Solid Waste Management

Discards or solid wastes (non-wastewater) from human activities in Sonoma County can be classified into many categories. For purposes of this analysis, discards are discussed as

 Recycling has been shown to reduce the use of energy when compared to the production of materials using virgin feedstocks (with substantial savings for materials such as aluminum). As well, there are significant environmental benefits that accrue from returning organic material into the soil. Re-use also reduces energy use. These aspects of solid waste management are covered elsewhere in this document This section focuses on the GHG reductions achieved by making productive use of the landfill gas (LFG) generated by Sonoma County’s Central Disposal Site.

LFG and energy production

The organic fraction of the waste discarded into landfills decomposes and generates LFG as a by-product of the process. Typical Central Disposal Site LFG contains about 55% methane (CH4) and 44% carbon dioxide (CO2) with the remainder composed of moisture and trace organic compouds. The methane component of LFG is referred to as biogas. There is no chemical difference between this biogas and the natural gas used in residences and business for heating and cooking, except its age. This biogas is (mostly) a product of recent biological activity, while natural gas was formed millions of years ago. For this reason biogas can be considered a renewable energy substitute for natural gas.

 Federal law requires that the LFG produced by landfills be controlled due to its explosion and pollution risks. The least expensive method to satisfy this requirement is to collect the gas in a system of pipes and collection wells inside the landfill and then burn the gas in a flare.

 There are several ways to capture the energy value of the biogas for beneficial use. The two most common are to (1) burn the LFG directly for heat in industrial applications, i.e., boilers or (2) use it as fuel in internal combustion engines to generate electricity. In these approaches, the LFG is minimally processed to remove moisture and any particulates, referred to as condensate.

 Another, less frequently used method is to further process the LFG to remove the moisture, most of the CO2 and other minor components of the LFG to produce “pipeline-quality” methane. This biogas can be used for any function that natural gas is used, including vehicle fuel.

Sonoma County LFG

 About 3,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of LFG is currently (2005) being generated from the Sonoma County disposal site.  LFG from the central landfill contains about 560 Btu/scfm, equivalent to nearly 17 therms/minute or 24,000 therms/day. As additional waste is deposited, the volume of gas generated also increases. Forecasts of future gas production indicate that at least an additional 1,000 scfm will be produced within 5 years, or 32,000 therms/day.

Currently, the LFG generated at the Central Landfill is collected and used as fuel for a 7.5-megawatt LFG-to-electricity power plant.  A pilot project is underway to install equipment to process some of this LFG to produce biogas that will be compressed and used as fuel for the County’s transit bus fleet.  By mid-2005, all of Sonoma County Transit’s heavy-duty bus fleet (46 vehicles) will be powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) using about 75 therms per bus per day or 3,450 therms/day for the entire fleet.

 Based on these calculations, within five years, the Central Landfill could produce enough energy to generate 7.5 MW of electricity, and 8,000 therms/day of biogas. Assuming ½ of the biogas production is used for the County bus fleet, an additional 4,000 therms/day is available for other uses, such as the garbage collection vehicle fleet.

 If the bus fleet were run on LFG instead of CNG, 20 tons/day (7300 tons/year) of GHGs would be avoided.

 If the power plant runs 24 hours/day, 365 days/year (8760 hours) at full power output (7.5 MW), 23,980 tons of GHGs would be displaced annually. The County operations currently use 22,369,365 kWh annually (2004) which accounts for 8164 tons of GHGs.

Recommendations

In 2003, the County approved the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP). This plan should be fully implemented to continue to increase diversion rate of waste from landfill. Some of the features of the plan include:

• Construction and demolition debris recycling
• Expanded yard waste and organics collection
• Expanded floor sorting/drop-off recycling facility at the Central Landfill
• Build an anaerobic digester to convert the organic fraction of the waste that is concurrently landfilled to produce biogas

 In order to expand the existing organic waste collection system, each Sonoma County city work with its its refuse collection company to establish a collection services for segregated food wastes from commercial sources.

 The new food waste stream could be used along with other organics as feedstock for the anaerobic digester. This would increase the biogas production from Sonoma County waste products.

These recommendations are based on the assumption that the reduction of waste being landfilled will result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions, due to reduced landfilling and the subsequent emission of landfill gas and/or through reduced emissions associated with the manufacturing and transportation of products.

Modern solid waste management uses an hierarchy of approaches;

First - REDUCE the amount of waste created through efficient use of resources, more durable products, less packaging, buying less stuff, etc.

Second - REUSE products and packaging as much as possible, i.e., thrift stores, coffee mugs instead of single-use cups, reuseable produce crates/pallets, etc.

Third - RECYCLE discards, including products, packaging, and organics (through composting).

Finally, after doing all the above, landfill what's left, and then collect and use the landfill gas productively through energy production.

Specific local actions include:

Organics

• Reduce the volume of organics handled by the solid waste collection system through on-site/home composting
  • • this reduces the emissions associated with moving this material from the generator to the compost facility or disposal site as well as the emissions generated by production of synthetic fertilizers offset by use of organic soil amendments
    • encourage and support small scale on-site composting, i.e., business, schools, etc., to complement the regional composting program
• Use highly putrecible organic wastes, e.g. food discards, wastes as an energy source (through anearobic digestion). digestion), with awarenesss that this can compete with using organics as a soil amendment.

Products

• Support EPR (extended producer responsibility) legislation at local, state and federal levels
• Purchase locally manufactured products
  • Government agencies can use purchase preferences for items with recycled content and produced locally.
  • Educate residents and businesses on purchasing decisions - identify products with lower and higher carbon emissions
• Enact a local carbon tax on products with significant associated emissions

Packaging

• Eliminate through local ordinance the use of polystyrene takeout food containers
• Ban plastic bags
• Encourage or require reusable packaging
• Mandatory recycling systems for large waste generators

• Require multi-tenant commercial/residential building owners/managers to provide on-site access to recycling containers/service

The Study

The creation of a balanaced, integrated transportation system and land use pattern can improve the quality of life for North Bay residents. A major concern of residents and businesses is congestion on Highway 101 and sprawling land use patterns. Every day, thousands of commuters patiently make their way through congestion on Highway 101. Often, during the mid-day, the combination of truck and auto traffic can result in delays. Simultaneously, atizens worry about dwindling open space, towns growing together, and a loss of identity for the North Bay.

While Highway 101 congestion is the focus of many people's concerns, effects can be felt throughout the North Bay in many ways. These effects include: congestion and large volumes of traffic on parallel arterial roads; minimal or inadequate transit service; congestion on weekends; and, potentially high fees on new development. These issues have led some to question the amount and location of growth in the North Bay.

In order to identify solutions to these pervasive problems, a team was formed including Caltrans, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA), and the Marin Countywide Planning Agency. The team sponsored the preparation of the Sonoma/Marin Multi-Modal transportation and Land Use Study, charged with the task of –

"determining how to most eficiently spend public money on transportation improvements and how to create a pattern of land use that can most efficiently take best advantage of transportation options while maintaining a high quality of life for Sonomn and Marin County residents."

In order to determine the best and most effieicnt transportation network and urban form for the North Bay, five transportation and two land use scenarios were evaluated. These scenarios included a wide range of potential improvments such as High Occupany Vehicle (HOV) lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges, improvements to state highways and local roads, the introduction of commuter rail service, improvements to the existing bus transit system, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The land use analysis explored the effects of focusing some new mixed-use development in locations with good access to transit.

From the analysis of these scenarios, a Preferred Scenario was prepared which incorporates the most effective components of each. The Preferred Scenario addresses short-term needs through investments in Highway 101 and other roads, and recommends that planning and implementation of commute rail service begin as soon as possible. The rail and bus transit systems, along with the recommended compact and mixed-use land use poattern are long term investments which can create alternatives to single-occupant automobile tips. These alternatives will be needed in the future as growing automobile use will inevitably lead to congestion of the road system.

The transportation and land use components of the Preferred Scenario are based on analysis and refinement of the Draft Preferred Scenario, which was based on the analysis of five previously evaluated Land Use and Transportation Scenarios.

This Report is divided into three chapters:

• Existing Conditions and Base Case

• Transportation Transportation and Land Use Scenarios

• Preferred Scenario

These chapters were originally submitted as collections of Working Papers, prepared over the course of the Study. Findings from the Working Papers were used to develop and evaluate the Scenarios.

I. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND BASE CASE

In order to fully understand the transportation and land use issues that effect travel behavior along Highway 101 in Sonoma and Marin Counties, extensive research and analysis of existing conditions was conducted. The following is an overview of these findings.

Current Trends and Policies

This section provides an overview of existing transportation, economic, employment, labor population and land use trends and policies in Sonoma and Marin Counties. Trends indicate that travel in both counties will continue to be predominantly by automobile, with a large majority of single-occupancy-vehicles during peak periods. While some "pipeline" highway improvements have been funded, fiscal constraints and public response to congestion create considerable challenges for policy makers; transportation policies in both counties place a priority on achieving a balanced set of investments for highway, rail, bus transit, ferry, and non-motorized transportation.

Demographic analysis shows that the two counties taken together have roughly proportional shares of the Bay Area's job and households. The employment mix in the North Bay differs from the rest of the Bay Area with higher portion of retail jobs and lower portions of manufaduring jobs. There are differences between the counties, with Marin County having considerably higher household incomes, and more jobs in the finance, insurance, real estate, and service sectors. Sonorna County has higher concentrations of jobs in the construction, agriculture, and mining sectors.

Land use patterns and policies in Marin and Sonoma Counties show strong similarities although Marin is at a later stage of development with mostly infill and redevelopment sites available, while Sonoma is likely to experience substantial new growth in some areas. Review of General Plan capacities, current projects, and planning policies shows existing land use policies and plans have the potential for protecting the urban form and character.

Base Case Demand Forecast

This section includes preliminary transportation forecasts for a base case condition for year 2015, generally representing the results of the implementation of the Congestion Management Program(CMP) Scenario. The results of these forecasts have been used to assist in the evaluation of the Study's various transportation and land use Scenarios. It also provides a description of the transportation model used to develop Study forecasts.

The forecast indicates the proportion of trips that are internal to both Sonoma and Marin counties in the future will increase as more jobs and households are added. This continues trends that have been occurring over the past ten years. The forecast shows a high proportion of trips may occur by transit in areas served well by transit. For example, throughout most of Marin County and most downtowns and major employment centers in Sonoma County that are well served by transit and have a corresponding higher transit mode split. By contrast, the transit mode shares for Sonoma County overall and along the Highway 101 Corridor are significantly less due to the provision of minimal transit service under the Base Case.

Highway 101 LOS will be poor in 2015 under the Base Case with operating conditions at LOS "E" or "F" during the A.M. and P.M. peaks. This will result in the peak period congestion extending throughout longer hours of the morning and afternoons.

Transportation Funding Policies

The purpose of this section is to present funding opportunities potentially available to the roadway and transit system improvements which were evaluated in the Study. It examines existing and proposed federal and state funding.funding sources. In addition, the report reviews the status of recent regional funding initiatives. The remainder focuses upon potential local funding initiatives such as developer fees, user fees, tolls, and congestion pricing mechanisms. Lastly, the section sets forth the beginnings of a financial implementation strategy for a unified Sonoma and Marin multi-modal transportation package.

It should be noted that this section was prepared in advance of a Preferred Transportation/Land Use Scenario. It provided a general overview of potential funding sources. The final recommended financial plan was prepared in Phase 3 of the project to provide more detail for specific funding sources as applied to the final Preferred Transportation and Land Use Scenario. It can be found in Chapter HI of this Report.

II. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE SCENARIOS

In order to determine how to most efficiently spend public money on transportation improvements, and what the best land use pattern for taking advantage of the improvements would be, five transportation and two land use Scenarios were defined and evaluated. This chapter includes the following four sections:

• Description of the Scenarios;

• Preliminary Capital and Operating Cost Estimates;

• Analysis of Transportation and Land Use Scenarios;

• Public Events and Involvement.

The results of each of these sections were evaluated and used to establish a Preferred Transportation and Land Use Scenario.

The Scenarios

This Study looked at a range of potential transportation improvements in addition to those already planned for the North Bay. It also looked at changes in land use patterns to determine the correlation between these changes and travel behavior. Some potential transportation improvements which were evaluated include: HOV lanes, improvements to State Highways, arterial and local road improvements, commuter rail service along the Northwestern Pacific Railroad line, bus system enhancements, and bikeway and pedestrian investments.

Two land use alternatives were evaluated: Existing Policy, which assumes that existing general plans, specific plans and other relevant planning documents are implemented as they are defined today; and, an alternative policy which encourages a more compact mixed use pattern at various "Opportunity Areas" in the North Bay. The land use scenarios are tied to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) growth projections for the year 2015. The two alternatives vary the distribution of projected growth.

Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

In order to fully understand the long-term funding issues associated with the scenarios, preliminary capital and operating costs were prepared for each. An important underlying assumption is that the Highway 101 improvements evaluated in each scenario are limited to those associated with HOV lanes within the existing right-of-way, and do not include the introduction of mixed-flow lanes.

Each scenario integrates specific transportation improvements with land use policies and expected levels of available funding. These include investments in Highway 101, other State Highways, local roads and arterials, commute rail, bus systems, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

This section provides preliminary cost estimates which are based on specific projects identified in recent studies, current project programming, and new costs for projects identified in this Study. The cost estimates were prepared at a planning level of detail, and have been subject to refinement throughout the preparation of the Study.

Order of magnitude cost estimates prepared for the Scenarios indicate that Scenario B is the most costly, about $1.1 billion, with a net unfunded cost of about $800 million. Scenario D would have a lower total cost of about $550 million and a net unfunded cost of about $300 million. Scenarios A and C have the same transportation improvements and would be about $100 million less expensive than Scenario D. Of the various transportation improvements analyzed, those to Highway 101 would be the most costly.

Scenario 'D' would have the highest net unfunded annual operating cost of $20 million, while Scenario 'B' would have the lowest, at $13 million. Scenarios A and C which each have the base rail system, would have a net unfunded annual operating cost of approximately $13.5 million.

Looking for Solutions

The four Scenarios and a Base Case were modeled and the results analyzed to measure the effects of various land use policies, transportation improvements and levels of funding. The Base Case includes current land use policies, funded transportation improvements, and transit service.

Upon analysis it was learned that there would be little difference between the scenarios' congestion levels on Highway 101 during the AM peak commute. This occurs because there are relatively minor differences between the Scenario's southbound improvements to Highway 101. In addition, mixed-flow lanes would remain largely unchanged. Another factor contributing to this lack of change is travel behavior. As capacity on Highway 101 increases, motorists who would otherwise delay a trip, or travel on local roads can use 101. This is referred to as "latent demand."

Each of the Scenarios would have more bus ridership than the Base Case. North Bay bus ridership would be the highest in Scenario B, at over 44,000 daily riders, while the Base Case and Scenario C would be the lowest at just over 25,000. This indicates that bus service utilizing the continuous HOV lanes on 101 would be an attractive mode of transit.

The analysis of rail ridershp provides evidence that it is sensitive to both land use patterns and frequency of service. The Base Case and Scenario B do not have a rail system. The rail system in Scenario A would have approximately 6,000 daily riders, while Scenario C, which uses the alternative land use pattern would nearly double that to 11,200. This doubling reflects the improved access to transit provided by the compact and mixed-use land use pattern. Scenario D, with the maximum rail system would double ridership again to 24,300. This would occur because of the alternative land use pattern, and improved service frequency.

The goal of this effort was to learn from the comparative analysis, and to fashion a Preferred Scenario that combines the most useful and valued elements of each. This hybrid scenario was then studied for its economic, land use and traffic implications.

Analysis of the Scenarios

The analysis of the five Scenarios resulted in the following key conclusions: There is No Silver Bullet - None of the Scenarios significantly reduce congestion on 101, because 101 is both a freeway and "main street" for much of the North Bay. Therefore, it accommodates the bulk of north/south traffic in the comdor.

No Scenario Will Substantially Change Fundamental Travel Behavior - The increment of growth between 1995 and 2015 is not large enough to change the fundamental character of the North Bay; also people in the future will most likely have a strong propensity to drive.

Rail Works - All of the Scenarios with rail transit had more ridership than expected. Rail can be implemented with a relatively low cost, because the major element of its infrastructure is already in place and publicly owned.

Bus/HOV Lane is the Least Cost Effective Transit Investment - A continuous Bus/HOV lane is more expensive than the rail system on a net cost per new trip basis.

The Benefits of HOV Lanes Vary Along the Corridor - The HOV lane is more effective at relieving congestion on certain sections of Highway 101. For example, the section beh;reen Cotati and Petalurna is relatively uncongested (LOS D) in all the Scenarios; so, HOV is not necessary in this section.

Compact Land Use Policies are Not Necessary Everywhere - Some Opportunities Areas are less effective at redudng traffic impacts on 101 and improving rail ridership than others, such as those in Cloverdale and other outlying areas. Also, some Opportunity Areas may not be politically viable.

Public Participation

Public participation was a prominent component of the Study, and played a key role throughout the planning process. The following is an overview of this process.

Joint Executive Meetings

The Consultant Team participated in a series of regular meetings with the JEC. During these meetings, staff and the Consultant Team presented and discussed key project assumptions, findings, issues, and scheduling items. The meetings included open discussion between JEC members and the Consultant Team as well as members of the public, who were invited to attend each meeting. These meetings were beneficial in keeping FC members informed about the Study and in allowing the consultant to receive direct input from JEC members and the public.

Focus Group Sessions

Calthorpe Associates facilitated three focus group sessions (design workshops) which allowed members of the community to participate in the preparation of alternative land use and circulation plans for one of three Opportunity Sites identified in the Study. Participants worked together in small groups to create conceptual plans for their site. The sessions were, held in Larkspur, Petaluma, and Santa Rosa. From these sessions, three Synthesis Plans were developed, illustrating implementation of the alternative land use scenario at these sites.

Symposium and Open Houses

The consultant hosted four public Symposia and series of five Open Houses throughout the North Bay. During these events the Study was introduced, its various components described, findings of the Alternatives phase, and the Preferred Scenario presented. A major component of these events was the often lively question and answer period which followed the consultant's cbnsultantrs presentation. These events provided the public with a first hand opportunity to discuss the project. An opinion questionnaire was distributed to the public, collected and reviewed.

Demonstration Run of a Diesel Light Rail Vehicle

In a collaborative effort, the Consultant Team, staff, Siemens, Northwestern Pacific Railroad and Amtrak worked to arrange a two day demonstration run of a Diesel Light Rail Vehicle (DLRV) on the Northwestern Pacific rail corridor. The DLRV did a whistle stop tour of the corridor stopping at six railroad stations, giving rides to the public. This event was very well attended and publicized.

Information Flyers, News Letters and Press Releases

In an on-going effort to distribute information to the public, the consultant prepared a variety of announcements describing the Study, the planning process, description of the scenarios, findings and upcoming events. These documents have been mailed, faxed and hand delivered to the public, agencies, and the press.

Preliminary Conclusions

Each of the four Scenarios, as well as the Base Case were analyzed by the Consultant Team. The results of the analysis were presented in series of public events and, are explained in this Chapter. Each of the Scenarios would resklt in some modification to travel patterns in Sonoma and Marin Counties, and some extent of congestion along the Highway 101 corridor. However, based on the analysis presented, it is dear that no one Scenario, or single modification would greatly reduce congestion along the 101 Corridor. It is apparent instead that improved circulation will be best improved if a multi-faceted transportation system is developed.

This hybrid system will likely indude a combination of several improvements: additional HOV lanes and other improvements to 101, improvements to the regional arterial network, bus and rail transit improvements, and a variety of pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Interestingly, this preliminary conclusion was shared by many of the participants of the Symposium and Open Houses, who also concluded that a highway or rail only solution would not be the most appropriate solution for the North Bay.

Goals for the Preferred Scenario

Upon completion of the analysis of the five scenarios, the following goals were established to help shape the Draft Preferred Scenario:

• Maximize the Effectiveness of Transportation Investments;

• Maximize Mobility for North Bay Residents;

• Improve the Ability to Move Commercial Goods in the North Bay;

• Maximize Access to State and Federal Funding;

• Broaden Support within the North Bay;

• Complement Existing Land Use Patterns;

• Build on Existing Transportation Systems; and

• Plan for Long Range Future of the North Bay.

Draft Preferred Scenario

Draft Preferred Scenario

The Draft Preferred Scenario was intended to provide a balanced transportation network with significant investment in highway, road, transit, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Before establishing the Draft Preferred Scenario, a Preliminary Draft Preferred Scenario was presented to, and discussed with the JEC. During several meetings, the Draft Preferred Scenario was developed. It includes a mixed-use and compact land use pattern were it would be most effective in complementing the transportation system. The following is an outline of the Draft Preferred Scenario's elements. Several changes were made to this list prior to the modeling of the Draft Preferred Scenario. Critical elements eliminated from the project description are identified with a strike out and new improvements are identified with SMALL CAPS.

Transportation Elements

Highway 101 Improvements

• north and southbound HOV lanes from Windsor River Road to River Road;

• North and southbound HOV lanes from River Road/Mark West Road north of Santa Rosa to SR 116/Gravenstein Highway in Cotati;

• Northbound climbing lane between Cotati and Petaluma;

• North and southbound HOV lanes in Petaluma from Old Redwood Highway to Lakeville Road/SR 116;

• Improve 101 to freeway status between Petaluma Bridge and Novato; and

• Completion of the "Gap Closure" project in Marin County.

Other State Highway Improvements

Improvements to SR 12 at Llano Road; Improvements to SR 116 in south Petaluma; and, 1-580 overcrossing from Anderson Dnve to Kemer Boulevard. (v\\\\ (v\\ A Local Arterial Road Improvements Improvements to local arterials were included with a focus on serving regional traffic. The improvements included in the Draft Preferred Scenario were a compromise between the "constrained" and the "expanded" funding list.

Rail Transit

The rail transit system in the Draft Preferred Scenario was a hybrid of the systems evaluated in Scenarios C and D. Rail station locations were revised to maximize projected ridership. The system would include 14 primary stations and 5 secondary stations, and be served by trains with 15 to 20 minute headways in the peak direction and 30 minutes in the off-peak direction during the commute, and 30 minute headways throughout the remainder of the day. Bus Transit Bus service in the Draft Preferred Scenario would be similar to that in Scenario D, with a focus on providing feeder service to the rail stations and providing a higher level of local service. Limited regional bus service would be continued by GGT from the North Bay to San Francisco where it is the most effective transit alternative.

Ferry Service

The Draft Preferred Scenario included physical site improvements at Larkspur Landing and the addition of new vessels. Service frequency would be coordinated with the frequency of rail transit service. Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems The Draft Preferred Scenario included the same non-motorized improvements as the two "expanded" funding Scenarios in the earlier analysis; nearly $31 million in currently unfunded improvements in the North Bay.

Total Transportation Investment

A goal of the Draft Preferred Scenario's transportation network was to contain costs so that funding could be achieved using one new local funding source, such as a sales tax in each county. The total initial unfunded capital cost estimate of $621.81 million is within this range, and is also over 10% less ($84.05 million) than the total unfunded cost of Scenario 8. However, as additional analysis and research was completed it was determined that the capital cost of the Draft Preferred Scenario exceeded the initially estimated figure by approximately $44 million.

Land Use Pattern

The goal of the compact and mixed-use land use pattern used in Scenarios C and D, in the alternatives analysis phase of the project, was to test the impact of this land use pattern on travel behavior in the North Bay. The analysis showed that some aspects of the new land use pattern were valuable. The analysis also indicated that land use changes are more effective in some locations than in others. Public feedback on the mixed-use compact land use pattern has varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. These findings were considered in preparing the recommended land use pattern for the Draft Preferred Scenario. The general approach in both counties was to reduce the number of Opportunity Areas, particularly those on the fringe of urban development. Also, the capacity of some Opportunity Areas has been reduced to reflect comments from local jurisdictions.

Analysis of the Draft Preferred Scenario

Analysis of the Draft Preferred Scenario

The Draft Preferred Scenario underwent an analysis process similar to the analysis that was performed on the five Land Use and Transportation Scenarios. Cost estimates for the transportation elements of the Draft Preferred Scenario were also finalized, and these costs were compared with funding projections to test the financial viability of the Draft Preferred Scenario. The JEC was given a progress report on this analysis at their March 19 meeting. The final analysis was reviewed at the April 16 and 23 JEC meetings. Based on a review of the analysis, final revisions to the Draft Preferred Scenario were made.

Final Preferred Scenario

Final Preferred Scenario

The final analysis of the Preferred Scenario was presented to the JEC at the April 23 meeting where it was finalized as the Preferred Scenario. The final Study Report was reviewed and approved at the May 21 JEC meeting. It was determined that the Preferred Scenario would be more effective at meeting the North Bay's transportation needs than the CMP, and be more cost effective than Scenario B, the maximum highway and bus solution. The Preferred Scenario would be effective because it is a balanced transportation network, including highway, bus, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements.

And how does this relate to AB1492, presuming the automakers don't wipe it out?

1. What kinds of programs can we invent to increase existing fuel efficiency? 2. Where will the money come from to fund fuel efficiency programs? 3. Can businesses be developed to improve vehicle efficiency and convert to alternative fuels and electricity that will be profitable?

Powered by CardScan <http://www.cardscan.com>

Ann Hancock Climate Protection Campaign www.climateprotectioncampaign.org 707 823-2665 (707 U BE COOL) Big vision, bold action