Members Patricia McCoy, Chair Councilmember, Imperial Beach (Representing South County)
Greg Cox, Vice Chair Vice Chairman, County of San Diego
Jack Feller Councilmember, Oceanside BORDERS (Representing North County Coastal)
Jim Desmond COMMITTEE Mayor, San Marcos (Representing North County Inland) AGENDA David Allan Councilmember, La Mesa (Representing East County)
Victor Carrillo Friday, November 30, 2007 Chairman, Imperial County (Representing Imperial County) 12:30 to 2:30 p.m. SANDAG Board Room Ben Hueso Councilmember, City of San Diego 401 B Street, 7th Floor
Alternates San Diego Phil Monroe Councilmember, Coronado (Representing South County)
Pam Slater-Price AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS Supervisor, County of San Diego
Crystal Crawford Councilmember, Del Mar • BRIEFING ON THE SITUATION OF THE TRIBAL (Representing North County Coastal) NATIONS AFFECTED BY THE 2007 WILDFIRES
Ed Gallo Councilmember, Escondido • OVERVIEW ON TRIBAL NATIONS IN SAN DIEGO (Representing North County Inland)
John Minto • Councilmember, Santee REPORT ON STATE ROUTE 76 (INTERSTATE 15 (Representing East County) TO STATE ROUTE 79) OPERATIONAL
David Ouzan IMPROVEMENTS STUDY Councilmember, Calexico (Representing Imperial County) • TRIBAL TRANSIT FEASIBILITY DRAFT REPORT Brian Maienschein Councilmember, City of San Diego Advisory Members PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING Thomas Buckley Councilmember, City of Lake Elsinore (Representing Riverside County)
Debbie Cook YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE BORDERS COMMITTEE Councilmember, MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG City of Huntington Beach (Representing Orange County)
Luis Cabrera C. Consul General, Consulate General of Mexico MISSION STATEMENT
Howard Williams The Borders Committee provides oversight for planning activities that impact the borders of the San Diego County Water Authority San Diego region (Orange, Riverside and Imperial Counties, and the Republic of Mexico) as well as government-to-government relations with tribal nations in San Diego County. The preparation Pedro Orso-Delgado District 11 Director, Caltrans and implementation of SANDAG’s Binational, Interregional, and Tribal Liaison Planning programs are included under this purview. It advises the SANDAG Board of Directors on major interregional Chris Devers (Pauma) planning policy-level matters. Recommendations of the Committee are forwarded to the Southern California Tribal Board of Directors for action. Chairmen’s Association Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231
(619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ www.sandag.org
Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Borders Committee on any item at the time the Committee is considering the item. Please complete a Speaker’s Slip, which is located in the rear of the room, and then present the slip to Committee staff. Also, members of the public are invited to address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Speakers are limited to three minutes. The Borders Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.
This agenda and related staff reports can be accessed at www.sandag.org under meetings on SANDAG’s Web site. Public comments regarding the agenda can be forwarded to SANDAG via the e-mail comment form also available on the Web site. E-mail comments should be received no later than noon, two working days prior to the Borders Committee meeting.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.
SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 1-800-COMMUTE or see www.sdcommute.com for route information.
2 BORDERS COMMITTEE Friday, November 30, 2007
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
+1. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2007, MEETING MINUTES APPROVE
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Borders Committee on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee. Speakers are limited to three minutes each and shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the Clerk prior to speaking. Committee members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.
CONSENT ITEMS (#3 through #6)
+3. FOLLOW UP ON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN'S INFORMATION ASSOCIATION (SCTCA) POLICY ISSUES PROCESS (Jane Clough-Riquelme, SANDAG Tribal Liaison)
At its June 22, 2007, meeting, the Borders Committee reviewed staff recommendations for the Borders Committee work elements and schedule of meetings for FY 08. Pauma Chairman Chris Devers, SCTCA representative, indicated that he would need to review the schedule and topics with the SCTCA Board. At the September 28, 2007, Borders Committee meeting, Chairman Devers presented a report from the SCTCA outlining a set of suggested policy topics its Board would like to pursue through the SANDAG Policy Advisory Committee structure. Attached is a report outlining the process for addressing the identified policy areas.
+4. SIGNING OF THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON INDIGENOUS INFORMATION RIGHTS (Louis Guassac, Kumeyaay Border Task Force)
On September 13, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the result of more than two decades of consultation and dialogue among governments and indigenous peoples from all regions. The Declaration emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures, and traditions and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations. The declaration is attached for the Committee's information.
3 ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
+5. UPDATE ON NEW MUNICIPAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATIONS IN INFORMATION BAJA CALIFORNIA (Hector Vanegas, SANDAG)
On August 5, 2007, the State of Baja California and its municipalities held gubernatorial, mayoral, and State Legislature elections. Governor Osuna Millán was sworn in on November 1, while the Mayors of the five municipalities will take office on November 30, and December 1. This report provides background information on the election process and new administrations.
+6. INFRASTRUCTURE BOND FUNDING: GOODS MOVEMENT INFORMATION PROGRAMS (Christina Casgar/Elisa Arias, SANDAG)
Proposition 1B, approved by the voters in November 2006, includes two new funding programs related to goods movement on California's trade corridors. The attached report provides an update on the status of the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund and Goods Movement Emission Reduction programs.
REPORT ITEMS (#7 through #11)
7. BRIEFING ON THE SITUATION OF THE TRIBAL NATIONS AFFECTED INFORMATION BY THE 2007 WILDFIRES (Chairman Chris Devers, SCTCA)
As other residents in the San Diego region, tribal nations were deeply impacted by the wildfires that ravaged the countryside in October. Several reservations sustained major damage, both in terms of homes and other structures lost, as well as acreage burned. Chairman Devers, SCTCA representative to the Borders Committee, will brief the Committee on the current situation and recovery efforts.
8. OVERVIEW ON TRIBAL NATIONS IN SAN DIEGO INFORMATION (Hon. Anthony Pico, Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians)
Hon. Anthony Pico, former Chair of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, will provide a brief overview of indigenous culture in the San Diego region, clarifying the distinct tribal groupings and their traditional boundaries; and discuss sovereignty, governance, and contemporary economic development issues among tribal nations in San Diego.
4 ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
9. REPORT ON STATE ROUTE 76 (INTERSTATE 15 TO STATE ROUTE 79) INFORMATION OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS STUDY (Mark Bobotis, Caltrans Tribal Liaison; Bo Mazzetti, Reservation Transportation Authority Advisor)
Caltrans District 11 received funding to conduct an operational improvements study of State Route (SR) 76, east of Interstate 15, to SR 79. Caltrans partnered with the Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA) to prepare this study. The study focuses on the development of partnerships with tribal governments, SANDAG, the County of San Diego, resource agencies, developers, and local community planning groups to examine the current traffic impacts, as well as the projected cumulative traffic effects related to proposed development along this segment of SR 76. RTA and Caltrans staff will present the findings of this study.
+10. TRIBAL TRANSIT FEASIBILITY DRAFT REPORT (Boxie Phoenix, Co- RECOMMEND Chair Tribal Transportation Working Group; Dan Levy, SANDAG)
SANDAG received a Caltrans cooperative transit planning grant to determine the feasibility of implementing transit service in one or two key transportation corridors between selected tribal reservations and cities and/or urbanized community planning areas in the unincorporated area of San Diego County. The feasibility study analyzed traditional public transit services, as well as the potential for non-traditional services that could be funded by private sources and/or public-private partnerships and be integrated in services coordinated by the Coordinated Public Transportation and Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan). This project was undertaken in partnership with the Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA). The Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues served as the project advisory group. SANDAG staff will present the findings of the study to the Borders Committee and will ask the Borders Committee to forward the draft report to the Board of Directors for acceptance.
5 ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
11. INTRODUCTION TO TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT (Kim Yearyean, General Manager, Reservation Transportation Authority; Jane Clough-Riquelme, SANDAG)
SANDAG and the Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA) received a Caltrans Environmental Justice Grant to strengthen the participation of tribal nations in the San Diego region in the regional Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. RTA and SANDAG have partnered to assess the needs of tribal employers; develop a strategy that meets their needs; and assist the RTA in setting up a tribal Transportation Management Association (TMA) that would collaborate with SANDAG’s TDM program (RideLink). The tribal TMA, a private, non-profit, member-controlled organization would provide the institutional framework for the recommended TDM programs and services that are developed as a result of the study. RTA and SANDAG staff will provide an overview of the project, work plan, and timeline for the Committee's information.
12. UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next meeting of the Borders Committee is scheduled for January 11, 2008, at 12:30 p.m. (Please note that this is not a regular meeting date/time.)
13. ADJOURNMENT
+ next to an item indicates an attachment
6 San Diego Association of Governments BORDERS COMMITTEE
November 30, 2007 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1
Action Requested: APPROVE
BORDERS COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2007
The meeting of the Borders Committee was called to order by Chair Pro Tempore Crystal Crawford (North County Coastal) at 12:31 p.m. See the attached attendance sheet for Borders Committee member attendance.
1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Jim Desmond (North County Inland) and a second by Councilmember Phil Monroe (South County), the Borders Committee approved the minutes from the June 22, 2007, meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Arnold San Miguel of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) announced the development of the Long Range Transportation Plan, and invited the Committee to participate in the scheduled workshops. He informed that the workshops taking place in Los Angeles would be video-conferenced to the SCAG office in Riverside. Mr. San Miguel will notify the San Diego Port District and SANDAG of the meetings involving Goods Movement.
CONSENT ITEMS (#3 – #4)
3. STATUS REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL BORDER SEWAGE ISSUES (INFORMATION)
Ron Saenz, SANDAG, reported that the Bajagua project has been placed temporarily on hold as certain milestones were not met by May 2007. Senator Diane Feinstein intends to allocate $66 million, originally dedicated to the Bajagua plant, to the existing South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Councilmember Monroe asked if SANDAG has been working with the Senator’s representatives.
Mr. Saenz responded that the Committee’s direction was for SANDAG staff provide periodic status reports on border sewage issues; SANDAG has not engaged directly in addressing these issues with other public agencies.
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford said that as it is an informational item, the Committee could not take action at this time; however, it could be brought back to the Committee at a future date.
Councilmember Monroe stated he would discuss the issue with Chair McCoy.
Councilmember Debbie Cook (County of Orange) commented that, as a participant on the Orange County Sanitation District, only a small increase in cost was necessary to upgrade to tertiary treatment. As a result, Orange County was able to initiate a re-use program in conjunction with the Orange County Water District.
Supervisor Pam Slater-Price (County of San Diego) asked if it would be possible to go to tertiary easily upon having this infrastructure in place.
Ms. Cook replied that the most expensive step is secondary, and tertiary is approximately 10 percent more in cost. Through an agreement with the Orange County Water District, they will process water through their reverse osmosis filters and send the water on to be re- percolated into the aquifer. Ms. Cook added that energy consumption is less when treating tertiary fresh water. It is approximately 1,500 kilowatt hours per acre-foot for tertiary treated fresh water, 2,000 – 3,000 kilowatt hours per acre-foot for imported water, and 5,700 kilowatt hours per acre-foot for desalination.
Supervisor Slater-Price recommended a discussion take place regarding this subject, as water is a major challenge for the border area.
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford suggested Councilmember Monroe and Supervisor Slater-Price speak with Chair McCoy to determine when to place the item on the agenda.
Supervisor Slater-Price added that she would speak with Supervisor Cox also.
Action: This item was presented for information only.
4. CITY OF TIJUANA’S PROPOSAL FOR A FUTURE PORT OF ENTRY AT CAÑON MOCTEZUMA (INFORMATION)
Hector Vanegas, Borders Committee Coordinator, reported that City of Tijuana Mayor Kurt Honold presented his views on border issues and the need for more border infrastructure at the July SANDAG Board of Directors meeting. Mayor Honold stated that presently, the City has given priority to the current expansion project at San Ysidro and the East Otay Mesa Port of Entry. He also brought forth the proposal of a future Port of Entry in Cañon Moctezuma and stressed that, to his knowledge, this proposal would not affect the sensitive areas in and around the Tijuana River estuary nor was it the same proposal as “Las Playas.”
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford stated she appreciated Mayor Honold’s forward thinking as he indicated the planning process for a new Port of Entry usually takes 15 years or more.
2
Councilmember Monroe suggested that should SANDAG further explore this proposal, work should begin with Mayor Honold.
Councilmember Hueso concurred with Councilmember Monroe and recommended the commencement of dialogue in order to arrive at a concept.
Action: This item was presented for information only.
Councilmember Ben Hueso (City of San Diego) requested to provide comment on Item #3 in order to relay his personal experience and observations of the outfall of raw sewage from Tijuana while kayaking from San Diego to Rosarito. He explained that his goal was to create serious discussion and address water quality along the border thus initiating both short- and long-term solutions. He also asked that the Borders Committee make this item a priority and possibly develop public policy to address the situation.
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford recommended he confer with Chair McCoy, Councilmember Monroe, and Supervisor Slater-Price when they meet to discuss this issue.
Councilmember Monroe suggested also inviting Assembly member Lori Saldaña and Mayor Honold to the proposed meeting.
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford said that the issue was very complex and not directly within SANDAG’s jurisdiction; however, possibly a forum could be provided and a meeting convened with interested stakeholders to discuss the issue.
Supervisor Slater-Price concurred and stated that the real line of demarcation was in taking a position. She advised the addition of the report on water treatment from Orange County and individuals representing environmental issues be invited to speak at the meeting also.
Chairman Victor Carrillo (County of Imperial) informed that he attended meetings related to a similar situation in Imperial County, the New River, involving national working groups from Mexico City and that more meetings are scheduled for October 5-7. He added that one of the controversial issues with Bajagua was Mexico’s public/private partnership. He said it was important to understand the level of governance in Mexico and reminded the Committee of the changes that will soon be taking place. He concurred on the importance of making this an agenda item and a priority for discussion with the new Mayor of Tijuana.
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford agreed that the change in administration was an important factor and recommended the coordination of a meeting.
REPORTS ITEMS (#5 – #8)
5. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN’S ASSOCIATION (SCTCA) POLICY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION (DISCUSSION/ACCEPT)
Chairman Chris Devers (Pauma) began his presentation by noting that this was “California Indian Day”. On this day tribes showcase their cultures and activities throughout the State. He then reported that the SCTCA reviewed the FY 08 agenda schedule for Borders and held
3
a brainstorming session among SCTCA representatives to SANDAG to identify policy issues they would like to work through SANDAG’s Policy Advisory Committees, including Borders. The issues identified in the report included:
• Native American Communities of San Diego • Visit to Indigenous Communities in Baja California • Collaboration on the Transportation Reauthorization Bill • Information Sharing Protocols/Agreements • Tribal Transit Program • Tribal TDM Outreach Project • IRR Inventory • Crime on Reservations • Tribal Participation in the Adam Walsh Act • Public Law 280 • Emergency Preparedness Interoperability • Homeland Security • Regional Energy Strategy • Environmental Mitigation Program • Water Rights/Groundwater Issues/Sustainable Yield
Councilmember Ed Gallo (North County Inland) commended the SCTCA on the report and said this is similar to another collaborative opportunity that is attempting to bring in the tribal court system into Southern California.
Chairman Devers stated that although currently there is limited use of the tribal court system, they continue to develop it.
Chairman Carrillo suggested that regarding Environmental Mitigation (SB18), ancestral significance is also an important factor from an anthropological standpoint as it has a significant impact on the history of the culture.
Chairman Devers said that the SCTCA may be meeting more frequently in the future in order to ensure that issues are addressed and there is a continuing dialogue between the SCTCA and SANDAG. He also mentioned that the SCTCA accepted a proposal to have UCSD planning students assist the SCTCA representatives on SANDAG Committees as Tribal Policy Interns.
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford inquired how issues would be brought before the other committees.
Diane Eidam, Chief Deputy Executive Director, replied that the items will formally be brought directly to the Policy Advisory Committee Chairs, as is the process with the Borders Committee.
Councilmember Monroe thanked Chairman Devers for his report and suggested representation from the SCTCA on the Energy Working Group and the Environmental Mitigation Working Group. He also requested the integration of the San Diego County’s transportation priorities along with the Reservation Transportation Authority’s priorities in
4
order to present them to the federal government for the purpose of seeking additional funding.
Supervisor Slater-Price stated that the tribes have been extremely cooperative and commended them for the contribution of $30 million toward the Highway 76 corridor. She remarked that the County looks forward to working in partnership with the SCTCA.
Councilmember Ed Gallo (North County Inland) commented that one of the missions of the Borders Committee was to involve the tribes as everyone benefits from their presence.
Councilmember Jack Feller (North County Coastal) suggested that groundwater and water rights issues would be a good subject for review by the Borders Committee.
Howard Williams (San Diego County Water Authority) cautioned the Committee as the dispute regarding the All American Canal lining has lasted 38 years.
Chairman Devers remarked that issues pertaining to surface and groundwater can be controversial; however, it is important that dialogue remain open.
Councilmember Monroe relayed his experience with the archaeological digs on the Silver Strand.
Chairman Devers offered his assistance in relaying information and messages to the SCTCA and thanked Jane Clough-Riquelme, Tribal Liaison, for her assistance in promoting the process.
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford thanked the SCTCA for their work and reiterated the importance of communication and their participation in the various SANDAG policy committees. She assured Chairman Devers that staff would return with information regarding the development of a mechanism for receiving recommendations and providing feedback on future items.
Action: Chair Pro Tempore Crawford stated that a formal motion to accept was not necessary as on the basis of the discussion the Committee accepts the item by consensus.
6. CALENDAR OF MEETINGS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 (DISCUSSION/ACCEPT)
Hector Vanegas, Borders Committee Coordinator, stated that the Committee requested a calendar of meetings organized by themes; binational, tribal, and interregional for Fiscal Year 2008. He informed that the calendar of items also includes recommendations for tribal policy issues to be considered by the various SANDAG policy advisory committees.
Councilmember Hueso requested that an update be provided to his office on items listed without dates and that the Committee take into consideration the dates he would be participating on the Coastal Commission.
5
Councilmember Monroe remarked on the items involving Orange County and asked that further information be provided regarding transportation before the meeting in March with the Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA).
Bob Leiter, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning, commented that SANDAG staff has been attending meetings with the Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA), and offered bringing a number of topics to the Borders Committee in advance. Of special interest, the South I-5 Major Investment Study, a corridor analysis of the I-5 South Corridor in Orange County. The study raises some interesting issues regarding the relationship between San Diego’s I-5 North Coast Corridor and Orange County’s South Coast Corridor. He added that staff will return with a list of possible topics for the Committee’s review.
Mayor Desmond inquired about the October meeting.
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford responded that the October 26 meeting would not take place. A joint briefing between the Borders Committee, the Board of Directors, and the Tijuana City Council would most likely take place on October 31st with a tour of a maquilladora plant in Tijuana and other activities yet to be determined.
Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Hueso and a second by Mayor Desmond, the Borders Committee accepted the Fiscal Year 2008 Calendar of Meetings.
7. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE SAN YSIDRO PORT OF ENTRY EXPANSION (DISCUSSION)
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford welcomed Mr. Steve Baker of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and acknowledged the attendance of Bruce Ward, Andy Britton and Oscar Preciado of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Mr. Baker updated the Committee on the progress and status of the San Ysidro Port of Entry Reconfiguration and Expansion Project. He explained that the Port of Entry is being designed to be a more efficient port, while incorporating the input from the outside stakeholders. The project’s Master Plan has just been completed, with the “Island Scheme” most preferred by CBP as it best achieves the needs for operating the Port in the most efficient and effective manner. In response to community and local requests to condense the site, southward repositioning of the triangular-shaped site will leave as much property in private hands as possible.
Mr. Baker stated it is important to note that during renovation, each piece has to operate both with the existing facility and with the new facility, once it has designed and built. Each phase exists separately and is not a construction phase, but is in fact an independent project. Phases I and II must take place in sequence and coordination with Mexico can actually expedite the installation of Phase III. Mexico is still in the planning phase and ongoing binational meetings are taking place.
Councilmember Monroe expressed concern about pedestrians riding the trolley.
Mr. Baker responded that presently, there are security issues with the current pedestrian bridge, as the bridge is located directly adjacent to the CBP Administration Building. The
6
new pedestrian bridge will be constructed further to the north, with pedestrians walking on the western side of the freeway into Mexico.
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford asked if the new pedestrian access would be dedicated for pedestrians only.
Mr. Baker stated that it would be a public pedestrian bridge and located away from the Port of Entry.
Councilmember Monroe asked how much added distance a pedestrian would have to travel from the trolley to the Border today.
Mr. Baker responded that the Design Team and Traffic Engineers are presently in the process of performing walking and travel studies.
Councilmember Monroe asked if they were also coordinating with MTS.
Mr. Baker answered that they have been in contact with regional stakeholders and will work with MTS representatives, property owners, the City of San Diego, and Caltrans, among others.
Executive Director Gary Gallegos stated that concerns regarding complementing investment on both sides of the border and challenges regarding the improvement to the area binationally exist.
Chairman Carrillo asked if the Mexican government was planning to fund the project through a public private partnership. He said that in the past, the Mexican government charged user fees, or tolls.
Mr. Baker stated he did not know about Mexico’s funding plans for the project.
Consul Lydia Antonio (Republic of Mexico) stated that the project is a priority with the federal government and that the government has already allocated funds. The project will not be as expensive in Mexico as engineering and construction costs are lower; and they are aware of the concern with making improvements at the border.
Chairman Carrillo recommended a focus should be placed on improvement to the arterial system that simplifies the effort and the process of getting through Tijuana to the border, on the Mexican side.
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford suggested that this item be placed on the agenda of the meeting with the new authorities of the State of Baja California and the city of Tijuana.
Supervisor Slater-Price said that this project could lend itself to a type of toll arrangement on both sides of the border and then sunset once the cost of the project was covered.
Councilmember Monroe suggested that the sewage issue and the Port of Entry issue be discussed at the meeting on October 31st in Tijuana.
7
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford inquired about the timing of the meetings and asked why they were to meet with the current administration and not with the new administration.
Executive Director Gallegos stated that the plan is to close out work that is being done with the current administration and hopefully begin the institutional framework to start working with the new administration.
Mr. Vanegas said there will be an opportunity to meet with the new administration in the future.
Executive Director Gallegos added that this is not the first time that SANDAG has worked with the different changing administrations in Mexico.
Chairman Carrillo said that communication is the key to success. It is important that the Borders Committee make it a priority to keep the Mayor and his staff appraised on committee meetings and any other information.
Executive Director Gallegos stated that even though administrations have changed, a lot of institutional relationships remain. SANDAG is presently trying to open dialogues with the new Mexican leadership in both the City of Tijuana and the State of Baja California.
Mr. Baker informed that the federal government does not have the authority to assess tolls to pay for construction projects.
Executive Director Gallegos asked if they are obligated to follow the Federal Uniform Right- of-Way Act.
Mr. Baker was unsure what it was, and offered to review it.
Executive Director Gallegos explained that when building roads, contractors must follow the federal government process outlined in this Act as there is a responsibility not only to acquire the land through eminent domain but also a responsibility to make reasonable accommodations for relocating businesses and making sure they stay viable. The community in San Ysidro is concerned about this.
Mr. Baker replied that the GSA has very strict guidelines to follow and he will provide the Committee with copies of the guidelines should they be needed.
Councilmember Monroe commented that he understood the next border crossing would be a public private partnership and asked for clarification if it would have a toll.
Mr. Baker informed that the federal government cannot toll ports of entry.
Executive Director Gallegos said that a legal assessment will be presented at a later date that will show what changes need to be made to the laws at both the federal and state levels in order to allow tolls.
8
Councilmember Monroe suggested that this be added to this item also.
Supervisor Slater-Price offered that this might be an opportunity for the two governments to make this into a demonstration project. They can construct a border crossing with the high capacity needed, have it implemented all at once instead of in phases, help alleviate environmental problems in the process, and have it paid with a toll that sunsets.
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford commented that, when changing the whole configuration to make this a challenge for pedestrians or trolley users, thought is necessary regarding how to move the people in a way that is not a negative impact.
Mr. Baker then presented the San Ysidro Concept Aerial view of the area.
Executive Director Gallegos reiterated his concern that the large grey area in Mexico did not show the flow of traffic from the U.S. into Mexico.
Jason Wells, of San Ysidro Smart Border Coalition, explained that the Coalition is comprised of the Border Transportation Council, several committees from the Chamber of Commerce, Casa Familiar, Hearts and Hands Working Together, the San Ysidro Business Association, the San Ysidro Planning Group, and the San Ysidro Transportation Collaborative. The Coalition is in favor of the reconfiguration of the Port of Entry, happy that site acquisition is less than initially planned and has minimal impact to the community, and the GSA has responded well to community concerns. One serious concern remains, however, over the relocation of pre-existing businesses.
Lisa Dye, Federal Highway Administration, responded to inquiries regarding funding for infrastructure in Tijuana. She said that the counterpart agency in Mexico, the Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) is working with the State of Baja California and developed a cost estimate for infrastructure in the City of Tijuana. The infrastructure that they will need, in addition to the cost of Port of Entry renovation, is $25 million. The SCT will present information on this item on October 9, 2007 as part of the U.S. and Mexican Consulate’s Border Liaison Mechanism meeting at the Caltrans District Office, in the Gallegos Room, at 10:00 A.M. She added that the Port of Entry Working Group, has a Technical Commission for the San Ysidro-Puerta Mexico port of entry. Information regarding the meeting will be provided to staff so it will be available for the Borders Committee
Mr. Baker clarified that in order for the Port to work in a public fashion, it doesn’t just work in a north/south direction. It needs to work in an east/west direction also. The design team does not see the boundaries; they see a major public works project; a transit hub that needs to operate in the entire realm. He assured the Committee that the design team’s focus is also on how the project will work in the realm of San Ysidro; how it will work for the people that travel through and across it in both directions; and, how it will work for CBP’s operations. He added that they are aware of the concerns about the pedestrian bridge.
Councilmember Hueso asked if a staff report on this item would be presented, as there are outstanding concerns regarding design and mobility.
9
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford responded that the item was agendized as a discussion item, so no action would be taken at this time. However, through the discussion, the Committee can make its’ concerns and perspectives known. The Committee will be advocating for this project when they meet with leaders in Washington D.C. in a few weeks.
Executive Director Gallegos stated that in terms of the priorities highlighted by the Committee, SANDAG will be part of a group that will be going with the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce to discuss this project, a crossborder terminal, and the Otay Mesa East port of entry.
Councilmember Hueso reiterated the importance of this project and a design that will facilitate pedestrian traffic. He commended GSA, Mr. Baker, and the design team for working with the community.
Executive Director Gallegos stated that as the federal government moves forward with this, it is necessary to ensure an overall commitment to the whole project.
Chairman Carrillo said that at the Calexico Port of Entry, southbound and northbound pedestrian traffic run parallel together on the eastside. . This successful model could be incorporated into the reconfiguration project at the San Ysidro Port of Entry.
Mr. Baker responded that presently, Mexico prefers the northbound pedestrian traffic on the east side, and southbound pedestrian traffic on the west side. However, from a design planning standpoint, it is incumbent upon GSA to plan for the future; therefore, it may become a possibility and the design should be left open enough to accommodate future changes.
Councilmember Monroe personally objected to pedestrians remaining as a low priority.
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford explained that it is important to acknowledge and speak with the Mexican counterparts regarding the pedestrian issue.
Action: This item was presented for discussion only.
8. PERSPECTIVE ON BORDER ISSUES FROM EL COLEGIO DE LA FRONTERA NORTE (COLEF) (INFORMATION)
Action: This item was continued to a future date.
9. UPCOMING MEETINGS
The meeting scheduled on October 26, 2007, is cancelled. The Borders Committee will join the SANDAG Board of Directors and the Tijuana City Council’s Joint Briefing on Wednesday, October 31, 2007.
The next regular meeting of the Borders Committee will be on November 30, 2007, at 12:30 p.m.
10
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Pro Tempore Crawford adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m.
Attachment: Attendance Sheet
11
CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE BORDERS COMMITTEE MEETING September 28, 2007 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA JURISDICTION NAME MEMBER/ ATTENDING ALTERNATE Yes No
South County City of Imperial Beach Patricia McCoy (Chair) Member 3
City of Coronado Phil Monroe Alternate 3
Imperial County County of Imperial Victor Carrillo Member 3
City of Calexico David Ouzan Alternate 3
North County Coastal City of Oceanside Jack Feller Member 3
City of Del Mar Crystal Crawford Alternate 3
North County Inland City of San Marcos Jim Desmond Member 3
City of Escondido Ed Gallo Alternate 3
East County City of La Mesa David Allan Member 3
City of Santee John Minto Alternate 3
City of San Diego ---- Ben Hueso Member 3
---- Brian Maienschein Alternate 3
County of San Diego ---- Greg Cox (Vice Chair) Member 3
---- Pam Slater-Price Alternate 3 ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS COBRO ----- Dr. Paul Ganster Member 3
----- Cindy Gomppers-Graves Alternate 3
____ Angelika Villagrana Alternate 3
County of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore Thomas Buckley Member 3
Republic of Mexico Acting Consul General of Ricardo Pineda Member 3 Mexico
Consul Lydia Antonio Alternate 3
Southern California Pauma Christopher Devers Member 3 Tribal Chairmen’s Mesa Grande Mark Romero Alternate 3 Association
Caltrans ----- Pedro Orso-Delgado Member 3
----- Bill Figge Alternate 3
San Diego County Water ----- Howard Williams Member 3 Authority
County of Orange ----- Debbie Cook Member 3
12 San Diego Association of Governments BORDERS COMMITTEE
November 30, 2007 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3
Action Requested: INFORMATION
FOLLOW UP ON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN’S File Number 7000600 ASSOCIATION (SCTCA) POLICY ISSUES PROCESS
Introduction
As the Borders Committee prepared its work plan and schedule of meetings for FY 2008, the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association (SCTCA) Board of Directors developed a list of recommended topics that could be brought to the SANDAG Policy Advisory Committees for information and discussion. The SCTCA presented a report outlining the proposed topics to the Borders Committee at its meeting on September 28, 2007.
Discussion
At its June 22, 2007, meeting, the Borders Committee received from staff a suggested schedule of meetings and topics to be considered during FY 2008. At that that meeting, Chairman Chris Devers (Pauma), Representative of SCTCA, stated that he would take the suggested topics for tribal issues back to the SCTCA Board for review and consideration.
Chairman Devers presented the schedule of meetings and topics to the SCTCA Board at its July meeting. The Board directed SCTCA representatives to SANDAG to meet and discuss relevant issues/topics. The group met on August 17, and brought back their recommendations to the SCTCA at its August 21, Board meeting. The SCTCA submitted a report outlining suggestions and recommendations for tribal policy issues to be developed through the Borders Committee and SANDAG’s other Policy Advisory Committees at its September 28, 2007, meeting.
SANDAG staff will work with both the SANDAG Policy Committee Chairs and SCTCA representatives to the Policy Committees to review the relevant tribal policy items:
• SANDAG Tribal Liaison will work with SCTCA representatives and Committee Coordinators to bring agenda items to relevant Policy Advisory Committees; • SCTCA Representatives will keep the SCTCA Board advised of developments; • SANDAG Tribal Liaison will meet periodically with SCTCA representatives to monitor progress; and • Reports will be brought back to the Borders Committee periodically on the status of issue areas.
BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Key Staff Contact: Jane Clough-Riquelme, (619) 699-1909, [email protected]
PRESS RELEASE Historic Milestone for Indigenous Peoples Worldwide as UN Adopts Rights Declaration
New York, 13 September – Marking an historic achievement for the more than 370 million indigenous peoples worldwide, the General Assembly today adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the result of more than two decades of consultation and dialogue among governments and indigenous peoples from all regions.
“Today, by adopting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples we are making further progress to improve the situation of indigenous peoples around the world,” stated General Assembly President Haya Al Khalifa.
“We are also taking another major step forward towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.”
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warmly welcomed the adoption, calling it “a triumph for indigenous peoples around the world.”
He further noted that “this marks a historic moment when UN Member States and indigenous peoples reconciled with their painful histories and resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all.”
Adopted by the Human Rights Council in June 2006, the Declaration emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations. It establishes an important standard for eliminating human rights violations against indigenous peoples worldwide and for combating discrimination and marginalization.
“The 13th of September 2007 will be remembered as an international human rights day for the Indigenous Peoples of the world, a day that the United Nations and its Member States, together with Indigenous Peoples, reconciled with past painful histories and decided to march into the future on the path of human rights,” said Ms. Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, Chairperson of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
The Declaration addresses both individual and collective rights, cultural rights and identity, rights to education, health, employment, language and others. The Declaration explicitly encourages harmonious
and cooperative relations between States and Indigenous Peoples. It prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them.
Calling the Declaration “tangible proof of the increasing cooperation of States, Indigenous Peoples and the international community as a whole for the promotion and protection of the human rights of indigenous peoples”, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Mr. Sha Zukang said that the UN “has fulfilled its role as the world’s parliament and has responded to the trust that Indigenous Peoples around the world placed in it, that it will stand for dignity and justice, development and peace for all, without discrimination.”
The Declaration was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the General Assembly, with 143 countries voting in support, 4 voting against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) and 11 abstaining (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa, Ukraine).
To view a webcast of the General Assembly session, see: www.un.org/webcast/ga.html
For more information on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, please see: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html
For media enquiries, please contact: Renata Sivacolundhu, Department of Public Information, tel: 212.963.2932, e-mail: [email protected] For Secretariat of the Permanent Forum, please contact: Mirian Masaquiza,, tel: 917.367.6006, e-mail: [email protected]
San Diego Association of Governments BORDERS COMMITTEE
November 30, 2007 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5
Action Requested: INFORMATION
UPDATE ON NEW MUNICIPAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATIONS IN File Number 3003200 BAJA CALIFORNIA
Introduction
The State of Baja California and the five municipalities held elections for governor, mayors, and State Legislature on August 5, 2007. State Legislators (Diputados) started their terms on October 1st and Governor José Guadalupe Osuna Millán was sworn in on November 1st. The new Mayors for the five municipalities will be sworn in by Governor Osuna during different ceremonies that will be held on November 30 and December 1, 2007.
Discussion
The recent elections in Baja California were to fill the Mayor and City Council seats for the Cities of Ensenada, Playas de Rosarito, Tijuana, Tecate, and Mexicali as well as for the position of governor for the state of Baja California and the 25-member State Legislature. In Mexico, State Governors are elected for a six-year term while Mayors and State Legislators are elected for a three-year term.
Reelections are not allowed by Mexico’s federal Constitution. Also, since there is no formal civil service system, a change of administrations implies major turnover in management and staff as well as the preparation of new State and municipal development plans and programs to guide the actions for the next six and three years respectively.
Elections in Baja California are sanctioned by a State Electoral Institute, who validated and ratified the results of the August 2007 elections. Due to the numerical closeness in votes, the coalition led by Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) contested the election processes through Mexico’s Federal Electoral Court for the positions of governor and mayors for Ensenada, Tecate, and Tijuana. The Federal Electoral Court ratified the election for governor; however, a decision on election results for the municipalities is pending and should be resolved before November 30, 2007.
Governor Osuna was elected representing a coalition “Alianza por Baja California” led by Partido Acción Nacional (National Action Party) for the 2007-2013 term. During his swearing-in ceremony, Governor Osuna stated that his priorities will be in the areas of public safety, education, and infrastructure. The new Infrastructure Program for the State administration will include actions toward the construction of a new seaport at Punta Colonet, improvements to land ports of entry, and construction of a new thermoelectric plant in Mexicali, as well as the construction of wind power generation plant and projects for water reuse and desalination, among others.
The Mayors-elect for the five municipalities that will be serving for the 2007-2010 term are:
Mayor-Elect, Jorge Ramos, City of Tijuana (Alianza por Baja California) Mayor-Elect,Hugo Torres, City of Playas de Rosarito (Alianza Para Que Vivas Mejor) Mayor Elect, Donaldo E. Peñaloza, City of Tecate (Alianza por Baja California) Mayor Elect, Rodolfo Valdéz, City of Mexicali (Alianza por Baja California) Mayor Elect, Pablo A. Lopez, City of Ensenada (Alianza por Baja California)
Staff will keep the Borders Committee informed as the new administrations develop State and Municipal development plans.
BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Key Staff Contact: Hector Vanegas, (619) 699-1972, [email protected]
2 Attachment 1
DESCRIPTION OF TCIF CANDIDATE GOODS MOVEMENT PROJECTS
Border
Border/SR 905 ($600m) – Includes 6-lane east-west freeway between United States- Mexico Port of Entry (POE) at Otay Mesa with interchanges at SR 125, I-805, and I-5.
New Border Crossing/SR 11 ($500m) – Includes new United States-Mexico POE at East Otay Mesa and new SR 11, a 4-lane freeway connecting the East Otay Mesa POE to SR 905.
Maritime
Maritime/32nd Street ($109m) – Includes 32nd Street and Harbor Drive Overpass connecting Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal and National City Marine Terminal via Harbor Drive to I-15 at 32nd Street.
Maritime/National City ($56m) – Includes terminal wharf and multilevel roll on-roll off cargo storage facilities at the National City Marine Terminal.
Maritime/10th Avenue ($66m) – Includes 10th Avenue Overpass and Grade Separation at Cesar Chavez Parkway/Harbor Drive that would connect the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal to I-15 via Harbor Drive and the 32nd Street Overpass and initial terminal operations improvements.
Rail
South Line Rail ($325m) – Includes rail, sidings and passing tracks, bridge and bridge rehabilitation, crossovers, yard improvements, computerized train controls, Coronado Line rehabilitation, and improved connectivity to the Mexican rail, port, yards and logistics centers along the South Line between Broadway in San Diego and the United States–Mexico rail border crossing at San Ysidro.
Coastal Rail ($100m) – Includes rail, sidings and passing tracks, and bridges to provide the equivalent of double-tracking along the Coastal Corridor between downtown San Diego and the Orange County Line.
4 Goods Movement Action Plan TCIF Candidate Projects
San Diego Region Riverside County Projects
San Diego County Project 1 Air Cargo Camp Locations Pendleton
Logistics Border Center/Yard Coastal/SPRINTER 2 SR 905 South/Trolley/ Mexico/Desert 3 SR 11/New Border Crossing 6A Concepts
Vista Potential High Speed Rail/Inland 6 Oceanside 4 Maritime 6 8 San SR 54/125/52/67/94 Escondido Outer Loop Includes Ground Access Marcos
Improvements Carlsbad Commercial/ Industrial Land Use
5 Pipeline Encinitas
9 Solana Beach Poway Rail Del Mar 8 13 6 Coastal/SPRINTER P County A C of II 6A High Speed Rail/Inland FF
II 6A San Diego C
O
CC Santee
7 South/MEX EE
A 13
NN San 10 Diego 11 5 9 7A Desert 6 San Diego 13 El Cajon
La Mesa
Road/Managed Lanes 1 11 Lemon Grove 13
8 I-5 National 13 City 6A MAP AREA Coronado 9 I-15 13 6A 4 10 (Rail Line Runs 10 I-805 Through Mexico - Chula Crosses Border Back To Vista 12 7 Imperial Valley, USA) 11 SR 94/125, I-8 San Diego Region 3 Imperial 7A Beach 2 UNITED STATES 12 SR 125/Toll MEXICO
MILES 13 SR 54/125/52/67/94 036 Tijuana, 6A Outer Loop 04.839.6 B.C. KILOMETERS 1-D 7
July 2007 San Diego Association of Governments BORDERS COMMITTEE
November 30, 2007 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 6
Action Requested: INFORMATION
INFRASTRUCTURE BOND FUNDING: GOODS MOVEMENT PROGRAMS File Number 3000900
Introduction
Proposition 1B (Prop. 1B), approved by the voters at the November 2006 general election, enacts the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, which authorizes the issuance of more than $19.9 billion of general obligation bonds for various transportation programs. At the Borders Committee meeting held on May 25, 2007, staff briefed the Committee on two Prop. 1B funding programs related to goods movement.
The Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) will focus infrastructure improvements along trade corridors that accommodate a high volume of freight movements. The Goods Movement Emissions Reduction program will focus on projects that reduce air pollution related to the movement of goods along California’s trade corridors.
Discussion
TCIF Program
The TCIF program is a $2 billion statewide program that would be allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Eligible projects include highway and freight rail system improvements to facilitate goods movement to and from seaports, land ports of entry, and airports; enhancements to port capacity; and border access projects to improve freight movement between California and Mexico. The CTC is required to consult the California Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP), Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), and the Statewide Port Master Plan. With the exception of border access projects, a dollar-for-dollar local match is required.
The GMAP identified four corridors that have a high volume of freight movements. They are the Bay Area Corridor, the Central Valley Corridor, the Los Angeles/Inland Empire Corridor, and the San Diego/Border Corridor (San Diego and Imperial Counties).
Since action on pending legislation was expected to occur prior to the end of July 2007, staff worked with goods movement stakeholders to develop a regional funding strategy that would be ready for submittal to the CTC. This strategy was approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors in July 2007 due to the urgent timelines anticipated for this program. Table 1 shows the list of TCIF candidate projects approved by the SANDAG Board, which are part of the San Diego Regional GMAP (approved by the Board in September 2006) and the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. This table shows four potential funding scenarios for the San Diego region and candidate priority
projects under each scenario. A similar strategy was used in the development of candidate projects for the Prop. 1B Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) program; under that program, the Board approved a range of potential corridor investments that allowed the region to take full advantage of available CMIA funding. Attachment 1 includes a description of the TCIF candidate projects, which are highlighted in orange in the map legend (Attachment 2).
Table 1 Prop. 1B Goods Movement Candidate Projects
POTENTIAL INVESTMENT LEVELS Project Projects $200 $300 $400 $500+ Cost million million million million
Border/State Route (SR) 9051 $ 75 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 600
New Border Crossing/SR 112 75 0 0 0 500
Maritime/32nd Street3 50 0 0 0 109
Maritime/National City3 0 28 0 0 56
Maritime/10th Avenue3 0 33 0 0 66
South Line Rail4 0 39 100 11 325
Coastal Rail5 0 0 0 100 1,000
TOTALS $ 200 $ 100 $ 100 $ 111 $ 2,656
1 This funding would complete the project. 2 This investment would provide equity and the remainder would be covered by toll revenues. 3 Maritime investments would be matched by the Port of San Diego. 4 This project would be combined with Trolley improvement projects, and the local match would come from TransNet. 5 This project would be combined with COASTER improvements, and the local match would come from TransNet.
On September 19, 2007, Secretary Dale Bonner from the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (BT&H) wrote to CTC Chairman James Ghielmetti to request that the CTC take swift action to have a definitive TCIF proposal submitted for inclusion in the Governor’s FY 2008-2009 budget. Subsequently, in October 2007, BT&H held several public meetings throughout the state. Elected officials, business and community representatives testified at the October 15 meeting held in San Diego.
On October 24, 2007, the CTC adopted criteria for evaluation of TCIF priorities and also directed staff to group this set of criteria into Screening Criteria and Evaluation Criteria. On November 6, 2007, the CTC discussed Screening Criteria, which would determine whether the nomination is accepted and evaluated further, and the Evaluation Criteria, which considers goods movement, transportation system, and community impact factors. There are pending issues related to funding targets by corridor, geographic balance, and equity.
2
Goods Movement Emissions Reduction Program
This $1 billion component of Prop. 1B complements the $2 billion TCIF Program, but specifically addresses freight-related air pollution emissions in trade corridors. This program will be managed by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). ARB staff developed Draft Concepts for Implementation for the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program (GMERP) and conducted several workshops around the state in October 2007. Staff attended the October 3 workshop in San Diego and suggested that the program needs to be tuned to address crossborder emission challenges. The ARB Draft Concepts for Implementation specifically state the need to keep projects operating within California, and not other states or countries, which effectively prohibits any investments on trucks with dual Mexico-California plates or for electrified truck stops on the Mexican side of the border. Staff has submitted comments and will continue to work with ARB to inform and advance the unique challenges related to crossborder diesel truck emissions.
Next Steps
TCIF Program
The funding strategy approved by the SANDAG Board in July 2007 has been used as a basis to work with the Legislature, BT&H, and the CTC as guidelines and criteria are debated for future submission of goods movement project applications.
On November 6, the CTC tentatively scheduled a special meeting the week of November 26, 2007, to take action on TCIF criteria.
Goods Movement Emissions Reduction Program
ARB approval of the GMERP guidelines tentatively is scheduled in January 2008. Staff will continue to collaborate with ARB and to rapidly develop proposals with goods movement and air quality stakeholders to address the San Diego region’s emissions challenges. Proposals would have to be submitted as early as February 2008.
Staff will continue to keep the Borders Committee informed of new developments on these funding programs.
BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. Description of TCIF Candidate Goods Movement Projects 2. Goods Movement Action Plan – TCIF Candidate Projects
Key Staff Contacts: Christina Casgar, (619) 699-1982, [email protected] Elisa Arias, (619) 699-1936, [email protected]
3 San Diego Association of Governments BORDERS COMMITTEE
November 30, 2007 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 10
Action Requested: RECOMMEND
TRIBAL TRANSIT FEASIBILITY DRAFT REPORT File Number 7000600
Introduction Recommendation
In 2005 SANDAG was awarded a grant from Caltrans Staff recommends that the Borders to conduct a study on the feasibility of improving Committee forwards this draft report to transit service to the tribal lands in eastern the SANDAG Board of Directors for San Diego County. This study is a collaborative effort acceptance. of SANDAG, the Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA), Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), and North County Transit District (NCTD). SANDAG retained a consultant to prepare the study in conjunction with the recently created Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues (Attachment 2). Subsequent to the receipt of the grant from Caltrans the Federal Government announced a new competitive program to fund transit serving tribal lands. The Tribal Transit Feasibility Study was finalized in August 2007, and the results of the study have been incorporated into a grant application filed by the RTA for the new Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds for Tribal Transit. The FTA funds will pay 100 percent of any subsidy that is required to start up and operate the service. A decision on the grant application is expected from the Federal Government early next year.
Discussion
The Tribal Transit Feasibility Study includes chapters and appendices dealing with:
• Tribal Nations and Community Profiles • Existing Transportation Infrastructure • Service Improvement Alternatives • Analysis of Service Options • Preliminary Recommendations • Implementation • Employment Shuttles • Preliminary Cost Estimates • Funding Options • Tribal Transportation Examples • Grant Application Information
The study divided the eastern portion of the county into North and South Corridors. The North Corridor was focused on tribes generally along State Highways 76 and 78. The Southern Corridor was generally focused along Interstate 8 and Highway 8. The two corridors overlapped in the vicinity of Ramona. The report recommends that new route deviation bus service be provided in both North and South Corridors, a new express route be introduced to the North Corridor via Interstate 15, and bus stops improvements be constructed at significant stops. The services would enhance local connections among the tribes and on reservations as well as providing improved linkages to urban centers. The proposed services are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
The RTA incorporated the basic concepts developed in the transit feasibility report into their grant application to the FTA. If the grant application is successful, further discussions will need to take place among the RTA, SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD. An interagency cooperative agreement will be required to ensure the services are provided in an effective, efficient and coordinated manner, and that full integration is provided with existing transit services.
The FTA grant will fund services for the first three years. The Tribal Transit Feasibility Study identified the potential need for the tribes to contribute to the ongoing operation if the Federal grants are not continued in the Transportation Reauthorization bill expected to be considered in 2009.
Next Steps
The RTA is now awaiting notification of the status of their grant application which was submitted August 4, 2007. If the grant application is successful, there would be additional discussions regarding refinements to the service plan. Negotiations also would be initiated with SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD to implement the proposed services. The Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues provides a venue for ongoing discussions. The RTA is expected to be advised on the status of their application by early next year. The Borders Committee will be updated as soon as a decision is made by the Federal government.
BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. Figures 1 and 2 2. Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Key Staff Contact: Dan Levy, (619) 699-6942, [email protected]
2 Figure 1 – South Corridor Routes Attachment 1
3 Figure 2 – North Corridor Routes
4
BORDERS COMMITTEE
MEMBERSHIP
The Borders Committee provides oversight for planning activities that impact the borders of the San Diego region (Orange, Riverside and Imperial Counties, and the Republic of Mexico) as well as government-to-government relations with tribal nations in San Diego County. The preparation and implementation of SANDAG’s Binational, Interregional, and Tribal Liaison Planning programs are included under this purview. It advises the SANDAG Board of Directors on major interregional planning policy-level matters. Recommendations of the Committee are forwarded to the Board of Directors for action.
Borders Committee meetings are held the fourth Friday of each month from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m.
Staff contact: Hector Vanegas, (619) 699-1972; [email protected]
MEMBERS ALTERNATES
Chair: Patricia McCoy Phil Monroe Councilmember, City of Imperial Beach Councilmember, City of Coronado (Representing South County) (Representing South County)
Vice Chair: Greg Cox Pam Slater-Price Vice Chairman, County of San Diego Supervisor, County of San Diego
Jack Feller Crystal Crawford Councilmember, City of Oceanside Councilmember, City of Del Mar (Representing North County Coastal) (Representing North County Coastal)
Jim Desmond Ed Gallo Mayor, City of San Marcos Councilmember, City of Escondido (Representing North County Inland) (Representing North County Inland)
David Allan John Minto Councilmember, City of La Mesa Councilmember, City of Santee (Representing East County) (Representing East County)
Victor Carrillo David Ouzan Chairman, Imperial County Councilmember, City of Calexico (Representing Imperial County) (Representing Imperial County)
Ben Hueso Brian Maienschein Councilmember, City of San Diego Councilmember, City of San Diego
ADVISORY MEMBERS
Thomas Buckley Luis Cabrera C./Ricardo Pineda Councilmember, City of Lake Elsinore Consul General of Mexico (Representing Riverside County) (Representing Mexico)
Pedro Orso-Delgado/Bill Figge Howard Williams Caltrans, District 11 San Diego County Water Authority
Debbie Cook Chris Devers (Pauma)/ Councilmember, City of Huntington Beach Mark Romero (Mesa Grande) (Representing Orange County) Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association
Revised: March 1, 2007
INTERAGENCY TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES MEMBERSHIP
The purpose of the Working Group is to serve as a forum for tribal governments in the region to discuss and coordinate transportation issues of mutual concern with the various public planning agencies in the region, including SANDAG, Caltrans, the County of San Diego, and the transit operators. The Working Group will monitor and provide input on the implementation of the strategies and planning activities related to transportation mutually developed through the San Diego Regional Tribal Summit The Working Group reports to the Borders Committee, which reports to the Board of Directors on tribal-related transportation activities. The Working Group will meet quarterly. The location will rotate among tribal reservations, and, when deemed appropriate, at the SANDAG offices.
Staff contact is: Jane Clough-Riquelme, SANDAG Tribal Liaison (619) 699-1909; [email protected]
MEMBERS (Tribal Governments) Dave Toler, Delegate San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Albert ‘Boxie’ Phoenix (Chair)
Barona Band of Mission Indians Rodney Kephart, Councilmember
Santa Ysabel Band of Mission Indians William Micklin, CEO
Ewiiaapaayp Band of the Kumeyaay Alan Barrett, Councilmember Nation Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Richard Tellow, Councilmember ADVISORY (Public Agencies) Jamul Indian Village Jim Fletcher Kevin Siva, Executive Council Superintendent of Southern California Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla/Cupeño Bureau of Indian Affairs Indians Mark Bobotis, Native American Liaison Mark Romero, Chairman Caltrans, District 11 Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians Chantal Saipe, Tribal Liaison Andrew Moro, Business Manager County of San Diego Pala Band of Mission Indians Brandon Farley, Chris Devers, Chairman Principal Planner Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians Metropolitan Transit System
Dick Watenpaugh, Tribal Administrator Stefan Marks, Rincon Luiseño Band of Indians Manager of Service Development North County Transit District Carmen Mojado, Secretary San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians Bo Mazzetti/Ed Arviso Reservation Transportation Authority
Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues Revised: August 2, 2007 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1
2.0 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW...... 3
3.0 TRIBAL NATIONS & COMMUNITY PROFILES ...... 9
3.1. Demographics ...... 9
3.2. Transportation Needs and Deficiencies...... 12
3.3. Transportation Corridors...... 15
4.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 19
4.1 Roadway Network...... 19
4.2 Transit and Transportation Options...... 19
5.0 SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVES...... 31
5.1 Service Options ...... 31
5.2 New Services...... 31
5.3 Improved Existing Services ...... 49
5.4 Bus Stop Improvements...... 49
6.0 ANALYSIS OF SERVICE OPTIONS ...... 51
7.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS...... 55
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION ...... 61
APPENDIX A –TRIBAL EMPLOYMENT CENTER SHUTTLES ...... 63
APPENDIX B – PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ...... 74
APPENDIX C – FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ...... 77
APPENDIX D – TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION EXAMPLE ...... 100
APPENDIX E – TRIBAL TRANSIT GRANT APPLICATION INFORMATION ...... 105
Draft Final Report June 2007 v
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 San Diego County Tribal Lands ...... 5
Figure 2 Transportation Corridors...... 17
Figure 3 North Corridor Existing Transit Service ...... 23
Figure 4 South Corridor Existing Transit Service ...... 25
Figure 5 Route A Pala/Rincon ...... 37
Figure 6 Route B Santa Ysabel/Rincon ...... 39
Figure 7 Route C Barona ...... 41
Figure 8 Route D Campo/Viejas ...... 43
Figure 9 Route E Sycuan/Viejas...... 45
Figure 10 Route F Pala/Escondido Express ...... 47
Figure 11 North Corridor Transit Improvements...... 57
Figure 12 South Corridor Transit Improvements...... 59
Draft Final Report June 2007 vii
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 San Diego County Indian Reservations and Federally-Recognized Tribal Governments ...... 3
Table 2 Reservation Land Areas and 2000 Populations...... 10
Table 3 Age Characteristics of Reservation Populations ...... 11
Table 4 Vehicle Availability by Reservation...... 12
Table 5 Project Meetings ...... 13
Table 6 Nearest Medical Facilities to Tribal Lands ...... 15
Table 7 North and South Corridor Reservations ...... 16
Table 8 Existing Transit Service with Service to Tribal Lands...... 20
Table 9 Existing Transit Service Ridership Sample ...... 21
Table 10 Existing Transit Service Cost and Ridership...... 22
Table 11 Tribal Employment Center Shuttle Services ...... 28
Table 12 Tribal Employment Center Shuttle Hours and Day of Operation ...... 29
Table 13 New Service Details...... 34
Table 14 Preliminary Cost Estimates ...... 51
Draft Final Report June 2007 ix IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The federal 2005 transportation legislation, SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), reinforces the importance of inter-governmental cooperation in improving transportation services and facilities. SANDAG was awarded a transit planning grant from Caltrans to determine the feasibility of implementing transit service in one or two key transportation corridors between selected tribal reservations and cities and/or urbanized community planning areas in the unincorporated area of San Diego County. This report examines traditional public transit services, as well as the potential for nontraditional services that could be funded by private sources and/or public-private partnerships.
The study is a collaborative effort between SANDAG, the Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA), and the region’s transit agencies – the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North Country Transit District (NCTD). SANDAG contracted with IBI Group to conduct the technical analysis for this study, which provides the information needed to leverage additional funding for transit service for the 17 federally recognized tribal governments in San Diego County. The Tribal Transit Working Group, comprised of reservation representatives and agency staff members, provided guidance to the consultant throughout the study.
This report documents the planning process employed to identify transportation corridors and service options, and the evaluation of service improvement proposals. Following this introduction, the report includes the following sections:
2.0 Study Area Overview
3.0 Tribal Nations and Community Profiles
4.0 Existing Transportation Infrastructure
5.0 Service Improvement Alternatives
6.0 Analysis of Service Options
7.0 Preliminary Recommendations
8.0 Implementation
The following appendices are also provided:
A – Tribal Employment Center Shuttle Figures
B – Preliminary Cost Estimates
C – Funding Options
D – Tribal Transportation Examples
E – Tribal Transit Grant Application Information
Draft Final Report June 2007 1
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
2.0 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW
San Diego County is home to 17 of the 107 federally recognized tribal governments in the State of California. These 17 tribes encompass four Indian cultural/linguistic groups – the Luiseño, the Cahuilla, the Cupeño, and the Kumeyaay – and have jurisdiction over 18 reservations within San Diego County (see Table 1). Indian reservation lands total over 125,000 acres in the region, or roughly 4 percent of San Diego County.
Table 1 San Diego County Indian Reservations and Federally Recognized Tribal Governments
Reservation Name Indian Group Barona Barona Band of Mission Indians Campo Campo Kumeyaay Nation Capitan Grande Joint Power Authority between Barona and Viejas 1 Ewiiaapaayp Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Inaja and Cosmit Inaja Cosmit Band of Diegueño Mission Indians Jamul Indian Village Jamul Indian Village. A Kumeyaay Nation La Jolla La Jolla Band of Luiseño Indians La Posta La Posta Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Los Coyotes Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla/Cupeño Indians Manzanita Manzanita Band of Diegueño Mission Indians Mesa Grande Mesa Grande Band of Diegueño Mission Indians Pala Pala Band of Mission Indians Pauma and Yuima Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians Rincon Rincon Luiseño Band of Indians San Pasqual San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Santa Ysabel Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueño Mission Indians Sycuan Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Viejas Viejas Band of the Kumeyaay Indians Source: SANGIS, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Figure 1 illustrates these reservation lands within San Diego County.
1 Several official sources alternately refer to the Ewiiaapaayp tribe by the Spanish spelling “Cuyapaipe.”
Draft Final Report June 2007 3
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Figure 1 San Diego County Tribal Lands
Draft Final Report June 2007 5
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
As seen in Figure 1, all of the reservations are located in unincorporated areas of the county and vary in their level of access to the regional transportation network. One is adjacent to a major interstate (Viejas) while another (Los Coyotes) lacks connectivity to county-maintained roads. Specific reservations often suffer from decreased educational, economic, and social opportunities, due in part to their degree of connectivity with the regional transportation network. This situation also manifests itself in the form of inadequate access to local and regional medical and activity centers.
A 2007 SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan Issue Paper2 identified the need to examine potential corridors and roadway networks to determine the feasibility of establishing various types of transportation options for reservation residents. This report provides background information on the existing conditions of the study area, and sets the stage for further collaboration work on transit-based solutions.
2 “2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN ISSUE PAPER: TRIBAL NATIONS AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING” http://www.sandag.org/uploads/meetingid/meetingid_1529_6019.pdf
Draft Final Report June 2007 7
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
3.0 TRIBAL NATIONS & COMMUNITY PROFILES
3.1. Demographics
The 17 tribal governments are diverse with respect to both their location within San Diego County and their demographic make-up. The most recent comprehensive data collection on the composition of tribal members and reservation residents was done as part of the 2000 United States Census. More recent demographic information is being gathered as part of the ongoing American Community Survey (ACS).
Unfortunately, little official data exists that focuses on individual tribal and reservation residents’ demographic changes in the interim between 2000 and 2007. Another shortfall when dealing with limited sample sizes is the bias evident in underreported data. An example would be the Jamul Indian Village, where only one resident responded to the 2000 US Census, out of an estimated 57 current residents. While not exclusive to reservation residents, underreporting and small sample sizes can skew officially reported demographic data.
Despite these shortcomings, the information does provide useful baselines with which to draw general conclusions regarding the demographic profiles of reservation residents. The Census Bureau’s 2000 data illustrates the following:
• The Luiseño, Cahuilla, Cupeño, and the Kumeyaay account for slightly more than 20,000 residents countywide.
• Of these residents, only 6,193 lived on the 18 reservations in San Diego County as of 2000 (31.0 percent).
• Several reservations reported either no residents or too few from which to draw conclusions. These include Jamul Indian Village and the Capitan Grande, Ewiiaapaayp, and Inaja and Cosmit reservations.
A more detailed breakdown of reservation residents is reported in Tables 2 and 3.
Draft Final Report June 2007 9 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Table 2 Reservation Land Areas and 2000 Populations
Land Area Reservation Population per Reservation Name (Acres) Population (2000) Acre Barona 5,664 536 0.09 Campo 15,336 351 0.02 Capitan Grande 15,615 0 0.00 Ewiiaapaayp 4,553 0* 0.00 Inaja-Cosmit 846 0 0.00 Jamul Indian Village 6 1 0.17 La Jolla 8,798 390 0.04 La Posta 3,471 18 0.01 Los Coyotes 24,762 70 0.00 Manzanita 3,563 69 0.02 Mesa Grande 1,820 75 0.04 Pala 12,333 1,573 0.13 Pauma and Yuima 5,826 186 0.03 Rincon 3,918 1,495 0.38 San Pasqual 1,412 752 0.53 Santa Ysabel 15,270 250 0.02 Sycuan 632 33 0.05 Viejas 1,572 394 0.25 TOTAL 125,000 6,193 0.05 Source: US Census Bureau, US Department of Transportation, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians *2007 information indicates 11 residents
Of particular interest, for the purposes of transit service planning, is the prevalence of populations who would be more likely to use transit service if it were available. These include residents under 18 years of age and over 65. The 2000 Census reported the following breakdowns of those populations by reservation:
Draft Final Report June 2007 10 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Table 3 Age Characteristics of Reservation Populations
Est. % of Est. % of Population Median Reservation Residents Residents Residents Residents (2000) Age Under 18 Under 18 Over 65 Over 65 Barona 536 213 39.7 24 4.5 25.9 Campo 351 150 43.0 5 3.7 26.2 Capitan Grande 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 n/a Ewiiaapaayp 11 1 9.0 1 9.0 n/a Inaja and Cosmit 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 n/a Jamul Indian Village 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 46.0 La Jolla 390 138 35.6 32 8.2 25.9 La Posta 18 7 38.9 2 11.1 32.0 Los Coyotes 70 28 40.0 4 5.7 28.5 Manzanita 69 26 37.7 5 7.2 27.1 Mesa Grande 75 33 44.0 4 5.3 21.8 Pala 1,573 135 8.6 17 1.8 24.0 Pauma and Yuima 186 84 45.2 9 4.8 19.7 Rincon 1,495 621 41.6 86 5.8 22.9 San Pasqual 752 308 41.0 45 6.1 24.9 Santa Ysabel 250 77 30.8 26 10.4 31.0 Sycuan 33 7 21.2 1 3.0 26.8 Viejas 394 135 34.3 29 7.4 33.2 TOTAL 6,193 1,963 31.7 309 5.0 27.7 Source: US Census Bureau, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Elders may soon make up a higher proportion of reservation residents. For example, Los Coyotes, a nongaming tribe, is using its Special Distribution Funds to provide housing on the reservation for their elders who are coming back from other parts of the state and country.
Another indicator of transit dependency is the percentage of a population with no vehicle available. Information gathered on vehicle availability is reported in Table 4.
Draft Final Report June 2007 11 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Table 4 Vehicle Availability by Reservation
Reservation Percentage of Total Population Reservation Population (2000) With No Vehicle Available Barona 536 5.3 Campo 351 32.1 Capitan Grande 0 0.0 Ewiiaapaayp 11 0.0 Inaja and Cosmit 0 0.0 Jamul Indian Village 1 0.0 La Jolla 390 0.0 La Posta 18 0.0 Los Coyotes 70 0.0 Manzanita 69 14.3 Mesa Grande 75 29.4 Pala 1,573 17.1 Pauma and Yuima 186 7.0 Rincon 1,495 6.1 San Pasqual 752 12.7 Santa Ysabel 250 18.4 Sycuan 33 5.3 Viejas 394 8.3 TOTAL 6,193 31.7 Source: US Census Bureau
3.2. Transportation Needs and Deficiencies
Several sources were used to identify the transportation needs of reservation residents and the deficiencies in their transportation options. This information is summarized in this section.
San Diego County tribal governments were recently polled in an effort to identify the transportation issues and obstacles facing their reservations and constituents. The 2005 survey conducted by SANDAG and Caltrans District 11 solicited feedback from all tribal nations in both San Diego and Imperial Counties. The study sought to assess the general transportation needs of the tribes and establish a government-to-government dialogue on issues and concerns.
Polling results found several transportation issues affecting tribes within the county. An overwhelming majority of tribal representatives indicated improvements to the roadway network as their highest priority, followed by transit service improvements. With regards to regional transit service needs, the following concerns were expressed:
• The need for increased service frequency
• A desire for additional bus stop locations
• The need for additional service designed to accommodate special needs populations and medical services access
Draft Final Report June 2007 12 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
• The desire to close existing service gaps for residents of the Los Coyotes and La Posta reservations, among others.
The consultant team also took part in several meetings and collaborated with the RTA who facilitated two focus group sessions as listed in Table 5.
Table 5 Project Meetings
Date Group Topics Project development team (SANDAG, January 30, 2007 Project overview, data development NCTD, MTS staff) Interagency Technical Working Group Status of study and potential solution February 6, 2007 on Tribal Transportation Issues concepts On reservation transportation needs and March 7, 2007 Tribal focus group opportunities, improvement alternative development Follow-up to March 7 focus group Refining improvement alternatives and March 20, 2007 session evaluation framework Project development team (SANDAG, April 11, 2007 Study status and improvement alternatives NCTD, MTS staff) Interagency Technical Working Group April 18, 2007 Corridor identification and service options on Tribal Transportation Issues Project development team (SANDAG, Review draft existing conditions report and May 16, 2007 NCTD, MTS staff) analysis of alternatives Special Session: Interagency Technical May 30, 2007 Working Group on Tribal Review preliminary recommendations Transportation Issues Source: IBI Group
The focus group sessions revealed the following information regarding the transportation needs and options of reservation residents.
Tripmaking Characteristics
• There is a wide range of origins and destinations, including Indian Health Centers at Rincon and West Ewiiaapaayp (adjacent to Viejas), Escondido, El Cajon, and the tribal employment centers.
• There is also a wide range of trip purposes including medical, shopping, social, recreational, and work.
• Transportation to medical facilities for scheduled appointments is an important issue, especially for preventative medicine. The possibility of a two or three times a week car service was debated as a resource for remote locations. (RTA acquired a bus for the Southern Indian Health Council through the 5311 program).
• Elders in the community often have the fewest transportation alternatives.
• College students living on the Santa Ysabel reservation could use improved transit to get to school.
Draft Final Report June 2007 13 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
• Use of the existing transit is limited by the difficulty in getting to the bus stops and the low frequency of the services. The six-mile distance between the Warner Springs stop and Los Coyotes reservation is an example of the barriers between population and existing service.
• People have learned to cope with the lack of transit by getting rides with family members, not making trips, and traveling at inconvenient hours.
Improvements Suggestions and Related Issues
• The possibility of coordinated work schedules and a multi-tribal employment center shuttle, as well as examining existing nearby land uses to potentially combine travel needs, should be considered. Missed work is an expensive issue for tribal employment centers due to the need to pay overtime to cover missed shifts.
• Education and communication that targets reservation audiences will be critical in developing new services and building new travel habits.
• No single solution will work due to the vast differences in populations and presence of tribal employment centers. Any transit improvements need to reflect the diverse nature of the county, geography, road network, existing transportation services/resources, and travel needs. Remote, non-gaming locations such as Los Coyotes would likely not be able to support large buses, due to sparse population and/or limited roadway capacity. Western tribal employment centers could likely accommodate employee shuttles or other high-capacity/ high-frequency service.
• Funding is an important issue for transit improvements.
Administrative Issues
• There should be greater collaboration between transit agencies and affected reservation populations regarding service issues.
• RTA could take the lead to enable the tribes to “speak with one voice.” This would help avoid tribes from competing against one another for funds or services, as well as provide a single resource for information dissemination.
Access to medical facilities was cited as a significant concern for reservation residents in both the polling and the focus groups. Due to the majority of the reservations being located in the eastern portion of San Diego County, access is difficult and generally cover long distances over winding, rural state highways and county roads.
The majority of reservations are situated in close proximity to one of two existing full service Southern Indian Health Council facilities, located on the Rincon Indian reservation and the West Ewiiaapaayp Indian reservation. Additional Southern Indian Health Council clinics are located at Santa Ysabel and Campo. In certain cases, the nearest medical facility can be found in nearby cities. The facilities found in El Cajon and Escondido typically offer a greater variety of medical services and longer operating hours directed to the needs of the Native American population. These increased care facilities frequently require greater time and effort to access when compared to non- tribal facilities, both for regular appointments and particularly off-hours emergency care. Table 6 provides a summary of the proximity of tribal lands to medical care.
Draft Final Report June 2007 14 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Table 6 Nearest Medical Facilities to Tribal Lands
Reservation Facility Location Barona Hospital in El Cajon; 17 miles away Campo Health Center on Campo Reservation Capitan Grande Health Center on West Ewiiaapaayp Reservation; 8 miles away Health Center on West Ewiiaapaayp Reservation; 25 miles from Ewiiaapaayp (East & West) East Ewiiaapaayp Inaja and Cosmit Health Center on West Ewiiaapaayp Reservation; 25 miles away Jamul Indian Village Hospital in El Cajon; 10 miles away La Jolla Health Center on Rincon Reservation; 8 miles away La Posta Health Center on Campo Reservation; 7 miles away Los Coyotes Health Center on Rincon Reservation; 20 miles away Manzanita Health Center on Campo Reservation; 7 miles away Mesa Grande Health Center on Rincon Reservation; 26 miles away Pala Health Center on Rincon Reservation; 11 miles away Pauma and Yuima Hospital in Escondido; 18 miles away Health Center On-Site; Additional facilities in Escondido; Rincon 15 miles away San Pasqual Health Center on Rincon Reservation; 5 miles away Santa Ysabel Health Center on Rincon Reservation; 28 miles away Sycuan Reservation Hospital in El Cajon; 10 miles away Health Center at adjacent West Ewiiaapaayp Reservation; Viejas additional facilities in El Cajon; 18 miles away Source: SANGIS
The issues and concerns documented in this section were used in developing the transit improvement alternatives described in Section 5.0.
3.3. Transportation Corridors
Two corridors were identified to help focus the development of alternatives and build on existing travel patterns. Key criteria for identifying corridors in the study area included proximity of reservations to each other, commonality of destinations, proximity to regional transportation facilities, such as interstate freeways and state highways, and locations of Indian health centers. Applying these criteria led to grouping the reservations in the North and South Corridors as shown in Table 7.
Draft Final Report June 2007 15 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Table 7 North and South Corridor Reservations
Corridor Reservation North La Jolla Pala Pauma and Yuima Rincon San Pasqual Los Coyotes Mesa Grande Santa Ysabel South Barona Campo Ewiiaapaayp La Posta Manzanita Sycuan Viejas Inaja-Cosmit Source: IBI Group
These corridors are illustrated in Figure 2.
Draft Final Report June 2007 16 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Figure 2 Transportation Corridors
Draft Final Report June 2007 17
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
4.0 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
4.1 Roadway Network
With the exception of the Viejas and West Ewiiaapaayp reservations, access to tribal lands is generally obtained via state highways and county roads. As documented in the 2005 Tribal Transportation Needs Survey, roadway concerns ranked at or near the top for the majority of tribal governments, from both a safety and capacity standpoint.
The South Corridor has three major roadways: Interstate 8 (I-8) from El Cajon to the eastern edge of the study area, State Route (SR) 94, and SR 79 from I-8 to SR 79. In addition, several county roads are used by existing transit routes, including Buckman Springs Road adjacent to Lake Morena, Alpine Road, and Old Highway 80 north of I- 8 in the area immediately adjacent to the Viejas Tribal Employment Center. Due to the winding and somewhat narrow nature of the rural roadway network, existing transit services primarily run along the major state routes when traveling in the eastern portion of the South Corridor.
The North Corridor is also characterized by major state highways and major county arterials, specifically SR 76 and SR 78. State Route 78 is alternately known as San Pasqual Valley Road and serves as one of the primary regional connections between the cities of Ramona and Escondido. State Route 76 is alternately known as both Pala Road and Valley Center Road, and links the communities of Pala and Escondido. Interstate 15 runs north-south and serves as a major element of the regional transportation network, with interchanges at both SR 76 and SR 78. Similar to the South Corridor, the North Corridor is characterized by winding, primarily two-lane road, but with the additional challenge of changes in elevation as the roadways pass through the Palomar Mountain area.
4.2 Transit and Transportation Options
The majority of vehicle trips to and from reservation lands occur by private automobile. Transit and transportation options vary from reservation to reservation and issues regarding these options are wide-ranging. San Diego County is served by two transit agencies: MTS in the southern and eastern portion of the county, and NCTD in the northwestern portion.
In 2003, the Legislature transferred the region’s long-range transit planning responsibilities to SANDAG. SANDAG is now responsible for the design, engineering, and construction of transit and rail projects. Additionally, SANDAG is the claimant and grantee for certain transit funding and has the authority to review and approve transit operators’ budgets prior to allocating transit funds to them. Finally, SANDAG has a significant oversight role regarding transit fare setting. MTS and NCTD retain authority over the operation and maintenance of their transit services.
Together the two operators offer a total of six distinct rural routes with service either directly to or adjacent to reservation lands. These routes vary from the relatively high-frequency service of MTS Route 864 (64 daily departures) and NCTD Routes 386 and 388, to the twice-weekly rural demand-response service of MTS Route 891/892, 894, and 888. Route 864 and Route 888 directly
Draft Final Report June 2007 19 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study serve the Viejas Reservation and the El Cajon Transit Center. Route 888 also serves the Campo Reservation. No other reservations in the southern portion of San Diego County are currently served by MTS fixed-route service.
Route 388 directly serves a number of North County tribal lands via Valley Center Road, including stops at Pala Tribal Employment Center and Harrah’s Rincon Tribal Employment Center, plus nearby access to the Valley View Tribal Employment Center located on the San Pasqual Reservation.
The recently-implemented MTS Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) brought a number of significant changes to rural route service that will likely affect tribal residents within the Southern Corridor. The COA emphasized consolidation of rural routes to better serve significant population centers closer to the urban center. Service and fare changes were implemented on the rural routes following an extensive public involvement effort that included four outreach events in the affected rural communities and a rider survey.
Tables 8 and 9 summarize existing transit service and service characteristics of the region. Figures 3 and 4 show existing transit service within each of the two service areas.
Table 8 Existing Transit Service with Service to Tribal Lands
Number of Daily Route Days of Hours of One-Way One-Way (Effective Date) Operation Operation Cash Fares Vehicle Trips 4:35 a.m. – 8:37 p.m., NCTD 386: Monday – Monday – Friday 20 M – F; Escondido - Ramona $2.00 Saturday 7:20 a.m. – 9:37 p.m., 14 Saturday (8/14/05) Saturday NCTD 388: Monday – Escondido - Pala 5:15 a.m. – 9:05 p.m. $2.00 12 Sunday (5/21/06) MTS 864: El Cajon – Monday – 64 M – F; 5:00 a.m. –11:25 p.m. $1.75 Viejas (3/4/07) Sunday 37 Saturday, Sunday MTS 888: El Cajon – Monday and 9:40 a.m. – 12:10 p.m. $5.00 – $10.00 2 Jacumba (1/29/06) Friday 4:10P – 6:38P MTS 891/ 892: Borrego Springs – Thursday and 7:45 a.m. – 10:35 a.m. $5.00 – $10.00 2 Ramona - El Cajon Friday 2:30P – 5:26P (1/29/06) MTS 894: El Cajon – Monday – 6:12 a.m. – 7:03 p.m. $5.00 – $10.00 6 Campo (1/29/06) Friday Source: sdcommute.com
Draft Final Report June 2007 20 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Table 9 Existing Transit Service Ridership Sample
Major Stops Along Route (On-Offs) Average Route Passenger Trip North or East-Bound Direction South or West-Bound Direction Length (Miles) Total Riders – 897 Total Riders – 780 { Viejas Tribal Employment { El Cajon Transit Center Center (191 On) (343 On { Broadway and East Main MTS 864: El { Parkway Plaza Transit Street, El Cajon (51/26) 8.6 Cajon – Viejas Center (101/49) { Parkway Plaza Transit Center { Viejas Tribal Employment (56/92) Center (180 Off; End-of- Line) { El Cajon Transit Center (387 Off; End-of-Line) Total Riders – 88 Total Riders – 86
{ Escondido Transit Center { Ramona Transit Center NCTD 386: (52 On) (33 On)
Escondido – { Midway Drive and Valley { Midway Drive and Valley 13.6 Ramona Parkway (10/3) Parkway (5/9)
{ Ramona Transit Center { Escondido Transit Center (25 Off; End-of-Line) (59 Off; End-of-Line) Total Riders – 201
{ Pala Tribal Employment Total Riders – 208 Center (37 On)
{ Harrah’s Tribal Employment NCTD 388: { Escondido Transit Center Escondido – (84 On) Center (75/10) { Valley Center and Pala Tribal { Valley Center and Morales 13.7 Employment Lane(16/51) { Sunset Road (19/18)
Center { Pala Tribal Employment { Valley Parkway b/w Midway Center (41 Off; End-of-Line) and Elm (6/49)
{ Escondido Transit
{ Center (77 Off; End-of-Line)
Source: SANDAG Transit Passenger Counting Program, NCTD, FY 2006
From examining stop data by time of day, general patterns regarding rural route service began to emerge. As expected, morning travel was heaviest in the direction of the urban centers to the west of reservation lands, with significant ridership to the regional transfer points of Escondido, Ramona, and El Cajon. The reverse was true during the PM peak. While these calculations do not isolate reservation residents in their counts, they do reinforce the assumption of westbound A.M. peak travel patterns to destinations closer to urban centers.
Operating cost and ridership information for the six routes is reported in Table 10. The routes with the highest ridership, Routes 388 and 864 have the highest ridership and the lowest cost per passenger.
Draft Final Report June 2007 21 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Table 10 Existing Transit Service Cost and Ridership
Route Operating Cost Total Passengers Cost/Total Passenger 386 $492,853 46,583 $10.58 388 $497,703 114,505 $4.35 864 $2,126,039 539,179 $3.94 888 $274,884 8,690 $31.63 891 $98,087 1,831 $53.57 892 $108,476 1,891 $57.36 894 $401,009 33,432 $11.99 Source: FY 2005 Data from SANDAG Draft FY 2006-2010 Regional Short Range Transit Plan
Draft Final Report June 2007 22 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Figure 3 North Corridor Existing Transit Service
Draft Final Report June 2007 23
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Figure 4 South Corridor Existing Transit Service
Draft Final Report June 2007 25
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
An important aspect of the existing reservation transportation system is the shuttle service operated by the tribal employment centers. Of the nine tribal employment centers in San Diego County, all but two offer shuttle services. Tribal employment centers typically offer these shuttles from several locations within San Diego County, generally with fixed schedules and specific time points. Several tribal employment centers also offer shuttles from locations outside of San Diego County, but these often do not pick up San Diego passengers on their way to their destinations. Most of these shuttles, designed to bring customers to the tribal employment centers, can also be used by employees. Only Viejas currently provides separate shuttle services for employees.
One of the three facilities which does not offer shuttle services in the county, Campo’s Golden Acorn Tribal Employment Center, does offer vanpool service from the Imperial Valley for both patrons and employees. The other facility not offering shuttle services is the La Jolla Indian slot arcade.
The impact of these shuttles is twofold: by allowing patrons and employees to use tribal employment center shuttles, vehicle trips on reservation-adjacent roadways are reduced, and transit options for employees are increased. A summary of tribal employment center employees and shuttle information can be seen in Tables 11 and 12, and figures showing the shuttle routes operated by the tribal employment centers can be found in the Appendix A.
Draft Final Report June 2007 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Table 11 Tribal Employment Center Shuttle Services
Tribal Employment No. of Tribal Tribal Employment Tribal Employment Reservation Center Patron Employment Center Employee Center Name Shuttles Center Employees Shuttles Yes Barona Valley Ranch Resort and Barona Yes 3,500 Free on Patron Shuttle Tribal Employment Center With ID Badge Pauma Tribal Employment Center Pauma Not Operational Yet 500 Under Consideration Yes Golden Acorn Tribal Employment Yes; Vanpools to and Campo 495 Vanpools to and From Center from Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Yes Harrah’s Rincon Tribal Rincon Yes 1,500 $1.50 Per Trip on Employment Center and Resort Patron Shuttle Pala Tribal Employment Center Pala No 1,900 Resort and Spa No Santa Ysabel Tribal Employment Santa Ysabel No NA Center No Yes Sycuan Tribal Employment Sycuan Yes 2,500 Free on Patron Shuttle Center and Resort With ID Badge Valley View Tribal Employment San Pasqual Yes 629 Center No Yes Viejas Tribal Employment Center Viejas Yes 2,900 Cost / Specifics TBD (El and Outlet Center Cajon Transit Center) TOTALS 13,924 Sources: Cruz, Manny, “San Diego Indian Gaming,“ San Diego Metropolitan Magazine, April 2006, pp. 58-59; Tribal Employment Center Human Resources Departments
Draft Final Report June 2007 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Table 12 Tribal Employment Center Shuttle Hours and Day of Operation
Hours of Pick-Up and Last Tribal Employment No. of Daily One- Days of Operation Tribal Employment Center Center Shuttle Way Vehicle Trips* Departure Barona Valley Ranch Resort and Monday – Sunday; 5:15 a.m. – 2:45 a.m. Up to 98 Tribal Employment Center Some Limited Service Harrah’s Rincon Tribal Employment Monday – Sunday; 7:30 a.m. – 3:30 a.m. Up to 62 Center and Resort Some Limited Service Sycuan Tribal Employment Center Monday – Sunday 5:00 a.m. – 2:00 a.m. Up to 92 and Resort Valley View Tribal Employment Monday – Sunday; 7:45 a.m. – 9:30 p.m. Up to 26 Center, San Pasqual Some Limited Service Viejas Tribal Employment Center Monday – Sunday; 5:10 a.m. – 12:30 a.m. Up to 44 and Outlet Center Some Limited Service *Total Number of Departures, Including Non-San Diego County Origins Source: Tribal Employment Center Website Shuttle/ Transportation Options Page
Draft Final Report June 2007
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
5.0 SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Service Options
Based on the needs and deficiencies identified in Section 3.0, the consultant team developed transit improvement alternatives designed to meet the following objectives:
• Increase the amount of service provided
• Increase the availability of transit service to all reservation residents, including those who live far from major roads
• Provide convenient connections to medical facilities, including the health centers at Rincon and Viejas
• Improve amenities at bus stops and collaborate with reservation residents regarding their placement
5.2 New Services
Several types of transit service can be considered for use in the study area. A summary of their key attributes is presented below, followed by specific proposals for the North and South Corridors.
Fixed Route Service – Fixed route service operates on a set alignment with designated stops at scheduled times. Its frequency can range from daily service running every 15 to 30 minutes to one to two times per week. This kind of service only requires being at the bus stop at the scheduled time with the appropriate fare. Its regularity promotes spontaneity of travel without advance planning or reservations. The ability to use the service can be challenging if there are no stops nearby.
The design of fixed-route transit services include specific service planning considerations, such as staffing/driver shifts and the deployment of vehicles – the development of driver and vehicle runs. The former requires consideration of minimum call-outs, work rules, shift hours, etc. The latter requires consideration of efficiencies in the allocation of vehicles by route, days of week, including opportunities to interline routes (use a vehicle on multiple routes/contiguous times).
Route Deviation Service – In a route deviation service, a vehicle operates along a fixed route, making scheduled stops along the way. Vehicles may deviate from the route, however, to pick up and drop off passengers upon request. The vehicle then returns to the fixed route at the point at which it departed to accommodate the request. Several variations are possible, including client- specific and site-specific deviations. Requests for route deviation services in rural settings have typically required one-day in advance bookings to allow the operator to plan for the deviations. Advance booking requirements have been minimized with the advent of technologies including vehicle locating capabilities (AVL), mobile data terminals (MDTs), cellular telephones, and scheduling software.
Draft Final Report June 2007 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Key considerations in the planning of route deviation services include:
• The designation of the service area in general and the distance and time proposed for the deviations. These spatial and temporal considerations impact the specifics of route timing (i.e., how much “slack” will be incorporated in the run time of the schedule).
• Advance booking requirements and methods of communication. Both legs (outbound and inbound) of a return trip are typically booked in advance through a dispatch office in order to schedule the deviation component. Communication between the dispatch office and the vehicle/operator may include a radio, cellular telephone, and/or mobile data terminal/computer (MDT/MTC). Given the service areas considered, radio and/or cellular coverage may be necessary.
• Cancellation and no-show policies. Given the advance booked, curb-to-curb and geographic considerations of this service type, it is important to develop cancellations and no-show policies. Cancellations may be required at least one hour in advance of scheduled pick-up, for example. Similarly a pre determined number of no-shows within a specific period of time (i.e., three per month) may warrant a suspension of service.
One of the key advantages of route deviation service is that it addresses challenges in getting to and from the bus stop. Due to the need to provide service to infrequent riders who might be far from the major roads in the reservations, several route deviation services have been proposed.
Feeder Service – Feeder service provides transportation for people to and from a fixed route transit bus stop. The service may also occur in the reverse order, with individuals traveling on a fixed route bus to a point where they may transfer to a feeder bus service. The service proposals include this aspect by identifying several locations where riders can transfer to existing transit routes.
Neighborhood Circulator/Service Routes/Community Bus – This approach incorporates routes for fixed route transit service designed specifically to reduce the distances that persons must travel to get to and from bus stops. Typically, smaller vehicles are used, and vehicles will travel on neighborhood streets or to mall or hospital doorways to reduce walking distances. Services can be planned as feeders to other fixed route services and can include a route deviation option. Traditional neighborhood circulators are not being proposed as part of tribal transit solutions at this time due to the low number of residents on many of the reservations and the expected infrequency of travel.
The consultant team developed alternatives appropriate for specific development patterns and known travel patterns. For example, a higher level of service is appropriate for the SR 76 corridor, where Route 388 service reflects the higher population and activity centers in the corridor. Conversely, the lower densities in some parts of the North and South Corridors point to the appropriateness of service on one or two days a week. Each of the proposals is intended to be responsive to the unique characteristics of its service area as well as complimenting and interfacing with the existing fixed routes.
Five route deviation services are proposed as described below with a summary of their key features in Table 13. Each is designed to provide convenient service to the nearest Indian Health Center and connect effectively with existing regional transit routes. Additional operational planning will be needed to identify the most appropriate roads for the route deviation portions of the service. Also, the proposed service levels will need to be monitored closely once they are in operation to optimize their convenience and performance.
Draft Final Report June 2007 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Route A – Pala/Rincon This route would operate in fixed route mode between the Pala Tribal Employment Center and the Rincon Tribal Employment Center along SR 76, with a stop at the Rincon Health Center (see Figure 5). To access other parts of the Pala, Pauma and Yuima, Rincon, San Pasqual, and La Jolla reservations, the service would provide route deviation on an advance booking basis. Considering the estimated population of the combined reservations of over 4,000, the service would operate three days a week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday), with two round trips each service day.
Route B – Santa Ysabel/Rincon The other North Corridor route would provide fixed route service between Santa Ysabel and Ramona along SR 79 and SR 76 (see Figure 6). It would also provide route deviation service with advance booking to the Los Coyotes, Mesa Grande, and Santa Ysabel reservations. With a combined population of nearly 400 residents, once a week service is proposed with two round trips per service day.
Route C – Barona The Barona service would operate provide travel opportunities to two destinations: Ramona and Viejas. The route would connect the Ramona Station to Lakeside, where a transfer to MTS Route 864 would allow convenient access to Viejas and the Indian Health Center (see Figure 7). Since Barona’s population is less than 600 residents, once a week service is proposed, with two round trips each service day to provide travel opportunities in both directions.
Route D – Campo /Viejas/West Ewiiaapaayp This South Corridor service would connect the Golden Acorn Tribal Employment Center to Viejas via I-8 (see Figure 8). It would provide advance booking based route deviation service to three of the easternmost reservations: La Posta, Manzanita, and Campo. The Indian Health Center at Viejas would be accessible with this service. In view of the low population level, less that 500, this service is suggested to operate one day per week with two round trips each service day.
Route E – Sycuan/Viejas/West Ewiiaapaayp This route would connect eastern El Cajon and Viejas/West Ewiiaapaayp via Sycuan, with service west to El Cajon (see Figure 9). It would provide route deviation service in Viejas, and to the extent it is needed, within Sycuan. Like Route C – Barona, it would serve destinations in two directions: west to the El Cajon Transit Center for connections with the Orange and Green trolley lines, eleven MTS routes, and Greyhound intercity service; and east to Viejas and West Ewiiaapaayp. With the two reservations having over 1,600 residents, service is proposed two days a week, with two round trips each service day.
Route F – Pala/Escondido Express This new express route would link Pala and the Escondido Transit Center via SR 76 and I-15 (see Figure 10). While this trip can be made on existing Route 388, the new express bus would provide a substantial decrease in travel time. With the potential to serve over 4,000 reservation residents, three day a week service is proposed with two round trips each service day.
Connecting Pala and Pechanga Another new service considered, but not proposed, is a connection between Pala and Pechanga in Riverside County via Pala Temecula Road. The focus of this study has been on San Diego County reservations, but this connection could be considered as part of the ongoing intercounty transportation planning efforts.
Draft Final Report June 2007 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Table 13 New Service Details
Days of Reservations Key Tribal Population Connecting Points/ Route Route Description Operation/ Served Destination Served** Regional Transit Route No. of Trips A { Fixed route between Pala { Pala Rincon Tribal { Pala - 1573 { Pala Tribal MWF Tribal Employment Center and Health Employment Center – Pala/ Rincon { Pauma and { Rincon – 1495 2 Round Rincon Tribal Employment Yuima Center 388 { Pauma – 186 Trips Center { Rincon Tribal { Rincon { SP – 752 { Length: 12 mi Employment Center – { San Pasqual { La Jolla – 390 388 { Time: 20 min { La Jolla Total – 4396 { Valley Center Rd/Lake { Route deviation within the four reservations Wohlford Rd – 388
B { Fixed route between Santa { Los Coyotes Santa Ysabel { LC – 70 { Santa Ysabel – Th Ysabel Tribal Employment SR 78/79 – 892 Santa Ysabel/ { Mesa Grande Tribal Health { MG – 75 2 Round Center and Ramona Station { Ramona – 386, FAST, Ramona { Santa Ysabel Center { SY – 250 Trips { Length: 19.7 mi 891/892 Total – 395 { Time: 60 min
{ Route deviation within the four reservations
C { Fixed route between Lakeside { Barona Viejas Tribal { Barona – 536 { Ramona Station – 386, F Barona and Ramona Health Center 891/892, FAST 2 Round { Connection to Health Center { Mapleview and Vine – Trips via Rt 864 848
{ Length: 19 mi { Pecan Park and Rios Canyon – 864 { Time: 45 min
{ Route deviation within Barona
D { Fixed route between Campo { Ewiiaapaayp Viejas Tribal { E. – 11 { Viejas – 864 T and Viejas/West Ewiiaapaayp Campo/ { La Posta Health Center { La Posta – 18 2 Round Trip
{ Length: 27 mi Viejas/West { Manzanita { Manz. – 69
{ Time: 35 min Ewiiaapaayp { Campo { Campo – 351
{ Route deviation within the { Total – 449 three reservations
Draft Final Report June 2007 34 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Days of Reservations Key Tribal Population Connecting Points/ Route Route Description Operation/ Served Destination Served** Regional Transit Route No. of Trips E { Fixed route between Eastern { Sycuan Viejas Tribal { Sycuan – 33 { Jamacha/Main – 815 WF El Cajon and Viejas/West Sycuan/ { Viejas Health Center { Viejas – 1572 { Second/Madison – 864 2 Round Ewiiaapaayp via Sycuan Viejas/West { Total – 1605 { Viejas Tribal Trips Ewiiaapaayp { Length: 19 mi Employment Center – { Time: 40 min 864
{ Route deviation within the two reservations
F { Express route between Pala Directly Escondido { Pala – 1573 { Pala Tribal MWF and Escondido via I-15 Employment Center – Pala/ { Pala { Rincon – 1495 2 Round 388 { Length: 23 mi Escondido { Pauma – 186 Trips { Escondido Transit { Time: 30 min w/Transfer(s) { LC – 70 Center – 18 routes plus { Pauma and { MG – 75 Greyhound Yuima { SY – 250
{ Rincon { LJ –- 390
{ Inaja and { Total – 4039 Cosmit*
{ Los Coyotes
{ Mesa Grande
{ Santa Ysabel
{ La Jolla
* Currently uninhabited ** 2000 Census Source: IBI Group
Draft Final Report June 2007 35
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Figure 5 Route A Pala/Rincon
Draft Final Report June 2007 37
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Figure 6 Route B Santa Ysabel/Rincon
Draft Final Report June 2007 39
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Figure 7 Route C Barona
Draft Final Report June 2007 41
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Figure 8 Route D Campo/Viejas
Draft Final Report June 2007 43
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Figure 9 Route E Sycuan/Viejas
Draft Final Report June 2007 45
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Figure 10 Route F Pala/Escondido Express
Draft Final Report June 2007 47
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
5.3 Improved Existing Services
Improving existing services is another way to increase the ability of travelers to use transit. Improvements can take many forms, including more frequent service or longer operating hours, and stop enhancements. NCTD Route 388 is a good candidate for an increase in frequency, building on recent improvements to the route by NCTD and the growing demand for its service. Decreasing the frequency from 150 minutes to 75 minutes is proposed.
Several other improvements have been suggested by Pauma representatives and NCTD staff for Route 388, including:
• Extending it to the Pauma Indian Employment Center to provide access to the front door of the facility.
• Extending it to the Park and Ride facility at the SR 76/I-15 interchange to facilitate access to the Pala and Pauma Indian employment centers.
• Extending it to provide the Route F express service between Pala and Escondido. This loop alignment could provide operational efficiencies over setting up a new route and could serve the Park and Ride lot at the I-15/SR 76 interchange.
Further analysis is needed to determine the potential benefits and operational impacts of these proposals.
5.4 Bus Stop Improvements
Improvements to existing bus stops, in addition to the bus stops required for the new services, are proposed to enhance the waiting and transferring environment. These improvements would be focused on the bus stops where transfers are made between the new reservation services and the existing transit routes. The bus stops listed in Table 13 as connecting points would receive first consideration.
Draft Final Report June 2007 49
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
6.0 ANALYSIS OF SERVICE OPTIONS
6.1. Evaluation
Conceptual estimates for operating and capital costs were prepared for the evaluation. The following assumptions were used in preparing the cost estimates.
• The new services will be operated by a contractor, except for Route F, the new express service, which would be operated by NCTD.
• Operating cost per hour for route deviation service is $75.00 including administrative expenses.
• Operating cost per hour for new or improved NCTD services is $70.00.
• Riders per hour based on the performance of similar existing services.
• Route 388 added trip ridership is 15 per hour.
• Vehicles – one vehicle plus one spare in each corridor for a total of four. $60,000 per unit under the Caltrans purchase program. (Vehicles assumed to be purchased by the operator and provided to the contractor to operate. Vehicle cost would be $5.00 per hour if contractor provides them.)
• Cost of bus stop improvements is $15,000.
• Average fare $1.00, assuming a $2.00 cash fare and integration with the regional fare structure.
The cost estimates are summarized in the following table with detailed information provided in Appendix B.
Table 14 Preliminary Cost Estimates
Service Improvement Annual Operating Capital Cost Option Subsidy New Services $117,000 $705,000 Route 388 Increased Frequency $241,100 $120,000 Bus Stop Improvements $20,000 $165,000 Source: IBI Group
Draft Final Report June 2007 51 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
The alternatives were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively using the following evaluation criteria.
• Population Served • Ridership Potential
• Capital Costs
• Operating Costs
• Subsidy per Passenger
• Level of Service
• Quality of Service
• Socio-Economic Factors
• Organizational Issues
• Technical Risk
• Financial Risk
The alternatives compliment each other and each performs well for these criteria. The new services expand the population served and enhance the level and quality of service. While organizational and technical issues would have to be resolved, including who would oversee and operate the services, none of these challenges are insurmountable. Increasing Route 388’s frequency would perform positively in most of the criteria, and the organizational and technical issues would be minimal as the service would be operated by NCTD. The bus stop improvements would improve the quality of the system’s infrastructure and can be accomplished effectively by the new service operator, the transit agencies, or SANDAG at a reasonable cost.
There are two issues that merit further consideration. The ridership for the new services will take time to grow and may be low initially. An active information and marketing effort will be needed to help grow the ridership and help the services reach acceptable levels of passenger productivity. The other potential issue concerns financial risk. As discussed with the Tribal Transportation Working Group, there is no assurance that funding will be available to continue to operate the new or improved services once the initial grant funds have been spent. MTS and NCTD are facing significant revenue shortfalls and do not have funds to cover the operating expense of these services. Additional grant funds can be sought, but it may be more sustainable to create an intertribal fee structure in which the tribes contribute funds to maintain their operation. This situation will need to be considered as decisions are made regarding moving forward with these improvements.
6.2. Mobility Manager/Coordinator
Another potential element for improving transit service to the reservations is the development of a tribally-managed mobility management organization. This organization would provide a wide range of assistance to improve transportation options, including:
Draft Final Report June 2007 52 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
• Information dissemination and referral – Trip planning • Coordinate volunteers, car/vanpooling, etc. – Build on current “local” solutions – Maintain resource database – Provide financial aid/compensation • Coordinate employee access to tribal employment centers – Collaborative arrangements for planning & costs – Coordinated work schedules & multi-tribal employment center shuttle
This option is being analyzed through a separate effort conducted by SANDAG and the RTA, and would be compatible with any of the proposed improvement alternatives.
Draft Final Report June 2007 53
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
7.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
All of the alternatives would improve transportation availability for tribal members. Based on the evaluation, all three of the options are recommended for implementation.
• New Services. The new route deviation service would expand access to transit service for most reservation residents. They would provide convenient access to the Southern Indian Health Council clinics along with expanded access to the region’s transit services. Coupled with new express service between Pala and Escondido, these improvements would make transit a much more convenient option. Figures 11 and 12 show the improvement proposals for the North and South Corridors, respectively.
• Improvements to Existing Service. This alternative offers major benefits by building on the recent investments made by NCTD to increase the amount of Route 388 service provided in the North Corridor.
• Bus Stop Improvements. This alternative would improve the quality of the waiting and transfer environment, and can serve both regional and tribal trips. It can be implemented along with either of the other alternatives.
Draft Final Report June 2007 55
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Figure 11 North Corridor Transit Improvements
Draft Final Report June 2007 57
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Figure 12 South Corridor Transit Improvements
Draft Final Report June 2007 59
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION
The analysis conducted in this study provides an assessment of the feasibility of various transit service improvements. Without a focused follow-up effort, there is no guarantee that the recommended services will be implemented. With all of the region’s existing funding sources fully programmed, new funding will be needed to make the services become a reality. As a result, it is expected that implementation of any or all of the improvement options will be undertaken by the tribes themselves. The following three steps will get the process started.
First, the tribes need to decide if any of these options are attractive. All of them would benefit tribal transportation opportunities, but they need to be considered in the context of other tribal priorities.
Second, further discussions need to take place between the tribes and the transit agencies. A cooperative arrangement would be needed to ensure the services are provided in an effective, efficient, and coordinated manner. It will also be necessary to ensure that any new services are integrated with the region’s transit system in terms of information, fares, schedule coordination, etc. The parties would also determine how the services are to be provided: through a contractor or by the transit agencies.
Finally, the tribes will need to form coalitions to seek funding as tribal transit corridors if they wish to pursue improvements independent from the transit operators. This approach could lead to the submittal of grant applications for the North or South Corridor separately or together. The tribes also need to determine if they want to apply for planning monies to conduct additional operational analyses of the improvement proposals, or startup funds for some or all of the new services. The organization to apply for the grants and be responsible for project implementation also needs to be determined. Two potential candidates would be RTA and the Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Association (SCTCA).
Several potential funding sources are available to implement these alternatives as described in Appendix C. The new FTA Tribal Transit Program (5311(c) is described along with several other potential sources. The improvement recommendations will be considered by the RTA, tribal members, SANDAG, and transit agencies to determine which one or combination would be the most desirable to pursue. Once that selection is made, funding would be sought, including at a minimum an application for 5311(c) Tribal Transit Program funds, and possibly other funds as described in Appendix C. (August 2, 2007, is the deadline for applications for this year’s Tribal Transit Program funds.)
Draft Final Report June 2007 61 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
There are several examples of successful tribal transportation projects throughout the nation. Representative examples can be found in Appendix D. Service delivery and administrative examples abound, and can be useful in developing the structure to be used in advancing tribal service improvements in San Diego County. The Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma provides a good example of coordination and implementation. The Nation developed a transportation plan, secured grant funding, and implemented the service. The Chickasaw Nation Transportation System (CNTS) operates a demand-response and fixed-route service to a large number of tribal members in isolated areas and still meet the needs of the heavily populated areas.
Once funding is secure, several activities will need to be undertaken to implement the service, as listed below.
• Refine operations/service planning – finalize alignment, stop locations, schedules, etc.
• Develop vehicle specifications and purchase vehicles
• Design capital improvements
• Construct capital improvements
• Develop operating specifications and contractor procurement schedule
• Develop schedules and public information campaign
• Begin operations
These tasks can be conducted with consultant assistance or through collaboration with SANDAG, MTS, and/or NCTD staff.
Draft Final Report June 2007 62
APPENDIX A –TRIBAL EMPLOYMENT CENTER SHUTTLES
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Barona Shuttles
Draft Final Report June 2007 65
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Harrah’s Rincon Shuttles
Draft Final Report June 2007 67
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Sycuan Shuttles
Draft Final Report June 2007 69
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Valley View Shuttles
Draft Final Report June 2007 71
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study Viejas Shuttles
Draft Final Report June 2007 73
APPENDIX B – PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Preliminary Operating Cost Estimates June 18, 2007
Revenue Hours Operating Cost Ridership Fare Revenue and Subsidy (Input) (Input) (Input) (Input) (Input) (Calc) (Input) (Calc) (Input) (Calc) (Input (Calc) (Calc) Time per Annual Annual Assumption) Annual Annual Days/Hours of No. of No. of Trip Revenue Cost/ Operating Pass./ Annual Average Fare Operating Service Option Operation Trips/Day Days (Hours) Hours Hour Cost Hour Boardings Fare Revenue Subsidy New Services North Corridor Route A Pala/Rincon MWF 2 153 1.0 306 $75.00 $22,950 4.00 1,224 $1.00 $1,224 $21,726 Route B Santa Ysabel/Rincon Th 2 51 2.0 204 $75.00 $15,300 2.00 408 $1.00 $408 $14,892 South Corridor Route C Barona M 2 51 1.5 153 $75.00 $11,475 2.00 306 $1.00 $306 $11,169 Route D Campo/Viejas/West Ewiiaapaayp T 2 51 1.5 153 $75.00 $11,475 2.00 306 $1.00 $306 $11,169 Route E Sycuan/Viejas/West Ewiiaapaayp WF 2 102 1.5 306 $75.00 $22,950 3.00 918 $1.00 $918 $22,032 New I-15 Express Service Pala-Escondido M-F 4 255 0.5 510 $70.00 $35,700 4.00 2,040 $1.00 $2,040 $33,660 Total 1,632 $119,850 5,202 $5,202 $114,648
Improvements to Existing Service Mon-Sun Route 388 - Increase Frequency to 75 Minutes 5:15am - 9:05 pm 12 365 1.0 4,380 $70.00 $306,600 15.00 65,700 $1.00 $65,700 $240,900 Total $306,600 65,700 $65,700 $240,900
Stop Improvements Enhanced Bus Stops Maintenance 20 @$1,000 $20,000 Total $20,000 Assumptions Cost/Hour w/o Admin $70.00 Cost/Hour w/Admin $75.00 Average Fare $1.00
Source: IBI Group
Draft Final Report June 2007 75 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate May 22, 2007
Item No. of Units Unit Cost Cost New Services Route Deviation Vehicles 4 $60,000 $240,000 Stops 20 $15,000 $300,000 Total $540,000 New Express Service Vehicles 2 $60,000 $120,000 Stops 3 $15,000 $45,000 Total $165,000 Total $705,000
Improvements to Existing Service Vehicles Route 388 2 $60,000 $120,000 Total $120,000
Stop Improvements Transfer Stop Upgrades 10 $15,000 $150,000 I-15/SR 76 Park and Ride LS $15,000 $15,000 Total $165,000
Source: IBI Group
APPENDIX C – FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
This appendix outlines the funding available for tribal groups directly or through Caltrans, SANDAG, MTS, and/or NCTD to provide continued and expanded transit services to tribal areas in the San Diego County area. Available funding includes existing, expanded funding for existing sources and new sources. The next steps are also outlined.
Existing Funding For Tribal Transit Services
Transit services are funded by a combination of passenger fares and local, state, and federal funds, including a uniform, dedicated local quarter-percent transportation sales tax (LTF), State Transit Assistance (STA), local transportation sales taxes, local general operating assistance, as well as the sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel and other miscellaneous sources. The mix and amounts of these funding sources differs for each transit operator.
Department of Transportation Funding
Of the $23.4 billion in transportation funds allocated through 2009 from the federal transportation funding authorization bill, called the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), $5.145 billion will go to transit. Of that amount, there are two main funding sources allocated by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which can only be used for transit capital purposes:
• Section 5309 New Starts Funds – $1.25 billion over five years, nationally – For earmarked rail and Bus Rapid Transit projects in a federal discretionary program which requires state and/or local funding matches.
• Section 5307, Transit Formula Funds – $3.9 billion over five years, nationally – Allocated by formula to each urbanized area transit operator in the nation.
In California, the sources of transit funds for both capital and operating costs are:
• Local Transportation Fund (LTF) (quarter percent sales tax); • State Transit Assistance (STA); • Local Transit system fares; and • Local option sales tax measures, (TransNet in San Diego).
Although the San Diego TransNet sales tax generates significant dollars over the next 40 years, most of these funds earmarked are for specific rail and Bus Rapid Transit capital projects, not operating costs.
Draft Final Report June 2007 79 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
In San Diego, rural transit service is primarily funded by MTS and NCTD with TDA funds and farebox revenues. These funds are generally in short supply given the service demands of these two agencies. MTS also has a federal Section 5311(f) intercity bus grant from Caltrans for a contracted rural transit service route. NCTD has also applied for 5311(f) funds but has not received any of these grants.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Transportation Programs
The primary vehicle for federal aid to tribal transportation is the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)3 for roads eligible through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Today, the program consists of more than 25,700 miles of BIA and tribally owned public roads and 800 bridges, plus 25,600 miles of state, county, and local government public roads.
Authorizations for the IRR program and the BIA maintenance funds cover only a small part of the ongoing needs of tribes, although those authorizations are increasing. A new Tribal Transportation Allocation Methodology (TTAM) is in place to determine direct allocations to individual tribes. According to a recent National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)4, numerous tribes are seeking or implementing additional sources of revenue to fund their transportation needs, including grant writing, flexible financing to borrow against future IRR allocations, tribal tax and casino revenues, and profit-making tribal enterprises that identify and fill market niches in the larger regional economy.
In tribal coordination with outside agencies, aside from involvement with BIA, the most frequent area of coordination reported by the NCHRP study was with state transportation departments. Given new mandates for state consultation with tribes, this is likely to increase. However, many tribes also reported extensive involvement with other federal agencies such as the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) agencies (FHWA, FTA, and the Federal Aviation Administration).
United States Department of Health and Human Services Funding for Specialized Transportation Services
In addition to Department of Transportation funding, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs, in addition to funding a variety of research and service provision programs, may choose to purchase or provide transportation as a supportive service to their primary mission. These funding sources may be another opportunity to expand tribal transit services in San Diego County.
The HHS programs that provide transportation services are described in the Federal Transit Administration’s web site5 and are summarized below.
• Medicare does not pay for non-emergency transportation, but does pay for appropriate emergency ambulance service.
• The Older Americans Act directs Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) to consider transportation as a priority service as the AAA is developing its service plan.
3 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/flh/indresrd.htm 4 NCHRP Synthesis 366 Tribal Transportation Programs, A Synthesis of Highway Practice, 2007 5 http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/metro/planning_environment_4021.html
Draft Final Report June 2007 80 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
• The Head Start Program encourages but does not require grantees to provide for the transportation of children participating in the program.
• The Medicaid program requires that States include in their state Medicaid plan an assurance that program recipients will have access to medical services. The states have significant discretion on how they fulfill the assurance of access commitment.
• In the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF), transportation is an allowable expenditure of TANF funds. However, the states have significant discretion in the specific use of the funds from purchase of vehicles and payment of insurance costs to payments to transit providers to assist in extending routes or service hours.
HHS programs provide funding through block grants or formula grants to states and reserve significant operating decisions and reviews for state and local officials. Transportation is rarely mentioned in legislation and generally appears in regulation only as one of a series of support services.
Many of the recipients of HHS funding are multi-service organizations. Transportation is only one of many services offered to their clients. While transportation is not required in statute or regulation for most HHS programs, it often must be provided through HHS-funded services or through public transit in order for program goals to be achieved
The key HHS programs for specialized transportation services are shown in the following chart and are reviewed in detail in the Resource Guide for Coordinated Transportation Planning in the Transportation Coordination Toolkit6. Funding levels indicated in Table 3-2 are estimates with the exception of the programs of the Administration on Aging, the Head Start Program in the Administration for Children and Families and the Medicaid program of the Health Care Financing Administration. These estimates represent 5 percent of the program funding. This percentage reflects a conservative estimate based on the known percentage of funding in programs with purchase of vehicles or purchase of transportation services identified as allowable costs. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration funding level is based on a 1 percent estimate of program funding. Total agency funding levels may include programs not listed on the table.
6 http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/metro/planning_environment_4019.html
Draft Final Report June 2007 81 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Major United States Department of Health and Human Services Funding Programs for Specialized Transportation Services
National FY 2000 funding
(millions of $) For client Total transportation services HHS PROGRAM $ 395,000 $ 2,687.5 Administration on Aging $ 932.8 $ 66.1
{ Grants for State & Community Programs on Aging (Title III) $ 310.1 $ 65.2
{ Grants for Native Americans (Title VI) $ 18.5 $ 0.93 Administration for Children and Families $ 38,059 $ 1,580.9 { Child Care and Development Block Grant $ 3,550 $ 177.5 { Developmental Disabilities $ 91.5 $ 4.6 { Head Start $ 5,267 $ 525 { Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) $ 500 $ 25 { Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) $ 2,380 $ 23.8 { Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) $ 16,500 $ 825 Health Care Financing Administration $ 360,000 $ 838.8 { Medicaid $114,900 $ 838.8 Health Resources and Services Administration $ 3,833 $ 183 { Community and Migrant Health Centers $ 1,830 $ 183 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services $ 1,874.8 $ 18.7 Administration { Community Mental Health Services Block Grant $ 340.8 $ 3.4
{ Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant $ 1,534 $ 15.3
The purpose of this report is to explore expanded and new funding sources that could be used for tribal transit service in the San Diego County area.
Expanded Funding For Existing Rural Transit Service Sources
The following rural transit programs have increased funding through the federal transportation funding authorization bill, called SAFETEA-LU, and one program, the Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Program,7 has changed from a discretionary to formula program. Several of these programs could benefit Tribal transit services.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Rural Transit Funds are apportioned by formula to the states and administered by the state DOT, which, in California’s case, is the Caltrans Division of Mass Transit (DMT). Within the Caltrans DMT, the various rural transit programs are administered.8
7 http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants_financing_263.html 8 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/
Draft Final Report June 2007 82 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Caltrans develops a program of projects with the help of the regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs) in California. In San Diego, the RTPA is SANDAG, who works in close cooperation with MTS and NCTD. Tribal transit services could be eligible for these federal Rural Transit Funds, in coordination with SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD, as appropriate.
The Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) was created by Congress in 1986, under the Section 18(h) of the Surface Transportation Act administered by the FTA. The program’s goal is to provide training, technical assistance, and research activities that will improve rural transit services. Caltrans’ DMT administers the California State RTAP program through a contract currently with the California Association of Coordinated Transportation (CalACT), a private non-profit association of transit providers serving the needs of the non-urbanized areas of California. Funding is a mix of 5311(b)(3) Rural Transit Assistance Program funds with state match.
Most federal funds are available for three years (the year of appropriation plus two years) unless otherwise noted. After that time period, the service would have to be sustained by other local, state, or federal funding sources.
The following rural transit programs are funded by the FTA and administered by Caltrans. For urban areas, a portion of these funds are allocated on a formula basis to transit operators.
Section 5311 Rural and Small Urban Areas Non-Urbanized Area Formula National: $442 million by formula to states, California: $20.2 million (FY 2007)
This federal grant program provides funding for public transit in non-urbanized areas with a population under 50,000 as designated by the Bureau of the Census. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) apportions funds to each State annually. Caltrans DMT is the delegated grantee.
Funding may be used for capital, operating, state administration, and project administration expenses. Each state prepares an annual program of projects, which must provide for fair and equitable distribution of funds within the states, including Indian reservations, and must provide for maximum feasible coordination with transportation services assisted by other Federal sources.
Funds may be used for capital, operating, and administrative assistance to state agencies, local public bodies, and nonprofit organizations (including Indian tribes and groups), and operators of public transportation services. The state must use 15 percent of its annual apportionment to support intercity bus service, unless the Governor certifies that these needs of the state are adequately met.
Projects must meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Clean Air Act, or bicycle access projects. Capital projects may be funded at 90 percent Federal match. The maximum FTA share for operating assistance is 50 percent of the net operating costs.
California’s Section 5311 apportionment is distributed as follows – 75 percent is apportioned to non-urban areas to a public transit operator (MTS and NCTD in San Diego County) based on population, known as Regional Apportionment; 15 percent is for Section 5311(f) Intercity Bus Program; and 10 percent is for state administrative expenses. Guidance regarding the Section 5311 program is provided in the Caltrans Section 5311 Handbook and Guide.
Draft Final Report June 2007 83 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Public transit operators must submit a Program of Projects that identifies subrecipients and projects to receive Section 5311 funds in their planning area by December 31st of each year. The subrecipient must complete and submit a Section 5311 Program Application, including all required other submittals by the appropriate deadline. Complete guidance regarding programming and applying for Section 5311 Regional Apportionment funds can be found in the Section 5311 Handbook and Guide.
5311(f) – This subsection of 5311 funds is for Intercity Bus needs. Although MTS and NCTD presently program the entirety of the annual regional apportionment of FTA 5311 funds for ongoing operational and capital needs, Intercity Bus Program grant funds, FTA 5311 (f), are made available via a statewide competitive grant program administered by Caltrans, MTS has recently successfully applied and received 5311(f) intercity bus grant funds to augment local funding efforts to maintain rural service operations and advance efforts to expand the east county bus maintenance facility where rural vehicles are stored and maintained. NCTD has applied for several grants but has not received any.
5311(c) – This subsection of 5311 funds is for providing public transportation on Indian reservations through a set aside of Other-Than-Urbanized Area Program funds for direct grants to Indian Tribes. Funding is set at $45 million, nationally, over five years. For FY 2007, $10 million is available nationally.
• Sets aside funding from the Other-Than-Urbanized Area Program (Section 5311) before allocation of funds to the States.
• Allocations of the set-aside and terms and conditions for awarding grants to be determined after outreach to stakeholders.
• States must continue to provide a fair distribution of State formula funds, including to Indian reservations.
The chart below summarizes the Section 5311 Program:
Draft Final Report June 2007 84 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
FTA Programmatic Rural and Small Urban Areas Transit Program Section 5311 Elements
Appropriation Funded under Formula Grants
Description The goals of the nonurbanized formula program are: 1) to enhance the access of people in nonurbanized areas to health care, shopping, education, employment, pubic services, and recreation; 2) to assist in the maintenance, development, improvement, and use of public transportation systems in rural and small urban areas; 3) to encourage and facilitate the most efficient use of all Federal funds used to provide passenger transportation in nonurbanized areas through the coordination of programs and services; 4) to assist in the development and support of intercity bus transportation; and 5) to provide for the participation of private transportation providers in nonurbanized transportation to the maximum extent feasible.
Statutory Reference 49USC5311
Eligible Recipients State and local governments, non-profit organizations (including Indian tribes and groups), and public transit operators.
Eligible Purposes Funds may be used for capital, operating, and administrative purposes.
Allocation of Funding Funding is apportioned by a statutory formula that is based on the latest U.S. Census figures of areas with a population less than 50,000. The amount that the state may use for state administration, planning, and technical assistance activities is limited to 15 percent of the annual apportionment. States must spend 15 percent of the apportionment to support rural intercity bus service unless the Governor certifies that the intercity bus needs of the state are adequately met.
Match The maximum Federal share for capital and project administration is 80 percent (except for projects to meet the requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Clean Air Act, or bicycle access projects, which may be funded at 90 percent.) The maximum Federal share for operating assistance is 50 percent of the net operating costs. The local share is 50 percent, which shall come from an undistributed cash surplus, a replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve, or new capital.
Funding Availability Year appropriated plus two years (total of three years).
If a tribal transit program is funded, once Caltrans receives the funds, the tribe could have a direct grantee relationship with the FTA.
Section 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disability National: $117 million, California: $12.4 million (FY 2007)
This program is for private/non profit agencies and for capital expenses only; although 14 states have initiated a pilot program for operating costs.
Draft Final Report June 2007 85 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
This funding was established for meeting transportation needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities where public mass transportation services are otherwise unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate. It allows for the procurement of accessible vans and busses; communication equipment; and computer hardware and software for eligible applicants.
The chart below summarizes the Section 5310 Program
FTA Programmatic Element Elderly and Persons with Disability Transit Program Section 5310
Appropriation Funded under Federal Formula Grants
Description Funds are used to provide transportation services to meet the special needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities.
Statutory Reference 49USC5310
Eligible Recipients States apply for funds on behalf of local private non-profit agencies and certain public bodies.
Eligible Purposes Capital projects are eligible for funding. Most funds are used to purchase vehicles, but acquisition of transportation services under contract, lease or other arrangements and state program administration are also eligible expenses.
Allocation of Funding Funds are allocated by a formula that considers the number of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities in each State. Caltrans then selects projects on a statewide discretionary basis.
Match 80 percent Federal and 20 percent local
Funding Availability Year of appropriation (one year).
The procurement element of this program works in partnership with the California Department of General Services, Procurement Division, to provide a State contract for the purchase of paratransit buses that will meet the transportation needs for successful grantees under Section 5310. In addition, public agencies are able to purchase off the contract and benefit from the economies of scale of large group procurement.
Projects are awarded through a competitive application process.
Regional transportation planning agencies score projects from their region utilizing the California Transportation Commission (Commission) adopted project-scoring criteria and send a scored list of their projects to Caltrans. Caltrans forwards the regional lists to the statewide review committee which supplies a draft statewide prioritized list based on project scores calculated by the regions and determine a "cutoff point" (score) on the draft list based on the Commission's adopted criteria. The committee rescores any projects that are incorrectly scored by the regions and creates a statewide-prioritized list of projects representing 110 percent of the estimated available funds.
Draft Final Report June 2007 86 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
The statewide review committee holds a staff level hearing for all stakeholders to discuss the statewide-prioritized list and hear any appeals on technical issue. The statewide evaluation committee submits a final statewide-prioritized list to the Commission. The Commission holds a public hearing to discuss the prioritized list, overall program policy and adopts the prioritized list.
Section 5316 Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Low income, Welfare to Work Suburban to Urban and Rural Program – National: $144 million, California: $20.6 million (FY 2007)
This program is for low income, welfare to work recipients with suburban to urban or urban to suburban travel patterns, including rural areas. Under the recently enacted SAFETEA-LU, this program, as well as the New Freedom program described below, became newly established formula-driven programs, delegated by the FTA to the state DOTs or designated 5307 transit agencies (transit agencies that receive federal transit 5307 formula funds) to administer.
The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) grant program assists states and localities in developing new or expanded transportation services that connect welfare recipients and other low income persons to jobs and other employment related services.
Job Access projects are targeted at developing new or expanded transportation services for welfare recipients and low income persons such as:
• Shuttles; • Vanpools; • New bus routes; • Connector services to mass transit; and • Guaranteed ride home programs.
Reverse Commute projects provide transportation services to suburban employment centers from urban, rural and other suburban locations for all populations.
Criteria for evaluating grant applications for Job Access and Reverse Commute grants include:
• Coordinated public transit human services transportation planning process involving state or local agencies that administer the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and Welfare-to- Work (WtW) programs, the community to be served, and other area stakeholders;
• Unmet need for additional services and extent to which the service will meet that need;
• Project financing, including sustainability of funding and financial commitments from human service providers and existing transportation providers;
Other factors that may be taken into account include the use of innovative approaches, schedule for project implementation and geographic distribution.
Draft Final Report June 2007 87 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
The JARC grant program is intended to establish a coordinated regional approach to job access challenges. All projects funded under this program must be the result of a collaborative planning process that includes states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), transportation providers, agencies administering TANF and WtW funds, human services agencies, public housing, child care organizations, employers, states and affected communities, and other stakeholders. The program is expected to leverage other funds that are eligible to be expended for transportation and encourage a coordinated approach to transportation services.
In urbanized areas with 200,000 population or more, MPOs select the applicant(s). In small urbanized areas under 200,000 population and in nonurbanized, rural, areas states select the applicant(s).
Tribal governments must go through the state process but, once selected, can choose to be subrecipients of the state or apply directly to FTA.
The chart below summarizes the JARC Program
FTA Programmatic Job Access/ Reverse Commute Section 5316 Element Purpose of Program: Provide transit service to/from jobs & training
Application/Grant Award Annual competitive application process conducted by recipient (state Process: DOT or 5307 transit agencies). 5307 entities for larger urban areas, regionally. State DOT in small urban and non-urbanized areas, statewide. Target Population: Welfare Recipients and Low-Income groups
Grant Requirements To follow Section 5307 grant requirements as deemed appropriate by FTA.
Administrative Costs: Maximum allowable – 10 percent
Required Local Plan: All selected projects must be derived from a local developed, coordinated human-services transportation plan.
Matching Requirement: 80/20 for capital projects Capital and/or Operations 50/50 for operational projects
Source of Match: Federal non-DOT, state, local, private
Apportionment by FTA: Formula-driven with an estimated 93 percent of funding being distributed to large and small urban areas in California.
Direct recipient of funds: State and 5307 entities (MPOs)
Transfer of funds (state to Permissible after completion of grant award process and consultation local operators) with responsible local officials. Suballocation of funds prior to competitive application process not permissible.
Eligible Sub-recipients: Public agencies, CBOs, tribal governments, private firms
Draft Final Report June 2007 88 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
NEW FUNDING SOURCES FOR TRIBAL TRANSIT SERVICES
Both new state and federal programs are available for rural transit service. The new Federal Tribal Transit Program is specifically targeted to Tribal transit services. These programs are described below.
State Transportation Bond Program Statewide $3.6 billion, allocated by formula to transit agencies
Proposition 1B, the $20 billion transportation bond approved by the voters in November 2006, includes $4 billion in bond funding for transit capital expenditures. :
• $400,000,000 of the total is reserved for state intercity rail service improvements.
• The remaining $3.6 billion would be split 50-50 according to current state allocation formulas for transit funds for operating and capital purposes.
Since these funds will be allocated directly to transit agencies, any new Tribal transit services would have to be coordinated through MTS and NCTD. To the extent MTS and NCTD have choices to add new service, perhaps some of these funds could be allocated to rural Tribal Service. It is unlikely but not out of the question.
Section 5317 New Freedom Initiative National: $81 million – California: $10.1 million (FY 2007)
This is a new program in SAFETEA-LU that is focused on new services and public transit services beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The purpose of this program is too encourage services and facility improvements to address the transportation needs of persons with disabilities that go beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. It provides a new formula grant program for associated capital and operating costs.
The features are:
• Funds allocated through a formula based upon population of persons with disabilities.
• Allocations to designated recipients in areas over 200,000 (60 percent), to States for areas under 200,000 (20 percent) and non-urbanized areas (20 percent); States may transfer funds to urbanized or nonurbanized area programs as long as funds are used for New Freedom Program purposes.
• States and designated recipients must select grantees competitively.
• Matching share requirements are flexible to encourage coordination with other federal programs that may provide transportation, such as Health and Human Services or Agriculture.
Draft Final Report June 2007 89 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
• Projects must be included in a locally-developed human service transportation coordinated plan beginning in FY 2007.
• 10 percent of funds may be used for planning, administration, and technical assistance.
The New Freedom formula grant program was proposed by the administration and has been included in this legislation to provide additional tools to overcome existing barriers facing Americans with disabilities seeking integration into the work force and full participation in society. Lack of adequate transportation is a primary barrier to work for people with disabilities.
Examples of projects and activities that might be funded under the program include, but are not limited to:
• Purchasing vehicles and supporting accessible taxi, ride-sharing, and vanpooling programs.
• Providing paratransit services beyond minimum requirements (3/4 mile to either side of a fixed route), including for routes that run seasonally.
• Making accessibility improvements to transit and Intermodal stations not designated as key stations.
• Supporting voucher programs for transportation services offered by human service providers.
• Supporting volunteer driver and aide programs.
• Supporting mobility management and coordination programs among public transportation providers and other human service agencies providing transportation.
Also a recipient that transfers funds to the urbanized area formula grant program must certify that the project for which funds are requested had been coordinated with nonprofit providers of services. Beginning in FY 2007, a recipient will also be required to certify that projects selected were derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan, and that the plan was developed through a process that involved individuals of the public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers.
The chart below summarizes the New Freedom Initiative:
Draft Final Report June 2007 90 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
FTA New Freedom Initiative Section 5317 Programmatic Element To encourage services and facility improvements to address the Purpose of Program: transportation needs of persons with disabilities that go beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Provides a new formula grant program for associated capital and operating costs. Annual competitive application process conducted by recipient (state DOT or Application/Grant Award transit agencies that receive federal transit formula funds (5307 funds)). Process: 5307 transit agencies for larger urban areas, regionally. State DOT in small urban and nonurbanized areas, statewide.
Target Population: Disabled Only
Grant Requirements To follow Section 5310 grant requirements as deemed appropriate by FTA.
Administrative Costs: Maximum allowable – 10 percent
Required Local Plan: Beginning in FY 2007, all selected projects must be derived from a local developed, coordinated human-services transportation plan.
Matching Requirement: 80/20 for capital projects Capital and/or Operations 50/50 for operational projects
Source of Match: Federal non-DOT, state, local, private
Apportionment by FTA: Formula-driven to states based upon population of persons with disabilities. In California, an estimated 93 percent of discretionary grant funding is distributed to large and small urban areas in California.
Direct recipient of funds: State and 5307 entities (MPOs)
Transfer of funds (state to Permissible after completion of grant award process and consultation with local operators) responsible local officials. Suballocation of funds prior to competitive application process not permissible.
Eligible Sub-recipients: Public agencies, CBOs, tribal governments, private firms
Tribal Transit Program National - $10 million (FY 2007)
The federal Section 5311(c) established the new Public Transportation on Indian Reservations Program (the Tribal Transit Program). The national funding level authorized for this new program will increase from $8 million in FY 2006 to $15 million in FY 2009, for a total of $45 million. The funds are taken off-the-top of the Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Grants Program and will be apportioned through discretionary grants directly to Indian tribes for any use eligible under the current Section 5311 Program.
Draft Final Report June 2007 91 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
FTA Tribal Transit Program Public Transportation on Indian Reservations
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Other-than-Urbanized Set Aside for Public $8 M $10 M $12 M $15 M $45 M Transportation on Indian Reservations
Funds are not meant to replace or reduce funds that Indian Tribes receive from States through the 5311 Program. There is no local match required.
Allocation Process
The March 22, 2006, Federal Register Notice proposed a single annual competitive selection process to fund both new and existing tribal transit systems and suggested not establishing minimum or maximum awards. In addition, the Notice proposed the following four criteria that would be evaluated and rated by FTA in making an award selection:
1. Demonstration of need
2. Benefits of the project adequacy of project planning
3. Financial commitment, and
4. Coordination.
Under the Tribal Transit Program, Indian tribes are eligible direct recipients. The list of awardees is shown in the April 4, 2007, Federal Register.9 The San Diego area did not receive any of those awards.
The number and amount of awards is determined by a competitive process. Funding is available for start up services, enhancements, or expansion of existing transit services, and for planning studies and operational planning. Approximately 25 percent of the funding is set aside for start up grants. Planning grants will be limited to $25,000 per applicant. Multiple year projects will be considered for funding, subject to the availability of annual appropriations.
The applications are due in October of each year; however, for FY 2007, the applications are due on August 2, 2007.
Eligibility
Eligible direct recipients include federally-recognized Indian tribes or Alaska Native villages, groups, or communities as identified by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the United States Department of the Interior. To be eligible recipients, tribes must have the requisite legal, financial, and technical capabilities to receive and administer Federal funds under this program.
Eligible projects include:
• Capital, planning and operating assistance for rural public transit service
9 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Draft Final Report June 2007 92 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
• Acquisition of public transportation services, including service agreements with private providers of public transportation services
Types of Services include:
• Start-up Services
• Existing Transit Services
• Planning Studies (limited to $25,000)
• Capital Expenses – Acquisition, Construction, etc.
The project sponsor’s technical and financial capacity are first evaluated and ranked as follows:
• Technical Capacity
– Examples of the Tribe’s management of other Federal projects.
– Resources Tribe has to implement transit projects
• Financial Capacity
– Financial systems and controls Tribe has in place to adequately receive and manage Federal grants
Once a project sponsor has met the basic technical and financial capacity criteria, then the following criteria are used to select projects:
• Project Planning and Coordination
– Describe and demonstrate there is sound basis for project
– Project is ready to implement if funded.
• Demonstration of Need
– Demonstrate Tribal transit needs
– Discuss how proposed transit improvements will address identified transit needs of Tribe
• Benefits of Project
– Identify expected project benefits (i.e. increased ridership and daily trips, improved service)
• Financial Commitment and Operating Capacity
– Identify any other funding sources used by Tribe to support existing or proposed transit services, including human service transportation, IRR, and/or FTA program funding.
Discussions with on this program the FTA specialist in Washington, DC indicate that the tribes could apply through SANDAG or another transit provider (MTS/NCTD) and then, once the grant is approved, FTA would change the reporting relationship to have FTA deal directly with the tribe. Technically, the recipient would be SANDAG, MTS, or NCTD, but the communication and monitoring would be with the tribe directly. This is a good option if the tribes can't meet all the FTA
Draft Final Report June 2007 93 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study certification requirements. The following terms and conditions apply to the Tribal Transit Program.
1. Common Grant Rule (49 CFR Part 18), ‘‘Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.’’ This is a government-wide regulation that applies to all Federal assistance programs.
2. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unless Indian tribes are specifically exempted from civil rights statutes, compliance with civil rights statutes will be required, including compliance with equity in service. However, Indian tribes will not be required to comply with FTA program-specific guidance for Title VI and Title VII.
3. Section 504 and ADA requirements in 49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38. These are government-wide requirements that apply to all Federal programs.
4. Drug and Alcohol Testing requirements (49 CFR part 655). FTA will apply this requirement because it addresses a national safety issue for operators of public transportation.
5. National Environmental Policy Act. This is a government-wide requirement that applies to all Federal programs.
6. Charter Service and School Bus transportation requirements in 49 CFR parts 604 and 605. The definition of ‘‘public transportation’’ in 49 U.S.C. 5302 specifically excludes school bus and charter service.
7. National Transit Database (NTD) Reporting requirement. 49 U.S.C. 5335 requires NTD reporting for all direct recipients of section 5311 funds. The Tribal Transit Program is a section 5311 program that will provide funds directly to Indian tribes and this reporting requirement will therefore apply.
8. Bus Testing (49 CFR 665) requirement. To ensure that vehicles acquired under this program will meet adequate safety and operational standards, this requirement will apply.
Draft Final Report June 2007 94 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
FUNDING STRATEGY PLAN
The key to the success of securing funding for transit projects is to develop a funding strategy plan and to work in coordination with the local, state and federal funding agencies and public transit service providers. This four-step plan is outlined below.
Step One – Funding Strategy
This step identifies a plan for funding of the various needed transit services for the project sponsor. It also provides a consistent starting point for various stakeholders as the project sponsor seeks the support of local, state and federal funding decision-makers. Following are the building blocks necessary in developing a funding strategy:
• Develop a Financial Plan and Schedule for the Project
• Identify Funding Sources
• Identify Financing Techniques
• Develop Several Funding Strategies
• Discuss Funding Options with Potential Funding Agencies
For each Tribal transit project, a decision must be made as to which agencies will be the project sponsor, such as the Reservation Transportation Authority, MTS, NCTD, SANDAG, Caltrans, or another eligible entity, depending on the grant requirements.
Step Two – Informational Materials
A clear, compelling story must be told about why Tribal transit service improvements are so vital. The story should detail not only the need for the service, but also its benefits to local communities, the region and the nation. Messages about the project must include the anticipated cost, schedule, and funding plan, and benefits should be quantified. Messages must also be simple, memorable and tailored to their audience.
Step Three – Funding Agency Strategy
Once the funding strategies have been developed and ranked for relative ease of implementation, and the informational materials have been developed, it's now time to secure the funding. The goal is to negotiate funding commitments for short and long term funding. Potential funding agencies for Tribal transit service would include the MTS, NCTD, SANDAG, Caltrans Division of Mass Transit and the Federal Transit Administration.
Draft Final Report June 2007 95 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Step Four – Legislative Strategy
Only when the various potential funding agencies have agreed that the project is a priority and that the funding strategy is reasonable can a project owner successfully fully fund a project at the legislative level. The legislative strategy plan includes an outline the strategies and tasks. Local, state, and federal legislative contacts are identified. Legislative champions for Tribal transit service should be identified at the local, state, and federal level.
Conclusion
The most promising funding sources for improved tribal transit service in the San Diego County area are the expanded and new transportation sources for rural transit in general and Tribal transit services specifically. In addition, opportunities exist to take advantage of HHS programs that allow transportation as an eligible cost. The funding sources that could be targeted include:
• New Tribal Transit Program through the FTA;
• New Section 5317 New Freedom Initiative through Caltrans; and
• Expanded Existing Section 5300 Programs through Caltrans
– Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program
– Section 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disability Program
– Section 5316 JARC Program
The four step funding strategy plan outlined above could increase the success in securing the funding needed for new and enhanced Tribal transit service in the San Diego County area.
Draft Final Report June 2007 96 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
SUMMARY
The following chart outlines the various funding programs described above and their availability for Tribal transit service.
Availability for Tribal Transit Service (1=likely 2=possible 3=not likely Amount Route Funding Source Description Grant Process New Fixed Enhancements/ (FY 2007) Deviation Route Extensions to Feeder Service Existing Service Service Existing Sources Formula By formula to transit agencies, State ¼ percent sales TDA funds share for MTS Part of MTS and NCTD operating 2 2 2 tax funds and NCTD budgets Farebox Revenue Revenues from fares 2 2 2 Expanded Funding for Existing Sources 75 percent apportioned to non- urban areas to a regional Provides funding for transportation planning agency Section 5311 public transit in non- $20.2 million (SANDAG), known as Regional Nonurbanized Area urbanized areas with 2 2 2 to California Apportionment; 15 percent is for Formula population under Section 5311(f) Intercity Bus 50,000. Program; and 10 percent is for state administrative expenses.
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Availability for Tribal Transit Service (1=likely 2=possible 3=not likely Amount Route Funding Source Description Grant Process New Fixed Enhancements/ (FY 2007) Deviation Route Extensions to Feeder Service Existing Service Service Existing Sources For meeting transportation needs of The statewide evaluation elderly persons and committee submits a final persons with disabilities statewide-prioritized list to the Section 5310 Elderly where public mass $20.6 million Commission. The Commission and Persons with 2 2 2 transportation services to California holds a public hearing to discuss Disability are otherwise the prioritized list, overall unavailable, program policy and adopts the insufficient, or prioritized list. inappropriate. For low income, Annual competitive application welfare to work process conducted by recipient Section 5316 Jobs recipients with $20.6 million (Caltrans for rural areas and Access and Reverse 2 2 2 suburban to urban or to California transit agency for urban areas). Commute (JARC) urban to suburban This is no longer a discretionary travel patterns. federal program New Sources Proposition 1B, the $20 MTS and State billion transportation Split according to current state NCTD state Transportation bond approved by the allocation formulas for transit formula 3 3 3 Bond Program voters in November funds for operating and capital share of $3.6 2006 – $4 billion transit purposes. billion bond program
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Availability for Tribal Transit Service (1=likely 2=possible 3=not likely Amount Route Funding Source Description Grant Process New Fixed Enhancements/ (FY 2007) Deviation Route Extensions to Feeder Service Existing Service Service Existing Sources New program in SAFETEA-LU that is focused on new services Annual competitive application Section 5317 New and public transit $10.1 million process conducted by recipient 2 2 2 Freedom Initiative services beyond the to California (state DOT or 5307 entities). requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Section 5311(c) established the new Annual competitive selection Tribal Transit Public Transportation $10 million process to fund both new and 1 1 1 Program on Indian Reservations National existing tribal transit systems. Program (the Tribal Evaluated by five criteria. Transit Program).
APPENDIX D – TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION EXAMPLE
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION EXAMPLES
This appendix provides a description of some of the tribal transportation programs that are operating across the country and provides Web links to pertinent on-line publications and tribal transit Web sites.
There are several examples of “best practices” in both rural transit (general public) and tribal transit services. It is important to note however that when reviewing “best practices’ or creative and innovative solutions to transit/transportation challenges, an understanding of key characteristics of the respective communities may dictate their applicability to tribal transit issues in San Diego County. Best practices include examples of rural/tribal fixed-route, demand response and several variations in between including route deviation services.
The following edited excerpts from RTAP National Transit Resource Center Technical Assistance Brief Number 14 profiles select examples or models addressing some of the important transportation-related issues faced by American Indians.
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
The Choctaw tribe encompasses 21,000 acres of land. The tribal government was formed under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which authorized the tribe to elect representatives to form its governing body.
The Choctaw Transit Authority (CTA) is chartered by the Tribal Council. CTA operates ten employment-related transit routes, one senior citizen transit route, a vehicle maintenance center, and a gasoline service station. CTA is a Section 18 grantee through the Mississippi Department of Transportation, Public Transit Division, and serves three counties.
Mississippi and the Choctaw Transit Authority have worked closely with each other for 13 years. As a Section 18 recipient, the state requires CTA to promote training in several areas, much of which has been coordinated with the state. In 1988, the state used funds from its Petroleum Violation Escrow Fund to assess and repair transportation vehicles from all state projects, including the CTA Section 18 fleet.
In 1994, the Choctaw tribe opened a gambling facility that employs a large number of tribal members. CTA worked with the state on Section 3 funding assistance from the FTA for vehicles to be used for transportation on and off the reservation to service this tribal employment center. Since Mississippi has no state transportation funding assistance, state officials worked closely with the Choctaws on obtaining federal funds that are administered through the state.
Navajo Nation – Arizona
The Navajo Nation includes approximately 170,000 members and covers 26,000 square miles within Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The Navajo Transit System (NTS) includes an office and a
Draft Final Report June 2007 101 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study maintenance facility for the 12 vehicles used in operating its fixed-route system. NTS was created to provide low-cost public transportation; it operates ten 41-passenger motor- coaches and four smaller vehicles, two of which are fully accessible.
The Navajo Nation Government established NTS in 1979. The department has two programs, Fixed Route and Charter Services. In 1980, NTS began operation with funds from the Federal Highway Administration under Section 147.
NTS operates seven routes, including two commuter routes and one feeder route which interlines with Greyhound services in Gallup, New Mexico. NTS services run Monday through Saturday on a fixed time schedule; present funding is provided by Section 18. Because the reservation covers portions of Arizona and New Mexico, Section 18 funds are distributed through both states.
According to the NTS Web site, the Fixed Route Program provides bus public transportation services all over the Navajo Nation. The seven routes begin as early as 5:00 a.m. and end as late as 8:00 p.m. All of the routes cover rural areas, where towns are 50 miles to 100 miles apart. The revenue generated is deposited into the Navajo Nation's general fund account and is not given back to the department to operate on. The 5311 Fixed Route program is funded by USDOT funds and is based on cash local matching, which comes from the Navajo Nation. In order to receive federal funding the transit system is required to meet a certain amount of revenue each year.
Chickasaw Nation – Oklahoma
The Chickasaw Nation has waged a massive campaign designed to provide transportation to all eleven counties within the Chickasaw service area.
The Chickasaw Nation received a demonstration grant from the FTA to develop a transportation system that became known as the Chickasaw Nation Transportation System (CNTS). Before the grant was approved, a survey of tribal members' needs was conducted. From these survey results CNTS put together an effective transportation plan which was then evaluated by the tribal council. Once approval was voted by the council, the plan was forwarded to the FTA for final approval.
Since the grant was experimental, there were few limitations on the system's design. CNTS used the RTAP TransNet peer networking system operated by the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) to assist in planning a cost-effective system to meet the needs of the Chickasaw Nation.
The backbone of the new system was coordination. CNTS and tribal services decided that CNTS should be the lead agency for all coordination efforts, including vehicle acquisition, facility storage, and maintenance, dispatching and scheduling, operations and administration. With this model, CNTS operates a demand-response and fixed-route service to a large number of tribal members in isolated areas and still meet the needs of the heavily populated areas.
Some of the agencies and services with which CNTS coordinates include:
• tribal Head Start programs,
• a tribal boarding school,
• Carl Albert Indian Hospital,
Draft Final Report June 2007 102 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
• two medical centers,
• an alcohol and drug treatment center,
• senior citizen nutrition centers,
• youth programs, and
• Community Health Representatives.
CNTS operates eight vans in six counties using fixed-route and demand-response services, with accessible vehicles meeting ADA requirements. Its goal is to widen the service area to include all eleven counties within the Chickasaw service area. With the coordination plan, CNTS eliminates duplication of service and offers its community an efficient transportation service.
Additional Examples of Tribal Transportation Programs
Below are descriptions of some of the tribal transportation programs that are operating across the country.
Coeur d'Alene Tribe Older Americans Program (http://www.cdatribe-nsn.gov/oap.shtml) The Older American's Program serves Tribal Elders in the Coeur d'Alene Tribe in Plummer, Idaho. The program maintains three vehicles; a 23 passenger tribally owned bus and two GSA vans for transportation services.
Umitilla Indian Reservation Public Bus Service The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon have a public bus service that runs through the community. The website contains the schedule and stops.
Warm Springs Senior Services The confederated tribes of Warm Springs, Wasco, and Paiute in Oregon provide special services for their seniors, including transportation.
Chickasaw Transportation Services The Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma provides non-emergency medical transportation to tribal members. The site gives guidelines for riding the bus and numbers to call to schedule trips.
Ho-Chuck Nation Community Health Services The goal of the Ho-Chunk Nation CHR Program is to improve the quality of life within the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, its members and employees. It provides many services, including transportation, as a means to accomplish that goal.
Hopi Senom Transit (http://www.azdot.gov/PTD/HopiTribe.asp) The Hopi Senom Transit is a shuttle system that provides transportation along the rural reservation roads around Kykotsmovi, AZ. Created in 1986, the transit program provides affordable services to the general public, tribal employees as well as employees of local and state governmental entities located on the Hopi Reservation.
Kiowa Nation Public Transportation Authority FASTrans was established in 1986 by the Kiowa Indian tribe in Oklahoma. The program serves approximately 84,696 residents in sections of Kiowa, Caddo, and Comanche counties. Regularly scheduled routes within the major cities Anadarko, Apache, and Carnegie are available, as well as
Draft Final Report June 2007 103 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study routes from these cities to the city of Lawton.
Comanche Nation Transit System (Oklahoma) The following excerpt is from the Comanche Nation Web site (http://www.comanchenation.com/Tribal percent20Services/transit.html): The Comanche Nation Transit makes designated stops and arranges "pick up points" according to the schedule. If you need to schedule a ride for Monday – Friday, you can contact the dispatcher and tell them your name, address, phone number, schedule pick up time, and your destination. The dispatcher will call the next available Transit Driver to pick you up. When your schedule is approved, it is your responsibility to inform the Transit office the day you will not be riding the bus. You cannot continue our services if you have (3) no shows according to the days you were scheduled to ride. The Comanche Nation Transit has a two (2) minute waiting period upon arrival at your pick up site. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
The Comanche Nation Transit routes operate hourly Monday-Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Saturdays start at 9:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. Transit Buses run from 4:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Monday – Friday.
Additional Resources
• Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) – Information Station (rural transportation and tribal transportation) http://www.ctaa.org/
• Federal Highway Administration (DOT FHWA) – Tribal Transportation https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/tribaltrans/state.htm
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) http://www.fta.dot.gov
• US Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Rural Information Center http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome
• Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) http://www.tcrponline.org/index.cgi
Draft Final Report June 2007 104
APPENDIX E – TRIBAL TRANSIT GRANT APPLICATION INFORMATION
IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
TRIBAL TRANSIT GRANT APPLICATION INFORMATION
The following information regarding the FTA Tribal Transit Program grant application requirements and the evaluation process was obtained from Federal Register: April 4, 2007, (Volume 72, Number 64)] [Notices] [Page 16397-16405], Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04ap07-104].
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Public Transportation on Indian Reservations Program; Tribal Transit Program
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability: Solicitation of Grant Applications for FY 2007 Tribal Transit Program Funds.
X. Application Content
A. Applicant Information
1. Name of federally recognized tribe and, if appropriate, the specific tribal agency submitting the application.
2. Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number if available. (Note: If selected, applicant will be required to provide DUNS number prior to grant award, and DUNS number is required for submitting through grants.gov).
3. Contact information for notification of project selection: Contact name, address, and fax and phone number.
4. Description of public transportation services currently provided by tribe if any including areas served.
5. Name of person(s) authorized to apply on behalf of tribe (signed transmittal letter should accompany application if submitted in hard copy or e-mail).
B. Technical, Legal, and Financial Capacity to Implement the Proposed Project
Tribes that cannot demonstrate adequate capacity in technical, legal, and financial areas will not be considered for funding. Every application must describe the tribe's technical, legal, and financial capacity to implement the proposed project.
Draft Final Report June 2007 107 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
1. Legal Capacity: Provide documentation or other evidence to show that the applicant is a federally recognized tribe. Also, who is the authorized representative to execute legal agreements with FTA on behalf of the tribe? If currently operating transit service, does the tribe have appropriate Federal or State operating authority?
2. Technical Capacity: Give examples of the tribe's management of other Federal projects. What resources does the tribe have to implement a transit project?
3. Financial Capacity: Does the tribe have adequate financial systems in place to receive and manage a Federal grant? Describe the tribe's financial systems and controls.
C. C. Project Information
1. Budget: Provide the Federal amount requested for each purpose for which funds are sought and any funding from other sources that will be provided. If applying for a multi year project (not to exceed 4 years), show annual request for each year by budget line item.
2. Project Description: Indicate the category for which funding is requested i.e., Start-ups, Enhancements or replacements of existing transit services, or Planning studies or operational planning grants. Provide a summary description of the proposed project and how it will be implemented (e.g., number and type of vehicles, service area, schedules, type of services, fixed route or demand responsive, route miles (if fixed route) and size of service area, major origins and destinations, population served, and whether the tribe provide the service directly or contract for services and how will vehicles be maintained.
3. Project Timeline: Include significant milestones such as date of contract for purchase of vehicle(s), actual or expected delivery date of vehicles, and service start up dates.
D. Application Evaluation Criteria
Applications for funding of transit services should address the application criteria based on project to be funded (for more detail see section XII)
1. Criterion 1: Project Planning and Coordination.
2. Criterion 2: Demonstration of Need.
3. Criterion 3: Benefits of Project.
4. Criterion 4: Financial Commitment and Operating Capacity.
Applications for planning grants should address the criteria in section XII, C of this notice.
E. Submission Dates and Times
Draft Final Report June 2007 108 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Applicants may submit complete applications for the TTP in one of the three ways: electronically through grants.gov, in hard copy to Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Attention: Lorna R. Wilson; or sending by e-mail to [email protected] by August 2, 2007, or submitted electronically through the Grants.gov Web site by the same date. FTA will announce grant selections when the competitive selection process is complete.
F. Intergovernmental Review
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''
G. Funding Restrictions
FTA will only consider applications for funding from eligible recipients for eligible activities (see section VI). Due to funding limitations, applicants that are selected for funding may receive less than the amount requested. The application process will allow an Indian tribe to apply for multiple years of funding not to exceed four years. No more than $25,000 in funding will be awarded per planning grant. The remaining funds will be made available for applications for funding of start up or new systems, and enhancements or expansion of existing transit service.
H. Other Submission Requirements
Applicants submitting hard copies should submit five (5) copies of their project proposal application to the Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20059, Attention: Lorna Wilson, or apply electronically through the government-wide electronic grant application portal at http://www.grants.gov.
Alternatively, applicants may submit applications as an e-mail attachment to mailbox: [email protected]. Applicants applying by e-mail must fax signature documents to 202-366-7951, Attention: Lorna Wilson.
XI. Application Review Process
A. Competitive Selection Process
FTA will divide applications into three categories. The three evaluation categories are as follows:
[[Page 16400]]
Start-ups--Applications for funding of new transit service.
Existing transit services--Applications for funding of enhancements or expansion of existing transit services (including continuation of funding for start-ups selected for FY 2006 funding).
Draft Final Report June 2007 109 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Planning--Applications for funding of transit planning studies and/or operational planning.
Applications will be grouped into their respective category for review and scoring purposes. Applications for planning will be evaluated using a pass/fail system, whereas start-up and existing transit services applications will be scored based on the evaluation criteria to determine rank for funding award determination purposes. An applicant can receive up to 25 points for each evaluation criteria.
FTA intends to award the full amount of funding available in FY 2007 for the TTP. FTA encourages applicants to review the evaluation criteria and all other related application information prior to preparation of application. Applicants may receive technical assistance for application development by contacting their FTA regional Tribal liaison, Tribal Transportation Assistance Program (TTAP) center, or the National Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP) office. Contact information for technical assistance can be found in Appendix C.
B. Evaluation Criteria
1. Project Planning and Coordination (25 Points)
In this section, the applicant should describe how the proposed project was developed and demonstrate that there is a sound basis for the project and that it is ready to implement, if funded. Information may vary depending on whether the tribe has a formal plan that includes transit.
a. Applicants without a formal plan that includes transit are advised to consider and address the following areas:
i. Provide a detailed project description including the proposed service, vehicle and facility needs, and other pertinent characteristics of the proposed service implementation.
ii. Identify existing transportation services available to the tribe and discuss whether the proposed project will provide opportunities to coordinate service with existing transit services including human service agencies, intercity bus services, or other public transit providers.
iii. Discuss the level of support either by the community and/or tribal government for the proposed project.
iv. Describe the implementation schedule for the proposed project such as time frame, staffing, and procurement.
b. Applicants with a formal transit plan are advised to consider and address the following areas:
i. Describe the planning document and/or the planning process conducted to identify the proposed project.
Draft Final Report June 2007 110 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
ii. Describe how the mobility and client access needs of tribal human service agencies were considered in the planning.
iii. Describe what opportunities for public participation were provided in the planning process and how the proposed transit service or existing service has been coordinated with transportation provided for the clients of human service agencies, with intercity bus transportation in the area, or with any other rural public transit providers.
iv. Describe how the proposed service complements rather than duplicates any currently available services.
v. Describe the implementation schedule for the proposed project, including time frame, staffing, procurements, etc.
vi. Describe any other planning or coordination efforts that were not mentioned above.
c. Based on the information provided as discussed in the above section, proposals will be rated on the following:
i. Is there a sound basis for the proposed project?
ii. Is the project ready to implement?
2. Demonstration of Need (25 Points)
In this section, the application should demonstrate the transit needs of the tribe and discuss how the proposed transit improvements will address the identified transit needs of the tribe. Applications may include information such as destinations and services not currently accessible by transit, need for access to jobs or health care, special needs of the elderly and individuals with disabilities, income-based community needs, or other mobility needs.
Based on the information provided, the proposals will be rated on the following:
a. Is there a demonstrated need for the project?
b. How well does the project fulfill the need?
3. Benefits of Project (25 Points)
In this section, applications should identify expected project benefits. Possible examples include increased ridership and daily trips, improved service, improved operations and coordination, and economic benefits to the community.
Benefits can be demonstrated by identifying the population of tribal members and non- tribal members in the proposed project service area and estimating the number of daily, one-way trips the transit service will provide and or the number of individual riders. There may be many other, less quantifiable, benefits to the tribe and surrounding
Draft Final Report June 2007 111 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
community from this project. Please document, explain or show the benefits in whatever format is reasonable to present them.
Based on the information provided, proposals will be rated based on:
a. Will the project improve transit efficiency or increase ridership?
b. Will the project provide improved mobility for the tribe?
c. Will the project improve access to important destinations and services?
d. Are there other qualitative benefits?
4. Financial Commitment and Operating Capacity (25 Points)
In this section, the application should identify any other funding sources used by the tribe to support existing or proposed transit services, including human service transportation funding, Indian Reservation Roads, or other FTA programs such as the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC), New Freedom, section 5311, section 5310, or section 5309 bus and bus facilities funding.
For existing services, the application should show how TTP funding will supplement (not duplicate or replace) current funding sources. If the transit system was previously funded under section 5311 through the State's apportionment, describe how requested TTP funding will expand available services.
Describe any other resources the tribe will contribute to the project, including in-kind contributions, commitments of support from local businesses, donations of land or equipment, and human resources, and describe to what extent does the new project or funding for existing service leverage other funding.
The tribe should show its ability to manage programs by demonstrating the existing programs it administers, in any area of expertise such as human services. Based on the information provided the proposals will be rated on the extent to which the proposal demonstrates that:
a. This project provides new services or complements existing service.
b. TTP funding does not replace existing funding.
[[Page 16401]]
c. Tribe has or will provide non-financial support to project.
d. Tribe has demonstrated ability to provide other services or manage other programs.
e. Project funds are used in coordination with other services for efficient utilization of funds.
Draft Final Report June 2007 112 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
C. Proposals for Planning Grants
For planning grants, the applications should describe, in no more than three pages, the need for and a general scope of the proposed study.
1. Criteria: Need for Planning Study.
Based on the information provided, proposals will be rated pass/fail based on the following:
a. Is the tribe committed to planning for transit?
b. Is the scope of the proposed study for tribal transit?
D. Review and Selection Process
Each application will be screened by a panel of members including FTA Headquarters, and regional staff and representatives of the Indian Reservation Roads Program. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will be disqualified. FTA will make an effort to award a grant to as many qualified applicant as possible.
XII. Award Administration Information
FTA will award grants directly to federally recognize Indian tribes for the projects selected through this competition. Following publication of the selected recipients, projects, and amounts, FTA regional staff will assist the successful applicants to prepare an electronic application for grant award. At that time, the tribe will be required to sign the Certification and Assurances contained in Appendix B. The Master Agreement is available on the FTA Web site at http://www.fta.dot.gov/17861_18441_ENG_HTML.htm
Applicants that are selected for grant awards under the TTP will be required to formally designate, by resolution or other formal tribal action, an authorized representative who will have the authority to execute grant agreements on behalf of the Indian tribe with FTA and who will also have the authority on behalf of the Indian tribe to execute the FTA Annual List of Certifications and Assurances.
FTA will notify all applicants, both those selected for funding and those not selected, when the competitive selection process is complete. Projects selected for funding will be published in a Federal Register notice.
XIII. Other Information
A. Technical Assistance
Technical assistance regarding these requirements is available from each FTA regional office. The regional offices will contact those applicants selected for funding regarding procedures for making the required certifications and assurances to FTA before grants are made and will provide assistance in preparing the documentation necessary for grant award.
Draft Final Report June 2007 113 IBI Group Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
B. Certifications and Assurances
Applicants that are selected and formally notified of the FTA intention to award a grant under the TTP will be required to complete and execute the FTA Annual list of Certification and Assurances in accordance with the procedures described in this Notice of Funding Availability. The Annual List of Certifications and Assurances is attached in Appendix B for informational purposes only.
C. Reporting
Title 49 U.S.C. 5335 requires recipients, including tribes, of Section 5311 program funds to report data, specified in 49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(4) to the National Transit Database (NTD). Specific procedures and data requirements for tribes are being developed and will be available on the NTD Web site. For technical assistance, contact Lauren Tuzikow at (703) 462-5233, email: [email protected]. For NTD program information, contact Gary DeLorme at (202) 366-1652. Annual progress reports and financial status reports will be required of all recipients.
D. Agency Contact(s)
Contact the appropriate FTA regional Tribal Liaison (Appendix A) for application specific information and issues for general program information, contact Lorna R. Wilson, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053, e-mail: [email protected]. A TDD is available at 1(800) 877-8339 (TDD/FIRS).
Issued in Washington, DC, this 29th day of March 2007.
James S. Simpson, Administrator
Draft Final Report June 2007 114
November 2007
SR-76 EAST CORRIDOR STUDY
PREPARED BY: RESERVATION TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
CONSULTANTS: SPRINGER & ASSOCIATES, INC LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN
FUNDED BY: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1
SR 76 Study Area
2
1 Purpose of Study
z Investigate traffic impacts
z Determine operational / near term improvements
z Prepare long term traffic forecasts and modeling
z Develop feasibility level costs and potential funding sources for recommended operational improvements
z Foster partnerships with Native American Tribal Governments, public agencies, and private interests
3
SR 76 Project Stakeholders
z Pala Band Of Indians z Reservation Transportation z Pauma Indian Reservation Authority z San Pasqual Band Of Indians z Caltrans z La Jolla Indian Reservation z SANDAG z Rincon Indian Reservation z County Of San Diego z Santa Ysabel Indian z Regional Water Quality Control Reservation Board z Palomar Mountain Sponsor z California Highway Patrol Group z California Department of Fish & z Pala Pauma Sponsor Group Game z Valley Center Planning Group z U.S. Army Corps of Engineers z Fallbrook Community Planning z U.S. Environmental Protection Group Agency z Federal Highway Administration z U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 4
2 Collected and Analyzed Traffic and Corridor Information z Aerial photos of corridor z Historical reports and traffic data, proposed development projects, and accident information z Roadway conditions z Roadway curve dimensions and location of speed advisory signs
5
Analyzed Major Intersections
z Peak hour intersection counts (a.m. and p.m.) • SR 76 / PALA MISSION ROAD • SR 76 / PAUMA RESERVATION ROAD • SR 76 / VALLEY CENTER ROAD (S6) • SR 76 / SR 79
6
3 Average Daily Traffic Counts
z SR 76 East of I-15 z SR 76 West Of Valley Center z SR 76 West of Pala Casino Road (S6) z SR 76 East of Pala Casino z SR 76 East Of Valley Center Road (S6) z Pala Temecula Road North of Pala Mission Road z Valley Center Road (S6) South Of SR 76 z SR 76 West of Pauma Reservation Road z Valley Center Road (S6) East Of North Wohlford Road z SR 76 East of Pauma Reservation Road z SR 76 West of SR 79
7
Criteria for Proposed Operational Improvements
z Must be practical and can be designed and constructed in a short time period z No additional right-of-way required z Will not require any significant environmental studies z Cost of each proposed operational improvement will not exceed $1 million
8
4 9 FIGURE 8.0-3
10 FIGURE 8.0-4
5 11 FIGURE 8.0-5
12 FIGURE 8.0-6
6 13 FIGURE 8.0-7
14 FIGURE 8.0-8
7 Future Development
PROJECT YEAR YEAR PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2013 2035 ADT ADT Campus Park or Passerelle 8,500 43,395 RES, COM, SCH, OFF Campus Park West or Pappas 3,830 40,000 RES, COM, SCH, COL Village Square at Valley Center 18,704 18,704 RES, SCH, PARK Meadowood Plan Replacement or Pardee 8,840 8,840 SHOP, MED, COM, RES Warner Ranch 4,500 10,128 RES, SCH, PARK San Pasqual Indian Reservation (Casino / Hotel) 3,000 10,010 RES Rincon Casino 3,000 8,270 CASINO, HOTEL Pala Gaming Facility 3,000 6,400 CASINO, HOTEL Pauma Gaming Facility 5,200 5,200 CASINO, REST, ENT San Luis Rey Park Master Plan 5,620 5,620 PARK
RES = RESIDENTIAL, COM = COMMERCIAL, SCH = SCHOOL, OFF = OFFICE, COL = COLLEGE, PARK = PARKS, REST = RESTAURANT, ENT = ENTERTAINMENT 15
Next Steps
z Prioritize projects z Identify funding opportunities z Implement improvements
16
8 Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Borders Committee November 30, 2007 1
Background
• SANDAG received Caltrans grant to conduct Tribal Transit Study • Consultant retained and work begun in 2006 • Study done in conjunction with Tribal Transportation Working Group and Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA)
2
1 Study Objective
• Examine feasibility of add or improving transit service for tribal lands • Develop service concepts and cost estimates for feasible services
3
Needs Identified in Study
• Range of Trip Purposes • Medical/Shopping/Social • Recreational/Work • Range of Origins/Destinations • Indian Health Clinics/ Escondido/El Cajon/Casinos • Elders in Community Often Have Fewest Alternatives 4
2 Needs Cont….
• Difficulty Getting to the Existing Fixed Route Transit Services • Need for More Frequent Services • Need to Close Service Gaps to Los Coyotes, La Posta, and Other Reservations
5
Transportation Corridors
6
3 North Corridor New Services
7
North Service Descriptions
Days/ Reservations Connecting No. of Route Served Routes Veh Trips A – Pala/ • Pala 388 MWF Rincon • Pauma & Yuima 2 RT • Rincon • San Pasqual • La Jolla B – Santa • Los Coyotes 386,891/892, Th Ysabel/ FAST Ramona • Mesa Grande 2 RT • Santa Ysabel
8
4 South Corridor Routes
9
South Service Descriptions
Days/ Reservations Connecting No. of Veh Route Served Routes Trips C - Barona • Barona 386,891/892, F FAST,848,864 2 RT D – • Ewiiaapaayp 864 T Campo/Viejas • La Posta 2 RT • Manzanita •Campo E – Sycuan/ • Sycuan 815,864 WF Viejas • Viejas 2 RT
10
5 Improvements to Existing Routes
• Route 388 - Restructure into Loop Using I-15 and Increase Frequency from 150-180 to 120 Minutes • Bus Stop Improvements, Especially at Transfer Locations
11
Mobility Manager/Coordinator
• Actions to Be Evaluated in Upcoming TDM Study • Information Dissemination & Referral – Trip Planning • Coordinate Volunteers, Car/Vanpooling, etc. – Build on Current “Local” Solutions – Maintain Resource Database – Provide Financial Aid / Compensation • Coordinate Employee Access to Casinos – Collaborative Arrangements for Planning & Costs – Coordinated Work Schedules & Multi-Casino Shuttle
12
6 Preliminary Cost Estimates
Annual Operating Option Subsidy Capital Cost New Service $81,000 $705,000
Increase $327,000 $120,000 Frequency Rt 388 Stop $60,000 $165,000 Improvements
13
Funding Options • Range of potential funding options identified but best option is FTA SectiSectionon 5311(c) Tribal Transit – New in SAFETEA-LU, expires in FFY 2010 – Pays 100% of operating cost after fares – Annual national competition but can award for up to three years • Grant application submitted by RTA based on technical work prepared by SANDAG consultant • Letters of support from SANDAG, MTS & NCTD
14
7 Next Steps
• Grant award decision expected early next year • TDM Project underway
15
Today’s Action
• Borders Committee asked to forward this report to SANDAG Board of Directors for their acceptance
16
8 Tribal Transit Feasibility Study
Transportation Committee November 30, 2007
17
9