Metro Loop Fesability Study (draft) by Creative Fresno

Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study (Draft)

February 9, 2009

Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study (Draft)

Prepared For:

Planning & Development Dept. 559 621-8003 Prepared By:

559 271-1200 In association with:

February 9, 2009

Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno

Table of Contents 1.

INTRODUCTION Collaborating to Avert Economic and Environmental Disaster on a Wounded Planet Concept A Global Perspective A National Perspective A California Perspective Regional Leadership to Address Global, National and State Issues Study Development Study Purpose Corridor Description/Definition Relationship to Other Planning Efforts Metro Rural Loop Benefits Report Contents Contacts for Further Information

I-1 I-1

CHAPTER 1 – REGIONAL COOPERATION CHAPTER 2 – DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS CHAPTER 3 – LAND USE MODELING PROCESS CHAPTER 4 – TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 – ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSESSMENT CHAPTER 6 – PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER 7 – PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER 8 – NEXT STEPS CONTACTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

PPT-13 PPT-22

VRPA Technologies, Inc. i

I-3 I-5 I-6 I-7 I-7 I-8 I-8 I-9 I-11 I-12 I-13 I-13

PPT-32 PPT-51 PPT-61 PPT-68 PPT-74 PPT-80 PPT-82

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno

Metro Rural Loop Connecting a Region and Preserving the Resources that Feed a Nation

Concept graphics prepared by Spline Motion

INTRODUCTION

Collaborating to Avert Economic and Environmental Disaster on a Wounded Planet The evidence is mounting: if the future we genuinely desire for our children and coming generations of the San Joaquin Valley includes a sustainable and growing economy, then we must make some radical changes soon or for go the real prospect of continuing health and prosperity. We will need to increase our collective understanding and form a consensus about threats to and opportunities for sustainability and growth in the Valley. Each of us will need to accept new individual and institutional responsibilities for working across boundaries and for holding multiple cities and counties accountable for working together as well. We will need to change the way we relate to and care for each other, and the ways we govern, do business, use irreplaceable resources, make, consume, and dispose of products, develop land, transport ourselves, and save and invest for the future. We will need to focus immediately on the demands of the next economy, which will rise from the ashes of the last, and unsparingly require that we skillfully translate environmental quality and resource stewardship into economic sustainability and growth. We will need to think critically, think big, and act together to develop new organizational relationships, funding mechanisms,

VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno and physical infrastructure systems, like the Metro Rural Loop, that have the potential to help us achieve our shared goals. To quote Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, â&#x20AC;&#x153;We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." We live in a treasured Valley buffeted by a dynamic, increasingly troubled, and interconnected global context. Comfortable conceptions of an American influenced world order and benign natural environment have been strongly challenged by events and findings of the last few years. Layers of misperceptions and/or just plain denial of reality have been pealed away. We can no longer make sound assumptions or base achievable projections upon what has worked for us before. The relatively easy decades of the recent past in America and in the San Joaquin Valley are not likely to be prologue for the future. The world has turned very hostile economically and the natural environment unforgiving of our accumulating exhaust and ongoing extractions. The next economy, the one that will eventually emerge out of our multiple current crises, will favor those who acknowledge, seek to understand, and learn from the economic and environmental turns that are occurring and are willing to invest themselves, their relationships, and their precious resources accordingly. We are now experiencing financial and economic crises, of unprecedented breadth and depth since the 1930s, that continue to ravage the entire global economy and financial system. What appears to be a longterm process of de-leveraging of excessive credit and debt creation has been launched by world markets, companies and households. De-leveraging is deflating a diversity of asset values built up over decades and is destroying millions of American jobs. Global warming is now scientifically documented and broadly recognized as a serious threat to international economic, environmental, and social stability. American energy and food security are mandatory goals that can no longer be taken for granted or assumed. Long-term water supplies, agricultural production, and even whole cities in the San Joaquin Valley are at risk because of increasing aridity related to global warming and our poor records of water resource stewardship. Our society is relentlessly headed toward a demographic tsunami that will severely constrain our ability to produce economic growth as a country because a dramatically aging national population will logically divert its massive private savings and public entitlements to cover its own retirement and health care needs and away from much needed new education, research, innovation, and infrastructure investments. Increasingly uncompetitive and indebted U.S. and California businesses and government will not be healed and made perpetually healthy by short-term stimulus packages. Washington, Sacramento, and big global corporations will not be the source of solutions to our many problems in California or in the San Joaquin Valley. We will have to help ourselves. We must help ourselves. We must see and understand our shared potential as contingent upon building regional identity, regional strategies, regional capacities, and regional critical mass to compete globally and survive locally. We must bridge artificial political and obsolete ideological boundaries. We must plan, work, and achieve together to prosper in a changed and very challenging world. Only thoughtful and bold regional plans, devised and implemented through collaborative actions can preserve the basis for long-term health and prosperity in the San Joaquin Valley. Innovative and efficient land use, transportation, and resource management systems are essential to overcome existing, emerging and likely air quality, global warming, energy, water, economic, and fiscal crises. New regional scale human

VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno and physical infrastructure investments must be made to ensure quality-of-life, business opportunities and economic growth, conservation and efficient use of finite natural resources, and to sustain fiscal and civic capacities. New inter-jurisdictional institutions, new public-private partnerships, and new formal revenue raising and revenue sharing agreements are required to develop and manage new multi-county initiatives and operations, shared budgets and regional infrastructure systems. In the next economy we are mutually obligated to translate all threats to our environment and resource base into new regional economic growth possibilities and platforms. Extreme times require bold initiatives â&#x20AC;&#x201C; initiatives like the Metro Rural Loop.

Concept A Network of Green Cities and Agriculture Connected by the Metro Rural Loop Our proposed approach to meet and overcome our regional challenges and to positively contribute to national and global sustainability solutions is to plan for the future transportation and land use relationships in the San Joaquin Valley to the years 2050 and 2110 consistent with the recommended Regional Blueprint policies and the global warming solutions as prescribed by Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375. The Metro Rural Loop (Loop) fulfills this approach as an innovative regional land use, transportation, resource management and economic development strategy by envisioning a multimodal, multicity and multicounty, transit-oriented transportation corridor system. It would directly and efficiently link the development of the majority of the 30 incorporated cities (and their activity centers) in Fresno, Madera, Tulare and Kings Counties (reference Figure 1). The Metro Rural Loop would enable a networked pattern of cities within and surrounded by sustainable world class agriculture, open space, and environmental habitat to become one of the most significant, efficient, effective and green compact and transit-oriented regional metropolitan areas in the State of California. The Metro Rural Loop is conceived as a high capacity and efficient system of region-connecting, multimodal transportation corridors governed collaboratively by a new inter-jurisdictional organization. It would be supported by regional and local land use and green development policies that preserve agriculture, resource lands and natural resources, and shape the development and revitalization of partner cities. Metro Rural Loop would connect activity centers (new compact, walkable, bikable, New Urbanist town centers and villages) of partner cities committed to transit-oriented and green development that contain high quality and higher intensity industry, commerce, residential, public, cultural and recreational open spaces. Metro Rural Loop transportation corridors would cross long-term farmlands to connect cities and activity centers, but discourage and in many cases prohibit development outside those cities that is inconsistent with Regional Blueprint policies and long-term agriculture and resource land preservation policies. Metro Rural Loop transportation corridors would offer a transit-focused combination of light-rail transit (LRT), goods movement rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), dedicated truck lanes, and other modes based upon clean energy and new transportation technologies that enhance and sustain regional and local mobility. Compact urban areas, activity centers, and transit corridors should be bounded and interconnected by urban woodlands, drainage swales, conservation easements, wildlife corridors, and regional open space and multi-purpose trails designed to permanently protect, integrate, and transition between urban uses, strategic and community agriculture, environmental and habitat lands, and historic landscapes. VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno Figure 1

All neighborhoods, buildings, and urban landscapes within activity centers and along corridors within cities should be designed and/or retrofitted to conserve and more efficiently use water and energy, and to promote clean energy development to reduce carbon emissions and increase air quality. All Metro Rural Loop systems should be managed collaboratively through a new inter-jurisdictional organization composed of a network of joint powers, interagency agreements and public-private partnerships dedicated to sustainable, high-quality, urban and regional development, cooperation, and support for long-term regional competitiveness. High Speed Rail, Regional Blueprint, SEGA, and Emerging Green Plans for Valley The Metro Rural Loop will support the proposed California High Speed Rail system by creating a convenient and efficient regional passenger feeder and distribution network. Stations stops now planned for California High Speed Rail in Tulare and Fresno Counties are on proposed Metro Rural Loop corridors. The Regional Blueprint and the Metro Rural Loop have been conceived as inseparable and integral to each other, as is the case with the proposed Fresno County Model Farmland Conservation Program and the Metro Rural Loop, all of which aim for greater urban efficiencies, resource conservation, and advanced transit systems to provide the basis for sustainable economy and regional competitiveness. The City of Fresno, in partnership with the City of Clovis, has initiated a metropolitan scale Activity Center and Corridor Intensification Study shaped by the principles and policies of the Regional Blueprint and Metro Rural Loop. This study is identifying primary activity centers and corridors within the Fresno-Clovis Metro Area for bus rapid transit (BRT) system infrastructure and land use intensification to support BRT. The

VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno Activity Center and Corridor Intensification Study builds off Metro Rural Loop modeling of land use and transportation relationships and intensities completed in support of the Fresno COG Blueprint, and is also strongly inspired by the proposed City of Fresno Southeast Growth Area (SEGA) Specific Plan. The City of Fresno is exploring a unique opportunity to plan the Southeast Growth Area from the ground up and to engage new and innovative ideas to create a healthy, livable, and prosperous community that has measurable economic and resource efficiencies, is fiscally sound, and environmentally sustainable. Proposed SEGA design and development standards have applications and utility beyond the SEGA geography to all major activity centers, corridors, and districts in the Fresno-Clovis Metro Area and throughout the Valley and the state. SEGA links, integrates with and positively extends the purpose of other efforts such as the City of Fresno 2025 General Plan, the Urban Water Management Plan, California global warming solutions laws such as AB 32 and SB 375, the Regional Blueprint and the Metro Rural Loop, the Public Transportation Infrastructure and Bus Rapid Transit Studies, the Activity Center and Corridor Intensification Study, the Model Farmland Conservation Program, and more. Some of the estimated and proposed SEGA Plan per household green metrics versus the Fresno’s current growth trends that will be further assessed in the SEGA EIR include: GHGs from 14.5 metric tons to 5.7 tons = 60% Annual Reduction Air Pollution from 1,600 lbs to 800 lbs = 50% Annual Reduction Zero Net Clean Energy/Efficiencies = 50% Annual Lower Use & Costs Water (Pending DPU Studies) = SEGA Site Goals are 50% Daily Use Reduction by 2025 and 75% Daily Use Reduction by 2050 ¾ Affordability as Measured by Reduced Annual Transportation and Household Maintenance Costs for Energy and Water = 50% Reduction ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Visalia and Clovis, like Fresno, are advancing green strategies, infill, urban village and new compact and transit-oriented development plans. Tulare, Kings and Madera Counties have Blueprint strategies that preserve agriculture and address urban efficiencies that are all being woven into an eight county Blueprint along with Fresno and other Valley counties. The Metro Rural Loop will likely serve as a key to the connectivity of these multiple efforts. The urgency for our region to consider and move on something as big and bold and green as the Metro Rural Loop – to encourage us to help ourselves and not hold our destiny hostage to global, national and state contingencies - to achieve competitive economic advantage and sustainability for our part of the Valley - is strongly bolstered by the following perspectives.

A Global Perspective First to reinforce the global picture which contextualizes our Nation and Valley – the world is networked, highly-interconnected, and changing very rapidly as the speed and magnitude of the current international economic crisis attests. Some highlights from the Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World report, which is prepared every four (4) years by the 16 federal and military intelligence agencies that represent the National Intelligence Council (NIC) are valuable here as a good third party, non-fiction, non-ideological source of trends and implications Americans and valley residents should be conscious of: VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno

¾ The NIC is concerned about an unprecedented shift in relative wealth and economic power from

West to East - America and Europe to Asia

¾ The NIC is concerned about extreme pressure on energy, food and water resources and the

¾ ¾ ¾

resulting costs and distribution of these resources with the addition of 1.2 billion more people on the planet by 2025, with well over 5 million of these people projected to settle in the San Joaquin Valley The NIC is concerned about the timing and seriousness of possible economic and social disruptions that an energy transition away from oil and gas to clean and sustainable energy sources will create if not begun in earnest and completed as soon as possible The NIC is concerned about how quickly climate change occurs and the locations where its impacts will be most pronounced The NIC is concerned about an increase in world resource nationalism – a receding global market place – and the potential risks of great power confrontations over resources And, the NIC is concerned about – all manner of fears and consequences related to potential conflicts, realignments, and a changed geopolitical landscape

A National Perspective The last U.S. economy is transitioning away from us – in fits and starts – and we are moving toward the next economy – one that more likely will be based upon: ¾ Limitations to U.S. economic and military hegemony – moving from a uni-polar to a multi-polar

world order– with less predictable abilities for achieving significant economic growth

¾ Potential loss of World Reserve currency status for the U.S. dollar and of the relatively low-cost of

capital that has gone with it An aging and less productive workforce More expensive and less abundantly available fossil fuel energy Increased economic consequences of global warming Lowered availability and restricted consumption of all natural resource and commodity categories Low household savings rates (nearly 0% in 2008 vs. 10% in the 1950s) Excessive household borrowing and credit – (135% of household income in 2008 vs. 23% in the 1950s) ¾ Household debt service at its highest since the Great Depression – Now nearly 15% of disposable income versus 2 % in 1945 ¾ Decreasing productivity because of declining relative investments in education, research, and infrastructure ¾ Prospects for resurging “inflation” – and rising prices for all goods and services ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno

A California Perspective The Next California Economy will emerge in the context of successful short-term solutions to the unprecedented financial, economic, and fiscal emergencies now facing our entire country and the world. Long-term economic solutions for our state will be contingent on how we address the sustainability issues identified below: ¾ The Next California Economy will continue to be negatively impacted by more than 30 years of

significant accumulating deficits in education and infrastructure investments which lead some thoughtful observers to suggest that “our Golden State appears headed, if not for imminent disaster, then toward an unanticipated, maddening, and largely unnecessary mediocrity” 1 ¾ The Next California Economy will also be strongly challenged by the necessity for adaptation to an aging population, severe energy and water constraints, worries about climate change, and massive shifts in relative wealth and global economic power away from the U.S. to Asian and other fast growing economies in a rapidly changing international system that threatens to limit and diminish our potential prosperity 2 ¾ The Next California Economy will either provide a regenerative economic model for an innovative, entrepreneurial, and increasingly urban and green society, conceived and implemented with the cooperative relationships, understandings, goals, strategies, investments, accountability and longterm transitional time frame required for achievement of sustainable energy, resource management, health, and prosperity, 3 or represent another serial failure of recent California politics-as-usual

Regional Leadership to Address Global, National and State Issues Keeping the Global, National and State perspectives in mind, this region must understand that: ¾ We cannot afford to deny what is happening globally or at the National and State level – and how

certain trends and their implications may ultimately impact our valley, the 4-County region, our families, and our children’s future ¾ Our land use, built environment and transportation systems can be part of the solution to a number of threats and weaknesses, or be part of the problem, and at the same time, these systems can provide a framework and the possibility of regional success ¾ We must have a shared analysis of reality and its implications – a shared sense of threats, weaknesses, opportunities and strengths ¾ With regard to certain economic and environmental concerns, we actually still have a chance to implement a shared vision and strategies for sustainable health and economic prosperity if we can agree and begin work together now. We must pool our talents and strengths; address and counter negative trends; and establish new ways of doing business, farming, building our cities, and providing mobility, governing together, among other things . . . Sundown for California, Joel Kotkin, The American Magazine, November 12, 2008 Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, National Intelligence Council, November 2008 3 Energy at the Crossroads, Vaclav Smil, Background Notes for a Presentation at the Global Science Forum on Challenges for Energy Research, May 2006 1 2

VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno The 4-County region will not escape many of the negative consequences of the state, national and global trends noted above. However, the region is uniquely situated as the major urban area in the San Joaquin Valley to use advanced planning tools successfully used elsewhere â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as well as breaking new ground â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to focus on wisely managing costly and precious natural, human, and financial resources to counter many of these negative trends. We have the choice to rethink our urban form, growth patterns, intensity of development and transportation systems to create competitive advantage in our economy, our environment, and our neighborhoods. We can explore the new international emphasis on efficient land use and transportation relationships represented by compact development in general and transit-oriented (compact) development (TOD) in particular, and connect these ideas with the clean energy, water stewardship, and farmland preservation policies necessary in the Valley to support the permanent synergistic coexistence of cities and agriculture. The Metro Rural Loop, along with other major studies underway (Blueprint, Fresno Activity Center and Corridor Intensification Study, Southeast Growth Area, Fresno County Public Transportation Infrastructure Study, and others) together provide concepts that can help meet these global and State challenges. The Metro Rural Loop study provides concepts that rely on us working together to overcome our challenges and implement new systems to achieve positive outcomes in this region.

Study Development The California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley awarded a grant to the City of Fresno, acting as a fiscal agent, to study the feasibility of the Metro Rural Loop network. The Metro Rural Loop is an innovative regional development approach envisioning a Multi-Modal, Multi-City, and Multi-County Transit-Oriented Transportation Corridor Network, and as noted above, it would directly and efficiently link the majority of the 30 incorporated cities (and their activity centers) in Fresno, Madera, Tulare and Kings Counties (reference Figure 1). The Metro Rural Loop would enable a networked pattern of cities within and surrounded by sustainable world class agriculture, open space, and environmental habitat to become one of the most significant, efficient, effective, and green compact and transit-oriented regional metropolitan areas in the State of California. The Metro Rural Loop has and can continue to definitively achieve immediate and measurable regional collaboration involving all levels of government, foster greater public-private collaboration, engage citizenry and mobilize volunteers by bringing together cities, counties, COGs and county transportation authorities and commissions, state agencies, regional districts, and numerous business, agricultural, environmental, community and civic association leaders to share in regional planning and feasibility tasks, while laying a solid foundation for high priority goal implementation.

Study Purpose The Central Valley of California is expected to grow rapidly over the coming decades. The region faces significant challenges in accommodating the expected growth, while maintaining and enhancing its quality of life. Concerns over the conflicts between urbanization and agriculture; over mobility and access, air quality, water quality and availability, and greenhouse gas emissions; and over economic development, economic and social equity, and the overall quality of life exist today and are likely to intensify in the future. VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno The Metro Rural Loop Corridor Preservation Feasibility Study represents the necessary and urgent work of preserving the wide multi-modal transportation corridor network, needed to serve the millions who will reside and work here in the next 40 to 100 years, and which corridors are currently threatened by uncoordinated planning and development policies. Transportation corridor preservation for Metro Rural Loop has several forms: ¾ Establishing and preserving new alignments and sufficient rights-of way widths along the proposed

SR 65, along other existing and realigned state routes, and new routes along or near other alignments ¾ Preserving and expanding the ability to utilize existing rights-of-way along State Routes for railbased mass transit

The Study has identified transportation options for the future of this region focusing the potential for compact and higher intensity and density development along certain network segments and primarily within activity centers of existing cities, while generally using corridors as design boundaries for permanently protecting farmland, habitat, and natural resources.

Corridor Description/Definition Consistent with the preferred Blueprint land use and transportation concept for Fresno County, the Metro Rural Loop promotes moderate growth and higher density increases, occurring in highly connected “city centers”. Referencing Figure 2, the transportation system includes new transportation corridors connecting to urban centers such as Downtown Fresno, Clovis, and the Southeast Growth Area (SEGA), systems being planned as part of the Fresno County Public Transportation Infrastructure Study (PTIS), plans for light rail in Tulare County, and plans for High Speed Rail through the San Joaquin Valley connecting the 4county region with the rest of the state. Growth would be distributed within the county at designated nodes (city centers) which could expand existing city centers or in new city centers at key transportation hubs. Growth priority is to existing cities and planned development areas. It would involve infill development, revitalization, and greenfield development. This scenario allows for growth to meet regional housing needs and existing general plan growth areas, consistent with the “city centers” principles of Diversity, Density, Design and Destination (4D’s). The growth needs of smaller communities are recognized, and accounted for in the regional growth allocations. Spheres of influence would be adjusted accordingly. Principle objectives of the preferred Blueprint scenario are competitive economic development and environmental sustainability consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 375. Job growth would be integrated with housing growth to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Growth would also be balanced with the plan’s objective to reduce greenhouse gases consistent with Assembly Bill 32 and other unhealthy emissions, and preserve strategic farmlands and resource conservation/open space lands. The Metro Rural Loop provides a framework for improved and sustainable economics and energy and water efficiency, conservation, and innovation. Positive elements of the Metro Rural Loop include the following:

VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno

Figure 2

¾ Development of a high capacity, multi-modal transportation network that provides connectivity and ¾ ¾ ¾

¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

transportation choice throughout the region Growth priority to existing cities and planned development areas (recognizing the growth needs of smaller communities) Infill development, greenfield development and revitalization Growth to meet regional housing needs and general plan growth areas; consistent with the smart growth principles of Diversity, Density, Design and Destination (4Ds). This does not preclude expansion of spheres of influence under certain circumstances that include smart growth principles Discouragement, and in many cases prohibition, of growth on strategic farmland and resource conservation/open space land Employment centers to serve the four-County region Collaborative planning to ensure that policies are in place for planned, orderly, and equitable growth within planned growth areas while allowing flexibility in meeting the performance goals Some flexibility in allocating growth, but in a manner that will ensure acceptable performance outcomes

VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno A principal objective of the Metro Rural Loop is competitive economic development. Job growth should be balanced with housing growth, and located to provide transportation choices in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The goal is to position the 4-County region as an economically competitive area with a diversified economic base. The region needs to remain business friendly and make the right choices for enhancing quality of life through predictable and sustainable development. The Metro Rural Loop Study focused on the use of land use and transportation modeling tools applied to allocate future growth and development consistent with Smart Growth goals and objectives. Highlights of the Metro Rural Loop Modeling process include: ¾ State Route (SR) 65 Extension, SR 99 By-Pass, and South County sub-loop ¾ Mass transportation system improvements (High Speed Rail, Light Rail, Bus Rapid Transit, ¾

¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Commuter Rail, Express Bus, New Transit Technology Modes, Etc.) Higher residential densities supportive of, and supported by, mass transit and more intensive employment in mixed-use districts; and balanced with provision of a range of urban and rural protected open spaces and parks Growth attracted to revitalization and infill areas was allocated using UPLAN (the same tool used in the Blueprint process) and considered the location of planned mass transit lines Mass transit and Metro Rural Loop/Sub Loops and Spokes were given higher preference for growth allocation Vertical vs. horizontal mixed use allocation Intentional land use mapping - Finer grain in terms of mapping – identified mixed-use at transit stations, immediately adjacent to the station, and along the transit corridors Identified intensity areas – actually changed the land uses at stations and along corridors to reflect uses supportive of planned mass transit improvements

Relationship to Other Planning Efforts The Metro Rural Loop Study builds upon the work of a range of city and regional studies, including: ¾ The individual 4-County Blueprint efforts and the related Strategic Farmland Study, which together

define a set of regional growth pattern and allocation goals, a multi-modal transportation network, growth assumptions, and which utilized a set of allocation and evaluation tools ¾ The San Joaquin Valley Blueprint effort, which has identified four alternative Blueprint scenarios for the Valley, including Scenarios B and C, which include the Metro Rural Loop network and concepts ¾ The Fresno Activity Center Study and the Fresno South East Growth Area (SEGA) Plan, which defines an approach for defining activity centers, neighborhoods, and work places in terms of land use diversity, density, and urban form, as well as an approach for assessing a broad range of sustainability measures ¾ The Fresno County Public Transportation Infrastructure Study (PTIS) and the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Studies, which provide further definition in terms of the future transit network that will provide transit options for those working and living in the activity areas

VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno The Metro Rural Loop Study and these other recent or on-going efforts are interdependent and contingent on one another. Each has taken a different perspective on creating a more sustainable 4-County Region in terms of ecology, economy, and equity; a region that will be economically competitive well into the future. The goal of these efforts is to take on the challenges that face cities and regions throughout the United States such as water and air quality, a healthy and well-educated workforce, the fiscal condition of public agencies, the need to reduce energy demand and green house gas emissions, and improving overall civic life while growing the regional population.

Metro Rural Loop Benefits The specific benefits to the Central Valley will depend on the final plan for the Metro Rural Loop and the specifics of its implementation. As part of the investment in the Metro Rural Loop, additional investments would be made in the “spokes” of the Loop, enhancing transit options from the Loop to locations within it. In addition to the investment in transportation infrastructure, the Metro Rural Loop proposal encourages a land use pattern that focuses continued investment and growth in existing communities and discourages the spread of growth into the most valuable of agricultural or habitat lands; moving away from an unsustainable pattern of growth that has had much to do with the current economic crisis. The potential economic benefits of the Metro Rural Loop are similar to those of major transportation/ transit investments in other regions. The potential benefits of concentrated growth in existing communities are also similar to those of other regions, with particular benefits associated with the agricultural industry in the Central Valley. The Metro Rural Loop has the potential to provide the following benefits to the Central Valley: ¾ Economic Benefits. Increased mobility and connectivity will allow for the efficient movements of

goods and people as the region’s population and economy grow. Potential elements of the Metro Rural Loop, a new regional airport and a new truck tollway, would also improve the regions accessibility from state, national and international perspectives. Also, the California high-speed rail project with its stations in the four counties would be better connected to communities in the region by the Metro Rural Loop improvements. The concentration of growth in existing communities that may be associated with the Metro Rural Loop will support concentrated economic development efforts in these communities. It will also reduce the overall rate of farmland conversion and reduce the future extent of this conversion, supporting the ongoing vitality of the agricultural industry, a critical Central Valley industry ¾ Environmental Benefits. Increased transit ridership would help the region grapple with two significant challenges, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Air quality is a regional quality of life issue that affects residents and workers in the region. Existing and future regulation of air quality and greenhouse gases is also likely to require a number of actions by local governments ¾ Overall Quality of Life Benefits. The potential benefits from the Metro Rural Loop, including increased transportation and housing choice, and access to a broader range of employment, would combine to improve the quality of life of existing and future residents of the four counties. The economic and environmental benefits could build off each other to create a more vital and economically diversified region, attractive to existing and new businesses and existing and future residents VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

DRAFT Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study City of Fresno

Report Contents The remainder of the Study Report is in presentation format and attached to this Introduction. The presentation contains the following chapters: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Chapter 1 - Regional Cooperation Chapter 2 – Development of Regional Demographic Projections Chapter 3 – Land Use Modeling Process Chapter 4 – Transportation Systems Analysis Chapter 5 – Economic Benefits Assessment Chapter 6 – Preservation of Agricultural Resources Chapter 7 – Preservation of Natural Resources Chapter 8 – Next Steps

Contacts For Further Information Appendix and the PowerPoint Presentation are available at the following website. http://www.fresno.gov/Government/DepartmentDirectory/PlanningandDevelopment/Planning/Ongoing+Planning+Stu dies.htm

Keith Bergthold, City of Fresno (559) 621‐8049 Keith.Bergthold@fresno.gov Trai Her, City of Fresno (559) 621‐8003 Trai.Her@fresno.gov

Georgiena Vivian, VRPA Technologies (559) 259‐9257 gvivian@vrpatechnologies.com

VRPA Technologies, Inc.

February 9, 2009

METRO RURAL LOOP Feasibility Study Report (Draft) Click to edit Master subtitle style

PREPARED FOR:

PREPARED BY:

In Association With:

Study Overview Study Development Chapter 1 - Regional Cooperation Chapter 2 - Development of Regional Demographic Projections Chapter 3 - Land Use Modeling Process Chapter 4 - Transportation Systems Analysis Chapter 5 - Economic Benefits Assessment Chapter 6 - Preservation of Agricultural Resources Chapter 7 - Preservation of Natural Resources Chapter 8 - Next Steps Contacts for Further Information 3

The Metro Rural Loop (MRL) Study was developed considering seven major issues or components. These components are further graphically displayed and described in the remainder of this presentation. In addition, the final slides provide an overview of study findings and next steps toward implementation of the Metro Rural Loop.

Metro Rural Loop Feasibility Study Funded by the City of Fresno & a Grant from the Partnership of the San Joaquin Valley Team Members: à à à à

City of Fresno Development Department VRPA Technologies, Inc. – Lead Consultant Community Design + Architecture Economic & Planning Systems

The California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley awarded a grant to the City of Fresno, acting as a fiscal agent, to study the feasibility of the Metro Rural Loop Corridor. The City of Fresno also contributed financially to Study development. The Study was originally funded to develop the Metro Rural Loop Corridor within Fresno County focusing on the Year 2110 or 100 years into the future. However, the Study was expanded to include the Counties of Fresno, Kings, Madera and Tulare and also addresses growth and development in the Year 2050 consistent with the Blueprint planning process. The City of Fresno managed Study development and was responsible for bringing each of the counties, cities within the counties, and stakeholders together to develop regional cooperation. VRPA Technologies, Inc. was the lead consultant responsible for Study development, outreach, and consultant team management. Community Design + Architecture was responsible for land use modeling and Economic & Planning Systems responsible for population and employment projections, as well as the economic feasibility assessment.

Metro Rural Loop Study Focus Study Components Regional Cooperation

Land Use / Economic Feasibility

Habitat / Resource Conservation

Regional Planning Efforts & Studies Transportation

Ag Preservation

Each of the following chapters in this report address the components identified above. Each of these study components was identified as a specific task in the Study scope approved by the Partnership of the San Joaquin Valley and City of Fresno.

Study Purpose Â&#x192; Plan for the future of transportation & land use in the Central San Joaquin Valley to the Year 2050 & 2110 Â&#x192; Fulfill the desire for an innovative regional land use, resource management, & economic development approach envisioning a multimodal, multicity & multicounty, transit-oriented transportation corridor system 7

Our desire is to plan for the future of transportation and land use in the San Joaquin Valley to the Year 2050 and 2110. The Metro Rural Loop (MRL) fulfills that desire as an innovative regional land use, resource management and economic development approach envisioning a multimodal, multicity and multicounty, transitoriented transportation corridor system.

Study Purpose (Cont.) Directly & efficiently link a majority of 30 incorporated cities in Fresno, Kings, Madera, & Tulare Counties Define one of the most significant, efficient, effective and green, compact and transit-oriented regional metropolitan in California

The Metro Rural Loop (MRL) would directly and efficiently link the development of the majority of 30 incorporated cities in Fresno, Kings, Madera, and Tulare counties. The MRL defines one of the most significant, sustainable efficient, effective and green compact and transit‐oriented regional metropolitan areas in the State of California. It would be supported by regional and local land use and green development policies that preserve agriculture, resource lands and natural resources, and shape the development and revitalization of partner cities.

Corridor Description/Definition Conceived as a system of regionconnecting, high-capacity, multimodal transportation corridors Supported by regional land use policies that would connect activity centers of partner cities committed to transit-oriented and green development that contain high quality and higher intensity industry, commerce, residential, public, cultural, and recreational open spaces 9

The Metro Rural Loop provides a framework for improved and sustainable economics, energy and water efficiency, conservation, and innovation. Positive elements of the Metro Rural Loop include the following: Development of a high capacity, multi-modal transportation network that provides connectivity throughout the region Growth priority to existing cities and planned development areas (recognizing the growth needs of smaller communities) Infill development, greenfield development and redevelopment Growth to meet regional housing needs and general plan growth areas; consistent with the smart growth principles of Diversity, Density, Design and Destination (4D’s). This does not preclude expansion of spheres of influence under certain circumstances that include smart growth principles Discouragement and in some cases prohibit the growth on strategic farmland and resource conservation/open space land Employment-focused mixed use centers to serve the four-County region Collaborative planning to ensure that policies are in place for planned, orderly growth within planned growth areas while allowing flexibility in meeting the performance goals Some flexibility in allocating growth, but in a manner that will ensure desired acceptable performance outcomes

Conceptual Metro Rural Loop â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Year 2110

This topographic map provides a 3D-type image of the conceptual Metro Rural Loop and Sub-loops traversing through the Valley floor and each of the 4 counties.

Study Goals Establish & preserve new alignments & sufficient rights-of way widths along proposed SR 65, along other existing & realigned state routes, & new routes along or near other alignments Preserve & expand the ability to utilize existing along State Routes for rail-based mass transit & bus rapid transit 11

The Central Valley of California is expected to grow rapidly over the coming decades. The region faces significant challenges in accommodating the expected growth, while maintaining and enhancing its quality of life. Concerns over the conflicts between urbanization and agriculture; over availability of water, mobility, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions; and over economic development and the overall quality of life exist today and are likely to intensify in the future. The Metro Rural Loop Corridor Preservation Feasibility Study represents the necessary and urgent work of preserving the wide multi-modal transportation corridors, needed to serve the millions who will reside and work here in the next 40 and 100 years, and which corridors are currently threatened by uncoordinated planning and development policies. Transportation corridor preservation for Metro Rural Loop has several forms: Establishing and preserving new alignments and sufficient rights-of way widths on proposed SR 65, and existing and realigned SR 145, and new routes along or near other alignments in the other counties. Preserving and expanding the ability to utilize existing rights-of-way on State Routes 99, 41, 168, 180, and other major routes for rail-based mass transit, that has developed in the SF Bay Area, that is now in jeopardy of being lost. We must act quickly to preserve transportation options for the future of this region Focusing and containing compact and transit oriented development along certain corridor segments, while generally using corridors as design boundaries for permanently protecting farmland, habitat, and natural resources

Study Goals (Cont.) Metro Rural Loop would connect activity centers of partner cities committed to transitoriented and green development that contain high quality and higher intensity industry, commerce, residential, public, cultural, and recreational open spaces Use corridors as design boundaries for permanently protecting farmland, habitat, & natural resources 12

The Metro Rural Loop is conceived as a high capacity and efficient system of region‐ connecting, multimodal transportation corridors governed collaboratively by a new inter‐ jurisdictional organization. It would be supported by regional and local land use and green development policies that preserve agriculture, resource lands and natural resources, and shape the development and revitalization of partner cities. Metro Rural Loop would connect activity centers (new compact, walkable, bikable, New Urbanist town centers and villages) of partner cities committed to transit‐oriented and green development that contain high quality and higher intensity industry, commerce, residential, public, cultural, and recreational open spaces. Metro Rural Loop transportation corridors would cross long‐ term farmlands to connect cities and activity centers, but discourage and in many cases prohibit development outside those cities that is inconsistent with Regional Blueprint policies and long‐term agriculture and resource land preservation policies. Metro Rural Loop would offer a transit‐focused combination of light‐rail transit (LRT), goods movement rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), dedicated truck lanes, and/or other modes based upon clean energy and new transportation technologies that enhance and sustain regional and local mobility.

Public Outreach Multi-city & county tour à Multi-city & county tour over approximately 4 months à Visited all 4 Council of Governments (COGs), each of the 4 counties, 24 of the 30 incorporated cities à Briefed the agencies on the Metro Rural Loop project & solicited feedback

MULTI-CITY AND COUNTY TOUR Keith Bergthold with the City of Fresno went on a multi-city and county tour over approximately 4 months during which time he visited all 4 Council of Governments (COGs), each of the 4 county Board of Supervisors, and 24 of the 30 incorporated cities to brief them on the Metro Rural Loop project and solicit their feedback. This initial outreach was key to the success of the Study. The effort solidified support for Study preparation and need for an innovative approach to future transportation and land use planning in the region.

Public Outreach Â&#x192; Community Workshop Ă Held Friday, February 29, 2008 at Fresno Convention Center Exhibit Hall Ă Purpose: Bring stakeholders together to discuss the proposed corridor alignment & to gather input on the future of transportation & land use

The Community Workshop On Friday, February 29, 2008, the City of Fresno Planning & Development Department hosted a community workshop with key stakeholders of the Metro Rural Loop Project. The event took place from 12:00 to 4:30 PM in the new Exhibit Hall at the Fresno Convention Center. The purpose of the workshop was to bring stakeholders together to discuss the proposed Metro Rural Loop alignment and gather data on the future of transportation and land use in Fresno, Kings, Madera and Tulare Counties. The workshop agenda consisted of setting parameters for regional cooperation, establishing base demographic and land-use projections, and preparing a preferred land-use and multi-modal network alternative. Over 150 people attended the workshop, including representatives from 24 of the 30 incorporated cities, all 4 counties and COGs, elected officials at the city, county and state levels, representatives from public and private entities, local media, and the mayor of Fresno. In addition to the Metro Rural Loop Workshop, other related outreach efforts provided the public opportunity to express their opinions regarding the Metro Rural Loop and to provide vital input, which was used to develop this Study report. Other venues included the Blueprint outreach workshops conducted over the past year and the Fresno General Plan Activity Center Workshop held on December 9, 2008.

Multi-County Issues/Comments Â&#x192; Agreed with Metro Rural Loop concept Â&#x192; Believed that regional cooperation and planning is essential to continued economic development within the region Â&#x192; Recommended further development of the Study including implementation strategies

Workshop Issues/Comments Workshop participants mapped preferences for land use & transportation concepts Major break-out group comments: à Create defined, beautiful, desirable communities à Define growth boundaries & hold them à Need local flexibility during implementation

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS IDENTIFY CONCEPTUAL CORRIDOR PRIORITIES The workshop included an interactive exercise where participants were able to roll up their sleeves and use the maps to identify their preferences for land use and transportation. Summaries of their comments were transcribed and appear below. Summary of Participant Comments Table 1 • SR 65 so it does not divide Little Dry Creek in the Lost Lake area • Need ,ore spokes going out to Metro Rural Loop • Concentrate development along the corridor and/or at the nodes • Extend the SR 99 western bypass south of Hanford and connect back to SR 99 at Pixley • Create defined, beautiful, desirable communities, not just density • Southwest Fresno area should be expanded • The proposed new location of the Fresno Yosemite International Airport needs thought. Good concept, but maybe not the right location • Define growth boundaries and hold them • Combine all open space into a single category. Clearly identify areas that need to be protected and consider how wildlife will traverse the Metro Rural Loop Table 2 • Transit issues exist with regard to technologies not yet available today. Will light rail and buses exist in 2110? Over the long term, monorail or maglev may be better options. Will aircraft be the same? New technologies may allow the airport to remain where it is • Define Academy Avenue as a sub-loop • SR 99 western bypass should be closer to SR 99 and extend further in each direction. • Not in favor of new airport location • Consider new sites for higher education facilities • Too few connections to recreational areas, lakes, mountains, etc Table 3 • Good job identifying transit corridors. Some of these will be growth inducing, want the growth to occur where it is planned. • Consider expanding to a larger region for the airport. Merced might be a good choice. • Regional revenue sharing – overcome competition for developments • Do we have water storage to accommodate growth? • Ensure local flexibility and buyoff – regional planning sometimes inhibits local support • Need local flexibility for implementation • Make sure Metro Rural Loop will accommodate market conditions

Workshop Issues/Comments Major break-out group comments: à Establish buffers to maintain sense of community identity à Focus on increased densities, preservation & protection of beautiful, sensitive areas

Summary of Participant Comments Table 4 • Are communities planning for 2110? Are they planning to be larger or smaller? Is everyone interested in growing the same amount? • Is the loop going to take people where they really want to go? Does it make sense? • Establish buffers to enable each community to maintain its sense of community identity Table 5 • Keep connectivity in core areas • Extend passenger rail to more communities, especially Lemoore • Airport location concept is good • Focus on increased densities and preservation/protection of beautiful, sensitive areas • Collaboration with other counties is the most difficult and the most important part of this process Table 6 • Add more connectivity between Visalia and Lemoore • Extend the SR 99 bypass further north and south • Alignment is a concern • East side commuter rail may not be viable • Need increased north-south capacity in rail links • Airport relocation outside the metro area is a good idea. encroachment • Need to identify agricultural land preservation spaces • Maintain momentum!

Need conservation easements around the airport to prevent development

Table 7 • Put sub-loops on existing corridors • SR 99 bypass should follow HSR corridor • Proposed items do not match community identities – slow growth and growth communities vary • Don’t move the airport • Mapping doesn’t show retail, job centers, etc. Transportation, especially mass transit must be convenient to these places • Need a regional industrial park/employment center • Key issues: growth limitations and revenue sharing; and water availability and air quality Table 8 • Preservation of agriculture and wildlife • Move SR 99 bypass west and out of wildlife areas. Shift further west of Madera and coordinate with Merced •T he area proposed for the airport is foggier that where it is now. Why not move it to the industrial area south of Fresno along SR 99 • Dry farming area to the east • Preserve open space and avoid growth inducement: create urban villages to keep urban development from creeping down loops, create wild life easements • Grow toward SR 65

Workshop Issues/Comments Major break-out group comments: à Focus on infill & redevelopment à Support relocation of FYI à Rights of way should include bicycle & transit

Summary of Participant Comments Table 9 • Regarding High Speed Rail, where could the loop be shifted? • The proposed new airport location could make sense. Connections to downtown Hanford • Western SR 99 bypass – Make connection to the north and south. Opportunities exist to involve Kern. Table 10 • Proposed new airport location is generally okay but very close to wastewater treatment plant. Need to be sure we pay attention to wild life in that area. Need transit connections to airport. Need to consider whether Lemoore NAS and FYI can coexist. • Expand the loop out between Dinuba and Orosi • High Speed Rail hub should be on SR 152 east of Chowchilla • Support mixed-use/increased density concepts Table 11 • Concerned with growth – focus on infill and redevelopment • Support transit • Support relocation of FYI with passenger and freight linkages. compatibility with Lemoore Naval Air Station • Rights of way should include bicycle & transit transportation modes • Academy Avenue should be a spoke of sub-loop • Keep development out of the foothills

Need to identify airport’s

Table 12 • Move SR 99 western bypass further west to avoid agricultural land • Provide loop access to the City of Lemoore • Need to identify types of transportation corridors to avoid encouraging more growth in the eastern communities

Workshop Results/Outcomes

Workshop Polling Results The final workshop exercise was an interactive polling, or “clicker”, exercise using Turning Point software. Each workshop participant was given a “clicker” similar to those used on television game shows, such as Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and America’s Funniest Home Videos for the purpose of voting on questions prepared by the Metro Rural Loop Team. Major results of the polling are provided. Other polling results are included in Appendix A.

Workshop Results/Outcomes

Further survey results.

Demographic Projections 2050 – 2110 No official projections available: à Baseline projection based on

Year 2000 to Year 2050 trends from Department of Finance/ County Blueprint Projects à Also developed Low & High Projections

Projections Years 2000 & 2050 Consistent with Blueprint Planning in all four counties: à Uses California Department of Finance Projections for 2000 to 2050 à Ties household & employment projections to population projections

County

2000

2050

Fresn o

804,508

1,928,411

Madera

124,696

413,569

Tulare

369,873

1,026,755

Kings

130,202

352,750

Total

1,429,279

3,721,485

Three Growth Scenarios Growth rates between 2050 & 2110 for: à Low Scenario based on

absolute annual change between 2000 & 2010 à Baseline Scenario based on average percent growth by decade between 2000 & 2050 à High Scenario based on average annual growth rate between 2040 & 2050

Baseline Projections, 2000-2050 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000

Population

3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

2110

Year Fresno

Madera

Tulare

Kings 26

Baseline Projections, 2000-2110 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000

Population

3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2000

2010 2020 2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

2110

Year Fresno

Madera

Tulare

Kings 27

Baseline Projections Year 20502110 County

2050

2110

Fresno

1,928,411 3,837,659

Madera

413,569 1,042,881

Tulare Kings Total

1,026,755 2,035,464 352,750

795,654

3,721,485 7,711,659

Scenarios Comparison 2000

2050

2110

Change 2050-2110

Low

1,429,279

3,721,485

6,472,132

2,750,647

Baseline

1,429,279

3,721,485

7,711,659

3,990,174

High

1,429,279

3,721,485

11,911,360

8,189,875

Scenario

Population Projections 14,000,000

12,000,000

Population

10,000,000

8,000,000

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

0 2000 2010 2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100 2110

Year

Baseline

Low

High 30

Growth Scenario Selection Â&#x192; The Baseline Scenario was selected as the best scenario for use in the Metro Rural Loop land use modeling

Modeling Process

Modeling process similar to the Blueprint Process MRL utilized new version of UPLAN modeling tool Blueprint base datasets used Using similar process allows for comparison with Blueprint results

The Metro Rural Loop (MRL) Study land use modeling effort was conducted utilizing tools similar to the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Process. This was done primarily to augment the Fresno County Blueprint Process, of which a 2050 Growth version of the MRL Study became an alternative. The MRL Study utilized the UPLAN modeling software created by UC Davis. The software has been the tool used by Madera, Fresno, Tulare and Kings Counties in their Blueprint processes. The MRL Process however, utilized a newer version that allowed for greater choices and flexibility in allocation. Using UPLAN was also considered prudent since the datasets required were readily available from the individual county Blueprint efforts.

Modeling Process Model run separately for each county Fresno split into two phases à 2000-2050 – evaluated as a Blueprint scenario à 2050-2110 –2050 result used as a starting point

Madera, Tulare & Kings run as a single phase 2006-2110

The UPLAN software was run for the four counties separately wherein the Fresno run was split into two phases to accommodate the desire to have the MRL Study as a ‘Blueprint’ scenario. The first phase of the Fresno run was up to the year 2050. The resulting run for this phase was transferred to the Blueprint team for evaluation as a scenario in that planning process. The second phase of the Fresno model run utilized the 2050 results as the starting point of the modeling process projecting growth up to 2110. Splitting the Fresno run into two phases allowed for the modification of the growth trend assumptions for the 2050-2110 run. The share of households in higher density residential categories was increased from the 20062050 growth projection. The model runs for Madera, Tulare and Kings Counties were run in a single phase from 2006 to 2110.

Modeling Process Â&#x192; Results compared on indicators utilized by Madera & Kern County Blueprint process Â&#x192; Preferred & Base Case Blueprint scenarios of 4 counties extrapolated from 2050 to 2110 for MRL comparison

The Metro Rural Loop study had a horizon of the year 2110. Since no other studies exist for the four counties which have projected growth that far into the future, the best comparisons stem from the Blueprint scenarios. The most viable indicator for comparison is the land area consumed by the projected growth. The Blueprint process base cases and preferred scenarios were extrapolated from 2050 to 2110 by calculating the acres per capita growth consumed from 2006 to 2050 and applying the same growth rate up to 2110. See table on slide 38.

Model Inputs Four required components: à Demographic Projections à GIS-based (general plan) land use à MRL transportation network

The modeling process required four main components; demographic projections, GIS based land use for existing development in 2006 and for future land use based on General Plans and modifications to reflect utilization of the future multi-modal transportation system, and the Metro Rural Loop transportation network. These were developed and collected by the Metro Rural Loop team.

Model Inputs Demographic Projections à Data for 2110 inferred from

2000-2050 Department of Finance demographic projections à Three scenarios developed: à Low à Moderate à High à Moderate scenario selected for

modeling

The demographic growth scenarios were developed by using 2000 to 2050 Department of Finance projections to infer 2110 growth scenarios. Three scenarios were developed that represented ‘Low’, ‘Moderate’ and ‘High’ alternatives. The ‘Moderate’ alternative was selected for the demographic projection to be modeled.

Model Inputs Moderate Demographic Projections County

Base Population

2110 Population

Growth Rate (per year)

Fresno

917,515

3,837,659

1.39 %

Madera

144,386

1,042,881

1.92 %

Tulare

408,965

2,035,464

1.56 %

Kings

147,729

795,654

1.63 %

Model Inputs Allocation Categories à Demographic projections broken into

household & employment categories à Public & agricultural jobs excluded from allocation à Land use categories from various general plans standardized to Allocation Land Use categories

The demographic projections were broken down into household and employment categories developed for the land use allocation for the different counties. The households were divided into six residential categories and 3 mixed use categories while the jobs were divided into six employment categories and 3 mixed uses categories. Public jobs and Agricultural jobs were excluded from the allocation as they vary drastically in land consumed or cannot be tied to a specific location. The share of households and jobs assigned to the different allocation categories were initially defined in the same proportions for all counties. Then minor adjustments were made to account for the different characteristics of the counties and the amount of land available for the different use categories. The land use categories from the different General Plans of cities and counties were standardized to the Allocation Land Use categories. Non-allocation uses in the different General Plans were also standardized for display purposes.

Model Inputs Creating “General Plan” Map for 2110 à Built around multi-modal MRL network à Existing factors - Cities’ General Plan

maps, road network, prime agricultural lands overlaid à Existing City General Plan land uses reclassified around urban centers, corridors & transit nodes 40

The multi-modal Metro Rural Loop network provided the framework upon which existing factors such as existing general plan land uses, existing transit, road networks and other aspects such as critical habitat, prime agricultural lands were overlaid to prepare a ‘General Plan’ for the year 2110. The development of the ‘General Plan’ layer included standardizing and reclassifying existing General Plan categories in urban centers and urban corridors as higher density mixed use, and locating new growth areas organized around Metro Rural Loop transit nodes. The location of new growth areas were selected to minimize impacts to prime farmlands and other environmental considerations that are in proximity to Metro Rural Loop’s transportation corridors.

Model Inputs Â&#x192; Environmental Data Ă Utilized statewide data on water bodies, vernal

pools, critical habitat, agricultural soils Ă For Fresno County utilized Strategic Farmland trust prime agricultural lands mapping

The GIS databases collected for the modeling process were coordinated with the data collection done for the Blueprint process by the four counties. In addition to the Blueprint data, additional data such as prime farmlands was collected from other sources such as the Strategic Farmland Trust, UC Davis and the State GIS data clearing houses. Some datasets were limited to specific counties and were utilized exclusively for the specific county; such as the Strategic Farmland Trust information for Fresno County.

GIS Database Development Â&#x192; MRL GIS datasets standardized with Blueprint datasets Â&#x192; High growth areas identified by overlaying all datasets & identified redevelopment areas

The collected data was then standardized across the four counties. Some of the General Plan categories were modified to provide for higher intensity uses and transit-oriented mixed uses. New growth areas were added to the general plan areas based upon the Metro Rural Loop transit networks, underlying environmental constraints and prime agricultural soils. New datasets were generated from the collected data to identify areas that were more attractive for growth. Some of the attractive areas were informed by the different City General Plans such as the City of Fresnoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plan identifying Activity Centers and Intensification Corridors within the City of Fresno as redevelopment and intensification areas. These areas were carefully studied and non-residential areas were identified for intensification. Similarly, datasets were also created to discourage growth in certain undesired locations.

Model Results

The Metro Rural Loop study had a horizon of the year 2110. Since no other studies exist for the four counties which have projected growth that far into the future, the best comparisons stem from the Blueprint scenarios. The most viable indicator for comparison is the land area consumed by the projected growth. The Blueprint process base cases and preferred scenarios were extrapolated from 2050 to 2110 by calculating the acres per capita growth consumed from 2006 to 2050 and extrapolating the growth up to 2110. The extrapolation provided the comparison to evaluate the Metro Rural Loop results. The table on slide 17 provides a comparison of the Blueprint Scenarios if they continued till 2110 with the Metro Rural Loop runs.

Model Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Fresno

The Fresno Metropolitan area will have the highest increase in density with the redevelopment of the Downtown, the Blackstone Corridor and the old Airport as high density mixed use, served by an extensive multi-modal public transit system. The lower density growth is primarily east of the Metro area, preserving prime agricultural land to the south and west.

Model Results - Madera

The growth in Madera county is primarily focused in Southwest area adjoining the Fresno Metro area, along the transit corridor into the City of Fresno. New growth areas along Highway 65 and Avenue 15 will also see growth but will not build out. The City of Madera and Chowchilla will build out their spheres of influence and include redevelopment of their city centers.

Model Results - Tulare

The growth in Tulare County is focused along Highway 198 and Highway 63 around the Cities of Visalia and Tulare. The growth occurs towards the eastern side of the valley, preserving prime agriculture land west of Highway 99 and southeast area of the county.

Model Results - Kings

Kings County has the growth focus around the Cities of Hanford and Lemoore cities, creating a new city along SR 198 between the two cities. All three will be connected by a BRT transit line and commuter rail.

Model Results MRL model results compared with projected Blueprint Base Case & Preferred Scenarios à MRL conserves 307 sq. miles when compared to the

Blueprint Preferred Scenario à 1207 sq. miles conserved vs. Blueprint Base Case Population Growth by 2050

Acres Consumed by 2050

Fresno Base Case

988,776

223,639

0.226

2,920,144

660,471

99,615

560,857

876

Fresno Preferred Case

988,776

47,783

0.048

2,920,144

141,117

99,615

41,503

Madera Base Case

266,161

32,858

0.123

895,479

110,548

33,833

76,715

120

Madera Preferred Case

266,161

30,517

0.115

895,479

102,672

33,833

68,839

108

Kings Base Case

205,021

19,346

0.094

647,925

61,139

22,922

38,217

Kings Preferred Case

205,021

10,981

0.054

647,925

34,703

22,922

11,781

Tulare Base Case

617,790

56,763

0.092

1,626,499

149,444

55,125

94,319

147

Tulare Preferred Case

617,790

48,075

0.078

1,626,499

126,570

55,125

71,445

112

2050 Blueprint Alternative

Acres/ Population Growth

2110 Population Growth

2110 Growth extrapolation (Acres)

MRL Acres Consumed

Acres Saved

Sq miles saved

The total land consumed by the Metro Rural Loop growth scenario would be 307 square miles less than the preferred scenarios of the four counties and a phenomenal 1207 square miles less than the base case scenarios. Spatially, the Metro Rural Loop model restricts growth from sprawling uncontrolled into prime agricultural lands and open spaces. Some loss of prime agricultural land and open space was necessary in order to maintain connectivity and proximity to urban centers. Overall, if the Metro Rural Loop network materializes as envisioned in this study, these four counties in the San Joaquin Valley would be able to save vast amounts of natural and agricultural lands, improving the environmental quality of life factors.

Model Results Â&#x192; Results compared on indicators utilized by Madera & Kern County Blueprint process

MRL Water consumption is 1,573 million Acre-feet (19.6%) less than the Base Case and 1,112 million Acre-feet (14.7%) less than the Preferred Blueprint Scenario. MRL CO2 Emission is 1.29 million tons (19.3%) less than the Base Case and 942,000 tons(14.8%) less than the Preferred Blueprint Scenario. MRL Electricity Consumption is 2.93 million MWhrs (19.3%) less than the Base Case and 2.14 million MWhrs (14.8%) less than the Preferred Blueprint Scenario. The indicators were developed by the Kern County COG Blueprint team and were utilized By the Madera MCTC to evaluate their Blueprint Scenarios. The emission and consumption standards were classified into four housing density types: High (>8 du/ac), Medium (<= 8du/ac), Low (<=3du/), Very Low (<1 du/ac) by Kern County Blueprint team.

Illustrative Concept

Illustrative concept of Metro Rural Loop development pattern showing smaller, high value farming bordering city boundaries within the multi-modal loop, creating a symbiotic relationship with urban areas, providing locally grown produce and utilizing recycled treated urban waste water for irrigation.

Methodology Assumed increase in transit use & walk/bike modes would be similar to Fresno Blueprint 4D analysis à A 4-County traffic model is not

available to determine mobility benefits for MRL directly

When the scope of the Metro Rural Loop Study was originally developed, the Study was to focus on one County – Fresno County. However, it became important to include a larger region -- planning does not stop at the boundaries of Fresno County. As a result, three additional counties were added to the Study – Kings, Madera, and Tulare. As a result of this significant scope change, the scope and magnitude of the land use and transportation modeling process also changed. In addition, the Metro Rural Loop Study was expanded to evaluate two horizon years (Years 2050 and 2110) rather than the original 2110. An implication of these scope changes is that a 4-County traffic model is not available to study the benefits or impacts of the Metro Rural Loop. However, during development of the Fresno County Blueprint, five alternative land use and transportation scenarios were evaluated by Fresno COG. Fresno COG’s Preferred Blueprint Concept is referred to as the “Hybrid” concept, which was primarily based upon the Metro Rural Loop Scenario (Scenario E) together with important elements of three other alternative scenarios. The Fresno County Hybrid scenario is consistent with the smart growth principles of the Metro Rural Loop and the “4D’s” (Diversity, Density, Design and Destination). The 4D’s analysis adjusts the travel model results by considering the benefits of a diverse transportation system including enhancements to transit, walking and biking, the positive mobility impacts associated with higher density development, the improved design and character of the development including benefits of mixing uses on the same parcel or within closer proximity of each other in order to reduce vehicle trips and increase walking and biking, and the proximity of various types of land uses to destinations. The heart of the 4D’s methodology lies in the elasticity's that are used to adjust the vehicle trip and vehicle miles traveled forecasts. These are computed based on data replicating actual travel behavior obtained from household surveys. Regression analysis is used to determine the effect that each of the 4Ds (residential and job density, neighborhood design, diversity of land uses, and proximity to destinations) has on the number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled while holding other factors (household size, income, etc.) constant. Fresno COG applied the 4D’s process to the Year 2050 Hybrid Scenario traffic model forecast to determine the potential adjustments to vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and the potential for a “shift” from vehicle trips to transit and walk/bike trips.

PE1

Metro Rural Loop Transportation System