Subject: San Francisco
From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 8"
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:05:12 -0400

FTA

ENHANCED PLANNING REVIEW

OF THE

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

IN THE

SAN FRANCISCO BAY METROPOLITAN AREA

July 1996

PROJECT STAFF
Terrence F. Smith

William Lyons,
Project Manager

Lisa Klein

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is the twelfth in a series of Enhanced Planning Reviews

(EPRs) of major metropolitan areas produced for the Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) by

the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center),

Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation. An earlier series of nine independent planning

reviews of major metropolitan areas was published by the Volpe Center

for the FHWA and FTA in 1994.

William Lyons is the Volpe Center Project Manager for the EPRs.

Terrence F. Smith was the lead author and analyst for this report.

Other contributors included Lisa Klein, Center for Transportation

Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Overall guidance for the EPRs, including production of this report,

was provided by the Program Manager, Deborah Burns, and Sam Zimmerman,

Director, both from the Office of Planning Operations, FTA; and

Sheldon Edner and Barna Juhasz, Chief, both from the Metropolitan

Planning Division, FHWA.

The federal review team--consisting of staff from FTA Headquarters and

Region IX Offices; FHWA Headquarters, Region 9, the California

Division; and the Volpe Center--participated in all aspects of the

EPR, including reviewing drafts of this report.

A draft of the Overview Report was provided to the Metropolitan

Transportation Commission (MTC), Caltrans, and other participating

major transportation agencies in the metropolitan area for review and

comment. The Final Report adds background information for the

observations and recommendations in the Overview Report and is written

for public distribution. The assistance of local agency staff

throughout the EPR is gratefully acknowledged. The Final Report,

which was not reviewed in its entirety by the local agencies, is the

responsibility of the federal agencies. Participating federal review

team members are listed in the Introduction and state, regional, and

local staff are listed in Appendix B.

Copies of the other reports can be requested from the USDOT/Volpe

Center by fax (617) 494- 3260 or by E-mail at:

[email-masked].

Table of Contents

Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Executive Summary

I. Introduction

II. The San Francisco Bay Metropolitan Area

A. Projections and Forecasts

B. Regional Transportation System

III. Organization and Management of the Planning Process

A. Metropolitan Planning Organization Designation and

Membership

B. The Bay Area Partnership

C. Institutional Relationships

IV. Development of the Plan, Transportation Improvement Program,

and Overall Work Program

A. Regional Transportation Plan

B. Transportation Improvement Program

C. Overall Work Program

V. FHWA and FTA Administrators' Focal Points

A. Financial Planning and Financial Constraints

B. Major Investment Studies

C. Congestion Management System and Other ISTEA Management

Systems

D. Air Quality and Conformity

E. Public Involvement Process

F. Fifteen Factors

VI. Integration of Strategic Transportation Planning

A. Transit Planning

B. Intermodal, Freight, and Port Planning

VII. Travel Demand Forecasting

VIII. Meeting with Representatives of the General Public and Local

Elected Officials

Conclusion

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Membership and Voting, Metropolitan Transportation

Commission

Appendix B. Participants in the San Francisco Bay Area EPR

Appendix C. Agenda for Enhanced Planning Review Site Visit

Appendix D. List of Documents Received and Reviewed

Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AC Transit Alameda County Transit

ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District

BART Bay Area Rapid Transit

CARB California Air Resources Board

CEC California Energy Commission

CHP California Highway Patrol

CTC California Transportation Commission

CalTrain State of California State Railway Agency

Caltrans State of California Department of Transportation

CO Carbon Monoxide

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

CAC Citizens Advisory Committee

CBD Central Business District

CAP Clean Air Plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMA Congestion Management Agency

CMAQ Congestion Management and Air Quality

CMP Congestion Management Plan

CMS Congestion Management System

EIR Environmental Impact Review

EPR Enhanced Planning Review

FCR Federal Congestion Relief

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FY Fiscal Year

HOV High Occupancy Vehicle

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System

INET Integrated Transportation Network Builder

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of

1991

JPB Joint Powers Board

LRT Light Rail Transit

MIS Major Investment Study

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission

MTS Metropolitan Transportation System

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MINUTP Software package used by MTC for development of the

regional highway and transit network

Muni San Francisco Municipal Railway

NHS National Highway System

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OWP Overall Work Program

PMS Pavement Management System

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

RFP Request for Proposals

RTCC Regional Transit Coordinating Council

SamTrans Sam Mateo Transit Agency

SRTP Short-Range Transit Plan/Short-Range Transportation

Plan

SIP State Implementation Plan

STP Surface Transportation Program

TCM Transportation Control Measure

TSM Transportation System Management

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

USC United States Code

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

UMTA Urban Mass Transit Administration (FTA's predecessor

agency)

UNET Transit network builder developed by UMTA

UTPS Urban Transportation Planning System

Volpe Center John A. Volpe Transportation Systems Center, Research

and Special Programs Administration, US Department of

Transportation

Executive Summary

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) have initiated a series of joint Enhanced

Planning Reviews (EPRs) to assess the impact of the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) on the planning

processes conducted by the transportation agencies serving

metropolitan areas. The EPRs are also intended to determine the

effects of planning on transportation investment processes. The

information collected in the EPRs is intended to be of assistance to

individual metropolitan areas in their continuing efforts to improve

transportation planning practice, and to federal agencies in

formulating policy and identifying technical assistance needs among

agencies engaged in metropolitan planning.

The EPR for the San Francisco Bay metropolitan area included a federal

site visit from October 30 to November 3, 1995. At the conclusion of

the site visit, the federal review team presented preliminary

observations and recommendations to the local agencies taking part in

the review. The team then formulated several additional observations

as a result of the further review of documents and notes. These

observations were incorporated into a draft Overview Report which was

distributed for review and comment to the Metropolitan Planning

Organization (MPO) and other local participants in the EPR. The

Overview Report formed the basis for this Final Report, which

describes the EPR in greater depth and is intended for public

distribution.

The following is the summary conclusion and a complete set of the

observations and recommendations presented in the Overview Report.

The sections where the observations and recommendations are discussed

in context are noted in parentheses.

The federal team identified several areas where the MPO and the

participating agencies in the local transportation planning process

have successfully implemented comprehensive and coordinated planning

practices consistent with ISTEA. In particular, these include the

following areas:

- Establishment of effective partnerships, including the Bay

Area Partnership, to guide the regional transportation

planning process.

- Rigorous financial planning and analysis.

- Development of Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

selection criteria based on a variety of performance measures,

including performance measures based on users' concerns.

- Focusing the transportation planning process on effective

management of the transportation system.

- Bringing the freight transport industry into the regional

transportation planning process.

- Assuring consistency between the region's transportation plans

and programs and those developed by transit operators and

Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs).

Conversely, the federal team identified specific areas that could be

addressed to improve the transportation planning process in the San

Francisco Bay Area. These include:

- Looking beyond the programming focus of the current regional

transportation plan.

- Completion of Track-Two, which would help the region identify

new funding sources for future improvements to the

transportation system.

- More consistency in assumptions and data used in the various

forecasting and modeling processes being undertaken in the

region.

- Strengthening integration of transportation and land use

modeling and planning.

- Clarifying roles and responsibilities in the Major Investment

Study (MIS) process and establishing a framework for reaching

consensus among participating agencies.

A. Organization and Management of the Planning Process

1. Broad Participation: Broad regional participation in the

planning process is reflected in the involvement of a large number of

diverse constituencies in the process. These combined efforts help the

region to identify and discuss regional issues and work toward

consensus. (III.)

2. Results of Coordination: Positive results of coordination are

demonstrated at important points throughout the metropolitan planning

process. Examples of this coordination are the consistency of the

major financial and operational assumptions in the Short-Range Transit

Plans (SRTPs) developed by the transit operators and of the developed

by the CMAs with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Through

these efforts, participants in the regional transportation planning

process demonstrate significant progress in reaching the ISTEA goals

for a coordinated process with a focus on collaboration and

system-wide performance. (III. A.)

B. Development of the Plan, Transportation Improvement Program,

and Overall Work Program

1. Strategic Role of the Regional Transportation Plan: The

current RTP represents significant progress toward incorporation of

many elements envisioned in ISTEA. Future updates of the RTP should

build on this foundation and expand from the present programming focus

to a long-range strategic emphasis. Given the careful financial

assumptions used in the development of the 1994 RTP, it is

particularly important that the participants in the regional

transportation planning process begin to identify new sources of

funds. (IV. A.)

2. Track-Two Planning Process: The region is encouraged to

complete its Track-Two planning process. This process could be

combined with the financially constrained RTP to present long-term

alternatives in terms of costs, revenues, and system performance.

Future RTP updates should incorporate information from the Track-Two

process. (IV. A.)

3. Application of Selection Criteria: Development of project

selection criteria agreed upon by all participants in the regional

transportation planning process, based on system performance, is a

significant move towards the multi-modal transportation planning and

selection process envisioned by ISTEA. (IV. B.)

4. Links between SRTPs and the Regional Planning Process:

Development of comprehensive SRTPs, as required by MTC, provide a

strong foundation for short-term transit planning. The SRTPs, coupled

with financial constraint requirements, provide a strong link between

each transit operator's planning process and the regional

transportation planning process. Integrating long-range plans

developed by CMAs and transit operators will further strengthen the

regional transportation process. (IV. B.)

C. Financial Planning and Financial Constraints

1. Rigorous Financial Planning: The regional transportation

planning process has made progress in developing financial plans based

on careful and consistent assumptions and rigorous analysis. These

plans provide a sound foundation for coordinated regional

transportation planning. (V. A.)

2. Track-Two and New Financial Resources: The Track-Two process

should build on the strong foundation for financial planning and help

participants in the regional transportation planning process, policy-

makers, and citizens understand what affect new funding sources can

have on the transportation system. (V. A.)

D. Major Investment Studies

1. Major Investment Study Guidelines: The Partnership has

developed formal guidelines for conducting Major Investment Studies

(MISs). The MTC should consider formally adopting the MIS guidelines

developed by the Partnership. These guidelines could be enhanced by

clarifying roles and responsibilities and establishing a framework for

reaching consensus among participating agencies. Specific attention

should be given to how the MIS procedures apply to "pipeline"

projects. According to MTC staff, this has largely been accomplished

through the Partnership initiated screening process and outstanding

issues are being addressed on a case-by- case basis. (V. B.)

E. Congestion Management System and Other ISTEA Management

Systems

1. Focus on System Management: The region has made progress in

understanding its transportation system and is encouraged to continue

to develop tools and procedures to better understand and manage the

existing system. Designation of the Metropolitan Transportation

System (MTS) is a good first step in this evolving process. (V. C.)

2. Innovative Performance Measures: Continued identification and

application of performance measures based on users' concerns are

encouraged. This is an innovative aspect of the transportation

planning process in this region. These measures should continue to be

refined and expanded, and new opportunities for applying them to the

transportation planning and decision-making processes should be

identified. (V. C.)

F. Public Involvement Process

1. Improvements to the Public Participation Process: The MTC has

made great strides in providing information to the public about the

regional transportation planning process. Further efforts, such as

translating the Citizens Guide into Spanish, Chinese, and other

languages of major ethnic communities in the region would improve this

process. Evaluation procedures will help identify strengths and

weaknesses in the public involvement process and provide information

that could be used to develop methods that build on successful

efforts. (V. E.)

2. Expand Public Access to the Partnership: The regional planning

process should continue to identify opportunities to improve public

participation in and access to activities of the Partnership.

Considering the important role played by the Partnership, increased

opportunity for public involvement would enhance public understanding

of and input into the regional transportation planning process and

help accomplish the ISTEA goal of proactive public participation. (V.

E.)

G. Integration of Strategic Transportation Planning

1. Freight Planning: The regional transportation planning process

has identified the importance of goods movement in the region. This

has been demonstrated by the active participation of the Freight

Advisory Council in all facets of the regional planning process,

including the development of TIP project selection criteria. (VI. B.)

H. Travel Demand Modeling and Forecasting

1. Consistency of Regional Models: Agencies responsible for

collecting data and forecasting and modeling should use the

recommendations of the Modeling Coordination Subcommittee as a basis

for working together more effectively. Other models should be

consistent with the regional model. This will strengthen the regional

planning process and enhance coordination and cooperation. This

should lead to greater consistency of data and assumptions used in

developing inputs to models and forecasts and in the results of these

models and forecasts. MTC and ABAG should consider ways to strengthen

integration of transportation and land use modeling and planning. For

example, ABAG should provide timely forecasts to MTC for the planning

period MTC uses for the RTP. (VII.)

2. Validation of Travel Demand Forecasts: The region should

identify procedures to validate model results including collecting

data to support validation on a disaggregate basis by geography, by

mode, and by trip type. The agencies involved with travel demand

forecasts should work together to resolve important questions about

the reliability of HPMS as a source of data for validation. (VII.)

3. Simplified Versions of Models: The review team encourages the

development, initiated by MTC and coordinated with potential users, of

a simplified and user friendly version of the regional model which

could be used by the counties. (VII.)

4. Peer Review of Model Enhancements: MTC has benefited from past

peer reviews of its modeling process. The review team encourages MTC

to bring experts from outside the region to review the enhancements of

the regional model along with the simplified version of the model.

(VII.)

I. Introduction

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)

significantly changed the law governing metropolitan transportation

planning. In response to the changes introduced by ISTEA, the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration

(FTA) issued revised planning regulations on October 28, 1993, setting

new requirements for the transportation planning processes. The

requirements are presented in 23 CFR Part 450 and 49 CFR Part 613,

Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Final Rule. The Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) also imposed rigorous new transportation

planning requirements in metropolitan areas, particularly those that

are designated nonattainment or maintenance areas for air quality.

In support of the implementation of the revised regulations, FHWA and

FTA jointly established a schedule of Enhanced Planning Reviews

(EPRs). The EPRs are intended to determine the impact of planning on

transportation investment processes. The EPRs also provide a

technical assessment of the transportation planning and programming

processes, including consideration of the six focal points identified

by the FHWA and FTA Administrators for certification. The six focal

points are: Financial Constraint and Financial Planning, Major

Investment Studies, Congestion Management Systems, the Planning

Process and Links to the Conformity Requirements of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, the Public Involvement Process, and the ISTEA

Fifteen Planning Factors. Of equal importance, EPRs will provide a

forum for dialogue and the exchange of information on perspectives and

concerns related to ISTEA between FTA and FHWA headquarters and field

staff, and state and local officials responsible for metropolitan area

transportation planning.

Additionally, EPRs will provide information for future long-term

federal policy making, including possible legislative and regulatory

changes; identify national issues and trends; and document national

case studies of best professional practice. This information will

also be used to help identify how future federal technical assistance

programs can best assist MPOs and other planning agencies in carrying

out the requirements of ISTEA. Finally, EPRs are intended to support

progress toward meeting ISTEA requirements.

The EPR has four parts: a review of planning documents, a site visit

to the area, a summary draft Overview Report, and the issuance of this

Final Report. At the conclusion of the site visit, the federal agency

participants in the EPR presented preliminary observations and

recommendations to the local agencies taking part in the review. The

team then formulated several additional observations as a result of

the further review of documents and notes. These observations were

incorporated into a draft Overview Report distributed to the

Metropolitan Planning Organization and other local participants in the

EPR for review and comment. The Overview Report formed the basis for

this Final Report, which describes the EPR in greater depth and is

intended for public distribution.

This report presents the results of an EPR conducted jointly by FHWA

and FTA in the San Francisco Bay metropolitan area. This report

considers the regional transportation planning process as it existed

at the time of the site visit as well as future trends. The review

team acknowledges that this is an evolving process.

A federal review team consisting of FHWA and FTA headquarters and

regional staff, FHWA division staff, and US DOT/Volpe Center staff

conducted the site visit on October 30 to November 3, 1996. The

federal team consisted of:

Federal Highways Administration

Ervin Poka, Jr., Region 9

Bob O'Loughlin Region 9

Karen Schmidt, Region 9

Steve Guhin, California Division

Spencer Stevens, California Division

Federal Transit Administration

Ron Fisher, Office of Planning

Robert Hom, Region IX

Bill Powell, Region IX

Donna Turchie, Region IX

Jerry Wiggins, Region IX

US Environmental Protection Agency

Mark Brucker, Region 9

Volpe Center

William Lyons, Project Manager

Terrence F. Smith

Research assistance was provided by Lisa Klein of the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology.

Local participants in the site visit included staff of the

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the MPO serving the San

Francisco Bay metropolitan area; Caltrans, the State of California's

Department of Transportation; the Association of Bay Area Governments

(ABAG); the California Air Resources Board (CARB); Bay Area Rapid

Transit (BART); Contra Costa Transit Authority; Golden Gate Transit;

Livermore/Amador Transit Authority; Sam Mateo County Transit District

(SamTrans); San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni); the Alameda County

Congestion Management Authority (CMA); Contra County CMA; San

Francisco County Transit Authority; the City of Vallejo; RIDES; and

the University of California (Berkeley). A list of local participants

is provided at the end of this report.

A list of MPO members, participants in the EPR site visit, and the

agenda for the site visit are provided in Appendices A, B, and C of

this report. A list of the documents reviewed as part of the EPR is

provided in Appendix D.

II. The San Francisco Bay Metropolitan Area

The 7,719 square mile San Francisco Bay Metropolitan Area includes

nine California counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara,

Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, Sonoma, and Marin. The region

includes a mix of large cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, and

San Jose, small to medium size cities, and rural areas. The region is

a maintenance area for Ozone and a moderate nonattainment area for

Carbon Monoxide (CO).

A. Projections and Forecasts

In 1990 the region had a population of approximately 6 million, which

makes is the fifth largest metropolitan area in the nation.

Population is expected to continue to grow, but at a slower rate than

in the past 10 years. The population is forecast to be 7.5 million in

2010.

Employment is expected to grow at 1.4% per year, which is slower than

the region had experienced in the past. The region expects to have

nearly 4 million jobs by 2010. By that year, job growth is expected

to out-pace growth in employed residents. Work trips account for

approximately 25% of all travel. Census data show that 68% of workers

drive alone to work, 13% carpool or vanpool, 10% use public transit,

4% work at home, and the remainder walk or bicycle to work.

In 1990, 72.6 percent of Bay Area workers lived and worked in the same

county. Primary growth in commute trips is expected to occur in

inter-county trips. "In-commuting," especially from the Central

Valley, is increasing. The San Joaquin County to Alameda County

commute is the fastest growing of all Bay Area commutes. As such, the

concept of using "Gateway Management" to regulate the flow of traffic

entering the already congested Bay Area transportation network is an

important issue in this region.

Commercial vehicle trips are projected to increase by nearly 44%.

Trucks carry the majority of freight through the region, with 85% of

truck trips being intra-regional. Regional peak trucking hours are 10

AM to 3 PM. Waterborne cargo is expected to triple by 2020 to 43

million metric tons.

Decentralized development is expected to continue. Current local land

use policies show that 52% of the total acreage available for future

development is located in the North Bay counties (Marin, Napa, Solano,

and Sonoma). Much of the remaining land available for development is

in the eastern portions of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. These

are, geographically, the "fringe areas" of the region.

B. Regional Transportation System

The regional transportation systems consists of 19,400 miles of road

network, of which 1,400 miles are state highways and 18,000 are local

streets and roads. The road network also includes eight major bridges

and 100 miles of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Two major

recreational bicycle/pedestrian trails, the Bay Trail and the Ridge

Trail Link, link all nine counties. When complete, this system will

encompass nearly 800 miles.

The region is served by nearly two dozen transit operators with more

than 4,000 vehicles covering 7,000 miles of transit routes including

331 miles of rail. The region has two commuter rail systems, the Bay

Area Rapid Transit (BART) heavy rail system and CalTrain. Light rail

transit systems operate in San Francisco and San Jose. Five major bus

operators serve the region; AC Transit, San Francisco Muni, Santa

Clara County Transit District, Golden Gate Transit, and SamTrans. The

region is also served by six ferry routes linking Marin County, Solano

County, and Alameda County to San Francisco.

The region has five commercial airports and six public-use seaports.

The seaports handled 12.8 million metric tons of dry cargo in 1992.

Intermodal freight movements are facilitated by railroad access to the

Ports of Oakland and San Francisco.

In 1988, the region passed Resolution 1876, which constitutes a

regional commitment to expand several of the regions rail systems.

Resolution 1876 is a $3.5 Billion funding agreement covering the

following extensions: BART to San Francisco Airport, West Pittsburg,

Bay Point, Dublin/Pleasanton and Warm Springs; Santa Clara Light Rail

Transit (LRT) Tasman corridor extension; CalTrain to downtown San

Francisco; Muni's Embarcadero line, Turnback and extension to Sixth

Street. Resolution 1876 projects have been treated in the RTP as

prior regional commitments which will be honored and are included in

the RTP Baseline, even though some projects will require significant

re-scoping to comply with the existing funding commitments.

III. Organization and Management of the Planning Process

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO for the

nine-county San Francisco Bay metropolitan area. The MTC was created

by the California legislature in 1970 to plan the transportation

system in the San Francisco Bay area. The structure of the MPO, which

includes representatives of county and local governments, reflects the

cooperative relationships encouraged by good planning practices and

ISTEA. MTC is responsible for long-range transportation planning,

studies of specific travel routes, allocating transportation funds,

representing the region's interests to state and federal government,

and managing the region's transportation system.

A characteristic that may be unique to the regional transportation

planning process in the San Francisco Bay Area is that the MTC is

authorized under state law to be the designated recipient of a major

percentage of the federal and state transit and highway funds

available to the area. This provides a unique opportunity for the MPO

to lead the regional transportation planning process. Processes and

procedures developed by the MTC are used to coordinate transportation

planning activities at the local and transit operator level with

regional activities.

A. Metropolitan Planning Organization Designation and Membership

The regional transportation planning process in the San Francisco Bay

Area offers a number of opportunities for participation by elected

officials, transportation agencies, organizations, and citizens. The

MTC is composed of nineteen commissioners. Fourteen voting members

are appointed by local elected officials. In the most populated

counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa

Clara) two commissioners are appointed, one by the countys council of

mayors and city council members, and one by the county board of

supervisors. Most commissioners are local elected officials. In less

populous counties, the board of supervisors select the commissioner

from a list of up to three candidates nominated by the countys

council of mayors and council members. All commissioners serve four-

year terms. Other voting members represent the Association of Bay

Area Governments (ABAG) and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and

Development Commission. Non-voting members represent the State of

California's Business, Transportation, and Development Agency and the

US Department of Transportation (DOT) and the US Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD).

Participation by implementing transportation agencies, including major

transit operators, occurs through the Bay Area Partnership, which is

designed to provide a forum for the chief administrative officers of

these agencies to meet regularly and discuss issues of common concern

in an informal setting. MTC provided the impetus for convening this

group as a way to broaden participation of implementing transportation

agencies in the regional transportation planning process and provides

the principal staff support. Additional assistance is provided by

staff from other agencies. Advisory committees to the MTC provide

opportunities for the involvement of business, community, labor, and

environmental organizations, academics, transit users, the freight

community, elderly, minority and disabled citizens, and the general

public.

The MTC has five standing committees that make recommendations to the

full Commission. These are Administration and Oversight, Executive,

Grant Review and Allocation, Legislation and Public Affairs, and Work

Program. Each committee is supported by a number of advisory

committees. MTC organizes staffing into five sections which are

directly involved in the planning process, research, or

implementation. The sections are Finance, Transit Coordination and

Assistance, Legislation and Public Affairs, Planning, and Advanced

Systems. Staff members from the transit coordination section and

staff members responsible for county coordination, provide the

modeling section with project definition information necessary for

travel demand forecasting.

B. The Bay Area Partnership

MTC has initiated the formation of the Bay Area Partnership to assist

in regional planning and priority by promoting inter-agency

communication and cooperation. The Partnership is composed of the top

managers of 31 Bay Area transportation and environmental agencies.

Regional agencies participating in the partnership include: ABAG;

BAAQMD; MTC; and RIDES for Bay Area Commuters. State and federal

participants include: California Air Resources Board (CARB);

California Energy Commission (CEC); California Highway Patrol (CHP);

California Transportation Commission (CTC); Caltrans; FHWA; and FTA.

The County Congestion Management Agencies (CMA) from each county and

all of the regions' transit agencies are members of the partnership,

as are Buchanan Field airport and the Port of Oakland.

The Partnership has three committees: the Plans and Programs

Committee; the Legislative Committee; and the System Operations and

Management Committee. The Partnership is involved in many of MTCs

planning activities including: the development of multi-modal scoring

criteria for use in ranking TIP projects; selecting an RTP investment

strategy; and development of a Metropolitan Transportation System

(MTS) management system. It has been the major vehicle for getting

transit operators, the State, County Congestion Management Agencies,

and the MPO to cooperate in development of the Plan and TIP. MTC

views the partnership as a primary way to promote the kind of inter-

agency coordination and cooperation required by ISTEA.

C. Institutional Relationships

MTC, ABAG, and Caltrans have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

through which they agree to share land use and transportation

forecasts. For example, ABAG supplies MTC with land use projections

for use in forecasting travel demand in the Regional Transportation

Plan (RTP) and, in turn, MTC provides transportation forecasts to ABAG

for use in their next cycle of land use projections. The current MOU

was last amended in 1986 and is in the process of being updated.

MTC, ABAG, and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) also

have an MOU in which they agree to work together to prepare and update

air quality plans to meet federal requirements. The current MOU was

signed in October, 1992. An MTC resolution establishing the Regional

Transit Coordinating Council (RTCC) for transit service coordination,

financial planning, and regulatory activities and for the conduct of

short-range transit planning serves as the current agreement between

MTC and transit operators.

ABAGs demographic and land use projections are used for travel

forecasts by local planning organizations, MTC, and Caltrans.

Coordination of regional data has become especially important with the

establishment of County Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs), which

also must perform travel forecasts.

CMAs came into existence as a result of state legislation and voters

approval of Prop 111 in 1990. The CMAs take the responsibility of

preparing and implementing county level transportation plans, called

Congestion Management Plans (CMPs). State law requires that the

county plans serve as the basis for the RTP, in addition to which the

MPO must address regional issues not addressed by the CMPs. State law

requires the CMPs to establish levels of service standards for

roadways, set transit service standards, develop trip-reduction and

travel demand management programs, perform land use impact analyses,

formulate capital improvement programs, and monitor conformity to the

county CMP.

In 1994 and 1995 MTC and other transportation planning agencies in the

region (including the CMAs) participated in a study on coordinating

the modeling processes and data used throughout the region. The study

made recommendations on strategies for maintaining regional data and

assuring model consistency.

Observations

1. Broad Participation: Broad regional participation in the

planning process is reflected in the involvement of a large number of

diverse constituencies in the process. These combined efforts help the

region to identify and discuss regional issues and work toward

consensus.

2. Results of Coordination: The positive results of coordination

are demonstrated at important points throughout the metropolitan

planning process. Examples of this coordination are the consistency

of the major financial and operational assumptions in the Short-Range

Transit Plans (SRTPs) developed by the transit operators and of the

plans developed by the CMAs with the RTP. Through these efforts,

participants in the regional transportation planning process

demonstrate significant progress in reaching the ISTEA goals for a

coordinated process with a focus on collaboration and system-wide

performance.

IV. Development of the Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, and

Overall Work Program

The development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP),

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Overall Work Program (OWP)

and other products of the planning process is done through MTC's

committees. The Bay Area Partnership is also an active participant in

this process, as are advisory councils established by the MTC to

provide input into the planning process. These processes also include

opportunities for public input through community meetings and other

outreach activities. Technical information is provided by MTC's

staff, and by staff from local and state government and transit

operators.

A. Regional Transportation Plan

The current RTP, adopted in June, 1994, was developed as a financially

constrained plan identifying regional priorities. The RTP, developed

as part of a two-track process, represents Track-One. What MTC staff

describe as a maintenance update of the RTP is to be completed in

1996.

The Two-Track planning process used to develop the 1994 RTP was

designed to program forecasted funds in Track-One. Track-Two is

described in the 1994 RTP as an advocacy document to argue for new

transportation funding and mobility strategies. According to MTC

staff, time and staff constraints led to the postponement of the

Track-Two process in 1994, with plans to return to it after the RTP

was adopted in 1994. Preliminary actions have been taken to develop

Track-Two, but this process will not be completed before the end of

1996.

Development of the 1994 RTP began with identification by MTC staff of

three alternative policy options for the Draft Capital Investment

Plan. These options were:

Option 1a: A planning effort based on addressing prior

commitments and local plans.

Option 1b: A planning effort based on system maintenance and

operations management.

Option 1c: A planning effort based on coordinating transportation

and land use.

After much public scrutiny of these options and meetings with staff

and local officials, a consensus emerged that these three strategies

were complementary and that all were necessary in some degree. The

strategic direction reflected in the 1994 RTP combines elements of

each of these options. A focus of the adopted strategy was on

identifying how to best program forecasted future funds to ensure that

sufficient funds will be available to operate and maintain the

existing transportation system, fund projects that had been approved

for implementation prior to adoption of the 1994 RTP, and develop new

projects to meet regional transportation needs, and objectives.

Financial projections were based on careful assumptions about future

funding, constrained by an understanding of the limits imposed by the

political process. MTC's financial analysis did not assume funding at

levels beyond those available in the past and assumed that some fund

sources, such as demonstration funds, would not continue beyond

already identified limits. Maintenance, operation, and committed

projects account for 75% of funds forecasted over the period covered

in the 1994 RTP. Any proposed new projects will compete for funds

from the remaining 25% of forecasted funds. The 1994 RTP includes

programmed projects and "place-holders" for other projects which will

be identified through corridor and MIS studies.

Track-Two is continuing to be developed with input from the Bay Area

Partnership and will be influenced by some on-going and planned

corridor studies. The process will identify and address major funding

shortages, such as for operating funds. It is being designed to help

policy-makers and the public understand how new investments would

enhance the region's transportation system, what the full costs of

these investments would be, and to identify alternative sources of

funds for these investments. While the Track-Two planning process

will not be completed prior to the 1996 update of the RTP, information

from this process will, according to staff, be used in future updates

of the RTP.

In developing the 1994 RTP, MTC took five steps to ensure that all

interested parties were able to participate throughout the process.

The first step was to convene five community forums to evaluate

reactions to the three proposed investment strategies. The second

step included direct presentations to other transportation agencies

and policy boards prior to the development of the selected strategy.

The third step consisted of consultation with the Partnership and

MTC's special advisory committees. The fourth step was a set of ten

community forums to address reactions to the Draft Plan. The fifth

step was the public comment period and two public hearings which

generated further comments on the Draft RTP.

The RTP reflects system level issues in its focus on the Metropolitan

Transportation System (MTS). A major focus of the Plan is the

maintenance, operations, and management of the MTS. The MTS is the

regional multi-modal system including highways; arterial roads; rail,

bus, and ferry transit; freight facilities such as seaports, airports,

freight rail and trucking routes, and intermodal and intra-modal

transfer points. (The MTS is described in more detail in Section V.

C.) Corridor level and project level concerns, unless they are prior

commitments, are given limited attention due to forecasted limits on

available funds for new projects. The RTP identifies five corridors

which may require MIS.

In the discussion of the RTP implementation strategy, the RTP suggests

three actions which focus primarily on initiating dialog to help

address land use considerations: use the Environmental Impact Review

(EIR) comment process to inform local jurisdictions about impacts of

local plans on the MTS; use the RTP EIR results to analyze the

implication of proposed transportation investment strategies on local

land use plans; work with the county CMAs to refine land use impact

elements of their Congestion Management Programs.

The 1996 RTP is described as a maintenance update of the 1994 RTP and

will reflect changes that have occurred since adoption of the 1994

RTP. The process will begin with a budget that is based on careful

assumptions about available funds and financial needs. No major

changes in the assumptions, goals, or objectives that guided

development of the 1994 RTP are planned for the 1996 RTP update.

B. Transportation Improvement Program

Decisions on short-term regional transportation investments and

strategies are identified in the metropolitan Transportation

Improvement Program (TIP). Participants in the regional

transportation planning process have collectively developed criteria,

based on regional goals and objectives and federal requirements, that

are used for selecting projects for inclusion on the TIP. These

criteria are reflected in the scoring procedures used to compare and

evaluate competing proposed projects. The criteria and scoring

procedures are developed by the MTC with input from the Partnership

and from MTC's advisory councils. The MTC has developed a TIP

monitoring process to track implementation of projects included in the

TIP. Identifying projects that are delayed and addressing the factors

that delay their scheduled completion is of particular interest.

MTC has what may be a unique responsibility, compared to other MPOs

around the country, for project funding, particularly transit funding.

The MTC is the designated recipient of several sources of transit

funds, including FTA Section 5307 and Section 5309 formula funds and

state funds designated for transit. Transit operators receive a large

amount of their funding through the MTC process. MTC is also the

recipient of highway and flexible funds, such as regional Surface

Transportation Program (STP) funds, regional Congestion Management and

Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, and funds designated as Federal Congestion

Relief (FCR) funds by the State. FCR funds include National Highway

System (NHS) and State STP and CMAQ funds designated for the region by

the State and some state gas tax money. A portion of the total

regional STP funds, called STP Guarantee (STP-G) funds, are

distributed to CMAs according to their relative population shares.

TIP project screening and scoring criteria are reviewed and revised

annually to incorporate changes in regulation, changes in regional

policies and priorities, and changes resulting from new information.

For example, to improve the inter-relationships between roads and

transit, scoring criteria have been established for road projects that

benefit transit, such as by improving transit accessibility.

Information provided by the Freight Advisory Council is being used to

incorporate criteria that measure productivity improvements resulting

from freight projects.

Participants in the regional transportation planning process may self-

score projects prior to submitting them to MTC. Local sponsors

typically score all proposed projects to determine whether they will

be competitive for discretionary funds or STP-G funds. The scoring

process helps to inform TIP decisions about how to use other available

state and federal funds for transit. The scoring process encourages

project sponsors to identify the most appropriate funding source when

submitting a project for inclusion on the TIP. All projects using

regional STP funds must meet the same criteria as other projects

included on the TIP.

Each transit operator submits a Five-Year Plan and Budget to the MTC

as part of the TIP development process. The MTC analyzes the Five-

Year Plan and Budget to determine whether adequate funds have been

identified and are available to operate and maintain the system as

planned and to complete capital projects (or phases of projects)

included in the Five-Year Plan and Budget. The Plans and Budgets must

also reflect decisions and policies identified in Short- Range

Transit Plans (SRTP) that are developed by the region's transit

operators. The Five-Year Plans and Budgets, once approved by the MTC,

are incorporated into the transit element of the TIP. A unique aspect

to the MTC process is that all federal and state transit funds are

programmed through this process.

The region's transit operators develop SRTPs using their own

information and information provided by MTC. The SRTPs are

financially constrained and identify current and short-range (ten-

year) operation and maintenance funding requirements and planned

changes in transit services. These short-term transit planning needs

can then be reflected in the TIP by programming funds to address

short-range maintenance, operation, and service needs of each transit

operator. Several transit operators and CMAs are considering

developing long-range plans which will be developed in coordination

with regional long-range planning efforts.

C. Overall Work Program

The Overall Work Program (OWP) includes programs for ABAG, MTC, and

Caltrans activities in the region. In addition, the OWP contains an

ABAG Prospectus and an MTC Prospectus which describe each

organizations structure and primary regional planning

responsibilities. The MTC Prospectus reviews new planning

requirements under ISTEA and "Proposed Bay Area Response" to these

requirements. Multi-agency projects are also described and each

agencys responsibility is identified. The OWP includes work item

project descriptions for all projects and lists all planning projects

funded with FTA, FHWA, and STP planning funds. Work items for ABAG

and MTC cover air quality planning and implementation. The MOUs

governing air quality planning are described in the OWP.

Observations

1. Strategic Role of the Regional Transportation Plan: The

current RTP represents significant progress toward incorporation of

many elements envisioned in ISTEA. Future updates of the RTP should

build on this foundation and expand from the present programming focus

to a long-range strategic emphasis. Given the careful financial

assumptions used in the development of the 1994 RTP, it is

particularly important that the participants in the regional

transportation planning process begin to identify new sources of

funds.

2. Track-Two Planning Process: The region is encouraged to

complete its Track-Two planning process. This process could be

combined with the financially constrained RTP to present long-term

alternatives in terms of costs, revenues, and system performance.

Future RTP updates should incorporate information from the Track-Two

process.

3. Application of Selection Criteria: Development of project

selection criteria agreed upon by all participants in the regional

transportation planning process, based on system performance, is a

significant move towards the multi-modal transportation planning and

selection process envisioned by ISTEA.

4. Links between SRTPs and the Regional Planning Process:

Development of comprehensive SRTPs, as required by MTC, provide a

strong foundation for short-term transit planning. The SRTPs, coupled

with financial constraint requirements, provide a strong link between

each transit operator's planning process and the regional

transportation planning process. Integrating long-range plans

developed by CMAs and transit operators will further strengthen the

regional transportation process.

V. FHWA and FTA Administrators' Focal Points

The FHWA and FTA Administrators have identified six focal points for

the certification reviews being conducted in major metropolitan areas.

One objective of the Enhanced Planning Reviews is to gather

information which will serve as a prelude to the certification review.

For that reason, these focal points are reviewed as part of the

Enhanced Planning Review. These focal points are:

1. Financial Planning and Financial Constraints

2. Major Investment Studies

3. Congestion Management Systems and Other ISTEA

Management Systems

4. Air Quality and Conformity

5. Public Involvement Process

6. ISTEA Fifteen Factors

The following sections describe how the regional transportation

planning process is addressing each of the focal points.

A. Financial Planning and Financial Constraints

The current RTP was developed based on a rigorous estimate of future

availability of funds and estimates of costs to operate the current

transportation system and complete projects approved through the

regional planning process. This provides a baseline for future

planning and identifies funding shortfalls, particularly among transit

operators, that will require policy choices. Potential choices,

identified by the region's transit operators, include: cutting

services; increasing fares and other pricing strategies, and changing

the structure of the management of components of the transportation

system.

The financial process used in the development of the RTP started with

an estimate of the funds which are "reasonably available" over the

twenty-year planning period. Key assumptions governing this

estimation were:

- An annual inflation rate of 5%;

- Forecasted revenues and project costs in inflated year-of- expenditure dollars;

- State funding consistent with the 1994 State Transportation

Improvement Program;

- Federal ISTEA funding equal to authorized funding levels with

ISTEA apportionment factors held constant;

- Revenues from gas taxes projected to grow at half the rate of

inflation (5%) beyond the current ISTEA authorization period;

- Transit operator fare structures keyed to inflation;

- Air quality attainment assumed by 1997, so no CMAQ funding is

assumed available in 1998 and beyond;

- Projected revenues assumed to equal projected costs for toll

bridge Operation and Maintenance (O&M), certain state highway

maintenance and operations programs, and non-pavement

maintenance and improvements to local streets and roads.

Cost of the baseline program described in the RTP began with those

costs associated with maintaining, managing, and operating the

existing system and the costs of projects for which prior commitments

exist. Available revenues were matched to baseline costs under a set

of principles which used the key assumptions noted above as well as

the following:

- Local funds were assigned for the pavement and maintenance

needs of local streets and roads;

- For transit, priority was given to funding existing transit

services for their asset replacement and rehabilitation

programs before funding service expansions;

- MTC resolution 1876 extension corridors with regional

financial commitments were given priority, and existing

funding commitments were maintained, even when significant

project scope modifications were anticipated;

- Operating and capital costs were assigned to the counties for

which the service was provided.

At the end of this process, MTC identified the funding shortfall or

surplus for baseline programs by county. The regional total of funds

dedicated in the Baseline accounted for $70 billion of the estimated

$74 billion of transportation funds expected to flow to the Bay Area

over the next 20 years, leaving $4 billion for new investments.

The RTP pursued an investment strategy which allocates the remaining

$4 billion in discretionary funds (largely STP, CMAQ, and TSM funds).

Approximately 30% of the discretionary funds were used to fund

shortfalls in the Baseline. In the end, all counties had some margin

of new investment opportunities through the flexible funds.

Approximately 30% went to transit upgrades or extensions, and 11% went

to operational strategies and improvements. The remaining funds went

to new highway improvements including HOV lands and interchange

improvements.

Financial Planning is an ongoing process. The region is developing or

has developed a number of tools to manage assets and track funds.

These tools, such as the Pavement Management System (PMS) and the TIP

monitoring system, allow the region to assess its current financial

situation and estimate future needs. Track-Two will look at various

future transportation systems and funding scenarios based on their

likelihood of occurring and identify several alternative

transportation systems, including a base case that is derived from the

current RTP. This will help policy makers and the public understand

the effects various levels of new funds can have on the transportation

system.

Observations

1. Rigorous Financial Planning: The regional transportation

planning process has made progress in developing financial plans based

on careful and consistent assumptions and rigorous analysis. These

plans provide a sound foundation for coordinated regional

transportation planning.

2. Track-Two and New Financial Resources: The Track-Two process

should build on the strong foundation for financial planning and help

participants in the regional transportation planning process, policy-

makers, and citizens understand what affect new funding sources can

have on the transportation system.

B. Major Investment Studies

The Bay Area Partnership has provided leadership in identifying

projects that may require Major Investment Studies (MIS) and in

developing procedures to be used in the region. A process for

identifying and evaluating major regional investments was adopted by

the Partnership in May, 1995. The MIS guidelines state that the MISs

will form the basis for the investment decisions which subsequently

appear in the RTP and the TIP. To allow for conformity and financial

analysis, MIS guidelines permit an assumed project design and scope to

be included in the RTP. The 1994 RTP includes such assumptions, and

these items are noted as concepts for which major corridor studies are

pending. The MIS guidelines further provide that if the outcome of an

MIS differs significantly in scope and concept from those assumed in

the RTP, the RTP will either have to be amended or the new scope and

concept will be included in the next update of the RTP.

The development of MIS guidelines started with a review of "pipeline"

projects, that is, projects that had been included on RTPs and TIPs

adopted prior to the issuance of the Final Rules for Statewide and

Metropolitan Planning Regulations. The Partnership, with assistance

from MTC staff, screened these pipeline projects, using criteria

developed by the Partnership and reflecting federal law and

regulation, to determine whether they did or did not require an MIS.

The result of this process was that, while determinations were made on

a number of projects, several pipeline projects will require further

analysis to determine whether an MIS is required.

A potential sponsor of a major transportation investment may initiate

the MIS process by calling a meeting with, at a minimum,

representatives of MTC, affected operators, Caltrans District 4, FHWA,

FTA, and the CMAs for all affected counties. If the need for an MIS

is confirmed, additional parties including resource agencies,

environmental agencies, and affected jurisdictions must also be

involved to determine roles and responsibilities, the scope of the

MIS, how the public will be involved, data requirements, and

evaluation measures. ABAGs regional land use projections must be

used as a starting point for land use analysis, but the parties above

may decide to explore changes in local land use policies.

As part of the development of the 1994 RTP, a screening process was

initiated through the Partnership to identify projects that would not

require a MIS. This process determined that the following types of

projects would not require a MIS: Projects that had completed all

environmental studies required by State and Federal regulations;

projects that were not going to use Federal funds; projects that would

have no significant effect on capacity, travel flows, level of

service, or mode share at the corridor or sub-area level; projects

that were not a part of a larger project which would have a

significant impact in any of these areas; and projects for which a

reasonable number of multi-modal alternatives had been analyzed in

past studies which found the project type was preferred. All other

projects might require a MIS.

The measures of project efficiency and cost effectiveness are left up

to the interested parties to decide. However, the MIS guidelines

indicate that the following principles should be considered in

determining these measures:

- Measures should be determined early in the process;

- Performance should be considered in terms of work, non-work,

and freight trips;

- Measures should include cost-effectiveness, financial

feasibility, and equity;

- Performance measures should allow assessment of alternatives

independent of mode;

- Multiple measures should be used;

- Measures of advantages and disadvantages to local communities

should be used.

The MIS procedural guidelines support a specific program of public

involvement to be developed for each MIS study developed by those

parties participating in the study. The MIS guidelines require that

the public involvement program be consistent with the process used

"for all significant regional planning activities" as required by the

ISTEA Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Rule. General goals

consistent with MTCs adopted public involvement process must be

included.

Observations

1. Major Investment Study Guidelines: The Partnership has

developed formal guidelines for conducting MISs. The MTC should

consider formally adopting the MIS guidelines developed by the

Partnership. These guidelines could be enhanced by clarifying roles

and responsibilities and establishing a framework for reaching

consensus among participating agencies. Specific attention should be

given to how the MIS procedures apply to "pipeline" projects.

According to MTC staff, this has largely been accomplished through the

Partnership initiated screening process and outstanding issues are

being addressed on a case-by-case basis.

C. Congestion Management System and Other ISTEA Management

Systems

Managing its existing transportation system is the major goal of the

partners in the regional transportation process. An important first

step in this process was the identification of transportation

facilities and services that are crucial to the mobility needs of the

region. These facilities and services define the San Francisco Bay

Area Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS). Six principles guided

the development of the MTS. These are:

- The MTS must function as a multimodal, integrated system and

address both passenger and freight mobility needs.

- Decisions to maintain and enhance the MTS must seek to balance

mobility with environmental, equity, and economic objectives.

- The MTS is designed to serve interregional trips and all other

trips within the region to major activity centers.

- Maintenance, rehabilitation, and safety of the existing system

must be assured.

- Operating and maintenance decisions must be integrated with

capital improvement decisions.

- Flexible funding is essential to developing and maintaining a

system that achieves the above principles.

The MTS is made up of four components:

- MTS Arterial Streets and Highway System.

- MTS Transit System: Rail, Bus, and Ferry.

- MTS Freight Transport System: Seaports, Airports, Freight

Rail, Trucking.

- MTS Transfer Point System.

The first three components are self-explanatory. The fourth ties

these components together. The MTS Transfer Point System provides for

significant intermodal transfers of passengers and freight between

components of the MTS, including air, ship, and inter-city passenger

rail. It also provides for high-volume passenger transfers between or

within transit systems of the MTS.

While the MTS is a major component of the regional transportation

planning, management and investment decision-making process in the San

Francisco Bay Area, it is not the only effort to manage the

transportation system. MTC's asset management activities include the

Pavement Management System (PMS) and the Transit Operator Capital

Asset Replacement Model. MTC's focus on operational strategies is

demonstrated by the Freeway Service Patrol, Freeway Call Box Program,

Translink fare collection system, and participation in Intelligent

Transportation System (ITS) deployment.

In developing performance measures, the participants in the
regional transportation planning process found that engineering measures were
not providing sufficient information to understand how the transportation system
actually performs. To address this issue, a broad range of performance measures,
including those that focus on user concerns, have been developed. These measures
are integrated into the regional transportation planning process and have been
established to help guide regional transportation planning and decision making.
The purposes of the CMS are closely associated with those of the MTS. They are
both important components of the overall management strategy identified as being
under development in the 1994 RTP. This strategy will be guided by and will
synthesize information from the CMS and other ISTEA management systems as well
as corridor studies. Management strategies are also linked to MTS improvement
strategies and directly to the development of the RTP. State law requires
counties to develop county-wide Congestion Management Plans (CMPs). The RTP
notes that these CMPs will form the basis for the CMS. No formal CMS or MTS
Management System existed at the writing of the 1994 RTP or 1995 TIP. The RTP
states that information gathered through CMS and MTS Management Systems will be
used as future input to the RTP. Observations 1. Focus on System
Management: The region has made progress in understanding its transportation
system and is encouraged to continue to develop tools and procedures to better
understand and manage the existing system. Designation of the MTS is a good
first step in this evolving process. 2. Innovative Performance Measures:
Continued identification and application of performance measures based on users'
concerns are encouraged. This is an innovative aspect of the transportation
planning process in this region. These measures should continue to be refined
and expanded, and new opportunities for applying them to the transportation
planning and decision- making processes should be identified. D. Air Quality
and Conformity The San Francisco Bay Metropolitan Area is designated, as of,
April 1995, as an Ozone maintenance area. It had previously been designated as a
moderate non-attainment area for Ozone. The region is currently designated as a
moderate non-attainment area for CO. A request and maintenance plan have been
submitted to the appropriate agencies for re-designation as a maintenance area
for CO. The Bay Area is subject to a number of clean air plans: Federal air
quality requirements are addressed through the current State Implementation Plan
(SIP). Stricter state air quality requirements are addressed through the Bay
Area 1991 Clean Air Plan (CAP). Both plans contain Transportation Control
Measures (TCMs) for the region. The CAP was adopted by Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD), ABAG, and MTC who share responsibility for
implementation. MTC, ABAG, and the BAAQMD jointly develop and implement regional
air quality plans. The three agencies have a current Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) for preparing air quality plans which meet state and federal requirements
as specified by the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan and the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. MTC performs air quality conformity analyses for the TIP and
RTP as entire programs. However, project sponsors may be responsible for
performing CO assessments as part of the project review. Both the TIP and the
RTP address air quality through conformity analysis and through status reports
on TCM implementation. The Bay Area is subject to some 28 TCMs, which MTC, ABAG,
and BAAQMD share responsibility for implementing. Approximately eight of these
TCMs have been fully implemented or achieved. To show conformity, the TIP must
provide for timely implementation of TCMs and identify any major obstacles to
implementation. The RTP must similarly show timely implementation of the TCMs to
show conformity. Projects under consideration for inclusion in the TIP are
scored according to the probable improvement in air quality over the life cycle
of the project. E. Public Involvement Process The MTC has developed a
number of processes to inform and involve a variety of interests in the regional
transportation planning process. It has developed a Citizens Guide that provides
information about the regional transportation planning process in lay-persons'
terms and has developed a newsletter and other documents that provide
information to the public. Direct public input into the decision-making process
occurs through public meetings, forums, and advisory groups. MTC adopted a
Public Involvement Process (PIP) in January 1994. Adoption occurred following a
45-day review period. The MTC has established several advisory groups to provide
various constituencies with opportunities for involvement in the regional
transportation planning process. These include the Elderly and Disabled Advisory
Committee, the Minority Citizens Advisory Committee, and the Freight Advisory
Council. A new and broadly based group, called the MTC Advisory Council, was
established in 1995. It includes representatives from academia, business,
community, environmental and labor organizations, the freight industry,
transportation users, minority, elderly and disabled citizens, and the general
public. The MTC has developed a number of methods to receive comments from
citizens who participate in the regional transportation planning process or
receive information from the MTC. These include a tear-out requesting comments
and suggestions that is included in the Citizens' Guide, surveys of readers of
MTC's Transactions newsletter, surveys on the effectiveness of outreach
activities of citizens attending meetings convened as part of the RTP
development process, and tracking of media coverage of MTC activities. MTC is
currently looking at other methods for evaluating outreach activities, such as
the use of advisory groups to review proposed outreach plans. As a forum for key
decision makers, the Bay Area Partnership provides major input into the regional
transportation planning process. Public involvement consists of providing public
notice of Partnership meetings and ensuring that all the activities of
Partnership committees and subcommittees are open to the public.
Observations 1. Improvements to the Public Participation Process:
The MTC has made great strides in providing information to the public about the
regional transportation planning process. Further efforts, such as translating
the Citizens Guide into Spanish, Chinese, and other languages of major ethnic
communities in the region would improve this process. Evaluation procedures will
help identify strengths and weaknesses in the public involvement process and
provide information that could be used to develop methods that build on
successful efforts. 2. Expand Public Access to the Partnership: The
regional planning process should continue to identify opportunities to improve
public participation in and access to activities of the Partnership. Considering
the important role played by the Partnership, increased opportunity for public
involvement would enhance public understanding of and input into the regional
transportation planning process and help accomplish the ISTEA goal of proactive
public participation. F. Fifteen Factors Through its focus on
maintaining, rehabilitating, managing and operating the existing MTS, the RTP
addresses many of the ISTEA Fifteen Factors including: system preservation,
connectivity, management systems, transit improvements, and transit safety.
Transit related factors are specifically addressed through the operators
Short-Range Transit Plans (SRTPs). In addition, the definition of the MTS
addresses some of the factors, such as connectivity. Intermodal access is
addressed through the inclusion of transfer points in the MTS. Other factors
specifically considered as part of the regional transportation planning process
in this region include land use, impact on the environment, life-cycle costs,
and economic effect of transportation planning decisions. Land use is considered
through the use of ABAG data. The PMS and the Transit Capital Replacement Model
consider life-cycle costs. All significant projects are subject to an air
quality conformity analysis, as well as an Environmental Impact Review (EIR)
process that addresses economic effect as well as environmental impacts. A
summary description of how the planning process considered, analyzed, and
reflected the ISTEA Fifteen Factors in the planning process products is included
in the 1994 RTP. In addition to the RTP, other products of the planning process
reflect consideration and analysis of the Fifteen Factors. The TIP project
screening process requires that every project address at least one of the
factors, and specific factors are integrated into scoring criteria used when
making regional transportation investment decisions. These are specifically
included in the Transit Capital Priorities Scoring Criteria and the Multi-Modal
Scoring Criteria. ABAG's land use forecast is a starting point for all MISs.
VI. Integration of Strategic Transportation Planning

One of the major goals of ISTEA is to support the integration of

strategic planning across transportation modes in metropolitan areas.

A goal of the planning process in the San Francisco Bay metropolitan

area is to improve management of the existing transportation system.

In combination, these goals require integration of planning processes

between modal operators and from mode to mode. This region has taken

specific actions to improve the integration of transit planning across

transit operators and has worked to better integrate freight

transportation planning into the broader transportation planning

process.

A. Transit Planning

Transit operators participate in the regional transportation planning

process through their membership in the Partnership. Each transit

operator is responsible for developing Short Range Transit Plans

(SRTPs) which describe service and financial plans and capital

improvement programs. The SRTP provides input for the Plan and TIP

development process. Projects must be included in a transit agency's

SRTP to be considered for inclusion in the TIP. The SRTP also serves

as an input into the development of capital and operational MTS

improvement strategies which are inputs into the RTP.

SRTPs are ten-year plans developed under guidelines established by the

MTC. SRTP service plans must be financially constrained in accordance

with the MTC's regional financial forecast and other identifiable

sources. This stipulation was developed as a response to ISTEA

requirements for financially constrained Plans and TIPs.

B. Intermodal, Freight, and Port Planning

Participants in the regional transportation planning process have

identified freight transportation as a major issue and are in the

process of improving freight planning capabilities. To better address

this issue, the MTC established the Freight Advisory Council in 1992

to obtain advice on freight issues and help identify and implement

effective strategies to improve freight mobility in the Bay Area. The

Council has enhanced the region's planning process by providing a

direct source of information on freight transportation issues. For

example, the Council developed forty suggestions for improving freight

mobility.

The Partnership provides a forum for highway, transit, and ports to

address regional transportation issues. To improve intermodal

planning, the MTC recently hired a consultant to develop intermodal

performance measures designed to track how efficiently and effectively

the region's transportation system is serving residents and shippers.

The report on this first stage of performance measure development

identifies seven key mobility objectives and performance measures

which apply to freight and passenger movement.

Representatives from the Freight Advisory Council sit on the MTC

Advisory Council. The flow of information is two-way--from the

freight representatives to the planners on freight concerns and from

the planners to the freight representatives on regional concerns,

including ISTEA expectations. This helps the MTC understand how its

policy decisions can affect the freight industry and helps the freight

industry understand how its interests relate to other transportation

interests in the region. The freight industry, through the Freight

Advisory Council and the MTC Advisory Council, and the Port of

Oakland, as a member of the Bay Area Partnership, have assisted the

MTC in its efforts to develop multimodal TIP project selection

criteria.

Observations

1. Freight Planning: The regional transportation planning process

has identified the importance of goods movement in the region. This

has been demonstrated by the active participation of the Freight

Advisory Council in all facets of the regional planning process,

including the development of TIP project selection criteria.

VII. Travel Demand Forecasting

MTC is in the process of updating the travel demand forecasting

process by re-estimating trip generation, trip distribution, and mode

choice models. As part of this process, MTC is moving from Urban

Transportation Planning System (UTPS) software to a micro-computer

based software package called MINUTP for use in developing the

regional highway and transit network. This has allowed MTC to expand

the zonal system from 700 zones to 1100 zones. This process also

involved re-coding the entire transit network since the change to

MINUTP involved a change from UNET, the transit network building

system it had been using. UNET did not relate transit speeds in the

model to highway speeds. The new system, called INET, integrates the

transit network system and allows for this relationship. The UTPS

system was used for the 1994 RTP and the 1995 TIP.

The existing Trip Generation Models are linear equations that estimate

the work-trip generation rate independently for primary and secondary

workers as a linear function of income, household size, and employment

density in the workplace zone. External and through trips are added

in an "off -model" fashion. Data sources are not identified in

documentation provided. The existing Trip Distribution models are

logit models for the home-based work trips and gravity for the other

trip purposes. Existing mode choice models are logit models. The

work trips mode choice model is a multinomial logit with choice sets

transit, drive alone, shared ride two, and shared ride three or more

passengers. The non-work mode choice models are binomial logit

models.

MTC uses an incremental assignment process. MTC typically forecasts

for the AM peak period and the midday period. Future year speeds and

travel conditions are supplied to ABAG for use in projecting the next

series of demographic forecasts.

The model has the following elements:

- Model inputs include demographic, economic and land use data

supplied by ABAG, zonal levels of service including parking

costs, "terminal times," and transportation network levels of

service including travel times and costs.

- Households in each zone are then stratified into households

with workers and households without workers. Auto ownership

is modeled separately for working and non-working households:

auto ownership for working households is a multinomial logic

model which considers ownership of one, two, or three or more

cars. Auto ownership for non-working households is a binomial

logit model.

- Trip generation is stratified by trip purposes: home-based

work trips, home-based shop trips, home-based

social/recreational trips, and non-home-based trips. In the

updated models, MTC will also use trip generation techniques

to model home-based school trips, which are currently handled

in an "off-model" fashion. Work trips are generated for both

primary and secondary workers, where the primary worker is

defined as the head-of-household as reported in survey data.

- Trip Distribution currently employs a logit model for home-

based work trips and gravity models for home-based shop, home-

based social/recreational, and non-home based trips.

- Mode Choice is also stratified according to work and non-work

trips. Mode choice for work trips uses a multinomial logit

model which considers transit, drive alone, shared-ride two,

and shared-ride-three-or-more passengers. Primary and

secondary worker characteristics are also considered. Non-

work mode choice models are binomial logit models concerning

transit or auto. The current work mode choice model separates

walk and drive access to transit, so that the two access modes

do not compete. This has been noted in peer reviews as

problematic, since both access modes are possible for most

system users.

- MTC uses an incremental highway assignment process which

assigns trips to a peak period of one hour. MTC has been

exploring the possibility of modeling peak hour spreading to a

two-to three-hour period.

In 1992, MTC convened a peer review panel to evaluate its modeling

process. The panel made a number of recommendations to improve the

forecasting process. These included:

- MTC could simplify the overall structure of the forecasting

process. The number of choice models make the process very

complex, and replacement of some choice models would make the

process easier to understand.

- MTC should explore ways of modeling the effects of peak

spreading on the highway system.

- MTC should use software which integrates transit speeds in

mixed traffic with highway speeds.

- The MTC model should recognize that most travelers who can

walk to transit can also drive to transit.

- MTC should employ weights in transit path building to ensure

consistency between path- building and mode choice analysis.

- MTC should consider using the path-builder only to identify

the best path of a given class (bus, BART, commuter rail, LRT,

etc.) and employ a path-choice model to allocate trips among

these competing paths.

- MTC should represent walk and drive access to transit as

competing choices.

- MTC should consider stratifying the trip distribution process

by a socio-economic variable (income or auto-ownership).

- MTC should evaluate the difficulties experienced by the

distribution models in developing projected travel patterns

consistent with land use projections.

- MTC should carefully evaluate the implications of projected

increases in real household incomes.

- The review also acknowledged that MTC's modeling

responsibilities might be better served by the addition of one

or two staff positions.

The peer review helped MTC to develop a Strategic Plan for modeling

activities. This plan, developed in 1992, describes a number of

actions to improve the modeling process. These include:

- In moving to MINUTP, the highway and transit network coding

has been reviewed (and in the case of transit, completely

redone). In general the networks have been improved.

- Changes to trip generation will include the addition of models

for home-based-school trips which used to be added in a post-

model process. MTC may consider special generators by travel

analysis zone in their new models. Alternative market

segmentation may be explored (current segmentation is for

primary and secondary workers).

- No major changes to the trip distribution model.

- Potential mode choice model changes include a nested home-

based work model which will first make a choice between

transit and auto, secondarily make a choice between drive

alone and carpool, and thirdly choose between shared ride two

and shared ride three or more passengers. The current model

chooses from all four options in one step.

- Traffic assignment changes will include potential revisions of

the speed/capacity delay curves and the possibility of

modeling peak spreading.

In 1994 MTC and other transportation planning agencies formed a

Modeling Coordination Subcommittee in the region (including the CMAs)

to study how to improve coordination of modeling processes and data

used throughout the region. The Subcommittee's report made

recommendations on strategies for maintaining regional data and

assuring model consistency. One result of this process is that the

MTC is developing a simplified version of the regional model to be

used by Congestion Management Agencies and other participants in the

regional transportation planning process.

Planned changes to the regional forecasting and modeling process

include running the model from a PC platform, developing new sets of

mode choice models, and updating data. The new model will include

bicycle and pedestrian trips and will use new data collected from a

household survey completed in 1990. Additional data will be collected

in a household survey scheduled for completion in 1996.

MTC is one of a number of organizations that collects transportation,

economic, and land use data and does forecasting and modeling in the

region. ABAG collects regional economic and land use data and

produces employment, population, land use, and other forecasts.

Caltrans collects transportation data through its Highway Performance

Monitoring System (HPMS). Coordinating these different forecasting

and modeling processes, particularly reaching agreement on assumptions

and using data from other sources to validate model results, is a

challenge in the region. For example, ABAG forecasts for a twenty-

year period relative to the most recent decennial census. This period

does not always conform to the period covered in the RTP. ABAG does

provide longer range forecasts when requested to do so by MTC. The

MTC does not use the HPMS data, which has led to discrepancies between

HPMS and the MTC model results.

Observations

1. Consistency of Regional Models: Agencies responsible for

collecting data and forecasting and modeling should use the

recommendations of the Modeling Coordination Subcommittee as a basis

for working together more effectively. Other models should be

consistent with the regional model. This will strengthen the regional

planning process and enhance coordination and cooperation. This

should lead to greater consistency of data and assumptions used in

developing inputs to models and forecasts and in the results of these

models and forecasts. MTC and ABAG should consider ways to strengthen

integration of transportation and land use modeling and planning. For

example, ABAG should provide timely forecasts to MTC for the planning

period MTC uses for the RTP.

2. Validation of Travel Demand Forecasts: The region should

identify procedures to validate model results including collecting

data to support validation on a disaggregate basis by geography, by

mode, and by trip type. The agencies involved with travel demand

forecasts should work together to resolve important questions about

the reliability of HPMS as a source of data for validation.

3. Simplified Versions of Models: The review team encourages the

development, initiated by MTC and coordinated with potential users, of

a simplified and user friendly version of the regional model which

could be used by the counties.

4. Peer Review of Model Enhancements: MTC has benefited from past

peer reviews of its modeling process. The review team encourages MTC

to bring experts from outside the region to review the enhancements of

the regional model along with the simplified version of the model.

VIII. Meeting with Representatives of the General Public and Local

Elected Officials

The review team met with members of MTC's advisory groups to receive

public input on the planning process. The meeting was part of the

review of the public involvement process and was held at MTC on

November 2, 1996. Members of the Advisory Council, the Minority

Citizens Advisory Committee, the Elderly and Disabled Advisory

Committee, and the Freight Advisory Council participated in this

meeting. They all were satisfied with the role they play in the

regional transportation planning process. A member of the Minority

Citizens Advisory Council noted that, while the Council was not a

policy body, it did serve as "the eyes and ears of those who can't

come to the MTC." A representative of the Elderly and Disabled

Advisory Committee identified its role as maintaining services for

elderly and disabled citizens and helping to address operational

issues. An example provided was accessibility of call boxes installed

as part of the region's incident management system.

A member of the Emeryville City Council, who sits on the Alameda

County CMA, provided an elected official's perspective on the regional

transportation planning process. This meeting was held at MTC on

November 1, 1996. She identified resources as the major issue facing

both her CMA and the MTC. She noted that the CMA is good at

identifying county needs, and that the MTC is good at identifying

regional needs. The value she sees in the MTC process is that it

provides a forum for regional needs to be identified and for CMAs to

work cooperatively to identify ways to address these regional needs.

This provides a parallel context for CMAs to address county needs.

She believes the process would be improved if there was less

duplication of effort. She specifically identified separate processes

needed to meet state and federal environmental regulations.

Conclusion

As reflected in the observations throughout this overview, the federal

team identified several areas where the MPO and the participating

agencies in the local transportation planning process have

successfully implemented comprehensive and coordinated planning

practices consistent with ISTEA. In particular, these include the

following areas:

- Establishment of effective partnerships, including the Bay

Area Partnership, to guide the regional transportation

planning process.

- Rigorous financial planning and analysis.

- Development of TIP selection criteria based on a variety of

performance measures, including performance measures based on

users' concerns.

- Focusing the transportation planning process on effective

management of the transportation system.

- Bringing the freight transport industry into the regional

transportation planning process.

- Assuring consistency between the region's transportation plans

and programs and those developed by transit operators and

CMAs.

Conversely, the federal team identified specific areas that could be

addressed to improve the transportation planning process in the San

Francisco Bay Area. These include:

- Looking beyond the programming focus of the current regional

transportation plan.

- Completion of Track-Two, which would help the region identify

new funding sources for future improvements to the

transportation system.

- More consistency in assumptions and data used in the various

forecasting and modeling processes being undertaken in the

region.

- Strengthening integration of transportation and land use

modeling and planning.

- Clarifying roles and responsibilities in the MIS process and

establishing a framework for reaching consensus among

participating agencies.

Significant progress has been made in the regional transportation

planning process in the San Francisco Bay Area. This is an evolving

process and more is expected, both by local partners and the Federal

government, in the future.

Appendix A.

Membership and Voting, Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Representative of Board Members Votes

Association of Bay Area Governments 1 1

Alameda County 1 1

Cites of Alameda County 1 1

Contra Costa County 1 1

Cities of Contra Costa County 1 1

Marin County and Cities 1 1

Napa County 1 1

San Francisco Bay Conservation

and Development Commission 1 1

San Francisco County 1 1

San Francisco Mayor's Appointee 1 1

San Mateo County 1 1

Cities of San Mateo County 1 1

Santa Clara County 1 1

Cities of Santa Clara County 1 1

Solano County and Cities 1 1

Sonoma County and Cities 1 1

State of California Business,

Transportation, and Housing Agency 1 0

U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development 1 0

U.S. Department of Transportation 1 0

__ __

Total 19 16

Notes: The region has no provision for weighted voting. Transit

agencies participate through the Regional Transit Coordinating

Committee and the Bay Area Partnership.

Appendix B.

Participants in the San Francisco Bay Area EPR

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Lawrence Dahms, Executive Director

William Hein, Deputy Director

Chris Brittle

Jennifer Cheng

Chi Amy Chow

Joseph DaCunha

Ann Flemer

Karen Frick

Jeff Georgevich

Steve Heminger

Al Huerby

Brenda Kahn

Valerie Knepper

Richard Lou

Keith Mattson

Therese McMillan

Jay Miyazaki

Reginald Nugent

Chuck Purvis

David Tannehill

MTC Advisory Committees/Councils

Elderly and Disabled Advisory Committee

August Lonzo

Miriam Gholikely

Minority Citizen Advisory Committee

Miriam Gholikely, Chair

Freight Advisory Council

Steve Gregory, Port of Oakland

Stan Randolph, California Trucking Association

Advisory Council

Russell Hancock, Bay Area Council

David Jones and Associates David Jones, MTC Consultant
Association of Bay Area Governments Eugene L. Leong
Caltrans Gary F. Adams Jack Allen J. Steven Borroun Bruce Couchman
Nancy Knofler Rebecca Shaffer Victor R. Zeuzem California Air Resources
Board Eric Simon Transit Operators BART Mimi Bauer
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Paul Maxwell Martin Engelmann
Golden Gate Transit Alan Zahradnik Livermore/Amador Valley Transit
Authority Vic Sood SamTrans/JPB-CalTrain Ian McAvoy San Francisco
Municipal Railway Jim Nelson Local Government Alameda
County CMA Nora Davis, CMA Vice Chair, Member of the Emeryville City Council
Jean Hart Dennis Fay Contra County CMA John Ponte San Francisco County
Transportation Authority Brigid Hynes-Cherin City of Vallejo Pamela
Belchamber RIDES John Hirten

University of California-Berkeley Political
Science Department Judy Gruber Institute for Urban and Regional
Development Kazuya Kauamanta Ray LaRaja Appendix C. Agenda for Enhanced
Planning Review Site Visit FHWA/FTA Enhanced Planning Review of the San
Francisco Bay Area October 31 to November 3, 1995 Tuesday, October 31, 1995
Location: Third Floor Conference Room MTC-MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 9:00 - 9:15 Introductions--Objectives of the Enhanced Planning
Review Bob Hom, FTA Region IX Erv Poka, FHWA Region 9 Ron Fisher, FTA
Headquarters 9:15 - 9:30 Overview of the Enhanced Planning Review William Lyons
Format for all sessions--Brief Volpe Center update and overview of local
approach to topic by regional agencies followed by discussion with Federal Team.
All local agencies are encouraged to participate throughout the review. 9:30 -
10:00 Regional Transportation Issues (Trends--Economic, Demographic, etc.)
Discussion Leader Bob Hom Local Participants MTC lead - Lawrence Dahms ABAG,
Partnership Steering Committee, Transit Operators 10:00 - 11:00 Organization of
the Planning Process Focus: Institutional Relationships, e.g., the Bay Area
Partnership and the Association of Bay Area Governments Discussion Leader
Spencer Stevens Local Participants MTC lead - Bill Hein ABAG, Partnership
Steering Committee, Transit Operators 11:00 Break 11:00 - 12:00 Regional
Transportation Plan Development Process Discussion Leader Steve Guhin Local
Participants MTC lead - Chris Brittle Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs),
Caltrans, Transit Operators 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 1:45 Corridor Studies and
Major Investment Studies Discussion Leader Bob O'Loughlin Local Participants MTC
lead - Chris Brittle, CMAs, Caltrans, Transit Operators 1:45 - 3:00 TIP
Development Process Focus: Project Selection, Multimodal Priority Setting, and
TIP Amendments Discussion Leader Spencer Stevens Local Participants MTC lead -
Therese McMillan CMAs, Caltrans, Transit Operators 3:00 - 3:15 Break
CONCURRENT SESSIONS 3:15 - 5:00 Intermodal Planning Focus: Integration
and coordination of air, rail, and marine freight movement and air, rail, and
highway movement of people. Discussion Leader Erv Poka Local Participants MTC
lead - Keith Mattson Port of Oakland, Freight Advisory Council 3:15 - 5:00
Travel Demand Forecasting Discussion Leader Ron Fisher Local Participants MTC
lead - Chuck Purvis ABAG, Santa Clara, Contra Costa CMA Wednesday, November
1, 1995 8:30 - 9:00 Summary Report of Travel Demand Forecasting Discussion
Leader Ron Fisher Local Participants MTC lead - Chuck Purvis ABAG, Caltrans 9:00
- 10:15 Air Quality and Conformity Discussion Leader Bob O'Loughlin Local
Participants MTC lead - David Tannehill Caltrans, BAAQMD, CARB 10:15 - 10:30
Break 10:30 - 12:00 Integration of Long-Range and Strategic Transportation
Planning Focus: Regional Integration of Planning Processes and Integration of
Strategic Transit Planning Discussion Leader Jerome Wiggins Local Participants
MTC lead - Ann Flemer Transit Operators 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 2:30 Financial
Planning and Financial Constraint Discussion Leader Bob Hom Local Participants
MTC lead - Therese McMillan 3:00 - 5:00 Opportunity for general public or
elected officials to meet with the review team. Discussion Leader Bob Hom/Erv
Poka Local Participants MTC lead - Chris Brittle CMAs and elected officials
Thursday, November 2, 1995 9:00 - 10:00 Management of the Transportation
System Focus: Congestion Pricing and Management Systems Discussion Leader
Spencer Stevens Local Participants MTC lead - Bill Hein Consultant 10:15 - 12:00
Public Involvement Process Discussion Leader Donna Turchie Local Participants
MTC lead - Steve Heminger Minority Citizens Advisory Committee; Citizens
Advisory Committee; Alameda CMA; Elderly and Disabled Advisory Committee 12:00 -
1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 2:00 Open Session May include topics already discussed or
additional topics such as the ISTEA Fifteen Factors. 2:00 - 4:30 Federal team
meets to discuss close-out observations. Friday, November 3, 1995 8:30 -
10:00 Federal Team Presentation of Preliminary Findings and MPO Staff Response
Appendix D. List of Documents Received and Reviewed

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Letter from Robert E. Hom,

Director, Office of Program Development to Lawrence D. Dahms, MTC

Executive Director, RE: MTC's 1996-200 Draft Overall Work Program,

March 15, 1995.

Jones, David, The Altamont Corridor Study: The First Sketch of an

Agenda for Planning-An Issue Paper, May, 1994.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), 1994 Regional

Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, June, 1994.

MTC, 1994 Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area,

Appendices, June 22, 1994.

MTC, 1995 Programming: Applications for Surface Transportation Funds;

MTC Resolution No. 2835, September 27, 1995.

MTC, 1995 Programming: Applications for Surface Transportation Funds;

MTC Resolution No. 2835, Memorandum from the Deputy Executive Director

to the Work Program Committee, September 8, 1995.

MTC, 1996 Regional Transportation Plan Development, Memorandum from

the Executive Director to the Work Program Committee, July 14, 1995.

MTC, 1996-2000 Overall Work Program for the San Francisco Bay Area,

Final, May, 1995.

MTC, Citizens' Guide to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,

May, 1995.

MTC, Conformity Group Task Force Meeting Announcement, Monday, March

13, 1995, Memorandum, February 23, 1995.

MTC, FTA Program of Projects in the Nine-County San Francisco Bay

Area, FY 1994-95, January 25, 1995.

MTC, Freight Planning at MTC, Memorandum from Chris Brittle to Keith

Matson describing MTC Freight Planning activities. Includes

attachments. October 9, 1995.

MTC, Letter to FY 1995 Program of Projects Recipient from William F.

Hein, Deputy Executive Director, February 3, 1995.

MTC, Letter to Steve Guhin, Chief, Planning and Research FHWA Region

9, California Division from Lawrence Dahms, Executive Director,

regarding screening of 1994 RTP-listed projects by their applicability

to the Federal regulations on Major Investment Study procedures,

February 3, 1995.

MTC, Letter to Stewart F. Taylor, FTA from Sara MacKusick, OWP

Coordinator, May 19, 1995.

MTC, Project level CO Guidance, Memorandum from David Tannehill to the

Conformity Task Force, September 21, 1995.

MTC, I-80 Corridor Study-Phase 2- Request for Proposals (RFP),

(Undated).

MTC, MTC Training Course on Discreet Choice Models, Memorandum from

Chuck Purvis, MTC to Chris Fleet, FHWA Planning Support Branch, et al.

September 8, 1995.

MTC, Meeting Notice, January 30, 1995, Includes attachments. January

31, 1995.

MTC, North Bay Corridor Study, Meeting Agenda and Statement of

Principles for the North Bay Corridor Study, September 29, 1995.

MTC, MTC Planning Assessment, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board -

Cal Train, FY 1995-1996, (Undated).

MTC, RFP: Altamont Corridor Study, (Undated).

MTC, Research Design and Strategic Plan; Bay Area Regional

Database/Transportation Demand Models and Travel Forecasting, May,

1992.

MTC, Transactions, September, 1995.

MTC, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Nine-County San

Francisco Bay Area, 1995 Volume 1; Introduction/Transit Element,

October 5, 1994.

MTC, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Nine-County San
Francisco Bay Area, 1995 Volume 2; Highway Element, October 5, 1994. MTC,
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Nine-County San Francisco
Bay Area, 1995 Volume 3; Part A-ISTEA Flexible Funds: The Surface Transportation
Program and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program; Part B-Air
Quality Assessment, October 5, 1994. Mutlitrans, Traffic Impact Study;
San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan, prepared for MTC, September, 1995.
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc. and Associated Consultants, A
Review of the Travel Forecasting Process Maintained by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission for the San Francisco Bay Area, Prepared for the
MTC and UMTA, December, 1992. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Cal
Train Short-Range Transit Plan, FY 1995/1996 to FY 2004/2005, Building the
Future, September, 1995 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
(BART), Bay Area Rapid Transit District, 1995 Planning Assessment, June
20, 1995. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), Capital
Improvement Program, July 1995 Through June 2005, FY 1996 - FY 2005,
September 14, 1995. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART),
Short-Range Transit Plan, July 1995 Through June 2005, Fiscal Years 1996 -
2005, September 14, 1995. San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni), Capital
Improvement Program, 1995-2004, DRAFT, July 1, 1995. San Francisco Municipal
Railway (Muni), Planning Assessment, San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni),
FY 1995-1996, (Undated).