California Interregional Blueprint: HOME

How about some photos of the Futures Symposium?

How do I view previous comments? Only comment#6 was visible when I logged in.

You've done a terrific job. Thank you!

The site looks good and is simple to use.

Your process for creating a new account was very good, quick and simple. You are on the right track so far.

Thank you for building this site, this will give us as Californians, a way to comunicate our approval and disdan for our current transportation system. I have lived in Europe for time and my life, and the only problem I see with our system is our rediculous lack of Trains through out the state. We need to start building high speed rail and subway systems.

Much more emphasis should be put on moving information between people wherever possible via teleworking to dramatically reduce the movement of people between the information. The cost benefit of moving information between people has already been proven and can be found all over the web. Managers need to learn how to manage work performance and products as opposed to the current and ineffective "visual management". With all of the technological advances over the past 20+ years we are still required to travel to the same work location, just to email each other across fabric cubicle walls. Eliminate the work commute and you'll significantly reduce/eliminate rush hour traffic congestion AND save the environment with relatively MINOR technological costs compared to these ginormous public works projects that us taxpayers cannot afford. With less commute traffic on the road, it would free up the highways to move goods and services much more efficiently as well. We can't build our way out of this mess.

I think this is a great comment. I love the concept of moving information between people instead of moving people between the information. I agree that the fundamental concept of how we work needs to change. Many jobs can be performed effectively through telecommuting at least part of the time - it just takes a little effort and committment on the part of the management and staff to create a workable plan.

This is all well and good, for future planning, but what about the here and now? Do not get me wrong we need to plan for the future to make sure we move in the right direction, I mean it is obvious we are paying today for the short sighted mistakes made by administrations thirty and forty years ago. The attitude of “we have more than what is needed today, we can stop planning; sell of excess lands, to pay for our current problems.” That was and still is no way to plan, we have been playing catch-up ever since, and paying a premium for new acquisitions to replace what was planned for purchased and given up, sold off. Monies that should have been spent elsewhere.

While long range planning is good and needed, we must not be so stringent on “The Plan” that opportunities are missed. We are currently coming out of such a window of opportunity. During the last year fuel cost have skyrocketed out of control, and are now settling back down, an opportunity missed? During that time, I have noticed an increase in Vanpool and rideshare participation. Which is a good thing, but it still has people in a mindset of automobile transportation. Now on this up coming ballot we have an initiative for a high-speed rail to connect Sacramento to LA. How sure are we that the population of the state will use such transportation?

In the Sacramento region alone, how many people commute in from or between or though Cities like Chico, Oroville, Marysville, Yuba City, Wheatland, Lincoln, Williams, Arbuckle, Zamora, Woodland? Or even from the south: Stockton, Lodi, Galt, and Elk Grove? All of these towns have existing rail lines through them and at one time operating rail stations.

Get the People interested and excited about riding the rails again increase ridership, and even the public’s consideration of using the train as a from of commuting before we spend so much on a fast train that I am not convinced anyone will ride. Other places have trains, and some even have high speed trains, but people use them because that is what the people there know. Here in California we use our cars because that is what we know. Show the people there is a better way.

If you provide a convenient, reliable, cost effective form of transportation, the people will use it, but most will only start if they see a great cost savings on their part, and the more that participate the lower the operating cost, thereby keeping fares for the passengers low. Once they are on they will be hooked, but you have to get them on in the first place.

Perhaps a bit more for the public to plug into this graphic would be in order. In its appearance alone, it may look like a technical schematic for someone who's just starting off. One idea might be animated features that bring each item forward with some form of caption that helps explain each.

We must reach beyond our borders and look at what other states and countries are doing in planning for their future transportation systems and the environment. We might learn something from their successes.

After the passage of Prop 1B, we are spending billions of dollars on new highway projects that don't meet the criteria of local projects submitted to our MPOs.

Why not stop and analyze these projects and ask these questions: Will this project reduce green house gas emissions? Is it equitable (will they benefit the most people per $ spent)? Will itreduce auto-dependency? Is it sprawl-inducing? Would the money be better spent on a transit project? What are the regional future benefits of building this project?

Here in the Bay Area, there are some projects such as the Caldecott Tunnel 4th Bore, that will most likely turn into a multi-billion dollar "big dig", and it will do little or nothing to relieve congestion. Wouldn't that money be better put to use elsewhere? In this time of budget shortfalls, why is the Governor reducing transit funding, but not scrutinizing Prop 1B proposals?

This is my first comment to your website. I read the initiative about the fast speed rail system in the voter guide. I discussed it with my parents to decide how we should vote for that proposition. It sounded like a good idea at first, but when you read about it and think it through you wonder who is it that will be riding the fast speed trains the most? Will it be the every day common person or the executives, lobbyists, lawmakers and tourists? I think this plan will most likely benefit the rich and famous and not do much for the common man or woman. But it will be at their expense. I've tried travelling by the train from San Diego to Orange County and from Orange County to Santa Barbara and back and enjoyed the ride, but they were for pleasure trips and not for business. Also once you arrive at your destination via train then you have to make other transportation arrangements to get you around where you want to go. Currently the way the train stations are set up in California there doesn't seem to be a quick and easy transfer to other places once you arrive except maybe for bigger stations such as Los Angeles Union Station.

There was a time when I took the train from San Diego thru Los Angeles Union Station then by bus to Bakersfield and then back on a train to Fresno. This trip occurred in early February of 1998 and it occurred on a day when we had been having lots of rain that day and the day before. The tracks were almost flooded and we were crawling along. The ride acutally was more enjoyable at the slower pace we enjoyed talking with our travelling companions. However, we did arrive much later than the train was originally scheduled to arrive. Needless to say I missed my job interview that afternoon, but was able to catch the last bus out of the area to our hotel for the night. I was contacted the next morning at the hotel to come over for the interview later that morning which I did after having to take two buses from my hotel to the District Office. The interview went well and I was offered a position, but had already accepted another position by the time I was contacted. To make a long story short I tried the train and arrived at my destination albeit late everything worked out okay and it was an interesting trip. However, due to the severe weather we ended up having to take a greyhound bus back to San Diego as the next day the trains were only running for commercial purposes. Needless to say I've Never tried to get anywhere for business by train since.

Coastwalk California is a statewide volunteer organization committed to the completion and promotion of the 1200 mile California Coastal Trail and we envision this long-distance trail as a major asset and treasure for the state's residents and visitors. We would like to see it addressed in all coastal regional transportation plans (RTPs) as a valuable non-motorized form of transportation that is healthy and economically sustainable for coastal counties. The CCT fosters stewardship of our coast and warrants all can access our state's stunning coastline. Thank you -- Fran Gibson (President of the Board, Coastwalk California) [510.910.6797]

Although "user safety" is a traditional goal of transportation systems, it isn't explicity reflected in your explanation of the MAC tagline.

The website indicates that a PAC meeting is supposed to be held tomorrow, June 25, 2009. Nothing is listed on the calendar of events. No agenda or materials are listed anywhere I can find.

Maybe with the budget crisis everything is suspended, or the staff for keeping up the website has been cut or is overloaded with other work. Whatever it is, a brief note to that effect would be appreciated so the public isn't left guessing. I hope that there is someone available who will get this message and do something about it. If not, well it's another day in California's general state of disfunction. I'm not angry or upset about it -- just philosophical.

The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting was held on June 25, 2009. We generally don't post these meetings on the calender of events because they are internal to the committee. If you look under meetings & events within this portal, you'll find a full agenda and notes from the previous two PAC meetings. When the notes from PAC 3 are finalized, those will be posted as well. The CTP 2035 staff updates the web portal on a regular basis. For example, we very recently moved the poll to the front page, so it is easier for the public to access. If you sign up for an accout, you will get an email message when major changes have been made to the web portal. We have finalized the dates and venues for the upcoming workshops and those dates will be posted shortly.

One minor thing that would interesting to include in the blueprint is a plan for improving interregional and regional bike and pedestrian facilities. While their impact on congestion would likely be very modest, having separate pathways for bikes and pedestrians that extend on a regional basis would be a valuable economic benefit to California. From Wine Country to Los Angeles to the Sierra foothills, such pathways are a valuable regional resource for mobility, recreation, and tourism. As an economy with a very large recreational, entertainment, and tourism sector, with a good climate to match, California could really benefit from bike/ped planning at this scale. Outside of city centers, these facilities are very low cost to construct and maintain and provide tremendous public good without the cost of major land acquisition for conservation etc. New open space parks are nice, but even just having recreational right-of-ways can often deliver similar benefits for the fraction of the cost and with a tremendously high benefit-cost ratio because of the tourism and recreational and quality-of-life benefits.