Draft MTP/SCS Comments Received - sacog

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