2011 Regional Transportation Plan Appendices

Transcription

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 I5/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 310.
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).
6/15/10
Comment 1
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.
6/15/10
Comment 2
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
6/15/10
Comment 3
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
6/15/10
Comment 4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What is the current and estimated future freight demand through the 6/15/10
Port and from the Port of Oakland to the Central Valley? Is there Comment 4
enough demand to sustain the operations of BNSF railroad, UP railroad, Cont.
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 microsimulation 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
6/15/10
The 2011 RTP contains 35 pages devoted to tables/matrices defining
Comment 5
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
6/15/10
On Page 7-34 are these two statements:
Comment 6
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 diala-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
6/15/10
Apparently, the constraints and issues associated with categorical funding
Comment 7
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
6/15/10
Comment 8
5
There are larger inconsistencies for Roadway Operations and Maintenance. Part
6/15/10
of the answer may be double counting in that the Federal Highway Safety
Comment 8
Program is administered by Caltrans through the State Highway Operations and
Cont.
Protection Program (SHOPP).
Update statements reflecting the state of the economy (Page 3-10).
6/15/10
Comment 9
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?
6/15/10
Comment 10
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.
6/15/10
Comment 11
6/15/10
Comment 12
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.
6/15/10
Comment 13
6/15/10
Comment 14
Page 7-68 the Stockton Traffic Management Center is discussed. Is the Caltrans 6/15/10
District 10 TMC operating?
Comment 15
How large is the movement of air pollution from the Bay Area to the Central
Valley?
6/15/10
Comment 16
If there are no federal funds in a specific project, do the requirements of
environmental justice not apply? How is a federal nexus defined?
6/15/10
Comment 17
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.
6/15/10
Comment 18
6
APPENDIX
1-1
[This Page Left Intentionally Blank]
SAFETEA-LU Gap Analysis (May 2007)
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Proposed MPO Actions
Requirement
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.
1. Timing for phasing in
SAFETEA-LU
Requirements
Grace period until 7/1/07, after which
SAFETEA-LU provisions apply.
TIP and
RTP
TIP and Plan adopted after this date must
meet all SAFETEA-LU Sec. 6001
requirements
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 to meet the SAFETEA-LU compliance
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
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
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.
Update TIP at least once every four years
2. TIP Update Frequency
and Time Span
TIP
TIP shall include a 4-year period of
proposed federally supported projects
appropriate. The FTIP will include a 4-year program of
projects and will be submitted in conjunction with the
2007 RTP Update to meet the SAFETEA-LU Compliance
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
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
Identified Gap: None. The SJCOG RTP was last updated
in 2004.
Final Rule: §450.322(c)
Remedy: None.
3. RTP Update
Frequency
Nonattainment MPOs must update their
RTP at least once every four years.
RTP
MPOs in attainment regions must update
their RTPs at least every 5 years.
SJCOG Action: None.
Schedule: Although an RTP update is not required due to
this frequency requirement, SJCOG initiated a full RTP
Update in 2006 to comply with SAFETEA-LU by the July
1, 2007 deadline. SJCOG anticipates adopting SAFETEALU compliant RTP, FTIP, RTP EIR, and AQ Conformity
appropriate to meet the SAFETEA-LU Compliance
Update Since 2007 RTP: The 2011 RTP meets the
SAFETEA-LU four year update frequency requirement.
Printed: 05/03/2010
3
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
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.
4. Public Participation
Plan
TIP and
RTP
Provide opportunity to comment to broad
range of private and public interests.
SJCOG Action: SJCOG commits to the following
additional measures to encourage additional comment on
the development of the participation plan:
Participation Plan to be developed in
consultation with all interested parties.
a) Distribute the form letter/survey in Attachment A to
interested parties listed in the SJCOG participation plan to
provide additional opportunity for interested parties to
comment and provide suggested revisions to the continued
development of the participation plan. Since the
participation plan is continuously updated, this
consultation serves to inform future revisions. SJCOG
further commits to phone call follow ups on the letter
should responses not be received back to SJCOG within a
week after the mailing. If substantial comments are
received on the content or participation process outlined in
the SJCOG Public Participation Plan, SJCOG commits to
updating the PPP to reflect those comments.
Provide interested parties with reasonable
opportunities to comment on the RTP and
TIP.
Public meetings must be convenient and
accessible.
b) Hold a local workshop for the public and interested
agency stakeholders to solicit additional comment on the
development of the participation plan.
Printed: 05/03/2010
4
c) Hire a consultant to establish evaluation methods and
surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of the outreach
methods included in SJCOG’s participation plan.
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
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.
5. Visualization
Techniques & Electronic
Publishing
TIP and
RTP
Make public information (such as the TIPs
and RTPs) available in electronically
accessible format.
Remedy: In San Joaquin County, many visualization
techniques are currently utilized (color plot maps of
existing and planned projects, website posting, powerpoint
presentations, and utilization of GIS). The remedy is to
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
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
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
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
Identified Gap: None.
Remedy: SJCOG’s FY2005/06 Annual List of Obligated
Projects as posted on the SJCOG website (www.sjcog.org)
is SAFETEA-LU compliant.
6. Publication of Annual
Listing of Obligated
Projects
Annual requirement to publish federal
obligations in preceding year.
TIP
SAFETEA-LU requires inclusion of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
SJCOG Action: The FY2005/06 Annual List of Obligated
Projects will also be included in the 2007 FTIP
Amendment submitted to FHWA in conjunction with the
2007 RTP update.
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
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
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).
7. Security and safety
addressed in the RTP
RTP
RTPs must address the Strategic Highway
Safety Plan.
The 2007 RTP Update includes discussion of existing
efforts to incorporate emergency planning and security
issues in Chapter 6 (about pg. 6-14).
Security and safety of the transportation
system are now stand-alone planning
factors.
The 2007 Public Participation Plan includes an updated list
of stakeholders, including those involved with the safety
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
April 2011 Update
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
mitigation activities in
RTPs
&
Printed: 05/03/2010
RTPs
RTPs shall contain shall include a
discussion of potential environmental
mitigation activities to be developed in
consultation with Federal, State and Tribal
wildlife, land management and regulatory
agencies.
9
Identified Gap: SJCOG could enhance consultation
efforts beyond those required by CEQA to discuss
potential environmental mitigation activities with resource
agencies, with explicit intent to discuss the comparison of
any applicable maps, plans, and inventories.
April 2011 Update
9. Resource agency
consultations
Final Rule: §450.322(f)(7) & Appendix A
MPOs shall consult as appropriate with
federal, State, and local agencies responsible
for land use management, natural resources,
environmental protection, conservation and
historic preservation.
The MPO may establish reasonable
timeframes for performing this
consultation.
Remedy: Develop a process for encouraging consultation
with resource agencies to discuss potential environmental
mitigation activities.
SJCOG Actions: SJCOG commits to the following
additional measure to encourage comprehensive,
cooperative, and continuous discussions with resource
agencies on potential mitigation activities in the regional
transportation plan:
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
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
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
April 2011 Update
Final Rule: §450.322(f)(10)(i) & §450.324(h)
SJCOG Actions:
Reasonably available or projected revenues
to support proposed investments in the
Plan.
10. System Preservation,
Operation, and
Maintenance Costs
TIP and
RTP
The 2007 RTP Update and 2007 FTIP Amendment
address all of the required SAFETEA-LU compliance
provisions for system preservation, operation, and
maintenance costs.
Estimated costs of maintaining and
operating the transportation system must
be accounted for in the TIP.
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. 92).
The DOT, MPO and transit agencies will
provide reasonable cost estimates.
Appendix 9-1 of the 2007 RTP Update details the
assumptions utilized as part of the fiscal constraint
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
April 2011 Update
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.
11. Expanded
Consultation
Requirements
Printed: 05/03/2010
TIP and
RTP
Consultation to be expanded, including
non-metropolitan local officials planning
officials “as appropriate” in areas outside of
transportation, including land-use
management, natural resources,
environmental protection, historic
preservation, tribal agencies, and recipients
of federal transportation funding from a
non-U.S. DOT source.
14
See discussion and commitments under items 4, 8, and 9
above.
April 2011 Update
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.
12. Financial constraint
TIP and
RTP
TIPs and RTPs should be financially
constrained to reflect a realistic view of
projected funding.
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. 92). Appendix 9-1 of the 2007 RTP Update details the
assumptions utilized as part of the fiscal constraint
demonstration.
As required, a demonstration of financial constraint is also
included in the 2007 FTIP Amendment.
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
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
SAFETEA-LU: Section 6011(a), (b) & (c)
AIR QUALITY
CONFORMITY
TIP and
RTP
Requirement to determine conformity is
now every four years (instead of every three
years).
SJCOG Actions: None required.
SJCOG acknowledges the changes to the transportation
conformity regulations identified in SAFETEA-LU.
Allowance of a 1 year “grace period” before compliant RTP, FTIP, RTP EIR, and AQ Conformity
conformity lapse (in certain instances)
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
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
Final Rule: §450.306(g)
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.
PUBLIC TRANSIT
ELEMENT
Coordinated Public Transit-Human
Services Transportation Plan (per 49 U.S.C.
5310, 5316, and 5317).
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
local agencies in San Joaquin County, with SJRTD in the
development of the Plan.
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
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
TRANSIT MAJOR
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS
Two additional criteria added to Basic
criteria for rating projects:
4) Economic Development Potential
5) Reliability of Ridership and Cost
Forecasts
(aka New Starts)
(does not apply to Small Starts)
Printed: 05/03/2010
18
SJCOG will ensure that the San Joaquin Regional Transit
District (the regional transit provider for San Joaquin
County) and smaller transit providers determine the
applicability of this requirement and modifying grant
applications to address the new criteria prior to grant
submittals, as appropriate.
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.
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
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.
TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES
Congestion Management Process in
Transportation Management Areas
(formerly known as Congestion
Management System (CMS) in
ISTEA/TEA-21).
Remedy: Evaluate and revise the existing CMP to reflect
additional processes as specified below.
SJCOG Actions:
(1) Update the TDM strategies to be consistent with the
CMP update described in (b) below. Develop a process to
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
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
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
April 2011 Update
New SAFETEA-LU
Provision
Applicable
to:
Requirement
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
APPENDIX
1-2
This Appendix Is Contained Under Separate Cover and Is Included By
Reference to the 2011 RTP EIR
APPENDIX
2-1
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 processrelated 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
Project Delivery Policy – 01
Adopted February 22, 2007
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.
Project Delivery Policy – 01
Adopted February 22, 2007
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.
Project Delivery Pilot Program (PDP-02) - Project Tracking Form
Last updated/verified:
Green
Project Identifiers
MPO ID
PPNO ID
Captial EA
CTIPS ID
Federal Project ID
Jurisdiction
Facility Name/Rte
Project Description
Project Limits
Agency Contacts (Name, Phone, Email)
Local Agency
SJCOG
Caltrans
Funding Sources (check)
RSTP
STIP RIP
CMAQ
STIP IIP
STIP TE
Measure K
HBP (HBRR)
Local
FTIP Information
FY
($1,000s)
FTIP (yr)
PE
R/W
CON
Measure K Information
MK ($1,000s) Coop? (Y/N) MK Category
PE
R/W
CON
Federal Demo Projects
Other ____________________
STIP Information
STIP (yr)
FY
PA&ED
PSE
R/W
CON
Allocation Status
Target Request
CTC vote
CON Contract deadline
STIP ($1,000s)
Project Phase Information
Environmental
Design
ROW
Construction
Cost Estimates by Phase
Date of Cost Estimate
Costs
Verified?
(check)
Status of Environmental
CEQA
NEPA
Type
Complete? (y/n)
Draft
Final
Status of Construction
E-76 Dates
Estimated Approval
Local to Caltrans
Caltrans to FHWA
FHWA approval
Project Authorization Tracking (E-76)
Federal
Funds
($1,000s)
E-76 Date
PE
R/W
CON
Notes/Pending Action Items:
Related Tracking Reports:
CT STIP Quarterly Report
CT Progress Project Information
State
Funds
Local
Funds
($1,000s)
($1,000s)
CT XPM
CT PMCS
Initial Project Information (SJCOG and CT)
Local Jurisdiction's Updates
SJCOG Updates
Caltrans Updates
Last Billing Inactive
Date
List? (y/n)
Reversion
Date
(Lapse)
MK Strategic Plan
Other_____________________________
APPENDIX
5-1
DRAFT
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN UPDATE
Prepared by:
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
City of Escalon
Councilman Larry Hansen
City of Lodi
Mayor Brent Ives
City of Tracy
Supervisor Leroy Ornellas
San Joaquin County
Councilman Dan Chapman
City of Stockton
Mayor Kristy Sayles
City of Lathrop
Mayor Ed Chavez
City of Stockton
Supervisor Ken Vogel
San Joaquin County
Councilman Steve Bestolarides
City of Stockton
Vice Mayor Chuck Winn
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 (SAFETEALU), 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 Lodi-News Sentinel
The Manteca Bulletin
El Sol
Manteca Sun Post
The Tracy Press
The Escalon Times
The Tri-Valley Herald
Bi-Lingual Weekly
La Vide en Valle
5
The Ripon Record
The Modesto Bee
The SJ News Service
Mundo Hispano
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
c/o Kathy Perez
P.O. Box 717
Stockton, CA 95206
209-887-3415
California Valley Miwok Tribe
c/o Silvia Burley, Chairperson
10601 Escondido Place
Stockton, CA 95212
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
915 Capitol Mall, Room 364
(916) 653-4082
e-mail: [email protected]
California Tribal TANF Partnership
c/o Joni Drake, Site Manager
5637 N. Pershing Ave., Ste. C-10
Stockton, CA 95207
209-474-6890
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 decisionmaking. 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 policylevel 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
555 E. Weber Avenue
Stockton, CA 95202
Phone: (209) 468-3913
Fax: (209) 468-1084
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
Document Name
How Often
Updated
HCP- Easement Purchasing N/A
Last
Updated
How Long Before
Board Mtg.
Document Published
for Public Notice
How long in Paper
N/A
21-30 Days prior to
approval action
Website
How Long Before
Board Mtg.
Document Published How long on Public
for Public Hearing
Website?
Hearing
Locations of
Public
Hearings
Notes:
once a week for three
consecutive weeks
Yes
* Yes, but not
necessary
SJCOG Board Website is used for informational purposes but is not
Steve Mayo &
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 .
Publication not tied to board meeting but brought forth to
board in June or July via Staff Report
Steve Dial
N/A
See Planner
Yes
See Notes Section
Yes
See Notes Section
1 Year
No
Yes
At Least 30 Days, as
applicable
Continuous
As
SJCOG Board Public Participation process based on federal guidance
applicable Room
document. Contact SJCOG staff for more information.
Dana Cowell
Continuous
As
applicable Room
Jody Swanson
Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE)
Annually
2005 N/A
RTP
Every 3 yrs.
At least 30 Days prior
2004 to approval action
1 Day
FTIP
Every 2 yrs.
1 Day
Yes
applicable
RTP-EIR
Every 3 yrs.
1 Day
Yes
applicable
Continuous
Yes
Air Quality Conformity
Every 3 yrs.
1 Day
Yes
applicable
Continuous
As
applicable Room
Analysis and Determination
of Unmet Transit Needs
MK Strategic Plan
FTA 5310 Funding
Public Participation Plan
.
Annually
Annually
Annually
As
necessary, at
least every 5
years.
Planners
1 Day
N/A
2006 N/A
Oct. or Nov. of
2005 preceeding year
1 Day
Yes
At Least 30 Days
N/A
Oct. or Nov. of
preceeding year
1 Day
Yes
At least 10 days
Yes
Yes
SJCOG Board
Room
Dana Cowell
Dana Cowell
1 Year
Starting from
Oct. or Nov. of
Previous Year Yes
No
Continuous
All the cities hold their own Public hearing with the exception
SJCOG Board of the City of Stockton because SJRTD handles the City of
Room
Stocktons Public Hearings
Tanisha Taylor
N/A
Wil Ridder
1 Year
No
N/A
Tanisha Taylor
Continuous
Yes
SJCOG Board
Room
Susan Filios
Appendix C
SJCOG Public Participation Environmental Justice Resource List
Dr. Dwight Williams, Sr.
Oasis of Hope Corp.
1439 Michael Avenue
Stockton, CA 95206
209-469-3170
Mr. Jose Rodriguez
El Concilio
Council for the Spanish Speaking
308 N. California Street
Stockton, CA 95202
209-547-2855
Pheng Lo
Lao Family Community
807 N. San Joaquin Street, Suite 211
Stockton, CA 95202
209-466-0721
Lao Khmu Association
1044 N El Dorado St
Stockton, CA 95202
http://www.laokhmu.org/
209-463-3410
Ms. Karla Kuhl
Calworks
P. O. Box 201056
Stockton, CA 95201
209-953-7125
Mr. Andy Prokop
United Way of San Joaquin County
401 East Main Street
Stockton, CA 95202
209-469-6980
Mr. Steve Larson
United Cerebral Palsy Association of San Joaquin
333 West Benjamin Holt Drive, # 1
Stockton, CA 95207
209-956-0290
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
P. O. Box 4548
Stockton, CA 95204
209-465-0293
Central California Agency
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Mr. Harold Brafford
1824 Tribute Road, Suite J
Phone: 916 566-7121
Fax: 916-566-7510
Ms. Kathy Perez
Candelaria American Indian Council
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA 95236
209-887-3415
Ms. Ramona Valdez
Director
San Joaquin Council for the American Indians, Inc.
13505 S. Union Road
PO Box 1552
209-858-2421
Fax: 209-858-4692
Appendix D: Resource Agency Listing
2007 RTP NOP Contact List
11-29-06
CM, PW, DIR, COMM DIR,
RTPA,
LIBRARY, FHWA, CT-10,
CT HQ,
SCHOOL DIST, TRANSIT
Mr. Robert Adams
City of Manteca
1001 W. Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
Mr. Jesse Brown
Merced County Association
of Governments
369 W. 18th Street
Merced, CA 95340
Mr. Jim Brown
SACOG
1415 "L" Street, Ste 300
Mr. Ron Addington
The Business Council
2800 W. March Lane, #473
Stockton, CA 95219
Mr. Ronald Brummett
Kern Council of
Governments
1401 19th St., Suite 300
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Mr. Kome Ajise
Caltrans District 10
P.O. Box 2048
Stockton, CA 95201
Mr. Rod Buchanan
City of Tracy
400 E. Tenth Street
Tracy, CA 95376
Mr. Alex Bailey
Maya Angelou Southeast
Library
2324 Pock Lane
Stockton, CA 95205
Mr. Ronald Jaeger
Regional Director
Bureau of Indian Affairs
2800 Cottage Way
Ms. Diane Bills
Manteca Public Library
Manteca, CA 95336
Ms. Sylvia Burley
California Valley
Miwok Tribe
10601 Escondido Place
Stockton, CA 95212
Mr. B. B. Blevins
State Energy Commission
1516 9th Street
Mr. Charles Boice
New Hope School District
P.O. Box 238
Thornton, CA 95680
Mr. Dennis Boyer
New Jerusalem School
District
31400 S Koster Rd
Tracy, CA 95376
Mr. Michael Brinton
City of Manteca
Manteca, CA 95337
Ms. Suann Lundsberg
Intermodal Transportation
BNSF Railway Company
P.O. Box 961057
Fort Worth, TX 76161-0057
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroad
Stockton, CA 95207
Mr. Dave Calkins
Sierra Nevada Air
Quality Group
1 Carolyn Court
Orinda, CA 94563
Mr. Michael Spata
City of Lathrop
390 Towne Centre Drive
Lathrop, CA 95330
Mr. Ross Chittenden
Caltrans, Headquarters
P.O. Box 924874
Mr. Mark Codey
Caltrans, Div. of Rail
P.O. Box 942874, MS 74
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
Mr. Bruce Coleman
City of Lathrop
390 Towne Centre Dr.
Lathrop, CA 95330
Mr. Leon Compton
City of Ripon
259 N. Wilma Avenue
Ripon, CA 95366
Mr. Martin Engelmann
Contra Costa County
Transit Authority
3478 Buskirk Ave. #100
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Ms. Melinda Copp
Public Library
430 W. Main Street
Ripon, CA 95366
Mr. Gary Danielson
Valley Air Trust
c/o Wm. Jennings
3536 Ranier Ave.
Stockton, CA 95204-1237
Ms. Mary Frederick
Caltrans Division of
Aeronautics
M.S.#40 P.O. Box 942874
Mr. Ron Estes
Linden School District
18527 E. Main Street
Linden, CA 95236
Mr. Kirk Evans
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
Mr. Joe Ewing
Community Taxi
618 Virginia Street
Dr. Steve Lader
Lincoln Unified School
District
2010 West Swain Road
Stockton, CA 95207
Mr. David Gouker
Troke Library
502 W. Ben Holt
Stockton, CA 95207
Mr. Dennis Fay
Alameda County CMA
1333 Broadway, Suite 220
Oakland, CA 94612
Mr. Greg Greeson
City of Escalon
1854 Main Street
Escalon, CA 95320
Mr. George Finney
Tulare County Association of
Governments
5961 S. Mooney Blvd.
Visalia, CA 93277
Ms. Kay Griffin
Caltrans, Headquarters
Office of Engineers
1727 30th St - MS43
Mr. Tom Flinn
San Joaquin County
Public Works
1810 E. Hazelton Avenue
Stockton, CA 95205
Mr. Randy Hatch
City of Lodi
P. O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
Mr. John Fultz
Manteca School Dist.
Facilities Planning
P. O. Box 32
Manteca, CA 95336
Ms. Kimberly Gayle
Tech. Planning Assist.
Program
PO Box 942874--MS39
Mr. Dan Gifford
Calif. Dept of Fish & Game
519 W. Locust Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Mr. James Giottonini
City of Stockton
22 E. Weber 3rd Fl.
Stockton, CA 95202
Ms. Barbara Goodwin
Fresno Council of
Governments
2100 Tulare St., Ste. 619
Fresno, CA 93721
Ms. Cay Goude
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
2800 Cottage Way, Suite
W-2605
Mr. Tom Hawkins
Jefferson School District
7500 West Linne Road
Tracy, CA 95376
Ms. Sandy Hesnard
Caltrans, Div. of Aeronautics
P. O. Box 942873
Mr. Steve Heminger
Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Ms. Beverly Hine
Escalon Public Library
1540 Second Street
Escalon, CA 95320
Mr. Daniel Hobbs
City of Tracy
325 E. Tenth Street
Tracy, CA 95376
Mr. Larry Host
US Fish and Wildlife
Services
2800 Cottage Way, Suite
W-2605
Mr. Kenneth Hough
SACOG
1415 L Street, #300
Mr. Donald Jackson
State Reclamation Board
1416 9th Street, #455-6
Mr. Ted Johnston
City of Ripon
259 N. Wilma Street
Ripon, CA 95366
Mr. Cary Keaten
City of Lathrop
390 Towne Centre Drive
Lathrop, CA 95330
Ms. Donna Kelsay
San Joaquin RTD
1533 E. Lindsay Street
Stockton, CA 95205
Mr. Khui Khan
Federal Highway
Administration
650 Capitol Mall #4-100
Mr. Blair King
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
Ms. Sue Kiser
Federal Highway
Administration
650 Capitol Mall #4-100
Mr. Kyle Kollar
City of Manteca
Manteca, CA 95337
Ms. Pam Korte
Department of Transportation
Dept Of Transp MS 32
P.O. Box 942874
Mr. Keith Larick
Tracy Unified Schools
315 E. Eleventh Street
Tracy, CA 95376
Mr. Gordon Palmer
City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St.
Stockton, CA 95202
Mr. Mike Locke
San Joaquin Partnership
Stockton, CA 95219
Mr. Manuel Lopez
San Joaquin County
222 E. Weber Ave. Rm 707
Stockton, CA 95202
Mr. Steve Luxenburg
Federal Highway
Administration
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100
Mr. Tom Abbott
Department Of
Transportation
1120 N. Street
P.O. Box 942874 MS 28
Mr. Andrew Malik
City of Tracy
325 E. Tenth Street
Tracy, CA 95376
Ms. Nancy Martinez
City of Lodi, Library
201 W. Locust St
Lodi, CA 95240
Ms. Mary McDonough
Federal Highway
Administration
567 D'Onofrio Drive, Suite
100
Madison, CA 53719-2844
Mr. Carl Toliver
Stockton Unified School
701 N Madison Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Mr. Henry McKay
Port of Stockton
P. O. Box 2089
Stockton, CA 95201
Mr. Bob Mitroff
Bay Area Rapid Transit
District
P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
Mr. John Pfiefer
Federal Aviation
Administration
San Francisco ADO
831 Mitten Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Ms. Stacey Mortensen
SJ Regional Rail
Commission
949 E. Channel Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Mr. Pat Wiemiller
City of Tracy
520 Tracy Blvd.
Tracy, CA 95376
Ms. Mary Munnecke
Linden Public Library
Linden, CA 95236
Mr. Don Precissi
Lodi (Precissi) Airpark
11919 N. Lower Sacramento
Rd.
Lodi, CA 95242
Ms. Ashley Nguyen
Metropolitan Transportation
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Mr. Rich Prima
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95240
Mr. David Nicol
Federal Highway
Administration
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100
Mr. Barry Rondinella
Stockton Metropolitan
Airport
5000 S. Airport Way
Stockton, CA 95206
Mr. Richard Nordahl
Department of Transportation
Off. of Goods Movement
MS32
P.O. Box 942874
Mr. Kevin Sharrar
BIA of the Delta
509 W. Weber Ave, #410
Stockton, CA 95203
Mr. Kenneth Olds
Lammersville District
16555 W. Von Sosten Road
Tracy, CA 95376
Mr. Bob O'Loughlin
Federal Highway
Administration
201 Mission St., Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Ms. Kathy Perez
Candelaria American Indian
Council
135 W. Fremont Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Mr. Duane Peterson
City of Escalon
1854 Main Street
Escalon, CA 95320
Mr. Kent Smith
HCP Supervisor
Calif. Dept. Of Fish & Game
1701 Nimbus Rd., Suite A
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Ms. Diane Sorensen
Holt Union School District
1545 South Holt Road
Stockton, CA 95206
Ms. Nicky Stanke
Cesar Chavez Central Library
605 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Ms. Mamie Starr
Lodi Unified School District
1305 E. Vine
Lodi, CA 95240
Mr. Douglas Stidham
City of Escalon
P.O. Box 248
Escalon, CA 95320
Ms. Kerry Sullivan
SJC Community
Development Dir.
1810 E. Hazelton Avenue
Stockton, CA 95205
Mr. Marvin Tatum
Manteca Unified School
District
PO Box 32
Manteca, CA 95336
Ms. Patricia Taylor
Madera County Transp.
Commission
1816 Howard Road, Suite 8
Madera, CA 93637
Mr. Ernie Tyhurst
City of Ripon
259 N. Wilma Avenue
Ripon, CA 95366
Mr. Wayne Horiuchi
Union Pacific Railroad
915 L Street, #1180
Mr. David Westsmith
Delta Island Elementary
School
11022 W. Howard Road
Stockton, CA 95206
Ms. Anita Young
Fair Oaks Library
Stockton, CA 95205
Mr. Mike Brady
Caltrans Environmental
Program
P.O. Box 942874 MS-32
Mr. Alan McCuen
Caltrans District 6
1352 W. Olive Ave.
Fresno, CA 93768
Mr. Leo Zuber
Ripon School District
304 N Acacia Avenue
Ripon, CA 95366
Mr. Steve Curti
Caltrans District 6
1352 W. Olive Ave.
Fresno, CA 93768
Mr. Terry King
Kings County Association of
Governments
1400 W. Lacey Blvd.
Hanford, CA 93230
Ms. Sally Rodeman
P.O. Box 2048
Stockton, CA 95201
Mr. Vincent Harris
Stanislaus Council of
Governments
900 H Street Suite D
Modesto, CA 95354
Mr. Charles Field
Amador County
Transportation Commission
11400 American Legion Dr.,
Suite A
Jackson, CA 95642
Ms. Ramona Valdez
SJ Council for the American
Indians
P. O. Box 1552
Ms. Sharon Scherzinger
Caltrans HQ
1120 N Street-MS 32
Mr. Bob Wallace
Escalon School District
1520 Yosemite Avenue
Escalon, CA 95320
Ms. Lauren Dawson
SJVAPCD
1990 E. Gettysburg Ave.
Fresno, CA 93726
Ms. Jane Perez
Caltrans - District 10
P.O. Box 2048
Stockton, CA 95201
Mr. Don Hunsaker
SJVAPCD
1990 E. Gettysburg Ave.
Fresno, CA 93726
Mr. Rick Wentworth
San Joaquin Office of
Education
P.O. Box 213030
Stockton, CA 95213-9030
Ms. Rachel Falsetti
Caltrans Division of
Programming
P.O. Box 942874 MS-82
Mr. Carlos Yazmon
P.O. Box 2048
Stockton, CA 95201
Mr. Dennis Wade
California Air Resources
Board
1001 I Street
P.O. Box 2815
Mr. Dan Skopec
Agency Undersecretary
California Environmental
Protection Agency
1001 I Street
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA
95812-2815
Ms. Karina O’Connor
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
P.O. Box 6790
Incline Village, NV 89450
Ms. Lisa Hanf
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Hawthorne Street
Mr. Ted Malley
Federal Transit
Administration
201 Mission Street,
Suite 1650
Ms. Cari Anderson
Cari Anderson Consulting
1023 E. Montebello Ave
Phoenix, CA 85014
Mr. Michael R. Finnegan
U.S. Dept. of Interior
Federal Bureau of
Reclamation
7794 Folsom Dam Road
Folsom CA 95630-1799
Mr. David Christy
Bureau of Land Management
California State Office
2800 Cottage Way
Mr. Tom Coe
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Sacramento District
1325 J Street
Ms. Maria Or
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
San Francisco District
333 Market Street, Room 923
Mr. Michael E. Aceituno
NOAA National Marine
Fisheries Service
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 6070
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
Mr. Milford Wayne
Donaldson, FAIA
California Office of Historic
Preservation
P.O. Box 942896
Ms. Kiran LanfranchiRizzardi
State Water Resources
Control Board
11020 Sun Center Drive #200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
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
3rd Missionary Baptist
7 Up
A & D Rubber Products
Company
A New Beginning Church of
God
A. R. Sanguinetti, Inc.
A.C.L.C.
A.F. Toccoli & Son, Inc.
General Contractor
A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.
A.G. Spanos Companies
A.M. Stephens
Construction, Inc.
AAA‑Northern California ‑
Stkn
A‑Able 1 Answer America
AAFES West Coast DC
Aartman Jim Milk Transport
Abundant Life Center in
Lathrop
AC Trucking Company
Accountancy Corp.
Ace Tomato Company, Inc.
ACT 1 Personnel Services
Advanced
GeoEnvironmental
Adventures In Advertising
African American Chamber
Of Commerce
AFSCME
Agricultural Commission
San Joaquin County
AKF Development, LLC
Alan Short Center
Almond Valley Christian
Reformed Church
Almond Valley Christian
Reformed Church
Alpine Meats
Alspaugh Foundation
Alternative Resources
Amalgamated Transit
Union, Local 276
American Cancer Society
American Farmland Trust
American Heart Association
American Honda Motor Co.
American Legion Hall
American Lung Association
American Red Cross
American Sign Products
American Society of Civil
Engineers
American Tire Tow & Auto
Repair
Antonini Enterprises LLC
Applied Aerospace
Structures
APSARA (Asian Pacific SelfDevelopment and
Residential Association)
Arc San Joaquin
Area VI Board
Armour Fire Extinguisher
Co.
Asco Power Technologies
Asian Pacific American
(APA) News & Review
Asian‑American
Chamber of
Commerce
Assemblymember Alan
Nakanishi
Assemblymember
Greg Aghazarian
Assemblymember
Cathleen Galgiani
Assistance League of
Stockton
AT & T Broadband
ATS
Audubon Society
Bank of Agriculture &
Commerce
Bank of America, N.T.
& S.A.
Bank of Lodi NA
Bank of Stockton
Bank of Stockton
Carson Oaks
Bank of Stockton Quail
Lakes
Bank of the West
Banta Elementary
School District
Barnes & Noble
Barton Ranch
Bay‑Delta Office
Bear Creek
Community Church
Becker & Hamilton
Homes, Inc.
Benerd School Of
Education, UOP
Bethany Community
Church
Bethany Temple A/G
Bethel Open Bible
Better Business
Bureau
Bible Methodist
Church
Bible Way Ministry
Big Brothers/Big
Sisters of San Joaquin
County
BLB Enterprise
Blossom Valley
Community
Boggs Tract
Community Center
Boys & Girls Club of
Lodi, Inc.
Boys & Girls Club of
Stockton
Brookside Place
Feather River
Brown, Hall, Shore, &
McKinley
Builder's Exchange
Building Industry
Assoc. of the Delta
Burlington Northern
Santa Fe
Business Council, Inc.
of San Joaquin County
Calif. State Assembly
Calif. Valley Miwok
Tribe
California Bank &
Trust
California Delta
Chambers & Visitors
Bureau/Marina Towers
California Highway
Patrol Tracy Office
California Human
Development
Corporation
California Human
Development
Corporation Farm
Worker Services
California Native Plant
Society
California Real Estate
Company
California Spray Dry
California State Senate
California Valley
Miwok Tribe
California Women For
Agriculture
Caltrans ‑ District 10
Calvary 1st Assembly
Calvary Bible
Calvary Chapel of
Stockton
Calvary Community
Church of Manteca
Calvary Reformed
Church
Calworks
CalWORKS
Employment Center
Cambodian
Community of
Stockton
Campaign for
Common Ground
Candelaria American
Indian Council
Care West
Care West
Career Clothes Closet
Careers for 50 Plus
Caroline Photography
Carpenter Company
Carson Oaks
Management Co.
Catholic Charities
Center for Positive
Prevention
Alternatives, Inc.
Central California
Safety Council
Central Parking District
Central Seventh Day
Adventist
Central State Credit
Union
Central United
Methodist Church
Central Valley AsianAmerican Chamber of
Commerce
Central Valley Association
of Realtors
Central Valley Training
Center
Central Valley Waste
Services
Centro De Vida Christiana
Church
Century Assembly
Certified Grocers of
California
Cesar Chazez Central
Library
Channel Medical Centers
Chapin & Associates
Moonshadow Productions
Child Abuse Prevention
Council Of San Joaquin
County
Child Protective Services
Children's Home of
Stockton
Children's Museum of
Stockton
Chinese Cultural Society of
Stockton
Christ Church of The Valley
Christ Temple Apostolic
Faith
Christian Life Center
Christian Missionary
Alliance Church
Christian Worship Center of
Manteca
Christian Worship Center of
Manteca
Church of Christ
Church of God
Church of God 7th Day
Church of The Living God
Citizens Land Alliance
Citizens to Stop the Power
Grab
City of Escalon
City of Lathrop City Hall
City of Lathrop Community
Development
City Of Lathrop Library
City of Lodi
City of Lodi Fire
Department
City of Lodi Planning
Commission
City of Lodi Police
Department
City of Lodi Transit
Mechanics Union
City of Lodi, Library
City of Lodi/Lodi Grapeline
City of Manteca Office of
City Manager
City of Manteca Parks &
Recreation Dept.
City of Manteca Public
Works
City of Manteca Public
Works Dept.
City of Ripon
City of Ripon Planning
Department
City of Ripon Ripon
Planning Commission
City of Stockton Account
Division
City of Stockton Building
Division
City of Stockton City
Council
City of Stockton City Hall
City of Stockton Community
Development
City of Stockton Cultural
Heritage Board
City of Stockton Enterprise
Zone
City of Stockton
Management Information
System
City of Stockton Municipal
Utilities District
City of Stockton Parks &
Recreation
City of Stockton Planning
Department
City of Stockton Public
Works Dept
City of Tracy - Parks and
Community Services
City of Tracy Community
Dev. Dept.
City of Tracy Dev. &
Engineering Services
City of Tracy Finance
Division
City o Tracy Library
City of Tracy Public Works
Department
City of Tracy Transit Drivers
Union--Teamsters Local
439
City of Tracy/Tracer
Clair & Bossi Attorneys at
Law
Clements-Lockeford
Chamber of Commerce
Club of the Adult Blind of
San Joaquin County
Comcast
Commercial Exchange Club
Communities United for
Families (CUFF)
Community Action
Resources of Escalon
Community Bank of San
Joaquin
Community Banks of Tracy
Community Center For The
Blind & Visual Impaired
Community Church of God
Community Development
Department of San Joaquin
County
Community Partnership for
Families
Community Taxi
Condor Earth Technologies,
Inc.
Congressman Dennis
Cardoza
Conklin Marketing
Consumer Credit
Counseling Services
Convention Visitor
Bureau
Corn Products
Cornerstone
Evangelical Free
Cornerstone
Evangelical Free
Cort Companies
Cost Plus Distribution
Costco Distribution
Center
COSTCO Tracy Site
Council For Spanish
Speaking
Council For Spanish
Speaking
County Administrator's
Office San Joaquin
County
County Counsel
Covenant Christian
Fellowship
Covenant Christian
Fellowship
Craig V. Sands
Accountancy
Corporation
Credit Bureau of San
Joaquin County
Crestwood Manor
Crisis Pregnancy
Center of Lodi
Crisis Pregnancy
Center of Tracy
Croce & Company
Crossroads
Community Church
Crossroads Grace
Community
Crossroads of The
Valley A/G
Crosstown Community
Church
CSU Stanislaus
Stockton
CSU Stanislaus
Stockton Center
Dameron Hospital Administration
Dameron Hospital
Association
DAV Charities of San
Joaquin County
DAV Charities of San
Joaquin County
DeBock & Muth
Insurance Agency
Defense Distribution
Region West San
Joaquin Sites
Defense Logistics
Agency
DeGregori, Gormsen,
McCurry & Ringer
Del Monte Foods
Corporation
Delta Church of
Nazarene
Delta Health Care
Education Center
Delta Impact, San
Joaquin Delta College
Delta Island School
District
Delta National Bank
Delta Sierra
Management
Delta Wireless, Inc.
‑Stockton Delta
Network Solutions
Dept. of Fish & Game
Derivi Construction &
Architecture Inc.
Deuel Vocational Inst.
Diamond Walnut
Growers
Diana Lowery
Consulting
Diede Construction,
Inc.
Diocese of Stockton
Disability Resource
Agency For
Independent Living
(DRAIL)
Discovery Free Will
Baptist
District
District Attorney
County of San Joaquin
District Council 57
Division 1
Doane Pet Care
Company
Docter & Docter
Doctors Hospital of
Manteca
Dopaco California Inc.
Dougherty &
Associates
Downtown Lodi
Business Partnership
Downtown Stockton
Alliance
E. B. Asia Consulting
Earth Grains Bakery
Easter Seal Society
Stockton Center
Eastside Improvement
Committee
Eastside Missionary
Baptist
Eastside Presby.
Church
Ebenezer
Congregational
Eberhardt School of
Business
Eckert Cold Storage
Economic Dev. Assoc.
SJ County
El Concilio
Emanuel American
Lutheran
Emergency Food Bank
English Oaks
Escalon Branch Library
Escalon Business
Association
Escalon Chamber of
Commerce
Escalon Christian Reformed
Church
Escalon Community Center
Escalon Lions Club
Escalon Packers
Escalon Public Library
Escalon Times
Escalon Unified School
District
Evangelical Free Church
Evangelical Methosist
F & H Construction
Fair Oaks Library
Fairmont Seventh-Day
Faith Assembly
Faith Baptist Church
Faith Fellowship
Faith in Action/Good
Samaritan Community
Services/Tracy Volunteer
Care Givers
Faith Tabernacle
Family Bible Church
Family Resource & Referral
Family Resource Network
Family Worship Center
Farm Bureau Federation
Farmers & Merchants Bank
FB utton Co., Inc.
Fed Ex Freight
Fellowship of Hope
Fernandes Advertising &
Design
Ferreira Vineyards
Filipino American National
Historical Society
Filipino Center
Filipino Federation of
America
First Assembly of God
First Assembly of God
First Baptist Church of
Linden
First Church of Nazarene
First Commercial Real
Estate
First Congregrational
Church
First Missionary Baptist
First United Methodist
Five Star Construction
Food 4 Less
Foodmaker
Foster Grandparents
Fox River Paper Company
Franzia Winery
Free Methodist Church
Free Will Baptist Church
Freeman & D'Aiuto
French Camp Municipal
Advisory Council
Friends Group, City of Lodi,
Library
Friends of Escalon
Friends of the Library
Galatians Community
Church
Galilee Baptist Church
Ganzer & Williams
Garcia and Associates
Natural Resources
Consultants
Garden Acres Community
Center
General Mills
General Teamsters Local
439
George Perry & Sons
Girl Scouts, SJC Service
Center
Golden Valley Community
Day School
Golden West Nuts, Inc.
Good Samaritan Center
Goods Movement Task
Force
Goodwill Industries of San
Joaquin Valley
Gospel Center Rescue
Mission
Gospel Light House
Gottschalks
Grace Assembly of God
Grace Baptist Church
Grace Brethren Church
Grace Church
Grace Community
Grace Presbyterian
Granite Construction
Company
Grant Thornton
Grape Growers Association
Lodi District
Greater Faith Baptist
Church
Greater Stockton
Emergency Food Bank
Greater Stockton
Employment Advisory
Council
Greater Stockton/San
Joaquin Chamber of
Commerce
Grimaud Farms of
California, Inc.
Grunsky Elementary School
Grupe Company
Guaranty Federal Bank
H & S Trucking
H. J. Heinz Company
H.D. Arnaiz Corporation
Habitat for Humanity of San
Joaquin, Inc.
Hakeem, Ellis, & Marengo
Hanley Construction, Inc.
Harbor Isle Apartments
Harold W. Thompson
Hartland Community
Church
Hartmann & Setness
HARVEST BIBLE CHURCH
Harvest Christian Center
Haven of Peace
Head Start Child
Development Council
Head Start of Stockton
Heald College
Health Care Service
Health Care Services
Health for All-ADHC
Health For All‑ADHC
Health Plan of San
Joaquin
Heartland Church
Herum Crabtree Dyer
Zolezzi & Terpstra
Highlight Church of
God in Christ
Hmong Christian &
Missionary Alliance Of
Stockton
Hmong International
Culture Institute
Hogan Manufacturing
Company
Holt of California
Holt Union School
District
Holy Cross Episcopal
Church
Holy Cross UMC
Home Loan Center
Hormel Foods
Hospice of San
Joaquin
Household of Faith
Baptist
Housing Authority
Commission
Housing Authority of
San Joaquin County
Housing Economic
Development
Human Services
Agency of San Joaquin
County
Humphreys College
Iacopi, Lenz &
Company
IBEW/NECA Labor
Management
Cooperative Trust
Iglesias De Dios
Church of God
Imanual Christian
Reformed Church
Immanuel Breath of
Life
Immanuel Christian
Reformed Church
In Shape City
Individual Career
Solutions
International, Inc.
J C Penney Store
J. C. Trucking
J.R. Simplot
Jack Williams Ranches
Jefferson School
District
Jene Wah, Inc.
JMeek Agribusiness
Mgmt.
Johns Manville
Manufacturing
JSG Trucking
Company
Judith Buethe Public
Relations
Junior Achievement
Kaiser Foundation
Hospital
Kaiser Permanente
Kat Country 103 *
KATM ‑ FM
KCRA TV Channel 3
Keller Wiliams
Ken Fong Advertising
Kennedy Community
Center
Kettleman Lane
Community Church
Kingdon Airport
Kirst Development
Kiwanis
Kiwanis Club of
Escalon
Kjeldsen, Sinnock, &
Neudeck, Inc.
KJOY 99 FM
Kleinfelder
Geotechnical
KLOC Radio
Korea Baptist Church
of Stockton
Korean Bansuk
Presbyterian
KOVR TV, Channel 13
News
KQOD FM Oldies 100.5
Kroloff Belcher Smart
Perry &
Christopherson
KWIN Radio Silverado
Broadcasting Company
KXTV News 10
KYCC‑KCJH 90.1
Lakeview Assembly
Lakeview Village
Lammersville School
District
Land Utilization
Alliance
Lange Twins, Inc.
Lao Family Community
of Stockton
Lao Khmu Assoc.
Lao Lane Xang
Association San
Joaquin Chapter
Larch Clover
Community Center
Lathrop Baptist Church
Lathrop Branch Library
Lathrop Chamber of
Commerce
Lathrop Christian
Center
Lathrop Community
Center
Lathrop Lighthouse of
The Cross
Lathrop Planning
Commission
Lathrop Rotary Club
Lathrop Senior Center
Law Office of Anthony M.
Barkett
Law Office of David R.
LeBeouf
League of Women Voters
Legacy Enterprises
Leprino Foods
Libbey Owens Ford
Library Family Literacy
Progam
Life UPC
Lifeseed Christian
Fellowship
Lighthouse Christian
Fellowship
Lighthouse Community
Church
Lincoln Center Chronicle
Linden Center
Linden Herald
Linden Municipal Advisory
Council
Linden Public Library
Linden Unified School
District Facilities Planning
Linden United Methodist
Church
Linden-Peters Chamber of
Commerce
Linden‑Peters Pentecostal
Assembly
Lions Club
Lipton
Little Manila Foundation
Littler Mendelson
Lively Stones Worship
Center
Living Word Ministries
Lloyd Development Inc.
Local Agency Formation
Commission
Lockeford Municipal
Advisory Council
Lockeford SDA Church
Lockeford Senior Center
Lockeford‑Clements News
Locust Avenue Church of
Christ
Lodi (Precissi) Airpark
Lodi Association of Realtors
Lodi Avenue Baptist
Lodi Chamber of Commerce
Lodi Christian Life
Lodi Community Church
Lodi Community Services
Center
Lodi High School
Lodi House
Lodi Memorial Hospital
Lodi News Sentinel
Lodi Parks & Recreation
Lodi Planning Commission
Lodi Senior
Commission/Senior Center
Lodi Unified School District
Lodi Victory Center
Lodi Visitors Center
Lodi-Woodbridge
WineGrape Commission
Lodi‑Woodbridge
LOEL Senior Center
Lolly Hansen Senior Center
Love Fellowship Baptist
Church
Loving Hymn Ministries
Lung Kong Tin Yee
Association
M & R Company
Magna‑Kote Electrostatic
Painting
Manteca Baptist Church
Manteca Branch Library
Manteca Bulletin
Manteca CAPS
Manteca Chamber of
Commerce
Manteca Convention and
Visitors Bureau
Manteca Parks &
Recreation
Manteca Planning
Commission
Manteca Public Library
Manteca School District
Educational Technology
Dept.
Manteca School District
Facilities Planning
Manteca Senior Center
Manteca Unified School
District
Marina Village West
Mariners Cove Apartments
Mariners Point Apartments
PMZ Real Estate
Martin Brower Company
Human Resources
Department
Masonic Temple Association
of Stockton, Inc.
Maya Angelou Southeast
Library
Mayaco Marketing &
Internet
Mayall, Hurley, Knutsen,
Smith & Green
McFall Center
McHenry House
Medcore Medical Group
Mental Health Services of
San Joaquin County
Mental Health Services of
San Joaquin County
Mervyns ‑ Manteca
Michael & Cammack
Michelle Manos Design
Michigan Heights Baptist
Church
Mid-Valley Engineering
Missionary Baptist
Model Alternative School
Moffat & Nichol Engineers
Mokelumne Coast To Crest
MooreTechnologies
Morada Muncipal Advisory
Council
Mori Consultants
Mosswood Park
Church of God
Mountain House
Community Services
District
Mt. Olive Miss. Baptist
National Association of
Rental Property
Managers - SJC
National University Stockton Learning
Center
Neumiller & Beardslee
New Beginnings
Church
New Cov. Believers
Chr.
New Greater Love
Church Of God In
Christ
New Harvest Christian
Fellowship
New Heart Community
Church of the
Nazarene
New Hope Community
New Hope Free Will
Baptist
New Hope School
District
New Jerusalem School
District
New Life in Christ Full
Gospel
NKS Consulting, LLC
No. Calif. Youth
Correctional Cntr.
Youth Authority Dept.
Nolte & Associates
Nomellini, Grilli &
McDaniel
Nor Cal Center on
Deafness
Northeast Community
Center
Northern California
Foster Grandparents
Nototome Cultural
Preservation
Nu Cal
O.B. Kleinfeld &
Company Accountancy
Corporation
Oak Park Senior
Citizens Center
Oak View School
District
Oasis of Hope
Community Dev.
Corporation
Open Door House of
Prayer
Operating Engineers,
Local 3
Orchard Supply
Hardware
Orthodox Christian
Reformed Church
Our Lady of
Guadalupe
Outdoor Systems
Advertising
Outdoor Systems
Advertising
Owens‑Brockway
Glass Container
Pac West
Pacific Coast
Industries Human
Resources Department
Pacific Coast
Producers
Pacific Gas & Electric
Pacific State Bank ‑
Headquarters
Pacific West
Communications
Group
PACT - People and
Congregations
Together
Pan American
Underwriters, Inc.
Panella Trucking
Peace & Justice
Network
Pentecostal Church of
God
Pennino & Associates
Pentecostal
Tabernacle of Escalon
People of The Christ
Missionary Baptist
People of The Christ
Missionary Baptist
Peterson Trucking
Planned Parenthood
Planning Commission
Plymouth Square
Poly‑Cal Plastics
Port of Stockton
Prayer Temple
Premier Credit Union
Progressive Missionary
Baptist
Property Management
Experts
Providence Reform
Church
Public Health Services
-- Environmental
Health Dept.
Public Library City Of
Ripon
Quail Lakes Baptist
Church
Quailwood Apartments
Raddison Hotel
Raymus Homes
Realty World
Red Top Taxi
Registrar of Voters
Resurrection Life
Church of God
Resurrection Power
Evangelistic Center
Rich Turner Photographics
Rick King Design
Ripon Assembly of God
Ripon Branch Library
Ripon Chamber of
Commerce
Ripon Church of Christ
Ripon Record
Ripon Senior Citizen's
Center
Ripon Unified School
District
Rishwain & Rishwain
River Islands at Lathrop
RM‑Holz Human Resources
Department
Robert C. Irwin
Robert Mondavi Winery
Roek Construction
Rotary Club of Stockton
Downtown
Rotary Club of Stockton
North
Rotary Club Of
Stockton‑Sunrise
Rotary Doctor's Hosp.,
Manteca
Rotary Manteca Isadore's
S.J. Agricultural
Commission
S.J. Co. Parks & Recreation
S.J. Council for American
Indians
S.J. Delta College TPPF
Health Unit
Saint Anne's Catholic
Salem United Methodist
Salvation Army
Salvation Army, Lodi Corps
San Joaquin A+
San Joaquin AIDS
Foundation
San Joaquin Association of
Retarded Citizens
San Joaquin Audubon
Society
San Joaquin Building
Trades Council, Local 73
San Joaquin Co. Health
Care Service
San Joaquin Co. Parks &
Recreation
San Joaquin Co. Public
Health
San Joaquin County Cooperative ExtensionUniversity Of California,
Farm Advisors, Agricultural
San Joaquin County
Administrators Office
San Joaquin County
Auditor‑Controller's Office
San Joaquin County Bar
Association
San Joaquin County Board
of Supervisors
San Joaquin County Clerk
San Joaquin County
Communications
San Joaquin County Council
for the Indians
San Joaquin County
Department of Public Works
San Joaquin County Human
Resources Department
San Joaquin County Human
Services
San Joaquin County Local
Agency Formation
Commission
San Joaquin County Medical
Society
San Joaquin County
Neighborhood Preservation
Office
San Joaquin County Office
of Education Center
San Joaquin County Office
of the Treasurer
San Joaquin County
Registrar of Voters
San Joaquin County Rental
Property Association, Inc.
San Joaquin County
Retirement Administration
San Joaquin County Risk
Management
San Joaquin County
Sheriff's Dept.
San Joaquin County Supt.
of Schools
San Joaquin County
Treasurer‑Tax Collector
San Joaquin County
Worknet
San Joaquin County
Worknet
San Joaquin Delta College
San Joaquin Delta College
Sierra Club
San Joaquin Fair Housing
Association
San Joaquin Farm Bureau
Federation
San Joaquin Food Bank
San Joaquin General
Hospital
San Joaquin Housing
Authority
San Joaquin Indo Chinese
News
San Joaquin Office of
Education
San Joaquin Partnership
San Joaquin Regional Rail
Commission
San Joaquin Regional
Transit District
San Joaquin River Parkway
& Conservation Trust, Inc.
San Joaquin Taxpayers
Association
San Joaquin Valley Black
Chamber of Commerce
SANTA FE RAILROAD
Sanwa Bank of California
Second Harvest Food
Bank of San Joaquin
and Stanislaus
Counties
Seifert Community
Center
Seligman & Willett,
Inc.
Senior Lifestyles
Senior Service Agency
The Listener
Seniors First
Sequoia Heights
Baptist Church
Service Employees
International Union,
Local 790
Service First Bank
Seventh-Day Adventist
Shaver, Suntag, &
Feuerstein
Shelter for the
Homeless
Sherwood Mall
Siegfried Engineering,
Inc.
Sierra Club
Sierra Occupational
Services Medical Clinic
Sierra Veterinary Clinic
SJ Association of
Retarded Citizens
SJ Co. Community
Development
SJ Co. Community
Development
SJ Co. Hispanic
Chamber Of
Commerce
SJ Co. Rental Property
Association, Inc
SJ County Clerk
SJ Fair Housing Assoc.
SJ Farm Bureau
Federation
SJ Local Agency
Formation Commission
SJ Planning
Commission
SJ Regional
Occupational Program
SJ Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control
District
SJC Board of
Supervisors
SJC Child Abuse
Prevention Council
SJC Community
Services Dept. of
Aging
SJC Department of
Aging
SJC Human Services
Agency
SJC Neighborhood
Preservation
SJC Planning
Department
SJC Quality of Life
SJCO District Attorney
SJDC ‑ Impact
SJDC Disabled Student
Programs and Services
Small Business
Development Center
SNAG/Midtown
Redevelopment
Committee
Snyder Lithograph
Soroptimists Club
Sortex, Inc.
South Tracy
Community Church
Southwinds
Community Church
Souza Real Estate
SSB Realtors GMAC
St. Patrick's Catholic
Church
St. Paul Evangelic
Lutheran Church
St Paul's United
Methodist Church
St. Peter's Lutheran
St. Basil Greek
Orthodox Church
St. Bernadette's
Catholic Church
St. Bernard's Catholic
Church
St. Dominic's Hospital
St. George's Catholic
Church
St. Gertrude's Catholic
Church
St. Joachim's Catholic
Church of Lockeford
St. John's Episcopal
Church
St. Joseph's Behavioral
Health Center
St. Joseph's Medical
Center
St. Joseph's Regional
Health System
St. Luke’s School
Development Office
St. Luke's Catholic
Church
St. Mary's High School
Development Office
St. Mary's Interfaith
Dining Room
STAND
Star Building Systems
State Compensation
Insurance Fund
Stockton Airport
Business Center
Stockton Arts
Commission
Stockton Athletic Hall
of Fame
Stockton Baptist
Church
Stockton Beautiful
Stockton Bicycle Club
Stockton Central
Parking District
Stockton Certified Farmers
Markets
Stockton Chamber of
Commerce
Stockton Convention &
Visitors Bureau
Stockton Covenant Church
Stockton Crossing Cultural
Bridges
Stockton Cultural Heritage
Board C/0 Community
Develop. Dept.
Stockton East Water District
Division 2
Division 3
Division 5
Division 6
Division 7
Stockton Filipino Church
Stockton Housing And
Redevelopment Dept.
Stockton Library, Troke
Branch
Stockton Metro Ministry
Stockton Metropolitan
Airport
Stockton Municipal Utilities
Dept.
Stockton NAACP Youth
Council
Stockton Planning
Commission
Stockton Police Department
Stockton Public Library
Stockton School for Adults
Stockton Shelter for the
Homeless
Stockton Shelter for The
Homeless
Stockton Symphony
Association
Stockton Tri Industries
Stockton Unified School
Stockton Women's Network
Stone Brothers &
Associates
Stribley Community Center
Strocal, Inc. Safety &
Maintenance Dept.
Su Salud Community
Disease Prevention &
Education Center
Summit Logistics
Sunflower Presents, Inc.
Super Stores
Industries
Super Stores Industries
Human Resources
Department
Tabernacle of Praise
Teichert Construction
Teletech
Temple Baptist
Teresi Trucking
The Bridge at Stockton
The Brown Group
The Business Council, Inc.
The Emergency Food Bank
The Home Church Bible
Baptist
The James Company
The Nature Conservancy
The Pacifican - UOP
The Record
The Rock of Hope Church
The Tracy Press
The Wine Group Franzia
Winery
The Wine Group Franzia
Winery
Thomas Hooper
Accountancy Corp.
Thornton Branch Library
Thornton Chamber of
Commerce
Thornton Community
Services Center
Toys R Us
Tracy Branch Library
Tracy Church of Christ
Tracy Community Hospital
Tracy District Chamber of
Commerce
Tracy Federal Bank
Tracy Flight Center
Tracy Interfaith Ministries
Tracy Planning Commission
Tracy Public Schools
Tracy Southern Baptist
Church
Tracy Unified School
District
Tri-Mark Communities
Trinity Baptist Church
Tri-Valley Herald
Troke Library
Truex Insurance Agency
Twin Oaks Baptist
U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
U.S. Post Office Attn:
Growth Management
U.S.A. Fashion Magic
UC Davis Cooperative
Extension San Joaquin
County
Ulmer Photo
Unified Western Grocers
Union Bank of California
Union Pacific Railroad
United Cambodian Families
(UCF)
United Cerebral Palsy of
San Joaquin County
United Congregational
Christian
United Lutheran Church
United States Congress
United Way of San Joaquin
County
Unity Church of God in
Christ
Unity Southern Baptist
Church
University of the Pacific Public Affairs
University of the
Pacific Eberhardt
School Of Business
University of the
Pacific Sport Sciences
Department
UOP ASUOP
(Associated Students)
Urbani Institute of
Language
Development
USDA Natural
Resources
Conservation
Valenzuela Elementary
School
Valley Air Trust
Valley Community
Baptist Church
Valley Community
Presbyterian Church
Valley Mountain
Regional Center
Valley Rehabilitation
Industries
Valley Rehabilitation
Industries
Valley Tomato
Products, Inc.
Verizon Wireless
Veterans Service
American Legion Hall
Viacom Outdoor
Victory Christian
Church
Victory Outreach
Church
Victory Praise Church
Vietnamese
Community Inc.
Vietnamese Voluntary
Foundation
Vinewood Community
Vineyard Christian
Middle School
Vino Farms
Walker Printing
Services
Wal‑Mart ‑ Tracy
Wal-Mart Manteca
Wardell & Rall
Accountancy
Corporation
Washington Mutual
Waterfield Square
Apartments
Weberstown Mall
Wells Fargo Bank
College Square
Wells Fargo Bank
Corporate Properties
Group
Wells Fargo Bank
Corporate Properties
Group
Wells of Living Water
Wenell, Matheis, &
Bowe
Wesleyan Evangelical
West Coast Magnetics
West Coast World
Outreach
West Hills Bible
Church
West Lane Foursquare
Church
West Star Industries
Western United
Dairymen District 4
and 5
Westside Assembly
White Rose COGIC
Wilson Realty Group
Wine & Roses
Women's Center of
San Joaquin County
Women's Success
Group
Woodbridge Coffee
Club
Woodbridge
Community
Woodbridge Municipal
Advisory Council
Woodbridge Winery
(Robert Mondavi)
Woodruff Regional
Occupational Ctr.
WorkNet
Yellow Freight Lines
YMCA Of San Joaquin
County
Younnel Weber
Advertising, Inc.
Zacky Farms
Zion Christian
Fellowship
Zion Reformed Church
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.
APPENDIX
5-2
2011 RTP Outreach: Questionnaire 1
Public Outreach
Questionnaire 1
Goals, Policies, & Performance Measures
NAME:___________________
Page 1 of 14
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
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
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?
We appreciate your time and comments!
Page 4 of 14
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
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 nondrivers (e.g. senior citizens, disabled, economically disadvantaged).
Or by:
Page 6 of 14
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
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
I also think we should focus on:
New Goal:
Priority New Policies:
New Goal:
Priority New Policies:
Page 9 of 14
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?
Your comments are important to us!
Page 10 of 14
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:
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
I think Interagency Coordination, Public Participation, and Citizen Involvement
should be promoted through a:
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 nondrivers (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:
The 2011 RTP Environmental Impact Report
Maintaining "conformity" between federal air quality plans and transportation
plans and programs.
Page 12 of 14
Listing completed CMAQ projects and associated emissions benefits.
I think Cost Effectiveness should be measured by
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:
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
Goal: Mobility and Accessibility (continued)
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
Public Outreach
Questionnaire 2
Investment Scenarios
NAME:___________________
Page 1 of 6
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
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
2011 RTP
29%
13%
23%
4%
22%
7%
0.4%
Category
State Highway
Interchanges
Regional Roadways
Railroad Crossing Safety
Bus Transit
Rail Corridor
Bike/Ped
Suggested for
2011 RTP
%______
%______
%______
%______
%______
% ______
% ______
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
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
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
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
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:__________________________

Page 6 of 6
Very
Important
Public Outreach
Questionnaire 3
Countywide Maps & Project Priorities
NAME:___________________
Page 1 of 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
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
Green
Highest Priority of Needed Road Improvements
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
Public Outreach
Questionnaire 4
Congestion Management Project
Prioritization Process
NAME:___________________
Page 1 of 3
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
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
Green
Highest Priority of Needed Road Improvements
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
WHAT DO YOU VALUE?
(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:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
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
2004 RTP
29%
13%
25%
4%
22%
7%
0.5%
Category
State Highway
Interchanges
Local Roadways
Railroad Crossing Safety
Bus
Rail
Bike/Pedestrian
Your Suggestion
for 2011 RTP
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
No Change
Check (√)
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)
Major Cross-street (e.g. March Ln)
_
Collector road (a roadway linking to a major street)
_
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)
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
555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202
Additional information is available on the website at www.sjcog.org
APPENDIX
5-4
[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
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
APPENDIX
5-5
c/o San Joaquin COG • 555 E. Weber Ave. • Stockton, California 95202 • 209-468-3913 • FAX 209-468-1084
I.
Kern Council of
Governments
Ronald Brummett
A.
II.
III.
Stanislaus Council
Of Governments
Vince Harris
Council of
Fresno County
Governments
Tony Boren
Vice Chair
Madera County
Transportation
Commission
Patricia Taylor
San Joaquin
Council of
Governments
Andrew Chesley
IV.
V.
Description of Different Options
Pro/Cons of Different Options
Step 1 Baseline Development
1.
Valleywide Summary of Baseline Development
a)
Summary of Implications in Relationship to Different
“Split” Options.
Lunch (30 Minutes)
Target Recommendation (45 Minutes)
A.
B.
VI.
SB-375 Language Which Allows Valley MPOs to Work Together
MPO Scenario Presentations (30 Minutes)
Working Together (90 Minutes)
A.
B.
C.
Merced County
Association of
Governments
Jesse Brown
Chair
Kings County
Association of
Governments
Terri King
Welcome/Introductions/Meeting Overview (5 Minutes)
Should There Be One Recommended Target for the Valley?
Can We Agree on a Valleywide Number?
Schedule for Implementation of Recommended Approach (2015
RTP versus 2019 RTP) (45 Minutes)
A.
B.
C.
Prop 84
ARB Modeling Effort
RTP Development
VII. Sustainable Community Strategy Development (30 Minutes)
A.
B.
Institutional Structures
1.
Based on Different Split Options
Role of MPO Board if Valley Chooses to Develop Joint SCS’s
VIII. Next Steps (10 Minutes)
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
Governments
Ronald Brummett
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
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
Governments
Jesse Brown
Chair
Kings County
Association of
Governments
Terri King
Stanislaus Council
Of Governments
Vince Harris
Time: 10 am – 3 pm
Location: SJCOG
Board Conference Room
555 E. Weber Ave., Stockton
•
Introduction / Overview (15 min)
o Includes Valley-Wide Chapter update
Ted Smalley, TCAG
•
FSTIP Guidance / Expectations (30 min)
Abhijit Bagde, Caltrans
•
TIP & RTP Project Lists (120 min)
o Caltrans roundtable:
Fresno, Kern
Kings, Madera
Merced, Tulare
SJCOG, StanCOG
o FHWA roundtable:
Merced, Tulare
SJCOG, StanCOG
Fresno, Kern
Kings, Madera
All 8 MPOs
Council of
Fresno County
Governments
Tony Boren
Vice Chair
Madera County
Transportation
Commission
Patricia Taylor
San Joaquin
Council of
Governments
Andrew Chesley
Lunch Break (30 min)
•
Conformity Overview (30 min)
o Latest Planning Assumptions
o Procedures
Includes analysis years
Cari Anderson, Valley
•
Public Outreach Efforts (40 min)
All 8 MPOs
•
Upcoming Tasks (15 min)
o Next Workshop
Tanisha Taylor, SJCOG
Tulare County
Association of
Governments
Ted Smalley
1
APPENDIX
6-1
SR-120 to Arch Road
Widen from 4 to 6 lanes
(inside median)
SR-4 (Crosstown
Freeway) to South of Arch
Road
Caltrans
SR-99
2
Caltrans
I-5
3
4
5
Country Club Blvd to
(inside median) including
North of Eight Mile Road
auxiliary lanes
Operational Improvements
I-5 to Daggett Road
Caltrans
SR-4 Extension
New alignment from
Fresno Ave. to Navy Drive
Fresno Avenue to Navy
Drive
Provide safety and
operational improvements
I-5 to Bouldin Island
Construct east and
westbound auxiliary lanes
Near Tracy, Mountain
House Boulevard to
MacArthur Drive
2013
Near Lockeford - Within
the joint SR-88/SR-12
corridor
2025
SR-12
Caltrans
I-205
7
Caltrans
SR-12 / SR-88
8
10
11
12
13
14
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
|
z
}
z
}
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
}
|
}
z
}
z
z
|
|
z
z
z
z
}
z
~
}
z
}
z
z
|
|
z
z
|
}
z
}
z
~
|
z
z
z
z
z
z
|
|
|
}
}
}
z
z
|
|
|
z
z
|
|
z
~
}
|
~
|
|
|
|
|
z
z
|
z
z
z
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2013
SR-4
6
}
2015
Caltrans
Caltrans
9
2015
Project in FTIP &/or CMP
CIP
Widen 4 to 6 lanes (inside
median)
Conceptual - Project study Environmental - Final
Design - ROW Complete
SR-99
FTIP/
CMP
Disproportionate Level of
Impact on EJ Sentitive
Communitiess
Caltrans
Stage
Improves Mobility &
Accessibility in EJ Sensitive
Areas
Year Open
to Traffic
Equity
Project Design Includes
Elements that Reduce SOV
Travel
Project Boundaries
Non-SOV
Travel
All Reasonable Operational Preser- vation
Measures are Included in
Project's Design
Project Description
Project Design
Operational
Improvements have been
Reasonably Exhausted
Facility
Name/ Route
Past
Efforts
Supports a MSFR of < 1.0
Project
Sponsor
Emissions MSFR
Project Readiness
Project Remediates a
Bottleneck or Choke Point
|NP
Economic Vitality
Environmental
Provides Greater Access to
Multimodal Goods
Movement Hubs
}LP
Safety &
Security
Operational Preservation
Goods Movement for
Strategic Economic Centers
&/or Key Support for Ag.
~MP
LOS
Technical Analysis
Extent of Traffic Injury
Related Incidents (IRI)
1
zHP
Project Urgency
Addresses Segments on
Network @ LOS D/E/F
Highway Widening Project Review &
Formation Process
2012
2016
2012
Caltrans
I-5
(inside median)
French Camp Road to
Charter Way
2022
Caltrans
I-5
(inside median)
SR-120 to French Camp
Road
2025
Caltrans
SR-120
Widen 4 to 6 lanes (inside
median)
I-5 to SR-99
Caltrans
SR-132
Widen 2 to 4 lanes with
auxilliary lanes
I-580 to I-5
Caltrans
I-5
Widen from 9 to 12
through lanes
Caltrans
SR-12
Mossdale Wye, SR-120 to
I-205
Lower Sacramento Road
to SR-99
2027
2025
2028
2032
SR-99 to SR-88
Caltrans
SR-99
(inside median)
Near Lodi, Harney Road
to Peltier Road
Caltrans
I-205 / I-580
Truck Climbing Lanes
Caltrans
SR-12
I-205
(inside median/outside
shoulder)
Caltrans
19
Greenville Road to Grant
Line Road
to I-5
2035
2030
2025
I-580 to I-5
Note: Projects beyond 2020 are not subject to CMP screening.
2025
2030
CIP
Widen 2 to 4 lanes and add
turn lanes
SR-12
FTIP/
CMP
Communitiess
Caltrans
Stage
Improves Mobility &
Areas
Year Open to Traffic
Equity
Travel
Project Boundaries
Non-SOV
Travel
All Reasonable Operational
Preservation Measures are
Included in Project's
Design
Project Description
Project Design
Operational
Facility
Name/ Route
Past
Efforts
Supports a MSFR of < 1.0
Project
Sponsor
Emissions MSFR
Project Readiness
Project Remediates a
Bottleneck or Choke Point
18
|NP
Economic Vitality
Environmental
Multimodal Goods
Movement Hubs
17
}LP
Safety &
Security
Goods Movement for
16
~MP
LOS
Technical Analysis
Related Incidents (IRI)
15
zHP
Project Urgency
Network @ LOS D/E/F
Highway Widening Project Review &
Formation Process (Continued…….)
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Highway Interchange Review &
Formation Process
Environmental
Project Readiness
~MP
}LP
|NP
CIP
FTIP/
CMP
Improves Mobility &
Areas
Stage
Links Regional Expressway
to the Highway System
Equity
Travel
Expressway
Connectivity
Operational
MultiModal
Maximum Service Flow
Rate is < 1.0
Past
Efforts
Incident (IRI)
MSFR
Multimodal Goods
Movement Hubs
Safety &
Security
Goods Movement for
Economic Vitality
Network @ LOS D/E/F
LOS
Technical
zHP
Project
Sponsor
Facility Name/ Route
Project Description
Project Boundaries
Year Open
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
SR 99 at Mariposa Rd
2025
}
~
~
~
~
~
z
z
}
~
~
3
Stockton
I-5 at Hammer Ln
I-5 at Hammer Lane
2016
~
~
|
}
~
~
z
|
z
}
~
4
Stockton
I-5 at Eight Mile Road
I-5 at Eight Mile Road
2017
}
~
|
~
|
~
~
z
|
}
~
Tracy
I-205 at MacArthur
Modification of existing
interchange
I-205 at MacArthur
2014
|
z
|
~
|
z
}
z
|
~
}
Manteca
SR-120 at Union Road
SR-120 at Union Road
2015
}
z
|
}
|
z
z
|
|
~
z
Lodi
SR-99 at Harney Lane
Reconstruct interchange to
provide 6 through lanes on
SR-99, 6 lanes on Harney
and modify on-ramps and
off-ramps
SR-99 at Harney Lane
2016
|
z
|
|
|
z
z
z
}
}
|
8
Lathrop
I-5 at Louise Avenue
I-5 at Louise Avenue
2020
|
~
~
}
|
~
~
z
|
~
|
9
Stockton
I-5 at Otto Drive
I-5 at Otto Drive
2015
~
}
|
|
~
~
~
|
}
~
}
Ripon
SR-99 at Jacktone/UPRR
Interchange
On-ramp improvements
SR-99 at Jacktone
Overcrossing/UPRR
Interchange
2020
z
~
|
~
|
}
}
z
|
|
|
San
Joaquin
County
SR-132 at Bird Road
Upgrade interchange,
lengthen ramps, widen
approaches, install signal
controls
SR-132 at Bird Road
2011
|
z
}
|
|
z
|
|
|
}
z
SR 99 at Eight Mile Rd
SR 99 at Eight Mile Rd
2017
|
~
|
}
|
}
~
z
|
|
~
I-205 at Lammers Rd
Construct new interchange
I-205 at Lammers Rd
2015
|
z
|
|
|
z
}
z
|
|
~
5
6
7
10
11
12 Stockton
13
Project Urgency
Tracy
Environmental
Project Readiness
~MP
}LP
|NP
CIP
FTIP/
CMP
Stage
Improves Mobility &
Areas
Equity
Links Regional Expressway
to the Highway System
Expressway
Connectivity
Travel
MultiModal
Operational
Past
Efforts
Rate is < 1.0
MSFR
Incident (IRI)
Safety &
Security
Multimodal Goods
Movement Hubs
Economic Vitality
Goods Movement for
LOS
Technical
zHP
Project
Sponsor
Project Description
Project Boundaries
Year Open
to Traffic
Lathrop
I-5 at Lathrop Road
I-5 at Lathrop Road
2018
}
~
~
}
|
}
}
z
|
|
|
15 Stockton
SR 99 at Morada Ln
SR 99 at Morada Ln
2017
|
~
|
}
|
~
~
|
}
}
|
I-205 at Grant Line Road
Modification of existing
interchange
I-205 at Grant Line Road
2017
|
~
|
z
|
z
}
|
|
|
|
Manteca
SR-120 at McKinley
Avenue
with necessary auxillary
lanes
SR-120 at McKinley
Avenue
2020
}
~
|
|
|
|
z
z
|
|
|
Tracy &
Lathrop
I-205 at Paradise
Road/Chrisman
Phase 1: Construct new
interchange east-west
ramps
I-205 at Paradise
Road/Chrisman
2015
~
}
|
|
|
|
}
z
|
}
}
Stockton
SR 99 at March
Lane/Wilson Way
SR 99 at March
Ln/Wilson Way
2019
|
~
|
|
|
~
~
|
}
|
|
Ripon
SR-99 at Main
Street/UPRR
Interchange (Ripon)
Reconstruct interchange of
SR-99 and Main Street
SR-99 at Main
including reconstruction of
Street/UPRR Interchange
Main Street overcrossing of
(Ripon)
UPRR and intersection
improvements
2018
z
~
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Stockton
I-5 at Gateway Blvd
2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
z
|
|
}
}
2022
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
14
16
Tracy
17
18
19
20
21
Ripon
22
23
24
25
I-5 at Gateway Blvd
SR-99 at Wilma Avenue
SR-99 at Wilma Avenue
Overcrossing/UPRR
Overcrossing/UPRR
existing overcrossing
Interchange
Interchange
structure
Lodi
SR-99 at SR-12 West
(Kettleman Lane)
SR-99 at SR-12 West
(Kettleman Lane)
2025
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Stockton
SR 99 at Gateway Blvd
SR 99 at Gateway Blvd
2025
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Lodi
SR-99 at Turner Road
Modify on-ramps and offramps
SR-99 at Turner Road
2030
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Note: Projects beyond 2020 are not subject to CMP screening process
Project Urgency
Network @ LOS D/E/F
Highway Interchange Review & Formation
Process (Continued…….)
MultiModal
}LP
|NP
Operational
Design
On Regional Expressway
Network
Improves and or
Elliminates Conflicts @
Roadway/Railraod
Crossings
Elements that Support
Multimodal Travel
Improves Mobility &
Areas
Communitiess
CIP
FTIP/
CMP
MSFR is < 1.0
Stage
Project Supports AQ
Emission Reductions in
Approved Transportation
Control Measures
Equity
Project Readiness
Multimodal Goods
Movement Hubs
MSFR
Environmental
Regional
Grade
Expressway Separation
Goods Movement for
Emissions
Project
Design
~MP
Project
Sponsor
Facility Name/Route
Project Description
Project Boundaries
Year Open
to Traffic
Stockton
Sperry Rd
Construction of Interim 4
Lanes
French Camp to
Performance Ave
2013
|
}
z
z
z
|
z
z
~
~
z
~
z
~
~
San
Joaquin
County
Widen from 2 to 4 lanes;
installing concrete median
barrier, and installing
shoulder wide to
accommodate bicyclists
Pixley Slough Bridge to
Harney Curve
2014
}
|
~
~
z
|
z
z
z
~
z
|
z
z
}
Lodi
Harney Lane
Widen from 2/3 lane
collector to 4 lane divided
arterial
SR-99 to Lower
Sacramento Road (2.6
Miles)
2011
|
}
z
|
z
|
z
z
z
z
z
~
z
}
|
Stockton
Airport Way
Streetscape Beautification
Tenth Street to Duck
Creek
2010
|
|
~
~
}
|
z
z
~
|
z
~
z
z
~
Alpine Avenue
with a middle turn lane.
Construct curb, gutter,
sidewalks and driveways
UPRR (SPRR) to Wilson
Way
2019
}
|
z
~
z
}
z
z
|
z
z
~
z
|
|
3
Stockton
5
6
Stockton
Arch Road
Frontier Way to SR-99
2015
|
|
z
z
z
|
z
z
~
|
z
~
z
}
|
7
Stockton
Arch-Airport Rd
SR-99 to Pock Lane
2019
|
}
z
z
z
|
z
z
~
|
z
~
z
}
|
8
Stockton
Arch-Airport Rd
Pock Lane to B Street
2019
|
|
z
z
z
|
z
z
~
|
z
~
z
}
|
9
Stockton
Arch-Airport Rd
B Street to Alitalia Ave
2019
|
|
z
z
z
|
z
z
~
|
z
~
z
}
|
Alitalia Ave to Airport
Way
2019
|
|
z
z
z
|
z
z
~
|
z
~
z
}
|
Alexander Rd to
Thornton Rd including
2013
}
z
|
~
z
}
z
z
|
|
~
|
z
z
z
2013
~
}
}
|
z
|
z
z
z
|
~
|
z
z
~
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Stockton
Arch-Airport Rd
Stockton
Hammer Lane (Phase
III)
San
Joaquin
County
17
Widening McHenry
McHenry Avenue
Avenue to install a two-way Stanislaus River Bridge to
Improvements & Bridge
left turn lane and replacing
Jones Avenue
Replacement
two bridge structures
Stockton
Arch Road
Newcastle Rd to Fite
Court
2017
|
|
z
z
z
|
z
z
~
|
z
~
z
}
|
Stockton
Arch Road
Fite Court to Frontier
Way
2015
|
|
z
z
z
|
z
z
~
|
z
~
z
}
|
2012
}
z
~
}
|
}
|
~
z
z
~
}
z
}
|
2015
}
}
~
~
z
}
z
z
|
|
z
~
z
}
|
2020
}
z
}
}
z
}
~
z
|
|
z
~
z
~
|
Escalon
Stockton
Stockton
Economic Vitality
Past
Efforts
zHP
2
4
LOS
Technical Analysis
Incidents (IRI)
1
Project Urgency
Safety &
Security
Network @ LOS D/E/F
Regional CMP Regional Roadway Project Review
& Formation Process
SR-120/Brennan Ave
Intersection
Mariposa Road
Pacific Avenue
Intersection improvements
SR-120 at Brennan
Avenue
SR 99 to Stagecoach Rd
Hammer Lane to March
intersections, addition of
Lane-Between the
turn and acceleration lanes
Calaveras River and
and construction/
Hammer Lane
extension of a raised
landscaped median
22
28
31
Project Supports AQ
Control Measures
MSFR is < 1.0
Operational
Design
Network
Improves and or
Roadway/Railraod
Crossings
Multimodal Travel
Improves Mobility &
Areas
Communitiess
CIP
FTIP/
CMP
Multimodal Goods
Movement Hubs
Stage
Project
Sponsor
Facility Name/Route
Project Description
Project Boundaries
Year Open
to Traffic
Stockton
Sperry Rd
Performance Ave to
Airport Way
2015
|
|
z
z
z
|
z
z
~
|
z
~
z
|
|
Completed
}
}
|
|
~
|
z
z
z
|
z
~
z
z
|
Howard Road and Tracy
Operational
Boulevard intersection
|
}
~
|
~
|
z
z
z
|
z
|
z
~
~
San
Joaquin
County
Widen to include center left
The City of Lodi Limits
Lower Sacramento Road turn lane, installing curb,
to WID Canal
gutter and sidewalk
San
Joaquin
County
Improvements of the
intersection including
Howard Road and Tracy
installation of a traffic
Boulevard Intersection
signal, construction of left
Improvements
and right hand turn lanes,
construction of shoulders
Stockton
Stockton
Eight Mile Rd
Lower Sacramento Rd
Stockton
Thornton Road
Stockton
Weber Avenue
Lathrop
I-5 to Thornton Rd
2015
|
}
~
}
z
|
z
z
~
|
z
~
z
}
|
Eight Mile Rd to Armor
Dr
2012
|
}
|
}
z
|
z
z
~
|
z
~
z
z
|
2010
~
~
|
}
z
}
z
z
|
|
~
~
z
z
|
Widen 1.5 mile section of
roadway from 2 lanes both Pershing Avenue to Bear
directions to 6 lanes with a
Creek Bridge
center dual turn lane
Roadway Reconstruction
Stanislaus St. to UPRR
2011
}
}
|
}
z
}
z
z
|
|
z
~
z
z
|
Reconstruct intersection,
including addition of turn
Intersection of Ullrey
pockets, improvement of
Ullrey Avenue/McHenry
Avenue and McHenry
traffic signal and
Avenue Intersection
Avenue including UPRR
installation of train prerailroad crossing.
emption system for UPRR
railroad crossing
2015
|
}
~
}
~
|
}
z
z
z
~
}
z
|
}
Construct new 6 lane
roadway parallel to I-5
River Island Pkwy to
Lathrop Road
2009
|
|
z
}
|
|
|
z
z
|
z
|
z
z
~
2019
|
~
~
}
z
|
z
z
~
|
z
~
z
|
|
2015
|
}
|
}
z
|
~
z
~
|
z
~
z
z
|
2020
|
}
z
~
z
|
z
z
|
z
z
|
z
|
|
2012
|
|
~
}
~
|
~
z
z
|
z
|
z
z
|
Operational
|
}
~
|
~
|
z
}
z
~
}
|
z
~
~
Golden Valley Parkway
Stockton
Eigth Mile Rd
Thornton Rd to Lower
Sacramento Rd
Stockton
Lower Sacramento Rd
Morada Ln to Hammer
Ln
Tracy
MacArthur Drive
Manteca
Airport Way
Widen 2 to 4 lanes (Valpico
Road to Schulte Road) and
extend 4 lane roadway (Mt.
Diablo Road to Eleventh
Street)
MacArthur Drive from
Valpico Road to Schulte
Road; MacArthur Drive
from Mt. Diablo Road to
Eleventh Street
SR-120 to Lathrop Road
Installation of traffic signal
with a preempt device to
coordinate traffic flow with
the railroad crossing
Byron Road and Grant
Line Road (east)
29
30
Equity
Project Readiness
|NP
25
27
MultiModal
}LP
Escalon
26
MSFR
Environmental
Regional
Grade
~MP
23
24
Emissions
Project
Design
zHP
20
21
Economic Vitality
Past
Efforts
Goods Movement for
19
LOS
Technical Analysis
Incidents (IRI)
18
Project Urgency
Safety &
Security
Network @ LOS D/E/F
& Formation Process (Continued…….)
San
Joaquin
County
Byron Road and Grant
Line Road Intersection
Signalization Project
36
37
38
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
MultiModal
}LP
|NP
Operational
Design
Network
Improves and or
Roadway/Railraod
Crossings
Multimodal Travel
Improves Mobility &
Areas
Communitiess
CIP
FTIP/
CMP
MSFR is < 1.0
Stage
Project Supports AQ
Control Measures
Equity
Project Readiness
Multimodal Goods
Movement Hubs
MSFR
Environmental
Regional
Grade
~MP
Project
Sponsor
Facility Name/Route
Project Description
Project Boundaries
Year Open
to Traffic
San
Joaquin
County
Linne Road Shoulders
and Traffic Signal
Installation of a traffic
signal at Linne Road and
Chrisman Road, and paved
shoulders on Linne Road
MacArthur Road to
Chrisman Road
Operational
|
|
~
}
~
|
z
z
z
|
z
|
z
~
~
San
Joaquin
County
Eleventh Street
Improve roadway and
intersections
Tracy City Limits to I-5
2015
|
z
~
|
~
|
z
z
z
|
}
|
z
~
|
Stockton
Airport Way
2019
|
}
~
}
z
|
~
z
~
|
z
~
z
|
|
Stockton
Eight Mile Rd
Eighth Street to Dr
Martin Luther King Jr.
Blvd Way
Lower Sacramento Rd to
West Ln
2020
|
~
~
}
z
|
~
z
~
|
z
~
z
|
|
Marlette Rd to Pixley
Slough
2013
}
|
}
~
z
}
~
z
~
|
z
|
|
~
~
Stockton
Lower Sacramento Rd
Stockton
Lower Sacramento Rd
Armor Dr to Morada Ln
2015
|
|
|
}
z
|
~
z
~
|
z
~
z
z
|
Tracy
Grant Line Road
Parker Avenue to
MacArthur Drive
2010
|
}
z
|
z
|
z
z
|
|
z
|
z
z
|
Tracy
Grant Line Road Traffic
Signals
Costs associated with
connecting thirteen traffic
signals along Grant Line
Road
West City Limits to
MacArthur Drive
2010
|
|
z
|
|
|
z
z
|
|
z
|
z
z
~
Ripon
Jack Tone Road, Phase 1
2015
|
|
~
}
z
|
z
z
~
|
z
|
z
~
|
Stockton
Airport Way
2019
|
~
~
}
z
|
|
z
~
|
z
~
z
|
|
Stockton
Airport Way
Tenth Street to Carpenter
Rd
2015
|
}
|
|
z
|
z
~
~
|
z
|
z
}
z
Stockton
Eight Mile Rd
New Road D to New
Road F
2015
|
|
~
}
z
|
z
z
|
|
z
~
z
}
|
New Road F to New
Road E
2015
|
|
~
}
z
|
z
z
|
|
z
~
z
}
|
2015
|
|
~
}
z
|
z
z
|
|
z
~
z
}
|
|
}
~
}
z
|
z
z
|
|
z
~
z
|
|
|
z
|
}
z
|
}
z
~
|
z
~
z
|
|
|
}
|
}
z
~
}
z
z
|
z
}
z
~
|
|
|
~
~
}
|
~
z
|
~
|
}
z
z
|
39
40
Emissions
Project
Design
zHP
34
35
Economic Vitality
Past
Efforts
Goods Movement for
33
LOS
Technical Analysis
Incidents (IRI)
32
Project Urgency
Safety &
Security
Network @ LOS D/E/F
Stockton
Eight Mile Rd
Stockton
Eight Mile Rd
Stockton
Airport Way
Stockton
Eight Mile Rd
Escalon
McHenry Avenue
Lathrop
Louise Avenue
Santos Road to South
Clinton Avenue
Industrial Drive to
Eighth Street
New Road E to Trinity
Parkway
Roth Road to French
Camp Road
West Ln to Holman Rd
First Street to Catherine
Way
Lathrop SPRR to east
side UPRR
2020
2010
2010
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Project Supports AQ
Control Measures
MSFR is < 1.0
Operational
Design
Network
Improves and or
Roadway/Railraod
Crossings
Multimodal Travel
Improves Mobility &
Areas
Communitiess
CIP
}
z
|
|
z
z
z
|
|
2014
|
|
}
}
~
|
~
z
z
|
z
|
z
~
|
2017
|
z
|
}
z
|
z
}
~
|
z
|
z
}
|
Project Boundaries
Year Open
to Traffic
Lodi
Lockeford Street
Manteca
Airport Way
2016
|
}
z
}
z
|
z
z
|
|
z
|
z
|
|
2017
|
|
|
}
~
|
~
z
z
|
z
|
z
|
|
}
~
~
~
|
~
z
|
|
z
|
z
}
|
Tracy
Lammers Road
Phase 1: I-205 to Old
Schulte Road
Manteca
Lathrop Road
East of UPRR to SR-99
2018
|
Pershing Avenue
Meadow Avenue to
Thorton Road
Operational
}
|
|
|
z
|
z
z
|
|
z
|
z
z
|
Benjamin Holt Drive
Widen to include center left
turn lane, add access
controls
Gettysburg Lane to
Pacific Avenue
2012
z
~
~
|
}
|
|
z
|
|
z
|
z
~
|
Airport Way
2019
|
|
~
}
z
|
|
z
~
|
z
~
z
|
|
2013
|
}
|
}
z
|
z
z
|
|
}
~
z
|
~
2015
|
|
|
}
z
|
}
z
~
|
z
~
z
}
|
2011
|
}
|
|
z
|
~
z
|
|
z
~
z
~
|
San
Joaquin
County
San
Joaquin
County
Stockton
Arch Road to French
Camp Road
Bear Creek to Thornton
Road
Stockton
Davis Rd
Stockton
Eight Mile Rd
Holman Rd to SR 99
Holman Rd
Construction of new 6 lane
road
Gary Galli Dr to Eight
Mile Road
El Dorado St to Holiday
Drive
Stockton
Stockton
March Ln
2020
|
~
|
}
z
|
}
z
|
|
z
~
z
}
|
Stockton
Morada Lane
West Ln to Holman Rd
2015
|
}
|
}
z
|
~
z
|
|
z
~
z
}
|
Stockton
Trinity Parkway
Extension
Construct 4 lane extension
Otto Drive to Hammer
Lane
2016
|
}
|
}
z
|
|
z
|
|
z
~
z
~
|
Installation of traffic signal
and/or roundabout
improvements at
11th Street at MacArthur
intersections, center
Drive
median, and an eastbound
auxiliary lane at selected
areas of Eleventh Street
2015
|
}
z
}
}
|
z
z
|
|
z
|
z
}
|
2013
|
|
~
~
}
|
~
z
|
|
~
|
z
~
|
|
|
|
}
~
|
z
z
|
|
}
~
z
z
|
|
|
|
}
z
|
~
z
|
|
z
~
z
}
|
Tracy
Eleventh Street
Improvements and
MacArthur Dr.
Intersection
Lathrop
Lathrop Road
Stockton
Davis Rd over Pixley
Creek Bridge
Stockton
March Ln Extension
67
68
|
Project Description
65
66
z
Facility Name/Route
Corral Hollow Road
FTIP/
CMP
|
Project
Sponsor
Tracy
Stage
z
|NP
Intersection Modifications
Equity
Project Readiness
|
}LP
Airport Way
MultiModal
|
~MP
Stockton
MSFR
Environmental
Regional
Grade
Multimodal Goods
Movement Hubs
52
Emissions
Project
Design
Goods Movement for
51
Economic Vitality
Past
Efforts
2020
zHP
Stockton Street to
Cherokee Lane
Lathrop Road to Roth
Road
Harding Way to
Industrial Rd
Parkside Drive to Linne
Road
LOS
Technical Analysis
Incidents (IRI)
50
Project Urgency
Safety &
Security
Network @ LOS D/E/F
I-5 to east of UPRR
Davis Road Bridge over
Pixley Slough between
Replace 2 lane bridge with 4 Eight Mile Road and
Waterburry Drive. 0.1
lane bridge
miles South of Eight
Mile Road
Holman Rd to SR 99
road
2011
2019
Incidents (IRI)
Goods Movement for
Multimodal Goods
Movement Hubs
Project Supports AQ
Control Measures
MSFR is < 1.0
Operational
Design
Network
Improves and or
Roadway/Railraod
Crossings
Multimodal Travel
Improves Mobility &
Areas
Communitiess
CIP
z
|
}
z
|
z
|
|
2019
|
|
~
}
|
|
|
z
z
|
z
|
z
}
|
2015
|
}
|
|
~
|
|
z
|
|
z
~
z
}
|
2019
|
|
|
}
z
|
|
z
|
|
z
~
z
|
|
2016
|
|
z
}
}
|
|
z
|
|
z
|
z
|
|
2012
|
|
}
|
}
|
|
z
|
|
z
|
z
~
|
McKinley Ave to West of
Airport Way
2014
|
|
}
|
}
|
|
z
|
|
z
|
z
~
|
Construct 2-lane extension
of Garrison Road.
Maple Avenue to 500 ft
east of Acacia Avenue
2016
|
|
|
|
}
|
z
z
|
|
~
|
z
}
|
Cherokee Road
Widen from 2 to 3 lanes,
add paved shoulders
SR-99 to Suburban Road
2018
|
}
~
|
}
|
}
z
|
|
}
|
z
|
|
San
Joaquin
County
Lammers Road
Operational
Improvements, curve
corrections
Bethany Road to Tracy
Boulevard
Operational
|
}
|
|
~
|
}
z
|
|
~
|
z
|
|
Stockton
California St
Alpine Ave to Miner Ave
2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
z
z
|
|
}
}
z
}
|
San
Joaquin
County
Bethany Road
|
|
|
|
~
|
}
z
|
|
~
|
z
|
|
Stockton
El Dorado St
Complete Streets
Calaveras River to
Mariposa Ave
2013
}
|
|
|
|
|
z
|
|
|
}
}
z
~
|
Atherton Drive
roadway
Woodward Ave to
McKinley Ave
2021
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Woodward Ave to Main
Street
2021
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2023
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Year Open
to Traffic
Manteca
Louise Avenue
McKinley Avenue
expressway
Stockton
Feather River Dr.
Extension
Construct 2 lane bridge to
cross Calaveras River
linking Ryde Avenue with
Feather River Drive
Stockton
Maranatha Dr
Tracy
Schulte Road
Manteca
Atherton Drive
Manteca
Atherton Drive
roadway
Ripon
Garrison Road Gap
Closure
95
San
Joaquin
County
96
Manteca
89
91
99
100
Manteca
Manteca SPRR to East of
SR-99
SR-120 to Woodward
Ave
Feather River Drive to
Ryde Avenue
Wilson Way to March Ln
road
Faith Lane (San Marco
Extend 4 lane roadway
Subdivision limits) to
Lammers Road
East of Airport Way to
roadway (gap closure)
Union Road
Byron Road to Lammers
Operational
Road
McKinley Avenue
expressway
Howard Road
Passing lanes and
channelization
Howard Road
105
San
Joaquin
County
Mariposa Road
Austin Road to Jack
Tone Road
2025
106
San
Joaquin
County
Tracy Boulevard
Passing lanes and
channelization
I-205 to Howard Road
2025
107
San
Joaquin
County
101
FTIP/
CMP
~
Project Boundaries
98
Stage
|
Project Description
97
Equity
Project Readiness
}
Facility Name/Route
94
MultiModal
}
Project
Sponsor
93
MSFR
Environmental
Regional
Grade
|
|NP
92
Emissions
Project
Design
}
}LP
90
Economic Vitality
Past
Efforts
|
~MP
88
LOS
Technical Analysis
2011
zHP
87
Project Urgency
Safety &
Security
Network @ LOS D/E/F
Manteca
Note: Projects beyond 2020 are not subject to CMP screening.
Railroad Grade Separation Project Review &
Formation Process
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Improves Mobility &
Areas
CIP
Project Description
Project Boundaries
Year Open
to Traffic
Stockton
Lower Sacramento Road, at
UPRR (Bear Creek in
Stockton)(West)
Construct a 6 lane divided
underpass includes the LSR
bridge over Bear Creek
Lower Sacramento Road, at UPRR between
Bear Creek and Marlette Road
2013
}
}
~
|
|
z
z
z
~
~
z
Stockton
Eight Mile/UPRR (Easterly) Construct grade separation
Former SPRR
of roadway and railway
Eight Mile Road between Leach Road and
Golf View Road
2012
|
z
~
|
|
z
z
z
|
~
z
Sperry Rd/UPRR (Middle of fork)
2012
|
z
~
}
|
|
z
z
}
~
z
Sperry Rd/UPRR (East)
2012
|
z
~
}
|
|
z
z
}
~
z
Sperry/UPRR (west)
2012
|
z
~
}
|
|
z
z
}
~
z
Network
Project
Sponsor
Multimodal Travel
FTIP/
CMP
Operational
Stage
Rate is < 1.0
Equity
Incidents (IRI)
Regional
Expressway
Multimodal Goods
Movement Hubs
MultiModal
Goods Movement for
Past Efforts
Network @ LOS D/E/F
MSFR
|NP
Harney Lane at UPRR
Construct grade separation
Harney Lane at UPRR
2016
|
z
~
|
|
z
z
z
|
}
|
Daggett Road at BNSF
Daggett Road at BNSF
2010
|
z
z
|
|
z
}
|
|
z
z
Stockton
Eight Mile/UPRR
(Westerly)
Eight Mile/UPRR (Westerly) between Davis
Road and Lower Sacramento Road
2012
|
z
~
}
|
z
}
z
|
~
z
San
Joaquin
C
Stockton
Lower Sacramento
Road/UPRR (near
d
d)
Alpine Road/UPRR
(Easterly)
Replace grade separation of
roadway and railway
Lower Sacramento Road/UPRR (near
Woodson Road)
2020
|
z
~
z
|
z
~
z
|
}
|
West Lane to Motego Avenue
2018
|
~
~
}
}
~
z
|
z
|
|
Stockton
Alpine Road/UPRR (west)
Alpine Ave/UPRR (west)
2013
|
}
~
|
}
z
z
|
z
|
z
Stockton
Airport Way/BNSF
Airport Way between Pilgrim Street and Sierra
Nevada Street
2015
|
z
~
|
}
z
z
|
z
|
|
Lathrop
Lathrop Road at UPRR
(Westerly)
Lodi
Construct at-grade quiet
zone improvements at
Construct il
at-grade quiet
zone improvements at
il
Construct 4 lane grade
separation
Lathrop Road at UPRR
2015
|
z
~
|
|
|
z
|
}
}
z
Main Street at UPRR
2018
z
}
~
~
|
|
~
}
|
|
|
Ripon
Main Street at UPRR
Reconstruct Main Street
Over Crossing structure
Stockton
Morada Ln/UPRR (West)
Morada Ln/UPRR (west)
2019
|
}
~
|
|
|
z
|
|
}
|
Ripon
Wilma Avenue at UPRR
Reconstruct existing
overcrossing structure
Wilma Avenue at UPRR
2022
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Stockton
Airport Way/BNSF
Construct grade separation Airport Way between Pilgrim Street and Sierra
Nevada Street
2025
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Airport Way/UPRR
Construct 5 lane grade
separation over the UPRR
2026
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Manteca
Note: Projects beyand 2020 are not subject to CMP screening.
Safety &
Security
Project Readiness
}LP
Port of
7 Stockton
8
Economic Vitality
Environmental
~MP
SJC /
Sperry Rd/UPRR (Middle of Construct grade separation
3 Stockton
fork)
SJC /
Sperry Rd/UPRR (East)
4 Stockton
SJC /
Sperry Rd/UPRR (west)
5 Stockton
6
LOS
Technical
zHP
1
2
Project Urgency
Airport Way/UPRR between Louise Avenue
and Lathrop Road
Public Transit Project Review & Formation Process
Operating
Costs
M&O
Addresses Segments on Network @
LOS D/E/F
Provides I roved Access to Essential
Services
Project Involves Collaboration with
Multiple Transit Providers
Project address multiple regionally
significant roadways
Productivity Standards are Maintained
and/or are Expected to Increase
Project is Expected to Reduce Reliance
on Use of Private Vehicles
Provides for and/or Promotes
Intermodal Connectivity Resulting in
the Reduction of SOV Travel
Mobility & Accessibility in EJ Sensitive
Areas & Use of Transit
Operating Costs are Funded Over
Time
Priority of Project Maintenance &
Operation (M & O)
z
z
z
z
2011
~
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
SJRTD Capital
2030
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
}
z
Expansion and replacement buses
San Joaquin County-Capital
2015, 2027
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
}
z
Countywide GPDAR
San Joaquin County-Operations
2035
~
z
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
n/a
Altamont Corridor Speed and Safety
upgrades (including signal upgrade to
automatic train stop increase train speed from
79 to 90 MPH and several track realighment
projects)
n/a
2013
~
~
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
SJRTD
Camera and Security Equipment
Purchase and installation of camera and
security equipment for surveillance on buses
and bus facilities
SJRTD Capital
2015
~
z
z
z
}
z
z
z
z
z
SJRTD
County Wide DAR
2011, 2013,
2020, 2022,
z
z
z
z
~
z
z
z
}
z
SJRTD
Mall Transfer Facilities Project
Bus shelters/pedestrian facilities, bike
facilities, lighting and multifunctional
landscaped area.
West Yokuts Avenue
2011
z
z
|
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
SJRTD
Non-Revenue Hybrid Replacement Vehicles
Costs associated with the purchase of ten
hybrid electric replacement vehicles
2035
z
z
z
z
|
z
z
z
z
z
SJRTD/
City of
Stockton
BRT Project Phase II Airport Way Corridor:
Stockton Airport to Downtown Transit
Center
Costs associated with the implementation of
the BRT service along the corridor including
traffic signal upgrades, bus stop amenities
and access enhancments
Weber Avenue Miner Avenue Airport Way
2012
~
z
}
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
ACE Capital
2014
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
~
ACE Capital
2014
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
~
ACE Capital
on-going
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
Project Boundaries
SJRTD
Deviated Fixed Route Service: Replacement
and Expansion (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel)
Buses
Cost associated with the purchase of
replacement and expansion buses
n/a
Dial-A-Ride Fixed Route Bus Replacement
Project
Cost associated with the purchase of seven
fixed route bus replacement projects
n/a
Downtown Transit Center
Construction, continuing development and
improvements to the Downtown Transit
Center
4 SJRTD
Intercity/Interregional
5 SJRTD
Countywide DAR
1
Lodi
SJRTD
3
SJRRC
6
7
9
Equity
z
Project Description
12 SJRRC
ACE Capital
SJRRC
ACE Capital
SJRRC
ACE Capital
14
ProductMultimodal Intermodal
ivity
z
13
Access Interagency Scope
z
Project
Sponsor
11
LOS
Project Readiness
z
}LP
10
Environmental
z
~MP
8
Operations
z
zHP
2
Collaboration
Project Urgency
Acquisition of two rail cars
Purchase two additional rail cars for ACE
service expansion
SJRRC shared costs for the overall
maintenance of vehicles
|NP
Year Open
to Traffic
2011, 2013,
2020, 2022,
2028
(Continued…….)
Operating
Costs
M&O
Services
Time
Operation (M & O)
Project Description
Project Boundaries
Year Open
to Traffic
SJRRC
ACE Capital
Capital lease with UPRR for a 10 year trackage
rights
ACE Capital
on-going
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
SJRRC
ACE Capital
Improvements to the Wireless Security
System on the ACE service
ACE Capital
2011
~
~
z
z
}
z
z
z
z
z
SJRRC
ACE Gap Closure Project
Allow SJRCC to operate on separate tracks
from Union Pacific Railroad between
maintenance yard and the station siding.
Between the Stockton ACE Station and the
ACE Equipment Maintenance Facility
2012
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
SJRRC
ACE Operations
2018
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
SJRRC
Lathrop Transfer Station
2016
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
SJRRC
Rail Information Systems
2013
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
SJRRC
Rail Station Expansion
2016
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
~
~
SJRRC
Central Valley Rail Service
2015
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
SJRRC
Central Valley Rail Service
2016
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
SJRRC
Altamount Service Improvements
on-going
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
SJRRC
n/a
2018
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
26
SJRTD
ACE operations and Capital Access Fee (5
trains from 2012 to 2016, 6 trains from 2017 SJRRC/Santa Clara/Alameda contributions
to 2021, 7 trains from 2022 to 2029 and 8
shown
trains from 2030 to 2041)
Lathrop Transfer Station- Between ACE and
n/a
Central Valley Service
Rail Information Systems (Ticket vending
machines, on-train internet, changeable
message signs at stations, trip planner via
n/a
internet, real time system for train status for
ACE and other connecting services)
Rail Station
Stockton station, Lathrop station and Tracy
Expansion/Improvements/Access
2nd station (west)
Central Valley Rail Service Operations and
Maintenance, Capital Access Fees, ROW
n/a
purchase)
Central Valley Commuter Rail Service
(Rolling stock procurement and construction
of layover facility in Ripon. Track
construction projects include siding
n/a
extension, construction of double track, road
crossing improvements, and signal
improvements.
Rolling Stock/Track Improvements/ Station
Altamount Operations (SJRRC)
Improvements
Maintenance Facility Expansion from 9 train
n/a
sets to 17 train sets Phase 2
Countywide DAR
2011, 2013,
2020, 2022,
2028
~
z
z
z
~
z
z
z
}
z
ACE Equipment Maintenance Facility
Relocation of ACE Maintenance Facility from
Union Pacific Railroad facility to permanent
facility.
ACE Capital
2013
~
}
z
z
~
z
z
z
z
z
29
SJRRC
30
Equity
25
28
ivity
|NP
23
27
}LP
21
24
LOS
Project Readiness
~MP
17
22
Environmental
LOS D/E/F
16
Operations
zHP
Project
Sponsor
15
Collaboration
Project Urgency
(Continued…….)
Time
Operation (M & O)
Project Description
Project Boundaries
Year Open
to Traffic
Manteca
Manteca Transit System Capital
Purchase of 8 vehicles over the next three
years, 4 Vehicles the first year and 2 vehicles
per year for two subsequent years
Manteca Transit Sytem Capital
2012
~
z
~
~
~
z
~
z
z
z
SJRTD
BRT Project Phase III: Hammer Lane
Corridor. Hybrid Diesel-Electric Bus
Procurement
Costs associated with the purchase of hybrid
diesel-electric buses
Stockton Metropolitan Area-Capital
2015
~
z
|
z
z
z
z
z
}
z
SJRRC
ACE Capital
Restoration of abandoned Depot building
2014
~
}
z
z
}
z
z
z
z
z
Various
Northern California Logistical Program
Implement rail freight shuttle
2020+
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
~
~
ACE Capital
on-going
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
~
~
City of Manteca
2012
~
z
}
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
Manteca
2030
~
z
~
~
~
z
~
z
z
z
2013, 2015,
2025
~
z
|
z
z
z
z
z
}
z
2015
~
z
|
z
z
z
z
z
}
z
2015
~
z
|
z
z
z
z
z
}
z
2015
~
z
|
z
z
z
z
z
}
z
Manteca Transit
2011
}
z
~
~
~
z
~
z
z
z
SJRRC
Manteca
Manteca
SJRTD
SJRTD
SJRTD
Manteca
45
46 Manteca
47
SJRRC
SJRTD
48
M&O
Project
Sponsor
SJRTD
44
Operating
Costs
|NP
42
43
Equity
Services
41
ivity
Project Readiness
LOS D/E/F
37
Scope
Environmental
}LP
34
36
Access Interagency
Operations
~MP
32
35
LOS
Collaboration
zHP
31
33
Project Urgency
Rolling Stock/Track Improvements/ Station
Improvements
City of Manteca Short Range Transit Analysis
Costs to update document and support
and Action Plan
transit planning efforts
Costs associated with the Operations and
Manteca Transit System Operations
administration of DAR and fixed route
Purchase of buses for service expansion
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Vehicles
(Intercity/Interregional)
Corridor.
Hammer Triangle Transfer Station
Corridor.
Hammer Triangle Transfer Station
Corridor
Expansion
Manteca Passenger Amenities
landscaped area.
Manteca Transit System
Costs associated with Safety/Security/ITS
Purchase of Replacement Vehicles (Bus, Van)
ACE Capital
for ACE Service
BRT Project Phase IV
ACE Capital
Downtown Stockton, between Weber Ave
and Miner Ave
Between the Port of Stockton and Port of
Oakland to divert truck freight traffic from
the I-205 corridor
Manteca Transit
2011
~
z
~
~
}
z
~
z
z
z
ACE Capital
2015
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
~
|
Stockton Metropolitan Area - Capital
2021
~
z
|
z
z
z
z
z
}
}
(Continued…….)
51
Tracy
Tracy
San
Joaquin
53 County
52
SJRTD
Tracy
Time
Operation (M & O)
z
z
z
z
z
z
2012
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
|
|
Project Description
Project Boundaries
Year Open
to Traffic
Purchase 4 buses every 5 year period (20
Total)
Cost of Paratransit Minivans at $70,000 each
2030
}
z
~
~
~
|
~
z
z
z
2011
}
z
}
~
z
|
~
z
z
z
TRACER Capital
Paratransit Minivans
Replacement of Unleaded Fuel Vehicles (Fleet
Services) with Hybrid Vehicles
Costs associated with the purchase of sixty
hybrid (gas-electric) vehicles
n/a
on-going
~
}
}
z
|
|
|
z
z
z
Coordinated Transportation Vehicles
Includes new replacement buses or vans
2011, 2013,
2020, 2022,
2028
~
z
}
z
}
}
}
z
}
z
n/a
Byron Highway Commuter Rail Service
Operations and Maintenance and ROW
purchase (2 trains from 2015 to 2019, 3 trains
from 2020 to 2029 and 4 trains from 2030 to
2041).
n/a
2020+
~
~
z
z
~
z
z
z
|
|
TRACER Capital
Construction of turnouts and 18 shelters
various locations including multi-modal
station
2011
}
|
}
~
~
~
}
z
z
z
TRACER Capital
2011
}
|
}
~
~
~
}
z
z
z
Regional/Inter-Regional Operations
2035
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2035
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2035
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
55
56
z
54
SJRRC
M&O
|
|NP
DAR Capital
Operating
Costs
z
}LP
DAR
Equity
}
~MP
Santa Clara Caltrain Station
ivity
2012
zHP
BRT Project Phase II Airport Way Corridor: Costs associated with the purchase of hybrid
Hybrid Diesel-Electric Bus Procurement
Construction of an ADA compliant
ACE Capital
pedestrian underpass and Center Platform at
the Station to facilitate train movement
SJRRC
50
LOS
Project Readiness
SJRTD
Environmental
Services
49
Operations
LOS D/E/F
Project
Sponsor
Collaboration
Project Urgency
SJRTD
County Operations
63 SJRTD
Countywide DAR
Phase I Bus Turnouts - Street Facility
i rovements for bus turnouts to i rove
traffic flow, decrease emissions, and
operations/passenger safety
Regional/Inter-Regional BRT system
FTA Section 5311 funding for services to
rural areas of San Joaquin County
Countywide GPDAR
64 SJRTD
Intelligent Technologies
Intelligent Technologies
2035
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
65 SJRTD
Intercity/Interregional/Hopper
I/C I/R Operations
2035
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
66 SJRTD
Operational Facilities
2020+
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
SJRTD
Passenger Amenities
2035
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Tracy
TRACER Capital
57
61 SJRTD
62
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
68 SJRTD
Regional Transportation Center
Expansion/Modernization
landscaped area.
Expansion/Modernization
2030
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
69 SJRTD
RTD Capital Improvement Projects
Capital improvements
2035
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
70 SJRTD
SMA
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
67
(Continued…….)
Operations
Environmental
ivity
Equity
Operating
Costs
M&O
LOS D/E/F
Services
Time
Operation (M & O)
LOS
Project Readiness
Support Vehicles
Cost to secure support vehicles
Year Open
to Traffic
2035
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
73 SJRTD
RTD Facility Modernization
-
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
2021
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Project
Sponsor
72 SJRTD
75
SJRTD
76 SJRTD
SJRTD
zHP
~MP
}LP
Project Description
Project Boundaries
BRT Project Phase IV: Hybrid Diesel-Electric Costs associated with the purchase of hybrid
Bus Procurement
78
SJRTD
|NP
BRT Project Phase IV
Phase IV Transfer Station
2021
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
BRT Project Phase V
Costs associated with the i lementation of
2025
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
BRT Project Phase V: Hybrid Diesel-Electric Costs associated with the purchase of hybrid
Bus Procurement
2025
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
77
BRT Project Phase V
Phase IV Transfer Station
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
Phase II Implementation Plan for the Central
Valley Rail Service
Construction
Northwest Track Connection in Stockton
2020+
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Commuter rail service
Central Valley to Sacramento
2020+
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
n/a
Rail/Port to Port Rail Freight Service
(planning, engineering, purchase of 52.6
Miles of ROW. ) Track Construction projects
include siding extensions, construction of
double track, road crossing improvements
and signal improvements.
Oakland to Stockton
2020+
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Tracy
Fixed Route Service
Capital
Purchase 3 buses every 5 year period; Purchase
2 buses every 10 year period
2030
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Tracy
TRACER Capital
Transit Supervisor Vehicle
Cost of a Transit Supervisor Vehicle
2011
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2031
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2035
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2035
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2035
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
79 SJRTD
82
SJRRC
SJRRC
86
87
88
Tracy
89
Costs to support transit planning efforts to
update the City of Tracy Short-Range Transit
TRACER Project Mangement and Planning
TRACER Project Management and Planning
Analysis and Action Plan and Grant
Management
91
Tracy
TRACER Capital
CNG Station replacement
Location within City limits, to support
expansion of fleet
Cost to replace old equipment
92
Tracy
TRACER Capital
Bus shelters replacement
Replacement of existing shelters/benches
90
Collaboration
Project Urgency
Tracy
TRACER Capital
Vehicle Storage and Maintainence Facility
(Continued…….)
Operations
Environmental
ivity
Equity
Operating
Costs
M&O
~MP
}LP
|NP
LOS D/E/F
Services
Time
Operation (M & O)
LOS
Project Readiness
zHP
Project Description
Project Boundaries
Year Open
to Traffic
Ripon
City of Ripon Fixed Route Transit System
Operations
Costs associated with the delivery of a fixed
route transit system in the City of Ripon
($300,000 annually)
City of Ripon
2030
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
SJRRC
n/a
Direct ACE/BART Connection ( a direct
connection between ACE and BART at
Valley/Stanley or at Greenville Rd in
Alameda County.
n/a
2020+
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
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
Project
Sponsor
93
94
95 Ripon
Note: Project beyond 2020 are not subject to CMP screening.
Collaboration
Project Urgency
APPENDIX
10-1
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.
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
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.
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.
APPENDIX
10-2
SHORT FORM
PRELIMINARY PROJECT
COST ESTIMATE TEMPLATE
Lead Agency:
MPO ID:
RTP Tier:
Contact Name:
Contact Number:
Project Name:
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)
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS IN
2009
12%
$0
DOLLARS
$0
year
MIDPOINT OF CONSTRUCTION
2009
ESCALATION 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
Approved by
SJCOG
SJCOG 2011 RTP Cost Estimation Template 5.14.09
Name
(Phone)
(Date)
Name
(Phone)
(Date)
Page 1 of 7
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
(in miles)
Number of
Lanes
Cost per Lane
Mile
$100,000
ROADWAY ITEMS
$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
CONTINGENCY**
$0
25%
$0
$0
GRAND TOTAL ROADWAY
** Always use at least 45% contingency when Short Form is used
Estimate
Prepared By:
Name
(Phone)
(Date)
Name
(Phone)
(Date)
Estimate
Checked By:
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
Construction cost:
$0
$0
$0
Mobilization @ 10%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
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
Contingency:
35%
Total Cost Per Structure
$0
SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS
RAILROAD RELATED COSTS
Item
Description
Cost
1
2
3
4
5
Construction cost:
Contingency:
$0
35%
$0
SUBTOTAL RAILROAD ITEMS
$0
$0
TOTAL BRIDGES AND RAILROAD ITEMS
COMMENTS:
Estimate Prepared By:
(Print Name)
Page 3 of 7
(Phone)
(Date)
BUS SHELTERS AND STATIONS
Three bus shelters, 20 ft long, with architectural roof and wind screens
Description*
* Attach reference sketch showing typical layout plan and elevation of shelter or station
Quantity
Unit of
Measure
Unit Price
Cost
Sitework
$0
Superstructure
Architectural Finishes
Signage
Fire protection
Utilities
Water
Sewer
Electrical
Communications
Station Furniture
Landscaping
Security
SQ. FT.
LS
LS
LS
Number of Stations
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Per Station
$0
Total all Stations
$0
Contingency
35%
$0
GRAND TOTAL STATIONS
BICYCLE PATHS
Path Description*
$0
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
Contingency
$0
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
(Print Name)
Page4 of 7
(Phone)
(Date)
Lead Agency:
MPO ID:
RTP Tier:
Contact Name:
Contact Number:
RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Enter All Parcel Data on ROW Worksheet
Current Values
(Future Use)
ROW Acquisition, including excess lands,
damages to remainders, and good will
$0
Escalation
Rate (%/yr)
3.50%
Escalated
Value
$0
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY
$0
Utility Relocation (Agency Share)
3.00%
$0
Relocation Assistance
3.00%
$0
Clearance / Demolition
3.00%
$0
2.00%
$0
Temporary Easement
3.00%
$0
Condemnation Costs
3.00%
$0
ROW Services - Title and Escrow Fees
$0
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT
$0
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Date of Valuation
$0
1/0/00
Delta Dates (yrs)
Anticipated Date of Right of Way Certification
(Date to which Values are Escalated)
0.00
Construction Contract Work
Brief Description of Work
(Costs Included in Roadway and/or Structures Items of Work as Appropriate)
(Print Name)
Page 5 of 7
(Phone)
(Date)
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.
Parcel ID
Address
Zoning
Total Parcels Affected
Improvements
Use
0
Size
Percent Relocation Demolition
take
needed
required
Assessor's
parcel
number
Estimated
value
Total Value of all Takes
$0
Prepared By:
(Print Name)
(Phone)
Page 6 of 7
(Date)
Source of
estimate
Date of
estimate
Comments
SKETCHES AND PICTURES
Use this sheet for importing drawings and sketches that help define items of work and pictures of
ROW items
Page 7 of 7
APPENDIX
12-1
DRAFT
San Joaquin Valley Regional
Transportation Overview
April 2010
San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview
Page 6-1
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
st
(SAFETEA-LU) replaced the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 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
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.
Page 6-3
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
Population
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
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
299,770
Kings
49,954
66,717
73,728
101,469
129,461
154,743
205,707
250,516
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
Sources: US Census 1960-2000, DOF estimates 2009, DOF projections 2020-2040
3,990,339
5,318,531
6,551,792
7,934,485
Page 6-4
Exhibit 1-2
Page 6-5
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
Top United States Ag Producing Counties
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
County
Fresno, CA
Tulare, CA
Kern, CA
Monterey, CA
Merced, CA
Stanislaus, CA
San Joaquin, CA
Kings, CA
Imperial, CA
Ventura, CA
Production*
$5,662,895
$5,018,023
$4,033,312
$3,826,791
$2,999,701
$2,473,843
$2,129,725
$1,760,168
$1,684,522
$1,613,247
Table 1-3
Top Agricultural States
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
State
San Joaquin Valley
Iowa
Texas
Nebraska
lllinois
Minnesota
Kansas
California (remainder)
Indiana
Wisconsin
Production*
$25,388,542
$24,752,867
$19,172,500
$17,315,688
$16,356,790
$15,838,094
$13,967,496
$10,798,193
$9,961,850
$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
Construction
113,730
7.3%
1,222,364
7.1%
Manufacturing
128,910
8.3%
1,796,323
10.5%
58,456
3.7%
567,729
3.3%
11.2%
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
2.1%
179,859
11.5%
1,913,970
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
management services
120,414
7.7%
2,056,620
12.0%
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
9.4%
124,330
8.0%
1,614,171
Other services, except public administration
75,035
4.8%
900,254
5.3%
Public administration
97,245
6.2%
762,326
4.5%
1,560,386
100.0%
17,124,518
100.0%
Civilian employed population 16 years and over
Source: 2008 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau
Page 6-6
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%
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
0.0%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (not seasonally adjusted, data points are for August of each year)
Fresno
Kern
Kings
Madera
Merced
San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Tulare
Valley
California
United States
Table 1-5
Unemployment Rate – San Joaquin Valley Counties
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
8.6
8.5
9.5
9.7
8.5
7.6
6.9
7.4
7.2
7.2
8.5
9.1
8.6
7.4
6.6
7.5
8.3
8.5
9.6
9.8
9.2
7.7
7.0
7.4
7.0
7.3
8.7
8.5
7.3
6.7
6.0
6.6
7.6
7.6
8.6
9.2
8.7
8.2
8.0
8.6
6.1
6.6
8.0
8.6
7.9
7.2
6.9
7.7
6.4
6.6
8.0
8.4
7.5
7.1
7.0
7.9
8.9
9.8
10.1 10.6 10.2
8.2
7.5
8.2
7.5
7.7
8.8
9.3
8.5
7.5
7.0
7.6
5.1
5.7
6.7
6.9
6.0
5.2
4.9
5.5
4.1
4.9
5.7
6.0
5.4
4.9
4.6
4.6
2008
9.7
9.3
9.7
8.7
11.4
10.2
10.4
10.3
9.9
7.7
6.1
2009
14.6
14.4
14.2
13.3
16.6
15.7
15.7
15.2
15.0
12.2
9.6
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (not seasonally adjusted, data points are for August of each year)
Page 6-7
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
30%
35.0%
30.0%
Overall
25.0%
Child
25%
20.0%
20%
15.0%
15%
10.0%
5.0%
10%
SJV
USA
ARC
Central App.
California
SJV
0.0%
Central App
5%
California
USA
0%
1980
Source: US Census Bureau 2000 via CRS
1990
2000
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.
Kentucky
ARC
USA
Source: CRS
Page 6-8
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
Average Wage per Job
Per Capita Income
$45,000
$60,000
SJV
$40,000
SJV
California
$35,000
$50,000
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
2005
2001
1997
1993
1989
1985
1981
1977
1969
2005
2001
1997
1993
1989
1985
1981
1977
1973
1969
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
1973
$0
$0
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
United States Age Distribution
San Joaquin Valley Age Distribution
85+
85+
80-84
80-84
75-79
75-79
70-74
70-74
Male
65-69
Female
Male
65-69
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%
P o pulat io n ( %)
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
P o pulat io n ( %)
Page 6-9
Figure 1-10
Figure 1-11
San Joaquin Valley Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic
45.8%
Two or more
2.0%
United States Race/Ethnicity
White
39.8%
Black
4.7%
Asian
6.7%
Other
0.5%
Native
American
0.6%
White
65.9%
Hispanic
15.1%
Asian
4.3%
Two or more
1.6%
Other
0.4%
Native
American
0.7%
Black
12.1%
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%
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
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.
Page 6-11
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
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
Page 6-13
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 onstreet 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 intercounty 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
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 interand 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
Nearly 10,000 daily trips heading towards Sacramento by
2030
More than 50,000 daily commute trips by 2030
Substantial growth in commute trips to Fresno jobs
More than 20,000 people work at Edwards Air Force Base
Northern
SR
99
corridor
to
Sacramento
Northern SR 99 corridor to Bay Area
Madera and Visalia to Fresno
Northern LA Co. to Eastern Kern Co.
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
Key Travel Corridors
Northern SR 99
Sacramento
Rideshare
corridor
Vanpool
to
Northern SR 99 corridor to Bay Area
Madera and Visalia to Fresno
Northern LA Co. to Eastern Kern Co.
X
Commuter
Express Bus
X
Commuter Rail
Improvements
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 6-15
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
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
Page 6-17
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 programlevel 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
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.
Page 6-19
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
State (2006 Bond - $9.95 billion)
Federal grants
Local partnerships
Public-private partnerships
Estimated cost (SF to Anaheim)
Cost (2008 dollars)
$10 billion
$12-16 billion
$2-3 billion
$6.5-7.5 billion
$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
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.
Page 6-21
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
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.
Page 6-23
• 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
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
Page 6-25
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
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.
Page 6-27
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
•
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 PlanContinue 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.
Page 6-29
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
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
Page 6-31
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
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
Page 6-33
•
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 highvolume 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
•
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.
Page 6-35
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 PM2.5 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
•
•
•
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 SAFETEALU 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 PM2.5 air quality plan updates; and
Continued public policy assessment.
Page 6-37
6b. San Joaquin Valley Blueprint
The San Joaquin Valley has been identified by Governor Schwarzenegger’s California Partnership 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
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.
Page 6-39
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
st
with a “1 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
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 prescheduled 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.
Page 6-41
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
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
Page 6-43
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.
Page 6-44
•
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
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
Page 6-45
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
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
Page 6-47
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
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
Page 6-49
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 nontraditional, 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
Traditional Transportation Fund Sources
Type of Funding
State Fuel Excise Taxes
Federal Fuel Excise Taxes
Sales Taxes on Fuels
Truck Weight Fees
Roadway Tolls/HOT Lanes
Local Sales Tax Measures
Development Mitigation Fees
Programming Mechanism
State Highway Account
Federal Highway Trust Fund then to State Highway
Account
Transportation Investment Fund/Public
Transportation Account
State Highway Account
Dedicated to Specific Routes and Corridors
Expenditure Plan Specified Projects
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
Page 6-51
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
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.
Page 6-53