Board of Directors. Muriel Johnson, Chair Supervisor, Sacramento County

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Board of Directors. Muriel Johnson, Chair Supervisor, Sacramento County"

Nelson Griffith
5 years ago
Views:

2 Board of Directors Muriel Johnson, Chair Supervisor, Sacramento County Tom Cosgrove City of Lincoln, representing Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Rocklin and Roseville Claudia Gamar Mayor, City of Roseville, representing Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Rocklin and Roseville Roger Niello Supervisor, Sacramento County Bill Hughes, Vice-Chair City of Citrus Heights, representing Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt and Isleton Roger Dickinson Supervisor, Sacramento County Lauren Hammond City of Sacramento Donald Schrader Supervisor, Yuba County Christopher Cabaldon City of West Sacramento, representing Davis, West Sacramento, Winters and Woodland Rusty Dupray Supervisor, El Dorado County Sandra Hilliard City of Yuba City, representing Live Oak and Yuba City Dan Silva Supervisor, Sutter County Steve Cohn City of Sacramento David Flory City of Woodland, representing Davis, West Sacramento, Winters and Woodland Paul McNamara City of Marysville, representing Marysville and Wheatland Tom Stallard Supervisor, Yolo County Jim Cooper City of Elk Grove, representing Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt and Isleton Ted Gaines Supervisor, Placer County Steve Miklos City of Folsom, representing Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt and Isleton Jody Lonergan (Ex-Officio), Director for Caltrans District 3

3 This transportation plan marks a bold first step for mobility in the Sacramento region. Three years of unprecedented public involvement, complemented with leadership from the SACOG Board, sets in motion the first truly regional approach to enhancing our transportation network. Contents 1: A New Plan for the Region 3 2: Development of this Plan 11 3: Growth and Change 19 4: Meeting the Plan s Goals 27 5: Comparing Alternatives to Come up with the Plan 41 6: The Contents of the Plan 59 7: Paying for the Plan 69 8: Implementing the Plan 79 Appendices 87 For the first time, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan includes innovative road/open space corridors to connect the major job centers in the region. While addressing the essential need of road maintenance, the Plan invests more resources than in the past for alternatives to the automobile bicycle, walking, light rail expansion and more trips on the Capitol Corridor to help improve our air quality and the liveability of our region. A major source of pride is the $500 million investment in a community design program to promote transit and pedestrian-oriented development. We are indebted to the time commitment of the 55-member Transportation Roundtable, chaired by Director Christopher Cabaldon, input from the public at countless meetings and workshops held throughout the six-county region, support from groups like Valley Vision and the Sacramento Metro Chamber, and expertise from SACOG and partner-agency staff. We hope the momentum generated from this bold first step promotes speedy project delivery and the coordination of better land use planning to maximize our transportation investments. Muriel Johnson Chair Martin Tuttle Executive Director 1

4 2

A New Plan for the Region WHY A NEW PLAN NOW? The six-county Sacramento region has changed dramatically in many ways since 1975, and can expect equally dramatic changes looking forward to 2025.

5 A New Plan for the Region WHY A NEW PLAN NOW? The six-county Sacramento region has changed dramatically in many ways since 1975, and can expect equally dramatic changes looking forward to Back in the mid-1970s, the region s population had reached about 1.1 million. The only major job center was found in downtown Sacramento. The regional transportation system, focused on radial access between suburbs and downtown Sacramento, consisted of freeways designed in the 1960s with twenty years of spare capacity. By the mid-1970s, the region had decided not to expand the freeway system further, and instead built two new radial light rail lines, completed by the mid-1980s. Surrounding communities of that time Elk Grove, Davis, Woodland, Yuba City, Marysville, Roseville, and Folsom enjoyed easy access to and from Sacramento, even on two-lane roads. Daily traffic congestion was essentially non-existent. Today, the region has evolved in ways unforeseen even ten years ago. The population, now 1.9 million, has spread out to bring Elk Grove, Roseville, Rocklin, and Folsom into the urban area. Rancho Cordova has emerged as a second major job center rivaling downtown Sacramento, and Roseville is not far behind. Two-worker households have become the norm, with extensive commuting from one community to another. Low-density suburban patterns mean people travel overwhelmingly by automobile: 50 percent of trips drive alone, 43 percent of trips go by auto with two or more occupants, 6 percent are bicycle or walk trips, and 1 percent of trips are by transit (with transit use reaching 20 percent into downtown Sacramento during commute hours). The radial transportation system no longer serves the region s needs well. The U.S. 50 freeway serves as the region s core corridor, carrying a full load of traffic in both directions both morning and afternoon, and increasingly at midday as well. Intermittent congestion is now widespread, since the spare capacity once built into the system has been consumed by growth, with little new capacity added since Looking forward to 2025, the State forecasts the region s population to reach 2.8 million, a 49 percent increase. With that comes a 54 percent increase in travel unless land development proceeds differently than it has in the past. The region by 2025 will have three major job centers: downtown Sacramento/West Sacramento, Rancho Cordova/Folsom, and Roseville/Rocklin. The urban edge will expand to encompass El Dorado Hills and Lincoln, as well as areas east and west of Elk Grove, south of Rancho Cordova, west of Roseville, Southport in West Sacramento, North Natomas, and perhaps South Sutter County. Present trends and zoning indicate that residential areas and office/industrial areas will continue to develop separately. More than a million people will live on each side of the American River. 3

6 Looking to this future, the region needs a new transportation vision and plan. Many expectations during the past 20 years have not worked out. Sprawl around the edges continues to out-pace infill into existing communities, and businesses increasingly prefer suburban locations. Gasoline prices have reached their lowest level in 40 years, and the total amount of driving has more than doubled since Even so, total smog emissions from motor vehicles are now half what they were in 1980, because technology has reduced auto emissions by 98 percent from 1980 models. Lack of road building and the resulting congestion have not encouraged many people to take transit instead of driving, even at the extreme congestion levels seen in big cities like Los Angeles. Instead, drivers move onto neighborhood streets, seeking to avoid heavy traffic. A 1999 Sacramento Regional Transit survey showed that half of those who commute on transit, and three-quarters of those who ride transit for other reasons, do not have access to an auto. Furthermore, those percentages rose through the 1990s, so transit increasingly serves those who cannot otherwise choose to drive, despite a focus on luring drivers out of their autos. Shipping of goods by truck has ballooned, instead of shifting to railroads, with trucks serving as rolling warehouses feeding just-in-time manufacturing, and stores with computerized inventories. Sacramento needs a realistic and creative new plan to manage recent trends heading into the future. The region does not want continuing suburban sprawl for a million new residents. Greater congestion, more compact development, an aging population, clean air goals, and energy conservation all point to a need to improve and expand transit service. The Sacramento region, with ideal climate and terrain, could see more travel by bicycling and walking, now discouraged in some communities by heavy local auto traffic. With more than a million empty seats in autos, but fewer than 10,000 empty seats in buses every morning and afternoon, carpools clearly have a place in the picture. Regardless, a 54 percent increase in travel by 2025 means that, even if transit use could be increased tenfold and bicycle/walk trips tripled, the region still would face a 40 percent increase in travel by auto At least in some places the road system must be expanded too. This Plan takes these realities into account, along with an estimate of what the region can afford, and offers a balanced vision for transportation in the region s future. 4

WHAT S NEW ABOUT THIS PLAN? This Plan pursues ten broad goals, only three of which deal directly with transportation, with the primary goal being to improve quality of life.

7 WHAT S NEW ABOUT THIS PLAN? This Plan pursues ten broad goals, only three of which deal directly with transportation, with the primary goal being to improve quality of life. Chapter Four discusses these ten goals in more detail. Quality of life may mean somewhat different things to different people, but it generally encompasses quiet and safe neighborhoods, affordable housing, job opportunities, good schools, limited environmental pollution, recreational and social activities, and adequate transportation to allow access to places where these activities occur. Toward that end, this Plan seeks to promote development that is less dependent on autos, increases transit service and use, controls the spread and amount of congestion, attains clean air, and reins in urban sprawl. These five objectives are far easier to describe than to achieve. two-thirds of the region s housing in 2025 is already in place, and those houses can be expected to last 50 years or longer. This Plan supports changes in development patterns, through a community design incentive program, both for new communities and redevelopment of older ones. At best the results can be expected to evolve slowly over time. The Plan gives first priority to expanding the transit system, more than doubling light rail mileage and the bus fleet. Money to pay for operations (drivers, mechanics, parts, fuel), however, limits the amount of transit service the region can offer. Fares pay only 30 percent of operating costs, with the other 70 percent coming from taxpayers. For the middle-class household, the 15 percent of income consumed for transportation typically reflects a personal choice for automobile travel, often including two or more vehicles. For those who are less affluent, the cost for auto transportation rises to percent of income, imposing a hardship for which a good transit choice would often be a relief. In addition, those who cannot drive or need another travel choice present different challenges for the transportation system and for transit service. The State forecasts the share of the population older than 75 years of age, with a lower propensity to drive, to increase by 30 percent. Even with expanded transit 5 The Plan proposes to use transportation funds for community design, to encourage people to walk, bicycle, or ride transit for local travel. Steps to reduce auto travel, by changing the way people travel or the places to which they go, will become imperative during the next 25 years. The predominance of low-density suburban development with jobs and shopping separated from residential areas cannot continue indefinitely. However, the existing suburban communities of today won t look much different by 2025, because

service and a growing ridership base, the Plan forecasts that transit ridership will increase by barely 50 percent. The Plan also commits regional funds to bicycle and pedestrian projects.

8 service and a growing ridership base, the Plan forecasts that transit ridership will increase by barely 50 percent. The Plan also commits regional funds to bicycle and pedestrian projects. Except for recreational walking, circulation in downtown areas, and neighborhood social visiting, walking plays a limited role in the transportation system. Only about 3 percent of commute trips are made by bicycle now, but 15 percent of commuters travel no further than three miles to work. Few suburban children bicycle or walk today; instead, their parents drive them around by auto. Unless community design changes take hold, the share of trips made by bicycling and walking is not predicted to change significantly. Beyond transit, walking, and bicycling, the region faces a 40 to 50 percent increase in auto travel. Obviously it makes a difference whether those people will drive alone or ride in carpools, and where on the system they travel. Like nearly all urban areas around the country, Sacramento is seeing a gradual shift from commuting by carpool and transit to driving alone. This trend reflects the separation of housing from jobs, the huge increase in twoworker households, and the predominantly suburban lifestyle with lots of widely separated activities and an increasing need for one or more errand stops on the way to or from work. Congestion generally will continue to worsen inside the urban area, because the system has little remaining spare road capacity and the region foresees neither the funding nor community will to increase road capacity by 40 percent or more. The Plan does propose some road improvements, to hold off some of the increase in congestion. While the region cannot reasonably be expected to build its way out of congestion, the investments in this Plan do make a difference, lessening congestion in some corridors, depending on where the region invests in more transit and road capacity or land use changes. The Plan foresees $22.5 billion to work with, on average almost $1 billion per year, with $4.7 billion of that being federal funds coming to the region for regional-scale improvements. The federal funds have come to the region in past years, but the region has not used them, instead passing them to counties and cities for local projects. Of the $22.5 billion, a quarter goes to operate transit services not enough to provide the level of transit service needed in a region of 2.8 million. 6

Another quarter goes to maintain streets, roads, and highways again, not enough to provide adequate maintenance especially in more rural areas of the region.

9 Another quarter goes to maintain streets, roads, and highways again, not enough to provide adequate maintenance especially in more rural areas of the region. Essentially, the remaining half must be used for improvements: First, $2.5 billion goes to transit improvements, including light rail extensions in five directions, a 150 percent increase in bus service in urban Sacramento, and increases in bus service in the other counties. Second, $2.5 billion goes to state highway improvements, mainly to complete fourlane highways to connect the northern counties with the rest of the region and add carpool lanes to urban freeways. Third, $4.5 billion goes to local street and road improvements, such as intersection improvements, safety projects, signal timing, widening in growth areas, and new connections for local access. Finally, this Plan proposes to use $1.5 billion for other types of improvements important to achieving regional goals: bicycle and pedestrian improvements, community design incentives, travel demand management (carpool matching), clean air, open space, and enhancement programs. Even with $4.7 billion in funding, the region cannot by itself fund all regionalscale improvements needed and envisioned in this Plan. Regional-scale improvements put off to the future in the past 20 years are coming home to roost. The Plan anticipates supplemental funding from federal grants for light rail extensions, and from state interregional funds for state highway improvements, particularly in the region s five smaller counties, and local funding, from Sacramento s sales tax or development fees or other local sources, to help complete some of the state highway and arterial improvements in urban Sacramento, where total cost exceeds regional funds. Locally, counties and cities also lack enough funding for street and road improvements to deal with growing local traffic. This Plan brings forth a regional view, a different perception of the region and its role from the previous 1999 plan. This view 7

is not wholly new: most of the ideas were envisioned in SACOG s 1989 Metro Study, but few were implemented, partly because the system functioned adequately back then, and the easy choice was to avoid

10 is not wholly new: most of the ideas were envisioned in SACOG s 1989 Metro Study, but few were implemented, partly because the system functioned adequately back then, and the easy choice was to avoid controversial projects and issues. Like the Metro Study, this Plan again looks at the transportation system from the point of view of the traveler needing to use the whole system, not just each jurisdiction managing its piece of the system. It recognizes that, if the region is to provide transportation for one million more people and control urban sprawl, transportation improvements inevitably must go by someone s front door or back yard. It proposes some locally controversial projects, and opens other issues where no regional consensus is yet possible. In this way, the Plan starts in new directions. It also puts forth the challenge of implementation, to engage local and regional debate to reach agreement on how transportation is to be fitted into communities and neighborhoods. WHAT ISSUES CAN T THIS PLAN RESOLVE? Discussion during the development of the Plan spotlighted a number of tough issues fundamental for transportation: How does the region want to handle one million new people by 2025: with continuing development around the urban edge or with infill development in existing communities at higher than prevailing densities? Do communities want jobs/housing balance, including housing affordable to all workers, to provide a better opportunity to live, work, and travel locally other than by auto, or continued separation of residential and office/industrial development, which implies continued community-tocommunity travel? Should transit s primary role be to serve those who cannot drive or for whom driving is a hardship, or should it provide another choice to those for whom driving is now the easiest and best option? How is the 70 percent share of transit s operating costs now coming from public funds to be provided? 8

Is encouraging people to use transit or carpools instead of driving alone important enough to warrant increasing the cost of driving, via road tolls, gasoline tax surcharges, or parking fees, and

11 Is encouraging people to use transit or carpools instead of driving alone important enough to warrant increasing the cost of driving, via road tolls, gasoline tax surcharges, or parking fees, and using the money to increase available transit service dramatically? Should main-road capacity in major travel corridors be increased to prevent the increasingly common and much-disparaged practice of drivers cutting through neighborhood streets to avoid traffic jams? To what extent should the region try to satisfy region-wide travel demand by building onto the system to reduce congestion, so that the opportunity to live where you want to, work anywhere in the region, and do business region wide is preserved? How should the region balance protection of the American River Parkway as a recreational and open space asset against the growing need for greater transportation access across the river? On these issues SACOG could find no consensus. This Plan aims to engage debate on these larger issues, in the hope and expectation that the next Plan update, due in 2005, can be even more comprehensive and effective at investing the region s limited resources. 9

Transportation Plan for the SACOG Region Including the counties of Sacramento, Yolo, Yuba, Sutter, El Dorado and Placer

SACOG-06-009 2006 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the SACOG Region Including the counties of Sacramento, Yolo, Yuba, Sutter, El Dorado and Placer Adopted March 16, 2006 Sacramento Area Council of