P L A N N I N G FOR T H E NO R T H E R N
C A L I F OR N I A ME G A R E G IO N
Coordinating Transportation and Land Use in the
I- 80/ Capitol Corridor
Association of Bay Area Governments
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Sacramento Area Council of Govenments
Solano Transportation Authority
Inside Front Cover —
maybe list credits ( Roster?) and/ or
partners?
see “ Smarter Choices” for format
P L A N N I N G FO R T H E NOR T H E R N
C A L I F OR N I A ME G A R E G IO N
Coordinating Transportation and Land Use in the
I- 80/ Capitol Corridor
January 2009
Published by
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Planning Section
Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
www. mtc. ca. gov
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
1
INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________________ 2
I. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE FORECASTS
1.1 Demographic Forecasts ______________________________________ 4
1.2 Existing Travel Patterns and Future Forecasts ______________ 6
II. ALTERNATE FUTURES: THE IMPLICATION OF DIFFERENT
CORRIDOR GROWTH SCENARIOS
2.1 Defining Alternative Land Use Scenarios ____________________ 8
2.2 Modeling Results — Statewide Travel Model ______________ 8
III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Key Study Findings ____________________________________________ 13
3.2 Interregional Summit __________________________________________ 13
3.3 Recommendations ____________________________________________ 14
IV. APPENDICES ____________________________________________________________ 17
T A B L E OF CO N T E N T S
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
2
As California’s population continues to expand and the state’s economy
is making adjacent regions ever more reliant on one another, the artificial
boundaries that divide traditional regions from
one another are proving to be increasingly
irrelevant. The “ real world” of housing
markets, employers, goods movement
— and even environmental realities
such as air pollution — pay little
attention to where one region stops
and another starts as the boundaries
have been traditionally defined. More
recently the growing interdependence of
neighboring regions has led to the emergence of so- called “ megaregions”
— super- regions that encompass multiple metropolitan areas.
As the organization America 2050 explains:
“… the forces of sprawl and lengthening commutes between the coast and
central valley in Northern California — with negative impacts in both regions
— highlight the fact that growth in California has outgrown the “ metropolitan”
approach. However resistant the regions may be to a shared identity, the need
for a planning process that includes a much larger area is underscored by the
spillover growth that is threatening the quality of life and the environment in
Northern California.”
I N T ROD U C T ION
FPO
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
3
The growing economic relationship between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento region
has started to suggest the emergence of just such a “ megaregion” over the last two decades. Yet as this
interdependence between the two regions has grown, the ability of governmental agencies in each
region to understand, predict and coordinate planning efforts related to transportation, air quality and
growth has been woefully inadequate. Planning agencies responsible for growth and transportation
currently have very little ability to “ see” beyond their traditional regional boundaries. There are
numerous problems associated with this inability to plan and
coordinate at a megaregional scale, including:
understanding or agreement on how land use
decisions in one region will effect travel
patterns in the other,
minimal capacity to accurately forecast
— and thus plan for — future
interregional travel and goods movement
demand,
a diminished ability to forecast greenhouse
gas impacts from different growth patterns
that may show a greater “ benefit” from
minimizing development without accounting for the
potential for spillover growth in surrounding regions, and
missed opportunities to secure new funding for transportation corridors that provide important
interregional travel benefits
In 2006, a group of planning agencies along the I- 80/ Capitol Corridor launched a new interregional
study focused on both the freeway and rail corridor. The study encompassed Solano, Yolo,
Sacramento and Placer counties— and as such took an important “ megaregional” perspective on land
use and transportation. The goals of the study were:
To promote a better understanding of transportation and air quality impacts of smart growth
planning for a heavily traveled corridor;
To build a stronger link between local plans, interregional forecasts and smart growth planning;
To coordinate future transportation investments and land use planning;
To improve and coordinate growth forecasts for both regions;
To develop a model for interregional cooperation that could assist similar efforts statewide.
The study was guided by an interregional steering committee comprised of staff from the regional
agencies, Caltrans, regional air districts, and local governments along the corridor, along with
representatives from economic, equity and environmental interests. This report documents the study
findings and makes important recommendations for improving interregional planning and coordination
that are relevant for the many interregional corridors that connect metropolitan areas throughout the
state of California. The findings and recommendations from this study also take on even greater
significance given the passage of AB32 ( the California GlobalWarming Solutions Act of 2006) and
SB375, the latter of which will require regions to work together to develop more accurate
interregional travel forecasts.
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
4
1.1 Demographic Forecasts
In the Sacramento region, demographic projections are developed by the Sacramento Area Council of
Governments ( SACOG). While SACOG had developed “ trends- based” demographic projections
— like most other regional planning agencies— up until the early 2000s, officials in the region were
growing increasingly dissatisfied with the implications of “ business as usual” growth, particularly future
modeling forecasts that predicted increasingly dispersed employment patterns, longer commutes and a
significant loss of open space.
In 2004, and after several years of intensive outreach and public input, SACOG adopted an
alternative growth scenario — known as ‘ Blueprint’ — for the six county region that forecast
considerable changes from the traditional approach to development. Under Blueprint, SACOG is
projecting changes that pull much of the anticipated growth in housing and employment away from the
edges of the region and back into the urbanized areas. Most new growth that does occur on the edges
will likely consist of mixed use, providing a better jobs/ housing balance right from the start.
Sacramento County will see more housing growth in the City of Sacramento and in the urbanized
unincorporated area. Employment growth will be less concentrated in the downtown and Rancho
Cordova jobs centers and more evenly distributed among the various jurisdictions. Placer County will
see less housing growth on the periphery and more within jurisdictions. The unincorporated part of the
County west of Roseville will see significant but balanced growth in both housing and employment
with less reliance on the central Roseville jobs center. Yolo County retains much of its rural character
due to slow growth policies, adoption of growth boundaries, and exceptionally fertile farmland. Total
growth projected for the county remains about the same, but is redistributed among the jurisdictions.
In the Bay Area, land use planning and transportation
responsibilities are split between two regional
planning agencies. The Association of Bay
Area Governments ( ABAG) serves as the
Council of Governments for the nine- county
Bay Area and assumes responsibility for land
use coordination, housing, demographic and
economic forecasts among many other
regional planning responsibilities. The
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
( MTC) serves as the Metropolitan Planning
Organization for the nine- county Bay Area and
assumes responsibility for transportation planning,
financing and coordination.
ABAG has published biennial demographic projections for the San Francisco Bay Area since the early
1970s. Prior to Projections 2003, ABAG’s projections were “ base case” forecasts predicated in
part on historic land use trends and existing local development policies contained in city and county
general plans. Starting with Projections 2003, ABAG began publishing policy- based projections.
The first policy- based Projections in 2003 assumed the following:
Local smart growth policies show results beginning in 2010
More development occurring in central cities and older suburbs
Greater support for public transit, walking and bicycling
I . E X I S T I N G CON D I T IO N S A N D F U T U R E F OR E C A S T S
FPO
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
5
Increases in the assumed level of housing production from
2010 to 2030
While Projections 2003 lowered the number of forecast jobs by
2030 and increased housing supply, the forecast still fell short of
achieving a regional jobs- housing balance. The subsequent
Regional Transportation Plan ( RTP) prepared by MTC in 2005
forecast an increase of 220,000 incommuters to the Bay Area
from surrounding counties by 2030.
For Solano County, ABAG initially projected considerably more
household growth in the county’s southern cities under the policy-based
Projections 2003 compared to Projections 2002.
However, ABAG’s most recent Projections 2007 has pulled
back some of these more aggressive assumptions regarding future
growth for Vallejo due to city staff concerns over where and how
increases in development could be accommodated.
While the location of future growth within Solano County has
trended away from the initial south county emphasis under
Projections 2003, the more recent Projections forecasts have
continued to improve the future jobs- housing balance for the
county overall. In Projections 2007, Solano County is projected
to have 16,840 fewer households in 2030 than was forecast previously under Projections 2002
and an additional 11,940 jobs. Despite this trend, however, Solano County will likely continue to
have an excess of employed residents vs. jobs through 2030— and will continue to have a significant
portion of its jobs held by commuters from surrounding counties— thus continuing the current trend of
requiring many of its employed residents to commute elsewhere for work.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000 Population
Jobs
CHART 1: Population and Employment Changes 2005– 2035
by Incorporated vs. Unincorporated Areas
Placer
County
Placer
County
Cities
Sacramento
County
Sacramento
County
Cities
Yolo
County
Yolo
County
Cities
Solano
County
Solano
County
Cities
ABSOLUTE CHANGE 2005– 2035
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
6
1.2 Existing Travel Patterns and Future Forecasts
Existing Travel Patterns
The I- 80 gateway between Sacramento and the Bay Area is
currently the second busiest interregional gateway in northern
California behind I- 580 ( the Altamont Pass between Alameda
and San Joaquin counties). While the I- 580 gateway experiences
significant congestion in the morning and evening peak commuting
hours, traffic volumes at the I- 80 gateway are somewhat more
evenly spread throughout the day and week. This more even spread
of congestion across the week may actually make the application of
such innovations as High Occupancy Toll ( HOT) lanes— which
require significant peak hour congestion that drivers would be
willing to pay to avoid— more difficult to implement.
Rail ridership on the Capitol Corridor intercity train service has
grown significantly over the last decade. Carrying 1.5 million
passengers per year, it is now the third busiest Amtrak corridor in
the nation.
Existing Travel Models
There are a variety of existing travel models that are all used to
produce future travel demand forecasts for the I- 80 and Capitol
Corridor. They include:
Regional travel models used by MTC and SACOG end at the jurisdictional boundaries
of each region.
CHART 2: 2007 Gateway Traffic— MTC and SACOG Regions Alameda/
San Joaquin
I- 580
Solano/
Yolo
I- 80
Santa Cruz/
Santa Clara
HWY 17
Solano/
Sacramento
HWY 12
Butte/
Sutter
HWY 99
Contra Costa/
San Joaquin
HWY 4
Sacramento/
San Joaquin
HWY 99
Nevada/ CA
State Line
HWY 50
Nevada/ CA
State Line
I- 80
Sacramento/
San Joaquin
I- 580
Yolo/
San Joaquin
I- 5
San Benito/
Santa Clara
U. S. 101
Mendocino/
Sonoma
U. S. 101
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC ( AADT)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
7
The Napa- Solano Travel Model, used by the Solano Transportation Authority and significantly
upgraded as a part of this study, is one of the few “ interregional” travel models that covers 16
counties in both the Bay Area and Sacramento regions and reflects the current demographic
forecasts for each area.
The Statewide Travel Model ( also known as the " high speed rail model") was recently upgraded
to provide forecasting for the proposed statewide high speed rail network. This travel model also
provides air travel and auto travel forecasts for the entire state, though to date it has been focused
on geographic areas of the state where the high speed rail system is planned, particularly San
Francisco to Los Angeles.
Discrepancies Among Travel Model Forecasts
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly for those not
familiar with travel model forecasts, it is
seldom expected among modeling experts
that different travel models will produce
similar forecasts. Travel models are best
suited at internal comparisons of
alternatives within each model.
The following summary highlights the
discrepancies among the different
travel models:
Gateway traffic volumes at the
80/ 505 interchange near the
Yolo/ Solano border are forecast to be
higher by 2030 under the SACOG
model than either the Napa- Solano model or
theMTC model;
The Napa- Solano Travel Model forecasts a 55% increase in southbound traffic volumes on the
Benicia Bridge ( I- 680) to over 16,000 peak period vehicles while the MTC model forecasts
10% growth to 13,000.
By 2030, the Napa- Solano model forecasts a significant increase in the incommute from the
SACOG region into Solano County along Highway 12 at the Rio Vista Bridge, while theMTC
travel model shows a slight increase in the outcommute from Solano County into the SACOG
region.
These discrepancies, while anticipated among the different models, nevertheless point to a critical need for
the establishment of shared data and modeling protocols among the various agencies and highlight the
importance of a single statewide travel model to provide more accurate forecasting of interregional trips.
Freight Demand Along the I- 80/ Capitol Corridor
Both I- 80 and the Capitol Corridor are major freight corridors, handling a significant volume of goods
both on the highway and along the rail corridor related in large part to the Port of Oakland.
Unfortunately, very little detailed data exists on current interregional goods movement flows, and
existing travel models are poorly equipped to forecast freight demand into the future. Notwithstanding
these constraints, it is possible to offer general conclusions regarding current and future goods
movement patterns along the corridor:
Most of the inbound and outbound shipments to and from the counties that encompass the I- 80
corridor, come from and go to other cities in the San Francisco and Sacramento regions. This means
that the I- 80 freeway corridor serves mainly to distribute goods that are locally consumed as well
as produced regionally or brought in bulk from national or international markets to central Bay Area
facilities ( e. g. Port of Oakland). The main mode to transport goods is truck followed by rail in
terms of both tonnage and value, with the truck mode representing around 70 percent of total
shipments, while the rail mode accounting for almost 4 percent of total shipments.
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
8
The Port ofOakland, a major trip generator and trip attractor along the I- 80 Corridor, is expected
to double its current 2.3 million TEU by 2012 and quadruple them by 2020. Such growth will
necessarily impact ground transportation of both truck and rail modes. Based on ITMS forecasts,
truck and rail modes are forecasted to increase in the next ten
years — 43 and 25 percent for inbound
shipments, and 28 and 26 percent for
outbound shipments.
At present, the Ports of Oakland
and Sacramento have set up plans
to strengthen their relationship
with the purpose of improving
goods movement, which includes
developing more than 220 acres
of land available for freight
related activities in the Port of
Sacramento.
Given the expected increase of rail shipments along the I- 80 corridor, expanded freight rail
facilities will be required. As such, acquisition of right- of- way may be necessary. Expanded freight
rail operations could affect the capacity for expanding passenger service.
Rail traffic — for both freight and passenger — is already at capacity. There are a number of
relatively minor fixes to improve conditions where current congestion is problematic. However, an
ultimate solution would be to create a new alignment crossing the Carquinez Strait in the vicinity of
Interstate 680, at the same elevation as the highway and following the freeway to Cordelia.
FPO
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
9
2.1 Defining Alternative Land Use Scenarios
One of the key tasks of this study was to investigate the transportation impacts of alternative growth
scenarios from an interregional perspective. As described in section 1, both the Bay Area and the
Sacramento region are pursuing their own smart growth strategies that have started to shift growth
projections away from the edge of both regions. This policy- based forecast is known as “ Blueprint” in
the SACOG region and “ policy- based Projections” in ABAG’s nine- county Bay Area. Both
policy- based forecasts have lowered overall growth projections for Yolo and Solano counties
compared to prior trends- based forecasts. Both have also shifted the geographic emphasis of the
growth to southern Solano County ( Fairfield/ Vallejo) in the ABAG region and eastern Yolo
County ( West Sacramento) in the SACOG region. Under SACOG’s Blueprint, the suburbs east
of Sacramento ( Roseville etc.) also accommodate more of the region’s future growth with an
emphasis on jobs- housing balance.
For the purposes of this study, existing smart growth projections — the policy- based projections for
both regions noted above — were first modeled to establish baseline travel demand forecasts. Then
three alternative interregional land use scenarios were developed for testing through the statewide
travel model. These alternative land use scenarios were developed as follows:
Scenario 1: faster and more decentralized growth at the edge of the two regions – in northern
Solano County and western Yolo County. Northern Solano County “ faster growth” projections
were developed emphasizing robust growth at the edges of Vacaville and Dixon. Yolo County
“ faster growth” projections were developed by SACOG staff based on Blueprint assuming Yolo
County’s 2050 Blueprint forecast was realized by 2035.
Scenario 2: faster growth at the core of the regions — southern Solano County, the City of
Sacramento and its eastern suburbs — but with an emphasis on more decentralized growth
patterns. This scenario assumes minimal infill and transit- oriented development.
Scenario 3: faster growth at the core of the two regions ( downtown Sacramento and Vallejo)
with an emphasis on infill development and growth around transit hubs, such as the Capitol
Corridor, at these locations.
It should be noted that all three land use alternatives were also modeled using the upgraded Solano-
Napa travel model. A fourth land use scenario was also developed specifically for Solano County that
achieved a countywide jobs- housing balance by 2035. Those results — while outside the original
scope of this interregional study— are summarized in the following table.
2 Modeling Results — Statewide Travel Model
The Baseline policy- based forecasts and the three alternative land use scenarios — all modeled for
2030— were analyzed for both travel demand and air quality implications using the statewide travel
model. The results are summarized below and in Table 2. More detailed results are available in the
appendix beginning with table Y. In general terms, the existing blueprint forecasts for all four counties
on the I- 80/ Capitol Corridor performed better than any of the three land use alternatives.
I I . AL T E R N A T E F U T U R E S : T H E IMP L I C A T I ON OF D I F F E R E N T
COR R I DOR GR OWT H P A T T E R N S
10
Blueprints/
County Baseline Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Households
South Solano 124,430 110,059 131,985 131,748
North Solano 63,860 83,370 61,442 61,683
Yolo 97,554 131,365 76,243 76,243
Sacramento 703,533 709,443 696,581 764,478
Placer 203,339 168,306 238,469 188,691
Total Employment
South Solano 153,824 132,779 156,867 157,798
North Solano 61,175 73,357 49,274 48,337
Yolo 134,940 202,572 106,389 106,378
Sacramento 914,429 882,551 837,405 924,554
Placer 231,639 175,940 315,137 241,007
Percent Change
South Solano - 12% + 6% + 6%
North Solano + 31% - 4% - 4%
Yolo 26% - 27% - 27%
Sacramento - 6% - 7% 2%
Placer - 23% 10% - 13%
South Solano + 14% + 2% + 3%
North Solano + 20% - 20% - 20%
Yolo + 41% - 26% - 26%
Sacramento - 10% - 14% - 5%
Placer - 29% 27% - 3%
TABLE 1: Year 2030 TotalHouseholds and Total Population, by Scenario
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
11
Auto Travel
While the total number of daily person- trips remained relatively constant throughout the three land use
scenarios, Scenario 3 ( faster core growth in southern Solano County, Sacramento and its eastern
suburbs emphasizing infill locations and transit- oriented development) produced the least amount of
daily Vehicle Miles Traveled ( VMT) — even less than the baseline blueprint forecasts. Scenario 3
also produced fewer Vehicle Hours of Travel ( VHT) though not less than the blueprint.
Transit Ridership
Linked transit trips for the county- to- county interchanges are shown in the chart below. Linked trips are
the metric used by the Federal Transit Administration in New Starts projects ( used to calculated net
new transit riders). Linked transit are summed to the person level, and do not add transfers. Transit
trips were highest in Scenario 3, suggesting increased development in infill locations and around transit
and rail hubs can attract a greater share of travelers in the corridor.
CHART 3: Daily VMT in 2030 ( 4 counties — Statewide Model)
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario2 Scenario3
CHART 4: Daily Tranist Trips in 2030
170,000
190,000
210,000
230,000
250,000
270,000
290,000
310,000
330,000
350,000
Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario2 Scenario3
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
12
Capitol Corridor Ridership
The chart below shows Capitol Corridor ridership within the Corridor ( totals include all stations from
Sacramento to San Jose). Interestingly, total system ridership is fairly stable across alternatives. At first
review, this result appears somewhat counter- intuitive. However, upon reflection, it does make sense
that Capitol Corridor ridership is relatively unaffected by the demographic changes in the scenarios.
For the most part, Capitol Corridors riders are not traveling between Solano, Yolo, Sacramento, and
Placer Counties ( though some riders certainly do have destinations at the Sacramento and Davis
Stations). Most riders are traveling longer distances to San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville,
and even Silicon Valley. It should not surprise that increasing employment in Vallejo or Roseville
would not have a major impact on Capitol Corridor ridership.
In addition, the infill/ TOD alternative ( Scenario 3) adds housing and employment growth in the
centers of each region ( downtown Sacramento and central
Vallejo), but not necessarily around Capitol Corridor
stations. Vallejo, in fact, has no Capitol Corridor
station. It should therefore be no surprise that
Scenario 1, with its growth in northern Solano
County and western Yolo County would produce
more Capitol Corridor ridership than Scenario 3.
For example, growth in Davis, Dixon and
Vacaville should produce more Capitol Corridor
ridership through the Davis and Suisun/ Fairfield
stations than growth in Vallejo would.
CHART 5: Capitol Corridor Ridership in 2030
20,000
20,500
21,000
21,500
22,000
22,500
23,000
23,500
24,000
24,500
Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario2 Scenario3
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
13
Blueprints/
Baseline Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Daily VehicleMiles Traveled ( VMT) 91,068,000 95,507,000 94,788,000 90,399,000
Daily Vehicle Hours Traveled ( VHT) 3,761,000 4,008,000 3,993,000 3,819,000
Daily Person Trips 15,403,051 14,389,890 14,176,104 14,340,683
Daily Transit Trips 293,843 292,929 264,292 329,245
Capitol Corridor Ridership 23,400 24,000 22,400 23,000
CO2 emissions ( daily tons) 52,611 54,539 53,624 52,673
NOX emissions ( daily tons) 20.5 20.6 20.6 20.1
ROG emissions ( daily lbs) 12,082 12,275 12,153 11,875
PM10 emissions ( daily lbs) 9,722 10,060 9,900 9,714
PM2.5 emissions ( daily lbs) 6,966 7,187 7,225 7,033
TABLE 2: I- 80Modeling Results for 2030 Statewide TravelModel
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
14
3.1 Key Study Findings
The analysis of the demographic and travel forecasting scenarios for the I- 80/ Capitol Corridor
reveal the following key findings:
1. Smart growth efforts ( or regional “ blueprints”) in both the
Bay Area and the Sacramento region that emphasize a shift
in growth away from the edge of each region have
potentially significant benefits for both transportation
and air quality according to the modeling forecasts
conducted for this study.
2. Regional policy- based projections and lower
housing forecasts at the “ edge" of the two
regions— in both Solano and Yolo counties—
bode well for dampening the increase in travel
demand along I- 80 between the two regions
compared to previous “ trends- based” forecasts
only in as much as local land use plans and
policies are supportive.
3. While newer policy- based “ blueprint” forecasts for the edge of the two regions are
seemingly compatible, this can be attributed more to coincidence than coordination. Before
this study, there was historically very little coordination of demographic or travel forecasts
for the two regions.
4. Since regional travel models used by both MTC and SACOG stop at existing regional
boundaries, interregional commute forecasts are better addressed through the statewide
travel model. However all the travel demand models — even the more localized Solano-
Napa travel model— are significantly constrained in their sensitivity to changes in land use.
5. The artificial boundary between the Bay Area and Sacramento doesn't hinder just travel
and growth forecasting. Even Caltrans — the California State Department of
Transportation responsible for interregional transportation planning and investments — is
organized along a ‘ district’ model that follows the same regional boundaries as
MTC/ ABAG and SACOG. ‘ Corridor System Management Plans’ being prepared by
Caltrans for the I- 80 corridor offer a significant opportunity for an interregional approach
to corridor planning but are proceeding on separate schedules based on each regional
Caltrans district.
6. The lack of interregional coordination has historically put the I- 80/ Capitol Corridor at a
competitive disadvantage for securing financing for transportation projects and programs.
Two exceptions are notable and present a model for overcoming the constraints of existing
regional boundaries: ( 1) the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority ( CCJPA) has
governed the intercity rail service from Sacramento to San Jose since 1998. The CCJPA
has succeeded in securing state financing to significantly increase the frequency of train
service on the corridor to sixteen round trips per day; ( 2) the availability of the state Trade
Corridor Improvement Funds ( TCIF) through Proposition 1B required an unprecedented
level of cooperation across the corridor. This cooperation resulted in the awarding of
$ 825 million in TCIF funds by the California Transportation Commission in April 2008.
I I I . F I N D I N G S A N D R E C OMME N D A T IO N S
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
15
3.2 Interregional Summit
On April 10, 2008, the study co- sponsors, Caltrans and UC Davis hosted an interregional
summit to discuss the study’s draft findings and recommendations. After presentations from
several state and national experts on megaregions,
intergovernmental coordination and transportation
planning, draft study recommendations were
presented to and discussed by a dozen
breakout groups. Their comments and
suggestions were reported back to the
broader summit participants and subsequently
discussed by a closing panel of elected
officials from both regions. Feedback from
breakout groups has been incorporated into the
final study recommendations that follow.
3.3 Recommendations
1. Invest in significant upgrades to the California Statewide Travel
Model and regional travel models, including land use forecasting
models
The statewide travel model was upgraded as part of a recent analysis of the proposed High
Speed Rail system in California. That model was used as part of the interregional travel
forecasting in this study, and will likely prove to be an increasingly critical tool for forecasting
interregional commuting, and interregional freight, rail and air travel. The statewide model also
provides an important opportunity for the development of future integrated models that can
produce travel, economic and land use forecasts statewide. However, the statewide model
needs significant improvements if it is to serve as a useful tool for both Caltrans and local and
regional planning agencies. The state and regional planning agencies need to pledge critical
resources towards upgrading and maintaining the model.
In addition, the following specific steps are also recommended as follow up tasks for this study:
Include model enhancements laid out in Caltrans Office of Transportation Systems
Information Strategic Model Improvement Program, incudiing improvements to the
software interface, GIS- based transportation networks, and interregional model validation
through new data collection effforts.
Add external ‘ zones’ to ABAG and SACOG’s demographic models in the I- 80
Corridor ( as well as other key transportation corridors for each region).
Revamp ABAG’s regional allocation models and consider adoption and implementation
of an integrated land use model. ABAG should look into new promising models and
investigate the potential of implementing an integrated model such as PECAS.
Set up a technical coordinating committee including ABAG, SACOG, the Solano
Transportation Authority, MTC, Caltrans and the Yolo County Transportation District to
convene and exchange projections and planning information. The coordinating committee
should as its first task set up a data sharing protocol and process for updating information
among SACOG, STA, ABAG, Caltrans andMTC. It is hoped that UC Davis can help
play a facilitation role for this.
FPO
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
16
2. Develop an I- 80/ Capitol Corridor Interregional Corridor
Strategic Plan
There are numerous planning documents that cover both the I- 80 corridor and Capitol Corridor
( Amtrak) in northern California, yet there is no overarching strategy or plan that unites both
corridors and takes a truly interregional approach. Even the California Department of
Transportation ( Caltrans) is preparing separate Corridor SystemManagement Plans ( CSMPs)
for the I- 80 corridor that stop at the boundaries of each regional district rather than taking a
broader, systemwide approach.
The various northern California transportation planning entities did indeed pull together a
“ megaregional” project list for the recent statewide Trade Corridors Improvement Fund ( TCIF).
While the availability of TCIF funds required an unprecedented level of interregional
cooperation, it also highlighted the lack of a coordinated strategy for transportation investment
beyond traditional regional boundaries. An interregional strategic plan should also include a
goods movement component and detailed land use strategies developed by appropriate local
governments but that help support regional and statewide transportation management goals.
3. Strengthen State Support for Regional Blueprints and Local Land
Use Coordination
As demonstrated through this study, there are clear benefits to the state — in this case the
state's highway, rail and transit networks — from the ongoing work underway in the regional
blueprints. This initial work surrounding the blueprints will become even more important with
the passage of SB375 and as the California Air Resources Board ( CARB) develops the
scoping plan and implementing regulations for AB32. Funding from Caltrans to support
regional blueprints should continue, but technical assistance should also be targeted towards
local governments to assist their understanding of the regional and interregional transportation
impacts of their local land use decisions.
4. Explore “ Megaregional” Financing Mechanisms for
Transportation Projects
The current system of financing transportation projects is severely broken. Solano County has
tried several times to pass a local sales tax measure to fix a megaregional bottleneck — the
I- 80/ I- 680 interchange at Cordelia junction. The Capitol Corridor rail service has enjoyed
tremendous increases in ridership, yet needs significant capital investments in track upgrades
and expansion if it is to ever meet its true potential and handle a significant portion of
interregional trips in northern California.
While politically challenging, the future of transportation finance will likely include a significant
shift towards users fees ( tolls, road pricing) and stronger partnerships with the private sector.
New financing mechanisms should be pursued for both the I- 80 and Capitol Corridor that
should include serious analysis of interregional High Occupancy Toll lanes and the potential
for full road pricing in the I- 80 corridor that could help finance Capitol Corridor operations.
In addition, stakeholders and the state legislature should investigate the potential for multi-county
tax and bonding measures in order to finance critical transportation improvements that
are critical to the megaregion.
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
17
5. Develop Better " Megaregional" Coordination and Governance
Emerging megaregions don’t need a new form of megaregional government. But the
infrastructure that links megaregions together is currently managed and financed by a patchwork
quilt of public agencies that are not equipped to plan at a megaregional scale. The artificial
boundary between the Sacramento region and the San Francisco Bay Area ( the Yolo- Solano
county border) only exists in the eyes of governmental entities, it matters not for commuters, the
housing market, air quality, goods movement or the economy. This study has proposed various
alternatives for strengthening coordination and governance across the corridor.
One of the more successful models for interregional governance is the Capitol Corridor Joint
Powers Authority ( CCJPA). A similar JPA for the I- 80 corridor, or one that combines
both the Capitol Corridor and the I- 80 corridor to the Nevada border, should be seriously
considered. The other obvious state agency to coordinate transportation investments at a
megaregional scale is Caltrans. Caltrans has responsibility for interregional transportation
investments, but is institutionally organized by district within regional boundaries that
duplicate the service areas of other regional planning agencies.
In addition, the following specific steps are also recommended as follow up tasks for this study:
Ensure that HOV facilities, particularly for express buses serving interregional routes such
as Vacaville to Sacramento, are coordinated and continuous in all relevant long range
planning documents.
Ensure that county- level and regional long range transportation
plans analyze and incorporate planned land use and
transportation investments in neighboring counties.
Generally strengthen coordination and
communication between Solano County and
SACOG, and likewise between Yolo County
and MTC/ ABAG. One method of
strengthening this coordination would be to make
the UC Davis summit an annual or bi- annual
meeting of relevant stakeholders and
decisionmakers along the corridor.
FPO
P LANNING FOR THE NOR THE R N CAL I FOR NI A MEGAR EGION
18
19
P L A N N I N G FO R T H E NOR T H E R N
C A L I F OR N I A ME G A R E G ION
A P P E N D I C E S
20
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000 Population
Jobs
APPENDIX CHART 1: I- 80 Corridor Population and Employment Growth
by County 2005– 2035
Placer County Sacramento County Yolo County Solano County
GROWTH IN POPULATION OR EMPLOYMENT
Population
Jobs
APPENDIX CHART 2: Population and Employment Growth by Juristiction 2005– 2035
Auburn
Colfax
Lincloln
Loomis
Rocklin
Roseville
City of Sacramento
Delta\ Isleton
Elk Grove
Gault
Rancho Cordova
Folsum
Citrus Heights
West Sacramento
Davis
Woodland
Winters
Benicia
Dixon
Fairfield
Rio Vista
Suisun City
Vacaville
Vallejo
Unicorporated Solano Co.
Unincorporated Yolo Co.
Unicorporated Sacramento Co.
Unincorporated Placer Co.
ABSOLUTE CHANGE 2005– 2035
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
21
APPENDIX TABLE 1: Growth in Population and Employment by Jurisdiction 2005– 2035
2005 2035
Population Households/ D. U.* Jobs Population Households/ D. U.* Jobs
Auburn 26,670 12,170 23,663 39,776 15,566 27,422
Colfax 3,118 1,371 1,081 4,630 1,812 1,925
Lincoln 24,081 10,496 7,994 101,998 39,916 38,099
Loomis 6,163 2,311 3,756 8,259 3,232 4,780
Rocklin 50,384 19,636 13,843 68,153 26,671 24,359
Roseville 102,955 42,538 64,874 188,607 73,810 112,474
Unincorporated Placer County 80,146 31,227 16,439 177,586 69,497 32,426
Placer County Total 293,517 119,749 131,650 589,009 230,504 241,485
City of Sacramento 434,058 173,242 344,956 638,378 249,824 452,611
Delta/ Isleton 6,674 2,580 3,224 8,223 3,218 3,367
Elk Grove 113,749 38,274 25,077 177,316 69,391 56,721
Galt 25,008 7,905 4,690 33,766 13,214 9,877
Rancho Cordova community 85,637 33,628 81,442 276,998 108,401 146,728
Folsom 63,798 22,478 29,379 104,627 40,945 51,011
Citrus Heights 84,771 34,376 18,204 101,282 39,636 24,651
Unincorporated Sacramento County 499,918 193,246 171,530 694,584 271,820 220,009
Sacramento County Total 1,313,614 505,729 678,502 2,035,174 796,449 964,975
West Sacramento 41,208 15,448 30,655 92,339 36,136 60,535
Davis 66,402 24,832 16,326 80,794 31,618 21,298
Woodland 55,205 17,961 25,417 72,218 28,262 35,498
Winters 7,858 2,509 1,895 12,189 4,770 4,193
Unincorporated Yolo County 16,688 5,799 17,754 23,440 9,173 25,290
Yolo County Total 187,361 66,549 92,047 280,979 109,959 146,814
Benicia 27,200 10,670 15,530 32,000 12,290 20,870
Dixon 17,500 5,640 5,840 31,300 9,940 9,110
Fairfield 106,900 35,000 50,740 146,900 47,820 77,030
Rio Vista 7,500 3,120 2,450 25,000 9,890 6,560
Suisun City 28,200 8,770 4,080 38,100 11,630 7,080
Vacaville 97,200 31,590 30,710 134,300 44,040 47,110
Vallejo 122,900 42,330 35,720 163,100 55,560 54,600
Unincorporated Solano County 14,200 4,920 5,450 15,100 5,050 5,510
Solano County Total 421,600 142,040 150,520 585,800 196,220 227,870
22
Population
Jobs
APPENDIX CHART 3: Total Population and Jobs in 2035— I- 80 Corridor by Jusrisidiction
Auburn
Lincloln
Rocklin
Roseville
City of Sacramento
Elk Grove
Gault
Rancho Cordova
Folsum
Citrus Heights
West Sacramento
Davis
Woodland
Benicia
Dixon
Fairfield
Rio Vista
Suisun City
Vacaville
Vallejo
Unincorporated Yolo Co.
Unicorporated Sacramento Co.
Unincorporated Placer Co.
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
APPENDIX TABLE 2: Year 2030Daily Person Trips by Couty- to- County Interchange
FROM:
TO: Other BayArea* Solano Yolo Sacramento Placer Other Sac Region TOTAL FROM
Base Case
Other Bay Area* — 254,450 31,419 101,379 22,317 19,831 429,396
Solano 109,646 1,366,627 3,606 7,972 1,483 1,197 1,490,531
Yolo 9,429 6,333 1,025,545 213,528 3,026 1,437 1,259,297
Sacramento 69,040 22,655 255,732 8,586,243 303,138 77,278 9,314,085
Placer 16,176 4,205 10,759 303,260 2,270,632 19,262 2,624,294
Other Sac. Region 12,836 3,196 17,753 171,343 80,319 — 285,447
Total 217,127 1,657,466 1,344,815 9,383,725 2,680,914 119,004 15,403,051
2030 Scenario 1: FastWest SACOG— Northern SolanoDispersed
Other Bay Area* — 234,573 44,671 97,195 17,442 19,472 413,353
Solano 140,992 1,371,037 5,135 7,422 1,101 1,157 1,526,844
Yolo 13,206 8,636 1,477,035 203,719 1,644 1,166 1,705,406
Sacramento 77,207 25,196 362,866 7,807,421 225,021 67,716 8,565,427
Placer 13,997 3,541 19,493 287,164 1,589,171 20,210 1,933,576
Other Sac. Region 12,703 3,125 39,923 146,100 43,433 — 245,284
Total 258,105 1,646,108 1,949,123 8,549,021 1,877,812 109,721 14,389,890
2030 Scenario 2: Fast East SACOGGreenfield— Southern SolanoDispersed
Other Bay Area* — 252,167 28,727 97,096 25,883 19,459 423,332
Solano 104,855 1,361,448 3,266 7,466 1,822 1,249 1,480,106
Yolo 7,627 5,210 768,270 144,902 2,783 197 928,989
Sacramento 76,496 24,814 253,790 7,531,811 355,485 64,052 8,306,448
Placer 19,270 4,883 16,588 278,939 2,573,724 4,922 2,898,326
Other Sac. Region 12,727 3,132 1,046 106,315 15,683 — 138,903
Total 220,975 1,651,654 1,071,687 8,166,529 2,975,380 89,879 14,176,104
2030 Scenario 3: Fast East SACOGInfill— Southern Solano Compact
Other Bay Area* — 236,590 28,019 103,506 21,622 17,773 407,510
Solano 104,004 1,368,586 3,208 8,190 1,479 1,128 1,486,595
Yolo 7,566 5,169 756,418 156,299 2,102 152 927,706
Sacramento 82,537 27,112 279,273 8,306,576 348,489 59,112 9,103,099
Placer 15,553 3,929 11,428 257,583 1,980,913 4,225 2,273,631
Other Sac. Region 11,741 2,946 1,071 108,961 17,423 — 142,142
Total 221,401 1,644,332 1,079,417 8,941,115 2,372,028 82,390 14,340,683
23
24
APPENDIX TABLE 3: Percent Change in Year 2030Daily Person Trips by Couty- to- County Interchange
FROM:
TO: Other BayArea* Solano Yolo Sacramento Placer Other Sac Region TOTAL FROM
2030 Scenario 1: FastWest SACOG— Northern SolanoDispersed
Other Bay Area* — - 8% 42% - 4% - 22% - 2% - 4%
Solano 29% 0% 42% - 7% - 26% - 3% 2%
Yolo 40% 36% 44% - 5% - 46% - 19% 35%
Sacramento 12% 11% 42% - 9% - 26% - 12% - 8%
Placer - 13% - 16% 81% - 5% - 30% 5% - 26%
Other Sac. Region - 1% - 2% 125% - 15% - 46% — - 14%
Total 19% - 1% 45% - 9% - 30% - 8% - 7%
2030 Scenario 2: Fast East SACOGGreenfield— Southern SolanoDispersed
Other Bay Area* — - 1% - 9% - 4% 16% - 2% - 1%
Solano - 4% 0% - 9% - 6% 23% 4% - 1%
Yolo - 19% - 18% - 25% - 32% - 8% - 86% - 26%
Sacramento 11% 10% - 1% - 12% 17% - 17% - 11%
Placer 19% 16% 54% - 8% 13% - 74% 10%
Other Sac. Region - 1% - 2% - 94% - 38% - 80% — - 51%
Total 2% 0% - 20% - 13% 11% - 24% - 8%
2030 Scenario 3: Fast East SACOGInfill— Southern Solano Compact
Other Bay Area* — - 7% - 11% 2% - 3% - 10% - 5%
Solano - 5% 0% - 11% 3% 0% - 6% 0%
Yolo - 20% - 18% - 26% - 27% - 31% - 89% - 26%
Sacramento 20% 20% 9% - 3% 15% - 24% - 2%
Placer - 4% - 7% 6% - 15% - 13% - 78% - 13%
Other Sac. Region - 9% - 8% - 94% - 36% - 78% — - 50%
Total 2% - 1% - 20% - 5% - 12% - 31% - 7%
APPENDIX TABLE 4: Year 2030Daily Linked Trips by Couty- to- County Interchange
FROM:
TO: Other BayArea* Solano Yolo Sacramento Placer Other Sac Region TOTAL FROM
Base Case
Other Bay Area* — 12,767 3,946 10,834 584 551 28,682
Solano 1,483 24,145 166 484 61 70 26,409
Yolo 853 148 14,730 10,696 1 0 26,428
Sacramento 4,301 635 3,155 185,784 1,347 75 195,296
Placer 441 118 16 3,369 11,673 0 15,618
Other Sac. Region 405 76 2 921 7 — 1,410
Total 7,483 37,889 22,014 212,087 13,673 697 293,843
2030 Scenario 1: FastWest SACOG— Northern SolanoDispersed
Other Bay Area* — 9,884 5,977 9,955 434 532 26,782
Solano 1,406 20,798 253 439 43 63 23,002
Yolo 1,254 209 18,864 11,824 1 0 32,152
Sacramento 4,771 679 2,950 188,129 923 66 197,518
Placer 354 91 20 3,680 7,820 0 11,965
Other Sac. Region 372 68 2 1,062 6 — 1,510
Total 8,157 31,729 28,066 215,089 9,227 661 292,929
2030 Scenario 2: Fast East SACOGGreenfield— Southern SolanoDispersed
Other Bay Area* — 11,485 3,901 10,017 734 556 26,693
Solano 1,406 23,002 160 438 79 71 25,156
Yolo 650 111 11,601 7,112 1 0 19,475
Sacramento 4,656 657 1,902 164,959 1,669 75 173,918
Placer 495 134 8 3,076 14,025 0 17,738
Other Sac. Region 371 69 2 858 12 — 1,312
Total 7,578 35,458 17,574 186,460 16,520 702 264,292
2030 Scenario 3: Fast East SACOGInfill— Southern Solano Compact
Other Bay Area* — 10,832 3,772 11,136 601 497 26,838
Solano 2,357 30,100 157 487 62 66 33,229
Yolo 644 110 11,581 8,328 1 0 20,664
Sacramento 5,283 745 2,551 222,389 1,551 69 232,588
Placer 398 105 7 3,085 10,952 0 14,547
Other Sac. Region 327 68 2 975 7 — 1,379
Total 9,009 41,960 18,070 246,400 13,174 632 329,245 25
26
APPENDIX TABLE 5: Year 2030 Transit Shares by Couty- to- County Interchange
FROM:
TO: Other BayArea* Solano Yolo Sacramento Placer Other Sac Region TOTAL FROM
Base Case
Other Bay Area* — 5.0% 12.6% 10.7% 2.6% 2.8% 6.7%
Solano 1.4% 1.8% 4.6% 6.1% 4.1% 5.8% 1.8%
Yolo 9.0% 2.3% 1.4% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%
Sacramento 6.2% 2.8% 1.2% 2.2% 0.4% 0.1% 2.1%
Placer 2.7% 2.8% 0.1% 1.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.6%
Other Sac. Region 3.2% 2.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% — 0.5%
Total 3.4% 2.3% 1.6% 2.3% 0.5% 0.6% 1.9%
2030 Scenario 1: FastWest SACOG— Northern SolanoDispersed
Other Bay Area* — 4.2% 13.4% 10.2% 2.5% 2.7% 6.5%
Solano 1.0% 1.5% 4.9% 5.9% 3.9% 5.4% 1.5%
Yolo 9.5% 2.4% 1.3% 5.8% 0.1% 0.0% 1.9%
Sacramento 6.2% 2.7% 0.8% 2.4% 0.4% 0.1% 2.3%
Placer 2.5% 2.6% 0.1% 1.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.6%
Other Sac. Region 2.9% 2.2% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% — 0.6%
Total 3.2% 1.9% 1.4% 2.5% 0.5% 0.6% 2.0%
2030 Scenario 2: Fast East SACOGGreenfield— Southern SolanoDispersed
Other Bay Area* — 4.6% 13.6% 10.3% 2.8% 2.9% 6.3%
Solano 1.3% 1.7% 4.9% 5.9% 4.3% 5.7% 1.7%
Yolo 8.5% 2.1% 1.5% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%
Sacramento 6.1% 2.6% 0.7% 2.2% 0.5% 0.1% 2.1%
Placer 2.6% 2.7% 0.0% 1.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.6%
Other Sac. Region 2.9% 2.2% 0.2% 0.8% 0.1% — 0.9%
Total 3.4% 2.1% 1.6% 2.3% 0.6% 0.8% 1.9%
2030 Scenario 3: Fast East SACOGInfill— Southern Solano Compact
Other Bay Area* — 4.6% 13.5% 10.8% 2.8% 2.8% 6.6%
Solano 2.3% 2.2% 4.9% 5.9% 4.2% 5.9% 2.2%
Yolo 8.5% 2.1% 1.5% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2%
Sacramento 6.4% 2.7% 0.9% 2.7% 0.4% 0.1% 2.6%
Placer 2.6% 2.7% 0.1% 1.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%
Other Sac. Region 2.8% 2.3% 0.2% 0.9% 0.0% — 1.0%
Total 4.1% 2.6% 1.7% 2.8% 0.6% 0.8% 2.3%
APPENDIX TABLE 6: Year 2030DailyVehicleHours of Travel andVehicleMiles of Travel by County
27
Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
County VHT VMT VHT VMT VHT VMT VHT VMT
Year 2030DailyVehicleHours of Travel andVehicleMiles of Travel
Solano 431,000 9,273,000 617,000 13,429,000 416,000 8,843,000 393,000 8,375,000
Yolo 255,000 7,162,000 423,000 11,603,000 278,000 7,784,000 271,000 7,577,000
Sacramento 2,113,000 51,322,000 2,149,000 50,935,000 2,163,000 51,030,000 2,204,000 51,939,000
Placer 962,000 23,311,000 819,000 19,540,000 1,136,000 27,131,000 951,000 22,508,000
Total 3,761,000 91,068,000 4,008,000 95,507,000 3,993,000 94,788,000 3,819,000 90,399,000
% Change from Baseline
Solano 43% 45% - 3% - 5% - 9% - 10%
Yolo 66% 62% 9% 9% 6% 6%
Sacramento 2% - 1% 2% - 1% 4% 1%
Placer - 15% - 16% 18% 16% - 1% - 3%
Total 7% 5% 6% 4% 2% - 1%
Intra- CountyOnly
Solano 147,000 2,910,000 160,000 3,323,000 150,000 3,014,000 145,000 2,883,000
Yolo 78,000 2,025,000 170,000 4,248,000 96,000 2,457,000 95,000 2,434,000
Sacramento 1,369,000 30,992,000 1,496,000 32,977,000 1,502,000 32,916,000 1,563,000 34,412,000
Placer 463,000 10,109,000 439,000 9,461,000 677,000 14,889,000 533,000 11,549,000
Total 2,057,000 46,036,000 2,265,000 50,009,000 2,425,000 53,276,000 2,336,000 51,278,000
% Intra- County Change from Baseline
Solano 9% 14% 2% 4% - 1% - 1%
Yolo 118% 110% 23% 21% 22% 20%
Sacramento 9% 6% 10% 6% 14% 11%
Placer - 5% - 6% 46% 47% 15% 14%
Total 10% 9% 18% 16% 14% 11%
Percent Intra- County
Solano 34% 31% 33% 31% 36% 34% 37% 34%
Yolo 31% 28% 40% 37% 35% 32% 35% 32%
Sacramento 65% 60% 70% 65% 69% 65% 71% 66%
Placer 48% 43% 54% 48% 60% 55% 56% 51%
Total 55% 51% 58% 54% 61% 56% 61% 57%
note: VMT and VHT were calculated using trip table data – zone- to- zone distances multiplied by congested skimmed vehicle times and distances.
28
No Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Solano 4,905 5,850 5,181 5,068
Yolo 4,196 6,397 3,609 3,486
Sacramento 32,307 32,469 31,189 32,993
Placer 11,203 9,823 13,646 11,127
Corridor 52,611 54,539 53,624 52,673
Percent Change
Solano 19% 6% 3%
Yolo 52% - 14% - 17%
Sacramento 1% - 3% 2%
Placer - 12% 22% - 1%
Corridor 4% - 2% - 2%
APPENDIX TABLE 7: Year 2030 CarbonDioxide ( CO2) Emissions, Daily Tons
No Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Solano 1.664 1.885 1.658 1.619
Yolo 1.422 2.039 1.095 1.053
Sacramento 12.644 12.707 12.206 12.912
Placer 4.806 4.001 5.671 4.533
Corridor 20.536 20.632 20.630 20.118
Percent Change
Solano 13% 0% 3%
Yolo 43% - 23% - 26%
Sacramento 1% - 3% 2%
Placer - 17% 18% - 6%
Corridor 0% 0% - 2%
APPENDIX TABLE 8: Year 2030NitrousOxides ( COX) Emissions, Daily Tons
29
No Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Solano 816 970 813 794
Yolo 728 1,213 561 539
Sacramento 7,716 7,755 7,449 7,880
Placer 2,822 2,337 3,330 2,662
Corridor 12,082 12,275 12,153 11,875
Percent Change
Solano 13% 0% - 3%
Yolo 43% - 23% - 26%
Sacramento 1% - 3% 2%
Placer - 17% 18% - 6%
Corridor 2% 1% - 2%
APPENDIX TABLE 9: Year 2030 ReactiveOrganicGases ( ROG) Emissions, Daily Pounds
30
No Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Solano 904 1,080 964 943
Yolo 772 1,168 656 634
Sacramento 5,952 5,982 5,746 6,078
Placer 2,094 1,830 2,534 2,059
Corridor 9,722 10,060 9,900 9,714
Percent Change
Solano 20% 7% 4%
Yolo 51% - 15% - 18%
Sacramento 1% - 3% 2%
Placer - 13% 21% - 2%
Corridor 3% 2% 0%
APPENDIX TABLE 10: Fine ParticulateMatter< 10 micrometers ( PM10) Emissions, Daily Pounds
No Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Solano 551 661 587 575
Yolo 463 772 468 454
Sacramento 4,409 4,431 4,256 4,503
Placer 1,543 1,323 1,913 1,502
Corridor 6,966 7,187 7,225 7,033
Percent Change
Solano 20% 7% 4%
Yolo 67% 1% - 2%
Sacramento 1% - 3% 2%
Placer - 14% 24% - 3%
Corridor 3% 4% 1%
APPENDIX TABLE 11: Fine ParticulateMatter< 2.5 micrometers ( PM25) Emissions, Daily Pounds
31
APPENDIX TABLE 12: Year 2030 Capitol Corridor Ridership by Corridor Station
Percent Change from Baseline
Station* Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Auburn 100 100 100 100 2% 1% 6%
Rocklin 300 300 400 300 - 22% 29% - 13%
Roseville 1,200 1,100 1,200 1,300 - 6% 2% 4%
Sacramento 7,700 7,000 7,400 7,700 - 9% - 4% 0%
Davis 2,100 3,200 1,900 1,900 54% - 6% - 6%
Suisun City 800 900 800 900 7% 0% 4%
Contra Costa 3,300 2,900 3,200 2,800 - 13% - 1% - 13%
Alameda 6,400 6,800 6,100 6,500 7% - 3% 2%
Santa Clara 1,500 1,700 1,300 1,500 16% - 6% 11%
System Total 23,400 24,000 22,400 23,000 2% - 3% - 1%
* Stations outside of study area are summed to County.
32
APPENDIX CHART 4: Benicia Bridge— 2 Hour AMPeak
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
STA MTC
South Bound North Bound
STA MTC
2005
2030
APPENDIX CHART 5: Carquinez Bridge— 2 Hour AMPeak
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
STA MTC
West Bound East Bound
STA MTC
2005
2030
Inside back Cover —
maybe list credits ( Roster?) and/ or
partners?
see “ Smarter Choices” for format
P. O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94604- 2050
510.464.7900 PHONE
info@ abag. ca. gov E- MAIL
www. abag. ca. gov WEB
Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607- 4700
510.817.5700 PHONE
510.817.5769 TDD/ TTY
info@ mtc. ca. gov E- MAIL
www. mtc. ca. gov WEB
1415 L Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.321.9000 PHONE
916. 321.9550 TDD/ TTY
sacog@ sacog. org E- MAIL
www. sacog. org WEB
One Harbor Center, Suite 130
Suisun City, CA 94585
707.424.6075 PHONE
staplan@ sta- snci. com E- MAIL
www. solanolinks. com WEB