Technical Appendix 6 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program
Chapter Contents 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program ...... TA 6-2
2050 Regional Transportation Plan
2050 RTP and SCS Public perspective – that are interested in the Outreach Program 2050 RTP and SCS development process. A major goal of this public involvement effort is Where will we all live and work in the decades to reach out to non-traditional, as well as to come? What will be the best way for us to traditional audiences, to include them in the get around? How do we preserve our open transportation planning process. Involvement spaces? And how do we address these issues from community-based organizations that in a way that helps us to reduce greenhouse have received environmental justice mini- gas emissions while strengthening our grants has enhanced our outreach efforts, economy? These are some of the forward- while other proactive steps continue to be thinking questions being asked and addressed taken to ensure that diverse and underserved as part of the public involvement and populations, as well as interested groups or outreach process of the 2050 San Diego members of the public, have ample Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): Our opportunity to understand and provide Region. Our Future. meaningful input into the development of the 2050 RTP and SCS. The 2050 RTP development process promotes strategic planning, emphasizes public The following detailed documents are involvement, encourages new partnerships, included in Technical Appendix 6: and supports the foundation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) to implement 1. Public Stakeholder Categories better connecting land use and transportation plans. For the first time ever, the RTP includes 2. Organizations Receiving Grants for a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) to Community-Based Outreach create more sustainable communities that 3. SANDAG 2050 RTP Presentation/Public allow for the growth of the region and its Meetings/Workshops transportation plans while leading to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as set 4. 2050 RTP Public Involvement Efforts by the California Air Resources Board. It is Regarding Senate Bill 375 Requirements important that public stakeholders in the San Diego region work together to develop this 5. Public Involvement and Outreach ground-breaking 2050 RTP. The Public Activities to Support Development of Involvement Plan (PIP) establishes the 2050 RTP and its SCS framework for a dynamic and interactive process to support the development of the 6. SANDAG 2050 RTP and SCS Community- 2050 RTP and SCS. The tables included in this Based Outreach (CBO) Reports technical appendix outline and document that 7. 2050 RTP and SCS Outreach and process to date. Notification List To obtain public input on the development of 8. 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan the 2050 RTP and SCS, a broad range of media and communication avenues are being 9. 2050 RTP: Public Opinion Survey Report utilized to provide information, solicit participation and input, and allow for ongoing 10. November 5, 2010, SANDAG Board of feedback and updates. The term, public Directors Report – Public Input Questionnaire stakeholders, represents very broad and diverse audiences – each with a unique
TA 6-2 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.1 – Public Stakeholder Categories Public Stakeholder Categories Accessibility Challenged Labor Affordable Housing Advocates Landowners Business Organizations Military Citizens Neighborhood and Community Groups Commercial and Retail Neighborhoods/Residential Commercial Property Interests Professional Planning Organizations Community Planning Groups Private Providers of Transportation Community Services Representatives of Public Transportation Employees Commuters Representatives of Users of Pedestrian Walkways and Bicycle Transportation Facilities Employers/Businesses Representatives of the Disabled and Other Interested Parties Environmental Advocates Representatives of Users of Public Transportation Environmental Groups Sustainability-focused Organizations Freight Shippers, Providers of Freight Transportation Local Universities Services General Public Students and University Student Associations Health Advocacy Organizations Taxpayer Advocates Home Builder Representatives Tourism Homeowner Associations Transit Riders Industry Peers and Associations Transportation Advocates
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-3
Table TA 6.2 – Organizations Receiving Grants for Community-Based Outreach
Organizations Receiving Grants for Community-Based Outreach
Able-Disabled Advocacy Inc. The mission of Able-Disabled Advocacy Inc. is to provide vocational skills training and educational advancement for youth and adults with disabilities and to assist them in finding employment and overcoming barriers to personal and financial self-sufficiency. www.abledisabledadvocacy.org All Congregations Together The mission of All Congregations Together is to provide services that will cause an observable positive change in the health, social, and economic conditions of individuals and families. www.act-sd.org Casa Familiar The mission of Casa Familiar allows the dignity, power, and worth within individuals and families to flourish by enhancing the quality of life through education, advocacy, service programming, housing, and community economic development. www.casafamiliar.org Chula Vista Community Collaborative
The mission of the Chula Vista Community Collaborative, a vibrant citywide partnership of engaged stakeholders, is to enhance the well-being of Chula Vista residents by implementing collaborative strategies that maximize resources and services. www.chulavistacc.org El Cajon Collaborative The mission of the El Cajon Collaborative is to build relationships, leverage resources, and promote best practices to enhance the quality of life for children, youth, and families in our community. www.elcajoncollaborative.org Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers The mission of the Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers is to provide a skilled day program to the elderly and anyone over the age of 18 who has mental and/or physical impairments that limit one’s participation in daily living activities. Through a structured plan of care, we assist the individual in maintaining or improving their independence, health, and well-being. www.casa-pacifica.com Linda Vista Collaborative The mission of the Linda Vista Collaborative is to offer a forum for public deliberation among the stakeholders of Linda Vista and promote collaboration among them with the goal of improving the quality of life of all its residents. www.lindavistacollaborative.org San Ysidro Business Association
The mission of the San Ysidro Business Association is to promote economic revitalization in a vibrant international community. www.sanysidrobid.org
TA 6-4 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentation/Public Meetings/ Workshops Date Event Topic Organization Location
07/21/09 Lemon Grove 2050 Regional City Council Lemon Grove City Growth Forecast Hall 08/05/09 La Mesa 2050 Regional Planning Commission La Mesa City Hall Growth Forecast 08/11/09 La Mesa; Chula Vista 2050 Regional City Council La Mesa City Hall Growth Forecast 08/14/09 County 2050 Regional Planning Commission County Growth Forecast Administration 08/19/09 Escondido 2050 Regional City Council Escondido City Hall Growth Forecast 08/19/09 Imperial Beach 2050 Regional City Council Imperial Beach Growth Forecast City Hall 08/25/09 Vista 2050 Regional City Council Vista City Hall Growth Forecast 08/25/09 San Marcos 2050 Regional City Council San Marcos City Hall Growth Forecast 09/01/09 National City 2050 Regional City Council National City City Hall Growth Forecast 09/01/09 Poway 2050 Regional City Council Poway City Hall Growth Forecast 09/03/09 City of San Diego 2050 Regional Planning Commission City of San Diego Growth Forecast City Hall 09/08/09 El Cajon 2050 Regional City Council El Cajon City Hall Growth Forecast 09/09/09 Solana Beach 2050 Regional City Council Solana Beach Growth Forecast City Hall 09/15/09 Carlsbad 2050 Regional City Council Carlsbad City Hall Growth Forecast 09/15/09 Coronado 2050 Regional City Council Coronado City Hall Growth Forecast 09/16/09 San Diego Regional 2050 Regional San Diego Regional Chamber offices Chamber of Commerce Growth Forecast Chamber of Commerce 09/21/09 Del Mar 2050 Regional City Council Del Mar City Hall Growth Forecast 09/22/09 City of San Diego 2050 Regional Community Planners Metropolitan Growth Forecast Committee Operations Center II, 9192 Topaz Way, Kearny Mesa
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-5
Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentation/Public Meetings/ Workshops (Continued) Date Event Topic Organization Location
09/23/09 County of San Diego 2050 Regional Board of Supervisors County Growth Forecast Administration Building
10/01/09 Board Meeting 2050 RTP Update San Diego County SDCRAA offices Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA)
10/02/09 Building Industry Association 2050 Regional BIA BIA offices (BIA), Affordable Housing Growth Forecast Working Group
10/14/09 Santee 2050 Regional City Council Santee City Hall Growth Forecast 10/14/09 Encinitas 2050 Regional City Council Encinitas City Council Growth Forecast
10/15/09 LEAD San Diego (business, 2050 Regional Business group GEN-PROBE offices nonprofit, and other Growth Forecast community leaders) 10/16/09 Tijuana’s Subcommittee of 2050 RTP Update City of Tijuana SANDAG Binational Affairs 10/21/09 City of San Diego Land Use 2050 RTP Update City Council Committee San Diego City Hall and Housing Committee 11/05/09 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Women in Legal and Land Tin Fish Restaurant, Use Group Liberty Station 11/18/09 United States Department of 2050 RTP Update USDOT SANDAG Transportation (USDOT) Scan Tour
11/10/09 Board Meeting Urban Area Transit North County Transit NCTD offices Strategy District (NCTD) 11/10/09 Oceanside 2050 Regional City Council Oceanside City Hall Growth Forecast 12/03/09 Luncheon Program 2050 RTP Update Institute of Traffic Handlery Hotel, Engineers (ITE) San Diego San Diego Chapter
12/08/09 San Diego Regional 2050 RTP Update San Diego Regional Emerald Plaza Chamber of Commerce Chamber of Commerce 12/17/09 Transportation Committee 2050 RTP Update San Diego County 701 B Street, Taxpayers Association San Diego 01/11/10 Luncheon Program 2050 RTP Update San Diego Highway Best Western Seven Development Association Seas, San Diego 01/20/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Linda Vista Collaborative 2201 Comstock Street, San Diego
TA 6-6 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentation/Public Meetings/ Workshops (Continued) Date Event Topic Organization Location
02/05/10 Monthly Meeting Urban Area Transit American Institute of SANDAG Strategy Architects (AIA) Urban Design Committee 02/09/10 Monthly Luncheon Urban Area Transit Council of Design AIA Offices Strategy Professionals 02/18/10 Board of Directors Meeting Urban Area Transit Metropolitan Transit MTS Offices Strategy System (MTS) 03/01/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update and Downtown San Diego Downtown San Diego Urban Area Transit Transit Partnership Partnership Office 03/04/10 Transportation Committee 2050 RTP Update Downtown San Diego Downtown San Diego Partnership Partnership Office 03/04/10 Monthly Luncheon Urban Area Transit City/County Managers Doubletree Hotel, Strategy Association Del Mar 03/05/10 Monthly Meeting Urban Area Transit AIA Urban Design SANDAG Strategy workshop Committee development
03/06/10 Board Retreat 2050 RTP Update and NCTD California State Urban Area Transit University, San Strategy Marcos 03/10/10 Monthly Meeting Urban Area Transit Council of Design AIA Offices Strategy workshop Professionals 03/10/10 Poway Community Interest 2050 RTP Update City of Poway 13325 Civic Center Group Training Drive, Poway 03/10/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Chula Vista Collaborative 345 5th Avenue, Chula Vista 03/10/10 Regular Meeting 2050 RTP Update American Council of SANDAG offices Engineering Companies 03/17/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Linda Vista Collaborative 2201 Comstock Street, San Diego 03/30/10 National City 2050 RTP Update, City Council Council Chambers Sustainable 04/14/10 Workshop for Urban Design 2050 RTP Update and San Diego Council of Caltrans and Planning Professionals Urban Area Transit Design Professionals / Strategy SANDAG 04/15/10 Workshop 2050 RTP Update University of California, UCSD San Diego (UCSD) Association of Environmental Professionals 04/15/10 Urban Area Transit Strategy 2050 RTP Casa Familiar and San Ysidro Workshop Development and San Ysidro Business Community Center Urban Area Transit Association
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-7
Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentation/Public Meetings/ Workshops (Continued) Date Event Topic Organization Location
04/26/10 RTP Public Workshop 2050 RTP SANDAG City of Escondido – Development and Mitchell Room Urban Area Transit Strategy 04/27/10 RTP Public Workshop 2050 RTP SANDAG Chula Vista – Loma Development and Verde Recreation Urban Area Transit Center Strategy 04/28/10 RTP Public Workshop 2050 RTP SANDAG Carlsbad – Tri-City Development and Wellness Center Urban Area Transit Strategy
04/29/10 Transportation Committee Urban Area Transit Downtown San Diego Downtown San Diego of Downtown San Diego Strategy Partnership Partnership Office 05/03/10 RTP Public Workshop 2050 RTP SANDAG San Diego – Bayside Development and Community Center Urban Area Transit Strategy
05/06/10 RTP Public Workshop 2050 RTP SANDAG El Cajon – Ronald Development and Reagan Community Urban Area Transit Center 05/25/10 Urban Area Transit Strategy Urban Area Transit American Planning Centre City Luncheon Strategy Association Development
05/25/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Community Planners 9192 Topaz Way, Committee Board San Diego Meeting 05/26/10 Urban Area Transit Strategy 2050 RTP Move San Diego and Caltrans Evening Mixer Development and Urban Land Institute (ULI) Urban Area Transit Young Planners Strategy
06/03/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update National Association of Del Mar Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP)
06/03/10 Meeting/Briefing 2050 RTP Update U.S. Marine Corps Camp Pendleton
06/07/10 Monthly Meeting – 2050 RTP Update San Diego Regional Emerald Plaza Transportation Committee Chamber of Commerce 06/07/10 General Plan Update Lecture 2050 RTP Update City of Encinitas Encinitas Public Series 2010 Library 06/08/10 RTP Working 2050 RTP Update San Diego Regional SANDAG Group/Transportation and Chamber of Commerce Land Use Committee
TA 6-8 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentation/Public Meetings/ Workshops (Continued) Date Event Topic Organization Location
06/08/10 Meeting/Briefing 2050 RTP Update U.S. Navy 1220 Pacific Highway Building 127, San Diego
06/08/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Carmel Valley Community Carmel Valley Public Planning Board Library 06/09/10 Ramona Transportation 2050 RTP Update Ramona Planning Group Olive Pierce Middle Summit School Performing Arts Center
06/15/10 City Council Workshop 2050 RTP Update City of Carlsbad Carlsbad City Hall
06/17/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update San Diego County 9177 Sky Park Court, Taxpayers Association San Diego 06/17/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update East Region Collaborative 3845 Spring Drive, Network Spring Valley 06/21/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Building Owners and 701 B Street San Managers Association Diego, San Diego 06/21/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update San Ysidro Community 4350 Otay Mesa Planning Group Road, San Diego 06/25/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Convivio Latino en Linda 2202 Comstock Vista Street, San Diego 06/29/10 Monthly Luncheon 2050 RTP Update San Diego County Bar Bar Center Association Environmental/Land Use Section 07/13/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Mid-City CAN Networking City Heights Wellness Council Center 07/19/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Mira Mesa Community Mira Mesa Planning Group 07/22/10 Board of Directors Meeting 2050 RTP Update NCTD NCTD offices 07/27/10 I-5 North Coast Public 2050 RTP Information Caltrans Encinitas Community Meeting Table and Community Center
07/28/10 Uptown-North Park-Greater 2050 RTP Update City of San Diego Balboa Park Club Golden Hill Mobility Open 07/29/10 Introduction to Urban 2050 RTP Update San Diego State University SDSU Planning Class (SDSU) 08/03/10 I-5 North Coast Public 2050 RTP Information Caltrans University Towne Meeting Table Centre 08/06/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update AIA Urban Design SANDAG Committee Meeting
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-9
Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentation/Public Meetings/ Workshops (Continued) Date Event Topic Organization Location
08/11/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update North Park Planning 2901 North Park Way Committee Public Facilities San Diego Subcommittee
08/17/10 I-5 North Coast Public 2050 RTP Information Caltrans City of Carlsbad – Meetings Table Faraday Center 08/24/10 I-5 North Coast Public 2050 RTP Information Caltrans Skyline Elementary Meetings Table School – Solana Beach
08/24/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Chula Vista Collaborative 345 5th Avenue, Chula Vista 09/09/10 I-5 North Coast Public 2050 RTP Information Caltrans Oceanside High Meetings Table School 09/10/10 Transportation Briefing 2050 RTP Update San Diego Regional 530 B Street, Meeting Economic Development Suite 700, San Diego Corporation (EDC)
09/12/10 California Center for 2050 RTP Update CCSE CCSE offices Sustainable Energy Family Energy Day and Street Smart
09/14/10 RASP Open House 2050 RTP Information SDCRAA SDCRAA offices Table 09/16/10 Clean Energy Conference 2050 RTP Information CCSE CCSE offices Table 09/16/10 RASP Open House 2050 RTP Update SDCRAA McClellan-Palomar Airport, Carlsbad 09/22/10 RASP Open House 2050 RTP Update SDCRAA Gillespie Field, El Cajon 09/23/10 Monthly Breakfast 2050 RTP Update Citizens Coordinate for Holiday Inn at the Bay Century 3 (C-3) 09/28/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update North County Action San Diego Regional Council (NORCAN) Center, San Marcos 09/30/10 RASP Open House 2050 RTP Update SDCRAA South County EDC 10/05/10 SC EDC Board of Directors 2050 RTP Update South County EDC South County Meeting Regional Education Center, National City 10/07/10 Joint Workshop and 2050 RTP Update ITE/Women’s Courtyard by Marriott Luncheon Transportation Seminar – Downtown (WTS) San Diego 10/12/10 Board of Supervisors 2050 RTP Update San Diego County County Administration Building 10/13/10 Introduction to Urban 2050 RTP Update SDSU SDSU Planning
TA 6-10 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentation/Public Meetings/ Workshops (Continued) Date Event Topic Organization Location
10/13/10 City Planning Process 2050 RTP Update SDSU SDSU 10/14/10 2050 RTP Task Force 2050 RTP Update South County EDC EDC Offices 10/19/10 City Council Meeting 2050 RTP Update City of Lemon Grove Lemon Grove 10/20/10 Workshop for Planning and Transit Supportive ULI, Move San Diego, SANDAG offices Design Professionals on Policies American Planning Transit Supportive Policies Association, C-3, etc.
10/22/10 Improving Transit Workshop 2050 RTP Update San Ysidro Transportation San Ysidro Collaborative Community Service Center
10/28/10 Board of Directors Meeting Transit Supportive MTS MTS offices Policies 11/02/10 Oceanside 2050 RTP Update City Council Oceanside City Hall 11/03/10 Statewide Conference 2050 RTP American Planning La Costa Resort Presentation Association 11/04/10 Executive Committee 2050 RTP Update MTS MTS Headquarters 11/10/10 Centre City Advisory 2050 RTP Centre City Development CCDC Committee Presentation Corporation (CCDC) 11/17/10 Executives Workshop 2050 RTP National Brownfield City of San Diego Presentation Association 11/18/10 Breakfast Program 2050 RTP WTS/ITE University Club 11/18/10 Board Meeting 2050 RTP Update MTS MTS Headquarters 11/23/10 Introduction to Urban 2050 RTP SDSU SDSU Planning Class Presentation 11/23/10 Community Meeting/CBO 2050 RTP South County Action Bonita Outreach Presentation Network (SOCAN) 12/01/10 Seniors Outreach 2050 RTP Chula Vista Community Chula Vista Meeting/SWG Member Presentation Collaborative (CVCC), Seniors on Broadway
12/06/10 School Outreach 2050 RTP CVCC, Charter School Chula Vista Meeting/SWG Member Presentation 12/09/10 Board Meeting 2050 RTP Update MTS MTS Headquarters 12/09/10 Student Meeting 2050 RTP ITE Student Chapter SDSU 12/13/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP San Diego Chamber of 402 W. Broadway, Presentation Commerce – Land Use Suite 1000 and Transportation Committee
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-11
Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentation/Public Meetings/ Workshops (Continued) Date Event Topic Organization Location
12/14/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP San Ysidro Neighborhood San Ysidro Presentation Partnership Program Community Service Center
12/14/10 Nonprofit Outreach 2050 RTP CVCC, Turning the Hearts Chula Vista Meeting/SWG Member Presentation Center 01/19/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Poway Rotary Poway Presentation 01/19/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP League of Women Voters Cardiff Presentation 01/20/11 Regional Meeting 2050 RTP San Diego County San Diego – Presentation Volunteer Driver Coalition City Heights 01/25/11 Trade Association Meeting 2050 RTP American Council of SANDAG Presentation Engineering Companies 02/03/11 City Council Workshop 2050 RTP City of Chula Vista Chula Vista City Hall Presentation 02/08/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Skyline Paradise Hills San Diego Presentation Planning Group 02/09/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP La Mesa Optimists Club San Diego – Presentation Mission Valley 02/14/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP League of Women Voters Oceanside Presentation – North County Chapter 02/15/11 Urban Planning Class 2050 RTP SDSU SDSU Presentation 02/15/11 Trade Association Meeting 2050 RTP California Construction San Diego – Presentation and Industrial Materials Mission Valley 02/22/11 City Council Meeting 2050 RTP City of Poway Poway City Hall Presentation 02/24/11 Measuring Sustainable 2050 RTP Move San Diego, The San Diego Communities Performance Metrics Sustainable San Diego, Foundation The San Diego Foundation, San Diego Housing Federation 02/25/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update San Ysidro Transportation San Ysidro Collaborative Community Service Center
03/01/11 Outreach Meeting/SWG 2050 RTP El Cajon Collaborative El Cajon Member Presentation 03/07/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Skyline Paradise Hills San Diego Presentation Community Group 03/16/11 Trade Association Meeting 2050 RTP International Right-of-Way San Diego – Presentation Association (IRWA) Mission Valley
TA 6-12 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentation/Public Meetings/ Workshops (Continued) Date Event Topic Organization Location
03/16/11 Community Meeting/CBO 2050 RTP Southwest Working Chula Vista Outreach Presentation Group 03/22/11 Community Meeting/CBO 2050 RTP Update South County Action Bonita Outreach Network (SOCAN) 03/25/11 Outreach Meeting/SWG 2050 RTP Update Convivio Latino, Linda San Diego Member Vista Community 03/29/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Point Loma Optimists San Diego Presentation Club 03/29/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update San Diego Regional San Diego Economic Development Council (EDC)
03/29/11 Outreach Meeting/SWG 2050 RTP Update Senior STEPS, Linda Vista Bayside Community Member Community Collaborative Center, San Diego
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-13
Table TA 6.4 – 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Public Involvement Efforts Regarding SB 375 Requirements Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg, 2008) contains a number of references to guide public participation efforts in developing the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (2050 RTP) and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). This table outlines references in the legislation and how SANDAG is meeting or will meet the requirements. All public outreach and involvement efforts, meetings, and activities will be detailed in 2050 RTP Public Involvement Chapter.
SB 375 Requirement Date Outreach Activity/Event
Government Code Section 65080. (a) Each transportation planning agency designated under Section 29532 or 29532.1 shall prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan directed at achieving a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system, including, but not limited to, mass transportation, highway, railroad, maritime, bicycle, pedestrian, goods movement, and aviation facilities and services. The plan shall be action-oriented and pragmatic, considering both the short-term and long-term future, and shall present clear, concise policy guidance to local and state officials. The regional transportation plan shall consider factors specified in Section 134 of Title 23 of the United States Code. Each transportation planning agency shall consider and incorporate, as appropriate, the transportation plans of cities, counties, districts, private organizations, and state and federal agencies. (2) A sustainable communities strategy prepared by each metropolitan planning organization as follows: (2Aii) The metropolitan planning organization shall May 2010 Public Workshop providing overview and target- hold at least one public workshop within the region setting information after receipt of the report from the Regional Targets SANDAG Board Policy Meeting, May 14, 2010 Advisory Committee. Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group, June 15, 2010 (2E) The metropolitan planning organization shall October 8, 2010 Draft SCS preparation and development presented conduct one informational meeting on the at SANDAG Board of Directors meeting. Minutes sustainable communities strategy and alternative and Board attendance at October 8, 2010 meeting planning strategy, if any. The metropolitan planning follows matrix organization may conduct only one informational meeting if it is attended by representatives of the county board of supervisors and city council members representing a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated areas of that county. (2F) Each metropolitan planning organization shall December 18, 2009 SANDAG Board of Directors adopts agencywide adopt a public participation plan, for development Public Participation Plan (PPP). Public Participation of the sustainable communities strategy and an Plan guides public outreach and involvement for all alternative planning strategy agency programs, plans, projects
TA 6-14 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.4 – 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Public Involvement Efforts Regarding SB 375 Requirements (Continued) SB 375 Requirement Date Outreach Activity/Event
(2Fi) Outreach efforts to encourage the active Ongoing – PPP The 2050 RTP and SCS Public Involvement Plan is an participation of a broad range of stakeholder adopted December element of Federal Public Participation Plan. The groups in the planning process, consistent with the 18, 2009; PIP 2050 RTP and SCS Public Involvement Plan describe agency’s adopted Federal Public Participation Plan, presented April 23, specific activities, audiences, etc. to secure input on including, but not limited to, affordable housing 2010 the 2050 RTP and SCS advocates, transportation advocates, neighborhood Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group and community groups, environmental advocates, established in September 2009 to serve in an home builder representatives, broad-based business advisory capacity to both the SANDAG Regional organizations, landowners, commercial property Planning and Transportation Committees on the interests, and homeowner associations. development of the 2050 RTP and its components to involve citizens with expertise in subject matter areas of regional interest as well as individuals who reflect the demographics of the region, with particular emphasis on communities that are not traditionally involved in the regional planning process. Public outreach and involvement efforts since spring 2009 include noticed public meetings, opt-in monthly e-mail updates and newsletters, media outreach, Web site updates, Speakers Bureau, and other activities (2Fii) Consultation with congestion management Ongoing The SANDAG Board of Directors is forum for these agencies, transportation agencies, and agencies. SANDAG is the Congestion Management transportation commissions. Agency for the San Diego region as well as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission. Caltrans and both transit operators – San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and North County Transit District – are among the advisory members of the SANDAG Board (2Fiii) Three workshops throughout the region to Spring 2011 SANDAG to hold five Public workshops on the Draft provide the public with the information and tools 2050 RTP/SCS. Each workshop will feature an necessary to provide a clear understanding of the interactive Web-based visualization tool to educate, issues and policy choices. Each workshop, to the communicate, and visually demonstrate the extent practicable, shall include urban simulation priorities, investments, transportation system, and computer modeling to create visual representations other key elements in the 2050 RTP and SCS of the SCS and the alternative planning strategy. (2Fiv) Preparation and circulation of a draft SCS and 55 days before Circulate draft Sustainable Communities Strategy an alternative planning strategy, if one is prepared, adoption of final not less than 55 days before adoption of a final 2050 RTP regional transportation plan. (2Fv) Two public hearings shall be held. To the Spring/Summer Two public hearings on the Draft 2050 RTP/SCS in maximum extent feasible, the hearings shall be in 2011 different parts of region different parts of the region to maximize the opportunity for participation by members of the public throughout the region.
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-15
Table TA 6.4 – 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Public Involvement Efforts Regarding SB 375 Requirements (Continued) SB 375 Requirement Date Outreach Activity/Event
(2Fvi) A process for enabling members of the public Ongoing - Launched early Dedicated Web site, e-mail, and toll-free to provide a single request to receive notices, 2009 phone number established for inquiries information, and updates. and information requests. Process promoted on post cards, fact sheets, meeting notices, reports, newsletters, e-mail newsletters, and other materials (2Ji) Prior to starting the public participation process Technical methodology adopted pursuant to subparagraph (F), the submitted May 5, 2010 metropolitan planning organization shall submit a description to the state board of the technical methodology it intends to use to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from its sustainable communities strategy and, if appropriate, its alternative planning strategy. Government Code Section 65584.04 Developing Regional Housing Needs Methodology Ongoing – Launched June Regular public meetings with Regional (4c) Public participation and access shall be required 2010 at joint Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group, in the development of the methodology and in the Housing Working Group, Regional Housing Working Group, process of drafting and adoption of the allocation Regional Planning Technical Regional Planning Technical Working of the regional housing needs. Participation by Working Group public Group, Policy Advisory Committees, and organizations other than local jurisdictions and meeting Board of Directors. Other outreach and councils of governments shall be solicited in a presentations promoted via e-mail, diligent effort to achieve public participation of all newsletters, and on Web site economic segments of the community. The proposed methodology, along with any relevant underlying data and assumptions, and an explanation of how information about local government conditions gathered pursuant to subdivision (b) has been used to develop the proposed methodology, and how each of the factors listed in subdivision (d) is incorporated into the methodology, shall be distributed to all cities, counties, any subregions, and members of the public who have made a written request for the proposed methodology. The council of governments, or delegate subregion, as applicable, shall conduct at least one public hearing to receive oral and written comments on the proposed methodology.
TA 6-16 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy Following is a compilation of activities undertaken since 2009 to guide the development of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). SANDAG Board of Directors and Policy Advisory Committees (PACs) public meetings, working group public meetings, public outreach and involvement events, presentations, media outreach, newsletters, e-mail outreach, Web postings, and advertising are documented.
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/ Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage
February Media coverage: 2009 “County first up in road emission test” North County Times, 02/05/09 “San Diego’s foundation for growth” 3 San Diego Union-Tribune, 02/19/09 “Bikeway segment nearly ready” San Diego Union-Tribune, 02/28/09 March Media coverage: 2009 “Demand a better transit plan” 1 San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/08/09 April 2009 Board report on Long-Range Regional Plans and Forecasts: A Workplan to 1 Comply with Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) Media coverage: “Law to elevate ‘smart growth’” North County Times, 04/03/09 “Group tackles public transit” Ramona Sentinel, 04/09/09 “What moves you?” San Diego CityBeat, 04/14/09 “Survey shows 12% rely primarily on mass transit” 7 San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/15/09 “Say no to more toll lanes, roads” North County Times, 04/15/09 “Letters to the Editor: Great cities have great transit” North County Times, 04/15/09 “These Days: San Diegans encouraged to live a sustainable lifestyle” KPBS, 04/09
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-17 Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/ Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Policy Group Presentations Pages, and and Advisory (SWG) Advertising Coverage Committee May 2009 Board, TC, and RPC reports to establish Regional Planning Stakeholders Working 1 Group
Media coverage: “Implementing sustainable development 1 in the community” The Daily Transcript, 05/09
June 2009 Begin development of update to agencywide SANDAG Public Participation 2 Plan
Board, TC, and RPC reports on Regional Growth Forecast; and 2050 RTP and SCS Work Program and Schedule. Board and RPC reports on Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Draft Report Board reports on Sustainable Region 7 Program Action Plan and Toolkit; and Smart Growth Design Guidelines TC and RPC reports on San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan – Goals, Policy Objectives, and Project Prioritization Criteria; and Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program Status Report
Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2
Media coverage: “SANDAG seeks volunteers to help plan region’s future” 2 East County Magazine, 06/05/09 “SANDAG seeks volunteers” Del Mar Times, 06/09
TA 6-18 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/ Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage July 2009 Board report on 2050 Regional Growth Forecast TC and RPC reports on Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group Recommendation TC reports on Draft Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report; and 2050 RTP: Formation of Ad 5 Hoc Technical Working Group to Provide Input on Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria and RTP Performance Measures RPC report on Final Version of the Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report
Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2
Presentation on Regional Growth at City 3 Council meetings
Media coverage: “State green power plan will cost consumers billions” North County Times, 07/11/09 “Planning ahead for congestion relief” North County Times, 07/13/09 “Short Takes: Regional Edition – 4 Workshop planned on sustainable communities” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/20/09
“Report urges switch to alternative fuels” North County Times, 07/20/09
August Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 3 2009
Presentation on Regional Growth 6 Forecast at City Council meetings
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-19 Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/ Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage September Board reports on Regional Planning 2009 Stakeholders Working Group Membership; 2050 RTP: Vision and 3 Goals; and Final Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report
SWG reports on Overview of SANDAG; 2050 RTP: Work Program and Schedule; Appointment of SWG Members to the Transportation Project Evaluation 4 Criteria Ad Hoc Working Group for the 2050 RTP; SANDAG Public Participation Plan
Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2
Presentation on Regional Growth at City 11 Council meetings
Media coverage: “SANDAG preparing for county’s future growth” The Daily Transcript, 09/23/09 “Visualizing a smart future” 3 The Daily Transcript, 09/24/09 “SANDAG: 1.3M more San Diegans by 2050” Voice of San Diego, 09/25/09
October Board report on Draft SANDAG Public 1 2009 Participation Plan
SWG reports on Draft SANDAG Public Participation Plan; 2050 Regional 3 Growth Forecast; and 2050 RTP: Draft Vision and Goals
Advertising/notices to promote input on SANDAG Public Participation Plan: Asian Journal; La Prensa (in Spanish); North County Times (all editions); San Diego 7 Daily Transcript; San Diego Union- Tribune (all editions); San Diego Voice & Viewpoint; and Star News
Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2
TA 6-20 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/ Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage
October Presentations, public meetings, or 2009 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP 2 (cont’d)
Presentation on Regional Growth 6 Forecast at City Council meetings
Media coverage: “Underground solution? Pro: Managing traffic and its impact is a regional issue” San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/04/09 2 “Public hearing set for those who depend on transit” North County Times, 10/20/09
November TC, RPC, PC, and PSC reports on Draft 2009 SANDAG Public Participation Plan 2 TC and RPC reports on Initial Input into Urban Core Transit Strategy
SWG reports on Draft SANDAG Public Participation Plan to SWG; 2050 RTP: Goals and Proposed Policy Objectives; 3 and Initial inputs into Urban Core Transit Strategy Networks
Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2
Presentations, public meetings, or 3 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
Presentation on Regional Growth at City 1 Council meetings
Media coverage: “San Diego County wrestles over future 1 growth in the backcountry” KPBS, 11/19/09
December Board report on 2050 RTP: Goals and 2009 Proposed Policy Objectives TC and RPC reports on Revised SANDAG Public Participation Plan; 4 Urban Core Transit Strategy: Lessons Learned; and SB 375: Current Implementation Efforts
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-21 Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/ Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage December SWG reports on Smart Growth Concept 2009 Map; SB 375: Current Implementation 4 (cont’d) Efforts; Urban Area Transit Strategy; and 2050 RTP Related Studies
Board approves SANDAG Public 1 Participation Plan
Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2
Presentations, public meetings, or 4 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
Media coverage: “Tribes, transit, and coordinated 1 planning” North County Times, 12/27/09
January Board report on 2050 Regional Growth 1 2010 Forecast Update
SWG reports on Schedule for 2050 RTP Process; Overview of Smart Growth Concept Map; Study Plan for 2050 RTP 4 Environmental Justice Analysis; and 2050 RTP: Draft Public Involvement Plan
Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2
Presentations, public meetings, or 2 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
January Media Coverage: 2010 “Uptown scores on walkability” (cont’d) San Diego News Room, 01/05/10 “Looking at 2010: Kathy Keehan on two wheels” (RTP and Bicycling) 3 Voice of San Diego, 01/19/10 “SANDAG Study: Redevelopment key to San Diego County future” The Daily Transcript, 01/10
TA 6-22 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage February Board and RPC reports on 2050 1 2010 Regional Growth Forecast
SWG reports on Urban Area Transit Strategy Update; Draft 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan; Draft Highway Corridor and Connectors Project 5 Evaluation Criteria; Overview of Climate Change Adaptation and the 2050 RTP; and Status of 2030 RTP Projects
Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2
Presentations, public meetings, or 3 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
Media Coverage: “Regional agency seeks transportation liaisons here” Ramona Sentinel, 02/18/10 2 “Traffic relief policy? Increase congestion, costs” (Public Participation Plan) North County Times, 02/25/10
March Board reports on SB 375 2010 Implementation: Challenges and Next Steps; and Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program and Bayshore Bikeway: Proposed Programming and Funding TC and RPC reports on Draft 2050 RTP 5 Public Involvement Plan TC reports on San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan – Release Preliminary Findings; and Urban Area Transit Strategy – Initial Transit Concepts
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-23 Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage March SWG reports on RTP 2050 2010 Environmental Justice Analysis; SCS (cont’d) Update: SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Target Methodology; Proposed Transit Services Project Evaluation Criteria and 5 Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria Weightings; Update on Public Involvement for the 2050 RTP; and Final 2050 Regional Growth Forecast
Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 3
Presentations, public meetings, or 11 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
Media Coverage: “REGION: Leaders move toward setting vehicle emissions limits” North County Times, 03/12/10 “Transport survey solicits backcountry residents” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/30/10 4 “MoveSD.org advocates for mass transit and smart growth” San Diego News Room, 03/30/10 “SANDAG to meet with So Cal tribal leaders” The Daily Transcript, 03/10
TA 6-24 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage April 2010 Board reports on Tribal Transportation Issues for the 2050 RTP; Federal Sustainable Communities Initiative; and 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan TC and RPC reports on 2050 RTP Public Outreach Workshops; and Urban Area Transit Strategy TC reports on Urban Area Transit Strategy: Performance Measures and 10 Corridors/Communities for Establishment of Mode Share Goals; 2050 RTP: Evaluation Criteria for Highway Corridors, Transit Services, and Connector Projects; and 2050 RTP: Evaluation Criteria for the Goods Movement Strategy RPC report on RHNA and Housing Element Cycle
SWG reports on 2050 RTP: Proposed Plan Performance Measures; Urban Area Transit Strategy: Draft Regional Transit 3 Networks and Revised Performance Measures; and Update on 2050 RTP Environmental Justice Analysis
Advertising/Notices to promote 2050 RTP Workshops: Voice and Viewpoint; La Prensa; Asian Journal; North County 7 Times; Star News; Sign on San Diego (Web ad); and Voice of San Diego (Web ad)
Newsletters, E-mail, and SANDAG Web 3 site
Presentations, public meetings, or 7 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-25 Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage April 2010 Media coverage: (cont’d) “Charleston lecture series focuses on incorporating biking into diverse regions” The DigitelCharleston, 04/02/10 “San Diego scene 4.10” Metropolitan Magazine, 04/05/10 “SD tribes gather for transportation summit” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/06/10 “Public workshops on 2050 transportation plan set” North County Times, 04/20/10 “San Diego planners seek public feedback on regional transportation plan” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/21/10 “Agency seeks feedback, sets series of 11 workshops” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/24/10 “Growth conundrum: SANDAG hosts workshops on transportation planning” KPBS, 04/26/10 “These Days: Aligning S.D. regional transportation plan with greenhouse gas reduction goal” KPBS, 04/26/10 “Workshops detail future transportation plans, ideas” North County Times, 04/27/10 “The relevance of public transit” Voice of San Diego, 04/29/10 “SANDAG working to identify transportation needs through 2050” The Daily Transcript, 04/10
TA 6-26 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage May 2010 Board reports on SB 375 Implementation: Greenhouse Gas Target-Setting – Hybrid Scenario Testing; SB 375 Implementation: California Environmental Quality Act; 2050 RTP: Draft Evaluation Criteria; 2050 RTP: Draft Evaluation Criteria for Highway Corridors, Connectors, Transit Services, and Freight Projects; and 8 Riding to 2050: San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan – Final Plan TC reports on 2050 RTP: Evaluation Criteria for Highway Corridors, Transit Services, and Connector Projects; Riding to 2050: San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan – Final Draft; and 2050 RTP: Draft Plan Performance Measures
SWG reports on 2050 RTP Environmental Justice Analysis; Update on Urban Area Transit Strategy; and 3 Overview of Intelligent Transportation Systems
Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 3
Presentations, public meetings, or 5 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
Media coverage: “Downtown ‘smart growth’ planning discussed” North County Times, 05/03/10 2 “San Diego plans for future housing, transportation” KPBS, 05/05/10
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-27 Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage June 2010 Board, TC, and RPC reports on 2050 RTP: Update on the Urban Area Transit Strategy; and Smart Growth Trip Generation Study and Parking Strategies Board reports on 2050 RTP Overview; 6 2050 RTP: Development of the Initial Unconstrained Transportation Network; and 2050 RTP: Draft Evaluation Criteria TC report on 2050 RTP: Draft Plan Performance Measures
SWG reports on Sustainable Communities Strategy and Target Setting Process; and Development of 2 the Initial 2050 RTP Unconstrained Transportation Network
Conduct Public Opinion Survey to secure input from the public on 1 transportation system and infrastructure priorities.
Promote Public Input Questionnaire – Via Web and print in English and 1 2 Spanish.
Newsletters, E-mail, and SANDAG Web 7 site
Presentations, public meetings, or 15 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
TA 6-28 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage July 2010 Board and RPC reports on 2050 RTP: Draft Unconstrained Transportation Network Board reports on 2050 RTP: Draft Plan Performance Measures; SB 375 Implementation: Draft Greenhouse Gas Targets; 2050 RTP: Draft Unconstrained Transportation Network; SB 375 Implementation: 8 Proposed Final Greenhouse Gas Targets for the San Diego Region; and RHNA Update and Housing Element Cycle RPC reports on Overview of Climate Change Adaptation and the 2050 RTP; and 2050 RTP: Preferred Unconstrained Transportation Network
SWG reports on SB 375 Implementation: Draft Greenhouse Gas Targets from the CARB; and 2050 RTP: 2 Draft Unconstrained Transportation Network
Promote Public Input Questionnaire – Via Web and print in English and 1 2 Spanish
Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG Facebook Page (launch), and SANDAG 6 Web site
Presentations, public meetings, or 6 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-29 Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage July 2010 Media coverage: (cont’d) “Long-term transportation plan is deeply misguided” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/16/10 “SANDAG wants to ask you a few questions” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/20/10 “CA Air Resources Board to set up cap on carbon emissions for San Diego” KPBS, 07/22/10 “San Diego sets greenhouse gas reduction goals” KPBS, 07/22/10 8 “MTC adopts aggressive 15 percent target for reducing emissions by 2035” SF.Streetsblog.org, 07/29/10 “SANDAG wants your input to build for future” Del Mar Times, 07/10 “SB 375 may expedite environmental review process, expert says” The Daily Transcript, 07/10 “CARB announces proposed emissions targets for region under SB 375” The Daily Transcript, 07/10
August SANDAG Facebook Page and SANDAG 2 2010 Web site
Presentations, public meetings, or 6 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
Media coverage: “Town hall to explore local transit issues” San Diego Union-Tribune, 08/10/10 2 “SANDAG survey seeks input on plans for the regional transportation plan system of the future” Baja Times, 08/10
TA 6-30 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage September Board and TC reports on 2050 RTP: 2010 Initial Revenue Constrained Network/ Sustainable Communities Strategy Scenarios Board reports on Grant Proposal for Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentives Program: Regional SB 375 Plus Funding, Pursuant to Prop 84; 2010 Public Opinion Survey Results; and SB 375 7 Implementation: Proposed Final Greenhouse Gas Targets TC report on 2050 RTP: Draft Proposed Methodology for Conducting the RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination RPC reports on 2050 RTP: Draft Unconstrained Transportation Network and Conceptual Overview of Revenue Constrained Scenarios; and RHNA Update
SWG reports on 2050 RTP: Initial Revenue Projections, Revenue Constrained Scenarios, and Policy 2 Options to Support the Transit Network; and Public Input on Priorities for the 2050 RTP
Promote Public Input Questionnaire – Via Web and print in English and 1 2 Spanish
Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 6 Facebook Page, and SANDAG Web site
Presentations, public meetings, or 10 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
Media coverage: “State program entices urban growth” San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/23/10 “Pollution targets are set – what’s a motorist to do?” 3 San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/24/10 “We can have a strong economy and a healthy environment” San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/30/10
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-31 Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage October Board, TC, and RPC reports on 2050 2010 RTP: Sustainable Communities Strategy; and 2050 RTP: Draft Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenarios 4 TC reports on 2050 RTP: Draft Policy Options to Support the Transit Network; and Draft 2050 RTP Performance Measures: Preliminary Results
SWG reports on 2050 RTP: Draft Policy Options to Support the Transit Network; 2050 RTP: Sustainable 3 Communities Strategy; and 2050 RTP: Draft Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenarios
Public Hearing on 2050 RTP: Draft Proposed Methodology for Conducting 1 1 the RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 4 Facebook Page, and SANDAG Web site
Presentations, public meetings, or 10 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
Media coverage: “SANDAG looks at sustainable community strategy” San Francisco Chronicle, 10/30/10 “State unveils new rules for battling climate change” 3 The Daily Transcript, 10/10 “Construction Agenda: SANDAG Board scheduled to review 2050 Regional Transportation Plan” The Daily Transcript, 10/10
TA 6-32 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage November Board and TC reports on 2050 RTP: 2010 Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenarios Board reports on 2050 RTP: Public 3 Input Questionnaire; and 2050 RTP: Proposed Methodology for Conducting the Air Quality Conformity Determination
SWG reports on Draft 2050 RTP: Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios; 2050 RTP: Environmental 3 Justice Update; and 2050 RTP: Public Involvement Update
Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 7 Facebook Page, and SANDAG Web site
Presentations, public meetings, or 9 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
December Board and TC reports on 2050 RTP: 2010 Preferred Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenario Board report on 2050 RTP: Draft Policy 3 Options to Support the Transit Network RPC report on Regional Housing Needs Assessment Determination
SWG reports on 2050 RTP: Revenue Constrained Transportation Network; 2050 RTP: Environmental Justice Analysis of Revenue Constrained 3 Transportation Network Scenarios; and 2050 RTP: Public Outreach and Involvement Update
Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 7 Facebook Page, and SANDAG Web site
Presentations, public meetings, or 7 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-33 Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage December Media coverage: 2010 “Business can weigh in on our (cont’d) transportation future” San Diego Business Journal, 12/13/10 “What will local transportation look like in 2050?” San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/15/10 “Kids get bikes, but will they ride them to school?” KPBS On-Ramp, 12/15/10 “REGION: Scope of I-5 expansion up for vote” North County Times, 12/16/10 “Getting from here to the future on I-5” San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/17/10 “Letters: On marine rules, I-5, and more”
San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/17/10 19 “Expansion of I-5 takes another step” San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/17/10 “SANDAG approves a 40-year transportation plan” KPBS On-Ramp, 12/17/10 “SANDAG names Stocks as new chair” The Daily Transcript, 12/17/10 “Lightner weighs in against I-5 widening” Examiner.com San Diego, 12/18/10 “REGION: More than just I-5 expansion on tap” North County Times, 12/20/10 “More than just I-5 expansion on tap” Trading Markets.com, 12/21/10 “SANDAG Board endorses 14 lanes for I-5” KPBS Radio, 12/22/10
TA 6-34 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued)
Date Activity SANDAG Stakeholder Public E-mail, Media Board/Policy Working Involvement/ rEgion, Web Outreach Advisory Group Presentations Pages, and and Committee (SWG) Advertising Coverage December Media coverage (cont’d): 2010 “SANDAG ready to move forward on (cont’d) transportation plan with new emphasis” The Daily Transcript, 12/23/10 “Lightner urges SANDAG to withhold support of I-5 freeway widening” Carmel Valley News, 12/23/10 “Letters: On stadium cleanup, mass transit, and more”
San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/28/10 “SANDAG Board endorses 14 lanes for Interstate 15” KPBS Radio – These Days, 12/28/10 “Would you like for someone to say ‘Screw you guys’?” Voiceofsandiego.org, 12/29/10 “Morning Report: Moving $100B debate” Voiceofsandiego.org, 12/30/10
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-35 SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Community Based Outreach (CBO) Reports Outreach Conducted January 1 to September 30, 2010
CBO GRANT RECIPIENT TOTAL NUMBER OF TOTAL NUMBER OF TOTAL OUTREACH PRIMARY AUDIENCE REGIONS REACHED WORKSHOPS/FOCUS SURVEYS DISTRIBUTED STATISTICS DEMOGRAPHICS GROUPS OR COMPLETED Able-Disabled Advocacy Low income Balboa Park, Mid- 6 0 160 Disabled City, Mission Bay Veteran and South San Diego regions, and the City of Chula Vista All Congregations Together South San Diego Southeastern region 2 100 150 residents of the City of San Distributed African American Diego community
Casa Familiar South San Diego Southern region of 6 270 300 residents the City of San Estimated Distribution Latino community Diego, San Ysidro Spanish language Chula Vista Community Collaborative Latino community Southwest Chula Seniors Vista and the City of 7 188 270 Low income families Chula Vista Distributed Spanish language Volunteers Nonprofit staff El Cajon Collaborative East county residents Downtown El Cajon, Transit riders City of El Cajon, and 7 223 603+ Seniors East San Diego Completed Low income County Includes one community Includes online Middle Eastern refugees event and online outreach outreach of 380+ Arabic language Nonprofit staff Friends of Adult Day Health Care Seniors North, East, and Centers Disabled South San Diego 4 243 393 Caregivers/family County Completed Spanish language Senior services staff SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Community Based Outreach (CBO) Reports Outreach Conducted January 1 to September 30, 2010
CBO GRANT RECIPIENT TOTAL NUMBER OF TOTAL NUMBER OF TOTAL OUTREACH PRIMARY AUDIENCE REGIONS REACHED WORKSHOPS/FOCUS SURVEYS DISTRIBUTED STATISTICS DEMOGRAPHICS GROUPS OR COMPLETED Linda Vista Collaborative Seniors Linda Vista Latino community neighborhood of the Vietnamese community City of San Diego 7 96 112 Hmong community Distributed Filipino community Spanish language Mixteco language Community leaders Nonprofit/agency staff San Ysidro Business Association Border community City of San Ysidro San Ysidro businesses 5 418 1615 San Ysidro residents Completed College students Includes two community Say Ysidro families with outreach events for survey school-age children
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
Summary Results From Questionnaire – Feedback On Transportation Focus On Seniors And People With Disabilities September 2009 through June 2010
Introduction: The following is a summary of the results of this transportation questionnaire that was completed by 233 individuals. Of those who answered the age question, 71% were age 60 older. The remainder was primarily caregivers of seniors or providers of services for seniors. The survey was administered in North, East, and South San Diego County.
Your Transportation Profile
I am under 60 years old._56____ I am 60 or over 60 years old.___142__
I travel in the following modes: Mode Daily Occasionally Never Private car 120 46 20 Carpool with one other person 25 100 28 Vanpool 22 41 80 Bus 17 50 72 Trolley 8 54 80 Heavy rail (Coaster, Amtrak, Sprinter) 4 29 93 Other (Attached List of Comments) Daily Occasionally Never I provide transportation in my private car 9 69 79 for a senior adult. How often are you unable to make a trip 8 66 110 because you can’t get transportation?
Public Transportation What would need to change in order for you to use public transportation on a regular basis? (Check all that apply) Extend existing bus and trolley routes 111 Increase the frequency of service 104 Provide more express routes 100 Decrease the time needed per trip 109 Provide better signage at bus and trolley stops 52 Provide closer access to bus and trolley stops 100 Increase security at bus and trolley stops 89 Increase security on bus and trolley 80 Improve vehicle cleanliness 63 Improve ride comfort 53 Provide customer friendly drivers/attendants 64 Page 2
List other ways that would increase your usage of public transit. (See summary list attached)
I am well informed regarding public and private transportation options. Yes_48__ Somewhat_88 No_116
Transportation Priorities What improvements to the transportation system are most needed? Improve the safety of the freeways 86 Build more freeway lanes 65_ Extend the trolley to North County 103 Improve on and off-ramps from freeways 80_ Other suggestions
Environmental Priorities (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions) What improvements are needed to have better air quality? Provide incentives for those who carpool. 118 Provide incentives for those who ride public transit. 114 Promote use of low-gas usage and alternative fuel vehicles 114 Encourage communities to consider the environment when making land use/development decisions 113
How much value do you place on reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Very Important 107 Important 53 Somewhat Important _42 Not Important __7
Funding a World-Class Transportation System Which of the following funding mechanisms would you vote for to bring a world-class transportation system to San Diego County? Sales tax _ 44_ Gasoline tax __66_ User fees __55_ (such as bus/trolley fares) Special District tax __25_ Business tax __34_ Land use tax __83_ (such as on developers) Other suggestions See attached comments.
Note: This questionnaire was prepared by the Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers. Linda Vista Collaborative
How can we improve the transportation system in the San Diego region? Transportation throughout the world is defining and shaping the way that communities and its residents interact and connect with each other. Similarly, the community of Linda Vista and its residents would benefit from a transportation system that can provide its diverse population with a more efficient and reliable form of transportation. To a certain extent, a majority of the residents in Linda Vista explained that with the exception of leaving the community to go to work and school, their tendency is to remain in the area.
If the need to commute is presented, a large majority of our residents would prefer to drive their own vehicles to work and other destination points before choosing to ride the transit system because riding the public transportation requires them to allocate additional time to get from one place to another. Also, oftentimes their point of destination may not be directly accessible by bus or trolley. The younger families also expressed that while riding the bus may be beneficial for many reasons that would be an incentive to anyone else, they expressed that economic circumstances lessens the probability to increase the number of people who ride. A more efficient and reliable transportation system in our region would strategically meet the needs of our community residents who choose the option to ride the public transit to their work, to school, to the doctor, or to run errands.
An efficient transportation system would meet the needs of the diverse populations. In the San Diego area, some of these include the youth, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. A transportation system that is able to provide commuters with access to a variety of visited destination points. Many of the residents in Linda Vista who speak English as a second language understand that transportation plays a significant role in improving the quality of life in our community. However, in the past, immigrant communities have been deterred from using the public transit because in the past members of Linda Vista with undocumented status have been deported by Border Patrol officers at transfer stations. They emphasized that connecting communities also will help to increase the opportunities that exist to connect residents to other areas in the region. Transportation can play a potential role in increasing the economic opportunities for the region as a whole. The experiences that people have stay with them. Therefore, emphasis should be placed on making it a pleasant experience for people who ride the bus or trolley. For example, many senior residents in Linda Vista expressed having negative experiences while riding the bus. Some of them voiced the need to support programs that train senior citizens how to safely use the public transit. Due to the region’s current increased population of retired seniors, it would be beneficial to promote courtesy values for senior citizens and people with disabilities. A significant number of seniors who are no longer able to drive expressed the importance of having access to alternative transportation that would allow them to maintain their independence. Efficiency and reliability are significant priorities, in addition to safe and friendly ride experiences. With a more efficient, reliable, and safe transportation, the potential would result in using transportation as an effective method of connecting residents to their doctor appointments, employment, schools, community centers, areas of entertainment, and libraries.
What kind of transportation improvements should be considered? Safety was highlighted as one of the priority issues for improvement. Members of the community requested to have bus stops that are well lit, especially in areas where there is a high crime rate or a more isolated area. It also was suggested to print signs and bus schedules in larger font size for senior citizens and people with disabilities who may have a difficult time reading. In addition, it was suggested to provide training opportunities that teach riders how to access public transportation, especially the senior citizens who are not allowed to renew their driver’s license. This is a potential target population that will be more likely to use public transit in order to maintain their independence. Additional recommendations include sufficient time allotted for passengers who are riding the trolley or the bus to get on and off.
Many seniors expressed that diversifying the transportation marketing strategies to include information at community centers, schools, and churches to promote riding public transportation. It also was recommended to link senior groups through transportation as they will be exposed to meeting other residents in San Diego by having days when seniors and youth ride the public transit for free or at a reduced price. The primary recommendation that was requested by the seniors who have a difficult time walking from their residence to the closest bus stop is to provide a shuttle service similar to the MTS that can take seniors closer to their place of residence. Lastly, increase bus routes that are accessible and more direct. What are your community's highest priorities for a transportation system? The top three priorities expressed by the residents in Linda Vista included having access to information and resources, improving reliability in our transit system, and enforcing safety measures for riders.
Having access to information and updates about the local bus routes in the community would allow riders to plan accordingly. Some of the youth who shared their experience as transit users mentioned that sometimes bus routes are discontinued with little or no prior knowledge and these changes are often not communicated effectively. It was requested by seniors in our community to provide resources that link public transit users with information that is available for non-Web users and to communities that are non-English speakers. For example, information can be posted or distributed in locations where people congregate (churches, community centers, and grocery stores).
The community members also prioritized having faster and more reliable bus routes as many of the participants who made this suggestion explained having to wait long periods of time for a bus to arrive and as a result having missed their doctor appointments or arriving late to work or school.
Safety was highlighted as a priority issue. It was expressed that some bus conductors have no control over their passengers and they do not enforce the policies that give the seniors and people with disabilities preference to use front row seats on the bus. The issue of safety while riding the bus was emphasized as some of the seniors have been injured while riding the bus and would like to make sure that precautions are implemented to create a pleasant experience so that riders will continue to use public transportation.
What funding options do you support to provide ongoing transportation system/services? There were several funding options supported by Linda Vista senior residents. They liked the idea of providing low-income seniors who qualify with subsidized bus passes. Although the senior bus fares and bus passes are already at a reduced price, there are still seniors who do not have the means to afford a monthly bus pass. The idea presented was that the senior bus passes be funded through the support of local corporations who would sponsor seniors in their community. Another idea was to fund opportunities that allow large groups of seniors throughout the city to ride the bus to events together. This would allow seniors as a group to experience the transit system. In addition, a point system could be developed to allow riders to collect points after every ride. After an individual reached a certain amount of points, they would be eligible to acquire free bus or trolley trips. Another recommendation that was made in order to decrease the number of people who miss the trolley is to locate a fare machine inside the trolley because sometimes people forget to buy their bus ticket or are rushing to avoid missing their ride. Lastly, funding options in the future similar to the community-based grant that funded efforts to engage communities throughout the region. People who are engaged are more likely to contribute to the benefit of transportation and will be more invested in the opportunities being planned in the 2050 RTP.
What feedback would you give the decision makers? The feedback that was expressed by community residents in Linda Vista praised the efforts that were made by SANDAG and its staff members to engage a diverse group of agencies throughout the region.
Bayside Community Center hosted an event on May 3 that gave residents and their families the opportunity to meet SANDAG staff members and to see visual layouts of the components for the 2050 RTP. The workshops were a direct and valuable method to include participating communities and invite them to shape our outreach efforts through the groups and organizations that already participate at Bayside Community Center. For some community groups, it is difficult to plan for the future transportation of this region when there are so many challenges facing the current transportation in place. Especially when working with communities who are struggling to provide for their families economically, it is important to recognize that they want to contribute and feel a part of the San Diego community but they also have an additional economic challenge to face. Nevertheless, it was an important process that generated curiosity about participating in the 2050 RTP.
Lastly, it is important that our region focuses on investing not solely on improving transportation but also on additional components that will increase the number of transit riders. These suggested components include providing information to the areas in our region that may not have formal means of accessing information. It is crucial for decision makers to see the region’s transit as an opportunity to spur our city’s economy and employment opportunities. Please provide additional suggestions and comments from community members: Senior Citizens – Seniors recognize the importance of their feedback and encourage SANDAG to continue funding opportunities that allow seniors to get involved. Their main concerns were centered on the issues of safety and accessibility. For the seniors who depend on public transportation and may not have access to the nearest bus stop due to a physical impediment, it was suggested to provide a smaller tram line that is able to drive through the residential neighborhoods. This group also urged the decision makers in the San Diego region to consider that in order to prevent isolation, seniors need to stay active and transportation can play an important solution. It also is important to provide information for seniors in large font, to create educational opportunities about how the transportation system works, and to provide opportunities that expose communities throughout the region to other communities in San Diego on public transit. In addition, due to the amount of time that a person spends while waiting at the bus stop, it was suggested that bus stops be more colorful and showcase the cultural diversity in the community.
Families – More direct bus routes and faster time frames would incentivize residents to use public transportation. Many residents with children have expressed that their teenage children take the public transportation system to go to school. However, families have expressed that when traveling to centers of attraction, they choose to drive their car because it is more economical.
Other families expressed that it is important for them to have access to information in their own language. Oftentimes the fear for the rider is that they may get lost. Some members from the immigrant communities expressed concerns regarding the presence of border patrol officers near the trolley and bus transfer stations where, in the past, deportations have occurred. Amongst the immigrant communities, individuals who work organize carpools as a way of transportation.
San Ysidro Business Association
How can we improve the transportation system in the San Diego region? Provide Bus Rapid Transit from San Ysidro on I-805, I-5 and 905. Provide better bus routes to get people to Imperial Beach, Otay Mesa and East Lake. Make the hours longer for buses so that those who work late in Imperial Beach or Otay Mesa will be able to get home. Provide jitney/street car service in San Ysidro to get people from the west side of I-5 (Las Americas area) to the east side and to Beyer Boulevard.
What kind of transportation improvements should be considered? Bus Rapid Transit, Rapid Bus or street cars on routes that go from Camino de la Plaza to Willow Road to Via de San Ysidro; San Ysidro Boulevard from the border to Dairy Mart; and Via de San Ysidro to Beyer Boulevard.
What are your community's highest priorities for a transportation system? Bus Rapid Transit connections from San Ysidro to Kearny Mesa, from San Ysidro to Otay Mesa and Imperial Beach, and from San Ysidro to the beaches. It was expressed that the transit system do no more harm environmentally to San Ysidro and to ameliorate the present conditions brought about by being bisected by two freeways, a trolley and the International border. Such ameliorations would be more and better sidewalks and bike lanes, more streetscape amenities, and buffers to alleviate the air pollution caused from traffic.
What funding options do you support to provide ongoing transportation system/services? San Ysidro is a community that relies on transit for many of the low income and elderly. It is a community that has paid for the convenience of the car drivers to get across the border. As a community, San Ysidro would be most supportive of funding options that increase the use of the car to reflect the actual cost of driving. Such options might include unbundling parking costs, employer-sponsored transit incentives, remote parking, and other options such as flex time and partnerships. But all of these options also will depend on expanding the transit system routes and frequency.
What feedback would you give the decision makers? You must provide transit where it is currently needed before any more density. You must include transit when you add density. Older, and often, poor communities have seen density without any increase in transit or infrastructure. This has made it necessary to own a car in order to get to a job that would take two and a half hours and two buses to reach when it takes 10 minutes in a car. It also keeps poor people poor by reducing their transit options that might get them to better jobs.
Please provide additional suggestions and comments from community members: The only additional comments mostly concern the GSA Port of Entry project and the community concerns over how more noise and air pollution will result from it.
A. How do you go to school most often? ¿Cómo vas a la escuela más seguido? 1. I walk/Camino. 6 2. I ride my bike/Manejo mi bicicleta. 0 3. I take a school bus/Tomo el camión de la escuela. 2 4. I take the trolley/Tomo el “trolley.” 3 5. I take the city bus/Tomo el autobus. 15 6. Someone in my family drives me/Alguien de mi familia me lleva en carro. 20 7. I get a ride from a friend/Un amigo me lleva. 5
B. Where do you go after school? Dónde vas después de la escuela? 1. My home/Mi casa. 42 2. A friend’s house or family member’s house/Casa de un amigo o de un miembro de mi familia. 4 3. Work/Trabajo. 14
C. How do you get there? ¿Cómo llegas ahí? 1. I walk/Camino. 4 2. I ride my bike/Manejo mi bicicleta. 0 3. I take the trolley/Tomo el “trolley.” 2 4. I take the city bus/Tomo el autobús. 15 5. I or someone in my family drives me/Alguien de mi familia me lleva en carro. 29 6. I get a ride from a friend /Un amigo me llevan. 7
D. What types of transportation does your family use most often? Cuáles medios de transporte usa tu familia regularmente? 1. We walk/Caminamos. 2 2. We ride a jitney/Tomamos el “minibus/camioncito.” 0 3. We ride the bus/Tomamos el autobus. 4 4. We ride the trolley/Tomamos el “trolley.” 1 5. We carpool. 1 6. We drive a car/Manejamos un coche. 52
E. How many times per week do you use public transportation such as the trolley, the bus, or a jitney? ¿Cuántas veces por semana usas medios de transporte público como el “trolley”, el autobús o un “minibus/camioncito.”? 1. 0 30 2. 1-3 13 3. 4-7 8 4. More than 7/Más de 7. 4
F. How many times per week do you walk to get where you need to go? ¿Cuántas veces por semana caminas para llegar a los lugares que necesitas ir? 1. 0 22 2. 1-3 26 3. 4-7 4 4. More than 7/Más de 7. 4
G. I would use public transportation more if/Yo usaría más el transporte público si…. 1. I felt it was safe/Yo siento que fuera seguro. 2 2. There were bus stops or trolley stations closer to where I wanted to go/Hubiera más paradas de autobus o estaciones de “trolley”cerca de donde yo quiero ir. 13 3. Transportation was quicker or more reliable/La transportación fuera más rápida y regular. 19 4. If there were more bus stops closer to where I live/Si hubiera más paradas mas cercitas de donde vivo yo. 6 5. If it cost less/Si me costara menos. 22
H. When I use the trolley/bus I usually go to/Cuando uso el “trolley” usualmente me voy a… 1. School/ Escuela 16 2. Work/Trabajo 7 3. Home/Casa 15 4. To get to a Bus Stop/Para llegar a una parada de camión. 5 5. Chula Vista 6. Downtown/El centro de San Diego 9 7. Other /Otro lugar – East County (Orange Line)/Condado Este (la línea anaranjada) 6
I. Where else would you like the bus or trolley to take you/ dónde te gustaría llegar en el trolley y el autobús? Anywhere Home Otay Ranch Work Oceanside Mall DMV Las Americas School Los Angeles Beach Santa Barbara
J. I prefer using :/Marca uno de los siguientes: 1. The bus /Uso más el camión. 29 2. The trolley/Uso más el “trolley.” 25
K. Because: Porque: 1. The trolley is faster/El trolley es más rápido. 23 2. I know all the trolley stops – route easier/Yo conozco las estaciones del “trolley” más, la ruta es mas fácil de navegar. 1 3. The bus goes more places/El autobús va a más lugares. 15 4. A bus stop is closer to my house/Una parada está más cerca de mi casa. 16
L. I would walk more in San Ysidro if/Yo caminaría más en San Ysidro si: 1. It felt safer/Me sintiera más seguro. 16 2. I liked walking more/Me gustara caminar más. 13 3. There were more lights and crosswalks with signals/Hubiera más semáforos y cruces peatonales. 12 4. There were more or better sidewalks/Hubiera más o mejores banquetas. 14 5. I would not walk more/No caminaría más. 4
M. How far is a bus stop or trolley stop from your house? ¿Qué tan lejos está una parada de camiones o “trolley” de tu casa? 1. 1-3 blocks/1-3 cuadras 29 2. 4-6 blocks/4-6 cuadras 10 3. 6-10 blocks/6-10 cuadras 3 4. Farther/Más lejos 14
San Ysidro Business Association SANDAG Workshop February 18, 2010 Total Participants 63
Participants are asked the following four questions and respond by arranging themselves into separate groups according to their answers. For question five, the group will divide themselves by going to separate tables that reflect their answer, i.e. “it’s too expensive,” or “takes too long.” Once at tables, the participants also will answer questions to the SANDAG Group Survey.
Part I
1) Question: Your age group/Su grupo de edad: a. 0‐10 Total: 11, Percentage: 17% b. 10‐30 Total: 12, Percentage: 19% c. 30‐50 Total: 12, Percentage: 19% d. 50+ Total: 28, Percentage: 44%
2) Question: You use the trolley/Usted lo usa el trolley: a. Never/Nunca Total: 1, Percentage: 2% b. A few times a year/Unos veces por año Total: 16, Percentage: 25% c. Close to once a week/Casi cada semana Total: 9, Percentage: 14% d. Daily/Diario Total: 19, Percentage: 30%
3) Question: You use the City bus/Usted toma el autobus: a. Never/Nunca Total: 2, Percentage: 3% b. A few times a year/Unas veces cada año Total: 16, Percentage: 25% c. About once a week/Casi cada semana Total: 11, Percentage: 17% d. Daily/Diario Total: 10, Percentage: 16%
4) Question: You use your own car: a. I don’t have a car or my family doesn’t have a car/Yo no tengo, ni mi familia tiene un coche. Total: 23, Percentage: 37% b. A few times a month, when I need to get somewhere I don’t usually go/Unos veces cada mes cuando necesito llegar a un lugar usualmente no voy Total: 3, Percentage: 5% c. About once a week/Casi cada semana Total : 0, Percentage; 0% d. Daily/Diario Total: 27, Percentage: 43%
5) When we use the trolley or bus I usually go to/Cuando usamos el tranvía usualmente nos vamos a… a. School/Escuela - 1 Total: 1, Percentage: 2% b. Work/Trabajo - 3, 2 Total: 5, Percentage: 8% c. Home/Casa - 5, 1 Total: 6, Percentage: 10% d. Chula Vista o National City - 4, 18, 1 Total: 23, Percentage: 37% e. Downtown - 2, 1, 15, 3, 1 Total: 22, Percentage: 35% f. Other /Otro lugar- 8, 3 Total:11, Percentage: 17% g. East County (Orange Line)/Condado Este (la línea anaranjada) - 5 Total: 5, Percentage: 8%
6) If it brought me where I wanted to go I prefer using:/Si lo me llevara donde quisiera ir, yo preferiría usar:/Marca uno de los siguientes: a. The bus/Uso más el camión ‐ 0 Total: 0, Percentage: 0% b. The trolley/Uso más el tranvía ‐ 4, 12, 4 Total: 20, Percentage: 32% c. Both/Un combinación ‐ 8, 11, 3, 5 Total: 27, Percentage: 43%
7) We would walk more in San Ysidro if/Nos caminaríamos más en San Ysidro si: d. We felt safer/Nos sintieramos más seguros. ‐ 8, 15, 1, 3 Total: 27, Percentage: 43% e. We liked walking more/Nos gustara caminar más. ‐ 1, 15, 5 Total: 21, Percentage: 33% f. There were more lights and crosswalks with signals/Hubiera más semáforos y cruces peatonales. ‐ 1, 8, 17, 3 Total: 29, Percentage: 46% g. There were more or better sidewalks/Hubiera más o mejores banquetas. ‐ 2, 8, 4, 3 Total: 17, Percentage: 27% h. We would not walk more/No caminaríamos más. - 0 Total: 0, Percentage: 0%
8) How far is a bus stop or trolley stop from your house? ¿Qué tan lejos está una parada de camiones o tranvía de tu casa? i. 1‐3 blocks/1‐3 cuadras ‐ 4, 8, 13, 3, 5 Total: 33, Percentage: 52% j. 4‐6 blocks/4‐6 cuadras - 4, 1 Total: 5, Percentage: 8% k. 6‐10 blocks/6‐10 cuadras - 1 Total: 1, Percentage: 2% l. Farther/Más lejos - 3 Total: 3, Percentage: 5% a. I do use it/Si, lo uso. - Total: 26, Percentage: 41% b. It’s not safe/No es seguro. - Total: 4, Percentage: 6% c. Too expensive/Sale bastante caro. ‐ Total: 3, Percentage 5% d. Doesn’t take me where I want to go/No me trae donde quiero ir. ‐ Total: 11, Percentage: 17% e. Takes too long/Me gasta demasiado tiempo. ‐ Total: 8, Percentage: 13%
Part II SANDAG‐Sin Limites Group Survey
1) How do your children go to school most often? ¿Cómo van sus hijos a la escuela cada mañana? a. They walk/Caminan. - 1, 4, 1 Total: 6, Percentage: 10% b. I, or another family member, walk with them/Yo o un miembro de mi familia les acompaña. - 2, 8 Total: 10, Percentage: 16% c. They take the school bus/Toman el autobus de la escuela. - 1, 1, 1 Total: 3, Percentage: 5% d. They take the trolley/Toman el tranvía o trolley. - 4, 2 Total: 6, Percentage: 10% e. They take the city bus/Toman el autobus de la cuidad. - 0 Total: 0, Percentage: 0 f. Someone in my family drives them/Alguien de la familia les lleva en carro. - 1, 3, 1, 3, 1 Total: 9, Percentage: 14%
2) What types of transportation does your family use most often? a. We walk/Caminamos. ‐ 12, 4 Total: 16, Percentage: 25% b. We ride a jitney/Tomamos el jitney. - 8 Total: 8, Percentage: 13% c. We ride the bus/Tomamos el colectivo. ‐ 7 Total: 7, Percentage: 11% d. We ride the trolley/Tomamos el Trolley. - 4, 7, 2 Total: 13, Percentage: 21% e. We drive a car/Manejamos un coche. ‐ 3, 4, 1, 4, 3 Total: 5, Percentage: 24%
3) How many times per week do you use public transportation such as the trolley, the bus, or a jitney? ¿Cuántas veces por semana usas el transporte público como el tranvía, el colectivo o un camión pequeño? a. 0 ‐- 4, 3, 3 Total: 10, Percentage: 16% b. 1‐3 -- 7, 1, 4 Total: 12, Percentage: 19% c. 4‐7 -- 3, 12, 1 Total: 16, Percentage: 25% d. More than 7/Más de 7 - 1, 6, 2 Total: 9, Percentage: 14%
4) How many times per week do you walk to get where you need to go? ¿Cuántas veces por semana caminas para llegar a los lugares que necesitas ir? a. 0 -- 2, 3 Total: 5, Percentage: 8% b. 1‐3 -- 2, 4, 7, 3 Total: 16, Percentage: 25% c. 4‐7 -- 4, 13 Total: 17, Percentage: 27% d. More than 7/Más de 7 -- 6, 1, 5 Total: 12, Percentage: 19
San Ysidro Business Association Sin Limites: Results from Breakout Groups
Transit Lines: 1. Coastal Trolley ‐ Imperial Beach to Mission Beach, Pacific Beach, La Jolla (UCSD), Del Mar Fairgrounds 2. East Lake ‐ Otay Mall 3. Parallel the 805 with stops that run east to Otay Ranch, Plaza Bonita, the hospital in National City, and up to Children’s Hospital in Kearny Mesa 4. SWC access 5. Otay border crossing 6. Escondido, takes about 4 transfers and 2.5 hours 7. Grossmont, oh there is one (ah‐ha) 8. Trolley/Bus and Otay 9. Immediately we need a bus there 10. Point Loma (connecter from Old Town down Rosecrans?) 11. Along the 125 12. San Ysidro to Kearny Mesa 13. San Ysidro to North County Inland and Coastal 14. San Ysidro to San Ysidro High School (off 905) 15. San Ysidro to airport 16. San Ysidro to El Cajon 17. San Ysidro to UTC
Shuttle Service (Jitney): 1. Southwest High and Junior High 2. San Ysidro High School 3. Vista Lane 4. Del Sol to Dennery 5. Camino de la Plaza 6. La Mirada 7. DMV 8. Mas horas a la frontera 9. A Palm Ave 10. A Coronado o Iris Trolley stop
Pedestrian Crossings Needed: 1. Over the 905 near the high school 2. Over the 905 near the 805 intersection 3. Via de San Ysidro 4. Dairy Mart 5. Jack in the Box (near the border) 6. Bazar at the Border 7. Pedestrian bridge over from Camino de la Plaza over the 5 8. Separate pedestrians from cars and transit at the border. Need for better Intermodal that would give pedestrians separate walkways, not bisected by buses, trolley or cars. 9. Add another crossing on Camino de la Plaza between Las Americas and San Ysidro Village at K‐Mart. Distance between stop lights at Willow Road and Via National (Achiote) is too far and there is a bus stop at that location. 10. Intersection of I‐5 and Camino de la Plaza. This intersection contains the on‐ramp to Mexico, the off‐ramp from I‐5, and pedestrians and transit at Camiones Way and Camino de la Plaza coming from Mexico and the Border Station parking lot and Bazaar. 11. Intersection at Dairymart and East San Ysidro Boulevard. Time allotted to cross those streets is too short for most pedestrians. 12. Lighting needed on Willow Road pedestrian bridge 13. Sidewalk and bus shelter needed on West Calle Primera from Via de San Ysidro to Willow Road
Green Spines: 1. 5 South 2. Beyer and East Beyer 3. San Ysidro Boulevard 4. “Cut and Cover” over Camino de la Plaza from East San Ysidro Boulevard to Camiones Way 5. Use walls with trees or vines along I‐5 and I‐805 to provide buffers from freeways. Or could place freeways below grade.
Noise Barriers: 1. 805 2. San Ysidro Boulevard near Dairy Mart 3. Use walls with trees or vines along I‐5 and I‐805 to provide buffers from freeways. Or could place freeways below grade.
San Ysidro Business Association SANDAG Workshop 2 – Environmental Justice Needs
Participants were issued a large piece of paper with freeways, trolleys, main roads and the border. They were then given the opportunity to show where they thought buffers were needed between traffic and people, areas that were especially dangerous for pedestrians because of interactions with traffic, and where infrastructure was needed to make San Ysidro more walkable.
Results:
Safety • The number one priority for both groups was the intermingling of pedestrians, cars, trolleys, buses, jitneys, and taxis at the border. Specifically mentioned were the lack of an area for pick up and drop off of passengers; pedestrians placed too close to the trolley arm; pedestrians crossing against traffic; and egress and ingress to Jack in the Box at Rail Court.
• A second dangerous area is along Camino de la Plaza between Las Americas and San Ysidro Village. Specifically, crossing between K-Mart in San Ysidro Village and I-Hop in Las Americas. For pedestrians walking and loaded down with large parcels, the distance between the stop light at Willow and the stop light at Achiote (Via Nacional) is a distance of four long city blocks. So pedestrians will often cross the street at a bus stop.
• Intersection of I-5 and Camino de la Plaza. This intersection contains the on-ramp to Mexico, the off-ramp from I-5, and pedestrians and transit at Camiones and Camino de la Plaza coming from Mexico and the Border Station parking lot and Bazaar. In other words, it is a confluence of traffic and pedestrians in great numbers. Pedestrians crossing at the I-5 off-ramp and Camino de la Plaza are often confronted with drivers into Mexico making an illegal right turn on red. They also run the risk of motorists coming off the I-5, making a right turn on red without looking for pedestrians. Then they have an immediate crossing of the Border Station entrance/exit and no sidewalk.
• Another intersection identified by the groups was Dairy Mart and East San Ysidro Boulevard. Here, they noted the time allotted to cross those streets was too short for most pedestrians unless done at a hasty walk.
• Lights needed on Willow pedestrian bridge.
• Sidewalk and bus shelter needed on West Calle Primera from Via de San Ysidro to Willow Road. This is a project already identified.
Environmental Issues • A top priority for the groups was more and better sidewalks. A list was made of areas that group participants identified as needing repairs or places without sidewalks. This list will be combined with an existing list already compiled by San Ysidro Community Planning Group.
• The groups also believed that more trees were needed along the commercial corridors of San Ysidro Boulevard and Camino de la Plaza, and Beyer and East Beyer Boulevard. They also suggested amenities such as benches and trash receptacles.
• Buffers needed between the freeways and community. Suggestion was to have walls placed along the freeway or below grade, similar to those north of I-8.
• Another idea was to put a cover over I-5 at Camino de la Plaza to create a plaza between the east and west side of San Ysidro. This would have the benefit of negating some of the greenhouse gas emissions from cars and would create a safe space for pedestrian crossing, as well as recovering land for commercial purposes.
Transit Needs Participants viewed a map of the current transit system including freeways, major streets, and mass transit routes. Then participants identified areas where transit is missing or infrequent. These included routes from San Ysidro to work centers, recreation areas, shopping, and other common destinations. Participants were excited about the SANDAG presentation on the various scenarios for the transit network for the 2050 RTP. Projects of particular interest to them were the high speed rail going to San Ysidro and Otay Mesa, Bus Rapid Transit routes, and the rapid bus route to Otay Mesa.
Work Centers • San Ysidro to Kearny Mesa area – no direct, rapid buses to get to Kearny Mesa work centers • No direct routes to Otay Mesa • No direct routes that are serviced at night to Imperial Beach area • No direct routes • No direct routes to other North County areas
Common Destinations • No direct/safe transit routes for San Ysidro High School • San Ysidro to San Diego beach areas • San Ysidro to Airport • San Ysidro to Point Loma • San Ysidro to Coronado • San Ysidro to north and east regions of the county. The trolley was identified as transit to Mission Valley, SDSU, and Santee, but not El Cajon.
Recreation and Shopping • San Ysidro to San Diego beach areas • San Ysidro to Point Loma • San Ysidro to Coronado • Sand Ysidro to UTC • San Ysidro to North County cities, Oceanside, Escondido
San Ysidro Business Association June 17th Sin Limites
At our June meeting, we displayed the SANDAG Hybrid map and explained its routes and what the next step is for SANDAG. We then asked participants to break into small groups and evaluate the routes and transit to see what might still be needed, and to also prioritize the routes and transit types they want to see implemented first. The results are as follows:
Group 1 Increase Rapid Bus transit between San Ysidro and Otay Mesa.
If it is necessary to eliminate something due to funding constraints, the community recommends eliminating the trolley to direct the funds to the most necessary services.
Trolley to USD.
Bus in San Ysidro to Las Americas Premium Outlets.
Priorities: o High frequency local buses o Buses during peak commuter hours o Rapid bus o Trolley o High speed train o Coaster o Streetcar
Group 2
Bus Rapid Transit on these routes: o I‐15 Escondido to National City o I-805 Carmel Valley to San Ysidro o I‐5 Oceanside to San Ysidro o San Ysidro to Otay Ranch o San Ysidro to Imperial Beach
Trolley on these routes: o San Ysidro to Otay o San Ysidro to La Jolla
Priorities: o Bus Rapid Transit o Imperial Beach to Otay Ranch connections o Rapid Bus: San Ysidro to Downtown o San Ysidro to Chula Vista
Group 3
During peak commuter hours, more trolley cars
More community shuttles in San Ysidro o That have insurance o Clean o Secure/safe
High Speed Train o San Ysidro to Los Angeles o Bring back “transfer” points; MTS used to have o Keep prices low o Bus or trolley direct to San Ysidro High School, Otay Mesa, and the factories
Priorities o Transfer o San Ysidro to Los Angeles o Jitney o Cost of Transportation o Bus to San Ysidro High School
San Ysidro Business Association SANDAG Community-Based Outreach Survey for School Aged Youth and Families
1) How do your children go to school most often?/¿Cómo van sus hijos a la escuela cada mañana? a. They walk./Caminan. 22% b. I, or another family member, walk with them./Yo o un miembro de mi familia les acompaña. 16% c. They ride their bikes./Manejan sus bicicletas. 0% d. They take the school bus./Toman el autobús de la escuela 12% e. They take the trolley./Toman el tranvía. 1% f. They take the city bus./Toman el autobus de la cuidad. 1% g. Someone in my family drives them./Alguien de la familia les lleva en carro. 46% h. They get a ride from a friend or another adult./Un amigo u otro adulto les llevan. 2%
2) Where do they go after school?/¿Dónde van después de la escuela? a. Our home./Nuestro casa. 60% b. After school program at their school./Una programa después de escuela. 30% c. After school program somewhere else./ Una programa después de las escuela en otro lugar. 1% d. A friend’s house or family member’s house./Casa de un amigo o de un miembro de mi familia. 9%
3) How do they get there?/¿Como llegan ahí? a. They walk./Caminan. 33% b. I, or another family member, walk with them./Yo o un miembro de mi familia les acompaña. 14% c. They ride their bikes./Manejan sus bicicletas. 0% d. They take the school bus./Toman el autobús de la escuela. 21% e. They take the trolley./Toman el tranvía. 1% f. They take the city bus./Toman el autobus de la cuidad. 1% g. Someone in my family drives them./Alguien de la familia les lleva en carro. 28% h. They get a ride from a friend or another adult./Un amigo u otro adulto les llevan. 2%
4) What types of transportation does your family use most often?/¿Cuales formas de transportación la familia usa regularmente? a. We walk./Caminamos. 19% b. We ride a jitney./Tomamos el jitney. 1% c. We ride the bus./Tomamos el autobus. 3% d. We ride the trolley./Tomamos el Trolley. 8% e. We carpool./ Tomamos el colectivo. 8% f. We drive a car./Manejamos un coche. 61%
5) How many times per week do you use public transportation such as the trolley, the bus, or a jitney?/¿Cuántas veces por semana usas el transporte público como el tranvía, el colectivo o un camión pequeño? a. 0 63% b. 1-3 23% c. 4-7 7% d. More than 7/ Más de 7 7% 6) How many times per week do you walk to get where you need to go?/¿Cuántas veces por semana caminas para llegar a los lugares que necesitas ir? a. 0 25% b. 1-3 39% c. 4-7 21% d. More than 7/ Más de 7 15%
7) Our family would use public transportation more if/Nuestro familia usaríamos más el transporte público si…. a. We felt it was safe/Nos sentimos que furea seguro. 28% b. There were bus stops or trolley stations closer to where we wanted to go/Hubiera más paradas de autobús o estaciones de tranvía cerca de donde nosotros queremos ir. 11% c. Transportation was quicker or more reliable/La transportación fuera más rápida y regular. 17% d. If there were more bus stops closer to where we live/Si hubiera mas paradas mas cercitas de donde vivimos nosotros. 12% e. If it cost less/Si nos costara menos. 32%
8) When we use the trolley or bus I usually go to/Cuando usamos el tranvía usualmente nos vamos a… a. School/Escuela 6% b. Work/Trabajo 11% c. Home/Casa 11% d. To get to a bus stop/Para llegar a una parada de camion 2% e. Chula Vista 15% f. Downtown 15% g. Other/Otro lugar 39% h. East County (Orange Line)/ Condado Este (la línea anaranjada) 1%
9) Where else would you like the bus or trolley to take you/Donde quieres llevarle el trolley y el autobus? AMC Theater, Another Country, Autobus, Bakersfield, Beach, Beyer Trolley to San Ysidro Middle School, Border, Bus, Cesar Chavez Parkway, Chuck E. Cheese, Chula Vista, Chula Vista Mall, Closer to Home, Closer to Hospital, Convention Center, Costco, Dentist, Disneyland, DMV, Downtown, El Cajon, Escondido, Farmersville, Farther from San Diego, Fresno, Food 4 Less, Grocery Store, Hollywood, Imperial Beach, Las Vegas, Legoland, Los Angeles, Mexico, Mirada, North, Old Town, Otay, Otay Border, Padres Game, Padres Station, Park, Plaza las Americas, Rancho Bernardo, Relatives/Friends, San Diego, San Diego Zoo, San Ysidro High School, San Ysidro School District, School, Seaward, SeaWorld, Shopping Center, Six Flags, Soak City, Spring Valley, Starbucks, Target, Tijuana/Tijuana River Valley, Town N’ Country, Visalia, Wal-Mart, Wild Animal Park, Work , 7-Eleven
10) We prefer using/Marca uno de los siguientes: a. The bus/Uso más el camión. 44% b. The trolley/Uso más el tranvía. 56%
11) Because/Porque: c. The trolley is faster/El trolley es mas rapido. 46% d. I know all the trolley stops-route easier/Yo conozco las estacionmentos del tranvia mas, la ruta es mas facil navegar. 11% e. The bus goes more places/El autobus se va mas lugares. 18% f. A bus stop is closer to my house/Una parada es mas cercita a mi casa. 25%
12) We would walk more in San Ysidro if/Nos caminaríamos más en San Ysidro si: b. We felt safer/Nos sintieramos más seguros. 38% c. We liked walking more/Nos gustara caminar más. 21% d. There were more lights and crosswalks with signals/Hubiera más semáforos y cruces peatonales. 13% e. There were more or better sidewalks/Hubiera más o mejores banquetas. 16% f. We would not walk more/No caminaríamos más. 12%
13) How far is a bus stop or trolley stop from your house? ¿Qué tan lejos está una parada de camiones o tranvía de tu casa? a.1-3 blocks/1-3 cuadras 65% b. 4-6 blocks/4-6 cuadras 19% c. 6-10 blocks/6-10 cuadras 8% d. Farther/Más lejos 8%
14) What age groups are represented, and how many? Cuales grupos de edades son representados, y cuantos son?
Age Group/Grupo de Edad, How many/Cuantos somos 0-4 10% 5-10 22% 11-21 23% 21-45 32% 45-65 11% 65+ 2%
Thank you! Gracias!
SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Community Based Outreach (CBO) Reports Outreach Conducted January 1 to September 30, 2010
PROGRAM MANAGER FEEDBACK ON COMMUNITY BASED OUTREACH MINI-GRANTS
ABLE DISABLED ADVOCACY
Based on feedback, overall was the community-based grant program beneficial to your community? How? The presentations were very beneficial. They provided an overview of how the region would look in relation to jobs, housing, and transportation within the context expansion of public transportation that our community relies upon for mobility. Social and economic mobility are closely related to physical mobility and have a greater impact on persons living with disabilities
Please provide a brief evaluation of the overall community-based grant program experience thus far with recommendations and suggestions: The program has been highly successful because it has created a dialogue with stakeholders and an awareness of the planning process, as well as the opportunity for input through the survey instruments. One recommendation is to provide a standard script with the Point Point presentation, as well as an online process for stakeholder comments. We have two versions of the presentation, and we understand that an update is currently available. It would be beneficial if there was an online Web site or Intranet for grantees to share best practices, information, and frequently asked questions.
CASA FAMILIAR
Based on feedback, overall was the community-based grant program beneficial to your community? How? Yes, it introduced the ideas and plans for transportation at a regional level and opened dialogue with the community. As a low-income community, it helped to identify the impacts of fare increases, service reductions, and community access issues. As a border community, the program also identified that there is a strong connection to the border and a community need for access to and from San Ysidro and Otay Mesa, as 21 survey respondents stated they would like service to the border. SANDAG providing the materials for discussion was vital to our outreach efforts, as it would be a great expense for community organizations that have no budget for these types of outreach projects.
Please provide a brief evaluation of the overall community-based grant program experience thus far with recommendations and suggestions: Overall, the community is glad to have an opportunity to give input into future planning. However, current economic conditions and higher fees have community members feeling that they just want some relief for access to transportation.
CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE
Based on feedback, overall was the community-based grant program beneficial to your community? How? Yes, the community now has an increased awareness of SANDAG and the transportation plan process, and has been empowered to provide input.
Please provide a brief evaluation of the overall community-based grant program experience thus far with recommendations and suggestions: The concept of seeking input from our community is a great process that can truly engage and empower our community, as well as increase their opportunities for continued civic engagement. The program had a slow start and for a few months we (grantees) were confused and lacked clear directions on the process. We also did not have the survey or handouts until a few months into the process. Over the last few months, things have fallen into place and we feel much more confident about our goals and ability to meet them. Therefore, the fact that we will have an opportunity to work on phase II will greatly increase our effectiveness as we are much more in line with the desired outcomes. EL CAJON COLLABORATIVE
Based on feedback, overall was the community-based grant program beneficial to your community? How? Yes, it is an important process to be able to participate and share input into planning for regional and countywide transportation models. Many individuals were very interested in the topic, although it was often hard to "project" out 40 to 50 years – particularly for the older population. The grant allowed for engagement of groups not typically involved in transportation planning and from our point of view that provided an important "voice" from our community. It seems some of the best conversations and suggestions came with individuals who are able to use public transit on a regular basis. Many were unsure of how to consider changes for freeways because of the lack of desire for "more cars" and the uncertainty of alternative options. Please provide a brief evaluation of the overall community-based grant program experience thus far with recommendations and suggestions: The grant process feels as though it was slow to develop and unfold, which made our roles on the SWG and other workgroups slightly unclear at the beginning of the process. The roles have since become clearer, but still require a great deal of asking questions to determine how to match our ideas for community input with the SANDAG RTP process. My biggest fear is doing something for the grant that doesn't actually make a difference in the long run; it does feel that could be the case, sometimes. I look forward to working with SANDAG to improve the "connectivity" of the community input role and the overall impact it has on the Regional Transportation Plan.
LINDA VISTA COLLABORATIVE
Based on feedback, overall was the community-based grant program beneficial to your community? How? The community-based grant has been considerably beneficial to the community of Linda Vista because a large majority of the targeted population we reached is members who are left out of the decision-making process. The residents in Linda Vista are also more likely to be isolated from this process in part because many of the residents manage to do their daily activities without having the need to leave the community limits. While this can be an advantage for the older community members who prefer to walk to the local clinic for their doctor appointments or to the local grocery store to buy their weekly food supply, it also limits their ability to venture outside of Linda Vista.
Linda Vista is a very unique region in San Diego due to a diverse population of residents who are landowners, tenants, and people who come from diverse cultural, educational, and economic backgrounds. Without this opportunity, many of the groups who are recent newcomers and have limited access to the English language would not participate. After the workshops that we held in coordination with the valuable support from SANDAG, we received exciting feedback from community members who felt acknowledged and included in the decision-making process that is taking place in the San Diego region.
Through this grant, Linda Vista residents were not only given the opportunity to take part in an educational opportunity to get to know their region but also to engage in the future of public transportation systems in our region that they recognize will impact the future of their children. More importantly, this process is supported by the mission that we practice at Bayside and through the Linda Vista Collaborative. Always with the goal that residents will become empowered through educational opportunities and step up to leadership roles which will enhance the quality of life in their communities.
In the process of engaging residents from Linda Vista, I requested the support of community leaders who have the language skills and the trust to more effectively reach out to their groups. For example, the Latino organization hosted a successful community meeting and for the first time, its members were engaged in a dialogue about their patterns of travel. Many members from this group prefer to drive their cars, even when some of these members run the risk of losing their cars because they do not have a driver's license. While riding the bus would seem to solve their dilemma in the past, members from this group have experienced deportation arrest and as a result of these negative experiences would prefer to drive to work and find other more subtle means of transportation.
Please provide a brief evaluation of the overall community-based grant program experience thus far with recommendations and suggestions: As the Project Manager for the Linda Vista Collaborative 2050 RTP Community-Based Outreach Mini-Grant, the opportunity to participate as a coordinator and as part of the SWG meetings was a positive learning experience. At the same time, the community of Linda Vista and its residents were engaged through the educational and outreach components of the 2050 RTP. For many residents in Linda Vista, this project widened the perspective about how each of the resident members is connected to the larger San Diego region, and thus gave them an opportunity to connect to the decision-makers through the presentations and events about the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.
The senior citizens who participated were encouraged to know that their involvement will be supporting a more encompassing future for transportation systems that will affect future generations. In some instances, this group described a strong desire to see improvements addressing the safety of public transportation.
The communities of Linda Vista have economic, cultural, and educational differences, and this community has been excited by the idea that the progress of Linda Vista is being shaped through opportunities like transportation that can help generate future economic opportunities for our community. The open structure that was provided by the grant itself was beneficial as it allowed the community members who participated to shape the work in a style that would be more effective for the individual groups that we contacted throughout our period of outreach. In the second stage of the work that is currently taking place, it will be interesting for the participating agencies to compare the different outcomes of our meetings with each of the organization’s project managers.
My recommendation is to compile the final reports and activities in a way that can be presented to the entire SWG group in order to share the results compiled by each community.
SAN YSIDRO BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
Based on feedback, overall was the community-based grant program beneficial to your community? How? I believe the CBO grant was very beneficial to the San Ysidro community as it gave us an opportunity to weigh in on the 2050 RTP. San Ysidro is an underserved, environmental justice community situated at the border and is often overlooked and heavily impacted by transit because of its location. Having this grant allowed us to hold workshops to explain and discuss the transit plans for the future and to take surveys addressing the transit needs of the San Ysidro community. Many of the very low income and our elderly do not have cars and are totally reliant on the transit system. Limited transit choices mean limited access for them. For low income, job opportunities are limited to those they can find within a shorter distance. For the elderly, a long ride on the bus can be difficult. During our public workshops, we had the opportunity to address environmental justice issues and what the community sees as priorities; what areas that transit currently does not reach or is extremely time consuming to use; and comments on what is good and what needs to be addressed in the 2050 RTP. Because of this grant, outreach was made to residents and business owners. Without it, it is doubtful that public officials would be aware of the San Ysidro community.
2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach and Notification List
SANDAG maintains an extensive opt-in stakeholders list that includes affordable housing advocates, transportation advocates, neighborhood and community groups, environmental advocates, builder representatives, broad-based business organizations, landowners, commercial property interests, and homeowner associations. The stakeholders list also includes representatives from agencies responsible for land use, natural resources, conservation, and historic preservation. Regular communications with these stakeholders is conducted via newsletter, invitations, and e-mail with updates and information on the 2050 RTP development process, meeting notices, decision-making points, and how to get involved. The list below includes organizations and agencies that are on the notification list.
‐ AARP – American Association of Retired Persons ‐ Brown Field International Business Park, LLC ‐ Able-Disabled Advocacy ‐ Building Industry Association of San Diego ‐ Access Achiever ‐ Building Owners and Managers Association of ‐ Access to Independence of San Diego San Diego (BOMASD) ‐ Access to Work ‐ Citizens Coordinate for Century 3 (C3) ‐ Accretive Group of Companies ‐ Cali Bamboo ‐ Active Network ‐ California Center for Sustainable Energy ‐ Ad Hoc Freight Stakeholders Working Group ‐ California Coastal Coalition (SANDAG) ‐ California Coastal Commission ‐ Adams Avenue Business Association ‐ California Department of Fish and Game ‐ AECOM ‐ California Department of Housing and ‐ Air Pollution Control District Community Development ‐ Air Resources Board ‐ California Department of Transportation ‐ All Congregations Together (ACT) ‐ California Department of Transportation – ‐ Alliance for Habitat Conservation Aeronautics Division ‐ Alpha Project ‐ California Highway Patrol ‐ Alpine Mountain Empire Chamber of ‐ California Native Plant Society of San Diego Commerce (CNPSSD) ‐ Alta Planning ‐ California Nevada Cement Association ‐ Alzheimer’s and Aging Research Center ‐ California Planning & Development Report ‐ Amalgamated Transit Union – Local 1309 ‐ California Senior Legislature ‐ American Heart Association ‐ California Sustainability Alliance ‐ American Institute of Architects ‐ California Trucking Association ‐ American Institute of Architects of San Diego, ‐ California Public Interest Research Group Urban Design Committee (CALPIRG) ‐ American Lung Association ‐ Cal-Prop Investments & Management ‐ Apartment Consultants Inc. ‐ Caltrans ‐ Architects HGW ‐ Campaign for Affordable Housing ‐ ARS ‐ Capital Growth Properties Inc. ‐ Asian Business Association of San Diego ‐ Cardiff-by-the-Sea Chamber of Commerce ‐ ASLA ‐ Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce ‐ Asset Management Group ‐ Carlsbad Planning Commission ‐ Association of Environmental Professionals ‐ Carlsbad Village Association ‐ Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments ‐ Carmel Mountain Ranch Community Committee ‐ Automobile Club of Southern California ‐ Carmel Valley Community Planning Board ‐ Azalea Park Neighborhood Association ‐ Carmel Valley NOW! ‐ Bankers Hill/Park West Community Association ‐ Casa Familiar ‐ Barratt American ‐ Castle Breckenridge Management Inc. ‐ Barrio Logan College Institute ‐ Catalyst Network ‐ Barrio Logan Project Area Committee ‐ CB Richard Ellis ‐ Bayside Community Center ‐ CDC Commercial Real Estate ‐ Bayview Community Development Corporation ‐ Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and ‐ Benton Consulting Group Health Promotion ‐ Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group (SANDAG) ‐ Center for Supportive Housing ‐ Biocom ‐ Center on Policy Initiatives ‐ Black Mountain Ranch Community Planning ‐ Centre City Advisory Committee Group ‐ Centre City Development Corporation ‐ Bonita Business and Professional Association ‐ Century 21 Horizon ‐ Bonsall Chamber of Commerce ‐ Cherokee Point Neighborhood Association ‐ Bonsall Community Sponsor Group ‐ Chicano Federation ‐ Borrego Springs Chamber of Commerce ‐ Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce ‐ BP Global Fuels Technology ‐ Chula Vista Community Collaborative ‐ BRIDGE Housing Corporation – Southern ‐ Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight California Committee ‐ Bronze Triangle CDC ‐ Citizen Advisory Committee for Fresno RTP/SCS ‐ Brookfield San Diego Holdings ‐ Citizens Coordinate for Century 3 ‐ Brown & Winters ‐ City Heights Area Planning Committee ‐ City Heights Business Association ‐ Del Mar Mesa Community Planning Board ‐ City Heights Community Development ‐ Descanso Community Planning Group Corporation ‐ DJO Global Inc. ‐ City of Carlsbad ‐ Dole ‐ City of Carlsbad, Environmental Manager ‐ Downtown San Diego Partnership ‐ City of Carlsbad, Transportation Department ‐ D.R. Horton ‐ City of Chula Vista ‐ Dye & Associates ‐ City of Coronado ‐ Eagle Aggregates ‐ City of Del Mar ‐ East County Economic Development Council ‐ City of El Cajon ‐ Eastern Area Communities Planning Committee ‐ City of Encinitas ‐ Eco-Stream ‐ City of Escondido ‐ ECP Commercial ‐ City of Escondido Recycling Program ‐ El Cajon Boulevard ‐ City of Imperial Beach ‐ El Cajon Business Improvement Association ‐ City of La Mesa ‐ El Cajon Community Collaborative ‐ City of Lemon Grove ‐ El Cajon Community Development Corporation ‐ City of National City ‐ Encanto Neighborhoods Community Planning ‐ City of Oceanside Group ‐ City of Poway ‐ Encinitas Chamber of Commerce ‐ City of San Diego ‐ Endangered Habitats League ‐ City of San Diego, City Attorney Office ‐ Energy Working Group (SANDAG) ‐ City of San Diego, Community Planning ‐ Enviromine Inc. ‐ City of San Diego, Disabled Services Advisory ‐ Environmental Health Coalition Council ‐ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ‐ City of San Marcos ‐ Envision Committee ‐ City of Santee ‐ Equinox Center ‐ City of Solana Beach ‐ Escondido Chamber of Commerce ‐ City of Vista ‐ ESET LLC ‐ City/County Reinvestment Task Force ‐ Evanco Realty Advisors Inc. ‐ CityMark Development ‐ Fairmont Park Neighborhood Association ‐ City Place Planning ‐ Fallbrook Chamber of Commerce ‐ Clairemont Community Planning Group ‐ Federal Highway Administration ‐ Clairemont Mesa Planning Committee ‐ Federal Transit Administration ‐ Clairemont Town Council ‐ FedEx ‐ Clark Construction Group of California LP ‐ Fehr & Peers ‐ Cleantech ‐ Filipino American Chamber of Commerce of San ‐ Cloud 9 Super Shuttle Diego ‐ Coalition of Neighborhood Councils ‐ Five Star Tours & Charter Bus Company ‐ Coast Law Group LLP ‐ Flood Church ‐ College Area Community Planning Board ‐ Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers ‐ Colliers International ‐ Friends of Rose Canyon ‐ Commercial Facilities Inc. ‐ Friends of San Diego River Mouth ‐ Community Associations Institute, San Diego ‐ Friends of Tecolote Canyon Chapter ‐ Gaslamp Quarter Association ‐ Community Catalysts of California ‐ Gateway Property Management ‐ Community HousingWorks ‐ Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP ‐ ConAm Management Corp. ‐ Generation 3 Development ‐ CONNECT ‐ Gen-Probe Inc. ‐ Conservation Strategy Group ‐ Golden Triangle Chamber of Commerce ‐ Corky McMillin ‐ Granite Construction ‐ Cornerstone Property Management ‐ Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional ‐ Coronado Chamber of Commerce Transportation Council ‐ Corporation for Supportive Housing ‐ Greater Clairemont Chamber of Commerce ‐ Cosoy ‐ Greater Golden Hill Community Development ‐ County of San Diego Corporation ‐ County of San Diego, Aging and Independence ‐ Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee Advisory Council ‐ Greater San Diego Business Association Gay and ‐ County of San Diego, Department of Public Lesbian Chamber of Commerce Works ‐ Grossmont Community College ‐ Covey Commercial ‐ Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College ‐ CPHS District ‐ CrossborderBusiness ‐ Hallmark Communities ‐ CSU San Marcos, College of Arts & Sciences ‐ Harborside ‐ CSU San Marcos, College of Business ‐ HDR Inc. Administration ‐ HechtSolberg ‐ Cubic Corp. ‐ Helix Water District ‐ Cubic Transportation Systems ‐ HMC Architects ‐ Customer Service Advantage Inc. ‐ HNTB ‐ C.W. Clark Inc. ‐ Housing and Urban Development ‐ Cymer Inc. ‐ Housing Development Partners of San Diego ‐ D11 Environmental Engineering ‐ Howes Weiler & Associates ‐ DC & E Planning ‐ HREC Investment Advisors ‐ Deaf Community Services ‐ Hutchens PR ‐ Del Mar Chamber of Commerce ‐ IBI Group ‐ ICLEI USA – Local Governments for ‐ Merit Property Management Inc. Sustainability ‐ Mid-City Rotary Club ‐ I Love a Clean San Diego ‐ Midway Community Planning Advisory ‐ Imperial Beach Chamber of Commerce Committee (North) ‐ Imperial County Transportation Commission ‐ MIG Inc. ‐ Independent Energy Solutions ‐ Mingei International Museum ‐ Industrial Environmental Association of San ‐ Mira Mesa Chamber of Commerce Diego ‐ Miramar Ranch North Planning Committee ‐ Inland Pacific Commercial Properties ‐ Mission Beach Town Council ‐ International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ‐ Mission Hills Town Council – Local 465 ‐ Mission Valley Unified Planning Organization ‐ International Rescue Committee (IRC), San ‐ Move San Diego Diego ‐ NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development ‐ International Union of Operating Engineers Local Association, San Diego Chapter 12 ‐ National City Chamber of Commerce ‐ Investco ‐ National University ‐ Investment Property Management Group Inc. ‐ National University System Institute for Policy ‐ Irving Hughes Research ‐ Island Staffing ‐ Natural Energy USA Inc. ‐ J. Whalen and Associates ‐ Natural Resources Defense Council ‐ Jack in the Box Inc. ‐ Nature Conservancy, San Diego Office ‐ Jacobs Family Foundation ‐ Navajo Community Planners Inc. ‐ JHD Planning ‐ NEPA ‐ Julian Chamber of Commerce ‐ New School of Architecture and Design ‐ Justice Overcoming Boundaries (JOB) ‐ Normal Heights Community Planning Group ‐ Juvenile Diabetes Association of San Diego ‐ North Bay Redevelopment PAC ‐ Kearny Mesa Planning Group ‐ North County Transit District ‐ Ken-Tal Planning Committee ‐ North Park Community Association ‐ Kensington-Talmadge Business Association ‐ North Park Main Street ‐ Kern Council of Governments ‐ North Park Planning Committee ‐ Kimley Horn Associates ‐ Ocean Beach Community Development ‐ KM Realty Inc. Corporation ‐ Konar Associates ‐ Ocean Beach Town Council ‐ KP Public Affairs ‐ Oceanside Chamber of Commerce ‐ KTVA ‐ Oceanside Economic Development Council ‐ Jamul Dulzura Planning Group ‐ Oceanside Planning Commission ‐ Jaynes Corp. of California ‐ Office of Assemblyman Martin Garrick ‐ Jones Lang LaSalle ‐ Office of Assemblywoman Diane L. Harkey ‐ Justice Overcoming Boundaries ‐ Office of Senator Christine Kehoe ‐ Kimley Horn Associates ‐ Office of Tom Ford ‐ KOA Corp. ‐ Old Town Community Planning Committee ‐ Laborers International Union ‐ Old Town San Diego Chamber of Commerce ‐ La Jolla Community Planning Association ‐ Olson Co. ‐ La Jolla Golden Triangle Rotary Club ‐ On the Go: Transportation Solutions for Older ‐ La Jolla Shores Association Adults ‐ La Jolla Town Council ‐ Opper & Varco LLP, The Environmental Law ‐ La Jolla Village Community Council Group ‐ Lakeside Chamber of Commerce ‐ Orange County Council of Governments ‐ La Maestra Community Health Centers ‐ Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce ‐ La Mesa Chamber of Commerce ‐ Otay Mesa Planning Group ‐ La Playa Heritage ‐ Otay Mesa Nestor Community Planning Group ‐ Larimer Design ‐ Pacific Beach Community Planning Committee ‐ La Salle Solutions LLC ‐ Pacific Beach Town Council ‐ Latham & Watkins LLP ‐ Pacific Coast Commercial ‐ Latitude 33 Planning & Engineering ‐ Palomar Airport Advisory Committee ‐ Law Office of Cary Lowe ‐ Palomar Community College ‐ League of Conservation Voters, San Diego ‐ Pardee Homes ‐ Leap Wireless International Inc. ‐ Parsons Brinckerhoff ‐ Ledford Enterprises Inc. ‐ Peninsula Community Planning Board ‐ Lee and Associates Inc. ‐ Peninsula Town Council ‐ Linda Vista Community Collaborative ‐ Penn State University ‐ Linda Vista Community Planning Committee ‐ Placemakers ‐ Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ‐ Point Loma Association ‐ Little Italy Association ‐ Port of San Diego ‐ Little Italy Residents Association ‐ Port of San Diego, NSAD ‐ Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) for ‐ Poway Chamber of Commerce San Diego County ‐ Prescott Companies ‐ Lounsbery Ferguson Altona and Peak ‐ PriceSmart Inc. ‐ LSA Associates Inc. ‐ Professional HOA Consultants Inc. ‐ Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP ‐ Project Design Consultants ‐ MAAC Project ‐ Psomas Engineering ‐ Meissner Jacquet Investment Management ‐ QUALCOMM Inc. Services ‐ Radelow Gittins Real Property Management Inc. ‐ Melroy Property Management ‐ Rail America ‐ Ramona Chamber of Commerce ‐ San Diego Regional Economic Development ‐ Ramona Community Planning Group Council ‐ Rancho San Diego-Jamul Chamber of ‐ San Diego Regional Sustainability Partnership Commerce ‐ San Diego River Coalition ‐ Rancho Santa Fe Association ‐ San Diego River Conservancy ‐ R.A. Snyder Properties Inc. ‐ San Diego Senior Games Association ‐ R.B. Community Planning ‐ San Diego State University Center for Regional ‐ RBF Consulting Inc. Sustainability ‐ Recon ‐ San Diego Urban Economic Corporation ‐ Red Barn Co. ‐ San Diego Urban League ‐ Regional Housing Working Group (SANDAG) ‐ San Diego Workforce Partnership ‐ Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group ‐ San Diego World Trade Center (SANDAG) ‐ San Diego Youth and Community Services ‐ Regional Task Force on the Homeless ‐ San Dieguito River Park ‐ ResMed Inc. ‐ San Marcos Chamber of Commerce ‐ RREEF Management ‐ San Marcos Health Care ‐ Sabre Springs Planning Group ‐ SANTAC (SANDAG) ‐ Sacramento Area Council of Governments ‐ Santee Chamber of Commerce ‐ SAIC ‐ San Ysidro Business Association ‐ San Diego American Planning Association ‐ San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce ‐ San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, ‐ San Ysidro Community Planning Group AFL-CIO ‐ Scripps Miramar Ranch Planning Group ‐ San Diego Association of Realtors ‐ San Diego County Democratic Party (SDCDP) ‐ San Diego Audubon Society ‐ San Diego State University (SDSU) ‐ San Diego Business Improvement District (BID) ‐ SDSU Associated Students Council ‐ SDSU, City Planning ‐ San Diego Canyonlands ‐ SDSU, College of Engineering ‐ San Diego Capital Collaborative ‐ SDSU Extension ‐ San Diego Chamber of Commerce Infrastructure ‐ SDSU, School of Arts & Letters Committee ‐ Sempra Energy ‐ San Diego Charter Co. ‐ Sempra Utilities ‐ San Diego City College Associated Students ‐ Senior Community Centers ‐ San Diego City/County Managers Association ‐ SenTek Consulting ‐ San Diego Coastal Chamber of Commerce ‐ Sentre Partners Inc. ‐ San Diego Coastkeeper ‐ SeQual Technologies Inc. ‐ San Diego Community College District ‐ Serra Mesa Planning Group ‐ San Diego Community Housing Corporation ‐ Servi-Tek LLC ‐ San Diego Convention Center Corporation ‐ Shapouin & Associates ‐ San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau ‐ Shea Homes ‐ San Diego Council of Design Professionals ‐ Shell ‐ San Diego County Apartment Association ‐ Sherman Heights Community Center ‐ San Diego County Archaeological Society ‐ SHS Planning ‐ San Diego County Bicycle Coalition ‐ Sierra Club of California ‐ San Diego County Farm Bureau ‐ Sierra Club of San Diego ‐ San Diego County Health and Human Services ‐ Silverwood Energy Inc. Agency ‐ Site Geo Engineering ‐ San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of ‐ Skinit Inc. Commerce ‐ Skyline-Paradise Hills Planning Committee ‐ San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ‐ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council ‐ San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SANDAG) ‐ San Diego County Water Authority ‐ SOFAR ‐ San Diego Countywide Alliance of Tenants ‐ Sohagi Law Group, PLC ‐ San Diego Data Processing Corporation/DPC ‐ Solana Beach Chamber of Commerce Brownheld ‐ Solar Turbines ‐ San Diego Downtown Partnership ‐ South Bay Community Services ‐ San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce ‐ South Bay Expressway ‐ San Diego Fair Housing Council ‐ Southeastern Economic Development ‐ San Diego Foundation Corporation ‐ San Diego Habitat for Humanity ‐ Southeastern San Diego Planning Group ‐ San Diego Housing Commission ‐ Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s ‐ San Diego Housing Federation Association ‐ San Diego Integrated Regional Water ‐ Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association Management Plan ‐ Southwestern Community College ‐ San Diego Interfaith Housing Foundation ‐ Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center ‐ San Diego Local Initiatives Support Corporation ‐ Spring Valley Chamber of Commerce ‐ San Diego Mesa College ‐ Spring Valley Youth and Family Coalition ‐ San Diego Metropolitan Transit System ‐ Spurlock Poirier ‐ San Diego Miramar College ‐ Stanislaus Council of Governments ‐ San Diego North Economic Development ‐ Star Pal Council ‐ State Farm Insurance ‐ San Diego Organizing Project ‐ St. Vincent de Paul Villages ‐ San Diego Redevelopment Agency ‐ Stella Solar ‐ San Diego Regional Center ‐ Sudberry Properties ‐ San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce ‐ Sunrise Property Management ‐ Surfrider Foundation ‐ Yellow Cab of San Diego ‐ Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program (SDPRP) ‐ Sustainable Environment Advocates ‐ Sustainable San Diego ‐ Sustainable SDSU ‐ Sweetwater Authority ‐ Sweetwater Union High School District ‐ TEC Inc. ‐ TeleworkResearchNetwork.com ‐ TEOA ‐ Teralta West Neighborhood Alliance ‐ Texas A & M University ‐ Therapeutics Inc. ‐ Tierrasanta Community Council ‐ Tierrasanta Village of San Diego ‐ Torrey Hills Technologies LLC ‐ Torrey Pines Community Planning Board ‐ Torrey Pines Property Management Inc. ‐ Townspeople ‐ Transcore ‐ Transit Alliance for a Better North County ‐ Transportation Corridor Agency ‐ Trilar Management Group ‐ UCSD – University of California at San Diego ‐ UCSD, Communications Department ‐ UCSD – ESP ‐ UCSD Extension ‐ UCSD Green Campus Program ‐ UCSD Student Liaison ‐ UCSD Student Sustainability Collective ‐ UCSD Sustainability Solutions Institute ‐ UCSD Systemwide Sustainability ‐ UCSD, Transportation Services ‐ UCSD, Urban Studies & Planning Department ‐ Union of Pan Asian Communities ‐ United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California ‐ United States Department of Defense ‐ United States Department of Homeland Security ‐ United States Marine Corps ‐ United States Navy ‐ University City Community Association ‐ University City Community Planning Group ‐ University Heights Community Association ‐ University of Redlands ‐ Uptown Planners ‐ Urban Housing Partners Inc. ‐ Urban Land Institute – San Diego/Tijuana Chapter ‐ URS Corporation ‐ U.S. Green Building Council ‐ U.S. Green Chamber ‐ USD (University of San Diego), College of Arts & Sciences ‐ USD School of Business Administration ‐ USD Sustainability Program ‐ Valley Center Chamber of Commerce ‐ Valley Center Parks and Recreation ‐ Vista Chamber of Commerce ‐ Voit Companies ‐ VRPA Technologies ‐ Wakeland Housing & Development Corp. ‐ Walk San Diego ‐ Watco Companies ‐ Websense Inc. ‐ Winzler and Kelly ‐ Women in Transportation Seminar ‐ Workforce Partnership ‐ World Resources Simulation Center (GENI/WRSC) ‐ Worldtrans ‐ Xnergy
2050 Regional Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan
401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 699-190
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan ...... 3 3.0 Public Involvement Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ...... 6 4.0 Public Involvement Process ...... 7 5.0 Public Involvement Plan Assessment ...... 10
Appendix A Proposed 2050 RTP Public Outreach Activities ...... 12 Appendix B Media List...... 13 Appendix C Stakeholders List ...... 15
1.0 INTRODUCTION
SANDAG is the first major Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the State of California to develop a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) under new state mandates outlined in Senate Bill (SB) 375 and Assembly Bill 32. How the San Diego region complies with these new mandates, identifies how to meet a greenhouse gas reduction target, and creates more sustainable communities will set the stage for other California regions. The 2050 RTP development process promotes strategic planning, emphasizes public involvement, encourages new partnerships, and supports the foundation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP): better connecting land use and transportation plans. It is important that stakeholders in the San Diego region work together to develop this ground-breaking 2050 RTP. This Public Involvement Plan (PIP) will establish the framework for a dynamic and interactive process to develop the 2050 RTP.
To obtain public input in the development of the 2050 RTP, SANDAG is implementing a comprehensive public outreach and involvement program. A major goal of this effort is to coordinate with the Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group, community-based organizations that have received Environmental Justice grants, and to involve non-traditional, as well as traditional audiences, to raise their awareness of the transportation planning process under way and the broad goals to better connect transportation and land use planning. Early public involvement and comment about key components of the RTP is important to SANDAG as part of developing transportation public policies and establishing priorities to meet the travel needs of residents now and into the future.
This 2050 RTP PIP is an element of the agencywide Public Participation Plan (www.sandag.org/ppp) that was adopted by the SANDAG Board December 18, 2009, following a six-month development, input, and review process. The Public Participation Plan was developed in accordance with guidelines established by Federal Highway Administration for metropolitan transportation planning (23 CFR 450.316). It addresses Title VI, related nondiscrimination requirements, and reflects the principles of social equity and environmental justice. Included in the PPP are procedures, strategies, and outcomes associated with the ten requirements listed in 23 CFR 450.316. The PPP also fulfills various state and federal public involvement requirements.
The 2050 RTP PIP also follows guidelines established in the California Transportation Commission’s 2010 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4 – RTP Consultation and Coordination.
Developing the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan
The 2050 RTP will rely upon the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and other planning efforts as the foundation for integrating land uses, transportation systems, infrastructure needs, and public investment strategies within a regional smart growth framework. The RTP focuses both on the movement of people and goods, including marine terminals, air cargo facilities, freight rail, and land ports of entry that link our region with Mexico. In accordance with state and federal guidelines, the 2050 RTP is scheduled for adoption by the Board of Directors in July 2011.
With each RTP update, SANDAG starts the planning process by establishing a framework of goals, policy objectives, and performance measures to guide the development of the Plan. This is a key
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 1 first step, as it is the policy foundation for the RTP and identifies the “big picture” of what we hope to achieve. The Board of Directors discussed the 2050 RTP vision, goals, and policy objectives to help reach the 2050 RTP goals in fall 2009.
The 2050 RTP goals are structured into two overarching themes: Quality of Travel & Livability, and Sustainability. Quality of Travel & Livability relates to how the transportation system functions from the individual customer perspective (Mobility, Reliability, and System Preservation & Safety), while Sustainability relates to making progress simultaneously in each of the Three “Es” (Social Equity, Healthy Environment, and Prosperous Economy) from a regional perspective.
SANDAG is the first major MPO that is preparing an RTP that will comply with provisions of SB 375. A new regional growth forecast and the results of other studies currently under way—including the Climate Action Strategy, Regional Energy Strategy Update, Regional Bicycle Plan, Urban Area Transit Strategy, Comprehensive Freight Gateway Forecast, airport multimodal planning, high-speed rail planning, and corridor and subregional studies—will be incorporated into the development of the 2050 RTP. Other major tasks include updates to the project evaluation criteria and plan performance measures, economic analysis of investment strategies, and new revenue projections and cost estimates for transportation projects and services.
SB 375: Sustainable Communities Strategy
Per SB 375, the 2050 RTP will incorporate new legislative requirements. The SCS will be a new element of the RTP, and will be designed to show how regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets, to be established by the California Air Resources Board, will be achieved through development patterns, infrastructure investments, and transportation measures or policies that are determined to be feasible. Additionally, the SCS must be consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and must address protection of sensitive resource areas. If the SCS does not meet regional GHG reduction targets, an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) must be developed to demonstrate how the targets could be achieved.
The adopted Smart Growth Concept Map will inform the development of the SCS. The Smart Growth Concept Map contains nearly 200 locations within the region that can support smart growth land uses and transportation investments. These locations were identified by transportation and planning staff from all jurisdictions and adopted by the SANDAG Board in 2006 (updated in 2008). These existing, planned, or potential smart growth locations are based on seven smart growth place types: the Metropolitan Center, Urban Centers, Town Centers, Community Centers, Rural Villages, Mixed Use Transit Corridors, and Special Use Centers, reflecting the notion that smart growth is not a “one-size-fits-all” endeavor. Additionally, tactics from the Climate Action Strategy will provide options for additional measures that could reduce GHG emissions.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2050 RTP will require analysis beyond what has been included in previous RTP EIRs. The RTP environmental analysis will include GHG emissions baseline measurements and projections, as well as potential mitigation measures that could reduce those emissions. The EIR also will include analysis of the additional elements required by SB 375, such as the SCS.
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 2 A New Regional Growth Forecast
Similar to past RTPs, the 2050 RTP will be based on a new regional growth forecast that includes existing and planned land uses, and potential redevelopment and infill areas from local general plans. However, most general plans have horizon years much earlier than 2050. As a result, SANDAG has received assistance from local jurisdictions to prepare local land use scenarios that will be applied beyond the local general plan horizon year out to the year 2050. This forecast will be SANDAG’s first estimate of population, housing, land use, and economic growth to the end of the TransNet program in 2048.
Urban Area Transit Strategy
SANDAG is developing an Urban Area Transit Strategy to evaluate possible regional transit strategies that significantly increase the attractiveness and use of transit in the urban area and maximize peak period alternative mode share (including transit, carpool, vanpool, bicycle, and walk trips) in the region. Three transit network alternatives will be developed and tested in conjunction with the rest of the transportation system. Public input will be secured at SANDAG Board and Policy Advisory Committee meetings as well as at the Stakeholders Working Group and other public workshops. One of these networks (or an alternative, combination, or variation) will be incorporated into the 2050 RTP as the regional transit network. Additionally, the study will include short-term action plans and implementation strategies.
2.0 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan
The Public Involvement Plan will support the development of the 2050 RTP. The PIP also will create opportunities for stakeholders to provide input on the development of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The strategies and tactics outlined in the plan will guide outreach efforts to build awareness of the regional transportation planning process and identify opportunities to shape the future of the region. The plan also describes SANDAG efforts to secure input on developing project priorities, project selection criteria, transportation networks, funding alternatives, meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets, and other elements of the 2050 RTP and its Sustainable Communities Strategy. These efforts will coordinate with regular interaction with the Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group and recipients of community-based outreach grants. The PIP also will guide efforts to secure input from individuals, organizations, agencies, and other stakeholders in the development of the 2050 RTP.
This public involvement plan is intended to be a “living” document. Because of the fluid nature of the public involvement process, this plan may be adjusted to respond to issues and circumstances that arise throughout the process and will also be updated at major milestones in the planning and development process.
Environmental Justice
Consistent with the guidelines discussed above, the Public Involvement Plan will comply with SANDAG Policy 25, Federal Title VI legislation, the Americans with Disabilities Act (as defined in Title 49, Part 37, of the United States Code), Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice,
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 3 Executive Order 13166 on Limited English Proficiency, and other relevant regulations to ensure social equity, environmental justice, non-discrimination and accessibility.
To ensure meaningful access to Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons, SANDAG certifies compliance with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) “Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients’ Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons.” The policy guidance includes a “Safe Harbor” provision where the USDOT considers the written translation of vital documents in languages other than English (for eligible LEP language groups consisting of 5 percent or more of the population) to be strong evidence of compliance with the recipient’s obligations under Title VI. Based on the Census 2000 data, Spanish is the only language in the San Diego Region that meets or exceeds the 5 percent LEP trigger. However, SANDAG will print materials (or provide translation services or bilingual representatives) in any other languages deemed appropriate by SANDAG.
While involvement from community-based organizations that have received environmental justice mini-grants will enhance outreach efforts, other proactive steps will be taken to ensure diverse audiences are given the opportunity to provide input into the development of the 2050 RTP and its Sustainable Communities Strategy. These audiences include, but are not limited to, minority groups, non-English speakers, lower income households, individuals with disabilities, the elderly, and transit riders.
To reach these audiences, organizations and media outlets representing these communities will be approached to provide 2050 RTP information, solicit participation and input, and provide a means for communicating back with members of these communities. Participation will be encouraged via presentations to these organizations, involvement in events sponsored by these organizations or targeted at these audiences, publishing articles in organizational newsletters, and publishing notices and articles in ethnic media outlets. SANDAG has identified a number of local organizations that work with or represent underserved populations in the project area. These activities also will be coordinated in collaboration with the community-based organizations that have received SANDAG environmental justice grants.
SANDAG will work with these groups to identify opportunities to communicate with or solicit input from their constituents to meet their transportation needs. A proposed list of stakeholders is included as Appendix C.
Public Stakeholder Categories
There are a number of groups — each with a unique perspective — that will be interested in the 2050 RTP development process. Outreach to these groups will be achieved by soliciting input through current channels at SANDAG, the Stakeholders Working Group, and other opt-in electronic outreach. The proposed list of stakeholders is included as Appendix C. These include organizations and individuals representing the following interests:
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 4 Accessibility Challenged Affordable Housing Advocates Business Organizations Citizens Commercial & Retail Commercial Property Interests Community Planning Groups Community Services Commuters Employers/Businesses Environmental Advocates Environmental Groups Freight Shippers, Providers of Freight Transportation Services General Public Health advocacy organizations Home Builder Representatives Homeowner Associations Industry Peers & Associations Labor Landowner Military Neighborhood and Community Groups Neighborhoods/Residential Professional Planning Organizations Private Providers of Transportation Representatives of Public Transportation Employees Representatives of Users of Pedestrian Walkways And Bicycle Transportation Facilities, Representatives of The Disabled, And Other Interested Parties Representatives of Users of Public Transportation Sustainability-focused organizations Local universities Students; University Student Associations Taxpayer Advocates Tourism Transit Riders Transportation Advocates
Government to Government Consultation and Coordination
Native American Consultation The SANDAG Public Participation Plan details Native American Consultation activities as coordinating with the SANDAG Borders Committee, the Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues (Working Group), the Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Association, Reservation Transportation Authority, and other intertribal associations. SANDAG will coordinate with the Tribal Governments to provide input on the 2050 RTP to coordinate transportation and land use planning with tribal nations in
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 5 San Diego County. A Regional Tribal Summit is scheduled for April 9, 2010, where SANDAG and Tribal representatives will discuss regional issues, including the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.
Coordination with Mexico SANDAG will coordinate transportation planning activities with Mexico through the SANDAG Board and Transportation Committees as well as through the Borders Committee, the Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO), and other efforts. SANDAG will engage these groups and conduct other outreach efforts to include joint U.S.-Mexico planning efforts in the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.
Coordination with California Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Regional Transportation Planning Authorities Collaborate with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and other Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Transportation Planning Authorities (RTPAs) on the GHG target setting process and other SB 375 efforts.
3.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
Goals • Raise awareness of the 2050 RTP as the region’s updated blueprint for a transportation system that enhances our quality of life and meets our mobility needs for the future • Stimulate dialogue about the transportation challenges facing the San Diego region • Provide opportunities for the public to provide input into the 2050 RTP and the Sustainable Communities Strategy, required by state climate change legislation • Develop and incorporate into the plan realistic solutions that address the diverse mobility needs of the region’s residents, visitors, and business people • Build public support for transportation improvements outlined in the 2050 RTP
Objectives • Gain input from a broad range of individuals, organizations, agencies and local governments throughout the 2050 RTP development and decision-making process • Provide timely and accessible public information about the proposed policies and plans contained in the 2050 RTP to a broad range of regional stakeholders • Make public information accessible in a variety of formats and languages, use easy-to- understand language and concepts, and use a variety of media including innovative visualization techniques • Hold public workshops and meetings that foster meaningful dialogue and result in effective and inclusive decision-making • Consider public input at decision-making milestones for the 2050 RTP • Meet or exceed local, state, and federal guidelines and requirements for public involvement in the RTP planning process
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 6 Strategies The following strategies will be implemented to achieve the goals and objectives discussed above.
• Establish a clear project identity to convey information about the 2050 RTP, the SCS, and other RTP elements.
• Develop materials on the RTP and other components using easily understood language and terms.
• Develop a “marketing campaign” to build awareness and secure input from the public.
• Involve public stakeholders in the process on a regular basis to foster understanding and agreement on issues related to the development of the 2050 RTP.
• Use a variety of communication methods to reach audiences including presentations, one- on-one/small group meetings, public workshops, written materials, online, social media, and news media communication.
• Provide the public with up-to-date information about the 2050 RTP on a regular basis through presentations, the Web site and online communications, written materials and news updates.
• Provide information and notices on the 2050 RTP, public workshops, and other events to SANDAG Board and Committee members to share with their constituents and stakeholders.
• Document and address public comments received during the public involvement process.
• Provide information to the public about the 2050 RTP development process and promote opportunities for input and comments.
• Provide information to decision-makers regarding comments received throughout the public involvement process.
• Utilize traditional and new media to convey project information to a broad audience.
• Assess the effectiveness of the Public Involvement Plan at the conclusion of key phases (i.e., following workshops or release of draft documents) to evaluate how the strategies and tactics worked and what enhancements could be made for future phases.
4.0 Public Involvement Process
Implementing the strategies listed above will involve a number of coordinated tactics executed in conjunction with key 2050 RTP development milestones. These tactics will involve presentations at SANDAG Board, Policy Advisory Committee, and Stakeholder Working Group meetings, as well as with other SANDAG working groups including Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee,
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 7 Regional Planning Technical Working Group, San Diego Region Conformity Working Group, Bicycle- Pedestrian Working Groups, and other appropriate internal and external committees. This process also will include written and online communications, and media relations. The public involvement process will follow key dates/milestones listed in Appendix A that have been identified by SANDAG and are included in the California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines. Other tactics and methods are listed below.
Early Public Involvement
Early public involvement activities provide the opportunity to introduce the public to the 2050 RTP, its components, and its development process; gain initial feedback about how the public would like to be involved; and to prepare successful outreach strategies for the development of the 2050 RTP. Public involvement tactics during this period include:
• Prepare informational materials to help educate the public about the 2050 RTP Informational materials to support the 2050 RTP include a project Web site (www.sandag.org/2050rtp), fact sheet, and multimedia presentation. These materials will provide information about the RTP and its components, the development process, and information and/or referrals about how to get involved in the process. These materials will be written in easy-to-understand terms with limited jargon. Materials will be updated as needed throughout the process. The Web site will provide an opportunity for residents to learn about the 2050 RTP online and the ability to register for future e-mail updates. It also will provide access to project materials and documents, including fact sheets, news releases, project documents, and outreach efforts.
• Secure input and feedback at Stakeholders Working Group The Working Group provides a forum for the exchange of information throughout the development of the 2050 RTP. The SWG will be updated regularly on public involvement outreach and activities. One of its principal tasks is to advise SANDAG on the design and implementation of the Public Involvement Plan. The Working Group members are partners in the outreach process.
Public Involvement during 2050 RTP Development
A number of efforts will be implemented during this period to expand communication about the project:
• Promote input opportunities as they come before SANDAG Board, Policy Advisory Committees, Technical and Stakeholder Working Groups The SANDAG Web site includes a calendar that lists dates and times for upcoming meetings. When meetings include opportunities for input into the process or decision-making, they will also be publicized in the following ways:
- Inclusion in agenda highlights an input opportunity for the 2050 RTP
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 8 - Promotion through rEgion when meetings focus on input and decision opportunities - Promotion of key milestones via opt-in e-mail notification
• Distribute information to local and regional media To promote awareness among the media and foster accurate news coverage, press releases and agenda information will be distributed to local and regional media outlets. Reporters will be kept updated on the development and key milestones of the 2050 RTP. See Media List in Appendix B.
• Provide news updates for rEgion and other newsletters Numerous organizations in the region publish newsletters to keep their constituencies informed about issues of interest. Regular news updates about the 2050 RTP will be provided for publication in these organizational newsletters. Examples of newsletters to target are rEgion (SANDAG’s electronic newsletter) and publications of chambers of commerce, homeowners associations, community groups, and others.
• Conduct Public Workshops SANDAG will conduct Public Workshops at key milestones during the development of the 2050 RTP to solicit input on the draft and final 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, the Urban Area Transit Strategy, the draft and final Environmental Impact Report, and other components. (See Appendix A)
• Implement Social Media and other Web-based communications Use the new SANDAG Facebook page, and other social media and Web-based communications to build awareness about the 2050 RTP, promote outreach events, provide information, secure input, and facilitate dialogue..
• Speakers Bureau program To keep the local community and larger regional interests informed about the project throughout the process, the 2050 RTP and other plan elements will be promoted through SANDAG Speakers Bureau. These presentations will serve to share information about the project and the planning and development process.
• Participate in community events To reach a wider audience, project information will be provided and community input sought through participation in community events and festivals. These events may be sponsored by community groups, or could be targeted toward a specific audience, i.e., minority groups. A portable informational booth will be taken to various festivals, street fairs, etc., to share information about the project and to seek feedback from members of the public through comment cards, surveys and other means.
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 9 • Continue regular news updates SANDAG will continue to provide news updates for rEgion and other relevant Web- based and mailed publications to report newsworthy information.
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 10 • Update Informational Materials All project informational materials will be updated to reflect any updated or changed information that occurs during the preparation of the 2050 RTP. This will include updates to the project fact sheet, Frequently Asked Questions, Web site, multimedia presentation and any other materials that provide project information.
Community-Based Outreach
To help ensure diverse and direct input into the 2050 RTP and key related components from residents throughout the San Diego region, SANDAG is partnering with community-based organizations in critical communities of concern, providing resources to those community groups. The primary goal of the Community-Based Outreach Mini-Grant program is to engage and encourage diverse, inclusive, and active public participation from stakeholders in specific communities who traditionally may not have been involved in regional public policy planning processes (e.g., low income, seniors, minorities, persons with disabilities, and other identified populations). Through a competitive bid process, SANDAG awarded grant funding to eight community-based organizations to conduct this outreach in coordination with other agency public involvement activities being undertaken to help prepare the RTP, the update of the SANDAG Public Participation Plan, and other key regional initiatives.
In addition to the activities described above, each organization receiving a grant also appointed one representative to serve as a community-based network member of the new Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group (SWG). The community-based organizations working on this outreach and involvement effort are:
Able-Disabled Advocacy All Congregations Together Casa Familiar El Cajon Community Collaborative Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers Linda Vista Collaborative San Ysidro Business Association
5.0 Public Involvement Plan Assessment
To assess the effectiveness of the public involvement efforts, SANDAG will assess the effectiveness of the Public Involvement Plan at key milestones in the project development process. These reports will help SANDAG to evaluate public involvement strategies and tactics and make adjustments along the way, and will inform future public involvement outreach phases of the 2050 RTP.
These reports will include:
• A summary of all outreach efforts and input received • A qualitative assessment of how effective the efforts to obtain input were, i.e., audiences reached, did audience provide required input needed for 2050 RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy, and how will/is input incorporated into 2050 RTP development
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 11 • A quantitative assessment of the public involvement plan including the number meetings/presentations/events participated in, Web site hits, approximate number of people reached, number of comments received, and number of media contacts along with the resulting media coverage • The Public Involvement Plan will be revised and strategies/tactics adjusted based on assessments at key milestones
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 12 Appendix A 2050 RTP Public Outreach Activities Proposed Methods and Purpose
These presentations and workshops are in addition to regularly scheduled SANDAG Board and Policy Advisory Committee meetings. Activities in bold text satisfy SB 375 mandates.
Date Outreach Method Purpose March 2010 Presentations and outreach to Build awareness for initial steps working groups, stakeholders, to set GHG emission reduction interested parties targets April 2010 Public Workshop providing SB 375 post-Regional Target overview and target-setting Advisory Committee info (one at Board Policy and workshop one at SWG) April and May 2010 Workshops to secure input and Build awareness and secure provide information on input on initial RTP elements development of 2050 RTP, Urban Area Transit Strategy, Environmental Impact Report, and other elements. July or September 2010 Presentations and outreach to Build awareness and secure working groups, stakeholders, input on Sustainable interested parties Community Strategy development October 2010 Draft SCS review at SANDAG SB 375 requires meeting Board meeting with members of city council, board of supervisors joint SCS meeting.
March – early April 2011 Public workshops on draft SB 375 three public RTP/SCS workshops on SCS requirement met, and two more for other SANDAG subregions. SANDAG to hold minimum of five subregional workshops. March – early April 2011 Presentations and outreach to Build awareness and secure working groups, stakeholders, input on continued interested parties development of RTP and SCS. Late April 2011 Public hearings on draft Follow up to workshops to RTP/SCS in at least two further refine RTP/SCS and different areas of region meet SB 375 requirements. Ongoing 2009 -- 2011 Presentations and outreach to SANDAG Speakers Bureau working groups, stakeholders, interested parties
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 13 Appendix B 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Media List
San Diego County Media Outlets Alpine Sun KSDS FM American Chinese Times KSON FM Asia KURS AM Asian Journal KUSI TV Beach & Bay Press KUSS FM BIA Builder Magazine KWST AM/KMXX FM/KSEH FM Biz San Diego KXO AM/FM Borrego Sun KYXY FM Business Action La Jolla Light Carlsbad Business Journal La Jolla Village News Carlsbad Sun La Prensa San Diego Carmel Valley Leader La Sonrisa Latina Carmel Valley News Light Connection Chinese News Mira Mesa/Scripps Ranch Sentinel Clairemont Community News Mission Times Courier Coast News Mission Valley News and Views Coastal Sun Neighbors Convisions Norht County Magazine Coronado Eagle & Journal North County Times Coronado Lifestyle North County Voice Coronado Magazine North Park News Corridor News Oceanside Magazine CTN County Television Network Peninsula Beacon Fox 5 News / KSWB Philippine Mabuhay News Daily Transcript, The Philippines Today Del Mar Times Poway News Chieftain Del Mar Village Voice Presidio Sentinel Diamond Gateway Signature Ramona Home Journal Diario San Diego Ramona Sentinel East County Californian Rancho Bernardo News Journal East County Gazette Rancho Bernardo Sun East County Herald News Rancho Magazine East County News Rancho Santa Fe News El Latino Rancho Santa Fe Record El Semanario Deportivo Rancho Santa Fe Review Encinitas First Rental Owner Enlace S. D. California Examiner Fact Magazine San Diego Business Journal Filipino Press San Diego City Beat Gay + Lesbian Times San Diego Commerce Good News, Etc. San Diego Downtown News Greater Golden Hill News San Diego Family Magazine Heartland News San Diego Home/Garden & Lifestyles Hi Sierran San Diego Jewish Journal Hispanos Unidos San Diego Lawyer
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 14 Imperial Beach Eagle & Times San Diego Magazine Indian Voices San Diego Metro Weekly Informant San Diego Metropolitan Julian Journal San Diego Metropolitan Uptown Examiner Julian News San Diego Monitor News KBNT TV Channel 17 San Diego Newsline KBZT FM San Diego Reader KCBQ AM San Diego Seniors KCEO AM San Diego Union-Tribune KCR AM San Diego Voice & Viewpoint KECR AM San Diego's Learning Channel KECY TV Channel 9 San Marcos / Vista News KFMB AM San Marcos Sun KFMB FM San Vicente Valley News KFMB TV Sentinel Magazine KFSD AM Solana Beach Sun KGB FM Star News KGFN FM Tieng Viet San Diego KGTV Channel 10 Tierra Times KHTS FM Today's Local News KICO AM Tribal TANF newsletter KIFM FM Uptown-Marquee KIOZ FM Valley Roadrunner KKSM AM Views KLNV FM Village News KLQV FM Vista Sun KLSD AM Voice of San Diego KMYI FM We Chinese In America KNSD TV (NBC 7/39) We Chinese In America Weekend KOGO AM XDTV 13 Korea Times XEPE AM KOXM TV XETV 6 The CW KPBS FM XHRM FM KPBS TV - S.D.S.U. XHTZ FM KPRI FM XLNC FM KPRZ AM XLTN FM KQVO FM XPRS AM KROP AM / KSIQ FM XPRS FM KSCF FM XSUR KSDO AM - Hi Favor XTRA FM San Diego Living
Orange and Riverside County Media Outlets
Los Angeles Times – zoned editions Orange County Business Journal Orange County Register Riverside Press Enterprise The Californian
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 15 Appendix C Initial Stakeholder List This list will be regularly updated. Contact [email protected] with any stakeholder additions.
AARP San Diego California Sustainability Alliance Able-Disabled Advocacy California Trucking Association Access Achiever CALPIRG Access to Independence of San Diego Cal-Prop Investments & Management Adams Avenue Business Association Caltrans AIA San Diego, Urban Design Committee Campaign for Affordable Housing Air Pollution Control District Capital Growth Properties Inc. Air Resources Board Cardiff-By-The-Sea Chamber of Commerce All Congregations Together Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Alliance for Habitat Conservation Carmel Mountain Ranch Community Committee Alpha Project Carmel Valley Community Planning Board Alpine and Mountain Empire Chamber of Commerce Carmel Valley NOW! Alta Planning Casa Familiar Alzheimers and Aging Research Center Cassidy Turley BRE Commercial American Association of Planners Catalyst Network American Institute of Architects CB Richard Ellis Inc. American Lung Association of San Diego CDC Commercial Real Estate Apartment Consultants Inc. Center for Supportive Housing Asian Business Association of San Diego Center on Policy Initiatives Asset Management Group Centre City Advisory Committee Association of Environmental Professionals Centre City Development Corporation Automobile Club of Southern California Century 21 Horizon Azalea Park Neighborhood Association Cherokee Point Neighborhood Association Bankers Hill/Park West Community Association Chicano Federation Barratt American Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Barrio Logan College Institue Chula Vista Community Collaborative Barrio Logan Project Area Committee Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Committee Bayside Community Center Citizens Coordinate for Century 3 Bayview CDC City Heights Business Association BIA San Diego City Heights Community Development Corporation Biocom City Heights PAC Black Mountain Ranch Community Planning Group City of San Diego Disabled Services Advisory Council Bonita Business and Professional Association City/County Reinvestment Task Force Bonsall Chamber of Commerce CityMark Development Bonsall Community Sponsor Group Clairemont Town Council Borrego Springs Chamber of Commerce Coalition of Neighborhood Councils BRIDGE Housing Corporation - Southern California College Area Community Planning Board Bronze Triangle CDC Colliers International Brookfield San Diego Holdings Commercial Facilities Inc. Building Owners and Managers Association Community Associations Institute, San Diego Chapter California Center for Sustainable Energy Community Catalysts of California California Coastal Coalition Community HousingWorks California Department of Housing and Community COMPACT Development ConAm California Department of Transportation Corky McMillin California Native Plant Society San Diego (CNPSSD) Cornerstone Property Management California Nevada Cement Association Coronado Chamber of Commerce
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 16 Corporation for Supportive Housing Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee County of San Diego Department of Public Works Greater San Diego Business Association Gay and County of San Diego Health and Human Services Lesbian Chamber of Commerce Agency Green Campus Program - UCSD Covey Commercial Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District CrossBorderBusiness Hallmark Communities Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. Harborside CW Clark HNTB Deaf Community Services Housing Development Partners of San Diego Del Mar Chamber of Commerce I Love A Clean San Diego Del Mar Mesa Community Planning Board IBI Group Department of Homeland Security ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability USA Dimex Freight International Energy Agency Dole Imperial Beach Chamber of Commerce Downtown San Diego Partnership Imperial County DR Horton Industrial Environmental Association of San Diego Eagle Aggregates Inland Pacific Commercial Properties East County Action Network International Rescue Committee, San Diego East County Economic Development Corporation International Union Of Operating Engineers Local 12 Eastern Area Communities Planning Committee Investment Property Management Group Inc. ECP Commercial Irving Hughes El Cajon Business Improvement Association It's How We Live El Cajon Community Collaborative J. Whalen and Associates El Cajon Community Development Corporation Jacobs Family Foundation Elder Housing Complexes JHD Planning Encanto Neighborhoods Community Planning Group Jones Lang LaSalle Encinitas Chamber of Commerce Julian Chamber of Commerce Endagered Habitats League Justice Overcoming Boundaries Environmental Health Coalition Juvenile Diabetes Association of San Diego Environmental Protection Agency Kearny Mesa Planning Group Equinox Center Kensington-Talmadge Business Association Escondido Chamber of Commerce Ken-Tal Planning Committee Environmental Science and Policy - UCSD KM Realty Inc. Evanco Reality Advisors Inc. La Jolla Community Planning Association Fairmont Park Neighborhood Association La Jolla Golden Triangle Rotary Club Fallbrook Chamber of Commerce La Jolla Shores Association Family Health Centers of San Diego La Jolla Town Council Fedex La Jolla Traffic and Transportation Board Federal Highway Administration La Jolla Village Community Council Filipino-American Chamber of Commerce of San Diego La Maestra Community Health Centers Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers La Mesa Chamber of Commerce Friends of Rose Canyon Laborers International Union Friends of Tecolote Canyon Lakeside Chamber of Commerce Friends of the San Diego River Mouth Local Agency Formation Commission Federal Transit Administration League of Conservation Voters, San Diego Gaslamp Quarter Association League of Women Voters Gateway Property Management Ledford Enterprises, Inc. Golden Hill Community Development Corporation Lee and Associates Inc. Golden Triangle Chamber of Commerce Lemon Grove Chamber of Commerce Greater Clairemont Chamber of Commerce Linda Vista Collaborative Greater Clairemont Mesa Chamber of Commerce Linda Vista Community Planning Committee Greater Golden Hill CDC Little Italy Association
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 17 Little Italy Residents Association Rancho San Diego – Jamul Chamber of Commerce MAAC Project Rancho Santa Fe Association Meissner Jacquet Investment Management Services Rapid Tranfer Xpress Melroy Property Management RBF Consulting, Inc. Metropolitan Transit System Regional Task Force on the Homeless Mid-City Community Action Network Sabre Springs Planning Group Mid-City Rotary Club San Diego American Planning Association Midway Community Planning Advisory Committee San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL- (North) CIO Mira Mesa Chamber of Commerce San Diego Apartment Association Miramar Ranch North Planning Committee San Diego Archaeological Society Mission Beach Town Council San Diego Association of Realtors Mission Hills Town Council San Diego Audubon Society Mission Valley Unified Planning Organization San Diego Bicycle Coalition Move San Diego San Diego Business Improvement District Council NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development San Diego Canyonlands Association - San Diego San Diego Capital Collaborative National City Chamber of Commerce San Diego City College Associated Students National University System Institute for Policy Research San Diego Coastal Chamber of Commerce Navajo Community Planners, Inc. San Diego Coastkeeper NCTD San Diego Community Housing Corporation Neighborhood House Association San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau North Bay Redevelopment PAC San Diego Convention Center Corporation North County Transit District San Diego Council of Design Professionals North Park Community Association San Diego County Aging and Independence Advisory North Park Main Street Council North Park Planning Committee San Diego County Archaeological Society Ocean Beach CDC San Diego County Bicycle Coalition Ocean Beach Town Council San Diego County Farm Bureau Oceanside Chamber of Commerce San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Oceanside Planning Commission San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Old Town Community Planning Committee San Diego County Taxpayers Association Old Town San Diego Chamber of Commerce San Diego County Water Authority Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce San Diego Countywide Alliance of Tenants Otay Mesa Nestor Community Planning Group San Diego Downtown Partnership Otay Mesa Planning Group San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce Pacific Beach Community Planning Committee San Diego Fair Housing Council Pacific Beach Town Council San Diego Foundation Pacific Coast Commercial San Diego Habitat for Humanity Peninsula Chamber of Commerce San Diego Housing Commission Peninsula Community Planning Board San Diego Housing Federation Penn State University San Diego Interfaith Housing Foundation Point Loma Association San Diego Jewish Chamber of Commerce Port of San Diego San Diego Local Initiatives Support Corporation Poway Chamber of Commerce San Diego North Chamber of Commerce Prescott Companies San Diego North Convention and Visitors Bureau Professional HOA Consultants, Inc. San Diego North Economic Development Council Psomas Engineering San Diego Organizing Project Radelow Gittins Real Property Management Inc. San Diego Redevelopment Agency Rail America San Diego Regional Center Ramona Chamber of Commerce San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Rancho Bernardo Planning Community San Diego Regional Economic Development
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 18 Corporation Surfrider Foundation San Diego Regional Sustainability Partnership Sustainable SDSU San Diego River Coalition Teamsters Union San Diego River Conservancy Teralta West Neighborhood Alliance San Diego River Park Foundation The Accretive Group of Companies San Diego Senior Games Association The CSA Edge San Diego Sierra Club The Nature Conservancy, San Diego Office San Diego State University Center for Regional The Olson Co. Sustainability Tierrasanta Community Council San Diego Unified Port District Torrey Hills Community Planning Board San Diego Urban Economic Corporation Torrey Pines Community Planning Board San Diego Urban League Torrey Pines Property Management Inc. San Diego Workforce Partnership Transcore San Diego World Trade Center Transit Alliance for a Better North County (TABNC) San Diego Youth and Community Services Transportation Corridor Agency San Dieguito River Park Trilar Management Group San Marcos Chamber of Commerce U.S. Green Building Council San Ysidro Business Association UCSD Associated Students San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce UCSD Sustainability Solutions Institute San Ysidro Community Planning Group UCSD Systemwide Sustainability Santee Chamber of Commerce UCSD Urban Studies and Planning Department Scripps Health UCSD, Transportation Services Scripps Miramar Ranch Planning Group ULI San Diego/Tijuana Chapter SDSU Associated Students Union of Pan Asian Communities SDSU City Planning Department University City Community Association Sempra Utilities University City Community Planning Group Senior Community Centers University City Planning Group Serra Mesa Planning Group University Heights Community Association Shea Homes Uptown Planners Sherman Heights Community Center Urban League Skyline-Paradise Hills Planning Committee URS Corporation Social Services Transportation Advisory Council US Dept. of Defense Save Our Forest and Ranchlands USD Sustainability Program Solana Beach Chamber of Commerce Valley Center Chamber of Commerce Solar Turbines Valley Center Community Planning Group South Bay Community Services Veteran Affairs San Diego Healthcare System South County Economic Development Council Vista Chamber of Commerce Southeastern San Diego Planning Group Voit Companies Southern California Housing Development Corporation Wakeland Housing & Development Corp. Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association Walk San Diego Spectrum Management Watco Companies Spring Valley Chamber of Commerce Winzler and Kelly Spring Valley Youth and Family Coalition Women in Transportation Seminar St. Vincent de Paul Worldtrans State Farm Insurance Student Sustainability Collective - UCSD Sunrise Property Management
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 19
Table of Contents i 1 4 5 3 . 29 . 12 . . . . . 3 . . . . . 32 ...... 27 ...... 10 ...... i ...... iii ...... iv ...... lans ...... lans...... 18 ...... 34 ...... 13 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, ...... 21 eduction Strategies ...... 24 ONTENTS C OF
Question 11 Question ...... 24 15 Question ...... 30 16 Question ...... 30 17 Question ...... 30 Question 13 Question ...... 27 14 Question ...... 27 Question 2 Question ...... 10 Question 7 Question ...... 19 Question 18 Question ...... 32 Question 9 Question ...... 22 10 Question ...... 23 19 Question ...... 35 Question 3 Question ...... 12 Question 4 Question ...... 14 5 Question ...... 15 6 Question ...... 18 8 Question ...... 20 ABLE Would Paying for Parking Alter Your Commute Behavior? ...... Behavior? Commute Would Paying for Parking Alter Your ...... 30 Primary Mode of Transportation ...... of Transportation . Mode . Primary ...... 27 ...... for Parking?. . Pay ...... Willingness to Reduce DrivingReduce to Willingness ...... 32 WillingnessDrivingReduce to by Various Methods . . . Support for GHG Reduction Policies ...... Policies . Reduction . . GHG . Support for ...... 22 Support GHG R for Fee-Based Quality of Life in Region ...... RegionQuality of Life in ...... Methodology Overview ...... Overview. . Methodology ...... 1 ...... Report. . Organization of ...... 2 ...... Acknowledgements ...... 2 ...... Disclaimer...... North. . True . About ...... Planning & Priorities Transportation ...... 4 ...... VMT & EmissionsPrograms to Reduce ...... 4 ...... Behavior. . Typical Travel ...... Behavior Change Personal ...... 5 Motivation for SurveyMotivation for ...... Rating of Transportation SystemRating of Transportation ...... 12 . . Priority Transportation Areas...... Specific Transportation Improvements ...... Transportation Improvements . Specific 17 Top Factors when Developing Transportation Polices/P ...... GHGs and Climate Change?.. . about you Informed . Are 20 Requirements?.Aware of GHG Reduction Typical Travel Behavior ...... Personal Behavior Change ...... SANDAG Just the Facts ...... 4 Conclusions...... 7 Quality of Life in Region...... List of Tables...... List of Figures...... Introduction...... 1 Transportation Priorities & Planning ...... T Table of Contents...... Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions ...... 20 Table of Contents ii 44 . 44 . 41 . 44 . . 40 . . . . . 45 ...... 38 ...... 36 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, Question 21 Question ...... 38 22 Question ...... 39 Question 20 Question ...... 36 Effectiveness ofIncentivesto Reduce Driving. . .. . WillingnessTelecommute to Flex or Schedule...... Sample & Weighting& Sample ...... 41 ...... Sampling. . to . . due . of Error . . Margin ...... 42 ...... Collection. . Data ...... Processing Data . . Rounding ...... Questionnaire DevelopmentQuestionnaire ...... 41 ...... Pre-Test.. Programming & ...... 41 ...... Languages . . . . SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines...... Background & Demographics ...... Methodology ...... 41 List of Tables iii ...... or Somewhat Likely) ...... 35 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, ternative Transportation by Age. Modes . . 37 VMT & EmissionsVMTby How About Informed Freeway Improvements Improvements Freeway by Planning Area e of Alternative Transportation Modes by e of Alternative Transportation e of Alternative Transportation Modes by e of Alternative Transportation Modes cing VMT & Emissions by Planning Area ...... by Planning Area . & Emissions . . cing VMT . 24 ABLES T OF
(Showing % High Priority)(Showing ...... 18 Emission of Greenhouse Gas Change Greenhouse Gases, Climate & Awareness LawReduction ...... 23 Mode (Among All Respondents, Showing % Very Somewhat Likely)or Showing % Very Respondents, ...... 36 Somewhat Likely)or Showing % Very ...... 36 Primary Transportation Mode ...... ModePrimary Transportation ...... 37 Planning AreaPlanning ...... 37 IST SANDAG L Table 1for Transit & Priorities Spending Table 4 Likelihood of TakingActionsto Reduce DrivingTransportation by Primary Table 5 Likelihood of TakingActionsto Reduce Driving(Among by PlanningAll Area Table 2 Reducing of Methods Support for Table 3Redu of Methods Support for Table 6 Likelihood of TakingActionsto Reduce Driving by Age (Among All Respondents, Table 7 Effectiveness of Incentives on Us Table 8 Effectiveness of Incentives on Us Table 9 of Al on Use Incentives of Effectiveness Table 10 Demographics of Sample ...... 40 List of Figures iv 0 ...... Mode...... Mode...... 25 me ...... me. . . . . 28 ...... 29 atus...... atus...... 28 ons ...... 23 stem ...... 12 Law ...... 22 ate Changeate ...... 20 g ...... 35 ...... 32 ...... 30 T & Emissions...... T & Emissions...... 24 by Planning Area ...... by Planning Area...... 14 System by Planning Area Planning by System ...... 13 provements ...... 18 rking by Planning Area & AgePlanning Area rking by ...... 31 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, hs by Planning Area & AgePlanning Area hs by ...... 33 & PartyEthnicity hs by ...... 34 System by Age & Gender ...... Gender . Age & . System by 17 s, Climate Change by Planning Area & s, Climate Change by Household Income ange, Awareness of Greenhouse Gas Day Parking by Hsld Income and Years in Six Months by Household Income & Top Income & Household Months by Six Diego Region, HomeDiego Region, Ownership & Status IGURES F OF
Ethnicity ...... 10 Status Ownership & Home Mode ...... 17 Age...... Age...... 21 San Diego ...... San Diego ...... 31 ...... Priorities. . . Spending ...... 34 & Party ...... & Party ...... 21 ...... Primary Transportation Mode ...... 22 Ch Climate Gases, Greenhouse About Emission Reduction Law & Primary Transportation Income ...... 26 ...... Status. . & Employment ...... 33 IST SANDAG L Figure 1Figure 2 . . . . . AreasPlanning . . Survey Universe and ...... 2 . . . . of Life. . Quality ...... 1 Figure 14 Top Spendingfor Priority Transportation Primary Transportation System by Figure 4Figure 5 ...... & Age.. Income . Household . . . of Life by Quality ...... 11 Figure 6Districtial Area & Supervisor Planning of Life by Quality ...... 11 Ratingthe San Diego Region Transportation Sy Figure 15 Spendingfor PrioritiesFreeway Transit & Im Figure 3 in San Years by of Life Quality Figure 7Figure 8 Ratingthe San Diego Region Transportation Figure 9 Funding Priorities for TransportationSystem ...... 14 Figure 10 Funding Priorities for TransportationSystem Systemfor Transportation Priority Spending Top Figure ...... 11 15 . . . . Top Spending. . for . Priority TransportationArea . . Planning . System by . . Figure 16 12 Spending Top for Priority Transportation Employment Status System by Figure ...... 13 16 Top Spendingfor Priority Transportation Figure 16 ImportanceFactors of toConsider WhenDeveloping Transportation PlansFigure...... 17 19 How Informed About Greenhouse Gases,Clim Figure 18 How Informed About Greenhouse Gase Figure 19 How Informed About Greenhouse Gase Figure 36 WillingMonths to Reduce Driving in Next Six Figure 41 Likelihood of TakingActionsto Reduce Drivin Figure 21 Aware of Greenhouse Gas Emission ReductionAge & Law by PlanningArea, Figure 23 Support for Funding Programs to Reduce VM Figure 24 Support for Funding Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions by How Informed Figure 25 Support forFundingPrograms Reduceto VMT & EmissionsPlanning by AreaFigure. . . . 26 25 Support for Funding Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions by Household Figure 29 Primary Transportationby Household Mode Inco Figure 30 & Genderby Age Primary Transportation Mode ...... Figure ...... 29 31 Primary Transportationby Planning Area Mode Figure . 32 Amount Paid for Parking at Work/School.Figure . . . 33 WouldAlone Drive With $10 Per Day ParkingFigure...... 34 30 WouldPa Not Drive Alone With Per Day $10 Figure 35 Would Not Drive Alone WithPer $10 Figure 37 WillingMont to Reduce Driving in Next Six Figure 38 WillingMonths to ReducePrimary Driving in Next Six Transportation by Mode Figure 40 Willing to Reduce Driving in Next Figure 20 Aware of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Figure 22Methods Support for Reducing of& Emissi VMT Figure 27 ...... Primary Transportation Mode...... Figure 27 28 Primary Transportationby Employment Mode St Figure 39 WillingMont to Reduce Driving in Next Six List of Figures v ...... Hour Traffic...... Hour Traffic...... 39 e Day Per Week Per Day e ...... 38 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, ternative Transportation Modes Transportation ternative ...... 36 Household Income ...... Income . Household ...... 38 ...... Income . Household ...... 39 SANDAG Figure 42 EffectivenessIncentives ofon Use of Al Figure 43 WillingnessWork toFrom Home at Least On Figure 44 WillingnessWork to FromWeek Home& by PlanningDay Per at Least One Area Figure 46 Willing Alter Work to Rush Avoid Schedule to Hour Planning Traffic by Area & Figure 45 Willing Alter Work to Rush Avoid Schedule to Figure 47 . . . Planning Areas . . . Universe and Survey ...... Figure ...... 42 48of Error Margin Maximum ...... 43 Introduction 1 ...... and a prosperous econ- prosperous and a keep SANDAG aware of aware and SANDAG keep as well as the rEgion monthlywell as the rEgion as le and goods in the San Diego in the San goods le and nts, transportation measures ighted results, which are repre- which are results, ighted tegic decisions when developing dentified in Figure 1 on the next dentified in 1 on the Figure ems, infrastructure needs, needs, ems, infrastructure and pub- theme focuses on how the transporta- focuses on how theme Howresidents rate variousdo aspects of 1 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, area planning the statistical mar- to balance tions the SANDAG will provide of Direc- Board obtaining reliable parameter estimatesobtaining the for reliable parameter of theof transportation system do residents think planning area level. To adjust for the oversam- ed to vote were selected using stratified random y, a healthy environment, healthy a y, onIn page 41). brief, a total of 1,200 people who , meanwhile, addresses link the between the transporta- A full descriptionmethodologytheof for this study is used and what actionsare they willing to take in the interest of The primary purpose of the survey described in this report described survey the of primary purpose The tterns, infrastructure investme ented in this report are the we are ented in this report enhancing the movement of peop of movement the enhancing Methodology ion needed to make sound, stra ion needed to make sound, within the six planning areas i weightedaccording to voter population estimates prior to analyses Quality ofQuality Travel & Livability ating land uses, transportation syst transportation ating land uses, 2050 RTP2050workshops, includesan online survey, public presentations and newsletter and other publications. other and newsletter 1. the for Plan Participation Public the report, in this described survey reliable statistically to the addition In NTRODUCTION the 2050 RTP. the region’s transportation system? What aspects What GHG reduction strategies and the priority for future improvements/investments? should be support, residents would programs GHGs? Answers to these and related ques reducing tors and staff with the informat SANDAG TheonRTPComprehensive 2050 the Regionalother will rely (RCP)Plan planning and efforts as the for integr foundation tion system functions from thecustomer’s perspective interms of mobility, reliability, system and safety. Sustainabilitypreservation, equit social ensure to need the and tion system omy. lic investmentwithinstrategiessmartregional growth a network.also outline The Plan will how new legislative requirements related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets will be pa through development achieved as well as alternative strategies. and policies, METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW MOTIVATION FOR SURVEY MOTIVATION FOR SURVEY I In 2009, SANDAG began the process of developing the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), on sustaining which focuses and the issues that matter to people who live in the region. (see in this report later included reside in the San Diego region and are register sampling. To accommodate SANDAG’s interest in was to engage the public in the process of developing the 2050 RTP of developing process in the was to engage the public region as a whole, as well as region. The 2050 RTP goals are structured into two overarching themes: Quality of Travel & Liva- bility and Sustainability. The page, the study employed oversample by a strategic the study employed page, gins of error associated with estimates at the at the gins of error associated with estimates pling, the raw data were then The results pres and presentation. sentative at the region-wide level, as well as within the six planning areas. Introduction 2 Conclusions on page 45) and ...... lts from the survey by from the survey lts et the needs of readers who of readers et the needs Just the Facts ader, the questionnaire used for SANDAG who participatedSANDAG who in the the methodology employed for col- the QuestionnaireToplines & are interested in the details of the results. of details in the interested are True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, discussion of the resu discussion t improved the overall quality of the research pre- overall quality of the research t improved the REAS This report is designed to me A as well as those who as those as well ), as well as a description of a description well as ), as And, for the truly ambitious re True North thanks the staff at the back of this report (see back of the LANNING P AND
NIVERSE Table of Contents U URVEY 1 S IGURE topic area (see are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings ofsurvey the in bul- let-point format and a discussiontheir of implications. thisreader, sectioninterested For the is question-by-question a more detailed followed by and analyzing the data. lecting the interviews is contained at which is Appendix A, in results is contained the study for set of crosstabulations and a complete bound separately. prefer a summary of the findings summary of the a prefer For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled design of this study. Their expertise and insigh Their expertise of this study. design sented here. SANDAG ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ORGANIZATION OF REPORT F Introduction 3 ...... research firm that is dedicated to firm that is research True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, ng of the values, opinions, priorities and con- North Research,Inc. and not those necessarily designing and implementingdesigning and scientificsurveys, formancemanagement, organizational develop- sions in this report are those are this report sions in of those the authors areresponsibility the authors. of the search studies for public agencies, including more than 250 True North is a full-service survey a full-service is True North The statementsconclu and (Dr. Timothy McLarney (Dr. Sarles) at True and Richard Timothy McLarney of AnySANDAG. errors and omissions providing public agencies with a clear understandi agencies providing public Through customers. residents and cerns of their as expert interpretation of the True findings, as well interviews, one-on-one and focus groups North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategicdecisions in a variety of per evaluation, policy areas—such as planning, ment, establishing fiscal priorities, and developing effective public information campaigns. Dur- and Mr. (President) (PrincipalSarles McLarney Dr. careers, Researcher) haveing their designed and conducted over 500 survey re studiescouncils for of government,municipalities and districts. special SANDAG ABOUT TRUE NORTH TRUE NORTH ABOUT DISCLAIMER Just the Facts 4 ...... ed in the body of this ed in the rity for future funding, fol- 36% stated they feel some- 36% stated , 86% of residents indicated the quality of life in the San ed the highest priority to removing independently True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, gether and cause congestion (86% high or d that they feelwell-informed about the rela- tothe sectiontitles us lley and bus more service lley and bus routes so they can ductions from cars and trucks, whereas 36% whereas trucks, ductions from cars and ansportation in the San ansportation system Diego region, findings from the survey. For the reader’s the reader’s conve- the survey. For from findings priority for future improvements andinvestments, ality of life in the region is fair, whereas than less 4% used ate change, and an additional highest ould be a high or medium prio ould be a high nts felt should carry the most weight when policymakers are their assessment of the region’s freeways (63% excellent or vanpools and buses (69%). lic transit system, with one-third (33%) of respondents rating shared positive assessments of assessments positive shared Sprinter train services (76%). services train Sprinter VMT & EMISSIONS ACTS projects tested, respondents assign respondents tested, projects F THE
residents were most positive in were residents good), followed by local and roads streets (44%) and the transportation system overall (42%). tionship betweenGHGs andclim that major roads sh streets and what informed about the relationship. Approximately 13% indicated that they feel slightly informed, whereas 9% confessed to being not at all informed about the relationship between and GHGs. climate change re to GHG emission pertaining requirements the most frequently mentioned area was public transit services (36%), followed by major streets and roads (31%), and major freeways and highways (29%). and 1% were unsure. of the new requirements aware were not that they confided assessment of the region’s pub the region’s of assessment Diego region, with 39% rating it as excellent 45% and Approximatelyas good. 12% of qu that the indicated respondents the region. in life of the quality to describe poor or very poor excellentit as or good. to in freeways where lanes merge bottlenecks medium priority), followed by expanding Tro (79%),areas adding lanes to existing freeways (69%),adding and lanes to existing freeways that are dedicated for carpools, lowed closely by major lowed freeways and highways (81%), and public transit services including the bus, Trolley, Coaster and developing transportation policies and plans are reducing traffic congestion (74% extremely or very important), ensuring that the transportation system supports the needs of the local economyimprovingand (73%), transportation the safety of the (64%).system UST SANDAG • Forty-onepercent (41%) of respondents indicate PROGRAMS TO REDUCE • asked to rate of the tr various aspects When TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES & PLANNING PRIORITIES & PLANNING TRANSPORTATION •majority of residents The vast report. Thus,if you wouldlike to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appro- section. priate report LIFE IN REGION QUALITY OF • were somewhat less positive in their dents resi tested, compared to the other aspects When J The following is an outline of the main factual nience, we have organized the findings according the findings organized have we nience, • asked to select the single When • that 63% stated were aware of the new legislative surveyed, they Among all residents •Among eight specific eight •Among • transportation areas three broadly defined Rating • The threefactors that responde Just the Facts 5 2 pay for parking pay for , they are willing not ...... carpooling with a sin- pay less pay less than $50 per workers and students workers and realistically link at least once per week, opposed expanding the ability of solo driv- of solo the ability expanding opposed True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, expandingthe ability of drivers solo to pay for parking, most (8%) affic flow (88%),followed expanding by pro- Approximately 6% of for reducing GHGs emissionsfrom cars and definitely ce the number of vehicles freeways. on vehicles of number ce the the next six months. Approximately 45% indi- money to improve the transportation system, and 19% the transportation money to improve have to pay for parking at their worktheir parkingforhaveto pay or school at site. dicated that they already trip already they that dicated commute to work or school were more invaried their pri- blic transit as their primary mode, including the bus, Trol- not g to make this change, whereas 2% indicated that it depended this change, whereasit make 2% indicated that g to sed to answer the question. to answer the sed ated that they were very likely to take this action in the upcoming opposed converting existing general purpose lanes to carpool lanes. to carpool lanes purpose general existing opposed converting ers to pay a fee to use carpool lanes and using the lanes and using use carpool pay a fee to to ers definitely mary mode of transportation,ofmary mode followedcarpooling by witha single passenger (13%), and car- pooling with two or more passengers (5%). gle (23%) or multiple passengers (14%), whereas 10% reported primarily using some form of public transit. do they or school reported that ing, including establishingparkingurban fees incommercial and (30% centers support), (24%),taxincreasing or establishingmilesa newfee on the gas driven per vehicle (21%). mary modeof transportation. than Less (48%) half reported that they primarily drive alone when travelinginthe San Diego region, more third reported than one reported using some form of pu ley, Coaster or Sprinter. month.Overall, just 3% of those whodrive solowhen commutingtoworkschool$50 or pay per monthor morefor parking at theirwork site or school. to the amount that they drive during reduce cated that they were not willin that they were not cated otheron1% factors refu and trucks, residents of the San Diego region were most supportive of making road improve- road making of supportive most were region Diego San the of residents trucks, tr and improve bottlenecks reduce ments that grams that encourage telecommutingand flexible work hours (87%), making improvements to the transitattractsit system so that moreriders and (84%), concentrating newhousing near existingemployment well-served and areas that centers by transit are (82%). (or pay less than $200 per month) indicated that having to pay $10parking per day for would compel them to adopt an alternative method of commutingtoschool.or work and an additional 38% st six months. a fee to use carpool lanes and using the money to improve the transportation system (56%), converting existing general purpose lanes to lanes carpool (63%) and building new carpool lanes (70%) to carpooling and redu encourage 2. (27%) quarter one more than that noting worth Its also SANDAG PERSONAL BEHAVIOR CHANGE • Approximately that, indicated residents half (51%) of San Diego • Nearly nine out of ten respondents (88%)who primarily drive when solo commuting to work • Two-thirds (68%) of those who commute to work or school reported driving solo as their pri- TYPICAL TRAVEL BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR TYPICAL TRAVEL • driv- reduce strategies to fee-based supported of respondents less than one-third Overall, • Among the 11% who reported that they pay do • with presented strategies 10 different When • not do who those comparison, By • Nearly(47%) halfof respondents whodrive solo to work/school and do • More than 40% of respondents in • of were somewhat less supportive Respondents Just the Facts 6 work from would ...... changelikely most to would alter their work avel for commuting in commuting for avel e, and telecommuting at telecommuting and e, True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, very likely to do so in the upcoming very six that it would make them use an alternative 23% stated that they are23% stated start to very likely often than they do now. Other top-ranked and having a transit pass paid for by one’s and having a transit pass paid for oyer allowed them to telecommute, whereas them to telecommute, oyer allowed currently follow a flexible work schedule to ey would ey normally driv that at once per week least ey walkth for a thattrip they least once per week. per least once schedule to avoid rush hour traffic if their employer allowedit. Just 16% were not willing to flex theirwork schedule to avoid rush hour8%whereas traffic,orwere unsure unwilling to the question. answer effective changes effective changes included cash incentives to carpool or vanpool (56%), guaranteed rides home in emergency situations (53%), being matched in a carpool with neighbors going to the same destination (53%), havingportion a of the cost of participating in a carpool/van- pool paid for by one’s employer/school (52%), were21%not willing workto from home, and 9% were unsure or unwilling to answer the question. alternative mode of tr of an alternative mode using of frequency a respondents’ increase the future—with57% of respondents indicating method of commuting at least somewhat more employer/school (50%). empl per week if their home at least one day normally drive, and 28% stated they were very likely to start taking this action in the period of interest. and traffic, hour rush during commuting avoid doing so during the next six months. the next six doing so during behavior or were in the currently engaging are months—including increasinguse their of public transit, joining a carpool or vanpool, riding a bike at least week once per for a trip th •was the transit stations major from school or to work shuttles Free • stated that they (78%) of workers surveyed than three-quarters More • More than two-thirds (70%)of those currentlyworking indicated that they SANDAG • A similar percentage (18%) reported that they • (18%) reported percent Eighteen • The remaining methods tested had less than one-third of respondents indicating that they Conclusions 7 prior- ...... at should be priorities for the ey relate to 2050 the ey relate and the RTP lic transit system, with just one- lic transit system, with just investments. Whereas subsequent Whereas investments. overall and within specific aspects ng improvements to all aspects to all aspects of ng improvements positive in their assessment of the assessment positive in their ked residents to prioritize among a residents ked em (36%), followed by major streets improvements the most common improvements nts were somewhat less positive nts were somewhat less positive in freeways and highways (29%). Natu- freeways and highways (29%). transit and major streets/roads. transit and True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, udies for government agencies throughout the throughout agencies government for udies and note how the collective results of the study ed to conveyingto ed the detailed results of the survey, in this section ortation plans, strategies and plans, strategies ortation , thisdesigned to provide SANDAG was study statistically, with a reli- at motivated the at motivated the research. sidents’ opinions and behaviors as th and behaviors opinions sidents’ third (33%) of respondents rating it as excellent or good. of the system. Residents were most were most Residents system. of the region’s freeways (63% excellent or good), followed by local streets and theandroads (44%) transportation (42%). system overall When compared to the other aspects tested, reside pub assessment of the region’s their One of the primary goals of the 2050 RTP is to identify transportation- related projects and improvements th Although the overwhelming majority (84%) of San Diego residents rated the quality of life in San Diego as excellent or good, their assessment of the region’s transportation system was mixed—clearing indicating that see room for improvement residents region’s future given funding limitations and other constraints. To assist SANDAG in this effort, the survey as list of potential transportation improvements, as well as identify the fac- torsshouldthat be given top considerationwhenpolicymakers are plans. and policies transportation developing in maki see value Although residents to select the single highest transportation system, when asked the major and lastly and roads (31%), with North area, planning by substantially varied percentages these rally, City, South County and North County West showing a stronger prefer- ence for prioritizing improvements to the public transitsystem, East County and North County East prioritizing major freeway/highway a balanced ning area expressing Central plan and the improvements, interest in improvements to public ity for future investments and transit syst response was the public Introduction ONCLUSIONS SANDAG What areas of the trans- portationdo resi- system be should think dents the priorityfuture for improvements/funding? State. How do residents rate the transportation sys- tem in the San Diego region? able able of re understanding sections of this report are devot trees’ the through forest ‘see the to we attempt the key answer questions th The following conclusions are based on True North’s interpretations of the results, as well as the collectivefirm’sexperience conducting similar st C in the noted As need to prioritize need to future transp Conclusions 8 encour- project that positively ce GHG emissions GHG ce ...... that California established new established that California rongly favored those that improve existing employment centers and centers existing employment iority toremoving bottlenecks in oving the safety of the transporta- safety of oving the and cause congestionand(86% cause high or measures and policies, and alter- policies, and and measures much less supportive of fee-based of supportive much less on policies and plans are reducing are policies and plans on r regions to redu and bus routes so they can service can routes so they bus and ld carry the most weight when poli- policymakers as to the factors they as to the factors policymakers ograms that would be effective effective in ograms that would be provements that reduce bottlenecks that reduce provements ansportation The plans and policies. e of a personal vehicle. Among the Among personal vehicle. of a e llowed by expanding programs that for the aforementioned projects and aforementioned for the True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, ace insurvey the to test every the use of a personal vehicle by making it vehicle by of a personal the use projects that could be considered as part of the RTP, part of as considered be could that projects discourage specific In an effortIn an to reduce the harmfulof effects greenhouse gases (GHGs)on the environment and curb climate change, in 2009 the California Legisla- Sus- to prepare a is required 375, SANDAG Per SB SB 375. ture passed tainable Communitiestheas part ofRTP 2050 which Strategy (SCS) will demonstrate how the region will achieve GHG emission reduction targets through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning, infra- transportation structure investments, native strategies. Most San Diego residents (77%) feel at least somewhat informed about the relationship between GHGs and climate change, and nearly two- aware being reported (63%) thirds for San Diego and othe requirements from cars and trucks. and pr As for the various projects reducing GHGs, San Diego residents st the efficiencyof the existing transportation systemor In terms of In terms where lanes freeways merge together Trolley expanding priority), medium freeways to existing (69%), lanes (79%), adding more areas adding and lanes to existing freeways for carpools, vanpools and that are dedicated buses (69%). not sp there was Of course, tion system. respondentsassigned the highest pr may be considered2050theof RTP,respondents were as part so also to guidance to provide some asked tr developing when should consider transportati developing are cymakers traffic congestion, ensuringthat the transportation system supports the needs of the local economy, and impr three factors that residents feel shou residents factors that three age individuals to reduce their us individuals to reduce age were Diego residents programs, San that strategies most popularim were making road and improve traffic flow (88%), fo encourage telecommuting and flexible work hours (87%), making improvements to the transit system so that it attracts more riders (84%), near housing new concentrating and areas that are well-served by transit (82%). to their clear support In contrast SANDAG Do residents feel informed aboutthe need to reduce GHG emis- and which strate-sions, gies do they support? Conclusions 9 realisti- approach to ...... avior in the interest of unpopular free shuttles to work or school work free shuttles to ies and programs is one thing. A as carpooling, takingtransit, trip st effective at motivating them to ted increasing the gas tax (24%) or the increasing ted The vast majority of workers also fees inurban and commercial cen- month. If a modest fee of $10 per ex schedule in order to avoid rush order to avoid schedule in ex ough establishing parking fees in less than one-third of respondents emergency situations (53%), being 52%), and having a transit pass paid 52%), and having a transit pass heless appears to hold considerableheless appears employer, they would telecommute at they would telecommute employer, Diego residents indicated that, indicated that, residents Diego True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, nters was nters was a somewhat change one’s travel beh change one’s travel is quite another. is quite Thus, in additionto measuring San personally 3 , they are willing to reduce the amount that they drive during the reducing VMT day were charged for parking, nearly half (47%) of those who primarily drive solo stated that it would compel them to adopt an alternative method of commuting to work or school. potential for increasing the use of alternative modes among commuters. Just 11% of commuters currently pay for parking at their school or work site, and most pay less than $50 per cally next six months through such methods linking, riding a bicycle, and other means—with triplinking and walking toappearing be the mostof accessible methods trip reduction. identify which types of to were asked students and When workers changes or incentives would be the mo use an alternative mode for commuting, (50%). for by one’s employer/school their that, if allowed by indicated hour traffic. Finally, it should be noted that alth urban and commercial ce reducing GHG emissions, it nevert from major transit stations the was highest ranked, with 57% of respon- dents indicatingwouldit that make them alternativean use method of commuting at least somewhat more often than they do now. Other top- vanpool or carpool to incentives cash included changes effective ranked home in rides (56%), guaranteed matched in a carpool with neighbors goingsame to the destination (53%), having a portion of the cost of participating in a carpool/vanpool ( paid for by one’s employer/school fl and/or adopt a per week least once Diego residents’ supportDiego residents’ various for policies and programs, the survey also identified willingness residents’ their to change travelas behavior, well as the conditions that may be required to facilitate these changes. Approximately half (51%) of San willingness to General support for GHG reduction polic more expensive to operate. Overall, to operate. more expensive (30%) supported establishing parking ters, and less than one-quarter suppor than one-quarter less ters, and vehicle (21%). per miles driven on fee new a establishing 3. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). SANDAG What incentives/disin- centives would best to residents motivate reduce their driving? Quality of Life in Region 10 Othe r 39.5 32.1 Mi x e d / 4 Asian 42.9 34.1 Ame r ic a n THNICITY ...... Af 47.8 Black Ame r ic a n / & E Ethnicity (QD3) Ethnicity and 45% as good. Approxi- 33.3 33.0 44.4 Lat ino / TATUS Hispanic ts’ general perceptions of the perceptions ts’ general S 42.8 45.4 / White Cauc asian EGION . Prepared by True North Research for SAN- WNERSHIP O True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 36.7 46.3 family For the interested Figures reader, 3-5 show how assessments of the quality of life in the sub- demographic by key region varied to their respective groups. When compared owners, home residents, new counterparts, Caucasians, those whose annual family income is between $150,000 and $199,999, seniors, residents of North City, and those in the third Supervisorial District of quality the rate to likely most the were excellent. as region Diego San the in life R OME , H lly, respondents were asked to rate to rate were asked lly, respondents the overall rating it as excellent 32.4 42.0 IN EGION
excellent, good, fair, or very poor. poor R 38.6 41.4 46.4 Home Ownership Status (QD1) Status Ownership Home Excellent IEGO D IFE AN 38.7 45.6 S 0.6 IN
L Refused Not sure / 37.7 43.0 EARS re Prioritiesre Study,Final Survey Report Y OF 0.9 BY
IFE IFE Very poor Very 33.0 50.3 2.6 Poor L L OF OF Years in San Diego Region (Q1) Region Diego San in Years
Howwould you rate the of qualityDiego overall life in the San region? Would you Fair 45.0 39.5 12.2 Good 45.2 Ex c e lle nt Good Lessthan 5 5 to 9 1 0 to 14 15or more O w n Re nt Liv e w ith UALITY UALITY Regional Infrastructu 0
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
100 % Respondents % DAG, February 2007. 3 Q 2 Q UALITY 4. See IGURE IGURE SANDAG F F Question 2 issay excellent,poor it fair, good,verypoor? or Q Thefirst substantive section of responden addressed the survey quality of quality of in the San Diego life Specifica region. quality of life in the region using scalea of of residents shared positive assessments of residents of shared positive assessments the majority vast the below, 2 Figure in As shown quality of life in the San Diego region, with 39% mately12% of respondents indicated that the quality ofthe life in region is fair, whereas less lity of the qua life in to describe poor thevery poor or region.than 4% used It is worth noting that resultssimilarthesethe to2007 are very results foundvoters.of survey in SANDAG’s Quality of Life in Region 11 48.5 40.4 48.5 39.3 32.4 52.2 42.1 36.4 Age ...... 35.3 47.6 41.8 46.5 S upervisorialDistrict 44.5 38.5 48.1 35.6 35.3 43.4 1829 to 30 to 3 9 4 0 to 49 50 to 6 4 65or o lder First Sec ond Third Fourth Fifth 45.3 33.6 ISTRICT True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 49.1 41.6 more D $200K or $200K Ea s t 48.1 36.1 N County GE 59.4 37.1 $ 199 K $1 50K to & A UPERVISORIAL 48.7 West 41.9 48.6 41.4 & S $149K $1 00 to K NCOME REA I 47.1 34.3 A East CountyEast County N $9 9K 49.2 38.6 $75 to K Planning Area OUSEHOLD LANNING 44.8 33.5 House hold Income(QD4) County P H $74K 48.5 34.3 $5 0K to BY BY
IFE IFE L L 43.8 46.3 $4 9K 42.4 33.0 OF OF $25K to $25K
UALITY UALITY 41.3 33.7 Good $25K 32.0 44.0 Central City North S outh Good Exc ellent Less than Ex c e lle nt 5 Q 4 Q 0 0
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
10 0 100 % Respondents % % Respondents % IGURE IGURE SANDAG F F Transportation Priorities & Planning 12 Re fused Not sure Ve ry poo r Poor Fair Good Excellent ...... & 6.3 6.7 nsideration when policy- nsideration when ovided the most positive 17.0 26.3 15.1 26.9 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 4.5 5.5 17.3 33.3 38.8 The first question in this series asked resi- The first question YSTEM 6 below, residents were most positive in their in positive most were 6 below, residents S rt, the survey asked residents to rate varioustort, the residents survey asked tion system overall were most positive in the overall were most positive tion system unty West assigned the highest ratings to the ioritizeamong a list of potential transportation RIORITIES should be given top co top given be should region’s transportation system varied consider- ssessment of the region’s public transit system, ssessment of the region’s 2%). When compared to the other aspects 2%). When compared to the other tested, dents of South County pr dents P RANSPORTATION 1.8 7.2 49.1 13.5 27.7 T Fre eways Local stre ets, roads Publictransit system EGION ortation policies and plans. R IEGO Q3 Rating the transportation syste in S m an Die go County . . . D AN S 7.8 6.0 5.6 34.1 13.5 32.3 system THE
Howwould you rate: _____ theSan in Diego region?Would excellent, is you say it Ove transportation rall ATING 0
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
6 R 100 espondents R % RANSPORTATION LANNING IGURE P ably by planning area. Ratings of the transporta of Ratings by planning area. ably while resi roads, condition of local streets and ratingsto the public Figure transit 7). system (see SANDAG The following figure displays how ratings of the Central planning area, whereas ratings positiveys were mostof freewa among residentsof the North City planning area. Residentsof North Co F RATING OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SYSTEM RATING OF TRANSPORTATION One of the primary ofgoals the 2050 RTP is to identify transportation-related projects and improvements thatbe priorities shouldregion’s for the future given funding limitations and otherconstraints. this SANDAGin To assist effo T aspects of the region’s transportation system, pr improvements, well as as identify the factors that good, fair, poor, or very poor? Question 3 dents to various rate aspects of the region’s transportation system using a scale of excellent, Figure As in shown poor. very or poor, fair, good, and roads local streets by excellent or good), followed (63% freeways of the region’s assessment overall (4 (44%) and the transportation system a in their positive less somewhat were residents with one-third (33%) of respondentsexcellent rating it as or good. makers are developing transp developing are makers Transportation Priorities & Planning 13 31 46 57 32 33 ...... 56 49 REA A 39 priority for funding, whereas be a high, medium, or low pri- medium, be a high, ng areas that are comparatively ng areas and roads should be a high or high should be a and roads train services (76%). 32 LANNING P 41 BY
Public transit system 65 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 40 YSTEM S East wereEast improvementslikely the most to rate ent that could be identified in the RTP, respon- in be identified that could ent ty. Residents of the Central planning area were area planning Residents of the Central ty. quite balanced in their responses to Question 4 to responses their in quite balanced Having identified how residents rate various reminded that not all of the projects can be high can be projects reminded that not all of the 43 Planning Area Planning on 3, Question 4 was designed to provide SANDAG provide to designed 4 was Question 3, on and roads, and major freeways and highways. The highways. and major freeways and roads, and 52 67 Coaster and Sprinter Local streets, roads streets, Local 45 RANSPORTATION indicated that major streets T oject shown in Figure 8 should sidentsprioritize would potential improvementsin three broad ee Figure 9). Residents in planni 9). Residents ee Figure 23 49 EGION Freeways R 71 42 IEGO D AN 42 S 26 THE
57 Central City North South County County East West N County N County East Overall trans system trans Overall 49 ATING 0
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 7 R
% Respondents Who Said Said Who Respondents % Good or ent Excell IGURE As one might expect, the priority assigned to each of the three transportationfunding areas var- (s planning area somewhat by ied well-served by transit (i.e., Central, North City, South County and North County West) were the public improvements tomost likely to rate being a high transit as County North and West County North in residents high priori a as highways to major freeways and also the mostpriority a high likely to assign to major streetand road projects. aspects of the transportation system in Questi in system transportation the of aspects with a reliable measure of how re how measure of with a reliable major streets services, public transit areas: format of the question was straightforward:informing after respondents that thereis not project or improvem every fund to enough money pr each whether asked were dents ority forority future funding—orSANDAG shouldif not moneyspend on at all. To the project they were encourage respondents to prioritize, Overall, residents in the San Diego region were the San residents in Overall, priorities. 8). Approximately(see Figure 86% medium priority for closely by majorfunding, followed freeways and highways (81%) and public transit services includingbus, Trolley, the SANDAG PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION AREAS PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION F Transportation Priorities & Planning 14 47 35 33 Medium priority Medium priority High Not sure / sure Not Refused not Should spend resources Low priority ...... 47 33 45 3.5 15.0 42.1 38.5 REA A 38 44 LANNING 34 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, P BY
priority transportation priority andprojects improve- Major freeways, highways freeways, Major tion projects, please indicate whether you think it whether you think please indicate tion projects, 41 st/next) one: _____. Should this project be a high, Planning Area YSTEM YSTEM S S 1.8 41 11.8 43.8 42.1 45 34 Major streets, roads streets, Major RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION Q4 Funding priority for improving . . . . . improving for priority Funding Q4 43 T T 43 FOR FOR
6.1 16.5 34.4 41.2 32 RIORITIES RIORITIES P P 51 The San Diego Association of Governments is in the process of developinga Central City North South County County East N County West N County East Public services transit streets, Major roadsfreeway Major highway s, s Public t ransit se rv ic e s 46 UNDING UNDING 0 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
60 50 40 30 20 10 100
9 F 8 F
% Respondents % High Priority High
% Respondents Who Said Said Who Respondents % IGURE IGURE SANDAG F should be a high a priority, medium priority, or a low for priority funding. If you feel that no money should be spent on a particular just project, say so. Pleasein keep mind that not all of the highbeprojects can priorities. Here is the (fir F ments for the region. Because there is not enough money to fund every project, we must set pri- orities. As I read the following list of transporta mediumpriority,low or or shouldnobe money on spent this project? Question 4 Regional Transportation Plan which will identify Transportation Priorities & Planning 15
...... o identified a single area single identified a o a host of demographic traits, 35.8 followed by major followed by major streets and In did a respondent cases where services primary mode of transportation, Public transit priority area forfuture funding, the priority. Theresponses this to question True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 0.2 highest funding. Naturally, some respondents rated Refused YSTEM S ored intoareFigure thoseored 10, as of individuals highest to rate each of the three funding areas indepen- funding areas each of the three to rate sponses of individuals wh sponses of individuals 30.7 roads 4.0 Not s ure Major streets, streets, Major RANSPORTATION on improvement areas varied by T ployment status, age, gender, age, ployment status, being among their top priorities. their top priorities. among being FOR
RIORITY 29.3 P highways Ma jo r freew ays, PENDING You indicated that several projects should be high/medium priorities, including: S OP in terms of their priority status forfuture 10 T 10 IGURE indeed identify two indeed identify or more tied in areas as being terms status, Question priority of asked 5 their was the of these areas which to indicate them including by planning area, em SANDAG For the interested reader, Figures 11-14 on the following pages display how the priority rankings transportati three the to assigned F The format of Question 4 allowed respondents dently more than funding area one as True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 31 YSTEM YSTEM Major freeways, highways freeways, Major Major freeways, highways freeways, Major S S 30 22 Planning Area Planning 32 34 Employment Status (Q12) Status Employment 38 45 45 RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION T T 25 26 Major streets, roads streets, Major Major streets, roads streets, Major FOR FOR 34 28 46 42 RIORITY RIORITY P P 22 34 39 29 PENDING PENDING Central City North County South County East West County N East County N S S F u l l- ti me P a rt-ti me S t ud e n t H o me - ma k e r R e t ir e d B e tw e e nj o bs Public transit services transit Public Public transit services transit Public 37 39 OP OP 0 0 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 12 T 12 11 T 11 espondents R % espondents R % IGURE IGURE SANDAG F F Transportation Priorities & Planning 17 24 28 OME 33 31 & H & 43 41 ODE M specific transpor- 27 33 ...... 27 33 34 46 RANSPORTATION d streets & d streets roads), Question 6 ENDER 33 33 T 34 34 & G GE 33 RIMARY 33 Whereas Questions 4 and 5 were P A BY BY True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 24 32 22 32 YSTEM YSTEM sign to potential investments in three broadly S S ed, as well as the priority ratings assigned to as well as the priority ed, 55 36 Major freeways, highways freeways, Major Ma jor fre e wa y s, highw ay s rity thatrespondents assign to eight 11 23 36 Age Ge nde r RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION 66 32 Public transit Other modealt Own Ren t Live with family lic transit,lic freeways/highways, an T T ON IMPROVEMENTS FOR FOR 32 32 32 Major streetsroad s , Major stre ets, roads 34 24 Vanp ool RIORITY RIORITY 34 44 P P Primary Primary Transportation Mode (Q13,Q14) Home Ownership Status (QD1) 33 22 PENDING PENDING S S 33 32 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 older or Male Fe male Public services transit OP OP Public transit services TATUS Drive alone / Carpool 35 45 S 0 0 14 T 14 13 T 13 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 % Respondents % % Respondents % WNERSHIP IGURE IGURE SANDAG SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATI O F F tation improvement projects. The projects test projects The projects. tation improvement on the next page. 15 in Figure presented each, are designed to gauge the priority that residents as that residents priority the to gauge designed prio the a similar format to measure used defined transportation areas transportation areas (pub defined Transportation Priorities & Planning 18 3.3 6.3 3.8 7.0 East 6.4 The 6.0 3.8 4.8 N County N County Not sure Not 10.2 IGH 15 .0 24.1 % H West 23.4 22.4 24 .9 25.7 23.1 N County N County 26.7 HOWING East Should not spe nd nd $ not spe Should County 32.2 ...... (S (86% high (86% or medium REA 33 .6 A Planning Area Planning South 38.2 38.9 County 35 .7 Lo w priority 38 .6 % Respondents 46.9 LANNING P BY 59.4 Medium priority Medium 47.1 Central City North 35 .6 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 31.0 30.5 29.5 27.2 er and cause congestion ctors shown in Figure 16 on the next page, 19.2 iority, a medium priority, or a low priority for this project be a high, medium or low priority, ritization of transportation projects and plans NSPORTATION POLICES/PLANS MPROVEMENTS ng lanes to existing freeways that are dedicated freeways that to existing ng lanes dents assignedthe highest priority toremoving High pr ior ity I 59.4 52.6 56.5 56.2 62.4 63.8 70.2 1 shows how the percentage who assigned each who 1 how the percentage assigned shows MPROVEMENTS Overall 0 102030405060708090100 I REEWAY REEWAY & F & & F & RANSIT RANSIT T T FOR FOR Adding lanes to existing freeways existing to lanes Adding Increasing the frequency the bus of service Increasing RIORITIES P RIORITIES P As I read the following list of transitspecific and freeway improvements, please PENDING priority varied by planning area. priority varied high PENDING ) R emo ving b o ttlene cks in freew ay w s here lanes me rge to ge th er 15 S 15 Expanding Trolley and bus routes so they can services more areas more services can they so routes bus and Trolley Expanding Ad ding lanes to freew ays de dicated for carpo o ls, van po o ls, b use s dist freight goods, commercial improve to system trans Improving 1 S xadn ihsee xrs u evc nfewys ao te tsmajor stree freeway service on s, bus express high-spe ed Expanding Increasing th e frequ ency o f Tro lley, Coaster and Sp rinter train serv ice s 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Q6h Q6d Q6e Q6f Q6a Q6b Q6g Q6c ABLE RIORITY IGURE Removing bottlenecks in freeways where lanes merge together merge where lanes in freeways bottlenecks Removing Expanding Trolley and bus routes so they can services more areas more services they can so routes bus and Trolley Expanding Adding lanes existing to freeways service bus of the frequency Increasing buses vanpools, carpools, for dedicated freeways to lanes Adding 47.1Increasing the frequency Trolleyof Coaster and , Sprinter train servicesExpandinghigh-speed express bus service freeway on major s, streetsImproving trans system to improve commercial goods, freight dist 58.5 30.5 29.5 27.2 44.4 28.1 27.5 19.2 29.4 53.8 25.3 36.3 19.8 31.1 44.1 34.7 30.2 31.0 15.8 41.9 25.5 35.6 27.9 23.4 40.5 21.3 39.9 17.9 40.1 30.3 33.2 33.8 17.1 26.7 37.1 30.5 22.1 35.8 23.8 30.3 38.3 24.4 23.2 36.7 25.0 41.6 21.3 44.8 respondents were asked whether the factor should an extremely should the factor respondents be were asked whether important, very important, somewhat important, or not an important consideration when policymakers are developing transportation policies plans. and final question in this series approached the prio the approached question in this series final fa For each of the perspective. from a different SANDAG TOP FACTORS WHEN DEVELOPING TRA P T Among the eight specific projects tested, respon projects tested, specific eight Among the bottlenecks in freeways where lanes merge togeth lanes in freeways where bottlenecks or should no money be spent on this project? this on spent be money no should or F Question 6 whetherindicate you should think it be a high pr funding. Here is the (first/next)one: _____. Should priority), followedby expanding Trolley and bus routesthey so can service more areas (79%), (69%), addi lanes to existing freeways and adding for carpools, vanpools and buses (69%). Table project a Transportation Priorities & Planning 19 4.8 3.6 7.0 8.5 9.6 13.2 Not sure Not 14 .0 20.6 22.5 27 .4 very important Not important Not 34.4 29 .6 31.8 30.3 ...... LANS at least P Smwt important Smwt 44.4 46.1 40.7 % Respondents s are reducing traffic conges- 33 .8 34 .2 32.1 e transportation system (64%). It 37.9 Ve ry i mpo rt an t RANSPORTATION T 29.6 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 26 .4 22.8 22 .4 22.0 21 .1 16 .9 nt factor whennt factor developing transportationpol- Extremely important Extremely EVELOPING Should this be an extremely important, very 0 102030405060708090100 D HEN W ONSIDER transportation policies and plan transportation and improving the safety of th C Reducing traffic congestion traffic Reducing Reducing the costs of travel of costs the Reducing TO ACTORS F OF Improving the safety of the transportation system transportation the of safety the Improving M aking travel times more consistent and p red ictab le As IreadAs the followingto tellme I wantfactors, you list how of important each fac- MPORTANCE Reducing neg ative impact that transp ortatio n has on environment Ensuring that transportation system supports needs of local economy of local needs supports system transportation that Ensuring 16 I 16 nraigaalblt o l rnprainmds uha rni,bc cling bicy transit, as such modes, transportation alt of availability Increasing 7 7 7 7 7 7 Q7a Q7d Q7e Q7c Q7g Q7f Q7b IGURE is worth noting, however, that all of the eight factors tested were rated as by a majority of respondents surveyed. of respondents a majority by SANDAG tion (74% extremely or important), very ensuring that the transportation system supports the needs of the local economy (73%), As shown in Figure 16, the three factors that respondents felt should carry the most weight factors that respondents the three 16, As shown in Figure are developing policymakers when important, somewhat important, or not an importa F Question 7 shouldbetor when policymakers developing are transportation policies and plansfor the San Diego region.Here is the (first/next) one: _____. icies and plans? Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 20 certainly some dif- The first question first The ...... ded on questions ded several every subgroup category felt at theApproximately relationship. Figuresand 18 19 on the next page dis- self-described play how respondents’ level of knowledge about the relation- ship between GHGs and climate change house- by planning area, age, varied hold income,affiliation. and partisan were Although there house- subgroups (e.g., across ferences holds earning at least $75,000 year per weremore likely to reportwell- being informedon thistopic when compared to their less affluent counterparts), it is noteworthy that at least 60% of respon- dents in informed about the least somewhat and climate GHGs between relationship change. VMT & VMT HANGE True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, C infrastructure investments, transportation mea- assist SANDAG in developing policies and strat- and policies developing in assist SANDAG LIMATE region, the survey inclu survey the region, how informed they feel about greenhouse gases feel about greenhouse how informed they whereas 9% confessed to being not at all informed being to whereas 9% confessed , C Well greenhouse gases (GHGs) on the environment and environment (GHGs) on the gases greenhouse 41.3 AND CLIMATE CHANGE? AND CLIMATE informed ASES EDUCE G R REENHOUSE n climate change and GHGs. G TO 0.8 BOUT Refused A Not sure / 8.9 NFORMED I Now for a differentaHow topic.doNow for informed you about feel greenhouse gases and Not at all Not all at informed 35.7 OW Smwt info rme d 13.3 17 H 17 S light ly info rme d ROGRAMS MISSIONS IGURE the topic of climate change and GHG emission reduction strategies. change and GHG strategies. emission reduction of climate the topic SANDAG egies in by residents egies will be supported that the F sures and policies, and alternative strategies. To strategies. alternative and sures and policies, ARE YOU INFORMED ABOUT GHGS ARE YOU INFORMED curb climate change, in 2009 the California Legislature SB 375.passed SB 375, Per SANDAG is required prepare a Sustainable to Communities Strategy (SCS)theas part ofRTP 2050 which will demonstrate how the region will achieve GHG emission reduction targets through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning, In an effort toreduce the harmful effects of P in thisto series simply asked respondents rate 13% indicated that they feel slightly informed, and their relationship to climate change. As shown in Figure 17 below, 41% of respondents indi- thatwell-informed theycated feel relationshipthe aboutclimatebetween GHGs change, and and about informed somewhat they feel stated an additional 36% betwee relationship the about Question 8 their relationshipclimateto change? Would you say you feelwell-informed, somewhatinformed, slightly informed, or not at all informed? E Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 21 37.6 43.0 38.0 34.8 ARTY 39.6 43.8 GE & P Party 30.8 49.0 & A ...... NCOME REA I 39.2 39.1 A 39.1 38.5 Democrat Republican Othe / DTS r 25.1 44.3 OUSEHOLD LANNING H P ucks, whereas 36%confided that 38.8 44.0 mo re $200K or $200K BY BY To help inform respondents about 32.3 36.1 18 to 29 to 18 39 to 30 49to 40 64 to 50 older or 65 HANGE HANGE 40.3 47.7 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, C C $199K $1 50 K to ey were aware ey were aware of the new legislative require- East Question 10, Question 9 asked respondents 34.7 41.3 aware that California recently passed a law that N County and 1% were and 1% were unsure (see Figure 20). Figure 21 LIMATE LIMATE , C , C 35.7 44.2 $149K $100K to $100K ASES ASES We s t 40.7 38.7 G G 36.0 48.9 $9 9K $75K to $75K reductions fromtr cars and 35.4 45.0 East CountyEast County N REENHOUSE REENHOUSE Ho use ho ld Inc ome(QD 4) G G 37.7 40.1 $74K Plan ning Area Age $50K to $50K 37.8 32.4 County BOUT BOUT A A 33.5 35.0 $4 9K $25K to $25K 35.9 44.5 NFORMED NFORMED I I OW OW Well 31.2 36.2 $25K Smw t 32.2 Well 40.0 Smwt Central City North South informed Less than informed informed informed 19 H 19 18 H 18 0 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 0 100 % Respondents % % Respondents % IGURE IGURE they they were not aware of the new requirements by planning area, age, of varied awareness the GHG reduction requirements shows how reported transportation. of mode primary and SANDAG AWARE OF GHG REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS? F F SB 375 and provide the necessary context for necessary the and provide 375 SB whether—prior to taking the survey—they were trucks. and cars from emissions gas greenhouse reduce to regions and other Diego San requires th Among surveyed, 63% stated that all residents to GHG emission ments pertaining Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 22 mode 73. 9 Ot her alt 59 .6 Public transit RIMARY 56.3 Vanpool Carpo ol / & P & ...... GE Dr iv e alon e 66.4 king road improvementsking road , A REA older 69.8 A 63.4 Ye s, awa re 70.7 LANNING P BY 59. 2 Having made all respondents aware of the True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, AW AW aware that California passeda law new that L L 62 .8 would support or oppose various policies or emissions in the San Diego region, Question 10 most supportive of ma 1.0 49.5 18 to 2918 to 39 30 to 49 to 40 64 50 to or 6 5 EDUCTION EDUCTION No t sure R R Ea st 64.5 N County . The programs tested, The programs tested, as well as the levels of public support . MISSION MISSION E E We s t 60.9 Figure 22 on the next page. N County AS AS G G more riders (84%), and concentrating new housing near existing East 64. 3 County 35.6 Not aware Planning AreaPlanning Age (Q13,Q14) Mode Transportation Primary 58. 1 South Co unty REENHOUSE REENHOUSE G G ODE OF OF City 66.5 M Prior to taking this survey, were you taking this survey, Prior to WARE WARE 62.0 Ce n tra l Nort h 0 21 A 21 20 A 20 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 100 Gas Emission Reduction Law Reduction Emission Gas % Respondents Awa re of Greenhouse of re Awa Respondents % RANSPORTATION IGURE IGURE new legislative requirements for reducing GHG for reducing new legislative requirements they by asking respondents whether followed-up GHGs to reduce programs designed are shown for each program, in Overall, residents of the San Diego region were SANDAG SUPPORT FOR GHG REDUCTION POLICIES T F F Question 9 requires San Diego and other regions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks? that reduce bottlenecks and improve traffic flow (88%), followed by expanding programs that telecommutingencourage and flexible work (87%), hours making improvements to the transit system so that it attracts employment centers and areas that are well-served by transit (82%). At the other end of the spec- Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 23 , ASES G Law (Q9) Law irements, and irements, 30.6 31.1 Proba bly s upport 30 .0 REENHOUSE 28.9 Gas Emission Reduction Reduction Emission Gas Awareness of Greenhouse 35 .8 G 38.7 32.7 ...... 31.5 BOUT A 28 .6 at allaware Yes, Not aware 24.8 % R esp o ndent s Slightly, Not Not Slightly, G reduction requ AW NFORMED L I 57.3 56 .0 54.2 43.936.733.1 41.1 44.3 39.0 45.9 36.8 33.1 38.8 41.7 37.0 32.4 26.2 31.8 29.7 51.7 Greenhouse Gases, Very, Very, How Informed About About Informed How (Q8) Change Climate OW 45.5 45 .0 43 .2 Somewhat 38 .5 De f inite l y suppo r t H 34 .4 30.9 BY True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, EDUCTION mber of vehicles on freeways. However, it However, vehicles on freeways. mber of R 0 102030405060708090100 2 and 3 display for support how each of the improvetransportation the system (56%), con- MISSIONS ool lanes (63%)building and carpool new lanes MISSIONS st/next) one: _____. Would you support or oppose informed a respondent felt about the relationship about felt a respondent informed MISSION E AS VMT & E G VMT & E , their prior awareness of GH of their prior awareness , EDUCING EDUCING R REENHOUSE R OF G OF OF ETHODS ETHODS M Build new carpool lanes to encourage carpooling encourage to lanes new carpool Build M WARENESS FOR FOR There are a variety of ways to reduce greenhousegas emissions from cars and & A Exp and programs that enco urag e carpo oling and va npo oling Conve rt existing general purpose freeway lanes to freeway lanes carpool lanes purpose general existing Conve rt UPPORT UPPORT HANGE Expanding the abilityExpanding for solo drivers to pay to a fee use carpool lanes C Make improvements to the transit system so that it attracts more riders more attracts it so that system transit the to improvements Make areas transit w ell-served centers, employment near housing Concentrate Expa nd programs that encourage telecommuting and flexible w hours ork flexible and telecommuting that encourage programs Expa nd 22 S 22 2 S Make road improvements that reduce bottlenecks and improve traffic flow traffic bottlenecks and improve that reduce Make road improvements Encouraging adoption of alternative fuel vehicles such as hybrid, electric cars electric hybrid, as such vehicles fuel alternative of adoption Encouraging Expand programs and complete projects that encourage walking or bicycling or walking encourage that projects complete and programs Expand 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f Q10 b Q10 d Q10 e Q10 a Q10 j Q10 c Q10 i Q10 h Q10 g Q10 LIMATE ABLE IGURE Make road improvements that reduce bottlenecks and improve traffic flow improve traffic and bottlenecks reduce that improvements road Make riders more hours work flexible and attracts telecommuting it that that encourage so programs Expand system transit the to improvements Make carselectric hybrid, as such vehicles fuel alternative of adoption Encouraging 57.2 vanpoolingand carpooling that encourage programs Expand bicycling walking or that encourage projects complete and 58.9 programs 55.1Expand areas 53.2 transit well-served centers, employment near housing Concentrate 57.7 46.3 46.2 51.0 46.6 55.1 40.4 56.9 58.6 51.7 47.3 62.0 45.8 49.9 51.9 52.4 39.3 43.3 47.1 43.4 Build new carpool lanes to encourage carpooling encourage to lanes carpool new Build lanes carpool to lanes freeway purpose general existing Convert lanes carpool to use pay fee to a drivers solo the ability for Expanding SANDAG T C this approach? F trucks. As I read the following list of options, please indicate whether you would support or oppose each policy or program. Here is the (fir Question 10 verting existing general purpose lanes to carp the nu reduce and carpooling encourage (70%) to of majority clear by a were supported that rategies these latter st recognized should be even For the interested reader, Tables those surveyed. planning area. trum, respondents were somewhatofpay abilityless drivers to solo supportive the expanding of to use carpoola fee lanes and using the money to programs tested in Question 10 varied by in Question 10 varied how programs tested by between GHGs and climate change climate GHGs and between Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 24 East N County N County West N County N County Definitely support Not sure/ Not Refused Definitely oppose Probably oppose Probably support ...... the use of a personal of the use tested in Question 10, ers, and less than one- than ers, and less e-third of respondents The programs and poli- Planning Area Planning REA South County East County A 62.8 12.1 13.4 10.3 discourage gallon of gas of gallon LANNING P Increasing the per paid tax MISSIONS BY True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 55.0 58.2 55.743.032.7 57.2 35.8 36.0 57.9 37.1 29.8 60.0 25.1 26.2 30.3 23.4 33.7 31.5 43.7 45.4 51.9 36.5 42.4 39.9 39.4 37.3 46.5 33.9 36.1 41.6 59.465.3 54.5 51.3 50.2 53.9 52.5 49.4 61.4 51.0 59.7 54.7 52.9 45.5 47.9 33.2 49.0 47.2 Central City North policies that discourage the policies that discourage the use of a personal d as neutral changes or positive incentives or establishing a new fee on miles driven per a new fee on miles driven or establishing ission reduction policies e. Overall, less than on less Overall, e. ban and commercial cent commercial and ban VMT & E MISSIONS 9.8 46.5 20.7 20.2 EDUCE DUCTION STRATEGIES DUCTION STRATEGIES R individuals to of their use reduce a personal vehicle. In VMT & E TO Establishing parking fees in fees parking Establishing urban and commercial areas commercial and urban EDUCING ROGRAMS R encourage P OF 9.2 11.3 61.2 16.1 Q11 Support for funding programs to reduce VMT and emissions . . . . . reduce to emissions and VMT funding programs for Q11 Support UNDING ETHODS F M Establishing fee based on fee based Establishing the number of miles driven of miles number the FOR FOR 0 In order to encourage people to drive less and provide funding for the programs I 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 100 % Respondents % UPPORT UPPORT 23 S 23 3 S ABLE IGURE Make road improvements that reduce bottlenecks and improve traffic flow improve traffic and bottlenecks reduce that improvements road Make Build new carpool lanes to encourage carpooling encourage to lanes carpool new Build lanes carpool to lanes freeway purpose general existing Convert Expand programs and complete projects that encourage walking or bicycling walking or that encourage projects complete and programs Expand areas transit well-served centers, employment near housing Concentrate 50.6 47.7 46.3 37.3 37.7 46.8 Expand programs that encourage telecommuting and flexible work hours work flexible and telecommuting that encourage programs Expand lanes carpool to use pay fee a to drivers solo for ability the Expanding Make improvements to the transit system so that it attracts more riders more attracts that it system so transit the to improvements Make cars electric hybrid, as such vehicles fuel alternative of adoption Encouraging vanpooling and carpooling that encourage programs Expand 53.3 55.2 51.7 47.2 55.6 44.7 SANDAG F SUPPORT FOR FEE-BASED GHG RE SUPPORT FOR T justdescribed that would helpreduce greenhouse gas emissions, would you supportor oppose: _____? Question 11 vehicle (21%). Figures 24-26 on the following pages display how support for each of the policies relevant respondent-and by household-level characteristics.varied 11 in Question tested quarter supported increasing the gas tax (24%) increasing the gas tax quarter supported In contrast to their clear support for the GHG em the clear support for In contrast to their vehicle through policies that make it more costly to use a personal vehicle—including establish- urban and in parking fees establishing vehicle, miles traveled per of number the on ing a fee commercial areas, and increasingthegasoline. tax paid on San Diego residents were much less supportive of in ur fees (30%) supported establishing parking designed facilitateand/or to vehicle by making it more expensive to operat cies tested in Question 10 can be characterize 10 can be cies tested in Question additiontothesepolicymakers ‘carrots’, to also have the ability Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 25 40 19 39 REENHOUSE 34 30 G 14 RANSPORTATION BOUT T 34 A 45 REA ...... 27 33 A RIMARY Pub lic tran s it O t he r alt mo d e 34 NFORMED & P I 20 20 AW LANNING OW 30 L P H Vanpool BY 23 BY 16 Primary Transportation Mode (Q13,Q14) Mode Transportation Primary EDUCTION 23 22 R MISSIONS 27 MISSIONS 16 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 17 MISSION E VMT & E 19 VMT & E VMT & 22 Planning Area Planning Increasing gas tax gas Increasing AS 25 G 30 EDUCE 20 EDUCE R 21 Increasing gas tax gas Increasing R TO TO 26 REENHOUSE Parking feesParking 33 G 26 Yes, aware Not aware Drive alone C arpool / 20 OF Emission Reduction Law (Q9) Law Reduction Emission Parking fees Parking Awareness of Greenhouse Gas Greenhouse of Awareness ROGRAMS 28 ROGRAMS P P 20 13 all 28 WARENESS UNDING UNDING 17 F F , A 30 FOR FOR 35 27 HANGE Central City North South County County East West County N East County N C Fee based on miles driven miles on based Fee Fee based on miles driven miles on based Fee 31 30 UPPORT UPPORT GaseChange Climate s, (Q8) 21 Very some , what S lightly not , at How Informed About Greenhouse About Informed How 5 0 LIMATE 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Defi ni tely Support tely ni Defi 25 S 25 24 S 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 , C Definitely Support Definitely % Respondents Who Who Respondents % or Probably % Respondents Who Who Respondents % or Probably ODE ASES IGURE IGURE G SANDAG F M F Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 26 29 27 21 20 NCOME I ...... 39 19 OUSEHOLD H 36 BY 36 20 MISSIONS True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 27 29 VMT& E 22 Household Income (QD4) Income Household EDUCE 21 R Increasing gas tax gas Increasing TO 30 20 Parking feesParking ROGRAMS 17 P 26 19 UNDING F FOR 21 35 Fee based on miles driv en Fee on based miles UPPORT 25 Less than $25K than Less $49K to $25K $74K to $50K $99K to $75K $149K to $100K $199K to $150K more or $200K 5 0 26 S 26 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Definitely Support Definitely % Respondents Who Who Respondents % or Probably IGURE SANDAG F Typical Travel Behavior 27 0 68.1 ...... Work or school commute or Work No n-wo rk orsc ho ol 47.6 on. For employed respondents e most often when traveling e most often to work or True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 04050607 % Respondents The first questions in this series were The first questions e form of transportation they use most often traveling in the San Diego region. The answers traveling in The the San Diego region. r respondents, the question r respondents, simply asked what EHAVIOR ortation priorities and policies can be shaped by can be shaped priorities and policies ortation 23.3 B 13.8 12.6 ODE 6.8 M ts’ primary mode of transportati of mode primary ts’ 5.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.4 ined below in Figure 27. below in Figure ined 1.2 1.1 0.8 RAVEL 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0 10203 Bike T Trolley RANSPORTATION Coaster Sprinter Walk/Run Bus (local) Bus T Drive alo ne Other mode Other What formof transportation do you usemost oftenwhen traveling intheSan What form of transportation do you us RIMARY Motorcycle/Scooter Carpool passenger) (1 Bus (premium express) (premium Bus Ca rpo ol (2+ p a sseng e rs) 27 P 27 YPICAL IGURE SANDAG F PRIMARY MODE OF TRANSPORTATION OF TRANSPORTATION PRIMARY MODE T Naturally, an individual’s opinions about transp the type of transportationthe type primarily they whether they use, commuteworkto or school, and of questions a number Accordingly, included the survey travel behavior. their aspects of other in this sec- the results of which are presented behavior, travel to profile respondents’ designed tion. Question 14 Diego region? designed to identify responden designed th that they report asked the survey and students, othe all For school. or work to commuting when form of transportation they use most often when to are questions both comb Question 13 school in the San Diego region? Typical Travel Behavior 28 6 11 21 16 63 29 0 2 ...... 23 11 drive alone when travel- drive alone when 9 87 37 more varied in their primary in their varied more 5 52 52 3 23 2 69 4 59 6 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, TATUS 35 2 NCOME S Other alt mode Other alt I 29 rted that they primarily they rted that imarilyusing some formtransit.public of 6 63 Other alt mode alt Other 22 Household Income (QD4) Income Household 3 24 OUSEHOLD Employment StatusEmployment (Q12) MPLOYMENT H E 5 47 Public transit BY BY 28 public transit as their primary mode, including bus, the Trol- 65 Public trans it 9 commute to work or school were school or to work commute ODE ODE M M 6 18 14 67 34 Carpool / Vanpool Carpool 50 3 Carpool / Vanpool Carpool RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION 5 33 T T 17 22 Full- time Full- time Part- Student maker Home- Retired jobs Between Driv e al one 75 19 RIMARY RIMARY Driv e alone 57 Less $25K than to $49K $25K to $74K $50K to $99K $75K $149K to $100K to $199K $150K more or $200K 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 100 0 epn ents Respond % 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 29 P 29 28 P 28 100 % Respondents % IGURE IGURE SANDAG F F By comparison, those By comparison, who do not ley, Coaster or Sprinter. As shown in the figure, two-thirds (68%) of those who commute to work or school reported driv- transportation,ofmode primaryas their ing solo followed by carpoolingsinglepassenger with a and(13%), carpooling withmore twoor passengers Approximately (5%). workers 6% of stu-and form of some using reported dents mode of transportation. Less than half (48%) repo ing in the Diego region, San than morecarpoolingone third (23%) singlewith reported mul- or a 10% reported pr whereas (14%), tiple passengers Figures 28-31 show how primary mode of transportation varied by employment status, house- area. and planning gender, age, income, hold Typical Travel Behavior 29 3 3 10 4 31 Female 35 57 58 Ge nd e r 5 6 3 ...... 6 21 68 26 65 1 6 that they primarily drive solo 1 42 9 51 27 63 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 8 Other alt mode Other alt REA to work or school pay $50 or more per month 16 A ked ked a series of questions about the parking that 2 most (8%) pay less than $50 per month. Overall, ENDER 71 Planning Area Planning Other alt mode alt Other hool. The first two questions simply asked whether 10 & G 28 55 GE LANNING A P 8 61 Public transit BY BY Age 23 Pu blic transit 65 4 ODE ODE have to pay for have totheir workschool parking orAmong at site. the M M 4 3 not 24 10 Workers and Workers and students who reported 68 27 Carpool / Vanpool Carpool 60 Carpool /Carpool Vanpool 7 RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION 4 18 T T 10 22 Central North City S outh County East County N County We st N County East 29 Drive alone 18to 29 to 30 39 40 to 49 to 50 64 65 older or Male 54 Drive alone RIMARY RIMARY 57 0 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 31 P 31 30 P 30 100 100 % Respondents % % Respondents % IGURE IGURE Nearly nine out of ten respondents (88%) who primarily drive solo when commuting to work or do that they school reported when commuting to work or school were next as is available at their place of employment or sc they pay for parkingtheiratwork/school site and—if yes—how much they pay per month. The answers toboth questions are combined in Figure32 on the nextpage. 11% who that reported they pay for parking, do just 3% of those who drive solo when commuting commuting when solo drive who those of 3% just for parking at their work site or school. SANDAG PAY FOR PARKING? F F Typical Travel Behavior 30 Respon- pay forparking not ...... answer the question. the question. answer 3.2 0. 7 4. 8 $25 Refused $25~$49 Less than Less Respondents who reside in reside who Respondents the under those County, South age of 30, those whose house- than $25,000 less hold earns who residents per year, and have lived in the San Diego years were five less than region to report that the most likely theywould no longerdrive solocommuting when if they day to park $10 per to pay had at their school or work site (see Figures 34 & 35). $100+ 1.4 $100+ $50~$99 1.1 $50~$99 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 1.0 42.8 ctors, and 3% refused to refused 3% and ctors, drive alone Depends / / Depends S o me time s ted that having to pay $10 per day for parking ted that having to pay $10 per Yes wo , uld still 11.3 ARKING Pay for Pay R YOUR COMMUTE BEHAVIOR? R YOUR COMMUTE BEHAVIOR? parking P CHOOL AY your $10 P $10 ITH 87.7 2.8 park ing W Refused ARKING P Do not pay for for pay Do not LONE FOR A 6.9 AID RIVE P Depends D How muchmonth do youfor parking? pay per Do you pay forDo you pay at parking Would you still drive alone EARS GE ...... Y 47.1 43.3 & A AND Years inS an Diego Re gio n(Q1) REA A 49.3 63.5 NCOME Le ss than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 o mo r re I SLD LANNING H P mo re 63.3 41.2 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 6 5 o o r lde r $200K or $200K BY BY True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, East ARKING ARKING 44.4 46.7 $199K $1 5 0K to N County P P AY AY D D ER ER West 39.7 26.6 $1 4 9K $100K to $100K $10 $10 P $10 $10 P $99K 41.6 47.8 ITH ITH $75K to $75K East CountyEast County N W W House hold Inc ome (QD4) Planning AreaPlanning Age LONE LONE $74K 57.3 42.6 $5 0K to County A A RIVE RIVE D D 50.4 $49K 47.3 $25K to $25K OT OT N N OULD OULD $2 5K 55.1 80.9 Central City North South Less than 0 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 35 W 35 34 W 34 100 10 0 Alone if Parking Were $10 Per Day Per $10 Were Parking if Alone ln i akn ee$0Pr Day Per $10 Were Parking if Alone % Respondents That Would Not Drive Not Would That Respondents % % R espondents That Would Not Drive Not Would That espondents R % IGURE IGURE SANDAG F F Personal Behavior Change 32 ...... avel behavior, as avel behavior, well as Overall, approximatelyhalf (51%) of San Diego residents realistically, indicated that, willingthey are to reduce drive they that amount the months. six next the during Approximately 45% indi- cated that they were not willingto make this change, that it whereas 2% indicated other factors on depended to answer and 1% refused 36). (Figure the question ntive section of the survey was HANGE True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, are willingthe in next sixmonths to reduce C 51.2 ount they drive can be difficult for many peo- can be drive ount they ining trips,riding a bicycle,othermethods? or ortation. Of course, forgeneral support policies gness to change their tr to change their gness ially when respondents that certain understand Ye s, w illingt o re duce driving people have very demanding schedules and and people have very demanding schedules life- Past research has shown that measuring expected measuring shown that Past research has ONTHS uring respondents’ support for various programs, personally inter- travel behavior in the one’s change M IX S EXT N 1.1 IN Refused her. Accordingly, the final substa rsonalthrough vehicle methods suchtakingas carpooling,tran- , whereas others are not. In the case of changingof, whereasdriving one’s not.In the case others are EHAVIOR RIVING D 2.2 B Depends EDUCE R TO We recognize that peopledemanding have very schedules and lifestyles. Making ILLING 36 W 36 45.4 ERSONAL IGURE Not w to illing reduce driving SANDAG F WILLINGNESS TO REDUCE DRIVING policies and initiativesare that designedimprove to the region’stransportation system and transp of modes the use of alternative encourage and programs is one thing. A willingness to P Up to this point, the survey focusedon meas behavior changecan be a difficult task—espec the am to reduce changes that making and styles, changestheto reduce amount theybe can drive people,for many difficult and impossible for others. For these next fewquestions, please give us your honestopinions. Realistically, in the six monthsnext are you willing to reduce the amountdriveyouthat a personal vehicle through such methodsas carpooling, taking transit, comb Question 18 behaviors are socially desirablebehaviors behavior, the concern was that some respondents would report that are willingthey to reduce their driving in the future because they know “they should”, when in reality they are not willing to In an effortmakechange. this toavoid potential this source of measurement respondentserror, were first instructed that we recognize that that to indicate Having thus made it acceptable for a respondent for others. ple—and impossible theywilling are not to reduce the amount that they drive, participantswereasked to give ustheir honest opinions about whether—realistically—they the amount thattheydrive a pe methods. other or a bicycle, riding trips, combining sit, est of reducing VMT is quite VMT is quite anot est of reducing devoted to identifying San Diego residents’ willin the conditions that may be required to facilitate these changes. Personal Behavior Change 33 34.7 jobs 56.1 MPLOYMENT & E 49.0 42.6 Retired Between ODE M e affiliated with third with e affiliated ...... Age 53.5 61.5 GE maker & A 56.0 REA RANSPORTATION 71.7 A T 66.6 18 to 29 to 18 39 to 30 49 to 40 64 to 50 older or 65 RIMARY LANNING 59.4 P P True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, BY BY East 45.6 o currently primarily use alternative modes of modes alternative use primarily o currently N County ONTHS ONTHS 47.4 Full- timeFull- time Part- Student Home- M M We s t IX IX 52.0 S S EXT EXT 76.4 mo d e Other alt N N 45 .6 IN IN East CountyEast County N 72.6 Public transit RIVING RIVING Planning Area Planning 55.2 D D County EDUCE EDUCE 55.9 Vanpool R R 48.4 TO TO Primary Transportation Mode (Q13,Q14) Mode Transportation Primary (Q12) Status Employment 45.4 ILLING ILLING 62.1 Central City North South Driv e alone Carpool / 0 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 38 W 38 37 W 37 10 0 100 Personal Vehicle in Next 6 Months 6 Next in Vehicle Personal Personal Vehicl e in Next 6 Months 6 Next in e Vehicl Personal % Respondents Willing to Reduce Driving Reduce to Willing Respondents % % R espondents Willing to Red uce Driving uce Red to Willing espondents R % IGURE IGURE TATUS SANDAG F S F transportation (not includingpublic who ar Asians, those stu transit),dents, thoseparties, whosehouseholds less than earn $25,000 and per year, individualswhoindicated that improvementsregion’s to the public transitshould systembe the priority top for future Figuresfunding 37-40). (see When compared to respective their counterparts,willingness a to reducethe amount they drive in the upcoming among was greatest six month period those wholive in the Centralplanning wh 30, individuals of age under the those area, Personal Behavior Change 34 40.0 hig hw ays Free w ay s , RIORITIES 62.5 P 49.7 roads PENDING Major streets, Major S 36.8 Respondents who ...... OP at least once per week, once at least 62.8 & T Trans it services ek they walk for a trip that ARTY 57.2 NCOME De moc rat Re public an Ot he r / DTS I mo re & P 32.8 $2 00K or OUSEHOLD THNICITY 49.9 Other Mix ed / 42.1 $19 9K H E True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, of reducing their driving. specific methodsreducing of $150K to $150K BY BY likely, or notor likely to takeaction this likely, during they already trip link of Figure 41, respondents were asked simply ONTHS ONTHS 53.9 As ia n $1 49 K 73.4 American M M IX IX S S ING BY VARIOUS METHODS EXT EXT 50.1 N N ported that at least once per we that at least once per ported 60.7 / Blac k IN IN tions were perceived to be considerably easier to take than oth- easier be considerably perceived to tions were Af AmericAf an Ethnic it y (QD3) Party Hou seho ld Inc ome (QD4) Top S pe nding Priority (Q 5) 53.0 RIVING RIVING D D 68.8 Latino / Hispanic EDUCE EDUCE 58.1 R R $2 5K to $4 9K $50 to K $ 74K $ 75 to K $9 9K $10 0K to TO TO Whit e 44.6 ILLING ILLING Caucasian / 62.6 $25K Less than 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 roal eh le ex 6 oths Mont 6 xt Ne n i e cl hi Ve l ersona P W 40 39 W 39 100 eroa V ic i ex 6Months M 6 xt Ne in e cl hi Ve rsonal Pe % Respondents Willing to Reduce Driving Reduce to Willing Respondents % % Respondents Willing to Reduce Driving Reduce to Willing Respondents % IGURE IGURE SANDAG WILLINGNESS TO REDUCE DRIV F F indicatedQuestion in 18 that they would be willing to reduce theirdriving (orwere unsure) were to use would be next asked to report how likely they For each of the methods shown on the left side whether,somewhatrealistically, they are very likely, As shown in the figure, some ac As shown in the figure, thesix months. next indicated that More than 40% of respondents ers. and an additional 38% that stated they werevery likely to take this action in the upcoming six Eighteen percent (18%) re months. likelyvery tothey were start28% stated and takingdrive, this normally they action in the period Personal Behavior Change 35 3.5 LL 9.8 A 6.5 10.8 Not sur e mode 17 .5 Other alt alt Other 27 .5 11.8 32 .5 MONG 5 41.4 23.5 (A Public transit Does not apply not Does ODE 39.8 M 39 .7 ...... Not lik e ly 37.6 16 .6 26.5 19 .9 Vanpool Carpool / 19 .9 9.3 Primary Transportation Mode (Q13,Q14) Mode Transportation Primary Somewhat likely Somewhat RANSPORTATION 23.0 19 .1 17.1 8.4 T Drive alone 28.3 23 .1 Very likely 16 .9 RIMARY 40.2 26.9 23.5 29.9 39.9 40.6 Overall 15.9 17.3 17.3 P True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, BY % Respondents Who Are Willing to Reduce Driving in Next 6 Next 6 Months in to Reduce AreDriving Who Willing Respondents % ging in the behaviorgingthe in or were to do very likely rticular strategy in the upcoming six month 18.1 17 .7 at they currently follow a flexible work sched- 9.5 11.9 8.9 8.2 Alre ady do it week for a trip they would normally drive, and and 23% stated that they are very likely to startto likely very that are they stated and 23% RIVING ining methods less than tested had one-third of 0 102030405060708090100 RIVING D ) D respondents and reflect the percentage that expected to adopt expected to that the percentage reflect and respondents EDUCE IKELY ortation, planning area, and respondent age. and respondent area, ortation, planning all EDUCE R L R TO TO OMEWHAT CTIONS S CTIONS A Increase your use of public transit public of use your Increase OR A Work from home home Work least at from once perweek AKING ERY entages are based on AKING Jo in a ca rp oova l or npo olfo your r c ommut e T T OF % V A t le a st o nc e pe r w e e k , li nk se v e ra l t rip s t o ge t he r OF As I read the followingways that people can reduce theamount that they drive, HOWING , S IKELIHOOD IKELIHOOD A do pt fl e xib le w ork s che d ul e t o av o id dr iv i ng d ur ing rush ho ur t ra ffi c the method in the upcoming six month period. The percentages do not include those who are already are who those include not do The percentages period. month six the upcoming in method the engaging in the behavior. 41 L 41 Ride bike at least 1x per week for a trip you would normally make by car by make normally would you trip a for week per 1x least at bike Ride 4 L 5.perc these Note that At least once per week, walk for a trip that you normally by make would At that car least walk once week, per a normally trip you for 19 19 19 19 19 19 19d Q1 9e Q1 9g Q1 9a Q1 9b Q1 9c Q1 9f Q1 ESPONDENTS ABLE IGURE At least once per week, link several trips together trips several link week, per once least At make by car would younormally that trip a for walk week, per once least At transit public of your use Increase commuteyour for or vanpool carpool a Join 26.3make by car normally you would trip a for week per 1x least at bike Ride traffic hour rush driving avoid during to work schedule flexible Adopt week per once least at home from Work 23.1 18.8 17.7 30.4 17.1 15.6 33.6 17.8 18.0 34.5 33.7 19.8 32.9 23.9 21.2 19.4 15.6 13.8 17.6 18.8 11.7 21.9 29.4 15.2 39.1 18.2 24.8 36.0 12.0 SANDAG T R F pleasethis tellme somewhatare very likely, to take you whether,realistically, likely,or not likely action in the next six months. If it doesn't apply to you or you are already doing it, please say so. Question 19 doing so during the next six months. The rema The months. six next the so during doing of interest. A similar percentage (18%) reported th (18%) reported A similar percentage of interest. ule to avoid commuting during rush hour traffic, enga are currently that they indicating respondents a car- joining transit, public of use their increasing months—including six upcoming the in so pool or vanpool, riding a bike at least once per show of respondents who percentage how the once per week. Tables 4-6 telecommuting at least to indicated a pa that they would be likely adopt of transp mode primary by varied period Personal Behavior Change 36 ERY East , N County N County 15.0 15.3 15.2 16.0 % V 16.0 18.7 18.3 19 .3 20 .6 23.1 Not sureNot / Refused West N County County N HOWING ESPONDENTS , S 27.5 26.7 R 30.5 31.5 30.5 30 .8 LL 34.4 35 .0 A Does not apply not Does ...... Age 38.0 No ODES 46.5 MONG Planning Area Planning ESPONDENTS M South County County East 21.4 Individual’s travel behavior travel Individual’s R 20 .9 (A 14 .7 22 .8 LL 23.7 23.9 A REA 21 .7 19.5 A 17 .2 S ome w ha t mo re o fte n MONG % Resp ondents W ho Employ ed or S in choo l ke transit, or ride a bike to work or 12.4 18 to 29 18 to 39 30 to 40to 4964 50 to older 65 or (A RANSPORTATION 35 .6 35 .3 LANNING 34.8 GE 30.4 28.8 T 28 .5 P Central North City 25.4 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, A 24 .7 23.5 BY 16 .9 BY 26.926.3 43.1 40.8 27.4 24.8 27.1 29.4 23.3 26.0 16.8 12.3 19.8 29.7 24.3 23.4 17.9 6.3 17.7 28.0 11.9 24.0 17.4 7.5 21.2 34.2 18.7 23.0 19.3 12.6 13.8 19.3 9.1 17.5 16.4 5.7 Mu c h mo re o f t e n Overall 0 102030405060708090100 One of the goals of this survey was to gauge One of the goals of this survey was the re asked if this change would make them more re asked if this change would make 31.3 31.3 30.1 31.8 23.0 20.7 20.4 Overall RIVING RIVING LTERNATIVE D D A OF des when commuting to work or school. when commuting des TO REDUCE DRIVING EDUCE EDUCE SE R R U TO TO ON ) orschool more often. Accordingly, for each of the items shown on CTIONS CTIONS IKELY A L A NCENTIVES in somethese of conditions (and/or the introduction of certain incen- I OF AKING AKING T T OMEWHAT OF OF ) S changes OR Realistically, would you carpool, vanpool,ta Your emp loyer offered a cash offered to emp incentive carpool loyer Your or vanpool IKELY Your employer or school provided safe locations to park bicycles park to locations safe provided school or employer Your L ERY FFECTIVENESS You r e m plo y er o r sc ho o lo ffe re d re se rv e d pa rk in g s pa ce sfo r c arp o o ls IKELIHOOD IKELIHOOD Your employer or school provided free shuttles from major transit stations transit major from shuttles free provided school or employer Your % V Your employer or school paid for entire transit pass in exchange parking pass for employer transit school entire Your or paid for You beYou could matched carpool w go in to neighbors same ith ing destination 42 E 42 Your emp loyer pro vided $ 60 / mo to give up parking at place of emp loy ment 6 L 5 L Your employer in parking exchange pass schoolfor transit paid or of portion for Your Your employer or school offered guaranteed rides home for emergency situations home for rides guaranteed school offered employer or Your OMEWHAT Your employer or school paid for portion of cost for you p articipating in a a in vanpool p cost you of for articipating portion school paid for employer or Your S 2iQ0 2aQ0 2cQ0 2jQ0 2dQ20h Q20d Q20g Q20j Q20f Q20c Q20b Q20a Q20e Q20i ABLE ABLE IGURE HOWING At least once per week, link several trips together trips several link week, per once least car At by make would normally you that trip a for walk week, per once least At transit public of your use Increase Join a carpool or vanpool for your commute your for or vanpool carpool a Join Ride bike at least 1x per week for a trip you would normally makeby carnormally you would trip a for week per 1x atleast bike Ride traffic hour avoiddriving rush to during work schedule flexible Adopt week per once atleast home from Work 18.8 32.0 22.9 20.9 15.8 5.6 At least once per week, link several trips together trips several link week, per once least At At least once per week, walk for a trip that you normally would make by car would you normally that trip a for walk week, once per least At transit public of your use Increase commute your for or vanpool carpool a Join 37.7 make by car normally you would trip a for week per 1x at least bike Ride traffic hour rush driving avoid during to work schedule flexible Adopt make by car would you normally that trip a for walk week, once per least At 37.7 26.3 15.2 21.4 22.3 26.3 15.2 21.4 32.8 19.1 14.1 16.2 26.1 21.8 23.1 15.9 21.9 21.3 13.6 27.2 10.5 23.1 17.7 14.6 15.8 27.2 15.2 19.4 15.2 14.6 18.8 12.6 27.1 18.2 22.9 14.8 17.4 18.2 22.7 18.3 20.6 T SANDAG F EFFECTIVENESS OF INCENTIVES OR S T is shaped by is shaped a variety of factors and conditions. extent to which tives) wouldthe increase likelihood take that vanpool, an individual would choose to carpool, transit, or ride a biketo work the left of Figure 42, workers and students we mo alternative these of one likely to use Question 20 school more often if: _____? Personal Behavior Change 37 East mode N County N County Other alt REA A West N County N County Public Public transit GE LANNING RIMARY P A P Age ...... BY BY BY Vanpool Carpool / / Carpool e incentive would make Planning Area Planning South South ODES ODES ODES County County East M M M Primary Transportation Mode (Q13,Q14) Mode Primary Transportation Drive alone Drive 18 to 2918 to 30 to 39 49 40 to 64 50 to older 65 or 40.729.3 36.3 25.0 49.0 33.2 69.9 44.7 36.4 57.7 57.0 54.3 58.7 78.8 64.4 55.7 51.9 64.2 80.3 52.4 50.0 47.0 48.5 83.5 57.3 44.8 42.7 47.0 66.1 38.7 Ov erall Central North City RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 57.0 72.8 62.940.729.3 53.8 61.2 44.6 44.9 34.4 28.2 38.2 44.6 27.5 25.8 20.1 31.6 19.8 52.5 58.2 60.9 52.9 44.7 31.9 50.0 69.7 59.9 47.1 33.2 21.2 55.7 71.0 59.4 59.0 41.1 31.4 44.8 61.3 48.0 45.1 31.8 21.6 Ov erall T T T 57.0 68.0 54.340.729.3 59.1 50.7 41.7 49.1 34.5 21.7 51.6 53.0 60.2 37.2 31.9 23.8 35.3 28.0 45.3 30.3 52.5 62.1 48.3 59.2 43.2 50.9 55.6 55.7 65.6 52.0 58.2 50.6 51.2 58.1 44.8 51.1 43.8 50.6 35.1 41.1 48.4 50.0 65.2 45.0 55.5 40.1 45.0 51.7 who indicated that th indicated that who Ov erall vanpool (56%), guaranteed rides home in emer- home rides guaranteed (56%), vanpool major transit stations was the most compelling the most was stations major transit pass paid for (50%). employer/school by one’s LTERNATIVE LTERNATIVE LTERNATIVE A A A OF OF OF SE SE SE U U U travel more often when commuting to work or school varied by varied school or work to commuting when often more travel ON ON ON NCENTIVES NCENTIVES NCENTIVES I I I OF OF OF ODE M FFECTIVENESS FFECTIVENESS FFECTIVENESS 9 E 8 E 7 E 7 ABLE ABLE ABLE RANSPORTATION Your employer or school provided safe locations to parkbicycles Your employer offered a cash incentive to carpool or vanpool carpool to cash incentive a offered employer Your situationsemergency for home rides guaranteed offered or school employer Your destination same to with going in neighbors carpool matched be could You vanpool ayou participating in for cost portion of for paid or school employer Your parking in for exchange 53.2pass entire transit for paid or school employer Your parking in for exchange pass transit portion of for paid or school employer Your 52.3 employment of at upplace give parking to / mo provided $60 employer Your carpools for spaces parking reserved offered or school employer 68.6Your 46.4 65.0 60.2 62.5 61.2 53.7 56.0 57.8 39.2 44.2 35.4 23.4 31.3 22.8 23.2 Your employer or school provided free shuttles from major transit stations Your employer or school provided free shuttles from major transit stations transit major from shuttles free provided school or employer Your Your employer or school provided safe locations to park bicycles park to locations safe provided school or employer Your Your employer offered a cash incentive to carpool or vanpool carpool to incentive cash a offered employer Your situationsemergency for home rides guaranteed offered or school employer Your destination same to going with neighbors in carpool matched be could You 53.2 carpools for spaces parking reserved offered 62.1 or school employer Your 49.0 60.6 46.8 49.0 54.7 Your employer or school paid for portion of cost for you participating in a vanpool a in you participating for cost of portion for paid or school employer Your parking for in exchange pass transit entire for paid or school employer Your parking for in exchange pass transit of portion for paid or school employer Your 52.3 employment of at place up give parking to / mo provided $60 employer Your 46.4 60.6 63.4 50.9 40.8 57.6 50.7 44.1 38.2 47.1 53.8 39.9 46.9 Your employer or school provided safe locations to park bicycles park to locations safe provided school or employer Your Your employer offered a cash incentive to carpool or vanpool or carpool to incentive cash a offered employer Your You could be matched in carpool with neighbors going to same destination52.550.856.567.642.2 same to going neighbors with carpool in matched be could situationsemergency for home rides guaranteed offered or school employer Your vanpool a in You participating you for cost of portion for paid school or employer Your 53.2 paid employer orYour entire for school transit in exchange pass parkingfor 52.3 paid employer orYour portion for school transit in of exchange pass parking for employer providedYour give /to up mo parking $60 at place employment of 50.4 carpools for spaces parking reserved offered or school employer Your 49.5 46.4 55.5 54.7 42.3 82.9 76.8 46.5 48.7 52.1 81.7 60.2 Your employer or school provided free shuttles from major transit stations transit major from shuttles free provided school or employer Your SANDAG T The following tables display how the percentage display how following tables The T gency situations (53%), being matched in a carpool with neighbors going to the same destination having(53%), a portionthe of cost of participating in a carpool/vanpool paid for by one’s transit a and having (52%), employer/school T T change, with 57% of respondents indicating that it would make them use an alternative method of commuting at least somewhat more often than they do now.Other top-ranked effective included cash changes to carpool incentives or mode of them use an alternative their current primary method of transportation, planning area, and age. Overall, free shuttles towork orschool from Personal Behavior Change 38 mo re 62 .3 $200K or $200K OUSEHOLD 76.2 $199K $150K to $150K & H REA 78 .6 $149K $100K to $100K A ...... $99K 71.3 $75K to$75K The final two substantive LANNING P 69.9 BY Household Income (QD4) IncomeHousehold 66 .8 $74K $50K to $50K Yes,to willing EEK EEK work from home from work W W ER ER $49K 68.0 $25K to $25K P P True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, AY AY D D $25K 63 .8 NE NE Le ss than O O 3.2 EAST EAST East 66.1 N C ount y L L Re fused E OR FLEX SCHEDULE SCHEDULE E OR FLEX AT AT West 62.8 OME OME 6.0 N County work from at home per week least one day if their employer H H No t s ure ROM ROM Ea st 70 .0 County would F F ORK ORK Planning Area Planning W W 63.8 County 21.0 TO TO Not wto illing 77 .5 work from home from work Would you work from home at least one day per week if your employer allowed employer your if week per day one least at home from work you Would ILLINGNESS ILLINGNESS 67.1 Ce nt ral North City Sout h 0 44 W 44 43 W 43 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 100 to Work From Home One Day Per Week Per Day One Home From Work to mlydRsodnsWlling Wil Respondents Employed % IGURE IGURE NCOME you to telecommute? Question 21 allowed themto telecommute, whereas 21%were not willingto workfrom and home, 9% were unsure or unwilling to answer the question.Although most subgroups an expressed interest in telecommuting, it was slightly higher among residents of North City those and whose house- holdsbetween $100,000 earn and $199,999 annually(see Figure 44). SANDAG I F F WILLINGNESSTELECOMMUT TO questions of the survey respondents’ of the survey measured questions interest in telecommuting and flexing their work schedule, respectively. As shown in43, Figure more than two-thirds (70%) ofcurrently those working indicated thatthey Personal Behavior Change 39 mo re 70 .7 $200K or $200K OUSEHOLD 69.9 $199K $150K to $150K & H REA A 82 .4 $149K $100K to$100K ...... $99K 82.2 LANNING $75K to $75K P BY d rush hour traffic. More than d alter their d alter schedule work to 77.7 $74K 73.1 $50K to $50K rush hour alte w r ork RAFFIC RAFFIC Yes, willing to willing Yes, T T schedule toavoid oid rushtraffic houremployer if your $49K 82 .8 $25K to $25K OUR OUR True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, H H rth County, but did not bare a consistent rela- consistent a bare not did but County, rth $25K USH USH 75.9 Le s s than R R 1.8 Refused VOID VOID Ea st A A N County N TO TO 4.8 West 82 .6 8 2. 3 Not s ure N County ing one’s to avoi work schedule ing one’s surveyed stated that they woul that they stated surveyed CHEDULE CHEDULE S S Eas t 83.3 County ORK ORK 15.8 W W Planning AreaPlanning (QD4) Income Household schedule alter w ork 77 .3 County No t w to illing LTER LTER A A TO TO 73 .0 Wouldyour you work alter scheduleto av ILLING ILLING 74.6 Central City North South 0 46 W 46 45 W 45 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 100 oAtrWr Schedule Work Alter to % Employed Respondents Willing Respondents Employed % IGURE IGURE NCOME SANDAG I avoid rush hour trafficif their employer allowed it. Just 16% not were willing to flex their work schedule to avoid rush hour traffic, whereas 8% were unsure unwillingor to answer the question shownAs 45).(Figurein Figure 46, interestin following a flexschedule of regardless was high No and in East category and was highest subgroup allowed it? F Question 22 tionship to household income. F three-quarters (78%) of workers Interest was even greater for flex for greater was even Interest Background & Demographics 40 on page 41), the on ...... of the sampling methodol- sampling the of and background information and background True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, EMOGRAPHICS Table 10 presents demographic presents demographic Table 10 that was collected duringthe survey interview or available on Because file. the registered voter ogy, data collection procedures, weighting and protocols fol- inlowed Methodology this study(see demographics shown in the table are representative of regis- of representative are the table shown in demographics San Diego tered voters in the region. & D & 6.2 4.1 1.2 1.9 4.5 9.6 6.5 7.4 1.5 5.0 4.5 2.6 6.4 7.5 0.4 6.7 8.7 9.1 18.5 18.7 17.3 22.5 23.0 15.1 47.3 52.7 35.4 27.9 11.4 65.6 18.3 15.8 18.3 27.9 59.0 16.5 27.8 73.2 11.3 11.0 18.6 36.7 17.6 17.7 15.4 13.3 11.4 41.4 11.1 24.7 18.2 28.4 17.9 11.3 12.8 75.1 1,200 AMPLE S OF EMOGRAPHICS 10 D ACKGROUND Fifth Not on file Not First Second Third Fourth 30 to 39 30 to 49 40 to 64 50 to older 65 or Male Female Democrat Republican DTS / Other 29 18 to Refused Less than $25K thanLess $49K to $25K $74K to $50K $99K to $75K $149K to $100K $199K to $150K more or $200K Mixed / Other Mixed / Refused Asian American Asian Caucasian / White / Caucasian / Hispanic Latino Af American Black / Live with family Live family Single Apartment Condo home Mobile Refused Rent Own Retired Between jobs Refused Homemaker Full- timeFull- time Part- Student Central City North County South WestN County East N County 5 than Less 9 5 to 14 10 to East County East more 15 or Refused Supervisorial District Supervisorial Ge nder Party Age Household Income (QD4) Income Household Ethnicity (QD3) Ethnicity Home Type (QD2) Type Home Home Ownership Status (QD1) Status Ownership Home Employment Status (Q12) Status Employment Total Respondents Total Area Planning (Q1) Region San Diego in Years ABLE SANDAG B T Methodology 41 Question- ew to ensure that ...... of the questions in the of the questions een planning areas, the een interviewers when conduct- position-order effects, word- effects, position-order us were identified as the uni- the as identified were us a stratified and clustered random items in a set order can lead to a ed during the intervi True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, alerts the interviewer certain to types of cts, and priming. Some covered the topics of interest and avoided the topics of interest and the covered ly selected into clusters based on their respec- into clusters based ly selected dialing into random homesin the San Diego the interview. The integrity ofthe questionnaire but also within and betw s were asked in a random order for each respon- ego region. The sample was developed in several sample was developed The ego region. s then stratified by gender, age, and partisanship and age, by gender, stratified s then ding on the preference of the respondent. the preference ding on Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI the questionnaire fielding the survey, to Prior ic measurementic error,including ed about their mode of commut- of or attendingtheir mode school were asked about based on theirbased registration stat terviewing) programmed to assist terviewing) programmed to The survey was administered to The survey was administered individual items. Because items. Because individual asking the The finalThe survey was professionally translatedSpanish, and interviews into on page 45) identifies the patterns us patterns the 45) identifies on page ETHODOLOGY a subset of respondents. For example, only For example, to a subset of respondents. only were also presented questions Several employed who were respondents systematic position bias in responses, the item bias in systematic position responses, dent. ing to work or school (Question 14). The questionnaireincludedwith this report (see Toplinesnaire & appropriate questions. the received each respondent (Computer Assisted Telephone In Telephone Assisted (Computer ing the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, ran- items, and question domizes the appropriate keypunchingmistakes should they occurduring True North and by internally by was pre-tested region prior to formally beginning the survey. oped, each representing a particular combina- particular a each representing oped, of clusters was devel number appropriate and the tion of these variables. Voters were then random sample of 1,200 registered voters in the San Di stages. First, all individuals who verse. Because of theobjectives research that motivated thisstudyand an interest in making reli- able estimates of opinions not only region-wide, Central, North City, South on ZIP code: into six subregions based divided universe was then County, East County, North CountyWest, and NorthFigure County 47).(see East Within each of wa of voters universe the areas, planning these profiles. tive SANDAG SAMPLE & WEIGHTING LANGUAGES PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE M The following sectionsoutline the methodology usedin the study, as as well the motivation for using certain techniques. with SANDAG staff to develop a questionnaire that a questionnaire staff to develop with SANDAG systemat sources of many possible ing effects, response-category effects, scaling effe scaling effects, response-category ing effects, multiple included survey were conducted in English and Spanish, depen in English and Spanish, were conducted Methodology 42 ...... e level as well as within the a particular question and what True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, liable parameter estimates for the region as a By usingprobability-based the sampling ling, the raw data were weightedrawthe according ling, to population (e.g., South County) were provided County) were South population (e.g., at would receive relatively few interviews if they e final sample of San Diego was representative e final sample to analysis. The results presented in this report The results presented to analysis. 1,352,071votersregion in the had been inter- REAS A the survey of 1,200 voters for LANNING E TO SAMPLING P AND NIVERSE U URVEY 47 S 47 IGURE SANDAG MARGIN OF ERROR DU To accommodate SANDAG’s interest in obtaining re whole, as well as within the six planning areas, the study employed a strategic oversample by whole, as well as within the six planning areas, the plan- at error associated with estimates of margins statistical the to balance planning area ning In area level. other words, planning areas th on voter proportionately based were distributed additionalinterviews. for adjust To the oversamp population of voters by planning area prior the at the region-wid representative which are results, are the weighted six planning areas. F would have found if all of been the estimated viewed. design noted above, True North ensured that th noted above, True North ensured design region voters. Because not all voters participated in the survey, however, the results have what is knownas a statistical marginsampling.due to of error The marginthe differ- of error refers to in what was found ence between Methodology 43 2 ⁄ α t ...... ˆ p voters aware of the law ± 2.83% ± Regio n-Wide Al l R e sp o n d e nt s for a 95% confidence interval). 95% confidence for a N ˆ p 1 – True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, – for estimating the margin of error, in this 1 n () tual percentage of all of tual percentage ˆ ------p when the answers are evenly split such that ters who are aware of the California greenhouse California the aware of are ters who ted they were aware of the California greenhouse of the California aware ted they were a desired confidence level, and the distribution of and the distribution confidence level, a desired – greenhouse gas emissions gas aware of the California greenhouse N for questions answered by all 1,200 respondents. all 1,200 for questions answered by Nn ------⎛⎞ ⎝⎠ margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of margin maximum The study. this in error of margin t ± ˆ p 1 – Sample Size (Number of Respondents) of (Number Size Sample n maximum th (1.96 of freedom degrees RROR Area E ± 6. 93% OF Wi t hin Planning ARGIN M n AXIMUM 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% ˆ p 14% 12% 10% 48 M 48 Margin of Erro of Margin r IGURE SANDAG F For example, in estimating the percentage of vo percentage the in estimating example, For gas emissions reduction law (Question 9), the margin of error can be calculated if one knows the sample, of the the size population, size of the where is the proportionvoters ofindica who responses to the question. The appropriate equation The appropriate to the question. responses below: is shown case, emissions reductiongas law (0.63 for 63%,example), in this is the populationvot-allof size ers (1,352,071), is thesample size that received the question (1,200),and for the t-distribution wi point is the upper Solving the equation using these values reveals a marginthat This means a of error of ± 2.73%. reveals values equationthese the usingSolving 63%with of respondents werethey indicating we can be 95% confident that the ac law, reduction Figure 48 the of provides a plot is between60% and 66%. 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response (i.e., = 0.5). For this sur- ± 2.83% is error of margin maximum the vey, error for a dichotomouserror for a percentage result occurs Methodology 44 ...... income, or planning area. income, Fig- rtain questions varied by demo- varied by rtain questions 0. It is standard practice not to call during True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, are rounded up to the nearest num- are rounded up to the nearest whole needed, to arrive at numbers that include a to arrive at numbers that include needed, ekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on week- ekday evenings (5:30PM sample size decreases, the reader should use should the reader decreases, sample size en comparing tables and pie charts for a given a tables and pie charts for en comparing e maximum margin of error for results within a for questions asked of all respondents. Because for questions asked of all respondents. rizing open-ended and preparing rizing open-ended responses, fre- are down to the nearest whole number. are rounded terviews averaged 16 minutes in length. 16 terviews averaged age of the respondent, household household respondent, the of age tables show how responses to ce show how responses tables The primary method of data collection for this study was telephone Data processing consisted of checking theof data for errorsorinconsis- consisted processing Data Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher in 0.5 or end that Numbers graphic characteristics such as characteristics such graphic ure 48 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for percentagea estimate will grow as the numberof individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. For example, as shown in the figure, th specific planningarea is approximately ± 6.93% the margin of error grows exponentially as the cautionwhen interpreting generalizing and for results subgroups. small ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower or lower whereas numbers that end in 0.4 ber, question. These same rounding rules are also applied, when are also applied, rules rounding same These decimal place in constructingfigures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place wh ends (10AM to 5PM) between June June 8 and June 15, 201 between ends (10AM to 5PM) theweekdays day on because most working adultsare unavailable and thus calling duringthose hours wouldbias the sample. Telephone in interviewing. Interviewswere conducted during we SANDAG ROUNDING DATA PROCESSING DATA COLLECTION DATA COLLECTION Within this report, figures and and figures report, this Within tencies, coding catego coding responses, tencies, and recoding quency analyses and crosstabulations. and crosstabulations. analyses quency Questionnaire & Toplines 45 0 Page 1 SANDAG SANDAG une 201 une J ...... Final Toplines Toplines Final 2050 RTP Survey Survey 2050 RTP 3% 3% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 4% 9% 9% 0% 75% 75% 39% 45% 12% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, OPLINES or is somehow theor is associated with somehow survey, & T & For statistical purposes, this survey must only be completed by this be by only completed must this survey For statistical purposes, This is a survey about important issues in your community—your answers will be answers will community—your important issues your in about a survey This is complete. to minutes 12 about take should survey The call can so I time a better know let me can you time, is nota convenient If now How would you rate the overall quality of life in the San Diego region? Would you sayWould it region? you the San quality of life in Diego the overall rate you would How is excellent,good, fair, or poor poor? very How long have How lived you in the San Diego region? 3 Fair 3 Poor Poor 4 Very sure 5 Not 98 Refused 99 1 Less than 1 year 2 1 to 2 years 3 3 to 4 years 4 5 to 9 years 5 Refused to 14 years 10 99 6 15 years or longer Excellent 1 Good 2 Q2 I’d like to begin by asking you a few questions about life in the San Diego region.the about in San Diego life questions a few askingto begin by you I’d like Q1 Section 2: General Perception of Region Region of Perception General 2: Section If needed: anonymous. If needed: If needed: back? participate to ask they if or person listed the to speak to need you why asks person the If instead, explain: particular individual. elected official they are an says the person If closely not those of the opinions measure to is designed thatthis survey explain politely interview. the terminate and time, their for them thank study, the with associated Section 1: Introduction to Section Study 1: Introduction is _____ and callingbehalfHi, name anon of TNR, my I’m independent public opinion County San Diego in about issues important We’re survey a conducting company. research a for ask I won’t and anything I’m not selling opinions. your get to like and would we donation. True North Research, © 2010 Inc. UESTIONNAIRE SANDAG Q Questionnaire & Toplines 46 Refused Refused Refused Refused Page 2 June 2010 sure Not Not sure sure Not ...... Very Poor Poor Very resources resources spend spend Should not not Should Poor Poor Low Priority Priority Low Fair Fair Priority Priority Medium Medium Good Good High Priority Priority High Excellent Excellent True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 8% 34% 32% 14% 6% 6% 14% 6% 32% 1% 34% 8% 4% 17% 1% 33% 0% 39% 5% 2% 15% 7% 17% 27% 6% 26% 41% 34% 16% 16% 34% 41% 6% 2% 0% 15% 42% 39% 3% 1% 0% 42% 44% 12% 12% 44% 42% 2% 0% 0% 13% 49% 28% 7% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 7% 28% 49% 13% projects, please indicate whether you think you indicate whether please projects, Improving transit services, public including train and Sprinter and Coaster Trolley, bus, services Randomize Randomize Read A first, then randomize B-D. B-D. randomize then Read A first, Herethe (first/next) is this priority,one: Should medium project or be _____. ahigh, low project? this spent on be no money or should The San Diego Association of Governments is in the process of developing a Regional a Regional developing of process the in is Governments of Association Diego San The andprojects transportation priority identify will which Plan Transportation every to fund money enough there is not Because region. the for improvements priorities. set must we project, transportation of list the following read As I feel priority If you for funding. a low or priority, a medium priority, high bea it should in mind keep so. Please say just project, a particular on be spent should no money that priorities. high can be projects the of all not that How would How you rate: the _____ in Wouldregion?Diego San sayyou itexcellent, is good, fair, poor, or poor? very B roads and local streets major Improving B Freeways B Freeways A C highways and freeways major Improving A system transportation overall The C Local streets androads D system transit public The Q4 Section 3: Transportation Priorities & Planning & Planning Priorities Transportation 3: Section County. Diego in San system transportation the about questions a few you ask me let Next, Q3 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 47 Refused Refused Page 3 June 2010 ...... resources resources spend spend Should not not Should 3% 3% 0% 30% 30% 34% 34% 33% 33% Low Priority Priority Low Priority Priority Medium Medium High Priority Priority High True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 47% 32% 15% 15% 32% 47% 4% 2% 0% 59% 27% 10% 10% 27% 59% 3% 0% 0% 30% 39% 22% 22% 39% 30% 6% 3% 0% 26% 39% 27% 6% 2% 0% 31% 38% 23% 23% 38% 31% 7% 1% 0% 19% 47% 25% 25% 47% 19% 4% 5% 0% 31% 36% 23% 23% 36% 31% 5% 5% 0% 36% 34% 24% 24% 34% 36% 6% 0% 0% Q5.Otherwise, skip to Q6. k s a Improving transit services, public and Coaster and Trolley, bus, including services train Sprinter Expanding Trolley and bus routesthey so can areas more services Removing bottlenecks in freeways where freeways in Removing bottlenecks congestion and cause together lanes merge Increasing the frequency of Trolley, Coaster Coaster of Trolley, frequency the Increasing train services and Sprinter service on expresshigh-speed Expanding bus streets and major freeways Randomize Randomize Adding lanestoexisting freeways thatare buses carpools,and dedicated for vanpools As I read the following list of specific transit and freeway improvements, please indicate indicate please improvements, freeway transitand of specific list the following As I read priority, priority, should bethink it a high amedium whether you priority ora for low funding. Herethe (first/next) is this priority,one: Should medium project or be _____. ahigh, low project? this spent on be no money or should You indicated that several projects should be high/medium priorities, including: behigh/medium that several projects indicated should You thehighest priority? be should say you these would of Which . 1 items> items Q4. tied below in Only Q5 show in for the top response which Improving the transportation system so that system thetransportation Improving commercial of for better distribution allows it freight and goods If more than one item in Q4 = 1, ask Q5. If no items in Q4 = 1 but more than one item = 2,than more 1 but = Q4 in items If no Q5. 1,ask = Q4 item in one than more If 98 Not sure sure Not 98 3 Refused Improvingmajor freeways andhighways 99 1 2 roads local and streets major Improving F E Adding lanes to existing freeways B service of bus Increasingthe frequency A C G H D Q6 Q5 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 48 Refused Refused Page 4 June 2010 Not sure sure Not ...... important important Not Not 9% 9% 1% 0% 1% 0% Important Important 63% 36% 41% 41% 36% 13% Somewhat Somewhat Important Important Very Very important important Extremely Extremely True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 26% 46% 23% 23% 46% 26% 4% 1% 0% 22% 34% 30% 13% 13% 30% 34% 22% 1% 0% 22% 32% 30% 14% 14% 30% 32% 22% 2% 0% 23% 41% 27% 27% 41% 23% 7% 2% 0% 17% 38% 34% 34% 38% 17% 9% 2% 0% 21% 34% 32% 10% 10% 32% 34% 21% 3% 0% 30% 44% 21% 21% 44% 30% 5% 0% 0% Now Now for a How informed topic. dodifferent feelyou gasesgreenhouse about and their feel somewhat well-informed, you say Would you change? to climate relationship all informed? at orinformed, informed, slightly not thatCaliforniaathat passed law aware new this survey, you were taking to Prior requires San to reduceDiego and other regions gas cars greenhouse emissions from and trucks? Making sure the transportation system system transportation the sure Making supports the needs localof our economy Reducing the negative impact that travel and and travel that impact negative the Reducing environment the on has transportation Randomize Randomize Increasing the availability of alternative ways Increasingthe of alternativeavailability ways for people to travel, such as by transit or bicycling Improving the safety of the transportation transportation of the the safety Improving system Making travel times more consistent and consistent more times travel Making predictable As I read the following list of factors, I want you to tell me how important each factor important how tell me I to want you of factors, list following the As I read and plans policies be are should for thepolicymakers when transportation developing region. San Diego Herethe (first/next) is thisextremely important,one: Should be an very _____. when developing factor important, an important not important, somewhat or and plans? policies transportation 1 Yes 1 No sure 2 Not 98 Refused 99 1 Well informed informed informed Well 1 informed Somewhat 2 Slightly 3 sure Not 98 4 Refused Not at all informed 99 F E B A Reducing traffic congestion congestion traffic A Reducing C G Reducingthe costs of travel D Q9 Section 4: Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions & Emissions VMT Reduce to 4: Programs Section Q8 Q7 True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 49 Refused Refused Refused Refused Page 5 June 2010 No Opinion Opinion No If they sure Not ...... Oppose Oppose oppose oppose Strongly Strongly Definitely Definitely Oppose Oppose oppose oppose Somewhat Somewhat Probably Probably Support Support support support Somewhat Somewhat Probably Probably Support Support support support Strongly Strongly Definitely Definitely 9% 9% 61% 16% 11% 2% 0% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 10% 20% 21% 46% 46% 21% 20% 10% 2% 1% 10% 13% 12% 63% 63% 12% 13% 10% 1% 0% 54% 30% 30% 54% 8% 6% 1% 0% 34% 29% 29% 34% 16% 19% 2% 0% 56% 31% 31% 56% 5% 4% 3% 0% 43% 39% 39% 43% 8% 6% 4% 1% 31% 57% 6% 5% 1% 0% 52% 29% 7% 10% 2% 2% 10% 7% 29% 0% 52% 39% 31% 31% 39% 15% 14% 1% 0% 31% 25% 25% 31% 15% 27% 2% 0% 46% 36% 36% 46% 9% 8% 2% 0% 33% 45% 11% 8% 2% 0% Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or (support/oppose) that be strongly Would Would that be definitely (support/oppose) or probably Get answer, then ask: then answer, Get Make improvements to the transit system so system transit the to improvements Make riders more attracts it that Convert existing general purpose freeway lanes to carpool lanes encourage to of vehicles number the and reduce carpooling on freeways Randomize Randomize Randomize Randomize Establishing parking fees in urban and in urban parking fees Establishing areas commercial Expand programs that encourage Expand programs that encourage telecommutingand flexible hours work When new housing is developed, housing new When concentrate it near existing employment centers and transit by arethat well-served areas reduce that improvements road Make traffic flow and bottlenecks improve Encouraging the adoption of alternative fuel fuel alternative of adoption the Encouraging cars electric and as hybrid such vehicles Build new carpool lanes to encourage encourage to lanes carpool new Build of vehicles number the and reduce carpooling on freeways In order to encourage people to drive less and provide funding for the programs I just I just theprograms less for provide funding to drive and people encourage to In order support or help you would greenhouse reduce emissions, gas that described would oppose: _____? (support/oppose)? somewhat There are a variety of ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. cars and trucks. tofrom reduce greenhouse are a variety of gas emissions There ways orwould support you of options, please indicate whether Asthe following list I read program. or each policy oppose Here is the (first/next) one: Would_____. you support or oppose this approach? say support or oppose, ask: (support/oppose)? Expanding the ability for to drivers solo pay a the and dedicate lanes, carpool fee to use transportation the to improving money system Establishing a new fee based on the number number the on based fee new a Establishing a more The driven. is a vehicle of miles pay. they thewould more drives, person Expand programs that encourage Expandcarpooling encourage programs that and vanpooling Expand programs and that complete projects walking encourage or bicycling I J E F B B A C Increasing the tax paid per gallon of gas A C G H D Q11 Q10 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 50 Page 6 June 2010 ...... Skip to Q14 Skip to Q14 Q13 Ask Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Ask Q13 Q13 Ask Q13 Ask Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q14 Q13 Ask 8% 8% 2% 0% 7% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 7% 7% 6% 41% 41% 11% 25% 48% 23% 14% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, When you ride with other people, do you you do people, other ride with you When Do you most often drive by yourself or with other peopleor yourself drive with most by often Do you Do you Do you themostride often local or bus, a premium express bus If with other people,If ask: with Carpool/drive with TWO or more other more or Carpool/drive TWO with people What form of transportation do you use most often when traveling in the San Diego San Diego the in traveling when often most use you do transportation of form What region? theyIf saydrive, etc. car, ask: vehicle? the in typically rideone withother person, orat with leasttwo other people? If they say ask: bus, service? Whichof the following best describes youremployment status? Would you say you are in-between you are or retired, homemaker, a a student, part-time, full-time, employed now? jobs right 99 Refused 99 3 (local) Vanpool 4 Bus 5 Trolley 7 6 Coaster express service) (premium Bus 8 Scooter Sprinter 9 Motorcycle/Moped/Motorized 10 Bike 11 mode Walk/Run 12 Other 13 6 In-between jobs jobs Retired 5 In-between 6 Refused 99 (auto/truck/van/SUV) alone Drive 1 2 Carpool/drive with ONE other person 1 Employed full-time full-time part-time Employed 1 Employed 2 Student 3 Homemaker 4 Q13 Section 5: Typical Travel Behavior Travel Behavior Section 5: Typical Q12 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 51 Page 7 June 2010 ...... Ask Q16 Q16 Ask Skip to Q17 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Ask Q15 Q15 Ask Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 7% 29% 11% 11% 43% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0% 11% 11% 88% 13% 13% 68% 68% Base work/school on answer to Q12. to answer on Base work/school True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, If says unsure, ask them to to estimate. them ask says If unsure, site? When you ride with other people, do you you do people, other ride with you When Carpool/drive with TWO or more otheror more Carpool/drive TWO with people Do you pay forparking at your parking? for per month pay do you much How What form of transportation do you use most often when traveling to work or school in in school or to work traveling when often most use you do transportation of form What region? the San Diego theyIf saydrive, etc. car, ask: vehicle? the in typically rideone withother person, orat with leasttwo other people? If they say ask: bus, service? Less than $25 $25 to $49 $50 to $99 or more $100 Not/ Refused sure 99 Refused 99 Yes 1 No 2 Depends 98 Refused 99 3 2 (local) Vanpool Carpool/drive with ONE other person 4 Bus 5 Trolley 7 6 Coaster express service) (premium Bus 8 Scooter Sprinter 9 Motorcycle/Moped/Motorized 10 Bike 11 mode Walk/Run 12 Other 13 1 Drive alone (auto/truck/van/SUV) (auto/truck/van/SUV) alone Drive 1 Q16 Q15 Q14 True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 52 Refused Refused Page 8 June 2010 sure Not ...... Already do it it do Already apply apply Ask Q19 Q19 Ask Skip to Q20 Q19 Ask Q19 Ask Doesn’t Doesn’t 7% 7% 3% 43% 43% 47% Not likely likely Not likely likely 2% 2% 1% 51% 51% 45% Somewhat Very likely likely Very True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 16% 23% 23% 11% 16% 40% 10% 1% 0% 19% 27% 17% 27% 9% 1% 0% 17% 17% 17% 40% 8% 0% 0% 7% 12% 0% 40% 3% 38% 0% 20% 10% 28% 23% 18% 1% 0% 1% 12% 41% 0% 20% 8% 17% 0% 18% 32% 0% 17% 9% 23% if you hadto pay a fee forparking, suchas Randomize Would stillyou drive alone to day? per $10 At least onceperAt least link trips week, several to the and shopping going as such together, make normally would office,that you post separately Ride a bike at least once per week for a trip a trip for per week once at a least bike Ride car by make normally would that you At least once per walkweek, afor trip that you normally would make by car this action in the next six months. If it doesn’t apply to you or you are already doing it, doing already are or you to you apply doesn’t it If months. six next the in action this please say so. Realistically, in the next six are months you willing the amount that drive to reduce you trips, combining transit, taking as carpooling, methods such through vehicle a personal methods? or other ridinga bicycle, please drive, they that amount the can reduce that people ways As read the following I take to or not likely likely, likely, somewhat are realistically, very you tell me whether, Adopt a flexible work schedule so you can so you schedule a work flexible Adopt avoidtraffic driving hour rush during 1 Yes 1 No 2 Depends 98 Refused 99 1 Yes 1 No sure 2 Not 98 Refused 99 F week once per at least home Work from E B commute a carpool for your or Join vanpool A transit of public use your Increase C G D Q19 Q18 Section 6: Personal Behavior Change Change Behavior 6: Personal Section We recognize that people have very demanding schedules and lifestyles. Making changes to others. For for difficultpeople,impossible and can be many drive they for the amount reduce these next questions, few pleasegive your us honest opinions. Q17 True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 53 Refused Refused Page 9 June 2010 Not sure sure Not ...... Apply Apply Doesn’t Doesn’t 3% 3% 6% 6% 70% 70% 21% No No more often often more Somewhat Somewhat often often Much more more Much True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 35% 21% 27% 16% 16% 27% 21% 35% 1% 0% 36% 21% 28% 15% 15% 28% 21% 36% 1% 0% 25% 19% 35% 19% 19% 35% 19% 25% 1% 0% 18% 31% 15% 35% 1% 0% 25% 22% 34% 19% 19% 34% 22% 25% 0% 0% 24% 17% 38% 21% 21% 38% 17% 24% 0% 0% 28% 24% 31% 15% 15% 31% 24% 28% 1% 0% 29% 24% 30% 16% 16% 30% 24% 29% 1% 0% 17% 12% 46% 23% 23% 46% 12% 17% 1% 0% 30% 23% 31% 15% 15% 31% 23% 30% 1% 0% Would that be much moreoften or somewhat more Ask Q21 if Q12 = (1,2). = (1,2). Q12 if Q21 Ask If yes, ask: Ask Q20 if Q12 = (1,2,3). Otherwise, skip to instruction preceding Q21. preceding to instruction skip Otherwise, = (1,2,3). Q12 Q20 if Ask Your employerYour offered a cash incentive to carpool or vanpool Your employer or school provided free provided or employer school Your transit or major to work school from shuttles stations Your employer provided you with a cash a cash with you provided employer Your incentive of $60 per to give up month parking at placeyour of employment paid employer or the total cost Your school exchangeyou for transit in pass of your location their at parking up giving Randomize, but always ask B before C. If B = C. If B before B ask always but Randomize, and C 1 for record automatically then 1, it. ask don’t Your employer or school paid for a portion of of a paid portion for or employer school Your givingexchange pass for you in transit your up parking at their location Your employer or school offered reserved reserved offered or employer school Your parking spaces for carpools Your employer or school paid for a portion of of a paid portion for or employer school Your the cost foryou participating ina vanpool You could be matched in a carpool or carpoola be in matched could You to the same going neighbors vanpool with destination Your employer or school provided safe provided or school employer Your locations to park bicycles Would you work from home at least one day per week if your employer allowed you to you allowed employer if your per week one day at least home work from Would you telecommute? Realistically, you would carpool, vanpool, transit, or take ridea to work or bike school moreoften if: _____? often? Your employer or school offered guaranteed offered guaranteed employer or Your school situations emergency rides home for 99 Refused Refused 99 1 Yes 1 No sure 2 Not 98 I J F E B A C G H D Q21 Q20 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 54 Page 10 June 2010 ...... ? Read list if Read list ? 2% 2% 3% 2% 7% 7% 5% 5% 2% 1% 1% 5% 3% 4% 4% 4% 1% 6% 73% 73% 11% 11% 64% 64% 27% 78% 78% 16% 59% 59% 16% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, Ask Q22 if Q12 = (1,2). = (1,2). Q12 if Q22 Ask Asian—Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, orotherAsian Filipino Live with family, friends and don’t pay rent What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to closest or feel a part of consider yourself do you group ethnic What hesitates. respondent Do you own orrent your currentresidence? Whichofthe following best describes your current home? Would you alter your work scheduleto avoid rush hourtraffic if your employerallowed it? 6 Pacific Islander 5 heritage Pacific 6 Mixed 7 Other 98 Refused 99 Apartment 2 1 home Condominium Single family detachedhome 3 Mobile 4 Refused 99 Caucasian/White 1 Latino/Hispanic 2 African-American/Black 3 4 Native Alaskan or Indian American 1 Own 1 Rent 2 3 Refused 99 1 Yes 1 No sure 2 Not 98 Refused 99 D3 D2 D1 Section 7: Background & Demographics & Demographics 7: Background Section for questions background a few just have I participation. your for so much you Thank statistical purposes. Q22 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 55 Page 11 June 2010 ...... 5% 5% 1% 1% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 35% 35% 37% 22% 18% 16% 18% 28% 19% 47% 47% 53% 13% 13% 11% 11% 18% 18% 15% 13% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, statisticalread goingto some I am reasons. 65 or older older 65 or Not Coded 18 to 29 to 29 18 to 39 30 to 49 40 to 64 50 Party File Age on Voter Gender I have just one morefor question for you your describes that best category the reach I when me stop Please categories. income income. total household 5 99 1 Democrat 1 Republican 2 Other 3 DTS 4 1 2 3 4 1 Male 1 Female 2 sure 6 Not $150,000 to less than $200,000 98 7 Refused more or $200,000 99 1 Less than $25,000 than Less 1 2 $50,000 than to less $25,000 3 $75,000 than to less $50,000 4 $100,000 than to less $75,000 5 $100,000 to less than $150,000 S3 S2 Post-Interview & Sample Items Sample & Post-Interview S1 Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks very much for participating. participating. for much very Thanks you! for have I that questions the of all are Those D4 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 56 Page 12 June 2010 ...... 2% 2% 5% 5% 6% 8% 8% 8% 8% 69% 69% 31% 47% 53% 65% 35% 17% 17% 11% 13% 15% 14% 49% 49% 23% 10% 10% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, Homeowner on Voter File on Voter Homeowner Mail by Likely to Vote Voter 2010 November Likely Household Party Type Party Household Registration Date Date Registration 2 No No 2 0 Other) + Mixed + Rep (Dem Yes 1 No 2 Yes 1 No 2 Yes 1 1 Single Dem Dem Single 1 Rep Dual 2 Rep Single 3 Other Dual 4 Other Single 5 Other Dual 6 & Dem 8 7 Dem & Rep 9 Rep & Other 1 2010 to 2005 2 1990 2004 to 2001 3 Before 2000 to 1997 5 4 1996 to 1990 S8 S7 S6 S5 S4 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 57 Page 13 June 2010 ...... 13% 13% 17% 23% 23% 18% 19% 18% 18% 28% 11% 18% 11% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, Supervisorial District District Supervisorial Planning Area Area Planning 6 N County East First 1 Second 2 Third 3 Fourth 4 Fifth 5 2 North City Central 1 County North 2 West County South 3 County East 4 N 5 S10 S9 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 10-11-2 NOVEMBER 5, 2010 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN: PUBLIC INPUT QUESTIONNAIRE File Number 3100200 Background To obtain public input in the development of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (2050 RTP), SANDAG is implementing a comprehensive public outreach and involvement program (www.sandag.org/2050RTP, Public Involvement Plan). A major goal of this effort is to involve nontraditional 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. Public involvement and comment about key components of the RTP is important to SANDAG as part of developing transportation public policies and establishing priorities to meet the travel needs of residents now and into the future. The Public Involvement Plan (PIP) supports the development of the 2050 RTP. The PIP also provides opportunities for stakeholders to give input on the development of the Sustainable Communities Strategy, a component of the 2050 RTP. The strategies and tactics outlined in the PIP are guiding outreach efforts to build awareness of the regional transportation planning process and identify opportunities to shape the future of the region. This 2050 RTP PIP is an element of the agencywide Public Participation Plan (www.sandag.org/ppp) that was adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors on December 18, 2009, following a six-month development, input, and review process. Introduction To support the development of the 2050 RTP and to secure input on priorities from the public, SANDAG developed a public input questionnaire that could be distributed via e-mail and in printed format. The questionnaire was provided in English and Spanish and was available online and in print from June to September 2010. Information about the questionnaire and printed copies were distributed at community meetings and to other stakeholders interested in providing input to the 2050 RTP. The online questionnaire was posted on the SANDAG Web site. Information about answering the questionnaire was posted on the SANDAG Web site, distributed in the rEgion and RTP e-mail newsletters, provided at RTP workshops, and disseminated through community-based outreach. Announcements about the questionnaire also were featured in local and regional newspapers. The public input questionnaire had the same questions as the RTP public opinion phone survey with slight modifications made so the questionnaire could be converted to the online and printed format (Attachment 1). Methodology More than 2,600 people (2,617) provided responses to the questionnaire. Only one response per computer was allowed. The public input questionnaire was not designed to be representative of everyone’s opinions, but rather to serve as a forum for public involvement. While the questionnaire had the same questions as the statistically valid RTP telephone public opinion survey, the sampling process for the two surveys was quite different, and therefore, the results have differences. The RTP telephone public opinion survey was designed to be representative of the region’s population. While the telephone survey respondents were randomly sampled, contacted by phone, and asked to participate, anyone could choose to participate in the public input questionnaire. People who seek to complete a questionnaire (known as self selection) typically have stronger opinions than the public as a whole. Randomly sampling the population (as was done for the telephone public opinion survey), on the other hand, is a scientifically valid way to ensure that the survey results truly represent the majority of the San Diego region’s residents’ views. Therefore, it was expected that some of the results would differ between the two surveys. In addition, the different data collection methods (telephone interview for the random sample versus the online/paper public input questionnaire) can affect the responses. For example, in the random telephone sample, “not sure or I don’t know” was not given to the participants as an option but rather recorded if that was their response, while the online/paper version had it listed as a valid response to choose. Questions also could be clarified with a telephone interviewer but not with the online/paper version. Slight differences in question wording could account for differences between the two results as well. Summary of Results Overall, the public input sample (compared to the random telephone sample) includes a greater percentage of individuals concerned with improving and focusing on public transit. Specifically: • Sixteen percent of the public input sample rated public transit as “excellent” or “good,” compared to 32 percent of the random telephone sample (Question 3). • The majority of the public input sample (70%) said that improving the transit system should be the highest priority, followed by improving major streets and local roads (17%) and improving major freeways and highways (13%). The random telephone sample was more balanced, with 36 percent rating public transit as the highest priority, 31 percent rating major streets and roads highest, and 29 percent rating major freeways and highways as highest (Questions 4 and 5 combined). • The top three priorities for the public input sample related to expanding transit in some way and did not include reducing bottlenecks or expanding freeway lanes, as it did for the random telephone sample (Question 6). The top three public input responses were: o Expanding Trolley and bus routes so they can service more areas (87%) o Increasing the frequency of Trolley, COASTER, and SPRINTER train services (77%) o Increasing the frequency of bus service (74%) • The most important factor for policymakers to consider according to the public input sample was increasing the availability of transit or biking for residents (83%). This was the factor cited least frequently by the random telephone sample (54%) (Question 7). The top three factors for the public input sample were: 2 o Increasing the availability of alternative ways for people to travel, such as by transit or bicycling (83%) o Making sure the transportation system supports the needs of our local economy (78%) o Reducing the negative impact that travel and transportation has on the environment (75%) • The public input sample also seemed a bit more aware of legislation related to greenhouse gas emission reduction (76% compared to 63% in the random telephone sample) and expressed more support for possible funding strategies (Question 9). • The top three supported policies or programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks were (Question 10): o Make improvements to the transit system so that it attracts new riders (93%) o Expand programs that encourage telecommuting and flexible work hours (93%) o Expand programs and complete projects that encourage walking or bicycling (90%) • There was more support for the fee- and tax-based initiatives. Twice as many of the public input sample said they would support higher gas taxes and drivers paying more for driving more miles, compared to the telephone sample (50% versus 23% and 43% versus 20%, respectively). Additionally, 44 percent supported establishing parking fees versus 30 percent in the random telephone sample (Question 11). • The public input sample also was more likely to say they would realistically reduce the amount of time spent in their personal vehicle in the next six months, compared to the telephone sample (73% versus 51%). However, for both groups, the top three methods to accomplish this included linking trips, walking more, and using transit more (Question 17). • While the percentages are not directly comparable due to the different survey/questionnaire modes (“doesn’t apply” and “not sure” were apparent options in the online/paper version), the results of both the random telephone survey and the public input questionnaire point to the same incentives that would encourage workers and students to use an alternative commute at least somewhat more often (Question 19). o Providing free shuttles between work/school and major transit centers, having a guaranteed ride home, and being matched in a carpool or vanpool with neighbors all would be effective incentives. Demographics • Similar to the random telephone sample, the majority of respondents lived in the San Diego region 15 years or longer. • A larger proportion of the public input sample was employed and was more likely to report they worked full time compared to the random telephone sample. Similarly, the random telephone sample has a larger proportion of retired persons. • The public input sample tended to have higher household incomes. Approximately a third (34%) had a household income higher than $100,000 versus 23 percent in the random telephone sample. 3 • A larger proportion of the public input sample identified as White (70% versus 59%), compared to the random telephone sample. • Most of the respondents in the public input sample reported living in ZIP codes located in central and coastal communities (Attachment 2). The telephone survey, on the other hand, represented residents across the region and provided statistically reliable results for the six subareas and the region as a whole (Attachment 3). Following is a question-by-question comparison of the results of the public input questionnaire and public opinion survey responses. There are some differences between question numbers because of how the questions were asked in the telephone survey. Question-by-Question Comparison (Please note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.) Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents) Total = 2,617 Total = 1,200 Q. 1 How long have you lived in the San Diego region? Less than 1 year 3% Less than 1 year 1% 1 to 2 years 5% 1 to 2 years 1% 3 to 4 years 7% 3 to 4 years 4% 5 to 9 years 11% 5 to 9 years 9% 10 to 14 years 14% 10 to 14 years 9% 15 years or longer 61% 15 years or longer 75% Q. 2 How would you rate the quality of life in the region? Percentage who said “excellent” or “good” 84% 84% Q. 3 How would you rate the following transportation system components in the San Diego region? Percentage who said “excellent” or “good” Overall system 31% Overall system 42% Freeways 57% Freeways 62% Streets & roads 38% Streets & roads 44% Public transit 16% Public transit 32% Q.4 Please indicate whether the following transportation projects should be a high, medium, or low priority for funding, or if no funding should be spent. Percentage who said “high” or “medium” priority Improving public transit 89% Improving public transit 75% services services Improving major streets and 80% Improving major streets and 86% roads roads Improving major freeways 57% Improving major freeways 81% and highways and highways 4 Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents) Q.5 You indicated that more than one project should be high priority, please select which project should be the highest priority. (Please note: Question wording is slightly different between the two surveys.) Improving public transit 52% Improving public transit 34% services services Improving major streets and 26% Improving major streets and 30% roads roads Improving major freeways 22% Improving major freeways 33% and highways and highways Q.6 Please indicate whether the following transit & freeway improvements should be high, medium, or low priority for funding, or if no funding should be spent. Percentage who said “high” or “medium” priority (rank in parentheses) Expanding trolley & bus 87% (1) Expanding trolley & bus 79% (2) routes routes Increasing frequency of 77% (2) Increasing frequency of 69% (5) Trolley and train service Trolley and train service Increase frequency of bus 74% (3) Increase frequency of bus 67% (6) service service Expand express bus service 73% (4) Expand express bus service 66% (7/8) Remove bottlenecks 69% (5) Remove bottlenecks 86% (1) More carpool lanes 49% (6) More carpool lanes 69% (4) Better goods movement 44% (7) Better goods movement 66% (7/8) More freeway lanes 38% (8) More freeway lanes 70% (3) Q. 7 How important should the following factors be when policymakers are developing transportation policies & plans for the San Diego region? Percentage who said “extremely” or “very important” (rank in parentheses) Increase availability of 83% (1) Increase availability of 54% (6) alternative modes, such as alternative modes, such as transit or bicycling transit or bicycling Supports local economy 78% (2) Supports local economy 72% (2) Reduces negative impact on 75% (3) Reduces negative impact on 56% (4) environment environment Reduces traffic congestion 66% (4) Reduces traffic congestion 74% (1) Make travel times 65% (5) Make travel times predictable 55% (5) predictable Improve safety of system 59% (6) Improve safety of system 64% (3) Q. 8 How informed do you feel about greenhouse gases & their relationship to climate change? Percentage who said “well” or “somewhat” informed 86% 77% 5 Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents) Q. 9 Are you aware that California passed a new law that requires San Diego and other regions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks? Percentage who said “yes” 76% 63% Q. 10 Would you support or oppose the following approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars & trucks? Percentage who said “definitely” or “probably” support Expand telecommuting & 93% (1/2) Expand telecommuting & flex 87% (2) flex hours hours Improve public transit 93% (1/2) Improve public transit 84% (3) Expand programs to 90% (3) Expand programs to 78% (7) encourage walking/biking encourage walking Expand programs to 88% (4/5) Expand programs to 82% (4/5) encourage car/van pool encourage car/van pool Develop new housing near 88% (4/5) Develop new housing near 82% (4/5) employment centers employment centers Encourage alternative fuel 85% (6) Encourage alternative fuel 81% (6) vehicles vehicles Make road improvements 80% (7) Make road improvements to 88% (1) to reduce bottlenecks reduce bottlenecks Convert lanes to carpool 57% (8/9) Convert lanes to carpool only 63% (9) only Build new carpool lanes 57% (9/9) Build new carpool lanes 70% (8) Expand solo drivers paying 51% (10) Expand solo drivers paying 56% (10) fee for carpool lane fee for carpool lane Q. 11 In order to encourage people to drive less & provide funding for programs in the previous question, would you support or oppose the following possible funding sources? Percentage who said “strongly” or “somewhat” support More miles, more pay 44% More miles, more pay 20% Parking fees 44% Parking fees 30% Tax paid on gas increase 50% Tax paid on gas increase 23% Q. 12 Employment Status Employed full time 60% Employed full time 41% Employed part time 9% Employed part time 11% Student and employed 7% Student and employed 7% Student and not employed 4% Student and not employed Homemaker 4% Homemaker 6% Retired 11% Retired 25% In between jobs 5% In between jobs 8% Cannot quantify refusals Refused 2% 6 Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents) Q.13 Which form of transportation do you use most often when traveling in the San Diego region (only asked to retired, homemakers, and those in-between jobs). Drive alone 48% Drive alone 48% Carpool (with one other) 24% Carpool (with one other) 23% Carpool (with 2+) 8% Carpool (with 2+) 14% Public transit 7% Public transit 9% Motorcycle or scooter 1% Motorcycle or scooter 0% Bicycle 4% Bicycle 1% Walk 4% Walk 1% Other 5% Other 2% Q.14 Which form of transportation do you use most often when traveling to work or school in the San Diego region (only asked to those employed and students) Drive alone 65% Drive alone 68% Carpool (with one other) 7% Carpool (with one other) 13% Carpool (with 2+) 2% Carpool (with 2+) 5% Public transit 11% Public transit 6% Motorcycle or scooter 1% Motorcycle or scooter 0% Bicycle 4% Bicycle 1% Walk 3% Walk 3% Other 7% Other 2% Q. 15 Do you pay for parking at work or school? Percentage who said “yes” 17% 11% Q. 16 Would you still drive alone to work or school if you had to pay a fee for parking, such as $10 a day? Yes 29% Questions 16 and 17 on the telephone survey No 25% were asked differently and are not Depends 46% comparable. Q. 17/18 Realistically, in the next six months are you willing to reduce the amount that you drive a personal vehicle through such methods as carpooling, taking transit, combining trips, riding a bicycle, walking, or other methods? Percentage who said “yes” 73% 51% 7 Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents) Q. 18/19 In the next six months, realistically, are you likely or unlikely to use the following methods to reduce the amount that you drive? Percentage who said “very likely” or “somewhat likely” Link trips 68% (1) Link trips 50% (1) Walk more 59% (2) Walk more 48% (2) Increase use of public transit 46% (3) Increase use of public transit 39% (3) Adopt flex work schedule 44% (4) Adopt flex work schedule 32% (6) Ride a bike more 40% (5) Ride a bike more 34% (5) Telecommute 38% (6) Telecommute 25% (7) Join a car or vanpool 24% (7) Join a car or vanpool 36% (4) Q. 19/20 Realistically, would you carpool, vanpool, take transit, or ride a bike to work or school more often if the following conditions existed (only asked to those employed and students) ? Percentage who said “much more often” or “somewhat more often” Your employer (or school)… Your employer (or school)… Provided free shuttle from 60% (1) Provided free shuttle from 57% (1) major transit major transit Guaranteed a ride home in 51% (2) Guaranteed a ride home in 53% (3/4) case of emergency case of emergency Matched you with other 49% (3) Matched you with other 53% (3/4) riders riders Offered a cash incentive to 48% (4/5) Offered a cash incentive to 56% (2) car or vanpool car or vanpool Paid total cost of transit pass 48% (4/5) Paid total cost of transit pass 50% (6) Offered a cash incentive of 45% (6) Offered a cash incentive of 44% (8) $60 give up parking $60 give up parking Paid portion of transit pass 44% (7) Paid portion of transit pass 47% (7) Paid portion of vanpool cost 39% (8/9) Paid portion of vanpool cost 52% (5) Provided safe bike parking 39% (8/9) Provided safe bike parking 29% (10) Offered reserved spaces for 32% (10) Offered reserved spaces for 41% (9) carpool carpool Q. 20/21 Would you work from home at least one day per week if your employer allowed you to telecommute? Yes 84% Yes 70% No 10% No 21% Not sure 6% Not sure 6% Cannot quantify refusals Refused 3% Q. 21/22 Would you alter your work schedule to avoid rush hour traffic if your employer allowed it? Yes 84% Yes 78% No 9% No 16% Not sure 7% Not sure 5% Cannot quantify refusals Refused 2% 8 Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents) Q. 22 How did you first hear about this survey SANDAG Web site 14% SANDAG e-mail 12% Community event 12% SANDAG presentation 8% School 8% Friend/Co-worker 7% Newspaper 6% Facebook 5% Member agency Web site 5% Consulate 4% BOMA 2% Twitter <1% Other 16% Demographic Questions Do you own or rent at your current residence? Own 66% Own 64% Rent 32% Rent 27% Other 2% Other 7% Cannot quantify refusals Refused 2% Housing Type Single family detached 60% Single family detached 73% Single family attached 9% Single family attached 22% Apartment or condo 29% Apartment or condo Mobile home 2% Mobile home 3% Other 1% Other 0% Cannot quantify refusal Refused 2% Question 23 (ZIP Code) is not included in these tables. Please see Attachment 2. Do you consider yourself? White/Caucasian 70% White/Caucasian 59% Hispanic 16% Hispanic 16% Black or African American 2% Black or African American 4% American Indian or Alaskan <1% American Indian or Alaskan 1% Native Native Asian 4% Asian 6% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander <1% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1% Mixed Heritage 4% Mixed Heritage 5% Other 3% Other 3% Cannot quantify refusals Refused 4% 9 Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents) What is the total annual income of all people living in your household? Less than $25,000 10% Less than $25,000 11% $25,000 to $49,999 13% $25,000 to $49,999 18% $50,000 to $74,999 14% $50,000 to $74,999 18% $75,000 to $99,999 15% $75,000 to $99,999 15% $100,000 to $149,999 18% $100,000 to $149,999 13% $150,000 to $199,999 8% $150,000 to $199,999 5% $200,000 or more 7% $200,000 or more 5% Refused 15% Not sure/Refused 15% GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director Attachments: 1. Public Input Questionnaire 2. Public Input Respondents by San Diego County Subregion (map), Public Input Respondents by ZIP code (map), and Public Input Questionnaire ZIP Code Distribution (table) 3. Planning Areas for Representative Telephone Public Opinion Survey (map) Key Staff Contacts: Kristen Rohanna, (619) 699-6918, [email protected] Anne Steinberger, (619) 699-1937, [email protected] 10 Attachment 1 SANDAG needs your input in planning the region's transportation future. Your answers will help policymakers determine priorities. Thank you for participating in the survey. 1. How long have you lived in the San Diego region? Less than 1 year 5 to 9 years 1 to 2 years 10 to 14 years 3 to 4 years 15 years or longer 2. How would you rate the overall quality of life in the San Diego region? Excellent Poor Good Very Poor Fair Don’t Know 3. How would you rate the following transportation system components in the San Diego region? Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Not Sure The overall transportation system Freeways Local streets and roads The public transit system continued on reverse 1 11 SANDAG is in the process of developing an RTP which will identify priority transportation projects. We need your input in this process. 4. Please indicate whether the following transportation projects should be a high, medium, or low priority for funding. Or, you can indicate if no funding should be spent on a project. Please keep in mind that not all projects can be high priorities. No Funding High Medium Low Should Not Priority Priority Priority Be Spent Sure Improving public transit services including bus, Trolley, COASTER (train), and SPRINTER (train) Improving major streets and local roads Improving major freeways and highways 5. If you indicated that MORE THAN ONE of the above projects should be high priority, please select which project should be the highest priority. Improving public transit services (including bus, Trolley, COASTER (train), and SPRINTER (train) Improving major streets and local roads Improving major freeways and highways 6. Please indicate whether the following transit and freeway improvements should be a high, medium, or low priority for funding. Or, you can indicate if no funding should be spent on a project. Please keep in mind that not all improvements can be high priorities. No Funding High Medium Low Should Not Priority Priority Priority Be Spent Sure Increasing the frequency of Trolley, COASTER, and SPRINTER train services Increasing the frequency of bus service Expanding high-speed express bus service on freeways and major streets Expanding Trolley and bus routes so they can service more areas Adding lanes to existing freeways Adding lanes to existing freeways that are dedicated for carpools, vanpools, and buses Improving the transportation system so that it allows for better distribution of commercial goods and freight Removing bottlenecks in freeways where lanes merge together and cause congestion 2 12 7. How important should the following factors be when policymakers are developing transportation policies and plans for the San Diego region? Not Extremely Very Somewhat Important Not Important Important Important At All Sure Reducing traffic congestion Increasing the availability of alternative ways for people to travel, such as by transit or bicycling Reducing the negative impact that travel and transportation have on the environment Making sure the transportation system supports the needs of our local economy Improving the safety of the transportation system Making travel times more consistent and predictable 8. How informed do you feel about greenhouse gases and their relationship to climate change? Well informed Not at all informed Somewhat informed Not sure Slightly informed 9. Are you aware that California passed a new law that requires San Diego and other regions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks? Yes No Not sure continued on reverse 3 13 There are a variety of ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. The next two questions ask for input regarding these policies or programs. 10. Would you support or oppose the following approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks? Definitely Probably Probably Definitely Not Support Support Oppose Oppose Sure Expand programs that encourage carpooling and vanpooling Expand programs that encourage telecommuting and flexible work hours Expand programs and complete projects that encourage walking or bicycling Make improvements to the transit system so that it attracts more riders When housing is developed, concentrate it near existing employment centers and areas that are well-served by transit Make road improvements that reduce bottlenecks and improve traffic flow Expand the ability for solo drivers to pay a fee to use carpool lanes, and dedicate the money to improving the transportation system Convert existing general purpose freeway lanes to carpool lanes to encourage carpooling and reduce the number of vehicles on freeways Build new carpool lanes to encourage carpooling and reduce the number of vehicles on freeways Encourage the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles such as hybrid and electric cars 11. In order to encourage people to drive less and provide funding for the programs in the previous question, would you support or oppose the following possible funding sources? Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly No Support Support Oppose Oppose Opinion Establishing a new fee based on the number of miles a vehicle is driven – the more a person drives the more they would pay Establishing parking fees in urban and commercial areas Increasing the tax paid per gallon of gas 4 14 12. Which of the following best describes your employment status? Employed full-time Homemaker (please skip to question 14) (please go to question 13) Employed part-time Retired (please skip to question 14) (please go to question 13) Student and employed full- or part-time In between jobs (please skip to question 14) (please go to question 13) Student and not employed (please skip to question 14) 13. What form of transportation do you use MOST OFTEN when traveling in the San Diego region? Drive alone (auto/truck/van/SUV) (please skip to question 17) Carpool with ONE other person (please skip to question 17) Carpool with TWO OR MORE other people (please skip to question 17) Public transit (bus, Trolley, COASTER, or SPRINTER (please skip to question 17) Motorcycle or scooter (please skip to question 17) Bicycle (please skip to question 17) Walk (please skip to question 17) Other (please describe then skip to question 17) 14. What form of transportation do you use MOST OFTEN when traveling to work or school in the San Diego region? Drive alone (auto/truck/van/SUV) (please go to question 15) Carpool with ONE other person (please skip to question 17) Carpool with TWO OR MORE other people (please skip to question 17) Public transit (bus, Trolley, COASTER, or SPRINTER (please skip to question 17) Motorcycle or scooter (please skip to question 17) Bicycle (please skip to question 17) Walk (please skip to question 17) Other (please describe then skip to question 17) 15. Do you pay for parking at work or school? No (please go to question 16) Yes (please fill out amount below and then skip to question 17) If yes, how much do you pay per MONTH: $ 16. Would you still drive alone to work or school if you had to pay a fee for parking, such as $10 per day? Yes No Depends continued on reverse 5 15 We recognize that people have very demanding schedules and lifestyles. Making changes to reduce the amount they drive can be difficult for many people and impossible for others. For the next few questions, please indicate whether you can realistically make changes to your travel behavior. 17. Realistically, in the next six months are you willing to reduce the amount that you drive a personal vehicle through such methods as carpooling, taking transit, combining trips (i.e., visiting grocery store and bank on same trip instead of separate trips), riding a bicycle, walking, or other methods? Yes (please go to question 18) No (please skip to question 19 if you are a student or are employed – all others skip to question 22) Don’t Know (please go to question 18) 18. In the next six months, realistically, are you likely or unlikely to use the following methods to reduce the amount that you drive? Doesn’t Very Somewhat Not Apply I Don’t Already Likely Likely Likely To Me Know Do It Increase your use of public transit Join a carpool or vanpool for your commute Ride a bike at least once per week for a trip that you would normally make by car At least once per week, link several trips together – such as going shopping and to post office – that you would normally make separately At least once per week, walk for a trip that you normally would make by car Work from home at least once per week Adopt a flexible work schedule so you can avoid driving during rush hour traffic 6 16 19. Realistically, would you carpool, vanpool, take transit, or ride a bike to work or school more often if the following conditions existed? Employer Much Somewhat Doesn’t School/ More More Apply I Don’t Already Often Often No To Me Know Does It Your employer provided you with a cash incentive of $60 per month to give up parking at your place of employment Your employer or school paid for a portion of your transit pass in exchange for your giving up parking at their location Your employer or school paid the total cost of your transit pass in exchange for your giving up parking at their location Your employer offered a cash incentive to carpool or vanpool Your employer or school offered reserved parking spaces for carpools Your employer or school paid for a portion of the cost for you participating in a vanpool Your employer or school offered guaranteed rides home for emergency situations Your employer or school provided free shuttles to work or school from major transit stations Your employer or school provided safe locations to park bicycles You could be matched in a carpool or vanpool with neighbors going to the same destination 20. Would you work from home at least one day per week if your employer allowed you to telecommute? Yes Not sure No I am not employed 21. Would you alter your work schedule to avoid rush-hour traffic if your employer allowed it? Yes Not sure No I am not employed continued on reverse 7 17 We only have a few more questions to ask. We would like to learn more about your background. 22. How did you first hear about this survey? SANDAG Web site School SANDAG presentation Facebook An e-mail from SANDAG Twitter Community event Newspaper Other (please describe) ______ 23. What is your home ZIP Code? 24. Do you own or rent at your current residence? Own Rent Other (please describe) 25. Which of the following best describes your current home? Single-family detached home Mobile home Single-family attached home Other (please describe): Apartment or condominium 26. Do you consider yourself … ? White/Caucasian Asian Hispanic Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Black or African American Mixed Heritage American Indian or Alaskan Native Other (please specify): 27. What is the total annual income of all the people living in your household? Less than $25,000 $100,000 to $149,999 $25,000 to $49,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $200,000 or more $75,000 to $99,999 Decline to state 28. Do you have any other comments regarding transportation in the San Diego region? THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE SURVEY! 8 18 Aª A¦ !"a$ Attachment 2 Orange County Riverside County !"a$ Aª North County West A¨ 24.5% North County East 1.4% !"^$ A¨ A© Aª A© !"a$ A© Aª !"^$ A© Imperial County ?t North City ?z East County Aª 27.6% !"^$ !"a$ 9.0% %&s( ?h !"_$ A× Aù !"_$ ?j Central AÀ 27.2% Public Input Respondents AÀ by San Diego County Subregion A§ ?j A× AÀ !"_$ South County 0 5 10 15 Miles 10.3% AÀ KM !"^$ %&s( 0 5 10 15 20 ¯ 19 Aª A¦ !"a$ Orange County Riverside County !"a$ Aª A¨ Camp Pendleton !"^$ A¨ Vista Oceanside A© San Marcos Escondido Aª Carlsbad A© !"a$ A© Aª Encinitas !"^$ A© Imperial Solana Beach Poway County of San Diego County Public Input Respondents Del Mar ?t by ZIP code Percent of Total Responses ?z Aª !"^$ !"a$ No Responses %&s( ?h Santee San !"_$ 0.04% - 0.5% Diego A× El 0.6% - 1% Aù !"_$ La Cajon Mesa ?j AÀLemon 1.1% - 2.5% Grove 2.6% - 5% National City Coronado AÀ 5.1% - 9.2% A§ ?j A× AÀ !"_$ Chula 0 5 10 15 Vista Miles AÀ KM Imperial !"^$ %&s( 0 5 10 15 20 ¯ Beach 20 Public Input Questionnaire ZIP Code Distribution Home ZIP CODE Number Percent Home ZIP CODE Number Percent Did not provide 280 11% 92025 Escondido S 18 1% Outside County 56 2% 92026 Escondido N 15 1% 91901 Alpine 9 0% 92027 Escondido E 13 0% 91902 Bonita 12 0% 92028 Fallbrook 12 0% 91905 Boulevard 2 0% 92029 Escondido W 7 0% 91906 Campo 3 0% 92036 Julian 3 0% 91910 Chula Vista N 70 3% 92037 La Jolla 33 1% 91911 Chula Vista S 65 2% 92040 Lakeside 11 0% 91913 Chula Vista - Eastlake 19 1% 92054 Oceanside S 25 1% 91914 Chula Vista NE 5 0% 92055 Camp Pendleton 0 0% 91915 Chula Vista SE 14 1% 92056 Oceanside E 20 1% 91916 Descanso 2 0% 92057 Oceanside N 20 1% 91917 Dulzura 0 0% 92058 Oceanside (Central) 2 0% 91931 Guatay 0 0% 92059 Pala 4 0% 91932 Imperial Beach 9 0% 92060 Palomar Mountain 0 0% 91934 Jacumba 0 0% 92061 Pauma Valley 2 0% 91935 Jamul 4 0% 92064 Poway 28 1% 91941 La Mesa, Mount Helix 32 1% 92065 Ramona 18 1% 91942 La Mesa, Grossmont 18 1% 92066 Ranchita 0 0% 91945 Lemon Grove 9 0% 92067 Rancho Santa Fe 3 0% 91948 Mount Laguna 1 0% 92069 San Marcos N 18 1% 91950 National City 17 1% 92070 Santa Ysabel 2 0% 91962 Pine Valley 0 0% 92071 Santee 20 1% 91963 Potrero 2 0% 92075 Solana Beach 210 8% 91977 Spring Valley 8 0% 92078 San Marcos S 9 0% 91978 Rancho San Diego 2 0% 92081 Vista S 13 0% 91980 Tecate 1 0% 92082 Valley Center 10 0% 92003 Bonsall 1 0% 92083 Vista W 7 0% 92004 Borrego Springs 2 0% 92084 Vista E 9 0% 92007 Cardiff 15 1% 92086 Warner Springs 0 0% 92008 Carlsbad NW 22 1% 92091 Rancho Santa Fe 2 0% 92009 Carlsbad SE 24 1% 92093 UCSD 0 0% 92010 Carlsbad NE 7 0% 92096 CSUSM 0 0% 92011 Carlsbad SW 20 1% 92101 Downtown 68 3% 92014 Del Mar 86 3% 92102 Golden Hill 45 2% 92019 El Cajon 17 1% 92103 Hillcrest, Mission Hills 106 4% 92020 El Cajon 31 1% 92104 North Park 109 4% 92021 El Cajon 13 0% 92105 City Heights 40 2% 92024 Encinitas 80 3% 92106 Point Loma 18 1% 21 Public Input Questionnaire ZIP Code Distribution Home ZIP CODE Number Percent 92107 Ocean Beach 33 1% 92108 Mission Valley 18 1% 92109 Pacific Beach, Mission Beach 58 2% 92110 Morena 12 0% 92111 Linda Vista 34 1% 92113 Logan Heights 11 0% 92114 Encanto 20 1% 92115 College 40 2% 92116 Kensington, Normal Heights 90 3% 92117 Clairemont 39 1% 92118 Coronado 19 1% 92119 San Carlos 20 1% 92120 Allied Gardens, Del Cerro 20 1% 92121 Sorrento Valley 5 0% 92122 University City 64 2% 92123 Serra Mesa 18 1% 92124 Tierrasanta 21 1% 92126 Mira Mesa 29 1% 92127 Rancho Bernardo W 18 1% 92128 Rancho Bernardo E 21 1% 92129 Penasquitos 32 1% 92130 Carmel Valley 55 2% 92131 Scripps Ranch 21 1% 92134 Balboa Hospital 0 0% 92135 North Island 0 0% 92136 32nd Street Naval Base 0 0% 92139 Paradise Hills 9 0% 92140 MCRD 0 0% 92145 Miramar 0 0% 92154 Nestor 29 1% 92155 US Naval Amphibious Base 0 0% 92161 VA Hospital 0 0% 92173 San Ysidro 0 0% 92182 SDSU 0 0% 92259 Ocotillo 0 0% 92536 Aguanga 0 0% 92672 San Clemente 2 0% Total Respondents 2,617 100% 22 Attachment 3 Planning Areas for Representative Telephone Public Opinion Survey – 200 respondents from each area and weighted by population. 23