The Long Range Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Monterey Bay Area

How will people and goods move throughout the Monterey Bay Area from 2010 to 2035? The following document sets forth the plan to improve regional mobility by 2035. Monterey Bay Area Mobility 2035

The preparation of this plan was fi nanced, in part, by grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, under the SAFETEA-LU act, and the local governments of the Monterey Bay Region. AMBAG Staff AMBAG Board of Directors John Doughty, Executive Director Patricia Stephens, President Randy Deshazo, Principal Planner Stephany Aguilar, Vice-President Bhupendra Patel, Senior Transportation Modeler Ed Laverone, 2nd Vice-President Sasha Tepedelenova, TDM/Planner Linda Meckel, Planner Ronald Graves, City of Capitola Steph A. Nelson, Planner Ken Talmage, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea David Johnston, GIS Coordinator Michael Zuccaro, City of Del Rey Oaks Anais Schenk, Intern Scott Funk, City of Gonzales Eugenia Sanchez, City of Hollister

with contributions from: Jeff Pereira, City of King SBtCOG Staff Frank O’Connell, City of Marina Lisa Rheinheimer, Executive Director Libby Downey, City of Monterey Mary Gilbert, Transportation Planning Manager Carmelita Garcia, City of Pacifi c Grove Veronica Lezama, Transportation Planner Janet Barnes, City of Salinas Ed Laverone, City of San Juan Bautista SCCRTC Staff David Pendergrass, City of Sand City George Dondero, Executive Director Lynn Robinson, City of Santa Cruz Rachel Moriconi, Senior Transportation Planner Stephany Aguilar, City of Scotts Valley Grace Blakeslee, Transportation Planner Dennis Alexander, City of Seaside TAMC Staff Patricia Stephens, City of Soledad Debbie Hale, Executive Director Luis Alejo, City of Watsonville Todd Muck, Principal Transportation Planner Jane Parker, County of Monterey Andrew Cook, Associate Transportation Planner Simon Salinas, County of Monterey METRO Tony Campos, County of Santa Cruz Les White, General Manager Ellen Pirie, County of Santa Cruz Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) Anthony Botelho, County of San Benito Carl Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO Margie Barrios, County of San Benito Caltrans District 5 staff

2 Monterey Bay Area Mobility 2035

June 2010

9

11

17 Monterey Bay Area Mobility 2035 21 Executive Summary The Monterey Bay Transportation Vision for 2035 Regional Transportation Trends 53 Existing Conditions Policy Element Transportation System Operation & Management Financing the Plan 61 System Monitoring and Benchmarks Environmental & Air Quality Conformity Mitigation Land Banking 73 APPENDICES

87

95

97

103 List of Tables Table 1. Fixed-Route Transit Operating Table 20. Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Statistics Table 21. Daily Person Trips by Travel Mode Table 2. Demand Response Operating Statistics Table 22. Modal Split Table 3. Railroad Section Length Descriptions Table 23. Average Vehicle Speeds Table 4. MST Unfunded Capital Projects Table 24. Revenue Constrained Project List Table 5. Route Descriptions and Congestion Table 25. Unconstrained Revenue Project List Issues Table 26. Funded By Others Project List Table 6. 2003 Monterey Bay Area General Aviation Operations & Facilities Table 27. SAFTEA-LU, AMBAG, & RTPA Policy Matrix Table 7. Monterey Bay Area General Aviation Forecast Table 28. SAFTEA-LU vs. TEA-21 Gap Analysis Table 8. Monterey Bay Area Airports Economic Table 29. Plan Consistency Checklist Impact Table 30. Population Forecast Table 9. Monterey Bay Area Goods Movement Table 31. Employment by Sector Forecast Rail Lines Table 32. Population by County Forecast Table 10. The Monterey Bay Area Issues, Goals, and Strategies Table 33. Population Growth Forecast Table 11. Peak Hour Level of Service for Table 34. Housing Units Forecast Roadways Table 35. Employment by County Forecast Table 12. Peak Hour Level of Service for Table 36. Employment Growth Forecast Signalized Intersections Table 37. Jobs to Housing Ratio Forecast Table 13. Regionally Signifi cant Projects Table 38. Population by Jurisdiction Forecast Table 14. Summary of Revenue Sources Table 39. Percent of Regional Population Table 15. Federal Funding Resources Forecast Table 16. State Funding Resources Table 40. Park & Ride Addresses Table 17. Local Funding Resources Table 41. Response to Comments Table 18. Consistency with STIP Fund Table 19. SAFETEA-LU Goals & Monterey Bay Area Measures & Metrics 6 List of Figures Figure 1. The Monterey Bay Area Region Figure 22. 2035 Level of Service on Roadways in the Monterey Bay Area Figure 2. Urbanized Areas Figure 23. Park & Ride Lot Locations Figure 3. Population Density Figure 24. Expenditures by Mode Graph Figure 4. Monterey Bay Area Watersheds Figure 25. Monterey County Expenditures by Figure 5. Comprehensive Transportation System Mode Graph Figure 6. Bike Lane Classifi cations Figure 26. San Benito County Expenditures by Figure 7. Bicycle Network Mode Graph Figure 8. Santa Cruz MBSST Figure 27. Santa Cruz County Expenditures by Mode Graph Figure 9. Monterey MBSST Figure 28. Forecasted Revenues, 2010-2035 Figure 10. Regional & Connecting Transit Graph Services Figure 29. Federal Revenue Sources 2010-2035 Figure 11. Monterey Bay Area Paratransit Pickup Coverage Figure 30. State Revenue Sources 2010-2035 Figure 12. Monterey Bay Area & Connecting Rail Figure. 31. Local Revenue Sources 2010-2035 Systems Figure 32. Mode Split, Work Trips 2005-2035 Figure 13. Monterey Bay Area & Connecting Figure 33. Mode Split, All Trips 2005-2035 State Designated Highways Figure 34. EPA Attainment Areas Figure 14. Functional Classifi cation of Road Sections Figure 35. Existing Regional Conservation/ Mitigation Banks Figure 15. Aviation Network Figure 36. MTP Update Cycle 2009-2022 Figure 16. Goods Movement Network Figure 37. 2010 EIR Document Information Figure 17. Alternative Fueling Facility Locations Figure 18. 2005 Level of Service on Roadways in the Monterey Bay Area Figure 19. Map of the 2010 MTP Projects Figure 20. Level of Service Info-graphic Figure 21. Level of Service Threshold Graph

7 “To seek the timeless way we must fi rst know the quality without a name. There is a central quality which is the root criterion of life and spirit in a man, a town, a building, or a wilderness. This quality is objective and precise, but it cannot be named.” - Christopher Alexander

8 Executive Summary

Federal regulations require the attainment area for the federal one- The format of this document is as Association of Monterey Bay Area hour ozone standard under the follows: Governments (AMBAG) to develop Federal Clean Air Act Amendments • The Monterey Bay (CAAA) of 1990, AMBAG is exempt a long range transportation plan Transportation Vision for for the three-county Monterey Bay from a conformity analysis at this 2035 metropolitan region that is both time. fi nancially constrained and falls • Regional Transportation AMBAG completes forecasts Trends under the on-road motor vehicle of population growth to guide emissions budget included in the • Existing Conditions planned and programmed capacity- Federal Air Quality Maintenance Plan. increasing projects, which are then • Policy Element The AMBAG region is currently in incorporated into the regional travel • Transportation System conformity for its vehicle emissions demand model. When run, the travel Operation & Management budget. demand model provides anticipated • Financing the Plan The 2010 Monterey Bay Area vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for the • System Monitoring and Metropolitan Transportation Plan region. This VMT is then converted Benchmarks (MTP) includes a section entitled into air quality pollutant emissions Financing the Plan. This chapter associated with on-road vehicle use. • Air Quality Conformity demonstrates how the programs These anticipated pollutant emissions • Mitigation Banking and projects in this plan can be are included in the region’s air quality • APPENDICES implemented with resources that plans. can be reasonably be expected Once included in the approved, Programs and projects listed in to be made available, both public fi nancially-constrained MTP, programs this plan serve the stated goals and private, to pay for the planned and projects become eligible and objectives, as well as meet improvements through 2035. for inclusion in the Metropolitan the transportation needs and Transportation Improvement Program Because new state legislation, SB defi ciencies, Programs and projects (MTIP -- also known as Federal 375, calls for MPOs to prepare a are fi rst proposed and adopted in the Transportation Improvement Program Sustainable Communities Strategy respective Regional Transportation -- a separate document) which (SCS) to be used to synchronize and Plans (RTPs) of the three Monterey identifi es funding and schedules coordinate both the metropolitan Bay Area counties: Monterey, San all regional projects by fi scal year transportation planning process and Benito and Santa Cruz. The project over a minimum four-year period. the regional housing needs allocation lists from each RTP are incorporated, To secure federal transportation process, AMBAG is treating this 2010 in their entirety, into the MTP. The funding, projects must be included in update of the MTP as a minor update, project lists provide all funded an approved Federal Transportation with a signifi cantly revised MTP in (constrained)projects and potential Improvement Program. 2012. projects (unconstrained) should funding become available, from 2010 Since the metropolitan area covered to 2035. by this plan is also a designated 9 “The point of cities is multiplicity of choice.” - Jane Jacobs

10 The Monterey Bay Area Transportation Vision for 2035

Increased Regional Mobility in 2035 The 2010 MTP addresses a transportation plan to 2035. Within this 25 year period, the projects and programmatic changes listed in the following pages will increase the overall mobility, safety, and security of people and goods within the region. In 2035, the region’s population will be both greater and older than it is today. Our challenge is to improve mobility for that changing population over the next 25 years. Geography Shared Regional Figure 1. The Monterey Bay Area

The Monterey Bay metropolitan Goals STANISLAUS SANTA CLARA region consists of the Pajaro and MERCED The 2010 MTP seeks to achieve a ^Scotts Valley Capitola Salinas River Valleys and adjacent Santa Cruz ^ ^ Watsonville MADERA coordinated and balanced regional ^ coastal lowland and mountains San Juan Bautista Hollister ^ ^ surrounding and extending southerly transportation system, which includes Monterey Bay Marina Salinas Sand City ^ ^ mass transportation, highway, Monterey Pacific Grove ^ ^^ Seaside from the Monterey Bay on the Central ^ ^ Carmel-by-the-Sea ^ Del Rey Oaks railroad, bicycle, pedestrian, goods Gonzales California coast. The total land area ^ Soledad FRESNO movement, and aviation facilities and ^ of the three-county (Monterey, San Greenfield services. ^ Benito and Santa Cruz) region is 5,157 ^King City square miles, or approximately 3.3 In addition to a balanced and million acres. coordinated system, the regional The region’s spectacular coastal goals seek to: SAN LUIS OBISPO sea bluff s, dunes, and river valleys, • Support Economic Vitality encircled by the Santa Cruz, Gabilan of the Monterey Bay Integration and Connectivity and Santa Lucia mountain ranges, Area, by enabling global of the Transportation System with the Diablo range to the east, competitiveness, productivity for People and Goods and effi ciency look out over the Monterey Bay. Most • Promote Effi cient System of the region is mountainous, with • Increase the Accessibility and Management and Operation elevations reaching 5,862 ft. above Mobility of People and Goods • Preserve the Existing System sea level at Junipero Serra Peak in the • Protect the Environment, Los Padres National Forest. Promote Energy • Increase the Safety of the Transportation System The region is among the world’s Conservation, Improve the Quality of Life, and for Motorized and Non- most renowned for scenic beauty. Promote Consistency motorized Users, and Additionally, the Monterey Bay has between Transportation • Increase the Security of been designated a national marine Improvements and State the Transportation System sanctuary while the Pajaro and Salinas and Local Planned Growth for Motorized and Non- River valleys contain a large share and Economic Development motorized Users of the most fertile and productive Patterns agricultural soils in the nation. • Enhance the Modal 11 The regional goals are discussed Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air Pollution The project cost breakdown for all in more detail in the Policy Element Control District (MBUAPD). The projects during the 25-years of the chapter. Monterey Bay Public Participation plan are listed in Appendix D. The Plan requires involvement of the distribution of costs by type (State public in the determination of a highway expansion; State highway A Sustainable Communities preferred growth scenario, and as rehabilitation; maintenance, and Strategy such the Blueprint Public Outreach operations; Local road and street and Involvement will occur during expansion; Local road and street Under SB 375 (Steinberg), each of the spring, summer and fall of 2010. rehabilitation, maintenance, and the state’s eighteen Metropolitan operation; Mass transit, commuter Planning Organizations is required to The SCS will be created pursuant to rail, and intercity rail expansion; Mass prepare a Sustainable Communities the laws set forth in the California transit, commuter rail, and intercity Strategy (SCS) that identifi es the land Government Code 65080 and SB375. rail rehabilitation, maintenance, use, transportation and other policies and operations; Pedestrian and that will reduce Greenhouse Gas Complying bicycle facilities; Environmental emissions from cars and light trucks. enhancements and mitigation; Because the AMBAG region will not with California Research and planning; and Other receive an emissions target until well categories) is found in the chapter after the adoption of the current Government Code Financing the Plan. 2010 MTP, AMBAG, with its regional 65080 transportation planning partners, will As defi ned in Section 65080.01, cities update the MTP in 2012 with an SCS. Common regional needs are and counties with resource areas or derived from the regional unmet farmland are considered for fi nancial AMBAG is currently involved in a transportation needs as described in incentives. Financial assistance for Blueprint planning process to identify the Existing Conditions chapter. addressing countywide service a preferred growth scenario for 2035. responsibilities that contribute to This preferred growth scenario will The short-range transportation goals, greenhouse gas emission reduction be the foundation for determining a objectives and policy statements are targets is also considered for counties Sustainable Community Strategy listed in the MTIP. who implement policies for growth to (SCS) that will comply with the The long-range transportation occur within their cities. California Air Resources Board goals and strategies are listed in emission targets for the automobiles the Transportation Investments & The 2010 MTP is consistent with and light trucks sector for 2020 and System Improvements chapter. The federal planning and programming 2035, respectively. These targets subsequent objective and policy requirements and conforms to are expected to be available by statements are consistent with the the 2007 Regional Transportation September 30, 2010. funding estimates as described in the Plan Guidelines, as adopted by the California Transportation AMBAG is continuing participation Financing the Plan chapter. Commission. in the MPO/ARB Working Group for The action element describing all the SB375 Target Setting, and continues necessary programs and actions to Prior to the adoption of the fi nal 2010 to pursue communication and implement this 25-year plan are found MTP a public hearing was noticed by collaboration with all agencies in in the Financing the Plan chapter. The publication and held with all three the region in preparation for the action element considers congestion counties. development of the sustainable management programming activities communities strategy. The 2012 SCS within the Monterey Bay Area. Complying with US will be adopted at the same time as the 2012 MTP. The Financing the Plan chapter Title 23 § 134 contains a summary of the cost of The 2010 MTP also seeks to As part of the Blueprint planning plan implementation constrained encourage and promote the safe and process, a Regional Blueprint by current and future available effi cient management, operation, Policy Group was created and has revenues. This section also contains and development of surface been meeting regularly to create recommendations for allocations transportation systems that will serve the criteria for a preferred growth of funds. The fi rst fi ve years of the the mobility needs of people and scenario. This group is comprised of fi nancial element are pursuant to freight and foster economic growth planning directors and staff from the Section 14524. 21 jurisdictions, two LAFCOs and the and development both within the

12 AMBAG region and within the State chapter. This discussion has been in this document as the 2010 MTP and other urbanized areas, while developed in consultation with projects. minimizing transportation related fuel Federal, State, and land management consumption and air pollution. The and regulatory agencies. The transit and transportation 2010 MTP also seeks to encourage enhancement activities, as they pertain to Intelligent Transportation the continued improvement and Financial Plan evolution of the metropolitan Systems, are listed in the Existing transportation planning processes by The chapter entitled Financing the Plan Conditions chapter under the ITS AMBAG, Caltrans, and public transit contains the fi nancial plan for the 25- section. operators. A detailed listing of goals year MTP. This chapter demonstrates and policies can be found in the Policy how the plan can be implemented Development of the 2010 Element chapter. with reasonably expected funds, and provides estimates of those funds. MTP The 2010 MTP provides for the The appendix lists both the fi nancially The development of the 2010 MTP development and integrated constrained and unconstrained provides a consideration of all modes management and operation of projects. The unconstrained project of transportation and has been transportation systems and facilities, list contains those projects that would developed through a continuing, including accessible pedestrian be included in the plan if funds are cooperative, and comprehensive walkways and bicycle transportation identifi ed. process, to an appropriate degree, facilities, that function as an and is based on the complexity of the intermodal transportation system transportation problems. for the Monterey Bay Area and as Operational & Management an integral part of an intermodal Strategies Because AMBAG only serves as the transportation system for California The chapter titled Transportation MPO and not as a Transportation and the United States as a whole. System Operation & Management Management Agency (TMA) for the region, the 2010 MTP is The AMBAG region includes all three details how to improve the supplemented by the three 2010 RTP counties, including areas within those performance of existing plans prepared by San Benito Council counties that are expected to be transportation facilities via of Governments (SBtCOG), Santa urbanized within a 25-year forecast. operational and management strategies. These strategies will seek Cruz County Regional Transportation to relieve vehicular congestion while Commission (SCCRTC), and the Required Elements maximizing the safety and mobility of Transportation Agency for Monterey people and goods. County (TAMC). All four plans have Identifi cation of been prepared in coordination with each other. Transportation Facilities Capital Investment & Other The 2010 MTP includes an Strategies The 2010 MTP was given more than a identifi cation of transportation 45-day public comment period, from The capital investments and other facilities in the Existing Conditions March 8th to April 23rd, 2010, and strategies to preserve the current and chapter. This includes major is supported by the 2010 MTP SEIR. planned transportation system are roadways, transit, multimodal and The 2010 MTP SEIR functions as the listed in the Policy Element chapter. intermodal facilities and intermodal environmental review for the plan. These investments provide for connectors, that all function as part multimodal capacity increases based In preparing this plan, State and of the integrated Monterey Bay on the regional goals and priorities local agencies responsible for Area transportation system. Special (listed in that same chapter) and the land use management, natural attention has been paid to facilities of regional needs listed in the Existing resources, environmental protection, regional and national importance. Conditions chapter. conservation and historic preservation were consulted. When Mitigation Activities available California conservation Transit & Transportation maps and inventories of natural or Environmental mitigation activities Enhancement Activities historic resources were compared and potential “mitigation banks” are with the plan. discussed in the Mitigation Banking Transit and transportation enhancement activities are included In addition, all interested parties participated in the creation of this 13 plan. Please see the adopted 2008 Monterey Bay Public Participation Plan for further details on the public participation outreach. The Monterey Bay Public Participation Plan was developed through consultation with interested parties, and provides opportunities to comment on the transportation plan. Further, the Monterey Bay Area Coordinated Public Transit-Human Service Transportation Plan (CPTP) adopted in 2008, serves as the unifi ed, comprehensive strategy for public transportation service delivery. This document identifi es the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults and individuals with limited incomes. Strategies for meeting the needs for these segments of the population are described in the plan. The plan was prepared in collaboration with TAMC, SCCRTC, SBtCOG, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (METRO), Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST), and Caltrans District 5, in addition to local transportation providers, community organizers, human service advocates and members of the public. The 2010 MTP is available in electronic format at www.ambag.org.

14 15 The Monterey Bay Area

Increasingly our cities and towns are interdependent as we grow and age in an era of diminishing resources. Regional coordination is of the utmost importance as we combat the problems faced by our ever growing region.

16 Regional Trends

Population In 2010 the region’s population is Unincorporated areas account for the With the exception of Hollister, largely concentrated in urban areas remaining 34%. Please see Appendix Salinas, and San Juan Bautista, urban consisting of the 18 incorporated H for a detailed listing of the region’s development in the Monterey Bay cities, currently accounting for 66% forecasted population. metropolitan region primarily occurs of the total regional population. along the Bay coastal plains and

Figure 2. Urbanized areas are largely concentrated along the coast. Cities and Places

STANISLAUS Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED

Scotts Valley City Boundaries Santa Cruz Capitola State & National Parks Watsonville MADERA Military Land Counties San Juan Bautista Hollister

Monterey Bay

Sand City Marina Salinas Monterey Pacific Grove Seaside

Carmel-by-the-Sea Del Rey Oaks Gonzales

Soledad FRESNO

Greenfield

King City

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Places.mxd User: lmeckel

17 Figure 3. Most of the region is not densely populated. Population Density

Monterey Bay Area 2010

Legend

Boulder Creek Ben Lomond People per Square Mile Scotts Valley Day Valley 41 - 1850 DavenportFelton Soquel Santa Cruz Aptos Corralitos Live Oak 1851 - 3512 Twin Lakes Rio del MarFreedom Pajaro Watsonville Aromas 3513 - 5173 Las Lomas Hollister Elkhorn San Juan Bautista 5174 - 6835 Prunedale Tres Pinos 6836 - 8496 Castroville Paicines Marina Salinas Military Land Seaside State & National Parks Monterey Chualar Pebble Beach Gonzales San Benito Carmel Valley VillageCarmel Valley Pinnacles Soledad Idria

Greenfield Big Sur

King City

San Lucas

Miles San Ardo o 03 6 12 18 24 Data Sources: SBtCOG, SCCRTC, TAMC Lockwood Imagery: 2007 AMBAG Parkfield Bradley Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP Date: 2/23/2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Base Map Author: User: lmeckel foothills from the City of Santa Cruz in Employment service and retail employment. San the north to Carmel on the Monterey Benito County, with its Pinnacles Peninsula in the south. The Santa The largest industries in the region by National Monument and State Cruz, Watsonville, Seaside-Monterey, revenue and employment are tourism Historical Park at the San Juan and Salinas urbanized areas are related, agriculture, education, Bautista Mission, also has important the most densely developed in the military and other public. These tourist and recreation destinations. region, with Hollister and the South trends are expected to continue Monterey County cities also densely through 2035. Housing settled places. Both Santa Cruz and San Benito In 2005 there were 257,848 housing In 2005 there were 740,048 people Counties are inextricably linked with, units in the region, with an average in the AMBAG region spread over due to their proximity, the Silicon household size of 3.1 people. In 2035 an area of 5,157 square miles, giving Valley electronics and software there will be an additional 70,029 the three-county region an average industries. housing units, bringing the regional density of 144 people per square mile. Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties total to 327,877, with an average In 2035 the population is expected to both are major tourist and recreation household size of 3.0 people. reach 920,713 and an average density destinations with State Parks and of 179 people per square mile. Beaches, State Historical Parks Forecast and a wealth of other tourist and In 2008, AMBAG adopted a forecast recreational attractions which (see Monterey Bay Area 2008 Regional generate signifi cant associated 18 Figure 4. The eight watersheds in the Monterey Bay Area are increasingly overdrawn. Watersheds

STANISLAUS Santa Clara Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA San Lorenzo - So MERCED

quel Central Coast Santa Clara MADERA San Lorenzo - Soquel Alisal - Elkhorn Slough Pajaro River Monterey Bay Pajaro River Panoche - San Luis Reservoir Salinas River Carmel River Estrella River State & National Parks Military Land Carmel River Counties FRESNO

Central Coast

Salinas River

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Estrella River Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Watersheds.mxd User: lmeckel

Forecast) of population, employment region to travel between counties not yet manifested -- all of these and housing units within the region for work. However, transit, bike and issues call for greater coordination to the year 2035 (see Appendix H pedestrian commutes have risen as among local jurisdictions. for a summary of the forecast). The the cost of gas continues to increase forecast is used for population and and residents choose to live closer Currently, AMBAG is leading a employment land use inputs to the to where they work. In addition, due regional planning study called AMBAG Regional Travel Demand to a jobs/housing imbalance, travel Envisioning the Monterey Bay Area. Model, the transportation model between the Monterey Bay Area and Funded by Caltrans, this eff ort, used for analyses like long range Santa Clara County has increased one of several around the state of plans and corridor studies, general overtime. California generically known as plan updates, specifi c transportation Blueprint, is concerned with placing projects, and for federally-required air Overarching Issues best land use planning and best quality conformity analyses. transportation planning practices While the MTP concerns long-range together, synthesizing these practices Travel Patterns transportation plans there is a broader and identifying the policies and planning context facing all member investments that will improve regional The commute patterns within the jurisdictions. Water shortages, land accessibility, mobility, housing and region are largely auto centric, with use decisions, the current recession, employment availability in a time of the majority of residents driving the state budget imbalance, local shrinking fi nancial resources. along routes 1, 17, 101, and 68. It is fi nance challenges and other not uncommon for residents in the challenges, we anticipate but have

19 “The Salinas Valley is in Northern California. It is a long narrow swale between two ranges of mountains, and the Salinas River winds and twists up the center until it falls at last into Monterey Bay.”. - John Steinbeck

20 Existing System

The existing Monterey Bay Area transportation system is comprised of bicycle and pedestrian networks, public transportation systems, roadways, airports and aviation, and goods movement via rail and road. The following discusses the existing system and unmet needs.

Figure 5. Facilities and infrastructure for all modes combine to create the Monterey Bay Transportation System. o o o Comprehensive o o STANISLAUS Transportation System o o Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED o o o Public Airports 2006 Enplanements oo MADERA o 0 - 30 o o o 31 - 215,797 Monterey Bay o Bus Routes o o MST SB CO TRANSIT o Santa Cruz METRO Counties FRESNO State & National Parks Military Land State Highways o o

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 09, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Mxds\System.mxd o User: lmeckel

21 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Facilities for non-motorized travel as a transportation mode, routine as a means to encourage people to are mostly developed in the densely physical activity, and obesity in walk more trips of diff erent distances. settled areas with fl at terrain. Biking children. Increasing the number More emphasis is being placed on and walking is often a desired mode of children walking and biking to walking as a viable, inexpensive, non- choice, but these modes rely on school regularly is one objective of polluting, and healthy way to travel. an adequate network and support the Go for Health! plan. The SCCRTC facilities. Even though the Monterey has also established a bicycle and Most pedestrian infrastructure is Bay region has a mild climate there are pedestrian hazards reporting system in the form of sidewalks; however, considerable amounts of urbanized to document impediments to bicycle there are many signifi cant trails in the fl at terrain, non-motorized trip travel and pedestrian travel. region. Most of these trails are shared is not common. This is because of facilities - an example of a shared the lack of a suitable network or facility is the Rossi-Rico greenbelt in its current limits in coverage and Pedestrian Facilities Salinas. connectivity. Pedestrian travel is a vital part of Multipurpose trails are separated The planning and development of the transportation, economic and from roadways and are usually shared bicycle and pedestrian facilities is social life of the Monterey Bay Area, by more than one user. Typical users generally the responsibility of the and pedestrian amenities — such may include roller bladers, bicyclists, cities and counties, facilitated with as appropriately sized sidewalks, skateboarders, pedestrians, surreys, guidance from the RTPAs. Caltrans crosswalks, curb cuts, landscaping, horses, and joggers. Many of these District 5 also coordinates bike travel and benches — are seen as benefi cial trails have become overcrowded on some State Highways within the additions which make communities during weekends that may serve as a Central Coast. friendly and livable. Pedestrian detriment to the bicycle commuter. facilities including sidewalks, streets, Opportunities for additional shared Due to both safety concerns and trails are fundamental to the use facilities may be present in and land use patterns, parents functioning of Monterey Bay Area the region. For example, Pacifi c throughout the state are driving their neighborhoods. Cities that promote Gas and Electric (PG&E) owns and children to school in ever greater walking in all its forms are promoting operates pipelines to distribute numbers. According to the Surface healthy neighborhoods. Transportation Policy Project, two- and supply natural gas to most thirds of the country’s children walked Walking, even though it is not communities in parts of the region or biked to school 30 years ago; now, considered as common transportation via 12” and 20” pipelines. Many of less than 10% walk. This phenomenon mode, supplements all other these pipelines have 25 to 100-foot has led to a sharp increase in short- transportation modes – all trips start easements that could be utilized distance trips made by car, evidenced and end with walking. for potential pedestrian and bicycle paths. Additionally, PG&E has by the traffi c surrounding elementary Local jurisdictions are working to and secondary schools at the easements throughout the county achieve an eff ective pedestrian for transmission lines, some of which beginning and end of the school day. network by constructing Some estimates indicate that 20-25% have been made into linear greenbelts sidewalks and minimizing curb with bicycle and pedestrian paths. of morning rush-hour traffi c on local cuts in conjunction with new and roads and streets can be attributed to redeveloped streets, and working school commutes. closely with the public to identify Americans with Disabilities Act Recent study results indicate that where existing gaps in pedestrian The Americans with Disabilities instances of obesity are at an all facilities are. In some areas, local Act (ADA), passed in 1990, is a time high throughout the nation jurisdictions are implementing traffi c comprehensive law prohibiting and have directed attention to the calming projects to slow vehicular discrimination against people with benefi ts of walking and bicycling as and traffi c and create more attractive disabilities. ADA requires access to a form of transportation, especially pedestrian facilities. public transportation systems for for short trips. The SCCRTC worked Various local and state programs, people with disabilities equal to the in conjunction with the United including the State and Federal Clean service available to the able-bodied. Way’s Go for Health! program to Air Acts, and the local Air Quality Problems commonly associated develop a strategic plan to locally Management Plan, call for greater with sidewalks and pathways for the address the link between walking improvements to pedestrian access disabled are too many driveway cuts, 22 lack of curb cuts, sign posts, benches, Bike Lanes in the region are classifi ed or motor vehicle traffi c and is and rough and severely cracked according to the Caltrans Highway identifi ed only by signage. sidewalk surfaces. Design Manual, chapter 1000 (2006). These include: Bicycle Travel • Class I Bikeway. Typically called a “bike path” or “multi-use path” a A considerable bicycle network exists, Class I bikeway provides bicycle particularly in the urbanized portions travel on a paved right-of-way of Santa Cruz County. completely separated from any street or highway. Class I Although there is a general lack bikeways are not for the exclusive of continuity in bike lanes striped use of bicyclists, and can be used on the region’s state or county by pedestrians, joggers, and Figure 6. Bike Lane major highway and street network, other non-motorized users. Classifi cations progress has been made in planning • Class II Bikeway. Often referred to Class 1 Bikeway and funding bikeway improvements. as a “bike lane,” a Class II bikeway (Bike Path) TAMC and SCCRTC are developing provides a striped and stenciled a Monterey Bay Sanctuary Trail. lane for one-way travel on a Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) Continued emphasis on improving street or highway. bicycle routes that safely connect • Class III Bikeway. Generally Class III Bikeway employment centers and residential referred to as a “bike route,” a (Signed Route) locations will increase commuter Class III bikeway provides for bicycle use. shared use with pedestrian

Figure 7. The existing and proposed bicycle network in the Monterey Bay Area. Bike Lanes

STANISLAUS Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED

Class Bike Path MADERA Bike Lane Signed Bike Route Pacific Coast Route Monterey Bay Caltrans Route Proposed Bike Path Proposed Bike Lane Proposed Signed Bike Route

State Highways State & National Parks FRESNO Military Land Counties

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Lanes.mxd User: lmeckel 23 Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST) Network The MBSST is planned to be a multi- Please refer to the Monterey Bay SCCRTC is in the process of use recreation and interpretive Sanctuary Scenic Trail Master Plan developing a more detailed plan for pathway that links existing and newly (2008) for a description of the plans the Santa Cruz County portion of the established trail segments into a for the MBSST Network. This trail is trail. Detailed plans for the southern continuous coastal trail around the proposed to span the Monterey Bay portion of Monterey County are Monterey Bay. In addition to providing from Lover’s Point in Pacifi c Grove to in the early stages of the planning additional bicycle and pedestrian Wilder Ranch in Santa Cruz. collaboration process. facilities, interpretive features will educate users of the trail about the Figure 8. From the SCCRTC 2010 RTP. natural and cultural resources of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and its environs. The trail will be located and designed so visitors can explore and enjoy the coastal communities of Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, while respecting residential, agricultural and environmentally sensitive surroundings along the trail. Figure 9. From the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Master The approximately 60-mile coastal Plan, 2008. trail corridor provides public access along Monterey Bay. The trail is envisioned for pedestrians and bicyclists, with each trail section dictated by natural landforms and features, existing land uses, and desired destinations. The project will link existing local trails, bridging the existing gaps between them. It is possible that sections of the MBSST Network may be included in the California Coastal Trail (CCT), a hiking trail which will eventually extends the entire length of the California Coast. The Sanctuary Scenic Trail Committee (SSTC) draws its membership from local, state, and federal jurisdictions within the trail boundaries, as well as economic development, recreational, and conservation organizations interested in trail development. The SSTC works in conjunction with the Santa Cruz County Sanctuary Inter- Agency Task Force to craft overall trail development policy. Coordination between the above groups, Caltrans, the Coastal Commission, local political leaders, TAMC, SCCRTC, and residents of aff ected communities continues. As specifi c plans are completed and funds become available, more of the trail will be completed.

24 Unmet Bicycle and Pedestrian should be supplemented, as needed, environmental review and other Needs with adequate secure storage at Transportation System Management workplace and transfer points (e.g. eff orts. The system of bike paths, signed transit centers, park and ride lots and and striped lanes in the region is bus stops). These facilities are needed An example of ongoing programs discontinuous and incomplete. if growth in bicycle work trip mode includes the SCCRTC’s Elderly & Neither a continuous, safe coastal share is to occur. Otherwise, bike Disabled Transportation Advisory bike route nor an intercity system use for work trips may stagnate or Committee formed a Pedestrian connects the urbanized areas of continue to decline relative to other Safety Work Group to work on the region, apart from relatively modes. improving the accessibility of the good connections within adjacent pedestrian network. The Work urbanized areas of some cities, such Due to expected limitations for Group’s goal is to “ensure safe and as Capitola/Santa Cruz, and Marina/ regional planning for bicycle and accessible pedestrian travel and Sand City/Seaside/Monterey/Pacifi c pedestrian activities, AMBAG is not access throughout the county for Grove. A large share of the region’s typically involved in bicycle and the benefi t of all residents.” SCCRTC work places and residential areas are pedestrian planning, per se. The staff successfully secured a Caltrans not accessible by separated or striped reader is thereby referred to bicycle/ Environmental Justice/Context lane bike routes. This lack of regional pedestrian planning coordinated by Sensitive Planning grant to assess connectivity and coverage inhibits the RTPAs, as outlined in their 2010 pedestrian facilities around priority use of this mode for work trips in the Regional Transportation Plans, save origin and destination locations, region. one exception – the Monterey Bay and assist in the identifi cation and Sanctuary Scenic Trail. implementation of improvements An important fi rst step in promoting to encourage greater transit use pedestrian activity is to recognize and ensure safe and accessible that city streets are not just for Provide Bicycle and pedestrian travel throughout the cars. This is signifi cantly important Pedestrian Amenities region. Included in the Work Group when, for example, nearly 33% of tasks is a program to encourage When Caltrans and local Hollister’s population is under the private property owners to maintain jurisdictions provide bicycle and age of 18. In fact, while city streets the condition of sidewalks adjacent pedestrian amenities, they not must accommodate automobile to their property, as required by only are encouraging recreational traffi c, an equal or greater focus California law. opportunities but providing an should be placed on accommodating alternative to the single-occupant pedestrians. In 2009, the Community Traffi c vehicle for commute purposes. In the Safety Coalition of Santa Cruz County San Benito Street is anticipated to be region, the Regional Transportation completed a “walkability” survey to transferred by Caltrans to the City as a Planning Agencies (RTPAs) administer assess pedestrian and driver activities locally-controlled street and will likely the distribution and use of bicycle at various high traffi c pedestrian carry fewer vehicles, thus enhancing and pedestrian funds as provided crossings in Santa Cruz County. Over the pedestrian environment. San for under the Transportation 1,700 pedestrians were observed and Benito Street has the greatest Development Act (TDA). the study results indicated there is a opportunity for improvements need for changes in both pedestrian In Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties, because of its regional signifi cance. and motorist behavior. With 30% of the Transportation Agency for Watsonville pedestrians failing to The bicycle mode share for the region Monterey County and the Santa use caution when crossing and 25% is somewhat lower than bicycle Cruz County Regional Transportation of pedestrians having to wait for mode shares for comparable areas Commission provide ongoing Bicycle one or more motorists to yield, work in California with similar densities, Programs covering facilities planning, is needed to increase traffi c safety weather, and terrain, but with more policy development, education/ education/awareness for bicyclists, extensive bicycle networks. To promotion and staffi ng the respective pedestrians and motorists, as well as increase use of this mode for work county Bicycle Committees. Program implement traffi c calming measures. trips, safe, accessible and extensive eff orts are centered on coordination Additional facilities and infrastructure bicycle routes need to be developed and incorporation of bicycle planning development are needed to improve connecting residential areas with and promotion into all planning bicycle and pedestrian safety. work and shop destinations that activities including general plan are within bike distance of each development, capital improvement others. This network expansion programming, development review, 25 Public Transportation Public transportation within the Bus Transit region is provided by buses, trains, and paratransit providers. In 2005, Within the region, bus transit is public transit agencies within the provided by MST, METRO, and County region supported 2% of all trips, a -2% Express. Daily bus transit accounts for decrease from 2000. Nationally, transit only 1% of all work trips, while 80% of agencies have seen a 0.5% increase the region’s population lives within a in commuters utilizing public transit ½ mile of a bus stop. since 2004. Public transit providers In addition to public transit providers, include Monterey-Salinas Transit Greyhound Bus Lines and Amtrak (MST), Santa Cruz Metropolitan provide longer distance intercity Transit District (METRO), San Benito service. Transit (County Express), Amtrak and An MST Bus at the Salinas six paratransit providers. Transit Center

Figure 10. Regional & Connecting Transit Services Regional Transit

STANISLAUS Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED

Union Pacific Railroad

Amtrak Stations MADERA VTA & Caltrain Rail Bus Routes MST Monterey Bay SB CO TRANSIT Santa Cruz METRO State Highways State & National Parks Military Land Counties

FRESNO

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Public.mxd User: lmeckel

26 Table 1. Fixed Route Transit Operating Statistics Fleet Number Operating Unlinked Annual Annual Size of Expenses Passenger Vehicle Vehicle Routes Trips Revenue Revenue Miles Hours MST 84 36 $21,256,887.00 4,892,345 3,249,965 209,088 Santa Cruz METRO 82 **39 $26,269,838.00 5,482,915 3,249,040 221,167 Operating County Express 17* 3 $553,775.43 89,857 65,005 11,579 Statistics from TOTAL 183 78 $48,080,500.43 10,465,117 6,564,010 441,834 FY 2007. *Vehicles are used for both the fi xed route and demand response systems. **Santa Cruz METRO now (2010) operates 40 routes, which is refl ected in the text below. Monterey-Salinas Transit Santa Cruz Metropolitan San Benito County Transit (MST) Transit District (Santa Cruz (County Express) MST serves the cities of Carmel, Del METRO) County Express operates fi ve fi xed Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacifi c METRO serves the cities of Capitola, routes within the City of Hollister, in Grove, Seaside, Salinas, as well as Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz and addition to three Intercounty Routes. the South County communities Watsonville and unincorporated The fi xed routes operate from 6:30a.m of Chualar, Gonzales, Soledad, portions of Santa Cruz County. to 6:30p.m at headways ranging from Greenfi eld and King City. MST also METRO operates a commuter express 20 to 50 minutes. provides public transit service in route on Highway 17 between Santa To improve Intercounty mobility areas of unincorporated Monterey Cruz and San Jose, and operates the County Express also provides County, including the communities AMTRAK Thruway feeder service Intercounty service to the City of of Castroville, Pajaro, Prunedale, Moss between Santa Cruz and the San Jose Gilroy. County Express meets Caltrain Landing, Toro Park, Carmel Valley, Diridon Station. Carmel Highlands and Big Sur. To and the Greyhound Bus Station in assist inter-regional connections, MST METRO provides three types of Gilroy, and provides service to Gavilan serves the Watsonville Transit Center service: Regional (Highway 17 Community College. Express), Intercity (11 routes), Urban in Santa Cruz County as well as the San Benito LTA contracts with Jovenes Local-Feeder (21 routes) and Rural Gilroy Caltrain Station in Santa Clara de Antaño, a nonprofi t organization Routes (7 routes). Routes serving the County. that provides 4,140 annual hours of Santa Cruz Metro Center are “pulsed” specialized transportation services: To facilitate timely transfers to enable faster transfers between between routes, MST provides timed routes. • Out of County Medical connections for routes terminating at • Senior Nutrition Program transit centers in Marina, Monterey, Santa Cruz METRO partners with the Sand City, Salinas, and Watsonville. University of California, Santa Cruz • Medical and Shopping The cities of Monterey and Salinas (UCSC) to provide late night fi xed- Assistance Program are MST’s major transit hubs. MST’s route and demand response service weekday routes operate with 15min ,known as the Night Owl, for students, to hourly headways from 6:00 a.m. faculty/staff , and the general public. to midnight. Primary and commuter This service operates from 11:45pm services operate at 15min headways. to 3:00am in the general west side Santa Cruz area. The District serves transit centers in Santa Cruz, Capitola, Felton, Scotts Valley and downtown Watsonville. METRO routes meet MST routes at the Watsonville Transit Center. The two operators have provided reciprocal transfers since 1989. 27 Demand-Responsive Operators In addition to the two fi xed-route bus operators, several small demand-responsive public bus and van transit systems operate in the region:

Table 2. Demand Response Operating Statistics FY 2007 - 2008 Operator Fleet Unlinked Operating Annual Annual Operating Vehicles Passenger Expenses Vehicle Vehicle Expense per Trips Revenue Revenue Passenger Miles Hours Mile County Express Transit System 14* 63,435 $710,767 200,718 n/a $3.44 Greenfi eld Autolift 3 19,525 $91,345 19,118 1,602 n/a King City Transit 2 6,678 $101,819 15,056 1731.20 $6.76 MST 20 66,508 $1,491,999 643,049 36,651 $2.33 Lift Line/Community Bridges 27 85,367 $3,067,144 536,389 44,105 $5.06 Soledad Taxi n/a n/a $124,821 n/a 25,634 $4.70 *Vehicles are used for both the fi xed route and demand response systems

County Express Transit System King City, the King City (Mesa Del Santa Cruz County Specialized Rey) Airport, and the Pine Canyon Transportation Within San Benito County, County residential area just outside the city Express Transit System provides limits. In Santa Cruz County currently Lift wheelchair accessible, general public, Line (Community Bridges), a private demand-responsive transportation non-profi t provider of specialized to northern San Benito County and MST RIDES transportation services is primarily Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) responsible for providing essential Complementary Paratransit Service. provides the MST RIDES Program, transportation service to senior and County Express is operates Monday a curb-to-curb paratransit disabled residents. Lift Line provides - Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and transportation service to individuals transportation services for Elderday, weekends, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with disabilities who cannot use the Stroke Center, Senior Dining the fi xed route transit services. MST Centers, the Multi-Purpose Senior Greenfi eld Autolift RIDES serves the Monterey Peninsula Services Program, and low income and Salinas urban areas, rural areas of individuals for medical appointments. The City of Greenfi eld provides North County and along the Highway Lift Line also contracts out some rides weekday general public, demand- 68 corridor, as well as within ¾ of a to private taxi operators. responsive intra-city transportation to mile of the Highway 101 corridor from Private for-profi t service providers residents, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Salinas to King City. Under contract such as First Transit, also operate on weekdays, with one in-service van with the County of Monterey, MST specialized transportation services in and another vehicle spare. Service is also provides RIDES ST (Special Santa Cruz County. also provided outside the City within Transportation) service to passengers a radius of two miles, primarily to who live outside of the ¾-mile ADA residential housing and Oak Park. corridor in North Monterey County Soledad Taxi and within one mile of the Highway The City of Soledad provides 101 Corridor south of Salinas to King City Transit weekday general public, demand- Bradley. The MST RIDES Program also The City of King City provides responsive intra-city transportation off ers reimbursed taxi program as weekday general public, demand- to residents, from 8:15 a.m. to 12:45 well as out-of-county transportation responsive intra-city transportation p.m., with a sixteen-passenger van. for persons with disabilities to to residents, from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 Soledad Taxi’s service area covers specialized medical appointments p.m. on weekdays, with one van. the City of Soledad, with service also twice a month. King City Transit serves residents with available between Soledad and the trip origins and destinations within cities of Greenfi eld and Gonzales, the 28 Soledad Correctional Training Facility (CTF), and the residential community of Camphora. Trips may also be made as far south as Metz Road or Arroyo Seco Road. In response to a Transportation Agency for Monterey County fi nding of unmet transit need in 2003, Soledad Taxi reinstituted 8-hour per day transit service July 2003.

Figure 11. From the 2008 Monterey Bay Area CPTP.

29 Rail Network The rail network includes rail lines or facilities used for passenger or freight movement, including those lines used for private recreational service, lines not currently in use, and abandoned rail lines or facilities. Some of the latter lines have been converted to bike and pedestrian trail use, often through the Rails to Trails program.

Passenger Rail Service Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) County Cities – is served by this operates a transit center two blocks connecting bus service. The Amtrak Amtrak from the Amtrak station, providing Capitol Corridor service provides four both scheduled connections and round-trips between San Jose and The only regular rail passenger on-call service to the Salinas Amtrak Sacramento on weekdays and six is provided by Amtrak, the most station. round-trips on weekends. The Capitol popular long distance passenger Corridor connecting bus service to Rail passengers in Salinas, Santa Cruz, train in the United States. The Coast Monterey County serves Watsonville, and Monterey can ride the Amtrak Starlight, which connects Los Angeles Salinas, Cal State Monterey Bay and bus to connect to the Capitol Corridor to Seattle, stops in Salinas, the only four locations within the City of route, which runs daily between Amtrak rail station in the region. Monterey. This route operates one train in each San Jose and Sacramento. There are direction daily. Out of 73 Amtrak three round trip connecting bus stations in California, the Salinas services between the State Capitol TAMC and Monterey County daily. Each station is ranked 49th in ridership The Transportation Agency for major area of Monterey County - the with 17,316 passengers in FY 2009. Monterey County (TAMC) is looking Monterey Peninsula, Salinas, or South

Figure 12. Monterey Bay Area & Connecting Rail systems. Regional Railroads

STANISLAUS Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED

^Scotts Valley ^ City Santa Cruz^ ^Capitola Railroad Tracks MADERA ^Watsonville State Highways State & National Parks San Juan Bautista Hollister ^ ^ Military Land Monterey Bay Counties

Salinas Sand City Marina ^ Monterey ^ Pacific Grove ^ ^^ Seaside ^ ^ Carmel-by-the-Sea ^ Del Rey Oaks ^Gonzales

Soledad FRESNO ^

Greenfield ^

King City ^

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Rail Map.mxd User: lmeckel

30 to introduce three new rail services a Monterey Peninsula Service, and to Monterey County, a Caltrain extending the Coastal Rail service - Commuter Rail Extension to Salinas, the Coast Daylight.

Table 3. Railroad Section Length Descriptions. Line Length Details Santa Cruz, 9 miles Private excursion rail passenger service is operated by the Santa Cruz Big Trees & Pacifi c Railway Big Trees Company on its 9-mile single-track line from Santa Cruz to its current terminus at Olympia. The and Pacifi c line is occasionally used for freight. Additionally, a recreational narrow-gauge railroad is operated Railway within Roaring Camp in Felton. Historically the line crossed the Santa Cruz mountains to Los Gatos, but was abandoned in 1939 past Olympia. The tunnel sections are now used as records storage for major corporations in the San Francisco Bay Area. A 1995 study conducted by METRO, SCCRTC and VTA analyzed the potential for reviving over-the-hill rail service. Castroville 19.6 miles In September 2003 TAMC purchased the branch from Union Pacifi c (UP). Historically the branch to Monterey extended to Monterey's Cannery Row, serving the Southern Pacifi c Transport Company. Bus and spur horse-drawn conveyances provided service to Pebble Beach. 6.7 miles of the line south of Contra Costa Street in Monterey to Lover’s Point in Pacifi c Grove were converted into part of the regional recreation trail with funding provided by the Coastal Conservancy. Part of the agreement calls for accommodation of rail service along the trail in the future. TAMC is looking to reintroduce rail passenger service along this line. Hollister 9.7 miles UP owns and operates freight service on this single track line from the Carnadero Junction just 2.0 spur mi north of the Santa Clara/San Benito County line south to Hollister. The deteriorated 90 lb. rail and bed impose a 20 MPH speed limit. Approximately 10,000 gross tons of goods are transported on the Hollister Branch Line every year. The Santa Clara County line is 2.9 mi south of the Gilroy station, which currently is the terminus of commuter rail service to San Francisco operated by Caltrain. This passenger service is provided by the Peninsula Commute Service operated by the San Mateo /Santa Clara /San Francisco Joint Powers Board (JPB). SBCOG evaluated the feasibility of extending Caltrain from Gilroy to Hollister via the Hollister Branch Line in 1999. The study investigated the cost of improvements needed for commuter rail operations between Hollister, San Jose, and San Francisco. In 1999, SBCOG continued its rail development program by commissioning a detailed feasibility analysis of commuter rail for San Benito County. This study by R.L. Banks, found a Caltrain extension feasible given certain funding sources. SBCOG has included the extension in its long-term project list. Watsonville 31.7 miles This Union Pacifi c Railroad, single-track branch rail line, with a 20-MPH limit, is still used for rail Junction to freight a few times a week. This branch rail line extends from Watsonville Junction in Pajaro north to Davenport Davenport and passes through much of the county’s urban area. For many years, freight deliveries to (Santa Cruz and from the CEMEX cement plant in Davenport occurred three times per week. As of 2010, CEMEX Branch plant operations have ceased due to the economic downturn. Line) The Santa Cruz Branch line has been the subject of a number of studies regarding its potential for passenger rail service. A 1996 study analyzed the potential viability of inter-city passenger rail service between Santa Cruz and Watsonville to San Jose. The 1999 Major Transportation Investment Study examined three options for passenger rail on the Santa Cruz Branch line along the Watsonville- Santa Cruz-UCSC corridor. Also in 1999, the Around-the-Bay Rail Study looked at the feasibility of partnering with Monterey County to bring passenger rail from the San Francisco Bay Area to both counties, as well as linking the two counties via a wharf-to-wharf type rail transit service. Acquisition of the Santa Cruz Branch rail line for future transportation uses and implementation of recreational rail service development of an adjacent bicycle and pedestrian path is currently being fi nalized between UP and SCCRTC. This project was one of the selected outcomes for the Watsonville-Santa Cruz-UCSC corridor from the RTC’s 1999 Major Transportation Investment Study. The RTC is actively pursuing this acquisition and has already reached agreement with Union Pacifi c on a price for the property. Spreckels 2.5 miles This branch is limited to 10 MPH due to deteriorated conditions. It is not currently used. Branch Line TOTAL 72.5 miles

31 Unmet Public Transportation Table 4. MST Unfunded Capital Projects. Needs Total Cost in Constrained Unconstrained The 2008 adopted Monterey Bay 2010 Dollars Costs in 2010 Costs in 2010 Region Coordinated Public Transit- Project (1,000) Dollars (1,000) Dollars (1,000) Human Services Transportation Plan contains a more complete discussion of the unmet transit, demand Bus Rolling Stock $177,834 $76,848 $100,986 response and rail needs. The needs Real Estate - Right of Way $13,001 $7,000 $6,001 are both regional and local in scope. Bus Support Equipment and Facilities/Intelligent Regionally, unmet programs include: Transportation Systems (ITS) $13,000 $9,500 $3,500 • the expanding service, Communication/ Radio especially MST service, Equipment $13,000 $7,500 $5,500 • creating a One-Stop Safety and Security $22,000 $12,000 $10,000 Information (511) Service that is bilingual, New Starts - Bus Rapid Transit $57,000 $32,000 $25,000 • increasing direct Paratransit and Accessible TOTAL $ 150,987 Transportation Connections • and Expanding the Existing and Monterey and respond to Boulevard in Seaside, ending at the Transportation Opportunities annual unmet transit needs Edgewater Shopping Center in Sand at a Low Coast Option. requests as they are found to City. Ridership along this corridor be reasonable to meet. between the Monterey Bay Aquarium Monterey-Salinas Transit Bus Rapid Transit and Sand City averages approximately (MST) On December 16, 2009, President 3,800 boardings per day in the Barack Obama signed the summer time, far exceeding the 3,000 Existing Service Needs Consolidated Appropriations Act boardings per day minimum required According to the most recent MST of 2010 (House Resolution 3288). to qualify for federal funding through Short Range Transit Plan, adopted in Within the bill was a $2.77 million the Federal Transit Administration. 2006, MST’s existing service needs are appropriation for Monterey-Salinas The $2.77 million in federal funding summarized as follows: Transit (MST) for its Bus Rapid Transit will be matched by $700,000 program on the Monterey Peninsula. • Promote Safety: Address in California Proposition 1B In recent years, MST has been passenger overcrowding Transportation Bond funds, which investigating the feasibility of Bus on high ridership routes by were approved state-wide by voters Rapid Transit for Monterey County, expanding service and speed in 2006. The nearly $3.5 million passenger loading. including hosting two forums on project will fund improvements along the subject in 2003 and 2006. With • Maximize Resources: the Fremont/Lighthouse corridor, the assistance of the consulting Implement service including new shelters, “smart” fi rm Wilbur Smith & Associates, MST improvements consistent signals at intersections that will be with recent Salinas and began working on a Bus Rapid Transit coordinated along the corridor to Monterey Peninsula service feasibility study in 2007, which was improve traffi c fl ow, curb expansions, analyses, as well as a South funded through grants from the sidewalk improvements and County Transit Study to be Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air Pollution wheelchair accessible ramps at bus completed in 2010. Control District. The study identifi ed stops, and electronic real-time bus • Improve Performance and several key high-traffi c corridors arrival/departure signs connected to Customer Service on Main in the county as likely candidates MST vehicles via Global Positioning Routes: Increase service for upgrading to Bus Rapid Transit System (GPS). The “smart” signals will frequency and restore lost service. Late last year, MST submitted help improve traffi c fl ow for buses as hours on core routes due to an application to the Federal Transit funding shortfalls well as cars throughout the corridor. Administration requesting funding For example, if a bus is running late, • Respond to Community for improvements along Lighthouse signals will stay green slightly longer Requests: Restore lost service Avenue, Foam Street and Fremont than their normal cycle times so that on Line 20 between Salinas Street in Monterey and Fremont 32 MST vehicles can proceed through Ord Reuse Plan includes the following • Implementation of shuttle intersections in order to get back transit objectives: services serving seniors on schedule. The new electronic and senior residential • Provide convenient and passenger information signs will tell communities; and comprehensive bus service, customers waiting at stops exactly • Planning and participation how long until the next bus will arrive. • Promote passenger rail in the Monterey County 211 And, at key intersections, MST buses service for the transportation telephone directory for social needs for the former Fort Ord will have special lanes in which to services and social services and the region, and bypass traffi c congestion, providing a transportation. high quality transit experience along • Promote inter-modal Vehicle Replacements the corridor. transportation improvements Additionally, MST has decided not for the former Fort Ord and to pursue clean natural gas fueled Coupled with these infrastructure the region. buses and has opted instead for clean improvements will be enhancements Consolidated Transportation Services diesel. However, MST will be studying to the operations and scheduling Agency and Mobility Management the new hybrid and electric bus of the transit lines that serve the The Transportation Agency engine technologies that continue to Fremont/Lighthouse corridor. What designated MST to serve as the emerge. The remainder of MST’s fl eet is now a nearly one hour trip from Consolidated Transportation Services is vintage 2000 or newer and will not residential areas in upper Seaside to Agency for Monterey County, which need replacement through the end work locations on Cannery Row and expedites MST’s applications for of the next decade, however, new the Aquarium on two buses with a federal grant funding and allows MST vehicles will need to be purchased to transfer in downtown Monterey will to serve as a one-stop-shop for transit cover service expansions, especially be replaced with a quicker “one-seat- information and assistance for special on high-mileage intercity routes, and ride” on a single Bus Rapid Transit needs groups, such as the elderly to meet paratransit needs. vehicle. and persons with disabilities. The Bus Stop Improvement Program MST’s Bus Rapid Transit project was Consolidated Agency coordinates MST has a total of 1,250 bus stops and awarded funding by the Obama with the Transportation Agency and many have additional amenities such Administration based on its ability to the recently-established Mobility as route and schedule information meet or exceed certain metrics and Advisory Committee to discuss and cases, benches or shelters for performance measures required by develop solutions for specialized passenger comfort and safety. MST the Department of Transportation’s transportation requests or needs. has just replaced its old passenger Very Small Starts transit capital The Consolidated Agency waiting shelters with new units that improvement program targeted for coordinated with the AMBAG and the have an up-to-date, contemporary projects totaling less than $25 million. Transportation Agency to develop the design. Additionally, approximately With project funding now in place, Consolidated Public Transit-Human 350 benches are in place throughout MST will be working in the coming Services Transportation Plan for the the system. A major improvement year with design and engineering Monterey Bay Area. The Regional study was completed in 2003/04 consultants to fi nalize plans for the Transportation Plan and project list is to identify improvements for bus Bus Rapid Transit system, including consistent with the Coordinated Plan stop spacing and location, safety, a distinctive design, new color for the Monterey Bay Area. Programs passenger amenities, shelter and ADA scheme and format for the shelters, that have been established or are facilities. The study also assessed bus signage, vehicles and other project being planned by the Consolidated vehicle type and street confi guration components which will diff erentiate Agency include: to accommodate a new era of bus the premium transit service along the vehicles including low-fl oor buses Fremont/Lighthouse corridor from • Development of door-to- and special commuter coaches. MST’s traditional local bus services. door transportation services, including purchase and Transit-Oriented Land Use Planning Transit use in the Fort Ord implementation of ADA- A signifi cant issue for meeting future Redevelopment accessible taxi vehicles for transit needs continues to be serving Transit is expected to become persons with disabilities; land use development that does not an important component of • Implementation of taxi support high quality transit services. the transportation system with voucher programs for MST and the Transportation Agency redevelopment of the former Fort isolated senior residential coordinate with County jurisdictions Ord military base reuse area. The Fort communities; to review development proposals

33 and environmental documents to Fort Ord Facilities and establish mobility management make recommendations for transit programs and special services for the Fort Ord redevelopment has been improvements. MST’s Designing for elderly and persons with disabilities. slowed by lack of additional property Transit Manual is a tool being used As the county’s population ages and transfer from the U. S. Army and to recommend land use and site the need for such special services slower than expected growth at improvements to accommodate grow, the Agency will need to work in CSUMB. Ridership on lines 16, 17, and transit service. coordination with the Transportation 27 remains low compared to other Agency to expand and manage areas. MST will consider other service Potential Future Facilities these services. Expanding travel options for the future land use options for special needs groups North Salinas Transit Exchange patterns, population and business will be important for cost-eff ectively continue to be limited. However, MST North Salinas is one of Monterey meeting the public transportation will continue to encourage a more County’s fastest growing areas with needs of these groups and mitigating condensed land use pattern and for new residential and commercial ADA-mandated paratransit operating location of new service to be located activities. This center will assist in costs. integrating MST’s new lines in Salinas, on or within ¼ - ½ mile of new which will provide higher frequency lines 16 and 17. Line 20 continues and more direct routing. This will to carry a substantial portion of Santa Cruz Metropolitan allow direct cross-city transit service people linking to Salinas and to the Transit District (Santa Cruz to jobs, health care, higher education, Monterey Peninsula. METRO) and residential and commercial A Fort Ord Intermodal Transportation Increasing congestion on highways centers. Center, two Park & Ride, and the main and the local transportation network consolidated MST operations and in Santa Cruz County is expected Pajaro and Castroville Transit maintenance facilities are planned to generate more transit service Exchanges within the next twenty years. demand. To accommodate this New facilities are needed to provide Although limited funding has been expected demand, the Santa Cruz access to rail connections, and secured for these facilities, MST has Metropolitan Transit District (Santa eventually new rail stops for Caltrain. obtained the conveyance of two sets Cruz METRO or METRO) would like to A mixed-use facility to benefi t local of properties at Fort Ord through increase service, but due to ongoing redevelopment is in early stages of the Public Benefi t Conveyance (PBC) funding shortfalls Santa Cruz METRO development. process. is struggling to maintain existing service. To date, there is some As discussed above, MST is currently indication that Santa Cruz METRO South County Transit Exchange seeking funding to construct the will be able to leverage certain Frank J. Licktanski Operations Additional growth in the next fi ve state funding streams, in addition Centera on 20 acres in the former years will determine the size and to standard operating revenues, for Fort Ord area, which will serve as a location of a south county transit service operation improvements. consolidated transit facility housing center as fi xed route, RIDES, DART, Santa Cruz METRO continues to administration, operations, fueling and rail transportation all converge in be successful in receiving federal (for clean diesel and possibly other this rural area of the County. MST now discretionary and state Proposition alternative busy engines), and operates daily service between Salinas 1B funds for construction of a maintenance components of the and the south Monterey county consolidated operations and transit agency. The new MST facility communities of Chualar, Gonzales, maintenance facility. Santa Cruz will combine the Monterey, and Soledad, Greenfi eld, and King City. METRO continues to be successful Salinas facilities under one roof. A South County Transit study to be in receiving federal discretionary completed in 2010 will most likely Mobility Management and state Proposition 1B funds provide a recommendation on Since being designated as the for construction of a consolidated locating a transit exchange or layover Consolidated Transportation Services operations and maintenance facility. facility in South County to serve Line Agency for Monterey County, MST On the local involvement level, 23. has been successful at securing METRO participated in the University several million dollars in federal grant of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) funding to hire personnel, establish Comprehensive Transit Study, funded a mobility management center, with a federal transit discretionary purchase specialized transit vehicles grant award from Caltrans and 34 passed through to UCSC by AMBAG. buses in Santa Cruz METRO’s fl eet These demand responsive Conducted in 2003 and 2004, the through 2015 did not require a waiver providers are vital to provide study objective was to identify from them as Santa Cruz METRO has access and mobility to the region’s how well existing transit meets met their original obligation to the transportation disadvantaged. Their current needs as well as to evaluate alternate fuel path. No further action services need improvements in level projected needs. The study identifi ed is required from the Air Resources of service and coverage, particularly a combination of improvements: Board for Santa Cruz METRO to to those areas of rural North continue to operate the remaining Monterey County without scheduled • Immediate campus shuttle diesel fl eet vehicles until the end of public transit service. ones that were cost-neutral; their useful lives and/or until more • Short-term ones for both CNG buses are purchased. UCSC and METRO to Ridesharing implement in 2004 and 2005; San Benito County Express There are three ridesharing services • Long-term ones (2006-2020) currently operating in the region: are based on further review In San Benito County, County Express Monterey County’s Commute and detailed feasibility has identifi ed the following issues Alternatives, San Benito Rideshare analyses. aff ecting transit in its 2010 Regional and Santa Cruz County’s Commute METRO must meet two essential Transportation Plan: Solutions. The activities of these alternative transportation promotion, needs to sustain the current level of • Need for coordinated service ride-matching and information transit service. The fi rst is to construct to Monterey and Santa Cruz its consolidated operations and Counties service programs are focused maintenance facility on a cluster of on decreasing single occupant • Need for increased service existing and new sites in Harvey West vehicle use. To achieve that end, to Santa Clara County for they advocate use of carpooling, Park in Santa Cruz. Signifi cant cost interregional connections savings are anticipated from reduced (e.g. Greyhound service) vanpooling, transit, bicycling, walking operating and lease expenses. and telecommuting. However, recent and signifi cant cost • Need for increased service connections to Santa Clara All rideshare programs need to increases for steel and cement have County education and enhance eff ectiveness, especially pushed construction costs beyond employment training centers due to the large increases in the the currently secured funding. The total numbers of workers that the second is to identify and capture • Need for focus/planning on issues relating to the aging area has been experiencing and the the maximum available local, state population and the needs longer commute travel distances and federal operating assistance the population will have (as and times. This need could be to sustain existing service with the identifi ed at the June 2004 partially met by more eff ective anticipation that previous levels AMBAG conference on Senior promotion, particularly with the could be restored. Mobility) cooperation of businesses, clusters Another issue that faced Santa of businesses (transportation Cruz METRO involved air quality. Other Bus Transit Providers management agencies), the media, The California Air Resources Board In addition to the scheduled public and the concerted eff ort of rideshare required all transit systems in the transit operators, paratransit and agency’s staff . A regional traveler state to select a clean diesel or local transit systems provide service, information system, could also assist alternate (compressed natural gas- both within and outside the service eff orts to increase vehicle occupancy CNG) fuel option in 2001. The areas of the fi xed schedule operators. by delivering customized information decision was, at the time, irreversible The following public paratransit and about transportation options to large for 15 years. Santa Cruz METRO local transit providers operate in the numbers of travelers simultaneously. then purchased 40 diesel buses to Monterey Bay metropolitan region: In previous fi scal years, the Monterey be converted to CNG when their MST RIDES, METRO’s ParaCruz, the Bay Unifi ed Air Pollution Control planned CNG fueling station was intra-city general public programs District (MBUAPCD) has funded completed. In 2008, Santa Cruz operated in the Cities of Greenfi eld, regional outreach eff orts to have METRO completed the fueling station King City and Soledad, and Lift Line the region’s rideshare agencies and conversion of 40 buses. On May (Community Bridges), American Red work collaboratively to publicly 26, 2009, the Air Resources Board Cross, and the Volunteer Center. promote alternative transportation, informed Santa Cruz METRO that particularly with special events. operation of all remaining diesel 35 AMBAG previously held a one-day The 2000 SBtCOG feasibility analysis commuter rail service currently conference on Senior Mobility. The of commuter rail for San Benito running between San Francisco and purpose and goal of the conference County completed by R.L. Banks, Gilroy south to Salinas. The extension was to build a broader partnership found a Caltrain extension feasible, will include three new station stops with public health and human if policy makers provided revenue – Pajaro, Castroville and Salinas – services, transportation, and public commitment to a new starts. and will operate on existing UPRR offi cials in order to develop and share track. At its inception, the service will solutions and best practices for the Passenger Rail to Santa Cruz consist of two round trips per day aging and disabled population in the With ever increasing congestion running from Salinas to San Francisco Monterey Bay Region. Key goals that in Santa Cruz County, particularly and will be increased to four or more were developed from the AMBAG on the Highway 1 and 17 corridors, round trips as demand warrants, conference included establishing passenger rail related analyses have probably within 10 years from start of a regional working group/mobility been understandably popular. At service. The rail extension, in addition council to continue working on least four studies were conducted to connecting Monterey with San issues to improve transportation in a seven-year period investigating Francisco and Santa Clara counties, options for individuals with mobility the feasibility of passenger rail re- will also connect Monterey County to limitations and to create a local implementation in Santa Cruz County Sacramento and other cities via the Mobility Management Centers or either internally, linking to Santa Amtrak Capitol service and Altamont other information/referral systems Clara County both “over the hill” and Commuter Express. to dissimulate disseminate mobility “around the hill”, and providing a information to the targeted user downtown Santa Cruz to downtown The proposed extension of Caltrain population. Monterey service. to Salinas would provide an alternative means of travel between Most signifi cantly, the Santa Cruz the Monterey County and the San Rail County Regional Transportation Francisco Bay Area counties, allowing Commission (SCCRTC) 1999 Major travelers to avoid traffi c congestion Considerable interest exists in Transportation Investment Study reviving and increasing passenger along Highways 156 and 101. In (MTIS) examined three options for addition, the commuter rail extension rail service to Hollister, Santa Cruz, passenger rail on the Santa Cruz Salinas, and the Monterey Peninsula. will bring a signifi cant increase in Branch line. Acquisition of the ridership to both the existing Caltrain Coordination with Rail Services Santa Cruz Branch rail line for future and the connecting Capitol and MST is a both a policy and funding transportation uses and development Altamont services. Other benefi ts of partner of TAMC’s rail program. of an adjacent bicycle/pedestrian this new service are an increase in job Currently, MST is assisting TAMC in path was one selected outcome of opportunities, more transportation planning and implementing both the the MTIS. alternatives for senior citizens and Commuter Rail extension and service With respect to the entire Santa Cruz those with physical disabilities, access to the Monterey Peninsula. When Branch Line, SCCRTC reached a price to health care in the Bay Area and commuter rail service is extended to agreement of $14.2 million with UP economic development around the Salinas, MST will provide bus feeder to purchase the line, at their meeting stations. service to those trains. Additional of December 2, 2004 approved a scheduling of bus and rail connection The Caltrain extension is expected to Letter of Intent for the purchase and generate an additional 1,028 riders services is being coordinated to acquisition of the line from Union ensure that commuter and visitors per day from Monterey County. The Pacifi c, which eff ectively establishes average commute trip destination can effi ciently travel without the use the branch line purchase price. of their private autos. from Monterey County is assumed Barring diffi culties, this transfer could to be the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Passenger Rail to Hollister occur in early Fall 2010. Clara fare zone. It is expected that Increasing travel by San Benito Passenger Rail to Salinas 25% of these riders will be previous County residents on State Route 25 In response to public interest and patrons of the service who used to and U.S. 101 for Santa Clara County as an alternative to vehicle travel board in Gilroy while 75% will be new employment opportunities, and between Monterey County and riders. the resultant congestion and safety commuter destinations to the north, problems can be mitigated by Passenger Rail to Monterey Peninsula the Transportation Agency for Since 1971 when the Del Monte increased commuter rail service to Monterey County (TAMC) is working Hollister. service between Monterey and to extend the existing Caltrain San Francisco was discontinued, 36 local residents, business owners, and highways 17 and 101 provide and the hospitality industry have connections from the region to been seeking for its return. In 1981, Diridon Station. The proposed Gilroy Caltrans prepared a Rail Feasibility station is adjacent to the San Benito- Study to identify the needs and Santa Clara border, and will most defi ciencies for passenger rail likely function as the main California service between Monterey County High Speed Rail Gateway to the and the San Francisco Bay area. The Monterey Bay Area, with Diridon as a study concluded that service would secondary gateway. be feasible provided that track improvements were made; service Initial revenue service for the was extended into San Francisco, and California High Speed Rail is currently if operating subsidies could be raised. slated to begin in 2020. The Monterey Peninsula Fixed Guideway Service will provide transit service on the existing Monterey Branch line. This service can connect to the planned Caltrain service in Castroville and also provide local transit service to stations in Monterey, Seaside, Sand City, Marina/ CSUMB, and Castroville. Several diff erent service options are under consideration, including intercity rail to San Francisco, local commuter rail service, bus rapid transit service, or combinations thereof. TAMC completed the purchase of 12.65 miles of the Monterey Branch Line (extending from Castroville and Seaside) from Union Pacifi c in September 2003 using $9.4 million of Proposition 116 funds. To operate passenger rail service along this corridor requires many capital improvements, including: replacement of rail; rehabilitation or replacement of the Salinas River Bridge; an upgrade of grade crossings and signals; rehabilitation of ties, ballast, and roadbed where needed; and the installation of new track, roadbed, signals, station/platforms and crossings. California High Speed Rail The California High Speed Rail is planned to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Currently, the nearest stations to the region are planned in Gilroy and San Jose. Diridon station in San Jose will serve the High Speed Rail, Caltrain, VTA, BART, and Amtrak. Currently Amtrak, MST, METRO, 37 Roadways (Highways, Roads and Local Streets) Highways The highways of regional signifi cance mobility for travel for both internal or foot, is done on local streets and include State and Federal highways trips and trips with origins or roads. Please refer to the 2010 RTPs in the region. These are State Routes destinations external to the region. for discussions of regionally and 1, 9, 17, 25, 35, 68, 101, 129, 146, 152, Projects for many of these roadways nationally important local streets and 156, 183, 198, 218 and 236. are included within the MTP, and roads. will be listed in the Constrained and Unconstrained Project List (Appendix Other Roadways D) in conjunction with planned and Roadway Transportation desired improvements for these Problems and Needs The three counties and 18 facilities. incorporated cities in the region Roadway needs within the AMBAG are responsible for an extensive Local streets and roads -- including region are determined by the level network of county and city roads the curbs and gutters, sidewalks, of congestion and amount of delay and streets. Some of these many access ramps, bicycle paths, stop drivers experience. This status roadways are regionally signifi cant signs and traffi c signals -- are a is also termed “Level of Service,” freeways, expressways, arterials critical component of the region’s to refl ect the service impacts on or collectors which not only serve transportation system. The majority diff erent roadways within the region. local traffi c, but provide access and of travel, whether by car, bicycle, bus The Level of Service has direct

Figure 13. Monterey Bay Area & Connecting State Designated Highways. %&j( %&p( State Highways STANISLAUS Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED

?Ô ^Scotts Valley KÍ ^ City ?â Capitola Aþ Santa Cruz^ ^ ?Ô State Highways Watsonville MADERA State & National Parks ^ Aè ?ï Military Land San Juan Bautista Hollister ^ Ab ^ Counties Monterey Bay Ab !"^$

Sand CityMarina Az Salinas ^ ^ Monterey ?Ô Pacific Grove ^ ^^ Seaside ^ ^ A§ KÍ ?ï Carmel-by-the-Sea ^ Del Rey Oaks ^Gonzales

Soledad FRESNO ^

Greenfield ^ ?Ô KÍ King City ^

Aª Miles o 03 6 12 18 24

KÍ Map Units: ?Ô NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Mxds\Route.mxd KÍ ?h User: lmeckel 38 implications on project development for the 2010 MTP. The chapter entitled Transportation System Operation & Management explains the level of service currently in the region, and the forecasted level of service in 2035 given 2010 MTP project improvements. Further statistics, that include other modes of travel as well, are listed in the System Monitoring & Benchmarking chapter. Table 5, listed on the following page, includes a detailed description of the current roadways in the region, and their relative levels of congestion. Travel Flow on Highway 101 during an off -peak period.

Figure 14. Functional Classifi cation of Road Sections of the Monterey Bay Area. %&j( %&p( Road System STANISLAUS Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED ?Ô KÍ Collectors ?â Aþ ?Ô Arterials MADERA Interstates, Expressways Aè ?ï State Highways Ab State & National Parks Monterey Bay Ab !"^$ Military Land Counties Az ?Ô A§ KÍ ?ï

FRESNO

?Ô KÍ

Aª Miles o 03 6 12 18 24

KÍ Map Units: ?Ô NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Mxds\Roads.mxd KÍ ?h User: lmeckel 39 Table 5. Route descriptions and congestion issues. Route Length Details State 139.5 Highway 1 (SR 1) is one of two routes that traverse the entire region, connecting the Monterey Bay Area to its north and Route miles south neighbors. This important highway provides the primary access to the region's coastal areas, as well as serving 1 the needs of residents and visitors to much of the region's urbanized areas, and assisting with agricultural commodity movement.

SR 1 is designated a California State Scenic Highway from the intersection with State Route 68 southward to the San Luis Obispo County Line. At the Santa Cruz and San Mateo County boarder, SR 1 is designated a California State Scenic Highway as it travels north towards San Francisco.

SR 1 changes in character as it snakes down the Pacifi c Coast, from a rural, undivided two lane highway, to a four lane arterial, to a four lane divided highway, and fi nally to a six lane divided highway.

Congestion is a concern in several sections as the highway narrows and widens, particularly during peak periods and weekends. The most congested areas include: • from Soquel Avenue to Morrissey Avenue • 0.5 miles south of the Monterey County line to the junction with Highway 183. • from Ord Village until a signalized intersection with Carpenter Street, just north of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. • a mile south of Carpenter Street until just south of the Ocean Avenue signal State 27 Highway 9 is a two-lane rural highway as it enters the region from San Mateo County in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It is Route miles a slow but scenic 27-mile forested route between the cities of the Santa Clara Valley and Santa Cruz at its junction with 9 Highway 1. Highway 9 serves communities in the San Lorenzo Valley, including Boulder Creek, Ben Lomond and Felton, and is a heavily used commuter and recreational travel route. State 12.5 Highway 17 is a four-lane freeway/expressway providing the shortest travel distance between the Santa Clara Valley and Route miles Santa Cruz County. Travelers to and from the San Francisco Bay area and Santa Cruz County use Highway 17. The route is 17 heavily used for recreational travel on weekends and for commuter travel on weekdays and is therefore subject to delay. Starting at the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz County line near Summit Road, Route 17 is a rolling to mountainous route, with slopes from 4-6%. Segments along this route are narrow, do not have shoulders, or have a narrow median with guard rail. Highway 17 reached its design capacity of 40,000 vehicles per day in 1968. Although this route has no signalized intersections, there are several unsignalized intersections with acceleration/deceleration lanes as well as t-intersections with local roads. Just north of Scotts Valley, Highway 17 becomes a freeway with shoulders. The freeway portion terminates at the interchange with Highway 1 in the City of Santa Cruz. The program Safe on 17 has been an eff ective collaboration between Caltrans, the CHP, and local and elected offi cials to encourage motorists to slow down and use caution on Route 17. State 71.3 State Route 25 enters the region in the north about two miles south of its interchange with U.S. 101 in Santa Clara County. Route miles Although only a two lane undivided highway, it provides the most direct connection between U.S. 101 and the City of 25 Hollister, as well as being the sole north-south highway route for the rest of San Benito County. Highway 25 is mainly a two lane undivided roadway from the Santa Clara/San Benito County line and the intersection with Highway 198 in southern Monterey County.

Due, in part, to both diff erences between housing market costs and a jobs/housing imbalance, increasing commute travel from residents from San Benito County to Santa Clara County has signifi cantly impacted the operation of Highway 25, especially from Hollister to the Santa Clara County line. The increased travel has resulted in increasing fatal and injury accidents at its at-grade intersections. State 22 State Highway 68 begins at Asilomar State Beach in the City of Pacifi c Grove, and is the only highway access from Pacifi c Route miles Grove to Highway 1. At Highway 1, the routes merge for about three miles, then Highway 68 continues easterly past the 68 Laguna Seca Recreation Area and Monterey County’s Toro Regional Park and on into Salinas, where it connects to US 101. Highway 68 is the most direct highway link between the Monterey Peninsula and the City of Salinas and is heavily used by commuters and visitors.

State Highway 68 is a designated California State Scenic Highway from its intersection with State Route 1 in Monterey to the Salinas River. From Asilomar State Beach to State Route 1, Highway 68 is a steep two-lane highway with narrow shoulders, many curves and signalized intersections. From Highway 1 eastbound, Highway 68 is a four-lane divided road for less than a mile before narrowing to a two-lane undivided rural highway (with signalized intersections), to Toro Park, where it becomes a four-lane freeway to the Spreckels interchange. From here to Blanco Road in the City of Salinas it is a four-lane expressway, where it becomes a signalized arterial (South Main Street and John Street) through Salinas to Highway 101. Motorists experience signifi cant delay on Highway 68 due to its heavy use and signalized intersections.

40 Table 5 (cont). Route descriptions and congestion issues. Route Length Details U.S. 106.5 The only federal highway in the region, US 101 enters the region at the northwest corner of San Benito County as a four- Route miles lane freeway/expressway. 101 US 101 is the main north-south route for the region, used heavily by residents of the region, and for external trips to and through the region. It is an important truck route along its entire length.

Near Prunedale travel demand signifi cantly outpaces capacity. This section is characterized by at-grade intersections trying to serve increasing commuter, recreational and truck traffi c.

At the northern boundary of the City of Salinas US 101 has been improved to a freeway through the urbanized area, and then it continues as an expressway southward toward the Monterey/San Luis Obispo line, with alternating segments of four lane divided expressway and freeway. State 10 Highway 129 starts in Watsonville at Highway 1, running east to terminate at US 101 in San Benito County. Route 129 Route miles traverses hilly terrain with sharp curves and steep grades. It provides the shortest route between the agriculture center of 129 Watsonville and US 101, and therefore carries a large volume of heavy trucks; especially since SR 152 is off limits for semi- trailer trucks over 45 feet in length.

Highway 129 is a four-lane facility from Highway 1 to the Watsonville City limits, where it narrows to a two-lane rural road with narrow or no shoulders. The terrain it traverses, and the resulting roadway characteristics place severe limits on speeds and volume. State 19.1 SR 146 is two separate rural two-lane roads, one from US 101 in Monterey County east, and the other from Highway 25 Route miles in San Benito County west. These roads do not connect for travel across the Gabilan Mountains, but do provide access to 146 Pinnacles National Monument via its western and eastern entrances, respectively. State 16.8 SR 152 begins in Santa Cruz County at its intersection with Highway 1, then traverses Hecker Pass between Watsonville Route miles and Gilroy in Santa Clara County. SR 152 is primarily a two-lane undivided highway from Highway 1 to US 101. 152 At Highway 1, SR 152 is a four lane divided expressway to Elkhorn Rd. in Pajaro. Leaving Watsonville, the highway enters hilly terrain, resulting in a very winding road up over Hecker Pass (Mt. Madonna) near the Santa Cruz/Santa Clara County line. Due to safety concerns, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission requested and received prohibitions for trucks over 45 feet in length on the Hecker Pass portion of Highway 152. These trucks are diverted to Highway 129 and other routes. State 24.8 SR 156, like SR 129 and SR 152, is a major route connecting US 101 and Highway 1. Starting from its interchange with Route miles Highway 1 and SR 183 in Castroville, the highway merges with US 101 in Prunedale, then becomes a separate route 156 again near San Juan Bautista, where it continues easterly north of Hollister to the Santa Clara County line just south of its terminus with Highway 152.

SR 156 is a California State Scenic Highway from one mile east of Castroville to its intersection with U.S. 101 near Prunedale. Like SR 129, SR 156 begins as a four-lane divided facility then becomes a two-lane undivided highway. It is considered a bottleneck between Highway 1 and US 101 during peak periods and weekends. At San Juan Bautista SR 156 begins as a four-lane divided expressway, but after 3 miles becomes a two-lane, undivided highway to approximately one mile east of Hollister. SR 156 is a two-lane expressway as it bypasses Hollister and maintains that confi guration to the Santa Clara County line.

Business Route 156 is a two-lane rural highway from SR 156 (Bypass) to north of Hollister, where it becomes a four-lane expressway from San Felipe Road to the end of the Bypass. State 10 SR 183 is a rural two-lane highway connecting Castroville and Salinas. In Castroville, SR 183 is known as Merritt Street Route miles and begins at an at-grade interchange with Highway 1. SR 183 from Highway 1 to Davis Road in the City of Salinas is 183 congested, particularly during commute hours on weekdays. It also experiences high rates of agricultural truck traffi c movement.

In the City of Salinas, the highway becomes two four-lane divided arterials on Market and North Main Streets. SR 183 terminates at the US 101 on-ramp south of Bernal/North Main Street. State 25.8 SR 198 is a two-lane conventional highway beginning at US 101 just west of San Lucas in South Monterey County and Route miles continuing east to the Fresno County line. Traffi c volumes are low and are primarily interregional. 198 State 17.8 mi. SR 236 is a two-lane rural road that provides access from SR 9 at Boulder Creek west to Big Basin Redwoods State Park. Route Passing through the park, Highway 236 fi rst heads north and then east to reconnect with SR 9 approximately 8 miles 236 north of Boulder Creek.

41 Airports California Aviation System Enhancements to these airports Aviation System Plan would improve regional and state Airports within the region function system capacity and safety. There are 14 public-use airports for movement into and out of the in the Central Coast Region, the region for both people and goods. planning region for the California Monterey Bay Area Airports The major passenger airport is the Aviation System Plan (please refer to The region has six publicly-owned Monterey Peninsula Airport, which 2003 California Aviation System Plan). civil aviation airports: had 214,302 enplanements and This plan considers the following 427,542 passengers in 2008. Monterey Bay Area airports to be • The Monterey Peninsula The regional aviation system has considered the region’s highest • The Salinas Municipal seen decreased general aviation priority facilities for enhancement: • The King City Municipal operations since the last MTP update • Hollister (Mesa del Rey) in 2005 (aviation data was from 2003). • The Marina Municipal The reason for this downward trend • Watsonville is unknown, however, decreased • Mesa Del Rey • The Watsonville Municipal economic activity most likely has • Salinas • and the Hollister Municipal played a role. Airports • Marina Of these six, only the Monterey Peninsula Airport has scheduled air carrier service.

Figure 15. The Monterey Bay Area has many small airfi elds to support its aviation network. o o o Regional Airport o o STANISLAUS Systems o o Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED o Scotts Valley o o Capitola Public Airports Santa Cruz 2006 Enplanements ooWatsonville MADERA o o Hollister 0 - 30 San Juan Bautista o 31 - 215,797 Monterey Bay o o Sand CityMarina Salinas State Highways Monterey o o Counties Pacific Grove Seaside o ^ City Carmel-by-the-Sea Del Rey Oaks Gonzales State & National Parks Soledad FRESNO Military Land

Greenfield

oKing City o

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 09, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Mxds\Airports.mx o User: lmeckel

42 Table 6. 2009 Monterey Bay Area General Aviation Operations & Facilities. Longest Scheduled Annual Based Number of Runway (in Instrument Control passenger Owner/ Data Operations Aircraft Runways feet) Landing Tower service operator Airport Monterey 54,456 139 2 7,598 yes yes yes District Salinas 83,190 228 4 6,000 yes yes no City King City 7,860 31 1 4,500 no no no City Marina 1,500 30 1 3,485 no no no City Hollister 57,300 160 2 6,350 no no no City Frazier Lake 12,000 87 2 3,000 no no no Private Watsonville 122,890 326 2 4,500 yes no no City Regional Total 339,196 1,001 14 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a *Data since 2003 exists for only some airports in the region. Please refer to text, and referenced documents.

In addition to the publicly-owned • Camp Roberts Army Airfi eld also serve the airport. Many local airports, several private airports and Heliport, hospitality industries provide their operate in the region. Of these, the • and the Fort Hunter-Liggett own shuttle services for guests. Frazier Lake Airpark is the only one Army Heliport. that allows public use. The remainder Salinas Municipal Airport of the privately owned airports is used Monterey Peninsula Airport for private agricultural or business Salinas Municipal Airport is located purposes. Monterey Peninsula Airport (MPA) has three miles southeast of the City two parallel runways with the longest of Salinas on a 763-acre site. It has Several civil aviation helipads are at 7,598 feet. There is a control tower four runways with the longest maintained for helicopter use in the and instrument landing capability. runway length at 6,004 feet. There region, including: is a control tower and instrument This airport is the major regional landing capability. Operated for • Mee Memorial Hospital airport, with commercial freight, Helipad in King City general aviation purposes by the City passenger traffi c, military traffi c, and of Salinas, 83,190 general aviation • Texaco helipad in San Ardo general aviation needs. The facility operations took place in 2009, with • Soledad Correctional Training is located north of SR 68 (Monterey- 228 based aircraft. Please see the Facility Helipad Salinas Highway) east of the City of Draft ALP Update for the Salinas Monterey. The 498-acre airport is the • Natividad Medical Center Municipal Airport (July 2009) for more Helipad only airport in California operated as a information. self-governing district, the Monterey • Watsonville Community Peninsula Airport District. In 2008, Hospital Helipad fi ve commercial airlines served MPA King City Municipal (Mesa del • Alta Vista Helipad near carrying 427,542 passengers, for Rey) Airport Watsonville a total of 214,302 enplanements King City Municipal (Mesa del Rey) (CASP). • Dominican Hospital Helipad Airport is located north of King City • Hollister Municipal Airport State Routes 1 and 68 (the Monterey- on 214 acres. In 2008, it handled 7,860 Helipad Salinas Highway) provide the primary general aviation operations with one • and the Hazel Hawkins ground access to MPA for both 4,500-foot runway. There is neither a Memorial Hospital Helipad. people and freight. Monterey-Salinas control tower nor instrument landing Transit (MST) provides public transit capability at this airport. A publicly- Currently, there are two operational service from Monterey and Salinas to owned airport, it is operated by the military airfi elds in the Monterey Bay the airport, during daytime hours on City of King City for general aviation Area: Mondays through Saturdays, only. An purposes and has 31 based aircraft. airport limousine service and taxicabs

43 Marina Municipal Airport Table 7. Monterey Bay Area General Aviation Forecast

Marina Municipal Airport is located Monterey Bay 2003 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 north of Reservation Road in the City Based Aircraft 1,068 1,102 1,190 1,281 1,379 1,483 of Marina on 845.5 acres of the former Fritzsche Army Airfi eld. This general Aircraft Operations aviation airport had an estimated Air Carrier 112 100 100 100 100 100 1,500 operations in 2009 on its one, Commuter 19,660 19,660 19,660 19,660 19,660 19,660 3,485-foot runway. The regional Air Taxi 1,400 3,150 3,620 4,100 4,600 5,120 Airport Surveillance Radar is located northwest of this airport. General Aviation Local 127,779 133,570 146,935 161,435 176,940 193,640 Watsonville Municipal Airport Itinerant 235,977 245,535 271,730 298,850 328,450 360,750 Subtotal General 363,756 379,105 418,665 460,285 505,390 554,390 Watsonville Municipal Airport Aviation is located on a 330-acre site Military 1,244 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 approximately three miles northwest Total Operations 386,172 403,265 443,295 485,395 531,000 580,520 of Watsonville. In 2009, there were estimated to be 85,000 general Source: Regional Airport Plans; Caltrans. aviation operations on two runways, there were 12,000 general aviation economy. AMBAG region airports the longest at 4,500 feet. There is operations, and 87 based aircraft. play an important economic role no control tower but the airport in the total regional economy. has instrument landing capability. The airports service the needs of Operated by the City of Watsonville, Airports Economic Impact agriculture, tourism, government and this is the sole public use airport in Study other business interests throughout Santa Cruz County, and is classifi ed the region. Almost 50 percent of the as a general transport airport serving To use as a tool for policy makers total air trips to the area through the general aviation and business jets. and to help assist the public in regional airports are specifi cally for understanding the positive economic business purposes while another 40 impact of having an airport in their Hollister Municipal Airport percent of those trips are for tourism. community, AMBAG prepared an Without the region’s airports, the Hollister Municipal Airport is located Airports Economic Impact Study in potential loss of these patrons could northwest of the City of Hollister 2003. Adopted by AMBAG in August mean a large loss to the region’s on 343 acres. It services 160 aircraft 2003, the Airports Economic Impact overall economic productivity. and estimated annual operations Study was designed to evaluate the of 43,040 in 2009. In addition to the economic impacts of each of the 6,350-foot runway, Hollister Municipal Monterey Bay region’s six public Unmet Aviation Needs also has a 3,150-foot runway. There airports on the local vicinity served are no control tower or instrument by the airport and to prepare a The Regional Airport System Plan landing capabilities at this airport. A regional picture of the combined (RASP) was completed in 2006. The publicly-owned airport, it is operated airports importance to the three- forecast projects a moderate growth by the City of Hollister for general county economy. Data analysis was rate in aircraft operations as a result aviation purposes. designed to show the “value added” of increased activity in general contribution of each airport to their aviation and a continuation of growth by air taxi services. Commuter aircraft Frazier Lake Airpark local economies and the entire three- county AMBAG region. operations are forecasted to remain Frazier Lake Airpark is the only at current operating levels. With privately owned airport in the region The total direct, indirect and induced availability for increased operations, that is open to the general public. economic benefi t of the six regional the existing general public airports in It is located 4 miles northwest of airports was estimated to be $1.38 the region could absorb aircraft from Hollister Municipal Airport. Frazier billion annually. Each passenger other regions if facilities are closed in Lake Airpark has a 2,500-foot grass traveling to the region spends over those regions. turf runway and a 3,000-foot water an average of $280 a day and requires runway for sea planes. In 2009 additional servicing through the secondary and tertiary levels of the

44 Table 8. Monterey Bay Area Airports Economic Impact

Impact Type Monterey Salinas Hollister Watson- Marina King CityRegional ville Total A. DIRECT

Number of Jobs 3,629 203 155 291 150 9 4,464 Payroll $ 88,877,513 $ 4,887,438 $ 3,988,874 $ 8,745,344 $ 2,250,704 $ 339,404 $ 109,913,271 Taxes 10,628,551 266,330 275,378 240,788 66,592 8,615 11,530,249 Revenues Attributed to Airport 99,948,340 7,077,097 $ 3,856,105 7,514,571 3,406,564 165,812 122,513,736 Total Direct Economic Impact 199,454,404 12,230,865 8,120,357 16,500,703 5,723,860 513,831 243,957,256 B. INDIRECT

Number of Jobs 182 95 474 1,030 - 89 1,870 Payroll $ 8,887,698 $ 2,489,055 $ 9,830,878 $ 18,415,668 $ - $ 2,132,652 $ 41,755,951 Revenues Attributed to Airport 129,527,302 13,490,945 42,199,122 608,937,332 502,500 13,606,728 808,263,929 Total Indirect Economic Impact 138,415,000 15,980,000 52,030,000 627,353,000 502,500 15,739,380 850,019,880 C. INDUCED

Number of Jobs 3,005 423 157 329 191 12 4,138 Payroll $ 94,998,144 $ 5,585,441 $ 3,679,153 $ 7,431,056 $ 2,713,669 $ 214,904 $ 155,275,267 Revenues Attributed to Airport 142,497,215 8,378,162 5,518,729 11,146,584 4,070,504 322,355 132,260,001 Total Induced Economic Impact 237,495,359 13,963,603 9,197,882 18,577,640 6,784,173 537,259 288,188,169 D. SUMMARY TOTALS

Number of Jobs 6,816 721 786 1,650 341 110 10,472 Payroll $192,763,355 $ 12,961,934 $ 17,498,905 $ 34,592,068 $ 4,964,373 $ 2,686,960 $ 306,944,489

Taxes 10,628,551 266,330 275,378 240,788 66,592 8,615 11,530,249 Spending Attributed to Airport 242,445,555 28,946,204 51,573,956 627,598,487 7,979,568 14,094,895 1,063,037,666 Total Economic Impact 575,364,763 42,174,468 69,348,239 662,431,343 13,010,533 16,790,470 1,381,512,404 Source: 2003 Airport Economic Study, AMBAG.

45 Goods Movement (Rail and Road)

Freight Service Rail freight service in the region main, branch and spur rail lines and products, non-metallic minerals, is provided mainly on the Union services follows: food, chemicals, petroleum or coal products, clays, concrete, stone, Pacifi c Railroad (UP) Company tracks. • Coast Line - 111 miles (108 scrap, waste, recyclables, paper, Sierra Northern Railroad has recently miles in Monterey; 1.0 in entered into a lease agreement with Santa Cruz County; 3.0 in San lumber, and military implements. UP to provide freight service on some Benito County) The Union Pacifi c Railroad operates track sections, including the Santa four through freight trains a day, two Union Pacifi c Railroad (UP) off ers northbound and two southbound. Cruz Branch Line. The Santa Cruz, Big freight service on the “Coast Line”. Trees, and Pacifi c Railway Corporation The two northbound trains operate This line traverses the region from with a combined average payload also provide some freight service in the San Luis Obispo County line to Santa Cruz County on their own line. of 6,667 tons per day and the two points within the region. The line southbound trains carry a combined Agricultural produce and construction has numerous sidings along it and average payload of 5,948 tons per materials are the principal rail freight station layover tracks in Salinas. The day (TAMC, Draft 2005 Regional shipments in the region. A brief company is the only Class I railroad Transportation Plan). description of the region’s operating providing service in the area. Freight shipments commonly include farm

Figure 16. The Monterey Bay Area has an integrated intermodal goods movement network. Goods Movement

STANISLAUS Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED

^Scotts Valley National Highway System Capitola Santa Cruz^ ^ Not on NHS Watsonville MADERA Interstate ^ Hollister Non-Interstate STRAHNET San Juan Bautista ^ ^ STRAHNET Connector Monterey Bay other NHS Approved Intermodal Connector Marina Salinas Sand City ^ Hazmat Routes Monterey ^ Pacific Grove ^ ^^ Seaside Union Pacific Railroad ^ ^ ^ City Carmel-by-the-Sea ^ Del Rey Oaks State Highways ^Gonzales State & National Parks Soledad FRESNO ^ Military Land Counties Greenfield ^

King City ^

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Goods.mxd User: lmeckel

46 Unmet Goods Movement Table 9. Monterey Bay Area Goods Movement Rail Lines. Needs Rail Line Miles Coast Line (108 miles in Monterey; 1.0 in Santa Cruz County; 111 Regional Freight Study 3.0 in San Benito County) A regional freight movement study Santa Cruz, Big Trees and Pacifi c Railway 9 of the Salinas and Pajaro Valleys Castroville to Monterey spur 19.6 (Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties) Hollister spur 9.7 was completed and accepted by AMBAG in 1995. The study included: Watsonville Junction to Davenport (Santa Cruz Branch Line) 31.7 a problem overview; an inventory of Spreckels Branch Line 2.5 existing freight movements, facilities and shipping practices; a description of existing roadway conditions on those routes most extensively used for agriculture; a forecast of future regional freight movement; a description of critical problem areas Figure 17. Alternative fueling facilities adjacent to major roads facilitate mobility of “green vehicles”. 34op op rdr rdd rd Alternative Fuel 34d Facilities op ropop STANISLAUS rop d Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARAop MERCED

^Scotts Valley op op FuelType Capitola 34 Santa Cruzd34^r ^ Bio Diesel MADERA ^Watsonville r CNG op San Juan Bautista opHollister d Electric ^ ^ op LPG Monterey Bay ^ City

Marina Salinas State Highways Sand City ^ op^ Monterey r State & National Parks Pacific Grove ^ ^^ Seaside Military Land op34^ ^ Counties Carmel-by-the-Sea ^ Del Rey Oaks ^Gonzales

Soledad FRESNO ^

Greenfield ^

King City ^ op op

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\AltFuel.mxd User: lmeckel op 47 and opportunities; various alternative shippers, in this study the believed project is being actively pursued in freight scenarios to address the that costs could be reduced if local Monterey County by Caltrans, the identifi ed critical problems and intermodal service were available. Transportation Agency for Monterey opportunities; an alternatives County (TAMC) and local agriculture analysis; and recommendations and With respect to capacity, the 1995 businesses. The project, a TAMC an action plan for pursuing the most Regional Freight Study pointed priority, has found in Congressman cost-eff ective alternatives. out that truck traffi c contributes Farr a proponent, as evidenced by his signifi cantly to congestion during earmarks for the project. In this study, three key problem areas rush hours. However, most were identifi ed: importantly, the study indicated The study noted that the that the most critical concern was transportation service center concept • Poor logistics and the limited access link between key needs greater attention over the communications and ineffi cient shipping practices shipping locations and Interstate 5 long run, enhancing the concept of (particularly SRs 46, 152, and 156). a freight logistics center with a truck • Lack of alternative service In addition to safety concerns about stop facility as well as an industrial options the increased mix of truck traffi c and park concept. Noting its commercial • Inadequate system capacity local commuters and tourist traffi c, appeal, the report concludes that on key links in the truck the limited access provided these a transportation service center transportation system roads limits the potential of the including offi ce, warehouse and With respect to logistics and area as a major distribution hub – service facility space would provide communications, the industry aff ecting the ability of the region to more profi tability from a development emphasized that information on load attract intermodal service and other perspective. availability at individual shipping transportation service options. With respect to intermodal service, the locations is not well communicated The study concluded that the highest report noted that it appeared to have to carriers and there is no system priority was the development of less benefi t for addressing regional to coordinate shipping logistics a freight logistics center; adding freight transportation problems than among the various shippers. As many truck stop facilities, coupled with was originally thought. It did note outbound trips are partial loads improvements in the roadway system that it met the needs of niche markets (particularly in the fresh vegetable effi ciency, could make the Monterey and should be supported as long as industry), many trips to multiple Bay region a more desirable truck private sector interests led the way. locations are needed. As a result, the destination, ensuring competition in Although the study indicated that area experiences high volumes of line- the industry and thus holding down intermodal service would eliminate haul truck traffi c on city streets, high costs. When presented with a new very few truck trips and do little to costs of truck waiting downtimes, grant-funding source under TEA-21 address local traffi c congestion, there potential loss of service as some line- looking particularly applicable for could be suffi cient market for year- haul trucking companies pull out of preparing a detailed feasibility study round intermodal users to support the the service area; and confl icts with for this recommendation, AMBAG development of a small terminal in local residents over truck parking and annually submitted three times the region – one of particular benefi t traffi c. under the federal Transportation, to the wine industry, the frozen food With respect to a lack of service Community and System Preservation industry, and the dry foods industry. alternatives, most agriculture- discretionary program for this As ten years have elapsed from related industries ship by truck in purpose. As with many federal the completion of this study, the the Monterey Bay region due to grant fund sources, and current study follow-up has achieved mixed competitive rates, fast service and political climate, the program quickly success. A few of the recommended high reliability. Fresh vegetable became exclusively earmarked by transportation projects have been shippers use truck transportation congressional legislators with no either implemented or are in the almost exclusively, while frozen food remaining discretionary component. process of development. The logistics shipper, wine shippers and dry food In the mid-term, the study noted that center, the transportation service shippers still use some rail service roadway improvements be reviewed center, and the intermodal facilities on a regular basis, but have to make by the agriculture industry to help have not been successful in recruiting connection in the intermodal yards raise priority for these projects. funding and/or, apparently, interest of the San Francisco Bay area as rail One of the more immediately to this point. service in Salinas and Watsonville recommended projects, the US has declined. For the fresh vegetable 101/Airport Boulevard Interchange 48 West Coast Transportation U.S. 101, require an interoperable and Corridor System Coalition compatible intelligent transportation system to increase effi ciency and In 2003, a special initiative was maximize existing capacity. They promoted in recognition of the view the TCSC as a concerted eff ort West Coast falling behind in system to enhance goods movement and capacity by not keeping up with travel along the entire West Coast concentrated population growth or between Mexico and Canada with the with increases in trade and passenger underlying intent to cooperatively travel demand. The West Coast identify system solutions and Transportation Corridor System facilitate multi-state and public- Coalition (West Coast TCSC) emerged private fi nancial partnerships able to as a consortium of Metropolitan advance those improvements. Planning Organizations (MPOs) stressing the importance of the West Coast Transportation Corridor to the Central Coast Commercial overall economic well being of not Flows Study just the West Coast itself, but each Presently, AMBAG is working on a respective region. AMBAG joined the Central Coast Commercial Flows eff ort in November 2003. Study funded through a Caltrans With respect to need, they point out: Partnership planning grant. Working with SCCRTC, TAMC, SBtCOG, San a) the majority of Asian Pacifi c Luis Obispo Council of Governments trade arrives through our major (SLOCOG), Santa Barbara County West Coast ports with forecasts Association of Governments (SBCAG) of doubling or tripling during the and Caltrans District 5, agencies next 20 years; representing the fi ve counties of the Central Coast are revisiting many b) our national trade and travel of the questions of the 1995 study, corridors being designed for east- identifying existing fl ows, existing west rather than north-south bottlenecks, opportunities and the mobility; and potential for freight forecasting along c) the emergence of NAFTA trade the Central Coast. and the potential for expansion Once completed the study will of trade to Latin America have present solutions to freight resulted in additional demands on bottlenecks and identify means an already overloaded system. to resolve future problems. They highlight that the population Concurrently, with a grant from along the West Coast is growing Monterey Bay Unifi ed Area Pollution considerably faster than the Control District (MBUAPCD), AMBAG national average resulting in higher is conducting a feasibility study for a metropolitan housing costs, longer commute times, and increased need for inland and coastal access route capacity. The MPOs acknowledged that smaller regions should focus on system bottlenecks but that a West Coast corridor system eff ort will require larger, corridor-system optimization, noting that increased freight, local and visitor impacts along the inland corridor and alternate corridors, like

49 major intermodal truck to rail center in Monterey County which will help solve freight movement problems throughout the Central Coast. and its inclusion of state-of-the-art Implementation Plan and principles. Maintenance Plan; Intelligent After the plan was adopted, a • Working with the regional agencies and Caltrans to Coordinating Group continued Transportation incorporate ITS into the to meet quarterly to oversee ITS regional transportation Systems (ITS) implementation on the Central Coast planning and programming of California. Intelligent Transportation Systems process; (ITS) is commonly referred to as • Providing cooperative electronics, communications, or Central Coast ITS Coordinator agreement templates; information processing used singly In fi scal year 2003/04, as follow-up to • Reviewing/updating or in combination to improve the the 2000 Central Coast ITS Strategic promotional/informational effi ciency, safety and security of a Deployment Plan (SDP), Caltrans ITS publications; surface transportation system. ITS awarded AMBAG and the Central • Providing assistance can either increase the effi ciency of Coast ITS Coordinating Group federal promoting ITS technologies the existing transportation system grant of $160,000 hire a consultant and knowledge in the region; or incorporate features into a new to coordinate eff orts on the Central capital project. The result is that ITS • Providing an authoritative Coast to update the region’s ITS resource of ITS information provides the opportunity to enhance architecture to meet the national to Caltrans, regional and local a system at a much lower cost than standard. This collaborative eff ort agencies; and larger, capital and/or operating began with a December 2004 kick-off projects. • Providing training in the use meeting. of Turbo Architecture. Counties within the region are Since the development of the Central currently developing a Feasibility and Coast Plan, the U.S. Department of ITS Ongoing Eff orts Implementation Plan for a Monterey Transportation fi nalized a national Bay Area 511 Traveler Information architecture standard for ITS; the In the Monterey Bay region, ITS System. A traveler information system software for this standard has been technology will soon provide day-to- is expected to build on the existing upgraded several times. In addition day information on the operations of ITS infrastructure and architecture. to developing a more unifi ed, Central the transportation system, including: transit vehicle automated location The passage of the Intermodal Coast region implementation of the devices, regionally-coordinated traffi c Surface Transportation Effi ciency SDP, this grant will address 23 CFR signal preemption devices, traffi c Act of 1991 (ISTEA) placed greater 940 regulations requiring a regional management centers, and advanced emphasis on ITS, its research, ITS architecture compliant with warning signs. technologies and integration into the Federal standards. Without compliant planning and programming process. ITS architecture, federally-funded In Monterey County, the City of Due to its proximity to the San transportation projects with only a Monterey is installing a state-of-the- Francisco Bay Area and integrally tied small ITS component cannot receive art traffi c signal coordination system to its commute patterns, Santa Cruz federal transportation monies. Even on their major arterials. Monterey- County in the Monterey Bay region without being termed an “ITS project”, Salinas Transit (MST) continues became most actively involved many road projects currently being implementation of its automated early on in ITS-related technologies implemented include subsumed ITS vehicle location device program working in conjunction with Caltrans, technologies that would trigger the while subsequently enhancing District 5 in the 1990s. In 2000 the need for ITS architecture compliance. its on-board automated data fi rst ITS Plan for the region was In summary the grant includes: collection capabilities. MST is also released. This included the 2000 working with local jurisdictions to Central Coast ITS Strategic Deployment • Updating the Regional develop inter-city agreements that Plan (SDP). The Central Coast ITS Plan Architecture to National ITS guarantee that the technology for received national recognition due Architecture; traffi c signal preemption devices to its multi-agency partnerships, • Establishing and (transit and emergency vehicles) is its breadth of geographic range implementing a CCITS compatible across city and county Regional Architecture boundaries. In San Benito County,

50 jurisdictions are investigating smart Implementation Plan, covering three signal technologies. In Santa Cruz County Transportation Planning County, the Regional Transportation Agencies (RTPAs) within the Commission continues to work Association of Monterey Bay Area with Caltrans and the CHP on Traffi c Governments (AMBAG). Operation System enhancements which can be made on Highways 1 AMBAG continues to maintain, and 17. They are also working with revise and validate the Central Caltrans to better integrate the Coast Regional ITS Architecture Districts 4 and 5 Traffi c Management in consultation with all regional Centers. agencies including but not limited to RTPAs and Caltrans.

Central Coast Intelligent The MTP identifi es some of those ITS projects to be implemented over next Transportation Systems (ITS) 25 years. Study (2004) Further details can be found at the The Central Coast Intelligent following links: Transportation Systems (ITS) Study 1. http://www.ambag.org/ was initiated in the November 2004 programs/intelligentTransp.htm to update the 2000 Central Coast ITS Strategic Deployment Plan to 2. www.iteris.com/ccits-admin/ National Architecture standards and to develop updated promotional materials, as well as protocols for the implementation and maintenance of ITS planning and programming on the Central Coast region. The plan successfully establishes a framework for regional integration of transportation systems as called for in the Final Rule on ITS Architecture and Standards, 23 CFR 940. It not only looks within the MPO boundaries, but strategically addresses integration between MPO’s and with Caltrans from the broader Central Coast perspective. All future ITS projects submitted by Caltrans or any of the municipalities represented in this plan shall be based on a systems engineering analysis as specifi ed in 940.11, and shall accommodate the interface requirements and information exchanges as specifi ed in this regional ITS architecture. AMBAG Board of Directors at their November 14, 2007 meeting approved the Central Coast Regional Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Architecture and accompanying

51 Goals, Policies & Strategies

52 Policy Element

The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments initially adopted transportation goals and strategies for the metropolitan region on July 14, 1993. Minor modifi cations to these comprehensive goals and strategies have been adopted during the approvals of the 1999 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update, the 2002 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, and the 2005 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. These goals and strategies have been updated to be consistent with SAFTEA-LU, the CAAA and the goals and policies of the metropolitan region Regional Transportation Planning Agencies and public transit operators. These goals beget the strategies and actions that lead to the development of the regional integrated intermodal transportation system and supporting facilities that facilitate the movement of people and goods. The 2010 MTP seeks to achieve a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system, which includes mass transportation, highway, railroad, bicycle, pedestrian, goods movement, and aviation facilities and services. In addition to a balanced and coordinated system, the regional goals seek to: • Support Economic Vitality of the Monterey Bay Area, by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and effi ciency • Increase the Accessibility and Mobility of People and Goods • Protect the Environment, Promote Energy Conservation, Improve the Quality of Life, and Promote Consistency between Transportation Improvements and State and Local Planned Growth and Economic Development Patterns • Enhance the Modal Integration and Connectivity of the Transportation System for People and Goods • Promote Effi cient System Management and Operation • Preserve the Existing System • Increase the Safety of the Transportation System for Motorized and Non-motorized Users, and • Increase the Security of the Transportation System for Motorized and Non-motorized Users The above are goals stated by SAFTEA-LU, and will be applied to transportation planning in the Monterey Bay Area.

53 Table 10. The Monterey Bay Area Issues, Goals and Strategies Issue Goal Strategies The Monterey Recognizing the Design and develop transportation plans and programs that respond to the overall Bay region lacks a interdependence of goals, needs and priorities of local communities and the region. unifi ed, geographic- transportation and Encourage the application of the AMBAG Regional Travel Demand Model to use as ally-based land use land use, promote a consistent basis for assessment of impacts of plans, programs and/or projects on / transportation consistency the local, regional and interregional circulation system. planning process. between such transportation Ensure involvement of the public in the transportation decision-making process projects and to ensure that the most balanced, equitable and effi cient transportation adopted local, improvements are implemented. regional, and state Establish inter-agency commitments for cooperative action so that the intermodal land use plans, transportation system performs effi ciently in the region. programs and Promote cooperative action between airport land use commissions and other projects. public and private entities to ensure consistency between airport land use compatibility plans, specifi c plans and general plans. Consider SAFTEA-LU's Eight Planning and Strategy Areas when assessing plans, programs and projects. Many roadways in Plan and Promote and enhance the use of existing rail rights-of-way for regional and the Monterey Bay promote safe, interregional travel. metropolitan region healthy, effi cient, Protect and enhance the effi ciency of commodity shipment and support the are becoming coordinated, maintenance and development of inter¬modal freight terminals. Develop, congested due to convenient, contingent upon resource availability, a Regional Freight Advisory Council. increasing regional energy-conserving and interregional transportation Promote transit and alternative transportation modes that reduce vehicular vehicular traffi c. to meet existing congestion. and reasonably Promote and implement regional and interregional rail passenger service when foreseeable travel economically and operationally feasible and/or when supported by community demand in the interest. region, via effi cient When feasible, apply technologies, such as Intelligent Transportation Systems transportation (ITS), to enhance the effi ciency and safety of existing facilities and integrate modes. these technologies into the planning and programming process, as well as the development of new transportation facilities. Traffi c congestion Promote transit, Use existing transportation facilities as effi ciently as possible, prior to using limited on the region's vanpooling, capital resources for the construction of new facilities. roadways will ridesharing, In the construction of new facilities and reconstruction of old, integrate methods to increase unless the bicycling, enhance multi-modal travel, such as the incorporation of transit stops and shelters, proportion of travel pedestrian and park and ride lots, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, bicycle lanes and storage, shower by single occupant other alternative facilities, sidewalks, curb cuts, and adequate lighting. vehicle is reduced. transportation modes to reduce Coordinate transportation demand management services and alternative single-occupant transportation promotions and special events with local fi xed route transit vehicle travel. providers, large employers, employer associations, and with such programs in adjoining counties. Work with other agencies to increase the potential of combining bicycle travel with other modes of transportation, including the provision of bicycle lanes, storage facilities at transit stops and employment centers and ridesharing staging areas. Facilitate the retention, expansion and improvement of transit and non-motorized mode travel to and within activity centers, along travel corridors, in scenic areas, and for special events. Promote convenient and effi cient transit services for commuting to and from existing and planned work, school, shop-ping, recreational and other activity centers. Increase access and mobility opportunities for the elderly and those with disabilities. Develop an Elderly/Disabled Regional Mobility Council.

54 Issue Goal Strategies Growth in Seek consistency Ensure adequate operation and maintenance of all existing transportation system population and between planned modes. jobs may further growth in Constrain this transportation plan to those projects and services for which funding congest the region’s population and jobs is secured or which may be reasonably expected. roadways. and the planned capacity growth Program the maintenance and expansion of passenger, freight and general aviation of the regional services and facilities according to the Regional Airport System Plan, or applicable and interregional airport Master Plans. transportation Focus attention on jobs/housing balance, opportunities for mixed-use system. development, infi ll development adjacent to existing transportation corridors, and other strategies for reducing the impacts of growth on the region’s transportation infrastructure. Operation or Avoid, minimize Strive to limit plans and programs to those transportation facilities and services improvement of or mitigate the which avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to prime agricultural land, natural the transportation environmental wetlands and riparian corridors, coastal dunes, signifi cant scenic corridors, system may impacts caused signifi cant natural habitat areas, and/or cultural and historical sites. have adverse by operation or Strive to ensure that any air, water and noise pollution impacts associated with environmental improvement of construction or operation of planned facilities or services are avoided, minimized or eff ects. the transportation mitigated to less than signifi cant levels. system. Avoid in residential neighborhoods, where feasible, implementation of transportation projects, with signifi cant, immitigable impacts. Give preference to programs and projects which reduce emissions, or which replace conventional vehicles with optional low or zero emission vehicles and/or vehicles with reduced emissions of toxic air contaminants. Continue to emphasize funding of Transportation Control Measures in regional air quality plans as well as other emissions reducing projects.

Monterey Bay Area These fi ve issues are: AMBAG’s Policy Element shall, to the maximum extent possible, be Transportation Goals and 1. The Monterey Bay consistent with the policy elements Strategies region lacks a unifi ed, geographically-based land of the 2010 Regional Transportation This MTP Policy Element is intended to use / transportation planning Plans of Monterey, San Benito, and address fi ve ongoing transportation process. Santa Cruz Counties and both the federal Air Quality Maintenance Plan issues aff ecting the Monterey region. 2. Many roadways in the and state Air Quality Management. These fi ve issues were fi rst defi ned in Monterey Bay metropolitan the 1994 Monterey Bay Metropolitan region are becoming The purpose of this Policy Element Transportation Plan. For each issue a congested due to increasing is to ensure that the transportation goal to address that issue is adopted, regional and interregional system planned for the Monterey Bay and then one or more strategies vehicular traffi c. region accomplishes the following: are adopted to accomplish that 3. Traffi c congestion on goal. Together, the fi ve goals and the region’s roadways • Serves regional goals, associated strategies comprise the will increase unless the objectives, policies and plans. Policy Element of this plan. proportion of travel by single • Responds to community occupant vehicle is reduced. and regional transportation 4. Growth in population and needs. jobs may further congest the • Promotes energy effi cient, region’s roadways. environmentally sound 5. There is a need to avoid, modes of travel and facilities minimize or mitigate the and services. environmental impacts • Promotes equity and caused by operation effi ciency in the distribution or improvement of the of transportation projects transportation system. and services. 55 • Increase the number of trips made for full public input in the Strategies to by bicycle from the existing .8% to evaluation and implementation Facilitate the 3% by the year 2015. of transportation system improvements. • Update and distribute a revised Development copy of the Monterey County Bike of an Integrated Map by 2010. San Benito County (SBtCOG) • Annually administer Monterey 1. To accommodate short term Multimodal County Bike Week, and preserve growth by improving the street and Transportation or increase public and private highway system so that it operates at sponsorships for Bike Week a better level of service during peak System activities. travel periods. • Extend commuter rail service to Due to the unique MPO/RTPA 2. To serve 200 commuter round trips Salinas by 2012. relationship between AMBAG and per weekday of service with express the three RTPAs, TAMC, SBtCOG, • Implement fi xed-guideway vehicle bus service connecting Hollister to Gilroy. and SCCRTC, AMBAG does not service on the Monterey Branch Line by 2014 between the former develop projects. As such, AMBAG 3. To reduce the rate of fatal vehicular Fort Ord and the City of Monterey does not develop specifi c short and accidents throughout San Benito while preserving the potential to County long range strategies to improve extend service to Castroville. integrated multimodal transportation 4. To develop a recreational trail for throughout the region. The following • Increase vehicle occupancy on major regional roadways by 2% by pedestrians and bicyclists along the summarizes how each RTPA 2015 and 5% by 2030. San specifi cally addresses short and long range strategies to facilitate • Ensure that the RTP meets all Benito River from San Juan Bautista the safe and effi cient movement of applicable state and federal to Hollister. requirements for conformity with people and goods given the future 5. To develop a transportation the region’s adopted air quality transportation demand. These are emergency preparedness and plans, including expeditious response plan that identifi es contained in the RTP policy sections. implementation of transportation emergency transportation systems, Please refer to each RTP for specifi c control measures. policies related to each strategy/ including emergency corridors and objective. The future transportation • As responsible agency, approve an reliever routes. environmental impact report to demand, as modeled, is provided to be prepared in cooperation with, 6. To convert the old Highway 25 each RTPA from AMBAG. and subsequently certifi ed by the corridor in Hollister from use as a Association of Monterey Bay Area state highway to use as a business- Government, that also includes oriented main street that includes Short-Range Strategies an analysis of the greenhouse increased parking, pedestrian, and gas emissions associated with bicyclist opportunities. Monterey County (TAMC) implementation of the funding- 7. To develop a plan for commodities constrained regional project list. • Design facilities included in transportation that designates TAMC’s expenditure plan program • Reduce the number of traffi c appropriate routes for large trucks of regional transportation projects collisions (injury, fatal and throughout San Benito County and to operate at LOS C, achieve property damage) on streets, protects rural and residential roads at least LOS D on the regional roads, and highways in the County and downtown business districts roadway network by 2020, from 6,582 (1993 to 1997 average) from degradation caused by large and maintain at least LOS D on by 5% by year 2012. trucks. regional roadways thereafter. • Support regional Blueprint 8. To increase rideshare and intra- • Continue to update the regional Planning eff orts in Monterey county transit operations by 10 Intelligent Transportation County. percent over current (2005) levels. System (ITS) plan in concert with • Promote and encourage public 9. To improve Hollister Municipal regular updates of the Regional involvement in the planning Airport operations by lengthening Transportation Plan. process of all projects. Ensure that the main runway, installing an • Increase the number of bicycle the public is properly informed Instrument Landing System, and facility miles in Monterey County of all projects and incorporated constructing additional hangars for by 10% from 246 miles to 271 in the decision making process. general aviation use. miles by the year 2015. Provide adequate opportunities 56 Santa Cruz County (SCCRTC) • Santa Cruz Branch Rail right- • Ensure that regional, state and of-way acquisition federal public-participation goals • Ensure that adequate support is are being met, including those in • Bicycle/pedestrian path on provided to maintain and operate the region’s Public Participation rail right-of-way the existing transportation Plan. system. • Local road improvements • Continue to provide facilities to • Local bicycle projects Monterey County (TAMC) accommodate automobile use in recognition that it is the current • Electric bicycle subsidy • Increase the number of bicycle transportation mode for the program facility miles on the Monterey majority of people in the county. • Serve inter-county and intra- Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail from the existing 14 miles to 30 miles, • Improve road and transit county travel needs, including consideration of travel links completing the trail by the year effi ciency by increasing vehicle 2025. occupancy and transit ridership, outside of the county. and by providing cost-eff ective • Provide multi-modal access to • Increase ridership on Monterey- specialized transportation recreational resources. Salinas Transit (MST) service routes services. at a rate as fast or faster than the • Provide an integrated and growth in county licensed drivers. • Minimize vehicular delay and Americans with Disabilities Act transit travel times through low (ADA)-compliant transportation • Work with Monterey-Salinas cost/high benefi t operational system that is responsive to the Transit to secure increased improvements, with highest special needs of all seniors and funding to support the growth priority given to improving transit persons with disabilities. in transit ridership and green travel times. transportation goals. • Support parking management • Preserve existing transportation principles which reduce • Support Amtrak and the Coast corridors and facilities for current transportation demand at Rail Coordinating Council in the and future transportation uses. employer sites and commercial implementation of new intercity service between San Francisco • Emphasize safety when making areas without negatively impacting neighborhoods. and Los Angeles called the Coast decisions about transportation Daylight. priorities. • Finance the development and maintenance of the transportation • Encourage safe, effi cient and • Increase the use of new economical transportation technology, including information system in a way which shares the costs equitably among of people and commodities and telecommunication by upgrading, consolidating, technology to improve traffi c responsible jurisdictions and/or users. separating or removing at-grade operations and traveler railroad crossings in Monterey information, and to reduce travel • Support increased and/or new County. demand. transportation revenues for essential improvements. • Increase the number of ADA- • Increase the security of the compliant transportation transportation system for • Set funding priorities, keeping facilities, developments, and motorized and non motorized in mind that the RTC affi rms its services through TAMC’s project users. ongoing commitment to the development, development • Ensure that all major corridors current formula allocation of review, and planning work. Transportation Development provide a choice of transportation • Increase the number of residential modes and are designed with funds and support for funding specifi cally dedicated to units within ¼ mile of fi xed- multi-modal amenities such as bus route transit stops, stations, or stops, turnouts and shelters, bike bus service. In the case of discretionary and new funds, the multi-modal facilities through lanes and sidewalks. Long-Range coordination with county land use Strategies RTC affi rms that its highest priority is to ensure the progress towards jurisdictions through the CEQA • Implement the 1999 Watsonville- widening Highway 1 in a manner development review and land use Santa Cruz-UCSC Corridor Major that promotes carpools and buses. planning processes. Transportation Investment Study program of projects: • Ensure that all transportation- related decisions by the RTC, San Benito County (SBtCOG) • Widen Highway 1 with High Metro, Caltrans, local jurisdictions, Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) 1. To increase the capacity of the and others are preceded by street and highway system to Lanes adequate public information accommodate projected long-term activities. • Bus service improvements growth. 57 2. To serve 500 commuter round neighboring counties. system, and as an alternative to constructing new facilities. trips per weekday of service with • Reduce auto-dependent commuter rail and express bus service development and reduce vehicle connecting Hollister to Gilroy. miles traveled by emphasizing opportunities to reuse under 3. To reduce the rate of fatal vehicular utilized urban land for housing accidents throughout San Benito and compact, mixed-use County. developments. 4. To extend the recreational trail for • Support established urban pedestrians and bicyclists along the communities, residential San Benito River from Hollister to the neighborhoods, major activity Pinnacles National Monument. and recreation centers, and commercial districts with a broad 5. To increase rideshare and intra- range of transportation options. county transit operations by 10 • Encourage transit-oriented percent over (2010) levels. development and provide alternatives to automobile commutes by linking land-use Santa Cruz County (SCCRTC) decisions with transit, bikeway, • Reduce the automobile’s impact pedestrian, and park-and-ride on the region by increasing investments. opportunities for transit use by • Promote social equity with residents, commuters, students, all transportation decisions, employees and visitors to the area, including consideration of in a manner which best achieves a income, gender, race, age, physical transit ridership goal of 10 percent and mental ability, and transit of all trips. dependency. • Increase percentage of work trips • Allow for and anticipate future done by bicycle to fi ve percent mobility needs, taking into of all trips and 20 percent of account projected future all work trips by 2035; do so by demographics. prioritizing bikeway projects based on: 1) increased safety or • Emphasize sustainable access; 2) complete gaps in the transportation modes consistent regional bicycle network; 3) high- with regional environmental demand, high-density areas and policies. commute routes; 4) along popular • Ensure that transportation recreational routes. Develop a projects contribute to improved program to measure and monitor regional air quality, reduce energy growth rates. consumption or reduce vehicle • Support effi cient connections miles traveled, or, at a minimum, among all transportation modes. do not worsen existing conditions. • Plan transportation improvements • Ensure that transportation which are consistent with the projects contribute to the needs and desires of residents protection of biological and and businesses of the region and scenic resources, open space, and which are closely coordinated with agricultural land. local land-use and transportation • Ensure that all transportation planning policies, including project specifi c environmental those of the Cities of Santa Cruz, review incorporates appropriate Watsonville, Capitola and Scotts avoidance, minimization or Valley, the County of Santa Cruz, mitigation measures, such as UCSC, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transportation Control Measures. Transit District, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, • Utilize limited capital resources the Coastal Commission, Caltrans, to maximize the effi ciency of other transportation agencies, and the existing transportation 58 59 A State of Good Repair?

60 Transportation System Operation & Management

This chapter details how to improve the performance of existing transportation facilities via operational and management strategies. These strategies will seek to relieve vehicular congestion while maximizing the safety and mobility of people and goods. The below map indicates the current congestion, and level of service on our existing road network. While most of the roadways have an “A” level of service, key segments of our system do not. Strategies that target these areas will increase the mobility of our system by 2035. Figure 18. The 2005 Level of Service on Roadways in the Monterey Bay Area. Level of Service

STANISLAUS 2005 Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED

^Scotts Valley Level of Service Capitola Santa Cruz^ ^ A Watsonville MADERA ^ B Hollister San Juan Bautista C ^ ^

Monterey Bay D E Marina Salinas Sand City ^ Monterey ^ F Pacific Grove ^ ^^ Seaside ^ City ^ ^ Carmel-by-the-Sea ^ State Highways Del Rey Oaks ^Gonzales State & National Parks

Soledad FRESNO ^ Military Land Counties Greenfield ^

King City ^

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24 Data Sources: AMBAG Model

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: T:\MTP\Mxds\LOS.mxd User: lmeckel 61 Operational & Management Strategies Congestion in Major Regional commute distances of Santa Clara on weekends, especially on long Highway Corridors County employees living in the weekends. Highway 1, SR 9 and 17 Monterey Bay region communities. in Santa Cruz County and Highway Regional vehicular traffi c continues 1, SR 68 in Monterey County and US to grow in response to growth in The slower travel times result from 101 and SR 156 in Monterey and San auto ownership, licensed drivers, segments of the roadway network Benito Counties are key recreational travel, dispersed housing and the operating at LOS E and F during peak and tourist routes into and out of the increased travel by single occupant hour, with potentially hazardous region. vehicles (SOV). The mean travel time conditions occurring due to speeding to work in the region has increased and/or increasing volumes on narrow Both funding limitations and both as a result of congestion and roads with substandard shoulders in unavoidable environmental impacts new residents tending to locate hilly terrain. eff ectively prevent widening highways. Some research has further from their places of work. An exception to peak hour This is especially the case in San indicated that eff orts to widen congestion occurs as a result of the highways does not in fact mitigate Benito County where mean travel additional traffi c loads generated time increased more than 27 percent congestion, but instead may push by tourists and recreational congestion to other segments in the in that particular decade. We can visitors to the region. As a result only expect to see further increases network. More responsible mitigation of this additional traffi c, operating seeks to develop other modes within in travel time due to increased conditions at LOS F can occur congestion and particularly longer the overall transportation network,

Figure 19. The map below indicates all the projects listed in the 2010 MTP. MTP 2010 Projects

STANISLAUS Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED

Scotts Valley !! ! MTP Projects Capitola ! !!! ! Santa Cruz! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! Watsonville ! ! ! MADERA MTP Projects ! ! ! Hollister ! San Juan Bautista State Highways !

Monterey Bay State & National Parks ! !! !! !!! ! Military Land ! ! ! Marina! !!!Salinas! Sand City ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Monterey !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Pacific Grove Counties ! !! Seaside ! ! ! ! !!

Carmel-by-the-Sea !! ! Del! Rey Oaks ! ! !Gonzales ! FRESNO !!Soledad!! !!!!! !!!! ! !

Greenfield !!

! King City ! !

!

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Mxds\MTP.mxd User: lmeckel 62 which includes Traveler Information and Motorist Aid, including Freeway Service Patrol as Traffi c System Management Strategies, as well as auxiliary lanes on highways.

A State of Good Repair The preservation of the existing system is essential to maintain the current level of service on every mode within the Monterey Bay Area. The following explains where we need to improve our existing system to get to a high level of service by 2035. Maintaining level of service for each transit mode is accomplished in diff erent ways (e.g. road repairs, frequent bus service)

Defi nition of Level of Service The capacity of a roadway or intersection is defi ned as the practical engineering maximum rate of vehicular fl ow on that roadway in an hour, under prevailing conditions. Capacity varies with the unique physical and operational characteristics of each network node, and with driver behavior prevailing at each node for the hour in question. For example, commuters drive diff erently than recreational or tourist drivers. Transportation facilities, once rated in terms of capacity, should be Figure 20. The above info-graphic helps visualize how the fl ow evaluated based on capacity and the of a roadway relates to its overall mobility. measured vehicle fl ow. The ratio of fl ow to capacity, tells congestion becomes unacceptably and at intersections. LOS are given a great deal about the operating jammed. Under these conditions as letter designations from A to F conditions, speed, and exhaust exhaust emissions also increase. with A representing the best possible emissions produced by the use condition, and F the worst. Level of service (LOS) is a measure of roadways or intersections. The of how close the volume of traffi c higher the traffi c fl ow in relation to fl ow is to the capacity. Capacity is capacity, the slower speeds become. defi ned as a measurable limit of As the volume attempting to use vehicular volume on a roadway or at the roadway or intersection begin an intersection. LOS uses actual fl ow to exceed capacity, speeds decrease rates in relation to capacity to rank rapidly toward zero, and traffi c operating conditions on roadways 63 Figure 21. The graph above shows how the direct relation between the speed observed on a roadway and the level of congestion leads to the level of service grade.

Table 11. Peak Hour Level of Service for Roadways

LOS Peak Hour Operating Conditions A Describes free-fl ow operations. Free-fl ow speeds prevail. Vehicles are almost LOS Standards Applicability completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffi c stream. Within the Policy Elements of each Motorists are aff orded a high level of physical and psychological comfort. The eff ects of incidents or breakdowns are easily absorbed at this level. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), only TAMC, as the Congestion B Represents reasonably free fl ow, and free-fl ow speeds are maintained. The Management Agency, references ability to maneuver within the traffi c stream is only slightly restricted, and the general level of physical and psychological comfort provided to drivers is LOS roadway standards. TAMC still high. The eff ects of minor incidents and point breakdowns are still easily aspires to achieve acceptable LOS absorbed. for road and highway facilities C Provides fl ow with speeds at or near the free-fl ow speed. Freedom to consistent with the Monterey maneuver within the traffi c stream is noticeably restricted at LOS C, and County Congestion Management lane changes require more care and vigilance on the part of the driver. Plan (CMP) standards, that provide Minor incidents may still be absorbed, but the local deterioration in service an integrated approach to land will be substantial. Queues may be expected to form behind any signifi cant use planning and transportation blockage. programming, and Caltrans LOS D This is the level of service at which speeds begin to decline slightly with standards for state highways through increasing fl ow. In this range, density begins to increase somewhat more the implementation of funding- quickly with increasing fl ow. Freedom to maneuver within the traffi c stream constrained regional road and is more noticeably limited, and the driver experiences reduced physical and highway improvements identifi ed in psychological comfort levels. Even minor incidents can be expected to create the RTP. queuing, because the traffi c stream has little space to absorb disruptions. E This level of service describes operation at capacity. Operations at this level Use of LOS is particularly illustrative are volatile, with virtually no usable gaps in the traffi c stream. Traffi c fl ow when viewing the transportation speeds are somewhat reduced. Freedom to maneuver within the traffi c network and identifying problem stream is extremely limited and the level of physical and psychological areas within the three-county region. comfort aff orded the driver is poor. Any disruption to the traffi c stream, such as vehicles entering from a ramp or a vehicle changing lanes, can establish a disruption wave throughout the upstream traffi c fl ow. F At this level of service capacity has been exceeded. The traffi c volumes on a particular segment, measured in vehicles per hour, actually decrease below the volumes possible at saturation (LOS E). Average hourly speeds are extremely low and frequent stoppages occur. Long queues form. Passing and lane changes become impossible at LOS F. There is a high risk of "fender- bender" accidents caused by driver frustration and/or inattention. When a particular segment reaches F, traffi c upstream may worsen to LOS F due to the formation long queues. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209 (3) 64 Table 12. Peak Hour Level of Service for Signalized Intersections LOS Peak Hour Operating Conditions A Describes operations with very low signal delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is very favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. B Describes operations with signal delay, greater than 10 seconds and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. This level of service occurs with good progression. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher average delay C Describes operations with signal delay, greater than 20 seconds and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many will still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Describes operations with signal delay, greater than 35 seconds and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. At LOS D, the infl uence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Substantial delays and queues of vehicles on approaches during short times during the peak hour. However, queues are periodically cleared, thus preventing excessive back-ups E Describes operations with signal delay, greater than 55 seconds and up to 80 seconds per vehicle. Capacity is reached at the intersection; volume rises to its maximum fl ow rate. Long queues of vehicles may form, particularly for short signal cycles. Traffi c operations generally described as poor. F Describes operations with signal delay, in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. Jammed conditions. Backups may temporarily stop all exiting movements on one or more approaches, even during green phases. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209 (3).

Figure 22. With the build out of the 2010 MTP projects, in 2035 the region will enjoy improved mobility. Level of Service

STANISLAUS 2035 Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED

^Scotts Valley Level of Service Capitola Santa Cruz^ ^ A Watsonville MADERA ^ B Hollister San Juan Bautista C ^ ^

Monterey Bay D E Marina Salinas Sand City ^ Monterey ^ F Pacific Grove ^ ^^ Seaside ^ City ^ ^ Carmel-by-the-Sea ^ State Highways Del Rey Oaks ^Gonzales State & National Parks Soledad FRESNO Military Land ^ Counties Greenfield ^

King City ^

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24 Data Sources: AMBAG Model

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: S:\GIS\MTP\Mxds\LOS.mxd User: lmeckel

65 Transportation Demand Management and Traffi c Systems Management Travel Demand Overview Management Transportation Demand • Promote and publicize ride • Construct acceleration/ matching and vanpool Management (TDM) and Traffi c deceleration lanes formation services Systems Management (TSM) are two types of techniques used to improve • Post peak period on-street • Encourage employer parking prohibitions on sponsorship of ridesharing the effi ciency and eff ectiveness of the major collectors and arterials transportation system. In TDM, the and transit use for work trips focus is on changing peoples’ travel • Encourage ridesharing for behavior; in TSM, administrators • Provide on- and off -street school trips loading facilities for delivery focus on system operational and/or vehicles • Provide guaranteed ride service improvements to facilitate home services for employees traffi c fl ow. When successfully • Coordinate and consistently who travel to work by bus or employed, these techniques enforce traffi c and parking HOV regulations decrease travel demand and improve • Provide incentives for HOV operations and/or services prior to • Construct bus pull-outs for use committing to signifi cant investment transit stops • Promote telecommuting for new supply or new capacity. TDM/ • Allow bus-only turning TSM approaches the transportation movements at key • Improve and increase transit system as an interconnected whole, intersections route coverage and service periods identifying management and • Build more park and ride lots operational changes which may at appropriate locations • Increase transit service improve overall effi ciency before frequency on mainlines recommending local capacity • Develop intercept parking with bus shuttle service to • Provide peak period transit improvements to address congestion reduce congestion in activity/ express services and other transportation system employment centers and/or • Develop timed transfer defi ciencies. special events points Traffi c engineers, transit and • Construct connecting • Enhance information, security transportation planners and traffi c bicycle/pedestrian paths and and amenity at transit stops law enforcement offi cials in the trails and transit centers region have employed, or considered, • Construct bicycle/pedestrian • Improve programs one or more of the following bridge crossing facilities promoting safe bicycle use methods to increase the use of the • Convert abandoned rail ROW • Provide amenities and existing transportation capacity: to bike/pedestrian trails facilities for bicycle and • Provide bicycle actuation at pedestrian access to bus Traffi c Systems signals at all major arterial transit stops and terminals Management intersections • Coordinate bus transit routes and schedules with those of • Coordinate traffi c signals • Construct pedestrian intercity rail and bus service using progressive timing sidewalks and paths • Develop transit- and • Revise downtown traffi c • Improve and expand pedestrian-oriented design fl ow to one-way operation pedestrian crosswalks and of new development, to increase capacity on adjacent sidewalk or median redevelopment and military networks or couplets) waiting areas base reuse • Channelize turning • Provide actuated phases at • Plan higher density transit movements at intersections traffi c signals to facilitate corridors or provide median turn lanes pedestrian crossing across high volume roadways • Include alternative mode • Install freeway ramp support amenities in new metering at applicable development locations • Plan mixed-use development 66 Preferential Transit/Carpool feasibility assessment of designating Parking Management Treatment and Equitable the proposed HOV lanes as High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes whereby By managing parking, employers and Pricing users of the extra lane pay a use fee jurisdictions can either provide an incentive or disincentive to single- In general, changing travel mode and HOV users pay a reduced fee occupant vehicle use. Favoring to reduce congestion on the local or no fee at all. Based on the study parking by short-term users over network can be aided by combining results and public feedback, the all-day commuters provides a incentives for alternative travel mode SCCRTC elected to proceed with disincentive to SOV use. Jurisdictions use with the application of equitable the Highway 1 Widening Project as or employers providing park and pricing. Several incentives are an HOV versus HOT project. Upon ride lots along commute corridors, discussed below. Equitable pricing, review and approval of a Caltrans and providing priority parking for which takes into account the true Project Study Report in 2002, the high occupancy vehicles, entice their cost of all travel modes, including Commission approved state and employees to reduce their use of the single-occupant vehicle (SOV) use, is federal funds for the next step in SOV. discussed after the incentives. the project development process for the Highway 1 Widening/HOV In the AMBAG region, some park and Incentives used by local jurisdictions Lanes project: preliminary design and ride lots are located along commute to entice people to forego their use environmental review, referred to as corridors and in key locations where of SOVs are: preferential parking for the Project Approval/ Environmental people can easily meet and form their carpools or vanpools, subsidized Document (PA/ED) phase. In June carpool trips. See the map on the transit passes, use of agency vans 2003, the PA/ED phase was initiated next page for the locations of park for vanpooling and provision of an under SCCRTC, with oversight and ride lots in the AMBAG region. on-site transportation coordinator. provided by Caltrans. For purposes Additionally, as they are able, the of the environmental study, SCCRTC Santa Cruz County has fi ve formal regional public transit agencies strive defi ned the purpose and need of park and ride lots augmented by to ensure that major developments the project as “reducing congestion, one informal lot on Highway 17 in within their sphere of service are encouraging carpooling and use of Santa Clara County that is paved, but transit accessible. However, the alternative transportation modes not signed and four joint use. These transit agencies have only limited as means to increase capacity, and shared use facilities lots covering ability to unilaterally ensure that improve safety.” The PA/ED phase serve both the State Route 1 corridor developments are provided with of the Highway 1 Widening/HOV from Park Avenue State Park Drive to transit service. Typically, the majority Lane project is intended to satisfy High Street Morrissey and the State of development mitigation measures state and federal environmental Route 17 corridor from Pasatiempo to have been limited to minor capital requirements and involves extensive the Summit. improvements such as bus turnouts public participation. and shelters rather than the provision San Benito County has two formal of transit service. At this time, the AMBAG region has park and ride lots, one in downtown one ramp meter at the intersection Hollister at Veterans Memorial Park, Additional preferential treatments of State Route 156 and US 101 one at the intersection of U.S. 101 of transit and carpool users not northbound in the Prunedale area of and SR 156, and one on SR 25 south currently in place in the region Monterey County. This ramp meter is of Flynn Road. include the construction of high- not operated as a queue bypass. occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and Monterey County commuters have the provision of queue bypass lanes With private automobile use heavily three formal park and ride lots on signalized freeway ramps. publicly subsidized, equitable pricing from which to choose. However, of private automobile use could be disparately spread throughout the High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane an eff ective tool in making people county, the lots are not located construction is being considered realize the true cost of SOV use and particularly close to developed areas for one lane in each direction on subsequently shifting travel habits to or in proximity to residential areas -- Highway 1 between Larkin Valley alternatives to the single-occupant the origins of the commute trip. Past Road and State Route 17 in Santa vehicle. Although proposed in the research conducted by the Institute Cruz County. Since the preparation past, a vehicle use fee based on the of Transportation Studies (Berkeley) of the 2002 MTP, the Santa Cruz number of annual miles driven has indicates that the most utilized lots County Regional Transportation never progressed satisfactorily. are located in residential areas and Commission (SCCRTC) completed a suburbs where commute distances

67 are 10 to 20 miles one-way. See Provide Bicycle and improvements, with 2% dedicated Appendix J for addresses of the Pedestrian Amenities to jurisdictions with existing or existing Park & Ride facilities. planned bicycle and pedestrian When Caltrans and local facilities. Distribution of these funds Region employers expanding or jurisdictions provide bicycle and is determined by the LTCs annually. relocating their businesses have pedestrian amenities, they not Other funding sources include found that they are better able only are encouraging recreational Regional Surface Transportation to pass environmental review of opportunities but providing an Program (RSTP), AB 2766 (Vehicle new work site plans if they address alternative to the single-occupant Registration Surcharge Fee) funds, potential circulation problems. vehicle for commute purposes. In Transportation Enhancement Both lead agencies and consultants the region, the Local Transportation Activities (TEA) funds, city and county preparing environmental reviews Commissions administer the funds, Safe Routes to Schools and focus on the role of the employer distribution and use of bicycle Bicycle Transportation Account funds. in alleviating potential congestion. and pedestrian funds as provided Off ering priority parking to for under the Transportation In Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties, employees commuting to work in Development Act (TDA). the Transportation Agency for high occupancy vehicles can be Monterey County and the Santa an important option in enticing One-quarter of one percent of Cruz County Regional Transportation employees to reduce SOV use. the sales tax is returned to each Commission provide ongoing Bicycle jurisdiction as TDA funds for Programs covering facilities planning, public transportation and highway policy development, education/

Figure 23. Caltrans Park & Ride lots adjacent to major roads facilitate carpooling in the region. Park and Ride

STANISLAUS Locations Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA úûü MERCED

^Scotts Valley úûü úûü Park & Ride Locations úûü Capitola Santa Cruz^úûüúûü^ úûü ^ City Watsonville MADERA State Highways ^ San Juan Bautista State & National Parks úûü Hollister ^ ^úûü Military Land Monterey Bay úûü Counties

Marina Salinas Sand City ^ Monterey ^ Pacific Grove ^ ^^ Seaside ^ ^ úûü Carmel-by-the-Sea ^ úûü Del Rey Oaks ^Gonzales

Soledad FRESNO ^

Greenfield ^

King City ^

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24 Data Sources: SBtCOG, SCCRTC, TAMC Imagery: 2007 AMBAG

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: T:\MTP\Park.mxd User: lmeckel

68 promotion and staffi ng the respective matching services which delivers to transportation is no longer a county Bicycle Committees. Program interested individuals a list of other membership organization. No other eff orts are centered on coordination people traveling to and from the TMAs operate in the Monterey Bay and incorporation of bicycle planning same area as the commuters. The region. and promotion into all planning ridesharing programs are voluntary activities including general plan with the commuter deciding development, capital improvement whether or not to use the forwarded Transit Use and programming, development review, information to begin a carpool or Improvements environmental review and other TSM participate in a vanpool. In the Monterey Bay region, eff orts. In addition to carpool/vanpool public transit assists in alleviating matching services, the three congestion as well as serving as the Reduce Vehicle Use in rideshare programs also conduct main mobility source for the transit Congested Areas employer outreach campaigns to dependent. The region’s fi xed route stimulate awareness of diff erent transit operators, the Santa Cruz In the Monterey Bay region, local forms of travel than the single- Metropolitan Transit District (Santa offi cials and employers employ occupant vehicle (SOV). This includes Cruz METRO), San Benito County various methods by which to reduce promoting and facilitating the use of Express and Monterey-Salinas Transit vehicle use in congested areas. Two transit or non-motorized modes such (MST), collectively serve a service common ways to strive to reduce as telecommuting, riding bicycles area population of over 600,000 the number of single occupant and/or walking to work. persons. While Santa Cruz METRO vehicles is by ridesharing and and MST extensively serve areas forming Transportation Management Transportation Management of their respective counties, San Associations (TMAs). Benito County’s County Express Agencies (TMAs) and County Intercity Programs are Ridesharing Transportation Management limited to either fi xed route service Agencies (TMAs) are voluntary within Hollister or several trips per Three ridesharing programs are associations of employers typically day serving Gavilan College and the administered in the region to located in the same general vicinity Gilroy Caltrain station. reduce vehicle use. The main which work together to develop goal of Commute Alternatives For additional background strategy to reduce SOV use among information on Santa Cruz METRO, (Monterey County), Commute their employees. The transportation Solutions (Santa Cruz County) and MST and the County Express, please system management activities they see the Existing Conditions section. San Benito Rideshare is to increase develop are implemented as a way of the average vehicle occupancy, reducing vehicle trips. thereby decreasing the number Transportation Systems of single-occupant vehicle (SOV) In Santa Cruz County, SCCRTC trips. Commute Alternatives is assisted both the Santa Cruz Area Management administered by the Association of and the Pajaro Valley Chambers Congestion management programs Monterey Bay Area Governments of Commerce to form TMAs. Like and projects can be divided into four (AMBAG); Commute Solutions is TMA’s throughout California, the types of supply (capacity) and three administered by the Santa Cruz voluntary nature of membership and types of demand side measures: County Regional Transportation employer trip reduction eff orts make Commission (SCCRTC); and San the traditional TMA model diffi cult Benito Rideshare is administered to sustain. The Santa Cruz Area TMA Supply Side Measures: by the Council of San Benito merged with the non-profi t Ecology 1. New roadway routes Action organization in 2007 and core County Governments (SBtCOG). The 2. Increased roadway capacity programs are generally supported programs formerly off ered through on existing routes by a combination of federal, state, the TMA continue to be off ered and local funding or promotional to employers on a membership 3. Intersection improvements contributions from the Monterey Bay basis. The Pajaro Valley TMA which 4. Improvements to alternative Unifi ed Air Pollution Control District. continues to operate under the PV mode facilities and services Chamber with a focus on safety Staff of each program provides and education about sustainable Demand Side Measures: instant web-based carpool/vanpool

69 1. Market based travel control/ management measures Safety 2. Regulatory travel control/ The programs listed in the management measures Transportation Demand Management and Traffi c Systems 3. Regulatory growth control/ Management sections all aim at management measures reducing collisions and fatalities by Programs and projects in any of improving the overall safety of the the above categories, may be used system. to address the congested traffi c conditions identifi ed in Appendix Security D. Such programs and projects are adopted in the RTPs. Please refer to By reducing security vulnerabilities the Regional Transportation Plans of throughout the infrastructure in the three the Monterey Bay Area, the overall strength of the transportation system Monterey Bay Region RTPAs (SBtCOG, will be improved. SCCRTC, and TAMC) for a more in- depth discussion of transportation Through general system upgrades to defi ciencies and needs analyses. To keep the system in a state of good be included in the MTP, they must repair, we will also improve our be both fi nancially constrained and emergency preparedness. meet federal requirements regarding their emissions impacts. These federal requirements necessitate a determination by AMBAG that the emissions that would result from vehicles using the metropolitan roadway network after construction of the metropolitan transportation plan and program conform with the air quality standards set by the State Implementation Plan for meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Translated, this means that the motor vehicle emissions produced by developing the plan and program projects do not exceed the pollutant budgets for on-road motor vehicle emissions that were established in the 1994 Monterey Bay Region Maintenance Plan. Once included in the adopted MTP, a program or project becomes eligible for the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP, a separate document) that identifi es funding source and schedule for all federally-funded programs and projects by fi scal year.

70 71 This section consists of the Action Element

72 Financing the Plan

Action Element disproportionate manner. As such, a Consistent with Title VI of the federal key component of development and Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section Working within the $9.01 billion of evaluation of the MTP was inclusion 11135 of the California Government total funds anticipated to be available and consideration of the entire Code, and Executive Order 12898 to the region during the next 25 community. Specifi c to environmental on Environmental Justice, the MTP years, the RTPAs evaluated thousands equity, Caltrans defi nes environmental is also sensitive to how all residents, of potential projects to include in the equity in terms of transportation particularly low-income communities RTPs, which comprise the MTP. projects as “the fair treatment and and communities of color, may meaningful involvement of all people be impacted by possible changes Total Constrained Project Costs for regardless of race, color, national identifi ed in the MTP. the 25 year period between FY origin or income, from the early 2010/11 to FY 2034/35 is estimated to stages of transportation planning Planned regional transportation be $8.02 billion. and investment decision making improvements were evaluated to ensure that combined the projects The following general factors were through construction, operations and included in the MTP are not expected considered in the RTP development maintenance.” Three fundamental to have a disproportionate adverse process: principals of environmental equity are: impact on low income or other • Immediate needs and under-represented groups, and identifi ed gaps along major To avoid, minimize, or mitigate that minority and low-income corridors disproportionately high and adverse populations receive equal benefi ts, • Locally identifi ed priorities human health and environmental on an equally timely basis, as other eff ects, including social and economic populations. • Availability of funding for the eff ects, on minority populations and project type low-income populations. While low-income and other • Potential environmental disadvantaged residents may impacts To ensure the full and fair participation be less able to participate in the by all potentially aff ected transportation planning process • Economic implications communities in the transportation because of a language barrier or • Safety considerations decision-making process. unfamiliarity with the opportunities • Transportation equity for public input, RTPAs makes considerations To prevent the denial of, reduction in, consistent eff orts to include all or signifi cant delay in the receipt of county residents in the transportation benefi ts by minority and low-income Public Participation discussions and decisions, populations. and to ensure that plans and Though transportation projects The projects in the MTP increase implementation of transportation provide important benefi ts to county opportunities for all segments of the system improvements do not residents and travelers, projects population at all income levels by disproportionately benefi t or impact also have the potential to adversely increasing transportation and mobility any particular community more than aff ect certain neighborhoods choices - such as increased transit, others. Member agencies worked and population groups in a bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. with AMBAG to develop a public

73 participation plan for the region that for construction in the short Element) to fulfi ll all the needs. For identifi es options and opportunities term, projects that could be some capital projects, if new funds do for outreach. Components of the funded by a future local half- not become available, a project may plan include, but are not limited to: cent sales tax measure, and have to be scaled back and only a other planned projects which portion of the project built. • Maintenance of a mailing list could be fi nancially feasible of community-based groups to construct anytime within When developing the project lists, throughout the county, the 2010 MTP full time line project sponsors and the RTPAs including neighborhood, (2010-2035). These 411 plus took into consideration local land- health, senior, faith, projects could be funded. use plans, population projections, environmental, low-income, 2. Unconstrained Projects — and other social support regional goals, and project ideas Given the limited amount groups; identifi ed by advisory committees of funding available for and public through forums such • Work with citizen and transportation projects and as the Transportation Funding Task advisory committees; programs, there are over Force meetings, website outreach 464 projects totaling over • Notifi cations about public and public meetings. Environmental, hearings; $4.3 billion that cannot be implemented over the next economic, and social equity issues • Bulletins to media partners; twenty-fi ve years unless were also taken into consideration. • Hard copies of documents there is additional funding available for transportation. are available at local libraries; Constrained Projects • Bilingual translation of A number of projects are identifi ed as materials, as appropriate both constrained and unconstrained. Constrained Project List (Appendix For these projects, only a portion of D) consists of transportation projects Participation by all in development of a project could be funded over the which can be implemented over the 2010 MTP has been encouraged, next twenty-fi ve years, and it will be the next 25-years, applying the consistent with the adopted Public necessary to secure and/or generate constraints of projected funding Participation Plan. additional funding sources (beyond sources. This list includes near-term those included in the Financial projects that are already slated to PROJECT LIST receive funds in existing short-range The roadway, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, safety, and other projects Figure 24. listed in the 2010 MTP are sorted into two groups: ITS, TDM, Planning 1% 1. Constrained Projects — Aviation 1% Priority projects that could be Bicycle & Ped 1% funded over the next 25 years with reasonably foreseeable transportation revenues identifi ed in the MTP. The Transit (Bus) 20% emphasis of the constrained list is on projects that address ongoing maintenance and operation needs, fi ll critical gaps in the transportation network, benefi t a large number of travelers, address safety, are located on major Transit (Rail) transportation corridors, 7% and/or specifi cally address needs identifi ed in the Policy Roads & Bridges 70% Element. This group includes over 411 projects totaling $8.02 billion, including those that are already Expenditures by Mode, 2010 to 2035 programmed and scheduled Monterey Bay Area

74 Figure 25. transportation funding plans (ex. in the Unconstrained Project List. Regional Transportation Improvement The top ten Constrained Projects Streets & Roads 27% Program, Capital Improvement of regional signifi cance (in terms of Transit (Bus) 22% Programs, lead agencies’ budgets); estimated costs) are listed in the table costs to operate and maintain the below. current transportation system; as Transit (Rail) 7% well as regionally signifi cant projects It would take at least an additional $2 Planning 1% billion to implement the regionally Highways 40% Safety & Operational identifi ed as high priorities, such as Airports 1% signifi cant Unconstrained Projects, Bike & Ped 1% those shown in the table below. or $11.1 billion for all Unconstrained Projects included in the constrained Projects. A complete list of regionally Expenditures by Mode, 2010 to 2035 list fi ll gaps in the transportation signifi cant projects can be found in Monterey County network, benefi t a large number of Appendix D: Project List. people, address safety, are located along major transportation corridors, Financial Element or specifi cally address needs Figure 26. identifi ed in the 2010 RTP and MTP Local Street and Road Maintenance 19% Goals and Policies. Many of these INTRODUCTION & Transit System Improvements 4% projects have uncertain schedules BACKGROUND Non-Motorized Transportation 1% and could be constructed or otherwise implemented at any point This 2010 Monterey Bay Area Street and Highway System Metropolitan Transportation Plan Improvements 77% in the 2010 MTP’s time frame (2010- 2035). describes recommended programs and projects designed to meet Expenditures by Mode, 2010 to 2035 Expenditures by mode for all projects transportation needs through San Benito County are illustrated in the graph. While the year 2035. In accordance the large majority of expenditures with SAFETEA-LU, this section will fall into the “Roads and Bridges” document the funding sources mode, over 30% of the region’s reasonably expected to be available planned expenditures will go toward to fi nance the recommended plan. Figure 27. maintaining, improving or expanding Transit 17% TDM 3% Federal law requires that the total Transp. Sys. Mgmt 3% transit service. This ranges widely by Roadway ITS 1% county, as shown in the graphs to the cost of the constrained project list not Preservation 12% Planning 1% Other 2% left. exceed total expected revenues over the MTP’s 25-year time span. Revenue Roadway 27% forecasts are thus a key part of the Bike 18% Regionally Signifi cant MTP’s development. Projects Pedestrian 17% The Financial Element identifi es, as There are a total of 87 regionally possible, major Federal, State and Expenditures by Mode, 2010 to 2035 local funding sources anticipated Santa Cruz County signifi cant projects in the Constrained MTP Project List and another 102 being available during the life of the

Table 13. Regionally Signifi cant Projects. Project Number Agency Project Title Cost Est (in 1000’s) MTD-P10 SCMTD Local Transit - Continuation of Existing Service Levels 2010-2035 $830,000 RTC 24 SCCRTC Hwy 1 HOV Lanes (Morrissey to Larkin Vly Rd) $500,000 CT025 Caltrans US 101 Prunedale Improvement Project $181,565 SB01CT01 Caltrans/COG Highway 25 4-Lane Widening Phase I $139,295 MST009 MST Frank J. Lichtanski Operations Center $129,000 MTD-P10C SCMTD ADA Paratransit Service - Continuation of Existing Service $103,000 CT020 Caltrans US 101 - San Juan Road Interchange $85,600 CT-P30 Caltrans Lump Sum SHOPP: Collision Reduction $80,000 CT036SB Caltrans San Benito Route 156 Improvement Project $69,611 TAM010 TAMC Monterey Branch Line Operations $67,302 75 plan. A full list of funding sources is Department of Transportation Several funding sources included in included in Appendix I. (Caltrans), Caltrans District 5, the the 2005 MTP have been eliminated Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air Pollution due to state and federal budget cuts. Financing for the Monterey Bay Control District, Monterey-Salinas metropolitan region constrained Transit, the Santa Cruz County Action Element is shown in the Metro Transit District, the County A Note on the Limitations of Revenue Sources tables. The tables of Monterey, and Monterey County Forecasts identify revenue sources and fi nancial cities. amounts reasonably expected to be Forecasting the amount of available over the life of the plan. The projections are also consistent funding that will be available for The tables illustrate the total funding with those fi gures shown in transportation over the next 25-years reasonably expected to be available the California Transportation can be a challenging and somewhat over the life of the plan is, on a Commission’s (CTC) 2010 State speculative exercise. The reliability cumulative fund basis, suffi cient to Transportation Improvement of both short and long term funding meet the fi nancial claims generated Program Fund Estimate and Federal projections can be impacted by by the MTP Financially Constrained Transportation Improvement Program several factors including: timing Action Element. (FTIP). and content of the annual federal appropriations bills, changes in As the MTP is long-range planning Some federal and state funding national fuel consumption, up and document, projects listed in the sources are discretionary, typically downturns in the local, state, and/or plan do not represent any specifi c available to a variety of types of federal economies, and the annual commitment of funds to any project. projects, and allocated through a California State Budget. Projects are approved by the Regional competitive grant process. Dedicated Transportation Planning Agency for funds are restricted for use by specifi c Some discretionary funds may vary respective federal or state funding jurisdictions, agencies or types of substantially from year to year because sources and then amended into projects; or are allocated to agencies they are disseminated statewide by the Metropolitan Transportation according to a set formula. In most competitive processes. The volatility Improvement Program (MTIP) prior instances, base-year fi gures for of the local, state, national and to funding being dedicated to an formula funding sources (those that global economy in recent years has individual project. As such, the MTP the region typically receives every signifi cantly impacted both project represents a long-range list of projects year according to population, road costs and revenue generation. Federal through which those programmed miles, or fi xed factors) refl ect the and State laws, such as the federal funding will be advanced into the amount of funding received FY08/09 transportation act which is scheduled MTIP for implementation. or FY09/10. for reauthorization in 2010, could also result in sweeping changes in the In other instances, the 2010 MTP way that transportation projects and Financial Assumptions uses historical averages to calculate programs are funded. anticipated revenues. For sporadic The fi nancial forecasts in this MTP funding sources, the 2010 MTP’s In recent years, even Caltrans’ are based on reasonably foreseeable calculations use a fi xed percentage short-range projections for the revenues. The projections are of the total statewide amount State Transportation Improvement calculated using a combination of available for the base-year fi gure, Program (STIP) have proved historical averages, current trends, based on the regional share of the unreliable, as the State has and/or state and federal actions. state population. continually “borrowed” or diverted Actual revenues will vary from year to transportation funds to backfi ll non- year. Projections of State Transportation transportation programs in the State Improvement Program (STIP) funds The fi nancial projections and General Fund. These diversions have for the fi rst fi ve years are consistent signifi cantly diminished the California estimation methods used in the 2010 with the adopted 2010 STIP Fund MTP were developed collectively with Transportation Commission’s ability Estimate. However, the base-year to release funds for planned and transportation planning agencies fi gure for STIP funds refl ects the in the Monterey Bay Area including programmed projects, resulting region’s average share of STIP funds in considerable delays to several AMBAG, TAMC, the Santa Cruz County over a fourteen year period. Regional Transportation Commission, projects. the San Benito County Council Funding availability may also vary of Governments, the California positively. For instance, in the last

76 fi ve years new, one-time revenues Year of Expenditure: The fi nancial forecasts that were not anticipated in the 2005 Escalated Revenues and will change from being MTP were made available through generally right to precisely Proposition 1B bonds, which were Project Costs wrong. As projects undergo approved by voters in 2006, and the detailed design, project cost New for the 2010 MTP, the Federal and implementation year federal economic stimulus program transportation act SAFETEA-LU estimates will undoubtedly of 2009 – the American Recovery and requires regions to escalate revenue change. Reinvestment Act (ARRA). sources and project costs to refl ect For these reasons, as shown in prior “year of expenditure dollars” (YOE). Through 2009 those two programs MTPs, project cost estimates in the The rationale for this rule is to present have funded over $20 million in 2010 MTP were held constant, in a more accurate picture of costs, transportation projects in Santa current or nominal dollars. While revenues, and defi cits associated Cruz County alone that would most projects in the MTP are needed with the long-range plan. There otherwise have not been possible in the near term, insuffi cient funds are several constraints which make given the dismal state of traditional are available to construct all of the successful implementation of this transportation funding sources. projects as needed. Several projects approved for new rule diffi cult, as outlined by the Proposition 1B and ARRA funds will Transportation Research Board: While both project costs and be constructed 2010-2012 and are • The MTP is not a budgeting revenues have dipped recently, a included in the constrained project document. Many of the constant annual escalation rate based list. projects identifi ed in the plan on historic averages, was applied have received little more to fund types and project costs for However, several Proposition 1B than preliminary scoping. this Year of Expenditure analysis. projects are on hold because the Unlike development of YOE Average annual growth for fund State of California has not been able estimates for a major project, sources ranges from 1% to 5%. The to sell suffi cient bonds. Additionally, the level of detail required State of California uses an average it is unclear how the state will to develop YOE estimates for escalation rate of 3% for project every project is well beyond repay those bonds. Some of the costs, though more recently agencies state funds typically distributed to that what is possible in a long-range plan. have assumed 1-2% growth rates. transit agencies, regions, and local While actual escalation rates may jurisdictions (and assumed in this • AMBAG and partner agencies vary between projects and revenues, MTP to be available for new projects) do not control when most a constant 2.5% was used for this projects are funded or could be redirected to the State exercise. General fund in order to pay the debt constructed. While forecasts can estimate the year that service on Proposition 1B, High Speed a project is needed, they REVENUE SOURCES Rail, and older transportation bonds. can not determine when The major sources of revenue for Project costs can be equally funding will be available for the project. A host of transportation can be divided into unpredictable. For example, while other entities, as well as three categories: federal, state, general infl ation refl ected in the the economy, govern most and regional/local. The public and Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the funding decisions associated businesses contribute to these United States was less than 5% for with MTP implementation. funding programs through taxes 2003- 2007, steel prices escalated • YOE results can imply primarily collected at the gas pump by over 50% because of a global greater levels of accuracy and at cash registers. Truck weight supply-demand imbalance. Also, in than the methodologies fees and a small portion of automobile years when projects received one or and assumptions warrant. registration fees also help fund local two bids on average, construction Whereas the use of transportation projects. Depending costs went up signifi cantly. Whereas “constant dollars” forecasting on the federal transportation act, in 2009, twelve to sixteen bids were traditionally employed in annual appropriations bills, the state long-range plans conveyed a received on many jobs, driving down budget, and the general state of the costs 15% to 50% with increased general sense of magnitude without suggesting undue local and global economy, funding bidder competition. By the next levels for several funding programs construction season, bidders may precision, the listing of projects by year each with change from year to year. have other work or have been forced its own infl ationary factors out of business which could again may do just the opposite. Each of these sources contains several increase bid prices. categories designated for specifi c 77 transportation uses. In addition, the Regional Surface Transportation TEA-21 expanded Regional Surface diff erent types of jurisdictions are Program and the Urbanized Area Transportation Program eligible often eligible for specifi c types of Formula Program (Section 5307). projects to include environmental funds. Projecting from all known provisions, modifi cation of sidewalks federal, state, and regional/local The major revenue sources are to meet Americans with Disabilities funds, total transportation revenues detailed below. Act requirements, and infrastructure- expected from FY 2010/11 through based intelligent transportation FY 2034/35 for the Monterey Bay Area Regional Surface systems capital improvements. total $9,011,781,000. Over half of this Transportation Program is due to local sources as shown in The region forecasts over $279 the graph. The Regional Surface Transportation million from this federal program Program (RSTP) represents the most over the course of the next 25 years. fl exible federal fund source available Urbanized Area Formula Program Federal Revenues for local uses. Funds can be used for (Section 5307) projects on any Federal-aid highway With the passage of the Intermodal (ranging from national highways to Section 5307 is the original federal Surface Transportation Effi ciency city arterials), rural minor collectors, transit assistance program for transit Act in 1991 and its successors , the bridge projects on any public road, operators in urbanized area with 1998 Transportation Equity Act for transit capital projects, and public a population of 50,000 or more. the 21st Century (TEA 21), and Safe bus terminals and facilities. FTA Section 5307 block grants are Accountable Flexible Transportation apportioned annually to urbanized Equity Act – a Legacy for Users, nationwide transportation funding stabilized. All federal funding is still subject to the annual budget process Figure 28. and congressional appropriations, however, the federal transportation Forecasted Revenues, 2010 to 2035 bills must be reauthorized by Monterey Bay Area Congress to provide a predictable source of federal funding for projects. SAFETEA-LU expired in 2009 and transportation funding has been Local Funding State Funding authorized through continuing Sources Sources resolutions pending approval of the 59% 25% next federal transportation bill, which is still being developed at the time that the 2010 MTP was released. Federal revenue sources for the region total $1.4 billion, 15% of the region’s total forecast revenue for Federal Funding the 2010-2035 period. The region Sources qualifi es for federal revenue from 15% sixteen diff erent programs. However, just two of these programs constitute close to 50% of all federal revenue:

Table 14. Summary of Revenue Sources. REVENUE SOURCES, all figures in 1000's 25 YEAR TOTAL (2010/11-2034/35) BASE YEAR (2009/10) Funding Totals REGION SCCRTC TAMC SBt COG REGION SCCRTC TAMC SBt COG Local Funding Sources $5,273,594 $2,311,830 $2,635,295 $326,469 $169,185 $16,990 $78,194 $15,940 State Funding Sources $2,339,844 $673,500 $1,542,565 $123,779 $56,235 $61,602 $42,451 $563 Federal Funding Sources $1,398,343 $455,467 $909,087 $33,789 $44,565 $22,003 $24,873 $838 TOTALS $9,011,781 $3,440,797 $5,086,947 $484,037 $269,985 $100,595 $145,517 $17,341

78 Table 15. Federal Funding Resources

REVENUE SOURCES, all figures in 1000's 25 YEAR TOTAL (2010/11-2034/35) BASE YEAR (2009/10) Federal Funding Sources REGION SCCRTC TAMC SBt COG REGION SCCRTC TAMC SBt COG Federal Transit Bus and Bus Related Grants (5309c) $14,565 $0 $14,565 $0 $416 $0 $416 $0 Elderly & Persons with Disabilities Formula Program (5310) $12,411 $5,124 $6,547 $740 $349 $0 $187 $0 Intercity Bus (5311f) $2,206 $0 $2,206 $0 $63 $0 $63 $0 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (5316) $23,276 $7,856 $15,389 $30 $1,048 $0 $800 $0 Metropolitan Planning (5303) $7,344 $7,344 $0 $0 $232 $0 $0 $0 New and Small Starts (Capital Investment Grants) (5309b) $129,411 $0 $129,411 $0 $3,130 $0 $2,900 $230 New Freedom (SAFETEA-LU) $22,510 $5,465 $17,045 $0 $672 $0 $500 $0 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program (5311) $22,228 $5,636 $8,539 $8,053 $428 $0 $250 $0 Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307) $392,370 $160,541 $231,829 $0 $11,848 $0 $6,787 $0 Planning and Research 5313, 5313b $1,190 $0 $1,190 $0 $34 $0 $34 Federal Highway Surface Transportation Program (Regional) $279,081 $99,525 $158,557 $20,999 $7,726 $2,920 $4,590 $0 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $20,640 $14,175 $6,306 $158 $447 $0 $0 $0 Safe Routes to School (SRTS) (SAFETEA-LU) $22,186 $10,247 $11,939 $0 $664 $0 $341 $0 Transportation Enhancements $51,909 $22,850 $25,294 $3,765 $5,374 $0 $0 $0 Earmarks $149,195 $44,405 $104,790 $0 $4,393 $0 $2,993 $0 High Risk Rural Road (HR3) $19,743 $4,618 $15,125 $0 $578 $0 $432 $0 National Scenic Byways Program $1,155 $0 $1,155 $0 $33 $0 $33 $0 Recreational Trails $3,156 $1,196 $1,961 $0 $94 $0 $56 $0 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FHWA Planning Funds (PL) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Highway Bridge Program (HBP) $27,326 $27,326 $0 $0 $862 $19,083 $0 $0 FTA Section 5304 $44 $0 $0 $44 $608 $0 $0 $608 Federal Aviation FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) $191,395 $34,158 $157,238 $0 $5,568 $0 $4,491 $0

Figure 29.

Federal Revenue Sources , Regional, 2010 to 2035 (in millions)

$400

$300

$200

$100

$0

79 areas through a complex formula New projects for the SHOPP are At least 60% of the interregional weighted by 2000 population, given priority and programmed share (15% of the STIP) must be population density and revenue according to rehabilitation, safety and programmed for projects on the vehicle miles, or rail miles, if operational needs. No new project is interregional system. At least 15% applicable. programmed unless Caltrans has a of that 60% (9% of the interregional completed project study report (PSR) program; 2.25% of the STIP) must be For urbanized areas with populations or equivalent document identifying a for intercity rail. The 40% is designated less than 200,000, funding may be specifi c project scope and estimated for interregional movement of people used for either capital or operating cost. and goods. costs at local option and without limitation. Local match requirements Funding from this source is forecast The Monterey Bay Area forecasts very depending on the use of 5307 to total over $1.2 billion for the 2010- over $450 million in revenue from funds. 2035 period. the Regional Share STIP category and close to $235 million in revenue from Operations require a 50% federal, 50% the Interregional Share STIP. local match; and capital acquisitions STIP Programming and associated capital maintenance The State Transportation items are allowed at a 80% federal, Improvement Program (STIP) was Local Revenues 20% local match rate. If they choose, signifi cantly changed with the At $5.3 billion, local revenues operators can use Section 5307 funds enactment of Senate Bill 45 in for planning purposes. constitute 59% of all transportation 1997. Senate Bill 45 simplifi es the funding for the Monterey Bay Area The region forecasts over $392 transportation programming process for the 2010-2035 time period. The million from this federal program by combining seven previous funding Transportation Development Act over the course of the next 25 years. categories (Flexible Congestion (15%), the Highway User Tax/Gas Relief, Transit Capital Improvement Tax (14%), city/county developer Program, Commuter and Urban fees (14%) and Transit Fares (10%) State Revenues Rail Transit Program, Mass Transit constitute over half of all local Guideway Program, Traffi c Systems State revenue sources total $2.3 revenues. Management Program, Intercity Rail billion, or 25% of the region’s total Corridors Program, and the State- Other signifi cant revenue sources forecast revenue for the 2010-2035 Local Transportation Program) into include: Transit Sales Tax (8%), period. Over 70% of this funding one pot of funds which is then Regional Developer Fees (9%), comes from two programs – SHOPP divided into two categories. Proposition 42 (9%), and City/County funding and the Regional Share General Funds (7%). State Transportation Improvement Prior to its division, however, Caltrans Program (STIP). support, planning and maintenance The remaining categories comprise and rehabilitation needs are taken less than 5% of total local revenue The major revenue sources are from the total. The remaining sources (Fort Ord Reuse Authority detailed below. funding is then divided into the two CIP Fees, City Sales Taxes for Capitola categories: Regional Improvement and Santa Cruz, Watsonville Airport State Highways Operation and Program (RIP) and Interregional Revenues, AB 2766). Transportation Improvement Protection Program (SHOPP) The major revenue sources are Program (ITIP). Of funds available detailed below. The State Highways Operation and for programming in the State Protection Program includes state Transportation Improvement highway rehabilitation, traffi c safety, Program, 75% is allocated to regional Transportation Development seismic safety, and traffi c operational transportation planning agencies for Act/Local Transportation Fund improvements. The SHOPP, a four- the selection of projects of regional year program, is adopted separately signifi cance in the RTIP. The 25% The Transportation Development from the State Transportation remaining interregional share is Act (TDA) of 1971 extended sales Improvement Program. The limited to State highway, intercity tax to gasoline purchases and Rehabilitation and Safety and Other passenger rail, mass transit guideway, earmarked 1/4 of one cent of Highway Construction elements or grade separation projects that all sales tax proceeds for public previously included under the STIP facilitate the interregional movement transit improvements in the county are incorporated under the SHOPP. of people and goods. where the revenue was generated. Jurisdictions may use these Local 80 Table 16. State Funding Resources

REVENUE SOURCES, all figures in 1000's 25 YEAR TOTAL (2010/11-2034/35) BASE YEAR (2009/10) State Funding Sources REGION SCCRTC TAMC SBt COG REGION SCCRTC TAMC SBt COG STIP -- Regional Share STIP $502,081 $157,043 $292,130 $52,908 $9,677 $0 $9,527 $0 -- Interregional Share STIP $249,042 $49,016 $150,026 $50,000 $24,250 $0 $24,250 $0 Prop 1 B $81,325 $53,000 $28,325 $0 $2,466 $0 $2,203 $263 SHOPP $1,201,838 $273,262 $916,838 $11,738 $8,615 $61,522 $0 $0 State Transit Assistance (STA) $83,673 $83,673 $0 $0 $2,627 $0 $0 $0 Bicycle Transportation Account $6,449 $3,416 $3,011 $22 $194 $0 $86 $0 Safe Routes to School (SR2S) $21,522 $10,247 $9,663 $1,611 $599 $0 $276 $0 Aeronautics Acquisition & Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Airport Improvement Program match $2,443 $1,708 $735 $0 $75 $0 $21 $0 Cal Aid to Airports program $1,250 $250 $750 $250 $50 $10 $30 $10 Freeway Service Patrol $14,744 $6,490 $8,254 $0 $440 $0 $236 $0 Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways $19,914 $7,856 $12,058 $0 $592 $0 $344 $0 Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program $4,950 $1,750 $2,825 $375 $198 $70 $113 $15 Traffic Congestion Relief Act $14,742 $0 $14,742 $0 $4,258 $0 $4,258 Public Transit Account $83,130 $0 $83,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Prop 116 $21,277 $15,029 $6,248 $0 $1,186 $0 $712 $0 Rural Planning Assistance $31,464 $10,760 $13,830 $6,875 $1,009 $0 $395 $275

Figure 30.

State Revenue Sources , Regional , 2010 to 2035 (in millions)

$1,200

$800

$400

$0

81 Transportation Fund (LTF) amounts waiver – usually the general public recommendation from the Monterey for street and road purposes if a transit and paratransit programs have County Congestion Management fi nding is made by the jurisdiction low farebox recovery ratios) to up to Program. Monterey County’s regional involved that there are “no unmet 40 - 50% (the Highway 17 Express development impact fee is proposed transit needs that are reasonable Service operated between Santa Cruz for enactment in conjunction with to meet”. The reasonableness and Santa Clara counties by the Santa the transportation sales tax. criteria is defi ned by each Regional Cruz Metropolitan Transit District). Transportation Planning Agency For San Benito County, in order to administering the funds. Transit Fares will constitute nearly mitigate the impact of development $558 million of revenue for the on transportation infrastructure The Monterey Bay Area forecasts Monterey Bay Region in the next 25 the City of Hollister and County of over $774 million from the TDA/LTF years. San Benito have established traffi c category. impact fees. These fees are based on City/County Developer Fees a computer generated traffi c model Gas Tax/Highway User Tax that projects improvement needs An additional source of funding given proposed land use scenarios. (HUT) which is used in many places According to the Council of San The gas tax funds that are apportioned throughout the Monterey Bay Benito County Governments from the state to cities and counties region is traffi c impact fees. A traffi c (SBtCOG) staff , the forecasts of future are to be used exclusively for local mitigation impact fee distributes demand on the transportation roadway projects. Gas tax revenues the costs of transportation infrastructure in the study area are are dependent upon the amount improvements among all new prepared using the San Benito/ of gasoline consumed since the tax developments based on the size of a Hollister travel demand model. is assessed on a per gallon basis proposed development or estimates This computer model uses widely rather than on the cost of gasoline. of a project’s trip generation capacity. accepted transportation planning As discussed above under the STIP Caltrans notes that fair-share, per- algorithms to convert forecasts of section, any unobligated balance in unit fees for new development that future land use into forecasts of the these funds is transferred to the State have a direct nexus to mitigating the number and distribution of vehicle Highway Account. impacts of additional trips created, trips that will be made in the future. The region is forecast to receive over are appropriate. In that vein, San These vehicle trips are then assigned $880 million in HUT revenues over Benito County has implemented to paths along the highway system, the next 25 years. an impact fee program within the which ultimately result in forecasts County and the City of Hollister for of the future traffi c volumes on the some years. In Monterey County, Transit Fares highway network. These forecast the Cities of Greenfi eld, King City, volumes are compared to the All the public transit operators in the Salinas, and Soledad have impact roadway design capacities to identify Monterey Bay metropolitan region fee programs. The Fort Ord Reuse transportation corridors, roadway charge a user fee (fare) for persons Authority also collects fees to fund segments or intersections where a to ride their service. Although the transportation improvements needed prescribed level of service will be intent is for the users of the service to to accommodate redevelopment exceeded. contribute a small portion of the cost of the former Fort Ord. Additional Using this methodology, a list of to operate the system, it is also to information on impact fees is recommended improvements to ensure that each operator can meet provided below. the highway system was prepared. pre-established farebox recovery ratio In addition to several cities’ stand- This set of recommended roadway standards for the continued receipt of alone traffi c impact fee programs in improvements should allow the Transportation Development Act LTF Monterey County, the Transportation proposed development to occur funds. Agency for Monterey County has without creating unacceptable levels Farebox recovery ratio means the developed a countywide regional of traffi c congestion on the local amount collected from passenger traffi c impact fee program, describing and regional highways. SBtCOG staff fares divided by the cost of providing its potential implementation notes that they are moving forward, the service. In the Monterey Bay as one of the County’s needed with consultant assistance, to update metropolitan region, this amount funding sources in order to move the 2001 Impact Fee Program. ranges from 10% (the minimum transportation projects forward. This without otherwise stipulating a alternative was pursued based on a 82 Table 17. Local Funding Resources REVENUE SOURCES, all figures in 1000's 25 YEAR TOTAL (2010/11-2034/35) BASE YEAR (2009/10) Local Funding Sources REGION SCCRTC TAMC SBt COG REGION SCCRTC TAMC SBt COG Sales Tax Transportation Development Act/LTF $774,018 $247,644 $467,733 $48,641 $19,007 $7,360 $10,000 $1,200 Prop 42 $320,951 $0 $267,387 $46,420 $8,389 $0 $7,144 $1,245 Santa Cruz County 2012 Transportation Sales Tax $447,130 $447,130 $0 $0 $15,234 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax (Highway User Tax) $880,762 $379,151 $423,465 $65,480 $25,818 $0 $12,665 $1,822 Other Local Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 City/County General Funds $438,265 $245,936 $186,934 $0 $13,149 $7,200 $5,395 $0 City/County Developer Fees $618,673 $0 $601,974 $0 $18,521 $0 $16,699 $0 Regional Developer Fees $480,878 $0 $320,023 $154,994 $5,861 $0 $5,861 $11,071 FORA CIP Fees & Presidio $99,515 $0 $86,003 $0 $13,511 $0 $13,511 $160 Transit Fares $558,223 $297,173 $249,612 $5,602 $15,205 $0 $5,836 $92 AB2766 $38,986 $16,396 $18,500 $3,407 $1,200 $480 $683 $25 Transit Ad Revenue & Interest $14,063 $0 $13,663 $0 $400 $0 $400 $52 City Sales Taxes Used on Transportation (Capitola-$250/yr; Santa Cruz- $61,385 $61,385 $0 $0 $2,100 $1,950 $0 $0 Ecology Action Member Fees, Sponsorships, Inkind Donations $3,928 $3,928 $0 $0 $124 $0 $0 $0 LiftLine Specialized Transportation - Other Funds $29,034 $29,034 $0 $0 $915 $0 $0 $0 MTC Contribution to Hwy 17 Safety Project $1,708 $1,708$0$0$54 $0 $0 $0 Rail Line Lease Revenue $5,124 $5,124 $0 $0 $162 $0 $0 $0 Transit non-fare revenue $20,495 $20,495 $0 $0 $646 $0 $0 $0 Transit Sales Tax $483,561 $483,561 $0 $0 $15,234 $0 $0 $263 UCSC Revenues $4,850 $4,850 $0 $0 $178 $0 $0 $0 Watsonville Airport Revenues $68,316 $68,316 $0 $0 $2,154 $0 $0 $0 Vanpool Lease $625 $0 $0 $625 $11,071 $0 $0 $0 SAFE DMV Fees $1,300 $0 $0 $1,300 $160 $0 $0 $10 Redevelopment Agency (RDA) $0 $0 $0 $0 $92 $0 $0 $0

Figure 31. Local Revenue Sources , Regional, 2010 to 2035 (in millions)

$800

$600

$400

$200

$0

83 In Santa Cruz County, the Santa Cruz taxes to a 55% majority. Consistency County Regional Transportation • The Transportation Funding Commission is not currently Task Force (TFTF) process Statement between proposing the implementation of resulted in a list of projects county-wide development impact for a half-cent sales tax that fi rst 4 years of the fees. received signifi cantly more fund estimate and than a 2/3 majority support In total, the region forecasts to collect from the broad based the 4-year STIP fund over $618 million in City/County task force. The economic Developer Fees. recession has temporarily estimate (2006 STIP eff orts to place a sales tax measure on the ballot. Guidelines) Santa Cruz County Transportation Sales Tax • Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Projections of State Transportation reduction targets will Improvement Program (STIP) and The new Transportation Sales Tax require that we expand FTIP funds for the fi rst four years are is identifi ed as a revenue source transportation alternatives consistent with the total revenue for Santa Cruz County. Based on (transit, carpool, vanpool, forecasts for that period of time as bicycle, pedestrian, etc.) and numerous surveys, the work of the illustrated in the table below. revenues will be needed to Transportation Funding Task Force build the infrastructure and and the successes in other regions expand services. Consistency of the state representing over 80% of the state’s population, the 2010 • As fewer state and Statement between federal dollars are going MTP assumes that voters in Santa towards transportation, RTP and ITIP (2006 Cruz County will approve a new local communities are local revenue source, equivalent to a increasingly supportive of STIP Guidelines) half-cent sales tax, by 2012 thereby local transportation funding including an anticipated revenue of initiatives. For instance, The Metropolitan Transportation approximately $447 million in current several counties and cities Improvement Plan incorporates the year dollars. While not an existing in the state approved requirements of the ITIP, the FTIP and revenue source, it is reasonable to transportation sales tax the STIP for the Monterey Bay Area. measures in 2008. include revenues from a new local The RTP/MTP project lists were source such as a sales tax in the 2010 • 33% of counties in California analyzed against the MTIP to SCC RTP for several reasons: representing 84% of the ensure consistency. Funding to population are self help carry out FY 2009/10 through FY • A local transportation counties benefi ting from sales tax is one of the more increased transportation 20011/12 projects has already been feasible funding sources to revenues and those that programmed in the FY 2008/09 to FY adopt logistically, as state are not continue eff orts to 2011/12 Metropolitan Transportation law already authorizes voters become self help counties; Improvement Program (MTIP) to raise such taxes. While therefore, it is reasonable to prepared by AMBAG to be consistent current state law requires assume that this trend will with this plan. Only programs and that two-thirds of the voters continue over the next 25 projects that are consistent with those approve any new local sales years. tax which includes a specifi c that appear in the Action Element or list of projects, legislative Santa Cruz County expects to pull Unconstrained Alternative of this plan eff orts are underway to in over $480 million from the Transit are eligible for inclusion in the MTIP. reduce the two-thirds (66.7%) Sales Tax over the next 25 years. The MTIP is also subject to applicable vote requirement for special

Table 18. Consistency with the STIP Fund. Current Year Next FTIP Cycle (all figures in 1000’s) 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Local Funding Sources $115,822 $174,814 $215,741 $168,204 $167,988 State Funding Sources $113,017 $193,829 $25,153 $71,013 $69,153 Federal Funding Sources $47,714 $58,391 $86,236 $38,802 $74,056 84 fi nancial constraint and conformity criteria in federal regulations. As such, the ITIP, FTIP and STIP for the Monterey Bay Area are fully consistent with the RTP/MTP.

85 How do we know if we are successful?

86 System Monitoring & Benchmarks

System monitoring against regional D. Enhance the Modal there are other potential measures benchmarks is an important tool Integration and Connectivity of economic vitality, such as labor for the continual tracking and of the Transportation System productivity, the Regional Travel evaluation of the costs and benefi ts for People and Goods Demand Model does not forecast of transportation investments. While E. Promote Effi cient System that metric. The Regional Travel individual projects are subjected Management and Operation Demand Model does, however, to close analysis for the yield of F. Preserve the Existing System calculate hours of delay. benefi ts to travelers on a marginal A measure of the overall level of analysis basis, it is important to G. Increase the Safety of the Transportation System mobility is total annual person trips. track investments against the for Motorized and Non- There are other potential metrics, background of the total productivity motorized Users, and but only a few that can be extracted and effi ciency of the regional from the travel demand model are transportation system itself. Even H. Increase the Security of the Transportation System relevant. as the three RTPAs use many of the for Motorized and Non- following measures in their own motorized Users No single measure could possibly system monitoring, AMBAG uses benchmark the need to protect several measures to track the overall As these goals are broad, there is the Environment, promote performance of the system. a need to frame specifi c indicators Energy Conservation, improve that benchmark these goals in the Quality of Life, and promote As noted in the Vision for 2035, the terms commensurate with mobility consistency between transportation regional goals Mobility 2035 seeks to measures, consistent with the intent improvements and state and Local address are as follows: of the metropolitan planning process. Planned Growth and Economic A. Support Economic Vitality Ahead of identifying specifi c metrics Development Patterns. of the Monterey Bay (observable data points), we need to Area, by enabling global identify how we measure success or Instead of a specifi c metric, for Goal competitiveness, productivity failure for each Goal. C, AMBAG continually monitors and effi ciency plan updates and coordinates with Because each Goal is broad while local agencies with regard to local B. Increase the Accessibility and model output is narrow in focus, Mobility of People and Goods and regional plans. Since there is no measures to benchmark each Goal model output that matches all of C. Protect the Environment, only refl ect some aspect of each these issues, AMBAG’s continuing Promote Energy Goal. For Economic Vitality, for Conservation, Improve approach to these issues will example, we measure daily vehicle be qualitative and will focus on the Quality of Life, and of hours of delay—a relatively small Promote Consistency providing continuous feedback to level of hours of delay indicates that between Transportation AMBAG’s land use modeling. Improvements and State the transportation contributes to and Local Planned Growth the economic vitality of the region, Since AMBAG is not an implementing and Economic Development while many hours of delay hurt the agency, it is in a position to Patterns region’s economic vitality. While recommend performance measures

87 to implementing agencies that track extracted from forecasting and for related statistics. Instead, AMBAG the eff ectiveness in programming Regional Travel Demand Model and its partners must periodically projects in protecting endangered outputs, means that we select just gather data from law enforcement species, wildlife and wetland habitat, one metric for goals A, B, D, and E, agencies and consider the eff ect of and open space. While these issues each. investment or the lack thereof in the are routinely handled in project level transportation system as indicators of EIRs, potential benchmarks include Goal F, preserving the existing the success of improving safety and statistics on collisions with animals system, is best measured through the improving security. and acres of land that are developed deployment of ITS instead of adding for transportation uses that result to the system. As with Goal C, this in unmitigatable environmental Goal requires ongoing monitoring of impacts. the adoption of ITS technologies to the system. While there are many potential indicators that can be identifi ed While Goals G and H can be through these general goals, the quantitatively measured, through framework within which AMBAG data on accident rates and on crime/ operates, with a narrow focus on terrorism, respectively, AMBAG’s indicators that can be meaningfully Regional Travel Demand Model does not predict or provide benchmarks

Region wide Table 19. SAFETEA-LU Goals & Monterey Bay Area Measures & Transportation Metrics Performance Goal Measure Metric A. Economic Vitality Productivity lost in Daily vehicle hours of Measures congestion delay In preparing this 2010 Monterey B. Access/Mobility Trips taken within the Total daily person trips Bay MTP, AMBAG staff also prepared Goods & People region some regional traffi c comparisons C. Consistency with Various Jobs/Housing balance, of present conditions and those plans acres of land urbanized, expected in 2035 based on model size of commute shed forecast volumes and trip modes. D. Enhance Modal Use of alternative modes Modal split tables Connectivity E. Effi cient Systems System improving with Average travel speeds Management rising demand F. Preserve Existing Utilization of ITS, state of N/A System good repair G. Increase Safety Accident Rate CHP statistics* H. Increase Security Crime and terrorism CHP statistics* incidents *California Highway Patrol does not produce accident, crime or terrorism fore- casts through 2035. Instead, these indicators must be measured periodically through the comprehensive, continuing and coordinated planning process built into the ongoing update process of the MTP and related documents.

88 A. Goal: Economic Vitality

Table 20. Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay. Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Scenario Freeway Multilane Two LaneTotal As described to the left, the table summarizes by county total vehicle 2005 857 9,153 9,657 19,667 Monterey hours of delay by road type. The 2035 No Build 70,463 55,931 93,632 220,026 County Highway Capacity Manual defi nes 2035 Build MTP 4,666 20,918 19,995 45,579 delay as “the additional travel time experienced by a driver, passenger, San 2005 1,697 290 1,342 3,329 or pedestrian.” Delay is thus the Benito 2035 No Build 14,236 7,062 83,688 104,986 diff erence between an “ideal” travel County 2035 Build MTP 6,047 1,283 4,814 12,144 time and the actual travel time. Santa 2005 14,174 3,040 9,520 26,734 Cruz 2035 No Build 66,265 13,323 106,540 186,128 County 2035 Build MTP 29,239 3,496 19,367 52,102 AMBAG 2005 16,728 12,483 20,519 49,730 Region 2035 No Build 150,965 76,316 283,861 511,141

2035 Build MTP 39,951 25,696 44,177 109,824

B. Goal: Access & Mobility of Goods and People

Table 21. Total Daily Person Trips. Total Daily Person Trips Daily Person Trips by purpose, Change from 2005 to 2035 (all trips from The following table summarizes County of Origin) change between 2005 and 2035 in Place Monterey County total annual person trips. This is a useful measure of total activity within Year 2005 2035 % Change the region, refl ecting economic and Work Trips 269,740 331,421 19% social conditions. All Trips 1,713,340 2,090,158 18% Place San Benito County Year 2005 2035 % Change Work Trips 36,796 50,808 28% All Trips 207,419 282,392 27% Place Santa Cruz County Year 2005 2035 % Change Work Trips 178,468 195,110 9% All Trips 1,233,534 1,421,136 13% Place AMBAG Region Year 2005 2035 % Change Work Trips 482,914 577,338 16% All Trips 3,154,292 3,793,686 17%

89 C. Goal: Consistency with plans

Plan Consistency Plan consistency actually covers a wide range of potential measures. AMBAG is committed to the “3-C” process of ongoing coordinated, continuing and comprehensive planning to ensure that factors immediately outside the scope of a transportation plan continue to be considered in monitoring transportation investments and their impact on mobility and accessibility in the Monterey Bay region.

D. Goal: Enhance Modal Connectivity

Modal Split Figure 32. Modal Split - Work Trips. The following table summarizes by EnƟre AMBAG Region - Work Trips county the percentage of trips by 2005 Auto, 2 2035 Auto, 2 persons mode in both 2005 and 2035 persons 9% 9% Auto, 3 Auto, 3 persons persons 8% 9% Transit Transit 1% 1% Auto, Drive Auto, Drive Walk/Bicycle Alone Alone 1% 81% 79% Walk/Bicycle 2%

Monterey County San Benito County Santa Cruz County Auto, 2 Auto, 2 2005 persons 2005 persons Auto, 3 2005 Auto, 2 persons 9% 12.25% persons 9% Auto, 3 8.92% persons 8% Transit Auto, 3 1% Transit persons 0.20% 6% Walk/Bicycle Walk/Bicycle Transit Auto, Drive 2% Auto, Drive 1.21% Auto, Drive 1% Alone Alone Alone 80% 77.41% 82% Walk/Bicycle 2%

Auto, 2 Auto, 2 persons Auto, 2 2035 persons 2035 11.88% 2035 10% persons Auto, 3 8% Auto, 3 persons persons 10% Transit Auto, 3 6% 1% persons Transit Transit 13.71% 0.19% Walk/Bicycle 1% Walk/Bicycle Auto, Drive Auto, Drive 2% Auto, Drive Walk/Bicycle 1.39% Alone Alone Alone 2% 77% 72.82% 83%

90 Table 22. Modal Split. Monterey San Benito Santa Cruz AMBAG County County County Region Mode 2005 2035 2005 20352005 2035 2005 2035 Auto, Drive 41% 41% 40% 41% 42% 42% 42% 41% Alone Auto, 2 24% 24% 25% 25% 24% 24% 24% 24% persons Auto, 3 23% 24% 26% 26% 23% 23% 23% 23% persons Transit 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Walk/Bicycle 10% 10% 9% 8% 9% 9% 10% 10%

Figure 33. Modal Split - All Trips. EnƟre AMBAG Region - All Trips 2005 2035

Auto, 3 Transit Auto, 3 Transit persons 2% persons 1% 23% 23% Auto, 2 Walk/Bicycle Auto, 2 Walk/Bicycle persons 9% persons 9% 24% 25%

Auto, Drive Auto, Drive Alone Alone 42% 42%

Monterey County San Benito County Santa Cruz County 2005 2005 2005 Transit Auto, 3 Auto, 3 Auto, 3 Transit persons 2% Transit persons 1% persons 2% 23% 26% 23% Walk/Bicycle Walk/Bicycle Auto, 2 Walk/Bicycle Auto, 2 10% Auto, 2 8% persons 9% persons persons 24% 24% 25%

Auto, Drive Auto, Drive Auto, Drive Alone Alone Alone 41% 40% 42%

2035 2035 2035

Auto, 3 Transit Auto, 3 Auto, 3 Transit Transit persons 1% persons persons 2% 1% 24% 26% 23% Walk/Bicycle Walk/Bicycle Auto, 2 Walk/Bicycle Auto, 2 Auto, 2 10% 8% persons 9% persons persons 24% 24% 25%

Auto, Drive Auto, Drive Auto, Drive Alone Alone Alone 41% 40% 42%

91 E. Goal: Effi cient Systems Management

Average Travel Speeds Table 23. Average Vehicle Speeds. The following table summarizes Average Vehicle Speed (MPH) average vehicle speed for major road Scenario Freeway Multilane Two LaneTotal types for 2005, 2035 without planned 2005 56.8 34.7 32.7 40.3 improvements, and 2035 with Monterey 2035 No Build 31.8 23.8 18.7 24.5 planned improvements. County 2035 Build MTP 54.5 33.7 30.6 39.3 San 2005 45.3 60.7 42.9 46.3 Benito 2035 No Build 26.3 34.5 14.4 18.3 County 2035 Build MTP 36.8 52.1 41.1 42.3 Santa 2005 40.2 25.4 23.8 30.7 Cruz 2035 No Build 22.0 18.4 9.9 15.2 County 2035 Build MTP 35.0 26.4 21.4 28.0

F. Goal: Preserve the Existing System

Preserving the existing system means extracting more travel productivity - average travel speeds, throughput, fewer hours of delay - without expanding the road network. Instead, ITS is fi rst deployed. Because ITS is a technological resource, measuring deployment would require ongoing coordination with agencies involved in transportation management, and continued spending on operations and maintenance. In addition, ensuring the system maintains a state of good repair through maintenance and repairs will bolster the ITS operation techniques.

92 G. Goal: Increase the Safety of the Transportation System

As described in the beginning of this section, the Regional Travel Demand Model does not forecast accidents. Instead, through continued coordination, safety statistics from law enforcement agencies will be monitored. In addition, monitoring funds spent by SHOPP will also be used to evaluate the safety of the transportation system.

H. Goal: Increase the Security of the Transportation System

As described in the beginning of this section, the Regional Travel Demand Model does not forecast threats to transportation security. Instead, through continued coordination, security statistics from law enforcement agencies will be monitored. In addition, monitoring funds spent by SHOPP and transit security funds will also be used to evaluate the overall security of the transportation system.

93 “Planning is bringing the future into the present so that you can do something about it now.” - Alan Lakein

94 Air Quality Conformity

Conformity with SIP/Consistency with AQMP Conformity with the federally-mandated regional air quality plan (part of the State Implementation Plan) is required for Metropolitan Transportation Plans under the “conformity” requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments. As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization within the region, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) is responsible for conformity fi ndings for transportation plans. Air quality planning and regional planning through growth projections are interdependent processes. AMBAG provides regional growth data to the local air district, MBUAPCD. The air district regularly updates the Air Quality Management Plan, based in part upon those regional projections. In the three-county Monterey Bay Area, the region is an attainment area for ozone precursors. As the conformity requirements are based on federal ozone standards, the region is in conformity with the State Implementation Plan. Therefore, AMBAG is exempt from a conformity analysis.

Chico, CA PM-2.5, 2008 Standard,

Del Norte Non attainment Areas Siskiyou Modoc

Yuba City-Marysville, CA Humboldt Shasta Trinity Lassen Figure 34. EPA Maps. The AMBAG region is in attainment Te h a ma Plumas

Glenn Butte Mendocino Sierra YubaNevada Nevada with all EPA standards. Colusa Lake Placer Sutter El Dorado Sonoma Yolo Sacramento, CA Napa Alpine SacramentoAmador Marin Solano Calaveras San Joaquin Tuolumne Mono San Francisco Alameda 0 Stanislaus Mariposa San Mateo Santa Clara Merced Santa Cruz Madera San Francisco Fresno San Benito Bay Area, CA California Inyo Tulare Monterey Kings g PM-10 Non attainment Areas San Joaquin Valley, CA San Luis Obispo Kern

Santa Barbara San Bernardino

Ventura Los Angeles Arizona Santa Barbara Ventura Santa Barbara Orange Riverside

Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Ventura San Diego Imperial Los Angeles

Imperial Co., CA New York Co., NY (Moderate)

Del Norte Siskiyou Modoc PM-2.5, 1997 Standard, Non0 attainment 50 100 150 200 Areas Shasta Miles Humboldt Lassen Trinity 6/2009

Tehama Plumas

Glenn Butte Sierra Mendocino Nevada Yuba Nevada Colusa Placer Sutter Lake El Dorado Yolo Sonoma Napa SacramentoAmador Alpine Solano Calaveras Marin Tuolumne Mun. of Guaynabo, PR San Joaquin Contra Costa San Joaquin Valley, CA San Francisco Mono (Moderate) Alameda Stanislaus Mariposa Eagle River, AK San Mateo Santa Clara Merced Madera (Moderate) Santa Cruz

Fresno San Benito California Inyo

Tulare Monterey Kings Classification Serious San Luis Obispo Kern Juneau, AK (Moderate) Moderate San Bernardino Santa Barbara

Ventura Los Angeles

Orange Riverside

Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA Imperial San Diego Source: US EPA, 1997, 2008. 95 “A few miles south of Soledad, the Salinas River drops in close to the hillside bank and runs deep and green. The water is warm too, for it has slipped twinkling over the yellow sands in the sunlight before reaching the narrow pool.” - John Steinbeck

96 Mitigation Land Banking

The purpose of this section is to summarize potential conservation and mitigation banking options for AMBAG 2010 MTP transportation projects in Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz Counties, and for potential future losses of natural resources that could occur as the result of implementation of these projects. Public and private entities, including land trusts, environmental groups, community organizations, private mitigation banks and resource agencies have been consulted in developing these options. Ideally, a county-wide or multi-county Habitat Conservation Plan could serve this purpose, but in the absence of such a plan, this paper provides other long-term solutions for consideration. CONSERVATION/MITIGATION BANKS DEFINED A conservation or mitigation bank of development actions, when bank is privately or publicly owned land such compensation cannot be The value of a bank is defi ned in managed for its natural resource achieved on-site or would not be “compensatory mitigation credits.” values. In exchange for permanently as environmentally benefi cial (U.S. A bank’s instrument identifi es the protecting the land, the bank Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]. number of credits available for sale operator is allowed to sell credits 1995. Federal Guidance for the and requires the use of ecological to developers or government Establishment, Use and Operation of assessment techniques to certify that agencies that need to satisfy legal Mitigation Banks. 60 Fed. Reg. 228, those credits provide the required requirements for compensating 58605-58614, November 28) ecological functions. Banks are a environmental impacts of form of “third-party” compensatory development projects (California Conservation and Mitigation banks mitigation, in which the responsibility Department of Fish and Game have four distinct components: for compensatory mitigation [CDFG]. 2009. Conservation and 1. Bank site: the physical acreage implementation and success is Mitigation Banking, September 30) restored, established, enhanced, assumed by a party other than the or preserved; A conservation bank generally permittee. This transfer of liability protects threatened and endangered 2. Bank instrument: the formal has been a very attractive feature agreement between the bank species habitat. Mitigation banking for Section 404 permit-holders, who owners and regulators establishing would otherwise be responsible for is the same concept as conservation liability, performance standards, the design, construction, monitoring, banking, but is specifi cally for management and monitoring wetland restoration, creation, requirements, and the terms of ecological success, and long- enhancement, and in exceptional bank credit approval; term protection of the site (3 U.S. circumstances, preservation. Banking Environmental Protection Agency 3. Interagency Review Team (IRT): the [U.S. EPA]. 2009. Mitigation Banking is undertaken by a government interagency team that provides Fact sheet, January 12). agency, corporation, nonprofi t regulatory review, approval, and organization, or other entity under a oversight of the bank; and formal agreement with a regulatory 4. Service area: the geographic area agency expressly for the purpose in which permitted impacts can of compensating for unavoidable be compensated for at a given habitat/wetland losses in advance

97 EXISTING CONSERVATION/MITIGATION BANKS IN THE TRI-COUNTY REGION This fi gure on this page (Existing to provide early mitigation for Davis’s Information Center for the Conservation/Mitigation Banks in a series of future transportation Environment (ICE), in the Elkhorn the Region) and the next (Existing improvement projects within the Slough watershed as part of a pilot Roadways in the Region) provide Elkhorn Slough Watershed. The bank project, this project will match an visuals for this section. The following aims to protect resources such as inventory of specifi c habitat types descriptions of existing banks are wetlands, endangered species and projected to be impacted by future based on research conducted by PMC agriculture. On January 28, 2009, the transportation projects with suitable and may not be comprehensive. Transportation Agency for Monterey properties that would be available County [TAMC] awarded the ESEMP for compensatory mitigation. ESEMP the 2008 Transportation Excellence invests in collaborative planning MONTEREY COUNTY Award. and negotiations with appropriate resource, regulatory and planning Elkhorn Slough Mitigation The ESEMP builds on statewide organizations, relying on the eff orts already underway to Bank best available science to develop consider mitigation on a regional mitigation agreements that meet the The Elkhorn Slough Early Mitigation or watershed level. Using a GIS needs for transportation mitigation Partnership (ESEMP) is a Caltrans- tool being developed statewide, and promote resource conservation. sponsored interagency eff ort and analyses, conducted by UC

Figure 35. Existing Regional Conservation/Mitigation Banks. Existing Conservation/ Mitigation Banks STANISLAUS Monterey Bay Area 2010 SANTA CLARA

MERCED

Scotts Valley Pajaro Santa Cruz Capitola Elkhorn Slough Watsonville MADERA Ohlone ^ City San Juan Bautista Hollister Counties Monterey Bay State & National Parks Military Land Sand City Marina Salinas Monterey Pacific Grove Seaside

Carmel-by-the-Sea Del Rey Oaks Gonzales

Soledad FRESNO

Greenfield

King City

Miles o 03 6 12 18 24 Data Sources: SBtCOG, SCCRTC, TAMC Imagery: 2007 AMBAG

Map Units: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS

Specify Project: MTP SAN LUIS OBISPO Date: Mar 08, 2010 Path: T:\MTP\Mxds\Miti.mxd Author: David JohnstonUser: lmeckel

98 The overall objective of this eff ort is Ohlone Preserve Conservation The endowment is being established to help facilitate the development Bank over time, with a full funding amount of early mitigation planning of approximately $1 million. This that will incorporate regional- The Ohlone Preserve Conservation amount will generate suffi cient scale mitigation which could be Bank is approved to sell California revenue annually to manage the implemented prior to traditional red-legged frog (RLF), Alameda preserve. In the mean time, PCO has transportation project milestones. whipsnake and California tiger established an interim management Through this collaborative process, salamander (CTS) credits. The bank account in the amount of $66,000 by investigating methods to allow is owned by Fletcher Conservation to ensure that one years’ worth of for the early implementation of Properties and consists of 640 acres, management funds for the preserve biological mitigation, the ESEMP serving San Benito County as well are always available. This amount may provide more cost eff ective, as Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, cannot be depleted without USFWS collaborative resource conservation Merced, Napa, San Joaquin, San consent, in which case it would be on a watershed level while also Mateo, Santa Clara and Stanislaus immediately replenished. Once the achieving transportation objectives. Counties. The service area covering endowment reaches full funding, the San Benito County only provides funds in the interim account will be Caltrans District 5 is currently credits for CTS, and not RLF or the transferred to the endowment fund. undergoing the process to establish whipsnake. While USFWS issues conservation a formal Mitigation Bank at Elkhorn credits in terms of acre credits, they Slough under the Elkhorn Slough SANTA CRUZ COUNTY are sold in square-foot units. The Early Mitigation Partnership. current price of a conservation credit is $7.50 per square foot of habitat SAN BENITO COUNTY Zayante Sandhills disturbed. The proposed operating Conservation Bank agreement ties future increases in the cost of credits to the Bay Area The Zayante Sandhills Conservation Pajaro River Mitigation Bank Consumer Price Index ($326,700/ Bank is a private venture run by acre). The Pajaro River Mitigation Bank, California Limited Liability Company, constructed by Wildlands, Inc., LLC (PCO, LLC). The USFWS initially and sponsored by Santa Cruz and authorized the Bank to sell a total MAIN HABITATS Monterey Counties, consists of 273 of 56.77 conservation acre credits AND SPECIES OF acres, includes nearly 150 acres of based on the habitat value of a 22.78- created seasonal wetland credits acre sandhills parcel located in Ben CONCERN IN THE TRI- which can be tapped to off set the Lomond. This parcel is known as impact of development elsewhere the Ben Lomond Sandhills Preserve, COUNTY REGION in the 1,300-square-mile Pajaro River and must be managed in perpetuity Within Monterey, San Benito and Watershed that covers portions according to a management plan Santa Cruz Counties, there exists a of Santa Cruz, San Benito, Santa prepared by sandhills experts and wide range of habitats and species Clara or Monterey counties. The approved by USFWS. Moreover, PCO of concern. To name just a few, 150 acres of wetlands were created and the Center for Natural Lands Monterey County is home to species to complement the existing 6.73 Management have entered into a of concern such as the Brown acres of wetlands that are also conservation easement on the parcel Pelican, California Red-legged Frog being preserved. The Bank off ers to ensure that it is preserved and (RLF), California Sea Otter, California wetland mitigation credits to the managed according to the approved Tiger Salamander (CTS), Monterey development community and public plan. The County of Santa Cruz Spinefl ower, Santa Cruz Tarplant sector to fulfi ll permit obligations is a third party benefi ciary of the and the Western Snowy Plover; San of the United States Army Corps of Conservation Easement and, as such, Benito to the American Kestrel, RLF, Engineers under the Clean Water is entitled to enforce compliance with Red-tailed Hawk, Yellow Warbler and Act in order to fulfi ll the goals of the the easement in accordance with its Yellow-breasted Chat; and Santa federal “no net loss” wetlands policy. terms and conditions. Cruz to the Ben Lomond Buckwheat, Spinefl ower, and Wallfl ower, Mount The cost of acquiring and managing Hermon June Beetle, Santa Cruz the preserve is being fi nanced Cypress and Wallfl ower and the through an endowment, funded Silverleaf Manzanita. Habitats in the from the sale of conservation credits. region include, but are not limited 99 to, Coastal Oak Woodland, Coastal open to all forms of development the most challenging due to up front Scrub, Estuarine, Wetland and mitigation, including residential, costs, bank siting and eff ectiveness, Cropland. Potential future losses commercial, etc.; and therefore, there long-term administration and site of these natural resources, among would be more projects vying for maintenance. Restoration is the others, could occur as the result of credits as opposed to the creation of preferred “fi rst choice” in the banking implementation of the 2010 MTP a new bank geared expressly towards fi eld. Wetland restoration should transportation projects. As such, roadway project mitigation. take precedence over enhancement all banking options would have to and creation as a mitigation method, address the need to mitigate for preservation is only acceptable potential future losses of the range OPTION 2: CREATE in “exceptional circumstances,” of natural resources found in this “AMBAG AREA” UMBRELLA and wetland creation is expressly diverse region. CONSERVATION/MITIGATION discouraged. BANK The region’s land trusts (Santa Cruz CONCLUSIONS AND County, Ag Land Trust, Big Sur Land An umbrella bank is a regional Trust) are always looking for new sites RECOMMENDATIONS banking program with multiple to conserve. Currently, the Santa Cruz bank sites sponsored by a single The following conclusions and County Land Trust is in the process entity. It is a programmatic bank; recommendations refl ect research of prioritizing possible conservation it is characterized by having one and fi ndings for AMBAG and the sites in the region that could be mitigation banking instrument that tri-county region RTPA’s to have available for banking, partnering lays out the general requirements mechanism options to consider for with local land trusts could provide of the program and allows for the addressing potential future natural a benefi cial relationship for both authorization of future additional resource impacts that could occur as AMBAG and the trusts. There bank sites. The banking instrument the result of implementation of the are weaknesses in multi-agency generally describes the supplemental 2010 MTP transportation projects. partnerships; however, including site-specifi c information (e.g., responsibilities, monitoring, follow- individual site plans) that is required through and coordination. Many of OPTION 1: RELY ON to bring a new site on-line. these issues can be dealt with from PURCHASE OF EXISTING There is currently no mitigation the beginning through adoption BANK CREDITS banking instrument like this in the of an Operating Agreement [OA]. area. An example of a transportation- An OA would outline working There are several existing mitigation related umbrella bank is Maine responsibilities, terms and conditions, and conservation banks in the Dot’s “Umbrella Mitigation Bank for project requirements for credit region, as outlined in the above Transportation” or “UMBT”. Recently, purchasing, among other critical section. For AMBAG’s purposes, the the Maine DOT has submitted a components. Zayante Sandhills Conservation proposal for a statewide mitigation Bank is geographically limited in its Another diffi cult aspect of this banking instrument, with their applications and most likely would option is how to garner the often fi rst deposit being an island to be not be available for credit purchase. hefty up front costs associated with used for recreation, education and However, the remaining banks would purchasing lands and setting up the conservation facilities. The bank will provide purchasing options for banking instrument. Funding often be used for transportation related AMBAG. comes from multiple sources, such projects involving compensatory as grants, in-kind and monetary mitigation for unavoidable impacts This option is the least intensive, as donations, fund raisers, government to waters of the U.S. Maine DOT there are no up front or administrative funding, and multiple agency will be responsible for long-term costs and no management tasks commitments. On-site issues to be preservation and management of associated other than credit aware of include habitat and wetland the project area, implementing purchase. However, it does have a success rates. Restoration typically restoration, creation, enhancement downside: uncertainty. There is no has much higher success rates than and preservation of aquatic resources guarantee that each roadway project preservation or creation, as the and upland buff ers for the purpose of in the future will be able to purchase “foundations” for success are already generating compensation credits. credits from these banks, as it is up to in place. the provider which projects qualify, While this option is preferred among and they will eventually run out of responsible agencies, it can be one of credits. In addition, these banks are 100 OPTION 3: DEVELOP the Use of In-Lieu-Fee Arrangements,” • identify fi nancial mechanisms HABITAT CONSERVATION/ in-lieu programs have become more to fund mitigation, such as detailed and similar to banking development fees, sales tax , or MANAGEMENT PLAN instruments; making them more the use of funds from alternative transparent and accountable to a methods to identify and protect (IN-LIEU FEE MITIGATION PROGRAM) critical resource areas. standard. HCPs/HMPs generally work Implementation of Habitat very eff ectively once established; • Establish conservation easements Conservation Plans (HCPs) or however, it can take several years of that connect to and expand Habitat Management Plans (HMPs) planning and negotiation before they existing conservation areas. is one of the most common forms are approved. • Describe locally-developed of compensatory mitigation. measures such as county/city Approval of an HCP/HMP results in designation of open space, an associated take permit, usually Other Recommendations: measures requiring development with a limit on habitat acreage. Most Create a Regional Mitigation set-backs near streams, etc. HCPs/HMPs are considered a form Strategy On April 10, 2008 , EPA issued of “in-lieu fee mitigation”. In other revised regulations, entitled words, as development takes place The US EPA recommends “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses under an HCP/HMP, developers pay the development of a more of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule” a per-acre fee to a local government comprehensive Regional Mitigation (Mitigation Rule) (40 CFR 230). This entity that then uses the fees to Strategy. The Regional Mitigation document provides information for acquire and manage other lands Strategy should also establish the compensatory mitigation for impacts for compensatory conservation foundation for innovative regional to wetlands, streams, and other purposes. mitigation solutions which could waters of the U.S. under Section 404 include: The key diff erences between banking of the Clean Water Act. and in-lieu fee arrangements; • how available environmental information is used to inform AMBAG hopes to partner with therefore, are that before a bank EPA in the creation of a Regional can sell credits, the site must be avoidance and minimization and of environmental confl icts in the Mitigation Strategy for inclusion in protected, a banking instrument transportation decision-making. the 2012 update to the Metropolitan must be in place, and the banker is Transportation Plan. required to have secured appropriate • where mitigation would be the fi nancial assurances. In-lieu fee most successful, and identifying mitigation programs, on the other activities that “may have the greatest potential to restore and hand, generally accept payments maintain the environmental with only the promise of off setting functions aff ected by the plan. impacts before the mitigation sites are secured or the site-specifi c • using watershed, conservation, mitigation plan has been approved. and recovery plans to identify It is generally conducted after important environmental permitted impacts have occurred considerations for the AMBAG in circumstances where a permittee region, such as critical wildlife provides funds to an in-lieu fee corridors, sponsor instead of either completing • incorporating concepts such as project-specifi c mitigation or 100 to 200 foot buff ers for stream purchasing credits form a wetland corridors, and identifi cation and mitigation bank approved under the improvement of priority culverts Banking Guidance. that currently restrict wildlife Banks have generally been preferred corridors and natural processes over the use of in-lieu fee mitigation of stream and river systems. programs, as stated in the 1995 • using parcel maps to identify Banking Guidance, since there has larger, undivided parcels for ease historically been a lack of regulation of acquisition and preservation, over these programs. But as of the and designate areas as potential 2000 release of “Federal Guidance on future mitigation sites.

101 Appendices

A - Reason for Update...... 103 B - AMBAG Overview...... 104 C - MTP Planning Process...... 110 D - Projects by County...... 114 E - Matrix of Policies...... 130 F - Related Plans...... 140 G - EIR...... 141 H - Forecast by County...... 142 I - Revenue Sources...... 146 J - Park & Ride Lot Addresses...... 154 K - List of Comments to the Draft MTP...... 156

102 Appendix A: Reason for the MTP Update Why Update the MTP? SAFTEA-LU requires updates to the MTP. For MPOs in Air Quality attainment areas, like AMBAG, this must occur every fi ve years. This 2010 update of the MTP is the fi ve year update to the 2005 MTP. Pursuant to SB375, regions wishing to take advantage of a coordinated Regional Housing Allocation planning cycle must shift to a four year update cycle, the same as required for MPOs in non-attainment areas by SAFTEA-LU. Due to specifi c requirements of SB375, AMBAG must update the MTP in 2012 and will remain on a four year cycle.

Figure 36. Update Cycle from 2009 - 2016

MTP/RHNA/HE cycle with GHG targets

Four year Cycle Jun-09 Jun-10 Sep-10 Jun-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Jun-12 Dec-12 Jun-13 Dec-13 Jun-14 Dec-14 Jun-15 Dec-15 Jun-16 Dec-16 CARB GHG Target GHG HCD Determination HCD Board Decision MTP/RTP SCS SCS

RHNA Plan 5th Revision RHNA adopt Housing element HE HE

103 Appendix B: AMBAG Overview

AMBAG’s Role and AMBAG is a general-purpose Council document lists transportation of Governments, with responsibilities programs and projects programmed Responsibilities in areas other than transportation. for implementation for a minimum With respect to transportation and of three years in the region. Regional transportation planning air quality planning AMBAG, as the Although Caltrans, the RTPAs, and is a cooperative process between designated Metropolitan Planning the transit operators are responsible AMBAG; Caltrans; two Local Organization (MPO), must prepare for selecting the projects and Transportation Commissions (LTCs and periodically update a long-range programs for incorporation into - the Santa Cruz County Regional transportation plan (MTP) for the the MTIP, AMBAG has oversight Transportation Commission and Monterey Bay metropolitan region. and coordination responsibility for the Transportation Agency for The MTP is the principal federal this program of federally-funded Monterey County) and one Council of planning document for the roadways, transportation investment by all Governments (COG - Council of San transit, multimodal and intermodal state and local agencies in the Benito County Governments) acting facilities and services that together region. Projects and programs as Regional Transportation Planning constitute the Monterey Bay region’s within the MTIP are from the three Agencies (RTPAs); two fi xed-route, transportation system. RTPA’s Regional Transportation mass transit operators (Monterey- Improvement Programs and from the Salinas Transit and the Santa Cruz AMBAG, in cooperation with the transit operators Short Range Transit Metropolitan Transit District); and agencies described above, is Plans. the local air pollution control district responsible for carrying out the (Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air Pollution metropolitan transportation planning Regional Aviation System Plan (RASP). Control District). process. In order for transportation AMBAG is responsible for preparing agencies within the AMBAG this long-range plan covering all In the Monterey Bay metropolitan region to receive federal capital or aviation facilities and services in region, only the Transportation operating assistance, their programs Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz Agency for Monterey County and projects must be part of this Counties. is a designated Congestion metropolitan planning process. Management Agency and may opt As MPO, AMBAG is responsible for In the development of these out of the designation if its member preparing the following planning and regional planning and programming jurisdictions decide to pursue that programming documents: documents for the three counties course. Please refer to the 2010 of the region, AMBAG addresses Monterey County RTP for more • Metropolitan Transportation regional factors that are not specifi c information on TAMC’s Plan (MTP): This long- addressed at the county-wide level Congestion Management Program. range planning document such as air quality consistency and AMBAG shares responsibility for is based on the Regional conformity of the plans and programs Transportation Plans for regional air quality planning with the with the State and Federal Air Quality Monterey, San Benito and Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air Pollution Santa Cruz Counties. plans as well as environmental issues Control District. In addition, AMBAG potentially not addressed at the is directly involved in the land • Overall Work Program (OWP): countywide level. To support some of use forecasting for transportation This is an annual program for these functions and the consistency all expenditures by AMBAG planning through the preparation of regional plans and local and and the RTPAs of federal, and update of its land use and state and local transportation regional traffi c analyses, AMBAG has socioeconomic forecasts by small planning funds. developed and uses a transportation geographic areas for Monterey, San model for planning analyses in the Benito and Santa Cruz Counties, and Metropolitan Transportation region. With the 2010 update of the in its development and maintenance Improvement Program (MTIP, also MTP, an updated version of the RTDM of the AMBAG travel demand forecast known as Federal Transportation will be released. model. Improvement Program): This 104 As the MPO, AMBAG prepares Transportation Improvement Plans In the AMBAG region, there are three population and employment (RTIPs) outlining their selected operators providing fi xed route projections for the region. These transportation projects and/or services: Monterey-Salinas Transit forecasts are widely used for planning programs within each county. In (MST), San Benito County Express and and environmental impact studies this RTP Update, the RTPAs elected the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit and forecasts of other regional to join with AMBAG and prepare District (Santa Cruz METRO). characteristics, such as traffi c and coordinated updates to their long- mobile source emissions. range plans to achieve economies MST is publicly owned and operated of scale in environmental review, by a joint powers agency composed AMBAG is also the Regional Census document preparation, and the like. of the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Data Center. AMBAG compiles and Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, maintains regional socioeconomic RTPAs are also responsible Pacifi c Grove, Salinas, Seaside and data from the decennial Censuses for for ensuring adequate citizen the County of Monterey. MST, with distribution to member jurisdictions, involvement within the regional 34 routes, serves an approximately transportation planning agencies, transportation planning process. 275 square-mile area of northern and other organizations and agencies Local Transportation Funds, which are Monterey County, southern Monterey as required. returned at the rate of one-quarter County, southern Santa Cruz County of one percent of the state sales (Watsonville Transit Center) and Another role AMBAG subsumes tax are passed through the RTPAs southern Santa Clara County (Gilroy is the Regional Clearinghouse for transportation planning, public Caltrain Station). MST provides for the metropolitan region (Per transit and other transportation transit to an estimated 350,000 Executive Order 12372). As such, all uses (California Transportation service area population, primarily in highway and public transportation Commission, Regional Transportation the Monterey Peninsula cities and in projects which require federal Plan Guidelines, December 1999). the City of Salinas. MST also provides fi nancial assistance are subject to All three counties have designated summer seasonal service to Big Sur, review by the State and Regional themselves SAFE counties for the Caltrain connection service to Gilroy Clearinghouses per Offi ce of Planning implementation and maintenance of and service along the US 101 corridor and Research procedures in addition an emergency, roadside system. providing transit to South Monterey to other various projects/programs County jurisdictions. within the three-county area As an urbanized county, Monterey undergoing review. County has elected to designate and In San Benito County, SBtCOG maintain its RTPA as a Congestion operates the County Express, an AMBAG also, per its Transportation Management Agency (CMA). A CMA accessible transportation operator Memorandum of Understanding, is established to design a cooperative providing: fi ve fi xed-route bus lines performs special studies as time, process of transportation, air quality within the City of Hollister. County funding and Board of Directors and land use planning at the local Express served 76,107 passengers in endorsement permits. level for the purpose of reducing FY 2003/04. To improve mobility out congestion and improving air quality of San Benito County, County Express Role of Other through an adopted Congestion also provides Inter-county service Management Program (CMP). The to the City of Gilroy. County Express Agencies CMA determines whether local meets the Caltrain commuter service jurisdictions are in conformity with that operates out of Gilroy, and Regional Transportation the CMP (Congestion Management serves the Greyhound Bus Station Planning Agencies (RTPAs) Program Resource Handbook, and Gavilan Community College. In November, 1990). More information FY 2003/04, County Express provided The three RTPAs in the region are on the Transportation Agency for 37,986 rides on its Inter-county the Council of San Benito County Monterey County’s (TAMC’s) CMP services. Governments (SBtCOG), the Santa is included in the 2010 Monterey Cruz County Regional Transportation County Regional Transportation Plan. Santa Cruz METRO is the fi xed-route Commission (SCCRTC) and the public transit operator in Santa Cruz Transportation Agency for Monterey County with 49 routes in a service County (TAMC). Every four to fi ve Public Transit Operators area population of 255,602 (2000 years, they prepare state-mandated U.S. Census). Santa Cruz METRO Regional Transportation Plans Fixed Route Transit Operators provides service within Santa Cruz (RTPs) and every two years Regional County on 39 cumulative intercity, urban local-feeder and rural routes 105 and to downtown San Jose locations American Cancer Society provides to obtain state and federal funding. on the Highway 17 Express Bus. In trips for cancer-related appointments They report programs and projects to the spring of 2004, METRO began using volunteers and private vehicles. the Regional Transportation Planning operating the AMTRAK feeder service Agencies for review and adoption in between Santa Cruz and the San Jose In Santa Cruz County there are Regional Transportation Plans and Diridon Station. Santa Cruz METRO currently three private non- Improvement Programs which, in carried 6,026,920 passenger trips in profi t providers of specialized turn, are fed into the Metropolitan FY 2008/09 with a peak pullout of 87 transportation services primarily Transportation Plan and the MTIP. buses. responsible for providing essential transportation service to senior and disabled residents: Lift Line California Department of Demand-Responsive Transit (Community Bridges), American Red Transportation (Caltrans) / Services Cross, and Volunteer Center. Lift Line provides transportation services for California Transportation In south Monterey County, the Cities Elderday, the Stroke Center, Senior Commission (CTC) of Greenfi eld, King City and Soledad Dining Centers and the Multipurpose off er general public, demand- The California Department of Senior Services Program. Lift Line responsive transportation services to Transportation (Caltrans) oversees also contracts out some rides to their citizens on weekdays. On the transportation planning and private taxi operators. Monterey Peninsula, MST provides development of the State Highway a Demand Access Responsive In November 2004, METRO and intercity rail system. One Transit (DART) service for on-call, began in-house operation of the Caltrans District, District 5, oversees neighborhood-based service for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Caltrans’ activities in the Monterey lifeline service to low density areas. Complementary Paratransit service Bay metropolitan region. Since the called Para Cruz that it had previously enactment of SB 45 in 1998, the Paratransit Services provided under contract to private RTPAs join Caltrans in providing operators. In FY 2003/04, METRO fi nancial support (via the state In Monterey County, the RIDES provided 91,704 Complementary highway account) for all highway program operated by Monterey- ADA Paratransit trips. METRO and street facilities within their Salinas Transit (MST) is the supplier of additionally contracts a small regional jurisdiction. Of funds public paratransit services for persons percentage of ADA paratransit rides available for programming in the with disabilities. RIDES provides to private taxi operators. State Transportation Improvement transportation on an appointment Program (STIP), 75% is allocated to basis for those persons unable to RTPAs for the selection of projects of ride MST. In addition, the MST RIDES Other Local Agencies regional signifi cance in the Regional Program also off ers reimbursed taxi AMBAG and other providers of Improvement Program. The 25% program as well as out-of-county transportation planning services remaining interregional share is transportation for persons with regularly meet and consult with limited to State highway, intercity disabilities to specialized medical representatives from other local passenger rail, mass transit guideway, appointments once a week. transportation planning and public or grade separation projects that facilitate the interregional movement In San Benito County, specialized works agencies to ensure that of people and goods. At least 60% transportation services are provided the transportation needs of their of the interregional share (15% of by three entities: SBtCOG, Jovenes jurisdictions are being adequately the STIP) must be programmed for de Antaño and the American served. This is accomplished through projects on the interregional system. Cancer Society. County Express the Technical Advisory and other At least 15% of that 60% (9% of the Transit System provides wheelchair designated advisory committees interregional program; 2.25% of the accessible, general public, demand- to the RTPAs. Special local STIP) must be for intercity rail. The responsive transportation to transportation studies are conducted 40% is designated for interregional northern San Benito County and by cities, with assistance from AMBAG movement of people and goods. If complementary ADA Paratransit and the Regional Transportation found feasible in the next few years, Service. Jovenes de Antaño, under Planning Agencies. the extension of rail passenger contract to SBtCOG, provides Senior Additionally, other local agencies services in Monterey County will Nutrition, out-of-county medical are responsible for documenting be overseen by Caltrans, Division programs service, and medical and their transportation needs in order of Rail. Caltrans also oversees shopping assistance program. The 106 the interregional bus program SIP are coordinated and guided by pollution, monitoring of ambient (FTA Section 5311), is engaged in the ARB. air quality, and air quality planning aeronautics planning, and provides activities including adoption and a bicycle map for cyclists in District The ARB undertakes research, sets implementation of transportation 5. Funding for Caltrans’ activities state ambient air quality standards, control measures developed by comes from a variety of state, federal provides technical assistance to AMBAG in consultation with the and local formula and discretionary local districts, compiles emission region’s transportation planning sources. inventories, develops suggested partners. stationary source control measures The California Transportation and exercises an oversight function Every three years, the MBUAPCD Commission (CTC) is the policy- of district stationary source control is required to update the state- making body, appointed by programs. mandated Air Quality Management the Governor, responsible for Plan (AQMP) for the North Central overall management of the state The ARB also has primary statutory Coast Air Basin. The last version highway and transit system. authority to establish and enforce of this plan (2008) was approved The CTC guidelines for regional standards to limit pollutant emissions September 2008. In 1994, MBUAPCD transportation planning require from motor vehicles. The Clean Air and AMBAG prepared the 1994 that Regional Transportation Act enables California to adopt more Federal Maintenance Plan which was Plans (RTPs) be prepared to stringent vehicle emission standards subsequently approved in 1997 by coordinate transportation activities than the rest of the nation due to the EPA, which offi cially re-designated and investments. The Regional severity of the air pollution problem the North Central Coast Air Basin Transportation Improvement in California. from air quality non attainment for Program (RTIP), prepared by each the federal ozone pollutant standard RTPA, is submitted to the California Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air to attainment. Transportation Commission. The Pollution Control District In 2004, federal non attainment areas CTC subsequently decides what (MBUAPCD) projects will be put into the State for the new 8-hour ozone averaging Transportation Improvement The Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air standard were announced. Based Program (STIP). Highway projects, as Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) on the 2001-2003 data years, the well as rail projects using state funds, shares responsibility with the ARB Monterey Bay region was found in must be included in the STIP. for ensuring that all state and federal attainment for this more stringent ambient air quality standards are federal pollutant standard. On achieved and maintained within the June 15, 2005, under currently Air Quality Oversight North Central Coast Air Basin. AMBAG promulgated U.S. EPA guidance, the Agencies shares responsibility with MBUAPCD Monterey Bay region federal 1-hour for planning and implementation ozone maintenance designation was rescinded. As such, the Monterey Air Resources Board (ARB) of local actions required to achieve attainment of the federal ambient air Bay region is no longer be beholden The California Air Resources Board quality standards. to the performance of air quality (ARB) is the state agency responsible conformity of its plans and programs. for coordinating both state and State law assigns to local air Thus, detailed air quality emissions federal air pollution control programs pollution control districts the analyses of the impact of the federal in California. A key function of the primary responsibility for control transportation plans and programs ARB is to approve local and regional of air pollution from stationary will no longer need to be developed. air quality management plans to sources while reserving to the ARB The downside of this turn of events address attainment and maintenance an oversight function. Generally, is that under current distribution of state ambient air quality standards local districts must meet minimum formulas under the Transportation pursuant to the requirements program requirements as specifi ed Equity Act for the 21st Century, of the California Clean Air Act of by the state and EPA; districts in the Monterey Bay region will no 1988. The ARB also approves the most instances may implement more longer be eligible for the receipt of State Implementation Plan (SIP) for stringent regulations. The district approximately $5M annually under submittal to the EPA. Regional and is responsible for the development the Congestion Mitigation and Air local air quality planning eff orts of regulations governing emissions Quality Improvement Program. which eventually become part of the of air pollution, permitting and inspecting stationary sources of air

107 Federal Agencies Memoranda of Transportation planning MOU covering Monterey and Santa Cruz Federal Highway Understanding/ Counties signed in 1987 by Caltrans, AMBAG, Monterey-Salinas Transit, Administration (FHWA) Agreement the Santa Cruz County Regional An agency of the U.S. Department of To minimize duplication of eff ort Transportation Commission, the Transportation (USDOT), the Federal in planning the intermodal Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit Highway Administration administers transportation system in the District, and the Transportation the planning and development of the Monterey Bay region, a Memorandum Agency for Monterey County. 2003 nation’s highway and road system. It of Understanding (MOU) is in MOU update, including ISTEA performs this function primarily as eff ect between the Santa Cruz and revisions, signed and approved by a regulatory, oversight and funding Monterey Counties RTPAs, Caltrans, all partners with the exception of agency for State Departments of both fi xed route bus operators and Caltrans. Air Quality MOA between Transportation, e.g. for Caltrans in AMBAG. This 1987, pre-ISTEA MOU AMBAG and the Monterey Bay California. The FHWA also performs defi nes the roles and responsibilities Unifi ed Air Pollution Control District these functions for AMBAG, which of these six agencies regarding signed in 1997. MOU between administers Federal Highway transportation planning and Caltrans, AMBAG and the Council transportation planning funds for the programming in the region. An April of San Benito County Governments Monterey Bay region. 2003 MOU update was developed signed in 1993, and updated in 1997, by all the partner agencies; however, to incorporate San Benito County Federal Transit Administration (FTA) when the time came to sign the into the metropolitan transportation FTA funds public transportation MOU, Caltrans HQ would not allow planning process. facilities and services in the region. Caltrans District 5 to sign the MOU as Fixed route bus transit in the region Caltrans does not purportedly have is supported by FTA subsidies. It a relationship with transit operators. also performs regulatory oversight In June 2005 AMBAG signed an MOU functions for the planning and with Caltrans. funding of public transit operators. In addition to this MOU, a FTA provides metropolitan planning Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is funds to AMBAG, as the MPO, also in eff ect between the MBUAPCD to conduct metropolitan transit and AMBAG which defi nes their planning in the region. respective roles and responsibilities, and establishes procedures for Federal Aviation inter-agency coordination in Administration (FAA) transportation and air quality planning and program management. FAA funds and oversees the planning, management and operations of After the passage of the 1990 federal airports in the region, and funds Clean Air Act Amendments and regional and airport master planning the 1991 federal transportation and programming of improvements act (ISTEA), another MOU was to aviation facilities and services at executed between the Council of airports throughout the region. FAA San Benito County Governments funds a Regional Aviation System and AMBAG which incorporates Plan (RASP) prepared by AMBAG San Benito County and its cities which is a long-range airport within the metropolitan region directional plan for the two-county for purposes of meeting state and region. AMBAG prepared a 2005 federal transportation and air quality RASP Update. regulations. This MOU defi nes the roles and responsibilities of the two parties with regard to preparation of this MTP, the MTIP and AMBAG’s air quality conformity determinations.

108 109 within Monterey County. Assistance and input for preparation of the 2010 Appendix C: Regional Transportation Plan has been provided by the following TAMC MTP Planning Process advisory committees: • The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), meeting Public Participation on the 1st Thursday of every MTP Planning month, is composed of Process Overview professional (primarily Public Monterey County Works department) staff from TAMC’s member agencies, DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2010 Public input has been sought including ex-offi cio members throughout the development of the like Caltrans District 5. The MTP: Monterey Bay Area 2010 plan, with a particular emphasis TAC reviews and provides Mobility 2035 on the list of projects to be prioritized input on transportation for funding. Public input for the planning studies including Development of the 2010 long- 2010 plan update was solicited by the Regional Transportation range transportation plan began the Agency in a number of ways Plan, the Congestion by evaluating the existing regional described below. Management Program, the transportation system and reviewing Regional Transportation the current planning for priority Regional Development Impact Fee Improvement Program, and projects. The overarching goals and program and regional expenditure other transportation studies. policies from the 2005 MTP have plan: • The Social Services been reaffi rmed for 2010. Transportation Advisory Updates to the regional plan were Council (SSTAC), which Transportation Funding estimates developed through preparation meets in the months of were developed for the anticipated of the regional fee program and February, April, June, August, available funding sources. The expenditure plan, developed October, and December, transportation needs for the region between 2006 and 2008, in additional advises TAMC on the transit were subsequently developed. to direct outreach to county needs of transit dependent jurisdictions regarding transportation and transit disadvantaged Each RTPA subsequently developed improvements included in the persons, including the an individual Regional Transportation regional plan. The Agency solicited elderly, disabled, and persons of limited means. The Plan. These three plans are input on the program from a broad coordinated in the MTP. functions and duties of the range of stakeholders, including SSTAC include the annual Project ideas from the public and the local jurisdictions and elected assessment of unmet transit various RTPA advisory committees offi cials, representatives from county needs, and review specialized were forwarded to potential project industries and business groups and transportation planning and sponsors, and the project lists from the public. It is important to note other related studies. The the 2005 MTP were reevaluated. that individual projects included in committee membership is specifi ed in the The projects for the 2010 MTP the plan are also subject to project- specifi c environmental review and Transportation Development are separated into two funding Act (TDA) statutes. scenarios—“Constrained” and outreach to the public. “Unconstrained”. • The Bicycle and Pedestrian TAMC Advisory Committees: Facilities Advisory Committee Specifi c measurement criteria are The planning process includes (BPC), which convenes on the used to evaluate the region’s overall systematic public participation and fi rst Thursday of every month, transportation plan. These measures input from advisory committees assists with bicycle and are approved by the RTPA advisory to the Agency. The purpose of the pedestrian issues including the development of a committees, members of the public advisory committees is to provide countywide bikeways plan. and partner agencies (Transportation technical assistance, advice, and recommendations to staff and to Members are nominated by Agency for Monterey County each TAMC member agency [TAMC], and San Benito Council of the Board of Directors in fulfi lling as well as Fort Ord Reuse Governments [SBCOG]). its responsibilities for a coordinated Authority, Cal State Monterey transportation planning process Bay, and the Velo Cycling 110 Club and appointed by TAMC. 2005, TAMC staff initiated a monthly Justice in Minority Populations The BPC meets monthly to radio series on Monterey County and Low-Income Populations, discuss ways to improve the transportation issues through local directs every Federal agency bicycle network and how to radio station KNRY. to make environmental justice improve access and safety for part of its mission by identifying bicyclists and pedestrians in TAMC has also worked with its and addressing the eff ects of all Monterey County. public outreach consultant to programs, policies, and activities • The Rail Policy Committee, prepare and disseminate a TAMC on minority populations and low- which meets on the fi rst public outreach brochure (Figure income populations. Executive Monday of each month, 1-1) describing TAMC activities and Order 12898 was signed in 1994 and is composed of TAMC projects included in the Regional specifi cally calls attention to the Board members or their Transportation Plan. Production alternates from the following protection of minority groups and of the brochure has coordinated expands the focus to low-income jurisdictions on the rail lines: with the ongoing improvement Cities of Salinas, Marina, Sand populations. and maintenance of the TAMC City, Seaside, and Monterey, and Supervisorial Districts website. The TAMC website can be The United States Department of 1,4 and 5. The committee accessed at www.tamcmonterey. Transportation (DOT) recognizes advises TAMC on issues org and contains information on all that transportation programs and related to the agency’s TAMC activities, links to meeting policies may disproportionately eff orts to bring passenger rail agendas and materials, and TAMC burden low-income and minority service to Monterey County. documents including the Regional communities. Hence, the U.S. DOT TAMC public outreach program Transportation Plan. has issued its own order, 5680.2, to clarify and reinforce environmental eff orts: TAMC’s public outreach California Environmental Quality Act program, as adopted in 2003, is justice policies for minorities and Coordinated Environmental Review: low-income populations. The Federal included as Appendix B of the 2010 As described in Chapter 5, the RTP. Highway Administration (FHWA), program-level CEQA environmental a branch of the DOT, requires Beyond the TAMC advisory review required for the transportation environmental justice analyses in committees, TAMC encourages public plan provides an opportunity for its transportation programs and participation through an ongoing additional review and consultation activities. All federally funded public outreach program. In 2003, with state and local agencies transportation plans and decisions the TAMC Board of Directors voted responsible for land use, natural must involve an environmental to dissolve its Citizens Advisory resources, environmental protection, justice assessment process that Committee in order to obtain more conservation and historic resources. explicitly considers adverse eff ects broad based community input on the Federal land management agencies or the potential of adverse eff ects Agency’s regional planning eff orts are involved in reviewing the plan, on minority and low-income the and improve the dissemination of projects and environmental analysis populations. information on TAMC’s planning as part of this state-mandated activities to the public and private process. Environmental review of the As a federally designated sector groups. TAMC’s expanded plan included a consistency analysis transportation planning organization, public outreach program includes: with land use and natural resources TAMC is required to comply with rules the regular issuing of press releases, plans. and policies set forth by FHWA. TAMC is required to explicitly consider the hosting public transportation forums Environmental Justice on transportation topics of relevance service needs of minority populations Environmental justice, as defi ned and low-income populations, to Monterey County, the creation by the federal government, of ad-hoc advisory committees to and the eff ects of transportation considers the potential impacts of improvement activities on gain stakeholder input on focused governmental activities on minority transportation issues, targeted these groups. This could include and low-income populations. In establishing procedures or providing presentations to community groups regional transportation planning, and local jurisdictions, dissemination meaningful opportunities for public this would mean evaluation of the involvement by members of minority of information on the Agency and potential negative and positive Agency programs in coordination populations and low-income impacts associated with any populations during the planning and with a public outreach consultant, transportation-related activity. and participation in media events development of programs. TAMC is Executive Order 12898, Federal also required to provide public access that focus on transportation issues. In Actions to Address Environmental 111 to public information concerning having origins in any of the development of passenger rail service the human health or environmental original peoples of the Far along both the Peninsula and Salinas impacts of programs, policies, and East, Southeast Asia, and the corridors. Additionally, The Draft RTP activities. Indian Subcontinent, or the and its EIR were widely circulated Pacifi c Islands); throughout the county, with ample The three main elements to the • American Indians (persons opportunity for all Monterey County FHWA environmental justice policy having origins in any of the citizens to participate in the process. are: original people of North America and who maintain 1. Avoid, minimize, or cultural identifi cation San Benito County mitigate disproportionate through tribal affi liation or high and adverse human Providing opportunities for public community recognition). health or environmental participation in the Regional eff ects, including social and Low Income populations are defi ned Transportation Plan is important economic eff ects on minority as those households earning a to the Council of San Benito populations, and low-income combined income at or below the County Governments. Early and populations; current U.S. Department of Health frequent public involvement is 2. Ensure full and fair and Human Services poverty necessary in developing a Plan participation by all guidelines. In general, the minority that addresses the needs of the potentially aff ected and low-income populations in San Benito County community. The communities in the Monterey County are located in parts Council of Governments prepared transportation decision of North County, parts of Salinas, a participation program specifi cally making process; and throughout the Salinas Valley aimed at increasing public input in 3. Prevent denial of reduction communities. the development of the Regional in, or signifi cant delay in, Transportation Plan. The Council of TAMC and AMBAG will continue to the receipt of benefi ts by Governments considered an array minority populations and low work with their partner agencies of options for public participation, income groups. to develop and implement some especially for those of under served unifi ed means by which to integrate During the planning process, or underrepresented minorities, environmental justice into the planners must: low income, elderly, and disabled Monterey Bay region transportation populations within San Benito 1. Determine the benefi ts planning and programming process. to and potential negative County. The Council of Governments impacts on minority TAMC has taken care in the sought public participation on the populations and low income development of its long-range plan 2010 Regional Transportation Plan populations from proposed to reach out to diverse communities development through various forms. investment or actions. to gain their input. As part of This input helped provide direction 2. Quantify the expected eff ects their ongoing eff orts to address on regional priorities for the Regional (total, positive, and negative). environmental justice, TAMC staff and Transportation Plan’s policy element and infl uenced the list of projects 3. Determine the appropriate the TAMC Board attempted to include course of action whether all county residents in their outreach that are included in the Plan. The avoidance, minimize, or and planning eff orts. In Monterey public participation fi ndings helped mitigation. County, such outreach has included to identify issues that require presentations of subsets of the more study outside the Regional Under Executive Order 12898, plan and the projects to a range of Transportation Plan. minority populations include: community groups and in each of the PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & OUTREACH • Hispanics (persons of twelve cities and the incorporated In eff orts to boost public Mexican, Puerto Rican, areas of the County. This activity participation, the Council of Cuban, Central or South has taken place most notably in Governments conducted the American, or other Spanish the development of the 14-year following public outreach strategies: culture or origin, regardless investment plan, which makes up of race); the fi rst portion of the Monterey Public Workshop • Blacks (persons having County regional transportation plan. The purpose of the Public Workshop origins in any of the black Signifi cant outreach to low income was to present information and racial groups of Africa); and minority communities has also obtain input from the public on • Asian Americans (persons taken place, and is planned, for the transportation issues, policies,

112 programs, plans, and/or projects. The was intended to provide the public the preliminary draft project lists Council of Governments conducted with updates on the development were reviewed by each of the RTC’s the Public Workshop on Tuesday, July and environmental review of the advisory committees, posted on the 28, 2009 at the Veterans Memorial Regional Transportation Plan. The RTC website and evaluated by the Building in Hollister. A bilingual 2010 Regional Transportation Plan RTC at one of its televised meetings. interpreter was available at the public Public Survey was also posted on the The project lists are also available for workshop. website and was intended to garner public review during circulation of additional input from the public. the Draft 2010 RTP. The fi nal RTP will Involving Other Government be approved following a televised Agencies 2010 Regional Transportation Plan public hearing. The RTC makes all In the development of the Public Survey decisions related to transportation Regional Transportation Plan, some A 2010 Regional Transportation Plan planning and policy in open, noticed interested agencies have met with Public Survey was developed to meetings, according to the Brown aff ected stakeholders to gain their gather input on the transportation Act (California Code sections 54950- perspective and insights on the policies and projects most important 54960.5). A summary and examples study subject, such as the Technical to the community. The 2010 of public outreach for the 2010 RTP Advisory Committee, the Bicycle and Public Survey was published in can be found in Appendix E of the Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and The Pinnacle Newspaper, on the SCCRTC RTP. the Social Services Transportation Council of Governments website, Advisory Council (SSTAC). and distributed to various locations Community Organizations and to community groups. A total of 78 people responded to the 2010 The Council of San Benito County Regional Transportation Plan Public Governments met with public and Survey. private community organizations to gather input on transportation needs facing San Benito County. Santa Cruz County Organizations included the Economic PUBLIC INPUT AND THE 2010 RTP Development Corporation, Hollister One of the RTC’s primary goals is Downtown Association, Hollister to foster broad public discussion Downtown Association Economic about transportation issues in the Restructuring Committee, and community. This serves to deepen Farm Bureau. The 2010 Regional public understanding about the Transportation Plan Public complexity of transportation issues Survey was sent to the Hollister and assists the public in providing Chamber of Commerce for their informed input to the 2010 RTP. transportation ideas and concerns. Public input is also important in order These organizations were also to ensure that the RTP accurately notifi ed of the Public Hearing for the refl ects the transportation issues Supplemental Environmental Impact that are of highest concern to the Report. residents of Santa Cruz County. The Website RTC works to engage the public in an The Council of Governments informed dialogue and to solicit input maintains an internet website that from a broad cross-section of the provides information about the population. Public input is solicited at agency its programs, and special key stages of the RTP’s development. projects. Meeting notices and Public input regarding the project Agendas with Minutes and Staff lists is an important part of the Reports are also posted and available process. Hundreds of project for downloading and/or review. The ideas submitted as part of the Regional Transportation Plan Public Transportation Funding Task Force Workshop Notice of Preparation, public workshops were forwarded and Public Hearing meetings were to potential project sponsors for posted in the “What’s New” section their consideration. In addition, of the website. The information 113 Appendix D: Projects by County

Table 24. Revenue Constrained Project List Projects are sorted by County, Regional Signifi cance, and then cost. *SAFETEA-LU requires projects to also be shown by YOE. Please refer to the RTPs prepared by San Benito COG, SCCRTC and TAMC.

114 Project Constrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant? Ͳʹͷ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳ”—‡†ƒŽ‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–”‘Œ‡ – ̈́ͳͺͳǡͷ͸ͷ ‡• ͲͲͻ ‘–‡”‡› ”ƒ Ǥ‹ Š–ƒ•‹’‡”ƒ–‹‘•‡–‡” ̈́ͳʹͻǡͲͲͲ ‡• ͲʹͲ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳǦƒ —ƒ‘ƒ† –‡” Šƒ‰‡ ̈́ͺͷǡ͸ͲͲ ‡• ͲͳͲ ‘–‡”‡› ‘–‡”‡›”ƒ Š‹‡’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́͸͹ǡ͵Ͳʹ ‡• ͳʹͻ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ”‹ƒǦƒŽ‹ƒ•‘””‹†‘”Ǧȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ ”‡ƒ–‡”ƒŽ‹ƒ•Ȍ ̈́͸͸ǡͳ͸Ͷ ‡• ͲͲ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ‘—–‡”ƒ‹Ž’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́͸ʹǡ͸ͲͲ ‡• Ͳͳͳ ‘–‡”‡› ‘–‡”‡›”ƒ Š‹‡•–ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†‰”ƒ†‡ ”‘••‹‰‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷ͸ǡͻʹͺ ‡• Ͳʹͳ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͷ͸‹†‡‹‰Šƒ•‡ͳȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘”–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́ͷͶǡͷ͹ͺ ‡• Ͳͳͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‘—–‡”ƒ‹Žƒ’‹–ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷ͵ǡ͵ͲͶ ‡• Ͳ͸ͳ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ”‹ƒǦƒŽ‹ƒ•‘””‹†‘”Ǧȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‡‹•—ŽƒȀ‘—–Š‘ƒ•–Ȍ ̈́Ͷʹǡͷͳͷ ‡•

Ͳͳ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳȀ Ž‘”‹ƒ‘ƒ† –‡” Šƒ‰‡ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘—–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́͵͹ǡ͸ͺͶ ‡• Ͳͳ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ‘–‡”‡›”ƒ Š‹‡‡Š‹ Ž‡• ̈́͵ʹǡͺͲͲ ‡• ͳͲͳǦƒŽ—–˜‡—‡ –‡” Šƒ‰‡ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘—–Š Ͳͳͻ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́͵ʹǡʹͳ͵ ‡• ‘—–›Ȍ ͲͲͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‡™–ƒ”–•Ǧ—•ƒ’‹†”ƒ•‹– ̈́͵ʹǡͲͲͲ ‡• ͳͲͳǦ ƒ””‹•‘ƒ†Ȁƒ•–•‹†‡‘‡ –‘”ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ ”‡ƒ–‡” Ͳͳͺ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́͵ͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• ƒŽ‹ƒ•Ȍ ͳͲͳǦ‘—–Š‘—–› ”‘–ƒ‰‡‘ƒ†•ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘—–Š Ͳͳͻ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́ʹͻǡͻͻ͹ ‡• ‘—–›Ȍ ͲʹͶ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳǦ‘—–Š –‡” Šƒ‰‡ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘—–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́ʹͳǡͶ͸͹ ‡• Ͳͳ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳǦͳ•––”‡‡– –‡” Šƒ‰‡ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘—–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́ʹͳǡͲ͹ͺ ‡• Ͳʹ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳǦ‘”–Š‘Ž‡†ƒ† –‡”‡ Šƒ‰‡ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘—–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́ͳͻǡͻͷͻ ‡• ‡Ž‘–‡Ǧ‹‰Š–Š‘—•‡‘””‹†‘”ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘–‡”‡› Ͳͳͻ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́ͳͻǡͳ͸Ͳ ‡• ‡‹•—ŽƒȀ‘—–Š‘ƒ•–Ȍ ͲͳͶ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳǦ‹”’‘”–Ž˜†Ǥ Ȁƒ•– ̈́ͳͷǡͶͲͺ ‡• ͳǦƒ†‹–›‘””‹†‘”ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘–‡”‡› ͲͳͲ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́ͳʹǡ͹͵ͷ ‡• ‡‹•—ŽƒȀ‘—–Š‘ƒ•–Ȍ ͲͲͺ ‘–‡”‡› ͳǦƒŽ‹ƒ•† –‡” Šƒ‰‡ ̈́ͳʹǡͲͲͲ ‡• ͳʹͶ ‘–‡”‡› ‡•–•‹†‡›’ƒ••ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ ”‡ƒ–‡”ƒŽ‹ƒ•Ȍ ̈́ͳͳǡͶͲ͸ ‡• —•—’’‘”–“—‹’‡–ƒ† ƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•Ȁ –‡ŽŽ‹‰‡–”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ ͲͲͶ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́ͻǡͷͲͲ ‡• ›•–•‡•ȋ Ȍ Ͳͳͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‘—–‡””ƒ‹Ž˜‡Š‹ Ž‡• ̈́ͺǡͺͲͲ ‡• ͳͶ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ͳʹǦ‘”–Šȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘”–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́͹ǡ͵ͻͶ ‡• ͳǦͳͺ͵‡””‹–––”‡‡–Ȁ”–‹ Š‘‡˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋŠƒ•‡ ͲͶͶ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́͹ǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ȍ Ͳͳ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ‘–‡”‡›”ƒ Š‹‡—” Šƒ•‡ ̈́ͶǡͺͳͲ ‡• ͳ͵Ͳ ‘–‡”‡› ͸ͺƒ–ƒ‡ƒ ‹‘‘ƒ† ̈́ͶǡʹͺͶ ‡• ͸ͺȋ ‘Žƒ ‹‰Š™ƒ›Ȍ‹†‡‹‰ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘–‡”‡› Ͳͳ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́͵ǡͺͲͺ ‡• ‡‹•—ŽƒȀ‘—–Š‘ƒ•–Ȍ ͲͲͻ ‘–‡”‡› ͳǦ‘–‡”‡›† –‡” Šƒ‰‡ ̈́͵ǡͳ͵Ͳ ‡• ͳ͵ͳ ‘–‡”‡› ͸ͺƒ–‘””ƒŽ†‡‹‡””ƒ‘ƒ† ̈́ʹǡͶʹͲ ‡• ͳͶͷ ‘–‡”‡› ͳʹǦ‘—–Šȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘”–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͻͶ͵ ‡• ͲʹͶ ‘–‡”‡› –ƒ–‡ ‹‰Š™ƒ›ƒˆ‡–›ƒ†‡Šƒ„Ǥ ̈́ͻͳ͸ǡͺ͵ͺ ‘ ͲͳͲ ‘–‡”‡› ”ƒ•‹–’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́Ͷ͵ͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͲ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ”‡˜‡–ƒ–‹˜‡ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ ̈́͹͹ǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͲͳ ‘–‡”‡› —•‘ŽŽ‹‰–‘  ̈́͹͸ǡͺͶͺ ‘ ͲͲ͵ ‘–‡”‡› —•–ƒ–‹‘Ȁ–‘’• ̈́ͷʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͲͶ ‘–‡”‡› ͳǦ‹‰—”‹–‹̵•—”˜‡ ̈́ʹͻǡͷͲͲ ‘ ͲͳͶ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ–‘‹‘†‡š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ʹ͹ǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͵ͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‡™”–‡”‹ƒŽͳ ̈́ʹͷǡ͹Ͷʹ ‘ ͲͶͶ ‘–‡”‡› ”‘–ƒ‰‡‘ƒ† ̈́ͳͺǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͵͵ ‘–‡”‡› ”‘––”‡‡–š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ͳ͹ǡʹͻ͹ ‘ ͳͳͷ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ•–•‹†‡‘ƒ† ̈́ͳͷǡ͹ͳͺ ‘ Ͳ͵͸ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ’Š‘”ƒ Ž‘”‹ƒ‘ƒ† ̈́ͳʹǡͻʹͷ ‘ ͲͲ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒˆ‡–›ƒ†‡ —”‹–› ̈́ͳʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹͷ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳǦƒ’Š‘”‹ƒ –‡” Šƒ‰‡ ̈́ͳͲǡͷͲͲ ‘

115 Project Constrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant? Ͳ͵Ͳ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ„‹Žƒ”‹˜‡š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ͳͲǡͲͶͷ ‘ Ͳ͵ͷ ‘–‡”‡› ”›ƒ–ƒ›‘‘ƒ†ȋǦȌ ̈́ͻǡͺͳͶ ‘ ͳʹͳ ‘–‡”‡› Š‘”‡‘ƒ†”‹†‰‡ƒ–””‘›‘‡ ‘”‹†‰‡ ̈́ͺǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͹ʹ ‘–‡”‡› ‹ŽŽ‹ƒ•—••‡ŽŽ‘ŽŽ‡ –‘” ̈́ͺǡͳͳͷ ‘ ͲͷͲ ‘–‡”‡› ‡™‡”‹ƒŽ—‹Ž†‹‰ ̈́ͺǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͲͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‘—‹ ƒ–‹‘Ȁƒ†‹‘“—‹’‡– ̈́͹ǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͵͹ ‘–‡”‡› ‡™‘ŽŽ‡ –‘”ͳ ̈́͹ǡʹͷͲ ‘ ͲͲʹ ‘–‡”‡› ‡ƒŽ•–ƒ–‡Ǧ‹‰Š–‘ˆƒ› ̈́͹ǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͹͸ ‘–‡”‡› ‡”ƒŽ”‹˜‡š–‡•‹‘ ̈́͸ǡͻ͹͸ ‘ Ͳ͹ͳ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ„‘”‘ƒ†š–‡•‹‘ ̈́͸ǡͺͻͷ ‘ Ͳʹ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ‹‰Ž‹‰‘ƒ†™ƒ› ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͸ǡ͹͹ͷ ‘ ͳͳͺ ‘–‡”‡›  Š—Ž–‡‘ƒ†”‹†‰‡͓ͷͲͳ ̈́ͷǡͺͲͲ ‘ Ͳͷͷ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ‹–”‡‡–ȋ‘”–ŠȌ‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͷǡͷʹͲ ‘ Ͳʹͻ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ‹ ‡–‡‘ƒ† ̈́ͷǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ͳͳ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳ ’”‘˜‡‡–•–Š”‘—‰ŠƒŽ‹ƒ•ȋƒŽ‹ƒ• ’ƒ – ‡‡Ȍ ̈́ͷǡͶͻͷ ‘ ͲͷͶ ‘–‡”‡› ͺ–Š–”‡‡– ̈́ͷǡͶͶͳ ‘ Ͳʹͳ ‘–‡”‡› — ƒŽ›’–—•‘ƒ† ̈́ͷǡ͵ͳͻ ‘ Ͳͳͺ ‘–‡”‡› Š‘”‡‘ƒ†”‘ƒ†™ƒ›”‡ƒŽ‹‰‡–ƒ–ͳͲͳ ̈́ͷǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͹͵ ‘–‡”‡› Ž‹•ƒŽ–”‡‡–š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ͷǡͳͳͻ ‘ Ͳͳ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ‘ƒ†”‹†‰‡‘˜‡”ͳͲͳ ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͶ͸Ǧ›’ƒ••–‘ͳͲͳ ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͸͵ ‘–‡”‡› ‡Ž‘–‡Ž˜†Ǥ™‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͸Ͷ ‘–‡”‡› Œ‹ƒ”™ƒ›ˆ—ŽŽ™‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͳͳ͸ ‘–‡”‡› –‡”Ǧ ƒ””‹•‘‘ƒ† ̈́ͶǡͺʹͶ ‘ ͳ͵Ͷ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ ‹‹‡–‘ƒ‡””‹†‰‡‘ǤͶͶͻ ̈́Ͷǡ͹ͳͲ ‘ Ͳ͵Ͷ ‘–‡”‡› ” Šƒ”†ƒ‡ ̈́Ͷǡ͸Ͳ͵ ‘ Ͳ͸ͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‹ŽŽ‹ƒ•‘ƒ†‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͶǡͶ͹͵ ‘ Ͳ͵ͻ ‘–‡”‡› ‡”‹ƒŽ‘†‡”‹œƒ–‹‘ ̈́Ͷǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ‹‡˜‡—‡˜‡” ”‘••‹‰ƒ–ǦͳͲͳ ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹͺ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ‹ ‡–‡‘ƒ† ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳͳʹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ”†‡†Ǥ’”‘’‡”–›ƒ “—‹•‹–‹‘ ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͸ͳ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ —ƒ ”ƒ†‡‹†‡‹‰ ̈́͵ǡͺʹͳ ‘ Ͳͷ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒŽ‹ƒ•˜‡—‡ ̈́͵ǡͺͲͻ ‘ Ͳͺͳ ‘–‡”‡›  ‹‘–”‡‡–š–‡•‹‘ ̈́͵ǡ͹ͳͲ ‘ Ͳʹ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ”‘––”‡‡–š–‡•‹‘ ̈́͵ǡ͸͵ͷ ‘ Ͳ͸͹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ —ƒǦƒ–‹˜‹†ƒ†‘ŽŽ‡ –‘” ̈́͵ǡ͸͵ͷ ‘ ͳ͵͹ ‘–‡”‡› ͳŽ‹„‹‰ƒ‡ƒ”‡ŽŽ›†Ȁ‹‘† ̈́͵ǡ͸ͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͹͹ ‘–‡”‡› ‘•–‹–—–‹‘‘—Ž‡˜ƒ”†š–‡•‹‘ ̈́͵ǡͶͲ͵ ‘ Ͳ͹Ͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‘ˆˆ‡–––”‡‡–š–‡•‹‘ ̈́͵ǡ͵͵͸ ‘ ͳ͵ͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‘‘ƒ†”‹†‰‡͓ͶͲʹ‡’Žƒ ‡‡– ̈́͵ǡʹͳͷ ‘ Ͳ͵ͻ ‘–‡”‡› ‡™”–‡”‹ƒŽʹ ̈́͵ǡʹͲ͵ ‘ Ͳͳʹ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳͷ–Š–Ǥ”‹†‰‡‹†‡‹‰ ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͶͻ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ† “—‹•‹–‹‘˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͹ͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‹ŽŽ‹ƒ•‘ƒ†‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ʹǡͻ͹ͷ ‘ Ͳ͹ͻ ‘–‡”‡› Ž‹•ƒŽ–”‡‡–‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ʹǡͻͲͺ ‘ ͲͲ͵ ‘–‡”‡› Ǥ‘—†ƒ”›‘ƒ†’‰”ƒ†‡ ̈́ʹǡ͸ͺ͹ ‘ Ͳͳʹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ”– ƒ‹”„‘š‡• ̈́ʹǡ͸ͷͳ ‘ ͳ͵͵ ‘–‡”‡› ‡ƒ Š”‡‡†”‹†‰‡͓Ͷͳʹ‡’Žƒ ‡‡– ̈́ʹǡͶͺͶ ‘ ͲͺͲ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ—”‡Ž”‹˜‡‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ʹǡͳ͸ͳ ‘ Ͳͷͺ ‘–‡”‡› ʹ†˜‡—‡Šƒ•‡ʹ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳͷͻ ‘–‡”‡› ʹ†˜‡—‡Šƒ•‡͵ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͶͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ‘—†’”‘‘ˆ‹‰Šƒ•‡ͺ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͶ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ‘—†’”‘‘ˆ‹‰Šƒ•‡ͻ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͶ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ‘—†’”‘‘ˆ‹‰Šƒ•‡ͳͲ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͶͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ‘—†’”‘‘ˆ‹‰Šƒ•‡ͳͳ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͶʹ ‘–‡”‡› ”‡•––”‡‡– ̈́ͳǡͻͷ͵ ‘ ͳʹ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ–‹˜‹†ƒ††™‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͳǡͺͲͲ ‘ Ͳͷͻ ‘–‡”‡› —••‡ŽŽ†‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ Ͳͷ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ—”‡Ž”‹˜‡‡•–‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͳǡ͸ͺ͹ ‘ ͲͶ͵ ‘–‡”‡› –”‡‡– ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ͳͷͳ ‘–‡”‡› Ž˜‡‡”‹˜‡ ̈́ͳǡͶͲ͹ ‘ Ͳ͸ͺ ‘–‡”‡› †‡’‡†‡ ‡‘—Ž‡˜ƒ”†š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ͳǡ͵͹Ͷ ‘

116 Project Constrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant? Ͳ͹ͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‘••‹–”‡‡–‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͳǡʹ͵ͳ ‘ Ͳͷͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‘‹‡ƒ‡‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͳǡʹͳͺ ‘ ͲͺͶ ‘–‡”‡› ƒŽ‹ƒ• –ƒ–‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ͳͷ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ”‡• ‡–˜‡—‡š–‡•‹‘–‘„”ƒ• ̈́ͳǡͳ͵͹ ‘ ͳ͵͸ ‘–‡”‡› ‘œƒŽ‡•‹˜‡”†”‹†‰‡—’‡”•–”— –—”‡‡’Žƒ ‡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹͳ ‘–‡”‡› ‘”‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳͺ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ƒŽ‹ƒ• ”‡‹‰Š–—‹Ž†‹‰ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͲͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‹”’‘”–‘ƒ†‡š–‡•‹‘Šƒ•‡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹͺ ‘–‡”‡› ›ƒ”Ǧ ”‡†ƒ‡”‹˜‡ ‘‡ –‹‘ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͶͳ ‘–‡”‡› ‡”‹ƒŽ‘ƒ†‹” —Žƒ–‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳͷͷ ‘–‡”‡› „”ƒ•‘ƒ† ̈́ͻͷʹ ‘ ͲʹͲ ‘–‡”‡› ƒš‹™ƒ›ǡǡǡ‹‰Š–‹‰ƒ†‹‰ƒ‰‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͺͳͶ ‘ Ͳʹͳ ‘–‡”‡› ƒš‹™ƒ›ǡǡǡ‘˜‡”Žƒ›ƒ†ƒ”‹‰• ̈́͸ͺͲ ‘ Ͳʹʹ ‘–‡”‡› —Ž–‹Ǧ‘†ƒŽ  ̈́͸͹Ͳ ‘ ͲʹͲ ‘–‡”‡› —”ƒ•„”‡‰‘Ǧ‡„•–‡” ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͸ͷͲ ‘ Ͳͳ͵ ‘–‡”‡› —™ƒ›†• ̈́ͷͳ͸ ‘ ͲͲͷ ‘–‡”‡› ˜‡”Žƒ›—™ƒ› ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ ͲͲͳ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲʹͺ—™ƒ›š–‡•‹‘Ȁ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ͳͺʹ ‘–‡”‡› Ž†–‘™ƒŽ‹ƒ•”‘ŽŽ‡› ̈́Ͷʹ͸ ‘ ͲͲͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‹‰Š–‹‰ƒ† ‡ ‹‰ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ Ͳͳ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡‡’ƒ”–‡– ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ ͲͲ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ʹͺ•‡”˜‹ ‡”‘ƒ†ǦȀ ̈́͵͹ͷ ‘ ͲͳͶ ‘–‡”‡› ‘”–Šƒ‹”’‘”–”‘ƒ†‡š–‡•‹‘Ȁ ̈́͵͹ͷ ‘ Ͳͳͺ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ••‡‰‡”Ž‹ˆ– ̈́͵ͷͲ ‘ Ͳͳͷ ‘–‡”‡› Ǧ‹”’‘”–‘ƒ†”‘Œ‡ –• ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͵Ͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‡”‹ƒŽŽ‡˜ƒ–‘” ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ ͲͲͶ ‘–‡”‡› Ǧ ƒ‰ƒ”ƒš‹™ƒ›•ȋŠƒ•‡ Ȍ ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ ͲͲ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ˜‡–‹‡†‘™ƒ’”‘ƒ”‡ƒ ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ Ͳͳ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ”‹‰Ž‘–͓͵‡š’ƒ•‹‘ ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ ͲͶͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‹”’‘”–‘—Ž‡˜ƒ”† ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ʹͶͷ ‘ ͲͶͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‘”‘†ƒǦƒ‹ –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ʹ͵ͳ ‘ ͲͲͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‘”–ŠǦ ƒ‰ƒ”ƒš‹™ƒ›‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ȋŠƒ•‡ Ȍ ̈́ʹͲ͵ ‘ ͲͲͺ ‘–‡”‡› Ž–ƒ–”‡‡– ̈́ʹͲͲ ‘ ͲͲ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ•–ƒ’”‘‘˜‡”Žƒ› ̈́ʹͲͲ ‘ ͲͲʹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ•–ƒ’”‘†”ƒ‹ƒ‰‡•›•–‡ ̈́ͳ͹ͷ ‘ ͲͳͲ ‘–‡”‡› ‹”’‘”– ƒ–‡Ȁ ‡ ‹‰’‰”ƒ†‡•ȋŠƒ•‡ Ȍ ̈́ͳ͸͵ ‘ Ͳͳͳ ‘–‡”‡› ʹͳͳ”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͳͷ͸ ‘ ͲͲʹ ‘–‡”‡› ‹”’‘”–ƒ†•‡Žƒ ̈́ͳͷͲ ‘ ͲͲ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ••‡••‡– ̈́ͳͷͲ ‘ ͲͲͶ ‘–‡”‡› ˜‡”Žƒ›‡ƒ•– ̈́ͳͷͲ ‘ ͲͶ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘Ȁ™‹Ž†Ž‹ˆ‡ƒƒ‰‡‡–’Žƒ ̈́ͳͷͲ ‘ ͲͲͻ ‘–‡”‡› ‘”–ŠǦ ƒ‰ƒ”–‹Ž‹–‹‡•‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ȋŠƒ•‡ Ȍ ̈́ͳʹͲ ‘ Ͳ͵ͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‡”‹ƒŽƒ‹–‹‰ ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ ͲͲͻ ‘–‡”‡› ‡”˜‹ ‡‘ƒ†ǡŽ‡ƒ”‘‡ ̈́ͻͲ ‘ Ͳʹͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‡•–Ǧ ƒ‰ƒ””ƒ‹ƒ‰‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͺͲ ‘ Ͳͳͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‡‰‡–‡† ‹” Ž‡ƒ†™‹†•‘  ̈́͹Ͳ ‘ ͲͲʹ ‘–‡”‡› ‹• ‡ŽŽƒ‡‘—• ̈́ͷʹ ‘ ͲͲͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‘”–ŠǦ ƒ‰ƒ”™›‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ȋŠƒ•‡ Ȍ ̈́Ͷ͹ ‘ ͲͲ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ‹”’‘”– ƒ–‡Ȁ ‡ ‹‰’‰”ƒ†‡•ȋŠƒ•‡ Ȍ ̈́͵͸ ‘ ͲͲͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‘’”‡Š‡•‹˜‡ƒ†•‡Žƒ ̈́͵ͷ ‘ ͲͲͳ ‘–‡”‡› ‹”’‘”–ƒ•–‡”Žƒ ̈́͵ͷ ‘ ͲͲ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ˜‹‰ƒ–‹‘ƒ•‡‡– “—‹•‹–‹‘Ǣ ̈́͵Ͳ ‘ ͲͲ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ‘”–ŠǦ ƒ‰ƒ”–‹Ž‹–‹‡•‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ȋŠƒ•‡ Ȍ ̈́ʹͷ ‘ ͳ͵ʹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ ‹ŽŽ•—„†‹˜‹•‹‘ ‡•• ’”‘˜‡‡– ̈́ͳͶ ‘ ͲͲ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ˜‡‡–ƒƒ‰‡‡– ̈́ͳͲ ‘ ͲͲͷ ‘–‡”‡› ͳǦ‹‰—”‹•–ƒ– ̈́͸ ‘ ͲͲ͹ ‘–‡”‡› šŠ‹„‹–̶̶’†ƒ–‡ ̈́͵ ‘ ͲͳͲͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‹‰Š™ƒ›ʹͷͶǦƒ‡‹†‡‹‰Šƒ•‡ ̈́ͳ͵ͻǡʹͻͷ ›‡• Ͳ͵͸ ƒ‡‹–‘ ƒ‡‹–‘‘—–‡ͳͷ͸ ’”‘˜‡‡–”‘Œ‡ – ̈́͸ͻǡ͸ͳͳ›‡• ‘ŽŽ Ǧͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‘ ƒŽ–”‡‡–ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ȋʹͲͳͲǦʹͲʹͲ•–‹ƒ–‡Ȍ ̈́Ͷ͸ǡ͹ͳͲ ‘ Ǧͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ ƒ‹”˜‹‡™‘ƒ†‹†‡‹‰ ̈́͵ͶǡʹͲͶ ‘ Ǧ͹ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‘ ƒŽ‘ƒ†ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ȋʹͲͳͲǦʹͲʹͲ•–‹ƒ–‡Ȍ ̈́͵ͳǡͳͶͲ ‘

117 Project Constrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant? Ͳ͵ ƒ‡‹–‘ ”ƒ•‹–‡”˜‹ ‡’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ͳ͸ǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͵ͷ ƒ‡‹–‘   ”‘—’‡†”‘Œ‡ –‹•–‹‰ ̈́ͳ͸ǡͲ͸ͺ ‘ ͳͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‹‘‘ƒ†”‹†‰‡ ̈́ͳͷǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ͳͳͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‘•’‹–ƒŽ‘ƒ†”‹†‰‡ ̈́ͳ͵ǡͺͶʹ ‘ ‘ŽŽǦͷ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‹‘‘ƒ†ȋˆ‘”‡”Ž›”‡•–˜‹‡™”‹˜‡Ȍ‘•–”— –‹‘ ̈́ͻǡ͸ͷͻ ‘ ‘ŽŽǦͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‘”–Š–”‡‡–š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ͺǡͷͷͳ ‘ ‘ŽŽǦͺ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‡•–•‹†‡‘—Ž‡˜ƒ”†š–‡•‹‘ ̈́͹ǡ͸Ͳͳ ‘  Ǧʹ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‹‡™ƒ›ƒ†‡†‡•–”‹ƒƒ•–‡”Žƒ ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ̈́͸ǡͲ͸Ͷ ‘ ‘ŽŽǦʹ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‡‘”‹ƒŽ”‹˜‡‘•–”— –‹‘Ǧ‡”‹†‹ƒ–‘ƒ–ƒƒ ̈́Ͷǡͺ͵Ͳ ‘ ͲͶ ƒ‡‹–‘ ”ƒ•‹–‡Š‹ Ž‡‡’Žƒ ‡‡– ̈́ͶǡͲͺͲ ‘ ‘ŽŽǦͻ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‡™”ƒˆˆ‹ ‹‰ƒŽ•ȋƒ”‹‘—•‘ ƒ–‹‘•Ȍ ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͲ ƒ‡‹–‘ ƒ —ƒ ‹‰Š™ƒ›‹‡ƒ‡‘•–”— –‹‘ ̈́ʹǡͳ͹ͳ ‘ Ǧͺ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‹‡‡‰ƒ‘ƒ†‡ƒŽ‹‰‡– ̈́ͳǡͺͻͺ ‘  Ǧͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‡”‰‡ ›ƒŽŽ‘š”‘‰”ƒ ̈́͹ͻͷ ‘  Ǧͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‡‰‹‘ƒŽƒ’‘‘Ž”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͷ͸Ͳ ‘ Ǧͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ ”ƒ•‹–‡ Š‘Ž‘‰› ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ʹ͹ͷ ‘ Ǧʹ ƒ‡‹–‘ ”ƒ•‹– ƒ ‹Ž‹–› ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘  ͳ͵ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‹†‡•Šƒ”‡”‘‰”ƒ ̈́͸ͷ ‘ Ǧ͵ ƒ‡‹–‘ —ƒ”ƒ–‡‡†‹†‡ ‘‡”‘‰”ƒ ̈́͸Ͳ ‘  ͳ͸ ƒ‡‹–‘ ”ƒ•‹–‡•‹‰ƒ—ƒŽ ̈́ͷͶ ‘ ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ ƒŽ”ƒ•‹–Ǧ‘–‹—ƒ–‹‘‘ˆš‹•–‹‰‡”˜‹ ‡‡˜‡Ž•ʹͲͳͲǦʹͲ͵ͷ ̈́ͺ͵ͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• ʹͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ ƒ‡•ȋ‘””‹••‡›–‘ƒ”‹Ž›†Ȍ ̈́ͷͲͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”ƒ–”ƒ•‹–‡”˜‹ ‡Ǧ‘–‹—ƒ–‹‘‘ˆš‹•–‹‰‡”˜‹ ‡ ̈́ͳͲ͵ǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ͹š’”‡••‡”˜‹ ‡Ǧ‘–Ǥ‘ˆš‹•–‹‰‡”˜‹ ‡‡˜‡Ž• ̈́ͷʹǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’— ǣ‘ŽŽ‹•‹‘‡†— –‹‘ ̈́ͷͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧʹͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’— ǣ‘ƒ†™ƒ›”‡•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘‘–ƒ–‡ ™›• ̈́ͶͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͲͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–›™‹†‡’‡ ‹ƒŽ‹œ‡†”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ ̈́͵ͷǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵Ͳ„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’— ǣ‡‰ƒŽƒ†ƒ–‡• ̈́͵ͳǡͺ͹ͷ ‡• Ͳͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡–”‘ƒ•‡Ǧ’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ƒ ‹Ž‹–› ̈́ʹͺǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ Šƒ‹Ž‹‡ “—‹•‹–‹‘ǡ‘””‹†‘””‡•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡ ̈́ʹ͵ǡͲͲͲ ‡• ʹͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ—š‹Ž‹ƒ”›ƒ‡•ǣ‘“—‡Ž˜‡Ǥ–‘‘””‹••‡›Ž˜†Ǥ ̈́ʹʹǡͳͲͲ ‡• Ͳͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳȀ ƒ”‹•Ž‘—‰Š‘ƒ† –‡” Šƒ‰‡ ̈́ͳͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͲͻ† ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͻƒ‘”‡œ‘‹˜‡”‘—” ‡‘–”‘Ž ̈́͸ǡͺͲͲ ‡• ʹ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘–‡”‡›ƒ›ƒ –—ƒ”› ‡‹ ”ƒ‹Ž‡–™‘” ̈́͸ǡͷͲͲ ‡• Ͳͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡™ƒ›‡”˜‹ ‡ƒ–”‘Žȋ Ȍ‘ ™›ͳƒ† ™›ͳ͹ ̈́ͷǡ͹ͷͲ ‡• ͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Žƒ‹‰ǡ”‘‰”ƒ‹‰Ƭ‘‹–‘”‹‰ȋȌǦͶͷ ̈́ͷǡ͹ͷͲ ‡• ǦͲ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ –‡ŽŽ‹‰‡–”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘›•–‡ȋ Ȍ‡’Ž‘›‡– ̈́ͷǡͳͲͲ ‡• Ǧͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒŒƒ”‘ƒ‹Ž–ƒ–‹‘‡•‹‰ƒ†‘•–”— – ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͲ͸ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ ǣƬ‹‰• ̈́ͶǡͷʹͲ ‡• ǦͲͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ǣƒŽŽ‘š›•–‡Ž‘‰ ™›• ̈́Ͷǡ͵͹ͷ ‡• ǦͲͻƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͻƒˆ‡–› ’”‘˜‡‡–•ǣ‡‘‘†‡ƒ” ‘Ž‹†ƒ›ƒ‡ ̈́Ͷǡ͵ʹͷ ‡• ʹͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳȀͻ –‡”•‡ –‹‘‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧͳͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡†‘Ž˜† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›–‘‘’–‘‡””ƒ ‡Ȍ ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ͳ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‘ƒ†™ƒ›Ǧ”‘‡”‹‡Ȁ‡†ƒ–Šȋ”ƒƒ —Ž Š—Ž–‹—•‡ƒ–ŠȌ ̈́͵ǡ͹ͲͲ ‡• ʹ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡‘‘”Ȁ Š‘‘Ž”‘‰”ƒ ̈́͵ǡͷͲͲ ‡• ǦͶ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‘”‡œ‘‹˜‡”ƒŽŽ‡›”ƒ‹Ž ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡†‹ ƒŽŽ› ”ƒ‰‹Ž‡’‡ ‹ƒŽ‹œ‡†”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲ ‡•  ǦͲͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ͹ƒˆ‡–›”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‡• ǦͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡–”‘—•‡’Žƒ ‡‡–• ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‡• ͳͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡’Žƒ ‡‡–”ƒ•‹– ƒ”‡„‘š‡• ̈́ʹǡ͵ͲͲ ‡• ͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ–ƒ”—œ‡–”‘‡–‡”Ȁƒ ‹ˆ‹ –ƒ–‹‘‡‘˜ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ʹǡͳͲͲ ‡• Ͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳȀͳ͹‡”‰‡ƒ‡•Ǧƒ†• ƒ’‹‰ ̈́ͳǡ͹͹ͷ ‡• Ͳʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”ƒ–”ƒ•‹–—•‡’Žƒ ‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡ͹ͷͲ ‡• Ͳʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–‡‘Ž—–‹‘•‹†‡•Šƒ”‡”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͷͲ ‡• Ǧʹͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹”’‘”–‘—Ž‡˜ƒ”† ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‡• ǦͲ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹–‡ Š‘Ž‘‰‹ ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡ͵͸ͷ ‡• ͵ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”ƒ†‹†‡‘–‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹–›•–‡‡ Š‘Ž‘‰› ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͻͺͲ ‡• Ǧ͵͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹–‡ —”‹–›ƒ†—”˜‡‹ŽŽƒ ‡›•–‡• ̈́ͺ͸Ͳ ‡• ǦͲͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —•–‘’ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͸ͲͲ ‡• ͳͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —•”‹’Žƒ‡”Ǧ†˜ƒ ‡†”ƒ˜‡Ž‡” ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘›•–‡ ̈́ͷͺͷ ‡• ͵ͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳȀƒ‘”‡œ‘”‹†‰‡‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‡•

118 Project Constrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant? ͳ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ‘Ž‘‰› –‹‘”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘”‘‰”ƒ ̈́Ͷ͵ͷ ‡• ͳ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡ƒ”‹‰—„•‹†›”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ʹͷͲ ‡• Ǧ͵͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡–”‘ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•”‡’ƒ‹”Ȁ—’‰”ƒ†‡• ̈́ͳͷͷ ‡• Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”ƒ”—œ Š‡†—Ž‹‰‘ˆ–™ƒ”‡Ǣ‘„‹Ž‡ƒ–ƒ‡”‹ƒŽ•Ǣƒ†‹‘• ̈́ͳ͵͹ ‡•  ǦͲ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳʹͻƒˆ‡–›”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͳͲͲ ‡• ǦͶ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡˜‹ƒ–‡† ‹š‡†Ǧ‘—–‡‹Ž‘–”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͳͲͲ ‡• ͵ʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹ › Ž‡‘—–‡‹‰ƒ‰‡ ̈́ͳͲͲ ‡• ǦͶ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡‹‘”’Ž‘›‡–‹†‡‡‹„—”•‡‡– ̈́ͳͲͲ ‡• Ͳͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒŒƒ”‘ƒŽŽ‡›”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ƒƒ‰‡‡–••‘ ‹ƒ–‹‘ȋȌ ̈́ͳͲͲ ‡• ͵͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ ”‡‡ƒ„”‹ŽŽ‘‘ŽŽ‡‰‡ ̈́͹ͷ ‡• Ǧ͵ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–›™‹†‡ ‡‡”ƒŽ‘ƒ†ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ†’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ͳͺͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡’‡”ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ ̈́͹ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘  ǦͲʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ–•‘˜‹ŽŽ‡‹”’‘”–’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ͷͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡ ‡‡”ƒŽƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ†’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́͵͹ǡͷͲͲ ‘ ǦʹͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘”‘Œ‡ –• ̈́͵ͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ•—”‡ ‘ƒ†”‘Œ‡ –• ̈́ʹͻǡͲͲͲ ‘  ǦͲͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’—ƒ–•‘˜‹ŽŽ‡‹”’‘”–ƒ’‹–ƒŽ”‘Œ‡ –• ̈́ʹ͸ǡͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’—”‹†‰‡”‡•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ͳͷǡͶͷͲ ‘ ǦͲͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Žƒ‹‰ ̈́ͳͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ †‹‹•–”ƒ–‹‘ȋȌ ̈́ͳ͵ǡ͹ͷͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’—‡”‰‡ ›‡•’‘•‡ ̈́ͳ͵ǡ͸ͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͲƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ͹ƒˆ‡–›”‘Œ‡ –ǣƒ–ƒ̵•‹ŽŽƒ‰‡†Ǧ”‡• ‡–”Ǥ ̈́ͳͳǡ͹͸Ͳ ‘ ͵͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —””ƒ›–”‹†‰‡‡’Žƒ ‡‡– ̈́ͳͳǡͲ͹Ͳ ‘ ǦͲ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡ ‡‡”ƒŽƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ†’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ͳͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡ ‡‡”ƒŽƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ†’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ͳͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ‹ › Ž‡Ȁ‡†˜‡” ”‘••‹‰ƒ–ƒ”‹•–ƒ ̈́͹ǡͷͷͲ ‘ Ͳʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒŠƒ ‹ŽŽ‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•‡ƒ”‘ƒ”‹‰ƒ’ ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ•–Ž‹ˆˆ”‹˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋͶͳ•–˜‡–‘ ƒ”„‘”Ȍ ̈́Ͷǡ͸ͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹†‡™ƒŽ”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͹͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ›–”‡‡–‘””‹†‘”‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘“—‡Ž” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘“—‡Ž˜‡–‘ ”‡‡†‘Ž˜†Ȍ ̈́͵ǡͺͲͲ ‘ ͷͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—‹–›”ƒˆˆ‹ ƒˆ‡–›‘ƒŽ‹–‹‘ ̈́͵ǡ͹ͷͲ ‘ ǦͲ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‹Ž‹‡ƒƒ‰‡‡– ̈́͵ǡ͹ͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‘”‡œ‘‹˜‡”‹‡Ȁ‡†ƒ–Šƒ–”‹†‰‡ ̈́͵ǡʹʹͷ ‘ ͶͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’—ƒ˜‡‡–‡’ƒ‹”•Ǧ‹–›™‹†‡ȋŠƒ•‡ʹȌ ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’—‹ › Ž‡”‘Œ‡ –• ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͷ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ Š”‡ƒ‘—†ƒ„‘—– ̈́ʹǡ͹ͷͲ ‘ ǦͶͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–›™‹†‡‹†‡™ƒŽ• ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡‹†‡™ƒŽ”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‘ ͳ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒŽƒ„ƒ•ƒ•†™‹†‡‹‰ǡ„‹‡Žƒ‡•ƒ†•‹†‡™ƒŽ• ̈́ʹǡͶͲͲ ‘ ͵͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –ƒ–‡ƒ””‹˜‡Ȁ‡ƒ Ž‹ˆˆ‹ŽŽƒ‰‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ʹǡͶͲͲ ‘ ǦͶ͸„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‘”‡œ‘ƒŽŽ‡›”ƒ‹Žǣ ™›ͻǦ‘”–Š ‡Ž–‘‹‡ƒ‡•Ƭ‹†‡™ƒ ̈́ʹǡͶͲͲ ‘ ǦͶ͸ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‘”‡œ‘ƒŽŽ‡›”ƒ‹Žǣ ™›ͻǦ‘™–‘™ ‡Ž–‘‹‡ƒ‡•Ƭ‹ ̈́ʹǡʹͲͲ ‘ ͵͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›‘ƒ†‡Šƒ„ǦŠƒ•‡ʹ ̈́ʹǡͳͷͲ ‘ ǦʹͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ ‹ˆ‹ ‘˜‡š’ƒ•‹‘ˆ‘”ƒ”ǦǦ‹†‡‘– ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ ʹͶ„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ‘•–”— –‹‘—–Š‘”‹–›ȋ Ȍ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‘”‡œ‘‹˜‡”‡˜‡‡ƒ–Š‘‡ –‹‘ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͹͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†”ƒˆˆ‹ ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͹ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’—‹‡”‘Œ‡ –• ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ – ‡”‘ǡ‘ ‡™‘‘†ǡ’”‹‰•ƒ‡™‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‘‡Žƒ”Ž˜†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ•’Žƒƒ†‡–‘–ƒ–‡ ™›ͳȌ ̈́ͳǡͻͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘Ž—–‡‡”‡–‡””ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͳǡͺ͹ͷ ‘ Ǧͳͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡‡†‡•–”‹ƒ ƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡• ̈́ͳǡͺ͹ͷ ‘ Ǧʹ͹‡ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‹– ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘”–‡”––‘Š‡””›˜ƒŽ‡˜‡Ȍ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹Œ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ Ž‹ˆˆ” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠȌ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ‡ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ–‘– ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ‡˜‡–‘ͻ–Š˜‡Ȍ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ ǦͷͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ•–Ž‹ˆˆ”‹˜‡‡†‡•–”‹ƒƒ–Š™ƒ›ȋͷ–ŠǦͳʹ–Š˜‡Ȍ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ ʹ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡•–Ž‹ˆˆƒ–Š‹†‡‹‰ȋƒ›Ǧ™ƒ–‘Ȍ ̈́ͳǡ͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͸ͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳͷʹȀ ‘ŽŽ‘ŠƒȀ‘ŽŽ‡‰‡‘ƒ† –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ ‹ˆ‘”–‡”‡‡‹‡Ȁ‡†”‘••‹‰ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡†‘Ž˜†‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ȋ‹ ‘Ž–‘Ž–ƒ‹•–ƒȌ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘

119 Project Constrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant? Ǧʹ͸’ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ––‹•‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋŠƒ–‹ Ž‡‡”˜‡–‘‘“—‡Ž˜‡Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͶͲͲ ‘ ʹ͹ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‹–Ǥȋ ™›ͳͷʹȌȀ ”‡‡†‘Ž˜†‘—†ƒ„‘—– ̈́ͳǡʹͷͲ ‘ ǦͲʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹”’‘”–Ž˜† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‹–›Ž‹‹–•–‘ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘“—‡Ž˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‹–›‘ˆ–‘ ”‘••†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ—Ž™‡‡–‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘“—‡Ž”–‘‡†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹Š ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ—Ž•‡† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›†–‘Š‹–‹‰†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͻˆ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ—Ž‹‹‡˜‡Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘†”‹‰—‡œ––‘‘“—‡Ž˜‡Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ •’Žƒƒ†‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‘‘’ǣ’–‘•‡ƒ Š”–‘‘‘•‡Š‡ƒ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵† ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”’‡”– ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦŽ‘”ƒ†‘˜‡–‘‡†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͺ‹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”‹† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘””ƒŽ‹–‘•†–‘ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͶ„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ’‹–‘Žƒ‹ŽŽƒ‰‡—Ž–‹‘†ƒŽŠƒ ‡‡–•ǦŠƒ•‡ʹȀ͵ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͳ͸„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹Ž†‡”ƒ Š‹‡Ȁ‡†‡•–”‹ƒƒ–ŠǣŠƒ•‡ʹ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ‘ ʹͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ•–Ž‹ˆˆ”Ǥ‹‡Ȁ‡†ƒ–Šǣ͵ʹ†ǦͶͳ•– ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’‹”‡ ”ƒ†‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡†‘Ž˜†—Ž–‹‘†ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘‹–ƒ”–‘‹–›‘ˆƒ–• ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒŠƒ ‹ŽŽ‘ƒ†—Ž–‹‘†ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‹–›‘ˆ–‘ ™›ͻȌ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒƒ†”‘ƒ” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋŽƒ Š‘”–‘‹–›‘ˆ ‘––•ƒŽŽ‡› ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‡ƒ›‘† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ”ƒ ‹ˆ‘”–‡”–‘‹–›‘ˆ ‘––•ƒŽŽ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸“ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –Ǥ ‡”‘†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘ Šƒ”– —Ž Š–‘ ”ƒŠƒ ‹ŽŽ†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͺ‰ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘“—‡ŽǦŠƒ”ˆ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘„‡”–•‘––‘‘”–‡”–Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘“—‡ŽǦƒ ‘•‡† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ’‡”‹ŽŽ†–‘—‹–†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͲ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ•–Ž‹ˆˆ”‹‡Ȁ‡†‘‡ –‹‘ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͸͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ‡ƒ–”‡‡–‹‡ƒ‡•ȋ‘“—‡ŽǦƒ”•‘Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‡ƒ›‘†Ǥ‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͶ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –Ǥ ‡”‘†ǤȀ ‘––•ƒŽŽ‡›”Ǥ –‡”•‡ –‹‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ’”‘˜‡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹–‡Š‹ Ž‡• ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘„‹Ž‹–›ƒƒ‰‡‡–‡–‡” ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒˆ‡ƒ–Š•‘ˆ”ƒ˜‡Ž ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹‹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡Š—”•–” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠȌ ̈́ͺͷͲ ‘ ͷͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘“—‡Ž”‹˜‡˜‡”Žƒ› ̈́ͺͲͷ ‘ ǦͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ””‡‡‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ™›ͻ–‘ ™›͵ͷȌ ̈́ͺͲͲ ‘ ͷͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’‹”‡ ”ƒ†‡‘ƒ†˜‡”Žƒ› ̈́͹ͺʹ ‘ ͷ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘“—‡ŽǦƒ ‘•‡†˜‡”Žƒ› ̈́͹͸Ͳ ‘ Ǧʹͻ‡ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ ‹‡Ž˜‡Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ’‹–‘Žƒ†–‘ƒ––‹•‘Ȍ ̈́͹ͲͲ ‘ ͳͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡ ‹ŽŽ•‘ƒ†‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́͹ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ Šƒ”– —Ž Š†‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́͹ͲͲ ‘ ͷͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘””ƒŽ‹–‘•†‡ˆ–—”ƒ‡ȋ”ƒ†Ž‡›Ž‡‡–ƒ”› Š‘‘ŽȌ ̈́͸ͷͲ ‘ ͷ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ””‡‡†˜‡”Žƒ› ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘””ƒŽ‹–‘•‘ƒ†‡Šƒ„ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ”‡‡†‘Ž˜†–‘ ƒ‡• ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ͷͳ•–˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ™›ͳ –‡” Šƒ‰‡–‘‘“—‡Ž”Ȍ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸Š ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡–‡”˜‡Ȁ‡ƒ Ž‹ˆˆ” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ–ƒ–‡ƒ””–‘’–‘•‡ƒ Š ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸‹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Šƒ–‹ Ž‡‡”˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ™›ͳ–‘‘“—‡Ž”Ȍ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘‡” ‹ƒŽƒ› ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‹••‹‘”Ǥ–‘‘“—‡Ž”ǤȌ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ† ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ„”‹ŽŽ‘‘ŽŽ‡‰‡”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ”˜‡–‘™‹ƒ‡•Š—” ŠȌ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳ‰ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’ƒŽŽ‹ˆˆ”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋͶͳ•–˜–‘‘”–‘Žƒ”Ȍ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ ͶͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡•–Ž‹ˆˆ”‹˜‡ƒ–Š‡’ƒ‹”• ̈́ͷͷͲ ‘ ǦͲͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‹–”ƒ ‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷͶͲ ‘ ǦͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”˜‡—‡‹†‡™ƒŽ• ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Žƒ”‡•–”‡‡–‡†‡•–”‹ƒ”‘••‹‰™‡•–‘ˆͶͲ–Š˜‡ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ͷ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –Ǥ ‡”‘†Ǥ‡Šƒ„ǣƒ›ƒ–‡”‹†‰‡–‘ͳ‹Ǥ‘ˆ ”ƒŠƒ ‹ŽŽ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡•–‹‘ƒ†—Ž–‹‘†ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›–‘”‘™ƒŽ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹•‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ”ƒŠƒ ‹ŽŽ†–‘ƒƒ†”‘ƒ”Ȍ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ ǦʹͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –ƒ–‡ƒ””‹˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•Šƒ•‡ʹ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ͵ͺ–Š˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ–‘ǤŽ‹ˆˆ”Ȍ ̈́ͷͲͲ‘ Ǧʹ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’”‡ ‡Ž•” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘“—‡Ž”–‘’–‘•‡ƒ Š”Ȍ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹Ž ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹Ž‡˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–Šˆ”‘‘“—‡Ž”Ȍ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͺ† ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡Ž–‘’‹”‡‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–Š–‘–ƒ–‡ ™›ͻȌ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ ǦʹͺŠ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Š—”„‡” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠȌ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͷͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒŠƒ ‹ŽŽ†‡ˆ–—”ƒ‡ȋ‘ ‡™‘‘†Ȍ ̈́ͷͲͲ‘ Ǧͷͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‰–”‡‡–‹‡ƒ‡•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠȌ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͹ͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”‡––Ȁ ‘••˜‡—‡ƒ†”ƒ ‹ˆ‘”–‡Ȁ ‘•• –‡”•‡ –‹‘‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘

120 Project Constrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant? ǦͶͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡†‡•–”‹ƒȀ”ƒ•‹–‘‡ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͷ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡•––”ƒ ‡‹‰ƒŽ‹œƒ–‹‘ǣ’‹”‡ ”ƒ†‡Ȁ ‡ŽŽ‡” –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –Ǥ ‡”‘‘ƒ†‹†‡™ƒŽ‘‡ –‹‘• ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͸ͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ„”‹‰Š–˜‡—‡‹‡ƒ‡•ȋ‹‡Ǧ‘“—‡ŽȌ ̈́ͶͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Šƒˆˆ‡”‘ƒ†—Ž–‹—•‡ƒ–Šȋ‹••‹‘–š–Ǧ‡Žƒ™ƒ”‡˜‡Ȍ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ ǦͺͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ‡ƒ–Ȁƒ–‡”– –‡”•‡ –‹‘‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧͺ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ‡ƒ–ȀŽ›‘—–Š– –‡”•‡ –‹‘‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ Ͷʹ„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›†‡†‡•–”‹ƒƒˆ‡–›”‘Œ‡ – ̈́͵͹ͷ ‘ Ǧͳʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘–‡”‡›˜‡—‡—Ž–‹‘†ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵ͷͲ ‘ ǦʹͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ ™‘‘†ƒ‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ”ƒŠƒ ‹ŽŽ†–‘Ž‹‹–•Ȍ ̈́͵ͷͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹ˆ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹ŽŽ– ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠȌ ̈́͵ͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Žƒ Š‘”Ǥ‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́͵ʹͷ ‘ Ǧʹ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ”‡‰‘””‹˜‡ƒ”ƒ†‹†‡‘– ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘” ‘”ƒ˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋŽ‹ ‡––‘ ‡Ž––Ȍ ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–›™‹†‡ ‡••ƒ’• ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͲͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™‹ˆ–Ȁ‡Žƒ™ƒ”‡ –‡”•‡ –‹‘‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒˆ‡‘—–‡•–‘ Š‘‘Ž”‘‰”ƒ• ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‘‡”–”‡‡–‹†‡™ƒŽƒ†‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ Ǧͺ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡•–Ž‹ˆˆȀƒ›–”‡‡–‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ Ǧͻ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ ŠȀŽ‹ˆˆ –‡”•‡ –‹‘‹‰ƒŽ‹œƒ–‹‘ ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ Ǧʹͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†”ƒˆˆ‹ ƒŽ‹‰ ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ ǦͶͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹––‘’ ‡••‹„‹Ž‹–›”‘Œ‡ – ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†”ƒˆˆ‹ Žƒ ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸• ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ• ƒ’‡Ž˜† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ—‡”˜‡–‘ƒ†”‡ƒ•†Ȍ ̈́ʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧͺͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ‡ƒ–Ȁƒ‘”‡œ‘Ž˜† –‡”•‡ –‹‘‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ʹͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡ ‡••ƒ’• ̈́ʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’”‹‰–”‡‡–‹‡™ƒ› ̈́ʹͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ’‘‘Žƒ “—‹•‹–‹‘ ̈́ʹͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡‰‹‘ƒŽƒ†•‡Ȁ”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘–—†› ̈́ʹͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒˆ‡‘—–‡•–‘ Š‘‘Ž•–—†‹‡• ̈́ʹͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡Ǧ –‹˜ƒ–‡†”ƒˆˆ‹ ‹‰ƒŽ”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹•ƒ„‹Ž‹–›ƒ‡Š‹ Ž‡ “—‹•‹–‹‘ƒ†‡’Žƒ ‡‡– ̈́ͳͺͺ ‘ Ͷʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘“—‡Ž˜‡ƒ– ”‡†‡”‹ –‹‘”‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͳͷͲ ‘ ʹͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ”‡‡‘ƒ†‹†‡™ƒŽ• ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹ › Ž‡Šƒ””‘™• ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ ͷͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–Š‘—–›”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‘‘™‘‘†”‹˜‡‹‡Ȁ‡†‡•–”‹ƒƒ–Š ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —””ƒ›––‘ ƒ”„‘”ƒ–Š‘‡ –‹‘ ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ ǦͻͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‰Š–Ȁ‘‘”‡– –‡”•‡ –‹‘‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ ǦͶʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ › Š”‘‹œ‡”ƒˆˆ‹ ‹‰ƒŽ•ƒŽ‘‰–Ǥ ‡”‘‘ƒ† ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘””‹••‡›Ž˜†Ǥ‹‡ƒ–Š‘˜‡” ™›ͳ ̈́ͻͲ ‘ ǦͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†”ƒˆˆ‹ Žƒ ̈́͹ͷ ‘ Ǧʹ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡Žƒ™ƒ”‡˜‡—‡‹‡Žƒ‡• ̈́ͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͸ͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Š—”™ƒ Š–‡”‘ƒ†‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́ͷͲ ‘ ǦͲͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‰”‹ —Ž–—”ƒŽ‘”‡””ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͷͲ ‘ Ǧʹͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ ™‘‘†‡†‡•–”‹ƒ‹‰ƒŽ‡ƒ”‰‘Žˆ ‘—”•‡ ̈́ͷͲ ‘ Ͳͺ„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž–‡”ƒ–‹˜‘•Ƭ—Ž‡•‘ˆ–Š‡‘ƒ†ƒˆ‡–›”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹ › Ž‡ƒ”‹‰ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵Ͳ ‘ Ǧʹ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Š‡‡Ž Šƒ‹” ‡••ƒ’• ̈́ʹͷ ‘ Ǧͳͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹••‹‘–Ȁ ™›ͳ‹‡Ȁ”— ƒˆ‡–›ƒ’ƒ‹‰ ̈́ʹͲ ‘ ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ͹’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵ͲǡͲͲͲ ͷͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’—‘ƒ†‡’ƒ‹”•ǦŠƒ•‡ʹȋƒ˜‡‡–‰–ƒ’‡‡ƒŽ Ͳͻ ̈́ʹǡ͵Ͷͷ Ͷʹƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›†Ȁ ‘Ž‘Šƒ”Ȁ‹”’‘”–Ž˜† –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ͵ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡†‘Ž˜†‡Šƒ„ȋ ‹‰ŠǦ”‘ƒ†‹•Ȁ‹ ‘ŽȌ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ Ͷͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’—‘ƒ†‡’ƒ‹”•Ǧ ̈́ͳǡ͵ͷͲ Ͷ͵ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡•–Ž‹ˆˆȀƒ ‹ˆ‹ ˜‡‘—†ƒ„‘—– ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ͳʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ͵ͺ–Š˜‡—‡‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ ̈́͸ͲͲ ͳͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Žƒ”‡•–”‡‡–”ƒˆˆ‹ ƒŽ‹‰ ̈́Ͷʹͷ Ǧ͵ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ”‡‡‘ƒ†‹†‡™ƒŽ•ȋ–‘Ž—‡‘‡–Ȍ ̈́ͶͲͲ ͶͶƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡•–Ž‹ˆˆ”‹˜‡‘ƒ†™ƒ›”‡•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ͻͺ

121 Table 25. Unconstrained Revenue Project list

Project Unconstrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant? Ͳʹʹ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͷ͸‹†‡‹‰Šƒ•‡ʹȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘”–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́͵ͷͻǡ͵͵͹ ‡• Ͳʹͳ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͷ͸‹†‡‹‰Šƒ•‡ͳȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘”–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́͸ͺǡ͹ͺ͵ ‡• ͲͳͲ ‘–‡”‡› ‘–‡”‡›”ƒ Š‹‡’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́͸ͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ͳͳͳ ‘–‡”‡› ‘–‡”‡›”ƒ Š‹‡•–ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†‰”ƒ†‡ ”‘••‹‰‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͸ͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ͳͳͻ ‘–‡”‡›‘–‡”‡›  ͳͲͳǦ ‘—–Š‘—–Š ‘—–›‘—–› ”‘–ƒ‰‡”‘–ƒ‰‡ ‘ƒ†•‘ƒ†•ȋ ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡‡‡Ǧ ‘—–Š‘—–Š ‘—–›Ȍ‘—–›Ȍ ̈́ͷ͸ǡͲͻͺ ‡•‡• ͳǦƒ†‹–›‘””‹†‘”ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘–‡”‡›‡‹•—ŽƒȀ‘—–Š ͲͳͲ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́Ͷ͹ǡ͹Ͷ͹ ‡• ‘ƒ•–Ȍ Ͳͳͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‘—–‡”ƒ‹Žƒ’‹–ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͶͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• ͳͶ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ͳʹǦ‘”–Šȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘”–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́͵ͺǡʹͷ͵ ‡• ͳͲͳǦ ƒ””‹•‘ƒ†Ȁƒ•–•‹†‡‘‡ –‘”ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ ”‡ƒ–‡” Ͳͳͺ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́͵ͳǡ͹ͻͺ ‡• ƒŽ‹ƒ•Ȍ ͳʹͶ ‘–‡”‡› ‡•–•‹†‡›’ƒ••ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ ”‡ƒ–‡”ƒŽ‹ƒ•Ȍ ̈́͵ͳǡʹ͸͵ ‡• ‡Ž‘–‡Ǧ‹‰Š–Š‘—•‡‘””‹†‘”ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘–‡”‡›ŽŠŠ†ȋŽ Ͳͳͻ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́ʹͻǡ͵ͳͲ ‡• ‡‹•—ŽƒȀ‘—–Š‘ƒ•–Ȍ ͲͲͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‡™–ƒ”–•Ǧ—•ƒ’‹†”ƒ•‹– ̈́ʹͷǡͲͲͲ ‡• ͸ͺȋ ‘Žƒ ‹‰Š™ƒ›Ȍ‹†‡‹‰ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘–‡”‡› Ͳͳ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́ʹͶǡ͹ʹͳ ‡• ‡‹•—ŽƒȀ‘—–Š‘ƒ•–Ȍ Ͳͳ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳǦͳ•––”‡‡– –‡” Šƒ‰‡ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘—–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́ʹͶǡͷ͹Ͳ ‡• Ͳͳͳ ‘–‡”‡› ͸ͺǦ‘—–‡” ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ʹͶǡͲͲͲ ‡• ͲͲͻ ‘–‡”‡› ͳǦ‘–‡”‡›† –‡” Šƒ‰‡ ̈́ʹͲǡ͸͹ʹ ‡• Ͳͳͻ ‘–‡”‡›‘–‡”‡›  ͳͲͳǦ ƒŽ—–ƒŽ—– ˜‡—‡˜‡—‡ –‡” Šƒ‰‡ –‡” Šƒ‰‡ ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡ ‡‡Ǧ ‘—–Š‘—–Š ‘—–›Ȍ‘—–›Ȍ ̈́ͳͻǡ͸͸͵ ‡•‡• ͳͶͷ ‘–‡”‡› ͳʹǦ‘—–Šȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘”–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́ͳ͵ǡ͹ͳͲ ‡• Ͳͳ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ‘–‡”‡›”ƒ Š‹‡—” Šƒ•‡ ̈́ͳͲǡ͸ͲͲ ‡• Ͳͳ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳȀ Ž‘”‹ƒ‘ƒ† –‡” Šƒ‰‡ȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‘—–Š‘—–›Ȍ ̈́Ͷǡ͸ͷͷ ‡• —•—’’‘”–“—‹’‡–ƒ† ƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•Ȁ –‡ŽŽ‹‰‡–”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ ͲͲͶ ‘–‡”‡› ̈́͵ǡͷͲͲ ‡• ›•–•‡•ȋ Ȍ Ͳ͸ͳ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ”‹ƒǦƒŽ‹ƒ•‘””‹†‘”Ǧȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‡‹•—ŽƒȀ‘—–Š‘ƒ•–Ȍ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͳ͸ ‡• ͲͳͲ ‘–‡”‡› ”ƒ•‹–’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ͳͶ͵ǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ ͳ͵ͺ ‘–‡”‡› ‘–‡”‡› ƒƒ —ƒ—ƒ‘ƒ† ‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́̈́ͳͲ͸ͳͲ͸ǡ͹ͲͲ‘ ͲͲͳ ‘–‡”‡› —•‘ŽŽ‹‰–‘  ̈́ͳͲͲǡͻͺ͸ ‘ ͳͶʹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ•–”‘˜‹ŽŽ‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷʹǡ͸ͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳƒ„‘”‘ƒ† –‡” Šƒ‰‡ƒ†’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳͳͷ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳǦ‹”’‘”–Ž˜†Ǥ Ȁ‡•– ̈́ͶͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹͳ ‘–‡”‡› •’‹‘œƒ –‡” Šƒ‰‡ƒ–ǦͳͲͳ ̈́ͶͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͳͶ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ —ƒ ”ƒ†‡‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵ͷǡͺͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹͻ ‘–‡”‡› ͳǦ‘Žƒ‘ƒ† –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͳ͵ͻ ‘–‡”‡› ͳ͹‹†‡‹‰ȋ‡•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘‘ƒ†Ȍ ̈́͵ͶǡͳͲͲ ‘ ͲͶͲ ‘–‡”‡› ‡•––”‡‡–š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ʹͺǡͳʹͺ ‘ ͳͶͶ ‘–‡”‡› ‡„‡”–‘ƒ†ȀŽ†–ƒ‰‡‘ƒ† ̈́ʹ͹ǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹͷ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳǦƒ’Š‘”‹ƒ –‡” Šƒ‰‡ ̈́ʹͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳͳ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ‘ƒ†”‹†‰‡‘˜‡”ͳͲͳ ̈́ʹͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͳʹͺ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳ‘˜‡” ”‘••‹‰‹‹‡ƒ›‘ ̈́ʹͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͳ͵ʹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ ‹ŽŽ•—„†‹˜‹•‹‘ ‡•• ’”‘˜‡‡– ̈́ʹͶǡͺͻ͹ ‘ ͳͳ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ —ƒ†‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ʹͶǡ͸͸Ͷ ‘ ͲͶͳ ‘–‡”‡› ” Šƒ”†ƒ‡š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ʹͳǡ͵ͶͶ ‘ Ͳ͵ʹͲ͵ʹ –‘–‡”‡›  ͳͶ͸ ›’ƒ•• ̈́ʹͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͳͶͲ ‘–‡”‡› ͳ͹‹†‡‹‰ȋ‹˜‡”‘ƒ†Ȍ ̈́ʹͲǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͸͸ ‘–‡”‡› —••‡ŽŽ‘ƒ†š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ͳ͹ǡͷͷ͹ ‘ ͲͶͻ ‘–‡”‡› ‘”‘†ƒ†Ǥ‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͳͷǡ͸͹ͳ ‘ ͳͳͻ ‘–‡”‡› ͳǦͳͷ͸ –‡” Šƒ‰‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹͺ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳǦ‘—–Š„‘—†Ž‹„‹‰ƒ‡ƒ–—„ƒ”–‘ ̈́ͳͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͸Ͳ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ„‘”†Ǥ‹†‡‹‰Ȁ‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ ̈́ͳͶǡ͹͵͹ ‘ ͲʹͲ ‘–‡”‡› ‡™Ǧƒ’ƒ–ǦͳͲͳƒ†Š‘”‡†Ǥ ̈́ͳͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͶ͸ ‘–‡”‡› Ž˜‹ ”‹˜‡ǦǦ ͳͲͳ‘˜‡”’ƒ••Ȁ—†‡”’ƒ•• ƒ† ›’ƒ•• ̈́ͳͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͸͵ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳǦͳͺ͵ –‡” Šƒ‰‡ ̈́ͳʹǡͻͲͲ ‘ ͲͲͺ ‘–‡”‡› Ž–ƒ–”‡‡– ̈́ͳͳǡͷͳ͸ ‘

122 Project Unconstrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant? ͳͶͳ ‘–‡”‡› ƒŽ‹ƒ•‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ ͲͳͲ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ”‘Ž†ƒ”™ƒ›Ǧ‘ƒ†™ƒ›‡š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ͳͲǡ͹Ͷͳ ‘ ͲͲ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒˆ‡–›ƒ†‡ —”‹–› ̈́ͳͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͶ͸Ǧ›’ƒ••–‘ͳͲͳ ̈́ͳͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͹Ͳ ‘–‡”‡› ‘•–‹–—–‹‘‘—Ž‡˜ƒ”†š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ͻǡͷͷ͸ ‘ Ͳ͵ͳ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ„‹Žƒ”‹˜‡š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ͻǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳͷʹ ‘–‡”‡› ‘Š–”‡‡–ǦͳͲͳ ̈́ͺǡͷͳ͵ ‘ ͳͶ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ‘Š•‘›ƒ†ǦŠƒ•‡  ̈́͹ǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ Ͳͺͷ  ‘–‡”‡› †Ž‹‹ –‡”‘†ƒŽ”ƒ•‹–‡–‡”ƒ”‹‰ ̈́͹̈́͹ǡͷͲͲ ͷͲͲ  ‘ ͳʹ͸ ‘–‡”‡› Žƒ ‹‡†š–‡•‹‘ ̈́͸ǡͻͳʹ ‘ ͳ͵͸ ‘–‡”‡› ‘œƒŽ‡•‹˜‡”†”‹†‰‡—’‡”•–”— –—”‡‡’Žƒ ‡ ̈́͸ǡͷ͵Ͳ ‘ Ͳ͸Ͳ ‘–‡”‡› ‘ŽˆŽ˜†š–‡•‹‘ ̈́͸ǡͳͲͲ ‘ ͲͲʹ ‘–‡”‡› ‡ƒŽ•–ƒ–‡Ǧ‹‰Š–‘ˆƒ› ̈́͸ǡͲͲͳ ‘ ͲͷͲ ‘–‡”‡› ‘”‘†ƒ‘ƒ†‹†‡‹‰ ̈́͸ǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͲͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‘—‹ ƒ–‹‘Ȁƒ†‹‘“—‹’‡– ̈́ͷǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹͳ ‘–‡”‡› ‘”‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͳʹͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‡„Žƒ†‡”ƒ –”‡‡– š–‡•‹‘ ̈́Ͷǡͷ͸Ͳ ‘ Ͳͷ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ–‹˜‹†ƒ†‘ƒ†‹†‡‹‰ ̈́Ͷǡʹͻ͸ ‘ ͲͲͻ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ‘‘ƒ† ̈́ͶǡʹͷͲ ‘ Ͳͳͳ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ Ž‘”‹ƒ†‹†‡‹‰ ̈́Ͷǡʹʹͺ ‘ ͲͶͷ ‘–‡”‡› ͳǦͳͺ͵‡””‹–––”‡‡–Ȁ”–‹ Š‘‡˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋŠƒ•‡ Ȍ ̈́ͶǡʹͳͲ ‘ Ͳ͸ʹ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͲͳǦƒ—”‡Ž”‹˜‡ ̈́͵ǡͻͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ʹͳͺǦ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵ǡ͸ͲͲ ‘ Ͳ͸ͻ ‘–‡”‡› ‘–‡”‡› ‡‹ ‡‹‰™ƒ›‰™ƒ›”‹˜‡š–‡•‹‘”‹˜‡š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ʹǡͺ͹ͳ ̈́ʹǡͺ͹ͳ‘ Ͳ͸Ͷ ‘–‡”‡› ‹ŽŽ‹ƒ•‘ƒ†‡†‹ƒ •Žƒ† ̈́ʹǡͳͺͺ ‘ Ͳͳ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ‘ƒ†”‹†‰‡‘˜‡”ͳͲͳ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͲͳͶ ‘–‡”‡› —™ƒ› ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡͻͷͲ ‘ ͲͶ͹ ‘–‡”‡› ‡”ƒŽ”‹˜‡ƒ•– ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡ͸Ͷ͹ ‘ ͲͲͻ ‘–‡”‡› ‘Ǥƒ”ƒŽŽ‡Žƒš‹™ƒ›ǦŠƒ•‡ ̈́ͳǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ ͲͳͲ ‘–‡”‡› ‘Ǥƒ”ƒŽŽ‡Žƒš‹™ƒ›ǦŠƒ•‡ ̈́ͳǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ ͲͲͺ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ‰ƒ”• ̈́ͳǡͳͺͺ ‘ ͲͷͶ ‘–‡”‡› ‹ ‘Ž˜‡—‡‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͳǡͳͳ͹ ‘ ͲʹͶ ‘–‡”‡› ‹‡†‘™ƒ’ƒ† ‡Ž‹’ƒ† ̈́ͳǡͳͲͲ ‘ Ͳͳͳ ‘–‡”‡› ‘Ǥ‡”‹‡–‡” ‡••‘ƒ† ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ͳͳͷ ‘–‡”‡› —™ƒ›–ƒš‹™ƒ›š–‡•‹‘• ̈́ͻͻͳ ‘ ͳ͵͹ ‘–‡”‡› ͳŽ‹„‹‰ƒ‡ƒ”‡ŽŽ›†Ȁ‹‘† ̈́ͺͳ͵ ‘ Ͳ͸ʹ ‘–‡”‡› ‹ Šƒ‡Ž”‡™ ‘‡ –‹‘ ̈́ͺͲͲ ‘ ͳʹ͹ ‘–‡”‡› —•ƒ–š–‡•‹‘ ̈́͹͵ͺ ‘ Ͳͳͻ ‘–‡”‡› ƒš‹™ƒ›̶̶ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ ͳʹͲ ‘–‡”‡› ͳͺ͵Ǧͳͷ͸ –‡” Šƒ‰‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ͳʹʹ ‘–‡”‡›‘–‡”‡› ƒš‹ƒš‹ ‹‰Š–•‹‰Š–•ƒ ƒ†† ‹‰ƒ‰‡‹‰ƒ‰‡ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘‘ Ͳͷ͸ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ”›ƒŽ”‹˜‡‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ ̈́͵͸Ͳ ‘ ͳͳͺ ‘–‡”‡›  Š—Ž–‡‘ƒ†”‹†‰‡͓ͷͲͳ ̈́͵ͳͻ ‘ Ͳʹ͵ ‘–‡”‡› Ǧ ƒ‰ƒ”ƒš‹ƒ‡• ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ ͲͲ͵ ‘–‡”‡› ’”‘ ‘‹–‡•‡ƒŽ‹‰ ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ ͳ͵Ͷ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ ‹‹‡–‘ƒ‡””‹†‰‡‘ǤͶͶͻ ̈́ͻͲ ‘ Ͳ͸ͳ ‘–‡”‡› ƒ”‹ƒǦƒŽ‹ƒ•‘””‹†‘”Ǧȋ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡‡Ǧ‡‹•—ŽƒȀ‘—–Š‘ƒ•–Ȍ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͳ͸ Ǧͷ ƒ‡‹–‘ ǤǤͳͲͳǣƒ•”‘‹–ƒ•ǣ‘–‡”‡›Ȁƒ‡‹–‘‘—–›‹‡–‘ͳͷ͸ǡ‹†‡ ȏ—‘™Ȑ ›‡• Ǧ͸ ƒ ‡‹–‘ ǤǤǤǤ ͳͲͳǣ ͳͷ͸ –‘ ƒ ‡‹–‘Ȁƒ Žƒ”ƒ ‘—–› ‹‡ ‹‡ǡǡ‹†‡ –‘ ͸ƒ‡ ͸Ǧƒ‡ ”‡ ȏ—‘™Ȑ ›‡• ͲͳͲͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‹‰Š™ƒ›ʹͷͶǦƒ‡‹†‡‹‰Šƒ•‡ ̈́ͳͺͳǡͲͲͲ ›‡• ǦͶ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‹‘ƒ ‹ˆ‹ ƒ‹Ž”‘ƒ†—Ž–‹Ǧ•‡ƒ–Š ̈́͹ǡ͹͹͸ ›‡• Ǧʹ ƒ‡‹–‘ ƒ‹”˜‹‡™‘ƒ†Ȁƒ ‡Ž‹’‡‘ƒ†ƒ•–Ǧ‡•–”–‡”‹ƒŽȋ‡™‘ƒ†Ȍ ȏ—‘™Ȑ ‘ Ǧ͵ ƒ‡‹–‘ ƒ‹”˜‹‡™‘ƒ†Ȁ‡‘”‹ƒŽ”‹˜‡ƒ•–Ǧ‡•–‘ŽŽ‡ –‘”ȋ‡™‘ƒ†Ȍ ȏ—‘™Ȑ ‘ Ǧͷ ƒ‡‹–‘ Ž›‘ƒ†š–‡•‹‘ƒ†‹†‡‹‰ ȏ—‘™Ȑ ‘ Ǧ͸ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‹‘‘ƒ†‹†‡‹‰Ȃ–ƒ–‡‘—–‡ʹͷȋ‹”Ž‹‡ ™›Ȍ–‘–ƒ–‡‘—–‡ͳͷ͸ ̈́Ͷʹǡͺ͵͹ ‘ Ǧͳͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ ƒ‡‹–‘‹˜‡”‡ ”‡ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ”ƒ‹Ž ̈́ͳͶǡͳ͸ͷ ‘ ‘ŽŽǦͳͲ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‡‘”‹ƒŽ”‹˜‡‘•–”— –‹‘Ǧƒ–ƒƒ–‘ Ž›‘ƒ† ̈́ͳ͵ǡͺͶʹ ‘ ‘ŽŽǦ͸ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‹”Ž‹‡ ‹‰Š™ƒ›ȋ–ƒ–‡‘—–‡ʹͷȌ‹†‡‹‰Ǧ—•‡–”Ǥ–‘ ƒ‹”˜‹‡™†Ǥ ̈́ͳͲǡͳͳͷ ‘ ‘ŽŽǦͶ ƒ‡‹–‘ —›•Ž‘’‡‘ƒ†‘•–”— –‹‘ǣŽ‘”‘”Ǥ–‘ ƒ‹”˜‹‡™†Ǥǡ™‹†‡–‘ͶŽƒ ̈́ͺǡͷͻͳ ‘ ‘ŽŽ Ǧͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ —’—‹”’‘”– ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͺǡͲͺͲ ‘ 123 Project Unconstrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant?

 Ǧͳ ƒ‡‹–‘ –‡ŽŽ‹‰‡–”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘›•–‡•—’—”‘Œ‡ –• ̈́͹ǡ͵ͷͷ ‘ ‘ŽŽ Ǧ͹ ƒ‡‹–‘ ƒ’š–‡•‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡‘”–Š ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‘ ‘ŽŽǦ͵ ƒ‡‹–‘ ƒ —ƒ‘ƒ†‹ › Ž‡ƒ†‡†‡•–”‹ƒ”‹†‰‡ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ ‘ŽŽ Ǧ͸ ƒ‡‹–‘ —‹Ž†ƒ”ƒŽŽ‡Žƒš‹™ƒ›ƒ†”—Ǧ—’ƒ”‡ƒ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ȁ ‘ŽŽȀ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‹†‡™ƒŽ ƒ’ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡ͵͸͵ ‘ Ȁ ‘ŽŽȀ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‡†‡•–”‹ƒƒ‹Ž”‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡͲͷͲ ‘ ‘ŽŽ Ǧʹ ƒ‡‹–‘ ”ƒ‹ƒ‰‡ȋ‘””ƒ‹ƒ‰‡‹– Š‡‘˜ƒŽŠƒ•‡ͳ‹ˆȌ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ‘ŽŽ Ǧ͵ ƒ‡‹–‘ ”ƒ‹ƒ‰‡‹– Š‡‘˜ƒŽŠƒ•‡ͳ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ‘ŽŽ ǦͶ ŽŽ Ͷ ‹– ƒ‡‹–‘ ”ƒ‹ƒ ‹‰‡‹– Š‡‘˜ƒŽŠƒ•‡ʹȋ‹ˆ‡‡†‡†Ȍ ‹– Š  Ž Š ʹ ȋ‹ˆ † †Ȍ ̈́ͳ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ͲͲͲ ‘ ‘ŽŽ Ǧͷ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‡”˜‹ ‡‘ƒ†Ǧ‘•–”— –‹‘Šƒ•‡ͳ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘  ͳ͵ ƒ‡‹–‘ ‹†‡•Šƒ”‡”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͷ͵ͷ ‘ ǦͳͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ ƒŽ”ƒ•‹–‡”˜‹ ‡‡•–‘”ƒ–‹‘ƒ†š’ƒ•‹‘ ̈́ͳ͹͹ǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡–”‘—•‡’Žƒ ‡‡–• ̈́ͳʹ͵ǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’— ǣ‘ŽŽ‹•‹‘‡†— –‹‘ ̈́͵ͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧʹͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’— ǣ‘ƒ†™ƒ›”‡•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘‘–ƒ–‡ ™›• ̈́͵ͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͲͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹†–‘™ –‡” Šƒ‰‡ ̈́͵ͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͲͳǦͲͳ ƒ–ƒ ”—œ ‘—–›™‹†‡’‡ ‹ƒŽ‹œ‡† ”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ʹ͹ǡͷͲͲ ‡• Ǧͳͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —•ƒ’‹†”ƒ•‹– ̈́ʹͷǡͻʹͲ ‡• ǦͶ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‘”‡œ‘‹˜‡”ƒŽŽ‡›”ƒ‹Ž ̈́ʹʹǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͲ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘Ǧƒ”ƒ–”ƒ•‹–‡”˜‹ ‡š’ƒ•‹‘ ̈́ʹͳǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ ƒŽ”ƒ•‹–Ǧ‘–‹—ƒ–‹‘‘ˆš‹•–‹‰‡”˜‹ ‡‡˜‡Ž•ʹͲͳͲǦʹͲ͵ͷ ̈́ʹͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͶͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‹‰Š–‡”˜‹ ‡ƒ‹Ž‹‡’‰”ƒ†‡• ̈́ʹͲǡͲͲͲ ‡• ͵ͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳȀƒ‘”‡œ‘”‹†‰‡‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ͳͻǡͷͲͲ ‡• ǦͲʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹ˆ–‹‡ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡Ȁ’‡”ƒ–‹‘•‡–‡” ̈́ͳͷǡͲͲͲ‡• Ǧ͵ͺ ͵ͺ ƒ–ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ”—œ ‡–”‘ƒ•‡ ‡–”‘ƒ•‡Šƒ•‡ Šƒ•‡ ̈́ͳͷǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —•‡”˜‹ ‡š’ƒ•‹‘ ̈́ͳͶǡͲͲͲ ‡• ʹ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘–‡”‡›ƒ›ƒ –—ƒ”› ‡‹ ”ƒ‹Ž‡–™‘” ̈́ͳ͵ǡͷͲͲ ‡• Ǧͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒŒƒ”‘ƒ‹Ž–ƒ–‹‘‡•‹‰ƒ†‘•–”— – ̈́ͳ͵ǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”ƒ–”ƒ•‹–‡”˜‹ ‡Ǧ‘–‹—ƒ–‹‘‘ˆš‹•–‹‰‡”˜‹ ‡ ̈́ͳʹǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧʹͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”ƒ”—œ’‡”ƒ–‹‰ ƒ ‹Ž‹–› ̈́ͳʹǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ͳʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”ƒ–”ƒ•‹–—•‡’Žƒ ‡‡–• ̈́ͳͳǡ͵ͳͲ ‡• Ǧ͵Ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ͷͳͳ”ƒ˜‡Ž ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘›•–‡ ̈́ͳͲǡͳͲͲ ‡• ͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ–ƒ”—œ‡–”‘‡–‡”Ȁƒ ‹ˆ‹ –ƒ–‹‘‡‘˜ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ͻǡͻͲͲ ‡• ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ͹š’”‡••‡”˜‹ ‡Ǧ‘–Ǥ‘ˆš‹•–‹‰‡”˜‹ ‡‡˜‡Ž•̈́ ̈́ͺǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵ʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳʹͻ‹†‡‹‰ȋ‹‘Ǧ”‹†‰‡–Ȍ ̈́ͺǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡†‹ ƒŽŽ› ”ƒ‰‹Ž‡’‡ ‹ƒŽ‹œ‡†”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ ̈́͹ǡͷͲͲ ‡• ǦͲͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —•–‘’ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͹ǡͷͲͲ ‡• ͵ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”ƒ†‹†‡‘–‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ̈́͹ǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧͳͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ͹  ̈́͹ǡͲͲͲ ‡• ͳͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡’Žƒ ‡‡–”ƒ•‹– ƒ”‡„‘š‡• ̈́͸ǡͺͲͲ ‡• Ǧʹ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳš’”‡••—•‡• ̈́͸ǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧʹͻ ƒ–ƒƒ–ƒ ”—œ”—œ ‘Žƒ”‘Žƒ” ƒ‡Ž•ƒ‡Ž• ˆ‘”ˆ‘” ‡–”‘ƒ•‡‡–”‘ƒ•‡ ̈́͸ǡͲͲͲ ‡•‡• ǦͲ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹–‡ Š‘Ž‘‰‹ ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷǡͻͺͷ ‡• ǦͲͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳƒ’‡–‡”‹‰ǣ‘—–Š‡”‡ –‹‘• ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͲͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͻ’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽƬƒˆ‡–› ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧʹͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹–”‹‡–‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ”ƒ–”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ͳʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–‡‘Ž—–‹‘•‹†‡•Šƒ”‡”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͶǡͷͲͲ ‡• Ǧͳʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ͹š’”‡••‡”˜‹ ‡š’ƒ•‹‘ ̈́ͶǡͷͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹–›•–‡‡ Š‘Ž‘‰› ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́Ͷǡ͵͵Ͳ ‡• Ǧ͵ͻ ƒ–ƒ ”—œ ƒ”‹‰ –”— –—”‡ ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡–”‘ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•”‡’ƒ‹”Ȁ—’‰”ƒ†‡• ̈́͵ǡ͸͵Ͳ ‡• Ǧͳͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡”˜‹ ‡š’ƒ•‹‘ ̈́͵ǡͷͲͲ ‡• Ͳͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒŒƒ”‘ƒŽŽ‡›”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ƒƒ‰‡‡–••‘ ‹ƒ–‹‘ȋȌ ̈́͵ǡͳʹͷ ‡• ǦͶʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡‹‘”Ȁ‹•ƒ„Ž‡†Ȁ‘™Ǧ  ‘‡ ‹š‡†Ǧ‘—–‡”ƒ•‹–  ‡–‹˜‡• ̈́͵ǡͳʹͷ ‡• ʹͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ ”‡ƒ–‹‘ƒŽƒ‹Ž ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”ƒ”—œ Š‡†—Ž‹‰‘ˆ–™ƒ”‡Ǣ‘„‹Ž‡ƒ–ƒ‡”‹ƒŽ•Ǣƒ†‹‘• ̈́ʹǡͺ͸͵ ‡• Ǧ͹’ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –‘ –‘˜‡”‹†‰‡‡Šƒ„ ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —•‡„—‹Ž†ƒ†ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‡• ǦͶͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‹ƒ–‡ –‹‘”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘”‘‰”ƒ• ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‡• ǦͲ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ –‡ŽŽ‹‰‡–”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘›•–‡ȋ Ȍ‡’Ž‘›‡– ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧͳͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–‡”Ȁ—„• ”‹’–‹‘—•”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‡• 124 Project Unconstrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant? Ǧʹͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‰ƒŽ”‹‘”‹–›Ȁ”‡Ǧ’–‹‘ˆ‘”—•‡• ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧʹ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–›™‹†‡‡†‡•–”‹ƒ‹‰ƒŽ’‰”ƒ†‡• ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‡• ͳ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ‘Ž‘‰› –‹‘”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͳǡͺͳͷ ‡• ǦͶ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡‹‘”’Ž‘›‡–‹†‡‡‹„—”•‡‡– ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‡• ǦʹͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡•‘—•‡•š’ƒ•‹‘ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‡• ǦͶͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ–‡” ƒ”˜‡•–‹‰ˆ‘”‹˜‡”–Ǥ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‡• ͵͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ ”‡‡ƒ„”‹ŽŽ‘‘ŽŽ‡‰‡ ̈́ͳǡͶͶͲ ‡• ǦͶͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –‡”Ǧ‘—–›ƒ”ƒ–”ƒ•‹–‘‡ –‹‘ ̈́ͳǡʹͷͲ ‡• Ǧͳͻ ͳͻ – ƒ–ƒ”—œ‹–„‹Ž‹–‹‹ ”ƒ•‹–‘„‹Ž‹–›”ƒ‹‹‰”‘‰”ƒš’ƒ•‹‘  ‹ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ̈́ͳ ʹͲͲ  ‡• Ǧ͵ʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘Ǧ‡˜‡—‡‡Š‹ Ž‡• ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳͷʹ‹†‡‹‰ȋƒ”–‹‡ŽŽ‹Ǧ ‘Ž‘ŠƒȌ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧʹ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡–ƒ–‹‘ƒ–ƒ’‹–‘ŽƒƒŽŽ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ȁ –‘”ƒ‰‡ƒ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‡• ǦͶͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ —”‹–› ƒ–‡•ˆ‘”‡–”‘ƒ•‡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‡• Ǧʹͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡‘ ‡”• ̈́͹ͷͲ ‡• ͳͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ’‘‘Ž  ‡–‹˜‡”‘‰”ƒ ̈́͸ʹͷ ‡• Ǧ͵͹Ǧ͵͹ ƒ–ƒ ”—œ Ͷͳ•–˜‡Ȁƒ’‹–‘Žƒ  ‘ƒ† –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷͲͲ ‡• Ǧʹͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳȀ‹••‹‘–”‡‡–  ̈́ͷͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵Ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹•ƒ•–‡”‡•’‘•‡‘„‹Ž‡‘ƒ† ̈́ͷͲͲ ‡•  ǦͲ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳʹͻƒˆ‡–›”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‡• ͳ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡ƒ”‹‰—„•‹†›”‘‰”ƒ ̈́͵ͲͲ ‡• ͵ʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹ › Ž‡‘—–‡‹‰ƒ‰‡ ̈́͵ͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵ʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–›™‹†‡‡†‡•–”‹ƒŽƒ‹‰ ”ƒ– ̈́͵ͲͲ ‡• Ǧ͵͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹–‡ —”‹–›ƒ†—”˜‡‹ŽŽƒ ‡›•–‡• ̈́ʹͶͲ ‡• Ǧ͵ͷ ͵ͷ ƒ–ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ”—œ ‘—–›™‹†‡ ‘—–›™‹†‡ ‡‡”ƒŽ‘ƒ†ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ† ‡‡”ƒŽ‘ƒ†ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ†’‡”ƒ–‹‘•’‡”ƒ–‹‘•̈́ͳ͸ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡’‡”ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†ƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ ̈́ͳͲͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–›™‹†‡‹†‡™ƒŽ• ̈́͸͹ǡͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘›•–‡Ž‡ –”‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ͷͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ ‘––”‡‡ƒ†ƒ††‡ŽŽ”‡‡”‹†‰‡‡’Žƒ ‡‡–• ̈́ʹ͸ǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡ ‡‡”ƒŽƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ†’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ʹͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”Ƭ‹†‡‘–• ̈́ʹͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦʹͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ ‹ˆ‹ ‘˜‡š’ƒ•‹‘ˆ‘”ƒ”ǦǦ‹†‡‘– ̈́ͳͺǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹†‡™ƒŽ”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͳ͸ǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ’‹–‘Žƒ –”ƒǦ‹–›ƒ‹Ž”‘ŽŽ‡› ̈́̈́ͳͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡ ‡‡”ƒŽƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ†’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ͳͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —–‘Žƒœƒ”‹˜‡š–‡•‹‘–‘ƒ›˜‡—‡ ̈́ͳͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͹Ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –”ƒ ‹–›ƒ‹Ž”ƒ•‹– ̈́ͳͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡›‡””‹˜‡š–‡•‹‘Ȁ ‘”†ƒ —Ž Š”‹†‰‡• ̈́ͳͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž–‡”ƒ–‹˜‡ —‡ŽȀŽ‡ –”‹ •Š—––Ž‡˜‡Š‹ Ž‡• ̈́ͳͲǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ȁ‹Ž‹ ‘ƒŽŽ‡›‡–‡” ‹–‡› ̈́ͻǡ͵͹ͷ ‘ Ǧ͵ͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒŒƒ”‘‹˜‡”‹‡ƒ–Š›•–‡ ̈́ͻǡʹͲͲ ‘ ǦͶ͵ ƒ–ƒƒ–ƒ ”—œ”—œ ‘›‘› ‘‘‘‘ ‘ƒ†‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͺǡͲͲͲ ‘‘ ǦͲ͹ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ‹‡Ȁ‡†”‹†‰‡ȋƒ„”‹ŽŽ‘Ǧ‡™”‹‰Š–‘Ȍ ̈́ͺǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ͹Ȁ ”ƒ‹–‡”‡‡ –‡” Šƒ‰‡‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ ̈́ͺǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘„‹Ž‹–›ƒƒ‰‡‡–‡–‡” ̈́͸ǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡ ‡‡”ƒŽƒ‹–‡ƒ ‡ƒ†’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ̈́͸ǡʹͷͲ ‘ ǦͲ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘”–Š‡”‘‘’‘ƒ†™ƒ› ̈́͸ǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘”–Š‡”–”ƒ ‡ ̈́͸ǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒŠƒ ‹ŽŽ‘ƒ†—Ž–‹‘†ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‹–›‘ˆ–‘ ™›ͻȌ ̈́ͷǡͺͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸— ƒ–ƒ ”—œ —‹– † ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷǡͶͲͲ̈́ͷǡͶͲͲ ‘ ǦͶ͸„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‘”‡œ‘ƒŽŽ‡›”ƒ‹Žǣ ™›ͻǦ‘”–Š ‡Ž–‘‹‡ƒ‡•Ƭ‹†‡™ƒŽ• ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦʹͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ȁ‡•–•‹†‡‹–•Š—––Ž‡ ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͶ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ•–‘ŽŽ‡ –‘””ƒ•‹– —„ ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ǧ‡–”‘–ƒ–‹‘—•ƒ’‹†”ƒ•‹– ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ƒ•–ƒŽƒ”‹‡ƒ’—•”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡Šƒ”‡ ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —‡ƒ‹•–ƒȀƒŽ„ƒ•ƒ•Ȁ ”‡‡†‘‘‡ –‹‘ ̈́ͷǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‡ƒ››’‘† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ”ƒ ‹ˆ‘”–‡”–‘‹– ȋ› ‘ˆ ‘––•ƒŽŽ‡› ›ȌȌ ̈́ͶǡͺͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹–‡Š‹ Ž‡• ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ ͵Ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡•–‹‘ƒ†‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘Ǧ–‘”ƒƒ‰‡ ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ʹ‹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’’‡”ƒ•–ƒ›ƒ–‡†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ™›͵ͷ–‘Ǥƒ›ƒ–‡†Ȍ ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ 125 Project Unconstrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant?

ǦͶͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ‘––•ƒŽŽ‡›‘™‡–‡”‹ › Ž‡Ȁ‡†‡•–”‹ƒ ƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡• ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡•–˜‹‡™Ȁƒ‰‡”š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ͶǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ””‡‡‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ™›ͻ–‘ ™›͵ͷȌ ̈́͵ǡͺͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ȁ‘–‡”‡› ‹–‡› ̈́͵ǡ͹ͷͲ ‘ ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’‹”‡ ”ƒ†‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵ǡ͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘“—‡Ž” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘“—‡Ž˜‡–‘ ”‡‡†‘Ž˜†Ȍ ̈́͵ǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘„‡”–•‘–”‡‡– ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘“—‡ŽŠƒ”ˆ†–‘‘“—‡Ž”ǤȌ ̈́͵ǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ʹ„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‡•† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦ ”‡‡†‘Ž˜†–‘—”‡ƒƒ›‘ ̈́͵ǡͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͻ Ͳͻ – ƒ–ƒ”—œ– –Ǥ ‡”‘†Ǥ‹” —Žƒ–‹‘ƒ•–‡”Žƒ † ‹ Ž –‹  – Ž ̈́͵ ̈́͵ǡͷͲͲ ͷͲͲ  ‘ Ǧͳͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒˆ‡‘—–‡•–‘ Š‘‘Ž”‘‰”ƒ• ̈́͵ǡͶͷͲ ‘ Ǧͻͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ ‹ˆ‘”–‡”‡‡‡†‡•–”‹ƒƒ–Š‘‡ –‹‘• ̈́͵ǡʹͷͲ ‘ ͳ͸„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹Ž†‡”ƒ Š‹‡Ȁ‡†‡•–”‹ƒƒ–ŠǣŠƒ•‡ʹ ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲ‘ Ǧͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͷͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡†™‘‘†‘†‰‡†ȋ–‹”‡‡‰–ŠȌ ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͸ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‡™‘‘†—–‘ˆˆ ‡‡”ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ Ž‡™‘‘†”–‘ ™›ͳ͹Ȍ ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ŽŽ‡”Ȁ–‡‹Šƒ”–”ƒ•‹–‹‡™ƒ›”‹†‰‡ ̈́͵ǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸‡Ǧʹ͸‡ ƒ–ƒ ”—œ —‡ƒ ‹•–ƒ † ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ †”‡ƒ• –‘  ”‡‡†‘ Ž˜†Ȍ ̈́ʹǡͻͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‡™‘‘†”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ‘––•ƒŽŽ‡› ‹–›Ž‹‹–•–‘–ƒ–‡ ™›ͳ͹Ȍ ̈́ʹǡͻͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ’ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‘—– —Ž Š†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘“—‡Ž”Ǥ–‘‡†Ȍ ̈́ʹǡͻͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ”‡‡‘ƒ†‡ƒŽ‹‰‡– ̈́ʹǡ͹ͷͲ ‘ ǦͲͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡‹†‡™ƒŽ”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒƒ†”‘ƒ” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋŽƒ Š‘”–‘‹–›‘ˆ ‘––•ƒŽŽ‡›Ȍ ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‰”‹ —Ž–—”ƒŽ‘”‡””ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͹ͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ‡ƒ–ƒ†”‘ƒ†™ƒ› –‡”•‡ –‹‘‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͸ Ͳ͸ ƒ–ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ”—œ ƒ”•Šƒ”‹‰ ƒ”•Šƒ”‹‰”‘”‘‰”ƒ‰”ƒ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ˆ‘”‘™  ‘‡‘—–Š ̈́ʹǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ͳͺ„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž–‡”ƒ–‹˜‘•Ƭ—Ž‡•‘ˆ–Š‡‘ƒ†ƒˆ‡–›”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ʹǡͶͷͲ ‘ ǦͲ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡•–‹‘ƒ†—Ž–‹‘†ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›–‘”‘™ƒŽŽ‡›† ̈́ʹǡͶͲͲ ‘ ͷͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–Š‘—–›”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ʹǡͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧͺͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳȀ‹••‹‘–ƒ–Š‡•–—–Ȁ‹‰Ȁ‹‘ –‡”•‡ –‹‘‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ʹǡͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘›‘‘† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ–ƒ–‡ ™›ͳ–‘‹–Š ”ƒ†‡†Ȍ ̈́ʹǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Žƒ Š‘” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ–Ǥ ‡”‘Ȁ ™›ͳ͹–‘ ‹–›Ž‹‹–•Ȍ ̈́ʹǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸Ž ƒ–ƒ”—œ —”‡ƒƒ›‘† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ƒ‡•†–‘—œœƒ”†ƒ‰‘‘†Ȍ ̈́ʹǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͺˆ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡ Žƒ–† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘›‘‘†–‘’‹”‡ ”ƒ†‡†Ȍ̈́ ̈́ʹǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ʹ͸–Š˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦ‘”–‘Žƒ”–‘‡†Ȍ ̈́ʹǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ʹ† ƒ–ƒ”—œ —–‹‰–‘”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘”‘‡˜‡–‘ƒŽ‡ ‹ƒ†ǤȌ ̈́ʹǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ʹ‰ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–Š ”ƒ†‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦ’‹”‡ ”ƒ†‡–‘‘›‘‘ ̈́ʹǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‡‘‘Ž‹†‰‡”‹˜‡Ȁ ™›ͻ‹‡ƒ–Š ̈́ʹǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’—‹ › Ž‡”‘Œ‡ –• ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͹ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —’—‹‡”‘Œ‡ –• ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ – ‡”‘ǡ‘ ‡™‘‘†ǡ’”‹‰•ƒ‡™‹†‡‹‰ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͺ ƒ–ƒƒ–ƒ ”—œ”—œ ‘“—‡Ž‘“—‡Ž ˜‡˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‹–› ‘ ‘ˆˆ – –‘‘ ”‘••”‘••†Ȍ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘‘ ǦͲͶ„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ’‹–‘Žƒ‹ŽŽƒ‰‡—Ž–‹‘†ƒŽŠƒ ‡‡–•ǦŠƒ•‡ʹȀ͵ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡†‘Ž˜†—Ž–‹‘†ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘‹–ƒ”–‘‹–›‘ˆƒ–•‘˜‹ŽŽ‡ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒˆ‡ƒ–Š•‘ˆ”ƒ˜‡Ž ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‹ˆˆ”‹˜‡‡ƒ™ƒŽŽ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ›ƒ”‘‡” ‹ƒŽ”‡ƒ‹” —Žƒ–‹‘ ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͶ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‰ƒ”Ǧ‘‘Ž‹†‰‡‘‡ –‘”‘ƒ† ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͷͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹†‡™ƒŽȀ’‡†‡•–”‹ƒ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ʹǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸“ ƒ–ƒ ”—œ –Ǥ–Ǥ ‡”‘† †ǤǤ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ȋ‘ Šƒ”–  —Ž Š –‘  ”ƒŠƒ  ‹ŽŽ †Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͻͲͲ̈́ͳǡͻͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘Ž—–‡‡”‡–‡””ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͳǡͺ͹ͷ ‘ Ǧʹ͹Ž ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹Ž‡˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–Šˆ”‘‘“—‡Ž”Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͺͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͺ† ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡Ž–‘’‹”‡‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–Š–‘–ƒ–‡ ™›ͻȌ ̈́ͳǡͺͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ŽŽ‡‰‡‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ™›ͳͷʹ–‘ƒ‡˜‹‡™†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸Œ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ•–ƒ›ƒ–‡† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘’‹ ‘†–‘Œ—•–„‡ˆ‘”‡—‹–†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͺƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ”‡‡† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ‘––•ƒŽŽ‡›‹–›‹‹–•–‘ Ž‡™‘‘†”Ȍ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž„ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ’‹”‡ ”ƒ†‡–‘–ƒ–‡ ™›ͻȌ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ ‹ˆ‘”–‡”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‹–’ȋ››‘ˆƒ–ƒ”—œ–‘‹‡ ‹ŽŽ†Ȍ Ȍ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͲŠ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ‹–‡”‡‡†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ”ƒ ‹ˆ‘”–‡”–‘‹–›‘ˆ ‘––•ƒŽŽ‡›Ȍ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳ‹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘†‡‘ —Ž Š†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘Ƭ‘”–Šǣ–Ǥ‹‡™Ȁƒ—”‡Ž Ž‡†–‘ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”‹•Ž‘—‰Š†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦ—‡ƒ‹•–ƒ”–‘–ƒ–‡ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ 126 Project Unconstrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant? Ǧ͵ʹŒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒŽ‡ ‹ƒ†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ”‘—– —Ž Š†–‘ƒŽ‡ ‹ƒ Š‘‘Ž†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡ͹ͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘“—‡ŽǦƒ ‘•‡† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ’‡”‹ŽŽ†–‘—‹–†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‹ˆˆ”‹˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ ǦʹͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”˜‡—‡š–‡•‹‘–‘ƒ’‹–‘Žƒ˜‡—‡ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ†‡–”‡‡–š–‡•‹‘ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͸Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘‘†–ǡƒ—”‡Ž–Ƭ ƒ”‘–‡†‡•–”‹ƒƒˆ‡–› ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘—Ž† ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͸͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‘”ƒ†‘˜‡‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ’‹–‘Žƒ†–‘Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͺ͹ ͺ͹ – ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘“—‡Ž˜‡‘””‹†‘”‹†‡‹ Ž   ‹† ‹† ‹‰ȋ ‡ƒ‹‡™Ǧ‘””‹••‡ ȋ ‹  ‹›Ȍ ̈́ͳ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ͷͲͲ  ‘ Ǧͳͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹–—ŽŽ‘—–•ƒ†Š‡Ž–‡”• ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹–›™‹†‡”ƒˆˆ‹ ƒŽ‹‰ ̈́ͳǡͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͻ‰ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘Ž‘”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘“—‡Ž”–‘‡†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ʹƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž—„Š‘—•‡”‹˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ—‡”˜–‘‹‘‡Žƒ”Ž˜†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ʹŠ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —‡”˜‡Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦ‹‘‡Žƒ”Ž˜†–‘‡†ȏŒ—•–’ƒ ̈́ͳǡͶͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’’‡”ƒ’‹–‘Žƒ˜‡—‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡ͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹•‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ”ƒŠƒ ‹ŽŽ†–‘ƒƒ†”‘ƒ”Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹ƒǦʹ͹ƒ ƒ–ƒ ”—œ ͵ͺ–Š˜‡  ’”‘˜‡‡–• ȋ –‘  ǤŽ‹ˆˆ ”Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ ǦʹͺŠ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Š—”„‡” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠȌ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‡˜‹‡™‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ Š‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‹–›Ž‹‹–•–‘ƒŒƒ”‘—‡•Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸† ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‘™ƒŽŽ‡›† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘””ƒŽ‹–‘•†–‘‡†™‘‘††Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’–‘•‡ƒ Š” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ•’Žƒ†‡–‘‹‘‡Žƒ”Ž˜†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹‰ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–ƒ‹‹‡™† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ”ƒ ‹ˆ‘”–‡”–‘‘†‡‘ —Ž Š†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͻ„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘‹–ƒ” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠȌ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ ǦʹͻŠ ʹͻŠ ƒ–ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ”—œ ‡„•–‡” ‡„•–‡”– – ’”‘˜‡‡–•’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ȋ ‘•‡‘•‡˜‡–‘ͳ͸–Š–˜‡–‘ͳ͸–Š–ȌȌ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳˆ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‡”„‘”†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ–ƒ–‡ ™›ͻ–‘‡†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͲŒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ—”‡Ž Ž‡†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘“—‡ŽǦƒ ‘•‡†–‘–Ǥ‹‡™Ȁ‘†‡‘ — ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ“ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡ ‹ŽŽ†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ”ƒ ‹ˆ‘”–‡Ȁ–Ǥ‹‡™†–‘–ƒ–‡ ™›ͳ͹Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳ„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ’‹–‘Žƒ†Ǥš– ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ’‹–‘Žƒ†–‘‘“—‡Ž˜‡Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ›ƒŽŽ‡›†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦ ”‡‡†‘Ž˜†–‘ƒŽ‡ ‹ƒ†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳ‡ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ Šƒ”– —Ž Š ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ‘––•ƒŽŽ‡›‹–›Ž‹‹–•–‘‡†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳˆ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡•ƒ”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‹‡ƒ”‹˜‡–‘‡†›ƒ”†ƒ›Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵‰ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ”‡‰‘””Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ’‹–‘Žƒ ‹–›Ž‹‹–•–‘‡ƒ”‹†‰‡†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵Š ƒ–ƒ”—œ Š‘’•‘˜‡Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦƒ’‹–‘Žƒ†–‘‡†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ̈́ ‘ Ǧ͵ͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —”’Š›”‘••‹‰ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”‘Žƒ›Ȁ‘’‹ ‘”‡‡”‹†‰‡‡’Žƒ ‡‡– ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž—‡„Ž‘†š–Ǥ‘”–Š ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‘‡Žƒ”Ž˜†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ•’Žƒƒ†‡–‘–ƒ–‡ ™›ͳȌ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ ‹ˆ‘”–‡”‡‡‹‡Ȁ‡†”‘••‹‰ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͹ͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”‡––Ȁ ‘••˜‡—‡ƒ†”ƒ ‹ˆ‘”–‡Ȁ ‘•• –‡”•‡ –‹‘‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ’‘‘Žƒ “—‹•‹–‹‘ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͷ ƒ–ƒƒ–ƒ ”—œ”—œ ƒ’‹–‘Žƒƒ’‹–‘Žƒ ‹–‡› ‹–‡› ”ƒ•‹–”ƒ•‹– ‡”˜‹ ‡‡”˜‹ ‡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘‘ Ǧ͵Ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ’‹–‘Žƒ‹ŽŽƒ‰‡Šƒ ‡‡–•ǣƒ’‹–‘Žƒ˜‡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ‹•–ƒ‘‹–’‰”ƒ†‡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘””‹••‡›Ȁ‘’Žƒ”Ȁ‘“—‡Ž –‡”•‡ –‹‘‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡”‰‡ › ‡••Ȁ’’‡”‹ŽŽ‹•”Ǥ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –Ǥ ‡”‘†ǤȀǦͳ͹ƒ’• –‡”•‡ –‹‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ’”‘˜‡‡–”‘Œ‡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͲʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡•– ƒ–‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ƒ—‰ŠŽ‹”‹˜‡‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͸ ƒ–ƒ ”—œ ‘”–‡”Ȁ‡”ˆ‘”‹‰”–• ‡†‡•–”‹ƒ ”‹†‰‡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ŽŽ‡‰‡‹‡Ȁ”‘™‘ŽŽ‡‰‡‡†‡•–”‹ƒ”‹†‰‡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ŽŽ‡‰‡‹‡Ȁ‘—‹ ƒ–‹‘•‡†‡•–”‹ƒ”‹†‰‡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ‹‡ ‡ ‹ŽŽȀ‘ŽŽ‡‰‡•ͳͳƬͳʹ‡†‡•–”‹ƒ”‹†‰‡ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ‘Ǧ‘—”‹•Ǧ—•–ƒ‹ƒ„Ž‡”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ͳǡͲͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘—–›™‹†‡ ‡••ƒ’• ̈́ͻͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳŠ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‘‡‡”†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡•–‹†–‘ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›†Ȍ ̈́ͺͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳŒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘Žƒ†”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ͵Ͳ–Š–‘͵ͺ–ŠȌ ̈́ͺͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵‹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒŽŽƒ ‡˜‡Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡’ȋ‰‰‰–ŠǦ —–‹‰–‘”–‘‡†Ȍ Ȍ ̈́ͺͷͲ ‘ ǦʹͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –ƒ–‡ƒ””‹˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•Šƒ•‡ʹ ̈́ͺͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡Ǧ –‹˜ƒ–‡†”ƒˆˆ‹ ‹‰ƒŽ”‘‰”ƒ ̈́ͺͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ʹˆ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —ƒ‹Ž ‘ŽŽ‘™† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦ’’‡”ƒ•–ƒ›ƒ–‡–‘ Ž‡ ̈́ͺͲͲ ‘ 127 Project Unconstrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant?

Ǧ͵ͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ͶͲ–Š˜‡ȀŽƒ”‡•– –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͹ͷͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸‰ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ••‡”Ž›† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ™›ͳͷʹ–‘ ”‡‡ƒŽŽ‡›†Ȍ ̈́͹ͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͸ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ —Ž„˜‡‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ”‘‡”––‘ƒ’‹–‘Žƒ‹–›‹‹–• ̈́͹ͷͲ ‘ Ǧʹͻ‡ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ ‹‡Ž˜‡Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ’‹–‘Žƒ†–‘ƒ––‹•‘Ȍ ̈́͹ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’”‡ ‡Ž•” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘“—‡Ž”–‘’–‘•‡ƒ Š”Ȍ ̈́͹ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ͷͳ•–˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ™›ͳ –‡” Šƒ‰‡–‘‘“—‡Ž”Ȍ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸Š ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡–‡”˜‡Ȁ‡ƒ Ž‹ˆˆ” ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ–ƒ–‡ƒ””–‘’–‘•‡ƒ Š”Ȍ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸‹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Šƒ–‹ Ž‡‡”˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ™›ͳ–‘‘“—‡Ž”Ȍ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ† ͵Ͳ† – ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ„”‹ŽŽ‘‘ŽŽ‡ „ ‹ŽŽ  ŽŽ‰‡”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ”˜‡–‘™‹ƒ‡•Š—” ŠȌ  – ȋ   –  ‹   Š ŠȌ ̈́͸ͲͲ  ‘ Ǧ͵ͳ‰ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’ƒŽŽ‹ˆˆ”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋͶͳ•–˜–‘‘”–‘Žƒ”Ȍ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‹ˆˆ”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‹‘‡Žƒ”–‘ƒ‹Ž”‘ƒ†”‘••‹‰Ȍ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ‹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”‹ƒŽŽ‡›†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ†”‡ƒ•†–‘—‡ƒ‹•–ƒ”Ȍ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘’‹ ‘†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ›ƒ–‡†Ǥ–‘‡†Ȍ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͲŽ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”‘–‡”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋƒ†”‡ƒ•†–‘–ƒ–‡ ™›ͳȌ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳ† ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡†›ƒ”†ƒ› ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦ‘“—‡Ž”–‘‹‡™‘‹–”Ȍ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ʹ‡ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‹•‘”Ǥ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦ’‹”‡ ”ƒ†‡–‘ ™›ʹ͵͸Ȍ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵ƒǦ͵͵ƒ ƒ–ƒ ”—œ ‘™‡”† Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ȋ‡–‹”‡ Ž‡‰–Š Ž‡‰–ŠǦ—‡ƒǦ—‡ƒ‹•–ƒ ” –‘  ”‡‡†‘ Ž˜† ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵„ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ–Š‡†”ƒŽ”Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠȌ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵‡ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒˆ”‡†Ǥ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦƒ”‹ƒŽŽ‡›†–‘—‡ƒ‹•–ƒ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ ǦͶʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’”‡ ‡Ž•”Ȁ”‡ƒ•—”‡ •Žƒ†” ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͸ͲͲ‘ Ǧ͵Ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ǥƒ˜ƒ””ƒ”Ǧ— ‹–‘”‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡Š‘™‡”•Ȁ–‘”ƒ‰‡ ƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡• ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ ǦͲʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ˜‡Ž—”˜‡› ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ ƒŽ”–‡”‹ƒŽ  ˆ”ƒ•–”— –—”‡ ̈́͸ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹʹ ʹʹ ƒ–ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ”—œ Š‡•–—– Š‡•–—––Ǥƒ–Š™ƒ–Ǥƒ–Š™ƒ›› ̈́ͷͷͲ‘ ǦͶ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Š‡•–—––”‡‡–‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́ͷͷͲ ‘ ǦʹͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡”‰‡ › ‡•• ”ƒ‹–‡”‡‡Ȁ ™›ͳ͹ ̈́ͷͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͹͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†”ƒˆˆ‹ ƒƒ‰‡‡– ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ ǦʹͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘ ™‘‘†ƒ‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ ”ƒŠƒ ‹ŽŽ†–‘Ž‹‹–•Ȍ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†”ƒˆˆ‹ ƒŽ‹‰ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹•ƒ„‹Ž‹–›ƒ‡Š‹ Ž‡ “—‹•‹–‹‘ƒ†‡’Žƒ ‡‡– ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͷ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”Ž–‘†”ƒˆˆ‹  ’”‘˜‡‡–•ˆ‘””— •ȋƒ‡˜‹‡™ –‡”•‡ –‹‘Ȍ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͷͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘“—‡Ž””ƒˆˆ‹ ‹‰ƒŽƒ†‡ˆ–—”ƒ‡ȋ‘„‡”–•‘–Ȍ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͻ ̈́ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳʹͻ  ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳ‘—†ƒŽŽ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͲͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”‡––”‡‡–‹†‡™ƒŽ• ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͹͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –‘”‡›Ȁ‹‰–”‡‡– –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͻʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Šƒˆˆ‡”†Ȁ ™›ͳ‹‰ƒŽ‹œƒ–‹‘ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”„ƒƒ‡Ȁ‡””ƒ ‡‹‡™Ȁ”‹˜‡‡ƒŽ‹‰‡– ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‡™‘‘†”Ǥ‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͶͲ ƒ–ƒƒ–ƒ ”—œ”—œ ‘ ™‘‘†‘ ™‘‘† ƒ‡ƒ‡‹† ‹†‡™ƒŽ‡™ƒŽƒ ƒ††‹ ‹‡‡ ƒ‡•ƒ‡• ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘‘ Ǧͳͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‰ƒ”Ȁƒ•–‡‘–‡ –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ‡ŽŽ‡”™‡•–‘ˆ‡”” ƒŽŽ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ  ‡”›‹„”ƒ”›Ȁ ƒ†‡‹ ‡•‘—” ‡‡–‡”‡†‡•–”‹ƒ”‹†‰‡ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡†‡•–”‹ƒ‹”‡ –‹‘ƒŽƒ’›•–‡ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ ǦͶ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ǧ‡•–‡””Ǥ‹‡Ȁ‡†‡•–”‹ƒƒ–Š‘‡ –‹‘ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͷͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡Š—––Ž‡‡Š‹ Ž‡ “—‹•‹–‹‘ ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͷʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‡ –”‹ ‹‡”‘‰”ƒˆ‘” ̈́ͷͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͺ ƒ–ƒ ”—œ ‹••‹‘–Ȁ ™› ͳ ‹‡Ȁ”—   ƒˆ‡–› ƒ’ƒ‹‰ ̈́ͶͺͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸• ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ• ƒ’‡Ž˜† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ—‡”˜‡–‘ƒ†”‡ƒ•†Ȍ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹ › Ž‡Šƒ””‘™• ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ›˜‡—‡Ȁƒ’‹–‘Žƒ˜‡—‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ›˜‡—‡ ’”‘˜‡‡– ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧ’͸ʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘“—‡Ž”‘ƒ† ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘„‡”–•‘––‘ƒ—„‡„‹••Ȍ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳǣ ”‡›Š‘—†‘  –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧͺͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡•–‡””‹†‡™ƒŽ•ȋ‹••‹‘Ǧ ‹‰ŠȌ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧͻ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ››ȀȀƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ’ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž—‡„Ž‘†š–‡•‹‘• ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡”‰‡ › ‡••Ǧ—†”‹†‰‡Ȁ—‡„Ž‘ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹˜‹ ‡–‡””‹˜‡‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ 128 Project Unconstrained Regionally County Project Number Costs Significant? ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‰ƒ”Ȁ ƒ—‰ŠŽ‹ –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ Ǧͳͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ŽŽ‡”Ȁ‘”–‡”Šƒ‡Ž‹œƒ–‹‘ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ ǦͳͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ‰ƒ”Ȁ–‡‹Šƒ”– –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ ǦͶʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘‘Ž‹†‰‡˜‡”Ž‘‘ ̈́ͶͲͲ ‘ ǦͲͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”˜‡—‡Ȁ‡‡†›”‹˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵ͷͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹˜‡”•‹†‡˜‡Ȁ‡ ‘†–‹‰ƒŽ‹œƒ–‹‘ƒ† –‡” ‘‡ –‹‘ ̈́͵ͷͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘” ‘”ƒ˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋŽ‹ ‡––‘ ‡Ž––Ȍ ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ›˜‡—‡Ȁ‘–‡”‡›˜‡—‡ –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸ ʹ͸ – ƒ–ƒ”—œ ™›ͳͷʹ  ͳͷʹ  ̈́͵ͲͲ  ‘ Ǧʹͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹••‹‘–”‡‡–š–‡•‹‘ƒ–Š™ƒ› ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ ǦͲ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ –‡‹Šƒ”–ƒ›—Ž–‹‘†ƒŽ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘”–‡”Ȁ”‡•‰‡ƒ† ‡ŽŽ‡””‹˜‡‹‡”‹†‰‡ ̈́͵ͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵ˆ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”‹•–ƒ”‹˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡–‹”‡Ž‡‰–ŠǦŒ—•–„‡ˆ‘”‡‡ƒ Ž‹ˆˆ”–‘‘“ ̈́ʹͻͲ ‘ ǦͶͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹––‘’ ‡••‹„‹Ž‹–›”‘Œ‡ – ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ Ǧͳ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡‹‰Š„‘”Š‘‘†”ƒˆˆ‹ Žƒ ’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ Ǧʹͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘–‡”‡›˜‡—‡ƒ–‡’‘– ‹ŽŽ ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ Ǧͻ͹Ǧͻ͹ ƒ–ƒ ”—œ ƒ—”‡–Ȁ ‹‰Š –‡”•‡ –‹‘  ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ Ǧͻͻ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ„”‹‰Š–Ȁƒ–‡” –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ–•‘˜‹ŽŽ‡Š—––Ž‡ ̈́ʹͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͺ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹‡‡•––‘’•‹ ‘––•ƒŽŽ‡› ̈́ʹʹͷ ‘ ǦͲ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ›˜‡—‡Ȁ ‹ŽŽ–”‡‡– –‡”•‡ –‹‘ ̈́ʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡”‰‡ › ‡••Ǧ‡–Šƒ›Ȁ Ž‡™‘‘† ̈́ʹͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‹ › Ž‡ƒ”‹‰ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳ͹Ͳ ‘ ǦͳͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ƒ”˜‡—‡Ȁ‘”‘ƒ†‘–”‡‡– ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳͷͲ ‘ Ǧͳͳ ͳͳ ƒ–ƒ ƒ–ƒ”—œ”—œ ƒ’‹–‘Žƒ ƒ’‹–‘Žƒ˜‡—‡˜‡—‡Ȁ‡˜‡”Ž›Ȁ‡˜‡”Ž›”‹˜‡ ”‹˜‡ ’”‘˜‡‡–•’”‘˜‡‡–•̈́ͳͷͲ ‘ ǦͳͲͲ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ƒ„”‹‰Š–Ȁ—””ƒ›”ƒˆˆ‹ ‹‰ƒŽ‘†‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘• ̈́ͳͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ʹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž—‡„‘‡–ƒ‡‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́ͳͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ’”‹‰–”‡‡–‹‡™ƒ› ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ͷ͹–Š˜‡—‡”ƒˆˆ‹ ƒŽ‹‰ ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͵ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Ž‹ˆˆ”‹˜‡‡†‡•–”‹ƒ”‘••‹‰ ’”‘˜‡‡–• ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ Ǧ͹Ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘Ž‘Šƒ†‹‡ƒ‡• ̈́ͳͲͲ ‘ Ǧͻͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ Šƒˆˆ‡”‘ƒ†ƒ‹Ž”‘ƒ†”‘••‹‰ ̈́ͷͲ ‘ Ǧʹ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡”‰‡ › ‡••Š‹•’‡”‹‰‹‡• ̈́ͷͲ ‘ Ǧ͵͵ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”‡‡†‘Ž˜†‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ǦŠƒ•‡͵ȋŽ–ƒ‹•–ƒ–‘ƒ˜‹•Ȍ ̈́ͳǡͷͲͲ̈́ Ǧʹ͸” ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‘”–‡”– ’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‘“—‡Ž”–‘ƒ’‡”‹ŽŽ†Ȍ ̈́ͳǡʹͲͲ Ǧͷ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡ŽŽ‡””‹˜‡‹ › Ž‡ƒ‡•ȋ’‹”‡ ”ƒ†‡–‘ ƒ—‰ŠŽ‹”‹˜‡Ȍ ̈́ͺͲͲ Ǧ͵ͳ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ŠŽ‘‡ƒ”™ƒ› ’”‘˜‡‡–•ǦŠƒ•‡ʹȋ–‘‡•–‡ƒ ŠȌ ̈́ͷͲͲ ǦͳͲ͸ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒƒ —Ž Š‹ › Ž‡Ȁ‡†‡•–”‹ƒ‘‡ –‹‘ ̈́͵ͲͲ ǦͳͲ͹ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ””‘›‘‡ ‘”ƒ‹Žȋ‡†ƒ”––‘ ”ƒ†˜‹‡™–Ȍ ̈́ʹͺͲ ǦͶͷ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ”ƒ•‹–Ȁƒ”ƒ–”ƒ•‹–”‹˜‡”‡”‰‡ ›”ƒ‹‹‰ ̈́ʹͷͲ ǦͷͶ ƒ–ƒ”—œ ‡›‡””‹˜‡‹‡ƒ‡•ȋ ‡ŽŽ‡””–‘—•‹ ‡–‡”Ȍ ̈́ʹͷͲ Ǧͷͷ ƒ–ƒƒ–ƒ ”—œ”—œ ‹ ‹ › Ž‡ › Ž‡ ƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡•ƒ ‹Ž‹–‹‡• ̈́ʹͲͲ

Table 26. Funded By Others Project List

Project Regionally Funded by Number Agency Project Title Significant Others (1,000s) Other-1 Caltrans/TAMC San Juan Road Interchange Project Yes $90,600 U.S. 101 Improvement Project (Route 129 to San Benito /Santa Clara County Other-2 Caltrans Line) Yes $470,000

Other-3 VTA State Route 152 Realignment Project No $350,000 129 Appendix E: Policy Matrix

SAFETEA-LU and with potential sites to carry • The Plan is to be published out the activities to be and made available RTPA Policies included. The discussion is to electronically, such as on the be developed in consultation Web. [6001(i)] with Federal, State, and tribal In addition to these eight planning SAFETEA-LU wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies. and strategy areas, AMBAG will Many aspects of the original ISTEA [6001(i)] ensure the metropolitan planning and TEA-21 legislation are preserved process shall: • Transit operators are to be in SAFTEA-LU. Many of the changes included in the cooperative are to the MPO planning process. Include a proactive public development of funding involvement process that provides AMBAG will consider the following estimates for the fi nancial complete information, timely public eight planning and strategy areas plan section. [6001(i)] notice, full public access to key from the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, • MPOs are required to decisions, and supports early and Effi cient Transportation Equity Act: consult with State and local continuing involvement of the public A Legacy for Users when planning agencies responsible for land in developing plans and TIPs. and programming for transportation use management, natural resources, environmental in the Monterey Bay metropolitan Be consistent with Title VI of the Civil protection, conservation, region. Rights Act of 1964 and the Title VI and historic preservation assurance executed by each State 1. Support Economic Vitality concerning development of under 23 U.S.C. 324 and 29 U.S.C. 794. the Plan. [6001(i)] 2. Increase Accessibility and Identify actions necessary to comply Mobility • Representatives of users of pedestrian walkways, with the Americans with Disabilities 3. Protect the Environment bicycle transportation Act of 1990. 4. Enhance Modal Integration facilities, the disabled are specifi cally added as parties Provide for the involvement of traffi c, 5. Promote Effi cient System to be provided with the ridesharing, parking, transportation Management opportunity to participate safety and enforcement agencies; 6. Preserve the Existing System in the planning process. commuter rail operators; airport [6001(i)] and port authorities; toll authorities; 7. Increase Safety • The MPO is to develop appropriate private transportation 8. Increase Transportation a participation plan in providers; and, where appropriate, Security consultation with interested city offi cials. Additionally, SAFTEA-LU mandates: parties that provides reasonable opportunities Provide for the involvement of local, • Will be updated every 4 years for all parties to comment. State, and Federal environmental, (unless the MPO chooses [6001(i)] resource and permit agencies as to do so more frequently) appropriate. in non-attainment and • To carry out the participation maintenance areas. plan, public meetings are to Attainment areas remain on a be: conducted at convenient RTPA Policies 5-year update cycle. [6001(i)] and accessible locations at convenient times; employ • Intermodal connectors are visualization techniques to SBtCOG added as a transportation describe plans; and make facility. [6001(i)] public information available Goal 1 To support the economic vitality of the region, especially by • Include a discussion of in an electronically accessible enabling global competitiveness, potential environmental format, such as on the Web. mitigation activities along [6001(i)] 130 productivity, and effi ciency. San for current and future residents, as well as access to the Benito County jurisdictions: generations (inadvertently regional transportation system. omitted) Planning toward this end will require Goal 2 To increase the safety and 4. Ensure that the a combination of solutions, such as security of the transportation transportation system upgrading of regional roadways, system for motorized and non- complements and enhances development of countywide motorized users. San Benito County the natural environment of transit service, implementation of jurisdictions: the Monterey Bay region interregional rail services, linking and reduce greenhouse gas together the regional bicycle Goal 3 To increase the accessibility emissions . and mobility options available to network, and applying strategies that people and freight. San Benito 5. Make the most effi cient use manage demand for transportation County jurisdictions: of limited transportation so as to maximize the effi ciency of fi nancial resources. the existing transportation system. Goal 4 To protect and enhance 6. Solicit broad public input on Policy language that directs how the the environment, promote energy all aspects of regional and Monterey County region will plan conservation, and improve quality of local transportation plans, for accommodating each mode of life. San Benito County jurisdictions: projects and funding. transportation is necessary to ensure that county residents will be able to Goal 5 To enhance the integration and The goals, policies and sub-policies safely travel to where they need to connectivity of the transportation are used to prioritize projects go. system, across and between modes, included in the RTP’s Investment for people and freight. San Benito Program. These policies are also ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY County jurisdictions: used to provide input on new Planning for the county’s developments and projects proposed transportation needs involves Goal 6 To promote effi cient system in the region. SCCRTC’s goals are more than a simple consideration management and operation. San supported by several specifi c policies of how county residents will move Benito County jurisdictions: available for review in Chapter 3 of from one place to another, but how Goal 7 To emphasize the preservation the SCCRTC RTP. the transportation system can be of the existing transportation system. TAMC improved to enhance Monterey San Benito County jurisdictions: County’s quality of life. Improvements The 2010 RTP goals, objectives and to the transportation system can SCCRTC policies address and are organized accomplish this by making it easier into three essential overarching and more convenient to travel via The 2010 Regional Transportation elements, which are interrelated and all modes of transportation, and Plan identifi es the SCCRTC’s primary are not listed in any priority within further, by reducing the amount goals for the region’s transportation this plan: of time spent traveling. To further system over the next 25 years, enhance quality of life, development • Mobility and Accessibility; including more specifi c policies of the transportation system should under each goal. This system provides • Environment and improve mobility while also ensuring a foundation for an integrated set of Community; and the safety of the traveling public, multi-modal goals and policies. Goals • Financial Feasibility while preserving Monterey County’s for the RTP, not in priority order: environment and resources, and Each element is discussed in more while ensuring public access to the 1. Preserve and maintain the detail below. The policy language transportation decision making existing transportation included in the 2010 plan is process. system, emphasizing safety, consistent with the 5-year Agency security and effi ciency. goals and objectives adopted by Consistent with state direction from 2. Increase mobility by the Transportation Agency Board of the Governor and the Business, providing an improved and Directors in April, 2009. Transportation, and Housing Agency, integrated multi-modal TAMC’s policies support communities MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY transportation system. that accommodate opportunities for The 2010 regional plan incorporates 3. Coordinate land use and travel by all modes of transportation policy language that is meant transportation decisions in the development review and land to guide regional transportation to ensure that the region’s use planning process. TAMC’s goal decision-making toward improving social, cultural, an economic is to coordinate land use decision- vitality is sustained the regional mobility of the county’s 131 Table 27. SAFTEA-LU, AMBAG, & RTPA Policy Matrix

SAFTEA-LU AMBAG SBtCOG SCCRTC TAMC Coordinate land use and transportation decisions Support to ensure that the Economic Vitality To support the economic region’s social, cultural, of the Monterey vitality of the region, an economic vitality is Support Bay Area, by especially by enabling sustained for current and n/a Economic Vitality enabling global global competitiveness, future generations. competitiveness, productivity, and Solicit broad public input productivity and effi ciency. on all aspects of regional effi ciency and local transportation plans, projects and funding. Mobility and Accessibility: Increase the Increase mobility by Develop and maintain a multi- To increase the Increase Accessibility providing an improved modal transportation system accessibility and mobility Accessibility and and Mobility and integrated multi- that preserves and/or enhances options available to Mobility of People and modal transportation mobility and access of the people and freight. Goods system. regional transportation network

Protect the Environment, Promote Energy Conservation, Improve the Ensure that the Environment and Community: Quality of Life, transportation system Provide transportation facilities and Promote To protect and enhance complements and and services that enhance Consistency the environment, Protect the enhances the natural the livability of communities between promote energy Environment environment of the within the region, and minimize Transportation conservation, and Monterey Bay region and impacts to the natural and built Improvements improve quality of life. reduce greenhouse gas environment. and State and emissions . Local Planned Growth and Economic Development Patterns Enhance the Modal To enhance the Integration and integration and Increase mobility by Connectivity connectivity of the providing an improved Enhance Modal of the transportation system, and integrated multi- n/a Integration Transportation across and between modal transportation System for modes, for people and system. People and freight Goods

(TAMC Continued)

making with improvements to the modes of transportation, minimizing county’s transportation system, the future need for costly upgrades to and further, to encourage land use automobile-oriented infrastructure. patterns that are easily served by all

132 SAFTEA-LU AMBAG SBtCOG SCCRTC TAMC Financial Feasibility: Ensure the fi nancial feasibility of the Regional Transportation Plan, Promote Make the most Promote by assuring that revenues are Effi cient System effi cient use of limited Effi cient System available to achieve planned Management transportation fi nancial Management transportation improvements and Operation resources. needed to serve Monterey County’s transportation needs.

To emphasize the Preserve the Preserve the preservation of the See Mobility and Accessibility Existing System Existing System existing transportation above system. Preserve and maintain the Increase the existing transportation Safety of the system, emphasizing Transportation safety, security and See Environment and Community Increase Safety System for effi ciency section in RTP Motorized and Non-motorized To increase the safety Users, and and security of the transportation system Increase the for motorized and non- Security of the motorized users. Increase the security of Increase Transportation the transportation system See Environment and Community Transportation System for for motorized and non section in RTP Security Motorized and motorized users. Non-motorized Users

As such, the regional plan County Regional Transportation Plan improvements, however, additional incorporates goals and policy was for all routes to operate at level resources will still be needed to language addressing: of service (LOS) “C” by 1995. This fi nance needed improvements to the was based on the funding projection regional transportation system. • Minimization of at that time, including a proposed environmental impacts of The 2010 plan provides explicit transportation projects, increase in gas tax. In reality, road revenues have decreased, policy direction on how TAMC will including impacts to regional work towards securing the resources air quality, and infl ation has decreased the purchasing power of available funds. needed to accommodate the • Transportation system safety, The result has been a decrease in county’s forecasted transportation • Coordinated land use and levels of service since 1975, with peak needs. Policies included the 2010 transportation planning, and hour LOS now at E and F on many recognize TAMC’s signifi cant eff orts at developing and implementing • Public outreach and highways and arterials. Adequate participation funding is not available to implement a Strategic Expenditure Plan of all highway construction projects regional transportation projects 3.2.3 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND using Regional Development Impact AVAILABLE FUNDING required to solve declining levels of service and meet current and Fee revenues. TAMC policies also Improvements to the transportation forecasted travel demands. TAMC identify a commitment to pursuing system that improve mobility and is placing emphasis in the next 25 additional sources of local funding, enhance the county’s quality of years on improving levels of service including a ½ cent countywide sales life cannot be made without the through trip reduction, improved tax, and funding participation by the availability of resources to implement transit and bicycle and pedestrian agriculture and hospitality industries. those improvements. One of the facilities, land use strategies objectives of the 1975 Monterey and amenities, and operational 133 Table 28. SAFETEA-LU vs. TEA-21: A Gap Analysis (from NARC, 2006) Changes are listed in bold.

Plan Item SAFETEA-LU (2005) TEA-21 (1998) The MTP Planning 5 years for Air Quality Attainment Areas 5 years for Air Quality Attainment Areas Cycle 4 years for Air Quality Non attainment or 3 years for Air Quality Non attainment or Maintenance Areas Maintenance Areas Annual Listing of Roadway Roadway Projects Transit Transit Other Other Pedestrian Walkways Bicycle Transportation Facilities Planning Factors 1. Support Economic Vitality (expanded 1. Support Economic Vitality in Metropolitan defi nition: must promote consistency Transportation Plan between transportation improvements 2. Increase Accessibility and Mobility and state/local planned growth and 3. Protect the Environment economic development) 4. Enhance Modal Integration 2. Increase Accessibility and Mobility 5. Promote Effi cient System Management 3. Protect the Environment 6. Preserve the Existing System 4. Enhance Modal Integration 7. Increase Safety and Security 5. Promote Effi cient System Management 6. Preserve the Existing System 7. Increase Safety 8. Increase Transportation Security (both personal and Homeland Security) Strategic Highway MTP should refer to goals and objectives Not found in TEA-21 Safety Plans (SHSP) in the state-adopted SHSP Environmental MTP must include a textual discussion Not found in TEA-21 Mitigation of the types of potential locations for these activities, to restore and maintain environmental functions that could be aff ected by the MTP. MPO Consultation MTP could refer to the procedure for Not directly referred to in TEA-21 with Certain Agencies consulting with the following state and local agencies: 1. Environmental protection 2. Tribal government 3. Wildlife management 4. Land Management 5. Historic preservation

134 Plan Item SAFETEA-LU (2005) TEA-21 (1998) Transit Major Capital Basic criteria for rating projects: Basic criteria for rating projects: Improvements 1. Alternatives Analysis 1. Alternatives Analysis 2. Justifi cation 2. Justifi cation 3. Local Financial Commitment 3. Local Financial Commitment 4. Economic Development Potential 5. Reliability of Ridership and Cost Forecasts Existing MTP should include written discussion of Not found in TEA-21 Transportation strategies to improve the performance of Facilities existing facilities. Congestion This component is given a more central “Congestion Management Process” Management Process/ emphasis in the MTP. System Public Participation Requires the MTP to have a separate Public Not a separate section in TEA-21 Plan Participation Plan (*see the adopted Monterey Bay Region Public Participation Plan, 2008) Coordinated Public Must include a plan for Coordinated Not found in TEA-21 Transit Human Public Transit Human Services if agencies Services Plans are planning on receiving transportation funding for disadvantaged transit programs. (*see the adopted Monterey Bay Area Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan, 2008) Transportation A four year cycle for determinations of A three year cycle for determinations of Conformity transportation conformity between the MTP transportation conformity between the MTP and TIP and TIP

135 Consultation & Coordination

Private Sector Involvement Consultation with Resource Agencies Industry level involvement in the Documents comprising this MTP were circulated to the following re- development of the MTP and its source agencies: constituent components involved participation by numerous private Bureau of Land Management sector concerns interested in goods movement in particular as well Natural Resources Conservation Service as the safety and effi ciency of the California Coastal National Monument transportation system as a whole. Fort Ord Redevelopment Authority Among private sector parties U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9 consulted in the development of the Department of the Interior – Fish and Wildlife plan were the California Trucking Association (CTA), Bay Rail Alliance, Department of the Interior - U.S. Forest Service Agricultural Land Trust, Amalgamated Los Padres National Forest Transit Union Local 1225 and Grower- Department of the Interior - National Parks Services Shipper Association. Department of the Interior - National Parks Services, Pacifi c Great Basin Support Offi ce Consultation with Interested National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Parties Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Consultation with other interested Federal Highway Administration parties, non-profi ts, and individuals Federal Highway Administration - California Division was carried on throughout the Federal Highway Administration - Western Resource Center development of the MTP and its Federal Transit Administration, Region IX constituent elements. Numerous public meetings were held California Environmental Protection Agency throughout the region on project California Coastal Commission - Central Coast District selection and public comment was California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (District 5) accepted on the public participation Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) plan, project lists and the countywide Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air Pollution Control District Regional Transportation Plans and the regional Metropolitan Regional Water Quality Board Transportation Plan. Grower-Shipper Association of Central California Dept. of Parks and Recreation Native American Tribal US Coast Guard, Station Monterey Government Consultation & California Offi ce of Planning and Research Coordination While there are no federally recognized Native American Tribal Governments in the AMBAG region, documents comprising this MTP update were circulated to unrecognized Tribal Governments, including the Ohlone, Coastonoan, and St Ynez Band Tribal Governments as well as the Bureau of Indian Aff airs.

136 137 2010 MTP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

AMBAG, as the designated enable the proposed transportation Metropolitan Planning Organization system improvement programs (MPO), must prepare a updated and projects to be viewed by local long-range (at least twenty-year) decision-makers within a regional transportation plan for the Monterey context. Bay metropolitan region (Code of Federal Regulations, Part 450, The 2010 MTP is a minor update to Subpart C, Section 450.322). This the 2005 MTP that will refresh the transportation plan, referred to as region’s vision for the transportation the Metropolitan Transportation Plan projects, programs, and initiatives. (MTP), once adopted, serves as the As such, it updates the 2005 RTPs principal federal planning document of the three RTPAs. An EIR prepared guiding investment in improvements for the 2005 MTP/RTPs determined to roadways, transit, multi-modal and that the Plan was consistent with intermodal facilities and services that, other adopted regional plans and together, constitute the Monterey policies (Draft Environmental Impact Bay region’s transportation system. Report 2005 Monterey Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Each of the Regional Transportation AMBAG; Monterey County RTP, TAMC; Planning Agencies (RTPAs) within 2005 Santa Cruz County RTP; SCCRTC the Monterey Bay metropolitan Lamphier-Gregory February 15, region, including the Transportation 2005). Although some minor wording Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), changes, textual edits and current the Council of San Benito County dates have been incorporated Governments (SBCOG), the Santa into the 2010 MTP, the intent and Cruz County Regional Transportation direction of the Goals and Policies Commission (SCCRTC), has prepared remain essentially unchanged from a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) the 2005 version (see Appendix X). for their respective area. Each RTP Therefore, the 2010 MTP remains is intended to establish a framework generally consistent with the goals, for providing an effi cient multi- objectives and policies of adopted modal transportation system for the plans evaluated in the 2005 EIR. respective area which reduces energy consumption and air pollution. The fi nancially constrained Action Element of the 2010 MTP updates Transportation projects and several individual transportation programs as proposed, evaluated projects based on the lists provided and selected at the county-wide by the individual RTPAS; however, level through the RTPs, serve as these project updates are intended the basis for the MTP. In receipt of to better implement the stated goals each county’s project list, AMBAG of the MTP as well as refl ect adopted has been assured by the each RTPA regional plans and polices. that their RTP was developed taking into account local agency goals and transportation needs and that the plan selected represent the optimum option to satisfy transportation need. The Monterey Bay MTP combines the individual RTPs for Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties. In doing so, the MTP serves as a coordination document, which will

138 Table 29. Plan Consistency. Plan/Program Checked for Consistency Federal Federal Transportation Improvement Programs (FTIPs) √ State California Coastal Act √ California Clean Air Act √ Regional/Area Plans Airport Master Plans √ Air Quality Management Plan √ Congestion Management Programs (CMPs) √ Fort Ord Reuse Plan √ Local Coastal Programs √ Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) √ Short-Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) √ Local (County) Monterey County General Plan (1982 and 2007 versions) √ San Benito County General Plan √ Santa Cruz County General Plan √ Local (City) Monterey County Cities √ City of Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan √ City of Del Rey Oaks General Plan √ Fort Ord Reuse Plan √ City of Gonzales General Plan √ City of Greenfi eld General Plan √ City of King City General Plan √ City of Marina General Plan √ City of Monterey General Plan √ City of Pacifi c Grove General Plan √ City of Salinas General Plan √ City of Sand City General Plan √ City of Seaside General Plan √ City of Soledad General Plan √ San Benito County Cities √ City of Hollister General Plan √ City of San Juan Bautista General Plan √ Santa Cruz County Cities √ City of Capitola General Plan √ City of Santa Cruz General Plan √ City of Scotts Valley General Plan √ City of Watsonville General Plan √

139 Appendix F: Related Plans

Related Plans Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments. Monterey Bay Area Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. June, 2008. —. Monterey Bay Metropolitan Transportation Plan. June, 2005. —. Monterey Bay Metropolitan Transportation Plan Environmental Impact Report. June, 2005. —. Monterey Bay Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP): FFY2008/9 to FFY 2011/12. June, 2008. —. Monterey Bay Region Public Participation Plan. June, 2008. California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. California Strategic Highway Safety Plan. September, 2006. California Department of Transportation. California Transportation Plan 2025. April, 2006. California Department of Transportation. Public Participation Plan: California Transportation Plan and Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. June, 2008. Council of San Benito County Governments. 2010 Regional Transportation Plan Draft. February, 2010. Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air Pollution Control District. 2008 Air Quality Management Plan. August, 2008. Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. 2010 Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Plan. 2010. Transportation Agency for Monterey County. 2010 Monterey County Regional Transportation Plan. 2010.

140 Appendix G: EIR

As the lead agency, AMBAG prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) on behalf of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, The Council of San Benito County Governments, and the Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission. Supplementing the 2005 Environmental Impact Report, the SEIR presents a region wide assessment of potential impacts of the Mobility 2035 plan. Areas of evaluation include transportation, air quality, land use, population and housing, agricultural resources and so on. Mitigation measures are identifi ed in section 1.3 of the SEIR. Comments on the Scope of the analysis were solicited on August 21, 2009. Three public scoping meetings were held on September 15 and September 17, 2009. A draft SEIR was released on February 26 with an end date of April 19, 2010 for comments, a period signifi cantly more than 45 days.

Figure 37. The 2010 SEIR document is available from www.ambag.org.

141 Appendix H: Forecast by County

Region Overview

Table 30. Regional Population

2005* 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Population 740,048 774,781 808,560 840,366 868,459 895,577 920,713 Household Population 711,508 745,535 778,963 808,919 836,655 863,722 888,359 Group Quarters Population 28,540 30,247 31,097 31,447 31,805 31,855 32,355 Households 238,232 251,232 263,670 274,782 285,433 294,803 303,656 Household Size 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Housing Units 257,848 271,918 285,159 297,035 308,410 318,412 327,877 * Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2007, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2007.

Table 31. Regional Employment by Sector

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Retail 36,110 36,170 37,640 39,250 40,870 42,580 44,760 Service 119,840 121,640 129,360 137,160 145,360 153,970 163,060 Industry 40,080 39,960 41,020 42,200 43,390 44,650 45,690 Public 54,610 55,660 57,780 60,280 62,900 65,640 68,490 Construction 24,210 24,240 25,260 26,400 27,540 28,690 29,910 Agriculture 51,490 51,210 51,490 51,790 52,090 52,390 52,710 TOTAL 326,340 328,880 342,550 357,080 372,150 387,920 404,320

Table 32. Population by County

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Monterey County 422,632 445,309 466,606 483,733 499,341 515,549 530,362 San Benito County 57,324 62,431 68,471 76,140 83,383 89,431 94,731 Santa Cruz County 260,092 268,041 273,983 280,493 285,735 290,597 295,621 REGION 740,048 774,781 809,060 840,366 868,459 895,577 920,713

142 Table 33. Population Growth: Average Annual Growth by County

2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 Monterey County 1.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% San Benito County 1.8% 1.9% 2.2% 1.9% 1.5% 1.2% Santa Cruz County 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% REGION 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0. 6%

Table 34. Housing Units by County

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Monterey County 137,338 147,221 156,061 162,857 169,933 176,236 182,082 San Benito County 17,638 19,187 21,110 23,483 25,800 27,675 29,405 Santa Cruz County 102,872 105,509 107,496 110,143 112,040 113,865 115,590 REGION 257,848 271,917 284,667 296,483 307,773 317,776 327,077

Table 35. Employment by County

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Monterey County 193,110 196,430 203,660 211,160 218,830 226,780 235,460 San Benito County 16,910 17,380 18,090 19,050 19,970 20,980 21,700 Santa Cruz County 116,320 115,070 120,800 126,870 133,350 140,160 147,460 REGION 326,340 328,880 342,550 357,080 372,150 387,920 404,320

Table 36. Employment Growth: Annual Average Growth by County

2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 Monterey County 0.3% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% San Benito County 0.6% 0.8% 1.1% 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% Santa Cruz County -0.2% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% REGION 0.2% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9%

Table 37. Jobs to Housing Ratio (Housing Units per Jobs) by County

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Monterey County 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 San Benito County 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 Santa Cruz County 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 REGION 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

143 Table 38. Population by Jurisdiction

Square Jurisdiction Miles 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Monterey County 3,322.06 422,632 445,309 466,606 483,733 499,341 515,549 530,362 Carmel-by-the-Sea 1.09 4,091 4,075 3,848 3,873 3,885 4,007 4,033 Del Rey Oaks 0.49 1,647 1,627 1,745 2,237 2,684 3,197 3,171 Gonzales 1.39 8,399 10,831 13,304 15,969 18,199 20,941 23,418 Greenfi eld 1.70 13,357 17,795 19,090 21,855 24,912 27,348 30,337 King City 3.66 11,430 13,540 15,392 17,269 19,295 22,482 24,726 Marina 8.75 19,051 24,551 26,658 29,274 30,133 32,010 32,942 Monterey 8.48 30,467 30,106 30,092 30,278 30,464 30,650 30,836 Pacifi c Grove 2.87 15,528 15,530 15,550 15,550 15,300 15,057 15,036 Salinas 19.01 149,705 153,779 162,044 163,234 166,401 170,913 173,359 Sand City 0.56 302 447 1,498 1,498 1,498 1,498 1,498 Seaside 8.83 35,173 34,666 35,165 35,158 35,709 35,017 35,549 Soledad 4.20 27,365 28,853 31,115 33,760 36,392 38,801 41,405 Unincorporated Area 3,261.03 106,117 109,509 111,105 113,778 114,469 113,628 114,052 San Benito County 1,388.99 57,324 62,431 68,471 76,140 83,384 89,431 94,731 Hollister 6.57 37,002 40,415 44,613 49,064 54,143 59,259 62,756 San Juan Bautista 0.71 1,722 1,937 2,121 2,356 2,570 2,743 2,907 Unincorporated Area 1,381.71 18,600 20,079 21,737 24,720 26,671 27,429 29,068 Santa Cruz County 445.79 260,092 268,042 274,982 280,494 285,735 290,597 295,622 Capitola 1.61 9,918 10,124 10,222 10,693 10,862 11,090 11,269 Santa Cruz 12.53 56,421 58,919 62,480 63,265 64,649 65,884 67,807 Scotts Valley 4.60 11,565 11,923 12,126 12,311 12,427 12,688 12,921 Watsonville 6.35 49,571 51,903 54,857 56,544 58,975 61,245 62,463 Unincorporated Area 420.70 132,617 135,173 135,297 137,681 138,822 139,690 141,162 AMBAG Region 5,156.84 740,048 775,782 810,059 840,367 868,460 895,577 920,715

144 Table 39. Percent of Regional Population

2005 2,010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Monterey County 57.11% 57.40% 57.60% 57.56% 57.50% 57.57% 57.60% Carmel-by-the-Sea 0.55% 0.53% 0.48% 0.46% 0.45% 0.45% 0.44% Del Rey Oaks 0.22% 0.21% 0.22% 0.27% 0.31% 0.36% 0.34% Gonzales 1.13% 1.40% 1.64% 1.90% 2.10% 2.34% 2.54% Greenfi eld 1.80% 2.29% 2.36% 2.60% 2.87% 3.05% 3.29% King City 1.54% 1.75% 1.90% 2.05% 2.22% 2.51% 2.69% Marina 2.57% 3.16% 3.29% 3.48% 3.47% 3.57% 3.58% Monterey 4.12% 3.88% 3.71% 3.60% 3.51% 3.42% 3.35% Pacifi c Grove 2.10% 2.00% 1.92% 1.85% 1.76% 1.68% 1.63% Salinas 20.23% 19.82% 20.00% 19.42% 19.16% 19.08% 18.83% Sand City 0.04% 0.06% 0.18% 0.18% 0.17% 0.17% 0.16% Seaside 4.75% 4.47% 4.34% 4.18% 4.11% 3.91% 3.86% Soledad 3.70% 3.72% 3.84% 4.02% 4.19% 4.33% 4.50% Unincorporated Area 14.34% 14.12% 13.72% 13.54% 13.18% 12.69% 12.39% San Benito County 7.75% 8.05% 8.45% 9.06% 9.60% 9.99% 10.29% Hollister 5.00% 5.21% 5.51% 5.84% 6.23% 6.62% 6.82% San Juan Bautista 0.23% 0.25% 0.26% 0.28% 0.30% 0.31% 0.32% Unincorporated Area 2.51% 2.59% 2.68% 2.94% 3.07% 3.06% 3.16% Santa Cruz County 35.15% 34.55% 33.95% 33.38% 32.90% 32.45% 32.11% Capitola 1.34% 1.31% 1.26% 1.27% 1.25% 1.24% 1.22% Santa Cruz 7.62% 7.59% 7.71% 7.53% 7.44% 7.36% 7.36% Scotts Valley 1.56% 1.54% 1.50% 1.46% 1.43% 1.42% 1.40% Watsonville 6.70% 6.69% 6.77% 6.73% 6.79% 6.84% 6.78% Unincorporated Area 17.92% 17.42% 16.70% 16.38% 15.98% 15.60% 15.33% AMBAG Region 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

145 training assistance (Much of the FTA funding information is from Urban Appendix I: Mass Transportation Administration, Program Guidance Circulars, various Revenue Sources dates). Section 5316 • $5.20 for each of the next The Jobs Access Reverse Commute Federal 50,000 passenger boardings (JARC) is a discretionary grant • $2.60 for each of the next program to develop transportation Federal Aviation 400,000 passenger boardings services designed to transport Administration • $0.65 for each of the next welfare recipients and low-income 500,000 passenger boardings individuals to and from jobs and to Airport Improvement Program • $0.50 for each passenger develop transportation services for (AIP) boarding in excess of 1 residents of urban centers and rural million and suburban areas to suburban The Airport Improvement Program employment opportunities. JARC Monterey Peninsula Airport is the provides funds for eligible airport grants require a 50% funding only primary airport in the three- improvements and aviation match from non U.S. Department of county region. Approximately planning. It is administered by the Transportation funds. Federal Aviation Administration 445,000 passengers are served annually, resulting in an annual (FAA), a division of the U.S. Section 5303 Department of Transportation. There entitlement of approximately are four components to this fund $1,550,000. The Section 5303 Technical Planning source. They are: 1) entitlements General Aviation Airports. Assistance Program for urbanized to air carrier and general aviation Each General Aviation airport is area provides fi nancial assistance airports; 2) discretionary for capital/ entitled to $150,000 annually in to State and local governments to planning projects; 3) discretionary AIP grants. Additional discretionary aid in meeting national planning noise abatement; and 4) state AIP grant funds are available on a objectives which are updated apportionment for capital/planning competitive basis. annually. In California, the funds are projects at general aviation airports. distributed to Metropolitan Planning AIP can be used for planning, Organizations (MPOs), through construction, or rehabilitation at any Federal Transit Caltrans, on a population formula public-use airport. AIP funds cannot Administration basis. The FTA Section 5303 program be used for construction of hangers, has a local match of 11.47%. automobile parking facilities, Under the Urban Mass Transportation buildings not related to the safety of Act of 1964, as amended, funding was In the Monterey Bay metropolitan persons in the airport, landscaping or made available for transit planning, region, AMBAG receives Section artwork, or routine maintenance and operating and capital programs. The 5303 funds for Monterey and Santa repair. Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Cruz counties to conduct transit a branch of the U.S. Department of planning and ensure the inclusion Primary Airports. Transportation, administers these of each operator in short and long- Each primary airport apportionment funds. However, most funds are range plans and programs. Typically, is based upon the number of passed through to each state’s AMBAG makes a portion of the passenger boardings at the airport. Department of Transportation, funds annually available to the mass If full funding is made available for Caltrans in California, to allocate and public transit operators to conduct obligation, the minimum amount administer. transit planning to meet their apportioned to the sponsor of a special needs/interests in support primary airport is $650,000, and The following programs, funded of the metropolitan transportation the maximum is $22,000,000. These under FTA, can be considered planning process. funds are calculated as follows: as potential revenue sources for transportation in the Monterey Bay • $7.80 for each of the fi rst metropolitan region, particularly 50,000 passenger boardings for capital, operating, planning and

146 Section 5307 for whom public mass transportation projects to include environmental services are otherwise unavailable, provisions, modifi cation of sidewalks Section 5307 is the original federal insuffi cient, or inappropriate. to meet Americans with Disabilities transit assistance program for Act requirements, and infrastructure- transit operators in urbanized Section 5311 based intelligent transportation area with a population of 50,000 systems capital improvements. or more. FTA Section 5307 block Section 5311 fi nancial assistance for grants are apportioned annually non urbanized areas provides federal Congestion Mitigation and to urbanized areas through a funds to public transit operators complex formula weighted by 2000 servicing non urbanized areas (i.e., Air Quality Improvement population, population density and areas not included in a designated Program revenue vehicle miles, or rail miles, urbanized area of population over if applicable. For urbanized areas The Congestion Mitigation and 50,000) for capital and operating Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement with populations less than 200,000, assistance projects. funding may be used for either Program provides fl exible funding for capital or operating costs at local transportation projects and programs option and without limitation. Local Section 5304 to assist in meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards match requirements very depending The State Planning and Research established under the Federal on the use of 5307 funds. Operations Grant Program distributes FTA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. require a 50% federal, 50% local Section 5313(b) funds for activities Examples of eligible activities include match; and capital acquisitions and such as: research, planning, transit improvements, travel demand associated capital maintenance development and demonstration management strategies, traffi c items are allowed at a 80% federal, projects in all phases of mass fl ow improvements, and bicycle/ 20% local match rate. If they choose, transportation; managerial, technical, pedestrian improvement projects. operators can use Section 5307 funds and professional training fellowships for planning purposes. in the public transportation fi eld; New federal 8-hour ozone standards university research and training in result in the Monterey Bay Region Section 5309 urban transportation problems; and being reclassifi ed as an attainment human resource needs to increase area. Current regulations allocated Section 5309 represents three major minority and women employees CMAQ funds to only ozone non- discretionary capital investment and business opportunities in the attainment and maintenance areas. grants: new starts, fi xed guideway public transportation fi eld. Caltrans After redesignation, CMAQ funds may modernization, and buses. New solicits and awards discretionary no longer be available to the region. Starts refers to new rail service. For grants under the FTA Section 5313(b) Due to the preliminary nature of this a rail project to be eligible for new program. issue and the possibility for CMAQ starts funds, it must be included in formula apportionment revisions the Secretary of Transportation’s in the reauthorization, CMAQ funds annual report. In the report, projects Federal Highway continue to be forecasted as available are evaluated and rated and given Administration to the region for the life of this plan. a recommendation. The fi xed guideway modernization program provides funds to upgrade rail Regional Surface Transportation Enhancement systems seven or more years old. Transportation Program Activities Section 5309 bus provides funds for The Regional Surface Transportation Federal Transportation Enhancement new buses and bus facilities. Program (RSTP) represents the most Activities funds are to be used fl exible federal fund source available for transportation related capital Section 5310 for local uses. Funds can be used for improvement projects that projects on any Federal-aid highway enhance quality of life in, or around, FTA Section 5310, provides capital (ranging from national highways to transportation facilities. Projects grants for the purpose of assisting city arterials), rural minor collectors, must be over and above required private nonprofi t corporations and, bridge projects on any public road, mitigation and normal transportation under certain circumstances, public transit capital projects, and public projects, and the project must be agencies in providing transportation bus terminals and facilities. TEA- directly related to the transportation services to meet the needs of elderly 21 expanded Regional Surface system. persons and persons with disabilities Transportation Program eligible 147 Recreational Trails Program Highway Bridge Replacement State revenues for transportation & Rehabilitation come from four basic sources: federal The Recreational Trails Program aid programs, the State Highway provides funds for the creation and The purpose of the Highway Bridge Users Tax Account (which includes maintenance of recreational trails. On Replacement and Rehabilitation federal aid money), the State a state-wide basis, 30 percent of the Program (HBRR) program is to replace Highway Account and bond funds, as funds must be applied to motorized or rehabilitate public bridges over appropriate. uses, 30 percent for non motorized waterways, other topographical uses, and 40 percent for diverse (i.e. barriers, other highways, or railroads The revenues in the State Highway combination) trail uses. Recreational when the State and the Federal Users Tax Account are collected Trails Program funds are distributed Highway Administration determine from fuel taxes and motor vehicle by the California Department of Parks that a bridge is signifi cantly fees, such as regulation and weight and Recreation. important and is unsafe because fees. These funds support non- of structural defi ciencies, physical federally funded costs and provide National Scenic Byways deterioration, or functional state matching monies for federal obsolescence. aid. The funds are apportioned to Program counties and cities in the form of gas TEA-21 authorizes funds for Reimbursable scopes of work tax revenues and any unobligated technical assistance and grants include replacement, rehabilitation, balance is transferred to the State for the purposes of developing painting, scour countermeasure, Highway Account. scenic byways programs and bridge approach barrier and The State Highway Account receives undertaking related projects along railing replacement, low water all federal aid funds in addition to roads designated as National Scenic crossing replacement, and ferry the spill over of the State Highway Byways, All-American Roads, or as service replacement. The federal Users Tax Account. Expenditures State Scenic Byways. reimbursement rate is 80% (88.53% for bridge railing replacement) of the of State Highway Account monies eligible participating project costs. are directed to the following four Transportation and categories: Community and System Hazard Elimination Safety • Allocations to counties and Preservation Pilot Program Program and Safe Routes to cities to be spent by each for street and highway projects. The Transportation and Community School and System Preservation (TCSP) • Expenditures for Pilot program provides funds for The Hazard Elimination Safety maintenance and research and grants to investigate the Program (HES) is a federal safety administration on the state highway system. relationships between transportation program that provides funds for and community and system safety improvements on all public • Capital outlays for preservation and private sector- roads and highways. These funds construction, reconstruction based initiatives. Discretionary serve to eliminate or reduce the and right-of-way costs on grants are available to: plan and number and/or severity of traffi c state highways and other streets and roads. implement strategies that improve accidents at locations selected for the effi ciency of the transportation improvement. • State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for operating and system; reduce environmental A portion of the HES funds impacts of transportation; reduce capital assistance for local received by the State are targeted transit. the need for costly future public for construction of bicycle and infrastructure investments; ensure pedestrian safety and traffi c calming Transportation bond funds are effi cient access to jobs, services, projects through the Safe Routes to derived from the passage of and center of trade; and examine School Program (SR2S). propositions by the residents of private sector development patterns California. and investments that support effi cient use of the transportation State infrastructure. Available funds are Projects listed in the MTP will STIP Programming typically fully earmarked through the eventually be listed in the FTIP, ITIP, The State Transportation annual federal budget Transportation and STIP. Improvement Program (STIP) Appropriations process. was signifi cantly changed with

148 the enactment of Senate Bill 45 is adopted separately from the Improvement Program to fund transit in 1997. Senate Bill 45 simplifi es State Transportation Improvement capital projects. the transportation programming Program. The Rehabilitation process by combining seven and Safety and Other Highway previous funding categories (Flexible Construction elements previously Proposition 116 Rail Congestion Relief, Transit Capital included under the STIP, are As part of the state transportation Improvement Program, Commuter incorporated under the SHOPP. New fi nancing package approved by and Urban Rail Transit Program, Mass projects for the SHOPP are given voters in 1990, Proposition 116 Transit Guideway Program, Traffi c priority and programmed according provides capital funding for rail Systems Management Program, to rehabilitation, safety and projects in each county. The Intercity Rail Corridors Program, operational needs. No new project proposition included 17, 11 and 1.7 and the State-Local Transportation is programmed unless Caltrans has a million dollars to Monterey, Santa Program) into one pot of funds completed project study report (PSR) Cruz and San Benito Counties, which is then divided into two or equivalent document identifying a respectively. In Monterey County, categories. Prior to its division, specifi c project scope and estimated the funds were designated for the however, Caltrans support, planning cost. extension of the Caltrain commuter and maintenance and rehabilitation train into Monterey County or any needs are taken from the total. The State Transit Assistance other rail project. In Santa Cruz remaining funding is then divided County, Proposition 116 funds are into the two categories: Regional The State Transit Assistance (STA) available for a rail project. As a non- Improvement Program (RIP) and program was enacted in 1980 to urban county, San Benito County Interregional Transportation provide a source of funding for could use the funds for grade Improvement Program (ITIP). Of transit. When the state sales tax was crossings, rail passenger stations, funds available for programming extended to gasoline sales in 1971, it rights-of-way acquisition, paratransit in the State Transportation was assumed that the gasoline sales vehicles and other capital facilities Improvement Program, 75 percent is tax return and the return of funds for public transit. San Benito County allocated to regional transportation (Local Transportation Funds - LTF) has used Proposition 116 funds planning agencies for the selection to local jurisdictions would remain for the purchase of transit vehicles of projects of regional signifi cance the same. However, when gas prices and the construction of a vehicle in the RTIP. The 25% remaining rose dramatically in the mid 1970’s, maintenance station. Monterey interregional share is limited to the amount of monies accrued from County used approximately $6 million State highway, intercity passenger the sales tax on gasoline increased Prop. 116 funds in the acquisition of rail, mass transit guideway, or grade faster than LTF. The Legislature the Monterey Branch line from Union separation projects that facilitate subsequently passed the STA Pacifi c and expect to use remaining the interregional movement of program to provide spill over gas Proposition 116 funds for rail capital people and goods. At least 60% sales tax funds to transit. In the past, upgrades/rehabilitation. Santa Cruz of the interregional share (15% of transit agencies in the Monterey Bay County is currently analyzing options the STIP) must be programmed for metropolitan region have received to us Prop. 116 to purchase the Santa projects on the interregional system. substantial funding from this source. Cruz Branch line from Davenport to At least 15% of that 60% (9% of the When gas prices declined in the Watsonville. interregional program; 2.25% of the mid-1980’s, the income from this STIP) must be for intercity rail. The source declined. When California’s 40% is designated for interregional “Transportation Blueprint” was Bicycle Transportation movement of people and goods. approved by voters in 1990, the Account gas tax was scheduled for a nine The California Bikeways Act - cent increase over fi ve years. The State Highways Operation Bicycle Transportation Account additional state sales tax generated (BTA) currently provides $5,000,000 and Protection Program from the higher fuel tax was directed funding annually on a discretionary to the Transportation Planning and The State Highways Operation basis for commuter-oriented bicycle Development (TP&D) Account. and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects. The BTA funds are to Caltrans takes funding “off the top” includes state highway rehabilitation, improve the safety and convenience with the remainder split evenly traffi c safety, seismic safety, and of commuter oriented bicycling. between STA and the Transit Capital traffi c operational improvements. Priority projects serve bicycle The SHOPP, a four-year program, commuters, have activity centers at 149 each end point are consistent with Fuel Tax Subventions charge a user fee (fare) for persons the bicycle plan/program, and close to ride their service. Although the missing links. Cities and counties The gas tax funds that are intent is for the users of the service with approved bicycle transportation apportioned from the state to to contribute a small portion of plans are eligible recipients. cities and counties are to be used the cost to operate the system, it is Individual projects cannot receive exclusively for local roadway projects. also to ensure that each operator more than 25 percent of state-wide Gas tax revenues are dependent can meet pre-established farebox funds available. upon the amount of gasoline recovery ratio standards for the consumed since the tax is assessed continued receipt of Transportation on a per gallon basis rather than on Development Act LTF funds. California Aid to Airports the cost of gasoline. As discussed Program above under the STIP section, any Farebox recovery ratio means the unobligated balance in these funds amount collected from passenger The California Aid to Airports is transferred to the State Highway fares divided by the cost of providing Program (CAAP) provides funds to Account. the service. In the Monterey Bay general aviation airports in the state. metropolitan region, this amount It is funded through the Aeronautics ranges from 10% (the minimum Account of Caltrans’ budget. Local Transportation Funds without otherwise stipulating a Revenues for the account are accrued The Transportation Development waiver – usually the general public through excise taxes on aviation, Act (TDA) of 1971 extended sales transit and paratransit programs have gas and jet fuel sales. After funding tax to gasoline purchases and low farebox recovery ratios) to up to the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics earmarked 1/4 of one cent of 40 - 50% (the Highway 17 Express operation, funds are available for all sales tax proceeds for public Service operated between Santa Cruz assistance to local airports. General transit improvements in the county and Santa Clara counties by the Santa aviation airports in the Monterey where the revenue was generated. Cruz Metropolitan Transit District). Bay metropolitan region receive a Jurisdictions may use these Local standard $10,000 each per year. If Transportation Fund (LTF) amounts money is still available, the remainder General Fund for street and road purposes if a of the Aeronautics Account is fi nding is made by the jurisdiction A jurisdiction’s general fund discretionarily awarded to the state’s involved that there are “no unmet is another source for local general aviation airports. transit needs that are reasonable transportation revenues. In the to meet”. The reasonableness past, the majority of cities and Local Revenues criteria is defi ned by each Regional counties have provided monies from the jurisdictions’ general fund to Local transportation revenues can be, Transportation Planning Agency transportation improvements. As and are, from a multitude of sources. administering the funds. the decision to use these funds for In the Monterey Bay metropolitan Each Regional Transportation transportation projects rests at the region, jurisdictions might use the Planning Agency can take costs policy level, revenue has not been following (not intended to be all “off the top” for administering the forecast from this potential source. inclusive) locally-generated fund LTF program and for transportation sources to aid in the building, planning within the respective maintenance and operation of county. An additional 2% of the Other Jurisdictional Local their transportation infrastructure: remainder is required to be set aside As reported in annual volumes of the 1) state fuel tax subventions, 2) for funding bicycle and pedestrian Financial Transactions Concerning Transportation Development Act projects within each respective Streets and Roads of Cities and (TDA) Local Transportation Funds county. The remaining funds Counties of California prepared (LTF), 3) transit passenger fares, 4) are then available to the transit by the California State Controller’s general funds, 5) other jurisdictional operator(s) or, in some instances, to Offi ce, there are several fund sources local funds, 6) transportation sales tax local jurisdictions for street and road which jurisdictions receive that measures, if applicable, and 7) funds purposes. from special fees assessed to collect AMBAG collectively will refer to as money for specifi c uses, e.g. Service “other” jurisdictional local funds. Authority for Freeway Emergencies Transit Passenger Fares These include: (SAFE), AB 2766, and aviation fees. All the public transit operators in the • revenues derived from the Monterey Bay metropolitan region use of gas tax monies 150 • proceeds from bond sales for • The Transportation Funding boxes that link stranded motorists street purposes Task Force (TFTF) process to the California Highway Patrol. resulted in a list of projects • street assessment levies As the SAFE, SCCRTC, TAMC, and for a half-cent sales tax that SBCOG collect an additional $1.00 fee • traffi c safety funds used for received signifi cantly more per vehicle registration. Call boxes street purposes than a 2/3 majority support are intended to enable motorists from the broad based • revenues from local to obtain assistance and roadway government agencies task force. The economic recession has temporarily information. However, it is not • monies made available from eff orts to place a sales tax intended that any services provided “other” sources measure on the ballot. be considered an emergency system. SAFEs also provide other Collectively, these funds sum to an • Greenhouse Gas (GHG) motorist aid services, such as free impressive fi gure. In many instances, reduction targets will tow trucks during peak periods, the amount of revenues collected require that we expand and implementing intelligent from these other sources matched transportation alternatives transportation systems that serve fuel tax subventions. Therefore, this (transit, carpool, vanpool, bicycle, pedestrian, etc.) and motorists such as roadway detection eclectic local source mix can not be revenues will be needed to and information dissemination. Call summarily dismissed. build the infrastructure and boxes are located on: State Routes expand services. 1, 9, 17, 129 and 152 in Santa Cruz Transit Sales Tax • As fewer state and County; State Routes 25, 101 and federal dollars are going 156 in San Benito County; and The Transit Sales Tax is identifi ed towards transportation, State Routes 1, 68, 101, and 156 in as a revenue source for Santa Cruz local communities are Monterey County. County. Based on numerous surveys, increasingly supportive of the work of the Transportation local transportation funding Funding Task Force (discussed in initiatives. For instance, AB 2766 Vehicle Registration Chapter 2), and the successes in other several counties and cities Surcharge regions of the state representing in the state approved transportation sales tax over 80% of the state’s population, AB 2766 authorized local air pollution measures in 2008. the 2010 MTP assumes that voters in control districts (APCDs) to authorize Santa Cruz County will approve a new • 33% of counties in California up to a $4 per vehicle additional local revenue source, equivalent to a representing 84% of the registration fee on vehicles. After half-cent sales tax, by 2012 thereby population are self help some handling charges assessed by counties benefi ting from including an anticipated revenue of the Department of Motor Vehicles, increased transportation the money is returned to the APCDs approximately $370 million in current revenues and those that year dollars. While not an existing are not continue eff orts to in the county in which the revenue is revenue source, it is reasonable to become self help counties; collected. The funds are required to include revenues from a new local therefore, it is reasonable to be used to implement, monitor and source such as a sales tax in the 2010 assume that this trend will enforce the California Clean Air Act. MTP for several reasons: continue over the next 25 years. The Monterey Bay Unifi ed Air • A local transportation Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) sales tax is one of the more representing the North Central feasible funding sources to Service Authority for Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), e.g. the adopt logistically, as state Freeways and Expressways Monterey Bay metropolitan region, law already authorizes voters has assessed the additional $4 per to raise such taxes. While The Santa Cruz County Regional vehicle registration fee. Of the current state law requires Transportation Commission, amount collected, the MBUAPCD has that two-thirds of the voters Transportation Agency for Monterey retained approximately half the funds approve any new local sales County (TAMC) and Council of San tax which includes a specifi c to implement, monitor and enforce Benito County Governments (SBCOG) list of projects, legislative the California Clean Air Act and has eff orts are underway to are designated Service Authority for distributed the remainder to projects reduce the two-thirds (66.7%) Freeways and Expressways (SAFE) within the region which reduce vote requirement for special for their respective counties. SAFEs transportation-related emissions. In taxes to a 55% majority. are responsible for installing and addition, the MBUAPCD will begin maintaining the emergency call 151 collecting another $2 per vehicle fee programs. The Fort Ord Reuse trips are then assigned to paths registration fee to augment the Authority also collects fees to fund along the highway system, which existing $4 assessment. transportation improvements ultimately result in forecasts of the needed to accommodate future traffi c volumes on the highway redevelopment of the former Fort network. These forecast volumes are Aviation Passenger Facility Ord. Additional information on compared to the roadway design Charge impact fees is provided below. capacities to identify transportation corridors, roadway segments or The Wendell H. Ford Aviation In addition to several cities’ stand- intersections where a prescribed Investment and Reform Act for the alone traffi c impact fee programs in level of service will be exceeded. 21st Century (AIR 21) made provision Monterey County, the Transportation Using this methodology, a list of for the assessment of a $4.00 or $4.50 Agency for Monterey County has recommended improvements to Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) by air developed a countywide regional the highway system was prepared. carrier airports on customers fl ying traffi c impact fee program, describing This set of recommended roadway in and out of their airports. The fee its potential implementation improvements should allow the is processed through the airline as one of the County’s needed proposed development to occur carriers and they can retain eight funding sources in order to move without creating unacceptable levels cents per assessment. The remainder transportation projects forward. This of traffi c congestion on the local and is returned to the airports. Monterey alternative was pursued based on a regional highways. SBtCOG staff Peninsula Airport currently imposes recommendation from the Monterey notes that they are moving forward, a $4.50 PFC on all passengers using County Congestion Management with consultant assistance, to update Monterey Peninsula Airport. Program. Monterey County’s regional the 2001 Impact Fee Program. development impact fee is proposed for enactment in conjunction with the In Santa Cruz County, the Santa Cruz Transportation Impact Fees transportation sales tax. Enactment County Regional Transportation In recognition that current funding requires the approval 9 out of the Commission is not currently sources for transportation are not 12 jurisdictions in Monterey County; proposing the implementation of meeting existing transportation in the fi nancial revenues estimate, county-wide development impact maintenance and demand, much funding from the Monterey County fees. less demand generated by new regional development impact fee is growth, additional sources of estimated to start in FFY 2005/06 and revenue are needed. Subsection continue through the life of the plan. 7 above outlines the potential for For San Benito County, in order to new sales tax revenues in Monterey mitigate the impact of development and Santa Cruz Counties. An on transportation infrastructure additional source of funding which the City of Hollister and County of is used sporadically throughout the San Benito have established traffi c Monterey Bay region is traffi c impact impact fees based on a computer fees. A traffi c mitigation impact fee generated traffi c model that projects distributes the costs of transportation improvement needs given proposed improvements among all new land use scenarios. According to developments based on the size of a the Council of San Benito County proposed development or estimates Governments (SBtCOG) staff , the of a project’s trip generation capacity. forecasts of future demand on the Caltrans notes that fair-share, per- transportation infrastructure in unit fees for new development that the study area are prepared using have a direct nexus to mitigating the the San Benito/Hollister travel impacts of additional trips created, demand model. This computer are appropriate. In that vein, San model uses widely accepted Benito County has implemented transportation planning algorithms an impact fee program within the to convert forecasts of future land County and the City of Hollister for use into forecasts of the number and some years. In Monterey County, distribution of vehicle trips that will the Cities of Greenfi eld, King City, be made in the future. These vehicle Salinas, and Soledad have impact 152 153 Appendix J: Park & Ride Lot Addresses Table 40. Park & Ride Addresses.

Number of Spaces City Location MONTEREY COUNTY Prunedale 33 Prunedale 101/156 Interchange South at Prunedale Laureles Grade Rd 19 Near Monterey Laureles Grade Rd and Hwy 68 Crossroads Shopping Center 33 Carmel At Crossroads Shopping Center and Hwy 1 SAN BENITO COUNTY Veterans Memorial Park 18 Hollister Hilcrest Rd at Memorial Rd in Hollister Searle Rd 20 San Juan Bautista On Searle Rd at 101/156 Interchange North SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Summit (Informal Lot) 12 Santa Cruz Summit Rd and Highway 17 Scott’s Valley Transit Center 223 Scotts Valley At Kings Village Rd off Mt Hermon Rd Pasatiempo 57 Santa Cruz At Pasatiempo exit on Hwy 17 on west side of interchange Quaker Meeting House 12 Santa Cruz 225 Rooney St; take Morrissey exit on Hwy 1 Soquel Dr 121 Santa Cruz Hwy 1 and Soquel Drive on Paul Sweet Rd Resurrection Church 75 Aptos Hwy 1 and Seacliff /State Park Drive exit Source: Caltrans District 5.

154 155 Appendix K: List of Comments to the Draft MTP

Comments on the 2010 Draft MTP were received from the following: • Caltrans • City of Marina • Debbie Bulger, Mission: Pedestrian • EPA Region IX • Jack Nelson, Santa Cruz • Joseph P. Thompson • LandWatch • Santa Cruz METRO • Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC) • The Center for Sensible Transportation (CFST)

156 Table 41. Responses to Comments.

Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE Caltrans Page 12 - The Monterey Bay Area Transportation Vision for 2035: AMBAG is 12 AMBAG is continuing commended on its efforts to begin the development of sustainable participation in the MPO/ARB communities’ strategy for the region to comply with the requirements of SB Working Group for SB375 375. We would like to encourage AMBAG's continued participation on the Target Setting, and continues MPO/ARB Working Group for SB 375 Target Setting as well as continued to pursue communication and communication and collaboration amongst all the agencies within the collaboration with all agencies AMBAG region regarding the development of a sustainable community’s in the region in preparation strategy to meet the requirements of SB 375. for the development of the sustainable communities’ strategy. Caltrans Page 24 - Existing Conditions: Government Code Section 65080.1 requires 24 Coordination between that MPOs and RTPAs whose boundaries include a portion of the California Caltrans, the Coastal Coastal Trail or property designated for the trail, coordinate with appropriate Commission, local political agencies including the State Coastal Conservancy and the California Coastal leaders, TAMC, SCCRTC, and Commission regarding the development of the California Coastal Trail and residents of affected include provisions for the California Coastal Trail in the Regional communities continues. As Transportation Plan. AMBAG is commended for its discussion of the Monterey specific plans are completed Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST) Network; however, in the Pedestrian and and funds become available, Bicycle Facilities section on page 24, it is unclear as to exactly how AMBAG is more of the trail will be meeting the requirements of Government Code Section 65080.1. Please completed. consider expanding discussion in this section to include a description of which agencies were consulted with and how the requirements of 65080.1 are being met through the MBSST network. Caltrans Page 40 - Table 5. Route descriptions and congestion issues: State Route 40 Changed. 152sentence is unclear as stated; we would suggest "These trucks are diverted truck traffic to Highway 129 and other routes." Caltrans Page 40 - Table 5. Route descriptions and congestion issues: State Route 17- 40 Language has been changed use of language such as "an exceptionally steep, tortuous route" also" to address the Safe on 17 highway has been the scene of many serious accidents." is not program. recommended. Caltrans monitors all state routes to determine locations of high accident concentration and develops strategies for prevention and improvement on the highway. Safe on 17 has also been an effective collaborative of stakeholders including Caltrans, CHP, local and elected officials in heightening awareness for the motoring public to slow down and use caution on 17. Highway 17 is classified as having terrain that is rolling to mountainous. With slopes from 4-6%. Caltrans Page 42 - Airports - Aviation System: The Monterey Peninsula Airport had 42 Addressed in the MPA section, 215,797 enplanements in 2006; Caltrans Division of Aeronautics is in the p.43. process of updating the "California Aviation System Plan" (CASP). Within the CASP is an Inventory Element where each airport is modified to update current status and airport statistics, which includes information on enplanements, total passengers, total operations, etc. In this case, according to the airport manager, the total enplanements were 214,302 for the end of 2008 and 427,542 passengers. Caltrans Page 43 - Monterey Bay Area General Aviation Operations & Facilities -Table 6: 43 Information from 2009 we recommend that AMBAG update the statistics before the final document. obtained from Caltrans. It is dated 2003, which is already 7 years outdated. The Division of Aeronautics currently has updated numbers for "annual operations" for every airport listed in that table, and most numbers have changed for "based aircraft" as well. The runway length for Marina Airport is 3485 and the runway length for the Frazier Lake airport is 3000, for example. Please contact the Division of Aeronautics to get updated statistics. It is noted that an inventory of all the airport facilities and heliport locations are identified. It is hopeful that AMBAG would include this inventory in any future emergency evacuation plans. Caltrans Page 43 - King City Municipal (Mesa Del Rey Airport): It states that in 2003 the 43 Updated Statistics were airport handled 12,400 general aviation operations. As of the end of2008, it verified with current trends. handled 7,860. AMBAG may want to verify this with the airport manager since the numbers are considerably lower than 2003. Caltrans Page 43 - Monterey Peninsula Airport: this section states that the longest 43 Updated Statistics.

157 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE Caltrans Page 43 - Salinas Municipal Airport: This airport indicates in 2003, there were 43 Updated Statistics. 75,010 general aviation operations with 220-based aircraft. These numbers can be verified with updated information - for the year-end of 2009. Division of Aeronautics has a report that indicates 83,190 operations and 228 based aircraft for this airport. Caltrans Page 44 - Marina Municipal Airport: The first paragraph states that in 2003 this 44 Updated Statistics. airport had an estimated 30,000 operations on its one 3,000-foot runway. As of2009, there is an estimated 1,500 operations with 30-based aircraft, and the runway is 3,485 feet. Caltrans Page 44 - Watsonville Municipal Airport: It is written that in 2003, the 44 Updated Statistics. Watsonville Municipal Airport accommodated 122,890 general aviation operations. At the end of 2009, the general aviation operations were estimated to be 85,000. There appears to be a downward trend in airport usage that isn't reflected in this report, whether from the economy or some other factor, which might be addressed. Caltrans Page 44 - Hollister Municipal Airport; It states, "It services 195 aircraft and 44 Updated Statistics. estimated annual operations of57, 300 in 2003." As of the end of2009 the airport services 160 aircraft with an annual operations number of 43,040. Caltrans Page 44 - Frazier Lake Airpark: There are no statistics quoted from 2003, 44 Updated Statistics. however, as of the end of2009, this airport reports 12,000 operations and 87 based aircraft. Caltrans Pages 53-55 - Policy Element: It would be helpful if long-range and short-term 53 Section has been added. strategies were identified as required by 23 CFR 450.322(b). Please see p.56. Caltrans Page 70 - Project List - Constrained Projects: The last sentence "These 411 70 "These 411 plus projects could plus projects could be at least partially funded." All projects proposed on be funded." state highways must have a funding strategy through construction prior to commencing a project study report. Partial funding of projects is not recommended. Caltrans Page 73 - Financial Element: Please clarify how the methodology described 73 Please see statement on p.73: on p. 73 meets the federal requirements to reflect "year of expenditure "The State of California uses an dollars" to reflect inflation rates per 23 CPR 450.322(f)(10(i). average escalation rate of 3% for project costs, though more recently agencies have assumed 1-2% growth rates. While actual escalation rates may vary between projects and revenues, a constant 2.5% was used for this exercise." Caltrans Pages 111 and 112 - List of Constrained Projects: These pages are repetitive 111 Changed. and have the same exact information on both pages. Caltrans Page 118 - Appendix D - Unconstrained Project List: Caltrans believes the 118 Project has been added, as it State Route 68 Bypass project should be listed under the MTP's was inadvertently omitted. "Unconstrained Project List." Please see TAMC for details. Caltrans Page 132 - Appendix E - Native American Tribal Government Consultation & 132 No change made. Coordination: AMBAG is commended for its consultation and coordination efforts with regional partners including federally un-recognized Tribal Governments. Caltrans Page 142 - Appendix I - Revenue Sources: Please consider adding statements 142 "Projects listed in the MTP will that the projects in the MTP are consistent with the ITIP and FTIP. eventually be listed in the FTIP, ITIP, and STIP." Caltrans Page 143 - Appendix I - Federal Transit Administration - Section 5313(b): 143 Changed. Please change the name of "53 13(b)" to "5304" to reflect the current program name. Caltrans Page 2-8 - TDM, ITS and Alternative Fuel Projects: this section makes SEIR addressed through SEIR edits reference to the Highway Advisory Radio (HAR). Caltrans no longer promotes, maintains, or supports HAR. Please remove the reference. Caltrans Page 3.3-10 - Current Air Quality: the first paragraph and Table 3-4 incorrectly SEIR addressed through SEIR edits describe the NCCAB as a maintenance area for the federal one-hour ozone standard. The NCCAB is in attainment or unclassified for all federal Air Quality standards.

158 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE Caltrans Page 3.3-14 - Conformity with SIP/Consistency with AQMP: This section needs SEIR addressed through SEIR edits editing for the reason discussed in the comment above. Federal attainment means no conformity process. Chapter 3, Section 3.4 Biological Resources (Summary of Significant Impacts, Pages ES-1 to ES-12) 1.IMPACT 3.4.1: Modification of Habitat MITIGATION MEASURE 3.4.1a: Avoidance and Design Modification A. Prior to the finalization of project design, the area in which the project is proposed should be thoroughly surveyed to determine the presence or absence of habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species, and to determine the extent to which project construction may interfere with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Comment: Stating that surveys should be conducted prior to finalization of the project design could lead to surveys being conducted too late in the process to coordinate with the agencies and modify design. Suggest modifying as follows: "Early in the development of the project design," etc. B. If initial biological assessments for a proposed project identified in the 2010 MTP determine the presence or potential presence of a state or federally listed species on the site, the implementing agency shall, where appropriate, consult with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), respectively, for guidance on whether or not the project can avoid impacts to the species. Comment: Add National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Agencies are required to consult with NMFS if there are federally listed anadromous fish species as well as impacts to marine mammals and Essential Fish Habitat. D. In those instances where it is not possible to avoid sensitive habitat areas through design measures, the USFWS and the CDFG may need to be contacted in order to achieve compliance with the appropriate endangered species protection regulations through the implementation of site-specific mitigation measures prior to project approval. Comment: Add NMFS to the list of agencies. MITIGATION MEASURE 3.4.1b: Conservation Banking Caltrans Where avoidance of impacts is not feasible through design, implementing SEIR addressed through SEIR edits agencies shall mitigate impacts to habitat modification through the use of conservation banks, where such mechanisms exist. Where individual projects would modify habitat, project sponsors would be required to purchase credits from a conservation bank as approved by the California Department of Fish and Game as outlined in the "State's Official Policy on Conservation Banks. " Caltrans Comment: Use of a conservation bank may not always be required, especially SEIR addressed through SEIR edits for habitat for sensitive species that are not state listed species. Suggest rephrasing statement "implementing agencies shall, when appropriate, mitigate impacts to habitat modification through the use of conservation banks, where such mechanisms exist". Rephrasing the 1st sentence would also require modifying the statement in the 2nd sentence to reflect that when a conservation bank is used the bank must be an approved bank. 2. IMPACT 3.4.2: Modification of Riparian Areas/Wetlands MITIGATION MEASURE 3.4.2a: Avoidance/Permitting/Precautions during Construction B. In those instances where it is not possible to avoid riparian areas or wetlands through design measures, the US. Army Corps of Engineers, the Us. Environmental Protection Agency, the us Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game shall, where appropriate, be contacted in order to achieve compliance with the appropriate regulations and to obtain all required permits prior to project approval. Comment: Add NMFS and also add Regional Water Quality Board responsible for issuing 401 permits. F. CDFG shall, where appropriate, be notified immediately of any spills, and shall, where appropriate, be consulted regarding clean-up procedures. Comment: CDFG is not the only permitting agency that may need to be notified. Suggest replacing CDFG with "permitting agencies shall" etc. H. Implementing agencies shall, where appropriate, ensure that, following construction, disturbed banks are re- vegetated using locally occurring, drought resistant native species and erosion control grass seed, in consultation with a qualified biologist. Comment: Remove "drought-resistant." This is a discussion about wetlands and riparian areas, which typically have species that are not drought-resistant species. MITIGATION MEASURE 3.4.2b: Mitigation Banking Caltrans Where avoidance of impacts is not feasible through design, implementing SEIR addressed through SEIR edits agencies shall mitigate impacts to riparian areas or wetlands through the use of mitigation banks, where such mechanisms exist. Where individual projects would 159 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE modify riparian areas or wetlands, project sponsors would be required to purchase credits from a mitigation bank as approved by a multi-agency Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) as outlined in the "Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (current edition). " Comment: Although the 2008 Compensatory Mitigation Rule has mitigation banks at the top of the preference hierarchy along with in-lieu fee programs, they are not always required. There is still flexibility for other types of off-site mitigation as well as on-site mitigation (see the 2008 rule on EPA or ACOE website). Suggest rephrasing "implementing agencies, where appropriate, shall mitigate impacts through the use of mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs, where such mechanisms exit." Avoiding completely riparian areas or wetlands through design measures would reduce this potential impact to a level of less than significant for most projects. Comment: Grammar error - it should read, "Completely avoiding riparian areas ..." 3. IMPACT 3.4.3: Interference with Wildlife Movement MITIGATION MEASURE 3.4.3: Avoidance and Design Modification avoiding completely Wildlife movement corridors through design measures would reduce this potential impact to a level of less than significant for most projects. Comment: Grammar error - it should read, "Completely avoiding wildlife movement corridors" etc. Incorporate into this section that the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California February 2010 will be used as one of the decision tools, along with regional habitat connectivity plans, to help develop alternatives that avoid and minimize impacts to wildlife corridors. This report was just released and the links to the final report and GIS mapping can be downloaded from the DFG website listed below. Additional information can also be found at the Caltrans link below: http://www.dfg.ca.gOY/habcon/connectivity/; http://www.dot.ca.goY/hq/enY/bio/programefforts.htm; IMPORTANT: Since AMBAG participated as a multi-disciplinary team member and is listed as a Member of the Technical Council of Governments, participation as an agency qualifies as early coordination with the resources agencies under SAFETEA-LU and should be mentioned, especially in the RTPs. City of Marina The City's found that project MAR 061, Marina-Salinas Corridor-B (Regional 110 Project has been added, as it Fee - Peninsula/South Coast) was omitted from Appendix B "Financially was inadvertently omitted. Constrained Programs and Projects". This project has an estimated total cost of $44,231M of which $42,515M is constrained (funded). The City of Marina requests this project be included in Appendix B (Constrained) and in the list of "very large construction projects" for Monterey County on page 2-13, and removed from Appendix C since the majority of the cost is funded. City of Marina Marina’s main comment seemed to be some confusion as to whether or not 110; Project has been added, as it the Imjin Road widening and Highway 1/Imjin Interchange project included SEIR was inadvertently omitted. in our regional fee program was a funding constrained project or not, which is what we heard at our Board’s public hearing. The project is shown as a constrained project in our plan, but for some reason is included on the unconstrained project list in Appendix C to the DSEIR (MAR 061). Marina was concerned about the implications of the project not being included as a constrained project in this document. The project is described correctly in the environmental document, but listed with the unconstrained projects for some reason. We overlooked this issue when reviewing the document. Was this a typo that can just be fixed, or does the environmental review need to be revised to account for this one project? Debbie Bulger, Thankfully, Alta Planning and Design has done some research which provides 22 "Walking, even though it is not Mission: data instead of conjecture. A summary of this research is attached for your considered as common Pedestrian information. The study, "Seamless Travel," showed that 76% of walking trips transportation mode, and 29% of biking trips are for transportation not recreation. In addition, the supplements all other study found that there are no distinct daily peaking periods for bicyclists and transportation modes – all pedestrians so that traffic counts which focus on automobile commute hours trips start and end with do not capture accurate pedestrian counts. walking.”

160 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE Debbie Bulger, Here in Santa Cruz, parents are reluctant to let their middle school children 22 The Unmet Bicycle and Mission: bicycle to school because King Street is so dangerous. I have had to push a Pedestrian Needs section on p. Pedestrian stroller with my own grandchildren in the street on Delaware Avenue, an 24 of the 2010 MTP recognizes arterial, on our way to Natural Bridges State Park because there are large the lack of investments that stretches of missing sidewalk. An elderly friend on the east side of Western have historically been made to Drive in Santa Cruz cannot safely walk to her neighbor's house a block away pedestrian infrastructure and because there is no sidewalk on this busy street. These examples are reasons recommends that these why people don't walk more. Our communities need to invest more in safety modes be prioritized in the and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. Mission: Pedestrian is an future. The Blueprint planning organization of residents, business people, and neighbors who live and work efforts referenced on p.12 also in Santa Cruz. We support safe, comprehensive, convenient, accessible, and seeks to change attractive pedestrian ways. Mission: Pedestrian is affiliated with AmericaWalks transportation investment and CaliforniaWalks, national and state pedestrian advocacy groups priorities. dedicated to promoting walkable communities. Debbie Bulger, I am formally requesting that AMBAG correct the above noted inaccuracies SEIR See 2010 MTP Unmet Bicycle Mission: and prejudices in the MTP SEIR. and Pedestrian Needs section, Pedestrian p.24. Debbie Bulger, Mission: Pedestrian would like to comment on the low regard and thus low SEIR The Unmet Bicycle and Mission: funding priority assigned to non-motorized travel, specifically walking and Pedestrian Needs section on p. Pedestrian bicycling, as noted on page 3.15.1 of the 2010 MTP. The statement is made 24 of the 2010 MTP recognizes that "Non-motorized travel modes, such as walking and the use of bicycles, the lack of investments that are used primarily for recreation . . .” What evidence do you have to support have historically been made to such a claim? Do you have comparable data regarding the percent of motor pedestrian infrastructure and vehicle trips that are for recreation as opposed to what AMBAG considers recommends that these worthwhile pursuits? modes be prioritized. The Blueprint planning efforts referenced on p.12 also seeks to change transportation investment priorities.

Debbie Bulger, The MTP further states that "Despite generally mild weather, considerable SEIR The Unmet Bicycle and Mission: level terrain, and the presence of urban areas where many trips could be Pedestrian Needs section on p. Pedestrian made without a motor vehicle, in the Monterey Bay region non=motorized 24 of the 2010 MTP recognizes transportation modes represent only a small fraction of the total number of the lack of investments that work commute trips." (p. 3.15.1) This statement seems to imply that the have historically been made to reason for the small number of commute trips by non-motorized transport is pedestrian infrastructure and not the weather, terrain, or lack of urbanization but some other factor. Could recommends that these the reason be the LACK OF CONNECTIVITY, PAUCITY OF WALKING AND modes be prioritized. The BIKING INFRASTRUCTURE, OR AUTO-CENTRIC DESIGNS ON ROADWAYS THAT Blueprint planning efforts CONTRIBUTE TO FEELINGS OF DANGER for bicyclists and pedestrians? referenced on p.12 also seeks to change transportation investment priorities.

EPA Region IX Maintain and Expand Use of the Regional Blueprint Concept. ----EPA 12 The Blueprint will not be acknowledges and encourages AMBAG's scenario planning efforts for its 2012 complete by the time the MTP MTP. This work will be fundamental to developing a Sustainable needs to be adopted. Instead, Communities Strategy that will help decrease VMT and the resultant C02 the Blueprint will strongly emissions in the future. EPA recommends that AMBAG also include inform the SCS that is required discussions of the other goals and criteria of the regional blueprint and how under SB 375 and will be a each relates to and/or influences the MTP. EPA also encourages AMBAG to component of the 2012 MTP continue to provide support and resources to local jurisdictions to make their general plans and proposed projects consistent with the MTP and the future regional blueprint. EPA, HUD and DOT recently joined in a partnership to support measures to improve livability and sustainability. We encourage AMBAG to consider the principles identified through this partnership when working to integrate the blueprint concept into regional planning. More information on this partnership, including grant opportunities, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/. EPA values the opportunity to be involved in the region al transportation planning process. When the final MTP and ElR are available, please send a copy of each to the address above (mail code CED-2). If you have any questions about our comments, please contact ~e at 415-947-416 1, or Chris Ganson of my staff (415-947-4121; [email protected]).

161 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE EPA Region IX Provide a Comprehensive Discussion of the Long-Term Utility of Roadway 30 While the MTP acknowledges Expansion Projects, Including Implications for Environmental Indicators. ---- the possibility of induced Upcoming greenhouse gas emissions targets under SB 375 will require travel, the current federal Metropolitan Planning Organizations to develop Sustainable Community transportation process has a Strategies .which reduce transportation greenhouse gas emissions. EPA particular focus on increasing commends AMBAG for developing a qualitative "GHG Reduction Alternative" mobility, and consequently in its MTP SEIR to begin to address this. We recommend AMBAG take the next because roadway widening step and incorporate discussion of the GHG implications of proposed may result in more trips is not projects. Perhaps the most significant influence an MPO has on greenhouse necessarily a bad outcome. By gas emissions are from the induction and distribution of vehicle travel that increasing options for travel, results from new infrastructure projects. VMT will grow. Ultimately, emissions are the result of VMT and free flow speed, with greenhouse gas emissions resulting from lower average speeds. A roadway system that increases both VMT and average speeds may have lower emissions than a system with less VMT and much lower average speeds. The comment also recommends that AMBAG discuss the GHG implications of individual projects, however, AMBAG is not the proponent of any project in the constrained list and does not have the authority to impose greenhouse gas emission analyses on project proponents. EPA Region IX A growing body of research demonstrates that roadway and highway 58 Text has been updated. widening induces automobile use, as recognized in the MTP: "Both funding limitations and unavoidable environmental impacts effectively prevent widening highways to increase capacity and eliminate peak period congestion. It has been demonstrated that efforts to widen highways do not in fact mitigate congestion, but instead push congestion to other segments in the network. More responsible mitigation develops other modes within the overall transportation network." (p. 58) EPA Region IX Further, even widened roadway segments themselves have been shown to 65 No change made. The 2012 have a tendency to re-congest, as the new capacity draws traffic from other MTP update will have a more routes, times of day, and modes, and over the longer run lead s to business comprehensive discussion of and residential location choices and land use development pattern s that long term strategies relating generate added vehicle travel. However, various passages in the MTP identify to SB375 requirements. roadway widening as a solution for congestion (e.g. p. 65 "Supply Side Measures"), and the document indicates plans for several roadway widening projects. In light of the above quoted statement from the MTP and the body of evidence on induced demand, and in light of upcoming SB 375 requirements, the MTP should discuss both prospects for long-range congestion reduction benefits of these projects and their implications for emissions. Further, the MTP should provide justification that available funding is applied to projects with highest overall economic, social, and environmental benefit.

162 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE EPA Region IX Include Additional MTP Performance Standards to Measure Environmental 83 Added: "Since AMBAG is not Results of the MTP, such as Measures to Evaluate the Plan's Success in an implementing agency, it is Protecting Sensitive Habitat. --- Currently, AMBAG's goal to protect the in a position to recommend environment is housed within a broader goal to "Protect the Environment, performance measures to Promote Energy Conservation, Improve the Quality of Life, and Promote implementing agencies that Consistency between Transportation Improvements and State and Local track the effectiveness in Planned Growth and Economic Development Patterns". Also, currently the programming projects in MTP suggests that monitoring plan updates and coordinating with local protecting endangered agencies may be a good substitute in lieu of a specific metric to meet this species, wildlife and wetland overall "goal"; however, this may not effectively measure environmental habitat, and open space. While results . To demonstrate how the MTP will meet its goal of protecting the these issues are routinely environment, EPA recommends that AMBAG identify specific performance handled in project level EIRs, standards to measure how the plan protects the environment. For example, potential benchmarks include we suggest that AMBAG consider performance measures that evaluate the statistics on collisions with MTP's effectiveness at protecting endangered species, wildlife and wetland animals and acres of land that habitat, and/or open space. are developed for transportation uses that result in unmitigatable environmental impacts."

EPA Region IX Consider Modifying MTP Performance Standards to Better Capture 83 As noted in the comment, the Transportation Efficiency. ----The MTP includes a section on System Regional Travel Demand Monitoring and Benchmarks (pp 83-90). While EPA recognizes limitations in Model is constrained by transportation data and current modeling capabilities, we recommend currently available revising some of the metrics listed in order to better capture the stated goals. technology, data and financial Consider Replacing Delay with Vehicle Hours Traveled Because resources. While some of the Transportation is a "derived demand" - rather than being an end in itself, it is concepts can be measured a means to other ends - achieving the same access to goods and services in through an activity based less time is the object of a transportation system. Daily vehicle hours of delay, model, AMBAG does not have the metric chosen as a proxy for economic vitality, captures one facet of the resources to develop such transportation efficiency, but misses another. Measuring delay captures time a model, nor would lost due to congestion, but fails to count the time spent on roadways at free developing an activity based flow speeds, and thus fails to account for location efficiency (or inefficiency). model accommodate the A metric of economic benefit of the transportation network ought to count a ambitious set of indicators. 20 minute commute spent on an uncongested roadway the same as it counts a 20 minute commute on a congested roadway. Therefore, EPA recommends including the metric Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) in place of Delay. Refocus metrics from mobility 10 access Throughout the document, the MTP refers to the concept of mobility as an end goal of the transportation network. But, mobility for people is a means to another end, access to goods, services, recreational opportunities, etc. Therefore, a metric that captures access better reflects the utility provided by the transportation network than one that captures mobility. For example, in a mixed use development, a "trip" may not be necessary to achieve access to a good or service. However, if for purposes of regional transportation planning it is assumed that a trip must be made to provide this access, then demand for transportation infrastructure will be overestimated. Another example is a "one stop shop" retail village, where only one round trip is necessary to achieve access to multiple goods and services, compared to disperse retail that requires shoppers to drive between single-use stores. The retail village achieves the goal of providing means for people to reach goods and services while generating fewer "trips" (and thus causing fewer of the negative social and environmental externalities, including greenhouse gas emissions, generated by the additional vehicle miles traveled). Meanwhile, while the disperse retail is less cost efficient to serve with transportation infrastructure, less time efficient for users, and has greater external costs, under a "trips" metric it would appear to confer greater benefit. In sum, using trips as a measure of benefit to the region's population gives credit to development patterns and transportation infrastructure that induces more trips to be made over those that leverage mobility more efficJFOUMZ
UP
DSFBUF
BDDFTT
t
'PS
QBTTFOHFS
USBWFM
EJTDVTT
UIF
MJNJUBUJPOT
PG
the "trips” metric as a proxy for access. Theoretically speaking, for passenger travel a metric of "visits" would be a better proxy for economic benefit than "trips". (An even better analysis would use local economic data, and land use modeling with an economic component, to provide a measure of economic exchange) EPA acknowledges limitations of present regional models and 163 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE while we encourage improvement of modeling capabilities, the present MTP, at a minimum, EPA recommends including a discussion of the circumstances under which equating trips with access would lead to misleading results and DPVOUFSQSPEVDUJWF
QPMJDZ
t
$POTJEFS
BEEJOH
B
NFUSJD
UIBU
DBQUVSFT
GSFJHIU
efficiency. For freight, equating trips with benefit can be similarly misleading. Methods of improving efficiency of the freight network include "trip- chaining" and making better use of vehicle capacity, both of which reduce the number of trips. An example of a metric that captures freight efficiency would be estimated value of goods sold in the region per truck mile traveled. Again, EPA recognizes limitations in data availability and modeling capacity at this time; however, EPA recommends that the MTP include both a discussion of the limitations of a trips metric in informing efforts to improve freight efficiency, as well as alternate methods of analysis that do capture it. Consider including Vehicle Miles Traveled as a metric More economic and social activity accomplished with fewer Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is efficiency in transportation. Many social and environmental goals are inversely correlated with VMT: Air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, safety from vehicle collisions, noise, some roadway-water quality issues, and some other quality of life issues; therefore, EPA recommends including a metric of "VMT reduced" in order to measure livability and environmental benefits. EPA Region IX Expand AMBAG's Mitigation Land Banking Discussion to a Broader Regional 93 Since AMBAG is not an Mitigation Strategy in the MTP. -- As noted above, SAFETEA-LU requires long- implementing agency, an range transportation plans to include "a discussion of types of potential expanded mitigation bank environmental mitigation activities, and potential areas to carry out these strategy would mostly have activities s, including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore academic value. Given the and maintain the environmental functions affected by the plan." EPA timing of EPA's comments, appreciates the detailed information provided in the MTP on the existing staff will look at addressing mitigation and conservation banks that are available in the region and on the the specifics with partner processes to establish banks, habitat conservation plans, or in-lieu fee agencies for the 2012 update programs. In addition to describing banking or in-lieu fee programs, the of the MTP and will expect MTP's Regional Mitigation Strategy should: I) describe how available EPA to contribute to the environmental information is used to inform avoidance and minimization at development of the next MTP. the transportation planning level, 2) describe other innovative opportunities New Language has been for mitigation, 3) describe where mitigation would be the most successful , added to address this issue on and 4) identify activities that "may have the greatest potential to restore and p. 99. maintain the environmental functions affected by the plan." The following are EPA's recommendations for expanding AMBAG's Regional Mitigation Strategy: Use resource data to inform transportation decision-making. Use watershed, conservation, and recovery plans to identify important environmental considerations for the AMBAG region, such as critical wildlife corridors, the most important areas to protect for sensitive species, and areas with a high concentration of resources. Give conservation plans as much weight as General Plans when planning transportation investments. Incorporate concepts such as 100 to 200 foot buffers for stream corridors, and identification and improvement of priority culverts that currently restrict wildlife corridors and natural processes of stream and river systems. Use parcel maps to identify larger, undivided parcels for ease of acquisition and preservation, and designate areas as potential future mitigation sites. Consider the resource, "Ecological: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects" (2006) which encourages Federal, State, Tribal and Local partners involved in infra structure planning, design, review, and construction to use flexibility in regulatory processes. Specifically, Eco-Logical puts forth the conceptual groundwork for integrating plans across agency boundaries, and endorses ecosystem-based mitigation - an innovative method of mitigating infrastructure impacts that cannot be avoided. Update the discussion in the MTP on banking and in-lieu fee programs to reflect the most recent guidance on compensatory mitigation, banks, and in-lieu fee programs. On April 10, 2008 , EPA and the Corps issued revised regulations, "Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule" (Mitigation Rule) (40 CFR 230), governing compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams, and other waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These regulations are designed to improve the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation to replace lost aquatic resource functions and area and include a mitigation hierarchy with an

164 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE inherent preference for mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs before the use of an on-site mitigation site. The Regional Mitigation Strategy contained in the MTP should also establish the foundation for innovative regional NJUJHBUJPO
TPMVUJPOT
t
*EFOUJGZ
GJOBODJBM
NFDIBOJTNT
UP
GVOE
NJUJHBtion, such as development fees, sales tax , or the use of funds from alternative methods UP
JEFOUJGZ
BOE
QSPUFDU
DSJUJDBM
SFTPVSDF
BSFBT
t
&TUBCMJTI
DPOTFSWBUJPO
FBTFNFOUT
UIBU
DPOOFDU
UP
BOE
FYQBOE
FYJTUJOH
DPOTFSWBUJPO
BSFBT
t
Describe locally-developed measures such as county/city designation of open space, measures requiring development set-backs near streams, etc. *** EPA notes that the Elkhorn Slough Early Mitigation Partnership has not yet formally established a mitigation bank, as the MTP appears to imply. Caltrans District 5 is currently undergoing the process to establish a formal bank. EPA recommends providing the latest information on the proposed bank’s status in the final MTP. ***Eco-logical is available on-line at: http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp; Information on pilots using Eco-logical principals is available on-line at: http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayresearchProgram2SHRP@/Public/Pages /capacitypilottests_334.aspx

EPA Region IX Clarify in the MTP How the Ongoing Regional Blueprint Effort Influenced Any ? does not make any impact Current Design and Route Network Location Decisions. ----- EPA recognizes that AMBAG intends to apply the ongoing regional blueprint process to identify a preferred growth scenario for 2035 which will serve as the foundation for determining a Sustainable Community Strategy. However, the MTP should clearly state how the information from the ongoing regional blueprint process or from the information collected to complete it in the future has informed the decision-making behind the projects already proposed in the MTP. EPA recommends that, at a regional level, the MTP identify how proposed transportation projects have been planned to (1) maximize use of existing infrastructure, such as improvements to existing roadways and transit service, (2) satisfy the region's residents need for efficient access to goods and services in the way that causes the least environmental and social harm, and (3) avoid and minimize high quality resources and habitat. The MTP should also identify what design and route network location decisions were proposed in order to avoid and/or minimize impacts to resources. It should be clear how information about resources, including information from existing resource documents, has informed decisions about the route network. EPA Region IX Describe the Use of Available Data to Inform Regional Transportation ? The development of Planning Decisions. ----SAFETEA-LU directs MPOs to compare transportation transportation network has plans with other plans, maps, and data of inventories of natural or historic occurred in a piecemeal basis resources, if available. While the MTP indicates that public and private over the last several decades. entities, including land trusts, environmental groups, community Since CEQA and NEPA became organizations, private mitigation banks and resource agencies were law, specific projects have had consulted in developing the mitigation land banking options, the MTP should to consider environmental include a discussion of other data, plans, or maps that may be useful to impacts. However, as the MTP inform long-range transportation planning. EPA recommends that the MTP lays out a system of specifically describe how the proposed transportation network has been improvements, a more designed to avoid resources identified in data sources such as those detailed analysis of other JEFOUJGJFE
CFMPX
t
64
'JTI

8JMEMJGF
4FSWJDF
TQFDJFT
SFDPWFSZ
QMBOT
t
64%"
plans is unwarranted beyond /BUVSBM
3FTPVSDFT
$POTFSWBUJPO
4FSWJDF
XFUMBOE
EBUB
t
/BUVSF
$POTFSWBODZ
what is called for by SAFETEA- EBUB
BOE
SFHJPOBM
QMBOOJOH
EPDVNFOUT
t
$BMJGPSOJB
%FQBSUNFOU
PG
'JTI
BOE
LU. Finally, it is not clear what (BNF
/BUVSBM
%JWFSTJUZ
%BUBCBTF
t
-PDBM
OPO-profit and land trust group "other" plans might refer to information other than the local plans, other regional transportation plans might be useful in this regard.

165 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE Jack Nelson, Could you confirm what Rachel Moriconi at the SCCRTC told me? She said 99 The "Update Cycle" is listed on Santa Cruz that the three counties' RTPs and AMBAG's MTP will be updated together for p. 99 and confirms 2012 as the 2012, in response to new GHG targets etc., and that the references in the next update to the MTP. current draft SEIR and MTP to next updating the MTP in 2015 are incorrect. Document was checked for references to 2015. Joseph P. 1. Abolish Public-Sector Transport. – See my letters (enclosed). 26 It is not recommended to Thompson abolish public sector transport by 2035. Joseph P. 3. Intermodal Facilities for Central California Coast Region. --- See my letters 46 Studies to find an appropriate Thompson (enclosed). location for intermodal facilities are underway; please see the section on page 46. Joseph P. 2. Deceptive. Misleading Financial Reports.--See my letters (enclosed). 69 AMBAG has done its best to Thompson make the financial section comprehensive and transparent. Joseph P. 4. San Benito County Jurisdiction. --- See my letters (enclosed). ? Coordinated transportation Thompson planning among jurisdictions is preferred. LandWatch Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The public is exposed to TACs by SEIR addressed through SEIR edits living, working or attending schools adjacent to heavily traveled roadways. The DSEIR should address whether or not there would be sensitive receptors adjacent to proposed projects and whether or not the impacts would be significant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District Draft CEQA Guidelines recommend an analysis of sensitive land uses 500 feet on each side of all freeways and high-volume roadways. LandWatch Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Analysis (p. 3.3-20). This analysis uses SEIR addressed through SEIR edits vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates from the AMBAG Travel Demand Model for 2005 and 2035 with intervening years extrapolated (Table 3-6). The VMT numbers differ significantly from those included in MBUAPCD’s 2008 Air Quality Management Plan for the mobile source emission inventory with the AMBAG numbers 17% and 9% lower, respectively. The reasons for these differences should be explained. The following table compares these data from both sources: VMT//AMBAG//2008 AQMP 2010//17,565,221//21,330,000 2020//20,875,159//23,017,000 LandWatch The text states that the 2010 MTP, “together with increasing fuel efficiency SEIR addressed through SEIR edits and low carbon fuels, are predicting some success in reducing the region’s contribution to GHG emissions.” Later in the text it states, “This [GHG emission decline] is in part due to efforts that are currently underway to mandate fewer emissions from vehicles...” Emission reductions appear to be totally the result of state regulations and not actions undertaken at the regional or local levels. If that is not the case, please explain what actions at the local level are responsible for declining emissions. Additionally, the text notes that GHG emission levels are estimated to continue to decrease over the lifetime of the project on a per capita basis. Since GHG emission estimates appear to be based on VMT (Table 3-6) rather than per capita emission rates, please explain the relevance of the reference to per capita emissions. SANTA CRUZ The agency name that we are in the process of changing to is Santa Cruz 1 Agency name has been METRO METRO not SCMTD. Please use Santa Cruz METRO throughout, if room allows. updated throughout the document.

166 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE SANTA CRUZ An update to the language also on page 27: 27 Language updated "METRO METRO 1.) Santa Cruz METRO no longer operates a Summer Beach Shuttle, so that provides three types of can be omitted. service: Regional (Highway 17 2.) I would add in place of the omitted beach shuttle clause: "Santa Cruz Express), Intercity (11 routes), METRO partners with the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) to Urban Local-Feeder (21 provide late night fixed-route and demand response service known as the routes) and Rural Routes (7 Night Owl (Routes 16N and 19N) for students, faculty/staff, and the general routes). Routes serving the public. This service operates between 11:45pm and 3:00am in the general Santa Cruz Metro Center are west side Santa Cruz area." “pulsed” to enable faster 3.) "Santa Cruz METRO operates four types of service: Regional (Highway 17 transfers between routes. Express), Inter-city (11 routes), Urban Local-Feeder (21 routes), and Rural (7 Santa Cruz METRO partners routes)." with the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) to provide late night fixed- route and demand response service, known as the Night Owl, for students, faculty/staff, and the general public. This service operates from 11:45pm to 3:00am in the general west side Santa Cruz area." SANTA CRUZ Number of Routes: 40 27 Operating Statistics from 2007 METRO Operating expenses (fixed-route only): $30,892,878 Unlinked Passenger were used because they were Trips: 6,026,960 Annual Vehicle Rev. Hours: 223,766 Annual Vehicle Re. Miles: available for all counties. 3,309,215 SANTA CRUZ On p. 34, bottom of first graph under (SCMTD), last sentence that begins with 34 Changed. METRO “To date. . .” should read as follows: To date, there is some indication that Santa Cruz METRO will be able to leverage certain state funding streams, in addition to standard operating revenues, for service operation improvements. Santa Cruz METRO continues to be successful in receiving federal discretionary and state Proposition 1B funds for construction of a consolidated operations and maintenance facility. SANTA CRUZ On p. 35, the last graph in the first column, starting with, “Another issue 35 Changed. METRO facing [Santa Cruz] METRO. . .” should read as follows: "Another issue that faced Santa Cruz METRO involved air quality. The California Air Resources Board required all transit systems in the state to select a clean diesel or alternate (compressed natural gas CNG) fuel option in 2001. The decision was, at the time, irreversible for 15 years. Santa Cruz METRO then purchased 40 diesel buses to be converted to CNG when their planned CNG fueling station was completed. In 2008, Santa Cruz METRO completed the fueling station and conversion of 40 buses. On May 26, 2009, the Air Resources Board informed Santa Cruz METRO that operation of all remaining diesel buses in Santa Cruz METRO’s fleet through 2015 did not require a waiver from them as Santa Cruz METRO has met their original obligation to the alternate fuel path. No further action is required from the Air Resources Board for Santa Cruz METRO to continue to operate the remaining diesel fleet vehicles until the end of their useful lives and/or until more CNG buses are purchased. SANTA CRUZ On the bottom of p. 101, final graph in third column, should be corrected to 101 Changed. METRO 39 routes, not 49. In the sentence which begins “METRO provides. . .” it should read, “Santa Cruz METRO provides service in Santa Cruz County on 39 cumulative intercity, urban, local-feeder and rural routes and to downtown San Jose locations on the Highway 17 Express Bus.” SANTA CRUZ On p. 102, top, first column, the entire sentence about the beach shuttle 102 "Santa Cruz METRO carried METRO should be removed. We are disposing of this vehicle to another transit 6,026,920 passenger trips in agency and the City (our partner in the venture) pulled out a year later (2002), FY 2008/09 with a peak so this service does not exist. The last sentence of that graph can be changed pullout of 87 buses." to read: "Santa Cruz METRO carried 6,026,920 passenger trips in FY08/09 with a peak pullout of 87 buses."

167 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE SCCRTC 2. Page 1, last sentence 2nd column: Delete sentence “In absence of any 1 "The project lists from each funding shortfalls…” since there are shortfalls, which make up the RTP are incorporated, in their unconstrained list. entirety, into the MTP. The project lists provide all funded (constrained) projects and potential projects (unconstrained) should funding become available, from 2010 to 2035." SCCRTC 1. Page 1, 1st paragraph: Delete last part of paragraph re: vehicle emissions 1 The AMBAG region is currently budget---since we’re in conformity and no analysis was required, unless an in conformity for its vehicle analysis was done. emissions budget. SCCRTC 4. Page 14: “Plan compared to California conservation maps, and where 14 Could not find a specific available inventories of natural and historical resources.” What was the "California Wildlife Corridor outcome of this comparison? Did this include the California wildlife corridors Plan." New language: "When plan? available California conservation maps and inventories of natural or historic resources were compared with the plan." SCCRTC 3. Page 14, 2nd paragraph: Should the first sentence in the second paragraph 14 This is in reference to why reference the RTPAs, not the TMAs? AMBAG is developing an abbreviated MTP. The legislation states: "transportation management areas (TMAs) identified under 49 U.S.C. 5303"; "Transportation management area (TMA) means an urbanized area with a population over 200,000, as defined by the Bureau of the Census and designated by the Secretary of Transportation, or any additional area where TMA designation is requested by the Governor and the MPO and designated by the Secretary of Transportation." "(j) In an urbanized area not designated as a TMA that is an air quality attainment area, the MPO(s) may propose and submit to the FHWA and the FTA for approval a procedure for developing an abbreviated metropolitan transportation plan and TIP. In developing proposed simplified planning procedures, consideration shall be given to whether the abbreviated metropolitan transportation plan and TIP will achieve the purposes of 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and these regulations, taking into account the complexity of the transportation problems in the area. The simplified procedures shall be developed by the MPO in cooperation with the State(s) and public transportation operator(s)." 168 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE SCCRTC 5. Page 19-Travel Patterns: Add Highway 17 to the list of commuter highways 19 Highway 17 included. "It is not under travel patterns and reference that the largest number of trips are on uncommon for residents in local streets and Roads. Also, this section states that travel between Monterey the region to travel between & SC Counties has increased. Over what time period? Is this based on census counties for work. However, data? transit, bike and pedestrian commutes have risen as the cost of gas continues to increase and residents choose to live closer to where they work. In addition, due to a jobs/housing imbalance, travel between the Monterey Bay Area and Santa Clara County has increased over time." Commute patterns are based on the regional travel demand model. SCCRTC 6. Page 21- Map: Add SCMTD’s Hwy 17 Express Bus between Santa Cruz and 21 These are included - shapefiles downtown San Jose to the SCMTD mapped routes. (also is there no longer a were rearranged and MST bus to Big Sur?) recolored to ensure visibility.

SCCRTC 12. Page 22, last paragraph under “Pedestrian Facilities”: Is this just Monterey 22 "For example, Pacific Gas and County, if so, add word “Monterey” before county throughout paragraph? Electric (PG&E) owns and operates pipelines to distribute and supply natural gas to most communities in parts of the region via 12” and 20” pipelines." SCCRTC 9. Page 22: Please add that pedestrian travel is a vital part of the 22 "Pedestrian travel is a vital part transportation system, not just the economic and social life of the Monterey of the transportation, Bay Area. economic and social life of the Monterey Bay Area, and pedestrian amenities — such as appropriately sized sidewalks, crosswalks, curb cuts, landscaping, and benches — are seen as beneficial additions which make communities friendly and livable." SCCRTC 10. Page 22: The intent of the third paragraph in the middle column 22 "Walking, even though it is not beginning, “Walking, even though it...” is unclear. It may be simpler to state considered as common that almost every trip involves walking as some portion of the trip. transportation mode, supplements all other transportation modes – all trips start and end with walking.” SCCRTC 7. Page 22, 1st paragraph: What support do you have for saying that, “Biking 22 Language changed to: "Biking and Walking is the most desired mode choice”? It seems very presumptuous and walking is often a desired unless we have surveys or other research that shows people would prefer to mode choice, but these walk/bike if they felt it was a viable alternative. “Desired” by whom? modes rely on an adequate network and support facilities."

SCCRTC 11. Page 22: Why would local jurisdictions “minimize curb cuts”? It seems to 22 Minimizing curb-cuts prevents contradict the later section regarding ADA requirements. Instead state, “add breaks and interruptions in curb cuts.” the pedestrian network. The ADA section now states: "Problems commonly associated with sidewalks and pathways for the disabled are too many driveway cuts, lack of curb cuts, sign posts, benches and rough and 169 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE severely cracked sidewalk surfaces."

SCCRTC 8. Page 22, 3rd paragraph: Clarify if the 20-25% is for K-12 school commutes 22 Please see the Surface (or also college, vocational, etc) and if this is the AM, PM, or all rush-hour Transportation Policy Project traffic. on Safe Routes to School: http://www.transact.org/ca/sa feroutes.htm SCCRTC 13. Page 24, 1st paragraph: Please delete this paragraph. Santa Cruz County 24 "Please refer to the Monterey does not currently have a Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Master Plan. Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Please clarify what the plan referenced here includes. “This path, previously Master Plan (2008) for a known as the Coastal Rail Trail…” this text is being deleted from our RTP, did description of the plans for the not accurately reflect what the MBSST is. (Note: RTC received comments that MBSST Network. This trail is this was unclear in the SCC-RTP). proposed to span the Monterey Bay from Lover’s Point in Pacific Grove to Wilder Ranch in Santa Cruz. SCCRTC is in the process of developing a more detailed plan for the Santa Cruz County portion of the trail. Detailed plans for the southern portion of Monterey County are in the early stages of the planning collaboration process." SCCRTC 14. Page 24, 2nd to last paragraph: Modify to state “Federal earmarks Funds 24 Discussion of funding has brought to the region…” or delete sentence since not all funds will be split been deleted. between counties (ex. RTC designated some of its regional share of TE & RSTP to the project and we are not splitting those funds with TAMC). SCCRTC 15. Page 25: “like travel mode compared to extensive distances”- what does this 25 "Due to expected limitations mean? for regional planning for bicycle and pedestrian activities, AMBAG is not typically involved in bicycle and pedestrian planning, per se." SCCRTC 16. Page 25 last paragraph: Clarify that the Community Traffic Safety Coalition 25 "In 2009, the Community is in Santa Cruz County only. Traffic Safety Coalition of Santa Cruz County completed a “walk ability” survey to assess pedestrian and driver activities at various high traffic pedestrian crossings in Santa Cruz County.” SCCRTC 18. Page 26- Figure 10: Use of red for roadways in Santa Clara County and 26 Shapefiles were rearranged orange for SCMTD makes it look like SCMTD has significant routes there. and recolored to ensure Maybe change and label VTA route colors. visibility. SCCRTC 17. Page 26: How is the statistic that “80% of the region’s population lives 26 This statistic is generated from within a ½ mile of a bus stop” generated? Is this statistic available for Santa the Blueprint modeling efforts, Cruz County? and was done for all available bus stops in the region, so yes; this can be done for just Santa Cruz County. SCCRTC 20. Page 27-Table 1: More recent operating statistics should be available than 27 Operating Statistics from 2007 FY2007. Is it possible to update with FY2009 or projected FY2010 numbers? were used because they were available for all counties.

170 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE SCCRTC 19. Page 27: Please remove reference to the City of Santa Cruz beach to 27 Removed. downtown shuttle service. This service is no longer running. SCCRTC b. Delete the American Red Cross (out of county medical rides have shifted to 28 "In Santa Cruz County Lift Line) and the Volunteer Center (they don’t use buses or vans, but rather currently Lift Line (Community private autos and can’t accommodate wheelchairs). Bridges), a private non-profit provider of specialized transportation services is primarily responsible for providing essential transportation service to senior and disabled residents." SCCRTC c. Add to the list served by Lift Line “low income individuals for medical 28 "Lift Line provides appointments” transportation services for Elderday, the Stroke Center, Senior Dining Centers, the Multi-Purpose Senior Services Program, and low income individuals for medical appointments. Lift Line also contracts out some rides to private taxi operators." SCCRTC e. In the last paragraph, replace “Laidlaw” with “First Transit.” 28 "Private for-profit service providers such as First Transit, also operate specialized transportation services in Santa Cruz County.” SCCRTC a. Rename the category in Table 2 and in the heading: Lift Line/Community 28 Changed. Bridges. We have requested updated data for the table from Lift Line and will forward it onto you once we receive it. SCCRTC d. Delete the paragraph that begins with “In November 2004, METRO 28 Deleted. began…” since this is now old news

SCCRTC An update to the table on page 27: FY 2008 – 2009 Operating Statistics: 28 Operating Statistics from 2007 * # of Fleet Vehicles = 22 were used because they were * Unlinked Passenger Trips = 69,593 available for all counties. * Operating Expenses = $1,372,189 * Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles = 205,862 * Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours = 35,955 * Operating Expense per Passenger Mile = $6.67 SCCRTC 22. Page 29: Delete the paragraph that begins with “ In 2004, the Santa Cruz 29 Deleted. County Regional Transportation Commission established a…” since this is old news SCCRTC 23. Page 30, 2nd column: Also add Santa Cruz to list of locations where rail 30 "Rail passengers in Salinas, passengers can ride bus (Highway 17 Express) to connect to Amtrak Capitol Santa Cruz, and Monterey can Corridor. ride the Amtrak bus to connect to the Capitol Corridor route, which runs daily between San Jose and Sacramento." SCCRTC 24. Page 30-Figure 12: Change legend to change rail lines from “union pacific 30 Changed. RR” to show as “Railroad tracks”. Many of these tracks are not actually owned by UP (ex. Felton Line, Santa Cruz Branch Line (soon), and lines purchased by TAMC). SCCRTC a. Santa Cruz Big Trees and Pacific Railway – Change last sentence as follows: 31 Changed. “A 1995 study conducted by METRO, SCCRTC and VTA analyzed the potential for reviving over-the-hill rail service.” SCCRTC b. Watsonville Junction to Davenport (Santa Cruz Branch Line) – Change first 31 Changed. sentence as follows: “This Union Pacific Sierra Northern Railroad, single-track branch freight rail line, with a 20-MPH limit, is still used…” SCCRTC c. Change 3rd paragraph: “Acquisition of the Santa Cruz Branch rail line for 31 Changed. future transportation uses and implementation of recreational rail service development of an adjacent bicycle and pedestrian path is currently being finalized between UP and SCCRTC….” 171 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE SCCRTC 26. Page 34: See SCMTD updates: “Metro’s would like to increase service, but 34 "Increasing congestion on due to ongoing funding shortfalls Metro is struggling to maintain existing highways and the local service.” Recently, Metro presented a plan to its board to decrease service transportation network in based on funding constraints. Delete entire sentence on 1999 MTIS that Santa Cruz County is expected states RTC committed funds over next 15 years. Update sentence, “To date, to generate more transit there is some indication that Santa Cruz METRO will be able to leverage service demand. To certain state funding streams, in addition to standard operating revenues, for accommodate this expected service operation improvements. Santa Cruz METRO continues to be demand, the Santa Cruz successful in receiving federal discretionary and state Proposition 1B funds Metropolitan Transit District for construction of a consolidated operations and maintenance facility.” You (Santa Cruz METRO or METRO) may want to consider including some text from our RTP on pages 2-26 and 2- would like to increase service, 27. but due to ongoing funding shortfalls Santa Cruz METRO is struggling to maintain existing service. To date, there is some indication that Santa Cruz METRO will be able to leverage certain state funding streams, in addition to standard operating revenues, for service operation improvements. " SCCRTC 27. Page 35: “METRO must meet two essential needs for sustaining the currently 35 "METRO must meet two diminished level of transit service.” Removing the word dimished is essential needs to sustain the recommended. It makes it sound like they aren’t trying to improve service. current level of transit service.”

SCCRTC 28. On p. 35, the last graph in the first column, starting with, “Another issue 35 Changed. facing [Santa Cruz] METRO. . .” should read as follows: Another issue that faced Santa Cruz METRO involved air quality. The California Air Resources Board required all transit systems in the state to select a clean diesel or alternate (compressed natural gas CNG) fuel option in 2001. The decision was, at the time, irreversible for 15 years. Santa Cruz METRO then purchased 40 diesel buses to be converted to CNG when their planned CNG fueling station was completed. In 2008, Santa Cruz METRO completed the fueling station and conversion of 40 buses. On May 26, 2009, the Air Resources Board informed Santa Cruz METRO that operation of all remaining diesel buses in Santa Cruz METRO’s fleet through 2015 did not require a waiver from them as Santa Cruz METRO has met their original obligation to the alternate fuel path. No further action is required from the Air Resources Board for Santa Cruz METRO to continue to operate the remaining diesel fleet vehicles until the end of their useful lives and/or until more CNG buses are purchased.

SCCRTC 29. p. 35, 3rd column, 2nd paragraph on Ridesharing: Add sentence, “…the 35 Changed. media, and the concerted effort of rideshare agency’s staff. A regional traveler information system, could also assist efforts to increase vehicle occupancy by delivering customized information about transportation options to large numbers of travelers simultaneously. In previous fiscal years, the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) has…

SCCRTC 30. P. 35 to 36 – Change the sentence that spans these two pages to read: 35 Changed. “Key goals that were developed from the AMBAG conference included establishing a regional working group/mobility council to continue working on issues to improve transportation options for individuals with mobility limitations and to create a local Mobility Management Centers or other information/referral systems to dissimulate disseminate mobility information to the targeted user population.” SCCRTC 31. Page 36: 3rd paragraph of Passenger Rail to Santa Cruz/middle column to 36 Changed. state: “With respect to the entire Santa Cruz Branch Line, SCCRTC reached a price agreement of $14.2 million with UP to purchase the line, at their meeting of December 2, 2004 approved a Letter of Intent for the purchase and acquisition of the line from Union Pacific, which effectively establishes the branch line purchase price. Barring difficulties, this transfer could occur in early Fall 201005.”

172 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE SCCRTC 32. Page 38, second column, 1st paragraph: Change reference to Appendix D 38 "Projects for many of these to clarify this is the constrained and unconstrained list. Also, add that some roadways are included within projects are listed on both the Constrained and the Unconstrained Project the MTP, and will be listed in List. the Constrained and Unconstrained Project List (Appendix D) in conjunction with planned and desired improvements for these facilities." SCCRTC 33. Page 38-Roadwy Transportation Problems and needs: Add section on 38 No change made. maintenance. Maintenance (roadway repairs) is one of the primary needs facing transportation today. SCCRTC 34. Page 40- Table 5: Add Soquel Avenue to Morrissey Avenue on Highway 1 40 Soquel to Morrisey Aves in Santa Cruz County to list of most congested areas in region. When added; "Starting at the Santa referencing Highway 17, revise “exceptionally steep, tortuous” to Clara/Santa Cruz County line “mountainous highway”. Also correct this language to reflect that just south near Summit Road, Route 17 is of Scotts Valley, Highway 17 becomes a freeway with shoulder. Please add a rolling to mountainous that in response an increase in the severity of collisions on Highway 129, the route, with slopes from 4-6%. California Highway Patrol has been awarded a grant to emphasize safety on Segments along this route are this corridor. narrow, do not have shoulders, or have a narrow median with guard rail. Highway 17 reached its design capacity of 40,000 vehicles per day in 1968. Although this route has no signalized intersections, there are several unsignalized intersections with acceleration/deceleration lanes as well as t-intersections with local roads. Just north of Scotts Valley, Highway 17 becomes a freeway with shoulders. The freeway portion terminates at the interchange with Highway 1 in the City of Santa Cruz. The program Safe on 17 has been an effective collaboration between Caltrans, the CHP, and local and elected officials to encourage motorists to slow down and use caution on Route 17." SCCRTC 35. Page 44&45-Tables 7& 8: What is the source for these numbers? Are the 44 The source is the 2003 Airport numbers for 2005 & 2010 actual or projections from an earlier study? What Economic Study completed by year is reflected in Table 8 (2003?)? AMBAG; Regional Airport Plans and Caltrans. SCCRTC 37. Page 46-1st paragraph on Freight Service: Modify as follows: “Rail freight 46 "Rail freight service in the service in the region is provided mainly on the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) region is provided mainly on Company tracks. Sierra Northern Railroad has recently purchased entered the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) into a lease agreement with UP to provide freight service on the Santa Cruz Company tracks. Sierra Branch Line some track sections from UP. The Santa Cruz, Big Trees, and Northern Railroad has recently Pacific Railway Corporation also provide some freight service in Santa Cruz entered into a lease County on their own line.” agreement with UP to provide freight service on some track sections, including the Santa Cruz Branch Line. The Santa Cruz, Big Trees, and Pacific Railway Corporation also provide some freight service in Santa Cruz County on their own line."

173 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE SCCRTC 36. Page 46: As is the case with several of the figures, the detail lines are 46 STRAHNET stands for difficult to distinguish. It was particularly confusing on Figure 16. The primary "Strategic Highway Network". item that stands out is the Hazmat Routes. Also, what does STRAHNET stand Graphic notes are noted. for? SCCRTC 40. Page 50: Please add that Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties are currently 50 Added: "Counties within the developing a Feasibility and Implementation Plan for a Monterey Bay Area region are currently 511 Traveler Information System. A traveler information system is expected to developing a Feasibility and build on the existing ITS infrastructure and architecture. Enhanced detection Implementation Plan for a and communications systems are typically components of a traveler Monterey Bay Area 511 information system. Traveler Information System. A traveler information system is expected to build on the existing ITS infrastructure and architecture." SCCRTC 39. Page 50: TAMC is not actively pursuing Smart Call boxes at this time, as I 50 Changed. understand it.

SCCRTC 38. Page 50-51: The entire section on the Central Coast ITS Coordinator seems 50 The latter section has been out of date. The up-to-date information is provided in the sub-section Central updated. Coast Intelligent Transportation System (2004). The latter section references a membership list that is not included. SCCRTC 41. Page 54: MTP Goals- Surprised not to see operational improvements listed 54 See first strategy listed on p.55 as a strategy for reducing congestion and no reference to maintaining the "Ensure adequate operation existing system (transit, road & path repairs, etc). and maintenance of all existing transportation system modes." SCCRTC 42. Page 57- Would be more appropriate to reference LOS during peak 57 The peak period is from 6am- periods, particularly because we have seen an increase in the length of peak 9am and 4pm-7pm, and the periods. LOS is based on daily volume/capacity ratios SCCRTC 45. Page 58: Please remove second paragraph in third column. There are 58 Language changed: "Both many variables (roadway design including lane distribution, adjacent funding limitations and transportation network, transit availability, land use, etc.) contributing to the unavoidable environmental ability of a highway capacity increasing project to address congestion. It is impacts effectively prevent not accepted that in every case, or even most cases, increasing capacity widening highways. It has pushes congestion to other roadway segments. Also, it not accepted that been demonstrated that capacity increasing, particularly when combined with other strategies. Finally, efforts to widen highways it is also not accurate to make the statement that capacity increasing projects does not in fact mitigate are not “responsible mitigation”. The statement cited is far too broad and congestion, but instead frankly simplistic and outdated. At a minimum revise the second paragraph in pushes congestion to other column three to state that funding limitations and potential environmental segments in the network. impacts make widening highways less feasible. More responsible mitigation seeks to develop other modes within the overall transportation network." SCCRTC 43. Page 58: What time period is covered in the statement that mean travel 58 Mean travel time data is taken time to work in the region has increased? It was my understanding that the from the Census Journey to most recent TDM didn’t calculate commute travel times. work statistics - the RTDM does not calculate home to work travel time. SCCRTC 44. Page 58: The second paragraph in the second column is not clear. Are you 58 No change made. trying to stay that unexpected incidents, which may result from speeding and changing roadway geometries, cause congestion? Does location of housing in relation to destinations play into travel times? SCCRTC 47. Page 59-61: Where do you explain where we need to improve our existing 59 Comment noted. system to get to a high level of service by 2035? What are the strategies that the MTP is purposing specific to this? In general LOS is not the primary goal of most entities any more. In some instances a low LOS is sign of positive economic activity, etc. SCCRTC 46. Page 59 State of Good Repair: Seems this section should focus on 59 No change made. maintaining roadways and transit system (road repairs, SHOPP, transit buses and service).

174 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE SCCRTC 48. Page 62: Add Traveler Information and Motorist Aid, including Freeway 62 "More responsible mitigation Service Patrol as Traffic System Management Strategies, as well as auxiliary seeks to develop other modes lanes on highways. within the overall transportation network, which includes Traveler Information and Motorist Aid, including Freeway Service Patrol as Traffic System Management Strategies, as well as auxiliary lanes on highways." SCCRTC 50. Page 63 middle column: Delete “use of $8 million in”. The RTC has since 63 Changed. increased this amount. Delete last sentence 1st paragraph, “This phase is scheduled for completion…” SCCRTC 51. Page 63 - Parking Management: Update as follows, “See the map on the 63 Changed. next page for the locations of Caltrans park and ride lots in the AMBAG region.” SCCRTC 52. Page 63, 3rd column, 3rd paragraph: Change to read “Santa Cruz County 63 Changed. has five formal park and ride lots augmented by one informal lot on Highway 17 in Santa Clara County that is paved, but not signed and four joint use These shared use facilities lots covering serve both the State Route 1 corridor from Park Avenue State Park Drive to High Street Morrissey and the State Route 17 corridor from Pasatiempo to the Summit.

SCCRTC 49. Page 63: Mention of Bus Rapid Transit and the impact of travel times on 63 Unfortunately this section mode choice is missing from these sections. only has the capability to evaluate overall system LOS, which includes transit modes. SCCRTC 55. Page 64- add “city and county funds, and Safe Routes to Schools and 64 Changed. Bicycle Transportation Account” to funding sources available for bike and ped projects.

SCCRTC 54. Page 64-64: Delete references to CMAQ funding 64 Deleted. SCCRTC 53. Page 64: Section on Bicycle and Pedestrian Amenities seems to mostly 64 No change made. repeat the text in the Chapter, Existing Systems. SCCRTC 59. Page 65, 3rd column, 2nd paragraph: References Chapter III, section x, y, z— 65 "For additional background Delete these references since MTP not organized with section numbers. information on Santa Cruz METRO, MST and the County Express, please see the Existing Conditions section.” SCCRTC 57. Page 65, 2nd column update: Staff of each program provides Instant web- 65 "Staff of each program based carpool/vanpool matching services to which delivers to interested provides instant web-based individuals. The coordinators forward a list of other individuals people carpool/vanpool matching traveling to and from the…In addition to carpool/vanpool matching services, services which deliver to the three rideshare programs also conduct employer outreach…and/or interested individuals a list of walking to work. The three services primarily promote their services through other people traveling to and this type of outreach as well as promotional campaigns. In Santa Cruz County, from the same area as the Commute Solutions offers a full-service commuter help desk assisting both commuters. The ridesharing individuals and employers. Commute program assistance for employers programs are voluntary with includes residential density maps and employee commute and facility the commuter deciding assessment surveys, as well as help with policies, tax benefits and incentive whether or not to use the programs. Individuals get personalized trip planning and for all modes and forwarded information to help calculating commute costs. begin a carpool or participate in a vanpool. In addition to carpool/vanpool matching services, the three rideshare programs also conduct employer outreach campaigns to stimulate awareness of different forms of travel than the single- occupant vehicle (SOV). This includes promoting and facilitating the use of transit or 175 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE non-motorized modes such as telecommuting, riding bicycles and/or walking to work. "

SCCRTC 56. Page 65-Ridesharing: Modify as follows… The programs are generally 65 "The programs are generally supported by a combination of federal funds through the Congestion supported by a combination Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program and from federal, state, and of federal, state, and local local grant funding… funding or promotional contributions from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District." SCCRTC 58. Page 65- Delete section on TMAs or modify as follows: Transportation 65 Changed. Management Agencies (TMAs) are voluntary associations of employers typically located in the same general vicinity…In Santa Cruz County, SCCRTC assisted both the Santa Cruz Area and the Pajaro Valley Chambers of Commerce in the initial formation of to form a TMAs. in the northern area of Santa Cruz County, the Santa Cruz Area TMA. In addition, in the early 1990s the Pajaro Valley Chamber of Commerce initiated the Pajaro Valley TMA with the assistance of a Caltrans feasibility study grant ($10,000). Like TMA’s throughout California, the voluntary nature of membership and employer trip reduction efforts make the traditional TMA model difficult to sustain. The Santa Cruz Area TMA merged with the non-profit Ecology Action organization in 2007 and core programs formerly offered through the TMA continue to be offered to employers on a membership basis. The Pajaro Valley TMA which continues to operate under the PV Chamber with a focus on safety and education about sustainable transportation is no longer a membership organization. Both TMAs continue to operate today. No other TMAs operate in the Monterey Bay region. In addition to these two non-profits, several other non-profit, private, and employer run programs promote ridesharing in the region.

SCCRTC 61. Page 66, 2nd column, 1st sentence---change to clarify that the MTIP only 66 "Once included in the adopted includes federally-funded and projects subject to conformity analysis (not MTP, a program or project “all” programs and projects). becomes eligible for the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP, a separate document) that identifies funding source and schedule for all federally- funded programs and projects by fiscal year." SCCRTC 60. Page 66, 2nd paragraph: Delete references to 2005 RTPs. 2010 RTPs or just 66 Updated. Recent plans were RTPs in general should be referenced. Also 3rd paragraph reference 1994 not identified. Monterey Bay Region Maintenance Plan---is there not a more recent plan?

SCCRTC 62. Page 69: Third column, second paragraph should be modified to say that 69 "Planned regional “Combined the projects included in the MTP are not expected to have transportation improvements disproportionate adverse impact….” were evaluated to ensure that combined the projects included in the MTP are not expected to have a disproportionate adverse impact on low income or other under-represented groups, and that minority and low-income populations receive equal benefits, on an equally timely basis, as other populations."

176 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE SCCRTC 65. Page 70: Unconstrained Projects will only be implemented if there is 70 "Unconstrained Projects — additional funding. The funding may not have to significant to implement Given the limited amount of individual projects on the list and the change must be an increase. funding available for transportation projects and programs, there are over 464 projects totaling over $4.3 billion that cannot be implemented over the next twenty-five years unless there is additional funding available for transportation. " SCCRTC 64. Tables 14-18: Update to match new Fund Estimate info sent by Rachel. 70 Updated. Also, update the Base Year to match information from the RTPs. Do not reference 2009/10. I’m guessing this FY09/10 number is from the FTIP, but since the FTIP does not reflect all funds and projects it is not appropriate to use as the base year info. SCCRTC 63. Financing the Plan - Pages 70-80: Update text, tables, etc. to reflect 70 Updated. modified project list and financial element previously forwarded to AMBAG staff. Including SCCRTC 66. Page 71: Update 2nd paragraph to state “over 30% of the region’s planned 71 Changed. expenditures will go toward maintaining, improving, or expanding…”

SCCRTC 67. Page 71: Recommend removing, “per the financial constraint criterion of 71 Changed. SAFETEA-LU”. Financial constraints reflected in the financial tables also reflect historical trends and current law. The financial projections are not just constrained by SAFETEA-LU. There is a better description of the considerations given in developing the Financial Element on page 72 under Financial Assumptions. SCCRTC 68. Page 71 & Appendix D- Regionally significant projects: Table 13, text, and 71 Each RTPA identified their appendix all seem to miss many significant projects (ex. MST’s ongoing own projects as regionally operations--$430M, Caltrans SHOPP in TAMC’s doc=over $900M, and several significant. This methodology in Santa Cruz County). How were these defined? is unknown for each agency. SCCRTC 69. Page 72: CMAQ funding is still a federal funding source, however, the 72 Deleted. NCAB is in an attainment zone and therefore is not eligible for CMAQ funding.

SCCRTC 70. Page 72, last sentence 2nd column: Based on February “gas tax swap” STA 72 Deleted. will be included in the RTP/MTP.

SCCRTC 71. Page 73, 3rd column, 2nd paragraph: The 2.5% escalation was used by 73 2.5% reference deleted SCCRTC. I believe TAMC used a different escalation rate. Also, I believe the MTP must include the escalated YOE info in the appendix, or at least reference that it is shown in the RTPs. The numbers shown in the MTP is the unescalated cost info only. SCCRTC 72. Page 74: The total funding available between FY10/11-FY34/35 is 74 Updated. reporting differently on page 69 and page 75, $8,022,919,574 and $8123,649,365 respectively. SCCRTC 73. Page 78: City and County developer fees are applied in some, but not all 78 "An additional source of areas of the region. In these areas, there are policies and programs for to levy funding which is used in many these fees. They are not applied sporadically. places throughout the Monterey Bay region is traffic impact fees." SCCRTC 75. Page 84 & 88 - F. Preserving the Existing System: Seems too focused on 84 85 - "Utilization of ITS, state of ITS, missing info on maintaining (repairing) roads, sidewalks, paths, transit. good repair"; 88 - "In addition, ensuring the system maintains a state of good repair through maintenance and repairs will bolster the ITS operation techniques."

177 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE SCCRTC 76. Page 85 Tables 20 & 21: Provide info on sources, assumption. Total Daily 85 Data are developed through Person Trips should clarify that these are vehicle trips only. How do these the RTDM and are therefore compare to population projections? more appropriately calibrated to the AMBAG region, and is consistent with the adopted Forecast. SCCRTC 77. Page 86-87: Figures 32, 33 and Table 22: Data for 2005 does not match the 86 Figures do not match data provided by AMBAG to the RTC for Santa Cruz County. Please clarify. SCCRTC's RTP because they Also, there should be an explanation stating whether or not the mode split are in reference to the AMBAG projections take into consideration the presence of high occupancy vehicle model and not the US Census lanes, bus rapid transit, land use changes and/or other variables that could Journey to work assumptions. influence mode share splits. Are the 2035 projections based on the “build” or Mode split takes into account “no build” scenario? What assumptions went into projections? Why almost no the projects provided for the change in mode split? model update - this would include carpool and transit trips. Projections are only based on the build scenario.

SCCRTC 78. Page 88: Examples of how ITS can impact travel productivity, speed, 88 88 - "In addition, ensuring the throughput and hours of delay are needed here to explain how these system maintains a state of investments achieve this goal. Also, preserving the system should also reflect good repair through maintaining the safety and maximizes the infrastructure investment, and maintenance and repairs will should not be limited to productivity only. bolster the ITS operation techniques." SCCRTC 79. Page 89, H: Is SHOPP money used to support security improvements? 89 "In addition, monitoring funds Also, mention transit security funds. spent by SHOPP and transit security funds will also be used to evaluate the overall security of the transportation system.” SCCRTC 80. Page 99- Appendix A: State how long is the “extended” Regional Housing 99 "Pursuant to SB375, regions Allocation planning cycle. Also, does the four year cycle in this same sentence wishing to take advantage of a refer to the MTP and RTP cycle? Please clarify; especially since this region is coordinated Regional Housing currently on a five-year cycle. Maybe also delete month references, since SCS Allocation planning cycle not necessarily required by June 2012. must shift to a four year update cycle, the same as required for MPOs in non- attainment areas by SAFTEA- LU." June 2012 is currently required in order to adopt the RHNA by December 2012. SCCRTC 81. Page 99-Appendix A: To make the time line more clear, add footnotes 99 No change made. with a brief explanation of the key elements. What is the significance of RHNA 5th Revision with respect to the timeline? SCCRTC 83. Page 101- Appendix A: Please remove reference to emergency when 101 "All three counties have describing call box services. See comment re: call box systems are not designated themselves SAFE intended to be emergency systems. counties for the implementation and maintenance of an emergency, roadside system." SCCRTC 82. Page 101- Appendix A: The RTPAs update the RTP every 4 to 5 years, not 101 "Every four to five years, they every three years. prepare state-mandated Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and every two years Regional Transportation Improvement Plans (RTIPs) outlining their selected transportation projects and/or programs within each county."

178 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE SCCRTC 84. On the bottom of p. 101, final graph in third column should be corrected 101 Changed. to 39 routes, not 49. In the sentence which begins “METRO provides. . .” it should read, “Santa Cruz METRO provides service in Santa Cruz County on 39 cumulative intercity, urban, local-feeder and rural routes and to downtown San Jose locations on the Highway 17 Express Bus.”

SCCRTC 85. Page 102-Appendix A: Remove reference to Santa Cruz Summer Beach 102 "Santa Cruz METRO carried shuttle. Also, in FY08/09 Metro provided 6,026,920 passenger trips with a 6,026,920 passenger trips in peak pullout of 87 buses. FY 2008/09 with a peak pullout of 87 buses." SCCRTC 86. Page 104-Appendix A: Last paragraph seems to repeat the first three 104 No change made. paragraphs in this section.

SCCRTC f. Table 24: SAFETEA-LU requires projects to also be shown by YOE. Either 110 "*SAFETEA-LU requires reference that the info is in the RTPs, or provide here. projects to also be shown by YOE. Please refer to the RTPs prepared by San Benito COG, SCCRTC and TAMC." SCCRTC c. Delete or explain what regionally significant column means—how were 110 Each RTPA identified their these identified as regionally significant? If going to keep, please let us own projects as regionally provide input on which are classified as “regionally significant”. List currently significant. This methodology inconsistent (one ex.=MTD-p33 and MST007 are the same safety-security type is unknown for each agency. projects but only the SC project is id as “regionally signif”)

SCCRTC e. Separate list by County, include reference to RTP project lists if no 110 Projects are listed by project description being provided. cost.

SCCRTC h. Table 26- what is this? Why not listed within Table 24? What is Other-2? 110 San Benito COG included an "Other" category, which does not fit into the Constrained or Unconstrained lists. The revenue sources for the "funded by others" category was not included in their financial plan. SCCRTC g. Table 25- for projects under $1 in Santa Cruz County, show cost as 110 Updated. unknown (because of the way Access works, we needed to put a value in, but for the MTP show as $0 or unknown) SCCRTC b. Add a key/glossary to explain what different fields mean. 110 No change made. SCCRTC a. Replace with updated list sent by Rachel to Randy 4/29/10 110 Updated. SCCRTC d. Page 112 & 111 seems to be the same. 111 Changed. SCCRTC 88. Page 126- Appendix E: Replace with updated RTC policies---approved by 126 "The goals, policies and sub- our board 5/6; sent to Randy 4/29 by Rachel (Goal 4 updated—change policies are used to prioritize “minimizes” to “reduce”). If MTP does not include the policies, please at least projects included in the RTP’s reference that the RTC’s goals are supported by several specific policies Investment Program. These available for review in Chapter 3 of our RTP. policies are also used to provide input on new developments and projects proposed in the region. SCCRTC’s goals are supported by several specific policies available for review in Chapter 3 of the SCCRTC RTP.” SCCRTC c. Under Protect the env’t: Update to reflect new Goal 4 language (replace 128 Changed. “minimizes” with word “reduce”)

SCCRTC a. Insert SCCRTC Goal: Increase mobility by providing an improved and 128 SCCRTC Goal listed for two integrated multi-modal transportation system in to the Enhanced Modal SAFETEA-LU Goals. Integration Row corresponding with the RTC. SCCRTC b. Under Safety & Security: See policies under 1.8 from 4/29 file. (we 128 Updated. inadvertently omitted them from the Draft, though they had been approved by our board in June 2009).

179 Agency Comment Page STATUS/CHANGE MADE SCCRTC 90. Page 147- Appendix I: SAFEs are responsible for installing and maintaining 147 "SAFEs are responsible for roadside call boxes. Call boxes are intended to enable motorists to obtain installing and maintaining the assistance and roadway information. However, it is not intended that any emergency call boxes that link services provided be considered an emergency system. SAFEs also provide stranded motorists to the other motorist aid services, such as free tow trucks during peak periods, and California Highway Patrol. As implementing intelligent transportation systems that serve motorists such as the SAFE, SCCRTC, TAMC, and roadway detection and information dissemination. SBCOG collect an additional $1.00 fee per vehicle registration. Call boxes are intended to enable motorists to obtain assistance and roadway information. However, it is not intended that any services provided be considered an emergency system. SAFEs also provide other motorist aid services, such as free tow trucks during peak periods, and implementing intelligent transportation systems that serve motorists such as roadway detection and information dissemination. Call boxes are located on: State Routes 1, 9, 17, 129 and 152 in Santa Cruz County; State Routes 25, 101 and 156 in San Benito County; and State Routes 1, 68, 101, and 156 in Monterey County. " SCCRTC b. Scott's Valley Transit Center 219 223 151 Changed. SCCRTC c. Pasatiempo 63 57 151 Changed. SCCRTC d. Quaker Meeting House Church 12 (DELETE WORD “CHURCH”) 151 Changed. SCCRTC e. Soquel Dr 57 121 151 Changed. SCCRTC a. Resurrection Church 78 75 151 Changed. SCCRTC a. Summit (Informal Lot) 12 151 Currently states "Summit (Informal Lot) 12 SCCRTC 92. Note: Transit mode split references are inconsistent because RTC relies on ? Data are developed through Census and MTP relies on TDM. the RTDM and are therefore more appropriately calibrated to the AMBAG region, and is consistent with the adopted Forecast. SCCRTC 74. Page 80 & 147: The Transportation Sales Tax is not a “transit” sales tax. 80, "The new Transportation Sales Change 1st sentence to state “A new transit sales tax…” Change $370 million 147 Tax is identified as a revenue to over $300 million based on new estimates for sales tax. Delete last source for Santa Cruz County." sentence in this section that references $400 million. The Campaign The Campaign for Sensible Transportation (CFST) offers the following SEIR Since comments from CFST for Sensible comments on both the Draft 2010 RTP and on the Supplemental EIR for the are on the SEIR and SCCRTC’s Transportation MTP and respective RTPs. In what follows, we devote a section to each. RTP specific comments received are addressed in those documents, and are recognized as received.

180 181 Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2010 -2035