognized that regional transportation and air quality plans, and ultimately their

resultant SIPs, embody a commitment of resources by the region as a whole. However, as the

designated MPO for the Southern California regi on, and thus also for the Basin, SCAG bases its

responsibilities on the following four assumptions.

• There will be an appropriate commitment of fiscal resources from State and Federal

sources.

• SCAG will continue to have responsibility over the official growth forecasts for the

region.

# 5 

# • A monitoring system will be maintained to track implementation of the TCMs.

• There will be an appropriate commitment of resources supporting interagency

consultation from local, State and Federal agencies involved in the process.

Additionally, the Regional Transportation Strate gy proposed in the 2003 AQMP is predicated on

the assumption that the following three Innovative Financial Strategies adopted by SCAG’s

Regional Council (RC) will be implemented as expected.

• State sales tax on gasoline revenues will continue to be dedicated to transportationrelated projects per Proposition 42.

• A share of the county sales tax will be dedicated to transportation-related projects where

necessary.

• State motor vehicle fuel excise tax rate and user-fees will be appropriately indexed to

maintain their historic purchasing power.

Finally, it should be recognized that all the measures in this Appendix are taken from the 2001

RTP and the 2002 RTIP, both of which have been deemed to be in conformity by the US DOT

and by US EPA.



# IMPLEMENTING A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY

The Regional Transportation Strategy for the 2003 AQMP, as embodied in the 2001 RTP and

further defined by the fiscally-constrained portion (f irst two years) of the 2002 RTIP, is part of a

comprehensive vision to improve air quality by reducing emissions from mobile sources, while

at the same time enhancing mobility and assuring social and economic development. The

transportation strategy and TCM projects proposed in this Appendix are best viewed as an

interconnected system, with the various components augmenting and reinforcing one another,

rather than merely a mechanical aggregation of stand-alone actions.

Infrastructure improvements, transit and system management, and information services are being

pursued within the context of a broad vision of the region's future. This strategy outlines

regional and sub-regional commitments to implement transportation improvements contained in

the 2001 RTP and detailed in the first two years of the 2002 RTIP. Collectively, they will reduce

mobile source emissions and move the Basin toward attainment of the NAAQS. The regional

Transportation Strategy continues the bluepr int contained in the 1997/98 SIP previously

submitted to EPA. It also integrates air quality, mobility, community quality-of-life, and

economic development goals described in SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide.

This Regional Transportation Strategy is intended to maximize the emission reductions that can

realistically be expected to be achieved from on-road mobile sources. However, it should be

recognized at the outset that potential improvements in air quality deriving from TCM strategies

applied to on-road mobile sources are minimal. This is due to the fact that motor vehicle

emissions have been substantially reduced through technology, and individual TCMs affect only

# 6 

# a small portion of regional travel, as well as the fact that TCMs generally do not produce large

scale changes in travel behavior. To attain the NAAQS, the Region will need to continue its

focus on reductions from all emission source categories.



# Historic Trends: Context and Conditions

As shown in Table 1, between 1980 and 2000, both population and employment have increased

substantially in Southern California. During this same time period, the absolute number of

home-to-work vehicle trips increased by 25 percent. However, the percentage increase in people

driving to work alone is greater than the percentage increase in people using transit. The

percentage increase in people sharing rides to work also lags appreciably. The absolute number

of people that either work at home (including tel ecommuting), or ride a bicycle or walk to work,

has dropped significantly for this same period as depicted in the “other” category in Table 1.

Clearly, and through the year 2000, the rate of increase in people riding transit and sharing rides

to work has not kept pace with the rate of increase in home-to-work trips. There is a strong

historic trend toward driving alone, and a prim ary goal of the RTP is to counter this trend.

This is one of the key challenges for regional transportation planning, and will continue to be a

central concern for some time to come—ensuring that the proportion of transit and ride-share

trips, as well as the usage of bicycles and information technology-based strategies, increase their

share of the total work-trips for the region, particularly over the next decade.

Table 1

Long-term Transportation System T rends: Southern California Region

Reference : Population and trip data are from the US 1980 and 2000 Census. Employment data are from the CA

Employment Development Report



# Growth Forecasts: Linking Socio-Econo mic Profiles to Land Use Patterns

As the designated MPO for the Southern California region, SCAG is responsible for generating

the socio-economic profiles and growth forecasts on which land use, transportation, air quality

management and implementation plans are based. The growth forecasts provide the socioeconomic data used to estimate vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Emission

estimates can then be forecast based on these projected estimates. 1980 2000 Change % Change

Population 11,074,483 15,429,162 4,354,679 39%

Employment 5,402,323 7,089,958 1,687,635 31%

Total Home-to-Work Trips 4,898,642 6,102,839 1,204,197 25%

Drive Alone 3,493,490 4,648,117 1,154,627 33%

Carpool 844,424 960,356 115,932 14%

Transit 260,075 310,382 50,307 19%

Other 300,653 183,984 (116,669) -39%

# 7 

# The monitoring of changes in regional socio-economic profiles is a key factor in tracking

changes in land use patterns as they affect transportation system usage and, thus, air quality

impacts. The regional land use forecast consists of allocating population and employment

growth totals among zones, based on existing factors that can shape development. To the extent

that land use policies and programs impact the allocation of population and employment growth,

they will be reflected in the regional land use forecast, and therefore in the mobile source

emissions estimate. For instance, changes in growth forecasts alone, due to changes in

demographic patterns and the implementation of land use policy and programs (such as the

densification of development around transit stations) between the 1998 RTP and the 2001,

resulted in a decrease in VMT and volatile organic compound (VOC) emission estimates for the

region.

Reductions in emissions due to changes in the socio-economic profile of the region are an

important way of taking account of changes in land use patterns. For example, changes in jobshousing balance induced by changes in urban form and transit-oriented development, induce

changes in VMT by more closely linking housing to jobs. Thus, socio-economic growth

forecasts are a key component to guide the Basin toward attainment of the NAAQS. SCAG

provides the mechanisms by which changes in socio-economic profiles, which affect land use

patterns, can be monitored on a systematic and on-going basis.



# REGIONAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS

The measures contained in the 2001 RTP (including TCMs) demonstrate an overall emission

reduction for the region of 15.7 tons per day (t pd) of VOC, 7.8 tpd of NOx and 161.8 tpd of CO

by the year 2010. Emission reductions from TCMs make up a subset of that total and provide

emission reductions of 5.6 tpd of VOC, 1.0 tpd of NOx and 60.8 tpd of CO. See Table 2.

# 8 

# Table 2

Transportation Strategy and TCM Emission Reductions in 2010

tons per day (tpd)

Pollutant TCMs (tpd) RTP (tpd)*

(includes TCMS)

VOC 5.6 15.7

NOx 1.0 7.8

CO 60.8 161.8

*provided by CARB



# Emission reduction estimates for TCMs are based on an aggregate of all TCMs. An aggregate

emissions reduction provides for a more accurate emission estimate for two reasons. First, the

methodology used to estimate the aggregate emission reductions, which involves robust

modeling tools, is a more exact science than that which is used to estimate emissions reductions

from individual TCMs, which usually involves off-model analysis.

Secondly, actual estimates of the total emission reductions attributable to an RTP, taken

cumulatively and as a whole, differ significantly from the value derived by mechanically adding

up the emission reductions of individual TCM com ponents. This is due to overlapping effects

between the various strategies. A misleading double-counting effect would occur if emission

reductions were quantified for each individual TCM and then summed as a whole. For these

reasons, it is important that estimates of the actual emission reductions indicated by the 2001

RTP and TCMs should be quantified only at the system-level.

One of the key goals of conventional transporta tion planning has been the provision of sufficient

roadway capacity to reduce congestion and improve mobility. There has been some debate

regarding the extent to which capacity enhancement projects actually succeed in relieving

congestion—the countervailing argument being, that, as capacity is increased (for instance by the

addition of lanes or roadways) demand itself increases to fill these new facilities. This is

referred to as “induced demand”. As a consequence, and because the demand for roadway

facilities is responsive to changes in supply, only some fraction of the hoped for congestion relief

actually materializes.

However, improvements to regional networks of highways and arterials do, in fact, result in

some degree of congestion relief. And, to the extent that congestion is actually relieved, there

are significant regional air quality benefits to such flow-improving interventions. It is difficult to

find some definitive way to quantify these benefits, except by doing a system-level test of

emissions resulting from a full implementation of the whole RTP, compared to the emissions

resulting from some form of no-project alternative. This is another reason why regional

transportation agencies have argued that the air quality and environmental benefits of

# 9 

# transportation improvements cannot be additively computed, but must be viewed at the level of

the whole system. The discussion of specific TC M measures and strategies, below, should be

viewed in this light.



# TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES

Background

TCMs are defined as strategies that adjust trip patterns or otherwise modify vehicle use in ways

that reduce air pollutant emissions, and which are specifically identified and committed to in the

2003 AQMP. TCMs are included in the AQMP as part of the overall control strategy to

demonstrate the region’s ability to come into attainment with the NAAQS. While TCMs are

intended to increase mobility and decrease air pollution, they play a limited role in the overall

strategy to reduce emissions, because traffic patterns and vehicle use are dominantly driven by

individual choices made by users of the transportation system.

Historically, the majority of emission reducti ons from mobile sources have come from

technological improvements in vehicle engines and fuel, which are stipulated by the US

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

By law, and according to the Transportation C onformity Rule, vehicle technology-based, fuel

chemistry-based and fleet maintenance-based measures can not be considered to be TCMs.

A definition of TCMs is provided in EPA’s Tran sportation Conformity Rule - 40 CFR Parts 51

and 93 (August 15, 1997) <http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm >:

Transportation control measure (TCM) is any measure that is specifically identified and

committed to in the applicable implementation plan that is either one of the types listed in

§108 of the CAA, or any other measure for the purpose of reducing emissions or

concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or

changing traffic flow or congestion conditions. Notwithstanding the above, vehicle

technology-based, fuel-based, and maintenance-based measures which control the emissions

from vehicles under fixed traffic conditions are not TCMs for the purposes of this subpart.

The Rule also defines the criteria and procedures for timely implementation of TCMs as follows:

§93.113 Criteria and procedures: Timely Implementation of TCMs

(c) For TIPs, this criterion is satisfied if the following conditions are met:

(1) An examination of the specific steps and funding source(s) needed to fully

implement each TCM indicates that TCMs which are eligible for funding under title

23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws are on or ahead of the schedule established in

the applicable implementation plan, or, if such TCMs are behind the schedule

established in the applicable implementation plan, the MPO and DOT have

determined that past obstacles to implementation of the TCMs have been identified

# 10 

# and have been or are being overcome, and that all State and local agencies with

influence over approvals or funding for TCMs are giving maximum priority to

approval or funding of TCMs over other projects within their control, including

projects in locations outside the nonattainment or maintenance area.

(2) If TCMs in the applicable implementation plan have previously been programmed

for Federal funding but the funds have not been obligated and the TCMs are behind

the schedule in the implementation plan, then the TIP cannot be found to conform if

the funds intended for those TCMs are reallocated to projects in the TIP other than

TCMs, or if there are no other TCMs in the TIP, if the funds are reallocated to

projects in the TIP other than projects which are eligible for Federal funding

intended for air quality improvement projects, e.g. the Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality Improvement Program.

(3) Nothing in the TIP may interfere with the implementation of any TCM in the

applicable implementation plan.

Section 108(f)(1)(A) of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments 1 

# lists the following sixteen

measures as illustrative of TCMs. However, this list should not be considered exhaustive.

i. Programs for improved use of public transit;

ii. Restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or construction of such roads or lanes for use

by, passenger buses or high occupancy vehicles;

iii. Employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives;

iv. Trip-reduction ordinances;

v. Traffic flow improvement programs that achieve emission reductions;

vi. Fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities, serving multiple occupancy

vehicle programs or transit service;

vii. Programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas or other areas of emission

concentration, particularly during periods of peak use;

viii. Programs for the provision of all forms of high-occupancy, shared-ride services, such

as the pooled use of vans;

ix. Programs to limit portions of road surfaces or certain sections of the metropolitan area

to the use of non-motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, both as to time and place;

x. Programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other facilities, including bicycle

lanes, for the convenience and protection of bicyclists, in both public and private

areas;

1 

# See: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/contents.html

# 11 

# xi. Programs to control extended idling of vehicles;

xii. Programs to reduce motor vehicle emissions, consistent with Title II of the Clean Air

Act, which are caused by extreme cold start conditions;

xiii. Employer-sponsored programs to permit flexible work schedules;

xiv. Programs and ordinances to facilitate non-automobile travel, provision and utilization

of mass transit, and to generally reduce the need for single-occupant vehicle travel, as

part of transportation planning and development efforts of a locality, including

programs and ordinances applicable to new shopping centers, special events, and

other centers of vehicle activity;

xv. Programs for new construction and major reconstruction of paths, tracks or areas

solely for the use by pedestrian or other non-motorized means of transportation, when

economically feasible and in the public interest; and

xvi. Programs to encourage the voluntary removal from use and the marketplace of pre1980 model year light duty vehicles and pre-1980 model light duty trucks.

In addition to the measures listed above, other measures may be considered as TCMs if they

reduce emissions or concentrations of air pollu tants from transportation sources by modifying

vehicle use, changing traffic flow, or mitiga ting traffic congestion conditions. TCMs may be

voluntary programs, incentive-based programs, regulatory programs, as well as market- or

pricing-based programs.

It is SCAG’s responsibility to ensure that TCM strategies are funded in a manner consistent with

the AQMP’s implementation schedule. The transportation conformity process is designed to

ensure timely implementation of TCM strategies, thus reinforcing the link between AQMPs and

the transportation planning process. If the implementation of a TCM strategy is delayed, or if a

TCM strategy is only partially implemented, areas are required to make up the shortfall by either

substituting a new TCM strategy or by enhancing other control measures through the substitution

process described in this Appendix.



# 2003 AQMP TCMs

The TCMs included in this Appendix are derived from the TCM projects listed in the first two

years of the most recently approved RTIP. The RTIP is the short-range vehicle used to

implement the goals and objectives of the long-range RTP. A list of the TCM projects can be

found in Attachment 1of this Appendix.

The enforceable commitment for the TCMs is to fund and implement projects and programs

contained in the first two years of the current si x-year RTIP. The remaining four years of the

RTIP represent expectations in project scope and design only. Between the end of the RTIP and

the year 2010, the RTP provides a sketch of the programs and projects expected to be in place by

that date, and for which funding is anticipated to become available through the RTIP process.

# 12 

# The TCM projects in the RTIP are based on the projects planned in the RTP, which has a time

horizon of 20 years. A full, illustrative list of these RTP projects can be found in Appendix K of

the 2001 RTP and Attachment 2 of this Appendix. Although the specific mix of projects to be

funded with future RTIP dollars may ultimately change, the emission reductions anticipated, in

aggregate, from these projects, set a key benchmark in determining the transportation sector’s

contribution to a mobile source emission budget and its associated conformity determination.

In the event of a conformity lapse, only Federally approved TCMs and exempt projects, in the

first two years (fiscally constrained portion) of the most recent (currently 2002) RTIP, will be

allowed to proceed.



# Rollover and Substitution of TCM Projects

There are two circumstances under which the list of TCM projects in the SIP, which are

identified by the most recent approved RTIP, will be replaced. In the first case, every time the

RTIP is updated by action of SCAG’s Regional C ouncil, the entire list of TCM projects in the

AQMP/SIP will be updated, and the new and continuing projects identified in the fiscally

constrained first two years of the new RTIP will be rolled over into the AQMP/SIP. In the

second case, a specific TCM project may be found to be non-implementable within the

designated time frame and a new TCM project is substituted. In either case, the parties in the

conformity rule interagency consultation process, established in the SCAG region as the

Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG), shall assess the suitability and

implementability for the new TCM projects. Where a transportation control measure identified in

the SIP is no longer implementable, SCAG may initiate the process described below to identify

and adopt a new control measure.

“Rollover” of TCM Projects (RTIP Update)

Every time the RTIP is updated, approximately every two years, the designated list of TCM

projects in the AQMP/SIP will be replaced by the new list of TCM projects from the first two

years of the updated RTIP. This “rollover” list will include new projects in addition to ongoing

projects from the previous RTIP. Completed projects (projects that have completed

construction or have service in place) will be reported as complete and removed from the list.

The rollover list will be monitored for adherence to the schedule established in the RTIP. An

emissions analysis, based on the latest planning assumptions, will be performed on both the

previous TCM list and the rollover list. The identification of TCMs from the RTIP shall be

agreed upon by both SCAG and the appropriate County Transportation Commissions (CTCs).

The rollover substitution process may apply to any RTIP that requires a full conformity analysis

and finding. Note that from time to time, there will be a new RTP that may require a new RTIP

within six months of its federal approval. Th e timing of the new RTIP can be more frequent

than the biennial RTIP update and the TCMs ro llover substitution process shall apply in such

cases as well.

# 13 

# Substitution of Individual TCM Projects

The CTCs and/or project sponsors shall notify SCAG when a TCM project cannot be delivered

or will be significantly delayed. SCAG, CTC or project sponsor can propose a substitute

measure. The substitution of an individual m easure must provide equivalent or greater

emissions reductions than the measure being replaced in the AQMP/SIP. The substituted

measure should preferably be located in the same geographic area and serve the same

demographic subpopulation as the TCM it is repl acing. In addition, a substitute measure must

be fully funded and implemented in the time fram e established for the measure contained in the

SIP. Where such implementation date has alr eady passed, a measure selected pursuant to this

Appendix that requires transportation funding must be included in the first year of the next

RTIP and the adopted RTP. The substitute m easure must be fully implemented within two

years of the implementation date of the original measure in order to meet the test for a finding of

timely implementation.

In order for SCAG to adopt substitute measures under this Appendix, there must be evidence of

adequate authority under State or local law to implement and enforce the measures.

Commitments to implement the substitute measures must be made by the agency with authority

for implementation. It should be noted that th e advancement of a future TCM project does not

constitute a substitution of an existing project.

Adoption Procedures for RTIP Rollover of TCM Projects and TCM substitution

SCAG and the CTCs will identify and evaluate possible replacement measures, both individual

substitution and RTIP rollover measures, through its Transportation Conformity Working Group

(TCWG), which includes members from all affected jurisdictions, federal, state and/or local air

quality agencies and transportation agencies.

TCM Rollover Replacement

All measures replaced by the rollover of the RTIP must be adopted by the SCAG’s Regional

Council, in accordance with the RTIP adoption process, as described below.

• The Draft RTIP is reviewed by various SCAG Committees, Task Forces, and Working

Groups, such as the standing Transpor tation and Communication Committee, the

Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition (RTAC) Technical Advisory Committee,

and the TCWG;

• Public notification is provided through major newspapers in the affected sub-regions;

• Draft RTIP materials are distributed, with appropriate cover letters, to approved public

libraries and facilities and also made av ailable on SCAG’s website for access by the

public;

• A series of public hearings are held, within each of the affected counties;

# 14 

# • Input received is compiled and analyzed, and responses to comments are provided by

SCAG Staff, and made available to the public;

• A summary of comments received during the public comment period along with SCAG’s

responses, following the close of the public comment period, is incorporated into the

final RTIP document;

• The RTIP is adopted by SCAG’s Regional C ouncil in accordance with the state public

notification and public comment requirements; and

• SCAG’s adopted RTIP is submitted to the St ate for funding approval and to the federal

agencies (FHWA, FTA and EPA) for final funding and conformity approval.

• Upon federal approval of the RTIP, the new TC Ms will officially rollover and replace the

previous TCMs.

Individual TCM Substitution

Prior to adopting an individual TCM substituti on, the measure must have been subject to

interagency consultation (via the TCWG), pub lic review and comment period and emissions

analysis. It also must be subject to th e SCAG Regional Council review and adoption. Upon

adoption by the Regional Council, the new measure will replace the previous measure and

will be incorporated into the RTIP through an administrative amendment.

The analysis of substitute and rollover measures under this Appendix must be consistent with

the methodology used for evaluating measures in the SIP. Where emissions models and/or

transportation models have changed since those us ed for purposes of evaluating measures in the

attainment plan, both the previous TCM and the new TCM shall be evaluated using the latest

planning assumptions and modeling techniques in order to demonstrate consistency with the

current SIP.

Both in the case of the RTIP rollover and in the case of substitute measures, adoption by

SCAG’s Regional Council will rescind the previous TCM and apply the new measures.

SCAG will maintain documentation of all appr oved TCM substitutions and rollovers. The

documentation will provide a description of the processes, including a list of the committee or

working group members, the public hearing a nd comment process, and evidence of SCAG

adoption.



# TCM Implementation

The TCM measures and strategies listed in Attachment 1 of this Appendix replace the TCM

strategies contained in the 1997 AQMP and all previous AQMPs. Table 3 provides an outline of

the categories of TCMs in the RTIP and 2003 AQMP.

# 15 

# Table 3

TCM Project Categories

Based on the 2002 Regional Transpor tation Improvement Program (RTIP)

Project Description

A. High Occupancy Vehicle Measures

HOV projects, and their pricing alternatives

 New HOV Lanes – Extensions and Additions to Existing Facilities

 New HOV Lanes – With New Facility Projects

 New HOV Lanes -- With Facility Improvement Projects

 HOV Bypasses, Connectors, and New Interchanges with Ramp Meters

 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes and Pricing Alternatives



# B. Transit and System Management Measures

Bus, rail and shuttle transit expansion and impro vements; park and ride lots and inter-modal

transfer facilities; bicycle and pedestrian facilities; railroad consolidation programs such as the

Alameda Corridor, grade separati on projects, channelization, over -passes, underpasses; traffic

signalization; intersection improvements

Transit

 Rail Track – New Lines

 Rail Track – Capacity Expansion of Existing Lines

 New Rolling Stock Acquisition -- Rail Cars and/or Locomotives

 Express Busways – Bus Rapid Transit and Dedicated Bus Lanes

 Buses – Fleet Expansion

 Shuttles and Paratransit Vehicles – Fleet Expansion



# Intermodal Transfer Facilities

 Rail Stations - New

 Rail Stations - Expansion

 Park & Ride Lots – New

 Park & Ride Lots – Expansion

 Bus Stations & Transfer Facilities – New

 Bus Stations & Transfer Facilities – Expansion



# Non-motorized Transportation Mode Facilities

 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities - New

 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities - Expansion

 Bicycle Facilities - New

 Bicycle Facilities - Expansion

 Pedestrian Facilities - New

 Pedestrian Facilities - Expansion



# C. Information-based Transportation Strategies

# 16 

# Programs that promote and popularize multi-modal commute strategies to maximize alternatives to

single-occupancy vehicle commute trips; marketing and promoting the use of HOV lanes or rail

lines to the general public; educating the public regarding cost, locations, accessibility and services

available at Park and Ride lots; promoting and marketing vanpool formation and incentive

programs; promoting ride-matching services through the Internet and other means of making

alternative travel option information more accessible to the general public; Urban Freeway System

Management improvements; Smart Corridors System Management programs; Congestion

Management Plan-based demand management st rategies; county-/corridor-wide vanpool

programs; seed money for transportation management associations (TMAs); and TDM

demonstration programs/projects eligible for programming in the RTIP.

 Marketing for Rideshare Services and Transit/TDM/Intermodal Services

 Intelligent Transportation Systems/Control System Computerization

 Telecommuting Programs/Satellite Work Centers

 Real-time Rail, Transit, or Freeway Info rmation Systems (changeable message signs)



# As outlined in Table 3, the TCMs include the following three main categories of transportation

improvement projects and programs.

• High occupancy vehicle (HOV) 2 

# measures,

• Transit and Systems Management measures, and

• Information-based Transportation Strategies.

A description of these categories is detailed below. It should be noted that the actual TCMs in

the 2003 AQMP are the projects listed in Attachment 1of this Appendix. The categories and

descriptions below are provided for informational purposes only.

HOV Measures

The purpose of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane s is to relieve congestion by maximizing the

person-carrying capacity of the roadway. This is done by reducing the number of vehicles

needed to transport the total number of commuters to and from their place of work. One key

strategy to incentivize the desired shift from single occupancy vehicle ridership to HOV

ridership, is to provide one or more lanes dedicated solely to the use of such HOVs. Then, as

congestion increases on the conventional, mixed-flow lanes, the relatively uncongested HOV

lane appears increasingly attractive to single occupancy vehicle riders, who might then consider

car pooling as a more desirable alternative to driving alone. This TCM explicitly replaces the

HOV Implementation Guidelines in 40 CFR 52.263.

The following strategies are some typical improvements that have the potential to enhance the

effectiveness of HOV lanes:

• Provide Park-and-Ride types of facilities at strategic locations to support potential car

pooling for parts of the commute trip;

• Enhance inter-modal connectivity between transit services and HOV corridors;

2 

# The HOV designation applies to: passenger cars with tw o or more passengers, van- pools, shuttles, and buses.

# 17 

# • Change the occupancy requirements or hours of operation for use of specific HOV lane

segments; and

• Explore the potential of congestion pricing—in which single occupancy vehicles are

allowed to use certain HOV lane segments upon payment of a fee—to redistribute the

volumes of traffic away from rush hour peaks.

HOV Measures Investment

The 2001 RTP investment is $430 million in HOV improvement projects from 2003 through

2010.

Transit and Systems Management Measures

The set of interventions and strategies considered under Transit and Systems Management all

involve a net increase in the construction and provision of physical facilities and hard

infrastructure for modes of transportation other th an single-occupancy vehicles. These strategies

are intended to reduce congestion and air pollutant emissions. The following are some examples

of such strategies:

• Transit (Bus, Rail, Shuttle and Van-pool) : Public transit, such as bus, rail and shuttles, is

an alternative to the conventional and more prevalent single occupancy automobile that

can reduce emissions by increasing the average vehicle ridership (AVR). Improvements

to the system to increase transit ridership and decrease the reliance on single occupancy

vehicles can be accomplished by carefully monitoring the transit routes and making

changes where needed. Changes may include adding routes, providing better passenger

information systems, increasing marketing efforts, and integrating transit modes for

improved convenience. [RTP 2001:p. 58-60; 69-79]

Vanpools are another commute strategy to decrease the use of single occupant vehicles.

They usually operate within an organized route and schedule, and consist of seven to

fifteen people sharing a van from fixed and designated origin and destination points,

usually operating at limited scheduled times. The provision of seed money for the

formation of location-specific Transportati on Management Associations (TMAs) can

benefit the transportation system as well. Such interventions allow for the creation of

highly localized innovations, such as the organization of a shuttle service for shoppers at

large grocery stores, or designated shuttle services to better connect downtown areas or

special event centers to remote parking facilities. [RTP 2001:p. 65; 103]

• Intermodal Transfer Facilities (Rail Stations, Park & Ride Lots, Bus Stations) : Park-andride facilities provide a safe and convenient location for commuters to switch from single

occupant vehicles to high occupancy modes such as bus, rail, carpools and vanpools.

Intermodal facilities allow commuters to transfer conveniently from one mode of transit

to another—such as, subway-to-busway stations, or busway-to-vanpool connections.

[RTP 2001:p. 67: 104]

# 18 

# • Non-motorized Transportation Mode Facilities (Bicycle and Pedestrian) : Bicycle and

pedestrian facilities encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by increasing sidewalks,

paths, and crosswalks. Other measures ma y include enhanced protection from fast

vehicular traffic, pedestrian-activated traffi c signals and the shading of walkways and bus

stops. 3 

# [RTP 2001:p. 68; 105-106]

Transit Investments

The 2001 RTP public investment in transit facilities is $3.281 billion from 2003 through

2010. This includes all fixed-route bus service (including local, express, rapid bus), light rail

service, and commuter rail and Metrolink service. [RTP 2001:p. 79-86]

SCAG’s Transportation and Communications Committee (TCC) adopted the goal of

maintaining a 1997 per capita ridership levels through the planning horizon of the 2001 RTP.

The modeling analysis conducted for the 2001 RTP shows that, by 2025, the RTP actually

exceeds this goal.

SCAG’s Regional Transit Task Force has identified the following specific actions to enhance

transit services [RTP 2001:p. 85-86]:

• Transit Service Management actions

• Transit Demand Management actions

• Growth Management actions

• Institutional actions

Intermodal Transfer Facilities Investment

The Park and Ride Lots and Intermodal Transfer Facilities intervention shares investment

with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. The 2001 RTP investment in

TDM strategies is 76 million dollars from 2003 through 2010. There is no applicable

performance criteria defined in the 2001 RTP for this intervention.

Non-motorized Transportation Mode Facilities Investment

The 2001 RTP investment in non-motorized (bicycle and pedestrian) facilities is $210

million, from 2003 through 2010. The following Actions are included in the 2001 RTP

[p.105-106]:

• Determine the potential and desired mode split of non-motorized modes in congestion

reduction and adopt vision, goals and objectives accordingly.

3 

# It should be noted, however, that increases in bicycle and pedestrian traffic may not, in themselves, result in some

corresponding reduction in motorized work trips, but might simply reflect increases in recreational or health-oriented

usage of the system, induced by the provi sion of the facilities in the first place. Although there are real societal benefits

to increases in bicycling and walk ing, the environmental and air qua lity benefits may be more tenuous.

# 19 

# • Determine the ability of the existing non-motorized system to achieve the desired vision,

goals, objectives and update and implement the existing SCAG regional plan as

appropriate.

• Identify and develop strategies to address institutional, transportation, funding,

infrastructure and other barriers to the effective use of non-motorized transportation for

commute purposes.

• Identify strategies to link non-motorized transportation funding programs to standards for

Livable Communities and transit programs by providing communities flexibility in how

they address Livable Communities goals and programs.

• Fund the development and implementation of pedestrian and bicycle safety and education

programs aimed at persons of all ages, potential bike commuters and motorists.

• Sponsor legislation and/or ordinances to increase the enforcement of bicycling and

driving laws to provide a safer climate for pedestrians and cyclists.

• Develop and implement bicycle incentive programs that recognize and reward employees

for bicycle use similar to those that reward transit use

• Introduce legislation that provides for business tax credits and other incentives to

encourage the use of bicycles.

Information-based Measures

Unlike the measures discussed above, which all rely on the construction, provision and

maintenance of substantial physical facilities, or hard infrastructure, the information-based

interventions rely primarily on the provision of information as the root intervention. Improving

the information content of the transportation system, without the construction of additional

capital facilities and hard infrastructure, has been shown to affect the travel behavior and mode

choices of consumers in ways that benefit the overall regional transportation system. These

improvements reduce congestion and mitigate air pollution, as well as other adverse

environmental impacts of transportation activity.

Access to better and more timely data— for both transportation system managers and individual

users —changes the ways in which the system is used, and has been shown to result in individual

transportation decisions that improve some of the adverse impacts of growth in transportation

activity.

Information-based measures offer innovative ways of reducing vehicle congestion and

emissions, especially when combined with system management strategies, facility

improvements, and service enhancements, as well as coordinated outreach campaigns. Some

examples of such information-based measures relevant to the SCAG Region and to the Basin

are:

# 20 

# • Rideshare Services and Transit Marketing : The RTIP programs and implements the

marketing of information services for employers and activity centers, to encourage the

sharing of rides (vanpools and carpools) and the use of transit system as a means of

increasing the average vehicular ridership (AVR) rates. Large employment centers may

be targeted for programs that support and market transit services, such as the sale of

transit passes and the availability of transit schedule information.

• Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) : ITS projects employ a variety of technologies

to improve the performance of transportation systems. ITS projects include the Smart

Corridors Management Program, which promotes the efficient use of existing highway

and transit systems, reducing congestion and air pollution while enhancing safety and

mobility. Implemented technologies may also include improvements to signal

synchronization, transit operations management and interagency coordination. In

addition, Urban Freeway System Management in corporates traffic flow strategies that

help alleviate congestion and reduce air pollutant emissions. Such strategies usually

include advanced technologies such as vehicle detectors, closed circuit TV cameras and

ramp meters which are part of an ITS which improves the efficiency of the freeway

system.

• Telecommunication Facilities/Satellite Work Centers : Telecommunication Facilities and

Satellite Work Centers are defined as working at an alternate work location and

communicating with the usual place of work using electronic or other means, instead of

physically traveling to the work site. It is a strategy used to reduce VMT by employees

who would otherwise travel to and from work.

• Transportation Demand Management (TDM: These strategies generally refer to policies,

programs and actions that are directed towards decreasing the use of single occupant

vehicles during peak load hours. TDMs can also include activities to encourage a shifting

or spreading of peak travel periods.

Rideshare Services and Transit Marketing Investment

The 2001 RTP investment in rideshare services is 82 million dollars from 2003 through

2010. This strategy also shares investment with TDM strategies, which is 76 million dollars

from 2003 through 2010 in the 2001 RTP.

The following Actions are contained in the 2001 RTP [p. 102-104]:

• Formalize and expand the existing partnership among public and private sector

stakeholders to improve delivery of vanpool services regionwide.

• Increase the number of commuter vanpools from 2,000 to 5,000 through more

effective marketing and provision of non-monetary public sector initiatives.

• Establish a dedicated funding source for planning and the implementation of vanpool

programs and services.

# 21 

# • Improve the provision of vanpool services in the Region through the public sector's

increase of dedicated staffing and resources.

• Facilitate and regionally coordinate marketing strategy among the public and private

sectors that would enhance vanpool programs, increase ridership and unify the

current limited and fragmented outreach efforts.

• Support the maintenance of the existing carpool market share and an increase in

carpooling (increase of 8,000 carpoolers per year beyond existing levels).

• Continue to support funding for education and outreach to the general public in order

to increase awareness and participation in carpooling and vanpooling.

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Investment

The 2001 RTP investment in ITS is approximately 221 million dollars from 2003 through

2010. The following Action is contained in the 2001 RTP (p. 107):

ITS, where applicable, shall be included in, and implemented through,

mainstream planning and programming processes. And, where feasible and

applicable, ITS should be incorporated as an operational component, in the

design and construction of new federally funded facilities, or in the procurement

processes for new equipment, consistent with the requirements of the National

Architecture rule.

The measure designated as ATT-05 in the 1997 AQMP assumed a 5% improvement in

roadway capacity due to the implementation of ITS projects. However, it is clear, today, that

the 5% assumption was conservative and will likely be exceeded by the 2010 date. The 5%

increase in capacity for ITS was an assumption based upon a national Peer Review meeting

that SCAG hosted in 1998. The assumption was based upon a recognition that the

transportation model being used at that time failed to fully account for changes due to

operational improvements. This assumption allowed for a capacity increase on the

speed/flow curve to "mimic" the ITS effects in modeling. Today, a new generation of

analytic tools is available, which may allow a better estimation of ITS benefits for very

specific measures, and SCAG expects to refine its ability to track and monitor ITS

investments in a more realistic way.

The Preliminary Draft Statewide Traffic Management System (TMS) Plan reports up to a

50% loss of throughput due to congestion, and an ability of ITS operational improvements to

reduce total State Highway system congestion by 20%, through operational ITS measures

used to restore lost capacity to the system. In addition, and for the first time, new software

products give SCAG a means of estimating emissions reductions from non-recurrent ITSbased safety improvements, and then quantifying such improvements using the most recent

version of California’s mobile source emission factor model (EMFAC2002).

# 22 

# Telecommuting Investment

The investment in telecommuting shares investment with TDM strategies, which is $76

million from 2003 to 2010. The 2001 RTP further targets a 6.8% decrease in 2010 home to

work trips from 1990 levels.

According to 1990 Census data, there were 6,844,948 workers in the SCAG region and 2.7%

of these workers worked at home or telecommuted, which translates to approximately

185,000 workers. The 2001 RTP provides a projection of 8,779,000 workers in the SCAG

region by 2010 and approximately 7.9% [RTP Community Link 21, Technical Appendix

Vol.3 of 3, P. J-9] of the work force will be either telecommuting or working at home. This

translates into a reduction of approximately 693,500 commuter home-to-work trips. That is

to say, approximately 508,500 additional workers will be taken “off the road” between 1990

and 2010 due to telecommuting and work-at-home incentives. In other words, the 2001 RTP

implementation could result in an increase in working at home between 1990 and 2010 by as

much as 7.4% of 1990 workers. Actions considered under this measure would include, but

not be limited to:

• Continue working with interagency working groups to finalize the design of an

emission trading pilot program based on telecommuting.

• Pursue an aggressive education and public outreach program, particularly at work

sites with less than 250 employees. This may include a program to generate tax

deductions for emissions reduced.

• Consider an emissions trading program th at would allow employers not regulated by

Rule 2202, as well as those that are, to trade telecommute credits for reaching average

vehicle ridership (AVR) goals.

Transportation Demand Management Investment

The 2001 RTP investment in TDM improvements is 76 million dollars from 2003 through

2010 in the 2001 RTP. In order to allow maximum flexibility and effectiveness in

implementing these strategies, the specific br eakdown of investment, by program component,

is left to the discretion of the local or sub-regional implementing agencies—in this case the

CTCs.

It has been argued that one of the reasons individuals choose to drive to a particular

destination, often alone, is that they may lack convenient access to information about

alternative modes to travel, such as buses and subways, or bicycle routes. Then, internetbased or kiosk-type automated transit trip planning systems, such as SCAG’s TranStar

<http://www.scag.ca.gov/transit/ > and the prototype Travel Advisory News Network

(TANN) <http://www.tann.com/ >, may successfully influence an individual’s decision to use

public transit instead of an automobile—whether by making the unfamiliar transit trip more

transparent in terms of schedule and route information, or by underscoring the level of

congestion on freeways and arterials and thus making transit seem more attractive by

# 23 

# comparison. The use of such systems may also defer a particular trip to a non-peak hour

time, thus reducing congestion and its associated adverse air quality impacts.

Information-based interventions, such as Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

projects, are managed by the Southern Califor nia Economic Partnership (the Partnership)

<http://www.the-partnership.org/index.htm > The Partnership was founded several years ago

in a collaborative effort by SCAG, Caltrans and SCAQMD to help in their joint objectives of

developing and fostering new technologies th at make significant contributions to the

achievement of traffic congestion and mobile source emission reduction goals. The

Partnership is overseen by an 18 member board of directors made up of representatives from

both the public and private sectors including a representative from SCAG, SCAQMD,

Caltrans and the CTCs. The Partnership is overseeing the implementation of a wide variety

of innovative and cutting-edge projects.

In addition, SCAG’s Regional Council has established a Regional Transportation Demand

Management Task Force (RTDM), comprising of elected officials and planners throughout

the Region. This Task Force reviews and recommends specific actions to make TDM

measures more effective within the Region.

Other potential actions to reduce congestion and emissions through information-induced

changes in individual travel-related decision making include:

• promoting multi-modal strategies to maximize all options available to commuters;

• targeting peak period trips for reduction;

• marketing and promoting the use of HOV lanes to the general public;

• marketing and promoting rail lines to the general public;

• educating the public regarding cost, locations, accessibility and services available at

park and ride lots;

• promoting and marketing vanpool formation and incentive programs;

• promoting ride-matching through the internet and other means of making alternative

travel option information more accessible to the general public.



# Relation of Current TCM Comp onents To Previous Plans

The TCM components listed in this document are consistent with the TCM elements proposed in

previous plans. The components specified in the current TCM replace all components contained

in previous AQMPs and their resultant SIP elements.

The TCM strategy in the 2003 AQMP meets the anti-backsliding requirements of Section 110(l)

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This Section of the Clean Air Act restricts EPA’s ability to

# 24 

# approve state actions that weaken the California SIP. Therefore, the requirements must

strengthen the SIP and not interfere with an applicable requirement under the CAA. All TCM

commitments from previous AQMPs have been implemented and documentation is provided in

the Timely Implementation Reports of the 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2002 RTIPs. The TCMs

in the 2003 AQMP continue SCAG’s TCM commitment and the TCM status will be reported in

the Timely Implementation Reports of subsequent RTIPs.

The 1997 AQMP (as amended in 1999) listed five advanced transportation technology measures

(ATT-01 through ATT-05) which were not considered to be TCMs, but were included as part of

the Region’s overall transportation control strategy. Two of these measures, ATT-03, Zero

Emission Vehicles , and ATT-04, Alternative Fuel Vehicles , have been eliminated from the 2003

AQMP because vehicle technology and alternative fuels are not TCMs, by definition.

ATT-01, ATT-02 and ATT-05, focused on Telecommunications

, Advanced Shuttle Transit and

Intelligent Transportation Systems , respectively. In an effort to reduce redundancy, the

measures described under ATT-02 have been consolidated into Transit and Systems

Management Measures . Similarly, the measures described under ATT-01 and ATT-05 have

been consolidated into Information-based Measures

.

The 1994 AQMP lists one TCM, comprising various specific strategies, along with a number of

Indirect Source Rules (ISRs). Substantial progress has been made in implementing these

measures, and the region remains committed to assuring continued implementation.

# 25 

# Table 4

TCMs from 1994 AQMP (TCM1*)

Transportation Improvements Current Status

HOV Lanes On going

Transit Improvements On going.

Park and Ride Facilities On going - expanded to include all

facilities that substantially promote transfer

across modes of travel.

Traffic Signal Improvements On going - focus is on projects that

substantially improve regional system flow.

Urban Freeway Systems

Management Improvements and

Smart Corridors On going - Intelligent Transportation

Systems/Control System Computerization.

Operational Improvements (Flow

improvements, Congestion

relief) On going – focus is on projects that

substantially improve regional system flow.

Rideshare Programs On going

TDM Programs On going

Bicycle Facility Improvements On going - expanded to include pedestrian

facilities as well.

* AQMP Appendix IV-C, September 1994, Pg. II-14 – II-16

In addition to the TCM strategies specified above, indirect source measures were also considered

as TCMs in the 1994 AQMP, and were planned for District rule development. However, the

legislature removed the legal authority to implement the following measures.

Table 5

Indirect Source Controls – 1994 AQMP

ISR 1. Special Event Centers Legislative authority removed

(H&S 40717.8, 1994)

ISR 2. Regional Shopping Centers Legislative authority removed

(H&S 40717.6, 1995)

ISR 3. Registration and Commercial Vehicles Legislative authority removed

(H&S 40717.9, 1995)

ISR 4. Airport Ground Access Legislative authority removed

(H&S 40717.9, 1995)

ISR 5. Trip Reduction for Schools Legislative authority removed

(H&S 40717.9, 1995)

ISR 6. Enhanced Rule 1501 Legislative authority removed

(H&S 40717.9, 1995)

ISR 7. Parking Cash-Out Legislative authority removed

(H&S 40717.9, 1995)

# 26 

# A key step in the 1994 AQMP was the proposal for the formation of the Southern California

Economic Partnership (SCEP, or Partnership), intended to help develop many of the innovative

and conceptual projects envisioned at that time. It should be noted that the Partnership has been

established as an active and effective entity, and is vigorously pursuing these and other projects.

These include: Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Smart Shuttles, Telecommunications,

Telecommuting Support, Alternative Fuel Vehi cle Support and Voluntary Emission Reduction

Program, the Clean Cities Program, and the Trav el Advisory News Network (TANN) Project.

For more details see: http://www.the-partnership.org/index.htm

.



# ENFORCEABILITY, MONITORING AND FUNDING

The TCM strategies contained in, and implemented as part of, the current AQMP are expected to

be real, quantifiable, and enforceable. The region’ s long-range transportation blueprint, its RTP,

and the shorter-term programming used to fund the improvements, the RTIP, together form the

foundation and the key stone for improving transportation system performance while at the same

time assuring the timely attainment of air quality goals within the Basin. Assessing the

consistency of emission reductions deriving from these mobility strategies against the

corresponding mobile source emission budgets contained in the applicable SIP elements, serves

as the basis for determining reasonable further progress, and provides the information needed in

assuring the timely implementation of each component of the set of TCM strategies described in

this document.



# TCM Enforceability and Monitoring

The federally funded projects and programs that make up the RTP and the RTIP form the basis

for assuring an enforceable commitment for each specified element of the TCM. Federal law

requires that funding priority be given to TCMs in developing the RTIP. Therefore, the report

on the timely implementation of the TCM strategies will continue to serve as one of the methods

of monitoring the air quality impacts of transportation system improvements. In addition, based

on the methodology developed by Caltrans and currently in use by all rideshare agencies

throughout the state, an annual survey to assess changes in travel behavior will be conducted.

SCAG’s own State of the Region Commute, though focu sed on a larger geographic area than just

the Basin, also provides information in tracking progress.

The 2002 RTIP provides for timely implementation of the TCM strategies for the Basin. The

RTIP is a short-term document covering six years, and it must be updated at least every two

years. As the RTIP is revised, the list of fiscally constrained projects for which funding has been

identified, will be updated. The EPA Transportation Conformity Rule states that timely

implementation is to be measured against the TCM strategies in the applicable implementation

plan.

The enforceable commitment for TCM measures is to report on the funding and implementation

of the first two years of the six-year RTIP. The list of fiscally constrained projects will advance,

or “roll forward”, and the enforceable commitment will automatically be revised to encompass

the first 2 years of the constrained projects contained in each new RTIP. The implementation

# 27 

# status of TCM projects is reported on in subsequent RTIPs until the TCM projects have been

reported as completed. In projecting the long-term (2005, 2010, 2020, etc.) impacts which could

be ascribed to this measure in the Plan, however, the facilities proposed to be built in the longterm timeframe, and programs as they exist today, serve as the basis for modeling travel and

emission impacts.



# TCM Funding

Table 6, below, summarizes the appropriate sources of funding for each component of the TCM

strategies, providing a basis for ensuring enforceability. Public funding mechanisms, such as the

process by which County Transportation Commissions (CTCs) program funds into the RTIP, are

part of the procedure by which the accountability of the regional transportation infrastructure is

assured.

TABLE 6

Enforceable Mechanisms and Monitoring Systems

TRANSPORTATION

IMPROVEMENT

MEASURES ENFORCEMENT

MECHANISM MONITORING

SYSTEM

Public

Funding Public

Approval State

Law

HOV Measures ✔ Timely implementation (for conformity);

funding priority given to TCMs by County

Transportation Commissions and SCAG

Transit and

Systems Management Measures ✔ Timely implementation (for conformity);

funding priority given to TCMs by

Transportation Commissions/SCAG/Local

Governments

Information-based Measures ✔ Statistically significant random sample

survey of actual transportation trip-making



# Private funding, which contributes to the creation or acceleration of markets, is also an important

component in ensuring that implementation actions occur. Although other technologies may

necessitate refinements in institutional mechanisms to assess market predictability, the

fundamental components for managing markets are taken to already exist. Marketing studies,

such as those performed for rideshare programs, van-pool surveys, and other statistical data may

be used to track such market trends. Review or oversight panels such as the Mobile Source

Review Committee (MSRC) have also, historicall y, served an important role in helping link

market trends to funding sources, and have helped manage private and public sector needs and

expectations.

Public approval processes, such as those which direct local city and county agencies, have long

provided surety in the on-going accountability of planning actions. Further details on specific

enforceability mechanisms is provided in the discussion of specific measures.

# 28 

# It is important to note that each iteration of the RTP and RTIP provide increased implementation

definition for the region’s transportation system. Thus, further details and action plans for the

implementation of the transportation strategy will be incorporated into the next RTP scheduled

for adoption in June 2004.



# TCM Road Map: Linking TCM Elements to SCAG Documents

Table 7 below provides the titles of relevant SCAG documents which contain information

pertinent to TCMs.

Table 7

TCM Elements and SCAG Documents

Element Description Document

Regional Transportation

Strategy Most recent RTP approved by SCAG’s

Regional Council and deemed to be in

conformity by the Federal Agencies 2001 RTP

Transportation Control

Measures Specific projects designated as TCMs

from within the first two years of the

most recent RTIP for which a

conformity determination has been made 2002 RTIP

Performance Assessment Each update of the RTIP involves five

tests:

- RTP Consistency test

- Regional Emissions test

- Timely Implementation test

- Financial Constraints test

- Interagency Consultation and Public

Involvement test 2002 RTIP



# Findings pertaining to the five Performa nce Assessment tests specified by EPA’s Transportation

Conformity Rule <http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1997/August/Day-15/a20968.htm >,

and listed in the table, above, are presented in Volume II of the Technical Appendix to the Final

2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program . A brief description of sections of this

document pertinent to the Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures is provided

below.

1. Section I, Conformity Requirements and Findings : provides a review of the various

Performance Assessment tests, at I-14 to I-16.

2. Section II, Regional Emissions Analysis : provides a description of the model and

assumptions used for the emissions analysis, and lists all the projects, by County, used for

this analysis.

3. Section III, Timely Implementation of TCMs : provides a specification of projects defined as

TCMs in the 2002 RTIP and lists all such projects in the Basin, along with a description of

their project status.

# 29 

# 4. Section IV, Financial Plan : provides an assessment of the funding from Federal, State and

local sources used to constrain the RTIP, and distributes this funding across fiscal years and

by County.

5. Section VI, Public Notifications, Hearings, and Distribution List : provides a description of

the means used by SCAG to assure appropriate input into the RTIP process, both from the

public and from Federal, State, and local agencies.

A detailed listing of all projects (State Highways, Local Highways, Transit, CMAQ, etc.)

considered as part of the RTIP is located in Volume III of the Final 2002 Regional

Transportation Improvement Program , sorted by County.

# 30 

# ATTACHMENT 1

2003 AQMP - Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)

2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)982003 AQMP TCM Projects (from 2002 RTIP)AGENCY PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project StartDate- Yearmonies are firstprogrammedMilestoneYear –BeginningConstructionDateProject EndDate-CompletionDate listed InRTIPHOV Improvements- New HOV Lanes, Extensions or Additions To Existing FacilitiesCALTRANS 1178AIN LOS ANGELES AND CULVER CITY FROM ROUTE 90 TO ROUTE 10 -HOV LANES(SB 5+0 TO 5+1; NB 5+0 TO5+1 HOV) 98CTIP $ FUND NBLN, ALSO PAYS FOR SB $ DELETED FROM 96STIP2000 2004CALTRANS 16881IN LA MIRADA TO SANTA FE SPRINGS FROM ORANGE COUNTY LINETO ROSECRANS AVENUE -INTERIM HOV LANES; I-5 Rail GradeCrossing between RTE. 605/91.1998 2005RIVERSIDE COUNTYTRANS COMMISSION(RCTC)46360IN RIVERSIDE AND MORENO VALLEY ON SR60 FROM RT 215 TOREDLANDS BLVD ADD2 HOV LANES2001 2003 2006CALTRANS 5242I-405 TO LA CO LINE --ADD ONE HOV LANE IN EACH DIRECTION.THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLETE THE I-605 INTERCOUNTY GAP INTHE HOV SYSTEM IN SO. CALIF. ( ITIP PROJECT)1998 2003 2004CALTRANS 713I-215 CORRIDOR NORTH - IN SAN BERNARDINO, ON I-215 FROM RTE10 TO RTE 30-ADD 2 HOV LANES 1 LANE IN EA. DIR. ANDOPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS2000 2005CALTRANS LA000357FROM ROUTE 170 TO ROUTE 118HOV LANES(10 TO 12 LANES) (CFP345) (2001 CFP 8339)2000 2007CALTRANS LA000358FROM ROUTE 134 TO ROUTE 170HOV LANES(8 TO 10 LANES) (CFP346)(2001 CFP 8355)2000 2007CALTRANS LA000359IN EL MONTE AND BALDWIN PARK FROM BALDWIN AVE TO ROUTE605HOV LANES(8+0 TO 8+2) AND TOS PROJECTS.2000 2003CALTRANS LA000548FROM PUENTE TO CITRUSHOV LANESFROM 8 TO 10 LANES (CISTEA 77720) (PE ONLY)1997 2002CALTRANS LA01342RT 10 FROM RT 605 TO PUENTE AVEHOV LANES(8+0 TO 8+2)1997 2002CALTRANS LA01344RT 5 FROM RT 118 TO RT 14 FROM 10 TO 12 LANESHOV LANES1997 2005CALTRANS LA01348RT 14 FROM ESCONDIDO CYN RD. TO PEARBLOSSOM HWYHOVLANES(4 TO 6 LANES) ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION. (EA-117101)1994 2006CALTRANS LA0B875HOV LANESFROM CITRUS TO ROUTE 57/210 -- P/E ONLY2002 2003CALTRANS LA0C8344EXTENSION OF N/B I-405HOV LANE-TO EXTEND THE HOV LANE ONN/B I-405 FROM SOUTH OF VENTURA BL TO SO. BURBANK BLVDWHERE IT WILL JOIN THE EXISTING HOV LANE. (EA199520)2004 200632CALTRANS LA962201NEAR SANTA CLARITA, FROM RT 5 TO 126/S.F. RDHOV PROJECT(EA# 119843)1998 2003CALTRANS LA996137RTE. 60HOV LNS. FROM RTE. 605 TO BREA CANYON RD. -- HOVLANE (FROM 8 TO 10 LANES TO 10 TO 12 LANES) (CFP: 358, 4262,6137=67,150+IIP: 5,100)2000 2007CALTRANS LA996138RTE.5HOV LNS. FROM FLORENCE AVE TO RTE.19 -- ADD ONE LANEIN EACH DIRECTION2001 2004HOV Improvements- New HOV Lanes, With New Facility ProjectsCALTRANS 20620UPLAND TO SAN BERNARDINO FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY LINETO ROUTE 215 - 8 LANE FREEWAY 2 HOW LANES (6 + 2) - 210CORRIDOR PROJECT(Master record includes projects 44301,20621, 44311, 44321, 44331, 44340, SBD0194)2002 2007CALTRANS 10167I-5 FROM SR-91 TO LA COUNTY LINE IN BUENA PARK -ADD 1 MIXEDFLOW LN AND 1 HOV LN IN EACH DIRECTION. FROM 6 - 0 TO 8 - 2LANES.2000 2005 2008CALTRANS 2009NEAR SOUTH PASADENA FROM ROUTE 10 TO ROUTE 210 - PARTIALRIGHT OF WAY FORNEW 6 LANE FREEWAY WITH 2 HOV LANES1992 2002CALTRANS 354801JCT RTE 15 TO VALLEY WAY -ADD 1 HOV LN AND 1 M/ F LN IN EA.DIR. INCLUDING OPERATIONAL STRIPING (IN SBD CNTY 9.05 - 9.95 &AT THE EAST END) ALSO WIDEN 5 UC'S & 1 OH2002 2004 2006CALTRANS LA0B951ROUTE 10 TO ROUTE 60 -- EXPRESSWAY TO FREEWAYCONVERSION --ADD 1 HOV LANE AND 1 MIXED FLOW LANE. (2001CFP 8349, TCRP #50)2002 2009CALTRANS LA195900RTE. 405 - WATERFORD AVE. TO RTE 10 - AUX LANE: LOS ANGELES -WATERFORD AV. TO RTE 10 - CONSTRUCT S/B AUX LANE & S/B HOVLANE(2001 CFP 8354)2001 2007CALTRANS LA963724IN LA VERNE AND CLAREMONT, FROM FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TOSAN BERNAR- DINO COUNTY LINE -CONSTRUCT 8-LANE FREEWAYINCLUDING 2-HOV LANES(12620, 12640, 12630, 10501, 17210)1999 2003CALTRANS ORA000195ON SR-22 (I-405 TO SR55)ADD 2 HOV LANES/1 EA DIR(FRM 0 - 2); &2AUX LANES/1 EA DIR (FRM 0- 2) (I-5 TO BEACH)& OPERATINGIMPROVMENTS (SEE COMMENTS)2003 2004 200733HOV Improvements- New HOV Lanes, with Facility Improvement ProjectsCALTRANS 0121DON I-215/SR91/SR60, RIV I215 COR IMPROV PROJ - FROM 60/91/215JCT TO 60/215 SPLIT -WIDEN6 TO 8 LNS, INCLUDINGMAINLINE/ICIMPROVS,ADD HOV, AUX, &SB TRUCK CLIMB LN(EA: 3348U1)2002 2004 2007CALTRANS 11985NEAR HAWTHORNE AND CULVER CITY FROM ROUTE 105 TO ROUTE90 - 6 LANE FREEWAY,ADD 2 HOV LANESAND SOUNDWALLS.2002 2003CALTRANS LA000543IN POMONA AND CLAREMONT FROM ROUTE 57 TO SANBERNARDINO COUNTY LINEHOV LANE IN EACH DIRECTION(C-I:77719; CFP 350; PPNO 00362) ALSO SOUNDWALL AND REHAB2000 2005CALTRANS LA0B7215RTE 5 CORRIDOR WIDENING & RECONSTRUCT IC SEGMENT A - OCLTO RTE 710 WIDEN FROM 6 TO 10 LNS (1 HOV& ONE MF IN EA. DIR).VALLEY VIEW & CARMENITA IC; MODIFY FWY TO FWY IC @ RTE 6052001 2004LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA996390SEPULVEDA BLVD. FROM CENTINELA AVE. TO LINCOLN BLVD -WIDEN SEPUL BLVD. BET. LINCOLN AND CENTINELA TOPROVIDEBUS/CARPOOL PRIORITY LANE.2002 2004GARDEN GROVE ORA981104RECONSTRUCT HARBOR BLVD INTERCHANGE. 4 LANES EACHDIRECTION. (1/4 MILE BEFORE AND AFTER SR-22 RAMPS)2 HOVLNES(1 E/B & 1 W/B) AND PROPOSED SR-22 HOV LANES.1999 2004 2007ORANGE, CITY OF ORA990443SR-22 AND CITY DRIVE INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS.RECONFIGURE FREEWAY INTERCHANGE AT SR-22 FROM SR-57 TOLEWIS STREET -- FROM 6/0 TO 6/2 LANES (ADDING 2 HOV LANES)2002 2004 2007HOV Improvements- HOV Bypasses, Connectors, New Interchanges with Ramp MetersCOSTA MESA 3090IN CITY OF COSTA MESA_(MOS 2&3) N/B I-405/BRISTOL OFF-RAMPAND S/B RTE-55 TO N/B I-405_(NORTH TRNSTWY) WIDEN NB OFFRAMP BRAID WITH HOV CONNECTOR_FROM 6 TO 8 LANES2000 2003 2006CALTRANS 12570RTE. 57/60HOV CONNECTORINDUSTRY FROM OLD BREA CANYONROAD TO GRAND AVENUE - HOV DIRECT CONNECTORS ANDCOLLECTOR ROAD (BOTH DIRECTIONS)2000 2003CALTRANS 6951405/55 INTERCHANGE SOUTH TRANSITWAY MOS1_EXISTING 4MIXED 1 HOV_ON SR55 AND I-405 EXIST IS 5 MF AND 1 HOVADD HOVDIRECT TRANSITWAYFROM SR55 TO I-4052000 2002 2004CALTRANS LA996134RTE. 5/14 INTERCHANGE & HOV LNS ON RTE. 14 -- CONSTRUCT 2ELEVATED LANES --HOV CONNECTOR(ROW) ONLY (DIRECTCONNECTORS) (EA# 16800)(2001 CFP 8343)2001 2004ANAHEIM ORA000100GENE AUTRY WAY WEST@ I-5 (I-5HOV TRANSITWAYTO HASTER)ADD OVERCROSSING ON I-5 (S)/MANCHESTER AND EXTEND GENEAUTRY WAY WEST FROM I-5 TO HARBOR.1999 2002 2005RIVERSIDE CITY RIV0084AT VAN BUREN ST IC RECONSTRUCT RAMPS (INCLDSHOV RAMPS),WIDEN OC ON VAN BUREN FROM 4 TO 6 LN & ADD AUX LANES; ADDNEW EB ONRAMP W/ENTRANCE @ INDIANA2001 200434High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes and Pricing AlternativesTCA 10254SJHC, 15 MI TOLL RD BETWEEN I-5 IN SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO & RTE73 IN IRVINE, EXISTING 3/M/F EA.DIR.1 ADD'L M/F EA DIR, PLUSCLIMBING & AUX LNS AS REQ, BY 2015 PER SCAG/TCA MOU 4/5/012003 2005 2015TCA ORA052(FTC-S) (I-5 TO OSO PKWY) (15MI) 2 MF EA. DIR BY 2010; AND 2ADDITIONAL M/F EA. DIR. PLS CLMBNG & AUS LANES AS REQ BY2015 PER SCAG/TCA MOU 4/05/01.2003 2005 2015TCA ORA051(FTC-N) ( OSO PKWY TO ETC) (13MI) EXISTING 2 MF IN EA. DIR, 2ADDITIONAL M/F LANES, PLS CLMBNG & AUX LANS AS REQ BY 2015PER SCAG/TCA MOU 4/05/01.2003 2005 2015TCA ORA050ETC (RTE 241/261/133) ( RTE 91TO I-5/JAMBOREE) EXISTING 2 M/FEA.DIR, 2 ADD'L M/F IN EA. DIR,PLUS CLIMB AND AUX LNS AS REQ,BY 2015 PER SCAG/TCA MOU 4/05/01.2003 2005 2015Transit- Rail Track, New LinesLOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA0C10MID-CITY/EXPOSITION CORRIDORLIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT-TOVERMONT2002 2008LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA29212XMETRO RAIL BLUE LINE- PASADENA EXT UNION STA TO SIERRAMADRE VILLASTA13.5 MILES, 12 STATIONS2001 2003CALTRANS LA963519ADD 3 MILES OF TRIPLE TRACKAT BANDINI, MP 148.5 & 151.7BETWEEN FULLERTON & LAUS2001 2002Transit- Rail Track, Capacity Expansion of Existing LinesCOMMERCE LA963759TELEGRAPH ROADTRACK CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT97-98 TCI1997 2002Transit- New Rolling Stock AcquisitionSOUTHERN CALIFREGIONAL RAILAUTHORITYLA963758PURCHASE METROLINK CARS & LOCOMOTIVES2001 2003LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA990305LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT FLEET-50 NEW RAIL CARAND CONTINUATIONOF THE LA CAR RAIL PURCHASE2001 2003SOUTHERN CALIFREGIONAL RAILAUTHORITYRIV011242 PURCHASE EXPANSION ROLLING STOCK (2 CAB CARS AND 3LOCAMOTIVES)FOR METROLINK IEOC ANDRIVERSIDE/FULLERTON/LA LINES (EA:RIVFUL.PPNO: 0079E2002 200435Transit- Express Busways, Bus Rapid Transit and Dedicated Bus LanesLOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA29202U1SAN FERNANDO VALLEY EAST/WESTBRT(FROM THE TERMINUSOF THE METRO RED LINE HEAVY RAIL IN NO HOLLYWOOD TOWARNER CENTER)14-MILE EXCLUSIVE BUS LANES LOCATED INFORMER RAIL ROAD ROW2003 2005LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA29202U2SAN FERNANDO VALLEY NORTH/SOUTHBRT EXTENSION2003 2007LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA29202VEASTSIDETRANSIT CORRIDOR- UNION STATION TO ATLANTIC VIA1ST ST. TO LORENA, THEN 3RD ST. VIA 3RD/BEVERLY BLVD. TOATLANTIC (EASTSIDE LRT)2002 2008LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA29202W MID -CITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR:WILSHIRE BLVD. FROM VERMONTTO SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN- MID-CITY WILSHIREBRT2001 2006ORANGE COUNTYTRANS AUTHORITY(OCTA)ORA194CENTRAL ORANGE COUNTYFIXED GUIDEWY(CENTERLINE) FORCONSTRUCTION FROM IRVINE TRANSPORTATION CENTER TOSANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CENTER .2002 2005 2010Transit- Buses, Fleet ExpansionOMNITRANS 200077BUS SYSTEM -PURCHASE EXPANSION ALT FUEL BUSES(01-13),(02-14)2002 2002LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA01B101COOPERATIVEPURCHASE OF HYBRID ELECTRIC COACHESBYMTA AND INTERESTED MUNICIPAL OPERATORS AS A TESTPROGRAM ( 2001 CFP 8116 )2002 2006LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA01B120EXPANSION OF DIVISION 1 TOADD ADDITIONAL CAPACITYOFAPPROX67 BUSESAND ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE OFEMPLOYEES.ACQUISITION OF A VACANT PARCEL SOUTH OF DIV 12002 2003CULVER CITY MUNIBUS LINESLA026PROCUREMENT OF TWO (2) 30' CNG EXPANSION BUSESFORSERVICE2002 2004NORWALK LA0B0841PURCHASE TWO (2) 40-FT GILLIG+ SHORTFALL2001 2003PASADENA LA0B215PURCHASE OF (5) 30-FOOT ALTERNATIVE FUEL EXTENSIONVEHICLES(GTIP)2000 2003LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA0B303ACQUISITION OF TROLLEY BUSES (2) AND CHARGING STATIONSFOR THE CITY OF MONROVIA'SDOWNTOWN TROLLEY SERVICE2002 2004LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA0B304PLAYA VISTA EARNMARK,PURCHASE NEW (5) LOW-EMISSIONBUSES, TRACKING EQUIP & BUS AMENITIES INCLUDINGPASSENGER SHELTERES, INFO KIOSKS & APPURTENANT EQUIP -TRANSIT SERVICE UPGRADE.2002 2004LOS ANGELESCOUNTYLA0B7004 VEHICLE ACQUISITION FOR EAST LOS ANGELES FIXED ROUTESHUTTLE SERVICEPHASE II-PURCHASE OF 3 VEHICLESWILLINCREASE FREQUENCY OF THE EXISTING 3 SHUTTLES SERVICEROUTES2000 2002LONG BEACH PUBLICTRANSPORTATIONCOMPANYLA0B7006LONG BEACH TRANSIT EXPANSION BUSES - THEPURCHASE OF UPTO 11 40-FOOT, LOW-FLOOR LNG ALTERNATIVE FUEL BUSESWHICH SERVE THE MOST CROWDED ROUTES, INCLUDING2001 200336190,7,100 & 171.ANTELOPE VALLEYTRANSIT AUTHORITYLA0B70083 EXPANSION 40 FT. LOW FLOOR CLEAN DIESEL BUSES; LOCALFIRXED-ROUTE BUSES; TO RELIEVE PAEK PERIODOVERCROWDING ON CORE ROUTES.2002 2003BALDWIN PARK LA0B7012LOCAL NTD REPORTERS'BUS FLEET EXPANSION.19 BUSESFOR 5CITIES.BALDWIN PARK, COMPTON,EL MONTE, MONTEREY PARK &WEST COVINA (CNG,DIESEL & PROPANE FUEL 30-35 FT. VEH).2000 2005LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0B7024METRO RED LINE MELROSESHUTTLE-ACQUISITION OF 2 LOWFLOOR, PROPANE-POWERED, 30-FOOT BUSESWILL BE USED INTHE OPERATION OF A NEW HIGH FREQUENCY SHUTTLE2000 2002LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0B7026 METRO RED LINE/WEST HOLLYWOOD/BEVERLY CENTER/CEDERSINAI SHUTTLE-ACQUIRE 7 NEW 30-FOOT, PROPANE-FUELED,DASH STYLE BUSESFOR THE OPERATION OF A HIGH FREQUENCYSHUTTLE2000 2002NORWALK LA0C71PURCHASE OF(4) FOUR ALTERNATIVELY FUELED EXPANSIONBUSES.2003 2004GLENDALE LA0C8220PURCHASE OF (8) 35-FOOT LOW FLOOR CNG HEAVY-DUTYTRANSIT VEHICLES.2003 2005LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0C8241PICO UNION/ECHO PARKDASHVEHICLE PROCUREMENT.PURCHASE (3) LOW-FLOOR, PROPANE-POWERED 30' BUSESFORTHE PICO/UNION ECHO PARK SHUTTLE SERVICE.2001 2004SANTA CLARITA LA0C8371 SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT EXPANSION BUSES; WILL ALLOW PHASE1 OF 5 YEAR MASTER PLAN TO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHSEVENLOCAL BUSES AND FOUR COMMUTER BUSES.2003 2008LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0C8385EL SERENODASHPROCUREMENT.PURCHASE (2) LOW-FLOOR,PROPANE POWERED, 30' FOOT BUSESFOR THE EL SERENO DASHSERVICE.2001 2006NORWALK LA0D01NORWALK ON BEHALF OF SANTA FE SPRINGS -ALTERNATIVEFUEL VEHICLES AND TRANSIT RELATED FACILITIES.2002 2004BURBANK LA0D25PROCUREMENT OF (3) ALTERNATIVE FUEL TRANSIT VEHICLES2002 2004MONTEBELLO LA0D28PURCHASE OF (1) EXPANSION BUS. ONE HYBRID (DIESELELECTRIC) LOW FLOOR 40' COACH FOR INSERVICE TESTING.2003 2005MONTEBELLO LA55012REPLACE BUSES- 2000(5) 40' BUSES AND (10) 40' EXPANSIONBUSES2001 2003BURBANK LA8STIP13BURBANK LOCAL TRANSITPURCHASE OF THREE ALT. FUELBUSESFOR ONGOING TDM PROGRAM1997 2004LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA963542ACQUISTION REVENUE VEHICLES -2,513 CLEAN FUEL BUSES:LEASED VEH, FY02 (370); +30 HC; FY03 -FY06 TOTAL OF 5162001 2005LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA990306RAPID BUS PROGRAM -4 - FORTY FOOT BUSES. ALSOFACILITY:BUS STOPDESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, TECHNOLOGYUPGRADING, OPERATING SUPPORT.2001 200737LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA996000DASHPICO UNION/ ECHO PRK VEH ACQPURCHASE ONE BUSTORELIEVE OVERCROWDING1999 2003LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA996001DASHEL SERENO/CTY TERR VEH ACQPURCHASE2 BUSESTOREDUCE OVERCROWDING1999 2003LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA996002DASHWILMINTON VEH ACQUISITIONPURCHASE 2 BUSESTORELIEVE OVERCROWDING1999 2003LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA996003DASHWATTS VEH ACQUISITIONPURCH 2 VEH'S TO REDUCEEXISTING OVERCROWDING1999 2003LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA996004DASHKING-EAST VEH ACQUISITION FINANCE THEACQ OF 5BUSESTO REDUCE OVERCROWDING2000 2006LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA996005DASHHLLYWOOD VEH ACQUISITIONACQUIRE TWO BUSESTOREDUCE EXISTING OVERCROWDING1999 2003LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA996006DASHVERMNT-MAIN VEH ACQUISITIONPURCH 5 BUSESTORELIEVE EXISTING OVERCROWDING2001 2006LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA996007DASHMANCHSTR-FLORNCE VEH ACQPURCH 5 BUSESTORELIEVE EXISTING OVERCROWDING2000 2006LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA996010COMM EXPRESS 448 VEH ACQUISITIONPURCH 3 BUSESTOREDUCE EXISTING OVERCROWDING2001 2003LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA996011ROWANSHUTTLEVEH ACQUISITIONPURCH 2 BUSESTO REDUCEEXISTING OVERCROWDED CONDITIONS2001 2003LOS ANGELESCOUNTYLA996044VEH ACQ FOR EST L.A.SHUTTLE PURCH 4 VEH'STO REMEDYEXISTING OVERCROWDED CONDITIONS1999 2002GLENDALE LA996065CNG HVY DUTY TRANSIT VEHICLESPURCH 6 BUSESTO REMEDYEXISTING OVERCROWDING1999 2004ANAHEIM ORA010202PURCHASE (10) 22 FOOT ELECTRIC BUSESFOR ANAHEIM RESORTAREA2002 2003 2005ORANGE COUNTYTRANS AUTHORITY(OCTA)ORA020105HYBRID ELECTRIC URBAN 40 FT BUSES (10)EXPANSION2002 2003 2005ORANGE COUNTYTRANS AUTHORITY(OCTA)ORA02010760 FT ARTICULATED BUSES (20)2002 2003 2005CORONA RIV010511CITY OF CORONA --PURCHASE 3 EXPANSION VEHICLES--REDLINEFIXED ROUTE2002 2003RIVERSIDE TRANSITAGENCYRIV000605 DEBT FINANCING FOR 57 TRANSIT COACHES, 25 REPLACEMENT,32 EXPANSION2002 2003 2006RIVERSIDE TRANSITAGENCYRIV010512 IN WESTERN RIVERSIDECOUNTY PURCHASE TEN REPLACEMENTAND 2 EXPANSION 40' BUSES AND 20 BUS SHELTERS2001 2003RIVERSIDE TRANSITAGENCYRIV020601IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTYPURCHASE TEN 30' EXPANSIONALT FUEL BUSESIN FY 02/03.2002 2004Transit- Shuttles and Paratransit Vehicles, Fleet ExpansionOMNITRANS 2002171(1) EXPANSION PARATRANSIT VAN2002 2003LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA0B7023 GET ABOUT FLEET IMPROVE (POMONA VAL TRANS. AUTHORITY)-PURCHASE 18, 21 PASSENGER VEHICTO INCR CAPACITY OF2001 200238SUBREGPARATRANSIT SYSVARIOUS AGENCIES LA0B860 KOREAN HEALTH EDUCATION INFORMATION AND RESEARCHCENTER. EXPANSION VEHICLES -THREE 10 PASSENGER SMALLBUSES.2001 2003VARIOUS AGENCIES LA0B863VILLA ESPERANZA. EXPANSION VEHICLE -ONE 17 PASSENGERMEDIUM BUS.2001 2003VARIOUS AGENCIES LA0C23HEALTHVIEW - EXPANSION VEHICLE -(1) 17-PASSENGER MEDIUMBUS2002 2003VARIOUS AGENCIES LA0C25 02002 2003VARIOUS AGENCIES LA0C30ULTRALIFE ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE- EXPANSION VEHICLE -(1)10-PASSENGER SMALL BUS.2002 2003VARIOUS AGENCIES LA0C31ULTRALIFE ADULT DAY HEALTHCARE - EXPANSION VEHICLES -(2)5-PASSENGER MINIVANS.2002 2003VARIOUS AGENCIES LA0C33WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER - EXPANSION VEHICLES -(5)10-PASSENGER SMALL BUSES.2002 2003VARIOUS AGENCIES LA0C34WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER - EXPANSION VEHICLE -(1) 5-PASSENGER MINIVAN.2002 2003VARIOUS AGENCIES LA0C35WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER - EXPANSION VEHICLE -(1) 17-PASSENGER MEDIUM BUS.2002 2003PALOS VERDESESTATESLA0C8226PV TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM II.PURCHASE 3EXPANSION CLEAN-FUEL VEHICLES.2001 2005SIERRA MADRE LA0C8372EXPANSION OF SIERRA MADRE BUS ROUTE.PURCHASE OF 3 CNGVANSTO EXPAND SIERRA MADRE ROUNDABOUT SYSTEM.2003 2007NORWALK LA0D02PURCHASE (2) EXPANSION PARATRANSIT VEHICLES2002 2003ACCESS SERVICESINC.LA900520PURCHASE OF ADD'L 591 VEHICLESFROM FY01 TO FY05. 110VEHICLES IN FY01, 161 VEHICLES IN FY02, 125 VEHICLES IN FY03,149 VEHICLES IN FY04, AND 92 VEHICLES IN FY05.2000 2005VARIOUS AGENCIES LA973039ACESS SERVICES INC. FLEET EXPANSION VEHICLES46 MINI --VANS2002 2002VARIOUS AGENCIES LA990744 KOREAN HEALTH, EDUCATION, INFO & RESEARCH CENTER(KHEIR)- EXPANSIONTHREE (3) 17-PASSENGER SMALL BUSES.2001 2003ORANGE COUNTYTRANSIT DISTRICT(OCTD)ORA020119PURCHASE PARATRANSIT VEHICLESEXPANSION(11)2002 2002 2003VARIOUS AGENCIES ORA020125(5) EXPANSION MINIVANS WITH RADIOS,(5) EXPANSION MODIFIEDVANSWITH RADIOS, (1) RADIO BASESTATION, (1) SET OF SERVERAND SOFTWARE.2002 2003 2005RIVERSIDE COUNTYTRANS COMMISSION(RCTC)RIV010908 IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOR EXCEED, A DIVISION OFVALLEY RESOURCE CENTER -PURCHASE 6 EXPANSION MINIVANSAND 6 RADIOS - SECTION 5310 FY 2001/02 CYCLE2002 2003RIVERSIDE CITY RIV020605 IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDESPECIAL SERVICES -PURCHASE 2 EXPANSION 25' TWELVEPASSENGER DIAL-A-RIDE VEHICLES2002 200439RIVERSIDE COUNTYTRANS COMMISSION(RCTC)RIV020902IN WEST RIV CO FOR EXCEED, ADIVISION OF VALLEY RESOURCECENTER - PURCHASE 1 EXPANSION 20' MODIFIED VAN, 1EXPANSION 22' MEDIUM BUS, AND RADIOS - SECTION 5310 FY02/032002 2004RIVERSIDE TRANSITAGENCYRIV32666 IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PURCHASE 10EXPANSION AND14 PASSENGER DAR VANS IN 02/032002 2004OMNITRANS SBD31088BUS FLEET EXPANSION-PURCHASE 40' EXPANSION COACHES&AUXILLARY EQUIPMENT, CNG 01-9, 03-1 (NOTE: 'OTHER' ARE CARLMOYER FUNDS) - (Note: The 'OTHER' FUNDS ARE CARL MAYERFUNDS)2002 2003Intermodal Transfer Facilities- Rail Stations, NewRIVERSIDE COUNTYTRANS COMMISSION(RCTC)0006SMETROLINK - SAN BERNARDINO SUBDIVISION TIER IINEWSTATIONSAT MAIN ST IN CORONA2001 2003LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA29202XMETRO RED LINE MOS-3: N. HOLLYWOOD 5.9-MILE W/3 STATIONS,HIGHLAND TO N.HOLLYWOOD STA. 15,370+ 746= 16,117118,630+5,754=124,3841996 2002BUENA PARK ORA55286COMMUTER RAIL STATION(DALE STREET AND MALVERN) INBUENA PARK.CONSTRUCT NEW RAIL STATION. 308 PARKINGSPACES.2002 2004 2006LAGUNA NIGUEL ORA9530MISSION VIEJO/LAGUNA NIGUELSTATIONLOS ANGELES/SANDIEGO CORRIDOR1995 2002 2003YORBA LINDA ORA981103 IN YORBA LINDA, CONSTRUCT COMMUTER RAIL STATION ANDPARK AND RIDE(347 SPACES) - NEAR ESPERANZA RD AND NEWRIVER ST2000 2004 2005Intermodal Transfer Facilities- Rail Stations, ExpansionPASADENA LA0B7270BLUE LINE PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS-IMPROVE PEDESTRIANACCESSTO PLANNED BLUE LINE STATIONS IN THE CITY OFPASADENA, LOCATED ALONG THE PASADENA BLUE LINEALIGNMENT2000 2003LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0C8173NORTHRIDGE METROLINK STNPARKING IMPRVMENT. CONSTRCTADDT'L 100 PRKING SPCS & RECONFIGURE SOUTHERN PRTION OFEXISTNG PRKNG LOT TO YIELD AN ADDT'L 40 NET PRKING SPCESTOTAL 400 SPC.2003 2007COVINA LA0C8216MITIGATEPARKING DEFICIENCY FOR COVINA METROLINKSTATION-PROJECT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 330 NEW PARKINGSPACES IN A STRUCTURE OVER AN EXISTING STATION PARKINGLOT.2002 2006FOOTHILL TRANSITZONELA0C8362EL MONTESTATION IMPROVEMENTPROJECT-FUNDING WILLPROVIDE FOR NEW LIGHTING,INFORMATION SIGNAGE, ANDOTHER PASSENGER AMENITIES.2002 200340ANTELOPE VALLEYTRANSIT AUTHORITYLA960204TRANSIT FACILITY IMPROVEMENT2001 2004GLENDALE LA963751 METROLINK - SANTA CLARITA LINE GLENDALE TRANSPORTATIONCENTER -UPGRADE STATION96-97 TCI1997 2006LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA963755CHINATOWNINTERMODAL IMPROVEMENTTO DEVELOP ACONNECTION FROM BLUE LINE - PASADENA (CHINATOWN STATIONTO BROADWAY STREET) 97-98 TCI2001 2002LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA974165MACARTHUR PARKSTATION IMPROVEMENTSINCLUDE DESIGNAND CONSTRUCTION OF A PLAZA TO ACCOMODATE PUBLICACCESS (PEDESTRIAN ENTRABCES, WALKWAYS, BICYCLEFACILITIES)2001 2002COMMERCE R615TAMETROLINK - RIV/LA VIA FULLERTON AT COMMERCEMETROLINKSTATION- PLATFORM CONSTRUCTION2001 2002LOS ANGELESCOUNTYR616TA METROLINK - SANTA CLARITA LINE AT VINCENT HILL/ACTONUPGRADE METROLING STATION- INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNALS,CANOPY, PAVING, LIGHTING2001 2002RIVERSIDE COUNTYTRANS COMMISSION(RCTC)RIV011234 AT LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION - PURCHASE UP TO 21.19ACRES TO EXPAND EXISTING PARKING FROM 348 SPACESULTIMATELY 2000 SPACES (FIRST 2 PHASES UP TO 1,050 SPACES2002 2003RIVERSIDE COUNTYTRANS COMMISSION(RCTC)RIV52008IN RIVERSIDE COUNTYCONSTRUCT PASSENGEROVERCROSSINGSAND SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS @ WESTCORONA, LA SIERRA, AND PEDLEY METROLINK/PARK-N-RIDESTATIONS2002 2003RIVERSIDE COUNTYTRANS COMMISSION(RCTC)RIV62044PEDLEYPLATFORM EXTENSION1998 2002 2002MONTCLAIR SBD990305METROLINK/SAN BERNARDINO LINECONSTRUCT A SECONDPLATFORM, PASSENGER SHELTERS AND INFORMATION KIOSKS2000 2001Intermodal Transfer Facilities- Park & Ride Lots, NewOMNITRANS 981119TRANSIT INTERMODAL FACILITIES- FONTANA TRANSCENTER -EXPAND BUS BAYS, IMPROVE LANDSCAPING, SIGNALS ANDPEDESTRIAN AND PASSENGER FACILITIES2002 2002LOS ANGELES COUNTYMTALA000487PARK AND RIDE LOT(850 SPACES) LANKERSHIM AND CHANDLER -METRO RED LINE1994 2002LOS ANGELES COUNTYMTALA000489PARK AND RIDE LOT(700 SPACES) UNIVERSAL CITY - METRO REDLINE1994 2003FOOTHILL TRANSITZONELA0B311PARK AND RIDE FACILITYON OAK STREET BETWEEN VINCENT &GLENDORA. 160 PARKING SPACES SERVING BUS LINES #699 AND#272.2002 2003SOUTHERN CALIFREGIONAL RAILAUTHORITYLA0B7009ANTELOPE VALLEY LINE IMPROVEMENTS-INCREASE CAPACITYAND REDUCE TRAVEL TIME ON THIS COMMUTER RAIL ANDFREIGHT SERVICE LINE BETWEEN LANCASTER AND LOS ANGELES2001 200241SANTA CLARITA LA0B7020 ADDITIONAL (150) PARKING AT NEWHALL METROLINK STATIONCONSTRUCT ADEQUATE PARKING AT THE NEWHALL METROLINKSTATION, INCLUDEPARK & RIDE, KISS & RIDE AND DISABLEDACCESS SPACES2001 2003LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0B7034SUN VALLEYINTERMODAL TRANSIT CENTER; PEDESTRIANCROSSING/BUS STOP IMPROVEMENT-PROVIDE PED. CROSSINGSAT EACH END OF THE PLATFORM OF SOON TO BE BUILT SUNVALLEY METROLINK STATION2001 2003LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA0B7107CHATSWORTH INTERMODALPARK AND RIDE-INCLUDE DESIGNAND CONS. OF ADDITIONAL 150 SPACES-CONSTRUCTION WILLINCL GRADING, ASPHALT PAVING,INSTALLATION OF CONCRETEBUMPERS ETC (PE ONLY)2001 2003SANTA CLARITA LA0C09TRANSIT CENTERPASSENGER AMENITIES2001 2003LOS ANGELESREDEVELOPMENTAGENCYLA0C53HOLLYWOODINTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLICPARKING CENTERON HAWTHORNE AVE. BETWEEN HIGHLANDAVENUE AND NORTH ORANGE DRIVE.2002 2004CARSON, CITY OF LA0C8219SOUTH BAY PAVILION REGIONAL TRANSIT CTR.CONSTRUCTIONOF A TRANSIT CTRAT THE SOUTH BAY PAVILION SHOPPING CTRTO BE SERVED BY ALL 8 CARSON CIRCUIT RTES & MTA LINES #205& #446-447.2001 2006MONROVIA LA0C8250MONROVIA RAILROAD DEPOTMULTI-MODAL TRANSIT CENTER;STABILIZING STRUCTURE AND THEN OVERALL STRUCTURALELEMENTS WILL BE REPAIRED FOLLOWED BY RESTORING KEYARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.2002 2005EL MONTE LA0C8323 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY METRO HUB-IMPLEMENT NEWTRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES, INCLUDING ANELECTRICBIKE/SHUTTLE SERVICE/PARKING CONTROL PROGRAM.2001 2003PALMDALE LA0C8326PALMDALETRANSPORTATION CENTERCOMMUTER SERVICECENTER-A REGIONAL MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT FACILITY ISCURRENTLY IN DESIGN.2001 2004PALMDALE LA0C8361PALMDALETRANSIT AMENITIESPROGRAM. PROVIDE BUSSHELTERS ALONG VARIOUS REGIONAL AND LOCAL STOPS WITHINTHE CITY OF PALMDALE.2001 2007LONG BEACH PUBLICTRANSPORTATIONCOMPANYLA0C8383LONG BEACH TRANSIT:BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTPROJ. ENHANCE 9OF RAIL STATION FEEDER BUS STOPS TO EASE TRANSFERS, MAKEPUBLIC TRANSIT MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING & SAFER, INCRIDERSHIP.2001 2004SOUTHERN CALIFREGIONAL RAILAUTHORITYLA29204 LA-SAN BERNARDINO CR (SF UNION STATION-SAN BERNARDINO)CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS1997 2002LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA962129METROLINK ROW MITIGATIONPEDESTRIAN & CROSSINGIMPROVEMENTS1993 2002LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA962148WESTLAKE COMMUNITY BASED INTERCEPTINTERMODAL FACILITY(96 CALL, CAT 2) [CALL #2445]1999 200342LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA962445WESTLAKE COMMUNITY BASED INTERCEPTINTERMODAL FACILITY2001 2002FOOTHILL TRANSITZONELA963762 COVINA TIMED TRANSFER CENTER JOINT DEVELOP. PRJ. W/CITYW.COVINAPARK & RIDE GARAGE, TRANSFER CTR. & RETAIL KIOSKS2002 2003COVINA LA9811080EASTLAND SATELLITEPARK n RIDE LOT (REPLACEMENT PARKINGFOR EASTLAND SHOPPING CENTER-- 429 SPACES) (CROSSSTREETS ARE BARRANCA/WORKMAN)2000 2002DOWNEY LA982251 DEVELOP DOWNEY TRANSPO/TRANSIT CTR AND TRANSIT YARDBUS SYSTEMS, METROLINK, AND LIGHT RAIL ACCESSIMPROVEMENTS- LA TO ORANGE COINTERMODAL FACILITY- 68,000SQ/FT - NANCE/LORENA2000 2002INGLEWOOD LA990701PASSENGER TRANSFER FACILITY: OFF STREET, NE CRNR OF LABREA & KELSO. WILL NOT ADD NEW SVC. PROVIDES SAFE OFFSTREET TRANSFER FOR PASSENGERS.INGLEWOOD BUS. TRANSITCENTER PHASE 2.2000 2002LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA996439BICYCLE RACK AND PARKINGPHASE II INSTALL ESTIMATED 833INVERTED BIKE RACKS,1999 2002ORANGE COUNTYTRANS AUTHORITY(OCTA)ORA000104TRANSITWAY IMPROVEMENTS AT IRVINETRANSPORTATIONCENTER; BUILD 900 SPACE PARKING STRUCTURE, INCLUDINGENVIRONMENTAL, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.2001 2003 2006FULLERTON ORA020113FULLERTON TRAIN STATION- PARKING STRUCTURE, PHASE I ANDII. TOTAL OF 670 SPACES.2002 2006 2009LOS ANGELES, CITYOFR627TAMETRO RAIL RED LINE AT WESTLAKE COMMUNITYINTERMODALINTERCEPT FACILITY- DESIGN 1,100 SPACE PARKING STRUCTURECROSSSTREETS ARE ALVARADO/MACARTHUR1998 2002HEMET RIV990708CONSTRUCTTRANSPORTATION/ TRANSIT CENTER/PARK-N-RIDELOTON CORNER OF HARVARD AND LATHAM AVE, APP 100 SPACES2002 2003CHINO SBD41220CHINO AVENUE/CENTRAL TO 6TH STS.MULTI-MODALTRANSPORTATION CENTERINCLUDES PARK-N-RIDE LOT WITH 125SPACES(PHASE 1 FUNDED-PHASE2 AWAITING FUNDING)2002 2003Intermodal Transfer Facilities- Park & Ride Lots, ExpansionLOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0C8303ANGELS FLIGHTRAILWAY PLAZA. ENHNCMENTOF SYSTM & DEVTOF LOWER PLAZA INCL KIOSKS, INCLDS INSTALLING, WAITING &SEATING AREAS, LIGHTING, CNNCTIONS BET HILL ST & ADJCENTRED LINE ST2002 2004NORWALK LA0D04 NORWALK/SANTA FE SPRINGS TRANSPORTATION CENTEREXPANSION - PARKING & RELATED IMPROVEMENTS2002 2004LOS ANGELES COUNTYMTALA210465SO. CENTRAL LOS ANGELES EXPOSITION PARKINTERMODALURBAN ACCESSPRJ (STATE OF CAL. DEPT. OF GEN. SERV.)RENEW/RENOVATIONPARKING FACILITYIMPROVEPARK/TRAFFIC ACCESSPROGRAM2001 200343Intermodal Transfer Facilities- Bus Stations & Transfer Facilities, NewMONTEBELLO LA000504PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OFON BOARD BIKE RACKS.2001 2003LONG BEACH PUBLICTRANSPORTATIONCOMPANYLA01B110BIKE RACKS ON BUSES2001 2003LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA0C8329BICYCLE RACKS ON COMMUTER EXPRESS BUSES. ADDITION OFFRONT-LOADINGBICYCLE RACKSTO A TOTAL OF 93 COMMUTEREXPRESS BUSES AND SPARES THAT SERVE THE CITY AND COUNTYOF LA.2001 2003LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA996099METROLINKSHUTTLE(CHATSWORTH)2001 2003Intermodal Transfer Facilities- Bus Stations & Transfer Facilities, ExpansionLOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0B7002 ATHENS/LENNOX/WILLOWBROOK/FLORENCE ET AL BUS SHELTERINSTALLATION-ENHANCE PASSENGER FACILITIESAT BUS STOPS,IMPROVE PASSENGER COVENIENCE2000 2002COMMERCE LA0C37BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS -CONSTRUCTION OF PASSENGERSHELTERS AND INFORMATION KIOSKS2001 2002LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0C8242BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTSON SAN FERNANDO ROAD & TCLIGHTING; ENHANCE PASSENGER FACILITIES AT THREE BUS STOPSWITH GREATEST NUMBER OF DAILY BOARDINGS ON EAST SIDE OFSAN FERNANDO ROAD.2003 2008SOUTHERN CALIFREGIONAL RAILAUTHORITYLA0C8315ELECTRIC BIKE AND SCOOTERDEMONSTRATION PROJECT.PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC BIKES AND SCOOTERS AS A TEST FORFEASIBILITY AS SUBSTITUTES FOR SHORT COMMUTE TRIPS TOPARK AND RIDE LOTS.2001 2005LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA0C8319TAXI/SHUTTLE STANDSAT METRO RED LINE STA AT N HLWD &UNIVERSAL. CITY AUTHORIZED TAXI STANDS AT TWO METRO REDLINE STATIONS (UNIVERSAL CITY ONLANKERSHIM AND N. HLWD ONCHANDLER.2001 2003LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA0C8413METRO RAPIDBUS STATIONS-PHASE II; INCLUDESCOMMUNICATIONS & EQUIPMENT2003 2005MONTEBELLO LA55201CONTINUING PROJECT -BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS, AMENITIES,SHELTERS, ETC2001 2010SANTA MONICA LA57101BUS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS2001 2005SANTA MONICA LA57108BUS STOP AMENITIES1999 2003FOOTHILL TRANSITZONELA963526BUS STOP ENHANCEMENT2002 2003LONG BEACH PUBLICTRANSPORTATIONCOMPANYLA973029BUS STOP AMENITIES2001 2004LOS ANGELESCOUNTYLA974181LAC+USC MEDICAL CENTERBUS TRANSIT STATIONFACILITY WILLHAVE 4 BUS BAYS AND 4 LAYOVER BAYS BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTPRJ1998 200244ARCADIA LA990712NEW & EXPANDED SHUTTLE SERVICETHRU DOWNTOWN ARCADIACONNECTING HOTELS & BUSINESSES TO SANTA ANITA RACE TRAK& FASHION MALL (HUNTINGTON ST) & PROPOSED TRANSIT STATION2001 2003LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA996106DOWNTOWNPRKING MGMT ORDINANCEPRKNG ORD. TO MANAGEPRKNG SUPPLY2002 2003RIVERSIDE TRANSITAGENCYRIV32237IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PURCHASE BUS STOP AMENITIESAND OPERATION SUPPLIES2002 2005Non-motorized Facilities- Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities, NewUPLAND 2001015SP/PE RIGHT-OF-WAY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL - PHASE II(PART OF PACIFIC ELECTRIC TRAIL) CONSTRUCT 2.25 MILES OFBIKE/PED FROM EUCLID AVE TO ABANDONED ROW TO THECLAREMONT AVE2002 2003SANBAG 200074LUMP SUM - TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIESPROJECTS FOR SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY-BIKE/PED PROJECTS2001 2004SANTA MONICA LA030001CALIFORNIA INCLINE SIDEHILL VIADUCT BR 53C0543 ADD, INCLUDEDINSTATE IN STATE HBRR PROGRAM (0.3 MILE, 1-S, 1-N)SIDEWALK/BIKEWAY WIDENING& SEISMIC1998 2003WHITTIER LA0B7322WHITTIER GREENWAY TRAIL-ACQUISITION, DESIGN, ANDCONSTRUCT OF 2 MILES CLASS I BIKE/PED PATHON ANABANDONED RAIL ROW FROM NORWALK TO FIVE POINTS2000 2004SANTA CLARITA LA0B7335SANTA CLARA RIVER REGIONALTRAIL-DESIGNING OF7 MILES OFCLASS I BIKE/PED PATHALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RIVERFROM I-5 ON THE WEST TO DISCOVERY PARK ON THE EAST2002 2005SANTA CLARITA LA0C8156SANTA CLARITA REGIONAL COMMUTER TRAIL - I-5 TO FAIRWAYSDRIVE; CONSTRUCTION AND SOME ACQUISITION OF 1.0 MILES OFCLASS I BIKE PATHAND A BRIDGE RESTORATION ADJACENT TOSANTA CLARA.2003 2006LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0C8380 CHINATOWN/COLLEGE STREET BLUE LINE STATION ENHANCEMENTFEATURES CONSIST OF APEDESTRIAN WALKWAYBRIDGE; A BUSSTATION AND ABIKE STATION.2002 2004AGOURA HILLS LA990362CITYWIDESTREET AND BIKE PATH PROJ(T21-939)2000 2003BELLFLOWER LA996275WEST BRANCH GREENWAYMULTI-MODAL TRANS. CORRIDORDESIGNANDCONSTRUCT 2.5 MILE CLASS I BIKE PATHALONG MTAOWNED SANTA ANA BRANCH ROWINCL. PEDESTRIANANDLANDSCAPING2003 2003COMPTON LAOB7326COMPTON CREEK BIKEWAY EXTENSION - PHASE III.DESIGN &CONSTRUCT .6 MI OF CLASS 1 BIKE/PED PATHFROM GREENLEAFBLVD TO ARTESIA FWY.WILL INC BIKE PATH, PED WALKWAYSIGNAGE, STRIPING1997 2005SAN CLEMENTE ORA990451MULTI-USE TRAILIN SAN CLEMENTE CONSTUCTED PARALLEL TORAILROAD TRACKS. 2.6 MILES LONG.2000 2004 200745VARIOUS AGENCIES ORA990906LUMP SUM. TEA FUNDS FORBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITYPROJECTSTHROUGHOUT ORANGE COUNTY.2000 2002 2007SANBAG SBD031505VARIOUS LOCATIONS - LUMP SUMS LTF, ARTICLE3BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS2000 2004Non-motorized Facilities- Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities, ExpansionLONG BEACH LA0C8163BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS. 1.2 MILE CLASS IBIKE/PED PATH FROM WALNUT AVE TO WILLOW ST AT THE BLUELINE STATION.2002 2005LOS ANGELES COUNTYMTALA974124SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD TRANSIT PARKWAYTRANSITPEDESTRIAN AND BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTSALONG SANTAMONICA BLVD IN WEST LOS ANGELES, SPANS 2.51993 2002LOS ANGELES COUNTY LA996289SOUTH BAYBIKE TRAIL PED. ACCESS RAMPS/SIDEWALKS - DESIGNOF RAMPS, WALKWAYS TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE STH. BAYTRAIL AT DOCKWEILER STATE BEACH2002 2006Non-motorized Facilities- Bicycle Facilities, NewLOS ANGELES COUNTYMTALA000274FROM SEPULVEDA TO MORENO CONTRUCT DIVIDED PKWAY WITHTRANSIT PKWAY IMPROVEMENTS,BIKE LANES& RT. 2/405INTERCHANGE (94CFP; CAT. 2, 210, 98STIP00027) TEA21-#15311997 2003LOS ANGELES COUNTY LA002633THOMPSON CREEK BICYCLETRAIL (93/97 CFP;BIKE PROGRAM)CLASS I(2 MILES)1993 2003LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA0B7330SAN FERNANDO ROAD ROWBIKE PATH PHASE II-CONSTRUCT 2.75MILES CLASS I FROM FIRST ST TO BRANFORD ST, ON MTA-OWNEDROW PARALLEL TO SAN FERNANDO RD. LINK CYCLISTS TONUMEROUS BUS LINE2001 2005LOS ANGELES COUNTYMTALA0B7337CHANDLER BLVD ROWBIKE PATH: 170 FWY TO LA VALLEYCOLLEGE-DESIGN OF 2.3 MILES OF BIKEWAY AND OPTIONALPEDESTRIAN WALKWAY FROM 170 FWY TO LOS ANGELES VALLEYCOLLEGE2001 2005PALMDALE LA0C8147SIERRABIKEWAY RAILROAD OVERCROSSING. PROPOSE A .34 MILECLASS 1 BIKE PATH PROVIDING A GRADE SEPARATION AT AVE. QOVER THE UNION PACIFIC/METROLINK RAILS.2002 2006LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA0C8164EXPOSITION BLVD RIGHT-OF-WAYBIKE PATH-WESTSIDEEXTENSION. DESIGN OF 4.5 MILES OF CLASS 1 BIKEWAY, LIGHTING,LANDSCAPING & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.2002 2007LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0C8324 BICYCLE PARKING AT FIVE BLUE LINE STATIONS-PROJECT WILLINSTALL BICYCLE PARKING AND LOCKERSAT FIVE OF THE SIXPASADENA BLUE LINE STATIONS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF LA.2002 2003LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA0C8330BICYCLE COMMUTER TECHNOLOGY ACCESS, CITY'SWEB PAGEFOR BICYCLE PROGRAM2002 200646SANTA MONICA LA960192THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA VARIOUSBIKE RACKSAND LOCKERS2001 2002LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA962071L.A. RIVERBIKE PATHOVER LOS FELIZ BLVD. CLASS I AND CLASS II[CALL # 2071, MOU P.0002-071 ON 6/30/99]2001 2003CALTRANS LA962216TOPANGA CANYON BLVD.BIKE LANE(96 CFP PROJ)CLASS II(RESTRIPE TO ADD LANE_- 7 MILES)2001 2003LOS ANGELES COUNTYMTALA974083CHANDLER/BURBANKBIKE PATH-WHITEOAK TO PIERCE COLLEGE A3.2 MILE CLASS I BIKEWAY ON MTA'S CHANDLER/BURBANK RAILRIGHT-OF-WAY WILL IMPROVE NON-MOTORIZED ACCESS(COMBINED W/LA974078)2002 2003CALABASAS LA974100U.S. 101 INTERJURISDICTIONAL BIKELANE GAP CLOSURECONSTRUCTION 4.5 MILES OF BIKEWAYIMPROVEMENTS TO CLOSESEVERAL GAPS WITHIN A 12 MILE CORRIDOR(TEA21-#69)1999 2003SANTA MONICA LA990726BIKE RACKS(CFP/6089)2001 2006LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA996241CHANDLERBIKEWAY EXTENSION-DESIGN & CONSTRUCT .5 MILEEXT, CYCLIST SHOWER AND LOCKER FACILITY AT HISTORIC TRAINSTATION ACROSS FROM CHANDLER BLVD. FROM THE METRO REDLINE STATION.2002 2004ORANGE, CITY OF ORA990452TUSTIN BRANCH RAIL TRAIL (SANTA ANA RIVER TO FAIRHAVEN ST)CONVERT RAILS TOBIKE TRAILTHROUGH VILLA PARK ANDORANGE. CONNECTS 9 MILE TRAIL.2000 2003 2006Non-motorized Facilities- Bicycle Facilities, ExpansionLOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0C8318LA CITY AND SORROUNDING COMMUNITIESBICYCLE MAP-PROJECTWILL UPDATE BIKEWAY MAPPING INFO. FOR THE CITY OF LA ANDPLOT BYCYCLE LANE AND PATH INFORMATION ON A NEW MAP.2002 2004LOS ANGELES COUNTY LA996285SOUTH BAYBIKE TRAIL RECONSTRCTAT PLAYA DEL REY - DESIGNAND RECONSTRCT SEGMENT OF THE TRAIL AT DOCKWEILERSTATE BEACH.2002 2005LOS ANGELES COUNTY LA996288SAN GABRIEL RVR.BIKE TRAIL REHABPHASE I - FROM WHITTIERNARROWS DAM TO FLORENCE AVE.2002 2005Non-motorized Facilities- Pedestrian Facilities, NewCOMMERCE 927108ALAMEDA CORRIDOR IN COMMERCE AT ATLANTIC BOULEVARD ANDTELEGRAPH ROAD -INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS2001 2002LOS ANGELES COUNTYMTALA002738BIKEWAY/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEOVER LA R RIVER AT TAYLOR YARDCLASS I (CFP 738, 2077)1994 2002CALTRANS LA0B420IN VAN NUYS -MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER-PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING2001 2002SANTA MONICA LA0B7267CROSSWAY ENHANCEMENTS ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORENHANCEMENTS DESIGNED TOIMPROVE PEDESTRIAN ACCESSTOEXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT FACILITIES ALONG SANTA2001 200247SOUTH PASADENA LA0B7271BLUE LINEPEDESTRIAN LINKAGE AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTSINCLUDE SIGNAGE, UPGRADES CROSSWALKS, PEDESTRIANLIGHTING, ENHANCED SIDEWALK AROUND THE STATION IN THEAREA MISSION ST STATION2002 2003LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0B7278 NORTHEAST COMMUNITY LINKAGES PHASE II-HIGHLIGHTPEDESTRIAN CONNCTNSW/RAIL & BUS LINES ALONG MARMIONWAY AND AT PASADENA AVE, FIGUEROA ST, FRENCH AVE, AND AVE45, 50, 60, 61.2002 2002LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0B7285ALISO VILLAGEPEDESTRIAN LINKAGEPROJECT-LINK THE NEWRECONSTRUCTED ALISO VILLAGE PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENTTO THE 2ND ST TRANSIT WAY & METRO RAIL STATION AT FIRSTAND BOYLE ST.2002 2002LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0B7290VERMONTSIDEWALK WIDENING/TRANSIT AVENIDA: EXPOSITIONBLVD TO I-10-ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT/INCREASESAFETY ON VERMONT AVE2001 2003LOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0B7293SAN PEDRO PEDESTRIAN WAY-PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAYSLINKING EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES AND PROPOSEDPARKING STRUCTURE TO SURROUNDING & OTHER DESTINATIONSIN DOWNTOWN SAN PEDRO2001 2003WESTLAKE VILLAGE LA960142LINDERO CANYON ROAD FROM AGOURA RD TO JANLOR DRCONSTRUCT BIKE PATH, RESTRIPE STREET, INTERSECTIONWIDENING, SIGNAL COORDINATION, RAMP WIDENING (TEA21-#65)1999 2003LOS ANGELES COUNTY LAOB416IN LOS ANGELES - DOWNTOWN OVER FREEWAY 101 -PEDESTRIANBRIDGE ENHANCEMENT2002 2004IRVINE ORA990802IRVINE AMTRAK STATIONBUILD PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSINGANDLANDSCAPING1999 2000 2001Non-motorized Facilities- Pedestrian Facilities, ExpansionLOS ANGELES, CITYOFLA0B7274CITYWIDE STPEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT-CONSISTS OF A SERIESOF STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS WITHIN DOWNTOWN LADESIGNED TO STRENGTHEN THE PEDESTRIAN LINKAGE BETWEENDOWNTOWN DESTINATIONS.2002 2002LOS ANGELES COUNTY LA0B7288GRAND AVE. REALIGNMENT ANDPEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTSGRAND AVENUE BETWEEN TEMPLE AND SECOND STREET;CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO BLOCK REALIGNMENT OF GRANDAVENUE IN DOWNTOWN L.A2001 2003EL MONTE LA0B7296CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.LOCATED AT RAMONABL/VALLEY BL, PECK RD/VALLEY BL, PECK RD/LOWER AZUSA RD,PECK RD/RAMONA BL, RAMONA BL/SANTA ANITA2002 2004LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA0C8174LITTLE TOKYOPEDESTRIAN LINKAGES. CONSTRUCTION OFIMPROVEMENTS: SIDEWALK AND CROSSWALK ENHANCEMENTS,STREET FURNITURE & LANDSCAPING TO PROMOTE PEDESTRIANTRAVEL W/IN LITTLE TOKYO.2001 200448LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA0C8209HOLLYWOOD MEDIA DISTRICT-PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS.INCLUDING SMART CROSSWALKS, TRAFFIC SIGNAL, LANDSCAPINGETC. BET. BUS STOPS ALONG SANTA MONICA BLVD, VINE ST ANDHIGHLAND AVE.2004 2005SANTA CLARITA LA973024IMPROVEPEDESTRIAN ACCESSTO TRNSIT STOPS, INSTALLINGCROSSWALKS, SIDE- WALKS, AND PEDESTRIAN-ACTUATED TRAFFICSIGNALS.@ 17 TRANSIT STOPS VARIOUS LOCATIONS, PROJECTEXEMPT2001 2003PASADENA LA974129PASADENA BLUE LINE COMMUNITY LINKAGESPEDESTRIANIMPROVEMENTSTO TWO PLANNED METRO PASADENA BLUE LINESTATIONS WITHIN THE CITY1999 2003MANHATTAN BEACH LAOB418IN MANHATTAN BEACH - MARINE AVENUE BETWEEN SEPULVEDABLVD (STATE ROUTE 1) AND VALLEY/ARDOMORPEDESTRIANANDAESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS2001 2003RIALTO SBD59203PEDESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTSAT RIALTO METROLINKSTATION IN BETWEEN ORANGE AND RIVERSIDE AVENUES (IN ALLEYWAY IN BETWEEN METROLINK AND DOWNTOWN BUSINESSDISTRICT2000 2003Information-based Strategies- Marketing and Promotion of Rideshare and Intermodal ServicesLOS ANGELES COUNTYMTA927333RIDESHARE ACTIVITIES1997 2005SANBAG 94163RIDESHAREACTIVITIES FOR SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN2002 2007LOS ANGELES COUNTYMTALA0C8109COUNTYWIDETRANSPORTATION SYS. AWARENESS &SATISFACTION. PROJECTWILL USE AND EXPAND UPON IT'SPREDECESSOR'S WORK, THE SERVICE PLANNING MARKETRESEARCH PROGRAM (SPMRP) FOR TRANSIT2001 2007LOS ANGELESCOUNTY MTALA0C8118TDM PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT2002 2004LOS ANGELES COUNTYMTALA991305RIDESHARE 2000/CLUB METRO- EXTEND AND EXPAND IMPLEMNT.INCNTIVE PRGM. TO ENCOURAGE USE OF ALT. MODES OF TRAVELOTHER THAN DRIVING ALONE.2000 2005ORANGE COUNTYTRANS AUTHORITY(OCTA)ORA65002RIDESHARE SERVICESRIDEGUIDE, DATABASE, CUSTOMER INFO,AND MARKETING. (ORANGE COUNTY PORTION).- -RIVERSIDE COUNTYTRANS COMMISSION(RCTC)RIV520111REGIONALRIDESHARE2002 2005Information-based Strategies- Intelligent Transportation Systems/Control System ComputerizationCALTRANS LA962214PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAYTRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMFROMMCCLURE TUNNEL TO TRANCAS CANYON RD TRAFFIC MAN. & BUSSPEED IMPROVEMNT(TEA21-#707)1995 200349CORONA RIV010227CORONAAUTOMATED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM(ATMS)2002 2005Information-based Strategies -Real-time Rail, Transit or Freeway Notification SystemsLOS ANGELES COUNTY LA0C8316TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION PROJECT(TIP). EQUIP COUNTYEMPLOYEES AT 41 SITES THROUGHOUT LA COUNTY WITH THETOOLS NEEDED TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUALIZED TRANSIT ITINERARIESETC.2002 2005LONG BEACH PUBLICTRANSPORTATIONCOMPANYLA0C8320SOUTHEASTREGIONAL TRANSIT INFORMATION NETWORK-WILLMAKE USERS IDENTIFY THE TRANSIT OPTION THAT BEST MEETSTHEIR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS BY SERVING AS A ONE STOP SOURCE.2002 2003LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LA0C8321LA CULTURAL TOURISM WEB PAGE DEVELOP &TRANSITPROMOTION. ENCOURAGES THE USE OF MASS TRANSIT ATTARGETED TRIP GENERATION NODES AND FACILITATE MASSTRANSIT USE TO REG. DESTINATIONS.2001 2005LONG BEACH LA0C8331LONG BEACHWAYFINDING/TRANSIT CONNECTION PROGRAMMAJORITY OF SIGNS WILL BE PEDESTRIAN, AND WILL INCLUDEMAPPING THAT DISPLAYS DESTINATIONS AND TRANSIT OPTIONS.2002 2004FOOTHILL TRANSITZONELA9811007CUSTOMER SERVICES KIOSKPROJECT2001 2003SCAG LA996082WEB ACCESS VANPOOL INFO SYSDEV & IMPLMENT DATABSE FORVANPOOLS, VACANCIES1999 2002SCAG LA996083COMMUTER CHANNELNON-MONETARY SUBSCRIPTION SRVCE1999 2002MISSION VIEJO ORA990902MISSION VIEJO (CITYWIDE) REMOTE TMC AND TRAVLER/PUBLICINFO ACCESS CENTER.PROVIDES TRAFFIC INFOTO PUBLICLIBRARIES. EST COMM INTERTIE BETWEEN CITY AND CALTRANS1999 2002 2004SCAG RIV62103 ITS TRANSIT PROJECT INCLUDES AUTOMATED VEHICLE LOCATOR,GLOBAL POSITION SAT:MOBILE DATA TERMINALS1999 2002

# 50 

# ATTACHMENT 2



# Fiscally Constrained Projects from the 2001 RTP 4

4 

# See <http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtp/webpdfs/appendix_K.pdf > [2001 RTP:p. K2-K11]512001 RTP - CONSTRAINED PROJECT LISTCountyRouteProject LimitsDescriptionYearPublic Cost (97$)*Private/Other Cost(97$)*ARTERIALSIM Arterial Improvements Countywide Arterials/Interchanges 2025 $194,000,000GRADE CROSSINGSIM SR-98 Railroad Intersection Bridge & Grade Crossing 2025 $2,000,000MIXED FLOWIM SR-7 I-8 to SR-115 Expressway 2010 $13,000,000IM SR-98 SR-111 to new SR-7 Expressway 2010 $23,000,000IM SR-111 SR-98 to I-8 Expressway 2010 $23,000,000IM SR-111 SR-78 to SR-111/SR-115 Expressway 2010 $10,000,000IM SR-115 Evan Hewes Hwy to SR-78 Expressway 2010 $35,000,000O&MIM Add. Operations & Maint. Countywide Operations/Maintenance 2025 $50,000,000TDM/NON-MOTORIZEDIM TDM (Non-motorized,telecommute, etc.)Countywide TDM (Non-motorized,telecommute, etc.)2025 $30,000,000$380,000,000$0ARTERIALSLA Arterial Improvements / GroundAccessCountywide Arterials/Interchanges 2025 $488,000,000GRADE CROSSINGSLA Arterial Goods Movement/ GradeCrossingsCountywide Arterial Goods Movement/ GradeCrossings2025 $433,000,000HOVLA SR-14 Ave. P-8 to Ave. L Freeway: HOV 2015 $23,000,000LA I-405 US-101 to Burbank Blvd (NB) Freeway: HOV 2010 $3,000,000LA I-5/SR-170 North to South/South to North HOV Connector 2025 $37,000,000LA I-5/I-405 North to South/South to North HOV Connector 2025 $73,000,000LA I-710 I-10 to Huntington Dr Freeway: HOV 2010 $92,000,00052LA I-710 Huntington Dr to I-210 Freeway: HOV 2020 $137,000,000MIXED FLOWLA I-710 I-10 to Huntington Dr Freeway: Mixed Flow 2010 $274,000,000LA I-710 Huntington Dr to I-210 Freeway: Mixed Flow 2020 $412,000,000LA I-5 ** Rosecrans to Or Co Line Freeway: Mixed Flow 2010 $110,000,000LA I-5 Interchanges Orange Co to Rosemead Blvd Interchanges 2025 $181,000,000LA SR-57/SR-60 Interchange 2025 $181,000,000O&MLA Add. Operations & Maint. Countywide Roadway Operations & Maint. 2025 $250,000,000TDM/NON-MOTORIZEDLA Non-motorized Countywide Non-motorized 2025 $385,000,000LA TDM (Telecommute, park and ride,etc.)Countywide TDM (Telecommute, park and ride, etc.) 2025 $155,000,000LA Rideshare & Other IncentiveProgramsCountywide Rideshare & Other Incentive Programs 2025 $180,000,000LA ITS/Signal Synchronization CountywideITS/Signal Synchronization 2025 $555,000,000TRANSITLA Metrolink Improvements Countywide Commuter Rail 2025 $346,000,000LA Countywide Bus SystemImprovementCountywide Countywide Bus System Improvement 2025 $537,000,000LA Local Transit Assistance Countywide Transit Capital Project Funding 2025 $262,000,000LA Tiered Transit System Countywide Implementation 2025 $0 TBDLA Community Transit Service Countywide Community Transit Service 2025 $0 TBDLA Green Line Extension Mariposa@Nash to Century@Sepulveda(LAX Term.)Light Rail 2010 $0 $145,000,000LA Vermont Rapid Bus 2010 $65,000,000LA Venice & Pico/East 1st Rapid Bus 2010 $152,000,000LA Van Nuys Rapid Bus 2010 $98,000,000LA Crenshaw-Rossmore Rapid Bus 2010 $98,000,000LA Avalon Rapid Bus 2010 $79,000,000LA Florence Rapid Bus 2010 $131,000,000LA Santa Monica Rapid Bus 2010 $90,000,000LA Western Rapid Bus 2010 $82,000,00053LA Long Beach Ave Rapid Bus 2010 $96,000,000LA Hawthorne Rapid Bus 2010 $77,000,000LA Hollywood-Pasadena Rapid Bus 2010 $78,000,000LA Soto Rapid Bus 2010 $55,000,000LA San Fernando Rd Rapid Bus 2010 $102,000,000LA West Third Rapid Bus 2010 $32,000,000LA Hollywood-Fairfax Rapid Bus 2010 $39,000,000LA Alvarado Rapid Bus 2010 $25,000,000LA Garvey Rapid Bus 2010 $62,000,000LA Century Blvd Rapid Bus 2010 $47,000,000LA Vernon-La Cienega Rapid Bus 2010 $80,000,000LA Roscoe Rapid Bus 2010 $106,000,000LA Atlantic Rapid Bus 2010 $92,000,000LA San Fernando Valley North/South Corridor Transit Corridor 2015 $102,000,000LA Crenshaw Corridor Transit Corridor 2025 $173,000,000TRUCK LANESLA SR-60 I-710 to SB Co Line Truck Lanes 2010 $2,374,000,000 $1,032,000,000$9,449,000,000$1,177,000,000ARTERIALSOR Arterial Improvements / GroundAccessCountywide Arterial Improvements / Ground Access 2025 $135,000,000 $131,600,000OR Other Arterials, Ground Access Countywide Arterial Widening (Per Master Plan ofArterial Highways)2025 $430,000,000 TBDOR SR-133 - Laguna Canyon Rd PCH Laguna Fwy @ I-405 Smart Street improvements 2010 $9,000,000 $21,000,000OR Adams Avenue Beach Boulevard to HarborSmart Street improvements 2010 $6,000,000 $11,000,000OR Bolsa Avenue/First Street Bolsa Chica Road toI-5 Smart Street improvements 2010 $17,000,000 $33,000,000OR Crown Valley Parkway PCH to Foothill TC Smart Street improvements 2010 $15,000,000 $29,000,000OR El Toro Road Laguna Cyn Rd to Foothill TC Smart Street improvements 2010 $15,000,000 $29,000,000OR Harbor Boulevard Imperial Highway to I-5 Smart Street improvements (Partially inbaseline ORA00165-167)2010 $29,000,000 $57,000,000OR Irvine Blvd./Trabuco Road El Toro Road to I-5 Smart Street improvements 2010 $18,000,000 $36,000,000OR Jamboree Road Irvine Boulevard to SR-73 Smart Street improvements 2010 $11,000,000 $21,000,00054OR Newport Boulevard 19th St to FinleySmart Street improvements 2010 $3,000,000 $5,000,000OR Orangethorpe Avenue Beach Blvd to Imperial Hwy Smart Street improvements 2010 $19,000,000 $37,000,000OR Pacific Coast Highway San Juan Creek to Warner Smart Street improvements 2010 $20,000,000 $80,000,000OR Tustin Avenue/Rose Drive SR-91 to Imperial Hwy Smart Street improvements 2010 $6,000,000 $11,000,000OR Valley View SR-22 to SR-91 Smart Street improvements 2010 $13,000,000 $27,000,000OR Warner Avenue Harbor Blvd to PCH Smart Street improvements 2010 $13,000,000 $25,000,000GRADE CROSSINGSOR Track Lowering: OrangethorpeCorridorOrangethorpe Corridor: From PlacentiaAve to Kellogg DriveAccomodates Placentia crossings at:Kraemer, Orangethorpe, Tustin/Rose,Jefferson, Van Buren, Richfield,Lakeview, Kellogg2010 $0 $318,000,000OR Orangethorpe Corridor State College in Fullerton Grade Crossing 2010 $25,000,000OR Orange/Olive Corridor GradeCrossingsOrange/Olive Branch, various locationsGrade separate streets @ railroad tracks(full description provided in expandedlist)2010 $151,000,000OR Other Grade Separations TBD Countywide grade separations 2020 $109,000,000HOT LANES/TOLLWAYSOR Corridor SR-241 to Riv Co Line Corridor 2010 $520,000,000OR SR-91 @ SR-241 SR-91 @ SR-241 Add Tollway Connection Ramps 2020 $90,000,000HOVOR I-5 SR-1 to Pico Freeway: HOV 2020 $70,000,000OR SR-55 I-5 to Dyer, NB and SB Extend I-5/SR-55 HOV connector to Dyeras separate HOV lane2010 $40,000,000OR SR-22 @ I-5 SR-22 @ I-5 HOV Connector 2025 $66,000,000OR SR-22 @ SR-55 SR-22 @ SR-55 HOV Connector 2025 $63,000,000OR I-405 @ SR-22 I-405 @ SR-22 HOV Connector 2010 $60,000,000OR I-605 @ I-405 I-605 @ I-405 HOV Connector 2010 $85,000,000OR I-405 HOV Drop Ramps @ Von Karman HOV Drop Ramps 2025 $24,000,000MIXED FLOWOR I-405, NB & SB Magnolia Avenue to Beach Blvd. Auxiliary Lanes 2010 $8,000,000OR SR-55 I-5 to McArthur Blvd Auxiliary Lanes 2010 $40,000,00055OR SR-57 LA Co Line to SR-22 Add NB Aux Lane from Katella to SR-91and from Orangethorpe to Imperial Hwy;Add SB Aux Lane from LA County to SR91; Add NB Truck Climbing Lane fromLambert to Tonner2010 $186,000,000OR SR-91 SR-57 to I-5 (WB only) Auxiliary Lanes 2020 $15,000,000OR SR-91 WB SR-55 to Tustin Ave Auxiliary Lanes 2010 $25,000,000OR SR-91 SR-241 to SR-71 Auxiliary Lanes 2025 $7,000,000OR SR-91 Freeway Between SR-71 (Riv County) and CoalCanyonAuxiliary Lane (WB) 2006 $5,000,000OR I-405 @ SR-55 I-405 @ SR-55 (BristolBraid) Interchange Improvement 2020 $32,000,000OR I-5 NB & SB I-5 La Paz to Oso Add auxiliary lane, widen bridge,intersection improvements2010 $13,000,000OR I-5, NB & SB at La Paz Road Reconstruct interchange 2010 $30,000,000OR I-5, SB at Alicia Parkway Auxiliary Lane 2010 $2,000,000OR I-5, SB at Jamboree Provide two lane off-ramp and widenterminal section of off-ramp2010 $3,000,000OR I-5, SB at Culver Drive Widen off-ramp to 2 lanes 2010 $1,000,000OR SR-91, WB Lakeview @ SR-91 Reconfigure ramp 2010 $8,000,000OR SR-91, EB Truck scales to ImperialHwy Add truck storage lane 2010 $1,000,000OR I-5, SB I-5 between 1st and SR-55 Operational Improvements 2020 $50,000,000OR I-5/SR-74 I-5/SR-74 Separation Interchange Improvement 2020 $30,000,000OR I-5, NB & SB Avery Parkway Interchange Improvement 2020 $18,000,000OR SR-133 at Sand Canyon Interchange Improvement 2010 TBDOR I-405, NB NB I-405 - @ Culver and Sand Canyon Add auxiliary lanes, extend right lanes totie with merge lanes2020 $12,000,000OR I-5/I-405, NB Alicia Parkway to SandCanyon Add auxiliary lane; signing & stripingimprovements2020 $2,000,000OR Countywide Other Chokepoints Countywide Fix Freeway Chokepoints that causebottlenecksTBD $643,000,000O&MOR Add. Operations & Maint. Countywide Roadway Operations & Maint. 2025 $189,000,000 $189,000,000TDM/NON-MOTORIZED56OR Non-Motorized Countywide O.C. Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 2010 $29,000,000OR Non-Motorized Commuter Bikeway Strategic Plan Add Class I, II, and Class III bikewaysper Commuter Bikeways Plan2025 $110,000,000OR Traveler Information / ITS Countywide Traveler Information, ITS & Ridesharing 2025 $50,000,000OR TDM (Telecommute, park and ride,etc.)Countywide TDM (Telecommute, park and ride, etc.) 2025 $31,000,000TRANSITOR Garden Grove Blvd Rapid Bus 2010 $110,000,000OR Katella Ave Rapid Bus 2010 $110,000,000OR Bolsa Ave/1st St Rapid Bus 2010 $110,000,000OR Harbor Blvd Rapid Bus 2010 $110,000,000OR Bristol St Rapid Bus 2010 $110,000,000OR Main St Rapid Bus 2010 $110,000,000OR Intermodal Center Anaheim Transit Center 2025 $50,000,000OR Local Transit Service Countywide Local Transit Service 2015 TBDOR Commuter Rail Countywide Track and Stations (Per SCRRA LongRange Plan)2010 $270,000,000$3,940,000,000$1,702,600,000ARTERIALSRIV Arterial Improvements / GroundAccessCountywide Arterials/Interchanges 2025 $400,000,000 $106,000,000RIV Hamner Ave/Main St SB CL to Ontario Ave Smart Street 2015 $45,000,000RIV Limonite Ave/Rubidoux Blvd I-15 to Riverside Ave (via Agua Mansa) Smart Street 2020 $63,000,000RIV Magnolia Ave/Main St Ontario Ave to SB CL Smart Street 2015 $88,000,000GRADE CROSSINGSRIV Grade Crossings Countywide Grade Crossings 2025 $600,000,000HOT LANES/TOLLWAYSRIV Corridor Or Co Line to I-15 Corridor 2010 $300,000,000 $700,000,00057HOVRIV I-15 SB Co Line to SR-91 Freeway: HOV 2020 $43,000,000RIV I-215 Ramona Exwy to E Jct SR-60/I-215 Freeway: HOV 2025 $41,000,000RIV I-215 SR-60/I-215/SR-91 IC to SB Co Line Freeway: HOV 2020 $60,000,000RIV SR-60/I-215 60/215 E Jct east to SR-60 HOV Connector 2010 $33,000,000RIV SR-60/I-215 60/215 E Jct south to I-215 HOV Connector 2025 $7,000,000RIV I-215 I-15 to s/o Nuevo Freeway: Mixed Flow & HOV 2025 $82,000,000RIV SR-71 SB Co Line to SR-91 Freeway: Mixed Flow & HOV 2015 $100,000,000MIXED FLOWRIV I-15 SR-91 to SR-60 Freeway: Mixed Flow 2020 $40,000,000RIV I-215 Eucalyptus to Columbia Freeway: Mixed Flow 2025 $75,000,000RIV I-10 Monterey to Dillon Freeway: Mixed Flow 2010 $40,000,000RIV SR-79 Ramona Expwy to Newport RdExpressway: Mixed Flow 2010 $130,000,000RIV Riverside/San Bernardino Corridor SanBernardino to Moreno Valley 2025 $350,000,000RIV Corridor Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore 2025 $400,000,000RIV Corridor Banning/Beaumont to Temecula 2025 $650,000,000O&MRIV Add. Operations & Maint. Countywide Roadway Operations & Maint. 2025 $200,000,000TDM/NON-MOTORIZEDRIV Non-motorized Countywide Non-motorized 2025 $50,000,000RIV Rideshare & Other IncentiveProgramsCountywide Rideshare & Other Incentive Programs 2025 $22,000,000RIV TDM (Telecommute, park and ride,etc.)Countywide TDM (Telecommute, park and ride, etc.) 2025 $25,000,000RIV ITS Countywide ITS 2025 $25,000,000TRANSITRIV Metrolink Improvements Countywide Commuter Rail 2025 $184,000,000RIV San Jacinto Commuter Rail 4th & D St to 7th & State St Commuter Rail 2020 $63,000,000RIV Intercity Rail Colton (SB Co.) to PalmSprings Intercity Rail (AMTRAK) 2015 $150,000,000TRUCK LANES58RIV I-15 SB Co Line to SR-60 Truck Lanes 2020 $40,000,000 $20,000,000RIV SR-60 SB Co Line to I-15 Truck Lanes 2010 $40,000,000 $20,000,000$4,196,000,000$996,000,000ARTERIALSSB Arterials - Funded/Likely by 2010 Countywide Arterials 2010 $523,000,000SB Arterials Tier I Countywide Arterials 2020 $84,000,000GRADE CROSSINGSSB Grade Crossings - Tier I Countywide Grade Crossings 2020 $456,000,000HOVSB I-215 SR-30 to I-15 Freeway: Mixed Flow & HOV 2025 $80,000,000SB I-10 I-15 to SR-38 Freeway: HOV 2020 $111,000,000SB I-10 SR-38 to Yucaipa Freeway: HOV 2020 $0SB I-10 Yucaipa Bl to Riverside Co. Line Freeway: HOV 2025 $19,000,000SB I-15 Riv Co Line to I-215 Freeway: HOV 2025 $81,000,000SB I-15 I-215 to US-395 Freeway: HOV 2020 $95,000,000SB I-15 US-395 to D St Freeway: HOV 2020 $62,000,000SB I-215 Riv CL to I-10 Freeway: HOV 2010 $117,000,000SB I-10/I215 South to East/East to South HOV Connector 2025 $13,000,000SB I-10/I-15 South to West/West to South HOV Connector 2025 $12,000,000SB I-10/I-15 North to West/West to North HOV Connector 2025 $12,000,000MIXED FLOWSB I-215 I-10 to SR-30 Freeway: Mixed Flow 2010 $0SB SR-18 LA Co Line to US 395 Expressway: Mixed Flow 2020 $22,000,000SB SR-18 I-15 to Thunderbird Expressway: Mixed Flow 2020 $10,000,000SB SR-30 Highland to I-10 Freeway: Mixed Flow 2020 $34,000,000SB SR-38 Redlands City Limit (W) to Redlands CityLimit (E)Expressway: Mixed Flow 2020 $5,000,000SB SR-58 Kern County Line to I-15 Freeway: Mixed Flow 2010 $171,000,000SB SR-62 Fairway Dr to SR-247 Expressway: Mixed Flow 2020 $6,000,000SB SR-83 Merril Av to Kimball Av Expressway: Mixed Flow 2010 $1,000,000SB SR-138 I-15 to L.A. Co. Line Expressway: Mixed Flow 2010 $23,000,00059SB SR-142 Carbon Canyon Rd to Pipeline DrExpressway: Mixed Flow 2020 $3,000,000SB SR-247 North of SR-62 to Griffis RdExpressway: Mixed Flow 2020 $3,000,000SB US-395 Junction I-15 to Junction SR-18 Freeway: Mixed Flow 2020 $85,000,000SB US-395 Junction SR-18 to 0.6 mi N/O DesertFlower Rd.Freeway: Mixed Flow 2020 $113,000,000SB I-15 Duncan Canyon Rd in Fontana New Interchange 2010 $19,000,000SB I-215 Barton Road in Grand Terrace Widen over-crossing 2-4 lanes 2010 $1,000,000SB I-15 Oak Hill Rd in S. B. County Replace overcrossing 2010 $1,000,000SB I-15 Stoddard Wells Rd in Victorville Interchange 2010 $14,000,000SB East -West High Desert Corridor- Falchion/Rancho 4 2020 $90,000,000SB SR-18 PM 31.90 (Junction SR-330) toPM 31.93 Intersection Improvement 2020SB SR-18 PM 35.00 (E/O Green Valley Lake Rd.) toPM 36.53Realignment 2020SB SR-18 PM 37.75 to PM 38.00 Off-Street Parking 2020SB SR-18 PM 39.00 to PM 40.86 1 2020SB SR-18 PM 41.75 to PM 42.35 1 2020SB SR-330 PM 30.63 to PM 31.48 1 2020SB SR-330 PM 32.03 to PM 32.76 1 2020SB SR-330 PM 33.38 to PM 36.07 1 2020SB SR-330 PM 36.50 to PM 37.75 1 2020SB SR-330 PM 37.61 to PM 40.76 1 2020SB SR-330 PM 44.08 to PM 44.11 (Jct SR-18) Add Right Turn Into Running Springs 2020 $56,000,000 Total for SR-18 andSR-330SB I-15 US-395 Interchange 2020 $14,000,000SB I-15 Mojave St Interchange 2020 $14,000,000SB I-10 Cedar Av Interchange 2020 $14,000,000SB I-10 Beech Av Interchange 2020 $14,000,000SB I-10 Mountain View Av Interchange 2020 $14,000,000SB I-10 Mt Vernon Av Interchange 2020 $14,000,000SB I-10 California St Interchange 2020 $14,000,000SB I-10 Wabash Av Interchange 2020 $14,000,000SB I-15 Cajon Jn/SR-138 Interchange 2020 $14,000,00060SB I-215 University Pkwy Interchange 2020 $14,000,000SB I-10 Alabama St Interchange 2025 $14,000,000SB I-15 6th Street Interchange 2025 $14,000,000SB I-15 Sierra Av Interchange 2025 $14,000,000SB SR-30 Waterman Av Interchange 2025 $14,000,000SB SR-30 Del Rosa Av Interchange 2025 $14,000,000SB SR-30 Highland Av Interchange 2025 $14,000,000SB I-215 Pepper/Linden Av Interchange 2025 $14,000,000SB I-215 Palm Av Interchange 2025 $14,000,000SB Tier II Corridors No-So Study Area (e/o I-215 and between I-215 & I-15); Pine Ave & Tonner Cyn(Four Corners)2025 $222,000,000O&MSB Add. Operations & Maint. Countywide Roadway Operations & Maint. 2025 $107,000,000TDM/NON-MOTORIZEDSB ITS Countywide ITS 2025 $29,000,000SB Motorist Assistance Program Countywide Rideshare 2025 $45,000,000SB Project Development & TrafficMitigationCountywide Project Development & Traffic Mitigation 2025 $55,000,000SB Non-motorized Countywide Non-motorized 2025 $50,000,000SB TDM (Telecommute, park and ride,etc.)Countywide TDM (Telecommute, park and ride, etc.) 2025 $25,000,000TRANSITSB Commuter Rail Countywide Commuter Rail 2025 $482,000,000SB Local Transit Service CountywideLocal Transit Service 2025 $314,000,000SB Elderly Handicapped Assistance CountywideElderly Handicapped Assistance 2025 $118,000,000TRUCK LANESSB I-15 Riv Co Line to US 395 Truck Lanes 2020 $622,000,000 $300,000,000SB SR-60 LA Co Line to Riv Co Line Truck Lanes 2010 $550,000,000 $250,000,000SB I-15 Devore to Summit Truck Climbing Lane 2010 $9,000,000$5,202,000,000$550,000,000ARTERIALS61VEN Misc. Arterial SystemImprovementsCountywide Misc. Arterial System Improvements 2020 $135,000,000MIXED FLOWVEN SR-33 (Casitas Bypass) Foster Park toCreek Rd Expressway: Mixed Flow 2020 $45,000,000VEN SR-118 Tapo Canyon to New LA Ave. Freeway: Mixed Flow 2015 $66,000,000VEN SR-118 (Moorpark Bypass) West C.L. to New L.A. Ave Freeway: Mixed Flow 2015 $46,000,000VEN SR-118 SR-232 to Moorpark Expressway: Mixed Flow 2015 $90,000,000VEN US-101 La Conchita to Mussel Shoals Interchange Improvement 2005 $15,000,000O&MVEN Arterial Maint. Backlog Countywide Arterial Maintenance Backlog 2025 $110,000,000TDM/NON-MOTORIZEDVEN Misc. ITS Project Implementation CountywideMisc. ITS Project Implementation 2025 $80,000,000VEN TDM (bike & ped projects,telecommute, etc.)Countywide TDM (bike & ped projects, telecommute,etc.)2025 $30,000,000VEN Santa Paula Branch RecreationalTrailMontalvo to LA County Line Santa Paula Branch Recreational Trail 2015 $35,000,000TRANSITVEN Transit Service Expansion Countywide Transit Services 2025 $325,000,000VEN Metrolink Service Expansion Ventura to LA Co. Line Commuter Rail 2020 $116,000,000VEN Tunnel 26 Countywide Rail TunnelReconstruction 2005 $12,000,000 $2,000,000VEN Coast Main Line Countywide Enhanced Metrolink Capital Maint. 2025 $45,000,000 $0$1,150,000,000$2,000,000REG Maglev System Maglev System By 2010 - LAX-March***;By 2025 - Total System2010 / 2025 $16,000,000,000$0$16,000,000,000Total$24,317,000,000$20,427,600,000

# 62 

# ATTACHMENT 3

Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM)

Analysis

# 63 

# 1. Introduction

Background

Section 172(c)(1) of the 1977 Clean Air Act requires State Implementation Plans (SIPs)

to provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM)

as expeditiously as practicable. Guidance on interpreting RACM requirements in the

context of the 1990 Amendments was set forth in the General Preamble (57 FR 13498,

13560) in 1992. In the General Preamble, EPA interpreted section 172(c)(1) as imposing

a duty on States to consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement

measures that are reasonably available for implementation in a specific nonattainment

area. It also retained an earlier interpretation of RACM that it would not be reasonable to

require the implementation of measures that do not advance the date for attainment.

With regard to transportation control measures (TCMs), EPA revised earlier guidance by

indicating that it is inappropriate to presume that all section 108(f) measures are available

in all nonattainment areas. Instead, States should consider 108(f) measures as potential

options that are not exhaustive but indicative of the types of measures that should be

considered. In addition any measure identified as reasonably available during the public

comment period should also be considered for implementation. EPA indicated that States

could reject measures as not reasonably available for reasons related to local conditions.

States are required to justify why available measures were not considered RACM and not

adopted in the SIP. Valid reasons for rejecting a measure include that it would not

advance the attainment date, it is economically infeasible or it is technologically

infeasible. It should be noted that TCMs in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) are

yielding fewer emission reductions over time because of technological advances of

vehicle fleets, and in the future may not significantly advance the attainment date.

In 1999, EPA issued a memorandum entitled “Guidance on the Reasonably Available

Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for

Ozone Nonattainment Areas.” In this me morandum by John Sietz, Director, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA states that in order to determine whether a state

has adopted all RACM necessary for attainment and as expeditiously as practicable, the

state must explain why the selected implementation schedule is the earliest schedule

based on circumstances of the area. Claims that indicate more time is needed for

implementation should be “specifically grounded in evidence of economic or technologic

infeasibility. Sources of potentially reasonable measures include measures adopted in

other nonattainment areas and measures that EPA has identified in guidelines or other

documents.”

# 64 

# Approach

Several steps are needed to respond to the RACM requirements articulated in the EPA

guidance described above. First is a desc ription of the process by which SCAG and

related transportation agencies in the South Coast identify, review and make enforceable

commitments to implement TCMs. That process was established in the 1994 AQMP/SIP

(Air Quality Management Plan/State Impl ementation Plan) by replacing a process that

developed TCMs each time a SIP was produced with a continuous ongoing TCM

process. This process continues to govern the selection and implementation of TCMs.

Second is the assembly of a lis t of control measures recently implemented in other ozone

nonattainment areas. This effort involved a review of measures implemented in

California nonattainment areas as well thos e located in Arizona and Texas and the

organization of those measures in the 16 cat egories specified in section 108(f) of the

Clean Air Act. The third step is to contrast the list of available 108(f) measures with

measures implemented to date in the Basi n as well as any new commitments in the

current AQMP. The fourth step is to provi de a reasoned justification for any of the

available measures that have yet to be impl emented. These justifications must address

criteria described in the above-cited guidance. The fifth and final step is to commit to

improvements in the ongoing TCM selection process to increase the frequency of

consideration. This step is needed to ensure that TCM selection and implementation is a

routine consideration in the coming years as the South Coast Air Quality Management

District (AQMD) works to identify those measures needed to ensure attainment by 2010.

Organization

This Introduction provides a review of EPA RACM guidance and outlines an approach

for satisfying RACM requirements in TCM selection for this AQMP. Section 2 describes

the process established in the 1994 AQMP and followed to select and implement TCMs.

A summary of the measures implemented to date is presented in Section 3. Section 4

provides a reasoned justification for not selecting available measures. Section 5 presents

a commitment to modify the Sub-regional planning process to increase the frequency of

TCM consideration.



# 2. TCM Process

The Southern California Association of Governments utilizes a participatory planning

process to continuously implement all reasonably available transportation control

measures. This ongoing process provides opportunities for agencies, stakeholders, and

the general public to offer transportation control measures, and supplies mechanisms to

evaluate and implement all reasonable measures as expeditiously as practicable.

# 65 

# Background

Historically, the process to ensure implementation of all reasonably available control

measures was an episodic exercise in southern California that was performed each time

an AQMP/SIP was produced. The old process was ineffective and inflexible. For

instance, obsolete TCM projects, such as projects that were federally defunded, remained

in the SIP for years (e.g. from 1979-1994) because there was not an ongoing and

effective method for updating and substituting effective measures.

The 1994 AQMP, in contrast, established a more adaptive and effective process. The

1994 AQMP established a TCM process that “is dynamic in that it changes over time to

respond to evolving conditions” [AQMP Appendix IV-C1994: p. I-3]. The adaptive

management process established in the 1994 AQMP has become fully integrated into the

transportation planning process at both the local and the regional level, and the TCM

process and RACM analysis run concurrently, rather than consecutively, with the

transportation planning process. Since the 1994 AQMP, the TCM planning process has

become an integral part of transportation and air quality planning in the South Coast.

Process Overview

TCMs are continuously identified and reviewed throughout the transportation planning

process, and SCAG’s ongoing public outreach e ffort, including an involved interagency

input process, helps ensure that the process to identify and review TCMs is inclusive and

comprehensive. Development of TCMs arises from multiple processes and multiple

sources, which include county transportation commissions, sub-regional agencies, task

forces, committees, and the public. Project sponsors within each process have a strong

incentive to develop and help identify TCMs b ecause “TCMs require priority of funding”

and receive “special claims on CM AQ and STP funds” [RTIP FY 2002/03-07/08

Guidelines 2001: p. 20]. Furthermore, TCMs are assured “timely implementation in

accordance with the schedule in the RTP” [p. 20]. These funding and scheduling

incentives ensure that TCMs are developed, sponsored, and clearly identified throughout

the process.

The 1994 AQMP established the flexibility to delegate and substitute the implementation

of TCMs. Specifically, TCMs can be delegated to “another agency with the legal

authority” in order to offer “greater flexibility” for implementation [AQMP Appendix

IV-C 1994: p. I-11]. This inclusive process allows “local governments to develop their

own strategies” [AQMP Appendix IV-C1994: p. I-3]. Likewise, substitution allows

subregions and local government to “achieve specific emission reduction equivalents”

that are “uniquely suited” to fit local needs [p. I-11].

The discussion below outlines the multiple processes and entities involved in the TCM

planning process.

# 66 

# County Transportation Commissions

County Transportation Commissions (CTCs) develop and/or nominate many TCMs and

program the funding for all of the TCMs that are included in the Regional Transportation

Improvement Plan (RTIP). CTCs must follow the RTIP Guidelines when preparing their

lists of transportation improvements. The RT IP Guidelines state that “the RTIP is

required to advance the RTP by programmi ng the projects, programs, and policies

contained in the Plan, in accordance with federal and state requirements” [RTIP FY

2002/03-07/08 Guidelines 2001: p. 3]. As stated above, the RTIP Guidelines ensure that

“TCMs require priority of funding (with sp ecial claim on Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and Surface Transportation Program (STP)

funds), as well as timely implementation in accordance with the schedule in the RTP”

[RTIP FY 2002/03-07/08 Guidelines 2001: p. 20].The discussion below outlines the

process used by Los Angeles County Metropo litan Transportation Authority, the Orange

County Transportation Authority, the San Bern ardino Associated Governments, and the

Riverside County Transportation Commission to develop their lists of transportation

projects for each update of the RTIP and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans portation Authority (MTA) begins its

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) pro cess with a call for projects. The call for

projects process meets federal and state planning and programming requirements for

developing an integrated, multi-modal transpor tation system. The TIP process allocates

revenues across all surface transportation modes based on the planning requirements of

the 1998 Transportation Equity Act of the Twen ty-first Century (TEA-21). The Call for

Projects also addresses MTA’s mandated res ponsibilities to the California Transportation

Commission regarding the programming of the State TIP. There is a local match

requirement that varies depending on the moda l category and a public hearing before the

MTA board officially adopts the TIP.

TCM projects are prioritized throughout MTA’ s process. In general, projects are

evaluated based on three criteria: Project ne ed and purpose (50%), cost effectiveness

(30%), and project readiness (20%). Thus , TCM projects that are useful, economically

feasible, and that are ready to be implemente d in the near-term recei ve priority of funding

and scheduling.

Orange County Transportation Authority

Cities in Orange County propose projects to the Orange County Transportation Authority

(OCTA) through a call for projects. OCTA identifies, reviews, and prioritizes TCM

projects based on recommendations from a technical committee comprised of city

representatives. Efficient and effective TC Ms are moved forward into Orange County’s

long range plans, the RTP, and implemented in the RTIP.

# 67 

# Riverside County Transportation Commission

The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) begins its process with a call

for projects. A technical advisory committee, comprised of the public works managers

and city planners identify and review TCMs and decide which projects to fund. TCM

projects receive priority for funding and impl ementation, with specific evaluation criteria

including: air quality improvement, congestion mitigation, economic development, and

project readiness.

San Bernardino Associated Governments

The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) uses Caltrans guidelines in

programming transportation funds. In general, evaluation criteria include emissions

reduction cost effectiveness (40%), mobility benefits (30%), safety improvements (20%),

and local match contributions (10%), and all reasonable TCM projects receive priority

for funding and scheduling.

Sub-regional Coordination and Regional Tr ansportation Planning for Air Quality

Management

The Sub-regional Coordinators Group is an important part of SCAG’s participatory

planning process, and assists in balancing regional needs and prospects against local

constraints and opportunities. Established in 1990, at the initiative of the sub-regions, the

Group comprises administrators from Councils of Governments (COGs) and cities within

the region, and assists SCAG in the design and implementation of its administrative and

programmatic tasks within realistic fiscal and local constraints.

The sub-regions help incorporate community input into the development, identification,

review, and substitution of TCMs. The sub-regions and local governments nominate

transportation policies, programs and project s, including effective and efficient TCM

projects, for inclusion in the long-range RTP. The sub-regions also define the

architecture of the short-range RTIP, deliberating the more immediate steps needed for

implementation of the RTP. SCAG then synthesizes these projects, programs and

policies into a regionally coherent transportation strategy, and assesses the environmental

and equity consequences for the region as a whole.

Sub-regional Air Quality Planning

The Clean Air Act requires that regions not in attainment of the NAAQS demonstrate

progress toward conformity by, in part, designating specific projects and policies as

TCMs. The continuous process by which SCAG and its sub-regions conceive, consider,

select and implement particular projects as TCMs is importantly shaped by the Subregional Coordinators Group. SCAG’s TCM portion of the 1994 Air Quality

Management Plan provided a comprehensive analysis of a wide range of projects,

policies and programs available to the region in its move toward a healthful environment.

# 68 

# Subsequent RTPs and their RTIPs have progressively moved the region forward in

implementing these measures.

In 2000, SCAG formed a Sub-regional Air Quality Planning, Analysis and Modeling

Group (SAQ-PAM), comprised of representatives from SCAG’s fourteen sub-regions, to

ensure that all possible efforts were being made to mitigate the air quality impacts of

transportation. As part of the 2001 RTP development process, this group oversaw an

extensive off-model analysis effort to capture the air quality benefits of local projects

such as grade separation and traffic signalization. Members of the group play a

significant and effective role in conveying to local governments the magnitude of the task

faced by the region, and the pressing regional need for innovative solutions, and also in

ensuring that local concerns are usefully integrated into the regional planning process.

Funding Allocation for Sub-regional Air Quality Planning and Modeling Group

This table lists the various sub-regions and their funding allocations, based on size, for

air quality planning-related tasks in support of the 2001 RTP.

Sub-region Funding

Allocation $ -

FY2000/2001

Arroyo Verdugo 30,000

City of Los Angeles 50,000

Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) 30,000

Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG) 50,000

Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG) 30,000

LasVirgines/Malibu Canyon 30,000

North Los Angeles County (Palmdale) 40,000

Orange County 50,000

San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) 50,000

San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) 50,000

South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) 40,000

Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG) 40,000

Westside Cities 40,000

Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) 40,000

# 69 

# Integrated TCM Planning for RTP Updates

The county and sub-region planning processes described above are continuously

integrated into each Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update, and all reasonable

TCMs are included in each update of the RTP. The discussion below outlines the

participatory process for each RTP update since the 1994 AQMP.

1998 Regional Transportation Plan

The 1998 RTP promoted a bottom-up planning process that enhanced public participation

and incorporated feedback throughout the planning process. There was extensive

participation from the public, the County Transportation Commissions (CTCs), other

agencies, such as the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANs) and transit

agencies, and the sub-regional agencies.

The 1998 RTP marked the first time that SCAG conducted public participation with the

fourteen sub-regions, which SCAG organized in the mid 1990s to help increase public

participation and to provide local discretion of funding decisions.

Public involvement in the 1998 RTP featured sub-regional participation through monthly

RTP Sub-regional Advisory Committee meeti ngs and meetings of the Los Angeles

County Sub-regional Working Group. SCAG also conducted monthly meetings with the

CTCs. With enhanced public participation, participation of sub-regions and CTCs, as

well as interagency consultations, SCAG was ab le to incorporate input and feedback on

its goals, objectives, performance indicators, needs analysis, revenue forecast, and

preliminary growth forecast. This input aide d in the preparation and review of the Draft

RTP and assisted in the eventual adoption of the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan. Subregion County

Arroyo Verdugo Cities Los Angeles

City of Los Angeles Los Angeles

Coachella Valley Association of Governments Riverside

Gateway Cities Council of Governments Los Angeles

Imperial Valley Association of Governments Imperial

Las Virgenes Malibu Council of Governments Los Angeles

North Los Angeles County Los Angeles

Orange County Council of Governments Orange

San Bernardino Associated Governments San Bernardino

San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Los Angeles

South Bay Cities Council of Governments Los Angeles

Ventura Council of Governments Ventura

Western Riverside Council of Governments Riverside

Westside Cities Los An g eles Subre g ions in the SCAG Re g ion

# 70 

# 2001 Regional Transportation Plan

SCAG built upon its public participation record in the 1998 RTP with the 2001 RTP. The

2001 RTP public participation and outreach program included:

• Presentations to established organizations

• Specific public workshops

• Electronic Town Halls

• Direct outreach to minority and low-income populations

• Transportation Summit

• Business roundtable forums with representatives of the business community

• Newsletters, fact sheets, and Power Point presentations

• Public comment form (hard copy and online)

• Community contact databases

• Direct mail and electronic mail to community contacts

• Webpage for the Draft 2001 RTP, including public meeting notices and updated RTP

information (in English and Spanish)

• Advertising of Environmental Justice community dialogues in ethnic media

• Advertising support for the RTP and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

Another important aspect of the public participation process was input from elected

officials, the public, experts in the field, and government agencies through specially

designed task forces. There were twelve task forces, as well as the subregional

coordinators’ group, which supported the 2001 RTP. Descriptions of the task forces and

the agencies participating on the task forces are listed below:

• Aviation Task Force = This task force made recommendations to SCAG staff and

the Transportation and Communications Committee regarding aviation in the SCAG

region. Its membership consisted of elected officials, the Federal Airline

Administration (FAA), airline companies, airport authorities, and airport-related

associations.

• Four Corners Task Force = Elected officials, city staff, the Orange County

Transportation Authority (OCTA), Caltr ans, and San Bernardino Associated

Governments (SANBAG) developed a preferred strategy and implementation plan for

the part of the region where Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange

Counties meet.

• Goods Movement Advisory Committee = This committee, comprised of elected

officials, Caltrans, economic development agencies, railroad companies, goods

transport companies, ports, airports, and private consultants, provided policy

guidance in developing a more efficient goods movement system including

improvements to the ports, trucking and rail systems, intermodal terminal access, and

freight.

• Heavy Duty Truck Model Subcommittee = This subcommittee reviewed the heavy

duty truck model that is part of SCAG’s transportation model. Members included

Caltrans, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Highway

# 71 

# Administration (FHWA), South Coast Air Qu ality Management District (SCAQMD),

the ports, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the CTCs.

• Long Range Transportation Finance Task Force = The CTCs, FTA, FHWA,

American Automobile Association (AAA), the Los Angeles Department of

Transportation (LADOT), and private consultants identified transportation funding

gaps and identified new transportation funding opportunities.

• Maglev Task Force = Elected officials on this task force made recommendations on

corridors for a potential high speed rail system.

• Modeling Task Force = Elected officials, private consultants, nonprofit

organizations, SCAQMD, CTCs, CARB, and city staff worked to develop an

improved regional transportation model.

• Regional Transit Task Force = Transportation agencies, FTA, FHWA, and city staff

developed transit alternatives to retain existing mode share and increase overall

transit mode share with innovative strategies.

• RTP Technical Advisory Committee = This committee reviewed and coordinated

recommendations from the various task forces. It also developed methodologies for

the RTP alternatives and reviewed performance measures used in the RTP. Members

included FTA, FHWA, Caltrans, AAA, CTCs , city staff, transportation planning

consultants, Indian Tribes, subregions, and SCAQMD.

• Transit Corridor Task Force = Transit agencies and city staff reviewed and

recommended transit corridors for inclusion in the RTP.

• Truck Lane Technical Advisory Committee = This committee provided technical

expertise to the Truck Lanes Task Force in the development of the SR-60 truck lane

feasibility study. Members included Caltrans, California Highway Patrol (CHP),

CARB, SCAQMD, private consultants, uni ons, and transportation associations.

• Truck Lanes Task Force = This task force oversaw SR-60 truck lane feasibility

study. It was composed of elected official s, Caltrans, nonprofit organizations, private

consultants, AAA, and CTCs.

Through these efforts, SCAG created numerous opportunities for public comment and

numerous ways for the public to comment. The public participation program resulted in

the following:

• 78 Public Workshops and/or Organizational Presentations

• 41 Environmental Justice Community Dialogues

• 2 Electronic Town Halls focusing on tran sportation finance and goods movement,

respectively

• 3 Business Roundtable Forums

• 1 Transportation Summit

• 1 E-Commerce Summit

• 8 Fact sheets on individual topics of the RTP

• 1,500 public comments on the RTP

• 585,000 “hits” on the public website, including 30,308 unique users

2004 Regional Transportation Plan

# 72 

# SCAG continues to refine its public participation strategy as it develops the 2004 RTP.

SCAG staff representing major programs meets bimonthly as part of the coordinated

outreach strategy. This group has created a unified message that is being presented

through presentations about all major programs, including the RTP, Compass Growth

Visioning, and the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). This group has

reviewed for accuracy and consistency unified presentation materials that maximize

SCAG’s ability to outreach to the public at many events.

SCAG senior management, program staff, and governmental affairs staff use these

outreach materials in presentations across the region. Cerrell Associates, SCAG’s media

consultant, also is involved in the coordinated outreach strategy and relays the outreach

information to various media outlets. SCAG consultants discuss the RTP, Compass

growth visioning, and the PEIR in their public visioning exercises and workshops.

In addition to the Sub-regional Coordinators’ Group, there are thirteen task forces that

support the 2004 RTP. The task forces are listed below, with descriptions provided for

new task forces developed since the 2001 RTP.

• Aviation Task Force

• Aviation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) = This committee provides

SCAG with technical and professional expertise on regional aviation issues. ATAC

also serves as an information-sharing forum for airport representatives, aviation

professionals, and interested parties.

• Forecasting Technical Task Force

= This task force develops long range forecasts,

develops and improves forecast models and distribution issues, and coordinates

regional/sub-regional forecasting efforts. Its members include sub-regions and

forecasting experts.

• Four Corners Task Force

• Goods Movement Advisory Committee

• Growth Visioning Subcommittee = This subcommittee is developing a process that

assists local, sub-regional, and regional officials in developing strategies to

accommodate growth that results in a preferred regional growth scenario. Elected

officials and sub-regions sit on this committee.

• Highway and Transportation Finance Task Force = This task force identifies

revenue sources, studies alternative revenue sources, and updates the financial plan of

the RTP. Members include elected officials, CTCs, sub-regions, Caltrans, and

CARB.

• Maglev Task Force

• Modeling Task Force

• Regional Transit Task Force

• Regional Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Task Force = This task

force of elected officials, transit operators, CTCs, Caltrans, FTA, and FHWA

facilitates discussion and interaction on traditional and nontraditional TDM issues.

• RTP Technical Advisory Committee

# 73 

# SCAG achieves additional public participation in the region and across the state through

its involvement in interagency committees . SCAG staff participates in several

interagency consultations on a regular basis. These meetings provide the opportunity for

other governmental agencies to comment on SCAG’s work. The interagency groups and

a sample of the agencies participating on these groups are listed below:

• Transportation Conformity Working Group = This group meets to satisfy federal

regulations requiring Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt

procedures for interagency consultation. Members include SCAG, Air Quality

Management Districts (AQMD), Air Pollu tion Control Districts (APCD), FHWA,

FTA, EPA, Caltrans, CARB, CTCs, and transit operators.

• Air Agency Directors = This group focuses on special issues as they arise, such as

transportation control measures that relate to the region’s plans to come into

attainment of air quality standards. Members include SCAG, SCAQMD, CARB, and

EPA.

• Transportation Agency Executives = These executives meet approximately

monthly to discuss issues of mutual concern in the transportation planning process,

such as funding and regional project priorities. Members include SCAG, Caltrans,

Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), and CTCs.

• Los Angeles County Transportation Board = This group meets as needed to

coordinate on transportation issues within Los Angeles County. Members include

executive officers of transportation agencies in Los Angeles County.

• Metropolitan Planning Organizations = SCAG holds separate meetings with the

Kern Council of Governments (COG) and th e San Diego Association of Governments

to coordinate intercounty issues including rail, highways, and aviation.

• Regional Transportation Planning Agencies = These agencies meet to discuss the

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, funding matters, and other issues

that might be discussed by the CTCs. Members include the CTCs and SCAG.

• California Councils of Government = Executive directors of state COGs meet to

discuss issues of mutual concern relating to transportation and other aspects of

regional planning and governance.

The tools that SCAG is using for public participation for the 2004 RTP include:

• Web calendar of outreach events

• Fact sheets on major program areas

• Power Point presentations informing audience about major programs

• Web pages for the RTP and the EIR

• Online public comment forms

Through multiple presentations that put forth a unified message, task forces, interagency

consultation, and online public comment forms, SCAG is moving forward with its most

ambitious public involvement campaign to date.

# 74 

# RTIP

TCMs are formally implemented at least ever y two years as enforceable commitments in

the first two years of the Regional Trans portation Improvement Plan (RTIP). The 1994

AQMP states that the “list of constrained pr ojects will ‘roll forward’ and the enforceable

commitment will automatically be revised to encompass the first 2 years of the

constrained projects contained in each new RTIP” [Appendix IV -C: p. II-13]. The

flexibility provided by these frequent updates allows TCMs to be continuously adjusted

to meet the changing needs of this dynamic region.

Timely Implementation Report portions of the Regional Transportation Improvement

Program (RTIP)

Each edition of SCAG’s RTIP contains a Time ly Implementation Report that presents a

demonstration of timely implementation for all measures listed as Transportation Control

Measures (TCMs) in the previous RTIP. T hus, for example, the Timely Implementation

Report that is part of the 2000 RTIP consider s TCMs listed in the first two years (fiscally

constrained portion) of the1998 RTIP, and the Timely Implementation Report included

with the 1998 RTIP considers TCMs defined by the first two years of the 1996 RTIP.

Cumulatively, these sections of the various RTIPs provide a reliable means for tracking

the timely implementation of measures defined as TCMs. At least every two years a

revised RTIP is released, which rolls-over the TCM projects listed in the first two years

(the fiscally constrained portion)of the previous RTIP. Thus, a project once identified as

a TCM, remains on the list of projects being tracked for timely implementation until it is

either completed, and thus rolls-off the RTIP list, or is formally replaced by some

substitute TCM project that has been demonstrated to provide as much or more emission

reductions than the TCM project being replaced.

This addendum to Appendix IV-C, Regional Transportation Strategy and Control

Measures , contains copies of the following documents:

• 1996 RTIP: Timely Implementation Report for TCMs from the 1993/4 RTIP

• 1998 RTIP: Timely Implementation Report for TCMs from the 1996 RTIP

• 2000 RTIP: Timely Implementation Report for TCMs from the 1998 RTIP

• 2001 RTIP: Timely Implementation Report for TCMs from the 2000 RTIP

• 2002 RTIP: Timely Implementation Report for TCMs from the 2001 RTIP

# 75 

# 3. TCM Implementation

SCAG employs the processes supporting the RTP and the RTIP to specify TCM projects

for the 2003 AQMP/SIP. As stated above, the fi rst two years of the six-year RTIP (the

fiscally constrained portion) define the current TCM projects, both for purposes of

monitoring timely implementation and for purposes of identifying projects for

implementation priority. Each time the RTIP is updated, the projects roll forward in twoyear increments. Thus, each TCM project re mains in the most current list of TCMs until

such a time as it has been completed, except in cases where it is found necessary to

replace a project with a substitute measure.

Formal substitution language within Appendix IV-C will allow for TCM revisions and

replacements without triggering the need for a formal amendment to the SIP. A

description of the TCM project categories can be found on pp. 15-16 of Appendix IV-C.

The culmination of these various processes—involving CTCs, sub-regions, the public,

and RTP task forces—is a set of TCMs embedded in the 2002 RTIP that have been

nominated for inclusion in the 2003 AQMP/SIP. The listing of these TCMs can be found

in Attachment 1 of Appendix IV-C.764.Potential Measures and Reasoned Justification5[* One of the compliance options already adopted and/or available to employers subject to Rule 2202.][** See AQMD’s Regulation VII for specific requirements]Section 108 (f) 1. Programs for Improved Public TransitMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies1.1 Regional Express Bus Program Purchase of buses to operate regional expressbus services.Yes CTCs (MTA,OCTA), TransitOperators1.2 Transit Access to Airports Operation of transit to airport to serve airpassengers.Yes TransitOperators, CTCs(MTA, SCRRA)1.3 Study Benefits of Bus Retrofit Program Examine potential to accelerate application ofretrofit of diesel-powered buses to achieve earliercompliance with State regulations.Yes CTCs (MTA,OCTA), TransitOperators1.4 Mass Transit Alternatives Major change to the scope and service levels. Yes SCAG, CTCs1.5 Expansion of Public TransportationSystemsExpand and enhance existing public transitservices.Yes CTCs1.6 Transit Service Improvements inCombination with Park-and-Ride Lotsand Parking ManagementLocal jurisdictions and transit agency improve thepublic transit system and add new Park-and-Ridefacilities and spaces on an as needed basis.Yes CTCs (MTA,SCRRA)1.7 Free transit during special events Offer free transit during selected special events toreduce event-related congestion and associatedemission increases.No The Legislature removedauthority to implement indirectsource control measuresthrough revisions to the Health& Safety Code (HSC 40717.6,HSC 40717.8, HSC 40717.)1.8 Require that government employeesuse transit for home to work trips,expand transit, and encourage largebusinesses to promote transit useRequire all government employees use transit aspecified number of times per week.Yes CTCs1.9 Increase parking at transit centers or Encourage transit convenience by providing Yes CTCs5The Transportation Control Measures listed as part of this RACManalysis qualify as TCMs under the CAA definition. However, not every measure listed inthis analysis is implemented through the RTIP and therefore also not included as a TCM in Attachment 1 of this Appendix. The list of projects designated asTCMs are presented in the preceding Attachment 1, page 32-52.77Section 108 (f) 1. Programs for Improved Public TransitMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgenciesstops additional parking attransit centers.78Section 108 (f) 2. Restriction of Certain Roads or Lanes to, or Construction of SuchRoads or Lanes for Use By, Passenger Busesor High Occupancy VehiclesMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies2.1 Update High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)Lane Master PlanAnalysis of increased enforcement, increasingoccupancy requirements,conversion of existingHOV lanes to bus only lanes and/or designation ofany new carpool lanes as bus-only lanes;utilization of freewayshoulders for peak-periodexpress bus use; commercial vehicle buy-in toHOV lanes; and appropriateness of HOV lanes forcorridors that have considered congestion pricingor value pricing.Yes SCAG, Caltrans,CTCs2.2 Study Effects of High Speed FreewayTravelEvaluate feasibility of episodic enforcement ofspeed limits on high ozone days.No Reductions in freeway speedsare governed by CaliforniaVehicle Code 22354 whichauthorizes Caltrans to lowerspeeds after conductingengineering and traffic surveyswhich show that thelegislatively - set maximumspeed of 65 mph is more thanis reasonable or safe. Noconsideration of emissions iscontemplated underthis statue.This measure is not feasibleuntil the statute is changed.2.3 Fixed Lanes for Buses and Carpools onArterialsProvide fixed lanes for buses and carpools onarterial streets where appropriate.Yes CTCs (MTA,OCTA), LA City2.4 Expand number of freeway milesavailable, allow use by alternative fuelvehicles, changes to HOV lanerequirements and hoursVarious measures evaluated in many ozoneNonattainment areas. Specifics vary according tofreeway system, use patterns and localcharacteristics.Yes ARB, Caltrans79Section 108 (f) 3. Employer-Based Transportation Management Plans, Including IncentivesMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies3.1 Commute Solutions The federallaw that complements parking cashout is called theCommuter Choice Program. Itprovides for benefits that employers can offer toemployees to commute to work by methods otherthan driving alone.Yes AQMD*3.2 Parking Cash-Out State law requires certain employers who providesubsidized parking for their employees to offer acash allowance in lieu of a parking space.Yes AQMD*3.3 Employer Rideshare ProgramIncentivesEmployer rideshare incentives and introduction ofstrategies designed to reduce single occupantvehicle trips. Examples include: public awarenesscampaigns, Transportation ManagementAssociations among employers, alternative workhours, and financial incentives.Yes AQMD*3.4 Implement Parking Charge IncentiveProgramEvaluate feasibility of anincentive program forcities and employers that convert free publicparking spaces to paid spaces. Review existingparking polices as they relate to new developmentapprovals.Yes AQMD*3.5 Preferential Parking for Carpools andVanpoolsThis measures encourages public and privateemployers to provide preferential parking spacesfor carpools and vanpools to decrease thenumber of single occupant automobile work trips.The preferential treatmentcould include coveredparking spaces or close-in spaces.Yes AQMD*3.6 Employee Parking Fees Encourage public and private employers to chargeemployees for parking.Yes3.7 Merchant Transportation Incentives Implement “Non-work” trip reduction ordinancesrequiring merchants to offer customers mode shifttravel incentives such as free bus passes andrequiring owners/managers/developers of largeretail establishments to provide facilities for Nonmotorized modes.No The Legislature removedauthority to implement indirectsource control measuresthrough revisions to the Health& Safety Code (HSC 40717.6,HSC 40717.8, HSC 40717.)3.8 Purchase vans for vanpools Purchase aspecified number of vans for use inemployee commute travel.Yes AQMD*3.9 Encourage merchants and employersto Provide outreach and possible financial incentives Yes AQMD*80Section 108 (f) 3. Employer-Based Transportation Management Plans, Including IncentivesMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgenciessubsidize the cost of transit foremployeesto encourage local employers to provide transitpasses or subsidies to encourage less individualvehicle travel.3.10 Off-days" for ozone alerts just like sickdaysOn ozone alert days, Notify employees throughemail that there is an ozone alert. Employees aregiven a pre-specified number of days they candecide not to come in to work on ozone forecastdays.Yes AQMD**3.11 Pay for in-house meals on ozone actiondaysEmployer pays for meals in-house on ozone alertdays so that employees do not travel to off-sitelocations.No The Legislature removedauthority to implement indirectsource control measuresthrough revisions to the Health& Safety Code (HSC 40717.6,HSC 40717.8, HSC 40717.)3.12 Voluntary business closures on ozoneaction daysA more expensive version of “off-days” for ozonealerts.Yes AQMD**3.13 Close government offices on Ozoneaction days to serve as an exampleSimilar to voluntary business closures. No Not feasible as public agenciesmust provide regular servicesand hours of operation.3.14 Mandatory compressed work weeks Yes AQMD*3.15 Telecommuting Goal of specified percentage of employeestelecommuting at least once per week.Yes AQMD*81Section 108 (f) 4. Trip Reduction OrdinanceIn December 1995, Congress changed the Clean Air Act Amendments to make the Employee Commute Option program voluntary (No longer mandatory). California State Lawprohibits mandatory employer based tripreduction ordinance programs (SB437).82Section 108 (f) 5. Traffic Flow Improvement Programs That Achieve Emissions ReductionsMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies5.1 Develop Intelligent TransportationSystemsThe term “Intelligent Transportation Systems”includes a variety of technological applicationsintended to produce more efficient use of existingtransportation corridors.Yes CTCs, Caltrans5.2 Coordinate Traffic Signal SystemsThis measures implements and enhancessynchronized traffic signal systems to promotesteady traffic flow at moderate speeds.Yes CTCs, LA Cityand other cities5.3 Reduce Traffic Congestion at MajorIntersectionsThis measure implements a wide range of trafficcontrol techniques designedto facilitate smooth,safe travel through intersections. Thesetechniques include signalization, turn lanes ormedian dividers. The use of grade separationsmay also be appropriate for high volume orunusually configured intersections.Yes CTCs, Cities5.4 Site-Specific Transportation ControlMeasuresThis measure could include geometric or trafficcontrol improvements atspecific congestedintersections or at other substandard locations.Another example might be programming left turnsignals at certain intersections to lag, rather thanlead, the green time for through traffic.Yes CTCs, Cities5.5 Removal of On-Street Parking Requireall commercial/industrial development todesign and implement off-street parking.Yes CTCs, Cities5.6 Reversible Lanes Implement reversible lanes on arterial streets toimprove traffic flow where appropriate.Yes CTCs, Cities5.7 One-Way Streets Redesignate streets (or portions of in downtownareas) as one-way to improve traffic flow.Yes CTCs, Cities5.8 On-Street Parking RestrictionsRestrict on-street parking whereappropriate. Yes CTCs, Cities5.9 Bus Pullouts in Curbs for PassengerLoadingProvide bus pullouts in curbs, or queue jumperlanes for passenger loading and unloading.Yes CTCs, Cities5.10 Additional Freeway Service Patrol Operation of additional lane miles of new rovingtow truck patrols to clear incidents and reducedelay on freeways during peak periods.Yes CTCs, CHP83Section 108 (f) 5. Traffic Flow Improvement Programs That Achieve Emissions ReductionsMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies5.11 Consider coordinating scheduling ofarterial and highway maintenance toexclude ozone action days if themaintenance activities require lanereductions on heavily utilized arterialsand highwaysSelf explanatory Yes Caltrans5.12 Re-routing of trucks on ozone days Selfexplanatory No The California Vehicle Codeprovides No specific authorityto establish enforceable truckroutes except on the basis ofvehicle maximum weight. SeeCalifornia Vehicle Codesections 35651, 35701, 35706,35707.5.13 Fewer stop signs, remove unwarrantedand "political" stop signs and signalsImprove flow-through traffic by removing stopsigns and signals. Potential downside in safetyissues.Yes CTCs, Cities5.14 Ban left turns Banning all leftturns would stop the creation ofbottlenecks although slightly increase traveldistances.No This measure has the potentialto increase traffic inneighborhoods and impairsafety. An enormous effortwould be required toimplement this measure on aregional basis and the benefitsof implementing it have notbeen demonstrated. It is noteconomically practical.5.15 Changeable lane assignments Increasenumber of one-way lanes going incongested flow direction during peak traffic hours.Yes Caltrans, CTCs,Cities5.16 Adaptive traffic signals and signaltimingSelf explanatory Yes Cites, Counties5.17 Freeway bottleneck improvements (addlanes, construct shoulders, etc.)Identify key freeway bottlenecks and takeaccelerated action to mitigate them.Yes Caltrans5.18 Minimize impact of construction ontraveling public. Have contractors paywhen lanes are closed as an incentiveto keep lanes openProhibit lane closures during peak hours, limitwork to weekends and/or nights.Yes Caltrans84Section 108 (f) 5. Traffic Flow Improvement Programs That Achieve Emissions ReductionsMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies5.19 Internet provided road and routeinformationReduce travel on highly congested roadways byproviding accessible information on congestionand travel.Yes SCAG, CTCs,Caltrans, LA City5.20 Regional route marking systems toencourage underutilized capacityEncourage travel on local roads and arterials bybetter route marking to show alternatives.Yes Caltrans, LA City5.21 Congestion management field team toclear incidentsSelf explanatory Yes CTCs, CHP5.22 Use dynamic message signs todirect/smooth speeds during incidentsSelf explanatory Yes Caltrans5.23 Get real-time traffic information totrucking centers and rental car agenciesReduce travel in congested areas by providinginformation directly to high volume travelers.Yes SCAG, CTCs,Caltrans5.24 55 mph speed limit during ozoneseasonSelf explanatory No Reductions in freeway speedsare governed by CaliforniaVehicle Code 22354, whichauthorizes Caltrans to lowerspeeds after doing aengineering, and traffic survey,which shows that thelegislatively- set maximumspeed of 65 mph, is more thanis reasonable or safe. Noconsideration of emissions iscontemplated under thisstatue. This measure is notfeasible until the statute ischanged.5.25 Require 40 mph speed limit on allfacilitiesDepends on area’s emission factors.No The California Vehicle CodeSections 22357 and 22358mandates a methodology forsetting speed limits for localareas. This measure is notfeasible until the statute ischanged.5.26 Require lower speeds during peakperiodsSelf explanatory No The California Vehicle CodeSections 22357 and 22358mandates methodology for85Section 108 (f) 5. Traffic Flow Improvement Programs That Achieve Emissions ReductionsMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgenciessetting speed limits for localareas. This measure is notfeasible until the statute ischanged.5.27 Park and Ride Lots Develop,design and implement new Park andRide facilities in locations where they are neededYes CTCs, TransitOperators,SCRRA86Section 108 (f) 6. Fringe and Transportation Corridor Parking Facilities Serving Multiple Occupancy Vehicle Programs or TransitServiceMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies6.1 Park and Ride Lots Develop, design, and implement new Park andRide facilities in locations where they are needed.Yes CTCs, TransitOperators,SCRRA6.2 Park and Ride lots serving perimetercountiesSpecific to a locality. Yes CTCs, TransitOperators,SCRRA87Section 108 (f) 7. Programs to Limit or Restrict Vehicle Use in Downtown Areas or Other Areas of Emission Concentration Particularly During Periods of Peak UseMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies7.1 Off-Peak Goods Movement Implement anordinance to restrict truck deliveriesby time or place in order to minimize trafficcongestion during peak periods.No This measure wasimplemented in 1984 duringand after the Olympics. Itbecame impractical -merchants could not receivedeliveries on time. Themeasure is not economicallyfeasible.7.2 Truck Restrictions During Peak Periods Implement an ordinance to restrict truck travelduring peak periods in order to minimize trafficcongestion.No This measure wasimplemented in 1984 duringand after the Olympics. Itbecame impractical -merchants could not receivedeliveries on time. Themeasure is not economicallyfeasible.7.3 Involve school districts to encouragewalking/bicycling to schoolDecrease vehicle emissions due to school trips byreducing these tripsthrough education and outreach programs.Yes School District7.4 Adjust school hours so they do notcoincide with peak traffic periods andOzone seasonsMeasure to reduce travel during peak periods andozone-contributing periodsin the early morning.Yes School District7.5 Area-wide tax for parking Reduce driving by limiting parking through pricingmeasures.Yes L.A. City, OtherCities andCounties7.6 Increase parking fees Same as above. No Legislature removed authorityto implement indirect sourcecontrol measures.7.7 Graduated pricing starting with highestin CBDCharge the most for parking in the centralbusiness or other high volume areas in a city todiscourage vehicle travel in these areas.Yes Market driven7.8 Buy parking lots and convert to otherland useLimit parking by converting available parking toother land uses to discourage driving.Yes Cities7.9 Limit the number ofparking spaces atcommercial airlines to support masstransitReduce airport travel by limits on parking atairports.No Existing and planned masstransit is unable to satisfypublic demand for access to88Section 108 (f) 7. Programs to Limit or Restrict Vehicle Use in Downtown Areas or Other Areas of Emission Concentration Particularly During Periods of Peak UseMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgenciesairports in the absence ofairport parking. This measureis not economically feasible.7.10 No CBD vehicles unless LEV or alt fuelor electricDefine high-use area and ticket any vehiclespresent unless they are low emitting, alternativefueled or electric.No At present, there is aninsufficient supply ofaffordable designatedvehicles to satisfy traveldemand to CBDs. Over time,California's low emissionvehicle regulations willsubstantially increase thesupply of designated vehiclesand meet the objective of thismeasure7.11 Auto restricted zones No vehiclesallowed in certain areas where highemissions, congestion or contribution to ozoneproblems.Yes Cities7.12 Incentives toincrease density aroundtransit centersLower travel by increasing residential andcommercial density in areas near transit.Yes Cities7.13 Land use/air quality guidelines Guidelinesfor development that contributes to airquality goals.Yes AQMD/SCAG7.14 Incentives for cities with gooddevelopment practicesProvide financial or other incentive to local citiesthat practice air quality-sensitive development.Yes AQMD/SCAG7.15 Cash incentives tofoster jobs/housingbalanceSpecific to locality– encouraged by CaliforniaClean Air Plan.Yes SCAG7.16 Trip reduction oriented development Specific to locality – encouraged by CaliforniaClean Air Plan.Yes SCAG7.17 Transit oriented development Specific to locality – encouraged by CaliforniaClean Air Plan.Yes SCAG7.18 Sustainable developmentSpecific to locality– encouraged by CaliforniaClean Air Plan.Yes SCAG89Section 108 (f) 8. Programs For the Provision of All Forms of High-Occupancy, Shared-Ride ServicesMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies8.1 Financial Incentives, Including Zero BusFaresProvide financial incentivesor other benefits, suchas free or subsidized bus passes and cashpayments for not driving,in lieu of parking spacesfor employees who do not drive to the workplace.Yes AQMD*8.2 Internet ride matching services Provide match-lists, route info, hours and contactinformation over the internet to assist individualsin joining or developing carpools.Yes CTCs, SCAG8.3 Preferential parking for carpoolers Provide free, covered, near-building or similarincentives to carpoolers.Yes AQMD*8.4 Credits and incentives for carpoolers Self-explanatory – form depends on locality. Yes AQMD*8.5 Employers provide vehicles tocarpoolers for running errands oremergenciesHaving vehicles available for workday errandsmakes it easier to go to work without one.Yes AQMD*8.6 Subscription Services Free van services to provide transportation for theelderly, handicapped or other individuals whohave No access to transportation.Yes County90Section 108 (f) 9. Programs to Limit Portionsof Road Surfaces or Certain Sections ofthe Metropolitan Area to the Use of Non-Motorized Vehicles or Pedestrian Use,Both as to Time and PlaceMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies9.1 Establish Auto Free Zones andPedestrian MallsEstablish auto free zones and pedestrian mallswhere appropriate.Yes Cities9.2 Encouragement of Pedestrian Travel This measure involves encouraging the use ofpedestrian travel as an alternative to automobiletravel. Pedestrian travel is quite feasible for shortshopping, business, or schooltrips. Promotion ofpedestrian travel could be included in air pollution.Yes CTCs, Cities9.3 Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Fund high priority projects in countywide plansconsistent with funding availability.Yes CTCs, Cities9.4 Close certain roads for use by Nonmotorized trafficDuring special events, weekends, or certain timesof the day, close some roads to all but Nonmotorized traffic.Yes Cities9.5 Encouragement of Bicycle Travel Promotion of bicycletravel to reduce automobileuse and improve air quality. Bikeway systemplanning, routes for inter-city bike trips to helpbicyclists avoid other, less safe facilities. Anotherarea for potential actionsis the development anddistribution of educationalmaterials, regardingbicycle use and safety.Yes SCAG, CTCs,Cities9.6 Free Bikes Provide free bikes in the manner of Boulder, CO.Simple utilitarian bikes that can be usedthroughout the metro area and dropped off atdestination for use by anyone desiring use.No Evidence suggests that bicycletheft is a problem in otherprograms and renders themeasure technically andeconomically infeasible.9.7 Cash Rebates for Bikes Provide financial incentives to purchase bicyclesand thereby encourage use.Yes AQMD*9.8 Close streets for special events for useby bikes and pedestriansSelf Explanatory Yes Cities9.9 Use condemned dirt roads for bike trails Self Explanatory No not applicable - there are Nocondemned dirt roads in theregion.91Section 108 (f) 10. Programs for Secure Bicycle Storage Facilities and Other Facilities,Including Bicycle Lanes, for the Convenience and Protection of Bicyclists, inBoth Public and Private AreasMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies10.1 Region-wide mandatory bike racks atwork sitesSelf Explanatory No The cost effectiveness of thismeasure has not beendemonstrated on a regionalbasis. It is economicallyinfeasible.10.2 Bike Racks on Buses Bike racks would be placed on a to-be-determinednumber of buses to increase bicycle travel.Yes CTCs, TransitOperators,SCRRA10.3 Regional Bike Parking Ordinance for allnew constructionBike Transit Centers for/atall employment centers100+ employees: Bike lockers, clothing lockers,showers, cleaners’ drop-off and pick-up. Bikerepair and rental.Yes AQMD*10.4 Development of Bicycle Travel Facilities Encourages a variety of capital improvements toincrease bicycle use. Off-street bikeways wherehigh-speed roadways preclude safe bicycling.Clearly mark travel facilities with signs andprovide adequate maintenance.Yes CTCs, TransitOperators,SCRRA10.5 Expedite Bicycle Projects from RTPCreate bicycle and pedestrian master plan andbuild out at an accelerated rate to achievebenefits in time for attainment deadline in 2005.Yes SCAG10.6 Provide Bike/Pedestrian facilities safetypatrolsYes Cities, Counties10.7 Require inclusion of bicycle lanes onstate or federallyfunded thoroughfareprojects.No No local or regional authority toimplement this measure.Safety considerations wouldprevent implementation onhigh-speed facilities.92Section 108 (f) 11. Programs to Control Extended Idling of VehiclesMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies11.1 Limit Excessive Car Dealership VehicleStartsRequire car dealers to limit the starting of vehiclesfor sale on their lot(s) to once every two weeks.Presently, a number of new and used car dealersstart their vehicles daily to avoid battery failureand assure smooth start-ups for customer testdrives.No This measure was investigatedby the AQMD and it wasdetermined that in contrast tocolder climates where vehiclesare started on a daily basis,vehicles in the South Coaststarted much less frequently.For this reason it wasdetermined not to betechnically feasible.11.2 Encourage Limitations on Vehicle Idling Encourage limitations tolimit extended idlingoperations (e.g., by delivery trucks and buses) tothree minutes.Yes ARB11.3 Turn off engines while stalled in traffic Public outreachor police-enforced program. No This measure raises safetyand congestion concerns. Noanalysis of the feasibility ofenforcement or costeffectiveness in California hasbeen prepared.11.4 Outlaw idling in parking lots Police enforcedprogram. No Enforcement of idle restrictionsis a low priority for policerelative to their other missions.The cost effectiveness of thismeasure has not beendemonstrated. It is noteconomically feasible.11.5 Reduced idling atdrive-throughs. Shutwindows downMandate No idling or do not allow drive-throughwindows during ozone season.No Analysis of drive-throughemissions in California showsthat banning drive-throughsincreases emissions. Thismeasure is not technicallyfeasible.11.6 Promote use of Ponyengines Use special battery engines to keep airconditioning and other truck systems workingwhile truck Not in use.Yes ARB, AQMD93Section 108 (f) 11. Programs to Control Extended Idling of VehiclesMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies11.7 Idle restrictions at airport curbsidesPolice enforced. Yes Airport authority - safetyconcerns since 9/11preempted need for measureAirport authority94Section 108 (f) 12. Program to Reduce Motor Vehicle Emissions Consistent with Title II,Which Are Caused by Extreme Cold StartConditionsNot applicable. The definition of an "extreme coldstart" specifies temperatures below 20 degreesFahrenheit.Not applicable in the South Coast - No extreme cold startconditions95Section 108 (f) 13. Employer-sponsored programs to permit flexible work schedulesMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies13.1 Alternative Work Schedules Enablesworkers to choose their own workinghours within certain constraints. Flextimeprovides the opportunity for employees to usepublic transit, ridesharing, and otherNonmotorized transportation.A related strategy,staggered work hours, is designed to reducecongestion in the vicinity of the workplace.Alternative workweeks have been implementedextensively by large private and public employers.Yes AQMD*13.2 Modifications of Work Schedules Implementalternate work schedules that flex thescheduled shift time for employees. Encouragethe use of flexible or staggered work hours topromote off-peak driving and accommodate theuse of transit and carpooling.Yes AQMD*13.3 Telecommunications-Telecommuting Encourage the use of telecommuting in place ofmotor vehicle use where appropriate.Yes AQMD*13.4 Telecommunications-Teleconferencing Encourage the use of teleconferencing in place ofmotor vehicle use where appropriate.Yes AQMD*96Section 108 (f) 14. Programs and Ordinances tofacilitate Non-automotive travel, provision to and utilization of mass transit,and to generally reduce the need forsingle-occupant vehicle travel, as part of transportation planning and development effortsMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies14.1 Areawide Public Awareness ProgramsThis measure focuses on conducting ongoingpublic awareness programs throughout the year toprovide the public with information on air pollutionand encourage changes in driving behavior andtransportation mode use.Yes AQMD14.2 Special Event Controls This measure would require new and existingowners/operators of the special event centers toreduce mobile source emissions generated bytheir events. A list of optional strategies would beavailable that reduce mobile source emissions.The definition of “special event center” could bedeveloped through the ruledevelopment process.Yes Cities, specialevent operators14.3 Land Use/Development Alternatives This measureincludes encouraging land usepatterns, which support public transit and otheralternative modes of transportation. In general,this measure would also encourage land usepatterns designed to reduce travel distancesbetween related land usesYes ARB, SCAG,AQMD, cities14.4 Voluntary No Drive Day Programs Conduct voluntary No drive day programs duringthe ozone season throughmedia and employerbased public awareness activities.Yes SCAG, CTCs14.5 Evaluation of the Air Quality Impacts ofNew Development and Mitigation ofAdverse ImpactsEvaluate the air quality impacts of newdevelopment and mitigate any adverse impacts.Yes AQMD14.6 Transportation for Livable Communities(TLC)/Housing Incentive ProgramProgram provides planning grants, technicalassistance, and capital grants to help cities andNonprofit agencies define and implementtransportation projects that support communityplans including increased housing near transit.Yes SCAG14.7 Incentives toincrease density aroundtransit centersLower travel by increasing residential andcommercial density in areas near transit.Yes SCAG, CTCs14.8 Incentives for cities with gooddevelopment practicesProvide financial or other incentive to local citiesthat practice air quality-sensitive development.Yes AQMD97Section 108 (f) 15. Programs for new construction and major reconstructions of paths, tracks or areas solely for the use by pedestrian or other Non-motorized meansof transportation whencommercially feasible and in the public interestMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies15.1 Encouragement of Pedestrian Travel Promote public awareness and use of walking asan alternative to the motor vehicle.Yes SCAG, AQMD*,CTCs15.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle OverpassesWhere Safety DictatesOngoing implementation asdevelopment occurs. Yes Counties, Cities98Section 108 (f) 16. Program to encourage thevoluntary removal from use and the marketplace of pre-1980 model year light duty vehicles and pre-1980 model lightduty trucksMeasure#Measure Title DescriptionHas It BeenImplementedReasoned Justification forNot Implementing MeasureImplementingAgency orAgencies16.1 Counties assess ten dollar license platefee to fund repair/replacement programfor high-emittersCounties assess ten-dollar license plate fee tofund repair/replacementprogram for highemitters.Yes ARB, BAR16.2 Buy vehicles older than 1975 Self explanatory No The cost effectiveness of thismeasure has not beendemonstrated on a regionalbasis. It is economicallyinfeasible.16.3 Demolish impounded vehicles that arehigh emittersSelf explanatory No The cost effectiveness of thismeasure has not beendemonstrated on a regionalbasis. It is economicallyinfeasible.16.4 Do whatever is necessary to allow citiesto remove the engines of high emittingvehicles (pre-1980) that are abandonedand to be auctionedSelf explanatory No The cost effectiveness of thismeasure has not beendemonstrated on a regionalbasis. It is economicallyinfeasible.16.5 Accelerated retirement program Identify high emitting vehicle age groups anddevelop a program to remove them from use.Yes BAR, AQMD

# 98 

# 5. Continue the Sub-regional Air Quality Planning Process

As noted earlier, in 2000 SCAG formed a Sub -regional Air Quality Planning, Analysis and

Modeling Group (SAQ-PAM) that was comprised ofrepresentatives from SCAG’s fourteen subregions. That Group met on a routine basis to c onsider the implementation of alternate TCMs as

part of the 2001 RTP development process and produced many useful products, including:

• A detailed quantification of the cost effec tiveness of TCMs that had previously been

implemented (e.g., railroad grade separation, traffic signalization improvements,

freeway interchange improvements, etc.);

• The consideration of benefits of new TCMs (e.g., transportation outreach to increase

transit ridership, transit extensions, truck operating restrictions, etc.)

• The conduct of educational workshops for elect ed officials and staff on the benefits of

alternate TCMs;

• Newsletters were prepared that described the AQMP process and how projects

developed at local level are included in the TIP and the AQMP; and

• Briefings for elected officials on potential TCMs.

In light of the positive accomplishments of the Group, SCAG commits to reestablish the SubRegional Air Quality Planning, Analysis and Mode ling Group. It will meet quarterly or more

frequently as needed and prepare recommendations on local TCMs that can be implemented into

the local planning process.