Public Workshops and Results
SACOG conducted nine public workshops in October on the update for the Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2035 (MTP) to gather input on three transportation and land use scenarios.
Workshop participants were presented with information on three scenarios and asked to discuss at their tables the benefits and drawbacks of each scenario at both the regional and county scale. A facilitator at each table recorded the group’s key likes and dislikes for each of the scenarios. At the end of the table discussion, each table was asked to decide the group’s preferred scenario at both the regional and county scale and choose a table representative to register the group’s choice via audience response unit. If the table could not come to consensus on its preferred scenario, it did not cast a group vote (6 percent and 3 percent abstained from the regional and county table votes, respectively).
Scenario 3 was the majority preference among tables and individuals for both the regional and county scale scenario. Scenario 3 was the majority preference among tables and individuals for both the regional and county scale scenario in all workshops except in Sutter and Placer counties. In Sutter County, Scenario 2 was the majority preference of tables and individuals for both the region and the county. In Placer County for the regional scenario preference, Scenarios 2 and 3 tied in the table vote while Scenario 3 received the majority table vote for county scenario; Scenario 3 received the majority vote among individuals for both regional and county scales.
Participants were invited to complete an individual survey to record their county scenario preference and what they liked or disliked about that scenario. Nearly all participants (98 percent) completed an individual survey. For those that elaborated on their likes and dislikes, staff summarized the written responses and observed the following general themes: those who selected Scenario 3 liked the amount of growth in corridors and centers, its investment in transit, bicycling or pedestrian infrastructure, and that the scenario had the lowest impact on farmland and open space. In response to the question on what they liked least about their scenario preference, Scenario 3 respondents generally wanted more investment in these modes. Those who chose Scenario 2 liked it because it balanced investment between different modes of transportation, was a future that they thought their community was already implementing, and balanced growth within communities. Scenario 2 respondents had mixed dislikes around the amount of investment in different modes (both too much and too little investment in all modes of transportation). Participants who preferred Scenario 1 liked its investment in roads and congestion reduction and thought it preserved established neighborhoods. Scenario 1 respondents generally disliked the loss of agricultural land and wanted more information on the scenario.
