CA Transportation Plan 

Follow Marin Events

• HomeMarin HousingPlan Bay Area TruthsSMART & MARIN TRANSITCA Transportation PlanTraffic Congestion Relief is NOT a goalSite MapMarin's PENSIONS are a time bombNewsInsurance Companies in marinMTC Cost EffectivenessBooks & LinksMarin's Cheapest Health InsuranceSR Airport •
• CA Housing Bills 2017Seniors can be Exempt from Parcel Taxes or Postpone Property TaxesCA Constitutional Amendment 11Poll on growthSB743 VMT instead of LOSImmigration california 2000-2010California's High-Speed Rail LIES •

CA Transportation Plan 2050, (CTP) Has no "desired outcome of increasing vehicle throughput" (see below)

The Plan stresses a "Multi-Modal solution" to our traffic problems, including rail.  Translated:-  divert much needed money away from the most cost-effective solution. - Away from Freeway and more towards rail, instead.

ANY development, even Transit Orientated Development, will increase traffic and thus contribute to congestion and air pollution, even if it were 100% affordable. Why? Because so few people in sprawled America choose rail (and bus) no matter how proximate to their home. The Plan appears to aim at reducing the freeway to a parking lot, thus FORCING people to take transit.

Air Pollution:- According to the the Berkley Consultant used by the Sierra Club "our analysis disclosed that deterioration in air quality has generally worked in favor of road expansion" . Yes, Slower moving congested traffic creates MORE Exhaust Air Pollution

There will be no "MOBILITY" while there is congestion and if "CHOICES" are not prioritized on cost effectiveness then we will be wasting the little money we have on ineffective Transit projects instead of freeway and the Rapid Bus that can use it.
If we don't learn the Transit mistakes that so many other governments have made in the past then we will throw away our money Cost-Ineffective Rail and Ferry. And history will continually repeat itself.


  Projected Increase in
Transit Passenger Miles Traveled, PMT
(in millions)
1990 1997 %
Los Angeles 2,103 2,257 7
Riverside- SanBernardino 48 116 142
Sacramento 98 124 26
San Diego 380 445 17
San Francisco- Oakland 2,030 2,051 1
San Jose 188 219 17

Source: California Urban Travel Trends from 1990-1997
The Road Information Program, May

According to the Federal Highway Administration, nearly half of California’s urban highways are currently congested. This is 65 percent greater than the national average. On-road vehicle miles traveled per year in California is projected to increase from approximately 307 billion miles in 2000 to 475 billion miles by 2020 – a 55 percent increase. The number of on-road vehicles is projected to reach almost 35 million, up from about 23 million in 2000. the number of non-work trips has overtaken the number of commuting trips. This has led to increased use of road networks for non-work trips, thus increasing congestion during off peak periods. Non-work trips do not cluster around peak periods of the day and are not geographically predictable. Because of the unpredictable nature of non-work trips, privately owned vehicles best serve them.
There are a number of potential causes for the increase in non-work trips, including the rise of consumer culture resulting in increasing shopping, entertainment, and recreational trips;

So let the expenditures on Roadways  v Transit be proportional to these projections. In LA and San Francisco:- Spend 55% on Roadways and between 1 and 7 % on Transit. Nevertheless, the Plan earmarks half the resources to transit enhancements and capacity improvements, including ferry projects.

Transportation planners and providers must make sure they are using the appropriate performance measures and that the data is reliable. For example, past transportation efficiency may have been measured by the number of vehicles flowing through the system. This assumed that
increased vehicle throughput was the desired outcome. However, if enhanced mobility and accessibility is the objective, measuring the accessibility of people, goods, and services makes more sense.

Relationship Between CTP Vision & Goals and System Performance The $25 Billion Bullet Train   -   Sacramento to San Diego

UC Berkeley Civil Engineer Professor Adib Kanafani: "High-Speed Rail makes more sense in Japan and Europe, with their greater population densities and mass transit networks feeding the Bullet-Train Stations. Studies from several years ago showed that high speed rail would require more tax-payer subsidies than airlines and highways. This is not the place to put our money. If California is going to borrow $10 billion and eventually pay $25 billion, it should spend it on education, job creation and the environment."

Unlike any time in the past, security of rail systems must be a major consideration. They have become easy targets. A high-speed system would provide more casualties than air travel which will soon become safer than rail.
The easily accessible and extensive rail system will be close to impossible to protect.  

Contact your representatives click on "Find my District"
: Listened to the technical experts and
rejected the $9 billion BOND asked in Nov 2004 ballot
CTP Vision & Goals System Performance Indicator Status
Mobility and
• Travel Time Delay
• Access to Desired Locations
• Access to System
• Variability of travel time (expected vs. actual travel time)
• Fully tested
• Included in some Regional Transportation Plans
• Fully tested for aeronautics, highways and transit
Efficient Use
of Resources
• Fuel usage per person mile
• Fuel usage per ton moved
• Testing ongoing
al Values
(Social Equity
• Emissions
• Noise Levels
• Species, Wetlands, etc
• Fully tested
• Included in some Regional Transportation Plans

Mobility and accessibility Projections indicate that by 2020, California will have 45 million residents, with 34 million registered on-road vehicles. Due to environmental, physical, and fiscal limitations, building new roadway facilities alone cannot provide for the anticipated demand. We must manage the system safely and efficiently, provide attractive and convenient transportation choices, and increase connectivity among all modes. Providing transportation choices will help provide a more balanced transportation system, and reduce roadway congestion and environmental impacts. It will also provide options for those who can drive, and provide accessibility for those who cannot or choose not to drive.  Transportation choices can only be effective if land-use decisions support them, such as:
    • Street designs that encourage walking and biking
    • Urban designs that facilitate use of public transit
    • Mixed-use zoning to improve accessibility to services and destinations
    • Higher densities, and buildings designed to encourage after-work activities.
These are components of smart growth planning . The volume of goods moving by all modes within and through California should double by 2020.  Transit systems serving adjacent jurisdictions should be complementary in scheduling, fare structure and collection, and service.  Integrating land-use planning and providing transportation choices should lead to a more balanced transportation system, reduce congestion on roadways, and improve accessibility for all.

System Improvements
• Increase capacity of all modes, such as adding more lane miles and runways, and expanding transit service areas and hours.
• Improve connectivity among all modes to help mobility and accessibility, and improve balanced use of the system.
• Integrate bicycle and walking facilities into transportation designs and circulation plans.
• Improve urban, commuter, and intercity passenger
rail transit connectivity and extend service hours.
• Strategically locate transit stops and provide services in or adjacent to stations to improve public transit convenience and ridership.
• Provide or expand dedicated guideway, rapid transit
bus service and facilities, smart shuttles, and shared-car programs such as CarLink.
• Improve multi-modal ground access to airports, including intercity
bus service connecting small urban and rural communities to passenger air service, to reduce congestion and improve convenience.
• User Fees may be an important element of urban freeway demand management.

• Provide incentives for jurisdictions to foster smart growth development in areas where transportation infrastructure can readily support it.
• Provide grant programs or other incentives for local governments to strategically
increase densities and designs that promote effective transit service, including transit-oriented development.
• Encourage the availability of Location Efficient Mortgage (LEM) programs that consider the reduced household transportation expenses of locating in a community well served by transit and local services when determining mortgage levels. LEMs support transit-oriented development and revision of zoning ordinances to allow for mixed-use development.
Constitutional Amendment to lower the vote threshold to 55 percent for local revenue initiatives to support local transportation priorities, linked to integrated community and regional planning.

• Promote the use of advanced communications, such as teleconferencing, electronic shopping, and e-government services, to increase accessibility and reduce the need for physical travel.
• Collaborate with public and private sectors to develop and implement a universal electronic payment system for transit fares, toll collection, parking fees, bicycle lockers, etc.
• Encourage the further development and acceptance of vehicle navigation systems to improve mobility.

• Reduce congestion and demand by promoting a shift to environmentally preferable transportation solutions, such as pedestrian travel, bicycling, mass transit, and virtual travel.

Land-use Impacts on Transportation: To maximize resources and minimize impacts on the state’s natural environment, land-use decisions and transportation must be more closely linked in the future. California’s 58 counties and 476 cities will need to collaborate on a regional basis to plan, manage, and operate infrastructure to maximize resources and sustain their economy, environment, and quality of life.

Source   AB 857 (Chapter 1016, approved Sep 2002) also seeks to promote infill development, reduce the rate of urban sprawl

Tell them if they got it right by completing the questionnaire. Your comments are important and you can make a difference.