Bay Area Transportation: Partnering for Better Performance

1
Bay Area TransportationPartnering for
Better Performance
California Transportation Commission
Meeting December 10-11, 2008 Oakland, CA
2
Performance Objectives for Transportation 2035

• Congestion Reduce 20 below todays level
• VMT per capita Reduce 10 below todays level
• CO2 Reduce 40 below 1990 levels
• Affordability Reduce by 10 the share of income
  spent by low income households on transportation
  and housing combined
• Also, Maintenance, Safety and PM Reduction targets

3
Bridging the Gap to Meet Performance-based Vision

• Infrastructure projects alone are not nearly
  enough
• Road pricing has a much bigger effect in
  short-term
• Focused growth helps us reach targets in longer
  term
• Technology innovations can get us even closer to
  closing the gap
• Shifts in individual behavior ultimately drive
  change

4
Delivering Projects in PartnershipLocal/Regional
/State Dollars at Work

• Congestion Relief/Corridor Mobility
• Trade Corridors
• Freeway Performance Initiative
• Safety Improvements/SHOPP Doyle Drive
• Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program

5
Congestion Relief Projects Underway

• Under construction
• I-80 HOV Lanes in Fairfield, Solano County
• I-580 Eastbound HOV Lanes in Livermore, Alameda
  Co.
• I-580 / SR-84 Interchange at Isabel in Livermore,
  Alameda Co.
• US-101 HOV Lanes (Wilfred and North segments) in
  Sonoma Co.
• Construction allocation in six months
• US-101 HOV Lanes (Central segment) in Sonoma
  County
• SR-24 Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore in Alameda
  and Contra Costa
  Co.
• US-101 / I-580 Connector Widening in Marin County

Total Cost
80m 154m 153m 207m
594m
Total Cost
118m 420m 20m
558m
6
Trade Corridors Northern California Coalition

• Interregional partnership
• 23 counties
• 10 regional transportation agencies
• 3 ports Oakland, Sacramento and Stockton
• Caltrans
• Business community
• Two Primary Corridors I-80 and Altamont
• Create an efficient goods movement system capable
  of moving more goods while reducing congestion
  and pollution
• 825 M in TCIF Funds Matched Locally 11

7
ImproveFreeway Performance

• Freeway Performance Initiative
• TOS 700 m (10 years)
• TOS Maintenance/Replacement 900 m (25 years)
• Arterial Coordination/Management 40 m (25
  years)
• Performance Monitoring 10 m (25 years)

12
8
Safety First Doyle Drive Replacement

• December 2008 Consensus plan to deliver 1
  billion project
• Only artery connecting Marin and San Francisco
  Counties
• 120,000 vehicles/day
• Federal Sufficiency Rating of 2 out of 100
• Worst in California
• Located in high-seismic region
• No median barrier or shoulders

9
Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program

• 8.7 Billion Retrofit Program on the following
  bridges
• San Mateo-Hayward (2000)
• Carquinez (2002)
• Benicia-Martinez (2002)
• Richmond-San Rafael (2005)
• San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (Under
  Construction)
• Partnership of Caltrans, CTC and the Bay Area
  Toll Authority (BATA)

10
Advancing the Regional HOT Network
11
Why a HOT Network?

• Sea change in transportation funding
• Federal and state accounts going broke
• National and international trend to user fees
• Regionally/locally controlled revenue
• Proven corridor/system management tool
• Freeway system is largely built out
• Makes best use of capacity through price
• Manages transition from HOV 2 to HOV 3
• Completes the regional carpool system
• Huge existing investment in carpool lanes
• Completes network through voluntary contributions
• Network doubles as guideway for express buses

12
HOT Lanes Embraced Nationally

• Orange County (1995)
• San Diego (1998)
• Houston (1998)
• Minneapolis (2005)
• Denver (2006)
• Seattle (2008)
• San Diego extension (2008)
• Miami (2008)
• Houston expansion (2009)
• Los Angeles (2010)
• Bay Area I-680, I-580 (2010)
• Bay Area Rte 85/US 101 (2012/2013)
• Riverside (2015)

13
Bay Area HOT Network

• 800 miles total
• 500 miles HOV converted to HOT (63)
• 400 existing
• 100 fully funded
• 300 miles of new lanes (37)
• 5 increase in freeway mileage
• 60 are gap closures

13
14
Why a Regional HOT Network?

• Network serves regional economy and travel needs
• Offers consistency for users
• Increases financing options with BATA
  Participation
• New design approach could complete HOV network
  faster
• Congestion emissions reductions
• Reduced capital costs
• Potential transit improvements within corridors

15
HOT Network Benefits

• Capital cost, emissions and travel time savings
  compared to HOV pay-as-you-go build out (through
  2050)

16
HOT Network Principles

• (adopted July 2008)
• Collaboration
• Corridor-based implementation and reinvestment
• Consistent operations
• Evaluate financing options

17
Spectrum of Management Models
Collaboration
Independent JPAs
SB 1474 Transit Coordination Plan (Bay Area
Transit)
TransLink Governing Board
Caldecott Executive Steering Committee
Toll Bridge Oversight Policy Committee (TB POC)
BATA
18
Corridor-basedTravel Corridors
18
19
New Design Approach
Preferred HOT Design
Rapid Delivery HOT Design
20
Corridor-based Early Implementation

• Authorized HOT Corridors
• I-680 southbound
• I-580
• SR 85
• US 101 Santa Clara County
• Integration with existing projects
• I-80 HOV project in Solano
• I-880/92 interchange
• I-580 HOV lanes,truck climbing lane
• SR 237 direct connector

21
Next Steps

• Financial analysis December/January
• Refine design approach/costs early 2009
• Legislation in 2009-10 session
• Education and outreach ongoing

22
www.mtc.ca.gov