SCAG Unveils Sweeping Long-Range Transportation Blueprint

Strategic Road, Rail, Transit Investments, Meeting Airport Demand,
Developing New Funding Sources Among Challenges Addressed By Destination 2030

How will we get to work in 25 years? How will our airports meet growing demand? How can we make transit a more attractive option? How will we move goods in and out of region? These are some of the questions answered by Destination 2030, the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). SCAG has unveiled the long-range transportation blueprint for a new round of public input and review.

"This is more than a long-term transportation plan. Destination 2030 represents a shared vision for a healthier, safer, more livable region," said Brea Mayor and SCAG President Bev Perry. "Destination 2030 presents Southern California with a transportation blueprint that is flexible enough to meet our region's unique and diverse congestion needs while improving our air and maintaining our quality of life for future generations."

By the year 2030, Southern California is projected to have six million new residents and three million new jobs. Destination 2030 is a comprehensive 25-year action plan for Southern California's transportation future and includes hundreds of strategic investments and policy recommendations, such as:

-- Maintenance and improvement of existing road, highway, rail and transit systems.

-- Development of new High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes to fill gaps in the HOV network.

-- A regional approach to handling airport passenger and cargo demand, as well as improvements to airport access/arterials.

-- Implementation of Rapid Bus Transit Corridors, increasing capacity of the Metrolink system, and other key improvements to our transit systems.

-- Road and rail capacity enhancements and other improvements to our goods movement infrastructure.

-- Development of an intra-regional high-speed transportation system based on Magnetic Levitation, or MagLev, technology that connects Southern California's major population and transportation centers as well as our airports.

-- Investments in Intelligent Transportation Systems, bikeways and pedestrian facilities.

"Southern California's economic health, which is increasingly reliant on trade and commerce, will be jeopardized by the inability of our existing road and rail system to handle ever-growing demands," said Temecula Councilman and SCAG First Vice President Ron Roberts. "If we don't start making serious investments in the road, rail and airport infrastructure now, the economy we leave to our children will suffer."

"In order to provide the next generation with a strong, viable, and affordable transportation system, the Southern California region must work hard today to make the transportation investments that maximize the performance of our current network," said Grand Terrace Mayor Lee Ann Garcia, chair of SCAG's Transportation and Communications Committee.

Prior to developing the plan, SCAG undertook an unprecedented growth visioning effort, using demographic trends, policy debate and extensive public involvement to examine how land use and transportation planning efforts relate to one another. As a result, Destination 2030 is specifically designed to help Southern California accommodate this anticipated growth, achieve a more desirable and livable vision for the region and maximize the performance of limited transportation dollars.

One of the most pressing challenges facing Southern California is a multi-billion dollar shortfall between available funding and what is required to develop and maintain needed transportation priorities. Specifically, dwindling gasoline tax revenues, the sunset of sales taxes in several counties by 2010 and other factors will leave Southern California with barely enough funds to maintain the existing system and institute short-term capital improvements. Regionally, the funding shortfall under the existing transportation finance system will leave no resources available for new strategic investments in key transportation priorities.

Destination 2030 recommends a series of alternatives to overcome the projected funding shortfall and allow for key investments in the transportation network, including: 1) extension of certain county sales taxes; 2) adoption of a temporary 1/2 cent sales tax currently being contemplated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA); 3) consideration of Development Mitigation Fees for San Bernardino County, similar to those recently adopted in Riverside County; and 4) incremental adjustment of the state gasoline tax after 2010. Implementation of these funding alternatives would overcome the existing shortfall and allow for approximately $31 billion in new strategic transportation investments.

Over the next several months, SCAG will conduct extensive community outreach to obtain input and feedback on the plan. SCAG's Regional Council is scheduled to approve a final version of Destination 2030 in the spring of 2004. Once approved, Destination 2030 will undergo a review and approval process by several federal agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration.

(Editor's Note: For more information about Destination 2030, visit SCAG's web site at www.scag.ca.gov.
Background information also can be obtained by calling Jeff Lustgarten of Cerrell Associates at 323-466-3445 or Don Rhodes of SCAG at 213-236-1840.)

High-speed rail as an alternative mode of transportation in the U.S. is long overdue. We are reaching the point of diminishing returns as we expand our 4-lane interstates to 6, 8 or (gasp!!!) 10 lanes. And even costly airport expansions make little sense when (prior to 9/11) the air corridors themselves are over-congested.

High-speed rail and maglev offer the perfect alternative to augment & supplement our highway and air transportation infrastructure. For regional trips between 100 and 500 miles, it is faster than automobile and not that much slower than air. Yet offers the potential to alleviate both congested highways and air corridors!

In light of current economic conditions, construction of this vital transportation infrastructure should be accelerated.

Sounds like we need a new research team with J K Rowling as its head.

It might at least produce an amusing final report, which is more than I can say of the kind of effort described here :-).

I think we simply need to build more freeways, or enlarge the ones we've got. Even the most optimistic projections for rail systems have them hemmorhaging money and only carrying about 5% of the total traffic. Why are we even considering building more of this stuff?

Finally, why is the report projecting six million new people but only three million new jobs? Are we projecting 50% unemployment of all new residents? That seems a bit pessimistic, and a bit stupid, too.

D

Do you demand a similar ROI from motor freight and passenger coach operators or from airlines? Remember, railroads own and maintain their own infrastructure (roadbeds, rails, switches, signals, crossings, bridges, tunnels, traffic control systems, etc.) as well as the rolling stock they use. On the other hand, the infrastructure costs of motor and air transport are covered by the taxpayer, enabling private operators that use them to make money. Which of these two industries is truly government-supported?

(And I didn’t even mention the huge amounts of taxpayer cash that has gone directly to car companies and the airline industry over the years in the form of bailouts. Would American Airlines be reporting a profit today if Uncle Sam hadn’t coughed up all that cash two years ago?)

Providing capital for transportation infrastructure is a proper role for government: from ports to canals to railroads to freeways to airports, the use of public funds for infrastructure investment is an American tradition. Railways currently pay for their own infrastructure and still make money every quarter. If motor carriers and airlines had to own and maintain their own Interstates, airports, signs, and signals, none of them would make a dime.

I support public funding of integrated transportation infrastructure, including a robust system of national high-speed passenger and freight rail.

BOTH industries are government supported. Railroads only own the rail ways because the government gave them the land.

I do not mind taxpayer support. I just want an analysis that shows a break even point. Understand that as a consultant I put together ROIs all the time. I understand that there are hundreds of significant and perhaps thousands of insignificant economic impacts from a light rail system. But these need to be evaluated carefully

One impact would be reduced costs to maintain existing roadways. The realization of this reduction is lower bounded by the cost to maintain the roadway after the traffic has been removed.

I'm not opposed to public transportation. In fact, I support the RTD efforts in Colorado. HOWEVER, I have seen lots of decisions based on feel good and not facts. I'm afraid that public transportation can and easily will turn into pork barrel politics - unless it is governed by reasonable financial sense.

An ROI that shows costs and cost recovery is all that I ask. Far to often such work does not get done ahead of time.

The problem that happened with the RTD was a gross underestimation of the number of people who would use light rail. At first, there were only a couple of trains and then only a couple of cars. They were so crouded that it was almost impossible to move. A better analysis would have shown this and perhaps convinced the public to support the light rail sooner.

The other problem is that light rail does not currently run out to the airport. Not even from downtown.

I guess my position is this. An ROI will show us where to set up light rail and how much it will cost. Cost recovery then determines where the money will come from. Show me both. As a resonable voter, I want light rail because I recognize the long term benefits of such a system. However, don't use light rail to pad politicians pockets. Use it to serve the community.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.