Muriel Johnson, ChairSupervisor,Sacramento County

Tom CosgroveCouncilmember,City of Lincoln,representingAuburn, Colfax,Lincoln, Rocklinand Roseville

Board of Directors

Bill Hughes, Vice-ChairCouncilmember,City of Citrus Heights,representing CitrusHeights, Elk Grove,Folsom, Galtand Isleton

Christopher CabaldonCouncilmember, City ofWest Sacramento,representing Davis,West Sacramento,Winters and Woodland

Steve CohnCouncilmember,City of Sacramento

Jim CooperCouncilmember, Cityof Elk Grove,representingCitrus Heights,Elk Grove,Folsom, Galt and Isleton

Roger DickinsonSupervisor,Sacramento County

Rusty DupraySupervisor,El Dorado County

David FloryCouncilmember,City of Woodland,representing Davis,West Sacramento,Winters andWoodland

Ted GainesSupervisor,Placer County

Claudia GamarMayor, City ofRoseville,representingAuburn, Colfax,Lincoln, Rocklinand Roseville

Lauren HammondCouncilmember,City of Sacramento

Sandra HilliardCouncilmember,City of Yuba City,representing LiveOak and Yuba City

Paul McNamaraCouncilmember,City of Marysville,representingMarysville andWheatland

Steve MiklosCouncilmember,City of Folsom,representingCitrus Heights, ElkGrove, Folsom,Galt and Isleton

Roger NielloSupervisor, SacramentoCounty

Donald SchraderSupervisor, Yuba County

Dan SilvaSupervisor, Sutter County

Tom StallardSupervisor, Yolo County

Jody Lonergan(Ex-Officio),Director for CaltransDistrict 3

1

This transportation plan marks a bold first step for mobility in the Sacramentoregion. Three years of unprecedented public involvement, complemented withleadership from the SACOG Board, sets in motion the first truly regional ap-proach to enhancing our transportation network.

For the first time, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan includes innovativeroad/open space corridors to connect the major job centers in the region. Whileaddressing the essential need of road maintenance, the Plan invests more re-sources than in the past for alternatives to the automobile—bicycle, walking,light rail expansion and more trips on the Capitol Corridor—to help improve ourair quality and the liveability of our region. A major source of pride is the $500million investment in a community design program to promote transit andpedestrian-oriented development.

We are indebted to the time commitment of the 55-member TransportationRoundtable, chaired by Director Christopher Cabaldon, input from the public atcountless meetings and workshops held throughout the six-county region,support from groups like Valley Vision and the Sacramento Metro Chamber,and expertise from SACOG and partner-agency staff.

We hope the momentum generated from this “bold first step” promotes speedyproject delivery and the coordination of better land use planning to maximizeour transportation investments.

Muriel Johnson Martin TuttleChair Executive Director

Contents

1: A New Plan for the Region 3

2: Development of this Plan 11

3: Growth and Change 19

4: Meeting the Plan’s Goals 27

5: Comparing Alternativesto Come up with the Plan 41

6: The Contents of the Plan 59

7: Paying for the Plan 69

8: Implementing the Plan 79

Appendices 87

2

3

WHY A NEW PLAN NOW?

The six-county Sacramento region haschanged dramatically in many ways since1975, and can expect equally dramaticchanges looking forward to 2025. Back inthe mid-1970s, the region’s populationhad reached about 1.1 million. The onlymajor job center was found in downtownSacramento. The regional transportationsystem, focused on radial access betweensuburbs and downtown Sacramento, con-sisted of freeways designed in the 1960swith twenty years of spare capacity. By themid-1970s, the region had decided not toexpand the freeway system further, andinstead built two new radial light rail lines,completed by the mid-1980s. Surroundingcommunities of that time—Elk Grove,Davis, Woodland, Yuba City, Marysville,Roseville, and Folsom—enjoyed easy accessto and from Sacramento, even on two-laneroads. Daily traffic congestion was essen-tially non-existent.

Today, the region has evolved in waysunforeseen even ten years ago. The popula-tion, now 1.9 million, has spread out tobring Elk Grove, Roseville, Rocklin, andFolsom into the urban area. Rancho Cordovahas emerged as a second major job centerrivaling downtown Sacramento, andRoseville is not far behind. Two-workerhouseholds have become the norm, with

A New Plan for the Region

extensive commuting from one communityto another. Low-density suburban patternsmean people travel overwhelmingly byautomobile: 50 percent of trips drive alone,43 percent of trips go by auto with two ormore occupants, 6 percent are bicycle orwalk trips, and 1 percent of trips are bytransit (with transit use reaching 20 per-cent into downtownSacramento duringcommute hours).The radial transpor-tation system nolonger serves theregion’s needs well.The U.S. 50 freewayserves as theregion’s core corri-dor, carrying a fullload of traffic inboth directions bothmorning and after-noon, and increas-ingly at midday aswell. Intermittentcongestion is nowwidespread, sincethe spare capacityonce built into thesystem has beenconsumed bygrowth, with littlenew capacity addedsince 1980.

Looking forward to 2025, the Stateforecasts the region’s population to reach2.8 million, a 49 percent increase. With thatcomes a 54 percent increase in travel—unless land development proceeds differentlythan it has in the past. The region by 2025will have three major job centers: downtownSacramento/West Sacramento, Rancho

Cordova/Folsom, andRoseville/Rocklin. Theurban edge willexpand to encompassEl Dorado Hills andLincoln, as well asareas east and west ofElk Grove, south ofRancho Cordova, westof Roseville, Southportin West Sacramento,North Natomas, andperhaps South SutterCounty. Presenttrends and zoningindicate that resi-dential areas andoffice/industrialareas will continueto develop sepa-rately. More than amillion people willlive on each side ofthe American River.

4

Looking to this future, the region needsa new transportation vision and plan.Many expectations during the past 20years have not worked out. Sprawl aroundthe edges continues to out-pace infill intoexisting communities, and businessesincreasingly prefer suburban locations.Gasoline prices have reached their lowestlevel in 40 years, and the total amount ofdriving has more than doubled since 1980.Even so, total smog emissions from motorvehicles are now half what they were in1980, because technology has reduced autoemissions by 98 percent from 1980 models.Lack of road building and the resultingcongestion have not encouraged manypeople to take transit instead of driving,even at the extreme congestion levels seenin big cities like Los Angeles. Instead,drivers move onto neighborhood streets,seeking to avoid heavy traffic. A 1999Sacramento Regional Transit survey showed

that half of those who commute ontransit, and three-quarters of those whoride transit for other reasons, do not haveaccess to an auto. Furthermore, thosepercentages rose through the 1990s, sotransit increasingly serves those whocannot otherwise choose to drive, despitea focus on luring drivers out of theirautos. Shipping of goods by truck hasballooned, instead of shifting to rail-roads, with trucks serving as rollingwarehouses feeding just-in-time manufac-turing, and stores with computerizedinventories.

Sacramento needs a realistic and creativenew plan to manage recent trends head-ing into the future. The region does notwant continuing suburban sprawl for amillion new residents. Greater congestion,more compact development, an agingpopulation, clean air goals, and energy

conservation all point to a need to improveand expand transit service. The Sacramentoregion, with ideal climate and terrain, couldsee more travel by bicycling and walking,now discouraged in some communities byheavy local auto traffic. With more than amillion empty seats in autos, but fewerthan 10,000 empty seats in buses everymorning and afternoon, carpools clearlyhave a place in the picture. Regardless, a54 percent increase in travel by 2025 meansthat, even if transit use could be increasedtenfold and bicycle/walk trips tripled, theregion still would face a 40 percent increasein travel by auto At least in some places theroad system must be expanded too. This Plantakes these realities into account, along withan estimate of what the region can afford,and offers a balanced vision for transporta-tion in the region’s future.

5

WHAT’S NEW ABOUT THIS PLAN?

This Plan pursues ten broad goals, onlythree of which deal directly with transpor-tation, with the primary goal being toimprove quality of life. Chapter Fourdiscusses these ten goals in more detail.“Quality of life” may mean somewhatdifferent things to different people, but itgenerally encompasses quiet and safeneighborhoods, affordable housing, jobopportunities, good schools, limited environ-mental pollution, recreational and socialactivities, and adequate transportation toallow access to places where these activitiesoccur. Toward that end, this Plan seeks topromote development that is less dependenton autos, increases transit service and use,controls the spread and amount of conges-tion, attains clean air, and reins in urbansprawl. These five objectives are far easier todescribe than to achieve.

The Plan proposes to use transportationfunds for community design, to encour-age people to walk, bicycle, or ridetransit for local travel. Steps to reduceauto travel, by changing the way peopletravel or the places to which they go, willbecome imperative during the next 25years. The predominance of low-densitysuburban development with jobs andshopping separated from residential areascannot continue indefinitely. However, theexisting suburban communities of todaywon’t look much different by 2025, because

two-thirds of the region’s housing in 2025is already in place, and those houses can beexpected to last 50 years or longer. ThisPlan supports changes in developmentpatterns, through a community designincentive program, both for new communi-ties and redevelopment of older ones. Atbest the results can be expected to evolveslowly over time.

The Plan gives first priority to expandingthe transit system, more than doublinglight rail mileage and the bus fleet. Moneyto pay for operations (drivers, mechanics,parts, fuel), however, limits the amount oftransit service the region can offer. Farespay only 30 percent of operating costs,

with the other 70 percent coming fromtaxpayers. For the middle-class household,the 15 percent of income consumed fortransportation typically reflects a personalchoice for automobile travel, often includingtwo or more vehicles. For those who are lessaffluent, the cost for auto transportationrises to 20–25 percent of income, imposinga hardship for which a good transit choicewould often be a relief. In addition, thosewho cannot drive or need another travelchoice present different challenges for thetransportation system and for transitservice. The State forecasts the share of thepopulation older than 75 years of age, witha lower propensity to drive, to increase by30 percent. Even with expanded transit

6

service and a growing ridership base, thePlan forecasts that transit ridership willincrease by barely 50 percent.

The Plan also commits regional funds tobicycle and pedestrian projects. Exceptfor recreational walking, circulation indowntown areas, and neighborhood socialvisiting, walking plays a limited role in thetransportation system. Only about 3 percentof commute trips are made by bicycle now,but 15 percent of commuters travel nofurther than three miles to work. Fewsuburban children bicycle or walk today;instead, their parents drive them aroundby auto. Unless community design changestake hold, the share of trips made bybicycling and walking is not predicted tochange significantly.

Beyond transit, walking, and bicycling,the region faces a 40 to 50 percent

increase in auto travel. Obviously itmakes a difference whether those peoplewill drive alone or ride in carpools, andwhere on the system they travel. Likenearly all urban areas around the country,Sacramento is seeing a gradual shift fromcommuting by carpool and transit to drivingalone. This trend reflects the separation ofhousing from jobs, the huge increase in two-worker households, and the predominantlysuburban lifestyle with lots of widelyseparated activities and an increasing needfor one or more errand stops on the way toor from work.

Congestion generally will continue toworsen inside the urban area, becausethe system has little remaining spareroad capacity and the region foreseesneither the funding nor community willto increase road capacity by 40 percentor more. The Plan does propose some

road improvements, to hold off some ofthe increase in congestion. While theregion cannot reasonably be expected tobuild its way out of congestion, theinvestments in this Plan do make adifference, lessening congestion in somecorridors, depending on where the regioninvests in more transit and road capacityor land use changes.

The Plan foresees $22.5 billion to workwith, on average almost $1 billion peryear, with $4.7 billion of that beingfederal funds coming to the region forregional-scale improvements. The federalfunds have come to the region in pastyears, but the region has not used them,instead passing them to counties and citiesfor local projects. Of the $22.5 billion, aquarter goes to operate transit services—not enough to provide the level of transitservice needed in a region of 2.8 million.

7

Another quarter goes to maintain streets,roads, and highways—again, not enough toprovide adequate maintenance especially inmore rural areas of the region. Essentially,the remaining half must be used for im-provements:

■ First, $2.5 billion goes to transitimprovements, including light railextensions in five directions, a 150percent increase in bus service in urbanSacramento, and increases in busservice in the other counties.

■ Second, $2.5 billion goes to state highwayimprovements, mainly to complete four-lane highways to connect the northerncounties with the rest of the region andadd carpool lanes to urban freeways.

■ Third, $4.5 billion goes to local streetand road improvements, such as inter-section improvements, safety projects,signal timing, widening in growth areas,and new connections for local access.

■ Finally, this Plan proposes to use $1.5billion for other types of improve-ments important to achieving regionalgoals: bicycle and pedestrian improve-ments, community design incentives,travel demand management (carpoolmatching), clean air, open space, andenhancement programs.

Even with $4.7 billion in funding, theregion cannot by itself fund all regional-scale improvements needed and envi-sioned in this Plan. Regional-scale

improvements put off to the future in thepast 20 years are coming home to roost. ThePlan anticipates supplemental funding—from federal grants for light rail extensions,and from state interregional funds for statehighway improvements, particularly in theregion’s five smaller counties, and localfunding, from Sacramento’s sales tax ordevelopment fees or other local sources, tohelp complete some of the state highwayand arterial improvements in urban Sacra-mento, where total cost exceeds regionalfunds. Locally, counties and cities also lackenough funding for street and road improve-ments to deal with growing local traffic.

This Plan brings forth a regional view, adifferent perception of the region and itsrole from the previous 1999 plan. This view

8

is not wholly new: most of the ideas wereenvisioned in SACOG’s 1989 Metro Study, butfew were implemented, partly because thesystem functioned adequately back then, andthe easy choice was to avoid controversialprojects and issues. Like the Metro Study,this Plan again looks at the transportationsystem from the point of view of the travelerneeding to use the whole system, not justeach jurisdiction managing its piece of thesystem. It recognizes that, if the region is toprovide transportation for one million morepeople and control urban sprawl, transporta-tion improvements inevitably must go bysomeone’s front door or back yard. Itproposes some locally controversial projects,and opens other issues where no regionalconsensus is yet possible. In this way, thePlan starts in new directions. It also puts

forth the challenge of implementation, toengage local and regional debate to reachagreement on how transportation is to befitted into communities and neighborhoods.

WHAT ISSUES CAN’T THIS PLAN RESOLVE?

Discussion during the development of thePlan spotlighted a number of tough issuesfundamental for transportation:

■ How does the region want to handleone million new people by 2025:with continuing development aroundthe urban edge or with infill develop-ment in existing communities at higherthan prevailing densities?

■ Do communities want jobs/housingbalance, including housing affordableto all workers, to provide a betteropportunity to live, work, and travellocally other than by auto, or contin-ued separation of residential andoffice/industrial development, whichimplies continued community-to-community travel?

■ Should transit’s primary role be toserve those who cannot drive or forwhom driving is a hardship, or should itprovide another choice to those for whomdriving is now the easiest and bestoption? How is the 70 percent share oftransit’s operating costs now coming frompublic funds to be provided?

9

■ Is encouraging people touse transit or carpoolsinstead of driving aloneimportant enough towarrant increasing the costof driving, via road tolls,gasoline tax surcharges, orparking fees, and using themoney to increase availabletransit service dramatically?

■ Should main-road capacityin major travel corridors beincreased to prevent theincreasingly common andmuch-disparaged practice ofdrivers cutting throughneighborhood streets to avoidtraffic jams?

■ To what extent should the regiontry to satisfy region-wide traveldemand—by building onto the systemto reduce congestion, so that theopportunity to live where you want to,work anywhere in the region, and dobusiness region wide is preserved?

■ How should the region balanceprotection of the American RiverParkway as a recreational and openspace asset against the growing needfor greater transportation access acrossthe river?

On these issues SACOG could find noconsensus. This Plan aims to engagedebate on these larger issues, in the hopeand expectation that the next Plan update,due in 2005, can be even more comprehen-sive and effective at investing the region’slimited resources.