Members Jack Dale, Chair Councilmember, Santee (Representing East County) Matt Hall, Vice Chair Councilmember, Carlsbad (Representing North County Coastal) Jim Desmond Mayor, San Marcos (Representing North County Inland) Carrie Downey TRANSPORTATION Mayor Pro Tem, Coronado (Representing South County) COMMITTEE Anthony Young, Councilmember City of San Diego AGENDA Ron Roberts, Supervisor County of San Diego Harry Mathis, Chairman Metropolitan Transit System Friday, March 5, 2010 Bob Campbell, Chairman North County Transit District 9 a.m. to 12 noon Tom Smisek SANDAG Board Room San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 401 B Street, 7th Floor Alternates San Diego Art Madrid Mayor, La Mesa (Representing East County) Carl Hilliard Councilmember, Del Mar AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS (Representing North County Coastal) Judy Ritter Mayor Pro Tem, Vista • SMART GROWTH TRIP GENERATION STUDY (Representing North County Inland) Jim King • TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM Councilmember, Imperial Beach (Representing South County) SCHEDULE AND FUNDING ISSUES Todd Gloria, Councilmember City of San Diego • DRAFT 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Marti Emerald, Councilmember PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN City of San Diego Greg Cox, Supervisor County of San Diego Bill Horn, Vice-Chairman County of San Diego Pam Slater-Price, Chairwoman PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING County of San Diego Jerry Rindone, Vice Chair Metropolitan Transit System Dave Roberts / Carl Hilliard YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE North County Transit District MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG Vacant San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Advisory Members Laurie Berman / Bill Figge MISSION STATEMENT District 11 Director, Caltrans The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. Albert Phoenix (Barona) SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, plans, engineers, Francine Kupsch (Los Coyotes) and builds public transit, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association region's quality of life.
Gary L. Gallegos San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 Executive Director, SANDAG (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ www.sandag.org
Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Transportation 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 Transportation 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 Transportation 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 511 or see 511sd.com for route information.
2 Rev 020810 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Friday, March 5, 2010
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
+1. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 19, 2010, MEETING MINUTES APPROVE
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Transportation Committee on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee that is not on this agenda. 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.
REPORTS (3 through 8)
+3. SMART GROWTH TRIP GENERATION STUDY (Christine Eary) RECOMMEND
Preparation of a smart growth trip generation study is called for as a strategic initiative of the Regional Comprehensive Plan. SANDAG has been working with a consultant team led by Fehr & Peers to prepare this study, with ongoing input from members of the San Diego Regional Traffic Engineers Council, the Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee, and the Regional Planning Technical Working Group. The scope of work was presented to the Transportation Committee on June 20, 2008. The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors accept Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth: Planning Tools for the San Diego Region (in substantially the same form as attached to the report) for inclusion into the San Diego Traffic Generators Manual as an appendix and as a resource in the SANDAG Smart Growth Toolbox.
+4. SOUTH LINE RAIL FREIGHT CAPACITY PROJECT: FINAL MITIGATED ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Pete d'Ablaing)
The Transportation Committee was presented with a status update on the project at its December 11, 2009, meeting. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was circulated for a 30-day public review and comment period in January 2010. SANDAG received comments on the draft MND that have been incorporated into the final MND. The Transportation Committee is asked to adopt the final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South Line Rail Freight Capacity Project.
3 5. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM SCHEDULE AND FUNDING ISSUES:
+A. PILOT SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM SCHEDULE APPROVE ADJUSTMENTS (Stephan Vance)
Four projects under this program have experienced delays that required action by the Transportation Committee under the Transportation Enhancement program’s use-it- or-lose-it policy. The Transportation Committee is asked to approve schedule extensions for the University Avenue Mobility Project, Commercial Street Streetscape Improvements, 25th Street Renaissance Project, and Maple Street Promenade in substantially the same form as attached to the report.
+B. PILOT SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM FUNDING OPTIONS RECOMMEND (Stephan Vance)
The revised schedules recommended in Part A of this item would result in a loss of $2.225 million to the region until the end of the next State Transportation Improvement Program period unless the funds can be used on an alternative project this fiscal year. A series of funding options have been explored and are presented for consideration. An exchange of funds with a Bayshore Bikeway project currently being developed by SANDAG is ultimately recommended as it preserves access to these funds in the current fiscal year and allows for an exchange with the delayed Pilot Smart Growth projects, should the Transportation Committee approve the schedule revisions in Part A of this item. Therefore, the Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors: (1) reprogram $1.796 million in FY 2010 Transportation Enhancement funds for the Bayshore Bikeway project, which includes an FY 2010 project budget increase of $718,300; (2) approve an amendment to the FY 2010 SANDAG Budget to add these funds to the Bayshore Bikeway project; and (3) reprogram $1.078 million in TransNet Active Transportation funds for the Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program in FY 2011.
+6. LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO (LOSSAN) RAIL CORRIDOR RECOMMEND AGENCY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND BYLAWS CHANGES (Linda Culp)
The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency seeks to increase ridership, revenue, capacity, reliability, and safety on the coastal rail line from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo. Known as Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner corridor, it is the second busiest intercity passenger rail corridor nationwide and Amtrak's fastest growing. Since 2008, LOSSAN and its member agencies have studied how to better integrate the corridor's three passenger rail services. As a result, the LOSSAN Board of Directors recently approved an integrated corridorwide vision that necessitates several changes to the rail corridor agency's Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Bylaws, which need to be approved by each member agency. The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve the changes to the LOSSAN Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Bylaws in substantially the same form as attached to the report
4 +7. DRAFT 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT DISCUSSION PLAN (Anne Steinberger)
Staff will present an overview of the draft 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Public Involvement Plan. The draft plan includes goals and objectives as well as strategies and tactics for conducting outreach throughout the RTP and SCS development process. The draft plan was presented to the Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group on February 16, 2010. The draft plan also is being presented to the Regional Planning Committee for review and comment. The Transportation Committee is asked to review and comment on the draft plan.
+8. INTERSTATE 15 VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM STUDY UPDATE INFORMATION (Ellison Alegre)
Staff will provide a report on the Interstate 15 (I-15) Violation Enforcement System study. In conjunction with the construction of Managed Lanes and the development of FasTrak® value pricing on the I-15 corridor, SANDAG is assessing various state-of- the-art technologies and performing proof-of-concept testing of advanced vehicle occupancy applications for potential implementation. The report will provide an overview of the project, describe previous work tasks, and provide an update on the current testing phase.
9. UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION
The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for Friday, March 19, 2010, at 9 a.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment
5 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
March 5, 2010 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1
Action Requested: APPROVE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2010
The meeting of the Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Jack Dale (East County) at 9:03 a.m. See the attached attendance sheet for Transportation Committee member attendance.
1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Jim Desmond (North County Inland) and a second by Chairman Harry Mathis (Metropolitan Transit System [MTS]), the Transportation Committee approved the minutes from the February 5, 2010, meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Renée Wasmund, Chief Deputy Executive Director, announced that the region has been awarded $20.2 million from the federal TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grants for the Interstate 805/905 (I-805/905) Interchange project.
CONSENT (3)
3. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS (RECOMMEND)
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides funding for capital and operating assistance to agencies providing rural transportation through the Section 5311 Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program. Staff proposes apportioning the FY 2010 Section 5311 funds to the Metropolitan Transit System and the North County Transit District by formula based on rural population within each agency’s service area.
Action: Upon a motion by Vice Chair Matt Hall (North County Coastal) and a second by Chairman Mathis, the Transportation Committee recommended approval of Consent Item 3 and that the Board of Directors approve the programming of a total of $573,893 in FTA Section 5311 funds.
REPORTS (4 through 8)
4. 2008 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: AMENDMENT NO. 21 (APPROVE)
On July 25, 2008 the Board of Directors adopted the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), the five-year program of proposed major highway, arterial, transit, and bikeway
projects in the San Diego region covering the period FY 2009 to FY 2013. SANDAG processes amendments to the RTIP generally on a quarterly basis and occasionally on a more frequent basis as circumstances arise. This amendment is outside of the regular quarterly cycle in response to the urgency related to the programming of safety projects as requested by Caltrans.
Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Desmond and a second by Tom Smisek (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority [SDCRAA]), the Transportation Committee approved Amendment No. 21 to the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
5. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET AMENDMENT: KEARNY MESA DIVISION BUILDING REHABILITATION PROJECT (APPROVE)
Action: Upon a motion by Chairman Mathis and a second by Councilmember Carrie Downey (South County), the Transportation Committee approved the transfer of $150,000 from the Kearny Mesa Division Drop Table project CIP 1100200 to the Kearny Mesa Division Building Rehabilitation project CIP 1128900 in order to fund pavement and building improvements.
6. TRANSIT REVENUE ESTIMATES (RECOMMEND)
By March 1 of each year, SANDAG provides operating revenue estimates and allocations to the transit operators.
Sookyung Kim, Financial Programming Manager, introduced the item and presented the operating revenue estimates and allocations.
Marney Cox, Chief Economist, discussed the current economic conditions and the impact on the operating revenue estimates.
Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Downey and a second by Mayor Desmond, the Transportation Committee recommended that the Board of Directors approve the transit revenue estimates for FY 2011 to FY 2015 for Transportation Development Act, TransNet, and Federal Transit Administration programs.
7. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMMING (INFORMATION)
There are a number of challenges and opportunities in the current transportation funding and project delivery arena to further advance the TransNet Early Action Program (EAP). The prolonged recession and slow recovery continue to manifest themselves with lower than expected bids, often with substantial savings. In addition, the federal government’s interest in further stimulating the economy may provide additional funding opportunities. Offsetting these opportunities are the lower sales tax revenues that are being collected regionally. This report outlines preliminary options to take advantage of these opportunities to leverage limited local sales tax funds.
José A. Nuncio, Manager of Financial Programming and Project Control, presented the item.
Clive Richard, a member of the public, spoke regarding support for this item.
Action: This item was presented for information.
2 8. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE (INFORMATION)
Kimberly Weinstein, Associate Regional Planner, provided an update on the agency's transportation demand management program known as iCommute including an overview of the vanpool program, recent outreach efforts, and the available web services.
Action: This item was presented for information.
9. UPCOMING MEETINGS
The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for Friday, March 5, 2010, at 9 a.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Dale adjourned the meeting at 9:52 a.m.
Attachment: Attendance Sheet
3
CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE SANDAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 2010 MEMBER/ GEOGRAPHICAL AREA/ JURISDICTION NAME ATTENDING ALTERNATE ORGANIZATION
North County Coastal City of Carlsbad Matt Hall (Vice Member Yes Chair)
City of Del Mar Carl Hilliard Alternate No
North County Inland City of San Marcos Jim Desmond Member Yes
City of Vista Judy Ritter Alternate Yes
East County City of Santee Jack Dale (Chair) Member Yes
City of La Mesa Art Madrid Alternate Yes
South County City of Coronado Carrie Downey Member Yes
City of Imperial Beach Jim King Alternate Yes
---- Anthony Young Member Yes
---- Todd Gloria Alternate Yes City of San Diego
---- Marti Emerald Alternate No
---- Ron Roberts Member Yes
County of San Diego ---- Greg Cox Alternate No
---- Slater-Price Alternate No
Metropolitan Transit MTS Harry Mathis Member Yes System MTS Jerry Rindone Alternate Yes
North County Transit NCTD Bob Campbell Member No District NCTD Dave Roberts Alternate No
NCTD Carl Hilliard Alternate Yes
San Diego County Tom Smisek Member Yes Regional Airport Vacant Alternate No Authority
ADVISORY/LIAISON ---- Laurie Berman Member No Caltrans ___ Bill Figge Alternate Yes
SCTCA _____ Albert Phoenix Member Yes
Francine Kupsch Alternate No
Denis Turner Alternate No
4 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
March 5, 2010 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3
Action Requested: RECOMMEND
SMART GROWTH TRIP GENERATION STUDY File Number 3100000
Introduction Recommendation
Smart growth developments are generally The Transportation Committee is asked to perceived to generate fewer vehicle trips and recommend that the Board of Directors less demand for parking as compared to accept Trip Generation and Parking conventional suburban developments, due to an Strategies for Smart Growth: Planning Tools increased number of trips via transit, walking, or for the San Diego Region (in substantially bicycling. However, there has been a lack of the same form as Attachment 1) for empirical data to demonstrate this in the San inclusion into San Diego Traffic Generators Diego region. Current trip generation and as an appendix, and as a resource in the parking supply guidelines are based on SANDAG Smart Growth Toolbox. conventional suburban development, perhaps imposing a burden on developers and jurisdictions to provide more roadway and parking capacity than is necessary in smart growth environments. Application of identified trip generation and parking demand rates appropriate for smart growth development could result in cost savings for jurisdictions, developers, homebuyers, and renters. Working with a consulting team, SANDAG staff and local stakeholders have completed Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth: Planning Tools for the San Diego Region. This study is called for as a strategic initiative of the Regional Comprehensive Plan, and is a component of the SANDAG Smart Growth Toolbox; it is intended to be a resource for local agencies as they implement smart growth development.
Discussion
Development of the Study
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth: Planning Tools for the San Diego Region was developed with input from the San Diego Regional Traffic Engineers Council (SANTEC), the Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), the San Diego Regional Planning Technical Working Group (TWG), the San Diego Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Task Force, and several stakeholders from these four groups. The consulting team assisting SANDAG included Fehr & Peers, VRPA Technologies and KTU+A.
The stakeholders and working groups listed above provided regular feedback over the course of the study regarding methodology and findings. The study incorporates comments from the stakeholders, as well as the working groups listed above. The study was well received by each of the working groups, whose members expressed that the study release is eagerly anticipated because it represents a substantial improvement over current methods of estimating trip generation in smart growth settings, and that they look forward to using the guidelines in their practice.
Content of the Study
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth: Planning Tools for the San Diego Region builds on a nationwide study completed for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The EPA study was authored by Jerry Walters of Fehr & Peers, and renowned transportation experts Reid Ewing and Robert Cervero, among others. Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth: Planning Tools for the San Diego Region identifies vehicle trip generation rates associated with smart growth developments. The study addresses the following questions:
1. Does smart growth development result in lower vehicle trip generation rates and decreased parking demand as compared to traditional development? If so, what rates have been observed? 2. What are the characteristics of smart growth development that account for identified reductions in vehicle trip generation and parking demand? 3. Can identified vehicle trip generation rates associated with smart growth development in other regions be applied in the San Diego region? Have similar results been found locally?
The study findings will be used to:
• Supplement the SANDAG San Diego Traffic Generators Manual (the Manual was last updated in 2000, and currently lists trip reduction guidelines only for mixed-use developments and those located within a quarter-mile of a transit station); • Provide data as a resource for local jurisdictions when planning smart growth development; and • Provide data as a resource for planning activities at the specific plan/community plan level.
Extensive research into the nature of smart growth developments has identified seven characteristics that may influence trip generation and parking demand in such settings: 1. Density 5. Distance to transit 2. Diversity of uses 6. Demographics 3. Urban design 7. Development scale 4. Destination accessibility
The consultant team used data collected from smart growth developments in the San Diego region and elsewhere to investigate relationships between trip generation and the above factors. Data collection took place at six smart growth development sites using traffic counts, and at twenty Smart Growth Opportunity Areas (SGOA), using data from the SANDAG Regional Household Travel Behavior Survey.
Study Findings
The study found that at both the site level and at the SGOA level, reductions in vehicle trips were observed for smart growth development, relative to the number of trips that would be expected to occur in typical suburban developments. These findings suggest that trip generation will generally be overestimated at smart growth developments if appropriate trip reductions are not included in the calculations.
2
The study also included a review of current literature and best practices regarding parking at mixed- use and transit-oriented developments. The findings were compared to an assessment of parking standards utilized by local agencies in the region. The study found that a number of cities in the region provide accommodations for smart growth development in their parking requirements, but that typical parking requirements in the region provide an excess supply of parking relative to demand documented in nationwide studies. Additional measures to provide parking appropriate to smart growth developments could potentially be implemented, and further study in the region is warranted.
Next Steps
With the Transportation Committee recommendation, the study will be presented to the Board of Directors for acceptance. With the Board’s acceptance, the study will be included in San Diego Traffic Generators as an appendix, and will be distributed in print form and electronically through the SANDAG web site for use by local agencies and transportation professionals, as a resource in the SANDAG Smart Growth Toolbox.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachment: 1. Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth: Planning Tools for the San Diego Region
Key Staff Contact: Christine Eary, (619) 699-6928, [email protected]
3 Attachment 1
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus; plans, engineers, and builds public transit; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates resources; and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.
CHAIR FIRST VICE CHAIR SECOND VICE CHAIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler Hon. Jerome Stocks Hon. Jack Dale Gary L. Gallegos
MEMBERS CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Jim Desmond, Mayor CITY OF CARLSBAD (A) Hon. Hal Martin, Vice Mayor Hon. Matt Hall, Councilmember (A) Hon. Rebecca Jones, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tem CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Jack Dale, Councilmember CITY OF CHULA VISTA (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember Hon. Cheryl Cox, Mayor (A) Hon. John Minto, Councilmember (A) Hon. Rudy Ramirez, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Steve Castaneda, Councilmember CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon. Lesa Heebner, Deputy Mayor CITY OF CORONADO (A) Hon. Dave Roberts, Councilmember Hon. Carrie Downey, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Mike Nichols, Councilmember (A) Hon. Al Ovrom, Councilmember (A) Hon. Michael Woiwode, Councilmember CITY OF VISTA Hon. Judy Ritter, Mayor Pro Tem CITY OF DEL MAR (A) Hon. Bob Campbell, Councilmember Hon. Crystal Crawford, Councilmember (A) Hon. Steve Gronke, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mark Filanc, Councilmember (A) Hon. Richard Earnest, Mayor COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Pam Slater-Price, Chairwoman CITY OF EL CAJON (A) Hon. Greg Cox, Supervisor Hon. Mark Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Ron Roberts, Chair Pro Tem (A) Hon. Jillian Hanson-Cox, Councilmember Hon. Bill Horn, Vice Chair (A) Hon. Dianne Jacob, Supervisor CITY OF ENCINITAS Hon. Jerome Stocks, Councilmember (A) Hon. Teresa Barth, Councilmember ADVISORY MEMBERS (A) Hon. Dan Dalager, Mayor IMPERIAL COUNTY CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Wally Leimgruber, District 5 Supervisor Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Mayor (A) Hon. David Ouzan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Sam Abed, Councilmember CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Randell H. Iwasaki, Director Hon. Jim Janney, Mayor (A) Laurie Berman, District 11 Director (A) Hon. Patricia McCoy, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Jim King, Councilmember METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM Harry Mathis, Chairman CITY OF LA MESA (A) Hon. Ron Roberts Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Selby (A) Hon. Mark Arapostathis, Councilmember (A) Hon. David Allan, Vice Mayor NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Hon. Bob Campbell, Chairman CITY OF LEMON GROVE (A) Hon. Carl Hilliard, Planning Committee Chair Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom, Mayor (A) Hon. Dave Roberts, Monitoring Committee Chair (A) Hon. Jerry Jones, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Jerry Selby, Councilmember U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CAPT Keith Hamilton, USN, CEC, CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command Hon. Ron Morrison, Mayor (A) CAPT James W. Wink, USN, CEC (A) Hon. Frank Parra, Vice Mayor Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (A) Hon. Rosalie Zarate, Councilmember SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT CITY OF OCEANSIDE Scott Peters, Commissioner Hon. Jim Wood, Mayor (A) Stephen Padilla, Commissioner (A) Hon. Jerry Kern, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jack Feller, Councilmember SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Mark Muir, Director CITY OF POWAY (A) Howard Williams, Director Hon. Don Higginson, Mayor (A) Gary Croucher, Director (A) Hon. Jim Cunningham, Councilmember (A) Hon. Carl Kruse, Deputy Mayor SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN’S ASSOCIATION CITY OF SAN DIEGO Chairman Allen Lawson (San Pasqual), SCTCA Chair Hon. Jerry Sanders, Mayor (A) Chairman Edwin ‘Thorpe’ Romero (A) Hon. Anthony Young, Councilmember (A) Denis Turner, SCTCA Executive Director (A) Hon. Sherri Lightner, Councilmember Hon. Ben Hueso, Council President MEXICO (A) Hon. Marti Emerald, Councilmember Hon. Remedios Gómez-Arnau (A) Hon. Todd Gloria, Councilmember Cónsul General of Mexico Hon. Martha E. Rosas, Deputy Cónsul General of Mexico As of February 9, 2010
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SANDAG COMMITTEES AND OTHER WORKING GROUPS
Regional Planning Committee Smart Growth Trip Generation Study Transportation Committee Informal Working Group: San Diego Regional Traffic Engineers Council Maureen Gardiner, City of San Diego Ann French Gonsalves, City of San Diego Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee Samir Hajjiri, City of San Diego San Diego Regional Planning Technical Working Group Gary Halbert, City of Chula Vista San Diego Institute of Transportation Engineers Dave Kaplan, City of Chula Vista Transportation Capacity and Mobility Task Force
SANDAG STAFF
Gary Gallegos, Executive Director Alex Estrella, Senior Transportation Planner Charles “Muggs” Stoll Mike Calandra, Senior Transportation Modeler Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Rick Curry, Senior Transportation Modeler Bob Leiter, FAICP Christine Eary, Associate Regional Planner, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning (retired) Project Manager Coleen Clementson, Principal Planner Andy Gordon, Research Analyst II Clint Daniels, Manager of Regional Information Systems
CONSULTANT TEAM
Fehr & Peers VRPA Technologies Jerry Walters, PE, Principal, Chief Technical Officer Erik Ruehr, PE, Director of Traffic Engineering Richard Lee, PhD, AICP, Associate, Project Manager Mark Feldman, Transportation Engineer KTU+A Chris Gray, AICP, Associate Mike Singleton, AICP, ASLA, Principal Lisa Levasseur, EIP, Transportation Engineer Mackenzie Watten, EIP, Transportation Engineer
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND STUDY FINDINGS ...... 1
Background ...... 1 Study Contents ...... 1 Study Findings...... 2
THE MIXED-USE METHOD: CALCULATING TRIP GENERATION FOR SMART GROWTH SETTINGS...... 3
Background ...... 3 Development of the Mixed-Use Method ...... 3 Method Structure and Outputs...... 4 Probabilities ...... 4 Mixed-Use Method Validation...... 5 Application of the Mixed-Use Method for San Diego Sites ...... 6 Study Areas ...... 6 Data Collection...... 7 Analysis: SGOAs ...... 7 Analysis: Small Mixed-Use/TOD Sites With Counts ...... 8 Additional Comments...... 9
PARKING FOR SMART GROWTH...... 11
Introduction ...... 11 Existing Local Jurisdiction Parking Requirements in the San Diego Region ...... 12 Exceptions to Standard Parking Requirements: Accommodations for Smart Growth ...... 12 ITE Parking Generation: Implications for Smart Growth Parking...... 14 Residential Parking Demand...... 15 Office Parking Demand...... 15 Retail Parking Demand...... 16 Other Studies of Smart Growth Parking Demand and Policies ...... 17 Cervero et al (2009)...... 17 Caltrans (2002)...... 17
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Complementary Programs to Ensure and Enhance Smart Growth Parking Demand Reductions...... 20 Transit Pass Purchase Programs...... 20 Employer Assistance With Transit Costs ...... 20 Shared Parking ...... 21 Car-Sharing ...... 21 Unbundling Parking ...... 22 Conclusions: Suggested Parking Rates for Smart Growth Developments ...... 22 Residential Multifamily...... 22 Office ...... 24 Retail ...... 24 Parking Management Strategies for Smart Growth Developments ...... 25
REFERENCES ...... 27
APPENDICES
1 Locations of Counted Sites 2 SANDAG Raw Trips Calculation Backup 3 Vehicle Trip Reduction for SGOAs 4 Data Sources for SGOA Land Use Data
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) vi
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures
1 Net Vehicle Trip Reduction for SGOAs With Greater Than 100 Survey Records ...... 8 2 East Bay Results: Peak-Parking Generation Rates Relative to Supply Levels and ITE Standard...... 18 3 Probability of Transit Use by Employees at TODs Relative to Employer Transit Assistance and Parking Supply ...... 21
Tables
1 Mixed-Use Method Analysis for SANDAG Sites...... 9 2 Typical San Diego Region Parking Standards by Jurisdiction...... 13 3 Parking Demand vs. Existing San Diego Jurisdiction Parking Requirements ...... 16 4 TOD Nonresidential Parking Reduction Case Studies...... 20 5 Potential Reduction in Parking Demand and Effectiveness of Parking Strategies ...... 23 6 Suggested San Diego Smart Growth Development Parking Rates ...... 25 7 Recommended San Diego Smart Growth Development Parking Strategies ...... 25
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) vii
INTRODUCTION AND STUDY FINDINGS
BACKGROUND
Smart growth developments are generally perceived to generate fewer vehicle trips and less demand for parking as compared to conventional suburban developments due to an increased number of trips via transit, walking, or bicycling. However, there has been a lack of empirical data to demonstrate this in the San Diego region. Current trip generation and parking supply guidelines are based on conventional suburban development, perhaps imposing a burden on developers and jurisdictions to provide more roadway and parking capacity than is necessary in smart growth environments. Application of identified trip generation and parking demand rates appropriate for smart growth development could result in cost savings for jurisdictions, developers, homebuyers, and renters.
SANDAG’S Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), adopted in 2004, offers a vision for change in the San Diego region that strongly emphasizes sustainability and smart growth. Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth: Planning Tools for the San Diego Region is called for as a strategic initiative of the RCP and is a component of the SANDAG Smart Growth Toolbox; it is intended to be a resource for local agencies as they implement smart growth development.
The results of the study are intended to provide a richer, more accurate accounting of vehicle trip reduction associated with mixed-use and transit-oriented development (TOD) in smart growth environments, compared to current local and national methods of calculating trip generation. This information is intended to supplement data in the San Diego Traffic Generators Manual, published by SANDAG in 2000, and the accompanying Not-so-Brief-Guide to Trip Generation, published by SANDAG in 2002. Whereas the Not-so-Brief-Guide suggests application of generic vehicle trip reductions of 5 percent for locations within one-quarter mile of transit and 10 percent for mixed- use, the method outlined in this study accounts for the uniqueness of each smart growth development site and proposes reductions based on the specific context in which each site is situated.
STUDY CONTENTS
This study presents an overview of a mixed-use development trip generation method (Mixed-Use Method) recently developed by a team led by Fehr & Peers to improve vehicle trip generation forecasts for mixed-use developments. This method was applied to a series of smart growth sites in the San Diego area. The results are presented in this study.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 1 Introduction and Study Findings
The study also presents an examination of parking requirements in smart growth settings. A summary of current academic literature regarding parking demand and strategies relative to smart growth is included, as well as an analysis of parking requirements throughout the San Diego region. Policy guidance regarding effective parking strategies in smart growth environments based on data from the aforementioned studies also is included.
STUDY FINDINGS
The study found that at both the site level and at the Smart Growth Opportunity Area (SGOA) level, reductions in vehicle trips were observed for smart growth development, relative to the number of trips that would be expected to occur in typical suburban developments. These findings suggest that trip generation will generally be overestimated at smart growth developments if appropriate trip reductions are not included in the calculations.
The study also identified and validated a method to account for the amounts of trip reduction attributable to smart growth development forms. This Mixed Use Method, initially developed for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers, accounts for the degree to which mixed-use sites internally capture travel and the extent to which smart growth site design and context result in walking, biking, and transit use. The study validated the Mixed-Use Method for use within the San Diego region by comparing the method’s trip generation estimates to actual travel data from twenty of the region’s SGOAs and six smaller mixed-use/transit-oriented development (TOD) sites.
The Mixed-Use Method described in this study for calculating vehicle trip reduction in smart growth settings has been developed into a spreadsheet tool for use by local land use and transportation planners and engineers. This tool is intended to accompany this study and is available from SANDAG.
The study also included a review of current literature and best practices regarding parking in smart growth environments. The findings were compared to an assessment of parking standards utilized by local agencies in the region. The study found that a number of cities in the region provide accommodations for smart growth development in their parking requirements, but that typical parking requirements in the region provide an excess supply of parking relative to demand documented in nationwide studies. Additional measures to provide parking appropriate to smart growth developments could potentially be implemented.
The study did not include collection of empirical parking demand data in the San Diego region. Therefore, further study in the region, at a neighborhood level, is warranted to examine if parking demand in San Diego smart growth areas deviates significantly from demand observed in nationwide studies, and to determine appropriate strategies for particular locations. Additionally, the study does not address parking requirements for public transit stations and downtown San Diego.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 2
THE MIXED-USE METHOD: CALCULATING TRIP GENERATION FOR SMART GROWTH SETTINGS
BACKGROUND
Development that integrates multiple land use types on a single site has become increasingly common. However, the data presented in The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE’s) Trip Generation informational report and in the San Diego Traffic Generators Manual is primarily collected at single-use, free-standing sites. This defining characteristic limits the applicability of these “standard” trip rates to mixed-use or multi-use development projects and smart growth environments. While the number of person trips generated by individual uses may be similar to free-standing sites, the potential for interaction among on-site activities can significantly reduce the total number of vehicle trips. Additionally, mixed-use projects located in areas with a variety of nearby destinations and high-quality transit access will produce fewer vehicle trips due to a larger share of trips entering and exiting the site on foot, on bicycle, or by transit.
Development of the Mixed-Use Method
In order to provide a straightforward and empirically validated method of estimating vehicle trip generation at mixed-use developments, the United States EPA (under review by the ITE) sponsored a national study of the trip generation characteristics of multi-use sites. Travel survey data was gathered from 239 mixed-use developments (MXDs) in six major metropolitan regions, correlated with the characteristics of the sites and their surroundings, and validated through cordon traffic counts at 16 additional sites. The findings indicate that the amount of external traffic generated is affected by a wide variety of factors, each pertaining to one or more of the following “D” characteristics: density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, development scale, demographics, and distance to transit.
The characteristics were related statistically to the vehicle trip reductions observed in these developments. Vehicle Trip reduction is defined as a percentage reduction that can be applied to trip generation estimates for individual land uses to account for trips internal to the site and trips taken to nearby sites by walking, bicycling, or by transit. The statistical relationships between the “D” characteristics and the trip reductions observed in the surveys produced equations, collectively known as the Mixed-Use Method, which allow the user to predict the vehicle trip reduction as a function of the D characteristics.
In practice, the Mixed-Use Method is implemented in two steps: first, one computes the theoretical vehicle counts in and out of the site from an external source of standard trip rates or equations (the product of this calculation is known as raw trips). Typically this source is the ITE Trip Generation
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 3 The Mixed-Use Method: Calculating Trip Generation for Smart Growth Setting informational report, but in this SANDAG-specific study, the source is the San Diego Traffic Generators manual. Then, one applies the predicted trip reduction percentage to the initial raw trips calculation to produce an estimate for the number of vehicle trips traveling in or out of the site.
Method Structure and Outputs
The Mixed-Use Method consists of four steps to achieve an estimate of daily vehicle trips on external roadways generated by the mixed-use development. The four steps and outputs are:
1. Compute daily trip estimates using standard rates or equations from an external source (raw trips). These estimates do not assume any internalization, and only minimal trips made by walking and/or transit modes.
2. Compute the probability of a trip staying internal to the mixed-use development.
3. Compute the probability an external trip will be made by walking or bicycling.
4. Compute the probability an external trip will be made by transit.
Mathematically, if we call the above probabilities generated in steps 2-4 above Pinternal, Pwalkbike, and Ptransit, respectively, the desired result of number of external vehicle trips generated by mixed-use/TOD is illustrated in the following equation:
External Vehicle Trips Generated by Mixed-Use/TOD Development = Raw Trips * (1 – Pinternal) * (1 – Pwalkbike – Ptransit)
It should be noted that although the result of the above equation (the net number of external vehicle trips) has been formally validated, the component probabilities have not, largely due to lack of data for validation.
Probabilities
The three probability models (Pinternal, Pwalkbike, and Ptransit) depend on variables that are characteristics of the MXD, either input or calculated by the spreadsheet.
The variables for Pinternal are: Employment Land area Jobs/population diversity (a measure of land use balance) Number of intersections per square mile (a measure of walkability and connectedness among land uses) Average household size Vehicles owned per capita
The variables for Pwalkbike are: Land area Jobs/population diversity Retail jobs/population diversity
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 4 The Mixed-Use Method: Calculating Trip Generation for Smart Growth Setting
Employment within one mile (walking distance) Population + employment per square mile Number of intersections per square mile Average household size Vehicles owned per capita
The variables for Ptransit are: Employment Number of intersections per square mile Employment within a 30-minute trip by transit Average household size Vehicles owned per capita
These variables are all examples of the "7Ds" that are known to influence travel behavior: density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, development scale, demographics, and distance to transit.
Mixed-Use Method Validation
In the initial validation of the Mixed-Use Method, a set of 16 independent mixed-use sites that were not included in the initial analysis were tested to help validate the method. Validation sites were comprised of mixed-use developments and areas ranging in size from approximately 5 acres to over 1,000 acres, located in diverse regions across the United States, including Florida, Northern and Southern California, Georgia, and Texas.
The validation tests produced two types of performance measures: root mean squared error (RMSE) and pseudo R-squared. RMSE is a measure of the percentage by which the trip generation estimates produced by the method deviate from the actual trip generation counted at each of the study sites. The lower the RMSE deviation, the more accurate is the prediction method. R-squared is a measure of how well the prediction method accounts for the degree of variation in trip generation from one site to another, with a value of 0.5 indicating an ability to explain 50 percent of the variation among cases and a value of 1.0 indicating a perfect ability to capture the variation in trips from one site to another.
Among the validation sites, use of the Mixed-Use Method produced a significantly better root mean squared error (RMSE) and pseudo-R squared than traditional methods when comparing estimated to observed external vehicle trips. Estimates from the ITE Trip Generation manual had an RMSE of 40 percent and pseudo-R squared of 0.58, and modified estimates using ITE's traditional trip internalization techniques had an RMSE of 32 percent and pseudo-R squared of 0.73. Estimates produced by the Mixed-Use Method had an RMSE of only 26 percent and pseudo-R squared of 0.82. This means that the Mixed-Use Method explains roughly 82 percent of the variation in trip generation among the 16 sites, with the remaining 18 percent attributable to variables not included in the method.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 5 The Mixed-Use Method: Calculating Trip Generation for Smart Growth Setting
APPLICATION OF THE MIXED-USE METHOD FOR SAN DIEGO SITES
To ground-truth the Mixed-Use Method for use in the San Diego region, a series of tests were performed comparing the method’s estimations with actual traffic count data from a number of sites within the region. This included comparisons at both large SGOAs and smaller mixed-use and TOD sites.
Study Areas
Smart Growth Opportunity Areas
The SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map identifies a list of SGOAs classified into one of seven place types (Metropolitan Center, Urban Center, Town Center, Community Center, Rural Village, Mixed- Use Transit Corridor, and Special Use Center). Depending on whether the areas meet land use and transit service requirements for their place type, they are identified as either existing or potential SGOAs. SANDAG identified a list of 57 existing SGOAs to be studied in this analysis. These 57 SGOAs were chosen by virtue of having residential and employment densities on the ground that currently meet the prescribed thresholds for their place types.
Travel data for a representative group of SGOAs was compiled from the SANDAG 2006 Regional Household Travel Behavior Survey. The large size of the SGOAs, multiple access points, and potential for through trips made it unfeasible to count vehicle trip generation for these SGOAs explicitly. As a substitute for actual counts, data from the SANDAG 2006 Regional Household Travel Behavior Survey was used for these sites to generate comparisons for results obtained in the Mixed- Use Method. Of the 57 selected SGOAs, 20 were found to have enough trip records from the Travel Behavior Survey to be considered suitable for analysis (at least 100). These are discussed in more detail below under the heading “Analysis: SGOAs.” Appendix B contains more detailed information about the SGOAs that had enough trip records in the survey data to be analyzed. Appendix D contains the data sources for the SGOA land use data.
Small Mixed-Use/TOD Sites
Six additional smaller mixed-use/TOD sites were identified for comparing the Mixed-Use Method estimates to actual counts of vehicles entering and exiting each site. The selected sites were:
Station Village at Rio Vista Trolley Station, bounded by Camino Del Este, Rio San Diego Drive, Qualcomm Way, and the trolley tracks (residential and retail; trolley station and local bus)
La Mesa Village Plaza, bounded by La Mesa Boulevard, Acacia Avenue, Orange Avenue, and the train tracks (residential, retail, and office; trolley station)
The Uptown Center in the Hillcrest neighborhood, bound by University Avenue, Cleveland Avenue, Richmond Street, Washington Street, and SR-163 (residential and retail; high frequency local bus)
The Village at Morena Linda Vista Trolley Station, bound by Morena Boulevard, Linda Vista Road, Napa Street, and the train tracks (residential and retail; trolley station)
Hazard Center, bound by SR-163, Friars Road, Frazee Road, and Hazard Center Drive (retail and office; trolley station)
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 6 The Mixed-Use Method: Calculating Trip Generation for Smart Growth Setting
Heritage Town Center at Otay Ranch in Chula Vista, bound by Santa Rita Street, Palomar Street, Santa Andrea Street, and the southern end of the parking lot, not including the houses on Fieldbrook Street (residential, retail, and medical office).
Appendix A shows a set of maps illustrating the sites’ locations and the locations where traffic counts were taken.
Data Collection
Continuous 24-hour traffic counts were conducted at the six small mixed-use/TOD sites on typical midweek weekdays: Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Counts were conducted in October of 2008 for Otay Ranch, and in May and early June of 2009 (prior to the end of the K-12 school year) for all other sites at the site entrances shown in Appendix A.
Analysis: SGOAs
The Mixed-Use Method starts with a reliable local source of suburban single-use trip generation data, such as San Diego Traffic Generators. It then accounts for vehicle trip reductions attributable to the mix of land uses on the site, the development density, walking and transit options, and site context and regional accessibility. The resulting trip reduction percentage produces a predicted count of vehicles entering or exiting the site. The effectiveness of the method can be tested by comparing the observed counts to the method’s prediction. For most of the SGOAs, obtaining traffic counts entering and exiting the areas was not feasible due to the inability to filter out through trips; however, it also is possible to test the trip reduction percentage itself. Data from the SANDAG Regional Household Travel Behavior Survey was used to collect observed trip reduction percentages, which could be compared to the Mixed-Use Method’s predicted trip reduction percentages.
SANDAG staff provided Fehr & Peers with a data set of “flags” identifying which trips from the survey began and/or ended in one of the SGOAs. The trip data also included travel modes and party sizes. From this information, the total number of origins, destinations, and internalized trips (trips that begin and end in the same SGOA) by auto, walk, bicycle, and transit modes was computed for each SGOA. This was translated into observed values of PInternal, PWalkbike, and PTransit, as defined in the Mixed-Use Method Overview section above.
The analysis was performed for each of the 20 SGOAs that had at least 100 trips recorded in the survey. A cutoff of 100 trip records was chosen because in general, a sample size of between at least 30 to 40 is necessary for meaningful sample probabilities that are unlikely to vary significantly from their true values, and we are drawing three sample probabilities for each record (Pinternal, Pwalkbike, and Ptransit).
Figure 1 shows the estimated and observed trip reduction percentages for the 20 SGOAs. Vehicle trip reduction at the SGOA level averaged 24 percent relative to raw trip calculations and ranged from as high as 47 percent in downtown San Diego, to 32 percent in North Park/City Heights, and as low as 5 percent in Mira Mesa.
The dotted line represents an ideal model fit for comparison purposes. Overall, the Mixed-Use Method is a conservative predictor of trip reduction, underestimating trip reduction by about 10 percent on average, but the estimated and observed trip reductions are highly correlated.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 7 The Mixed-Use Method: Calculating Trip Generation for Smart Growth Setting
Figure 1 Net Vehicle Trip Reduction for SGOAs With Greater Than 100 Survey Records
60%
50% Survey) 40% Travel HH 30% Diego
(San
20%
Observed 10%
0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Estimated (Fehr & Peers Mixed‐Use Model)
Analysis: Small Mixed-Use/TOD Sites With Counts
For the small mixed-use/TOD sites, preliminary estimates of site trip generation were calculated from San Diego Traffic Generators trip rates and site land uses. These estimates of raw trips use suburban trip generation rates for single use sites and do not consider the effects of mixed-use development or transit access. The Mixed-Use Method was applied to each site and the trip reduction percentages were applied to the raw trips to obtain Mixed-Use Method net trips.
SANDAG staff provided site land uses and values for most of the Mixed-Use Method input variables. Some of the variables were determined by estimation methods, as follows:
Due to confidentiality restrictions associated with California Employment Development Department data, employment levels for some sites were not always reflective of current land uses in the SANDAG databases; in those cases, they were determined from the building areas and jobs per 1,000 square foot conversion ratios.
VRPA Technologies performed an independent set of land use data checks, collecting data from traffic studies wherever possible, and estimated building occupancy. Those estimates were taken into account in the calculation of raw trips.
Vehicle ownership per capita was calculated from 2000 Census data using the census block group(s) that most closely matched the sites’ locations.
SANDAG staff estimated employment within 30 minutes by transit using their regional travel demand model.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 8 The Mixed-Use Method: Calculating Trip Generation for Smart Growth Setting
Table 1 shows the SANDAG raw trips, the Mixed-Use Method’s count predictions, and the actual external vehicle trip counts. Detail behind the SANDAG raw trips calculations is provided in Appendix B.
Table 1 Mixed-Use Method Analysis for SANDAG Sites
Percent
Deviation 1 Mixed-Use External between Method Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Site Name Vehicle Trip Method Method and 2 Trip
Location Reduction Net Trips SANDAG 3 External Raw Trips Counts Percentage Vehicle Counts
Rio Vista Station Village San Diego 6,689 17% 5,538 5,307 4% La Mesa Village Plaza La Mesa 5,681 20% 4,539 4,280 6% Uptown Center San Diego 20,214 15% 17,097 16,886 1% The Village at Morena Linda Vista San Diego 6,375 26% 4,690 4,712 0% Hazard Center San Diego 15,051 12% 13,214 11,644 13% Heritage Center at Otay Ranch Chula Vista 10,505 7% 9,730 7,935 23%
(1) Using San Diego Traffic Generators Trip Rates; see Appendix B for details (2) Application of Fehr & Peers Mixed Use Trip Generation Reduction Percentages to (1) (3) Actual counts Source: Fehr & Peers, 2009
Based on the results shown in the table above, the Mixed-Use Method is an excellent predictor of external vehicle trips generated by smart growth development, tending to be slightly conservative, but without overestimating smart growth trips to the same degree as conventional trip generation methods. In all cases listed in Table 1, the Mixed-Use Method results in an estimation of external vehicle trips that is below the levels of estimated trip generation using raw trips alone and at or above the level of trips that were determined through actual counts. On average, the San Diego Traffic Generators trip generation rates for suburban development would overestimate traffic from the six sites by 29 percent, while the Mixed-Use Method reduces the average overestimate to 8 percent.
Additional Comments
The 20 larger SGOA sites analyzed in Figure 1 provide data for both validation of the Mixed-Use Method and for future refinements. It should be noted that the method’s underestimation of trip reduction is most noticeable when it comes to the transit trips component, and additional data could help improve future versions of the Mixed-Use Method. Data collection at additional sites in urban locations with high transit usage is recommended in order to uncover statistically significant variables that are related to the “distance to transit” characteristic. This will help subsequent versions of the method to do a better job of capturing the beneficial aspects of a TOD site’s proximity to transit.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 9 The Mixed-Use Method: Calculating Trip Generation for Smart Growth Setting
It is noteworthy that at four of the six sites where actual counts were taken, the Mixed-Use Method predicts vehicle traffic generated within 10 percent of actual counts, and the average percent overestimation is 8 percent. By comparison, the best alternative method of estimating trip generation within the region, the San Diego Traffic Generators manual, would overestimate trip generation at the six sites by an average of 29 percent.
Participants in the study process have noted that the study was conducted during a downturn in the national and local economy. Consideration was given to adjusting the results of the study to account for reduced economic activity; however, it was decided that the results would not be adjusted to account for this factor. Historically, nationwide and local trip-generation counts have not been adjusted for the state of the economy at the time of the counts. Instead, the counts are averaged over a variety of economic conditions to produce an average trip generation rate. In the case of this study, much of the data that was used to calibrate and validate the Mixed-Use Method was collected prior to the current downturn. This includes the nationwide data on which the method was based, as well as the local data collected at SGOA sites. Data collected at the small mixed-use/TOD sites was collected during the economic downturn.
However, efforts were made to adjust the analysis to account for any unusually high vacancy rates found at the study sites. As a result, the comparison of actual traffic counts with estimates produced by the Mixed-Use Method take into account both the economy’s influence on occupancies and the relative accuracy of the method for estimating traffic at a site with a given level of occupancy. Overall, the entire dataset used in the analysis reflects data collected during a variety of economic conditions.
Finally, the method has not been fully validated for application to single-use developments in smart growth settings or large auto-oriented, mixed-use developments. The following comments apply to these types of developments:
The Mixed-Use Method was explicitly developed for the analysis of mixed-use developments. It has not been formally validated for analyzing single-use developments within mixed-use areas. For analysis of single-use development within a mixed-use area, two possible approaches are suggested: 1. Define a mixed-use area surrounding the proposed development (and all associated input variables) and run the method with and without the development. The difference in trips between the two calculations represents the net change in the number of external trips generated by the proposed development. 2. Select one of the SGOAs or counted sites that are documented in these guidelines that most closely resembles the area in which the development project is proposed, and use the external trip reductions from the SGOA or counted site to estimate trip reductions for the proposed development.
Trial runs suggest the Mixed-Use Method may be too conservative (i.e., will predict too many external vehicle trips) for large, remote, mixed-use suburban/rural auto-oriented developments with little transit service. For such projects analysts may wish to consider using the regional transportation model or the ITE handbook’s mixed-use development procedure in addition to, or in place of, the MXD method.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 10
PARKING FOR SMART GROWTH
INTRODUCTION
Smart growth development sites feature relatively dense development, mixes of compatible land use with pedestrian amenities, bicycle facilities, and optimal access to public transportation. These features favor access by transit, walking, and bicycling. The diversity of uses within close proximity encourages visitors to make journeys within the site by foot, even if they arrive by car. Furthermore, research has shown that vehicle ownership for smart growth residents is lower than for residents of suburban development. All of these factors suggest that parking demand in smart growth areas is lower than elsewhere in the region and that parking supplies should reflect this fact.
The United States EPA has published key guidance on parking provisions for smart growth. Recognizing connections between mixed-use development, driving, and parking, the EPA, in a publication on parking in smart growth developments, has stated:
[T]ypical parking regulations and codes simply require a set amount of parking for a given square footage or number of units, assuming all trips will be by private automobile and ignoring the neighborhood’s particular mix of uses, access to transit and walking, and context within the metropolitan region. Such inflexible parking requirements can force businesses to provide unneeded parking that wastes space and money…. [I]nflexible minimum parking requirements are the norm – but they represent a barrier to better development (EPA, 2006).
It is important to note that lower parking rates can reinforce lower vehicle trip generation rates, a fundamental goal of smart growth. Donald Shoup, Professor of Urban Planning at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an articulate critic of minimum parking requirements, contends that by making parking more scarce and costly, people will become more likely to travel by transit, by bike, or on foot. As the cost to park increases (in terms of out-of-pocket cost or the time-cost associated with searching for scarce parking), drivers will re-evaluate their mode choice and some will change travel behavior to and from destinations. Thus, cities that reduce parking requirements for smart growth also can expect reduced levels of driving.
This study reviews current parking requirements and policies in the San Diego region and highlights relevant smart growth parking demand and policy studies. This review is to establish the reasonableness of lower parking rates for smart growth developments. The study also delineates auxiliary parking management strategies that can and should complement lower parking rates. The study did not include collection of empirical parking demand data in the San Diego region, and it does not address parking requirements for public transit stations and downtown San Diego.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 11 Parking for Smart Growth
EXISTING LOCAL JURISDICTION PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE SAN DIEGO REGION
Ultimately, the amount of parking supplied for new development is controlled by a jurisdiction’s parking code requirements. A review of SANDAG member jurisdictions’ parking codes revealed a few special parking requirements and parking strategies for smart growth developments. Implementation of such special provisions may continue to increase. SANDAG recently released a set of smart growth design guidelines titled Designing for Smart Growth: Creating Great Places in the San Diego Region (June 2009). This document proposes parking policies and design guidelines specifically for smart growth developments.
Current parking standards (as of September 2009) were collected for each of the jurisdictions that comprise SANDAG and are presented in Table 2 on the next page. These standards represent the baseline parking requirements for each jurisdiction.
Exceptions to Standard Parking Requirements: Accommodations for Smart Growth
The jurisdictions listed in Table 2 were contacted to confirm their standard parking requirements and to notify this study of any exceptions to their standards. Several of the jurisdictions commented that they have parking requirement variations for downtown core areas, areas well served by transit, mixed-use areas, and affordable-housing projects. This section details the comments received.
The City of Carlsbad offers density bonus incentives to affordable housing developments. The following multifamily dwelling unit rates apply: 0- to 1-bedroom unit requires 1 parking space and a 2- to 3-bedroom unit requires 2 parking spaces.
The City of Escondido reduces its standard retail parking requirements to 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in their downtown retail core parking district.
The City of Poway allows a reduced parking rate for affordable housing on a case-by-case basis.
The City of Vista is working on reduced rates for their downtown smart growth areas as part of their downtown specific plan update (expected approval spring 2010).
The City of El Cajon provides allowances for parking in smart growth settings within their downtown area.
The City of La Mesa allows parking reductions in their Mixed-Use Urban Overlay Zone. They allow a minimum of 2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial floor area.
The City of Lemon Grove allows parking reductions in their Downtown Village Specific Plan. Multifamily residential requirements are reduced as follows: studio units require 1 space, 1-bedroom units require 1.25 spaces, 2-bedroom units require 1.75 spaces, and 3-bedroom units require 2 spaces. Commercial office requirements are reduced to 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Retail requirements are reduced to 4.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet. There also is a provision for 20 percent mixed-use reduction for a combination of residential, office, and retail.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 12 Parking for Smart Growth
+ + + sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf
5k ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ees
sf sf
> 5k y area 5 5 1 5
100k
25 20 10 25 10 25 25 20 250 300 200 250 250 300 < 250 200 lo < < sf >
> ‐ per
250 100k?? 250 250 250
RETAIL > > > < < < 500 500
p ‐ 5 ‐
sf
5 per sf sf sf
< > sf > 15 ‐
‐
per per per per per per per per sf sf sf sf sf floor sf
1 150
em employees ksf sf sf
sf
per 1 1 per 1 1
1 1 1 1
4.5 ksf ‐ 200 2 2
200 300 250
200
ksf 1 1
400 100 100 200 250 .5 r 150 per 25,001 25,001
per
er 250 250 300
from
per 1 10 per
p per er
5 per per pe sf
per
ksf 4 p per per per pe > 1 per 1 1
1
1 1
1
per per per r 1 1
1 1 1
1 sf
1 1 225 1 +
+ per
ranges 250 per
4.5 1 per spaces spaces
1 17 117
+ + ft ft ft sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf
sf
te downloads (Jun 2009)
ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ksf ees
sf sf
sq sq sq y area 5
25 10 40 25 25 250 225 250 300 250 300 250 250 300 300 250 lo <
spaces per
250 <10 250
> > >
< OFFICE 300 500 p ‐
greater)
4 300 250 250 sf
> 15 ‐
per per per per per per per per per per per sf sf sf floor
is
3.3
em employees ksf ksf, ‐ sf
per 1 per 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
ksf 1 per per per 2 2
200 5
ksf 1 1
400 300 300 1 1 1 or 25,001
>
per
er 300
ksf; ksf;
4 per
10 p per er er
5 per sf
2 from ksf 4 p p per
> 1 1
1
minimum < 7.5 per 1 1
1
‐
sf
;
250 1 sf
per (whichever
COMMERCIAL er ksf 250 p
ranges 4.5 2,001
200
1 40 ‐ per
pe r
1 7.5 from 1
+ + + + + + + + + + 2 + + + + +
20 10 du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du
>
> 3 du du du 5 4 du du du du du du du du 4 du 4 du du
units er 10 zones r r
p per per per per per per per pe pe
units r
> 10
10 per per per 2 per per per 2 per per per 2 per pe per per 2 per pe per per per ‐
bdrm < above
20 units 4 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 .25 .25 .25
du
.5 ecial
r 2.25 2.75 2.25 < BEDROOM 1.5 2.5
p du
du of
s than
per
per
add'l du er
4+
1 per p for
20%
er
less .25
per p .3 +
.25 1.5 1 .5 no .5
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
20 10 du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du
> du du 5 4 du du du du du du du du 4 du 3 4 du du
units er 10 zones r r
p per per per per per per per per per per units
> 10
10 2 per per 2 per per per 2 per per per per 2 per per pe per pe pe per per
‐
.5 < above
20 units 4 r 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 .25 .25 .25
du
ecial
2.25 2.75 2.25 < BEDROOM 1.5 2.5
p du du of
per
s
than
3 per
per
du 1 er
1 per p for
20%
er
less .25
p .3 +
.25 1.5 1 no .5
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
20 10 du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du
> 4 du du du du du du du du 4 du 4 du 5 du du 3 du
units er 10 zones Table 2
p per per per per per per per pe per per units
> 10
10 per per 2 per per per 2 2 per per per per 2 2 per per per per per per per per ‐ r
.5 < above
20 units RESIDENCE 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 .25 .25 .25
du
ecial
2.25 2.25 < BEDROOM 1.5 1.5
p du du of
per 1.75 s
than
2 per
per
du 1 er
1 per p for
20%
er
less .25
p .3 +
.25 1.5 1 no .5
MULTIFAMILY + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
20 10 du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du
> 4 du du du du du du du du 4 du 4 du du du 3 du 5
units er 10 zones
p per per per per per per per per per per units
> 10
10 per 5 per per per per 2 per per per per 2 2 per 2 per per per per per per per ‐
< above
20 un 4 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 .25 .33 1.5 1.5 .25 .2
du
ecial
1.75 < BEDROOM 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
p du du of
its
s than
1 per
per
du er
1 per p for
20%
er
less .25
p .3 +
.25 1.5 1 n Summary Table (revised Sep 2006) and updated by KTU+A based on the latest Web si no .5
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + sf sf
20 10 du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du
> 4 du du du du du du du du 4 du 4 du du du 3 du 5
units er 10 zones
r 400 400
p per per per per per per per per per units
> 10 > <
10
3 per per per per 2 per per per per 2 2 per 2 per per per per per per per pe STUDIO ‐
< above
20 units 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 .25 .25 .3 .25
du
Typical San Diego Region Parking Standards by Jurisdiction* du du ecial
1.75 < r 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
p du du of
s er than
per
pe du per p er
1 per p for
20%
er
less .25
1.5 p .3 +
1.25 .25 1.5
1 no .5
+
du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du du ksf ksf ksf ksf
du+
du
10 25 25
2.5 2.5 per per per per per per per per per per per per per per per per
< > per
< 2 > 2 2 2
2 5 2 per 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 FAMILY
‐ ‐ ‐ per 2
2 2 du du 1
du du
RESIDENCE er per p
per per
2 3 SINGLE 3
REGION
REGION
REGION
REGION
County 2 COASTAL INLAND Beach
City Beach 2
Grove Beach 2
Vista
Marcos Diego Diego Mar
Mesa n Cajon
hula NORTH CENTRAL SOUTHERN NORTH JURISDICTION National San San Santee La Encinitas 2 Vista Del Poway Coronado Imperial Escondido El Oceanside C Sa Lemon Solana Carlsbad
* Based on summary provided by KDA Corporatiosummaryprovided by KDA Based on *
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 13 Parking for Smart Growth
The City of San Diego offers parking reductions for developments located in their Transit Overlay Zone or developments that are deemed “very low-” income. Multifamily residential requirements are reduced as follows: studio units require 1 space, 1-bedroom units require 1.25 spaces, 2-bedroom units require 1.75 spaces, and 3-plus-bedroom units require 2 spaces. Commercial office requirements are reduced to 1.0 - 2.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Retail requirements are reduced to 1.0 - 4.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The City of San Diego also is in the process of studying parking demand at affordable housing developments, which will likely result in revised parking standards for affordable housing.
The City of Santee offers reduced parking requirements for any affordable housing project.
The City of Chula Vista details special parking requirements for their Urban Core Specific Plan area. Residential multifamily units in their transit focus area have the reduced requirement of 1 parking space per dwelling unit. All other residential units must provide 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit and an additional 1 space per 10 dwelling units for guests. Any nonresidential land use must provide 2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area.
The City of Coronado provides reduced parking requirements for their Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Commercial parking requirements are reduced to 1 parking space per 500 square feet of floor area. The city also provides reductions for affordable housing. For affordable housing the following rates apply: 1-bedroom units require 1 space, 2- to 3-bedroom units require 2 spaces, and 3-plus-bedroom units require 2.5 spaces.
The County of San Diego is currently in the process of updating its parking regulations and is reviewing the potential for parking reductions for shared parking on a case-by-case basis based on findings and recommendations of a qualified parking or traffic consultant.
Local jurisdictions in the region have expressed a great deal of interest in this study and are eager to use the results of this analysis, particularly at the specific plan level. Such interest and the policies listed above suggest that there is recognition at the local level that parking rates should be lower for some types of development, including smart growth projects.
ITE PARKING GENERATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR SMART GROWTH PARKING
This section and the two that follow summarize key research on actual parking demand from a variety of national and local sources. It provides perspective on the San Diego basic parking rates and the reductions currently being granted for smart growth in the region. It should be noted that in the analysis below, the basic parking requirements in Table 2 are used for comparative purposes.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation (3rd Edition) summarizes actual parking demand for a variety of land uses. It is based on a national database of parking demand studies. The studies that ITE incorporates into the manual are mainly single-use, suburban projects where all parking is provided on-site and free to the user. This single-use, suburban emphasis likely results in parking rates that are too high for Smart Growth sites, where use of non-auto modes and shared parking between different on-site uses serve to reduce parking demand.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 14 Parking for Smart Growth
On the other hand, it is important to recognize that Parking Generation summarizes parking demand rather than supply. In planning for parking supply, it is a common engineering practice to add a 10 percent buffer beyond the demand figure to allow a margin of safety and to make it possible for drivers to find the last few parking spaces without excessive cruising or idling.
Residential Parking Demand
Residential units in smart growth developments would generally fall under Parking Generation’s multifamily residential category. Comparing typical code values against the ITE Parking Generation (3rd Edition) manual shows that the existing typical parking requirements in the region far outstrip observed ratios. Parking Generation shows weekday average peak-period parking demand for low/mid-rise apartments to be 1.20 vehicles per dwelling unit in suburban locations and 1.00 vehicle per dwelling unit in urban locations, for an average value of 1.1 per dwelling unit. By comparison, typical San Diego region parking requirements detailed in Table 2 average 1.75 to 2.00 parking spots per dwelling unit for studio and 1-bedroom multifamily, and 2.00 to 2.50 parking spots per dwelling unit for 2-plus-bedroom multifamily units. The lowest requirement was 1.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit in Solana Beach and Escondido for studio multifamily residential units. Taking the average Parking Generation demand rate (1.1 per 1,000 square feet) and adding the 10 percent buffer (0.11) results in a supply rate of 1.21 spaces per dwelling unit, a rate slightly lower than the lowest parking code rates for studio apartments. For smart growth, rates ranged from 1 to 1.25.
Parking Generation makes note of additional research on vehicles owned per household. It reports that for areas within one-third of a mile of a light rail station and more than ten miles from a central business district (which would describe many of SANDAG’s SGOAs), the average vehicles owned per household was between 1.0 and 1.3. This is substantially lower than the national average of 2.0 vehicles per household in 2000 per the U.S. Census.
Office Parking Demand
With respect to office uses, Parking Generation found a weekday average peak-period parking demand of 2.84 vehicles per 1,000 square feet in suburban locations and 2.40 vehicles per 1,000 square feet in urban locations. The overall average demand rate was 2.62. This is lower than any of the San Diego region’s parking requirements as summarized in Table 2; these average roughly 1 parking space per 275 square feet or approximately 3.6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The lowest requirement found is 3.33 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet in Del Mar, Oceanside, and La Mesa. Adding a buffer of 10 percent (0.26) to the average demand rate of 2.62 results a calculated supply rate of 2.88, substantially below the lowest regional requirements for office. For smart growth, rates ranged from 1.95 to 3.
Parking Generation also summarizes demand studies in areas with priced parking and high-quality transit options available. Office parking demand in these areas is substantially lower in such areas than in areas with free parking. Studies in such areas have documented parking ratios between 1.00 and 2.00 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of office building area.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 15 Parking for Smart Growth
Retail Parking Demand
Retail parking demand varies widely among different types of retail uses. Parking Generation identifies five types of shopping centers: strip, neighborhood, community, regional, and super regional. The scale of the largest shopping centers is much larger than that of the SGOAs studied. The scale of SGOAs could be most closely compared to community shopping centers. The average size of study sites for the shopping center data is around 535,000 square feet. Rates reported in the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking range from 2.7 to 4.7 per 1,000 square feet for various types of shopping centers on different days of the week and different months. Again, the shopping centers studied are mainly in suburban, auto-oriented settings.
In view of the wide variety of demand rates found in Parking Generation, the Shared Parking (2nd Edition) was examined as a second source. Shared Parking reports parking demand of between 3.6 and 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail (defined as shopping center).
Current San Diego typical parking requirements from Table 2 show a range of 3.3 (Carlsbad) to 5 (Chula Vista) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet with an average approximately 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. These rates are in conformity with the parking demand rates found by ITE and ULI. For smart growth, parking requirements ranged from 2 to 4.65.
It is noteworthy that both Parking Generation and Shared Parking find that parking demand at retail centers in December is typically 50 percent higher than for the other months of the year. This suggests that if it can be established that the retail component of a smart growth development is not subject to such seasonal peaking (e.g., if the focus is on convenience goods for residents and transit commuters), retail parking rates could be substantially lower.
Table 3 summarizes the foregoing findings regarding parking demand versus current parking supply requirements in the San Diego region for both typical and smart growth development.
Table 3 Parking Demand vs. Existing San Diego Jurisdiction Parking Requirements
Existing Rates for Existing Rates for Parking Demand1 Smart Growth Typical Development Land Use Development
Urban Suburban Lowest Average Lowest Average
Residential Multifamily2 1.00 1.20 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.10 Office3 2.40 2.84 3.33 2.40 1.95 2.19 Retail3 3.60-4.50 3.60-4.50 3.30 3.60-4.50 2.00 2.99
(1) Residential and office rates from ITE Parking Generation, Retail rate from ULI Shared Parking (2) Rate is per dwelling unit (3) Rate is per 1,000 square feet of leasable area Sources: Fehr & Peers, 2009. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation 3rd Edition, 2004. Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking 2nd Edition, 2005.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 16 Parking for Smart Growth
OTHER STUDIES OF SMART GROWTH PARKING DEMAND AND POLICIES
Cervero et al (2009)
A recent study led by Robert Cervero at the University of California, Berkeley found that the weighted average of peak-parking demand for residential units at TODs in the San Francisco Bay Area and Portland, Oregon was 1.15 parking spaces per dwelling unit, close to Parking Generation’s observed average value of 1.20 parking spaces per dwelling unit. By contrast, the weighted average parking supply at these sites was 1.57 parking spaces per dwelling unit, 30 to 35 percent above the observed parking demand. (Cervero et al, 2009).
Figure 2 (based on Cervero et al’s Figure 3) shows the parking demand at individual residential projects. It is noteworthy that even the highest observed demand is below the typical parking requirement in the San Diego region.
Caltrans (2002)
A 2002 study by the California Department of Transportation found evidence supporting parking reductions for commercial and office land uses in TODs. A number of case studies showed that after parking reductions were negotiated by the developer, parking supply was sufficient, but not excessive. Three key case studies are summarized below:
Pacific Court, a mixed-use, infill development in urban Long Beach, California, is a development containing 142 apartments above 96,000 square feet of retail and commercial development. The site is served by light rail transit (LRT) every 5 to 10 minutes. The developer was able to negotiate a 60 percent reduction in retail parking standards (5 spaces to 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet and elimination of 3 spaces per 10 units for guest parking), and experience has shown parking to be sufficient, but not excessive.
Pleasant Hill Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) TOD is a development containing 411,000 square feet of office space, 40,000 square feet of retail space, and around 350 apartments and townhouses in suburban San Francisco Bay Area. The site is served by heavy rail every 5 to 10 minutes during weekday peak hours, every 15 minutes during off-peak hours. The developer was able to negotiate a 34 percent reduction in office parking standards (5 spaces to 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet) and 20 percent reduction in retail parking standards (5 spaces to 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The development appears to have sufficient parking and has been able to lease some spaces on a monthly basis to BART patrons
Dadeland South, a TOD in suburban Miami, Florida, is a development containing 500,000 square feet of office and 605 hotel rooms. The site is served by LRT every 5 minutes during peak hours and every 15 minutes during off-peak hours. The site also is served by bus service every 10 minutes. The developer was able to negotiate a 38 percent reduction in office parking standards (1 space per 250 square feet to 1 space per 400 square feet), and experience has shown that there is generally excess capacity in the office garages.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 17 Parking for Smart Growth
Figure 2
and ITE Standard Relative to Supply Levels
East Bay Results: Peak-Parking Generation Rates*
parked vehicles * per dwelling unit
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 18 Parking for Smart Growth
Figure 2 (continued)
and ITE Standard Relative to Supply Levels
East Bay Results: Peak-Parking Generation Rates*
parked vehicles * per dwelling unit
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 19 Parking for Smart Growth
Table 4 summarizes these findings (Caltrans, 2002).
Table 4 TOD Nonresidential Parking Reduction Case Studies
Parking Transit-Oriented Development Land Use Experience Reduction
Pacific Court (Long Beach, CA) Retail 60% Parking sufficient, but not excessive Office 34% Pleasant Hill BART Station (Pleasant Hill, CA) Parking sufficient, leasing space to BART Retail 20% Dadeland South (Miami, FL) Office 38% Excess capacity in office garages
Sources: California Department of Transportation. “Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study: Parking and TOD: Challenges and Opportunities (Special Report)”, 2002.
COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS TO ENSURE AND ENHANCE SMART GROWTH PARKING DEMAND REDUCTIONS
The foregoing sections have established that current typical parking requirements in the region are probably higher than typical parking demand at smart growth development. Intrinsic smart growth development characteristics, such as higher densities, proximity to transit, mixed uses with local- serving retail, and bicycle facilities, serve to reduce parking demand. Other supplementary demand management measures and programs can help ensure and enhance parking demand reductions. Inclusion of measures described in this section can provide a factor of safety for cities who grant smart growth projects reduced parking requirements.
Transit Pass Purchase Programs
Transit pass purchase programs are a popular measure for both transit agencies and consumers. Portland’s TriMet LRT initiated a TOD Pass Program in September 1998 to coincide with the start of the Westside LRT project. From September 1998 to May 1999, there was a 22 percent increase in the number of residents that used transit for commuting purposes (TCRP 128).
Employer Assistance With Transit Costs
Employer assistance with transit costs can also encourage transit use. Figure 3 shows results from a model that predicted the probability of a TOD resident using transit considering the ratio of parking spaces to workers and feeder bus frequency in buses per day. A worker near a TOD station with 400 daily feeder buses heading to a worksite where the employer provides transit assistance and one parking spot per two workers has a likelihood of taking transit of 50 percent (TCRP 128, Lund et al., 2004).
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 20 Parking for Smart Growth
Figure 3 Probability of Transit Use by Employees at TODs Relative to Employer Transit Assistance and Parking Supply
Shared Parking
The concept of shared parking has increasingly gained prominence beyond downtown areas where it is the norm. The ULI Shared Parking defines the ability to share parking spaces as the result of two conditions: variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, by day, or by season at the individual land uses and relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same auto trip. The Shared Parking manual defines recommended peak-parking demand rates, but then modifies each land use by time of year, week, and day factors. There also are inputs for what the manual defines as “mode adjustment” and “noncaptive ratio.” Mode adjustment is a variable based on the percentage of trips that are made to the site using auto vehicles. Noncaptive ratio is an estimate of percentage of parkers at a land use in a mixed-use development who are not already counted as being parked at another of the land uses. This ratio captures trip-chaining and the essence of shared parking – one parking spot used for multiple land uses (ULI, 2005). Many of the SANDAG member jurisdictions already have adopted shared parking methodologies into their parking zoning ordinances.
Car-Sharing
A recent development with potential for reducing parking demand for residential projects has been the concept of car-sharing. Car-sharing is a neighborhood-based, short-term vehicle rental service that makes cars easily available to residents and commuters whose primary mode of transportation is transit, bicycle, or walking. Car-sharing can eliminate the need to own a vehicle, especially if near quality transit options and mixed-use developments. In San Francisco, approximately 60 percent of households that owned vehicles before joining a car-sharing program have given up at least one of
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 21 Parking for Smart Growth
them within a year. Zipcar, which operates in 50 plus cities across North American and the United Kingdom, reports that 15 percent of members sell their private car. The city of Bremen, Germany, states that each shared vehicle takes between four and ten private cars off the road and out of city parking spaces (Environmental Protection Agency, 2006).
Unbundling Parking
Unbundling parking costs is another concept that can reduce parking demand. Because parking is typically included (bundled) into tenant leases, the true cost of parking is hidden. Unbundling parking addresses this issue. For example the price for an apartment with two parking spaces may be rented for $1,000 per month. However, if the parking spaces were unbundled, the price for rent for the apartment would be $800 per month, plus $100 per month for each space. Unbundled parking helps tenants to understand the cost of parking – and provides an incentive (lower rent) for reducing their parking demand. This can lead to other pricing strategies that can help travel management at the project scale (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2007). On-street parking should be carefully considered when proposing unbundled parking. There is a potential for on-street parking impacts in the area surrounding the project with the unbundling of parking if such parking is not priced and managed appropriately.
Table 5 summarizes parking policies that can potentially reduce parking demand and the range of effectiveness observed in case studies.
CONCLUSIONS: SUGGESTED PARKING RATES FOR SMART GROWTH DEVELOPMENTS
Residential Multifamily
ITE’s Parking Generation (3rd Edition) showed weekday average peak period parking demand for low/mid-rise apartments to be 1.20 vehicles per dwelling unit in suburban locations and 1.00 vehicles per dwelling unit in urban locations. A study by Robert Cervero at the University of California, Berkeley found a weighted average of peak parking demand for residential units at transit oriented developments (TODs) in the San Francisco Bay Area and Portland, Oregon of 1.15 parking spaces per dwelling unit. It should be noted that there were outliers in the south San Francisco Bay Area lifting the weighted average for Cervero’s study to higher than what was observed at most of the transit oriented developments. Taking the average of these three demand analyses (1.00, 1.20 and 1.15) gives a blended demand rate of 1.12; adding a 10 percent buffer suggests a parking supply rate of 1.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit. This value represents a reduction from existing typical standards yet still conforms to the upper bounds of observed values for multi-family units.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 22 Parking for Smart Growth
Oakland, Oakland, Oakland, Oakland,
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Oakland, ‐ ‐ ‐ and
Growth Growth Growth Growth
(VTA)
Commission C Commission Commission
ommission Commission ‐
Smart Smart Smart Smart
(URBEMIS)
SOURCE Authority
URBEMIS URBEMIS URBEMIS URBEMIS
Support Support Support Support
Model
to to to to and and and and
Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation
Transportation 95.
05. ‐ (1996)
Policies Policies Policies Policies
Emissions Transportation
Report 2003
methodology
TCRP
employers. Paper Metropolitan Parking Metopolitan Parking Metropolitan Valley Parking Metropolitan Nelson/Nygard Metropolitan UREBMIS Parking Schreffler Nelson/Nygard Nelson/Nygard
Board,
Working
suburban
at shuttle. VTA
bi
a
Research
information or
program
sharing ‐ h) fee
programs
Connection. TDM
Development. through
protected ke
car
of
cashout
and
Division. rooms; Free parking Quality
Tra 1996
nsportation
reduction Regional
Air safe provided
use. 20,
trip Parking and
be
utilized.
Design. Distribution Research
Reduced oject.
can e) are
March
transit
c) pr Site costs.
Urban
providing proximity.
& different care.
Board
of
requirement.
the
by of
Transportation to NJ.
Use
Showers/changing
site. Nelson/Nygard
close child elements
increase housing
g)
program; Use
stop.
Institute Land parking connections
site coordinator; demand. impacts
Resources ‐
– and
integral
these
Transportation, from
Land
housing. Urban project
enhanced
proposed.
on
15
relative
Air
the of
Home
Brunswick,
transit are
of be in the
tra
the
overall
not
nsit Ch.
Berkeley
parking assistance;
Ride New
can are
the rapid review. UC
several separate Agency.
fr ownership
DESCRIPTION other Commuter
om
parking. Making
ownership
evaluating measures ‐
bus demand
Transportation Provision car for Changes.
and manage
less i) or car unless Table 5
reduce
d) matching
element Impacts. ‐
parking to University,
measures in
(1993), distance
Guaranteed Protection commuting can
Program
for parking
System
Ride Year way b)
‐ transit
Institute.
decrease design
f) mile
wo reduced bike Association
reduction Rutgers and
extraordinary
rail vanpools;
to wo resulting can destinations
rkweek;
1/2
options
the
Associates
(charge Policy Second
and 25%
Research
then
uses to
project to
extraordinary
of
a light effective
program; drive rk).
a
requires Manual. an or
Environmental
access 1/4 home residents/employees.
land ‐ to
Transportation nt of housing
l.bts.gov/DOCS/tped.html
carpools/ most
parking at
origins and all
of specific to cycling, ‐ car
receive
Calthorpe
Guidelines. at:
Transport analyized
Chapter
not benefit compressed residents/employees
for d Course
mile
Trends to of
to the for
Cooperative
and mix
and
all
from fully work California
as
completed walkable
and Use
staff 1/4
net
ikely a the
residents/employees; for Victoria Inc.
Analysis
ownership
supports Response Available and ‐
parkign
California residential been
passes Demand
all on been
are Land
pays
access
car
commuter known Studies.
safety within conducive
to that
has conditions
within
no
a is
t and Impact is
office
Travel
transit Oregon. Traveler Transportation Case
has
area
Northern projects
of Pretax Systematics,
area
setting
Affordability.
of
the
memberships Sevices (employer Pricing Unbundling Free Depending Housing parking Having Reducing a) preferential Telecommuting package the Eight
its
Most for (2003).
to
analysis
CarShare:
Friends and
Out:
analysis Housing
Transportation 75%. Transportation
and City
Bruce
Cambridge
an on for
1000
G
Cash
1995/96
Senior Retail Less than
project on
Transit Location in
Higher with for 2003)
With
Parking
design or
Cashout
Presentation to Programs
the
Management Wth
Francisco
Impacts more and Inc., if Parking
Service Increased
Parking
Pass
Charges
MEASURE
Program Douglas, Uses
Coordinating Serving of
be
revised
Facilities If
depends
San
Sharing
specific ‐
prepared used and
Parking
conducted
if
not
Tedium,"
H
be Local Parking or Purchase Resources Demand Housing Parking (TDM)
Douglas,
(2000), (1998, Effects
the (2003),
study Report
3 useful
Potential Reduction in Parking Demand and Effectiveness of Strategies* expected only and Requirement
the
1
Richard be
Hsin generally
MAX ‐
Y
Institute sources:
Without Authority
should
Quade may
2 Parking Pratt,
1% 3% Shuttle 3% 10% Mixed
3% 9% Bike 5% 20% Transit 5% 20% Higher 5% 10% Unbundled 2% 10% Telecommuting Offset 5% 10% Proximity 3% 9% Transportation 2% 5% Car 3% 10% Affordable on
Tsai, reduction 10% 20% Shared 10% 50% Housing should
REDUCTION POTENTIAL
unpublished Evaluating MIN
&
Transit "TDM Environment.
an
(2004)
actual Richard;
reduction reduction Eric.
(1997) J
of Robert from
Brinckerhoff
Todd
combined D.
information
National
Transportation
Pedestrian —
HIGH LOW LOW HIGH HIGH HIGH Minimum POTENTIAL Amount Maximum MEDIUM MEDIUM The Kuzmyak, Schreffler, Findings Shoup, Parsons NTI Litman, Cervero, Valley EFFECTIVENESS ‐ ‐ ‐
2 1 3 Maximum MEDIUM/HIGH MEDIUM/HIGH MEDIUM/HIGH MEDIUM/HIGH MEDIUM/HIGH
Additional * parked vehicles * per dwelling unit
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 23 Parking for Smart Growth
Office
ITE’s Parking Generation (3rd Edition) showed weekday average peak-period parking demand for commercial office to be 2.84 vehicles per 1,000 square feet in suburban locations and 2.40 vehicles per 1,000 square feet in urban locations; adding a 10 percent buffer to each of these rates results in corresponding supply rates of 2.64 and 3.12 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
The 2002 TOD study by Caltrans cites two case studies in which office parking requirements were decreased. The Pleasant Hill BART TOD station negotiated office parking standards of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and parking has been sufficient to the point that some spaces are leased to BART patrons. Dadeland South, a TOD in suburban Miami, Florida, was able to negotiate office parking standards of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet and excess parking has been observed.
These four supply rates (i.e., the calculated supply rates of 2.64 and 3.12 and the observed rates of 3.3 and 2.5) average out to 2.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet. This value represents a reduction from existing typical standards while conforming to the upper bounds of observed values for commercial office.
Retail
The ULI Shared Parking (2nd Edition) recommends between 3.6 and 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail based on a nationwide collection of case studies. The 2002 TOD study by Caltrans noted one case study in which retail parking requirements were decreased. Pacific Court, a mixed-use, infill development in urban Long Beach, California, was able to negotiate retail parking standards of 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and parking has been sufficient. Several of the case studies document that parking reductions in office and retail land uses for TODs can be granted without resulting in significant parking shortages. While some of the reductions documented are much lower than typical parking rates in use in the region, it is conservatively suggested to reduce the basic retail parking standards only slightly to 3.60 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Use of the ULI Shared Parking methodology is recommended to determine the reasonableness of further reductions.
Setting parking rates at levels observed for conventional development in national parking demand studies (specifically, ITE Parking Generation, and ULI’s Shared Parking) would represent a significant reduction from typical current code requirements for residential and office uses. Nonetheless, there would still be a high probability of accommodating actual demand at smart growth sites.
Current parking requirement accommodations for smart growth development in the region are at or below the rates suggested above; however, it should be noted that these smart growth accommodations have not yet become standard practice for smart growth throughout the region, and in many cases are limited to specific plan areas.
Table 6 summarizes the suggested guidance on parking rates for smart growth development based on the studies mentioned above, relative to existing parking requirements in the region in both typical and smart growth settings.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 24 Parking for Smart Growth
Table 6 Suggested San Diego Smart Growth Development Parking Rates
Current 1 Typical Current Rates Accommodations for Reduction Parking Demand Suggested Land Use (San Diego Region) Smart Growth From Rates (San Diego Region) Typical Urban Suburban Lowest Average Lowest Average
Residential Multifamily2 1.00 1.20 1.25 1.75-2.50 1.00 1.10 1.25 0-50% Office3 2.40 2.84 3.33 3.60 1.95 2.19 2.90 12-20% Retail3 3.60-4.50 3.30 4.00 2.00 2.99 3.60 1%
(1) Residential and office rates from ITE Parking Generation, Retail rate from ULI Shared Parking (2) Rate is per dwelling unit (3) Rate is per 1,000 square feet of leasable area
PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR SMART GROWTH DEVELOPMENTS
In addition to reduced parking rates for smart growth developments, other strategies (shown in Table 7) should be pursued to manage and reduce the demand for parking. Such measures will also help ensure that the advantages of mixed-use development are realized to their full potential.
As described earlier in this discussion, shared parking is the most important aspect of a mixed-use development’s ability to realize reductions in parking. The other parking strategies require a change in transportation behavior that is often strongly ingrained in suburban areas, e.g., a modal shift away from personal auto vehicles (towards walking, bicycling, transit and shared cars) and the introduction of transparent parking costs.
Table 7 Recommended San Diego Smart Growth Development Parking Strategies
Potential Parking Strategy Parking Cost to Implement Reduction
Shared Parking 10-20% More detailed parking analysis during planning stages
Transit Pass Purchase Program 5-20% Developer includes in price of building, overall decrease in cost because of fewer parking spaces Charging for Parking 5-20% Charge tied to use of parking
Unbundled Parking 5-10% Minor administrative costs
Car-Sharing 2-5% Developer dedication of parking spaces to car-sharing operations Source: Fehr & Peers, 2009.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 25 Parking for Smart Growth
These strategies, along with reduced parking rates, can further reduce the number of parking spaces required and thus play to smart growth development’s strength – its ability to bring together accessibility and convenience through diversified land use and accommodation of all transportation modes.
Finally, the following also should be considered:
While Table 6 rates can be used as defaults for initial planning purposes, further study is required to examine if parking demand in San Diego smart growth areas deviates significantly from demand observed in nationwide studies and to determine appropriate strategies for particular locations. SANDAG, the cities, and the County should conduct their own parking surveys of local smart growth projects in the region on different days of the week and at different times of year. Further analysis should occur at a neighborhood level in order to capture on-street parking demand and to understand the dynamics of parking behavior that occurs at this level.
Additional study should also be undertaken to analyze parking demand at rural village SGOAs, as such communities do not have the same access to public transportation as TODs in urban locations.
Smart growth areas should attempt to maximize the utilization of pre-existing parking. To this end it would be useful to conduct areawide parking studies and surveys in infill SGOAs and create parking management districts for such areas. The goals of these actions would be to determine if parking spaces are available, and if so, make arrangements for infill development to utilize them (e.g., through lease agreements).
As new smart growth developments are approved, cities and the County should monitor parking demand at smart growth developments on a regular basis to establish a regional database on smart growth parking demand and parking demand management effectiveness.
With respect to parking management practices, SANDAG and the cities should document – and then duplicate – strategies that prove effective.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 26
REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation. Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study – Parking and TOD: Challenges and Opportunities (Special Report). 2002.
Carlsbad, California, Municipal Code § 21.44, 2009.
Cervero, R., Adkins, A., and Sullivan, C. Are TODs Over-Parked? University of California Transportation Center Research Paper No. 882, 2009.
Cervero, R., Golub, A., and Nee. B. City CarShare: Longer-Term Travel-Demand and Car Ownership Impacts. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1992. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007.
Chula Vista, California, Municipal Code § 6.58, 2009.
Coronado, California, Municipal Code § 86.58, 2009.
Del Mar, California, Municipal Code § 30.80, 2009.
El Cajon, California, Municipal Code § 17.64, 2009.
Encinitas, California, Municipal Code § 30.54, 2009.
Environmental Protection Agency. Parking Spaces / Community Places – Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions. Washington, D.C., 2006.
Escondido, California, Municipal Code § 17.64, 2009.
Imperial Beach, California, Municipal Code § 19.48, 2009.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Parking Generation, 3rd edition. Washington, D.C., 2004.
La Mesa, California, Municipal Code § 24.04, 2009.
Lemon Grove, California, Municipal Code § 17.24, 2009.
Lund, H. M., Cervero, R., and Willson, R. Travel Characteristics of Transit-Focused Development in California. Oakland. Bay Area Rapid Transit District and California Department of Transportation, 2004.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Toolbox/Handbook: Parking Best Practices & Strategies For Supporting Transit Oriented Development in the San Francisco Bay Area. Oakland, CA, 2007.
National City, California, Municipal Code § 18.58, 2009.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 27
Oceanside, California, Municipal Code § 31, 2009.
Poway, California, Municipal Code § 17.42, 2009.
San Diego, California, Municipal Code § 142.05, 2009.
San Diego Association of Governments. Designing for Smart Growth, Creating Great Places in the San Diego Region. San Diego, CA, 2009.
San Diego County, California, Municipal Code § 6000, 2009.
San Marcos, California, Municipal Code § 20.84, 2009.
Santee, California, Municipal Code § 17.24, 2009.
Solana Beach, California, Municipal Code § 17.52, 2009.
Shoup, Donald, The High Cost of Free Parking, Chicago: Planners Press, 2005.
Transportation Research Board. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 128 - Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. Washington, D.C., 2008.
Urban Land Institute. Shared Parking, 2nd edition. Washington, D.C., 2005.
Vista, California, Municipal Code § 18.54, 2009.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) 28
Appendix A Locations of Counted Sites
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) Appendix A – Page 1
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) Appendix A – Page 2
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) Appendix A – Page 3
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) Appendix A – Page 4
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) Appendix A – Page 5
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) Appendix A – Page 6
Appendix B SANDAG Raw Trips Calculation Backup
Trip Generation and Parking for Smart Growth for the San Diego Region (DRAFT)
APPENDIX B – SANDAG RAW TRIPS CALCULATION BACKUP
To calculate “raw trips” as shown in Table 1, the recommended rates from San Diego Traffic Generators were applied to land uses as provided by SANDAG staff and through VRPA Technologies’ independent data checking. The tables below show the detail for each of the six sites. Some of the rates used were modified from the (Not so) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region report, as follows:
The (Not so) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates has a rate of 1.8 trips / seat for theaters. The trip rate for the theater at Hazard Center was scaled down to 50% 0.9 to reflect the unique characteristics of this theater, consistent with the Hazard Center Traffic Impact Analysis done by Urban Systems in July of 2009.
The Starbucks cafes at three of the sites were treated as fast food restaurants, and their building areas were estimated from street views.
The supermarkets at Uptown Center (Ralph’s and Trader Joe’s) were separated out from the general neighborhood shopping center rate, and their building areas were estimated from aerials.
Rio Vista Station Village
Land Use Units Amount Occupied Daily Trip Rate Daily Trips Apartment d.u. 970.0 95% 6 5,529 Specialty Retail 1,000 s.f. 13.0 100% 40 520 Sit Down, High Turnover Restaurant 1,000 s.f. 4.0 100% 160 640
Total Trips 6,689
La Mesa Village Plaza
Land Use Units Amount Occupied Daily Trip Rate Daily Trips Office 1,000 s.f. 14.3 95% Equation1 373 Sit Down High Turn Over Restaurant 1,000 s.f. 20.2 90% 160 2,906 Fast Food Restaurant (Starbucks) 1,000 s.f. 2.0 100% 700 1,400 Specialty Retail 1,000 s.f. 8.0 90% 40 288 Condominium d.u. 94.0 95% 8 714
1 Ln(T) = 0.756 ln(x) + 3.95 Total Trips 5,681
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) Appendix B – Page 1 Trip Generation and Parking for Smart Growth for the San Diego Region (DRAFT)
Uptown Center
Land Use Units Amount Occupied Daily Trip Rate Daily Trips Condominium d.u. 311.0 95% 8 2,364 Neighborhood Shopping Center 1,000 s.f. 67.2 90% 120 7,260 Supermarket 1,000 s.f. 70.0 100% 150 10,500 Government Office 1,000 s.f 3.0 100% 30 90
Total Trips 20,214
The Village at Morena Linda Vista
Land Use Units Amount Occupied Daily Trip Rate Daily Trips Apartment d.u. 185.0 95% 6 1,055 Sit-Down, High Turnover Restaurant 1,000 s.f. 14.0 100% 160 2,240 Fast Food Restaurant (Starbucks) 1,000 s.f. 3.0 100% 700 2,100 Specialty Retail 1,000 s.f. 8.0 100% 40 320 Transit Station Occupied Parking 165.0 100% 4 660
Total Trips 6,375
Hazard Center
Land Use Units Amount Occupied Daily Trip Rate Daily Trips Specialty Retail 1,000 s.f. 98.7 90% 40 3,553 Sit-Down, High Turnover Restaurant 1,000 s.f. 18.0 100% 160 2,880 Fast Food Restaurant (Starbucks) 1,000 s.f. 2.0 100% 700 1,400 Office 1,000 s.f. 284.0 90% Equation1 3,432 Hotel Rooms 300.0 80% 10 2,400 Theater Seat 1,540.0 100% 0.9 1,386
1 Ln(T) = 0.756 ln(x) + 3.95 Total Trips 15,051
Heritage Center at Otay Ranch
Land Use Units Amount Occupied Daily Trip Rate Daily Trips Apartment d.u. 271.0 90% 6 1,463 Gas Station With Food Mart Fueling Station 8.0 100% 160 1,280 Medical Office 1,000 s.f. 67.4 95% 50 3,202 Neighborhood Shopping Center 1,000 s.f. 38.0 100% 120 4,560 Total Trips 15,505
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) Appendix B – Page 2
Appendix C Vehicle Trip Reduction for SGOAs
Dwelling Non-Residential Building Area Trip Units (1,000 square feet) Reduction Site Area Short Community Name Place Type2 (acres) Name1 Single Family Single Family Multifamily Retail Office Public Indus-trial Number Intersections of mile One Within Jobs Within Jobs Transit by 30 Minutes Modeled Surveyed
SD UN-2 Eastgate Mall Road, I-805, UCSD, Nobel Drive Urban Center 818 120 11,389 2,408 6,234 112 42 37 23,510 237,386 14% 32%
Metropolitan SD CC-1C Centre City Community Plan Area 389 9 5,576 2,732 7,508 2,565 23 120 71,350 324,431 47% 44% Center3 Pennsylvania Avenue/Robinson Avenue, SD UP-6 Urban Center 383 703 4,070 1,922 552 68 2 160 13,950 333,063 25% 36% Park Boulevard, Washington Street
ES-1 Downtown Specific Plan/Mercado Area Plan Town Center 452 176 648 2,285 566 18 126 165 12,660 80,713 24% 30%
4th Street & 5th Street from DateStreet Mixed-Use SD UP-1 352 317 4,384 622 1,887 113 0 151 81,240 275,189 28% 31% to Pennsylvania Avenue Transit Corridor University Avenue from Park Boulevard Mixed-Use SD CH-3B 447 1,582 3,943 798 524 85 35 200 15,440 275,848 32% 51% to 54th Street Transit Corridor3 Meade Avenue, Wightman Street, SD CH-1 Town Center 381 1,279 3,251 765 535 55 0 172 5,420 263,272 31% 59% 40th Street I-8, Friars Road, San Diego River, SD NV-1 Town Center 244 2 432 756 511 0 984 26 13,240 282,833 10% 21% Mission Gorge Road in the east Park Boulevard at Meade Avenue Mixed-Use SD NH-1 501 1,993 4,213 586 57 44 0 243 19,020 202,215 32% 47% continuing along Adams Avenue Transit Corridor
SD MV-3 I-8, SR 163, I-805, Community Boundary Urban Center 531 122 3,188 3,975 2,389 147 73 29 8,910 365,333 12% 17%
Metropolitan SD CC-1E Centre City Community Plan Area 290 0 4,492 1,004 383 46 338 47 50,890 269,903 22% 41% Center3 Grand Avenue & Garnet Avenue Mixed-Use SD PB-1 502 1,496 4,175 1,479 135 9 0 210 12,210 206,276 25% 37% from Mission Boulevard to Olney Street Transit Corridor
CO-1 Downtown Coronado Town Center Town Center 307 554 2,941 2,051 117 13 0 122 6,270 97,223 21% 47%
Prospect Street, Pearl Street, Fay Avenue, SD LJ-1 Town Center 220 170 1,585 2,220 537 95 0 89 10,830 91,444 19% 45% Ivanhoe Avenue Metropolitan SD CC-1D Centre City Community Plan Area 346 77 6,078 1,739 259 235 1,007 133 44,610 408,616 44% 39% Center3
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) Appendix C – Page 1
Dwelling Non-Residential Building Area Trip Units (1,000 square feet) Reduction Site Area Short Community Name Place Type2 (acres) Name1 Modeled Modeled Surveyed Single Family Single Family Multifamily Retail Office Public Indus-trial Number Intersections of mile One Within Jobs Within Jobs Transit by 30 Minutes University Avenue from Park Boulevard Mixed-Use SD CH-3A 254 735 3,888 770 151 94 32 153 16,640 263,125 30% 45% to 54th Street Transit Corridor
SD UN-1 I-5, La Jolla Village Drive, Gilman Drive Town Center 216 0 2,841 1,137 203 0 0 20 8,640 147,394 12% 20%
El Cajon Boulevard from Park Boulevard Mixed-Use SD NP-2G 319 785 1,519 1,039 115 44 0 102 12,360 107,950 19% 17% to 79th Street Transit Corridor3 Mixed-Use SD NP-1 30th Street from Adams Avenue to Upas 290 1,086 3,310 886 119 89 41 141 11,760 252,990 27% 41% Transit Corridor Westview Parkway from Capricorn Way to Hillery Drive & SD MM-1 Town Center 158 0 412 1,189 4 0 0 4 5,940 117,403 5% 18% Mira Mesa Boulevard from Black Mountain Road to I-15
(1) Complete descriptions of the sites can be found in the SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map Site Descriptions document, dated October 27, 2006 (2) As identified by the San Diego Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). (3) Divided
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) Appendix C – Page 2
Appendix D Data Sources for SGOA Land Use Data
APPENDIX D – DATA SOURCES FOR SGOA LAND USE DATA
The following SANDAG data sources were used as inputs into the MXD model:
Current Population Estimates, SANDAG 2008
ES-202 and QCEW Industry Employment and Quarterly Wage Data, California Employment Development Department Labor Market Information, 2005
SANDAG Land Use Database, 2008
SANGIS Road Network, Q2 2008 (excludes non-pedestrian features such as freeways, but includes alleys and dedicated foot paths)
SANDAG Transit Stop Inventory, 2008
SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map, 2008
Smart Growth Opportunity Areas (SGOAs) were drawn as 2 versions: 1. Using official boundaries as drawn on Smart Growth Concept Map 2. With a ½ mile walkable buffer from the center street for Mixed Use Transit Corridors, and from the SGOA center point for other place types.
Canyons, freeways, rivers, coastline, and other such impediments were clipped out of the SGOA boundaries.
Trip Generation and Parking Strategies for Smart Growth (DRAFT) Appendix D – Page 1 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
March 5, 2010 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4
Action Requested: ADOPT
SOUTH LINE RAIL FREIGHT CAPACITY PROJECT: File Number 1300602 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Introduction Recommendation
On December 11, 2009, staff provided the The Transportation Committee is asked to Transportation Committee with a status report of adopt the Final Mitigated Negative the South Line Rail Freight Capacity Project. This is a Declaration for the South Line Rail Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) funded Freight Capacity Project. project that will increase the number of freight train operations along the South Line Corridor. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and released for public comment on January 11, 2010, and no significant impacts were identified.
Discussion
As the South Line freight service shares use of the tracks with Blue Line Trolley operations, freight service between the downtown San Diego freight yard and the San Ysidro freight yard is restricted by federal regulations to a 2.5-hour “window” each night after Trolley operations have ceased. This “window,” when the trolleys are not in service, is only long enough to allow two freight train operations (one in each direction) each night. The purpose of the project is to enhance the mainline infrastructure to allow for an increase in the number of freight operations along the South Line Corridor.
SANDAG is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the implementation of the South Line Rail Freight Capacity Project. The project includes construction of signaling, train control, grade crossing warning improvements, additional track work and siding construction to allow freight trains to operate on protected and restricted track, separated from the light rail traffic, in order to provide the ability to move one additional freight train in each direction on the railroad. An MND was prepared for the project. SANDAG circulated a draft of the MND for public review and comment on January 11, 2010. SANDAG received three comment letters from the Native American Heritage Commission, Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the City of San Diego. The comments and responses are included in section 4 to the Final MND (Attachment 1). No significant impacts were identified in the MND or in the comments, and staff recommends adoption of the MND.
Final engineering is expected to begin this spring, and project construction should begin in spring 2012 and should be complete in summer 2015, assuming state Proposition 1B funding is available at the time of construction.
JACK BODA Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation
Attachment: 1. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Key Staff Contact: Rob Rundle, (619) 699-6949, [email protected]
2 Attachment 1
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FFOORRTTHHEEPPRROOPPOOSSEEDD SSOOUUTTHH LLIINNEE RRAAIILL GGOOOODDSS MMOOVVEEMMEENNTT PPRROOJJEECCTT
Prepared for: San Diego Association of Governments
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
February 2010 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FFOORRTTHHEEPPRROOPPOOSSEEDD SSOOUUTTHH LLIINNEE RRAAIILL GGOOOODDSS MMOOVVEEMMEENNTT PPRROOJJEECCTT
Prepared for: San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 699-1900
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 401 B Street, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 234-9411
February 2010 Table of Contents
SECTION Page
1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose of the Initial Study...... 1-1 1.3 Summary of Findings ...... 1-2 1.4 Summary of Mitigation Measures ...... 1-2 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting ...... 2-1 2.2 Description of the Proposed Project ...... 2-6 2.3 Objectives of the Project ...... 2-15 2.4 Discretionary Actions ...... 2-17 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality ...... 3-2 3.2 Agricultural Resources ...... 3-3 3.3 Air Quality ...... 3-4 3.4 Biological Resources ...... 3-10 3.5 Cultural Resources ...... 3-11 3.6 Geology and Soils ...... 3-13 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 3-15 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 3-17 3.9 Land Use and Planning ...... 3-20 3.10 Mineral Resources ...... 3-21 3.11 Noise ...... 3-21 3.12 Population and Housing ...... 3-26 3.13 Public Services ...... 3-26 3.14 Recreation ...... 3-27 3.15 Transportation/Traffic ...... 3-28 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 3-29 4.1 Comment Response ...... 4-1 5.1 References ...... 5-1
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page i Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES Page
Figure 2-1 Vicinity Map ...... 2-2 Figure 2-2a, Project alignment ...... 2-7 Figure 2-3 Palomar Siding...... 2-16
LIST OF TABLES Page
Table 3-1 San Diego Air Basin Attainment Classification ...... 3-5 Table 3-2 Ambient Air Quality Data (ppm unless otherwise indicated) ...... 3-6 Table 3-3 Estimated Daily Maximum Operational Emissions (lbs/day) ...... 3-7 Table 3-4 Estimated Annual Maximum Operational Emissions (tons/year)...... 3-8
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page ii Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
This Initial Study identifies and evaluates potential environmental impacts that may result from implementation of the proposed improvements on the San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railroad Mainline between the San Diego and San Ysidro Yards (e.g., South Line) to increase freight rail capacity. The South Line currently operates as a limited joint use facility with the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Blue Line Trolley under a waiver and operations plan approved by the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) in 2001 and amended in 2004. Currently, freight operations on the main South Line are only allowed to occur during a 2.5 hour period of time when the trolley is not in service. This “window” is typically from 1:30 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday morning, with an existing additional southbound freight move allowed beginning at approximately 12:55 am. No freight service is allowed on Sunday morning. This ‘window’, including the additional southbound move which begins just before 1:00 a.m., is currently only long enough to allow two freight trains, one in each direction, to travel between the San Diego and San Ysidro yards on the South Line each night. The proposed improvements would increase the capacity of the existing corridor to accommodate two additional freight trains, one in either direction during the operating window. A detailed description of the Project is presented in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this document.
The San Diego Association of Governments, referred to herein as SANDAG, is serving as the Lead Agency for the Project. Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines a Lead Agency as the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect on the environment”. Pursuant to section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines, prior to taking any official action to approve this project, SANDAG is obligated to consider the findings of this Initial Study and to either adopt a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or to initiate preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
1.2 Purpose of the Initial Study
As part of the environmental review process for the proposed project, SANDAG has authorized the preparation of this Initial Study. The Initial Study provides a basis for understanding whether there are environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and, if environmental impacts are likely to occur, if such impacts would be significant. The purpose of this Initial Study, as stated in section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, is as follows:
To provide SANDAG with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration;
To enable SANDAG, if necessary, to modify the Project to reduce or eliminate any adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the Project to qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration;
To assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant; identifying effects determined not to be significant; and explaining reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant;
To identify whether a Program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for the analysis of the Project’s environmental effects;
To facilitate the environmental review of the Project early in its design;
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 1-1 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 1.0 Introduction
To eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and
To determine whether a previously prepared EIR can be used for the Project.
Based on the findings of the Initial Study, SANDAG could then determine the subsequent environmental review needed for the Project, which may take the form of a Negative Declaration or an EIR.
1.3 Summary of Findings
The proposed project would lead to changes in the existing environmental conditions at the site and the surrounding area. Based on the findings of the environmental analysis in Section 3.0 of this Initial Study, without mitigation the implementation of the proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, and Noise. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce significant environmental impacts; thus, allowing for preparation and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mitigation measures required to be implemented as part of the Project are summarized in Section 1.4, Summary of Mitigation Measures, below. Additionally, the proposed development would be required to comply with standard Federal, State, County and City regulations to promote public health, safety, and welfare and provide the necessary facilities and adequate services needed by residents and visitors to the site. Impacts on all other issues addressed in this Initial Study were found to be less than significant.
1.4 Summary of Mitigation Measures
The environmental analysis in Section 3.0 of this document indicates that without mitigation, implementation of the proposed project would generate significant adverse impacts to Cultural Resources, and Noise. To mitigate these impacts, the following mitigation measures will be implemented as part of the Project. Implementation of these measures will reduce environmental effects associated with Project implementation to a less than significant level.
Cultural Resources
Implementation of the following mitigation measures during the construction and operation phases of the Project will ensure that environmental impacts to cultural resources remain less than significant:
Measure 3.5.B1: If during excavation or earth moving activities, the construction contractor identifies potential resources, SANDAG would be notified and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find. In the event that cultural materials are encountered, the following steps will be followed:
All excavation and/or grading shall cease immediately. Additional testing and evaluation of the remains shall be completed and recommendations for treatment shall be made in accordance with standard guidelines.
Measure 3.5.B2: If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner of his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 1-2 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 1.0 Introduction
discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Measure 3.5.C1: In the event that cultural materials are encountered during excavation or grading activities, the permit holder shall take all the following steps:
All excavation and/or grading shall cease immediately. Additional testing and evaluation of the remains shall be completed and recommendations for treatment shall be made in accordance with standard guidelines.
Noise
Implementation of the following mitigation measures during the construction phase of the Project will reduce noise impacts to less than significant:
Construction noise associated with the project may result in a significant impact without mitigation. Significant nighttime construction noise impacts could be reduced to below the level of significance through implementation of one or more of the following measures:
Perform higher noise generating activities during daytime hours.
Use construction equipment with published noise levels below those identified in Table 10 and with the lowest possible acoustical height.
Reduce nighttime construction hours. A 3 decibel noise reduction would occur for each 50% reduction in time worked between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Use of temporary noise barriers consistent with the following recommendation would also be an effective method of reducing construction noise associated with the project:
Construct a 16-foot high temporary noise barrier between the new crossover north of L Street and the residences to the east. Construct a 14-foot high temporary noise barrier between the turnout replacement south of L Street and the residences to the northeast. Construct a 14-foot high temporary noise barrier between the new turnout construction, track removal, and from north of Palomar Street to south of Anita Street and the residences to the west. Temporary barriers should be placed as close to the construction area as possible. The barrier(s) must wrap around the construction area to minimize acoustical flanking around the barrier ends.
A site-specific construction noise study should be performed using actual equipment and construction durations. The study should be submitted to SANDAG prior to the start of construction regardless of which measure or measures are selected to demonstrate how noise levels will be reduced to below a level of significance.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 1-3 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 2.0 Project Description
2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting
2.1.1 Regional Setting
The proposed improvements would be located on the South Line segment of the San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railroad Mainline between the San Diego and San Ysidro yards in San Diego, California. The South Line currently operates as a limited joint use facility with the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Blue Line Trolley (see Figure 2-1).
San Diego County
The County of San Diego is the southwestern most county in California and the contiguous 48 states. Bordering the United States/Mexico International Border, San Diego County contains 18 incorporated cities and covers 4,526 square miles. The County of San Diego is located along the Pacific Ocean and bordered by Orange and Riverside Counties to the north and Imperial County to the east. The population in 2000 was 2,813,834; a July 2008 estimate placed the population at 3,001,072 people, making it the third most populous county in California, just behind Orange County to the northwest. As of 2006, there were 2,941,454 people, 1,067,846 households, and 663,449 families residing within San Diego County.
City of San Diego
The City of San Diego is the most populous city in the county. The City of San Diego had a year 2006 population estimated at over 1.25 million people and an overall land area of 3,423 square miles. The city is comprised of 52 communities and 40 planning areas. The project corridor is located within the Barrio Logan/Harbor 101, Otay Mesa-Nestor and San Ysidro planning areas. The Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 planning area is approximately 1,000 acres in size and generally located west of Interstate 5, east of San Diego Bay, north of National City and south of the San Diego Central Business District. This area includes the U.S. Navy 32nd Street Base and is comprised of a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial and government uses (Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan, as amended, 1991). The Otay Mesa-Nestor community planning area is located in the southern region of the City, and is bounded on the north by the City of Chula Vista, on the east by the community of Otay Mesa, on the south by the Tijuana River Valley and the San Ysidro community, and on the west by the City of Imperial Beach.
The San Ysidro Planning Area encompasses approximately 1,800 acres and is bounded by the Otay Mesa- Nestor community and State Highway 905 to the north, by the Tijuana River Valley to the west, by the Otay Mesa community to the east, and by the international border with Mexico to the south.
City of National City
National City is the second oldest city in San Diego County. National City is located 5 miles south of downtown San Diego, on San Diego Bay in southern San Diego County, and 10 miles north of international border. The city is bordered by San Diego to the north and east, Chula Vista to the south, the unincorporated areas of Lincoln Acres and Bonita to the south and southeast, and San Diego Bay to the west. It covers 9.2 square miles and was incorporated in 1887. As of July, 2008, the population was 61,115. Within National City, the project corridor runs north/south between Interstate 5 to the west and downtown (National City Boulevard) to the east. National City is nearly entirely developed with a mix of residential neighborhoods and industrial and commercial uses. The largest percentage (41 percent) of land within the City is designated for residential development (City Overview, Planning Department, July 2008).
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 2-1 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524493-2
2.0 Project Description
City of Chula Vista
Chula Vista extends from the San Diego Bay eastward to Otay Lakes and is generally bounded by the Sweetwater River to the north and Otay River to the south (City of Chula Vista General Plan, 2005). The City of Chula Vista, part of the South San Diego County region, is rooted in a long-standing Native American Indian culture, Spanish land grants, and the railroad industry. The railroad boom of the late 19th century led the transformation of ranch lands to settler communities and tract subdivisions. The name “Chula Vista” was adopted by the San Diego Land and Town Company and is a Spanish translation for “beautiful view.” The City of Chula Vista was incorporated on October 17, 1911, at a time when the community was thriving from the railroad industry and citrus farming. Today, the City of Chula Vista encompasses 51.6 square miles (33,024 acres) and has a population of 227,723. Planned and managed growth is evident in its historic downtown and master-planned communities (City Profile & Demographic Trends, 2008).
2.1.2 Project Corridor
The proposed project is located on a 12.5 mile segment of the existing SD&AE Railroad Mainline between the San Diego and San Ysidro yards. This segment, referred to as the South Line, traverses through a variety of different land uses including industrial, hotels, military facilities, commercial, retail, office, single family residential, multi-family residential, schools, park/recreation and open space, vacant land, and border facilities. The project also crosses over the Chollas Creek, Sweetwater River and Otay River. There are several rail sidings and spur tracks located along the South Line that provide rail access to businesses that ship and receive products and materials by rail car. The sidings are serviced nightly by the San Diego & Imperial Valley Railroad.
2.1.3 Applicable Plans and Policies
City of San Diego General Plan The City of San Diego General Plan is designed to provide policy guidance necessary to balance needs caused by city growth and to enhance the quality of life of city residents (City of San Diego General Plan, 2008). The Land Use and Community Planning Element of the General Plan is intended to guide future growth and development into a sustainable citywide pattern, while maintaining or enhancing quality of life.
The City of San Diego utilizes the City of Villages strategy in implementing the goals of its general plan. The City of Villages concept guides growth into mixed-use activity centers that integrate community centers, pedestrian-friendly environments, and linkages to regional transit systems while enhancing San Diego’s economic, environmental, and social health (City of San Diego General Plan, 2008). The Village Propensity Map in the City of San Diego General Plan (2008) identifies the Barrio Logan/Harbor 101, Otay Mesa-Nestor and San Ysidro Community Planning areas, which are in proximity to the rail corridor, as having a low propensity for village development. In assessing the potential village sites, the City of Villages strategy considers several factors:
Community plan-identified capacity for growth; Existing public facilities or an identified funding source for facilities; Existing or an identified funding source for transit service; Community character; and Environmental constraints.
Community Plans The City of San Diego has 42 planning areas each with community plans. Community plans were established
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 2-3 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524493-2 2.0 Project Description to identify issues and trends that exist within each specific community and to provide guidance on development with considerations to community features.
Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan The Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan was originally adopted in 1978 and most recently amended in 1991. A community plan update is underway and at the time of this analysis, the updated plan had not been completed. The community plan recognizes the need to balance a diverse range of uses including residential, commercial, industrial and military. The Industrial Transportation Element of the 1991 (as amended) Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan states that “Industrial rail access should be continued with an efficient use made of the existing right of way.”
Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Plan The Otay Mesa-Nestor Planning Area was created in 1957 when the area was annexed from the County. The first Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Plan was adopted in 1979 and updated in 1997. Otay Mesa-Nestor is an urbanized community, with over 57 percent of the planning area (excluding the Salt Ponds) covered with residential land uses (approximately 17,000 units). Commercial land uses comprise five percent and industrial uses comprise three percent of the plan area. Twenty percent of the planning area consists of schools, parks, transit and other public facilities, while vacant, undeveloped, agricultural, and mineral extraction and processing uses comprise the remaining 15 percent (City of San Diego Planning Department Community Profiles, 2009). The Transportation Facilities element of the Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Plan recognizes the need for multi-modal transportation options; however, there is no specific policy guidance regarding freight rail.
San Ysidro Community Plan The San Ysidro area was annexed by the City of San Diego in 1957. The San Ysidro Community Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1974, and updated in 1990 with subsequent amendments through 2000. The San Ysidro Community Area is a mix of established residential areas characterized by older homes, urban neighborhoods comprised of infill development, commercial uses along San Ysidro Boulevard and in the new Las Americas Center on Camino de la Plaza. The planning area is generally fragmented by the South Line, Interstates 5 and 805. The Transportation and Circulation element of the San Ysidro Community Plan recognizes the need for multi-modal transportation options; however, there is no specific policy guidance regarding freight rail.
City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan Adopted in 1997, the City of San Diego’s MSCP Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) was prepared pursuant to the general outline developed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) to meet the requirements of the California Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act of 1992. This Subarea Plan forms the basis for the implementing agreement which is the contract between the City and the wildlife agencies that ensures implementation of the Subarea Plan and thereby allows the City to issue take permits at the local level. The South Line traverses through a portion of the Southern Multi-Habitat Planning Area. With the exception of the Otay River Valley, the planning area is designated as “developed” land. There is riparian habitat located in proximity to the South Line within the Otay River Valley. No project-related improvements are planned in this area.
National City General Plan The National City General Plan was initially adopted in September, 1996 and last amended in October, 2005. Policy N within the Public Services and Facilities element of the General Plan states that National City “will work with Caltrans, SANDAG and MTDB (now MTS) and other responsible agencies to identify, plan and implement needed transportation improvements” (National City General Plan, amended 2005).
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 2-4 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524493-2 2.0 Project Description
City of Chula Vista General Plan Update - 2005 The City of Chula Vista General Plan Update was approved in December, 2005. The Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan guides development in accordance with the city’s vision. The Land Use and Transportation Element is built upon three themes: (1) Strong Community Character and Image; (2) Strong and Safe Neighborhoods; and (3) Improved Mobility. Chula Vista aims to “provide a wide range of convenient and affordable mobility options that allow people to go from where they are to where they want to be, in a safe; pleasant; rapid; cost-effective; and environmentally friendly manner.” To achieve this goal, the majority of commercial development in the Chula Vista study area is located along major roadways and in the village cores to facilitate connectivity between the cores. This is evident in the Land Use Element policy to “provide roads, transit service, bike routes, and pedestrian pathways that connect activity centers to their surrounding neighborhoods, adjacent villages, and each other, such that access is safe and convenient for residents and visitors.”
Chula Vista Planning Areas
With the City of Chula Vista, the South Line runs north/south parallel to and east of I-5. The South Line is located in the Northwest and Southwest Planning Areas. The policies for both Planning Areas reflect neighborhood revitalization, compatible zoning standards, and improvements to local transportation and retail and other services (City of Chula Vista General Plan, 2005). There are no specific policy statements related to expanding capacity on the South Line within the City of Chula Vista.
City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program
The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (2003) maintains goals focusing on conservation of covered species and their habitats; designation and development of a preserve; provision of a preserve action management program for long-term conservation of covered species; and acquisition of federal and state authorizations for 86 species to reduce or eliminate redundant federal, state, and local natural resource regulatory and environmental review of individual projects. With the exception of the Sweetwater and Otay River crossings, the South Line corridor is located within an area designated as “developed”; and thus, is not subject to specific policies regulating development within MSCP area. There are no proposed improvements in proximity to the crossings that would impact protected habitat.
Regional Comprehensive Plan SANDAG has developed a long-term planning framework called the Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region (2004) (RCP), which includes a chapter dedicated to San Diego’s border communities (Chapter 5). The RCP focuses on a broad range of issues that address goals and policy statements supporting development of a reliable and efficient transportation system; long-term, fiscally and environmentally sound energy and water supply; a healthy interregional and bi-national environment; strengthening the economic base and role of the area; and ensure security to the greater border region.
SANDAG 2030 Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future The 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was adopted by SANDAG in November 2007. Although freight rail is a relatively minor portion of the 2030 RTP, one of the main components of the RTP is Systems Management, which helps to maximize system operations so that we make the best use of our existing transportation resources. The proposed project is intended to increase the efficiency of freight movement within the South Line corridor which would reduce congestion and improve mobility on the regional highway system. The project would be generally consistent with the overall policies and goals of the 2030 RTP.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 2-5 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524493-2 2.0 Project Description
2.2 Description of the Proposed Project
2.2.1 Project Description
SANDAG is proposing to increase freight rail capacity from two to four trains per night on the South Line segment of the existing SD&AE Railroad Mainline between the San Diego and San Ysidro yards in San Diego, California. As noted in Section 1 of this document, current freight operations on the South Line are only allowed to occur during a 2.5 hour period when the MTS Blue Line trolley is not in service. This “window” is typically from 1:30 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday morning, with an existing additional southbound freight move allowed beginning at approximately 12:55 am.
This limited operating window restricts Freight operations on the South Line to only two trains per night, one in each direction. The existing 2.5 hour window does not provide enough time for the first train to clear the San Ysidro yard, and a second train to be ‘built’ and travel all the way north to the San Diego yard. A larger operating window would be required to provide enough time to get additional northbound and southbound trains through the system.
Under a typical scenario, two freight trains per night operate on the South Line, with one train originating in the San Diego yard and the other in the San Ysidro yard. The locomotives pick up and drop off cars on the sidings and customer spur tracks during the operating window before proceeding to either destination yard. The number of cars comprising any given train can range from less than 10 to as many as 50. A typical train is comprised of approximately 30 cars.
The proposed improvements would increase the capacity of the existing corridor to accommodate one additional freight train in either direction per night. This increase in capacity would be achieved by expanding the operating window and allowing an early northbound freight movement during existing trolley service. By implementing the improvements proposed by this project, the freight operator will have time to ‘build’ an additional train in the San Ysidro Yard and send it northbound. The additional nightly trains leaving the San Diego and San Ysidro yards and heading north or south along the South Line corridor will allow for an increase in goods movement capacity between Mexico and US destinations east of San Diego or north through the Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) corridor.
The proposed project will not add any additional connections or sidings to serve additional adjacent businesses or properties. However, existing siding and customer spur track facilities are not being fully utilized. Localized train movements back and forth along the corridor that serve existing sidings and spur tracks, could increase significantly without any of the improvements proposed by this project.
The improvements listed below are potential project improvements currently under evaluation and are all included for the purpose of this evaluation. All improvements are anticipated to be installed within the current right of way and are intended to increase operational capacity of the South Line and improve the overall operational efficiency. No additional right-of-way is expected to be required. Improvement locations are shown on Figures 2-2a-g, and described as follows:
Positive Train Separation System. Installation of this system will provide the opportunity for joint trolley and freight operations outside of the existing freight window. This is a communication-based system that is intended to enforce movement authority and speed restrictions on the entire 15.5 mile length of the South Line. Once installed, the system will provide the level of communication needed to maintain safe distances between trolleys and freight trains, enforce operating speeds and compliance with wayside signal devices. On-board systems would be installed on 134 trolley vehicles and 5 freight
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 2-6 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524493-2
2.0 Project Description
locomotives. Wayside systems would be installed along the South Line corridor to monitor switches, signals, and other signaling devices. The system will require updates to existing infrastructure. Improvements will not require the acquisition of additional right-of-way.
Systems are typically comprised of a dispatch segment that provides “real-time” vehicle position reports utilizing a wireless communication network; a wayside segment that provides a wireless interface to signal system devices; a communication segment that provides the means to deliver authorities and restrictions from the dispatch system and convey wayside device status; and, an on-board segment that employs a computer that interfaces with vehicle peripheral devices. The on-board computer uses Geographic Position System (GPS), wheel tachometer information and an on-board geo-referenced track database to determine the vehicles location.
Bi-Directional Centralized Traffic Control. Modifications to the existing single direction Automatic Block Signal (ABS) system and installation of a Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) dispatch system will allow trolley/freight movement in either direction on either track. Using this system, the MTS control operator will be able to remotely select trolley/freight train routes. This will eliminate the current requirement for a freight train crewperson to stop, exit the locomotive, request a route locally, return to the locomotive, and then proceed on the route selected.
In addition the CTC dispatch system enables the control operator to maintain a safe distance between trolley and freight trains. Utilizing proper signal block spacing and strategic placement of power crossover switches, the freight trains and/or trolleys can be constrained from following one another too closely. Using this system will reduce freight train occupancy time on the South Line by a minimum of 5 minutes per route request and allow freight trains to operate at a greater speed during the freight operating window. The system will require updates to existing infrastructure. Improvements will not require the acquisition of additional right-of-way.
Bi-Directional Grade Crossing System Train Detection. The existing highway grade crossing warning systems are designed to detect train movements in the prevailing direction (e.g. “with the current of traffic”). If a train is required to move in the opposite direction (e.g. “against the current of traffic”), the present grade crossing system design does not activate the warning devices until the train is within a few feet of the intersection. Presently when operating “against the current of traffic”, the train must move at restricted speed (e.g. not greater than 10 MPH) and must not enter the grade crossing intersection until the warning devices have activated and the crossing gates are horizontal.
Installation of bi-directional CTC will allow highway grade warning systems to detect trains approaching from either direction. This system will enable freight trains to operate at 40 MPH on either South Line track. Ten (10) of the twenty-five (25) grade crossings within the project limits will be modified to accommodate bi-directional operation.
In addition to modifications to the detection system, this improvement includes the installation of two new crossovers to take advantage of the increased reverse direction travel speed allowed by grade crossing approach circuit improvements. The crossovers would be installed in the vicinity of Mile Post (MP) 3.4 (north of 32nd Street) and in the vicinity MP 8.8 (north of L Street) within the existing ROW.
San Diego Yard Centralized Traffic Control. A CTC system will be installed at the San Diego freight yard entrance. This will eliminate the 5 minute delay associated with requesting a route to the South Line and allow switching movements within the yard for trolley operations without requiring a continuous route request. Installation of the pole-mounted communication equipment will not require the acquisition of additional ROW.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 2-14 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524493-2 2.0 Project Description
San Ysidro Yard Centralized Traffic Control. A CTC system at the San Ysidro freight yard entrance will eliminate the 5 minute delay associated with requesting a route to the South Line. Similar to the San Diego Yard improvements, this will not require the acquisition of additional ROW.
Palomar Siding Improvements. The Palomar Siding is located between approximate MP 9 and approximate MP 10.5. Under this project, new signaling and CTC functions would be installed at the Palomar Siding as well as track improvements and modifications to the existing siding layout. The track improvements may include the addition of new turnouts and derails, and replacement of tracks, ties and ballast. New turnouts may be added on either side of Palomar Street in Chula Vista and/or a new track segment approximately 350 feet in length would be added south of Main Street to extend the siding south to a proposed mainline switch located just north of the Otay River crossing. See Figure 2-3. This would allow freight trains to serve customers along the siding and the opportunity to switch the siding during trolley operations. These improvements would also allow the siding to be used for temporary train storage to avoid conflicts with trolley operation or if the operating window is insufficient in length to allow the freight train to arrive at a yard within time limits. Construction would require improvements within the existing mainline fill slope; however, improvements would not require the acquisition of additional ROW. A concrete block retaining wall approximately 700 feet in length would be constructed adjacent to the proposed siding improvements. The wall height would vary between 2 and 5 feet and is intended to allow all construction improvements to occur within the existing right of way.
Construction
The South Line improvements would be constructed over a period of approximately 3 years. The ground disturbance associated with the improvements would be minimal and include potentially replacing or adding aggregate material within the existing track or siding areas to accommodate the improvements. Some exvacation and earth moving would be required to modify the existing fill slope for construction of the Palomor Siding track extension. Construction activities would be coordinated to avoid disruption of Blue Line trolley service. Proposed improvements within existing siding areas would occur during the day since the trolley does not use these areas off of the main line. Main line improvements would occur during the night when the trolley is not in service.
2.3 Objectives of the Project
The proposed project has been designed to achieve specific project objectives. They include:
Increase the throughput freight capacity of the south line from 2 to 4 trains per day and 10,000 to 19,600 carloads per year; Increase the speed of freight traffic on the South Line to reduce one-way travel times between the San Diego and San Ysidro Yards by up to 20 minutes; Increase the reliability of freight traffic travel times by eliminating canceled service resulting from track maintenance; Reduce one-way travel time variability by up to 15 minutes; Provide congestion relief for freight traffic and reduce delays by up to 20 minutes per train per day; Provide improved safety for rail workers and the general public at grade crossings (i.e., central control, automatic stop, and reverse signaling); Eliminate up to 31,800 annual truck trips and reduce annual truck vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by up to 3,800,000;
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 2-15 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524493-2
2.0 Project Description
Improve mobility by reducing truck traffic on local streets and regional highways; Improve freight goods movement throughput capacity, efficiency, and connectivity between northern Mexico and the Los Angeles/San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor; and
2.4 Discretionary Actions
A discretionary decision is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. Implementation of the proposed project would require the following specific discretionary approvals:
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration –SANDAG would be required to adopt the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project to satisfy the administrative requirements of CEQA.
California Coastal Act – An exemption or waiver to a California Coastal Act consistency determination would be required by the California Coastal Commission.
Federal Rail Administration - Approval of an operating waiver and operations plan.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance – a Categorical Exclusion is being sought from the Federal Rail Administration.
In addition, the proposed development may need to obtain the following non-discretionary permits as part of project implementation:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board - Notice of Intent to Comply with General Permit for Construction Activity.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 2-17 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524493-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
This section of the Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and provides explanations of the responses to the Environmental Checklist found in Appendix A of this document. The Environmental Checklist is based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and includes a list of questions that correspond directly to the legal standards for preparing Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), Negative Declarations, and Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs). The environmental issues evaluated in this Initial Study include the following:
Aesthetics Land Use and Planning Agriculture Resources Mineral Resources Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Population and Housing Cultural Resources Public Services Geology and Soils Recreation Hazards and Hazardous Materials Transportation/Traffic Hydrology and Water Quality Utilities and Service System
The environmental analysis provided in this section is patterned after the questions in the Environmental Checklist. Under each issue area, a general discussion of the existing conditions is provided. The Environmental Checklist questions are then stated and an answer is provided according to the environmental analysis of the project’s impacts. To each question, there are four possible outcomes:
No Impact. The implementation of the proposed project will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below thresholds that may be considered significant.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project will have potentially significant adverse impacts which may exceed established thresholds, although mitigation measures or changes to the project’s physical or operational characteristics will reduce these impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. Measures that may reduce potentially significant impacts are identified.
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project will have impacts that are considered significant and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. When an impact is determined to be potentially significant in the preliminary analysis, the environmental issue will be subject to detailed analysis in an EIR.
The references and sources used for the analysis are also identified after each response.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-1 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524495-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality
The proposed project is located on a 12.5 mile segment of the existing SD&AE Railroad Mainline between the San Diego and San Ysidro yards. All project work would occur within the existing rail corridor ROW. The northern portion of the proposed project corridor is surrounded by industrial uses including warehousing, shipyards, a car track, freight/container storage and a U.S. Naval Station. The mid section of the proposed project corridor is surrounded by mostly office, single family residential, multi-family residential, schools, recreation centers, and a storage unit facility. The southern portion of the proposed project corridor is surrounded by vacant land, single family residential, multi-family residential, schools, parks, general commercial/retail, a golf driving range, greenhouses and border facilities. The project also crosses over the Chollas Creek, Sweetwater River and Otay River.
(Source: Site Survey)
A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. The proposed project is located within the 12.5 mile segment of the existing SD&AE Railroad Mainline between the San Diego and San Ysidro yards. The existing rail corridor is visible to adjacent land uses and roadways. The rail line in some areas is elevated and visible from non-adjacent uses.
The proposed project improvements are limited to the existing rail corridor ROW; therefore, the proposed project would not change the existing views into or out of the project area. Current views from adjacent land uses into the project area are of an existing rail corridor with operating freight trains and trolleys. This view would not change with implementation of the proposed project. The project would have no impact on scenic vistas within the corridor.
A retaining wall is proposed as part of the Palomar Siding improvements. The retaining wall will be constructed of concrete blocks and will vary in height from two to five feet and be approximately 700 feet in length. The proposed retaining wall would be adjacent to an industrial land use and would be located on the side of a fill slope; thus, it would not obstruct any views along the corridor.
(Source: Site Survey)
B. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The proposed project site is located on an existing segment of the SD&AE Railroad Mainline. No trees, rock outcroppings or scenic resources exist in the corridor, nor is the site visible from any state scenic highway, historic building or scenic viewpoint. There are sections of the existing rail line that are elevated including, bridge structures over Chollas Creek, Sweetwater River and Otay River; however, the proposed project would not change the existing views nor would it affect scenic resources.
(Source: Site Survey)
C. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not change the visual character of the project area. Improvements would be limited to the existing rail corridor. During construction, some South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-2 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis activities and staging may be visible from adjacent parcels. However, this change in the visual environment would be localized, short-term and considered a less than significant impact under CEQA.
(Source: Site Survey)
D. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Substantial sources of light and glare currently exist in the project area. Sources include industrial, residential, commercial, office, and schools, which contribute light from interior and exterior lighting, street lighting, and security lighting. Glare can result from windows, painted storage tanks, silos and domed structures.
The proposed project would create minimal sources of light through the installation of lighting on rail signal system devices. Lighting from the additional trains operating on the South Line would also be visible adjacent to the track when trains pass. While the project would create intermittent sources of light, the change would not be substantial enough to adversely affect day or nighttime views. The impact would be less than significant.
(Source: Site Survey)
3.2 Agricultural Resources
The California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) develops statistical data for analyzing impacts to California’s agricultural resources. The FMMP program characterizes Prime Farmland as land with the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics that are able to sustain long term production of agricultural crops. Farmland of Statewide Importance is land with a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for agricultural production with less ability to store soil moisture, compared to Prime Farmland. Unique Farmland is used for production of the state’s major crops on soils not qualifying for prime or statewide importance.
The FMMP also identifies Urban and Built-up Land, Other Land that is not included in any other mapping category, and Water. According to the FMMP, the South Line corridor is located on Urban and Built-up Land. Urban and Built-up Land is land characterized by a building density greater than 1-unit per 1.5 acres. Development adjacent to the corridor includes, but is not limited to, residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional land uses.
(Sources: California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and Site Survey)
A. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. According to the 2006 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the study area is designated Urban and Built-up Land. No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be converted to non-agricultural use with the implementation of the South Line project because all improvements would occur within the existing ROW.
(Sources: Site Survey, California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program) South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-3 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
B. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The Williamson Act is California State legislation that allows the creation of agricultural preserves. San Diego County participates in the Williamson Act and allows owners of agricultural land to pay property taxes based on the agricultural production of their properties, rather than the current market value. This act serves to encourage the continued agricultural use of lands in the County within these designated agricultural preserves.
According to the San Diego County General Plan Resources Element, the South Line corridor is not located in an existing Agricultural Preserve and is not under a Williamson Act Contract. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract. (Sources: San Diego County General Plan, Site Survey)
C. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. As noted above, all project-related improvements would occur within existing rail ROW. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses.
(Sources: City of Chula Vista General Plan, Site Survey, and San Diego County General Plan)
3.3 Air Quality
The weather of the San Diego region, as in most of southern California, is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and its semi-permanent high-pressure systems that result in dry, warm summers and mild, occasionally wet winters. The average temperature ranges from the mid 40s to the high 90s. Most of the county’s precipitation falls from November to April, with infrequent (approximately ten percent) precipitation during the summer. The average seasonal precipitation along the coast is approximately ten inches; the amount increases with elevation as moist air is lifted over the mountains. The topography in the San Diego region varies greatly, from beaches on the west to mountains and desert on the east; along with local meteorology, it influences the dispersal and movement of pollutants in the basin. The mountains to the east prohibit dispersal of pollutants in that direction and help trap them in inversion layers. The interaction of ocean, land, and the Pacific High Pressure Zone maintains clear skies for much of the year and influences the direction of prevailing winds (westerly to northwesterly). Local terrain is often the dominant factor inland, and winds in inland mountainous areas tend to blow through the valleys during the day and down the hills and valleys at night.
Air Quality Standards
Air quality is measured by comparing pollutant levels in ambient air samples to National and State standards. These standards are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at levels determined to be protective of public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 first authorized National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were authorized by the State legislature in 1967. California standards are generally more stringent than the National standards.
Air quality is considered in "attainment" of NAAQS if pollutant levels are below or equal to the standards continuously with exceedances allowed on average no more than once each year. Thus, one violation of National
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-4 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
standards averaged over three years is considered consistent with the NAAQS. The definition of attainment with CAAQS is zero violations.
Attainment Status
Federal and State regulations require the development of comprehensive plans for the attainment of air quality standards. Section 107 of the 1977 CAA Amendments requires the EPA to publish the compliance status of all geographic areas within the U.S. Section 39608 of California’s Health and Safety Code (H&SC) requires CARB to designate and annually update area designations with regard to the CAAQS. Areas not in compliance with N/CAAQS are deemed nonattainment areas. Areas where there is insufficient data to make a determination are deemed “unclassified” and are considered in attainment until proven otherwise. Areas that were once classified as nonattainment but have since met attainment criteria are classified as “maintenance” areas. The designation of an area is based on data collected by the state monitoring network for each criteria pollutant. Based on regional monitoring data, the EPA/CARB has identified nonattainment areas in the San Diego Air Basin for each criteria pollutant and classified the nonattainment areas according to the extent of the pollution. The area’s classification status is shown in Table 3-1. San Diego County is listed as a non- attainment area for ozone. The county is in attainment or a maintenance area for all other pollutants.
Table 3-1 San Diego Air Basin Attainment Classification Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (1 hour) Attainment* Nonattainment Ozone (8 hour) Nonattainment (Subpart I) Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment (Maintenance Area) Attainment PM 10 Unclassifiable** Nonattainment PM 2.5 Attainment Nonattainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Sulfates (no federal standard) Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide (no federal standard) Unclassified Visibility (no federal standard) Unclassified Source: SDAPCD 2007. * The federal 1-hour standard of 0.12 ppm was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced here because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in State Implementation Plans. ** At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable.
Local Air Quality
The interaction of ocean, land, and the Pacific High Pressure Zone maintains clear skies for much of the year and drives the prevailing winds. Winds in inland mountainous areas tend to blow up the valleys during the day and down the hills and valleys at night.
In conjunction with the onshore/offshore wind patterns, there are two types of temperature inversions (i.e. increase in temperature with altitude) which occur within the region that affect atmospheric dispersion and contribute to degradation of local air quality. In the summer, a temperature inversion forms at about 1,100 to 2,500 feet (335 to 765 meters) above the ground. The inversion covers the entire coastal plain and is created when the warm air mass over land is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air flowing onshore. In addition to the temperature inversion, the prevailing sunshine in this region further exacerbates the smog problem by inducing additional adverse photochemical reactions. During the winter, a nightly shallow South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-5 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis inversion layer (usually at about 800 feet or 243 meters) forms between the cooled air at the ground and the warmer air above, which can trap vehicular pollutants. The highest carbon monoxide concentrations occur during the winter months.
The predominant onshore/offshore wind pattern is sometimes interrupted by “Santa Ana” conditions. This occurs when high pressure over the Nevada-Utah area overcomes the prevailing westerlies, sending strong, steady, hot, and dry winds from the east over the mountains and out to sea. Strong Santa Anas tend to blow pollutants out over the ocean, resulting in clear days. However, at the onset or breakdown of these conditions or if the Santa Ana is weak, prevailing northwesterly winds form and blow pollutants from the Los Angeles basin ashore in the San Diego Air Basin. Smog transport from the South Coast Air Basin (the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties) is a key factor on more than half the days that air standards are exceeded in San Diego (San Diego Air Pollution Control District, 2005).
The SDAPCD monitors air quality conditions at 10 locations throughout the district. For the purpose of this analysis, data from the downtown San Diego, Beardsley Street monitoring station was used to characterize existing conditions in the vicinity of the study area, and to establish a baseline for estimating future conditions. Ambient concentrations of pollutants from 2006 through 2008 are presented in Table 3-2. The state 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded in 2006, 2007, and 2008, as were the state annual and 24-hour PM10 standards and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Additionally, the annual PM2.5 standard was exceeded in 2006. Air quality within the project region is in compliance with both CAAQS and NAAQS for NO2, CO, and SO2.
Table 3-2 Ambient Air Quality Data (ppm unless otherwise indicated) Most Stringent Ambient Air Averaging Quality Monitoring Pollutant Time 2006 2007 2008 Standard Station 8 hour 0.071 0.073 0.073 0.070 O3 Downtown SD 1 hour 0.082 0.087 0.087 0.090 Annual 34.4 ȝg/m3 31.3 ȝg/m3 29.3 ȝg/m3 20 ȝg/m3 PM10 Downtown SD 24 hour 74.0 ȝg/m3 111.0 ȝg/m3 59.0 ȝg/m3 50 ȝg/m3 Annual* 13.1 ȝg/m3 11.7 ȝg/m3 10.7 ȝg/m3 12 ȝg/m3 PM2.5 Downtown SD 24 hour 63.3 ȝg/m3 71.4 ȝg/m3 42.0 ȝg/m3 35 ȝg/m3 Annual 0.021 0.018 0.019 0.030 NO2 Downtown SD 1 hour 0.094 0.098 0.091 0.180 8 hour 3.27 3.01 2.60 9.0 CO Downtown SD 1 hour* 5.3 4.4 3.1 20 Annual 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.030 SO2 Downtown SD 24 hour 0.009 0.006 0.007 0.040 Source: CARB Air Quality Data Statistics (2009c) http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html, * Data were taken from EPA AirData (2009b) http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html Notes: Downtown SD - Monitoring Station located at 1110 Beardsley Street, San Diego, CA
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-6 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
A. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact. Operation of the project would produce volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions associated with the operation of two additional trains per day on the South Line segment. Currently, two trains (each train consisting of two GP-38 locomotives) utilize the South Line segment for a 30-minute line haul cycle, and spend an additional 6 hours switching (at either the San Diego Rail Yard or the San Ysidro Rail Yard). The proposed project would add two trains to the current 30-minute line haul cycle; however, these additional trains would pass through the corridor rather than work the sidings. While the proposed project has the potential to reduce the amount of time spent in the line haul cycle, it was conservatively assumed that the additional two trains would spend 30 minutes hauling freight.
The EPA’s Emission Factors for Locomotives (EPA 2009c) was utilized to obtain emission factors for criteria pollutants. Data regarding fuel consumption, horsepower, line-haul and switching cycles, and notch settings specific to the GP-38 locomotive was obtained from Kimley-Horn and Associates (Kimley-Horn 2009). These data were used to calculate emissions for the existing condition as well as the emissions associated with the South Line after completion of the proposed project (refer to Appendix B, which includes the data and assumptions used to generate emissions).
Table 3-3, Estimated Daily Maximum Operational Emissions, presents the maximum daily emissions for the existing condition as well as emissions after implementation of the proposed project. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix B.
Table 3-3 Estimated Daily Maximum Operational Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Existing Conditions Emissions 8.37 157.13 16.29 0.07 3.95 3.83 Existing + Proposed Project Emissions 9.68 192.81 19.80 0.08 4.83 4.68 Net Change in Emissions Emissions 1.32 35.68 3.51 0.02 0.88 0.85 Pollutant Threshold 137 250 550 250 100 100 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: See Appendix B for complete results. Emissions were derived from the following data sources: EPA 2009c, Kimley-Horn 2009.
As shown, the net change in daily operational emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5. As discussed below, the project would have an overall net benefit in air quality by reducing truck VMT by as much as 3,800,000. As such, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.
General Conformity As indicated in Section 6.0, the relevant de minimis thresholds for the SDAB are 100 tons per year for VOC (ozone precursor), NOx (ozone precursor), and CO. Table 3-4, Estimated Annual Maximum Operational Emissions, presents the net change in annual emissions resulting from the proposed project.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-7 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
Table 3-4 Estimated Annual Maximum Operational Emissions (tons/year) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Net Change in Emissions 0.21 5.57 0.55 0.00 0.14 0.13 De Minimis Threshold 100 100 100 —- —- —- Threshold Exceeded? No No No —- —- —- Source: See Appendix B for complete results. Emissions were derived from the following data sources: EPA 2009c, Kimley-Horn 2009.
As shown in Table 3-4, the annual emissions of VOC, NOx, and CO would not exceed the de minimis thresholds. Thus, further analysis is not required for these pollutants because their emissions would be less than the de minimis thresholds. Thus, the project would be in compliance with the general conformity requirements and would not conflict with local air quality attainment or maintenance plans to achieve or maintain federal ambient air quality standards.
(Sources: Air Quality Technical Report)
B. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed above, the project would not violate applicable air quality standards. Thus, the project would not adversely affect air quality. In addition to the air quality analysis summarized herein, a Health Risk Assessment was performed to determine whether diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions resulting from the increased rail traffic on the South Line could adversely affect nearby communities. The Health Risk Assessment is provided as Appendix C to this document. Based on this analysis, the health impacts resulting from the proposed project would not exceed the SDAPCD significance threshold of an incremental cancer risk of 10 in one million since the maximum anticipated cancer risk is 0.7 in one million within 250 meters of the track. In addition, the chronic hazard indices for noncancer health impacts are below the significance threshold of 1.0 at the maximally exposed receptors.
(Source: Air Quality Technical Report and Health Risk Assessment)
C. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA defines cumulative impact as follows (CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Page 9-11):
In analyzing cumulative impacts from the proposed project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project’s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the SDAB is listed as nonattainment for the NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone and the CAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5. If the proposed project does not exceed thresholds and is determined to have less than significant project-specific impacts, it may still have a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality if the emissions from the project, in combination with the emissions from other proposed or reasonably foreseeable future projects, are in excess of established thresholds. However, the project would only be considered to have a cumulative impact if the project’s contribution accounts for a significant proportion of the cumulative total emissions.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-8 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions generally result in near-field impacts. As discussed above, the emissions of all criteria pollutants, including PM10 and PM2.5, would be well below the significance levels. Therefore, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are not anticipated to result in a cumulatively significant impact on air quality.
With regard to cumulative impacts associated with O3 precursors, in general, if a project is consistent with the community and general plans, it has been accounted for in the O3 attainment demonstration contained within the State Implementation Plan. The proposed project is consistent with local community plans and general plans, and is also consistent with SANDAG’s 2030 RTP. The proposed project is included in the 2030 RTP as a part of the comprehensive goods movement evaluation and action plan. As such, it would not cause a cumulatively significant impact on the ambient air quality for O3. The proposed project would provide congestion relief for freight traffic and eliminate up to 31,800 annual truck trips, reducing annual truck vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by up to 3,800,000. Thus, the proposed project would have a net benefit on air quality by significantly reducing truck VMT and transporting freight more efficiently. Additionally, the reduction in truck trips would have the indirect effect of reducing congestion (and thereby improving air quality) on local streets and regional highways. Thus the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact on O3 concentrations.
(Sources: Air Quality Technical Report)
D. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors located near the proposed project include parks, residences, and schools. While the project would increase the number nightly freight train pass by events, the tracks would not be moved closer to any sensitive properties. As referenced in the Air Quality Technical Report, no exceedances of the N/CAAQSs are expected to occur at sensitive receptors within the study area.
(Sources: Air Quality Technical Report)
E. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Odors are a form of air pollution that is most obvious to the general public. Odors can present significant problems for both the source and surrounding community. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause concern.
Land uses and industrial operations that are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies and fiberglass molding. The proposed project would increase freight rail capacity from two to four trains per night along an existing rail corridor, and would not consist of land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Diesel exhaust would be emitted during operation of the proposed project; however, emissions would disperse rapidly and would occur along a corridor that is already subject to diesel emissions from existing freight activity. In addition, emissions would occur during a 2.5-hour “window”—typically from 1:30 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. During this time of day, sensitive receptors are unlikely to be sensitive to odors. As a result, any increase in odors is unlikely to induce a negative response, and impacts would be less than significant.
(Sources: Air Quality Technical Report)
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-9 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
3.4 Biological Resources
The proposed project is limited to the current South Line segment between the San Diego and San Ysidro yards. The corridor is fully developed with residential, commercial, industrial and other uses. Vegetation communities throughout the corridor consist primarily of landscaping with ruderal and barren areas. There are three water bodies that the corridor passes over, Chollas Creek, which is in the northern section of the project near I-15, the Sweetwater River which is in the central portion of the project near SR-54, and the Otay River, which is in the southern portion of the project near SR-905. These areas contain marshy vegetation as well as riparian habitat in proximity to, but not within the corridor ROW. No improvements are proposed in these areas.
(Sources: Site Survey)
A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project corridor is currently developed as a rail line. With the exception of sparse ruderal and adjacent landscape species, the corridor and ROW are generally void of vegetation. Minor ground disturbance is proposed along the corridor in proximity to the Palomar Siding south of Main Street and Industrial Boulevard in Chula Vista. However, this would not affect any threatened or endangered species or habitat.
(Sources: Site Survey)
B. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Although Riparian habitat is present along the corridor at the Otay River and Chollas Creek, no riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities occur within the ROW within the project study area. Therefore, no riparian or sensitive habitat would be disturbed by the proposed project.
(Sources: Site Survey)
C. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. No direct removal, filling, or other hydrological interruption would occur with implementation of the proposed project. No wetlands occur within the area of proposed ground disturbance; thus, the project would not have any direct or secondary impacts on wetland resources.
(Sources: Site Survey)
D. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-10 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
No Impact. Construction of the proposed project would not interfere with any identified wildlife corridors. The rail corridor is surrounded by existing development with the exception of a few vacant lands in the southern portion of the project. These areas are primarily located on the eastern side of the rail line and are not contiguous with other vacant lands on the west side of the rail line; and thus, would not be suitable for use as a wildlife corridor. No impact would occur.
(Sources: Site Survey)
E. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The area proposed for construction improvements consists of ruderal vegetation and bare ground. As such, construction of the project would not remove any plants or trees that would be regulated under a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact would occur.
(Sources: Site Survey)
F. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The segment of the corridor within the City of Chula Vista falls within the Multiple Species Conservation Plan and the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Southern Subarea Plan. As noted, with the exception of the Sweetwater River and Otay River crossings, the corridor is designated as developed area. The crossings contain protected habitat; however, the project would not involve any ground disturbing activities within these areas. Thus, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted MSCP.
(Sources: MSCP, City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan, MSCP, City of San Diego Subarea Plan, Site Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Endangered Species Program; and California Department of Fish and Game – Habitat Conservation Planning Branch)
3.5 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources, which are protected under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, include the non-renewable remains of past human use of an area. Cultural resources can include both archaeological resources and ethnographic resources. Archaeological resources consist of architectural remains, isolated features such as rock piles, hearths (fire pits), or scatters of artifacts (pottery or rock fragments). Ethnographic resources are often less tangible, referring to materials, places, or things used by living communities. Given the scope and location of the proposed improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, a technical report addressing this issue was not performed.
A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
No Impact. The proposed project is limited to the existing South Line corridor. The corridor and surrounding areas are heavily disturbed and composed of fill material and bare ground and all disturbances associated with construction of the improvements would be confined to the corridor. There are no historical resources that
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-11 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
would be impacted by the proposed project.
(Sources: Site Survey)
B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project is limited to the South Line corridor. The corridor and surrounding areas are heavily disturbed and composed of fill material and bare ground and all disturbances associated with construction of the improvements would be confined to the corridor. Thus, the likelihood of archeological resources remaining in the project area is considered low. Ground disturbance associated with construction is minimal and includes the replacement of tracks, ties and ballast in some areas. A cultural resources study was not prepared for the project; however, if evidence of archaeological resources is found during construction, the following mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation
Measure 3.5.B1: If during excavation or earth moving activities, the construction contractor identifies potential resources, SANDAG would be notified and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find. In the event that cultural materials are encountered, the following steps will be followed:
All excavation and/or grading shall cease immediately. Additional testing and evaluation of the remains shall be completed and recommendations for treatment shall be made in accordance with standard guidelines.
Measure 3.5.B2: If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner of his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
(Sources: State Health and Safety Code, CA Public Resources Code)
C. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Ground disturbance would be confined to the existing rail bed. Thus, the likelihood of encountering paleontological resources is low considering depositional processes or fill placement have likely buried any paleontological resources. However if evidence of paleontological resources are found, mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-12 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
Mitigation
Measure 3.5.C1: In the event that cultural materials are encountered during excavation or grading activities, the permit holder shall take all the following steps:
All excavation and/or grading shall cease immediately. Additional testing and evaluation of the remains shall be completed and recommendations for treatment shall be made in accordance with standard guidelines.
(Sources: State Health and Safety Code, CA Public Resources Code)
D. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project is limited to the South Line corridor. The corridor and surrounding areas are heavily disturbed and composed of fill material and bare ground. Further, all disturbances associated with construction of the improvements would be confined to the corridor. Thus, no impact to buried human remains is expected to occur with the proposed project. However, implementation of mitigation measure 3.5.B2 will minimize impacts to human remains should any be discovered during construction.
(Sources: State Health and Safety Code, CA Public Resources Code)
3.6 Geology and Soils
Geology
The project study area is situated in a western portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province and lies between the coastal plain and the western foothill slopes. The project study area and near vicinity is located in the areas underlain by alluvium and slope wash undifferentiated, stream-terrace deposits, San Diego Formation, Otay Formation, and unnamed fanglomerate deposits.
Soils and Topography
Alluvium and slope wash undifferentiated have been mapped along Chollas Creek, the Sweetwater River, and the Otay River channels. These materials are chiefly derived from nearby sources of soil and/or decomposed bedrock and were deposited along the drainage courses by the interaction of gravity and water. Stream-terrace deposits occur very locally as thin veneer along the Otay River drainage courses. The deposits include unconsolidated sand and gravel derived locally from the sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rock of the area. The general configuration of the South Line corridor consists of an excavated, leveled, or raised rail bed. There are no significant grades or cut/fill slopes along the corridor.
Seismicity
The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Study Zone as established by the State Geologist around known active faults. The nearest known fault is the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon/East (NIE) that is located off-shore approximately 10 miles to the northwest of the project site. Including the NIE, there are seven known active faults within a 50-mile radius of the site. Although the subject site could experience severe ground shaking in the event of an earthquake along any of these faults, it does not possess any greater risk than that of the surrounding developments. South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-13 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
(Sources: USGS and California Geological Survey)
A. Would the project expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Less Than Significant Impact. The study area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Study Zone as established by the State Geologist. Review of available literature and field reconnaissance revealed no active fault trace through or near the site. The nearest active fault is the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon/East (NIE) Fault, located approximately 10 miles northwest of the project area.
The Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault is classified as a Quaternary age strike-slip fault and it is unknown when it last ruptured. Rupturing from this fault is not likely to occur.
Because the proposed project would not involve the construction of building features in a recognized fault zone, the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of the nearby faults would remain less than significant.
B. Would the project be subject to strong seismic groundshaking?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is in a relatively inactive seismic area in Southern California. As such there is a low possibility for strong seismic ground shaking.
(Sources: USGS and California Geological Survey)
C. Would the project be subject to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction commonly occurs in earthquake-prone areas when ground shaking causes young, loose, water-saturated soil to become fluid and lose cohesiveness. Liquefaction is not known to have occurred historically in San Diego County; however, portions of the unincorporated County would be susceptible to liquefaction from ground shaking during larger seismic events (San Diego County General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2009). The potential for liquefaction at the site is considered low because soils are relatively shallow and comprised of dense material. Further, there is no evidence of permanent, near-surface groundwater (which is needed to create liquefaction conditions) within proximity to the improvement areas.
(Sources: California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, USGSS and California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Mapping Program)
D. Would the project be subject to landslides?
No Impact. The South Line corridor is predominantly flat and not located adjacent to cut/fill areas. There is no obvious threat of landslide along the project corridor.
(Sources: USGS and California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Mapping Program)
E. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-14 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is relatively flat and would remain so after project implementation. During project construction, erosion hazards would be reduced when standard dust and erosion control measures are implemented. Implementation of standard dust and erosion control measures referenced above in the Air Quality section, would reduce soil erosion hazards or the loss of topsoil. The potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant with implementation of these measures. (Sources: USGS and California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Mapping Program)
F. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact. The project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is known to be unstable. It is unlikely that the project would result in a landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
(Sources: USGS and California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Mapping Program)
G. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact. Due to the previously developed nature of the area, soils within the project corridor are primarily fill material. Based on documentation describing soil characteristics within the general project area, fill material is presumed to be underlain by sandstone and claystone. Sandstone portions of the Otay Formation are known to have low expansion and good shear strength properties; claystone portions of the Otay Formation are known to exhibit moderate to high expansion potential. The project would occur within the existing rail corridor. Excavation in proximity to the Palomar Siding would be minor and limited to the existing ROW. The new track bed would be constructed consistent with Uniform Building Code seismic criteria. Thus, the project is not expected to be affected by expansive soils.
(Sources: USGS and California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Mapping Program)
H. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. The project would not use septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system.
(Source: Project Plans)
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A hazardous material is defined as any substance that may be hazardous to humans, animals, or plants, and commonly include pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals and chemicals, and volatile chemicals. Small generators of hazardous materials include dry cleaners, automotive repair shops, medical facilities, and photo processing centers. Larger businesses, primarily in industrial locations, can generate large quantities of hazardous materials.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-15 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
The entire project corridor has been previously developed and currently has two sets of railroad tracks used for both local trolley and freight transportation. The proposed project does not involve any ROW acquisition and only minor ground disturbance is proposed. The discovery of any hazardous materials during project construction is not anticipated.
(Sources: Site Survey)
A. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public, or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. The transport of hazardous materials is governed by Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 6 and 13 of the California Health and Safety Code and Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 13 of the California Code of Regulations and Federal Regulations Title 49 USC Chapter 51 Transportation of Hazardous Materials (as amended 1/2/2006). Trains currently using the rail corridor abide by these regulations as will trains using the corridor in the future. It is beyond the scope of this evaluation to speculate on what materials may be transported within the corridor; however, it is assumed that materials would be shipped consistent with applicable regulations which would minimize hazards to the public or environment.
(Sources: Site Survey)
B. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is designed to increase capacity on the existing rail line between San Ysidro and San Diego. As noted above, the transport of hazardous materials is governed by Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 6 and 13 of the California Health and Safety Code and Title 22, Division 4.5 and Chapter 13 of the California Code of Regulations Federal Regulations Title 49 USC Chapter 51 Transportation of Hazardous Materials (as amended 1/2/2006). The project would not create a known hazard to the public or environment or otherwise create conditions that would involve the accidental release of hazardous materials.
C. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. Although several schools exist within a quarter mile of the existing rail line, the proposed project would not cause or facilitate the transport, handling or emission of hazardous materials. Trains using the corridor would only operate at night and abide by rules applicable to the transport of hazardous materials which are intended to minimize impacts to uses in proximity to the corridor. Thus, no impacts to schools related to the transport of hazardous materials are anticipated.
(Sources: California Health and Safety Code and California Code of Regulations)
D. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-16 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
No Impact. The rail corridor and existing ROW near the Palomar Siding is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. Thus, proposed improvements are not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
(Sources: Department of Toxic Substances Control Cortese Database and Site Survey)
E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The nearest airport is Brown Field Municipal Airport, which is located approximately four miles east of the project corridor. The proposed project would not be exposed to airport hazards; would not affect aircraft operations; nor would it create an airport safety hazard for employees or people living or working in proximity to the corridor.
(Sources: Google Earth and Site Survey)
F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. There are no private airstrips located adjacent to or near the project site. Thus, no adverse impacts are expected.
G. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The project would add capacity necessary to accommodate two additional freight trains within the current operating window. Thus, the project would not affect evacuation of the surrounding area. Emergency access to the proposed project site would be maintained during construction activities.
(Sources: Site Survey)
H. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the San Diego County Natural Hazards Disclosure Map (January, 2000), the project site is in the vicinity of a wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risks and hazards. However, proposed improvements would be confined to the existing corridor and ROW. Risk of impact caused by wildland fires is minimal.
(Sources: San Diego County Natural Hazards Disclosure Map 2000 and Site Survey)
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
The project is primarily within the San Diego Bay Watershed – Lower Sweetwater River. This portion of the project area directly discharges to the San Diego Bay. The extreme southern portion of the project is within the Cottonwood-Tijuana Watershed. This portion of the project discharges indirectly into the Tijuana River, South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-17 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
which then discharges into the Tijuana Estuary and ultimately the Pacific Ocean.
Several rivers and waterbodies are located adjacent to or cross the project corridor including the Otay River, Sweetwater River, and Chollas Creek. The proposed project is a railroad corridor and as such is a pervious surface. The project does not propose any new impervious areas nor does it propose any excavation that could impact groundwater, surface water resources or existing stormwater management systems. Based on the scope of the proposed improvements, the overall area disturbed during construction would be less than one acre.
(Sources: Site Survey)
A. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less than Significant Impact. The project ultimately drains into San Diego Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Minimal construction activities will occur at the Palomar Siding, south of Main Street and Industrial Boulevard in Chula Vista. If not managed properly, grading and construction activities could cause soils and other pollutants to enter the storm drain system or surface water. During heavy rains, this could degrade stormwater quality at downstream locations. Because the existing project corridor is built out, stormwater runoff generation rates are not expected to increase. The project would not generate wastewater requiring off- site discharge and treatment.
The disturbance area would be less than one acre; thus, compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System requirements would not be necessary. Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater/erosion control would be provided as part of project design and approved by the jurisdictions where improvements would be located. Water quality impacts are expected to remain less than significant.
B. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
No Impact. The proposed project would not require any water or dewatering activities during construction or operation. No potable water would be required. No impact to groundwater is anticipated.
C. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
No Impact. The project does not propose any ground disturbance that would alter or affect the existing drainage pattern or stream course in the area. Stormwater currently percolates through the soil and base material of the existing rail line and will continue to do so after implementation of the proposed project. No erosion or siltation is anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project. As noted, construction and post-construction BMPs would be developed during design.
D. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-18 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
No Impact. The project does not propose any ground disturbance that would alter or affect the existing drainage pattern or stream course in the area. Stormwater currently percolates through the soil and base material of the existing rail line and will continue to do so after implementation of the proposed project. No flooding is anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project.
E. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
No Impact. The project does not propose any new impervious surfaces; and thus, would not increase runoff volumes into the existing stormwater drainage system.
F. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact. As noted above, the project does not propose any new impervious surfaces; and thus, would not add any runoff to the existing stormwater drainage system. As referenced above, BMP’s would be implemented to minimize construction related impacts to water quality.
G. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No Impact. Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps from FEMA, areas where project improvements would occur are not within a 100-year floodplain. Regardless, the proposed project would not involve the construction of housing. No impact would occur under this threshold.
(Sources: FEMA website for Flood Insurance Rate Maps)
H. Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. As noted above, the project area is not within a 100-year floodplain. None of the proposed changes would impede or redirect major flood flows. No impact would occur under this threshold.
(Sources: FEMA website for Flood Insurance Rate Maps)
I. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less than Significant Impact. The project does not propose any new structures, nor would it expose people to risk involving the failure of a levee or dam. The closest levee or dam is located at the Sweetwater Reservoir which is 5 miles east of the project corridor. Although a risk is present for the failure of the dam at the Sweetwater Reservoir, the risk is no greater than what presently exists onsite and for residents and businesses along the project corridor. Therefore, risk of loss, injury, or death from either natural flooding, levee failure, or from dam inundation would be less than significant.
(Sources: Site Survey)
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-19 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
J. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. The project site is located inland and would not be exposed to tsunami hazards from the Pacific Ocean. There are no large open water bodies in the area which may pose seiche hazards. As noted, Sweetwater Reservoir and Otay Lake are located over 5 and 9 miles, respectively, from the proposed project corridor. The site is also not located on or immediately adjacent to hillside areas that may present mudflow hazards. Implementation of the project would not expose users or the public to the risk of significant loss, injury, or death involving flooding, as a result of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
(Sources: Site Survey)
3.9 Land Use and Planning
The project site is located primarily within the City of Chula Vista, with portions passing through the City of San Diego as well as National City. The General Plans and related Community Plans of San Diego, National City and Chula Vista serve as the primary planning documents to regulate land use within the project area. These are summarized in Section 2 of this document.
(Sources: National City General Plan, San Diego General Plan, Chula Vista General Plan)
A. Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project consists of improvements to an existing rail line. No communities would be divided as a result of project implementation.
(Sources: Site Survey)
B. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with San Diego’s 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), adopted in 2007. The relevant elements of the RTP are summarized in Section 2 of this document. Although freight rail is a relatively minor portion of the 2030 RTP, one of the main components of the RTP is Systems Management, which helps to maximize system operations so that existing transportation resources can be used efficiently. The proposed project is intended to increase the efficiency of freight movement within the South Line corridor which would reduce congestion and improve mobility on the regional highway system. The project would be generally consistent with all goals and directly in support of the most important goals as defined above. Since the proposed project is occurring entirely within existing rail ROW, it is not in conflict with any other land use plans in the project area.
(Sources: San Diego’s 2030 RTP, City of Chula Vista General Plan, City of National City General Plan, City of San Diego General Plan)
C. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-20 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
No Impact. Although portions of the project area fall within the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Plan and the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program, the project does not propose any ground disturbing activities within these areas. Thus, there will be no conflicts with the provisions of an adopted HCP.
(Sources: MSCP, City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan, MSCP, City of San Diego Subarea Plan, Site Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Endangered Species Program; and California Department of Fish and Game – Habitat Conservation Planning Branch)
3.10 Mineral Resources
According to the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, there are no classified/designated significant mineral resource areas in the project vicinity. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) Designation Report (1985) for the area does not identify significant mineral resources near the project site.
(Sources: City of San Diego General Plan, City of Chula Vista General Plan, and California Department of Conservation)
A. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The project site is not located within or adjacent to an area identified as having significant aggregate, oil, or mineral resources. There are no mining activities on or near the site. Thus, no impact to regionally valuable mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed project.
(Sources: City of San Diego General Plan, City of Chula Vista General Plan, and California Department of Conservation)
B. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within or adjacent to a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Anticipated consumption of sand, gravel, or other construction materials needed for the proposed project are not expected to represent a significant amount of mineral resources, when compared to available resources and the cumulative demand for these resources by construction activities in the region.
(Sources: City of San Diego General Plan, City of Chula Vista General Plan, and California Department of Conservation)
3.11 Noise
Noise Standards
Existing noise levels at the proposed project site are generated primarily from trolley and freight train movement within the rail corridor. While the project will be regulated by the Federal Rail Administration (FRA), the FRA specifies the use of FTA criteria to evaluate freight train noise impacts. Local ordinances and criteria are not used to assess impacts or otherwise regulate noise from construction or operation of freight rail infrastructure.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-21 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
The criteria presented in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006) guidance manual were used to assess existing ambient noise levels and future noise impacts related to operation of the Project. The criteria were developed using well-documented research on community reaction to noise and are based on changes in noise exposure using a sliding scale. The amount that rail projects can change the overall noise environment without exceeding the FTA impact criteria is reduced as existing noise levels increase. The noise impact methodology, findings and recommendations are defined in the Noise Analysis Report (October 2009) provided as Appendix C to this document. The information contained in the Noise Analysis Report is summarized below.
Existing Noise Levels
Representative noise measurements were taken at selected sensitive receptors along the corridor between August 12, 2009 and September 29, 2009. Noise measurement sites were selected to represent larger groupings of sensitive receptors, such as a city block of single-family homes. Because of the corridor length, receptors were chosen that are representative of respective areas. This is an accepted approach to noise analysis as modeling predicts noise levels for a larger area than just one home at each location. Thus, the results represent the noise exposure for a block or more of homes at each site.
A total of one long-term (24-hour) measurements and 24 short-term (one-hour) were taken. Long term systems were left overnight to record continuous hourly levels. Short-term measurements were taken during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 to 7:00 a.m.) hours.
During the short-term measurements the meter was paused to omit freight train pass-bys. This was infrequent but was done because the observed trains consisted of less than 20 freight cars and were unlikely to be considered typical by the operator. Noise levels associated with a typical train operation were added to the monitored data to obtain existing noise levels. Existing noise levels are provided in Appendix C, Table 6. The Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) values range from a high of 74.5 to a low of 53.3.
Noise Impacts
The FTA guidance manual provides three levels of criteria for assessment of noise impact from rail projects: No Impact, Moderate Impact and Severe Impact. Noise sensitive land-uses are grouped into three categories: Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3. The FTA noise impact thresholds are based on the increase of existing ambient noise levels associated with operations of the Project or in combination with other new planned projects (i.e., cumulative impact). The FTA guidelines specify a particular noise metric to be used depending on the specific land-use. Ldn is typically used for residential uses, whereas the energy-averaged A-weighted sound level during a measured time interval (Leq) is typically used for schools.
As referenced above, Moderate and Severe are used as criteria to assess rail-related noise impacts. These criteria are defined below:
Moderate Impact: Under this criterion, the change in cumulative noise level is noticeable to most people but may not be sufficient to cause strong, adverse reactions from the community. Other project-specific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation, such as the existing noise level, predicted level of increase over existing noise levels, and the types and numbers of noise-sensitive land uses affected. No mitigation is mandated or required under this criterion.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-22 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
Severe Impact: Under this criterion, a significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by project- related noise. Conditions would generally represent an unacceptable living environment. Noise mitigation will normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there is no practical method of mitigating the noise.
As referenced in the Noise Analysis Report, the criteria use a sliding scale which is based on existing noise levels. For example, a project-related noise exposure increase of 10 dBA is allowed if the existing noise level is 42 dBA or less; a 1 dBA project-related noise increase is allowed when the existing noise level is 70 dBA. As the existing level of ambient noise increases, the allowable absolute level of project noise also increases. However, the total allowable increase in project-related noise exposure is reduced.
For residential land uses (FTA Category 2), the noise criteria are to be applied outside the building locations at noise-sensitive areas with frequent human use. These include outdoor patios, decks, pools, and play areas. If there are none, the criteria should be applied near building doors and windows. For parks or other sensitive (FTA Category 3) outdoor land uses, the criteria are to be applied at the property line. For locations where land use activities are solely indoors, noise impacts may be less significant if the outdoor-to-indoor reduction is greater than for typical buildings (approximately 25 dB with windows closed). Therefore, if it can be demonstrated that there will only be indoor activities occurring at sensitive locations, mitigation may not be needed.
(Sources: Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2006 and Noise Analysis Report)
A. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact. Because the proposed project would contribute additional freight trains to an existing train line, FTA guidelines are used to determine whether exposure levels are excessive. An analysis of project-related impacts was performed consistent with FTA guidelines. The impact criteria are summarized above. As noted, the complete Noise Analysis Report is provided in Appendix C of this document. The impact analysis documented existing conditions and evaluated project-related noise impacts at 25 locations representing receptors along the corridor. Of the 25 locations, 8 would experience No Impact from the Project; 17 would experience a Moderate Impact as defined by the FTA guidelines. No Severe Impacts would occur as a result of the Project. As discussed above, the FTA does not require mitigation for Moderate Impacts and the finding is not considered significant per CEQA standards. No mitigation is required.
In cases where commuter rail operations share tracks or rights-of-way with freight or intercity passenger trains that are part of the “general railroad system,” FRA safety rules apply. In particular, the rule for use of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings is in effect. Train horns and crossing bells are major noise sources associated with train operations. Trains sound their horns before roadway crossings and when approaching a passenger station. The number of roadway crossings and passenger stations would not be changed as a result of the proposed project. The Ldn resulting from the train horns and crossing bells of the two additional nighttime operations is estimated to increase by less than 0.3 dBA at any given location. This would be a negligible increase in the Ldn and not considered significant.
(Sources: Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2006 and Noise Analysis Report, 2009)
B. Would the project result in the exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-23 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would lead to the generation of noise associated with short-term construction activities during site preparation and construction; however, this would not induce groundborne noise or vibration because the project does not require pile driving or any similar activities. Additionally, the location of future freight rail operations would remain unchanged from current conditions. Thus, a vibration analysis related to operation of the Project was not performed. No vibration impacts would occur as a result of the Project.
(Sources: Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2006 and Noise Analysis Report, 2009)
C. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact. As referenced above, the proposed project would generate intermittent noise during freight train pass by events which would create Moderate Impacts at 17 of the 25 locations evaluated. No Impact would occur at the remaining 8 locations. No Severe Impacts as defined by the FTA would occur as a result of the proposed Project. As discussed above, the FTA does not require mitigation for Moderate Impacts and the finding is not considered significant per CEQA standards. No mitigation is required
(Sources: Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2006 and Noise Analysis Report, 2009)
D. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Temporary increases in ambient noise levels associated with construction would occur throughout the project corridor. Construction activity would occur on sidings during daytime hours and on the main line during nighttime hours. Track removal and installation typically requires the use of cranes, rail saws, compressors, pumps, generators, a ballast regulator (equalizer), and ballast tamper. Use of this equipment could generate an overall noise level of approximately 86 dBA at 50 feet. This noise level would generally equal 90 dBA at 30 feet, 85 dBA at 55 feet, 80 dBA at 95 feet, and 70 dBA at 175 feet. Noise levels would exceed FTA criteria within 175 feet during nighttime construction activities and within 95 feet during daytime construction activities.
Construction of the proposed crossover near 32nd Street would not exceed noise guidelines. Noise associated with crossover construction near L Street would be approximately 82 dBA at the residences to the east; noise associated with turnout replacement near L Street would be approximately 78 dBA at the residences to the northeast; and noise associated with turnout construction and track removal between north of Palomar Street to south of Anita Street would be approximately 78 dBA at the residences to the west. Construction noise associated with these three projects would exceed FTA noise guidelines.
Construction of the existing spur modification and new siding track south of Main Street would not exceed noise guidelines.
While temporary construction would exceed FTA guidelines, implementation of the following mitigation measures would attenuate the aforementioned construction noise impacts to a less than significant level:
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-24 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
Measure 3.11.D1: Perform higher noise generating activities during daytime hours.
Measure 3.11.D2: Use construction equipment with published noise levels below those identified in Table 10 and with the lowest possible acoustical height.
Measure 3.11.D3: Reduce nighttime construction hours. A 3 decibel noise reduction would occur for each 50% reduction in time worked between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Use of temporary noise barriers consistent with the following recommendation would also be an effective method of reducing construction noise associated with the project:
Measure 3.11.D4: Construct a 16-foot high temporary noise barrier between the new crossover north of L Street and the residences to the east. Construct a 14-foot high temporary noise barrier between the turnout replacement south of L Street and the residences to the northeast. Construct a 14-foot high temporary noise barrier between the new turnout construction, track removal, and from north of Palomar Street to south of Anita Street and the residences to the west. Temporary barriers should be placed as close to the construction area as possible. The barrier(s) must wrap around the construction area to minimize acoustical flanking around the barrier ends.
A site-specific construction noise study should be performed using actual equipment and construction durations. The study should be submitted to SANDAG prior to the start of construction regardless of which measure or measures are selected to demonstrate how noise levels will be reduced to below a level of significance.
(Sources: Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2006 and Noise Analysis Report, 2009)
E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The closest airport is Brown Field Municipal Airport which at its closest point, is located approximately 4 miles east of the corridor. Thus, the project would not expose people residing in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airport activities.
(Sources: Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2006, and Noise Analysis Report, 2009)
F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip nor does it include improvements to a private airstrip. Thus, the project would not expose people residing in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airport activities.
(Sources: Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 2006, and Noise Analysis Report, 2009)
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-25 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
3.12 Population and Housing
A. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. The project does not include the development of new housing, businesses or related infrastructure. Rather, the proposed project is intended to increase the South Line capacity. Much of the land in proximity to the corridor is already developed with industrial, commercial, or residential uses or included in a land use plan. The proposed project is not anticipated to induce development in excess of what is currently planned or approved.
(Sources: Site Survey)
B. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project consists of rail infrastructure improvements within the existing ROW. The project would not require the acquisition of new ROW. No housing would be displaced.
(Source: Site Survey)
C. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the displacement of people. Project improvements would be confined to the existing corridor. No households are currently present on the site.
(Sources: Site Survey)
3.13 Public Services
Public services include those services necessary to ensure public health and safety. Services are defined as fire and police protection, schools, libraries, and parks. The proposed project improvements are not expected to change demand for public services.
A. Fire Services. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of fire protection?
No Impact. The proposed project would increase the capacity of an existing rail line from two freight trains per night to four freight trains per night. This is not anticipated to impede access or increase the demand for fire or emergency medical services within the project area.
B. Police Services. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-26 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of police protection?
No Impact. The proposed project would increase the capacity of an existing rail line from two freight trains per night to four freight trains per night. This is not anticipated to increase the demand for police services or otherwise affect police access within the project area.
C. School Services. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of school services?
No Impact. The proposed project would increase the capacity of an existing rail line from two freight trains per night to four freight trains per night. This would not increase demand for schools within the project area.
D. Park Facilities. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of parks?
No Impact. The proposed project would not generate a direct demand for park facilities nor create a significant increase in population growth whereby park services would be impacted. No new park or recreational facilities would be built or altered as a result of the project; therefore, no impact to park facilities, park service ratios or other performance objectives related to parks and recreation would occur.
E. Public Facilities. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in terms of other public facilities?
No Impact. As noted, the proposed project would not induce significant population growth whereby an increase in demand for library services and other public facilities could occur. No new public facilities would be built or altered as a result of the project; therefore, no impact on public facilities, response times or other performance objectives related to public facilities would occur.
3.14 Recreation
There are numerous parks and recreation facilities located throughout San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista; however none of these parks or recreation facilities will be impacted by the proposed project because all work will take place along the existing rail line within existing ROW.
A. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-27 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
No Impact. All improvements would occur within an existing rail corridor and would increase freight train capacity. It is not anticipated that use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities would be affected because of the project.
B. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. The project proposes to increase the freight capacity of an existing rail line. No recreational facilities are proposed for development or expansion as part of the project; therefore, there are no adverse physical effects on the environment anticipated by proposed or expanded recreational facilities.
3.15 Transportation/Traffic
A. Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate traffic since it is strictly a rail project designed to increase freight capacity. By installing advanced detection equipment at existing at grade crossings, trains will be able to operate more efficiently with fewer delays to existing street traffic.
B. Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact. The project would not affect the LOS at any intersection as it is strictly a rail capacity improvement project. Short-term crossing delays may increase; however, train traffic would only occur during the early morning hours when traffic volumes are the lightest. This is not expected to impact current LOS within the study area.
C. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The area’s closest airport, Brown Field Municipal Airport, is located approximately four miles east of the site. The project would not affect air traffic patterns as it is strictly a rail project.
D. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The project is designed to add freight capacity to an existing rail line. All improvements would be designed and constructed to current standards. The project would not include design components that would increase hazards or facilitate operation of incompatible uses within the corridor.
E. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. As noted, the project would not affect emergency access. All improvements are intended to increase the capacity of the existing rail line. Coordination of emergency access across the tracks during train pass by events would continue per current conditions.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-28 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis
F. Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. No parking would be provided or eliminated as a result of project implementation. Thus, the project would not affect parking capacity.
G. Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact. The proposed project would increase the freight capacity of the existing South Line and enable trolley cars and freight trains to operate more efficiently on the same track system. Thus the project would indirectly support alternative transportation.
3.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Utilities and service systems include the provision of gas, water, sewage disposal, storm water disposal, electricity, and waste management services.
A. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
No Impact. The proposed project is intended to improve freight rail capacity on the South Line. Wastewater would not be generated by the project; thus, it would not exceed treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
B. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
No Impact. The Project is a transportation project and as such will not require wastewater treatment.
C. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The project would have minor ground disturbing activities for the Palomar Siding improvements located south of Main Street and Industrial Boulevard in Chula Vista. However, these improvements would not require any new storm water drainage facilities that could cause significant environmental affects.
D. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No Impact. The proposed project would not require any more water than is currently used in the area.
E. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. As noted, the proposed project would not require wastewater treatment. No will serve
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-29 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 3.0 Environmental Analysis commitments are required.
F. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not generate any waste aside from construction debris. Construction debris will be either recycled or disposed of in a manner that complies with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
(Sources: California Integrated Waste Management Board website)
G. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. As noted, after construction the proposed project would not produce solid waste. Applicable recycling and/or disposal requirements would be complied with during construction.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 3-30 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 4.0 Comment Response
Response to Comments:
1. Comment noted. The proposed project is limited to the South Line corridor right of way. The corridor and surrounding areas are heavily disturbed and composed of fill material and bare ground and all disturbances associated with construction of the improvements would be confined to the corridor. Thus, the likelihood of archeological resources remaining in the project area is considered low. However, should unanticipated resources be discovered during construction, mitigation measures 3.5.B1 and 3.5.B2 would be implemented to avoid or reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 4-1 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 4.0 Comment Response
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 4-2 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 4.0 Comment Response
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 4-3 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 4.0 Comment Response
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 4-4 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 4.0 Comment Response
Response to Comments:
1. Comment noted. As discussed in the Initial Study, the rail corridor and existing right of way near the Palomar Siding is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. All work is proposed to occur within the existing right of way; thus, proposed improvements are not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment that would necessitate further review consistent with the suggested protocol. Should the project scope change such that new right of way would be necessary, the presence of hazardous materials would be evaluated. If necessary, remediation measures would be developed.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 4-5 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 4.0 Comment Response
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 4-6 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 4.0 Comment Response
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 4-7 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 4.0 Comment Response
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 4-8 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 4.0 Comment Response
Response to Comments:
1. Comment noted.
2. Increased freight activity within the corridor would occur during the early morning hours between approximately 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. No changes in operation would occur between 7:00 pm and 10:00 pm which is the time period affected by the 5 dB CNEL penalty. Thus, under these conditions, the Ldn and CNEL value would be the same.
3. The Federal Transit Administration noise impact assessment guidelines recommend that the Lead Agency consider mitigation for Moderate Impacts. Mitigation measures were considered and included in the Initial Study for construction noise. Changes in noise levels associated with operation of the proposed project were not considered great enough to warrant mitigation.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 4-9 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 4.0 Comment Response
Response to Comments:
4. As discussed in the Initial Study, horn and whistle noise associated with the addition of two trains would cause a 0.3 dBA increase in the Ldn. This is not a significant contribution and does not justify the consideration of grade separation and/or Quiet Zones as defined by the Federal Rail Administration.
5. As discussed in the Initial Study, the proposed improvements would increase freight rail capacity from two to four trains per night. The operation of two additional freight trains per night would negligibly increase air emissions and as discussed in the Air Quality Technical Report and Health Risk Assessment prepared for the proposed project, would not cause or contribute violations of state or federal air quality standards. Further, the project would result in a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as truck vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would be reduced by approximately 3.8 million annually and freight would be transported more efficiently within the corridor.
This project will provide signal improvements which will allow the trains to operate at full speed in both directions on either track throughout the corridor. This is referred to as “full speed reverse running”. Full speed reverse running will lessen the vehicular, emergency access, pedestrian and bicycle delays at existing road crossings. Currently, maintenance of way, emergencies; and construction along the corridor often limit the freight to single track operation. The majority of the maintenance of way and construction along the corridor is conducted during the freight operating window to avoid impacts to Blue Line Trolley operations. As such, when single track operation is required, movement
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 4-10 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 4.0 Comment Response
in reverse of the prevailing direction requires a freight train to slow to restricted speed of 10 to 20 mph, and to stop and flag each grade crossing. The improvements provided by the proposed project will allow for full speed freight operations through the grade crossings, even during single track operations. Even with the increase of freight rail operations from two to four trains per night, the impact to vehicular, emergency access, pedestrian and bicycle delays at existing road crossings is expected to remain constant or decrease as a result of the operational improvements provided by the proposed project.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 4-11 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 5.0 References
5.1 References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Diego County Natural Hazards Disclosure Map. 2000.
California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
City of Chula Vista General Plan. 2005.
City of San Diego General Plan. 2008.
Dudek. November 2009. Air Quality Technical Report for the South Line Rail Goods Movement Project.
Dudek. November 2009. Health Risk Assessment for the South Line Rail Goods Movement Project.
Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. November 2009. Noise Analysis Report.
South Line Rail Goods Movement Project Page 5-1 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
524492-2 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
March 5, 2010 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5A
Action Requested: APPROVE
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM File Number 3300100 SCHEDULE AND FUNDING ISSUES: PILOT SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENTS
Introduction Recommendation
In FY 2005, the Board of Directors approved the The Transportation Committee is asked funding of 14 projects under the Pilot Smart Growth to approve schedule extensions for the Incentive Program (PSGIP) with federal Transportation University Avenue Mobility Project, Enhancement (TE) funds. As part of that action, the Commercial Street Streetscape Transportation Committee adopted the use-it-or-lose- Improvements, 25th Street Renaissance it policy for the program to encourage timely project, and Maple Street Promenade as completion of the projects. Although the TE projects shown in Attachment 1. are selected at the regional level, they are administered at the state level by the California Transportation Commission (CTC), which has timely use of funds requirements of its own. To date, most PSGIP grant recipients have been on schedule. At this point however, two projects are in jeopardy of failing to meet their schedules for obtaining an allocation from the CTC: the Commercial Street Streetscape Improvements project in the City of San Diego, and the Maple Street Promenade in the City of Escondido. This could result in these funds lapsing, in which case the region would not have access to them until the latter two years of the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding cycle. A total of $2.225 million remains unallocated and would be in jeopardy.
In addition, the City of San Diego’s University Avenue Mobility Project (UAMP) and the 25th Street Renaissance project have fallen significantly behind schedule. There is no problem with funds lapsing because of these delays, but under the SANDAG use-it-or-lose it provisions for this program, the Transportation Committee would have to approve schedule extensions in order for these TE projects to retain their funding.
While all these projects have had significant delays, they remain worthwhile projects and staff is recommending that the prudent course at this late stage of the PSGIP is to enable them to be completed. For that to happen, the Transportation Committee will need to approve revised schedules for the projects. A recommendation to the Board of Directors for how to preserve access to these funds in the current fiscal year is presented in Part B of this item.
Discussion
The SANDAG use-it-or-lose-it provisions in the PSGIP (Attachment 2) require projects to meet the major milestone dates originally approved by the Transportation Committee or face a loss of the funds. They also allow grant recipients to request a schedule extension under certain circumstances. Under this provision, the Transportation Committee approved schedule extensions to 7 of the 14
projects in July 2007. As we enter the last year and a half of the program, all but four of the projects are complete or have received an allocation for construction from the CTC.
At this late point in the pilot program, because all four of the remaining projects are actively under development, it would be counterproductive to rescind the grants. In addition, the original project priority list for this program is no longer current, and there is no other agreed-upon process in place for awarding TE funds to new projects.
The status of each project and a description of the cause for delay is described below. The recommended revised schedules are shown in Attachment 1.
• Commercial Street Streetscape Improvements. The City of San Diego is acting as a sponsoring agency for the three nonprofit agencies: Bridge Housing, MAAC Project, and Bronze Triangle CDC that are developing this project to improve the streetscape and walkability at 22nd Street and Commercial. The project is part of an affordable housing project also being developed by the group. Development of the housing component has been subject to the state’s schedule for approving Proposition 1C (Prop. 1C) transit-oriented development funds, which has been a major source of delay for the project development process to date. All the parties are working together to be ready to request an allocation of $1.5 million for construction this year, but it is not certain that they will obtain the necessary National Environmental Policy Act clearance in time. Even if they do, an allocation in this fiscal year will require them to complete design of the streetscape improvements before the design for the related housing development is completed, and this could result in wasteful redesign efforts later on. For that reason, it is prudent to allow the project to reschedule the TE funds for next fiscal year. A loss of the TE funds also could jeopardize the Prop. 1C funds. Staffs from both the City and the three nonprofit agencies are fully committed to ensuring that all of the necessary steps will be completed to request allocation in FY 2011.
• University Avenue Mobility Project (UAMP). This project will provide medians, pedestrian crossing improvements, traffic signal modifications, modify parking, and facilitate transit flow on University Avenue in the community of North Park. The $2 million PSGIP is part of a larger $10 million effort that will include improvements for the entire project length from Florida Street to Boundary Avenue. The original project schedule assumed the project environmental document would be a mitigated negative declaration for Phase 1. Caltrans then recommended that the environmental document include both Phase I and Phase 2 of the project, and an environmental impact report (EIR) is required due to potential impacts to motor vehicle traffic. The City of San Diego was required to request additional federal and local funds to cover the cost of hiring a consultant to prepare the environmental document to cover the entire project limits. Obtaining the additional funding, procuring the consultant and preparation of the EIR, are causing significant but unavoidable delays. Preliminary design and environmental work is underway on UAMP, which has already received a $400,000 allocation for this work.
• 25th Street Renaissance Project. This project to develop streetscape and crossing improvements on 25th Street was proposed by the Golden Hill Community Development Corporation (CDC) in partnership with the City of San Diego planning department. The CDC originally planned to develop the project themselves, but after some delay the decision was made that the City’s Engineering and Capital Projects department should take the lead. Additional delay occurred when the preliminary engineering contract for this project had to be readvertised due to the changes in the disadvantaged business enterprise program requirements. The 25th Street Renaissance project received a $469,000 allocation for preliminary engineering, and the consultant agreement is currently being negotiated.
2
• Maple Street Promenade. This project originally proposed to close Maple Street in Escondido between Grand Avenue and the mid-block alley to create a pedestrian promenade and plaza. Opposition to the street closing arose after the grant was awarded, and as a result, the City of Escondido went through an extensive reevaluation and community input process for the project. The result of that effort is a proposal to construct a “festival street” that would be open to one-way traffic most of the time, but that could be closed for civic events. The planning effort, funded entirely by the City, developed extensive urban design recommendations for Maple Street that will create a pedestrian-oriented place that will meet the objectives of the original proposal. Those recommendations will be reviewed by the Escondido City Council in March, and with the Council’s approval, staff could move into the design phase of the project.
Despite the significant delays these projects have experienced, they all remain viable and will make significant improvements to their communities that will support smart growth development. In addition, awarding the unused funds to new projects at this point would be starting over, and so would not help deliver projects more quickly. Rather than lose the benefit of the work that has been accomplished on the approved projects, staff recommends that the Transportation Committee approve the revised schedules shown in Attachment 2.
Funds for the PSGIP are programmed in annual lump sum increments based on the STIP fund estimates provided by the CTC. Within the constraints of that fund estimate, annual amounts are programmed according to the collective funding needs of the grant recipients. Individual grantees are authorized to expend funds through CTC allocations as the projects proceed through the project development process, provided funds are available. In several cases, SANDAG has been able to advance funds from future years to keep projects moving forward, but in the event more funds are programmed than can be allocated, we cannot reduce the amount programmed once the year has started. If the amount programmed in any year is not fully allocated to projects, the unused funds lapse and become unavailable to the region until the end of the next STIP period. Over the first four years of the program, the region has for the most part been able to match the programmed funds to the funding needs of the grant recipients.
In the current fiscal year, $5.37 million is programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for the PSGIP. However, with the project delays discussed above, it now appears only $3.145 million can be allocated; as a result, $2.225 million would potentially lapse. Part B of this report provides options for reprogramming the funds to other TE-eligible projects, thereby avoiding the potential lapsing of funds. The Transportation Committee should consider these impacts and the proposed approach in Part B when making a decision on this matter.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Attachments: 1. Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program Recommended Schedule Extensions 2. Transportation Enhancement (TE) Program (Use-It-Or-Lose-It Policy)
Key Staff Contact: Stephan Vance, (619) 699-1924, [email protected]
3
Attachment 1
Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program Recommended Schedule Extensions
Approved Recommend Maple Street Pedestrian Plaza Original Revised Adjusted City of Escondido Schedule Schedule Schedule Final Environmental Document Certification September 2007 September 2008 March 2010 Award Construction July 2008 July 2009 March 2011 Project Completion January 2009 January 2010 November 2011
25th Street Renaissance Project City of San Diego, MAAC Project and Bridge Housing Final Environmental Document Certification December 2008 NA November 2010 Award Construction September 2009 NA August 2011 Project Completion April 2010 NA February 2012
Commercial Street Streetscape Improvements City of San Diego Final Environmental Document Certification November 2007 NA April 2010 Award Construction September 2008 NA April 2011 Project Completion December 2010 NA June 2013
University Avenue Mobility Project City of San Diego Final Environmental Document Certification December 2006 January 2009 March 2011 Award Construction April 2008 July 2010 January 2012 Project Completion January 2009 February 2011 February 2013
4
Attachment 2
Transportation Enhancement (TE) Program (Use-It-Or-Lose-It Policy)
1. Quarterly Progress Report: Each project sponsor shall submit a quarterly progress report consisting of the following:
a. Accomplishments in the current quarter;
b. Anticipated progress next quarter;
c. Pending issues and recommended resolutions;
d. Current schedule adhering to the two major milestones and nine intermediate milestones; and
e. Status of budget, including any updates on project cost estimate.
2. Milestones and Budget: SANDAG staff will monitor the budget and all eleven (11) milestones shown below.
Start Environmental Studies
Draft Environmental Document
Final Environmental Document*
Obtain Required Permits
Begin Design Engineering
Complete Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates
Start Right-of-Way Acquisition
Right-of-Way Certification
Ready to Advertise
Award Construction*
Project Completion (project open for use)
______
*major milestones
5
3. Project Delays and Extensions up to One Year
Should any of the intermediate milestones fall behind schedule, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to SANDAG staff that the major milestone schedules will still be met.
Should any of the major milestones fall behind schedule, the project sponsor can request an extension of up to one year.
An extension request of up to six months can be approved administratively by SANDAG staff. Requests for extensions of more than six months but less than one year in total shall be determined by the Transportation Committee.
The project sponsor seeking the extension must demonstrate an ability to succeed in the extended time frame.
If the project sponsor cannot demonstrate that the project can be delivered with the additional time extension, then SANDAG staff shall recommend a fund reallocation to the Transportation Committee in accordance with Section 5 below.
4. Extensions Beyond One Year
Requests totaling more than one year will be considered only for those projects showing extenuating conditions out of the control of the project sponsor, defined as follows:
Environmental: During the environmental review process, the project sponsor discovers heretofore unknown sites (e.g., archeological, endangered species) that require additional investigation and mitigation efforts. The project sponsor must demonstrate that the discovery is new and unforeseen;
Permitting: Difficulty in obtaining permits from various agencies. The project sponsor must demonstrate that every effort has been made to obtain the necessary permits and that the delay is wholly due to the permitting agency;
Construction Schedule: Applies to projects restricted to certain construction dates during the year (i.e., to avoid nesting season for certain species); and
Other: Changes in federal/state policies or laws
The project sponsor shall appeal directly to the Transportation Committee providing a detailed justification for the requested extension including a revised project schedule. The Transportation Committee shall grant the additional extension only by a vote of two-thirds majority of eligible voting members in attendance.
5. AB 1012 Use-It-or-Lose-It Requirements/Fund Reallocation
Each year, Caltrans distributes a memorandum that indicates the amount of TE funds each region must obligate or risk losing the funds. Based on the schedules submitted for each of the funded projects, staff monitors the TE program’s obligation commitments for the San Diego region. This policy seeks to ensure project delivery to both meet the State requirements and promote quality projects in the region.
6
Any reallocation decision should be made with consideration given to the overall TE program’s obligation commitment. In the event the project funds are reallocated, staff will recommend to the Transportation Committee to either move the funds to the existing TE reserve account (for TE projects experiencing cost increases) or to notify the next project applicant on the ranking list of the amount of funds available, and request a project schedule and related budget information. If a new project cannot be delivered on a schedule that would avoid a loss of funds to the region, then the funding will be offered to the next project on the priority list. This process will be repeated until a satisfactory project is found.
7 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
March 5, 2010 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5B
Action Requested: RECOMMEND
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM SCHEDULE File Number 3300100 AND FUNDING ISSUES: PILOT SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM FUNDING OPTIONS
Introduction Recommendation
Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds are subject to The Transportation Committee is asked to a timely use of funds provision imposed by the recommend that the Board of Directors: California Transportation Commission (CTC). Approval (1) reprogram $1.796 million in FY 2010 of the schedule adjustments to two of the Pilot Smart Transportation Enhancement funds for the Growth Incentive Program (PSGIP) projects Bayshore Bikeway project, which includes an recommended in Part A of this item would result in FY 2010 project budget increase of $718,300; these projects missing their deadlines to allocate (2) approve an amendment to the FY 2010 funds in the current fiscal year. As a result, a total of SANDAG Budget to add these funds to the $2.225 million would lapse under the CTC rules, and Bayshore Bikeway project; and (3) reprogram the region would not have access to them until the $1.078 million in TransNet Active latter two years of the 2012 State Transportation Transportation funds for the Pilot Smart Improvement Program (STIP) funding cycle (FY 2014 Growth Incentive Program in FY 2011. and FY 2015). To prevent this lapse in funding, SANDAG would need to reprogram the funds to a project or projects that are TE-eligible and that could request an allocation from the CTC by June 2010.
Transferring FY 2010 TE funds to a project that is able to use them in the current year will mean that alternative funding would need to be identified in order to continue funding the delayed PSGIP projects. The following options were reviewed:
1. Programming future TE fund reserves could partially fund the delayed PSGIP projects;
2. Should the Transportation Committee decide not to approve the schedule extensions recommended in Part A of this item, eligible projects to could be identified to utilize the current year TE funds without an exchange;
3. A currently funded project that is able to exchange funds with the PSGIP projects could be identified.
Staff reviewed existing prioritized lists of projects that might contain TE-eligible projects in an attempt to identify a viable candidate to exchange funds with the PSGIP. For reasons discussed below, the next phase of Bayshore Bikeway, construction currently funded under the TransNet Active Transportation Program (bicycle, pedestrian, and neighborhood safety projects), provides the best opportunity to utilize the FY 2010 TE funds with the least impact on future TE revenues.
Discussion
To be a viable candidate for using the TE funds that need to be allocated this fiscal year, the project must have, or be able to obtain environmental clearance under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and be able to award a construction contract by the end of the calendar year. In an effort to identify potential projects that could meet these criteria, a review was made of prioritized project lists from the first TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program funding cycle and from the TransNet Active Transportation Program. Also considered were the regional bikeway projects that currently are under development where SANDAG has a significant prior investment, and the Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group was consulted about potential projects. This review came to the following conclusions:
• TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program: No projects were identified that could meet the time constraints of the TE funds.
• TransNet Active Transportation Program: There are various currently unfunded projects that could utilize some of the potentially lapsing funds this fiscal year. However, none of these projects are capable of utilizing a significant amount of the TE funds.
• One project, the Bayshore Bikeway, was identified that could utilize the at risk TE funds while at the same time replacing the TE funds with existing funds.
The design and construction for the next phase of Bayshore Bikeway is funded with TransNet Active Transportation funds. The design work is nearly complete, and the project is in the process of obtaining environmental clearance under NEPA. It will be ready to advertise for construction this fiscal year, but the current funding is insufficient to cover the current estimated project cost. The current funding from the TransNet Active Transportation program provides $410,000 for design from FY 2009 and $1,078,000 for construction from FY 2010. An additional $65,000 is required to complete the design and obtain the NEPA clearance, and the current construction cost estimate based the 90 percent design is $1,731,300. It is important to note that as this project has developed, cost increases have been identified and would need approval in order to move forward with this option. The cost increases result from the need to study additional alignments in the design process, obtain NEPA clearance, additional grading and fencing required for the preferred alignment, and additional construction administration costs not included in the original cost estimate. The total funding necessary to complete the project is $1,796,300 or $718,300 more than what is programmed in the current year.
Exchanging the unexpended TransNet Active Transportation Program funds ($1,078,000) for the TE funds and fully funding both the Bayshore Bikeway and the PSGIP program projects would require the use of $1,147,000 in FY 2011 TE reserves, leaving a balance of $292,000 as a reserve in FY 2011. Because the Bayshore Bikeway project is not able to use all of the TE funds at risk of lapsing in FY 2010, $428,700 could potentially lapse and become available to the region again in FY 2014. The details of this fund exchange are shown in Attachment 1 of this report. Staff will continue to look for TE eligible projects that could utilize the lapsing funds and be able to meet the allocation deadline and will report back to the Transportation Committee on these options at a future meeting.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Attachment: 1. Transportation Enhancement/TransNet Active Transportation Fund Exchange Key Staff Contact: Stephan Vance, (619) 699-1924, [email protected]
2
Attachment 1
Proposed Transportation Enhancement / TransNet Active Transportation Fund Exchange
Current Programming Transportation Enhancement (TE) Funds FY 2010 FY 2011 Total Commercial Street Streetscape Enhancements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Maple Street Promenade 945,000 945,000 TE Reserve $1,659,000 1,659,000 Amount over programmed (220,000) (220,000) Total Transportation Enhancements Funds $2,225,000 $1,659,000 $3,884,000
TransNet Active Transportation Bayshore Bikeway Construction (CIP No. 1143700) $1,078,000 $1,078,000 Total TransNet Active Transportation $1,078,000 $1,078,000
Revised Programming Transportation Enhancement Funds Commercial Street Streetscape Enhancements $ - $1,367,000 $1,367,000 Bayshore Bikeway Construction (CIP No. 114370) 1,796,300 1,796,300 TE Reserve 292,000 292,000 Total Transportation Enhancements Funds $1,796,300 $1,659,000 $3,455,300
Lapsing TE Funds $ 428,700 $ 428,700
TransNet Active Transportation Commercial Street Streetscape Enhancements $ 133,000 $ 133,000 Maple Street Promenade 945,000 945,000 Total TransNet Active Transportation $ - $1,078,000 $1,078,000
3 San Diego Association of Governments
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
March 5, 2010 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 6
Action Requested: RECOMMEND
LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO (LOSSAN) File Number 3400600 RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AND BYLAWS CHANGES
Introduction Recommendation
The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency seeks to increase The Transportation Committee is asked to ridership, revenue, capacity, reliability, and safety recommend that the Board of Directors on the coastal rail line from San Diego to approve the changes to the LOSSAN Joint Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo. Known as Amtrak's Exercise of Powers Agreement and Bylaws Pacific Surfliner corridor, it is the second busiest in substantially the same form as shown in intercity passenger rail corridor nationwide and Attachments 3 and 4 respectively. Amtrak's fastest growing. A LOSSAN membership roster is provided (Attachment 1).
The LOSSAN Joint Powers Board of Directors and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) both meet monthly. SANDAG serves as staff to the LOSSAN Board and TAC through a cooperative funding agreement with the member agencies. A summary of the LOSSAN Board meetings held in October and December 2009, and January 2010 is provided (Attachment 2).
Since August 2008, LOSSAN and its member agencies have studied how to better integrate the corridor's three passenger rail services. As a result, the LOSSAN Board of Directors recently approved an integrated corridorwide vision that necessitates several changes to the rail corridor agency's Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and Bylaws that need to be approved by each member agency including SANDAG. These documents are provided as Attachments 3 and 4 respectively. The major changes proposed are to add Amtrak and the California High-Speed Rail Authority as ex-officio members of the Board, add the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as a member of the TAC, establish an Executive Committee, and add a quorum requirement for Board meetings that at least one member from a member agency north of Los Angeles county be present.
Discussion
LOSSAN Board Action Highlights Related to SANDAG Actions
The LOSSAN Board of Directors recently requested that the chief executive officers (CEOs) of each member agency help steer the discussion on the corridorwide service integration efforts. With this assistance, the Board of Directors developed a shared vision for the corridor and approved a member agency memorandum of understanding (MOU) and an 18-month budget and funding plan. A project manager will be hired to oversee this work and SANDAG recently posted the job announcement for this position. The SANDAG Board of Directors approved this MOU and the FY 10 funding share at its December 18, 2009, meeting.
Recently, capital funds were announced for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s (ARRA) $8 billion for high-speed and intercity rail projects. The LOSSAN corridor will receive $51 million, including $12 million for two projects in the cities of Oceanside and San Diego.
LOSSAN continues to work with the state’s other intercity rail corridor boards and Caltrans to position California to receive future federal rail capital funds. Of particular concern are recent efforts by the Governor and state legislature to decrease the state’s support for annual intercity rail operations including Pacific Surfliner service. In addition to the potential for service cuts, a stable source of operations funds is a requirement for future federal rail capital funds.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. LOSSAN Membership Roster 2. January 2010 LOSSAN Board of Directors Actions 3. LOSSAN Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement 4. LOSSAN Bylaws
Key Staff Contact: Linda Culp, (619) 699-6957, [email protected]
2 Attachment 1
LOSSAN (LOS ANGELES–SAN DIEGO–SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY)
MEMBERSHIP
This board is composed of current and former elected officials representing rail owners, operators, and planning agencies along Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner corridor between San Diego and San Luis Obispo. LOSSAN is staffed by SANDAG. The objective of the agency is to coordinate planning and programs that increase ridership, revenue, reliability, and safety on the coastal rail line from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles to San Diego.
The Los Angeles - San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency meets every quarter.
Staff contact: Linda Culp, (619) 699-6957; [email protected]
MEMBERS ALTERNATES
Chair: Arthur Brown Harry Mathis Orange County Transportation Authority San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
Vice Chair: Jacki Bacharach Brian Humphrey Los Angeles County Metropolitan Ventura County Transportation Commission Transportation Authority
Diane DuBois Helene Schneider Los Angeles County Metropolitan Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Transportation Authority
Fred Strong Mary Anne Reiss / Jan Howell Marx San Luis Obispo Council of Governments San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Chris Orlando Jerome Stocks / Julianne Nygaard North County Transit District North County Transit District
Richard Dixon Karen Heit / Beatrice Proo Orange County Transportation Authority Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Jerry Rindone EX-OFFICIO MEMBER San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Paul Glaab Southern California Association of Governments Keith Millhouse Ventura County Transportation Commission ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Salud Carbajal Amtrak Santa Barbara County Association of Governments BNSF Railway California Public Utilities Commission Bill Bronte Southern California Regional Rail Authority Caltrans, Division of Rail Union Pacific
Joe Kellejian San Diego Association of Governments
3 Attachment 2
Board Actions: January 2010
LOSSAN CORRIDOR STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
Since August 2008, LOSSAN and member agencies have completed onboard and resident surveys regarding the corridor’s passenger rail services, developed an initial service vision for the corridor, and discussed the institutional changes needed in order to better integrate the corridor’s rail services.
At its September 9, 2009, meeting, the LOSSAN Board of Directors directed the member agency chief executive officers (CEOs) to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that clearly articulates the corridor’s shared vision, identify the business case scope of work required to implement the vision, identify the resources and schedule for its completion, identify a lead agency to hire a project manager/principal to lead these efforts, work together to find an early success that demonstrates the cooperative relationship among LOSSAN members, and develop a work plan for FY 2010 activities.
The share vision for the corridor includes: Short-term roles and responsibilities Corridor-long responsibility and authority Corridor-long planning and investment ($6-8 billion by 2025) Interactive electronic fare collection system Better traveler information distribution including a consolidated timetable and corridor website Focus on local partnerships
At its October 28, 2009, and December 9, 2009, meetings, the Board of Directors approved the MOU, a budget for the next 18 months of work to implement the corridorwide vision, and a funding strategy based on county shares of intercity and commuter rail ridership. Since December, each member agency has approved the MOU, and the funding needed for this fiscal year. In most cases, the remaining funding will be subject to member agency FY2011 annual budget process.
AGENCY BYLAWS AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
At its January 27, 2010, meeting, the Board of Directors approved a number of changes to the agency bylaws and joint exercise of powers agreement based on the strategic assessment and through recent work by the Board’s ad hoc committee. The major changes proposed are to add Amtrak and the California High-Speed Rail Authority as ex-officio members of the Board, add the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee, establish an Executive Committee, and add a quorum requirement for Board meetings that at least one member from a member agency north of Los Angeles county be present. Both documents need to be approved by member agencies.
4 STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT MANAGER
Staff also provided an update on the hiring process for a Project Manager to oversee the strategic implementation. The Board established an ad hoc committee to interview the top candidates, who will be recommended by a steering committee of CEOs. SANDAG will handle the hiring process and plans to advertise for this position in early February.
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA) AND LOSSAN CORRIDOR PROJECTS
The Board of Directors heard an update on the federal stimulus program related to high- speed/intercity rail projects which includes $8 billion for high-speed and intercity rail projects and programs nationwide. Corridor agencies are awaiting word on FRA’s funding decision on 21 LOSSAN project applications totaling $380 million (A decision was announced shortly after the Board meeting. The corridor will receive $51 million in funds).
NEXT MEETING DATE AND LOCATION
The next meeting will be Wednesday, February 24, 2010, at 10:45 am in Santa Barbara. Additional information is available on the www.lossan.org web site.
5 Attachment 3
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
CONCERNING THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY
INTRODUCTION
This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of California by and among the following public agencies that are parties of this Agreement:
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority;
Orange County Transportation Authority;
North San Diego County Transit District;
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System;
California Department of Transportation;
Southern California Association of Governments;
San Diego Association of Governments;
Ventura County Transportation Commission;
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments;
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, some, but not all of the parties to this Agreement had entered into that certain joint exercise of powers agreement to establish the Los Angeles-San Diego Rail Corridor Agency, effective February 6, 1989, but desire to amend and restate such existing joint exercise of powers agreement as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, the parties to this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement recognize the need for a public agency to oversee increases in the level of intercity passenger rail service in the travel corridor between San Diego, Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo, and improvements to the facilities that will ensure reduced travel times and that will aid the joint operation of freight and passenger service in the Corridor; and
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Joint Powers Agreement, 2010. 1
6
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles-San Diego State Rail Corridor Study Group created pursuant to Senate Bill 1095 (Chapter 1313, Statutes of 1985) analyzed the feasibility of increasing the level of intercity passenger service in the corridor and instituting commuter rail service from San Clemente to Union Station in Los Angeles and from Oceanside to San Diego; identified and recommended improvements to track and right-of-way to accommodate the higher levels of service; and recommended the creation of a joint exercise of powers agency to oversee the implementation of additional intercity rail passenger service and the necessary track improve- ments; and
WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement believe that the joint exercise of their powers will provide an organization capable of implementing the recommendations contained in the State Rail Corridor Study Group’s June 1987 report entitled, Los Angeles-San Diego State Rail Corridor Study, and undertaking related efforts to improve corridor services and facilities and coordinate sub-corridor commuter rail services with corridor services; and
WHEREAS, each party to this Agreement is authorized to contract with each other for the joint exercise of any common power under Article I, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California;
WHEREAS, rail service on the coast corridor has been extended to Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, the parties to this Agreement agree to the following:
1.0 DEFINITIONS
1.1 Agency means the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency.
1.2 Governing Board or Board means the Board of Directors of the Agency.
1.3 LOSSAN is the acronym for Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo.
1.4 Voting member agencies mean Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, North San Diego County Transit District, San Diego Association of Governments, Ventura County Transportation Commission, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and California Department of Transportation.
1.5 Ex-officio non-voting member agency means the Southern California Association of Governments, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and California High-Speed Rail Authority.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Joint Powers Agreement, 2010. 2
7 1.6 Regional Transportation Planning Agency means an entity authorized to prepare a regional transportation plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65080.
1.7 Corridor City means a city adjacent to the LOSSAN right-of-way.
1.8 Southern California Regional Rail Authority means the institutional structure developed under Article 10 of Chapter 4 of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code, Sections 130450-130455, for coordination of Southern California commuter rail passenger services in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.
1.9 LOSSAN North is defined as Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties.
1.10 LOSSAN South is defined as Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties.
1.11 Fiscal Year means from July 1 to and including the following June 30.
2.0 CREATION OF AGENCY
There is hereby created an organization to be known as the Los Angeles-San Diego- San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency, hereafter “Agency”, which shall be a public entity separate and apart from any member agency. The Agency shall be governed by the terms of this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and any Bylaws passed and adopted by its Governing Board.
3.0 PURPOSES
The specific purposes for the creation of the Agency and the exercise of common powers are as follows:
3.1 Plan, program, and fund improvements for intercity rail passenger services and facilities in the LOSSAN corridor, including the acquisition or leasing of right-of- way, stations and station sites; the leasing or acquisition of equipment; and related activities.
3.2 Negotiate for and accept funds to be expended for the purpose of providing and improving intercity rail passenger services and activities.
3.3 Review and comment on facility, service, and operational plans and programs of the agency or agencies operating sub-corridor commuter rail service in the LOSSAN Corridor.
3.4 Coordinate facility, service, and operational plans and programs with other organizations providing rail passenger service in the Southern California Region
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Joint Powers Agreement, 2010. 3
8 or with whom the Agency may share common facilities, including the agency or agencies operating sub-corridor commuter rail service in the LOSSAN Corridor, the BNSF Railway and Union Pacific or their successor corporations, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).
3.5 Advocate before local, regional, state, and federal officials and agencies for improvements to services and facilities for the corridor.
4.0 POWERS OF THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY
As may be necessary for the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement, the Agency shall have the power in its own name to undertake the following:
4.1 To exercise in the manner provided by this Agreement the powers common to each of the voting members and necessary to the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement.
4.2 To make and enter into contracts.
4.3 To employ agents and employees.
4.4 To contract for the services deemed necessary to meet the purposes of the Agency.
4.5 To acquire, by lease, purchase, or lease-purchase, and to hold and dispose of real and personal property necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement.
4.6 To construct, manage, and maintain facilities and services.
4.7 To sue and be sued in its own name.
4.8 To incur debts, liabilities, or obligations. However, the debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Agency shall not constitute any debt, liability, or obligation of any of the agencies that are parties to this Agreement.
4.9 To apply for and accept grants for financial aid pursuant to any applicable state or federal statutes.
4.10 To exercise any of the powers set forth in Section 6508 of the Government Code. In exercising these powers, the Agency is subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising the powers of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority or its successor agency.
4.11 To exercise such other powers and to engage in such other activities as are authorized by law (except bonding powers) and approved by the Board.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Joint Powers Agreement, 2010. 4
9 5.0 GOVERNING BOARD OF THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY
The composition of the membership of the Governing Board shall be set forth in the Agency’s Bylaws. All powers of the Agency shall be exercised by the Governing Board.
6.0 RELATIONSHIP OF THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY TO EXISTING AND FUTURE SUB-CORRIDOR COMMUTER RAIL AGENCIES
The Agency will endeavor to ensure that there is coordination between itself and any sub-corridor commuter rail agency which uses the same facilities to provide commuter rail services as are used by the intercity passenger rail corridor service.
7.0 OFFICERS AND APPOINTEES OF THE GOVERNING BOARD AND THE AGENCY
7.1 The officers of the Governing Board, selected from among its voting membership, shall be a Chair and Vice-Chair. The term of office shall be one year.
7.2 The officers of the Agency shall be:
7.2.1 The Treasurer of one of the voting member agencies, designated by a majority of a quorum of the Governing Board, may serve as the Treasurer of the Agency. The Treasurer shall be the depository of funds and have custody of all funds of the Agency from whatever source.
7.2.2 The Auditor of one of the voting member agencies, designated by a majority of a quorum of the Governing Board, may serve as the Auditor-Controller of the Agency. The Auditor-Controller shall draw warrants or check-warrants against the funds of the Agency in the Treasury when the demands are approved by the Board of Directors or such other persons as may be specifically designated for the purpose in the Bylaws.
7.3 The Auditor-Controller and the Treasurer shall comply with all duties imposed under Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title I, of the California Government Code commencing with Section 6500.
7.4 The Executive Director shall serve at the pleasure of the Board:
7.4.1 The Governing Board may appoint such an Executive Director. The Agency shall obtain an official bond in an amount determined by the
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Joint Powers Agreement, 2010. 5
10 Board guaranteeing faithful performance of the Executive Director’s duties.
7.4.2 At the discretion of the Governing Board, duties of the Executive Director may be assigned to a voting member agency’s staff person.
8.0 ANNUAL BUDGET
The Governing Board shall approve a preliminary administrative budget and a capital improvement program for the succeeding fiscal year no later than April 1 of each year. The Board shall adopt a final budget no later than June 30 of each year. No funding or financial obligations are created against any member agency solely as a consequence of executing this Agreement.
9.0 FUNDING FOR THE AGENCY
In addition to any funds derived from grants provided for in Section 4.9 of this Agreement, the voting member agencies (except California Department of Transportation) shall consider, through their agency’s budgetary process, contribution of funds necessary to carry out the purposes and powers of the Agency, consistent with the Agency’s adopted budget and any cost sharing formula adopted by the voting member agencies.
10.0 QUORUM
At least five of the voting member agencies of the Governing Board, including at least one member from each county of Orange, San Diego, and Los Angeles and at least one voting member from LOSSAN North shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and all official acts of the Agency.
11.0 RALPH M. BROWN ACT
All meetings of the Agency shall be called, noticed, held, and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with Section 54950 of the California Government Code).
12.0 BYLAWS
The Board may adopt from time to time Bylaws as may be required for the conduct of its meetings and the orderly operation of the Agency.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Joint Powers Agreement, 2010. 6
11 13.0 COMMITTEES
The Board shall create the following committees:
13.1 The Board shall form a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review on behalf of the Board technical issues associated with the improvements in passenger rail service and related facilities in the LOSSAN Corridor, including stations and rights-of-way, the coordination of public mass transit services and facilities, the coordination of passenger and freight services in the Corridor and other technical matters. The membership of the Committee is authorized in the Bylaws.
13.2 The Board shall form other committees as are necessary.
14.0 COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
14.1 In order to conserve fiscal resources, the Board shall take actions to ensure that the technical expertise, results of previous analysis related to passenger rail service in the LOSSAN Corridor, information bases, and other data available from member and other relevant agencies shall, to the extent feasible, be fully utilized.
14.2 In order to ensure that improvements to intercity rail passenger services and facilities are consistent with the California State Rail Plan, the Agency shall submit an annual plan or program for expenditures in the Corridor prior to the beginning of each fiscal year to the California Department of Transportation. In order to coordinate improvements with the corridor’s Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, this annual plan or program for expenditures shall be submitted to the Southern California Association of Governments, San Diego Association of Governments, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. Each Regional Planning Agency shall determine whether or not the annual plan or program is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan for its area of jurisdiction. The Agency shall submit an annual plan or program for expenditures in the Corridor to Amtrak, for its review when developing its Strategic Guidance and Five-Year Financial Plan.
15.0 DURATION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until such time that a majority of the voting member agencies determine it is in the public interest to dissolve the Agency. This does not preclude member agencies from exercising their right to withdraw their membership in the Agency. Ninety day written notice shall be given.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Joint Powers Agreement, 2010. 7
12 16.0 DISPOSITION OF ASSETS
Upon termination of this Agreement, any money in possession of the Agency after the payment of all liabilities, costs, expenses, and charges validly incurred under this Agreement shall be returned to the member agencies in proportion to their contributions determined as of the time of termination. Land and fixed facilities shall revert to the voting member agencies in which they are located. Rolling stocks shall become the property of California Department of Transportation for use in the Corridor.
17.0 NOTICE
Addresses of the parties to the Agreement for the purpose of formal communications among the signatories.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 1 Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 (213) 922-3041
Orange County Transportation Authority 550 S. Main St. P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863-1584 (714) 560-6282
North San Diego County Transit District 810 Mission Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054 (760) 967-2828
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System 1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 231-1466
California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 (916) 323-0742
Southern California Association of Governments 818 W 7th Street, 12 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 (213) 236-1800
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Joint Powers Agreement, 2010. 8
13 San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 595-5300
Ventura County Transportation Commission 950 County Square Avenue, Suite 207 Ventura CA 93003 (805) 642-1591
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 260 North San Antonio Road, Suite B Santa Barbara CA 93110 (805) 961-8900
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 1114 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-4219
18.0 AUDIT
The Agency shall provide for the accountability of all funds and shall provide for an annual audit pursuant to Section 6506 of the Government Code.
19.0 AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT
This Agreement may be amended at any time by the unanimous Agreement of the voting member agencies.
20.0 AGREEMENT, COMPLETE
This Agreement constitutes the full and complete Agreement of the parties. This Agreement shall be effective when all member agencies have approved and signed this Agreement. This Agreement shall supercede the Joint Powers Agreement to establish the Los Angeles – San Diego Rail Corridor Agency dated February 6, 1989.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement by autho- rized officials on the dates indicated below.
21.0 COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Joint Powers Agreement, 2010. 9
14
{agency name}
Date: By:
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Joint Powers Agreement, 2010. 10
15 Attachment 4
BYLAWS
THE LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY
PREAMBLE
The Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency is a Joint Powers Agency created at the recommendation of the Los Angeles-San Diego State Rail Corridor Study Group which recognized the need for a public agency to oversee increases in the level of intercity passenger rail service in the travel corridor between San Diego and Los Angeles. This agency has evolved as rail service has been extended to Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties and now includes all counties along the Pacific Surfliner Corridor from San Diego to San Luis Obispo County.
ARTICLE I - FUNCTIONS
The functions of the Agency to be accomplished in coordination with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority called for in Article 10 of Chapter 4 of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code, Sections 130450-130455, are:
Section A. Plan, recommend programs, promote and identify funding sources for improvements to intercity and commuter passenger rail services and facilities in the LOSSAN corridor, including the acquisition or leasing of rights-of-way, stations and station sites; the leasing or acquisition of equipment; and related activities.
Section B. Negotiate for and accept funds to be expended for the purpose of providing and improving intercity and commuter passenger rail services and activities.
Section C. Review and comment on facility, service, and operational plans and programs of the agency or agencies operating sub-corridor commuter rail service in the LOSSAN corridor.
Section D. Coordinate facility, service, and operational plans and programs with other organizations providing passenger rail service in the Southern California Region, adjacent regions or with whom the agency may share common facilities, including the agency or agencies operating sub-corridor commuter rail service in the LOSSAN corridor, the BNSF Railway Corporation and Union Pacific or their successor corporations, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).
Section E. Advocate improvements to services and facilities for the corridor before local, regional, state, and federal officials and agencies.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2001. 1
16 ARTICLE II – DEFINITIONS
Section A. Agency means the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency.
Section B. Governing Board or Board means the Board of Directors of the Agency.
Section C. LOSSAN is the acronym for Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo.
Section D. Voting member agencies mean Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, North San Diego County Transit District, San Diego Association of Governments, Ventura County Transportation Commission, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments and California Department of Transportation.
Section E. Ex-officio non-voting member agency means the Southern California Association of Governments and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).
Section F. Regional Transportation Planning Agency means an entity authorized to prepare a regional transportation plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65080.
Section G. Corridor City means a city adjacent to the LOSSAN right-of-way.
Section H. Southern California Regional Rail Authority means the institutional structure developed under Article 10 of Chapter 4 of Division 12 of the Public Utilities Code, Sections 130450-130455, for coordination of Southern California commuter rail passenger services in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.
Section I. LOSSAN North is defined as Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties.
Section J. LOSSAN South is defined as Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties.
Section K. Fiscal Year means from July 1 to and including the following June 30.
ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
Section A. Voting Members of the Governing Board
All powers of the Agency shall be exercised by the Governing Board. The Governing Board shall be selected and composed as follows and each member agency’s appointee(s) shall have one vote unless otherwise noted:
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2010. 2
17 3.1 Two members appointed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; one from its own membership or former membership, and one from its own membership, former membership or selected by the Authority from a corridor city.
3.2 Two members appointed by the Orange County Transportation Authority selected from its own membership or former membership.
3.3 A member appointed by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System selected from its own membership or former membership.
3.4 A member appointed by the North San Diego County Transit District selected from its own membership or former membership.
3.5 A member appointed by the San Diego Association of Governments selected from its own membership or former membership.
3.6 While three members of the Governing Board shall represent San Diego County (San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, North San Diego County Transit District, and San Diego Association of Governments), these three members shall have a total of two votes. This voting procedure shall be specified by separate agreement among the three San Diego County member agencies.
3.7 A member appointed by the Ventura County Transportation Commission selected from its own membership or former membership.
3.8 A member appointed by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments selected from its own membership or former membership.
3.9 A member appointed by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments selected from its own membership or former membership.
3.10 The Caltrans Director or designee.
3.11 Each voting member agency may appoint alternates to serve in the absence of the regular appointee.
Section B. Ex-Officio Member of the Governing Board
1. The Southern California Association of Governments shall be a non-voting, ex- officio member of the Governing Board and shall designate a representative to the Board. The ex-officio member may appoint alternates to serve in the absence of the regular appointee.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2010. 3
18 2. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) shall be a non-voting, ex-officio member of the Governing Board and shall designate a representative to the board, preferably from its Board of Directors. The ex-officio member may appoint alternatives to serve in the absence of the regular appointee.
3. California High-Speed Rail Authority shall be a non-voting, ex-officio member of the Governing Board and shall designate a representative to the board, preferably from its Board of Directors. The ex-officio member may appoint alternatives to serve in the absence of the regular appointee.
ARTICLE IV – ADMINISTRATION
Section A. In General - The Officers shall consist of the Chair and a Vice-Chair, both of whom shall represent a voting member of the Governing Board, a Treasurer, Auditor, and other officers as the Agency deems necessary and as set out in these By Laws.
Section B. Term of Office - The Chair and Vice-Chair shall serve one-year terms of office.
Section C. Election of Officers - The Agency at its first meeting and at its first quarterly meeting every year thereafter, and at such other times as there may be a vacancy in either office, shall elect a Chair who shall preside at meetings and a Vice-Chair who shall preside in the Chair’s absence.
Section D. Executive Committee – There shall be a maximum of 4 voting members including the Chair, Vice-Chair and Past Chair if available or one person appointed by the Board with the Executive Director serving as a non-voting member. Among these members, there shall be at least one member from LOSSAN North and LOSSAN South. The Executive Committee will meet as needed.
1. The Executive Committee shall have the authority and duty to:
a. Review and approve the agendas for the meetings of the Board as needed;
b. Provide direction to the Executive Director
c. Make recommendations as needed to the Board regarding the work program, budget, positions to be taken on issues, contracts and all other matters within the jurisdiction of the agency;
d. Evaluate Executive Director in conjunction with the Board;
e. Monitor the function of all agency committees.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2010. 4
19
f. Minutes of Executive Committee shall be circulated to the Board of Directors
g. Executive Committee is authorized to act in emergency situations but must be reported to the Board.
Section E. Appointment of Executive Director - The Executive Director and such other officers as the Agency may deem necessary shall be appointed by a majority vote of the Governing Board.
1. The Executive Director will serve at the pleasure of the Governing Board, which shall determine conditions of employment, including compensation.
2. At the discretion of the Governing Board, duties of the Executive Director may be assigned to a voting member agency’s staff person.
3. Contested personnel decisions of the Executive Director may be appealed to the Board of Directors by any affected person with a statement of cause or purpose. The Board may make a determination to hear or not hear the matter solely at the Board’s discretion by majority vote.
Section F. Removal of Officers - Officers may be removed from office by a majority vote of the member agencies. Voting on removal shall take place no sooner than at the next regular meeting following the meeting at which a motion to remove officers was introduced. The motion should include the reasons for removal.
Section G. Duties of Various Officers
1. Duties of the Chair - The Chair shall, if present, preside at all meetings of the Agency and exercise and perform such other powers and duties as may from time to time be assigned to the Chair by the Agency or provided herein. In any case in which the execution of a document or the performance of an act is directed, the Chair, unless an act of the Agency otherwise provides, is empowered and directed to execute such document or perform such act.
2. Duties of the Vice-Chair - The Vice-Chair shall perform, in order, the duties of the Chair in his or her absence and, when so acting, shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chair.
3. Chair Pro Tempore - In the event of the absence of or inability to act of the Chair and Vice-Chair, the voting members present at any meeting of the Agency, by order entered in the minutes, shall select one of their voting members to act as Chair Pro Tempore, who, while so acting, shall have all the authority of the Chair.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2010. 5
20 4. Duties of the Treasurer - The Treasurer of one of the voting member agencies, designated by a majority of a quorum of the Governing Board, may serve as the Treasurer of the Agency. The Treasurer shall be the depository of funds and have custody of all funds of the Agency from whatever source. If staff from one member agency is performing the Executive Director functions, the Treasurer duties will be performed by another member agency.
a. The Treasurer shall comply with all duties imposed under California Government Code, Section 6500 et.seq.
5. Duties of the Auditor - The Auditor of one of the voting member agencies, designated by a majority of a quorum of the Governing Board, may serve as the Auditor-Controller of the Agency. The Auditor-Controller shall draw warrants or check warrants against the funds of the Agency in the Treasury when demands are approved by the Governing Board or such other persons as may be specifically designated in the Bylaws.
a. The Auditor shall comply with all duties imposed under California Government Code, Section 6500 et.seq.
6. Duties of the Executive Director - The Executive Director shall be an officer of the Agency. The powers and duties of the Executive Director are:
a. To administer the personnel system, including contract and non- contract employees, of the Agency.
b. To administer all contracts.
c. To cause to be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant and submitted to the Agency as soon as practical after the end of each fiscal year, a post audit of the financial transactions and records of the Agency for the preceding year.
d. To keep the Agency advised as to the needs of the Agency.
e. To have full charge of the administration of the business affairs of the Agency.
f. To see that all ordinances, rules, and regulations, motions, or resolutions are implemented and enforced.
g. To prepare and submit to the Agency on or before the last meeting of March of each year a proposed budget for the succeeding fiscal year.
h. The Executive Director is authorized to take any or all of the following actions in relation to non-contract employees of the Agency.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2010. 6
21 (1) To hire employees at the appropriate salary range, as determined by the Board.
(2) To promote, transfer, suspend with or without pay, or discharge any employee.
i. The Executive Director is authorized to make disbursements of funds of the Agency not to exceed $5,000 each for the business of the Agency, provided that this limitation shall not apply to salary or to other disbursements that are necessary to meet contractual obligations that have been approved by the Agency per the authorized budget.
j. The Executive Director is authorized to contract for and execute, on behalf of the Agency, supplies, equipment and materials, and personal service contracts not to exceed $5,000 without prior Agency approval.
k. The Executive Director shall keep or cause to be kept a book of minutes of all meetings of the Agency.
l. The Executive Director shall give or cause to be given notice of all meetings as may be required by law, by these By Laws, or by motion or resolution of the Agency.
m. The Executive Director shall:
(1) Oversee the functions of the Treasurer and Auditor.
(2) Execute a bond with one or more corporate sureties approved by the Agency in the sum of $250,000 payable to the Agency, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the duties of the office, and the payment of all money received by him according to law and the orders of the Agency.
(3) Prepare or cause to be prepared a written report filed with the Agency quarterly (July, October, January, and April) and circulated to the Board of each year reporting the amount of money held, the amount and source of receipts since the last report, and the amount and recipient of the amounts paid out since the last report prior to the meeting
(4) Keep a full and complete record of all financial transactions and records of the Agency.
n. The Executive Director shall define an annual work program and report annually to the Board on progress.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2010. 7
22 o. The Executive Director shall have such other duties, powers, and responsibilities as may from time to time be assigned by the Agency.
p. At the discretion of the Board, duties of the Executive Director may be assigned to a voting member agency’ staff person.
Section H. Committees
1. Technical Advisory Committee - The Board shall form a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review, on behalf of the Board, technical issues associated with the improvements in passenger rail service and related facilities in the LOSSAN corridor.
a. The membership of the Committee shall include representatives from the voting member agencies and Ex-Officio non-voting agencies as well as representatives from the California Public Utilities Commission, BNSF Railway, Union Pacific Railroad, Southern California Regional Rail Authority/Metrolink, and the Federal Railroad Administration.
b. Quorum – At least 5 members of the TAC, including at least one member from each county of Orange, San Diego, and Los Angeles and at least one member from LOSSAN North shall constitute a quorum.
c. All actions of the TAC require a majority vote of the voting members present.
2. The Board shall form other committees as necessary.
3. The Chair shall name all members of Board committees with consent of a majority of the Board.
ARTICLE V - MEETINGS
Section A. Agenda - Matters to be placed on the agenda for any regular meeting may be filed with the Executive Director or the Chair of the Agency. The agenda for each regular meeting shall be prepared by the Executive Director. Copies of the agenda shall be mailed or delivered to each member three working days prior to the regular meeting date. Formal action, other than appointment of the committee or subcommittee, will not ordinarily be taken with respect to any matter not included on the agenda unless a majority of the voting members of the Agency present at the meeting consent to such consideration.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2010. 8
23 Section B. Regular Meetings - Regular meetings of the Agency shall be held at least quarterly, on the date determined by the Chair. The meetings of the Agency will be held at a location at the discretion of the Board.
1. The meeting place may rotate among the member agencies.
2. The Chair shall announce the date and place of the next meeting.
Section C. Special Meetings - A special meeting may be called at any time by the Chair or, in the Chair’s absence, by the Vice-Chair, in order, or by any six members by delivering personally or by mail written notice to the Executive Director and to each member. Such notice shall be delivered at least 24 hours before the time of such meeting as specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business transacted at such meeting. Such written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes files with the Secretary a written waiver of notice. Such waiver may be given by telegram or facsimile. Such written notice shall be deemed waived as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes.
Section D. Quorum –At least five of the voting member agencies of the Governing Board, including at least one member from each county of Orange, San Diego, and Los Angeles and at least one voting member from LOSSAN North shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and all official acts of the Agency.
Section E. Ralph M. Brown Act - All meetings of the Agency shall be called, noticed, and conducted in the manner prescribed in the California Government Code, Section 54950, et.seq.
Section F. Committee of the Whole - At any regular meeting not held because of a lack of a quorum, members present, if less than a quorum of the Agency, may constitute themselves a “Committee of the Whole” for purposes of discussing agenda matters or any other matter of interest to the members present. The committee shall automatically cease to exist if a quorum of the Agency is present at the meeting.
Section G. Motions - Only voting members may make and second motions.
Section H. Actions of the Board - All actions of the Board shall pass by a majority vote of the quorum.
ARTICLE VI - PROCUREMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES
Section A. In General - The Agency may enter into contracts of any nature including, but not limited to, contracts to indemnify and hold harmless, to employ labor, and to do acts necessary and convenient for the full exercise of its powers. The Agency
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2010. 9
24 may contract with any public agency or with any other person or organization upon such terms and conditions as the approving authority finds are in the best interests of the Agency.
1. The Agency shall develop administrative procedures establishing proper procurement practices and authority to award contracts.
2. The Executive Director may authorize the purchase of goods or services for the Agency through the procurement department of any of the member agencies, counties, or other public agency if this would be advantageous to the Agency and if the purchase is conducted using acceptable contracting procedures. Approval of such purchases is restricted to the same level of approval authority as would be required were the Agency to conduct the procurement itself.
ARTICLE VII – BUDGET, DUES AND FINANCIAL RECORDS
Section A. Budget Adoption - Each year no later than the Agency’s last meeting in March, the Executive Director shall submit for the Board’s adoption the Annual Budget for the succeeding fiscal year. Approval of a majority of a quorum of the Board shall be required for adoption of the Budget and any amendments thereto.
Section B. Board Approval of Expenditures
1. The Board’s approval of an Annual Budget shall be deemed approval of expenditures made in accordance with the approved Budget. All expenditures in excess of the designations and limitations of the approved Annual Budget and in excess of $5,000 shall be made only upon the approval of a majority of a quorum of the Board.
2. The Board shall receive a quarterly report on expenditures of $5,000 and less.
3. With respect to procurements of goods and services, approvals of contract awards shall be made in accordance with the Agency’s administrative procedures, but payment of a contractor or consultant in accordance with the terms of an approved contract is authorized without further Board approval.
4. Approvals of expenditures for travel, conference and business-related activities and reimbursement of Board Members and Agency employees for such expenditures shall be governed by the Travel, Conference and Business Expense procedures to be adopted by the Agency.
Section C. Dues. The Member agencies shall be responsible for the payment annually, of dues and the amounts periodically budgeted by the Board, as and for the
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2010. 10
25 operating costs of the organization ("Dues"). Sixty (60) days notice shall be provided to Members of the date of the meeting at which any increase in the Dues is to be determined for the following year. If an increase in dues is proposed from the previous year, a majority affirmative vote of the total voting membership of the Board is required to set the new dues.
Section D. Books and Accounts - A full and complete record of all financial transactions of the Agency shall be maintained by the Executive Director, with the support of the Auditor and Treasurer in accordance with practices established by, or consistent with those utilized by the Controller of the State of California for like public agencies. In particular, the Executive Director or designee, with the support of the Auditor and Treasurer, shall comply with the requirements of the statute governing joint power agencies, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code commencing at Section 6500.
Section E. Audit Reports - The Executive Director or designee and the Auditor shall cause to be prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant an audit of the financial transactions and records of the Agency for the preceding year. The audit shall be presented as soon as practical after the close of each fiscal year. In addition, the Executive Director or designee shall prepare and file with the Agency quarterly reports as stated in Article IV, Section G6m(4).
Section F. Investment of Funds - All funds of the Agency from whatever source shall be deposited with the Treasurer who shall have custody of the funds. All funds of the Agency will be invested in the manner and upon the conditions set forth in Government Code Section 53601. In the event that receipt of funds from a particular source shall be conditioned upon investment requirements for those funds, and furthermore, that those requirements do not conflict with Government Code Section 53601, the Treasurer shall invest such funds in compliance with the requirements of the funding source.
ARTICLE VIII - AMENDMENTS
Amendments to these Bylaws may be proposed by a Board Representative. The Amendment shall be submitted to the Board at a meeting at least one month prior to the meeting at which the Amendment is voted upon. A vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the total voting membership of the Board is required to adopt an Amendment.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Bylaws, 2010. 11
26 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
March 5, 2010 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 7
Action Requested: DISCUSSION
DRAFT 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM File Number 3100500
Introduction
Public Involvement Plan (PIP)
A PIP is being created to support the development of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The PIP is based on the SANDAG Public Participation Plan that was adopted December 18, 2009. The agencywide PPP provides the foundation for the development of specific public outreach plans prepared for the RTP, as well as for transit construction projects, environmental documents, the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), the transit fare ordinance, and other projects.
Discussion
The draft 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan (Attachment 1) establishes a process and outlines specific activities for communicating with and obtaining input from the public concerning the 2050 RTP and its Sustainable Communities Strategy. This initial draft was reviewed at the February 16, 2010, Stakeholders Working Group (SWG) meeting and its input is included.
The strategies and tactics outlined in the plan will guide outreach efforts to build awareness of the regional transportation planning process and identify opportunities to shape the future of the region. The plan also describes SANDAG efforts to secure input on developing project priorities, project selection criteria, transportation networks, funding alternatives, meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets, and other elements of the 2050 RTP. These efforts will coordinate with regular interaction with the Regional Planning SWG and recipients of community-based outreach grants. The Public Involvement Plan also will guide efforts to secure input from individuals, organizations, agencies, and other stakeholders in the development of the 2050 RTP.
Next Steps
Staff will finalize the PIP based on additional input at this meeting and from the Regional Planning Committee and SANDAG Board of Directors. The final PIP will be updated as needed to guide the outreach efforts to support the development of the 2050 RTP.
COLLEEN WINDSOR Director of Communications Attachment: 1. Draft 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan Key Staff Contact: Anne Steinberger, (619) 699-1937, [email protected]
Attachment 1
2050 Regional Transportation Plan Draft Public Involvement Plan
401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 699-190
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan ...... 3 3.0 Public Involvement Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ...... 6 4.0 Public Involvement Process ...... 7 5.0 Public Involvement Plan Assessment ...... 10
Appendix A Draft 2050 RTP Public Outreach Activities ...... 12 Appendix B Media List...... 13 Appendix C Stakeholders List ...... 15
1.0 INTRODUCTION
SANDAG is the first major Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the State of California to develop a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) under new state mandates outlined in Senate Bill (SB) 375 and Assembly Bill 32. How the San Diego region complies with these new mandates, identifies how to meet a greenhouse gas reduction target, and creates more sustainable communities will set the stage for other California regions. The 2050 RTP development process promotes strategic planning, emphasizes public involvement, encourages new partnerships, and supports the foundation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP): better connecting land use and transportation plans. It is important that stakeholders in the San Diego region work together to develop this ground-breaking 2050 RTP. This Public Involvement Plan (PIP) will establish the framework for a dynamic and interactive process to develop the 2050 RTP.
To obtain public input in the development of the 2050 RTP, SANDAG is implementing a comprehensive public outreach and involvement program. A major goal of this effort is to coordinate with the Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group, community-based organizations that have received Environmental Justice grants, and to involve non-traditional, as well as traditional audiences, to raise their awareness of the transportation planning process under way and the broad goals to better connect transportation and land use planning. Early public involvement and comment about key components of the RTP is important to SANDAG as part of developing transportation public policies and establishing priorities to meet the travel needs of residents now and into the future.
This draft 2050 RTP PIP is an element of the agencywide Public Participation Plan (www.sandag.org/ppp) that was adopted by the SANDAG Board December 18, 2009, following a six- month development, input, and review process. The Public Participation Plan was developed in accordance with guidelines established by Federal Highway Administration for metropolitan transportation planning (23 CFR 450.316). It addresses Title VI, related nondiscrimination requirements, and reflects the principles of social equity and environmental justice. Included in the PPP are procedures, strategies, and outcomes associated with the ten requirements listed in 23 CFR 450.316. The PPP also fulfills various state and federal public involvement requirements.
The 2050 RTP PIP also follows guidelines established in the California Transportation Commission’s 2010 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines (currently in draft format), specifically Chapter 4 – RTP Consultation and Coordination.
Developing the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan
The 2050 RTP will rely upon the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and other planning efforts as the foundation for integrating land uses, transportation systems, infrastructure needs, and public investment strategies within a regional smart growth framework. The RTP focuses both on the movement of people and goods, including marine terminals, air cargo facilities, freight rail, and land ports of entry that link our region with Mexico. In accordance with state and federal guidelines, the 2050 RTP is scheduled for adoption by the Board of Directors in July 2011.
With each RTP update, SANDAG starts the planning process by establishing a framework of goals, policy objectives, and performance measures to guide the development of the Plan. This is a key
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 1 first step, as it is the policy foundation for the RTP and identifies the “big picture” of what we hope to achieve. The Board of Directors discussed the 2050 RTP vision, goals, and policy objectives to help reach the 2050 RTP goals in fall 2009.
The 2050 RTP goals are structured into two overarching themes: Quality of Travel & Livability, and Sustainability. Quality of Travel & Livability relates to how the transportation system functions from the individual customer perspective (Mobility, Reliability, and System Preservation & Safety), while Sustainability relates to making progress simultaneously in each of the Three “Es” (Social Equity, Healthy Environment, and Prosperous Economy) from a regional perspective.
SANDAG is the first major MPO that is preparing an RTP that will comply with provisions of SB 375. A new regional growth forecast and the results of other studies currently under way—including the Climate Action Strategy, Regional Energy Strategy Update, Regional Bicycle Plan, Urban Area Transit Strategy, Comprehensive Freight Gateway Forecast, airport multimodal planning, high-speed rail planning, and corridor and subregional studies—will be incorporated into the development of the 2050 RTP. Other major tasks include updates to the project evaluation criteria and plan performance measures, economic analysis of investment strategies, and new revenue projections and cost estimates for transportation projects and services.
SB 375: Sustainable Communities Strategy
Per SB 375, the 2050 RTP will incorporate new legislative requirements. The SCS will be a new element of the RTP, and will be designed to show how regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets, to be established by the California Air Resources Board, will be achieved through development patterns, infrastructure investments, and transportation measures or policies that are determined to be feasible. Additionally, the SCS must be consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and must address protection of sensitive resource areas. If the SCS does not meet regional GHG reduction targets, an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) must be developed to demonstrate how the targets could be achieved.
The adopted Smart Growth Concept Map will inform the development of the SCS. The Smart Growth Concept Map contains nearly 200 locations within the region that can support smart growth land uses and transportation investments. These locations were identified by transportation and planning staff from all jurisdictions and adopted by the SANDAG Board in 2006 (updated in 2008). These existing, planned, or potential smart growth locations are based on seven smart growth place types: the Metropolitan Center, Urban Centers, Town Centers, Community Centers, Rural Villages, Mixed Use Transit Corridors, and Special Use Centers, reflecting the notion that smart growth is not a “one-size-fits-all” endeavor. Additionally, tactics from the Climate Action Strategy will provide options for additional measures that could reduce GHG emissions.
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2050 RTP will require analysis beyond what has been included in previous RTP EIRs. The RTP environmental analysis will include GHG emissions baseline measurements and projections, as well as potential mitigation measures that could reduce those emissions. The EIR also will include analysis of the additional elements required by SB 375, such as the SCS.
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 2 A New Regional Growth Forecast
Similar to past RTPs, the 2050 RTP will be based on a new regional growth forecast that includes existing and planned land uses, and potential redevelopment and infill areas from local general plans. However, most general plans have horizon years much earlier than 2050. As a result, SANDAG has received assistance from local jurisdictions to prepare local land use scenarios that will be applied beyond the local general plan horizon year out to the year 2050. This forecast will be SANDAG’s first estimate of population, housing, land use, and economic growth to the end of the TransNet program in 2048.
Urban Area Transit Strategy
SANDAG is developing an Urban Area Transit Strategy to evaluate possible regional transit strategies that significantly increase the attractiveness and use of transit in the urban area and maximize peak period alternative mode share (including transit, carpool, vanpool, bicycle, and walk trips) in the region. Three transit network alternatives will be developed and tested in conjunction with the rest of the transportation system. Public input will be secured at SANDAG Board and Policy Advisory Committee meetings as well as at the Stakeholders Working Group and other public workshops. One of these networks (or an alternative, combination, or variation) will be incorporated into the 2050 RTP as the regional transit network. Additionally, the study will include short-term action plans and implementation strategies.
2.0 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan
The Public Involvement Plan will support the development of the 2050 RTP. The PIP also will create opportunities for stakeholders to provide input on the development of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The strategies and tactics outlined in the plan will guide outreach efforts to build awareness of the regional transportation planning process and identify opportunities to shape the future of the region. The plan also describes SANDAG efforts to secure input on developing project priorities, project selection criteria, transportation networks, funding alternatives, meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets, and other elements of the 2050 RTP and its Sustainable Communities Strategy. These efforts will coordinate with regular interaction with the Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group and recipients of community-based outreach grants. The PIP also will guide efforts to secure input from individuals, organizations, agencies, and other stakeholders in the development of the 2050 RTP.
This public involvement plan is intended to be a “living” document. Because of the fluid nature of the public involvement process, this plan may be adjusted to respond to issues and circumstances that arise throughout the process and will also be updated at major milestones in the planning and development process.
Environmental Justice
Consistent with the guidelines discussed above, the Public Involvement Plan will comply with SANDAG Policy 25, Federal Title VI legislation, the Americans with Disabilities Act (as defined in Title 49, Part 37, of the United States Code), Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice,
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 3 Executive Order 13166 on Limited English Proficiency, and other relevant regulations to ensure social equity, environmental justice, non-discrimination and accessibility.
To ensure meaningful access to Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons, SANDAG certifies compliance with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) “Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients’ Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons.” The policy guidance includes a “Safe Harbor” provision where the USDOT considers the written translation of vital documents in languages other than English (for eligible LEP language groups consisting of 5 percent or more of the population) to be strong evidence of compliance with the recipient’s obligations under Title VI. Based on the Census 2000 data, Spanish is the only language in the San Diego Region that meets or exceeds the 5 percent LEP trigger. However, SANDAG will print materials (or provide translation services or bilingual representatives) in any other languages deemed appropriate by SANDAG.
While involvement from community-based organizations that have received environmental justice mini-grants will enhance outreach efforts, other proactive steps will be taken to ensure diverse audiences are given the opportunity to provide input into the development of the 2050 RTP and its Sustainable Communities Strategy. These audiences include, but are not limited to, minority groups, non-English speakers, lower income households, individuals with disabilities, the elderly, and transit riders.
To reach these audiences, organizations and media outlets representing these communities will be approached to provide 2050 RTP information, solicit participation and input, and provide a means for communicating back with members of these communities. Participation will be encouraged via presentations to these organizations, involvement in events sponsored by these organizations or targeted at these audiences, publishing articles in organizational newsletters, and publishing notices and articles in ethnic media outlets. SANDAG has identified a number of local organizations that work with or represent underserved populations in the project area. These activities also will be coordinated in collaboration with the community-based organizations that have received SANDAG environmental justice grants.
SANDAG will work with these groups to identify opportunities to communicate with or solicit input from their constituents to meet their transportation needs. A draft list of stakeholders is included as Appendix C.
Public Stakeholder Categories
There are a number of groups — each with a unique perspective — that will be interested in the 2050 RTP development process. Outreach to these groups will be achieved by soliciting input through current channels at SANDAG, the Stakeholders Working Group, and other opt-in electronic outreach. The draft list of stakeholders is included as Appendix C. These include organizations and individuals representing the following interests:
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 4 Accessibility Challenged Affordable Housing Advocates Business Organizations Citizens Commercial & Retail Commercial Property Interests Community Planning Groups Community Services Commuters Employers/Businesses Environmental Advocates Environmental Groups Freight Shippers, Providers of Freight Transportation Services General Public Health advocacy organizations Home Builder Representatives Homeowner Associations Industry Peers & Associations Labor Landowner Military Neighborhood and Community Groups Neighborhoods/Residential Professional Planning Organizations Private Providers of Transportation Representatives of Public Transportation Employees Representatives of Users of Pedestrian Walkways And Bicycle Transportation Facilities, Representatives of The Disabled, And Other Interested Parties Representatives of Users of Public Transportation Sustainability-focused organizations Local universities Students; University Student Associations Taxpayer Advocates Tourism Transit Riders Transportation Advocates
Government to Government Consultation and Coordination
Native American Consultation The SANDAG Public Participation Plan details Native American Consultation activities as coordinating with the SANDAG Borders Committee, the Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues (Working Group), the Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Association, Reservation Transportation Authority, and other intertribal associations. SANDAG will coordinate with the Tribal Governments to provide input on the 2050 RTP to coordinate transportation and land use planning with tribal nations in
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 5 San Diego County. A Regional Tribal Summit is scheduled for April 9, 2010, where SANDAG and Tribal representatives will discuss regional issues, including the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.
Coordination with Mexico SANDAG will coordinate transportation planning activities with Mexico through the SANDAG Board and Transportation Committees as well as through the Borders Committee, the Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO), and other efforts. SANDAG will engage these groups and conduct other outreach efforts to include joint U.S.-Mexico planning efforts in the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.
Coordination with California Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Regional Transportation Planning Authorities Collaborate with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and other Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Transportation Planning Authorities (RTPAs) on the GHG target setting process and other SB 375 efforts.
3.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
Goals • Raise awareness of the 2050 RTP as the region’s updated blueprint for a transportation system that enhances our quality of life and meets our mobility needs for the future • Stimulate dialogue about the transportation challenges facing the San Diego region • Provide opportunities for the public to provide input into the 2050 RTP and the Sustainable Communities Strategy, required by state climate change legislation • Develop and incorporate into the plan realistic solutions that address the diverse mobility needs of the region’s residents, visitors, and business people • Build public support for transportation improvements outlined in the 2050 RTP
Objectives • Gain input from a broad range of individuals, organizations, agencies and local governments throughout the 2050 RTP development and decision-making process • Provide timely and accessible public information about the proposed policies and plans contained in the 2050 RTP to a broad range of regional stakeholders • Make public information accessible in a variety of formats and languages, use easy-to- understand language and concepts, and use a variety of media including innovative visualization techniques • Hold public workshops and meetings that foster meaningful dialogue and result in effective and inclusive decision-making • Consider public input at decision-making milestones for the 2050 RTP • Meet or exceed local, state, and federal guidelines and requirements for public involvement in the RTP planning process
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 6 Strategies The following strategies will be implemented to achieve the goals and objectives discussed above.
• Establish a clear project identity to convey information about the 2050 RTP, the SCS, and other RTP elements.
• Develop materials on the RTP and other components using easily understood language and terms.
• Develop a “marketing campaign” to build awareness and secure input from the public.
• Involve public stakeholders in the process on a regular basis to foster understanding and agreement on issues related to the development of the 2050 RTP.
• Use a variety of communication methods to reach audiences including presentations, one- on-one/small group meetings, public workshops, written materials, online, social media, and news media communication.
• Provide the public with up-to-date information about the 2050 RTP on a regular basis through presentations, the Web site and online communications, written materials and news updates.
• Document and address public comments received during the public involvement process.
• Provide information to the public about the 2050 RTP development process and promote opportunities for input and comments.
• Provide information to decision-makers regarding comments received throughout the public involvement process.
• Utilize traditional and new media to convey project information to a broad audience.
• Assess the effectiveness of the Public Involvement Plan at the conclusion of key phases (i.e., following workshops or release of draft documents) to evaluate how the strategies and tactics worked and what enhancements could be made for future phases.
4.0 Public Involvement Process
Implementing the strategies listed above will involve a number of coordinated tactics executed in conjunction with key 2050 RTP development milestones. These tactics will involve presentations at SANDAG Board, Policy Advisory Committee, and Stakeholder Working Group meetings, as well as with other SANDAG working groups including Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee, Regional Planning Technical Working Group, San Diego Region Conformity Working Group, Bicycle- Pedestrian Working Groups, and other appropriate internal and external committees. This process also will include written and online communications, and media relations. The public involvement
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 7 process will follow key dates/milestones listed in Appendix A that have been identified by SANDAG and are included in the California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines. Other tactics and methods are listed below.
Early Public Involvement
Early public involvement activities provide the opportunity to introduce the public to the 2050 RTP, its components, and its development process; gain initial feedback about how the public would like to be involved; and to prepare successful outreach strategies for the development of the 2050 RTP. Public involvement tactics during this period include:
• Prepare informational materials to help educate the public about the 2050 RTP Informational materials to support the 2050 RTP include a project Web site (www.sandag.org/2050rtp), fact sheet, and multimedia presentation. These materials will provide information about the RTP and its components, the development process, and information and/or referrals about how to get involved in the process. These materials will be written in easy-to-understand terms with limited jargon. Materials will be updated as needed throughout the process. The Web site will provide an opportunity for residents to learn about the 2050 RTP online and the ability to register for future e-mail updates. It also will provide access to project materials and documents, including fact sheets, news releases, project documents, and outreach efforts.
• Secure input and feedback at Stakeholders Working Group The Working Group provides a forum for the exchange of information throughout the development of the 2050 RTP. The SWG will be updated regularly on public involvement outreach and activities. One of its principal tasks is to advise SANDAG on the design and implementation of the Public Involvement Plan. The Working Group members are partners in the outreach process.
Public Involvement during 2050 RTP Development
A number of efforts will be implemented during this period to expand communication about the project:
• Promote input opportunities as they come before SANDAG Board, Policy Advisory Committees, Technical and Stakeholder Working Groups The SANDAG Web site includes a calendar that lists dates and times for upcoming meetings. When meetings include opportunities for input into the process or decision-making, they will also be publicized in the following ways:
- Inclusion in agenda highlights an input opportunity for the 2050 RTP - Promotion through rEgion when meetings focus on input and decision opportunities - Promotion of key milestones via opt-in e-mail notification
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 8 • Distribute information to local and regional media To promote awareness among the media and foster accurate news coverage, press releases and agenda information will be distributed to local and regional media outlets. Reporters will be kept updated on the development and key milestones of the 2050 RTP. See Media List in Appendix B.
• Provide news updates for rEgion and other newsletters Numerous organizations in the region publish newsletters to keep their constituencies informed about issues of interest. Regular news updates about the 2050 RTP will be provided for publication in these organizational newsletters. Examples of newsletters to target are rEgion (SANDAG’s electronic newsletter) and publications of chambers of commerce, homeowners associations, community groups, and others.
• Conduct Public Workshops SANDAG will conduct Public Workshops at key milestones during the development of the 2050 RTP to solicit input on the draft and final 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, the Urban Area Transit Strategy, the draft and final Environmental Impact Report, and other components. (See Appendix A)
• Implement Social Media and other Web-based communications Use social media and other Web-based communications to build awareness about the 2050 RTP, promote outreach events, provide information,, secure input, and facilitate dialogue..
• Speakers Bureau program To keep the local community and larger regional interests informed about the project throughout the process, the 2050 RTP and other plan elements will be promoted through SANDAG Speakers Bureau. These presentations will serve to share information about the project and the planning and development process.
• Participate in community events To reach a wider audience, project information will be provided and community input sought through participation in community events and festivals. These events may be sponsored by community groups, or could be targeted toward a specific audience, i.e., minority groups. A portable informational booth will be taken to various festivals, street fairs, etc., to share information about the project and to seek feedback from members of the public through comment cards, surveys and other means.
• Continue regular news updates SANDAG will continue to provide news updates for rEgion and other relevant Web- based and mailed publications to report newsworthy information.
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 9 • Update Informational Materials All project informational materials will be updated to reflect any updated or changed information that occurs during the preparation of the 2050 RTP. This will include updates to the project fact sheet, Frequently Asked Questions, Web site, multimedia presentation and any other materials that provide project information.
Community-Based Outreach
To help ensure diverse and direct input into the 2050 RTP and key related components from residents throughout the San Diego region, SANDAG is partnering with community-based organizations in critical communities of concern, providing resources to those community groups. The primary goal of the Community-Based Outreach Mini-Grant program is to engage and encourage diverse, inclusive, and active public participation from stakeholders in specific communities who traditionally may not have been involved in regional public policy planning processes (e.g., low income, seniors, minorities, persons with disabilities, and other identified populations). Through a competitive bid process, SANDAG awarded grant funding to eight community-based organizations to conduct this outreach in coordination with other agency public involvement activities being undertaken to help prepare the RTP, the update of the SANDAG Public Participation Plan, and other key regional initiatives.
In addition to the activities described above, each organization receiving a grant also appointed one representative to serve as a community-based network member of the new Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group (SWG). The community-based organizations working on this outreach and involvement effort are:
Able-Disabled Advocacy All Congregations Together Casa Familiar El Cajon Community Collaborative Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers Linda Vista Collaborative San Ysidro Business Association
5.0 Public Involvement Plan Assessment
To assess the effectiveness of the public involvement efforts, SANDAG will assess the effectiveness of the Public Involvement Plan at key milestones in the project development process. These reports will help SANDAG to evaluate public involvement strategies and tactics and make adjustments along the way, and will inform future public involvement outreach phases of the 2050 RTP.
These reports will include:
• A summary of all outreach efforts and input received • A qualitative assessment of how effective the efforts to obtain input were, i.e., audiences reached, did audience provide required input needed for 2050 RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy, and how will/is input incorporated into 2050 RTP development
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 10 • A quantitative assessment of the public involvement plan including the number meetings/presentations/events participated in, Web site hits, approximate number of people reached, number of comments received, and number of media contacts along with the resulting media coverage • The Public Involvement Plan will be revised and strategies/tactics adjusted based on assessments at key milestones
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 11 Appendix A Draft 2050 RTP Public Outreach Activities Proposed Methods and Purpose
These presentations and workshops are in addition to regularly scheduled SANDAG Board and Policy Advisory Committee meetings.
Date Outreach Method Purpose March 2010 Presentations and outreach to Build awareness for initial steps working groups, stakeholders, to set GHG emission reduction interested parties targets April 2010 Public Workshop providing SB 375 post-Regional Target overview and target-setting Advisory Committee info workshop (one at Board Policy and one at SWG) July or September 2010 Presentations and outreach to Build awareness and secure working groups, stakeholders, input on Sustainable interested parties Community Strategy development October 2010 Draft SCS review at SANDAG SB 375 requires meeting Board meeting with members of city council, board of supervisors joint SCS meeting.
March – early April 2011 Public workshops on draft SB 375 three public RTP/SCS workshops on SCS requirement met, and two more for other SANDAG subregions. SANDAG to hold minimum of five subregional workshops. March – early April 2011 Presentations and outreach to Build awareness and secure working groups, stakeholders, input on continued interested parties development of RTP and SCS. Late April 2011 Public hearings on draft Follow up to workshops to RTP/SCS in at least two further refine RTP/SCS and different areas of region meet SB 375 requirements. Ongoing 2009 -- 2011 Presentations and outreach to SANDAG Speakers Bureau working groups, stakeholders, interested parties
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 12 Appendix B 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Media List
San Diego County Media Outlets Alpine Sun KSDS FM American Chinese Times KSON FM Asia KURS AM Asian Journal KUSI TV Beach & Bay Press KUSS FM BIA Builder Magazine KWST AM/KMXX FM/KSEH FM Biz San Diego KXO AM/FM Borrego Sun KYXY FM Business Action La Jolla Light Carlsbad Business Journal La Jolla Village News Carlsbad Sun La Prensa San Diego Carmel Valley Leader La Sonrisa Latina Carmel Valley News Light Connection Chinese News Mira Mesa/Scripps Ranch Sentinel Clairemont Community News Mission Times Courier Coast News Mission Valley News and Views Coastal Sun Neighbors Convisions Norht County Magazine Coronado Eagle & Journal North County Times Coronado Lifestyle North County Voice Coronado Magazine North Park News Corridor News Oceanside Magazine CTN County Television Network Peninsula Beacon Fox 5 News / KSWB Philippine Mabuhay News Daily Transcript, The Philippines Today Del Mar Times Poway News Chieftain Del Mar Village Voice Presidio Sentinel Diamond Gateway Signature Ramona Home Journal Diario San Diego Ramona Sentinel East County Californian Rancho Bernardo News Journal East County Gazette Rancho Bernardo Sun East County Herald News Rancho Magazine East County News Rancho Santa Fe News El Latino Rancho Santa Fe Record El Semanario Deportivo Rancho Santa Fe Review Encinitas First Rental Owner Enlace S. D. California Examiner Fact Magazine San Diego Business Journal Filipino Press San Diego City Beat Gay + Lesbian Times San Diego Commerce Good News, Etc. San Diego Downtown News Greater Golden Hill News San Diego Family Magazine Heartland News San Diego Home/Garden & Lifestyles Hi Sierran San Diego Jewish Journal Hispanos Unidos San Diego Lawyer
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 13 Imperial Beach Eagle & Times San Diego Magazine Indian Voices San Diego Metro Weekly Informant San Diego Metropolitan Julian Journal San Diego Metropolitan Uptown Examiner Julian News San Diego Monitor News KBNT TV Channel 17 San Diego Newsline KBZT FM San Diego Reader KCBQ AM San Diego Seniors KCEO AM San Diego Union-Tribune KCR AM San Diego Voice & Viewpoint KECR AM San Diego's Learning Channel KECY TV Channel 9 San Marcos / Vista News KFMB AM San Marcos Sun KFMB FM San Vicente Valley News KFMB TV Sentinel Magazine KFSD AM Solana Beach Sun KGB FM Star News KGFN FM Tieng Viet San Diego KGTV Channel 10 Tierra Times KHTS FM Today's Local News KICO AM Tribal TANF newsletter KIFM FM Uptown-Marquee KIOZ FM Valley Roadrunner KKSM AM Views KLNV FM Village News KLQV FM Vista Sun KLSD AM Voice of San Diego KMYI FM We Chinese In America KNSD TV (NBC 7/39) We Chinese In America Weekend KOGO AM XDTV 13 Korea Times XEPE AM KOXM TV XETV 6 The CW KPBS FM XHRM FM KPBS TV - S.D.S.U. XHTZ FM KPRI FM XLNC FM KPRZ AM XLTN FM KQVO FM XPRS AM KROP AM / KSIQ FM XPRS FM KSCF FM XSUR KSDO AM - Hi Favor XTRA FM San Diego Living
Orange and Riverside County Media Outlets
Los Angeles Times – zoned editions Orange County Business Journal Orange County Register Riverside Press Enterprise The Californian
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 14 Appendix C Draft Stakeholders List
AARP San Diego Old Town San Diego Chamber of Commerce Access to Independence of San Diego Poway Chamber of Commerce American Institute of Architects, San Diego San Diego Apartment Association American Association of Planners San Diego Archaeological Society American Lung Association San Diego Audubon Society Area students San Diego Bicycle Coalition Asian Business Association San Diego BID Council Association of Environmental Professionals San Diego Canyonlands Bayside Community Center San Diego Coastal Chamber of Commerce Biocom San Diego Coastkeeper Building Owners and Managers Association San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau California Coastal Coalition San Diego Convention Center Corporation California Native Plant Society San Diego (CNPSSD) San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce San Diego County Taxpayers Association Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce Citizens Coordinate for Century 3 San Diego Hispanic Chamber of Commerce City of San Diego Disabled Services Advisory San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor AFL-CIO Committee COMPACT San Diego North Chamber of Commerce Downtown San Diego Partnership San Diego North Economic Development Council East County Action Network San Diego Organizing Project (SDOP) East Region Collaborative Network San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce El Cajon Community Development Corporation San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation Elder housing complexes San Diego River Coalition Encinitas Chamber of Commerce San Diego River Conservancy Endangered Habitats League San Diego River Park Foundation Environmental Health Coalition San Diego Sierra Club Escondido Chamber of Commerce San Diego State University Filipino-American Chamber of Commerce of San Diego Urban League San Diego County Golden Triangle Chamber of Commerce San Diego State University Associated Students Greater Clairemont Chamber of Commerce San Diego Workforce Partnership Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District Santee Chamber of Commerce I Love A Clean San Diego Social Services Transportation Advisory Council Imperial Beach Chamber of Commerce Surfrider, San Diego Chapter Industrial Environmental Association Transit Alliance for a Better North County (TABNC) It’s How We Live Transit riders La Mesa Chamber of Commerce UCSD Associated Students League of Conservation Voters, San Diego UCSD League of Women Voters Urban League MAAC Project USD Move San Diego Veteran Affairs San Diego Healthcare System National City Chamber of Commerce Vista Chamber of Commerce Oceanside Chamber of Commerce Walk San Diego
2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan February 26, 2009 DRAFT 15 San Diego Association of Governments
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
March 5, 2010 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 8
Action Requested: INFORMATION
INTERSTATE 15 VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM STUDY UPDATE File Number 3310400
Introduction
In 2005, SANDAG was awarded approximately $1.3 million to study next generation enforcement techniques for high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) and high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The multiyear study is expected to result in the selection of technology for reducing dependency on manual enforcement through a pilot deployment on the Interstate 15 (I-15) Express Lanes. The federally funded study began in 2006 and thus far has resulted in the completion of technology reviews, the development of potential enforcement strategies for the Express Lanes, and an extensive public outreach process that was designed to assess opinion and support for the technologies and strategies that were developed during the earlier phases of the project. The current technology assessment phase is underway and will include the testing of an automated vehicle occupancy verification (AVOV) system on the I-15 Corridor.
Discussion
As work continues on the construction of the ultimate 20-mile Express Lanes facility on I-15, SANDAG staff has continued its development and implementation efforts to improve Express Lanes operations. A critical component to protecting the performance and reliability of the Express Lanes is the enforcement of the vehicle occupancy policy. Currently, vehicles with one occupant are required to have a valid transponder to use the I-15 Express Lanes. Drivers that violate this vehicle occupancy policy are appropriately cited. A sound enforcement strategy reduces abuse of the Express Lanes and ensures that the appropriate toll rate for the Fastrak® system is set to manage the system.
Enforcement Problem
Currently, vehicle occupancy on the I-15 Express Lanes is manually enforced by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Periodic violation rate surveys and manual vehicle occupancy counts conducted by Caltrans and SANDAG on I-15 have reported that initial manual enforcement presence resulted in a decrease in violation rates from a pre-project baseline (1995) of approximately 15 percent, to as low as 5 percent one to two years after implementation. However, that number has fluctuated since FasTrak launched in 1998 and the violation rate was last estimated to be closer to 15-20 percent. This evidence suggests that while heavy enforcement presence may produce positive results in terms of lowered overall violation rates, those results are difficult to sustain in the absence of continuous enforcement presence or a more automated violation detection and enforcement system.
Previous Research on Vehicle Occupancy Enforcement
The I-15 Managed Lanes (ML) Enforcement Concepts and Technologies Report, completed in 2006, provided a number of alternative concepts and technologies for HOV and HOT lane enforcement that were evaluated. The report grouped supporting technologies and policies into implementation strategy packages that could prove effective for enforcement on the I-15 facility.
Based upon the findings of the Enforcement Concepts and Technology Report, a number of enforcement strategies were carried forward for further analysis in the subsequent I-15 ML Enforcement Strategy Analysis Report, also completed in 2006, which documented a recommended number of HOV/HOT enforcement strategies that warrant further evaluation and/or testing. (These two reports can be found on the SANDAG Web site.) The strategies identified in the Enforcement Strategy Analysis report formed the basis for the research that was carried out in this I-15 ML Violation Enforcement Study Outreach Program.
Outreach Program Results
The SANDAG Violation Enforcement Study Outreach Program was designed to help guide the underlying policy development and system requirements for the proposed I-15 Express Lanes (ML) Violation Enforcement System (VES). User perceptions and input were solicited from HOV users that ride the Express Lanes for free, single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) customers of the SANDAG FasTrak system that pay to use the Express lanes, and other I-15 general purpose lane commuters. Executive Interviews also were conducted with stakeholders including: local elected officials, affected agency staff that are involved in the design, operation, and enforcement of HOT/managed lanes, and individuals representing other organizations that may have an interest in potential VES options.
The study analyzed various operational scenarios to determine how the VES can be best implemented on the proposed ML system. Three strategy packages, listed below, were developed using combinations of technologies and concepts that had been determined to be suitable for further review in the Enforcement Concepts and Technologies Report. The purpose of developing the three packages was to have a basic framework from which to “mix and match” various elements of technology, policy, and methods.
• Plan A (Strategy 1): Routine Enforcement with Manual Vehicle Occupancy Verification - Primary use of routine law enforcement personnel with the aid of manually supportive technology assistance to enforce tolls and vehicle occupancy.
• Plan B (Strategy 2): Automated Toll Enforcement with Manual Vehicle Occupancy Verification - Enforcement based on use of mandatory transponder requirement for all vehicles, with video-based toll enforcement and a reliance on manual enforcement for vehicle occupancy verification.
• Plan C (Strategy 3): Automated Toll Enforcement with Automated Occupancy Verification – Fully automated system of vehicle occupancy detection/validation and video-based toll enforcement. Little or no manual enforcement required.
2 The results of 25 stakeholder interviews, individual focus groups with HOV, toll-payer, and general purpose commuters, and a 900-sample telephone survey indicate there is willingness on the part of the San Diego public and among the law enforcement agencies involved, to automate the process of enforcing vehicle occupancy requirements on HOV and HOT lanes. Surprisingly, those surveyed did not express privacy concerns. Their responses and concerns were focused at reducing violations; better use of law enforcement personnel; and the accuracy of any technology solution. These findings are summarized in the Final Outreach Program Report (see Attachment 1). Based on these findings and recommendations, SANDAG moved forward with a Technology Assessment of any/all available passenger counting technologies.
Technology Assessment Phase
In 2009, SANDAG issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) from qualified vendors to participate in a Technology Assessment (“proof-of-concept“) of available passenger counting technologies that SANDAG, Caltrans, and the CHP would conduct on the I-15 Express Lanes.
Delcan Corporation was the sole vendor selected to participate in the Technology Assessment Phase. Delcan, in cooperation with Vehicle Occupancy Limited (VOL), will test an AVOV system known as dTect, that uses near-infrared technology to identify and count human occupants inside moving vehicles. The dTect system has been tested and implemented on local roadways in Europe but this pilot would be the first known testing of AVOV technologies in the United States.
Next Steps
The Technology Assessment Phase will move forward with initial testing of VOL’s dTect equipment on the I-15 Express Lanes at Miramar Way in this spring. Staff will take the results and findings from the initial test and provide recommendations for future testing on I-15, should the testing show promising results.
Staff also is working with other California HOT lane operators to assess other potential enforcement solutions such as “switchable transponders” that allow drivers to self-declare the number of occupants in the vehicle. While this solution may not fit the core needs of enforcement, the discussion is being led by the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County due to the unique requirements of their proposed value pricing programs. Staff will work with the other toll operators to ensure consistency and interoperability, and to avoid cost impacts.
JACK BODA Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation
Attachment: 1. Executive Summary - I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Key Staff Contact: Ellison Alegre, (619) 699-0729, [email protected]
3 Attachment 1
TASK 2.2.5 OUTREACH PROGRAM
VALUE PRICING VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT STUDY
I-15 MANAGED LANES
PREPARED FOR:
San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 699-1907 Contact: Derek Toups
PREPARED BY:
HNTB Corporation Wayne Plaza 1 Suite 400 145 Route 46 West Wayne, NJ 07470 Phone: (973) 237-1650 Contact: Susan Carlson
IN ASSOCIATION WITH:
Redhill Group, Inc 18008 Skypark Circle Suite 145 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 752-5900 Contact: Mark McCourt
June 2008
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
I-15 MANAGED LANE
TASK 2.2.5 OUTREACH PROGRAM VALUE PRICING VIOLATION ENFORCEMENT STUDY
JUNE 17, 2008
I-15 Managed Lanes Project Management
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ...... 1 1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 5 2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 7 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 7 2.2 I-15 MANAGED LANES ENFORCEMENT CONTEXT ...... 9 2.3 SUMMARY OF ENFORCEMENT CONCEPTS AND STRATEGIES ...... 12 2.4 OUTREACH PROGRAM PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW...... 15 3.0 FOCUS GROUP STUDY...... 19 3.1 FOCUS GROUP BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY...... 19 3.2 FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS ...... 21 3.3 FOCUS GROUP KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 34 4.0 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY ...... 38 4.1 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ...... 38 4.2 STAKEHOLDER FINDINGS ...... 42 4.3 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 76 5.0 TELEPHONE & SUPPLEMENTAL INTERCEPT SURVEY...... 79 5.1 TELEPHONE SURVEY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ...... 79 5.2 TELEPHONE SURVEY FINDINGS...... 81 5.3 TELEPHONE SURVEY KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 110
June 17, 2008 i
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: FOCUS GROUP QUALIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE...... 1
APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE ...... 3
APPENDIX C: FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT DESCRIPTIONS...... 10
APPENDIX D: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPANT HANDOUT ...... 16
APPENDIX E: STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION GUIDE ...... 19
APPENDIX F: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS ...... 26
APPENDIX G: HANDOUT EXHIBITS FOR STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ...... 33
APPENDIX H: SR 91 CASE STUDY ...... 40
APPENDIX I: TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT...... 42
APPENDIX J: INTERCEPT SURVEY INSTRUMENT...... 50
June 17, 2008 ii
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1-1: Violation Enforcement Study Public Outreach Process...... 3 Figure 1-2: Target Area Zip Code Map...... 4 Figure 2-1: I-15 Managed Lanes Project Area...... 7 Figure 2-2: Four Lane Managed Lane Segment ...... 8 Figure 2-3: I-15 Express Lanes Estimated Violation Rates 1996 – 2008 ...... 10 Table 2-1: Comparison of Enforcement Features: I-15 Reversible Lanes and I-15 Manager Lanes...... 11 Figure 2-4: Public Outreach Process...... 16 Figure 2-5: Target Area Zip Code Map...... 17 Table 4-1: Final Stakeholder Interview List ...... 40 Figure 5-1: Response to Violation Rates...... 82 Figure 5-2: Perceptions of Acceptable Violation Rate...... 82 Figure 5-3: Does Risk of Fines Deter Illegal Use of Express Lanes...... 83 Figure 5-4: Is $341 Too Low or High?...... 83 Figure 5-5: Is use of Infrared Cameras an Invasion of Privacy ...... 84 Figure 5-6: If Riders not Identified is it Still an Invasion of Privacy...... 85 Figure 5-7: Is CHP Visual Inspection an Invasion of Privacy...... 85 Figure 5-8: Is an Automated System a Stronger Deterrent ...... 87 Table 5-1: Use of CHP for Carpool Lane Enforcement is Effective Use of Time...... 88 Figure 5-9: Use of CHP for Carpool Lane Enforcement is Effective Use of Time ...... 88 Figure 5-10: New Technology Should be Used if Tests are Successful ...... 89 Table 5-2: Carpool Registration Discourage Carpooling...... 90 Figure 5-11: Carpool Registration Discourage Carpooling...... 90 Figure 5-12: Will Providing Warnings Stop Discouraging Carpooling...... 91 Table 5-3: Carpoolers Should be Required to Obtain a Transponder to Automate Enforcement ...... 91 Figure 5-13: Carpoolers Should be Required to Obtain a Transponder to Automate Enforcement ...... 92 Figure 5-14: License Plate Photos are a Good Way Process Violations ...... 92 Figure 5-15: Earning Carpool Credits Would Make Required Transponders OK ...... 93
June 17, 2008 iii
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Figure 5-16: Interest Level in Credit Program ...... 94 Figure 5-17: Is Carpooling Rewards Program a Good Idea...... 94 Figure 5-18: I-15 Travel Frequency ...... 95 Figure 5-19: Ridesharing Frequency ...... 95 Figure 5-20: Frequency of Transit Use ...... 96 Figure 5-21: Express Lane Use with a Transponder ...... 96 Figure 5-22: Surprised by Violation Rate...... 99 Figure 5-23: What is an Acceptable Violation Rate ...... 99 Figure 5-24: Does Risk of Fines Deter Violators...... 100 Figure 5-25: Is $341 Fine Too Low or High ...... 100 Figure 5-26: Use of Infrared Cameras to Count People is an Invasion of Privacy...... 101 Figure 5-27: If no Visual Picture then Infrared is Not and Invasion of Privacy ...... 102 Figure 5-28: Visual Inspection by CHP is an Invasion of Privacy ...... 102 Figure 5-29: An Automated System is a Stronger Deterrent...... 103 Figure 5-30: Carpool Lane Enforcement is Effective Use of CHP Time...... 103 Figure 5-31: New Technology Should be Used Improve Capture Rates ...... 104 Figure 5-32: Requiring Carpoolers to Register will Reduce People Using Carpool Lanes 105 Figure 5-33: Warnings would Overcome Concerns about Infrequent Carpoolers ...... 106 Figure 5-34: Carpoolers Should be Required to Attain a Transponder to Automate Enforcement ...... 107 Figure 5-35: License Plate Photos are a Good Way to Process Violations...... 107 Figure 5-36: Earning Carpooling Credits would Garner Support for Required Transponders...... 108 Figure 5-37: Interest in Participating Carpooling Credit Program...... 109 Figure 5-38: Earning Carpool Credits is a Good Idea ...... 109
June 17, 2008 iv
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Background and Objectives
SANDAG’s Violation Enforcement Study Outreach Program was designed to help guide the underlying policy development and system requirements for the proposed I-15 Managed Lanes (ML) Violation Enforcement System (VES). User needs evaluations were solicited from high occupancy vehicle (HOV) users that ride the managed lanes for free, single occupancy vehicle (SOV) customers of SANDAG’s FasTrak® system that pay to use the managed lanes, and other I- 15 general purpose lane commuters. Executive Interviews were also conducted with stakeholders including: local elected officials, affected agency staff that are involved in the design, operation and enforcement of high-occupancy toll/managed lanes, and individuals representing other organizations that may have an interest in potential VES options. The program presented the various operational scenarios to determine how the VES can be best implemented on the proposed ML system.
Specific outreach objectives include:
Identification of all important issues related to enforcement policies, Assessment of support for automated VES vs. traditional manned systems, Identification of specific issues relative to alternative systems, and Assessment of overall preference for automated vs. manual enforcement and preferred automated system.
To achieve these objectives a combination of both qualitative and quantitative research was conducted (see figure 1-1 Violation Enforcement Study Public Outreach Process on the following page). The qualitative research included focus groups with the three target I-15 user groups identified above, and stakeholder interviews conducted with individuals that have an interest or stake in the I-15 violation enforcement system policies as part of their official capacities, management responsibilities, or role as an executive of a public interest organization (see Table 4- 1: Final Stakeholder Interview List, in section 4.0 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY).
The qualitative research was conducted to ensure that all relevant issues have been clearly identified, and to provide guidance in developing the quantitative research survey instruments so that they will be clearly and consistently understood by potential respondents. The quantitative research was comprised of a telephone survey conducted with 300 households with each of the three target audiences and a limited number of intercept surveys to reach the low incidence group express bus and park and ride lot users. The telephone and intercept surveys provided quantitative findings on knowledge, opinions and attitudes about violation enforcement strategies for I-15 users.
June 17, 2008 1
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Twenty-five stakeholder interviews were conducted with local elected officials, affected agency staff, and other organizations involved in high-occupancy toll/managed lane operations and enforcement. Interviews were conducted with the mayors of the cities of Escondido, La Mesa, and Poway; with a councilmember from the City of San Diego; and a San Diego County (Board) Supervisor. Others interviewed include staff at the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Headquarters, Special Projects and Border Division; the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Headquarters, HOV Systems
June 17, 2008 2
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
t Study Public Outreach Process
3 Figure 1-1: Violation Enforcemen Violation Enforcement Study Public Outreach Process Violation Enforcement
June 17, 2008
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Branch, Office of ITS Projects and Standards, Division of Research and Innovation, and District 11; California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Information Services Branch; the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Automobile Association of America (AAA), Automobile Club of Southern California; League of Women Voters; San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce; San Diego Economic Development Corporation; San Diego North County Economic Development Council; Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Defense/Institute of Transportation Development Policy; Texas Transportation Institute; and a handful of other local, state, and regional transportation agencies that operate high-occupancy toll/managed lanes similar to the I-15 Managed Lanes operated by SANDAG.
The participants for both the focus groups and the telephone surveys were all recruited from a group of zip codes designed to capture use of the expanded I-15 Express Lanes. A map of the target region is displayed on the following page, and a list of the target zip codes is provided in question 2 in Appendix A: Focus Group Qualification Questionnaire.
Figure 1-2: Target Area Zip Code Map
June 17, 2008 4
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Three strategy packages were developed by the SANDAG I-15 ML team using various combinations of technologies and concepts that had been determined to be suitable for further review in the Enforcement Concepts and Technologies Report. The purpose of developing the three packages was to have a basic framework from which to “mix and match” various elements of technology, policy and methods. Of the three packages Strategy 2 consists of three options. Each of the strategies were part of the Stakeholder Interviews. The strategies from Enforcement Concepts and Technologies Report are listed below with the corresponding Plan described in the Stakeholder Interviews. They are presented in summary form below and in full detail in Section 2.0 BACKGROUND:
Plan A (Strategy 1): Routine Enforcement with Manual Vehicle Occupancy Verification - Primary use of routine law enforcement personnel with the aid of manually-supportive technology assistance to enforce tolls and vehicle occupancy. Plan B (Strategy 2): Automated Toll Enforcement with Manual Vehicle Occupancy Verification - Enforcement based on use of mandatory transponder requirement for all vehicles, with video-based toll enforcement and a reliance on manual enforcement for vehicle occupancy verification. Plan C (Strategy 3): Automated Toll Enforcement with Automated Occupancy Verification - Fully-automated system of vehicle occupancy detection/validation and video-based toll enforcement. Little or no manual enforcement required.
1.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on findings from the focus groups, stakeholder interviews and the quantitative telephone survey research. Recommendations are categorized into system and operational recommendations, policy / business rule recommendations, and communication recommendations.
1.2.1 System and Operational Recommendations SANDAG should set a performance objective to reduce the violation rate from its current level to between zero and five percent (0-5%), and should implement appropriate metrics to track performance against this goal. This range was considered to be an acceptable level of violations among survey respondents. SANDAG should proceed with proof of concept testing for available automated vehicle occupant detection/verification systems to determine accuracy levels. Subject to verification of system accuracy, this was the most popular option with all groups with 74 to 78 percent saying it should be implemented to reduce violation rates and save money.
June 17, 2008 5
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
SANDAG should also move forward with a public pilot of the HOV transponder Concept described in Section 2.0 BACKGROUND. Initially, more than half of all respondents supported this approach. While there is a general concern that requiring HOVs to register might discourage carpool formation rates, 37 percent of carpoolers who initially disagreed with this approach said they would change their opinion if it was combined with a carpooler incentive program. The use of license-plate photos to issue violations to registered vehicle owners was widely accepted with less than 20 percent disagreeing with the concept. Accordingly, this component of an automated system should be implemented.
1.2.2 Policy/Business Rule Recommendations Attempts to change carpool occupancy requirements were widely rejected by I-15 users and stakeholders. These potential policy changes should not be pursued. Under a mandatory transponder program, a carpool incentive program could reward carpoolers for carpooling trips on I-15 by earning credits towards free use of the Express Lanes as a SOV driver. This program should be pursued on a test basis to determine how it could be effectively implemented. This program received support from over 75 percent of each group. In addition almost three-quarters of the 37 percent of carpoolers who changed their mind about mandatory transponders when hearing about the program, said they would be at least somewhat interested in participating in the program.
1.2.3 Communication Recommendations To avoid barriers to implementation for an automated system, clear answers and persuasive public communications programs will be required to effectively address concerns about personal privacy, control of personal data, use of violations data for non-carpool violation applications, the inability to dispute citations with a person, and also concerns about the system’s cost (a FAQ’s approach might be useful for this). Of particular concern for privacy is the use of infrared cameras. Although a majority disagree that it represents an invasion of privacy, the percentage that believe it is an invasion drops even further (to 16 to 18%) when they learn that individuals will not be identified (no pictures). This point should be clearly communicated when explaining the new system. Health concerns were not raised to any significant extent by any group. This topic does not need to be addressed further.
June 17, 2008 6
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
7
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Introduction
In 2005, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) was awarded $700,000 in Federal Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP) grants to study next generation enforcement methods for high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) and high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. Two prior deliverables from the SANDAG I-15 Managed Lanes (ML) violation enforcement study⎯Enforcement Concepts and Technologies Report and Enforcement Strategy Analysis⎯evaluated technologies and methods that could be used in the development of advanced vehicle occupancy detection for the I-15 ML project on Interstate 15 (I-15) in the City and County of San Diego, California. This project expands an existing two-lane reversible express lanes facility (“South Segment”, shown in Figure 2-1), with single entry and exit points at each end of an eight mile segment, to four bi-directional lanes over 20 miles in length and containing multiple intermediate access locations, as represented below.
Figure 2-1: I-15 Managed Lanes Project Area
June 17, 2008 7
8
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
The implementation of managed lanes increases freeway throughput by adding flexibility to the facility’s operations by combining various operational and design considerations. Managed lane operations may be adjusted at any time to better match goals for the most efficient operation of the facility including implementing road user charging that allows certain users to travel on a designated roadway for a fee.
Figure 2-2 below shows the planned I-15 ML lane and access configuration for the four lane segment. These new features will make toll payment and in particular, HOV enforcement, more complex, increasing the importance of a reliable violation enforcement system (VES).
Figure 2-2: Four Lane Managed Lane Segment
The I-15 Managed Lanes Enforcement Concepts and Technologies Report, completed in 2006, provided a number of alternative concepts and technologies for high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) and high- occupancy toll (HOT) lane enforcement that were evaluated for consideration to implement on the I-15 ML. The report grouped supporting technologies and policies into implementation strategy packages that could prove effective for enforcement on the I-15 ML. A copy of this report is available on the Web at www.sandag.org/programs/transportation/services/2006_i15_ML.pdf.
Based upon the findings of the Enforcement Concepts and Technology Report, a number of enforcement strategies were carried forward for further analysis in the subsequent I-15 Managed Lanes Enforcement Strategy Analysis, also completed in 2006, which document recommended a number of HOV/HOT enforcement strategies that warrant further evaluation and/or testing. The strategies identified in the Enforcement Strategy Analysis report formed the basis for the research that was carried out in this I-15 ML Violation Enforcement Study Outreach Program. A copy of the Enforcement Strategy Analysis report is available on the Web at www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_67_7612.pdf.
June 17, 2008 8
9
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
2.2 I-15 Managed Lanes Enforcement Context
2.2.1 Current Enforcement Situation The current enforcement routine for the I-15 reversible express lanes is based on California Highway Patrol (CHP) standard operating procedures and enforcement manuals as applied to the current California Vehicle Code and the special allowances of Section 149.1 of the California Streets and Highways code. This statute permits authorized single-occupant vehicles (SOVs) to travel in the I-15 high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) expressway in exchange for paying a fee for each use of the facility. Payment is made electronically using FasTrak®, California’s standard for electronic toll collection. FasTrak® consists of a roadside reader which communicates with transponders mounted in vehicles that associated the vehicle to a valid FasTrak® account which can be charged the toll. HOV users (i.e., carpools, vanpools, and buses) do not pay a toll and are not presently required to use a transponder when traveling on the existing reversible I-15 express lanes. Other approved users (e.g., motorcycles, hybrid vehicles) are also permitted to use the I-15 Managed Lanes.
Special lights mounted above the toll readers alert the CHP whenever a valid transponder has been read. This eliminates the need to scan all vehicles for presence of a transponder which is difficult to spot on the vehicle windshield. For all other vehicles, the CHP officers try to manually verify vehicle occupancy by counting the number of persons they observe in the vehicle, with obvious complications. If the officer sees that no indicator light has flashed and the driver appears to have no passengers, the vehicle may be stopped to confirm the violation and a citation may be issued. Typically, CHP enforces the existing reversible lanes at the toll zone, since at present tolling is done from this single location, which has a wider enforcement shoulder on the inside of the concrete barrier that separates the reversible lanes from the general purpose I-15 lanes. This protected enforcement area allows the CHP to park a patrol car or motorcycle adjacent to the reversible lanes, and makes enforcing vehicle occupancy safer, slightly more reliable (i.e., greater visibility at grade), and overall provides improved enforcement access than will the planned Managed Lanes. The enforcement/toll zone is located approximately two miles from the south end of the express lanes, between the Miramar Way and Miramar Road interchanges.
Periodic violation rate surveys and manual vehicle occupancy counts conducted by Caltrans and SANDAG on I-15 have reported that initial manual enforcement presence resulted in a decrease in violation rates from a pre-project baseline (1995) of approximately 15 percent, to as low as five percent one to two years after implementation. However, that number has fluctuated since SANDAG deployed full electronic toll collection/FasTrak® in 1998 and the violation rate is estimated to be closer to 15-20 percent of the total average daily traffic on the reversible lanes today (see Figure 2-3 on the following page). This evidence seems to support the theory that while heavy enforcement presence may produce positive results in terms of lowered overall violation rates; those results are difficult to sustain in the absence of continuous enforcement presence or a more automated violation detection and enforcement system.
June 17, 2008 9
10
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Figure 2-3: I-15 Express Lanes Estimated Violation Rates 1996 – 2008
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
2.2.2 Planned Changes with Managed Lanes Expansion Table 2-1 (next page) presents the salient enforcement features and methods of the existing I-15 reversible lanes and expanded I-15 Managed Lanes. The purpose of the comparison is to identify how planned changes to the current system may affect the need and applicability of technology considered for the I-15 ML project:
June 17, 2008 10
11
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Table 2-1: Comparison of Enforcement Features: I-15 Reversible Lanes and I-15 Manager Lanes
Current 1-15 Expanded Item Reversible Lanes I-15 ML Project # Lanes 2 reversible 4 bi-directional w/ moveable median barrier System Length 8 miles 20 miles Shoulder Yes Yes-not on all points Enforcement Area Yes-at toll plaza only Limited at maintenance areas Access/ Two-at terminus points 20 – Three DARs, three BRTs and 14 slip Egress Points lanes. HOVs required to carry Not required Possible-Being considered in this strategy Transponders analysis Overhead Transponder Yes Possible-Being considered in this strategy Status Indicator (TSI) analysis For Valid Transponder Video enforcement in No Being considered in this strategy analysis as Place part of the baseline toll system Automated HOV No Possible use of a number of automated Enforcement technologies to assist in enforcement being considered in this strategy analysis
Violation Citation Manual on-site Possible automation being considered in this strategy analysis. Violator Fine Yes-$341-moving Possible changes to legislation and fines violation, first offense Channelization of No-reversible lanes No-due to Moveable median barriers HOV
All of these factors will serve to render routine enforcement of the managed lanes less effective and more costly than it is today on the I-15 reversible lanes.
Some potential impacts to a reliance on a fully-manual enforcement approach to the I-15 ML include:
The move from two to four lanes and the reduction in shoulder space means that an enforcement vehicle may not easily be adjacent to a vehicle at all times and may not be able to visually identify a violator as easily as with the I-15 reversible lanes today. Multiple access/egress points expand the number of points at which tolling takes place, expanding the complexity of enforcement and the cost of any equipment solutions.
June 17, 2008 11
12
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Multiple access and egress locations also mean that a vehicle may quickly enter and exit the system, making manual enforcement between individual access/egress points more difficult. The new tolling locations do not have sufficient shoulder space to park an enforcement vehicle and observe the validity of a transponder read. HOV lanes cannot be physically separated from the SOV lanes at the toll points, relying on any implemented enforcement technology to compensate for the lack of physical separation. A small portion of the 20 mile ML project will not have physical barrier separation from the general purpose lanes, relying instead on a double-yellow striped buffer separation. In the areas where buffered lanes exist, the need for violation enforcement will likely be more critical.
2.3 Summary of Enforcement Concepts and Strategies
2.3.1 Overview of Technologies and Concepts The Enforcement Concepts and Technology Report identified a number of commercially-available and emerging vehicle occupancy enforcement technologies, and their general applicability for use on the I-15 ML project. Advantages and disadvantages were debated for each technology that was reviewed. Full details are available in the full Enforcement Concepts and Technology Report (see the Web link provided on page 2). The following is an abbreviated list of technologies and concepts that were carried forward for use in one of the enforcement strategies under consideration for the I-15 ML, which also became the topic of focus groups, stakeholder interviews, and surveys conducted during the I-15 ML Violation Enforcement Study Outreach Program.
• HOV Transponder Use – At present HOV operators are instructed not to mount a transponder in their vehicle when using the I-15 express lanes. This allows a class of customers to be traveling on the lanes without transponders, thus increasing the opportunity for HOV violations. HOVs could be required to use a transponder with a special HOV transponder class flagged. Alternatively, a dual- mode transponder could be developed with an HOV/SOV switch that would be activated by the customer when driving on the I-15 ML. A third option is to require the HOV user to mount a standard transponder at all times and to notify the CSC in advance (e.g., by phone, email, or by managing the customer’s account preferences through the I-15 ML FasTrak® Web Account Management feature) to identify the time periods when he or she would be driving as an HOV. Trips made on the managed lanes during this pre-registered HOV time periods would not be charged a toll. That would mean that no vehicles should be traveling in the lanes without a transponder and that any vehicle traveling without a valid SOV or HOV transponder would be considered a violator. When used in combination with manual violation enforcement methods, automated violation processing or "video tolling" could occur whenever a valid transponder read does not take place in the lanes. Among potential institutional obstacles identified with this option are whether a transponder requirement would negatively impact carpool formation rates, and also issues related to access to HOV status for
June 17, 2008 12
13
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
occasional users. This concept was extensively discussed during the I-15 ML Violation Enforcement Study Outreach Program and the results are included throughout this Outreach Program Final Report.
• Video-based Toll Enforcement – A number of options were reviewed related to the use of photo- enforcement of license plates instead of a transponders for the purpose of enforcing HOV requirements. The most promising of these involved HOV users pre-registering their license plates with SANDAG (or another designated governmental agency) in order to travel on the I-15 ML without a transponder. If the license plate is not associated with a registered HOV (based upon an enforcement officer performing a database look-up), the vehicle can be stopped for a citation. Alternatively, when used in combination with a video-based toll violation enforcement system, automated violation processing could occur whenever a valid transponder read has not taken place in the lanes provided that the vehicle’s license plate is not identified in the HOV registered database. This option, like the HOV transponder option described above, serves to potentially restrict HOV use by requiring pre-registration. Therefore, the concept of HOV pre-registration integrated with the video-based toll violation enforcement system was included in the I-15 ML Violation Enforcement Study Outreach Program and the results are included throughout this Outreach Program Final Report.
• Infrared Image Occupancy Detection – Recent developments in occupancy detection include the use of a combination of infrared and visible light imaging to automatically identify the number of occupants in the vehicle. The CYCLOPS system produced by Vehicle Occupancy, LTD was demonstrated first in Leeds, England on the A647 in 2003 and 2004. The system is currently being tested in the Edinburgh area of Scotland on the Forth Road Bridge by the Forth Estuary Transport Authority. Similar systems have been developed and tested in other parts of the world. Infrared-based imaging as applied to vehicle occupancy detection and validation is the only alternative that SANDAG identified in its Enforcement Strategy Analysis report that is potentially commercially- available in the near-term (defined as 1-2 year technology selection horizon) that is designed to automatically identify and verify the number of vehicle occupants. The CYCLOPS system and similar systems are not yet proven in a high-speed, open-road tolling environment and would require further testing before selection. This type of technology also appears to have high upfront (capital) costs, has potential drawbacks such as the inability to identify small children or other passengers in the rear- seats, and must overcome privacy concerns before it could be implemented. However, infrared image occupancy detection also offers the potential benefit of fully automated violation enforcement and was therefore included in the I-15 ML Violation Enforcement Study Outreach Program and the results are included throughout this Outreach Program Final Report.
Several other technologies were also explored during the initial stage of the project, such as in-vehicle sensors that may have applicability for occupancy verification. However, none of these systems, even those that are technically feasible today, will be fully deployed in vehicles in the near to medium term (defined as 3-5 year technology selection horizon). Therefore these options were not considered available for the timeframe of the 1-15 ML implementation, and were not included for discussion in the I-15 ML
June 17, 2008 13
14
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Violation Enforcement Study Outreach Program. You can read more about other technologies and concepts for HOV/HOT and managed lanes enforcement applications in the Enforcement Concepts and Technology Report.
2.3.2 Overview of Strategies Three enforcement strategies were developed by SANDAG based on the above technologies and concepts and provide a framework from which to assemble elements of technology, policy, and operational approaches for consideration during violation enforcement system (VES) selection and project implementation. These strategies are discussed in depth in the Enforcement Strategy Analysis report (see the Web link provided on page 2), and became the basis for discussions during the ensuing focus groups, stakeholder interviews, and surveys of the I-15 ML Violation Enforcement Study Outreach Program. For purposes of presentation, these strategies were identified as “Plans” in the Focus Group Discussion Guide and Stakeholder Discussion Guide that are attached to this Outreach Program Final Report as Appendices B and E, respectively, as follows:
Plan A (Strategy 1): Routine Enforcement with Manual Vehicle Occupancy Verification - Primary use of routine law enforcement personnel with the aid of manually- supportive technology assistance to enforce tolls and vehicle occupancy. Plan B (Strategy 2): Automated Toll Enforcement with Manual Vehicle Occupancy Verification - Enforcement based on use of mandatory transponder requirement for all vehicles, with video-based toll enforcement and a reliance on manual enforcement for vehicle occupancy verification. Plan C (Strategy 3): Automated Toll Enforcement with Automated Occupancy Verification - Fully-automated system of vehicle occupancy detection/validation and video-based toll enforcement. Little or no manual enforcement required.
For a full discussion of the various strategies, please refer to the complete Enforcement Strategy Analysis report. An abbreviated description of each Plan (Strategy) is also included in Appendices B and E to this Outreach Program Final Report and was a component of the Focus Groups and Stakeholder Interviews as identified above.
It should be noted that for any of the automated enforcement strategies (including Plans B and C), SANDAG’s proposed business rules would allow the first few occurrences of a potential violation to be dismissed for each vehicle and the registered vehicle owner would be sent a letter and welcome kit instead (with an application and instructions to enroll into the appropriate SANDAG carpool/FasTrak® program). It is expected that this type of policy would minimize concerns about infrequent users of the managed lanes, such as visitors or first-time users of the facility.
June 17, 2008 14
15
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
2.4 Outreach Program Purpose and Overview
A comprehensive outreach program was conducted to help determine how a Violation Enforcement System (VES) can best be implemented with the expanded I-15 ML project. To capture public reaction and response to the I-15 ML implementation, a comprehensive Outreach Process was used, as shown in Figure 2-4 (next page).
Specific objectives of the Outreach Program included:
Identification of all important issues related to enforcement policies, Assessment of support for automated VES vs. traditional manned systems, Identification of specific issues relative to alternative systems, and Assessment of overall preference for automated vs. manual enforcement and preferred automated system.
The Outreach Program consisted of focus groups, stakeholder interviews and a quantitative telephone survey with a supplemental intercept survey at park and ride lots. The focus groups and stakeholder interviews comprise the qualitative component of the Outreach Program and were designed to clearly identify relevant issues and to secure appropriate language to use in the subsequent quantitative research. The telephone surveys (and supplemental intercept survey), comprise the quantitative component of the outreach program and provide measurable feedback on support and concerns for the alternative VES options.
June 17, 2008 15
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Public Outreach Process y 16 Figure 2-4: Public Outreach Process
Violation Enforcement Stud Violation Enforcement
June 17, 2008
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
The target audience for the focus groups, telephone surveys and intercept surveys were all selected from within a study area defined by selected zip codes in the I-15 corridor, as identified in the Study Area Map (Figure 2-5) below.
Figure 2-5: Target Area Zip Code Map
2.4.1 Overview of Outreach Program Focus Groups – Were conducted with three key groups: HOV users of the I-15 ML (includes carpools, vanpools, and express bus riders); FasTrak® customers that pay a toll to use the I-15 ML when driving alone; and general purpose lane commuters who primarily travel in the I-15 corridor but don’t generally use the Managed Lanes. Each of these target audiences offers
June 17, 2008 17 18
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
unique perspectives on the issues related to violation enforcement of HOV/HOT and managed lanes. Stakeholder Interviews – Were conducted with: elected officials; managers with responsibility for the design, implementation, and operation of Express Lane facilities; organizations responsible for enforcement of Express Lane regulations; and individuals representing the perspectives of various public interest organizations. Telephone Surveys – Were conducted with the same three target groups as the focus groups. Intercept Surveys – Were conducted with express bus riders and carpoolers intercepted at park and ride lots.
June 17, 2008 18
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
3.0 FOCUS GROUP STUDY 3.1 Focus Group Background and Methodology
3.1.1 Introduction The focus groups are part of an overall outreach effort including the focus groups; stakeholder interviews to secure feedback from representatives of impacted parties and experts in the field; intercept surveys to reach low incidence groups of interest; and telephone surveys to provide quantitative findings on opinions and attitudes about violation enforcement strategies with the general public and other targeted groups (FasTrak® users, transit and rideshare users) that commute on I-15.
Three focus groups were conducted for SANDAG on August 1st and 2nd, 2006. Participants for all three groups were screened for use of I-15 between State Route (SR) 163 and SR 78 during morning and/or evening peak hours at least once per week. Each of the three groups had a unique target audience. The first group was FasTrak® users. The second group was comprised of general public SOV commuters some of which occasionally use the I-15 Managed Lanes as a carpooler, and the third group was comprised of commuters registered with SANDAG’s RideLink Commuter Services office that commute primarily by modes other than driving alone.
The focus groups were conducted at 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. at a professional focus group facility located in the University City area within the City of San Diego, near I-5 and La Jolla Village Drive. This was the closest location for a professional facility near the southern end of the I-15 corridor which is the optimal location for commuters traveling north out of San Diego on I-15 during the evening commute.
3.1.2 Purpose The main objective of the focus groups was to secure an understanding of the issues surrounding potential violation enforcement technologies and concepts, from the perspective of the three key commuter groups described above. The focus groups were also used to develop appropriate language for use in the subsequent quantitative research phases that will be conducted by telephone and/or written questionnaire. The specific objectives of the focus groups were:
to identify pertinent issues relative to violation enforcement from the perspectives of each of these three target audiences, to secure feedback on automated versus manual means of enforcement, to identify perceived pros and cons of alternative enforcement technologies and policies, and to determine how the issues can be clearly explained in the subsequent telephone survey.
June 17, 2008 19
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
3.1.3 Methodology Two different approaches were employed to recruit and qualify focus group participants. The general public group was selected to represent I-15 general-purpose lane users. These participants were recruited using random digit dialing (RDD) to avoid the bias that would be generated by using a listed sample. The RDD list was generated using a list of zip codes representing the area for the desired segment of I-15 (see Figure 1-2 in the Executive Summary for a map of the target area). A list of the zip codes and the screening criteria that were used to qualify these individuals can be found in Appendix A. Participants were screened by the number of days per week they use I-15 during peak commuting hours, and by how long their trips are on I-15. Once participants were qualified, the final groups were selected based on the length of their trips on I-15, frequency of usage, and then balanced by gender. A total of 14 qualified respondents were recruited with 12 original confirmations and two alternates.
The other focus groups were selected to represent two specific managed lane user groups; (1) bus, carpool and vanpool users, and (2) FasTrak® customers. FasTrak® is the term used in California for electronic tolling, and on I-15 single-occupant vehicle drivers can drive in the carpool lanes with a valid FasTrak® account. Bus and rideshare users can use the carpool lanes free of charge. Both focus groups were screened to ensure they commute on the I-15 corridor during peak hours. Participants were recruited using database lists provided by SANDAG. Several Individuals from both lists were initially contacted by letter. SANDAG mailed letters to a selection of FasTrak® and RideLink users in the target zip codes.
Recipients were asked to contact Redhill Group if they were interested in participating in the study. Persons who called were surveyed using screening criteria similar to those used to qualify the general public commuters (see Appendix A). Additionally, those who received a RideLink letter would only qualify if they commuted by some form of carpool, vanpool or bus. FasTrak® users were pre-qualified by their FasTrak® account, but were still recruited by the number of days they used the Managed Lanes. Once commuters qualified, the final focus group selections were made based on the legitimacy of the commuter’s route and the balance of gender in each group.
Twelve participants were selected for each focus group with two alternates on standby in the event of a cancellation. All participants were mailed invitations and directions to the focus group facility. In addition, participants were phoned a second time to confirm their intent to participate and receipt of the directions and invitation.
The focus group Discussion Guide (Appendix B) was drafted using a list of questions provided by SANDAG focusing on specific topics, and a list of the potential enforcement options that are under consideration. These questions were also provided to develop the telephone survey in order to synchronize language in the two studies.
The Draft Discussion Guide was submitted to the SANDAG Project Manager for review and changes were incorporated into the final Discussion Guide that was used during all three focus groups.
The FasTrak® and general public focus groups were conducted on August 1, 2006 at 6 p.m. and 8 p.m., respectively. The RideLink focus group was conducted on August 2, 2006 at 6 p.m. All of the roundtable
June 17, 2008 20
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
discussions were held at the meeting facilities of Plaza Research, Inc., located at 9339 Genesee Avenue, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92121. There were 10 participants for the RideLink and FasTrak® focus groups with two no-shows for both groups. For the general public group only four of the twelve confirmed participants were able to attend. All three focus groups were moderated by Peter Valk an experienced facilitator and TDM specialist with Transportation Management Services, Inc. (TMS).
The focus groups were recorded using both video and audio tape, and this draft report has been produced by Redhill Group for review by SANDAG management including recommendations and suggested next steps for the Outreach study.
3.2 Focus Group Findings
3.2.1 Introduction and Usage Characteristics Participants were asked in the opening of discussion to introduce themselves and answer questions about their use of I-15. The questions are listed below:
1. What do you call the lanes in the center of I-15? 2. How many days per week do you commute on I-15? 3. How long have you been commuting on I-15? 4. Do you have a FasTrak® account? If so, is it registered with SANDAG’s I-15 FasTrak® office or with a different California FasTrak® agency? 5. Have you used the HOV expressway (carpool lanes) on I-15, and if so, how often? 6. When you use these lanes, do you use a transponder, carpool, or both?
These responses are summarized in Appendix C for each participant. The discussion proceeded to violation observation and the violation rate of offenders on I-15.
3.2.2 Violation Rate Reactions and Expectations A series of questions were asked to secure a better understanding of focus group participants’ perceptions of current violation rates and enforcement efforts on the I-15 Express Lanes. Specific questions were:
1. When traveling on the I-15 Express Lanes do you ever observe motorists that you believe are violating the carpool requirement of 2 or more persons per car? If yes, what is your initial reaction? How often do you see non-paying solo occupant violators?
2. Recent data indicates that as many as 3,300 motorists each day travel in the Express Lanes as single occupant motorists without paying a toll. This is about one out of every 10 vehicles on the Express lanes, or a 5-15 percent violation rate. Does this number of violators surprise you?
June 17, 2008 21
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
3. Is the number of violators in the Express Lanes acceptable to you? If not, what would be an acceptable level of violations to you?
4. Do you think it is fair for someone to drive in the Express Lanes, as a solo driver, if they don’t have a valid FasTrak® account? In other words, is it fair for someone to use the carpool lanes as a single occupant and not pay the toll?
5. There is always a cost versus benefit to reducing the number of carpool violators. On average CHP officers patrol the Express Lanes on I-15 100 hours per month and issue about 100 citations, or one citation per hour. This costs about $80,000 per year. Do you think that current enforcement efforts are appropriate?
6. Do you think existing levels of routine enforcement by CHP serve as an effective deterrent to potential violators? If No, do you think more hours of CHP enforcement would help to reduce the violation rate? What are more effective deterrents?
In all three focus groups, participants felt it was difficult to identify violators, since most assume that people who are driving alone have transponders and are therefore legitimate. They indicated that because of this, there is no easy way for them to identify if someone is cheating the system. Further, some mentioned that driving on the freeway is challenging enough; they don’t have time to determine what other drivers are doing.
One unanimous conclusion from all three focus groups is that the violation rate of 10 percent or more for the Express Lanes is much higher than anticipated by the public. Every group was shocked when they were told that one out of 10 vehicles is estimated to cheat the system on a daily basis. The RideLink group was so surprised that they questioned the validity of the estimates. In addition, every group suggested increasing fines as a solution to the extremely high rate of violations.
3.2.3 FasTrak® Group Reactions and Expectations With regard to identification of violators, FasTrak® users felt that it was difficult to identify them. One person stated that he would like to turn in offenders, but didn’t feel confident in identifying them. “Even if you don’t see another person in the vehicle there could be a child in the back, so I automatically assume (they are a legitimate user)”. Everyone agreed, by a show of hands, that the rate of violation was surprising after hearing the actual rate.
Nine out of ten people said that the number of violators was not acceptable to them. When asked what number of violators was acceptable the majority said zero. However, some were sympathetic to users who accidentally violate the toll because their transponder is broken, or because they make an honest mistake and are unfamiliar with the process. There was some debate on the issue of ‘accidental’ use. Some said, “Who wouldn’t’ use that excuse?” and, “(Zero Tolerance) Motivated me to get the FasTrak®.” Others said, “There are real accidents that can occur” and, “There needs to be a distinction between intentional and unintentional (violations).”
June 17, 2008 22
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
When asked if it was fair for someone to drive solo in the lanes without a transponder, all indicated that it was not fair. “(It’s not fair) because we are paying the toll, and if everyone uses the lanes then they will be just as crowded (as the regular lines).” One participant questioned whether it was even fair for FasTrak® users to use the lanes, even if they pay a toll. “I use it but I’m not sure it’s fair.”
All but one person in the group felt that the current enforcement was not acceptable, but this would appear to be driven primarily by hearing the high violation statistics. “The enforcement seems very random with the (high) statistic.” Nearly half the group said that they would have thought it was acceptable before hearing the number of violators. The majority of the group indicated that current enforcement is not an effective deterrent, after hearing the statistics. “I’m out there at peak hours, and I rarely see (the CHP).” Most thought that increasing the fines would be more effective. “Money motivates people.”
3.2.4 General Public Group Reactions and Expectations The general public group all assumed that there was a low level of violations from their observations on I- 15. Comments included: “I’ve seen one driver, but I’m assuming they have a FasTrak®” and, “When you’re doing sixty you don’t have a lot of time or curiosity.” Once this group was informed of the current violation rate they were all surprised. When asked why they were surprised they said, “I didn’t think people would want to risk it” and, “In general, I don’t see much enforcement.”
All agreed that the current level of violators was unacceptable, but one person did say that violators were low on her priority list when deciding how to use CHP enforcement resources. A different person said that she was concerned about the flow of the lanes with the high number of violations. Another agreed by saying, “When the carpool lanes don’t function the way they are supposed to then it’s not acceptable.”
When asked if they thought it was fair for violators to use the lanes, one person said “It’s like cutting in line. It’s not fair” and another added “It’s not acceptable because I think everyone should do the right thing.” This group also felt that there were not enough citations at the current level of enforcement, “It’s not appropriate if that’s what they’re getting.” Further, when asked if the current levels of enforcement were effective one person said, “I think the officers need to work a little harder,” while another person suggested that they might just be “stretched too thin.” As alternatives one person suggested, “Have the fines sky-high and posted all over.” A second suggestion from this group was the use of advanced technology.
3.2.5 RideLink Group Reactions and Expectations RideLink participants seemed to be the most aware of violators, but most thought the violation rate was closer to one out of a hundred cars, rather than one in ten. With the exception of one participant, everyone was surprised to hear the actual level of violations. The person who was not surprised mentioned an article about the lack of enforcement in the lanes. He therefore thought the public was also aware of the lack of enforcement. A different person was surprised by the actual number and commented, “(Violators are) not afraid of the police?” Most members of the group were stumped when asked what level of violations would be acceptable. One person said, “None, but that would be impossible to enforce.”
When asked if it was fair for violators to use the lanes, most felt it was unfair, but some also questioned the benefits of the FasTrak® program. One question that arose was, “Does the collection of these fares
June 17, 2008 23
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
(citation revenue and FasTrak® fees) support the system?” Another participant felt allowing single occupancy vehicles to use the lanes is unfair, citing “It takes away from the whole premise of the carpool lanes.”
This group was concerned about the cost-effectiveness of enforcement. When asked, another participant agreed that, “The cost of the ticket should support the cost of enforcement.” This group also wanted more than the existing levels of enforcement. They felt it was a low priority to CHP officers. “I go a couple of weeks without seeing (the CHP).” The use of photo-enforcement, similar to the red-light camera programs that now exist throughout San Diego, was suggested as a possible alternative or supplement to the CHP. Also, this group felt strongly that an increased fine for violators would help reduce the problem: “$271 is nowhere near enough. $1000 would stop me.”2
3.2.6 Reactions to Carpool Classifications After discussing expectations with regard to the violation rate, participants were asked what requirements they felt should be used to determine carpool eligibility on I-15. Specific questions asked include:
1. How do you feel about carpools where the 2nd occupant is a child?
2. Do you think that a commuter carpool that carries two licensed drivers should be given priority over a family that is sharing a ride where the 2nd or 3rd occupants are not licensed drivers?
3. Do you believe family carpools deserve the same benefits as a commuter carpool even though family carpooling doesn’t necessarily result in taking one or more vehicles off the road during commute hours?
4. Do you believe that a new rule should be considered where the definition of carpoolers is changed to mean two or more adult (driver’s license age or older) occupants? If not driver’s license age, perhaps the rule could simply be that occupants must fill the front seats to qualify (i.e., since small children by law must sit in the rear seats).
5. Which alternate definition do you think is most fair?
6. Which do you think would have a greater chance of being supported by the general public?
The majority of participants were unsupportive of any change in the definition of a valid carpool. Most said that the concept of two or more people was a fair classification of a carpool, regardless of age or where the person is sitting in the vehicle. All groups acknowledged that removing vehicles from congested roadways is a valid objective, but felt that such a change in policy would be too difficult to enforce. Keeping enforcement simple was a common theme in all three focus groups. ______2Note: the current minimum fine for HOV violations in the State of California, effective January1, 2003 is $341 per occurrence, not $271 per occurrence as suggeste4d by the RideLink group participant.
June 17, 2008 24
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
3.2.7 FasTrak® Group Reactions to Carpool Classification Requirements Eight out of ten participants in this group were satisfied with the classification of two or more people in a carpool. The two participants who disagreed stated that the primary purpose of carpool lanes should be “to remove vehicles from the road.” The family carpool doesn’t necessarily accomplish this. “It’s a courtesy, but it’s not really a carpool.”
When asked if commuters should be given priority over families one woman exclaimed, “Absolutely not.” This was the general consensus with regard to equality of the two groups. Another person commented, “(Carpool lanes) are not promoted as commuter–only lanes; they’re carpool lanes.” Others argued that coordinating a child’s schedule with their parent saves trips throughout the day. When asked about a requirement to have only licensed drivers count as carpoolers or fill the front two seats one person said, “That will just open up a whole new can of worms, how is a police officer going to go by and say that person is eighteen and that person is fifteen.” This group did not like either of the alternative definitions for carpools, and when asked if they thought the public would support either they unanimously said they did not.
3.2.8 General Public Group Reactions to Carpool Classifications Requirements The general public participants all agreed that the classification should be kept simple. “It has to be simplified.” However, when asked about giving commuters priority to families there was some debate. One person was concerned with maintaining the flow of the lanes and felt that if they were too crowded with families that it would discourage commuter carpools. “It’s contingent on the flow of the carpool lane. (Families) don’t need to get anywhere in a hurry as much as two commuting workers do.” Others thought they should be equal. “No, it’s too controlling.” Another person thought the opposite. “I think moms should have some special benefits.”
When asked about the different alternatives to carpool classifications the general public was not supportive, but they thought they could adjust if needed. “It would be a simple adjustment. I wouldn’t have a problem, but I might forget.” The discussion concluded with the comment. “It should just be simple.”
3.2.9 RideLink Group to Carpool Classifications Requirements Nine out of ten participants in this group agreed with the current classification and the general consensus was that two people should qualify as a carpool. “Two people, whether they are (3 feet) tall, or (six feet) tall.” When asked about commuters having priority over families, parents coordinating their schedules and the schedules of their children to save trips were also raised. “I think that (a family sharing a car) should have the same priority because you don’t know that it’s not taking cars off the road.”
The one dissenting participant expressed dislike for the current policy, noting that family carpools do not serve the same purpose as commuter carpools. This person thought that the front seat option was feasible. “At least you could look at it as a reasonably enforceable option.” However, changes to the current classification were viewed by the others as either too much enforcement or overly controlling. “I don’t think the public would support it because it would just cost a fortune to try to enforce it,” and, “Why make it harder for parents“.
June 17, 2008 25
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
3.2.10 Enforcement System Issues Prioritized After the groups discussed carpool classifications they were asked what issues were important to them related to enforcement. They were asked the following questions to aid in this discussion:
1. What do you see as the most important issues that should be considered in the design and implementation of a Violation Enforcement System or program (cost, accuracy, privacy, ease of use, other)?
2. Why is that important?
3. Do you think that the current level of CHP officers assigned to the corridor, on a part-time basis (approximately 100 hours per month on an overtime basis) is a sufficient deterrent to potential carpool violators?
The two issues that carried the most weight for all the groups were: (1) controlling the cost of enforcement; and (2) having an accurate way of identifying violators.
3.2.11 FasTrak® Group Priorities for Enforcement System Issues Accuracy was an especially important issue to this group because many had previous trouble with their transponders working. “If it’s an automated thing, I think accuracy is very important.” Generally, the expectation was that at least 90 percent of violators be captured, so long as valid users are not mistakenly ticketed. They also indicated that SANDAG/CHP should be required to demonstrate the system’s accuracy prior to adopting a new means of enforcing the carpool requirements. There were conflicting views as to whether the CHP officers were capable of providing this level of accuracy. One person thought that officers were capable, but felt SANDAG/CHP need to increase the number of officers patrolling the lanes to catch more violators. “I believe (CHP) is the best method.” Another person thought that use of CHP officers to enforce carpool requirements is a waste of a valuable public safety resource and suggested cameras would be a better alternative for enforcing carpool lanes. This group also felt that a higher level of routine enforcement would increase congestion in the express lanes. “It would defeat the purpose of those lanes.”
Cost effectiveness was another important issue to this group. The general consensus was that the current level of enforcement was not cost effective. “It’s not working,” and, “It’s ambiguous and too hard to tell (how many people are in a car).” One person suggested that there should be one or more officer(s) dedicated to carpool lane enforcement, rather than several officers working the carpool lanes on a part- time basis.
3.2.12 General Public Group Priorities for Enforcement System Issues Like the FasTrak® group, the general-purpose lane users were particularly concerned with accuracy. Two people said that they could accept an 80 percent capture rate, which would be much better than the current situation. Another person wanted much more. “I want it to be highly accurate, where it catches almost all violators…but not backing up the whole system.”
June 17, 2008 26
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Cost effectiveness was another issue. “I think cost should be a consideration.” This group felt that enforcement should pay for itself with citation revenue. One person suggested increasing the fine to deter violators. Another person mentioned ease of use. “I think it’s more about convenience.”
3.2.13 RideLink Group Priorities for Enforcement System Issues The RideLink group was the only group concerned with privacy issues, and it was among one of the most important issues for this group. One comment that seemed to move the group was, “Is it acceptable to monitor the movement of every person in the carpool lanes?” Four out of ten people identified privacy as an issue.
There were mixed views about accuracy and the use of cameras as a means of enforcement because of the privacy issue. Some were skeptical of whether the cameras would be accurate in identifying offenders, but others thought it was the only way to go. Some comments in response to photo-enforcement were,” That would be a very simple way of enforcing a transponder (requirement),” and, “Have an automated system as much as possible.”
Like the other groups before them, cost effectiveness was also an issue for the carpool and vanpool group. For example, participants were unsupportive of government spending of large sums of money on enforcement if the system can’t pay for itself. “It needs to be cost effective…it’s got to pay for itself.” When asked if the current level of enforcement was a sufficient deterrent, several participants responded, “Apparently not.”
3.2.14 Moving Forward Once the groups discussed the issues they were concerned about, the moderator explained the current means of enforcement on the I-15 Express Lanes and briefed participants on future expansion. The following excerpts were read to participants, and they were also provided a handout summarizing future plans (See Appendix D).
3.2.15 Today Currently, single-occupant vehicles must display a valid transponder when using the Express Lanes, and are automatically charged the advertised toll rate at that time, which varies based on congestion levels. Buses, carpools, vanpools, motorcycles, and clean air vehicles with a valid HOV (“Access OK”) permit issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (e.g., hybrids with 45mpg or better rated fuel economy) can use the lanes free of charge.
There is only one entrance to the existing reversible lanes in both directions. CHP officers normally patrol the lanes from an inside shoulder near the FasTrak® transponder reader site to observe vehicles as they pass. A transaction status indicator light is mounted above each lane, and if a vehicle gets a green light from the transponder indicator lights, it means the vehicle has a valid transponder and successfully paid the toll. If the vehicle does not get a green light, but has two or more passengers that are observed then it is a valid carpool and is exempt from paying the toll. If the vehicle does not get a green light and does not appear to have two or more people, the CHP officer may pursue the motorist to determine if they are a violator, and if so, issue a citation.
June 17, 2008 27
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
3.2.16 In the Future The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is constructing additional Managed Lanes in the I-15 corridor that abut to the north terminus of the existing reversible lanes (near SR 56/Ted Williams Parkway). The cross-section for the Managed Lanes will be four lanes with a movable barrier separating northbound from southbound traffic. The two center lanes will be reversible. By 2012, there will be a contiguous 20-mile, four-lane Managed Lanes facility with 24/7 concurrent flow (NB/SB) operations. Once constructed, there will be approximately ten entrance points in each direction for the full Managed Lanes, making it more difficult for the CHP to monitor transponder reader sites and HOV lane access points to effectively enforce the HOV requirements, which could dramatically increase the cost of enforcement.
Once participants understood the way the future I-15 Managed Lanes will function, they were informed of three alternative plans for enforcement of the new lanes that are being considered by SANDAG, Caltrans, and the CHP. Participants were asked specific questions related to each alternative. The explanation of each plan, the related questions, and each group’s responses to these questions are listed below and in the Appendices.
3.2.17 Plan A - Increase Routine Enforcement Levels Plan A was explained as follows:
Using current technology, the CHP will have to patrol the corridor and monitor vehicles passing through transponder reader stations to determine vehicle occupancy. As it is currently done, a light would or would not flash overhead based on the presence of a valid transponder. If the car does not have a valid transponder, then the CHP will have to determine if it is a valid carpool. This will be challenging since the CHP will have less uninterrupted shoulder space to observe vehicles from (due to frequent openings in the barrier wall) and several more transponder sites and entrances to monitor. Accordingly, routine enforcement by CHP may not serve as an effective deterrent to potential violators because the chances of being caught are low.
Specific question for Plan A were:
1. To provide the same level of enforcement for the new facility with current technology may require 12 CHP officers at a cost of $1 million per year or more. Do you think that this investment should be made, or should expenses be kept at a lower level, even if it results in a higher violation rate for the Managed Lanes?
2. What violation rate level is acceptable to you and how much should SANDAG be willing to spend to keep violations at or below this level?
In general the groups were unsupportive of the concept of dramatically increasing the number of officers to address the enforcement of carpool lanes. The largest issues were the increase in cost and the impact this would have on diverting officer resources from other public safety priorities.
June 17, 2008 28
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
3.2.18 FasTrak® Group Responses to Plan A The FasTrak® Group was not supportive of Plan A. They thought that the cost was too high for the level of enforcement that was projected. “It’s not cost effective,” and, “The honest people are subsidizing the cheaters.” When asked about what violation capture rate would be acceptable to them, most responded with levels higher than 95 percent, but they were also unsupportive of large financial investments. “The cost of enforcement should not exceed enforcement revenue.”
This group was more supportive of implementing technology rather than increasing CHP officers. They were concerned that the high number of officers on the road would block traffic and pull them from more important tasks. “I’m concerned about that many CHP officers out on the road. There’s got to be a better way than pulling the CHP officers off other enforcement (priorities) just for carpool lanes,” and, “My concern is that if you pull people over you are going to slow down traffic and get rubber-neckers. It will hurt the whole system.”
3.2.19 General Public Group Responses to Plan A The reaction in this group was similar to the FasTrak® group. They thought it would not be cost effective and would not improve the current situation. “It can’t be cost effective,” and, “It doesn’t make sense to jack up the cost.” Many felt Plan A was doomed to fail because it is the same as the current situation, only for a more complicated system. “The current method is not working …so it would be even less effective in the future,” and, “There has to be a better way.”
Acceptable violator capture rates varied in this group from 80 to 100 percent. They were not as concerned with the number of violators as they were concerned with the functionality of the lanes. “As long as it flows it’s OK. I don’t care how many cheaters as long as it still flows. If (the lanes) slow down, I want them (violators) removed.”
3.2.20 RideLink Group Responses to Plan A This group was also unsupportive of Plan A. They found it hard to believe that so many CHP officers would be required to maintain the current violation rates. “Why that many officers?” and, “It’s just not worth it for the money.” One person suggested having non-CHP enforcement staff at the entrance points instead of the officers. “I think it would be a drain on the CHP if they had to do this. There should be a booth where there are (trained staff) who check.”
When asked how much SANDAG should be willing to spend to keep violations at or below the current level most thought the benefits did not outweigh the costs under any reasonable dollar amount. When asked if SANDAG should expend as much as $1 million per year for this purpose, several participants exclaimed “I don’t think it’s worth it.” When asked what was an acceptable violation rate most agreed with a range of zero to five percent.
3.2.21 Plan B - Required Transponder for All Vehicles Plan B was explained as follows:
June 17, 2008 29
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
An alternative plan would require carpoolers to use a special carpool transponder (“carpool card”), so that all vehicles in the express lanes would have either a FasTrak® transponder to pay the toll, or the carpool card to identify them as a valid carpool. The CHP would still provide enforcement at or near existing levels. However they would be equipped with mobile transponder scanners that could inform the officer if a car is carrying a valid FasTrak® transponder, carpool card, or neither. If the scanner detected both devices it would consider the vehicle a single-occupant and would provide feedback indicating payment of the toll. The transponder readers and overhead lights at each reader station would also flash to indicate if the vehicle is equipped with a valid transponder.
Under this plan, the license plate of vehicles that do not have any type of transponder would be photographed at the transponder reader stations and citations would be processed using an automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) system. This approach is similar to what is done on the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, CA. Those that have a carpool card but do not have the required number of people in the vehicle would still have to be visually identified by CHP officers. They would then be pulled over and cited if they were driving alone. SANDAG would also sanction drivers caught abusing the system in that way, in an effort to cut down on repeat violators. Those caught cheating would have their carpool card revoked in addition to the fine.
Specific questions for Plan B were:
1. In Orange County on State Route 91, all motorists that use the Express Lanes are required to obtain a FasTrak® account and carry a transponder. Do you think this is a good policy?
2. What do you perceive to be the biggest issues with this approach? How important are those issues?
3. If a policy were to be in effect requiring all carpool vehicles to carry a transponder, and each carpool driver would be required to pay a $25 refundable security deposit to obtain the transponder, would you agree with this? Why/Why not?
4. If a policy were to be in effect requiring all carpool vehicles to carry a transponder, and each carpool driver would receive the transponder free of charge, would you agree with this? Why/Why not?
5. Do you think that by requiring all carpool vehicles to carry a valid carpool transponder that some motorists would simply avoid using the Express Lanes altogether, rather than going through the process of registering and acquiring the device? Why/Why not?
Plan B seemed to receive the most support from the FasTrak® Group reflecting the fact that everyone in this group has already gone through the registration process for their transponder. The general public and RideLink groups were less supportive of this option. Generally people liked the fact that the CHP officers would have some form of technology to aid them in enforcement. Some participants felt registering to carpool would be an inconvenience; others thought such a requirement was minimal compared to the benefits of using the carpool lanes for free.
June 17, 2008 30
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
3.2.22 FasTrak® Group Response to Plan B FasTrak® users were more supportive of Plan B than Plan A. This group thought the enforcement of this plan was much more feasible than Plan A. “I think this is a much better way to go, everyone has to have a transponder, and if you don’t have it you get fined.” A couple of concerns were also voiced. “It seems logical, but (what about) the occasional carpooler,” and, “(Plan B) is still reliant on CHP to enforce the carpool card.”
When asked about the $25 registration fee, there were conflicting views. Most agreed. “Yeah, it’s fair,” and, “I would agree with that.” However, some thought that the purpose of the lanes is to encourage people to carpool, and it should therefore be free. “I think SANDAG would be shooting themselves in the foot.”
Most of the group was unsupportive of a free carpool card because they felt it would be easily abused. “Free encourages people to abuse the system.” Most of the group was supportive of charging a deposit to obtain the carpool card and felt that it would not deter carpoolers from using the lanes. “The benefits of using the carpool lane certainly outweigh a $25 registration fee.”
3.2.23 General Public Group Response to Plan B The general public group was less supportive of Plan B than the FasTrak® group. Among their concerns were how people from out of town would be treated and that it would make the carpool lanes less user- friendly or convenient. “I think that’s bad because there are people from out of town who don’t have either of those (transponders),” and, “I have lots of occasions where all of a sudden we say, ‘We can use the lanes’ …it kills the idea of a casual, unplanned carpool.” However, there was support for this plan due to the fact that identifying violators would be much easier for CHP with the added advantage of the mandatory transponder requirement. “That makes the CHP more effective.” The overall consensus, however, was negative.
This group opposed the $25 fee to obtain the transponder. “(Carpool lanes) make life easier for San Diegans …you (shouldn’t) have to go through all this to get a card,” and, “You are doing your city good by being a carpool…that shouldn’t cost you anything.” They were supportive of issuing the cards for free, however, some thought the card would deter people from using the lanes. “Yes, people won’t want to do it.”
3.2.24 RideLink Group Response to Plan B The RideLink group had mixed opinions about Plan B. Like the general public group, they were also concerned with impacts to out-of-town drivers and casual carpoolers. “I think this makes it too complex, particularly for people from out of town,” and, “If you only use it every blue moon, you don’t want to have to get a transponder.”
Still, this group responded positively to Plan B for its ability to automate the system. “I like the idea of automating, it streamlines and cuts down on cost,” and, “Any time you can use a video camera instead of a human being, or a transponder instead of visual inspection, that is going to save time and money.” Also,
June 17, 2008 31
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“Mobile identification would make it better for the CHP.” One participant didn’t think the carpool card makes it any easier to tell who’s in the car. “It doesn’t make any difference whether I have a transponder or not”—implying the approach is little different than Plan A.
This group raised some different issues that were overlooked by the other groups. They felt offenders should not have their carpool card revoked on the first or second offense, since everyone can occasionally make a mistake. “Three strikes your out.” That was the consensus. They also discussed the issue of how to keep people from switching cards, or obtaining more than one card.
This group did not favor the idea of charging carpoolers a fee to obtain the special transponder. “The carpool is supposed to be a benefit …(The fee) would deter people from carpooling.” Some were concerned that charging even a small amount would open the door to charging more in the future. “You say $25 now, but you know it’s going to become, $50, $75, etc…” Generally, because these participants already make the effort to carpool they thought that they should be rewarded, not have to jump through more hoops to use the lanes. “It’s not the money, it’s the principal.”
3.2.25 Plan C - Automated Enforcement Using Cameras Plan C was explained as follows:
This approach would use transponder readers to detect FasTrak® and would rely on special cameras designed to detect the number of occupants inside a vehicle to verify carpool requirements. The cameras would be installed at one or more transponder reader stations along the route, depending on cost, availability of funds, and the desired violation capture rate. The type of camera could vary, but may include visible-light and/or infrared imaging technologies. Under this plan, there are three possible outcomes for a vehicle:
If a vehicle has a valid transponder, then the vehicle is OK. If the vehicle does not have a valid transponder and the camera counts two or more people in the vehicle, then the vehicle is OK. Otherwise a picture of the license plate and the image showing the number of occupants inside the vehicle are used to generate an automated citation.
This plan could allow CHP manpower requirements to be maintained at current levels, or at a reduced level, and would operate as an automated enforcement system. Plan C could work with or without a carpool transponder requirement, as described in Plan B, but would likely operate as a standalone system due to the high cost of purchasing and distributing transponders.
Specific questions for Plan C were:
1. If SANDAG could deploy a solution that combined vehicle occupancy detecting cameras, and could maintain CHP enforcement at current or reduced levels, would you support this? Why/Why not?
June 17, 2008 32
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
2. Would you support the use of infrared cameras that are capable of detecting the number of occupants in a vehicle but not capable of determining the identity, nor any other distinguishing characteristics of the vehicle’s driver or passengers, for the purpose of determining carpool lane eligibility?
3. Do you think that collecting information about the number of passengers in a vehicle with cameras is an invasion of an individual's right to privacy?
For the majority of focus group participants from all three groups combined, Plan C was the preferred option. Most felt Plan C was more feasible than the other options. Minor issues that were discussed related to the use of cameras and can easily be addressed with minor adjustments to this plan.
3.2.26 FasTrak® Group Responses to Plan C Most FasTrak® users were supportive of Plan C. “It just seems like the most realistic of the three choices.” Generally this group thought this plan would be a good solution to the enforcement problem and liked the idea of freeing up CHP to focus on other things. “This is good because it handles the manpower problem. The CHP has more important things to do,” and, “If (CHP’s) only catching one percent now, and with a little bit of technology (the cameras) can catch 50 percent, well that’s a huge improvement.”
The most important issue to this group was the camera’s accuracy. “Assuming it’s accurate, I would say it sounds good,” and, “It’s critical that it’s accurate.” The group was undecided on whether the photo- enforcement technology was at a point where it could provide the desired level of accuracy. One participant said “I think it’s the worst idea of the three. I don’t think it can be done accurately.” Another said “I think the technology is good enough.” A third added “My wife sits in back with my son. (I’m concerned that) the picture would just show me in the front, and if it didn’t work they would still give me the ticket.”
When asked if they thought the use of cameras would be an invasion of privacy, everyone at the table said they did not. “I think that we all assume (the picture) would only be used for that enforcement purpose.”
3.2.27 General Public Group Responses to Plan C All of the general-purpose lane participants thought Plan C seemed reasonable, cost effective, and a definite solution to the high number of violations. “I like this system the most because I think it would be highly effective.” This group didn’t think carpools should also be required to carry a transponder (as with Plan B). “Since it’s counting (occupants) with cameras, if (carpoolers are) in the lanes, they can still do spontaneous pooling.”
When asked about the possibility of using infrared cameras, health risks were brought up as a possible concern. “Are there any studies about the potential health risks of the infrared cameras?” A few technical questions about the cameras also came up, but the majority was convinced that the cameras would work accurately. “Yes, I would support it. It will work.”
June 17, 2008 33
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
No one in this group expressed concern for privacy with the use of cameras when they were asked. One person was especially supportive of Plan C. When asked which plan was the best of the three she responded, “C, because every measure I can think of in terms of cost and efficiency and keeping the (lanes) flowing is better.”
3.2.28 RideLink Group Responses to Plan C This group’s opinions varied dramatically in regards to Plan C. Many were supportive, some were supportive but questioned minor issues, and others were unsupportive. Some comments included: “It’s an excellent idea. It will cut down on manpower dramatically and its apprehension rate is going to be very high,” and, “Is it accurate? Is it cost effective? Is it going to work? Those are the questions the public wants answers to before they can support it (Plan C).”
One person was strongly concerned with having enforcement be completely automated. He wanted some kind of human enforcement in addition to the cameras. “What I have a problem with is the automated law issue. Even if its 99.9 percent accurate you are going to have a lot of court cases. You still need to have the human element (to issue the citation).” Another person asked a technical question about the use of infrared. “Will my dog make (the system) think it is OK?” Someone else brought up a potential health risk. “I have a pacemaker …I need to know that it is not going to harm me personally, that it’s not going to stop my pacemaker.”
And while the other two groups were not concerned with privacy, this group was. The topic was mentioned several times. But most felt this could be overcome with appropriate privacy practices regarding how the data is used. “As long as there is no identification unless a violation has been determined then I am Ok with it.”
3.3 Focus Group Key Findings and Recommendations
3.3.1 Key Findings The three groups do not have a common name that they use to describe the Managed Lanes. No one called them “managed lanes”, and “carpool” or “express lanes” were the most prevalent descriptions used. Thus the terms “carpool lanes” or “express lanes” should be used to introduce the topic in subsequent quantitative research and it should be further clarified with an explanation that these are the lanes in the center of the road that can be used by carpools and other high occupancy vehicles (HOV) for free, and by single occupant vehicle (SOV) drivers for a fee if they have a valid FasTrak® account to pay the required tolls. The public is generally unaware of carpool violators on the I-15 Managed Lanes, primarily because identifying these individuals is difficult to do accurately. Even if a person is a single occupant, there is the possibility that they have a FasTrak® transponder. The public generally assumes that most users are legitimate. Participants were surprised by the high violation rate of 5 to 15 percent. This is partially because of their inability to identify violators. Their initial expectations for violations were
June 17, 2008 34
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
much lower, more in the range of one out of every hundred (1 percent) rather than one out of every ten (10 percent). Some participants questioned the validity of SANDAG’s violation estimates. Participants in all groups recommended increasing the fine for violations of the carpool regulations after hearing the current violation rate of 5 to 15 percent. Managed lane violators were identified as “unjust”, “inconsiderate”, and “punishable”, with the exception of those who are unfamiliar with the system, or in instances where technical difficulties caused well-intentioned users to accidentally violate the system. Currently enforcement is seen as unpredictable and sometimes absent in the Managed Lanes. In light of the violation rates presented, current enforcement is seen as inefficient and lacking in consistency and accuracy. Incorporation of technology that would improve overall enforcement effectiveness was suggested as a way to deter more violators. To most, carpools are considered to be two or more people of any age or position in the vehicle. However, some do feel that the purpose of the carpool lanes is to remove vehicles from the road. This small minority said that the family carpools do not serve this purpose. The majority of all three focus groups felt that commuters should not have priority over family carpools. Participants were opposed to the idea of changing carpool occupancy requirements by limiting valid occupants to those who are licensed drivers, or to only those sitting In the front seat (to facilitate enforcement). They felt the public would be unsupportive as well. This is driven by the opinion that families should be allowed to carpool, that spontaneous carpools are a benefit, and because of their opinion that enforcement of an age or drivers’ license-based definition would be nearly impossible to enforce. Accuracy, cost efficiency, privacy, ease of use and no negative impact on traffic flow were all important issues that participants identified for enforcement on the I-15. Cost and accuracy were discussed the most. Privacy ease of use, and continued free-flow were also considered. Accuracy in issuing citations is important when considering implementing technology into enforcement. People don’t want to have to dispute a citation for a violation they did not commit. Cost efficiency was an important issue. Participants felt that regardless of what means is used to enforce the lanes, the program should pay for itself, or the benefits should at least outweigh the cost of enforcement. Participants felt that enforcement efforts shouldn’t reduce traffic flow (as a result of more vehicles doing enforcement and rubber-neckers slowing down to watch) as this would create a diversion from the premise of the Managed Lanes.
June 17, 2008 35
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
The current violation rate is unacceptable to most participants. Most felt they would only be satisfied with a violation rate of 5 percent or lower. Therefore reactions to the increase in cost from Plan A (expanded manual enforcement) received little support. Aiding officer enforcement with the use of technology (Plan A) received positive feedback from all groups. There was some debate as to whether it should be entirely automated, but incorporating some type of technology received support from the majority. A policy that would require carpoolers to carry a transponder (plan B) which would help to identify the vehicle as a registered carpool but would not charge a fee is a controversial topic. For those who are already enrolled in the FasTrak® system, it is not perceived as an inconvenience and those users understand how such a system would operate. However, others less familiar with what a transponder requirement entails were skeptical and some even felt that CHP officers would still have to enforce the lanes the same way they do today even if carpoolers were required to register and the carry a transponder. Paying a deposit for use of the transponder was also controversial among non-FasTrak® groups. The RideLink group and general I-15 users thought that paying for the carpool lanes would deter people from carpooling altogether, though many thought the benefits of the carpool lanes outweighed the $25 deposit. Most participants felt that the use of enforcement cameras to verify vehicle occupancy (Plan C) would be the most cost effective and accurate solution. However, many felt that this type of technology was not available at a level needed to accurately support an enforcement system. Some felt that a fully automated system would leave little to no means for motorists to appeal a citation since there would be no human element involved in enforcement. For the majority of participants, privacy was not a significant issue. For those that were concerned about the use of cameras to detect the number of passengers, they needed to know that they would only be used to enforce the correct use of the carpool lanes and nothing else. 3.3.2 Recommendations The following are some suggestions on how to discuss enforcement of the I-15 Managed Lanes in order to attain usable and unbiased information from future stakeholder interviews and the general public telephone surveys.
The lanes should be referred to as “Express Lanes” or “carpool lanes” when conducting the telephone survey, as these are the terms most frequently used by focus group participants. It should be noted that many other names were used as well, so this doesn’t guarantee 100 percent comprehension, but does provide the best alternative that is least likely to be misunderstood. This should be further clarified by saying the Express lanes are the lanes in the center of the road that can be used by carpoolers for free, and by single drivers for a fee if they have signed up with FasTrak® and have a transponder to pay tolls.
June 17, 2008 36
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“Carpool card” was a term used by focus group participants for a transponder indicating a valid carpool. This is an easily understood term that should be used in the subsequent telephone surveys to convey this concept. The estimated number of violators stretched the credulity of focus group participants. The methodology for these estimates should be detailed and their accuracy verified. Otherwise lower numbers that would be more readily believed may be more effective in securing feedback during telephone surveys of the general public. The groups strongly opposed changes to the current definition of a valid carpool as “two or more individuals, including family members of any age.” Because support for this definition is sufficiently strong, it is recommended that any discussion on carpool classification requirements be dropped from the quantitative telephone survey to focus the limited number of questions on more pertinent enforcement issues. Cost-effectiveness, accuracy, ease of use, and privacy are all important issues identified throughout the discussions in the focus groups. These issues should be prioritized based on a rating of importance from the telephone survey. None of the focus groups were supportive of a plan to carry current enforcement practices into the expanded I-15 Managed Lanes (Plan A). Further consideration of this option is therefore not recommended. The focus groups identified the “carpool card” (Plan B) as a controversial additional requirement for use of the carpool lanes. The telephone survey should address to what degree the requirement of the carpool card and/or the $25 deposit to obtain the card would deter carpoolers from using the lanes. The groups identified the use of enforcement cameras (Plan C) as a feasible solution, but are not entirely convinced that they will be accurate enough to be enforced in a court of law. Before seeing them implemented they want to have some statistics showing how well they work. SANDAG should conduct a limited field test of the system to evaluate its ability to address the priority issues identified in Recommendation #6 (above), prior to selecting this plan. There were also some concerns about privacy. Both the privacy and perceived efficacy of the photo-enforcement system should be addressed in the quantitative telephone survey to identify the level of support or resistance to this approach. Participants have voiced concern about the cost of new systems and it would be beneficial to have a rough total cost for Plans B and C to provide if asked as a point of comparison to the $1 million per year for expanded CHP enforcement (Plan A). This is particularly true for the stakeholder interviews.
June 17, 2008 37
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
4.0 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY 4.1 Stakeholder Survey Background and Methodology
4.1.1 Introduction The stakeholder interviews are one component of a comprehensive outreach program designed to effectively identify and understand all issues related to the I-15 Express Lane Violation Enforcement System (VES). The purpose of the stakeholder interviews is to secure feedback from individuals that have an interest or stake in the I-15 violation enforcement system policies as part of their official capacities, management responsibilities, or role as an executive of a public interest organization.
The stakeholder interviews were conducted between October 2006 and January 2007 with 25 stakeholders including elected officials, managers with responsibility for the design, implementation, and operation of Express Lane facilities, organizations responsible for enforcement of Express Lane regulations, and individuals representing the perspectives of various public interest organizations.
The key topics addressed in the interviews include:
Assessment of current enforcement, Policy considerations that could simplify HOV enforcement, Plan A: Manual enforcement with technology assistance, Plan B: Mandatory transponder requirement, Plan B: Mandatory transponder requirement with basic photo enforcement, Plan C: Automated occupancy detection systems, and General comments and recommendations.
4.1.2 Purpose The purpose of the stakeholder interviews is to secure feedback from individuals that have an interest or stake in the I-15 violation enforcement system policies as part of their official capacities, management responsibilities, or role as an executive of a public interest organization. The stakeholder interviews provide an opportunity for these individuals to enumerate the issues and perspectives that they believe are important considerations in the development of system requirements and policies for the I-15 Violation Enforcement System.
4.1.3 Methodology A key objective of the stakeholder interview process is to secure feedback from as broad a variety of participants as possible, to ensure that all key issues and concerns have been identified. To this end, the stakeholder interviews were conducted with four key groups of participants, with each group providing a different perspective on the issues involved in violation enforcement systems.
June 17, 2008 38
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
The first group of stakeholder participants is comprised of elected officials whose constituencies utilize the I-15 corridor. These elected officials are generally informed about the issues involved in Express Lane violation enforcement systems as part of their official capacities. In addition, they receive ongoing feedback from constituents about concerns with current and future operation of the facility. As such they provide a unique and well informed perspective of the public’s concerns and issues about violation enforcement policies. This group includes three Mayors of San Diego County cities, a San Diego City Councilmember, and a San Diego County Supervisor.
The second group includes individuals with experience and responsibilities related to the design, implementation and operation of Express Lane facilities including the associated system requirements and operational policies. This group includes managers from Caltrans and SANDAG, as well as managers from other Express Lane facilities.
The third group includes individuals that are either directly or indirectly responsible for enforcement of Express Lane regulations and is comprised of California Highway Patrol enforcement officers and those with support and administrative responsibilities.
The fourth group is comprised of individuals representing a wide variety of public interest organizations that provide the perspectives of their organization’s members. A list of the participating stakeholders is provided as Appendix F of this report.
As with the other components of the overall outreach program, the goals for the stakeholder interviews include: issue identification, securing feedback on automated versus traditional manned enforcement, identification of specific issues relative to the three presented alternatives, and identification of the final preferred enforcement system (manual, or one of three automated options).
Redhill Group developed a structured interview form (discussion guide), which addressed the key issues involved in VES policies and evaluation of alternative approaches. The discussion guide included a series of questions but enabled participants to address them in a non-sequential manner as desired to provide a more natural discussion of the issues rather than a structured survey approach which would inhibit the natural flow of the interview. The discussion guide was reviewed, revised and approved by SANDAG management.
A total of 26 stakeholder interviews were conducted through a combination of in-person and telephone interviews. A total of nine interviews were conducted in-person, including three round-table discussion groups (SANDAG management, Caltrans District 11 managers, and the California Highway Patrol, Border Division). All elected officials were invited to participate in an in-person interview, as were the managers directly responsible for facility management for the SR 91 HOT Lanes (OCTA), and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency.
The remaining stakeholder interviews (many with participants from outside the Southern California area) were conducted by phone. Two of these interviews were conducted as telephone roundtable discussion groups with multiple participants (Bay Area Agencies and FHWA).
June 17, 2008 39
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
4.1.3.1 Development of Stakeholder Interview Guide To secure actionable feedback on I-15 VES systems and polices, Redhill Group developed a structured interview form (discussion guide), which addressed the key issues involved in VES policies and evaluation of alternative approaches. The discussion guide included a series of questions but enabled participants to address them in a non-sequential manner as desired to provide a more natural discussion of the issues rather than a structured survey approach which would inhibit the natural flow of the interview.
Redhill Group developed an initial draft discussion guide and submitted it for review and comments to the SANDAG management team. A revised discussion guide was pretested on the initial stakeholder interview with the SANDAG management team. As a result of the pretest, the discussion guide was revised and shortened to ensure that all key issues could be addressed within the desired interview time of 45 minutes. The revised discussion guide was subsequently approved by SANDAG for use in the remaining 25 stakeholder interviews and is attached as Appendix E.
4.1.3.2 Selection of Stakeholders
A list of potential stakeholder participants was provided to Redhill Group by SANDAG management along with selected alternative participants to replace any original selections that were unwilling or unable to participate. Table 4-1: Final Stakeholder Interview List
NAME ORGANIZATION
1. Daryl Watkins Orange County Transportation Authority, 91 Express Lanes 2. Frank Barbagallo Transportation Corridor Agencies 3. Jean Hart Alameda County Congestion Management Authority 4. Beth Zelinski Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) 5. Michael Replogle Institute for Transportation Development Policy 6. Ginger Goodin Texas Transportation Institute at the Texas A&M University 7. R.D. "Skip" Carter California Highway Patrol, Border Division 8. John C. Keller California Highway Patrol, Special Projects Section 9. Pedro Orso-delgado Caltrans District 11 10. Robert Ferwerda California Department of Transportation, HOV Systems Branch 11. Jeff McRae Caltrans Office of ITS Projects and Standards 12. Nathan Loebs Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation 13. Jeff Holm Federal Highway Administration 14. Elaine Miller DMV Information Services Branch 15. Honorable Mickey Cafagna City of Poway, Office of the Mayor 16. Honorable Lori Holt Pfeiler City of Escondido, Office of the Mayor 17. Honorable Ron Roberts County of San Diego, Supervisor 18. Hamid Bahadori Automobile Club of Southern California 19. Carmen Sandoval San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce 20. Andrew L. Poat SD Economic Development Corporation
June 17, 2008 40
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
21. Grace Roos League of Women Voters 22. Honorable Jim Madaffer City of San Diego, District 7 Councilmember's Office 23. Honorable Art Madrid City of La Mesa, Office of the Mayor 24. Kenn Buckeye Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) 25. Gary Knight Economic Development Council (San Diego North)
A key objective of the stakeholder interview process is to secure feedback from as broad a variety of participants as possible, to ensure that all key issues and concerns have been identified. To this end, the stakeholder interviews were conducted with four key groups of participants, with each group providing a different perspective on the issues involved in violation enforcement systems. The first group of stakeholder participants is elected officials whose constituencies utilize the I-15 corridor. These elected officials are generally informed about the issues involved in Express Lane violation enforcement systems as part of their official capacities. In addition, they receive ongoing feedback from constituents about concerns with current and future operation of the facility. As such they provide a unique and well informed perspective of the public’s concerns and issues about violation enforcement policies. This group includes three Mayors of San Diego County cities, a San Diego City Councilmember, and a San Diego County Supervisor.
The second group includes individuals with experience and responsibilities related to the design, implementation and operation of Express Lane facilities including the associated system requirements and operational policies. This group includes managers from Caltrans and SANDAG, as well as managers from other Express Lane facilities.
The third group includes individuals that are either directly or indirectly responsible for enforcement of Express Lane regulations and is comprised of California Highway Patrol enforcement officers and those with support and administrative responsibilities.
The fourth group is comprised of individuals representing a wide variety of public interest organizations that provide the perspectives of their organization’s members.
As with the other components of the overall outreach program, the goals for the stakeholder interviews include issue identification, securing feedback on automated versus traditional manned enforcement, identification of specific issues relative to the three presented alternatives, and identification of the final preferred enforcement system (manual, or one of three automated options).
A list of the participating stakeholders is provided in Table 1 on the preceding page with a more detailed list including contact information attached as Appendix F.
4.1.3.3 Conduct of Interviews An introductory letter was sent by SANDAG to all potential stakeholder participants describing the project and asking them to participate. This was followed up by a call from Redhill Group asking them to participate, and to schedule a convenient time. Upon their agreement to participate, Redhill Group emailed them a package which included an introductory memo describing the project, a case study for the
June 17, 2008 41
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
SR 91 facility, and for respondents participating by phone, a handout of the discussion guide graphic exhibits. The contents of this memo are presented in Section 2.0 Background.
The stakeholder interviews were conducted through a combination of in-person and telephone interviews. A total of nine interviews were conducted in-person, including three round-table discussion groups (SANDAG management, Caltrans District 11 managers, and the California Highway Patrol, Border Division). All elected officials were invited to participate in an in-person interview, as were the managers directly responsible for facility management for the SR 91 HOT Lanes (OCTA), and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency.
The remaining stakeholder interviews (many with participants from outside the Southern California area) were conducted by phone. Two of these interviews were conducted as telephone roundtable discussion groups with multiple participants (Bay Area Agencies and FHWA).
4.2 Stakeholder Findings
4.2.1 Assessment of Current Enforcement Almost three-quarters (72%) of stakeholders were not aware that the violation rate is as high as reported, and a majority (56%) said they were surprised that it was this high. Further, three out of four (76%) felt that this level of violations is unacceptable and noted that if the public is aware that this many people are violating the regulations without repercussions, it encourages an even higher level of violations because people believe that more than likely they won’t be caught. The most frequent response when asked to identify an ‘acceptable’ level of violations given the trade-offs of cost and fair and efficient operation was five percent.
When asked if enforcing HOV regulations is a good use of law enforcement personnel relative to other enforcement priorities, responses were mixed with strong opinions on both sides. Forty-four percent say that it is valuable because without it the system would cease to function. An additional 36 percent say that the CHP should be freed up to focus on safety-related enforcement issues, and that HOV regulations could be enforced more effectively with technological solutions. The remaining 20 percent had mixed responses saying the top priority has to be safety, but they still need to find time to enforce HOV regulations.
The $341 minimum fine level was addressed with stakeholders to determine if they feel that this is high enough to deter violations. Two-thirds (68%) believe that it is high enough and that they key issue is the level of enforcement, and that this will have a larger impact than the dollar amount of the fine. Those who felt that $341 is not enough noted that it does not appear to be enough if the violation rate is 15 percent.
4.2.2 Policy Considerations That Could Simplify HOV Enforcement Three potential changes in HOV lane enforcement were reviewed with stakeholders: requiring qualified occupants to be people who would otherwise drive alone, requiring qualified occupants to sit in the front seat to facilitate accurate occupancy counting, and consideration of supporting the front-seat occupancy requirement if it would enable automated occupancy detection.
June 17, 2008 42
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
In general, stakeholders did not support any of the potential HOV lane policy changes. Three quarters (76%) don’t believe that policy should be modified to require that valid passengers be limited to people who would otherwise drive alone. Many agree that this idea is good from a conceptual standpoint because it would ensure that those using the HOV lane would be reducing the number of vehicles on the road, but feel it would be impractical to enforce, and would lead to an unpopular system of classifying people.
One stakeholder noted that there may be some value in letting people carpool with children and this may serve as practice, leading to a stronger appreciation of the benefits of carpooling that may subsequently result in carpooling to work with fellow commuters. Only 12 percent support this policy change, and an additional 12 percent were undecided.
With regard to limiting valid occupancy to front-seat passengers, only two of the 25 stakeholders (8%) support making this change. The remaining 92 percent disagree, indicating that safety and personal privacy issues outweigh the value of facilitating ease of enforcement.
In addition, none of the stakeholders that disagree with this potential policy changed their opinion based on the availability of technology that would make it possible to count front-seat passengers automatically. They indicated that safety and privacy issues are too important, and technology should be used to support policy rather than as a reason to create it.
4.2.3 Plan A: Manual Enforcement with Technology Assistance Stakeholders were asked to assess the relative value of four supporting technologies for manual enforcement of HOV regulations. The four tools are: overhead light signals that identify violators, mobile transponder readers, mobile data terminals that access the SANDAG database, and either adding lights to transponders or increasing the volume of the transponder’s beep.
More than eight out of ten stakeholders support the use of overhead light signals to identify violators (88%), and Mobile Transponder Readers (84%). However, those that feel these systems may not be beneficial are the people who are most familiar with their Express Lane operation and regulation enforcement. With regard to the light signal system, it was noted that under fast, heavy traffic conditions it is very difficult to tie the light to a particular vehicle. For the Mobile Transponder Reader, the concern is efficiency, because the CHP would have to check a large number of vehicles to find one violator.
Although there was slightly weaker support for Mobile Data Terminals that could access SANDAG’s database (68%), the CHP stakeholders with direct responsibility for enforcement supported the use of this technology because it would give them real-time history of transponder charges to verify valid use. They also noted it would have to be ‘motorcycle-friendly,’ as motorcycles are a critical component of the enforcement effort.
In general, stakeholders were in favor of any technology that makes the job of enforcement easier and more effective for the CHP.
June 17, 2008 43
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Sixty-four percent of stakeholders agree that adding a light to tell if the transponder has been successfully read, would help eliminate unintentional violations. However, a significant minority of 36 percent disagree, with many of those disagreeing having design and management responsibility for Express Lane facilities. There are concerns that it could be distracting and would come with a significant cost factor as a result of decreased battery life.
There were even fewer supporters of a louder beep (36%), with most thinking that the current beep is loud enough.
4.2.4 Plan B: Mandatory Transponder Requirement Stakeholders were given a case study of the SR 91 Freeway which requires advanced registration and a valid transponder in order to use the 91 Express Lanes. They were then asked if they were concerned that using this approach for the I-15 Express Lanes would require carpoolers to register, and whether this would discourage some people from carpooling.
Concern about carpoolers having to register was almost evenly split with 48 percent saying they are concerned, and 52 percent saying they are not. Those that say they are not concerned note that using the Express Lanes is a privilege, and that no one is required to do it. Further, they have already provided the information to the DMV and it is not different than what FasTrak® users do.
Those that oppose requiring carpoolers to register generally felt strongly about the issue. They believed that it would discourage carpooling in general, and eliminate a whole class of occasional carpoolers. Others mentioned that changing the rules after the facility has been open to carpoolers would be problematic, particularly since they can carpool everywhere else without registering. Some were also concerned that carpoolers with valid carpool transponders would use the system for free, even when they were driving alone. Finally, it would require a two-transponder system for people who carpool part of the time and also use the Express Lanes with a FasTrak® transponder when they drive alone. This could become confusing and prone to human error.
Taking all of these factors into consideration, almost two-thirds (64%) of stakeholders believe that having a mandatory transponder requirement would discourage some people from carpooling. They say it would be an extra step that doesn’t exist now, and there would be an additional financial investment for the transponder. The privacy issue could also deter some people. Casual carpooling would also essentially be eliminated.
The remaining 36 percent don’t think it would discourage people from carpooling. The common thread in their rationale is that the benefit is big enough to easily overcome the small amount of effort required to register and carry a transponder.
4.2.5 Plan B: Mandatory Transponder Requirement with Basic Photo Enforcement Stakeholders were then asked about combining a mandatory transponder requirement with photo- enforcement technology that would automatically issue citations when neither a valid FasTrak® nor carpool transponder could be read for a vehicle using the Express Lanes. Stakeholders were asked if they
June 17, 2008 44
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
thought this was a good idea, if it would be more effective than CHP enforcement, if it would deter violators, and how strongly they support this concept on a 1 to 5 scale.
The response to whether a mandatory transponder requirement with photo-system enforcement is a good idea was mixed with 40 percent disagreeing, 36 percent agreeing, and 24 percent undecided. Those that support this approach note that it will save personnel costs for the CHP and be more effective because it will operate 24-7, which the CHP can’t do. Those that disagree reiterate the same reasons for concern about registration; that it will discourage people from carpooling and will be too confusing with multiple transponders.
When asked if knowing that the same type of technology is in use across the state in red-light systems, two of the eight that originally said they don’t support this approach said that this increases their confidence in this strategy. Conversely, six of the eight did not alter their position.
When asked if this strategy would be a more effective means of enforcing carpool lane regulations, a slight majority of 52 percent agreed. Thirty-two percent disagreed, and 16 percent were undecided. The primary theme among those that agree, is that photo-enforcement is more effective because it is there 100 percent of the time. Those who disagreed noted that transponders by themselves are insufficient to confirm a valid carpool exists, and that either the CHP or different technology would still be required to make this system viable.
Rating this strategy on a five-point scale where 5 is very strongly support and 1 is don’t support at all, results mirrored their stakeholders responses to the previous question with 52 percent providing scores of 4-5, 31 percent providing scores or 1-2, and 17 percent providing a neutral rating of 3. Elected officials were the least sanguine on this approach with three out of five providing a support rating of 1, and only one providing a positive rating of 4.
When those that don’t support this strategy were asked what would have to change to garner their support, the general response was that it would have to be changed in such a way to eliminate the barriers to carpoolers, or to find another technology that doesn’t require mandatory transponders.
4.2.6 Plan C: Automated Occupancy Detection Systems Plan C incorporates the use of a roadside camera system that could verify the number of persons inside the vehicle. This could then be combined with FasTrak® transponders (or possibly both FasTrak® and carpool transponders) to create a fully automated system that would determine if each vehicle was a valid FasTrak® user, a valid carpool user, or a violator. Violators would then be issued citations automatically using a license plate photo to identify the violator. A similar series of questions were asked as with the Plan B Basic Photo System, but with the addition of questions about privacy and health concerns.
The automated occupancy detection system approach was the clear favorite among stakeholders, but with a clear caveat that it has to work with near 100% reliability.
June 17, 2008 45
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Ninety-two percent of the stakeholders provided a rating of 4 or 5 on a five-point scale with 5 being I very strongly support this strategy, and 1 being I do not support this strategy at all. Two respondents provided negative ratings of 1 or 2.
When asked if they had any concerns, stakeholders’ primary focus was on reliability, stating that the system has to be thoroughly tested and completely reliable. Some respondents noted that there is currently no system like this in operation, so performance is a concern. Privacy was the second largest concern with some stakeholders wanting to be sure it was used solely for carpool lane enforcement with no visual records retained. Health was only mentioned in response to the discussion guide question about health concerns, and would probably not have been brought up on an unaided basis.
When asked if stakeholders think that collecting information about the number of passengers in a vehicle using cameras is an invasion of an individual’s right to privacy, almost all stakeholders (94%) were not concerned. They felt that driving on a public road eliminates any right to privacy, and further, they have a choice to use or not use the Express Lanes. The single stakeholder who was concerned was not assuaged by the similarity of this approach to the well-accepted red-light program because in their opinion the information is still out there being analyzed and looked at.
All stakeholders agreed that an automated camera system would deter carpool lane violators (subject to the concern that it works reliably including back-seat passengers). Their key point is that it is a 24-7 system rather than the more intermittent enforcement that can be provided by the CHP.
4.2.7 General / Closing Questions Three key questions were asked of stakeholders in closing: do they think the public will support a proposal to implement an HOV enforcement system that is less dependent on the CHP, what they see as the most important issues in implementing a violation enforcement system, and do they believe that any of the strategies discussed would be unfair or put an undue burden on any particular group.
All but three of the stakeholders believe that the public will ultimately support a proposal to implement an HOV enforcement system that is less dependent on the CHP. The remaining three were uncertain with one saying they don’t know, and the other two indicating that there would be lots of skepticism and that it would require education to convince the public. Those who say that the public will support this approach focus on the fact that it will free up the CHP for more important enforcement of safety regulations, will reduce the cost of enforcement, and will be more effective in catching and eliminating violators.
When asked what the key issues are in implementation of a violation enforcement system, the biggest concern was that the system be extremely reliable with results that will hold up in court. Another key concern is that there is excellent education and communication with the motoring public. Other points included: paying attention to the details and building a flexible system that can change as we learn more about how it operates with the human element, having the political will to carry it through as there will be complaints and challenges when the system is introduced, and addressing the environmental justice and privacy issues by making it possible to set up transponder accounts without a credit card or providing personal information (cash accounts).
June 17, 2008 46
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
A majority of stakeholders do not believe that the strategies discussed would cause an undue burden on any group. The vast majority of those who felt it would create an undue burden were concerned about the burden of requiring mandatory transponders for carpoolers. They felt that this should not be part of the solution. A small minority mentioned environmental justice issues, but felt these could be addressed with appropriate programs.
4.2.8 Assessment of Current Enforcement Participants were given a description of current enforcement efforts on the I-15 Express Lanes and then told how the expansion of the facility would change the operating environment for enforcement. They were given data on the current violation rate and level for fines, and then asked four questions about current enforcement:
Prior to today, were you aware that between 1,000 and 3,000 motorists per day traveling in the I-15 Express Lanes are violators? Does this number of violations surprise you? The number of violations equals five to 15 percent of all vehicles on the Express Lanes. Is this an acceptable level of violations? If not, what would be an acceptable level of violations? Do you think enforcement of HOV lanes is a good use of law enforcement personnel, compared to other enforcement priorities? The current minimum fine for HOV violations on is $341.Do you believe the $341 minimum fine is sufficient to deter violations? If not, what amount do you think would be sufficient?
4.2.9 Awareness of Violation Rate Most stakeholders (72%) were not aware that the violation rate is as high as reported, and a majority (56%) were surprised that it was as high as it is. Only a few elected officials and managers involved in corridor management were aware of these levels. Some participants in a stakeholder roundtable questioned the accuracy of the numbers noting that when vehicles are pulled over to be ticketed, over half turn out to be valid carpools. Thus estimates based on visual inspection without stopping vehicles could overestimate the violation rate.
4.2.10 Acceptability of Current Violation Rate Most stakeholders (76%) felt that 10-15 percent is not an acceptable violation rate, although one stakeholder involved in Express Lane management noted it may be the best that is possible for a reasonable cost, given the lack of a transponder requirement and no barrier separation. Another stakeholder pointed out that the underlying purpose of the facility is as a management tool, and asks how this fits with the operation of the facility. Does it still effectively manage the service level?
One of the issues raised is that if the violation rate is this high and corridor users are aware of it, then violation enforcement is not an effective deterrent and people will feel that if they cheat the system they are likely to get away with it, thus increasing the number of scofflaws.
June 17, 2008 47
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“If you have 15% violators - that just encourages people to cheat.”
Another stakeholder points out that the whole objective of Express Lanes is to deliver a high level of service, and even one percent additional vehicles could negatively impact the level of service in the Express Lanes.
The level most frequently mentioned as being acceptable is five percent, although some indicated that it should only be one to two percent, and some felt that 10 percent would be acceptable. Although some wanted zero violations, most recognized that achieving this would be too expensive.
“15% is too high, probably 5-10% would be OK. Zero would be better but unrealistic.”
4.2.11 Value of Using Law Enforcement Personnel for HOV Lane Enforcement Relative to Other Enforcement Priorities The response to this issue ranged from strong yes’s to strong no’s with several mixed responses as well (44%-Yes, 36%-No, 20% mixed). Stakeholders that say that HOV lane enforcement is a high priority say that without it the system wouldn’t work.
“It would seem so if that is the goal of these lanes. It is important to make the lanes work.”
“If we didn’t have the presence out there (highway patrol) I don’t think the lanes would function properly.”
Those that think that HOV violation enforcement is not a good use of officer’s time believe that they should focus on highway safety, and others that say enforcement could be handled more efficiently with technology.
“No, particularly since these have become toll lanes; revenue is a distinctly lower priority than safety.”
“Absolutely not, manned enforcement is not a good use of CHP officers, these are not even moving violations. The scarce resources of the CHP should be spent on speeding and reckless driving that endangers drivers.”
“No. Photo enforcement can do the same thing, and then they can focus on safety: accidents, robberies, etc.”
Others indicated that safety takes top priority, but that HOV regulations also need to be enforced as an important second priority.
“It has to be done, but there are other things that would have a greater priority if we are limited on our ability to monitor it. I wouldn’t put it ahead of other crime and safety issues, but it may be worth adding more people if needed to enforce the
June 17, 2008 48
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
regulations because the integrity of an HOV lane is important, and if you allow it to get sloppy it defeats its purpose.”
Is the $341 minimum fine sufficient to deter violations?
Two-thirds of the stakeholders (68%) believe that a fine level of $341 is high enough to provide deterrence for HOV lane violators. They believe that improving enforcement will have a bigger impact on reducing infractions than increasing the level of the fine.
“It is a lot of money. If it is enforced effectively, it is enough.”
Most stakeholders that felt $341 was not enough (28% not enough, 4% don’t Know), mentioned the high violation rate as a factor in thinking this. The most common alternative level was $500, and some indicated that it should double on subsequent violations.
“Obviously it’s not enough if you have a 15% violation rate.”
“No, it should be $500, then $1,000 if again within 6 months. If they flaunt the law they have to pay the consequences.”
4.2.12 Policy Considerations That Could Simplify HOV Enforcement The next section of the discussion guide addressed potential modifications of policies to redefine the requirements for a valid carpool to help facilitate effective enforcement (see accompanying graphics of sample regulatory signs in Appendix G, Handout Exhibits for Stakeholder Interviews). The following three questions were asked:
Not all carpools result in one or more vehicles being removed from the roadway (e.g., children too young to drive, etc.). Do you believe the law should require that a carpool only qualify if both occupants would otherwise drive alone? Why/Why not? It is difficult for law enforcement to accurately detect the number of occupants in a vehicle. It is especially difficult to detect children or others seated in the rear seats. Do you believe the law should require that two (2) occupants be seated in the front seats to qualify as a carpool? Why/Why not? (IF NO)Technology is currently under development that could accurately detect the number of passengers in the front seats. With this additional information, now do you believe the law should require that two (2) occupants be seated in the front seats to qualify as a carpool? 4.2.13 Requirement of Two Licensed Passengers for a Valid Carpool A clear majority of stakeholders (76%) don’t believe that policy should be modified to require that valid passengers be limited to people who would otherwise drive alone. Some agree with the concept, recognizing that if they aren’t potential drivers it is not reducing the number of vehicles on the road, but
June 17, 2008 49
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
believe that it would be impractical to enforce and would lead to an unpopular system of classifying people.
“The cost of enforcing would just be phenomenal. In theory a good idea, but not in practice.”
“That’s an ongoing debate. I personally don’t think it is a productive argument to say it has to be a driver. People are people. They come in all sizes and shapes. If you are driving an older person to a meeting; would that not qualify?”
One stakeholder also commented that there is some value to letting people carpool with children, as this may serve as practice, leading to a stronger appreciation of the benefits of carpooling that may subsequently result in carpooling to work with fellow commuters and reducing the number of vehicles on the road.
“No, the percent of convenience having a child to carpool is minimal and this policy just would not fly. If you want to support carpooling, you have to reward all of it. This provides ‘practice’ which you then might carpool when you commute.”
Twelve percent of stakeholders do support this policy change, and an additional 12 percent were undecided.
4.2.14 Two Front-Seat Passenger Requirement Less than 10 percent (8%) support the concept of requiring two people in the front seats to qualify as a carpool. Ninety-two percent disagree indicating that safety and personal privacy issues outweigh the value of facilitating ease of enforcement.
“If you have children they have to be in the back seat; an inadvertent way to knock off kids from the carpool. That won’t work.”
“No, with the existing law allowing children, and with the airbags up front, that puts the kids in jeopardy.”
“I would be worried about that. The government would be creating a liability for itself creating front seat accidents that might have been avoided if sitting in the back seat. I wouldn’t force anybody to put their occupants in the front seat.”
“It is an invasion of privacy rights.”
“No. There could be all sorts of reasons for people to be in different seats, and saying they have to be in specific seats is going a little too far.”
4.2.15 Impact of New Technology on Two Front-Seat Passengers Requirement None of the stakeholders who disagreed with the concept of requiring two front-seat passengers changed their opinion based on the availability of technology that would make it possible to count front-seat
June 17, 2008 50
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
passengers automatically. They indicate that safety and privacy issues are too important and technology should be used to support policy rather than as a reason to create it.
“No. Technology shouldn’t dictate occupancy requirements.”
“No for the same reasons. Technology shouldn’t drive legislation; the law needs to be fair.”
“Again I don’t think so. I think the technology will develop that will enable us to tell who’s in the back seat. New technology is an important tool. You don’t need to force the second occupant to sit in the front seat.”
4.2.16 Plan A: Manual Enforcement with Technology Assistance Stakeholders were then asked for feedback on three alternative approaches to enforcement. The first option is Plan A, which relies on traditional manual enforcement with the support of some technology improvements. The specific technology options include overhead light signals to identify violators, mobile transponder readers, mobile data terminals that access the SANDAG database, adding lights to transponders, and increasing the sound of the beep on transponders (see graphics for overhead light signals and mobile transponder readers in Appendix G, Handout Exhibits for Stakeholder Interviews). The specific questions are as follows:
Do you think the use of overhead signals that illuminate whenever a toll is collected via FasTrak® are a beneficial aid to CHP when trying to verify the presence of a violator? Do you think use of this technology is a good idea? Why/Why not? SANDAG is also considering the use of mobile transponder readers that would be affixed to the roof of the CHP patrol car and could detect transponders mounted in vehicles. Do you think the use of mobile transponder readers would help CHP identify violators and is a good idea? Do you think this technology would be effective on I-15? Why/Why not? Do you think the use of mobile data terminals with access to SANDAG’s central FasTrak® system would improve the accuracy of routine CHP enforcement? Why/Why not? Do you think that adding visual feedback (e.g., LED light) in addition to the existing audible feedback that is provided by the transponder whenever a transaction is successfully processed by the roadside antenna would eliminate unintentional violations by FasTrak® account holders? Do you think that making the transponder beep louder would eliminate unintentional violations by FasTrak® account holders? 4.2.17 Use of Overhead Light Signals to Identify Violators Almost all stakeholders (88%) approve of the use of overhead light signals to identify violators. Some stakeholders that support it mention that it has a dual role; helping CHP officers to identify scofflaws, and providing feedback to motorists so that it is clear to them and everyone else that they are cheating.
“Absolutely, because it gives us another tool to enforce the regulations.”
June 17, 2008 51
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“In a working system it probably would be beneficial. I think motorists would appreciate seeing it too.”
“Yes in both in directions so that people can witness what is happening it provides a guilt factor (like MN). It respects the process. It is also nice to see if your transponder is working by seeing the light.”
The two stakeholders who disagree with the use of overhead light signals base their opinions on practical experience using the systems; indicating that while effective at low speeds, tying the light to the correct vehicle under high-speed, high-volume conditions is not practical.
“I disagree with using it in FasTrak® high-speed lanes because in that environment it isn’t possible to effectively tie the light to the vehicle. Also transponders don’t always work. The code says that if you have a valid transponder then you have passed the test of trying to pay.”
“We tested this in Houston and in those particular situations officers had difficulty matching the light with the car. At low speeds and volume it’s OK, but at higher speeds and volume it is very hard to determine.”
4.2.18 Use of Mobile Transponder Readers to Identify Violators Use of mobile transponders by the CHP is widely approved by stakeholders as a whole (84%).
“Yes, as opposed to having big lights. It will allow the CHP to be able to go anywhere on the system and not just park by one area and let people go by. A definite yes.”
“Yes, that would be a useful tool. It would be flexible.”
“I think based on experience in MN this has been effective. So yes I think it is good.”
“Any time you have 1-3,000 violators a day, any tool that will help catch them is good.”
Unfortunately, however, two of the three stakeholders that are not sure this is useful are the CHP themselves based on their practical experience.
“I don’t need to know why they would need to be in a patrol car. They could be used by the tolling authority, and then if they hadn’t paid they would be ticketed. You would have to check the 10 legal SOVs to find the one illegal SOV, so not terribly practical.”
“All it would do is replace the Nextels. All this does is say whether it is working. It is too easy to beat the system, so not that useful. If it could tell whether it has been charged on a real-time basis then it would be useful. Otherwise they can put it in the
June 17, 2008 52
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
bag when they pass the reader and then put it back out. It would need to be a compact low-power unit for motorcycle officers which we use half and half.”
4.2.19 Use of Mobile Data Terminals to Access SANDAG’s Database Two-thirds of all stakeholders (68%) also support the use of Mobile Data Terminals so that CHP officers can access SANDAG’s database for use history and other information on a specific transponder. The general consensus is that any tool that helps the CHP do their job more effectively is a good thing.
“Absolutely yes; the more information the better. It would let you know if it had recently been read so if I put it in the bag you would be able to tell it had been correctly charged.”
“Yes, because that they can then verify that the last transaction wasn’t five minutes ago. They can say “your transaction was a week ago and you told me you just paid the toll and you didn’t.” You could have records saying they have gone through several times. You don’t have that today.”
Those who disagree with the use of this technology (12%) feel that it may take too much of the CHP Officer’s time, and also voice some concerns about privacy.
“On the surface of it, it sounds like a distraction for the officer to try to check thousands of people. How would the officer do it while driving, and if not driving, what value would it be. I don’t’ see the real value of it.”
“That doesn’t seem like something the patrol officer should be doing to me. Concerns are privacy and time it would take the CHP. It seems like it would take too much time; it’s going a little too far.”
Although it was a split opinion between the two CHP interviews, an Officer that actually issues citations thought it would be beneficial. The CHP also mentioned the importance of having a miniaturized version that would work on motorcycles, a critical component of the enforcement effort.
“Yes that would be good, having it real-time would give me their history, which would help determine if they are trying to beat the system. I would like it so I can get history of 91 and other transponders too. This would also need to be motorcycle friendly.”
4.2.20 Will the Addition of a Transponder Light Help Eliminate Unintentional Violations? Although a majority of stakeholders (64%) support having a light to make it easier to tell if the transponder has been successfully read, a significant minority (36%) disagree. Those that support it indicate that anything that makes it easier to tell if it is working will be an improvement.
“Yes, it’s a good idea.”
June 17, 2008 53
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“Yes, I think that’s really important. I have three of them and sometimes that beep is hard to hear if the radio is on or people are talking.”
“Good idea; especially for people who are hard of hearing or have the radio up.”
Those that disagree with the concept cite safety and cost concerns and the negative impact on battery life- cycle.
“No, I can’t think of any reason. It would be distracting.”
“The beep is OK, even with a radio on I hear it, so I don’t think a light is necessary. It may not even be visible and it could become a source of distraction as the driver passes through the reader. It also may not be visible during the daytime so I think the beep is good enough.”
“There is a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be performed. We believe that the costs outweigh the benefits given the reduction in battery life. We also communicate with customers so they know their status. Using a light doubles the life-cycle cost of the transponder.”
Some feel it is unnecessary since the beep seems to work OK now.
“If it’s beeping, I don’t know that it needs a light. It would cost too much and is overkill.”
“The beep is OK, even with a radio on I hear it, so I don’t think a light is necessary. It may not even be visible and it could become a source of distraction as the driver passes through the reader. It also may not be visible during the daytime so I think the beep is good enough.”
4.2.21 Will Increasing the Beep Volume Help Eliminate Unintentional Violations? Approximately a third of stakeholders (36%) believe that the beep should be made louder, but a slightly higher proportion (44%) say that it is OK as it is now, or the light would be a better option. Twenty percent say they don’t know if it should be changed.
“Yes, definitely.”
“No – the current beep is loud enough.”
“It sounds good now, just right.”
“No the light is better.”
June 17, 2008 54
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
4.2.22 Plan B: Mandatory Transponder Requirement Stakeholders were given a copy of a case study for the SR 91 Freeway which requires advance registration and a valid transponder in order to use the 91 Express Lanes. If the stakeholder had not had a chance to review the case study in advance they were given a few moments to do so in the interview. They were then asked the following two questions about this approach:
Are you concerned that this strategy (Plan B) would require carpoolers to register their name, address, and vehicle information to use the I-15 Managed Lanes? Why/Why not? Do you think this strategy (Plan B) would discourage some people from carpooling? Why/Why not?
4.2.23 Concern About Requiring Carpoolers to Register Their Name and Address to Use the I-15 Express Lanes Stakeholders were evenly split on this question with 48 percent saying they were concerned, and 52 percent saying they are not concerned. Those that don’t have concerns about registering indicate that it is not mandatory; people have a choice if they want to use the Express Lanes. But if they do, they are getting a benefit, so they should be willing to sign up in advance to ensure that the system works properly for everyone.
“No because no one is forcing them to use those lanes. It’s like the Century pass at the border; you don’t have to use it.”
“I wouldn’t have a concern because it is an opportunity or privilege to use the Express Lanes that drivers decide to use or not use so it is not an infringement on privacy.”
“I don’t think that’s a problem. If you are going to go to the trouble of forming a carpool and picking up passengers, then this is not much to ask. “
There were also several comments how a mandatory transponder requirement might affect privacy issues. One stakeholder that is concerned about privacy issues commented:
“I would be concerned mostly because it eliminates independence and you know where I am.”
Those that don’t see it as a privacy issue felt that drivers have already provided their information to the DMV, and it also is no different than commuters who use FasTrak® transponders.
“No, its not like you are sharing the information and people understand that it is kept private like DMV information. And lots of people share information anyhow to get carpool partners.”
“I’m not concerned that they have to register their name if they are a carpooler. Those who get a transponder register their names so it really isn’t any different.”
June 17, 2008 55
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
One stakeholder who supports this approach indicated that it wouldn’t necessarily raise any privacy issues, as people could sign up with cash accounts that would maintain their privacy.
“I am not concerned. You could establish anonymous accounts to avoid providing ID; just cash up front to get the device.”
Those that think that signing up in advance is a problem have several different reasons for their concern. These include making it more difficult for people to carpool, thus discouraging carpooling, essentially eliminating the possibility of casual carpooling that is done on the fly, and also indicating that signing up as a carpool and having a carpool transponder, does not really solve the problem because it doesn’t guarantee that the vehicle using the transponder actually has two or more people in the car.
“Yes, because it would discourage carpooling.”
“Yes I am concerned. I think that it takes a whole class of users out of the system; occasional carpoolers. I am sure there are a number of users that occasionally form a carpool to make a specific trip, and they would not be able to do that on the spur of the moment. It didn’t seem to be a very friendly, encouraging policy for our area.”
“I think that this could backfire because people would have a valid carpool transponder but not have a valid carpool all the time and it would be hard to tell if they are cheating.”
“It’s not going to be the answer because if you register as a carpooler you still might not be a valid carpool. It would be confusing. It seems too complicated.”
Others mentioned the challenge of the perception that something is being taken away from carpoolers:
“Yes, because it was an HOV lane before, unlike SR 91 which was a toll road. From a policy perspective is would be a problem.”
“I don’t agree with having a transponder where carpooling is free.”
“In Denver they tried to do this. The carpoolers said you are going to let other people in to slow down their trip, and then make us register too. Too much.”
And another stakeholder indicated that this approach would negatively impact the service level for the general purpose lanes:
“Yes (I am concerned) because potentially you could be pushing scofflaws into the general purpose lanes, but you will also be pushing valid carpools into the general purpose lanes which will defeat the goal of free-flow and increased capacity of all lanes.”
June 17, 2008 56
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Finally, two stakeholders commented on the potential complexity of having to have two transponders; one for carpooling, and another for driving alone:
“It does raise some questions if you have a registered HOV transponder do you need another one for SOV use? It starts to get a bit cumbersome if that’s the case.”
“You would have to switch transponders based on what you were for the day. Too confusing.”
4.2.24 Will Plan B Discourage Some People from Carpooling? When asked directly if requiring advance registration and use of a transponder would discourage some people from carpooling almost two-thirds (64%) of the stakeholders agreed, and approximately one-third (36%) disagreed. Those that say it will discourage carpooling say it is one more step, one more cost, and anything that makes it harder will reduce the number of people willing to go through it:
“There is the signing up which is an extra step, you have to prepare. Every time there is an extra step, people are less likely to do it.”
“Yes, people don’t like to have to do something they don’t understand the purpose of. The more you impose on them the less they are going to want to do it. It becomes an annoyance.”
“In the end yes, I think it would. A significant number, I really don’t know, but any time you have to go through an additional step you are going to lose some customers.”
“If you require a carpooler to have a piece of technology there is a cost associated with creating and maintaining that account that doesn’t exist now.”
Others said the privacy issue involved would also deter potential carpoolers:
“Yes, just the nature of people, there will be perceived privacy issues.”
“Yes, definitely because of privacy issues.”
There were several who commented that this would negatively impact casual carpooling:
“It could discourage casual carpooling.”
“It might because your carpool might change from week to week.”
“I think it would, because the occasional user couldn’t use it because you hadn’t signed up in advance.”
“Occasional carpools wouldn’t happen.”
June 17, 2008 57
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Those that say that it will have little or no impact cite the value of saving time as a sufficient motivator to overcome what is only a slight barrier:
“Personally I don’t think so. It would be a pretty easy process.”
“I don’t know, some people might, but I doubt if someone is willing to go through the trouble of getting a carpool partner and scheduling everything that this minor step would stop them.”
“No. I think the incentive of time savings and quality freeway service is powerful enough to overcome the concern. It’s a government agency so I trust them.”
“No I don’t. If putting a transponder in everyone’s car makes the system work smoothly, and if they to use the facility for free and it reduces cheating then I think they would be OK registering for it.”
“No. If I could save 10-15 minutes on my commute every day, guess what I am going to do.”
“No, not at all. I can’t see how. They want to save time, gas and expenses. There will always be the ‘big brother’ element out there, but there are already video cameras taping you driving down the freeway.”
“No. Carpooling on 91 Express Lanes continues to grow even though transponders are required. As long as there is demand, carpoolers will participate.”
4.2.25 Plan B Continued: Basic Photo Enforcement System Under this Plan (Plan B), SANDAG would also install a photo-enforcement system (similar to red-light camera systems now widely deployed in California). By requiring every vehicle to carry a transponder, the corridor would be able to utilize photo-enforcement technology (see accompanying graphics for camera systems in Appendix G, Handout Exhibits for Stakeholder Interviews). The following six questions relate to the use of a photo-enforcement system on I-15 in conjunction with a mandatory transponder requirement.
Do you think requiring carpoolers to carry a transponder, in order to enable the use of a photo-enforcement system, is a good idea? Why/Why not? (If No) Does the fact that photo-enforcement technology is proven to be accurate and in wide use throughout the state and elsewhere increase your confidence in this strategy? Do you think photo-enforcement of license plates would be a more effective means of enforcing carpool lanes than enforcement by CHP? Why/Why not? Do you think requiring carpoolers to carry a transponder would deter potential carpool lane violators? Why/Why not?
June 17, 2008 58
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
How strongly do you support a mandatory transponder requirement for carpools (using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Don’t support at all” and 5 being “Very strongly support”)? (If Rating of 1-3) What would have to change in order for you to support a mandatory transponder requirement for carpools?
4.2.26 Is Requiring Carpoolers to Carry a Transponder in Order to Enable the Use of a Photo-Enforcement System a Good Idea? Approximately one-third of all stakeholders (36%) believe that requiring carpoolers to carry a transponder is a good idea, but 40 percent disagree. An additional 24 percent either don’t know or gave mixed responses. Those that support the concept emphasize the ease of enforcement and that carpoolers should support it if it keeps scofflaws out of the Express Lanes:
“Yes, because it saves on the personnel cost of CHP, and improves the safety of the public by eliminating CHP officers having to pull people over on the freeway.”
“Yes, it will reduce or eliminate cheaters.”
“Yes, for the same reasons as above. Most people who carpool feel that they don’t want people driving alone being able to use the Express Lanes and not pay. So for fairness reasons they should be OK with it.”
“In my mind that’s a critical first step, so I would be supportive as it would reduce reliance on CHP officers. Freeing up officers for safety issues is important. So this would be a step in the right direction.”
“Yes because it makes enforcement vastly simpler and effective. It will also facilitate the high performance corridor strategy.”
Stakeholders who don’t support mandatory transponders, even if it allows photo-enforcement, focus on the negative impact it would have on carpooling, and think that other alternatives might work just as well without the downside of mandatory transponders:
“No. Carpoolers might find it a problem if they have to order a FasTrak® transponder. Inconvenience might be a problem. And everything adds cost.”
“No I think that’s overkill. We don’t’ want to discourage people to use the process. It makes it too difficult to enforce it and to use it.”
“No, photo enforcement could be useful without a transponder, just using the license plate.”
“There should still be one transponder; not two types. You would want to be able to pay or not pay. Carpoolers should go through a “carpool lane” to get through free. This is more enforceable.”
June 17, 2008 59
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
4.2.27 Does the Fact that Photo-Enforcement Technology is Proven to be Accurate and in Wide Use Throughout the State and Elsewhere Increase your Confidence in this Strategy? Two of the eight stakeholders that said they don’t support mandatory transponders in order to enable photo-enforcement technology indicated that knowing it is in wide use throughout the state and elsewhere increases their confidence in this strategy. However, six out of the eight did not change their opinion.
4.2.28 Do You Think Photo-Enforcement of License Plates Would be a More Effective Means of Enforcing Carpool Lanes than Enforcement by CHP? A slight majority of stakeholders (52%) believe that photo-enforcement of license plates would be a more effective means of enforcing carpool lanes than enforcement by the CHP. A significant minority of about a third (32%) disagree, and 16 percent are undecided or gave mixed responses. The primary theme among those that believe photo-enforcement is more effective is that it is there 100 percent of the time which the CHP can’t do.
“Probably it would deter a lot more people because the camera system will look at every car and the CHP can only look at a small fraction of all cars.”
“Absolutely, because it is a 24-7 operation and you are catching pretty much all of the violators.”
Those who say it won’t be more effective say it still doesn’t tell you how many people are in the car, so it will get you through even though you don’t have a legal carpool.
“For toll violations yes, but not necessarily for carpoolers because that has to be verified visually.”
“No, you’ve got to verify the number of occupants. It won’t sell to the public if it’s the only place in the state. “OK, this is an HOV lane and everywhere else in the state you can drive in it for free for nothing, but down here we’re special, you’ve got to have a transponder to use the HOV lanes.” I just don’t think that is going to sell to the public.”
“You may have the transponder lanes empty and you aren’t pushing as many vehicles through, that defeats the purpose of the managed lanes.”
“I don’t know how you do occupancy detection other than manually, you still need the CHP to count how many people are in the car.”
“With photo enforcement you are not going to see kids in the back seat, so you still need the CHP to determine if they are legal carpools, so it would help but won’t replace the CHP officers.”
June 17, 2008 60
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“Probably it would deter a lot more people because the camera system will look at every car and the CHP can only look at a small fraction of all cars.”
4.2.29 Do You Think Requiring Carpoolers To Carry A Transponder Would Deter Potential Carpool Lane Violators? Although only 36 percent say that mandatory transponders are a good idea, three-quarters of all stakeholders agree that requiring carpoolers to carry a transponder would deter potential carpool lane violators. The rationale for their responses mirror the previous question with those who say it will deter violators noting that automated systems are there 100 percent of the time. Those that say it won’t deter violators note that taking a picture of their license plate won’t determine if there are two or more people in the vehicle, so it wouldn’t be effective at stopping scofflaws.
4.2.30 Support for Mandatory Transponder Requirement for Carpools on a 1-5 Scale? After discussing the potential for photo-enforcement with required transponders for carpoolers, a slight majority of 52 percent rated their support for a mandatory transponder requirement as a positive ‘4’ or ‘5.’ An additional 31 percent gave negative ratings of ‘1’ or ‘2,’ and 17 percent provided a neutral rating of ‘3.’ Elected officials were the least sanguine about this concept with three out of five indicating the lowest support rating of ‘1’ and only one providing a positive rating of ‘4.’
4.2.31 What Would Have to Change in Order to Support Mandatory Transponders? Those that provided ratings of 1 to 3 were asked what would have to change in order for them to support a mandatory transponder requirement. The primary areas of focus were on not discouraging carpoolers, particularly casual carpoolers, and coming up with alternative technologies to accomplish the goal. All responses to this question are provided below:
“Nothing, it depends what the goal or what the business model is, if there are a lot of casual carpoolers then its a bad idea, but if it is all regular carpoolers then probably OK.”
“Get rid of the deposit if that is the barrier to signing up. Don’t discourage the use of the facility by carpoolers.”
“I’d like to see the system built out and finished, and that having a mandatory transponder would not decrease the use of the carpool lanes by those that might not want that transponder. I don’t want to create a disincentive to use it for legitimate purposes.”
“The convenience of how people get it. If you make people do an application and it takes time and effort then it’s a problem. We want to encourage people to carpool. So make it as simple and easy as possible, that’s the only thing that will help. Not sure that would make me support it though.”
“It is still a problem for casual carpoolers.”
June 17, 2008 61
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“If photo enforcement wouldn’t work and it was the only option.”
“SANDAG has to find a new technology. I can’t support it.”
“The rest of the state would have to adopt the same thing.”
“If all vehicles were manufactured with people counters in the car already, so there was no cost or administrative hassle.”
“Alternatively you could put a chip on the drivers license. Reconsider the use of a static chip bag to protect the transponder from getting charged if they are a valid carpool. Currently many people don’t take it out of the chip bag when they should.”
“I think what would have to change is that transponder somehow connected with the ability to detect other occupants, and that is a long way away.”
“If somehow we could solve the problem with the people who have the opportunity to solve the problem of occasional carpoolers. We need to make that possible for them.”
“I don’t see it totally resolving the problem, but there should be an automated system like the red light cameras which could do the whole thing on an automated basis. In other words eliminate the need for the CHP to be involved.”
“A cost benefit analysis of enforcement costs to violations.”
4.2.32 Plan C: Automated Occupancy Detection Systems The third and final strategy that SANDAG is considering (Plan C) entails the use of a roadside camera system that would verify the number of persons inside the vehicle. At least two commercial camera systems have been developed—one uses infrared and the other visible light—that have the potential to accurately determine the number of occupants inside a vehicle. These technologies appear capable of discerning whether a physical form is human or non-human, such as a dummy. If successfully tested, this type of technology has the potential to largely automate the enforcement of occupancy rules (see accompanying graphics for automated infrared system in Appendix G, Handout Exhibits for Stakeholder Interviews). The following questions were asked of stakeholders after reviewing this approach:
Do you have any concerns about this strategy (Plan C)? If so, what are your concerns? Do you think that collecting information about the number of passengers in a vehicle using cameras is an invasion of an individual’s right to privacy? Why/Why not? (If either of previous two questions = YES) If SANDAG’s policy was clearly to not use the images to determine a person’s identity, or other distinguishing characteristics of the vehicle’s driver or passengers, would that address your concerns? Why/Why not?
June 17, 2008 62
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Do you think that collecting information about the number of passengers in a vehicle by CHP officers’ visual inspection of the vehicles as they drive by is an invasion of an individual’s right to privacy? Why/Why not? Do you have any health-related concerns regarding the use of infrared technology? Why/Why not? Do you think the existence of an automated vehicle occupancy system would deter potential carpool lane violators? Why/Why not? How strongly do you support the use of an automated occupancy detection system (using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Don’t support at all” and 5 being “Very strongly support”? (IF = 1-3) What would have to change in order for you to support an automated HOV enforcement system? 4.2.33 Concerns About Plan C Strategy Two-thirds (67%) of stakeholders had some type of concern with the Plan C approach of fully automated people counting and citation for carpool violations. The concerns focused primarily on about whether the technology will work at an extremely high level of reliability, and to a much lesser extent, privacy and health concerns:
4.2.33.1 Reliability “My concern is about the technology working. If it is completely reliable then I support it. We are very interested in this technology.”
“Does it really work? What is the error rate?”
“The # 1 concern is from a technological standpoint. I’m not sure it’s really there yet particularly for backseat riders. There are not any systems in commercial production yet. There is also the legal / privacy issue. People would be uncomfortable about photographs of people in their car.”
“My only concern is the reliability of the technology. It must be tested and proven before it is used. It would be best to test it somewhere else rather than using the I-15 as a guinea pig.”
“I do have concerns about it working. It would have to work very close to 100% of the time. It could require an enormous amount of manual double-checking, and I think the public would be less accepting of this.”
“As long as there no health hazards, it shows unquestionably how many people are in the car, it eliminates the need for transponders, and if the courts are willing to hold it up, then it might be a workable deal.”
June 17, 2008 63
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“Using new technology as a sole verifier is too close to the bleeding edge for a public agency. It should be done in concert with a transponder with a geographic solution, otherwise you are open to challenges.”
“The only concern is that the camera/sensor technology be demonstrated to be effective. As long as that it true, it sounds good to me.”
“I like the concept, but since we don’t have systems operating like that in the US, I would want to make sure that they work accurately. Automated enforcement of HOV occupancy is a goal of the CHP. We haven’t seen a system in operation yet but we do want it to work.”
4.2.33.2 Health “Health, does it affect pacemakers? It depends on what you are aiming at people’s eyes.”
“Probably the biggest concern is what the general public would consider x-rays that might hurt them; a misconception that the infrared might be dangerous.”
4.2.33.3 Privacy “Yes, privacy; if you use visible light you have to email it to them and destroy everything when it’s done. The data must be immediately given to the defendant and then thrown away when they get their money.”
“If you were certain that it would work with accuracy, it would be hard not to support something like that. We were told by our administration not to test something like this because of personal privacy issues.”
4.2.34 Concerns about Privacy Counting Passengers Using Cameras Only one stakeholder voiced any concern about using automated camera system to count passengers in support of carpool regulations. Even with this participant the concern was relatively mild.
“Good question. It’s borderline, somewhat yes.”
The remaining 94 percent had no concerns about using an automated camera system for passenger counting. Most held that the freeway is a public place, and therefore there is not an expectation of privacy. Further, using the Express Lanes is a matter of choice, so they are not required to expose themselves to the possibility of having their picture taken. Some mentioned the similarity to the red-light program which has worked, and others like the use of infrared which does not produce a standard picture. Samples of representative comments are as follows:
4.2.34.1 Public Venue “No, because of the public interest in the freeway operation.”
“No because they are using a public road.”
June 17, 2008 64
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“No, because you are on a public street.”
4.2.34.2 Choice of Use “No, because we are not forcing them to use that lane. If they are worried about their privacy don’t drive the carpool lane.”
“No. If it is being done only to determine the number of people in the vehicle then it is not a problem. They have to accept they are being checked to use the lanes. It is no different than the CHP checking.”
“No, you are not private when you are on a public road. There is no assumption of privacy.”
“No; because it’s an option; they can use the regular lanes if they don’t want to play ball.”
“I think it could be perceived that way. But the driver has to make the trade off between having the photo and using the Express Lanes for a faster trip.”
“No because they are using the carpool lane. If there are special requirements to use the lane, then we have a right to check.”
“No because they have entered into a contract with clearly posted rules and enforcement of those rules when you enter that facility. It seems to be fair to me.”
“No I don’t because they are using a carpool lane and that is the cost of the privilege, since they have a choice of using it.”
“No I don’t think it is. It is a public facility and in order to provide safety that is one of the things we need.”
4.2.34.3 Red-Light “No not really. We do that with the red light camera enforcement. They actually take a video now.”
“The same question comes up on the stop-light signals. I’m not sure that they are effective either, but no problem with privacy.”
4.2.35 Change in Concern About Privacy if Cameras Not Used for Personal Identification The single stakeholder that was concerned about using cameras to count passengers was not assuaged by the reassurance that the information would not be used for personal identification:
“No, because it’s still out there being analyzed and looked at.”
June 17, 2008 65
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
4.2.36 Concerns about Privacy Counting Passengers by CHP Officers None of the stakeholders felt that passenger counting by visual inspection of a CHP Officer was an invasion of an individual’s rights.
4.2.37 Health Related Concerns with Automated Camera System None of the stakeholders felt the automated camera systems were significant health concerns although most had not thought about it before hearing the question, and assumed that adequate health studies would be conducted before the system was put into operation.
4.2.38 Impact of Automated Camera System on Deterring Carpool Lane Violators 100 percent of stakeholders believe an automated camera system that counts passengers in vehicles will deter carpool lane violators, subject to the concern that it works reliably including backseat passengers. Their key point is that it is a 24-7 system rather than the more intermittent enforcement that can be provided by the CHP.
“Definitely because it works all the time.”
“If it was accurate, proven, and could be advertised so people will see it as an active deterrent, then yes.”
“Absolutely, because with automated systems people know they are running 24-7 and the most effective deterrent is knowing they will get caught. With an automated system they know they will.”
One stakeholder, while agreeing that it would deter violators, noted that no system will be completely foolproof, and that scofflaws might find a way to beat the system.
“It is going to deter them. It will also create a market in countermeasures to defeat them. So it will deter but not completely.”
4.2.39 Support for Automated Occupancy Detection System on a 1-5 Scale? Only two of the 24 stakeholders who voiced an opinion provided a negative rating of ‘1’ or ‘2’ for an automated occupancy detection system. All others provided ‘4’s or ‘5’s (note group ratings were averaged, with averages of X.5 or higher rounded up to then next whole number). Several of the stakeholders did, however, make their positive rating conditional on excellent performance of the system.
“4 if it works.”
“4 if all the technical issues solved: reliable.”
“5, conditional on reliability of the system.”
“5, conditional on reliability of the system.”
June 17, 2008 66
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“4 if proven to work, still need some CHP.”
“5 assuming that it works well.”
4.2.40 What Would Have to Change to Support an Automated Occupancy Detection System? For the two stakeholders who provided ratings of 1-3, one was concerned about privacy and the other about performance and ease of use. Their specific comments follow:
“I support the tags, but not the imaging on record, so eliminating the recording of images.”
“Extreme ease, guaranteed no breakdown, and 100% detection of violators.”
4.2.41 General/Closing Questions In the closing section of the interview we asked the stakeholders about the big picture issues and any recommendations that they might have to ensure the effective and fair implementation of the violation enforcement system. The four specific questions are listed below:
Do you think the public would support a proposal to implement an HOV enforcement system that is less dependent on the CHP? Why/Why not? What do you see as the most important issues in implementing a violation enforcement system or program? Why is that important? Do you believe any of the strategies we’ve discussed today would be unfair or put undue burden on any particular group(s)? Please explain how you feel these groups would be affected? Do you have any other comments about violation enforcement systems?
4.2.42 Would the Public Support a Proposal to Implement an HOV Enforcement System That is Less Dependent on the CHP? All but three stakeholders indicated that the public would ultimately support a proposal to implement an HOV enforcement system that is less dependent on the CHP. For the three stakeholders who didn’t fully agree, one said they didn’t know and the other two indicated that there would be lots of skepticism and education would be required to convince the public:
“Skepticism around red-light cameras would occur here. You would certainly need to do some marketing about how this works. For the red-light program they had signs and warning tickets in the beginning.”
“Not sure, the physical presence of the CHP provides psychological support. With technology we wonder whether the cameras are working, so the presence of CHP is
June 17, 2008 67
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
good. There would have to be a transition when people’s natural skepticism is overcome.”
Those that said that the public would support a more automated system indicated that they would support it because it frees up the CHP to focus more on safety issues, it saves the taxpayers money, and it will do a better job of enforcing the regulations.
4.2.43 Frees Up CHP for More Important Work “If there is an understanding that we are going to be out there enforcing safety laws instead of toll violations I think it would be positive. We are short of staffing so it would assist us.”
“I think they would because people believe that the CHP should spend their time going after more important “crimes” rather than enforcing occupancy rules.”
“Absolutely because they understand it will free up the CHP to work on more serious hazards like reckless driving and they understand that the automated enforcement will be more effective in catching the violators. They would rather have CHP officers go after drunk drivers than carpool lane scofflaws.”
4.2.44 Saves Money “Yes, because seeing the red-light enforcement systems, people are beginning to appreciate that you can do enforcement effectively at a lower cost.”
“I think the public would support it because they understand that there is a significant cost in having the patrol out there, and they understand that cheaters are not welcome and technology can help eliminate that.”
“If it takes less time and money, then I think people will support it.”
“They will support systems that save taxpayers dollars.”
4.2.45 Improves Enforcement of Regulations “Yes because the public likes fairness and doesn’t like people getting away without paying tolls, and the strongest support will come from people using the facility.”
“Yes, because people don’t like scofflaws, so if there is an enforcement system, and they feel confident about it, then it will be a good idea.”
“Yes. The public supports using technology to see that the rules are obeyed. The vast majority obey the rules and want to see that the others do too.”
“I think so, if it results in better enforcement of the rules.”
June 17, 2008 68
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Others noted that it will require public education to be sure people understand how the system works in order to secure their support.
4.2.46 Requires Education “Yes if it is introduced in a manner that assures people that it will be fair and that they will be subject to it only if they are claiming a special privilege, which is to ride free in the managed lane. Marketing and PR around this are critical. It will have to be handled very carefully.”
“Yes, but the public would have to be educated about the systems reliability and safety.”
4.2.47 Most Important Issues in Implementation of a Violation Enforcement System Stakeholders were asked what they see as the most important issues to the effective and fair implementation of a violation enforcement system. Everyone had useful comments in response to this question. Since many participants addressed multiple issues they have not been categorized, but presented as given. Key issues that were brought up by multiple stakeholders include:
Ensure that the system is extremely reliable and will hold up in court. Excellent education and communication with the motoring public. Pay attention to the details and build a flexible system that can change as we learn more about how it operates with the human element. Make sure it can adapt to keep it working effectively. Have the political will to carry it through; there will be challenges and complaints when the system is introduced. Address the environmental justice and privacy issues by making it possible to set up transponder account without a credit card account or providing personal information (cash accounts). 4.2.48 The Verbatim Comments Are as Follows: “Political will is a critical issue elected officials and transportation agency officials will get gun-shy because of how the public might react.”
“You must also be able to set up an account for a transponder so that there are not equity issues.”
“All scenarios must be well thought through because it gets complicated. You might leave gray areas where people might fight it. You need to look at every possibility and see how it will be addressed. No system will cover 100% of everything. For example, human error using the HOV Vs the FasTrak® transponder accidentally.”
June 17, 2008 69
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“It must also be reliable so people have confidence in it and people feel they are being treated fairly. The hardest part is what is the right amount of enforcement so that there is a low violation rate, but that enforcement isn’t so overbearing that it discourages people from using the facility. It has to be balanced.”
“From an operator’s standpoint the technology has to be affordable and you still need the CHP to be there some of the time.”
“Keep your public involved. Nothing else.”
“It’s got to be fair, and the technology has to work. The red-light cameras had to be changed three times until they were reliable. If we an automated system that works half the time and costs a lot of money and everyone is protesting their tickets, then that’s a problem. But I think the bugs can be worked out to make it work.”
“It can’t be too complicated or they won’t use it.”
“Public education, having something that is reliable and will hold up in court. How you set up enforcement points. It all has to be operating at a high level, and that will make the public understand and accept it.”
“To keep people informed of what they are going to have to do, like having to get a transponder, make sure that they have plenty of time to do it. i.e. let them know what you are planning.”
“The most important issues are having reliable proven technology, good public education, and adequate signage. With the red light cameras the people need to know that they are there. Similarly they need to know before they get into the carpool lane that there is an automated enforcement system.”
“We need to move more people and fewer cars. We need good enforcement to achieve the goal of less congestion.”
“Making sure the system is robust and accurate so that there is not a lot of human verification of results required. It is important because if it is not accurate, it will tie up the court system and form a basis for throwing the tickets out.”
“The legalities; reliability has to be foolproof or it won’t work in court.”
“Cost; why should we sink all this money into it?”
“Cost; don’t waste money. A public outreach effort to get everybody with the program so it is successful.”
June 17, 2008 70
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“Public acceptance. Adequate resources by the enforcing agency; if there is a high violation rate then we need to have more officers out there balancing the level of problem with the resources to address it.”
“Flexibility to confront both operational concerns and countermeasures to defeat the system so that the system will continue to work. Since this will be one of the first ones and if very futuristic, don’t invest in something that won’t work, make sure you can adapt to keep it working effectively.”
“Preventing cheating so the system works and is fair.”
“Creating rules that are consumer friendly and then communicating these rules effectively, because this is a public facility. Tolls are just another way of paying other than gas taxes, you have roads because people need to get places, so the enforcement shouldn’t defeat the original purpose of getting people places.”
“It cannot degrade the safety of the public or the people who are enforcing the policy and/or taking tolls.”
“It must be fair and equitable. (Self evident why).”
“It must reduce dependence on officers, so that they can focus their time on safety related issues.”
“Cost effectiveness of reducing violation rate. Public perception of "fairness. Respect for concerns for some about privacy issues and handling that in a way that doesn’t fuel a fire of concerns about these issues. Finally attention to equity of access to low income issues. Care needs to be taken to ensure that low income workers that may not have bank accounts or credit cards still have an opportunity to set up an anonymous cash account or some kind of cash account so that they are not excluded. There may even need to be a subsidy so it is not a barrier to low income people using the carpool.”
“Public outreach and media communication strategies need to be something that gets a lot of attention, saying that it is a high performance corridor that provides better choices. If you are putting these systems in to reduce cheating then you are enhancing fairness. You need to focus on fairness.”
“You have to have the right technology and back office systems, and corporate culture, and the right contractors representing you. When you have contractors that don’t deliver the desire of the agency, you have unhappy customers.”
“Providing enforcement authorities with good technology, support and a court system that will back them up, good communication between the Highway Patrol and the enforcement agencies. Working together (operating and enforcement agencies)
June 17, 2008 71
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
towards mutually beneficial objectives towards a common goal. This is required to make it work effectively. This has enabled us to reduce the violations level and the accident level. Need to have a good team spirit.”
“Bring the courts on line for more consistent enforcement. Some say three months no activity, some say six months before they uphold a citation.”
“Education about how it works how they will be detected and how it will be enforced and the consequences of breaking the law. So that they know why its there and that they can’t cheat.”
“It must be widely publicized to the public, and that it is designed to detect all violators, so public education is a key component. If you don’t educate them then they will still think they can beat the system. If there is a weak point in the system people will exploit it.”
“It has to be one that the public has confidence in. The red light program has serious problems when it stated out. The people are going to have to prove that the technology is close to infallible, otherwise it wouldn’t be successful. It took a year and a half to get the red light program fixed and it is still coming back today.”
“It must be a system that works with a minimum amount of effort required by the public. It must be very dependable.”
4.2.49 Would Any of These Strategies be Unfair or Put Undue Burden on any Particular Groups? A majority of the respondents that answered this question indicated that they do not think that these strategies will be unfair or put an undue burden on any group. However a large minority did voice a concern that requiring a transponder would represent an undue burden for carpoolers, particularly infrequent carpoolers and tourists.
4.2.49.1 No Concern “Not that I can think of.”
“No.”
“No, but some of the strategies might make a lot of work, like the one where they check the SANDAG database using MDTs.”
“No.”
“No I don’t.”
“I don’t think so.”
June 17, 2008 72
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“No, I believe the equity issue can be raised after raising pricing. It may be unfair to people who have to be at work on a fixed schedule and can’t afford it. There are lots of issues, but it’s not a program stopper.”
“No.”
“Assuming we are beyond the point of caring about Lexus Lanes, no. Not in a racial, sexual discrimination sort of way, but if anything deters the formation of carpools which is the reason the lanes were created, there is an element of unfairness there. I would hope that that impact would be minor.”
“No.”
“I can’t think of any.”
“No, if you are going to use the lanes, you accept that there are certain requirements that come with the lanes.”
“Yes scofflaws. Other than that, no. FasTrak® is available to everyone. This hasn’t been an issue anywhere.”
4.2.49.2 Undue Burden on Carpoolers “Requiring carpoolers to carry transponders is a burden.”
“If they make the transponder mandatory, that may put an undue burden on some people, but other than that no.”
“Transponders for carpoolers would be a big burden. It would drive people to the general purpose lanes and put a burden on the corridor that we don’t need.”
“Yes on the carpoolers if required transponders because they would have to sign up and have to go through all the hoops to get a transponder. It also puts an undue burden on tourists visiting the area.”
“The only thing that concerns me is the mandatory transponder requirement. I’m not supportive of that unless someone convinces me that the cost benefit convincingly shows that you need it keep people from getting on the road.”
“Just requiring carpools to have a transponder puts an undue burden on that group, especially occasional carpoolers. That would be an awkward requirement, and there would be awkward enforcement issues. It may even put an added burden on the enforcement agencies.”
“Anything that requires a transponder for everybody will be a burden on people who do not need it now; particularly infrequent users.”
June 17, 2008 73
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
4.2.49.3 Environmental Justice Concerns “If you require carpoolers to have a deposit, then you could run into some issues with environmental justice. People might be discouraged from participating.”
“There is a risk if you have to have a bank account or credit card then it could pose equity issues for lower income workers, but these are issues that can be addressed though careful design.”
“No, I don’t think so. If there is a cost to get a transponder, then the haves can do it and it’s harder for the have nots. If the issue is you can’t afford one then that’s a potential problem.”
4.2.50 Additional Comments As this was a completely open question the comments cover a wide range of recommendations with only one common thread being addressed by three or more stakeholders. The one comment that came up most often was making sure that the system is essentially foolproof before putting it into operation. The other comments were essentially unique and are listed below those concerned about it being foolproof.
4.2.50.1 Make Sure It Works “It needs to be as foolproof as possible, as simple as possible – should be seamless. If there are problems then we’re asking for a lot of problems. We have to have complete confidence in the technology.”
“If the technology isn’t reliable then you have to stay with plan A and increase the enforcement to get the rates down. Is there a way to use the revenue collected to increase enforcement?”
“Just be extremely thorough before you put anything on the DMV data base. Be 100% sure it’s correct.”
“The future of automated occupancy enforcement is probably going to be more on air- bag sensors rather than roadside cameras, although it is 10-15 years off.”
“Put a bunch of money into making sure the fully automated systems work well.”
“We just need to make sure that whatever we do is proven technology and third party verification of it works. If the CHP questions the efficacy of the technology then it’s a big problem. Someone needs to validate it first.”
4.2.50.2 Other “Enforceability, consistency, easy to understand signage so you know what you are paying, accuracy and safety.”
June 17, 2008 74
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“Tell public officials what the numbers are so that they appreciate the magnitude of the problem. If people know that enforcement isn’t thorough they will beat the system.”
“Do it before we do it so we can learn from it.”
“I think the idea of putting a tag in every car is essential and then after that they can expand on the technology as it develops.”
“Some of the strategies might make a lot of work like the one where they check the SANDAG dataset MDTs.”
“My advice is the separation between the managed and general purpose lanes. There must be barriers or we are creating an extremely dangerous situation, particularly with automated systems people may swerve out of the managed lanes to try to avoid the cameras with big differences in speed between the managed lanes and general lanes resulting in accidents. Expecting that people will obey double-yellow lines knowing they will get caught and fined if hey go through the camera area is not realistic.”
“Position it as a high tech road that can move more people than a traditional freeway and frees up the CHP to provide enforcement on more safety related crimes.”
“One of the things you want to be sure of is that you do whatever you can to avoid RF tag readers that interfere with each other. You need to set it up so the reader in lane A doesn’t accidentally read the vehicle in lane B instead A.”
“Recommend option A with mobile transponder readers and the CHP still out there. They may need more CHP out there; it is the presence, not the technology that makes the difference.”
“If you are so confident in the transponders, why not use them for speeding too; where do you draw the line?”
“Kicking more people out of the managed lanes won’t help. It is working now. If it fails then do something different.”
“In any case you will need the CHP for the buffered zone because people will be weaving in and out to avoid the camera.”
“You would probably need to be sure you do Spanish language outreach to be sure they understand the regulations and how to get a transponder if they need one.”
“In San Diego last week I came up with idea to make it easier for CHP to enforce regulations, instead of pulling people over, they could install cameras on the vehicles
June 17, 2008 75
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
and then they could issue citations without pulling the vehicle over. It would be motorcycles only because they could pull right next to the car and see in easily. It would also require enforcing the window tinting laws.”
“I’m very worried about the number of transponders out there and the operating cost associated with that. The selection of transponder technology is key.”
“No, as long as they are consistent, and SANDAG does tend to be consistent. It’s important that anyone who is a visitor to the area, that if they drive on a carpool lane without a transponder they should just get a warning letter and a FasTrak® application.”
“The purpose of roads is not just to generate money, but to get people places. Consumer friendly, consumer friendly, consumer friendly.”
“No I think I have given you all my comments.”
“Have more discussions like this when the system is fully designed. Have folks like myself involved in the contractor selection process. We can help.”
“We’ve given the Highway Patrol a tough job, but we’ve given them the tools to do it and a facility that enables them to do it (single entrance/exit). That’s what you should do.”
“You can’t eliminate the law enforcement component, but the more technology you have to enforce the rules the more time we will have for safety related enforcement. It would also improve the compliance rate.”
“It is long overdue. It is appropriate to make sure that it works so that people who cheat aren’t subsidized by the honest people.”
“No.”
4.3 Stakeholder Interviews Key Findings and Recommendations
4.3.1 Key Findings
Stakeholders were generally unaware and surprised by the level of violations on the I-15 Express Lanes. Most stakeholders feel $341 is enough to serve as a deterrent, that it is enforcement that needs to be increased to reduce violations. This suggests that positioning the automated system to reduce violations will receive more support than increasing fines.
June 17, 2008 76
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Stakeholders believe that CHP personnel would be better served trying to catch speeders and drunk drivers than enforcing Express Lane violations, but that without CHP enforcement, the system would cease to function properly. There is little support from elected officials, transportation planners, public interest groups or the CHP for changing policies (only drivers counting towards carpool occupancy, or making passengers sit in the front seat to facilitate counting) to make enforcement easier. Although some recognize the potential value that this might have reducing vehicles on the road, they believe it is a political ‘non-starter’ because it creates classes of people and could have safety repercussions. They believe that policy should drive technology rather than the other way around. Plan B: Mandatory Transponder Requirement, had some supporters, but some of the respondents voiced concerns with the requirement. These concerns included: o Reducing carpooling in general because it requires additional work on the part of carpoolers, o Reducing carpooling because of privacy concerns of carpoolers, o Essentially eliminating casual / occasional carpooling (including visitors) because they would not have signed up in advance, o Evoke a backlash because it would be taking something away from carpoolers, o By itself, it doesn’t guarantee that the registered carpool will in fact have two or more people in the vehicle when using the facility, o It would require two transponders which would be confusing and too prone to human error to be practical.
These issues should be addressed in the subsequent phone survey to secure quantitative feedback.
Mandatory registration and transponders for carpoolers was perceived by most stakeholders as a less attractive alternative than automated occupancy detection systems should that technology prove feasible, due to its potential to automatically detect the number of vehicle occupants without requiring any registration or transponder purchase. Fully automated occupancy detection systems were positively received by stakeholders recognizing that they could potentially save money and free up CHP Officers to focus on safety related issues. Automated enforcement was also perceived to be more effective at catching and eliminating violators because of its 24-7 presence. The biggest concern with this strategy is that it works with near 100 percent reliability so that citations will hold up in court. Privacy and environmental justice issues should be addressed in subsequent quantitative research. Health is less of a concern, but should also be assessed in the quantitative survey if time permits to determine the extent to which this needs to be addressed in public education efforts.
June 17, 2008 77
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
4.3.2 Recommendations
Because stakeholders including many elected officials are surprised at the level of violations, this should be emphasized when communicating the magnitude of the enforcement problem to key influentials and the media. The conflicting concerns that the CHP’s time would be better spent catching speeders and drunk drivers rather than enforcing Express Lane regulations, and also that the whole system would stop working without enforcement, provide a strong communications point in support of enforcement methodologies that free up the CHP to perform more critical public safety activities. Potential policy changes such as only potential drivers counting towards carpool occupancy, or making passengers sit in the front seat to facilitate counting are perceived to be political non-starters and as such should be dropped from consideration. Fully automated occupancy detection systems should be pursued since stakeholders believe that they could potentially save money, free up CHP time for more safety-related issues, and be more effective catching and eliminating violators by providing a 24-7 enforcement. Support is contingent, however, on evidence the system will work with near 100 percent reliability and will hold up in the courts, so appropriate testing is critical to successful implementation. Privacy and environmental justice concerns were voiced by stakeholders and these will need to be effectively addressed in communications efforts. Based on the recommendations above, the violation rate target, the appropriate use of CHP time, the mandatory transponder requirement, automated occupancy counting systems, and privacy and environmental justice concerns should all be included with relevant survey questions in the subsequent quantitative research.
June 17, 2008 78
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.0 TELEPHONE & SUPPLEMENTAL INTERCEPT SURVEY
5.1 Telephone Survey Background and Methodology
5.1.1 Introduction The telephone surveys are one component of a comprehensive outreach program designed to effectively identify and understand all issues related to the I-15 Express Lane Violation Enforcement System (VES). The outreach program includes focus groups, stakeholder interviews, intercept surveys and telephone surveys. The results of the program will help drive the underlying policy development and system requirements for the proposed I-15 Managed Lanes VES. Specific outreach objectives include:
Identification of all important issues related to enforcement policies, Assessment of support for automated VES vs. traditional manned systems, Identification of specific issues relative to alternative systems, and Assessing overall preference for automated vs. manual enforcement and preferred automated systems. The previously conducted focus groups and stakeholder interviews are qualitative research methods which are the most effective way to comprehensively identify issues related to violation enforcement, and secure an understanding of the varying perspectives provided by different interest groups. The intercept and telephone surveys build on this qualitative research by providing quantitative feedback on the opinions and attitudes related to the issues previously identified in the focus groups and stakeholder interviews.
The primary target audiences include three key groups; HOV lane carpoolers who use the Express Lanes for free (includes vanpoolers and express bus riders), FasTrak® users that use the Express Lanes by paying a toll, and general-purpose lanes users that commute on the I-15 corridor but do not generally use the Express Lanes. Each of these three target audiences have unique perspectives on the issues related to violation enforcement on the Express Lanes.
The purpose of the telephone surveys is to secure feedback from individuals that have an interest or stake in the I-15 violation enforcement system policies as part of their daily use of the I-15 corridor in their capacity as car or vanpoolers, express bus riders, FasTrak® express lane users, or general-purpose lane users. The telephone surveys provide quantitative feedback on the level of support for alternative options and provide guidance for appropriate communication programs to improve acceptance of an automated violation system to support enforcement on the expanded Express Lane corridor.
5.1.2 Purpose The purpose of the telephone surveys is to secure feedback from individuals that have an interest or stake in the I-15 violation enforcement system policies as part of their daily use of the I-15 corridor in their capacity as car or vanpoolers, express bus riders, FasTrak® express lane users, or general-purpose lane
June 17, 2008 79
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
users. The telephone surveys provide quantitative feedback on the level of support for alternative options and provide guidance for appropriate communication programs to improve acceptance of an automated violation system to support enforcement on the expanded Express Lane corridor.
5.1.3 Methodology
5.1.3.1 Target Audiences and Sampling Design There are three primary target audiences that each offer varying perspectives on changes in violation enforcement programs; HOV lane carpoolers who use the Express Lanes for free (includes vanpoolers and express bus riders), FasTrak® users that use the Express Lanes by paying a toll, and general-purpose lanes users that commute on the I-15 corridor but do not generally use the Express Lanes.
The car and vanpoolers were randomly selected using a list from SANDAG’s RideLink database with a small supplemental list from the Transit E-Store pass-by-mail databank. FasTrak® users were reached using SANDAG’s FasTrak® database. And the general-purpose lane users were reached using a random digit dialing sample for households in the target region (see zip code map in Figure 1-2 in the Executive Summary). The SANDAG RideLink, Transit E-Store and FasTrak® databases were also screened to limit respondents to the target zip code area.
5.1.3.2 Development of the Telephone Survey Instrument Both the focus groups and stakeholder interviews were used to identify key issues and concerns impacting acceptance of an automated violation enforcement system. The focus groups (one held with each of the three targeted phone sample groups), provide the unique perspectives for each respective group. In addition, they provided appropriate ‘consumer language’ to help ensure that the survey instrument is free of technical language and questions and clearly understandable by the general public.
Redhill Group developed an initial draft survey instrument and submitted it for review and comments to the SANDAG management team. A revised survey instrument was then pretested with the general public to ensure that all questions were clearly and consistently understood and the survey instrument was effectively eliciting the desired in formation. A copy of the telephone survey instrument is attached to the report as Appendix I.
5.1.3.3 Conduct of Surveys All surveying was conducted in Redhill Group’s call center in Irvine, California. Prior to surveying all surveyors participated in a two-hour training session outlining the objectives of the project and going through the survey instrument question by question to identify any points of potential confusion that needed to be clarified. Surveyors then conducted the survey off-line with each other to learn the flow of the survey and further familiarize themselves with question wording. Finally, surveys were pretested with the general public to identify any questions where the wording could be improved to enhance respondent comprehension. Based on this pretest, a pretest report was submitted to SANDAG with minor recommended wording changes. Upon acceptance of the recommended changes by the SANDAG Project Manager, surveying began.
June 17, 2008 80
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Surveying was conducted between 5:00 and 9:00 PM on weekdays, and between 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM on weekends. The survey was also translated into Spanish and conducted in either English or Spanish at the preference of each individual respondent.
The sample size for each survey was a minimum of 300 with 300 completed for the general-purpose lane users, 315 for HOV users, and 316 for FasTrak® users. A sample size of 300 provides reporting accuracy of + 3.4 – 5.7 percent at a 95 percent confidence level, the industry standard for consumer research. Surveys were conducted between August 27th and October 15th, 2007.Perceptions of Carpool Violation Rates and Assessment of Current Policies
All respondents were screened to ensure that they travel on I-15 most days or at least once per week. FasTrak® users were further screened to ensure they use the Express Lanes most days or at least once a week, and HOV users were screened to ensure that they carpool, vanpool or ride transit most days or at least once a week. Respondents that met the screening criteria were then given a brief overview of the expansion plans for the I-15 Corridor as follows:
“The Express Lanes in the center of I-15 are being expanded to 20 miles long with four lanes for carpools, buses and solo drivers who have to pay a toll.
The longer Express Lanes will require additional entrance and exit points which will complicate law enforcement.
I’d like to ask for your feedback on potential enforcement policies and methods for carpool regulation on the expanded lanes.”
5.2 Telephone Survey Findings
5.2.1 Carpool Violation Rates The level of surprise at the current carpool violation rate of five to 15 percent is consistent across the three groups with roughly one-third saying they are surprised, and two-thirds saying they are not. General- purpose lane users are slightly more surprised at 34 percent, and FasTrak® users are least surprised at 28 percent, with HOV users in the middle at 31 percent.
June 17, 2008 81
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Figure 5-1: Response to Violation Rates
The Current Carpool Violation Rate on the I-15 Express Lanes is Estimated to be Between five and 15 percent of All Vehicles. Does that Surprise You?
72% 80% 66% 69% 60% 34% 31% 40% 28% 20%
0%
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
Yes No
5.2.2 Acceptable Violation Rates Although over two-thirds of respondents are not surprised by the current level of Express Lane violations, two-thirds of all three groups also believe an acceptable violation rate is five percent or less, with 38 percent of general-purpose lane users, 39 percent of the HOV segment and 42 percent of FasTrak® users saying that there should not be any violations. The current rate of violation is acceptable by only nine percent of the general-purpose lane users, eight percent of the HOV segment, and 11 percent of FasTrak® users.
Figure 5-2: Perceptions of Acceptable Violation Rate What Would You Consider to be an Acceptable Violation Rate?
50% 38% 39% 42% 40%
30% 21% 22% 21% 20% 9%9%9% 9% 9% 11% 12% 12% 8%6% 8% 8% 10% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1-2% 3-5% Under 10% Current rate Other Don't know
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
June 17, 2008 82
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.3 Are Fines an Effective Deterrent? Nearly three-fourths of all groups believe that imposing fines does deter people from using the express lanes illegally. Four percent of the general-purpose lane users and five percent each of the HOV and FasTrak® groups said they were not sure.
Figure 5-3: Does Risk of Fines Deter Illegal Use of Express Lanes
Do You Feel That the Risk of Being Fined Keeps People From Using
the Express Lanes Illegally?
100% 78% 71% 70% 80% 60% 40% 18% 24% 25% 20% 4% 5% 5% 0% General Purpose HOV FasTrak
Yes No Don't know
5.2.4 Appropriateness of the Current $341 Minimum Fine Amount The majority of general-purpose lane users, HOV and FasTrak® groups believe that the current carpool violation fine of $341 is about right. The percentage of each group that thinks the fine is too low (17 to 20%), is similar to the percentage that think it is too high (16 to 22 percent).
Figure 5-4: Is $341 Too Low or High?
Do You Think a Fine of $341 is Too Low, Too High or About Right?
70% 57% 57% 62% 60% 50% 40% 30% 17% 19% 21% 22% 21% 20% 16% 10% 3% 2% 1% 0%
Too low Too high About right Don't know
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
June 17, 2008 83
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.5 Privacy Issues
5.2.5.1 Infrared Cameras After securing feedback on current violation rates and fines, respondents were given the following introduction about enforcement challenges:
“CHP enforcement of the Express Lanes is expensive and it’s hard to tell how many people are inside the vehicle. Because of this current methods catch less than one percent of all violators.
New infrared camera systems that count the number of people inside each vehicle may be able to catch over 90 percent of all violators.”
Respondents were then told that we were going to read them a list of both positive and negative statements about infrared camera systems, asking them to indicate for each statement if they strongly agree with the statement, agree, are neutral, disagree or strongly disagree.
The majority of the general-purpose lane, HOV and FasTrak® segments do not think using infrared cameras to count the number of people in cars is an invasion of privacy. Specifically, 60 percent of both general-purpose lane users and HOV segment, and 64 percent of FasTrak® users strongly disagree or disagree that it is an invasion of privacy. Another eight to 13 percent across all groups are neutral on the topic. The percentage that agree or strongly agree that infrared observation is an invasion of privacy is consistent across all three groups ranging from a low of 27 percent to a high of 29 percent.
Figure 5-5: Is use of Infrared Cameras an Invasion of Privacy
Using Infrared Cameras to Count the Number of People in Cars is an Invasion of Privacy
50% 47% 45% 45% 40%
30%
17% 19% 20% 15% 15% 17% 20% 13% 10% 10% 10%8% 10% 8%
0% Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly agree disagree
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
June 17, 2008 84
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Respondents who agree or strongly agree that infrared use is an invasion of privacy were told that the infrared camera system being considered counts the number of people inside the vehicle without a visual picture of passengers. This reduced the percentage of this group that say it is still an invasion of privacy by between about a third (35% - general-purpose lane users) and 41 percent (HOV). Although the majority of those who initially thought using infrared cameras is an invasion of privacy still retained their position after receiving this information, the remaining percentage of all respondents that still see it as an invasion of privacy drops to only 16 to 18 percent.
Figure 5-6: If Riders not Identified is it Still an Invasion of Privacy
Is an Infrared Camera that Only Counts and Does Not Identify People Still an Invasion of Privacy?
80% 65% 59% 61% 60% 35% 41% 39% 40% 20% 0%
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
Yes No 5.2.5.2 Manual Inspections Limiting responses to those who think that infrared cameras are an invasion of privacy, a majority do not believe that visual inspections by the CHP are an invasion of privacy. However, results vary by segment with the general-purpose lane users being least likely to disagree (60%), the HOV segment in the middle (71%), and the FasTrak® users most likely to disagree (79%). Sixteen to 33 percent of respondents who think that infrared cameras are an invasion of privacy also think the CHP checking manually is an invasion of privacy.
Figure 5-7: Is CHP Visual Inspection an Invasion of Privacy It is an Invasion of Privacy for CHP Officers to Visually Inspect Vehicles to Count the Number of People
80% 63% 68% 60% 51% 40% 24% 18% 14% 20% 9% 8% 5% 5% 9% 8% 11% 5% 2% 0% Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree General Purpose HOV FasTrak
June 17, 2008 85
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
If all respondents are included (those that are neutral or disagree that infrared cameras are an invasion of privacy), the percentages that think CHP inspection is not an invasion of privacy increases to 78 percent for the general-purpose lane users, 80 percent for the HOV segment, and 88 percent of FasTrak® users. In other words, the vast majority of those that think infrared cameras are not an invasion of privacy also think that manual checking by the CHP is not an invasion of privacy.
Respondents who indicated that infrared cameras are an invasion of privacy, but manual inspection by CHP officers is not, were asked what they perceived the difference to be. Responses were similar across all three groups and included:
A general dislike of automated systems, perceiving them as ‘big brother,’
Distrust of the accuracy of automated equipment and believing that CHP Officers are much more reliable,
Concern about what will happen to the information being used for other purposes, and
Concern about the cost of the camera system.
Selected comments include:
“Too much big brother.”
“I guess having a human person feels less intrusive and much less like surveillance.”
“If an officer does the check it will be a fail-safe system. The automated (system) leaves room for errors.”
“Because I don’t know who can get a hold of the automated information. It is human versus technology.
“Invasion of privacy because of computer errors.”
“I want to meet my accuser.”
“Cameras are indiscriminate and extremely expensive. The guilty are examined along with the innocent.”
5.2.6 Violation Enforcement Systems
5.2.6.1 Automated Enforcement System VS. Current CHP Enforcement At least three-fourths of the general-purpose lane users, HOV segment and FasTrak® users believe an automated system will be a stronger deterrent to express lane violators than the current CHP
June 17, 2008 86
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
enforcement. Specifically, 77 percent of the general-purpose lane users, 78 percent of the HOV segment, and 75 percent of FasTrak® users strongly agree or agree that automated enforcement is a stronger deterrent. Only 10 percent each of general-purpose lane users and FasTrak® users and 11 percent of the HOV segment strongly disagree or disagree with the statement. The remaining 11 to 16 percent are neutral on the topic.
It should also be noted that although those who believe an infrared camera system is a violation of privacy are less likely to agree that an automated system will be a stronger deterrent than other motorists, it is a relatively small difference, with over two-thirds of this group still agreeing that an automated system will be a stronger deterrent.
Figure 5-8: Is an Automated System a Stronger Deterrent
An Automated System will be a Stronger Deterrent to Violators than Current CHP Enforcement
70% 59% 60% 54% 52% 50% 40% 30% 23%19% 23% 20% 16% 14% 11% 8% 10% 7% 10% 2% 1% 3% 0% Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
Respondents who disagreed with the aforementioned were asked why. The reasons most frequently mentioned included:
Not trusting the reliability of the system,
People will break the law no matter what system you have in place, and
The CHP are a more visual deterrent, and that works better.
Specific comments included:
“Because that system doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to. It can make mistakes.”
June 17, 2008 87
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
“Too many drivers feel they can beat a machine.”
“Drivers feel that they can ‘beat’ automated systems versus being face to face with a police officer.”
“If they are going to violate, they are going to violate no matter what.”
“CHP is more visible than the automated system.”
“Nothing is better than the police being noticeable on the freeway to deter violators.”
5.2.6.2 Current Method Respondents are divided almost evenly between agreeing and disagreeing on whether using the CHP to patrol carpool lanes is an effective use of law enforcement personnel, with slightly more disagreeing. Forty percent of general-purpose lane users strongly agree or agree, and 45 percent strongly disagree or disagree. Forty percent of the HOV segment strongly agree or agree, and 43 percent strongly disagree or disagree. Thirty-eight percent of FasTrak® users strongly agree or agree, and 46 percent strongly disagree or disagree.
Table 5-1: Use of CHP for Carpool Lane Enforcement is Effective Use of Time
Strongly Agree or Agree Strongly Disagree or Disagree 40% General Purpose 45% 40% HOV 43% 38% FasTrak 46%
Figure 5-9: Use of CHP for Carpool Lane Enforcement is Effective Use of Time Using CHP to Patrol Carpool Lanes is an Effective Use of Law Enforcement Personnel 40% 36% 34% 34% 35% 34% 34% 30%
20% 17% 15% 16% 11% 12% 10% 7% 6% 6% 3% 0% Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
June 17, 2008 88
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.6.3 New Technology Taking privacy and effectiveness issues into consideration, there is very strong support to use the new technology to catch more violators and lower enforcement costs if testing results can demonstrate that the system is highly accurate. Eighty percent of the HOV segment agree or strongly agree, followed at almost the same level by the general-purpose lane users at 79 percent. FasTrak® users provided the lowest level of support, but even among this group almost three-quarters agree or strongly agree with using the new technology (74%).
Figure 5-10: New Technology Should be Used if Tests are Successful
If Testing Results Can Demonstrate that this Automated System is Highly Accurate, this New Technology Should be Used to Catch More Violators and to Lower Enforcement Cost
60% 57% 53%
50% 44% 40% 26% 30% 30% 23% 20% 9% 12% 10% 9% 11% 10% 7% 4% 3% 2% 0% Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
5.2.6.4 Registering Carpoolers Respondents were given an explanation of one option that would combine pre-registration of carpoolers and use a partially automated system (would read tags and plates, but not count vehicle occupants). They were read the following description of this system:
“Carpoolers would not be charged to use the lanes, but would have to register their license plate or apply a sticker-based transponder to their windshield with the CHP performing spot enforcement to verify the number of people in the vehicle.
Vehicles that have not registered their plate or don’t have a transponder sticker, would have their plate photographed and a violation notice would be sent out.”
One concern motorists had with this approach is that it might discourage carpooling because of the need to register in advance. Over half of the respondents in each respondent group agree or strongly agree that requiring carpoolers to register will discourage carpooling and reduce the number of people using the carpool lanes. The table and chart below show the results for each motorist group.
June 17, 2008 89
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Table 5-2: Carpool Registration Discourage Carpooling
Strongly Agree or Agree Strongly Disagree or Disagree 53% General Purpose 36% 57% HOV 34% 51% FasTrak 40%
Figure 5-11: Carpool Registration Discourage Carpooling Requiring Carpoolers to Register will
Discourage Carpooling
50% 44% 40% 40% 36% 36% 31% 30% 30%
20% 13%13%15% 11% 10% 10% 8% 5% 4% 4% 0% Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly agree disagree
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
Respondents who felt that requiring carpools to register in advance would reduce carpooling were asked a follow-up question:
“If instead of citing unregistered carpools right away, their first few citations were just warnings with information on how to sign up, and they were given several weeks to get signed up before they started getting cited and fined, would that change your opinion about this issue ?”
With this information 40 percent of the general-purpose lane users and the HOV segment said this would change their opinion, and a slightly lower 32 percent of FasTrak® users would change their opinion that registering would reduce carpooling. Combining this with the percentage that initially indicated that requiring registration would discourage carpooling, 35 percent of less still believe that requiring registration would reduce carpooling.
June 17, 2008 90
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Figure 5-12: Will Providing Warnings Stop Discouraging Carpooling
If Unregistered Carpoolers Were First Given Warnings, Would This Change Your Opinion?
80% 68% 60% 60% 60%
40% 40% 40% 32%
20%
0% General Purpose HOV FasTrak
Yes No
5.2.6.5 Requiring Transponders for Carpoolers Taking all factors into consideration approximately half of all three motorist groups agree or strongly agree with the statement:
“Carpoolers should be required to register or obtain a sticker-based transponder as a way to automate enforcement of the carpool lanes.”
This ranges from a high of 53 percent for FasTrak® users to a low of 48 percent for the HOV segment, with general-purpose lane users in the middle at 51 percent. Conversely, 41 percent of general-purpose lane and FasTrak® users agree or disagree, as do 39 percent of the HOV segment.
Table 5-3: Carpoolers Should be Required to Obtain a Transponder to Automate Enforcement
Strongly Agree or Agree Strongly Disagree or Disagree 51% General Purpose 41% 48% HOV 39% 53% FasTrak 41%
June 17, 2008 91
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Figure 5-13: Carpoolers Should be Required to Obtain a Transponder to Automate Enforcement
Carpoolers Should be Required to Register or Obtain a Sticker-Based Transponder as a Way to Automate Enforcement of Carpool Lanes
50% 45% 42% 42% 40% 34% 30% 27% 30% 20% 12% 12% 6% 6% 11% 8% 7% 11% 10% 7%
0%
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
5.2.7 Support for License Plate Photos to Identify and Process Violations to Vehicle Owners
The majority of respondents agree or strongly agree that taking photos of license plates is a good way to identify and process violation notices to the recorded vehicle owner. Specifically, 68 percent of general- purpose lane users, 71 percent of the HOV segment, and 72 percent of FasTrak® users agree or strongly agree with the statement.
Figure 5-14: License Plate Photos are a Good Way Process Violations
Taking Photos of License Plates is a Good Way to Identify & Process Violation Notices to the Recorded Vehicle Owner
80%
59% 61%59% 60%
40%
16% 15% 20% 13% 9% 10% 12% 9% 8% 14% 3% 4% 5% 0% Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
June 17, 2008 92
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.8 Earning Carpool Credits
Respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with requiring carpools to register were asked if earning credits for carpooling that could be used to drive alone in the Express Lanes would change their opinion about requiring carpoolers to register.
Figure 5-15: Earning Carpool Credits Would Make Required Transponders OK
If Carpoolers Were Allowed to Earn Credits That Could be Redeemed Later for Payment of Tolls When Driving Alone, But Were Required to Carry a Transponder to Accumulate the Credits, Does That Change Your Opinion About This Issue?
100% 83% 80% 73% 63% 60%
37% 40% 27% 17% 20% 0% General Purpose HOV FasTrak
Yes No
The reward program had the most traction with carpoolers where 37 percent of those who disagreed with registration said this would change their opinion. There was a lower level of support among FasTrak® and general-purpose lane users at 27 percent and 17 percent respectively.
Initially a minimum of 48 percent of each group agreed that carpoolers should be required to obtain a sticker-based transponder as a way to automate enforcement of carpool lanes. When this is combined with the respondents that indicated that they would change their opinion if carpoolers were offered an incentive, this increases to a minimum 58 percent for each group.
Respondents who indicated that earning credits would change their mind were then asked how interested they would be in participating in this type of program. Sixty-three percent of general-purpose lane users, 74 percent of the HOV segment, and 69 percent of FasTrak® users are somewhat or very interested in a transportation credit program. The HOV segment is the most interested with 35 percent saying they are very interested.
June 17, 2008 93
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Figure 5-16: Interest Level in Credit Program SANDAG Transportation Credit Program Interest Level
50% 45% 39% 40% 40% 35% 29% 30% 23% 18% 18% 18% 20% 15% 11% 9% 10% 0% Not interested Somew hat interested Very interested Unsure
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
All respondents were then asked if a program designed to reward commuters who take transit or carpool is a good idea. This concept received very strong support with over three-quarters of each group supporting an award program ranging from a low of 77 percent for FasTrak® users and 78 percent for general-purpose lane users to a high of 84 percent for the HOV segment.
Figure 5-17: Is Carpooling Rewards Program a Good Idea
Do You Think Programs Designed to Reward Commuters Who Take Transit or Carpool are a Good Idea?
100% 78% 84% 77% 80% 60% 40% 15% 16% 20% 9% 7% 7% 7% 0% General Purpose HOV FasTrak
Yes No Unsure
5.2.9 I-15 Corridor Travel Demographics
In order to participate in the survey, all respondents must travel on the I-15 Corridor at least once per week. In addition, respondents to the car/vanpool/transit survey must pool or use transit at least once a week, and FasTrak® participants must use the Express Lanes with their FasTrak® transponder at least once a week.
June 17, 2008 94
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.9.1 Travel Frequency Among respondents who do travel on the I-15 at least once a week, the majority say they use it most days. HOV lane users have the highest frequency of I-15 use with 87 percent saying they use it most days. General-purpose lane users have the lowest frequency of use, with only 64 percent saying they use it most days, and the remaining 36 percent saying at least once a week.
Figure 5-18: I-15 Travel Frequency
How Often Do You Travel on the I-15?
100% 87%84%
80% 64% 60% 36% 40% 13% 16% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Most days At least once / Few times a year Never week
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
5.2.9.2 Carpool Frequency Respondents were asked how often they carpool or share rides. FasTrak® users and the general-purpose lane users carpool at an equally infrequent mean of 2.42 and 2.41 respectively, which equates to a few times a year. While 20 percent of these groups say they carpool or share rides a few times a year, the majority (53 percent of the general-purpose lane users and 58 percent of FasTrak® users) say they never carpool or share rides. Conversely, 82 percent of HOV users say they carpool most days and 18 percent do so at least once a week.
Figure 5-19: Ridesharing Frequency How Often Do You Carpool or Share Rides?
100% 82% 80% 53% 58% 60% 40% 26% 18% 19% 20% 20% 20% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% Most days At least once / week Few times a year Never
General Purpose HOV FasTrak June 17, 2008 95
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.9.3 Transit Frequency As noted in the methodology, the RideLink sample was supplemented with a small additional list from the Transit E-Store databank. This is reflected in a higher proportion of regular transit users in the HOV sample at 10 percent, compared to only one percent each for the FasTrak® and general-purpose lane user groups.
Figure 5-20: Frequency of Transit Use
How Often Do You Ride Transit?
100% 86% 87% 77% 80%
60% 40% 12% 11% 20% 10% 10% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 0% Most days At least once / week Few times a year Never
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
5.2.9.4 FasTrak Transponder Use Frequency The majority of FasTrak® users drive alone on the express lanes using a FasTrak® transponder most days (61%) and 39 percent do so at least once a week. By contrast, the vast majority of general-purpose lane users (80%) and HOV segment (72%) say they never drive alone on the Express Lanes using a FasTrak® transponder.
Figure 5-21: Express Lane Use with a Transponder
How Often Do You Drive Alone on the Express Lanes Using a FasTrak Transponder?
100% 80% 80% 72% 61% 60% 39% 40% 15% 20% 9% 9% 9% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% Most days At least once / week Few times a year Never
General Purpose HOV FasTrak
June 17, 2008 96
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.10 Additional Comments
Twenty-six percent of general-purpose lane users and 30 percent each of the HOV segment and FasTrak® users offered additional comments with regard to carpool lanes and enforcement.
A selection of comments from the general-purpose lane users follows:
“By creating exclusive carpool lanes, we use 25 percent of the available lanes for a minority group. If the freeway currently has three lanes, and we add a carpool lane that lane represents only a small percentage of people who can use the lanes. I have a problem with carpool lanes because not everyone can afford to pay that fee. Opening up a carpool lane would reduce congestion by 25 percent for everyone.”
“I would like to see a special force assigned to strictly patrol the carpool lanes instead of the CHP.”
“I would prefer if there were more on-ramps and off-ramps. I would use these lanes more.”
“Just like photo cameras you can take a picture of a license plate, but the owner of the car might not be driving.”
A selection of comments from the HOV segment follows:
“Don’t know about the license plate photo because the owner may not be driving that car.”
“I am concerned about health issues of the infrared cameras.”
“Several times the transponder didn’t work and I was pulled over by highway patrol. Big problem that should be solved.”
A selection of comments from FasTrak® users follows:
“Enforcement should be during commute times, not during off-times.”
“I think that my concerns go back to the original question of it all being viewed through cameras taking pictures of people and then a ticket comes out. The ability to fight a computer system whether you are right or wrong, the bottom line is you always have to pay a fee. You take the human element out of it and it becomes impossible to fight as opposed to an officer pulling you over who you can take to court.”
“I was driving in the carpool lane on the 73 and my transponder was broken so I went through. A week or two later I got a notice that said that I went through the carpool
June 17, 2008 97
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
and I had to pay. I had to get a new transponder. I had no way of knowing that the transponder was broken.”
5.2.11 Supplemental Express Bus Park and Ride Survey Intercept Survey Purpose and Methodology
5.2.11.1 Overview Of Intercept Survey SANDAG’s databases for car/vanpooling, and for FasTrak® users provide good calling lists to reach these groups. People who use the general-purpose lanes were also easily reached using a random digit dialing sample for the zip codes in the target corridor. However, express bus users are at a very low incidence in all of these target samples. To address this, intercept interviews were conducted at two park and ride lots that serve San Diego MTS express lines 850 and 860. Respondents included both express bus riders and carpoolers who met at the park and ride lots.
5.2.11.2 Methodology Surveys were conducted using self-administered one-page paper surveys. The surveys were printed in both English and Spanish so that respondents could select either language at their preference. Surveys were distributed and collected at two park and ride lots located at the intersections of Rancho Carmel and Ted Williams Parkway (near the Ted Williams Parkway I-15 entrance), and Carmel Mountain Road and Freeport Court (near the Rancho Penasquitos Blvd. I-15 entrance). All surveying was conducted November 7th, 2007 between 5:45 and 7:45 AM. Surveying was conducted at the park and ride lot locations, and also onboard the last express bus of the day for each location en route to downtown. The targeted sample size for the intercept survey was 50 completed surveys. Seventy-six complete surveys and nine partial surveys were collected on-site, and an additional two surveys were subsequently faxed in for a total of 87 full or partial surveys.
The primary objective of the supplemental intercept survey was to observe how results might vary from the other motorist segments. To this end all questions were virtually identical to questions in the phone survey. There were only minor variations for three questions to account for the printed format. Given the limited amount of time that respondents had to complete the intercept survey, results were limited to a subset of the most important questions from the telephone survey. A copy of the survey is attached as Appendix J. Since all but five of the respondents indicate that they ride public transit on I-15 at least once a week, this supplemental sample will be referred to as the “Express Bus” group.
5.2.11.3 Sampling Accuracy It should be noted that with a sample size of fewer than 100 respondents, differences of 10 percent or more would be required to identify statistically significant differences between the express bus riders and the other sampling groups. Comments about differences between groups are directional in nature and are not statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level unless specifically noted. A sample size of 87 provides statistical accuracy of + 6.3 to 10.5 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.
5.2.11.4 Perceptions of Carpool Violation Rates and Assessment of Current Policies The same introductory statement about upcoming changes in the I-15 Corridor used for the telephone survey was also included in print on the intercept survey.
June 17, 2008 98
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.11.5 Carpool Violation Rates The percentage of express bus riders that indicate surprise at the current violation rate is slightly lower than the other three segments at 23 percent, compared to 28 percent for FasTrak® users, 31 percent for the HOV group, and 34 percent for general-purpose lane users.
Figure 5-22: Surprised by Violation Rate
The Current Carpool Violation Rate on the I-15 Express Lanes is Estimated to be Between five and 15 percent of all Vehicles. Does that Surprise You?
Don't Know 10% YES 23%
NO 67%
5.2.11.6 Acceptable Violation Rates Express bus riders have higher expectations with regard to enforcement levels with 83 percent indicating that violation rates must be five percent or lower to be acceptable. This is significantly more stringent than the other respondent groups with general-purpose lane users at 68 percent, the HOV group at 70 percent, and FasTrak® users at 72 percent.
Figure 5-23: What is an Acceptable Violation Rate What Would You Consider to be an Acceptable Violation Rate ?
50% 43% 40%
30% 21% 19% 20%
8% 6% 10% 3% 0% 0% 1 TO 2% 3 TO 5% 6 TO 10% Current Rate Other
June 17, 2008 99
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.11.7 Are Fines an Effective Deterrent? Two-thirds of express bus riders believe that the risk of being fined deters people from using the Express Lanes illegally. This is slightly lower than the other segments which were between 71 and 78 percent.
Figure 5-24: Does Risk of Fines Deter Violators
Do You Feel That the Risk of Being Fined Keeps People From Using The Express Lanes Illegally?
Don’t Know 10%
NO 23%
YES 67%
5.2.11.8 Appropriateness of the Current $341 Minimum Fine Amount Results for the appropriateness of the fine level of $341 are similar to the other motorist groups with a majority saying it is about right, and with a relatively even balance between those who say it is too high, and those who say it is too low.
Figure 5-25: Is $341 Fine Too Low or High
Do You Think the Current Fine of $341 is Too Low, Too High or About Right? 60% 53% 50%
40%
30% 24% 20% 16% 7% 10% 0% Too Low Too High About Right Don’t Know
June 17, 2008 100
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.11.9 Privacy Issues
INFRARED CAMERAS Respondents were provided with the same introduction as telephone survey respondents as listed below.
“CHP enforcement of the Express Lanes is expensive and it’s hard to tell how many people are inside the vehicle. Because of this current methods catch less than 1% of all violators.
New infrared camera systems that count the number of people inside each vehicle may be able to catch over 90% of all violators.”
They were then asked to rate their agreement with several statements indicating if they strongly agree with the statement, agree, are neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree.
For the other three motorist segments, a minimum of 60 percent indicated that they disagreed with statement that using infrared cameras to count the number of people in cars is an invasion of privacy. For express bus riders this percentage is lower at 48 percent. Thus express bus riders appear to be more conscious of personal privacy.
Figure 5-26: Use of Infrared Cameras to Count People is an Invasion of Privacy
Using Infrared Cameras to Count the Number of People in Cars is an Invasion of Privacy.
40%
30% 30% 23% 18% 20% 17% 13% 10%
0% STRONGLY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE
Respondents were then asked to rate their agreement with the statement that if the infrared system does not provide a visual picture, it would not be an invasion of privacy. Over two-thirds (70%) of express bus riders agree or strongly agree with this statement indicating that this is an important communication
June 17, 2008 101
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
point for this segment of I-15 users. This information had a much more positive impact for express bus riders than the other segments where less than half changed their opinion after hearing that there would not be a visual record.
Figure 5-27: If no Visual Picture then Infrared is Not and Invasion of Privacy
If the Infrared System Does Not Provide a Visual Picture of Passengers it Would Not Be an Invasion of Privacy. 40% 37% 33% 30%
20% 17%
10% 7% 7%
0% STRONGLY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT STRONGLY AGREE AG REE DISAGREE DISAGRE E
MANUAL INSPECTIONS Among respondents who believe infrared cameras are an invasion of privacy, results are evenly balanced as to whether manual inspection by the CHP is also an invasion of privacy. Thus it appears that infrared cameras may not be any worse than the current enforcement system for roughly half of express bus riders. In line with previous responses, this question shows express bus riders to be more concerned about privacy, since the percentages of respondents agreeing to this statement in the other motorist groups were consistently lower.
Figure 5-28: Visual Inspection by CHP is an Invasion of Privacy
It is an Invasion of Privacy for CHP Officers to Visually Inspect all Vehicles to Count the Number of People. 40% 30% 30% 30%
20% 13% 13% 13% 10%
0% STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE
June 17, 2008 102
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.11.10 Violation Enforcement Systems
AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM VS. CURRENT CHP ENFORCEMENT Similar to the other motorist groups, almost three-quarters (72%) of express bus riders agree or strongly agree that an automated system will be a stronger deterrent to express lane violators than current CHP enforcement. The other motorist groups’ agreement with this statement ranged from 75 to 78 percent.
Figure 5-29: An Automated System is a Stronger Deterrent
An Auotmated System Will Be a Stronger Deterrent To Violaters Than Current CHP Enforcement.
50% 40% 40% 32% 30%
20% 13% 9% 10% 6%
0% STRONGLY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT STRONGLY AG RE E AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE
CURRENT METHOD Forty-seven percent of express bus riders believe that using the CHP to patrol carpool lanes is an effective use of law enforcement personnel, similar to results for the other motorist segments.
Figure 5-30: Carpool Lane Enforcement is Effective Use of CHP Time Using the CHP to Patrol Carpool Lanes is an Effective Use of Law Enforcement Personnel.
40% 31% 30% 23% 22% 20% 16% 8% 10%
0% STRONGLY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT STRONGLY AGREE AGRE E DISAGREE DISAGREE
June 17, 2008 103
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
NEW TECHNOLOGY In line with the other motorist groups, 77 percent of express bus riders believe that if testing results can demonstrate that an automated system is highly accurate, this new technology should be used to improve violator capture rates and lower enforcement cost. Only 11 percent disagree.
Figure 5-31: New Technology Should be Used Improve Capture Rates This New Technology Should be Used to Improve Violator Capture Rates and Lower Enforcement Cost.
50% 42% 40% 35%
30%
20% 13%
10% 7% 4%
0% STRONGLY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT STRONGLY AG REE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE
5.2.11.11 Registering Carpoolers Survey respondents were given the following description of a semi-automated approach that utilizes license-plate cameras and transponder readers, but no infrared technology to count vehicle occupants.
“Carpoolers would not be charged to use the lanes, but would have to register their license plate or apply a sticker-based transponder to their windshield with the CHP performing spot enforcement to verify the number of people in the vehicle.
Vehicles that have not registered their plate or don’t have a transponder sticker, would have their plate photographed and a violation notice would be sent out.”
They were then asked to rate their agreement with five statements about this approach.
June 17, 2008 104
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
The first addresses the potential impact on carpooling, saying that requiring carpoolers to register would discourage carpooling. Results for this statement were similar to the other motorist groups with 53 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing, and 29 percent disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.
Figure 5-32: Requiring Carpoolers to Register will Reduce People Using Carpool Lanes
Requiring Carpoolers to Register Will Discourage Carpooling and Reduce the Number of People Using the Carpool Lanes.
40%
32%
30%
22% 21% 20% 17%
10% 7%
0%
STRONGLY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE
Respondents that felt that requiring carpools to register in advance would reduce carpooling were asked to rate their agreement with the following statement:
“If instead of citing unregistered carpools right away, their first few citations were just warnings with information on how to sign up, and they were given several weeks to get signed up before they started getting cited and fined, this would eliminate concern about infrequent carpoolers and visitors not being familiar with the system.”
With this additional information, 58 percent of the express bus riders said that they would agree with this statement indicating for them it would overcome key issues related to this approach.
June 17, 2008 105
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Figure 5-33: Warnings would Overcome Concerns about Infrequent Carpoolers
Instead of Citing Unregistered Carpoolers, Issue Warnings With the Info on How to Sign Up Before Getting Fined.
40% 37%
30%
21%
20% 16% 14% 12% 10%
0% STRONGLY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE
5.2.11.12 Requiring Transponders for Carpoolers Taking all factors into consideration approximately half (52%) of express bus riders agree or strongly agree with the statement:
“Carpoolers should be required to register or obtain a sticker-based transponder as a way to automate enforcement of the carpool lanes.”
This is similar to the results for the other three motorist segments.
June 17, 2008 106
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Figure 5-34: Carpoolers Should be Required to Attain a Transponder to Automate Enforcement
Carpoolers Should Be Required to Register or Obtain a Sticker-Based Transponder as a Way to Automate Enforcement of the Carpool Lanes.
40%
29% 30% 23%
18% 19% 20% 11% 10%
0% STRONGLY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL SOM EWHAT STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE
5.2.11.13 Support for License Plate Photos to Identify and Process Violations to Vehicle Owners At 62 percent, a majority of express bus riders agree or strongly agree that taking photos of license plates is a good way to identify and process violation notices to the recorded vehicle owner. This is in line with results for the other motorist segments which ranged from 68 to 72 percent.
Figure 5-35: License Plate Photos are a Good Way to Process Violations
Taking Photos of License Plates is a Good Way to Identify and Process Violation Notices to the Vehicle of Record.
40%
31% 31% 30%
20% 18% 14%
10% 6%
0% STRONGLY SOMEWHAT NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE
June 17, 2008 107
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.11.14 Carpooler Reward Program
Respondents that disagreed or strongly disagreed with requiring carpools to register were asked to rate their agreement with the following statement:
“If carpoolers were allowed to earn credits that could be redeemed later for payment of tolls when driving alone, but were required to carry a transponder to accumulate the credits, I would support requiring transponders for carpoolers.”
With 29 percent saying they agree or strongly agree with this statement, support for this approach is similar to the other motorists groups where those agreeing ranged from a low of 17 percent for general- purpose lane users, to 37 percent for the HOV group.
Figure 5-36: Earning Carpooling Credits would Garner Support for Required Transponders
If carpoolers earned credits that could be redeemed for tolls when driving alone, but had to carry a transponder to accumlate credits, I would support requiring transponders for carpoolers.
40%
29% 30% 25% 21% 21%
20%
10% 4%
0% STRONGLY SO MEWH AT NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE
Those that changed their position and indicated that they would support transponders if carpoolers earned rewards were then asked how interested they would be in participating in this type of program.
Sixty-two percent of these express bus riders are at least somewhat interested in a transportation credit program. This is in line with the results from the other motorist segments where responses ranged from 63 to 74 percent.
June 17, 2008 108
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Figure 5-37: Interest in Participating Carpooling Credit Program
If SANDAG Were to Offer This Type of Transportation Credit Program, How Interested Would You Be in Participating?
50% 42% 40%
31% 30%
20% 16% 11% 10%
0% NOT INTE RESTED SOMEWHAT VERY INTERESTED UNSURE INTERESTED
All respondents were then asked if programs designed to reward commuters who take transit or carpool are a good idea. This concept received overwhelming support from express bus riders with 94% saying they support this type of program. Results for express bus riders are significantly higher than for the other motorist segments where positive support ranged from 77 to 84 percent.
Figure 5-38: Earning Carpool Credits is a Good Idea
Do You Think Programs Desig ned to Reward Commuters Who Take Public Transit or Carpool are a Good Idea?
Don't NO Know 4% 3%
YES 94%
June 17, 2008 109
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.2.11.15 I-15 Express Bus Segment Corridor Travel Demographics
TRAVEL FREQUENCY
Among express bus riders almost all (94%) say they use it most days. The remaining six percent say they use it once a week.
TRANSIT FREQUENCY
As would be expected almost all express bus segment respondents (89%) also indicate they use public transit most days.
CARPOOL FREQUENCY
Although almost all express bus segment respondents indicate they use public transit most days, a large proportion (39%), also indicate that they carpool or share rides on I-15 most days of the week. It is possible that some respondents may have interpreted using public transit as a way of sharing rides as well.
FASTRAK® TRANSPONDER USE FREQUENCY
There is almost no overlap between this segment and FasTrak® users with only five percent saying they drive alone using FasTrak® most days. An additional 11 percent say they use FasTrak® a few times a year, and 84 percent say they never use FasTrak®.
5.3 Telephone Survey Key Findings and Recommendations
5.3.1 Key Findings
5.3.1.1 Perceptions of Violations and Policies
A majority of all three survey segments say they are not surprised by the 5 to15 percent violation rate. Over two-thirds think that the risk of fines keeps people from using the Express Lanes illegally, and a majority think the current minimum fine level of $341 is ‘about right.’ Also, the percentage that thinks the fine is too low is balanced fairly evenly with those who think it is too high for all three groups. In spite of their general lack of surprise about violation rates and satisfaction with current fine levels, over two-thirds of each segment say that the violation rate should be in the zero to five percent range, suggesting that they believe something should be done to reduce violations.
June 17, 2008 110
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.3.1.2 Privacy and Infrared Cameras
A clear majority disagrees with the statement that the use of infrared cameras is an invasion of privacy. However, a significant minority of 25 to 30 percent thinks that it is an invasion of privacy. After clarifying that the cameras will not provide visual identification of occupants inside the vehicle, the percentage of people who still felt it was an invasion of privacy declined to 16 to 18 percent. Some respondents who think infrared cameras are an invasion of privacy, but do not feel the same way about manual inspection by the CHP commented that automated systems are too much ‘big brother,’ do not trust the accuracy of an automated system, want to have a chance to face their accuser, and are concerned about accidental or intentional use of the data for other purposes.
5.3.1.3 Automated Enforcement Versus Current CHP Enforcement
In spite of concerns about privacy, at least three-quarters of all three groups agree that an automated system will be a more effective deterrent than current CHP enforcement. Motorists are split on whether or not using the CHP to enforce carpool lane regulations is an effective use of law enforcement personnel with 38 to 40 percent agreeing that it is, and 43 to 46 percent disagreeing, with the remaining 15 to 17 percent neutral. Taking all factors into consideration, there is strong support for implementation of an automated system to improve enforcement and lower costs as long as testing proves the system to be highly accurate. Support ranges from a high of 80 percent for the HOV segment (23% strongly agree plus 57% agree), to 79 percent for the general-purpose lane users (26% + 53%), and 74 percent for FasTrak® users (30% + 44%).
5.3.1.4 Registering Carpoolers
A slight majority of all three motorist groups initially agreed that requiring carpoolers to register to continue to use carpool lanes for free would discourage carpooling. When told that only warning tickets would be issued the first few times along with instructions on how to sign up, over a third of those who say that registration would discourage carpooling said this would change their opinion. The net percentage that still think that registration would discourage carpooling after taking this into consideration drops to about one-third. When all factors are considered, approximately half (48% to 53%) of all motorists support the approach that would require carpool registration and spot CHP enforcement of vehicle occupancy.
June 17, 2008 111
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
5.3.1.5 Carpooler Reward Program
There is strong support for the concept of frequent carpoolers earning credits towards free use of the Express Lanes when driving alone, with over three-quarters of all motorist groups saying this is a good idea. In addition, 37 percent of the HOV segment who disagreed with carpool registration said that this type of program would change their negative opinion about the registration program. And among carpoolers who said this would change their opinion, 74 percent said they are very or somewhat interested in participating in this type of program. Slightly more than half of all users combined agree that carpoolers should be required to obtain a transponder as a way to automate enforcement of carpool lanes. When this is combined with respondents who initially disagreed with this, but then said they would change their opinion if carpoolers were offered an incentive, the proportion of carpoolers who said they would support the transponder requirement increased to 62 percent.
5.3.1.6 Support for License Plate Photos to Identify and Process Violations to Vehicle Owners
Using license plate photos to assess violation fines to registered owners of vehicles that are identified breaking the law is popular with all motorist segments. Less than 20 percent of each segment disagree with this method.
5.3.1.7 Express Bus Lane Supplemental Sample
The findings for Express Bus riders were generally in line with the other three motorist segments, aligning most closely with the HOV segment. Significant differences include having higher expectations of Express Lane violation enforcement, and being more likely to say that both infrared camera systems and manual CHP enforcement are a violation of privacy. However they are more responsive to additional information about not having a visual record, and almost uniformly believe that rewarding commuters that take transit or carpool is a good idea.
5.3.2 Recommendations
Over two-thirds of each segment believes that the violation rate should be 5 percent or less. Accordingly, the high violation rate should be communicated to the public as one of the key factors driving the need for improved enforcement methodologies. Although a clear majority disagree that using infrared cameras is a violation of privacy, there is a significant minority that initially believe it is. This drops to only 16 to 18 percent after learning that individuals will not be identified (no “pictures”), so this point should be clearly communicated to the public when explaining the new system.
June 17, 2008 112
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Although there are concerns about a fully automated violation enforcement system (primarily privacy, reliability, and the ability to dispute a citation), this system should be implemented if it meets performance requirements. A convincing majority of all three motorist categories believe that if reliable, it will reduce the violation rate and save money. To avoid barriers to implementation for an automated system, clear answers and persuasive public communications programs will be required to effectively address concerns about personal privacy, control of personal data, use of violations data for non-carpool violation applications, the inability to dispute citations with a person, and also concerns about the system’s cost (a FAQ’s approach might be useful for this). To effectively address these concerns, education programs will have to provide convincing visual examples of the system’s accuracy and how it will work each step of the way so that motorists will believe they will not be cited for infractions erroneously, and that if they are cited, there is a reasonable process to dispute the citation. It may be useful to draw comparisons to the current red-light program, which although it had challenges in the beginning, now serves as a good example of how an automated system can work properly while maintaining motorist privacy. Information about the cost-benefit tradeoff of system implementation should also be presented to show the potential cost savings. Mandatory sticker-based transponders should be pursued, but there will be initial negative perceptions that will have to be overcome as approximately half of all three groups initially indicated that it would negatively impact carpooling. Learning that educational warning tickets would be issued prior to receiving a citation, dropped this to about one-third, thus this part of the program should be clearly communicated when explaining how it works. It will be beneficial when promoting this approach to clearly demonstrate that the value of maintaining enforcement is sufficient to more than offset the loss of casual carpooling and the costs associated with registering and maintaining an ongoing up-to-date database of carpoolers. The carpooler reward program should be pursued. It received strong support (over 75%) from each group, and the minimum percentage of support for mandatory transponders increased from 48 percent to 58 percent when this program was added to the mix. It also serves as an effective counter-balance to the potential negative of carpoolers having to register to use the Express Lanes for free. Almost three-quarters of the 37 percent of carpoolers who said this changed their mind about mandatory transponders indicated that they would be somewhat or very interested in participating in the program. Since license-plate photos for citations to registered vehicle owners is widely accepted (less than 20% disagree), this component of the program will probably not require a significant educational effort. Similarly, health concerns about infrared radiation were low, being cited by a very small percentage of respondents. Accordingly, this is not a significant barrier to implementation, and does not have to be heavily emphasized in communications programs.
June 17, 2008 113
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Express Bus riders are the most concerned about privacy issues, but they are also more responsive to information that visual records of vehicle occupants will not be employed. Thus it is important to emphasize this point with this segment of commuters. They are also the most supportive of a reward program for transit users and ridesharers, so this program should also be emphasized to them as part of a mandatory transponder program.
June 17, 2008 114
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
APPENDIX A: FOCUS GROUP QUALIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 1
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
FOCUS GROUP QUALIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Which type of letter did you receive? FasTrak or RideLink (omit for General Public)
2. What zip code do you live in (92003, 92025, 92026, 92027, 92028, 92029, 92059, 92061, 92064, 92069, 92078, 92082, 92084, 92096, 92127, 92128, 92590, 92592, Other-terminate)
3. How many days a week do you commute on the I-15 freeway anywhere between State Route 78 in Escondido and State Route 163 in Kearny Mesa between 5:30 and 9:30 in the morning or 4:30 and 7:30 in the evening? (1-7, 0-terminate)______days / week
4. How many of these days are weekdays? (1-5, 0 - terminate) ______
5. How do you generally get to work on these days ?
1. Drive Alone 2. Carpool 3. Bus 4. Rail 5. Motorcycle 6. Bike walk
Other :______
6. On the weekdays, how many days per week do you use the FasTrak or Carpool lanes? ______
7. And how many days to do you use only the general-purpose lanes? ______
8. How many miles is the one-way portion of your trip that is on I-15? ______miles
9. Do you work in San Diego? YES NO Where? ______
10. ______confirm/capture name
11. ______current mailing address
12. ______home phone #
13. ______work phone #
14. Date: ______Time: ______Person completing form______
OK. Great we won’t be able to confirm you for another 7-10 days because we need to ensure we have a balanced group by gender and area. June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 2
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 3
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE
I. Warm-up Introduction (15 minutes)
A. Moderator’s Introduction
1. Purpose of Group: SANDAG and Caltrans are expanding an existing eight-mile reversible Express Lanes facility on Interstate 15 (I-15 currently) that is located between State Route (SR) 163 and SR 56/Ted Williams Parkway. The expanded I-15 Managed Lanes facility will extend 20 miles in length when fully constructed, with new segments between SR 56 and Lake Hodges (approx. eight miles) opening in 2008, and between Lake Hodges and SR 78 (approx. four miles) opening between 2011 and 2012. By 2013, the existing reversible lanes will also be widened from two to four managed lanes and intermediate access points will be added between SR 163 to SR 56. There will be a fixed barrier separating the Managed Lanes from the regular lanes and a moveable barrier will separate the northbound and southbound Managed Lanes between SR 163 and Del Lago Blvd. (just north of Lake Hodges) to accommodate three lanes in the peak direction. The Managed Lanes will improve congestion in the I-15 corridor by managing the freeway system as efficiently as possible. When completed, the new Managed (Express) Lanes will have approximately nine entrance points in each direction, rather than the current single entry point in each direction. Carpool, FasTrak, and other approved users (e.g., motorcycles, hybrid vehicles) will be permitted to use the Managed Lanes. A robust bus rapid transit (BRT) system will also use these lanes to ensure reliable travel times through the corridor. All of these improvements are going to make it difficult for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to enforce vehicle occupancy requirements in the Managed Lanes. We want your feedback on occupancy enforcement alternatives with the goal of having a system that is fair, accurate, cost-effective, and enforceable. 2. Rules of conduct B. Respondent’s Introduction 1. What do you call the lanes in the center of I-15? 2. How many days per week do you commute on I-15? 3. How long have you been commuting on the I-15? 4. Do you have a FasTrak account? If so, is it registered with SANDAG’s I-15 FasTrak office or with a different California FasTrak agency? 5. Have you used the HOV expressway (carpool lanes) on I-15, and if so, how often? 6. When you use these lanes, do you use a transponder, carpool, or both?
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 4
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
II. Violation Rate (15 minutes)
1. When traveling on the I-15 Express Lanes do you ever observe motorists that you believe are violating the carpool requirement of 2 or more persons per car? If Yes, what is your initial reaction? How often do you see non-paying solo occupant violators? 2. Recent data indicates that as many as 3,300 motorists each day travel in the Express Lanes as single occupant motorists without paying a toll. This is about one out of every 10 vehicles on the Express lanes, or a 5-15 percent violation rate. Does this number of violators surprise you? 3. Is the number of violators in the Express Lanes acceptable to you? If not, what would be an acceptable level of violations to you? 4. Do you think it is fair for someone to drive in the Express Lanes, as a solo driver, if they don’t have a valid FasTrak account? In other words, is it fair for someone to use the carpool lanes as a single occupant and not pay the toll? 5. There is always a cost versus benefit to reducing the number of carpool violators. On average CHP officers patrol the Express Lanes on I-15 100 hours per month and issue about 100 citations, or one citation per hour. This costs about $80,000 per year. Do you think that current enforcement efforts are appropriate? 6. Do you think existing levels of routine enforcement by CHP serve as an effective deterrent to potential violators? If No, do you think more hours of CHP enforcement would help to reduce the violation rate? What are more effective deterrents?
III. Carpools (20 minutes)
A. Before we consider enforcement options, we should first consider exactly what a carpool violation is. The current requirement is that vehicles without a valid transponder for payment must have two people in the vehicle. 1. How do you feel about carpools where the 2nd occupant is a child? 2. Do you think that a commuter carpool that carries two licensed drivers should be given priority over a family that is sharing a ride where the 2nd or 3rd occupants are not licensed drivers? 3. Do you believe family carpools deserve the same benefits as a commuter carpool even though family carpooling doesn’t necessarily result in taking one or more vehicles off the road during commute hours? 4. Do you believe that a new rule should be considered where the definition of carpoolers is changed to mean two or more adult (driver’s license age or older) occupants? If not driver’s license age, perhaps the rule could simply be that occupants must fill the front seats to qualify (i.e., since small children by law must sit in the rear seats). 5. Which alternate definition do you think is most fair?
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 5
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
6. Which do you think would have a greater chance of being supported by the general public?
IV. Violation Enforcement System Issues (10 minutes)
1. What do you see as the most important issues that should be considered in the design and implementation of a Violation Enforcement System or program (cost, accuracy, privacy, ease of use, other)? 2. Why is that important? 3. Do you think that the current level of CHP officers assigned to the corridor, on a part-time basis (approximately 100 hours per month on an overtime basis) is a sufficient deterrent to potential carpool violators?
V. Alternative Violation Enforcement System Options (40 minutes)
A. Today: Currently, single-occupant vehicles must display a valid transponder when using the Express Lanes, and are automatically charged the advertised toll rate at that time, which varies based on congestion levels. Buses, carpools, vanpools, motorcycles, and clean air vehicles with a valid HOV (“Access OK”) permit issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (e.g., hybrids with 45mpg or better rated fuel economy) can use the lanes free of charge.
There is only one entrance to the existing reversible lanes in both directions. CHP officers normally patrol the lanes from an inside shoulder near the FasTrak transponder reader site to observe vehicles as they pass. A transaction status indicator light is mounted above each lane, and if a vehicle gets a green light from the transponder indicator lights, it means the vehicle has a valid transponder and successfully paid the toll. If the vehicle does not get a green light, but has two or more passengers that are observed then it is a valid carpool and is exempt from paying the toll. If the vehicle does not get a green light and does not appear to have two or more people, the CHP officer may pursue the motorist to determine if they are a violator, and if so, issue a citation.
B. Future: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is constructing additional Managed Lanes in the I-15 corridor that abut to the north terminus of the existing reversible lanes (near SR 56/Ted Williams Parkway). The cross-section for the Managed Lanes will be four lanes with a movable barrier separating northbound from southbound traffic. The two center lanes will be reversible. By 2012, there will be a contiguous 20-mile, four-lane Managed Lanes facility with 24/7 concurrent flow (NB/SB) operations. Once constructed, there will be approximately ten entrance points in each direction for the full Managed Lanes, making it more difficult for the CHP to monitor transponder reader sites and HOV lane access points to effectively enforce the HOV requirements, which could dramatically increase the cost of enforcement.
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 6
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Once participants understood the way the future I-15 Managed Lanes will function, they were informed of three alternative plans for enforcement of the new lanes that are being considered by SANDAG, Caltrans, and the CHP. Participants were asked specific questions related to each alternative. The explanation of each plan, the related questions, and each group’s responses to these questions are listed below and in the Appendices.
C. Plan A: Using current technology, the CHP will have to patrol the corridor and monitor vehicles passing through transponder reader stations to determine vehicle occupancy. As it is currently done, a light would or would not flash overhead based on the presence of a valid transponder. If the car does not have a valid transponder, then the CHP will have to determine if it is a valid carpool. This will be challenging since the CHP will have less uninterrupted shoulder space to observe vehicles from (due to frequent openings in the barrier wall) and several more transponder sites and entrances to monitor. Accordingly, routine enforcement by CHP may not serve as an effective deterrent to potential violators because the chances of being caught are low.
1. To provide the same level of enforcement for the new facility with current technology may require 12 CHP officers at a cost of $1 million per year or more. Do you think that this investment should be made, or should expenses be kept at a lower level, even if it results in a higher violation rate for the Managed Lanes? 2. What violation rate level is acceptable to you, and how much should SANDAG be willing to spend to keep violations at or below this level?
D. Plan B An alternative plan would require carpoolers to use a special carpool transponder (“carpool card”), so that all vehicles in the express lanes would have either a FasTrak transponder to pay the toll, or the carpool card to identify them as a valid carpool. The CHP would still provide enforcement at or near existing levels. However they would be equipped with mobile transponder scanners that could inform the officer if a car is carrying a valid FasTrak transponder, carpool card, or neither. If the scanner detected both devices it would consider the vehicle a single- occupant and would provide feedback indicating payment of the toll. The transponder readers and overhead lights at each reader station would also flash to indicate if the vehicle is equipped with a valid transponder.
Under this plan, the license plate of vehicles that do not have any type of transponder would be photographed at the transponder reader stations and citations would be processed using an automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) system. This approach is similar to what is done on the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, CA. Those that have a carpool card but do not have the required number of people in the vehicle would still have to be visually identified by CHP officers. They would then be pulled over and cited if they were driving alone. SANDAG would also sanction drivers caught abusing the system in that way, in an effort to cut down on repeat violators. Those caught cheating would have their carpool card revoked in addition to the fine.
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 7
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
1. In Orange County on State Route 91, all motorists that use the Express Lanes are required to obtain a FasTrak account and carry a transponder. Do you think this is a good policy? 2. What do you perceive to be the biggest issues with this approach? How important are those issues? 3. If a policy were to be in effect requiring all carpool vehicles to carry a transponder, and each carpool driver would be required to pay a $25 refundable security deposit to obtain the transponder, would you agree with this? Why/Why not? 4. If a policy were to be in effect requiring all carpool vehicles to carry a transponder, and each carpool driver would receive the transponder free of charge, would you agree with this? Why/Why not? 5. Do you think that by requiring all carpool vehicles to carry a valid carpool transponder that some motorists would simply avoid using the Express Lanes altogether, rather than going through the process of registering and acquiring the device? Why/Why not? E. Plan C This approach would use transponder readers to detect FasTrak and would rely on special cameras designed to detect the number of occupants inside a vehicle to verify carpool requirements. The cameras would be installed at one or more transponder reader stations along the route, depending on cost, availability of funds, and the desired violation capture rate. The type of camera could vary, but may include visible-light and/or infrared imaging technologies. Under this plan, there are three possible outcomes for a vehicle:
If a vehicle has a valid transponder, then the vehicle is OK. If the vehicle does not have a valid transponder and the camera counts two or more people in the vehicle, then the vehicle is OK. Otherwise a picture of the license plate and the image showing the number of occupants inside the vehicle are used to generate an automated citation.
This plan could allow CHP manpower requirements to be maintained at current levels, or at a reduced level, and would operate as an automated enforcement system. Plan C could work with or without a carpool transponder requirement, as described in Plan B, but would likely operate as a standalone system due to the high cost of purchasing and distributing transponders.
1. If SANDAG could deploy a solution that combined vehicle occupancy detecting cameras, and could maintain CHP enforcement at current or reduced levels, would you support this? Why/Why not? 2. Would you support the use of infrared cameras that are capable of detecting the number of occupants in a vehicle but not capable of determining the identity, or any other distinguishing characteristics of the vehicle’s driver or passengers, for the purpose of determining carpool lane eligibility?
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 8
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
3. Do you think that collecting information about the number of passengers in a vehicle with cameras is an invasion of an individual's right to privacy?
VI. Wrap-up (10 minutes)
1. Any additional comments about Violation Enforcement Systems? 2. Follow-up questions, if any, from observers.
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 9
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
APPENDIX C: FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT DESCRIPTIONS
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 10
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT DESCRIPTIONS
FASTRAK FOCUS GROUP
Mark W. 1. “HOV Lanes” 2. Commutes five days per week, early in the morning (6:15 – 6:30a.m.). 3. Did not mention how long he has been commuting on I-15 4. Has two FasTrak accounts with SANDAG. 5. Occasionally uses carpool lanes with company, and uses express lanes less than half of his commuting trips depending on traffic conditions. 6. Mostly uses transponder, occasionally carpool.
Ernesto A. 1. “Carpool Lanes” 2. Commutes five days per week. 3. Five years 4. Has a FasTrak account with SANDAG that he shares with his wife. 5. Uses the lanes everyday. 6. Carpools with wife and child. Wife will occasionally use the transponder.
Bruce C. 1. “Special Lanes” or “FasTrak Lanes” 2. Commutes six times per week. Times differ for work because he is in sales. 3. Has used the lanes since 1998. 4. Has two FasTrak accounts with SANDAG. 5. Uses the lanes everyday. 6. Mostly uses transponder, sometimes carpools with family.
James K. 1. “H-O-V Lanes” 2. Commutes three days per week, times vary, but he tries to avoid peak commute hours. 3. Has used the lanes since 1997. 4. Has two FasTrak accounts. 5. Uses the lanes three days per week. 6. Mostly uses transponder, carpools about four times a month with company.
Vicki M. 1. “Carpool Lanes” or “Express Lanes” 2. Commutes five days per week, usually between 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 to 5:00 p.m., and sometimes on the weekends. 3. Has used the lanes since 1997.
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 11
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
4. Has a FasTrak account. 5. Uses the lanes everyday automatically. 6. Mostly uses the transponder, but carpools with son or co-workers on occasion.
Robin P. 1. “FasTrak Lanes” or “Carpool Lanes” 2. Commutes five days per week, approximately 7:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 3. Has used the lanes for the past four to five years. 4. Has a transponder, but is not sure which agency she is registered with. 5. Uses the lanes every day she commutes. 6. Mostly uses the transponder, but occasionally carpools
Linda A. 1. “Carpool Lanes” 2. Commutes two to three days per week in evenings between 5:00 and 6:00p.m. 3. Did not mention how long she’s been commuting on I-15. 4. Has a FasTrak account. 5. Uses the lanes to come home from work two to three days per week. 6. Rarely carpools, uses transponder.
Gail W. 1. “FasTrak Lanes” 2. Commutes five days per week, approximately 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 3. Did not mention how long she’s been commuting on I-15. 4. Has two FasTrak transponders issued from SANDAG. 5. Uses the lanes everyday she commutes. 6. Mostly uses transponder, but will occasionally carpool.
Jill W. 1. “Fast Pass” 2. Commutes mornings (8:00 – 8:30 a.m.), five days per week 3. Has used the lanes for the past two to three years. 4. Has a FasTrak account from SANDAG. 5. Rarely uses the lanes, depends on traffic. 6. Uses the transponder when she uses the lanes.
Stewart S. 1. “Express Lanes” 2. Commutes two to three days per week. 3. Did not mention how long he’s been commuting on I-15. 4. Has two FasTrak accounts with SANDAG. 5. Uses the lanes two to three days per week. 6. Carpools or uses the transponder. Primarily used for trips to the airport or for soccer games.
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 12
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
GENERAL PUBLIC FOCUS GROUP
James C. 1. “Carpool Lanes” 2. Commutes twice a day, five days per week, 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 3. Has been commuting on I-15 for nine years. 4. Has a FasTrak account. 5. Depends on traffic conditions for when to use the lanes. Checks the Internet for when to use them one to two days per week. 6. Mostly uses the transponder now, but he used to carpool as well.
Helen P. 1. “Carpool Lanes” 2. Commutes five days per week, before 8:00 a.m. and approximately 6:00 p.m. 3. Has been commuting on I-15 for the past 12 years. 4. Does not have a FasTrak account. 5. Rarely uses the lanes. 6. Drives alone, has carpooled before. (She thought the classification of a carpool was another legal driver. She was unsure if she could drive with her son, and therefore almost never used the lanes)
Bounmy L. 1. “Carpool Lanes” 2. Commutes twice a day, five days per week early morning to late afternoons. 3. Four to five years 4. Does not have a FasTrak account. 5. Uses the lanes on occasion. 6. Mostly carpools on weekends with friends.
Ren D. 1. “Carpool Lanes” 2. Commutes three to four days per week for work. Tries to avoid commuter hours. 3. Has been commuting on I-15 for the past 16 years. 4. Does not have a FasTrak account, but her husband has one. 5. Uses the lanes about 30 percent of her trips. 6. Carpools about 30 percent of the time with clients or husband.
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 13
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
RIDELINK FOCUS GROUP
Arthur K. 1. ”Carpool lanes” 2. Commutes five days per week. 3. Has been commuting on I-15 for the past 18 years. 4. Does not have a FasTrak account. 5. Uses the lanes every day he commutes 6. Carpools with wife.
Peter E. 1. “HOV lanes” (pronounced “Hōve lanes”) 2. Commutes five days per week. 3. Has been commuting on I-15 for the past 18 years. 4. Has a FasTrak account with SANDAG. 5. Depends on traffic report, which he checks on the Web daily. 6. Carpools two to three days per week and uses FasTrak on bad traffic days.
John R. 1. “Carpool lanes” 2. Commutes five days per week. 3. Has been commuting on I-15 for the past seven years. 4. Does not have a FasTrak account. 5. Uses the lanes every day that he commutes. 6. Carpools with wife on weekdays.
John C. 1. “HOV lanes” 2. Commutes five days per week. 3. Has been commuting on I-15 for the past seven years. 4. Does not have a FasTrak account. 5. Uses the lanes every day that he commutes. 6. Vanpools every day he uses the lanes
John B. 1. “Commuter lanes” 2. Commutes three to four days per week. 3. Has been commuting on I-15 for the past eight years. 4. Has a FasTrak account. 5. Retired, but used to use the lanes everyday. Now he uses them three to four days per week. 6. Used to commute by carpool, vanpool, or FasTrak every day. Now carpools on occasion or uses FasTrak when traffic is bad.
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 14
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Michelle E. 1. “Carpool or Express lanes” 2. Commutes five to six days per week. 3. Has been commuting on I-15 for the past 13 years. 4. Has a FasTrak account 5. Uses the lanes every day 6. Mostly uses FasTrak, but will occasionally carpool.
Tara H. 1. “Fast or Express lanes” 2. Commutes three to five days per week. 3. Has been commuting on I-15 for the past three years. 4. Does not have a FasTrak account. 5. Uses the lanes three to five days per week. 6. Takes commuter bus when she uses the lanes.
Mehran K. 1. “HOV Lanes” 2. Commutes five days per week. 3. Did not mention how long he’s been commuting on I-15. 4. Does not have a FasTrak account. 5. Does not use the lanes because there is no access from his starting point. 6. Carpools on I-15 three days per week.
Susanne V. 1. “FasTrak or Carpool lanes” 2. Commutes five days per week. 3. Has been commuting on I-15 for the past 25 years. 4. Does not have a FasTrak account. 5. Uses the lanes every day she commutes. 6. Carpools three days per week, drives herself two times a week.
Edwina M. 1. “Carpool lanes” 2. Commutes five to six days per week. 3. Has been commuting on I-15 for the past 15 years. 4. Does not have a FasTrak account. 5. Does not use the lanes. 6. Carpools with her husband. She doesn’t use the lanes because there is no access from her starting point.
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 15
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
APPENDIX D: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPANT HANDOUT
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 16
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPANT HANDOUT
Existing Configuration and Operation
One access point with transponder reader
Single Occupant Vehicles must have valid transponder, automatically charged a fee
Carpoolers and vanpoolers don’t pay fee
CHP sits on shoulder near the transponder reader site
Vehicles OK if: Green Light if transponder reader validates in-vehicle transponder No green light but two or more CHP observed passengers
Not OK if no green light and is not observed to have two or more occupants
CHP officer pulls possible violators over, determines if they are a violator, and cites them accordingly
Changes to Express Lanes
Expanding from two to four lanes
Nine entrance points in each direction instead of one
Limited shoulders and multiple breaks in barrier wall near entrances, less space for CHP to park and observe vehicles
Would dramatically increase costs of visual observation at access points
Plan A: Current Technology
Transponder reader lights installed at all entrances
Transponder reader lights would indicate presence of a valid transponder as is done now
CHP would drive corridor to observe cars passing through “transponder reader stations” at all access points
May require 12 CHP officers at a cost of $1 million per year or more
Challenges:
CHP will have to move with flow of traffic to observe the number of occupants
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 17
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
Would only be able to observe small percentage of vehicles
May not be effective deterrent because chances of being caught are lower
Plan B: Carpool Transponders
Transponder reader lights installed at all entrances
Solo Occupant Vehicles issued FasTrak transponder (current method)
Carpools issued special transponder (“carpool card”)
CHP would be equipped with mobile transponder scanners to indicate if vehicle is carrying a valid FasTrak transponder or a carpool card
Transponder readers also placed at each toll point would provide the same verification
Vehicles without any transponder (FasTrak or carpool card) would be photographed at reader station and automated citations issued using license plate photos
CHP to observe vehicles with carpool cards only, to verify occupancy and cite carpool violators
Plan C: Camera Enforcement
Transponder reader lights installed at all entrances
Solo Occupant Vehicles issued FasTrak transponder (current method)
Enforcement cameras placed throughout Express Lanes
Vehicles with a transponder and without two or more occupants are identified and a photo is taken of license plate and a second photo showing the number of occupants inside the vehicle
Information is used to generate automated citations
CHP manpower at current or reduced level
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 18
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
APPENDIX E: STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION GUIDE
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 19
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
I-15 Managed Lanes
Value Pricing Violation Enforcement Study
Stakeholder Interview Discussion Guide
October 2006
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 20
I. INTRODUCTION
Good morning/afternoon. The purpose of this interview is to obtain your opinions and to identify any concerns you may have as it relates to SANDAG’s I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study. This study is investigating different technologies and strategies that will improve the way vehicle occupancy requirements are enforced on the I-15 Managed Lanes.
II. CURRENT ENFORCEMENT
Violation enforcement for the I-15 reversible express lanes is currently provided by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) (Handout Exhibit 1 California Highway Patrol Officers Patrolling I-15 Express Lanes , see Appendix G: Handout Exhibits for Stakeholder Interviews). At present, CHP patrols these lanes on a part-time basis, and officers are only available on an overtime basis. Annual enforcement costs are approximately $80,000 per year. CHP provides about 100 hours of enforcement per month resulting in approximately 100 citations per month.
Questions (Routine Enforcement – Part A)
1. Prior to today, were you aware that between 1,000 and 3,000 motorists per day traveling in the I-15 Express Lanes are violators (Yes/No)? Does this number of violations surprise you (Yes/No)?
2. The number of violations equals five to 15 percent of all vehicles on the Express Lanes. Is this an acceptable level of violations (Yes/No)? If not, what would be an acceptable level of violations?
3. Do you think enforcement of HOV lanes is a good use of law enforcement personnel, compared to other enforcement priorities?
4. The current minimum fine for HOV violations on Interstate 15 is $341. Do you believe the $341 minimum fine is sufficient to deter violations (Yes/No)? If not, what amount do you think would be sufficient?
III. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS THAT COULD SIMPLIFY HOV ENFORCEMENT
The next series of questions concern policies that could be modified to redefine the requirements for a valid carpool (Handout Exhibit 2, HOV Regulatory Signage With Varying Occupancy Requirements, see Appendix G: Handout Exhibits for Stakeholder Interviews).
Questions (Policy Considerations for HOV Enforcement)
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 21
5. Not all carpools result in one or more vehicles being removed from the roadway (e.g., children too young to drive, etc.). Do you believe the law should require that a carpool only qualify if both occupants would otherwise drive alone (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
6. It is difficult for law enforcement to accurately detect the number of occupants in a vehicle. It is especially difficult to detect children or others seated in the rear seats. Do you believe the law should require that two (2) occupants be seated in the front seats to qualify as a carpool (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
7. (IF 6 = NO)Technology is currently under development that could accurately detect the number of passengers in the front seats. With this additional information, now do you believe the law should require that two (2) occupants be seated in the front seats to qualify as a carpool (Yes/No)?
IV. ANNUAL ENFORCEMENT WITH TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE (PLAN A)
(SECTION IV ONLY FOR CHP AND TOLL ROAD OPERATORS)
SANDAG is evaluating technologies that can assist the CHP while patrolling HOV lanes.
Questions – Plan A (Technology Assistance for Routine Enforcement)
8. Do you think the use of overhead signals that illuminate whenever a toll is collected via FasTrak (Handout Exhibit 3; Tolling Location with Transaction Indicator Lights Overhead, see Appendix G: Handout Exhibits for Stakeholder Interviews) are a beneficial aid to CHP when trying to verify the presence of a violator? Do you think use of this technology is a good idea (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
9. SANDAG is also considering the use of mobile transponder readers that would be affixed to the roof of the CHP patrol car and could detect transponders mounted in vehicles (Handout Exhibit 4; Mobile Enforcement Reader in Minnesota State Police Cruiser, see Appendix G: Handout Exhibits for Stakeholder Interviews). Do you think the use of mobile transponder readers would help CHP identify violators and is a good idea (Yes/No)? Do you think this technology would be effective on I-15? Why/Why not?
10. Do you think the use of mobile data terminals with access to SANDAG’s central FasTrak system would improve the accuracy of routine CHP enforcement (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
11. Do you think either of the following would eliminate unintentional violations by FasTrak account holders?
a. Add visual feedback (e.g., LED light) in addition to the existing audible feedback that is provided by the transponder whenever a transaction is successfully processed by the roadside antenna.
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 22
b. Make the transponder beep louder
V. MANDATORY TRANSPONDER REQUIREMENT (PLAN B)
Prior to the interview, you were provided a Case Study on the 91 Express Lanes.
Did you have a chance to read that document (if not give it them and allow them to read for 2 minutes)
The following questions relate to one proposed approach where all users, including carpools, would be required to mount a valid transponder to use the I-15 Managed Lanes. Carpools are not currently required to mount a transponder on I- 15. This requirement would make violation enforcement with cameras possible.
Please note, under this policy carpools, vanpools, buses, motorcycles, and designated hybrid vehicles would sign up for a free account and would not be required to pay a toll.
General Questions – Plan B (Mandatory Transponder Requirement)
12. Are you concerned that this strategy (Plan B) would require carpoolers to register their name, address, and vehicle information to use the I-15 Managed Lanes (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
13. Do you think this strategy (Plan B) would discourage some people from carpooling (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
VI. BASIC PHOTO ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM (PLAN B cont’d)
Under this Plan (Plan B), SANDAG would also install a photo-enforcement system (similar to red-light camera systems now widely deployed in California) (Handout Exhibit 5; Basic Elements of a Photo Enforcement System, see Appendix G: Handout Exhibits for Stakeholder Interviews). Every FasTrak facility, except SANDAG’s I-15 Express Lanes, requires all vehicles to carry and mount a valid transponder. By requiring every vehicle to carry a transponder, the facilities are able to utilize photo-enforcement technology. (Several statutes of the Vehicle Code (Sections 4770, 40250 et seq if anyone asks) clearly define the violation noticing process for photo- enforcement on toll roads. The next set of questions relates to the use of a photo- enforcement system on I-15 in conjunction with a mandatory transponder requirement.
Questions – Plan B cont’d (Video Tolling and Photo-Enforcement Systems)
14. Do you think requiring carpoolers to carry a transponder, in order to enable the use of a photo-enforcement system, is a good idea (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 23
15. (IF NO TO Q14) Does the fact that photo-enforcement technology is proven to be accurate and in wide use throughout the state and elsewhere increase your confidence in this strategy (Yes/No)?
16. Do you think photo-enforcement of license plates would be a more effective means of enforcing carpool lanes than enforcement by CHP (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
17. Do you think requiring carpoolers to carry a transponder would deter potential carpool lane violators (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
18. How strongly do you support a mandatory transponder requirement for carpools (Please use a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Don’t support at all” and 5 being “Very strongly support”)?
19. (Q18 = 1-3)What would have to change in order for you to support a mandatory transponder requirement for carpools?
VII. AUTOMATED OCCUPANCY DETECTION SYSTEMS (PLAN C)
The third and final strategy that SANDAG is considering (Plan C) entails the use of a roadside camera system that would verify the number of persons inside the vehicle. At least two commercial camera systems have been developed—one uses infrared and the other visible light—that have the potential to accurately determine the number of occupants inside a vehicle (Handout Exhibit 6; Infrared and Visible Spectrum Occupancy Imaging Systems, see Appendix G: Handout Exhibits for Stakeholder Interviews). These technologies appear capable of discerning whether a physical form is human or non-human, such as a dummy. If successfully tested, this type of technology has the potential to largely automate the enforcement of occupancy rules.
(Background Info: While either system could potentially be used to verify the number of human occupants in a vehicle; the images captured by the system would not be used for facial recognition to determine the identity or other distinguishing characteristics of the vehicle’s occupants. These technologies do appear to offer the promise of being able to discern whether a physical form is human or non-human, such as a dummy. If successfully tested, this type of technology has the potential to largely automate the enforcement of occupancy rules and could lower the annual cost of enforcement while a larger proportion of the total revenue lost to violations could be recovered through the automated citation process.)
Questions – Plan C (External Occupancy Verification Using Cameras)
20. Do you have any concerns about this strategy (Plan C) (Yes/No)? If so, what are your concerns?
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 24
21. Do you think that collecting information about the number of passengers in a vehicle using cameras is an invasion of an individual’s right to privacy (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
22. (ONLY IF Q20 or Q21 = YES) If SANDAG’s policy was clearly to not use the images to determine a person’s identity, or other distinguishing characteristics of the vehicle’s driver or passengers, would that address your concerns (Yes/No/Maybe-Depends)? Why/Why not?
23. Do you think that collecting information about the number of passengers in a vehicle by CHP officers’ visual inspection of the vehicles as they drive by is an invasion of an individual’s right to privacy (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
24. Do you have any health-related concerns regarding the use of infrared technology (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
25. Do you think the existence of an automated vehicle occupancy system would deter potential carpool lane violators (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
26. How strongly do you support the use of an automated occupancy detection system (Please use a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Don’t support at all” and 5 being “Very strongly support”)?
27. (ONLY IF 26 = 1-3) What would have to change in order for you to support an automated HOV enforcement system?
VIII. GENERAL / CLOSING QUESTIONS
We’re now at the part of the interview where I ask you some general questions about the topics of violation enforcement that we’ve discussed today.
Questions (Final Remarks on Enforcement)
28. Do you think the public would support a proposal to implement an HOV enforcement system that is less dependent on the CHP (Yes/No)? Why/Why not?
29. What do you see as the most important issues in implementing a violation enforcement system or program? {Probe} Why is that important?
30. Do you believe any of the strategies we’ve discussed today would be unfair or put undue burden on any particular group(s) (Yes/No)? Please explain how you feel these groups would be affected?
31. Do you have any other comments about violation enforcement systems?
Thank you for your participation. Your input is greatly appreciated.
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 25
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
APPENDIX F: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 26
Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email
ELECTED OFFICIALS
City of Escondido, SANDAG Board of Directors, Second Honorable Lori Holt 201 North Broadway (760) 839-4610 Vice Chair 1 Pfeiler, Mayor Escondido, CA 92025-2709 Fax: (760) 839-4578 [email protected]
City of Poway, SANDAG Board Honorable Mickey Cafagna, P O Box 789Poway, CA 92064- Chair 2 Mayor 5755 (858) 679-4202 [email protected]
Honorable Art Madrid, 8130 Allison Avenue La Mesa, City of La Mesa 3 Mayor CA 91941 (619) 667-1100 [email protected]
City of San Diego, District 7 Honorable Jim Madaffer, 202 C Street San Diego, CA Councilmember 4 Councilmember 92101 (619) 236-6677 [email protected]
County of San 1600 Pacific Highway, Room Diego, Board of Honorable Ron Roberts, 335, MS A500 San Diego, CA Supervisors 5 Supervisor 92101 (619) 531-5544 [email protected]
PLANNING AND OPERATION ORGANIZATIONS Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email San Diego Association of SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite Governments Gary Gallegos, Executive 800, San Diego, California (619) 699-1990 (SANDAG): 6 Director 92101 Fax: (619) 699-1905 [email protected]
SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite Diane Eidam, Chief Deputy 800, San Diego, California (619) 699-1920 7 Executive Director 92101 Fax: (619) 699-1995 [email protected]
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 27
Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email
Jack Boda, Director of SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite Mobility Management & 800, San Diego, California (619) 699-6930 8 Project Implementation 92101 Fax: (619) 699-4865 [email protected]
SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite Samuel Johnson, ITS Chief 800, San Diego, California (619) 699-6958 9 Technology Officer 92101 Fax: (619) 699-4865 [email protected]
SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite Derek Toups, Associate 800, San Diego, California (619) 699-1907 10 Regional Planner 92101 Fax: (619) 699-4867 [email protected]
Caltrans District 11 TMC7183 Caltrans – District Everett Townsend, TMC Opportunity Road San Diego, (858) 467-3204 11 (San Diego): 11 Branch Manager CA 92111 Fax: (858) 467-3092 [email protected]
Gustavo Dallarda, I-15 4050 Taylor Street MS230 12 Corridor Director San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 688-6738 [email protected]
Bill Valle, Chief Deputy District Director or Maintenance and Traffic 4050 Taylor Street, MS 230 13 Operations San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 688-6709 [email protected] Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email Tom Bouquin, I-15 4050 Taylor Street, MS 230 14 Corridor Manager San Diego, CA 92110 (858) 748-4226 [email protected]
Lynn Barton, Project Manager - Traffic 4050 Taylor Street, MS 230 15 Operations Division San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 688-6628 [email protected]
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 28
Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email Caltrans Office of Caltrans Traffic Operations ITS Projects and Branch 1120 N Street, MS 36 (916) 654-3781 Standards 16 Jeff McRae Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax: (916) 653-3055 [email protected]
Caltrans Division of Research and MS 83, P.O. Box 942873 Innovation 17 Nathan Loebs Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 (916) 657-4722 [email protected]
HOV Operations - MS 36, P.O. Caltrans HOV Box 942874Sacramento, CA Systems Branch 18 Robert Ferwerda 94274-0001 (916) 654-6448 [email protected]
Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), Transportation TTI @ Texas A&M University Research Board 3135 TAMU College Station, (TRB) 19 Ginger Goodin Texas 77843-3135 (512) 467-0946 [email protected]
California Department of Elaine Miller, DMV Motor Vehicles Information Services MS- H-225 PO Box 942890 (DMV): 20 Branch Sacramento, CA 94290-0890 (916) 657-9802 [email protected]
Federal Highway Administration Jeff Holm, Design/Traffic 980 Ninth Street, Suite 400 (FHWA): 21 Operations Engineer Sacramento, CA 95814-2724 (916) 498-5021 [email protected] Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email Jeff Lewis, Senior 980 Ninth Street, Suite 400 22 Transportation Engineer Sacramento, CA 95814-2724 (916) 498-5035 [email protected]
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 29
Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email 91 Express Lanes (Orange County Transportation Daryl Watkins, General 550 S. Main St.P.O. Box 14184 Authority) 23 Manager Orange, CA 92863-1584 (714) 560-5406 [email protected]
Bay Area Toll 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, (510) 817-5715 and Authority 24 Beth Zelinski California 94607 (510) 817-5825 [email protected]
Alameda County Congestion Management Authority 25 Jean Hart 1333 Broadway, Suite 220 (510) 836-2560 [email protected]
Transportation 125 Pacifica, 1st floor Irvine, Corridor Agencies 26 Frank Barbagallo CA 92619 (949) 754-3465 [email protected]
ENFORCEMENT Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email California Highway Patrol (CHP), Special Projects 2555 First Avenue Sacramento, Division 27 John C. Keller CA 95818 (916) 657-7222 [email protected]
California Highway Patrol, Border 9330 Farnham Place San Division 28 R.D. "Skip" Carter, Chief Diego, CA 92123 (858) 650-3700 [email protected]
9330 Farnham Place San 29 Roy Kramer, Lieutenant Diego, CA 92123 (858) 650-3700 Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email 9330 Farnham Place San 30 Luis Andrade, Field Officer Diego, CA 92123 (858) 650-3700
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 30
Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email 9330 Farnham Place San 31 Bradley Boehm, Officer Diego, CA 92123 (858) 650-3700
PUBLIC INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email Institute for Transportation 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW Development Policy 32 Michael Replogle Washington, DC 20009 (202) 387-3500 [email protected]
San Diego County Taxpayers 625 Broadway San Diego, CA Association 33 Harvey Goodfriend 92101 (619) 234-6423
League of Women Grace Roos, Transportation 10726 Vista Valle DriveSan Voters 34 Director Diego, CA 92131 (858) 566-8887 [email protected]
San Diego Economic Development 401 B Street, Suite 1100 San Corporation 35 Andrew L. Poat Diego, CA 92101 (619) 615-2959 [email protected]
San Diego North Economic 100 N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Development Suite 124 San Marcos, CA Council 36 Gary Knight 92069 (760) 598-9311 [email protected]
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 31
Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email Automobile Club of 3333 Fairview Rd., A131 Costa Southern California 37 Hamid Bahadori Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 885-2326 [email protected] Organization Name Mailing Address Telephone/FAX Email San Diego Regional Chamber of 402 West Broadway, Suite 1000 Commerce 38 Carmen Sandoval San Diego, CA 92101-3585 (619) 544-1316 [email protected]
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 32
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
APPENDIX G: HANDOUT EXHIBITS FOR STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 33
Stakeholder Discussion Guide
Exhibit 1. California Highway Patrol Officers Patrolling I-15 Express Lanes
Appendices Page 34
Stakeholder Discussion Guide
Exhibit 2. HOV Regulatory Signage With Varying Occupancy Requirements
Appendices Page 35
Stakeholder Discussion Guide
Exhibit 3. Tolling Location with Transaction Indicator Lights Overhead
Appendices Page 36
Stakeholder Discussion Guide
Exhibit 4. Mobile Enforcement Reader in Minnesota State Police Cruiser
Appendices Page 37
Stakeholder Discussion Guide
Exhibit 5. Basic Elements of a Toll Road Photo Enforcement System
Appendices Page 38
Stakeholder Discussion Guide
Exhibit 6. Infrared and Visible Spectrum Occupancy Imaging Systems
6/19/2008 Version 1.0 Appendices Page 39
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
APPENDIX H: SR 91 CASE STUDY
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 40
Appendix 1 Case Study: 91 Express Lanes (Relates to Plan B)
On the State Route 91 Express Lanes, in Orange County, the facility operator requires all users—including HOVs—to carry and mount a valid transponder before entering the Express Lanes. Doing so allows the toll system to automatically differentiate between authorized vehicles and unauthorized vehicles. The job of the highway patrol is narrowed down to identifying vehicles traveling in a third lane reserved for carpools (defined as 3 or more persons in the vehicle) who are traveling alone.
A photo-enforcement system installed on SR 91 captures a photo of the license plate for any vehicle that is not carrying a valid transponder, and is able to process an automated citation or toll transaction based on the license plate information. If a vehicle’s license plate is associated with a valid transponder account, the patron is charged the posted rate for that trip plus an administrative surcharge to offset the cost of photo enforcement. If the vehicle’s license plate is not listed in the FasTrak accounts database, the system obtains current mailing address information from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and forwards a citation.
On the first (or perhaps first few) occurrences that an unlisted vehicle’s license plate is captured on the SR 91 Express Lanes, the facility’s customer service operator will dismiss the violation and instead send a courtesy letter along with a FasTrak application form. This helps to minimize legitimate concerns that visitors and others unfamiliar with the mandatory transponder requirement are not unfairly charged a penalty. By providing this small subset of potential users information about the way the 91 Express Lanes operate, every potential user is given an opportunity to easily register for a transponder account for proper use of the lanes.
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 41
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
APPENDIX I: TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 42
QUESTIONNAIRE WITH SKIP PATTERNS ------(11:17:20 30 AUG 2007)
QUESTIONNAIRE = I15 VERSION : 5.0 **************************************** * * ***************************** * _____ APPROVED AS IS * * CODE BOX * * * * * * _____ APPROVED WITH CHANGES AS NOTED * * LT = LESS THAN ( < ) * * * * GT = GREATER THAN ( > ) * * _____ SEND ANOTHER DRAFT * * EQ = EQUALS ( = ) * * * * NE = NOT EQUAL TO ( # ) * * * ***************************** * ______* * SIGNATURE * ****************************************
GOOD EVENING, THIS IS _____ WITH REDHILL GROUP AN INDEPENDENT RESEARCH FIRM. WE'RE CALLING ON BEHALF OF THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TO GET YOUR INPUT ON POLICES ABOUT THE I-15 EXPRESS LANES. IT ONLY TAKES ABOUT 7 MINUTES, AND YOUR INPUT IS IMPORTANT TO HELP REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
******************************************************************************** 1. HOW OFTEN DO YOU TRAVEL ON THE I-15 ?
1. MOST DAYS 2. AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 3. FEW TIMES A YEAR 4. NEVER
(PROMPT ONLY IF NO ANSWER)
SKIP AFTER Q1 IF Q<1> GE 3 THEN GO 6
******************************************************************************** 2. HOW OFTEN DO YOU CARPOOL OR SHARE RIDES ?
1. MOST DAYS 2. AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 3. FEW TIMES A YEAR 4. NEVER
(PROMPT ONLY IF NO ANSWER)
******************************************************************************** 3. HOW OFTEN DO YOU RIDE TRANSIT ?
1. MOST DAYS 2. AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 3. FEW TIMES A YEAR 4. NEVER
(PROMPT ONLY IF NO ANSWER)
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 43
******************************************************************************** 4. HOW OFTEN DO YOU DRIVE ALONE ON THE EXPRESS LANES USING A FASTRAK TRANSPONDER ?
1. MOST DAYS 2. AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK 3. FEW TIMES A YEAR 4. NEVER
(PROMPT ONLY IF NO ANSWER)
******************************************************************************** 5. *** SURVEYOR NOTE: ENTER 'XX' TO CONTINUE ***
******************************************************************************** 6. I'M SORRY, YOU DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS MORNING/AFTERNOON/ OR EVENING.
*** SURVEYOR NOTE: ENTER 'XX' TO CONTINUE ***
SKIP AFTER Q6 GO END
******************************************************************************** 7. THE EXPRESS LANES IN THE CENTER OF I-15 ARE BEING EXPANDED TO 20 MILES LONG WITH 4 LANES FOR CARPOOLS, BUSES AND SOLO DRIVERS WHO HAVE TO PAY A TOLL.
THE LONGER EXPRESS LANES WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL ENTRANCE AND EXIT POINTS WHICH WILL COMPLICATE LAW ENFORCEMENT.
I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR YOUR FEEDBACK ON POTENTIAL ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND METHODS FOR CARPOOL REGULATION ON THE EXPANDED LANES.
*** SURVEYOR NOTE: ENTER 'XX' TO CONTINUE ***
******************************************************************************** 8. THE CURRENT CARPOOL VIOLATION RATE ON THE I-15 EXPRESS LANES IS ESTIMATED TO BE BETWEEN 5% AND 15% OF ALL VEHICLES. DOES THIS LEVEL OF VIOLATION SURPRISE YOU ?
1. YES 2. NO
******************************************************************************** 9. WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE VIOLATION RATE ?
1. ZERO TOLERANCE (NO VIOLATIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE) 2. 1% TO 2% OF ALL VEHICLES ARE VIOLATORS 3. 3% TO 5% OF ALL VEHICLES ARE VIOLATORS 4. UNDER 10% OF ALL VEHICLES ARE VIOLATORS 5. THE CURRENT LEVEL OF VIOLATIONS IS ACCEPTABLE(UNDER 15%) 6. OTHER (CAPTURE) 7. DON'T KNOW
OTHER LINE = 100
(DON'T READ PRECODED RESPONSES)
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 44
******************************************************************************** 10. DO YOU THINK A FINE OF $341 IS TOO LOW, TOO HIGH, OR ABOUT RIGHT ?
1. TOO LOW 2. TOO HIGH 3. ABOUT RIGHT 4. DON'T KNOW
(PROMPT ONLY IF NO ANSWER)
******************************************************************************** 11. DO YOU FEEL THAT THE RISK OF BEING FINED KEEPS PEOPLE FROM USING THE EXPRESS LANES ILLEGALLY ?
1. YES 2. NO 3. DON'T KNOW
******************************************************************************** 12. CHP ENFORCEMENT OF THE EXPRESS LANES IS EXPENSIVE AND IT'S HARD TO TELL HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INSIDE THE VEHICLE. BECAUSE OF THIS CURRENT METHODS CATCH LESS THAN 1% OF ALL VIOLATORS.
NEW INFRARED CAMERA SYSTEMS THAT COUNT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSIDE EACH VEHICLE MAY BE ABLE TO CATCH OVER 90% OF ALL VIOLATORS.
I AM GOING TO READ YOU A LIST OF BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT THIS APPROACH. FOR EACH ONE, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU STRONGLY AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT, AGREE, ARE NEUTRAL, DISAGREE OR STRONGLY DISAGREE.
*** SURVEYOR NOTE: ENTER 'XX' TO CONTINUE ***
************************************************* QUESTIONS 13-23 ARE RANDOMLY ROTATED ******************************************************************************** 13. USING INFRARED CAMERAS TO COUNT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN CARS IS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY.
1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. AGREE 3. NEUTRAL 4. DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE
******************************************************************************** 14. THE INFRARED CAMERA SYSTEM BEING CONSIDERED COUNTS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSIDE THE VEHICLE WITHOUT A VISUAL PICTURE OF PASSENGERS. SINCE THE PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE IDENTIFIABLE, DO YOU STILL FEEL THAT THE USE OF INFRARED CAMERAS IS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY ?
1. YES 2. NO
SKIP BEFORE Q14 IF Q<13> GE 3 THEN GO 15
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 45
******************************************************************************** 15. *** SURVEYOR NOTE: ENTER 'XX' TO CONTINUE ***
******************************************************************************** 16. IT IS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY FOR CHP OFFICERS TO VISUALLY INSPECT ALL VEHICLES TO COUNT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. AGREE 3. NEUTRAL 4. DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE
********************************************************************************
17. WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANUALLY INSPECTING VEHICLES AND AUTOMATED INSPECTION USING INFRARED CAMERAS ?
SKIP BEFORE Q17 IF Q<13> GE 3 THEN GO 18 SKIP BEFORE Q17 IF Q<14> EQ 2 THEN GO 18 SKIP BEFORE Q17 IF Q<16> LE 2 THEN GO 18
******************************************************************************** 18. *** SURVEYOR NOTE: ENTER 'XX' TO CONTINUE ***
******************************************************************************** 19. AN AUTOMATED SYSTEM WILL BE A STRONGER DETERRENT TO VIOLATORS THAN CURRENT CHP ENFORCEMENT.
1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. AGREE 3. NEUTRAL 4. DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE
******************************************************************************** 20. CAN YOU TELL ME WHY YOU DISAGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT ?
SKIP BEFORE Q20 IF Q<19> LE 3 THEN GO 21
******************************************************************************** 21. *** SURVEYOR NOTE: ENTER 'XX' TO CONTINUE ***
******************************************************************************** 22. USING THE CHP TO PATROL CARPOOL LANES IS AN EFFECTIVE USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL ?
1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. AGREE 3. NEUTRAL 4. DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE
********************************************************************************
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 46
23. IF TESTING RESULTS CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS AUTOMATED A SYSTEM IS HIGHLY ACCURATE, THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY SHOULD BE USED TO IMPROVE VIOLATOR CAPTURE RATES AND TO LOWER ENFORCEMENT COST.
1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. AGREE 3. NEUTRAL 4. DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE
******************************************************************************** 24. NOW I AM GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT ANOTHER APPROACH THAT COULD BE USED INSTEAD OF A FULLY-AUTOMATED INFRARED CAMERA SYSTEM.
CARPOOLERS WOULD NOT BE CHARGED TO USE THE LANES, BUT WOULD HAVE TO REGISTER THEIR LICENSE PLATE OR APPLY A STICKER-BASED TRANSPONDER TO THEIR WINDSHIELD WITH THE CHP PERFORMING SPOT ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE VEHICLE.
VEHICLES THAT HAVE NOT REGISTERED THEIR PLATE OR DON'T HAVE A TRANSPONDER STICKER, WOULD HAVE THEIR PLATE PHOTOGRAPHED AND A VIOLATION NOTICE WOULD BE SENT OUT.
AGAIN FOR EACH STATEMENT PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, ARE NEUTRAL, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE.
*** SURVEYOR NOTE: ENTER 'XX' TO CONTINUE ***
************************************************* QUESTIONS 25-33 ARE RANDOMLY ROTATED ******************************************************************************** 25. REQUIRING CARPOOLERS TO REGISTER WILL DISCOURAGE CARPOOLING AND REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE USING THE CARPOOL LANES.
1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. AGREE 3. NEUTRAL 4. DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE
******************************************************************************** 26. IF INSTEAD OF CITING UNREGISTERED CARPOOLS RIGHT AWAY, THEIR FIRST FEW CITATIONS WERE JUST WARNINGS WITH INFORMATION ON HOW TO SIGN UP, AND THEY WERE GIVEN SEVERAL WEEKS TO GET SIGNED UP BEFORE THEY STARTED GETTING CITED AND FINED, WOULD THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION ABOUT THIS ISSUE ?
SURVEYOR NOTE: UNREGISTERED CARPOOLS INCLUDES VISITORS AND RENTAL CARS
1. YES 2. NO
SKIP BEFORE Q26 IF Q<25> GE 3 THEN GO 27
******************************************************************************** 27. *** SURVEYOR NOTE: ENTER 'XX' TO CONTINUE ***
********************************************************************************
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 47
28. CARPOOLERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO REGISTER OR OBTAIN A STICKER-BASED TRANSPONDER AS A WAY TO AUTOMATE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CARPOOL LANES.
1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. AGREE 3. NEUTRAL 4. DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE
******************************************************************************** 29. IF CARPOOLERS WERE ALLOWED TO EARN CREDITS THAT COULD BE REDEEMED LATER FOR PAYMENT OF TOLLS WHEN DRIVING ALONE, BUT WERE REQUIRED TO CARRY A TRANSPONDER TO ACCUMULATE THE CREDITS, DOES THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION ABOUT THIS ISSUE ?
1. YES 2. NO
SKIP BEFORE Q29 IF Q<28> LE 3 THEN GO 32 SKIP AFTER Q29 IF Q<29> EQ 2 THEN GO 32
******************************************************************************** 30. *** SURVEYOR NOTE: ENTER 'XX' TO CONTINUE ***
******************************************************************************** 31. IF SANDAG WERE TO OFFER THIS TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION CREDIT PROGRAM, HOW INTERESTED WOULD YOU BE IN PARTICIPATING ?
1. NOT LIKELY 2. SOMEWHAT LIKELY 3. VERY LIKELY 4. UNSURE
******************************************************************************** 32. *** SURVEYOR NOTE: ENTER 'XX' TO CONTINUE ***
******************************************************************************** 33. TAKING PHOTOS OF LICENSE PLATES IS A GOOD WAY TO IDENTIFY AND PROCESS VIOLATION NOTICES TO THE VEHICLE OWNER OF RECORD.
1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. AGREE 3. NEUTRAL 4. DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE
******************************************************************************** 34. DO YOU THINK PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REWARD COMMUTERS WHO TAKE TRANSIT OR CARPOOL ARE A GOOD IDEA ?
1. YES 2. NO 3. UNSURE ********************************************************************************
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 48
35. OK, I JUST HAVE THREE QUICK DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS AND THEN WE'RE DONE.
TO WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ETHNIC GROUPS DO YOU BELONG ?
1. WHITE, NON-HISPANIC 2. AFRICAN AMERICAN 3. HISPANIC 4. ASIAN 5. NATIVE AMERICAN 6. OTHER 7. REFUSED/DON'T KNOW
OTHER LINE = 101
******************************************************************************** 36. AND ARE YOU . . . ?
1. UNDER 20 2. IN YOUR 20'S 3. IN YOUR 30'S 4. IN YOUR 40'S 5. IN YOUR 50'S, OR 6. 60 OR OLDER 7. REFUSED
******************************************************************************** 37. AND IS YOUR COMBINED TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME . . . ?
1. LESS THAN $20,000 2. $20-$34,999 3. $35-$49,999 4. $50-$74,999 5. $75-$100,000 6. MORE THAN $100,000 7. REFUSED
******************************************************************************** 38. GENDER:
1. MALE 2. FEMALE
******************************************************************************** 39. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONCERNS YOU HAVE RELATED TO CARPOOL LANES AND ENFORCEMENT THAT WEREN'T COVERED BY THIS SURVEY ?
1. YES 2. NO
SKIP AFTER Q39 IF Q<39> EQ 2 THEN GO 41
******************************************************************************** 40. WHAT ARE THOSE ?
******************************************************************************** WELL THAT’S EVERYTHING. ON BEHALF OF SANDAG, I’D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. HAVE A GREAT DAY.
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 49
I-15 Managed Lanes Violation Enforcement Study
APPENDIX J: INTERCEPT SURVEY INSTRUMENT
June 17, 2008 Appendices Page 50
008 Appendices Page 51
Append