1
2	Three information sources Public Opinion Poll Target Analysis GA/Summit Discussion
3	Public opinion poll Data collection methodology: telephone survey Random digit dial (RDD) Survey length: 15 minutes Sample size: n=1,800 Adult residents in 9-county Bay Area (5.31 million) Margin of error +/- 2.3% Offered in English, Spanish and Cantonese Field dates: September 27 to October 22, 2007
4	Issues of importance: environment, transportation & housing
5	Transportation priorities: reduce the negatives
6	Perception of the environment in 20 years: it will be worse
7	Importance of global warming: extreme
8	Willingness to pay to reduce GhGs: a little
9	Programs to reduce GhGs: open to a number of options
10	Maintaining vs. building new: an edge to maintenance
11	Investment priorities: we love those trains
12	Budget allocation: Goldilocks chooses 2/3 transit
13	Tradeoff: more choose small house over long commute
14	Tradeoff: 2/3 would accept density and traffic for cleaner air and more open space
15	Policy priorities: regional transportation, local land use, development incentives
16	General poll conclusions The condition of the environment and climate change are great concerns among Bay Area residents: Over half (58%) of residents indicated they thought the environment would worsen over the next 20 years Approximately 2/3rds of residents think global warming is extremely important and should be one of the region’s highest priorities 69% would consider paying a quarter more for a gallon of gas if the proceeds would help fight global warming Protecting air quality is the top issue of importance
17	General poll conclusions (cont.) Public Transit is a high priority for most Bay Area residents: ‘Maintaining the public transit systems’ has increased in perceived importance (extremely or very) by almost 10 percentage points from 2003 2/3rds of residents believe extending rail lines should be a high priority and almost 60% agree it should be the highest transportation priority 64% of residents believe at least 2/3rds of transportation money should be allocated to public transit
18	General poll conclusions (cont.) Acceptance of the focused growth idea is increasing and there is interest in using regional transportation funds to support it: Over four years, those willing to accept a smaller home in exchange for a shorter commute has grown from 57% to 74% 2/3rds would accept more homes and traffic in their neighborhoods for clean air and open space 71% think that cities that allow more homes to be built near transit should get more dollars
19	General poll conclusions (cont.) “Fix it first” retains fragile public support: Maintenance of highways and bridges, maintenance of local streets and roads, and maintenance of the public transit system are all issues of high importance Maintenance is preferred over new building 49% to 44%.
20	Target analysis Ambitious targets: most established in existing or proposed statute Aggressive strategies: infrastructure pricing land use Evaluated separately and together relative to targets Using MTC travel model Not a plan, but a test of concepts
21
22	Targets To be achieved by 2035 Environment Carbon dioxide (CO₂): 40% below 1990 levels Source: California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) Fine particulate matter (PM_2.5): 10% below 2006 levels Coarse particulate matter (PM₁₀): 45% below 2006 levels Source: State air quality standards VMT per capita: 10% below 2006 levels Source: State legislation under consideration in 2007 (SB 375)
23	Targets To be achieved by 2035 Economy Reduce congestion 20% below 2006 levels Source: Governor’s Strategic Growth Plan Equity Reduce to 10% below 2006 levels the share of income spent by low- and lower middle-income households on housing and transportation Source: Adapted from the Center for Housing Policy. A Heavy Load (October 2006)
24	Infrastructure Freeway Operations Capital cost: $600 million Complete ramp metering and traffic operations system Limited carpool lane gap closures Complete traffic signal coordination
25	Infrastructure High-Occupancy/Toll (HOT) Lanes and Bus Enhancements Capital cost: $10 billion Complete HOV/HOT network Expand express and local bus Park & ride lots Transit hubs Direct ramps Priority treatments to increase speed and reliability
26	Infrastructure Regional Rail and Ferry Capital cost: $60 billion Regional Rail Improvements and extensions Build on California High-Speed Rail Ferry New and enhanced routes
27
28
29	Judging our aim Environment: Reduce CO₂ to 52,000 tons per day
30	Judging our aim Environment: Reduce fine particulate emissions (PM_2.5) to 18 tons per day
31	Judging our aim Environment: Reduce daily VMT to 17.1 miles per person
32	Judging our aim Economy: Reduce congestion delay per person to 21.3 hours a year
33	Judging our aim Equity: Reduce share of earnings low- and lower middle-income households spend on housing and transportation to 61%*
34	Improving our aim Ideas for closing the gaps Vehicle emissions Increase average fleet fuel economy to 54 miles per gallon (70 mpg if no other action), or Increase share of zero-emission vehicles to 55% VMT Increase telecommuting from 3% to 10% market share Other employer strategies Affordability Provide pricing discounts to low- and lower middle-income travelers Discounts offset reductions in vehicle emissions and driving
35	Target analysis conclusions With the exception of freeway operations, infrastructure packages are not very effective but are very costly
36	Target analysis conclusions (cont.) Pricing and Focused Growth can make a big difference Pricing near-term; land use longer-term Must design pricing to address equity Auto trips diverted with pricing and focused growth + 2.1 million bike/pedestrian trips +700,000 new transit trips
37	Target analysis conclusions (cont.) Pricing can generate revenue to help meet targets $34 billion a year (in scenario tested) – nearly 5 times current average annual expenditures Discounts for lower-income travelers Transportation alternatives Support for alternative land use Developer incentives Lower-income housing subsidies
38	Target analysis conclusions (cont.) But we still need more if we want to meet ambitious targets Fuel efficiency and alternative fuels Telecommuting and employer strategies Other changes in attitude and behavior
39	Target analysis conclusions (cont.) Requires an integrated strategy No single silver bullet Policies and investments must reinforce one another Need to be really aggressive ─ Are we ready?
40	Wild card: technology Technologies that did not exist 25 years ago Cell phones (1983) Portable computers (1983) Digital cameras (1986) DVDs (1995) Electronic tolls (1989) Debit cards (1995) Microwave popcorn (1984) PowerPoint (1990)
41	Wild card: attitude & behavior
42	Bay Area on the Move: October 26, Oakland Marriott ABAG General Assembly and MTC Transportation Summit Co-sponsored by BAAQMD and BCDC Prominent Speakers, Local Expert Panel Audience Participation via E-voting, Break-out Sessions, Comment Sheets
43	Some 700 Participants… Came from every corner of the region… Alameda County (32%) Contra Costa County (17%) San Francisco County (15%) San Mateo County (6%) Santa Clara County (8%) Marin County (7%) Solano County (5%) Sonoma County (4%) Napa County (2%) Other (3%)
44	…and represented a range of interests Public Sector Staff (39%) Community, Environmental or Social Justice Advocates (25%) Elected Officials (12%) Concerned Individuals (10%) Business Persons (9%) Other (5%)
45	What We Heard… Tentative support for FOCUS PDAs investment priorities, but … What is FOCUS and how will it work? Proximity matters (need easy access to transit, jobs, services, bike/ped access, good schools, etc.) Cannot ignore maintenance needs in other areas Put top-notch transit network in place first Affordable housing is key Requires community buy in “Carrots” are fine; you also need “sticks”
46	What We Heard… Road Pricing Revenue Public understanding of how pricing will work is key to public acceptance Subsidizing transportation and expanding transit service for low-income residents is critical Linking back to user benefits also important Stronger support for directing new pricing revenue to FOCUS PDAs
47	What We Heard… We Need First-Rate Transit Transit service levels, connectivity, must be increased to make it efficient Invest in transit system performance as well as freeway operations performance Transit fares should be more heavily subsidized The high-speed rail debate continues
48	What We Heard… Climate Protection Demands Leadership Strong regional partnerships with locals and state are critical Technology matters (cleaner fuels, more fuel efficiency, etc.) Need stringent local zoning and enforcement More public education Pricing strategies should be pursued
49	So what does it mean for the plan?
50	Discussion questions Should we construct the plan based on performance targets? Standards or benchmarks? Achievable or “stretch”? How should we introduce pricing in this plan? Hot lanes? Cordon charges (e.g., Doyle Drive)? Gas fee? (MTC legislative agenda, to be considered by BAAQMD on Monday) How should we use transportation capital to support PDAs and encourage focused growth? New money? Reallocation of expansion and/or maintenance accounts? How do we choose and package infrastructure investments to assure benefits worthy of the costs?