Loading...
ABAG Projections - 1996AGENDA ITEM #10 ;` y Transportation Agency 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1906 Santa Clara County Bus, Light Rail, Congestion Management TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM Date: / ~ N) L ~N \~ (,%~ ~~~ Q Committee Meeting Date: September 14, 1995 Boazd Meeting Date: October 5. 1995 ACTION _ DISCUSSION _ INFO X TO: Technical Advisory Committee Santa Claza County Tra 't District THROUGH: Peter M. Cipolla General Manager • `rn.~~.,te.~ ~~-wr el.~.~-- FROM: Michael P. Evanhoe, Director, Congestion Management Program SUBJECT: ABAG Projections 96 RECOMMENDATION: This is an informational item; no action is requested. BACKGROUND: Every two years, ABAG updates its Projections series forecasts for use by local planning departments, CMAs, and other public and private entities. ABAG typically releases preliminary data for local review and comment. The preliminary projections were sent to County, City, and Town planning directors and CMAs on July 21. The comment period closes on September 1, 1995. DISCUSSION: In the past, the TAC has expressed a desire to coordinate Santa Clara County's response to ABAG through the Congestion Management Program. The TAC provides a forum for Member Agencies to air their concerns about the forecasts and come to agreement on them prior to communicating with ABAG. Because the comment period is only 30 days, complete TAC review was not possible prior to the deadline. The TAC delegated the response to its Land Use subcommittee. A meeting of the Land Use subcommittee was held on Tuesday, August 15 to coordinate a response among the Member Agencies. d:\xmit\tac\PRJGTNS.DOC 1 of 2 CJ- ~ . Frank Lockfeld of the Center for Urban Analysis reviewed all Member Agency comments and drafted the attached response letter. The letter was forwazded to ABAG on Friday, September 1. ' Prepazed by: Walter C. Streeter d:~xttrit~tac~PRJCTNS.DOC ,; i 2of2 i ..._~. ~. - - ___.....d:.~.... .TM T~ Transportation Agency 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1906 Santa Clara County Bus, Light Rail, Congestion Management September 1, 1995 Paul Fassinger, Research Director Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2060 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Deaz Paul: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Preliminary Projections `96. The comments below are summarized from the CMP Technical Advisory Committee Land Use Subcommittee's review of the Preliminary data. Previous estimates for 2010, developed from Projections 92 and Projections 94, were compazed with the Preliminary P' 96 projections. City estimates for 2015 have not been developed, however the comments regarding 2010 should be interpreted as applying to the 2015 year as well. We note that projected countywide employment has decreased by approximately 35,000 from P' 94 estimates for 2010, and that households, interpreted as housing units, has dropped by more than 10,000. The housing unit decrease is consistent with the continued low level of residential construction. And we respect your estimates of countywide employment level of approximately 1,005,000 in 2010. We believe the job estimates for 2010 are low regazding Campbell, Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Jose. The Campbell and Palo Alto 2010 job estimates are the same and lower, respectively, as their 19901evels. In neither case is this a reasonable assumption, although Palo Alto believes your estimates to be appropriate. The Mountain View and San Jose increments of job growth from 1990 to 2010 are much lower than aze reasonable given growth that has already occurred and is likely to continue. We believe the 2010 estimates of both jobs and households for Gilroy aze too high. We do not believe that south county will experience the level of business services growth that drives growth in north county. The household estimate for Morgan Hill is too high. The estimates for both Morgan Hill and Gilroy require construction levels that would exceed annual limits imposed by both cities. While Gilroy's limit goes to 2003, Morgan Hill's limit goes to 2010. -~ ~"~ . ti ~..J Household estimates aze too low in San Jose and too high in Sunnyvale. The San Jose estimate of 314K households is 15K lower than P' 941evels, which would mean that the P' 96 to P' 94 decrease in San Jose housing starts is greater than the countywide decline. The. San Jose decline does not appeaz reasonable. The P' 96 estimate for Sunnyvale housing units is 3K higher than the P' 94 estimate. We aze not aware of any circumstance that would lead to such a lazge increase, especially with a lowered estimate of countywide housing starts. Some of the discrepancies between ABAG's city estimates and CMP city estimates may be due to percentage allocations of cities within tracts in the correspondence table. Attached aze a series of recommended modifications to the tract allocations. The CMP allocations to cities aze based ors zone allocations, where zones aze subdivisions of tracts. Your tract allocations have difficulties with employment estimates where the tract includes several cities. The most awkwazd tract is 5046.48, which includes Milpitas, San Jose and Sunnyvale. Tracts that split Mountain View and Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and/or Santa Claza and Cupertino, and San Jose with neighboring Campbell and Santa Clara are also problems. A review of the number of employed residents, i.e. workers, per household over the projection period shows curious patterns. For example, 2010 is a low point, 1.507, between 2005 and 2015, where the workers/hh are 1.535 and 1.530 respectively. Worker per household ratios aze.lower than they were in 1990, when it was 1.562. The worker per household estimates in 2010 aze lower than they were in 1990 except for Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Remainder. San Jose, for example, which had 1.62 workers per household in 1990 declines to 1.53 in 2010 and rises to only 1.56 in 2015. The reasons for these changes aze not appazent at this time. Lower employed resident estimates effect topics such asjob-worker ratios and the estimate of labor to be imported from outside the county to fill Santa Clara County jobs. The 2010 yeaz appeazs different than either 2005 and 2015 with respect to the differences between job growth and growth in employed residents. From 1990 to 2005, for example, jobs grow by about 101,500 while employed residents increase by 96,000; this is a difference of only about 5,000. However, from 2005 to 2010 jobs increase by almost 58,000 while employed residents increase less than 20,000; the difference now increases by 38,000. The 2010 and 2015 projection period has a job increase only about 5400 greater than the increase in resident workers. It may be appropriate to review these oscillations in further detail, at least to help our understanding of these changes. _ For your information, the table below reports the CMP Adjusted P' 94 estimates of jobs and household for 2010 as compazed to Preliminary P' 96.