transportation 2035: investment trade offs metropolitan transportation commission transportation...

Transportation 2035:Investment Trade OffsTransportation 2035:Investment Trade Offs

Metropolitan Transportation CommissionTransportation 2035 Public Involvement

Program

June 13, 2008

Spring 2008 Public Involvement

Nine county workshops • Open to the public• Wide range of advertising• Over 400 attendees;

self-selected participants

Public Opinion Telephone Poll

• 3,600 registered voters

Spring 2008 Public Involvement

• Nine focus groups – 96 participants, registered voters recruited from telephone poll respondents

• Ten focus groups –155 participants recruited by community-based organizations

• Series of workshops with MTC advisors

% of Participants Attending First Public Meeting on Bay Area Transportation Issues

20% 21%24%

26%30%

9%

5%

37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

CC Napa SM Sol

31%

31%

20% 21%24% 26%

30%

9%5%

37%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Alameda ContraCosta

Marin Napa S.F. SanMateo

SantaClara

Solano Sonoma

At Workshops

Equal Support for 3E Goals at Workshops

05

101520253035404550

Alameda ContraCosta

Marin Napa S.F. SanMateo

SantaClara

Solano Sonoma

Economy Environment Equity

At Workshops

Maintenance

Higher Investment Priority: Maintain existing system vs. Build new roads, add more public transit

• Maintenance and Expansion Evenly Split

— Poll respondents 2007

• Maintenance over Expansion

— Workshop participants

• Expansion over Maintenance

— Community and Registered Voter Focus Groups

Key Observations on Maintenance

• Overall:

• A high priority, but clear support for reserving some funds for system expansion

• Many who supported expansion primarily support it for public transit plus bike/ped investments to improve their ability to get around, and to provide alternatives to the auto

• But can’t invest exclusively in transit; support to maintain roads for safety reasons, buses use roads, etc.

Congestion Relief

Investment Priority: Congestion ReliefHighways vs. Transit Alternatives vs. Walking/Bicycling Alternatives

• Consensus: support transit alternatives

— Poll respondents 2007

— Workshop participants

— Community Based Focus Groups

— Registered Voter Focus Groups

Key Observations on Congestion Relief

• Overall:• Majority support for investing in transit to relieve

freeway congestion, versus highway or bike/ped investments

• Support for transit overwhelming in urban core and in focus groups; less so in suburban areas, but transit still garnered a majority regardless of location

• Important to accommodate bikes on transit

• MTC advisors urge increased investment to improve transit performance and efficiency, e.g. improve schedule information, access to transit, route planning, security, and develop universal fare structure

Focused Growth

Higher Investment Priority: Communities building housing near transit vs. Even distribution among communities

• Even distribution among communities— Poll respondents 2007

• More to communities building TODs— Workshop participants

• Even distribution among communities— Community Based Focus Groups

• More to communities building TODs— Registered Voter Focus Groups

Key Observations on Focus Growth

Overall:

• Cluster jobs as well as housing. Santa Clara and Alameda county participants cited job sprawl

• Need to address safety — safety on bikes, crime on transit and at transit stops

Community Focus Groups:

• Support even distribution of funds — housing near transit may be beyond their financial reach and smaller communities with less transit shouldn’t be penalized

MTC Advisors:

• Stress accessibility in TOD design, as well as affordability

Access/Equity

Key Observations on Access/Equity

• Strong support for additional subsidies for

low-income riders — All participants

• Mixed support to reluctance for basing all transit fare subsidies on income rather than age or disability — Community & Registered Voter Focus Groups — Workshop Participants

(Question not asked in polls)

Key Observations on Access/Equity

Overall:

• Increase transit services — increase frequency and destinations — and provide seamless connections for all transit riders

• “It’s not fares that prevent people from taking transit, but more so whether transit goes where they need to go.”

  — Workshop Participant

 MTC Advisors:• Increase transit service hours and destinations,

improve connectivity, pursue regional accessible taxi ordinance and additional paratransit funds

Emissions Reduction

Transportation Investment Tradeoffs: Reducing Emissions Favored Over Making Driving Easier

• Focus on decreasing tailpipe emissions and encouraging alternatives to driving, as opposed to improving our ability to drive more easily around the Bay Area

— Poll respondents 2008— Workshop participants— Community Based Focus Groups— Registered Voter Focus Groups

Key Observations on Emissions Reductions• By encouraging alternatives to driving we will

reduce traffic congestion and improve traffic flow

•  Top four choices for reducing emissions…

• More and less expensive public transit

• Focused growth funding incentives

• Bicycle/pedestrian improvements

• Subsidize purchase of newer/cleaner vehicles