2030 regional transportation plan: pathways for our future, 2007 · 2007-12-18 · 401 b street,...

P A T H W A Y S F O R T H E F U T U R E

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 7

2030

401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 699-1900

2030 REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Pathways for the Future

Adopted

November 30, 2007

ii 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making.

SANDAG builds consensus; plans, engineers, and builds public transit; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates resources; and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.

CHAIR Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom

FIRST VICE CHAIR Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler

SECOND VICE CHAIR Hon. Jerome Stocks

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Gary L. Gallegos

CITY OF CARLSBAD Hon. Matt Hall, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tem CITY OF CHULA VISTA Hon. Cheryl Cox, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. John McCann, Councilmember CITY OF CORONADO Hon. Phil Monroe, Councilmember (A) Hon. Carrie Downey, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Al Ovrom, Councilmember CITY OF DEL MAR Hon. Crystal Crawford, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. David Druker, Mayor (A) Hon. Henry Abarbanel, Councilmember CITY OF EL CAJON Hon. Mark Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Jillian Hanson-Cox, Councilmember CITY OF ENCINITAS Hon. Jerome Stocks, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Teresa Barth, Councilmember CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Mayor (A) Hon. Ed Gallo, Councilmember (A) Hon. Sam Abed, Mayor Pro Tem CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Hon. Jim Janney, Mayor (A) Hon. Patricia McCoy, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mayda Winter, Mayor Pro Tem CITY OF LA MESA Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor (A) Hon. David Allan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mark Arapostathis, Councilmember CITY OF LEMON GROVE Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Jones, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jerry Selby, Councilmember CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Hon. Ron Morrison, Mayor (A) Hon. Frank Parra, Councilmember (A) Hon. Louie Natividad, Councilmember CITY OF OCEANSIDE Hon. Jim Wood, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Kern, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jack Feller, Councilmember CITY OF POWAY Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Mayor (A) Hon. Robert Emery, Councilmember (A) Hon. Don Higginson, Councilmember CITY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Jerry Sanders, Mayor Hon. Toni Atkins, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jim Madaffer, Councilmember (A) Hon. Scott Peters, Council President CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Jim Desmond, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Martin, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Rebecca Jones, Councilmember

CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Jack Dale, Councilmember (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember (A) Hon. John Minto, Councilmember CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon. Lesa Heebner, Mayor (A) Hon. Dave Roberts, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mike Nichols, Councilmember CITY OF VISTA Hon. Judy Ritter, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bob Campbell, Councilmember (A) Hon. Steve Gronke, Mayor Pro Tem COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Ron Roberts, Chairman Hon. Bill Horn, Supervisor (A) Hon. Greg Cox, Vice Chairman (A) Hon. Dianne Jacob, Chair Pro Tem IMPERIAL COUNTY (Advisory Member) Hon. Victor Carrillo, Chairman (A) Hon. David Ouzan, Councilmember CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Advisory Member) Will Kempton, Director (A) Pedro Orso-Delgado, District 11 Director METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM (Advisory Member) Harry Mathis, Chairman (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Vice Chairman (A) Hon. Bob Emery, Board Member NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (Advisory Member) Hon. Ed Gallo, Chairman (A) Hon. Jerome Stocks, Planning Committee Chair (A) Hon. David Druker, Monitoring Committee Chair U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Advisory Member) CAPT Steve Wirsching, USN, CEC, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (A) CAPT Robert Farley, USN, CEC Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (Advisory Member) Sylvia Rios, Chair (A) Michael Bixler, Commissioner SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (Advisory Member) Marilyn Dailey, Commissioner (A) Mark Muir, Commissioner (A) Gary Croucher, Commissioner SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN’S ASSOCIATION (Advisory Member) Chairman Robert Smith (Pala), SCTCA Chair (A) Chairman Allen Lawson (San Pasqual) MEXICO (Advisory Member) Hon. Ricardo Pineda Actino Cónsul General of Mexico

As of December 10, 2007

2030 Regional Transportation Plan iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many individuals aided in the preparation of material contained in this long-range 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (RTP). In particular, the cooperation and involvement of members of various SANDAG committees and working groups are acknowledged.

SANDAG COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS Borders Committee Regional Planning Committee Transportation Committee Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group Regional Planning Technical Working Group San Diego Region Conformity Working Group

SANDAG STAFF

Gary Gallegos, Executive Director Diane Eidam, Deputy Executive Director Julie Wiley, General Counsel Jack Boda, Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation Colleen Windsor, Communications Director Karen Lamphere, Acting Director of Technical Services Renee Wasmund, Director of Finance Bob Leiter, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Michael Hix, Principal Transportation Planner, Project Manager Heather Werdick, Senior Transportation Planner, Assistant Project Manager Kim Kawada, Policy and Legislative Affairs Program Manager Charles “Muggs” Stoll, TransNet Program Manager Elisa Arias, Principal Regional Planner Susan Brown, Financial Manager of Programming Thomas Bruccoleri, Senior Regional Planner Mike Calandra, Senior Research Analyst Richard Chavez, Principal Transportation Engineer Coleen Clementson, Principal Regional Planner Jane Clough-Riquelme, Senior Regional Planner Linda Culp, Senior Transportation Planner Rick Curry, Senior Research Analyst Alex Estrella, Senior Transportation Planner Susan Freedman, Senior Regional Planner Keith Greer, Senior Regional Planner Carolina Gregor, Senior Regional Planner Brian Holland, Assistant Regional Planner II Beth Jarosz, Associate Research Analyst Samuel Johnson, Chief Technology Officer

iv 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

SANDAG STAFF (CONTINUED) Rachel Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Sookyung Kim, Financial Programming Manager Tom King, Associate Research Analyst Chris Kluth, Associate Regional Planner Jose Nuncio, Senior Engineer/Financial Programming Joaquin Ortega, Transportation Modeling Technician Ziying Ouyang, Associate Research Analyst Rob Rundle, Principal Regional Planner Ed Schafer, Senior Research Analyst Dave Schumacher, Principal Transportation Planner Scott Strelecki, Transit Planning Intern Shelby Tucker, Associate Regional Planner Stephan Vance, Senior Transportation Planner Danny Veeh, Assistant Transit Planner Limeng Yu, Associate Research Analyst Anne Steinberger, Communications Manager Joy De Korte, Public Information Specialist Pam Albers, Supervisor of Graphic Design Ryan Chung, Graphics Design Specialist Tom Neel, Associate Graphic Designer Lisa Starace, Graphics Designer I Sue Strohmeyer, Administrative Office Supervisor Gwen Kruger, Administrative Office Specialist Megan Womack, Administrative Office Specialist Phillip Johnston, Office Services Specialist Lia Mogle, Office Services Specialist Tom Goggin, Office Services Specialist Mark Polinsky, Office Services Specialist SANDAG also recognizes the various staff from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), and North County Transit District (NCTD) for their participation and assistance with this RTP.

2030 Regional Transportation Plan v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Smarter Plan ..................................................................................................................................1-1

How is the Plan Developed? .....................................................................................................1-2

Building on Our Progress ..........................................................................................................1-3

A Plan for Better Mobility ..................................................................................................................1-3

Land Use-Transportation Connection: Growing Smarter ...........................................................1-4

Systems Development: More Travel Choices .............................................................................1-4

Regional Transit Plan ........................................................................................................1-7

Integrating Transit and Roadways .....................................................................................1-7

Systems Management: Making Better Use of What We Have ...................................................1-7

Freeway Service Patrol ......................................................................................................1-8

High Occupancy Toll Lanes ...............................................................................................1-8

New Technologies ............................................................................................................1-8

Demand Management: Taking the Pressure Off the System ....................................................1-11

How Do We Implement the Plan? ...................................................................................................1-11

Funding and Financial Scenarios .............................................................................................1-12

Measuring the Plan’s Success ..................................................................................................1-12

2. 2030 RTP VISION

What’s the Vision for Transportation? ...............................................................................................2-1

Measuring the Plan’s Success ............................................................................................................2-2

Corridor Travel Times ................................................................................................................2-4

Regional Performance............................................................................................................... 2-6

Performance Monitoring .................................................................................................................2-11

Automating Our Systems ........................................................................................................2-12

A Plan for Better Mobility ................................................................................................................2-12

Customer Feedback ................................................................................................................2-12

3. REGIONAL TRENDS THROUGH 2030: HOW ARE WE GROWING AND CHANGING?

Demographics ..................................................................................................................................3-1

Employment and Housing .................................................................................................................3-3

Travel Patterns ..................................................................................................................................3-4

4. FINANCIAL STRATEGIES: PAYING OUR WAY

Unconstrained Needs ................................................................................................................4-1

Revenue Scenarios ............................................................................................................................4-1

Revenue Constrained Scenario ..................................................................................................4-1

Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario ....................................................................................4-2

vi 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

4. FINANCIAL STRATEGIES: PAYING OUR WAY (CONT’D)

Revenue Assumptions .......................................................................................................................4-2

Local Revenues .........................................................................................................................4-2

State Revenues .........................................................................................................................4-4

Federal Revenues ......................................................................................................................4-6

Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario Analysis ...............................................................................4-8

Revenue Constrained Scenario Analysis ..........................................................................................4-12

Unconstrained Needs Analysis .........................................................................................................4-16

Actions ...........................................................................................................................................4-19

5. LAND USE-TRANSPORTATION CONNECTION: WE MUST GROW SMARTER

Growing Smarter ..............................................................................................................................5-1

Regional Comprehensive Plan ...................................................................................................5-2

Connecting Land Use and Transportation .........................................................................................5-2

Smart Growth Concept Map ....................................................................................................5-3

Independent Transit Planning Review .......................................................................................5-4

Uses of the Smart Growth Concept Map ................................................................................5-16

Smart Growth and Public Health .............................................................................................5-16

Air Quality ..............................................................................................................................5-17

Better Urban Design for a Healthier Lifestyle ...........................................................................5-18

Using Land Use and Transportation Plans to Guide Other Plans and Investments ............................5-19

Open Space and Habitat..........................................................................................................5-20

San Diego’s Habitat Plans .......................................................................................................5-20

TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program ...........................................................................5-22

Energy ....................................................................................................................................5-22

Energy and Climate Change ...................................................................................................5-23

Saving Energy Through Transportation Choices ......................................................................5-24

Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles .........................................................................5-24

Incentives and Collaboration............................................................................................................5-26

Smart Growth Incentive Program ............................................................................................5-26

Collaboration Efforts ..............................................................................................................5-27

Coordination with Tribal Nations ............................................................................................5-27

Environmental Justice .....................................................................................................................5-28

Promoting Public Involvement .................................................................................................5-28

Regional Analysis of Environment Justice Issues ......................................................................5-29

Population and Ethnicity .........................................................................................................5-30

Population and Age ................................................................................................................5-30

Income and Other Factors .......................................................................................................5-30

2030 Regional Transportation Plan vii


5. LAND USE-TRANSPORTATION CONNECTION: GROWING SMARTER (CONT’D)

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................5-31

Actions ...........................................................................................................................................5-32

6. SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT: MORE TRAVEL CHOICES

Developing the 2030 RTP Network ...................................................................................................6-1

Transportation Alternatives Analysis ..........................................................................................6-2

A Focus on Regional Priorities ............................................................................................................6-3

Easing the Commute ................................................................................................................6-3

Regional Transit Plan..........................................................................................................................6-9

Independent Transit Planning Review ........................................................................................6-9

Transit Market Research ............................................................................................................6-9

Link with Transit Agency Plans.................................................................................................6-11

Regional Transit Plan Elements.................................................................................................6-12

Implementing the Regional Transit Plan: The Reasonably Expected Transit Network ................6-14

Coastal Rail Improvement Program..........................................................................................6-20

High-Speed Rail Services .........................................................................................................6-23

Emerging Technologies in Public Transportation .............................................................................6-24

A Flexible Roadway System..............................................................................................................6-24

Completing Regional Highways ..............................................................................................6-27

The Managed/HOV Network ...................................................................................................6-27

Completing the Arterial Network ............................................................................................6-30

A Corridor Approach ..............................................................................................................6-35

Goods Movement and Intermodal Facilities .....................................................................................6-35

Goods Movement Trends ........................................................................................................6-36

Existing Conditions in the Region.............................................................................................6-37

Developing the Regional Freight Strategy and Goods Movement Action Plan .........................6-40

Freight Impacts on Local Communities, Health, and the Environment .....................................6-44

Freight Technology Development ............................................................................................6-45

Freight Data and Planning Needs ............................................................................................6-46

Aviation and Ground Access ............................................................................................................6-46

Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................6-46

Long-Range Planning for Aviation Needs .................................................................................6-49

Regional Bikeways ...........................................................................................................................6-50

The Enhanced Smart Growth Land Use Alternative .........................................................................6-56

Regional Performance .............................................................................................................6-56

viii 2030 Regional Transportation Plan


6. SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT: MORE TRAVEL CHOICES (CONT’D)

Planning Across Borders ..................................................................................................................6-59

I-15 Interregional Partnership Program ...................................................................................6-59

Binational Transportation ........................................................................................................6-60

Actions ............................................................................................................................................6-65

7. SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT: MAKING BETTER USE OF WHAT WE HAVE

Performance Monitoring ...................................................................................................................7-2

Congestion Management Program ...................................................................................................7-5

Freeway Service Patrol ....................................................................................................................7-13

Public Safety ....................................................................................................................................7-13

High Occupancy Toll Lanes .............................................................................................................7-14

Integrated Performance Management ............................................................................................7-15

Intelligent Transportation Systems....................................................................................................7-16

Advanced Technologies and Innovative Services ..............................................................................7-18

Actions ...........................................................................................................................................7-23

8. DEMAND MANAGEMENT: HOW CAN WE TAKE PRESSURE OFF THE SYSTEM?

RideLink – Regional Transportation Demand Management Program .................................................8-1

New Directions/Emphasis ..........................................................................................................8-3

Demand Management Strategy .................................................................................................8-4

Demand Management Funding .................................................................................................8-8

Improving Nonmotorized Alternatives................................................................................................8-9

Accommodating Bicycling and Walking .....................................................................................8-9

Making Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Friendly Communities ............................................................8-10

Walkable Communities ...........................................................................................................8-10

Safe Routes to Transit .............................................................................................................8-11

Bicycle Facilities and Access ....................................................................................................8-11

Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Funding .................................................................................8-13

Actions ...........................................................................................................................................8-15

2030 Regional Transportation Plan ix


APPENDICES

A The Scenarios – Projects, Costs, and Phasing

B Goods Movement Action Plan

C Public Involvement Program

D Tribal Consultation

E Air Quality Planning and Transportation Conformity

F List of Related Studies/Reports

G Glossary of Transportation Terms, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

x 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER


2. 2030 RTP VISION

Table 2.1 – Policy Objectives......................................................................................................2-3

Table 2.2 – Peak-Period Average Travel Times by Corridor (in minutes)......................................2-5

Table 2.3 – Comparison of Regional Performance Measures......................................................2-7



Table 4.1 – Major Revenue Sources/Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario..............................4-9

Table 4.2 – Potential Transportation Revenue Sources .............................................................4-10

Table 4.3 – Major Expenditures/Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario..................................4-11

Table 4.4 – Major Revenue Sources/Revenue Constrained Scenario .........................................4-14

Table 4.5 – Major Expenditures/Revenue Constrained Scenario ...............................................4-15

Table 4.6 – Unconstrained Needs - Major Expenditures and Revenues.....................................4-17

5. LAND USE-TRANSPORTATION CONNECTION: GROWING SMARTER


Table 6.1 – TransNet Early Action Program Project Descriptions.................................................6-5

Table 6.2 – ITPR Transit Planning Recommendations ..............................................................6-10

Table 6.3 – New or Improved Transit Routes............................................................................6-17

Table 6.4 – Major Capital Improvements – Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario .................6-28

Table 6.5 – San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan – Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario..................................................................................................6-43

Table 6.6 – Bicycle Facility Types..............................................................................................6-52

Table 6.7 – Regional Bikeway Corridors...................................................................................6-55

Table 6.8 – Comparison of Regional Performance Measures ...................................................6-57


8. DEMAND MANAGEMENT: TAKING PRESSURE OFF THE SYSTEM

2030 Regional Transportation Plan xi

LIST OF TABLES (CONT’D)

A THE SCENARIOS – PROJECTS, COSTS, AND PHASING

Table A.1 – Major Capital Improvements – Revenue Constrained Plan ..........................................A-5

Table A.2 – Phased Highway Projects – Revenue Constrained Plan................................................A-9

Table A.3 – Phased Transit Services – Revenue Constrained Plan................................................ A-13

Table A.4 – Major Transit Expenditures – Revenue Constrained Plan .......................................... A-14

Table A.5 – Phased Arterial Projects – Revenue Constrained Plan ............................................... A-15

Table A.6 – Major Capital Improvements – Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario ................... A-19

Table A.7 – Phased Highway Projects – Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario......................... A-21

Table A.8 – Phased Transit Services – Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario............................ A-23

Table A.9 – Major Transit Expenditures – Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario...................... A-24

Table A.10 – Major Capital Improvements – Differences Between Scenarios ............................... A-25

Table A.11 – Major Capital Improvements – Unconstrained Needs Network .............................. A-31

Table A.12 – Major Transit Expenditures – Unconstrained Needs Network ................................. A-34

Table A.13 – Unconstrained Transit Services (Headways)............................................................. A-35

Table A.14 – Summary of Highway Scenarios ............................................................................. A-37

Table A.15 – Summary of Transit Services and Headways ........................................................... A-42

Table A.16 – Summary of Transit Expenditures ........................................................................... A-44

B GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN

Table B.1 – San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan List of Prioritized Projects and Revenue Scenarios .......................................................B-5

Table B.2 – Freight Project Evaluation Criteria ..............................................................................B-7

Table B.3 – Applied Goods Movement Evaluation Criteria and Rankings.......................................B-8

C PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGAM

Table C.1 – Participating Community-Based Outreach Organizations ............................................C-3

Table C.2 – Draft 2030 RTP Workshops ........................................................................................C-5

Table C.3 – Additional Draft 2030 RTP Presentations ....................................................................C-5

D TRIBAL CONSULTATION

Table D.1 – Next Steps..................................................................................................................D-4

E AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY

Table E.1 – San Diego Regional Population and Employment Forecast.......................................... E-3

Table E.2 – 2030 Revenue Constrained RTP – Air Quality Conformity Analysis for 8-Hour Ozone (EMFAC 2002) ............................................................................. E-12

Table E.3 – 2030 Revenue Constrained RTP – Air Quality Conformity Analysis for Carbon Monoxide (EMFAC 2002) ....................................................................... E-12

Table E.4 – Exempt Projects........................................................................................................ E-14

F LIST OF RELATED STUDIES/REPORTS

G GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS

xii 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER


Figure 1.1 – Four Components of the 2030 RTP............................................................................1-3

Figure 1.2 – Smart Growth Concept Map ......................................................................................1-5

Figure 1.3 – 2030 Reasonably Expected Revenue Network............................................................1-9

Figure 1.4 – 2006 Modeled Level of Service ................................................................................1-13

Figure 1.5 – 2030 Reasonably Expected Revenue Network Level of Service ................................1-15

2. 2030 RTP VISION

Figure 2.1 – 2030 Reasonably Expected Revenue Network Level of Service ..................................2-9

Figure 2.2 – Four Components of the 2030 RTP..........................................................................2-13


Figure 3.1 – Population Growth Rate ............................................................................................3-1

Figure 3.2 – The Region’s Changing Ethnic Composition ..............................................................3-2

Figure 3.3 – Commuting to Work – 1990 vs. 2000 Census ...........................................................3-4

Figure 3.4 – Growth in Travel, Population, and Employment .........................................................3-5

Figure 3.5 – Average Daily Trip Ends by Hour and Trip Purpose .....................................................3-6


Figure 4.1 – Major Revenue Sources/Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario ................................4-8

Figure 4.2 – Major Project Expenditures/Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario.........................4-10

Figure 4.3 – Major Revenue Sources/Revenue Constrained Scenario............................................4-13

Figure 4.4 – Major Expenditures/Revenue Constrained Scenario..................................................4-13

5. LAND USE-TRANSPORTATION CONNECTION: GROWING SMARTER

Figure 5.1 – RCP Framework ........................................................................................................ 5-2

Figure 5.2 – Smart Growth Concept Map .................................................................................... 5-5

Figure 5.3 – Smart Growth Concept Map – North County Subregion............................................5-7

Figure 5.4 – Smart Growth Concept Map – North City Subregion .................................................5-9

Figure 5.5 – Smart Growth Concept Map – Mid-City and East County Subregion .......................5-11

Figure 5.6 – Smart Growth Concept Map – South County Subregion..........................................5-13

Figure 5.7 – Days Exceeding Ozone Clean Air Standards – San Diego Air Basin ..........................5-18

Figure 5.8 – Habitat Preserve Planning Areas ..............................................................................5-21


Figure 6.1 – 2030 Reasonably Expected Revenue Network ...........................................................6-7

Figure 6.2 – 2030 Transit Network .............................................................................................6-15

Figure 6.3 – Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor .........................6-21

Figure 6.4 – 2030 Highway Network ..........................................................................................6-25

2030 Regional Transportation Plan xiii

LIST OF FIGURES (CONT’D)

6. SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT: MORE TRAVEL CHOICES (CONT’D)

Figure 6.5 – 2030 Transit Network (Major Capital Projects) .........................................................6-31

Figure 6.6 – Regional Arterial System ..........................................................................................6-33

Figure 6.7 – 2030 Reasonably Expected Revenue Projects on the Goods Movement Network .....6-41

Figure 6.8 – Regional Airport System ..........................................................................................6-47

Figure 6.9 – Regional Bikeway Corridors .....................................................................................6-53


Figure 7.1 – Congestion Management Program System ................................................................7-7

Figure 7.2 – 2006 CMP - 2005 Peak-Hour Level of Service ...........................................................7-9

Figure 7.3 – Deficiency Plan Process ............................................................................................7-11

Figure 7.4 – San Diego Region Integrated Performance Management System ............................7-19

8. DEMAND MANAGEMENT: TAKING PRESSURE OFF THE SYSTEM

APPENDICES

A THE SCENARIOS – PROJECTS, COSTS, AND PHASING

Figure A.1 – 2030 Revenue Constrained Network .........................................................................A-3

Figure A.2 – 2030 Revenue Constrained Highway Network...........................................................A-7

Figure A.3 – 2030 Revenue Constrained Transit Network ............................................................A-11

Figure A.4 – 2030 Unconstrained Highway Network ..................................................................A-27

Figure A.5 – 2030 Unconstrained Transit Network...................................................................... A-29

B GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN

Figure B.1 – Goods Movement Action Plan ..................................................................................B-3

C PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

D TRIBAL CONSULTATION

Figure D.1 – Tribal Lands Map .......................................................................................................D-6

E AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY

Figure E.1 – San Diego Air Basin Monitoring Stations.................................................................. E-17

F LIST OF RELATED STUDIES/REPORTS

G GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS

2030 Regional Transportation Plan 1-1

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ask anyone what’s the biggest problem in San Diego, and you’ll probably hear “traffic.” However, if we have learned anything in the last decade, it’s that we can’t build our way out of traffic congestion. This leaves us at a crossroads – the road less traveled may hold the key to how we commute in the future.

During the next 25 years, we can expect to share our communities with more than a million new neighbors. We will create 465,000 more jobs and build 290,000 new homes. The major appeal is our region’s quality of life. While it may mean different things to different people, we can all agree that quality of life encompasses safe and livable communities, affordable housing, competitive job opportunities, a healthy environment, good schools and community facilities, and a transportation system that provides easy access to work, school, and other activities. The 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (RTP or the “Plan”) is our region’s blueprint for a transportation system that enhances our quality of life and meets our mobility needs now and in the future.

A SMARTER PLAN

The foundation of the 2030 RTP lies in better connecting our freeway, transit, and road networks to our homes, schools, work, shopping, and other activities. In this era of budget and infrastructure deficits, the ultimate success of this Plan will be measured by how well we implement smart growth as our communities are developed and redeveloped over time. To this end, the 2030 RTP helps strengthen the land use – transportation connection and offers regional transportation funding incentives to support smarter, more sustainable land use.

Improving transportation is one component of a much larger vision to sustain and improve our region’s quality of life. SANDAG adopted the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) in 2004 that serves as a foundation for integrating land uses, transportation systems, infrastructure needs, and public investment strategies within a regional smart growth framework. The RCP is the regional vision to prepare for change and meet our future needs. The 2030 RTP is the transportation component of the RCP.

SANDAG last updated the RTP in 2003. Since then, public policy discussions have helped shape a new and evolving vision for the San Diego region’s future. At the heart of the 2030 RTP is the updated Regional Transit Plan, a 21st century strategy to develop a seamless public

CHAPTER CONTENTS A SMARTER PLAN...................................1-1

A PLAN FOR BETTER MOBILITY .............1-3

HOW DO WE IMPLEMENT THE PLAN?.........................................1-11

The 2030 RTP is our region’s blueprint for a transportation system that enhances our quality of life and meets our mobility needs now and in the future. The foundation of the 2030 RTP lies in better connecting our freeway, transit, and road networks, to our homes, schools, work, shopping, and other activities.


1-2 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

transportation system for the region – one that is integrated with our growing communities and that ultimately is competitive for many commuters with driving a car during rush hours.

How is the Plan Developed?

The 2030 RTP is the product of collaboration between SANDAG, all 18 Cities and the County government, and our transportation partners – the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), the North County Transit District (NCTD), and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – along with a wide range of interest groups and other agencies.

With this RTP, SANDAG has established better communication and cooperation with the 17 sovereign tribal governments in the region. The San Diego region contains 18 reservations, more than any other county in the United States. In March 2006 SANDAG held a Tribal Summit with more than 120 participants and 12 elected officials from the region’s tribal governments. This historic meeting was followed by the formation of the Interagency Technical Working Group in September 2006, serving as a forum for tribal governments in the region to discuss and coordinate transportation issues of mutual concern with the various public planning agencies in the region. In January 2007 a representative from the Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Association was added to the SANDAG Board of Directors and policy advisory committees.

The 2030 RTP also looks beyond the San Diego region to link transportation and land use planning across our borders with Orange, Riverside, and Imperial Counties, and Baja California, Mexico. The last several years have seen a steady increase in interregional and international commuting, as more people are choosing to live in Riverside County or Baja California, Mexico while keeping their jobs here. The 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update recognizes these travel trends and accounts for future housing both within the San Diego region, as well as outside of the region’s boundaries.

To accommodate the dynamic crossborder transportation system, the 2030 RTP includes major projects to improve access to border crossings, expand freight rail service, and coordinate commercial vehicle crossings. On a collective basis, these projects will modernize and transform transportation infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico border from San Diego/Tijuana east to Arizona/Sonora.

At the heart of the 2030 RTP is the Regional Transit Plan, a 21st century strategy to develop a seamless public transportation system for the region – one that is integrated with our growing communities and that ultimately is competitive with driving a car during rush hours.

To accommodate the dynamic crossborder transportation system, the 2030 RTP includes major projects to improve access to border crossings, expand freight rail service, and coordinate commercial vehicle crossings.


Building on Our Progress

The 2030 RTP builds upon the existing transportation system in place today and the major projects in progress from MOBILITY 2030. Projects completed since MOBILITY 2030 include State Route (SR) 56 between Interstates 5 and 15, SR 125 from SR 54 to SR 94, and the Green Line Trolley to San Diego State University. Several highway improvements are currently under construction, including the I-15 Managed Lanes (new carpool lanes and bus rapid transit stations), South Bay Expressway SR 125 South, and various widening projects on I-5 and SR 52.

Transit projects in the construction phase are the SPRINTER in North County and modifications to several Trolley and COASTER stations, such as San Ysidro and Oceanside Transit Center. Construction has begun on the Inland Rail Trail between Oceanside and Escondido and Coastal Rail Trail, widening regional arterials such as Rancho Santa Fe Road in Carlsbad and San Marcos, and incident detection systems (installation of closed-circuit television) along stretches of Interstates 15 and 805, and SR 163.

Roadway projects in the design or environmental phases include: Interstates 5, 15, 805, and State Routes 52, 76, and 905. Transit projects in the design or environmental phases include the Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit (LRT), and the I-15 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and the South Bay BRT.

A PLAN FOR BETTER MOBILITY

As in MOBILITY 2030, the 2030 RTP is developed around four main components: Land Use, Systems Development, Systems Management, and Demand Management (Figure 1.1). Each component has a unique, yet interdependent, role in improving mobility and travel in the San Diego region through the year 2030.

Land Use determines where our homes, schools, work, shopping, and other activities are located and can profoundly affect the way in which we move around the region and within our communities. Systems Development provides needed regional transportation improvements, viable travel choices, and connections to our daily activities.

Systems Management helps to maximize system operations so that we make the best use of our existing transportation resources and provide travelers with real-time travel information to assist them in making informed travel choices.

The 2030 RTP builds upon the existing transportation system in place today and the major projects in progress from the MOBILITY 2030. Several highway improvements are currently under construction, including SR 125 between SR 905 and SR 54, various widening projects on Interstate 5 and State Route 52, and various freeway-to-freeway interchange connecting ramps.

Figure 1.1—Four Components of the 2030 RTP



Finally, Demand Management focuses on reducing trips on the transport-ation system during peak periods and encouraging alternatives to driving alone (e.g., transit, carpooling, vanpooling, biking, and walking).

Land Use-Transportation Connection: We Must Grow Smarter

The 2030 RTP is founded on a land use plan that reflects the commitments from the 18 Cities and County to “smart growth.”1 It recognizes that growth and change will continue in the region during the next several decades, and all local jurisdictions can make positive contributions toward preparing for that change. Transportation infrastructure and services must be coordinated with land use planning if we are to avoid increased traffic congestion, reduced mobility, and a deteriorating quality of life. Figure 1.2 is the Smart Growth Concept Map, showing the existing, planned, and potential areas for smart growth development. We cannot fix our persistent transportation problems by focusing solely on transportation. To encourage better transportation and land use coordination, the 2030 RTP includes $206 million through the TransNet program for a Smart Growth Incentive Program. It will be developed based on SANDAG’s experience with the $22.5 million Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program that was implemented as a result of MOBILITY 2030.

Systems Development: More Travel Choices

New and better connections are planned to more efficiently move people on buses, trolleys, trains, and cars throughout the region. When implemented, the projects in the 2030 RTP will improve the region’s highway and roads network and transform it into a robust system with more lanes dedicated to carpools and buses integrated with new, high-quality regional transit services. The 2030 RTP includes a flexible roadway system, which can be used by transit and high occupancy vehicles (HOVs), and improves goods movement through the region.

1 Smart growth is a compact, efficient, and environmentally sensitive pattern of develop-

ment that provides people with additional travel, housing, and employment choices by focusing future growth away from rural areas and closer to existing and planned job centers and public facilities.

Growth and change will continue in the region over the next several decades, and all local jurisdictions can make positive contributions toward preparing for that change.

The 2030 RTP includes $206 million through TransNet for a Smart Growth Incentive Program to foster the inte-gration of smart growth land uses and transportation facilities in our communities.

Figure 1.2SMART GROWTH CONCEPT MAPOctober 27, 2006

1-52030 Regional Transportation Plan


The 2030 RTP Network (Figure 1.3) looks into the future to deliver a new transportation vision. It focuses on providing real-time, competitive travel choices during rush hours when most of our traffic congestion occurs. Since much of this demand is driven by the need to commute to and from work and school, the Plan looks at incentives for encouraging alternative commuter travel choices. This includes making it more convenient, fast, and safe to ride transit, carpool, or vanpool during peak hours, or bike or walk to work or school. In our fast-paced world, saving time is a very real and powerful incentive for encouraging these more sustainable travel choices.

Regional Transit Plan

The 2030 RTP calls for a network of fast, flexible, reliable, safe, and convenient transit services that connect us to the region’s major employ-ment and activity centers. Other proposed services showcase the integra-tion of public transportation and local land uses, a central theme of the 2030 RTP. The new routes operate at higher speeds, averaging 40 miles per hour for regional services and 25 miles per hour for corridor services.

In our local communities, transit stations must be integrated into the activity centers. These areas will be pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly and serve as pleasant walk-and-wait environments for customers.

There is particular attention to the transit customer in the Plan. The proposed transit services take advantage of a new generation of advance-design vehicles, which have the flexibility of buses and the look and feel of rail. These low-floor vehicles, along with smart fare Compass Cards, allow for easier and speedier boarding. Upgraded stations and real-time information will let patrons know when the next vehicle will be arriving.

Integrating Transit and Roadways

Competitive transit service must be able to operate in congestion-free lanes. The Plan includes an extensive network of Managed/HOV lanes on the highway system designed to accommodate transit services, as well as carpools, vanpools, and fee-paying patrons (similar to I-15 FasTrak® where fees fund transit services in the I-15 corridor). On arterials, the Plan includes funding for transit priority treatments and regional funding to help complete regionally significant arterials. The Plan also includes major transit capital projects, such as transitways, double tracking, direct access ramps, and grade separations and provides operational funding for the expanded regional transit system.

Systems Management: Making Better Use of What We Have

Billions of dollars have already been invested in roads and transit in the San Diego region. We need to maximize the return on this significant investment through better management and more efficient operation of the existing networks. A wide range of systems management strategies

The Plan focuses on providing real-time, competitive travel choices during rush hours when most of our traffic congestion occurs.

The Plan includes an extensive network of Managed/HOV lanes on the highway system designed to accommodate transit services as well as carpools, vanpools, and fee-paying patrons.



totaling more than a half billion dollars is included in the Plan. Systems Management helps get the most efficiency out of our existing system, makes travel services more reliable, convenient, and safe, and reduces traffic delays caused by accidents and incidents.

Freeway Service Patrol

Specific programs and projects include expanding the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP), roving tow trucks that today patrol 225 miles of the region’s highways during rush hours to assist stranded motorists whose vehicles break down or run out of fuel. By removing disabled vehicles from the roadway quickly, the FSP has helped ease traffic congestion caused by minor incidents.

High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes

The 2030 RTP also includes plans for “HOT lanes” on our major north-south freeways, including Interstates 5, 15, and 805. HOT lanes are limited access lanes in which carpools, vanpools, and buses have first priority and travel for free, while other vehicles gain access by paying a fee. The lanes are managed through variable pricing to maintain free-flow conditions even during rush hours, and revenues are used to support transportation improvements within the corridor.

The expansion of HOT lanes builds upon the success of the I-15 FasTrak® program, which has been operating since 1996 on the I-15 Express Lanes from the I-15/SR 163 junction to SR 56. The net revenues generated by the program currently fund the Inland Breeze express bus service in the corridor.

New Technologies

The cornerstone of the region’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategy is the development of the Integrated Performance Management Systems Network that will interconnect the region’s local transportation management centers.

Freeway Management – Installs loop detectors, cameras, communi-cations, and new computer hardware and software to improve incident detection and clear accidents and coordinate freeway and arterial operations.

Arterial Management – Provides new hardware and software to local jurisdictions to improve traffic signal timing, optimize traffic flow on regional arterials, and coordinate signals with freeway ramps, bus rapid transit service, and rail crossings.

Transit Management – Provides new in-vehicle equipment and computer hardware and software to improve route planning, scheduling, and on-time performance. The system also will provide real-time transit information through kiosks and message boards.

The cornerstone of the region’s new technology strategy is the development of the Integrated Perform-ance Management Systems Network that interconnects all of the region’s local transportation management centers.

Systems Management helps get the most efficiency out of our existing system, makes travel services more reliable, convenient, and safe, and reduces traffic delays caused by accidents and incidents.

P A C I F I C O C E A N


CampPendleton

76

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

52

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

Figure 1.3

2030 REASONABLYEXPECTED REVENUE

NETWORKNovember 2007

Managed/HOV Lanes

General Purpose/Toll Lanes

Freeway Connectors

HOV/BRT Connectors

Additional Freight Projects

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Transit/Rail

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

County of San Diego

Camp Pendleton

OrangeCounty

0 3 6

MILES

RiversideCounty

San DiegoCounty

NorthernExtent

5

241



Advanced Traveler Information System (511) – The real-time data collected from the freeway, arterial, and transit systems is provided to travelers via the phone and the Internet so that they can better plan the time and path of their trips.

FasTrak® and Compass Card Electronic Payment Systems – Provides customers and operators with a simple Compass Card system for a seamless method to pay for and use transit services. Future expansion will provide for on- and off-street parking, and linkage with a patron’s FasTrak® account.

Demand Management:

Taking the Pressure Off the System

Steps to reduce peak-period travel or change when and how people travel will become increasingly important in the future. Demand Management focuses on encouraging alternatives to driving alone and minimizing demand on the transportation system during peak periods.

The strategies in the Plan to manage demand are not all new. Since 1995, SANDAG has operated a regional transportation demand management program called RideLink. Programs offered through RideLink include a regional vanpool program, a regional bike locker program, and a regional subsidy program to provide start-up funds to employers to provide their employees with financial incentives to try new ways to commute. The 2030 RTP includes additional funding for this component, encouraging teleworking and flexible work hours to help manage peak demand.

HOW DO WE IMPLEMENT THE PLAN?

Implementing the 2030 RTP requires close cooperation and coordination among all transportation agencies, local jurisdictions, and the traveling public. The Plan relies on efficient and more cost-effective use of our traditional transportation funds and expanding sources of transportation revenues to fund a higher level of investment in proposed improvements.

A new regional approach to transportation planning and project imple-mentation began in 2003. Many of the transit functions of San Diego MTS and NCTD Boards were consolidated at SANDAG, enabling local mayors, council members, and county supervisors in this region to streamline transportation decision-making. In essence, all regional transportation planning, fund allocation, project development, and construction, especially in the public transit arena, are now the responsibility of SANDAG. Policy decisions about the future of public transit and how buses, trolleys, and rail projects connect with travel on local roads and highways can be better integrated into the RTP.

Demand Management focuses on encouraging alternatives to driving alone and minimizing demand on the transportation system during peak periods.



Funding and Financial Scenarios

In developing the 2030 RTP, two funding scenarios were identified: the Revenue Constrained, limited to $41 billion in traditional funding sources, and the Reasonably Expected Revenue, a more aggressive $57 billion scenario that includes additional funding. The Revenue Constrained scenario is a federally required scenario that must be analyzed for air quality purposes and is used to program projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).

In assessing funding scenarios, it is critical that sufficient financial resources are available to complete the investments in our priority corridors. With rising project costs, the limited sources of revenue in the Revenue Constrained scenario would reduce the level of improvements in several major corridors. As a result, the SANDAG Board directed that the 2030 RTP be based on the more robust Reasonably Expected Revenue scenario for the development, operation, and maintenance of the transportation facilities and services in the Plan. This assumes both current sources of transportation revenue, as well as future revenue sources – such as attracting additional state and federal funds for major capital projects and increases in state and federal gas taxes based on historical trends.

Revenues and expenditures under both scenarios in the 2030 RTP are balanced and phased by decade, between 2006-2010, 2011-2020, and 2021-2030. Those projects that are listed in the initial years of the RTP are the same ones that are either already programmed in the five-year RTIP (currently the five-year period ends in FY 2010/11) or are anticipated to be included in future near-term updates of the RTIP.

Measuring the Plan’s Success

The 2030 RTP was developed by examining how different land use and transportation network scenarios meet regional measures of performance. The evaluation of performance measures is the first step in establishing performance standards that will enable us to benchmark our progress toward meeting the Plan’s policy goals and objectives.

The Plan significantly reduces roadway congestion compared to a No Build scenario, slightly lower than even current conditions. Figure 1.4 shows level of service by direction in the year 2006, and Figure 1.5 shows projected level of service by direction in 2030 with the Plan’s improve-ments in place. As seen in these two figures, levels of service (LOS) A through D indicate free-flow conditions, while LOS E and F indicate growing congestion, unstable flow, and stop-and-go traffic.

.

Critical to the implementation of the 2030 RTP is providing sufficient financial resources to complete the investments in our priority corridors.

1-D

Figure 1.4

2006 MODELEDLEVEL OF SERVICE

(With Average Daily Traffic Volumes - In Thousands)

November 2007

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

A to DFree Flow

EIntermittent Congestion

F (0-2 Hours)Congested Flow

F (2-4 Hours)Pronounced Congestion

F (> 4 Hours)Sustained Congestion

76

905 115

125

54

805

805

5

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

79

P A C I F I C O C E A

N


N

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATESMEXICO

NationalCity

Riverside County

San Diego County

OrangeCounty

CampPendleton

County of San Diego


235

221

113

191

87

164

204

4

26

6

30

32

12

26

49

24

9

13

13

52

144

138

39

174

80

100

67

297

290

248

90

210

333

216

82

79257

153

207

133

116

160

202

152

156

243

238

131

217

120

199

292

190

187

195231

104

243

1-D

Figure 1.5

2030REASONABLY EXPECTED

REVENUE NETWORK LEVEL OF SERVICE


November 2007

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

A to DFree Flow





342

228

139

246

144

215

238

7

43

11

36

66

13

44

61

25

16

19

17

64

200

211

13

60

275

91

181

100

417

382

265

82

123

281

412

267

135

110 354

206

247

190

143

231

113

67

263

184

181

318

320

179

273

132

216

372

32

226

217

221

268

155

110

253

76

905 115

125

54

805

805

5

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

79


N


N

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

ElCajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATESMEXICO

NationalCity

Riverside County

San Diego County

OrangeCounty

CampPendleton

County of San Diego



CHAPTER 2 2030 RTP VISION

The 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (RTP or the “Plan”) is the blueprint to address the mobility challenges created by our region’s growth. This long-range Plan contains an integrated set of public policies, strategies, and investments to maintain, manage, and improve the transportation system in the San Diego region through the year 2030. The Plan’s vision for transportation supports the region’s comprehensive strategy to promote smarter, more sustainable growth.

WHAT’S THE VISION FOR TRANSPORTATION?

The Regional Comprehensive Plan sets forth a vision for transportation in the San Diego region in the year 2030:

We have many convenient transportation choices. Fast, frequent, and reliable public transit services interconnect our communities, and our major transit centers are integrated with housing, retail shops, food courts, shade-covered benches, and well-maintained restrooms. More of our residents who have cars opt to leave them at home and families need fewer cars per household. Overall, it’s easier and more convenient to get around by walking, biking, and using transit. As a result, many children walk or bike to school, as we used to do when we were younger.

Many of our existing regional freeways, highways, and major roadways have been expanded and include an extensive managed lane network for transit and carpools. These systems are linked to the international airport, ensuring effective access to world markets. Roads, rails, and vehicles are better managed with technology, which increases public safety. In-road sensors and cameras help detect traffic incidents and slowing. Automated systems notify traffic-response teams in real-time and electronically adjust ramp meters and traffic signals to moderate traffic flow.

Despite continued population and employment growth, the average commute time is less than 30 minutes, and traffic congestion in key corridors has improved. By better linking transportation and land use decisions in the past, more people now live close to their jobs and leave their cars at home. As a result, more people have additional leisure time and less travel-related stress.

CHAPTER CONTENTS

WHAT’S THE VISION FOR

TRANSPORTATION .............................2-1

MEASURING THE PLAN’S SUCCESS ........2-2

PERFORMANCE MONITORING .............2-11

A PLAN FOR BETTER MOBILITY ...........2-12

The vision is to have many convenient transportation choices. Many of our existing regional freeways, high-ways, and major roadways have been expanded and include an extensive managed lane network for transit and carpools.



At the core of the 2030 RTP are seven policy goals:

Livability – Promote livable communities

Mobility – Improve the mobility of people and freight

Efficiency – Maximize the efficiency of the existing and future transportation system

Accessibility – Improve accessibility to major employment and other regional activity centers

Reliability – Improve the reliability and safety of the transportation system

Sustainability – Minimize effects on the environment

Equity – Ensure an equitable distribution of the benefits among various demographic and user groups

These goals were first established for MOBILITY 2030 in 2003. The SANDAG Board of Directors reaffirmed these goals during the development of the 2030 RTP (The Plan). While all goals are considered interrelated and important, Livability, Mobility and Efficiency were considered the Plan’s most important goals. Identified in Table 2.1 are policy objectives that will help the region achieve the Plan’s goals.

MEASURING THE PLAN’S SUCCESS

Evaluating the travel conditions in our major corridors is a key indicator to the mobility benefits of planned transit and/or highway improvements. Variables such as travel time and mode share measure the success of specific modal improvements in each corridor. Network scenarios also were evaluated on how well they improved regionwide measures of performance. These regionwide performance measures correspond to the Plan’s seven policy goals: Livability, Mobility, Efficiency, Accessibility, Reliability, Sustainability, and Equity. Regionwide performance measures often do not show much variation between alternatives and may not give a true indication of the benefit of a corridor or sub-regional transportation improvement. Changes to regionwide measures are normally small, given that land use patterns and the transportation network are basically established, and that three out of four residents already live here.


Table 2.1—Policy Objectives

GOAL POLICY OBJECTIVES

LIVABILITY Put Transit Where It Works– Focus transit improvements in areas with compatible land uses that support an efficient transit system

Smart Growth Carrots– Use regional transportation funding as an incentive for smarter land uses

MOBILITY No One Size Fits All– Tailor transportation modal improvements to reflect supporting land uses in major travel corridors

The Most Bang for the Buck– Priorities for regional transportation funding goes to TransNet Early Action Program commitments and high-ranking projects and corridors.

Move People and Goods, Not Just Vehicles– Minimize drive alone travel by making it fast, convenient, and safe to carpool, vanpool, ride transit, walk, and bike, and improve goods movement

EFFICIENCY What Gets Measured Gets Managed– Measure the performance of the regional transportation system on a regular basis and manage its efficiency

Relieve the Pressure– Develop cost-effective, voluntary incentive programs for major employers, schools, and residential areas

ACCESSIBILITY Boost Transit Ridership– Increase transit mode share during peak periods, with competitive transit travel times to major job centers

Let’s Walk and Bike– Encourage walkability and better bicycle access within our local communities

RELIABILITY Inform Travelers– Apply new technologies and management strategies to make travel services more reliable, convenient, and safe, and to reduce non-recurrent congestion

Better Manage Congestion– Better respond to traffic congestion through greater emphasis on the Congestion Management Program

SUSTAINABILITY Discourage Sprawl– Focus roadway and transit improvements in urban/suburban areas, away from the region’s rural areas

Protect the Environment– Improve air quality, reduce green house gas emissions, and limit impacts to sensitive habitats

Think Before You Build– Evaluate all reasonable non-capital transportation improve-ment strategies before pursuing major expansions to roadway or fixed-guideway capacity

EQUITY Play Fair– Provide equitable levels of transportation services for low-income, minority, and elderly and disabled persons



The performance measures for the 2030 RTP land use plan and transport-ation network allow us to benchmark our progress toward meeting the Plan’s policy goals and objectives. The 2030 RTP uses the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario and is compared to current conditions (year 2006) and with our projected population and employment growth in 2030 if there were no additional expansion of the regional transportation system (No Build).

The No Build scenario is a construct to compare against the Plan’s projects and services. It is not meant to depict the real world – investments in the transportation system would be made over time to serve the region’s growing population and employment. Instead, the analysis helps isolate the effect of future growth in population and employment on the transportation system’s performance, as well as the effect of the Plan’s improvements.

The 2030 RTP is based on the adopted General Plans of the region’s cities and the County. But to improve the land use – transportation planning connection, the SANDAG Board accepted a Smart Growth Concept Map for planning purposes in the 2030 RTP. The Smart Growth Concept Map indicates where future growth and infill development could maximize the use of existing and planned transit infrastructure, preserving open space and natural resources. The potential effectiveness of such a land use plan, is compared to the same performance measures and discussed in detail in Chapter 6, Systems Development.

Corridor Travel Times

Table 2.2 compares peak-period door-to-door travel times in seven corridors by carpool, transit (both walk access and auto access), auto, and an overall weighted average. In addition to the current year 2006 conditions and the 2030 No Build and Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenarios, several interim years are included to illustrate that corridor benefits often occur before 2030 as major projects are implemented. An example is in the Escondido to Downtown San Diego corridor, where 2015 travel times drop dramatically for transit and carpools as the Managed Lanes project is completed in that timeframe.

In most corridors, the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario improves carpool and transit travel times to the region’s major employment centers. From Chula Vista to Sorrento Valley, for example, traveling by carpool would take 30 minutes in 2030 via the I-805 Managed Lanes, an improvement over the 51-minute trip in 2006 (without the lanes and assuming no incidents). Transit riders benefit even more, going from 130 minutes today to 62 minutes in 2030. Adding regional transit service on I-15 would also significantly reduce the average transit travel time for other commuters between Mid-City and Sorrento Valley (from 89 minutes in 2006 to 40 minutes in 2030 with walk access).


Table 2.2—Peak-Period Average Travel Times by Corridor1 (in minutes)

2010 2015 2020 2030

1. Carpool 68 70 50 53 49 81 Transit (walk access) 105 99 99 94 86 102 Transit (park and ride access) 93 90 91 86 78 91 Auto 75 75 64 72 74 100 Corridor Weighted Average 89 88 83 83 77 96







Reasonably ExpectedCurrent (2006)

No Build (2030)

Chula Vista-Sorrento Valley

San Ysidro-Downtown San Diego

El Cajon-Sorrento Valley

Oceanside-Downtown San Diego

Escondido-Downtown San Diego

El Cajon-Downtown San Diego

Mid City San Diego-Sorrento Valley

1 Travel times are door-to-door.

SOURCE: SANDAG



It is important to note that the projected travel times do not take into account the effects of major incidents or other non-recurring congestion. The Plan’s Managed Lane/HOV facilities will be operated at free-flow conditions – providing better travel time reliability for transit, carpools, vanpools, and other users of the lanes – and reducing the likelihood of incidents on these facilities.

Regional Performance

In comparing regional performance measures in Table 2.3, the Plan loses some ground over current conditions in average travel times and travel speeds in the region (measures of Mobility). The exception is commuters using the extensive Managed Lane/HOV system, with increased travel speeds. These changes are minor, given the additional one million more people and almost a half-million more jobs in the region by 2030.

Congestion levels are expressed as Levels of Service, where Levels of Service A through D indicate free-flow conditions and growing traffic volumes, while Levels of Service E and F indicate unstable flow and eventually stop-and-go traffic. Congestion levels in the Plan keep pace with current figures, but produce dramatic decreases in freeway congestion (a measure of Reliability) when compared to the No Build scenario. Congestion in the peak period would improve from 54 percent congested to only 30 percent. This improvement to Reliability would be of great benefit to facilities on the identified freight network (such as I-805) as daily hours of delay drop by 56 percent between No Build and the Plan. Figure 2.1 shows level of service in 2030 with the Plan’s improvements. Overall, daily vehicle delay per capita follows a similar pattern.

While the Plan performs well in measures of Accessibility compared to the No Build case, as the region grows there would be smaller percentages of work/school trips accessible within 30 minutes and non-work trips accessible within 15 minutes compared to current conditions.

Under measures of Livability, work trip mode splits improve in the Plan as more commuters take advantage of the carpool lanes and the enhanced transit system. The drive-alone percentage drops to 77.8 percent, carpools jump to 13.2 percent, and transit to 7.3 percent. The 7.3 percent transit work trip mode share is a substantial increase over the 6.4 percent under current conditions and 5.8 percent under the No Build scenario. These results correlate with the higher percentages of trips near transit stops in the Plan.

The significant expansion of regional transit services under the 2030 RTP will result in a dramatic increase in transit ridership.


Table 2.3—Comparison of Regional Performance Measures

Current (2006)

Reasonably Expected

(2030)

No Build (2030)

27 30 34

17 18 21

Auto 27 23 20 Carpool 28 31 23 Transit 10 12 10

61% 56% 53%

66% 63% 62%

0.01 0.01 0.01

32% 30% 54%

19% 19% 36%

5.09 5.80 13.07

5.22 5.68 12.77

$2.27 $2.29 $2.35

N/A $2.56 $2.40

66% 65% 62%

68% 67% 64%

Drive Alone 81.1% 77.8% 81.3% Carpool 10.8% 13.2% 11.2% Transit 6.4% 7.3% 5.8% Bike/Walk 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%

6.44 6.76 6.75

0.020 0.005 0.005

1.46 1.50 1.53

27.65 28.54 29.16

0.59 0.72 0.56

50 155 110

Systemwide VMT (all day) per capita

Transit Passenger Miles (all day) per capita

Gross acres of constrained lands consumed for transit and highway infrastructure (2000 to 2030)

SUSTAINABILITY

Smog forming pollutants (tons per year) per capita

Total on-road fuel consumption (all day) per capita (gallons)

Percent of daily trips within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Work trip mode split (peak periods)

Average trip distance (miles)

Percent of peak-period trips within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Daily vehicle delay per capita (minutes)

Daily hours of delay on the regional freight network (hours per 1000 VMT)

Goals and Performance Measures

LIVABILITY

EFFICIENCY

Out-of-pocket user costs

MOBILITY

RELIABILITY

Non-work trips within 15 minutes

Total 25-year public and private travel costs

Annual weekday projected number of accidents/ fatalities per capita

Congested peak-period travel conditions

Congested daily travel conditions

Average work trip travel time (in minutes)

Average daily travel time (in minutes)

Average work trip travel speed by mode (in m.p.h.)

Work/school trips within 30 minutes in peak periods

ACCESSIBILITY



Table 2.3—Comparison of Regional Performance Measures (cont’d)

Current (2006)

Reasonably Expected

(2030)

No Build (2030)

Low income population N/A 19 22 Non low income population N/A 18 20 Minority population N/A 18 21 Non minority population N/A 18 21

Low income population N/A 59% 54% Non low income population N/A 56% 53% Minority population N/A 58% 54% Non minority population N/A 55% 52%




EQUITY

Average travel time per person trip (in minutes)

Work/school trips within 30 minutes

Homes within 1/2 mile of a transit stop


SOURCE: SANDAG

1-D

Figure 2.1

2030REASONABLY EXPECTED

REVENUE NETWORK LEVEL OF SERVICE


November 2007

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

A to DFree Flow





342

228

139

246

144

215

238

7

43

11

36

66

13

44

61

25

16

19

17

64

200

211

13

60

275

91

181

100

417

382

265

82

123

281

412

267

135

110 354

206

247

190

143

231

113

67

263

184

181

318

320

179

273

132

216

372

32

226

217

221

268

155

110

253

76

905 115

125

54

805

805

5

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

79


N


N

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

ElCajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATESMEXICO

NationalCity

Riverside County

San Diego County

OrangeCounty

CampPendleton

County of San Diego



Under Sustainability, the Plan’s results are mixed. The significant expansion of regional transit services will result in a 22 percent increase in daily transit passenger miles per capita over current conditions and 29 percent over the No Build scenario. The Plan’s roadway improve-ments, including the planned Managed Lanes/HOV system and completion of the freeway network, will result in a 3 percent increase in daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT) per capita compared to current conditions.

Air quality emissions in 2030 are dramatically reduced compared to current conditions, reflecting improvements in fuels and emissions technologies over time. The differences in measures of Equity – comparisons of low-income vs. non low-income and minority vs. non-minority average travel times and work and non-work trip duration – remain relatively unchanged. However, low-income and minority populations are much better served by transit.

PERFORMANCE MONITORING

The success of the 2030 RTP will be measured through a performance monitoring system that tracks how well our transportation system is functioning and identifies opportunities for near-term improvements. This system of performance monitoring also is useful for refining the decision-making processes that are used to select individual transportation projects and investments. Ongoing monitoring can help assess the impacts of planned improvements to ensure that the region’s investment strategy is supporting regional policies.

Significant amounts of data are already collected by transportation providers, including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), NCTD, MTS, the cities and county, and other agencies. Caltrans and local jurisdictions collect traffic volume counts on roadways on a regular basis. Average daily traffic, vehicle occupancy and classification, and other traffic information are available via SANDAG’s on-line Regional Information System. Transit ridership data, including individual route reports, on-time performance, and other information also are available on-line through SANDAG.

The challenge of a regional performance monitoring system is to evaluate these diverse data and provide ongoing reporting of the transportation system’s performance in an easy-to-understand format for decision-makers and the general public.

Ongoing monitoring can help assess the impacts of planned improvements to ensure that the region’s investment strategy is supporting regional policies.

Air quality emissions in 2030 are dramatically reduced compared to current conditions, reflecting improvements in fuels and emissions technologies over time.



Automating Our Systems

In cooperation with UC Berkeley, Caltrans has developed a Performance Measurement System (PeMS) program that uses the urban freeway data. This program provides current, ongoing data on freeway volumes and speeds and can be displayed graphically and exported to other monitoring applications. Since the development of MOBILITY 2030, SANDAG has worked with Caltrans and UC Berkeley to extend the capabilities of PeMS. Efforts have included the addition of historical San Diego data and the development of a ramp metering interface. The interface provides the ability to analyze, monitor, and report ramp metering volumes.

Planned improvements to PeMS recently initiated by SANDAG in coordination with Caltrans, NCTD, MTS, and local agencies, include the development and integration of transit and arterial modules. These features will allow PeMS to perform as a multi-modal performance measurement and evaluation tool for the San Diego region. These improvements will supplement the SANDAG Performance Monitoring Program by providing the ability of gathering, tracking, and analyzing real-time transit and arterial data.

A PLAN FOR BETTER MOBILITY

The 2030 RTP is developed around four main components: Land Use, Systems Development, Systems Management, and Demand Manage-ment. Each component has a unique, yet interdependent, role in improving mobility and travel in the San Diego region through the year 2030. The relationship among the four components of mobility and the Plan itself is illustrated in Figure 2.2. Following chapters highlight the projects, programs, and strategies included in the Plan that address each component.

Customer Feedback

In addition to changes in traffic and travel times, the Plan recognizes the importance of ongoing customer satisfaction surveys to identify needed improvements from a user’s perspective. User and non-user transit surveys and other transportation survey research will continue to be conducted. The SANDAG Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Overall Work Program includes a regionwide survey of transit passengers regarding their use of the transit system and satisfaction with the service provided.


Figure 2.2—Four Components of the 2030 RTP


0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%4.5%5.0%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

United States San Diego

CHAPTER 3 REGIONAL TRENDS THROUGH 2030: HOW ARE WE GROWING AND CHANGING?

DEMOGRAPHICS

At the turn of the century, the San Diego region resumed its familiar pattern of growth. Between 2000 and 2004 population growth in the region averaged about 46,000 persons per year. During the late 1980s the region was adding as many as 90,000 persons per year, an annual growth rate of 3 percent. The SANDAG 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update projects that between 2000 and 2030, the region will add about one million more people, 290,000 new homes, and roughly a half-million new jobs.

In spite of those figures, our growth rate is actually slowing, and that trend will continue. By the early-2020s, our annual growth rate will fall below 1 percent. Currently, Riverside County, Imperial County, and Tijuana are all growing at faster rates than San Diego.

All population growth comes from just two sources: natural increase (births minus deaths) and net migration (people who move here minus those who move away). Migration consists of two components: domestic migration and foreign immigration. The amount of legal foreign immigration is controlled by the federal government and has remained fairly constant over the past decade. No major change in immigration levels is expected in the foreseeable future. Domestic migration — people moving to and from other parts of the state or the nation — fluctuates each year, usually based on the condition of the local economy. During the recession years in the early 1990s, for example, more people left the region to search for economic opportunities elsewhere. Figure 3.1 compares the region’s historic and future growth rates to those of the nation.

Figure 3.1—Population Growth Rate

CHAPTER CONTENTS

DEMOGRAPHICS.........................................3-1

EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ..................3-3

TRAVEL PATTERNS .....................................3-4

SANDAG projects that between 2004 and 2030 the region will add about one million more people, 290,000 new homes, and roughly a half-million new jobs.



The main reason our growth rate is slowing is a continuing decline in fertility rates (the average number of children born to each woman). Recent data show that this is occurring across most ethnic groups and that the sharpest drop is seen among the Hispanic population.

As the region grows over the next two and a half decades, some basic demographic characteristics of the population will change. As a group, we will become both older and more ethnically diverse. The increase in diversity is the result of the various ethnic groups growing at different rates. While the region as a whole is expected to grow by about 32 percent by 2030, the Hispanic and the Asian/Other groups will each grow by more than 75 percent during that time period. The Black population will grow by 21 percent, somewhat below the regional rate. In contrast, the non-Hispanic White population may decline by 3 percent. This pattern is similar to what has been observed for the last couple of decades.

Figure 3.2 shows that by 2030 the Hispanic proportion of the region’s population will rise from today’s 28 percent to 38 percent. The Asian/Other group will increase to 19 percent of the total population from its current 14 percent. The Black population will stay relatively constant at about 5 percent. The biggest change will be seen in the non-Hispanic White group, whose portion of the total population will drop from today’s 52 percent down to 38 percent. When their share falls below 50 percent — probably before 2010 — there will be no ethnic majority in the region. Statewide, that is true today. The 2000 Census found that just 47 percent of Californians are non-Hispanic Whites.

In addition to ethnic changes, our region also is aging. Approximately one quarter of the region’s population are Baby Boomers, the huge group of people born between 1946 and 1964. Their presence will help to raise the median age in the region from 33.7 years old in 2004 to 39 years old in 2030 — an increase of 16 percent. By 2030 the number of people age 65 and older will increase by 125 percent. Fully 19 percent of the region’s population will be in that age group then, which is a higher percentage than is seen today in the state of Florida.

Figure 3.2—The Region’s Changing Ethnic Composition

Source: SANDAG

As the region grows over the next 25 years, some basic demographic characteristics of the population will change. As a group, we will become both older and more ethnically diverse.

Perc

ent

of

Tota

l Po

pu

lati

on

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Hispanic White Black Asian/Other

2004 2030


EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING

Population growth is directly linked to job growth. When there is an abundance of jobs in a region, domestic in-migration increases as people move to take advantage of the economic opportunities. The SANDAG 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update predicts that the region will add approximately 465,000 new jobs by 2030.

Jobs will be created across all industry sectors; however, the largest gains will be seen in the relatively low-paying Services sector, which is expected to grow by roughly 40 percent. We are already beginning to see the effects of the disparity between local wages and housing costs. More and more people, particularly those in lower-paying sectors, are choosing to keep their jobs .in the region, but live in more affordable homes in Imperial County, Riverside County, Orange County, and northern Baja California, Mexico.

This interregional commuting will continue to increase and is reflected in the 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update. During the 26-year period, it is estimated that 99,000 more households will have residents living in Imperial, Riverside, and Orange counties, or in Baja California while working in the San Diego region. Long-distance commuting, both interregional and from within the region, has a tremendous impact on our transportation facilities; however, increases in interregional commuting will have some dampening effect on local housing demand. Providing homes for an additional one million people during the next 26 years still will require at least 290,000 new housing units within the region.

Currently, about 62 percent of the region’s housing stock consists of single-family units, and about 34 percent are multi-family. (The remaining 4 percent are mostly mobile homes.) The combination of a scarcity of vacant, developable, single-family land and increasing congestion on our roads and highways will lead to a shift in housing characteristics. Of the 290,000 units the region will build over 26 years, it is expected that more than half will be some sort of multi-family configuration, including stacked flats, attached town homes, and mixed-use projects. Much of this development will occur as redevelopment in older communities.

The Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and housing publications, such as Solving the Region's Housing Crisis, identify policies and strategies that can help address the housing needs of the San Diego region. Implementation of these strategies and the smart growth strategies discussed in Chapter 5 would provide more housing opportunities and travel choices for the region's employees.

More and more people are choosing to keep their jobs within the region, but live in more affordable homes in Riverside County and northern Baja California.



Figure 3.3—Commuting To Work – 1990 vs. 2000 Census

TRAVEL PATTERNS

Travel behavior is influenced by many factors, including demographics, land uses, lifestyles, the economy, employment locations, and work practices. An understanding of travel patterns has helped shaped the 2030 RTP.

Like most major metropolitan areas around the country, the San Diego region has seen a gradual decline in commuting by carpool and transit in favor of driving alone. Between 1990 and 2000 the percentage of residents who drove alone to work increased, while commuting by all other modes decreased or stayed the same (see Figure 3.3). In part, this shift to solo commuting reflects the increase in two-worker households – which in turn, has increased the need for car trips – and the convenience and flexibility of the personal automobile.

Throughout the 1980s, travel (as measured in vehicle miles traveled or VMT) grew about twice as fast as population, primarily because of growth in two-worker households and longer-commute distances. During the 1990s, growth in vehicle miles traveled was 50 percent higher than population growth.

The region faces a large increase in vehicles miles traveled during the next two decades. In 1990 daily travel demand was nine million trips. The region’s current population makes an estimated 16.7 million daily trips by some form of motorized travel today. Travel demand is projected to increase to 22 million daily trips by 2030.

Figure 3.4 compares the percentage change since 1980 in travel (measured in VMT), population, and employment. Growth in travel consistently has outpaced growth in population and employment during the past two decades. This trend is projected to continue through 2030. Projected 2030 vehicle miles traveled would be three times higher than 1980 levels, although increased Smart Growth development could reduce that trend. Forecasted population and employment increase by 113 percent and 150 percent, respectively, over the same period.

Source: U.S. Census

Projected 2030 vehicle miles traveled would be three times higher than 1980 levels, although increased Smart Growth development could reduce that trend.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

DROVE ALONE CARPOOL PUBLIC TRANSIT OTHER

Perc

ent

1990 2000


Figure 3.4—Growth in Travel, Population, and Employment

Many of the region’s major transportation facilities are operating at or beyond their capacity – the result of dramatic increases in motorized travel and limited financial capacity to keep pace with demand. Traffic congestion in urban areas like the San Diego region generally will worsen over time unless we take actions to directly address travel demand and have options to get people out of their single occupant vehicles, especially during peak travel periods. Actions to encourage these options are discussed in Chapter 8, Demand Management.

Of all trips taken by all transportation modes, the average trip length is more than six miles. Work travel, as measured in vehicle miles traveled, comprises 26 percent of all highway travel, while non-work travel makes up 74 percent of travel on our highways. Work trips tend to be longer than non-work trips; today’s average work trip length is 11.9 miles compared to 5.7 miles for the non-work trip.

Figure 3.5 shows average daily trip ends by hour of the day and trip purpose. Work trips make up the largest portion of travel demand during the morning and afternoon peak periods, although there are large shares of other trips (e.g., shopping, recreation, etc.), particularly in the afternoon hours. Morning trips tend to be commute trips, going directly from home to work. Evening trips involve a greater variety of origins and destinations,

Traffic congestion will generally worsen over time, unless we take actions to directly address travel demand and have options to get people out of their single occupant vehicle.

Source: SANDAG

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

PER

CEN

T C

HA

NG

E S

INC

E 1

98

0

Employment (civilian) Population VMT



causing the evening peak period to spread out over a longer period of time. School trips constitute the smallest share throughout the day.

It is the peaking of travel demand during short periods of the day that strains the regional transportation system, which has excess capacity during off-peak periods. Despite increases in travel demand, traffic congestion in the San Diego region is not as severe as other areas around the country. Based on Census 2000, the San Diego metropolitan area ranks 22nd in population and 28th in average travel time. The average commute time in the region grew by only three minutes between 1990 and 2000, indicating that people make personal adjustments to keep commute times reasonable.

Figure 3.5—Average Daily Trip Ends by Hour and Trip Purpose

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

TOTA

L TR

IPS

Thousands

1AM

3AM

5AM

7AM

9AM

11AM

1PM

3PM

5PM

7PM

9PM

11PM

Work School Other


CHAPTER 4 FINANCIAL STRATEGIES: PAYING OUR WAY

The financial analysis of the recommended transportation improvements in the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (RTP or the “Plan”) focuses on four components: Systems Development (transit, highway, local streets and roads, and goods movement projects), Land Use, Systems Management, and Demand Management. The capital, operating, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs of the region's transportation systems during the next 25 years are compared against forecasts of available revenues. Actions are recommended to obtain the revenues necessary to implement the improvements recommended in the Plan. The level of improvements possible under two alternative revenue scenarios is included as part of the financial analysis.

Unconstrained Needs

Based on the analysis of travel demand in the region to 2030 and beyond, needs have been identified for transportation improvements and associated operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation, requiring funding above and beyond assumed revenues. While no specific discussion is included regarding revenues to meet the Unconstrained Needs, this document does include the level of investment needed to fully fund the desired list of projects beyond 2030. This scenario briefly discusses a set of potential revenue sources to provide the funding level needed to address the Unconstrained Needs.

Two basic revenue forecast scenarios have been developed for the 2030 RTP. A general description of each of the scenarios is provided below, followed by the key assumptions used to develop projections of each of the major revenue sources and a summary of the analysis of total costs and revenues under each scenario.

REVENUE SCENARIOS

Revenue Constrained Scenario

State and federal planning regulations require the development of a Revenue Constrained plan. Such a plan is based on current sources and levels of federal, state, and local transportation revenue projected out to the year 2030. This scenario includes federal and state formula funds, as well as federal and state discretionary funds for existing projects. However, future increases in federal and state gas taxes or the establishment of other new revenue sources are not included in the Revenue Constrained scenario.

CHAPTER CONTENTS

REVENUE SCENARIOS.................................4-1

REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS ...........................4-2

REASONABLY EXPECTED REVENUE SCENARIO ANALYSIS..............................4-8

REVENUE CONSTRAINED SCENARIO ANALYSIS..........................4-12

UNCONSTRAINED NEEDS ANALYSIS .......4-16

ACTIONS....................................................4-19

Two basic revenue forecast scenarios have been developed for the 2030 RTP – Revenue Constrained (required by state and federal regulations), and the Reasonably Expected Revenue (on which the Plan is based).



Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario

A higher level of investment than the Revenue Constrained Scenario was directed by the SANDAG Board, given that traditional revenue sources in the Revenue Constrained Scenario would fall short of the funds necessary to complete the investments in our priority corridors. The Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario is a more optimistic forecast, which includes all the sources of funding in the revenue constrained forecast, plus additional sources of transportation revenue that may be reasonably expected to become available through 2030. The additional sources include higher levels of state and federal discretionary funds, increases in state and federal gas taxes based on historical trends, and other potential federal, state, and local sources. This more optimistic scenario is the basis for the 2030 RTP.

REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS

The basic assumptions made for each major revenue source included in the financial analysis for the 2030 RTP are provided below. Any differences are described between the assumptions made for the more optimistic Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario and the Revenue Constrained Scenario. All revenues have been de-escalated to 2006 dollars based on the 3-percent-per-year cost escalation factor adopted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for the 2006 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Fund Estimate. In order to reflect the near-term continued rise in cost of construction, a de-escalation factor of 7.25 percent was assumed for FY 2007 and 5 percent for FY 2008. This higher de-escalation rate in the early years results in a lower value of revenues and has the equivalent effect on purchasing power from the anticipated continued rise, albeit at a decreasing rate of increase, of costs of materials and labor that have afflicted the transportation industry in the past three to four years. The long-term, de-escalation rate of 3.6 percent reflects the anticipated stabilization in the rise of the cost of materials, although this rise is expected to be higher than the historical 2.6 percent observed in the 1980s and 1990s. For flexible funding sources that can be spent for a variety of purposes, the amounts assumed for highway, transit, and other purposes under these alternatives also are summarized.

Local Revenues

TransNet One-Half Percent Local Sales Tax Revenues – were assumed to increase each year over the $243 million received in FY 2006 based on the growth in taxable retail sales as projected by the SANDAG Demographic and Economic Forecasting Model (DEFM). The amounts shown for the Revenue Constrained Scenario represent the funds estimated to be available through 2030. In November 2004 San Diego County voters approved the extension of the same sales tax for transportation through the year 2048. It is anticipated that an additional $14 billion in revenues would be generated for regional transportation improvements. One of the more innovative components


of the sales tax extension ordinance is the initiative for early environmental mitigation to reduce future cost of major transportation projects. Although the TransNet Extension is not effective until April 2008, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved accelerating several key regional transportation projects. The Early Action Program (EAP) consists of several major projects that are expected to significantly relieve traffic congestion. The EAP strategy is to leverage as much federal and state funds as are available, then borrow against future TransNet revenues to complete these projects early in order to relieve congestion and complete projects ahead of their initial schedules. The net revenues shown reflect the estimated sales tax receipts, plus estimated interest earnings, additional bond proceeds, less anticipated debt service. Revenues were assumed to be allocated based on the voter-approved TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plans.

As part of the TransNet Ordinance, local governments will begin collecting exactions on new development for the Regional Transport-ation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) also in 2008. These revenues will be collected for each newly built residential housing unit in that jurisdiction to the RTCIP. The amount collected is currently estimated to be $2,071 per unit in 2008, and this amount will be increased annually in an amount not to exceed the percentage increase in the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record or other equivalent index. The total amount collected is calculated based on the number of new housing units forecast to be developed and an assumption of 3.6 percent construction cost index escalation rate, consistent with the TransNet Plan of Finance. The total revenues were de-escalated to 2006 dollars.

Transportation Development Act (TDA) One-Quarter Percent Sales Tax Funds – were assumed to grow from the $116 million received in FY 2006 in the same manner as TransNet funds since TDA funds also are based on growth in the sales tax. The total TDA funds projected were reduced by 3.3 percent to account for administrative and planning deductions as provided in state law. TDA funds may be used for transit operating or capital purposes, but are not eligible for use on non transit-related highway or local street and road improvements. For planning purposes, it was assumed that 10 percent would be used to match capital projects, and the balance would be available for operations.

Local Street and Road Gas Tax Subventions – were assumed to be available at the current level of gas tax subventions to the Cities and the County of San Diego for local street and road purposes. (Actual receipts totaled $90.9 million in FY 2004.) The total of these revenues for the region was increased each year based on the estimated growth rate in the number of gallons of fuel consumed in the region based on Caltrans’ projections reflecting future fuel efficiency, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and vehicle fleet mix projections (i.e., gas, diesel, electric, etc.). The total estimated gas tax revenues were de-escalated to 2006 dollars.



Local Street and Road General Fund and Other Revenues – were based on information provided in the State Controller annual reports for local street and road expenditures and revenues. The average amount of general fund contributions and other revenues (including fines and forfeitures, interest earnings, and other miscellaneous revenue sources) used for local street and road expenditures in recent years was assumed to continue. The ten-year average for local general fund contributions to local street improvements regionwide is $47.2 million per year, while other revenues have averaged $191.1 million per year. These revenues were increased by 3 percent each year and de-escalated to 2006 dollars.

Toll Road Funding – the funding derived from debt financing backed by future toll revenues has been assumed to be available in the same time periods as the construction for the major phases of the Interstates 5 and 15 and State Routes 11, 125, and 241 toll road projects.

State Revenues

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds – were based on the amounts available for new programming through FY 2011 as included in the 2006 STIP Fund Estimate, including the funds anticipated from the infrastructure bond program, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B). Beyond 2011, STIP funds were assumed to increase at 5 percent per year based on growth rates in gas tax receipts and truck weight fees. In addition, future STIP revenues were increased to reflect the impact of the passage of Proposition 42, which will increase STIP revenues for 2009 and beyond. Further, the STIP funds were increased consistent with the regional share of STIP funds originating from the Proposition 1B infrastructure bonds approved by the voters in 2006.

The San Diego region anticipates receipt of at least a minimum formula “County Share” level of statewide levels and a comparable portion of the STIP Interregional Program funds over time as well. The total STIP funds assumed include revenue from both the Regional and Interregional STIP shares. The STIP funds are flexible and are available for capacity-enhancing highway, transit, and local road capital projects, as well as for transportation demand management (TDM) efforts and planning, programming, and monitoring activities. In accordance with the SANDAG Board of Directors policy, beginning with the 2006 STIP cycle (FY 2007 to FY 2011), 85 percent of all new STIP revenues are assumed to be set aside for EAP projects, which include both highway, transit, and mixed-mode projects and the remaining 15 percent for other regionally significant projects, including planning and program monitoring, TDM, and other purposes.


State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds – were assumed to increase based on the forecasts of growth in the state Public Transportation Account as provided in the 2006 STIP Fund Estimate through FY 2011 and at 5 percent per year after 2011. In addition, future STA funds were increased to reflect the impact of the passage of Proposition 42, Further, STA funds were augmented by the anticipated formula share of Proposition 1B infrastructure bonds dedicated to this program, estimated to be $218 million. These funds are available for transit operating and capital purposes only.

Proposition 1B Infrastructure Bonds – were assumed to be available for specific projects as provided in state law beginning in FY 2008. Some of the bond proceeds were incorporated into their respective existing program, such as the STIP or STA. Funding for new programs is also included under its own separate heading. Some of the elements of the bonds still require additional legislation that will guide the project selection process and, in turn, drive the amount each region receives. Unless otherwise already indicated by the state (such as the STIP or the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA)) or by existing formula (such as the local streets and roads component) or by historical trend (such as the State Highway Operations and Protection Program or (SHOPP)), funding assumed for the San Diego region is based on the regional STIP formula share, which is 7.32 percent of the statewide total. The total funding assumed for the San Diego region from the infrastructure bonds is approximately $1.42 billion, or about 7.1 percent of the statewide total. For the Reasonably Expected Scenario, a more optimistic assumption of 12 percent is used, but only for those programs that are competitive in nature and are not formula-based. Historically, the San Diego region has been competitive in terms of innovative projects, as well as project delivery. The total amount assumed under the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario is $1.75 billion.

Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) Funds – were assumed to be available for specific projects as provided in state law through FY 2008. All remaining unallocated TCRP funds are assumed to be available in the next five years. Approximately $128 million of the original approximately $483 million identified for San Diego County remained at the end of FY 2007.

State Highway Operations, and Preservation Program (SHOPP) and Maintenance and Operations Program Funds – were assumed to be available to meet Caltrans’ identified needs for state highway operations and maintenance needs. By state law, these expenditures are given priority over new construction and are funded “off the top” of the State Highway Account before any funding for new construction projects is allocated. The 2006 base year estimates of $9 million per year for operations and administration costs and $60 million per year for maintenance costs were increased at a real growth



of 2 percent per year to reflect a gradual increase in these costs above the rate of inflation as the size and the age of the system to be maintained increase over time. The revenues needed to meet the costs for these purposes as identified by Caltrans have been assumed to be available. The San Diego region is assuming $58 million in Proposition 1B funds programmed through the SHOPP.

For state highway rehabilitation needs, funds were assumed to be available consistent with the Financially Constrained ten-year SHOPP plan through FY 2018. The approximate annual level of funding through the SHOPP is assumed to be $122 million. A subsequent nominal growth rate of 3 percent is assumed beyond FY 2018. Costs for SHOPP-eligible projects were constrained to the estimated funds available for both the Revenue Constrained and Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenarios. To the extent estimated needs for SHOPP activities exceed the estimated revenues, they are identified as part of the overall Unconstrained Needs.

Future State/Federal Gas Tax or Equivalent Revenue Increases – were assumed for the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario. Over the last 20 years, the gas tax has been increased an average of 0.92 cents per year. While the gas tax level is assumed to remain constant through 2030 for the Revenue Constrained Scenario, it is reasonable to assume this average annual increase in the gas tax (or an equivalent revenue source) in the future for the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario. For the 25-year period covered by the Plan, this would constitute the equivalent of a 23-cent increase in the gas tax.

Federal Revenues

FTA Discretionary (Section 5309) Funds – were assumed based on the amounts identified in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the Mission Valley East and SPRINTER Light Rail Transit (LRT) projects and earmarks identified under Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficiency Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU). It was assumed that the region would receive a population-based share of the national Section 5309 levels, increased at 5 percent per year. The San Diego region’s population is about 1 percent of the national total. For the Revenue Constrained Scenario, a share of discretionary funds equal to 0.5 percent of the national total was assumed. For the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario, additional revenues associated with the more competitive New Starts and Small Starts process identified for San Diego are assumed, including approximately half of the capital costs for the Mid-Coast Trolley extension to the University Towne Centre (UTC) area. Periodic Small Starts revenues also are included, with approximately three Small Starts awards per decade assumed.


FTA Formula (Section 5307 and 5309) Funds – the Section 5307 formula funds, as well as the rail modernization formula funds under the Section 5309 program, were assumed to grow based on the guaranteed funding levels specified in SAFETEA-LU and at 5 percent per year thereafter. It was assumed that up to 20 percent of the Section 5307 funds could be made available for operating purposes under the preventative maintenance provisions of SAFETEA-LU.

Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds – the Regional STP fund estimates were based on actual annual apportionments and the estimates included in the 2006 STIP Fund Estimate through FY 2011 and 2 percent real growth each year thereafter. These funds are flexible and may be used for a wide range of capital projects. For purposes of the RTP, it was assumed that 85 percent of these funds would be set aside for EAP projects and the remaining 15 percent for other regionally significant projects.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds – the CMAQ fund estimates were based on actual annual apportionments, the 2006 STIP funds estimate through FY 2011, and a 2 percent real growth each year thereafter. These funds are flexible and may be used for a wide range of capital projects and TDM activities, with the exception of roadway improvements that provide increased capacity for single occupant vehicles.

For purposes of the RTP, 85 percent of the CMAQ funds would be set aside for EAP projects and the remaining 15 percent for other regionally significant projects.

Miscellaneous Federal/State/Private/Other Capital Revenues – there are a variety of smaller annual state and federal programs, as well as periodic “demonstration” program funds that provide additional funding for the region’s transportation improvements on a semi-regular basis. It was assumed that about $455 million would be available during the RTP period, which includes projects earmarked under High Priority Demonstration Grants in SAFETEA-LU for the Revenue Constrained Scenario. Nearly $190 million in additional federal funds are assumed under the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario to account for periodic funding identified by Congress on projects of national significance, including transportation access to international goods movement facilities.



Local35%

State28%

TransNet18%

Federal19%

REASONABLY EXPECTED REVENUE SCENARIO ANALYSIS

The Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario provides the financial budget for the 2030 RTP. A total of approximately $57 billion in revenue through 2030 has been estimated to be available to implement the proposed improvements included in the Plan. A summary of the major revenue sources is provided in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1. The funding that will complement the revenues listed in the Revenue Constrained Scenario to reach the $57 billion Reasonably Expected target is assumed to originate from a variety of potential sources.

Critical to the implementation of the 2030 RTP is the assumption regarding the implementation of gradual increases in the state and federal gas taxes (or equivalent revenue sources) comparable to historical increases in these funds during the past 20 years. Additionally, assumptions regarding implementation of local, state, and federal initiatives for Goods Movement infrastructure and an expanded toll road legislative framework also are important. Of the total estimated revenues for the Reasonably Expected plan, 53 percent is assumed through local sources, 28 percent comes from state sources, and 19 percent from federal revenues.

In Table 4.1, other potential sources are assumed under federal, state, and local revenues. These amounts were assumed to be the same in all three categories. Under local revenues, “Other Potential Sources,” was broken into two line items. The cost to develop additional toll roads, while considered an “Other Potential Source,” was separated under its own line item. The amounts shown under the toll roads line item correspond to the cost to develop the facilities listed and are assumed to be a contribution under the local revenue sources only. All of the potential other sources are listed in Table 4.2.

As a separate component under the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario, it is assumed that local, state, or federal Goods Movement initiatives will cover the new Goods Movement projects included in the plan, given the continued rise in trade both domestic and from overseas. New federal freight infrastructure funding is an attractive funding mechanism because it addresses the cost of infrastructure needs resulting from the shift toward a global economy, and it would lessen the burden placed on local communities which have emerged as new gateways and trade corridors in the national supply chain. At the state level, the recently approved California Infrastructure Bond Measures provide a similar first-time funding opportunity for projects considered an important part of the state’s goods movement infrastructure. Other potential sources for freight infrastructure include increasing the amount of current fees (e.g., commer-cial vehicle registration fee) and/or implementation of new user fees or tolls.

Figure 4.1—Major Revenue Sources/ Reasonably Expected

Revenue Scenario ($57 Billion)


Table 4.1—Major Revenue Sources/Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario

REVENUE SOURCES ESTIMATED REVENUE ($ IN MILLIONS – 2006 DOLLARS)

FY 2006 -

2010FY 2011 -

2020 FY 2021 -

2030 FY 2006 -

2030

Local

TransNet Cash $583 $1,674 $1,202 $3,459 TransNet Bond Proceeds $507 $3,616 $2,720 $6,843 Transportation Development Act (TDA) $557 $1,263 $1,531 $3,351 City/County Local Gas Taxes $414 $746 $657 $1,817 Developer Impact Fees (Residential) $54 $277 $153 $484 General Fund/Miscellaneous Local Road Funds $1,393 $2,742 $2,742 $6,877 Toll Road Funding (SR 125, SR 241, SR 11, I-5, and I-15) $640 $2,752 $960 $4,352 Miscellaneous $54 $138 $105 $297 Local Goods Movement Sources $20 $250 $320 $590 Other Potential Local Sources $0 $392 $1,045 $1,437 Carryover from prior years $867 $0 $0 $867

Subtotal $5,089 $13,850 $11,435 $30,374

State

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP)

$745 $702 $834 $2,281

Proposition 42 $180 $465 $563 $1,208 State Transit Assistance (STA) Program $240 $234 $207 $681 State Highway Account for Operations/Maintenance $666 $1,669 $1,710 $4,045 Miscellaneous $620 $1,324 $543 $2,487 State Goods Movement Sources $20 $249 $286 $555 Other Potential State Sources $0 $2,452 $1,855 $4,307 Carryover from prior years $299 $0 $0 $299

Subtotal $2,770 $7,095 $5,998 $15,863

Federal

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Discretionary $122 $634 $176 $932 Federal Transit Administration Formula Programs (5307/5309FG/5316/5317)

$322 $721 $874 $1,917

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)/ Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)

$299 $678 $821 $1,798

Miscellaneous $101 $245 $297 $643 Federal Goods Movement Sources $20 $249 $321 $590 Other Potential Federal Sources $0 $2,452 $1,855 $4,307 Carryover from prior years $966 $0 $0 $966

Subtotal $1,830 $4,979 $4,344 $11,153

Grand Total Revenue Sources $9,689 $25,924 $21,777 $57,390



Transit Major Capital15%

Transit Rehab./Misc. Capital

4%

Goods Movement3%

Other2%

Local Streets and Roads23%

Transit Operating Subsidy

11%

Highway O&M/Rehab.7%

HOV/Managed Lanes21%

Highway System Completion/Widening

14%

Table 4.2—Potential Transportation Revenue Sources

Increase gas tax rate per gallon

Index the motor vehicle fuel tax to Consumer Price Index (CPI)/Construction Cost Index (CCI)

Increase truck weight fees

Approve additional state infrastructure bond initiatives

Institute regional development impact fees for transportation improvements

Expand use of the FasTrak® High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane System

Implement fees per vehicle miles of travel

Increase revenues through State-Local fiscal reform efforts

Change the fuel gallonage tax to a sales tax base

Increase the TransNet local transportation sales tax

Increase California’s share of Federal Highway Trust Fund

Implement additional toll roads/privatization projects

Implement additional pricing mechanisms

Institute parking surcharges for transportation improvements

Figure 4.2—Major Project Expenditures/Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario

($57 Billion)


Table 4.3—Major Expenditures/Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario

PROJECT CATEGORIES ESTIMATED COST ($ IN MILLIONS – 2006 DOLLARS)

FY 2006 -2010

FY 2011 -2020

FY 2021 -2030

FY 2006 -2030

Systems Development & Operations Transit Major New Facilities $1,311 $3,460 $4,097 $8,868 Miscellaneous Capital/Rehabilitation/Replacement $390 $1,066 $1,057 $2,513 Operating Subsidies $822 $2,571 $3,102 $6,495

Subtotal $2,523 $7,097 $8,256 $17,876 Highways Managed/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Facilities $1,468 $6,909 $3,399 $11,776 System Completion/Widening Projects $2,265 $3,793 $1,889 $7,947 Operations $45 $100 $114 $259 Maintenance $281 $622 $711 $1,614 Rehabilitation $286 $765 $966 $2,017

Subtotal $4,345 $12,189 $7,079 $23,613 Local Streets and Roads New Facility Construction $1,261 $2,308 $2,152 $5,721 Regionally Significant Arterials $255 $640 $542 $1,437 Operations/Maintenance/Rehabilitation $1,125 $2,303 $2,331 $5,759

Subtotal $2,641 $5,251 $5,025 $12,917 Goods Movement Air Cargo, Pipeline, and Maritime $0 $315 $457 $772 Rail and Borders $0 $643 $289 $932

Subtotal $0 $958 $746 $1,704 Land Use/Systems Management/Demand Management Smart Growth Incentive Program $28 $79 $99 $206 Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements $26 $125 $226 $377 Transportation Systems Management $96 $148 $262 $506 Transportation Demand Management $29 $78 $84 $191

Subtotal $179 $430 $671 $1,280 Grand Total Cost $9,688 $25,925 $21,777 $57,390



Figure 4.2 and Table 4.3 provide a summary of the $57 billion in expenditures for each of the major project categories proposed to be funded under this scenario. Of the total expenditures through 2030, 30 percent is for transit purposes, 21 percent for Managed/HOV lanes improvements, 21 percent for highway purposes, 23 percent for local streets and roads, 3 percent for new goods movement projects not already included in the Managed Lane/highway and rail projects and 2 percent for Other (Systems and Demand Management, Land Use, bicycle/pedestrian, and other related efforts. It should be noted that the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario includes an increase in funding of $36 million over the Revenue Constrained Scenario.

The costs are broken down for new capital improvements versus operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation expenditures. As the region’s transportation system ages, the ongoing costs to maintain our existing infrastructure require a significant share of our future transportation funds. More than $19 billion, or 33 percent of the total expenditures, are committed to operating, managing, maintaining, and rehabilitating the region’s highway, transit, and local street and road networks.

The major transit, Managed/HOV lane, and highway projects proposed in the 2030 RTP are identified in Table 6.2 and Appendix A. The projects and programs included under the Land Use, Systems Management, and Demand Management (including bicycle/pedestrian components) are described in Chapters 6 through 8.

For the local street and road costs, a needs survey was conducted. Each jurisdiction provided information related to its backlog of deferred projects and its ten-year estimate for maintenance, rehabilitation, operations, and new construction needs. These survey data, escalated to 2006 dollars, were used as the basis of the street and road cost estimates through 2030. A summary of the survey data is provided in Technical Appendix 1. The estimated street and road costs derived from the survey data were adjusted to fit the revenue available under the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario.

REVENUE CONSTRAINED SCENARIO ANALYSIS

The Revenue Constrained Scenario provides the most conservative budget for future transportation improvements. The state and federal gas taxes are assumed to stay at today’s levels (18 cents and 18.4 cents per gallon, respectively) through 2030. The result of these and other assumptions is a total revenue estimate of approximately $41 billion for the 2030 RTP.


Local36%

State26%

Federal13% TransNet

25%

HOV/Managed Lanes17%

Transit Operating Subsidy

13%

Highway O&M/Rehab.10%

Highway System Completion/Widening

11%

Transit Major Capital15%

Other3%

Transit Rehab./Misc. Capital

4%

Local Streets and Roads27%

A summary of the major funding sources is provided in Figure 4.3 and Table 4.4. With the passage of the TransNet Extension, local funds make up 61 percent of the total revenue, with state and federal funds providing 26 percent and 13 percent, respectively. It also should be pointed out that revenues are shown phased by decade, meaning the funding available between 2006-2010, 2011-2020, and 2021-2030. The corresponding expenditures also are shown by these same time periods and do not exceed the revenues available, thus demonstrating that the Revenue Constrained Scenario also is constrained by these analysis periods. Lastly, those projects that are listed in the initial years of the RTP are the same ones that are either already programmed in the five-year Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP – currently the five-year period ends in FY 2010/11) or are anticipated to be included in future near-term updates of the RTIP.

Figure 4.4 and Table 4.5 summarize the nearly $41 billion in expenditures under the Revenue Constrained Scenario. About 32 percent of the total expenditures are for transit purposes, 17 percent for Managed/HOV lanes improvements, 21 percent for highway purposes, 27 percent for local street and road improvements, and 3 percent for the Land Use, Systems, and Demand Management (including bicycle and pedestrian components) strategies. The specific projects and services included in the Revenue Constrained Scenario are described in Appendix A.

Figure 4.4—Major Expenditures/Revenue Constrained Scenario ($40.8 Billion)

Figure 4.3—Major Revenue Sources/Revenue Constrained Scenario

($41 Billion)



Table 4.4—Major Revenue Sources/Revenue Constrained Scenario

REVENUE SOURCES ESTIMATED REVENUE ($ IN MILLIONS – 2006 DOLLARS)

FY 2006 - 2010

FY 2011 - 2020

FY 2021 - 2030

FY 2006 - 2030

Local

TransNet Cash $583 $1,674 $1,202 $3,459

TransNet Bond Proceeds $551 $3,581 $2,526 $6,658

Transportation Development Act (TDA) $557 $1,263 $1,531 $3,351

City/County Local Gas Taxes $414 $746 $657 $1,817

Developer Impact Fees $54 $277 $153 $484

General Fund/Miscellaneous Local Road Funds $1,393 $2,742 $2,742 $6,877

Toll Road Funding (SR 125, SR 241, and SR 11) $0 $692 $320 $1,012

Miscellaneous $54 $138 $105 $297

Carryover from prior years $867 $0 $0 $867

Subtotal $4,473 $11,113 $9,236 $24,822 State

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/ Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP)

$745 $702 $834 $2,281

Proposition 42 $180 $465 $563 $1,208

State Transit Assistance (STA) Program $239 $234 $207 $680

State Highway Account Funds for Operations/Maintenance $666 $1,668 $1,710 $4,044

Miscellaneous $745 $864 $543 $2,152


Subtotal $2,874 $3,933 $3,857 $10,664 Federal

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Discretionary $48 $46 $55 $149

Federal Transit Administration Formula Programs $322 $721 $875 $1,918

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAC)/ Regional Surface Transportation Program (STP)

$299 $678 $821 $1,798

Miscellaneous $94 $163 $198 $455


Subtotal $1,729 $1,608 $1,949 $5,286

Total $9,076 $16,654 $15,042 $40,772


Table 4.5—Major Expenditures/Revenue Constrained Scenario


FY 2006 -

2010FY 2011 -

2020 FY 2021 -

2030FY 2006 -

2030

Systems Development & Operations

Transit Major New Facilities $962 $3,109 $1,881 $5,952

Miscellaneous Capital/Rehabilitation/Replacement $278 $738 $803 $1,819

Operating Subsidies $886 $2,102 $2,415 $5,403

Subtotal $2,126 $5,949 $5,099 $13,174

Highways Managed/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Facilities $1,598 $3,324 $2,121 $7,043

System Completion/Widening Projects $2,225 $1,534 $745 $4,504

Operations $45 $100 $114 $259

Maintenance $281 $622 $711 $1,614

Rehabilitation $286 $765 $966 $2,017

Subtotal $4,435 $6,345 $4,657 $15,437

Local Streets and Roads New Facility Construction $1,072 $1,761 $2,040 $4,873

Regionally Significant Arterials $214 $317 $383 $914

Operations/Maintenance/Rehabilitation $1,050 $1,870 $2,210 $5,130

Subtotal $2,336 $3,948 $4,633 $10,917

Land Use/Systems Management/Demand Management

Smart Growth Incentive Program $28 $79 $99 $206

Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements $26 $125 $226 $377

Transportation Systems Management $96 $148 $262 $506

Transportation Demand Management $29 $60 $66 $155

Subtotal $179 $412 $653 $1,244

Total $9,076 $16,654 $15,042 $40,772



UNCONSTRAINED NEEDS ANALYSIS

Although not developed to the same level of detail as the other two scenarios, an Unconstrained Needs Analysis was developed to provide an order of magnitude estimate for additional projects, programs, and services to meet projected travel demands through 2030 and to fully fund the related operating, maintenance, and rehabilitation needs regionwide. Such improvements would require additional funding above and beyond the levels assumed in the 2030 RTP.

Table 4.6 summarizes the major expenditures included in the Uncon-strained Needs Analysis as compared to the Revenue Constrained and Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenarios. The Unconstrained Needs total $88 billion, as compared to $67 billion for the Unconstrained Needs in MOBILITY 2030. The difference lays primarily in the addition of another $8 billion in goods movement projects that weren’t included in MOBILTY 2030, along with the well-known cost increases for construction and right-of-way. Increases in project scope were few and had little impact on the cost total.

The Unconstrained Needs exceed the $57 billion in the 2030 RTP by more than $30 billion. The additional transit improvements needed to fully implement the Regional Transit Vision would result in significantly higher investments in transit capital and operations. Additional Managed/HOV lanes and other highway capital improvements as well as Land Use, Systems, and Demand Management investments, would be needed to address remaining congested segments of the region’s transportation system that could not be accommodated within the $57 billion financial budget established for the 2030 RTP.

Highway rehabilitation costs were increased based on estimates provided by Caltrans. The limited revenues under the other scenarios were not sufficient to fund the full level of estimated highway rehabilitation needs. Similarly, the local street and road costs were increased to match the estimates derived from the local agency needs survey. These estimates are nearly $1.5 billion higher than the local street and road needs that could be funded under the budget established for the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario.

As mentioned previously, a specific funding plan for the projects included in the Unconstrained Needs listing has not been prepared. There are a variety of funding mechanisms that could be investigated to help address the $30 billion funding shortfall expected under this scenario. The list of possible revenue options would be the same as those in Table 4.2. Some of these revenue sources may prove to be more feasible and politically acceptable than others over time.


Table 4.6—Unconstrained Needs – Major Expenditures and Revenues


Revenue

Constrained

Reasonably Expected Revenue

Unconstrained Needs

Systems Development & Operations Transit Major New Facilities $5,952 $8,868 $9,795Miscellaneous Capital/Rehabilitation/Replacement $1,819 $2,513 $3,016Operating Subsidies $5,403 $6,495 $7,047

Subtotal $13,174 $17,876 $19,858

Highways Managed/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Facilities $7,043 $11,776 $23,453System Completion/Widening Projects $4,504 $7,947 $10,236Operations $259 $259 $321Maintenance $1,614 $1,614 $2,567Rehabilitation $2,017 $2,017 $3,493

Subtotal $15,437 $23,613 40,070

Local Streets and Roads New Facility Construction $4,873 $5,721 $6,554Regionally Significant Arterials $914 $1,437 $1,646Operations/Maintenance/Rehabilitation $5,130 $5,759 $7,870

Subtotal $10,917 $12,917 $16,070

Goods Movement Air Cargo, Pipeline and Maritime $772 $2,319Rail and Borders $932 $7,782

$1,704 $10,101

Land Use/Systems Management/Demand Management Smart Growth Incentive Program $206 $206 $330Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements $377 $377 $480Transportation Systems Management $506 $506 $750Transportation Demand Management $155 $191 $210

Subtotal $1,244 $1,280 $1,770

Total Expenditures $40,772 $57,390 $87,869Total Available Revenue $40,772 $57,390 $57,390

Surplus/Deficit $0 $0 -$30,479



One method of reducing the shortfall would be to increase the gas tax. For example, a one-cent-per-gallon, fixed-rate gas tax increase would generate about $320 million in 2006 dollars between today and 2030. For comparison, a one-cent-per-gallon-per-year increase over the same time period would generate about $4.2 billion, while a one-half cent increase in the transportation sales tax would generate nearly $7 billion. Using these estimates, a nearly one dollar-per-gallon, one-time gas increase, or a 7.4-cent-per-gallon-per-year increase through 2030, would be required to make up such a revenue shortfall with gas tax revenue alone. Alternatively, to fund such a shortfall through the sales tax, a 2.2 percent sales tax would need to be enacted in addition to the one-half cent TransNet sales tax program already included in the Revenue Constrained plan. The magnitude of this shortfall would be very difficult to address and would most likely require a package of various revenue mechanisms rather than a large increase to a single revenue source. Ongoing research into these and other options will be necessary to provide the revenue needed to fully implement the unconstrained projects and services.


ACTIONS

The following actions support the Plan’s Financial Strategies Chapter recommendations.

FINANCIAL STRATEGIES

Proposed Actions Responsible Parties

General Legislative and Funding Actions

1. Maximize opportunities to leverage local transportation sales tax revenues to attract additional state and federal funds to the region for transportation and related infrastructure improvements.

SANDAG and local agencies

2. Maximize opportunities to secure unique funding sources for the region that can supplement the Smart Growth Incentives Program and related infrastructure improvements.

SANDAG and local agencies

3. Evaluate the feasibility of and pursue potential funding sources to pay for the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario.

SANDAG

4. Support adjustment to the TransNet Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) to cover the additional facilities added to the Regional Arterial System (RAS).

SANDAG

5. Support federal transportation legislation that provides for the following principles:

SANDAG

a. Removing the Federal Highway Trust Fund programs from the Federal Unified Budget process;

b. Establishing federal transportation program authorization and obligational authority levels based on actual and projected Trust Fund revenue levels including interest received;

c. Maintaining or increasing the level of revenue flowing into the Trust Fund by increasing the federal gas tax rate and/or eliminating or reducing transfers of tax exemptions that shift transportation revenues to other purposes;

d. Increasing the minimum 90.5 percent "fair share" return of federal highway revenues to California;

e. Consolidating most federal highway categorical programs to provide greater flexibility and local discretion in highway fund usage; and

f. Authorizing a minimum five-year highway and transit program to provide needed program stability and continuity of federal transportation policy.





6. Support state transportation legislation that provides for the following principles:

SANDAG

a. Increasing state highway revenues as needed to maintain, rehabilitate and operate the existing state highway system, to match all available federal highway funds, and to fully fund all new construction and right-of-way projects identified in the current State and Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs);

b. Ensuring that any re-evaluation of the present formula "County Share" funding provisions and/or any other revenue distribution formula does not penalize counties that provide local sales tax or other local funding to state highway projects;

c. Establishing state/local matching programs or other programs to reward counties that have implemented local sales taxes or other major local funding sources for transportation improvements;

d. Sharing of both diesel fuel tax revenues and truck weight fees with local cities and counties and with Caltrans;

e. Allowing local jurisdictions, in cooperation with regional agencies, to jointly determine the allocation of additional local street and road revenues;

f. Increasing transit revenues to support transit operating and capital improvements, including transit guideway projects;

g. Establishing a user fee-based program to fund transportation infrastructure to accommodate increases in Goods Movement activities; and

h. Evaluating the feasibility of and pursuing potential funding sources to pay for the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario.

7. Support state and federal legislation providing for the additional gas tax funding, or equivalent funding from another revenue source, needed to implement those projects identified in the RTP.

SANDAG

8. Support state and federal legislation that provides the legal framework for expanded public/private partnerships for specific toll projects identified in the RTP.

SANDAG

9. Support state and federal legislation that provides the legal framework for public agencies to invest in and help develop public toll facilities for projects identified in the RTP.

SANDAG

10. Support state and federal legislation providing for the indexing of gas tax revenues to keep pace with inflation either by increasing the gas tax at regular intervals based on increases in the Construction Cost Index or by changing the tax from a gallonage basis to a percentage basis so that revenues increase with the price of fuel.

SANDAG




Local Jurisdiction Actions

11. Maintain current levels of local general fund and other local discretionary fund support to the local street and road program so that any new or increased revenues to the local street and road program will augment and not supplement current revenues.

Local jurisdictions

Transit Actions

12. Aggressively pursue the continuation and expansion of existing sources of transit funding and support modifications to those sources to ensure full utilization and maximum flexibility.

SANDAG and transit operators

13. Work with local, state, and federal officials to ensure that the region receives an equitable share of available discretionary transit funds.


14. Adjust fare levels as needed to maintain and improve farebox recovery levels over time in order to maximize the level of transit service that can be provided.


15. Pursue private sector involvement in the funding of transit facility development and operation through developer contributions, benefit assessment districts, joint development and value capture projects, and other efforts to contribute toward unfunded regional transit facilities.

SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, and local jurisdictions


CHAPTER 5 LAND USE-TRANSPORTATION CONNECTION: GROWING SMARTER

This chapter focuses on the relationships between population growth, land use, and the environment to the region’s mobility. In addition, this chapter addresses the relationship of our transportation planning to environmental justice issues. Are we growing smarter? How can we better coordinate land use and transportation planning in the region to improve mobility and livability? How do our land use decisions and transportation investments affect our natural environment and our investment decisions in the areas of energy and open space conservation? How do we ensure that environmental justice issues are given proper consideration in our transportation planning?

GROWING SMARTER

Despite a recent decrease in the region’s annual average growth rate, the region is still growing. The SANDAG 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update indicates that the region will add almost one million people, 290,000 housing units, and roughly one-half million new jobs between 2005 and 2030. This is in addition to the three million people that already live in the region, the one million existing homes, and the 1.3 million jobs to which our workers currently commute. What do these additional growth projections mean for our land use pattern, transportation network, and infrastructure needs? How do they affect our public health in terms of air quality and opportunities for physical activity? And how do they impact our demand for energy and our ability to address global climate change?

In addition to the numbers, the 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update also identifies several important trends. Key among these trends is the aging of the population. This trend has widespread implications and points to the need for communities with a wider variety of housing choices, more affordability, more accessible public transportation, more walkability, and a greater mix of land uses ensuring the appropriate public facilities needed to serve the changing demographics.

Another trend that has emerged recently is an increase in interregional and international commuting from surrounding counties and Baja California, Mexico. As explained in Chapter 3, much of this is due to the disparity between local wages, particularly those in lower-paying sectors, and high housing costs. More and more people are choosing to work in San Diego, but live in more affordable homes in Imperial County, Riverside County, and northern Baja California.

CHAPTER CONTENTS

GROWING SMARTER ................................. 5-1

CONNECTING LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION................................. 5-2

USING LAND USE AND TRANSPORTA- TION PLANS TO GUIDE OTHER PLANS AND INVESTMENTS.................. 5-19

INCENTIVES AND COLLABORATION ....... 5-26

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...................... 5-28

CONCLUSIONS.......................................... 5-31

ACTIONS ................................................... 5-32

More and more people are choosing to work in San Diego, but live in more affordable homes in Imperial County, Riverside County, and northern Baja California.



Both the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Preparing for Regional and Global Collaboration, San Diego’s Regional Economic Prosperity Strategy recognize that the region’s housing crisis, coupled with increasing low-paying jobs, is resulting in more long-distance commuting. This occurs both within the region and from outside the region, resulting in significant impacts on our transportation facilities and our quality of life. While the 2030 RTP focuses primarily on the transportation issues, the RTP and SANDAG’s other regional plans address these interrelated issues through specific plans and programs.

Regional Comprehensive Plan

In 2004 the SANDAG Board of Directors adopted a regional blueprint for the San Diego region known as the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). The RCP is based on three themes:

Improving connections between land use and transportation plans using smart growth principles;

Using land use and transportation plans to guide decisions regarding environmental and public facility investments; and

Focusing on collaboration and incentives to achieve regional goals and objectives.

The RCP provides a strategy for the region to grow in a smarter, more sustainable manner while encouraging local jurisdictions to make their own commitments to smart growth.

The RCP brings together a number of topics: urban form, transportation, housing, natural habitat and open spaces, water quality, shoreline preservation, air quality, economic prosperity, water supply, energy, waste management, public facilities, border issues, social equity and environmental justice, regional infrastructure, and performance monitoring. This chapter discusses many of these topics as they relate to mobility in the region. It also provides recommended actions to meet the region’s transportation and quality of life goals.

CONNECTING LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION

Shortly after the adoption of the RCP, SANDAG began work on two specific efforts to improve connections between land use and transportation plans using smart growth principles (Figure 5.1):

Development of a Smart Growth Concept Map to illustrate where smart growth development exists or could be built in the region, and

Figure 5.1—RCP Framework


An Independent Transit Planning Review (ITPR) to provide expert guidance and assistance to SANDAG to coordinate smart growth initiatives with the transit elements of the RTP.

Additionally, work is underway to prepare Smart Growth Design Guide-lines for use by local jurisdictions in smart growth areas, focusing on the qualitative elements of smart growth development.

Smart Growth Concept Map

In June 2006 the SANDAG Board accepted the Smart Growth Concept Map for planning purposes for the 2030 RTP. The Smart Growth Concept Map illustrates a preferred planning concept for the region based on smart growth principles and is the framework for prioritizing public land use and transportation investments in the region.

The RCP defines smart growth as a compact, efficient, livable, and environmentally sensitive urban development pattern which focuses future growth and infill development close to jobs, services, and public facilities to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and preserve open space and natural resources. Smart growth is characterized by higher-density development and mixed land uses, with appealing community design and walkable streets in areas near public transit.

Smart Growth Place Types. The smart growth principles of the RCP are not intended to be applied in a “one-size-fits-all” approach. The region’s communities have different needs and priorities. The smart growth “place types,” which range from the Metropolitan Center and Urban Centers to Community Centers and Rural Villages, provide different ranges of density and scale. This, in turn, provides a basis for SANDAG to plan for appropriate transportation facilities and transit services to serve these areas.

Prepared in conjunction with the county and each of the cities in the region, the Smart Growth Concept Map identifies approximately 200 areas where smart growth development exists or could be built, based on the land use and transportation targets identified in the RCP.

Figures 5.2 – 5.6 show the regional-scale Smart Growth Concept Map and more detailed sub-regional maps for North County, North City, Central San Diego and East County, and South County.



Existing, Planned, and Potential Smart Growth Areas. The RCP establishes land use and transportation targets for smart growth areas and distinguishes them as either “Existing/Planned” or “Potential,” depending upon whether they meet the targets. The Existing/Planned areas either meet the targets or have local plans in place that allow the targets to be met. The Potential smart growth areas are places where the existing land uses or the current plans do not meet the targets, but jurisdictions have identified these areas for possible smart growth planning and development in the future. All of the 18 cities and the county have identified at least one smart growth area in their jurisdictions.

Because local jurisdictions have different timetables for updating or amending their land use plans, the Smart Growth Concept Map is seen as a dynamic, living document. Updates to the map will be made periodically to reflect changes in local land use plans or in regional transportation and transit plans. The most recent version of the map is maintained on the SANDAG Web site at www.sandag.org/rcp. In addition, site descriptions for each of the identified smart growth areas also are available on-line.

All of the Existing/Planned smart growth areas are included in the 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update because they are reflected in current local plans. The Potential smart growth areas are not included. Instead, they serve as a mechanism to show where future smart growth could be implemented if plans are changed

Independent Transit Planning Review

As noted in Chapter 2, in June 2006 the SANDAG Board accepted the Independent Transit Planning Review (ITPR) report for use in preparing the 2030 RTP. The ITPR included recommendations that would improve the role of public transportation in addressing regional mobility needs. The regional transit system development recommendations of the ITPR are discussed in Chapter 6.

Many of the ITPR recommendations focused on enhancing coordination between land use and transit. The panel’s recommendations generally supported the smart growth goals included in the RCP. The panel made recommendations ranging from very general to very specific, with implementation actions assumed by both SANDAG, which has the responsibility to plan the regional transit network, and the local jurisdictions, which have the ultimate authority over land use decisions. The following points summarize the panel’s main recommendations regarding land use. Each of the recommendations will be considered as the Smart Growth Concept Map is updated and refined, the Smart Growth Design Guidelines are prepared, and the Smart Growth Incentive Program is developed.

The ITPR recommendations generally supported the smart growth goals included in the RCP.

Figure 5.2SMART GROWTH CONCEPT MAPOctober 27, 2006


Fig

ure

5.3

SM

AR

T G

RO

WTH

CO

NC

EPT

MA

PN

OR

TH C

OU

NTY

SU

BR

EG

ION

Oct

ob

er 2

7, 2

006


Fig

ure

5.4

SM

AR

T G

RO

WTH

CO

NC

EPT

MA

PN

OR

TH C

ITY

SU

BR

EG

ION

Oct

ob

er 2

7, 2

006


Fig

ure

5.5

SM

AR

T G

RO

WTH

CO

NC

EPT

MA

PM

ID-C

ITY

AN

D E

AST

CO

UN

TY S

UB

REG

ION

Oct

ob

er 2

7, 2

006


Fig

ure

5.6

SM

AR

T G

RO

WTH

CO

NC

EPT

MA

PSO

UTH

CO

UN

TY S

UB

REG

ION

Oct

ob

er 2

7, 2

006



ITPR Land Use Planning Recommendations

Provide pedestrian circulation and parking guidelines in smart growth areas.

Encourage use of paid parking, shared parking, and parking design standards that promote more walking and transit use in smart growth areas.

Promote additional Smart Growth areas along the COASTER, SPRINTER, and Trolley stations.

Locate larger retail, employment, medical, educational, and government land uses near arterial and major collector streets served by public transit.

Discourage construction of new auto-oriented land uses along principal transit corridors and encourage conversion of auto-oriented development to transit oriented land uses.

Design park and ride lots that are pedestrian friendly and provide good access to transit.

Offer incentives for transit-oriented development in smart growth areas.

Permitting/Development Recommendations

Require transit-efficient and pedestrian-friendly arterial and collector street patterns in new subdivisions and planned unit developments.

Prioritize pedestrian access to transit, as it is as important as development density to the success of transit.

Use transit patronage potential, in addition to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as tools to evaluate development approvals.

Integrate supporting retail uses into residential and employment developments to help minimize dependence on automobile use.

With these recommendations in mind, the 2030 RTP envisions improving regional transit service to make public transit the first choice for many of our trips. Transit improvements need to be focused in areas with compatible land uses that support an efficient transit system.

As recommended by the ITPR panel, transit services need to be integrated into many of our communities and neighborhoods, with the design and location of transit stations serving as central activity centers. The Smart Growth Concept Map is a starting point for the implementation of this approach. The 2030 RTP envisions a network of convenient, reliable, fast, and safe services that interconnect the region.



Neighborhoods and communities will be improved and strengthened by providing facilities for transit, biking, and walking. These include a more concentrated and diverse mix of land uses complemented by sidewalks, bike lanes, buildings that front directly onto public streets, and an interconnected and rich street grid that slows and disperses traffic.

Uses of the Smart Growth Concept Map

In an effort to better connect land use and transportation, the Concept Map is being used in a number of ways in the update of the 2030 RTP. With its almost 200 locations, the map is guiding the planning and development of the region’s future transit networks, providing higher priority for peak period transit services that link smart growth areas to one another and to other major activity centers. Specifically, the smart growth area designations have been incorporated into the RTP Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria. These criteria are important because they are used to prioritize planning and funding for regional transportation projects. As a result, smart growth areas will receive higher priority for transportation improvements, lending additional support to the smart growth principles contained in the RCP.

The map also identifies the region’s habitat preserve planning areas, providing a framework for the continued preservation of open space and natural resources. This information will be used in the implementation of the TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program, which directs transporta-tion project mitigation land purchases to areas that are designated as open space preserves in the region’s habitat conservation plans (this program is discussed in greater detail in the next section). In addition, the map will be used to determine eligibility to participate in the region’s Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP), which will be funded through TransNet, the region’s half-cent local sales tax.

Finally, an important idea behind the map is that successful, on-the-ground smart growth examples serve as catalysts for more smart growth development in the region. The identification of specific locations in the San Diego region with opportunities for smart growth allows transport-ation agencies, transit operators, utility agencies, lenders, developers, and others to focus coordinated infrastructure investments and services in these areas, simultaneously reducing development pressure on the outlying and rural areas of the region.

Smart Growth and Public Health

The RTP can address public health from two perspectives: air quality and physical activity. The air quality impacts of our transportation system on public health are well documented. More recently, public health research has pointed to a connection between the design of our transportation networks and the level of healthy physical activity in our daily lives due, in part, to the transportation choices we make.

The identification of specific locations in the San Diego region with opportunities for smart growth allows transportation agencies, transit operators, utility agencies, lenders, developers, and others to focus coordinated infrastructure investments and services in these areas.


Air Quality

The federal Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set national air quality standards. The State of California has adopted even more stringent standards. Although the region now meets the former federal one-hour standard for ozone (one of the main components of smog), we remain a “non-attainment area” by the stricter federal eight-hour ozone standard.

Under federal air quality regulations, special requirements in non-attainment areas ensure that proposed transportation activities – plans, programs, and projects – do not cause new, nor contribute to existing air quality problems. Compliance with these regulations is referred to as “transportation conformity,” which requires analyses that demonstrate that forecasted emissions are within healthy air quality limits. The air quality conformity analysis for the Plan is included in Appendix E.

The San Diego region's primary air pollution problems are caused by ozone, also known as photochemical smog. Emissions from cars, power plants, chemical plants, and other sources cause smog. Pollution transported from the Los Angeles air basin also adversely affects the San Diego region’s smog levels. Our region also is affected by greenhouse gas, which causes global warming. These pollutant and possible mitigation strategies are explored in the Energy section.

In spite of large increases in vehicle miles traveled over the past two decades, the region’s air quality has actually improved over time. Figure 5.7 displays the downward trends in air pollution levels in the region since 1980. The federal one-hour ozone standard was attained in the San Diego air basin in 2001 and subsequently was revoked by the EPA in 2005. The region exceeded the federal eight-hour standard on 5 days in 2005 and 14 days in 2006, compared with 48 days in 1995 and 138 days in 1980.

Improvements from the transportation sector are primarily the result of advances in technology. The elimination of lead in gasoline, lower fuel volatility, and the advancement of emissions control systems have significantly reduced air quality emissions, including reactive hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).

Air quality remains an important concern for the region. Federal and state standards are safeguards against the adverse health effects of pollution. The 2030 RTP reaffirms the region’s commitment to maintain air quality standards. The integration of smart growth development combined with the investments in public transit, managed/high occupancy vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities will help lessen dependency on motor vehicle travel, which in turn, will benefit the region’s air quality.

In spite of large increases in vehicle miles traveled over the past two decades, the region’s air quality has actually improved over time.



SOURCE: San Diego Air Pollution Control District

Figure 5.7—Days Exceeding Ozone Clean Air Standards – San Diego Air Basin

0

50

100

150

200

250

Year

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

Day

s

Federal 8-Hour Federal 1-Hour

Better Urban Design for a Healthier Lifestyle

The connection between air quality and public health has been understood for some time. Only recently, however, have we come to understand that the way we construct our transportation system and the way that system relates to our land use plans and community design also plays a role in the overall health of our communities.

In recent years, public health officials have become increasingly alarmed by a rising rate of obesity in this country associated with physical inactivity, leading to a parallel increase in health risks such as diabetes and heart disease. The cost impacts of this trend on state and local governments are significant. According to the California Department of Health Services, the costs attributable to physical inactivity and obesity amounted to $28 billion in 2005.

Why is this a transportation planning issue? The search for the cause of this increase has pointed in several directions, but one clear cause is a decrease in the level of physical activity in our daily lives. Moreover, public health research has found a relationship between the type of communities in which we live and our level of physical activity, especially physical activity associated with our means of travel.

Researchers are finding that people are more physically active when they live in communities that are more compact and have a greater mix of land uses than those who live in single-use, lower-density neighborhoods. The key features of the communities that support a more active lifestyle appear

1-Hour Standard >12 pphm * pphm – parts per hundred million


to be an interconnected street network, higher-density housing, and a mix of land uses that put goods and services closer to home or work. In other words, people who live in walkable, bicycle-friendly communities are more likely to use walking and bicycling as everyday forms of transportation.

There are other public health implications associated with increased walking and bicycling beyond the impact on obesity. To the extent motor vehicle trips are replaced by walking and bicycling (including trips that incorporate a public transit link), transportation-related air pollution is reduced, and the distribution of uses in the public right-of-way becomes more balanced. Research shows that when bicycling and walking increase significantly, the risk of injury from a motor vehicle collision is reduced for the population of bicyclists and pedestrians.

The implications for SANDAG’s regional planning activities in general, and transportation plans in particular, could be significant. SANDAG has a history of supporting bicycling and walking, or “active transportation” as it is sometimes called, but consideration of public health has not been incorporated into transportation decisions. While SANDAG has supported active transportation through smart growth incentives and bicycle and pedestrian funding programs, no basis for evaluating the effectiveness of these efforts on encouraging active transportation has been developed. SANDAG should collaborate with public health professionals in the region to determine how public health considerations could be taken into account in the planning, funding, and project development process. In addition, SANDAG should develop and implement a methodology for monitoring and reporting on the amount of bicycling and walking that takes place in the region so it can better evaluate the effects of its plans and programs.

USING LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANS TO GUIDE OTHER PLANS AND INVESTMENTS

The second major theme of the RCP focuses on using land use and transportation plans to guide other regional plans and investments. The Smart Growth Concept Map and other RCP implementing tools provide guidance to local governments, property owners, and service providers as to where smart growth development should occur from a regional perspective. Not only can these tools be used by local jurisdictions as they update their general plans and community plans, but they can also be used in implementing regional and local plans related to regional infra-structure such as energy facilities and “green infrastructure,” such as open space and habitat preservation. This section discusses specific areas in which smart regional transportation and land use planning can lead to smarter regional infrastructure investments.

SANDAG should collaborate with public health professionals in the region to determine how public health considerations could be taken into account in the planning, funding, and project development process.



Open Space and Habitat

The San Diego region has been identified as a “hot spot” because of threats to our biodiversity and native species. Many unique and endangered species are found only in our region. San Diego County’s population also is growing. This combination of high biodiversity, large numbers of rare and unique species and increasing urbanization has led to intense conflicts among the issues of economic growth, biological conservation, quality of life, and transportation corridors.

To reconcile conflicts between urbanization and rare, threatened, and endangered species, the State of California enacted the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of 1991. The NCCP facilitates the creation of a landmark regional preservation system based on the characteristics of habitat areas rather than individual species. In addition, the preservation of natural habitats in the urbanized areas of the region provides visual relief from the manufactured landscape and maintains a connection to the region’s natural heritage. This system of interconnected open space provides the necessary habitat for the preservation of endangered species, while promoting other land uses outside these areas.

San Diego’s Habitat Plans

In the San Diego region, all areas of the County have been included into one of four habitat conservation plans (see Figure 5.8). The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) South was adopted in 1997 and is in its tenth year of implementation. The Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), completed in 2003, covers the seven jurisdictions in north coastal San Diego County. In the unincorporated areas of the County, two plans are currently being prepared; the MSCP North covering the inland areas of northern San Diego County and the MSCP East, which extends east to the San Diego/Imperial County border. These habitat plans provide the policy framework that allows the jurisdictions to identify how their local land use authority will be used to conserve habitat and open space.

The concept of integrating both infrastructure and ecological planning efforts has been incorporated into the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Sections 6001 and 6002 incorporate specific environmental planning factors into the project development processes, leading to more informed transportation planning decision-making, including the integration of natural resource considerations with transportation needs, prioritized mitigation areas, and the identification of mitigation opportunities having the greatest potential to restore the environmental functions that may be affected by a proposed transportation project. SAFETEA-LU, in conjunction with Executive Order 13274 Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews (2002), led to the creation of the publication Eco-Logical:

A system of interconnected open space provides the necessary habitat for the preservation of endangered species, while promoting other land uses outside these areas.


an Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects, in early 2006 (www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp). This multi-agency publication endorses proactive approaches to compensate for unavoidable impacts caused by infrastructure projects in advance of the need for project-level mitigation. This approach is consistent and further supports the State’s Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP) efforts and the tenets of the regional TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program.

Figure 5.8—Habitat Preserve Planning Areas

Source: Table 4.D-2. Regional Comprehensive Plan, 2004.



TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program

A unique component of the TransNet extension is the creation of an environmental mitigation program (EMP), which goes beyond traditional mitigation for regional and local transportation projects. The EMP includes $650 million dollars for the early acquisition of land to offset the direct impact of upland and wetland habitat from regional and local transportation projects. The early acquisition of land for multiple projects would allow large blocks of land to be acquired in advance of the traditional, project-by-project mitigation. In addition, there is an economic benefit by reducing project mitigation costs through an economy-of-scale and increased purchasing power. It also provides a higher level of certainty for local and regional transportation projects by securing mitigation land well in advance of the need to obtain federal or state regulatory permits. For example, one advanced land acquisition project, the Rancho San Diego Mitigation Bank, has provided cost-effective habitat mitigation for the SR 125 project, minimized project delays, and yielded “mitigation credits” for future transportation projects.

The economic benefit generated by the EMP, estimated at $200 million, allows for additional funding for habitat acquisition, management, and monitoring activities that will help implement the regional habitat conservation plans. In turn, more land that is conserved and managed in the predefined habitat planning areas will result in more certainty for future development projects outside the habitat preserves, including regional and local road projects, by providing advanced protection for endangered and threatened species.

The EMP is a collaborative effort among SANDAG, the cities, the county, the wildlife agencies (California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and other regulatory agencies (Coastal Conservancy, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), as well as representatives of various stakeholder groups, including the environmental community and the science/technical community.

Energy

Energy is fundamental to our regional economy and the quality of life of our residents. Energy lights, heats, and cools our homes and offices, runs our businesses and industrial machines, moves people and goods, and affects nearly every facet of daily life. Energy implications of the transport-ation sector are receiving greater scrutiny and transportation has been identified as the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California.

Measures that reduce our fuel demand and associated emissions, such as better integrated land use and transportation planning, smart growth development, congestion reduction measures, demand reduction measures, and smart growth not only save energy, but also mitigate our

The economic benefit generated by the EMP, estimated at $200 million, allows for additional funding for habitat acquisition, management, and monitoring activities that will help implement the regional habitat conservation plans.


climate change impact. During the next two years, SANDAG will address the energy and climate effects more comprehensively in the update of our Regional Energy Strategy 2030.

Energy and Climate Change

The state has declared that climate change poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environ-ment of California. The potential adverse effects of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels (resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residents), damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.

Since the adoption of the previous RTP, California has undergone significant changes in law and mandate regarding climate change. In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05 calling for statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. In September 2006 the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was signed into law, which creates a statewide GHG emission limit that will reduce emissions by 25 percent by 2020. The law will first require mandatory GHG emission reporting and reductions from the electricity sector. It also requires all state agencies to consider and implement GHG emission reporting and reduction strategies.

The impacts of the regional transportation system on overall energy use are receiving greater scrutiny. Transportation is the largest source of climate change emissions in California. The California legislature has recognized that “passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks are responsible for 40 percent of the total GHG pollution in the state.”

Two approaches to reducing the region’s greenhouse gas emissions are to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and to use cleaner vehicles when traveling. Smart growth and demand management choices are integral components to reducing energy and greenhouse gas emissions in the region. But the increased penetration of alternative fuels and vehicles likely will play a significant role in addressing mobile source emissions. Cleaner vehicles can be highly energy efficient, achieving high miles-per-gallon ratings. They can be hybrids utilizing both electric battery and gasoline or diesel fuel. They can use alternative fuel like biofuels, which emit lower GHG emissions.

The state has declared that climate change poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environ-ment of California.



Saving Energy Through Transportation Choices

Carpooling, vanpooling, and increasing opportunities for riding public transit are ways to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce GHG emissions. The SANDAG RideLink Program offers free services to commuters who would like to find alternatives to driving alone. As of October 2007, RideLink had 572 vanpools carrying more than 4,700 passengers, which in turn saved 585,017 gallons of gas for our region. Single-person trips have been reduced by more than 2 million so far. Alternative modes of transportation also significantly reduce fuel consumption and emissions. Further information on these programs and other efforts can be found in the Demand Management chapter.

Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles

The use of alternative fuels can reduce dependence on foreign oil, provide economic development opportunities, and reduce emissions of GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants. Moving toward a more diversified approach to fuels and supporting the advancement of higher-efficiency vehicles is one of the state’s goals. The California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) set a goal that 20 percent of all transportation energy used in 2020 comes from alternative fuels (current alternative fuel use in 2005 is 6 percent). If California successfully meets this goal, about 4.8 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel will be displaced annually by alternative fuels.

According to a 2005 CEC report, the state’s demand for transportation fuels has increased 53 percent in the last 20 years, and in the next 20 years gasoline and diesel demand will increase another 36 percent. California refineries rely increasingly on imported petroleum products to meet this demand. This growing demand and the increasing challenge faced by refineries in meeting this demand will lead to more frequent price volatility and potential economic dislocation. In 2003 the CEC and CARB adopted a two-pronged strategy to reduce petroleum demand: promoting improved vehicle efficiency and increasing the use of alternative fuels.

In September 2005 Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 1007 requiring the CEC to prepare a state plan no later than June 30, 2007, to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. This state plan also will address potential air quality conflicts to ensure a harmonizing of transportation energy and air quality policies and objectives in the state. Additional alternative transportation efforts are underway in the state and the region. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) has restarted an electric vehicle program, Miramar College is working on programs to encourage transportation efficiency and reduce petroleum usage, and the CEC has a truck stop electrification program and a heavy-duty advanced technology development program.

As of October 2007, RideLink had 572 vanpools carrying more than 4,700 passengers, which in turn saved 585,017 gallons of gas for our region.

The state’s demand for transporta-tion fuels has increased 53 percent in the last 20 years, and in the next 20 years gasoline and diesel demand will increase another 36 percent.


Regarding the availability of alternative fuels in the region, there is only one public alternative fueling station in San Diego that sells ethanol, compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). It is difficult for drivers in the region to switch to alternative fuels when there is limited infrastructure to support it.

In April 2007 SANDAG secured partial funding from the California Energy Commission (CEC) to undertake a two-year project to address regional energy and climate issues. As part of this effort, SANDAG will conduct a study of appropriate locations for siting alternative fuel infrastructure to best leverage geographic, institutional, financial, and environmental resources. The study will guide development of an Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Infrastructure Toolkit for local governments that will contain best practices related to ordinances, analytical tools, financing opportunities, codes, and standards related to saving energy or reducing GHG emissions.

SANDAG also will work with its member agencies to identify opportunities for alternative fuel vehicles both in municipally owned vehicles, as well as those owned by franchisees of these cities, such as trash haulers, green waste haulers, and curbside recyclable haulers. Regarding public transit, a significant shift to alternative fuel vehicles is already underway. As of January 2007, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) has already replaced 360 of its 725 revenue vehicles with alternative fuel buses. Their proposed FY 2008 budget calls for purchase of up to another three new alternative fuel buses. North County Transit District (NCTD) has replaced 79 of its 155 urban buses with CNG buses and has another 12 CNG buses on order.

Furthermore, SANDAG is supportive of the San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) Clean Transportation Program that is undertaking a variety of alternative electric transportation initiatives. This new program aims to reduce fuel consumption, promote the use of electricity as an alternative fuel, reduce dependence on foreign oil and respond to state environ-mental priorities. Focus areas range from on-road electric vehicles, like plug-in, hybrid automobiles, to electric idling initiatives like electrification of cruise ship terminals (cold ironing), to non-road electric vehicles like forklifts and airport ground support equipment. As this program progresses, SANDAG will assess ways electrification may reduce and displace fuel use and associated emissions.

In April 2007 SANDAG secured partial funding from the California Energy Commission (CEC) to undertake a two-year project to address regional energy and climate issues.

As of January 2007, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) has already replaced 360 of its 725 revenue vehicles with alternative fuel buses.



INCENTIVES AND COLLABORATION

The third major theme of the RCP is to implement regional planning policies and objectives through incentives and collaboration. In the following section, current efforts to use incentive programs and collaborative planning to address regional transportation and land use issues are discussed.

Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP)

MOBILITY 2030 called for the creation of a five-year, $25-million pilot program to provide incentives for smart growth development. SANDAG established the Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) in 2005, awarding $19.1 million in Federal Transportation Enhancement funds to 14 local, smart growth development projects. An additional $3.4 million was awarded in 2006, bringing the total to $22.5 million shared among 16 projects.

The pilot program was a precursor to a longer-term smart growth incentive program that will be funded through the local TransNet half-cent sales tax, beginning in FY 2009 when approximately $6 million in funding will be available annually for smart growth projects. The TransNet program will dedicate 2 percent of the annual revenues during its 40-year life, for a total of $280 million of regional funding for smart growth incentives.

These funds can be used to leverage additional funds for smart growth projects through local matching requirements and by seeking other state and federal funding sources, including funds from the statewide housing and infrastructure bonds approved by California voters in 2005. SANDAG is committed to seeking additional funds for the implementation of smart growth plans and projects. The $280 million generated from the TransNet program for smart growth, together with the Smart Growth Concept Map, provide the San Diego region with a robust competitive edge when seeking additional smart growth funds. Consideration should also be considered to leverage other funding to supplement the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program during this RTP cycle.

The $22.5 million Pilot SGIP made grant funds available for projects that incorporated concepts, such as the integration of transportation and land use, or the revitalization of community centers that included making areas more conducive to mixed land uses, transit, walking, and biking. The SANDAG Regional Planning Committee and Transportation Committee, along with working groups of planning and public works directors and other local agencies and stakeholders, were instrumental in crafting the details of this incentive program. These groups will use the lessons learned from the Pilot SGIP to develop criteria for the long-term TransNet SGIP. The initial program objectives focused on funding smart growth projects that were ready to go, influenced land development, supported public

The TransNet program will dedicate 2 percent of the annual revenues during its 40-year life, for a total of $280 million of regional funding for smart growth incentives.


transit, promoted housing development, and demonstrated smart growth in a variety of settings.

While the pilot program only provided funding for capital infrastructure projects, the future program intends to provide funding for both capital projects and planning efforts in areas identified on the Smart Growth Concept Map. At the same time, SANDAG is also working with its member agencies to encourage the State of California to allocate several components of State Infrastructure Bond funds (Proposition 1C and 84) in a way that is consistent with the San Diego region’s smart growth incentive policies and programs.

In addition, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 8, the TransNet Extension Ordinance includes 2 percent of its total funds for bicycle, pedestrian, and neighborhood safety (traffic calming) projects. In conjunction with the Smart Growth Incentive Program funded by TransNet, this funding for nonmotorized transportation projects also will enhance the quality of life in local communities and smart growth areas.

These are key examples of providing incentives and collaboration to implement the smart growth principles contained in the RCP.

Collaboration Efforts

The RCP recognizes that in order to preserve our quality of life, we must prepare not only for our own growth, but for the impacts of the growth taking place beyond our borders in Riverside, Orange, and Imperial Counties, as well as in Tijuana and Tecate, Baja California and with the 18 tribal nations located in the San Diego region.

Over the last several years, SANDAG has been working on joint plans with Riverside County (Phase II of the I-15 Interregional Partnership) and on the Otay Mesa/Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan. Both of these planning efforts address issues related to housing, transportation, jobs, and the environment in their geographic areas, and propose actions in San Diego County, Riverside County, and Tijuana to address related issues. These efforts are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

Coordination with Tribal Nations

There are 17 federally recognized tribal governments with jurisdiction over 18 reservations in the San Diego region – the most in any one county in the United States. SANDAG, along with its partner agencies, has been developing a regional government-to-government framework for ensuring that tribes are involved in the regional transportation planning process in a timely and meaningful way. SANDAG has partnered with two key intertribal organizations – the Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA) and the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association (SCTCA) – to build a context of consultation, cooperation, and coordination.

There are 18 reservations and 17 tribal governments in the San Diego region.



Caltrans and SANDAG conducted a tribal transportation needs assessment, the results of which were discussed in a technical workshop between all of the tribal nations and public agency staff. Strategies were jointly developed to improve tribal transportation programs in the region. SANDAG and the SCTCA, in collaboration with the RTA, co-hosted the 2006 San Diego Regional Tribal Summit, bringing together the 17 tribal nations and the SANDAG Board of Directors to discuss the identified strategies and create a mutually agreed-upon action agenda. Among the next steps, at a policy level, the SCTCA has joined SANDAG as an advisory member to the SANDAG Board and Policy Advisory Committees. At a technical level, an Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues was formed as a forum for tribal governments in the region to discuss and coordinate transportation issues of mutual concern with the various public planning agencies in the region, including SANDAG, Caltrans, the County of San Diego, and the transit agencies. Additional detail on tribal consultation for the Plan is provided in Appendix D.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental Justice is defined as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws and policies. SANDAG plans, projects, and programs, including the RTP, comply with the principles of environmental justice and all associated federal and state requirements.

Environmental Justice encourages better land use decisions, improves access to jobs, helps promote good air quality, and strengthens neighborhoods. It also supports community involvement in regional planning and programming through improved communications and active engagement with the process.

Promoting Public Involvement

In order to avoid any adverse impacts of the RTP on minority1, low-income, or other populations at risk, SANDAG is undertaking a program to promote community involvement in the planning process. Through its expanded community outreach, SANDAG is attempting to learn of the community’s needs for improved transportation and listen to proposals for accomplishing the improvements.

1 Minority groups include African-American, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. In addition, persons of Hispanic ethnicity are considered a minority group.

Environmental Justice encourages better land use decisions, improves access to jobs, helps promote good air quality, and strengthens neighborhoods.


A public outreach program began prior to the release of the Draft 2030 RTP. Appendix C provides additional information about the public out-reach activities. Through this program, SANDAG Directors and staff members have participated in community events throughout the region to discuss transportation needs with residents. In addition, a targeted “mini-grant” program was implemented to provide minority communities, meaningful input into the draft plan as it was being developed. Input provided from this process was incorporated into all components of the RTP.

To remain in contact with the community and open to its comments, SANDAG has a number of committees and working groups to advise it on transportation and transit plans and programs. Comments from the members have guided the development of the 2030 RTP and provided valuable information from the community.

SANDAG will continue to seek out community information through its speaker’s bureau and at community meetings, forums, and events. SANDAG maintains an extensive Web site of information and invites public communications through e-mail, phone, and attendance at meetings.

SANDAG continues its program of promoting the use of public transit and invites the low-income community, especially those who are transit-dependent, to communicate with SANDAG on their needs to access jobs, school, and personal business locations.

Regional Analysis of Environmental Justice Issues

In February 2007 SANDAG finalized its regular Triennial Title VI report in accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements. The quantitative evaluation within the report illustrates the extent to which benefits or adverse impacts of proposed transportation projects and policies affect minority and low-income populations. Geographic Information System (GIS) methods were used to analyze demographic, socio-economic, and transportation data. The primary purpose of this analysis was to determine whether a proposed transportation improve-ment strategy would result in disproportionate negative impacts to minority and low-income populations. If that were the case, the proposed improvements would be evaluated to minimize unfavorable impacts. The results of this analysis did not show substantive disproportionate effects. Additional information is provided in Technical Appendix 5.

SANDAG maintains an extensive Web site of information and invites public communications through e-mail, phone, and attendance at meetings.



Population and Ethnicity

The San Diego region is an ethnically diverse area, and it will become more so by 2030. Just ten years ago, the non-Hispanic White population of the region was 65 percent of total population. Data indicates that non-Hispanic Whites now constitute 52 percent of the population, continuing to decline to 38 percent by 2030. Hispanics comprise 28 percent of the region’s population today and will make up 38 percent of the population by 2030.

Between 2004 and 2030, the Asian/Other population will increase from 14 percent to 19 percent. The Native American population, which is a portion of the Asian/Other population, will remain steady at about 1 percent of the region’s total population. The share of Black/African American population will remain at 5 percent.

Population and Age

The median age of the population of the San Diego region is increasing. In 1990, the median age was 31 years, increasing to almost 33.7 years in 2004. In 2030, median age is expected to increase to 39 years. In 1990, the percent of children under 18 years of age was 24 percent increasing to 25 percent in 2004. By 2030, children under 18 years of age are expected to account for only 21 percent of the population. By 2030 residents of San Diego over the age of 65 will have increased 125 percent, higher than in Florida. This will have a significant impact on transportation planning as the needs of the elderly are different from younger generations. The nature of trip purposes will shift from commuting to other types, such as medical and shopping. There will be an increase in the need for specialized transportation services, requiring more coordinated efforts to accommo-date the shifting demographics. These service issues and specific actions are more fully discussed in Chapter 6.

Income and Other Factors

In 2005, the region’s median household income as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau was $45,000 (in 1999 dollars), with 11 percent of the population of the region living below the federal poverty thresholds. Comparable figures for 2000 were $47,100 median household income and 12 percent of the population below the poverty thresholds. By 2030, the median household income is predicted to increase to $62,600 (in 1999 dollars).

In 2005, 36 percent of the region’s population spoke a language other than English at home.


Other characteristics of the region’s population of concern to Environ-mental Justice programs include the following:

In 2005, 36 percent of the region’s population spoke a language other than English at home.

23 percent of the population was foreign-born.

Persons with disabilities accounted for 13 percent of the non-institutionalized population.

Improving the quality of life of a region means ensuring that the needs and concerns of the most vulnerable populations are a priority. Transportation planning must be done with a wide variety of communities in order to promote regional equity. Significant efforts have been made, and more will continue to be done in ongoing and future planning efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

The SANDAG Board adopted the Regional Comprehensive Plan in 2004, establishing a long-term planning blueprint for the San Diego region. Since then, much work has been done to begin implementing the smart growth and sustainability principles of the RCP. The 2030 RTP is a fundamental component of that implementation.

This is the first time that the region has had a Regional Comprehensive Plan in place while updating its regional transportation plan. This 2030 RTP incorporates many goals and objectives from the RCP, recognizing the iterative nature of the planning process. After the 2030 RTP is adopted, SANDAG will incorporate its transportation principles and actions into the next update of the RCP, realizing the true benefits of the expanding coordination between land use and transportation.

In addition, this chapter provides an overview of environmental justice issues, and how SANDAG is addressing those issues in its planning process. SANDAG has continued to recognize the importance of environmental justice issues, and has made significant progress in the ways that it is considering these issues in its planning and project development decisions.



ACTIONS

The following actions support the Plan’s Land Use-Transportation Connection Chapter recommendations.

LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION


Connecting Land Use and Transportation – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Accessibility, Livability, Sustainability, and Equity.

1. Use the Smart Growth Concept Map as a basis for allocating smart growth incentives, prioritizing transit service enhancements, and seeking additional smart growth funds.

SANDAG

2. Use the Smart Growth Concept Map in updating local general and community plans and zoning codes to encourage smart growth development, including transit-supportive land uses.

Local jurisdictions

3. Update the Smart Growth Concept Map, as needed, to reflect changes to local land use plans and regional transportation and transit networks.

SANDAG and local jurisdictions

4. Develop and adopt Smart Growth Design Guidelines that illustrate and encourage aesthetically pleasing and functional higher density mixed use development, incorporating the land use and transit recommendations of the Independent Transit Planning Review.


5. Through the development review process, continue to provide comments to local jurisdictions that encourage development patterns that support walkability and access to transit in existing and emerging areas, and in areas with major public facilities such as colleges and hospitals.

SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD

6. Support legislation that provides financial incentives for smart growth projects; that helps provide affordable housing near transit; and that addresses fiscal reform issues, consistent with smart growth principles and regional strategies.


7. Pursue joint development opportunities to promote the construction of housing and mixed-use projects at existing and planned transit stations.

SANDAG, local jurisdictions, and private developers

8. Conduct Air Quality Conformity analyses to ensure that transportation plans conform to the current State Implementation Plan (SIP).

SANDAG

9. Collaborate with the region’s public health professionals to determine how SANDAG can address public health issues in its planning, programming and project development activities.

SANDAG and County Heath and Human Services Agency

10. Incorporate the concepts and recommended actions of the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan into the next update of the Regional Comprehensive Plan.

SANDAG




Using Land Use and Transportation Plans to Guide Other Plans and Investments – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Accessibility, Livability, and Sustainability

11. Coordinate and cooperate throughout the region on the planning and implementation of future transportation and habitat preserve infrastructure systems.


12. Design future infrastructure projects in a way that protects wildlife corridors and habitat linkages in designated habitat conservation plans.


13. Continue to secure and distribute regional funding for habitat acquisition and ongoing land management and monitoring in accordance with the approved habitat plans.

SANDAG

14. Manage and monitor the TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP). SANDAG, local jurisdictions, and wildlife agencies

15. Update the region’s long term energy plan, Regional Energy Strategy 2030, to incorporate energy and climate impacts of land use and transportation measures.

SANDAG

16. Develop a regional climate change action plan in coordination with state and local jurisdiction efforts.

SANDAG

17. Prepare an alternative fuel vehicle and infrastructure toolkit for local governments to aid in the transformation of municipally owned or contracted fleets.

SANDAG

Incentives and Collaboration – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Accessibility and Equity.

18. Develop and implement the program guidelines and criteria for the long-term Smart Growth Incentive Program funded by TransNet to provide incentives for integrating transportation and smart growth development.

SANDAG

19. Seek additional Federal, State, and regional funding resources to augment the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program.


20. Collaborate with the tribal nations, based on a government-to-government framework, to implement mutually beneficial transportation and land use strategies.

SANDAG and Tribal Nations





Environmental Justice – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Accessibility and Equity.

21. Seek comments from minority and low income communities in planning and programming efforts to ensure that plans and programs do not adversely affect the communities.

SANDAG

22. Work with the region’s transit operators to ensure that transit services are available to minority, disabled, elderly, and low-income persons so that they have access to services, employment, and schools, as described in Chapter 6.

SANDAG

23. Continue to engage minority communities in the regional transportation planning process through community-based workshops.



CHAPTER 6 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT: MORE TRAVEL CHOICES

This chapter of the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Path-ways for the Future (RTP or the “Plan”) describes the Plan’s priorities for regional transportation infrastructure and service improvements. It includes sections on transit, highways and arterials, intercity and high-speed rail, border improvements, goods movement and intermodal facilities, aviation, and regional bikeways. (Further discussion of non-motorized alternatives is provided in Chapter 8 - Demand Management.)

The existing regional network consists of 610 miles of highways (including 13 miles of high occupancy vehicle lanes), 90 miles of regional transit service, and more than 1,000 miles of regional arterials. When imple-mented, the improvements in the 2030 RTP will develop a system of connected and free-flowing managed/high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes integrated with 24 new or improved high-quality regional transit services.

DEVELOPING THE 2030 RTP NETWORK

The development of the 2030 RTP started by determining the region’s needs for transit, highway, and arterial improvements to meet the travel demand of the 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update. Labeled the Unconstrained Network, we use priorities to identify how much of the network we can build, operate, and maintain given revenue availability and flexibility. The 2030 RTP builds upon the existing transportation system in place today, the major project commitments planned or under construc-tion and closes the gap toward the ultimate network needs of the region.

The recommendations from past and current regional and corridor transportation studies are integral to the development of the Plan (see Appendix F). Since MOBILITY 2030, SANDAG completed the Independent Transit Planning Review, Escondido Rapid Bus Transit Priority Concept Study, I-15 Bus Rapid Transit Operations Report, I-805/I-5 South Corridor Study, Mid-Coast Strategic Transportation Study, and the Tribal Transportation Needs Survey. The recommendations from these studies have been considered in the Plan’s development. In July 2004, SANDAG adopted the Regional Comprehensive Plan, which has been integrated into the development of the RTP. Ongoing studies include the Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan; State Routes (SRs) 75/282 Project Study Report, EIS and EIR; Short-Term Transit Parking Enhancement Strategies Study; Route 67 Project Study Report; and Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor PEIR/EIS, which are evaluating a variety of improvements and strategies to improve mobility in their specific focus areas.

CHAPTER CONTENTS

DEVELOPING THE 2030 RTP NETWORK .............................................06-1

A FOCUS ON REGIONAL PRIORITIES...........06-3

REGIONAL TRANSIT PLAN.............................6-9

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION...................6-24

A FLEXIBLE ROADWAY SYSTEM.................6-24

GOODS MOVEMENT AND INTERMODAL FACILITIES......................6-35

AVIATION AND GROUND ACCESS..............6-46

REGIONAL BIKEWAYS.................................6-50

THE ENHANCED SMART GROWTH LAND USE ALTERNATIVE......................6-56

PLANNING ACROSS BORDERS ....................6-59

ACTIONS ......................................................6-65

Recommendations from past and current regional and corridor trans-portation studies are integral to the development of the Plan.



Individual project recommendations from regional and corridor transportation studies are analyzed using criteria developed to evaluate similar categories of projects. Separate project evaluation criteria have been developed for highway corridor improvement projects, freeway-to-freeway and HOV-to-HOV connectors, regional transit services, and goods movement projects (see Technical Appendices). The relative project rankings in each of these categories are considered in the development of the Plan and in regional programming decisions.

The 2030 RTP is a high-level strategic planning document. The regional transportation improvements included in the Plan are subject to additional, more detailed engineering and environmental analyses as projects move through the development process.

Transportation Alternatives Analysis

To develop the 2030 RTP, SANDAG evaluated various transportation network alternatives to illustrate “what if” scenarios. Initially, different approaches to planning the transit network were evaluated, keeping in mind the potential shared use of the HOV/Managed Lane system. Scenarios were then evaluated at different levels of investment above the constrained revenues level of funding. The SANDAG Board directed evaluating higher levels of investment, given that traditional revenue sources in the Revenue Constrained scenario would not complete the investments in our priority corridors. The chosen level of investment for the Reasonably Expected scenario in the 2030 RTP was then further evaluated by investing the additional regional funding in a particular emphasis – for highways, transit, or balanced between the two.

The balanced approach between transit and highway investments showed the best overall benefit to the region. It provided congestion reduction in the urban core and urban fringe, while at the same time boosting transit ridership. When compared to the Revenue Constrained scenario, the average work trip travel speeds improve 6 percent for autos and 3.5 percent for transit, and the amount of freeway traffic affected by congestion during the peak period drops 25 percent. The results of the alternatives with highway or transit emphasis reflect travel improvements in one area to the detriment of the other. The balanced approach provided relief to already congested corridors around the region, such as Interstate 5 north and south, Interstate 805, and State Route 78. The balanced approach resulted in transit passenger miles going up 4.7 percent over the Revenue Constrained Scenario.

The results of the initial alternatives analysis were considered in the development of the Plan’s Reasonably Expected Revenue Network. Performance measures were evaluated for the improvements and services to individual corridors, and for their benefits systemwide. (The Technical Appendices provide more information about the analysis.)

The balanced approach between transit and highway investments showed the best overall benefit to the region.


The Plan’s Reasonably Expected Revenue Network described in this Systems Development Chapter, combined with Land Use, Systems Management, and Demand Management strategies described in other chapters, are intended to provide the best balance and benefits across all of the RTP goals – Mobility, Livability, Accessibility, Reliability, Efficiency, Sustainability, and Equity.

A FOCUS ON REGIONAL PRIORITIES

Funding for transportation is scarce, and for several decades now, has not kept up with the public’s appetite for travel and demand for transportation services. The 2030 RTP recognizes this fact and calls for pursuit of additional funding while focusing our investment on priority corridors and projects. These priorities are derived from two sources. In 2005 after the passage of the TransNet sales tax extension, the region established the Early Action Program to advance revenues and expedite high-priority improvements included in the sales tax measure. In addition to the commitment to these TransNet projects, shown in Table 6.1, SANDAG prioritized all of the planned transportation projects using adopted transportation project evaluation criteria. The priorities act as a guide to select the multimodal facilities and services that are essential to meeting the mobility and accessibility goals of the region.

Regional facilities and services connect to larger transportation systems beyond the San Diego region’s boundaries (freeways and rail networks in other parts of the state and nation) as well as to local systems of streets and roads and transit services in our communities. Freight also is moved on the regional transportation network, and requires good access and connectivity with local logistics centers and terminals to ensure the efficient transition of goods on and off of the network. The Reasonably Expected Revenue Network shown in Figure 6.1 identifies the regional highway, transit, arterial, and goods movement projects included in the 2030 RTP.

Easing the Commute

Investments in transportation capacity are a top regional priority and support growth management objectives when appropriately designed and implemented. The 2030 RTP looks into the future to deliver a new transportation vision and plan. It focuses on providing viable travel choices during peak hours when most of our traffic congestion occurs.

The 2030 RTP calls for pursuit of additional funding while focusing our investment on priority corridors and projects.



Since much of this demand is driven by the need to commute to and from work and school, the Plan looks at incentives for encouraging alternative commuter travel choices. Transportation Demand Management funding has been increased over the MOBILITY 2030 Plan to place a stronger emphasis on reducing the demand that solo drivers place on the transportation network. This includes making it more convenient, fast, and safe to ride transit, carpool, or vanpool during peak hours, or bike or walk to work or school. In our fast-paced world, saving time is a very real and powerful incentive for encouraging these more sustainable travel choices.

One of the Plan’s major objectives is to provide competitive transit travel times to major job centers, such as downtown San Diego, Sorrento Valley/Sorrento Mesa/University Towne Centre (UTC), Kearny Mesa, Palomar Airport Road, and Otay Mesa. New and improved regional transit services and Managed/HOV lanes for carpools, vanpools, and other users will improve substantially accessibility to these major regional job centers.


Table 6.1—TransNet Early Action Program Project Descriptions

EARLY ACTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

BLUE AND ORANGE LINE TROLLEY IMPROVEMENTS

Vehicle and station upgrades to accommodate low-floor vehicles on the Blue and Orange Trolley Lines

I-5 HOV LANE EXTENSION Extend northbound HOV lane to Manchester Avenue, construct southbound HOV lane between Manchester Avenue and I-805

I-5 LOMAS SANTA FE INTERCHANGE

Reconfigure on-ramps and off-ramps, modify local circulation

I-5 NORTH COAST Complete environmental document for I-5 widening between La Jolla Village Drive and Vandegrift Boulevard

I-15 BRT STATIONS (SR 163 to SR 78)

Modify Escondido transit center, construct transit centers at Del Lago, Rancho Bernardo, Sabre Springs, and Mira Mesa

I-15 BRT STATIONS (Downtown to SR 163) & SERVICE

Construct transit centers at University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard, modify Downtown transit centers, BRT service between Escondido and Downtown San Diego

I-15 FASTRAK® Expand Managed Lane technology between SR 163 and SR 78

I-15 MIDDLE (SR 56 to Centre City Pkwy)

Construct four Managed Lanes with fixed median barrier, add auxiliary lanes

I-15 NORTH (Centre City Pkwy to SR 78)

Construct four Managed Lanes with fixed median barrier, add auxiliary lanes

I-15 SOUTH (SR 163 to SR 56)

Construct four Managed Lanes with moveable median barrier, add auxiliary lanes

I-805 NORTH (SR 52 to I-5)

Complete environmental document for I-805 widening

I-805 MIDDLE (SR 94 to SR 52)


I-805 SOUTH (SR 905 to SR 94)


MID-CITY RAPID BUS Design and operate Rapid Bus service between San Diego State University (SDSU) and Downtown San Diego along El Cajon and Park Boulevards

MID-COAST Construct and operate LRT service between Old Town transit center, University of California at San Diego (UCSD), and University Towne Centre (UTC)

OTAY BRT BRT service between Otay Mesa and Downtown San Diego

SPRINTER Oceanside to Escondido Rail

SR 52 (SR 125 to SR 67)

Complete environmental document for SR 52 Managed Lanes

SR 52 WESTBOUND TRUCK LANE

Extend general purpose lane from 1.4 miles east of Santo Road to I-15

SR 52 MANAGED LANES (I-805 to SR 125)

Construct two Managed Lanes

SR 76 (Melrose to Mission Road)

Widen from two lanes to four lanes

SR 76 (Mission to I-15)

Widen from two lanes to four lanes

SR 76 ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT

Environmental enhancements for SR 76 widening

SUPER LOOP High-frequency circulator route in University City serving UCSD and UTC



CampPendleton

76

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

52

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

Figure 6.1

2030 REASONABLYEXPECTED REVENUE


Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors

HOV/BRT Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Transit/Rail

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

County of San Diego

Camp Pendleton

OrangeCounty

0 3 6

MILES

RiversideCounty

San DiegoCounty

NorthernExtent

5

241



REGIONAL TRANSIT PLAN

The 2030 RTP envisions a regional transit system that is the first choice for many of our trips. The long-range transit vision calls for a network of fast, flexible, reliable, safe, and convenient transit services that connect our homes to the region’s major employment centers and major destinations. This vision was first developed in 2001 when SANDAG, Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), and North Country Transit District (NCTD) adopted the Regional Transit Vision, setting in place the framework for transit improvements in MOBILITY 2030 in 2003 and now in the 2030 RTP.

Independent Transit Planning Review

In refining the current Regional Transit Plan, an Independent Transit Planning Review (ITPR) of the transit element of MOBILITY 2030 was used as input. The ITPR resulted from the passage of the TransNet Extension in 2004, which included a commitment to conduct an independent assessment to help determine the most cost-effective and cost-efficient service and infrastructure plan for the region. This review process included the formation of a peer review panel of transit and land use experts from across North America, and a consultant team that conducted the technical studies. The ITPR was completed in June 2006 when the SANDAG Board of Directors accepted the ITPR report for planning purposes for the preparation of the 2030 RTP. The final ITPR report was issued in December 2006.

The key recommendations from the ITPR panel are summarized below, along with a discussion on how they were used in the development of the 2030 Regional Transit Plan (Table 6.2).

Transit Market Research

The Regional Transit Plan is based in part on private-sector market research conducted in 2000 by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) and NCTD that identified the critical attitudes and preferences that influence San Diegans’ daily travel choices. Daily travel needs may include commuting to work or school, shopping for food, clothing, or services, or traveling to the movies or to visit friends. The type and timing of a trip and a variety of other factors influence our decision to travel by transit or private automobile. For instance, if we’re taking our kids to the movies, we are probably more likely to drive a car, because of the size of our party and because parking is free at the theater. We may be more likely to take transit to work, if we are traveling at a time when the freeways are most congested, our transit trip is convenient, and we have to pay to park at our work site.

The long-range transit plan calls for a network of fast, flexible, reliable, safe, and convenient transit services that connect our homes to the region’s major employment centers and major destinations.



Table 6.2—ITPR Transit Planning Recommendations

ITPR Recommendation 2030 RTP Response

The transit planning approach should be a top-down effort, starting with creating a good system plan.

The RTP is a comprehensive regional vision for transit based on a network of rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), arterial rapid bus, and local bus services working together as a system to address a wide range of travel needs.

Use of corridor or sub-area transit mode share goals are a more effective strategy than a single regional mode share goal.

Specific corridor mode share goals that are tied to the transit investments planned for these corridors are included in this 2030 RTP.

The preponderance of transit funding should be applied to corridors that serve higher concentrations of transit riders.

This plan puts a greater emphasis on serving the region’s urban core areas and smart growth areas where land use densities and urban design are conducive to transit. For example, 21 of the 24 new or improved transit services in the Reasonably Expected Scenario serve the region’s urban core area.

Transit investments can help steer growth into smart growth centers/corridors; highway investment should support transit services by developing HOV and other high occupancy facilities that benefit public transit.

The adoption of the Regional Comprehensive Plan has enabled an integration of land use and transit planning; the Smart Growth Concept Map and 2030 RTP were developed in a joint planning effort to ensure that both plans are supportive of one another.

Downtown San Diego is a key to the success of the regional transit system.

As part of the urban core focus, downtown represents one of the key areas where significant improvements are planned for rail, BRT, arterial rapid, and local bus services. For example, 18 of the 24 new or improved transit services in the Reasonably Expected Scenario serve the Downtown San Diego area.

The priority for major transit capital investment should not be directed toward the Managed Lanes corridors, but consideration should be given to exploiting the potential of managed lanes for transit.

While Managed Lanes facilities represent an important part of the overall 2030 RTP network, including development of freeway-based BRT services, most of the RTP transit service improvements occur outside the freeway corridors with local bus, arterial rapid bus, and rail services.

Evaluate various service options for Managed Lanes BRT operations, including dedication of lanes to transit, creation of separate transit guideways, and two-lane versus four-lane facilities.

A number of alternative Managed Lanes scenarios were evaluated and documented in a December 2006 Transportation Committee report. The 2030 RTP reflects the current multimodal strategy continues to be the optimal scenario for meeting both transit and highway travel needs within those corridors.

More emphasis should be placed on exclusive bus corridors/busways rather than fitting them into highway corridors.

Two transit guideway projects are included in the RTP based on their potential cost-effectiveness in providing for high-speed travel for BRT, Rapid Bus, and local bus services: the Downtown to Kearny Mesa corridor and the University City/Sorrento Mesa area. Feasibility studies will be needed to evaluate routing alignment options and develop more detailed cost estimates.

Upgrade local services incrementally toward achieving BRT service in arterial corridors, not just highway corridors.

The RTP acknowledges there are various levels of BRT services that can be upgraded over time. The Regional Transit Plan provides a significant investment in upgrading local bus service frequencies and developing a system of low capital cost arterial rapid services that would offer higher-speed services for longer distance tripmaking through use of limited stops and transit priority measures. Arterial rapid services could evolve into full BRT services with additional capital investment over time. An example of this is the Mid-City Rapid Bus service, which is scheduled for initial implementation as an Arterial Rapid transit service, but is expected to be upgraded to full BRT service by 2030.

Recognize that corridors can include several types of BRT. The freeway BRT corridors would have both all-day, all-stop trunk service, along with peak-period limited stop service aimed at providing one-seat rides in high demand corridors connecting to key regional employment centers.


By segmenting the travel market, it is possible to identify potential system changes, which can influence ridership of different groups. For example, increasing transit speeds may attract persons who want to get to their destinations as quickly as they can, while improving the look and feel of transit vehicles may attract those who prefer a more comfortable travel experience over a faster ride.

In preparing updates to their transit plans, MTDB and NCTD undertook extensive surveys of residents from all parts of the region. Conducted in spring 2000, the surveys were used to better understand the different travel markets in the region and the attributes and sensitivities that are part of a person’s decision on the mode he or she chooses for making a trip.

Market research, trip movement analysis, and input from local jurisdictions were used to develop four transit service concepts. Each transit service concept accommodates distinct market needs and together, provides a network of complementary services to the region.

Regional Yellow Car services provide the fastest type of service and are designed to serve longer-distance regional trip making. Yellow Car services would need a high level of transit priority treatments in order to maintain high travel speeds, and would have limited station stops.

Corridor-level Red Car services provide rapid, very frequent transit services along the region’s major travel corridors, serving medium-distanced trip making. Extensive use of transit priority measures plays an important role to allow bypass of congested segments. Stops would be more frequent than Yellow Car services, but still have a wider average spacing than Blue Car services in order to facilitate higher speed travel.

Blue Car services provide for shorter-distanced tripmaking with frequent stops. While the nature of these services means a lower average travel speeds than the Yellow and Red Car service concepts, use of spot transit priority measures would be advantageous in areas with severe congestion.

Green Car services are local shuttles that circulate through local communities and employment centers to connect people to and from their homes and work sites and Yellow and Red Car services.

Link with Transit Agency Plans

In 2006 MTS completed the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) to restructure metropolitan area transit services to better address current travel patterns and markets. The goals are to improve the attractiveness and effectiveness of bus and trolley services and achieve long-term financial sustainability through increased ridership and productivity. The COA also set a goal of establishing headways of 15 minute all-day service on routes in key corridors within the urban core. The system changes and the headway goals are incorporated into the 2030 RTP.

Increasing transit speeds may attract persons who want to get to their destinations as quickly as they can, while improving the look and feel of transit vehicles may attract those who prefer a more comfortable travel experience over a faster ride.

In 2006 MTS completed the Compre-hensive Operational Analysis (COA) to restructure metropolitan area transit services to better address current travel patterns and markets.



In 2006 NCTD began the North County Transit Plan, a detailed effort to coordinate BREEZE bus services with the start-up of SPRINTER rail service in December 2007. These system changes and headway goals along major North County corridors also are incorporated into the 2030 RTP.

Regional Transit Plan Elements

Based on input from the Independent Transit Planning Review, transit market research, and the MTS/NCTD short-range transit plans, a number of key elements were identified to guide the development of the Regional Transit Plan. The aim is the development of a strong system design that, combined with strong transit/land use integration, seeks to maximize the role public transportation can play in addressing regional mobility needs. Key elements of the transit system plan include:

Transit Priority Measures: In order for transit to offer competitive travel times with the automobile and ensure transit trip reliability, the plan puts a strong investment in transit priority measures to bypass congested arterial and freeway segments. When used on a corridor-wide basis, the use of transit priority measures also can reduce operating costs, leading to a more cost-efficient system. The types of transit priority measures used by transit service type are discussed in the next section.

Transit Service Types: The transit plan builds off the existing investment in rail and bus services, introduces new products (Bus Rapid Transit and Arterial Rapid), and upgrades the rail network and local bus services in order to provide a range of products designed to serve the different travel needs in the region. Using the transit service concepts developed as part of the transit market research discussed above, there are four groups of fixed-route transit service modes that are included in the RTP transit plan:

— Commuter Rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services facilitate long-distance trip-making based on the Yellow Car service concept. High operating speeds are achieved by long station spacing (4-5 miles on average for BRT) and dedicated rights-of-way for transit that bypass congested areas. Dedicated rights-of-way for BRT services include taking advantage of freeway Managed Lanes/HOV facilities (managed to ensure free-flow travel for transit), along with dedicated transit guideways in key high volume transit travel corridors where Managed Lanes/HOV facilities are not planned. All-day, all-stop trunk BRT services are complemented with peak-period commuter express services designed to provide very limited stop, “one-seat ride” connections to key regional employment centers. Capital improvements, including the completion of Coastal rail double-tracking, are key to adding additional commuter rail service.

Aim of the RTP is the development of a strong system design that, combined with strong transit/land use integration, seeks to maximize the role public transportation can play in addressing regional mobility needs.


— Light Rail and Arterial Rapid Bus services facilitate medium distance tripmaking based on the Red Car service concept. Station spacing is three-quarters to one mile on average and a variety of transit priority measure strategies are used to maximize operating speeds. Light rail often may operate in dedicated rights-of-way or along arterial streets with block signaling or other signal treatments. Arterial Rapid Bus services provide higher-speed alternatives to local bus services in high volume arterial corridors and utilize a range of lower-capital cost signal priority treatments, short segments of transit-only lanes, and limited station stops to achieve faster travel times. Arterial Rapid services can be upgraded to BRT over time through use of dedicated transit lanes to bypass congested arterial segments.

— Local Bus services facilitate shorter-distance tripmaking within our communities with frequent station spacing based on the Blue Car service concept. Local Bus services serve as the backbone of the transit system that provides the primary access into communities where fixed-route services are warranted.

— Shuttle Bus services are designed to provide intra community circulation based on the Green Car service concept. The success of these types of service is premised on high service frequencies and strong demand for both intra community trip making and distributors for Commuter Rail, Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail, and Arterial Rapid services in regional employment centers and high density residential/commercial areas.

Transit Experience: In order to attract new market segments to public transportation, the customer experience must be considered. Factors ranging from transit access (e.g., ability to safely cross a streets, station amenities, real-time information) to vehicle design (e.g., interior design, seat availability and comfort, WiFi connections) play a key role in a person’s decision on whether to choose transit. The plan factors in capital and operating cost resources to implement a high quality transit product.

Urban Core Focus: The plan also showcases the integration of public transportation and local land uses, a central theme of the 2030 RTP. Transit investments are focused in the urban core areas where the greatest population densities and the highest concentration of smart growth land uses either already exist or are planned. In suburban areas, investments are made in the more developed corridors and where smart growth projects also are planned for the future. In both cases, transit is integrated into communities that are pedestrian-friendly and serve as pleasant wait environments for transit customers.

Rail Network Investment: The plan commits resources for both the rehabilitation and expansion of the current light rail and commuter rail system.

Transit investments are focused in the urban core areas where the greatest population densities and the highest concentration of smart growth land uses either already exist or are planned.



Senior and Human Service Transportation: As our population ages, the percentage of persons 60 years and older is forecast to more than double between now and 2030. The plan places increased attention on transportation for seniors, along with services for persons with limited means and individuals with disabilities that are coordinated with conventional fixed-route services.

Implementing the Regional Transit Plan: The Reasonably Expected Transit Network

Because there are insufficient resources to implement the full Regional Transit Plan developed as part of the Unconstrained Network, a subset of priority services were developed as the Reasonably Expected Transit Network. These priorities are based on project rankings established in collaboration with MTS and NCTD and using project evaluation criteria approved by the SANDAG Board. The Reasonably Expected Transit Network is shown in Figure 6.2 and outlined in Table 6.3. Highlights from this plan include:

Investments in Existing Transit System Improvements. Significant changes have been made to both the MTS and NCTD systems in recent years that have resulted in improved system cost-effectiveness and service levels in the urban core areas that have strong transit-supportive land uses. Additional investment is included in the Transit Plan to bring existing bus services in key travel corridors up to the service goal of 15 minute or better all-day service frequencies. In addition, the plan includes significant capital investment to rehabilitate and expand the carrying capacity of the existing Commuter Rail and Light Rail network.

TransNet Early Action Program. MTS, NCTD, and SANDAG have worked cooperatively to develop a number of short-range transit projects that will put the initial phases of the plan on the street for people to experience first hand. These early action projects are expected to be implemented over the next three to five years, and include the UTC/UCSD Super Loop shuttle, South Bay and I-15 BRT projects, and Mid-Coast LRT.1 These projects will play close attention to customer amenities, demonstrate the integration of transit and land use policies, and help build public support for future investments.

While the planning continues for the I-15 BRT through Mid-City, cross-over centerline stations are no longer possible due to operational safety issues. SANDAG, Caltrans, and the City Heights community will be developing a design for bus rapid transit stations in conjunction with community planning for transit oriented development, with a goal of implementation in coordination with the startup of I-15 BRT service in 2012.

1 Light rail transit (LRT) is the currently adopted Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the

Mid-Coast corridor. The 2004 TransNet measure assumes LRT in the corridor unless federal funding cannot be secured.

Additional investment is included in the Transit Plan to bring existing bus services in key travel corridors up to the service goal of 15 minute or better all-day service frequencies.



Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

San Marcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

County of San Diego

Camp Pendleton

MAP AREA

Figure 6.2

2030TRANSIT NETWORK

(With Route Numbers)

November 2007

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Light Rail/Commuter Rail

Bus Rapid Transit

Rapid Bus

76

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

52

399

399

398

398

398570

510

611

610628

520

610680

210610

680

210

530

470610

530

634

10

120

120

640

628680

11

11

90

472

399

30

41

2 955

472

510

530

470

350



Table 6.3—New or Improved Transit Routes

SEQ. # DESCRIPTION PEAK

HEADWAY (minutes)

OFF-PEAK HEADWAY (minutes)

634 UCSD/UTC Super Loop 10 15

350 Escondido Rapid Bus 10 10

510 Increase in Existing Blue Line Trolley Service (current headways 7½/15) 7½ 7½

611 Mid-City Rapid Bus from SDSU to Downtown San Diego via El Cajon Boulevard and Park Boulevard

10 10

530 Increase in Existing Green Line Trolley Service (current headways 15/15) 7½ 7½

610 Escondido to Downtown San Diego via I-15/ SR 94* 10 15

680 Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa via I-805/I-15/SR 52 10 15

628 Otay Mesa to Downtown San Diego via I-805/SR 94 10 15

398 Increase in Existing COASTER Service (current headways 36/120)** 20 60

520 Increase in Existing Orange Line Trolley Service (current headways 15/15-30) 7½ 15

570 Mid-Coast Trolley from Downtown San Diego to Sorrento Mesa 7½ 7½

399 Increase in SPRINTER Rail Service (opening headways 30/30) 15 15

470 Riverside County to UTC/UCSD via Mira Mesa Boulevard (and via Carroll Canyon after 2020)***

10-30 15-60

120 Kearny Mesa to Downtown San Diego via 4th/5th/SR 163 Corridor Guideway 10 10

640 San Ysidro to Downtown San Diego and Kearny Mesa via I-5 and 4th/5th/SR 163 Corridor Guideway

7½ 7½

10 La Mesa to Old Town via University Avenue 10 10

90 El Cajon to Downtown San Diego via SR 125 & SR 94 10 10

11 SDSU to Downtown San Diego and Spring Valley via Adams, 1st Street, and Logan

15 15

210 Mira Mesa to Downtown San Diego via I-15 and SR 94 10 15

2 North Park to Downtown San Diego via 30th Street and Broadway 10 10

30 UTC to Downtown San Diego via La Jolla Village Drive, La Jolla Boulevard, Grand Avenue, and I-5

10 10

955 SDSU to National City via 54th Street, Euclid Avenue, and Main Street 10 10

41 Fashion Valley to UTC/UCSD via SR 163, Genesee Avenue, and La Jolla Village Drive

10 10

472 Oceanside to UTC via El Camino Real and I-5 10 10

* I-15 BRT services includes all-day core service (Route 610) and peak period express services (Routes 607 and 608) ** average headways *** peak headways at 10 minutes to Escondido and 30 minutes to Riverside County; off peak headways at 30 minutes to

Escondido and 60 minutes to Riverside County



Transit Guideways. Two transit guideway projects are included: Downtown San Diego to Kearny Mesa guideway via the 4th/5th/6th/SR 163 corridor and University City-Sorrento Mesa guideway. While both guideways show strong benefits in terms of ridership and travel time benefits, feasibility studies will be needed to assess alignments, stations, environmental/community issues, and capital costs.

Regional Rail Grade Separations. Many of the new or improved transit services in the Transit Plan use regional arterials and traverse the street network. As transit service frequency is increased over time, it will become important to examine the need for rail grade separations at critical intersections throughout the region. The 2030 RTP includes $671 million for regional rail grade separations, which will be allocated to prioritized intersections according to the SANDAG Board approved criteria. The regional rail grade separations criteria were developed in coordination with SANDAG, the transit agencies, and local jurisdictions. The $671 million is intended to fund those top priority projects as determined through this regional evaluation. However, if grade separations are required in order to add rail service, funds have been dedicated to specific projects. For example, grade separations along the Blue Line Trolley in Chula Vista and key intersections along the SPRINTER corridor have been funded as part of that particular transit project.

Transit Station and Parking Improvements. Providing transit station improvements as well as adequate parking at existing and future major transit stations is essential to the success of the Plan. The 2030 RTP includes nearly $604 million for improvements to existing commuter and light rail stations as well as for new transit stations. Proposed improvements include real-time information displays, customer waiting areas, and other features that integrate transit stations into community centers. An additional $735 million is allocated for parking facilities at major transit stations.

Freeway Shoulder Use. Many of the Plan’s new BRT services ultimately take advantage of the Managed Lane/HOV network proposed in the 2030 RTP. However, for the newer transit services that are moving ahead of the completion of Managed Lane/HOV facilities, the Plan assumes that these services would operate on freeway shoulder lanes on a limited basis during congested periods. Limited use of freeway shoulder lanes would allow transit services to bypass traffic bottlenecks and provide competitive travel times. Since 2005, the Buses on Shoulders Demonstration Project has been operating successfully along Interstate 805 and State Route 52. SANDAG, Caltrans, and MTS are pursuing legislation to continue the demonstration project and to expand the project to include other freeway shoulder lanes throughout the county.

The 2030 RTP includes $671 million for regional rail grade separations.

The 2030 RTP includes $1.3 billion for improvements to existing stations serving the COASTER and Trolley and for new Yellow and Red Car stations. Improvements include parking structures, real-time information displays, and other customer features.


Transit Priority Measures and Enhancements. As noted above, key elements of the Plan are a variety of arterial transit priority treatments such as signal priority and queue jumps that improve transit speeds within a mixed-flow travel environment without the need for dedicated transit lanes. Along with priority measures, arterial transit stations will improve with added amenities such as real-time “next bus” information signs, enhanced shelters and benches, and unique station branding. The lower capital costs for these priority measures offer a more cost-effective solution to improving transit in arterial corridors than the higher cost dedicated facilities for BRT service. These enhancements also will benefit local transit services. The 2030 RTP includes $250 million for these improvements.

Senior and Human Service Transportation. SANDAG annually develops a Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan to coordinate fixed route transit service, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) service, community-based, non-profit and private services. Where the 2030 RTP provides a broad framework for these services, the Coordinated Plan provides the specific implementation strategies to guide these investments.

For fixed-route transit services, ADA requires that all transit vehicles have wheelchair lifts and other equipment to make them accessible to persons with disabilities. In addition, transit operators must provide a complementary service for those persons who, because of their disabilities, are unable to travel to the transit station. In compliance with federal and state regulations, all transit vehicles in the region are equipped with lifts and other accessibility features. A complementary paratransit system also is in place, providing curb-to-curb services to those who are ADA certified eligible. In addition to increases in existing fixed route transit services, the 2030 RTP calls for the ADA service budget to increase by 3 percent per year, equivalent to the average annual rate of growth of persons 60 years and older in the region.

The TransNet Senior Mini-Grant Program includes $1 million annually beginning in FY 2009 for specialized transportation services for seniors, based on a competitive process. Eligible projects would include local shuttles, volunteer driver programs, nutrition programs, taxi vouchers, and hospital transportation services. The 2030 RTP calls for funding to increase to $5 million annually for this program.



Coastal Rail Improvement Program

Our coastal rail corridor, a predominantly single-track railway, is shared by commuter and intercity passenger and freight rail services. On an annual basis, more than 4.5 million commuters ride COASTER trains south or Metrolink trains north from Oceanside using the coastal rail corridor. The corridor is part of Amtrak’s second busiest intercity rail corridor nationwide (carrying another 2.7 million annual passengers), and also is served by Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight rail services. Facing shared challenges, the 2030 RTP targets critical improvements in areas that will benefit all users of the coastal rail corridor, including future increases in both passenger and freight services.

The Plan includes substantial improvements to the corridor, including the completion of double tracking the rail line between Orange County and Downtown San Diego and tunnels at Del Mar and University City. Tunnel studies will be conditional upon appropriate environmental impact and alternative analyses. Station improvements include parking structures at most stations, as well as real-time information and other improvements. The feasibility of a seasonal platform at the Del Mar Racetrack also will be assessed. The state of rail bridges is a critical issue for the corridor and one focus of this plan is to replace aging single-track timber trestle bridges with modern double-tracked structures.

This corridor also is a priority for the State of California. For nearly 30 years, the State has supported Pacific Surfliner services both with capital and operating assistance. During this period, 87 percent of capital funding has been contributed by state and federal sources. These have resulted in faster, more frequent and convenient service, improved stations, and increased ridership through the coastal corridor.

Amtrak’s intercity passenger rail network connects the region to the rest of the nation with stations at Downtown San Diego, Solana Beach, and Oceanside. Our region is part of Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner Corridor, a 351-mile corridor that stretches between San Diego to Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo. Two-thirds of the 2.7 million annual Amtrak passengers use the region’s three intercity stations. Figure 6.3 displays the Southern California intercity rail network.

The Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency coordinates planning and programming on the coastal rail line. SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD are voting members of LOSSAN along with regional transportation and planning agencies in Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. LOSSAN sets priorities for improvements in the corridor that will increase the capacity of the rail line and the reliability of service. NCTD is the owner of the railway between the Orange County line and the southern limits of the City of Del Mar. MTS owns the railway south to the Santa Fe Depot in the City of San Diego. NCTD operates and maintains the entire San Diego County portion of the LOSSAN corridor.

The 2030 RTP includes substantial improvements to the coastal rail corridor, including the completion of double tracking the rail line between Orange County and Downtown San Diego.

Our coastal rail corridor, a predom-inantly single-track railway, is shared by commuter and intercity passenger and freight rail services. Facing shared challenges, the 2030 RTP targets critical improvements in areas that will benefit all users of the coastal rail corridor.

OR

AN

GE

SAN

DIE

GO

SAN

LU

ISO

BIS

PO

RIV

ERSI

DE

SAN

BER

NA

RD

INO

KER

N

LOS

AN

GEL

ES

VEN

TUR

A

SAN

TAB

AR

BA

RA

IMPE

RIA

L

OR

AN

GE

SAN

DIE

GO

SAN

LU

ISO

BIS

PO

RIV

ERSI

DE

SAN

BER

NA

RD

INO

KER

N

LOS

AN

GEL

ES

VEN

TUR

A

SAN

TAB

AR

BA

RA

IMPE

RIA

L

Nevad

a

Nevad

a

Calif

orni

a

Calif

orni

a

San

ta F

e D

epo

t

Sola

na

Bea

ch

Oce

ansi

de

Tran

sit

Cen

ter

San

Cle

men

teSa

n J

uan

Cap

istr

ano

Irvi

ne

San

ta A

na

An

ahei

mFu

llert

on

Van

Nu

ysB

urb

ank

Air

po

rt -

Bo

b H

op

e A

irp

ort

Gle

nd

ale

Los

An

gel

es U

nio

n S

tati

on

San

Lu

is O

bis

po

San

ta M

aria

Lom

po

cSo

lvan

g

San

ta B

arb

ara

Ven

tura

Oxn

ard Cam

arill

o

Mo

orp

ark

Sim

i Val

ley

Pism

o B

each

Ata

scad

ero

Paso

Ro

ble

s

Ch

atsw

ort

h

Gu

adal

up

e

Surf

Go

leta

Car

pin

teri

a

Gro

ver

Bea

ch

Fig

ure

6.3

LOS A

NG

ELE

S -

SA

N D

IEG

O -

SA

N L

UIS

OB

ISPO

(LO

SSA

N)

RA

IL C

OR

RID

OR

No

vem

ber

2007

Inte

rcit

y R

ail -

Paci

fic

Surf

liner

(Lo

s A

ng

eles

- S

an D

ieg

o -

San

Lu

is O

bis

po

)

Co

nn

ecti

ng

Co

mm

ute

r/Li

gh

t R

ail S

ervi

ces

(In

clu

din

g f

utu

re)

Oth

er A

mtr

ak C

on

nec

tio

ns

AM

BU

S

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail S

tati

on

s

Inte

rcit

y an

d/o

rC

om

mu

ter

Rai

l Sta

tio

ns

Futu

re R

ail S

tati

on

s

Map

No

t to

Sca

le



In 2004 Caltrans finalized the LOSSAN Strategic Business Plan, a program of rail priority projects from Los Angeles to San Diego. This document was the precursor to the LOSSAN Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (PEIR/EIS), finalized in 2007. It is the intent of SANDAG and other corridor rail agencies to use this docu-ment as the long-range rail plan to make improvements or conduct project-specific environmental work and alternatives analysis in areas where a preferred alignment has not been chosen.

High-Speed Rail Services

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) was created by the California Legislature in 1996 to develop a plan for the construction, operation, and financing of a statewide, intercity high-speed passenger rail system. The Authority has developed plans for an 800-mile system, which consists of five corridors connecting the major metropolitan areas of the state. Trains could reach speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour in more rural areas on a dedicated, fully grade-separated system, making it possible to travel from San Diego to San Francisco in under four hours, according to preliminary travel time analyses.

The San Diego region would be connected to the proposed high-speed rail system by two potential corridors—the Inland Corridor and the Coastal Corridor. The Inland Corridor (Los Angeles to San Diego via Riverside County) stretches from the Los Angeles area through the Riverside and Temecula areas to downtown San Diego via Interstate 15. The Coastal Corridor (Los Angeles to San Diego via Orange County) stretches from the Los Angeles area through Orange County and terminates at Anaheim. Existing commuter and intercity passenger rail services would feed into the high-speed rail network at this point.

A programmatic environmental impact report/environmental impact statement for the proposed statewide high-speed rail network was certified by the Authority in November 2005. Current law states that a $9.95 billion bond measure will be on the November 2008 California ballot, to fund the Bay Area to Los Angeles segment of the proposed plan. As preliminary engineering work continues on all corridors, SANDAG has dedicated $100 million in the 2030 RTP to match state and federal funds for high-speed passenger rail service along the I-15 corridor.

The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) completed a feasibility study in 2007 of proposed commuter rail service to Downtown San Diego along I-15. This proposed commuter service would use the alignment proposed by the Authority and would either use (1) existing commuter rail equipment or (2) high-speed commuter equipment and share the facility with the high-speed intercity service. RCTC decided not to pursue this service at this time.

High-speed rail trains could reach speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour in more rural areas on a dedicated, fully-grade-separated system, making it possible to travel from San Diego to San Francisco in under four hours.



EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

In January 2007 the SANDAG Transportation Committee discussed a White Paper on Emerging Technologies in Transportation. The paper reviewed a number of emerging technologies that are designed to add capacity to our transportation system, including magnetic levitation (Maglev), personal rapid transit and group rapid transit, and other conceptual systems. Many are high-speed, grade-separated systems that offer alternatives to our traditional modes of public transportation.

In FY 2006 SANDAG studied the possibility of a Maglev system along an East-West corridor between downtown San Diego and a possible future airport site in Imperial County. The study found that this system would be feasible but noted lack of operational experience, particularly in mountainous terrain and through long tunnels. Fares were expected to cover the operations and maintenance costs. Capital costs ranged from $15.2 billion to $18.2 billion for alignments that ranged from 79 miles to 98 miles in length (more information is found in Appendix F).

Pending a change in federal funding legislation, SANDAG also plans to study the potential for Maglev in a north-south corridor that could connect to a Maglev system that is currently planned by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). This will be part of SANDAG’s proposed Air-Rail Network Study to address both airport capacity and rail connections and how high-speed rail can help alleviate short-haul airport demand. The study is proposed to conclude in FY 2010.

A FLEXIBLE ROADWAY SYSTEM

Roadways in the region serve multiple purposes and accommodate different types of travel. They accommodate transit vehicles, automobiles, movement of freight, and bicycles. The local streets and arterials connecting our communities are typically used for shorter trips, while the region’s highways link our homes with major job and activity centers and accommodate our longer trip needs. The 2030 RTP recognizes that improvements and capacity enhancements are needed to improve mobility on our highways and regional arterial networks, especially where transit and other alternatives are not as feasible as they are in the region’s more urbanized areas.

The Plan’s 2030 vision is for a flexible highway system in which the same lanes used by transit also are utilized by carpools, vanpools, and fee-paying patrons (similar to FasTrak® where fees fund transit services in the I-15 corridor). As shown in Figure 6.4, the 2030 RTP includes an extensive network of Managed/HOV lanes which are critical to many of the Plan’s regional transit services.

The Plan’s 2030 vision is for a flexible highway system in which the same lanes used by transit also are utilized by carpools, vanpools, and fee-paying patrons.

SANDAG has proposed an Air-Rail Network that will address both airport capacity and rail connec-tions and how high-speed rail can help alleviate short-haul airport demand.



Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

Camp Pendleton

76

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

52

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

Figure 6.4

2030HIGHWAY NETWORK

November 2007

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors

HOV/BRT Connectors

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

C =

E =

F =

HOV =

MB =

ML =

T =

Conventional Highway

Expressway

Freeway

High Occupancy Vehicle

Movable Barrier

Managed Lanes

Toll Road

OrangeCounty

0 3 6

MILES

RiversideCounty

San DiegoCounty

NorthernExtent

5

241

4E

6F+2HOV

10F+4ML/MB

10F+4ML/MB

4C

4F

6F+2ML(Reversible)

4F

8F+4ML

8F+4ML

8F+2HOV

8F+2HOV

4T

6F 8F+2HOV8F+4ML

6F

8F

2C

2C

2C

8F+4ML

8F

2C

10F

4F

6F

6F

8T

6F+2HOV8F+

2HOV

8F

8F+4T

4C

14F+4ML

2C

4F

8F+4ML

8F+4ML

8F+4ML

8F +4ML

4T/6T

6F

8F+4T

8F+2HOV

8F+2HOV

6F



The Managed/HOV lanes operate at free-flow speeds, provide a quicker ride to high occupancy vehicles, and several of them also serve solo drivers who want to pay a fee to save time. Table 6.4 summarizes the major capital improvements included in the 2030 RTP. Highway and regional arterial improvements in the Plan are integrated and coordinated to support as well as complement the expanded transit system.

Completing Regional Highways

The 2030 RTP includes the funding to maintain and preserve the existing highway system (see Chapter 4 – Financial Strategies). Improving the efficiency of the regional transportation system also is one of the Plan’s priorities, and Systems Management and Demand Management strategies are discussed in detail in Chapters 7 and 8.

After these basic needs, the Plan’s priorities are completing missing links in the regional highway system and developing a Managed Lane/HOV network that will serve multiple modes. The Plan will complete highways such as SR 52 in Santee, and State Routes 11, 125, and 905 serving the South Bay and our border with Mexico. These same facilities serve both commuter and freight travel in the region. Two new freeway-to-freeway connections will be completed along Interstate 5 at its junctions with State Routes 56 and 78, and the interim connectors at State Routes 94/125 will be replaced with a full facility. Highway capital improvements make up about $12 billion of the Plan.

The Managed Lane/HOV Network

Unlike neighboring Orange and Los Angeles Counties to the north, the San Diego region lacks an HOV network on our regional highways. Currently, about 13 miles of mainline HOV facilities exist on portions of Interstates 5, 15, and 805. The 2030 RTP will develop a robust Managed Lane /HOV network that includes major four-lane managed facilities on Interstates 5, 15, and 805 and HOV facilities on State Routes 52, 78, 94, and 125 (totaling more than 200 mainline miles). The managed lane facilities on Interstates 5 and 805 are modeled after the I-15 Managed Lanes project.

The I-15 model showcases the integration of transit and roadways into a flexible transportation system for the corridor. Currently under construc-tion, the I-15 Managed Lanes will create a 20-mile managed lane facility between State Routes 163 and 78. When completed, it will feature a four-lane HOV facility with a movable barrier (similar to the movable barriers on the San Diego-Coronado Bridge), multiple access points to the regular highway lanes, and direct access ramps for buses and other high occupancy vehicles. A high frequency rapid bus system would operate in these lanes, connecting North County areas to job centers at Sorrento Valley/Sorrento Mesa/UTC and downtown San Diego.

The Plan will complete highways such as SR 52 to Santee, and State Routes 11, 125, and 905 serving the South Bay and our border with Mexico.



Table 6.4—Major Capital Improvements – Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario

Transit Facilities Cost ($ millions)

SPRINTER Rail $484 Mid-Coast Light Rail $1,008 Downtown to Kearny Mesa Guideway $660 Sorrento Mesa Guideway $450 Transit Parking Structures $735 SPRINTER Rail Double Tracking and Westfield NC Fair Extension $669 Coastal Rail Double Tracking and Other Improvements $1,350 Coastal Rail Tunnels (Del Mar and UTC) $1,004 Regional Rail Grade Separations $671 Local Share for I-15 High Speed Rail $100 Improved/New Major Transit Stations and Centers $603 Transit Priority Measures/Enhancements $250 Vehicles for New Services $489 Arterial BRT Transit Priority Improvements $395

Subtotal $8,868

HOV and Managed Lane Facilities

Freeway From To Existing Improvements

I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2HOV $202

I-5 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F + 2HOV $934

I-5 I-8 La Jolla Village Dr. 8F/10F 8F/10F + 2HOV $200

I-5 La Jolla Village Dr. I-5/I-805 Merge 8F/14F 8F/14F + 2HOV/ $160

I-5 I-5/I-805 Merge Vandegrift Blvd. 8F/14F 8F/14F+ 4ML $2,740

I-15**** SR 94 SR 163 6F/8F 8F + 2HOV $265

I-15 SR 163 SR 56 8F + 2ML (R) 10F + 4ML/MB $414

I-15 SR 56 Centre City Pkwy. 8F 10F + 4ML/MB $427

I-15 Centre City Pkwy. SR 78 8F 8F + 4ML $210

SR 52 I-805 SR 125 4F/6F 6F + 2ML(R) $330

SR 78 I-5 I-15 6F 6F + 2HOV $650

SR 94 I-5 I-805 8F 8F + 2HOV $200

SR 94/SR 125 I-805 I-8 8F 8F + 2HOV $834

I-805 SR 905 I-5 8F 8F + 4ML $3,336

Subtotal $10,902

HOV and BRT Connectors

Freeway Intersecting Freeway Movement

I-5 I-805 North to North & South to South $170 I-15 SR 78 East to South & North to West $213 I-15 SR 94 South to West & East to North $140 I-15 I-805 North to North & South to South $66 I-805 SR 52 West to North & South to East $190 I-805 SR 94 North to West & East to South $95

Subtotal $874


Highway System Completion


I-5/I-805 Port of Entry – Mexico --- Inspection Facility $30 SR 11* SR 905 Mexico --- 4T $300 SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 --- 4F $538 SR 125** SR 905 San Miguel Rd. --- 4T $640 SR 125 San Miguel Rd. SR 54 --- 4F $160 SR 905 I-805 Mexico --- 6F $595

Subtotal $2,263

Highway Widening, Arterials, and Freeway Interchanges

Routes From To Existing Improvements

I-5 J Street Sea World Dr. 8F Access Improvements $225 I-5 I-805 SR 56 10F 14F $186 I-5 Vandegrift Blvd. Orange County 8F 8F + 4T $810 I-8 2nd Street Los Coches 4F 6F $54 I-15 SR 78 Riverside County 8F 8F + 4T $2,060 SR 52 I-5 I-805 4F 6F $119 SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F $53 SR 67 Mapleview St. Dye Rd. 2C/4C 4C $400 SR 75/SR 282*** Glorietta Blvd. Alameda Blvd. 6C 6C + 2TU (PE only) $20 SR 76 Melrose Dr. I-15 2C 4C $500 SR 125** Telegraph Cyn. San Miguel Rd. 4T 8T $130 SR 125 San Miguel Rd. SR 54 4F 8F $40 SR 241** Orange County I-5 --- 4T/6T $552 Regional Arterials and Local Access Freeway Interchanges $1,437

Subtotal $6,586

Freeway Connectors


I-5 SR 56 West to North & South to East $185 I-5 SR 78 West to South & South to East $200 SR 94 SR 125 West to North & South to East $150

Subtotal $535

Goods Movement Facilities¹

Improvements

Port District Marine Terminals Ground Access and Terminal Capacity $597 South Bay Rail Yards, Sidings, Third Main Line $328 Mexican Rail Rehabilitation, Spurs, Transload $32 East Otay Border Crossing Port of Entry $350 SR 905 Add 2 general purpose lanes (6F to 8F) from I-805 to Border $200 Otay Mesa SB Truck Route Widen and realignment $23 Air Cargo at SDIA Access, warehouses, transload $142 Pipeline Terminal access to I-15 $32

Subtotal $1,704

Total $31,732

KEY

C = Conventional Highway Lanes F = Freeway Lanes TU = Tunnel

T = Toll Lanes MB = Movable Barrier

ML = Managed Lanes (HOV & Value Pricing) HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes ML(R) = Managed Lanes (Reversible)

* public/private partnership ** privately funded *** funding from federal discretionary defense funding sources **** HOV dedication and/or construction contingent on completion and operation of SR 15 Mid-City BRT stations and system Improvements ¹ Additional Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) improvements included in the Reasonably Expected Revenue scenario

Table 6.4—Major Capital Improvements – Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario (cont’d)



The project is an innovative solution to the growing traffic congestion in the corridor that will offer a premium level of service to transit users, ridesharers, and solo paying commuters during rush hours. During the off-peak periods, Managed Lanes could be used to facilitate goods movement through the region.

In addition to mainline Managed Lane/HOV facilities, the Plan includes direct HOV-to-HOV connectors at the I-5/I-805 merge and five other interchanges where major HOV facilities intersect. The direct HOV-to-HOV connectors proposed in the Plan were selected based on the traffic levels of the connector and the overall interchange, transit integration, habitat and residential impacts, and cost effectiveness.

The continued planning for the I-15 BRT in Mid-City is referenced on page 6-14. Dedication or construction of additional lanes for HOV or other uses in the SR 15 Mid-City segment of I-15 is contingent on the completion and operation of BRT stations and system improvement pursuant to agree-ments between the State and City of San Diego.

Completing the Arterial Network

Like highways, the arterial network plays a role in improving regional transit as well as serving subregional trips. The 2030 RTP provides funding for transit priority treatments on arterials, such as traffic signal priority measures (priority for transit by extending the green phase of the traffic light, for example), “queue jumpers” to bypass bottlenecks on local streets, and grade separations, where needed. The Plan includes major transit capital projects (Figure 6.5), such as transitways, double tracking, and direct access ramps between freeway HOV lanes and major transit stations. These link regional arterials to the Managed Lane/HOV network and transitways at strategic locations like major stations, providing transit vehicles with easy access to the regional network.

Completing the Regional Arterial System is a priority in the 2030 RTP. The regional arterials provide critical links to the highway network and serve as alternative routes to the highways themselves. Planned improvements to the Regional Arterial System (Figure 6.6) are identified in the local circulation elements of the cities and the county. Funding is intended to come from the local jurisdictions, which are responsible for improving regional roadways and local streets to meet their residents’ needs and mitigate the effects of local land use developments. Proposition 42 and the voter-approved $2,071 per dwelling unit for regional arterials (beginning in 2008 with the extension of TransNet) would contribute to the construction of these facilities.

The 2030 RTP assumes additional arterial improvements besides capacity enhancing projects. These include traffic signal coordination, traffic detection systems, transit priority measures, and management systems to optimize the arterial network and integrate arterial operations with other modes (see Chapter 7).

The 2030 RTP provides funding for transit priority treatments on arterials, such as traffic signal priority measures (priority for transit by extending the green phase of the traffic light, for example), “queue jumpers” to bypass bottlenecks on local streets, and grade separations.



Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

San Marcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

County of San Diego

Camp Pendleton

Figure 6.5

2030TRANSIT NETWORKMajor Capital Projects

November 2007

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Dedicated TransitGuideway

New Light RailTransit

Coastal RailDouble Trackingand Tunnels

Arterial Rapid Corridor Improvements

Additional 2030 Transit Routes

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

76

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

52




San Diego Region

Figure 6.6

REGIONALARTERIAL SYSTEM

November 2007

Freeways and Highways

Regional Arterials

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

76

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

52

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

San Marcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

County of San Diego

Camp Pendleton

MAP AREA



A Corridor Approach

The 2030 RTP recognizes the importance of planning from both a regional perspective as well as within a subregional context. The Plan realizes that no one size fits all, as the long-term performance of transportation facilities and services is heavily dependent on surrounding land uses and nearby communities.

The individual modal improvements in the Reasonably Expected Revenue Network are tailored to supporting land uses in major travel corridors. They build upon multimodal systems already in place and add preferred improvements recommended under completed or ongoing transportation planning studies (see Appendix F). This corridor approach considers multiple facilities, modes, jurisdictions, and land uses. The objective is to select the most effective mix of strategies to improve mobility within a specific corridor.

To improve sustainability, the 2030 RTP focuses major roadway and transit improvements in urban/suburban areas of the region, encouraging future growth away from the region’s more rural areas. However, the Plan recognizes the need to address the unique transportation issues facing the region’s rural communities, particularly those affected by increasing development on the tribal reservations.

Accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel also is important as we develop our regional highways and arterials. New highway and arterial facilities, such as freeway interchanges or widened arterial streets, should be designed to encourage bicycle and walking, and should not be a barrier to those trips.

GOODS MOVEMENT AND INTERMODAL FACILITIES

While much of our transportation system is designed to primarily move people, it also serves goods movement. The federal transportation bill is the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and it requires that the 2030 RTP include a more comprehensive regional freight strategy that extends the planning horizon for goods movement to be compatible with the Plan.

The Freight Working Group was formed in 2005 to assist in the development of a regional freight strategy and list of prioritized projects, called the Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP). The Working Group used a systems approach to identify current and future needs for the region’s freight systems (including air cargo, border crossings, maritime, pipelines, rail, and roadways) and show how these systems can work together as one. The federal initiatives place emphasis on planning for interregional and international trade corridors, identifying infrastructure

This corridor approach considers multiple facilities, modes, juris-dictions, and land uses. The objective is to select the most effective mix of strategies to improve mobility within a specific corridor.



requirements necessary to support both the regional and national supply chain, and preparation of a plan of finance for freight infrastructure.

Goods Movement Trends

During the past 25 years, the manufacture of goods has moved overseas, driven by rising demand for inexpensive products and a desire to take advantage of lower production costs. The trend toward a global economy shifts the flow of goods from a traditional regional distribution network to a worldwide system of international trade gateways and corridors. The more global the supply chain becomes, the greater the challenges to match the existing goods movement infrastructure with the emerging flows of international trade.

California and the United States have assumed expanded roles in global trade, particularly as importers. Global trade cannot function without the network of intermodal freight infrastructure and services which permit products from far-away places to fill an ever-increasing demand in California and the nation.

The rapid growth in goods movement and the emergence of Southern California as the nation’s largest gateway to international trade is the result of the unprecedented shift toward a global economy and the way the world conducts business today. Of the nation’s incoming goods, 43 percent of all container goods and 12 percent of all goods coming in from Mexico arrive through Southern California’s land and sea ports destined for cities across the nation. Both the Los Angeles and San Diego Customs Districts report that goods movement has more than doubled since the emergence of Asia and the Pacific Rim in international trade and passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico in 1994.

At the state level, the administration has established among its highest priorities, improving California’s goods movement industry and infra-structure to generate jobs, increase mobility, and improve California’s quality of life. The state, in collaboration with the logistics industry, local and regional governments, and other stakeholders, recently developed a California Goods Movement Action Plan (CAGMAP), and voters approved legislation to provide $3 billion for goods movement infrastructure and diesel emissions reduction.

At the local level, the San Diego region is located on the “fault line” of the emerging global economy. Because of its location on the U.S.-Mexico border and its natural seaport, the region faces extraordinary economic opportunities and policy choices concerning whether to pursue an expanded role in international trade. The influences of the global economy are almost unavoidable for the region as it lies adjacent to California’s largest trading partner – Mexico, and to the nation’s busiest maritime complex and international trade gateway – the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

California and the United States have assumed expanded roles in global trade, particularly as importers.

Because of its location on the U.S.-Mexico border and its natural seaport, the San Diego region faces extraordinary economic opportunities and policy choices concerning whether to pursue an expanded role in international trade.


In 2006 the San Diego Customs District reported more than $33 billion in international trade goods passed through the San Diego gateway -- $28.6 billion through the U.S.-Mexico Port of Entry (POE) (via approximately 2 million trucks), and $9 billion through the Port of San Diego’s two marine terminals (nearly 3.5 million tons in maritime cargo). The growth rate of trade at the San Diego Customs District is expected to parallel that of the larger Los Angeles District.

While the region has the potential as an important hub in the global goods movement network, the region’s large population and market size (second in California) also creates a major demand for domestic goods movement infrastructure. Separate from international trade, domestic goods move-ment in the region also is on the rise and requires a complex and sophis-ticated infrastructure to serve its residents. The region’s growth rate for domestic goods movement closely parallels the growth rate for population and is generally tied to the demand for food stuffs, consumer goods, construction materials, and transportation. A 2007 study conducted for the Southern California Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan, including participation by SANDAG, projects traffic volumes for air cargo, border crossing, maritime, pipeline, and rail will triple by 2030. Truck volumes are expected to double over the same period.

The San Diego region, like others worldwide, was caught unprepared by the global trade shift. The region’s freight systems exhibit substantial congestion and delay, as well as some loss of existing and potential business because of capacity constraints. The worst freight bottlenecks are at the U.S.-Mexico POE, both marine terminals, and the coastal and south line railways connecting with Mexico.

Existing Conditions in the Region

The movement of goods in the San Diego region involves intermodal systems of air cargo, border crossing, maritime, pipeline, rail, and roadways/truckways. The existing conditions, capacity needs, and other important issues for each of the region’s individual freight systems are summarized below. The passenger components for aviation, border, rail, and roadway systems are discussed more fully by topic elsewhere in the RTP.

Air Cargo. California’s Global Gateways Development Program (GGDP) identifies San Diego International Airport (SDIA) as one of the priority air cargo gateways in California. The air cargo capacity at SDIA is currently constrained by limited infrastructure. As a result, past studies have shown that a majority of the air cargo generated in the region uses airports in Los Angeles or the Inland Empire, resulting in a lost economic opportunity for the region. Most of the remaining air cargo in the San Diego region is handled through SDIA. Air cargo activity has grown rapidly at SDIA, increasing at an average annual rate of 8.5 percent through 2000, then slowing to a more moderate

The San Diego region, like others worldwide, was caught unprepared by the global trade shift. The region’s freight systems exhibit substantial congestion and delay, as well as some loss of existing and potential business because of capacity constraints.



rate of growth of 4.3 percent annually. In 2005 SDIA handled more than 167,000 tons.

Border Crossing. In 2006 approximately $29.8 billion in trade was handled at the region’s two commercial truck POEs at Otay Mesa and Tecate. Caltrans projects that the 2.0 million trucks that crossed the California-Mexico border in 2003 will increase to 3.1 million trucks in 2010 and 5.6 million trucks by 2030. According to SANDAG’s study on Economic Impacts of Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border, trucks crossing at the border at Otay Mesa and Tecate currently experience delays of more than two hours on average without secondary inspection. In addition, the lack of adequate freight rail infrastructure leaves many businesses unable to link their industrial-manufacturing facilities in Mexico to the U.S. rail network, leaving businesses dependent upon trucks as the only means to ship goods and raw materials.

Maritime. San Diego Bay is a natural harbor located about 96 nautical miles southeast of Los Angeles and just north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Port of San Diego has two marine terminals on San Diego Bay: one at Tenth Avenue in the City of San Diego and one in National City. In 2006 the two terminals handled approximately 3.5 million tons of cargo worth more than $9 billion. Built in the 1950s, the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal (TAMT) is a general cargo terminal. It supports cool-frozen food storage, break bulk, dry-liquid bulk, small container operations, and project materials. The National City Marine Terminal (NCMT) is the primary POE for import automobiles and lumber. In 2007 approximately 500,000 motor vehicles will be handled at NCMT for distribution by rail and truck throughout the United States.

The Port’s maritime capacity is severely constrained by limited space, ground access, infrastructure, and channel depth. While the potential for maritime growth is substantial, the expansion of existing and new businesses is being turned away due to the lack of infrastructure. Also, the Port needs to determine whether to build additional marine terminal capacity to help support the state and Southern California seaport network to avoid the diversion of ships, business, and jobs to other ports.

Pipeline. In the San Diego region, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (a private company) is the sole provider of bulk freight transport by pipeline. The pipeline network runs between Orange, California and the Kinder Morgan Terminal located in Mission Valley. Kinder Morgan transports more that five million gallons of petroleum per day, the equivalent of more than 600 tank trucks carrying 8,700 gallons per truck. The region’s volume of petroleum products shipped by pipeline is projected to continually increase, and new pipeline capacity would be required beginning in 2015. The region needs to construct

In 2006 approximately $29.8 billion in trade was handled at the region’s two commercial truck POEs at Otay Mesa and Tecate.

The Port of San Diego has two marine terminals on San Diego Bay: one at Tenth Avenue in the City of San Diego and one in National City. In 2006 the two terminals handled approximately 3.5 million tons of cargo worth more than $9 billion.


improved truck access to the pipeline terminal to reduce freeway hazards and improve the efficient delivery of petroleum products.

Rail. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railways transport rail freight in the San Diego region. The BNSF is the freight operator on the coastal corridor between National City and Orange County and on the east-west line between Oceanside and Escondido. The San Diego and Imperial Valley (SD&IV) is the freight operator on SD&AE’s South and Desert lines owned by MTS. In 2005 after being closed since 1983, the Desert line re-opened to revenue service, but east-west traffic remains light and unprofitable to date. The San Diego to Tecate line, which runs through Mexico, connects the South line to the Desert line. The San Diego to Tecate line handles about 6,000 annual carloads interchanged via the Coastal corridor and South line. In 2006 all of the region’s rail operators handled more than 28,000 carloads, including such commodities as motor vehicles, lumber, chemicals, petroleum, agricultural products, cement, and aggregate.

Freight rail capacity along the coast and south to Mexico is currently constrained by limited infrastructure and the sharing of track with passenger operations including Amtrak, the COASTER, and Trolley. Proposed NCTD and MTS/SD&AE rail capacity improvements would reduce current passenger/freight rail bottlenecks and increase capacity for existing port and border freight. Logistics centers at key locations would bring rail and trucks together to transfer loads where local or subregional industrial/manufacturing demand is high. Track improvements on the San Diego to Tecate line would provide better connections and service to manufacturing centers in Mexico, with the potential to divert trucks to rail and possibly provide crossborder passenger service at some point in the future.

Road/Truckways. In the San Diego region, Interstates 5, 805 and 15 are the major north-south corridors that accommodate significant volumes of commercial trucks, while State Routes 94/125, Interstate 8, and State Route 905/Otay Mesa Road are the region’s primary east-west truck corridors. These north-south and east-west corridors serve both domestic cargo, as well as international trade routes.

The majority of the region’s freight travels by truck. Congested freeways and highways affect freight movements, especially at key access points, including the border. Freeway access is poor to the terminals serving air cargo, maritime, rail, pipeline, and logistic centers.

Substantial widening mainly focused on HOV and Managed Lanes is planned along the region’s primary truck routes. Managed Lanes will be constructed on the primary north-south routes of I-5, I-15, and I-805. The potential use of Managed Lanes in the off peak for goods movement will be evaluated in the near future. Other considerations for additional truck

Proposed NCTD and MTS/SD&AE rail capacity improvements would reduce current passenger/freight rail bottlenecks and increase capacity for existing port and border freight.

The majority of the region’s freight travels by truck. Congested free-ways and highways affect freight movements, especially at key access points, including the border.



capacity include improvements on an outer loop consisting of SR 54, SR 125, SR 52, SR 67, and SR 94.

Developing the Regional Freight Strategy and Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP)

In 2005 SANDAG formed a Regional Freight Working Group (FWG) composed of freight agencies and organizations including the California Department of Transportation, Kinder Morgan Pipelines (private owner/operator of the region’s only petroleum products pipeline), Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA or Airport Authority), Port of San Diego–Maritime Division, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security–Customs and Border Protection Division. Input from freight operators and local stakeholders also were included.

The FWG first documented existing conditions and plans for the region’s various freight modal systems. The group then identified and evaluated system gaps, system-to-system integration requirements, and intermodal opportunities necessary to prepare the region’s freight strategy. The working group also identified fundamental policy issues for discussion by the region’s decision makers concerning development of the Regional Freight Strategy.

While many questions remain unanswered about the region’s future role in global trade, the Regional Freight Strategy initially assumes an average annual growth rate of 5 percent for all freight. The Regional Freight Strategy identifies a list of prioritized projects known as the San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) based on objective project evaluation criteria. The Regional Freight Strategy also includes actions necessary to ensure the integration and compatibility of the region’s freight systems with local communities, environment, and quality of life goals and are compatible with the goods movement systems of adjacent regions.

The full list of proposed projects in the GMAP is contained in Appendix B. These projects are included along with the other Unconstrained Needs for the region. All of the projects that directly or indirectly benefit goods movement and are contained in the Reasonably Expected Revenue scenario are shown in Figure 6.7 and listed in Table 6.5. In many cases, the GMAP project list overlaps with other passenger highway and rail projects. Outside of those shared-use facilities, $1.8 billion of the highest-ranking air cargo, border, maritime, pipeline, and rail improvements are included in the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario. These types of projects typically have not been included in prior RTPs, and their inclusion here assumes that they would be funded through the development of separate revenue sources, such as federal and state freight-specific funds, gateway impact fees, and tolls.

The Regional Freight Strategy identifies a list of prioritized projects known as the San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) based on objective project evaluation criteria.



CampPendleton

76

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

52

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

Figure 6.7

2030 REASONABLYEXPECTED REVENUEPROJECTS ON THE

GOODS MOVEMENTNETWORK

November 2007

Managed/HOV Lanes


HOV/BRT Connectors


0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Rail

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

County of San Diego



Table 6.5—San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan – Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario

System/Project DescriptionEstimated Cost

(millions)

MARITIME

NCMT Capacity and Operational Improvements - Access, Rail, Wharf, Decking, and Realignment $183.1 $183.1

TAMT Capacity and Operational Improvements - Ground Access and Realignment $357.1 $225.0 $132.1

Port Expansion (250 acres on-dock/inland port) $282.8 $282.8

RAIL

Coastal - Sidings, Passing, Rehabilitation, Shared Use $1,350.0 $1,350.0

South Line/Trolley, Sidings, Passing, Yards incl. Port, Mexico Connectivity, Coronado Branch Rehab $327.6 $327.6

Mex Rail Rehabilitation, Maquilla Spur, Transload $31.6 $31.6

SPRINTER - Improvements $484.0 $484.0

SPRINTER Double-Tracking - Planned $199.0 $199.0

Coastal, Del Mar / Miramar Hill Tunnel $475.0 $475.0

BORDER

EOM Border Crossing SR 905-8F, SR 11-4T, South Truck Route $1,468.0 $895.0 $573.0

ROAD/TRUCKWAY

I-5, Widen/HOV, SR 905 to SR 54 $202.0 $202.0

I-5, Widen/HOV, SR 54 to I-8 $934.0 $934.0

I-5, Access Improvements, J Street to Sea World Drive $225.0 $225.0

I-5, Widen/HOV, I-8 to I-5/I-805 Merge $360.0 $360.0

I-5/I-805, N/N-S/S HOV Connectors $170.0 $170.0

I-5 Widen, I-5/I-805 Merge to SR 56 $186.0 $186.0

I-5 Widen/ML, I-5/I-805 Merge to Vandegrift Blvd. $2,740.0 $2,740.0

I-5/SR 56, W/N-S/E Freeway Connectors $185.0 $185.0

I-5/SR 78, W/S-S/E Freeway Connectors $200.0 $200.0

I-5 Widen/Toll, Vandegrift Blvd. to Orange County $810.0 $810.0

I-8, Widen, 2nd Street to Los Coches $54.0 $54.0

I-15, Widen/ML, SR 163 to SR 56 $414.0 $414.0

I-15, Widen/ML, SR 56 to Centre City Parkway $427.0 $427.0

I-15, Widen/ML, Centre City Parkway to SR 78 $210.0 $210.0

I-15/SR 78, E/S-N/W, HOV Connectors $213.0 $213.0

I-15, Widen/Toll, SR 78 to Riverside County $2,060.0 $2,060.0

SR 52, Widen, I-5 to I-805 $119.0 $119.0

SR 52, Widen/ML, I-805 to SR 125 $330.0 $330.0

SR 52, SR 125 to SR 67 $538.0 $538.0

SR 56, Widen, I-5 to I-805 $53.0 $53.0

SR 67, Widen, Mapleview Street to Dye Road $400.0 $400.0

SR 76, Widen, Melrose Drive to I-15 $500.0 $500.0

SR 78, Widen/HOV, I-15 to I-15 $650.0 $650.0

SR 94, Widen/HOV, I-15 to I-805 $200.0 $200.0

SR 94/SR 125, Widen/HOV, I-805 to I-8 $834.0 $834.0

SR 94/SR 125, W/N-S/E Freeway Connectors $150.0 $150.0

SR 125, SR 905 to San Miguel Road $770.0 $770.0

SR 125, San Miguel Road to SR 54 $200.0 $200.0

I-805, Widen/ML, SR 905 to I-5 $3,336.0 $3,336.0

I-805/SR 94, N/W-E/S HOV Connectors $95.0 $95.0

I-805/SR 52, W/N-S/E HOV Connectors $190.0 $190.0

AIR CARGO

SDIA Access to I-5 $31.6 $31.6

SDIA, Aircraft/Ground Access, AC Facilities,Transload $110.7 $110.7

PIPELINE

I-15 Access to KM MV Terminal $31.6 $31.6

TOTAL $23,087.1 $21,383.0 $1,704.1

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario

Reg

ula

r Tr

ansp

ort

aito

n

Fun

ds

Ad

dit

ion

al

G

M F

un

ds



Freight Impacts on Local Communities, Health, and the Environment

The Regional Freight Strategy proposes a proactive approach to addressing the impacts of goods movement on the region’s local communities, health, and the environment. Identification of strategies and policies which will reduce or eliminate the impacts of freight movement in the region is essential. Particular emphasis will be placed on addressing the impacts in communities which shoulder a disproportionate exposure to air contaminants associated with goods movement. While actions for mitigating impacts are still evolving, the region is committed to pursuing a regional freight system design that would avoid creating new community, health, and environmental impacts, as well as diminish existing impacts wherever possible. The region will seek funding to develop an ongoing program to reduce and remove goods movement system impacts on the region’s communities, health, and the environment.

San Diego’s Regional Freight Strategy is in its early stages, and additional economic and land use studies will better define and develop the region’s trade role and regionwide policies and guidelines for integrating goods movement facilities and land uses with local communities. In the meantime, a starting point for goods movement environmental assessment is the initial Clean Air Plan by the Port of San Diego. They are preparing an inventory of emissions and energy use at its marine terminals, then developing a plan with public participation to address methods of reducing emissions (clean) and energy waste (green). For emissions, these actions may include the conversion of vessels, on-terminal equipment, and/or off-terminal trucks and rail to clean fuels, shore-power or electrification, as well as other strategies. For energy waste, the plan could include the use of alternative fuels, solar applications, windmills, and other energy substitutes or saving devices. In addition, the region will work together with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to seek funding for project-level and ongoing programs to reduce emissions, modernize fleets, and enable freight agencies to address other goods movement impacts.

The region will also address, through the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and its scheduled updates, the land use policies which increase the impacts of goods movement on public health and the environment. For example, the siting of residences in extreme proximity to ports and distribution centers, as well as major goods movement corridors, could increase the impacts to public health associated with goods movement. Policies and strategies to prevent new incompatible land uses of this type will be identified. The ARB has released a “Land Use and Air Quality Handbook” which contains guidance related to these policies.

The Regional Freight Strategy proposes a proactive approach to addressing the impacts of goods movement on the region’s local communities, health, and the environment.


Finally, the region will work with stakeholders to use lessons learned from the Clean Air Plan and other interim programs and studies to transfer successful applications to the other freight modes and to create a regionwide clean-green freight initiative as a new component of the RCP. The regional plan also would incorporate clean-green measures developed as part of the region’s economic and land use studies, such as selection of a particular role in trade, certain commodities, or trade routes. Any program that is developed will include an intensive public participation process to include various stakeholders, such as industry, community-based organizations, environmental organizations, elected officials, and other interested parties. The regionwide freight initiative would be adopted into the RCP and next, the RTP.

A project that addresses an existing impact, as well as providing for future growth, is the Port Access Study. In 2003 the SANDAG Central I-5 Corridor Study evaluated truck ground access improvements for the Port of San Diego’s two marine terminals to address resident concerns about truck noise and emissions. The study identified several alternatives. In 2007 the Port of San Diego, in cooperation with the Barrio Logan Community, local agencies, and SANDAG, used a state planning grant to select a final alignment for truck access that enjoys full community and business support. The new alignment will link both terminals via Harbor Drive to 32nd Street and Interstate 15, rerouting trucks out of the Barrio Logan community.

Freight Technology Development

Many new freight technologies are undergoing research and development. The Regional Freight Strategy focuses on the deployment of potential technologies and systems that would enable improved safety and carrying capacity for trucks, rail, and maritime vessels and would provide faster, cleaner, and more efficient transfer of goods from one conveyance to another. Many of these technologies are being developed and proven in our own backyard. Rather than proposing the region monitor advances of freight technologies, the Regional Freight Strategy proposes the region develop deployment scenarios for promising technologies. The deployment scenarios would map out a concept of operations and incremental path of deployment in order to realize successful applications. The region should develop operational concept scenarios to determine how automated highways, computerized train control, and magnetic levitation or propulsion technologies could be deployed in the future to improve the efficiency of the region’s intermodal freight system.

A new project for Port access will link both terminals via Harbor Drive to 32nd Street and Interstate 15, rerouting trucks out of the Barrio Logan community.



Freight Data and Planning Needs

A key issue in assessing the health of our goods movement network is the limited amount of data for freight decision-making. Data on goods movement is needed to identify and evaluate numerous options for mitigating congestion, improving economic competitiveness, enabling effective land use planning, optimizing investments, and enhancing safety and security. Informed choices rely on good data. Efforts are underway by the Transportation Research Board and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to improve the amount and consistency of data for freight planning. SANDAG, Caltrans, and the region’s freight agencies should work together to evaluate the kinds of data necessary to support goods movement decisions and begin a goods movement data collection system.

Many freight system owners/operators do not have long-range plans that extend to the same 20+ year planning horizon as the RTP. The emphasis in SAFETEA-LU to develop a comprehensive regional intermodal freight strategy requires SANDAG and the freight owners/operators to work together to establish a long-range goods movement plan. Some agencies adopt short- or long-term master plans, which map out improvements for their facilities (e.g., airport and seaport), while other organizations (such as rail companies) normally focus on a much shorter planning timeframe. Updated freight market analyses and business plans are a necessity given the new global trade environment. Coordinated planning among agencies is even more important as federal, state, and regional governments consider public investment in transportation infrastructure that serves both the public good and private enterprise. SANDAG should work to ensure that each of the region’s freight agencies prepare and maintain long-range master business plans consistent with preparation of the RTP.

AVIATION AND GROUND ACCESS

Existing Conditions

The San Diego region is served by two commercial service airports, San Diego International Airport (SDIA) and McClellan-Palomar Airport. Commercial service airports provide regularly scheduled passenger service. Ten general aviation airports and four military airports also are located within the County (see Figure 6.8).

SDIA is the region’s primary commercial airport, having served 17.5 million passengers and 221,000 aircraft operations in 2006. In that same year, approximately 165,800 tons of air cargo were shipped through a combination of dedicated cargo aircraft and belly cargo in passenger planes. SDIA has one runway that is 9,400 feet in length.

Data on goods movement is needed to identify and evaluate numerous options for mitigating congestion, improving economic competitive-ness, enabling effective land use planning, optimizing investments, and enhancing safety and security. Informed choices rely on good data.

P A C I F

I C O

C E A N

P A C I F

I C O

C E A N

76

1-D

905

115

125

54

805

805

5

5

5

282

163

94

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

12512

5

75

94

15

8

7879

79

79

S2

S2

S22

S2

S22

94

188

274

9

14.3

03

6

04.

89.

6

MIL

ES

KIL

OM

ETER

SMili

tary

Pub

lic

Fig

ure

6.8

REG

ION

AL

AIR

PO

RT

SY

STE

MN

ovem

ber

2007

Ora

ng

eC

ou

nty

Riv

ersi

de

Co

un

ty

Imperial County

UN

ITED

STA

TES

MEX

ICO

Oce

ansi

de

Car

lsb

ad

Enci

nit

as

Del

Mar

Sola

na

Bea

chPo

way

San

Die

go

Co

ron

ado

Imp

eria

l Bea

ch

Lem

on

Gro

ve

LaM

esaSa

nte

e

El C

ajo

n

Esco

nd

ido

Vis

ta

Ch

ula

Vis

ta

Cam

pPe

nd

leto

n

Tiju

ana,

B.C

.

Nat

ion

alC

ity

San

Die

go

San

Mar

cos

San

Die

go

Co

un

ty

Bo

rreg

o S

pri

ng

s

Tem

ecu

la

Fallb

roo

k

Val

ley

Cen

ter

Bo

nsa

ll

Ram

on

a

Lake

sid

e

Alp

ine

Spri

ng

Val

ley

BR

OW

NFI

ELD

AER

OPU

ER

TO D

E T

IJU

AN

A

JAC

UM

BA

AG

UA

CA

LIEN

TEOC

OTI

LLO

WELL

S

BO

RR

EG

OV

ALL

EY

FALL

BR

OO

K

McC

LELL

AN

PALO

MA

R

OC

EA

NSID

E

MO

NTG

OM

ER

YFI

ELD

GIL

LESPIE

FIELD

RA

MO

NA

LIN

DB

ER

GH

FIELD

NA

S N

OR

THIS

LAN

D

MC

AS

MIR

AM

AR

IMPER

IAL

BEA

CH

NA

VA

LO

UTL

YIN

G F

IELD

MC

AS C

AM

P P

EN

DLE

TON



Transit access to the airport is provided by the MTS Route 992 (“The Flyer”), which connects to Amtrak, the COASTER, and the regional trolley and bus system in downtown San Diego, primarily at Santa Fe Depot. Shared-ride vans, shuttles, limousines, and taxi services are provided by a variety of off-airport companies. Car rental services are available in nearby off-airport properties.

There are currently no direct access ramps from the region’s freeways to SDIA. Airport users driving to the passenger terminals access the airport via North Harbor Drive, a regional six-lane arterial road. Washington Avenue is the primary ground access road for cargo transporters. Parking at the airport is constrained by limited land. There currently are 4,085 parking spaces located on airport property, and 6,000-8,000 spaces operated by commercial off-airport property owners.

Palomar Airport, located in the City of Carlsbad, also will be a factor in the future integration and optimization of the regional commercial transportation system. The County of San Diego is currently revitalizing and modernizing Palomar Airport to include a complete renovation and modernization of the main terminal. Improvements include the taxiway, parking areas, and improved airport vehicle access. In addition, the County is negotiating international customs services in the future terminal facility.

The two airports are vitally important to the prosperity of the region and link San Diego to the rest of the United States and the world. The services provided facilitate the movement of people and products and help to ensure that the region remains competitive in the global marketplace.

Long-Range Planning for Aviation Needs

According to passenger forecasts prepared in 2004, the region will generate 27.1 to 32.7 million annual passengers in 2030. The growth rate in air cargo tonnage is expected to be 3.9 percent to 4.8 percent annually between 2002 and 2030. As a result, the 2030 demand will be 487,100 to 622,100 tons per year, compared to 165,800 tons in 2006. The single runway at SDIA is the limiting factor in meeting this forecasted demand. According to the FAA, the airfield will reach severe congestion at 260,000 annual operations, likely to occur between 2015 and 2022.

As a result of the airport’s deficiencies in meeting projected demand, the Airport Authority began to examine potential replacement airport sites in 2003. In November 2006 a countywide ballot measure calling for the Airport Authority to work with the military on a joint-use airport at the Marine Corps Air Station Miramar was defeated.

Planning for the region’s aviation needs to 2030 and beyond requires a comprehensive examination of the region’s assets, including SDIA and the other airports described above, options for connecting into service pro-vided by surrounding jurisdictions both within Southern California and in Mexico, and consideration of using other modes (especially high-speed rail)



Senate Bill 10 requires the preparation of a regional strategic aviation plan (RASP) to improve the performance of the regional aviation system, and an airport multimodal accessibility plan (AMAP) to improve surface transport-ation to the airports.

to meet some of the region’s demands. Long-range planning also requires an evaluation of how to provide convenient ground access to the airports from the region’s planned highways and high-capacity transit services. The role of SDIA in meeting aviation demand also requires examination, with the goal of maximizing the efficiency of the airport property and surrounding lands.

This planning effort should include the Airport Authority, SANDAG, all the airport operators, the transit providers, and other government and private stakeholders. Senate Bill 10 was signed by the Governor in October 2007, providing structure for a more comprehensive approach to planning San Diego’s regional aviation needs and transportation connections. The law requires the preparation of a regional strategic aviation plan (RASP) to improve the performance of the regional aviation system, and an airport multimodal accessibility plan (AMAP) to improve surface transportation to the airports. The RASP requirement will be led by the Airport Authority, while SANDAG will take the lead on the AMAP requirement. Both the RASP and the AMAP efforts will include major participation by both agencies. In the meantime, any proposed airport improvements should be carefully examined to ensure that they do not conflict with plans for the ultimate configuration of SDIA.

REGIONAL BIKEWAYS

Most neighborhood bicycle trips can be accommodated on local streets where traffic volumes are lower and vehicle speeds are slower. However, converting a higher share of both community and intercommunity trips to bicycling will require improvements to the region’s bikeway network.

The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan is currently being developed as a complementary and supporting document to the RTP. The bicycle plan will represent the combined efforts of SANDAG staff, the SANDAG Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Working Group (BPWG), local jurisdictions, local agencies, advocacy groups, and citizens in the San Diego region.

The underlying principle of the San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan is derived from the federal and state directives placing greater emphasis on accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists when designing roadway facilities. In 2001 Deputy Directive 64, issued by Caltrans, stated that bicyclists must be considered in all planning and project development activities. The U.S. Department of Transportation has a similar policy. SANDAG’s goal is to support these policies and to meet state requirements for bicycle transportation plans as required by the Streets and Highways Codes Section 891.2. These policies also will serve as a framework for organizing the plan itself. To enable the region to realize its potential as a place where the bicycle is a viable means of transportation, it must be embraced by many different organizations, including cities, the County of San Diego, transit operators, the bicycling public, as well as other agencies.


The goal of the plan is to encourage the development of a unified bicycle system throughout the San Diego region that serves the needs of people using their bicycle for transportation and recreational bicyclists with connections to local and regional activity centers and transit facilities and other regional non-motorized systems. This plan is regional in focus and concentrates on broader policies and programs, while providing a framework for local decision-makers to determine specific local routes and facilities.

The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan will accomplish the following:

Define a network of regionally significant bicycle routes, facilities, and necessary support programs;

Identify gaps in the network and recommend specific improvements needed to fill the gaps;

Develop cost estimates to complete construction of the regional network;

Develop a funding strategy to build and maintain the regional bike network;

Provide a design manual focusing on bicycle-friendly designs for all streets and roadways through new technologies, standards, guidelines, and innovative treatments on all new roadways and multi-use paths; and

Provide policy direction and identify programs to assist local jurisdictions in improving safety, education, and awareness about bicycle travel.

While all roadways are open to bicycle travel unless it is specifically prohibited, the California Highway Design Manual establishes three classifications of facilities specifically for bicycle traffic as shown in Table 6.6. The plan envisions an intercommunity bikeway network that is a combination of these facility types.

The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan concentrates on broader policies and programs, while providing a framework for local decision-makers to determine specific local routes and facilities.



Table 6.6—Bicycle Facility Types

FACILITY DESCRIPTION

Bike Path (Multi-Use Trail), Class I An 8- to 12-foot paved path within its own right-of-way to provide a nonmotorized connection or access where it cannot be provided on the roadway.

Bike Lanes, Class II Five-foot lanes striped on the outside of the roadway and identified with signs and pavement markings.

Bike Route, Class III Roads designated by signs as preferred routes for bicycle travel.

Bicycle Facility Types. Figure 6.9 and Table 6.7 show the planned regional bikeway corridors network. The purpose of the network is to connect all the major communities in the region with convenient and attractive bikeways. The network was designed to ensure that all high-demand corridors are covered and that there is good bike access to the transit system of the future. Where adequate bikeways currently exist or where projects currently are being developed, Figure 6.9 depicts the bikeway’s alignment. In some cases, however, only the need for bikeway improvements has been identified. In that case, only a general corridor is depicted. Where local jurisdictions have adopted bicycle transportation plans, the bikeways in the network were based on those plans. Where no plan exists, the corridors were selected in consultation with local agency staff.



76

1-D

905 11

5

125

54

805

805

805

5

5

5

282

163

94

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

15

125

125

75

94Regional Bikeway

Regional Arterials

Future Regional Arterials

Highways

Future Highways

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Figure 6.9

REGIONALBIKEWAY CORRIDORS

November 2007


San Diego Region

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

San Marcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

County of San Diego

MAP AREA


Table 6.7—Regional Bikeway Corridors

BIKEWAY AREAS SERVED

Coastal Rail Trail Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego

Camp Pendleton Trail Oceanside to San Clemente

I-15 Bikeway Riverside County to Mid City San Diego

San Luis Rey River Trail North Oceanside from the Beach to I-15

El Camino Real Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Encinitas

Inland Rail Trail Escondido, San Marcos, Vista, Oceanside, and adjacent unincorporated areas

Palomar Airport Road/ San Marcos Boulevard

Carlsbad to San Marcos

La Costa Avenue/ Rancho Santa Fe Road

Encinitas to San Marcos

Escondido Creek Bikeway Escondido

Mid-County Bikeway Del Mar, San Diego, Rancho Santa Fe, and Escondido

SR 56 Bikeway San Diego and Poway

Scripps Poway Parkway Scripps Ranch and Poway

Central Coast Corridor Torrey Pines, La Jolla, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, Mission Bay, Point Loma, and Downtown San Diego

SR 52 Bikeway Clairemont, Kearny Mesa, and Santee

San Diego River Bikeway Ocean Beach, Mission Valley, Mission Trails Regional Park, and Lakeside

East County – Downtown San Diego Corridor

La Mesa, Mid City, North Park, and Downtown San Diego

SR 94 Corridor Bikeway Lemon Grove, Mid City, and Downtown San Diego

SR 125 Corridor Santee, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Bonita, Chula Vista, and Otay Mesa

Sweetwater River Bikeway Chula Vista, National City, and Bonita

SR 54 Bikeway Lakeside, El Cajon, Rancho San Diego, and Spring Valley

I-8 Corridor Lakeside to Imperial County

Bayshore Bikeway San Diego, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, and Imperial Beach

Chula Vista Greenbelt Otay River, Chula Vista, and Otay Lakes

SR 905 Corridor Otay Mesa and International Border

El Camino Real San Luis Rey River Bike Path, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Solana Beach

Border Access Otay-Nestor and San Ysidro



THE ENHANCED SMART GROWTH LAND USE ALTERNATIVE

In Chapter 5, Land Use – Transportation Connection, the Smart Growth Concept Map contains existing, planned, and potential areas for smart growth development throughout the region. Two-thirds of those areas are not presently included in the adopted general plans for the cities and the county. The RCP strongly promotes more smart growth in the region, and the TransNet program includes incentives to support smarter, more sustainable land use.

To evaluate the potential benefits of implementing all of the potential smart growth areas in the region, a travel forecast was run using the Reasonably Expected Revenue transportation network and the Enhanced Smart Growth land use assumptions, which reflect all of the potential smart growth areas, as well as existing and planned smart growth areas developing by 2030. Using the regional performance measures laid out in Chapter 2, the results were compared to the Plan, which has the same transportation network but includes land use forecasts based on adopted local general plans.

As detailed in the following discussion, the Smart Growth Alternative would provide numerous benefits to the region. The performance measures for the Smart Growth alternative maintain or improve the results in every category when compared to the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario. Complementing our existing and planned transportation network and services with smart growth land uses would improve the performance of the transportation system and better meet our mobility needs in the future.

Regional Performance

In Table 6.8, the Smart Growth alternative has been added to compare regional performance measures with Current Conditions, the Reasonably Expected Revenue scenario (the Plan), and the No Build Alternative. The Plan shows increased travel speeds for commuters using the Managed Lane/HOV system (a measure of Mobility). The Smart Growth alternative would increase auto and carpool speeds even more, as less trips travel as single occupant vehicles in the peak period. Average work trip travel time also would improve, dropping from 30 to 29 minutes.

Compared to the No Build scenario, the Plan produces dramatic decreases in freeway congestion (a measure of Reliability), lowering it from 54 percent in No Build to 30 percent. In the Smart Growth alternative, congestion would be even lower than 2006 figures, and at 26 percent, is another 4 percent lower than the Plan in the peak period.

The Smart Growth Alternative would maintain or improve the results in every category when compared to the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario.


Under Livability, work trip mode splits improve in the Plan. The drive-alone percentage drops to 77.8 percent, carpools jump to 13.2 percent, and transit rises to 7.3 percent. Transit goes up even more in the smart growth alternative (to 8.6 percent), and average trip distance drops as more commuters live near the enhanced transit system and take advantage of the carpool lanes.

Under Sustainability, the results of implementing the land uses in the potential areas shown on the Smart Growth Concept Map would be significant. The impact of providing more housing and employment along our transit corridors would result in an increase of 42 percent over current conditions in daily transit passenger miles per capita versus the 22 percent increase already projected for the Plan. Vehicle miles traveled per capita would actually drop by almost 2 percent when compared to current conditions, while it would grow for all of the other alternatives, Lower fuel consumption would follow suit, dropping slightly below existing conditions and below the projected consumption in the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario.

Table 6.8—Comparison of Regional Performance Measures

Current (2006)

Reasonably Expected (2030)

Smart Growth RE

(2030)

No Build (2030)

27 30 29 34

17 18 18 21

Auto 27 23 24 20 Carpool 28 31 31 23 Transit 10 12 12 10

61% 56% 57% 53%

66% 63% 64% 62%

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

32% 30% 26% 54%

19% 19% 17% 36%

5.09 5.80 4.55 13.07

5.22 5.68 4.11 12.77

$2.27 $2.29 $2.28 $2.35

N/A 2.56 2.55 2.40

Daily hours of delay on the regional freight network (hours per 1000 VMT)

Out-of-pocket user costs

Total 25-year public and private travel costs

EFFICIENCY

Annual weekday projected number of accidents/ fatalities per capita

Congested peak-period travel conditions (freeway network)

Congested daily travel conditions (freeway network)

Daily vehicle delay per capita (minutes)


MOBILITY

ACCESSIBILITY

RELIABILITY

Average work trip travel time (in minutes)

Average daily travel time (in minutes)

Average work trip travel speed by mode (in m.p.h.)

Work/school trips within 30 minutes in peak periods


Vehicle miles traveled per capita would actually drop by almost 2 percent when com-pared to current conditions, while it would grow for all of the other alternatives.



Table 6.8—Comparison of Regional Performance Measures (cont’d)

Current (2006)

Reasonably Expected (2030)

Smart Growth RE

(2030)

No Build (2030)

66% 65% 65% 62%

68% 67% 67% 64%

Drive Alone 81.1% 77.8% 76.4% 81.3% Carpool 10.8% 13.2% 13.2% 11.2% Transit 6.4% 7.3% 8.6% 5.8% Bike/Walk 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.7%

6.44 6.76 6.64 6.75

0.020 0.005 0.005 0.005

1.46 1.50 1.44 1.53

27.65 28.54 27.30 29.16

0.59 0.72 0.84 0.56

50 155 155 110

Low income population N/A 19 19 22 Non low income population N/A 18 18 20 Minority population N/A 18 18 21 Non minority population N/A 18 18 21

Low income population N/A 59% 58% 54% Non low income population N/A 56% 57% 53% Minority population N/A 58% 58% 54% Non minority population N/A 55% 56% 52%



SUSTAINABILITY

EQUITY

Percent of daily trips within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Work trip mode split (peak periods)

Average trip distance (miles)

Smog forming pollutants (tons per year) per capita

Total on-road fuel consumption (all day) per capita (gallons)

Systemwide VMT (all day) per capita

Percent of peak-period trips within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

LIVABILITY



Homes within 1/2 mile of a transit stop

Transit Passenger Miles (all day) per capita

Gross acres of constrained lands consumed for transit and highway infrastructure (2006 to 2030)

Average travel time per person trip (in minutes)

Work/school trips within 30 minutes


PLANNING ACROSS BORDERS

The 2030 RTP looks beyond the San Diego region to link transportation and land use planning across our borders with Orange, Riverside, and Imperial Counties, and Baja California, Mexico. The SANDAG Borders Committee provides oversight for binational planning and interregional planning programs under its purview and advises the SANDAG Board of Directors on major interregional planning policy-level matters.

The last several years have seen a steady increase in interregional and international commuting, as more people are choosing to live in Riverside County and Baja California, Mexico, while keeping their jobs here. The 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update continues to recognize these travel trends and account for future housing for our workers both within the San Diego region as well as outside of the region’s boundaries.

I-15 Interregional Partnership Program

The I-15 Interregional Partnership (I-15 IRP) is a voluntary partnership of local officials representing SANDAG and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). The I-15 IRP was formed in 2001 to address the imbalance of jobs and housing that has developed between the San Diego region and southwestern Riverside County in the past decade. In 2003 the I-15 IRP completed an existing conditions report documenting the volume and travel characteristics of interregional commuters, along with existing roadway conditions in the I-15 Corridor. In 2004 the I-15 IRP completed a study that identifies short- and long-term strategies to address both the causes and impacts caused by the increasing number of interregional commute trips in the corridor.

Short-term strategies from the I-15 IRP, most of which are currently underway, include promotion of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, including interregional coordination of rideshare programs between Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and SANDAG, implementing Park and Ride lots along the I-15 corridor, and joint marketing and promotion of alternative transportation services (e.g., carpools, vanpools, and public transit) targeting solo commuters in the corridor.

There already is a strong market for these types of services. As of October 2007, 249 of the 572 vanpools (44%) participating in SANDAG’s Regional Vanpool Program originated from Riverside County. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) began commuter express bus service in 2003, and there is private transit service connecting Riverside County residents with jobs in the San Diego region. The 2030 RTP proposes four additional toll lanes on I-15 north to SR 78, as well as the extension of the I-15 bus rapid transit system north to Temecula in Riverside County. Along with planned improvements in Riverside, the 2030 RTP supports ridesharing and transit in the north I-15 corridor.

Today, 44 percent of the vanpools participating in SANDAG’s Regional Vanpool Program originate from Riverside County.

The 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update recognizes interregional travel trends and accounts for future housing for our workers both within the San Diego region as well as outside of the region’s boundaries.



In 2007 SANDAG completed Phase II of the I-15 IRP. Phase II focused on the implementation of an employment cluster study, while at the same time working with RCTC, RTA, and WRCOG to implement strategies in the areas of transportation and housing that were identified in the Phase I effort. Phase III has received additional funding to develop a Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP), using a multimodal approach to reduce con-gestion in the I-15 corridor at the county line. In addition, the two regions will coordinate efforts in economic development, based on employment clusters and smart growth housing programs.

Binational Transportation

To accommodate the dynamic border transportation system, the 2030 RTP includes major projects to open a new border crossing, improve access to existing commercial and passenger border crossings, and expand freight rail service. Collectively and in conjunction with projects at Imperial County border crossings, these projects will modernize and transform transporta-tion infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico border from San Diego/Tijuana east to Arizona/Sonora. Long-term forecasts developed using the San Diego Region-Baja California crossborder travel demand model project that crossborder vehicle traffic will more than double between 2000 and 2030.

International Border Crossings. The San Diego region shares a common international border with the municipalities of Tijuana and Tecate in the State of Baja California, Mexico. The population of the border area of San Diego and Tijuana-Tecate surpassed 4.5 million people in 2005. Three ports of entry serve the region – San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Tecate. Those who cross the border into the United States regularly face long and unpredictable waits.

Delays for crossborder personal travel and freight movements were estimated to cost the San Diego-Baja California economies nearly $4.2 billion in lost output and a loss of more than 35,000 jobs in 2005. Both output and job losses are projected to more than double in the next ten years if steps are not taken to improve border crossing and transportation infrastructure and management.2 Air quality at the border also is affected by excessive idling from trucks and private vehicles.

Created in 2002, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) consolidated the principal border and transportation security agencies – the Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Coast Guard, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Transportation Security Agency. The mission of DHS includes ensuring safe and secure borders, welcoming lawful immigrants and visitors, and promoting the free flow of commerce.

2 SANDAG, Estimating Economic Impacts of Border Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja

California Border Region, 2006.

To accommodate the dynamic border transportation system, the 2030 RTP includes major projects to improve access to border crossings, expand freight rail service, and coordinate commercial vehicle crossings.

Delays for crossborder personal travel and freight movements were estimated to cost the San Diego-Baja California economies nearly $4.2 billion in lost output and a loss of more than 35,000 jobs in 2005.


San Ysidro is the busiest land port of entry in the western hemisphere. It is the region's primary gate for auto and pedestrian traffic in both directions. Up to 50,000 passenger vehicles cross daily into San Diego at this POE. About 26,000 pedestrians also travel through this border crossing into San Diego daily. Most people who cross northbound on foot or on their bicycles use the trolley or buses to complete their journey.

Commercial truck traffic uses the Otay Mesa and Tecate POEs. The Otay Mesa land port has 100 bays for handling truck inspections and serves autos and pedestrians as well. Truck, auto, and pedestrian traffic use the same facility at Tecate. The Otay Mesa commercial crossing continues to rank third in terms of the dollar value of trade that passes through it along the U.S.-Mexico border (after Laredo-Nuevo Laredo and El Paso-Ciudad Juarez in Texas). In 2006 Otay Mesa handled $28.6 billion dollars worth of freight, making this commercial crossing the busiest along the California-Baja California border. The Tecate POE handled nearly $1.2 billion in trade in 2006.

In 2002 Caltrans Global Gateways Development Program (GGDP)3 identified the California/Mexico border region as a major international trade region and the Otay Mesa POE as one of the key border crossings. Most recently, in January 2007 the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and the California Environmental Protection Agency identified the San Diego/Border region as one of the state’s four “port-to-border” goods movement corridors.4

The existing port of entry’s infrastructure is already taxed, and growth in trade is expected to continue across the border in both directions over time. Short-term circulation improvements to alleviate existing congested conditions for southbound commercial vehicles at the Otay Mesa POE have been implemented, and others are in progress at this time. With funding from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), SANDAG and Caltrans are conducting an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) study. One of the objectives of this study is to identify technologies to monitor and report commercial vehicle wait times at the Otay Mesa POE.

Two miles east of Otay Mesa, a fourth border crossing is being planned at Otay Mesa East to improve traffic flows between the two countries and to provide an alternate entry for passenger vehicles and commercial trucks. Scheduled to open in 2015, this new port of entry and State Route 11, a three-mile, four-lane state highway, will connect the U.S./Mexico border to key state highways. In Mexico, the Otay Mesa East-Otay II POE would connect with the Tijuana-Rosarito

3 Caltrans, Global Gateways Development Program (January 2002) 4 Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and California Environmental Protection

Agency, Goods Movement Action Plan (January 2007)

In 2006 Otay Mesa handled $28.6 billion dollars worth of freight, making this commercial crossing the busiest along the California-Baja California

A fourth border crossing is being planned at East Otay Mesa to improve traffic flows between the two countries and to provide an alternate entry for vehicles and commercial trucks.



Corridor, which was inaugurated in October 2006, and to the Tijuana-Tecate free and toll roads.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) coordinates with Mexico’s federal government through the Secretariat of Foreign Relations (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores or SRE) and the Embassy of Mexico on issues affecting the U.S.-Mexico border. In January 2006 U.S. DOS sent the Embassy of Mexico a diplomatic note stating the interest of the U.S. federal government in the construction of a new border crossing at Otay Mesa East, and a response from Mexico’s federal government was received in May 2006 indicating the Mexican government’s interest in conducting the necessary feasibility studies.

Caltrans currently is conducting a program environmental impact report and phased environmental impact statement to identify and preserve a corridor for future SR 11, identify an area for the future Otay Mesa East POE, and study the functionality of the existing Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility (CVEF) on eastern Otay Mesa. Identification and preservation of the highway corridor and POE will facilitate the application process for a presidential permit for the POE, land use planning by local jurisdictions, and right-of-way acquisition for the future projects. Work on the presidential permit application is being performed concurrently.

On behalf of Caltrans, SANDAG conducted a financial feasibility study to evaluate the viability of implementing SR 11 and the Otay Mesa East POE as toll- or fee-based facilities.5 Findings of this study indicate that this project is a potentially good investment, and hence the facility is assumed as a toll road in the regional network. However, public participation would be necessary to attract sufficient private capital to finance construction and management of the Otay Mesa East POE.

The federal and state governments of the United States and Mexico, the City of San Diego, and the Municipality of Tijuana continue to study various options to expand the San Ysidro border crossing. The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) developed four alternatives in its San Ysidro Border Station Feasibility Study that call for a new northbound inspection facility, including primary booths, secondary inspection area, administration space, and a pedestrian processing facility. A new southbound inspection facility also would be con-structed as part of this project—matching Mexico’s proposal to relocate its border station to the closed commercial gate at Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral west of the existing facility. Realignment of I-5 and I-805 would be necessary to provide access to the inspection facilities. The environmental clearance for this project is expected in fall 2008. The project is likely to be built in three or four phases, with the final phase completed in fall 2014.

5 SANDAG, State Route 11 Toll Road and East Otay Mesa Port of Entry Financial Feasibility

Study (December 2006)

Identification and preservation of the SR 11 highway corridor and POE will facilitate the application process for a presidential permit for the POE, land use planning by local jurisdictions, and right-of-way acquisition for the future projects.


In 2000 SANDAG conducted a feasibility study6 for another border crossing that would link Jacumba in San Diego County and Jacumé in the Municipality of Tecate, Mexico. This study recommended that California and Baja California government agencies continue planning and coordination efforts to identify and reserve right-of-way for inspection facilities and connecting roadways to allow for the development of a future POE. The Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development (SIDUE), Baja California’s state planning agency, also has considered this location for a future port of entry in its long-range planning work to improve access for passenger vehicles and trucks that travel between Baja California and locations east of San Diego.

Binational Intermodal Issues. Key intermodal components of the binational transportation system include POEs, rail, roadways, transit, and seaports. Included in the 2030 RTP are plans to improve the recently re-opened rail link to the east, the San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railway. The railroad offers opportunities to improve the international and interstate movement of goods in, out, and through the Southern California/Baja California region. In addition to the SD&AE Railway, plans to expand port facilities at the Ports of San Diego and Ensenada and a proposal to build a new seaport in Punta Colonet (Baja California) are likely to affect crossborder freight transportation.

Full implementation of the trucking provisions of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to allow trucks from the United States and Mexico to move freely in each country is still pending. However, in September 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration began the implementation of a one-year cross-border trucking demonstration project that would expand current border operations to allow up to 100 U.S. trucking companies to operate in Mexico and up to 100 Mexican trucking companies to operate beyond commercial zones in the United States.

Nevertheless, binational commercial vehicle traffic uses the San Diego regional highway system. In 2006 approximately 828,000 trucks crossed northbound at the San Diego region-Baja California border. About 57 percent of these truck trips have a final destination in other California counties, while 21 percent are destined outside of the state. The remaining trucks travel within the San Diego region.

Major highway projects addressing binational transportation needs that are included in the 2030 RTP include State Route 905 to connect Interstates 5 and 805 to the Otay Mesa POE, the South Bay Expressway (SR 125 tollway) that will open to traffic in 2007 and will connect the Otay Mesa POE with the San Diego regional and

6 SANDAG, Feasibility of Opening an International Border Crossing at Jacumba-Jacumé

(2000)

In 2006 approximately 828,000 trucks crossed northbound at the San Diego region-Baja California border. About 57 percent of these truck trips have a final destination in other California counties, while 21 percent are destined outside of the state. The remaining trucks travel within the San Diego region.



interregional highway network, and the future SR 11 toll road that will link to the proposed Otay Mesa East border crossing. Other investments included in the 2030 RTP on Interstates 5, 8, 15, and 805 also will serve these key international trade corridors.

Completed in 2003, the San Ysidro Intermodal Transportation Center, which is located east of I-5, has improved pedestrian safety and access to the various transit services, local businesses, and the international border. On the west side of I-5, a new intermodal center also has been built. The Friendship Plaza project accommodates transit services, a walking path, and a bicycle lane for people crossing into Mexico as well as a “kiss and drop” area. Improvements to sidewalks on the Camino de la Plaza bridge over I-5 will enhance pedestrian access between both intermodal centers.

Border Airport Services. There are two public airports in the immediate border region. Tijuana International Airport located in Mesa de Otay, Tijuana, is a passenger and cargo airport with service to major cities in Mexico. It has a single runway of 9,800 feet with options to extend it up to 15,000 feet and to build a second runway. Brown Field, owned and operated by the City of San Diego, is located in Otay Mesa just north of the border. It is primarily a general aviation field with one runway of 8,000 feet and a second runway of 3,000 feet.

The SDCRAA is considering a cross-border terminal among the options for meeting the region’s future aviation needs. According to Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacífico (GAP), the private agency that operates the Tijuana International Airport, this airport has significant unused capacity. The SDCRAA conducted a feasibility study in early 2007 to identify the issues associated with constructing and operating a cross-border terminal connection between the United States and Tijuana’s airport. The study concluded that a connection would face a variety of major challenges, including legal and regulatory, market demand, and logistics. However, none appear to be insurmountable. Since then, the SDCRAA Board authorized a study to evaluate the potential market demand study for a crossborder terminal connecting to Tijuana International Airport. The study was initiated in August 2007 and is anticipated to be completed in April 2008.


ACTIONS

The following actions support the Plan’s Systems Development Chapter recommendations.

SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT


Focus on Priorities Corridors – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Mobility, Livability, and Accessibility.

1. Maintain project evaluation criteria for prioritizing highway, regional transit, and direct freeway and HOV connector projects, and update these criteria to better reflect the goals of the RTP, as needed.

SANDAG

2. Allocate regional funds to transportation projects, programs, and services based on established criteria, which provide priority to implementing smart growth, the TransNet Early Action Program, the Congestion Management Program, and performance monitoring efforts.

SANDAG

Regional Transit Plan – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Mobility, Accessibility, Reliability, Livability, Sustainability, and Equity.

3. Incorporate planned transit services identified in the 2030 RTP into local general plans, community plans, and specific project development plans, and reserve appropriate right-of-way.

Local Jurisdictions

4. Implement appropriate transit priority measures on local streets and regional arterials such as signal priority or queue jumper lanes for transit vehicles.

Local jurisdictions, MTS, and NCTD

5. Provide funding in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan to support the proposed regional rail grade separation program, pursue additional federal, state, and local revenue sources to leverage funds in the regional program, and create a prioritized list of projects using the adopted criteria.

SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, and Caltrans

6. Develop a 2020 Regional Transit Systems Phasing Plan, reflecting the priorities contained in the RTP that would determine routing alignments and technology types for regional transit services, identify station locations, evaluate connections to local bus services and shuttles, and address other systems planning issues as required.


7. Secure future rights-of-way and pursue implementation of improved transit services, including early action projects as opportunities occur.


8. Refine design guidelines for transit stations to incorporate customer features (e.g., public restrooms), bicycle and pedestrian access, and other design considerations.




SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT


9. Develop a toolbox of successful strategies for funding the ongoing maintenance of transit centers. This would include an evaluation of regional parking demand and needs at major transit stations and development of a regional parking strategy. .


10. Coordinate I-15 BRT planning efforts with RTA and RCTC to provide BRT service to Riverside County commuters.

SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, RTA, and RCTC

11. Consistent with the priorities identified in the RTP, expand fixed-route services into developing areas when sufficient density and funding exist to make service cost-effective, enhance transit service to existing developed areas, and provide feeder services to new rail stations.


12. Annually update the Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Trans-portation Plan, which serves as the region’s five-year transit plan, and implement service productivity, reliability, and efficiency improvements.

SANDAG

13. Implement the service productivity and other recommendations from the performance audit process of the Transportation Development Act.

SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, and other transit operators

14. Conduct study of existing public/private funding partnerships for transit services nationwide. Identify applicable partnerships for the San Diego region that would promote smart growth/joint development and provide funding for station facilities (e.g., parking structures) and/or station maintenance.


15. Evaluate the feasibility of transit guideways in the Downtown San Diego-Kearny Mesa and University Towne Center-Sorrento Mesa corridors.


16. Secure funds, to include planning grants, to conduct a detailed study of the advantages and disadvantages of emerging transportation technologies such as maglev, in anticipation of the next RTP update.

SANDAG

17. Based on the Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the LOSSAN corridor, proceed with project-level environ-mental studies, design and implementation of double tracking, and other rail improvement projects in the coastal rail corridor. Tunnel studies will include appropriate environmental and alternative analyses.



SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT


18. Support efforts to secure federal and state funding to improve and expand the LOSSAN intercity passenger rail services.

CHSRA, Caltrans, SANDAG, NCTD, MTS, Amtrak, and Southern California rail agencies

19. Coordinate with efforts of the CHSRA for high-speed passenger rail service on the coastal rail and inland I-15 corridors.

SANDAG, Caltrans, MTS, NCTD, and RCTC

20. Work with the CHSRA, RCTC, and other agencies on the feasibility of commuter rail service along the I-15 corridor, while at the same time, evaluating other types of interregional transit service options such as BRT.

SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, CHSRA, and RCTC

21. Continue to coordinate coastal rail efforts with the LOSSAN member agencies and explore new initiatives, such as the Metrolink-Amtrak-Caltrans Rail-2-Rail program.

SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, Caltrans, and Amtrak

22. Improve accessibility of transit stops and walkways to stops for persons with disabilities and identify potential funding programs for these improvements.

SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, and local jurisdictions

23. Improve connections and transfers between paratransit and fixed-route transit operations.

SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, paratransit operators, and Coordinated Transportation Service Agency

24. Facilitate efforts to promote coordination among fixed-route and paratransit operators and non-profit agencies in the region.

SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, paratransit operators, and Coordinated Transportation Service Agency

25. Continue educational efforts on use of transit and accessibility equipment among persons with disabilities.


26. Continue to use the SANDAG Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) to recognize the changing transit needs of seniors and persons with disabilities, including those too frail to access traditional fixed-route and ADA paratransit services.

SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, paratransit operators, and CTSA

27. Implement and expand the TransNet Senior Mini-Grant Program. SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, paratransit operators, and CTSA

28. Implement recommendations of the Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan.

SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, paratransit operators, and CTSA



SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT


Highways and Arterials – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Mobility, Reliability, Efficiency, and Sustainability.

29. Incorporate planned highway network identified in the RTP into local general plans, community plans, and specific project development plans, and reserve appropriate right-of-way through the subdivision review process and other means.

Local jurisdictions

30. Develop PSRs in accordance with the priorities identified in the RTP. Caltrans

31. Provide operational and other improvements, such as auxiliary and passing lanes where appropriate, to improve safety and to maximize the efficiency of highways and arterials. Pursue additional state and federal funding to match regional program and develop a prioritized list of potential projects for consideration in future funding cycles.

SANDAG, Caltrans, and local jurisdictions

32. Implement signal timing programs along the designated Regional Arterial System and improve traffic signal operations by interconnecting signalized intersections under centralized control and by coordinating with ramp signal systems at freeway interchanges.


33. Develop guidelines to ensure that all regionally funded transportation projects preserve or enhance existing non-motorized access and provide for appropriate access where such facilities are planned.

SANDAG, Caltrans, and local jurisdictions

Goods Movement and Intermodal Facilities - The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Mobility, Accessibility, Livability, Efficiency, and Reliability

34. Support development of state and federal goods movement and trade corridor policies, programs and funding for regional goods movement infrastructure.

SANDAG, Caltrans, freight agencies, and local jurisdictions

35. Develop a strategic plan for public/private funding partnerships for goods movement services in the San Diego region.


36. Continue coordination with Mexico and the southern California agencies participating in the Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP) to address the connectivity and integration of goods movement infrastructure and services across jurisdictional boundaries.

SANDAG and other agencies

37. Allocate regional funds to goods movement projects, programs, and services based on established criteria and priorities from the San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP).



SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT


38. Support efforts to secure state and federal rail funding to improve and expand the coastal, south and Mexican rail lines.

CHSRA, Class I railroads, Caltrans, SANDAG, NCTD, MTS, Amtrak, and southern California rail agencies

39. Analyze the economic opportunities available through an expanded role in trade and goods movement to determine the region’s role/policies in trade and goods movement.


40. Update the SANDAG RCP to include policies, programs, and guidelines to integrate goods movement land uses and facilities with minimal impact to adjacent communities.


41. Support and provide assistance for the update of local general plans to identify long-term goods movement, industrial-manufacturing infrastructure needs, and connectors to the regional freight network based in coordination with economic studies and RCP updates.


42. Support and provide assistance for the update of freight agencies’ (e.g., rail companies), master business and long-term development plans to include agency trade market analysis and input from economic studies and updates of the RCP and local general plans.


43. Further evaluate potential logistic centers that would integrate intermodal freight to establish specific staging areas and connectors to the regional freight network.

Caltrans, SANDAG, Port of San Diego, MTS, and shippers

44. Reserve appropriate right-of-way when possible for GMAP projects as opportunities occur.


45. Determine the type of volume, value and routing data necessary to support decisions concerning the Regional Freight Strategy, and implement data collection.

SANDAG, Caltrans, and freight agencies

46. Proceed with project-level environmental studies, design, and implementa-tion of GMAP projects as funds become available.


47. Evaluate use of rail capacity and Managed Lanes facilities for freight move-ment during off-peak periods.

NCTD & MTS, Caltrans, and SANDAG

48. Develop a strategic plan to determine if upcoming technologies could be deployed in the future to enable improved efficiency of the region’s intermodal freight system.

SANDAG, Caltrans, and freight agencies



SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT


Aviation – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Mobility, Accessibility and Efficiency.

49. Update the Airport Master Plan for SDIA to meet capacity needs through the year 2030, and incorporate into future updates of the RTP.

SDCRAA and SANDAG

50. Evaluate ground access improvements to SDIA for short-term needs and in context of the long-term needs identified in the updated Airport Master Plan.

SDCRAA, SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, Caltrans, and City of San Diego

51. Conduct a Regional Air-Rail Network Study that considers expanded use of the region’s general aviation airports, connections to airports in Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, and Tijuana, and the use of rail to provide both airport connections and relieve short haul demand.

SANDAG, SDCRAA, MTS, and NCTD

52. Based on work completed for the SDIA Airport Master Plan and the Air-Rail Network Study, coordinate on the regional strategic aviation plan (RASP) and airport multimodal accessibility plan (AMAP) as outlined in Senate Bill 10 in time to coordinate major components into the 2011 RTP.

SDCRAA and SANDAG

Regional Bikeways – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Mobility, Accessibility, Efficiency, Reliability, Livability, Sustainability, and Equity.

53. Complete the San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan. SANDAG

Borders System Development – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Mobility, Accessibility, Efficiency, and Reliability.

54. Pursue funding for future phases of the I-15 IRP. SANDAG, Western Riverside Council of Governments, Caltrans, and other local agencies

55. Secure funding for needed transportation infrastructure in the region’s border areas (e.g., SR 11 and the Otay Mesa East POE), and coordinate the implementation of border-related capital and operating improvements with the federal General Services Administration (GSA).

Caltrans, SANDAG, City of San Diego, County of San Diego, GSA, and Mexico


CHAPTER 7 SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT: MAKING BETTER USE OF WHAT WE HAVE

Our existing transportation system represents a major investment of resources over the past several decades. While the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (RTP or the “Plan”) identifies additional investments needed to meet future transportation needs, it is critical that the region make the best use of the facilities already in place. There are a wide range of emerging technologies and opportunities to increase the effectiveness of overall transportation system management. New management possibilities are emerging as we continue to make progress toward enhancing data collection and improving information delivery to travelers.

Transportation professionals are gaining access to the types of data and tools needed to provide a complete view of the transportation network. These tools utilize sophisticated data analysis and information-processing techniques, allowing for the definition and development of real-time management and operations strategies. The information also allows for the delivery of real-time information to travelers, enabling them to make the best choices and get the optimum effect from use of the system.

There is an opportunity to take a “portfolio” approach to managing the transportation system by deploying a range of tools and strategies in a coordinated manner, with a focus on the delivery of a system for real-time systems management. Such a system would drive our operational strategies to focus on measurable effects and adoption of proactive operations.

These tools and strategies can be applied within the framework of an objectives-driven approach and balanced with similar approaches for demand management to address specific transportation goals. A growing trend in larger transportation systems nationally and internationally is to develop strategies and tactics aimed at congestion reduction by tackling demand and capacity management simultaneously.

While the Systems Management and Demand Management chapters of the 2030 RTP will provide a high-level overview of this balanced approach, the 2007 Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Plan provides a detailed strategy of how portfolio investments would occur and be measured to ensure that positive effects are delivered.

CHAPTER CONTENTS

PERFORMANCE MONITORING ...................... 7-2

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .................................................. 7-5

FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL......................... 7-13

PUBLIC SAFETY............................................. 7-13

HIGH OCCUPANCY TOLL LANES................. 7-14

INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ........................................ 7-15

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.................. 7-16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATIVE SERVICES .................. 7-18

ACTIONS ....................................................... 7-23

It is critical that the region make the best use of the existing facilities in addition to realizing the benefits of future system improvements.



PERFORMANCE MONITORING

Getting the most out of our transportation investments requires monitoring the system’s performance (Performance Monitoring) and utilizing the data to develop operational strategies. The purpose of performance monitoring is to: (1) provide current and ongoing information on how well the transportation system is performing; (2) identify opportunities for near-term improvements; and (3) assess the impacts of future improvements. In the past, SANDAG and other transportation operators have conducted performance monitoring, though not always on a consistent or ongoing basis. Automated and consistent data collection is key to tracking how well the transportation system is performing and being able to actively manage the network. The following section outlines the status of current or near-term regional transportation system performance monitoring efforts.

Roadway System – For the region’s roadway network, SANDAG currently coordinates the annual collection of average daily traffic volumes from Caltrans and local jurisdictions, and through the Congestion Management Program, collects roadway level of service data every two years. Collection of this data is not yet fully automated and is dependent to a large extent on the available resources of reporting agencies.

For most freeways, traffic volumes and speed data are automatically collected by Caltrans through loop detectors embedded underneath the pavement and other emerging vehicle detection technologies. Approximately 55 percent of the urban freeway system is auto-matically monitored by detectors that are spaced about one mile apart. This spacing is considered ideal for achieving the greatest system detection coverage. Caltrans has an ongoing program to install additional detectors that will improve overall system coverage. Manual data collection is done on other freeway segments and some conventional highways.

For local streets and roads, traffic volume counts also are currently done manually and are not always performed on an annual basis. Speed data on local streets and roads are not normally collected, but counts are performed on an as-needed basis. The need to develop an automated and accurate arterial data system is a key emphasis area for systems management.

In cooperation with UC Berkeley, Caltrans has developed a Performance Measurement System (PeMS) program that uses the urban freeway data. This program provides current, ongoing data on freeway volumes and speeds and can be displayed graphically and exported to other monitoring applications. Since the development of MOBILITY 2030, SANDAG has worked with Caltrans and UC Berkeley to extend the capabilities of PeMS. Efforts have included the addition

STEPS TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

PERFORMANCE

Determine the information best suited for performance monitoring

Collect consistent data on a regular basis and automate data collection as much as possible

Report the results of monitoring efforts to decision-makers and the general public

Adjust decisions based on monitoring results


of historical San Diego data and the development of a ramp metering interface. The interface provides the ability to analyze, monitor, and report ramp metering volumes.

Transit System –The Regional Transit Management System (RTMS) is a sophisticated management tool providing for real-time performance monitoring and reporting for more than 50 percent of the region’s fixed-route services. The system has been implemented,- and the two transit districts – the Metropolitan Transit System and the North County Transit District – are able to use it to better manage services and deliver real-time information to customers. Through SANDAG’s annual passenger counting program, transit ridership information is reported to the transit districts using data from the RTMS automated passenger counters, collected manually, and supplemented by each transit district’s own payment-based counts and other transit operational data (e.g., bus speed, mileage, and hours of service). The region’s short-range transit plan is developed using this data.

Travel Times and Volumes – As part of the performance monitoring program, SANDAG will initiate the monitoring and reporting of travel times and volumes for key transportation corridors. This data will serve as the basis for monitoring changes in travel corridors identified in the 2030 RTP, the RCP Performance Monitoring report, and the State of the Commute report.

PeMS Enhancements – Planned improvements to PeMS recently initiated by SANDAG in coordination with Caltrans, NCTD, MTS, and local agencies, include the development and integration of transit and arterial modules. These features will allow PeMS to perform as a multi-modal performance measurement and evaluation tool for the San Diego region. These improvements will supplement the SANDAG Performance Monitoring Program by providing the ability of gathering, tracking, and analyzing real-time transit and arterial data.

In MOBILITY 2030, SANDAG identified a number of issues that needed to be considered on an ongoing basis for improving SANDAG’s performance monitoring effort and included: What types of data and collection systems are best suited to address the performance monitoring needs of our multimodal transportation system? How can we build upon existing data collection efforts? Who should be responsible for the data collection and monitoring, and how will we pay for it? How will this information be used to affect operational strategies and to make decisions on optimizing the transportation network? Based upon these issues, SANDAG has identified the following improvements that serve as key principles for undertaking an effective performance monitoring program:

Performance monitoring needs to reflect the multimodal nature of our transportation system by focusing on all modes of travel. Data collection needs to be automated, consistent, and reported to decision-makers and the general public to assist them in making informed decisions.



1. Performance monitoring needs to reflect the multi-modal nature of our transportation system by focusing on all modes of travel.

2. The existing automated freeway data collection and reporting activity needs to be expanded beyond freeways to include freeway on-ramps, conventional highways, principal arterials, and transit.

3. Data collection in support of performance monitoring needs to be:

Automated - This will reduce costs and provide more frequent data collection.

Uniform - If system performance is to be monitored over time, then data collection efforts must be consistent year to year.

Reported - Performance monitoring information needs to be regularly reported to decision-makers to assist in project selection and programming decisions and to the general public to assist them in making travel route and mode choices.

4. The most useful indicators of how well our transportation system is performing should include:

Travel Time - The average time it takes to complete a trip.

Travel Speed - The average speed of a trip.

Usage - Changes in traffic, transit ridership, or bicycle facility usage.

These basic data can be combined to generate other indicator, for example, speed and traffic volume are used to determine roadway level of service (LOS), an indicator of congestion levels.

5. Data availability and accuracy should be sufficient to support development of a decision support system and real-time proactive operational strategies.

6. Augmenting these automated data collection efforts should be periodic surveys to assess customer satisfaction and to identify other needed improvements from a user perspective.

These identified improvements and principles provide the basis for the recommended actions at the end of this chapter.


CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

State Proposition 111, passed by voters in 1990, established a requirement that urbanized areas prepare and regularly update a congestion manage-ment program (CMP). The purpose of the CMP is to: (1) monitor the performance of our transportation system; (2) develop programs to address near-term and long-term congestion; and (3) better integrate transportation and land use planning. If a CMP roadway segment falls below the established level of service (LOS) standard, then a Deficiency Plan needs to be prepared. The current CMP LOS standard, as established by the original 1991 CMP, is LOS E. The LOS analysis is based on density and speed measurements thresholds using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology.

The CMP requirement supports the concept that large capital projects alone cannot solve our congestion problems and that local land use decisions contribute to roadway congestion. SANDAG, as the designated congestion management agency (CMA) for the San Diego region, adopts and regularly updates the CMP. In July 2006 SANDAG adopted the 2006 CMP. Key CMP highlights are included below:

Promote Non-Traditional Strategies – The focus is the use of near-term, lower-cost alternative transportation strategies to address congestion. These strategies are grouped into the following areas: transportation demand management (rideshare programs, transit pass subsidies, flexible work hours, teleworking, etc.); transportation system management (signal synchronization, peak-period parking restrictions, bicycle paths, etc.); land use (mixed-use developments, smart growth strategies); and design guidelines (pedestrian, transit oriented, bicycle, etc.). These strategies, which are described in other chapters of the 2030 RTP, can be used in preparing deficiency plans, mitigating new development impacts, and supporting other local planning activities.

Project Mitigation – For all major development projects, appropriate CMP strategies are encouraged to mitigate significant impacts on the CMP system, as determined by local agencies. Through the early mitigation of new development impacts, it may be possible to reduce future congestion on the CMP network. The CMP can assist agencies with this responsibility by offering a range of mitigation strategies that can be applied to unique development project impacts and varying local conditions.

CMP Compliance Monitoring – The CMP recommends that SANDAG take a more proactive stance in working with local jurisdictions and transportation operators to monitor implementation of the CMP and to fine tune the CMP in response to evolving local needs.

WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS TO BETTER MANAGE CONGESTION?

Identify current and potential congestion “hot spots”

Address congestion on a corridor level

Use a wide variety of non-traditional and low-cost solutions to better manage congestion



Deficiency Plan Development Process – Instead of preparing individual deficiency plans for all roadway segments projected to be deficient in the future, a first step will be to use RTP as a systemwide deficiency plan. This process provides the ability to evaluate roadway congestion and recommend systemwide and individual corridor improvements. The new development plan process is includes the following key steps:

Identifying Deficient Segments – The development of the 2008 CMP will include a systemwide deficiency plan analysis to identify deficient roadway segments.

Addressing Deficient Segments with the 2030 RTP – The deficient roadway segments then will be evaluated to determine and identify possible mitigation strategies based on identified long- and near-term transportation improvements, programs, and projects included in the 2030 RTP. The new process places emphasis on the 2030 RTP as the primary resource to determine if the CMP Level of Service E standard is met along the CMP roadway network.

Segments Needing Further Analysis – Further CMP deficiency analysis will be conducted for deficient roadway segments that are not eliminated by proposed 2030 RTP long- or near-term trans-portation improvements, programs, or projects. This analysis will be conducted by SANDAG in cooperation with local jurisdictions.

Deficiency Plan Requirements – SANDAG will collaborate with local agencies to initiate deficiency plan preparation through subregional planning studies. A key effort anticipated involves having SANDAG and local jurisdictions work together to identify and prioritize the development of subregional planning studies. This effort will assist SANDAG to determine and set priorities in the Overall Work Program for developing deficiency plans. These studies can help coordinate the development of regional highway, light rail, and bus rapid transit projects with local land use and transportation plans, one of the key initiatives identified in the RCP.

Figure 7.1 depicts the CMP network and Figure 7.2 shows the 2005 level of service included in the 2006 CMP. The existing levels of service depicted in this figure are slightly different than the ones in Figure 1.4. The base years are different (2005 versus 2006), and volumes in Figure 1.4 are generated by the transportation model instead of actual traffic data (Figure 7.2). The Deficiency Plan Process is shown in Figure 7.3. The recommended actions necessary to promote the recommendations of the 2006 CMP update are provided at the end of this chapter.

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

Santee

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

CampPendleton

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO


N


N

LemonGrove

La Mesa

ElCajon

Nationalcity

ChulaVista

ImperialBeach

3

12

6

4

5

9

78

10

11

76

1-D

9055

54

805

805

5

5

5

282

16394

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15125

54

State Freeways

State Highways

CMP Arterials

Figure 7.1

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

(CMP) SYSTEM(2006 Update)

November 2007

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS


Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

ElCajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity



CampPendleton

County of San Diego

0 3 6

0 3.18 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Figure 7.2

CONGESTIONMANAGEMENT SYSTEM

PROGRAM (CMP)(2006 Update)

November 2007

2005 Peak HourLevel of Service

LOS A-D

LOS E

LOS F

76

1-D

905 11

5

125

54

805

805

805

5

5

5

282209

163

94

54

6752

52

274

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

15

125

125

75

94

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

141 7-92030 Regional Transportation Plan


Figure 7.3—Deficiency Plan Process


Freeway Service patrol The purpose of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) is to alleviate traffic congestion associated with non-recurring traffic incidents. The FSP program supports the 2030 RTP goals of Reliability and Efficiency by minimizing disruptions to the freeway system caused by minor traffic incidents. This is accomplished by providing for the rapid removal of disabled vehicles, helping stranded motorists, assisting with traffic accidents, and removing debris from the roadway as needed.

The FSP continuously patrols selected freeway segments during both morning and afternoon commute periods, Monday through Friday. All FSP services are provided free of charge to motorists. The program is funded by SANDAG and Caltrans, with field supervision provided by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Currently, 25 tow trucks and 7 light-duty pick-up trucks are used for 13 FSP beats or patrols covering sections of Interstates 5, 8, 15, 805 and State Routes 52, 56, 54, 78, 94, 125,163, and 905 for a total of 225 miles of coverage. Approximately 60,000 motorists are assisted annually.

In response to changing traffic patterns and traveler behavior, future expansion of the FSP are planned to improve both the current coverage and to expand the program’s coverage to more highways and off-peak periods, including weekends. Other FSP improvements include additional FSP service during major capital construction projects. The 2030 RTP continues to support increased funding levels for enhanced or expanded FSP services introduced in MOBILITY 2030.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Several natural disasters and acts of terrorism have brought the safety and security of our transportation system to the forefront. The federal transportation bill is the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transport-ation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). It calls for an increased emphasis to be placed on the safety and security of the transportation system. On a regional planning scale, three key areas of concern have been identified: the ability to plan for and react to natural disasters; the capability to respond effectively to man-made events;, and the interoperability of various public safety communication systems.

The San Diego region has a number of existing organizations, plans, and infrastructure in place to provide for the safety of the regional transporta-tion system. Additionally, there are a number of current or pending efforts to plan for and respond to large-scale natural or man-made disasters and improve public safety communications systems.

The Freeway Service Patrol provides rapid removal of disabled vehicles, helps stranded motorists, assists with traffic accidents, and removes debris from the roadway as needed.



Within the San Diego region the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization (OES) coordinates the overall county response to disasters and provides for a single operational area for the coordination of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The San Diego Trans-portation Management Center (TMC) integrates Caltrans’ Traffic Operations and Maintenance and the CHP communications in a unified communication and command center and provides communications, surveillance, and computer infrastructure to coordinate transportation management on state highways. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the importance of having plans to evacuate persons without access to private vehicles. Identified coordination and response agencies provide for a systematic response to natural and man-made disasters, and existing infrastructure, such as changeable message signs (CMS) and the Reverse 911 telephone system, allow for information to be shared with portions of the population in an expeditious manner. The Reverse 911 telephone system was employed with positive results when over 500,000 people were evacuated during the San Diego County wildfires in October 2007.

As neighbors and key trade partners, assuring safe and time-efficient travel is critical to the economies of both California and Baja California. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB) have many systems in place to prevent the entrance of potentially dangerous persons and materials. Many physical, technology, and policy systems are in place to ensure the safety and security at the border.

SANDAG and various local, state and federal agencies continue to work together to continue to improve the safety and security of the transporta-tion system.

HIGH OCCUPANCY TOLL (HOT) LANES

The 2030 RTP includes a robust network of Managed/high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. One way to “manage” these lanes is to restrict access to multi-occupancy vehicles. Another management technique is to charge a fee to single occupant vehicles for use of the lanes. This second concept is typically referred to as high occupancy toll or “HOT” lanes.

The 2030 RTP includes plans for HOT lanes on our major north-south freeways, including Interstates 5, 15, and 805, as well as a portion of State Route 52. These lanes are limited access lanes in which carpools, vanpools, and buses have first priority and travel for free, while other vehicles gain access by paying a fee. The lanes are managed through variable pricing to maintain free-flow conditions even during rush hours.

The 2030 RTP includes plans for high occupancy toll, or “HOT” lanes on our major freeways, including Interstates 5, 15, and 805, as well as a portion of State Route 52. These lanes are limited access lanes in which carpools, vanpools, and buses have first priority and travel for free, while other vehicles gain access by paying a fee.


The expansion of HOT lanes builds upon the success of the I-15 FasTrak® program, which has been operating since 1996 on the I-15 Express Lanes from the I-15/SR 163 junction to SR 56. The I-15 FasTrak® program is the first facility to employ “dynamic pricing” in the country. It uses electronic toll collection technology to vary solo driver fees in real-time. SANDAG continues to monitor the program and evaluate opportunities to expand the HOT lanes concept to similar facilities for highway access ramps and connectors. The HOT lanes proposed throughout the region are detailed in the Systems Development chapter. Net revenue from HOT lane programs will be used for transit service in the same corridor.

INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

An important strategy in maximizing the efficiency of the existing system is cohesive management of the modal components. The region’s ground transportation network is the collection of our freeways, roads, and transit systems. Although these elements can be identified separately, they are interreliant and require a comprehensive management focus to achieve our mobility goals. This comprehensive, effects-driven approach is termed Integrated Performance Management (IPM). Improving mobility requires strategies, such as IPM, that deliver choices and combinations for travel, while focusing on the higher-level strategy of balancing system and demand management.

Implementation of an integrated performance strategy uses Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) deployments to deliver real-time and proactive operations by providing our system managers a decision support tool. This tool, built upon the performance monitoring capabilities discussed earlier in this chapter, combined with predictive analysis, will provide a “live” view into how the system is working overall, identify potential developing issues, and identify operational strategies to negate or remediate the impact.

The successful delivery of integrated performance management, customer choice, and balancing demand management with systems management can only be met through the introduction of new technologies and innovative services. New technologies and services have the potential to drastically change the way we manage the transportation network, deliver services, and empower customers to efficiently use the system.

The I-15 FasTrak® program is the first facility to employ “dynamic pricing” in the country.



INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

The purpose of an ITS is to improve transportation systems management, performance, and safety. The concept of developing a strategy for using ITS was established under a larger national planning effort initiated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Under ISTEA, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) encouraged the application of advanced transportation systems and technologies to improve the efficiency and safety of the nation’s existing transportation infrastructure.

Commitment for implementing and undertaking ITS strategies has been reaffirmed through subsequent federal legislations. Early efforts under-taken by SANDAG included the completion of the region’s first ITS Strategic Plan as part of SANDAG’s 2020 RTP. A new 2007 ITS Strategic Plan is being developed. The following section discusses the status of current ITS activities in the region.

A key aspect of the region’s ITS Strategic Plan is the development of the Integrated Performance Management Systems Network that will inter-connect the region’s local transportation management centers (see Figure 7.4) and integrate data from the modal management systems. Completion of this network will enable the modal agencies to cohesively manage the overall performance of the local and regional transportation systems.

The SANDAG ITS Strategic Plan identifies the future needs of the region’s transportation system users and local agencies and recommends the appropriate strategies and systems to serve those needs through better management and integration of the regional transportation system. The potential technologies and integration plans are described in the San Diego Regional ITS Architecture as part of the overall ITS Strategic Plan.

To date, the region has made significant investments in deploying systems as part of the regional network. The network includes the following modal management subsystems to provide the agencies with the necessary systems and tools to better manage the region’s freeways, arterials, transit, incidents and emergency response, special events, commercial vehicle operations, and traveler information:

Freeway Management System – enables Caltrans District 11 to better manage the region’s freeways through installation of new computer hardware, software, vehicle detection, and cameras. It will help coordinate freeway operations with adjacent regions, improve incident detection and clearance, coordinate freeway-arterial opera-tions with the local agencies, and further refine ramp-metering systems to dynamically adapt to changes in traffic.

Intelligent Transportation Systems will help better manage our transportation systems performance and safety.

A key aspect of the region’s ITS Strategy is the development of the Integrated Performance Manag-ement Systems Network that will integrate modal data and inter-connect the region’s local trans-portation management centers.


Arterial Traffic Management System – enables local agencies to better manage traffic with improved hardware and software. It enables the local agencies to coordinate traffic signal timing across jurisdictional boundaries, optimize traffic flow on regionally significant arterials, manage traffic caused by special events and major accidents, and coordinate arterial signals with freeway ramps, transit service, and rail grade crossings.

Transit Management System – provides transit with a field operations management system to enable improved route planning, scheduling, and performance monitoring. The system, using vehicle tracking and on-time performance monitoring technologies, will provide emergency alert tracking and transit signal priority to keep transit vehicles on time. The system also will provide real-time transit information through kiosks, message boards, automated passenger counting, and the 511 Advanced Traveler Information System project.

Advanced Traveler Information System (511) – collects real-time data from the freeway, arterial, and transit systems described above and packages it for the delivery traveler information. This system meets a key need of providing real-time traffic and transit information to the traveling public through the phone and Web at www.511sd.com. Advanced technology has been utilized to deliver an interactive voice response system on the 511 telephone system that allows for hands-free telephone utilization. Envisioned for the future is the inclusion of other transportation-related information, such as parking, and the dissemination of traveler information through wireless devices, such as cell phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), and in-vehicle navigation systems. The 511 system was launched in February 2007 with the goal of providing real-time information to the public as a means to improve mobility by promoting mode choice and influencing when users travel.

FasTrak® and Compass Card Electronic Payment Systems – provide customers and operators with simple yet powerful tools to make and collect payments. The region’s I-15 Managed Lanes facility uses state-of-the- art, open road tolling technology to dynamically adjust rates and charge user accounts. As an initial deployment for transit services in late 2007, the Compass Card system will provide customers with a seamless method to pay for and use transit services. Using smart card technology, customers will be able to board vehicles quicker, and transit managers will be able to reduce the complexity of fare policies within the region. Future expansion of the Compass Card will provide for payment of on- and off-street parking fees and to a patron’s FasTrak® account.

This Advanced Traveler Information System meets two key needs: delivers real-time traffic and transit condi-tions to the traveling public, and provides an ongoing source of data to transportation planners.



ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATIVE SERVICES

As the state of knowledge regarding the effects and practical impacts of advanced transportation technologies grows, new challenges and new directions emerge. In particular, the capabilities of new technologies with respect to overall system management offer considerable potential. These advanced technologies present opportunities that should be evaluated and where appropriate, exploited to achieve the desired effects.

Transportation and systems engineering professionals recognize that technologies in themselves do not deliver effects and value. It is only when the technologies are packaged together as a set of coherent and focused applications that support the delivery of services, that effects and value can be delivered, measured, and managed. Therefore, the most effective application of advanced technologies can be attained through a focus on the applications that can be supported and the service or value that can be delivered to the citizens of the San Diego region.

During the last seven years, the San Diego region has been involved in multiple ITS program activities. The San Diego region has successfully delivered the modal management subsystems for freeways, arterials, and transit, along with the data integration, to deliver traveler information. It will work to add further sophistication to these subsystems, incorporate innovative services, and develop an integrated performance management system as key elements of the region’s system management strategy.

The programs, projects, and strategies for delivering a comprehensive mobility program are described in the ITS Strategic Plan. The ITS Strategic Plan provides for an effects-based approach to using measurable ITS implementation as a congestion mitigation tool. SANDAG pursues federally supported initiatives to conduct pilot operational studies of technologies and innovative services to assess regional value. Some of the key programs and projects SANDAG is working to evaluate include:

Smart Parking – A sophisticated parking information and management system making use of Web technologies, wireless telecommunications, and a parking sensor network that will deliver new services to the citizens of San Diego. As the first step toward a regional parking management system, drivers who park at selected stations along the COASTER route paralleling the I-5 will be able to determine parking space availability in real time and, if desired, reserve a predetermined parking space for an additional service fee. The deployment of a parking management and payment system in coordination with FasTrak® and Compass Card will enable SANDAG to experiment with coordinated pricing for travel and explore ways to balance transportation demand by increasing value to transit users.

The San Diego region will work to add further sophistication to modal management subsystems, incorpo-rate innovative services, and develop an integrated performance manag-ement system as key elements of the region’s system management strategy.


N


N

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

ElCajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

Tijuana, B.C.

SanDiego

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

76

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

805

5

5

5

282

163 94

67

52

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

CaltransDistrict 7

(Los Angeles)

CaltransDistrict 12

(Orange County)

CaltransDistrict 8

(San Bernardino)

CaltransDistrict 11San Diego

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAINTERREGIONAL

IMTMS NETWORK

SAN DIEGO REGIONINTEGRATED PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT NETWORK

Figure 7.4

SAN DIEGO REGIONINTEGRATED

PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT

SYSTEMNovember 2007

Local TransportationManagement Center

Caltrans TransportationManagement Center

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS



Congestion and Value Pricing on Managed Lanes, Connectors, and Ramps – Building on the initial success delivered through the I-15 Managed Lanes and Dynamic Toll projects, this project will extend and enhance the portfolio of dynamic pricing mechanisms that SANDAG currently employs for demand management. Pricing infrastructure will be extended to cover selected connectors and a network of ramp meters in the region. Using a range of pricing strategies and mechanisms, SANDAG will offer commuters a wider range of new choices to purchase time savings and increased reliability.

Smart Vehicles – Passenger vehicles are being equipped with the latest advances in technology, enabling development of ground-breaking safety and mobility applications along with new management tools. The U.S. DOT Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) initiative develops a wireless communication network between vehicles, roadside elements, and transportation management systems, taking advantage of the emerging intelligence and capabilities of modern vehicles. The ability to exchange and collect data from vehicles will provide for significant improvements in safety, delivery of traveler information, and our ability to manage the system in real-time. This project would conduct field operational tests of parking guidance, probe, payment, and traveler information applications.

Regional Wireless Data Network – The project will involve the planning, design, and implementation of a regionwide, high-speed wireless data service capable of supporting the full range of transportation technology projects defined for the region. While primarily designed to support applications such as smart vehicles, enhanced arterial data collection, public access to WiFi on transit vehicles, and a wide range of other advanced transportation technology projects, the network also will provide opportunities for public safety usage and public-private partnerships.

Universal Transportation Account – This initiative will deliver increased value and convenience of payment for transportation services by providing users with simpler and more flexible choices for the payment of transportation-related user fees such as tolls, parking fees and transit tickets. This pilot project would build on current FasTrak® and Compass Card initiatives by integrating the computer systems for tolling, transit, and parking payments, providing users with a single account to manage all their transportation expenses. The project also will test the use of new public-private partnerships and managed-service approaches to system delivery, operation, and management.

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) – ICM applies advanced technology and uses a collaborative, cooperative, and coordinated systems management approach to improve mobility and safety across modes and networks for people and goods. ICM showcases the transportation possibilities that exist when highway, arterial, and



transit managers work together in a unified approach to address transportation problems. ICM helps reduce travel times for commuters within the corridor, helps public transportation become a more attractive option, increases the use of HOVs, and increases person throughput within the corridor. ICM approaches have a secondary benefit for safety and reduction in response times to corridor incidents through inclusion of incident management plans.


ACTIONS

The following actions support the Plan’s System Management Chapter recommendations.

SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT

Proposed Actions

Responsible Parties

Performance Monitoring – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Mobility and Reliability.

1. Implement a regional system to monitor 100 percent of the region’s urban freeways, on-ramps, and CMP arterial network through use of automated data collection systems.

Caltrans, SANDAG, and local jurisdictions

2. Implement monitoring of regional transit service through the use of automated data collection and vehicle location systems.

SANDAG, MTDB, NCTD, and Caltrans

3. Provide regular transportation system performance reports to the SANDAG Board of Directors and integrate and coordinate performance monitoring data with other ongoing planning and programming activities.

SANDAG

4. Regularly monitor average trip travel times and usage (volumes and ridership) for select travel corridors.

SANDAG

Congestion Management Program – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Reliability and Efficiency.

5. Complete the development of a systemwide deficiency plan through the RTP development process to address congestion in the region.

SANDAG, local jurisdictions, Caltrans, and transit agencies

6. Coordinate the development of subregional plans as a tool to address deficient roadway segments not evaluated in the RTP.


Freeway Service Patrol – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Reliability and Efficiency.

7. Regularly monitor the FSP program and modify, as needed, in response to changing traffic and commute patterns.

SANDAG

8. Implement an automated FSP vehicle fleet tracking and management system to monitor and report FSP program performance.

SANDAG

9. Seek additional federal, state, and local funding to expand the FSP program to other freeways and roadways and to off-peak commute times.

SANDAG



SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT

Proposed Actions

Responsible Parties

Public Safety – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Reliability and Efficiency.

10. Coordinate emergency planning and implementation among various local, state, and federal agencies to allow for effective responses and eliminate duplication of efforts.


11. Develop emergency operations plans to evacuate residents via transit in the case of a large-scale emergency or disaster.

SANDAG, local jurisdictions, and transit agencies

High Occupancy Toll Lanes – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Mobility and Efficiency.

12. Expand the HOT lane pricing concept to other existing or planned HOV/Managed Lanes to maximize lane capacity and obtain necessary state and federal legislation/approvals.

SANDAG and Caltrans

13. Consider peak-period pricing as an alternative whenever major new highway capacity is added.

SANDAG and Caltrans

Integrated Performance Management and Advanced Technologies and Innovative Services – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Mobility, Reliability, and Efficiency.

14. Monitor and support the development of an Integrated Performance Management System through the completion of the regional ITS Strategic Plan.

SANDAG

15. Coordinate development and implementation of ITS Strategic Plan projects within the San Diego region so that the network is inter-operable, compliant with the national and regional ITS architecture, and delivers aspects of integrated performance management.

SANDAG

16. Monitor development of smart vehicles and the vehicle infrastructure integration initiatives and seek funding to conduct a field operations test.

SANDAG

17. Regularly update the 511 systems and services to stay current with changes in technology and availability of transportation information.

SANDAG, Caltrans, transit agencies, and local jurisdictions

18. Complete the evaluation of Smart Parking COASTER/I-5 study. SANDAG and NCTD

19. Implement the I-15 Integrated Corridor Management System. SANDAG, Caltrans, transit agencies, and local jurisdictions.


CHAPTER 8 DEMAND MANAGEMENT: HOW CAN WE TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF THE SYSTEM?

The wide distribution of homes, offices, schools, and other major activity centers in the region, along with our growing economy and population, place ever increasing demands on our transportation system. This demand has challenged our ability to operate a reliable and efficient system. The continued growth in the number of vehicle trips in the region stretches our ability to keep pace.

Recognizing that we cannot build our way out of congestion by adding only new freeways or fixed-rail transit services, the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (RTP or the “Plan) continues to emphasize managing the demand on the system, especially during peak periods. Demand Management focuses on reducing trips on the transportation system during rush hours when most of our traffic congestion occurs. Through better management of travel demand, we can relieve some of the pressure on the regional transportation system and improve its efficiency by shifting demand to times or modes that have excess capacity.

By encouraging alternatives to driving alone, Demand Management also supports the Systems Development component of the 2030 RTP (Chapter 6). The Plan encourages the development of viable travel choices that include using transit, carpooling, vanpooling, biking, and walking. Demand Management strategies promote these alternative modes – which, in turn, help reduce single occupant vehicle trips – or eliminate trips during rush hours through teleworking and flexible work hours. This chapter also describes the region’s efforts to support non-motorized travel choices by addressing the biking and walking elements of the Plan. Discussion of the regional bikeway network is contained in the Systems Development Chapter of the Plan (Chapter 6).

RIDELINK – REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM

TDM strategies improve the efficiency of the transportation system by helping to reduce or eliminate peak-period trips when the highest travel demand occurs. Travel demand strategies typically offer programs and incentives to encourage modes other than driving a single occupant vehicle or shift demand to non-rush hour periods. Employer-sponsored transportation benefits, regional transit and vanpool subsidies, and carpool and biking incentives are examples of current and future TDM strategies.

CHAPTER CONTENTS

RIDELINK – REGIONAL TDM PROGRAM ...................................................8-1

IMPROVING NONMOTORIZED ALTERNATIVES ............................................8-9

ACTIONS ........................................................8-15

The 2030 RTP continues to emphasize managing the demand on the system, especially during peak periods.



The most effective TDM programs combine financial incentives with the provision of alternative travel choices. In addition, the success of many TDM measures such as teleworking, flexible work hours, and compressed work weeks, are dependent upon cooperation from the region’s employers.

The plan to manage demand is based on proven strategies. Since 1995, SANDAG has operated a regional transportation demand management program called RideLink. RideLink is SANDAG’s regional commuting services program that assists employers, employees, and students with identifying and using alternative ways to commute to work or school. In the last year, RideLink staff responded to almost 20,000 inquiries for information about ridesharing, transit, and bicycling. These requests were made via the 1-800-COMMUTE telephone line or through the RideLink.org Web site, with more and more people accessing information through the Internet.

Regional Vanpool Program. This program provides long-distance commuters with a cost-effective alternative to driving alone. SANDAG contracts with three vanpool vendors to provide the vehicles, maintenance, and insurance, and provides a $400 monthly subsidy per eligible van to reduce the vanpool lease costs.

572 participating vanpools as of October 2007

4,716 daily passengers

56-mile average, one-way distance

Reduced nearly 114 million vehicle miles in FY 2007

Employer Outreach. RideLink assists employers in developing value-added commuter programs. Valuable tax benefits can accrue to employer and employee alike. SANDAG provides employers with assistance by surveying for employee preferences and then developing customized transportation management and benefit plans. Outreach efforts include employer presentations, informational forums, Rideshare Week, and the Diamond Awards, which honor employers with exceptional programs.

Transit Options. RideLink connects employers and employees to commuting on transit and cost-saving pass options. The new Compass Card (coming in winter 2008) will make it easier than ever to use a monthly transit pass or for businesses to connect employees to transit.

Telework/Flex Time. RideLink assists employers in developing customized telework, flex time, and compressed work week programs. Telework information is available through RideLink’s employer representatives and ranges from providing employers with information and assistance with policy development, to working alongside employers in program implementation and monitoring.

RideLink assists employers, employees, and students with identifying and using alternative ways to commute to work or school.


Carpool Matching. RideLink maintains a database of commuters who are interested in joining a carpool or vanpool. Customers can request a matchlist online, via telephone, or through their employer. Matchlist requests are mailed to the commuter within a few days of the request. Once a commuter receives the matchlist, it is his/her choice to contact the other commuters listed to form a carpool. RideLink intends to measure the formation of carpools through a Web-based interface which will allow the collection of vehicle miles traveled reduction information and travel behavior.

Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) Program. GRH provides a free taxicab ride or 24-hour car rental to those who carpool, vanpool, use premium bus service or the COASTER train or bike to work at least three days per week. Registered participants can use this service in response to an unscheduled incident, overtime, or illness up to three times per year.

1,027 active registrants as of October 2007

228 rides home were provided last year

School Services. RideLink offers a SchoolPool program that helps parents whose children attend the same schools to form carpools. In addition, RideLink offers a Walking School Bus program. The Walking School Bus consists of two adults walking to pick up children at pre-designated stops on the route to school. The SchoolPool and Walking School Bus programs have been adopted by elementary, middle, and high schools alike, both public and private.

Regional Bicycle Locker Program. This program provides cyclists with a dedicated, secure space to park their bikes before or after commute trips. Program participants pay a one-time key deposit fee to reserve a locker at various major transit stations and activity centers. On-demand lockers are available at select locations. Lockers are used whenever the bicycle commuter makes a trip.

559 lockers in the program located at 47 different sites.

New Directions/Emphasis

TDM regulations that mandated employer trip reduction programs were in place in the San Diego region in the 1990s. These regulations, including the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Regulation XIII and the City of San Diego’s TDM Ordinance, were enacted primarily for air quality purposes. To reduce air quality emissions from motor vehicle sources, the regulations required larger employers to cooperate with regional TDM efforts to reduce employee commute trips by implementing trip reduction plans for their work sites.

Interested commuters can request a matchlist online, via telephone, or through their employer.

RideLink also offers a SchoolPool program that helps parents whose children attend the same schools to form carpools.



In 1995, the TDM requirements were rescinded when the region’s air quality designation was reclassified from “severe” to “serious.” The business community at the time also objected to the mandated trip reduction programs. Since the mid-1990s, participation by area employers in TDM efforts has been entirely voluntary.

In the voluntary environment, a challenge for the regional TDM program has been to develop a mix of programs and services that attracts attention and makes “business sense” for both employers and commuters. The 2030 RTP calls for the development of innovative policy approaches that support expanded financial incentives and increased promotion of viable alternatives to the solo commute.

A main TDM objective for the 2030 RTP is to reduce peak-period commute trips through the implementation of Demand Management strategies. The reduction of peak-period commute trips will be monitored as we improve our performance capabilities, which are discussed further in Chapter 7. This reduction is premised on increasing participation of area employers in e-work (telework) strategies, more long-distance commuters joining vanpools and carpools, and the development of a robust, regionwide Managed Lane/HOV network that provides significant travel time savings for carpools, vanpools, and transit riders, among other strategies.

Demand Management Strategy

TDM strategies hold great potential to improve mobility in the San Diego region. The ability for TDM to influence commuter choice is directly related to the emphasis that is placed on market-driven strategies, such as robust incentive programs, the alternative modes available to commuters, and the participation in transportation benefits programs by employers.

The ITS Strategic Plan lays out the region’s TDM strategy for the 2030 RTP. This strategy will help guide the development of more successful, far-reaching TDM initiatives and delivery of choices to the public. The delivery of this strategy requires collaboration between local jurisdictions, trans-portation providers such as MTS, NCTD, and Caltrans, and area employers. Additionally, close coordination will be required with the ongoing develop-ment of the region’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) described in Chapter 7.

SANDAG will establish partnerships with the necessary agencies and large employers to deliver the TDM strategy. SANDAG will continue to build upon and enhance this strategy for the implementation of local TDM programs, development of guidelines for incentive programs, and increasing collaboration with area employers. A key aspect of the strategy is to provide as many self-service options as possible. Self-service options offer the customer (employers or commuters) to evaluate and choose alternatives for their commuting problems 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Anticipated emphasis areas include:

A challenge for the regional TDM program has been to develop a mix of programs and services that attracts the attention and makes “business sense” for both employers and commuters.


Telework e-Work. Teleworkers or e-workers are wage and salary employees who conduct some or all of their daily work activities from their home or a remote site other than at the normal work site in order to avoid commuting during peak periods.

Despite the large number of progressive and entrepreneurial businesses based in the San Diego region, the growing number of knowledge-based jobs, and the high number of households with personal computers and Internet access, the total number of people who participate in telework remains less then 5 percent of all workers. Based on recent telework surveys, it is neither the lack of technology nor the unwillingness of employees that limits the numbers of teleworkers in the region. Rather, it is the lack of support and trust from individual supervisors and upper management in the region’s businesses and agencies that hampers the growth of telework in the region. To increase support among supervisors and upper management, the RideLink employer outreach efforts provide employers with information on the value and benefits of telework e-work. SANDAG works alongside employers to develop customized telework e-work programs that benefit both the management and employees.

Financial Incentives. Financial incentives have long been observed as an effective motivator to help solo commuters make a switch to an alternative transportation mode. The increase in the monthly regional vanpool subsidy from $300 to $400 resulted in a 40 percent increase during the first year of its implementation in 2001. This growth far exceeded the previous years’ growth of 17 percent. The growth continues at nearly 20 percent each year.

To encourage greater numbers of commuters to switch to an alter-native commute mode, more aggressive financial incentives should be initiated. RideLink will continue to develop strategies to test varying levels and types of incentives for employers and commuters who participate in alternative commute modes and are not currently covered by other incentive programs (e.g., telework, carpooling, and bicycling).

Alternative Work Schedules. Like the e-worker who avoids the peak-period commute by working from home one or more days per week, the employee who participates in a flex schedule or compressed work hours program can avoid commuting during peak periods. The employee does not necessarily work from home, but rather arrives at work before or after the morning rush hour and/or leaves work before or after the evening rush hour. Flex hours and compressed work schedules are simple, yet powerful tools that employers have to help reallocate travel demand to periods outside the daily peak. For example, a “9/80” work schedule helps eliminate one day of home-to-work commuting every two weeks.

Lack of support and trust from individual supervisors and upper management in the region’s businesses and agencies hampers the growth of telework in the region.

The increase in the monthly regional vanpool subsidy is evidence of the effectiveness of financial incentives, as the number of vanpools formed in the region increased 40 percent over the past twelve months.

Flex hours and compressed work schedules are simple, yet powerful tools that employers have to help reallocate travel demand to periods outside the daily peak.



To encourage more employer participation, RideLink will continue to emphasize marketing and promoting alternative work schedules to a broader audience. Marketing materials will be developed that focus on telework and alternative work schedules. SANDAG will seek to participate in seminars, workshops, and similar forums to promote and educate organizations regarding the benefits of alternative work schedule programs.

Vanpools. While there has been a significant increase in the number of vanpools operating in the San Diego region over the last two years, the average number of passengers each vanpool carries is decreasing slightly. This is due in part to a more desirable, smaller vehicle (7- or 8-passenger minivans) and the ease with which a smaller vanpool can be formed. However, moving more passengers in fewer vehicles continues to be the primary goal of the vanpool program.

To encourage more commuters to participate in vanpooling and commuting in larger vehicles, especially those commuting from the outlying residential communities, the region will increase vanpool outreach activities and explore opportunities to offer a tiered-subsidy to attract additional participants commuting in larger vehicles. Addi-tional activities may include developing individual vanpool Web pages on a pilot basis to test the value of providing specific information regarding vanpool routes, meeting points, and schedules to attract new vanpool riders. The goal is to increase the average passenger count in each vanpool, while maintaining growth of new vehicles. It is envisioned the vanpool program will support more than 720 vehicles by 2009.

SANDAG will examine the potential for providing commuters with more information about these various services by including route and schedule information through the 511 phone and Web-based information system.

First and Last Mile. One of the barriers commuters face when deciding to use transit is the first and last mile of the commute between their homes and transit stops and between transit stops and work locations. Providing solutions that address this issue is essential to improving mobility, reducing automobile dependency, and developing a seamless multi-modal transportation network. First-and-last-mile solutions include enhanced walking and bicycling networks around transit stations, the use of innovative mobility concepts such as segways, electric bicycles and electric vehicles, short-haul vanpooling, and car sharing.

The goal is to increase the average passenger count in each vanpool, while maintaining growth of new vehicles. It is envisioned the vanpool program will support more than 720 vehicles by 2009.


On-Demand Bicycle Lockers. The San Diego region currently boasts more than 1,100 miles of bike lanes and bike routes, as well as more than 550 bike locker spaces in which to store a bicycle for commuting purposes.

The current lease method for the bike locker program is for commuters to sign a RideLink Bike Locker Program agreement, provide a current, valid driver’s license or photo identification, and a key deposit in the form of a check or money order. This process could be streamlined to afford the commuter with more instantaneous service and in turn, allow for less administrative support cost from RideLink staff.

TDM Outreach Activities. Outreach to employers has proven to be the most effective method for promoting alternative travel to work choices to the largest numbers of the region’s commuters. Employers hold the key to changing commute behavior, whether it means offering a company-sponsored vanpool, a company-paid transit pass or benefit, or support for telework.

To help promote and market TDM programs and services, a major emphasis will be to partner with industry partners to co-market transportation alternatives to employers and commuters. Periodic advertising campaigns, tied to the launch of new commuter services, will serve to increase awareness and build interest among employers. Promotional and public relations events, tied to new commuter services, will be conducted to provide opportunities to address larger audiences.

Promotions. Each year, RideLink sponsors two major TDM promotional events, Bike to Work Day and Rideshare Week. The purpose of these events is to encourage commuters to try bicycling, carpooling, vanpooling, and other alternates to driving solo. To raise awareness, RideLink offers monthly prize promotions for those willing to try an alternative mode. These prizes will continue to be developed through sponsorships and donations.

In addition, RideLink sponsors the employer Diamond Awards to honor those employers who have developed, maintained, and marketed superior transportation programs for their employees. In 2007, RideLink honored 20 employers and 5 individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the promotion of TDM.

Opportunities also exist for increased interregional coordination when it comes to marketing and outreach to commuters whose trips originate from nearby regions, such as Western Riverside County, Orange County, and Baja California/Mexico. Relationships with interregional partners will be strengthened to improve coordination and look for ways to increase partner outreach through collaborative marketing efforts.

Employers hold the key to changing commute behavior, whether it means offering a company-sponsored van-pool, a company-paid transit pass or benefit, or support for telework.



On-line Rideshare Matching. To increase usage of RideLink’s ride-share program, SANDAG will implement a Web-based ridematching service offering real-time access via the Internet. The service will help provide immediate information to interested commuters while they are motivated to act, if they have moved, or changed jobs.

As part of the on-line service, RideLink also will offer a spontaneous ridematching service for those who may need a ride only for a short-term commuting situation, such as a temporary job assignment.

Construction Mitigation. One very tangible way that TDM measures complement and support Systems Development is through applying TDM programs and services as mitigation for major highway construc-tion projects. While temporary in nature, construction-related TDM measures are designed to encourage solo commuters to avoid con-struction-related traffic congestion. The concern over lengthy construction-related delays can be a key motivator to encourage commuters to switch either their mode or time of travel. Once commuters take action and choose a commute alternative, they may be more likely to continue using an alternative mode after the highway construction is complete.

SANDAG will form partnerships with Caltrans, local jurisdictions, transit agencies, and employers to develop commuter-oriented solutions to traffic congestion caused by highway construction. The model for this collaboration was developed in conjunction with Caltrans and the City of San Diego for the I-5/I-805 merge widening project. Increased funding, promotion of alternative commute options, developing performance measurements during the construction period, and outreach to employers in the vicinity of the highway construction, are key components of construction-related TDM activities.

Demand Management Funding

Providing sufficient funding is critical to the implementation of the Demand Management strategies contained in the 2030 RTP. The Plan includes about $191 million spread over 25 years to fund the new programs that encourage telework, alternative work schedules, and expanded outreach to employers, schools, and residential communities. Because TDM measures are relatively low-cost solutions that can be implemented more quickly than major capital projects, an increased level of TDM funding is included in the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario compared to the Revenue Constrained Plan.

Performance measures, many of which are already in place, will be used to monitor and report on the effectiveness of each element of the regional TDM program. Each element in the program will be managed by objectives, and new performance monitoring criteria will be developed as part of the ITS Strategic Plan and Demand Management Strategy.

The Plan includes about $191 million spread over 25 years to fund the new programs that encourage telework, alternative work schedules, and expanded outreach to employers, schools, and residential communities.


IMPROVING NONMOTORIZED ALTERNATIVES

Bicycling and walking are typically local modes of transportation, but both can play a part in the region’s transportation network. Nearly 40 percent of all home-to-work trips could be made in about 30 minutes by bicycle, and 40 percent of home-based trips not associated with work are within 10 minutes by bike.

Virtually every trip begins and ends with a walk, and access to transit is an especially important role for walking, but walking can be a viable means of travel in and of itself. A short trip to the library, post office, or ball field can easily be made on foot where the transportation network serves the needs of pedestrians. These short trips, when made by auto, are among the most inefficient in terms of air quality and fuel efficiency. Making bicycling and walking a more attractive means of travel is not difficult from an engineering point of view; however, walking does require changes in the way we use land, build our transportation infrastructure, and maintain our public rights-of-way. It also requires education and marketing that encourages people to expand the way they think about their transportation choices.

Making the region’s transportation network more accessible will require a continued financial commitment to bicycling and walking infrastructure. Some improvements can be accomplished relatively easily when new streets are built or old ones are reconstructed; however, some parts of the region’s transportation network will need to be retrofitted without the benefit of major reconstruction. With the passage of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the voters approved an increase in funding for nonmotorized transportation projects from the current $1 million a year for bicycle programs and projects to 2 percent of the TransNet funds for bicycle, pedestrian, and neighborhood safety (traffic calming) projects. In FY 2009 that will amount to nearly $6 million. Even so, because the TransNet Extension expands the types of projects to be funded, financing for bicycle and pedestrian projects will continue to be one of the challenges that the region faces.

Accommodating Bicycling and Walking

People traveling on foot or by bicycle have the same needs as motorists. They want safe and convenient ways to travel, and they need access to most all of the same destinations as motorists. To meet this need the region’s transportation system should be designed and built to accommo-date bicyclists and pedestrians. This notion has been established by both federal and state policy, and by the TransNet Extension Ordinance. The 1999 federal guidance on this topic makes it clear that accommodating bicycle and pedestrian travel should be a routine part of the planning, design, construction, and operation of every federally funded transporta-tion project. Likewise, Deputy Directive 64 commits Caltrans to “fully

HOW THE 2030 RTP PROMOTES NONMOTORIZED TRAVEL

Support for universal bicycle and pedestrian access

Support for land use and street design standards that make bicycling and walking safer, more practical and attractive

Support for continuing educational and promotional campaigns

Transportation facilities should be designed to encourage bicycle and walking trips, and not be a barrier to those trips.



consider the needs of nonmotorized travelers in every aspect of its work.” At the regional level, the TransNet ordinance requires all projects constructed with TransNet funds to accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists in all settings where they are allowed unless the cost would be “excessively disproportionately to the need or probable use.” Local and regional agencies should take the same approach when developing transportation improvements.

Most bicycle and walking trips are relatively short and within a single community. While these community trips may be focused on a neighborhood commercial district, school, or other community service like public transit, the trip origins are widely dispersed. Because of this, nearly all of the transportation network must accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel. Transportation facilities should be designed to encourage bicycle and walking trips and not be a barrier to those trips. Whether a freeway interchange, local arterial, or residential street, the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians should be included in the planning from the start. By doing so, the cost of providing access can be minimized, especially when compared to the cost of retrofitting an existing facility.

Making Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Friendly Communities

The region’s transportation system needs to provide a full range of transportation choices in a balanced and integrated manner. Sidewalks and streets do not accomplish this alone. As discussed in Chapter 5, a complementary relationship must exist between the transportation system and land uses that it serves, and appropriate support infrastructure and programs need to be in place.

Walkable Communities

Planning and Designing for Pedestrians, Model Guidelines for the San Diego Region (June 2002) provides guidance on a wide range of factors affecting walkability. It addresses community structure, street design and network connectivity, site design, and pedestrian facility needs, Implementation of pedestrian facilities is largely a local responsibility however, so SANDAG is encouraging local jurisdictions to address walkability as well.

Local Pedestrian Plans. SANDAG requires local agencies to develop pedestrian master plans in order to be eligible to compete for Transportation Development Act (TDA) and TransNet nonmotorized funding administered by SANDAG. To facilitate this, SANDAG will support development of the plans through these funding programs. Having local pedestrian master plans in place also will help SANDAG identify and address the funding needs the region faces to make it a model of walkability.

Safe Routes to School. With the alarming rise in childhood obesity discussed in Chapter 5, the journey to school becomes an important


opportunity for children to increase the level of physical activity in their daily lives. Unfortunately the trend has been in the opposite direction. Where three decades ago as much as 65 percent of children walked or rode bikes to get to school, today as little as 10 percent do. Recognition of this problem at the state and federal levels has led to the development of Safe Routes to School funding programs that support education, encouragement campaigns, and infrastructure improvements. Effective Safe Routes to School programs help reduce the amount of traffic congestion around schools and make the journey to school on foot or by bike that much more feasible for children. Local agencies should aggressively pursue funding under these programs.

Safe Routes to Transit

Planning for walkable communities takes on regional significance where it facilitates access to regional transit services. Mixed land use and transit network connectivity make it easier for public transit to efficiently take people where they want to go. Well-designed sidewalks and crosswalks make walking to and from transit more attractive. Planning and Designing for Pedestrians shows how to do this and how to incorporate transit stops into pedestrian walkways so there will be room for both. Creating higher density, walkable neighborhoods around regional transit facilities also makes it possible for more people to have access to transit without the use of a car, and thus, reduces the need to construct costly parking facilities. SANDAG’s Smart Growth Incentive Program, funded under the TransNet Extension Ordinance, will help focus investments in smart growth and walkable communities around regional transit and should encourage local jurisdictions to do the same.

Bicycle Facilities and Access

Communities that support walking as a means of access usually are bicycle-friendly communities as well. The mix of land uses bring more destinations into easy bicycling range where the bicycle can fill the gap between destinations that can be reached on foot and those that would require a transit or auto trip. Calming traffic on pedestrian-oriented streets usually makes them more attractive places to ride a bike.

Beyond these improvements, bicycle access is improved where the road network provides space for bicyclists and road surfaces are well main-tained. Where the street network cannot adequately serve bicyclists, separate bike paths should be built. These bike paths also can provide access for pedestrians. Also important are adequate bike parking and other support facilities and ongoing education and promotional programs.

Calming traffic on pedestrian-oriented streets usually makes them more attractive places to ride a bike.



Bike Parking. Bicycle theft is one of the deterrents to bicycle travel, but it can be overcome by providing quality bicycle parking facilities. Fortunately, good bicycle parking can be provided at a very modest cost. In contrast, poor quality bike parking is often underutilized because it is either inconvenient, does not effectively secure the bike, or both. For bicycle commuting trips, employers should be encouraged to provide bike lockers or other high-security parking. To assist in providing proper parking facilities, SANDAG will incorporate bicycle parking design guidelines into the regional bike plan to be developed in FY 2008.

The bicycle also can be an efficient means of gaining access to transit, provided there are safe and attractive routes to transit stations. The Coastal Rail Trail and Inland Rail Trail are two examples of how SANDAG is developing bikeways to enhance bicycle access to transit, and the regional bicycle locker program provides secure bicycle parking at a fraction of the cost of providing parking for motor vehicles. As bike access to transit improves, SANDAG and local agencies should look for opportunities to enhance bicycle parking through facilities like the bike stations currently in use in Long Beach and at several BART stations in the Bay Area.

On-Demand Bike Lockers. On-demand bicycle lockers allow bicycle commuters to use any locker at a given site on a first-come, first-serve basis. These lockers have been tested for consideration for new and replacement installations of the region’s existing bicycle lockers. State-of-the-art lockers use electronic keys, allow multiple users the opportunity to use the same locker, and have the ability to provide information about utilization and demand. The potential benefits of on-demand lockers include reduced program administration costs, reduced inappropriate usage of the lockers, and increased utilization. In addition, the total number of lockers required at any given site may be reduced as the number of lockers required only needs to meet the peak demand.

In 2007, RideLink will begin a multi-year effort to retrofit all regional bicycle lockers with electronic, on-demand locks, thereby increasing the utility of the existing lockers without increasing the space needs at transit centers. Ease of use is typically cited as a major reason commuters will switch and stay with an alternative mode. It is envisioned that as the Compass Card is implemented, the regional bicycle lockers would be accessible using the card, making the combined use of transit and bicycles easy.

Support Facilities. Support facilities, such as clothing lockers and showers, greatly enhance the experience of bicycling to and from the workplace and also serve to encourage employees to consider bicycling as a viable commute choice. Where employment density warrants, local agencies should consider policies that encourage

Support facilities, such as clothing lockers and showers, greatly enhance the experience of bicycling to and from the workplace and also serve to encourage employees to consider bicycling as a viable commute choice.


building owners and employers to provide clothing lockers and showers for their employees to accommodate longer bike trips.

Bicycle Education. The most frequently cited reason for not riding a bicycle is concern for personal safety. This is understandable since bicyclists are very vulnerable in collisions with motor vehicles. However, education on proper bicycle riding can significantly improve the bicyclist’s safety, which in turn, can help to overcome some of this resistance. SANDAG has provided funding for adult bicycle education in the region through the League of American Bicyclists’ Bike Ed program. This effort has significantly increased the number of bicyclists receiving Bike Ed training (1,700 over the last two years), but the need extends well beyond what this program can provide.

Education of motorists also is needed to promote safe and lawful interaction between motorists and bicyclists. SANDAG has been working with local agencies and stakeholders to develop a public education media campaign called the Safety Traffic Education Program (STEP). Implementation of the program should begin in FY 2008.

To reach children, bicycle education should be provided through the schools. Instituting an ongoing program in the schools likely will require development of a teacher training program. Effective programs that can serve as a model have been instituted in Texas and Nevada. Opportunities also may exist to distribute bicycle safety materials to adults in conjunction with campaigns that promote alternatives to driving alone, but a program will have to be developed, and funding sources will have to be identified for such an effort. To further encourage both bicycling and walking, the Plan also recommends continued support for RideLink’s annual Bike to Work Day and Rideshare Week/Month, as well as support for events like the annual Walk Your Child to School Day.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Funding

With the extension of the TransNet Ordinance, SANDAG has taken a significant step forward in financing bicycle and pedestrian projects, and in providing incentives for community designs that support these modes. In addition, beginning in FY 2009, the TransNet Ordinance will require that most TransNet-funded projects provide for the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. The annual revenues from the TDA for bicycle and pedestrian projects (currently about $2.5 million) and the 2 percent of funds in the TransNet program (estimated at just under $6 million in FY 2009) will provide $377 million over the next 25 years to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

No accurate estimates exist for needed pedestrian infrastructure improvements, but based on existing bicycle transportation plans and additional estimates provided by local jurisdictions, current bicycle project

Education on proper bicycle riding can significantly improve the bicyclist’s safety, which in turn can help to overcome some of the resistance to bicycling.



needs for the region are at least $420 million. Additional funding will be required to support a significant near-term effort to implement the nonmotorized component of the Plan. How local and regional funds can best be utilized to implement a regional bicycle improvement program will be addressed in the San Diego Regional Bike Plan discussed in Chapter 6. SANDAG also will need to identify and support pedestrian improvements throughout the region, especially where they directly support regional transit services.


ACTIONS

The following actions support the Plan’s Demand Management Chapter recommendations.

DEMAND MANAGEMENT


RideLink – Regional TDM Program – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Mobility, Efficiency, Sustainability, and Equity.

1. Develop a Demand Management Strategy as part of the ITS Strategic Plan.

SANDAG, member agencies, and employers

2. Increase vanpools participating in Regional Vanpool Program by 20 percent over the next three years.

SANDAG

3. Coordinate with interregional partners to maximize vanpool participation and equally share in the costs of the program.

SANDAG, RCTC, and OCTA

4. Establish regional partnerships; promote telework, flex schedules, and compressed work weeks.

SANDAG and industry partners

5. Develop incentives and measurements for carpooling, bicycling, and e-work.

SANDAG

6. Develop First-and-Last-Mile Strategy. SANDAG, Caltrans, MTS, and NCTD

7. Expand marketing, outreach, and education to employers and schools. SANDAG

8. Collaborate with industry interregional partners on co-promotion and marketing RideLink services to employers and commuters.

SANDAG, industry, and interregional partners

Improving Nonmotorized Alternatives – The following proposed actions support the RTP goals of Mobility, Accessibility, Efficiency, Livability, Sustainability, and Equity.

9. Support local efforts to develop pedestrian master plans. SANDAG and local jurisdictions

10. Monitor changes in bicycle and pedestrian travel and summarize in annual State of the Commute report.

SANDAG

2030 Regional Transportation Plan A-1

APPENDIX A THE SCENARIOS – PROJECTS, COSTS, AND PHASING

This appendix includes the Revenue Constrained Plan, Reasonably Expected Revenue, and Unconstrained Needs scenarios. Detailed highway and transit listings, cost estimates, and phasing are included for the Revenue Constrained Plan and Reasonably Expected Revenue scenarios. For the Unconstrained Revenue scenario, detailed highway and transit listings and cost estimates are provided.

Figure A.1 depicts the 2030 Revenue Constrained Plan. Figures A.2 and A.3 depict the Revenue Constrained Plan highway and transit improvements, respectively. Table A.1 lists the major capital improvements in the Revenue Constrained Plan. Table A.2 includes highway project phasing, and Table A.3 includes transit services phasing and headways for the Revenue Constrained Plan. Table A.4 lists the major transit expenditures by decade for the Revenue Constrained Plan. Table A.5 lists the phased arterial improvements.

Table A.6 lists the major capital improvements in the Reasonably Expected Revenue scenario. Table A.7 includes highway project phasing, and Table A.8 includes transit services phasing and headways for the Reasonably Expected Revenue scenario. Table A.9 lists the major transit expenditures by decade for the Reasonably Expected Revenue scenario.

Table A.10 highlights the differences between the Revenue Constrained Plan and Reasonably Expected Revenue scenarios.

Figures A.4 and A.5, respectively, depict the highway and transit improvements in the Unconstrained Needs Network. The Unconstrained Needs Network is summarized in Tables A.11 through A.13. Table A.11 lists the major capital improvements, Table A.12 lists the major transit expenditures, and Table A.13 lists transit service headways for the Unconstrained Needs Network.

Tables A.14 through A.16 summarize the differences between the Revenue Constrained Plan, the Reasonably Expected Revenue scenario, and the Unconstrained Needs Network. Table A.14 summarizes the difference in highway projects, Table A.15 summarizes the differences in transit services and headways, and Table A.16 summarizes the difference in transit expenditures between the three scenarios.



Tijuana, B.C.

CampPendleton

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

Figure A.1

2030 REVENUECONSTRAINED


Managed/HOV Lanes


Access Improvements

Freeway Connectors

HOV/BRT Connectors

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Transit/Rail

76

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

52

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

County of San Diego

Camp Pendleton

OrangeCounty

0 3 6

MILES

RiversideCounty

San DiegoCounty

NorthernExtent

5

241

A-32030 Regional Transportation Plan


Table A.1–Major Capital Improvements - Revenue Constrained Plan ($ millions – 2006 dollars)

Transit Facilities Cost

SPRINTER Rail $484 Mid-Coast Light Rail $1,008 Transit Parking Structures $693 SPRINTER Rail Double Tracking $199 Coastal Rail Double Tracking and Other Improvements $1,350 Coastal Rail Tunnel (Del Mar only) $475 Regional Rail Grade Separations $363 Improved/New Major Transit Stations and Centers $519 Transit First Priority Measures/Enhancements $100 Vehicles for New Services $280 Arterial BRT Transit Priority Improvements $481

Subtotal $5,952




I-5 La Jolla Village Dr. I-5/I-805 Merge 8F/14 8F/14F+ 2HOV $160

I-5 I-5/I-805 Merge Vandegrift Blvd. 8F/14F 8F/14F + 4ML $2,240

I-15 SR 94 SR 163 6F/8F 8F + 2HOV $265

I-15 SR 163 SR 56 8F + 2ML (R) 10F + 4ML/MB $414



SR 52 I-805 SR 125 4F/6F 6F + 2ML(R) $330

SR 94 I-5 I-805 8F 8F + 2HOV $200

I-805 Palomar St. SR 94 8F 8F + 4ML $884

I-805 SR 94 SR 52 8F 8F + 2HOV $631

I-805 SR 52 Carroll Cyn Rd. 8F 8F + 4ML $203

I-805 Carroll Cyn Rd. I-5 8F 8F + 2HOV $218

Subtotal $6,382



I-5 I-805 North to North & South to South $170 I-15 SR 94 South to West & East to North $140 I-15 I-805 North to North & South to South $66 I-805 SR 52 West to North & South to East $190 I-805 SR 94 North to West & East to South $95

Subtotal $661

A-6 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Table A.1–Major Capital Improvements - Revenue Constrained Plan ($ millions – 2006 dollars) – (cont’d)



I-5/I-805 Port of Entry – Mexico --- Inspection Facility $30 SR 11* SR 905 Mexico --- 4T $300 SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 --- 4F $538 SR 125** SR 905 San Miguel Rd. --- 4T $640 SR 125 San Miguel Rd. SR 54 --- 4F $160 SR 241** Orange County I-5 --- 4T/6T $552 SR 905 I-805 Mexico --- 6F $595

Subtotal $2,815



I-5 J Street Sea World Dr. 8F Access Improvements $225 I-5 I-805 SR 56 10F 14F $186 SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F $53 SR 75/SR 282*** Glorietta Blvd. Alameda Blvd. 6C 6C + 2TU (PE only) $20 SR 76 Melrose Dr. I-15 2C 4C $500 SR 125** Telegraph Cyn. San Miguel Rd. 4T 8T $130 SR 125 San Miguel Rd. SR 54 4F 8F $40 Regional Arterials and Local Access Freeway Interchanges $914

Subtotal $2,068

Freeway Connectors



Subtotal $535

Total $18,413

KEY




* public/private partnership ** privately funded *** funding from federal discretionary defense funding sources



Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

Camp Pendleton

76

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

52

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

Figure A.2


HIGHWAY NETWORKNovember 2007

Managed/HOV Lanes


Access Improvements

Freeway Connectors

HOV/BRT Connectors

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

C =

E =

F =

HOV =

MB =

ML =

T =


Expressway

Freeway


Movable Barrier

Managed Lanes

Toll Road

OrangeCounty

0 3 6

MILES

RiversideCounty

San DiegoCounty

NorthernExtent

5

241

4E

6F

10F+4ML/MB

10F+4ML/MB

2C

4F

6F+2ML(Reversible)

4F

8F+4ML

8F+4ML

8F+2HOV

8F+2HOV

8F

4T

6F

8F

8F+2HOV8F+4ML

6F

6F

2C

2C

2C

8F+4ML

8F

2C

10F

4F

4F

8F

6F

8T

6F+2HOV8F+

2HOV

8F

8F

4C

14F+4ML

2C

4F

8F+4ML

8F

8F+2HOV

8F+4ML

8F+2HOV

4T/6T

6F



Table A.2–Phased Highway Projects - Revenue Constrained Plan¹

($ MILLIONS – 2006 DOLLARS) YEAR BUILT

BY FREEWAY FROM TO EXISTING IMPROVEMENT

COST CUMULATIVE

COST

2009 I-5 I-805 SR 56 10F 14F $186 $186

2009 I-15 SR 56 Centre City Parkway 8F 10F + 4ML/MB $427 $613

2009 SR 125 SR 905 San Miguel Road -- 4T $640 $1,253

2009 SR 125 San Miguel Road SR 54 -- 4F $160 $1,413

2010 SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 -- 4F $538 $1,951

2010 SR 75/282 Glorietta Boulevard Alameda Boulevard 6C 6C+2TU (PE only) $20 $1,971

2014 I-5 La Jolla Village Drive I-5/I-805 Merge 8F/14F 8F/14F + 2HOV $160 $2,131

2014 I-5 I-5/I-805 Merge Cannon Road 8F/14F 8F/14F + 4ML $1,440 $3,571

2014 I-5/I-805 North to North & South to South -- HOV Connectors $170 $3,741

2014 I-5/I-805 Port of Entry – Mexico -- Inspection Facility $30 $3,771

2014 SR 11 SR 905 Mexico -- 4T $300 $4,071

2014 I-15 SR 163 SR 56 8F + 2ML (R) 10F + 4ML/MB $414 $4,485

2014 I-15 Centre City Parkway SR 78 8F 8F + 4ML $210 $4,695

2014 SR 52 I-805 SR 125 4F/6F 6F + 2ML (R) $330 $5,025

2014 SR 76 Melrose Drive I-15 2C 4C $500 $5,525

2014 SR 241 Orange County I-5 -- 4T $402 $5,927

2014 I-805 Palomar Street SR 94 8F 8F + 2HOV $584 $6,511

2014 I-805/SR 94 North to West & East to South -- HOV Connectors $95 $6,606

2014 I-805 Carroll Canyon Road I-5 8F 8F + 2HOV $218 $6,824

2014 SR 905 I-805 Mexico -- 6F $595 $7,419


Table A.2–Phased Highway Projects - Revenue Constrained Plan (cont’d)



COST CUMULATIVE

COST

2020 I-5/SR 56 West to North & South to East -- Freeway Connectors $185 $7,604


2020 I-15 SR 94 SR 163 6F/8F 8F + 2HOV $265 $7,935

2020 I-15/SR 94 South to West & East to North -- HOV Connectors $140 $8,075

2020 SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F $53 $8,128

2020 SR 94 I-5 I-805 8F 8F + 2HOV $200 $8,328

2020 SR 94/SR 125 West to North & South to East -- Freeway Connectors $150 $8,478

2020 I-805 SR 52 Carroll Canyon Road 8F 8F + 4ML $203 $8,681

2030 I-5 J Street Sea World Drive 8F Access Improvements $225 $8,906

2030 I-5 I-8 La Jolla Village Drive 8F/10F 8F/10F + 2HOV $200 $9,106

2030 I-5 Cannon Road Vandegrift Boulevard 8F 8F + 4ML $800 $9,906

2030 I-5/SR 78 West to South & South to East -- Freeway Connectors $200 $10,106

2030 SR 125 Telegraph Canyon. San Miguel Road 4T 8T $130 $10,236

2030 SR 125 San Miguel Road SR 54 4F 8F $40 $10,276

2030 SR 241* Orange County I-5 4T 4T/6T $150 $10,426

2030 I-805 Palomar Street SR 94 8F + 2HOV 8F + 4ML $300 $10,726

2030 I-805 SR 94 SR 52 8F 8F + 2HOV $631 $11,357

2030 I-805/SR 52 West to North & South to East -- HOV Connectors $190 $11,547

¹ These projects are included in the 2009, 2010, 2014, 2020, and 2030 analysis years for air quality assessment. * SR 241 - 4 toll lanes from I-5 to Cristianitos interchange; 6 toll lanes from Cristianitos Interchange to Orange County line

KEY






Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

San Marcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

County of San Diego

Camp Pendleton

MAP AREA

Figure A.3


TRANSIT NETWORK(With Route Numbers)

November 2007

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS


Bus Rapid Transit

Rapid Bus

76

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

52

399

399

398

398

398

570

510

510

611

610628

520

628680

610, 680

610

680

470

530

470610

350

530

634



Table A.3–Phased Transit Services - Revenue Constrained Plan¹

YEAR ROUTE DESCRIPTION PEAK

HEADWAY (MINUTES)

OFF-PEAK HEADWAY (MINUTES)

2009 634 UCSD/UTC Super Loop 10 15

2009 350 Escondido Rapid Bus 10 10

2014 510 Increase in Blue Line Service (current headways 7½/15) 7.5 10

2014 610 Escondido to Downtown San Diego via I-15/SR 94* 15 30

2014 470 Escondido to Sorrento Mesa via Mira Mesa Blvd. (and via Carroll Canyon after 2020) 10 --

2014 611 Mid-City Rapid Bus – SDSU to Downtown San Diego via El Cajon Boulevard and Park Boulevard

10 10

2014 680 Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa via I-805/I-15/SR 52 10 --

2014 628 Otay Mesa to Downtown San Diego via I-805/SR 94 10 30

2020 398 Increase in COASTER Service (current headways 36/120)** 20 60

2020 399 Increase in SPRINTER Rail (opening headways 30/30) 15 30

2020 570 Mid-Coast Trolley 15 15

2030 510 Increase in Blue Line Trolley Service 7.5 7.5

2030 520 Increase in Orange Line Trolley Service (current headways 15/15) 7.5 15

2030 530 Increase in Green Line Trolley Service (current headways 15/15) 7.5 15

2030 610 Increase in Escondido to Downtown San Diego via I-15/SR 94* 10 15

2030 470 Increase in Escondido to Sorrento Mesa via Carroll Canyon Road 10 15

2030 628 Increase in Otay Mesa to Downtown San Diego via I-805/SR 94 10 15

2030 680 Increase in Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa via I-805/I-15/SR 52 10 15

2030 399 Increase in SPRINTER Rail 15 15

¹ These projects are included in the 2009, 2010, 2014, 2020, and 2030 analysis years for air quality assessment.

* I-15 BRT services includes all-day core service (Route 610) and peak period express services (Routes 607 and 608)

** Average headways


Table A.4—Major Transit Expenditures - Revenue Constrained Plan¹ ($ millions – 2006 dollars)

PROJECT CATEGORIES 2006- 2010 2011- 2020 2021- 2030 TOTAL

Major New Capital Facilities $962 $3,109 $1,881 $5,952

SPRINTER Rail $484 $0 $0 $484

Mid-Coast Light Rail $110 $898 $0 $1,008

Transit Parking Structures $105 $315 $273 $693

SPRINTER Rail Double Tracking $0 $199 $0 $199

Coastal Rail Double Tracking & Other Improvements $130 $410 $810 $1,350

Coastal Rail Tunnel (Del Mar only) $0 $0 $475 $475

Regional Rail Grade Separations $50 $157 $156 $363

Improved/New Major Transit Stations and Centers $7 $466 $46 $519

Transit Priority Measures/Enhancements $20 $40 $40 $100

Vehicles for New Services $19 $215 $46 $280

Arterial BRT Transit Priority Improvements $37 $409 $35 $481


Existing Service $824 $1,647 $1,647 $4,118

ADA, Senior, Human Service Transportation $50 $110 $110 $270

New/Improved Service $12 $345 $658 $1,015

Rehab./Replacement/Miscellaneous Capital $278 $738 $803 $1,819

TOTAL $2,126 $5,949 $5,099 $13,174

¹ These projects are included in the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2020, and 2030 analysis years for air quality assessment.


Table A.5–Phased Arterial Projects - Revenue Constrained Plan¹

CONFORMITY ANALYSIS YEAR SANDAG ID LEAD AGENCY PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2009 CNTY08 County of San Diego Mission Road Pepper Tree Lane to Clemmens Lane in Fallbrook - widen from three to five lanes

2009 CNTY17 County of San Diego SR 54/SR 94 Ph 1: widen from four to six lanes with intersection improvements, raised median and left turn pockets; Ph 2: on SR 94 extend Jamacha Blvd; Ph 3: on SR 54 extend from Cuyamaca College east to Braham

2009 CNTY23 County of San Diego Valley Center Road (Wohlford Intersection)

East of Valley Center & Cole Grade Road and extending approximately six miles to Rincon Casino - widen from two to three lanes; construct traffic signal at North Lake Wohlford Road/Valley Center Road intersection

2009 CNTY19 County of San Diego Valley Center North & South City of Escondido to Cole Grade Road - widen and reconstruct with 14-ft striped center 2-way lane, bike lanes and pathways

2009 ESC03 Escondido Citracado Parkway Don Lee Lane to Vineyard Avenue - widen from two to four lanes with left turn pockets and new traffic signal at Aero Way and Citracado Parkway

2009 ESC25 Escondido Citracado/Nordahl Country Club to State Route 78 – widen from four to six lanes with double left turn lanes and exclusive right turn lanes

2009 ESC05 Escondido El Norte Parkway, Phase IV La Honda Drive at Citrus/Mission Avenue & at E Washington Avenue - widen from two to four lanes and construct missing section of El Norte Pkwy with left turn pockets, raised medians and new traffic signals at Lincoln Ave, Citrus/Mission Ave and E Washington Ave

2009 ESC24 Escondido Centre City Parkway SR 78 to Mission Avenue - widen from four to six lanes with intersection improvements on Mission Avenue

2009 SM09 San Marcos South Santa Fe Road Rancho Santa Fe Road to Bosstick Boulevard - construct new four lane arterial with raised median, curb and gutter, sidewalk, utility undergrounding, and traffic signal system (CIP-011)

2009 SM23 San Marcos Barham Drive Widening Woodland Pkwy to Opper Street - widen Barham Drive to secondary arterial standards

2009 SM28 San Marcos Twin Oaks Valley Road Street Widening and Improvements

San Marcos Blvd to Borden Rd - future widening from two lanes to four lanes including sidewalk and landscaping


Table A.5–Phased Arterial Projects - Revenue Constrained Plan¹ – (cont’d)


2009 SNT02 Santee Forester Creek Channelization

Forester Creek Channelization - construct Olive Lane & Mission Gorge Road bridges over flood control channel

2009 CB12 Carlsbad College Boulevard Reach A Badger Lane to future Cannon Road - construct four lane arterial with median, bike lanes, and sidewalks/trails

2009 SM22 San Marcos South Santa Fe from Bosstick to Smilax

Widen and realign existing road to four secondary arterial standards

2010 CB04 Carlsbad El Camino Real Improvements

SR 78 and Olivenhain Road - widen and improve to six lane arterial including traffic signal upgrades, bike lanes, and sidewalks

2010 CB13 Chula Vista Poinsettia Lane Reach E Cassia Drive to Skimmer Court - construct 4-lane arterial with median, bike lanes, and sidewalks/trails (DEMO ID: CA366 HPP No: 517)

2010 NC01 National City Plaza Blvd Widening Highland Ave to Euclid Ave - widen from two to three lanes

2010 N/A Poway Espola Road Twin Peaks Road and Titan Way - future widening from two to four lanes

2010 VISTA08 Vista West Vista Way Widening Melrose Drive west to Thunder Drive - realign W. Vista Way including providing preliminary improvement plans, final right-of-way maps, and a metes and bounds legal description anticipated to provide congestion relief by widening W. Vista Way from two to four lanes

2014 CB11 Carlsbad Cannon Road Reach 4 College Blvd. to boundary with Oceanside - construct four lane arterial with median, bike lanes, sidewalks, and pedestrian trails

2014 CHV08 Chula Vista Willow Street Bridge Project Bonita to Sweetwater - replace and widen from two to four lanes including bicycle lanes

2014 CNTY14 County of San Diego South Santa Fe Avenue Vista City limits to 700 feet south of Woodland - reconstruct and widen from two to four lanes including bicycle lane

2014 CNTY14A County of San Diego South Santa Fe Avenue South Future widening of South Santa Fe Ave. from 700 feet south of Woodland Dr./South Santa Fe intersection to San Marcos city limits at Similax Road




2014 CNTY24 County of San Diego Cole Grade Road Future widening of Cole Grade Road from north of Horse Creek Trail to south of Pauma Heights Road to accommodate 14-ft traffic lane in both direction, 12-ft center 2-way left turn, 6-ft bike lane & 10-ft pathway

2014 CNTY39 County of San Diego Bear Valley Parkway North Bear Valley Parkway from San Pasqual Valley Road to Boyle Avenue - future widening

2014 CNTY21 County of San Diego Bradley Avenue Overpass at SR 67

Magnolia Ave to Mollison Ave - future widening of Bradley Ave overpass from two to four lanes

2014 EL10 El Cajon Jamacha Road East Main Street to south of City limit - future widening of Jamacha Road from four to six lanes

2014 ESC04 Escondido Citracado Parkway II West Valley Pkwy to Harmony Grove Road - widen from two to four lanes with raised medians, construct bridge over Escondido Creek

2014 ESC02A Escondido East Valley/Valley Center East Valley Pkwy to Valley Center Dr - widen roadway from four to six lanes with raised medians and left turn pockets; New Eureka Ranch Street and E. Valley Pkwy - modify signal at Lake Wohlford and Valley Center Road; widen bridge over Escondido Creek (DEMO ID: CA332; HPP No: 260)

2014 SD34 San Diego City El Camino Real San Dieguito Road to Via de la Valle - reconstruct and widen from two to four lanes and extend transition lane and additional grading to avoid biological impacts (CIP 52-479)

2014 SD103 San Diego City I-5/Genesse Ave Interchange In San Diego, replace Genesee Ave overcrossing from four lane bridge with six lane bridge; between Sorrento Valley Road and La Jolla Village Drive - construct auxiliary lanes and replace Voight Drive bridge (DEMO ID: CA639; HPP No: 3086)

2014 SD113 San Diego City I-5/Sorrento Valley Road On I-5 at Sorrento Valley - future new freeway access interchange including ramp

2014 SD90 San Diego City SR 163/Clairemont Blvd. Interchange

Kearny Mesa to Kearny Villa Road - widen from four to six lane prime arterial (CIP 52-745.0)

2014 SD70 San Diego City W. Mission Bay Bridge Over San Diego River - replace from four to six lane bridge with class II bike lane (52-643)




2014 SM10 San Marcos SR 78/Smilax Interchange Improvements

Construct new interchange at Smilax Road and SR 78

2014 SM24 San Marcos Woodland Parkway Interchange Improvements

Modify existing ramps at Woodland Parkway and Barham Drive between Hill Drive and Rancheros Drive; future widening and realignment of SR 78 overcrossing and associated work

2014 SM30 San Marcos San Marcos Boulevard Street Improvements

San Marcos Boulevard: Between Rancho Santa Fe Road to Bent Avenue; widen road to a six lane prime arterial

2020 SD11 San Diego City Regents Road Bridge Bridge spanning the AT&SF railroad and a portion of the Rose Canyon floodplain connecting the existing Regents Rd on both sides of the canyon - future widening Regents Rd from 100' north of Lahitte Ct to Governor and from 100' north of Lahitte Ct to the south abutment of the bridge including four lane with sidewalks and class II bike lanes (CIP 53-044.0)

2020 SD81 San Diego City Genesee Avenue - Nobel Drive to SR 52

Nobel Drive to SR 52 - future widening to six lane major street north of Decoro Street and to a six lane primary arterial south of Decoro Street (CIP 52-458.0)

2020 SD83 San Diego City SR 163 & Friars Road Future construction new southbound SR 163 to westbound Friars Road off-ramp - PE only (CIP 52-455)

2020 SD115 San Diego City La Jolla Village Drive/I-805 Interchange Ramps

I-805 at La Jolla Village Drive - reconfigure interchange and add 220 meters of acceleration lane (524850)

1 These projects are included in the 2009, 2010, 2014, 2020, and 2030 analysis years for air quality assessment.


Table A.6–Major Capital Improvements - Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario ($ millions – 2006 dollars)


SPRINTER Rail $484 Mid-Coast Light Rail $1,008 Downtown to Kearny Mesa Guideway $660 Sorrento Mesa Guideway $450 Transit Parking Structures $735 SPRINTER Rail Double Tracking and Westfield NC Fair Extension $669 Coastal Rail Double Tracking and Other Improvements $1,350 Coastal Rail Tunnels (Del Mar and UTC) $1,004 Regional Rail Grade Separations $671 Local Share for I-15 High Speed Rail $100 Improved/New Major Transit Stations and Centers $603 Transit Priority Measures/Enhancements $250 Vehicles for New Services $489 Arterial BRT Transit Priority Improvements $395

Subtotal $8,868



I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2HOV $202 I-5 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F + 2HOV $934 I-5 I-8 La Jolla Village Dr. 8F/10F 8F/10F + 2HOV $200 I-5 La Jolla Village Dr. I-5/I-805 Merge 8F/14F 8F/14F +2HOV $160 I-5 I-5/I-805 Merge Vandegrift Blvd. 8F/14F 8F/14F +4ML $2,740 I-15**** SR 94 SR 163 6F/8F 8F + 2HOV $265 I-15 SR 163 SR 56 8F + 2ML (R) 10F + 4ML/MB $414 I-15 SR 56 Centre City Pkwy. 8F 10F + 4ML/MB $427 I-15 Centre City Pkwy. SR 78 8F 8F + 4ML $210 SR 52 I-805 SR 125 4F/6F 6F + 2ML(R) $330 SR 78 I-5 I-15 6F 6F + 2HOV $650 SR 94 I-5 I-805 8F 8F + 2HOV $200 SR 94/SR 125 I-805 I-8 8F 8F + 2HOV $834 I-805 SR 905 I-5 8F 8F + 4ML $3,336

Subtotal $10,902



I-5 I-805 North to North & South to South $170 I-15 SR 78 East to South & North to West $213 I-15 SR 94 South to West & East to North $140 I-15 I-805 North to North & South to South $66 I-805 SR 52 West to North & South to East $190 I-805 SR 94 North to West & East to South $95

Subtotal $874


Table A.6–Major Capital Improvements - Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario ($ millions – 2006 dollars) – (cont’d)


Freeway From To Existing Improvements I-5/I-805 Port of Entry – Mexico --- Inspection Facility $30 SR 11* SR 905 Mexico --- 4T $300 SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 --- 4F $538 SR 125** SR 905 San Miguel Rd. --- 4T $640 SR 125 San Miguel Rd. SR 54 --- 4F $160 SR 241** Orange County I-5 --- 4T/6T $552 SR 905 I-805 Mexico --- 6F $595

Subtotal $2,815


Routes From To Existing Improvements I-5 J Street Sea World Dr. 8F Access Improvements $225 I-5 I-805 SR 56 10F 14F $186 I-5 Vandegrift Blvd. Orange County 8F 8F + 4T $810 I-8 2nd Street Los Coches 4F 6F $54 I-15 SR 78 Riverside County 8F 8F + 4T $2,060 SR 52 I-5 I-805 4F 6F $119 SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F $53 SR 67 Mapleview St. Dye Rd. 2C/4C 4C $400 SR 75/SR 282*** Glorietta Blvd. Alameda Blvd. 6C 6C + 2TU (PE only) $20 SR 76 Melrose Dr. I-15 2C 4C $500 SR 125** Telegraph Cyn. San Miguel Rd. 4T 8T $130 SR 125 San Miguel Rd. SR 54 4F 8F $40 Regional Arterials and Local Access Freeway Interchanges $1,437

Subtotal $6,034

Freeway Connectors

Freeway Intersecting Freeway Movement I-5 SR 56 West to North & South to East $185 I-5 SR 78 West to South & South to East $200 SR 94 SR 125 West to North & South to East $150

Subtotal $535


Improvements Port District Marine Terminals Ground Access and Terminal Capacity $597 South Bay Rail Yards, Sidings, Third Main Line $328 Mexican Rail Rehabilitation, Spurs, Transload $32 East Otay Border Crossing Port of Entry $350 SR 905 Add 2 general purpose lanes (6F to 8F) from I-805 to Border $200 Otay Mesa SB Truck Route Widen and realignment $23 Air Cargo at SDIA Access, warehouses, transload $142 Pipeline Terminal access to I-15 $32

Subtotal $1,704

Total $31,732

KEY




* public/private partnership ** privately funded *** funding from federal discretionary defense funding sources **** HOV dedication and/or construction contingent n completion and operation of SR 15 Mid-City BRT stations and system improvements

¹ Additional Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) improvements included in the Reasonably Expected Revenue scenario


Table A.7 – Phased Highway Projects - Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario



COST CUMULATIVE

COST

2010 I-5 I-805 SR 56 10F 14F $186 $186

2010 I-15 SR 56 Centre City Parkway 8F 10F + 4ML/MB $427 $613

2010 SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 -- 4F $538 $1,151

2010 SR 75/282 Glorietta Boulevard Alameda Boulevard 6C 6C+2TU (PE only) $20 $1,171

2010 SR 125 SR 905 San Miguel Road -- 4T $640 $1,811

2010 SR 125 San Miguel Road SR 54 -- 4F $160 $1,971

2020 I-5 La Jolla Village Drive I-5/I-805 Merge 8F/14F 8F/14F + 2HOV $160 $2,131

2020 I-5 I-5/I-805 Merge Vandegrift Boulevard 8F/14F 8F/14F + 4ML $2,740 $4,871

2020 I-5/SR 56 West to North & South to East -- Freeway Connectors $185 $5,056

2020 I-5/I-805 Port of Entry – Mexico -- Inspection Facility $30 $5,086


2020 SR 11 SR 905 Mexico -- 4T $300 $5,556

2020 I-15** SR 94 SR 163 6F/8F 8F + 2HOV $265 $5,821

2020 I-15 SR 163 SR 56 8F + 2ML (R) 10F + 4ML/MB $414 $6,235

2020 I-15 Centre City Pkwy. SR 78 8F 8F + 4ML $210 $6,445

2020 I-15 SR 78 Riverside County 8F 8F + 4T $2,060 $8,505

2020 I-15/SR 94 South to West & East to North -- HOV Connectors $140 $8,645


2020 SR 52 I-5 I-805 4F 6F $119 $8,830

2020 SR 52 I-805 SR 125 4F/6F 6F + 2ML (R) $330 $9,160

2020 SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F $53 $9,213

2020 SR 67 Mapleview Street Scripps Poway Parkway 2C/4C 4C $120 $9,333

2020 SR 76 Melrose Drive I-15 2C 4C $500 $9,833

2020 SR 94 I-5 I-805 8F 8F + 2HOV $200 $10,033

2020 SR 94 I-805 SR 125 8F 8F + 2HOV $534 $10,567

2020 SR 94/SR 125 West to North & South to East -- Freeway Connectors $150 $10,717

2020 SR 241 Orange County I-5 -- 4T $402 $11,119

2020 I-805 Palomar Street SR 94 8F 8F + 4ML $884 $12,003


Table A.7 – Phased Highway Projects - Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario – (cont’d)



COST CUMULATIVE

COST

2020 I-805 SR 94 I-8 8F 8F + 4ML $630 $12,633

2020 I-805 I-8 SR 52 8F 8F + 2HOV $319 $12,952

2020 I-805 SR 52 Carroll Canyon Road 8F 8F + 4ML $203 $13,155

2020 I-805 Carroll Canyon Road I-5 8F 8F + 4ML $262 $13,417

2020 I-805/SR 52 West to North & South to East -- HOV Connectors $190 $13,607

2020 I-805/SR 94 North to West & East to South -- HOV Connectors $95 $13,702

2020 SR 905 I-805 Mexico -- 6F $595 $14,297

2030 I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2HOV $202 $14,499

2030 I-5 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F + 2HOV $934 $15,433

2030 I-5 J Street Sea World Drive 8F Access Improvements $225 $15,658

2030 I-5 I-8 La Jolla Village Drive 8F/10F 8F/10F + 2HOV $200 $15,858

2030 I-5 Vandegrift Boulevard Orange County 8F 8F + 4T $810 $16,668

2030 I-5/SR 78 West to South & South to East -- Freeway Connectors $200 $16,868

2030 I-8 2nd Street Los Coches 4F 6F $54 $16,922

2030 I-15/SR 78 East to South & North to West -- HOV Connectors $213 $17,135

2030 SR 67 Scripps Poway Parkway Dye Road 2C/4C 4C $280 $17,415

2030 SR 78 I-5 I-15 6F 6F + 2HOV $650 $18,065

2030 SR 125 Telegraph Canyon San Miguel Road 4T 8T $130 $18,195

2030 SR 125 San Miguel Road SR 54 4F 8F $40 $18,235

2030 SR 125 SR 94 I-8 8F 8F + 2HOV $300 $18,535

2030 SR 241* Orange County I-5 4T 4T/6T $150 $18,685

2030 I-805 SR 905 Palomar Street 8F 8F + 4ML $288 $18,973

2030 I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F + 2HOV 8F + 4ML $600 $19,573

2030 I-805 I-8 SR 52 8F + 2HOV 8F + 4ML $150 $19,723

2030 SR 905 I-805 Mexico 6F 8F $200 $19,923

* SR 241 - 4 toll lanes from I-5 to Cristianitos interchange; 6 toll lanes from Cristianitos Interchange to Orange County line ** HOV dedication and/or construction contingent n completion and operation of SR 15 Mid-City BRT stations and system improvements KEY C = Conventional Highway Lanes F = Freeway Lanes TU = Tunnel




Table A.8–Phased Transit Services - Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario

DECADE ROUTE DESCRIPTION PEAK

HEADWAY (MINUTES)


2010 510 Increase in Existing Blue Line Trolley Service 7.5 7.5

2010 611 Mid-City Rapid Bus – SDSU to Downtown San Diego via El Cajon Boulevard and Park Boulevard

10 10

2010 628 Otay Mesa to Downtown San Diego via I-805/SR 94 10 15

2010 634 UCSD/UTC Super Loop 10 15

2010 350 Escondido Rapid Bus 10 10

2020 530 Increase in Existing Green Line Trolley Service 7.5 7.5

2020 610 Escondido to Downtown San Diego via I-15/SR 94* 10 15

2020 680 Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa via I-805/I-15/SR 52 10 15

2020 398 Increase in Existing COASTER Service (current headways 36/120)** 20 60

2020 520 Increase in Existing Orange Line Trolley Service 7.5 15

2020 570 Mid-Coast Trolley from Downtown San Diego to Sorrento Mesa 7.5 7.5

2020 399 Increase in SPRINTER Rail Service 15 15

2020 470 Riverside County to UTC/UCSD via Mira Mesa Blvd. (and via Carroll Canyon Road after 2020)***

10-30 15-60

2030 120 Kearny Mesa to Downtown San Diego via 4th/5th/SR 163 Corridor Guideway 10 10

2030 640 San Ysidro to Downtown San Diego and Kearny Mesa via I-5 and 4th/5th/SR 163 Corridor Guideway

7.5 7.5

2030 10 La Mesa to Old Town via University Avenue 10 10

2030 90 El Cajon to Downtown San Diego via SR 125 and SR 94 10 10

2030 11 SDSU to Downtown San Diego and Spring Valley via Adams, 1st, and National Avenue 15 15

2030 210 Mira Mesa to Downtown San Diego via I-15 and SR 94 10 15

2030 2 North Park - Downtown San Diego via 30th St. and Broadway 10 10

2030 30 UTC - I-5 via La Jolla Village, La Jolla Boulevard, and Grand Avenue 10 10

2030 955 SDSU to National City via 54th Street, Euclid Avenue, and Main Street 10 10

2030 41 Fashion Valley to UTC/UCSD via SR 163, Genesee Avenue, and La Jolla Village 10 10

2030 470 Riverside County to Sorrento Mesa via Carroll Canyon 10-30 *** 15-60***

2030 472 NE Oceanside to UTC via El Camino Real/I-5 10 10

* I-15 BRT services include all-day core service (Route 610) and peak period express services (Routes 607 and 608)

** Average headways

*** Peak headways at 15 minutes to Escondido and 30 minutes to Riverside County; off-peak headways at 30 minutes to Escondido and 60 minutes to Riverside County.


Table A.9—Major Transit Expenditures - Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario ($ millions – 2006 dollars)

PROJECT CATEGORIES 2006- 2010 2011- 2020 2021- 2030 TOTAL

Major New Capital Facilities $1,311 $3,460 $4,097 $8,868

SPRINTER Rail $484 $0 $0 $484

Mid-Coast Light Rail $110 $898 $0 $1,008

Downtown to Kearny Mesa Guideway $0 $0 $660 $660

Sorrento Mesa Guideway $0 $0 $450 $450

Transit Parking Structures $105 $420 $210 $735

SPRINTER Rail Double Tracking/Westfield NC Fair Extension $0 $199 $470 $669

Coastal Rail Doubletracking and Other Improvements $130 $610 $610 $1,350

Coastal Rail Tunnels (Del Mar/UTC) $0 $0 $1,004 $1,004

Regional Rail Grade Separations $100 $300 $271 $671

Local Share for I-15 High Speed Rail $0 $100 $0 $100

Improved/New Major Transit Stations and Centers $76 $368 $159 $603

Transit Priority Measures/Enhancements $50 $100 $100 $250

Vehicles for New Services $88 $318 $83 $489

Arterial BRT Transit Priority Improvements $168 $147 $80 $395


Existing Service $740 $1,850 $1,850 $4,440

ADA, Senior, Human Service Transportation $53 $183 $229 $465

New/Improved Service $29 $538 $1,023 $1,590

Rehab./Replacement/ Miscellaneous Capital $390 $1,066 $1,057 $2,513

TOTAL $2,523 $7,097 $8,256 $17,876


Table A.10–Major Capital Improvements – Differences Between Scenarios ($ millions – 2006 dollars)

Differences between Reasonably Expected Revenues (Tables 6.2 & A.5) and Revenue Constrained Plan (Table A.1) scenarios are in strikeout and shaded.

Transit Facilities Cost SPRINTER Rail $484 Mid-Coast Light Rail $1,008 Downtown to Kearny Mesa Guideway $660 Sorrento Mesa Guideway $450 Transit Parking Structures $693 $735 SPRINTER Rail Double Tracking and Westfield NC Fair Extension $199 $669 Coastal Rail Double Tracking and Other Improvements $1,350 Coastal Rail Tunnel (Del Mar and UTC) $475 $1,004 Regional Rail Grade Separations $363 $671 Local Share for I-15 High Speed Rail $100 Improved/New Major Transit Stations and Centers $519 $603 Transit Priority Measures/Enhancements $100 $250 Vehicles for New Services $280 $489 Arterial BRT Transit Priority Improvements $481 $395

Subtotal $5,952 $8,868



I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2HOV $0 $202

I-5 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F + 2HOV $0 $934


I-5 La Jolla Village Dr. I-5/I-805 Merge 8F/14F 8F/14F +2HOV $160

I-5 I-5/I-805 Merge Vandegrift Blvd. 8F/14F 8F/14F + 4ML $2,240 $2,740

I-15 SR 94 SR 163 6F/8F 8F + 2HOV $265

I-15 SR 163 SR 56 8F + 2ML (R) 10F + 4ML/MB $414



SR 52 I-805 SR 125 4F/6F 6F + 2ML(R) $330

SR 78 I-5 I-15 6F 6F + 2HOV $0 $650

SR 94 I-5 I-805 8F 8F + 2HOV $200

SR 94/SR 125 I-805 I-8 8F 8F + 2HOV $0 $834

I-805 SR 905 I-5 8F 8F + 4ML $3,336

I-805 Palomar St. SR 94 8F 8F + 4ML $884

I-805 SR 94 SR 52 8F 8F + 2HOV $631

I-805 SR 52 Carroll Cyn Rd. 8F 8F + 4ML $203

I-805 Carroll Cyn Rd. I-5 8F 8F + 2HOV $218

Subtotal $6,382 $10,902



I-5 I-805 North to North & South to South $170 I-15 SR 78 East to South & North to West $0 $213 I-15 SR 94 South to West & East to North $140 I-15 I-805 North to North & South to South $66 I-805 SR 52 West to North & South to East $190 I-805 SR 94 North to West & East to South $95

Subtotal $661 $874




I-5/I-805 Port of Entry – Mexico --- Inspection Facility $30 SR 11* SR 905 Mexico --- 4T $300 SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 --- 4F $538 SR 125** SR 905 San Miguel Rd. --- 4T $640 SR 125 San Miguel Rd. SR 54 --- 4F $160 SR 241** Orange County I-5 --- 4T/6T $552 SR 905 I-805 Mexico --- 6F $595

Subtotal $2,815



I-5 J Street Sea World Dr. 8F Access Improvements $225 I-5 I-805 SR 56 10F 14F $186 I-5 Vandegrift Blvd. Orange County 8F 8F + 4T $0 $810 I-8 2nd Street Los Coches 4F 6F $0 $54 I-15 SR 78 Riverside County 8F 8F + 4T $0 $2,060 SR 52 I-5 I-805 4F 6F $119 SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F $53 SR 67 Mapleview St. Dye Rd. 2C/4C 4C $0 $400 SR 75/SR 282*** Glorietta Blvd. Alameda Blvd. 6C 6C + 2TU (PE only) $20 SR 76 Melrose Dr. I-15 2C 4C $500 SR 125** Telegraph Cyn. San Miguel Rd. 4T 8T $130 SR 125 San Miguel Rd. SR 54 4F 8F $40 Regional Arterials and Local Access Freeway Interchanges $914 $1,437

Subtotal $2,068 $6,034

Freeway Connectors



Subtotal $535


Improvements

Port District Marine Terminals

Ground Access and Terminal Capacity $597

South Bay Rail Yards, Sidings, Third Main Line $328 Mexican Rail Rehabilitation, Spurs, Transload $32 East Otay Border Crossing Port of Entry $350 SR 905 Add 2 general purpose lanes (6F to 8F) from I-805 to Border $200 Otay Mesa SB Truck Route Widen and realignment $23 Air Cargo at SDIA Access, warehouses, transload $142 Pipeline Terminal access to I-15 $32

Subtotal $1,704

Total $18,413 $31,732

KEY




* public/private partnership ** privately funded *** funding from federal discretionary defense funding sources ¹ Additional Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) improvements included in the Reasonably Expected Revenue scenario

Table A.10–Major Capital Improvements – Differences Between Scenarios ($ millions – 2006 dollars) – (cont’d)



Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

DelMar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

76

1-D

905 115

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

16394

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

54

8F+4T6E

4C

6F+2HOV

10F+4ML/MB

10F+4ML/MB

4C

6F

6E

6F+3ML/MB

6F

6F+2HOV

10F+4ML

10F+4ML

10F+4ML

10F+2HOV8F+2HOV

10F+2HOV

6F+2HOV

8T

4T

10F+2HOV

10F+2HOV

10F+4ML

8F+2HOV

4C

6F+2HOV

8F+2HOV

8F+4T

2C

2C

2C

10F+4ML

8F+2HOV

8F

2C

10F+2HOV

4F

8F+4T

8F

8F+4ML

14F+4ML

8F

6C+2TU

8F+2HOV

8F+2HOV

4C

6F+2HOV

8F+2HOV

8F+4ML

10F+4ML

8F+2HOV

10F+4ML

6C

6E

2C

6F6F

8F

8F+4ML

4F

2C

Figure A.4

2030UNCONSTRAINED

HIGHWAY NETWORKNovember 2007

Managed/HOV Lanes


Freeway Connectors

HOV Connectors

Freeway & HOV Connectors

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

C =

E =

F =

HOV =

MB =

ML =

T =

TU =


Expressway

Freeway


Movable Barrier

Managed Lanes

Toll Road

Tunnel

OrangeCounty

0 3 6

MILES

RiversideCounty

San DiegoCounty

NorthernExtent

5

241

4T/6T




Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

San Marcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

County of San Diego

Camp Pendleton

MAP AREA

76

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

163

94

675252

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

75

94

15

52

399

399

398

398

398570

510

611

610628

520

610680

210610

680

530

470610609

530

634

10

120

120

530

640

628 680

11

11

90

472

399

30

41

2955

27150

50

3513

936

962

691690

620

692

709

471

479

303

470

660

303

472

471

31

620

962

510

929

350

210

470

San Diego RegionSan Diego Region

Figure A.5

2030UNCONSTRAINED

TRANSIT NETWORK(With Route Numbers)

November 2007

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS


Bus Rapid Transit

Rapid Bus



Table A.11–Major Capital Improvements - Unconstrained Needs Network ($ millions – 2006 dollars)


SPRINTER Rail $484 Mid-Coast Light Rail $1,008 Downtown to Kearny Mesa Guideway $660 Sorrento Mesa Guideway $450 Transit Parking Structures $735 SPRINTER Double Tracking, Westfield NC Fair Extension, and Other Improvements $800 Coastal Rail Double Tracking and Other Improvements $1,350 Coastal Rail Tunnels (Del Mar and UTC) $1,004 Regional Rail Grade Separations $700 Local Share for I-15 High Speed Rail $200 Improved/New Major Transit Stations and Centers $786 Transit Priority Measures $500 Vehicles for New Services $642 Arterial BRT Corridor Improvements $476

Subtotal $9,795

HOV and Managed Lane Facilities Cost

Freeway From To Existing Improvement

I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2HOV $202 I-5 SR 54 I-15 8F 10F + 2HOV $350 I-5 I-15 I-8 8F 8F + 2HOV $870 I-5 I-8 La Jolla Village Dr. 8F/10F 10F + 2HOV $450 I-5 La Jolla Village Dr. SR 56 8F/14F 8F/14F + 4ML $291 I-5 SR 56 Palomar Airport Rd. 8F/10F 10F + 4ML $1,290 I-5 Palomar Airport Rd. Vandegrift Blvd. 8F 8F + 4ML $1,200 I-8 I-5 I-15 8F 8F + 2HOV $1,330 I-8 I-15 College Avenue 10F 10F + 2HOV $1,080 I-8 College Avenue SR 125 8F 8F + 2HOV $980 I-8 SR 125 SR 67 8F 8F + 2HOV $184 I-8 SR 67 Los Coches 4F/6F 6F + 2HOV $238 I-15 I-5 SR 163 6F/8F 8F + 2HOV $580 I-15 SR 163 SR 56 8F + 2ML(R) 10F + 4ML/MB $414 I-15 SR 56 Centre City Pkwy. 8F 10F + 4ML/MB $427 I-15 Centre City Pkwy. SR 78 8F 8F + 4ML $210 SR 52 I-5 I-805 4F 6F + 2HOV $210 SR 52 I-805 I-15 6F 8F + 2HOV $290 SR 52 I-15 SR 125 4F/6F 6F + 3ML/MB $500 SR 54 I-5 SR 125 6F 8F + 2HOV $128 SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F + 2HOV $290 SR 78 I-5 I-15 6F 6F + 2HOV $650 SR 94 I-5 I-805 8F 8F + 2HOV $200 SR 94 I-805 College Avenue 8F/10F 10F + 2HOV $520 SR 94 College Avenue SR 125 8F 8F + 2HOV $260 SR 94 SR 125 Avocado Blvd. 4F 6F + 2HOV $260 SR 125 SR 54 SR 94 8F 8F + 2HOV $170 SR 125 SR 94 I-8 8F 10F + 2HOV $160 SR 125 I-8 SR 52 6F 8F + 2HOV $270 SR 163 I-805 I-15 8F 8F + 2HOV $200


Table A.11–Major Capital Improvements - Unconstrained Needs Network ($ millions – 2006 dollars) – (cont’d)

HOV and Managed Lane Facilities (continued)


I-805 SR 905 Telegraph Cyn. 8F 8F + 4ML $532 I-805 Telegraph Cyn. I-8 8F 10F + 4ML $2,410 I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 8F + 4ML $610 I-805 I-8 SR 52 8F/10F 10F + 4ML $500 I-805 SR 52 La Jolla Village Dr. 8F 10F + 4ML $290 I-805 La Jolla Village Dr. I-5 8F 8F + 4ML $202

Subtotal $18,748


Freeway Intersecting Freeway

Movement

I-5 SR 52 West to South, North to East, South to East, and West to North $360 I-5 SR 54 West to South, North to East, South to East, and West to North $360 I-5 SR 56 South to East, West to North, North to East, and West to South $380 I-5 SR 78 South to East, West to North, North to East, and West to South $370 I-5 SR 94 West to South, North to East, South to East, and West to North $400 I-5 I-805 North to North and South to South $170 I-8 SR 125 West to South and North to East $280 I-15 SR 52 West to North and South to East $180 I-15 SR 56 East to North and South to West $190 I-15 SR 78 East to South and North to West $213 I-15 SR 94 East to North and South to West $140 I-15 SR 163 North to North and South to South $180 I-15 I-805 North to North and South to South $190 SR 52 SR 125 North to West and East to South $180 I-805 SR 52 West to North and South to East $190 I-805 SR 54 South to East and West to North $200

I-805 SR 94 East to South, East to North, South to East, North to West, West to South, and North to East

$532

I-805 SR 163 North to North and South to South $190

Subtotal $4,705


Freeway From To Existing Improvement I-5/I-805 Port of Entry – Mexico -- Inspection Facility $30 SR 11* SR 905 Mexico -- 4T $300 SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 -- 4F $538 SR 125** SR 905 San Miguel Road -- 4T $640 SR 125 San Miguel Road SR 54 -- 4F $160 SR 241** Orange County I-5 -- 6T $552 SR 905 I-805 Mexico -- 6F $595

Subtotal $2,815



I-5 Vandegrift Blvd. Orange County 8F 8F + 4T $810 I-8 Los Coches Dunbar Rd. 4F/6F 6F $143 I-15 SR 78 Riverside County 8F 8F + 4T $2,060 SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 4F 6F $50 SR 54 SR 125 SR 94 -- 6E $457 SR 54 SR 94 I-8 2C 6E $450 SR 67 I-8 Mapleview Street 4F/6F 6F/8F $130 SR 67 Mapleview Street Dye Road 2C/4C 4C $400


Table A.11–Major Capital Improvements - Unconstrained Needs Network ($ millions – 2006 dollars) – (cont’d)

Highway Widening, Arterials, and Freeway Interchanges (continued)

Freeway From To Existing Improvement SR 75/SR 282*** Glorietta Blvd. Alameda Blvd. 6C 6C + 4TU $460 SR 76 Melrose Drive Mission Road 2C 6C $250 SR 76 Mission Road I-15 2C 4C $250 SR 76 I-15 Couser Canyon 2C 4C/6C $130 SR 94 Avocado Blvd. Jamacha Road 4C 6C $30 SR 94 Jamacha Road Melody Road 2C 4C $130 SR 125** SR 905 San Miguel Road 4T 8T $225 SR 125 San Miguel Road SR 54 4F 8F $40 SR 905 I-5 Mexico 4F/6F 8F $270 Regionally Significant Arterials and Local Freeway Access Interchanges $1,646

Subtotal $7,931

Freeway Connectors


I-5 SR 94 North to East $230 I-5 I-8 East to North and South to West $211 I-5 SR 56 West to North and South to East $185 I-5 SR 78 West to South and South to East $200 I-15 SR 56 North to West $160 SR 94 SR 125 West to North and South to East $150

Subtotal $1,136

Total $45,130

KEY




* public/private partnership ** privately funded *** funding from federal discretionary defense funding sources


Table A.12–Major Transit Expenditures - Unconstrained Needs Network ($ millions – 2006 dollars)

PROJECT CATEGORIES TOTAL

Major New Capital Facilities $9,795

SPRINTER Rail $484

Mid-Coast Light Rail $1,008

Transit Parking Structures $735

SPRINTER Rail Doubletracking, Westfield Extension, Other Improvements $800

Coastal Rail Doubletracking and Other Improvements $1,350

Coastal Rail Tunnels at University City and Del Mar $1,004

Regional Rail Grade Separations $700

Improved/New Major Transit Stations and Centers $786

Transit Priority Measures/Enhancements $500

Vehicles for New Services $642

Arterial BRT Corridor Improvements $476

Sorrento Mesa Guideway $450

Downtown to Kearny Mesa Guideway $660

Local Share for I-15 High-Speed Rail $200

Operating Subsidies $7,047

Existing Fixed-Route Service $4,440

ADA, Senior, Human Service Transportation $465

New/Improved Service $2,142

Rehab/Replacement/Miscellaneous Capital $3,016

TOTAL $19,858


Table A.13–Unconstrained Transit Services (Headways) (in minutes)

ROUTE DESCRIPTION PEAK

HEADWAY (MINUTES)


634 UCSD/UTC Super Loop 10 15

350 Escondido Rapid Bus 10 10

510 Increase in Existing Blue Line Trolley Service (current headways 7½/15) 7.5 7.5

611 Mid-City Rapid Bus – SDSU to Downtown San Diego via El Cajon Boulevard and Park Boulevard 10 10

530 Increase in Existing Green Line Trolley Service (current headways 15/15) 7.5 7.5

610 Escondido to Downtown San Diego via I-15/SR 94* 10 10

680 Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa via I-805/I-15/SR 52 10 10

628 Otay Mesa to Downtown San Diego via I-805/SR 94 10 15

398 Increase in Existing COASTER Service (current headways 36/120)** 20 20

520 Increase in Existing Orange Line Trolley Service (current headways 15/15-30) 7.5 10

570 Mid-Coast Trolley from Downtown San Diego to Sorrento Mesa 7.5 7.5

399 Increase in SPRINTER Rail Service (opening headways 30/30) 7.5 10

470 Riverside County to Sorrento Mesa via Mira Mesa Blvd (and via Carroll Canyon after 2020)*** 10-30 15-60

120 Downtown San Diego to Kearny Mesa via 4th/5th/SR 163 Corridor Guideway 10 10

640 San Ysidro to Downtown San Diego and Kearny Mesa via I-5 and 4th/5th/SR 163 Corridor Guideway 7.5 7.5

10 La Mesa to Old Town via University Avenue 10 10

90 El Cajon to Downtown San Diego via SR 125, SR 94, and Broadway 10 10

11 SDSU to Downtown San Diego and Spring Valley via Adams, 1st Street, and National Avenue

10 10

210 Mira Mesa to Downtown San Diego via I-15 and SR 94 10 15

2 North Park to Downtown San Diego via 30th Street and Broadway 10 10

30 UTC to Downtown San Diego via La Jolla Village Drive, La Jolla Blvd, Grand Avenue, and I-5 10 10

955 SDSU to National City via 54th Street, Euclid Avenue, and Main Street 10 10

41 Fashion Valley to UTC/UCSD via SR 163, Genesee Avenue and La Jolla Village Drive 10 10

472 Oceanside to UTC via El Camino Real and I-5 10 10

150 UTC to Downtown San Diego via I-5 10 10

13 National City to Allied Gardens via Euclid and Fairmount 10 10

690 Otay Mesa to UTC/UCSD via Palomar Street and I-805 10 10

929 San Ysidro to 8th Street Trolley via 3rd Avenue and Highland 10 10

691 Otay Ranch to Sorrento Mesa via Palomar Street and I-805 10 10

609 Escondido to Kearny Mesa via I-15 7.5 ---

27 Pacific Beach to Kearny Mesa via Garnet and Balboa Avenue 10 10


Table A.13–Unconstrained Transit Services (Headways) (in minutes) – (cont’d)

ROUTE DESCRIPTION PEAK

HEADWAY (MINUTES)


660 El Cajon to Kearny Mesa via Cuyamaca and SR 52 10 10

31 Mira Mesa to UTC/UCSD via Carroll Canyon, Camino Santa Fe, and Miramar Road 10 10

709 H Street Trolley to Otay Mesa via H Street, Palomar Street, and SR 125 10 10

50 Bay Park to Kearny Mesa via Clairemont Drive and Clairemont Mesa Boulevard 10 10

471 Oceanside to San Marcos via Highway 101 and Palomar Airport Road 10 10

35 Old Town to Ocean Beach via Midway Drive, W. Point Loma Blvd., and Cable Street 10 10

692 El Cajon to Otay Mesa via SR 125 10 ---

962 Spring Valley to National City via Jamacha, Paradise Valley Rd and Plaza Boulevard 10 10

936 70th Street Trolley to Spring Valley via College Avenue and Skyline Drive 10 10

479 Oceanside to Palomar Airport via College Avenue and Melrose Drive 10 10

303 Oceanside to Vista via Mission, SR 76, and North Santa Fe 10 10

620 Otay Border to Imperial Beach via Airway Road and Palm Avenue 10 10

633 Old Town to SDIA via Pacific Highway 10 10

* I-15 BRT service includes all-day core service (Route 610) and peak period express services (Routes 607 and 608)

** Average headways *** Peak headways at 10 minutes to Escondido and 30 minutes to Riverside County; off peak headways at 30 minutes to



Table A.14–Summary of Highway Scenarios ROUTE FROM TO EXISTING

REVENUE CONSTRAINED PLAN

REASONABLY EXPECTED REVENUE

UNCONSTRAINED

I-5 Mexico SR 905 8F 8F 8F 8F I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F 8F 8F+2HOV I-5 SR 54 I-15 8F Access Improvements Access Improvements 10F+2HOV I-5 I-15 I-8 8F Access Improvements Access Improvements 8F+2HOV I-5 I-8 La Jolla Village Drive 8F/10F 8F/10F+2HOV 8F/10F+2HOV 10F+2HOV I-5 La Jolla Village Drive I-5/I-805 Merge 8F/14F 8F/14F+2HOV 8F/14F+2HOV 8F/14F+4ML I-5 I-5/I-805 Merge SR 56 8F/14F 8F/14F+4ML 8F/14F+4ML 8F/14F+4ML I-5 SR 56 Palomar Airport Road 8F 8F+4ML 8F+4ML 10F+4ML I-5 Palomar Airport Road Vandegrift Boulevard 8F 8F+4ML 8F+4ML 10F+4ML I-5 Vandegrift Boulevard Orange County 8F 8F 8F+4T 8F+4T

I-8 I-5 I-15 8F 8F 8F 8F+2HOV I-8 I-15 College Avenue 10F 10F 10F 10F+2HOV I-8 College Avenue SR 125 8F 8F 8F 8F+2HOV I-8 SR 125 SR 67 8F 8F 8F 8F+2HOV I-8 SR 67 2nd Street 6F 6F 6F 6F+2HOV I-8 2nd Street Los Coches Road 4F 4F 6F 6F+2HOV I-8 Los Coches Road Dunbar 4F/6F 4F/6F 4F/6F 6F I-8 Dunbar Road Imperial County 4F 4F 4F 4F

SR 11 SR 905 Mexico --- 4T 4T 4T

I-15 I-5 SR 94 6F 6F 6F 8F+2HOV I-15 SR 94 SR 163 8F 8F+2HOV 8F+2HOV 8F+2HOV I-15 SR 163 SR 56 8F+2ML(R) 10F+4ML/MB 10F+4ML/MB 10F +4ML/MB I-15 SR 56 Centre City Parkway 8F 10F+4ML/MB 10F+4ML/MB 10F +4ML/MB I-15 Centre City Parkway SR 78 8F 8F+4ML 8F + 4ML 8F +4ML I-15 SR 78 Riverside County 8F 8F 8F+4T 8F+4T

SR 52 I-5 I-805 4F 4F 6F 6F+2HOV SR 52 I-805 I-15 6F 6F+2HOV 6F+2HOV 8F+2HOV SR 52 I-15 SR 125 4F 6F+2ML(R) 6F+2ML(R) 6F+3ML/MB SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 --- 4F 4F 6F SR 54 I-5 SR 125 4F+2HOV/6F 6F 6F 8F+2HOV


Table A.14–Summary of Highway Scenarios (cont’d) ROUTE FROM TO EXISTING



UNCONSTRAINED

SR 54 SR 125 SR 94 --- --- --- 6E

SR 54 SR 94 I-8 2C 2C 2C 6E

SR 56 I-5 I-15 --- 6F 6F 6F+2HOV

SR 67 I-8 Mapleview Street 4F/6F 4F/6F 4F/6F 6F/8F SR 67 Mapleview Street Dye Road 2C/4C 2C/4C 4C 4C

SR 75 I-5 (South) 3rd Street 4C 4C 4C 4C SR 75/ SR 282 Glorietta Boulevard Alameda Boulevard 6C 6C 6C+4TU 6C+4TU

SR 76 I-5 Melrose Drive 4E 4E 4E 6E SR 76 Melrose Drive Mission Road 2C 4C 4C 6C SR 76 Mission Road I-15 2C 4C 4C 4C SR 76 I-15 Couser Canyon 2C 2C 2C 4C/6C

SR 78 I-5 I-15 6F 6F 6F+2HOV 6F+2HOV

SR 79 I-8 Riverside County 2C 2C 2C 2C

SR 94 I-5 I-805 8F 8F+2HOV 8F+2HOV 8F+2HOV SR 94 I-805 College Avenue 8F 8F 8F+2HOV 10F+2HOV SR 94 College Avenue SR 125 8F 8F 8F+2HOV 8F+2HOV SR 94 SR 125 Avocado Boulevard 4F 4F 4F 6F+2HOV SR 94 Avocado Boulevard Jamacha Road 4C 4C 4C 6C SR 94 Jamacha Road Melody Road 2C 2C 2C 4C SR 94 Melody Road I-8 2C 2C 2C 2C

SR 125 SR 905 San Miguel Road --- 8T 8T 8T SR 125 San Miguel Road SR 54 --- 8F 8F 8F SR 125 SR 54 SR 94 --- 6F 6F 8F+2HOV SR 125 SR 94 I-8 8F 8F 8F+2HOV 10F+2HOV SR 125 I-8 SR 52 6F 6F 6F 8F+2HOV

SR 163 I-5 I-8 4F 4F 4F 4F SR 163 I-8 I-805 8F 8F 8F 8F SR 163 I-805 SR 163 8F 8F 8F 8F+2HOV

SR 188 Mexico SR 94 2C 2C 2C 2C

SR 241 I-5 Orange County --- 4T/6T 4T/6T 4T/6T


Table A.14–Summary of Highway Scenarios (cont’d) ROUTE FROM TO EXISTING



UNCONSTRAINED

I-805 I-5 (South) SR 905 8F 8F 8F 8F I-805 SR 905 Telegraph Canyon Road 8F 8F+4ML 8F+4ML I-805 Telegraph Canyon Road SR 54 8F 8F+4ML 10F+4ML I-805 Palomar Street SR 94 8F 8F+4ML I-805 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F+4ML 10F+4ML I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 8F+4ML 8F+4ML I-805 SR 94 SR 52 8F 8F+2HOV I-805 I-8 La Jolla Village Drive 8F/10F 8F/10F+4ML 10F+4ML I-805 SR 52 Carroll Canyon Road 8F 8F+4ML I-805 La Jolla Village Drive I-5 (North) 8F 8F+4ML 8F+4ML I-805 Carroll Cyn Road I-5 8F 8F+2HOV SR 905 I-5 I-805 4F 4F 4F 8F SR 905 I-805 Mexico --- 6F 8F 8F

KEY





Table A.14 (continued)—HOV Connectors

FREEWAY INTER-

SECTING FREEWAY

MOVEMENT REVENUE

CONSTRAINED PLAN


UNCON- STRAINED

I-5 SR 52 West to South, North to East, South to East, and West to North

I-5 SR 54 West to South, North to East, South to East, and West to North I-5 SR 56 South to East, West to North, North to East, and West to South I-5 SR 78 South to East, West to North, North to East, and West to South I-5 SR 94 West to South, North to East, South to East, and West to North I-5 I-805 North to North and South to South

I-8 SR 125 West to North and North to East I-15 SR 52 West to North and South to East I-15 SR 56 East to North and South to West I-15 SR 78 East to South and North to West I-15 SR 94 East to North and South to West I-15 SR 163 North to North and South to South I-15 I-805 North to North and South to South

SR 52 SR 125 North to West and East to South I-805 SR 52 West to North and South to East I-805 SR 54 South to East and West to North I-805 SR 94 East to South, East to North, South to East, North to West, West to South, and North to East I-805 SR 163 North to North and South to South


Table A.14 (continued) – Freeway Connectors

FREEWAY INTER-

SECTING FREEWAY

MOVEMENT REVENUE

CONSTRAINED PLAN


UNCON- STRAINED

I-5 I-8 East to North and South to West I-5 SR 56 West to North and South to East I-5 SR 78 West to South and South to East I-5 SR 94 North to East

I-15 SR 56 North to West SR 94 SR 125 West to North and South to East


Table A.15–Summary of Transit Services and Headways (in minutes)

ROUTE DESCRIPTION

REVENUE CONSTRAINED

PLAN Peak/Off-Peak


Peak/Off-Peak

UNCONSTRAINED Peak/Off-Peak

634 UCSD/UTC Super Loop 10/15 10/15 10/15

350 Escondido Rapid Bus 10/10 10/10 10/10

510 Increase in Existing Blue Line Trolley Service (current headways 7.5/15)

7.5/7.5 7.5/7.5 7.5/7.5

611 Mid-City Rapid Bus – SDSU to Downtown San Diego via El Cajon Boulevard and Park Boulevard

10/10 10/10 10/10

530 Increase in Existing Green Line Trolley Service (current headways 15/15)

7.5/15 7.5/7.5 7.5/7.5

610 Escondido to Downtown San Diego via I-15/SR 94* 10/15 10/15 10/10

680 Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa via I-805/I-15/SR 52 10/15 10/15 10/10

628 Otay Mesa to Downtown San Diego via I-805/SR 94 10/15 10/15 10/15

398 Increase in Existing COASTER Service (current headways 36/120)**

20/60 20/60 20/20

520 Increase in Existing Orange Line Trolley Service (current headways 15/15-30)

7.5/15 7.5/15 7.5/10

570 Mid-Coast Trolley from Downtown San Diego to Sorrento Mesa 15/15*** 7.5/7.5 7.5/7.5

399 Increase in SPRINTER Rail Service (opening headways 30/30)

15/15 15/15 7.5/10

470 Riverside County to UTC/UCSD via Mira Mesa Boulevard (and via Carroll Canyon after 2020)

10/15**** 10-30/ 15-60*****

10-30/15-60*****

120 Kearny Mesa to Downtown San Diego via 4th/5th/SR 163 Corridor Guideway

10/10 10/10

640 San Ysidro to Downtown San Diego and Kearny Mesa via I-5 and 4th/5th/SR 163 Corridor Guideway

7.5/7.5 7.5/7.5

10 La Mesa to Old Town via University Avenue 10/10 10/10

90 El Cajon to Downtown San Diego via SR 125, SR 94, and Broadway 10/10 10/10

11 SDSU to Downtown San Diego and Spring Valley via Adams, 1st Street, and National Avenue

15/15 10/10

210 Mira Mesa to Downtown San Diego via I-15 and SR 94 10/15 7.5/7.5

2 North Park to Downtown San Diego via 30th Street and Broadway 10/10 10/10

30 UTC to Downtown San Diego via La Jolla Village Drive, La Jolla Boulevard, Grand Avenue, and I-5

10/10 10/10

955 SDSU to National City via 54th Street, Euclid Avenue, and Main Street 10/10 10/10

41 Fashion Valley to UTC/UCSD via SR 163, Genesee Avenue, and La Jolla Village Drive

10/10 10/10

472 Oceanside to UTC via El Camino Real and I-5 10/10 10/10


Table A.15–Summary of Transit Services and Headways (in minutes) – (cont’d)

ROUTE DESCRIPTION

REVENUE CONSTRAINED

PLAN Peak/Off-Peak


Peak/Off-Peak

UNCONSTRAINED Peak/Off-Peak

150 UTC to Downtown San Diego via I-5 10/10

13 National City to Allied Gardens via Euclid and Fairmount 10/10

690 Otay Ranch to UTC/UCSD via Palomar Street and I-805 10/10

929 San Ysidro to 8th Street Trolley via 3rd Avenue and Highland 10/10

691 Otay Ranch to Sorrento Mesa via Palomar Street and I-805 10/10

609 Escondido to Kearny Mesa via I-15 7.5/-

27 Pacific Beach to Kearny Mesa via Garnet and Balboa Avenue 10/10

660 El Cajon to Kearny Mesa via Cuyamaca and SR 52 10/10

31 Mira Mesa to UTC/UCSD via Carroll Canyon , Camino Santa Fe, and Miramar Road

10/10

709 H St Trolley to Otay Mesa via H Street, Palomar Street, and SR 125 10/10

50 Bay Park to Kearny Mesa via Clairemont Drive and Clairemont Mesa Boulevard

10/10

471 Oceanside to San Marcos via Highway 101 and Palomar Airport Road 10/10

35 Old Town to Ocean Beach via Midway Drive, W. Point Loma Boulevard, and Cable Street

10/10

692 El Cajon to Otay Mesa via SR 125 10/-

962 Spring Valley to National City via Jamacha, Paradise Valley Road, and Plaza Boulevard

10/10

936 70th Street Trolley to Spring Valley via College Avenue and Skyline Drive

10/10

479 Oceanside to Palomar Airport via College Avenue and Melrose Drive 10/10

303 Oceanside to Vista via Mission, SR 76, and North Santa Fe 10/10

620 Otay Border to Imperial Beach via Airway Road, SR 905, and Palm Avenue

10/10

633 Old Town to SDIA via Pacific Highway 10/10

* I-15 BRT services include all-day service (Route 610) and peak period services (Route 607 and 608) ** Average headways *** Service to UTC only **** Service to Escondido only ***** Peak headways at 15 minutes to Escondido and 30 minutes to Riverside County; off-peak headways at 30 minutes to



Table A.16–Summary of Transit Expenditures ($ millions – 2006 dollars)

PROJECT CATEGORIES REVENUE

CONSTRAINED PLAN

REASONABLY EXPECTED UNCONSTRAINED

Major New Capital Facilities $5,952 $8,868 $9,795

SPRINTER Rail $484 $484 $484

Mid-Coast Light Rail $1,008 $1,008 $1,008

Transit Parking Structures $693 $735 $735

SPRINTER Rail Doubletracking, Westfield Extension, Other Improvements $199 $669 $800

Coastal Rail Doubletracking and Other Improvements $1,350 $1,350 $1,350

Coastal Rail Tunnels at University City and Del Mar $475 $1,004 $1,004

Regional Rail Grade Separations $363 $670 $700

Improved/New Major Transit Stations and Centers $519 $604 $786

Transit Priority Measures/Enhancements $100 $250 $500

Vehicles for New Services $280 $489 $642

Arterial BRT Corridor Improvements $481 $395 $476

Sorrento Mesa Guideway $0 $450 $450

Downtown to Kearny Mesa Guideway $0 $660 $660

Local Share for I-15 High-Speed Rail $0 $100 $200

Operating Subsidies $5,403 $6,494 $7,047

Existing Fixed-Route Service $4,119 $4,440 $4,440 ADA, Senior, Human Service Transportation $269 $465 $465 New/Improved Service $1,015 $1,590 $2,142

Rehab./Replacement/ Miscellaneous Capital $1,819 $2,513 $3,016

Total Plan $13,174 $17,876 $19,858

2030 Regional Transportation Plan B-1

APPENDIX B GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN

The Regional Freight Strategy is in its infancy, and many questions remain unanswered about the region’s future role in global trade. Additional economic and land use studies will better define and develop the region’s trade role, policies, and guidelines for integrating goods movement facilities and land uses with local communities and infrastructure requirements in future plans.

Until the region’s future role is defined, the Regional Freight Strategy assumed an average annual growth rate of 5 percent for all freight. The Regional Freight Strategy identifies a list of prioritized projects known as the San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) based upon objective criteria. The 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways to the Future (RTP or “the Plan”) includes actions to pursue funding for GMAP projects not already included in the highway and rail plans.

Actions also are included in the 2030 RTP to ensure the integration and compatibility of the region’s freight systems with other regions, our local communities, and environmental and quality of life goals. The Regional Freight Strategy proposes a proactive approach to addressing the impacts of goods movement and will pursue a regional freight system design that would avoid community, health, and environmental impacts, as well as remove existing impacts wherever possible.

Appendix B includes the GMAP list of prioritized projects, the Freight Project Evaluation Criteria, and the breakdown of evaluation points for each project. Detailed air cargo, border, maritime, pipeline, rail, and highway projects listings, cost estimates, and rankings by mode are included for the Revenue Constrained (RC), Reasonably Expected (RE) Revenue, and Unconstrained (UC) Scenarios.

Figure B.1 depicts all of the GMAP improvements included in the Revenue Constrained, Reasonably Expected Revenue, and Unconstrained scenarios. Table B.1 lists the GMAP projects, cost estimates, rankings by mode and overall, and by Revenue Scenario. The projects with costs shown in the Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario would be funded through the development of new revenue sources, including new state and federal freight specific funds, gateway impact fees, and tolls. The region must actively develop these revenue sources to realize these projects.

The SANDAG Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria Ad Hoc Working Group (TPEC) developed revised criteria to be used to prioritize transportation projects for the 2030 RTP (see Technical Appendix 7). Using the template developed by TPEC, the Freight Working Group (FWG) drafted criteria for freight infrastructure projects to reflect the goals of the RTP, as well as the goals of the State of California Goods Movement Action Plan. The FWG used the SANDAG adopted freight project evaluation criteria to prioritize the freight infrastructure projects contained in the GMAP.

While the GMAP project information has been updated in Tables 6.5 in Chapter 6, the tables in Appendix B represent project descriptions, costs, and rankings as of September 2006. Project rankings have not yet been recalculated given any recent changes in scope or cost.

The freight project criteria shown in Table B.2 are organized into three categories of importance including "cost-effectiveness" (20 points); "serves freight system needs –throughput, velocity, and congestion reduction" (45 points); and "develops freight system integration – impacts, connectivity, and economic benefit" (35 points) for a possible total project score of 100 points. Increasing the ability to move freight depends on both capacity improvements and maximizing the efficiency of the system. Improving throughput

B-2 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

or velocity using better management systems and new technologies is an important criterion included in Table B.2.

The region's ranking of the GMAP projects based upon the evaluation criteria is shown in Table B.3. The criteria are weighted as first priority to provide adequate freight system capacity to relieve existing bottlenecks and capacity constraints so that existing freight demand is served. The second priority is to optimize efficiency and connectivity so that the region's individual freight system works together to serve our overall goods movement needs. This weighting is consistent with the primary goals of the state's Goods Movement Action Plan – to improve the existing goods movement system by providing additional throughput with increased capacity, efficiency, and connectivity.

SanDiego

La Mesa

NationalCity

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

ProjectLocations

LogisticsCenter/Yard

Coastal/SPRINTER

South/Trolley/Mexico/Desert

Potential HighSpeed Rail/Inland

SR 54/125/52/67/94Outer Loop

Concepts

Projects

Commercial/Industrial Land Use

November 2007

1

4

9

7

7

6

10

10

23

5

9 11

11

12

13

13

13

13

13

8

6 8

6A

6

6A

6A

6A

6A

13

1-D

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

ChulaVista

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

Tijuana,B.C.

CampPendleton

Santee

UNITED STATES

MEXICO


N


N

LemonGrove

Countyof

San Diego

Riverside County

San Diego County

(Rail Line RunsThrough Mexico -

Crosses Border Back ToImperial Valley, USA)

Goods MovementAction Plan

San Diego RegionAir Cargo

BorderSR 905

SR 11/New Border Crossing

Maritime

Pipeline

RailCoastal/SPRINTER

High Speed Rail/Inland

South/MEX

Desert

Road/Managed LanesI-5

I-15

I-805

SR 94/125, I-8

SR 125/Toll

SR 54/125/52/67/94Outer Loop

12

1

11

2

10

8

9

4

3

6

5

7

7A

13

6A

7A

Figure B.1 - Goods Movement Action Plan

B-32030 Regional Transportation Plan


Table B.1–San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan List of Prioritized Projects and Revenue Scenarios

(September 2006)*

* Project points and rankings reflect description and estimated cost in September 2006. Projects have not yet been re-evaluated, given

any recent changes in scope or costs.

Tota

l

Po

ints

Pro

ject

Ran

k

Rev

enu

e C

on

stra

ined

Rea

son

ably

Ex

pec

ted

Un

-

Co

nst

rain

ed


(millions)Out of 100 pts

Rank RC RE UC

MARITIMENCMT Capacity and Operational Improvements - Access, Rail, Wharf, Decking and Realignment

$183.1 93 3 $183.1

TAMT Capacity and Operational Improvements - Ground Access and Realignment

$357.1 91 4 $225.0 $132.1

Port Expansion (250 acres on-dock/inland port) $282.8 90 5 $282.8



Port, Expansion (500 acres on-dock/inland port) $500.0 62 27 $500.0

RAIL

Coastal - Sidings, Passing, Rehabilitation, Shared Use $1,350.0 96 1 $1,350.0

South Line/Trolley, Sidings, Passing, Yards incl. Port, Mexico Connectivity, Coronado Branch Rehab

$327.6 88 6 $327.6

Mex Rail Rehabilitation, Maquilla Spur, Transload $31.6 76 10 $31.6

Logistics Center - Maquilla Area $57.9 70 20 $57.9

Coastal - Logistics Center - Miramar Landfill/Mid-County $60.0 69 22 $60.0

Logistics Center, South County $60.0 65 24 $60.0

Coastal - Logistics Center - I-5NW $50.0 65 24 $50.0

Logistics Center - Southeast County, Otay Mesa (2x) $131.1 61 29 $131.1

Logistics Center - I-15 Northeast County $50.0 61 29 $50.0

South Line, San Ysidro Yard Improvement 3 $84.8 59 31 $84.8

Sprinter - Improvements $484.0 55 32 $484.0

Desert Line - Basic Service $15.8 52 33 $15.8

Mex Rail, Mainline Capacity Improvements $176.0 45 36 $176.0

South Line, Otay Mesa Rail Spur/Inland Port $86.8 43 37 $86.8

Desert Line - Modernization $166.1 32 43 $166.1

High Speed/Inland Rail - North County $1,850.0 24 49 $1,850.0

High Speed/Inland Rail - South County $1,600.0 24 49 $1,600.0

High Speed /Inland Rail - Connect to Port $180.0 24 49 $180.0

Sprinter Double Tracking - Planned $199.0 24 49 $199.0

Desert Line Double Tracking $2,130.0 23 53 $2,130.0

Coastal, Del Mar / Miramar Hill Tunnel $475.0 19 55 $475.0

BORDER

EOM Border Crossing SR905-8F SR11-4T, So.Truck Rte $1,498.0 96 1 $855.0 $643.0

OME Border Crossing - Rail $150.0 34 41 $150.0

SAN DIEGO REGIONAL GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN

List of Prioritized Projects and Revenue Scenarios


Table B.1–San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan List of Prioritized Projects and Revenue Scenarios (cont’d)

(September 2006)*

* Project points and rankings reflect description and estimated cost in September 2006. Projects have not yet been re-evaluated, given

any recent changes in scope or costs.

** I-15 between I-805 and SR 163 removed from GMAP in November 2007.

Tota

l

Po

ints

Pro

ject

Ran

k

Rev

enu

e C

on

stra

ined

Rea

son

ably

Ex

pec

ted

Un

-

Co

nst

rain

ed


(millions)Out of 100 pts

Rank RC RE UC


List of Prioritized Projects and Revenue Scenarios

ROAD/TRUCKWAY

I-15 Imprvs., SR52 to Lake Hodges $83.0 76 10 $83.0

I-805, Widen/ML SR54 to SR52 $631.0 76 10 $631.0

I-805, Widen/ML, SR52 toCarroll Cyn Rd to I-5 $421.0 76 10 $421.0

I-805, Widen/ML SR905 to I-5 $1,400.0 76 10 $0.0 $1,400.0

I-15 Widen/ML, SR163 to SR56 $426.0 75 15 $426.0

I-805, Widen/ML SR905 to SR94 $884.0 75 15 $884.0

I-5, Widen/ML LJollaVil. to Vandergrift $2,900.0 75 15 $2,400.0 $500.0

I-15 Widen/ML, Ctr City Pkwy to SR78 $215.0 75 15 $215.0

I-15, Widen/ML SR56 to Ctr City Pkwy $427.0 74 19 $427.0

I-15, Widen/HOV SR94 to SR163 $265.0 65 24 $265.0

I-5, Widen I-805 to SR56 $186.0 42 38 $186.0

I-5, J to Sea World Drive, SR54 to I-8 $1,159.0 41 39 $225.0 $934.0

I-15 Widen/HOV $300.0 35 40 $300.0

I-15 Improvement, SR52 - SR78 $19.0 33 42 $19.0

SR125, SR905 to San Miguel RD $640.0 31 44 $640.0

SR125, San Miguel Rd to SR54 $200.0 31 44 $200.0

SR125, Tele Canyon to San Miguel Rd $130.0 31 44 $130.0

I-15/I-805 HOV/ML Connectors $66.0 23 54 $66.0

SR 54/125/52 Outer Loop Extension to SR78 $540.0 19 55 $0.0 $540.0

SR52, I-805 to SR125 $330.0 17 57 $330.0

SR52, Widen SR125 to SR67 $446.0 15 58 $446.0

I-15/SR94, S/W-E/N Connectors $140.0 11 59 $140.0

SR94, Widen/HOV I-5 to I-805 $200.0 11 59 $200.0

SR94/SR125 W/N-S/E Connectors $150.0 11 59 $150.0

SR54/125, Widen/HOV I805 to SR94 $111.0 11 59 $111.0

SR94, Widen/HOV $190.0 11 59 $0.0 $190.0

AIR CARGO

SDIA Access to I-5 $31.6 84 7 $31.6

Future Expansion, Fwy/Grd Access $173.2 51 34 $173.2

SDIA, Aircraft/Ground Access, AC Facilities,Transload $110.7 49 35 $110.7

Future Expan., Air/Grd Acess, AC Facilities,Transload $250.0 27 48 $250.0

PIPELINE

I-15 Access to KM MV Terminal $31.6 84 7 $31.6

KM, New Miramar Junction/Terminal/Tanks $39.5 70 20 $39.5

KM Expand to 16 Pipe/Extend to Mexico $45.0 28 47 $45.0

$26,217.1 $12,483.0 $1,774.1 $8,396.0

$3,564.0 GMRE UCRC(+RE)

$16,047.0

**


Table B.2–Freight Project Evaluation Criteria

GOAL CRITERIA DESCRIPTION POINTS

(TOTAL UP TO 100)

COST EFFECTIVENESS

Cost-Effectiveness (Project Lifecycle)

How does the project rank against others with respect to project cost-effectiveness?

20 20

Supports Regional Economic Prosperity Strategy

Does project support Regional Economic Prosperity Strategy, business, and trade?

5

Relieves Existing Freight Goods Movement Unit Capacity (GMUC) Backlog

Does project relieve existing freight GMUC backlog (certified by SANDAG)?

10

Relieves Freight System Bottlenecks/Capacity Constraint

Does project relieve existing freight GMUC backlog (certified by SANDAG)?

15

Improves Freight System Mobility/Reduces Delay

Does project improve average travel time for freight?

10

SERVES FREIGHT SYSTEM NEEDS

Improves Freight System Mobility by Shift to Alternative Route/System

Does project improve freight through-put by shifting to alternative routes/ system?

5

45

Improves Freight System Management/Efficiency

Does project include freight management systems, strategies, and/or technologies to improve efficiency, velocity?

10

Integrates Local Freight to Regional Freight Network

Does project integrate local freight system/logistics center to Regional Freight Network?

5

Provides Critical Modal/ Intermodal Link/Connectivity

Does project provide missing link to restore freight system capacity?

10

Avoids/Minimizes Negative Community Impacts; Improves Safety, Reduces Hazards

Does project avoid/remove or minimize/reduce negative community impacts?

5

DEVELOPS FREIGHT NETWORK INTEGRATION

Avoids/Minimizes Negative Environmental/Habitat Impacts

Does project avoid/remove or minimize/reduce negative environmental/habitat impacts?

5

35


Table B.3–Applied Goods Movement Evaluation Criteria and Rankings (September 2006)*


List of Prioritized Projects Based on Evaluation Criteria

Co

st-E

ffec

tive

nes

s p

er P

roje

ct L

ifec

ycle

Co

st

Sup

po

rts

Reg

ion

al

Eco

no

mic

Pro

sper

ity

Stra

teg

y

Rel

ieve

s Ex

isti

ng

Fr

eig

ht

Bac

klo

g

Rel

ieve

s Fr

eig

ht

Syst

em

Bo

ttle

nec

ks, C

apac

ity

Co

nst

rain

ts

Imp

rove

s Fr

eig

ht

Syst

em

Mo

bili

ty/R

edu

ces

Del

ay

Imp

rove

s Sy

stem

Mo

bili

ty

Thro

ug

h O

ff-P

eak

Use

/Alt

ern

ativ

e R

ou

te/M

od

e

Imp

rove

s Fr

eig

ht

Syst

em

Man

agem

ent/

Effi

cien

cy

Inte

gra

tes

Loca

l Fre

igh

t to

R

egio

nal

Fre

igh

t N

etw

ork

Pro

vid

es C

riti

cal

Mo

dal

/In

term

od

al L

ink

Avo

ids/

Min

imiz

es N

egat

ive

Co

mm

un

ity

and

Saf

ety

Imp

acts

Avo

ids/

Min

imiz

es N

egat

ive

Envi

ron

men

tal/

Hab

itat

Im

pac

ts

Tota

l Po

ints

Pro

ject

Ran

k

Estimated Cost

(millions)20 5 10 15 10 5 10 5 10 5 5

Out of 100 pts

RankSystem/Project Description

RAIL

Coastal - Sidings, Passing, Rehabilitation, Shared Use $1,350.0 20 5 6 15 10 5 10 5 10 5 5 96 1

South Line/Trolley, Sidings, Passing, Yards incl. Port, Mexico Connectivity, Coronado Branch Rehab

$327.6 12 5 6 15 10 5 10 5 10 5 5 88 6

Mex Rail Rehabilitation, Maquilla Spur, Transload $31.6 4 3 6 15 10 5 10 5 10 5 3 76 10

Logistics Center - Maquilla Area $57.9 0 5 6 15 10 3 6 5 10 5 5 70 20

Coastal - Logistics Center - Miramar Landfill/Mid-County $60.0 0 5 4 12 10 3 10 5 10 5 5 69 22

Logistics Center, South County $60.0 0 5 4 12 10 3 6 5 10 5 5 65 24

Coastal - Logistics Center - I-5NW $50.0 0 5 4 12 10 3 6 5 10 5 5 65 24

Logistics Center - Southeast County, Otay Mesa (2x) $131.1 0 5 0 12 10 3 6 5 10 5 5 61 29

Logistics Center - I-15 Northeast County $50.0 0 5 0 12 10 3 6 5 10 5 5 61 29

South Line, San Ysidro Yard Improvement 3 $84.8 0 3 0 12 10 3 6 5 10 5 5 59 31

Sprinter - Improvements $484.0 0 5 0 12 6 3 6 3 10 5 5 55 32

Desert Line - Basic Service $15.8 1 3 0 12 10 5 0 5 10 3 3 52 33

Mex Rail, Mainline Capacity Improvements $176.0 0 3 0 12 6 3 6 3 6 3 3 45 36

South Line, Otay Mesa Rail Spur/Inland Port $86.8 0 3 0 0 6 3 6 5 10 5 5 43 37

Desert Line - Modernization $166.1 0 3 0 0 6 3 6 0 6 3 5 32 43

High Speed/Inland Rail - North County $1,850.0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 3 6 3 0 24 49

High Speed/Inland Rail - South County $1,600.0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 3 6 3 0 24 49

High Speed /Inland Rail - Connect to Port $180.0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 3 6 3 0 24 49

Sprinter Double Tracking - Planned $199.0 0 3 0 0 6 3 6 0 0 3 3 24 49

Desert Line Double Tracking $2,130.0 0 0 0 0 6 3 6 0 0 3 5 23 53

Coastal, Del Mar / Miramar Hill Tunnel $475.0 1 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 3 3 19 55 * Project points and rankings reflect description and estimated cost in September 2006. Projects have not yet been re-evaluated, given any recent changes in scope or costs.


Table B.3–Applied Goods Movement Evaluation Criteria and Rankings – (cont’d) (September 2006)*



Co

st-E

ffec

tive

nes

s p

er P

roje

ct L

ifec

ycle

Co

st

Sup

po

rts

Reg

ion

al

Eco

no

mic

Pro

sper

ity

Stra

teg

y

Rel

ieve

s Ex

isti

ng

Fr

eig

ht

Bac

klo

g

Rel

ieve

s Fr

eig

ht

Syst

em

Bo

ttle

nec

ks, C

apac

ity

Co

nst

rain

ts

Imp

rove

s Fr

eig

ht

Syst

em

Mo

bili

ty/R

edu

ces

Del

ay

Imp

rove

s Sy

stem

Mo

bili

ty

Thro

ug

h O

ff-P

eak

Use

/Alt

ern

ativ

e R

ou

te/M

od

e

Imp

rove

s Fr

eig

ht

Syst

em

Man

agem

ent/

Effi

cien

cy

Inte

gra

tes

Loca

l Fre

igh

t to

R

egio

nal

Fre

igh

t N

etw

ork

Pro

vid

es C

riti

cal

Mo

dal

/In

term

od

al L

ink

Avo

ids/

Min

imiz

es N

egat

ive

Co

mm

un

ity

and

Saf

ety

Imp

acts

Avo

ids/

Min

imiz

es N

egat

ive

Envi

ron

men

tal/

Hab

itat

Im

pac

ts

Tota

l Po

ints

Pro

ject

Ran

k

Estimated Cost

(millions)20 5 10 15 10 5 10 5 10 5 5

Out of 100 pts


MARITIMENCMT Capacity and Operational Improvements - Access, Rail, Wharf, Decking and Realignment

$183.1 14 5 9 15 10 5 10 5 10 5 5 93 3

TAMT Capacity and Operational Improvements - Ground Access and Realignment $357.1 12 5 9 15 10 5 10 5 10 5 5 91 4

Port Expansion (250 acres on-dock/inland port) $282.8 20 5 5 15 10 3 10 3 10 5 5 90 5



Port, Expansion (500 acres on-dock/inland port) $500.0 12 3 0 12 6 0 6 3 10 5 5 62 27

BORDER

EOM Border Crossing SR905-8F SR11-4T, So.Truck Rte $1,498.0 20 5 10 15 10 5 10 5 10 3 3 96 1

OME Border Crossing - Rail $150.0 0 3 0 0 6 5 6 5 6 3 0 34 41

AIR CARGO

SDIA Access to I-5 $31.6 20 5 4 12 10 0 10 5 10 5 3 84 7

Future Expansion, Fwy/Grd Access $173.2 0 5 0 0 10 3 10 5 10 5 3 51 34

SDIA, Aircraft/Ground Access, AC Facilities,Transload $110.7 8 3 2 12 6 3 6 0 6 3 0 49 35

Future Expan., Air/Grd Acess, AC Facilities,Transload $250.0 0 3 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 3 3 27 48

PIPELINE

I-15 Access to KM MV Terminal $31.6 20 5 4 12 10 0 10 5 10 5 3 84 7

KM, New Miramar Junction/Terminal/Tanks $39.5 11 3 4 12 6 5 6 5 10 5 3 70 20

KM Expand to 16 Pipe/Extend to Mexico $45.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 5 6 3 5 28 47

* Project points and rankings reflect description and estimated cost in September 2006. Projects have not yet been re-evaluated, given any recent changes in scope or costs.


Table B.3–Applied Goods Movement Evaluation Criteria and Rankings – (cont’d) (September 2006)*



Co

st-E

ffec

tive

nes

s p

er P

roje

ct L

ifec

ycle

Co

st

Sup

po

rts

Reg

ion

al

Eco

no

mic

Pro

sper

ity

Stra

teg

y

Rel

ieve

s Ex

isti

ng

Fr

eig

ht

Bac

klo

g

Rel

ieve

s Fr

eig

ht

Syst

em

Bo

ttle

nec

ks, C

apac

ity

Co

nst

rain

ts

Imp

rove

s Fr

eig

ht

Syst

em

Mo

bili

ty/R

edu

ces

Del

ay

Imp

rove

s Sy

stem

Mo

bili

ty

Thro

ug

h O

ff-P

eak

Use

/Alt

ern

ativ

e R

ou

te/M

od

e

Imp

rove

s Fr

eig

ht

Syst

em

Man

agem

ent/

Effi

cien

cy

Inte

gra

tes

Loca

l Fre

igh

t to

R

egio

nal

Fre

igh

t N

etw

ork

Pro

vid

es C

riti

cal

Mo

dal

/In

term

od

al L

ink

Avo

ids/

Min

imiz

es N

egat

ive

Co

mm

un

ity

and

Saf

ety

Imp

acts

Avo

ids/

Min

imiz

es N

egat

ive

Envi

ron

men

tal/

Hab

itat

Im

pac

ts

Tota

l Po

ints

Pro

ject

Ran

k

Estimated Cost

(millions)20 5 10 15 10 5 10 5 10 5 5

Out of 100 pts


ROAD/TRUCKWAY

I-15 Imprvs., SR52 to Lake Hodges $83.0 20 5 5 12 6 3 6 3 10 3 3 76 10

I-805, Widen/ML SR54 to SR52 $631.0 4 5 10 15 6 5 10 3 10 5 3 76 10

I-805, Widen/ML, SR52 toCarroll Cyn Rd to I-5 $421.0 4 5 10 15 6 5 10 3 10 5 3 76 10

I-805, Widen/ML SR905 to I-5 $1,400.0 6 5 10 15 6 5 10 3 10 3 3 76 10

I-15 Widen/ML, SR163 to SR56 $426.0 8 5 8 12 6 5 10 3 10 5 3 75 15

I-805, Widen/ML SR905 to SR94 $884.0 3 5 10 15 6 5 10 3 10 5 3 75 15

I-5, Widen/ML LJollaVil. to Vandergrift $2,900.0 2 5 9 15 6 5 10 3 10 5 5 75 15

I-15 Widen/ML, Ctr City Pkwy to SR78 $215.0 6 5 8 12 6 5 10 3 10 5 5 75 15

I-15, Widen/ML SR56 to Ctr City Pkwy $427.0 5 5 8 12 6 5 10 3 10 5 5 74 19

I-15, Widen/HOV SR94 to SR163 $265.0 1 5 4 15 6 3 6 5 10 5 5 65 24

I-5, Widen I-805 to SR56 $186.0 11 5 0 12 6 0 0 0 0 3 5 42 38

I-5, J to Sea World Drive, SR54 to I-8 $1,159.0 11 3 0 15 6 0 0 0 0 3 3 41 39

I-15 Widen/HOV $300.0 0 5 0 15 6 3 0 0 0 3 3 35 40

I-15 Improvement, SR52 - SR78 $19.0 1 5 0 12 6 3 0 0 0 3 3 33 42

SR125, SR905 to San Miguel RD $640.0 1 3 0 0 6 3 6 0 6 3 3 31 44

SR125, San Miguel Rd to SR54 $200.0 1 3 0 0 6 3 6 0 6 3 3 31 44

SR125, Tele Canyon to San Miguel Rd $130.0 1 3 0 0 6 3 6 0 6 3 3 31 44

I-15/I-805 HOV/ML Connectors $66.0 0 3 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 5 5 23 54

SR 54/125/52 Outer Loop Extension to SR78 $540.0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 3 19 55

SR52, I-805 to SR125 $330.0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 5 3 17 57

SR52, Widen SR125 to SR67 $446.0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 3 15 58

I-15/SR94, S/W-E/N Connectors $140.0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 11 59

SR94, Widen/HOV I-5 to I-805 $200.0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 11 59

SR94/SR125 W/N-S/E Connectors $150.0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 11 59

SR54/125, Widen/HOV I805 to SR94 $111.0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 11 59

SR94, Widen/HOV $190.0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 11 59

* Project points and rankings reflect description and estimated cost in September 2006. Projects have not yet been re-evaluated, given any recent changes in scope or costs.

** I-15 between I-805 and SR 163 removed from GMAP in November 2007.

**

2030 Regional Transportation Plan C-1

APPENDIX C PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

To obtain public input in the development of the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (RTP), SANDAG developed a comprehensive public outreach and involvement program. A major goal of this effort was to reach out to non-traditional, as well as traditional audiences, to raise their awareness of the transportation planning process underway and the broad goals to better connect transportation and land use planning. Early public involvement and comment about key components of the RTP was important to SANDAG as part of developing a transportation public policy and funding program that meets the travel needs of our residents now and into the future.

SANDAG developed a public involvement program following outreach and input from a number of committees, working groups, and other stakeholders. SANDAG also has followed guidelines for public involvement programs that are included in the new Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The draft plan was presented, discussed, and distributed to the Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group, Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, Transportation Committee, and other community and regional stakeholders. A major goal of this public involvement effort is to reach out to non-traditional, as well as traditional audiences, to include them in the transportation planning process. This program will help ensure that environmental justice issues are addressed and that interested members of the public have ample opportunity to understand and provide meaningful input while the RTP is in its early stages. This program also was combined with public involvement efforts to develop the Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan that will serve as the San Diego region program to improve services for people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with low incomes.

Smart growth development is a key strategic initiative from the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and an important input to the development of the RTP. To promote better connection of land use and transportation, SANDAG coordinated with the 18 cities and county development to identify locations in the region that could support smart growth. This effort resulted in the preparation of the “Smart Growth Concept Map” (see Chapter 5). Nearly 200 locations in the region were identified that were categorized as existing, planned, or had the potential for smart growth development.

The effort to develop the Smart Growth Concept Map included an extensive outreach component to secure input from the public on the smart growth locations recommended by the jurisdictions. Eight workshops were held in April 2006 throughout San Diego County in Escondido, Del Mar, Oceanside, Kearny Mesa, Balboa Park, La Mesa, National City, and San Ysidro. The objectives of the workshops were to: (1) generate greater awareness of smart growth and transportation links; (2) update the public on the implementation of the RCP and development of the 2030 RTP; and (3) obtain public input on the draft Smart Growth Concept Map, transportation planning priorities, and urban design factors that promote smart growth. This public involvement effort was summarized in a SANDAG Board report delivered June 23, 2006. Additional public workshops were held in July 2007 following the release of the Draft 2030 RTP on June 22, 2007.

C-2 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

To solicit participation from a broad range of groups and individuals in the 2030 RTP and Coordinated Transportation Plan development and decision-making process

To raise awareness and offer opportunities for public input about the 2030 RTP and the 2007 Coordinated Transportation Plan

To provide information to San Diego region residents and other stakeholders

To stimulate dialogue about the transportation challenges facing the San Diego region

To develop and incorporate into the Plan, realistic solutions that address the diverse mobility needs of the region’s residents, visitors, and business people

To build public support for transportation improvements outlined in the RTP and the Coordinated Transportation Plan

The draft Public Involvement Program was released for public review and comment at the September 1, 2006 Transportation Committee meeting. SANDAG received comments from Caltrans, North County Transit District, Metropolitan Transit System, and members of the public. The Public Involvement Program was adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors on October 26, 2006. (This report is available at www.sandag.org/2030rtp.)

Implement Community-Based Outreach Program

To help ensure diverse and direct input into the 2030 RTP from residents throughout the San Diego region, SANDAG implemented an innovative program to secure participation from communities and individuals typically not involved in the regional transportation planning process. SANDAG awarded grant funding to community-based organizations through a competitive bid process. The selected organizations (Table C.1) conducted outreach activities to secure public involvement from stakeholders in their communities, to engage community-based participation in setting regional transportation priorities, and to generate feedback on the RTP. This program was modeled after a similar successful effort SANDAG conducted during the development of the RCP. The feedback from the organizations follows this overview section and recommendations are featured in the draft RTP.


Table C.1–Participating Community-Based Outreach Organizations

ORGANIZATION COMMUNITY SERVED

South Bay Community Services Chula Vista, Otay Ranch, and South County communities

Able-Disabled Advocacy People with disabilities throughout San Diego County

Bayside Community Center Linda Vista community outreach to seniors and communities that speak Vietnamese, Chinese, and Spanish

City Heights CDC Outreach to residents in greater City Heights Mid-City communities that include: seniors, low-income, and those involved in revitalizing these neighborhoods

All Congregations Together Communities in the southeastern part of the City of San Diego and the Diamond Business District

El Cajon Collaborative El Cajon/East County community members, businesses, schools, social service and health care providers, and law enforcement

Escondido Education COMPACT High school youth and college student outreach in Escondido, San Marcos, and North Inland areas; will include youth and college students in outreach effort to solicit input on transportation issues

Conduct Public Opinion Survey

At its October 20, 2006 Board meeting, the Board directed staff to conduct research to determine residents’ priorities about regional infrastructure improvements and funding sources. In November and December 2006, two regionwide telephone surveys were conducted. One focused on transportation infrastructure needs and priorities. The other survey was similar, but addressed issues related to non-transportation infrastructure (habitat preservation, beach sand replenishment, and storm water management). The surveys were designed to determine what the region’s residents consider to be the most needed infrastructure improvements. The survey also asked respondents which among a variety of potential funding mechanisms they are willing to support to secure the revenue needed to make infrastructure improvements. The survey results have been used to stimulate additional public policy discussions and as background for developing the 2030 RTP and funding priorities and to identify options for infrastructure strategies. The public opinion survey results are posted at www.sandag.org/2030rtp.

Distribute/Present Information at Regularly Scheduled Meetings

The public involvement effort also included regular input and feedback from the SANDAG Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group. The working group involves interested residents with a direct mechanism for early and continuous involvement in the implementation of the RCP and the RTP. This working group provides input on these two plans to SANDAG's Regional Planning and Transportation Committees. The working group is composed of members with interest and expertise in housing, urban form, transportation, border transportation, environment, economic prosperity, public facilities, and social equity.

As this draft plan has been developed, SANDAG also presented information about the 2030 RTP at other SANDAG committee meetings, jurisdiction council/board meetings, local/regional agency meetings, city and county community planning groups, chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, community and business group meetings, public service organizations, and other stakeholder groups. When


the draft RTP is released for public review and comment, another round of presentations will be coordinated to secure additional input on the RTP.

Develop Web Pages for RTP Outreach Effort

SANDAG has maintained Web pages (www.sandag.org/2030rtp) on the 2030 RTP to allow easy access to information on the plan as it is developed, provide information and timely updates on the RTP development process, promote opportunities for input, and announce community, committee, and SANDAG Board meeting dates.

Distribute Information via Brochures, Newsletters, and Other Publications

SANDAG has used a variety of publications to promote the development of the 2030 RTP, such as the electronic rEgion newsletter, SANDAG Board actions, RideLink newsletter, and other publications. These announcements provide updates on the RTP and inform stakeholders on options to provide feedback.

Implement Media Outreach Program

SANDAG routinely distributed information to local/regional media to secure coverage in print and broadcast news. In addition, SANDAG secured publication of opinion pieces by SANDAG directors or other regional leaders on the RTP.

Promote Outreach Through SANDAG Speakers Bureau

SANDAG has contact organizations throughout region for opportunities to conduct RTP workshops or to present information and solicit feedback on the 2030 RTP.

Hold Subregional Meetings/Workshops

Following the release of the draft RTP, SANDAG held subregional meetings/workshops to solicit additional feedback. The list of public workshops is shown in Table C.2 Member agencies, city and county community planning groups, chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, community and business group meetings, public service organizations, and other stakeholder groups were contacted to secure broad participation at the workshops. These regional meetings and workshops also provided input for the Coordinated Plan. A court reporter was present at each meeting to take testimony from participants. Comments and responses from these meetings are available at www.sandag.org/2030rtp. Additional 2030 RTP presentations are shown in Table C.3.


Table C.2–Draft 2030 RTP Public Workshops

SUBREGION LOCATION DATE TIME

North County Coastal City of Encinitas Tuesday, July 17 6 to 8 p.m.

North County Inland City of San Marcos Wednesday,July18 6 to 8 p.m.

Central San Diego Balboa Park Thursday, July 19 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

South County City of Chula Vista Monday, July 23 6 to 8 p.m.

East County City of El Cajon Thursday, July 26 6 to 8 p.m.

Table C.3–Additional Draft 2030 RTP Presentations

DATE ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Jul 11 Tribal Technical Working Group San Pasqual Reservation

Jul 12 Joint Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee and Regional Planning Technical Working Group Meeting

SANDAG

Jul 17 Kiwanis Club of Hidden Valley Escondido Escondido

Jul 17 Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group SANDAG

Jul 18 TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee SANDAG

Jul 26 Transit Alliance for a Better North County Oceanside

Aug 3 La Costa Glen Retirement Community Carlsbad

Aug 14 San Diego Chamber of Commerce – Transportation Committee Downtown San Diego

Aug 16 North County Transit District Oceanside

Aug 21 San Diego Chamber of Commerce – Policy Committee Downtown San Diego

Aug 21 Southern California Tribal Chairmen's Association Escondido

Aug 22 Women’s Environmental Council Mission Valley

Sep 20 North Rancho Peñasquitos Rotary Club Rancho Peñasquitos

Sep 26 Kiwanis Club of Sunrise Vista Vista

Oct 8 Del Mar City Council Del Mar


Hold Public Hearings

The 2030 RTP was released for public review and comment at a public meeting on June 22, 2007. The EIR was released for public review and comment on August 27, 2007. A public hearing on the RTP and its associated environmental impact report were held on September 14, 2007.

Community-Based Outreach Program Summary of Activities and Recommendations

Following are the feedback and recommendations included in the final reports submitted from the seven community-based organizations that conducted outreach to secure input for the 2030 RTP. The groups implemented a variety of activities to secure feedback: focus groups, community meetings, one-on-one interviews, written surveys, and Web-based surveys. SANDAG has summarized the outreach effort and key findings. The final reports from each of the organizations are available at www.sandag.org/2030rtp.

Able-Disabled Advocacy, Inc. (A-DA)

The mission of Able-Disabled Advocacy, Inc., (A-DA) is to ”provide education and job skills training for youth and adults with disabilities to help them find meaningful employment and overcome barriers to self-sufficiency.” Through its survey and focus groups, A-DA reached more than 250 San Diego County residents. A-DA distributed the survey to clients and partner agencies that serve people with disabilities, two One-Stop Career Centers, the State Department of Rehabilitation (DOR), and other community groups. A-DA also held four public focus group meetings in the Central/Metro, South County and North County regions of San Diego. Surveys also were completed at the focus group sessions.

Survey Results

A-DA created a user-friendly survey instrument specifically designed to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities and those with language and/or learning barriers. The survey instrument incorporated 23 questions that solicited responses to open-ended and multiple-choice statements regarding key areas of San Diego’s transportation network including: (1) ways to reduce congestion and drive time during peak hours; (2) improvements to all aspects the region’s transportation network to efficiently move more people from home to work or other places as the population continues to grow; and (3) options to secure money for local transportation projects.

Sixty-five percent of survey respondents indicated that their voice was important in helping SANDAG plan the San Diego region’s transportation network. The remaining thirty-five percent felt that their opinions did not matter and that local government does whatever they want to do regardless of community input.

Highways and Roads

Traffic congestion our biggest problem Add lanes to roads and freeways Provide bus-only lanes

Public Transit

Add more bus routes and service Improve accessibility Upgrade vehicles to provide better accessibility Offer public transit service in outlying areas of North County Educate riders on how the public transit system works, especially how to transfer from one bus to

another


Other Survey Responses

Build businesses near homes so not everyone has to go to Downtown, Kearny Mesa, or North County Adopt a toll fee for freeway usage during peak times so people will use public transit services Forty percent of respondents indicated that they would pay to use FasTrak® lane as a solo driver Provide employer incentives for employees who ride transit, carpool, bike, or walk to work as their first

choice for reducing congestion

Focus Groups

Highlights of key points made by participants during the four focus group meeting discussions follows.

Operate public transit services to connect major employment and medical sites to homes in areas where people with disabilities and the elderly reside to ensure all population groups receive universal access to public, private, educational, medical, and recreation facilities. Simply put, plan and operate transit services that connect major employment and activity centers with the homes of more low-income individuals/communities

More outreach and advertising is needed to educate the public on the FasTrak® lanes, especially regarding use by solo riders for a fee

Make improvements to bus stop stations to protect and shelter disabled wheelchair riders from elements of the environment such as rain or sun

Expand bus services to include designated “Disabled Riders Only” buses

Make published bus schedules easier to read and understand, especially information regarding transfers from one bus to another

Purchase and use pedicabs as an alternative mode of transportation for wheelchair users to alleviate congestion in the Downtown San Diego area

SANDAG needs to maintain a strong community-outreach program that is input friendly to a wide variety of demographic groups in order to reach audiences in every part of the county to solicit their feelings, concerns, and ideas to how their needs can be better met

All Congregations Together (ACT)

The mission of All Congregations Together (ACT) is to “provide services that will cause an observable positive change in the health, social, and economic conditions of individuals and communities.” ACT conducted community-based surveys and focus groups in Central San Diego neighborhoods and the Diamond Business District. Through these efforts, they received feedback from 220 residents.

Summary of Focus Group Comments

How can we improve the San Diego County transportation system?

More security is needed at the trolley and bus stops More carpooling would reduce highway traffic Working lifts on buses for people with mobility limitations Lanes for buses only is needed to reduce bus transit time Extended high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes where possible Special lanes for slow-moving recreational vehicles More bus routes in low-income neighborhoods


What kind of transportation improvement should be considered?

Taxi vehicles equipped to transport people with disabilities Community-based transportation services Extend the trolley to more areas of the community Smaller, more senior-friendly service/vehicles Vehicles designed for seniors and people with disabilities

What are your highest priorities for a transportation system?

Extend the trolley services to more areas Install cameras on trolley and buses to improve security for riders Bus drivers need to be more patient with seniors and people with disabilities Bus drivers need to have better control over the behavior of the riders Improved security on the trolley, buses, and at bus and trolley stops Make available more community-based transportation services

What options do you support to provide ongoing funding for transportation system/services?

Balance the transit budget and reduce unnecessary spending Reduce/stop the tagging of traffic management equipment Use different modes of transit services where possible Lower the cost to operate the transit system by using more fuel- and maintenance-efficient vehicles Use more community-based transportation services

What feedback would you give the decision makers?

More locally controlled transportation for seniors and disabled persons Better education on available transportation services Make available monthly Paratransit passes Provide local help with filling out forms to get on access Periodically provide someone to talk with community members concerning transportation issues

Bayside Community Services

Outreach efforts reached more than 150 people who either attended one of four community forums or completed a survey. The forums were conducted in English with translation into Spanish, Hmong, and Vietnamese. Materials also were provided in these languages. Translators were available at the forums to gather input from all participants.

Summary of Survey Results

The participants were asked to choose their top three choices as to a direction that the RTP should take, so the numbers reflect that the choice was one of three.

Add more bus and trolley service Promote more carpools/vanpools Add lanes to existing freeways Build houses and businesses near areas served by public transit Build new freeways Offer incentives for employers to offer flexible work hours (employees can commute during non-rush

hours) Integrate new technologies


Allow solo drivers to pay to use carpool lanes in rush hours Consider options to increase funding for transportation Expand access for disabled riders Cash incentives for employees to ride public transit, carpool, bike, or walk to work during rush hours Expand train service

Feedback from Workshop Discussions

At each workshop a brief description of the planning process was provided to participants in the language of the group. The workshops were presented in English, Spanish, Hmong, and Vietnamese. Translations of the survey questions were provided to Spanish and Vietnamese participants.

Recommendations

Expand trolley service along Interstate 15 to Riverside County or high speed train Build an underground system A tax to support vanpools All people thought that they would support a tax that would “improve” transportation Smart growth concept was broadly supported Have customer service representatives at major trolley/bus stops, such as Old Town and Fashion Valley Add trolley lines to the airport, Mid City, East County ,and along the Interstate 15 corridor Monorail

City Heights Community Development Corporation (CDC)

The City Heights CDC conducted public outreach in the City of San Diego community of City Heights. The community is mostly low-income and highly transit-dependent. The outreach effort consisted of discussion workshops; a comprehensive transportation survey was developed to focus input. The survey used ranking, multiple choice, and open-ended questions. Using these methods, we engaged 133 people about the elements of the RTP and San Diego transportation issues.

Survey Results

The survey was translated into Somali and Spanish. Survey questions asked people to rate their priorities in terms of transportation problems, solutions, funding, and commute times. Participants were asked what transportation problems they felt were the most pressing for the San Diego region. According to respondents, the two most critical transportation problems are:

Traffic congestions and delays Limited public transportation service

Recommendations to—

Improve roadway systems (participants selected top two solutions)

Add lanes to existing roads or freeways Build more bus-only lanes Expand public transit Build more lanes for cars Expand train/trolley service Build more freeways


Improve public transportation

Expand bus rapid transit (BRT) to job centers Add new bus routes Extend existing bus routes Add more trolley service More frequent service during rush hours and on nights and weekends Expand access for disabled

Other transportation improvement recommendations

Cash should be given to employees who ride public transit, carpool, bike, or walk to work during rush hour

Offer incentives to businesses for flexible hours Build businesses closer to transit More vanpools from metro to downtown and beaches

Generate more funding

A vast majority (74%) of the people surveyed supported increasing funds for transportation. When asked where these funds should come from, the top two responses were by transferring funds from other uses (57%) and fees from carpool lane tolls (51%). Areas of transportation that need the most funding, according to residents, are BRT to job centers (46%) and better buses and trolleys (44%) Workshop Feedback

In summary, outreach conducted by the City Heights CDC provided feedback around the following major transportation issues:

The most important transportation problems are traffic congestion and limited public transit service The most important solutions for San Diego transportation are adding lanes to existing roads, especially

for “buses only” and carpool It is critical to expand public transportation, especially in City Heights, including increasing frequency of

busiest routes and adding bus rapid transit to job centers Incorporate Smart Growth concepts like building homes closer to businesses Offer incentives to employees and employers who use and encourage transit and alternative modes of

travel Communities with the most transit riders and fewer transportation choices should be a priority when it

comes to improving public transit services and infrastructure improvements El Cajon Collaborative

The El Cajon Collaborative outreach effort included group meetings and written survey responses. The responses from the group meetings and the surveys are combined. The events were held within the city and unincorporated areas of El Cajon and generated participation from people who either lived or worked in East County.

Meeting and Survey Responses and Recommendations

How can the transportation system in San Diego County and especially in East County be improved? (It was interesting that participants needed prompting to consider roads and freeways as part of the regional transportation system planning.)

Extended bus/trolley schedules (earlier in the a.m. and later in the p.m.)


More frequency and more routes Make transportation lines go all the way to the airport More bike lanes (including on Cuyamaca and Grossmont campuses) More pedestrian-friendly More park and rides Buses need to go between Cuyamaca and Grossmont Colleges, including weekends East County will benefit from more smart growth More handicapped seats on trolley More lighting at bus/trolley locations (solar) More covered bus shelters More security at bus stops and park and rides Incentives to walk and ride bikes Serve your current ridership well to increase loyalty: the disabled, the elderly, and college students Bikes, skateboards, and surf boards need a place to park them, as well as those who carry groceries Same fees across the board – be able to transfer from one bus to another without extra fees Link bus stops near high schools with trolley stations on bus lines and incorporate beginning and ending

school times to enable students to use public transportation If you are not a regular user of public transportation, why not? What would need to change in order for you to utilize public transportation on a regular basis?

It was challenging to solicit information about why individuals did not use public transportation. It was as if utilization of public transportation was not only the choice of last resort, but one that was seldom, if ever considered by most participants. While participants had little personal experience with public transportation, almost all had clients or knew individuals who were frequent users.

What types of revenue sources should pay for transportation system improvements (e.g., sales tax, gasoline tax, user fees)?

It was surprising how many individuals were willing to pay for improvements or pay at a higher rate for a premium service (e.g., non-stop ride to a destination). Respondents listed a number of taxes, fees, and other assessments to help pay for transportation improvements.

What improvements to the transportation system are most needed or should be completed first?

The first and often only suggestion for slow-moving traffic was to widen the road. Responses included widen roads, increase transit service, and improve public transportation system. (See report for complete list of suggestions.)

What information do you want our policy makers to consider when making decisions about the transportation system?

Most answers focused on expanding the public transportation system, have employers provide incentives, promote alternate fuels, and educate the public on the transportation system. (See report for complete list of suggestions.)

Other Comments

There is interest by East County school district staff and parents in having the school districts work with SANDAG to implement a shared system of transportation for students. The Grossmont/Cuyamaca College District is particularly interested in increasing student utilization of public transportation and reducing the need for parking on campus. (See report for complete list of suggestions.)


Escondido Education COMPACT

Escondido Education COMPACT, in collaboration with the Escondido Youth Voice, focused its efforts on the North Inland corridor of San Diego County, specifically the greater Escondido and San Marcos area.

According to the COMPACT study for the RTP outreach, in communities where youth are not provided busing to or from school and access to any vehicle is limited, transportation was identified as a barrier to their movement from poverty toward economic self-sufficiency.

Throughout all of the outreach activities, Escondido Youth Voice played an active role in educating, collecting data, and organizing the findings. Through their leadership and participation, over 200 North County Youth were educated and exposed to their responsibility in representing their community in improving our transportation system.

Findings and Recommendations

More buses, routes, and quicker bus transportation Lower cost of public transportation Traffic relief, widen freeways, more carpool options New/expand systems – trolley, train, bus lanes

Comments on the Existing System

Bus routes are inconsistent and conflicting with my schedule There isn’t a bus stop close to my house Buses need to pass through more residential areas I have to take two buses to go to work and it takes a long time Sometimes the bus doesn’t pass to where I am going; buses should go to different (more) places Less obscure route maps Providing better schedule information regarding the system The biggest transportation issue facing youth in survey is cost

South Bay Community Services

South Bay Community Services facilitated five public meetings in the South Bay, with a total of 142 participants. The meetings were held in English and/or Spanish and were attended by seniors, adults, families, single parents, and youth living in the South Bay; the majority were low-income individuals. Everyone expressed a concern toward San Diego’s expected population growth and future transportation issues. Many expressed their frustration with the current transportation system and all shared their ideas on how to improve it, their top priorities, how to better connect the transportation system with jobs and housing, and transportation funding options. The general consensus is that although driving alone is much more comfortable and convenient, traffic and congestion are getting worse, which means that other alternatives need to be considered by decision makers, as well as by the public.


How can we improve the San Diego transportation system?

Trolley and bus services—

Lower fares Add routes and stops Trolleys/buses should run more frequently Two different types of routes can be designed; regular routes for short commutes and non-stop, fast

routes for longer commutes Coordinate trolley and bus schedules to decrease waiting time when passengers transfer Expand trolley system

Roads/freeways

FasTrak® lanes (toll roads) should be created in segments of the freeways that are highly congested during rush hour so drivers can choose to pay to get to work quicker

Create fast lanes (with few exits) on the freeways for long commutes HOV lanes, designated bus lanes, and truck lanes are also needed on the freeways As more housing and communities are built further east, additional freeways need to be built in those

areas as well With limited dollars, what are the biggest priorities for the transportation system?

Expand and develop an efficient public transportation system that is reliable, accessible, and affordable to all

Safety needs to be addressed in order to make streets, trolley/bus stops and transit centers safe, which will encourage more people to walk and use public transportation at all times of the day

How should we better connect the transportation system with jobs and housing?

Better connect the transportation system with jobs and housing All new communities should be built to accommodate a mixture of homes jobs, shops, and services next

to each other Communities should have options to walk/bike to work, school, shops, and services Employment centers all throughout the county and not just in certain areas, such as the North County

region Good-paying jobs need to be drawn to the South Bay and East County areas to significantly reduce

traffic going north on the I-805 and I-5 in the mornings and traffic going south on the I-805 and I-5 in the evenings

COASTER or a heavy rail system needs to be developed to transport commuters from the South Bay and East County regions to Central San Diego and the North County region

Are there other funding options we should consider?

If public transportation is cheaper, more people will use it, which will generate enough revenue to pay for itself and even generate some profit

Additional toll roads at affordable prices may also generate enough money to pay for the construction of that particular toll road and hopefully generate revenue

Rather than having one or two expensive toll roads, it would be more appropriate to develop multiple inexpensive toll roads

Toll roads can be installed at the end of each County, where drivers can pay a minimal fee to drive through each County


Lastly, big box retailers and large companies should provide free shuttle services to surrounding areas; the burden would then be shared between the private and the public sector

What other feedback would you give to decision makers?

Employers and governmental agencies need to come up with programs and incentives to get middle- and upper-class individuals to use public transportation, HOV lanes, bicycles, etc.

Planners and decision makers to look at how other countries (both developed and undeveloped) deal with their transportation system issues

Do not dismiss nontraditional informal transportation options

2030 Regional Transportation Plan D-1

APPENDIX D TRIBAL CONSULTATION

The U.S. Constitution and treaties recognize Native American communities as separate and independent political communities within the territorial boundaries of the United States. Federal legislation requires that federally recognized tribal governments be consulted in the development of Regional Transportation Plans (RTP) and programs (Title 23, U.S.C. 450.312). In particular, the new federal transportation bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), passed in 2005, reinforces federal emphasis on meaningful tribal government participation. How this consultation should occur is left to the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and the tribal governments.

In the San Diego region, there are 17 federally recognized tribal nations with jurisdiction over 18 reservations – the most in any county in the United States (Figure D.1 – Tribal Lands Map). SANDAG is working to increase communication, coordination, and collaboration with tribal governments in the regional transportation planning process. The objectives for the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) with regard to tribal nations and regional transportation planning were to:

Develop a framework for government-to-government engagement at a regional level;

Engage federally recognized tribal governments in the region in the transportation planning process in a timely, meaningful, and effective manner; and

Understand current and future needs related to transportation, including: roadways, transit, funding, and information-sharing/technical assistance.

EMERGING REGIONAL GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT FRAMEWORK

As reservations continue to develop and interregional planning issues become more related to surrounding jurisdictions rather than federal and state agencies, the need for establishing a government-to-government framework at a regional level has become more and more apparent. Tribes operate under independent constitutions, have their own systems of governance, and establish and administer their own laws. This sovereign status of tribal governments dictates that the United States and all agencies operating within it are expected to engage in government-to-government relationships when engaging Native American tribes. Government-to-government interaction with Native American tribes should follow the principles of coordination, cooperation, and consultation.

Caltrans was the first state agency in California to enact an agencywide policy on tribal consultation. In subsequent years, counties and regional agencies, such as SANDAG, have been exploring mechanisms for increased tribal involvement in regional transportation planning processes. In San Diego, a regional framework for government-to-government relations between various public agencies and the tribal nations in the region is emerging. Today, all three principal transportation planning agencies in the region have full-time tribal liaisons. Caltrans, District 11 established a Native American Liaison program in 2002 to work with the 19 tribes in its jurisdiction. Among its objectives are to establish close coordination and early project involvement with tribal governments to streamline funding, environmental, and project delivery processes in areas on or near reservations and encourage cooperation between other agencies and local tribal governments. The County of San Diego established the position of Tribal Liaison in 2001. Liaison responsibilities include identifying and resolving issues related to impacts of tribal economic development projects on infrastructure and other county services in unincorporated areas. For SANDAG, it is through the Borders Committee that SANDAG has been pursuing government-to-government relations with tribal

D-2 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

governments in the region. Its first tribal summit was held in 2002 and has incorporated a tribal liaison position within its land use and transportation planning department, providing staff support to the Borders Committee.

Intertribal organizations are playing an increasingly key role as facilitators for this emerging regional government-to-government framework. SANDAG is building working relationships with two key intertribal associations to strengthen communication and coordination with area tribes. The Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA), founded in 1998, is a consortium of Southern California Indian tribal governments designated as a Public Law 93-638 contracting entity that provides transportation education, planning, and program administration for tribal government members. SANDAG signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the RTA in August 2005 to strengthen liaison activities and tribal involvement in transportation planning. The activities outlined in the MOU were funded by an environmental justice grant from Caltrans to RTA. The Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association (SCTCA) is a multi-service, non-profit corporation established in 1972 by a consortium of 19 federally recognized Indian tribes in Southern California. As an intertribal council, the SCTCA serves as a forum for a wide variety of issues for its member tribes. In June 2005, the SCTCA joined SANDAG as an advisory member of the Borders Committee. In January 2007 the SCTCA and SANDAG signed an MOU for SCTCA to join SANDAG as an advisory member to SANDAG’s Board of Directors, as well as the four policy advisory committees – Transportation, Regional Planning, Public Safety, and Borders.

2006 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRIBAL SUMMIT: A MECHANISM FOR CONSULTATION

SANDAG convened its first Tribal Summit as a mechanism for consulting with tribal governments in 2002 to attain tribal input for the MOBILITY 2030. In 2004, the RTA was awarded a grant from Caltrans to improve government-to-government relations between the tribes in Southern California and their respective regional transportation planning agencies. As part of the MOU signed with SANDAG in August 2005, the RTA agreed to collaborate on the organization of a second Tribal Summit between elected tribal leaders from the 17 tribes in the San Diego region and the SANDAG Board of Directors.

Building on strengthened relationships with the RTA and the SCTCA, the Borders Committee formed an ad hoc interagency task force representing the RTA, SCTCA, County of San Diego, Caltrans, and SANDAG to plan the Tribal Summit. Regular planning meetings were hosted by the RTA to develop a mutually determined agenda and protocol. Chairman Robert H. Smith of the Pala Band of Mission Indians, Chair of the SCTCA, offered to host the event on the Pala Indian Reservation.

Tribal leaders stated an interest in the Summit being an opportunity for local government officials to learn more about tribal nations, as well as an opportunity for tribal leaders to understand better the policy areas that SANDAG deals with as a regional planning forum. It was suggested that a framework be developed for the Tribal Summit to channel the dialogue constructively and take full advantage of the presence of regional policymakers to arrive at specific recommendations/action items. In light of the development of the 2030 RTP, the 2006 San Diego Regional Tribal Summit was focused on a bilateral analysis of tribal transportation issues.

The mechanism of the Tribal Summit appears to be a useful tool as a forum for discussing policy-level planning issues of mutual concern between the SANDAG Board of Directors and the tribal governments of the region.


TECHNICAL TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION WORKSHOP

In preparation for the 2006 San Diego Regional Tribal Summit, SANDAG, Caltrans, County of San Diego, SCTCA, and RTA staff worked together to hold a technical transportation workshop to discuss the results of the Tribal Transportation Needs Survey1 and provide an opportunity for tribal transportation managers to discuss issues and strategies to improve tribal transportation programs in the region with the transportation planning staff from SANDAG, Caltrans, the County, Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The group analyzed the current situation of transportation programs in the region discussing first the obstacles to overcome in order to improve tribal transportation programs and then those strengths in the region that could be leveraged for improvement.

Among the obstacles tribal representatives mentioned: (1) the lack of communication and follow-up from agencies; (2) complex government processes and a lack of understanding of tribal processes; (3) lack of understanding of the transportation funding process and how to access it; (4) disconnects between transportation planning priorities of agencies and tribal governments; and (5) rigid organizational cultures and legal constraints that limit collaboration.

Among the strengths that are currently available that can be leveraged to improve tribal transportation-related programs, the group identified the following: (1) tribal governments acknowledged that agencies are recognizing the problems and are willing to work on them; (2) that agencies have been working more effectively in recent years and there is an increased one-on-one respect; (3) the existence of tribal liaisons in the agencies has facilitated communication and coordination; (4) policy mandates from the federal and state level are helping to create the political will to cooperate; (5) intertribal councils such as the RTA and the SCTCA are focusing more on policy-level tribal needs and partnerships; (6) increasing evidence of a desire on both parts to understand each other and work on collaborative solutions.

The group then developed a set of strategies to improve tribal transportation programs in the region. These strategies were taken to the Tribal Summit for the SANDAG Board of Directors and elected tribal leaders from each of the 17 nations in the San Diego region to discuss, analyze, and develop their priorities for action at a policy level.

In the area of roadway infrastructure, priority strategies included: (1) coordinate the incorporation of existing Tribal Transportation Plans (TTP) into future regional transportation plans; (2) identify corridors critical to tribal reservations and coordinate the implementation of relevant studies, including funding; (3) collaborate/support on developing an accurate, up-to-date Indian Reservation Roads Inventory for the San Diego region; and (4) identify critical regional arterials serving tribal nations which should be included in future regional transportation plan updates.

Transportation funding was another area of concern. Priority strategies included: (1) examine mechanisms for leveraging existing funds between local governments and tribal nations to improve transportation projects of mutual concern; and (2) develop collaborative strategy for pursuing additional transportation funds for the region.

1 Caltrans/SANDAG, 2005 Tribal Transportation Needs Survey. February 2006. This survey formed part of the Caltrans, District 11 Tribal

Transportation Needs Assessment and served as the basis for more systematic dialogue with the tribal nations in the region and the planning agencies. The results of the survey served as a basis for the technical workshop.


There is a need to coordinate on possible transit alternatives for the both the reservations and the employees of the gaming facilities. Among the strategic priorities identified was to collaborate with interested tribal governments on a Tribal Transit Feasibility Study to examine potential alternatives for transit in selected tribal transit corridors and ways to fund such projects through private/public partnerships

Finally, a set of strategies were identified to create mutually acceptable mechanisms for information-sharing, data collection, and technology transfer, including: (1) create and maintain a useful, accessible interagency directory to orient tribal governments on which agencies to approach for specific transportation issues; (2) provide ongoing training to tribal governments on funding processes and transportation and regional planning; and (3) provide technical support for planning and data analysis services to tribal governments parallel to member agencies.

TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES

The Summit, held March 10, 2006, drew over 120 participants, including elected officials from 12 tribal governments in the region, the SANDAG Board of Directors, members of SANDAG’s policy advisory committees (PACs), various public agencies that work with tribal governments, and interested organizations and stakeholders. The proceedings from the Summit were distributed to the participants of the Summit, as well as to all SANDAG Board members and tribal governments in April 2006.

The core activity at the Tribal Summit was a facilitated, interactive discussion, analysis, and electronic polling exercise regarding the tribal transportation strategies developed at the technical workshop. The tribal leaders and SANDAG Board of Directors discussed them and then participated in an interactive polling exercise to determine where there were areas of mutual concern to identify possible areas of collaboration. Table D.1 describes the list of policy-level next steps that were based on the recommendations coming out of the Summit and approved by both the Boards of SANDAG and the SCTCA.

Table D.1—Next Steps

Policy Action Item Tribal

Partner

SANDAG Executive

Committee

Borders Committee

Work with tribal nations to address the following issues:

Tribal representation on the SANDAG Board and/or PACs

Collaborative legislative agenda

SCTCA

Continue to strengthen communication and coordination with tribal governments through the Borders Committee

SCTCA Form Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation (Tribes, RTA, Caltrans, County, MTS, NCTD, BIA) to serve as a forum to coordinate programs, address issues of concern, and ensure that the needs and issues of tribal governments are being incorporated into the transportation planning process at the regional level.

RTA

BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs RTA = Reservation Transportation Authority SCTCA = Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association


CURRENT STATUS AND NEXT STEPS

Significant milestones have been attained regarding the actions agreed upon by the tribal leadership and the SANDAG Board at the Summit. First, at a technical level, it was agreed that a tribal working group should be formed to discuss tribal transportation issues on a regular basis. The Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues (Working Group) was formed in September 2006 and held its first quarterly meeting in October. This Working Group serves as a forum for tribal governments in the region to discuss and coordinate transportation issues of mutual concern with the various public planning agencies in the region, including SANDAG, Caltrans, the County of San Diego, and the transit operators. The Working Group responsibilities include reviewing current activities and plans being implemented by SANDAG and the tribal governments in an effort to coordinate programs, addressing issues of concern, and ensuring that the needs and issues of tribal governments are being incorporated into the transportation planning process at the regional level.

The Working Group provides feedback and comments on current and planned activities and provides technical advice on the implementation of these activities. Currently, they serve as the project advisory group on a number of grant-based projects, including: Tribal Transit Feasibility Study and the Tribal Transportation Demand Management Outreach Study. The Working Group also assists with the associated outreach to the tribal community on transportation issues of regional significance, such as the availability of new funding programs for tribes through SAFETEA-LU. The Working Group forms part of the SANDAG structure and reports to the Borders Committee.

Second, at a policy level, the leadership of SANDAG and the SCTCA had discussions over several months regarding the development of a formula for tribal representation which would respect tribal sovereignty and involve tribal governments in policy decisions at SANDAG. A jointly developed proposal was presented to both the SANDAG and SCTCA Executive Committees for consideration in November 2006. It was forwarded for recommendation to both Boards of Directors in December and approved by both Boards. These actions resulted in the SCTCA joining the SANDAG Board of Directors and PACs. This historic action was incorporated into an MOU between SANDAG and SCTCA signed into effect at the SANDAG Board of Directors meeting on January 26, 2007.

Through these two new mechanisms of communication and coordination, SANDAG and the tribal nations in San Diego have established a government-to-government framework through which to pursue regional policy-level actions, as well as collaborate on specific planning projects of mutual concern. At the same time, SANDAG will continue to engage tribal governments in individual consultation, addressing each nation’s specific issues and ensuring that each is consulted on major plans and projects that impact them.


Figure D.1 – Tribal Lands Map

2030 Regional Transportation Plan E-1

APPENDIX E AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY

BACKGROUND

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which was last amended in 1990, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. California has adopted state air quality standards that are more stringent than the NAAQS. Areas with levels that exceed the standard for specified pollutants are designated as non-attainment areas.

The U.S. EPA requires that each state containing non-attainment areas develop plans to attain the NAAQS by a specified attainment deadline. These attainment plans are called State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) prepares the San Diego portion of the California SIP. Once the standards are attained, further plans—called Maintenance Plans—are required to demonstrate continued maintenance of the NAAQS.

SANDAG and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) must make a determination that the Regional Transportation Plan and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) conform to the SIP for air quality. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not create new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay the attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.

On February 24, 2006, the SANDAG Board of Directors made a finding of conformity of the 2030 Revenue Constrained RTP: 2006 Update and adopted this plan. The U.S. DOT made its conformity determination on March 29, 2006. The 2006 RTIP was found in conformity with the SIP by the SANDAG Board of Directors and by the U.S. DOT on August 4, 2006, and on October 2, 2006, respectively.

The San Diego region attained the federal 1-Hour Ozone Standard in 2001. The U.S. EPA redesignated the San Diego air basin as attainment/maintenance and approved the 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan as a SIP revision, effective on July 28, 2003. On June 15, 2005, the U.S. EPA revoked the federal 1-Hour Ozone Standard after the 8-Hour Ozone Standard became applicable.

On April 15, 2004, the U.S. EPA designated the San Diego air basin as non-attainment for the new 8-Hour Ozone Standard. This designation took effect on June 15, 2004. The air basin has been classified as a basic non-attainment area under Subpart 1 of the Clean Air Act and the attainment date for the 8-Hour Ozone Standard is June 15, 2009. Several areas that are tribal lands in eastern San Diego County were excluded from the non-attainment designation. As shown in Figure E.1 on page, E-17 La Posta Areas #1 and #2, Cuyapaipe, Manzanita, and Campo Areas #1 and #2 are attainment areas for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.

As required by the Final Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards of July 2004, the SANDAG Board of Directors and the U.S. DOT made a finding of conformity of the 2030 RTP and 2004 RTIP, as amended, prior to June 15, 2005.

In cooperation with the San Diego APCD and SANDAG, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) must develop an 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for submission to the U.S. EPA by June 15, 2007. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control Board and ARB approved the 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County on May 23, 2007 and May 24, 2007, respectively. The 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County was submitted to the U.S. EPA on June 15, 2007.

E-2 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

The San Diego region also has been designated by the U.S. EPA as a federal maintenance area for the Carbon Monoxide (CO) standard. On November 8, 2004, ARB submitted the 2004 revision to the California SIP for CO to the U.S. EPA. Effective January 30, 2006, U.S. EPA has approved this maintenance plan as a SIP revision.

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY: MODELING PROCEDURES

Introduction

SANDAG has updated the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (RTP) to conduct the required air quality conformity analysis. Conformity of the 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) Amendment No. 9 has been determined simultaneously for consistency purposes. Tables E.2 – E.4 include the conformity analysis for both the 2030 Revenue Constrained RTP and the 2006 RTIP Amendment No. 9. Conformity of the 2030 Revenue Constrained RTP: 2006 Update expires on March 29, 2009. However, to comply with SAFETEA-LU standards SANDAG is updating the RTP. The 2030 RTP provides information on revenue assumptions and the Revenue Constrained Scenario.

Growth Forecasts

Every three to five years, SANDAG produces a long-range forecast of population, housing, and employment growth for the San Diego region. The most recent is the 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update, which was accepted by the SANDAG Board of Directors on September 8, 2006, for use in the 2030 RTP.

The forecast process relies on three integrated forecasting models. The first one, the Demographic and Economic Forecasting Model (DEFM), provides a detailed econometric and demographic forecast for the entire region. The second one, the Interregional Commuting Model, provides a forecast of commuting between the San Diego region, Orange County, southwest Riverside County, Imperial County, and Tijuana/Northern Baja California. The third one, the Urban Development Model, allocates the results of the first two models to subregional areas based upon the current plans and policies of the jurisdictions.

The 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update is based solely on the adopted general plans and community plans and policies of the 18 cities. For the unincorporated area, the forecast is based on the most recent (June 2005) version of the County’s GP2020 plan update, as directed by the Board of Supervisors.

In October 2006 SANDAG consulted with the San Diego Region Conformity Working Group (CWG) on the use of the 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update for the air quality conformity analysis of the 2030 RTP. Previously, both U.S. DOT and U.S. EPA concurred that approved plans should be used as input in the air quality conformity process. Table E.1 shows the regional population and employment growth forecast for the San Diego region through 2030.


Table E.1—San Diego Regional Population and Employment Forecast

Final 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update

Year Total Population Total Employment

2004 3,013,014 1,449,349

2010 3,245,279 1,573,742

2020 3,635,855 1,741,033

2030 3,984,753 1,913,682

Source: SANDAG, September 2006

Transportation Modeling

SANDAG follows a widely used, four-step transportation modeling process of trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and assignment to forecast travel activity in the San Diego region. After a first pass through the four steps, a final pass is made through the mode choice and assignment steps to reflect congested travel conditions in mode decision making. Travel model results are then combined with additional input and output functions to form the complete modeling chain.

The estimates of regional transportation-related emissions analysis meet the requirements established in the Transportation Conformity Rule, Sections 93.122(b) and 93.122(c). These requirements relate to the procedures to determine regional transportation-related emissions, including the use of network-based travel models, methods to estimate traffic speeds and delays, and the estimation of vehicle miles of travel.

TransCAD is the transportation planning computer package used by SANDAG to provide a framework for performing much of the computer processing involved with modeling. Another software package used extensively in the modeling process is ArcInfo. This geographic information system (GIS) maintains, manipulates, and displays transportation, land use, and demographic data. SANDAG has written numerous programs that provide a linkage between TransCAD and ArcInfo. Other programs manipulate data and perform some modeling functions such as trip generation and mode choice.

A number of data files and surveys are used to calibrate the transportation models. These include:

1995 Travel Behavior Survey

2001 Caltrans Statewide Travel Survey

2001-2003 San Diego Regional Transit Survey

External Trip Surveys

Traffic Generation Studies

1991 San Diego Visitor Survey

2000 Census Transportation Planning Package


In addition to model parameters derived from these surveys, there are three major inputs to the transportation models:

Growth forecast inputs used to describe existing and planned land use patterns and demographic characteristics;

Highway networks used to describe existing roadway facilities and planned improvements to the roadway system; and

Transit networks used to describe existing and planned public transit service.

Highway Networks

The regional highway networks in the 2030 RTP include all roads classified by local jurisdictions in their general plan circulation elements. These roads include freeways, expressways, and the Regional Arterial System (RAS). The RAS consists of all conventional state highways, prime arterials, and selected major streets. In addition, some local streets are included in the networks for connectivity between zones.

The route improvements and additions in the 2030 RTP are developed to provide adequate travel service that is compatible with adopted regional policies for land use and population growth. All regionally significant projects are included in the quantitative emissions analysis. These include all state highways, all proposed national highway system routes, all regionally significant arterials, and all Federal Highway Administration functionally classified "Other Principal Arterials."

The networks also account for programs intended to improve the operation of the highway system, including high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and ramp metering. Existing and proposed toll facilities also are modeled to reflect time, cost, and capacity effects of these facilities. The State Route (SR) 125 South, SR 11 projects, and SR 241 are the only modeled toll facilities included in Revenue Constrained Plan for the San Diego region.

In addition, several managed/HOV lanes are included in the Revenue Constrained Plan. Facilities with proposed managed lanes include Interstates 5, 15, and 805 and SR 52. Managed lanes are defined as reversible HOV routes and HOV routes with two or more lanes in the peak direction. It is assumed that the excess capacity not utilized by carpools and transit on these facilities would be managed so that single occupant vehicles could use these lanes under a pricing mechanism. Traffic flows would be managed so that the facility would operate at level of service D or better.

Based on the networks and programs described above, the transportation forecasts of the 2030 RTP differentiate between four highway modes:

drive alone non-toll

drive alone toll

shared-ride non-HOV/non-toll

shared-ride HOV/non-toll SANDAG normally maintains networks for 2004 (the 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update base year) and the years 2010, 2020, and 2030. A 2014 network also was created to conduct air quality conformity analyses of the 2030 RTP to the 2014 1-Hour Ozone emissions budgets. Additionally, a 2009 network was created to conduct the interim emissions test for the 8-Hour Ozone Standard attainment year.


A list of the major highway and near-term regional arterial projects included in the conformity analysis and their implementation phasing is included with the draft Air Quality Conformity Determination. The Regional Arterial System and Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria and Rankings are included in the 2030 RTP. Locally funded, regionally significant projects also have been included in the air quality conformity analysis. These projects are funded with TransNet funds, a 20-year, half-cent local sales tax for transportation that expires in 2008; TransNet Extension funds, a 40-year, half-cent local sales tax extension approved by voters in 2004 that expires in 2048; and other local revenue sources.

Transit Networks

SANDAG also maintains transit network datasets for existing and proposed transit systems. Most transit routes run over the same streets, freeways, HOV lanes, and ramps used in the highway networks. As a result the only additional facilities that are added to the transportation coverage for transit modeling purposes are:

trolley and commuter rail lines

streets used by buses that are not part of local general plan circulation elements

There are seven transit modes, which group routes with similar operating characteristics. They are:

commuter rail

trolley

regional bus rapid transit (BRT)

corridor BRT

limited-express bus

express bus

local bus

BRT service would have stations and operating characteristics similar to commuter rail and trolleys, but service would be provided by advanced design buses operating on HOV lanes, some grade-separated transit ways, and surface streets. Once TransCAD transit networks have been built, TransCAD finds minimum time paths between transit access points (TAPs). TAPs are selected transit stops that are used to represent walk and auto access to the transit system. The following four sets of paths are created for modes:

a.m. peak-period local bus

a.m. peak-period premium service

mid-day local bus

mid-day premium service

Bus speeds assumed in the transit networks are derived from modeled highway speeds and reflect the effects of congestion. Regional and express transit routes on surface streets are assumed to operate out of congestion due to priority transit treatments. Higher bus speeds may result for transit vehicles operating on highways with HOV lanes and HOV bypass lanes at ramp meters, compared to those routes that operate on highways where these facilities do not exist.


In addition to transit travel times, transit fares are required as input to the mode choice model. TransCAD procedures replicate the San Diego region’s complicated fare policies which differ between:

buses which collect a flat fare of between $1.75 and $4.00, depending on the type of service;

trolleys which charge a variable fare of between $1.25 and $3.00, depending on how many stations are traversed;

commuter rail which has a zone-based fare of between $3.50 and $4.75;

proposed regional BRT routes which are assumed to charge a distance based fare of between $0.14 and $0.60 per mile that replicates limited-express and commuter rail fares; and

proposed corridor BRT routes, which are assumed to use trolley station-based fares.

Fares are expressed in 2004 dollars and are assumed to remain constant in inflation-adjusted dollars over the forecast period.

Near-term transit route changes are drawn from the Regional Short-Range Transit Plan produced in coopera-tion with the region’s transit agencies. Longer-range improvements are proposed as a part of the RTP development and other transit corridor studies. In addition to federal and state funded projects, locally funded regionally significant transit projects have been included in the air quality conformity analysis of the 2030 RTP. These transit projects also are funded with TransNet funds or other local revenue sources. Once network coding is completed, the transportation models are run for the applicable scenarios (2009, 2010, 2014, 2020, and 2030). The draft air quality conformity document contains the list of major regional transit projects included in the analysis and their implementation phasing.

Trip Generation

Trip generation is the first step in the transportation modeling process. Average weekday trip ends by all forms of transportation starting and ending in each zone are estimated for ten trip types.

1. home-work 6. work-other

2. home-college 7. other-other

3. home-school 8. serve passenger

4. home-shop 9. visitor

5. home-other 10. airport The model computes person trips, which account for all forms of transportation including automobiles, trucks, taxicabs, motorcycles, public transit, bicycling and walking.

The trip generation model works by applying trip rates to zone-level growth forecasts. The model calculates each of the trip ends separately, as trip productions and attractions. Trip production rates are expressed as trips per household, while trip production rates vary by trip type and structure type. Trip attractions are expressed as trips per acre of nonresidential land use or trips per household. Trip attraction rates vary by trip type and land use category. The 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update was used to produce trip generation forecasts for the years 2009, 2010, 2014, 2020, and 2030. Trip generation rates were established by utilizing data from traffic generator studies and expanding rates from the 1995 Travel Behavior Survey and 2001 Caltrans Statewide Travel Survey.


SANDAG’s regional transportation model uses a relatively high trip generation rate for households (8.1 vehicle trips per day), which may account for possible increases in trip-making as new facilities are built. Also, the model accounts for travel diversion among facilities.

The model reduces future year person trips by a small amount to reflect increased use of teleworking and e-commerce. Reduction factors of 3 to 5 percent were applied to selected trip purposes and land uses.

Trip Distribution

After trip generation, trip movements between zones are determined using a doubly-constrained, gamma-function gravity model form of the trip distribution model. Inputs to the trip distribution model include zone-level trip generation forecasts by trip type, zone-to-zone impedances, and gamma function parameters by trip type. The model is designed to modify trip patterns in response to new development and reflects shortened trip lengths in the vicinity of smart growth, mixed-use developments. The model also modifies trip patterns as new roadways are added.

The model is calibrated to match observed trip length frequencies from the 1995 Travel Behavior Survey and 2001 Caltrans Statewide Travel Survey. Zone-to-zone impedances are a composite measure of peak and off-peak travel times and costs by highway, transit, and non-motorized modes.

Mode Choice

At this point in the modeling process, total person trip movements between zones are split into different forms of transportation by highway, transit, and non-motorized modes (bicycling and walking). Highway modes include drive alone non-toll, drive alone toll, shared-ride non-HOV/non-toll, and shared-ride HOV/non-toll. Nine transit modes differentiate transit trips by three ride modes (rail, BRT, and bus) and three access modes (walk, drive, and drop-off). The mode choice model is designed to link mode use to demographic assumptions, highway network conditions, transit system configuration, land use alternatives, parking costs, transit fares, and auto operating costs. Trips between zone pairs are allocated to modes based on the cost and time of traveling by a particular mode compared to the cost and time of traveling by other modes. For example, vehicle trips on a congested route would be more likely to be diverted to light rail than vehicle trips on an uncongested freeway.

Income level also is considered since lower-income households tend to own fewer automobiles, and therefore, make more trips by transit and carpooling. People in higher-income households tend to choose modes based on time and convenience rather than cost. The mode choice model is calibrated using 1995 and 2001 Travel Behavior Survey trip tables by mode and income and 2001-2003 Regional Transit Survey transit trip characteristics. Regional-level Census 2000 work trip mode shares were also used to fine tune mode share estimates.

Highway and transit travel times reflect highway congestion effects from the final iteration of the feedback loop. The model produces a.m. peak, p.m. peak, and off-peak period trip tables for vehicles and transit riders. The a.m. peak period is from 6 to 9 in the morning and the p.m. peak period is from 3 to 6 in the afternoon. The off-peak period covers the remaining 18 hours of the day. A series of mode choice model runs were performed in the course of analyzing the 2030 RTP through the complete modeling process.


Highway and Transit Assignment

Highway

Highway assignment produces traffic volume estimates for all roadway segments in the system. These traffic volumes are an important input to emissions modeling. Similarly, transit trips are assigned to transit routes and segments.

SANDAG loads traffic using TransCAD’s “Multi-Modal Multi-Class Assignment” function. The highway assignment model works by finding roads that provide the shortest travel impedance between each zone pair. Trips between zone pairs are then accumulated on road segments making up minimum paths. Highway impedances consider posted speed limits, signal delays, congestion delays, and costs. The model computes congestion delays for each segment based on the ratio of the traffic volume to roadway capacity. Motorists may choose different paths during peak hours when congestion can be heavy and off-peak hours when roadways are typically free flowing. For this reason, traffic is assigned separately for a.m. peak, p.m. peak, and off-peak periods. Vehicle trip tables for each scenario reflect increased trip-making due to population growth and variations in travel patterns due to the alternative transportation facilities/networks proposed.

Model accuracy is assessed by comparing model estimated traffic volumes with actual traffic counts obtained through the SANDAG traffic monitoring program and highway performance monitoring system estimates of vehicle miles of travel (VMT).

After completing the highway assignments, additional processing is needed. Adjustments are made for calibration error volume, HOV/managed lane volume, bus volumes, hourly distribution factors, level of service (LOS), and travel time.

Transit

For transit assignment, TransCAD software assigns transit access point (TAP)-to-TAP transit trips to the network. Eight separate transit assignments are produced for peak and off-peak periods; walk and auto access; and local bus and premium service. These individual assignments are summed to obtain total transit ridership forecasts.

Before assigning transit trips, external transit trips coming into San Diego from outside the region need to be added to the internal transit trips estimated by the mode choice model. Currently, few transit trips enter from the north or east, however, over 20,000 transit trips cross the Mexican border each day. An external transit trip table for the base year is developed from on-board transit ridership surveys and factored to future years based on border crossing trends to account for these trips.

For accuracy, transit ridership forecasts from the transit assignment model are compared with transit counts from the SANDAG transit passenger counting program to determine whether transit modeling parameters need to be adjusted.

Some of these comparisons of model-estimated boardings with actual boardings include:

System-level boardings, which may reveal transfer rate problems and lead to changes to the transfer wait time factor in the mode choice model;

Boardings by mode, which may reveal modal biases and lead to changes in mode choice modal constants;


Boardings by frequency of service, which may show biases that lead to changes in the first wait factor in the mode choice model; and

Centre City screenline crossings, which may lead to changes in parking costs, and boardings by stop location, which may indicate problems which specific generators such as a university.

Post-TransCAD Processing

Standard TransCAD output needs to be reformatted and adjusted to be useful for emissions modeling. Several routines and computer programs have been written to accomplish the following major functions:

Correcting link-specific traffic volume forecasts for calibration error;

Adding in estimated travel on roads not in the transportation modeling process;

Computing link speeds based on corrected link volumes, highway capacity manual relationships between congestion and speed (or signal delay);

Splitting link volumes into heavy-duty truck and other traffic to obtain speed distributions by vehicle class; and

Preparing a data set that contains total VMT, number of trip starts, and VMT by speed category by time of day for each vehicle class.

Motor Vehicle Emissions Modeling

Emissions Model

In October 2002, ARB released EMFAC 2002, an emissions inventory model that calculates emissions for motor vehicles operating in California. It is an integrated model that combines emission rate data with vehicle activity to calculate regional emissions. The U.S. EPA approved EMFAC 2002 for use in conformity determinations on April 1, 2003.

The EMFAC 2002 model supports calculation of emissions for the Burden mode. The Burden mode is used for calculating regional emission inventories. In this mode, the model reports total emissions as tons per day for each pollutant, by vehicle class, and the total vehicle fleet. The Burden mode uses emission factors that have been corrected for ambient conditions and speeds combined with vehicle activity to calculate emissions in tons per day. Vehicle activity includes the number of vehicles, daily vehicle miles traveled, and the number of daily trips.

The air quality analysis of the 2030 RTP was conducted using EMFAC 2002’s Burden mode. Projections of daily regional emissions were prepared for reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO).

On-road motor vehicle emissions are attributed to several different processes:

Starting exhaust;

Running exhaust;

Idle exhaust (calculated for heavy-duty trucks only);

Resting and diurnal evaporation;

Running losses; and

Hot soak evaporation.


Emission factors vary by vehicle class, fuel usage, and technology. The fuels modeled are gasoline, diesel, and electrically powered vehicles. Technology categories can be grouped into catalyst, noncatalyst, and diesel. Thirteen vehicle classes are modeled:

passenger car line-haul vehicle

two types of light-duty trucks urban bus

medium-duty truck school bus

two types of light-heavy-duty trucks motorcycle

medium-heavy-duty truck motor home

heavy-heavy-duty truck Emission factors for processes that vary by temperature (i.e., starting exhaust, hot soak, and running exhaust) are broken down further by specified temperature ranges. Exhaust emission factors also are broken down by speed range.

Regional Emissions Forecasts

Regional transportation forecasts were initiated in April 2007. Output from the TransCAD model was then reformatted and adjusted to be useful for emissions modeling.

8-Hour Ozone Standard

The transportation conformity rule prescribes different conformity tests for 8-Hour ozone areas that have 1-Hour Ozone SIP budgets and for areas that do not have 1-Hour Ozone SIPs. The San Diego 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan established ROG and NOx budgets for 2010 and 2014, but not for 2009. On June 26, 2003, the U.S. EPA approved the maintenance plan and motor vehicle emissions budgets as SIP revisions. These SIP revisions became effective on July 28, 2003.

Prior to the October 20, 2006, court decision1 SANDAG consulted with the CWG on various options for interim emissions analysis. The approach agreed by the CWG prior to the court decision was as follows:

Under the new 8-Hour Ozone Standard, the San Diego air basin falls under Boundary Scenario 2, where the 8-Hour Ozone area is smaller than and within the 1-Hour Ozone boundary. Figure E.1, on page E-17, shows the Eastern San Diego County attainment areas, which are tribal lands (Cuyapaipe, La Posta #1 and #2, Campo #1 and #2, and Manzanita). The CWG agreed to use the existing approved budget for the entire 1-Hour Ozone non-attainment area for the analysis years for which 1-Hour Ozone budgets are available (2010 and 2014) and for the remaining analysis years (2020 and 2030).

To conduct the interim emissions test for 2009, the CWG agreed to use the no-greater-than-2002 test for the attainment year 2009.

1 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 04-1291, October 20, 2006


The October 20, 2006, court decision requires that conformity to the 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the attainment year 2009 be conducted using approved 1-Hour Ozone budgets. The 1994 1-Hour Ozone SIP includes emissions budget for ROG and NOx for the attainment year 1999. Therefore, to demonstrate conformity of the 2030 RTP to the attainment year 2009, SANDAG is required to use the 1-Hour Ozone SIP budgets. In March 2007, the CWG was consulted on the new approach described above for the 8-Hour Ozone emissions analysis of the 2030 RTP.

In April 2007 SANDAG prepared countywide forecasts of average weekday ROG and NOx emissions for 2009, 2010, 2014, 2020, and 2030 using the EMFAC 2002 model. ROG and NOx emissions are based on the summer season.

The analysis years were selected to comply with Sections 93.106(a) (1) and 93.118 (a) of the Transportation Conformity Rule. According to these sections, the first horizon year (2010) must be within ten years from the base year used to validate the regional transportation model (2004), the last horizon year must be the last year of the transportation plan’s forecast period (2030), and the horizon years may be no more than ten years apart (2020). In addition, as explained above, the interim regional emissions analysis for the 8-Hour Ozone Standard must be conducted for the emissions budgets in the applicable SIP (ROG and NOx budgets for 2010 and 2014). Finally, emissions forecasts for 2009 were prepared to conduct the interim attainment year 2009 test.

The Board will be asked to make a finding of conformity for the years 2009, 2010, 2014, 2020, and 2030 using EMFAC 2002. This emissions model was approved by the U.S. EPA for use in conformity findings on April 1, 2003.

CO Standard

CO regional emissions were projected for 2010, 2018, 2020, and 2030 for the conformity determination of the 2030 RTP. CO emissions are based on the winter season.

Emissions Modeling Results

An emissions budget is the part of the SIP that identifies emissions levels necessary for meeting emissions reduction milestones, attainment, or maintenance demonstrations.

To determine conformity of the 2030 RTP, the plan must comply with the emission analysis described in the Regional Emissions Forecast section. Table E.2 shows that the projected ROG and NOx emissions from the 2030 RTP are below the ROG and NOx budgets.


Table E.2—2030 Revenue Constrained RTP Air Quality Conformity Analysis for 8-Hour Ozone (EMFAC 2002)

ROG NOx

Year

Average Weekday Vehicle Starts

(1,000s)

Average Weekday

Vehicle Miles (1,000s)

SIP Emissions

Budget Tons/Day

ROG Emissions Tons/Day

SIP Emissions

Budget Tons/Day

NOx Emissions Tons/Day

2009 14,244 89,173 114.25 44 89.6 88

2010 14,420 90,376 46 41 88 81

2014 15,050 94,803 36 32 66 59

2020 16,102 102,202 36 25 66 40

2030 17,862 114,693 36 17 66 24

Note: Emissions budgets for the 2009 attainment year are from the 1994 1-Hour Ozone SIP (Approved in February 1997) and for 2010, 2014, and subsequent years are from the San Diego Region 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan (Approved as SIP revision in July 2003).

Table E.3 shows that projected CO emissions from the 2030 RTP are below the 2003 CO budget of 730 tons per day.

Table E.3—2030 Revenue Constrained RTP Air Quality Conformity Analysis for Carbon Monoxide (EMFAC 2002)

CO

Year

Average Weekday

Vehicle Starts (1,000s)

Average Weekday

Vehicle Miles (1,000s)

SIP Emissions

Budget Tons/Day

CO Emissions Tons/Day

2010 14,420 90,376 730 435

2018 15,766 99,837 730 266

2020 16,102 102,202 730 224

2030 17,862 114,693 730 145

Note: Emissions budgets for the San Diego region from 2004 Revision to California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, Updated Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal Planning Areas (Approved as SIP revision in January 2006).


Exempt Projects

Section 93.126 of the Transportation Conformity Rule exempts certain highway and transit projects from the requirement to determine conformity. The categories of exempt projects include safety, mass transit, air quality (ridesharing and bicycle and pedestrian facilities), and other (such as planning studies).

Table E.4 on the following page illustrates the exempt projects considered in the 2030 Revenue Constrained RTP. This table shows short-term exempt projects. Additional unidentified projects could be funded with revenues expected to be available from the continuation of existing state and federal programs.

Implementation of Transportation Control Measures

There are four federally-approved TCMs that must be implemented in San Diego, which the SIP refers to as Transportation Tactics. They include ridesharing, transit service improvements, traffic flow improvements, and bicycle facilities and programs.

These TCMs were established in the 1982 SIP, which identified general objectives and implementing actions for each tactic. The TCMs have been fully implemented. Ridesharing, transit, bicycling, and traffic flow improvements continue to be funded, although the level of implementation established in the SIP has been surpassed. No TCMs have been removed or substituted from the 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, which is the applicable SIP. The list of actions that implemented the TCMs is available at SANDAG.

Interagency Consultation Process and Public Input

The consultation process followed to prepare the air quality conformity analysis for the 2030 RTP complies with the San Diego Transportation Conformity Procedures adopted in July 1998. In turn, these procedures comply with federal requirements under 40 CFR 93. Interagency consultation involves SANDAG (as the MPO for San Diego County), the APCD, Caltrans, ARB, U.S. DOT, and U.S. EPA.

Consultation is a three-tier process that:

1. formulates and reviews drafts through a conformity working group

2. provides local agencies and the public with opportunities for input through existing regional advisory committees and workshops

3. seeks comments from affected federal and state agencies through participation in the development of draft documents and circulation of supporting materials prior to formal adoption


Table E.4—Exempt Projects

Project/Program Description

Bikeway, Rail Trail and Pedestrian Projects

Bayshore Bikeway

Bay Boulevard Bike Lanes

Escondido Creek Bike Path Bridge

SR 56/Black Mountain Road Bikeway Interchange

Lake Hodges Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge

Kearny Villa Road Bikeway Improvements

Plaza Bonita Class I Bikeway

Cliff Street Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge

Inland Rail Trail

Coastal Rail Trail

Regionwide Traffic Incident Management

Freeway Service Patrol

Safety Improvement Program

Hazard Elimination

Bridge Rehabilitation/Preservation

Collision Reduction

Roadway/Roadside Preservation

Noise Barrier Program

Transportation Demand Management

RideLink Regional Rideshare Program

Regional Vanpool Program

Transportation Management Systems

Automated Traveler Information System (ATIS)

Intermodal Transportation Management System (IMTMS)

Joint Transportation Operations Center (JTOC)

ITS Operations

Traffic Management System (I-805, SR 94)

Ramp Meters (I-5/I-805, SR 94)


SANDAG consulted on the development of the air quality conformity analysis of the 2030 RTP at meetings of the San Diego Region Conformity Working Group (CWG), as follows:

On May 17, 2006, SANDAG staff presented the schedule for the preparation of the 2030 RTP and its conformity analysis.

On September 20, 2006, SANDAG staff presented information on the draft Public Involvement Program (PIP) for the 2030 RTP and solicited input from the CWG. Staff also provided information on the Revenue Constrained and Reasonably Expected financial assumptions.

On October 18, 2006, SANDAG staff presented information on the Revenue Constrained financial assumptions and on the 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update.

On November 29, 2006, SANDAG staff presented additional information on the 2030 RTP, including: the travel demand model; and an update on public outreach and consultation efforts.

On March 21, 2007, SANDAG consulted the CWG on the conformity criteria and procedures to be followed to determine conformity of the 2030 RTP including: the latest emissions model; emissions budgets and interim emissions analysis; consultation, public involvement and outreach; and Transportation Control Measures. Staff also noted that the air quality conformity modeling would begin in April 2007.

On April 18, 2007, SANDAG staff presented the draft list of Revenue Constrained highway projects, transit services, and exempt projects, as well as revenues and expenditures projected through 2030 to the CWG.

On May 9, 2007, SANDAG released the draft air quality conformity analysis of the 2030 RTP to the San Diego Region CWG for a 30-day, review-and-comment period. On May 16, 2007, the draft air quality analysis was discussed at the meeting of the San Diego Region CWG, and comments were incorporated in this report. On June 22, 2007, the Board of Directors authorized the distribution of the Draft 2030 RTP and draft conformity analysis for public review and comment. A public hearing was held on September 14, 2007. The public comment period closed on September 17, 2007.

As a result of comments received from the public and other organizations, SANDAG made revisions to the 2030 Revenue Constrained Plan, which is part of the Final 2030 RTP. The air quality conformity analysis was revised to reflect changes to the Revenue Constrained Plan and was released on October 9, 2007 for a 30-day public comment period.

On October 17, 2007 the CWG reviewed the draft revised air quality conformity. The CWG did not have any comments regarding the draft air quality conformity analysis.

SANDAG received no public comments on the revised air quality conformity analysis of the 2030 RTP Revenue Constrained Plan and 2006 RTIP Amendment No. 9. The comment period ended on November 7, 2007.

Members of the public have been welcomed to provide comments at meetings of the San Diego Region CWG, the Transportation Committee, and the SANDAG Board of Directors.

CUYAPAIPECUYAPAIPE

MANZANITAMANZANITA

LA POSTA #1LA POSTA #1

CAMPO #1CAMPO #1

CAMPO #3CAMPO #2

LA POSTA #2LA POSTA #2

Eastern San Diego County AttainmentAreas For The 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

0 0.5 1 1.5 2Miles

ORC0400503.1 March 9, 2004

San Diego County


mho

Figure E.1 Eastern San Diego County Attainment Areas for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

2030 Regional Transportation Plan F-1

APPENDIX F LIST OF RELATED STUDIES/REPORTS

STUDIES/REPORTS COMPLETED SINCE THE MOBILITY 2030 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP)

Airport Site Selection Program (ASSP) (May 2006)

In July 2001 SANDAG initiated what was then referred to as the Air Transportation Action Program (ATAP). The action program explored the initial steps of how best to meet the San Diego region’s long-term air transportation demand, looking at combining or connecting San Diego International Airport (SDIA) with existing airports or replacing Lindbergh Field with an alternative airport site.

The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA or Airport Authority) was created on January 1, 2003, as an independent agency to manage the day-to-day operations of SDIA and address the region's long-term air transportation needs. The legislation that created the Airport Authority mandated three main responsibilities: operate SDIA; plan for the future air transportation needs of the region; and serve as the region's Airport Land Use Commission and ensure the adoption of land use plans that protect public health and safety surrounding all 16 of the county's airports. SDCRAA assumed responsibility for the ATAP and rechristened the study as the Airport Site Selection Program (ASSP).

Alternative replacement airport sites were evaluated for their feasibility to replace SDIA as the region’s major commercial airport. The SDCRAA recommended Marine Corp Air Station (MCAS) Miramar as the site for the region’s replacement airport and, in accordance with the legislation that formed the Airport Authority, placed a measure on the November 2006 ballot for voter consideration. The voters rejected the measure recom-mending pursuit of MCAS Miramar as the region’s replacement airport.

More recently, the Airport Authority has been evaluating improvements to SDIA to meet the region’s aviation needs through 2030. In addition, the Airport Authority and SANDAG are considering a regional air/rail network study to evaluate alternatives to meeting aviation demand, including better utilization of SDIA, linking into a network of regional airports, and the use of high-speed rail to allocate demand to underutilized airports and to alleviate the demand for air travel. The Airport Authority also is preparing a draft 2015 Airport Master Plan to address critical short-term improvements to SDIA.

Bayshore Bikeway Plan (March 2006)

Under guidance of SANDAG’s Bayshore Bikeway Working Group, the Bayshore Bikeway Plan updated the 30-year old plan for the bikeway. The plan identifies an alignment and estimates costs to extend the existing Class 1 portion of the bikeway along the east side of the Bay. SANDAG is also engaged in developing the preliminary engineering and environmental studies for the proposed improvements from Main Street in Chula Vista north to 32nd Street in the City of San Diego.

2006 Congestion Management Program (CMP) (July 2006)

State Proposition 111, passed by voters in 1990, established a requirement that urbanized areas prepare and regularly update a CMP. The purpose of the CMP is to monitor the performance of our transportation

F-2 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

system, develop programs to address near-term and long-term congestion, and better integrate transportation and land use planning. SANDAG, as the designated congestion management agency for the San Diego region, must develop, adopt, and update the CMP on a biannual basis.

Economic Impacts of Border Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border Region (June 2005)

SANDAG, in cooperation with Caltrans, has completed an extensive study to gauge the economic impacts of border wait times on the binational economy. The study examined the economic effects of congestion on the two primary forms of crossborder movement, including personal trips by auto and foot and crossborder freight operations. The study findings show the effects of border crossing delays on productivity, industry competitiveness, and lost business income at the regional, state, and national level for the United States and Mexico.

Escondido Rapid Bus Transit Priority Concept Study (June 2006)

In June 2005, in cooperation with the City of Escondido and the North County Transit District, SANDAG initiated the Escondido Rapid Bus project. The purpose of this project was to identify and imple-ment improvements to facilitate a “rapid bus” connection between the Escondido Transit Center, downtown and south Escondido, and Westfield Shoppingtown North County (North County Fair). This service also would connect to the future SPRINTER passenger rail line and I-15 Bus Rapid Transit services.

This project corridor was identified in MOBILITY 2030 Regional Transportation Plan for improved local and rapid bus services. A number of transit priority measures were reviewed to improve the travel time and reliability of Route 350 without adversely impacting the local transportation system. Transit priority measures recommended include signal priority for the bus and dedicated “queue jumper” lanes at congested inter-sections.

Independent Transit Planning Review (December 2006)

Passage of the TransNet extension included a commitment by the SANDAG Board of Directors to conduct an Independent Transit Planning Review (ITPR) of the public transit system proposed in the RTP. SANDAG’s Transportation Committee endorsed creation of a peer review panel to lead the ITPR. The peer review panel was selected to provide expert guidance to SANDAG so that Smart Growth initiatives emanating from the RCP could be better coordinated with the transit elements of the RTP. The peer review panel selected by SANDAG was composed of six nationally-renowned experts in the integration of public transit and land use. Two were selected from academia, three represent transit agencies and the sixth is a consultant specializing in Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Recommendations from the ITPR are discussed and evaluated the RTP.

Interstate 15 (I-15) Bus Rapid Transit Operations Report (Winter 2007)

SANDAG in partnership with Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, and Caltrans completed the I-15 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Operations Plan in early 2007. Beginning in the year 2012, BRT service is to be provided between Escondido and both Sorrento Mesa and downtown San Diego, using state-of-the-art, purpose-built vehicles operating at a high frequency to attract choice riders. I-15 BRT stations will be located in South Escondido (Del Lago), Rancho Bernardo, Sabre Springs, Mira Mesa, and Mid-City (El Cajon Boulevard. and University Avenue).


Issues addressed in the study included patronage forecasts, station and parking requirements, station access planning, operating patterns, annual operating costs, vehicle requirements, maintenance facilities and costs, fare media strategies, marketing and branding, and implementation. The I-15 BRT service and vehicle acquisition are funded in the TransNet reauthorization approved in 2004.

Interstate 15 Interregional Partnership (I-15 IRP) Phase II (March 2007)

The primary goal of the partnership is for the two regions to collaborate on mutually beneficial housing, transportation, and economic planning to improve the quality of life for the region’s residents through the identification and implementation of short-, medium-, and long-range policy strategies. Phase II, funded by a grant from Caltrans, sought to strengthen and expand the scope of the interregional institutional arrangement between SANDAG and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). Interregional projects completed in this Phase included: a two-county employment cluster analysis; a coordinated county-line transportation study; a coordinated transit service plan; and the development of a scope of work for a pilot project on workforce housing in northern San Diego.

Interstate 5 (I-5)/Genesee Avenue/Sorrento Valley Road (January 2005) Project Study Report (PSR), Project Development Support

In the I-5/Genesee Avenue/Sorrento Valley Road Study, SANDAG assisted Caltrans and the City of San Diego in the development of a PSR. The PSR studied alternatives for improving the I-5 interchanges with Sorrento Valley Road and Genesee Avenue, including the operation of I-5 between La Jolla Village Drive Interchange and I-805. As part of this study, a preliminary environmental analysis of the viable alternatives is being completed for the Genesee Avenue and I-5 and Sorrento Valley Boulevard and I-5 interchanges. The project report/environmental document for I-5/Genesee Avenue is scheduled to be completed in summer 2008. The I-5/Sorrento Valley interchange is anticipated to follow in 2012.

Interstates 805/5 (I-805/I-5) South Corridor Study (June 2005)

This study developed a transportation improvement strategy to enhance the mobility of inter-regional and regional trips for the entire I-805 corridor and the I-5 corridor south of State Route 54. The study involved the development and evaluation of multimodal transportation alternatives, and recommended improvements. Additionally, it serves as part of the Caltrans’ project initiation document to advance the environmental clearance process.

Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN) (October 2003) Corridor Strategic Plan

In October 2003 Caltrans completed the strategic business plan for the Los Angeles to San Diego coastal rail corridor. This plan established a program of rail projects including double tracking, track and signal upgrades, bridge replacements, and grade separations that could be completed over the short-, mid-, and long-term time frames, pending funding. The plan was part of the technical studies prepared as part of the LOSSAN Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. Other benefits of the plan include additional public outreach, refinement of design options to be considered for further study in select segments of the corridor, and a vision for the corridor.


Maglev Rail Study - Phase I (March 2006)

The federal transportation bill, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), included a funding earmark to study a Maglev link between the San Diego region and a potential regional international airport in the Imperial Valley. Maglev Study – Phase I presented concepts and facts for decision makers and stakeholders about several east-west alignments. The study concluded that the Maglev system is feasible from an engineering perspective, although there are many challenges and risks associated with an emerging technology. The Imperial Valley site was not pursued as a new regional airport for the San Diego area.

Mid-Coast Strategic Transportation Study (January 2004)

The transportation needs and potential transportation solutions were evaluated in the Mid-Coast project area. The Mid-Coast corridor is defined generally as the area north of Interstate 8, south of State Route 56, and west of Interstate 805. This consultant-supported study focused on refining MTDB’s Transit First strategic plan to be consistent with SANDAG’s regional transit vision and developed a program of short- and long-term transit projects that will increase mobility in the area.

Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) (July 2004)

The RCP was adopted by the SANDAG Board in July 2004 and serves as the long-term planning framework for the San Diego region. It provides a broad context in which local and regional decisions can be made that move the region toward a sustainable future – a future with more choices and opportunities for all residents of the region.

The RCP better integrates local land use and transportation decisions and focuses attention on where and how the region wants to grow, providing a vital alternative to continuing past development practices. The RCP contains an incentive-based approach to encourage and channel growth into existing and future urban areas and smart growth communities.

Regional Comprehensive Plan Performance Monitoring Report (November 2006)

Chapter 8 of the RCP describes using performance indicators as a tool to track progress in implementing the plan. Many of the strategies and actions recommended in the RCP will take years to develop and fund. Therefore, it is important to have a consistent and valid set of indicators that can reflect the sometimes subtle changes that occur over the long run. Future performance monitoring reports on these indicators will be used to assess the degree to which RCP implementation is influencing the quality of life in the region.

The RCP Baseline Report for Performance Monitoring was completed in November 2006 and establishes a benchmark for future monitoring. The Baseline Report discusses the significance of each indicator and identifies targets for certain indicators. Initial analysis of the data collected and a discussion of work efforts underway that may influence performance over time also are included in the Baseline Report.


Regional Rail Grade Separation Study (October 2006)

SANDAG worked with the transit agencies and local jurisdictions to develop a regional evaluation process and criteria to prioritize regional rail grade separations, such as along the trolley lines and the SPRINTER. The Regional Transportation Plan includes regional rail grade separation monies which are intended to fund top-priority projects as determined through this regional evaluation process. The regional rail grade separation criteria were accepted for future use by the SANDAG Board in October 2006.

Smart Growth Concept Map (June 2006)

The Smart Growth Concept Map contains almost 200 existing, planned, or potential smart growth locations. Transportation and planning professionals from all jurisdictions provided recommendations for these locations. The map was circulated for review and comment at public workshops and city council presentations during April 2006 and accepted by the SANDAG Board of Directors for planning purposes for the Regional Transportation Plan in June 2006. In October 2006 the Board approved minor updates to the map.

State Routes 75/282 (SR 75/282) Major Investment Study (July 2003)

The major investment study for the SR 75/282 Transportation Corridor was completed in 2003. The study evaluated a full range of strategies for improving safety, mobility and access and to reduce congestion along the SR 75/SR 282 Transportation Corridor bounded by, and adjacent to, Third Street and Fourth Street from the western approach to the San Diego-Coronado Bridge to the Naval Air Station North Island.

Tribal Transportation Needs Survey (February 2006)

Caltrans District 11 and SANDAG designed, developed, and implemented a joint Tribal Transportation Needs Survey directed at the 17 tribal governments in the region as a component of an overall transportation needs assessment. The assessment initiated a process of building better relationships with Tribes in San Diego. The survey established a baseline of awareness of the transportation issues affecting each Tribe in order to facilitate partnerships between Caltrans, tribal governments, and the regional transportation agencies and promoted more efficient identification of mutual transportation concerns and the development of appropriate solutions. The survey was completed in February 2006 and formed the basis for government-to-government dialogue on improving tribal transportation programs.

Tribal Transit Feasibility Study (June 2007)

The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of implementing transit service in one or two key transportation corridors between selected tribal reservations and cities and/or urbanized community planning areas in the unincorporated area of San Diego County. The feasibility study looked at traditional public transit services, as well as the potential for non-traditional services coordinated by the Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan), and funded by private sources and/or public-private partnerships. The study was conducted in partnership with the Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA), with the Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues serving as the Project Advisory Group. The RTA utilized the recommendations to apply for the FTA’s Tribal Transit Program 5311(c) on behalf of the 17 tribal nations in the region.


CURRENT STUDIES

The Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan (Summer 2007)

SANDAG Policy 18 (Regional Transit Service Planning and Implementation) requires that a Regional Short-Range Transit Plan (RSRTP) be developed each year. The RSRTP provides a five-year blueprint of how the transit concepts described in the Regional Transportation Plan are to be implemented. The federal govern-ment, through Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), introduced a new requirement for each region to prepare a Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan). The intent of this plan is to improve coordination in transportation planning and operations between public transit and human service transportation. Since the RSRTP and Coordinated Plan requirements include several areas which overlap, it was determined that the two documents would be combined. In addition to including the components of the Coordinated Plan based on the federal requirements, this plan also includes the goals, objectives, and indicators that will be used to evaluate performance improvement for the Transportation Development Act of the State of California.

The federal guidance requires that the Coordinated Plan be updated not less than once every four years, with SANDAG Policy 18 requiring that the RSRTP be updated every year. The combined RSRTP and Coordinated plan each year will be updated every year at least until 2009 when SAFETEA-LU expires or is reauthorized. This year’s combined plan represents the first local effort at coordinated planning and fits well with similar local initiatives to consolidate transit planning and strengthen coordination of human service transportation with a revitalized Consolidated Transit Services Agency. The expansion of the plan to include human services transportation planning, as was the case with consolidating transit planning, will take some years to fully achieve. As such, this plan is a work in progress and will be expended and improved over the next few years.

The approval of the Coordinated Plan will make available approximately $2 million in new federal funding for New Freedom (transportation for people with disabilities) and Job Access and Reverse Commute (commute transportation for individuals with limited means) projects in FY 2008.

Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN) (Spring 2008) Preliminary Environmental Impact Report/Statement (PEIR/EIS)

In July 2004 Caltrans and the Federal Railroad Administration released the draft PEIR/EIS for the Los Angeles to San Diego coastal rail corridor. This document complies with federal and state environmental laws in terms of reviewing rail improvement alternatives, demonstrating purpose and need for the improvements, and identifying project impacts. In some locations, the document selects a preferred alternative while options are identified in other areas requiring further environmental review. After an extensive public comment period and response to comments, Caltrans expects to finalize the document in early FY 2008.

San Diego & Arizona Eastern Gateway Feasibility and Improvements Study (Winter 2009) Work began in late FY 2006 to assess the SD&AE Railway’s role in the region’s overall freight strategy and international trade. A near-term task was initiated to assess infrastructure improvements at the San Ysidro Yard. Another task will begin shortly to analyze border and seaport trade related to the potential role of the railway, and conceptual improvements in the Interstate 5 Corridor in South Bay.


State Route 67 Project Study Report (PSR) (November 2008)

Caltrans is currently developing a PSR to convert the existing highway from a two-lane conventional facility to a four-lane conventional highway. The PSR includes examination of possible alternatives/locations with median barriers and some operational improvements as they may pertain to future traffic analysis.

Short-Term Transit Parking Enhancement Strategies Study (Summer 2008)

This study will assess the overall demand for transit and carpool park-and-ride facilities along existing and future transit routes. The study will identify by station location, the number of spaces that are required to meet existing and latent demand and document existing problems with the current park-and-ride locations including access, size, neighborhood impacts, safety, etc. The study will also identify low-cost solutions to increase capacity at existing and new locations and identify sites for new lots or parking structures.

State Routes 75/282 Project Study Report (PSR), Environmental Impact (Fall 2007/ Fall 2008) Statement (EIS), and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

Following completion of the Major Investment Study (MIS) in 2003, project development efforts have included the initiation and preparation preliminary engineering and PSR documents. The draft PSR is expected to be completed by early Fall 2007 and completion of the EIS and EIR is expected in late 2008. Alternatives under evaluation include TDM/TSM strategies, grade separation, and up to four tunnel variations.

TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) (ongoing)

The TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, approved countywide by voters in November 2004, includes an EMP, which is a funding allocation category for the costs to mitigate habitat impacts for regional transportation projects. The EMP is a unique component of the TransNet Extension in that it goes beyond traditional mitigation for transportation projects by including a funding allocation for habitat acquisition, management, and monitoring activities as needed to help implement the Multiple Species Conservation Program and the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program. This funding allocation is tied to mitigation require-ments and the environmental clearance approval process for projects outlined in the Regional Transportation Plan.

Tribal Transportation Demand Management Outreach Project (February 2009)

The objective of this grant is to partner with the Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA) to strengthen the participation of tribal nations in the San Diego region in the regional Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. SANDAG, the RTA, and the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association (SCTCA) will collaborate on an assessment of the needs of tribal employers; develop a strategy which meets their needs; and assist the RTA in setting up a tribal Transportation Management Association (TMA) that would collaborate with SANDAG’s TDM program (RideLink). The tribal TMA, a private, non-profit, member-controlled organization would provide the institutional framework for the recommended TDM programs and services that are developed as a result of the study.


FUTURE STUDIES

Central Interstate 5 (I-5) Corridor Alternatives Analysis (Winter 2008)

The Central I-5 Corridor Study was completed in January 2003. A follow-up study will evaluate the feasibility of the recommended I-5 high occupancy vehicle lanes through the corridor and the impact on the ramp system for Centre City. This will be done in conjunction with the efforts of the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) to evaluate the regional transportation impacts of their community plan update and potential fair share contribution toward those improvements.

SANDAG also intends to evaluate the costs and impacts of providing HOV lanes on I-5, given right-of-way constraints, numerous ramps and interchanges, and the need to access major traffic generators in the corridor. This evaluation would especially focus on the Centre City area, where HOV lanes and the ramps serving downtown San Diego and the surrounding communities need close coordination with local planning issues.

Improved access between I-5 and the two marine terminals also was studied in the Central I-5 Corridor Study, included in MOBILITY 2030, enabling local agencies to pursue federal dollars for more extensive analysis of all the alternatives. Routing trucks to an improved connection between 32nd Street and Harbor Drive will alleviate the impacts of heavy trucks passing through the Barrio Logan community as well in National City. The Port of San Diego, the Cities of National City and San Diego, Caltrans, and SANDAG are working closely with the community on preliminary engineering and design of the project.

2008 Congestion Mitigation Program (CMP) (Summer 2008)

In compliance with State Proposition 111, SANDAG will prepare an updated CMP. The CMP will monitor the performance of the transportation system, develop programs to address near-term and long-term congestion, and better integrate transportation and land use planning. The 2008 CMP is anticipated to be adopted in summer 2008.

Encinitas Pedestrian Crossings Study (Summer 2008)

SANDAG will collaborate with the City of Encinitas on the development and analysis of alternatives for grade-separated, pedestrian crossings of the Coastal Rail corridor. Major products of this study will include: alternatives analysis; final plans, specifications, and estimates; and an environmental document that will provide the needed approvals for the construction phase under a separate project. In FY 2008, emphasis will be on initiating and completing final design.

Escondido Rapid Bus/Transit Priority Project Development (Summer 2008)

The objective of this study is to complete engineering and environmental studies on a preferred set of priority measures to improve speed and reliability for North County Transit District Route 350 operating between downtown Escondido and Westfield Shoppingtown North County.


Hillcrest Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Planning and Conceptual Design (Spring 2008)

This study will conduct a planning and conceptual design study of pedestrian and transit improvements in the 4th and 5th Avenue corridors in Hillcrest. Work efforts will include the preparation of conceptual design of street improvements, including transit lanes, stations, and pedestrian improvements and an initial operating plan assuming the current level of operating resources. Additionally, SANDAG staff will coordinate with the City of San Diego’s concurrent street design planning effort.

Previous and ongoing work includes a transportation corridor concept (prepared by the Uptown Partnership), including traffic calming, transit improvements, and pedestrian improvements. A joint partnership has been formed between the City of San Diego and SANDAG to combine grant-awarded resources toward this project. In FY 2006, the City of San Diego and SANDAG completed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to share resources and project oversight, issued a request for proposal for consultant services, selected a consultant, and negotiated a contract.

Interstate 8 (I-8) Corridor Study (Spring 2009)

This study will coordinate SANDAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan, Regional Transportation Plan, and the CMP with local land use and transportation planning processes. A subregional study focusing on the western end of Interstate 8 corridor will begin in FY 2008.

Interstate 15 (I-15) Interregional Partnership - Phase III (Spring 2010)

The primary goal of the I-15 IRP is to foster collaborative strategies in economic development, transportation, and housing that will improve the quality of life of residents in both counties. The two regions are working together to implement major projects affecting both jurisdictions that are compatible with the principles and framework of SANDAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and WRCOG’s Growth Visioning Plan. Phase III has received additional funding to develop a Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP), using a multimodal approach to reduce congestion in the I-15 corridor at the county line. In addition, the two regions will coordinate efforts in economic development, based on employment clusters and smart growth housing programs.

Interstate 15 (I-15) Managed Lanes Implementation Study (Summer 2008)

This study will deliver a new Electronic Toll Collection System (ETCS) for the expanding I-15 Managed Lanes facility between State Routes 163 and 78. This project will build upon the recommendations from the I-15 Managed Lanes Value Pricing Study, completed in FY 2003, which evaluated the feasibility of allowing single occupant vehicles to use the excess capacity of the Managed Lanes. In FY 2008 emphasis will be on completing final design and systems engineering of the ETCS and on deploying the toll system. Training for I-15 Managed Lanes incident management and implementation of a Violation Enforcement systems field operational test will also be included.


Interstate 5 (I-5) South Corridor Study (Fall 2009)

This study will evaluate multi-modal improvements to accommodate current and future traffic demand in the I-5 South corridor from Main Street through State Route (SR) 54. It will analyze freeway and interchange improvements, including current interchange spacing and operation, impacts of the light rail transit and freight rail services running parallel to I-5, and transit/pedestrian/bicycle circulation adjacent to I-5. This study will propose capital improvements including preliminary engineering and environmental analysis with estimated costs and a conceptual phasing plan for financing and construction.

Mid-City Interstate 15 Transit Station Study (Summer 2008)

Due to operational safety issues with the previously proposed centerline stations on Interstate 15 in Mid-City, SANDAG, Caltrans, and the City Heights community will be developing a design for bus rapid transit stations in conjunction with community planning for transit oriented development, with a goal of implementation in coordination with the startup of I-15 BRT service in 2012.

Mid-City Rapid Bus Project Development (Summer 2008)

Service and phasing plans for introduction of rapid bus service for Mid-City will be developed through this project. Preliminary engineering (PE), final design, and environmental work for implementation of rapid bus service in the Mid-City communities, and an outline PE/environmental work for the Park Boulevard segment will also be completed. Staff will coordinate with the Federal Transportation Administration on the pursuit of Very Small Starts funding for the project and will develop a phasing plan for the future to upgrade to Bus Rapid Transit.

Mid-City Goods Movement Alternative Corridor Analysis

The Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) for the San Diego region had originally indicated all of Interstate 15 as a goods movement corridor. SANDAG will work with the City of San Diego, Caltrans, and the community to further analyze regional truck route alternatives to Interstate 15 through the Mid-City area.

San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan (Winter 2009) The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan will be a component of the next Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update in 2011 and will represent the combined efforts of SANDAG staff, SANDAG’s Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Working Group (BPWG), local jurisdictions, local agencies, advocacy groups, and citizens in the San Diego region. The Plan will be regional in focus and concentrate on broader policies and programs, while providing a framework for local decision-makers to determine specific local routes and facilities. The development of a comprehensive bicycle transportation system will contribute to the success of achieving all seven primary goals and policy objectives of the RTP.


San Diego Station Car Pilot Program Study - Phases I and II (Summer 2008)

This study will establish a pilot project that demonstrates car sharing as an extension of transit service for the COASTER commuter rail and trolley light rail service. Phase I activities include market assessment and public outreach and development of an operations plan for implementing a two-year pilot program. The Phase II project activities are similar, with a focus on expanding the demonstration project service area to include additional COASTER and trolley stations, as well as developing an integrated service package that combines car sharing with transit services. In FY 2008 emphasis will be on initiating the on-street parking demonstration for car sharing vehicles.

Smart Growth Trip Generation and Parking Demand (Summer 2008)

The Smart Growth Trip Generation and Parking Demand study will measure and analyze the household trip generation characteristics and parking needs for higher density mixed use areas that exist around regional transit facilities. The purpose of the study is to determine if smart growth development can be facilitated by requiring less parking supply from developers, and if walkability can play a more controlling role in street design within smart growth areas

Smart Growth Urban Design Guidelines (Winter 2008)

SANDAG will develop urban design guidelines for smart areas as a resource for SANDAG, local agencies and developers working in smart growth areas. The guidelines will include a discussion of multimodal street design, parking design and supply, and a discussion of how to accommodate public transit in project designs.

State Route (SR) 11 And East Otay Mesa Port Of Entry (POE) Planning (Summer 2008)

SANDAG staff will continue efforts toward the implementation of strategies approved in the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan related to advancing the future SR 11 and the proposed East Otay Mesa Port of Entry (POE). Work will focus on both environmental and transportation actions, as well as coordination and collaboration with studies and activities being conducted by the County of San Diego, Caltrans, the U.S. General Services Administration, and counterpart agencies in Baja California. The Economic Impacts of Border Wait Times study estimated the significant economic opportunities lost by the California-Baja California due to excessive waits at the San Diego-Tijuana border crossings. The Otay Mesa- Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan, which was completed in FY 2007, identified several early actions to advance the implementation of the future SR 11 and proposed the East Otay Mesa POE as a strategy to expand needed crossborder transportation facilities.

State Route (SR) 76 East Transportation Alternatives

SANDAG will work with the County, Caltrans, and other North County stakeholders to evaluate alternative transportation options to meet the needs of growing traffic in the eastern SR 76 corridor.

State Route (SR) 78 Corridor Study

SANDAG staff will work with North County jurisdictions to coordinate a subregional study focusing on the SR 78 corridor. The study will assess the planned high occupancy vehicle (HOV) improvements and the ultimate corridor needs that would affect local planning decisions.

2030 Regional Transportation Plan G-1

APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS

Transportation, like many other fields, has numerous uses of "jargon.” These language short-cuts ease communication among professionals in the field, but can be confusing to everyone else. Here is an abridged list of commonly used transportation terms, abbreviations, and acronyms:

2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update.......................

The 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update was approved for use in planningstudies by the SANDAG Board of Directors in September 2006. The forecast is based on the General and Community Plans of each of the region’s 19jurisdictions.

ADA............................ Americans with Disabilities Act:

Federal civil rights legislation for disabled persons that was passed in 1990;requires public transportation systems to be more fully accessible, including theprovision of paratransit service.

ADT ............................ Average Daily Traffic:

The average number of vehicles that travel on a given roadway in a 24-hour period (weekday).

AHS ............................ Automated Highway System:

Roadways on which vehicles are instrumented to operate automatically withminimal operator input. AHS technologies (demonstrated in the San Diego regionin 1997) generally consist of advanced guidance and collision avoidance systemsdesigned to eliminate accidents and improve the carrying capacity of the roadwayfrom 2,200 vehicles per lane per hour to about 6,000 vehicles per lane per hour.

Air Cargo ................... Revenue producing items in domestic or international commerce, composed offreight, express, and mail, but excluding passenger baggage.

Air Carrier.................. An aviation operator who provides regular round-trips per week between two or more points and publishes flight schedules that specify the times, days of theweek, and places between which such flights are performed; or that transports mail by air pursuant to a contract with the U.S. Postal Service.

Alternative Fuels...........................

Low-polluting fuels that are used to propel a vehicle instead of high-sulfur diesel or gasoline. Examples include methanol, ethanol, propane, compressed natural gas, liquid natural gas, low-sulfur or “clean” diesel, and electricity.

Amtrak....................... A federal governmental agency that provides intercity railroad passenger service.Amtrak also provides commuter rail passenger service by contract. In San Diego,Amtrak operates both the Amtrak San Diegan service to Los Angeles and San LuisObispo (subsidized by the state) and the COASTER service (under contract to NCTD).

G-2 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Annual Service Miles .............

The number of miles that all transit vehicles travel each year in scheduled transit service operations, or when carrying passengers in door-to-door (or demand-responsive) transit service.

APCD.......................... Air Pollution Control District:

The APCD is a government agency that regulates sources of air pollution withinSan Diego County. The County Board of Supervisors sits as the Air PollutionControl Board. The mission of the APCD is to protect the public from the harmfuleffects of air pollution, achieve and maintain air quality standards, fostercommunity involvement, and develop and implement cost-effective programs meeting state and federal mandates, considering environmental and economicimpacts.

Apportionment ......... A federal budgetary term that refers to a statutorily prescribed division ofassignment of funds. It is based on prescribed formulas in law.

ArcInfo....................... A geographic information system (GIS) which can be used to maintain,manipulate, and display transportation, land use, and demographic data.

Arterial....................... Signalized streets that serve primarily through traffic and provide access toabutting properties as a secondary function.

Arterial Rapid Transit........................

Provides rapid and frequent transit service along arterials that uses signal priorityand queue jumpers lanes at busy intersections.

Arterial Traffic Management System .......................

A hardware and software system that enables local agencies to coordinate traffic signal timing across jurisdictional boundaries, optimize traffic flow on regionallysignificant arterials, manage traffic caused by special events and major accidents,and coordinate arterial signals with freeway ramps, transit service, and rail grade-crossings.

Auxiliary Lane ........... An additional freeway lane between adjacent interchanges that improves theweaving conflicts between exiting and entering vehicles. The lane begins where anon-ramp enters the freeway and ends at the next off-ramp.

AVL............................. Automated Vehicle Location:

A transportation device that uses the coordinates from earth-orbit satellites to determine the precise location of a vehicle on the earth’s surface. AVL is used tomanage taxi, bus, and commercial vehicle fleet operations, providing site-specific travel information to travelers based upon the vehicle location.

Bikeway Classifications ...........

As defined by the Caltrans Highway Design Manual:

Class I Bike Path: A paved path within an exclusive right-of-way.

Class II Bike Lane: Signed and striped lanes within a street right-of-way.

Class III Bike Route: Preferred routes on existing streets identified by signs only.

Bus Rapid Transit ...... Corridor level services providing fast and frequent transit services designed to take advantage of freeway improvements such as HOV and Managed Lanes in order toserve longer-distance regional trip making.


CAA............................ Clean Air Act:

Federal legislation that sets national air quality standards and requires each state with areas that have not met federal air quality standards to prepare a StateImplementation Plan, or SIP. The 1990 amendments to the CAA, often referred toas the CAAA, established new air quality requirements for the development ofmetropolitan transportation plans and programs. State legislation called theCalifornia Clean Air Act (CCAA) sets even more stringent state air qualitystandards.

CAAA ......................... Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990:

Federal legislation which establishes criteria for attaining and maintaining the federal air quality standards for allowable concentrations and exposure limits forvarious air pollutants. The legislation also provides emission standards for specificvehicles and fuels.

Caltrans...................... California Department of Transportation:

The state agency responsible for the design, construction, operation, and main-tenance of the state highway system. The State system includes interstatefreeways and state highways. Caltrans and SANDAG cooperate in highwayplanning and in preparing the funding priorities of the state highway system. Final funding priorities for the region are adopted by SANDAG in the RegionalTransportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Caltrans is administered through 12geographic districts. For Southern California, District 11 (D11) administers San Diego and Imperial Counties, D7 administers Los Angeles County, D8 administersRiverside County, and D12 administers Orange County.

CARB ......................... California Air Resources Board:

The state agency responsible for adopting state air quality standards, establishing emission standards for new cars sold in the state, and overseeing activities ofregional and local air pollution control agencies.

Carpool ..................... An arrangement in which two or more people share the use and cost of privately-owned automobiles in traveling together to and from prearranged destinations,typically between home and work or home and school.

Carsharing .................

Organized short-term auto rental, often located in downtown areas near publictransit as well as near residential communities and employment centers. Car sharing organizations operate fleets of rental vehicles that are available for shorttrips by members who pay a subscription fee plus a per trip charge.

CCAA.......................... California Clean Air Act:

A California law passed in 1988 that provides the basis for air quality planning and regulation independent of federal regulations. The CCAA requires that local airdistricts in violation of the California Ambient Air Quality Standard must prepareattainment plans which identify air quality problems, causes, trends, and actions to be taken to attain and maintain California's air quality standards by the earliestpracticable date.


CCI .............................. Construction Cost Index:

A measurement of the inflation rate in the cost of major construction projects.

CHP............................. California Highway Patrol:

State law enforcement agency responsible for highway safety.

CHSRA........................ California High-Speed Rail Authority:

The California-High Speed Rail Authority was created by the California Legislaturein 1996 to develop a plan for the construction, operation, and financing of a statewide, intercity high-speed passenger rail system.

CMIA .......................... Corridor Mobility Improvement Account:

A $4.5 billion congestion relief component of the nearly $19.9 billion Proposition1B Infrastructure Bonds approved by voters in November 2006.

CMA ........................... Congestion Management Agency:

A countywide agency responsible for preparing and implementing a CongestionManagement Program (CMP). SANDAG is the San Diego region's CMA. CMAscame into existence as a result of state legislation and voters approval of Proposition 111 in 1990.

CMAQ ........................ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program:

A category of funds contained in TEA-21 for projects and activities that reduce congestion and improve air quality in regions not yet attaining federal air quality standards.

CMP............................ Congestion Management Program:

Required of every county in California with a population of 50,000 or more toqualify for certain state and federal funds. CMPs set performance standards forroads and public transit, and show how local agencies will attempt to meet thosestandards. The CMP is required to be adopted by the CMA and must be consistentwith the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

CNG............................ Compressed Natural Gas:

A clean-burning alternative fuel for vehicles.

COG............................ Council of Governments:

A voluntary organization of local governments that strives for comprehensive,regional planning. SANDAG is the COG in the San Diego region.

Community Plan ............................

More specific versions of the General Plans, generally dealing with smaller geo-graphical areas, but having the same force of law. See General Plan.

Commuter.................. A person who travels regularly between home and work or school.


Commuter Rail .......... Conventional rail passenger service within a metropolitan area, usually operating over existing, inter-city railroad tracks. Service is normally provided by a diesellocomotive pulling three (or more) passenger coaches, with service primarily in themorning and afternoon home-to-work travel periods.

Compass Card ........... A payment system that utilizes smartcard technology to enable transit customers to board vehicles more quickly and reduce the complexity of fare policies within the region. Future expansion of the compass card will provide for on and off streetparking, and linkage with a patron’s FasTrak® account.

Conformity ................ A demonstration of whether a federally-supported activity is consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) — per Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act. Transportation conformity refers to plans, programs, and projects approved or funded by the Federal Highway Administration or the Federal Transit Admin-istration.

Congestion ................ Congestion is usually defined as travel time or delay in excess of that normallyexperienced under free-flow traffic conditions. Congestion is typically accompanied by lower speeds, stop-and-go travel conditions, or queuing, such as behind ramp meters or heavily-used intersections. Unacceptable congestion is travel time or delay in excess of an agreed-upon norm. The agreed-upon norm can vary depending on the type of transportation facility, the location, and the time ofday.

Corridor ..................... A broad geographical band that follows a general directional flow connecting major trip origins and destinations. A corridor may contain a number of streets,highways and transit route alignments.

CPI ..............................

Consumer Price Index:

Developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor toprovide a measurement of the inflation rate in the general economy of a givenmetropolitan area.

CTC............................. California Transportation Commission:

A state agency that sets state spending priorities for many state and federallyfunded highway and transit projects and allocates funds to those projects. CTCmembers are appointed by the Governor.

CVO............................ Commercial Vehicle Operations:

The segment of the surface transportation system involved in the movement ofcommercial goods or freight. Commercial vehicles are generally trucks and railcars. The management of these fleets and the movement of freight, including itsmovement through ports of entry, intermodal transfer facilities, and other servicesis referred to as commercial vehicle operations.

Deficient Segment ....................

As used in the RTP, a portion of freeway experiencing LOS F, where demandexceeds capacity.


DEFM..........................

Demographic and Economic Forecasting Model:

DEFM is an econometric forecasting model with a demographic module. Itproduces annual forecasts of the size and structure of the region’s economy and ademographic forecast consistent with that future economy. Outputs include data such as the size and composition of the region’s population; employment by industrial sector; household and personal income; housing units by structure type, vacancy status and persons per household; labor force; and school enrollment.

Demand- Responsive Service ...

Transit service that is provided in response to a pre-ordered or telephone reservation.

Development Impact Fee .................

A fee charged to private developers, usually on a per dwelling unit or per squarefoot basis, to help pay for infrastructure improvements necessitated as a result of the development.

Diamond Awards...... A program sponsored by RideLink which honors employers who have developed,maintained, and marketed superior transportation programs for their employees.

DOT............................ Department of Transportation:

At the federal level, the cabinet agency, headed by the Secretary ofTransportation, that is responsible for highways, transit, aviation, and ports. TheDOT includes Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal TransitAdministration (FTA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and others. The stateDOT is Caltrans.

Drive-Alone ............... See SOV.

EAP............................. Early Action Program:

A subset of TransNet projects which the SANDAG Board has selected to begin work on before 2008 by accessing future dollars now.

EIR .............................. Environmental Impact Report:

A detailed statement prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) describing and analyzing the significant environmental effects of a projectand discussing ways to mitigate or avoid the effects. The term EIR may mean either a draft or a final EIR depending on the context.

EMP............................ Environmental Mitigation Program:

Provides funding for the mitigation of local and regional transportation projectsand additional funding for activities that help implement the region’s habitat preservation plans

Environmental Justice ........................

The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to thedevelopment, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental lawsand policies.

EPA............................. See U.S. EPA.

E-work ....................... See Telework.


Expressway ............... Similar to a freeway but with some signal-controlled intersections.

FAA ............................ Federal Aviation Administration:

Federal agency that regulates the use of airspace and is responsible for evaluatingand disseminating information about hazards and obstructions to aviation.

Farebox Recovery Ratio ..........

Measure of the proportion of operating expenses covered by passenger fares. Theratio divides the farebox revenue by the total operating expenses.

Farebox Revenue.....................

Value of cash, tickets, and pass receipts given by passengers for payment for rideson public transit.

Fare Structure....................

The varying fees charged to use transit, normally differing by the age of the transitrider, single versus multiple transit trips, the type of service (Trolley, express bus, etc.), and, for some types of services, the length of the trip.

Ferry........................... Transit service provided by boat.

FHWA......................... Federal Highway Administration:

Federal agency responsible for the administration of federal highway funds andissuing policy and procedures for implementation of federal legislative directives.FHWA is a component of the federal DOT.

Fiscal Year.................. The 12-month period established for budgeting purposes. In California, thecommonly accepted fiscal year for governmental purposes starts July 1 and continues to the following June 30.

Fixed-Route Service .......................

Service provided on a regular, fixed-schedule basis along a specific route with vehicles stopping to pick up and deliver passengers to specific locations. Eachfixed-route trip serves the same origins and destinations, unlike demand-responsive services and taxicabs.

Freeway..................... Multilane divided roadway, grade separated from other roadways, with full controlaccess and egress.

FSP.............................. Freeway Service Patrol:

An ongoing program to provide a roving tow and motorist aid service. This serviceassists or removes stranded and disabled vehicles on designated urban freewaysand state roadways during the peak period commute hours. It is operated bySANDAG in cooperation with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol.

FTA............................. Federal Transit Administration:

Federal agency responsible for the administration of federal transit funds. Formerlyknown as the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), FTA is acomponent of the federal DOT.

Gas Tax ...................... The tax applied on each gallon of fuel sold. Currently, the federal government hasimposed an 18.3 cents per gallon tax and the state has imposed an 18 cents pergallon tax.


General Plan.............. A policy document required of cities and counties by state law which describes a jurisdiction’s future development in general terms in text and map form. It is thedocument from which all land use decisions must derive. The General Plancontains a set of broad policy statements about the goals for the jurisdiction and must contain seven mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing,Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Optional elements also areidentified by law.

GHG Emissions .......... Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

Gases that effect global climate change. They include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

GIS..............................

Geographic Information System.

Grade Separation.................

A vertical separation between intersecting roads and or railway tracks. One facilitytypically travels over or under the other via an overpass, tunnel, or other structure.

GRH Guaranteed Ride Home:

Program which provides a free taxicab ride or 24-hour car rental to those who carpool, vanpool, use premium bus service or the COASTER train or bike to work at least three days per week. Registered participants can use this service inresponse to an unscheduled incident or overtime, or illness up to three times peryear.

HCM ........................... Highway Capacity Manual: A resource for technical information that is used by transportation planners, designers, and operators. The materials contained in the HCM represent acollection of state-of-the-art techniques for estimating level-of-service for many transportation facilities and modes.

Heavy Rail.................. Railroad services that operate in a mixed-user environment on conventional railroad tracks. Heavy rail services include freight trains, Amtrak, Commuter Rail,and most conventional rail transit systems. Services operating in the mixed-user environment must meet federal signaling and crash (buffing) strength standards.

Highway .................... A general term usually referring to a state or federally-designated urban or rural route, designed to accommodate longer trips in the region.

Household ................. All people living in a housing unit, regardless of whether they are related to each other. Housing units include houses, apartments, and mobile homes.

HOT Lane................... High Occupancy Toll Lane:

HOT lanes are limited access lanes in which carpools, vanpools, and buses travelfor free, while other vehicles gain access by paying a fee.

HOV............................ High Occupancy Vehicle:

A vehicle that carries more than one occupant. Examples include carpools,vanpools, shuttles, and buses.


HOV Lane................... High Occupancy Vehicle Lane:

Exclusive road or traffic lane limited to HOVs that typically has a higher operating speed and lower traffic volumes than a general purpose or mixed flow lane. InCalifornia, vehicles that typically can use HOV lanes include carpools, vanpools,buses, other multi-passenger vehicles, and motorcycles and emergency vehicles.

HSR............................. High-Speed Rail:

Railroad passenger service that, as defined by California state law, operates atmaximum speeds of over 200 miles per hour. Because of the speed, high speedrail normally operates on inter-city (longer) routes and HSR vehicles may not meet federal heavy rail crash standards.

ICM............................. Integrated Corridor Management:

A collaborative, cooperative and coordinated system where corridor partners work together to improve mobility and safety across modes and networks for people and goods.

I-15 FasTrak® ............

The I-15 FasTrak Program uses electronic toll collection technology to employdynamic pricing that allows solo drivers to use the lanes for a fee. The netrevenues generated by the program are used to improve transit and carpool services in the I-15 corridor.

I-15 IRP.......................

I-15 Interregional Partnership:

The I-15 IRP is a voluntary partnership of local officials representing SANDAG and the Western Riverside Council of Governments. The I-15 IRP is working to identify and prioritize issues as well as recommend short- and long-term solutions related to the jobs/housing imbalance and traffic congestion along the north I-15 corridor.

Incident...................... An incident may be a traffic collision, stalled vehicle, load spillage, or other event that affects one or more lanes of traffic.

Integrated Performance Management Systems Network......

Integrated Performance Management Systems Network: This network will interconnect the region’s local transportation managementcenters and will enable the modal agencies to cooperatively manage the overall performance of both the local and regional transportation systems.

Inter-city Rail ............. Railroad passenger service which primarily serves longer trips such as thosebetween major cities or regions.

Intermodal................. Passenger or freight transportation services which involve or use more than onetype of transportation facility (or mode). Aviation, automobile, rail, and transit aretravel modes.

ITPR ............................ Independent Transit Planning Review:

A technical review of the public transit system required by the passage of the TransNet Extension.


ITS .............................. Intelligent Transportation Systems:

A general classification of transportation technologies, management tools, andservices made possible through advances in computer and communication technologies. ITS is used to make transportation systems safer and more efficient.

JARC........................... Jobs Access Reverse Commute:

The SAFETEA-LU formula fund program which provides support for capital oroperating costs for transportation services and facilities designed to facilitate reverse commute employment related travel for persons of limited means.

Light Rail ................... A passenger transportation system of self-propelled vehicles which operate over steel rails located in the street, on an aerial structure, or on a separated right-of-way. Vehicles can operate as a one-car unit or in trains of up to four vehicles, and are powered by either diesel or electric motors.

LNG ............................ Liquefied Natural Gas:

An alternative fuel that is a natural gas cooled to below its boiling point so that it becomes a liquid.

LOS............................. Level of Service:

A qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream andmotorists’ perception of those conditions. LOS ratings typically range from LOS A,which represents free flow conditions, to LOS F, which is characterized by forced flow, heavy congestion, stop and go traffic, and long queues forming behindbreakdown points.

LOSSAN......................

Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN):

The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency coordinates planning and programming on the coastal rail line. SANDAG, MTDB, and NCTD are voting members of LOSSAN alongwith regional transportation planning agencies in Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura,Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. LOSSAN sets priorities forimprovements in the corridor that will increase the capacity of the rail line and thereliability of service.

LRT ............................. Light Rail Transit:

A type of transit vehicle and service that uses steel wheels and operates overrailroad tracks. LRT systems generally serve stations averaging one-mile apart, are not remotely controlled, and can operate in a separated right-of-way or on public streets. The San Diego Trolley is a LRT system.

MAGLEV..................... Magnetic Levitation:

Maglev technology is a guided, ground-based system in which a vehicle is lifted and propelled by magnetic force along a guideway without physical contact.Maglev trains can travel at very high speeds, 300 miles per hour or more, withreasonable electricity consumption and noise levels.

Managed Lanes......... Freeway lanes on which the number of vehicles using the facility can be limited,and/or where the direction of the lanes can be changed.


Mixed-Use ................. The combining of commercial, office, and residential land uses to provide easypedestrian access and reduce the public’s dependence on the automobile. It can be implemented in multi-story buildings containing business and retail uses on the lower floors, and residential uses on the upper floors. The uses also can begrouped horizontally, as long as good pedestrian connections between uses are provided.

Mode.......................... One of various forms of transportation, including automobile, transit, bicycle, andwalking. Intermodal refers to the connection between modes; multimodal refers tothe availability and/or use of multiple transportation modes.

MIS............................. Major Investment Study:

A feasibility study and resulting document which is required for major surfacetransportation projects involving significant federal funds. An MIS identifies thecost-effectiveness and overall effectiveness of various travel modes in serving a study area’s travel needs. It also requires broad public and agency input.

MOBILITY 2030.......... SANDAG’s $42 billion long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), adopted inMarch 2003, which lays out a proposed regional transportation network to the year 2030 that includes highways, regional arterials, and regional transit service, aswell as transportation system management and transportation demandmanagement programs.

Mode Split ................. The percent of trips that use each of the various travel modes. If a specific mode is not stated, the transit percentage is usually implied.

MPO ........................... Metropolitan Planning Organization:

A federally-designated agency that is responsible for regional transportationplanning in each metropolitan area. SANDAG is the MPO for the San Diego region.

MTS............................ San Diego Metropolitan Transit System:

The agency created by the California legislature to operate transit facilities in the southwestern portion of the region.

NAFTA........................ North American Free Trade Agreement:

A formal agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States to promotemeans for improved and increased free trade between the three countries. Theeffect of NAFTA on transportation has been the need to study and upgradeexisting facilities, or build new facilities between and within the countries.

NCTD.......................... North San Diego County Transit Development Board:

The agency created by the California legislature to operate transit facilities in the northwestern portion of the region.

Non-attainment Area ..........................

A geographic area identified by the U.S. EPA and/or the California Air ResourcesBoard (CARB) as not meeting either the national or California Ambient Air QualityStandards for a given pollutant.


Off-Peak Periods.......................

The times of day when the least concentration of vehicles or transit riders are on the road or other transportation facility. These times are generally before 6:00 a.m., between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00p.m., and after 6:00 p.m.

Paratransit ................ The range of demand-responsive (or on-request) transit providing service from a trip origin to trip destination.

Park and Ride ............ A travel option where commuters park their personal vehicles in a publicly provided lot or other location, and continue their trip via carpool, vanpool, ortransit.

Park and Ride Lot......................

Facilities where individuals can rendezvous to utilize carpools, vanpools, and transitfor group travel to their destinations.

Parking Cash-out Program.....................

An employer-funded program, which provides a cash allowance to employees whodo not drive alone that is equivalent to the parking costs that the employer would otherwise pay to provide a parking space for the employee.

Passenger Miles ..........................

The total number of passengers carried by a transit system multiplied by thenumber of miles each passenger travels. Passenger miles are normally measured on a daily or annual basis.

Peak Period ............... The time of day when the greatest concentrations of vehicles or transit riders areon the road or other transit facility. The morning peak period is generallyconsidered to be from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m.; the afternoon peak period is from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.

PeMS..........................

Performance Monitoring System:

The PeMS program uses the urban freeway data collected through freeway loopdetectors to provide current, ongoing data on freeway volumes and speeds that can be displayed graphically and exported to other monitoring applications.

Performance Measures ...................

Objective, quantifiable criteria used to evaluate the performance of thetransportation system and to determine how well planned improvements to thesystem are achieving the established objectives.

Person Trip ................ Any person's one-way travel to any destination for any purpose. More specifically,a trip is the one-way movement from an origin to a destination, whereby each triphas two trip ends.

POE............................. Port of Entry:

Trans-border facilities that process conveyances, passengers, and all goodsentering and exiting the United States. In addition to enforcing U.S. Customs laws,these offices enforce laws for other agencies involved in international commerce.

PSR ............................. Project Study Report:

A preliminary engineering report which documents agreement on the scope, a setof reasonable and feasible alternatives, schedule, and estimated cost of a projectso that the project can be included in a future State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).


Public Transit............. See Public Transportation.

Public Transportation ..........

Travel by bus, rail, or other vehicle, either publicly or privately owned, whichprovides general or specialized service on a regular or continuing basis.

Ramp Metering ......... Electronic traffic control devices located at freeway access points to meter theentry of vehicles onto the freeway to help optimize the movement of persons andvehicles.

RAQS..........................

Regional Air Quality Strategy:

The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District developed the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) pursuant to California Clean Air Act requirements. Itidentifies emission control measures to provide expeditious progress towardattaining the state ozone standard.

RCP............................. Regional Comprehensive Plan:

A plan that serves as a foundation for integrating land uses, transportationsystems, infrastructure needs, and public investment strategies within a regionalsmart growth framework. The RCP is the regional vision to prepare for change and meet our future needs. The RCP was adopted by SANDAG in July 2004.

Reverse Commute...................

Travel in the direction opposite to the main flow of peak period commute traffic.

RideLink..................... The San Diego regional rideshare agency that provides information to commutersand employers on travel options such as carpooling, vanpooling, publictransportation, bicycling, and telecommuting. RideLink operates a carpoolridematching service, the San Diego Regional Vanpool Program, the San DiegoRegional Bike Locker Program, and the RideLink Guaranteed Ride Home Program.

Ridership.................... The number of transit users, usually reported as a yearly total or as the average fora normal workday.

Ridesharing ............... A mode of travel where at least two individuals share the same vehicle to get totheir destination. Rideshare vehicles include private automobiles, privately ownedand operated vans and buses, as well as public transportation.

Route Miles ............... The length of a transit route or service, multiplied by the number of trips made bytransit vehicles or trains each day.

ROW........................... Right-of-Way:

The land required for the construction and operation of a transportation facility.

RTIP ............................ Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP):

A three to seven-year listing of major highway and transit projects including project costs, funding sources, and development schedules. Compiled from prioritylists submitted by local jurisdictions and transportation agencies.


RTMS.......................... Regional Transit Management System:

A sophisticated management tool which provides for real-time performance monitoring and reporting for over fifty percent of the region’s fixed route services.

RTP ............................. Regional Transportation Plan:

A minimum 20-year plan that is required by state and federal law to guide thedevelopment of the region's transportation system.

RTPA........................... Regional Transportation Planning Agency:

A state-designated agency responsible for preparing the RTP and the RTIP andadministering state transportation funds. SANDAG is the San Diego region's RTPA.

RTV............................. Regional Transit Vision:

Adopted in November 2001 as a 21st century strategy to develop a seamless public transportation system for the region. The RTV integrates new era transit servicesinto San Diego’s growing communities.

State Highway .......... A state-designated roadway. May be urban or rural.

Safe Routes to School....................

A state and federal program which funds education, encouragement campaigns,and infrastructure improvements to help reduce the amount of traffic congestion around schools, and to make the the journey to school on foot or bike more feasible for children.

SAFETEA-LU............... Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users: Federal legislation signed into law on August 10, 2005 authorizing $244.1 billion for Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period 2005-2009.

SAHOPE ..................... Secretaría de Asentamientos Humanos y Obras Públicas del Estado:

State of Baja California Secretary of Public Works and Human Settlements

SANDAG .................... San Diego Association of Governments:

The regional Council of Governments for the San Diego region. SANDAG isresponsible for long-range transportation planning and programming under bothfederal and state law.

SD&AE........................

San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway:

The San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway is the only rail link to the east whichwill improve the international and interstate movement of goods in, out, andthrough the Southern California/Baja California region.

SIP .............................. State Implementation Plan:

A document that shows the steps planned to meet federal air quality standards (outlined in the Clean Air Act). Each non-attainment area prepares an air quality improvement plan; those are combined to make up the statewide SIP.


SHOPP........................ State Highway Operation and Protection Program:

Caltrans’ three-year program to address traffic safety, roadway rehabilitation,roadside rehabilitation, or operations needs on the state highway system.

Smart Growth ........... A compact, efficient, and environmentally-sensitive pattern of development that provides people with additional travel, housing, and employment choices byfocusing future growth away from rural areas and closer to existing and plannedjob centers and public facilities, while preserving open space and naturalresources.

SOV ............................ Single occupant vehicle:

A vehicle with one occupant – the driver. Also referred to as a "drive-alone."

STIP ............................ State Transportation Improvement Program:

A multi-year program of major transportation projects to be funded by the state.The CTC adopts the STIP every two years based on projects proposed in RTIPs and from Caltrans.

STP ............................. Surface Transportation Program:

A federal program originally established in the federal ISTEA legislation whichprovides flexible funding allocated by regional agencies like SANDAG for a wide range of projects including highways, transit, local streets and roads, and bicycles.

TCM............................ Transportation Control Measure:

A transportation strategy intended both to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) andto make VMT more efficient. TCMs include transportation system management (TSM) and transportation demand management (TDM) elements. Examples includecarpooling, transit, and computer-optimized traffic signals.

TDA ............................ Transportation Development Act:

TDA funds are generated from a tax of one-quarter of one percent on all retail sales in each county and are used for transit, specialized transit for disabledpersons, and bicycle and pedestrian purposes.

TCRP...........................

Transportation Congestion Relief Program

TDM ........................... Transportation Demand Management:

Programs to reduce demand by automobiles on the transportation system, such astelecommuting, flextime, bicycling, walking, transit use, staggered work hours,and ridesharing.

TEA-21........................ Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century:

Federal legislation enacted in 1998, authorizing the preparation and funding of a surface transportation program. Like the previous ISTEA legislation, TEA-21 emphasizes diversity and balance of modes as well as the preservation of existingsystems before construction of new facilities.


Telework....................

Teleworkers or e-workers are wage and salary employees who conduct some or allof their daily work activities from their home or a remote site other than at thenormal work site in order to avoid commuting during peak periods.

TransCAD................... A computer model that simulates travel demand and its distribution to facilitieswithin a geographic area.

Transit........................ See Public Transportation.

Transit Management System .......................

A field operations management system that enables improved transit routeplanning, scheduling, and performance monitoring.

TransNet ................... A half-cent local sales tax approved by San Diego region voters in 1987.Administered by SANDAG, this 20-year program to improve the region's transportation system is expected to generate $2.7 billion (in 1995 dollars). The funds are to be divided equally among three major transportation categories:highways, pubic transit, and local streets.

TransNet Extension...................

The TransNet sales tax approved in 1987 expires in 2008. In November 2004, over67 percent of voters countywide approved an extension of the TransNet program to 2048. This 40-year extension will generate more than $14 billion fortransportation improvements, and includes an innovative $850 environmentalmitigation program.

Trip............................. See Person Trip and/or Vehicle Trip.

Trolley........................ The urban light rail transit service currently provided in the San Diego region: theSan Diego Trolley.

TSM............................ Transportation System Management:

Strategies that allow transportation systems to operate to maximize the number ofpersons traveling in a corridor or facility. These strategies include traffic flowimprovements, ramp metering, and park-and-ride lots.

U.S. DOT .................... United States Department of Transportation:

The federal cabinet-level agency with responsibility for highways, mass transit, aviation and ports; headed by the secretary of transportation. The DOT includesthe Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration,among other agencies.

U.S. EPA ..................... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

The federal agency charged with setting policy and guidelines, and carrying outlegal mandates for the protection of national interests in environmental resources.

Vanpool ..................... A vehicle operating as a ridesharing arrangement, providing transportation to agroup of individuals traveling directly between their homes and a regular destination within the same geographic area. Vanpool vehicles have a minimumseating capacity of seven passengers, including the driver.


V/C Ratio.................... Volume to Capacity Ratio:

The volume of traffic divided by the capacity of a transportation facility. Traffic volume is defined as the number of vehicles passing (or proposed to pass) a pointor section of roadway in a given time interval. Capacity is defined as the maximumnumber of vehicles that can reasonably be expected to traverse that point or section of roadway during the same time period under prevailing roadway, traffic,and control conditions.

Vehicle Trip ............... A single vehicle movement from the beginning of travel to its destination, in avehicle that is motor-driven (e.g., automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, buses, andvans).

VMT............................ Vehicle Miles Traveled:

The total number of miles traveled on all roadways by all vehicles. Reducing VMTcan help ease traffic congestion and improve air quality.

Walking School Bus .............................

A Walking School Bus consists of two adults walking to pick up children at pre-designated stops on the route to school. This program has been adopted by elementary, middle, and high schools alike, both public and private.

Weaving .................... The crossing of two or more traffic streams traveling in the same general directionalong a significant length of highway without the aid of traffic control devices.

Work Trip................... Any "person" or "vehicle" trip whose purpose (on at least one trip end) involveswork or work-related business.

2030 regional transportation plan: pathways for our future, 2007 · 2007-12-18 · 401 b street,...

Documents