For the 2005 Regional Transportation Plan
(also known as Transportation 2030)

Is credible as a transportation plan.

  • Significant increase in the accessibility of jobs by both transit and auto, even when compared to the fiscally unconstrained Project, which spent $18.6 billion more.
  • Produces significant travel time savings --- over twice the per capita user benefits.
  • Less congestion than the Fiscally Constrained alternative, which spent $6.2 billion more.

Environmentally superior
  • saves nearly 60,000 acres of land from urbanization
  • reduces VMT, VT and air emissions, including GHGs
  • reduces energy consumption
  • reduces dependence on fossil fuels

Benefits low-income communities and communities of color more than other alternatives
  • more access to jobs by transit and auto for urban communities of concern
  • more access to jobs by auto for both suburban communities of concern and suburban majority communities
  • nearly three times the per capita user benefits

Would lead to a more sustainable future
  • better meets the need for affordable housing
  • households achieve mobility with fewer autos, saving an average of $692/year
  • land use and transit support growth without harm
  • higher gas prices will only make this alternative perform better
  • less dependence on fossil fuels

Reduce the demand for auto travel rather than increase supply--3 mutually reinforcing strategies
  • Smart Growth
  • cost-effective transit
  • pricing measures make transit cheaper and more convenient

Why go down this scary path? ("We've never done anything like this before....")
  • enable growth without worsening the quality of life
  • this plan leaves many existing neighborhoods untouched
  • growth is concentrated in existing malls and strip centers
  • be prepared for the End of Cheap Oil

Why it can work: Savings, the Secret Ingredient

By eliminating committed projects, the TRANSDEF Alternative saves $10.4 billion as compared to the adopted T2030 Plan. Even after adding back in $4.2 billion in additional transit service, the savings are still $6.2 billion.

What would have to happen?
  • Regional consensus could decide to shift funds from highway widening projects to rehab (or other local priorities).
  • This would free up $6.2 billion for other priorities.
  • County voters could authorize sales tax expenditure plan amendments.
  • This is a political issue, not a technical one.

Check out the Environmental Impact Report
for MTC's Transportation 2030 Plan:
Chap. 3 (290Kb PDF file, starting at page 3.1-4) and Appendix D ( 30.8Mb PDF file)