Social Equity Stakeholder  Roundtable Meeting         October 17, 2012
Agenda• Welcome and introductions• Introduction to the project• Overview of recent studies• Overview of Regional Housing N...
Welcome and Introductions
Meeting Purpose• To gain a better understanding of the  Directions to 2050 project• To learn about how your transportation...
Ground Rules•   Common conversational courtesy•   All ideas and points of view have value•   Speak up, and share the time•...
Introduction to the Project
Project Funding• Directions to 2050 is funded in part by:  – California utility ratepayers and administered by    South Ca...
Relationship to theKern Regional Blueprint effort• Directions to 2050 builds on the Blueprint by:  – Revisiting the commun...
Relationship toLocal Government Plans• Directions to 2050 and the 2014 Regional  Transportation Plan:  – Guides the develo...
Relationship toOther Activities in the Region• San Joaquin Valley Blueprint• Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)• Reg...
Directions to 2050Cycle 1 Community Outreach• 16 community  workshops throughout  the region• RPAC meetings• Stakeholder R...
Community Outreach – Key FindingsTo-date• Community members prioritized:  – Link education/training/youth mentorships with...
Overview of Recent Studies
Overview of Recent Studies• Kern County Bicycle Master Plan• Long Range Transit Plan• High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/ Bus Ra...
Kern County Bicycle Master Plan• Goal  – Assess existing bicycle    facilities  – Develop a plan for new    bicycle amenit...
Kern County Bicycle Master Plan           • 664 miles of new bikeways including:              –   30 miles of Class I bike...
Long Range Transit Plan• Goal  – Document the    relationship between:     •   Population growth     •   Employment growth...
Expanding Access to High Quality Transit
GET Long Range Transit Plan• Short-Term Recommendations  – New Transit Center at CSUB  – Increased service to CSUB and BC ...
2005 Transit Priority Areas – 5,600 Households
2012 Transit Priority Areas – 127,600 Households
2035 Transit Priority Areas – 415,000 Households
EmployerSubsidized Transit• 19,000 employee  trips per year• 1.4 Million Miles  Less Travel Annually
Kern Regional Transit (KRT)Service Analysis• Goal  – Determine whether KRT    might be able to take    advantage of the GE...
Kern Regional Transit (KRT)Service Analysis
Draft High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study• Goal  – Examine the long-range    feasibility of    impl...
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study• Short- and Mid-Term Recommendations  – Improve rapid bus with:...
One Approach:Phased Light Rail              Today         Bus Rapid            Transit        Long Range          Light Rail
Centers/Corridors Concept
Commuter Rail Feasibility Study• Goal  – Examine a set of alternatives    for providing commuter rail    service within:  ...
Commuter Rail                       Rosamond Feasibility Study   Expansion of MetroLink   to Rosamond   Added stops to Amt...
Short-Haul Rail Freight Study Phase II                          • Goal                            – Expand on Short-      ...
Short-Haul Rail Freight Study Phase II• Recommendations  – Proactively identify rail quality service issues &    solutions...
Kern County GoodsMovement Strategy                              21%• Goal                                          Survey ...
Kern County GoodsMovement Strategy• Stakeholder Project Ranking  – SR-58 – From I-5/SR-58 to Allen Road – add through    l...
2013 Kern Regional Housing Report           and RHNA Plan• PMC was retained to assist Kern COG with the  Regional Housing ...
RHNA Process• HCD is required to determine the RHNA, by income  category, for Council Of Governments (COGs).• RHNA is base...
SB 375/SCS/RHNA• Intent of SB 375 is for housing planning to be  coordinated and integrated with the RTP.• RHNA Plan  – Pr...
Kern Regional Housing Data Report• The Housing Element is one of the 7 mandated  elements of the General Plan.• Housing Ne...
Data Sources• Sources of Data  –   Kern COG RTP Projections  –   Kern COG Housing Condition Survey Results  –   2011 Depar...
Housing Preferences• Kern COG completed a survey on Housing  Preferences• Results indicated:  – Between 2008 and 2012 ther...
Kern County 2006 – 2013 RHNAThe total State housing allocation to Kern County was 41,640units for the period January 1, 20...
RHNA Next Steps• Next Steps  – Finishing up data collection  – Draft Data Report - completed end of Nov. 2012  – Final Dat...
Review of new Environmental    Justice Methodology
Policy Area Discussions
Transportation Choices Online Activity• Purpose  – To determine your group’s resource investment    preferences for the fu...
Report Out and Large GroupConclusions• Which priorities for the future were important  to your group?• Which transportatio...
Wrap Up and Next Steps
We are here
Next Steps• Upcoming meetings and events  – RPAC meeting  – Stakeholder meetings  – Community presentations  – Community e...
Social Equity Stakeholder  Roundtable Meeting         October 17, 2012
Cycle 2 Environmental and Social Equity Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cycle 2 Environmental and Social Equity Presentation

651 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
651
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
439
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Nora will briefly review the agenda, including that we hope to achieve.
  • Nora will introduce herself, provide brief background. Nora will introduce Andrea Nelson and briefly mention other members of the PMC team.
  • The animated cartoon will be introduced and will be presented here.
  • Becky will discuss the project funding
  • Becky will explain the relationship to the Blueprint
  • Becky will explain
  • Becky
  • This is an informal aggregation of workshops, stakeholder meetings and online activity.Link education/training/youth mentorships with economic development initiatives – High Priority in Arvin, Delano, Frazier Park, Greenfield, Lake Isabella, Bakersfield, Rosamond, Shafter, Taft, Wasco – desert communities were more interested in bringing in new businesses.Maintain and develop comprehensive community services for health, education, safety, and recreation – High Priority in Arvin, California City, Delano, Frazier Park, Greenfield, Ridgecrest, Rosamond , Shafter, Taft Maintain local streets and roads – High Priority in Arvin, California City, Greenfield, Lake Isabella, Lamont, Bakersfield, Ridgecrest, Rosamond, Taft, Tehachapi, Wasco Add, maintain, and improve sidewalks and bike lanes for safer, active lifestyles – High Priority – Bakersfield, Lake Isabella, Ridgecrest, Tehachapi, Rosamond , Shafter, Taft Improve air quality – High Priority in Arvin, Delano, Frazier Park, Greenfield, Bakersfield, Shafter, Taft, Wasco Invest in renewable energy production and distribution, including wind and solar power – High Priority in Arvin, California City, Greenfield, Lake Isabella, Bakersfield, Ridgecrest, Shafter, Taft, Tehachapi
  • Now, we’re going to take a moment to walk through Kern COG most recent studies: the key findings and recommendations for the 2014 RTP
  • The current TPA only includes the Amtrak stations with a total coverage of 1.57 square miles and household population of 5,628 within the TPA. In October 2012, the GET Short Term Transit Plan will implement their 2012 plan which will increase the TPA coverage to 26.40 square miles and include a household population of 127,022 within the TPA.
  • The current TPA only includes the Amtrak stations with a total coverage of 1.57 square miles and household population of 5,628 within the TPA. In October 2012, the GET Short Term Transit Plan will implement their 2012 plan which will increase the TPA coverage to 26.40 square miles and include a household population of 127,022 within the TPA.
  • The current TPA only includes the Amtrak stations with a total coverage of 1.57 square miles and household population of 5,628 within the TPA. In October 2012, the GET Short Term Transit Plan will implement their 2012 plan which will increase the TPA coverage to 26.40 square miles and include a household population of 127,022 within the TPA.
  • GET Bus route X-92 Commuter Express Bus Service to Tejon Industrial Complex
  • Step 1: What priorities do you agree on? What priorities are important to you and not to others? Which did you disagree on?Step 2: Which transportation options do you want to spend your resources on? How does that impact your priorities? How does this impact the resources you are spending? Where is there agreement among group members? Where is there disagreement? Is there enough money for everything that you want to do?Step 3: Decide on a final investment scenario.
  • Cycle 2 Environmental and Social Equity Presentation

    1. 1. Social Equity Stakeholder Roundtable Meeting October 17, 2012
    2. 2. Agenda• Welcome and introductions• Introduction to the project• Overview of recent studies• Overview of Regional Housing Needs Allocation• Review of new Environmental Justice Methodology• Policy Area Discussions• Wrap up and next steps
    3. 3. Welcome and Introductions
    4. 4. Meeting Purpose• To gain a better understanding of the Directions to 2050 project• To learn about how your transportation choices affect your priorities for the future, community assets, and funding expenditures
    5. 5. Ground Rules• Common conversational courtesy• All ideas and points of view have value• Speak up, and share the time• Cell phone courtesy• Be comfortable
    6. 6. Introduction to the Project
    7. 7. Project Funding• Directions to 2050 is funded in part by: – California utility ratepayers and administered by South California Edison – Kern COG provides major funding for this project to encourage activities that lead to long-term, sustainable changes
    8. 8. Relationship to theKern Regional Blueprint effort• Directions to 2050 builds on the Blueprint by: – Revisiting the communities’ vision and guiding principles – Considering a full range of choices and associated trade-offs – Brainstorming locally-relevant strategies – Identify and prioritize next steps – Incorporate these next steps into the region’s plan
    9. 9. Relationship toLocal Government Plans• Directions to 2050 and the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan: – Guides the development of the planned multimodal transportation systems in Kern County – Supports local planning efforts – Developed through a comprehensive coordination effort between local, regional, state and federal agencies
    10. 10. Relationship toOther Activities in the Region• San Joaquin Valley Blueprint• Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)• Region-wide transportation improvements – Bicycle and pedestrian – Transit – Freight• Social Equity and Environmental Justice
    11. 11. Directions to 2050Cycle 1 Community Outreach• 16 community workshops throughout the region• RPAC meetings• Stakeholder Roundtable Meetings• Website with interactive activities, background information, and online survey
    12. 12. Community Outreach – Key FindingsTo-date• Community members prioritized: – Link education/training/youth mentorships with economic development initiatives. – Maintain and develop comprehensive community services for health, education, safety, and recreation. – Add, maintain, and improve sidewalks and bike lanes for safer, active lifestyles. – Maintain local streets and roads. – Improve air quality. – Invest in renewable energy production and distribution, including wind and solar power.
    13. 13. Overview of Recent Studies
    14. 14. Overview of Recent Studies• Kern County Bicycle Master Plan• Long Range Transit Plan• High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/ Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study• Commuter Rail Feasibility Study• Kern County Goods Movement Strategy• Short Haul Rail Freight Study
    15. 15. Kern County Bicycle Master Plan• Goal – Assess existing bicycle facilities – Develop a plan for new bicycle amenities – Provide recommendations for complete streets
    16. 16. Kern County Bicycle Master Plan • 664 miles of new bikeways including: – 30 miles of Class I bike paths – 297 miles of Class II bikes lanes – 46.6 miles of Class III bike routes – 186 miles for Class III bike routes on State routes
    17. 17. Long Range Transit Plan• Goal – Document the relationship between: • Population growth • Employment growth • Transit ridership demand • Current operations – Improve Customer Service – Improve Cost- effectiveness
    18. 18. Expanding Access to High Quality Transit
    19. 19. GET Long Range Transit Plan• Short-Term Recommendations – New Transit Center at CSUB – Increased service to CSUB and BC – Faster cross-town trips: Express routes, “Rapid” routes, More direct routes• Mid- Long- Term Recommendations – Accommodate projected growth – Phase out downtown and southwest Transit Centers – Convert “Rapid” routes to full Bus Rapid Transit – Introduce “enhanced” KRT intercity express bus routes
    20. 20. 2005 Transit Priority Areas – 5,600 Households
    21. 21. 2012 Transit Priority Areas – 127,600 Households
    22. 22. 2035 Transit Priority Areas – 415,000 Households
    23. 23. EmployerSubsidized Transit• 19,000 employee trips per year• 1.4 Million Miles Less Travel Annually
    24. 24. Kern Regional Transit (KRT)Service Analysis• Goal – Determine whether KRT might be able to take advantage of the GET changes to: • Improve service for its own customers • Reduce operating costs
    25. 25. Kern Regional Transit (KRT)Service Analysis
    26. 26. Draft High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study• Goal – Examine the long-range feasibility of implementing HOV lanes and/or BRT services – Assess the performance, benefits, and potential impacts of HOV and BRT
    27. 27. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study• Short- and Mid-Term Recommendations – Improve rapid bus with: • Traffic signal priority systems and queue jump lanes • Exclusive HOV and bus lanes – Introduce express bus service along SR 178/24th Street/Rosedale Highway – Construct truck climbing lanes eastbound SR-58 – Add express bus services – Introduce ramp meters at identified interchanges – Designate new peak period-only HOV lane
    28. 28. One Approach:Phased Light Rail Today Bus Rapid Transit Long Range Light Rail
    29. 29. Centers/Corridors Concept
    30. 30. Commuter Rail Feasibility Study• Goal – Examine a set of alternatives for providing commuter rail service within: • Bakersfield metropolitan area • Surrounding portions of Kern County • Eastern region of the county – Identify corridors that may be feasible for future service and potential station locations
    31. 31. Commuter Rail Rosamond Feasibility Study Expansion of MetroLink to Rosamond Added stops to Amtrak Northwest of Bakersfield Possible Future South Valley Commuter RailLink to Study: Delanohttp://www.kerncog.org/docs/studies/KernCOG_Commuter_Rail_Draft_R Wascoeport_20120720.pdf Bakersfield
    32. 32. Short-Haul Rail Freight Study Phase II • Goal – Expand on Short- Haul Rail Freight Study Phase I – Focus on San Joaquin Valley Rail (SJVR) operations – Profile existing traffic base based on shipper comments – Forecast growth in traffic base 10 years into the future
    33. 33. Short-Haul Rail Freight Study Phase II• Recommendations – Proactively identify rail quality service issues & solutions – Engage KEDC, SJVR and communities to craft solutions to attract rail-dependent industries. – Develop multi-use facilities along Buttonwillow and Oil City corridors – Explore rail intermodal options – Explore potential future uses for the southern portion of the Arvin Subdivision
    34. 34. Kern County GoodsMovement Strategy 21%• Goal Survey – Use data from SR-58, SR- 99/I-5, SR-223, 166, 119, 46 29% Locations & 65 Origins & Destinations Studies to inform future project development activities – Propose future truck- related capital improvements through 9% 2035 – Determine the impact of current and future transportation projects on goods movement
    35. 35. Kern County GoodsMovement Strategy• Stakeholder Project Ranking – SR-58 – From I-5/SR-58 to Allen Road – add through lanes – SR-58 – From Union Avenue to Cottonwood Road – add through lanes• Other Project Ranking – (not a complete list) — Southbound SR-99 off-ramp – Panama Lane to Wible Road - add auxiliary lane — SR-119 – From Golf Course Road to aqueduct – add through lanes — SR-178 – From SR-184 to Rancheria Road – add through lanes
    36. 36. 2013 Kern Regional Housing Report and RHNA Plan• PMC was retained to assist Kern COG with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process 1. Determining a methodology for distribution of the RHNA for each 11 cities and the unincorporated county 2. Completing a regional housing data report to assist with each jurisdictions Housing Element update
    37. 37. RHNA Process• HCD is required to determine the RHNA, by income category, for Council Of Governments (COGs).• RHNA is based on Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts used in preparing regional transportation plans.• Kern COG is responsible to allocate the projected needs for the unincorporated County of Kern and to each of the 11 incorporated cities.• Pursuant to GC 65583, localities are required to update their housing element to plan to accommodate all of the RHNA share by income category.
    38. 38. SB 375/SCS/RHNA• Intent of SB 375 is for housing planning to be coordinated and integrated with the RTP.• RHNA Plan – Projects 8+ years, subset of the RTP horizon – Updated at least every 8 years (relative to RTP update)• SCS – Forecasts at least 20 years – Updated at least every 4 years
    39. 39. Kern Regional Housing Data Report• The Housing Element is one of the 7 mandated elements of the General Plan.• Housing Needs Assessment must be completed.• Tables to be completed for each City and the County – Growth Projections – Annual Average Growth Rates – Households by Income – % of Housing in each income class – % of total County growth by City – Labor force/job per household – Special Needs Populations – Housing Conditions Survey Results (Kern COG)
    40. 40. Data Sources• Sources of Data – Kern COG RTP Projections – Kern COG Housing Condition Survey Results – 2011 Department of Finance – 2000 and 2010 US Census – American Community Survey – Federal Housing and Urban Development – CA Employment Development Department
    41. 41. Housing Preferences• Kern COG completed a survey on Housing Preferences• Results indicated: – Between 2008 and 2012 there has been a growing acceptance of more compact development types – Interest in a home with a large yard remained unchanged at around 85%. – Interest in houses with small yards grew from 65% to 78%. – interest in condos grew from 40% to 52%. – Interest in apartments grew from 29% to 35%. – Interest in mixed use grew from 21% to 28%.
    42. 42. Kern County 2006 – 2013 RHNAThe total State housing allocation to Kern County was 41,640units for the period January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2013. County/City Total Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod Arvin 532 129 88 97 218 Bakersfield 27,252 6,626 4,500 4,9601 11,166 CA City 407 99 67 74 167 Delano 1,817 442 300 331 744 Maricopa 16 4 3 3 6 McFarland 775 188 128 141 3183 Ridgecrest 379 92 63 69 155 Shafter 502 122 83 91 206 Taft 62 16 10 11 25 Tehachapi 454 110 75 83 186 Wasco 858 208 142 156 352 Unincorp. County 8,586 2,088 1,416 1,563 3,519
    43. 43. RHNA Next Steps• Next Steps – Finishing up data collection – Draft Data Report - completed end of Nov. 2012 – Final Data Report - completed end of Dec. 2012 – Report will be reviewed by PSC and RPAC – Public review draft RHNA plan for RPAC and Public Hearing for TPPC – January 2013 – Check updates and meetings on Directions to 2050 website, www.directionsto2050.com
    44. 44. Review of new Environmental Justice Methodology
    45. 45. Policy Area Discussions
    46. 46. Transportation Choices Online Activity• Purpose – To determine your group’s resource investment preferences for the future• How to Play – Choose six priorities for the future – Allocated resources to transportation policy areas – Watch your budget and priorities for the future change!
    47. 47. Report Out and Large GroupConclusions• Which priorities for the future were important to your group?• Which transportation policy areas were important to your group?• What surprised you?• What didn’t surprise you?
    48. 48. Wrap Up and Next Steps
    49. 49. We are here
    50. 50. Next Steps• Upcoming meetings and events – RPAC meeting – Stakeholder meetings – Community presentations – Community events
    51. 51. Social Equity Stakeholder Roundtable Meeting October 17, 2012

    ×