APPENDIX E-1 RESOLUTION SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
R-11-03
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 2011 RTP, 2011 FTIP AND AIR QUALITY CORRESPONDING CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Council of Governments is a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Metropolitan Planning Organization, pursuant to State and Federal designation; and
WHEREAS, federal planning regulations require Metropolitan Planning Organizations to prepare and adopt a long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for their region; and
WHEREAS, federal planning regulations require that Metropolitan Planning Organizations prepare and adopt a Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for their region; and
WHEREAS, Section 65080 of the California Government Code requires each regional transportation planning agency to prepare a regional transportation plan and update it for submission to the governing Policy Board for adoption; and
WHEREAS, a 2011 Regional Transportation Plan has been prepared in full compliance with federal guidance; and
WHEREAS, a 2011 Regional Transportation Plan has been prepared in accordance with state guidelines adopted by the California Transportation Commission; and
WHEREAS, federal planning regulations require that Metropolitan Planning Organizations prepare and adopt a short range Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for their region; and
WHEREAS, the 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2011 FTIP) has been prepared to comply with Federal and State requirements for local projects and through a cooperative process between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), principal elected officials of general purpose local governments and their staffs, and public owner operators of mass transportation services acting through the San Joaquin Council of Governments forum and general public involvement; and
WHEREAS, the 2011 FTIP program listing is consistent with: 1) the 2011 Regional Transportation Plan; 2) the 2010 State Transportation Improvement Program; and 3) the Corresponding Conformity Analysis; and
WHEREAS, the 2011 FTIP contains the MPO’s certification of the transportation planning process assuring that all federal requirements have been fulfilled; and
WHEREAS, the 2001 FTIP meets all applicable transportation planning requirements per 23 CFR Part 450
WHEREAS, projects submitted in the 2011 FTIP must be financially constrained and the financial plan affirms that funding is available; and
WHEREAS, the 2011 RTP and 2011 FTIP includes a new Conformity Analysis; and
WHEREAS, the MPO must demonstrate conformity per 40 CFR Part 93 for the RTP and FTIP; and
WHEREAS, the 2011 RTP and 2011 FTIP do not interfere with the timely implementation of the Transportation Control Measures; and
WHEREAS, the 2011 RTP and 2011 FTIP conforms to the applicable SIPs; and
WHEREAS, the documents have been widely circulated and reviewed by San Joaquin Council of Governments advisory committees representing the technical and management staffs of the member agencies; representatives of other governmental agencies, including State and Federal; representatives of special interest groups; representatives of the private business sector; and residents of San Joaquin County consistent with public participation process adopted by San Joaquin Council of Governments; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on June 3, 2010 to hear and consider comments on the 2011 RTP, 2011 FTIP, and Corresponding Conformity Analysis; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that San Joaquin Council of Governments adopts the 2011 RTP, 2011 FTIP, and Corresponding Conformity Analysis.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the San Joaquin Council of Governments finds that the 2011 RTP and 2011 FTIP are in conformity with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments and applicable State Implementation Plans for air quality.
AND PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd Day of July, 2010 by the following vote of the San Joaquin Council of Governments, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
______ANN JOHNSTON Chair
APPENDIX E-2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT 2011 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, THE DRAFT 2011 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN, AND CORRESPONDING DRAFT CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the San Joaquin Council of Governments will hold a public hearing on, June 3, 2010 from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at SJCOG Board conference room, 555 E Weber Ave. Stockton, CA 95202 regarding the Draft 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2011 FTIP), the Draft 2011 Regional Transportation Plan (2011 RTP) and corresponding Draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis for the 2011 FTIP and 2011 RTP. The purpose of this combined public hearing is to receive public comments on these documents.
• The 2011 FTIP is a near-term listing of capital improvement and operational expenditures utilizing federal and state monies for transportation projects in San Joaquin County during the next four years. • The 2011 RTP is a long-term strategy to meet San Joaquin County transportation needs out to the year 2035. • The Conformity Analysis contains the documentation to support a finding that the 2011 FTIP and 2011 RTP meet the air quality conformity requirements for carbon monoxide, ozone and particulate matter.
Individuals with disabilities may call SJCOG (with 3-working-day advance notice) to request auxiliary aids necessary to participate in the public hearing. Translation services are available (with 3-working-day advance notice) to participants speaking any language with available professional translation services.
A concurrent 45-day public review and comment period will commence on April 30, 2010 and conclude on June 14, 2010. The draft documents are available for review at the SJCOG office, located at 555 E Weber Ave. Stockton, CA 95202 and on SJCOG website at www.sjcog.org.
Public comments are welcomed at the hearing, or may be submitted in writing by 5 p.m. on June 14, 2010 to SJCOG at the address below.
After considering the comments, the documents will be considered for adoption, by resolution, by the SJCOG at a regularly scheduled meeting to be held on July 22, 2010. The documents will then be submitted to state and federal agencies for approval.
Contact Person: Tanisha Taylor 555 E Weber Ave. 209-235-0600
APPENDIX E-3 Appendix C
Regional Transportation Plan Checklist
Page Left Intentionally Blank
APPENDIX E-4
San Joaquin Council of Governments 2011 Regional Transportation Plan Response to Comments
*Note: All comments contained in this document reflect a summary of the original comment. Please see the original comment letters for the full text of each comment. These can be found in appendix E-4 of the 2011 regional transportation plan
Caltrans Letter Dated June 14, 2010
Caltrans Comment 1:Please add a discussion of the regionally significant projects. A discussion of the regionally significant projects has been added to chapter 7 of the 2011 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
Caltrans Comment 2: Please provide a statement of consistency between the RTP and the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). A consistency statement to the 2010 Interregional Transportation Improvement Program has been added to RTP chapter 10.
Caltrans Comment 3: Please include a discussion of environmental mitigation activities directly in the RTP rather than only in the Environmental Impact Report. SJCOG has included the entire environmental impact report as an appendix to the 2011 RTP (Appendix 1-2)
Caltrans Comment 4A: Please update line 9 project title to reflect new interchange as there is not interchange there now (I-5 at Otto Drive). The project on line 9 of page 6-14 has been updated to be consistent with the RTP project list description contained n table 7-2 [Construction of a new interchange and auxiliary lanes (PM 33.3/34.2)].
Caltrans Comment 4B: There is duplication on the project list from Arch Road to Mariposa Road on SR 99. The project should read French Camp Road to Arch Road instead of French Cam p Road to Mariposa Road. Per discussions with Caltrans District 10 Local Assistance the project scope is correct as listed in the project listing.
Caltrans Comment 4C: Consider Paving to 8’ shoulder widths on all roads with high speed truck traffic or bus traffic to reduce PM2.5. The 2011 RTP tier 1 project list identifies the cost, scope, and schedule of each project on the list. Each project contained in the 2011 RTP project list will require design of the listed facility, if not already completed at the time of the adoption of the RTP. At that time, the project sponsor will determine the appropriate width of any necessary shoulder improvements. Comment Noted
Caltrans Comment 5: Please revise the descriptions of the Caltrans SR99 projects to read Peltier Road to the Sacramento County Line and Harney Lane to Peltier Road. The project description has been updated. This change does not impact the SJCOG conformity determination as this project is a Tier II un-fiscally constrained project and therefore is not modeled as part of the SJCOG conformity analysis.
Caltrans Comment 6A: Please include a signed copy of the Caltrans RTP checklist with submittal of the final SJCOG A signed copy of the RTP checklist has been added to the 2011 RTP checklist and will be submitted with the final SJCOG 2011 RTP.
Caltrans Comment 6B: Please provide a complete package of documents with future RTP updates: Comment Noted. Due to technical difficulties with the SJCOG printers, CD copies of the entire documents were provided to the commenter as requested.
Caltrans Comment 6C: The printed copy of the RTP document cuts off the RTP project list. Comment noted. This commenter was also provided a link to the 2011 RTP on SJCOG’s website as well as an electronic CD with the documents.
Caltrans Comment 6D: The link referenced on page 6-1 does not work. Comment noted. The link was checked and appears to be functioning.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Letter Dated June 24, 2010
FHWA Comment 1: Development and content of the metropolitan transportation plan. Thank you.
FHWA Comment 2: Congestion Management Process in Transportation Management Areas. Thank you
FHWA Comment 3: Interested parties, participation and consultation. Thank you.
FHWA Comment 4: Other RTP comments. Thank you.
Anonymous Comment Letter Dated June 15, 2010
Anonymous Comment 1: A section on trend impacting the 2011 RTP would be helpful to place the plan in the larger context. As noted by the commenter, chapter three of the 2011 RTP contains a summary of recent trends that impact the 2011 RTP; however, it is important to recognize that the 2011 RTP covers a period from 2010 to 2035 and is updated every four years. Trends impacting transportation change over time and will be incorporated into each subsequent RTP update as applicable and appropriate.
Anonymous Comment 2: The term sustainability will have different meanings for different readers. Comment Noted
Anonymous Comment 3: Discuss significant travel demands from the San Joaquin County Regional Congestion Management Plan Roadway Network. At this time it is unclear what the commenter references on page 9-7 that indicates a broad travel demand on page 9-7; however a discussion of the travel demand indicated by the commenter is discussed in chapter 3 Planning Assumptions.
Anonymous Comment 4: Discuss in detail as well as conduct a study of the Port of Stockton’s freight travel demand. Include a discussion of this in the RTP. Commenter asserts that the Highway 4 Extension project contained in Tier I of the RTP project list is a temporary solution, resulting in a less than desirable alignment. Apply CMP principles to the list of projects contained in the recommended study. In 2003 a Port Access Feasibility study was completed. Details related to this study have been added to the Port discussion in chapter 7.
Although the Environmental Comment period ended in March 2010 please see the following responses to comments.
The purpose of the SR-4 project is to:
• Improve the connection between Interstate 5/Crosstown Freeway, the Port of Stockton, and adjacent industrial uses
• Reduce industrial truck traffic through the residential Boggs Tract neighborhood
• Improve local air quality
Currently, the connection between Interstate 5 and the Port of Stockton is inadequate. The project would improve the connection between Interstate 5, the port, and adjacent industrial uses. Additionally the project would reduce truck traffic from the port and adjacent industrial areas traveling through the Boggs Tract neighborhood. The new freeway ramps would provide access from Navy Drive to a proposed new elevated structure over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway corridor and the Boggs Tract neighborhood, enabling the existing ramps at Fresno Avenue to be removed.
The option to widen Fresno Ave. to 4 lanes as identified in Mr. Sanchez’s comments would not address the purpose and need of the project. Please see Environmental Document for further clarification.
Additionally widening Fresno Ave. would only exacerbate the loading of traffic at the I- 5/Charter Way Interchange. The Charter Way Interchange does not meet the current freeway to freeway connector spacing requirement of 2 miles. Any new improvements to the Charter Way interchange would trigger the 2 mile spacing requirement; therefore it is not feasible to improve the Charter Way Interchange. The freeway agreement identified ultimate connectivity following the Western leg of the Highway 4 freeway that currently terminates at Fresno Avenue. The extension of the ramp termini from the current location at Fresno to Navy drive (proposed project) has independent utility and is a standalone project, but also does not prohibit or impact the ability to continue the ultimate connectivity to Highway 4. The bridge structure over the BNSF rail road will be built to accommodate future widening to lessen the impacts for the future connection to Highway 4. The project to connect to Highway 4 from Navy drive is identified in the approved Port Access Feasibility Study and the Project Study Report.
The CMP process as described in chapter 6 and 9 of the plan requires capacity increasing projects be evaluated as part of the CMP prior to addition to the Tier I list of projects.
Anonymous Comment 5: Commenter recognizes that the California Transportation Commission’s (CTC) Performance Measures are straightforward and recommends productivity measures should be based on whether or not the transportation system meets the following objectives “Do we get there, Do we get there on time, do we get there in comfort, how do we travel, is the product worth the cost”? Also commenter asserts that the RTP does not place an emphasis on ridesharing. Page 8-22 states the SJCOG region can save 17,366 hours of delay every year and approximately $110 million. How was this number calculated? The commenter states that the CTC performance measures are straightforward. Chapter 4 describes and incorporates the CTC performance measures into the SJCOG planning process. Also as the commenter notes data availability and the ability to collect data are considerations in monitoring progress toward achievement of any given performance measures.
The RTP is a multi-modal strategy to transportation investments throughout San Joaquin County placing emphasis on all modes of transportation. Although as the commenter asserts ridesharing is a very cost-effective measure ridesharing alone does not address the needs of all San Joaquin County residents and thus a multimodal approach is required.
The 17,366 hours of delay saved is calculated by subtracting the vehicle hours of delay in the RTP project scenario from the vehicle hours of delay in the No Build scenario. The improvement in vehicle hours of delay (13,893) is multiplied by the vehicle occupancy factor of 1.25 to arrive at the savings in person hours of delay of 17,366. Person hours of delay is multiplied by the current average hourly wage rate for San Joaquin workers of $17.50 to arrive at an estimated annual economic impact of just over $110 million.
Anonymous Comment 6: Page 7-34 short range transit plan states ensure as a priority that continued provision of lifeline services for the transit dependent and transit assisted population and continue to expand intercity and commuter bus service cost effectively but with a focus on attracting choice riders and job access. Commenter questions what would be the results of applying environmental justice principles (would commuter services be cut instead), what would be the impact on the state fare box recovery ratio requirements, and what are eligible exemptions? Each transit operator receiving federal funds to provide transit service is required to comply with Title VI as well as American with Disabilities Act requirements. As such, public transit operators within San Joaquin County are required to consider environmental justice as part of their planning processes. Requirements for state fare-box recovery ratio can be found in the Transportation Development Act Handbook which can be downloaded from the following link http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Docs-Pdfs/TDA11-17-2009B.pdf or a hard copy can be requested from Caltrans.
Anonymous Comment 7: What is the current usage of Class III bike lanes listed in table 7-8? Does the RTP have a minimum bike usage requirement? Table 7-8 reflects bicycle facilities to be constructed and therefore data regarding the current use of Class III bicycle lanes listed within the table 7-8 is not currently available. The RTP does not have a minimum bike usage requirement.
Anonymous Comment 8: There are minor inconsistencies between the cost figures of Chapter 7 project listings and chapter 10 charts. There are larger inconsistencies with table 10-12 operations and maintenance. The tables contained in chapter seven reflect the aggregate cost of projects listed within each category of the 2011 RTP. The tables in chapter ten reflect revenue sources for each project category of the 2011 RTP. The inconsistencies arrive from SJCOG’s ability to dedicate funding that is “flexible” (ie not required to be dedicated to one funding category by law) to utilize various funding sources to make up the multimodal strategy contained in the 2011 RTP.
Anonymous Comment 9: Requests updates to the state of the economy section in on page 3- 10. The data contained on page 3-10 reflects the latest available data available at the time of this RTP.
Anonymous Comment 10: SJCOG Short survey results did not receive a statistically significant number of surveys returned. Should the survey results be shown at all? SJCOG is committed to public participation and believes the voice of each individual participant in the process is valuable. Survey results are illustrated to reflect the opinions of participants of the public outreach process. The statement “Although not a statistically significant number of surveys were received from public outreach participants, the results of the survey question are provided in this table in recognition that public participation is important to the SJCOG process” will be added to each table.
Anonymous Comment 11: Increase the discussion of STAA terminal access routes in San Joaquin County. A discussion of STAA terminal access routes has been added to the goods movement section of chapter 7.
Anonymous Comment 12: Under goods movement pipelines are not mentioned. Pipelines have been added to this section.
Anonymous Comment 13: Schematics of Class I-III bicycle lanes are provided in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Comment Noted
Anonymous Comment 14: There is repetition on page 7-59 and 7-60. Comment Noted. Repetitious pages have been removed.
Anonymous Comment 15: Is the Caltrans District 10 Operations Management Center Operating? Yes
Anonymous Comments 16: How large is the air pollution problem from the Bay Area to the Central Valley. This is beyond the scope of the RTP and therefore is not discussed in the 2011 RTP. Information regarding this question can be obtained from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
Anonymous Comment 17: If there are no federal funds in a specific project, do the environmental justice requirements apply? How is a federal nexus defined? Environmental justice requirements apply to federally funded projects; however this does not imply that community impacts are not studied for non-federally funded projects. A federal nexus in terms of transportation is defined determined for projects utilizing federal funding, requiring a permit from a federal agency such as the Department of Fish and Game, or a project that requires compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
Anonymous Comment 18: There is no mention of the Climate change legislation in chapter 12. Climate change legislation is discussed in the 2011 RTP EIR in great detail. A reference to appendix 1-2 will be made in chapter 12 as the addition of a brief summary of existing climate change legislation.
EPA Comment Letter Dated July 2, 2010
EPA Comment 1: Delineate robust measures to improve air quality through travel efficiency Comment Noted. Revenue Policy -04 Smart Growth Incentive Program describes SJCOG’s smart growth program. Chapter 9 of the 2011 RTP describes the congestion management process which documents the emphasis on transportation demand management strategies.
EPA Comment 2: Use metrics in the RTP process that help spur transportation efficient growth to accomplish multiple objectives. Chapter 4 of the RTP states: “There are clear linkages between the congestion management process, goals, objectives, and performance indicators.” SJCOG has added appendix XX which documents the link between the RTP goals objectives and performance measures to the congestion management plan.
Commenter asserts the RTP discusses roadway widening as a method of congestion relief, however, does not include a discussion of induced vehicle travel that results. The 2011 draft environmental impact report which is included in the RTP by reference (appendix 1-2) provides a discussion of induced growth in the transportation and land use/housing sections.
EPA Comment 3: Reevaluate effects of roadway expansion projects on areas of environmental justice concern. Commenter also recommends revising the RTP environmental justice discussion of noise impacts. Commenter identifies concerns about the assumption that operational soothing and congestion relief will lead to long-run emissions reductions. SJCOG has developed and released for public comment concurrent with the 2011 RTP the SJCOG 2011 RTP Conformity Analysis. This document documents that the 2011 RTP complies with all applicable State Implementation Plans for air quality. A further detailed discussion of air quality trends within San Joaquin County is also contained in the 2011 draft RTP EIR.
Commenter asserts that the RTP discussion regarding noise impacts in the environmental justice section state that noise will be reduced by increasing vehicle speeds and that the reverse is generally true. As indicated in the SJCOG 2011 RTP draft EIR, the impacts of noise resulting from increases in traffic are less than significant as a result of mitigation measures. The 2011 RTP draft EIR recommends the project sponsor perform a project level noise analysis. Language describing the noise analysis from the 2011 RTP draft EIR has been added to the environmental justice noise discussion in the 2011 RTP.
EPA Comment 4: Discuss Greenhouse Gas implications and preparation for a carbon constrained future transportation network. As the commenter asserts, SJCOG is not subject to the Sustainable Communities Strategy requirements of SB-375; however, SJCOG has included a discussion of greenhouse gas emissions in the 2011 draft RTP EIR. Please see greenhouse gas analysis of EIR.
EPA Comment 5: Plan for smart growth associated with high speed rail stations. SJCOG will work with all appropriate agencies to incorporate any high speed rail station into the RTP project list when appropriate to do so. EPA Comment 6: Discuss impacts to critical habitat areas and connect it to a broader regional mitigation strategy in the RTP. A discussion of the critical habitat areas and the connection of the RTP to a broader regional mitigation strategy is discussed in the 2011 draft RTP EIR biology section. SJCOG also has an approved habitat conservation plan that identifies a broader regional mitigation strategy as well.
EPA Comment 7: Describe the use of available data to inform regional transportation planning decisions. The SJCOG 2011 draft RTP EIR, which is incorporated by reference in appendix 1-2, provides a discussion of the RTPs use of available data in the applicable section of the document. Please see the biology and agriculture sections of the 2011 RTP draft EIR for a discussion of how Department of Fish and Wildlife Service species recovery plans, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service wetland data, Nature Conservancy data and regional planning documents, California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database, and local non-profit and land trust group information.
Tanisha Taylor June 15, 2010 Project Manager Draft San Joaquin 2011 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
Subject: Comments on draft plan
Overall Context
A section on trends affecting transportation issues in San Joaquin County and California may help to place the plan in a broader context. Two documents that contain the type of analysis and information that I envision are the DRAFT San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview, April 2010 (Appendix 12-1, 2011 RTP) and the San Joaquin County Regional Blueprint Vision to the Year 2050 (Page 12-3 of the draft 2011 RTP). The draft 2011 RTP does contain some of this information in Chapter 3, Planning Assumptions (population, employment, and housing). Also consider the information and analysis presented at the two separate sets of sustainability conferences that were held recently (among others, sponsors were University of the Pacific for one set of meetings and San Joaquin COG for the second set of meetings).
The term “sustainability” will have different meanings depending on who is involved in the discussion. Personally, I prefer to think in terms of the key resources of people, land, water, and energy. In the draft 2011 RTP, I read about the need to coordinate land use planning and transportation planning. My view is that transportation planning is part of land use planning. It is just that we specialize and then we need to make a special effort to put it back together. To complete the picture, people use the key resources of land, water, and energy and other resources to meet their basic needs with resulting consequences to their surroundings and environment.
Discuss Significant Issues
Significant travel demands
Studying the San Joaquin County Regional CMP Roadway Network (Congestion Management Plan) on Page 9-7 reveals two broad travel demands: • San Joaquin County to the Bay Area (State Highway12, State Highway 4, I-205, and I-580) • North-South travel demand (I-5, State Highway 99, West Lane/Airport Way, others) with the travel demand components of 1) internal to San Joaquin County 2) between Central Valley Counties, and 3) to the Bay Area See the DRAFT San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview, April 2010 (Appendix 12-1, 2011 RTP) for further information (Section 4. Modal Discussion). See the I-205/I-5 Corridor System Management Plan, May 20, 2010.
1 Port of Stockton
The planned development at the Port of Stockton and the freight travel demand at the Port justify discussion in the 2011 RTP. A study area could be defined as bounded by: • Stockton Channel on the north • I-5 on the east • Charter Way on the south • Farmlands to the west of Rough and Ready Island
Projects identified in the draft 2011 RTP include: • Tier I, State Highway 4 Crosstown Freeway , new freeway, Fresno Avenue to Navy Drive (one mile), $174 million • Tier I, State Highway 4/Charter Way, Daggett Road to I-5, operational and intersection improvements, $0.6 million • Tier I, Daggett Road (Port Stockton Expressway) at BNSF railroad crossing, grade separation project, $12.4 million • Tier I, Navy Drive, BNSF railroad to Fresno Avenue, widen from two to four lanes, $12.5 million • Tier II, State Highway 4 Crosstown Freeway, new freeway, Navy Drive to Charter Way (State Highway 4 going west), $200 million • Tier II, I-5/State Highway 4 Crosstown Freeway, reconstruct freeway to freeway interchange, $59 million • Tier II, I-5/Charter Way, interchange improvements, Navy Drive to 200 feet east of interchange, $21.4 million The Tier I projects total $199.5 million. The Tier II projects total $280.4 million. The grand total is $479.9 million.
The 1962 freeway agreements between Caltrans and the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County identify a freeway from the I-5/State Highway 4 Crosstown Freeway to Charter Way/State Highway 4 in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River. The current temporary end of the proposed freeway at Fresno Avenue in the Boggs Tract neighborhood has existed for about 40 years. The designation of Tier II funding means it is reasonable not to expect funding during the period of the 2011 RTP – or for the next 25 years. Thus, the project to extend the freeway to Navy Drive will be the last freeway construction on State Highway 4 for the next 25 years. This means that a less than desirable geometric design of the freeway at the western end at Navy Drive will exist for at least about 20 years. The alignment turns parallel to the BNSF to provide additional length for a reduced rate of downgrade and then a short radius turn is used to form a right angle intersection with Navy Drive.
Issues or activities to be addressed for the study area could include (for RTP identify the issues and that the issues are to be resolved in further studies): • Review previous studies and consolidate proposed studies
2 • What is the current and estimated future freight demand through the Port and from the Port of Oakland to the Central Valley? Is there enough demand to sustain the operations of BNSF railroad, UP railroad, and the proposed barge Water Highway to the Port of Oakland considering the competition from trucks? • Perform an updated risk assessment of the proposed developments at the Port of Stockton properties. • See the I-205/I-5 Corridor System Management Plan, May 20, 2010. It identifies the need to make improvements to the Crosstown Freeway Fresno Avenue offramp to avoid future traffic backing up onto I-5. • The I-205/I-5 Corridor System Management Plan used a micro- simulation model to perform the traffic analysis of the various improvement options for that corridor. A micro-simulation model could be used to analyze various combinations (including sequencing) of the proposed above improvements to identify the most cost effective combination of projects. This could be done for providing access to the study area and to define a set of improvements internal to the study area. • The following three projects are operational tied together: 1) Tier I, State Highway 4 Crosstown Freeway , new freeway, Fresno Avenue to Navy Drive (one mile), $174 million; 2) Tier II, State Highway 4 Crosstown Freeway, new freeway, Navy Drive to Charter Way (State Highway 4 going west), $200 million; and 3) Tier I, Navy Drive, BNSF railroad to Fresno Avenue, widen from two to four lanes, $12.5 million. They total $386.5 million. An option to these projects is to widen Fresno Avenue from 2 to 4 lanes from the Crosstown Freeway ramps at Fresno Avenue to Charter Way. The length of the Fresno Avenue suggested project is less than the Navy Drive project ($12.5milllion) and it should be in the $10 million cost range. The underpass structure on Fresno Avenue for the BNSF railroad appears wide enough to accommodate an additional lane in each direction. This suggested project could be evaluated in combination with other projects using a micro-simulation model. • Apply congestion management plan/program principles in formulating the combination of projects to be evaluated. Are there phased implementation options that match up the investment with the traffic demand? • Perform life-cycle benefit/cost analysis of the options that achieve an acceptable level of traffic performance. Level of service analysis provides a letter grade for only the peak hour. What about the other 23 hours? For a San Joaquin COG sponsored workshop, see the presentation by the consultant on the desirability to consider other performance measures than only level of service.
3 Comments on performance measures/indicators
The 2011 RTP contains 35 pages devoted to tables/matrices defining performance measures/indicators utilized by various agencies for various purposes. From a strictly transportation performance perspective, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) STIP guidelines are fairly straight forward. The CTC defined measures provide information on whether or not the transportation system or its segments are meeting the following objectives: • Do we get there? Measures on fatalities, incidents, and collisions. • Do we get there on time? Measures on delay and travel time. • Do we get there in comfort? Measures on pavement condition. Need measures for other modes. • How much do we travel (productivity)? Measures should be based on person-miles (auto), passenger miles (transit, rail, air), and ton-miles (goods movement). Cost and data availability are issues, but this should be what we aim to achieve. • Is the project worth the cost? Perform life-cycle benefit/cost analysis.
The DRAFT San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview, April 2010 (Appendix 12-1, 2011 RTP) states on Page 6-15 “Invest in ridesharing, which is the most cost-effective strategy for the region” in the discussion on inter-county commute corridors. The 2011 RTP does not place an emphasis on ridesharing. For the year 2009, it does contain the following performance measures for the Commute Connection (ridesharing program) at Page 7-66: • Commuters served 8,779 • Vehicle miles of travel reduced 39,578,000 • Reduction in commute cost $19,789,000 • Tons of carbon monoxide reduced 209 • Tons of volatile organic compounds reduced 8.73 • Tons of oxides of nitrogen reduced 43.6
On Table 7-9, Project List for Transportation Control Measures, the Rideshare and Vanpool Programs are listed at $4.6 million for the period 2007-2030 or an interval of 24 years resulting in a cost per year of $192,000. Thus, this is a very cost-effective program.
It would be interesting to perform a similar analysis of inter-county commute trips using the Regional Transit District service and the ACE rail service.
Page 8-22 of the 2011 RTP states “SJCOG estimates that our region can save approximately 17,366 hours of delay every day after all the RTP projects are in service by 2035. - - - This is equivalent to an over $110 million dollar gain annually - - -“. How were these figures determined? Perhaps a periodic, comprehensive performance measures report could be prepared defining the process, procedures, results, and cost for performance measures.
4 Bus Short Range Plan
On Page 7-34 are these two statements: 1) “Ensure as a priority the continued provision of lifeline services for the transit dependent and transit assisted population” 2) “Continue to expand intercity and commuter bus service cost-effectively but with a focus on attracting choice riders and job access” In today’s budget crisis for local and state governments, social services are being cut for the poor and persons with special needs. San Joaquin RTD has cut dial- a-ride services for ADA qualified individuals. It has been proposed this year to reduce bus service on the weekends. All bus service requires a subsidy. But the “choice riders” using the commuter bus service have jobs and are able to pay more for their bus service resulting in reduced subsidies. What would be the result if federal environmental justice principles were applied to this situation? Would the commuter service be cut instead? What would be the effect on the state fare box ratio requirement? What are the eligible exemptions? Yes, we have hard choices to make.
Other Issues and Considerations
Apparently, the constraints and issues associated with categorical funding programs just seem never to be resolved. We use to have the federal Interstate, Primary, Secondary, and Urban highway funding programs. Now we have another set of funding programs with their qualifying criteria and other requirements. Projects will follow the money. For example, what is the current bicycle usage on the Class III Bike Lane projects listed in Table 7-8? Does this program have a minimum bike usage requirement?
It is interesting to note that four of the top six funding sources are local or regional sources: • Measure K Renewal (sales tax) • Developer Fees/Local General Fund • Local Transportation Fund • Regional Transportation Impact Fee All local or regional revenue sources account for 55% of the revenues over the 25 years of the 2011 plan period. In light of the lack of increases in user fees (gas taxes) by the federal and state governments, San Joaquin County has stepped in to provide additional funding. There are pros and cons to this approach, but I will leave it at that.
There are small inconsistencies between the cost figures of the: • Tier I project list totals in Chapter 7 • Figure 10-2 Transportation Investment by Mode • Pie charts on Pages 10-10, 10-11, 10-12, 10-13, and 10-14
5 There are larger inconsistencies for Roadway Operations and Maintenance. Part of the answer may be double counting in that the Federal Highway Safety Program is administered by Caltrans through the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP).
Update statements reflecting the state of the economy (Page 3-10).
Page 5-5 for the RTP Short Survey “SJCOG did not receive a statically significant number of returned surveys . . .” In light of this, should the data have been presented at all? Or should it have been presented with a statement on each bar chart and pie chart reflecting this fact?
Page 6-8 mentions a STAA terminal access study. The National Truck Network and terminal access routes authorized by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) should be discussed more. STAA has been a subject discussed at the two Goods Movement Committee (SJCOG) meetings I have attended.
Under goods movement, pipelines were not mentioned.
If I recall correctly, schematics of Class I, II, and III bicycle facilities are provided in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.
There is a repetition of text on Pages 7-59 and 7-60.
Page 7-68 the Stockton Traffic Management Center is discussed. Is the Caltrans District 10 TMC operating?
How large is the movement of air pollution from the Bay Area to the Central Valley?
If there are no federal funds in a specific project, do the requirements of environmental justice not apply? How is a federal nexus defined?
Under Chapter 12 Future Link, no mention is made of California climate change legislation or of the settlement agreement between the City of Stockton and the California Attorney General.
6
APPENDIX
1-1
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to: Identified Gap: The federally approved FTIP and Plan are not currently SAFETEA-LU compliant.
Final Rule: §450.338
Remedy: Submit SAFETEA-LU compliant FTIP and Plan by July 1, 2007 statutory deadline.
SJCOG Action: SJCOG initiated a full RTP update and TIP amendment in 2006 to comply with SAFETEA-LU by the July 1, 2007 deadline. Grace period until 7/1/07, after which Schedule: SJCOG anticipates adopting SAFETEA-LU SAFETEA-LU provisions apply. 1. Timing for phasing in compliant RTP, FTIP, RTP EIR, and AQ Conformity TIP and SAFETEA-LU Documents on May 24, 2007, with immediate submittal to RTP Requirements TIP and Plan adopted after this date must Caltrans and FHWA for review and approvals as meet all SAFETEA-LU Sec. 6001 appropriate to meet the SAFETEA-LU compliance requirements deadline of July 1, 2007. Update Since 2007 RTP: SJCOG adopted the 2007 RTP on May 24, 2007. On August 3, 2007 FHWA and FTA found the SJCOG planning process was substantially compliant with the SAFETEA-LU planning requirements. Since that time FHWA/FTA in coordination with Caltrans conducted SJCOG’s quadrennial certification review. SJCOG in which FHWA and FTA found the SJCOG planning process to meet the requirements of 23 CFR 450 and 49 CFR 613. No corrective actions were received as part of the 2009 certification review.
Printed: 05/03/2010 1 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to: Identified Gap: The federally approved FTIP does not include an approved 4th year of projects.
Final Rule: §450.324(a)
Remedy: Submit an updated FTIP containing 4 years of projects by the July 1, 2007 statutory deadline.
SJCOG Action: SJCOG is amending the FTIP to include the required 4th year.
Schedule: SJCOG anticipates adopting SAFETEA-LU compliant RTP, FTIP, RTP EIR, and AQ Conformity Update TIP at least once every four years Documents on May 24, 2007, with immediate submittal to 2. TIP Update Frequency TIP Caltrans and FHWA for review and approvals as and Time Span TIP shall include a 4-year period of appropriate. The FTIP will include a 4-year program of proposed federally supported projects projects and will be submitted in conjunction with the 2007 RTP Update to meet the SAFETEA-LU Compliance deadline of July 1, 2007.
Update Since 2007 RTP: SJCOG submitted the 2007 FTIP to Caltrans and FHWA for review and approval on May 24, 2007. This document was found by FHWA and FTA to be SAFETEA-LU compliant. SJCOG continues to follow the SAFETEA-LU compliant format of the 2007 TIP with all subsequent updates since 2007 (i.e. 2009 FTIP update and 2011 FTIP update) and will continue to do so for all future updates requiring SAFETEA-LU compliance..
Printed: 05/03/2010 2 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to: Identified Gap: None. The SJCOG RTP was last updated in 2004.
Final Rule: §450.322(c)
Remedy: None.
SJCOG Action: None. Nonattainment MPOs must update their RTP at least once every four years. Schedule: Although an RTP update is not required due to 3. RTP Update RTP this frequency requirement, SJCOG initiated a full RTP Frequency Update in 2006 to comply with SAFETEA-LU by the July MPOs in attainment regions must update 1, 2007 deadline. SJCOG anticipates adopting SAFETEA- their RTPs at least every 5 years. LU compliant RTP, FTIP, RTP EIR, and AQ Conformity Documents on May 24, 2007, with immediate submittal to Caltrans and FHWA for review and approvals as appropriate to meet the SAFETEA-LU Compliance deadline of July 1, 2007.
Update Since 2007 RTP: The 2011 RTP meets the SAFETEA-LU four year update frequency requirement.
Printed: 05/03/2010 3 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to: Identified Gap: SJCOG could include more proactive techniques to encourage consultation with interested parties during the development of the participation plan.
Final Rule: §450.316(a)(1)
Remedy: Develop a process for encouraging consultation with interested parties in evaluating the effectiveness of the public participation plan and updating the plan in accordance with comments received.
Provide opportunity to comment to broad SJCOG Action: SJCOG commits to the following range of private and public interests. additional measures to encourage additional comment on the development of the participation plan: Participation Plan to be developed in a) Distribute the form letter/survey in Attachment A to consultation with all interested parties. interested parties listed in the SJCOG participation plan to 4. Public Participation TIP and provide additional opportunity for interested parties to Plan RTP comment and provide suggested revisions to the continued Provide interested parties with reasonable development of the participation plan. Since the opportunities to comment on the RTP and participation plan is continuously updated, this TIP. consultation serves to inform future revisions. SJCOG further commits to phone call follow ups on the letter Public meetings must be convenient and should responses not be received back to SJCOG within a week after the mailing. If substantial comments are accessible. received on the content or participation process outlined in the SJCOG Public Participation Plan, SJCOG commits to updating the PPP to reflect those comments.
b) Hold a local workshop for the public and interested agency stakeholders to solicit additional comment on the development of the participation plan.
c) Hire a consultant to establish evaluation methods and surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of the outreach Printed: 05/03/2010 4 methods included in SJCOG’s participation plan. San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to: Proposed MPO Actions (continued from discussion of Item #4 above)
Schedule: (a) The distribution and follow up with interested parties for additional participation plan outreach will begin immediately, and be completed by June 2007. (b) SJCOG staff will hold a workshop with interested parties on the continued development of the participation plan in July 2007. Notification of the workshop will take place as part of the outreach letter in commitment (a) above. Updates to the participation plan in response to any comments (from the letter or workshop) will be brought to the SJCOG Board, as applicable, as an amendment to the participation plan in the Fall of 2007. (c) SJCOG commits to having a consultant under contract by October 2007, and the completed evaluation by January 2008.
Update Since 2007 RTP: a) SJCOG distributed the form letter in June 2007to provide additional opportunity for interested parties to comment and provide suggested revisions to the continued development of the participation plan. SJCOG will continue this process with the 2011 update of the public participation plan scheduled to be complete in FY 10/11. Letters were returned within one week of mailing; therefore phone call follow-ups were only conducted with those agencies not returning the form letter. No substantial comments were received. b) A public workshop was held in July 2007 for the public and interested agency stakeholders to solicit additional comments on the development of the SJCOG public participation plan. The results of the workshop have been incorporated into SJCOG’s 2007 Public Participation Plan as appropriate. c) SJCOG hired a consultant to establish evaluation methods and surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of the outreach methods included in SJCOG’s Public Participation Plan. The results of that work were completed in January 2008 and have been incorporated into the 2007 Public Participation Plan where appropriate and applicable. SJCOG continues to work with the public to evaluate the effectiveness of its participation process. SJCOG will continue to provide opportunities for feedback from all interested stake holders on the overall effectiveness of the participation process.
Identified Gap: SJCOG could include additional visualization techniques.
Final Rule: §450.316(a)(1)(iii)
Employ “visualization” techniques. Remedy: In San Joaquin County, many visualization 5. Visualization TIP and techniques are currently utilized (color plot maps of Techniques & Electronic RTP Make public information (such as the TIPs existing and planned projects, website posting, powerpoint Publishing and RTPs) available in electronically presentations, and utilization of GIS). The remedy is to accessible format. apply additional techniques to meet the intent of SAFETEA-LU, which is to do more than we are currently doing.
SJCOG Action: SJCOG commits to increased and enhanced utilization of technological applications to
Printed: 05/03/2010 5 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to: provide easy to understand graphic illustrations. This includes increased integration of GIS with Census data and travel modeling information, more sophisticated power point presentations to convey complex projects in a simplified format; and an update to the SJCOG website to make it more user-friendly.
Schedule: These are on-going efforts that are incorporated throughout the planning process. SJCOG is currently under contract with a vendor to update the www.sjcog.org website. The updated website is online, with ongoing refinements and enhancements.
Update Since 2007 RTP: As indicated in the 2007 Gap Analysis, these are ongoing efforts that are incorporated throughout the planning process. Since 2007 SJCOG has updated the SJCOG website and continues to update the website as an on-going process to ensure the website remains current.
Printed: 05/03/2010 6 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to: Identified Gap: None.
Final Rule: §450.332
Remedy: SJCOG’s FY2005/06 Annual List of Obligated Projects as posted on the SJCOG website (www.sjcog.org) is SAFETEA-LU compliant.
SJCOG Action: The FY2005/06 Annual List of Obligated Annual requirement to publish federal Projects will also be included in the 2007 FTIP 6. Publication of Annual obligations in preceding year. Amendment submitted to FHWA in conjunction with the Listing of Obligated TIP 2007 RTP update. Projects SAFETEA-LU requires inclusion of Schedule: SJCOG anticipates adopting SAFETEA-LU pedestrian and bicycle facilities. compliant RTP, FTIP, RTP EIR, and AQ Conformity Documents on May 24, 2007, with immediate submittal to Caltrans and FHWA for review and approvals as appropriate.
Updates Since 2007 RTP: Since 2007 SJCOG continues to submit the required annual listing of obligated projects on time. The submittals include the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities where applicable.
Printed: 05/03/2010 7 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to: Identified Gap: None.
Final Rule: §450.322(h)
Remedy: No additional action required.
SJCOG Actions:
The 2007 RTP Update addresses the Strategic Highway Safety Plan in Chapter 10 (pg. 10-1).
RTPs must address the Strategic Highway The 2007 RTP Update includes discussion of existing Safety Plan. efforts to incorporate emergency planning and security 7. Security and safety issues in Chapter 6 (about pg. 6-14). RTP addressed in the RTP Security and safety of the transportation The 2007 Public Participation Plan includes an updated list system are now stand-alone planning of stakeholders, including those involved with the safety factors. and security of the region’s transportation system.
SJCOG conducted a comprehensive review and update of the RTP goals, policies, objectives, and performance indicators as part of the 2007 RTP. This includes a review of the safety-related goals, performance indicators, as well as data availability. Discussions and data may be found in Chapters 2 (Goals) and Chapter 4 (Performance Indicators).
Printed: 05/03/2010 8 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update
Schedule: SJCOG anticipates adopting SAFETEA-LU compliant RTP, FTIP, RTP EIR, and AQ Conformity Documents on May 24, 2007, with immediate submittal to Caltrans and FHWA for review and approvals as appropriate.
Update Since 2007 RTP: SJCOG submitted the 2007 RTP for state and federal approval in May 2007. The 2007 RTP incorporated SJCOGs existing efforts to incorporate emergency planning and security in Chapter six. SJCOG continues its efforts to incorporate emergency planning and security into its planning processes and in the 2011 RTP. The 2011 RTP continues to address the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (version 2) in Chapter XX of the
2011 RTP. The 2007 SJCOG Public Participation Plan includes a list of stakeholders, including those involved with the safety and security of the region’s transportation system. The 2011 update of the SJCOG Public Participation Plan will continue to identify a list of stakeholders involved with the safety and security of the region’s transportation system. As part of the 2011 RTP update SJCOG staff incorporated the goals, objectives, and performance measures into a congestion management process, this includes the safety related goals. These can be found in the project urgency category of the CMP screening criteria.
8. Environmental RTPs shall contain shall include a Identified Gap: SJCOG could enhance consultation mitigation activities in discussion of potential environmental RTPs efforts beyond those required by CEQA to discuss RTPs mitigation activities to be developed in potential environmental mitigation activities with resource consultation with Federal, State and Tribal agencies, with explicit intent to discuss the comparison of & wildlife, land management and regulatory any applicable maps, plans, and inventories. agencies. Printed: 05/03/2010 9 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update 9. Resource agency Final Rule: §450.322(f)(7) & Appendix A consultations MPOs shall consult as appropriate with federal, State, and local agencies responsible Remedy: Develop a process for encouraging consultation with resource agencies to discuss potential environmental for land use management, natural resources, mitigation activities. environmental protection, conservation and historic preservation. SJCOG Actions: SJCOG commits to the following additional measure to encourage comprehensive, cooperative, and continuous discussions with resource The MPO may establish reasonable agencies on potential mitigation activities in the regional timeframes for performing this transportation plan: consultation. a) Distribute the form letter/survey in Attachment B to the interested parties listed in the participation plan (which is inclusive of the State and federal resource agency list compiled and maintained by Caltrans) inviting interested parties to participate in the continued development of the environmental mitigation discussion in the 2007 RTP. Per Section I(3) of Appendix A of the Final Rule, the letter shall designate all federal agencies to be participating agencies in the process unless the agency responds in writing, by the deadline specified in the letter, that the agency: (i) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the regional transportation plan, (ii) has no expertise or information relevant to the regional transportation plan, and
(continued below)
Proposed MPO Actions (continued from discussion of Items #8 & 9 above)
(iii) does not intend to submit comments on the regional transportation plan. SJCOG further commits to begin phone call follow ups on the letter should responses not be received back to SJCOG within two weeks after the mailing. The results of this effort will be documented and amended into the 2007 RTP as part of the 3-C (comprehensive, cooperative, and continuous) transportation planning process. Schedule: Distribution of the letters and any subsequent follow up necessary (including one-on-one meetings, conference call, or workshops as requested) will begin immediately. Results will be Printed: 05/03/2010 10 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update complete and documented by January 2008.
Additional Discussion: a) Chapter 1 of the 2007 RTP includes a discussion of the environmental mitigation strategies identified as part of the 2007 RTP Programmatic Environmental Impact Report conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Chapter 1 also discusses the relationship between CEQA and the environmental mitigation requirements in the Final Rule.
On February 6, 2007, SJCOG received a letter from the California Division of FHWA responding to the first gap analysis provided by the San Joaquin Valley. Item 5 of the letter indicates that the environmental mitigation strategies required under SAFETEA-LU may not be fully addressed by applying CEQA principles because “while CEQA requires the mitigation of any impacts, federal environmental regulations focus first on the avoidance of impacts.”
While SJCOG agrees that federal environmental regulations (NEPA) requirements are different from the requirements under CEQA, the requirements specific to the RTP – the language of the environmental mitigation requirements specified in SAFETEA-LU §134(i)(2)(B) and expounded upon in §450.322(f)(7) and Appendix A of the Final Rule – (i) explicitly do not trigger a formal NEPA analysis (§450.336), and (ii) do not specifically or entirely focus is on the avoidance of impacts, but in fact direct the focus of the environmental mitigation discussion on, “activities that have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the plan.” [emphasis added] In addition, both at the planning and project level, SJCOG consistently evaluates alternatives from the perspective of avoiding environmental impacts. Caltrans’ preliminary environmental analysis report (PEAR) is incorporated as a standard evaluation tool in project study reports, and serves as an early identification of environmental impacts that may need to be avoided.
The CEQA analysis contained in the 2007 RTP EIR, which is a requirement unique to California RTPs, accomplish the intent and spirit of the environmental mitigation discussion required in SAFETEA-LU, with the exception of the gap identified above to encourage consultation with resource agencies beyond the consultation required under CEQA. b) As discussed in Chapter 5 of the 2007 RTP Update, the San Joaquin Valley COGs have already begun additional efforts to consult with resource agencies. The Valley COGs hosted a meeting on March 2, 2007 in Fresno with resource agencies to compare maps and plans, as well as provide opportunity for comment on the RTP or public participation plan efforts.
Printed: 05/03/2010 11 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update Update Since 2007 RTP: Developed as part of the 2011 RTP there will be an accompanying Programmatic EIR document released May 19, 2010. The purpose of an EIR is to provide State and local agencies and the general public with detailed information on the potentially significant environmental effects which a proposed project is likely to have and to list ways which the significant environmental effects may be minimized and indicate alternatives to the project. The CEQA EIR development process requires a notice of preparation, which is intended to alert all interested parties that an environmental study will take place on the specified project. The notice of preparation for the 2011 RTP EIR was sent to all interested parties contained in the SJCOG Public Participation Plan, as well as disseminated to all appropriate state agencies through the State’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The role of OPR in the CEQA EIR process is to ensure all appropriate Federal, State and Tribal wildlife, land management and regulatory agencies receive notice of the project and its potential environmental impacts prior to approval of the project by the SJCOG board. As part of the NOP process all interested parties are able to comment on the scope of the EIR to be prepared.
Also as part of the CEQA EIR process, is a 45-day public comment period (scheduled to begin May 19, 2010), where interested individuals have the opportunity again to comment on the environmental study, inclusive of mitigation measures prior to any discretionary action taken by the SJCOG board. This 45-day public comment period allowed individuals to comment on the SJCOG draft EIR.
Printed: 05/03/2010 12 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update Identified Gap: None.
Final Rule: §450.322(f)(10)(i) & §450.324(h)
Remedy: No additional action required.
SJCOG Actions:
The 2007 RTP Update and 2007 FTIP Amendment address all of the required SAFETEA-LU compliance Reasonably available or projected revenues provisions for system preservation, operation, and to support proposed investments in the maintenance costs. Plan. The financial constraint demonstration in the 2007 RTP 10. System Preservation, Update is found in Chapter 9, which includes discussion TIP and Operation, and Estimated costs of maintaining and and delineation of the revenues and costs associated with RTP Maintenance Costs operating the transportation system must maintaining and operating the transportation system (pg. 9- be accounted for in the TIP. 2).
Appendix 9-1 of the 2007 RTP Update details the The DOT, MPO and transit agencies will assumptions utilized as part of the fiscal constraint provide reasonable cost estimates. demonstration.
As required, a demonstration of financial constraint is also included in the 2007 FTIP Amendment.
Chapter 4 (pg. 4-9) of the 2007 RTP Update describes the performance indicators and data used to measure and assess the system maintenance needs.
Printed: 05/03/2010 13 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update Schedule: SJCOG anticipates adopting SAFETEA-LU compliant RTP, FTIP, RTP EIR, and AQ Conformity Documents on May 24, 2007, with immediate submittal to Caltrans and FHWA for review and approvals as appropriate.
Updates Since 2007 RTP: SJCOG 2011 RTP and 2011 FTIP continue to meet the SAFETEA-LU requirements for system preservation, operation, and maintenance costs. The 2011 RTP financial constraint demonstration continues to include a delineation of the revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the transportation system. Appendix XX provides details of the assumptions utilized as part of the 2011 RTP fiscal constraint determination. The 2011 FTIP continues to provide fiscal constraint documentation in the revenue tables for the 2011 FTIP. Consultation to be expanded, including non-metropolitan local officials planning officials “as appropriate” in areas outside of 11. Expanded See discussion and commitments under items 4, 8, and 9 TIP and transportation, including land-use Consultation above. RTP management, natural resources, Requirements environmental protection, historic preservation, tribal agencies, and recipients of federal transportation funding from a non-U.S. DOT source.
Printed: 05/03/2010 14 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update Identified Gap: None.
Final Rule: §450.322(f)(10) & §450.324
Remedy: No additional actions required.
SJCOG Actions:
The 2007 RTP Update and 2007 FTIP Amendment address all of the required SAFETEA-LU compliance provisions.
The financial constraint demonstration in the 2007 RTP Update is found in Chapter 9, which includes discussion and delineation of the revenues and costs associated with maintaining and operating the transportation system (pg. 9- 2). Appendix 9-1 of the 2007 RTP Update details the TIP and TIPs and RTPs should be financially 12. Financial constraint assumptions utilized as part of the fiscal constraint RTP constrained to reflect a realistic view of projected funding. demonstration. As required, a demonstration of financial constraint is also included in the 2007 FTIP Amendment.
Schedule: SJCOG anticipates adopting SAFETEA-LU compliant RTP, FTIP, RTP EIR, and AQ Conformity Documents on May 24, 2007, with immediate submittal to Caltrans and FHWA for review and approvals as appropriate.
Updates Since 2007 RTP: SJCOG continues to comply with all SAFETEA-LU fiscal constraint provisions. The fiscal constraint demonstration in the 2011 RTP update is found in chapter 10. As required, a demonstration of financial constraint is also included in the 2007 FTIP amendments.
Printed: 05/03/2010 15 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to: Identified Gap: None.
SAFETEA-LU: Section 6011(a), (b) & (c)
Remedy: No additional action required.
SJCOG Actions: None required. Requirement to determine conformity is now every four years (instead of every three SJCOG acknowledges the changes to the transportation AIR QUALITY TIP and years). conformity regulations identified in SAFETEA-LU. CONFORMITY RTP Schedule: SJCOG anticipates adopting SAFETEA-LU Allowance of a 1 year “grace period” before compliant RTP, FTIP, RTP EIR, and AQ Conformity conformity lapse (in certain instances) Documents on May 24, 2007, with immediate submittal to Caltrans and FHWA for review and approvals as appropriate.
Updates Since 2007 RTP: SJCOG’s air quality conformity analysis for the 2011 TIP and RTP continues to comply with SAFETEA-LU requirements.
Printed: 05/03/2010 16 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to: Identified Gap: None.
Final Rule: §450.306(g)
Remedy: No additional action required.
SJCOG Actions: The 2007 RTP Update addresses and is coordinated with the development of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan.
Discussion of the Coordinated Plan effort in San Joaquin County is included in Chapter 8 (pg.8-6) of the 2007 RTP.
In San Joaquin County, the San Joaquin Regional Transit District is serving as the lead agency for the development of this Plan. SJCOG is coordinating, along with the other Coordinated Public Transit-Human PUBLIC TRANSIT local agencies in San Joaquin County, with SJRTD in the Services Transportation Plan (per 49 U.S.C. ELEMENT development of the Plan. 5310, 5316, and 5317). Schedule: SJCOG anticipates adopting SAFETEA-LU compliant RTP, FTIP, RTP EIR, and AQ Conformity Documents on May 24, 2007, with immediate submittal to Caltrans and FHWA for review and approvals as appropriate.
Updates Since 2007 RTP: The San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJRTD) continues to serve as the lead agency for the development of the Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan). The SJRTD board took action to adopt the 2007 Coordinated plan at their September 2007 Board meeting. SJCOG continues to work with SJRTD in the implementation of this plan as well as the coordination of the 2011 required update of this plan.
Printed: 05/03/2010 17 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to:
Identified Gap: None.
SJCOG will ensure that the San Joaquin Regional Transit Two additional criteria added to Basic District (the regional transit provider for San Joaquin criteria for rating projects: County) and smaller transit providers determine the TRANSIT MAJOR 4) Economic Development Potential applicability of this requirement and modifying grant CAPITAL 5) Reliability of Ridership and Cost applications to address the new criteria prior to grant IMPROVEMENTS Forecasts submittals, as appropriate. (aka New Starts) (does not apply to Small Starts) Updates Since 2007 RTP: SJCOG continues its efforts to ensure the San Joaquin Regional Transit District and smaller transit providers determine the applicability of this requirement and modify grant applications to address new criteria prior to grant submittal.
Printed: 05/03/2010 18 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to: Identified Gap: SJCOG needs to update the existing CMP to tie the existing program elements together to meet federal requirements. The primary gaps in the existing CMP are: (1) the development of a process that uses TDM strategies to analyze potential SOV capacity increasing projects, (2) the development of a process to implement TDM strategies where the capacity increasing project is unavoidable, (3) the development of a process to provide ongoing corridor management.
Final Rule: §450.320
Remedy: Evaluate and revise the existing CMP to reflect additional processes as specified below. Congestion Management Process in TRANSPORTATION Transportation Management Areas SJCOG Actions: FACILITIES (formerly known as Congestion (1) Update the TDM strategies to be consistent with the Management System (CMS) in CMP update described in (b) below. Develop a process to ISTEA/TEA-21). analyze potential capacity increasing SOV projects using the identified TDM strategies to determine if the travel demand could be satisfied using TDM strategies alone.
(2) Create a process, with identified roles and responsibilities for the relevant agencies, to establish implementation and commitment requirements to ensure TDM strategies are incorporated into or committed to in conjunction with capacity increasing projects.
(3) Create, in cooperation and coordination with local jurisdictions, an ongoing evaluation of the CMP process at the corridor level.
(continued below)
Printed: 05/03/2010 19 San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to: Proposed MPO Actions (continued from discussion of “Transportation Facilities” above)
Schedule: SJCOG commits to developing and implementing the processes identified in the SJCOG actions above by March 2008.
Additional Discussion: a) SJCOG has an adopted Congestion Management Program (CMP) that complies with the State-mandated program enacted in 1990 by the California Legislature through AB 471 and AB1791, as amended in 1992 by AB 3093 and in 1994 by AB1963. Discussion of the CMP in the 2007 RTP is found in Chapter 8, pg. 8-2.
b) SJCOG is updating the CMP by January 1, 2008 in accordance with CMP provisions included in the voter-approved ½ cent sales tax Measure K in November 2006. The CMP update will also continue to address the State-mandated CMP program.
c) With the exception of those items identified as gaps in the above discussion, the CMP is consistent with the provisions of §450.320. d) Components of the existing CMP include: - a designated roadway network identifying all state highways and principal arterials that are vital to the transportation needs of the region; - a biennial monitoring program with biennial updates and revisions as needed; - multimodal performance measures to provide quantitative tools to assess the impacts of land use changes and growth on the highway and transit systems including level of service standards (and a consistent method to calculate them) are set to determine the maximum level of congestion the community will tolerate before requiring action, transit routing and frequency standards, and annual data reporting requirements; - a monitoring program to determine ongoing compliance with performance standards with a biannual data update and annual data reporting requirements; - a program for analyzing the impact of proposed land use development and identifying the cost associated with mitigating the impacts; - identification of transportation demand management strategies designed to reduce the need or demand for trips, especially during congested commute times, including: traffic flow improvements, public transit improvements, passenger rail service, transit support facilities, trip reduction strategies, alternate work schedule and telecommute programs, rideshare, park and ride lot, and bike programs; Chapter 5 also includes a table of recommended transportation demand management strategies; - a monitoring, enforcement, and compliance plan for transportation demand management strategies; - a program to analyze land use impacts to identify and mitigate as needed the local land use decisions that have a significant impact on the CMP system; - consideration of the environmental impacts, and a process for addressing significant environmental impacts within the context of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project-level documents; - a set of procedures to develop deficiency plans when level of service standards are not being met for a planned transportation improvement, including implementation costs and schedule; - a Capital Improvement Program of projects that identify anticipated improvements on the CMP network, regardless of funding source; - a description of the role of SJCOG’s regional traffic model; and - the CMP relationship to federal air quality conformity requirements. Printed: 05/03/2010 20
San Joaquin Council of Governments SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007) April 2011 Update New SAFETEA-LU Applicable Requirement Proposed MPO Actions Provision to:
Updates Since 2007 RTP: SJCOG adopted the updated CMP document in December 2007 meeting the January 1, 2008 commitment above. With the 2011 RTP SJCOG has updated the CMP to incorporate a process to analyze potential capacity increasing SOV projects to determine if the travel demand could be satisfied using TDM strategies alone; created a process that identifies the roles and responsibilities for the relevant agencies to establish implementation and commitment requirements to ensure TDM strategies are incorporated into or are committed to in conjunction with capacity increasing projects; and has created, in cooperation with local jurisdictions, an ongoing evaluation of the CMP process at the corridor level.
It is important to also note the results of the SJCOG 2009 Quadrennial Federal Certification Review. FHWA and FTA jointly certified that the SJCOG transportation planning process meets the requirements of 23 CFR 450 and 49 CFR 613 on May 6, 2009.
Printed: 05/03/2010 21
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
APPENDIX
1-2
This Appendix Is Contained Under Separate Cover and Is Included By Reference to the 2011 RTP EIR
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
APPENDIX
2-1
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
2/2007 Board
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Local Project Delivery Policy
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: (1) Adopt the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan Project Delivery Policies; (2) Approve the Programming Milestones Calendar; and (3) Approve the Implementation of the Project Delivery Pilot Program
DISCUSSION:
Near the end of last year, SJCOG staff led a series of TAC discussions about establishing a project delivery policy for our region. The main comments from the local jurisdictions were related to minimizing additional workload on local jurisdiction staff and avoiding duplication of effort between SJCOG and Caltrans. Since that time, SJCOG and Caltrans staff have worked together to develop the concept further, and jointly recommend these Project Delivery Policies.
PDP-01 – Programming Milestones
PDP-01authorizes the development and implementation of SJCOG Board-approved SJCOG Programming Procedures and Milestones Calendar and to assist local jurisdictions identify and resolve State and federal programming issues before they impact project schedules or funding.
In addition to this policy, SJCOG staff is proposing the attached SJCOG Programming Procedures and Milestones Calendar for consideration.
PDP-02 – Project Delivery Pilot Program
PDP-02 authorizes SJCOG staff to develop and implement a Project Delivery Pilot Program (Pilot Program) designed to assist local jurisdictions track the status of projects from its inclusion into the Regional Transportation Plan Tier I category, to delivery.
The Pilot Program will consist of the development of a steering committee made up of members of the Technical Advisory Committee, quarterly status reporting, and a project tracking form. There will be an emphasis on minimizing any duplication of effort between existing tools and/or procedures.
The Pilot Program will phase in the applicability of transit projects through SJCOG’s Interagency Transit Committee (ITC) and the development of a transit-based project tracking form.
The Pilot Program is authorized for a period of 4 years (the term of the 2007 RTP), and will be re-evaluated annually to determine its effectiveness and utility. Based on the annual evaluation, the Pilot Program may be discontinued, modified, or made permanent by SJCOG Board action.
Caltrans District 10 and SJCOG are jointly recommending adoption of this pilot program, and propose the following implementation structure:
Implementation of Pilot Program
While all regionally significant projects or federally funded projects in the region would eventually be incorporated into this program, for the initial implementation, a staged approach is recommended that incorporates only the projects from the following categories: • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) projects • Surface Transportation Program (STP) projects • Highway Bridge Program (HBP) projects • Proposition 1B projects (CMIA, Route 99, etc.) • State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects
Pilot Program Steering Committee The Pilot Program Steering Committee will consist of a subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee whose primary responsibility will be to ensure the completion of the quarterly project updates. The Interagency Transit Committee (ITC) will serve the purpose of the Steering Committee for transit projects. The Steering Committee will be the forum for discussing and resolving any project-related issues that threaten the delivery schedule or funding of projects (i.e. projects whose “red” status remains unresolved), as well as the forum for identifying process- related issues (local, State, federal) that can be elevated to the appropriate levels for additional discussion and resolution. In general, the steering committee will meet on an as needed basis, with the exception of three quarterly 1-hour kick-off meetings upon implementation of the program. The initial meetings may include presentations by Caltrans Environmental staff or Headquarters regarding project delivery-related topics. In addition, supplemental meetings may be needed at the outset of the program to work out more detailed procedural issues. Any participating agency may request that the steering committee be convened.
The initial Steering Committee meetings would be held one hour prior to the TAC meetings in May, August, and November 2007, with additional meetings if needed to work out any procedural details.
Project Tracking Form The attached Project Tracking Form provides information relevant to identifying major issues relating project programming and delivery. While much of this information is available from existing FHWA, Caltrans, or SJCOG forms, this format provides a concise overview of the critical programming and delivery milestones necessary to identify emerging issues that would have a negative impact on the project.
Once the initial project information is added, each agency (Caltrans, SJCOG, Local Jurisdiction) will have responsibility for updating specific sections on a quarterly basis as indicated in the Form.
The status bar at the top of the Form provides a quick summary of the project status. The color codes are defined as: • Green – Project is progressing smoothly • Yellow – Project may need extra attention or will risk running into difficulty • Red – Project is at risk of schedule delays or loss of funding due to programming or delivery difficulties.
A project with a Yellow or Red status requires attention by the sponsoring agency, SJCOG staff, and Caltrans, and must include the following: • An initial discussion and agreement that clearly identifies the issue(s) • Identification of clearly defined actions necessary to resolve the issue(s) • Identification of the person(s) responsible for resolving each action point • Identification of a specific timeframes to resolve each issue • If necessary, set a meeting to provide an update on the action items
In the event that SJCOG, Caltrans, and the local agency cannot resolve an issue on a specific project, any agency may request a meeting of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will be presented with the circumstances surrounding the issue, and is authorized to provide advice and recommendations towards its resolution. If convened, the Steering Committee will meet 1 hour prior to the monthly TAC meeting.
Quarterly Status Reporting Each project subject to the Pilot Program will be tracked through an Excel spreadsheet using the attached Project Status Report format. The Report instruction page indicates which sections each agency is responsible for updating. Updates may be provided to SJCOG staff in any written form (fax, email, etc.). SJCOG staff will compile the updates from each agency and report a summary of the updates as part of the TAC packet in February, May, August, and November. SJCOG staff will also provide the detailed Reports for each project to the respective jurisdictions electronically. It is anticipated that initially, each jurisdiction will have one Excel file containing all the project reports applicable to that jurisdiction.
Prepared by: Douglas Ito, Senior Regional Planner M:\STAFFRPT\2007\February\BOARD\Local Project Delivery Policy_Feb07_DI.doc San Joaquin Council of Governments Adopted February 22, 2007 Project Delivery Policy – 01
Programming Procedures and Milestones Calendar
The following procedures and milestones were developed based on SJCOG Project Delivery Policy (PDP-01), Board approved on February 22, 2007.
PDP-01authorizes the development and implementation of SJCOG Board-approved SJCOG Programming Procedures and Milestones Calendar and to assist local jurisdictions identify and resolve State and federal programming issues before they impact project schedules or funding.
This document includes deadlines and procedures to ensure that projects remain within programming requirements, and that any issues are resolved prior to adverse impact on project schedules or funding.
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
July 1 Local Jurisdiction deadline for current Fiscal Year Allocation Plan information. • 3 months prior to CTC meeting, project sponsors prepare allocation request. • 2 months prior to CTC meeting, paperwork is due to CT Local Assistance.
January 1 Local Jurisdiction deadline to submit STIP Amendment requests to SJCOG for STIP projects programmed in future fiscal years (if needed).
February 1 SJCOG deadline to submit STIP Amendment requests to Caltrans Local Assistance for projects in future fiscal years. • STIP Amendments would be noticed at the April CTC mtg and voted in May.
April 1 Local Jurisdiction and SJCOG deadline to submit Allocation or Extension Requests to Caltrans for the June CTC meeting. • This is the last opportunity in the fiscal year to request a project allocation or extension.
Surface Transportation Program (STP) & Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program (CMAQ)
March 1 Local Jurisdiction deadline to complete and deliver funding obligation and/or FTA Transfer Request packages to Caltrans Local Assistance. After this date, the project loses its priority for that fiscal year OA, and the available OA is distributed according to the OA Prioritization indicated below.
June 1 Unobligated projects lose their OA guarantee in the current fiscal year and are considered for re-programming for future fiscal years. • SJCOG staff assesses status of regional OA. Any unused OA is redirected to a project that can obligate the funds by the end of the fiscal year.
San Joaquin Council of Governments Adopted February 22, 2007 Project Delivery Policy – 01
Federal Transit Administration Grant Programs
January 1 Local Jurisdiction deadline to submit FTA Grant-related FTIP amendments for projects seeking federal obligation by September 30th. If the Federal Register identifying FTA Grant amounts is not published by this date, the deadline to submit FTIP amendments will be set by SJCOG staff, and will be no greater than 30 days after the Federal Register is published.
Obligational Authority Prioritization Due to limited OA, projects will receive OA in the following order of priority: 1. Local jurisdiction compliance with Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) requirements 2. Projects programmed in the federally approved TIP 3. Projects listed in the Annual Obligation Plan 4. Projects that meet applicable Project Delivery Milestones 5. Projects requesting Advance Construction Authority/Pre-Award Authority conversions (see below) 6. Projects requesting advances from future years if: • The project qualifies under the Expedited Project Selection Procedures, • The project has advance construction authorization or pre-award authority • Surplus OA is available (see March 1st milestone deadline)
Advance Construction Authorization/Pre-award Authority (ACA/PA) When there is limited regional OA to deliver projects in the Annual Obligation Plan, projects may proceed under Advance Construction Authorization (ACA)/Pre-award Authority (PA) requirements. Conversion requests for ACA/PA will receive priority for obligation against available OA after March 1.
San Joaquin Council of Governments Project Delivery Pilot Program (PDP-02) - Project Tracking Form Last updated/verified: Green
Jurisdiction Project Identifiers Facility Name/Rte MPO ID PPNO ID Project Description Captial EA CTIPS ID Project Limits Federal Project ID
Agency Contacts (Name, Phone, Email) Local Agency SJCOG Caltrans
Funding Sources (check) RSTP STIP RIP STIP TE HBP (HBRR) Federal Demo Projects CMAQ STIP IIP Measure K Local Other ______
FTIP Information STIP Information FTIP (yr) FY ($1,000s) STIP (yr) FY STIP ($1,000s) PE PA&ED R/W PSE CON R/W Measure K Information CON MK ($1,000s) Coop? (Y/N) MK Category Allocation Status PE Target Request R/W CTC vote CON CON Contract deadline
Project Phase Information Costs Environmental Design ROW Construction Verified? Cost Estimates by Phase Date of Cost Estimate (check)
Status of Environmental Status of Construction CEQA NEPA E-76 Dates Type Estimated Approval Complete? (y/n) Local to Caltrans Draft Caltrans to FHWA Final FHWA approval
Project Authorization Tracking (E-76) Federal State Local Reversion Funds Funds Funds Last Billing Inactive Date E-76 Date ($1,000s) ($1,000s) ($1,000s) Date List? (y/n) (Lapse) PE R/W CON Notes/Pending Action Items:
Related Tracking Reports: CT STIP Quarterly Report CT XPM MK Strategic Plan CT Progress Project Information CT PMCS Other______Initial Project Information (SJCOG and CT) Local Jurisdiction's Updates SJCOG Updates Caltrans Updates
APPENDIX
5-1
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
DRAFT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN UPDATE
Prepared by: San Joaquin Council of Governments 555 East Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202 209-468-3913 www.sjcog.org
Public Hearing for Final Comment, May 24. 2007 SJCOG Board Meeting
Preparation of this document was financed by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, the California Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Planning Organization.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN UPDATE
SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Councilman John W. Harris, SJCOG Chairman City of Manteca
Supervisor Victor Mow, SJCOG Vice Chairman San Joaquin County
Mayor Gary L. Haskin Councilman Larry Hansen City of Escalon City of Lodi
Mayor Brent Ives Supervisor Leroy Ornellas City of Tracy San Joaquin County
Councilman Dan Chapman Mayor Kristy Sayles City of Stockton City of Lathrop
Mayor Ed Chavez Supervisor Ken Vogel City of Stockton San Joaquin County
Councilman Steve Bestolarides Vice Mayor Chuck Winn City of Stockton City of Ripon
In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the MPO does not discriminate based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion and disability in the execution of this Public Participation Plan.
i Table of Contents
Section Page
I. Purpose and Background 1
II. Compliance with Federal Requirements (SAFETEA-LU) 2
III. Objectives 3
IV. Description of Public Participation/Involvement Activities 3
V. Outreach to Traditionally Underserved Groups 11
VI. Description of Committees That Contribute to Planning Process 13
VII. Public Participation Measures of Effectiveness 15
Appendix A: Publications Listing
Appendix B: Summary Schedule of Public Notices and Public Hearings
Appendix C: Environmental Justice Resource Listing
Appendix D: Resource Agencies Listing
Appendix E: Public Participation Process
Appendix F: Blueprint Planning Process
Appendix G: Comments to Plan
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
iii I. Purpose and Background
The purpose of the San Joaquin Council of Governments’ Public Participation Plan is to inform and involve citizens in SJCOG’s various programs, projects, and work activities. This includes, but is not limited to, lower income households, minorities, persons with disabilities, representatives from community and service organizations, tribal councils, and other public agencies. This element also assists in identifying and addressing environmental justice and social equity issues. Citizen participation objectives include involvement of interested citizens, stakeholders, and representatives of community organizations in agency work through timely workshops on topical issues, fully noticed public hearings, and ongoing broad citizen/organization involvement in the planning and decision processes.
Broad-based community participation is essential to the success of programs, plans and projects of the San Joaquin Council of Governments. Ideals for public participation include: • Value public participation and promote broad-based involvement by members of the community; • Provide varied opportunities for public review and input; • Treat all members of the public fairly, and respect and consider all citizen input as an important component of the planning and implementation process; • Promote a culture of dialogue and partnership among residents, property owners, the business community, organizations, other interested citizens, and public officials; • Use existing community groups and other organizations, as feasible; • Encourage active public participation at the initial stages of the process, as well as throughout the process; and • Provide communications and agency reports that are clear, timely, and broadly distributed.
Background
In an effort to reach out to the people of San Joaquin County and in response to the passage of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the San Joaquin Council of Governments in 1995 developed a Public Involvement Plan to formalize and follow public outreach strategies to involve the populace in transportation planning decisions. Over the past years, SJCOG has implemented those strategies and have incorporated new strategies into the mix. Publications have been changed, as have schedules of publications. In 2005, SJCOG created an updated Public Participation Plan, building on the foundation of successful public participation strategies for the San Joaquin Council of Governments. In response to the passage of the Safe, Accountable,
1 Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- LU), SJCOG is again updating our Public Participation Plan to reflect current and future public involvement efforts of the agency in response to federal guidelines and requirements.
II. Compliance with Federal Requirements (SAFETEA-LU)
The San Joaquin Council of Governments Public Participation Plan was originally adopted in 1995 following the requirements of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). In 1998, ISTEA was succeeded by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which was subsequently succeeded by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) on August 10, 2005. TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU continue the strong federal emphasis on public participation from the 1991 ISTEA, requiring that the public participation plans of metropolitan planning processes “shall be developed in consultation with all interested parties and shall provide that all interested parties have reasonable opportunities to comment on the contents of the transportation plan.”
As outlined in the bill, methods to accommodate these goals, to the maximum extent possible, include: (i) holding any public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times; (ii) employing visualization techniques to describe plans; and (iii) making public information available in electronically accessible format and means, such as the World Wide Web, as appropriate to afford reasonable opportunity for consideration of public information.
Metropolitan public participation or involvement processes shall be coordinated with statewide public involvement processes wherever possible to enhance public consideration of the issues, plans, and programs and reduce redundancies and costs.
A key change between ISTEA/TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU is the expanded definition of and participation by “interested parties.” Broadly defined, SJCOG includes as its partners groups and individuals who are affected by or involved with transportation in San Joaquin County and the surrounding region. Examples include citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation
2 facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the transportation plan.
SAFETEA-LU requires that public meetings be held at convenient and accessible times and locations, that all plans and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) be available by website, and that documents will be written in easily understandable language and will utilize visual components. These elements are addressed in Section IV of this plan.
III. Objectives
The San Joaquin Council of Governments shall provide for public involvement and participation consistent with the following objectives and strategies in the development of its short and long-range transportation plans, programs, and projects.
Objective 1: Raise the level of understanding of the transportation planning process in the region and identify how interested citizens can participate.
Objective 2: Maximize opportunities for public involvement in the transportation process.
Objective 3: Maintain contact with interested citizens and key stakeholders throughout the process of developing MPO plans and projects.
Objective 4: Be responsive to citizens.
Objective 5: Involve traditionally under-served persons – those who are minority, low-income or elderly or those addresses by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in transportation planning issues.
Objective 6: Inform and educate incoming SJCOG Board member, local council members/supervisors and advisory committee members regarding the MPO’s functions, responsibilities, and programs.
IV. Description of Public Participation/Involvement Activities
Before members of the public can give input on SJCOG programs, they must be aware of what SJCOG is and what issues are under consideration. To raise public awareness, SJCOG uses several strategies:
3
Publications SJCOG produces Horizons, an agency newsletter which features updates on SJCOG projects, programs and staff. It is circulated to approximately 3,500 residents and businesses. The newsletter will be distributed to any person or group requesting it.
Commute Connection, SJCOG's Transportation Demand Management program, began publishing a semi-annual newsletter in 2000. The purpose of Making Connections is to: provide information about commuting options; offer helpful commute tips; and provide articles of interest to the commuting public such as upcoming freeway projects. The newsletter is distributed to approximately 2,000 businesses that pass the information along to their employees. In the near future, Commute Connection plans to expand the mailing list to include commuters who are in the ridematching database. This would bring the total distribution to approximately 7,000 people.
SJCOG produces monthly Board Actions, which documents items, projects and issues that are brought before the SJCOG Board. These are distributed to all elected officials throughout the county, members of the SJCOG committees and interested members of the public.
SJCOG has developed an agency brochure, in both English and Spanish, which highlights the main programs of the organization.
Please see Appendix A for a listing of SJCOG publications.
Website SJCOG offers information about the agency, its programs and projects, and events via the Internet at www.sjcog.org. This site is also linked to other San Joaquin County jurisdictions. SJCOG’s Commute Connection rideshare program offers a dedicated site at www.commuteconnection.com for commuters traveling in and out of San Joaquin County on the variety of transportation and transit options available with links to other transit sites and park-and-ride lots as well.
Media Relations Board packets are circulated to the newspapers in order for them to be informed of the issues that the SJCOG board reviews and acts on during their monthly Board meeting, held the fourth Thursday of each month. Staff will continue to be responsive to press information requests in a timely fashion.
SJCOG also issues news releases on topics of high interest that appear on the Board Agenda in order to highlight those issues to the media. In Stockton,
4 SJCOG regularly features transportation issues on Stockton’s government channel, Stockton City News, Channel 97.
Speakers Bureau SJCOG proactively schedules speaking engagements for staff through its Speakers Bureau. Service clubs, churches, city council meetings, board of supervisor meetings are a few of the venues that SJCOG staff and Board members speak to the public about SJCOG programs and projects. Fact sheets, talking points and visual displays are utilized to help articulate the message at hand.
Events SJCOG holds several events during the course of the fiscal year which helps increase awareness of the agency’s activities and its role in the community. One such event is the Regional Excellence Awards, designed to provide recognition for outstanding achievements and contributions which benefit the regional community. SJCOG also holds issue forums in order to provide a public discussion of topical regional issues, such as air quality, growth and transportation infrastructure needs.
Open Houses When SJCOG is working with local jurisdictions on specific transportation projects or programs, open houses are held to present design alternatives to gain early input of nearby residents and the community. These open houses have been effective in receiving useful public comment. Handouts, display boards and technical staff provide information on the project. Individuals are encouraged to make comments to staff or to write their thoughts on comment cards. Open houses are held over several hours to accommodate a variety of schedules. Prior to these open houses, research is conducted to determine demographics of the project area in order to access ethnicity ratios of the area.
Public Notice and Review It is important for the public to know when SJCOG is seeking their input. For this reason, press releases for public meetings, hearings or workshops are issued to the following local daily and weekly papers and periodicals and news services:
The Record The Tracy Press The Ripon Record The Lodi-News Sentinel The Escalon Times The Modesto Bee The Manteca Bulletin The Tri-Valley Herald The SJ News Service El Sol Bi-Lingual Weekly Mundo Hispano Manteca Sun Post La Vide en Valle
5 Translation of Public Notices When requested or deemed appropriate, SJCOG will translate public notices and press releases into other languages (as determined by the Environmental Justice analysis of the subject or project area).
SJCOG also distributes notices of planning documents and news releases to organizations that represent minority organizations that share information and are a resource for particular demographic groups, including Southeast Asian, Native American, Hispanic, and African American.
Outreach for Planning Documents There are a number of planning documents SJCOG creates and publishes for which this Participation Plan outlines a specific public process. Since these documents are regularly updated, the public and reviewing agencies can expect the processes outlined below to be followed consistently.
Unmet Transit Needs (UTN) Report. The UTN report is developed and published annually in the Spring after a countywide effort to collect public input regarding transit needs in San Joaquin County. Opportunities for public participation in the development of the UTN report include:
• Surveys distributed countywide • UTN hearings across the County hosted by local transit agencies • 30-day comment period on Draft UTN Report • Public Hearing on Draft UTN Report • SJCOG Board adoption of the Final UTN Report
Transportation Planning Documents. For the Regional Transportation Plan, Federal Transportation Improvement Program, and Air Quality Conformity Determination, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) California Division provided the eight county San Joaquin Valley region with definitions of amendments & corresponding conformity requirements. The following participation process is consistent with those definitions and requirements. For more detailed information about FHWA guidance, please contact SJCOG staff.
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP is generally updated every four years, with a limited number of amendments as needed. Opportunities for public participation for the RTP are different for RTP updates versus RTP amendments. RTP Updates include significant revisions to the RTP document, while RTP amendments are generally specific to project scopes, schedules, or costs.
6 Outreach for RTP Updates • Public Meetings, workshops, and surveys during the RTP development period to solicit public dialogue and comment on the RTP process including, but not limited to issues such as: o Overview of the planning process o RTP goals, objectives, performance indicators o RTP project lists o RTP funding scenarios
• Legally noticed public comment period on the Draft RTP Update. The length of the public comment period is aligned with California Environmental Quality Act requirements, which are generally: o 30-days if RTP Update does not include a new Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. o 45-days if the RTP Update includes a new Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. • Legally noticed public hearing held at a SJCOG Board meeting.
RTP Updates also generally require an amendment to the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and a new Air Quality Conformity Analysis. The outreach and public comment period for these documents follow the same schedule and timeframes as the RTP Update.
Outreach for RTP Amendments RTP Amendments are generally triggered by a project-specific need to be consistent either with the project’s environmental document or the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). As such, the public participation process for RTP amendments follow the requirements as outlined for the FTIP below, as applicable.
Federal Transportation Improvement Program. The FTIP is updated every two years, with amendments occurring as needed. FTIP updates are generally considered similar to the Type 5 amendment (see below), and follow a similar public participation process. For FTIP Amendments, FHWA identifies six types, each with specific participation requirements, as indicated below.
Expedited Project Selection Procedures (EPSP). EPSP allows eligible projects to be moved between FTIP fiscal years as long as the project cost and scope do not change. SJCOG staff is federally authorized to utilize EPSP without additional State or federal approval action. SJCOG does not require a formal public participation process for EPSP actions. A more detailed description of the EPSP is available from SJCOG staff upon request.
7 Amendment Type 1. Administrative. Administrative amendments include minor changes to project cost, schedule, scope, or funding sources. Administrative amendments require action by SJCOG and approval by Caltrans. Federal agencies are notified, but do not take approval action on Type 1 amendments. Public notification of an administrative amendment is posted on SJCOG’s website at the time of SJCOG action, and subsequently posted on Caltrans website after Caltrans’ approval.
Amendment Type 2. Formal Amendment – Funding Changes. Type 2 amendments primarily include project cost changes that are greater than 20% of the total project cost or $2 million, whichever is higher. Type 2 amendments require approval by SJCOG, Caltrans, and FHWA. Publicly accessible notification of a Type 2 formal amendment is posted on SJCOG’s website at least 14 days prior to SJCOG action, and distributed to local agency partners through SJCOG’s standing Technical Advisory Committee. SJCOG will consider public comments on the amendment prior to approval action.
Amendment Type 3. Formal Amendment – Exempt Projects. Type 3 amendments primarily include adding or deleting projects that are exempt from regional air quality emissions analyses. These amendments typically include transit or safety projects. Type 3 amendments require approval by SJCOG, Caltrans, and FHWA. Public notification of a Type 3 formal amendment is posted on SJCOG’s website at least 14 days prior to SJCOG action, and distributed to local agency partners through SJCOG’s standing Technical Advisory Committee. SJCOG will consider public comments on the amendment prior to approval action.
Amendment Type 4. Formal Amendment – Conformity Determination that Relies on a Previous Regional Emissions Analysis. Type 4 amendments primarily include adding or deleting projects that have already been appropriately modeled for air quality purposes as part of the RTP. In this case, the federal approving agencies can use a previous analysis of the project’s impact on air quality for approval purposes. Type 4 amendments may be accompanied by an RTP amendment to maintain consistency. The FTIP amendment and RTP Amendment (if applicable) follow the same public process. Type 4 amendments require approval by SJCOG, Caltrans, and FHWA. Public notification of a Type 4 formal amendment includes: • Legally noticed 30-day public comment period. • Legally noticed public meeting. • Posting of amendment information on SJCOG’s website during public comment period.
8 • Publishing amendment information as part of the following publicly available SJCOG agendas: Technical Advisory Committee, Citizen’s Advisory Council, Managers and Finance Committee, Executive Committee, and SJCOG Board. • Consideration and response to public comments received during comment period.
Amendment Type 5. Formal Amendment – Conformity Determination and New Regional Emissions Analysis. Type 5 amendments are the highest level amendment and primarily involve adding or deleting new projects that must be modeled for their air quality impacts, or significantly changing the design concept, scope, or schedule of an existing project. Type 5 amendments are accompanied by a new Air Quality Conformity Document that demonstrates conformity with applicable air quality requirements, and if applicable, an RTP amendment to maintain consistency. The FTIP amendment, Air Quality Conformity Document, and RTP Amendment (if applicable) follow the same public process. Type 5 amendments require approval action by SJCOG, Caltrans, and FHWA. Public notification of a Type 5 formal amendment includes: • Legally noticed 30-day public comment period. • Legally noticed public meeting. • Posting of amendment information on SJCOG’s website during public comment period. • Publishing amendment information as part of the following publicly available SJCOG agendas: Technical Advisory Committee, Citizen’s Advisory Council, Managers and Finance Committee, Executive Committee, and SJCOG Board. • Consideration and response to public comments received during comment period.
Measure K Expenditure Plan or Ordinance. The public participation process for amendments to the Measure K Expenditure Plan or Ordinance includes a 45-day public review period and public hearing.
SJCOG Public Participation Plan. Major revisions or updates to the SJCOG Public Participation Plan include a 45-day public review period and public hearing. In addition, in response to federal requirements under SAFETEA-LU, the on-going expansion of the Public Participation Plan includes outreach efforts as described in Appendix E.
The drafts of the documents described above are also posted on www.sjcog.org and mailed and reposited in a public library in each city (San Joaquin County) for public review.
9
Please see Appendix B for a Summary Schedule of Public Notices and Public Hearings.
Periodic Public Forums and Workshops SJCOG holds public forums to allow individuals to ask questions and give their opinion outside of the regular Board or committee meetings. Past forums have included topics such as air quality, transportation planning, environmental justice and the global economy. Public Workshops are also held during the planning process for the Regional Transportation Plan, the Federal Transportation Improvement Program, and other plans of special interest. The San Joaquin County Blueprint Planning effort is an example. A description of this planning process is included in Appendix F.
Public Hearings, Public Workshops, Public Comments Public hearings or workshops are also offered in order to give more attention to a specific item. As in the case of public forums, hearings and workshops are held at an early stage in the process so that suggestions can be integrated into the final proposal. All significant comments made using any of these means of public comment will receive due consideration, a formal response and will be included in the final document. In compliance with the Brown Act, all committee and Board meetings have, at a minimum, a formal public comment period. Agendas for Board meetings are posted at a minimum 72 hours prior to the meeting. However, in most cases, Board agendas are posted five days before the scheduled meeting.
Accessibility to Information Once members of the public decide to get involved in local decision-making, they should have easy access to information and the public comment process. The following strategies are designed to improve the public’s access to SJCOG meetings and materials.
Written Materials A wealth of written information on SJCOG activities is available on an ongoing basis. When preparing these documents, staff’s goal is to make the information understandable to the average person in the community, to make the documents as concise as possible, to reduce or eliminate jargon and to explain acronyms. For staff reports, a brief background and a discussion section are included to give proper context on an issue. Plans and all handouts and other documents for public review include an executive summary, pictures, graphs, maps and/or other visual aids to make them more reader-friendly and understandable. SJCOG has also produced “Dollars & Sense: A Transportation Funding Guide to San Joaquin County” in order to make transportation concepts easier for the public to understand.
10
Accommodations Currently, every effort is made to schedule public events at a location accessible by transit and all buildings for public events are ADA accessible for wheelchair users. Information regarding bicycle storage is also available. Interpreters or other auxiliary aids will be arranged for the public event if requested prior to the meeting. Public meeting times vary between day and evening meetings depending on the actual meeting and/or topic. Some public hearings are held in conjunction with SJCOG’s monthly board meeting which is held at the SJCOG office in the evening.
Hotlines Staffed and electronic hotlines are utilized as a public outreach tool and included in printed outreach material and on project websites in order to receive comments from the public.
Board Meetings All agenda materials are currently available to the public at the meeting. Prior to the meeting, agendas are posted on the SJCOG website at www.sjcog.org/agendas. All staff reports that are distributed to the Board are also made available to the public at the meetings. Announcements of upcoming Board meetings are listed in the various papers serving the county.
Opportunities are available for public comment on items on or off the agenda. Cards are provided for members of the public to indicate which agenda items they wish to speak on; these cards can be turned in to staff members. At public hearings, the Chairman requests members of the audience for their comments on the issue at hand. For items not on the agenda, a “public comment” period is held early in the meeting, after the roll call.
V. Outreach to Traditionally Underserved Groups and Resource Agencies
Federal requirements for public participation plans include a process for seeking out and considering the needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, such as low-income and minority groups.
Representatives of low income communities have pointed out that these individuals are focused on meeting survival needs, so public meetings are generally a low priority. However, when a project affects them directly, they are very interested. In September 2003, SJCOG has held a general environmental justice forum to reach out to those communities that are disproportionately left out of the planning process. The forum presented the concept of environmental justice and why it is important for minority and low income groups to give input
11 into SJCOG’s planning efforts. The forum also sought to receive input on how to go about reaching out to these communities. Churches, faith-based organizations, and schools were named as excellent vehicles for contacts and distribution and collection of information, as well as sites for public meetings and workshops.
SJCOG is continuing to work with faith-based organizations to help better our outreach efforts to low income and minority groups. In these instances, public meetings or open houses are held in the affected community to gather input on the issues at hand. SJCOG has compiled, and routinely updates, an Environmental Justice Resource List to use as a source for outreach. Please refer to Appendix C for an Environmental Justice Resource List.
Executive Order 13166, Limited English Proficiency This Executive Order directs Federal agencies, recipients and sub-recipients of Federal financial assistance to examine services they provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide services so LEP persons have meaningful access to them. As a recipient of federal funds, SJCOG offers accommodation to individuals with special needs as identified on our agendas for public meetings.
Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee SJCOG reaches out to low income communities through the Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee. The committee’s purpose is to recommend the transit services that should be provided to the transit dependent community, which often includes low income individuals, as well as the elderly and disabled. The SSTAC also advises the SJCOG Board on other transit issues, such as the coordination of specialized transportation services. As key plans are being developed, the SSTAC and Citizens Advisory Committee are briefed by SJCOG staff for their input into the planning process. Their comments, and those of the TAC and the Management & Finance Committees, are presented to the SJCOG Board for their review.
Tribal Governments SJCOG provides outreach to the following Northern California Native American organizations. A request has been sent to the Native American Heritage Commission requesting additional update information in this regard as it relates to San Joaquin County.
Candelaria American Indian Council California Valley Miwok Tribe c/o Kathy Perez c/o Silvia Burley, Chairperson P.O. Box 717 10601 Escondido Place Stockton, CA 95206 Stockton, CA 95212 209-887-3415 209-931-4567
12
San Joaquin Council for the American Indians US Indian Affairs Bureau Ramona Valdez, Director 2800 Cottage Way 13505 S. Union Road Sacramento, CA 95818 PO Box 1552 916-978-6000 Manteca, CA 95336-9285 209-858-2421
Native American Heritage Commission California Tribal TANF Partnership 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 c/o Joni Drake, Site Manager Sacramento, CA 95814 5637 N. Pershing Ave., Ste. C-10 (916) 653-4082 Stockton, CA 95207 e-mail: [email protected] 209-474-6890 e-mail: [email protected]
Resource Agencies SJCOG engages resource agencies in the development of their plans, and specifically RTP development, by distributing notifications of preparation for the RTP and TIP EIRs and inviting their comments on these documents. These agencies include: state, local, tribal agencies responsible for planned growth, economic development, environmental protection, airport operations, freight movements, land use management, natural resources, conservation and historic preservation. The Resource Agency Listing for State and federal resource agencies is maintained by the California State Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning and updated periodically. SJCOG adds local organizations and contacts to this list and will update it as necessary. Please see Appendix D for a December 2006 Resource Agencies Listing.
VI. Description of Committees That Contribute to Planning Process
Advisory Committees SJCOG has a variety of committees that assist in its planning and decision- making. All of these committees are open to the public, with posted agendas in accordance with state law (Brown Act).
SJCOG Standing Committees The SJCOG Board relies on several committees for input on proposed plans, programs and actions:
The Technical Advisory Committee The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is made up of planning and public works department staff representing the local jurisdictions within San Joaquin County and the transit agencies. The TAC assists SJCOG by reviewing and commenting on transportation plans and programs and making
13 recommendations. This committee also provides technical staff a forum to voice their concerns on the needs and requests of their respective communities to the SJCOG Board, Caltrans, and FHWA. They play a key role in the development of the plans and programs coordinated by SJCOG.
Citizens Advisory Committee The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) is comprised of 16 individuals. In 2006, the membership structure was revised to better represent the geographic, social, cultural, and economic mix of the San Joaquin region. The newly expanded committee includes a member from each of the eight jurisdictions and a member from each of the listed special interest groups. The members representing individual jurisdictions are appointed by the SJCOG Board member from that jurisdiction. All other members are appointed by the full SJCOG Board.
The committee meets monthly to review and comment on agenda items under consideration by the SJCOG Board, specifically the Measure K program. Meetings are held in the evenings to accommodate the working community. The CAC assists SJCOG in understanding community needs as they pertain to transportation issues. The CAC also allows SJCOG to facilitate a better understanding of the transportation planning issues facing the county and the region.
Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee The Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (SSTAC), composed of representatives of the elderly, disabled, transit-disadvantaged, and transit provider communities, recommends whether identified transit needs are unmet and reasonable to meet.
Management and Finance Committee The Management and Finance Committee, consisting of the county administrator and city managers, guides administrative and financial decisions of SJCOG as the Local Transportation Authority, and reviews key proposals and provides policy- level input to the SJCOG Board.
All of these committees are open to the public, with posted agendas in accordance with state law (Brown Act).
Interagency Transit Committee (ITC) The Interagency Transit Committee (ITC) was established by the SJCOG Board in August 2004. The committee was created to improve coordination and communication lines among transit operators within the county regarding routes, fares, and schedules. ITC meets quarterly and is comprised of representatives from each of the agencies and jurisdictions within San Joaquin County (the San Joaquin Regional Transit District, Lodi Grapeline, and Tracy Tracer). Beyond
14 improving coordination and communication between the transit agencies regarding routes, fares, and schedules, the Transit Operator Working Group decided on two specific goals during 2006-07: (a) develop a countywide American with Disabilities Act (ADA) certification system; and (b) discuss the feasibility of implementing a regional fare system.
Habitat Technical Advisory Committee The Habitat Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC) is comprised of 15 stakeholders in the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) including representatives from: the US Fish and Wildlife Service; the California Department of Fish and Game; San Joaquin County; each of the seven cities in San Joaquin County; the Building Industry Association; Agricultural Commission; the UC Cooperative Extension; the conservation community; and the agricultural industry. HTAC makes recommendations to the SJCOG, Inc. Board, comprised of the same members as the SJCOG Board, on issues regarding the SJMSCP. HTAC is responsible for verifying that the Habitat Plan is being implemented correctly and for solving any issues that arise during implementation. HTAC meets monthly.
Coordination with other San Joaquin Valley MPOs SJCOG is coordinating with the San Joaquin Valley to broaden RTP and TIP mailing lists to include those parties required in areas outside of transportation, land-use management, natural resources, environmental protection, historic preservation, tribal agencies and recipients of federal transportation funding from a non-US DOT source.
Single Issue Task Forces Single Issue task forces, such as the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Committee and the Measure K Renewal Committees, provide guidance throughout the development of specialized plans or programs. The use of a single issue task force is considered when SJCOG is developing a plan or examining an issue with a high level of community interest. These task forces are broad-based, representing a range of interested parties. Meetings are open to the public. Members help set the goal of the study or plan, and provide review and comment throughout the planning process. Facilitators may be brought into assist group members in reaching consensus.
VII. Public Participation Measures of Effectiveness
The strategies contained in the Public Participation Plan will be reviewed annually to determine if modification of any particularly strategy is necessary or if additional strategies need to be incorporated into the plan. Evaluation tools to measure our effectiveness in terms of reaching desired demographic groups or
15 attaining stated goals will also be employed. Evaluation strategies would include, but not be limited to: • Tabulation of media coverage • Surveys; • Comment/feedback cards; • Web site polling; • Periodic review and updating of outreach mailing lists.
SJCOG plans to work with a consultant to develop and implement evaluation methodology that includes performance measures in order to adequately measure public participation strategies.
The overall plan will be formally updated as necessary and at least once every five years. Your comments on this program are encouraged. To submit comments or for more information about the San Joaquin Council of Governments, contact:
Susan Filios Senior Regional Planner/Public Information Officer San Joaquin Council of Governments 555 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202 Phone: (209) 468-3913 Fax: (209) 468-1084 e-mail: [email protected]
Comments to this plan have been incorporated and are listed in Appendix G.
16 Appendix A Publications Listing
Name Type Distributed Circulation
Horizons Agency Newsletter Quarterly 3,500
Making Connections TDM Newsletter Semi-Annually 7,000
Board Actions Board Action Items Monthly 200
Contact [email protected] or call 209-468-3913 to request to be placed on distribution lists. Appendix B Summary Schedule of Public Notices and Public Hearings
How Long Before How Long Before Board Mtg. Board Mtg. Locations of How Often Last Document Published Document Published How long on Public Public Document Name Updated Updated for Public Notice How long in Paper Website for Public Hearing Website? Hearing Hearings Notes: Planners
21-30 Days prior to once a week for three * Yes, but not SJCOG Board Website is used for informational purposes but is not Steve Mayo & HCP- Easement Purchasing N/A N/A approval action consecutive weeks Yes necessary See Planner Yes Room required. Kevin Torrel Once Caltrans has approved application and preliminary goal and document is published 45 days before final goal is approved for the Federal fiscal year on October 1st . Disadvantaged Business Publication not tied to board meeting but brought forth to Enterprise (DBE) Annually 2005 N/A See Notes Section Yes See Notes Section 1 Year No N/A board in June or July via Staff Report Steve Dial
At least 30 Days prior At Least 30 Days, as As SJCOG Board Public Participation process based on federal guidance RTP Every 3 yrs. 2004 to approval action 1 Day Yes applicable Continuous applicable Room document. Contact SJCOG staff for more information. Dana Cowell
At least 30 Days prior At Least 30 Days, as As SJCOG Board Public Participation process based on federal guidance FTIP Every 2 yrs. 2004 to approval action 1 Day Yes applicable Continuous applicable Room document. Contact SJCOG staff for more information. Jody Swanson
At least 45 Days prior At Least 45 Days, as SJCOG Board RTP-EIR Every 3 yrs. 2004 to approval action 1 Day Yes applicable Continuous Yes Room Dana Cowell
At least 30 Days prior At Least 30 Days, as As SJCOG Board Public Participation process based on federal guidance Air Quality Conformity Every 3 yrs. 2004 to approval action 1 Day Yes applicable Continuous applicable Room document. Contact SJCOG staff for more information. Dana Cowell
1 Year Starting from All the cities hold their own Public hearing with the exception Analysis and Determination At least 30 Days prior Oct. or Nov. of SJCOG Board of the City of Stockton because SJRTD handles the City of of Unmet Transit Needs Annually 2006 to approval action 1 Day Yes At Least 30 Days Previous Year Yes Room Stocktons Public Hearings Tanisha Taylor MK Strategic Plan Annually 2006 N/A N/A Yes N/A Continuous No N/A Wil Ridder Oct. or Nov. of Oct. or Nov. of FTA 5310 Funding Annually 2005 preceeding year 1 Day Yes preceeding year 1 Year No N/A Tanisha Taylor As necessary, at least every 5 At least 45 Days prior SJCOG Board Public Participation Plan years. 2005 to approval action 1 Day Yes At least 10 days Continuous Yes Room Susan Filios
. Appendix C SJCOG Public Participation Environmental Justice Resource List
Dr. Dwight Williams, Sr. 209-469-3170 Oasis of Hope Corp. 1439 Michael Avenue Stockton, CA 95206
Mr. Jose Rodriguez 209-547-2855 El Concilio Council for the Spanish Speaking 308 N. California Street Stockton, CA 95202
Pheng Lo 209-466-0721 Lao Family Community 807 N. San Joaquin Street, Suite 211 Stockton, CA 95202
Lao Khmu Association 209-463-3410 1044 N El Dorado St e-mail: [email protected] Stockton, CA 95202 http://www.laokhmu.org/
Ms. Karla Kuhl 209-953-7125 Calworks P. O. Box 201056 Stockton, CA 95201
Mr. Andy Prokop 209-469-6980 United Way of San Joaquin County 401 East Main Street Stockton, CA 95202
Mr. Steve Larson 209-956-0290 United Cerebral Palsy Association of San Joaquin 333 West Benjamin Holt Drive, # 1 Stockton, CA 95207
San Joaquin County Environmental Network (SJCEN) 209-467-4455 c/o Peace and Justice Network P.O. Box 4123 Stockton, CA 95204
League of Women Voters 209-465-0293 P. O. Box 4548 e-mail: [email protected] Stockton, CA 95204
Central California Agency Phone: 916 566-7121 Bureau of Indian Affairs Fax: 916-566-7510 Mr. Harold Brafford 1824 Tribute Road, Suite J Sacramento, CA 95815
Ms. Kathy Perez 209-887-3415 Candelaria American Indian Council e-mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 717 Linden, CA 95236
Ms. Ramona Valdez 209-858-2421 Director Fax: 209-858-4692 San Joaquin Council for the American Indians, Inc. 13505 S. Union Road PO Box 1552 Manteca, CA 95336-9285
Appendix D: Resource Agency Listing
2007 RTP NOP Contact List Mr. Jesse Brown Mr. Ross Chittenden 11-29-06 Merced County Association Caltrans, Headquarters CM, PW, DIR, COMM DIR, of Governments P.O. Box 924874 RTPA, th Sacramento, CA 94274 LIBRARY, FHWA, CT-10, 369 W. 18 Street
CT HQ, Merced, CA 95340 SCHOOL DIST, TRANSIT Mr. Mark Codey Mr. Jim Brown Caltrans, Div. of Rail Mr. Robert Adams SACOG P.O. Box 942874, MS 74 City of Manteca 1415 "L" Street, Ste 300 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 1001 W. Center Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Manteca, CA 95337 Mr. Bruce Coleman Mr. Ronald Brummett City of Lathrop Mr. Ron Addington Kern Council of 390 Towne Centre Dr. The Business Council Governments Lathrop, CA 95330 2800 W. March Lane, #473 1401 19th St., Suite 300 Stockton, CA 95219 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Mr. Leon Compton City of Ripon Mr. Kome Ajise Mr. Rod Buchanan 259 N. Wilma Avenue Caltrans District 10 City of Tracy Ripon, CA 95366 P.O. Box 2048 400 E. Tenth Street Stockton, CA 95201 Tracy, CA 95376 Mr. Martin Engelmann Contra Costa County Mr. Alex Bailey Mr. Ronald Jaeger Transit Authority Maya Angelou Southeast Regional Director 3478 Buskirk Ave. #100 Library Bureau of Indian Affairs Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 2324 Pock Lane 2800 Cottage Way Stockton, CA 95205 Sacramento, CA 95818 Ms. Melinda Copp Public Library Ms. Diane Bills Ms. Sylvia Burley 430 W. Main Street Manteca Public Library California Valley Ripon, CA 95366 320 W. Center Street Miwok Tribe Manteca, CA 95336 10601 Escondido Place Mr. Gary Danielson Stockton, CA 95212 Valley Air Trust Mr. B. B. Blevins c/o Wm. Jennings State Energy Commission Ms. Suann Lundsberg 3536 Ranier Ave. Stockton, CA 95204-1237 1516 9th Street Intermodal Transportation
Sacramento, CA 95814 BNSF Railway Company Ms. Mary Frederick P.O. Box 961057 Caltrans Division of Mr. Charles Boice Fort Worth, TX 76161-0057 Aeronautics New Hope School District M.S.#40 P.O. Box 942874 P.O. Box 238 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Sacramento, CA 94274 Thornton, CA 95680 Railroad
1776 W. March Lane, #400 Mr. Ron Estes Mr. Dennis Boyer Stockton, CA 95207 Linden School District New Jerusalem School 18527 E. Main Street District Mr. Dave Calkins Linden, CA 95236 31400 S Koster Rd Sierra Nevada Air
Tracy, CA 95376 Quality Group Mr. Kirk Evans 1 Carolyn Court City of Lodi Mr. Michael Brinton Orinda, CA 94563 P.O. Box 3006 City of Manteca Lodi, CA 95241-1910 1001 W. Center Street Mr. Michael Spata
Manteca, CA 95337 City of Lathrop Mr. Joe Ewing 390 Towne Centre Drive Community Taxi Lathrop, CA 95330 618 Virginia Street
Manteca, CA 95337-5447
Appendix D: Resource Agency Listing
Dr. Steve Lader Mr. Kenneth Hough Lincoln Unified School Mr. David Gouker SACOG District Troke Library 1415 L Street, #300 2010 West Swain Road 502 W. Ben Holt Sacramento, CA 95814-3910 Stockton, CA 95207 Stockton, CA 95207 Mr. Donald Jackson Mr. Dennis Fay Mr. Greg Greeson State Reclamation Board Alameda County CMA City of Escalon 1416 9th Street, #455-6 1333 Broadway, Suite 220 1854 Main Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Oakland, CA 94612 Escalon, CA 95320 Mr. Ted Johnston Mr. George Finney Ms. Kay Griffin City of Ripon Tulare County Association of Caltrans, Headquarters 259 N. Wilma Street Governments Office of Engineers Ripon, CA 95366 5961 S. Mooney Blvd. 1727 30th St - MS43 Visalia, CA 93277 Sacramento, CA 95816 Mr. Cary Keaten City of Lathrop Mr. Tom Flinn Mr. Randy Hatch 390 Towne Centre Drive San Joaquin County City of Lodi Lathrop, CA 95330 Public Works P. O. Box 3006 1810 E. Hazelton Avenue Lodi, CA 95241-1910 Ms. Donna Kelsay Stockton, CA 95205 San Joaquin RTD Mr. Tom Hawkins 1533 E. Lindsay Street Mr. John Fultz Jefferson School District Stockton, CA 95205 Manteca School Dist. 7500 West Linne Road Facilities Planning Tracy, CA 95376 Mr. Khui Khan P. O. Box 32 Federal Highway Manteca, CA 95336 Ms. Sandy Hesnard Administration Caltrans, Div. of Aeronautics 650 Capitol Mall #4-100 Ms. Kimberly Gayle P. O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 95814-4708 Tech. Planning Assist. Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Program Mr. Blair King PO Box 942874--MS39 Mr. Steve Heminger City of Lodi Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Metropolitan Transportation P.O. Box 3006 Commission Lodi, CA 95241-1910 Mr. Dan Gifford 101 Eighth Street Calif. Dept of Fish & Game Oakland, CA 94607 Ms. Sue Kiser 519 W. Locust Street Federal Highway Lodi, CA 95240 Ms. Beverly Hine Administration Escalon Public Library 650 Capitol Mall #4-100 Mr. James Giottonini 1540 Second Street Sacramento, CA 95814-4708 City of Stockton Escalon, CA 95320 22 E. Weber 3rd Fl. Mr. Kyle Kollar Stockton, CA 95202 Mr. Daniel Hobbs City of Manteca City of Tracy 1001 W. Center Street Ms. Barbara Goodwin 325 E. Tenth Street Manteca, CA 95337 Fresno Council of Tracy, CA 95376 Governments Ms. Pam Korte 2100 Tulare St., Ste. 619 Mr. Larry Host Department of Transportation Fresno, CA 93721 US Fish and Wildlife Dept Of Transp MS 32 Services P.O. Box 942874 Ms. Cay Goude 2800 Cottage Way, Suite Sacramento, CA 95814 US Fish and Wildlife Service W-2605 Ecological Services Sacramento, CA 95825 Mr. Keith Larick 2800 Cottage Way, Suite Tracy Unified Schools W-2605 315 E. Eleventh Street Sacramento, CA 95825-1888 Tracy, CA 95376 Appendix D: Resource Agency Listing
Mr. Gordon Palmer Mr. Bob Mitroff Mr. John Pfiefer City of Stockton Bay Area Rapid Transit Federal Aviation 425 N. El Dorado St. District Administration Stockton, CA 95202 P.O. Box 12688 San Francisco ADO Oakland, CA 94604-2688 831 Mitten Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Mr. Mike Locke San Joaquin Partnership Ms. Stacey Mortensen Mr. Pat Wiemiller 2800 W. March Lane, #470 SJ Regional Rail City of Tracy Stockton, CA 95219 Commission 520 Tracy Blvd. 949 E. Channel Street Tracy, CA 95376 Mr. Manuel Lopez Stockton, CA 95202 San Joaquin County Mr. Don Precissi 222 E. Weber Ave. Rm 707 Ms. Mary Munnecke Lodi (Precissi) Airpark Stockton, CA 95202 Linden Public Library 11919 N. Lower Sacramento 19012 East Main Street Rd. Mr. Steve Luxenburg Linden, CA 95236 Lodi, CA 95242 Federal Highway Administration Ms. Ashley Nguyen Mr. Rich Prima 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100 Metropolitan Transportation City of Lodi Sacramento, CA 95814 101 Eighth Street P.O. Box 3006 Oakland, CA 94607 Lodi, CA 95240 Mr. Tom Abbott Department Of Mr. David Nicol Mr. Barry Rondinella Transportation Federal Highway Stockton Metropolitan 1120 N. Street Administration Airport P.O. Box 942874 MS 28 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100 5000 S. Airport Way Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Sacramento, CA 95814 Stockton, CA 95206
Mr. Andrew Malik Mr. Richard Nordahl Mr. Kevin Sharrar City of Tracy Department of Transportation BIA of the Delta 325 E. Tenth Street Off. of Goods Movement 509 W. Weber Ave, #410 Tracy, CA 95376 MS32 Stockton, CA 95203 P.O. Box 942874 Ms. Nancy Martinez Sacramento, CA 94274 Mr. Kent Smith City of Lodi, Library HCP Supervisor 201 W. Locust St Mr. Kenneth Olds Calif. Dept. Of Fish & Game Lodi, CA 95240 Lammersville District 1701 Nimbus Rd., Suite A 16555 W. Von Sosten Road Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Ms. Mary McDonough Tracy, CA 95376 Federal Highway Ms. Diane Sorensen Administration Mr. Bob O'Loughlin Holt Union School District 567 D'Onofrio Drive, Suite Federal Highway 1545 South Holt Road 100 Administration Stockton, CA 95206 Madison, CA 53719-2844 201 Mission St., Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Ms. Nicky Stanke Mr. Carl Toliver Cesar Chavez Central Library Stockton Unified School Ms. Kathy Perez 605 N. El Dorado Street 701 N Madison Street Candelaria American Indian Stockton, CA 95202 Stockton, CA 95202 Council 135 W. Fremont Street Ms. Mamie Starr Mr. Henry McKay Stockton, CA 95202 Lodi Unified School District Port of Stockton 1305 E. Vine P. O. Box 2089 Mr. Duane Peterson Lodi, CA 95240 Stockton, CA 95201 City of Escalon 1854 Main Street Escalon, CA 95320 Appendix D: Resource Agency Listing
Mr. Douglas Stidham Mr. David Westsmith City of Escalon Delta Island Elementary Mr. Mike Brady P.O. Box 248 School Caltrans Environmental Escalon, CA 95320 11022 W. Howard Road Program Stockton, CA 95206 P.O. Box 942874 MS-32 Ms. Kerry Sullivan Sacramento, CA 94274 SJC Community Ms. Anita Young Development Dir. Fair Oaks Library Mr. Alan McCuen 1810 E. Hazelton Avenue 2370 East Main Street Caltrans District 6 Stockton, CA 95205 Stockton, CA 95205 1352 W. Olive Ave. Fresno, CA 93768
Mr. Leo Zuber Mr. Steve Curti Mr. Marvin Tatum Ripon School District Caltrans District 6 Manteca Unified School 304 N Acacia Avenue 1352 W. Olive Ave. District Ripon, CA 95366 Fresno, CA 93768 PO Box 32 Manteca, CA 95336 Mr. Terry King Ms. Sally Rodeman Kings County Association of Caltrans District 10 Ms. Patricia Taylor Governments P.O. Box 2048 Madera County Transp. 1400 W. Lacey Blvd. Stockton, CA 95201 Commission Hanford, CA 93230 1816 Howard Road, Suite 8 Mr. Carlos Yazmon Madera, CA 93637 Mr. Vincent Harris Caltrans District 10 Stanislaus Council of P.O. Box 2048 Mr. Ernie Tyhurst Governments Stockton, CA 95201 City of Ripon 900 H Street Suite D 259 N. Wilma Avenue Modesto, CA 95354 Mr. Dennis Wade Ripon, CA 95366 California Air Resources Mr. Charles Field Board Mr. Wayne Horiuchi Amador County 1001 I Street Union Pacific Railroad Transportation Commission P.O. Box 2815 915 L Street, #1180 11400 American Legion Dr., Sacramento, CA 95812 Sacramento, CA 95814 Suite A Jackson, CA 95642 Mr. Dan Skopec Ms. Ramona Valdez Agency Undersecretary SJ Council for the American Ms. Sharon Scherzinger California Environmental Indians Caltrans HQ Protection Agency P. O. Box 1552 1120 N Street-MS 32 1001 I Street Manteca, CA 95336-9285 Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA Mr. Bob Wallace Ms. Lauren Dawson 95812-2815 Escalon School District SJVAPCD 1520 Yosemite Avenue 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Ms. Karina O’Connor Escalon, CA 95320 Fresno, CA 93726 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ms. Jane Perez Mr. Don Hunsaker P.O. Box 6790 Caltrans - District 10 SJVAPCD Incline Village, NV 89450 P.O. Box 2048 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. Stockton, CA 95201 Fresno, CA 93726 Ms. Lisa Hanf U.S. Environmental Mr. Rick Wentworth Ms. Rachel Falsetti Protection Agency San Joaquin Office of Caltrans Division of Hawthorne Street Education Programming San Francisco, CA 94105 P.O. Box 213030 P.O. Box 942874 MS-82 Stockton, CA 95213-9030 Sacramento, CA 94274 Appendix D: Resource Agency Listing
Mr. Ted Malley Sacramento, CA 95814 Federal Transit Administration Mr. Milford Wayne 201 Mission Street, Donaldson, FAIA Suite 1650 California Office of Historic San Francisco, CA 94105 Preservation P.O. Box 942896 Ms. Cari Anderson Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Cari Anderson Consulting 1023 E. Montebello Ave Ms. Kiran Lanfranchi- Phoenix, CA 85014 Rizzardi State Water Resources Mr. Michael R. Finnegan Control Board U.S. Dept. of Interior 11020 Sun Center Drive #200 Federal Bureau of Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Reclamation 7794 Folsom Dam Road Folsom CA 95630-1799
Mr. David Christy Bureau of Land Management California State Office 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825
Mr. Tom Coe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Ms. Maria Or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District 333 Market Street, Room 923 San Francisco, CA 94105
Mr. Michael E. Aceituno NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 6070 Sacramento, CA 95814
Ms. Lynda Smallwood California State Lands Commission 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South Sacramento, California 95825-8202
Mr. Larry Myers Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Appendix E Developing the Public Participation Plan
Public involvement and interagency consultation is essential to an effective planning process. This Appendix provides an overview of the process SJCOG currently has in place to provide all interested parties the opportunity to provide input into our various planning and programming activities, including the development of the public participation plan.
The purpose of SJCOG’s Public Participation Plan (Plan) is to inform and involve citizens in SJCOG’s various programs, projects, and work activities. This includes, but is not limited to, lower income households, minorities, persons with disabilities, representatives from community and service organizations, tribal councils, and other public agencies. This element also assists in identifying and addressing environmental justice and social equity issues. Citizen participation objectives include involvement of interested citizens, stakeholders, and representatives of community organizations in agency work through timely workshops on topical issues, fully noticed public hearings, and ongoing broad citizen/organization involvement in the planning and decision processes.
In January 2007, a draft update of the Plan, last adopted by the SJCOG Board in February 2005, was circulated for resource agency and citizen input. It reflects changes to public outreach efforts defined in SAFETEA-LU including:
• MPOs must develop and utilize a “participation plan” that provides reasonable opportunities for interested parties to comment on the metropolitan transportation plan and metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program; • The participation plan must be developed “in consultation with all interested parties,” and the public must have input on the participation plan; • The participation plan must be in place prior to MPO adoption of transportation plans and TIPs; • MPOs must employ visualization techniques to the maximum extent practicable; and • MPOs must make long range transportation plans and TIPs available for public review in electronic formats such as the worldwide web.
The draft Plan was circulated for the required 45-day public review and comment period, which was subsequently extended to provide additional opportunity for public and agency comments. During the comment period, SJCOG staff also mailed out over 2,000 letters to a comprehensive list of interested parties for the purpose of updating our database and verifying the contacts for each agency and organization that may be interested in transportation planning as well as the members of the public that have indicated an interest in SJCOG’s transportation planning process.
As of May 2007, we received over 30 responses, ranging from State and federal resource agencies, Indian tribal governments, trucking companies, local developers, advocacy groups, citizens, school districts, churches, chambers of commerce, businesses, local agencies, construction companies, and social service agencies. In addition we received slightly over 100 mail pieces back from the postal service as undeliverable. Thus, out the 2000+ individuals and agencies sent letters, over 1,900 were delivered successfully. A list of the representative agencies and organizations are included at the end of this appendix, demonstrating that all interested parties have been contacted with this mailing. In compliance with SAFETEA-LU regulations, the mailing list includes representation from: land use management agencies, natural resource/conservation agencies, environmental protection, historic preservation, planned growth, economic development, airports, freight movement, private citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, private transportation providers, representatives of public transit, representatives of bicycle/pedestrian facility users, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties.
This mailing list will serve as the basis for the continued outreach efforts as identified in SJCOG’s Gap Analysis in order to ensure continued compliance with SAFETEA-LU regulations. This Gap Analysis compares existing planning and programming activities against the requirements of SAFETEA-LU, identifying compliance items and describing how they are currently being addressed or the plan to address them.
Throughout the comment period, the draft Plan was available upon request and via the SJCOG website. In addition, the availability of the draft Plan was publicly noticed in area newspapers and circulated for comment to FHWA, FTA, Caltrans, and a variety of diverse community organizations. SJCOG staff incorporated comments into the Plan and anticipates finalizing it through SJCOG Board action at the May 2007 meeting. One comment in particular prompted SJCOG to update the process by which RTP and FTIP amendments are handled. A local agency responsible for planned growth and local transportation project delivery requested that SJCOG explore methods to expedite the administrative steps to complete amendments to the FTIP. The comment was prompted by both past experience and a recent project that missed a construction window solely due to the FTIP amendment process. SJCOG incorporated changes to the FTIP amendment process in this Participation Plan in response to this comment.
In addition to providing the public with an opportunity to contribute to the development of the Public Participation Plan, Section 450.316(b) of the federal regulations implementing SAFETEA-LU provisions requires that the Plan be developed, to the extent practicable, in consultation with other agencies and officials responsible for activities that are affected by transportation. While the Gap Analysis addresses SJCOG efforts moving forward, a significant effort has already taken place.
The SJCOG Public Participation Plan was first developed in 1995 as the “Public Involvement Plan” to formalize strategies for involving the citizens of San Joaquin County in transportation planning decisions. In 2005, SJCOG updated and published the Public Participation Plan in response to an increased focus by the federal government to develop a more transparent planning process and increase opportunities for early and continuing involvement.
As a result, for the past 12 years, SJCOG’s efforts to develop, draft, provide opportunity for public comment, adopt, and submit State and federal documents have followed the process identified in the Public Participation Plan. Throughout this time, local, State, and federal agencies have had the opportunity to observe, comment on, and critic the public involvement process SJCOG has committed to in its Plan. The 2007 update in response to SAFETEA-LU is the most recent opportunity for agencies to voice comment on the process being used to reach out to the public.
In addition, on March 2, 2007 the San Joaquin Valley COGs held a meeting in which resource agencies, including those covering San Joaquin County, were invited to provide input into both the Valley Blueprint effort as well as the RTP outreach and Public Participation Plans being updated throughout the Valley. This provided yet another opportunity for agencies to comment on the SJCOG public participation process. For the Public Participation Plans, COG staff distributed a survey to solicit comments from resources agencies about their successes in soliciting public comments. The survey was an open-ended invitation for resource agencies to provide suggestions about how to improve public participation.
Results from the survey included the following suggestions: • Surveys • Email outreach • Attend community events to solicit comments • Educating participants on the topics of discussion, principles, and concepts • Focus groups to test assumptions and refine future events • Regional maps and datasets • Diverse community involvement (blue collar workers to college graduates)
Recognizing that the intent of SAFETEA-LU is to continue improving our outreach efforts, SJCOG is committing to meeting the challenge through the implementation of additional measures identified in SJCOG’s SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis.
The SJCOG Public Participation Plan represents the public outreach strategy that best fits San Joaquin County, as demonstrated by years of experience and refinement. SJCOG staff recognizes that public outreach is a continuous process, however, and thus invites continued comments on how we can improve our outreach to the citizens, businesses, and agencies of San Joaquin County.
Public Participation Plan Database
"The Net" Of Stockton Asian‑American Calif. Valley Miwok Central Valley Association 3rd Missionary Baptist Chamber of Tribe of Realtors 7 Up Commerce California Bank & Central Valley Training A & D Rubber Products Assemblymember Alan Trust Center Company Nakanishi California Delta Central Valley Waste A New Beginning Church of Assemblymember Chambers & Visitors Services God Greg Aghazarian Bureau/Marina Towers Centro De Vida Christiana A. R. Sanguinetti, Inc. Assemblymember California Highway Church A.C.L.C. Cathleen Galgiani Patrol Tracy Office Century Assembly A.F. Toccoli & Son, Inc. Assistance League of California Human Certified Grocers of General Contractor Stockton Development California A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. AT & T Broadband Corporation Cesar Chazez Central A.G. Spanos Companies ATS California Human Library A.M. Stephens Audubon Society Development Channel Medical Centers Construction, Inc. Bank of Agriculture & Corporation Farm Chapin & Associates AAA‑Northern California ‑ Commerce Worker Services Moonshadow Productions Stkn Bank of America, N.T. California Native Plant Child Abuse Prevention A‑Able 1 Answer America & S.A. Society Council Of San Joaquin AAFES West Coast DC Bank of Lodi NA California Real Estate County Aartman Jim Milk Transport Bank of Stockton Company Child Protective Services Abundant Life Center in Bank of Stockton California Spray Dry Children's Home of Lathrop Carson Oaks California State Senate Stockton AC Trucking Company Bank of Stockton Quail California Valley Children's Museum of Accountancy Corp. Lakes Miwok Tribe Stockton Ace Tomato Company, Inc. Bank of the West California Women For Chinese Cultural Society of ACT 1 Personnel Services Banta Elementary Agriculture Stockton Advanced School District Caltrans ‑ District 10 Christ Church of The Valley GeoEnvironmental Barnes & Noble Calvary 1st Assembly Christ Temple Apostolic Adventures In Advertising Barton Ranch Calvary Bible Faith African American Chamber Bay‑Delta Office Calvary Chapel of Christian Life Center Of Commerce Bear Creek Stockton Christian Missionary AFSCME Community Church Calvary Community Alliance Church Agricultural Commission Becker & Hamilton Church of Manteca Christian Worship Center of San Joaquin County Homes, Inc. Calvary Reformed Manteca AKF Development, LLC Benerd School Of Church Christian Worship Center of Alan Short Center Education, UOP Calworks Manteca Almond Valley Christian Bethany Community CalWORKS Church of Christ Reformed Church Church Employment Center Church of God Almond Valley Christian Bethany Temple A/G Cambodian Church of God 7th Day Reformed Church Bethel Open Bible Community of Church of The Living God Alpine Meats Better Business Stockton Citizens Land Alliance Alspaugh Foundation Bureau Campaign for Citizens to Stop the Power Alternative Resources Bible Methodist Common Ground Grab Amalgamated Transit Church Candelaria American City of Escalon Union, Local 276 Bible Way Ministry Indian Council City of Lathrop City Hall American Cancer Society Big Brothers/Big Care West City of Lathrop Community American Farmland Trust Sisters of San Joaquin Care West Development American Heart Association County Career Clothes Closet City Of Lathrop Library American Honda Motor Co. BLB Enterprise Careers for 50 Plus City of Lodi American Legion Hall Blossom Valley Caroline Photography City of Lodi Fire American Lung Association Community Carpenter Company Department American Red Cross Boggs Tract Carson Oaks City of Lodi Planning American Sign Products Community Center Management Co. Commission American Society of Civil Boys & Girls Club of Catholic Charities City of Lodi Police Engineers Lodi, Inc. Center for Positive Department American Tire Tow & Auto Boys & Girls Club of Prevention City of Lodi Transit Repair Stockton Alternatives, Inc. Mechanics Union Antonini Enterprises LLC Brookside Place Central California City of Lodi, Library Applied Aerospace Feather River Safety Council City of Lodi/Lodi Grapeline Structures Brown, Hall, Shore, & Central Parking District City of Manteca Office of APSARA (Asian Pacific Self- McKinley Central Seventh Day City Manager Development and Builder's Exchange Adventist City of Manteca Parks & Residential Association) Building Industry Central State Credit Recreation Dept. Arc San Joaquin Assoc. of the Delta Union City of Manteca Public Area VI Board Burlington Northern Central United Works Armour Fire Extinguisher Santa Fe Methodist Church City of Manteca Public Co. Business Council, Inc. Central Valley Asian- Works Dept. Asco Power Technologies of San Joaquin County American Chamber of City of Ripon Asian Pacific American Calif. State Assembly Commerce City of Ripon Planning (APA) News & Review Department Public Participation Plan Database
City of Ripon Ripon Consumer Credit Delta Health Care Escalon Business Planning Commission Counseling Services Education Center Association City of Stockton Account Convention Visitor Delta Impact, San Escalon Chamber of Division Bureau Joaquin Delta College Commerce City of Stockton Building Corn Products Delta Island School Escalon Christian Reformed Division Cornerstone District Church City of Stockton City Evangelical Free Delta National Bank Escalon Community Center Council Cornerstone Delta Sierra Escalon Lions Club City of Stockton City Hall Evangelical Free Management Escalon Packers City of Stockton Community Cort Companies Delta Wireless, Inc. Escalon Public Library Development Cost Plus Distribution ‑Stockton Delta Escalon Times City of Stockton Cultural Costco Distribution Network Solutions Escalon Unified School Heritage Board Center Dept. of Fish & Game District City of Stockton Enterprise COSTCO Tracy Site Derivi Construction & Evangelical Free Church Zone Council For Spanish Architecture Inc. Evangelical Methosist City of Stockton Speaking Deuel Vocational Inst. F & H Construction Management Information Council For Spanish Diamond Walnut Fair Oaks Library System Speaking Growers Fairmont Seventh-Day City of Stockton Municipal County Administrator's Diana Lowery Faith Assembly Utilities District Office San Joaquin Consulting Faith Baptist Church City of Stockton Parks & County Diede Construction, Faith Fellowship Recreation County Counsel Inc. Faith in Action/Good City of Stockton Planning Covenant Christian Diocese of Stockton Samaritan Community Department Fellowship Disability Resource Services/Tracy Volunteer City of Stockton Public Covenant Christian Agency For Care Givers Works Dept Fellowship Independent Living Faith Tabernacle City of Tracy - Parks and Craig V. Sands (DRAIL) Family Bible Church Community Services Accountancy Discovery Free Will Family Resource & Referral City of Tracy Community Corporation Baptist Family Resource Network Dev. Dept. Credit Bureau of San District Family Worship Center City of Tracy Dev. & Joaquin County District Attorney Farm Bureau Federation Engineering Services Crestwood Manor County of San Joaquin Farmers & Merchants Bank City of Tracy Finance Crisis Pregnancy District Council 57 FB utton Co., Inc. Division Center of Lodi Division 1 Fed Ex Freight City o Tracy Library Crisis Pregnancy Doane Pet Care Fellowship of Hope City of Tracy Public Works Center of Tracy Company Fernandes Advertising & Department Croce & Company Docter & Docter Design City of Tracy Transit Drivers Crossroads Doctors Hospital of Ferreira Vineyards Union--Teamsters Local Community Church Manteca Filipino American National 439 Crossroads Grace Dopaco California Inc. Historical Society City of Tracy/Tracer Community Dougherty & Filipino Center Clair & Bossi Attorneys at Crossroads of The Associates Filipino Federation of Law Valley A/G Downtown Lodi America Clements-Lockeford Crosstown Community Business Partnership First Assembly of God Chamber of Commerce Church Downtown Stockton First Assembly of God Club of the Adult Blind of CSU Stanislaus Alliance First Baptist Church of San Joaquin County Stockton E. B. Asia Consulting Linden Comcast CSU Stanislaus Earth Grains Bakery First Church of Nazarene Commercial Exchange Club Stockton Center Easter Seal Society First Commercial Real Communities United for Dameron Hospital - Stockton Center Estate Families (CUFF) Administration Eastside Improvement First Congregrational Community Action Dameron Hospital Committee Church Resources of Escalon Association Eastside Missionary First Missionary Baptist Community Bank of San DAV Charities of San Baptist First United Methodist Joaquin Joaquin County Eastside Presby. Five Star Construction Community Banks of Tracy DAV Charities of San Church Food 4 Less Community Center For The Joaquin County Ebenezer Foodmaker Blind & Visual Impaired DeBock & Muth Congregational Foster Grandparents Community Church of God Insurance Agency Eberhardt School of Fox River Paper Company Community Development Defense Distribution Business Franzia Winery Department of San Joaquin Region West San Eckert Cold Storage Free Methodist Church County Joaquin Sites Economic Dev. Assoc. Free Will Baptist Church Community Partnership for Defense Logistics SJ County Freeman & D'Aiuto Families Agency El Concilio French Camp Municipal Community Taxi DeGregori, Gormsen, Emanuel American Advisory Council Condor Earth Technologies, McCurry & Ringer Lutheran Friends Group, City of Lodi, Inc. Del Monte Foods Emergency Food Bank Library Congressman Dennis Corporation English Oaks Friends of Escalon Cardoza Delta Church of Escalon Branch Library Friends of the Library Conklin Marketing Nazarene Public Participation Plan Database
Galatians Community Head Start of Stockton Johns Manville Lathrop Planning Church Heald College Manufacturing Commission Galilee Baptist Church Health Care Service JSG Trucking Lathrop Rotary Club Ganzer & Williams Health Care Services Company Lathrop Senior Center Garcia and Associates of San Joaquin County Judith Buethe Public Law Office of Anthony M. Natural Resources Health for All-ADHC Relations Barkett Consultants Health For All‑ADHC Junior Achievement Law Office of David R. Garden Acres Community Health Plan of San Kaiser Foundation LeBeouf Center Joaquin Hospital League of Women Voters General Mills Heartland Church Kaiser Permanente Legacy Enterprises General Teamsters Local Herum Crabtree Dyer Kat Country 103 * Leprino Foods 439 Zolezzi & Terpstra KATM ‑ FM Libbey Owens Ford George Perry & Sons Highlight Church of KCRA TV Channel 3 Library Family Literacy Girl Scouts, SJC Service God in Christ Keller Wiliams Progam Center Hmong Christian & Ken Fong Advertising Life UPC Golden Valley Community Missionary Alliance Of Kennedy Community Lifeseed Christian Day School Stockton Center Fellowship Golden West Nuts, Inc. Hmong International Kettleman Lane Lighthouse Christian Good Samaritan Center Culture Institute Community Church Fellowship Goods Movement Task Hogan Manufacturing Kingdon Airport Lighthouse Community Force Company Kirst Development Church Goodwill Industries of San Holt of California Kiwanis Lincoln Center Chronicle Joaquin Valley Holt Union School Kiwanis Club of Linden Center Gospel Center Rescue District Escalon Linden Herald Mission Holy Cross Episcopal Kjeldsen, Sinnock, & Linden Municipal Advisory Gospel Light House Church Neudeck, Inc. Council Gottschalks Holy Cross UMC KJOY 99 FM Linden Public Library Grace Assembly of God Home Loan Center Kleinfelder Linden Unified School Grace Baptist Church Hormel Foods Geotechnical District Facilities Planning Grace Brethren Church Hospice of San KLOC Radio Linden United Methodist Grace Church Joaquin Korea Baptist Church Church Grace Community Household of Faith of Stockton Linden-Peters Chamber of Grace Presbyterian Baptist Korean Bansuk Commerce Granite Construction Housing Authority Presbyterian Linden‑Peters Pentecostal Company Commission KOVR TV, Channel 13 Assembly Grant Thornton Housing Authority of News Lions Club Grape Growers Association San Joaquin County KQOD FM Oldies 100.5 Lipton Lodi District Housing Economic Kroloff Belcher Smart Little Manila Foundation Greater Faith Baptist Development Perry & Littler Mendelson Church Human Services Christopherson Lively Stones Worship Greater Stockton Agency of San Joaquin KWIN Radio Silverado Center Emergency Food Bank County Broadcasting Company Living Word Ministries Greater Stockton Humphreys College KXTV News 10 Lloyd Development Inc. Employment Advisory Iacopi, Lenz & KYCC‑KCJH 90.1 Local Agency Formation Council Company Lakeview Assembly Commission Greater Stockton/San IBEW/NECA Labor Lakeview Village Lockeford Municipal Joaquin Chamber of Management Lammersville School Advisory Council Commerce Cooperative Trust District Lockeford SDA Church Grimaud Farms of Iglesias De Dios Land Utilization Lockeford Senior Center California, Inc. Church of God Alliance Lockeford‑Clements News Grunsky Elementary School Imanual Christian Lange Twins, Inc. Locust Avenue Church of Grupe Company Reformed Church Lao Family Community Christ Guaranty Federal Bank Immanuel Breath of of Stockton Lodi (Precissi) Airpark H & S Trucking Life Lao Khmu Assoc. Lodi Association of Realtors H. J. Heinz Company Immanuel Christian Lao Lane Xang Lodi Avenue Baptist H.D. Arnaiz Corporation Reformed Church Association San Lodi Chamber of Commerce Habitat for Humanity of San In Shape City Joaquin Chapter Lodi Christian Life Joaquin, Inc. Individual Career Larch Clover Lodi Community Church Hakeem, Ellis, & Marengo Solutions Community Center Lodi Community Services Hanley Construction, Inc. International, Inc. Lathrop Baptist Church Center Harbor Isle Apartments J C Penney Store Lathrop Branch Library Lodi High School Harold W. Thompson J. C. Trucking Lathrop Chamber of Lodi House Hartland Community J.R. Simplot Commerce Lodi Memorial Hospital Church Jack Williams Ranches Lathrop Christian Lodi News Sentinel Hartmann & Setness Jefferson School Center Lodi Parks & Recreation HARVEST BIBLE CHURCH District Lathrop Community Lodi Planning Commission Harvest Christian Center Jene Wah, Inc. Center Lodi Senior Haven of Peace JMeek Agribusiness Lathrop Lighthouse of Commission/Senior Center Head Start Child Mgmt. The Cross Lodi Unified School District Development Council Lodi Victory Center Public Participation Plan Database
Lodi Visitors Center Mori Consultants Our Lady of Resurrection Power Lodi-Woodbridge Mosswood Park Guadalupe Evangelistic Center WineGrape Commission Church of God Outdoor Systems Rich Turner Photographics Lodi‑Woodbridge Mountain House Advertising Rick King Design LOEL Senior Center Community Services Outdoor Systems Ripon Assembly of God Lolly Hansen Senior Center District Advertising Ripon Branch Library Love Fellowship Baptist Mt. Olive Miss. Baptist Owens‑Brockway Ripon Chamber of Church National Association of Glass Container Commerce Loving Hymn Ministries Rental Property Pac West Ripon Church of Christ Lung Kong Tin Yee Managers - SJC Pacific Coast Ripon Record Association National University - Industries Human Ripon Senior Citizen's M & R Company Stockton Learning Resources Department Center Magna‑Kote Electrostatic Center Pacific Coast Ripon Unified School Painting Neumiller & Beardslee Producers District Manteca Baptist Church New Beginnings Pacific Gas & Electric Rishwain & Rishwain Manteca Branch Library Church Pacific State Bank ‑ River Islands at Lathrop Manteca Bulletin New Cov. Believers Headquarters RM‑Holz Human Resources Manteca CAPS Chr. Pacific West Department Manteca Chamber of New Greater Love Communications Robert C. Irwin Commerce Church Of God In Group Robert Mondavi Winery Manteca Convention and Christ PACT - People and Roek Construction Visitors Bureau New Harvest Christian Congregations Rotary Club of Stockton Manteca Parks & Fellowship Together Downtown Recreation New Heart Community Pan American Rotary Club of Stockton Manteca Planning Church of the Underwriters, Inc. North Commission Nazarene Panella Trucking Rotary Club Of Manteca Public Library New Hope Community Peace & Justice Stockton‑Sunrise Manteca School District New Hope Free Will Network Rotary Doctor's Hosp., Educational Technology Baptist Pentecostal Church of Manteca Dept. New Hope School God Rotary Manteca Isadore's Manteca School District District Pennino & Associates S.J. Agricultural Facilities Planning New Jerusalem School Pentecostal Commission Manteca Senior Center District Tabernacle of Escalon S.J. Co. Parks & Recreation Manteca Unified School New Life in Christ Full People of The Christ S.J. Council for American District Gospel Missionary Baptist Indians Marina Village West NKS Consulting, LLC People of The Christ S.J. Delta College TPPF Mariners Cove Apartments No. Calif. Youth Missionary Baptist Health Unit Mariners Point Apartments Correctional Cntr. Peterson Trucking Saint Anne's Catholic PMZ Real Estate Youth Authority Dept. Planned Parenthood Salem United Methodist Martin Brower Company Nolte & Associates Planning Commission Salvation Army Human Resources Nomellini, Grilli & Plymouth Square Salvation Army, Lodi Corps Department McDaniel Poly‑Cal Plastics San Joaquin A+ Masonic Temple Association Nor Cal Center on Port of Stockton San Joaquin AIDS of Stockton, Inc. Deafness Prayer Temple Foundation Maya Angelou Southeast Northeast Community Premier Credit Union San Joaquin Association of Library Center Progressive Missionary Retarded Citizens Mayaco Marketing & Northern California Baptist San Joaquin Audubon Internet Foster Grandparents Property Management Society Mayall, Hurley, Knutsen, Nototome Cultural Experts San Joaquin Building Smith & Green Preservation Providence Reform Trades Council, Local 73 McFall Center Nu Cal Church San Joaquin Co. Health McHenry House O.B. Kleinfeld & Public Health Services Care Service Medcore Medical Group Company Accountancy Public Health Services San Joaquin Co. Parks & Mental Health Services of Corporation of San Joaquin County Recreation San Joaquin County Oak Park Senior Public Health Services San Joaquin Co. Public Mental Health Services of Citizens Center of San Joaquin County Health San Joaquin County Oak View School -- Environmental San Joaquin County - Mervyns ‑ Manteca District Health Dept. Cooperative Extension- Michael & Cammack Oasis of Hope Public Library City Of University Of California, Michelle Manos Design Community Dev. Ripon Farm Advisors, Agricultural Michigan Heights Baptist Corporation Quail Lakes Baptist San Joaquin County Church Open Door House of Church Administrators Office Mid-Valley Engineering Prayer Quailwood Apartments San Joaquin County Missionary Baptist Operating Engineers, Raddison Hotel Auditor‑Controller's Office Model Alternative School Local 3 Raymus Homes San Joaquin County Bar Moffat & Nichol Engineers Orchard Supply Realty World Association Mokelumne Coast To Crest Hardware Red Top Taxi San Joaquin County Board MooreTechnologies Orthodox Christian Registrar of Voters of Supervisors Morada Muncipal Advisory Reformed Church Resurrection Life San Joaquin County Clerk Council Church of God Public Participation Plan Database
San Joaquin County Second Harvest Food SJCO District Attorney Stockton Certified Farmers Communications Bank of San Joaquin SJDC ‑ Impact Markets San Joaquin County Council and Stanislaus SJDC Disabled Student Stockton Chamber of for the Indians Counties Programs and Services Commerce San Joaquin County Seifert Community Small Business Stockton Convention & Department of Public Works Center Development Center Visitors Bureau San Joaquin County Human Seligman & Willett, SNAG/Midtown Stockton Covenant Church Resources Department Inc. Redevelopment Stockton Crossing Cultural San Joaquin County Human Senior Lifestyles Committee Bridges Services Senior Service Agency Snyder Lithograph Stockton Cultural Heritage San Joaquin County Local The Listener Soroptimists Club Board C/0 Community Agency Formation Seniors First Sortex, Inc. Develop. Dept. Commission Sequoia Heights South Tracy Stockton East Water District San Joaquin County Medical Baptist Church Community Church Division 2 Society Service Employees Southwinds Stockton East Water District San Joaquin County International Union, Community Church Division 3 Neighborhood Preservation Local 790 Souza Real Estate Stockton East Water District Office Service First Bank SSB Realtors GMAC Division 5 San Joaquin County Office Seventh-Day Adventist St. Patrick's Catholic Stockton East Water District of Education Center Shaver, Suntag, & Church Division 6 San Joaquin County Office Feuerstein St. Paul Evangelic Stockton East Water District of the Treasurer Shelter for the Lutheran Church Division 7 San Joaquin County Homeless St Paul's United Stockton Filipino Church Registrar of Voters Sherwood Mall Methodist Church Stockton Housing And San Joaquin County Rental Siegfried Engineering, St. Peter's Lutheran Redevelopment Dept. Property Association, Inc. Inc. St. Basil Greek Stockton Library, Troke San Joaquin County Sierra Club Orthodox Church Branch Retirement Administration Sierra Occupational St. Bernadette's Stockton Metro Ministry San Joaquin County Risk Services Medical Clinic Catholic Church Stockton Metropolitan Management Sierra Veterinary Clinic St. Bernard's Catholic Airport San Joaquin County SJ Association of Church Stockton Municipal Utilities Sheriff's Dept. Retarded Citizens St. Dominic's Hospital Dept. San Joaquin County Supt. SJ Co. Community St. George's Catholic Stockton NAACP Youth of Schools Development Church Council San Joaquin County SJ Co. Community St. Gertrude's Catholic Stockton Planning Treasurer‑Tax Collector Development Church Commission San Joaquin County SJ Co. Hispanic St. Joachim's Catholic Stockton Police Department Worknet Chamber Of Church of Lockeford Stockton Public Library San Joaquin County Commerce St. John's Episcopal Stockton School for Adults Worknet SJ Co. Rental Property Church Stockton Shelter for the San Joaquin Delta College Association, Inc St. Joseph's Behavioral Homeless San Joaquin Delta College SJ County Clerk Health Center Stockton Shelter for The Sierra Club SJ Fair Housing Assoc. St. Joseph's Medical Homeless San Joaquin Fair Housing SJ Farm Bureau Center Stockton Symphony Association Federation St. Joseph's Regional Association San Joaquin Farm Bureau SJ Local Agency Health System Stockton Tri Industries Federation Formation Commission St. Luke’s School Stockton Unified School San Joaquin Food Bank SJ Planning Development Office Stockton Women's Network San Joaquin General Commission St. Luke's Catholic Stone Brothers & Hospital SJ Regional Church Associates San Joaquin Housing Occupational Program St. Mary's High School Stribley Community Center Authority SJ Valley Unified Air Development Office Strocal, Inc. Safety & San Joaquin Indo Chinese Pollution Control St. Mary's Interfaith Maintenance Dept. News District Dining Room Su Salud Community San Joaquin Office of SJC Board of STAND Disease Prevention & Education Supervisors Star Building Systems Education Center San Joaquin Partnership SJC Child Abuse State Compensation Summit Logistics San Joaquin Regional Rail Prevention Council Insurance Fund Sunflower Presents, Inc. Commission SJC Community Stockton Airport Super Stores San Joaquin Regional Services Dept. of Business Center Industries Transit District Aging Stockton Arts Super Stores Industries San Joaquin River Parkway SJC Department of Commission Human Resources & Conservation Trust, Inc. Aging Stockton Athletic Hall Department San Joaquin Taxpayers SJC Human Services of Fame Tabernacle of Praise Association Agency Stockton Baptist Teichert Construction San Joaquin Valley Black SJC Neighborhood Church Teletech Chamber of Commerce Preservation Stockton Beautiful Temple Baptist SANTA FE RAILROAD SJC Planning Stockton Bicycle Club Teresi Trucking Sanwa Bank of California Department Stockton Central The Bridge at Stockton SJC Quality of Life Parking District The Brown Group Public Participation Plan Database
The Business Council, Inc. University of the West Coast World The Emergency Food Bank Pacific Eberhardt Outreach The Home Church Bible School Of Business West Hills Bible Baptist University of the Church The James Company Pacific Sport Sciences West Lane Foursquare The Nature Conservancy Department Church The Pacifican - UOP UOP ASUOP West Star Industries The Record (Associated Students) Western United The Rock of Hope Church Urbani Institute of Dairymen District 4 The Tracy Press Language and 5 The Wine Group Franzia Development Westside Assembly Winery USDA Natural White Rose COGIC The Wine Group Franzia Resources Wilson Realty Group Winery Conservation Wine & Roses Thomas Hooper Valenzuela Elementary Women's Center of Accountancy Corp. School San Joaquin County Thornton Branch Library Valley Air Trust Women's Success Thornton Chamber of Valley Community Group Commerce Baptist Church Woodbridge Coffee Thornton Community Valley Community Club Services Center Presbyterian Church Woodbridge Toys R Us Valley Mountain Community Tracy Branch Library Regional Center Woodbridge Municipal Tracy Church of Christ Valley Rehabilitation Advisory Council Tracy Community Hospital Industries Woodbridge Winery Tracy District Chamber of Valley Rehabilitation (Robert Mondavi) Commerce Industries Woodruff Regional Tracy Federal Bank Valley Tomato Occupational Ctr. Tracy Flight Center Products, Inc. WorkNet Tracy Interfaith Ministries Verizon Wireless Yellow Freight Lines Tracy Planning Commission Veterans Service YMCA Of San Joaquin Tracy Public Schools American Legion Hall County Tracy Southern Baptist Viacom Outdoor Younnel Weber Church Victory Christian Advertising, Inc. Tracy Unified School Church Zacky Farms District Victory Outreach Zion Christian Tri-Mark Communities Church Fellowship Trinity Baptist Church Victory Praise Church Zion Reformed Church Tri-Valley Herald Vietnamese Troke Library Community Inc. Truex Insurance Agency Vietnamese Voluntary Twin Oaks Baptist Foundation U.S. Department of Vinewood Community Veterans Affairs Vineyard Christian U.S. Post Office Attn: Middle School Growth Management Vino Farms U.S.A. Fashion Magic Walker Printing UC Davis Cooperative Services Extension San Joaquin Wal‑Mart ‑ Tracy County Wal-Mart Manteca Ulmer Photo Wardell & Rall Unified Western Grocers Accountancy Union Bank of California Corporation Union Pacific Railroad Washington Mutual United Cambodian Families Waterfield Square (UCF) Apartments United Cerebral Palsy of Weberstown Mall San Joaquin County Wells Fargo Bank United Congregational College Square Christian Wells Fargo Bank United Lutheran Church Corporate Properties United States Congress Group United Way of San Joaquin Wells Fargo Bank County Corporate Properties Unity Church of God in Group Christ Wells of Living Water Unity Southern Baptist Wenell, Matheis, & Church Bowe University of the Pacific - Wesleyan Evangelical Public Affairs West Coast Magnetics Appendix F San Joaquin County Blueprint Planning Process
In March and April, 2007, SJCOG sponsored a series of workshops and working groups to allow the public and interested stakeholders the opportunity to develop the Blueprint for San Joaquin County. The interactive public workshops were designed to allow participants to express opinions regarding the future of San Joaquin County.
Ten workshops were held at convenient and accessible locations throughout San Joaquin County, one which was offered in Spanish. Accommodations were offered for individuals with physical, transportation, or language interpretation needs.
Results of each meeting will be posted on the SJCOG website. All interested parties will receive updates via email.
The major San Joaquin County Blueprint outcomes will include: • A Vision Statement for future growth through the year 2050; • A set of Guiding Principles that represent the preferred Transportation/Land Use/Environmental Blueprint Scenario; • Blueprint Implementation Strategies; • Measurable objectives to track progress towards achieving the Blueprint Vision.
Once adopted, community leaders and elected officials in San Joaquin County can use the Blueprint to help guide their decision-making on important regional planning efforts. The San Joaquin Blueprint Planning Process is planned for completion and adoption by the SJCOG Board in June 2008. Appendix G Comments on Draft SJCOG Public Participation Plan Update
This appendix documents comments received on the 2007 SJCOG Public Participation Plan Update (PPP).
Citizen Committee Comment 1 Response to Comment made by Jim Hilson, Citizens Advisory Committee Member, January 17, 2007.
PPP Comment 1: Citizen Advisory Committee description should be updated to reflect expanded composition.
PPP Response 1: The information is updated.
Citizen Committee Comment 2 Response to comment made by Esther Vasquez, Citizens Advisory Committee Member, January 17, 2007.
PPP Comment 1: Include BiLingual Weekly in media outreach.
PPP Response 1: The information has been added.
Letter Comment 3 Response to Steve Luxenberg, FHWA, comments, February 2, 2007.
PPP Comment 1: The comment sites that Plan does not mention its development process, as required by SAFETEA-LU.
PPP Response 1: Appendix F of the PPP has been included that outlines the Public Participation Plan development and expansion in relation to SAFETEA-LU requirements. It also outlines the Gap Analysis developed to address areas that will improve public input efforts so that all interested stakeholders may contribute to the development of the plan and the on-going implementation. Additional outreach for the development of the Public Participation Plan will occur in June 2007 with a public workshop planned for July 2007.
PPP Comment 2: The comment states: “In altering the involvement process for Federally-approved transportation improvement program (TIP) amendments without the input of these groups (page 6), you risk a breakdown of the process later when the groups that were not consulted about not having a ‘formal public participation process’ for certain amendments would like the opportunity to comment but no longer have it available. FHWA supports the idea of requiring different kinds of public involvement for different kinds of work, but the interested parties must be consulted in the determination of what length public involvement period is appropriate for what specific kinds of work.”
PPP Response 2: Appendix F of the PPP outlines the Public Participation Plan development and expansion. These proposed altered processes were in response to local jurisdictions’ requests to expedite the amendment process. Through our Gap Analysis process, SJCOG is committed to include and allow all interested stakeholders in the comment process while trying to achieve the most efficient commenting process for all concerned.
E-mail Comment 4 Response to e-mail from Judith Buethe, Judith Buethe Public Relations, March 14, 2007
PPP Comment 1: To add the Manteca Sun Post, La Vide en Valle, and the Bilingual Weekly to media outreach.
PPP Response 1: Periodicals added to mailing list.
PPP Comment 2: To update the Executive Director of United Cerebral Palsy— Mr. Steve Larson.
PPP Response 2: New contact information included.
PPP Comment 3: To add that staffed Hotlines, both electronic and voice, are used as part of our outreach efforts.
PPP Response 3: Information included in plan.
MPO Review Meeting Comment 5 Response to Lorraine Lerman, FTA, during MPO Review meeting, March 20, 2007.
PPP Comment 1: Include description of San Joaquin County Blueprint Planning effort in plan.
PPP Response 1: Description of Blueprint Planning effort has been included.
Letter Comment 5: Response to Letter from Tom Dumas, Caltrans District 10 Chief of Metropolitan Planning, May 1, 2007
PPP Comment 1: Comment describes San Joaquin County is an ancestral home to California Native American Tribes, communities, organizations, and individuals and that an expanded list of same can be obtained from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento.
PPP Response 1: SJCOG PPP includes contacts for several Native American organizations in SJC. Additional updated contact information has been requested from the NAHC for Native American Tribes, organizations, communities and individuals within the County of San Joaquin boundaries and will be included in the plan.
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
APPENDIX
5-2
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
San Joaquin Council of Governments 2011 Regional Transportation Plan Public Outreach
Questionnaire 1
Goals, Policies, & Performance Measures
NAME:______
Page 1 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
What do you value?
The goals we set become a reflection of the values we hold, so we pose this question, “What do you value when you think about our future transportation system?”
We want your input to ensure that the goals – the purposes towards which our efforts are directed – meet your expectations and reflect your values as you think about the transportation infrastructure and services in San Joaquin County.
We have eight ideas from past outreach efforts. Please consider:
Are they still relevant?
Do they still apply?
Do they reflect your values in a transportation system?
Are there too many? Not enough?
Did we miss something important?
We want your opinion, your thoughts, and your perspectives.
Page 2 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
When I think about the future transportation system, I would like to see…
Please use any space available to prioritize, add, delete, or comment on these goals
Priority GOAL
Enhance the Environment
Enhance Quality of Life
Conserve Energy
Increase Accessibility and Mobility
Increase Safety and Security
Preserve the Existing Transportation System (Maintain the existing system)
Promote Efficient Operation and Management of the Transportation System
Support Economic Vitality
Promote Interagency Coordination and Public Participation for Decision Making :
Cost Effective Transportation Investments
And/Or
And/Or
Page 3 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
How should we get there?
Policies are used to actively guide decisions in order to accomplish a specific Goal. Policies answer the question, “What is the best way to achieve this goal?”
Policies do not identify specific projects; however, they can require that more attention be directed toward a certain type of project (e.g. safety or maintenance).
As you review the Policies, consider these questions:
Is this the best way to achieve the Goal?
Should the policy be more specific? If so, how?
Should it be less specific?
Are there too many? Not enough?
Did we miss something important?
We appreciate your time and comments!
Page 4 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
Here’s how I think we can reach our goals…
Please use any space available to prioritize, add, delete, or comment on these policies
I think Safety and Security can be improved by: Priority Policy Considering safety projects a top priority in the region.
Supporting preventative measures to avoid accidents and injuries.
Encouraging measures to enhance transportation system security.
Or by:
I think System Maintenance and Operations can be improved by: Priority Policy Supporting the continued maintenance and preservation of the existing transportation system.
Supporting transportation demand management strategies.
Encouraging strategies that maximize throughput on the existing system through operational improvements.
Or by:
Page 5 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
I think Interagency Coordination, Public Participation, and Citizen Involvement can be promoted by: Priority Policy Supporting local, state, and federal interagency consultation and coordination efforts in all areas of planning, programming, and project development.
Actively soliciting citizen and business participation in planning transportation facilities and services
Actively soliciting participation from traditionally underserved or disadvantaged communities.
Considering the planning objectives of local and countywide jurisdictions in implementing transportation system decisions.
Establishing cooperative relationships with the goods movement industry to coordinate data and intermodal facility improvements.
Or by:
I think Quality of Life can be improved through: Priority Policy Creating a balanced transportation system that is integrated with and complementary to a variety of transportation modes that meet the travel needs of the citizens and businesses throughout San Joaquin County. Actively seeking to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse impacts on traditionally disadvantaged neighborhoods, and on minority and low-income populations impacted by transportation improvements.
Supporting the development of alternatives to address the needs of non- drivers (e.g. senior citizens, disabled, economically disadvantaged).
Or by:
Page 6 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
I think the Environment can be enhanced/preserved by:
Priority Policy Minimizing the environmental impacts of implementing the transportation system.
Maintaining compliance with state and federal environmental laws.
Encouraging strategies to increase energy efficiency.
Or by:
I think Economic Vitality can be improved by: Priority Policy Promoting safe and efficient strategies to improve the movement of goods and services throughout the San Joaquin region.
Promoting improved intermodal freight transfer facilities and distribution centers.
Promoting improved access to airports, seaports, and rail terminals.
Promoting improved highway/major roadway access to major commercial and job centers including rail intermodal, air and seaports in the region.
Supporting strategies to reduce impacts on residential areas.
Or by:
Page 7 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
I think Mobility and Accessibility can be improved by:
Priority Policy Promoting alternative forms of transportation to maximize personal mobility and access to activity centers.
Supporting strategies to reduce congestion.
Supporting strategies to increase transit efficiency.
Supporting the improvement or expansion of bicycle facilities that can be used as alternatives to the automobile, emphasizing improvements to "primary facilities" before more recreational type facilities.
Or by:
I think we can maximize Cost Effectiveness by: Priority Policy Encouraging transportation system improvements that increase passenger revenue per mile of transit service
Supporting the use of state and federal grants to supplement local funding sources.
Actively pursuing local, state, and federal funding opportunities.
Supporting the use of performance measures to gauge transportation program and project cost effectiveness.
Proactive Project Management to Minimize Cost Overruns During Project Delivery. Or By:
Page 8 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
I also think we should focus on:
New Goal: Priority New Policies:
New Goal: Priority New Policies:
Page 9 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
Are we accomplishing our Goals?
The final section of Questionnaire 1 deals with performance measures which seek to answer the question, “Have we made progress?”
We would like to see (at the very least), one qualitative or quantitative measure that provides an indication of how well we are progressing towards our Goals.
Some Goals do not currently have any measures identified. Can you think of any?
Are they meaningful?
Are they easy to understand?
Do they truly measure progress?
Are there too many? Not enough?
Did we miss something important?
Your comments are important to us!
Page 10 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Please use any space available to prioritize, add, delete, or comment on these performance measures
Improvements in Safety and Security should be measured by:
Priority Performance Measure Fatalities per vehicle mile traveled
Fatal Collisions per vehicle mile traveled
Injury Collisions per vehicle mile traveled
Pedestrian/Bicycle Fatalities at Railroad Crossings
Percentage of Transit Funding Dedicated to Safety and Security Projects
Freeway Service Patrol Response Time
Annual Use of Regional 511 Traveler Information System
Number of Single Occupant Vehicle Projects that Incorporate Intelligent Transportation Systems for Safety and Security
Improvements in System Maintenance and Operations should be measured by:
Priority Performance Measure Total Number of Distressed Lane Miles Number of Park and Ride Lot Spaces % of Roadway meeting standard roadway condition levels Annual maintenance and operations costs (by jurisdiction) Average age of transit fleet (by service) Number of Vanpools Number of Rideshare Participants Number of Businesses Employing Trip Reduction Strategies Number of Trips Mitigated Through the CMP Process
Page 11 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
I think Interagency Coordination, Public Participation, and Citizen Involvement should be promoted through a:
Priority Performance Measure Summary of public outreach efforts and results targeting the traditionally underrepresented.
Summary of SJCOG involvement in Goods Movement efforts
I think Quality of Life can be promoted through:
Priority Policy Creating a balanced transportation system that is integrated with and complementary to a variety of transportation modes that meet the travel needs of the citizens and businesses throughout San Joaquin County.
Actively seeking to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse impacts on traditionally disadvantaged neighborhoods, and on minority and low-income populations impacted by transportation improvements.
Supporting the development of alternatives to address the needs of non- drivers (e.g. senior citizens, disabled, economically disadvantaged).
Miles of bike lanes, sidewalks, streets that meet “Complete Street Design Concepts”
Or by:
I think Environmental enhancements/protection should be measured by: Priority Performance Measure The 2011 RTP Environmental Impact Report
Maintaining "conformity" between federal air quality plans and transportation plans and programs.
Page 12 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
Listing completed CMAQ projects and associated emissions benefits.
I think Cost Effectiveness should be measured by Priority Performance Measure Discretionary Funding Received in the County
Passenger Per Vehicle Revenue Mile (Bus and Rail)
Fare Box Recovery
I think Mobility and Accessibility should be measured by: Priority Performance Measure Hours spent in traffic per day
Peak Period Travel Time
Transportation System Performance Level
Miles traveled during peak hours
Average transit service frequency (by transit provider)
Average number of passengers per vehicle
Average transit frequency (by service) - RTD (GP DAR, Hopper, Intercity, Interregional…)
Page 13 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
Goal: Mobility and Accessibility (continued)
Priority Performance Measure Percentage Population within 1/4 mile of rail station or bus route
Passengers per transit vehicle service mile (by provider)
Passengers per transit vehicle service hour (by provider)
Passengers per train mile (ACE service)
Percentage of vehicles that arrive at scheduled destination no more than 10 minutes late What percent of travel takes place using various modes (e.g. car, bike, transit)
Page 14 of 14 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 2
San Joaquin Council of Governments 2011 Regional Transportation Plan Public Outreach
Questionnaire 2
Investment Scenarios
NAME:______
Page 1 of 6 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 2
What would you fund?
If you had over $8 billion to spend on transportation improvements in our County over the next twenty years, how would you spend it?
We are asking you to give your opinion.
In this questionnaire, we are asking you to indicate where you would spend the revenues for transportation improvements.
We want your opinion, your thoughts, and your perspectives.
Page 2 of 6 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 2
Investment Scenarios Section 1
The table below illustrates the percent of funds that are designated for each category in the current 2007 RTP. If you think these percentage splits should be different in the 2011 RTP Update, please suggest a new percent split.
Currently in Category Suggested for 2011 RTP 2011 RTP 29% State Highway %______13% Interchanges %______23% Regional Roadways %______4% Railroad Crossing Safety %______22% Bus Transit %______7% Rail Corridor % ______0.4% Bike/Ped % ______
Section 2
What are your priorities? What would you invest in first? Please prioritize the importance of the items within each set of categories below. (1 = highest priority)
Roadway Type (prioritize 1 thru 4)
____Freeway (e.g. I-5, SR-99, etc.)
____Major Cross-street (e.g. March Lane, Pine Street, 11th Street)
____Collector (your driveway to a major cross street)
____County Roads
Travel Mode (prioritize 1 thru 6)
____Passenger vehicle (1 person)
____Carpool/Vanpool (2+ people; High Occupant Vehicle (HOV))
____Bus Transit
____Rail Transit
____Bike (commuter/recreational)
____Walk (commuter/recreational)
Page 3 of 6 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 2
Transit Service (prioritize 1 thru 7)
____City Fixed Route
____Bus Rapid Transit
____Dial-a-Ride (specialized service for seniors & persons with disabilities)
____Intercity Bus (within County, city-to-city)
____Interregional Bus (to/from destinations outside of County)
____Commuter Rail Service (Altamont Commuter Express)
____Amtrak
Transportation Project Type (prioritize 1 thru 8)
____Safety
____Roadway Maintenance (potholes, resurfacing)
____Widening (add lanes)
____Signals (signal timing)
____Rail Road Crossing
____Freeway-to-Freeway Interchanges (e.g. Crosstown/SR-99)
____Local Road-to-Freeway Interchanges (e.g. I-5/March Ln.)
____Beautification (landscaping, art, etc.)
____Other ______(please specify)
Page 4 of 6 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 2
Transportation Corridor (prioritize 1 thru 8)
____I-5 north of the Crosstown Freeway
____I-5 south of the Crosstown
____SR-99 north of the Crosstown Freeway
____SR-99 south of the Crosstown
____I-205
____SR-120
____Crosstown Freeway (SR-4)
____SR-12
____Other ______(please specify)
Page 5 of 6 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 2
Section 3
In this section, please indicate how important each individual item is to you by checking a box under the range, Not Important to Very Important.
You may also numerically (1,2,3…) prioritize these items by filling in the blank boxes on the left.
Ranking Priority Issue Not Very Important Important Roadway Safety
Congestion Relief
Maintenance of Existing Roads
Goods Movement (Freight)
Public Transit – Bus
Public Transit – Rail
Bike/Pedestrian
Geographic Equity (fairness across the County)
Protecting the Environment
Air Quality
Land Use - Compact Development
Land Use - Transit Oriented Development
Land Use - Walkable Communities
Land Use - Sprawl
Other:______
Other:______
Page 6 of 6 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 3
San Joaquin Council of Governments 2011 Regional Transportation Plan Public Outreach
Questionnaire 3
Countywide Maps & Project Priorities
NAME:______
Page 1 of 3 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 3
What are your Project Priorities?
If you had $8 billion to spend on transportation improvements in our County over the next twenty years, what projects would you spend it on first?
Where Questionnaire 2 dealt with bigger picture questions about how you would prioritize transportation investments, Questionnaire 3 gives you the opportunity to set project-specific priorities.
Attached is a list of the projects currently under consideration for the 2011 Regional Transportation Plan. It was generated from the 2007 RTP, the voter-approved Measure K Renewal Program, the Measure K Regional Traffic Impact Fee Program, and extensive input from the local jurisdictions.
BUT, Since the cost to build all these projects exceeds the anticipated revenue, we need to prioritize.
Help us set the project priorities for the 2011 RTP!
Page 2 of 3 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 3
Instructions
We have provided several ways you can help us set project priorities.
You may: a) comment directly on the specific projects listed in the attached project list; b) indicate generalized priorities on the 11 x 17 countywide or city maps; c) indicate specific priorities on the 11 x 17 countywide or city maps; d) any or all of the above.
Project List
With $8 billion, there are over 600 projects listed. To make it easier, we’ve separated them into several main categories. Please ask a staff person if you have any questions.
If you would like to prioritize specific projects currently under consideration, you may indicate them directly on the project list, or indicate them on the comment sheet using the MPO ID number to reference the project.
You may indicate your priorities by commenting on those projects you would like to see completed first, OR, you may indicate which projects you feel should be a lower priority.
Maps
You may use the large countywide and City maps to help you identify specific locations. Please indicate specific comments on the 11 x 17 sheets. If needed, please describe your comments in more detail on the comment sheet provided. Please ask a staff person if you would like assistance.
To help facilitate your comments, you may use the colored markers as follows:
Red Highest Priority of Needed Road Improvements Green Other Important Road Improvements
Purple Highest Priority of Needed Transit Improvements Orange Other Important Transit Improvements
Blue Location of Other Comments (Describe on Comment Sheet)
Page 3 of 3 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 4
San Joaquin Council of Governments 2011 Regional Transportation Plan Public Outreach
Questionnaire 4
Congestion Management Project Prioritization Process
NAME:______Page 1 of 3 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 4
What are your Priorities to Relieve Congestion and Manage the Existing and Future Transportation System?
If you had $8 billion to spend on transportation improvements in our County over the next twenty years, what projects would you spend it on first?
Where Questionnaire 2 dealt with bigger picture questions about how you would prioritize transportation investments, Questionnaire 4 gives you the opportunity to identify a project prioritization process. Which projects should receive funding first; which projects relieve congestion “best”; which projects address bottlenecks on the system; which projects should try additional congestion mitigation strategies prior to widening?
Attached is a template of the congestion management process currently under consideration for the 2011 Regional Transportation Plan. It was generated from the 2008 Congestion Management Plan and extensive input from the local jurisdictions.
BUT, Since the cost to build all these projects exceeds the anticipated revenue, we need a process to prioritize.
Help us set the project priorities for the 2011 RTP!
Page 2 of 3 2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 4
Instructions
We have provided several ways you can help us determine the appropriate priority considerations for the Congestion Management Project Review and Formation Process.
You may: a) comment directly on the prioritization measures listed in the attached Congestion Management Process Project Review and Formation Process; you may indicate additional measures not contained in the Congestion Management Process Project Review and Formation Process on the general comment sheet provided. b) indicate generalized priorities (locations of congestion) on the 11 x 17 city maps; c) indicate specific priorities (specific projects) on the 11 x 17 countywide or city maps; d) any or all of the above.
Project List
You may indicate your priorities by commenting on those projects you would like to see completed first, OR, you may indicate which projects you feel should be a lower priority on the project list contained in questionnaire 3.
Maps
You may use the large countywide and City maps to help you identify specific locations. Please indicate specific comments on the 11 x 17 sheets. If needed, please describe your comments in more detail on the comment sheet provided. Please ask a staff person if you would like assistance.
To help facilitate your comments, you may use the colored markers as follows:
Red Highest Priority of Needed Road Improvements Green Other Important Road Improvements
Purple Highest Priority of Needed Transit Improvements Orange Other Important Transit Improvements
Blue Location of Other Comments (Describe on Comment Sheet)
Page 3 of 3
APPENDIX
5-3
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
WHAT DO YOU VALUE?
2011 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Public Survey
GOALS • POLICY • PERFORMANCE
The RTP is the transportation planning document covering the period of 2011-2035, and will provide a comprehensive framework for long range transportation planning and guide public policy decisions regarding transportation expenditures and financing. The goals we set are a reflection of the values that we hold. We would like to ask you what you value when you think about the future of the transportation system. We want your input to ensure that the goals meet your expectations and reflect your values as you think about transportation in San Joaquin County. We want your opinion!
Please complete and return the survey no later than February 26, 2010
1. Please check (√) what you would like to see included in the future Transportation System:
Improved Safety and Security
Improved System Maintenance and Operations
More Interagency Coordination, Public Participation, and Citizen Involvement
Improved Quality of Life
Improved Goods Movement (freight)
Improved Access to Roads, Transit, Bike/Pedestrian facilities
Improved Mobility within and through the County
Environmental Conservation
Transportation Investments
Other: ______
Comments: ______
San Joaquin Council of Governments 2. Please check (√) the issues that are important to you:
Roadway Safety Protecting the Environment
Congestion Relief Air Quality
Maintenance of Existing Roads Goods Movement (freight)
Land Use-Walkable Communities Public Transit-Bus
Land Use-Compact Development Public Transit-Train
Land Use-Transit Oriented Development Land Use-Sprawl
Geographic Equity (fairness across the county) Other: ______
Comments: ______
3. Please indicate how you think the funding should be allocated in percentages:
Currently in Category Your Suggestion No Change 2004 RTP for 2011 RTP Check (√) 29% State Highway % 13% Interchanges % 25% Local Roadways % 4% Railroad Crossing Safety % 22% Bus % 7% Rail % 0.5% Bike/Pedestrian %
4. Please prioritize the importance of each item within each group (1=Most important):
Roadway Type: (1-4)
Freeway (e.g I-5, SR-99, etc) Collector road (a roadway linking to a major street)
Major Cross-street (e.g. March Ln) _ Other: ______
_ County Roads
Travel Mode: (1-6)
Passenger Vehicle (1 person) Rail Transit
Carpool/Vanpool (2+ people) Bike (commuter/recreational)
Bus Transit Other: ______
Walk (commuter/recreational)
San Joaquin Council of Governments
Transit Service: (1-7)
City Fixed Route Interregional Bus (out of county)
Bus Rapid Transit Commuter Rail Service (ACE)
Dial-a-Ride Amtrack
Intercity Bus (within county) ____ Other: ______
Transportation Project Type: (1-7)
Safety Signals
Roadway Maintenance (potholes) Rail Road Crossing
Freeway Interchanges Beautification (landscaping)
Road Widening Other: ______
Transportation Corridor: (1-8)
I-5 north of the Crosstown Freeway SR-120
I-5 south of the Crosstown Freeway Crosstown Freeway (SR-4)
SR-99 north Crosstown Freeway SR-12
SR-99 south of the Crosstown Freeway ____ Other: ______
1-205
Comments: ______
Name of the person completing survey: First: ______Last: ______Address: ______Email: ______Telephone: ______
(Contact information will be held confidential and used for purposes of this survey only.)
THANK YOU ! When completed, please return the survey to: Tanisha Taylor, [email protected], (209) 235-0600 San Joaquin Council of Governments 555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202 Additional information is available on the website at www.sjcog.org
San Joaquin Council of Governments
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
APPENDIX
5-4
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
[Date]
[Name] [Address1] [Address2]
Dear [Name]:
The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for San Joaquin County, and has designated your agency, according to federal statute, as a participating consultation agency in the continuous development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for San Joaquin County. Please complete and return the attached response letter by [Date].
On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law the highway bill, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). In addition to providing federal funding authorization for a wide variety of transportation programs, SAFETEA-LU introduced additional consultation requirements for the development of the Regional Transportation Plan. In particular, SAFETEA-LU specified consultation with resource agencies both on the development of a discussion of potential environmental mitigation activities included in the RTP and on a comparison of plans, maps, or inventories relevant to the development of the RTP.
Following the provisions of SAFETEA-LU, as implemented in the February 14, 2007 Final Rule (§450.322(f)(7) & section I(3) of Appendix A), SJCOG has identified your agency as a participating agency unless you respond in writing by [Date] that: i) Your agency has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the regional transportation plan; ii) Your agency has no expertise or information relevant to the regional transportation plan; or
iii) Your agency does not intend to submit comments on the regional transportation plan.
Thank you in advance for your participation. Due to the enhanced consultation requirements, please note that if we do not receive a response from your agency by [Date], my staff will follow up with a phone call to request your participation.
Sincerely,
ANDREW T. CHESLEY Executive Director enc.
[Agency Letterhead, if applicable]
[Date]
Mrs. Tanisha Taylor Associate Regional Planner San Joaquin Council of Governments 555 East Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202
Dear Mrs. Taylor:
I have received the notice regarding the San Joaquin Council of Governments’ request for consultation on SJCOG’s 2011 Regional Transportation Plan.
____ My agency agrees to be a participating agency and would like to consult with SJCOG on SJCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan.
_____ I would like to request a meeting. Please contact me to schedule.
_____ Please contact me to discuss.
_____ I will submit my comments no later than [Date], 2010 (public comment period April 30, 2010 to June 14, 2010).
____ My agency declines to be a participating agency for the following reason(s):
____ We have no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the regional transportation plan;
____ We have no expertise or information relevant to the regional transportation plan; or
____ We do not intend to submit comments on the regional transportation plan.
____ I would like additional information regarding: ______
Sincerely,
[Name] [Agency] [Contact Information]
Documents can found on-line at www.sjcog.org/ [add specific website link]
You may respond in one of the following ways: By e-mail to [email protected]; By fax to 209-235-0600, attn: Tanisha Taylor By mail to: Tanisha Taylor, SJCOG, 555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
APPENDIX
5-5
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
c/o San Joaquin COG • 555 E. Weber Ave. • Stockton, California 95202 • 209-468-3913 • FAX 209-468-1084
I. Welcome/Introductions/Meeting Overview (5 Minutes)
Kern Council of A. SB-375 Language Which Allows Valley MPOs to Work Together Governments II. MPO Scenario Presentations (30 Minutes) Ronald Brummett III. Working Together (90 Minutes)
Merced County A. Description of Different Options Association of B. Pro/Cons of Different Options Governments Jesse Brown C. Step 1 Baseline Development Chair 1. Valleywide Summary of Baseline Development
a) Summary of Implications in Relationship to Different Kings County “Split” Options. Association of Governments IV. Lunch (30 Minutes) Terri King V. Target Recommendation (45 Minutes) A. Should There Be One Recommended Target for the Valley? Stanislaus Council B. Can We Agree on a Valleywide Number? Of Governments Vince Harris VI. Schedule for Implementation of Recommended Approach (2015
RTP versus 2019 RTP) (45 Minutes) Council of A. Prop 84 Fresno County Governments B. ARB Modeling Effort Tony Boren C. RTP Development Vice Chair VII. Sustainable Community Strategy Development (30 Minutes) Madera County Transportation A. Institutional Structures Commission 1. Based on Different Split Options Patricia Taylor B. Role of MPO Board if Valley Chooses to Develop Joint SCS’s VIII. Next Steps (10 Minutes) San Joaquin Council of Governments Andrew Chesley
Tulare County Association of Governments Ted Smalley
1
c/o San Joaquin COG • 555 E. Weber Ave. • Stockton, California 95202 • 209-468-3913 • FAX 209-468-1084
2011 TIP/RTP WORKSHOP
Kern Council of Tuesday, February 2, 2010 Governments Ronald Brummett Note: it is requested that each MPO be represented, as well as the following interagency consultation partners: Caltrans HQ, D6, D10, FHWA, and EPA
Merced County Association of Time: 10 am – 3 pm Governments Jesse Brown Chair Location: SJCOG Board Conference Room 555 E. Weber Ave., Stockton Kings County Association of Governments Terri King • Introduction / Overview (15 min) Ted Smalley, TCAG o Includes Valley-Wide Chapter update
Stanislaus Council Of Governments • FSTIP Guidance / Expectations (30 min) Abhijit Bagde, Caltrans Vince Harris
• TIP & RTP Project Lists (120 min) All 8 MPOs Council of o Caltrans roundtable: Fresno County Fresno, Kern Governments Tony Boren Kings, Madera Vice Chair Merced, Tulare SJCOG, StanCOG Madera County FHWA roundtable: Transportation o Commission Merced, Tulare Patricia Taylor SJCOG, StanCOG Fresno, Kern
San Joaquin Kings, Madera Council of Governments Lunch Break (30 min) Andrew Chesley
• Conformity Overview (30 min) Cari Anderson, Valley o Latest Planning Assumptions Tulare County o Procedures Association of Governments Includes analysis years Ted Smalley • Public Outreach Efforts (40 min) All 8 MPOs
• Upcoming Tasks (15 min) Tanisha Taylor, SJCOG o Next Workshop
1
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
APPENDIX 6-1 Highway Widening Project Review & Project Urgency Technical Analysis Operational Preservation Environmental Project Readiness Safety & Past Non-SOV FTIP/ LOS Emissions MSFR Project Design Stage Formation Process Security Economic VitalityEfforts Travel Equity CMP
zHP ~MP }LP |NP CIP Areas Travel Operational Operational Communitiess Project's Design Movement Hubs Multimodal Goods Goods Multimodal Project Remediates a ational Preser-vation Improves Mobility & & Mobility Improves All Reasonable Oper- Environmental - Final Final - Environmental Reasonably Exhausted Reasonably Goods Movement for Impact on EJ Sentitive Sentitive EJ on Impact Related Incidents (IRI) Incidents Related Extent Injury of Traffic Project DesignIncludes Addresses Segments on Measures areIncluded in Design - ROW Complete Improvements have been Network D/E/F LOS @ Project in FTIP &/or CMP Project CMP &/or in FTIP Disproportionate Level of of Level Disproportionate &/or Key Support for Ag. for Support Key &/or Provides Greater Access to Bottleneck or ChokePoint 1.0 < of MSFR a Supports Accessibility in EJ Sensitive Sensitive in EJ Accessibility Strategic Economic Centers Centers Economic Strategic Conceptual - Project study - Elements that Reduce SOV SOV Reduce that Elements Project Facility Year Open Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor Name/ Route to Traffic Widen 4 to 6 lanes (inside Caltrans SR-99 SR-120 to Arch Road }z z z zzz z z | z }z 1 median) 2015 SR-4 (Crosstown Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Caltrans SR-99 Freeway) to South of Arch }z z z zzz z z } | }z (inside median) 2 Road 2015 Widen from 6 to 8 lanes Country Club Blvd to Caltrans I-5 (inside median) including }z z | |zz z z } z ~} North of Eight Mile Road auxiliary lanes 3 2013 Caltrans SR-4 Operational Improvements I-5 to Daggett Road z} z z ||z z | } z }z 4 2012 New alignment from Fresno Avenue to Navy Caltrans SR-4 Extension ~| z z zzz z | | | }} Fresno Ave. to Navy Drive Drive 5 2016 Provide safety and Caltrans I-5 to Bouldin Island }z z | ||z z | | z ~} operational improvements 6 SR-12 2012 Near Tracy, Mountain Construct east and Caltrans I-205 House Boulevard to |~ | | ||| z z | z zz westbound auxiliary lanes 7 MacArthur Drive 2013 Near Lockeford - Within Caltrans SR-12 / SR-88 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes the joint SR-88/SR-12 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 corridor 2025 Widen from 6 to 8 lanes French Camp Road to Caltrans I-5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 (inside median) Charter Way 2022 Widen from 6 to 8 lanes SR-120 to French Camp Caltrans I-5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 (inside median) Road 2025 Widen 4 to 6 lanes (inside Caltrans SR-120 I-5 to SR-99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 median) 2027 Widen 2 to 4 lanes with Caltrans SR-132 I-580 to I-5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 auxilliary lanes 2025 Widen from 9 to 12 Mossdale Wye, SR-120 to Caltrans I-5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 13 through lanes I-205 2028 Lower Sacramento Road Caltrans SR-12 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 14 to SR-99 2032
Highway Widening Project Review & Project Urgency Technical Analysis Operational Preservation Environmental Project Readiness Safety & Past Non-SOV FTIP/ LOS Emissions MSFR Project Design EquityStage Formation Process (Continued…….) Security Economic Vitality Efforts Travel CMP
zHP ~MP }LP |NP CIP Areas Travel Design Operational Operational Communitiess Movement Hubs Movement Multimodal Goods Goods Multimodal Project Remediates a Included in Project's Improves Mobility & & Mobility Improves Reasonably Exhausted Goods Movement for Environmental - Final Final - Environmental Related Incidents (IRI) Incidents Related Impact on EJ Sentitive Sentitive EJ on Impact Extent of Traffic Injury Injury Traffic of Extent Project Design Includes Addresses Segments on on Segments Addresses Preservation Measures are Improvements have been been have Improvements Network D/E/F @ LOS Design - ROW Complete Project in FTIP &/or CMP Project CMP &/or in FTIP Disproportionate Level of of Level Disproportionate Bottleneck or Choke Point Choke or Bottleneck 1.0 < of MSFR a Supports &/or Key Support for Ag. for Support Key &/or Provides Greater Access to Accessibility in EJ Sensitive Sensitive EJ in Accessibility All Reasonable Operational Operational Reasonable All Strategic Economic Centers Centers Economic Strategic Elements that Reduce SOV Conceptual - Project study- Project Facility Year Open Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor Name/ Route to Traffic Widen 2 to 4 lanes and add Caltrans SR-12 SR-99 to SR-88 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 15 turn lanes 2025 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Near Lodi, Harney Road Caltrans SR-99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 16 (inside median) to Peltier Road 2035 Greenville Road to Grant Caltrans I-205 / I-580 Truck Climbing Lanes 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 17 Line Road 2030 Lower Sacramento Road Caltrans SR-12 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 18 to I-5 2025 Widen from 6 to 8 lanes Caltrans I-205 (inside median/outside I-580 to I-5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 19 shoulder) 2030 Note: Projects beyond 2020 are not subject to CMP screening.
Environ- Project UrgencyTechnical Operational Preservation Project Readiness Highway Interchange Review & mental Safety & Past Multi- Expressway FTIP/ LOS Economic Vitality MSFR Equity Stage Formation Process Security Efforts Modal Connectivity CMP
zHP ~MP }LP |NP CIP Areas Travel Operational Operational Rate is <1.0 Incident (IRI) Incident Movement Hubs Movement Multimodal Goods Goods Multimodal Improves Mobility & & Mobility Improves Reasonably Exhausted Environmental - Final Final - Environmental Goods Movement for for Movement Goods to the Highway System Extent of Traffic Injury Injury Traffic of Extent Maximum Service Flow Project Design Includes Addresses Segments on on Segments Addresses Improvements havebeen Design - ROW Complete NetworkD/E/F LOS @ &/or Key Support for Ag. for Support Key &/or Provides Greater Access to Project in FTIP &/orCMP Links Regional Expressway Expressway Regional Links Sensitive in EJ Accessibility Strategic Economic Centers Centers Economic Strategic Conceptual - Project study - Elementsthat Reduce SOV Project Year Open Facility Name/ Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic 1 Stockton I-5 at French Camp Rd Reconstruct interchange I-5 at French Camp Rd 2014 ~z z~}z~ ~ } ~z 2 Stockton SR 99 at Mariposa Rd Reconstruct interchange SR 99 at Mariposa Rd 2025 }~ ~~~~z z } ~~ 3 Stockton I-5 at Hammer Ln Reconstruct interchange I-5 at Hammer Lane 2016 ~~ |}~~z | z }~ 4 Stockton I-5 at Eight Mile Road Reconstruct interchange I-5 at Eight Mile Road 2017 }~ |~|~~ z | }~ Modification of existing Tracy I-205 at MacArthur I-205 at MacArthur 2014 |z |~|z} z | ~} 5 interchange 6 Manteca SR-120 at Union Road Reconstruct interchange SR-120 at Union Road 2015 }z |}|zz | | ~z Reconstruct interchange to provide 6 through lanes on Lodi SR-99 at Harney Lane SR-99, 6 lanes on Harney SR-99 at Harney Lane 2016 |z |||zz z } }| and modify on-ramps and 7 off-ramps 8 Lathrop I-5 at Louise Avenue Reconstruct interchange I-5 at Louise Avenue 2020 |~ ~}|~~ z | ~| 9 Stockton I-5 at Otto Drive Reconstruct interchange I-5 at Otto Drive 2015 ~} ||~~~ | } ~} SR-99 at Jacktone SR-99 at Jacktone/UPRR Ripon On-ramp improvements Overcrossing/UPRR 2020 z~ |~|}} z | || Interchange 10 Interchange Upgrade interchange, San lengthen ramps, widen Joaquin SR-132 at Bird Road SR-132 at Bird Road 2011 |z }||z| | | }z approaches, install signal County 11 controls 12 Stockton SR 99 at Eight Mile Rd Reconstruct interchange SR 99 at Eight Mile Rd 2017 |~ |}|}~ z | |~
Tracy I-205 at Lammers Rd Construct new interchange I-205 at Lammers Rd 2015 |z |||z} z | |~ 13
Project Readiness
Economic Vitality
Environ- Project UrgencyTechnical Operational Preservation Highway Interchange Review & Formation mental Safety & Past Multi- Expressway FTIP/ LOS MSFR Equity Stage Process (Continued…….) Security Efforts Modal Connectivity CMP
zHP ~MP }LP |NP CIP Areas Travel Operational Operational Rate is < 1.0 Incident (IRI) Incident Movement Hubs Multimodal Goods Goods Multimodal Improves Mobility & & Mobility Improves Goods Movement for Reasonably Exhausted Reasonably Environmental - Final Final - Environmental to the Highway System Highway to the Extent of Traffic Injury Injury Traffic of Extent Maximum Service Flow Project Design Includes Addresses Segments on on Segments Addresses Network D/E/F LOS @ Improvements have been been have Improvements Design - ROW Complete &/or Key Support for Ag. ProvidesGreater Access to Project inFTIP &/or CMP Strategic Economic Centers Centers Economic Strategic Links Regional Expressway Expressway Regional Links Sensitive EJ in Accessibility Elements that Reduce SOV SOV Reduce that Elements - study - Project Conceptual Project Year Open Facility Name/ Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic 14 Lathrop I-5 at Lathrop Road Reconstruct interchange I-5 at Lathrop Road 2018 }~~}|}}z||| 15 Stockton SR 99 at Morada Ln Reconstruct interchange SR 99 at Morada Ln 2017 |~|}|~~|}}| Modification of existing Tracy I-205 at Grant Line Road I-205 at Grant Line Road 2017 |~|z|z}|||| 16 interchange Construct new interchange SR-120 at McKinley SR-120 at McKinley Manteca with necessary auxillary 2020 }~||||zz||| Avenue Avenue 17 lanes Phase 1: Construct new Tracy & I-205 at Paradise I-205 at Paradise interchange east-west 2015 ~}||||}z|}} Lathrop Road/Chrisman Road/Chrisman 18 ramps SR 99 at March SR 99 at March Stockton Construct new interchange 2019 |~|||~~|}|| 19 Lane/Wilson Way Ln/Wilson Way Reconstruct interchange of SR-99 and Main Street SR-99 at Main SR-99 at Main including reconstruction of Ripon Street/UPRR Street/UPRR Interchange 2018 z~|}||}|||| Main Street overcrossing of Interchange (Ripon) (Ripon) UPRR and intersection improvements 20 Stockton I-5 at Gateway Blvd Construct new interchange I-5 at Gateway Blvd 2018 ||||||z||}} 21 Reconstruct interchange SR-99 at Wilma Avenue SR-99 at Wilma Avenue including reconstruction of Ripon Overcrossing/UPRR Overcrossing/UPRR 2022 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 existing overcrossing Interchange Interchange 22 structure SR-99 at SR-12 West SR-99 at SR-12 West Lodi Reconstruct interchange 2025 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 23 (Kettleman Lane) (Kettleman Lane) Stockton SR 99 at Gateway Blvd Construct new interchange SR 99 at Gateway Blvd 2025 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 24 Modify on-ramps and off- Lodi SR-99 at Turner Road SR-99 at Turner Road 2030 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 25 ramps Note: Projects beyond 2020 are not subject to CMP screening process
Regional CMP Regional Roadway Project Review Project Urgency Technical Analysis Operational Preservation Environmental Project Readiness Safety & Past Project Regional Grade Multi- FTIP/ LOS Emissions MSFR Stage Security Economic Vitality Efforts Design Expressway Separation Modal Equity CMP
& Formation Process -
zHP ~MP }LP |NP CIP Areas Design Network Crossings Operational MSFR isMSFR <1.0 Communitiess Communitiess Incidents (IRI) Incidents Improves and or or and Improves Movement Hubs Movement Control Measures Roadway/Railraod Multimodal Travel Multimodal Goods Included in Project's Project Supports AQ AQ Supports Project & Mobility Improves Environmental - Final Final - Environmental Goods Movement for for Movement Goods Reasonably Exhausted Elements that Support Support that Elements Impact on EJ Sentitive Sentitive on EJ Impact Project Design Includes Extent of Traffic Injury Injury Traffic of Extent Elliminates Conflicts @ @ Conflicts Elliminates Addresses Segments on Emission Reductions in in Reductions Emission On Regional Expressway Expressway Regional On Design- ROW Complete Preservation Measuresare Network LOS @ D/E/F Improvements have been been have Improvements Approved Transportation Transportation Approved Disproportionate of Level &/or KeySupport forAg. Provides Greater Access to Conceptual - Project study study Project - Conceptual Project in FTIP &/or CMP CMP &/or in FTIP Project Accessibility in EJ Sensitive Sensitive EJ in Accessibility Strategic Economic Centers Economic Strategic All Reasonable Operational Project Year Open Facility Name/Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic Construction of Interim 4 French Camp to |}zz z|zz ~ ~ z~z~~ Stockton Sperry Rd 2013 1 Lanes Performance Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes; San installing concrete median Pixley Slough Bridge to Joaquin Lower Sacramento Road barrier, and installing 2014 }|~~ z|zz z ~ z|zz} Harney Curve County shoulder wide to 2 accom m od ate bicyclists Widen from 2/3 lane SR-99 to Lower Lodi Harney Lane collector to 4 lane divided Sacramento Road (2.6 2011 |}z| z|zz z z z~z}| 3 arterial Miles) Tenth Street to Duck Stockton Airport Way Streetscape Beautification 2010 ||~~ }|zz ~ | z~zz~ 4 Creek Widen from 2 to 4 lanes with a middle turn lane. UPRR (SPRR) to Wilson Stockton Alpine Avenue 2019 }|z~ z}zz | z z~z|| Construct curb, gutter, Way 5 sidewalks and drivewa ys 6 Stockton Arch Road Widen from 3 to 6 lanes Frontier Way to SR-99 2015 ||zz z|zz ~ | z~z}| 7 Stockton Arch-Airport Rd Widen from 4 to 8 lanes SR-99 to Pock Lane 2019 |}zz z|zz ~ | z~z}| 8 Stockton Arch-Airport Rd Widen from 6 to 8 lanes Pock Lane to B Street 2019 ||zz z|zz ~ | z~z}| 9 Stockton Arch-Airport Rd Widen from 6 to 8 lanes B Street to Alitalia Ave 2019 ||zz z|zz ~ | z~z}| Alitalia Ave to Airport Stockton Arch-Airport Rd Widen from 3 to 8 lanes 2019 ||zz z|zz ~ | z~z}| 10 Way Hammer Lane (Phase Alexander Rd to Stockton Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2013 }z|~ z}zz | | ~|zzz 11 III) Thornton Rd including Widening McHenry San McHenry Avenue Avenue to install a two-way Stanislaus River Bridge to Joaquin Improvements & Bridge 2013 ~}}| z|zz z | ~|zz~ left turn lane and replacing Jones Avenue County Replacement 12 two bridge structures Newcastle Rd to Fite Stockton Arch Road Widen from 2 to 6 lanes 2017 ||zz z|zz ~ | z~z}| 13 Court Fite Court to Frontier Stockton Arch Road Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 2015 ||zz z|zz ~ | z~z}| 14 Way SR-120/Brennan Ave SR-120 at Brennan Escalon Intersection improvements 2012 }z~} |}|~ z z ~}z}| 15 Intersection Avenue 16 Stockton Mariposa Road Widen from 2 to 6 lanes SR 99 to Stagecoach Rd 2015 }}~~ z}zz | | z~z}| Widen from 6 to 8 lanes including reconstruction of Hammer Lane to March intersections, addition of Lane-Between the Sto ckt o n Pacific Aven u e turn and acceleration lanes 2020 Calaveras River and }z}} z}~z | | z~z~| and construction/ Hammer Lane extension of a raised 17 landscaped median
Regional CMP Regional Roadway Project Review Project Urgency Technical Analysis Operational Preservation Environmental Project Readiness Safety & Past Project Regional Grade Multi- FTIP/ LOS Emissions MSFR Stage (Continued……. ) Security Economic Vitality Efforts Design Expressway Separation Modal Equity CMP & Formation Process -
zHP ~MP }LP |NP CIP Areas Design Network Crossings Operational MSFR isMSFR < 1.0 Communitiess Incidents (IRI) Incidents Improves and or and or Improves Movement Hubs Control Measures Roadway/Railraod Travel Multimodal Multimodal Goods Goods Multimodal Included in Project's Improves Mobility & & Mobility Improves Project Supports AQ AQ Supports Project Environmental - Final Final - Environmental Goods Movement for Reasonably Exhausted Reasonably Elements that Support Support that Elements Impact on EJ Sentitive Sentitive on EJ Impact Project Design Includes Extent of Injury Traffic Elliminates Conflicts @ @ Conflicts Elliminates Addresses Segments on on Segments Addresses Emission Reductions in Reductions Emission On Regional Expressway Expressway Regional On Design - ROW Complete Preservation Measuresare NetworkD/E/FLOS @ Improvements havebeen Approved Transportation Transportation Approved of Level Disproportionate &/or Key Support for Ag. for Support Key &/or Provides Greater Access to Conceptual- Project study Project in FTIP &/or CMP Accessibility in EJ Sensitive Sensitive in EJ Accessibility Strategic Economic Centers Economic Strategic All Reasonable Operational Operational Reasonable All Project Year Open Facility Name/Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic Performance Ave to Stockton Sperry Rd Widen from 4 to 8 lanes 2015 ||zz z|zz ~ | z~z|| 18 Air port Wa y San W id en to in clu d e cen ter left The City of Lodi Limits Joaquin Lower Sacramento Road turn lane, installing curb, Completed }}|| ~|zz z | z~zz| to WID Canal 19 County gutter and sidewalk Improvements of the intersection including San Howard Road and Tracy installation of a traffic Howard Road and Tracy Joaquin Boulevard Intersection Operational signal, construction of left Boulevard intersection |}~| ~|zz z | z|z~~ County Improvements and right hand turn lanes, 20 construction of shoulders 21 Stockton Eight Mile Rd Widen from 5 to 8 lanes I-5 to Thornton Rd 2015 |}~} z|zz ~ | z~z}| Eight Mile Rd to Armor Stockton Lower Sacramento Rd Widen from 2 to 6 lanes 2012 |}|} z|zz ~ | z~zz| 22 Dr Widen 1.5 mile section of roadway from 2 lanes both Pershing Avenue to Bear Stockton Thornton Road 2010 ~~|} z}zz | | ~~zz| directions to 6 lanes with a Creek Bridge 23 center dual turn lan e 24 Stockton Weber Avenue Roadway Reconstruction Stanislaus St. to UPRR 2011 }}|} z}zz | | z~zz| Reconstruct intersection, including addition of turn Intersection of Ullrey pockets, improvement of Ullrey Avenue/McHenry Avenue and McHenry Escalon traffic signal and 2015 Avenue Intersection Avenue including UPRR |}~} ~|}z z z ~}z|} installation of train pre- railroad crossing. emption system for UPRR 25 railroad crossing Construct new 6 lane River Island Pkwy to Lathrop Golden Valley Parkway 2009 ||z} |||z z | z|zz~ 26 roadway parallel to I-5 Lathrop Road Thornton Rd to Lower Stockton Eigth Mile Rd Widen from 2 to 8 lanes 2019 |~~} z|zz ~ | z~z|| 27 Sacramento Rd Morada Ln to Hammer Stockton Lower Sacramento Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 2015 |}|} z|~z ~ | z~zz| 28 Ln W iden 2 to 4 lanes (Valpico MacArthur Drive from Road to Schulte Road) and Valpico Road to Schulte Tracy MacArthur Drive extend 4 lane roadway (Mt. Road; MacArthur Drive 2020 |}z~ z|zz | z z|z|| Diablo Road to Eleventh from Mt. Diablo Road to 29 Street) Eleventh Street 30 Manteca Airport Way Widen from 2 to 4 lanes SR-120 to Lathrop Road 2012 ||~} ~|~z z | z|zz| Installation of traffic signal San Byron Road and Grant with a preempt device to Byron Road and Grant Joaquin Line Road Intersection Operational |}~| ~|z} z ~ }|z~~ coordinate traffic flow with Line Road (east) County Signalization Project 31 the railroad crossing
Regional CMP Regional Roadway Project Review Project Urgency Technical Analysis Operational Preservation Environmental Project Readiness Safety & Past Project Regional Grade Multi- FTIP/ LOS Emissions MSFR Stage (Continued……. ) Security Economic Vitality Efforts Design Expressway Separation Modal Equity CMP & Formation Process -
zHP ~MP }LP |NP CIP Areas Design Network Crossings Operational Operational MSFR is < 1.0 MSFR Communitiess Incidents (IRI) Incidents Improves and or or and Improves Movement Hubs Control Measures Multimodal Travel Multimodal Roadway/Railraod Multimodal Goods Goods Multimodal Included in Project's Improves Mobility & & Mobility Improves Project Supports AQ AQ Supports Project Environmental - Final - Final Environmental Goods Movement for Reasonably Exhausted Reasonably Impact on EJ Sentitive Sentitive EJ on Impact Elements that Support Support that Elements Extent Injury of Traffic Project Design Includes Addresses Segments on on Segments Addresses Elliminates Conflicts @ @ Conflicts Elliminates Emission Reductions in in Reductions Emission On Regional Expressway Expressway Regional On Design - ROW Complete Network D/E/F LOS @ Preservation Measures are Improvements have been Disproportionate Level of of Level Disproportionate &/or Key Support for Ag. for Support Key &/or Provides GreaterAccess to Transportation Approved Conceptual - Project study Project in FTIP&/or CMP Accessibility in EJ Sensitive Sensitive EJ in Accessibility Strategic Economic Centers Economic Strategic All Reasonable Operational Operational Reasonable All Project Year Open Facility Name/Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic Installation of a traffic San Linne Road Shoulders signal at Linne Road and MacArthur Road to ||~} ~|zz z | z|z~~ Joaquin Operational and Traffic Signal Chrisman Road, and paved Chrisman Road County shoulders on Linne Road 32 San Improve roadway and Joaquin Eleventh Street Tracy City Limits to I-5 2015 |z~| ~|zz z | }|z~| intersections 33 County Eighth Street to Dr Stockton Airport Way Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Martin Luther King Jr. 2019 |}~} z|~z ~ | z~z|| 34 Blvd Wa y Lower Sacramento Rd to Stockton Eight Mile Rd Widen from 2 to 8 lanes 2020 |~~} z|~z ~ | z~z|| 35 West Ln Marlette Rd to Pixley Stockton Lower Sacramento Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 2013 }|}~ z}~z ~ | z||~~ 36 Slough 37 Stockton Lower Sacramento Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Armor Dr to Morada Ln 2015 |||} z|~z ~ | z~zz| Parker Avenue to Tracy Grant Line Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2010 |}z| z|zz | | z|zz| 38 MacArthur Drive Costs associated with Grant Line Road Traffic connecting thirteen traffic West City Limits to Tracy 2010 ||z| ||zz | | z|zz~ Signals signals along Grant Line MacArthur Drive 39 Road Santos Road to South Ripon Jack Tone Road, Phase 1 Widen from 2 to 6 lanes 2015 ||~} z|zz ~ | z|z~| 40 Clinton Avenu e Industrial Drive to Stockton Airport Way Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 2019 |~~} z||z ~ | z~z|| 41 Eighth Street Tenth Street to Carpenter Stockton Airport Way Streetscape Beautification 2015 |}|| z|z~ ~ | z|z}z 42 Rd New Road D to New Stockton Eight Mile Rd Widen from 2 to 6 lanes 2015 ||~} z|zz | | z~z}| 43 Road F New Road F to New Stockton Eight Mile Rd Widen from 3 to 6 lanes 2015 ||~} z|zz | | z~z}| 44 Road E New Road E to Trinity Stockton Eight Mile Rd Widen from 4 to 8 lanes 2015 ||~} z|zz | | z~z}| 45 Parkway Roth Road to French Stockton Airport Way Widen from 2 to 4 lanes |}~} z|zz | | z~z|| 46 Camp Road 47 Stockton Eight Mile Rd Widen from 2 to 8 lanes West Ln to Holman Rd 2020 |z|} z|}z ~ | z~z|| First Street to Catherine E s calo n McHen ry Aven u e W id en fro m 2 to 4 lan es |}|} z~}z z | z}z~| 48 W ay 2010 Lathrop SPRR to east Lathrop Louise Avenue Widen from 2 to 4 lanes ||~~ }|~z | ~ |}zz| 49 side UPRR 2010
Regional CMP Regional Roadway Project Review Project Urgency Technical Analysis Operational Preservation Environmental Project Readiness Safety & Past Project Regional Grade Multi- FTIP/ LOS Emissions MSFR Stage (Continued……. ) Security Economic Vitality Efforts Design Expressway Separation Modal Equity CMP & Formation Process -
zHP ~MP }LP |NP CIP Areas Design Network Crossings Operational MSFR is < 1.0 MSFR Incidents (IRI) Incidents Communitiess Improves and or or and Improves Movement Hubs Control Measures Roadway/Railraod Multimodal Travel Multimodal Goods Included in Project's Improves Mobility & Mobility Improves Project Supports AQ AQ Supports Project Environmental - Final Final - Environmental Goods Movementfor Reasonably Exhausted Elements that Support Support that Elements Impact on EJ Sentitive Sentitive on EJ Impact Extent Injury of Traffic Project Design Includes Addresses Segments on on Segments Addresses Elliminates Conflicts @ @ Conflicts Elliminates Emission Reductions in in Reductions Emission On Regional Expressway Design - ROW Complete Network @ LOS D/E/F Preservation Measures are Improvements have been &/or Key Support for Ag. for Support Key &/or Provides Greater Access to Transportation Approved Disproportionate Level of of Level Disproportionate Conceptual - Project study study Project - Conceptual Project in FTIP &/or CMP CMP &/or FTIP in Project Strategic Economic Centers Economic Strategic Accessibility in EJ Sensitive Sensitive EJ in Accessibility All Reasonable Operational Operational Reasonable All Project Year Open Facility Name/Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic Stockton Street to Lodi Lockeford Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2020 ||z| z|}z | | zzz|| 50 Cherokee Lan e Lathrop Road to Roth Manteca Airport Way Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2014 ||}} ~|~z z | z|z~| 51 Road Harding Way to Stockton Airport Way Intersection Modifications 2017 |z|} z|z} ~ | z|z}| 52 Industrial Rd Parkside Drive to Linne Tracy Corral Hollow Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2016 |}z} z|zz | | z|z|| 53 Road Phase 1: I-205 to Old Tracy Lammers Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2017 |||} ~|~z z | z|z|| 54 Schulte Road 55 Manteca Lathrop Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes East of UPRR to SR-99 2018 |}~~ ~|~z | | z|z}| San Meadow Avenue to Joaquin Pershing Avenue Operational Improvements Operational }||| z|zz | | z|zz| Thorton Road 56 County San W id en to in clu d e cen ter left Gettysburg Lane to Joaquin Benjamin Holt Drive turn lane, add access 2012 z~~| }||z | | z|z~| Pacific Avenue 57 County contro ls Arch Ro ad t o Fren ch Stockton Airport Way Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 2019 ||~} z||z ~ | z~z|| 58 Camp Road Bear Creek to Thornton Stockton Davis Rd Widen from 3 to 4 lanes 2013 |}|} z|zz | | }~z|~ 59 Road 60 Stockton Eight Mile Rd Widen from 2 to 8 lanes Holman Rd to SR 99 2015 |||} z|}z ~ | z~z}| Construction of new 6 lane Gary Galli Dr to Eight Stockton Holman Rd 2011 |}|| z|~z | | z~z~| 61 road Mile Road El Dorado St to Holiday Stockton March Ln Widen from 6 to 8 lanes 2020 |~|} z|}z | | z~z}| 62 Drive 63 Stockton Morada Lane Widen from 3 to 6 lanes West Ln to Holman Rd 2015 |}|} z|~z | | z~z}| Trinity Parkway Otto Drive to Hammer Stockton Construct 4 lane extension |}|} z||z | | z~z~| 64 2016 Extension Installation of traffic signal Lan e and/or roundabout Eleventh Street improvements at Improvements and 11th Street at MacArthur Tracy intersections, center 2015 MacArthur Dr. Drive |}z} }|zz | | z|z}| median, and an eastbound Intersection auxiliary lane at selected 65 areas of Eleventh Street 66 Lathrop Lathrop Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes I-5 to east of UPRR 2013 ||~~ }|~z | | ~|z~| Davis Road Bridge over Pixley Slough between Davis Rd over Pixley Replace 2 lane bridge with 4 Eight Mile Road and Stockton Creek Bridge lane bridge Waterburry Drive. 0.1 |||} ~|zz | | }~zz| miles South of Eight 67 Mile Road 2011 Construction of new 8 lane Stockton March Ln Extension Holman Rd to SR 99 |||} z|~z | | z~z}| 68 road 2019
Regional CMP Regional Roadway Project Review Project Urgency Technical Analysis Operational Preservation Environmental Project Readiness Safety & Past Project Regional Grade Multi- FTIP/ LOS Emissions MSFR Stage (Continued……. ) Security Economic Vitality Efforts Design Expressway Separation Modal Equity CMP & Formation Process -
zHP ~MP }LP |NP CIP Areas Design Network Crossings Operational MSFR isMSFR < 1.0 Incidents (IRI) Incidents Communitiess Improves and or or and Improves Movement Hubs Control Measures Roadway/Railraod Multimodal Travel Multimodal Goods Included in Project's Project Supports AQ AQ Supports Project Improves Mobility & Mobility Improves Environmental - Final Final - Environmental Goods Movement for Reasonably Exhausted Elements that Support Support that Elements Impact on EJ Sentitive Sentitive on EJ Impact Extent of Traffic Injury Injury Traffic of Extent Project Design Includes Elliminates Conflicts @ @ Conflicts Elliminates Addresses Segments on on Segments Addresses Emission Reductions in in Reductions Emission On Regional Expressway Expressway Regional On Design - ROW Complete Preservation Measures are Network @ LOS D/E/F Improvements have been Approved Transportation Transportation Approved &/or Key Support for Ag. for Support Key &/or Provides Greater Access to of Level Disproportionate Conceptual - Project study study Project - Conceptual Project in FTIP &/or CMP CMP &/or FTIP in Project Strategic Economic Centers Economic Strategic Sensitive EJ in Accessibility All Reasonable Operational Operational Reasonable All Project Year Open Facility Name/Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic Manteca SPRR to East of Manteca Louise Avenue Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2011 |}|} }|~z | } z|z|| 87 SR-99 Construct new 2 lane SR-120 to Woodward Manteca McKinley Avenue 2019 ||~} |||z z | z|z}| 88 ex presswa y Ave Construct 2 lane bridge to Feather River Dr. cross Calaveras River Feather River Drive to Stockton 2015 |}|| ~||z | | z~z}| Extension linking Ryde Avenue with Ryde Avenue 89 Feather River Drive Construction of new 4 lane Stockton Maranatha Dr Wilson Way to March Ln 2019 |||} z||z | | z~z|| 90 road Faith Lane (San Marco Tracy Schulte Road Extend 4 lane roadway Subdivision limits) to 2016 ||z} }||z | | z|z|| 91 Lammers Road Construct new 4 lane East of Airport Way to Manteca Atherton Drive 2012 ||}| }||z | | z|z~| 92 roadway (gap closure) Union Road Construct new 4 lane McKinley Ave to West of Manteca Atherton Drive 2014 ||}| }||z | | z|z~| 93 roadway Airport Way Garrison Road Gap Construct 2-lane extension Maple Avenue to 500 ft Ripon 2016 |||| }|zz | | ~|z}| 94 Closure of Garrison Road. east of Acacia Avenue San Widen from 2 to 3 lanes, Joaquin Cherokee Road SR-99 to Suburban Road 2018 |}~| }|}z | | }|z|| add paved shoulders 95 County San Operational Bethany Road to Tracy Joaquin Lammers Road Improvements, curve Operational |}|| ~|}z | | ~|z|| Boulevard 96 County co rrectio n s Stockton California St Streetscape Beautification Alpine Ave to Miner Ave 2015 |||| ||zz | | }}z}| 97 San Byron Road to Lammers Joaquin Bethany Road Operational Improvements Operational |||| ~|}z | | ~|z|| Road 98 County Calaveras River to Stockton El Dorado St Complete Streets 2013 }||| ||z| | | }}z~| 99 Mariposa Ave Construct new 4 lane Woodward Ave to Manteca Atherton Drive 2021 100 roadway McKinley Ave 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Construct new 2 lane Woodward Ave to Main Manteca McKinley Avenue 2021 101 expressway Street 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 San Passing lanes and Joaquin Howard Road Howard Road 2023 channelization 105 Count y 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 San Austin Road to Jack Joaquin Mariposa Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2025 Tone Road 106 County 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 San Passing lanes and Joaquin Tracy Boulevard I-205 to Howard Road 2025 channelization 107 County 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Note: Projects beyond 2020 are not subject to CMP screening. Environ- Project UrgencyTech n ical Operational Preservation Project Readiness Railroad Grade Separation Project Review & mental Safety & Multi- Regional FTIP/ LOS Economic Vitality MSFR Past Efforts Equity Stage Formation Process Security Modal Expressway CMP
zHP ~MP }LP |NP CIP Areas Network Operational Operational Rate is < 1.0 Incidents (IRI) Incidents Movement Hubs Multimodal Travel Multimodal Goods Goods Multimodal Improves Mobility & & Mobility Improves On Regional Expressway RegionalOn Expressway Environmental - Final - Final Environmental Goods Movementfor Reasonably Exhausted Reasonably Extent of Traffic Injury Injury Traffic of Extent Elements that Support Support that Elements Maximum ServiceFlow Project Design Includes Addresses Segments on Design - ROW Complete Network @ LOSD/E/F Improvements have been been have Improvements Project in FTIP &/or CMP CMP &/or Project inFTIP &/or Key Support for Ag. for Support Key &/or Provides Greater Access to Accessibility in EJ Sensitive Sensitive inEJ Accessibility Strategic Economic Centers Centers Economic Strategic Conceptual - Project study - Project Year Open Facility Name/ Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic Lower Sacramento Road, at Construct a 6 lane divided Lower Sacramento Road, at UPRR between }} ~ | | z z z ~ ~z Stockton UPRR (Bear Creek in underpass includes the LSR 2013 Bear Creek and Marlette Road 1 Stockton)(West) bridge over Bear Creek Eight Mile/UPRR (Easterly) Construct grade separation Eight Mile Road between Leach Road and Stockton 2012 |z ~ | | z z z | ~z 2 Former SPRR of roadway and railway Golf View Road SJC / Sperry Rd/UPRR (Middle of Construct grade separation Sperry Rd/UPRR (Middle of fork) 2012 |z ~ } | | z z } ~z 3 Stockton fork) of roadway and railway SJC / Construct grade separation Sperry Rd/UPRR (East) Sperry Rd/UPRR (East) 2012 |z ~ } | | z z } ~z 4 Stockton of roadway and railway SJC / Construct grade separation Sperry Rd/UPRR (west) Sperry/UPRR (west) 2012 |z ~ } | | z z } ~z 5 Stockton of roadway and railway Lodi Harney Lane at UPRR Construct grade separation Harney Lane at UPRR 2016 |z ~ | | z z z | }| 6 Port of Daggett Road at BNSF Construct grade separation Daggett Road at BNSF 2010 |z z | | z } | | zz 7 Stockton Eight Mile/UPRR Construct grade separation Eight Mile/UPRR (Westerly) between Davis Stockton 2012 |z ~ } | z } z | ~z 8 (Westerly) of roadway and railway Road and Lower Sacramento Road San Lower Sacramento Replace grade separation of Lower Sacramento Road/UPRR (near 2020 |z ~ z | z ~ z | }| 9 Joaquin Road/UPRR (near roadway and railway Woodson Road) C Alpine Road/UPRRdd) Construct grade separation Stockton West Lane to Motego Avenue 2018 |~ ~ } } ~ z | z || 10 (Easterly) of roadway and railway Construct at-grade quiet Stockton Alpine Road/UPRR (west) Alpine Ave/UPRR (west) 2013 |} ~ | } z z | z |z 11 zone improvements at il Construct at-grade quiet Airport Way between Pilgrim Street and Sierra Stockton Airport Way/BNSF 2015 |z ~ | } z z | z || 12 zone improvements at Nevada Street Lathrop Road at UPRR Construct 4 laneil grade Lathrop Lathrop Road at UPRR 2015 |z ~ | | | z | } }z 13 (Westerly) separation Reconstruct Main Street Ripon Main Street at UPRR Main Street at UPRR 2018 z} ~ ~ | | ~ } | || 14 Over Crossing structure Construct grade separation Stockton Morada Ln/UPRR (West) Morada Ln/UPRR (west) 2019 |} ~ | | | z | | }| 15 of roadway and railway Reconstruct existing Ripon Wilma Avenue at UPRR Wilma Avenue at UPRR 2022 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 16 overcrossing structure Construct grade separation Airport Way between Pilgrim Street and Sierra Stockton Airport Way/BNSF 2025 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 17 of roadway and railway Nevada Street Construct 5 lane grade Airport Way/UPRR between Louise Avenue Manteca Airport Way/UPRR 2026 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 18 separation over the UPRR and Lathrop Road Note: Projects beyand 2020 are not subject to CMP screening.
Collabora- Environ- Project Urgency Operations Project Readiness tion mental Public Transit Project Review & Formation Process Product- Operating LOS Access Interagency Scope Multimodal Intermodal Equity M & O ivity Costs
zHP ~MP }LP |NP Time Services LOS D/E/F Operation (M & O) significant roadways significant Areas &Use ofTransit on Use of Private Vehicles Private of on Use Multiple Transit Transit Providers Multiple the Reduction of SOV Travel Provides for and/or Promotes Promotes and/or for Provides and/or are Expected to Increase Priority ofProject Maintenance& OperatingCosts are Funded Over Project address multiple regionally regionally address multiple Project Project Involves Collaboration with with Collaboration Involves Project Addresses Segments on Network @ @ on Network Segments Addresses Intermodal Connectivity Resulting in Resulting Intermodal Connectivity Provides I roved Access to Essential I roved Access Provides Productivity Standards are Maintained Maintained are Standards Productivity Project is Expected to Reduce Reliance Mobility & Accessibility in EJ Sensitive inMobility EJ Sensitive & Accessibility Project Year Open Facility Name/ Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic Deviated Fixed Route Service: Replacement 2011, 2013, Cost associated with the purchase of SJRTD and Expansion (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel) n/a 2020, 2022, zz z z z z z z z z replacement and expansion buses 1 Buses 2028 Dial-A-Ride Fixed Route Bus Replacement Cost associated with the purchase of seven Lodi n/a 2011 ~z z z z z z z z z 2 Project fixed route bus replacement projects Construction, continuing development and SJRTD Downtown Transit Center improvements to the Downtown Transit SJRTD Capital 2030 zz z z z z z z } z 3 Center 4 SJRTD Intercity/Interregional Expansion and replacement buses San Joaquin County-Capital 2015, 2027 zz z z z z z z } z 5 SJRTD Countywide DAR Countywide GPDAR San Joaquin County-Operations 2035 ~z z z ~ z z z z z Altamont Corridor Speed and Safety upgrades (including signal upgrade to SJRRC n/a automatic train stop increase train speed from n/a 2013 ~~ z z z z z z z z 79 to 90 MPH and several track realighment 6 projects) Purchase and installation of camera and SJRTD Camera and Security Equipment security equipment for surveillance on buses SJRTD Capital 2015 ~z z z } z z z z z 7 and bus facilities 2011, 2013, zz z z ~ z z z } z SJRTD County Wide DAR Expansion and replacement buses San Joaquin County-Capital , 2022, 8 2020 Bus shelters/pedestrian facilities, bike SJRTD Mall Transfer Facilities Project facilities, lighting and multifunctional West Yokuts Avenue 2011 zz | z ~ z z z z z 9 landscaped area. Costs associated with the purchase of ten SJRTD Non-Revenue Hybrid Replacement Vehicles San Joaquin County-Capital 2035 zz z z | z z z z z 10 hybrid electric replacement vehicles Costs associated with the implementation of SJRTD/ BRT Project Phase II Airport Way Corridor: the BRT service along the corridor including City of Stockton Airport to Downtown Transit Weber Avenue Miner Avenue Airport Way 2012 ~z } z z z z z z z traffic signal upgrades, bus stop amenities Stockton Center 11 and access enhancments 12 SJRRC ACE Capital Acquisition of two rail cars ACE Capital 2014 ~~ z z ~ z z z z ~ Purchase two additional rail cars for ACE ACE Capital 2014 ~~ z z ~ z z z z ~ SJRRC ACE Capital pansion 13 service ex SJRRC shared costs for the overall SJRRC ACE Capital ACE Capital on-going ~~ z z ~ z z z z z 14 maintenance of vehicles
Collabora- Environ- Project Urgency Operations Project Readiness Public Transit Project Review & Formation Process tion mental Product- Operating LOS Acces s I n teragen cy Sco p e Multimodal Intermodal Equity M & O (Continued…….) ivity Costs
zHP ~MP }LP |NP Time Services LOS D/E/F Operation (M & O) significant roadways significant Areas & Use of Transit on Use ofPrivate Vehicles Multiple Transit Providers Transit Multiple the Reduction of SOV Travel SOV of Reduction the Provides for and/or Promotes and/or are Expected to Increase Priority of Project Maintenance & Maintenance Project of Priority Operating Costs are Funded Over Over Funded are Costs Operating Project address multiple regionally regionally address multiple Project Project Involves Collaboration with with Collaboration Involves Project Addresses Segments on Network @ @ on Network Segments Addresses Provides I roved Access to Essential to Essential Access I roved Provides in Resulting IntermodalConnectivity Productivity Standards are Maintained Maintained are Standards Productivity Project is Expected to Reduce Reliance Mobility & Accessibility in EJ Sensitive Mobility in EJ & Sensitive Accessibility Project Year Open Facility Name/ Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic Capital lease with UPRR for a 10 year trackage SJRRC ACE Capital ACE Capital on-going ~~ z z ~ z z z z z 15 ri ghts Improvements to the Wireless Security SJRRC ACE Capital ACE Capital 2011 ~~ z z } z z z z z 16 System on the ACE service Allow SJRCC to operate on separate tracks Between the Stockton ACE Station and the SJRRC ACE Gap Closure Project from Union Pacific Railroad between 2012 ~~ z z ~ z z z z z ACE Equipment Maintenance Facility 17 maintenance yard and the station siding. ACE operations and Capital Access Fee (5 trains from 2012 to 2016, 6 trains from 2017 SJRRC/Santa Clara/Alameda contributions SJRRC ACE Operations 2018 ~~ z z ~ z z z z z to 2021, 7 trains from 2022 to 2029 and 8 shown 21 trains from 2030 to 2041) Lathrop Transfer Station- Between ACE and SJRRC Lathrop Transfer Station n/a 2016 ~~ z z ~ z z z z z 22 Central Valley Service Rail Information Systems (Ticket vending machines, on-train internet, changeable SJRRC Rail Information Systems message signs at stations, trip planner via n/a 2013 ~~ z z ~ z z z z z internet, real time system for train status for 23 ACE and other connecting services) Rail Station Stockton station, Lathrop station and Tracy SJRRC Rail Station Expansion 2016 ~~ z z ~ z z z ~ ~ 24 Expansion/Im provements/Access 2nd station (west) Central Valley Rail Service Operations and SJRRC Central Valley Rail Service Maintenance, Capital Access Fees, ROW n/a 2015 ~~ z z ~ z z z z z 25 purchase) Central Valley Commuter Rail Service (Rolling stock procurement and construction of layover facility in Ripon. Track SJRRC Central Valley Rail Service construction projects include siding n/a 2016 ~~ z z ~ z z z z z extension, construction of double track, road crossing improvements, and signal 26 improvements. Rolling Stock/Track Improvements/ Station SJRRC Altamount Service Improvements Altamount Operations (SJRRC) on-going ~~ z z ~ z z z z z 27 Improvements Maintenance Facility Expansion from 9 train SJRRC n/a n/a 2018 ~~ z z ~ z z z z z 28 sets to 17 train sets Phase 2 2011, 2013, SJRTD Countywide DAR Expansion and replacement buses San Joaquin County-Capital 2020, 2022, ~z z z ~ z z z } z 29 2028 Relocation of ACE Maintenance Facility from SJRRC ACE Equipment Maintenance Facility Union Pacific Railroad facility to permanent ACE Capital 2013 ~} z z ~ z z z z z 30 facility. Collabora- Environ- Project Urgency Operations Project Readiness Public Transit Project Review & Formation Process tion mental Product- Operating LOS Access Interagency Scope Multimodal Intermodal Equity M & O (Continued…….) ivity Costs
zHP ~MP }LP |NP Time Services LOS D/E/F Operation (M & O) significant roadways significant Areas & Use of Transit on Use of Private Vehicles Private of on Use Multiple Transit Transit Providers Multiple the Reduction of SOV Travel Provides for and/or Promotes Promotes and/or for Provides and/or are Expected to Increase Priority of Project Maintenance & Maintenance Project of Priority Operating Costs are Funded Over Project address multiple regionally regionally multiple address Project Project Involves Collaboration with with Collaboration Involves Project Addresses Segmentson Network@ Provides I roved Access to Essential to Essential Access I roved Provides Intermodal Connectivity Resulting in Resulting Intermodal Connectivity Productivity Standards are Maintained Maintained are Standards Productivity Project is Expected to Reduce Reliance Mobility & Accessibility in EJ Sensitive inMobility EJ Sensitive & Accessibility Project Year Open Facility Name/ Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic Purchase of 8 vehicles over the next three Manteca Manteca Transit System Capital years, 4 Vehicles the first year and 2 vehicles Manteca Transit Sytem Capital 2012 ~z ~ ~ ~ z ~ z z z 31 per year for two subse quent years BRT Project Phase III: Hammer Lane Costs associated with the purchase of hybrid SJRTD Corridor. Hybrid Diesel-Electric Bus Stockton Metropolitan Area-Capital 2015 ~z | z z z z z } z d iesel-electric bu ses 32 Procurement Downtown Stockton, between Weber Ave SJRRC ACE Capital Restoration of abandoned Depot building 2014 ~} z z } z z z z z 33 and Miner Ave Between the Port of Stockton and Port of Various Northern California Logistical Program Implement rail freight shuttle Oakland to divert truck freight traffic from 2020+ ~~ z z ~ z z z ~ ~ 34 the I-205 corridor Rolling Stock/Track Improvements/ Station SJRRC ACE Capital ACE Capital on-going ~~ z z ~ z z z ~ ~ 35 Improvements City of Manteca Short Range Transit Analysis Costs to update document and support Manteca City of Manteca 2012 ~z } ~ z z ~ z z z 36 and Action Plan transit planning efforts Costs associated with the Operations and Manteca Manteca Transit System Operations Manteca 2030 ~z ~ ~ ~ z ~ z z z 37 administration of DAR and fixed route Purchase of buses for service expansion 2013, 2015, SJRTD Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Vehicles San Joaquin County-Capital ~z | z z z z z } z 41 (Intercity/Interregional) 2025 Costs associated with the implementation of BRT Project Phase III: Hammer Lane the BRT service along the corridor including SJRTD Stockton Metropolitan Area-Capital 2015 ~z | z z z z z } z Corridor. traffic signal upgrades, bus stop amenities 42 and access enhancments BRT Project Phase III: Hammer Lane SJRTD Hammer Triangle Transfer Station Stockton Metropolitan Area-Capital 2015 ~z | z z z z z } z 43 Corridor. BRT Project Phase III: Hammer Lane Hammer Triangle Transfer Station SJRTD Stockton Metropolitan Area-Capital 2015 ~z | z z z z z } z 44 Corridor Expansion Bus shelters/pedestrian facilities, bike Manteca Manteca Passenger Amenities facilities, lighting and multifunctional Manteca Transit 2011 }z ~ ~ ~ z ~ z z z 45 landscaped area. 46 Manteca Manteca Transit System Costs associated with Safety/Security/ITS Manteca Transit 2011 ~z ~ ~ } z ~ z z z Purchase of Replacement Vehicles (Bus, Van) SJRRC ACE Capital ACE Capital 2015 ~~ z z ~ z z z ~ | 47 for ACE Service Costs associated with the implementation of the BRT service along the corridor including SJRTD BRT Project Phase IV Stockton Metropolitan Area - Capital 2021 ~z | z z z z z } } traffic signal upgrades, bus stop amenities 48 and access enhancments
Collabora- Environ- Project Urgency Operations Project Readiness Public Transit Project Review & Formation Process tion mental Product- Operating LOS Access Interagency Scope Multimodal Intermodal Equity M & O (Continued…….) ivity Costs
zHP ~MP }LP |NP Time Services LOS D/E/F Operation (M & O) & (M Operation significant roadways Areas & Use of Transit on Use ofPrivate Vehicles Multiple Transit Providers Transit Multiple the Reduction of SOV Travel Provides for and/or Promotes Promotes and/or for Provides and/or are Expected to Increase Priority of Project Maintenance & Maintenance Project of Priority Operating Costs are Funded Over Project address multiple regionally regionally address multiple Project Project Involves Collaboration with with Collaboration Involves Project Addresses Segments on Network @ @ Network on Segments Addresses Provides I roved Access to Essential I roved Access Provides Intermodal Connectivity Resulting in Resulting Intermodal Connectivity Productivity Standards are Maintained Maintained are Standards Productivity Project is Expected to Reduce Reliance Mobility & Accessibility in EJ Sensitive Mobility in & EJ Sensitive Accessibility Project Year Open Facility Name/ Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic BRT Project Phase II Airport Way Corridor: Costs associated with the purchase of hybrid SJRTD 2012 }z | z z z z z z z 49 H ybrid Diesel-Electric Bus Procurement d ies el-elect ric b u ses Construction of an ADA compliant SJRRC ACE Capital pedestrian underpass and Center Platform at Santa Clara Caltrain Station 2012 ~~ z z ~ z z z | | 50 the Station to facilitate train movement Purchase 4 buses every 5 year period (20 Tracy DAR DAR Capital 2030 }z ~ ~ ~ | ~ z z z 51 Total) 52 Tracy TRACER Capital Paratransit Minivans Cost of Paratransit Minivans at $70,000 each 2011 }z } ~ z | ~ z z z San Replacement of Unleaded Fuel Vehicles (Fleet Costs associated with the purchase of sixty n/a on-going ~} } z | | | z z z Joaquin Services) with Hybrid Vehicles hybrid (gas-electric) vehicles 53 County 2011, 2013, SJRTD Coordinated Transportation Vehicles Includes new replacement buses or vans San Joaquin County-Capital 2020, 2022, ~z } z } } } z } z 54 2028 Byron Highway Commuter Rail Service Operations and Maintenance and ROW SJRRC n/a purchase (2 trains from 2015 to 2019, 3 trains n/a 2020+ ~~ z z ~ z z z | | from 2020 to 2029 and 4 trains from 2030 to 55 2041 ). various locations including multi-modal Tracy TRACER Capital Construction of turnouts and 18 shelters 2011 }| } ~ ~ ~ } z z z 56 station Phase I Bus Turnouts - Street Facility i rovements for bus turnouts to i rove Tracy TRACER Capital TRACER Capital 2011 }| } ~ ~ ~ } z z z traffic flow, decrease emissions, and 57 operations/ passenger safety 61 SJRTD Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Regional/Inter-Regional BRT system Regional/Inter-Regional Operations 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 FTA Section 5311 funding for services to SJRTD County Operations San Joaquin County-Operations 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 62 rural areas of San Joaquin County 63 SJRTD Countywide DAR Countywide GPDAR San Joaquin County-Operations 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 64 SJRTD Intelligent Technologies Intelligent Technologies San Joaquin County-Capital 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 65 SJRTD Intercity/Interregional/Hopper I/C I/R Operations San Joaquin County-Operations 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 66 SJRTD Operational Facilities Expansion/Modernization San Joaquin County-Capital 2020+ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Bus shelters/pedestrian facilities, bike SJRTD Passenger Amenities facilities, lighting and multifunctional Stockton Metropolitan Area-Capital 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 67 landsca ped area. 68 SJRTD Regional Transportation Center Expansion/Modernization San Joaquin County-Capital 2030 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 69 SJRTD RTD Capital Improvement Projects Capital improvements San Joaquin County-Capital 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 70 SJRTD SMA Expansion and replacement buses Stockton Metropolitan Area-Capital 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 71 SJRTD SMA SMA Fixed Route and SMA DAR Stockton Metropolitan Area Operations 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Collabora- Environ- Project Urgency Operations Project Readiness Public Transit Project Review & Formation Process tion mental Product- Operating LOS Access Interagency Scope Multimodal Intermodal Equity M & O (Continued…….) ivity Costs
zHP ~MP }LP |NP Time Services LOS D/E/F Operation (M & O) significant roadways significant Areas & Use of Transit of & Use Areas on Use of Private Vehicles Private of on Use Multiple Transit Providers Transit Multiple the Reduction of SOV Travel SOV of Reduction the Provides for and/or Promotes and/or are Expected to Increase Priority of Project Maintenance & Maintenance Project of Priority Operating Costs are Funded Over Over Funded are Costs Operating Project address multiple regionally address regionally multiple Project Project Involves Collaboration with with Collaboration Involves Project Addresses Segments on Network @ @ on Network Segments Addresses Provides I roved Access to Essential to Essential Access I roved Provides in Resulting Connectivity Intermodal Productivity Standards are Maintained Maintained are Standards Productivity Project isExpected toReduce Reliance Mobility & Accessibility in EJ Sensitive Sensitive EJ in & Accessibility Mobility Project Year Open Facility Name/ Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic 72 SJRTD Support Vehicles Cost to secure support vehicles San Joaquin County-Capital 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 73 SJRTD RTD Facility Modernization - San Joaquin County-Capital 2030 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 74 SJRTD SMA Operations Local Service Operations Stockton Metropolitan Area-Operations 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 BRT Project Phase IV: Hybrid Diesel-Electric Costs associated with the purchase of hybrid SJRTD Stockton Metropolitan Area - Capital 2021 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 75 Bus Procurement diesel-electric buses 76 SJRTD BRT Project Phase IV Phase IV Transfer Station Stockton Metropolitan Area - Capital 2021 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Costs associated with the i lementation of the BRT service along the corridor including SJRTD BRT Project Phase V Stockton Metropolitan Area - Capital 2025 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 traffic signal upgrades, bus stop amenities 77 and access enhancments BRT Project Phase V: Hybrid Diesel-Electric Costs associated with the purchase of hybrid SJRTD Stockton Metropolitan Area - Capital 2025 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 78 Bus Procurement diesel-electric buses 79 SJRTD BRT Project Phase V Phase IV Transfer Station Stockton Metropolitan Area - Capital 2025 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 80 SJRRC ACE Capital Realignment of tracking Near Altamont Pass 2020+ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 81 SJRRC ACE Capital Construction Northwest Track Connection in Stockton 2020+ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Phase II Implementation Plan for the Central SJRRC Commuter rail service Central Valley to Sacramento 2020+ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 82 Valle y Rail Service Rail/Port to Port Rail Freight Service (planning, engineering, purchase of 52.6 Miles of ROW. ) Track Construction projects SJRRC n/a Oakland to Stockton 2020+ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 include siding extensions, construction of double track, road crossing improvements 86 and signal improvements. Purchase 3 buses every 5 year period; Purchase Tracy Fixed Route Service Capital 2030 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 87 2 buses every 10 year period 88 Tracy TRACER Capital Transit Supervisor Vehicle Cost of a Transit Supervisor Vehicle 2011 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Costs to support transit planning efforts to update the City of Tracy Short-Range Transit Tracy TRACER Project Mangement and Planning TRACER Project Management and Planning 2031 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Analysis and Action Plan and Grant 89 Management Location within City limits, to support Tracy TRACER Capital Vehicle Storage and Maintainence Facility 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 90 ex pansion of fleet 91 Tracy TRACER Capital CNG Station replacement Cost to replace old equipment 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 92 Tracy TRACER Capital Bus shelters replacement Replacement of existing shelters/benches 2035 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Collabora- Environ- Project Urgency Operations Project Readiness Public Transit Project Review & Formation Process tion mental Product- Operating LOS Access Interagency Scope Multimodal Intermodal Equity M & O (Continued…….) ivity Costs
zHP ~MP }LP |NP Time Services LOS D/E/F Operation (M & O) significant roadways Areas& Use ofTransit on Useof Private Vehicles Multiple Transit Providers Transit Multiple the Reductionof SOVTravel Provides for and/or Promotes Promotes and/or for Provides and/or are Expected to Increase Priority of Project Maintenance & Maintenance Project of Priority Operating Costs are Funded Over Over Funded are Costs Operating Project address multiple regionally regionally multiple address Project Project Involves Collaboration with Addresses Segments on Network @ @ on Network Segments Addresses Provides I roved Access to Essential to Essential Access I roved Provides IntermodalResulting in Connectivity Productivity Standards are Maintained Maintained are Standards Productivity Project is Expected to Reduce Reliance Mobility & Accessibility in EJ Sensitive Sensitive in EJ & Accessibility Mobility Project Year Open Facility Name/ Route Project Description Project Boundaries Sponsor to Traffic Costs associated with the delivery of a fixed City of Ripon Fixed Route Transit System Ripon route transit system in the City of Ripon City of Ripon 2030 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Operations 93 ($300,000 annually) Direct ACE/BART Connection ( a direct connection between ACE and BART at SJRRC n/a n/a 2020+ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Valley/Stanley or at Greenville Rd in 94 Alameda County. 95 Ripon Ripon Multi-Modal Station Construct a new bus and train station Ripon Multi-Modal Station 2020+ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Note: Project beyond 2020 are not subject to CMP screening.
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
APPENDIX
10-1
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
2011 RTP REVENUE FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS
LOCAL REVENUES
Measure K Sales Tax Program: Description: Measure K is a ½ cent sales tax program originally approved by voters in 1990 and administered by SJCOG. Data Source: Measure K Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, and Measure K Strategic Plans. Growth Rate: 6.35%. Assumption Base: Based on updated 2009 figures. Revenue total: $28,267,984.
Measure K Sales Tax Renewal Program: Description: Measure K Renewal was approved by voters in 2006. Program will sunset in 2041. Data Source: Measure K Renewal Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. Growth Rate: 6.35%. Assumption Base: Based on updated 2009 figures. Revenue total: $2,160,877,325.
Local Transportation Fund (LTF): Description: LTF refers to the Transportation Development Act (TDA) dollars. This ¼ cent sales tax program is imposed Statewide for transportation purposes. TDA funds are deemed local as it is not subject to state appropriation or apportionment. SJCOG administers the LTF funds. Data Source: SJCOG. Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on a three-year historical average Revenue total: $722,104,723.
Private Railroad Contribution: Description: Contribution of Private Railroad companies to Railroad Crossing Safety transportation projects. Data Source: SJCOG . Growth Rate: None assumed. Assumption Base: Based on historical averages and private railroad contributing 10% to specific Tier I Railroad Crossing Safety project expenditures in the RTP. Revenue total: $7,815,475.
Transit Fares & Miscellaneous: Description: Consists of transit fares collected by transit operators in the San Joaquin region. Data Source: Figures from survey of transit operators in San Joaquin County. Growth Rate: 3.5%. Assumption Base: Figures based on four-year (FY 05/06 to FY 08/09) average Farebox Recovery figures. Revenue total: $265,665,356.
Developer Fees/Local General Fund: Description: Funds associated with transportation revenue received from the general fund, developer fee programs, traffic impact fees. Data Source: Figures are calculated from self-reported information provided by the local jurisdictions. Growth Rate: None assumed. Assumption Base: Based upon historical figures and growth trends. Revenue total: $1,930,463,187.
Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF): Description: The RTIF program imposes a one time fee on new residential and non-residential development in San Joaquin County. The fee is imposed and collected by the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, Tracy and the County of San Joaquin. The RTIF program is managed by SJCOG, and was implemented in 2006. Data Source: SJCOG. Growth Rate: Initial fee increases 4% annually, and development unit projections based on historical growth trends at the start of the fee program. Assumption Base: Based on historical patterns of growth at the start of program. Revenue total: $487,267,571.
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Fare Revenue: Description: Funds received from the passenger fares of the ACE train. Data Source: San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission. Growth Rate: Assumes a $1.2 million increase for each additional train added during the timeframe of the RTP. Assumption Base: Based on historical figures. Revenue total: $154,000,000.
Alameda County/Santa Clara County Contribution for ACE: Description: Funds received from Alameda and Santa Clara counties for capital projects to “equalize” the initial capital investment made by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission. Data Source: SJRRC. Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on a $1.2M annual contribution from Alameda and $2.5M annual contribution from Santa Clara. Revenue total: $137,730,289.
FEDERAL REVENUES
Federal Transit Administration 5309 New Starts: Description: Section 5309 New Starts is a transit capital investment program and provide capital funding for new and replacement buses and facilities, modernization of existing rail systems, and new fixed guideway systems. Data Source: FTA Growth Rate: Discretionary program. Assumption Base: Revenue includes actual allocations. Revenue total: $25,907,980.
Federal Transit Administration 5309 Bus and Bus Facility Grants: Description: Section 5309 funds bus acquisition and other rolling stock, ancillary equipment and the construction of bus facilities. Also includes bus rehabilitation and leasing, park and ride facilities, parking lots associated with transit facilities and bus passenger shelters. Data Source: FTA. Growth Rate: None assumed. Assumption Base: Actual allocations are included as well as future assumptions on grants for the San Joaquin Regional Transit District based on past figures. Revenue total: $21,739,125.
Federal Transit Administration 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization: Description: Program funds infrastructure improvements to existing rail and other fixed guideway systems. Can include track and right of way rehabilitation, modernization of stations, rolling stock purchase and rehabilitation and signal and power modernization. Data Source: SJRRC/FTA. Growth Rate: None assumed. Assumption Base: Based on anticipated $2 million annual grant to the SJRRC starting in FY 10/11. Revenue total: $52,500,000.
Federal Transit Administration 5307: Description: Distributed annually to state urbanized areas with a formula based on population, population density and transit revenue miles of service. Program funds capital projects (and operations expenses in areas under 200,000 in population), preventative maintenance and planning activities. Data Source: FTA Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on FTA annual estimates. Revenue total: $432,534,114.
Federal Transit Administration 5310: Description: Funds allocated by formula to states for capital costs of providing services to the elderly and disabled. Data Source: FTA/SJCOG. Competitive program. Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on two-year historical programmed average of awarded funding. Revenue total: $14,818,947.
Federal Transit Administration 5311: Description: Program provides capital and operating expenses for rural and small urban public transportation systems. Data Source: FTA. Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on FTA annual estimates. Revenue total: $8,876,374.
Federal Transit Administration 5316: Description: Job Access and Reverse Commute program that provides funding for local programs that offer job access and reverse commute services for low income individuals. Under SAFETEA-LU, this is now a formula program rather than a discretionary program. Formula allocations are now based on the number of low-income persons. Data Source: FTA Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on FTA annual estimates. Revenue total: $10,775,087.
Federal Transit Administration 5317: Description: New Freedom Program provides funding for services and facility improvements to address the transportation needs of persons with disabilities that go beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Section 5317 provides a new formula grant program for associated capital and operating costs. State and designated recipients must select the grantees competitively. Data Source: FTA Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on FTA annual estimate projections. Revenue total: $3,772,980.
Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP): Description: The STP program provides flexible funding for projects on any Federal aide highway, bridges on public roads, transit capital projects and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities on a formula basis. Data Source: FTA. Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on FHWA annual estimates. Revenue total: $205,143,859.
State Transportation Improvement Program Transportation Enhancements (STIP TE): Description: Federal funds from the STP provide funds to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the Nation’s intermodal transportation system. Data Source: FHWA and Caltrans Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on FHWA annual estimates. Revenue total: $36,034,087.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ): Description: Federal program with goals to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality in non-attainment areas. Project examples include: signal coordination, ridesharing, bus service expansion. Data Source: FHWA and Caltrans Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based upon FHWA and Caltrans’ annual estimate apportionments. Revenue total: $270,494,813.
Federal Aid to Airports: Description: Federal Aid to Airports revenue projections are based on the average annual receipt. Data Source: Stockton Metropolitan Airport and Tracy Municipal Airport. Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on historical annual receipt. Revenue total: $11,111,512.
Safety Program: Description: Funding received from Federal Safety programs including the Highway Bridge Program (HBP), Emergency Relief, Section 130 Railroad Crossing Safety, and Minor Construction program. Data not currently available for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and the Safe Routes to Schools program, and is not included in this funding assumption. Data Source: FHWA and Caltrans Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on a three-year historical average. Revenue total: $163,716,383.
Federal Demonstration/Earmarks: Description: Funding received for specific projects as identified in SAFETEA-LU and future federal transportation funding bills. The High Priority Projects Program and the Transportation Improvement Projects (Section 1934) provide designated funding for specific projects identified in SAFETEA-LU. A total of 5,557 projects are identified, each with a specified amount of funding over the 5 years of SAFETEA-LU. Data Source: FHWA, SAFETEA-LU. Growth Rate: Discretionary program. Assumption Base: Based on the annual average of actual SAFETEA-LU earmarks. Revenue total: $122,350,000.
STATE REVENUES
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): Description: Overall, the STIP in California represents a sum of the Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) and Interregional Transportation Improvement Programs (ITIPs). The CTC programs an available amount of STIP funds after a “take-down” of the State Highway Account (SHA) for the SHOPP and other programs. The STIP funds are distributed 75 percent to RTIP and 25 percent to ITIP. Data Source: Caltrans Growth Rate: 2% Assumption Base: Based on 1.6% apportionment of $1 billion statewide STIP average. Revenue total: $640,605,994.
Transportation Bond Formula Funds: Description: California Transportation Bond package includes $19.9 billion for safety improvements and repairs to State highways, upgrades to freeways to reduce congestion, repairs to local streets and roads, improvements to the seismic safety of local bridges, expansion of public transit, reduction of air pollution, and improvements to antiterrorism security at ports. Includes protection of any future Proposition 42 transfers. Formula funding includes local streets and roads, STIP augmentation and Public Transit. Data Source: Caltrans. Growth Rate: N/A. Assumption Base: Based on formula distribution. Revenue total: $55,558,103.
Transportation Bond Discretionary Funds: Description: California Transportation Bond package includes $19.9 billion for safety improvements and repairs to State highways, upgrades to freeways to reduce congestion, repairs to local streets and roads, improvements to the seismic safety of local bridges, expansion of public transit, reduction of air pollution, and improvements to antiterrorism security at ports. Actual project allocations from the CMIA, TCIF, HRCSA and State Route 99 programs were included in the RTP. Assumptions included for remaining funding programs. Data Source: SJCOG. Growth Rate: N/A. Assumption Base: Discretionary Program. Revenue total: $486,900,000.
Proposition 42: Description: Proposition 42 was approved by voters in March 2002 and requires revenues from the state sales and use taxes be used for public transit and mass transportation, county street and road improvements and state highway improvements. Data Source: Caltrans Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Formula distribution Revenue total: $445,901,254.
State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP): Description: Funds state highway maintenance and operations projects. Data Source: Caltrans Growth Rate: 2% Assumption Base: Based on a six-year historical average of the SHOPP program. Revenue total: $671,074,817.
Future State Discretionary Programs: Description: Discretionary program, revenue estimate is based on the historical receipt of funds from state programs such as the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) and Proposition 1B Transportation Bond Program. Recognizes potential for additional funds to be received from cost savings from current programs within the Proposition 1B Transportation Bond Program Data Source: SJCOG Growth Rate: Discretionary program. Assumption Base: Historical average. Revenue total: $260,000,000.
Alameda State Transit Assistance (STA) contribution: Description: Funds received from Alameda County’s STA portion to the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission. Data Source: SJRRC Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on $240,000 annual contribution. Revenue total: $4,700,000.
State Aid to Airports: Description: Funding from California Aid to Airports. Data Source: Survey of San Joaquin County airports. Growth Rate: 2%. Assumption Base: Based on historical average of average receipt. Revenue total: $2,000,000.
Public Utilities Commission: Description: The Public Utilities Commission regulates privately owned electric, telecommunications, natural gas, water and transportation companies, in addition to household goods movers and rail safety. Funds received from the Public Utilities Commission to contribute Railroad Crossing Safety projects. Data Source: SJCOG. Growth Rate: N/A. Assumption Base: Based on 10% contribution to specific Railroad Crossing Safety Projects and historical receipts. Revenue total: $25,000,000.
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
APPENDIX 10-2
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
San Joaquin Council of Governments
SHORT FORM Lead Agency: PRELIMINARY PROJECT MPO ID: COST ESTIMATE TEMPLATE RTP Tier: Contact Name: Project Name: Contact Number:
Project Description:
Limits:
Proposed Improvement: (Scope)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ( 3% of Construction) 3% $0
PROJECT APPROVAL & ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (4% of Construction) 4% $0
DESIGN PHASE (PS &E) (12% of Construction) 12% $0
CONSTRUCTION COSTS $0
CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AND ADMINISTRATION (10%CM + 2% Admin) 12% $0
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS IN 2009 DOLLARS $0 year MIDPOINT OF CONSTRUCTION 2009ESCALATION RATE PER ANNUM 3% year E and C COSTS ESCALATED TO MIDPOINT OF CONSTRUCTION $ 0
RIGHT OF WAY $0 Anticipated Date of Acquisition: 1/0/00
RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT $0
FINANCING COSTS
UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY (10% of costs) 0% $0
TOTAL ESCALATED PROJECT COSTS $0
All costs are escalated to midpoint of construction with the exception of ROW, which is escalated to point of acquisition in "ROW Items" Tab, and "Financing Costs", which is provided by Financial Consultant
Reviewed by Name (Phone) (Date)
Approved by SJCOG Name (Phone) (Date)
SJCOG 2011 RTP Cost Estimation Template 5.14.09 Page 1 of 7 San Joaquin Council of Governments
Lead Agency: MPO ID: RTP Tier: Contact Name: Contact Number:
ROADWAY
Description of Roadway Section
Attach reference sketch in Sketches and Pictures tab
Roadway Length Number of Cost per Lane (in miles) Lanes Mile
ROADWAY ITEMS $100,000 $0
MINOR ITEMS (10% of Roadway Items) 10% $0
SUPPLEMENTAL WORK (10% of Roadway Items plus Minor Items 10% $0
MOBILIZATION (10% of Roadway, Supplemental and Minor Items 10% $0
Subtotal $0
CONTINGENCY** 25% $0
GRAND TOTAL ROADWAY $0
** Always use at least 45% contingency when Short Form is used
Estimate Prepared By: Name (Phone) (Date)
Estimate Checked By: Name (Phone) (Date)
SJCOG 2011 RTP Cost Estimation Template 5.14.09 Page 2 of 7 Lead Agency: MPO ID: RTP Tier: Contact Name: Contact Number: BRIDGES AND RAILROAD ITEMS
BRIDGES Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Bridge Name Structure Type Width (out to out) - in feet Span Length in feet Total Area - in square feet Footing Type (pile/spread) Cost per square foot
Construction cost: $0 $0 $0
Mobilization @ 10% $0 $0 $0
Contingency: 35% $0 $0 $0
Total Cost Per Structure $0 $0 $0
SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS $0
RAILROAD RELATED COSTS
Item Description Cost
1
2
3
4
5
Construction cost: $0
Contingency: 35% $0
SUBTOTAL RAILROAD ITEMS $0
TOTAL BRIDGES AND RAILROAD ITEMS $0
COMMENTS:
Estimate Prepared By: (Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
SJCOG 2011 RTP Cost Estimation Template 5.14.09 Page 3 of 7 BUS SHELTERS AND STATIONS Description* Three bus shelters, 20 ft long, with architectural roof and wind screens
* Attach reference sketch showing typical layout plan and elevation of shelter or station Unit of Quantity Measure Unit Price Cost Sitework $ 0 Superstructure SQ. FT. $ 0 Architectural Finishes LS $ 0 Signage LS $ 0 Fire protection LS $ 0 Utilities $ 0 Water $ 0 Sewer $ 0 Electrical $ 0 Communications $ 0 Station Furniture $ 0 Landscaping $ 0 Security $ 0 $ 0 Total Per Station $ 0 Number of Stations Total all Stations $ 0 Contingency 35% $ 0 GRAND TOTAL STATIONS $ 0
BICYCLE PATHS Path Description* 20 miles of two-way blacktop bicycle path, with painted median, five rest stops and vista points
* Attach reference sketch showing typical pavement structural section elements of the path
Path Length in miles Cost per mile $ 1,500,000
Total path $ 0
Contingency 25% $ 0
When adressing cost per path mile make sure to consider rolling surface, drainage, footbridges striping, signage barriers, furniture, landscaping, and security
TOTAL BICYCLE PATH $ 0
Estimate Prepared By: (Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
SJCOG 2011 RTP Cost Estimation Template 5.14.09 Page4 of 7 Lead Agency: MPO ID: RTP Tier: Contact Name: Contact Number:
RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Enter All Parcel Data on ROW Worksheet
Current Values Escalation Escalated (Future Use) Rate (%/yr) Value
ROW Acquisition, including excess lands, damages to remainders, and good will $0 3.50% $0
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY $0
Utility Relocation (Agency Share) 3.00% $0
Relocation Assistance 3.00% $0
Clearance / Demolition 3.00% $0
ROW Services - Title and Escrow Fees $0 2.00% $0
Temporary Easement 3.00% $0
Condemnation Costs 3.00% $0
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT $0
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS $0
Date of Valuation 1/0/00
Anticipated Date of Right of Way CertificationDelta Dates (yrs) 0.00 (Date to which Values are Escalated)
Construction Contract Work Brief Description of Work
(Costs Included in Roadway and/or Structures Items of Work as Appropriate)
Estimate Prepared By: (Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
SJCOG 2011 RTP Cost Estimation Template 5.14.09 Page 5 of 7 INVENTORY OF ALL POTENTIAL ROW TAKES DATE OF MOST RECENT UPDATE:
In Order, from South to North or West to East
Right-of-Way estimates should consider the probable highest and best use and type and intent of improvements at the time of acquisition. Acquisition costs should include excess lands, damages to remainders, and good will. Enter current values.
INCLUDE PARCELS REQUIRED FOR BICYCLE PATHS, STATIONS, BUS SHELTERS, ETC.
Assessor's Percent Relocation Demolition parcel Estimated Source of Date of Parcel ID Address Zoning Improvements Use Size take needed required number value estimate estimate Comments
Total Parcels Affected 0 Total Value of all Takes $0
Prepared By: (Print Name) (Phone) (Date)
SJCOG 2011 RTP Cost Estimation Template 5.14.09 Page 6 of 7 SKETCHES AND PICTURES
Use this sheet for importing drawings and sketches that help define items of work and pictures of ROW items
SJCOG 2011 RTP Cost Estimation Template 5.14.09Page 7 of 7
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
APPENDIX 12-1 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
DRAFT San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview
April 2010
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-1 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
1. Executive Summary
This chapter provides an interregional perspective to transportation planning within the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) of California, consisting of the entireties of the counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern. This chapter addresses several issues of regional and interregional importance including air quality, highways, streets and roads, aviation, rail, goods movement and bicycle efforts. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a broad overview of issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. The Congestion Management Processes and Operations and Maintenance issues will be addressed by each individual RTPA as applicable.
Valleywide Planning The recently approved Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA LU) replaced the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA 21) as the funding for major infrastructure investment for transportation improvements. SAFETEA LU funds are directed toward projects and programs for a broad variety of highway and transit work through several funding components including: Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, Transportation Enhancements, Safety Program, Rail Program and Emergency Relief Programs. Previous federal legislation included the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and TEA 21. Transportation planning efforts are directed to be coordinated in geographically defined air basins. The eight counties mentioned above do share an air basin and have many attributes in common. There are also significant differences in the context of transportation planning. The eight San Joaquin Valley counties have already implemented an aggressive program of coordinated Valleywide planning. In September of 1992, the eight Valley Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to ensure a coordinated regional approach to transportation and air quality planning efforts. The MOU was revisited in 2006 to update and solidify the partnership. The MOU goes well beyond the requirements of state and federal transportation planning acts by establishing a system of coordination of plans, programs, traffic and emissions modeling, transportation planning, air quality planning, and consistency in data analysis/forecasting. Development of the MOU and the ongoing process of coordinated planning have improved an already close working relationship between the eight Valley RTPAs and the representatives of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Air Resources Board (CARB), State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Each of the areas addressed in the Valleywide MOU have been assigned to a specific RTPA to serve as a lead in the coordination of planning activities. Representatives of each of the eight agencies have been meeting regularly to coordinate the preparation of Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs), and an aviation systems plan that involves not only the eight Valley counties but the Sacramento region as well. These cooperative efforts include both staff and financial assistance from Caltrans, CARB, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SJVAPCD. These efforts have taken place as a voluntary response to the new issues, challenges and requirements facing the transportation planning community. The San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview represents the cooperative effort between the eight counties and their coordination in the Regional Transportation Plans.
Page 6-2 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
2. San Joaquin Valley Profile
Geography The San Joaquin Valley (Valley) is the southern portion of the Great Central Valley of California [Exhibit 1-1] . The San Joaquin Valley stretches from the Tehachapi Mountains in the south to the San Joaquin Delta in the north, a distance of nearly 300 miles. The eastern boundary is the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which reaches elevations of over 14,000 feet, while the western boundary is the lower coastal ranges. The Valley floor is about 10,000 square miles is size.
Exhibit 1-1 San Joaquin Valley Topography
For the purposes of this report, the San Joaquin Valley is considered to include the entirety of the counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern. The total area of the eight counties is 27,383 sq. mi. (larger than West Virginia). Kern County straddles the Sierra Nevada Mountains and occupies a portion of the Mojave Desert. The desert portion of Kern County (about 3,650 sq. mi.) is within the Southeastern Desert Air Basin.
On the Valley floor, the topography is generally flat to rolling, and the climate is characterized by long, very warm summers, and short, cool winters. Precipitation is related to latitude and elevation, with the northern portions of the valley receiving approximately 12 14 inches of rain a year, while the southern portion has an annual average of less than six inches. Snow rarely falls on the Valley floor, but heavy winter accumulations are common in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The Valley occupies an area between the two largest metropolitan areas in California, San Francisco and Los Angeles. The major transportation facilities run generally north/south through the Valley and include State Route 99, Interstate 5, Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad. Several highways and some rail lines cross the Valley east/west including State Routes 4, 120, 152, 198 and 58 among others. In addition, the Valley contains numerous oil and natural gas pipelines, a myriad of telecommunication facilities, the Port of Stockton and air travel corridors.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-3 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Population While the Valley is largely rural in nature, it does contain several large cities and suburbs with a total population of nearly 4 million people (more than the state of Oregon). The eight Valley counties are a part of seven Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs): Stockton (San Joaquin County), Modesto (Stanislaus County), Merced, Fresno Madera, Hanford Corcoran (Kings County), Visalia Porterville (Tulare County) and Bakersfield (Kern County). The large majority of the Valley’s population resides along the State Route 99 corridor including four cities of over 150,000 people (Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton and Modesto) [Exhibit 1-2]. Population growth has been sustained and significant [Figure 1-1] . In 1970, the eight San Joaquin Valley counties had a population of just over 1.6 million. By 2000, the population had over doubled to nearly 3.4 million. The Valley continues to be one of the fastest growing regions in the state. The Valley accounted for 8.2% of California’s total population in 1970 and has grown to account for 10.4% of California’s total population in 2009.
Figure 1-1
San Joaquin Valley Population Growth
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000 2,500,000
2,000,000
Population 1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009
Year
Sources: US Census 1940 2000, California Department of Finance 2009
Future population growth is also expected to be sustained and significant. Both ends of the Valley are under growth pressure from the neighboring metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area in addition to the natural growth rate in the Valley. Population in the eight Valley counties is projected to exceed 6.5 million by the year 2030, using growth projections from the California State Department of Finance (DOF) [Table 1-1] .
Table 1-1 San Joaquin Valley Population Growth 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2020 2030 2040 Fresno 365,945 413,329 514,621 667,490 799,407 942,298 1,201,792 1,429,228 1,670,542 Kern 291,984 330,234 403,089 544,981 661,645 827,173 1,086,113 1,352,627 1,707,239 Kings 49,954 66,717 73,728 101,469 129,461 154,743 205,707 250,516 299,770 Madera 40,468 41,519 63,116 88,090 123,109 152,331 212,874 273,456 344,455 Merced 90,446 104,629 134,560 178,403 210,554 256,450 348,690 439,905 541,161 San Joaquin 249,989 291,073 347,342 480,628 563,598 689,480 965,094 1,205,198 1,477,473 Stanislaus 157,294 194,506 265,900 370,522 446,997 526,383 699,144 857,893 1,014,365 Tulare 168,403 188,322 245,738 311,921 368,021 441,481 599,117 742,969 879,480 TOTAL 1,414,483 1,630,329 2,048,094 2,743,504 3,302,792 3,990,339 5,318,531 6,551,792 7,934,485 Sources: US Census 1960 2000, DOF estimates 2009, DOF projections 2020 2040
Page 6-4 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Exhibit 1-2
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-5 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Economy The San Joaquin Valley is famous for agricultural production. Nearly ideal growing conditions, reservoirs, and water distribution projects, such as the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project have resulted in seven of the top ten agricultural counties in the nation being in the San Joaquin Valley [Table 1-2] . In addition, if the Valley were a state, it would be the top agricultural producing state in the country [Table 1-3] . The Valley produced $25.4 billion in agricultural products in 2008. This amount is over double the remainder of California and more than the next highest producing state (Iowa).
Table 1-2 Table 1-3 Top United States Ag Producing Counties Top Agricultural States Rank County Production* Rank State Production* 1 Fresno, CA $5,662,895 1 San Joaquin Valley $25,388,542 2 Tulare, CA $5,018,023 2 Iowa $24,752,867 3 Kern, CA $4,033,312 3 Texas $19,172,500 4 Monterey, CA $3,826,791 4 Nebraska $17,315,688 5 Merced, CA $2,999,701 5 lllinois $16,356,790 6 Stanislaus, CA $2,473,843 6 Minnesota $15,838,094 7 San Joaquin, CA $2,129,725 7 Kansas $13,967,496 8 Kings, CA $1,760,168 8 California (remainder) $10,798,193 9 Imperial, CA $1,684,522 9 Indiana $9,961,850 10 Ventura, CA $1,613,247 10 Wisconsin $9,885,557 Source: USDA, NASS, California Field Office, 2008 Source: USDA Economic Research Service, 2008 * In thousands * In thousands
While in terms of economic productivity, agriculture is by far the Valley’s leading industry, the leading industries in terms of employment are Education, Health and Social Services and Retail Trade. Agriculture along with these two other sectors account for over 40% of the jobs in the Valley. Statewide, Education, Health and Social Services is also the leading sector while Professional jobs are second and Retail third.
Table 1-4 Employment by Industry Valley California Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 162,059 10.4% 355,362 2.1% Construction 113,730 7.3% 1,222,364 7.1% Manufacturing 128,910 8.3% 1,796,323 10.5% Wholesale trade 58,456 3.7% 567,729 3.3% Retail trade 179,859 11.5% 1,913,970 11.2% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 84,475 5.4% 837,208 4.9% Information 24,132 1.5% 519,244 3.0% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 65,863 4.2% 1,140,246 6.7% Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste 120,414 7.7% 2,056,620 12.0% management services Educational services, and health care and social assistance 325,878 20.9% 3,438,701 20.1% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 124,330 8.0% 1,614,171 9.4% Other services, except public administration 75,035 4.8% 900,254 5.3% Public administration 97,245 6.2% 762,326 4.5% Civilian employed population 16 years and over 1,560,386 100.0% 17,124,518 100.0% Source: 2008 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau
Page 6-6 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Economically Distressed Area The San Joaquin Valley is one of the most economically distressed regions in the United States. High unemployment rates have historically plagued the Valley [Figure 1-2] . Over time, the Valley has consistently had unemployment rates 2.5% to 4% above the state unemployment rate and 3% to 6% above the national unemployment rate. While there is some variance with the unemployment rate in the Valley, unemployment in all Valley counties has been consistently higher than state and federal averages [Table 1-5] .
Figure 1-2
Unemployment Rate
16.0% SJV 14.0% California USA 12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (not seasonally adjusted, data points are for August of each year)
Table 1-5 Unemployment Rate – San Joaquin Valley Counties 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Fresno 8.6 8.5 9.5 9.7 8.5 7.6 6.9 7.4 9.7 14.6 Kern 7.2 7.2 8.5 9.1 8.6 7.4 6.6 7.5 9.3 14.4 Kings 8.3 8.5 9.6 9.8 9.2 7.7 7.0 7.4 9.7 14.2 Madera 7.0 7.3 8.7 8.5 7.3 6.7 6.0 6.6 8.7 13.3 Merced 7.6 7.6 8.6 9.2 8.7 8.2 8.0 8.6 11.4 16.6 San Joaquin 6.1 6.6 8.0 8.6 7.9 7.2 6.9 7.7 10.2 15.7 Stanislaus 6.4 6.6 8.0 8.4 7.5 7.1 7.0 7.9 10.4 15.7 Tulare 8.9 9.8 10.1 10.6 10.2 8.2 7.5 8.2 10.3 15.2 Valley 7.5 7.7 8.8 9.3 8.5 7.5 7.0 7.6 9.9 15.0 California 5.1 5.7 6.7 6.9 6.0 5.2 4.9 5.5 7.7 12.2 United States 4.1 4.9 5.7 6.0 5.4 4.9 4.6 4.6 6.1 9.6 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (not seasonally adjusted, data points are for August of each year)
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-7 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
The economic plight of the San Joaquin Valley is starting to be recognized at a national level. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) completed a study in 2005 (California’s San Joaquin Valley: A Region in Transition) comparing the economic conditions of the San Joaquin Valley to the Central Appalachian region, another severely economically distressed region. The Central Appalachian region (primarily eastern KY and parts of WV, TN and VA) is the most economically distressed sub region within the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). ARC was created by Congress in 1965 in response to the persistent socioeconomic challenges in the Appalachian region. Economic conditions in the Valley were shown to be comparable to Central Appalachia and lagging far behind the state of California as a whole and the United States. For example, poverty rates in the Valley are similar to the poorest region of the Appalachians and are actually trending worse than the Central Appalachian region [Figures 1-3 and 1-4] .
Figure 1-3 Figure 1-4
Poverty Rate Comparison Poverty Rate Comparison 1980-2000
35.0% 30%
30.0% Overall 25% 25.0% Child
20.0% 20%
15.0% 15% 10.0%
5.0% 10% SJV 0.0% Central App 5%
SJV California USA ARC USA California 0% Central App. Central 1980 1990 2000
Source: US Census Bureau 2000 via CRS Source: US Census Bureau via CRS
While being one of the most economically challenged regions in the country, the Valley has traditionally received far less federal assistance than other regions in the United States. The CRS study also showed that the Valley is lagging behind the Appalachian region, California and the United States in per capita federal expenditures [Figure 1-5] .
Figure 1-5 Per Capita Federal Direct Expenditure Comparison
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000 Salaries & Wages $4,000 Procurement $3,000 Grants $2,000 Other Direct Payments Retirement & Disability $1,000
$0 SJV California App. ARC USA Kentucky
Source: CRS
Page 6-8 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
The per capita income for residents in the Valley was $27,379 in 2007 compared to $41,805 in California and $38,615 in the United States. The average wage per job in the Valley was also significantly lower than California and the United States at $36,309 in 2007 compared to $50,182 and $43,889 respectively. The disparity in income and wages between the Valley and the rest of the state and country has only increased over time [Figures 1-7 & 1-8].
Figure 1-7 Figure 1-8
Per Capita Income Average Wage per Job $45,000 $60,000 SJV $40,000 SJV California $50,000 $35,000 California United States United States $30,000 $40,000
$25,000 $30,000 $20,000
$15,000 $20,000
$10,000 $10,000 $5,000
$0 $0 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
Demographics The Valley has a younger population than California as a whole and the United States [Figures 1-8 & 1-9]. In 2008, 33.1% of Valley residents were under the age of 20 compared to 28.7% for California and 27.3% for the United States. Figures 1 10 and 1 11 compare the racial/ethnic breakdown of Valley residents to the United States as a whole.
Figure 1-7 Figure 1-8
San Joaquin Valley Age Distribution United States Age Distribution
85+ 85+ 80 84 80 84
75 79 75 79 70 74 70 74 65 69 Male Female 65 69 Male Female
60 64 60 64 55 59 55 59
50 54 50 54 45 49 45 49
40 44 40 44 35 39 35 39
30 34 30 34 25 29 25 29 20 24 20 24
15 19 15 19 10 14 10 14
5 9 5 9 0 4 0 4
6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% P opulation (%) P opulation (%)
Source: 2008 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-9 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Figure 1-10 Figure 1-11
San Joaquin Valley Race/Ethnicity United States Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic White White 45.8% 39.8% 65.9%
Hispanic Black Asian 15.1% Asian Black Two or more 4.7% 6.7% Two or more 4.3% Native 12.1% 2.0% Other Native 1.6% American 0.5% Other 0.7% American 0.4% 0.6%
Source: 2008 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau
Education levels in the San Joaquin Valley lag behind California as a whole and the United States [Table 1-6] . Nearly 28% of Valley residents 25 years and older are not high school graduates compared to 20% across the state and 15.5% across the country. Only 15.4% of Valley residents (25+ years old) have a Bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 29.4% across California and 27.4% in the United States.
Table 1-6 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years of Age and Older Education Level San Joaquin Valley California United States Less than 9th grade 349,850 15.5% 2,463,199 10.6% 12,658,853 6.4% 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 278,680 12.4% 2,137,871 9.2% 17,999,306 9.1% High school graduate 605,515 26.9% 5,205,251 22.4% 58,547,194 29.6% Some college, no degree 506,788 22.5% 4,833,447 20.8% 39,756,710 20.1% Associate's degree 163,074 7.2% 1,766,067 7.6% 14,636,799 7.4% Bachelor's degree 240,598 10.7% 4,368,693 18.8% 34,218,462 17.3% Graduate or professional degree 106,903 4.7% 2,463,199 10.6% 19,977,252 10.1% Source: 2008 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau
Trends and Assumptions Changes in population, housing and employment alter travel demand and patterns that affect transportation facilities and services. By anticipating the magnitude and distribution of growth and change within the San Joaquin Valley, present day decisions can be made to capitalize on the positive aspects of the anticipated growth while minimizing the adverse consequences.
Population Population growth within the San Joaquin Valley will continue into the foreseeable future. The driving force for the increasing population is the availability of land, the availability of water, the proximity of the urban centers of Stockton, Modesto, Fresno and Bakersfield to the large urban areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and the relatively low cost of land in the San Joaquin Valley.
Housing Housing growth is generally a function of population growth. Housing is anticipated to grow at a rate similar to population growth.
Page 6-10 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Employment Employment opportunities within the Valley will change over the time span of this plan. Agricultural employment will drop as a percentage of total employment as agricultural activities become more and more automated, requiring less human labor to accomplish more production. Services, wholesale trade and retail trade activities are anticipated to increase in importance in the future employment pattern of the Valley.
Other Trends and Assumptions
Cost of Travel The cost of travel will increase for all modes as the price of fuel, equipment, labor, and service continue to rise.
Automobile Use The private automobile will continue to be the dominant and preferred method of travel within the region. Travel demand management programs may lessen the percentage of trips made by private automobile.
Transit Use Public transit use, including passenger rail, will keep pace with the rise in population and additional incentives, such as voluntary employer trip reduction programs, will be initiated to encourage additional transit use.
Aviation Activity General and commercial aviation activity will increase as the regional population and economy expand.
Air Quality Increases in hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and greenhouse gases may result as population increases. Efforts will be made to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT reduction efforts will take several forms, including compensatory and possible compulsory ridesharing, flex time work scheduling, and non motorized commuting. Jobs to housing balance in local land use decision making will become more important. Introduction of newer, cleaner fuels and more efficient internal combustion engines are also anticipated.
Railroad Activity The California High Speed Rail Authority is working toward the development and implementation of an inter city high speed rail system. Current activity focuses on evaluating alternative Central Valley alignments connecting the Los Angeles Basin with the San Francisco Bay area. Amtrak will continue its successful San Joaquin trains between Bakersfield and Oakland/Sacramento, with bus feeder lines to southern California and other areas.
Land Use It is anticipated that agricultural land will continue to be converted at an increasingly rapid pace to residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-11 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
3. Valley Policy Element
3a. Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)
San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies MOU
In September of 1992, the eight Valley RTPAs entered into a MOU to ensure a coordinated regional approach to transportation and air quality planning efforts. The MOU was revisited in 2006 to update and solidify the partnership. One major addition to the 2006 MOU was the creation of the San Joaquin Valley Policy Council. The MOU goes well beyond the requirements of state and federal transportation planning acts by establishing a system of coordination of plans, programs, traffic and emissions modeling, transportation planning, air quality planning, and consistency in data analysis/forecasting. Development of the MOU and the ongoing process of coordinated planning have improved an already close working relationship between the eight Valley RTPAs and the representatives of Caltrans, CARB, OPR, SJVAPCD and FHWA.
Each of the areas addressed in the Valleywide MOU have been assigned to a specific RTPA to serve as a lead in the coordination of planning activities. These cooperative efforts include both staff and financial assistance from Caltrans, CARB, EPA and the SJVAPCD. These efforts have taken place as a voluntary response to the new issues, challenges and requirements facing the transportation planning community.
MOU Contents
The MOU covers many different items. Examples of items where San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies coordinate under this MOU are below, but this list is not all inclusive:
▪ Preparation of multi modal transportation plans ▪ Preparation of Regional Transportation Plans ▪ Coordination with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and Caltrans District Offices ▪ Coordinate on rail issues ▪ Coordinate planning efforts with state and federal agencies ▪ Coordinate on various technical issues
Addition of Regional Policy Council
The Valley RTPA’s updated MOU, signed in 2006, created the San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies’ Policy Council. The membership of the Policy Council consists of two elected officials and one elected alternate appointed from each RTPA Board, and one representative of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (added in 2009). The Policy Council is meets at least twice each year, and is authorized to represent the Valley RTPAs in multiple forums, including before the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and state and federal legislative bodies.
MOU Between and Among the SJV RTPAs and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Air District)
In 1992 the eight Valley RTPAs entered into an MOU with the Air District to ensure a coordinated transportation and air quality planning approach. This MOU was updated in 2009 to reflect the increase in membership to the Valley Policy Council. The MOU acknowledges that cooperation between the agencies is key to complying with the Federal Clean Air Act, keeping current with the Transportation Conformity Rule, and to address state and federal agencies with joint or consistent policy positions when necessary.
Page 6-12 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
4. Modal Discussion
4a. Highways
The regional highway system in the San Joaquin Valley plays a critical role in the movement of both people and goods. The Valley’s highway network provides east west and north south connections to major metropolitan markets in California and beyond. Given the San Joaquin Valley’s north south geographical layout, the most important truck routes in the Valley are State Route 99 and Interstate 5, which together account for 24 of the 25 highest volume truck routes in the system. State Route 99 also serves a dual purpose as the San Joaquin Valley’s “Main Street” (i.e. connecting the majority of cities within the Valley) and as the primary goods movement corridor for goods moving from southern/northern California as well as goods that are moving along the 1,400 mile West Coast Corridor from British Columbia on the north to Baja California in the south.
Both facilities carry a mix of different types of traffic, although Interstate 5 appears to carry mostly longer haul interregional traffic, while SR 99 carries both interregional and intro valley traffic. SR 99 serves as the primary highway providing goods to the vast majority of San Joaquin Valley residents. In fact, the majority (71%) of the Valley’s population is located within five miles of State Route 99.
The $1 billion for State Route 99 included in Proposition 1B makes a small dent in the nearly $6 billion in immediate needs identified in Caltrans’ 99 Business Plan. Far greater funding is needed, however, to bring the “Main Street” and the primary goods movement corridor of the Valley up to a full six lanes from Bakersfield to Sacramento. Widening to six lanes has been a long term goal of the Valley and is necessary to accommodate the forecasted growth and avoid major congestion problems along the SR 99 corridor in the future.
Arguably, the most neglected of the Valley’s goods movement street and highway facilities are the east to west highways that serve as our primary farm to market connectors. These facilities carry California produce to domestic and international markets. Highways like State Routes 205, 132, 152, 180, 198, and the 46 are being asked to serve a wider range of purposes today and in the future. In order to accommodate the projected growth in population and goods movement, additional investment in these facilities will be required.
Truck traffic in the Valley is growing at an amazing rate. The following statistics reflect this trend.
Truck traffic accounts for anywhere from 19% of the traffic in Stanislaus County to 27% in Kern County, while the statewide average for truck volumes is 9% by segment.
In 1992, truck VMT in the Valley accounted for 18.7% of all statewide truck VMT. In 2007 it had grown to 28% and is still climbing.
Over a six year period from 1997 to 2003, truck traffic grew 33% while the state as a whole grew about 8%.
It is estimated that between 25% and 30% of all truck movements in the San Joaquin Valley are through trips not generated or ending in the Valley.
On Interstate 5 it is estimated that up to 30% of the traffic is trucks, depending on the location. Truck traffic on SR 99 is two to three times (18% to 27%) the average for the state.
Large trucks (5+ axles) play a very important role in the region’s trucking system, constituting over 20% of total Annual Average Daily Traffic in some locations on SR 99. Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) trucks are the largest trucks (STAA trucks are defined as tractor trailer combinations more than 65 feet in length or with a kingpin to rear axle length greater than 40 feet) allowed to operate on
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-13 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
California’s highways and are restricted to a designated STAA roadway network. Unfortunately, the geometry of many of the Valley’s interchanges does not easily accommodate these longer trucks which now make up about 70% of the truck fleet. In order to address this situation, additional STAA truck signing and geometric improvements to various interchanges will be required. Additionally, necessary expansion of our roadside rest system is required to deal with truck safety and to reduce the impact of on street parking by trucks in communities along freeways.
As we look forward, several trends are clear. Among them are:
▪ The Valley’s agricultural industry’s reliance on local routes and state highways to move goods from farm to market will continue to increase as the Valley’s farms production continues to grow in order to meet a growing planet’s needs for food and fiber.
▪ The Valley’s centralized location lends itself to the location of distribution centers, which in turn leads to more heavy duty diesel trucks utilizing our street and highway system, thereby creating more “wear and tear” on the facilities and generating additional emissions.
▪ Forecasted congestion on east west routes connecting the Bay Area to Stockton and Modesto will continue to worsen as goods movement increases and Bay Area employees continue to seek affordable housing in the Valley.
▪ Investments that improve access to intermodal transfer points will need to be taken into consideration and funding sought as “Just in Time” delivery continues to become the primary business model for many goods movement companies.
▪ The Port of Stockton has emerged as the fourth (effectively tied with the Port of San Diego) largest port in California, but continues to be growth constrained due to access issues on neighborhood surface streets.
▪ At grade intersections between vehicular traffic and trains are quite numerous in the Valley and present a safety hazard. Future growth in population and goods movement will only worsen the situation.
▪ Problematic access to large activity centers for large STAA trucks and doubles will increase due to ramp and roadway geometrics as will safety and road maintenance issues associated with truck traffic.
4b. Transit
Existing Operations
For the San Joaquin Valley (SJV), there exist jurisdiction by jurisdiction transit services with limited inter county transit operations throughout the SJV. These transit services include: • Vanpool services: Kings Area Rural Transit / Agricultural Industries Transportation Services (KART/AITS), San Joaquin County Commute Connection • Passenger rail service: Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) • Bus services: Greyhound, San Joaquin Commuter routes, Modesto Area Express connections to ACE and BART, East Kern Express route, Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS), Stanislaus Regional Transit routes, Merced County “The Bus” routes, KART, Tulare County Area Transit routes
However, there is not an integrated transit system that offers extensive inter county transit and connectivity to other modes such as Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), and Amtrak.
Page 6-14 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Improvements to inter county transit services will be needed to accommodate the projected future demands of inter county commuters with viable modal choices.
Transit Improvements
The San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Express Transit Study was a sponsored effort of all eight valley Councils of Governments/Metropolitan Planning Organizations, which make up the San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (SJVTPA) . The consultant, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, commenced this study in February 2008.
The SJV Express Transit Study is valley wide and comprehensive in its documentation of existing inter and intra valley transit services. The study further projects future transit demand both within the Valley and to Sacramento, Bay Area, and SoCal destinations. The study proposes service options throughout the San Joaquin Valley and by various modes ranging from rideshare/TDM, vanpool, commuter express bus, and commuter rail. The study has been coordinated with local transit providers in each of our counties, vanpool programs, and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission.
The study identifies four feasible inter county commute corridors.
Key Travel Corridors Description Northern SR 99 corridor to Nearly 10,000 daily trips heading towards Sacramento by Sacramento 2030 Northern SR 99 corridor to Bay Area More than 50,000 daily commute trips by 2030 Madera and Visalia to Fresno Substantial growth in commute trips to Fresno jobs Northern LA Co. to Eastern Kern Co. More than 20,000 people work at Edwards Air Force Base
The study summarizes the proposed services by key corridor to best serve the SJV’s inter county commuters. • Invest in ridesharing, which is the most cost effective strategy for the region • Focus on expanding vanpool offerings • Consider expanding subscription bus service from Stockton to Sacramento and the Bay Area • Consider implementing bus service between Lancaster Metrolink station and Edwards Air Force Base in Eastern Kern County in partnership with the base • Consider upgrades to commuter rail service to northern SR 99 corridors which includes capitalizing on California High Speed Rail investments
Commuter Commuter Rail Rideshare Vanpool Key Travel Corridors Express Bus Improvements Northern SR 99 corridor to X X X Sacramento X Northern SR 99 corridor to Bay Area X X X X Madera and Visalia to Fresno X X Northern LA Co. to Eastern Kern Co. X X
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-15 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
The map depicts the study’s proposed services for the SJV region.
The SJV Express Transit Study, from a procedural and geographic perspective, serves as a model for modal studies for the San Joaquin Valley.
Page 6-16 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Recommendations
Ridesharing/Vanpool Recognizing that lower density land use patterns will continue to dominate most of the San Joaquin Valley for the foreseeable future, the expansion of the ridesharing and vanpool opportunities should be the primary investment to increase transportation choices for inter county commuters in most of the SJV region. Recommendations for expanding access to ridesharing and vanpool services are: • Continue with plans to form a Joint Powers Authority in the Southern portion of the Valley to operate KART and AITS Vanpool • Expand Commute Connection’s service area to include Merced County, and enhance coordination between the participating MPOs • Commute Connection should consider pilot testing lease purchasing vanpool vehicles • Prioritize vanpooling to Fresno • Provide a single valley wide ride matching and vanpool website • Invest in more marketing of vanpool to choice riders • Expand park and ride opportunities • Offer Guaranteed Ride Home throughout the Valley • Seek to influence the development of the new Air District trip reduction rule, so that it can fund and promote ridesharing to large employers
Inter-county Express Bus Three key corridors (Northern SR 99 corridor to Sacramento; Northern SR 99 corridor to Bay Area; Northern LA County to Edwards Air Force Base in Eastern Kern County), which were identified through this study, have potential for commuter express transit services. Recommendations for express bus services include: • Maintain existing inter county commuter service • Enhance San Joaquin Regional Transit District subscription routes to Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area as funding becomes available • Study express bus service between Lancaster Metrolink and Edwards Air Force Base
Commuter Rail Nearly half of the San Joaquin Valley’s inter county commuters travel between the Valley and the neighboring San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento areas. High trip densities, congested roads, and the opportunity to connect to dense downtowns and high quality local rail service on the destination end makes these corridors good candidates for commuter rail service. Expanding and improving passenger rail service in these rail corridors may be the best way to serve SJV commuters in the coming decades. Recommendations for commuter rail are: • Develop a coordinated regional advocacy plan for enhanced state and federal investments in commuter rail • Work cohesively as Valley Counties to upgrade ACE • Work cohesively as Valley Counties for a direct ACE/BART connection • Work toward expansion of commuter rail service between Merced and Sacramento • Invest in great station area planning
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-17 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
4c. High Speed Rail
Background
The California High Speed Train (HST) system will approximately be an 800 mile system that will serve Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego. By 2030, HST will potentially be carrying 93 million passengers annually at operating speeds of up to 220 miles per hour. At such high speeds, the expected trip time from San Francisco to Los Angeles will be just over 2 ½ hours.
In 1996, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) was created to plan for the development, financing, construction and operation of the HST system. The CHSRA is made up of a nine member policy board and a small core staff.
In 2000, CHSRA adopted the Business Plan, which described the economic viability of the HST system. This Final Business Plan included investment grade forecasts of ridership, revenue, cost and benefits of the HST system.
In 2005, CHSRA, in cooperation with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), completed the final program level Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) that looked at the entire proposed statewide HST system. This was the first phase of a tiered environmental review process.
In 2007, CHSRA adopted a Phasing Plan and laid out the Preliminary Financial Plan. Factors and conditions for adopting Phase I (San Francisco to Central Valley to Anaheim) of the Phasing Plan included the following: • Early utilization of some segments • Local and regional funding participation in construction • Service to several regions • Significant operating surplus to attract private sector financing • Timely construction
Page 6-18 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
In 2007, CHSRA also laid out the Preliminary Financial Plan, which was later updated in 2008.
In 2008, CHSRA, in cooperation with FRA, completed another program level EIR/EIS, specifically for the Bay Area to Central Valley corridor. This program level EIR/EIS finalization resulted in the CHSRA selecting Pacheco Pass (over Altamont Pass) as the preferred alignment.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-19 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Also, in 2008, the CHSRA released an updated Business Plan with updated ridership and revenue forecasts. The 2008 Financial Plan updated the financing strategy for Phase I.
Funding Sources Cost (2008 dollars) State (2006 Bond $9.95 billion) $10 billion Federal grants $12 16 billion Local partnerships $2 3 billion Public private partnerships $6.5 7.5 billion Estimated cost (SF to Anaheim) $33.6 billion
In 2008, California voters approved $9.95 billion in state bonds for California’s HST.
Current Work
In 2009, with the state bond money, the CHSRA and the FRA have initiated the project level EIR/EIS for the entire HST system. The CHSRA has invited local and transportation agencies to actively participate in the process in determining final alignments, station locations, and site for the central heavy maintenance facility. Endorsed by the SJV, the CHSRA are looking at station locations in Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield, and Hanford, and the central heavy maintenance facility somewhere within the SJV. The CHSRA and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the joint planning and development of the Altamont Corridor Rail Project between the northern SJV and the Bay Area. The Altamont Corridor Rail Project will be a dedicated, grade separated, electric regional rail corridor, which will support intercity and commuter rail passenger services. The project would transform the existing Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) service into the new Altamont
Page 6-20 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Corridor Express by accommodating more trains per day, reducing travel times with high speed travel (150 mph or higher), and eliminating freight railroad delays by providing separate passenger tracks. The Altamont Corridor Express would possibly provide connections to potential bus links, BART, CalTrain, and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light rail network. The Altamont Corridor Express will service large riderships (with proposed stations in San Jose, Milpitas, Fremont/Union City, Pleasanton, Livermore, Tracy, Stockton, and Modesto), and also serve as a feeder to the statewide HST system (with considered connections at stations located in San Jose, Stockton, and Modesto). Additionally, the San Joaquin Valley supports the Altamont Corridor Rail Project to connect to Merced in order to tie in to Phase I of the statewide HST system. By ending in Modesto and not extending to Merced, there will be a gap (disconnect) between this Altamont Corridor Rail Project service and the statewide HST system.
Following the completion of the project level EIR/EIS for California’s HST system, the CHSRA will be finalizing design and acquiring right of way.
The CHSRA will be working on acquiring Federal funding needed for California’s HST system. CHSRA has already applied for more than $4.7 billion in funding from the Federal Economic Stimulus’ High Speed Rail Program. This $4.7 billion application includes: • $2.19 billion for Los Angeles to Anaheim • $980 million for San Francisco to San Jose • $466 million for Merced to Fresno • $819.5 million for Fresno to Bakersfield • $276.5 million for preliminary engineering and environmental work in all segments including Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire, Los Angeles to Palmdale and Bakersfield, Sacramento to Merced, and the Altamont Rail Corridor
This $4.7 billion, coupled with non Federal dollar for dollar match will total a nearly $10 billion investment. This level of investment is expected to create nearly 130,000 new jobs throughout the state.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-21 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
With more Federal funding prospectively available in the next Federal Surface Transportation Act, the CHSRA may have the opportunity to acquire more monies to complete the remaining segments of Phase I (Merced to San Jose; Bakersfield to Palmdale; Palmdale to Los Angeles).
With the completion of Phase I, the HST ridership is expected to generate profits. These profits will attract private partnerships to help pay (possibly match further Federal funding support) for the construction of the remaining segments (Merced to Sacramento; Altamont Corridor; Los Angeles to San Diego) of the envisioned HST system, which would be progressing towards final EIR/EIS.
Recommendations
The California High Speed Train (HST) System is very important to the SJV. By connecting the SJV to other major metropolitan areas, high speed rail will contribute to significant economic development opportunities, less vehicular congestion, safer highways, and improved air quality. Construction of the HST will also directly create jobs. For these reasons, the recommendations are: • The San Joaquin Valley will continue to support the activities, including the pursuit of available future funds, of the CHSRA and the development of a HST network across our valley and throughout the state. • The San Joaquin Valley supports the station locations in the cities of Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield, and Hanford. • The San Joaquin Valley supports the heavy maintenance facility location somewhere within the Valley. • The San Joaquin Valley supports the Altamont Corridor Rail Project service improvements including connection to Merced, which will tie in to Phase I of the statewide HST system.
4d. Goods Movement
4d-1. Freight and Passenger Rail
Introduction
In general, rail facilities are privately owned. Passenger service is provided by the National Rail Passenger Corporation, referred to as Amtrak. The Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) also provides passenger service between the bay area and the San Joaquin County. Private rail corporations, primarily the Union Pacific (UP) Railroad and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad provide freight service. In recent years, regional transportation planning agencies in the eight Valley counties have had an enhanced role in the planning of Interregional passenger rail service and rail freight movement.
Existing Interregional Rail Facilities
Rail facilities are located throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Many of these facilities provide for long distance movement of goods. In particular, several facilities owned by UP and BNSF stretch for significant lengths north south through the Valley. These are connected at locations up and down the Valley by several shorter lines, owned, leased, and/or operated by a number of different companies, such as the San Joaquin Valley Railroad.
Valley passenger rail service is provided by Amtrak’s San Joaquins service route. The San Joaquins is the fourth busiest route in the Amtrak national system outside the Northeast Corridor, with ridership annual ridership approaching 1 million as of October 2009. At present, there are six daily round trips provided from Oakland or Sacramento to Bakersfield. Connecting bus service has been significantly expanded over the years to now offer service points to the South Bay Area, as far north as Eureka, and as far south as Palm Springs and San Diego. The San Joaquins also provides connecting services to long distance nationwide trains. Service stops along the route include the Valley cities of Lodi, Stockton, Modesto, Turlock/Denair, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Hanford, Corcoran, Wasco, and Bakersfield.
Page 6-22 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Interregional Issues
Passenger Rail
In 1987, members of the Caltrans San Joaquin Task Force formed a committee to take a more active role in developing suggestions for improving the Amtrak San Joaquins service. This committee, known as the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee is comprised of representatives from each of the counties served by the trains, and representatives of interested counties served by the connecting bus network. The committee serves as an advisory body to Caltrans and Amtrak on issues pertaining to the San Joaquins service.
Efforts of the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee included the adoption of an annul Business Plan for the San Joaquin Corridor. This report becomes a significant resource to the Caltrans Rail Program in their work efforts to update a business plan for the San Joaquins rail corridor.
In recent years Committee work has focused on:
Operations Intercity Rail Connectivity • Promote expansion of Transit Transfer Pass with local agencies; investigate further options for direct connectivity with other rail systems. Amtrak Bus Operations • Evaluate the bus program for opportunities for cost effective expansions or to restructure or discontinue bus routes that are not cost effective. • Initiate new service in Fall 2008 between Bakersfield and Los Angeles International Airport via west Los Angeles. Food Service • Continue evaluation of menu items; add new menu items as appropriate. • Pursue mobile food service cart implementation. On Board Amenities • Implement mid route cleaning of restrooms. • Evaluate and testing of potential for on board wireless service. Ticketing and Fares • Implement on board, automated ticket sales and validation, if pilot program on the Capitol Corridor is successful. • Evaluate market reaction to Spring 2008 fare reductions and adjust accordingly. Fare increases will be considered to offset increased operating expenses from higher diesel locomotive fuel costs. • Continue to install Quik Trak ticket machines. Marketing Advertising, Public Relations and Partnerships • The Department will promote the recent addition of Amtrak bus connections from Merced to the eastern Sierra and a new route between Bakersfield and Los Angeles International Airport through west Los Angeles. • The Department will sponsor the ceremony opening the new Madera train station in the winter of 2008 09. • The Department, Amtrak and California Operation Lifesaver will provide bilingual staff for information booths at the annual 2008 National Council of La Raza. • Continue contract with Glass McClure for advertising services. Passenger Information • The Amtrak California website will be revised for easier navigation. It will provide more content, and a comment and suggestion feature. • The Fall/Winter On Line Timetable in 2008 09 will include an enhanced Amtrak • California System Map which will allow users to "point and click" the icons for specific trains, stations or bus routes as well as view all relevant timetables and amenities.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-23 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
• A combined San Joaquin / Capitol Corridor timetable will be introduced in Fall 2008. Rail Safety • California Operation Lifesaver will continue to actively promote rail safety educational and media campaigns in Central California. Capital Plan Track and Signal projects • Construct siding track and signals at Emeryville. • Construct track and signal improvements at Kings Park in Kings County. • Complete Merced Crossover Project. Station Projects • Complete construction of new Madera station and associated track work. • Construct bus terminal and parking structure at Emeryville. • Complete Fresno station shelters, parking lot and traffic circulation project. Equipment • Continue rebuilding of 66 rail cars. Homeland Security • Utilize Homeland Security funding for the development of security projects in the corridor Long range planning was last performed for the San Joaquins in 2001 as part of the California Passenger Rail System 20 Year Improvement Plan. That plan shows an increase from 6 to 10 trains per day, and discusses the co benefits that capital improvements along the corridor have for both freight and passenger service. Since 1987 the State of California has invested over $380 million on the BNSF San Joaquin Valley corridor for rail, siding and signal improvements.
The Amtrak San Joaquins and HST
The recently funded HST service, at a minimum, will provide the expanded capacity anticipated by Caltrans 20 Year Passenger Rail System Plan. In the interim, the San Joaquins will play an important role, providing rail service for missing segments of the HST as each segment is completed, and as a feeder service for the HST.
Federal stimulus funding is anticipated for the HST test track to be built in the San Joaquin Valley to connect Merced/Fresno – “the doorstep of Yosemite and the Sierras,” with Bakersfield – “the gateway of Southern California.” Existing San Joaquin Amtrak train sets could begin operating on this test track at speeds up to 120 MPH, cutting travel times in half, and ushering in one of the first segments of the HST in California. Construction could begin in 2012.
Long term service after the HST system is completed between Bakersfield and Merced needs further study to evaluate: 1) Amtrak San Joaquins as a feeder system for highspeed rail, and 2) addition of suburban commuter stops in outlying Fresno and Bakersfield and adjacent communities/counties. In the near term some stops along the system may need to be serviced by connector buses, until population and ridership warrant commuter/HST feeder train service. Development of connector buses and community transit centers should be coordinated with potential future commuter rail corridors that provide service from outlying communities and counties to the HST stations within the valley. Preservation and expansion of freight service along future commuter rail corridors is an important strategy to preserving potential future commuter rail corridors to the Valley’s HST stations.
Inter-County Commuter Rail
In 2009 the SJV RTPAs completed the San Joaquin Valley Express Transit Study. The study looks at a hierarchy of transit services which include commuter passenger rail service. The study made the following recommendations on passenger commuter rail.
1. Develop a coordinated regional advocacy plan for enhanced state and federal investments in commuter rail.
Page 6-24 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
2. Upgrade ACE.
Short Range ACE Corridor Improvements: • Increase service to at least 12 trains (from current 8) • Upgraded signaling • Dispatching Improvements • Altamont Slide Repairs • Niles Canyon Drainage Improvements • BNSF Crossing Improvements • Increase Speed in curves as possible • Additional sidings/passing tracks to speed operations and allow increase in service • Purchase rolling stock to support expanded service Mid Range ACE Corridor Improvements • Purchase new rolling stock to support expanded and higher speed service • Provide additional dedicated ACE track on Fresno Subdivision and Purchase • Tracy Subdivision to create a dedicated corridor from Stockton to Lathrop. • Double track existing ROW where possible to separate freight and passenger rail • service including operating on ACE owned track parallel to UP track from East • Livermore to Hearst. • Construct track in former SP Right of way owned by Alameda County between • Midway and East Livermore, and relocate service to that trackway. • Grade separations • Station Improvements to support increased service frequency. Longer Range ACE Corridor Improvements • Increase service to 20 minute bi directional peak hour service, plus regular midday service up to every half hour. • Operate a dedicated ACE/Regional Rail corridor throughout the length of ACE • Service through additional right of way acquisitions and new trackage. – Evaluate options including purchase of right of way/tunneling, and signalization • as necessary to create a more direct, level alignment through Niles Canyon to • support increased service – Evaluate options including purchase of right of way/tunneling, and signalization • as necessary to create a more direct, level alignment through Altamont Pass to • Support increased service. – Evaluate options including purchase of UP Warm Springs Subdivision to • support increased service from Niles to Diridon Station • Complete other improvements as necessary to support high speed equipment • operating on regional rail corridor, including electrification. • Purchase additional rolling stock compatible with high speed service. • Make additional station improvements as needed to support higher frequency • higher speed service.
3. Lobby for a direct ACE/BART connection.
4. Work toward expansion of commuter rail service between Merced and Sacramento.
5. Consider express bus service or LA Metrolink expansion towards Edwards Air Force Base.
6. Invest in great station area planning.
The study focused on inter county commuter rail. The study noted the potential for commuter rail service within a county. Future studies of intra county commuter rail service may be needed to augment this
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-25 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
study. Fresno and Kern COG have both funded long range transit studies that will look at future potential for light rail, and bus rapid transit systems that could serve as feeder systems for the highspeed rail stations in those regions.
Freight Rail
Central California is a major corridor for freight/goods movement. The highway system, and in particular State Route 99, is at times overwhelmed with truck traffic. In 1992, Caltrans District 6 prepared a report titled Freight Movement in the San Joaquin Valley . The report identifies key issues relating to goods movement and concludes “...modifying truck traffic demand over state highways by encouraging alternatives to highway freight movement. A logical alternative especially to long haul freight through the San Joaquin Valley would be to take advantage of available capacity on rail mainlines.”
In 2000, the counties of the San Joaquin Valley in conjunction with Caltrans, hired the consulting firm Cambridge Systematics, to conduct the “San Joaquin Valley Goods Movement Study”. This study noted that trucking is the dominant mode for moving freight, while rail accounted for 11% of the total tonnage. Rail was also found to be important for long haul shipments of certain key commodities. Less than 25% of shippers surveyed currently use rail services and only one third of those indicated that their rail usage was likely to grow. The decline in rail shipments since 1993 may have been attributable to rail network mergers and acquisitions. Many rail shippers looked for alternative shipping options during this time and found it difficult to locate enough boxcars to meet their needs. Both the Cities of Fresno and Bakersfield have looked at consolidation and relocation of rail yards in their downtowns during this period. In 2006, the CIRIS study was completed by SJCOG, looking at rail service between the San Joaquin Valley and the port of Oakland. The study concluded that a pilot project was needed to demonstrate the feasibility of such a service. The study looked at the potential for Service from Lathrop, Crows Landing, Fresno and Shafter to Oakland.
Draft Rail Concept Report
In 2008, the 8 valley COGs prepared a draft report on The Altamont/San Joaquin Valley Corridor: Optimizing Goods Movement for Exports and the Environment synthesizing 12 years worth goods movement reports in the region. The concept report divided rail goods movement in the San Joaquin Valley into two types: 1) National Goods Movement Corridor For Long Haul Rail, and 2) Regional Goods Movement Corridor For Short Haul Rail. Nationally, the San Joaquin Valley serves a critical corridor between the rapidly growing Southern half of the nation, with the port of Oakland, and between Southern
Page 6-26 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
California and the Pacific Northwest. This national goods movement is primarily pass through traffic, and accounts for the majority of trains on the mainline system.
Tehachapi Pass
A critical bottleneck in the national rail freight system is the Tehachapi Pass at the Southern end of the Valley. The State and BNSF are investing over $100M to increase capacity over the pass by as much as 70 percent. This project primarily benefits national goods movement without any federal funding. Because of this project national rail traffic is displacing short haul rail capacity. The state and federal government needs to mitigate the potential environmental impacts of reduced short haul rail capacity in the 8 county region.
Regional Goods Movement
Regional goods movement is characterized by shipments to and from the 8 county region to out of state destinations. There is currently no intra state rail travel from the San Joaquin Valley. Goods currently traveling between the valley and the southern California or the Bay Area are shipped almost entirely by truck. This is especially true of containerized freight. Historically, the national rail companies will not ship less than 700 miles (the length of California).
One example of out of state shipments includes the Rail Ex facility in Delano. This facility ships refrigerated box cars of perishable produce from the valley non stop to Albany, NY in 5 days.
The rail concept report also pointed out the role that short haul rail can play in persevering rail infrastructure for future passenger service, and the potential for hauling un subsidized freight on convential passenger corridors to help off set the cost of subsidized passenger service.
Oakland to Shafter Inland Port Pilot Project
Building on the 2006 CIRIS study, the Altimont/San Joaquin Valley Corridor concept report reviewed efforts to create a rail freight shuttle between the Port of Oakland and the Valley. It proposed a phasing for the acquisition and refurbishment of the old Southern Pacific line. Phase I included a short haul rail connection between Tulare to the rail yard in Fresno, for shipping goods out of state. Phase II was a proposed shuttle between the port of Oakland and Crows Landing in Stanislaus County. Phase III was completion of gaps in Los Banos and northern Kern County to complete the system to the Port of Oakland. Before the completion of such a project, a pilot effort on the BNSF or UP lines was needed.
In 2009, the Paramount Farming Company and the City of Shafter completed the Oakland Shafter Inland Port (OSIP) position paper. The paper recommended that policy makers create long term, sustained efforts to develop and maintain short haul rail with in the state of California. This was critical to both economic and environmental goals for the state and nation.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-27 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Hauling containers by rail is 10 times more energy efficient than by Heavy Duty Trucks
ICFI, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Freight Trucks,” Intl. Emissions Inventory Conf., 5/16/07
The OSIP paper concluded that a Midwest grain transloading facility could provide the backbone traffic necessary to make such a service from the Valley to Oakland economically viable, because the port of Oakland lacked the space necessary for such a facility. Once the service was established, other products from the valley could be containerized and shipped by rail to the ports such as almonds, nuts, cotton and other products, currently trucked to the port. By the end of 2009 a pilot shipment of grain from the Midwest had been successfully transloaded from bulk carriers to containers and then shipped to the port of Oakland. Shafter had also completed a “will serve” agreement with the UP to provide the service, a prerequisite for state bond funding of an intermodal facility in Shafter.
Rail Abandonment Issues
In an effort to preserve a rail corridor that was threatened with abandonment, funding for the rehabilitation of the Union Pacific Coalinga branchline between Huron and Visalia was obtained from various sources. Rehabilitation of the tracks improved freight service operated by the San Joaquin Valley Railroad and reduced the amount of truck traffic on regional roads and state highways. Funding for the $15 million project was provided with the Governor’s Traffic Congestion Relief Program, federal Economic Development Initiative grant, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds from Fresno, Kings and Tulare Counties, the cities of Huron, Lemoore and Visalia, private agencies and the San Joaquin Valley Railroad. Rehabilitation work was completed in early 2004 and passenger service along this corridor could be revisited again as part of a HST feeder service.
In 2006, the San Joaquin Valley Railroad (SJVR) applied to the Federal Surface Transportation Board to abandon portions of the form Southern Pacific mainline between Richgrove and Exeter. Tulare CAG is working with the Central California Rail Shippers/Receivers Association and the SJVR to preserve the corridor and has identified funding from a local transportation sales tax measure for possible acquisition of the corridor.
Short Range Action Plan
Federal Government
• Fund HST to complete service between Los Angeles and the Bay Area with stops in the Valley – the doorstep to Yosemite and the Sierras.
• Continue to fund Amtrak service as an interim gap service during HST construction and future feeder system/back up service for HST
• Coordinate Amtrak with ACE and other future commuter services serving as feeder networks for HST
Page 6-28 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
• Provide matching funding for Tehachapi Pass, to mitigate short haul rail displacement impacts of increased national goods movement through the San Joaquin Valley region by funding short haul rail service infrastructure between the SJV shippers, class I rail yards, and the ports.
State of California
• Fund HST to complete service between Los Angeles and the Bay Area with stops in the Valley – the doorstep to Yosemite and the Sierras.
• Establish the HST Heavy Maintenance facility in the San Joaquin Valley.
• Continue financial support of Amtrak service as an interim gap service during HST construction and future feeder system/back up service for HST.
• Coordinate Amtrak with ACE and other future commuter services serving as feeder networks for HST
• Revise the California State Rail Plan 2005 06 to 2015 16 to consider HST, the San Joaquin Valley Express Study and Valley short haul rail needs.
• Implement the San Joaquins Route Business Plan Continue cooperative planning and coordination with recommendations of the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee.
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
• Participate in the San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee and support the committee recommendations.
• Monitor the planning and analysis work of the California High Speed Rail Authority and participate in the planning effort to ensure that Valley interests are appropriately reflected.
• Support state and federal actions that would increase accessibility to passenger rail service. The Central Valley passenger rail system should be designed to fully integrate the larger intermodal passenger transportation network including multimodal stations that provide convenient and direct access to all appropriate state, regional, and local modes, including, where applicable, urban commuter, inter city and high speed rail service, regional and local bus service, airport shuttle services, and other feeder serviced that provide intermodal linkage.
• Work to coordinate passenger and freight rail activities to maximize co benefits
Long-Range Action Plan
Federal Government
• Fund the re configuration of Amtrak as a commuter/feeder rail system for the HST
• Help fund the creation of a short haul rail system for the SJV to provide more capacity on the national system.
State of California • Fund the re configuration of Amtrak as a commuter/feeder rail system for the HST
• Fund the creation and maintenance of a short haul rail system for the SJV to promote the use of more efficient rail modes over trucks.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-29 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
• Work to fund the creation of a HST passenger feeder rail and transit service for the SJV
• Work to fund the creation of a short haul rail backbone to the port of Oakland and the BNSF and UP rail yards in the valley.
• Work to coordinate passenger and freight rail activities to maximize co benefits 4e. Airports
Fresno
There are eight public use / general aviation airports in the Fresno County region: Coalinga Municipal Airport, Firebaugh Airport, Chandler Executive Airport (classified a Regional General Aviation Airport in the California Aviation system Plan), Harris Ranch Airport (classified a Limited Use Airport in the California Aviation System Plan), Mendota Airport, Reedley Municipal Airport, Selma Aerodrome, and Sierra Sky Park. Fresno Yosemite International Airport (FYI) is designated a Primary Commercial Service Hub Airport in the California Aviation System Plan and also accommodates general aviation.
Fresno County’s general aviation airports provide a variety of important services to the communities within which they are located and to surrounding areas. Fresno County airports provide for recreational, business, and charter air travel; police and sheriff helicopter patrols at FYI; air cargo flights; fire suppression (air tankers), and flight and aircraft mechanical instruction.
The general aviation airports are vitally important to the communities within which they are located and to all of Fresno County for all of the reasons listed. With regard to FYI in particular, it has long been recognized there is a need to better quantify and promote the economic significance of the airport to Fresno and the entire San Joaquin Valley in order to better develop and sustain ongoing support. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics completed a Final Report in June 2003 that provided a comprehensive evaluation of the economic benefits of aviation and airports to California communities and the overall State economy. The report, prepared by Economics Research Associates, noted that aviation’s overall contribution to the California economy (including direct, indirect and induced impacts) amounts to nearly 9 percent of both total state employment and total state output.
For calendar year 2008 there were a total of 1,252,751 passengers, of which 627,343 were enplanements and 625,408 were deplanements. The FYI service area consists of six counties including Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced and Tulare. As population within this six county area increases it is likely that operations at FYI will increase. It has become clear that passenger usage of FYI is underutilized due to market forces generated by air fares, the automobile and alternative airports in the Bay Area, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. Total market leakage may be as high as 300,000 passengers a year or more. Reduction of this market leakage through better airline service, including additional international service, is a primary challenge at FYI. The extent to which this challenge is addressed will determine, in part, the growth in future operations at the airport.
The various short and long term benefits to the region, while not quantified, are nevertheless real. As noted above, there is an ongoing need to better quantify and promote the economic significance of FYI, in particular, to Fresno and the entire San Joaquin Valley in order to better develop and sustain ongoing support. Of increasing economic significance to FYI is the role and value of air cargo, notwithstanding recent declines due to state and national economic challenges. In this regard, major airports in both Southern and Northern California are experiencing significant air cargo constraints that include both facilities and operations capacity, thereby presenting an opportunity for the Fresno region.
Page 6-30 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Stanislaus
The Stanislaus County region has four (4) public use airports, including one (1) commercial/general use airport, the Modesto City County Airport, located in the City of Modesto; two (2) general use airports, Turlock Municipal, located in Merced County and Oakdale Municipal Airport, located in the City of Oakdale; and one (1) military air facility, Crows Landing Naval Auxiliary Landing Facility (CLNALF), located in Crows Landing. This facility is has been abandoned since 2000.
Based on current forecasts, the operations capacity at all airports located in the Stanislaus Region are expected to meet the future aviation needs of the public. Attracting more direct commercial aviation service to the Modesto City County Airport has been a major challenge for the City of Modesto and Stanislaus County. Currently, air service provides passenger connections to longer distance flights via the San Francisco International Airport. The potential benefits of providing improved air service directly from Modesto include greater passenger convenience and reduced vehicle miles of travel and emissions as fewer trips are made to nearby airports in Sacramento and the Bay Area.
General aviation operations comprise the majority of local aircraft activity in Stanislaus County, and this trend is expected to continue over the next 25 years. The difficulty of general aviation airports in obtaining the funding necessary to maintain existing facilities and construct additional facilities for aircraft parking are the single most significant issue identified in StanCOG’s Regional Aviation Systems Plan, 1998. Ground transportation also poses an issue for the Oakdale and Turlock Municipal Airports.
The Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) does not act as the region’s Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The Stanislaus County ALUC works incorporation with the Merced County ALUC to develop plans to ensure future development is compatible with airport operations.
Stanislaus County is primarily an agriculture producing region and thus the movement of goods has typically been handled by trucking and rail, not by air. The Modesto City County airport is the only airport that has cargo operations. This operation is predominately delivering cancelled checks five (5) days per week. However, StanCOG, in cooperation with the City of Modesto and Stanislaus County, supports continued study into the development of an air cargo facility located at the abandoned CLNALF to serve the agricultural and potential future high technology businesses as they move into the Stanislaus region.
5. Intelligent Transportation Systems
Background
Intelligent Transportation Systems represent a means of applying new technological breakthroughs in detection, communications, computing and control technologies to improve the safety and performance of the surface transportation system. This can be done by using the technologies to manage the transportation system to respond to changing operating conditions, congestion or accidents. ITS technology can be applied to arterials, freeways, transit, trucks and private vehicles. ITS includes Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS), Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS), Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS), Advanced Vehicle Control Systems (AVCS) and Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO).
Today, applications of ITS technologies allow the monitoring of traffic conditions and the dynamic adjustment of traffic signals to reduce unnecessary delay, the automated collection of transit fares and advanced detection and television cameras to detect, assess and respond to traffic accidents and incidents. In the future, ITS technologies will automate transit fare collection and parking payments, use vehicle location systems to track trains and buses to give users “real time” arrival and departure information, as well as use onboard systems to detect and avoid collisions.
Within the San Joaquin Valley, utilizing a federal planning grant, the eight counties formed an ITS committee focused on solving transportation problems within the region. The ITS vision for the San
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-31 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Joaquin Valley Strategic Deployment Plan is to enhance the quality of life, mobility, and the environment through coordination, communication, and integration of ITS technology into the Valley’s transportation systems. The ITS plan for this corridor includes major local elements developed by the eight counties. The plan coordinates architecture, standards and institutional issues and also provides the framework for deploying an integrated ITS.
The overall strategy for the deployment of ITS includes a number of components and user services:
• Completion of advanced traffic management of the region’s freeways and certain arterial corridors, through traffic operations centers, signal synchronization, visual detection and deployment of incident management systems.
• Advanced Traveler Information Systems will provide real time information to system users on traffic conditions, incidents, accidents, events, weather and alternative routes and modes.
• Advanced Public Transportation Systems will provide some of the technology to implement improved dispatching of transit vehicles and will enable vastly improved demand responsive transit services.
• Improved Commercial Vehicle Operations will take place by deploying technologies that track vehicles through the Valley, providing them with improved traveler information and safety warnings.
General Opportunities
• Build upon the existing Caltrans District 6 and District 10 Traffic Management Systems to fill gaps and complete coverage on major facilities, including expansion of their highway closures and restrictions database to include other agencies.
• Capitalize upon the extensive ITS technology testing and standards development conducted by Caltrans by using, where appropriate, Caltrans approaches for local traffic management systems.
• Build upon lessons learned from past and current transit ITS deployment experience (Fresno Area Express, Golden Empire Transit District, San Joaquin Regional Transit).
• Build upon Caltrans District 6 and District 10 experience with co location and coordination between traffic management and Highway Patrol staff.
• Build upon the momentum and stakeholder coalition generated through the San Joaquin Valley Goods Movement Study to pursue ITS commercial vehicle projects.
• Investigate how to provide traveler information for commercial vehicle operators at truck rest stop locations.
• Investigate how ITS can support efforts to improve east west travel between the inland areas and the coast.
• Improve visibility and access to existing Caltrans Valleywide alternate route plans.
• Use momentum from the Valleywide ITS planning effort in conjunction with federal rules (ITS architecture and standards conformity and statewide and metropolitan planning) to expand ITS action.
Page 6-32 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Fresno County Opportunities
• Maintain momentum generated by recent ITS strategic deployment planning process, taking advantage of the level of awareness and precedent for joint action established through the previous planning effort.
• Continue efforts to improve coordination between the Caltrans District 6 and Fresno metro area traffic management centers, taking advantage of the current District 6 and Fresno fiber optic implementation projects. Utilize the Fresno District 6 coordination efforts as a demonstration of the benefits of improved coordination between Caltrans and local traffic management centers.
• Encourage other local entities (in addition to City of Fresno) to investigate opportunities to coordinate with Caltrans District 6 fiber optic system with City of Clovis and County of Fresno.
• Support and expand upon the projects identified in the Fresno County ITS Strategic Deployment Plan that are intended to develop a regional transportation user information system (project 4.1), connections to a Valleywide or statewide information system (project 4.2), and development of common or standard electronic maps to support applications such as automatic vehicle location.
Kern County Opportunities
• Coordinate Bakersfield area Transportation Management Center (TMC) with Caltrans’ District 6 TMC via satellite.
• Look for ways to integrate the ITS capabilities being implemented at Golden Empire Transit (GET) with Bakersfield’s traffic management system, including sharing information between the two centers during emergencies.
• Facilitate the transfer of lessons learned from the Golden Empire Transit (GET) ITS deployment, to other area transit operators, and look for opportunities for those agencies to better coordinate with GET using GET’s ITS capabilities.
• Expand the accident reduction campaigns on Kern’s rural highways.
Kings County Opportunities
• Provide improved safety and mobility along east west highways such as SR 198 using CMS and other ITS applications.
• Build on City of Hanford’s traffic management capabilities, including coordination with Caltrans.
• Continue to develop the AVL system for Kings Area Rural Transit (KART).
• Improve safety at rural railroad crossings using ITS applications.
• Provide commercial vehicles with improved information in the I 5 corridor related to routes, facilities and parking within the County.
• Enhance the safety and capacity of Highway 43 as an alternate route to SR 99/I 5 using ITS applications.
Madera County Opportunities
• Evaluate surveillance and automated red light running at high accident locations in Madera
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-33 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
• Enhancements to emergency vehicle dispatching systems for rural areas, including improved evacuation plans for Yosemite Park that build on the additional roadway connections that are being constructed (i.e., elimination of “dead ends”).
• Traveler information and/or other ITS applications that would support needed park and ride lots along Highway 99.
• Develop traveler information strategies to support the relocated Amtrak station.
• Investigate options for utilizing ITS in support of upcoming restructuring/optimization of rural demand responsive transit service.
• Develop analysis tools for traffic accidents, such as a geographic information system, for the City of Madera.
Merced County Opportunities
• ITS traveler information and traffic management in support of the University of California facility, red light running enforcement and train warning and information system applications in Merced.
• Consideration of ITS traffic signal applications in support of Merced’s major interchange improvements.
• Develop traveler information and other transit management strategies to improve coordination of the regional bus service (“the Bus”) with the intermodal transportation center in downtown Merced.
• Investigate options for supplemental railroad crossing warning and information systems at high volume train crossings where delays are frequent and long.
San Joaquin County Opportunities
• Utilize ITS to support the coordination of local transit services with the new commuter rail service to the Bay Area.
• Investigate methods to further improve coordination between San Joaquin Regional Transit and Stockton and/or Caltrans District 10 TMCs.
• Build upon next bus arrival signs and automated phone system traveler information strategies at San Joaquin Regional Transit, possibly to include kiosks and Internet information.
Stanislaus County Opportunities
• Expand on the City of Modesto/Ceres Traffic Management System (TMS) to develop an integrated Urban ATMS for the County.
• Improve interjurisdictional signal coordination.
• Build upon ITS transit applications in Stockton, Fresno and Bakersfield to provide Modesto Area Express (MAX) and local transit services with a means to improve operations and management.
• Improve safety and mobility on the Counties east west rural highways including Highway 132 between the I 5 and SR 99 corridors using ITS applications such as Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS).
Page 6-34 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
• Utilize intermodal freight facilities to provide improved information to commercial vehicles.
• Improve mobility, coordination and information between the urbanized areas of Stockton and Modesto along the SR 99 corridor.
Tulare County Opportunities
• Implement red light running enforcement in Visalia.
• Build upon the current traffic signal system efforts to develop an urban ATMS in the areas of Visalia, Tulare and Goshen.
• Provide safe areas along rural routes to the National Parks system including improved traveler information.
• Development of an improved communication link between the Visalia/Tulare urbanized area and Caltrans – District 6 to address coordination efforts along the SR 99 and SR 198 corridors.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-35 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
6. Regional Planning
6a. Air Quality and Conformity
Background The SJV is one of the largest and most challenging air quality nonattainment areas in the United States. The SJV nonattainment area includes eight counties from San Joaquin County to Kern County on the Western border of the Sierra Nevada range. These counties represent a diverse mixture of urban and rural characteristics, yet are combined in a single nonattainment area that violates federal health standards for ozone and particulate matter. Air quality monitoring stations continue to indicate that the San Joaquin Valley is among the worst polluted regions in the country. Since the eight counties are combined into a single nonattainment area, a coordinated approach for compliance with the federal Clean Air Act is essential for both State Implementation Plan (SIP) development and conformity determinations.
Coordination On going coordination with interagency consultation partners has been, is, and will continue to be critical to the development of positive conformity determinations, as well as the conformity budgets and transportation control measures included in air quality plan updates. As one of the few multi jurisdictional areas in the country, the individual decisions and actions of each of the SJV Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs) have the potential to affect the entire nonattainment area. At this time, it is unclear when the RPAs within the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area will become independent of each other with regard to air quality. The interagency consultation process is critical to completing regional conformity demonstrations, processing TIP/RTP amendments, project level hot spot assessments/analyses and conformity determinations, as well as other processes required by the federal transportation conformity regulation.
Involvement in SIP development, including transportation conformity budgets is essential to the receipt of federal transportation funding. SIP failures, as well as non conformance, jeopardize not only the receipt of federal transportation funding, but also the ability for locally funded (regionally significant) transportation projects to proceed. The SJV RPAs are also involved in the air quality modeling to provide assurances that the final conformity budgets can be met. In addition, the SJV RPAs participate in air quality plan development by coordinating the local government transportation control measure process that is required by the Clean Air Act.
Transportation Conformity The primary goal is to assure compliance with transportation conformity regulations with respect to the requirements for Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), Federal Transportation Improvement Programs (FTIPs), amendments, compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), implementation of applicable transportation control measures (TCMs), and applicable State Implementation Plans (SIP). Since coordination efforts have begun, the SJV RPAs have been successful in complying with conformity requirements for the 2004 TIP/RTP, 2006 TIP, and 2007 TIP/RTP. In addition, FHWA has determined that the SJV RPA planning processes substantially meet the SAFETEA LU planning requirements. TIP/RTP Amendments, including coordinated amendment cycles and development of valley wide process for PM 2.5 multi jurisdictional areas until conformity budgets are established, continue to be federally approved. The SJV RPAs have also completed timely implementation documentation of local government commitments beginning with the 2006 TIP; two TCM substitutions have been processed and approved. Project level assessments, including valley wide procedures, have also been developed.
Continued examples of SJV RPA coordinated efforts with respect to transportation conformity include the following:
• Monitoring and testing of transportation model updates;
Page 6-36 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
• Continued documentation of latest planning assumptions and compliance with the transportation conformity rule and corresponding guidance documents; • Drafting of valley wide procedures for RPA staff use, with detailed instructions from the execution of EMFAC to post processing of emissions results consistent with applicable SIPS; and • Preparation of boilerplate documentation, including draft public notices and adoption resolutions, as well as draft response to public comments.
Modeling Air quality model development progress is monitored to ensure that appropriate assumptions are being used in new air quality model updates. Modeling data, including defaults, emissions inventories, speeds, vehicle miles traveled, and control measure assumptions will be coordinated with the Air District and the Air Resource Board to promote accuracy of modeling output. Early communication of potential modeling problems or issues is a high priority and is presented to the appropriate modeling staff to be addressed and resolved in a timely manner.
The SJV RPAs have coordinated transportation model updates, as well as worked with both the Air District and ARB on the development of conformity budgets and EMFAC updates (i.e., EMFAC 2005 development with updated transportation data and EMFAC 2007 development, including technical comments on model updates (e.g., re distribution of heavy duty truck travel). These efforts have included ongoing tracking of compliance with latest planning assumptions and collaborating with the Air District and CARB on the applicable conformity budget methodology and corresponding SIP documentation. Coordination efforts will continue with Caltrans and ARB on statewide transportation models and/or networks as appropriate.
Every three to four years, CARB begins an update to the EMFAC model. EMFAC 2010 efforts will likely begin by the end of 2009. Model changes without corresponding SIP updates can result in the inability of the RPAs to demonstrate conformity. Coordination of model updates and corresponding SIP updates will continue to be vital to the SJV RPAs to assure continued conformity compliance. Protocols and programs are continually developed to facilitate the use of transportation data in air quality modeling.
Public Policy The SJV RPAs monitor proposed legislation, new regulations, court case decisions, and filed court cases related to air quality issues and evaluate the implications of these to the Valley RPAs. Unified positions are developed as needed.
As new federal, state, and/or local regulations are developed, they are evaluated for their impact on the SJV RPAs. If necessary, draft comments are prepared on behalf of the RPAs. Once regulations are finalized, summaries are prepared for the SJV RPAs regarding requirements and impacts. Over the past four years, quarterly updates on legal challenges and new air quality standards and requirements have been provided to the RPA Directors’ Committee. Recent examples include analysis of draft SAFETEA LU legislation, drafting of RPA comments, RPA workshops and continued assistance in achieving SAFETEA LU compliance.
Summary of Future Efforts:
• Continued coordination of interagency consultation; • Development of Conformity SIP; • Transportation conformity for future TIPs & RTPs; • EMFAC 2010 and corresponding conformity budgets;
• Ozone and PM 2.5 air quality plan updates; and • Continued public policy assessment.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-37 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
6b. San Joaquin Valley Blueprint
The San Joaquin Valley has been identified by Governor Schwarzenegger’s California Partner ship for the San Joaquin Valley as “… one of the most vital, yet challenged regions of the state.”
Rising to meet the San Joaquin Valley’s most pressing issues, the eight RTPAs representing the eight counties within the SJV came together in 2005 to initiate the SJV Regional Blueprint planning process.
The goal of the SJV Regional Blueprint planning process is to address critical issues facing the vitality of the SJV (as well as the State of California and the nation) in planning for the future of the world’s foremost agricultural region. The SJV Regional Blueprint will guide the future of infrastructure development, and in turn accommodate the exploding population and economic growth in the region to the year 2050.
In 2006, the SJV Regional Blueprint planning process developed the foundation for the Blueprint by creating an institutional framework and citizen outreach plan. In addition, this joint venture initiated the development of the SJV Regional Blueprint Vision. In 2007 overall goals, objectives, and performance measures were developed that will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Blueprint. In 2008, the Blueprint process continued to make progress with this historic and collaborative planning effort among the eight Valley COGs and their working partners. Throughout the process, the SJV Blueprint developed many relationships and reached numerous milestones. In early 2009, the Valleywide Blueprint Summit attracted over 600 attendees. At the event, the Valleywide alternative scenarios were presented to the public at large. The event was intended to solicit input on the scenarios, which would assist the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council in adopting a preferred growth scenario for the San Joaquin Valley. On April 1, 2009, the Policy Council reviewed the Valley COGs’ collaborative work on the Blueprint and took the following actions:
Adopted a list of Smart Growth Principles to be used as the basis for Blueprint Planning the San Joaquin Valley; and Adopted Scenario B+ as the Preferred Blueprint Growth Scenario for the San Joaquin Valley to the year 2050. This preferred scenario will serve as guidance for the Valley’s local jurisdictions with land use authority as they update their general plans.
Upcoming tasks include the integration of the Valley Blueprint into local city and county general plans within the Valley, which will ultimately result in a healthier, more vibrant economy, an improved transportation system through reduced congestion and viable transit options, improved air quality, and will accommodate the housing infrastructure needs of the Valley’s growing population. Overall, implementation of the Valley Blueprint at the local level will create sustainable communities and make the Valley a more desirable place to live.
Past Neglect – Hope for the Future
For many decades the San Joaquin Valley region has been neglected by both federal and state governments and has not received its fair share of revenue. That situation is now changing with federal and state policymakers recognizing the extraordinary challenges facing the San Joaquin Valley. Through executive orders issued by two presidents, the Federal Interagency Task Force for the Economic Development of the San Joaquin Valley was formed to help coordinate federal efforts within the region. Through the Interagency Task Force, multiple initiatives have been created (Regional Jobs Initiative, Financial Education Initiative, Rural Infrastructure Initiative, Operation Clean Air, Affordable Communities Initiative: Housing Trust Fund, Clean Energy Organization) which have directed much needed attention to the quality of life in the San Joaquin Valley region.
Many of the Valley’s critical issues have no political or geographic boundaries, and are often made worse through parochial practices. Often, freeway congestion in one area transports air quality impacts throughout the Valley, just as land use and development policies in one area may create reactionary development in other areas. Regional collaboration is needed to address these kinds of situations.
Page 6-38 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
State Remedies
Interface of the Blueprint and the Partnership In response to these and other issues, Governor Schwarzenegger signed an executive order in 2005 creating the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley (Partnership) a state effort to direct resources to the San Joaquin Valley region. Through the Blueprint process, regional leaders are assessing regional issues jointly with the Partnership. Collaboration with the SJV Partnership will enable pooling of statewide resources, along with enhancing the multi agency, multi layer momentum to create a regional voice for the San Joaquin Valley.
In November 2006, the Partnership completed the Strategic Action Plan, which detailed its goals to achieve a Prosperous Economy, Quality Environment, and Social Equity through six major initiatives and the recommendations of its ten working groups. The Partnership’s ten year Strategic Action Plan references the efforts of the Valley’s COGs to enhance quality of life concerns and specifically identifies the SJV Blueprint as the implementation strategy within two of its working group lists of recommendations: Transportation and Land Use and Agriculture and Housing. The interface of the Partnership and the Blueprint planning processes will allow the Valley to improve the quality of life for all residents through integrated and collaborative planning strategies.
Summary of Accomplishments to Date
Working in concert over the past three years, the eight COGs in the San Joaquin Valley have accomplished many goals that enabled the process to the benchmark of reaching consensus on a Valleywide preferred growth scenario. The adoption of this scenario and the associated smart growth principles by the SJV Regional Policy Council on April 1, 2009 was a major milestone. These accomplishments are even more noteworthy when one considers that each step along the way required approval or endorsement by eight separate and distinct policy boards. The sixty two cities, eight counties and eight councils of governments are proud of the collaborative effort they have made to reach this point in the process and are committed to build upon the progress already made in the future.
In general, the major tasks undertaken can be summarized as follows:
Institutional Framework, Project Management and Community Outreach: In order to reach the daunting goal of coordinating eight counties in an effort to reach a unified vision for growth, the SJV Blueprint process created a program management team comprised of a program manager from the lead agency and project managers representing each of the other seven COGs. This team is responsible for coordinating local efforts as well as maintaining the regional connection. During the initial phases, activities were conducted at both the county and the regional levels. Extensive local community outreach touched thousands of community members and stakeholder groups throughout the Valley. Three major Valleywide events were conducted: the Blueprint Kickoff Workshop in June of 2006, the Blueprint Executive Forum (aimed primarily at the Valley’s elected officials) in April of 2008 and a Valleywide Summit in January 2009 (where the Valleywide alternative scenarios were presented to the public at large). The adoption of an integrated Valley Vision in April of 2009 moved the process from planning to implementation.
Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality Modeling: The San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Project Modeling Steering Committee worked closely with UC Davis’s Department of Environmental Science and Policy and the Information Center for the Environment to become familiar with the UPlan modeling software and to collect GIS and demographic data. Extensive communication was required to assemble general plan information from all 70 jurisdictions involved. Status Quo scenarios were developed in each county to provide a base case for comparison. Alternatives scenarios were also created. All county level scenarios were analyzed using land use, traffic and air quality models in order to compare the scenarios based on performance measures. A preferred concept was submitted to U.C. Davis by each county for Valleywide analysis and ultimately the selection of a preferred growth scenario for the Valley.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-39 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Individual County Planning Process: As mentioned above, each of the eight Valley COGs conducted the Blueprint process at their local level, which included convening roundtable stakeholder groups, engaging their member agencies, and conducting outreach activities with community groups and the general public. Much time was invested in working with local agency planners in order to gain their trust and commitment so that the ultimate Blueprint will be integrated at the local level.
Valley Planning Process: The Valley planning process has been ongoing since the SJV Blueprint grant was first awarded in 2006. The eight COGs have been collaborating on a Valleywide basis as part of the project management team and through partnering with the Great Valley Center and their staffing of the Blueprint Regional Advisory Committee (BRAC). The SJV Air Pollution Control District has also been an active partner both financially and through in kind contributions during the planning process. In addition, the individual COGs have worked closely with Caltrans and UC Davis on many of the technical activities.
Document Creation, Implementation Strategy, and Blueprint Certification Process: The SJV Blueprint has produced a variety of communication materials including websites, videos, brochures, print and electronic media advertising, and extensive project reports. Mapping exercises have produced a multitude of excellent graphic depictions which help member agencies, stakeholder groups and the general public to understand the sometimes complex concepts that are being portrayed. In fact, Fresno COG was recognized by the Central Section of the Cal Chapter of the American Planning Association with a “1 st Place Outstanding Planning Award/Best Practices” award for their extensive marketing campaign and public outreach efforts in the development of the San Joaquin Valley Regional Blueprint Plan. Fresno COG developed an ambitious marketing campaign, including many innovative strategies, to reach out and include community stakeholders in the Blueprint visioning process to foster greater participation in Fresno County.
Ultimately, the Blueprint must be integrated into local general planning processes in order to ensure implementation. Now, with the legal requirements of AB 32 and SB 375, some type of certification process will need to be established so that the planning principles defined in the Blueprint will be implemented throughout the Valley. The Blueprint will also need to show compliance with AB 32.
Modeling: It is widely known that the traditional four step traffic model is not sensitive to the benefits of smart growth development such as Density, Diversity, Destination & Design (often referred to as 4 D). There have been efforts to integrate a 4 D process into the traffic model to compensate for the trip/vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction that smart growth can create through the SJV Blueprint process. The results were encouraging, and reinforced support of smart growth planning practices in the Valley. As the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint marches into the planning implementation stage, more smart growth projects are projected to be built. The scenario based 4 D process, which was developed during the scenario planning stage, would not be applicable in the planning implementation stage. A project based 4 D tool will be needed to measure the travel reduction benefits of smaller scale or even individual projects.
During the scenario planning stage of the Valley Blueprint process, UPlan, a scenario modeling tool developed by UC Davis, has been used by all eight Valley COGs. It was mostly run at the county level. Since each Valley COG’s traffic model uses different socio economic categories, individual efforts were taken by each COG to translate the UPlan land use categories into the categories in each of the eight traffic models in the Valley. In the planning implementation stage, when Blueprint principles will be incorporated into local projects, more fine grained software choices will be explored for community, neighborhood, or even project level planning.
Visualization Tool Development and Scenario Planning Tools: The San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Process has been and will continue to be conducted through a “bottom up” approach to securing local government and community support. Computer generated maps showcasing and explaining the local and Valleywide Blueprint options will be generated by UC Davis/Valley COGs and circulated to the Valley communities through public outreach efforts orchestrated by the Great Valley Center, and by each individual planning agency. Public meetings with interactive voting technology have and will be used to obtain feedback from the public and elected officials. Other technologies in use are interactive websites,
Page 6-40 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
media outlets for radio, television and print media, emailed updates and newsletters to established and growing distribution lists. The Valley COGs also work with a variety of community, business and government agencies throughout the region to disseminate information via presentations at their pre scheduled meetings, posting articles in their newsletters, and online publications and by mailing printed documents.
Health and Obesity Awareness: According to the Prevention Institute, the built environment is the designated use, layout, and design of a community’s physical structures including its housing, businesses, transportation systems, and recreational resources, all of which affect patterns of living that influence health. Smart growth strategies can transform the built environment to encourage physical activity by making a community more walkable/bikeable and can provide greater access to healthy food options, thus contributing to healthier eating. To bridge land use, transportation, community design efforts and public health, a comprehensive approach to planning can be implemented that focuses on identifying priority areas where public health strategies can be incorporated within the local planning process. In the short term, these planning efforts will help create healthier lifestyles; in the long term, these efforts can have a measurable impact upon chronic health conditions such as obesity, diabetes, stroke and heart disease. The SJV Blueprint process will coordinate with the Central California Regional Obesity Program (CCROP) on these issues. One of the land buffer tools discussed in the Farmland Conservation study being conducted in the Valley is that of locally grown food farm at the edge of urban areas. These areas would both preserve urban boundaries and supply healthy, locally grown food.
Other Tasks Completed
1. GIS Data Inventory / GIS Standards — A Model Steering Committee was convened by the SJV Blueprint project managers and has worked collaboratively to gather GIS data that represents the current geography and urbanization of the region. This data has been converted for use in the UC Davis developed UPlan modeling software for development of all the scenarios.
2. Status Quo Scenario Development – Working with the local planners of each county and the UPlan program, a growth scenario assuming existing trends was developed called the Status Quo Scenario. If growth continues as it has over the last 5 10 years, the UPlan forecasts that approximately 533,000 acres of land will be converted to urban uses.
3. Vision / Value Development and Outreach During 2006, the eight SJV COGs implemented their local Citizen Participant Plan in the Blueprint Value / Vision Outreach component. Each of the SJV counties conducted public outreach to identify local values and how these values translate into a Vision for the San Joaquin Valley region to the year 2050.
4. Local Visioning Results To no one’s surprise, there were more common values identified across the eight county region, than unique values of any specific county:
Preserve agricultural land Create an effective transportation system ….. Improve access to quality educational opportunities …… Create a dynamic economy with quality local jobs Provide a variety of quality affordable housing choices …… Treasure our bountiful environment with reasonable protection …….
5. Goals and Performance Measures With the help of the San Joaquin Valley Local Agency Planners Working Group, SJV Goals and Performance Measures have been developed and will be used throughout each component of the Blueprint process. All performance measures used by other Blueprint processes were reviewed, evaluated and selected based on the current data available and the current forecasting capabilities. While there are additional Performance Measures that could be valuable in evaluating the Scenarios, the Valley COGs currently lack the enhanced modeling capability necessary to generate them.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-41 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
6. Engage Environmental Justice Communities, Tribal Governments, and Resource Agencies. The SJV COGs held a workshop in early 2007 with the purpose of engaging Environmental Justice Communities, Tribal Governments (both federally recognized and non recognized tribes of Native Americans), and Resource Agencies in the SJV Regional Blueprint process. The workshop was a great success with good attendance of the targeted stakeholders. As a result of the inaugural workshop, the following has been implemented:
• Spanish Language Workshops SJV Region Blueprint Public Outreach Visioning workshops sessions have been conducted in Spanish to engage residents who speak Spanish as their primary language. These workshops have been well attended.
• State Resource Agencies State Resource Agency representatives continue to be engaged in the SJV Region Blueprint Process.
• Tribal Governments As a result of the inaugural workshop, ongoing engagement has been formalized with Tribal representatives. Numerous meetings have been held with Native American participants, including: Santa Rosa tribe, Tubatulabals, Chumash, Tejon Indians, and Tule River tribe.
California Central Valley Tribal EJ Collaborative Grant Project
During 2007, the 8 Valley MPOs began meeting with some of the Valley tribes as part of the Blueprint process. Through a series of meetings it was determine that the 8 MPOs had a need for additional resources to outreach to local Tribes regarding transportation, land use, community development, and other Blueprint Regional planning focus. The MPOs have partnered with the Tubatulabals of Kern Valley on a California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) environmental justice (EJ) grant with the following goals.
Goal 1: To build a knowledge base of Tribal related Transportation Environmental Justice issues and priorities – through meetings and workshops. Goal 2: Promote tribal participation and reporting on Tribal Transportation Environmental Justice issues and other long range planning issues through the SJV Blueprint and SJV Partnership processes – through workshops, meetings, surveys. Goal 3: Promote preservation of our cultural heritage while adding certainty to the timely delivery of projects in the region by developing a Cultural Sensitivity Tribal Resource Map and protocol for tribal monitoring the SJV Eight Counties – through meetings, analysis, workshops, and collaboration. Goal 4: Explore the possibility of creating a tribal coalition for the region that could encourage streamlined participation of tribal nations in government planning and delivery of projects and services – through workshops, and meetings.
Outcomes
In 2009, efforts began on the four major categories of grant project activities include: Public Outreach and Education, Research, Analysis, and Project Management. Public Outreach involved three workshop series that included a focus of 1) Tribal perspective of EJ and transportation planning, 2) Academic and Tribal perspectives of cultural resources, EJ, and culturally sensitive resource mapping, and 3) Regional community and transportation planning challenges and models. In these workshops, all eight MPOs and 47 California Central Valley Tribes (both federally and non federally recognized) were invited to participate in these workshops. Overall, the outcomes resulted in improved communication and identification of both Tribal and Local government partners and planners. Written documents that include Tribal and Local governments’ perspectives of transportation planning, defining and protecting cultural resources, approaches and challenges of culturally sensitive resource mapping, and academic historical overviews of California Tribes of the Central Valley (Linguistics, Anthropological, and
Page 6-42 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Ethnography). Grant web site www.catribalej.com was also established to post workshops information, grant updates, reports, San Joaquin Blueprint and transportation planning, and Tribal (including non profits) funding opportunities. A contact listing of 211 grant participants and partners has been established.
Next Steps
As of December 2009, Goal 1 has been accomplished. However, Goals 2 through 4 will require on going dialog with both the participating Tribes and the eight Central Valley Councils of Government. Tribes have identified through workshop surveys and one on one meetings the following key factors in regional planning:
• Improve Tribal Participation in the Planning Process – Through environmental justice and new legislation, there has been an increase need to work directly with Tribal governments and identify resources for this effort. • Improve Tribal consultation guidelines and process at local and state level. It is important to note: each Tribe may be different in their approach and definition of consultation. • Transportation funding limitations for California Tribes – challenges with what can be place on a federally recognize Tribe’s “Indian Reservation Roads Inventory (IRRI)”, federal formula used by the federal Office of Management Budget (OMB) to allocate funding by area does not provide California Tribes enough funding for construction and maintenance, and misconception by legislators that all Tribes in California have profitable casino operations that should pay for their roads. • Allotment lands (lands held in trust by the U.S. Department of Interior – Bureau of Indian Affairs) are not included in present day funding formulas. As a result, allotment lands (40, 80, and 160 acres) do not have any transportation funding support. • Sustainable ability for Tribes to have a central communication and coordinating organization for on going Tribal regional planning. • Mapping can help to protect cultural resources and improve planning of regional transportation. However, on going building of trust and rapport must occur and a few mapping pilot efforts must be established. Protection of electronic data, access, and systems must also be incorporated into any culturally sensitive resource mapping efforts. • Cultural sensitivity courses and improved knowledge of California Central Valley Tribal history should be incorporated in State and Local planning and staff development. • Suggested Tools for the Tribes include but not limit to: on site Native American Monitoring services, memorandum of agreements (MOA) with U.S. Forestry and Local Governments, outline for culturally sensitivity training, and basic California Central Valley Tribal history overview of Tribes to use in working with schools and local governments. • Tribes do share similar transportation needs such as access to housing, jobs, education, and public transportation. However, many of the California Central Valley Tribes are located in very remote and rural areas. Taking a bus to a doctor’s or dentist’s appointment can be an all day challenge. • Tribes continue to learn and teach their cultural and language. There is a need to promote the past and current existence of Tribal people and their languages in road or highway names, rest stop or public visitors’ areas, parks, and other public viewing or information sources.
Through monthly conference call meetings and Tribal meeting follow ups, the above key issues and challenges will be explored. On going information sharing of San Joaquin Valley Blueprint planning process, Tribal Transportation planning, and other regional planning efforts will be included in conference call meetings, mail outs, and web postings.
7. State and Federal Level Coordination • At the state level, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Caltrans, the Business Transportation and Housing Agency, and the California Department of Fish & Game have
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-43 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
been actively participating in the SJV Blueprint planning process. At the federal level, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Agency have been reviewing the SJV Blueprint Planning process and providing feedback through the annual certification of the eight Valley COG’s Overall Work Programs.
8. Interregional / Intraregional / Local Partnerships & Interregional Coordination • Blueprint Learning Network (BLN) – The SJV COGs and their local BLN team members participate in the statewide conferences to learn from other Blueprint efforts in California. Although each of the conferences provides valuable information it is difficult to apply Blueprint practices across individual regions due to their own unique makeup.
• Local Government Commission – Blueprint representatives worked closely with the Local Government Commission (LGC) on the development the 2007 Water Workshop Linking Water and Land Use in the Southern Central Valley Region . In the 2008 09 the COGs have again worked with LGC to develop a Community Image Survey that will be used to help community members and local agencies overcome any inherent fear of increasing residential densities.
• Other regional partners: o California Association of Councils of Governments (CALCOG) o California State Association of Counties (CSAC) o League of California Cities o Great Valley Center o SJV Air Pollution Control District o American Planning Association (APA) o San Joaquin Valley Regional Association of Counties
• Intraregional Coordination: o COG Directors Association Each of the eight Valley COG Directors is a member of the COG Directors Association helping manage the Blueprint efforts. o BRAC The creation and engagement of the San Joaquin Valley stakeholders in the Blueprint Regional Advisory Committee (BRAC) to: Become a champion of the final SJV Regional Blueprint Vision; Advocate implementation of the SJV Regional Blueprint products to the local jurisdictions; and Promote the SJV Regional Blueprint strategies at the state and federal levels.
• San Joaquin Valley Local Agency Planners Working Group Having identified a need to engage the Planning Directors of the region with a regional focus, John Wright, recently retired planning director from the City of Clovis, in conjunction with the Blueprint project managers, convened 40 plus planning directors and/or their key staff to help with the Blueprint development. While thinking regionally, this committee is acting as a professional advisor in order to assure successful implementation of the Blueprint at the local level. This committee is also ensuring that the Blueprint is useful and helpful to them in implementing good planning practices. This is a win win relationship as these are the planners that handle the development requests and will make a difference in what moves forward.
• San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council Two elected representatives from each of the eight Councils of Governments are commissioners on the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council and they are charged with making Blueprint related recommendations/decisions on behalf of the entire San Joaquin Valley.
• California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley (Partnership) Blueprint project managers from each of the SJV COGs attend many of the ten working group and quarterly Partnership Board meetings to maintain the critical link between both efforts. The
Page 6-44 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Partnership has a scope of work, and resources well beyond that of the SJV Blueprint process. At this time the Blueprint process is primarily focused on three of the Partnership work groups: (1) Transportation (2) Land Use, Agriculture & Housing, and (3) Air Quality.
• Elected Congress Summit Blueprint project managers and the Great Valley Center developed a Blueprint Congress Summit targeted at elected officials that was convened in April, 2008. The focus of this Summit was to engage elected officials in the evaluation of the SJV Status Quo UPlan Modeling and discuss the fact that we cannot continue business as usual planning practices in the SJV and expect different results that affect every aspect of the quality of life in our Valley. A follow up event is being planned for 2010.
• San Joaquin Valley Affordable Communities Initiative Under the San Joaquin Valley Affordable Communities Initiative, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has worked in concert with the Partnership and the Blueprint process to create the San Joaquin Valley Affordable Housing Trust. The purpose of this Trust is to: o Link housing policies with land use, transportation, jobs, economic development, and workforce development; o Establish a multi million dollar Trust as a dedicated stream of flexible seed funding for affordable housing; o Create a regional organization with expertise to administer the fund, promote, guide, and assist affordable community planning and development; and o Support projects that demonstrate the three strategic SJV Affordable Communities Initiatives elements. 9. Local Coordination: • Local Roundtable focus groups o Each of the SJV COGs has established its own Roundtable group (focus groups, planners, economic development, etc.) for the following reasons: o Share information and learn from local experts, o Educate on Blueprint process, o Engage in each component of the Blueprint process, o Gather information on best practices for the Blueprint development, o Review Blueprint products as they are developed, o Create new collaborative relationships, and o Enhance existing relationships
• Local Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) SJV Blueprint efforts have included outreach to the MACs that represent the unincorporated areas of the counties.
• Local Planning Commissions The Planning Commissioners of the cities have been engaged at various levels in the Blueprint process. In some counties, Planning Commissioner Summits are being scheduled to encourage regional thinking when making local decisions.
• Local Elected Officials Each of the local Councils, Boards of Supervisors, and local COG Boards has been encouraged to be actively engaged in the Blueprint Process.
10. Address Goods Movement The San Joaquin Valley Goods Movement Action Plan (SJV GMAP) is a collaborative effort between the eight COGs of the San Joaquin Valley and their working partners. The SJV GMAP focuses on removing choke points of goods movement into and out of the Valley to increase statewide throughput in an effort to provide outlets for the $20 billion of agricultural products headed to national and international markets in a timely manner.
11. Developed strategies to effectively engage local government land use decision makers The SJV Regional Blueprint process utilizes every opportunity available to inform local land use decision makers on the process and why change is needed for the future. The SJV Regional Blueprint
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-45 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Process Decision Making Chart highlights the iterative nature of the process with the engagement of local and regional stakeholders in every step of the process.
12. Strategies for higher density housing Compact land uses in the Valley are evolving because of increased housing and land costs. Planners are using this as an opportunity to encourage higher densities, mixed uses and more compact design. The Blueprint is an opportunity for all involved in local planning and decision making to encourage elected officials to embrace the local and regional benefits of more compact development. A strong desire in the Valley to preserve agricultural land is also creating land use policies to use land more efficiently.
13. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions / Energy / Environmental Considerations Greenhouse Gas Emissions – GHG emission reductions, specifically Carbon Dioxide (CO2), is an emerging area of Climate Change that will be addressed in response to AB 32 (2006) and SB 375 (2008) requirements. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has adopted the 1990 emissions inventory that is the basis for the development of CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. The Climate Change Scoping Plan has been developed and specific requirements are delineated for all sectors in California, including local governments and metropolitan planning regions. The SJV Blueprint will address GHG integration. The California Transportation Commission has also adopted new Regional Transportation Planning Agency Guidelines that COGs will use to integrate GHG analysis in future Regional Transportation Plans. SB 375 has been chaptered into state law and the adopted Valleywide Blueprint will likely provide valuable concepts for the “Sustainable Communities Strategies” required by SB 375. Ideally, when the SCS is integrated with the planned regional transportation networks and the housing elements in local general plans, it will attempt to achieve the GHG emission reduction goals in AB 32 through reduction in vehicle miles traveled. SB 375 encourages regional cooperation among the eight counties in the SJV by allowing that two or more counties work together to develop a multiregional sustainable communities strategy. This will complement the existing efforts for the implementation of the Valley Blueprint.
• Energy The Partnership’s Energy work group has created the San Joaquin Clean Energy Organization with the mission of leading a regional effort to develop, plan, and implement energy efficiencies and clean energy throughout the eight county SJV region.
• Environmental Considerations – Model Farmland Conservation Program. In 2007, Fresno COG was awarded Partnership seed grant funds to create a Model Farmland Conservation Program. As the process develops with data development and analysis and achieves stakeholder buy in, the SJV Regional Blueprint Planning process will look to integrate this information.
14. Local General Plan Development Coordination At a time when many of the San Joaquin Valley counties and cities are feeling tremendous pressures of population growth and urbanization, local agencies have initiated updating their local General Plan documents. Wherever it has been possible the local COG’s Blueprint effort has coordinated with the local general plan update process. In fact, some of the SJV COGs have been able to coordinate general plan development and Blueprint public outreach efforts to engage the public.
• RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) The SJV COGs have recently updated their local Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Plans. With the advent of SB375, this process will be coordinated with the Regional Transportation Plan process, with updates due on an 8 year schedule. While the existing process has sometimes created conflicts in goals and policies, the evolving RHNA process will hopefully integrate with the sustainable communities strategy in an approach that will resolve potential conflicts.
Page 6-46 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Over the past three and a half years, representative stakeholders from public health, education, environmental justice communities, tribal governments, local governments, resource and regulatory agencies, developers, economists, business and commercial interests, and many, many more have come to the table to address future challenges and reach consensus on a smart growth vision for the San Joaquin Valley. In January 2009, the Great Valley Center’s Blueprint Summit marked the culmination of developing the Valleywide preferred growth scenario. The Summit attracted over 600 attendees from the public and private sectors to discuss the alternative growth scenarios developed through the Blueprint process and to seek their invaluable input on a desired growth scenario for the Valley. The alternative growth scenarios, along with the feedback from the Blueprint Regional Advisory Committee (BRAC) and Summit participants, was then presented to the SJV Regional Policy Council (Valley elected officials) on April 1, 2009 for their ultimate selection and adoption of a preferred growth scenario for the entire Valley. This action officially brought the third year of the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint planning process to a close, thus moving the activities into the realm of implementation.
This holistic approach to planning for the Valley’s future aims to break the barriers created by geography, political boundaries, and parochial thinking. Decisions in one locale can affect change in others. For example, land use policies that fail to curb urban sprawl will contribute to reduced investment in existing areas, producing downward pressure on existing land values. It can raise the cost to municipalities to provide utilities, water, police and fire services. Increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) can increase stress and congestion on the roadways and worsen air quality.
As we move forward with the tasks of the fourth year of the San Joaquin Valley Regional Blueprint planning process, we are gratified by the progress we have made in collaborating across such a vast geographic area. Our common goal is to develop a Valley Vision that will lead to thoughtful planning and an enhanced quality of life for all who live here. We have met many challenges during this effort to change the way we approach the future, but we have had a tremendous amount of success in our progress. Much still remains to be done, however. In fact, some of the most important and challenging work lies ahead: turning the vision into a reality and making the transition from a planning process to planning implementation .
Looking Forward to the Fourth Year – Ongoing and Future Tasks
1. Develop Valleywide Blueprint Implementation Roadmap, which will include translating Valley Blueprint principles into local implementation strategies and developing local government commitment. It will also include development of a toolkit for implementation.
2. Convene meetings with local officials to discuss funding challenges of local government (and related “fiscalization of land use”). Track ‘California Forward’ and their efforts on governance and fiscal reform (see http://www.caforward.org/about/ ).
3. Develop adequate modeling tools for compliance with SB 375 (address new greenhouse gas directives, as well as to continue to use adopted methods to measure the effectiveness of the Regional Blueprint Plan)
4. Address the increasing of residential densities a. Determine the impact of various development densities on the fiscal health of cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley. Develop a fiscal analysis tool to determine this. b. Determine the market demand for higher density residential housing projects
5. Identify institutional barriers, such as lending practices that may inhibit Smart Growth initiatives from being fully realized. Investigate policies, regulations and laws that may hamper or impede these initiatives.
6. Greenprint incorporate Model Farmland Conservation Program mapping, that includes improved information on water resources into the Blueprint for each of the Valley Counties
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-47 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
7. Work with Central California EDCs and Partnership for SJV to address jobs/housing issue. Work on this task should reconvene in early 2010.
8. Continue Blueprint’s Valleywide presence by maintaining partnership with Great Valley Center for website oversight and production of one Valleywide Blueprint event
9. Continue extensive public outreach efforts as well as developing a Blueprint Awards Program for the Valley.
Page 6-48 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
7. Financial Element
7a. Valley Interregional Funding Effort
As the Valley continues to work together on various issues, an opportunity exists to work together to ensure and maximize Interregional funding (IIP) for valley projects. In order for this to happen, the Valley RTPAs will plan cooperatively to develop a unified request for IIP funding whenever possible. By working together, all RTPAs will benefit. The following is a brief discussion of the major items related to IIP priority selection for the Valley. The draft priorities below have only been proposed for discussion at this time and have not been approved or finalized by the eight RTPAs.
Project Priority Type
1. Existing Programmed IIP Components – Priority would be given to fund cost increases for existing programmed IIP components. This is consistent with Caltrans/CTC programming in the 2010 IIP. It is very unlikely that any of the Valley COGS have STIP capacity to spend on cost increases for already programmed IIP projects. A limit for regional support may be considered. 2. SR 99 Business Plan/Category Two projects – There are 22 Category Two projects of which 14 are 4 to 6 lane and 8 are 6 to 8 lane capacity increasing projects. (Note: Caltrans does not support IIP for interchange improvements and therefore most of 99 Business Plan Categories 3 & 4 would not qualify.) 3. Other interregional corridors – (Please note: the Valley has requested a grant that would outline the goods movement priorities for the Valley, focusing in particular the east west corridors. The study outcome once adopted by the COGS would guide the priorities similar to the SR 99 Business Plan)
Project Priority Category
1. Construction Priority would be given to fund cost construction component. This is consistent with Caltrans/CTC programming in the 2010 IIP and prior State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs). 2. PS&E/ROW – Many of our IIP projects will be in different stages of development. Given that many of the 99 projects will be widened using the existing median, Right of Way (ROW) costs are actually lower when compared to other IIP projects in the state. It should also be noted that is unlikely that ROW and construction will be programmed in the same STIP. Therefore ROW will often be programmed one STIP and the construction phase in the next STIP. 3. Environmental – With review of planned projects over a number of STIP cycles, the Valley could recommend environmental be started for selected segments.
7b. Valleywide Funding Strategies
Current Transportation Financing Strategies and Challenges
As California continues to grow, and add population to the world’s seventh largest economy and the nearly 40 million people that will live here, California’s ability to move both people and goods will become increasingly critical to our quality of life, and our ability to compete economically with the rest of the country and the world at large.
For nearly a century, California has relied on its road system “users ” to pay fees. Historically, these fees have been the major source for financing the construction and maintenance of the State’s transportation
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-49 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
infrastructure. However, in the last decade, the state has failed to raise those fees to keep up with its needs. Although federal and state fuel taxes are still the largest single source of revenue for transportation, such taxes are rising far more slowly than either traffic volumes or transportation system costs, and no longer come close to covering the costs of building, operating, and maintaining the transportation system. As the transportation system grows in extent and ages, an ever increasing share of expenditures is needed to operate, maintain, and renew the existing system, meaning that even less money is available for system growth.. Yet, at the same time, there is clearly widespread opposition to raising fuel taxes in California to meet the estimated $500 billion dollar shortfall in funding to meet California’s transportation infrastructure needs.
There a number of reasons that California is unable to fund its transportation infrastructure needs, these include:
• The state’s per gallon excise tax has not risen from 18 cents per gallon since 1994, and the federal excise tax has been at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993.
• Because the excise tax on fuel is levied per gallon of fuel purchased and not per dollar or per mile, inflation and improved vehicle fuel efficiently combine to erode the excise tax’s buying power.
• Improved fuel economy directly reduces per mile revenues from motor fuel taxes, without reducing the need for new roads or wear and tear on existing ones, even as we drive many more miles per penny of revenue.
• The cost of road maintenance and construction has risen steadily by more than the consumer price index, further reducing the effectiveness of the revenue raised by the tax.
• The overall state deficit has caused a great deal of transportation funding to be diverted to cover general state costs, thus burdening transportation programs.
• The political climate is one of wariness for any kind of tax increase—even increases in transportation user fees. This perspective exists in California and the rest of the nation as well.
Funding Transportation Projects in the San Joaquin Valley
With the above information as background, the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies in the San Joaquin Valley are charged with developing long range funding strategies that will provide the revenues necessary to build a multi modal transportation system that will meet the long range needs of the San Joaquin Valley. In theory, there are a number of potential funding strategies, both traditional and non traditional, that could be developed to help provide the necessary funding to construct our long range transportation infrastructure. However, each has its own unique set of challenges.
State Route 99 is a great example of a transportation facility that has monumental impact on the mobility of nearly all San Joaquin Valley residents, as it is the primary north south transportation corridor through the San Joaquin Valley and directly impacts seven of the eight SJV counties. The following is a list of transportation funding sources, some traditional and some innovative or non traditional, that might be considered as the eight SJV COGs grapple with finding the necessary funding for transportation projects.
Page 6-50 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
Traditional Transportation Fund Sources
Type of Funding Programming Mechanism State Fuel Excise Taxes State Highway Account Federal Fuel Excise Taxes Federal Highway Trust Fund then to State Highway Account Sales Taxes on Fuels Transportation Investment Fund/Public Transportation Account Truck Weight Fees State Highway Account Roadway Tolls/HOT Lanes Dedicated to Specific Routes and Corridors Local Sales Tax Measures Expenditure Plan Specified Projects Development Mitigation Fees Specified Uses
State Fuel Excise Taxes
This is the primary State generated transportation fund source for transportation improvements. Currently 18.0 cents per gallon of gasoline and diesel sold is generated, with 11.4 cents going into the State Highway Account and 6.46 cents per gallon going to cities and counties. In California, approximately $2 billion per is generated from State fuel excise taxes per year.
Federal Fuel Excise Taxes
This is the primary federal transportation fund source for road and highway improvements nationwide. Currently 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel fuel goes into the Federal Highway trust Fund. These funds are typically distributed to states by formulas or grants, with California’s apportionment typically over $3 billion annually.
Sales Tax on Fuel
California collects 7.25% sales tax on the sale of specified products, a portion of which is earmarked for transportation. In 2002, Proposition 42 was passed by voters specifying that 5% of the 7.25% sales tax per gallon of gasoline is to be earmarked for transportation and placed in the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF). State law requires that TIF are to be distributed as follows: 40% to the State Transportation Improvement Program 20% to the Public Transportation account 20% to counties 20% to cities
Truck Weight Fees
California truck weight fees typically generate nearly $900 million per year in revenues and are deposited in the State Highway Account where they are eligible for many uses including the STIP. There is no set annual amount targeted for the STIP.
Roadway Tolls
In California, the ability to charge roadway tolls on State Highways can only be authorized through enabling statewide legislation. Currently, tolls are authorized on specified bridges in the San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles area and the San Diego area. In addition, AB 680 passed in 1989 authorized Caltrans to enter into agreements with private entities for four toll corridors in California. As a result there are currently three toll corridors in southern California, but none yet in northern California. Generally, toll facilities are applicable in locations where there is enough time savings for users that they are willing to pay a toll fee for that time savings. This usually occurs where there is either daily recurring congestion
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-51 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
and/or there is no other reasonable travel alternative. Basically there are two categories of toll road approaches found in California: Traditional Toll Highways and High Occupancy Toll Lanes (HOT Lanes)
Traditional Toll Highways
These are toll highway segments that require a toll to be paid for its use by all users, but exemptions or reduced fees can be authorized for certain designated users. These designated users could be high occupancy vehicles or local residents. The funds collected are typically used to maintain and improve the toll road segment. Current technology offers the opportunity to collect tolls through an electronic monitoring system for those using the toll road as a commuter route, thereby reducing the operating cost of the facility. Others would still have to pay on site for each use of the toll facility.
Thinking innovatively, there are two potential options for tolling State Route 99 in the San Joaquin Valley. Under the first option, the entire SR 99 route from its junction with I 5 in southern Kern County to Hammer Lane in San Joaquin County could be a toll facility. Under this scenario, residents of the eight San Joaquin Valley counties and the western Sierra mountain counties of Mariposa, Calaveras, Tuolumne and Amador could be authorized resident toll exemptions. Of course this approach would greatly reduce the annual revenue level, but it is likely this would be required in order for the concept to be politically acceptable to SJV residents. The second approach would be to focus the toll highway to segments with congestion lasting at least one hour during the morning or evening peak commute periods or have no competing parallel alterative road. Candidate locations are in the Stockton metro area, between Modesto and State Route 120 in Manteca, Modesto metro area, between Atwater and Ceres, Fresno metro area, and Bakersfield metro area.
High Occupancy Toll Roads
High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes are a revenue generating form of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. HOT lanes are HOV lanes that single occupant vehicles, not otherwise eligible to use HOV lanes, can choose to use by paying a toll. HOT lanes provide users with a faster and more reliable travel alternative. Toll rates on HOT lanes tend to be variable base on the time of day and corresponding congestion, with toll rates varying widely.
Vehicle License Fee Surcharge
The vehicle license fee surcharge is a source of funding that has been used for a number of special interest programs in recent years. In the San Joaquin Valley, counties have instituted vehicle license fee surcharges for such programs as vehicle abatement and safety call boxes. In addition, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has been authorized to levy a vehicle license fee surcharge for programs to achieve air quality emission reductions. In total, there are approximately 3.2 million registered vehicles in the eight county San Joaquin Valley region.
Vehicle Use Mileage Fee
Vehicle use mileage fee is another user fee that could be applied with the San Joaquin Valley. This mileage fee could be collected in several ways, but the simplest from an administrative perspective, would be to collect the fee each year as part of the annual vehicle registration process. Under this approach, each year the registered owner would report their beginning of year mileage and their end of year mileage when registering their vehicle. The challenge would come in developing some method of mileage verification.
Local Sales Tax Measures
Currently, there are four SJV counties (San Joaquin, Madera, Fresno & Tulare) that have local sales tax measures in place that are dedicated solely to transportation. Over time, these sales tax measures have proven very effective to those counties who have been able to institute one. The challenge is that
Page 6-52 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview 2011 Regional Transportation Plan
passage requires a supermajority (66%) of voters to support, and that can be a very difficult threshold for more politically conservative counties to attain.
Development Mitigation Fees
Development mitigation fees are assessed to new development (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.). The fees are used for “mitigation” of impacts generated by that specific development. Mitigation fess can be used for a variety of purposes (transportation, education, air quality, flood control, etc.) provided there is a logical “nexus” or connection between the development and the impacts generated.
Possible Transition to Direct User Charges
Motor fuel taxes can continue to provide a great deal of needed revenue for a decade or two. But several types of more efficient and equitable user charges are ready to be phased in. For example, current technology has the potential to enable government agencies to institute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) charges as flat per mile fees. If there was public support, gradually public agencies could charge higher rates on some roads and lower rates on others to reflect more accurately than do fuel taxes, the costs of providing facilities over different terrain or of different quality. This approach would end cross subsidies of some travelers by others and make travel more efficient by encouraging the use of less congested roads. Unlike gasoline taxes, more direct road user charges also could vary with time of day, encouraging some travelers to make a larger proportion of their trips outside of peak periods, easing rush hour traffic.
In the short term, direct user fees could simply replace fuel taxes in a revenue neutral switch, but they are attractive, in part, because they can become more lucrative as travel increases, while allowing charges to be distributed more fairly among road users. Initially, some vehicle operators might be allowed to continue paying motor fuel taxes rather than newer direct charges, but eventually gas and diesel taxes would be phased out.
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-53