Ron Milam and Jerry Walters are participating in the update to the California Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Guidelines to comply with SB 375. Ron and Jerry are both members of the overall workgroup, which includes a wide variety of stakeholders from around the state. Ron is also serving on the modeling subcommittee and Jerry is serving on the guidelines subcommittee. Ron attended both subcommittee meetings on July 28, 2009 and had the following observations to report.

As with any new law, implementation often depends on associated guidelines. In this case, the guidelines could be quite important because they will require an interpretation of what the language in the law really meant. From the Fehr & Peers perspective, we are interested in how the law’s implementation will influence our continued efforts to focus on multi-modal LOS concepts and on local/regional policies that balance modal priorities with regards to other community values. Two of the best examples that came up in the subcommittee discussion within this context are discussed below.

Section 65080(b) states, “The regional transportation plan shall be an internally consistent document and shall include all of the following…” Until SB 375, RTPs were not required to be internally consistent. This requirement was reserved only for general plans in California and has traditionally been the subject of debate and lawsuits. Since general plans contain policies that are intended to reflect each community’s values, it is no surprise to find that some values compete or directly conflict. One of the better examples relates to the tradeoffs associated with level of service (LOS) policies and thresholds. Many communities have a LOS C threshold for peak hour traffic operations but have other policies supporting greater use and investment in public transit or creating a better pedestrian environment. Ideally, the general plan would clarify which policy takes precedent when a conflict arises. For example, is a LOS C threshold consistent with a greater level of transit use when LOS C generally results in little or no congested roadways and therefore little incentive to use transit if an automobile is available. Other inconsistencies are even more direct such as when an agency faces a recommendation to widen an intersection to accommodate its LOS threshold. The widening may improve vehicle LOS but it would also create longer pedestrian crossings and increase pedestrian exposure to vehicle conflicts, which may be undesirable based on policies supporting a pedestrian-friendly walking environment.

While making the general plan consistent for a single jurisdiction is challenging, it does make sense that tradeoffs are recognized and addressed. Doing so for an RTP raises the bar because, by nature, the RTP is a compilation of projects from multiple agencies with varying value sets and transportation objectives. Further, the RTP needs are typically developed by mode without much consideration of how needs for one mode affect all the other modes. Many MPOs do address tradeoffs as they relate to funding and try to balance modal improvement needs with available funding, but they typically don’t consider a single objective such as greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction as a guiding principle to govern the modal needs. The internal consistency requirement may mean that MPOs will need to perform multiple-objective iterations or scenario tests on the SCS/RTP concepts to attempt to find an achievable balance. SB 375 does state the targets need to be “ambitious but achievable”, so the RTP may not meet the targets if a feasible balance of objectives (and funding constraints) cannot be reached. The consequence will then be the need to prepare, but not adopt, an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS).

So, a big question for the subcommittees and working group is what was the original intent behind the SB 375 language to make RTPs internally consistent? Stay tuned for the next meeting on August 25, 2009.

Section 65080(b)(2)(B) identifies the contents of the sustainable communities strategy (SCS) but has left open some key questions. The question that probably received the most discussion was whether the SCS must be based on a land use scenario that reflected local general plans or could be based on a regional blueprint that was designed to minimize GHG emissions. Confusion appears to stem from the requirement for the SCS to be subject to Part 450 of Title 23 of, and Part 93 of Title 40 of, the Code of Federal Regulations, including the requirement to utilize the most recent planning assumptions considering local general plans and other factors. Caltrans staff indicated that an FHWA interpretation was required before further discussion occurred on this topic. Traditionally, local general plans in California have served as part of the land use basis just like comprehensive plans do in other states. The details of the discussion that did occur focused on trying to identify the most likely future land use scenario so that transportation investments and land use decisions would be aligned. In this light, it should be noted that one of the factors the SB 375 regional targets advisory committee (RTAC) is considering is the realism of the blueprints within the real estate market. If the SB 375 targets are set with market realities in mind, then the gap between the SCS land use assumptions and what actually gets built within the local general plans will be reduced. It may be naïve to think that this will lead to complete agreement, so the most that may be hoped for is that an independent arbiter, such as FHWA, might agree that the SCS reflects a realistic interpretation of the development pattern the local land uses plans will actually deliver.

Another important discussion item related to the specific components of an SCS. One of these components is that the SCS identify a transportation network to service the transportation needs of the region. This requirement is followed by another that states the SCS needs to, set forth a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network, and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions for automobiles and light trucks to achieve, if there is a feasible way to do so, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets approved by the state board. The order and language here may suggest that the transportation network is developed based on needs, similar to the traditional development of an RTP and that the transportation network improvement needs are not necessarily governed by the objective to minimize GHG emissions. Only land use changes plus other transportation measures and policies (i.e., pricing) are in play within the SCS. This raises some additional questions related to the internal consistency issue noted above and whether this line of reasoning is counter to how many interpret SB 375 and the SCS.

Given the influence that the transportation network expansion has on vehicle travel in terms of induced traffic and induced growth, it would seem that MPOs would consider their network expansion projects in light of their effect on GHG emissions. While GHG emission reduction is not the only objective as noted above, SB 375 would seem to suggest that MPO’s iterate the SCS land use and transportation strategies (including possible adjustments to the transit and highway networks and service levels) to attempt to arrive at their GHG targets. It would be similar to scenario testing with objectives that include GHG as well as other regional goals. The scenarios would incorporate, at the SCS level, constraints related to transportation funding and existing policies. If those assumptions do not succeed in achieving the GHG targets, APS scenarios would be studied to determine whether the targets and other regional goals could all be achieved if the funding and policy constraints were resolved.

At a minimum, these issues should provide for continued interesting subcommittee discussion.

To track upcoming meetings and other information related to the RTP working group or subcommittees, follow the link below.