MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
FREIGHT STAKEHOLDERS WORKING GROUP The Freight Stakeholders Working Group may take action on any item appearing on this agenda.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
10 a.m. to 12 noon
SANDAG, Conference Room 8A 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-4231
Staff Contact: Christina Casgar (619) 699-1982 [email protected]
AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS
SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: UPDATE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD: CALIFORNIA SUSTAINABLE FREIGHT STRATEGY (ZERO AND NEAR-ZERO EMISSIONS POLICY) UPDATE COMPREHENSIVE FREIGHT GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE
If you wish to participate by conference call, please call 888-204-5987. The conference call passcode is: 5727231#
SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or see 511sd.com for route information. Secure bicycle parking is available in the building garage off Fourth Avenue.
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.
FREIGHT STAKEHOLDERS WORKING GROUP Thursday, September 25, 2014
ITEM NO. RECOMMENDATION
1. INTRODUCTIONS 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the Freight Stakeholders Working Group (FSWG) on any issue within the jurisdiction of SANDAG that is not on this agenda. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the committee coordinator prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the committee coordinator if they have a handout for distribution to FSWG members. Public speakers are limited to three or less per person. FWSG members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.
+3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES INFORMATION The FSWG is asked to review the minutes from its June 18, 2014, meeting.
REPORTS
+4. SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: UPDATE INFORMATION The SANDAG Board of Directors accepted the Blended Scenario as the preferred Revenue Constrained Transportation Scenario for use in developing the draft San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan on September 12, 2014. The draft Regional Plan, which will include the Sustainable Communities Strategy elements required by Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg, 2008) and the air quality conformity analysis, and the draft Environmental Impact Report, are anticipated to be released for public review and comment in spring 2015.
+5. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD: CALIFORNIA SUSTAINABLE INFORMATION FREIGHT STRATEGY (ZERO AND NEAR-ZERO FREIGHT EMISSIONS POLICY) UPDATE The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been coordinating policy-related meetings and workshops throughout California with stakeholders including seaports, local government agencies, local communities, and various industry companies associated with freight in order to inform the CARB Board regarding its evolving Sustainable Freight Strategy.
+6. COMPREHENSIVE FREIGHT GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE INFORMATION The Gateway Study Update will refresh the 2007 baseline estimates and freight forecast numbers out to 2050 from the original Comprehensive Freight Gateway Study completed in 2010. Staff and the freight gateway consulting team will provide information about the Gateway Study Update, including revised freight forecast tables for the region’s seaports/airports/rail yards and land ports of entry. In addition, the FSWG will see revised draft chapters (Introduction, Infrastructure Assessment, and the Freight Corridor Analysis Chapters) developed for the Gateway Update.
2
7. UPDATE ON FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL FREIGHT POLICY ISSUES INFORMATION
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) is the current federal transportation law. It calls for a policy to be developed to improve the condition and performance of the national freight network to provide the foundation for the United States to compete in the global economy and achieve goals related to economic competitiveness and efficiency; congestion; productivity; safety, security, and resilience of freight movement; infrastructure condition; use of advanced technology; performance, innovation, competition, and accountability in the operation and maintenance of the network; and environmental impacts. (Section 1115; 23 USC 167) MAP-21 also requires the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish a national freight network to assist states in strategically directing resources toward improved movement of freight on highways. The national freight network was envisioned to consist of three components including: a Primary Freight Network (PFN), as designated by the Secretary, any portions of the Interstate System not designated as part of the PFN, and critical rural freight corridors. MAP-21 also suggests that states DOTs may elect to develop a Statewide Freight Strategy. California, through Caltrans is also developing a Statewide Freight Mobility Plan. SANDAG has been commenting on this suggested Statewide Freight Mobility Plan through a statewide freight planning advisory group (California Freight Advisory Committee), and through written comments on both the national and state freight plans. The FSWG will be briefed on recent activities.
8. NEXT MEETING DISCUSSION
Staff will propose a date for the next meeting in October and seek concurrence from the group. + next to an item indicates an attachment
3 San Diego Association of Governments FREIGHT STAKEHOLDERS WORKING GROUP
September 25, 2014 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3
Action Requested: INFORMATION
JUNE 18, 2014, MEETING MINUTES File Number 3100700
The meeting of the Freight Stakeholders Working Group (FSWG) was called to order by Christina Casgar, Goods Movement Policy Manager, at 10:00 a.m.
1. INTRODUCTIONS
Self-introductions were made. See attached attendance list.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS
No public comments were made.
3. SUMMARY OF MARCH 5, 2014, MEETING (INFORMATION)
No comments by the FSWG were made.
4. COMPREHENSIVE FREIGHT GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE (INFORMATION)
Christina Casgar (SANDAG), provided an introductory overview emphasizing that this study update will refresh the 2007 baseline estimates and freight forecast growth trends out to 2050. This approach will serve as an update from the completed 2010 original Comprehensive Freight Gateway Study. Today’s meeting will focus on reviewing updated freight forecast tables for the region’s seaports, airports, rail yards, and land Ports of Entry (POE); draft chapters focusing on the regional economic context for freight; updated assessment of the region’s freight infrastructure; and a discussion on freight corridors.
Paul Bingham (CDM Smith), provided a slide-deck presentation on the meeting Item No. 4 focus areas. Mr. Bingham discussed the Gateway Study update status including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) parallel study focusing on Imperial County, Baja California, and San Diego County. It was also clarified that the intermodal trade component for the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) forecast was based on macroeconomic and trade model information and does not include truck flow data. It was asked as to where the FAF data could be found, and whether county- level information was included. Mr. Bingham responded by stating that the FAF information was all accessible from the website and that the information was distributed from region to region rather than at the county level. The FAF data is organized within groupings of counties and the information is not suited to be used alone for more granular local level needs. The data is meant to illustrate trade flows at a higher level and to be distilled with other tools or data sources for local level uses.
4 When considering recent San Diego County economy and trade trends, key highlights include the fact that the post-recession recovery has been weaker than the previous growth trends for both San Diego regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and trade value prior to the recession. Additionally, there is a strong correlation between value of trade and economic growth during these time periods.
Contrary to the comprehensive San Diego County trade growth post-recession, there has been a re-acceleration in trade growth between the United States and Mexico during the same period. A question was asked as to the meaning of “under North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).” Mr. Bingham explained that the NAFTA has undergone a three-stage progression since its inception which has led to today’s recent uptrend in growth. Major factors that have contributed to this uptrend have been supply chain related including higher labor costs in China, as well as lower logistical costs closer to the United States via Mexico. These occurrences have created long-term potential for manufacturing and trade with Mexico. Alejandra Mier y Teran (Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce) asked whether it makes sense to see somewhat higher or equally robust export growth rates versus import growth rates. Mr. Bingham explained that Mexico is experiencing higher value from manufacturing components and that this is influencing growth in domestic consumption within Mexico. Ms. Casgar also mentioned that 40 percent of the imports from Mexico are United States content. Mr. Bingham also stated that some exports are not necessarily finished items including natural gas and agriculture. The near-shoring of supply chains from Asia to Mexico directly and indirectly combined with the maturation of the Mexican economy has led to a reemergence of Mexico.
Mr. Bingham provided an update on the regional freight infrastructure profiles which will be considered on a mode by mode basis and include warehousing and the pipeline network. This assessment will also include Imperial County and Baja California. Key insights gained will involve infrastructure gap identification such as space, capacity, and access. The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal and nearby land uses was used as an example. Rob Owen (Caltrans), questioned how elections, community discussion, and other information would affect this section. Mr. Bingham responded that this study will feed into the regional plan process to address the balance of passenger and freight needs. Freight provides an important economic benefit for the region and quantifying this benefit is important for freight, but this will be an objective assessment not advocating or suggestive manner.
Joy Williams (Environmental Health Coalition), stated that there have been issues raised regarding economic analysis on freight. Ms. Williams used the Barrio Logan community as an example and asked if the economic analysis would provide how many people where directly benefiting within San Diego at local levels. Mr. Bingham stated that the Port of San Diego has an economic impact study, but that it is not at the neighborhood job distribution level. Aimee Heim (Port of San Diego), added that some companies will do economic impact studies of where money is being spent locally, but that she is not aware of a study providing economic impacts distributed with local areas of a region. Ms. Williams replied that the study should remain objective and consider freight impacts on local communities. Ms. Casgar mentioned that the study would take a neutral stance and that there were policy considerations as well that would be incorporated into the study such as sustainable freight initiatives. Linda Greenberg (Lee and Associates), stated that in the event freight rail were to no longer operate in the region, truck demand would be substantially heightened; with trucks operating most anywhere, what are the exceptions or restrictions. Mr. Bingham replied that
5 neighborhoods have truck restrictions and agreed that increasing truck traffic would be significant if other modal flows were no longer available.
A question was asked regarding the costs associated with transportation; whether this was considering highways only or the infrastructure around it. John Hoegemeier, (SD Freight Rail Consulting) replied that bottlenecks are not only a primarily highway-based congestion issue. There are congestion issues near the border and port .Over time there has been a 45 to 50 percent loss of productivity; five trips per day is now one or two over the NAFTA time period.
Mr. Bingham provided an update on the FAF 3.4 data and the freight/trade forecast approach. Mr. Bingham clarified that the import and export flows by commodity were not at a Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) product level, but more associated with industries such as petrochemical or automotive. Mr. Bingham also emphasized that the forecasts assume no new interventions or additive projects to affect traffic. The study’s intent is not to develop a business plan or development-potential or market forecast. As a result, forecasts my underestimate potential future market share gains (and associated traffic) for the San Diego and border region.
Mr. Bingham provided a review of the gateway study forecast tables. This included Otay Mesa and Calexico border and San Diego County truck forecasts, San Ysidro and Calexico border rail forecasts, and the San Diego Port and air cargo forecasts. Initial questions included how border traffic comments would be accommodated; and inclusion for the Desert Line to the east. Ms. Casgar responded that the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) owns the Desert Line and that this is a policy discussion and decision subject. Dennis La Salle (La Salle Solutions), stated that there is a Mexico/Tijuana railroad making investments to support more import cargo to the United States. He asked how this would fit into the study. Mr. Bingham replied that this would be an example of an improvement leading to growth on top of the baseline forecast. Other comments included similar questions regarding new improvements and how they would be considered in the study. Mr. Bingham reiterated that anything that is not in place would be considered speculative and not incorporated into the baseline. The baseline reflects a snapshot of today and the forecasted growth trends from this point.
Ms. Mier y Teran asked how the in and out truck trips were determined. Mr. Bingham replied that the study is not modeling truck specifics, but is looking at loaded truck trailers and not total commercial vehicles; the cargo forecast is translated into vehicle traffic forecasts. Additionally it was stated that activities including transloading add complications and are a challenge for modeling demand for the economy. Another question related to converting air cargo tonnage to trucks. Mr. Bingham replied that there is not a linear correlation due to the vehicle mix of truck equipment.
Brett Caldwell, (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority [SDCRAA]), mentioned that there will be further revisions to cargo numbers in the Airport Development Plan as previously including in the Airport Master Plan. Specifically this will include improvements in the northern part of the airfield for air cargo and changes to parking spaces, for aircraft, etc. This could impact the number of trucks going into and out of the airport facility. The SDCRAA may not have truck count information, but the carriers may have this. Other items mentioned included for air quality analysis truck trips and aircraft arrival/departure should be factored in; and that there is a contrast between air cargo truck trips and other commercial vehicle trips to the airport. Ms. Casgar stated that she
6 would provide language to clearly distinguish between partner agency plan documents and the study’s FAF freight baseline and growth forecasts.
Mr. Bingham provided further review of the corridor freight flow analysis which will serve to focus on truck modes within the context of other transportation modes; assess regional truck and intermodal freight demand between the San Diego border and Los Angeles basin; identify secondary movements of shipments which are transshipped or transferred; clarifying double counting of truck trips; and ultimately modify the internal San Diego truck trip estimates at the corridor level. The remainder of Mr. Bingham’s presentation focused on trends in construction, manufacturing, and consumer products trends.
5. UPDATE ON FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL FREIGHT POLICY ISSUES (INFORMATION)
Ms. Casgar provided an update on federal, state, and local freight policy issues. Ms. Casgar reiterated that the California Air Resources Board has been working towards sustainable freight policies and that SANDAG has been intimately involved in this process. Additionally SANDAG has been continuing its work with the California Freight Advisory Committee coordinating comment efforts with the United States Department of Transportation. An informational flier for the California Freight Mobility Plan was distributed to the FSWG.
6. NEXT MEETING (DISCUSSION)
The group tentatively agreed that the next meeting of the FSWG be held July 23, 2014, from 10:00 a.m.to 12:00 p.m.
7 San Diego Association of Governments FREIGHT STAKEHOLDERS WORKING GROUP ATTENDANCE June 18, 2014
Name Agency Bill Hall (phone) Port of San Diego Tenants Association Paul Bingham CDM Smith John Hoegemeier (phone) SD Freight Rail Consulting Aimee Heim Port of San Diego Sean Hower BNSF Railway Brett Caldwell San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Michael Morris (phone) Federal Highway Administration Frank Rivera (phone) City of Chula Vista Amrado Freire California Trucking Association Linda Greenberg Lee and Associates Joy Williams (phone) Environmental Health Coalition Alejandra Mier y Teran (phone) Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce Raymond Payesp? (phone) Scott Strelecki SANDAG Christina Casgar SANDAG Elisa Arias SANDAG Joanne McDermott (phone) Caltrans Yasnaia Florentino Caltrans Rob Owen Caltrans Maurice Eaton Caltrans Dennis LaSalle LaSalle Solutions Gaspar Metzler Ibanez Admicarga
8 Agenda Item No. 4 Freight Stakeholders Working Group September 25, 2014
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14-09-2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 ACTION REQUESTED – ACCEPT
SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: File Number 3102000 PREFERRED REVENUE CONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION SCENARIO
Introduction Recommendation
At its August 15, 2014, meeting, the Board of The Transportation and Regional Planning Directors discussed two draft Revenue Constrained Committees recommend that the Board of Transportation Scenarios (Scenarios 1 and 2) and the Directors accept the Blended Scenario as results of the performance measure and social equity the preferred Revenue Constrained analyses. Input on draft Scenarios 1 and 2 also was Transportation Scenario for use in received from the public at two outreach workshops, developing the Draft San Diego Forward: SANDAG working groups, stakeholders, and the The Regional Plan. network of Community Based Organizations (CBOs).
At its August meeting, the Board directed staff to develop a hybrid scenario (referred to as the Blended Scenario in this report) for presentation at the September Board meeting. This report provides: (1) a summary of feedback received on draft Scenarios 1 and 2; (2) a description of the Blended Scenario; and (3) a projected performance summary, including social equity and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analyses. The Transportation and Regional Planning Committees discussed the Blended Scenario at their September 5, 2014, meetings. Staff will report verbally on comments received from the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees.
Discussion
Draft Revenue Constrained Transportation Scenarios
The main themes of the two draft scenarios presented to the Board at its August 15, 2014, meeting were as follows:
The main themes of the two draft scenarios presented on August 1, 2014, to the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees were as follows:
• Scenario 1 emphasized strengthening existing transit corridors with “Express” services along the existing Blue and Orange Trolley Lines and early operational efficiency improvements of the
9 SPRINTER. The proposed approach for the Managed Lanes1 network was the phasing of two Managed Lanes along the Interstate 5 (I-5) and Interstate 805 (I-805) corridors earlier in the Plan by 2025.
• Scenario 2 emphasized the creation of a system of Rapid2 services in key urban corridors. Complementing the network of ten minute all day (by 2035) high frequency local bus services included in both scenarios, the Rapid system would provide fast, limited stop service for passengers making longer distance trips within these corridors and facilitate access to rail services and the Managed Lane-based Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services. As with Scenario 1, this scenario provided for new Trolley services in the more densely populated areas, but unlike Scenario 1, it would implement limited stop express bus services instead of “Express” Trolley service along the Blue and Orange Trolley Lines for passengers making longer distance trips. For Managed Lanes, Scenario 2 proposed the initial development of all four Managed Lanes projects for segments of I-5 and I-805 at one time, phased later in the Plan by 2035.
Both Scenarios 1 and 2 proposed the same Active Transportation Program as well as Emerging Technologies and Transportation Systems Management Program. The Transportation Demand Management Program proposed the same elements for both scenarios, with slight variations in the level of investment for the new elements of the program for each scenario.
Feedback on Draft Scenarios 1 and 2
Board feedback on Draft Scenarios 1 and 2 included a desire to make the best use of near term revenues and acknowledging uncertainties related to the 2050 horizon of the Regional Plan (emerging technologies, travel behaviors, etc.). The Board discussed the potential trade-offs between the transit and Managed Lanes capital improvements proposed in Scenarios 1 and 2, while also recognizing the associated operational costs. Staff was directed to develop the Blended Scenario, for presentation at the September Board meeting.
Additionally, the Board guided staff to conduct a parallel effort that would not interfere with the development of the revenue constrained transportation scenario and adoption of the Regional Plan in summer 2015. This effort would evaluate the cost of advancing transit and active transportation projects to earlier phases of the plan, the strategy for leveraging capital dollars, and need for new revenues to support transit operations. The Board consensus was that the results of such an analysis would be beneficial for future planning efforts and would be presented first to the Transportation Committee.
1 Managed Lanes or Express Lanes support carpooling, vanpooling, and BRT services. Managed Lanes also accommodate fee-paying patrons (similar to the FasTrak® system, in which fees support transit services along the Interstate 15 corridor).
2 Rapid transit services refer to both BRT that operates on Managed Lanes and Rapid bus that provides higher- speed alternatives to local bus services in high-volume arterial corridors and utilizes a range of lower-capital cost signal priority treatments, short segments of transit-only lanes, and limited station stops to achieve faster travel times.
2 10 Feedback received from the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees, the public, working groups, CBOs, and the Economic Competitiveness Focus Groups is summarized in Attachment 1. More than 1,600 public comments also have been posted on the San Diego Forward website at Read What We’ve Heard.
In general terms, more support was heard for including a system of two Managed Lanes earlier in the Regional Plan and a widespread transit system that provides geographically-richer access to jobs, beaches, and the San Diego International Airport. Active transportation projects also were broadly supported.
Description of the Proposed Blended Scenario
The Blended Scenario includes all of the projects common to both Scenarios 1 and 2 in addition to a mix of several projects previously unique to Scenario 1 or 2 (Attachment 2). The key themes of the Blended Scenario for the transit and Managed Lanes systems are highlighted below:
• For transit, the starting point for the Blended Scenario is Scenario 2. The Blended Scenario includes a rich network of Rapid routes that preserves the seven unique routes from Scenario 2. Key differences include the advanced phasing of three important regional projects. These changes include early efficiency improvements on the SPRINTER corridor to allow for 20-minute peak frequencies as well as the advanced phasing of the Rapid route from San Diego State University (SDSU) to the Palomar Trolley station (Route 550) by 2025. Additionally, an extension of the Mid-Coast Trolley Line connecting with COASTER service in Sorrento Mesa is proposed by 2035. The Blended Scenario also includes enhancements to existing local bus routes, with frequencies planned at 15 minutes in key corridors by 2020 and ten minutes by 2035.
• For Managed Lanes and Highways, the starting point for the Blended Scenario is Scenario 1. The Blended Scenario includes the early phasing of two Managed Lanes on I-5 from State Route 78 (SR 78) to Vandegrift and on I-805 from State Route 94 (SR 94) to State Route 15 (SR 15). In addition, the Blended Scenario adds early phasing of two Managed Lanes on I-805 between State Route 52 (SR 52) and State Route 163(SR 163), as well as advanced phasing of I-5 South to support the proposed BRT service on that corridor. It also includes the early phasing of two Managed Lanes for the complete section of SR 78 from I-5 to I-15.
Attachments 3 through 8 illustrate the phased transit networks and Managed Lanes/Highway networks for the Blended Scenario.
Transit System
The Blended Scenario includes the web of Rapid routes from Scenario 2 that, together with increased frequencies on local bus services and advanced SPRINTER and Trolley phasing, strengthens transit options in key urban travel corridors and overall system connectivity. Because the Blue and Orange Express Trolley services proposed in Scenario 1 would require significant infrastructure investments and right-of-way acquisition, Scenario 2 proposed instead the inclusion of seven additional routes. These seven routes are retained in the Blended Scenario and include two BRT routes along the Blue and Orange Trolley corridors. BRT Route 640A would provide limited stop service between San Ysidro, Downtown, and Old Town via I-5, while BRT Route 640B would connect the Iris and Palomar Trolley stations with Downtown and Kearny Mesa via I-15 and SR 163.
3 11 BRT Route 90 would provide service between the El Cajon Transit Center/Grossmont Center and Downtown San Diego via the SR 94 Managed Lanes.
The Blended Scenario also proposes to extend the Mid-Coast Trolley from University Town Center (UTC) to Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Canyon with a connection to the COASTER service in Sorrento Valley (Trolley Route 561) earlier in the Plan by 2035. The eastern connection to the Mira Mesa community would be served in the Blended Scenario by Rapid Route 237 that connects the north I-15 corridor with Mira Mesa, University City, and UC San Diego (this service is slated to begin operating as early as October 2014).
In addition, the Blended Scenario also includes several major projects that were included in both Scenarios 1 and 2, as follows:
• Trolley Route 562 from San Ysidro to Carmel Valley via the SR 15 and the I-805 corridors
• Trolley Route 563 from Pacific Beach to Grossmont Center via Kearny Mesa and Mission Valley
• Trolley Route 560 from Downtown San Diego to SDSU via Park Boulevard and El Cajon Boulevard
• COASTER commuter rail service frequency improvements
• Streetcar service in Downtown San Diego, Hillcrest, and North Park
• San Ysidro and San Diego International Airport Intermodal Transit Centers and Airport Express Routes
The Blended Scenario also includes early efficiency improvements on the SPRINTER corridor to allow for 20-minute peak frequencies (a project advanced previously in Scenario 1 only). Additionally, the Blended Scenario advances the Rapid route from SDSU to the Palomar Trolley station (Rapid 550) to the year 2025. Also, similar to Scenario 2, it advances the implementation Rapid routes providing service from Solana Beach to UTC/UC San Diego (Rapid 473), from SDSU to Spring Valley (Rapid 636), and from North Park to 32nd Street Trolley station (Rapid 637). Other transit routes maintained in the Blended Scenario from Scenario 2 include peak service from Chula Vista to Palomar Airport Road Business Park via I-805/I-5 (BRT Route 650), Rapid 103 serving Solana Beach to the I-15 Sabre Springs BRT station, Rapid 440 from Carlsbad to San Marcos and Escondido, and Rapid 477 from Camp Pendleton to Carlsbad Village, and a streetcar serving Mission Beach, Pacific Beach, and La Jolla, which would complement the Trolley Route 563 with a western terminus in Pacific Beach.
Managed Lanes and Highways
The Blended Scenario proposes a system of two Managed Lanes (one in each direction) on major north-south and east-west corridors in the first two decades of the Plan (I-5, I-805, SR 15/I-15, SR 78, SR 94), with completion of the four Managed Lanes on segments of I-5 and I-805 later in the Plan. Connector projects are phased to match the Managed Lanes projects. The BRT services in the Blended Scenario would utilize Managed Lanes in the I-5, I-805, SR 15/I-15, SR 52, SR 125, and SR 94 corridors.
4 12 Additionally, the Blended Scenario proposes improvements on SR 67 from Mapleview Street to Gold Bar Lane in Lakeside early in the Plan by 2025. The SR 11 toll road and the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry also are phased in the early years of the Plan.
Active Transportation Program
The proposed Active Transportation Program for the Blended Scenario includes projects that will benefit a wide range of the region’s residents, not just those who choose to travel by bike. The majority of the projects and programs described below will provide safer access for pedestrians, particularly vulnerable roadway users such as school children, seniors, and disabled pedestrians.
By 2050, the proposed active transportation elements of the Blended Scenario include:
• Full build-out of the Regional Bicycle Plan network projects, including pedestrian enhancements.
The Regional Bicycle Plan network projects include completion of the Regional Bicycle Plan Early Action Program (EAP) projects approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors in 2013 as well as completion of the remaining projects identified in the San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan. Regional Bicycle Plan EAP projects that are anticipated for completion by 2020 are included in the 2020 Scenario. The remaining EAP projects anticipated for completion prior to 2035 are included in the 2035 Scenario. San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan projects that are not included in the EAP are listed in the 2050 Scenario. Most Regional Bicycle Plan projects will include improvements that will enhance access and safety for pedestrians, such as improvements to shorten crossing distances at intersections.
• “Safe Routes to Transit” bicycle and pedestrian access improvements at all new transit stations and at stations that will undergo improvements.
For the transit projects included in the Blended Scenario, transit station area improvements are included to enhance access and safety for people who walk or bike to the transit stop or station, or in station areas.
• Local bicycle projects
Local bicycle projects include projects implemented by local jurisdictions, such as those identified in their bicycle master plans.
• Local pedestrian, safety, and traffic calming projects
Local pedestrian, safety, and traffic calming projects include projects implemented by local jurisdictions, such as those identified in pedestrian master plans, community plans, and area specific plans.
• Regional bicycle and pedestrian programs
Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs include programs to support investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, such as safety education and outreach, and data collection and modeling.
5 13 • Implementation of the “San Diego Regional Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan”
In 2010, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the San Diego Regional Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan to support local communities in establishing new Safe Routes to School programs as well as sustaining and enhancing existing efforts. Regional efforts to implement this strategy are funded as part of the Active Transportation Program.
The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan projects are listed in Attachment 9 and illustrated in Attachment 10.
Emerging Technologies and Transportation Systems and Demand Management
Emerging Technologies is captured in the Transportation System Management (TSM) Program. Proposed TSM investments in the Blended Scenario have been developed so as to maintain the greatest mobility benefits through the application of innovative technologies that maximize network efficiencies.
Such efficiencies can result in decreases in both fuel consumption and in overall air pollutant emissions. Research is underway to quantify decreases in GHG emissions. In particular, TSM investments such as the Multimodal Integration and Performance-Based Management, Arterial Management, or Vehicle Automation are focused on how to best use data or information such as speeds, vehicle locations, and fuel consumption to mitigate and reduce congestion. Implementation of these initiatives would result in more reliable travel options that would reduce unnecessary trips and reductions in vehicle idling and unnecessary accelerations and decelerations, as well as reductions in frequency of accidents. TSM investments are expected to provide the underlined technological applications to promote greater multi-modal system efficiencies that support mode and trip changes over time, which can ultimately lower GHG emissions.
TSM core programs include transit, freeway, and arterial management systems as well as traveler information and electronic payment systems. These programs are described in Attachment 11. New program elements proposed in the Blended Scenario include:
• Vehicle Automation
• Advanced Transportation Technology Program
• Universal Transportation Account
• Transit Infrastructure Electrification
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to programs and strategies that manage and reduce traffic congestion by encouraging the use of transportation alternatives, including active transportation. SANDAG coordinates several programs that are increasing the number of commuters who carpool, vanpool, take transit, bike, walk, and telework. Detailed descriptions of the programs are included in Attachment 12. The TDM Core Program for the Blended Scenario includes the Regional Vanpool Program, Employer Services and Outreach, Commuter Services and Bike Program, and Program Administration. Three new TDM elements aim to maximize transit and highway investments through 2050:
6 14 • Mobility Hubs
• Active Traffic and Demand Management
• Shared-Use Mobility
Other Elements of the Blended Scenario
The Blended Scenario also includes the following components:
• Transit operations, including Specialized Transportation Services3
• Transit vehicle costs along with maintenance facilities, park-and-ride, and system rehabilitation expenses
• Highway operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation
• Goods movement, which is supported by improvements to major highway corridors and to rail corridors, which serve both freight and passenger services
• New toll lanes on I-5 north of Vandegrift Boulevard and on I-15 north of SR 78 (to be funded with toll revenues)
• Local Streets and Roads and Rail Grade Separations
• Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Transportation Grant Program
• Debt Service
• High-Speed Rail (post-2035), managed by the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
Also, the Blended Scenario includes all projects, programs, and services from the TransNet Extension Ordinance through 2048.
Anticipated Revenues and Revenue Constraints on the Blended Scenario
The refined revenue estimates show that approximately $204 billion (in year of expenditure dollars) would be available through 2050. The revenue forecasts include projections of anticipated federal, state, local, and private funds from existing and reasonably expected sources that are predicted to be available in the future, including the locally-generated TransNet half-cent sales tax. These revenue projections are based on current sources and levels of funding, with growth assumptions and potential new funding sources consistent with historical funding trends.
3 Specialized Transportation Services are transportation services provided to disadvantaged populations, such as persons with limited means, individuals with disabilities, and seniors. Projects under this transportation category include the federally mandated Americans with Disabilities Act transportation services as well as the locally supported TransNet Senior Mini-Grant.
7 15 The allowable uses for these funds are governed by a variety of mechanisms, including federal and state statutes, the TransNet Ordinance, Board Policy, or by other agencies, including Caltrans and local agencies. Local funds make up 48 percent of the total revenue, with state and federal funds providing 33 and 19 percent respectively (Figure 1).
In addition to TransNet, local sources include Transportation Development Act, local street and road funds, transit passenger fares, and revenue from tolls. State funds include State Transportation Improvement Program, Active Transportation Program, and new Cap & Trade funds. State funds also assume future Proposition 1A/B equivalent programs for transportation and High-Speed Rail. Federal funds assume continuation of the formula programs – Federal Transit Administration programs, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, Regional Surface Transportation Program, and Corridors and Borders Infrastructure Program. Federal funds also include a national freight program and high-speed rail. Additional future funds could include a combination of a new future sales tax program for transit, and potential new or expanded sources, including increases to existing gas taxes at either the state or federal level or revenues raised through road usage charges or vehicle miles travelled currently being tested as pilot projects in other states.
Figure 1 – Major Revenue Sources (Revenue Constrained) ($204 Billion in Year of Expenditure)
TransNet 13%
Local State 35% 33%
Federal 19%
8 16 Additionally, Figure 2 illustrates the anticipated revenues for three phasing periods (2014-2020, 2021-2035, and 2036-2050) with 8 percent available by 2020, 29 percent from 2021 to 2035, and 63 percent from 2036 through 2050.
Figure 2 – Phased Anticipated Revenues (in Year of Expenditure)
2014-2020 (8%)
2021 -2035 (29%) 2036-2050 (63%)
Figure 3 summarizes the proposed investments in the Blended Scenario, based on the anticipated revenues and allowable uses described above. In order to advance the three regional transit projects described in the Blended Scenario into the 2021-2035 period, significant amounts of discretionary funding in those years are assumed. The proposed advancement of these projects has reduced the total capital cost (due to lower accumulated escalation in earlier years). Further, transit operations costs for the Blended Scenario were refined along with the corresponding revenues, such as passenger fares.
9 17 Figure 3 – Blended Scenario: Proposed Investments ($204 Billion in Year of Expenditure)
Active Transportation and Other Smart Growth Incentive 4% Program 3%
TDM/TSM 1%
Transit Capital Local Streets & Roads, and 28% Rail Grade Separations 13%
Managed Lanes & High Speed Rail Highway Operations/ Maintenance 8% Highways & Connectors (Capital) 5%
Transit Operations/ Managed Lanes & Maintenance Connectors (Capital) 21% 16%
Performance of the Scenarios
Utilizing the performance measures approved by the SANDAG Board in March 2014, SANDAG staff has conducted an evaluation of all three scenarios: Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and the Blended Scenario. A social equity analysis also has been conducted in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Environmental Justice guidelines SANDAG must follow due to contractual agreements with various federal and state agencies.
The performance measures support ten key questions that gauge the performance of the transportation network in the three goal areas adopted by the Board demonstrating how implementation of the scenario could help to strengthen the economy, provide people with more mobility choices, and improve access to jobs and services, while preserving our environment.
Figure 4 is the scorecard that summarizes the performance of the Blended Scenario. A detailed analysis of the performance measure results and supporting data for Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and the Blended Scenario is included as Attachment 13. As the scorecard illustrates, in general, Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Blended Scenario all perform similarly compared to one another; each scenario achieves the goals and objectives of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.
10 18 Scorecard For San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Draft Revenue Constrained Transportation Blended Scenario
Goal Key Question Blended Scenario Highlights
Vibrant 1 Do the transportation 2035 2050 • Benefits of the plan outweigh the costs by a factor of nearly investments help to two-to-one Economy improve the regional N/A economy?
2 Are the relative costs 2035 2050 • Out-of-pocket costs change similarly for all communities of transportation with a slight cost savings for most groups changing similarly for all communities?
3 Are connections 2035 2050 • Modest travel time savings to/from military facilities to neighboring in 2035 and to/from tribal lands in 2050 counties, Mexico, • Substantial travel time savings to/from the tribal lands,& military Otay Mesa port of entry facilities improved?
• By 2050, transportation investments would save more than Innovative 4 Are travel times 2035 2050 reduced? 609 million hours compared to making no investments Mobility and Planning
5 • Fewer people are driving alone Are more people 2035 2050 walking, biking, using transit, and sharing rides?
6 • Accident rates decrease by nearly 8% for bikes Is the transportation 2035 2050 system safer? and pedestrians in 2050 • Accident rates for vehicles remain flat
7 Does the transportation • 60% of the population and 71% of employment would be close Healthy 2035 2050 network support smart to frequent transit compared to 34% and 40% today Environment growth? • Physical activity increases by more than 147,000 hours daily • 64% of the population and 76% of employment would be near and bike facilities compared to 55% and 65% today Communities 8 Is access to jobs and • Access to jobs, schools, and amenities by transit improves 2035 2050 key destinations • Access by driving alone remains at 99-100% improving for all communities?
9 Is the region’s air • Smog forming pollutants decrease by 2035 2050 quality improving? more than two-thirds by 2050
10 Are GHG emissions • Significant decrease in total GHG emissions – a savings of 2035 2050 reduced? more than 4.5 million tons of GHG over the life of the plan
Data is compared to 2012 11 2449 7/14 19 The transportation investments included in all three scenarios provide regional benefits that outweigh their costs. The Benefit-Cost Analysis calculates benefits in six major categories: the value of time saved (including a reliability measure), operational cost savings (e.g., savings from not driving), accident reduction, emissions, increased physical activity, and ownership cost savings (savings from not owning a car). The benefits of all three scenarios outweigh the costs by a ratio of roughly two to one.
The transportation investments included in all three scenarios provide improved access to jobs and higher education, with 100 percent of the population being able to access jobs and schools within 30 minutes driving alone. Significant increases are seen in the percent of the population able to reach jobs and higher education via transit in 30 minutes or less.
With significant transit investments and local land use plans that encourage growth near transit, the percent of the population with access to high frequency transit for each scenario – Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and the Blended Scenario – increases in each phase of the Plan, from the current (2012) levels of 34 percent to 60 percent in 2050. Similarly, the percent of employment near transit would increase from 40 percent currently to 71 percent in 2050 for Scenario 2 and Blended Scenario and to 70 percent for Scenario 1. On a regional basis, additional transit options result in the percent of people using transit to travel to work to nearly double, increasing from 3.3 percent in 2010 to 6.1 percent (Scenario 1 and Blended Scenario) and 6.2 percent (Scenario 2) in 2050.
Active transportation investments, combined with local land use, also result in an increase in the percent of the population and employment near bike facilities. These transportation options result in fewer people choosing to drive alone and in higher levels of transportation-related physical activity, which increases by 67 percent (in 2050) over 2012 levels, for the three scenarios. This results in more than 22,000 additional hours of daily physical activity in 2050, compared to No Build.
The transportation investments, coupled with improvements in fuel and vehicle technologies, help to reduce on-road, smog-forming pollutants and GHG emissions compared to 2012 levels. Reductions in smog-forming pollutants per capita are seen in all years of the Plan, with the greatest reductions in 2035 and 2050. Total and per capita GHG emissions also are reduced over current levels. Over the life of the Plan, more than 4.5 million fewer tons of GHG are emitted as compared to the No Build scenario.
The transportation improvements provide benefits to the overall region, often with more significant improvements seen at the corridor level. Peak-period travel times by mode (drive alone, transit, and carpool) were projected for several key corridors. Travel times by transit improve significantly in many corridors, and in some corridors provide travel times comparable to or better than driving alone. Travel times by carpool improve for many of the corridors, with the largest time savings seen along corridors with new Managed Lanes such as I-5, I-805, SR 78, and the existing Express Lanes on I-15. In addition, improvements in many corridors would help to maintain current travel times by driving alone despite the projected growth of nearly 1 million people and half a million new jobs in the region by 2050.
Social Equity Analysis
The term ”social equity analysis” refers to the concept of evaluating whether particular population groups receive a disproportionate amount of the burdens or benefits of a proposed project or
12 20 service. SANDAG is required by law to conduct such an analysis for low income and minority populations. The goal is for all communities to be treated equitably and given equal opportunity to participate in the planning and decision making process in a timely and meaningful way with an emphasis on ensuring that traditionally disadvantaged communities do not end up with a disparate (unequal) impact when compared to other impacted communities. Such impacts include factors such as negative environmental impacts as well as beneficial impacts such as increased accessibility or services.
From the beginning of the planning process, SANDAG has partnered with a network of CBOs that represent various disadvantaged communities throughout the region. As a peer group on social equity, the CBOs have been contributing at key milestones in the planning process including but not limited to defining the vulnerable populations, weighing in on the project evaluation criteria, helping define the performance measures to use for the social equity analysis, and providing feedback on the draft scenarios.
A social equity analysis, using the SANDAG Board-approved performance measures, was conducted for the Blended Scenario to make sure it is consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, and other applicable social equity laws that require that the benefits and burdens of the projects in the Regional Plan be equitably distributed between populations identified as being vulnerable and the rest of the population. For the purposes of the Regional Plan, the populations identified as being vulnerable are: minorities, low-income (200% of the Federal Poverty Rate), and seniors 75 and older.
Through the process of developing the performance measures, a subset was identified as the framework for the social equity analysis in which data would be produced comparing these three vulnerable populations against the “non” population (e.g., minority v. non-minority):
• Average peak-period travel time to work
• Change in percent of income consumed by transportation costs
• Percentage of population within 0.5 miles of high-frequency transit stops
• Percentage of population within 0.5 miles of a transit stop
• Percentage of population within 0.25 miles of bike facility
• Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher education
• Percent of population within 15 minutes of goods/services (retail, medical, parks, and beaches)
• Change in amount of toxic emissions (particulate matter)
The social equity analysis indicates that there are no significant4 disparate impacts to low-income, minority, or senior populations for Scenarios 1 or 2 or the Blended Scenario in comparison to the
4 “Significant” in the context of disparate impacts has been defined by federal and state courts to occur when statistical data comparing the vulnerable population to the non-population shows a variance that is higher than what would be expected due to randomness. In many cases, the courts have used one of the following
13 21 applicable “non” population. It is important to point out that the data in the table provided in Attachment 14 shows that access to high frequency transit improves significantly for all vulnerable populations between 2012 and 2050. For example, for low-income populations, access to high frequency transit is 41 percent in 2012 and increases to 68 percent in the Blended Scenario by 2050. The disparate impact analysis described in Attachment 14, however, is not based on a comparison of existing conditions (2012) to projected 2050 conditions, but rather the focus is on reviewing each vulnerable population and its comparable “non” population by comparing the No Build projections to the numbers for Scenarios 1 and 2 and the Blended Scenario for each year (2020, 2035, and 2050) to determine if there are significant differences meriting further analysis. The conclusion in Attachment 14 is that statistically significant differences will not occur for any of the social equity performance measures. Attachment 14 provides more detailed analysis as well as the data used for the social equity analysis.
Sustainable Communities Strategy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets
In accordance with Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg, 2008) (SB 375), the Regional Plan must include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that demonstrates that the San Diego region will reduce GHG emissions5 from automobiles and light trucks to achieve, if there is a feasible way to do so, the GHG emission reduction targets approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Targets are expressed as percent change in per capita GHG emissions relative to 2005. The targets for the San Diego region are a 7 percent per-capita reduction in passenger vehicle GHG emissions by 2020 and a 13 percent per-capita reduction by 2035. Scenarios 1 and 2 and the Blended Scenario would all meet and exceed the GHG emission reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 established by CARB, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Revenue Constrained Scenarios Estimated SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions for Cars and Light Trucks
2020 2035 Blended Blended Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario Scenario
Per capita CO2 reductions from 19 percent 19 percent 19 percent 22 percent 22 percent 22 percent 2005 SB 375 Targets 7 percent 13 percent Source: SANDAG and CARB
measures to determine if a disparate effect is larger than what would be expected due to randomness: (1) two standard deviations; (2) twenty percentage points different (80-20 rule); or (3) the so-called “four- fifths rule,” which states that a selection practice is considered to have a disparate impact if it has a “selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5ths or 80%) of the rate of the group with the highest rate.”
5 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is used to estimate GHG emissions.
14 22 The estimated per capita GHG reductions shown above take into account investments in some emerging technology and demand management programs to complement the benefits derived from a multi-modal transportation system. These technology and programmatic elements include telework and employer programs, vanpool incentives, traveler information systems, and car sharing.
Additionally, a number of TSM programs are proposed for all of the scenarios. These investments are described in Attachment 11. While the associated GHG reductions are not quantified in Table 1, these programs would maximize network efficiencies throughout the life of the Plan. As described in the Emerging Technologies and Transportation Systems and Demand Management section, such efficiencies can result in decreases in both fuel consumption and overall air pollutant emissions. SANDAG is working with its partner Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in California and CARB to identify further strategies to reduce GHG emissions such as substantially expanded electric vehicle programs, particularly in the later years of the Regional Plan that do not have SB 375 targets (2036 to 2050), and which would exceed State requirements. Preliminary analysis for 2050 indicates that per capita GHG emissions reductions would be larger than those projected for 2035, but further analysis and collaboration is needed before specific numbers can be calculated.
The GHG emissions reductions in Table 1 differ from those in the current 2050 RTP/SCS, which reduces SB 375 per capita emissions by 14 percent in 2020 and 13 percent in 2035. In addition to land use policy and network investment changes in these scenarios compared to the 2050 RTP/SCS, SANDAG has made three major changes to its land use and transportation modeling framework: (1) as part of the commitments made during the adoption of the 2050 RTP/SCS, SANDAG completed and is using its “open-source” activity-based transportation model for the development of the Regional Plan, including an Active Transportation enhancement to improve sensitivity related to active transportation investments; (2) the activity-based model is calibrated to the latest household travel survey completed in 2006, which revealed higher numbers of walk and short trips than prior surveys; and (3) the auto operating cost (fuel price and auto maintenance) forecasts are now consistent with the other large MPOs in California.
Next Steps
Pending the acceptance of the Board of Directors, staff would use the Blended Scenario as the Revenue Constrained Transportation Scenario for preparing the draft San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. The draft Regional Plan, which will include the Sustainable Communities Strategy elements required by Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg, 2008) and the air quality conformity analysis, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report, are anticipated to be released for public review and comment in spring 2015.
GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director
Attachments: 1. Summary of Input on Draft Scenarios 1 and 2 2. Draft Revenue Constrained Scenarios Transit and Managed Lanes/Highway Project List 3. Draft 2020 Blended Scenario Transit Network
15 23 4. Draft 2035 Blended Scenario Transit Network 5. Draft 2050 Blended Scenario Transit Network 6. Draft 2020 Blended Scenario Managed Lanes and Highway Network 7. Draft 2035 Blended Scenario Managed Lanes and Highway Network 8. Draft 2050 Blended Scenario Managed Lanes and Highway Network 9. Draft Revenue Constrained Scenarios Active Transportation Program 10. Regional Bike Network Corridors Map 11. Draft Revenue Constrained Scenarios Transportation Systems Management Program 12. Draft Revenue Constrained Scenarios Transportation Demand Management Program 13. Draft Revenue Constrained Scenarios Performance Measures Analysis and Data 14. Draft Revenue Constrained Scenarios Social Equity Measures Data
Key Staff Contact: Phil Trom, (619) 699-7330, [email protected]
16 24 Attachment 1
Summary of Input on Draft Scenarios 1 and 2
Transportation and Regional Planning Committees – August 1, 2014
• Support for 2 Managed Lanes: More network coverage and travel choices earlier; could maximize emerging technologies • Support for 4 Managed Lanes: Minimizes user inconvenience and may streamline project development • Support for Express Trolleys: Additional carrying capacity and potential travel time savings • Overall support for improved East-West transit connections (both Scenarios) • Support for expanding Rapid Bus: Faster implementation, flexibility, and access to more job centers and the beach • Mobility Hubs: Interest in the concept and in maximizing investment in shared-use mobility • Some concern that performance measures don’t help with decision making because of similarities between the Scenarios • In response to stakeholder input, some members expressed interest in exploring another network option to inform future plans
Public Workshops – August 4, 2014 (lunch time and evening)
• Support for Trolley/SPRINTER and streetcar projects • Accelerate bicycle and pedestrian projects • Expand BRT and Rapid Bus to more job centers and neighborhoods • Preference for phasing 2 Managed Lanes first • Increase transit frequencies and hours of service • Concern with GHG emissions related to transportation • Improve transit access to beaches, airport, and tourist destinations • Requests for an additional scenario
Joint SANDAG Working Groups Workshop – August 6, 2014
• Some support for a more widespread network of transit services • Some support for investing in existing Trolley/SPRINTER corridors • Advance Active Transportation projects • Advance Airport Express buses • General support for 2 Managed Lanes earlier to provide more connectivity • Access to jobs is important • Connectivity between transit modes and to Active Transportation projects is desirable
17 25 Community Based Organization Workshops – August 4 – 20, 2014
• Consider options to implement transit projects sooner • Support for a network that provides a wide range of transportation options by mode and geographic area • Move toward a scenario that expands access to job centers and neighborhoods • Support for 2 Managed Lanes earlier with the idea that future advanced technologies may negate the need for future Managed Lanes • Support for a system that provides faster travel times, with fewer transfers • Interest in expanding the regional bike network and improving bike/pedestrian transit access • Requests for an additional scenario
Online Comments through August 25 2014
• Support for Trolley, COASTER, and SPRINTER projects • Accelerate implementation of transit projects • More investments in North County • Improve transit access to job centers, beaches, airport, and tourist destinations • Support for Managed Lanes in some corridors • Requests for an additional scenario
Economic Competitiveness Focus Groups - August 4-8, 2014
• Wide support for the balanced approach taken in both scenarios • Support for transit projects, especially Trolley and COASTER, as the existing transit system is not seen as robust enough to offer a real alternative to car travel • Improve transit access to job centers, health care, beaches, airport, Mexico, and tourist destinations • Local street and infrastructure updates are needed • Parking challenges are experienced at hospitals, universities, and the Port of San Diego • Interest in Mobility Hubs, active transportation, and greater density supported by transit • Support for freight capacity, including rail
18 26 Draft Revenue Constrained Scenarios: Transit and Managed Lanes/Highway Project List Attachment 2
Cost Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blended Scenario ($2014); millions 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 Transit Facilities # TransNet Service Route Description COASTER double tracking (20-minute peak frequencies and current 120-minute off-peak 1A TransNet COASTER 398 frequencies) $280 COASTER double tracking (20-minute peak frequencies and 60-minute off-peak frequencies, 1B TransNet COASTER 398 and grade separation) $947 COASTER double tracking Phase 2050 (completes double tracking; includes Del Mar Tunnel 1C TransNet COASTER 398 and grade separation) $1,365 2A TransNet SPRINTER 399 SPRINTER efficiency improvements (20-minute frequencies) $459 Completion of Double tracking Oceanside to Escondido (10-minute frequencies and six rail 2B TransNet SPRINTER 399 grade separations) $487 2C TransNet SPRINTER 399 Double tracking Oceanside to Escondido (10-minute frequencies and six rail grade separations) $946 2D SPRINTER 399 Branch Extension to Westfield North County $176 3 SPRINTER 588 SPRINTER Express $244 4 Trolley 510 Mid-Coast Trolley Extension $1,753 Phase I - Blue Line Frequency Enhancements (five rail grade separations, 7.5-minute all day 5A Trolley 510 frequencies, Blue/Orange Track Connection at 12th/Imperial) $205 5B Trolley 510 Phase II - Blue Line rail grade separations (two) $226 Orange Line Frequency Enhancements (four rail grade separations and 7.5-minute peak 6 Trolley 520 frequencies) $267 Orange Line Express - El Cajon to San Diego International Airport Intermodal Transit Center 7 Trolley 522 (ITC) $198 8 Trolley 540 Blue Line Express - Santa Fe Depot to San Ysidro via Downtown $391 9 Trolley 560 SDSU to Downtown via El Cajon Blvd/Mid-City (transition of Mid-City Rapid to Trolley) $2,390 UTC to Mira Mesa via Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Canyon (extension of Route 510) - COASTER 10A Trolley 561 Connection Segment $343 UTC to Mira Mesa via Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Canyon (extension of Route 510) - COASTER to 10B Trolley 561 Mira Mesa Segment $824 Phase I - San Ysidro to Kearny Mesa via Mission Valley, Mid-City, National City/Chula Vista via 11A Trolley 562 Highland Ave/4th Ave $2,333 11B Trolley 562 Phase II - Kearny Mesa to Carmel Valley $633 12A Trolley 563 Phase I - Pacific Beach to Balboa; Kearny Mesa to Grossmont $610 12B Trolley 563 Phase II - Balboa to Kearny Mesa $689 El Cajon Transit Center/Grossmont to San Diego International Airport ITC via SR 94, City 13 BRT 90 College (peak only) $0 14 BRT 610 Temecula (peak only) Extension of Escondido to Downtown BRT $98 15 BRT 628 South Bay BRT (Otay Mesa to Downtown) $206 I-5 - San Ysidro to Downtown & Kearny Mesa (I-5 shoulder lanes/MLs, Downtown, 16A BRT 640 Hillcrest/Mission Valley Guideway) $93 Route 640A: I-5 - San Ysidro to Old Town Transit Center via City College 16B 640A/640B Route 640B: I-5 Iris Trolley/Palomar to Kearny Mesa via City College $93 17 BRT 650 Chula Vista to Palomar Airport Road Business Park via I-805/I-5 (peak only) $82 18 BRT 653 Mid City to Palomar Airport Road via Kearny Mesa/I-805/I-5 $10 19 BRT 870 El Cajon to UTC via Santee, SR 52, I-805 $7 20 BRT 890 El Cajon to Sorrento Mesa via SR 52, Kearny Mesa $12
19 27 Cost Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blended Scenario ($2014); millions 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 San Ysidro to Sorrento Mesa via I-805 Corridor; Otay Mesa Port of Entry (POE) to UTC/Torrey Pines via Otay Ranch/Millennia,I-805 Corridor; Mid City to Sorrento Mesa via I-805 Corridor 21 TransNet BRT 688/689/690 (Peak Only) $458 22 BRT SR 163 DARs Kearny Mesa to Downtown via SR 163. Stations at Sharp/Children's Hospital and Hillcrest, + $150 23 BRT 905 BRT/Rapid extension of Iris to Otay Mesa Point of Entry (POE) with new service to Otay Mesa $0 24 Rapid 550 SDSU to Palomar Station via East San Diego, Southeast San Diego, National City $59 25 Rapid 2 North Park to Downtown San Diego via 30th St $39 26 Rapid 10 La Mesa to Ocean Beach via Mid-City, Hillcrest, Old Town $87 27 Rapid 11 Spring Valley to SDSU via Southeast San Diego, Downtown, Hillcrest, Mid-City $113 28 Rapid 28 Point Loma to Kearny Mesa via Old Town, Linda Vista $49 29 Rapid 30 Old Town to Sorrento Mesa via Pacific Beach, La Jolla, UTC $105 30 Rapid 41 Fashion Valley to UTC/UCSD via Linda Vista and Clairemont $55 31 Rapid 103 Solana Beach to Sabre Springs BRT station via Carmel Valley $67 32 Rapid 120 Kearny Mesa to Downtown $78 33 Rapid 440 Carlsbad to San Marcos via Palomar Airport Road $51 34 Rapid 471 Downtown Escondido to East Escondido $32 35A Rapid 473 Oceanside to UTC/UCSD via Hwy 101 Coastal Communities, Carmel Valley $130 35B Rapid 473 Phase I - Solana Beach to UTC/UCSD via Hwy 101 Coastal Communities, Carmel Valley $43 35C Rapid 473 Phase II - Oceanside to Solana Beach via Hwy 101 Coastal Communities $87 36 Rapid 474 Oceanside to Vista via Mission Ave/Santa Fe Road Corridor $50 37 Rapid 477 Camp Pendleton to Carlsbad Village via College Blvd, Plaza Camino Real $80 38 Rapid 635 Eastlake to Palomar Trolley via Main Street Corridor $56 39 Rapid 636 SDSU to Spring Valley via East San Diego, Lemon Grove, Skyline $39 40 Rapid 637 North Park to 32nd Street Trolley via Golden Hill $33 41 Rapid 638 Iris Trolley to Otay Mesa via Otay, Airway Dr., SR 905 Corridor $38 42 Rapid 709 H Street Trolley to Millennia via H Street Corridor, Southwestern College $37 43 Rapid 910 Coronado to Downtown via Coronado Bridge $26 44 Streetcar 553 Downtown San Diego: Little Italy to East Village $14 45 Streetcar 554 Hillcrest/Balboa Park/Downtown San Diego Loop $29 46 Streetcar 555 30th St to Downtown San Diego via North Park/Golden Hill $26 47 Streetcar 565 Mission Beach to La Jolla via Pacific Beach $25 48 Shuttle - San Marcos Shuttle1 $0 49 Airport Express - Airport Express Routes2 $52 50 Intermodal - San Diego International Airport ITC $170 51A Intermodal - Phase I - San Ysidro ITC $95 51B Intermodal - Phase II - San Ysidro ITC $23
235, 280/290, 653, 52 TransNet SR 15 and Airport Express SR 15 (I-805 to I-8) Transit Lanes $56 53 $652 54 Other Improvements (Vehicles, transit system rehabilitation, regulatory compliance, park & $2,499 56 Other - ride) $3,265 1 Capital cost to be funded by the City of San Marcos 2 Capital cost to be funded by aviation and other private funds
20 28 Cost Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blended Scenario ($2014); millions 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 Managed Lanes / Toll Lanes
# TransNet Freeway From To Existing With Improvements Supporting BRT Routes 57A TransNet I-5 SR 905 Palomar St 8F 8F+2ML Route 640 $141 57B TransNet I-5 Palomar St SR 54 8F 8F +2ML Route 640 $167 57C TransNet I-5 SR 54 SR 15 8F 10F+2ML Route 640 $343 58 TransNet I-5 I-8 La Jolla Village Dr 8F/10F 8F/10F+2ML $556 59A TransNet I-5 La Jolla Village Dr I-5/805 Merge 8F/14F 8F+2ML $136 59B TransNet I-5 I-5/I-805 Merge SR 56 8F/14F+2ML 8F/14F+4ML Route 650 $91 59C TransNet I-5 SR 56 Manchester Ave 8F+2ML 8F+4ML Routes 650, 653 $455 59D TransNet I-5 Manchester Ave SR 78 8F 8F+2ML Routes 650, 653 $606 59E TransNet I-5 Manchester Ave SR 78 8F+2ML 8F+4ML Routes 650, 653 $1,076 59F TransNet I-5 SR 78 Vandegrift Blvd 8F 8F+2ML $76 59G TransNet I-5 SR 78 Vandegrift Blvd 8F+2ML 8F+4ML $606 59H TransNet I-5 SR 78 Vandegrift Blvd 8F 8F+4ML $682 60 I-5 Vandegrift Blvd Orange County 8F 8F+4T $1,813 SR 11/Otay Mesa East Port 61 of Entry SR 125 Mexico -- 4T + POE Route 905 $683 62 SR 15 I-5 SR 94 6F 8F+2ML $136 63 TransNet SR 15 SR 94 I-805 6F 6F+2ML Routes 235, 610 $30 64 I-15 Viaduct 8F 8F+2ML Routes 235, 610, 653, 690 $843 65 TransNet I-15 I-8 SR 163 8F 8F+2ML Routes 235, 610, 653, 690 $56 66 I-15 SR 78 Riverside County 8F 8F+4T Route 610 $1,030 67 SR 52 I-805 I-15 6F 6F+2ML Routes 653, 870, 890 $91 68 TransNet SR 52 I-15 SR 125 4F/6F 6F+2ML(R) Routes 870, 890 $374 69 TransNet SR 54 I-5 SR 125 6F 6F+2ML $111 70A TransNet SR 78 I-5 College Blvd 6F 6F+2ML/Operational $227 70B TransNet SR 78 College Blvd Twin Oaks 6F 6F+2ML/Operational $788 70C TransNet SR 78 Twin Oaks I-15 6F 6F+2ML/Operational $177 71 TransNet SR 94 I-5 I-805 8F 8F+2ML Routes 90, 235, 610, 628 $485 72 TransNet SR 94 I-805 SR 125 8F 8F+2ML Route 90 $369 73 SR 125 SR 905 San Miguel Rd 4T 8F Route 628 $323 74 TransNet SR 125 SR 54 SR 94 6F 6F+2ML $76 75 SR 125 SR 94 I-8 8F 8F+2ML Route 90 $66 76 SR 241 Orange County I-5 -- 4T $416 77 SR 241 Orange County I-5 4T 6T $63 78A TransNet I-805 SR 905 Palomar St 8F 8F+2ML Route 688 $343 78B TransNet I-805 SR 54 SR 94 8F +2ML 8F+4ML Routes 628, 650, 688, 689 $535 78C TransNet I-805 SR 94 SR 15 8F 8F+2ML Routes 628, 650, 688, 689 $172 78D TransNet I-805 SR 94 SR 15 8F+2ML 8F+4ML Routes 628, 650, 688, 689 $61 78E TransNet I-805 SR 94 SR 15 8F 8F+4ML Routes 628, 650, 688, 689 $232 79A TransNet I-805 SR 15 SR 52 8F/10F 8F/10F+4ML Routes 650, 688, 689, 690 $1,704 79B TransNet I-805 SR 15 SR 163 8F/10F 8F/10F+4ML Routes 650, 688, 689, 690 $1,153 79C TransNet I-805 SR 163 SR 52 8F 8F+2ML Routes 650, 688, 689, 690 $229
21 29 Cost Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blended Scenario ($2014); millions 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 79D TransNet I-805 SR 163 SR 52 8F+2ML 8F+4ML Routes 650, 688, 689, 690 $322 Routes 650, 653, 688, 689, 80A TransNet I-805 SR 52 Carroll Canyon Rd 8F 8F+2ML 690, 870, 890 $135 Routes 650, 653, 688, 689, 80B TransNet I-805 SR 52 Carroll Canyon Rd 8F+2ML 8F+4ML 690, 870, 890 $394 Operational Improvements # TransNet Freeway From To Existing With Improvements 81 TransNet I-5 I-15 I-8 8F 8F+Operational $1,177 82 I-8 I-5 SR 125 8F/10F 8F/10F+Operational $667 93 I-8 SR 125 2nd Street 6F/8F 6F/8F+Operational $167 84 SR 76 I-15 Couser Canyon 2C/4C 4C/6C+Operational $131
Highway Projects # TransNet Freeway From To Existing With Improvements 85 TransNet I-8 2nd Street Los Coches 4F/6F 6F $35 86 SR 52 I-5 I-805 4F 6F $111 87 TransNet SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F $141 88A TransNet SR 67 Mapleview St Gold Bar Ln 2C 4C $60 88B TransNet SR 67 Gold Bar Ln Scripps Poway 2C/4C 4C $180 88C TransNet SR 67 Scripps Poway Dye Rd 2C/4C 4C $396 89 TransNet SR 76 Mission I-15 2C 4C $210 90 TransNet SR 94 SR 125 Avocado Blvd 4F 6F $111 91 TransNet SR 94 Avocado Blvd Steele Canyon Rd 4C 6C $131 92 SR 125 San Miguel Rd SR 54 4F 8F $177 93* SR 125 SR 94 I-8 8F 10F $227 * See Project 75 for improvement from 8F to 8F + 2ML.
ML Connectors
# TransNet Freeway Intersecting Freeway Movement 94 I-5 SR 78 South to East and West to North, North to East and West to South $253 95 TransNet I-5 I-805 North to North & South to South $51 96 I-15 SR 52 West to North and South to East $131 97 TransNet I-15 SR 78 East to South & North to West $106 98 TransNet SR-15 SR 94 South to West & East to North $71 99 SR-15 I-805 North to North & South to South $81 100 I-805 SR 52 West to North & South to East $91 101 I-805 SR 94 North to West & East to South $101
Cost Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blended Scenario ($2014); millions 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 Freeway Connectors
# TransNet Freeway Intersecting Freeway Movement 102 TransNet I-5 SR 56 West to North and South to East $273 103 TransNet I-5 SR 78 South to East and West to South $273 104 I-15 SR 56 North to West $101 105 TransNet SR 94 SR 125 South to East $61 106 TransNet SR 94 SR 125 West to North $81 107 SR 11/SR 905 SR 125 EB SR 11 and WB SR 11 to NB SR 125, NB SR 905 to NB SR 125 $26 108 SR 11/SR 905 SR 125 SB 125 to WB SR 905, SB SR 125 to EB SR 11, SB SR 125 to SB SR 905 $74
22 30 Attachment 3
23 31 Attachment 4
24 32 Attachment 5
25 33 Attachment 6
26 34 Attachment 7
27 35 Attachment 8
28 36 Attachment 9
Active Transportation Program
Regional Bike Plan Network Projects (includes $200M Early Action Program) $809 Safe Routes To Transit at new transit station areas $1,025 Local bike projects $728 Local pedestrian/safety/traffic calming projects $180 Regional bicycle and pedestrian programs $30 Regional Safe Routes To School implementation $77 Total (in millions, 2014 dollars) $2,849
Scenario 1, Scenario 2, & Blended Regional Bike Plan Network Project List Scenario
Funding 2020 2035 2050 Through Cost Early Early Non- Early Project ($2014); Action Action Action # Project Jurisdiction(s) Phase millions Program Program Program Uptown - Fashion Valley to Downtown 1 San Diego Const. $23 San Diego 2 Uptown - Old Town to Hillcrest San Diego Const. $18 3 Uptown - Hillcrest to Balboa Park San Diego Const. $3 4 North Park - Mid-City - Hillcrest to Kensington San Diego Const. $6 North Park - Mid-City - Hillcrest to 5 San Diego Const. $6 City Heights (Hillcrest-El Cajon Corridor) 6 North Park - Mid-City - City Heights San Diego Const. $3 North Park - Mid-City - Hillcrest to 7 San Diego Const. $5 City Heights (City Heights - Old Town Corridor)
8 North Park - Mid-City - City Heights to Rolando San Diego Const. $4 9 San Diego River Trail - Qualcomm Stadium San Diego Const. $0.8 10 Coastal Rail Trail San Diego - Rose Creek San Diego Const. $21 Chula Vista/Imperial 11 Bayshore Bikeway - Main St to Palomar Const. $3 Beach 12 Coastal Rail Trail Encinitas - Chesterfield to G Encinitas Const. $7 Coastal Rail Trail Encinitas - Chesterfield to Solana 13 Encinitas Eng. $0.1 Beach San Marcos, Vista, Co. 14 Inland Rail Trail (combination of four projects) Const. $33 of SD Coastal Rail Trail Oceanside - Wisconsin to 15 Oceanside Const. $0.2 Oceanside Blvd. 16 Plaza Bonita Bike Path National City Const. $0.4 Bayshore Bikeway - National City Marina to San Diego/ National 17 Const. $2 32nd St City 18 I-15 Mid-City - Adams Ave to Camino Del Rio S San Diego Const. $9 Pershing and El Prado - North Park to Downtown 19 San Diego Const. $7 San Diego 20 Pershing and El Prado - Cross-Park San Diego Const. $0.6 San Ysidro to Imperial Beach - Bayshore Bikeway Imperial Beach/ 21 ROW $2 Connection (Border Access) San Diego San Ysidro to Imperial Beach - Bayshore Bikeway Imperial Beach/ 22 ROW $0.9 Connection (Imperial Beach Connector) San Diego 23 Terrace Dr/Central Ave - Adams to Wightman San Diego Const. $1 24 San Diego River Trail - I 805 to Fenton San Diego Const. $2 25 San Diego River Trail - Short gap connections San Diego Const. $1
29 37 Scenario 1, Scenario 2, & Blended Regional Bike Plan Network Project List Scenario
Funding 2020 2035 2050 Through Cost Early Early Non- Early Project ($2014); Action Action Action # Project Jurisdiction(s) Phase millions Program Program Program 26 Coastal Rail Trail Encinitas - Leucadia to G St Encinitas Const. $5
San Ysidro to Imperial Beach - Bayshore Bikeway Imperial Beach/ 27 Const. $6 Connection San Diego 28 Bayshore Bikeway - Barrio Logan San Diego ROW $5 San Diego River Trail - Father Junipero Serra Trail 29 Santee ROW $3 to Santee Downtown to Southeast connections - East 30 San Diego ROW $0.8 Village Downtown to Southeast connections - 31 San Diego ROW $3 Downtown San Diego to Encanto Downtown to Southeast connections - 32 San Diego ROW $3 Downtown San Diego to Golden Hill 33 Coastal Rail Trail San Diego - UTC San Diego ROW $0.8 34 Coastal Rail Trail San Diego - Rose Canyon San Diego ROW $3 Coastal Rail Trail San Diego - Pac Hwy (W. 35 San Diego Const. $4 Washington Street to Laurel Street) Coastal Rail Trail San Diego - Pac Hwy (Laurel 36 San Diego Const. $8 Street to Santa Fe Depot) Coastal Rail Trail San Diego - Encinitas 37 Encinitas Const. $0.1 Chesterfield to Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail San Diego – Pac Hwy (Taylor 38 San Diego Const. $4 Street to W. Washington Street) Coastal Rail Trail San Diego- Pac Hwy (Fiesta Island 39 San Diego Const. $7 Road to Taylor Street) San Diego River Trail - Father Junipero Serra Trail 40 Santee Const. $7 to Santee 41 Bayshore Bikeway - Barrio Logan San Diego Const. $14 42 Downtown to Southeast connections San Diego Const. $17 43 Coastal Rail Trail San Diego - UTC San Diego Const. $3 Lemon Grove/ 44 City Heights /Encanto/Lemon Grove Const. $7 San Diego 45 City Heights/Fairmount Corridor San Diego Const. $12 La Mesa/ 46 Rolando to Grossmont/La Mesa El Cajon/ Const. $2 San Diego Lemon Grove/ 47 La Mesa/Lemon Grove/El Cajon connections Const. $6 La Mesa 48 Coastal Rail Trail - Rose Canyon San Diego Const. $9 San Diego River Trail - Qualcomm Stadium to 49 San Diego Const. $2 Ward Rd San Diego River Trail - Rancho Mission Road to 50 San Diego Const. $0.3 Camino Del Rio North Coastal Rail Trail San Diego - Rose Creek Mission 51 San Diego Const. $4 Bay Connection
30 38 Scenario 1, Scenario 2, & Blended Regional Bike Plan Network Project List Scenario
Funding 2020 2035 2050 Through Cost Early Early Non- Early Project ($2014); Action Action Action # Project Jurisdiction(s) Phase millions Program Program Program Coastal Rail Trail Carlsbad - Reach 4 Cannon to 52 Carlsbad Const. $5 Palomar Airport Rd. Coastal Rail Trail Carlsbad - Reach 5 Palomar 53 Carlsbad Const. $3 Airport Road to Poinsettia Station 54 Coastal Rail Trail Encinitas - Carlsbad to Leucadia Encinitas Const. $7 55 Coastal Rail Trail Del Mar Del Mar Const. $0.4 Coastal Rail Trail San Diego - Del Mar to Sorrento Del Mar/ 56 Const. $0.4 via Carmel Valley San Diego Coastal Rail Trail San Diego - Carmel Valley to 57 San Diego Const. $0.9 Roselle via Sorrento 58 Coastal Rail Trail San Diego - Roselle Canyon San Diego Const. $5 Chula Vista/ National 59 Chula Vista National City connections Const. $11 City 60 Pacific Beach to Mission Beach San Diego Const. $10 61 Ocean Beach to Mission Bay San Diego Const. $24 San Diego River Trail - Bridge connection (Sefton 62 San Diego Const. $7 Field to Mission Valley YMCA) San Diego River Trail - Mast Park to Lakeside 63 Santee Const. $10 baseball park 64 I-8 Flyover - Camino del Rio S to Camino del Rio N San Diego Const. $10
65 Coastal Rail Trail Oceanside - Broadway to Eaton Oceanside Const. $0.40 El Cajon/ 66 El Cajon - Santee connections Const. $12 La Mesa/Santee San Diego River Trail - Father JS Trail to West Hills 67 San Diego Const. $3 Parkway 68 Inland Rail Trail Oceanside Oceanside Const. $19 Coastal Rail Trail Carlsbad - Reach 3 Tamarack to 69 Carlsbad Const. $5 Cannon 70 Clairemont Drive (Mission Bay to Burgener) San Diego Const. $8 71 Harbor Drive (Downtown to Ocean Beach) San Diego Const. $7 72 Mira Mesa Bike Boulevard San Diego Const. $4 73 Sweetwater River Bikeway Ramps National City Const. $9 Coastal Rail Trail Oceanside - Alta Loma Marsh 74 Oceanside Const. $5 bridge Coastal Rail Trail San Diego - Mission Bay 75 San Diego Const. $3 (Clairemont to Tecolote) Bayshore Bikeway Coronado - Golf course 76 Coronado Const. $3 adjacent Oceanside, 77 San Luis Rey River Trail Const. $37 Unincorporated Encinitas-San Marcos Corridor – Double Peak Dr. 78 San Marcos Const. $12 to San Marcos Blvd.
31 39 Scenario 1, Scenario 2, & Blended Regional Bike Plan Network Project List Scenario
Funding 2020 2035 2050 Through Cost Early Early Non- Early Project ($2014); Action Action Action # Project Jurisdiction(s) Phase millions Program Program Program Escondido Creek Bikeway – Quince St. to 79 Escondido Const. $2 Broadway Escondido Creek Bikeway – Escondido Creek to 80 Escondido Const. $1 Washington Ave. Escondido Creek Bikeway – 9th Ave. to Escondido 81 Escondido Const. $1 Creek Escondido Creek Bikeway – El Norte Pkwy to 82 Escondido Const. $6 northern bikeway terminus Encinitas to San Marcos Corridor – Leucadia Blvd. 83 Carlsbad, Encinitas Const. $2 to El Camino Real 84 I-15 Bikeway – Via Rancho Pkwy. to Lost Oak Ln. Escondido Const. $4 I-15 Bikeway – Rancho Bernardo Community Park 85 San Diego Const. $3 to Lake Hodges Bridge 86 I-15 Bikeway – Camino del Norte to Aguamiel Rd. San Diego Const. $13 I-15 Bikeway – Poway Rd. interchange to Carmel 87 San Diego Const. $17 Mountain Rd. SR-56 Bikeway – Azuaga St. to Rancho 88 San Diego Const. $2 Penasquitos Blvd. 89 I-15 Bikeway – Murphy Canyon Rd. to Affinity Ct. San Diego Const. $40 SR-56 Bikeway – El Camino Real to Caminito 90 San Diego Const. $2 Pointe 91 SR-52 Bikeway – I-5 to Santo Rd. San Diego Const. $30 SR-52 Bikeway – SR-52/Mast Dr. to San Diego River 92 San Diego Const. $2 Trail 93 I-8 Corridor – San Diego River Trail to Riverside Dr. Unincorporated Const. $2 Chula Vista, 94 I-805 Connector – Bonita Rd. to Floyd Ave. Const. $6 Unincorporated SR-125 Connector – Bonita Rd. to US-Mexico 95 Chula Vista, San Diego Const. $39 Border SR-905 Connector – E. Beyer Blvd. to US-Mexico San Diego, 96 Const. $34 Border Unincorporated El Camino Real Bike Lanes – Douglas Dr. to Mesa 97 Oceanside Const. $1 Dr. 98 Vista Way Connector from Arcadia Vista, Unincorporated Const. $2
99 I-15 Bikeway – W. Country Club Ln. to Nutmeg St. Escondido Const. $0.5 El Camino Real Bike Lanes – Marron Rd. to SR-78 100 Carlsbad Const. $0.2 offramp Carlsbad to San Marcos Corridor – Paseo del Norte 101 Carlsbad Const. $0.3 to Avenida Encinas Encinitas to San Marcos Corridor – Kristen Ct. to 102 Encinitas Const. $0.3 Ecke Ranch Rd.
32 40 Scenario 1, Scenario 2, & Blended Regional Bike Plan Network Project List Scenario
Funding 2020 2035 2050 Through Cost Early Early Non- Early Project ($2014); Action Action Action # Project Jurisdiction(s) Phase millions Program Program Program Encinitas to San Marcos Corridor – Encinitas Blvd./I- 103 Encinitas Const. $0.1 5 Interchange 104 Mira Mesa Corridor – Reagan Rd. to Parkdale Ave. San Diego Const. $0.3 105 Mira Mesa Corridor – Scranton Rd. to I-805 San Diego Const. $0.3 Mira Mesa Corridor – Sorrento Valley Rd. to 106 San Diego Const. $0.7 Sorrento Valley Blvd. Mid-County Bikeway – I-5/Via de la Valle 107 San Diego Const. $0.2 Interchange San Diego, 108 Mid-County Bikeway – Rancho Santa Fe segment Const. $3 Unincorporated El Camino Real Bike Lanes – Manchester Ave. to 109 Encinitas Const. $0.4 Tennis Club Dr. Mid-County Bikeway – Manchester Ave./I-5 110 Encinitas Const. $0.7 Interchange to San Elijo Ave. Central Coast Corridor – Van Nuys St. to San 111 San Diego Const. $1 Rafael Pl. Clairemont – Centre-City Corridor – Coastal Rail 112 San Diego Const. $2 Trail to Genesee Ave. SR-125 Corridor – Mission Gorge Rd. to Glen Vista 113 Santee Const. $0.2 Way 114 SR-125 Corridor – Prospect Ave. to Weld Blvd. Santee, El Cajon Const. $0.7 115 I-8 Corridor – Lakeside Ave. to SR-67 Unincorporated Const. $0.4 116 I-8 Corridor – Willows Rd. to SR-79 Unincorporated Const. $5 E. County Northern Loop – N. Marshall Ave. to El 117 El Cajon Const. $0.3 Cajon Blvd. E. County Northern Loop – Washington Ave. to 118 El Cajon Const. $1 Dewitt Ct. E. County Northern Loop – SR-94 onramp to Del 119 Unincorporated Const. $0.1 Rio Rd. E. County Southern Loop – Pointe Pkwy. To 120 Unincorporated Const. $0.8 Omega St. 121 SR-125 Corridor – SR-94 to S of Avocado St. Unincorporated Const. $1 Centre City – La Mesa Corridor – Gateside Rd. to La Mesa, 123 Const. $0.3 Campo Rd. Unincorporated Bay to Ranch Bikeway – River Ash Dr. to Paseo 124 Chula Vista Const. $0.5 Ranchero Mid-County Bikeway – San Elijo Ave. to 101 125 Encinitas Const. $1 Terminus 126 Central Coast Corridor – Van Nuys St. San Diego Const. $0.1 E. County Northern Loop – El Cajon Blvd. to 127 El Cajon Const. $1 Washington Ave. E. County Northern Loop – Calavo Dr. to 128 Unincorporated Const. $0.7 Sweetwater Springs Blvd. Central Coast Corridor – Torrey Pines Rd. to 129 San Diego Const. $6 Nautilus St. Central Coast Corridor – Via Del Norte to Van 130 San Diego Const. $5 Nuys St. Kearny Mesa to Beaches Corridor – Ingraham St. 131 San Diego Const. $2 from Garnet Ave. to Pacific Beach Dr. Kearny Mesa to Beaches Corridor – Clairemont Dr. 132 San Diego Const. $10 to Genesee Ave. Kearny Mesa to Beaches Corridor – Genesee Ave. 133 San Diego Const. $6 to Linda Vista Dr. Bay to Ranch Bikeway – E. J St. from 2nd Ave. to 134 Chula Vista Const. $12 Paseo Del Rey Chula Vista Greenbelt – Bay Blvd. to Oleander 135 Chula Vista Const. $17 Ave. Abbreviation Notes: Const.: Construction; ROW: Right-of-Way; Eng.: Engineering
33 41 Attachment 10
Regional Bike Network Corridors May 2010
MILES 063
048 KILOMETERS
2364 5/14 34 42 Attachment 11
Draft Revenue Constrained Scenarios Transportation System Management Program
The SANDAG regional Transportation System Management (TSM) Program includes subsystems to better manage the region's freeways, roads, transit, incidents and emergency response, special events, commercial vehicle operations, and traveler information. The TSM components proposed in San Diego Forward: the Regional Plan include seven TSM Core programs and four new TSM elements. The proposed level of investment for each program and element remains consistent among Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and the Blended Scenario. The levels of TSM investment have been developed so as to maintain the greatest mobility benefits and efficiencies across the regional networks included in Draft Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Blended Scenario.
The Core TSM programs are comprised of seven major investment areas (program costs referenced below are expressed in 2014 dollars):
• Multimodal Integration and Performance-Based Management is an important strategy that maximizes efficiency of the current system by managing the entire transportation system as a single ‘Corridor’ (freeways, roads, and the public transit system), based on its overall performance. This program deploys advanced Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) into integrated systems that enable performance-based operational management strategies to be enacted across modes and jurisdictions. The program delivers operation improvements through maximizing existing system efficiencies. The proposed estimate level is $32 million through 2050.
• Traveler Information Program is responsible for delivery of projects that enhance access to traveler information services. This program aims to increase awareness and the information available on travel choice, and impact, such that travelers can actively participate in reducing both network demand and personal trip-impact. The program delivers both systems and education outreach campaigns to raise the awareness of the direct relationship that route choice, personal driving habits, and the trip timing have on reducing fuel consumption, vehicle operating expenses and vehicle emissions. The proposed investment level for this program is $45 million through 2050.
• Arterial Management is a TSM element that focuses on managing arterial roadways (major streets) in order to reduce delays and result in quicker trips and lower vehicle emissions. Improvements to arterial detection and signal interconnect will provide the ability to create a traffic signal system that is dynamic and coordinated throughout the region. Improving the flow of traffic on arterial roadways is among the most cost-effective TSM strategies for reducing stop-and-go-traffic, cutting overall travel times, and lowering fuel consumption and pollution. This program is also responsible for managing a regional transition strategy that improves safety, mobility and the environment for a more ‘Connected Vehicle’ fleet. The investment level for the Arterial Management Program is proposed at $267 million through 2050.
• Freeway Management is a program that deploys tools to better manage freeway traffic flows, thereby minimizing congestion and reducing bottlenecks. This program is responsible for deploying systems that improve operational efficiency of freeway control infrastructure; enable freeway managers to have greater control over vehicle operating speeds; facilitates freeway managers ability to communicate with the traveling public the impact of events, incidents, and congestion. It also provides freeway managers with greater operational visibility to operating
35 43 conditions both on and off network. Some of the systems included in this program are traffic detection technologies, closed-circuit television cameras, ramp meters, electronic message signs, and the Advanced Transportation Management System, which provides central monitoring and sign control for managing incidents. The investment level for Freeway Management is proposed at $76 million through 2050.
• Transit Management systems, with an estimated $94 million investment level, help to ensure that bus and rail lines are safe and performing optimally. Beyond the traditional public transit industry standards of utilizing performance-based management techniques, the San Diego region continues to explore new ways to improve the operation, convenience, and safety of the public transit system. Transit Management Program investments support the current management systems (Regional Scheduling System), Regional Transit Management System, Positive Train Control, and Centralized Train Control System, while also looking into the future application of advanced technologies to the transit system.
• Electronic Payment Systems is a growing investment area in TSM, with an investment level of $128 million due to the development of advanced applications such as transit smartcard systems and open road tolling. Both applications make collecting payments for services quicker and more efficient. Electronic Payment Systems also create opportunities for innovative pricing models such as the Universal Transportation Account, discussed later in this attachment.
The four new TSM elements through 2050 include:
• Vehicle Automation The terms “Autonomous” or “Automated Vehicles” operate with a decreasing level of human oversight. These vehicles utilize internal sensors to survey and respond to the surrounding transportation environment, including all vehicle classes and pedestrians. These vehicles will enable our transportation networks to not only implement performance-based management principles over the road network control infrastructure, but upon the vehicles themselves. An additional project investment of $25 million would deliver increasing capabilities for road managers to reduce congestion and fuel consumption, while simultaneously promoting increased safety. Ultimately, it is envisioned that fully autonomous vehicles (driverless cars) could replace conventional cars. Autonomous cars are projected to be first available in 2025 with a significant percentage of the regional fleet described as “Autonomous” from 2035 onwards.
• Advanced Transportation Technology Program, with an estimated investment level of $50 million, incorporates a number of ITS and other transit planning strategies that can be deployed either together or independently. Such strategies may include transit priority lanes, queue jumps, transit signal priority, ramps/guideways, etc. This program is intended to optimize and support existing local routes, rather than new transit services, since those services will already incorporate a combination of these elements.
• Universal Transportation Accounts combine all forms of public transportation payment, including transit fares, municipal parking, bike parking, car, bike, and personal electric vehicle sharing, as well as toll collection into a single, user-friendly interface. The goal is to influence mode shift from a single occupancy commute to a transit ride by incentivizing the user through the use of rewards, toll discounts, or gamification – a method of challenging the user where
36 44 points are earned to reach a goal. The investment level for Universal Transportation Accounts is proposed to be $10 million.
• Transit Infrastructure Electrification supports emerging electric vehicle technologies as applied to our bus fleets (including Zero-Emission Vehicles and Plug-In Electric Vehicles) that help to reduce emission levels. This investment area proposes to support electric bus recharging through wireless, inductive methods located a key transit stations and layover location such that electric buses can benefit from improved range capabilities. Infrastructure Electrification has an estimated level of investment of $25 million.
Table 11-1 includes the proposed level of investment for each TSM program by phasing period for the Revenue Constrained Scenarios.
TSM Core Program Costs (2015-2050) Scenarios 1 and 2 and Blended Scenario 2015-2020 2021-2035 2036-2050 TOTAL Multi-Modal Integration and Performance- Based Management $32 $16 $26 $74 Traveler Information $11 $17 $17 $45 Arterial Management $20 $202 $45 $267 Freeway Management $15 $42 $19 $76 Transit Management - Bus $26 $26 $0 $52 Transit Management - Rail $16 $16 $10 $42 Electronic Payment Systems $56 $16 $56 $128 Subtotal $176 $335 $173 $684
New TSM Element Costs (2015-2050) Blended Scenario 2015-2020 2021-2035 2036-2050 TOTAL Vehicle Automation $5 $20 $0 $25 Advanced Transit Technology $20 $15 $15 $50 Universal Transportation Account $0 $10 $0 $10 Transit Infrastructure Electrification $0 $15 $10 $25 Subtotal $25 $60 $25 $110
Total Cost $201 $395 $198 $794
37 45 Attachment 12
Draft Revenue Constrained Scenarios Transportation Demand Management Program
SANDAG currently coordinates a number of transportation alternative programs that are increasing the number of commuters who carpool, vanpool, take transit, bike, walk, and telework. The proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program, for the purposes of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, can be split into two categories: the existing TDM Core Program and the new TDM elements that are proposed for incorporation into future planning activities. Program costs associated with each TDM component for Draft Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and the Blended Scenario are a reflection of the total proposed level of investment (in 2014 dollars) to 2050 (Table 12-1).
The TDM Core Program for the Blended Scenario is comprised of four major investment areas:
• The Regional Vanpool Program, estimated at $282 million, aims to increase the number of vanpools in the region by 13 percent by 2020; 62 percent by 2035; and 110 percent (more than doubling) by 2050.
• Employer Services and Outreach aims to increase commuter awareness of and participation in TDM programs and campaigns; increase telework rates in the region by 10 percent in 2020, 15 percent in 2035, and 20 percent in 2050; and incentivize the formation of approximately 18,000 new carpools between now and 2050. The level of investment for this component is estimated at $126 million.
• Commuter Services and Bike Program, with a proposed investment level of $25 million, facilitates the use of transportation alternatives by providing supporting services such as the Guaranteed Ride Home Program, the Regional Bike Parking Program, and SchoolPool and Safe Routes to School programming.
• Program Administration includes management of the regional online tools and technologies to facilitate the use of transportation alternatives, with an investment level of $48 million.
Three new TDM elements for the Blended Scenario aim to maximize transit and highway investments through 2050:
• Mobility Hubs are transportation centers located in smart growth opportunity areas served by high frequency transit service. They provide an integrated suite of transportation services, amenities, and urban design enhancements that bridge the distance between transit and an individual’s origin or destination. Mobility hubs are places of connectivity, where different modes of travel — from walking, to biking, to ridesharing, to light rail transit — come together seamlessly, and where there is a concentration of employment, housing, shopping and/or recreation. Hub features, as shown in Figure 12-1, can include but are not limited to: bikeshare, carshare, neighborhood electric vehicles, scootershare, bike parking and support services, dynamic parking strategies, real-time traveler information, wayfinding, real-time ridesharing, and improved bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.
Mobility choices allow for decreased dependence on single occupancy vehicles, allowing for reduced traffic congestion and vehicle miles traveled, in addition to improved travel times for all modes. Blended Scenario transit investments such as light rail, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and Rapid transit services, are candidates for mobility hub investment. Twenty mobility hub
38 46 opportunity areas would be identified for the Blended Scenario at an investment level of $258 million. Identified opportunity areas would be analyzed and prioritized within a Regional Mobility Hub Strategy that will define the mobility hub concept for the San Diego region. Pilot projects would be implemented to demonstrate how mobility hub concepts can be implemented at both new and existing transit stations.
• Active Traffic and Demand Management builds on Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) to dynamically monitor, control, and influence travel demand, traffic demand, and traffic flow of key highway corridors. Active Traffic and Demand Management (ATDM) facilitates the use of transportation alternatives through various approaches, including dynamic ridesharing, dynamic speed limits, dynamically priced parking, and predictive traveler information to improve overall highway efficiency and to maximize investment in ICM. ATDM seeks to reduce traffic congestion, improve throughput, and improve traveler safety on key High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) or Managed Lanes corridors through a proposed $175 million investment in the Blended Scenario. Proposed ATDM investments are phased in conjunction with corridor HOV/Managed Lanes improvements.
• Shared-use Mobility services can fill gaps in the region’s transit services and provide an efficient transportation alternative for commute and non-commute trips. Examples of shared- use mobility services include carsharing, bikesharing, real-time ridesharing, Transportation Network Companies (e.g., Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar), which provide on-demand ride services that users can request via smartphone applications, scootershare, shared electric vehicles, and on- demand shuttle and jitney services.
The TDM Program for the Blended Scenario seeks to expand the reach of shared-use mobility services to employment centers and urban communities, and to complement and improve access to regional transit services. The proposed level of investment is $37 million through 2050.
39 47 Figure 13-1 Mobility Hub Concept
40 48 Table 12-1 TDM Program: Proposed Level of Investment for the Blended Scenario (in millions, 2014 dollars)
TDM Core Program Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blended Scenario (2015-2050)
2020 2035 2050 TOTAL 2020 2035 2050 TOTAL 2020 2035 2050 TOTAL
Regional Vanpool $32 $100 $150 $282 $32 $100 $150 $282 $32 $100 $150 $282 Program Employer Services and $22 $52 $52 $126 $22 $52 $52 $126 $22 $52 $52 $126 Outreach Commuter Services and $6 $10 $9 $25 $6 $10 $9 $25 $6 $10 $9 $25 Bike Program Program $9 $20 $19 $48 $9 $20 $19 $48 $9 $20 $19 $48 Administration
Subtotal $69 $182 $230 $481 $69 $182 $230 $481 $69 $182 $230 $481
New TDM Elements Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blended Scenario (2015-2050) 2020 2035 2050 TOTAL 2020 2035 2050 TOTAL 2020 2035 2050 TOTAL
Mobility Hubs $41 $133 $0 $174 $32 $175 $54 $261 $52 $206 $0 $258
Active Traffic & Demand $31 $111 $20 $162 $31 $121 $20 $172 $30 $129 $16 $175 Management Shared-Use $6 $12 $0 $18 $12 $25 $0 $37 $12 $25 $0 $37 Mobility
Subtotal $78 $256 $20 $354 $75 $321 $74 $470 $94 $360 $16 $470
Total Cost $147 $438 $250 $835 $144 $503 $304 $951 $163 $542 $246 $951
41 49 Attachment 13
Draft Scenarios: Performance Measures Analysis and Data
Utilizing the performance measures approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors in March 2014, SANDAG staff has conducted a preliminary evaluation of all three draft scenarios: Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and the Blended Scenario. A social equity analysis also has been conducted in compliance with Title VI and Environmental Justice guidelines.
All three scenarios show improved performance for eight of the ten key questions, and maintain current performance compared to 2012 for two of the key questions, even with projected growth in regional population and employment.
1) Do the transportation investments help to improve the regional economy?
Yes, the scenarios were analyzed using a Benefit-Cost test that indicates whether the stream of benefits over the life of the transportation investments outweighs the costs of those investments. The Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) calculates benefits in six major categories: the value of time saved (including a reliability measure), operational costs savings (e.g., savings from not driving), accident reduction, emissions, increased physical activity, and ownership cost savings (savings from not owning a car). The benefits and costs in future years also are discounted to reflect the fact that a dollar in the future is worth less than a dollar today. The results of the BCA are presented as a ratio of benefits to costs, and therefore a benefit-cost ratio over one means that the benefits of the scenario outweigh the costs.
The BCA ratio for the Blended Scenario is 1.9, meaning that the benefits of the scenario through 2070 outweigh the costs by nearly a 2-to-1 margin at a 4 percent discount rate. Scenario 2 also has a BCA ratio of 1.9 and Scenario 1 rated similarly, at a ratio of 2. In all three scenarios, the large majority of benefits result from travel-time savings and reductions in vehicle operating costs. Small benefits are seen from emissions reductions, safety improvements, and vehicle ownership cost reductions.
2) Are the relative costs of transportation changing similarly for all communities?
Yes, the relative cost of transportation is changing similarly for all communities. All three scenarios show a modest cost decrease as compared to the 2012 baseline for most communities, and are flat in comparison to the No Build scenario1.
3) Are connections to neighboring counties, Mexico, tribal lands, and military bases/installations improved?
Yes, in each scenario the average travel time to most destinations decreases as compared to the No Build scenario. Modest travel time savings are seen in travel to/from military bases and installations and to/from tribal lands. Substantial travel time improvements to travel to/from the Otay Mesa Port of Entry (POE) are projected as compared to 2012. The Otay Mesa East POE is anticipated to open before 2020 and travel times to and from this POE would continue to improve
1 The No Build scenario reflects the projected population and employment growth of the region and no transportation improvements (other than projects under construction).
42 50 over the implementation of the plan, with the lowest travel times in 2050. There are no noted differences between Scenarios 1, Scenario 2, and the Blended Scenario.
4) Are travel times reduced?
Yes, compared to the No Build scenario, modest reductions in travel times are seen in all three scenarios, with the greatest reduction in travel time for those using transit (savings of three minutes per trip in 2035, and five minutes per trip in 2050). Modest reductions in vehicle delay also are noted when compared to the No Build scenario, with the greatest time savings seen in 2050. Over the life of the plan this results in an estimated 609 million hours saved for the Blended Scenario, 594 million hours saved for Scenario 1, and 558 million hours saved for Scenario 2, or the equivalent of a more than a month of vacation for every person in the entire region.
5) Are more people walking, biking, using transit, and sharing rides?
Yes, all three of the scenarios project more people walking, biking, using transit, and sharing rides, with more than 61 percent not driving alone in 2050 - more than a 3 percent increase over 2012 rates. Additional transit options result in the percent of people using transit to travel to work to nearly double, increasing from 3.3 percent in 2010 to 6.1 percent (Scenario 1 and Blended Scenario) and 6.2% (Scenario 2) in 2050. This also results in additional public health benefits as public transit riders generally walk 30 percent more than people who rely on cars.
6) Is the transportation system safer?
Yes, the annual projected number of bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal collisions includes modest decreases for all scenarios, with the greatest reduction in 2050. Vehicular accidents remain relatively flat across the three scenarios2. Additional safety benefits also would be realized from the Active Transportation and Demand Management elements included in the scenarios, including Advance Queue Warning, Speed Harmonization, and Dynamic Lane Control.
7) Does the transportation network support smart growth?
Yes, there are dramatic increases in the percentage of the population and employment within a half mile of high frequency transit stops (15 minutes or shorter waits). In 2012, only 34 percent of the population was located near high frequency transit stops. With significant transit investments and local land use, which encourages growth near transit, this number increases substantially in each phase of the plan. In 2020, all three scenarios show that 51 percent of the population lives near high frequency transit, increasing to 58 percent in 2035. In 2050, this further increases to 60 percent for all scenarios. Similarly, the percentage of employment within half a mile of high frequency transit increases from 40 percent in 2012 to 62 percent for each scenario in 2020, and to 70 percent (Scenario 1) and 71 percent (Scenario 2 and Blended Scenario) in 2050.
2 The methodology employed utilizes current accident rates and does not account for Transportation System Management improvements, which have historically been shown to improve safety.
43 51 Access to bicycle facilities3 also improves with implementation of all three of the scenarios. In 2012, 55 percent of the population is located within a quarter mile of a bicycle facility. With implementation of the Active Transportation projects this increases to 60 percent in 2020, 62 percent in 2035, and 64 percent in 2050 (all scenarios). Even more substantial gains are seen in the percentage of employment within a quarter mile of bicycle facilities. This increases from 65 percent in 2012 to 72 percent in 2020, and 76 percent in 2050 (all scenarios).
Additionally, there is a large increase in the total time engaged in transportation-related physical activity per capita for each scenario. The 2012 baseline year indicates the total time engaged region-wide as more than 219,000 hours daily. Substantial increases are seen each year for all scenarios resulting in more than 22,000 additional hours of daily physical activity in 2050, compared to No Build. The average travel distance to work remains flat for all modes compared to both 2012 and the No Build scenario.
8) Is access to jobs and key destinations improving for all communities?
The ability of residents to access jobs and services via transit substantially improves in all three scenarios. The percent of the population able to access jobs and higher education within 30 minutes via transit increased from 86 percent in 2012 to 88 percent in 2020, and 89 percent in 2035 and 2050. Access to retail, health care, and parks via transit improves in all scenarios, with the percent of the population with access to retail increasing from 2012 levels of 72 percent to 74 percent in 2035, and 75 percent in 2050. Likewise, transit access to health care improves from 71 percent of the population in 2012, to 74 percent in 2035, and 75 percent in 2050. Access to parks improves from 57 percent in 2012, to 60 percent in 2050. Access to jobs and higher education as well as amenities described above by driving alone remains constant at 99-100 percent for all scenarios.
9) Is the region’s air quality improving?
Yes, in all three scenarios, on-road smog forming pollutants decrease over the life of the plan from 0.052 pounds per day per capita in 2012 to 0.025 pounds per capita in 2020, 0.016 in 2035 and 20504, a 70 percent reduction over 2012 levels in 2035.
10) Are Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduced?
Yes, GHG emissions are reduced in all scenarios. Total GHG emissions are reduced from 2012 levels of 37,805 tons per day to 32,183tons per day in 2020, 32,237 tons per day in 2035, and 34,866 tons per day in 2050. All GHG emission levels are lower than baseline levels, with a substantial drop in emissions between 2020 and 2035. GHG emissions are also lower than the No Build scenario. On a per capita basis, total GHG emissions decrease over the life of the plan from 25 pounds per day in 2012 to 19.2 pounds in 2020, 17.4 pounds in 2035, and 17.7 pounds
3 Bicycle facilities include class I and II facilities, cycletracks, and bicycle boulevards.
4 Emissions data for 2050 was prepared using 2035 emissions factors, as emission factors for 2050 are not available from the California Air Resources Board. Modeled emissions results for 2050 are likely overestimated due to this factor.
44 52 per day in 2050, for the three scenarios. Over the life of the plan 4.5 million fewer tons of GHG are emitted as compared to a No Build scenario.
Corridor Travel Times
The transportation improvements provide benefits to the overall region, with often more major improvements seen at the corridor level. Peak-period travel times by mode (drive alone, transit, and carpool) were projected for several corridors. Travel times by transit improve substantially in many corridors, and in some corridors provide travel times comparable or better than driving alone, such as from Escondido to Downtown San Diego and from Otay Ranch to University Town Center.
Travel times by carpool improve for many corridors, with the largest time savings seen along corridors with new Managed Lanes, such as Interstate 5, Interstate 805, and State Route 78, and the existing Express Lanes on Interstate 15. Travel times for carpoolers are shorter than those who choose to drive alone in most corridors. In addition, improvements in many corridors would help to maintain current travel times by driving alone, despite the projected growth of nearly 1 million people and half a million new jobs in the region by 2050.
45 53 Blended Blended Blended Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Scenario Scenario Scenario Number Performance Measure 2012 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050 Do the transportation investments help 1 to improve the regional economy? Benefit/cost ratio of transportation 1A investments N/A N/A N/A 2.0 N/A N/A 1.9 N/A N/A 1.9
Average truck/commercial vehicle travel times to and around regional gateways 1B and distribution hubs (minutes) 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Are the relative costs of transportation 2 changing similarly for all communities? Change in the percent of income consumed by out-of-pocket 2A transportation costs N/A -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% -0.3% -0.3% -0.5% Low Income N/A -0.7% -0.6% -0.9% -0.7% -0.6% -0.9% -0.7% -0.6% -0.9% Non Low Income N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Minority N/A -0.3% -0.6% -0.8% -0.3% -0.6% -0.8% -0.3% -0.6% -0.8% Non-Minority N/A -0.2% 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% 0.1% 0.0% -0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Senior N/A 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% Non-Senior N/A -0.3% -0.4% -0.6% -0.3% -0.4% -0.6% -0.3% -0.4% -0.6%
Are connections to neighboring counties, Mexico, tribal lands, and 3 military bases/installations improved? Average travel times to/from tribal lands 3A (minutes) 26 25 26 25 25 26 25 25 25 25 Average travel times to/from Mexico 3B (minutes) San Ysidro 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Otay Mesa 25 18 18 16 18 18 16 18 18 16 Otay Mesa East N/A 33 32 24 33 32 24 33 33 24 Tecate 55 53 46 44 53 46 44 53 46 44 Average travel times to/from neighboring counties (Imperial, Orange, 3C Riverside) (minutes) 54 54 59 64 54 59 64 54 59 64
Average travel times to/from military 3D bases/installations (minutes) 20 18 19 20 18 19 20 18 19 20 4 Are travel times reduced? Average peak-period travel time to work 4A (minutes) 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 drive alone 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 carpool 20 21 21 20 21 21 20 21 21 20 transit 46 45 43 42 45 43 42 45 42 42 bike 21 20 20 21 20 20 21 20 20 21 walk 16 16 16 17 16 16 17 16 16 17
4B Daily vehicle delay per capita (minutes) 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 Are more people walking, biking, using 5 transit and sharing rides? Walk, bike, transit, and carpool mode 5A share 58.8% 60.9% 60.6% 61.3% 60.9% 60.6% 61.3% 60.9% 60.6% 61.3% carpool 44.0% 45.3% 44.1% 42.6% 45.3% 44.1% 42.6% 45.3% 44.1% 42.7% transit 1.9% 2.2% 2.9% 3.5% 2.2% 3.0% 3.5% 2.2% 2.9% 3.4% bike/walk 12.9% 13.3% 13.6% 15.2% 13.3% 13.5% 15.2% 13.3% 13.6% 15.2% 6 Is the transportation system safer?
Annual projected number of vehicle injury/fatal collisions per thousand 6A vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Annual projected number of bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal collisions per thousand bicyclist/pedestrian miles 6B traveled (BPMT) 1.16 1.14 1.15 1.07 1.14 1.15 1.07 1.14 1.15 1.08 Does the transportation network 7 support smart growth? Percentage of population within 0.5 mile of a high frequency (<=15 min peak and midday) transit stop (communities of concern and non-communities of 7A-1 concern) 34% 51% 58% 60% 51% 58% 60% 51% 58% 60% Low-income 41% 60% 68% 68% 60% 65% 68% 60% 66% 68% Non low-income 30% 46% 56% 56% 46% 54% 57% 46% 54% 57% Minority 42% 58% 65% 65% 58% 64% 66% 58% 64% 66% Non-Minority 25% 42% 50% 50% 42% 49% 51% 42% 49% 51% Senior 29% 47% 56% 56% 47% 52% 57% 47% 52% 57% Non-Senior 34% 51% 60% 60% 51% 58% 61% 51% 58% 61% Percentage of employment within 0.5 mile of a high frequency (<=15 min peak 7A-2 and midday) transit stop 40% 62% 70% 70% 62% 68% 71% 62% 68% 71% Percentage of population within 0.5 mile 7B-1 of a transit stop 77% 77% 79% 79% 77% 79% 79% 77% 79% 80% Percentage of employment within 0.5 7B-2 mile of a transit stop 83% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87%
Percentage of population within 0.25 mile of a bike facility (class I and II, 7C-1 cycletrack, and bicycle boulevard) 55% 60% 62% 64% 60% 62% 64% 60% 62% 64%
Percentage of employment within 0.25 mile of a bike facility (class I and II, 7C-2 cycletrack, and bicycle boulevard) 65% 72% 74% 76% 72% 74% 76% 72% 74% 76%
46 54 Blended Blended Blended Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Scenario Scenario Scenario Number Performance Measure 2012 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050 Average travel distance to work (drive alone, carpool, transit, bike, and walk) 7D (miles) 12.2 11.8 11.8 11.9 11.8 11.8 11.9 11.8 11.8 11.9 drive alone 13.2 12.7 12.8 13.1 12.7 12.8 13.1 12.7 12.8 13.1 carpool 11.5 11.5 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.3 11.4 transit 9.0 9.8 9.9 10.5 9.8 9.8 10.4 9.8 9.8 10.4 bike 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.1 walk 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Total time engaged in transportation- related physical activity per capita 7E (minutes) 4 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6
Percent of population engaging in more than 20 minutes of daily transportation 7F related physical activity 13.98% 14.0% 14.6% 16.5% 14.0% 14.6% 16.5% 14.0% 14.6% 16.5% Is access to jobs and key destinations 8 improving for all communities?
Percent of population within 30 minutes 8A. of jobs and higher education enrollment Auto 99.99% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Transit 86.1% 88.1% 88.5% 88.9% 88.1% 88.5% 88.9% 88.1% 88.5% 89.0% Percent of population within 15 minutes 8B-1 of retail Drive alone 99.7% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% Transit 72.1% 72.9% 74.4% 75.4% 72.9% 74.4% 75.4% 72.9% 74.5% 75.4% Percent of population within 15 minutes 8B-2 of health care Drive alone 99.2% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% Transit 71.1% 72.7% 74.1% 75.2% 72.7% 74.1% 75.2% 72.7% 74.2% 75.3% Percent of population within 15 minutes 8B-3 of parks Drive alone 99.4% 99.3% 99.2% 99.3% 99.3% 99.2% 99.3% 99.3% 99.2% 99.3% Transit 56.6% 57.1% 58.6% 59.8% 57.1% 58.7% 59.9% 57.1% 58.7% 59.9% Percent of population within 15 minutes 8B-4 of beaches Drive alone 46.9% 45.2% 43.9% 44.2% 45.2% 43.9% 44.2% 45.2% 44.0% 44.2% Transit 4.3% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.4% 4.6% 4.8% 4.4% 4.6% 4.8% 9 Is the region's air quality improving? On-road smog-forming pollutants 9A (pounds/day) per capita * 0.052 0.025 0.016 0.016 0.025 0.016 0.016 0.025 0.016 0.016 10 Are GHG emissions reduced?
10A-1 Total on-road CO2 emissions (tons/day) 37,805 31,643 32,224 34,839 31,643 32,223 34,875 31,643 32,237 34,866 Total on-road CO2 emissions 10A-2 (pounds/day) per capita 25.0 19.2 17.4 17.6 19.2 17.4 17.7 19.2 17.4 17.7
47 55 Blended Blended Blended Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Scenario Scenario Scenario 2012 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050 Average travel time (peak periods) by mode for selected corridors (in minutes) 1 Oceanside - Downtown San Diego (AM) By auto 55 54 53 59 54 53 59 54 53 59 By transit 94 90 91 86 90 91 86 90 90 86 By carpool 51 45 44 44 45 44 44 45 44 44 2 Escondido - Downtown San Diego (AM) By auto 50 51 52 57 51 52 57 51 52 57 By transit 67 71 72 54 71 72 54 71 72 54 By carpool 50 40 40 42 40 40 42 40 41 42 3 El Cajon - Kearny Mesa (AM) By auto 26 27 28 26 27 28 26 27 28 26 By transit 67 62 42 35 62 42 35 62 42 35 By carpool 26 27 27 22 27 28 22 27 27 22 4 Mid City - UTC By auto 26 27 27 26 27 28 26 27 28 26 By transit 66 72 43 31 72 43 31 72 42 31 By carpool 26 24 26 20 24 26 20 24 25 20 5 Western Chula Vista - Mission Valley By auto 25 25 26 25 25 26 25 25 26 25 By transit 59 48 47 44 48 47 44 48 47 44 By carpool 25 25 25 23 25 25 23 25 25 23 6 Carlsbad - Sorrento Mesa (AM) By auto 38 38 35 40 38 36 40 38 36 40 By transit 57 53 54 53 53 54 54 53 53 54 By carpool 34 30 30 32 30 30 32 30 30 32 7 Oceanside - Escondido (PM) By auto 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 By transit 69 68 57 45 68 57 45 68 57 45 By carpool 28 29 24 23 29 26 23 29 24 24 8 San Ysidro - Downtown San Diego By auto 23 24 24 23 24 24 23 24 24 23 By transit 34 34 34 23 34 34 34 34 21 20 By carpool 23 22 20 19 22 20 19 22 19 19 9 Otay Ranch - UTC By auto 50 53 55 49 53 56 49 53 55 49 By transit NA 75 51 41 75 53 41 75 49 41 By carpool 50 45 47 38 45 48 39 45 45 39 Pala/Pauma - Oceanside 10 Transit Center By auto 44 41 44 44 41 44 44 41 44 44 By transit 96 98 95 78 98 95 78 98 95 78 By carpool 44 41 44 44 41 44 44 41 44 44 SR 67 (Ramona) - 11 Downtown San Diego By auto 67 69 71 59 69 71 59 69 71 59 By transit 111 116 118 98 116 118 97 116 118 97 By carpool 67 62 64 55 62 64 55 62 64 55
48 56 Attachment 14
Blended Scenario: Social Equity Performance Measures Analysis and Data
The SANDAG Board of Directors previously approved the use of the following three vulnerable population groups for purposes of conducting a social equity analysis for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Those groups are seniors (age 75 or older), minorities, and low-income (200% of the Federal Poverty Rate) populations. Through the process of developing the performance measures, a subset of measures was identified as the framework for the social equity analysis in which data would be produced comparing these three vulnerable populations against their respective “non” population (e.g., minority v. non-minority).
For each vulnerable population and “non” population the percent difference was calculated between the No Build projections versus Scenarios 1 and 2 and the Blended Scenario (“Scenarios”) for each year (2020, 2035, and 2050) to determine how each group fared under each Scenario. As part of the analysis, the percentages of each vulnerable population group were compared to its comparable “non” population to determine the percentage point difference between the groups. Anything above a 20 percentage point difference would be considered significant and cause for further analysis. The following social equity performance measures were evaluated:
• Average peak-period travel time to work
• Change in percent of income consumed by transportation costs
• Percentage of population within 0.5 miles of high frequency transit stops
• Percentage of population within 0.5 miles of a transit stop
• Percentage of population within 0.25 miles of a bike facility
• Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher education
• Percent of population within 15 minutes of goods/services (retail, medical, parks, and beaches)
• Average Particulate Matter (PM10) (a type of toxic air particulate) exposure per person 1
The result of the social equity analysis is a determination that no statistically significant differences were found between the No Build Scenario and any of the three Scenarios for any of the three vulnerable populations. Highlights of the findings follow:
For all vulnerable populations, average peak travel time across all modes and particularly for the drive alone mode, remains constant with no significant disparate impact for any of the populations (low-income, minority, and seniors). Travel times to work by transit do improve based on a comparison between the No Build projections and all three Scenarios. For example, for the low-income population, travel time by transit increases from 47 minutes in the 2020 No Build to almost 49 minutes in the 2050 No Build, while decreasing to 43 minutes by 2050 for all three Scenarios. Minority travel times by transit follow a similar pattern. The difference between each of
1 This environmental burden measure was added to ensure that there were two burden measures for Title VI analysis: one economic/social and one environmental.
49 57 the Scenarios for travel times for all modes was negligible except for seniors compared to non-seniors by transit. There is an 8.8 percentage point difference between the 2050 No Build numbers when compared to the numbers for 2050 Scenario 1, and a 7.0 and 7.1 percentage point difference for Scenario 1 and the 2050 Blended Scenario respectively. This means that non-seniors will see more improvement than seniors for transit travel times, but the difference is not high enough to be considered a significant disparity.
On the other hand, for low-income populations the differences in the numbers show that they will fare a bit better than their non-low-income counterparts. For example, under the 2050 No Build projections, low-income populations will have travel times across all modes that improve by 2.6 percentage points more than non-low-income populations for the 2050 Blended Scenario, while Scenarios 1 and 2 show a 2.4 percentage point difference by 2050. In all instances the three Scenarios show improved travel times for all groups by 2050 when compared to 2050 No Build projections.
The change in percent of income consumed by transportation costs for low-income, minority, and senior populations remains almost the same for the Blended Scenario, as well as for Scenarios 1 and 2 by 2050. Low-income populations will spend about 0.5 percent less of their income on transportation by 2050 when the 2050 No Build projections are compared to any of the Scenarios. There is no significant disparity between each population versus the relative “non” population for each Scenario at each phase. In the case of seniors in comparison to non-seniors for all three 2050 Scenarios the amount of improvement is higher for seniors. 2050 Scenario 1 has a 4.8 percentage point difference, 2050 Scenario 2 has a 3.5 percentage point difference, and the 2050 Blended Scenario has a 3.2 percentage point difference. This means seniors are expected to pay a lower percentage of their income for transportation costs than non-seniors by 2050 no matter which Scenario is used.
With regard to access to transit, the results for all three Scenarios are very favorable in terms of improvements overall. The percentage of population within a half mile of a high frequency transit stop improves for all vulnerable populations for the 2050 Blended Scenario, as well as for Scenarios 1 and 2 and is appreciably better than the 2050 No Build projections. The percentage point difference for low-income compared to non-low-income populations increases slightly for Scenario 1, Scenario 2 and the Blended Scenario with differences of 7.6, 8.4 and 8.4 percentage points respectively in 2050. None of these differences are considered statistically significant. For minority compared to non-minority populations the difference decreases over time. For example, in 2020 all three Scenarios show a difference of 8.1 percentage points, but by 2050 for Scenario 1 it is reduced to 2.5, and for both Scenario 2 and the Blended Scenario the difference decreases to 4.1 percentage points.
As the Regional Bike Network for San Diego Forward is implemented, vulnerable populations will have significantly more access to bike facilities. The percentage of people within a quarter mile of a bike facility for all vulnerable populations improves in all three Scenarios compared to the No Build projections and is comparable to or better than the respective “non” populations. There are no disparate impacts.
A critical performance measure for social equity is equitable access to key amenities. Transit access to key amenities such as jobs/higher education, healthcare, and parks is relatively high across the board for the Blended Scenario, as well as Scenarios 1 and 2. Transit access to jobs/higher education for minorities in each Scenario is 91 percent. The percentage point difference between minorities
50 58 and non-minorities shows a minor difference in 2020 (-0.4 percentage points) and becomes a positive difference (1.4 percentage points) by 2050 in all Scenarios. For low-income populations there is a slight difference in percentage points of 3.2 in 2020, which increases to 3.9 for all three Scenarios, but again these differences are not statistically significant. In terms of quality of life, transit access to parks for low-income and minorities remains constant, while slightly improving for seniors for all scenarios. In terms of differences between the vulnerable population groups and their comparable “non” populations, the percentage point difference for low-income populations compared to non-low-income populations for each Scenario is 2.5 in 2020 and increases to 3.5 in 2050. The difference in percentage points for minorities compared to non-minorities is even smaller with 0.8 in 2020 and ranging between 1.5 and 1.8 in 2050 for each Scenario. None of these differences are statistically significant.
A review of the emissions data for PM10 for each of the vulnerable populations in comparison to the “non” population shows no significant differences. The model predicts that minorities will have
two-tenths of a percentage point lower decrease in exposure to PM10 in 2035 Scenario 1 than non-minorities, while minorities have one-tenth of a percentage point lower decrease in exposure to PM10 in 2035 Scenario 2 and the Blended Scenario. On the other hand, minorities have one-tenth of a percentage point greater decrease in exposure to PM10 in all of the 2050 Scenarios than non-minorities. As with the other analyses above, none of these percentage point differences are considered significant and thus no further disparity analysis is needed.
51 59 Blended Blended Blended 2020 2035 2050 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Number Performance Measure Scenario Scenario Scenario No Build No Build No Build 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050
Are the relative costs of transportation changing 2 similarly for all communities?
Change in the percent of income consumed by out-of- 2A pocket transportation costs -0.3% -0.6% -0.7% -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% -0.3% -0.4% -0.5% -0.3% -0.3% -0.5% Low Income -0.8% -0.9% -1.3% -0.7% -0.6% -0.9% -0.7% -0.6% -0.9% -0.7% -0.6% -0.9% Non Low Income 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Minority -0.3% -0.8% -1.0% -0.3% -0.6% -0.8% -0.3% -0.6% -0.8% -0.3% -0.6% -0.8% Non-Minority -0.2% -0.1% -0.2% -0.2% 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% 0.1% 0.0% -0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Senior 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% Non-Senior -0.3% -0.6% -0.8% -0.3% -0.4% -0.6% -0.3% -0.4% -0.6% -0.3% -0.4% -0.6% 4 Are travel times reduced?
Average peak-period travel 4A time to work (low-income) 21 21 23 21 21 22 21 21 22 21 21 22 drive alone 22 23 24 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 carpool 20 21 22 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 transit 46 46 47 47 44 43 47 44 43 47 44 43 bike 21 20 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 22 23 walk 16 16 17 17 16 17 17 16 17 17 16 17 Average peak-period travel time to work (Non low- 4A income) 23 24 25 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 drive alone 23 24 25 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 carpool 21 22 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 transit 45 45 46 44 42 41 44 42 41 44 42 41 bike 19 19 21 19 19 20 19 19 20 19 19 20 walk 16 16 17 15 16 17 15 15 17 15 16 17
Average peak-period travel 4A time to work (Minority) 23 23 24 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 drive alone 22 23 24 22 23 22 22 23 22 22 23 22 carpool 20 21 21 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 transit 46 46 47 45 43 42 45 43 42 45 43 42 bike 22 22 23 22 21 22 22 21 22 22 21 22 walk 17 17 18 17 16 17 17 16 17 17 16 17
Average peak-period travel 4A time to work (Non-minority) 23 23 24 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 drive alone 23 23 24 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 carpool 21 21 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 transit 45 46 46 44 42 41 44 42 41 44 42 41 bike 19 19 20 19 18 19 19 18 19 19 18 19 walk 15 15 17 15 15 16 15 15 16 15 15 16
Average peak-period travel 4A time to work (Senior) 21 21 22 21 20 21 21 20 21 21 20 21 drive alone 21 20 22 21 20 21 21 20 21 21 20 21 carpool 19 19 22 18 19 19 18 20 19 18 19 19 transit 45 48 53 44 44 43 44 45 44 44 42 44 bike 23 19 25 23 18 23 23 18 23 23 17 23 walk 15 13 14 16 12 13 16 14 14 16 13 13
Average peak-period travel 4A time to work (Non-senior) 23 23 24 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 drive alone 22 23 24 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 carpool 20 21 22 21 21 20 21 21 20 21 21 20 transit 46 46 47 45 43 42 45 43 42 45 42 42 bike 21 20 22 20 20 21 20 20 21 20 20 21 walk 16 16 17 16 16 17 16 16 17 16 16 17 Does the transportation network support smart 7 growth? Percentage of population within 0.5 miles of a high frequency (<=15 min peak and 7A midday) transit stop 38% 40% 41% 51% 58% 60% 51% 58% 60% 51% 58% 60% Low-income 46% 47% 48% 60% 68% 68% 60% 65% 68% 60% 66% 68% Non low-income 33% 37% 38% 46% 56% 56% 46% 54% 57% 46% 54% 57% Minority 44% 45% 45% 58% 65% 65% 58% 64% 66% 58% 64% 66% Non-Minority 30% 33% 34% 42% 50% 50% 42% 49% 51% 42% 49% 51% Senior 35% 37% 38% 47% 56% 56% 47% 52% 57% 47% 52% 57% Non-Senior 38% 40% 41% 51% 60% 60% 51% 58% 61% 51% 58% 61% Percentage of population within 0.5 mile of a transit 7B stop Low-income 80% 81% 81% 81% 82% 84% 81% 82% 84% 81% 82% 84% Non low-income 72% 75% 76% 75% 77% 78% 75% 77% 78% 75% 77% 78% Minority 78% 81% 81% 81% 82% 82% 81% 82% 82% 81% 82% 82% Non-Minority 70% 73% 73% 73% 74% 75% 73% 74% 75% 73% 74% 75% Senior 73% 75% 76% 75% 77% 79% 75% 77% 79% 75% 77% 80% Non-Senior 75% 77% 78% 77% 79% 79% 77% 79% 79% 77% 79% 80% Percentage of population within 0.25 mile of a bike facility (class I and II, cycletrack, and bicycle 7C boulevard) 60% 59% 59% 60% 62% 64% 60% 62% 64% 60% 62% 64% Low-income 57% 58% 59% 57% 62% 64% 57% 62% 64% 57% 62% 64% Non low-income 61% 60% 60% 61% 62% 64% 61% 62% 64% 61% 62% 64% Minority 60% 60% 60% 60% 63% 65% 60% 63% 65% 60% 63% 65% Non-Minority 59% 58% 59% 59% 61% 63% 59% 61% 63% 59% 61% 63% Senior 59% 59% 59% 59% 62% 64% 59% 62% 64% 59% 62% 64% Non-Senior 60% 59% 59% 60% 62% 64% 60% 62% 64% 60% 62% 64%
52 60 Blended Blended Blended 2020 2035 2050 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Number Performance Measure Scenario Scenario Scenario No Build No Build No Build 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050 Is access to jobs and key destinations improving for all 8 communities? Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher education enrollment (low 8A. income) Auto 99.99% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Transit 89.22% 89.3% 90.2% 91.2% 91.1% 92.0% 91.2% 91.1% 92.0% 91.2% 91.1% 92.0%
Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher education enrollment (non- 8A. low income) Auto 100.00% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Transit 82.22% 82.4% 82.8% 86.6% 87.4% 87.7% 86.6% 87.4% 87.7% 86.6% 87.4% 87.7% Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher education enrollment 8A. (Minority) Auto 100.00% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Transit 87.27% 86.7% 86.7% 90.8% 91.2% 91.2% 90.8% 91.2% 91.2% 90.8% 91.2% 91.2% Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher education enrollment (non- 8A. Minority) Auto 99.99% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Transit 81.33% 81.5% 82.0% 85.0% 84.7% 85.1% 85.0% 84.7% 85.1% 85.0% 84.8% 85.2%
Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher 8A. education enrollment (Senior) Auto 100.00% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Transit 83.20% 83.6% 84.3% 85.5% 86.2% 87.4% 85.5% 86.2% 87.4% 85.5% 86.3% 87.4% Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher education enrollment (non- 8A. Senior) Auto 99.99% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Transit 84.67% 84.6% 85.0% 88.3% 88.7% 89.0% 88.3% 88.7% 89.0% 88.3% 88.7% 89.1% Percent of population within 8B. 15 minutes of retail Drive alone 99.78% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% Transit 70.66% 71.0% 71.7% 72.9% 74.4% 75.4% 72.9% 74.4% 75.4% 72.9% 74.5% 75.4% Percent of population within 15 minutes of retail (Low 8B. Income) Drive alone 99.82% 99.8% 99.9% 99.8% 99.8% 99.9% 99.8% 99.8% 99.9% 99.8% 99.8% 99.9% Transit 77.36% 77.7% 79.5% 78.6% 79.4% 81.4% 78.6% 79.3% 81.4% 78.6% 79.4% 81.4% Percent of population within 15 minutes of retail (non Low 8B. Income) Drive alone 99.75% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% Transit 67.2% 68.1% 68.6% 70.1% 72.3% 73.0% 70.1% 72.2% 73.0% 70.1% 72.3% 73.1%
Percent of population within 8B. 15 minutes of retail (Minority) Drive alone 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% Transit 74.8% 74.0% 74.1% 77.1% 78.0% 78.4% 77.1% 77.9% 78.5% 77.1% 78.1% 78.5% Percent of population within 15 minutes of retail (non 8B. Minority) Drive alone 99.7% 99.7% 99.8% 99.7% 99.7% 99.8% 99.7% 99.7% 99.8% 99.7% 99.7% 99.8% Transit 65.6% 66.9% 67.5% 67.9% 69.4% 70.2% 67.9% 69.4% 70.4% 67.9% 69.4% 70.4%
Percent of population within 8B. 15 minutes of retail (Senior) Drive alone 99.6% 99.8% 99.8% 99.6% 99.8% 99.8% 99.6% 99.8% 99.8% 99.6% 99.8% 99.8% Transit 68.5% 69.8% 71.4% 70.1% 72.2% 74.7% 70.1% 72.1% 74.8% 70.1% 72.3% 74.8% Percent of population within 15 minutes of retail (non 8B. Senior) Drive alone 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% Transit 70.8% 71.1% 71.7% 73.1% 74.6% 75.4% 73.1% 74.6% 75.5% 73.1% 74.7% 75.5%
Percent of population within 8B. 15 minutes of health care Drive alone 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% Transit 70.5% 71.0% 71.7% 72.7% 74.1% 75.2% 72.7% 74.1% 75.2% 72.7% 74.2% 75.3% Percent of population within 15 minutes of health care 8B. (Low Income) Drive alone 99.8% 99.8% 99.9% 99.8% 99.8% 99.9% 99.8% 99.8% 99.9% 99.8% 99.8% 99.9% Transit 77.2% 77.7% 79.5% 78.4% 79.3% 81.3% 78.4% 79.3% 81.4% 78.4% 79.4% 81.4%
Percent of population within 15 minutes of health care (non 8B. Low Income) Drive alone 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% Transit 67.1% 68.0% 68.6% 69.7% 71.8% 72.7% 69.7% 71.8% 72.8% 69.7% 71.9% 72.8% Percent of population within 15 minutes of health care 8B. (Minority) Drive alone 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% Transit 74.8% 74.0% 74.1% 77.0% 77.7% 78.2% 77.0% 77.6% 78.3% 77.0% 77.7% 78.3% Percent of population within 15 minutes of health care (non 8B. Minority) Drive alone 99.6% 99.7% 99.8% 99.6% 99.7% 99.8% 99.6% 99.7% 99.8% 99.6% 99.7% 99.8% Transit 65.3% 66.8% 67.6% 67.5% 69.1% 70.1% 67.5% 69.2% 70.2% 67.5% 69.2% 70.2%
53 61 Blended Blended Blended 2020 2035 2050 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Number Performance Measure Scenario Scenario Scenario No Build No Build No Build 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050 2020 2035 2050 Percent of population within 15 minutes of health care 8B. (Senior) Drive alone 99.5% 99.8% 99.8% 99.5% 99.8% 99.8% 99.5% 99.8% 99.8% 99.5% 99.8% 99.8% Transit 68.3% 69.7% 71.4% 69.8% 72.1% 74.7% 69.8% 72.0% 74.7% 69.8% 72.1% 74.7% Percent of population within 15 minutes of health care (non 8B. Senior) Drive alone 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% 99.8% Transit 70.6% 71.1% 71.7% 72.8% 74.3% 75.2% 72.8% 74.2% 75.3% 72.8% 74.4% 75.3% Percent of population within 8B. 15 minutes of parks Drive alone 99.3% 99.2% 99.3% 99.3% 99.2% 99.3% 99.3% 99.2% 99.3% 99.3% 99.2% 99.3% Transit 55.1% 55.9% 56.6% 57.1% 58.6% 59.8% 57.1% 58.7% 59.9% 57.1% 58.7% 59.9% Percent of population within 15 minutes of parks (Low 8B. Income) Drive alone 99.6% 99.4% 99.4% 99.6% 99.4% 99.4% 99.6% 99.4% 99.4% 99.6% 99.4% 99.4% Transit 62.7% 63.3% 65.0% 64.0% 65.0% 67.1% 64.0% 65.0% 67.2% 64.0% 65.0% 67.2% Percent of population within 15 minutes of parks (non Low 8B. Income) Drive alone 99.1% 99.1% 99.3% 99.1% 99.1% 99.3% 99.1% 99.1% 99.3% 99.1% 99.1% 99.3% Transit 51.3% 52.6% 53.3% 53.5% 55.8% 56.9% 53.5% 55.9% 57.0% 53.5% 55.9% 57.0%
Percent of population within 8B. 15 minutes of parks (Minority) Drive alone 99.5% 99.3% 99.5% 99.5% 99.3% 99.5% 99.5% 99.3% 99.5% 99.5% 99.3% 99.5% Transit 61.3% 60.7% 60.4% 63.3% 63.4% 63.5% 63.3% 63.5% 63.5% 63.3% 63.4% 63.5% Percent of population within 15 minutes of parks (non 8B. Minority) Drive alone 99.1% 98.9% 99.0% 99.1% 98.9% 99.0% 99.1% 98.9% 99.0% 99.1% 98.9% 99.0% Transit 47.6% 49.2% 50.3% 49.5% 51.9% 53.7% 49.5% 52.0% 53.8% 49.5% 52.0% 53.8%
Percent of population within 8B. 15 minutes of parks (Senior) Drive alone 99.4% 99.1% 99.0% 99.4% 99.1% 99.0% 99.4% 99.1% 99.0% 99.4% 99.1% 99.0% Transit 52.2% 52.3% 54.5% 53.6% 54.8% 57.5% 53.6% 54.9% 57.7% 53.6% 54.8% 57.7% Percent of population within 15 minutes of parks (non 8B. Senior) Drive alone 99.3% 99.2% 99.3% 99.3% 99.2% 99.3% 99.3% 99.2% 99.3% 99.3% 99.2% 99.3% Transit 55.3% 56.2% 56.8% 57.3% 58.9% 60.0% 57.3% 59.0% 60.1% 57.3% 59.0% 60.0%
Percent of population within 8B. 15 minutes of beaches Drive alone 45.9% 45.1% 43.3% 45.2% 43.9% 44.2% 45.2% 43.9% 44.2% 45.2% 44.0% 44.2% Transit 4.2% 4.3% 4.3% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.4% 4.6% 4.8% 4.4% 4.6% 4.8% Percent of population within 15 minutes of beaches (Low 8B. Income) Drive alone 45.6% 42.7% 41.2% 44.8% 41.1% 42.0% 44.8% 41.1% 42.0% 44.8% 41.2% 42.1% Transit 3.7% 3.6% 3.8% 3.7% 3.8% 4.1% 3.7% 3.8% 4.2% 3.7% 3.8% 4.2% Percent of population within 15 minutes of beaches (non 8B. Low Income) Drive alone 46.1% 46.2% 44.2% 45.4% 45.1% 45.1% 45.4% 45.1% 45.1% 45.4% 45.3% 45.1% Transit 4.5% 4.6% 4.4% 4.7% 4.9% 4.9% 4.7% 4.9% 5.0% 4.7% 4.9% 5.0% Percent of population within 15 minutes of beaches 8B. (Minority) Drive alone 43.8% 43.1% 41.2% 42.8% 41.7% 42.3% 42.8% 41.7% 42.3% 42.8% 41.8% 42.3% Transit 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 3.1% 3.2% 2.9% 3.1% 3.2% 2.9% 3.1% 3.2% Percent of population within 15 minutes of beaches (non 8B. Minority) Drive alone 48.5% 48.0% 46.9% 48.1% 47.0% 47.4% 48.1% 47.0% 47.4% 48.1% 47.1% 47.4% Transit 6.0% 6.3% 6.6% 6.2% 6.6% 7.2% 6.2% 6.7% 7.4% 6.2% 6.7% 7.4% Percent of population within 15 minutes of beaches 8B. (Senior) Drive alone 44.7% 44.3% 43.1% 44.4% 43.6% 44.1% 44.4% 43.6% 44.1% 44.4% 43.7% 44.1% Transit 4.9% 5.0% 4.7% 5.1% 5.3% 5.1% 5.1% 5.3% 5.2% 5.1% 5.3% 5.2% Percent of population within 15 minutes of beaches (non 8B. Senior) Drive alone 46.0% 45.2% 43.3% 45.2% 43.9% 44.2% 45.2% 43.9% 44.2% 45.2% 44.0% 44.2% Transit 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% SE Average PM10 Exposure Low Income 13.95 16.74 18.35 13.66 16.24 17.65 13.66 16.24 17.66 13.66 16.27 17.66 Non Low Income 12.98 15.06 16.68 12.72 14.67 16.10 12.72 14.68 16.11 12.72 14.68 16.10 Minorities 13.95 16.94 18.97 13.65 16.48 18.26 13.65 16.47 18.27 13.65 16.49 18.26 Non Minorities 12.60 15.59 17.15 12.36 15.14 16.52 12.36 15.15 16.54 12.36 15.16 16.53 Seniors 12.67 15.76 17.95 12.40 15.35 17.32 12.40 15.35 17.33 12.40 15.36 17.33 Non Seniors 13.38 16.06 17.71 13.11 15.61 17.05 13.11 15.61 17.06 13.11 15.63 17.06
54 62 San Diego Association of Governments FREIGHT STAKEHOLDERS WORKING GROUP ATTENDANCE June 18, 2014
Name Agency Bill Hall (phone) Port of San Diego Tenants Association Paul Bingham CDM Smith John Hoegemeier (phone) SD Freight Rail Consulting Aimee Heim Port of San Diego Sean Hower BNSF Railway Brett Caldwell San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Michael Morris (phone) Federal Highway Administration Frank Rivera (phone) City of Chula Vista Amrado Freire California Trucking Association Linda Greenberg Lee and Associates Joy Williams (phone) Environmental Health Coalition Alejandra Mier y Teran (phone) Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce Raymond Payesp? (phone) Scott Strelecki SANDAG Christina Casgar SANDAG Elisa Arias SANDAG Joanne McDermott (phone) Caltrans Yasnaia Florentino Caltrans Rob Owen Caltrans Maurice Eaton Caltrans Dennis LaSalle LaSalle Solutions Gaspar Metzler Ibanez Admicarga
8 63 This Relates to Agenda Item No. 4 Freight Stakeholders Working Group September 25, 2014 Draft Revenue Constrained Scenarios: Transit and Managed Lanes/Highway Project List
Cost Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blended Scenario ($2014); millions 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 Transit Facilities # TransNet Service Route Description COASTER double tracking (20‐minute peak frequencies and current 120‐minute off‐peak 1A TransNet COASTER 398 frequencies) $280 COASTER double tracking (20‐minute peak frequencies and 60‐minute off‐peak frequencies, 1B TransNet COASTER 398 and grade separation) $947 COASTER double tracking Phase 2050 (completes double tracking; includes Del Mar Tunnel 1C TransNet COASTER 398 and grade separation) $1,365 2A TransNet SPRINTER 399 SPRINTER efficiency improvements (20‐minute frequencies) $459 Completion of Double tracking Oceanside to Escondido (10‐minute frequencies and six rail 2B TransNet SPRINTER 399 grade separations) $487 Double tracking Oceanside to Escondido (10‐minute frequencies and six rail grade 2C TransNet SPRINTER 399 separations) $946 2D SPRINTER 399 Branch Extension to Westfield North County $176 3 SPRINTER 588 SPRINTER Express $244 4 Trolley 510 Mid‐Coast Trolley Extension $1,753 Phase I ‐ Blue Line Frequency Enhancements (five rail grade separations, 7.5‐minute all day 5A Trolley 510 frequencies, Blue/Orange Track Connection at 12th/Imperial) $205 5B Trolley 510 Phase II ‐ Blue Line rail grade separations (two) $226 Orange Line Frequency Enhancements (four rail grade separations and 7.5‐minute peak 6 Trolley 520 frequencies) $267 Orange Line Express ‐ El Cajon to San Diego International Airport Intermodal Transit Center 7 Trolley 522 (ITC) $198 8 Trolley 540 Blue Line Express ‐ Santa Fe Depot to San Ysidro via Downtown $391 9 Trolley 560 SDSU to Downtown via El Cajon Blvd/Mid‐City (transition of Mid‐City Rapid to Trolley) $2,390 UTC to Mira Mesa via Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Canyon (extension of Route 510) ‐ COASTER 10A Trolley 561 Connection Segment $343 UTC to Mira Mesa via Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Canyon (extension of Route 510) ‐ COASTER to 10B Trolley 561 Mira Mesa Segment $824 Phase I ‐ San Ysidro to Kearny Mesa via Mission Valley, Mid‐City, National City/Chula Vista via 11A Trolley 562 Highland Ave/4th Ave $2,333 11B Trolley 562 Phase II ‐ Kearny Mesa to Carmel Valley $633 12A Trolley 563 Phase I ‐ Pacific Beach to Balboa; Kearny Mesa to Grossmont $610 12B Trolley 563 Phase II ‐ Balboa to Kearny Mesa $689 El Cajon Transit Center/Grossmont to San Diego International Airport ITC via SR 94, City 13 BRT 90 College (peak only) $0 14 BRT 610 Temecula (peak only) Extension of Escondido to Downtown BRT $98 15 BRT 628 South Bay BRT (Otay Mesa to Downtown) $206 I‐5 ‐ San Ysidro to Downtown & Kearny Mesa (I‐5 shoulder lanes/MLs, Downtown, 16A BRT 640 Hillcrest/Mission Valley Guideway) $93 Route 640A: I‐5 ‐ San Ysidro to Old Town Transit Center via City College 16B 640A/640B Route 640B: I‐5 Iris Trolley/Palomar to Kearny Mesa via City College $93 17 BRT 650 Chula Vista to Palomar Airport Road Business Park via I‐805/I‐5 (peak only) $82 18 BRT 653 Mid City to Palomar Airport Road via Kearny Mesa/I‐805/I‐5 $10 19 BRT 870 El Cajon to UTC via Santee, SR 52, I‐805 $7 20 BRT 890 El Cajon to Sorrento Mesa via SR 52, Kearny Mesa $12
64 Cost Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blended Scenario ($2014); millions 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 San Ysidro to Sorrento Mesa via I‐805 Corridor; Otay Mesa Port of Entry (POE) to UTC/Torrey Pines via Otay Ranch/Millennia,I‐805 Corridor; Mid City to Sorrento Mesa via I‐805 Corridor 21 TransNet BRT 688/689/690 (Peak Only) $458 22 BRT SR 163 DARs Kearny Mesa to Downtown via SR 163. Stations at Sharp/Children's Hospital and Hillcrest, + $150 23 BRT 905 BRT/Rapid extension of Iris to Otay Mesa Point of Entry (POE) with new service to Otay Mesa $0 24 Rapid 550 SDSU to Palomar Station via East San Diego, Southeast San Diego, National City $59 25 Rapid 2 North Park to Downtown San Diego via 30th St $39 26 Rapid 10 La Mesa to Ocean Beach via Mid‐City, Hillcrest, Old Town $87 27 Rapid 11 Spring Valley to SDSU via Southeast San Diego, Downtown, Hillcrest, Mid‐City $113 28 Rapid 28 Point Loma to Kearny Mesa via Old Town, Linda Vista $49 29 Rapid 30 Old Town to Sorrento Mesa via Pacific Beach, La Jolla, UTC $105 30 Rapid 41 Fashion Valley to UTC/UCSD via Linda Vista and Clairemont $55 31 Rapid 103 Solana Beach to Sabre Springs BRT station via Carmel Valley $67 32 Rapid 120 Kearny Mesa to Downtown $78 33 Rapid 440 Carlsbad to San Marcos via Palomar Airport Road $51 34 Rapid 471 Downtown Escondido to East Escondido $32 35A Rapid 473 Oceanside to UTC/UCSD via Hwy 101 Coastal Communities, Carmel Valley $130 35B Rapid 473 Phase I ‐ Solana Beach to UTC/UCSD via Hwy 101 Coastal Communities, Carmel Valley $43 35C Rapid 473 Phase II ‐ Oceanside to Solana Beach via Hwy 101 Coastal Communities $87 36 Rapid 474 Oceanside to Vista via Mission Ave/Santa Fe Road Corridor $50 37 Rapid 477 Camp Pendleton to Carlsbad Village via College Blvd, Plaza Camino Real $80 38 Rapid 635 Eastlake to Palomar Trolley via Main Street Corridor $56 39 Rapid 636 SDSU to Spring Valley via East San Diego, Lemon Grove, Skyline $39 40 Rapid 637 North Park to 32nd Street Trolley via Golden Hill $33 41 Rapid 638 Iris Trolley to Otay Mesa via Otay, Airway Dr., SR 905 Corridor $38 42 Rapid 709 H Street Trolley to Millennia via H Street Corridor, Southwestern College $37 43 Rapid 910 Coronado to Downtown via Coronado Bridge $26 44 Streetcar 553 Downtown San Diego: Little Italy to East Village $14 45 Streetcar 554 Hillcrest/Balboa Park/Downtown San Diego Loop $29 46 Streetcar 555 30th St to Downtown San Diego via North Park/Golden Hill $26 47 Streetcar 565 Mission Beach to La Jolla via Pacific Beach $25 48 Shuttle ‐ San Marcos Shuttle1 $0 49 Airport Express ‐ Airport Express Routes2 $52 50 Intermodal ‐ San Diego International Airport ITC $170 51A Intermodal ‐ Phase I ‐ San Ysidro ITC $95 51B Intermodal ‐ Phase II ‐ San Ysidro ITC $23
235, 280/290, 653, 52 TransNet SR 15 and Airport Express SR 15 (I‐805 to I‐8) Transit Lanes $56 53 $652 54 Other Improvements (Vehicles, transit system rehabilitation, regulatory compliance, park & $2,499 56 Other ‐ ride) $3,265 1 Capital cost to be funded by the City of San Marcos 2 Capital cost to be funded by aviation and other private funds
65 Cost Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blended Scenario ($2014); millions 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 Managed Lanes / Toll Lanes
# TransNet Freeway From To Existing With Improvements Supporting BRT Routes 57A TransNet I‐5 SR 905 Palomar St 8F 8F+2ML Route 640 $141 57B TransNet I‐5 Palomar St SR 54 8F 8F +2ML Route 640 $167 57C TransNet I‐5 SR 54 SR 15 8F 10F+2ML Route 640 $343 58 TransNet I‐5 I‐8 La Jolla Village Dr 8F/10F 8F/10F+2ML $556 59A TransNet I‐5 La Jolla Village Dr I‐5/805 Merge 8F/14F 8F+2ML $136 59B TransNet I‐5 I‐5/I‐805 Merge SR 56 8F/14F+2ML 8F/14F+4ML Route 650 $91 59C TransNet I‐5 SR 56 Manchester Ave 8F+2ML 8F+4ML Routes 650, 653 $455 59D TransNet I‐5 Manchester Ave SR 78 8F 8F+2ML Routes 650, 653 $606 59E TransNet I‐5 Manchester Ave SR 78 8F+2ML 8F+4ML Routes 650, 653 $1,076 59F TransNet I‐5 SR 78 Vandegrift Blvd 8F 8F+2ML $76 59G TransNet I‐5 SR 78 Vandegrift Blvd 8F+2ML 8F+4ML $606 59H TransNet I‐5 SR 78 Vandegrift Blvd 8F 8F+4ML $682 60 I‐5 Vandegrift Blvd Orange County 8F 8F+4T $1,813 SR 11/Otay Mesa East Port 61 of Entry SR 125 Mexico ‐‐ 4T + POE Route 905 $683 62 SR 15 I‐5 SR 94 6F 8F+2ML $136 63 TransNet SR 15 SR 94 I‐805 6F 6F+2ML Routes 235, 610 $30 64 I‐15 Viaduct 8F 8F+2ML Routes 235, 610, 653, 690 $843 65 TransNet I‐15 I‐8 SR 163 8F 8F+2ML Routes 235, 610, 653, 690 $56 66 I‐15 SR 78 Riverside County 8F 8F+4T Route 610 $1,030 67 SR 52 I‐805 I‐15 6F 6F+2ML Routes 653, 870, 890 $91 68 TransNet SR 52 I‐15 SR 125 4F/6F 6F+2ML(R) Routes 870, 890 $374 69 TransNet SR 54 I‐5 SR 125 6F 6F+2ML $111 70A TransNet SR 78 I‐5 College Blvd 6F 6F+2ML/Operational $227 70B TransNet SR 78 College Blvd Twin Oaks 6F 6F+2ML/Operational $788 70C TransNet SR 78 Twin Oaks I‐15 6F 6F+2ML/Operational $177 71 TransNet SR 94 I‐5 I‐805 8F 8F+2ML Routes 90, 235, 610, 628 $485 72 TransNet SR 94 I‐805 SR 125 8F 8F+2ML Route 90 $369 73 SR 125 SR 905 San Miguel Rd 4T 8F Route 628 $323 74 TransNet SR 125 SR 54 SR 94 6F 6F+2ML $76 75 SR 125 SR 94 I‐8 8F 8F+2ML Route 90 $66 76 SR 241 Orange County I‐5 ‐‐4T $416 77 SR 241 Orange County I‐5 4T 6T $63 78A TransNet I‐805 SR 905 Palomar St 8F 8F+2ML Route 688 $343 78B TransNet I‐805 SR 54 SR 94 8F +2ML 8F+4ML Routes 628, 650, 688, 689 $535 78C TransNet I‐805 SR 94 SR 15 8F 8F+2ML Routes 628, 650, 688, 689 $172 78D TransNet I‐805 SR 94 SR 15 8F+2ML 8F+4ML Routes 628, 650, 688, 689 $61 78E TransNet I‐805 SR 94 SR 15 8F 8F+4ML Routes 628, 650, 688, 689 $232 79A TransNet I‐805 SR 15 SR 52 8F/10F 8F/10F+4ML Routes 650, 688, 689, 690 $1,704 79B TransNet I‐805 SR 15 SR 163 8F/10F 8F/10F+4ML Routes 650, 688, 689, 690 $1,153 79C TransNet I‐805 SR 163 SR 52 8F 8F+2ML Routes 650, 688, 689, 690 $229
66 Cost Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blended Scenario ($2014); millions 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 79D TransNet I‐805 SR 163 SR 52 8F+2ML 8F+4ML Routes 650, 688, 689, 690 $322 Routes 650, 653, 688, 689, 80A TransNet I‐805 SR 52 Carroll Canyon Rd 8F 8F+2ML 690, 870, 890 $135 Routes 650, 653, 688, 689, 80B TransNet I‐805 SR 52 Carroll Canyon Rd 8F+2ML 8F+4ML 690, 870, 890 $394 Operational Improvements # TransNet Freeway From To Existing With Improvements 81 TransNet I‐5 I‐15 I‐8 8F 8F+Operational $1,177 82 I‐8 I‐5 SR 125 8F/10F 8F/10F+Operational $667 93 I‐8 SR 125 2nd Street 6F/8F 6F/8F+Operational $167 84 SR 76 I‐15 Couser Canyon 2C/4C 4C/6C+Operational $131
Highway Projects # TransNet Freeway From To Existing With Improvements 85 TransNet I‐8 2nd Street Los Coches 4F/6F 6F $35 86 SR 52 I‐5 I‐805 4F 6F $111 87 TransNet SR 56 I‐5 I‐15 4F 6F $141 88A TransNet SR 67 Mapleview St Gold Bar Ln 2C 4C $60 88B TransNet SR 67 Gold Bar Ln Scripps Poway 2C/4C 4C $180 88C TransNet SR 67 Scripps Poway Dye Rd 2C/4C 4C $396 89 TransNet SR 76 Mission I‐15 2C 4C $210 90 TransNet SR 94 SR 125 Avocado Blvd 4F 6F $111 91 TransNet SR 94 Avocado Blvd Steele Canyon Rd 4C 6C $131 92 SR 125 San Miguel Rd SR 54 4F 8F $177 93* SR 125 SR 94 I‐8 8F 10F $227 * See Project 75 for improvement from 8F to 8F + 2ML.
ML Connectors
# TransNet Freeway Intersecting Freeway Movement 94 I‐5 SR 78 South to East and West to North, North to East and West to South $253 95 TransNet I‐5 I‐805 North to North & South to South $51 96 I‐15 SR 52 West to North and South to East $131 97 TransNet I‐15 SR 78 East to South & North to West $106 98 TransNet SR‐15 SR 94 South to West & East to North $71 99 SR‐15 I‐805 North to North & South to South $81 100 I‐805 SR 52 West to North & South to East $91 101 I‐805 SR 94 North to West & East to South $101
Cost Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blended Scenario ($2014); millions 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 2020 2025 2035 2050 Freeway Connectors
# TransNet Freeway Intersecting Freeway Movement 102 TransNet I‐5 SR 56 West to North and South to East $273 103 TransNet I‐5 SR 78 South to East and West to South $273 104 I‐15 SR 56 North to West $101 105 TransNet SR 94 SR 125 South to East $61 106 TransNet SR 94 SR 125 West to North $81 107 SR 11/SR 905 SR 125 EB SR 11 and WB SR 11 to NB SR 125, NB SR 905 to NB SR 125 $26 108 SR 11/SR 905 SR 125 SB 125 to WB SR 905, SB SR 125 to EB SR 11, SB SR 125 to SB SR 905 $74
67 This Relates to Agenda Item No. 4 Freight Stakeholders Working Group September 25, 2014
Draft Project List for the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Goods Movement Strategy
Estimated System/Project Cost ($M)
MARITIME SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal (TAMT) Marine Cargo Staging and Handling Projects, including but not limited to: enhanced open storage, shed demolition, cargo handling infrastructure improvements, wharf 88 reinforcements, additional crane, on-dock shorepower, improvements to facilitate "marine highway" cargo, and front gate technology enhancements. TAMT Freight Rail Improvements, including but not limited to: track upgrades and increased staging area 28 for rail cargo and loading National City Marine Terminal (NCMT) Marine Cargo Staging and Handling Projects, including but not limited to: construct garages for additional roll-on/roll-off cargo storage, wharf extension to create two new 95 berths, and improvements to facilitate "marine highway" cargo. NCMT Freight Rail Improvements, including but not limited to: additional rail storage facilities in the vicinity 2.5 of the balloon track
Harbor Drive Multimodal Corridor Improvements, including but not limited to: improvements at 32nd Street and Vesta Street; pedestrian crossings and bridges; various truck improvements; bikeway 273 accommodations; streetscape, safety, and parking improvements.
68 RAIL MAINLINE CAPACITY
Los Angeles-San Diego Rail Corridor (LOSSAN) CP San Onofre to CP Pulgas Double Track Phase I and II 66
LOSSAN Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track 49
LOSSAN Sorrento to Miramar Phase II Double Track 100
LOSSAN CP Moonlight to CP Swami Double Track 20
LOSSAN Los Penasquitos Lagoon Double Track 80
LOSSAN Carlsbad Village Double Track 50
LOSSAN San Dieguito Double Track 100
LOSSAN San Dieguito River Bridge 69
LOSSAN Eastbrook to Shell 60
LOSSAN San Elijo Lagoon Double Track 77
LOSSAN Elvira to Morena 87
LOSSAN CP Songs Second Track Extension 38
LOSSAN Pointsettia Station Improvements 13
Desert Line Basic Service, Rehabilitation 182
69 RAIL INTERMODAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Logistics Center South County 180
Logistics Center Mid County 2130
Logistics Center North County 166
RAIL SAFETY, TUNNELS
LOSSAN Encinitas Pedestrian Crossings 26
LOSSAN Del Mar Tunnel 986
Leucadia Blvd Grade Separation 90
LOSSAN Grade Separations (locations tbd) 260
AIR CARGO SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
SDIA Terminal Link Roadway 10.7
SDIA Interior Northside Roadway 3.9
SDIA Air Cargo Facility Improvements for cargo storage and handling 20
PIPELINE
I-15 Access to Kinder Morgan (KM) MV Terminal N/A
KM, New Miramar Junction/Terminal/Tanks N/A
KM Expand to 16 Pipe/Extend to Mexico N/A
70 BORDER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Otay Mesa East Port of Entry and SR 11 (toll) 683.01
Otay Mesa Southbound Truck Route Improvements 16
Jacumba Port of Entry (POE) N/A
Otay Mesa Port of Entry Modernization Project 63
HIGHWAY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
List to be transposed from larger highway constrained project list based on truck corridors
TRUCK REST STOP
Truck parking at State Route 76/Interstate 15 14
Truck staging at border 30
Truck rest stop with restrooms, location tbd N/A
MEXICAN FREIGHT PROJECTS
Mesa de Otay II Port of Entry and Related Roads N/A
Tijuana Intermodal Terminal/Distribution Center N/A
Ensenada Port Expansion N/A
Mex Rail Yard Bicentennial Multi-modal Center in Tijuana N/A
Jacumé Port of Entry (POE) N/A
Expansion of Tecate Port of Entry Cargo Inspection Facility N/A
Tijuana-Tecate Rail Line Improvements N/A
71 Agenda Item No. 5 Freight Stakeholders Working Group Sustainable Freight Strategy - September 2014 Workshops September 25, 2014
California Sustainable Freight Strategy Discussion Concepts September 5, 2014
Background:
In January 2014, the Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted Resolution 14-2, directing staff to develop the Sustainable Freight Strategy (Strategy) that, among other things, would consist of a set of recommendations for near-term actions (by ARB and others) to move California towards a sustainable freight transport system. The Board also directed staff to complete a sector based technology and fuel assessment on trucks, rail, ships, commercial harbor craft, cargo handling equipment and aircraft. This parallel effort serves as the technical foundation for the development of the Strategy and upcoming State Implementation Plans, and implementation of the Climate Change Scoping Plan.
Throughout the last nine months, over 200 stakeholder organizations engaged with ARB regarding the Sustainable Freight Strategy (Strategy), resulting in over 150 meetings and conference calls. Staff used smaller focus groups, individual meetings, and calls to discuss the needs of and approaches to a sustainable freight system, and individual stakeholder concerns and concepts. Coordination with Caltrans has been an ongoing priority to ensure consistency across planning efforts through participation in the California Freight Advisory Committee and development of the Freight Mobility Plan. Staff also participated in various tours of freight facilities and support operations including airports, ports, rail yards, warehouses, and distribution centers.
During these discussions, we asked and received input on many questions including: What is a sustainable freight system? What issues and concerns do you feel must be addressed if a sustainable freight system is to be achieved? What actions do you think government should take to encourage both the general business community, and supply chain businesses in particular, to help meet sustainability goals? How does the California freight system become more efficient so it can expand, be competitive and reduce emissions? Are there any hurdles that exist within the existing goods movement system that, if removed, could provide better efficiency and a more sustainable freight system?
72 1 Sustainable Freight Strategy - September 2014 Workshops
Do you have suggestions regarding potential funding and market mechanisms to support the transformation of freight-related infrastructure, vehicles, equipment and operations? What actions would you recommend as next steps to achieving a sustainable freight system? What is the best way to engage additional stakeholders?
We received many concepts to improve the freight system and sorted them into eight categories, with an initial assessment of their potential for near-term development. With the Board’s direction in mind, some of these broad concepts are identified for additional analysis and possible inclusion in the November discussion draft. The remaining concepts represent those that may be included in future analyses.
As requested by stakeholders, we are providing the full list of concepts below to encourage additional discussions about how they might translate into preliminary recommendations for specific near-term actions. These are not staff recommendations. Once additional stakeholder input is received, staff will develop the concepts into recommendations for the discussion draft of the Strategy to be released in November 2014. We will then present the discussion draft to the Board as an informational item in December 2014. The Board will not take action on the Strategy in December as staff will continue to work with stakeholders to conduct additional workshops, refine the Strategy, and complete an economic analysis and an environmental assessment during the Spring of 2015. We anticipate presenting the Strategy to the Board for consideration and action in Summer 2015.
Action requested:
We are seeking stakeholder input that will inform the development of these or other concepts into recommendations for near term actions (by ARB and others) for inclusion in the November discussion draft. Along those lines, ARB staff is also continuing to request references to any data or information to aid our analysis and development of recommendations.
Feedback may be provided at any of the September 2014 Sustainable Freight Strategy Workshops or via email at [email protected]. Additional information regarding the Strategy can be found here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/sfti/sfti.htm.
Additional information regarding the technology and fuels assessments can be found here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/tech.htm.
73 2 Sustainable Freight Strategy - September 2014 Workshops
A. Logistics and Infrastructure Efficiencies: Achieve efficiency gains within the California freight system from 2012 to 2020, 2030 and 2050 that provide time and/or cost savings, and reduce air pollution.
Stakeholder discussion concepts identified for additional analysis and possible inclusion in discussion draft. 1 Develop metric(s) to assess and set goals for freight system efficiency improvements. Maximize trailer/container use through strategies such as: Identify suppliers at or near existing delivery points to fill backhauls, Develop web-based information exchange platforms that allow users to match freight 2 movement needs with available space in trailers or containers to reduce empty backhauls, Establish a universal chassis fleet at ports, and Provide incentives to limit container dwell time. Reduce time delays and idling due to long truck queues through more efficient pickup 3 systems, such as automated queuing or appointment systems combined with cell phone waiting lots for truck visits at border crossings, ports, rail yards, and distribution centers. Increase efficiency of last-mile deliveries and urban freight through strategies such as:
Shared space on local delivery trucks, 4 Bicycle courier/delivery services where appropriate, In-store/locker pick up instead of home delivery, and Centralized distribution centers. Consider mode-shift (air cargo versus rail versus barge versus truck) as a system efficiency 5 strategy by assessing alternatives. Increase capacity of existing freight system through intelligent transportation systems (e.g. 6 Freight Advanced Traveler Information System (FRATIS) or connected vehicles). Provide “Eco driver” training for truck drivers and equipment operators to ensure fuel 7 efficiency and emission reductions are optimized through use and maintenance. Evaluate viability and benefit of clean truck corridors through demonstration projects (e.g. 710 8 with dedicated truck lanes and footprint for wayside power or truck traffic associated with Oakland near-dock rail). Stakeholder discussion concepts to be considered for subsequent analyses. Increase capacity of the existing freight system through strategies involving managing system logistics (e.g. terminal automation, inbound “destination loading” on ships, expanded hours of 9 operation, limited entry into urban areas via cordon pricing); increasing cargo moved per trip (e.g. double stacking containers on rail); or prioritizing freight access using vehicle-to- infrastructure communication and traffic engineering (e.g. traffic signal priority). Utilize emerging technologies such as 3D printing to bring manufacturing jobs to California, 10 potentially reducing the demands on the supply chain. Additional operational efficiencies for airports, seaports, rail yards, distribution centers, 11 warehouses and border crossings. Electric infrastructure for the freight system where feasible (i.e. catenary systems and "shore 12 power" systems for trucks and air cargo) including on-corridor solar. 13 Fast track zero emission, near-zero emission technology infrastructure projects.
74 3 Sustainable Freight Strategy - September 2014 Workshops
A. Logistics and Infrastructure Efficiencies (continued): 14 Consolidate urban freight hubs. 15 Add fueling pipelines at airports to eliminate fueling trucks. 16 Grade separation for rail/vehicle interfaces, wherever feasible. 17 Additional truck/highway ramp metering, access and improvements. 18 Additional road maintenance/resurfacing projects (Fix it First). 19 Rail track improvements and expansion. Provide transportation data in a user friendly format to assist truck drivers in understanding 20 truck routes.
B. Engines/Equipment: Develop, demonstrate, and deploy zero emission technology where feasible; technology capable of zero emission miles; and cleanest combustion everywhere else. Stakeholder discussion concepts identified for additional analysis and possible inclusion in discussion draft. On-road: local, regional, and interstate trucks. Reduce emissions of existing and future engines in-use. Possible approaches may include: 1 expanded warranty requirements, expanded recall authority, new on-board diagnostics, truck inspection requirements, and stricter opacity standards for ARB smoke inspection programs. Ensure the cleanest, most efficient vehicles are available for fleets moving freight. This may 2 include well-to-wheel performance standards, lower NOx standards, improved certification requirements, or dedication of cleanest vehicles to California service. Focus efforts through national or California actions on battery and fuel cell trucks in vocational applications where the technology is likely to reach commercialization first (e.g. 3 drayage, local delivery vocations, or other sectors/vocations) and hybridization of long haul applications. Develop regulatory requirements and incentive programs together in order to identify priority 4 technology demonstrations and pilot projects, and accelerate commercialization to meet regulatory requirements. 5 Prioritize zero emission vehicles in sectors where they are nearing commercial viability. Off-road: locomotives, vessels/harbor craft, aircraft, cargo/ground support equipment, transport refrigeration units. Ensure the use of the most efficient zero emission cargo handling and ground support 6 equipment. Focus efforts on battery, fuel cell and hybrid off-road equipment in applications where the 7 technology is likely to reach commercialization first. This may include forklifts or other sectors as they are identified. Develop regulatory requirements and incentive programs together in order to identify priority 8 technology demonstrations and pilot projects, and accelerate commercialization to meet regulatory requirements.
75 4 Sustainable Freight Strategy - September 2014 Workshops
B. Engines/Equipment: (continued):
Stakeholder discussion concepts to be considered for subsequent analyses. Off-road: locomotives, vessels/harbor craft, aircraft, cargo/ground support equipment, transport refrigeration units (continued): Reduce emissions from deterioration of engines deployed in the in-use fleet. Potential 9 options include expanded warranty requirements, on-board diagnostics, and inspection/maintenance requirements. Ensure the use of the cleanest, most efficient freight equipment. Possible approaches include: cleaner national locomotive, ship & aircraft emission standards (including consideration of well to wheel/hull emission standards), improved certification requirements, 10 dedication of cleanest equipment to California service, aerodynamics and lightweighting, development of technologies that result in more efficient ocean going vessels and commercial harbor craft, demonstration of technology (engine controls, aftermarket treatment or capture equipment).
C. Energy/Fuel: Transition to a freight system powered by renewable, low carbon energy. Stakeholder discussion concepts identified for additional analysis and possible inclusion in discussion draft. 1 Accelerate the availability and use of the cleanest low carbon biofuels. Enhance and strengthen the Low Carbon Fuel Standard with long term targets that continue 2 reductions in average carbon intensity. 3 Support actions to further ultra-low sulfur diesel use in Mexico. Stakeholder discussion concepts to be considered for subsequent analyses. Standardized charging and demand charge policies for heavy-duty zero emission and near- 4 zero technologies.
D. Other Emission Reduction Approaches: Other approaches to reduce emissions and/or health risk from California’s freight system.
Stakeholder discussion concepts identified for additional analysis and possible inclusion in discussion draft. Implement freight facility reporting requirements to collect all necessary data to analyze air 1 quality impacts of such facilities. Consider development of facility-based strategies to reduce community exposure to emissions 2 from those freight facilities by setting declining caps on emissions. Continue to partner with additional agencies to implement ARB regulations (e.g. air districts 3 and ports). Stakeholder discussion concepts to be considered for subsequent analyses. 4 Community engagement and empowerment - update ARB's Public Participation Guide.
76 5 Sustainable Freight Strategy - September 2014 Workshops
E. Land-use: Develop and use sustainability principles, criteria, and tools for new and expanded freight facilities, and freight transportation infrastructure projects, that put air quality and public health considerations on an equal footing with other considerations in the siting, design, and operation of projects. Stakeholder discussion concepts identified for additional analysis and possible inclusion in discussion draft. Develop a freight handbook to provide guidance for siting, design, and operational characteristics of freight facilities and freight-related infrastructure projects. Potential elements could include: Use of the lowest emission technologies and accommodation of future advanced technologies (such as electric charging infrastructure), Use of green equipment for freight infrastructure construction and maintenance, Project-level health risk analysis that includes localized and regional impacts, 1 Truck parking in urban areas for safe, secure overnight stays, Community exposure reduction through buffer zones, vegetation and filters, etc., Distribution center locations that minimize vehicle miles traveled and community exposure, Green building requirements for warehouses and distribution centers, Criteria for truck routing that include minimizing exposure to air pollution, Principles and criteria for transportation infrastructure projects, and Identification of high priority local projects for ARB involvement. Stakeholder discussion concepts to be considered for subsequent analyses. 2 Enhanced State role in coordinated freight transportation and land-use planning.
F. Monetary Incentives: Seek private and public investment to fund projects that will increase efficiency and advance the California freight system towards zero emissions. Stakeholder discussion concepts identified for additional analysis and possible inclusion in discussion draft. Seek ongoing funding program for equipment and infrastructure to assist with transforming the 1 freight system. Support incentives and low cost loans to accelerate the development/purchase/use of 2 advanced technologies including the associated infrastructure. Determine priorities for public funding and how to more effectively use all pots of funds (State, federal and local). Incentive funding that leads to a cleaner, more efficient freight transportation system, 3 Infrastructure funding for projects that incentivize or require the use of advanced technologies, and Funding for projects that maximize the benefits of public investment, which may be measured by meeting State environmental, sustainability, and economic goals.
77 6 Sustainable Freight Strategy - September 2014 Workshops
F. Monetary Incentives: (continued): Stakeholder discussion concepts to be considered for subsequent analyses. Identify “metrics of accountability” for publicly funded freight projects that promote a sustainable 4 freight network that will transform California's freight system to a zero emission system while supporting economic growth and improving overall system efficiency.
G. Non-monetary Incentives: Develop and implement programs that provide significant non-monetary incentives to achieve increased efficiencies and accelerated emission reductions from the California freight system. Stakeholder discussion concepts identified for additional analysis and possible inclusion in discussion draft. Public recognition programs for utilizing advanced clean technology within the freight system 1 (e.g. Green Fleets). 2 Preferential freight facility and corridor access for advanced technologies. Stakeholder discussion concepts to be considered for subsequent analyses. 3 Incentives for early adopters of advanced technologies. 4 Consider electric rate structure that encourages broader use of electric freight equipment. Reduce or eliminate transportation infrastructure access fees for advanced technology 5 equipment. 6 Advanced technology truck delivery parking in urban areas.
H. Economy and Jobs: Recognize regional economies and current workforce training levels. Improve the competitiveness of California’s logistics system to support regional and State economies. Identify workforce development needs, including education and job training to provide a reliable workforce for logistics operations. Stakeholder discussion concepts identified for additional analysis and possible inclusion in discussion draft. Develop economic goals for the logistics industry in California, including in-state manufacture 1 of advanced freight equipment and complementary strategies to increase competitiveness of California businesses in the national/international freight system. Identify actions needed to prepare for a growing freight system including: educating and 2 expanded the existing workforce, and ensuring the necessary equipment and infrastructure is in place. 3 Expand the truck driver pool. Stakeholder discussion concepts to be considered for subsequent analyses. Logistics related workforce development through education and training prioritized on 4 communities impacted by freight transport.
78 7 Agenda Item No. 6 Freight Stakeholders Working Group September 25, 2014 DRAFT CDM Smith
1 INTRODUCTION: FREIGHT DYNAMICS IN THE GATEWAY REGION
Transportation networks and services reflect how resources, goods, and services are allocated. They also can also impact these distributions. In the short run, the health of the economy significantly affects the condition and volume of freight transportation. In the long run however, it is the capacity of regional transportation systems to accommodate market expansion and shifts in the structure of the economy which most impacts the sustainability of economic growth.
1.1 Understanding Freight Movement
As recovery in growth in the U.S. economy continues following the Great Recession of 2008- 2009, demand for goods, services, and related freight transportation activity is projected to continue to increase. Growth is projected for heavy shipping industries like energy, farming and mining, as well as sectors such as e-commerce, high tech and the government, which also impact demand for the movement of goods.
The American freight transportation network has been experiencing tremendous growth in the past decades due to changes in the makeup of the economy and expansion in international trade. While the growth in the past 30 years was fueled by a decline in transportation and communication costs, trade is expected to grow further as world economies become increasingly interdependent.
Shifts in established patterns of international trade will contribute to this growth, and that includes a trend towards ‘near-shoring’ of production for the U.S. market, shifting away from overseas production that is no longer based only on low labor costs. This trend particularly benefits Mexico as a once-again rapidly growing source of U.S. imports, echoing the boom in cross-border trade that followed the original adoption of NAFTA twenty years ago. The recent trend is for U.S. and even Asian and European manufacturers to expand production in Mexico to serve the entire North American market, often with advanced technology manufactured goods.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) version 3.4, the volume of U.S. domestic trade will increase by over 80 percent between 2011 and 2040, and the volume of imports and exports will more than double over the same period. As a result, there is growing pressure to maintain, upgrade, and expand the current freight transportation network to meet the demands of various U.S. and international markets.
U.S. energy markets are also undergoing a revolution with the rapid growth in use of natural gas, due to lower prices from increased domestic production of both natural gas and oil, facilitated by new well drilling technologies. The import transportation requirements for U.S. crude oil consumption are falling while the U.S. expands transport of natural gas for export, including by pipeline to Mexico. Lower relative energy costs are resulting in increased demand for transportation of North American production of energy-intensive products such as petroleum products and chemicals. Natural gas is also seeing adoption as an alternative fuel source for freight transportation equipment, including for over-the-road heavy trucks, due to the attraction of reduced costs and reduced emissions.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 1
79 DRAFT CDM Smith
Across industries and across the continent, in order to remain competitive, firms are demanding more timely and flexible delivery services that require the current freight system to become more efficient and reliable. The interconnectedness of various modes of transportation is growing in importance, especially at international gateways such as border crossings, airports, or seaports.
The Role of Freight Movement in the Regional and National Economy
The relationship between freight transportation and economic growth has long been recognized as an important element in any national or regional development policy.
Enhancing freight transportation networks can lead to significant economic impacts by lowering transportation costs and improving service, particularly with today’s just-in-time (JIT) inventory practices. Network improvements can help increase distances traveled and the speed of delivery, to further expand supply and distribution networks, resulting in market development and economies of scale.
Improving freight transportation services by reducing transit times and improving reliability enhances inventory and supply chain management. The effects of these time savings and cost reductions can work through the economy via additional efficiency gains due to changes in companies’ logistics processes and operations, also known as “reorganization” effects.
Figure 1.1: Freight Transportation & Economic Growth
Freight Demand
Transportation Infrastructure Improvements
Increased Transportation Capacity, Efficiency, Reliability, and Level of Service
Transportation Cost Savings Transit Time Savings Business Expansion reduced distance (VMT) and time (Improved Reliability) (Relocation and Restructuring) (VHT)
Increased Productivity
Increased Competitiveness
Increased Economic Growth
Note: VMT is Vehicle Miles Travelled; VHT is Vehicle Hours Traveled
The time and cost savings generated by investments in the freight transportation network enhance the overall performance of logistics systems, which can increase productivity in manufacturing and distribution. This enhanced productivity reflects a more efficient use of labor, capital, and materials, all of which lead to higher production. The concept of productivity
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 2
80 DRAFT CDM Smith enhancement is fundamental in economic theory as it is a key determinant of economic growth and improvements in the standard of living, as exhibited by the close relationship between Gross Domestic Product per capita and growth of labor productivity.
The effects of improving freight transportation can be classified into different groups, some of which have been used to quantify benefits for use in economic feasibility analysis based on Benefit Cost Analyses of freight transportation projects. Immediate cost reductions to carriers and shippers, including gains to shippers from shorter transit times and better reliability, represent the first group of quantifiable benefits. A second group includes gains associated with reorganization effects (improved logistics), leading to lower prices and higher output. These in turn can result in a third group, made up of product/service improvements, or in the development of new products/services.
Finally, investments in freight transportation can lead to higher employment and income, which in turn help stimulate the economy. The real cost of freight transportation has decreased over the past three decades, primarily as a result of industry restructuring and innovations in supply chain management. However, recent trends such as high oil prices, growing environmental concerns, or reductions in public funding available for capacity expansion, may lead to higher costs and impede growth in goods movement in the near future. In particular, capacity issues have resulted in congestion problems across major freight corridors. Congestion significantly impacts the supply chains of high-value, time-sensitive commodities, and contributes to higher freight costs, which may ultimately result in higher consumer prices across the economy. Consequently, strategic investments in major freight corridors are essential to contain and/or mitigate rising transportation costs.
1.2 Characteristics of and the Challenges to the Regional Freight Network
Uniquely located between major production, trade, and population centers, the San Diego and Imperial Valley region – the Gateway region – possesses a wide array of transportation infrastructure assets. These include major ports of entry along the border with Mexico, interstate highways and state routes, Class I railroads, marine cargo terminals, pipelines and a modern air cargo system.
The location of the Gateway region contributes greatly to its role in global supply chains and the facilitation of international trade. The border crossings are critical assets for the physical movement of goods, as they serve as gateways to and from the U.S. NAFTA trading partner Mexico. Links to the gateways (highways, pipelines or rail lines) are equally important, as they provide the access and facilitate the circulation of goods between producers and consumers located on both sides of the border.
The network serving trade is critical given how significant trade is to the economy. Because of the integration of production and distribution processes across the California / Mexico border, the growth in international trade not only benefits the national economy, but the regional economy as well. Economic growth in the region has been closely related to international trade and more specifically to NAFTA trade, for decades. The figure below shows the value of the San Diego economy (as Gross Regional Product, GRP) and trade (as Otay Mesa East trade for
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 3
81 DRAFT CDM Smith
San Diego) between 1999 and 2012. The figure suggests a strong correlation between trade and the economy of the San Diego region, both having recovered from the declines during the recession.
Figure 1.2: San Diego Trade & Economic Growth Are Correlated
Source: SANDAG
The value of trade between San Diego’s, and California’s largest Port of Entry (POE) with Mexico is large, valued at $35.7 Billion in 2013. This trade is imbalanced, with northbound U.S. imports dominating the two-way trade as observed in the pie chart in the following figure. This trade is carried by over 1.5 million truck crossings annually. Key commodities in this two-way trade include electronics, agricultural goods, vehicles and medical devices.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 4
82 DRAFT CDM Smith
Figure 1.3: Large San Diego – Mexico Trade is Dominated by U.S. Imports
Source: SANDAG
U.S. Mexico trade has grown substantially since the adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) two decades ago in 1994. As seen in the next Figure, the U.S. Department of Commerce statistics show the total value of this bilateral trade has increased 522% from 1993 before the beginning of NAFTA to 2013. Both imports and exports rebounded strongly after the 2008-2009 recession to record high levels.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 5
83 DRAFT CDM Smith
Figure 1.4: Annual U.S. Imports and Exports With Since NAFTA
The trade in intermediate goods, those used as inputs to manufacturing production, is substantial between the U.S. and its North American trade partners. The integration of North American manufacturing supply chains is shown by the share of the value of goods imported into the U.S. comprised of components and inputs originating in the U.S. Examples would be electronic products assembled in Mexico with electronic parts made in and imported into Mexico from the U.S. This production sharing across countries is a signal of economic integration between two economies, and the dependence on the cross-border transportation system to enable this commerce to occur. In the figure below, Mexico is by far the leading trade partner country of the U.S. with 40% of the value of imports from Mexico comprised of U.S. content. The key U.S. trade partners across the Pacific Ocean, in contrast all have less than 10% U.S. content in the goods the U.S. imports from them.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 6
84 DRAFT CDM Smith
Figure 1.5: Integration of U.S. Trade with Mexico and Other Trade Partners
Source: NRC
A well-functioning freight system (gateways and links between the gateways) is also essential to satisfying local demand for consumer products and maintaining standards of living. This is particularly true of terminating markets such as the Gateway region. Goods movements terminating in the region (“inbound” freight flows) outweigh goods movements originating in the region (“outbound” freight flows). And accommodating the projected growth in population and employment - and the associated growth in consumption – will necessarily imply more inbound freight flows and overall freight volumes.
Currently, the highway system carries the vast majority of regional freight, but the system is strained at key bottlenecks. Congestion at the border crossings between California and Mexico could be hindering the region’s economic growth.
Other factors are restraining the region from reaching its potential for prosperity and improvements in standards of living. One of the main problems is the limited growth in regional income, attributed to an increasing proportion of low-wage employment. There has also been a widening gap between average wages for high and low earners. And a relatively high cost of
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 7
85 DRAFT CDM Smith living from housing and energy expenses has challenged the economic standing for a majority of the population.
Figure 1.6: San Diego Region Urban Development Vision
Regional policy makers are faced with a complicated set of challenges to the region’s growth and to the realization of its goals for greater prosperity. On the one hand, inefficiency in the movement of freight threatens the rate of growth in economic productivity, thereby posing a risk to regional competitiveness, employment and real household incomes. On the other hand, facilitating the unconstrained demand for freight transportation can bring with it environmental and other social costs that diminish overall prosperity and happiness. How to respond to the future growth in freight transportation demand will thus require a balance in planning decisions.
1.3 Policies and Potential Impacts of Goods Movement in the Region
Gateway region policy makers face the complex task of enhancing mobility for the region’s residents, workers, and businesses while at the same time promoting international trade by improving the efficiency of the regions airports, seaport, and border-crossings. To assist in this task, it is helpful to identify types of infrastructure investments that will best contribute to economic growth. To enhance efficiency at the international gateways, the strategies adopted must accommodate growing processing needs to reduce congestion and waiting times. Finally, businesses must be able to take advantage of scale economies as well as agglomeration economies from consolidation of production and warehousing facilities. Ultimately, a more efficient and improved Gateway region transportation system will support mobility and trade growth.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 8
86 DRAFT CDM Smith
When considering options for improving the region’s standard of living, planners and policy makers in the Gateway region have an interest in promoting a wider understanding of the impact of improving freight infrastructure, policies and services, and in addressing related economic, environmental, and social issues. Example questions include: What investments would help support trade among sectors of the economy associated with higher wage employment and higher value products? Should the region promote growth in more value-adding activities? And if so, of what types?
Strategies for improving the region’s transportation system generally fall into two categories: i) policy actions that can promote local business connections or access to labor and other inputs; and ii) infrastructure investments that can alleviate bottlenecks, improve efficiencies and/or lower costs. Whatever combination of strategies is pursued, regional policy makers should focus on how to improve the region’s comparative advantage (e.g., proximity to Mexico’s manufacturing industry, high quality labor force, attractive location for tourism) while ensuring that their policies are consistent with the strategies and initiatives pursued on the Mexican side of the border.
To address the need for planning for a more efficient and reliable transportation system that will better serve the region’s growing population, SANDAG is seeking to better integrate existing transportation system components in the updated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Among other elemen ts, the plan includes an extensive set of managed and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to accommodate transportation services, as well as carpools, vanpools, and fee-paying patrons. Potential projects could attract private investment through public-private partnerships, allowing participating businesses to use the lanes to facilitate goods movement during off-peak hours. It would help improve accessibility for various traffic types and – indirectly – activities, and provide funding incentives for transit-oriented, sustainable land use and development.
SANDAG’s planning is also taking into consideration the new Federal freight planning guidance, as recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation in their implementation of the latest Federal surface transportation program, known as the Moving Ahead for Progress for the 21 Century, or MAP-21, legislation. Along with a new emphasis on freight planning in general, this legislation calls for performance management to be used in state and regional transportation planning and operations. The legislation endorses the type of freight planning already established and underway by SANDAG, with some flexibility in funding use offered to states that have freight plans in place.
In response to the need to maintain and improve the region’s access to domestic and international markets, SANDAG is working on the Goods Movement Action Plan (to be included in the RTP). This updated plan aims at assessing the region’s goods movement system, and identifying opportunities and needs for freight system optimization. SANDAG freight planning is also working with Caltrans, neighboring planning agencies and the U.S. DOT in establishing definitions of a national freight network, that can be used to help guide inter-regional corridor planning. The U.S. DOT is working on defining a national Priority Freight Network that is called for in the MAP-21 legislation to also help guide freight transportation policy decisions.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 9
87 DRAFT CDM Smith
In the recovery from the Great Recession, Federal government stimulus project funding such as from the DOT Transportation Infrastructure Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program has provided funds for some freight related projects in the region. The TIGER program has been continued with grant funding of $600 million dollars for 2014, which may again prove a source of support for the regions project needs. Additionally, the State of California Proposition 1B Bond funding has included freight-specific projects funds, especially for rail. Nevertheless, the traditional federal funding opportunities are limited for any sort of systemic freight improvements; in the San Diego and Imperial County region this is particularly true for border infrastructure needs due to budget constraints. Through innovative financing mechanisms such as public-private partnership, SANDAG, Caltrans, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, together with representatives from Mexico are exploring new infrastructure investment partnerships Similarly, the freight infrastructure challenges for the Airport and the Seaport are often the landside access issues, where unique partnerships and blended funding solutions have to be developed. Although such partnerships usually require lengthy negotiations among the participants on issues concerning design, construction, and control over operation and maintenance, they could help pay for building and maintaining infrastructure networks that the region cannot otherwise afford.
While policies aimed at encouraging international trade could improve the efficiency of the transportation network and support sustainable growth in the region, they might also lead to business restructuring and re-allocation that could eventually shift jobs and production.
SANDAG will use this updated study in partnership with organizations such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Imperial County Transportation Commission (ICTC), and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and will work towards advancing public support for trade and the infrastructure needed to accommodate trade. For example, joint efforts could involve raising the public’s awareness and understanding of trade negotiations in conjunction with labor and environmental policies, and other policies to protect intellectual property rights or domestic industries.
There is a clear interdependency between SANDAG, SCAG, and ICTC in planning for cross border freight movements and regional intermodal freight. The diagram in the figure below shows the regional distribution scheme for cross border, international, and domestic intermodal freight in which the capacity links, nodes, and bottlenecks exist across planning jurisdictional lines. In Southern California, National Distributions Centers (NDCs) and Regional Distribution Centers (RDCs) are located in the Los Angeles Basin and the Inland Empire. They are connected to the major Southern California container port gateways of Long Beach and Los Angeles by truck, and in turn connected to the rest of the country via truck and intermodal rail service. Mexico traffic connects through San Diego at Otay Mesa Port of Entry to the Ports, the distribution centers and the intermodal rail terminals in the Los Angeles Basin. There are also intermediate freight handling facilities in the region used in the network, depicted by the orange boxes in the diagram. The depiction of interdependency of the many relationships across the border is intended to be conceptual in this diagram of the freight flows. A major goal of this update study is to use a cooperative approach in researching and planning for these freight flows.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 10
88 DRAFT CDM Smith
Figure 1.7: Southern California – Mexico Economies Linked Via Transportation
Note: NDC: National Distribution Centers; RDC: Regional Distribution Centers
With limits on funding, it is imperative that freight infrastructure investments be prioritized and allocated efficiently. Such planning not only requires a clear understanding of existing capacity and current capacity utilization, but more importantly, an accurate and reliable forecast of future transportation and infrastructure needs.
1.4 Study Objective and Plan of this Report
The objective of this study is to update the previous SANDAG Comprehensive Freight Gateway Study to provide an accurate, reliable, and credible forecast of future freight movements, to better plan for the various facilities and infrastructure improvements in the Gateway region. A critical component of this update is to identify and annotate the impacts of the Great Recession and then update the future forecasts. The updated findings are summarized in this report.
After this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides an updated detailed description of existing infrastructure and capacity constraints in the region. Chapter 3 provides new estimates of
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 11
89 DRAFT CDM Smith existing freight flows; the chapter also includes an overview of the methodology and a list of data sources. The updated 2050 forecasts of future freight flows can be found in Chapter 4. These forecasts rely on a number of assumptions, which are revisited, qualitatively, in Chapter 5 (Policy Constraints, Market Conditions and Regulatory Issues). Data tables and references are provided in appendices at the end of the report.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 12
90 DRAFT CDM Smith
2 REGIONAL FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE PROFILE
This chapter presents an overview of the freight infrastructure for San Diego County, Imperial County as well as the Baja California region, and changes since the last Comprehensive Gateway Study. The chapter is subdivided into three major sections; San Diego County Infrastructure, Imperial County Infrastructure and the infrastructure for the northern portion of the state of Baja California, Mexico. Within each section, the freight infrastructure is broken down into five major categories, namely, roads, rail, ports, airports and warehouse facilities.
2.1 San Diego County Freight Infrastructure
2.1.1 Road Network and Ports of Entry
San Diego County’s roadway network supports flows from the freight gateways as well as the internal distribution of goods. The regional highway network is the metaphorical circulatory system for high volumes of both vehicular travel and freight movements. The highway system carried nearly 98 percent of the goods that move in and out of the region in 2011. While the existing infrastructure is considered adequate, population growth and an increase in foreign trade activity over the past few decades have resulted in a reduction in the overall level of service in recent years. The reduction in freight activity as a result of the Great Recession along with the completion of key infrastructure projects has at least temporarily increased the level of service in some corridors since 2008.
2.1.1.1 Land Ports of Entry
The Gateway region is connected across the border with Baja California via six land ports of entry (POE).
The Otay Mesa / Mesa de Otay Port of Entry is the largest commercial crossing along the California/Mexico border and handles the second highest volume of trucks and third highest dollar value of trade among all U.S./Mexico land border crossings. It is located approximately 15 miles south of downtown San Diego and 14 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. On the U.S. side, the crossing connects with California State Route 905, providing links to State Route 125, Interstate 805 and Interstate 5. The facility currently includes 13 passenger lanes, 1 SENTRI lane, 1 bus lane, 8 pedestrian lanes, 7 commercial lanes, 1 empty-truck-only lane, and 1 FAST lane. It provides a full range of cargo processing functions, including inspection, collection, and verification.
Tecate is a minor full service Port of Entry located approximately 40 miles east of San Diego and serving rural San Diego County. The port provides service for pedestrians, passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles, and rail (the rail line crosses at Campo, located east of the Port). It currently includes 2 passenger lanes, 1 bus lane, 2 pedestrian lanes, and 1 commercial lane. It connects with California State Route 188, a two-mile road providing access to State Route 94.
Finally, the POE at San Ysidro in San Diego County (which connects directly to Interstate 5) is not intended for commercial traffic.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 13
91 DRAFT CDM Smith
2.1.1.2 Roadway Network
In 2012, over 133 million tons of goods, valued at almost $189 billion, were transported in San Diego by trucks. There are three major north-south corridors handling goods movement in San Diego County: Interstate 5, Interstate 805, and Interstate 15. In addition, a toll road, State Route 125, connects the Otay Mesa POE to other major north-south corridors. These routes carry significant volumes of truck traffic through San Diego County and further north to Orange and Riverside Counties. San Diego has one major east-west freeway, Interstate 8, connecting the county with Imperial County, to State Route 94 and State Route 905, and continuing east towards Arizona.
Figure 2.1: Major Truck Routes in the Gateway Region
Source: Freight Analysis Framework Highway Link and Truck GIS Data
In general the east-west corridors are not as prominent for freight movement as the north-south freeways. The importance of the north-south corridors stems from their connectivity to major POEs along the county’s southern border with Mexico. This includes: I-5, with a direct connection to the San Ysidro POE, and Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) of about 7,200; I-15, a major truck artery carrying about 11,440 trucks a day; SR-125, with a connection to Otay Mesa (5,210 trucks per day), via SR-905; and
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 14
92 DRAFT CDM Smith
SR-188, connecting to the Tecate POE (630 trucks per day).
2.1.1.3 Gaps in Existing Road Infrastructure
The lack of roadway capacity across the region is illustrated by the increase in the Texas Transportation Institute’s (TTI) travel time index for San Diego, which increased from 1.04 in 1982 to 1.23 in 1997 and to 1.37 by 2007. However since the onset of the Great Recession this index fell to 1.18 in 2011. For trucking, San Diego congestion was still estimated by TTI to have imposed costs of $314 million on the industry in 2011 from over 4 million hours of delay to trucks that year. While the lack of investment in roadway capacity across the region (as measured by freeway lane-miles relative to vehicle traveled miles) is a contributing factor to recurring congestion and longer travel time, demand side pressures are also significant due to population growth and increases in trade.
Some of the more noticeable gaps in the San Diego County system include the following: Lack of a direct freeway connection to the Otay Mesa POE (being planned); Severely congested local roads around Otay Mesa POE Lack of a direct freeway connection between the Port of San Diego Marine terminals at Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal (TAMT) and National City; Lack of direct freeway connections to the airport cargo terminal (Lindberg Field); Lack of direct freeway connections to rail yards and intermodal facilities; Lack of dedicated truck lanes, passing lanes, and truck bypass routes across the region; Segments of I-5, I-805, and I-15 in San Diego County experience high levels of truck traffic at certain peak periods; Limited capacity on rail systems for terminal growth; overall the freight rail system in the region is highly constrained and capacity loss cannot be tolerated; and Extremely high land use costs around the working waterfront and no land use protections for freight related infrastructure, inhibiting freight-related investments.
2.1.2 Rail Infrastructure
Rail carries a smaller percentage of total regional freight than trucks, but the rail yards and mainline infrastructure are both important and strategic. Our analysis indicates that in 2011 the value of freight transported by rail in the region amounted to still less than 2 percent of overall freight flows. Existing services include BNSF Railway automotive and “manifest” trains from San Diego to the north, and San Diego County and Imperial Valley (SD&IV) short line trains from San Diego to the south and the east.
2.1.2.1 Existing Rail Lines and Ports of Entry San Diego County is served by several rail companies that own and/or operate rail facilities within the county.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 15
93 DRAFT CDM Smith
In the northern part of the county along the I-5 corridor, BNSF Railway operates a line owned by North County Transit District (NCTD) and Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), which connects Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego with the Orange County line to the North. Specifically, BNSF operates on the segment of the system from Oceanside to downtown San Diego and to the National City Marine Terminal (this segment is also owned by BNSF). Pacific Sun Railroad operates on the NCTD line between Oceanside and Escondido, and the Miramar branch.
In the southern portion of the county, San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad (SD&IV), a subsidiary of Genesee & Wyoming Inc., operates two short lines owned by Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). One line connects the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego with the San Ysidro border crossing and freight yard; another with the City of Santee, to the east.
Additionally, the Baja California Railroad (BJRR) owns the rights to operate limited service between the Mexican border at San Ysidro/Tijuana through Mexico to Division (near the Mexican border at Tecate). The section between Tijuana and Tecate is owned by the Mexican government. Pacific Imperial Railroad has operating rights from Division and on to Plaster City in the western part of Imperial County. The section between Division and Plaster City is owned by MTS. However, the portion between Division and Plaster City is currently closed due to bridge repairs.
Figure 2.2: Rail Lines in the Gateway Region
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 16
94 DRAFT CDM Smith
Figure 2.3: Gateway Region Rail Line Owners Map
Figure 2.4: Gateway Region Rail Line Operators Map
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 17
95 DRAFT CDM Smith
2.1.2.2 Gaps in Existing Rail Infrastructure Freight trains in San Diego county move along corridors shared with multiple transit agencies. Thus, BNSF freight trains share the heavily utilized LOSSAN Corridor with commuter rail Coaster and Metrolink and with intercity passenger rail operated by Amtrak. BNSF also shares tracks with light rail service SPRINTER between Oceanside and Escondido. Similarly, SD&IV freight trains share the South Line, from downtown San Diego to San Ysidro, with trolley commuter services operated by MTS.
The dual use of tracks, often in very congested urban areas with limited ability to lay new tracks, is a major constraint on existing operations and a challenge for future growth. Freight rail service on the South Line, for example, is currently restricted by federal regulations to two trains operating each night within a window specified by San Diego Trolley, Inc. Furthermore, this operating window is often impacted by routine maintenance activities.
Although there are projects planned to increase mainline throughput, carload capacity is primarily limited by the capacity of the rail yards. The BNSF San Diego rail yard has an estimated manifest cargo capacity of around 1.75 million tons per year, while auto handling capacity is estimated at 500 thousand tons per year. In terms of cross-border rail movement, current capacity is estimated at about 1.6 million tons per year.
To summarize, a number of gaps – or deficiencies – within the existing system are evident. They include:
Non-dedicated freight rail lines on Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) owned facilities from downtown San Diego to the Mexican border and to the City of Santee, resulting in short operating windows which limit rail car throughput; Single track sections for freight on the LOSSAN corridor; Limited facilities to stage trains near the Mexican border at San Ysidro; and
Proposed rail improvements in the county could improve the performance of the network in the short term. These proposed projects include: Increasing storage capacity at the San Ysidro yard (project in progress); Improving the signaling system for the South Line (completed); and Double tracking bottlenecked areas served currently by single track in the Los Angeles - San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor (some projects planned, others in progress).
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 18
96 DRAFT CDM Smith
2.1.3 Seaport Infrastructure
2.1.3.1 Existing Seaport Infrastructure The San Diego Unified Port District (Port) is located approximately 10 miles from the Mexican border and is the first port in the U.S. for vessels sailing north from the west coasts of Mexico, and Central and South America.
The Port’s activity is split between two separate marine cargo terminals, both located within the San Diego Bay: the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal (TAMT) and the National City Marine Terminal (NCMT). The port is designated by the Department of Defense as a strategic port, which may be called upon to support military activities.
TAMT is a 96-acre cargo complex located near downtown San Diego, south of the Convention Center and north of the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge. It houses 23 acres of warehouses and transit sheds and 8 berths, with another 25 acres of paved open space for lay down of steel and project cargo. Tenants at TAMT handle containerized and break-bulk fruit, dry bulk cargos including sand and cement, petroleum products, and various break-bulk and project cargos. The theoretical maximum capacity of TAMT is approximately 4.9 million metric tons per year.
Figure 2.5: Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal
Source: HDR Inc.
NCMT is further inside San Diego Bay, south of TAMT and approximately 10 nautical miles from the harbor entrance. The terminal is located at the end of Bay Marina Drive in the city of National City. It covers 125 acres and houses 8 berths. Lumber and automobiles are the primary cargos currently moving through NCMT.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 19
97 DRAFT CDM Smith
Figure 2.6: National City Marine Terminal
Source: HDR Inc. Figure 2.7: Transportation Network Serving TAMT and NCMT Goods move in and out of the Port by road or by rail. TAMT and NCMT both have on-site rail, owned and maintained by the Port of San Diego.
All rail services to and from the two terminals are operated by BNSF.
California State Route 15 and Interstate 5 are in close proximity of the TAMT and NCMT. Though a portion of port traffic does travel via Interstate 5, it is used less frequently than State Route 15. California State Routes 54 and 94 are also near the Port, but are rarely used as long-haul trucking routes.
Source: San Diego Unified Port District Maritime Business Plan Update 2008
2.1.3.2 Gaps in Existing Seaport Infrastructure Despite efforts by the San Diego Unified Port District to aggressively increase cargo capacity, a few gaps in the current infrastructure exist. According to the 2008 Port Business Plan Update, some of the most noticeable gaps include: Need for improved freeway access to existing marine terminals (partially addressed by port access improvement at 10th Avenue, Civic Center and Bay Marina Intersections);
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 20
98 DRAFT CDM Smith
Insufficient open-air storage area and underutilized covered storage buildings at TAMT; Additional TAMT terminal optimization strategies are needed to facilitate higher throughput levels at TAMT
2.1.4 Airport Infrastructure
2.1.4.1 Existing Airport Infrastructure The San Diego International Airport, also known as Lindbergh Field, is located in the northwest portion of the downtown area, within the City of San Diego. The airport is bounded by North Harbor Drive and San Diego Bay to the south, the Navy water channel and Liberty Station to the west, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot to the north and Pacific Highway and Interstate 5 to the east. Land in the vicinity of the airport is densely developed and has high developable value, making any future airport expansion unlikely. The figure below shows an Arial photograph of the San Diego International Airport facilities.
Figure 2.8: San Diego International Airport, Lindbergh Field
Source: HDR Inc.
With just 661 acres, the San Diego International Airport is the smallest “major airport” site in the United States. It features a single 9,400-foot long east-west runway supported by one full-length parallel taxiway on the south, and one partial-length parallel taxiway on the north. It is the busiest single runway airport in the country. There are currently two main terminals and one commuter terminal, serving domestic and international passengers. Most support facilities are located north of the runway. They include general aviation facilities, air cargo facilities, related
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 21
99 DRAFT CDM Smith aviation support facilities and rescue and firefighting facilities. The current Airport Master Plan (2008) identifies 69,750 square feet of air cargo buildings on airport property.
The cargo facilities are used by a limited number of operators, including commercial airlines, courier services, a single cargo company (Capital International Cargo), and the U.S. Postal Service. The airport handled 162,353 tons of cargo and mail in 2013. The All-cargo carriers currently operate out of portable trailers next to the north cargo ramp. Cargo is trucked in and out of the airport, with sorting and loading performed off-site. The majority of cargo flights are by the major freight-only (integrated) carriers FedEx and UPS.
Air cargo operations are “constrained” due to limited space for expansion, as the airport is located in the downtown area. The airport is attempting to improve operations within the space constraints, including rehabilitation / reconstruction of the cargo apron by 2016. San Diego had been seeking to relocate the airport for over two decades, but now improvements are being implemented at the current location.
Regional access to the airport is provided by Interstate 5 and Interstate 8 (interstate access is in close proximity to the airport, but there is no direct freeway access to or from the airport). Approximately 66 percent of traffic accesses the airport via the interstates, with 34 percent accessing to/from I-5 South, 17 percent to/from I-5 North, and 15 percent to/from I-8 East. The remaining 34 percent of airport traffic accesses the airport via local streets with 22 percent heading south along North Harbor Drive, Pacific Highway and Kettner Boulevard. I-5 runs adjacent to the north side of the airport and access to and from I-5 is provided from Grape and Hawthorn streets to the south and Laurel / India streets and Pacific Highway to the north. I-5 provides access to the local streets that bound the airport: North Harbor Drive to the south which provides access to the terminal facilities, Pacific Highway to the northeast which provides access to facilities in the north, and Rosecrans Street to the west.
2.1.4.2 Gaps in Existing Airport Infrastructure Constrained by its urban core location, the San Diego International Airport faces many challenges to providing adequate goods movement through the region. Air cargo capacity used in this analysis is based on the Destination Lindbergh Study, which estimated current cargo capacity at just over 157 thousand tons. The Destination Lindbergh Study also identifies the following deficiencies: Lindbergh Field has a unique runway that accommodates both passenger and cargo services; clearly passenger demand is likely to command the most capacity and will soon breach the limits of the single runway; and Limited warehousing space: UPS, USPS and FedEx all currently sort cargo off site.
The inherently constrained footprint of Lindbergh Field is contributing to air cargo deficiencies. Planned short-term air infrastructure improvements include the development of an Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) on the north side of the airport (with direct access to the airport via Interstate 5) as well as additional warehousing space and the air cargo parking apron.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 22
100 DRAFT CDM Smith
2.1.5 Warehousing Infrastructure
San Diego County has three major districts that house significant warehousing facilities: Miramar - Sorrento Mesa, the Port district, and the Otay Mesa area. Of these three locations, two are directly served by rail (Miramar and the Port District) although the service is limited and direct connectivity is an issue to the Port of San Diego at the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal.
TAMT has 300,000 square feet of refrigeration and cold storage facilities. The terminal also has roughly 32.5 acres of open-air storage, which are currently occupied by Dole Fresh Fruit Company and are also used for wind energy moves and Hawaii liner service. NCMT has 174 acres of open air storage for lumber and automobiles. It also has over 800,000 square feet of storage for dry and refrigerated cargos.
The Otay Mesa port of entry has bonded warehouses and Foreign-Trade Zone warehouses that permit in-bond merchandise (i.e., merchandise considered to be under Customs jurisdiction because it has not entered U.S. commerce) to be stored, transferred, manipulated and/or destroyed. These bonded facilities are closely tied to the maquiladora (or twin-plant) industry in Mexico. Trucks originating from - or destined for - the Otay Mesa border area move materials, intermediate goods and finished products between assembly plants in Mexico and storage or repackaging facilities in the San Diego region, as well as to destinations outside the county.
Figure 2.9: Warehousing Facilities in the Otay Mesa Border Crossing Area
Source: HDR Inc.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 23
101 DRAFT CDM Smith
2.1.6 Pipeline System There are two pipelines in San Diego, the Kinder Morgan (formerly SFPP, LP) for gasoline and aviation fuel, and the WestPac Pipelines, LLL, (formerly Buckeye Petroleum) pipeline for aviation fuel.
The Kinder-Morgan pipeline system (in Figure below) extends south from the Los Angeles Basin through Orange County into San Diego, and also extends into Imperial County to serve Naval Air Facility El Centro.
The major Kinder-Morgan terminals are located in Mission Valley (which supplies the majority of the gasoline for San Diego County) and Imperial. These terminals are the facilities where gasoline is blended and then loaded onto trucks for final distribution to service stations. The pipeline extends to central San Diego to supply the Chevron and Tesoro Logistics distribution terminals.
The 4.3 mile WestPac pipeline system extends from the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal to Lindbergh Field and supplies aviation fuel for the airport. WestPac has a sublease from the Jankovich Company, and receives aviation fuel from the Kinder-Morgan pipeline.
Figure 2.10: Pipeline System in Southern California
Source: Kinder Morgan
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 24
102 DRAFT CDM Smith
2.2 Imperial County Freight Infrastructure
2.2.1 Road Network and Ports of Entry
Imperial County has a well-developed roadway network that currently meets freight transportation needs. While the existing system is considered adequate, recent population growth and an increase in foreign trade will require infrastructure improvements in order to accommodate future demand projections. The highway system currently handles over 95 percent of all commodity flows across the county.
The County is connected to Mexico through three (land) ports of entry: Calexico, Calexico East and Andrade. Only the last two accommodate commercial traffic.
The Calexico East / Mexicali II Port of Entry serves nearly all commercial truck traffic crossing between Imperial County and Mexicali. It is located roughly 130 miles east of San Diego and 60 miles west of Yuma, Arizona. The port includes 8 passenger lanes, 4 pedestrian lanes, 4 commercial lanes, 1 FAST lane, 1 bus lane, and 1 SENTRI lane. It is served by State Route 7, with direct connection to Interstate 8, about five miles to the north.
The Andrade / Algodones Port of Entry is an important gateway for tourism between California and Baja California. This gateway is used primarily by pedestrians from the United States wishing to shop or use medical services in Algodones. The port also accommodates privately owned vehicles, buses, and a limited amount of commercial traffic. It is sometimes used for congestion relief at Calexico East. The Port currently includes 2 passenger lanes, 4 pedestrian lanes, and 1 “informal” commercial lane. Vehicular access to Interstate 8, two miles to the north, is provided by State Route 186.
There are three major north-south freight corridors within the county: State Route 7 from the Calexico East border crossing; Figure 2.11: Major Truck Routes in Imperial County State Route 111 from the Calexico border crossing; and State Route 86.
There are also two major east-west corridors: Interstate 8 which originates in San Diego County; and State Route 98 which runs parallel to Interstate 8 through most of the county. Source: Adapted from CALTRANS District 11, Truck Networks on California State Highways, November 2009
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 25
103 DRAFT CDM Smith
According to the Imperial County “2007 Transportation Plan Highway Element” some of the most noticeable gaps in the county’s truck network include: Lack of direct freeway connections to rail yards and inter-modal facilities; Lack of dedicated truck lanes, passing lanes, and truck bypass routes; High truck traffic through urban areas including Brawley and Westmorland (project completed); and Empty trucks returning to Mexico after unloading their cargo in Calexico.
2.2.2 Rail Infrastructure Imperial County is served by rail connections from Mexico, Riverside County, and Arizona. Commodity flows by rail account for about 3 percent of total commodity flows in the county. This compares to 2 percent for San Diego County (and about 40 percent nationally).
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) owns and operates a line originating at the Calexico border crossing, extending north to El Centro and ultimately connecting with other UPRR tracks at Niland, heading north to Riverside County and southeast to Arizona (Sunset Line). UPRR also owns and operates the section between Plaster City and El Centro. That section is in service, and connects with other UPRR lines at El Centro. Finally, Pacific Imperial Railroad (PIR) owns the rights to operate on a small section of tracks in the western portion of the county between the San Diego County line and Plaster City. As noted previously, that section is closed to operations for repairs.
2.2.3 Seaport Infrastructure Imperial County has no seaport, but the county does export products through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Imperial County shippers and importers also utilize the San Diego Unified Port for inbound and outbound cargo shipments.
2.2.4 Airport Infrastructure Imperial County has a small private passenger airport facility that is not capable of handling large volumes of freight. The Imperial County Airport is currently limited to air courier services such as Federal Express and UPS. However, as identified in the Imperial County 2007 Transportation Plan, the county may ultimately consider development of a dedicated cargo airport. Current air cargo services in the county are provided through San Diego or airports in the Los Angeles area such as Los Angeles International Airport.
2.2.5 Warehousing Infrastructure
Imperial County has a number of warehousing facilities adjacent to the Calexico POE and near the junction of the Union Pacific railroad tracks north of El Centro at Niland.
Trucks originating from and destined for the Calexico area move goods between the Maquiladora industries located on both the United States and Mexican sides of the border at
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 26
104 DRAFT CDM Smith
Calexico and Mexicali as well as to other destinations within Imperial County, including El Centro.
Figure 2.12: Calexico Warehousing District
Figure 2.13: Calexico East Warehousing District
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 27
105 DRAFT CDM Smith
2.2.6 Pipeline Infrastructure
Imperial County has a major petroleum products pipeline extending from the Los Angeles Basin through the county to Yuma, Arizona. The main pipeline consists of a 20” diameter petroleum products pipeline from the Los Angeles Basin to Yuma, AZ. From this main pipeline there is also a 10” pipeline which extends southwest from a connection at Niland to a petroleum products terminal at Imperial. This pipeline also has an extension which provides aviation fuel to the El Centro Naval Air Facility. The county’s pipeline system is depicted in the Figure below, as part of the Southern California Pipeline System map (repeated from section 2.1 above.)
Figure 2.14: Pipeline System in Southern California
Source: Kinder Morgan
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 28
106 DRAFT CDM Smith
2.3 Baja California Freight Infrastructure
2.3.1 Road Network
According to Mexican State and Federal transportation infrastructure agencies (SIDUE and Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT), respectively), Baja California has approximately 11,000 kilometers of major roads (“carreteras”) approximately 2,770 kilometers of which are paved, and approximately 15 percent of which are four-lanes. Most of the four-lane segments are concentrated in the populated areas of the State’s five municipalities (Mexicali, Tecate, Tijuana, Rosarito, and Ensenada). Major Figure 2.15: Major Roads in Baja roads are typically managed under either State or California Federal jurisdiction.
There are four major highways in the State. Highway 2 stretches east-west and connects the Tijuana, Tecate, and Mexicali ports of entry along the border with California. From Mexicali, Highway 2 continues east, to San Luis Rio Colorado in Sonora, and the POE there. Highway 1 runs north-south and connects Tijuana with coastal cities and the Port of Ensenada. Highways 3 and 5 also run north-south, with connections to border crossings at Tecate and Mexicali, respectively.
One of the largest road infrastructure projects completed in Baja California was the Tijuana - Rosarito Expressway or “Corredor 2000” project. This four-lane freeway runs for about 40 kilometers from East Tijuana and the Tijuana - Tecate toll road, along the southern portion of Tijuana, Source: Secretaria de Comunicaciones y connecting to the Rosarito - Ensenada toll road Transportes and Popotla
Both the State and Federal governments have a variety of road infrastructure improvement projects planned, particularly to address congestion in the more-rapidly growing urban areas (Tijuana, Ensenada).
2.3.2 Rail Infrastructure
There are a total of approximately 220 kilometers of rail line in Baja California. The state is connected to the United States rail network at three separate crossings; one at San Ysidro, one at Division near Tecate, and one at Calexico.
Two crossings are part of the Tijuana and Tecate Short Line which is currently administered by the State of Baja California with an operational agreement with Baja California Railroad (BJRR). It connects to the SDIV South Line in San Diego County at San Ysidro, and to the non-operating
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 29
107 DRAFT CDM Smith
Desert Line leased to Pacific Imperial Railroad (PIR), extending from Division to Plaster City in Imperial County.
Figure 2.16: Tijuana – Tecate Short Line
Source: Administradora de la Via Corta Tijuana-Tecate
The third crossing is part of a rail line which passes through the Calexico/Mexicali port of entry. It extends throughout the U.S. via connections to Union Pacific Railroad’s lines at Calexico, and throughout Mexico via connections to FerroMex lines, heading south-east out of Mexicali.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 30
108 DRAFT CDM Smith
2.3.3 Seaport Infrastructure Figure 2.17: Container Ship at Puerto de Ensenada Baja California enjoys a strategically important location for seaport infrastructure in Mexico, with a strong focus on tourism (cruise ships) and a secondary focus on commercial cargo shipping including containerized cargo, and dry bulk materials such as limestone, rock and sand.
Baja California currently has five seaports: Puerto de Ensenada (the second-largest cruise ship destination on Mexico’s Pacific Coast and the fifth busiest container port in Mexico);1 Puerto del Sauzal de Rodríguez (for cabotage); Puerto de Rosarito (used primarily for PEMEX-related petrochemicals); Puerto Isla Source: Administración Portuaria Integral de de Cedros (an island off of Baja California’s Ensenada coast specializing in mineral exports, primarily salt); and Puerto de San Felipe (used primarily for tourism, personal boating and fishing).
Future plans for Baja California ports include further expansion of existing infrastructure. There remains the potential for construction of a new seaport at Punta Colonet which could increase both cruise ship and commercial shipping activities in the state.
In the last decade, Puerto de Ensenada has already been expanded significantly, with the addition of a 300 meter berth and dredging to a deep draft depth of 15.5 meters (50 feet) to be able to handle post-Panamax size container ships. The port’s container yard space has been increased to be able to store more containers and annual throughput capacity has been increased to 400,000 TEU. The port ultimately projects a throughput capacity of up to 500,000 TEUs annually.2
1 In 2012, according to the AAPA, Puerto Ensenada handled over 140,000 TEUs (about 30 per cent of which, it is estimated, related to maquiladora shipments). 2 No significant near-term improvements are expected at the other four existing ports.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 31
109 DRAFT CDM Smith
2.3.4 Airport Infrastructure
Airport infrastructure in Baja California comprises four main airports, only two of which (Tijuana and Mexicali) are currently able to accommodate larger aircraft.3
Tijuana – General Abelardo L. Rodriguez International Airport (TIJ): the largest and busiest of Baja California’s airports, TIJ is located in the Mesa de Otay region of Tijuana, directly across the border from San Figure 2.18: Tijuana International Airport Diego. The airport covers an area exceeding 900 acres, with a main terminal of approximately 230,000 square feet, including 23 gates and 169 commercial spaces. TIJ’s runway is 9,711 feet long, making it the largest runway in the region after Miramar. In 2013, TIJ accommodated 48,335 aircraft movements and approximately 4.3 million passengers. 15,023 tons of cargo were handled in 2011 (split almost evenly between inbound Source: Grupo Aeropotuario del Pacifico and outbound flows), representing about 85 percent of all air cargo in Baja California. 4
Mexicali – General Rodolfo Sanchez Taboada International Airport (MXL): located approximately three miles south of the border with the United States, MXL is designated as an international airport but is only served by three Mexican airlines (with, occasionally, international charter flights and some cross-border general aviation). The entire airport property is approximately 1,400 acres but only a small portion of this area is occupied by airport facilities (the main terminal is approximately 50,000 square feet). MXL’s runway is 8,530 feet. In 2008 the airport handled 12,450 operations, 533,800 passengers and approximately 2,100 tons of cargo (all domestic).5 In 2013 the airport handled 496,000 passengers.
San Felipe – San Felipe International Airport (SFH): significantly smaller than the previous two airports, SFH operates during limited hours (generally during daylight), and is used for general aviation and charter flights. It has an asphalt runway that is 4,850 feet long. In 2007, the airport handled approximately 6,095 operations and 14,355 passengers.
3 In addition to these four airports, there are also 86 smaller, less-used, and/or more-informal airstrips distributed across the state. These air strips are used by local residents, farmers, tourists, or the military (given limited road infrastructure and low density in Baja California’s rural areas). 4 Preliminary estimates 5 Preliminary estimates
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 32
110 DRAFT CDM Smith
Ensenada – Base Aérea El Ciprés (ESE): the airport in Ensenada has been used primarily as a military base for the Mexican Air Force, as well as for general aviation (no commercial airline currently serves the airport). Like SFH, it has an “international” designation to allow for incoming flights from the U.S. to check in with Customs and Immigration officials. Its runway is 4,892 feet long. In 2007, the airport handled approximately 7,450 operations and 13,995 passengers. No cargo is known to have passed through the airport.
Planned improvements for air cargo facilities in Baja California include the following: Tijuana: a consortium of investors has purchased a 55-acre lot directly north of the airport (in U.S. territory) that could be used for a proposed Crossborder Terminal. This concept has received preliminary support from regional groups, as well as the Mexican Government. It could become reality within the next 10 years. If developed, the terminal could increase the usage of TIJ for domestic and international flights, and become a hub for international cargo. Ensenada: for several years, a private group has advocated the development of a major air cargo facility close to Ensenada. This proposal would establish a new airport – Ensenada International Airport (EIA) – outside of the City of Ensenada (and away from the current site at El Ciprés), and would be intended specifically as a cargo hub for Northwest Mexico. In 2007, the Government of Mexico awarded a 30-year concession to the group to construct, administer and operate the proposed airport. In 2009, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency funded an Airport Master Plan development study to prepare for future construction of the airport. The date of further development of this airport is unknown.
2.3.5 Warehousing Infrastructure
There is limited readily available information related to private-sector warehousing company infrastructure in Baja California. Because some industrial property has the ability to be used for warehousing as well as other industrial purposes, the definition of available warehousing space is difficult to identify for Baja California. The following is known: At the beginning of 2014, Jones Lang LaSalle reported6 the total commercial industrial property market in Tijuana totaled 57.3 million square feet of buildings of which 4.5 million square feet was available for lease. In Mexicali, they reported a total of 1.7 million square feet with 2.4 million square feet available for lease. From the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, in 2012, the transportation and warehouseing sector in Baja California was $3.9 Billion making up 5.4% of the economy (measured as Gross State Product.) There are many individual companies comprising the warehousing and transportation sector in Baja California. As of 2007, approximately 5,030 companies operated cargo and/or trucking services in Baja California, over 90 percent of which were independent, sole-proprietorships. About 340 corporations offered general cargo services; another 80 offered specialized cargo services. In Mexico’s 2004 Economic Census, at least 175 companies were identified as “Agencias Aduanales” (Customs Brokers) operating in Baja California. Many of these companies offered warehousing services. Another 178 companies were specifically listed as “foreign cargo trucking” companies.
6 Source: Jones Lang LaSalle, Q1 2014 North American Industrial Real Estate Outlook.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 33
111 DRAFT CDM Smith
3 UPDATED GATEWAY BORDER REGION EXISTING FLOWS AND CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
The updated Gateway Region existing flows are presented in this chapter, with background on data approach, and results by mode of transport, top commodity categories, geography, and for border flows, directly of trade between San Diego and the World and the border trade specifically with Mexico. Freight and trade flows are quantified in tonnage terms in this summary. A discussion of the approach and the data sources are presented first followed by the existing flow summary tables themselves accompanied by discussions of the flows.
3.1 Updated Gateway Region Existing Flows: Approach
The approach to updating the existing freight flows in the Gateway Border Region of San Diego and Imperial County was to go back to public sources of freight data, by mode of transport and border-specific flows and collate them for new common base year, 2011. This existing flow baseline data captures the freight activity in the region during the recent recovery after the Great Recession of 2008-2009. The original Gateway Border Study was finalized in 2010 with a base year of existing flows from 2007, the end of the boom before the Great Recession. This approach to the new existing baseline data draws upon the most widely used public sources which offer validation and acceptance for public planning purposes as well as the ability for others to replicate this in the future with newer updates to those data sources.
Consistent with this approach, the primary source for the freight flow data used in this update is from the same source as used in the forecast flows, the U.S. Dept. of Transportation’s Freight Analysis Framework (FAF). For the updated estimates of existing flows the new FAF version 3.5 with interim estimates of 2012 commodity flows has been used. The FAF is a national modal freight commodity database, made publicly available by the U.S. Department of Transportation and updated annually combining data from a number of modal historic freight statistics. The commodity flows in the FAF are identified with a common classification, the Standard Classification of Transported Goods, also used by the U.S. Census Bureau Economic Census Commodity Flow Survey, one of the data inputs for the FAF. Transport mode for domestic freight and international trade are identified for commodities moving to, from, within and through the United States. The import and export flows by commodity and mode are by detailed by country/region partner including Mexico specifically. The latest FAF historic data consistent with published FAF forecasts are for the year 2011. There is a new version 3.5 of the FAF released in May 2014 that includes, so far, an interim update estimate for 2012 but without yet a new accompanying forecast. This 2012 base year data has been used in the update to existing Gateway Study freight flows, and is the basis for the summary tonnage data tables presented here.
The resulting updated existing freight and trade flows for the Gateway Border region capture the influences of regional industry growth, population and employment growth and composition of trade growth between the prior Gateway Border Study base year of 2007 and 2012.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 34
112 DRAFT CDM Smith
Below is a listing of historic data sources used in the updating of the existing Gateway Study flows:
• U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration’s Freight Analysis Framework; • Data on border crossings and cross-border freight flows from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; • Survey data from Caltrans, including traffic counts and Weigh in Motion (WIM) data; • Port commodity tonnage data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterborne Commerce Statistics; • San Diego International Airport statistics from the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority; • Class 1 (e.g. BNSF railroad) car loading data reported to the Surface Transportation Board; • Commodity-specific data sources, including databases maintained by the County Agricultural Commissioners (statistics on agricultural production), the California Integration Waste Management Board (data on waste production from recycling centers and landfills), and pipeline companies, and • Various planning documents previously prepared for and provided by SANDAG.
The existing flows data also relies on the involvement of regional freight stakeholders and subject matter experts, who were consulted during the course of the update study to provide input to the use of baseline data for the project.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 35
113 DRAFT CDM Smith
3.2 Updated Gateway Existing Flow Tables for San Diego
For ease of understanding and comparison, the updated existing domestic and international border flows produced in this update project are summarized here using tons of freight, common across all commodities, all modes of transportation and origins and destinations. Consistent with the FAF, for these tables San Diego is San Diego County. The data for the baseline year of 2012 was obtained from the FAF version 3.5.
Table 3.1: Inbound Domestic Freight by Mode of Transportation
Domestic Inbound Freight Tons 2012 Truck 68,908,943 Pipeline 4,547,274 Multiple modes 819,151 Rail 410,170 Other and unknown 320,738 Water 305,603 Air 48,493
Dominated by truck tonnage, total domestic inbound tonnage also has a very substantial tonnage component that is shipped through the pipeline network into San Diego from the Los Angeles Basin to the north.
Table 3.2: Outbound Domestic Freight by Mode of Transportation
Domestic Outbound Freight Tons 2012 Truck 63,249,214 Multiple modes 441,430 Rail 410,790 Water 376,375 Other and unknown 243,172 Air 93,776 Pipeline 37,137
Dominated by truck tonnage, the slightly smaller total domestic outbound tonnage also has a substantial tonnage moved by multiple modes, rail and water to other points in the U.S. Outbound air domestic tonnage is substantially greater than inbound air tonnage, reflecting the high value commodities produced in the San Diego region.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 36
114 DRAFT CDM Smith
Table 3.3: Top Inbound Domestic Commodity Flows to San Diego
Domestic Inbound Freight Tons 2012 Waste/scrap 12,740,841 Nonmetal min. prods. 11,225,564 Gravel 9,109,657 Coal-n.e.c. 5,909,390 Gasoline 5,298,271 Natural sands 3,552,790 Mixed freight 3,329,881 Other foodstuffs 2,221,256 Unknown 2,210,494 Wood prods. 2,075,832 Machinery 1,512,494
From a commodity shipment perspective, the Waste and Scrap, Nonmetalic Mineral Products, and Gravel categories are the highest tonnage domestic commodities shipping into San Diego from elsewhere in the U.S., followed by two energy categories: Coal, not-elsewhere-classified, and Gasoline. The gravel and sand categories are commonly moved relatively short distances to construction sites where they are consumed. Wood products are also commonly construction materials but given U.S. production geography are often shipped much greater distances, including by rail from the Pacific Northwest.
Table 3.4: Top Outbound Domestic Commodity Flows from San Diego
Domestic Outbound Freight Tons 2012 Waste/scrap 13,084,930 Nonmetal min. prods. 10,384,506 Gravel 8,949,173 Gasoline 5,281,784 Natural sands 3,520,770 Other ag prods. 2,574,545 Unknown 2,269,629 Other foodstuffs 2,169,615 Motorized vehicles 1,849,045 Machinery 1,465,843 Mixed freight 1,149,399
More Waste and Scrap is shipped domestically out from San Diego than into the county. The Nonmetalic Mineral Products and Gravel categories are the next highest tonnage domestic commodities shipping out of San Diego to elsewhere in the U.S., followed by Gasoline. The non- metalic mineral products, gravel and sand are typically shipped short distances, such as to neighboring-county construction sites.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 37
115 DRAFT CDM Smith
Table 3.5: Top Inbound Origins of Domestic Flows to San Diego
Inbound Origins Freight Tons 2012 San Diego CA 49,741,583 Los Angeles CA 14,006,793 Remainder of California 1,795,245 San Francisco CA 1,056,650 Houston TX 815,944 Dallas-Fort Worth TX 441,061 Sacramento CA-NV 398,397 Phoenix AZ 396,802 Denver CO 389,193 Remainder of Texas 312,574 Wyoming 272,085
Besides the substantial local traffic originating and destined within San Diego, Los Angeles dominates the rank of origins for freight flowing into San Diego. San Francisco and Sacramento are also ranked near the top as with the remainder of California. Origins from the East include high-ranking Texas areas of Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth. Phoenix is the origin of not much more tonnage than Denver.
Table 3.6: Top Outbound Destinations of Domestic Flows from San Diego
Outbound Destinations Freight Tons 2012 San Diego CA 49,741,583 Los Angeles CA 8,397,772 Remainder of California 2,078,083 San Francisco CA 1,099,756 Las Vegas NV CSA 375,986 Sacramento CA 300,171 Dallas-Fort Worth TX 232,970 Phoenix AZ 227,364 Chicago IL-IN-WI 194,084 New Mexico 156,887 Remainder of Arizona 125,526
Besides the substantial local traffic destined for San Diego that originates within San Diego, Los Angeles dominates the rank of top destinations for freight flowing out from San Diego. The remainder of the state, plus San Francisco and Sacramento are also ranked near the top. To the east, there is much less tonnage shipping. Dallas – Fort Worth, Phoenix and the Chicago area rank higher than New Mexico or the remainder of Arizona.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 38
116 DRAFT CDM Smith
Table 3.7: Total International Trade Flows To, From and Through San Diego
Direction of Trade San Diego Through Tons 2012 Tons 2012 Imports 613,000 6,041,000 Exports 454,000 6,301,000
The total international trade of San Diego is roughly balanced in terms of tonnage although a higher proportion of imports terminate in San Diego than exports originate there. In both directions of trade the through traffic dominates, demonstrating just how much of a gateway role San Diego plays in international trade for the rest of the U.S.
Table 3.8: U.S. - Mexico Trade Flows To, From and Through San Diego
Direction of Trade San Diego Through Tons 2012 Tons 2012 Imports 318,000 4,381,000 Exports 434,000 6,286,000
The Mexico trade of San Diego is less balanced than overall international trade of San Diego, with a fewer San Diego imports than exports, the reverse of San Diego’s overall international trade profile. The total exports to Mexico through San Diego exceed the through import volumes from Mexico by almost 2 million tons.
Figure 3.1: Top 10 Import Commodities Moving Through San Diego, 1000 Tons
The top 10 commodity categories imported through San Diego are other agricultural products, motor vehicles, nonmetallic mineral products and electronics. Beer makes up a substantial tonnage of the next-highest ranked category, alcoholic beverages.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 39
117 DRAFT CDM Smith
Figure 3.2: Top 10 Import Commodities Destined for San Diego, 1000 Tons
The top 10 commodity categories imported to San Diego are other agricultural products, electronics and two non-metallic mineral categories, both products and the minerals themselves, followed by motor vehicles. The other agriculture products dominate the local imports from Mexico, reflecting the strong local market handling of these Mexican agricultural goods.
Figure 3.3: Top 10 Export Commodities Moving Through San Diego, 1000 Tons
The top 10 commodity categories exported through San Diego are petroleum products, electronics, plastic and rubber, wood products, other foodstuffs and paper articles. This diversified mix of commodity categories reflects the integration of the Baja California economy with goods sourced from the U.S. and imported into Mexico through San Diego.
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 40
118 DRAFT CDM Smith
Figure 3.4: Top 10 Export Commodities Shipped from San Diego, 1000 Tons
The top 10 commodity categories exported from San Diego reflect the mix of imports from the U.S. that Baja California imports, namely petroleum products, electronics, plastic and rubber, wood products, other foodstuffs, paper articles, base metals, other agricultural products, articles of base-metal and machinery. That San Diego is the origin of this diversified mix of commodity categories reflects the role as an intermediary in the Baja California economy sourcing goods of many types from the U.S. that are imported into Mexico through San Diego.
3.3 Updated Key Corridor Flow Analysis and Tables for San Diego
To be added - a corridor analysis that talks about the tonnage moving on key connectors, arterials and highway corridors along with some discussion about the important challenges on our dual – use rail corridors. -chapter will include a discussion and illustration of freight commodity “vignettes” and they will be informative as to how freight (key commodities) actually move. This will include a vignette focusing on the relationship of border traffic to the POLA/LB complex and the Inland Empire; one on key electronics components moving back and forth across the border (illustrating 40% US content in MX produced goods); and another illustrating either perishables through the Port and / or a rolling stock that touches the port, the border and the main downtown rail yard. - A few shipper / supply chain manager interviews will appear in this chapter. A few sound bites from interviewees will add a necessary dimension to this Chapter. The interviewees will be quoted or summarized and will serve to illustrate freight challenges
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UPDATE PAGE 41
119
Otay Mesa Border Truck Forecast
Imports Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 4.48 10.49 4.00% 17.73 3.56% In Volume Truckloads 223,906 524,711 4.00% 886,585 3.56% In Value $Millions 2012 $25,307 $59,258 4.00% $100,157 3.56% Average Value $ per Ton $5,649 $5,649 0.00% $5,649 0.00%
Exports Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 5.39 16.23 5.19% 25.72 3.12% In Volume Truckloads 269,602 811,507 5.19% 1,285,874 3.12% In Value $Millions 2012 $14,092 $42,442 5.19% $67,258 3.12% Average Value $ per Ton $2,615 $2,615 0.00% $2,615 0.00%
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UDPATE Page 42
120 Sources: Transborder and FAF 3.4
Tecate Border Truck Forecast
Imports Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 0.07 0.16 4.00% 0.27 3.56% In Volume Truckloads 3,433 8,044 4.00% 13,593 3.56% In Value $Millions 2012 $388 $887 4.00% $1,497 3.56% Average Value $ per Ton $5,543 $5,543 0.00% $5,543 0.00%
Exports Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 0.12 0.35 5.19% 0.55 3.12% In Volume Truckloads 5,783 17,407 5.19% 27,583 3.12% In Value $Millions 2012 $302 $881 5.19% $1,384 3.12%
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UDPATE Page 43
121 Sources: Transborder and FAF 3.4
Calexico East Border Truck Forecast
Imports Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 1.53 3.69 3.94% 6.16 3.48% In Volume Truckloads 76,687 184,455 3.94% 308,207 3.48% In Value $Millions 2012 $8,725 $21,044 3.94% $35,131 3.48% Average Value $ per Ton $5,703 $5,703 0.00% $5,703 0.00%
Exports Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 2.18 6.62 5.29% 10.60 3.19% In Volume Truckloads 108,880 331,117 5.29% 530,011 3.19% In Value $Millions 2012 $5,919 $17,973 5.29% $28,779 3.19% Average Value $ per Ton $2,715 $2,715 0.00% $2,715 0.00%
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UDPATE Page 44
122 Sources: Transborder and FAF 3.4
San Diego County Truck Forecast
Inbound Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 68.91 75.88 1.09% 88.71 1.05% In Volume Loaded Trucks 3,445,447 3,794,220 1.09% 4,435,462 1.05% In Value $Millions 2012 $78,249 $86,200 1.09% $100,775 1.05% Average Value $ per Ton $1,136 $1,136 0.00% $1,136 0.00%
Outbound Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 64.85 66.61 0.94% 78.41 1.09% In Volume Loaded Trucks 3,242,595 3,330,616 0.94% 3,920,344 1.09% In Value $Millions 2012 $111,081 $114,103 0.94% $134,316 1.09% Average Value $ per Ton $1,713 $1,713 0.00% $1,713 0.00%
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UDPATE Page 45
123 Sources: FAF 3.4
San Ysidro Border Rail Forecast
Imports Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons - - - - - In Volume Carloads - - - - - In Value $Millions 2012 - - - - - Average Value $ per Ton - - - - -
Exports Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 0.31 0.59 2.81% 0.85 2.53% In Volume Carloads 3,913 7,328 2.81% 10,653 2.53% In Value $Millions 2012 $264 $502 2.81% $723 2.53% Average Value $ per Ton $851 $851 0.00% $851 0.00%
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UDPATE Page 46
124 Sources: U.S. Border Crossing, Transborder, and FAF 3.4
Sources: Transborder and FAF
Calexico Border Rail Forecast
Imports Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 0.05 0.09 2.26% 0.12 2.15% In Volume Carloads 676 1,132 2.26% 1,556 2.15% In Value $Millions 2012 $36 $54 2.26% $75 2.15% Average Value $ per Ton $602 $602 0.00% $602 0.00%
Exports Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 0.47 0.95 3.05% 1.37 2.51% In Volume Carloads 5,933 11,109 3.05% 14,096 2.51% In Value $Millions 2012 $332 $671 3.05% $967 2.51% Average Value $ per Ton $706 $706 0.00% $706 0.00%
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UDPATE Page 47
125 Sources: U.S. Border Crossing, Transborder, and FAF 3.4
San Diego Port Forecast
Imports Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 1.30 2.40 2.70% 3.70 2.93% In Value $Millions 2012 $5,820 $10,736 2.70% $16,568 2.93% Average Value $ per Ton $4,473 $4,473 0.00% $4,473 0.00%
Exports Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 0.08 0.07 -0.21% 0.06 -1.40% In Value $Millions 2012 $435 $415 -0.21% $335 -1.40% Average Value $ per Ton $5,652 $5,652 0.00% $5,652 0.00%
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UDPATE Page 48
126 Sources: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and FAF 3.4
San Diego Air Cargo Forecast
Inbound Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 0.06 0.11 3.18% 0.13 0.69% In Volume Loaded Trucks - - - - - In Value $Millions 2012 $2,040 $3,609 3.18% $4,001 0.69% Average Value $ per Ton $31,534 $31,534 0.00% $31,534 0.00%
Outbound Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 0.07 0.11 2.89% 0.19 3.88% In Volume Loaded Trucks - - - - - In Value $Millions 2012 $2,585 $4,161 2.89% $7,439 3.88% Average Value $ per Ton $38,506 $38,506 0.00% $38,506 0.00%
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UDPATE Page 49
127 Sources: SDIA and FAF 3.4
San Diego Pipeline Forecast
Inbound Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons 4.55 4.26 -0.84% 4.03 -0.38% In Volume M Bbls 36.1 33.8 -0.84% 32.0 -0.38% In Value $Millions 2012 $1,639 $1,349 -0.84% $1,274 -0.38% Average Value $ per Ton $360 $317 0.00% $316 0.00%
Outbound Units 2012 2035 2015-2035 CAGR 2050 2035-2050 CAGR In Volume Million Tons - - - - - In Volume Loaded Trucks - - - - - In Value $Millions 2012 - - - - - Average Value $ per Ton - - - - -
SANDAG GATEWAY STUDY UDPATE Page 50
128 Sources: Industry Data and FAF 3.4