“Blueprinting” and Climate Change: Regional Governance and Civic Participation in Land Use and Transportation Planning

For Review O

nly

“Blueprinting” and Climate Change: Regional Governance

and Civic Participation in Land Use and Transportation

Planning

Journal: Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy

Manuscript ID: EPC-13/343.R1

Manuscript Type: Original Article

Keywords: Blueprinting, climate change, regional planning, MPOs

Abstract:

This study investigates the development and performance of an innovative

approach to the management of transportation, land use, air quality, housing and a variety of other regional development issues, called “blueprinting.” Blueprinting refers to a process that brings together planning experts, local political leaders, and ordinary citizens, arms them with current planning ideas about “smart growth” and data visualization tools, to develop long range regional development plans. As such, blueprinting represents a recent manifestation of regionalist approaches environmental policy and planning. Focusing on the Sacramento region, an early adopter of blueprint planning, we use archival data and media sources to reconstruct the development of blueprinting and then we turn to an analysis of the performance of the blueprinting approach in relation to three successive planning efforts. We find that despite the promise of

blueprinting, very little progress has been made toward actually changing the regional transportation system and land use patterns. The net result of this long-term planning effort aimed at achieving sustainable transportation-land use is that total CO2 emissions increase over time at historical rates. We close with a discussion of what this means for regional planning and achieving goals set by California’s landmark climate change legislation.

http://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/epc-pion

Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy

romobeam

Sticky Note

Unmarked set by romobeam

romobeam

Typewritten Text

Deb Niemeier (a), Ryken Grattet (b), Thomas Beamish (b) (a) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis (b) Department of Sociology, University of California, Davis

romobeam

Typewritten Text

FORTHCOMING IN ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C: GOVERNMENT AND POLICY

For Review O

nly

Blueprinting” and Climate Change:

Regional Governance and Civic Participation in Land Use and Transportation Planning

Abstract

This study investigates the development and performance of an innovative approach to the

management of transportation, land use, air quality, housing and a variety of other regional development

issues, called “blueprinting.” Blueprinting refers to a process that brings together planning experts, local

political leaders, and ordinary citizens, arms them with current planning ideas about “smart growth” and

data visualization tools, to develop long range regional development plans. As such, blueprinting

represents a recent manifestation of regionalist approaches environmental policy and planning. Focusing

on the Sacramento region, an early adopter of blueprint planning, we use archival data and media sources

to reconstruct the development of blueprinting and then we turn to an analysis of the performance of the

blueprinting approach in relation to three successive planning efforts. We find that despite the promise of

blueprinting, very little progress has been made toward actually changing the regional transportation

system and land use patterns. The net result of this long-term planning effort aimed at achieving

sustainable transportation-land use is that total CO2 emissions increase over time at historical rates. We

close with a discussion of what this means for regional planning and achieving goals set by California’s

landmark climate change legislation.

Page 1 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

1

1. Introduction

“Blueprinting” refers to a collaborative process by which residents engage in an interactive dialogue

about the future urban development of their metropolitan area. It is the means by which regional values

and priorities are identified and then married to advanced GIS modeling tools in an effort to generate

illustrations of how local priorities about transportation and land use may play out regionally. The process

is designed to proactively avoid the negative aspects of urban/suburban growth—such as air pollution,

traffic congestion and increased greenhouse gas emissions—by facilitating “smart growth”1 planning

decisions. Reflecting heightened civic participation and state of the art planning practice and technologies,

then, blueprinting has been celebrated as a means of developing regional growth plans that fulfill both

democratic and participatory principles while simultaneously conforming to “smart” local and regional

land use and transportation decisions that can promote sustainable development in a region.

Blueprinting has also emerged as legal and policy tool to address several environmental issues,

including climate change. California’s landmark climate change legislation Assembly Bill 32, “The

Global Warming Solutions Act” (hereafter AB32), passed in 2006, was followed by Senate Bill 375, “the

Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008” (hereafter SB375). SB 375 tapped

blueprinting as its cornerstone; the mode of implementation for regional land use and transportation plans

that would seek to achieve the state’s ambitious CO2 reduction goals (Altamaier, Barbour, Eggleton,

Gage, Hayter, and Zahner 2009). Blueprinting is best understood as reflecting recent trends in new

regionalism and regional governance that have been particularly prevalent in California (Jonas and Pincetl

2006; Pincetl 1998). Blueprinting also represents the manifestation of “smart growth” planning processes

that have also recently been the target of critical appraisals by both urban planners and political and

economic geographers (Buser 2013; MacLeod 2013).

In this paper, we conduct a process and outcome evaluation of blueprinting, focusing on the case

of the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (hereafter SACOG2) “Blueprint Project.” SACOG was

Page 2 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

2

an early adopter and innovator of the blueprint approach and has received more than twenty regional and

national awards for its deployment of its blueprinting strategy. 3 We use a mixed-method approach,

combining qualitative archival data on SACOG’s development of the blueprint strategy with a

quantitative examination of projected outcomes and performance indicators. The former focuses on the

historical roots of blueprinting, its coverage in the local press, and how important decisions regarding

preferred growth scenarios were achieved. We also track blueprinting’s use in the Sacramento region and

its evolution over a sequence of Metropolitan Transportation Plans which serve as the transportation

foundation for regional planning purposes. The data for this part of the study are quantitative performance

indicators that we used comparatively to test the effectiveness of the resulting plans. We conclude the

paper by situating the case of blueprinting within the broader discussions of and about new regionalism,

smart growth, and global warming.

2. Blueprint Theory

As a theory for how to govern environmental concerns, blueprinting is a solution to three enduring

questions: 1) What structural form should long term planning efforts take? 2) At what level of

government should such planning take place? 3) What role(s) should experts, ordinary citizens,

stakeholders, and elected officials each play in the planning process? In terms of the first, a central focus

of environmental policies has been whether to organize the societal response through central

governmental authority via regulation and enforcement activities or to rely less on governmental authority

and create conditions under which self-regulating markets will incline toward desired solutions. For

example, Haneman (2007) characterizes the debate over California’s landmark climate change policies,

AB32, as being rooted in a conflict between a “regulation” or “trading” approach—between state-centered

or market-centered organizational forms. Increasingly, governments have found hybrid forms to resolve

these tensions, sometimes referred to as “Third Way” policies (Giddens 1999). Blueprinting is attractive,

in part, because it balances top-down regulation with bottom up inputs. Higher levels of government set

Page 3 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

3

rules and targets (and provide funding), but regions and sub-regional units are permitted autonomy to

determine how best to conform and achieve the policy goals. Moreover, blueprinting provides the ultimate

in bottom-up influences on the planning process by explicitly involving citizens and citizen’s groups in

the process of selecting among different plans.

The second question is about scale—the appropriate level of government that should be the focus

environmental policies. Environmental issues prove difficult to tackle from a single level (Bulkley and

Betsill 2006). International policymaking has been weak and lacks enforceability (Victor 2011). National

and most state-level policymaking action has been extremely difficult in the United States given the

contentious politics and effective opposition to climate policies (Skocpol 2013). Indeed, in the U.S.,

because federal legislation has yet to be implemented, states, cities, and towns are where a majority of the

climate related policymaking is occurring (Byrne et al 2007). However, this activity at subnational levels

while promising is unlikely to resolve environmental problems like global warming that span national,

state, and local boundaries and jurisdictions.

Increasingly, environmental problems are being recognized as multi-scalar in nature, which

necessitate a move away from simple localism and towards both regional and global focus (Ostrom 2009).

For its part, regional governance has been a basis of transportation planning since the 1960s when

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)4 were first created with the recognition by federal planners

that post-war urban development patterns required transportation planning with broader more inclusive

attention to region. Blueprinting, as metro-area based means of managing growth, emerged from a similar

set of conditions and concerns focused on the regional nature of urban and environmental problems like

sprawl, traffic congestion, quality of life, and global warming.

The third question is about who should be involved in shaping development plans and therefore

metropolitan growth trajectories. MPOs are staffed by professional planners who must regularly translate

their methods and plans to audiences that do not share their professional knowledge or values. In most

Page 4 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

4

metropolitan areas, commercial enterprises have held sway and urban and transportation planning has

primarily reflected their interests (Molotch and Logan 1984). In more recent times, however, some

communities have become concerned with the over-representation of commercial interests, expressed

directly or indirectly through political elites, and have sought to moderate this by encouraging broader

civic engagement and input. Blueprinting represents an attempt to strike a compromise between different

metropolitan interests by creating an approach that merged “smart urban growth” planning principles and

technical planning tools with a civic and participatory model for policy development and future planning.

In doing so, its proponents claim it renders the planning process as “post-political” by placing experts and

citizens together directly into the planning process itself (MacLeod 2013).

Nonetheless, as encouraging as such solutions are in theory, the test for blueprinting is whether the

approach both represents the public it serves while producing a metropolitan transportation plan that also

achieves its stated environmental objectives such as reducing sprawl, vehicle miles traveled, and

greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Methods & Data

We use a mixed method approach. In the first phase of the research we compiled media coverage

regarding SACOG’s development of the Blueprint. We used an electronic database and newspaper

archive “NewsBank” and conducted key-word searches in the regional papers accessible to us—the

Sacramento Bee, Davis Enterprise, and Winters Express, and the Woodland Daily Democrat. Having

done so, we collected a total of 156 stories and the analyzed and categorized them according to methods

developed by mass media and sociology of media studies in which the results of two separate searches

were coded by suggested themes in order to increase the reliability of our categorization(s). We defined

and identified the variety of claims made about blueprinting.

We also collected an extensive array of archival documents, such as SACOGs reports and

publications, to re-construct the sequence of events that led up to the Blueprint’s ratification and

Page 5 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

5

implementation as well as its use as an urban and transportation-planning tool. We relied on these and

related qualitative methods to construct the narrative of the Blueprint and blueprinting process as it took

place in the Sacramento region.

In order to assess the effectiveness of blueprinting in addressing specific social and environmental

outcomes such as climate trapping gas reductions, we also quantitatively address the standard

transportation performance measures that SACOG used, including measures of household vehicle miles

traveled, mode split, per capita greenhouse gas emissions, and percent of time in congestion. SACOG

extended these traditional measures, however, to also incorporate an indicator of smart growth: amount of

compact development. To compliment these performance measures, we also added consideration of labor

force growth and total CO2 emission estimates. These data were compiled from a variety of sources,

including SACOG reports and plans, Environmental Impact Reports, and the California Employment

Development Department.

4. The Development of Blueprinting

In 2002, the SACOG initiated “the Blueprint Project;” an effort to plan transportation and housing

development through the year 2050.SACOG was among the first in California to complete the process

and was the first to label their effort blueprinting (Barbour and Teitz 2006). Modeled after what were

widely deemed successful efforts undertaken in Portland, Oregon, and Salt Lake City, Utah, the objective

of the Blueprint was to develop a regional plan that would, among other things, densify urban growth,

create walkable neighborhoods, promote mixed-use development, increase low income housing, and

expand the use of non-motorized and public transportation. In short, the Blueprint would encourage smart

growth.

Over its history, growth in the Sacramento metropolitan region has mainly been driven by short-

term planning, opportunistic development projects, without much coordination across the region’s

Page 6 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

6

communities, and little in the way of sustained public input. In 2004, SACOG Executive Director Martin

Tuttle explained that the Blueprint was borne out of frustration with the traditional approach,

“[T]wo years ago, SACOG approved a new list of $22.5 billion of planned road and transit

projects. But those who worked on the plan knew that even if all the projects were built, which is

unlikely, they would not prevent a fifty percent increase in traffic tie-ups projected by 2025”

(Vellinga 2004).

Other leaders from the region agreed. West Sacramento Mayor and SACOG Board of Directors

member, Christopher Cabaldon also shared that,

“[G]rowing like we're growing means our transportation system can't work. We'll be choking on

congestion and bad air” (Vellinga 2004).

SACOG estimated that between 2004 and 2050, the Sacramento region would need to

accommodate 1.7 million new residents and twice the amount of housing (Philip 2004). This engendered

blueprinting with a fair amount of urgency given the urban planning that would be required over the short

and longer runs.

4.1 Smart Growth and the Challenge of Regional Governance

SACOG explicitly intended the Blueprint as a break from the competitive localism of earlier

periods and planning approaches, with an eye for building a vertically integrated regional plan and

simultaneously to defuse the conflicts endemic to earlier plans and efforts at urban planning in the region

(Barbour and Teitz 2006). SACOG’s stated goal was to use the Blueprint to prioritize “compact

development,” a pillar of the smart growth paradigm described above, as a key contemporary tool for

dealing with the problems associated with urban sprawl in the Sacramento region. Compact development

would enable residents to walk, bike, and use public transportation lowering their use of vehicles and

therefore vehicle miles traveled (Baird 2004).

Page 7 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

7

While SACOG’s effort as an MPO are linked with air quality standards through its required

conformity with the Clean Air Act it main responsibility is to assist in the planning and equitable funding

of transportation projects. Therefore, SACOG’s smart growth and compact development agenda, while

ostensibly an extension of its transportation responsibilities and agenda in some measure pushed it into

planning for overlapping areas of urban growth not normally under its purview—namely housing,

employment, and land use. This was admittedly a non-traditional role for an MPO. As a Sacramento Bee

article relating SACOG’s blueprinting efforts pointed out,

“SACOG doesn't directly manage the growth. It only manages some of the transportation money.

For a true planning exercise about the future to take place, SACOG must delicately marry the

conversations about growth and transportation” (Philip 2004).

The “marriage” now claimed between transportation planning and land use was made explicit by

Yolo County Supervisor and SACOG Board member, Helen Thomson, when she shared, “the SACOG

board decided to take a detailed look at land use because land use drives transportation decisions,” but she

also clearly recognized the limits of SACOG’s authority as an MPO, acknowledging that "SACOG has no

land use authority under state law” (Sherwin 2004).

Opponents of compact development seized on what they considered “mission creep” of SACOG’s

incursion into land use planning. Leading the opposition was the City of Elk Grove, a rapidly growing

community south of Sacramento.5 In response to the Blueprint Project, the Mayor of Elk Grove, Sophia

Scherman asserted “home rule” over land use decisions saying in a letter to SACOG that Elk Grove’s

general plan should serve as the basis for SACOG’s transportation planning efforts in the city, not the

Blueprint.6 Eric Norris, a planner for Elk Grove put it this way,

"SACOG is not empowered to do land use planning. They are not a land use planning agency."

(Kalb 2004)

Page 8 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

8

In response, SACOG’s argued that the Blueprint represented a set of agreed upon guidelines and

that it did not threaten Elk Grove or any other regional communities autonomy to grow according to their

priorities (Kalb 2004). Thus, based on projections of regional population growth, SACOG understood that

the Sacramento metropolitan area required forethought and extensive urban planning to meet the needs of

the future while not squandering the quality of life that characterized the metro area and region.

However, as an MPO, SACOG has little community authority to compel local governments to

conform to a regional approach in transportation and land use planning. SACOG’s weakness as a

governance structure stems from its narrowly defined authority per state and federal law (Barbour and

Teitz 2006). It also lacks legitimacy in implementing regional policy because it is neither widely

recognized nor an elected body; citizens and civic groups have little basis on which to judge or influence

it as a planning body. If the Blueprint Project was to succeed, then, SACOG had to find a way to engender

public support for its plans. Broader public appeal would also increase political pressure and therefore the

likelihood that local municipal and elected officials would support the plan, which was crucial to ensure

implementation.

4.2 Blueprinting and Deliberative Democracy

To gain public approval, SACOG pursued an innovative model for involving citizens in the urban

and transportation planning process. Instead of urban plans being developed by experts, elected officials,

commercial interests, or civic groups, the Blueprint Project turned to a more “grassroots approach,”

involving what SACOG called “citizen planners” (Barbour and Teitz 2006). Citizen planners were

representatives of civic organizations as well as engaged ordinary citizens who lived in the affected

neighborhoods and communities of the region. In neighborhood, county, and regional meetings, such

citizen planners were asked to work together in small groups to consider different regional growth

trajectories (SACOG 2010). Through computerized planning software like iPlace3, they were able to

manipulate the land use priorities to see how changing transportation options and neighborhoods

Page 9 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

9

configurations would affect a variety of variables relating to broader planning outcomes like traffic

congestion, access to public transit, and open space among others. One citizen planner described their

participating and the blueprint process this way,

The blueprint is really an information-based, bottoms-up democratic process. It really is honestly

based on the assumption that if people have better information about the short- and long-term

impacts of their land use choices, that they will make better choices (Barbour and Teitz 2006, p 2).

From March through September of 2003 this process was repeated in successive neighborhood

meetings. Photographs of neighborhood workshops with small, but diverse groups of citizens sitting and

standing around tables with maps, pointing and ostensibly debating the merits of different options were

shown at meetings and were published in local newspaper accounts. These became familiar visual devices

used in subsequent SACOG publications concerning the Blueprint Project, which bolstered the project’s

image as a participatory, grass roots planning process (See Figure 1).

After the neighborhood and county meetings, a regional meeting, called the “Tall Order Forum:

Choices for Our Future,” was held in Sacramento on November 16, 2006. More than 1,400 business

leaders, elected officials, and “citizen planners” attended (SACOG 2010). Repeating the formula

developed at the neighborhood and county levels, participants at the Tall Order Forum scrutinized maps

and data supplied by SACOG regarding the different scenarios it had projected. At the end of the event,

these citizen planners voted on their preferred scenario. Using an electronic voting system, participants

chose among four options that range from a continuation of the status quo to ambitious smart growth

alternatives. As reported in The Davis Enterprise,

[T]he sold-out conference at the Sacramento Convention Center gave them a choice of four land-

use and transportation maps, each with a different vision of the future. All four describe ways to

handle a projected population increase of nearly 2 million more people, 1 million more jobs and

840,000 new dwellings in the six-county, 22-city area by 2050 (Sherwin 2004).

Page 10 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

10

The most ambitious smart growth inspired plan, received a plurality of votes. The regional meeting was

followed in October 2004 with an “elected officials forum” held at the Public Library in downtown

Sacramento. Eighty elected officials from throughout the Sacramento Metropolitan region attended. They

were presented with the results and summaries of the surveys and votes taken by citizen planners over the

preceding months at the community forums which showed that a majority of those surveyed (62 percent)

believed smart growth principles would have a positive impact on their quality of life (Vellinga 2004b).

Similar to the Regional Tall Order forum, the meeting culminated with another chance to vote. Using

electronic keypads, officials overwhelmingly approved the growth scenarios that were favored by

participants in the Blueprint Project at the Tall Order Forum. In November 2004, the SACOG board voted

to approve the “preferred plan” that emerged from this sequence of meetings.

4.3 Blueprinting Becomes a Model for Subsequent Planning Initiatives

In the immediate aftermath of the Blueprint’s ratification by SACOG’s board, two aspects of the

plan were repeatedly hailed in the local and national press and among planning associations and MPOs:

the Blueprint Project represented both an innovative and successful policy process—a deliberative

democratic planning procedure—and product— an urban plan that would deliver “smart growth”

outcomes. As a consequence, SACOG and the Blueprint received a great deal of recognition, were given a

number of important awards, and from this the plan, as a model for urban transportation planning, began

to quickly diffuse across the state and nation.

In 2006, SACOG then applied their blueprinting process model to the Metropolitan Transportation

Plan for 2035. In this iteration, 1,800 citizen planners participated in 17 community workshops aimed at

developing the long-term plan. Like their previous efforts, SACOG planners educated the participating

citizens, formed them into groups to consider different growth scenarios, and then had them complete

surveys regarding their preferred growth scenario. As before too, elected Officials then held a forum (over

70 elected officials attended) and also expressed their preferences given information from SACOG and

Page 11 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

11

the preferences expressed by their constituent, citizen planners. Finally, a second “Tall Order Forum”

followed deliberations by these elected officials in November 2006 (SACOG 2006).

In March of 2008, the SACOG Board of Directors, taking into account the preferences expressed

by citizen planners and elected officials, formally adopted the draft plan for the MTP 2035. The MTP

2035 had $41.7 billion to allocate (SACOG 2006). The major components were $14.3 billion for transit

investment, $12.4 billion in road maintenance and rehabilitation, $8.3 billion for local road

improvements; $2.9 billion for state highway improvements, and $1.4 billion for bike/pedestrian

improvements. Christopher Cabaldon, West Sacramento Mayor and SACOG Board member, hailed the

plan as

“[R]evolutionary in that it is the first smart-growth-based (Metropolitan) transportation

plan…We've learned you have to deal with the underlying land use, so that transportation becomes

an implementation of an already existing (growth) policy” (Bizjak 2006).

In 2008, the Blueprint process would once again emerge as a model for new public policy

implementation. California State Senator Darrell Steinberg identified blueprinting as the implementation

model for his Senate Bill 375 (SB375). Steinberg hailed SACOG’s blueprinting efforts as a model for

California and the nation: "Communities throughout California and the country are beginning to recognize

the SACOG Blueprint is, in fact, the blueprint for the entire country" (Steinberg 2007). Senator Steinberg

noted that air quality, traffic congestion, and carbon know no artificial boundaries and that these kinds of

environmental problems must be tackled regionally. As such, “SB 375, again, does not impose any

particular vision on any region. It says, ‘We want you to do what SACOG has done so successfully’”

(Horowitz 2010).

Specifically, SB375 is an anti-sprawl measure and a mechanism for enforcing California’s more

ambitious climate Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32). AB32 requires that California reduce

its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In conjunction with AB32, SB375 compels regional

Page 12 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

12

planning agencies like SACOG to meet certain long-term per capita GHG emissions targets through better

land use-transportation planning. The legislation also requires regional planning agencies throughout

California to engage in a visioning process styled after SACOG’s Blueprint.

In a relatively short time, the Blueprint and the policy processes advocated therein diffused

widely, emerging as a preferred method and framework for addressing a range of interconnected issues

from transportation and land use to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Importantly, however, while

blueprinting did develop a promising set of strategies for urban planners to reach out and generate public

consensus, the verdict remains out on its efficacy as a means for achieving important transportation and

environmental goals such as reductions in traffic congestion, improved air quality, and declines in

released heat trapping gases. SACOG presented a select set of performance metrics that can be used for

just such an evaluation. The history behind and policy process characteristic of the Blueprint are in part

why it has achieved such widespread recognition as a “successful urban planning strategy” and with it

rapid diffusion. We now consider the actual quantitative performance of the Preferred Blueprint Scenario,

which ultimately will define its viability as an alternative to conventional planning methods and plans.

5. The Blueprint and Performance

It is clear from the attributions of success that blueprinting has facilitated a dialogue among

Sacramento’s regional planners and government administrators about how to best achieve smarter growth.

SACOG, through its use and advocacy of blueprinting, has sought to demonstrate via comparison that

many of the core principles and concepts native to its smart growth agenda are superior to status quo

patterns of growth and transportation planning. In this section, we examine a number of these

performance indicators or metrics, paying particular attention to those smart growth principles directly

related to travel and emissions outcomes since these are ultimately the yardstick by which regional

transportation planning is measured. We began by presenting the benchmark measures relied on by

SACOG to describe the improvements they expect will result from their implementation of the Preferred

Page 13 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

13

Blueprint Scenario. We then look at the first concrete output of the Preferred Blueprint Scenario: the MTP

2035. Finally, we conclude by showing how much regional progress is actually made toward reducing

future GHG emissions.

5.1 Performance Indicators for the Preferred Blueprint Scenario

As noted earlier, the Preferred Blueprint Scenario reflects an attempt by SACOG to implement

smart growth principles to the Sacramento metropolitan area. Many of the performance criteria for smart

growth are consistent with long standing transportation goals, for example, reducing travel delay and

increasing the use of transit. As SACOG seeks to demonstrate in its “The Blueprint Vision: Region

Summary Statistics” (SACOG 2004), many of traditional indicators of regional transportation show

improvement when “business-as-usual” (BAU) land use patterns are compared to the adopted 2050

Preferred Blueprint Scenario. (See Table 1.) Mode choices improve, as evidenced by an increased

commuter share using public transit; the daily household travel miles also decline and with this comes

less time spent traveling. All of which indicates reductions in regional traffic congestion too. Such

improvements are also accompanied by significant changes to housing development trends. For instance,

under BAU, the vast majority of 2050 housing is projected to be “large lot development;” under the

Preferred Blueprint Scenario, these development trends shift housing stock to a greater proportion of

smaller lot homes with an even greater shift toward attached dwelling units.

The Preferred Blueprint Scenario also aims to reduce urban sprawl. SACOG points to the smaller

proportion of rural and large single family lots that will be constructed under the Blueprint, and the

reduction in the estimated amount of total urban land expansion as evidence that sprawl is reduced

(SACOG 2004). Under the BAU, the urban area is expected to expand an additional 661 square miles;

under the Blueprint, this expansion is limited to 304 square miles.

[Table 1 about here]

Page 14 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

14

There are other positive indicators associated with the Blueprint too, such as higher infill growth

and a larger proportion of the population living in more pedestrian-friendly urban environments. The

Blueprint therefore appears to achieve its stated goals of inducing smarter urban growth. Indeed, it was on

the basis of these, and related projected outcomes associated with the Preferred Blueprint Scenario that

subsequent awards first accrued, and regional and national attention manifest. While laudable, many of

these indicators are relatively superficial and on closer examination ignore more complicated issues and

potentially more costly long term results that we contend will emerge if the Preferred Blueprint Scenario

is adopted unreflectively.

Upon close inspection, it is clear that the Preferred Blueprint Scenario fundamentally alters

traditional regional growth patterns only if one applies the most generous of assumptions. In truth, there

are many ways in which it might exacerbate regional transportation problems with overly optimistic

projections that bear little resemblance to the historical reality. For example, consider that the Preferred

Blueprint Scenario projects transit’s share of regional work trips to be 7.8 percent in 2050, rising from

approximately 3.3 percent in 2000. This translates to an increase in average weekday public transit trips

from 93,000 in 2000 to nearly 630,000 by 2050.7 This is nearly twice the annual average of growth in

public transit use as experienced between 1991 and 2009 (Figure 2). Stated another way: the average

public transit use per capita would have to increase from the current rate of 0.5 transit trip every 10 trips

to 1.5 trips every ten trips. To reach the Preferred Blueprint Scenario target, growth must approach nearly

6.5 percent per year increase (assuming the MTP target is reached). It is very difficult to imagine

achieving this target unless vastly different choices were present in SACOG’s long-term regional

transportation plan, the MTP 2035.

[Figure 2 about here]

Page 15 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

15

The MTP 2035 is the long-term regional transportation plan that is based on the Preferred

Blueprint Scenario. It is a concrete expression of the principles contained in the Blueprint. When we

examine the transportation projects listed in the MTP 2025 (before the Blueprint process) and the MTP

2035 (after adoption of the Preferred Blueprint Scenario) we find that the types of transportation projects

that have been prioritized have simply not changed very much (Figure 3). While it is true that, as SACOG

officials note, MTP 2035 funding for “alternative modes of transportation” was significantly increased, by

as much as 20 percent over the prior long-term plan, it is also true that funding for expansions of

conventional roadway capacity has, likewise, increased by more than 30 percent of the total budget. This

has the sum total of actually shrinking the former (alternative modes of transportation) as a total share of

the budget as the total size of the region increases.


Another important assumption of the Preferred Blueprint Scenario is that by promoting locally

compact urban growth in suburban counties, will be offset travel to larger urban nodes. In other words,

compact growth in outlying counties is assumed to also involve significant employment growth in those

communities, thus reducing the reliance on motor vehicles for work commutes into the core-urban areas

of the region. Less populated counties continue to grow much the same as they always have, while the

traditional locus of employment, Sacramento, declines in its total proportion of the regional population.

This same pattern holds true for employment, with a small but critical caveat: Sacramento County

disproportionately loses employment in favor of growing employment in other nodes.

This is a problematic assumption in that the trend would defy historical evidence by requiring

greater job growth in the suburban communities than has taken place thus far. To illustrate, consider Yuba

Page 16 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

16

County. Under the Preferred Blueprint Scenario its share of regional employment is projected to increase

by more than 50 percent by 2050 (Figure 4). If we use historical trends to contextualize this kind of

expected growth, this would require extraordinary absolute growth rates in order to be achieved. Since

1990, Yuba County employment has fluctuated between 16,000 and 18,000 jobs (both farm and non-

farm) with little to no sustained growth over that time. In fact, the most recent estimate (2009) indicates a

dip to around 15,700 employed. Yet, the Preferred Blueprint Scenario projects an employment increase

between 2000 and 2050 of almost 45,000 jobs. Additionally, SACOG data suggests that employment is

expected to rise by some 18,000 jobs between 2005 and 2035.8 SACOG is essentially assuming that

employment in Yuba County would more than double in The Preferred Blueprint Scenario. This means

that the rate of employment growth must go from its average yearly rate historically (approaching zero) to

nearly 3 percent per year (using the same base year as the Blueprint, 2000).


SACOG has also argued that achieving a better jobs-housing balance will enhance the region’s

overall accessibility, making the region less dependent on jobs located in the Sacramento metropolitan

area. By re-allocating future Sacramento jobs, with its higher jobs-housing ratio, to the suburbs, which

tend to have lower jobs-housing ratios, the jobs-housing balance is improved in the smaller suburban

communities surrounding Sacramento. The expectation is that regional travel will decline with this

reshuffling of jobs. In effect, the Preferred Blueprint Scenario seeks to move “jobs” rather than “housing”

with the effect of reducing VMT, commute times, and so forth. The research on the efficacy of jobs-

housing balance for modifying travel behavior, in particular reducing overall travel, however, is mixed

(Cervero 1996; Cervero and Duncan 2006; Stone, Mednick et al. 2007). Nonetheless, there is some

evidence to suggest that a more balanced ratio of jobs to population is indeed a net good.

Page 17 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

17

5.2 Performance Measures for the MTP 2035

As we noted earlier, much of the acclaim surrounding the Preferred Blueprint Scenario has

occurred in the absence of a sufficient passage of time to definitively assess actual outcomes. The MTP

2035, however, represents an important milestone that can be used to gauge progress toward the adopted

Preferred Blueprint Scenario and from which an assessment can be rendered regarding the long-term

potential for blueprinting success. The MTP 2035 also represents the chief means by which SACOG (as a

regional transportation agency) can facilitate the 2050 blueprinting vision. The MTP 2035 is important

because only those transportation infrastructure projects identified in the plan are eligible for state and

federal funding, a $41.7 billion nudge to do the right thing.

As part of the MTP process, growth patterns were forecasted by SACOG for 2035, and then

compared to current conditions (2005) and to future patterns if the MTP 2035 was not adopted (i.e.,

reflecting a continuation of current planning practices). As expected, the region continues to grow under

all scenarios, but the transportation impact of that growth is estimated to be less under the adopted MTP

than would be if current-planning practices continued (Table 2). Under the MTP 2035, vehicle delay is

reduced, transit’s share increases, and the average daily VMT per household declines. Taken together,

these performance measures suggest that the blueprinting process has begun influencing future urban

form through the adoption of the MTP, and the per capita figures heavily publicized by SACOG tend to

support this overarching conclusion.

[Table 2 about here]

Yet, closer inspection reveals that the changes claimed in SACOG’s MTP 2035 performance

measures will not produce real reductions in total VMT and GHGs relative to current levels. One of the

hallmarks of the MTP 2035 is that household daily travel is estimated to be reduced by between 8 and 12

Page 18 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

18

percent compared to the travel projected to occur under current development trends. This reduction in

average daily household travel translates to a savings of approximately 11 percent to 16 percent of total

vehicle miles of travel compared to 2035 projections without the MTP. While this might seem a

significant accomplishment, what is of concern is that even with the MTP 2035, vehicle travel is projected

to increase by 3 to 6 million miles relative to 2005 (SACOG 2008). In fact, the MTP 2035 only slightly

reduces the projected rate of increase in total VMT (Figure 5). This translates to an approximate addition

of one million metric tonnes of GHG emissions between 2020 and 2035. To be fair, this is acknowledged

by SACOG in the Environmental Impact Review portion of the MTP 2035 (SACOG 2007). Yet as

adopted, the MTP 2035 sets up an almost impossible task for the next generation of policymakers:

reducing VMT enough to achieve the 2050 greenhouse gas target set out by a 2005 governor’s executive

order (Schwarzenegger 2005).


5.3 Performance Measures for SB 375

The policymakers associated with the Blueprint and blueprinting process also claimed success

with respect to achieving goals as specified under SB 375. In the fall of 2010, the State Air Resources

Board (ARB) adopted the final GHG emissions targets that were subsequently assigned to each of

California’s MPOs. The level of GHG emissions to be reduced was controversial, both among some

elected officials9 and industrial sectors, such as the California Building Industry Association.10

The Air Resources Board set SACOG targets at a per capita reduction of 7 percent by 2020 and 16

percent by 2035. In Figure 6, we compare the anticipated per capita and total projected CO2 emissions

we calculated taking into account the additional reductions anticipated under SB 375, the SACOG

adopted Preferred Blueprint Scenario, and the implementation of Pavley and the Low Carbon Fuel

Page 19 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

19

Standards (LCFS).11 From Figure 6, it’s clear that relative to the Pavley/LCFS standards, the Preferred

Blueprint Scenario and SB 375 aspirations are modest reductions, at best. Together they suggest that

achieving the 2020 AB 32 per capita target cannot be left assumed.

In fact, when viewed in the context of total greenhouse gas emissions, the rhetoric surrounding

SACOG’s Preferred Blueprint Scenario and MTP 2035 accomplishments would seem unfounded. At the

very best, the Preferred Blueprint Scenario and SB 375 targets (and only with the addition of the

Pavley/LCFS standards) stave off GHG increases that result from projected population growth, yet even

this effect declines over time such that total greenhouse gas emissions trend upward between 2020 and

2050 by approximately 20 percent.


6. Evidence of excellence or just another can kicked down the road?

The SACOGs blueprinting process and the resulting MTP 2035 were heralded as an urban

planning strategy that included the regions residents in a collaborative process aimed at shaping the long-

term form of their urban-suburban landscapes. To its credit, SACOG and blueprinting did provide a forum

through which a set of proactive residents, public officials, and business elites were brought together with

the purpose of promoting a regional view in which smart growth principles were used as guide to plan

local development. That Blueprinting seems to have engendered a sense of inclusion and democratic

process we do not explicitly argue with here (Pastor and Benner 2011). However, whether it is a type of

urban planning and governance that represents an effective and tested means of addressing a range of

material, urban development issues such as sprawl, air quality, and C02 emissions is far less clear.

Jonas and Pincetl (2006) have argued that despite the accolades and public funding, regional

alliances in California have not actually been all that successful in achieving governance that

Page 20 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

20

encompasses a broad regional demographic. In fact, most of their success seems to come as conveners of

business and housing sector representatives. In SACOG’s role as convener, we argue that much the same

outcome occurred. Invested economic and business interests partnered with political elites and a few civic

groups and citizens impassioned by smart growth principles and participated in a quasi-democratic

process that will not significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the recent approval by

Sacramento County—a Blueprint partner—of a development project that includes 8,700 new housing

units and more one million square feet of office and commercial space in an area that lies considerably

beyond the regional blueprint footprint, clearly signals that both the plan and the “smart growth” spirit

that lies behind it is limited (Fletcher 2014). As Fulton (1997) has noted, California politics jump from

state to local, with very little serious governance at the regional level (Jonas and Pincetl 2006).

Given these arguments, our investigation raises serious doubts about the “success” of the

blueprinting process. We have shown that very little actual progress has been made either toward

changing the transportation system in the region or mitigating some of society’s most vexing problems:

sprawl, congestion, commutes and significant air quality and GHG emissions. The Sacramento region will

remain almost wholly dominated by dependence on automobiles, where a sizable proportion of the

regions citizens will continue to commute relatively long distances to work. And because of this, no real

progress can be made toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions—perhaps SACOG’s most egregious

claim regarding the Preferred Blueprint Scenario and its supposed benefits.

This does not bode well for the implementation of SB 375 plans and targets, which requires a

Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) that identifies how a region will meet its GHG targets. The recent

release of the San Diego SCS where total CO2 is projected to increase by nearly 30 percent by 2050, 12

hinges on an improbable large scale implementation of transit in the waning years of the plan. The San

Diego region is in the midst of lawsuit over the Plan. In assessing the actual policy instrument by which

SACOG can affect change, our results stand in contrast to the optimism of Bartholomew and Ewing

Page 21 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

21

(Bartholomew and Ewing 2008). In a meta-analysis of eighteen different planning regions, they found that

the Blueprint Preferred Scenario produced a VMT reduction of about 17 percent. By contrast, our results

suggest that the Blueprint Preferred Scenario doesn’t always or necessarily translate toward preferred

financial investments. We agree with Deakin (2011) who notes that while California MPOs have a long

history in evaluating the consequences of transportation decision-making, they have very little experience

measuring actual outcomes, “because implementation has been piecemeal and spotty” (Deakin 2011, p

378).

To be clear, we are not questioning the premise that transportation and land use planning must be

jointly considered. Nor are we questioning whether regional governance is the appropriate level for

planning or that engineered, quasi-democratic practices are an inappropriate means for mounting such

planning efforts. Rather, we argue that Blueprinting and the Blueprint Preferred Scenario has been

prematurely celebrated as urban planning success in general and in specific as a climate change solution

based mainly on ground that it pursued an effective public relations campaign.

Greenhouse gases do not decline relative to current levels. In fact, by 2050 they will have

significantly increased. There are also no reductions in air polluting emissions. Growing smart has been

translated into growing smart in the suburbs. Yet, despite this, rapid diffusion of Blueprint processes

across California has continued unabated as if it were a proven success. What is more, SACOG has

encouraged this view13 based on claims that their Blueprint for regional growth and their performance

measures simply do not support.

We think it also important to add that it remains an open question whether SACOG, and MPO’s in

general, are the appropriate vehicle for addressing what is arguably one of the most urgent social and

environmental problems our society confronts: global warming. As we also noted in our introduction,

SACOG, like other MPOs in California, is relatively peripheral to federal, state, and local governance

structures. SACOG’s board, as with other MPO, is staffed by elected officials whose main interest is to

Page 22 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

22

direct transportation funding towards their districts in the form of new infrastructure and transit operating

revenues. Transportation funding, particularly in an atmosphere of declining state and local budgets,

represents an important political, rather than policy, tool. Under SB 375, the MPOs have been charged

with accomplishing a state goal that puts them squarely in the bulls-eye of local land use authority (Stern

2008). It will take more than assigning non-enforceable targets to achieve a sustainable urban landscape.

In the meantime, the metaphorical “can” continues to get kicked down the road: greenhouse gas emissions

continue to rise as our plans to reduce them continue to exist in an as yet unrealized future.

Page 23 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

References

Arnstein R, 1969, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Planning

Association 35(4): 216-224.

Ayers I and Braithwaite J, 1992, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation

Debate. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Baird G, 2004, “City's Future At Center Of Debate—A Regional Planning Agency and Elk

Grove Officials Both Claim to Have a Better Plan.” The Sacramento Bee. N1, Sunday,

March 21, p. N1.

Barbour E, Teitz M, 2006, “Blueprint planning in California: Forging consensus on metropolitan

growth and development,” Occasional Papers. San Francisco, Public Policy Institute of

California: 88.

Bartholomew K, Ewing R, 2008, "Land Use–Transportation Scenarios and Future Vehicle

Travel and Land Consumption: A Meta-Analysis," Journal of the American Planning


Bizjak T, 2006, “Easier Road Ahead, Area Planners Say—With Shorter Commutes Projected,

Agency Seeks Residents' Input On 25-Year Transportation Plan,” The Sacramento Bee.

Thursday, November 16, p. B1.

Bulkley H, Betsill M, 2006, “Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and the

'Urban' Politics of Climate Change.” Environmental Politics 14: 1, 42 — 63

Buser M, 2013, “Democratic Accountability and Metropolitan Governance: The Case of South

Hampshire, UK,” Urban Studies 50: 1-18.

Page 24 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

24

Byrne J, Hughes K, Rickerson W, Kurdgelashvili L, 2007, “American Policy Conflict in the

Greenhouse: Divergent Trends in Federal, Regional, State, and Local Green Energy and

Climate Change Policy,” Energy Policy 35: 4555–4573

Cervero R, 1996, "Jobs-Housing Balance revisited," Journal of the American Planning


Cervero R, Duncan M, 2006, "Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or

Retail-Housing Mixing?" Journal of the American Planning Association 72(4): 475-490.

Cohen J, (Ed.), 1989, Deliberative Democracy and Democratic Legitimacy. The Good Polity.

Oxford, Blackwell.

Cosgrove T, McKeever, M, 2008, The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2035, Sacramento,

CA, Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

Deakin E, 2011, "Climate Change and Sustainable Transportation: The Case of California."

Journal of Transportation Engineering 137(6): 372-382.

EDD, 2010, Industry Employment and Labor Force by Annual Average. March 2010

Benchmark. Sacramento, Employment Development Department, Labor Market

Information Division.

Fargo H, Thomson H, Asmundson R, 2006, “Help shape the Future of the Sacramento Region's

Transportation System,” Davis Enterprise. Sunday, March 5, Editorial.

Fletcher C, 2014, “SCS Implementation—Keeping Local Governments Honest.” ClimatePlan

(http://www.climateplan.org/scs-implementation-keeping-local-governments-

honest/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=scs-implementation-

keeping-local-governments-honest). Accessed July 16, 2014.

Page 25 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

25

Fulton W, 1997, The Reluctant Metropolis: The Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles. Point

Arena, CA: Solano Press

Giddens A, 1999, The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Oxford, Polity Press,

Blackwell.

Horowitz CA, 2010, “Planning at the Intersection of State and Main: Update On California's SB

375,” California Policy Options. D. Mitchell. Los Angeles, UCLA School of Public

Affairs: 10-27.

Jonas AEG, Pincetl S, 2006, “Rescaling Regions in the State: The New Regionalism in

California,” Political Geography 25: 482-505.

Kalb L, 2004, “City Is Still Working On SACOG Plan—Elk Grove Fears the Council Will Try to

Impose its Blueprint Project.” The Sacramento Bee. Thursday, November 25, p. B1.

MacLeod G, 2013, “New Urbanism/Smart Growth in the Scottish Highlands: Mobile Policies

and Post-politics in Local Development Planning,” Urban Studies 50: 2196-2221.

Malacynskci JD, Duane TP, 2008, "Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicle Miles

Traveled: Integrating the California Environmental Quality Act with the California

Global Warming Solutions Act." Ecology Law Quarterly 71 36.

McKeever M, 2009, Smart Growth and Climate Change: California’s SB 375 and Sacramento’s

Blueprint Experience. Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies University of California,

Davis.

Molotch H, Logan J, 1984, "Tensions In the Growth Machine: Overcoming Resistance to Value-

Free Development," Social Problems: 483-499.

Ostrom E, 2009, “A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change.” The World Bank

Page 26 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

26

Pastor M, Benner C, 2011, Planning For Equity, Fighting for Justice, Organizers, and the

Struggle for Metropolitan Inclusion. Regional Planning in America: Practice and

Prospect. Cambridge, MA, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Philip T, 2004, “What Kind of Future? Select Your Scenario - Making Room for 1.7 Million

More by 2050,” The Sacramento Bee. Sunday, April 25, p. E1.

Pincetl S, 1999, Transforming California: A Political History of Land Use and Development,

Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore, MD.

SACOG, 2004, "The Blueprint Vision: Region Summary Statistics." Retrieved April, 2010, from

http://www.sacregionblueprint.org/adopted/.

SACOG, 2006, Results of Citizen Input on Preferred Scenarios for Nine Corridors. Tall Order

Forum. Sacramento, Sacramento Council of Governments. 2010.

SACOG, 2007, Draft/Final Environmental Impact Report for the Metropolitan Transportation

Plan 2035. Sacramento, Sacramento Council of Governments.

SACOG, 2008, Chapter 4, Summary of Plan Performance. Metropolitan Transportation Plan

2035. Sacramento, Sacramento Council of Governments.

SACOG, 2010a, “How the Blueprint Was Created: Workshops,” News Release, Sacramento,

Sacramento Council of Governments: 8.

SACOG, 2010b, “Special Report: The Blueprint’s Impact on the Region and Residents’ Quality

of Life,” Sacramento, CA, Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

SACOG, 2010c, “Special Report: The Blueprint’s Impact on the Region and Residents’ Quality

of Life,” Sacramento, Sacramento Council of Governments: 8.

Schwarzenegger A, 2005, Executive Order S-01-05. S. o. California.

Page 27 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

27

Skocpol T, 2013, "Naming the Problem: What It Will Take to Counter Extremism and Engage

Americans in the Fight against Global Warming." Unpublished Manuscript.

Sherwin E, 2004, “Meeting Mulls Region's Future Growth,” Davis Enterprise. Monday, May 3,

News.

Steinberg D, 2007, “SB 375 Connects Land Use and AB 32 Implementation,” The Planning

Report, David Abel, Publisher, ABL, Inc. July.

Stern H, 2008, "A Necessary Collision: Climate change, Land Use, and the Limits of AB 32."

Ecology Law Quarterly 611 33.

Stone B, et al, 2007, "Is Compact Growth Good for Air Quality?" Journal of the American

Planning Association 73(404-418).

Vellinga LM, 2004a, “Forum Favors a New Direction For Development - Most at SACOG-

Sponsored Workshop Want to Halt the Advance of Suburban Sprawl,” The Sacramento

Bee. Saturday, May 1, p. B1.

Vellinga LM, 2004b, "Steering growth is a Tall Order - 1,300 People Will Get a Say –

Electronically—at A Workshop on Regional Development," The Sacramento

Bee.Wednesday, April 28, p. B1.

Victor DG, 2011, Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting

the Planet. Cambridge University Press: New York.

Page 28 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

28

Table 1. Comparison 2050 Performance of Blueprint to Business-as-usual

Principle

Performance Indicator

Existing

Conditions

Business-as-

usual

(BAU-2050)

Adopted

Blueprint

(2050)

Transportation Choices

Trip Type (%Auto/%Non-Auto)

Work Trip Transit Share (%)

Daily VMT/HH

% Time in Heavy Congestion

Vehicle Min of Daily

Travel/Household

Change in %Vehicle

Emissions1/Capita

92/8

3.3

41.9

23

---2

---2

93.7/6.3

2.3

47.2

27

81

100

83.9/16.1

7.8

34.9

20

61

85

Compact Development

Housing Types (%)

Rural Residential

SF Large Lot

SF Small Lot

Attached Dwelling Unit

5

63

3

29

5

68

2

25

3

45

17

35

1. CO2, particulates

2. SACOG’s comparison is relative to BAU

Source: Adapted from (SACOG 2004)

Page 29 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

29

Table 2. Changes in Travel Patterns (MTP 2035)

Travel Indicator 2005 2035 (BAU) 2035 (MTP)

Total Household VMT (1000s) 40,695 67,860 61,271

Total Daily VMT (1000s) 55,381 90,664 84,879

Avg Daily HH VMT 52 53 49

Congested VMT (1000s) 3,419 13,478 7,795

Person Trips by Transit (Commute/Work) 48,647 85,443 167,750

Transit Mode Share (Commute/Work) 2.5 2.3 4.8

Source: MTP Factsheet; Summary of Plan Performance, EIR

Page 30 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

30

Figure 1. “Citizen Planners” (SACOG 2010)

Page 31 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

31

Figure 2. Projected public transit growth in the MTP 2035 and Preferred Blueprint

Scenario

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Av

era

ge

We

ek

da

y T

ran

sit

Tri

ps

MTP 2035 (2008-2035)

Avg Annual Growth Rate: 3.9%

Blueprint

Page 32 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

32

Figure 3. Distribution of the number of projects by type in MTP 2025 and MTP 2035. The initial

estimate for the 2025 MTP was $22.4 billion (later amended to $36.1 billion)xiv; the

MTP 2035 estimate is $41.7 billion. Admin: Feasibility, Planning, Design; AltCap:

Alternative Mode Capacity Addition; LScape: Streetscaping, Landscaping; MFCap:

New Roadway Capacity, Parking Garages, Interchanges, Widening, Auxillary Lanes;

Rehab: Bridge Replace, Reconstruction, Resurfacing, Storm Drainage, etc; TrafOps:

Traffic Management, Signalization Coordination, Turn Lanes; Transit: Park and Ride;

Light Rail, Transit

Page 33 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

33

Figure 4. Historical and projected trends in employment for Yuba County

(Source: Historical trends: (EDD 2010); 2035 projection:

http://www.sacog.org/about/advocacy/pdf/fact-sheets/EmploymentStats.pdf (last

accessed March 2011); Blueprint 2050 projection:

http://www.sacregionblueprint.org/adopted/ (last accessed March 2011)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Historical employment trend

2035 projection

2050 Blueprint projection

Labor Force (farm, non-farm)

Page 34 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

34

Figure 5. Performance of the SACOG Blueprint (BP) and the MTP 2035 relative to

business-as-usual (BAU)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

VMT (BAU)

Annual CO2 (MMT) (MTP 2035)

VMT (MTP 2035)

VMT (BP)

Page 35 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review Only

Figure 6. (a) Projected per capita emissions reductions (lbs), (b) Projected annual emissions reductions (MMT)

0

4

8

12

16

20

2005 2020 2035 2050

(lbs)

Blueprint

SB 375

Pavley/LCFS

2020

Anticipated Reductions

2050Target

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2005 2020 2035 2050

(MMT)

Blueprint

SB 375

Pavley/LCFS

Anticipated Reductions

2020Target

2050Target

Page 36 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

36

Endnotes

1 The concept of “smart growth” can encompass many things. In the present case, we rely on the key

agency, SACOG’s definition, which includes the following planning and transportation aspects: increased

urban densities and growth, walkable cityscapes and neighborhoods, mixed-use development, increase low

income housing, and expanded non-motorized and public transportation options.

2 SACOG is an association of local governments within the six counties and 21 cities surrounding

Sacramento. It is a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), an institution that creates transportation

plans on a regional basis and coordinates federal and state funds to local transportation projects.

3 Other regions of California have also undertaken blueprinting or blueprinting-like efforts. Although the

specific elements can vary the common elements are use of existing Metropolitan Planning Organization;

involvement of citizens, experts, or stakeholders; and use of scenario building software.

4 MPOs were constructed by the U.S. federal government in the 1960s in recognition that urban planning

could not be effectively done at the city or even county level. The nature of transportation problems

stretches across conventional governmental boundaries, thus necessitating a regional perspective on

development. MPO’s like SACOG have permanent professional staff composed mostly of urban planners

and are governed by a board of directors composed of elected officials from cities and counties in the

region.

5 Within the region, Elk Grove is the staunchly committed to status quo development patterns in opposition

to compact development Sherwin, E. (2004). Meeting mulls region's future growth. Davis Enterprise.

Davis, CA, Davis Enterprise..

6 Mayor Scherman wrote this letter in mid-2004 when the contours of the Blueprint had not yet been

solidified Vellinga, M. L. (2004). Steering growth is a Tall Order - 1,300 people will get a say -

electronically - at a workshop on regional development. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA, McClatchy

Newspapers..

Page 37 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

37

7 Base case and draft preferred blueprint scenario (Available at

http://www.sacregionblueprint.org/adopted/). Although not clearly identified these figures refer average

weekday trips.

8 http://www.sacog.org/about/advocacy/pdf/fact-sheets/EmploymentStats.pdf

9 San Jose Mercury News (CA), September 22, 2010, AIR BOARD GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION

TARGETS UNREALISTIC; “This Thursday, the California Air Resources Board will make a crucial

decision impacting the lives of California residents for years to come. The vote could result in extreme cost

increases for families and businesses across the state. And almost nobody knows about it. As members of

the Metropolitan Transportation Commission -- the planning, coordinating and financing agency for Bay

Area transit -- we want to call your attention to this important issue.”

10 http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/22/3046918/sb-375-hijacked-jobs-and-economy.html

11 Assembly Bill 1493 (better known as the Pavley standards) limit tailpipe GHG emissions in new

passenger cars through 2016. Statewide, the standards are expected to reduce GHG emissions by about

30%. URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm (accessed Mar 15, 2011). California is currently

drafting new regulations designated as the LEV III program; if approved, these would generate additional

reductions in GHG emissions for model years 2017-2025.

12 Under SB 375, San Diego’s planning region (SANDAG) was to reduce per capita CO2 emissions by 7%

in 2020 and 13% in 2035. SANDAG claims to have achieved these reductions, but fails to recognize that

increases in population must be set off by even further decreases in VMT in order to actually reduce total

GHG emissions, which is the mandated requirement contained in AB 32.

13 Elisabeth Sherwin . 2004. “Meeting mulls region's future growth.” The Davis Enterprise. Davis, CA

(May 3) 2004. …Marty Tuttle, SACOG's executive director, described the conference as the beginning of a

regional dialogue. “Everything we've done is visionary," Tuttle said. "To get anything implemented takes

leadership." Tuttle said SACOG's next steps include local government briefings, as well as more technical

work by its staff on water supply issues, the cost of infrastructure and an examination of municipal fiscal

impacts.

Page 38 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Review O

nly

38

The Daily Democrat. 2004. “Regional bike projects up for review.” Woodland, CA (October 2, 2004). A

plan to guide the long-term direction of as much as $350 million in funding for bicycle and pedestrian

projects region wide is available for public review and comment through October. The "Draft Regional

Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trail Master Plan" was developed by the Sacramento Area Council of

Governments to provide a blueprint for the development and enhancement of facilities for walking and

biking in and amongst the counties, cities and towns of the Sacramento region. The Plan is oriented around

utilitarian trips, and emphasizes regional connectivity and connection to the transit system, according to

SACOG planner Aimee Hagen…. SACOG's Plan was mandated by the "Metropolitan Transportation Plan

for 2025," which guides funding for all transportation projects in the six-county Sacramento region. The

MTP takes a regional approach to improving our transportation network, and is innovative in that it invests

more resources than ever before in alternatives to the automobile. The Plan invests as much as 350 million

over the next 23 years in walking and biking.

xiv The RTP 2025 initial estimate is provided here: http://www.sacog.org/mtp/pdf/chapter7.pdf. A later total

amount is provided here: http://www.sacog.org/mtp/2035/finaldocs/mtp/02-Summary-of-Budget-and-

Investments.pdf

Page 39 of 39



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

“Blueprinting” and Climate Change: Regional Governance and Civic Participation in Land Use and Transportation Planning

Documents