Draft MTP/SCS Comments Received - sacog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

file://C:\Documents and Settings\CHoltzen\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWis... Page 1 of 2 1/10/2012 Clint Holtzen - Comment on the Draft MTP/SCS and EIR from From: MTP Comments To: Date: 1/9/2012 4:20 PM Subject: Comment on the Draft MTP/SCS and EIR from What are you commenting on? Name Email • Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy • Environmental Impact Report Christal Waters chrystal2waters@yahoo.com Do you want a written response? Yes Address Davis Bicycles!, c/o Christal Waters 809 Pine Lane Davis, California 95616 United States Map It Comments on the MTP/SCS The following comments are submitted on behalf of Davis Bicycles! Davis Bicycles! appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Sacramento 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Our comments are both on the 2035 MTP and the EIR. The 2035 MTP is complex and encourages bicycling and walking as vital modes of transportation for achieving environmentally sustainable regional growth. In our community, we see more people bicycling than we used to. Our downtown is filled with bicyclists competing for bike parking spaces. We see parents out bicycling with their children, teaching them safe bicycling as they ride. We are starting to see a turnaround in the historic decline of students bicycling and walking to school and more people are bicycling, walking and taking public transit to get to work. The 2035 MTP/SCS could take advantage of this uptick with a jumpstart to funding more active transportation projects in the near future. A near-term substantial dedication to funding bicycle and pedestrian projects would greatly increase bicycle/pedestrian modeshare far more than a slow steady increase in those active transportation expenditures , or worse, delaying those expenditures and trying to play catch-up closer to 2035. Furthermore, expenditures on active transportation are generally lower in cost than expenditures increasing freeway and arterial capacity and can be undertaken when the economy is slow and budgets are tight. 2035 MTP/SCS Questions and Comments: Table 4.1 on page 4-2, Summary of MTP/SCS Invdstments What capital inflation rate is used for these investment categories and is the inflation rate the same over all categories from current year to year of expenditure? If the increase in cost is measured as a percentage of current costs, the costs for the bike and pedestrian category increases at 43% - the largest cost increase. The other Page 32 of 165
file://C:\Documents and Settings\CHoltzen\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWis... Page 2 of 2 1/10/2012 categories are 40% increase for Transit and for Programs, Planning, Enhancements and 42% increase for Road and Capital Improvement Projects, and Maintenance and Rehabilitation. While it is true that bicycle and pedestrian improvements are in Maintenance and Rehabilitation Projects, the dedicated-purpose bike and pedestrian improvements, those usually associated with higher miles or higher costs, have a higher inflation rate. If the inflation rate is the same for all categories, is the higher bike/pedestrian project rate due to their implementation at a later date than the other categories? If so, then we don’t believe that the Plan takes advantage of the current economy to jumpstart an active transportation modeshare that can significantly contribute to improved air quality, reduced carbon emissions, and public health. Relationship of 2035 MTP Project List and Regional Bicycle Master Plan: Where does the plan discuss the relationship between the 2035 MTP Project List and the Regional Bicycle Master Plan? We understand that the Regional Bicycle Master Plan and the MTP form the basis for SACOG project funding. For Yolo County, the Alternative Transportation Corridor (ATC) appears on the project list, but only through right of way acquisition, not through construction, even though the year-end date of this plan is nearly 25 years out. (See also comment above about jumpstarting bicycle/pedestrian investment.) However, the Woodland/Davis ATC is only one project and there are many projects and programs in the Davis Bicycle Plan, which is part of the Regional Bicycle Master Plan. Other projects are being considered for inclusion into our Bicycle Plan. If to be eligible for SACOG MTP funding a bicycle project or program need not be directly included in the 2035 MTP Project list, that should be so stated, and the Regional Bicycle Plan incorporated by reference into the 2035 MTP. 2035 MTP Project List for Davis: The Fifth Street Road Diet and Multimodal Parking Structure are projects that we are aware of, and we understand the issues related to the California Street Bridge Replacement and I-80/Richards Boulevard interchange. However, we do not understand why some of the other projects have been listed. For example, we do not know why the widenings of Covell Boulevard near Hwy 113 and Mace Boulevard with completion in 2035 are included in the plan, with no new development being considered or serious problems occurring along those roads, to our knowledge. Environmental Impact Report: Neither Alternative 3, nor the rejected Alternatives 4 and 5 discuss the bicycle/pedestrian community’s suggestion last year to accelerate funding of bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs. Alternatives 4 and 5 are rejected because of restrictions to funding sources. What would need to be changed in those funding sources to allow bicycle and pedestrian projects to receive a higher earlier priority? Alternative 3 seems to have been dismissed because the market, local land use plans and financial incentives do not currently support the land use assumptions of Alternative 3 and because under it, congestion would increase. Given that markets respond to constraints as well as opportunities, please give some thought to allowing congestion to further increase over the short term while completing the investment in complete streets, transit and bike/pedestrian infrastructure that could further reduce congestion over the long term. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2035 MTP/SCS and its environmental impact report. /s/ Mont Hubbard, President Page 33 of 165
Page 1 and 2: Page 1 of 1 What are you commenting
Page 3 and 4: Page 1 of 1 eircomments sacog - Dav
Page 5 and 6: file://C:\Documents and Settings\CH
Page 7 and 8: Roseville Public Hearing Comments f
Page 15 and 16: Coalition on Regional Equity MTP/SC
Page 17 and 18: Coalition on Regional Equity MTP/SC
Page 19 and 20: Page 19 of 165
Page 29 and 30: Sacramento Public Hearing Comments
Page 31: 909 12 th Street Sacramento, CA 958
Page 37 and 38: Sacramento Area Council of Governme
Page 39 and 40: SCS Health & Equity Metrics August
Page 67 and 68: The effort was funded by the Resour
Page 69 and 70: Wier M, Weintraub J, Humphreys EH,
Page 71 and 72: health by 6 percentage points; and
Page 73 and 74: http://www.cityofrichmondgeneralpla
Page 75 and 76: subway service, and over 50 percent
Page 77 and 78: Large city downtown: Urban center A
Page 79 and 80: Another population suffering from h
Page 81 and 82: Activity-based model development is
Page 83 and 84:
METRIC: GENERAL TRANSPORTATION 7. W
Page 85 and 86:
FUTURE GROWTH METRIC: FUTURE GROWTH
Page 87 and 88:
ECONOMIC METRIC: ECONOMIC 9. a) Per
Page 89 and 90:
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION METRIC: ENV
Page 91 and 92:
STANDARDS Walking & biking The Surg
Page 93 and 94:
emissions to impairments of lung fu
Page 95 and 96:
RD 3.2 Reduce asthma hospitalizatio
Page 97 and 98:
CARB 2005 Guidance on Preventing Ai
Page 99 and 100:
Institute, Public Health Law and Po
Page 101 and 102:
EQUITY METRIC: EQUITY f. Measure an
Page 103 and 104:
HOW TO USE THE HEALTH AND EQUITY ME
Page 105 and 106:
Appendix: Metrics recommended for f
Page 107 and 108:
xxii Schoeni RF, House JS, Kaplan G
Page 109 and 110:
lxi Campbell FA & Pungello E. (2000
Page 111 and 112:
ci Sallis JF, McKenzie TL. (1991).
Page 113 and 114:
cxliv Pisarski A. (2006). Commuting
Page 115 and 116:
cxci U.S. EPA. 2008. Inventory of U
Page 117 and 118:
ccxxxiv Beelen R, Hoek G, van den B
Page 119 and 120:
cclxxii Office of the Actuary, Cent
Page 121 and 122:
Signed by: Argelia Leon, Policy Man
Page 123 and 124:
I. Ensure Transportation Projects S
Page 125 and 126:
gentrification/displacement, air qu
Page 127 and 128:
Liz O’Donoghue Director of Infras
Page 129 and 130:
infrastructure in those communities
Page 131 and 132:
high speed/high volume arterials or
Page 133 and 134:
Attachment: Specific Comments about
Page 135 and 136:
January 9, 2011 Sacramento Area Cou
Page 137 and 138:
next four years so that the next MT
Page 139 and 140:
We appreciate working with SACOG, i
Page 141 and 142:
We note that the work to develop th
Page 143 and 144:
Policy 9: Greenhouse Gas emission r
Page 145 and 146:
• Modify Strategy 30.4 as follows
Page 147 and 148:
PO Box 1526 • Sacramento, CA •
Page 149 and 150:
This study by the Urban Land Instit
Page 151 and 152:
Further, while SACOG has used the b
Page 153 and 154:
from SHA to SACOG re MTP/SCS 2035 L
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165:
file://C:\Documents and Settings\CH
Page 175 and 176:
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL J
Page 177 and 178:
Consideration of this information
Page 179:
egulations can help to ensure that
Page 187 and 188:
Yuba County Elected Official Inform
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Lincoln Community Meeting Comments
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Colfax City Council Meeting Comment
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
show all

Draft MTP/SCS Comments Received - sacog

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?