Caltrans District System Management Plan

S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A ------BU S I N E S S , T R A N S P O R T A T I O N AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 50 HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5415 PHONE (805) 549-3111 FAX (805) 549-3329 TDD (805) 549-3259 Flex your power! http://www.dot.gov/dist05 Be energy efficient!

Staff Report

SUBJECT: Draft District System Management Plan, Caltrans District 5

MEETING DATE: March 3, 2005 Agenda Item: 5

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive Draft Plan from Department of Transportation regarding twenty-year strategies and policies guiding the planning, operation and management of State Highway Corridors. Review and comment as desired by March 15, 2005.

BACKGROUND: The District 5 System Planning Branch is in the process of updating the District System Management Plan (DSMP). A draft has been prepared and is available for review at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist05/planning/dsmp/publicdraft.pdf. Caltrans will receive comments until March 15th, 2005.

DISCUSSION:

The DSMP is a comprehensive strategic and policy planning document that lays out how Caltrans envisions it's multi-modal transportation system to be managed, developed and maintained over a long term horizon covering the period 2005 - 2025. The DSMP is for Caltrans guidance and will address specific statewide responsibilities. The last DSMP was done in the early 1990's.

In addition to receiving input from adjacent Caltrans Districts and HQ Modal Units, the DSMP is developed in collaboration with local and regional partners and addresses transportation issues and goals identified by RTPAs/MPOs in their respective RTPs/MTPs.

Attached to this Report are short sections from the DSMP for your perusal in advance of the TTAC meeting: 1) one-page Executive Summary, 2) matrix of goals collected from the California Transportation Plan as well as Regional Transportation Plans from throughout District 5, and 3) one-page Route Concept/Classification matrix.

STAFF CONTACT: Tim Rochte, Caltrans District 5 System Planning (805) 549-3130 [email protected]

“Caltrans improves mobility across California” Executive Summary

The District System Management Plan (DSMP) serves as the 20 year vision document for District 5 in carrying out its responsibilities as owner/operator of the State transportation system. It is a strategic planning document describing how the state corridors will be managed and developed through the year 2025. While the DSMP is essentially an internal Department document, it has been developed to weave in local and regional policies as well.

The core of the DSMP is found in the chapter on Transportation System Management Strategies which describe six key strategies and their supporting policies.

Strategy 1 ...... Improve Safety and Security, All Modes Strategy 2 ...... Maintain and Preserve Transportation Systems Strategy 3 ...... Improve Mobility through Improved Multimodal System Strategy 4 ...... Support Economic Vitality Strategy 5 ...... Preserve and Enhance the Environment Strategy 6 ...... Reflect Community Values

These strategies were identified by preparing the matrix on the following page, which shows goals of the California Transportation Plan, Regional Transportation Plans from Regional Transportation Planning Agencies. Supporting policies were derived from the matrix, combined with Department policy documents.

Other chapters develop a picture of the current system, identify transportation trends and issues, describe the district and its environs, and summarize funding available to improve the system. Critical areas for future planning have been identified and mapped as Emphasis Areas, geographically shown. The DSMP compiles useful summaries of transportation data, graphically depicted, that will be transferable for internal and external use.

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 6 RTP/STATE GOAL MATRIX Draft 1/20/2005 Matrix A

GOALS taken from Regional Transportation Plans, Regional Transportation Planning Agency MTP, California Transportation Plan AMBAG Santa San Santa Monterey San Luis MTP State District Cruz Benito Barbara Obispo Plan Plan (1) (3) (2) Maintain and preserve Transportation System(s) gg gg gg g gg n Increase mobility through improved multimodal system gg g g gg g n Coordinate landuse and transportation for vitality gg g g g = Ensure transportation system compliments environs gg gg gg g g g n Promote efficient funding, management and operations g gg g g gg g = Solicit broad public input gg gg = Support economic vitality gg gg n Improve safety and security, all modes g gg g gg gg gg n Enhance connectivity, all modes, people and freight gg g = Ensure system compatibility with land uses gg g = Promote compact/livable urban development gg g gg = Provide alternative modes between counties gg = Promote safe and efficient air transportation gg = Facilitate safe and efficient commodity movement gg g g = Encourage bike/pedestrian travel gg = Provide comprehensive system to meet public needs gg g gg = Promote alternative transportation system g gg gg = Maximize efficient use of limited funds gg gg gg g g = Enhance access g g gg g = Manage congestion g g = Improve sustainability of intermodal transportation system gg = Enhance equity in impacts and benefits gg gg = Reflect community values g g g g gg n

Notes: 1) Key to darkened blocks: None = no significant mention. Single block = concept is covered. Double block = exact words included.

2) Key to darkened circles: Large circle = issue handled as Strategy. Small Circle = issue handled as Policy

3) California Transportation Plan draft has been signed by the BT&H Secretary , awaiting Governor signature. Route Classifications/Concept DRAFT Table 4

ROUTE COUNTY NHS IRRS HE FOCUS STRAHNET NTN F & E TCR Compl. Concept 2025 Horizon SB, SLO, MON, Vandenburg Widely varies from maintain 2 lane to uprgade to 4 lane freeway in 1 SCr SB, MON, SCr X X MON 68 to 156 X 1990 urbanizing areas. 9 SCr X 1985 2 lane typically, 4 lane in urbanized areas. 17 SCr X X SCr 1986 Operational improvements, maintain current lanes. 25 SBt 101 to 146 SBt Jan. 2004 2 lanes rural areas, 4 lane N. of Hollister; bypass. 33 SLO, SB SB 1986 Operational improvements, maintain current 2/4 lanes. 35 SCr 1980's Jct 46/41 to 41 SLO X X Kern SLO Aug. 2004 2 lane typically, 4 lane east of Y, up to 5 lane west of 101 in Atascadero.

46 SLO X X 101 to Kern SLO SLO 1984 (90) 2 lane typically, 4 lane east of 101 to Jardin. 58 SLO Oct. 2003 2 lane conventional. 68 MON X MON 1 to 101 X 1986 (90) Widen to 4 lane freeway, Monterey to Salinas. SB, SLO, MON, 101 SBt X X X X X X X Oct. 2001 Develop alternatives, 6 lane in urbanizing areas. SCr 129 (Watsonville) X 1985 2 lane, widen Watsonville segment to 4 lane. 135 SB SB 01 - Clark 1986 2 lane typically, 6 lanes in Santa Maria. 144 SB 1987 (91) 2 to 4 lane, no change. 146 MON (Soledad) 25 - Pinnacles 1984 (90) 2 lane typically, no change.

150 SB (Ventura Co.) 1984 (90) 2 lane conventional. 152 SCr (Watsonville) 1984 2 lane, with 4 lanes at end segments. 154 SB X 1986 (90) Operational improvements, maintain current lanes. 156 MON, SBt. X X X X Mon/SBt 101 X 1984 (96) 4 lane expressway. 166 SB 101 to 33 Oct. 2001 2 lane east of 101, 4-6 lanes west of 101. MON (Sal - 183 Castrvl) X X 1984 (90) Widen to 4 lanes in Castroville. 192 SB 1984 (90) 2 lane conventional, no change. 198 MON 1984 (90) 4 lane freeway, no change. 217 SB 1984 (90) 4 lane conventional. MON (Del Rey 218 Oaks) 1984 (90) 2 lane, no change. 225 SB (Cliff Drive) 1986 Partially relinquished, 2 and 4 lane. 227 SLO 1 - 101 Jul-99 Relinquish; 4 lane expressway near SLO 229 SLO 2001 2 lane, no change. 236 SCr (Big Basin) 1985 2 lane, no change.

246 SB 1 to 101 Jul-04 Maintain 2 lanes in rural, expand to 4 lanes where development occurs.

Focus - Focus Rte. NHS - National Highway System Routes containing segments of HE, IRRS, Focus, and STRAHNET F&E - Freeway and Expressway System NTN - National Truck Network Routes containing segments of NHS, HE, IRRS, and STRAHNET HE - High Emphasis STRAHNET - Strategic Highway Network Routes containing segments of IRRS and Focus Routes IRRS - Interregional Road System Routes containing segments of IRRS DRAFT DISTRICT SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN For District 5

Prepared by District 5 System Planning Branch

January 2005 Mariposa

San Stanislaus California Department Mateo 35 Santa Clara 236 of Transportation 101 17 Santa 9 District 5 Cruz 152 152 1 Santa 129 Merced Cruz 1 156 Hollister Madera

183 25 Salinas Monterey 1 68 101 San Benito

146 146

1 Monterey 25 Soledad Fresno

King City 1 198 198

101

#0 Kings #0 Tulare 41 P 101 a c Paso 46 i 46 #0 f 1 Robles i c 41 O 46 c e a 229 Kern n 41 Morro 58 Bay 1 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 227

Arroyo 101 Grande 166 1 33 166 Santa Maria 33 101 Santa Barbara 1 135

154 Lompoc 246 Ventura 101 1 Santa #0 154 Barbara #0 Rest Areas 101 101 217 192

0 10203040 Miles ³ Map 1 I approve this District System Management Plan as the overall Policy Statement and Strategic Plan that will guide decisions and investments in the transportation system in and for District 5.

Recommend Approval: Recommend Approval:

Rich Krumholz Timothy M. Gubbins Deputy District Director Deputy District Director Planning and Local Assistance Program and Project Management Caltrans – District 5 Caltrans – District 5

Recommend Approval: Recommend Approval:

Steve Price Jackie Parker Deputy District Director Deputy District Director Maintenance and Operations Administration Caltrans – District 5 Caltrans – District 5

Approved:

R. Gregg Albright Date District Director Caltrans – District 5

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05- Page 3 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS...... 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 6

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ...... 9 1.1 Purpose...... 9 1.2 Department Goals and Priorities ...... 10 1.3 Partners and Stakeholders...... 14 1.4 Development of the District System Management Plan ...... 16 1.5 Measuring System Performance ...... 16 CHAPTER 2. DISTRICT 5 - BACKGROUND AND ISSUES ...... 20 2.1 District 5 Overview ...... 20 2.2 Population Growth ...... 21 2.3 Local Economies...... 22 2.4 Environmental Factors...... 23 CHAPTER 3. THE EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM...... 28 3.1 Overview...... 28 3.2 State Highway System ...... 28 3.3 Transit ...... 31 3.4 Rail...... 35 3.5 Air, Sea, and Space Facilities ...... 38 3.6 Non-Motorized Travel...... 40 3.7 Goods Movement System...... 42 3.8 Intelligent Transportation Systems ...... 45 CHAPTER 4. DISTRICT 5 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES ...... 47 Issue 1. Dependence on the US 101 Corridor ...... 47 Issue 2. Growth, Land Use, and Resulting Travel Patterns ...... 48 Issue 3. Inter-Jurisdictional Issues...... 50 Issue 4. Diverse Transportation Perspectives ...... 56 Issue 5. Lack of Modal Choices ...... 57 Issue 6. Safety and Reliability of Roadways ...... 58 Issue 7. Resource Limitations and Environmental Constraints ...... 61 Issue 8. Quality of Life Concerns ...... 62 Issue 9. Goods Movement and Economics ...... 63 Issue 10: Relinquishing Roadways ...... 64 Issue11. Funding Limitations...... 66 Issue 12. Major Transportation Emphasis Areas...... 69 CHAPTER 5. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ...... 72 5.1 Overview...... 72

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05- Page 4 Strategy 1: Improve Safety and Security, All Modes...... 74 Strategy 2: Maintain and Preserve Transportation Systems ...... 75 Strategy 3: Improve Mobility through Improved Multimodal System...... 75 Strategy 4: Support Economic Vitality ...... 77 Strategy 5: Preserve and Enhance the Environment...... 78 Strategy 6: Reflect Community Values ...... 79 CHAPTER 6. FUNDING PRIORITIES ...... 81 Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) ...... 81 State Highway Operation and Protection Program...... 83 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATED TERMS...... 86

REFERENCES...... 87

APPENDIX A: DISTRICT 5 MAJOR EMPHASIS AREAS, 2025 ...... 89

APPENDIX B: COUNTY DESCRIPTIONS...... 92 B.1 Santa Barbara County ...... 92 B.2 San Luis Obispo County ...... 94 B.3 Monterey County ...... 98 B.4 San Benito County ...... 100 B.5 Santa Cruz County ...... 101 APPENDIX C: PROGRAMMED AND PLANNED PROJECTS ...... 104

APPENDIX D: LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 108

APPENDIX E: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING MATRIX ...... 109

APPENDIX F: RELATIONSHIP OF DSMP TO PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT...... 114

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05- Page 5 Executive Summary

The core of the DSMP is found in the chapter on Transportation System Management Strategies which describe six key strategies and their supporting policies.

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 6 RTP/STATE GOAL MATRIX Draft 1/20/2005 Matrix A

Notes: 1) Key to darkened blocks: None = no significant mention. Single block = concept is covered. Double block = exact words included.

2) Key to darkened circles: Large circle = issue handled as Strategy. Small Circle = issue handled as Policy

3) California Transportation Plan draft has been signed by the BT&H Secretary , awaiting Governor signature. Key DSMP in the CTP California Transportation Plan DSMP District System Management Plan ITSP Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization Planning Process MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan RTP Regional Transportation Plan RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency TCR Transportation Concept Report TSDP Transportation System Development Program Caltrans CTP, Functional TSDP,ITSP, Department Studies s P Public, TCR Project R Cities, DSMP [Identify Study Counties Need] O J

Regional E Planning RTP, C Agencies MTP T Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 Purpose

To many people, transportation means the roadway system, but it is actually much more. It is also transit, bicycle, pedestrian, maintenance and communications facilities, railways, airports, seaports and spaceports, pipelines and the public and privately owned vehicles that use them.

We use the transportation system each day to access employment, education, shops, medical services, and to participate in social and recreational opportunities. (California Transportation Plan 2025)

California’s transportation system is the network that connects local, state and national economies, providing efficient movement of people, goods and information.

System planning is the California Department of Transportation’s (the Department’s or Caltrans’) long-range transportation planning process, conducted pursuant to Government Code Section 65086[a] and Department policy. The objective of system planning is to ensure that investments in the state highway system and the larger transportation system will meet future needs for mobility, access and safety. The method of system planning is to identify at the earliest stage, those capacity and operational improvements, alternative modes of transportation, intermodal connections, and new technologies that will improve regional and interregional mobility and optimize returns on investments. System planning thereby lays the groundwork for informed investment decisions.

The system planning process includes production of three interrelated planning documents: 1) the District System Management Plan, 2) Transportation Concept Reports (TCRs), and 3) the Transportation System Development Program (TSDP).

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 9 The District System Management Plan (DSMP) is a comprehensive strategic and policy planning document that lays out how Caltrans District 5 envisions its multi-modal transportation system will be developed, managed and maintained over a long term (20 year) horizon, covering the period 2005 to 2025. The DSMP takes a holistic approach to transportation by identifying and addressing those issues and concerns that are unique to the District and by integrating modal planning across boundaries of the District’s constituent counties. The corridor concepts must be consistent with adjoining District plans for the same corridor. Finally, the DSMP is developed in collaboration with local and regional partners and addresses transportation issues and goals identified by Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) in their Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs).

1.2 Department Goals and Priorities

The California Transportation Plan (CTP) is the Governor’s long-range plan for California’s entire transportation system and is the source of the most basic and comprehensive transportation policies that guide the Department in the pursuit of its mission to improve mobility throughout the state.

The 2002 Draft California Transportation Plan 2025 became available for general review November 2002, and was developed in extensive consultation with transportation providers and the general public. The goals and policies of the draft CTP support earlier directives regarding economic vitality, context sensitive solutions, environmental justice, goods movement, congestion relief, livable communities, and improving modal interconnectivity. The draft Plan also explores the social, economic and technological trends and demographic changes anticipated over the next 20 years and their potential influence on travel behavior. Clearly defining the Department’s growing emphasis on community, inclusiveness, and sensitivity to local values and concerns, the 2002 Draft California Transportation Plan memorializes implementing strategies designed to realize California’s transportation vision and goals.

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 10 The 2002 draft CTP plan proposes the following Vision of California’s Transportation System in 2025:

California has a safe, sustainable transportation system that is environmentally sound, socially equitable, economically viable and developed through collaboration; it provides for the mobility and accessibility of people, goods, services, and information through an integrated multimodal network.

GOAL 1. ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY – Ensuring the safety and security of people, goods, information, and services must be addressed in all modes of transportation.

GOAL 2. PRESERVE THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM – Maintaining and rehabilitating California’s extensive transportation system to preserve it for future generations.

GOAL 3. IMPROVE MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY – Expanding the system and enhancing modal choices and connectivity to meet the state’s future passenger and goods movement transportation demands.

GOAL 4. SUPPORT THE ECONOMY – Ensuring the state’s continued economic vitality by securing the resources needed to maintain, manage, and enhance the transportation system, while providing a well organized and managed goods movement system is essential.

GOAL 5. ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT – Planning and providing transportation services while protecting our environment, wildlife, and historical and cultural assets.

GOAL 6. REFLECT COMMUNITY VALUES – Finding transportation solutions that balance and integrate community values with transportation safety and performance, and encouraging public participation in transportation decisions.

These goals closely parallel the major strategies developed in this DSMP. The differences in wording reflect local emphasis.

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 11 District 5 of the Department of Transportation encompasses five traditionally rural counties along the Central Coast. In the past, these counties have had relatively independent economies and activity patterns, dominated by the agricultural and tourism sectors. As growth and interdependencies with adjacent counties have increased, the Department has acknowledged the need for transportation system improvements that are sensitive to the high quality of life standards enjoyed by area residents. District 5 has prepared this District System Management Plan in support of the Department’s mission and goals as they can best be realized in this District.

While the California Transportation Plan 2025 provides goals to guide the day to day actions of the Department, the California Transportation Commission and constitutional and legislative statutes provide additional direction for program implementation. This DSMP recognizes and incorporates those policy directives.

California State Statutes, Streets and Highways Code Section 167 established the following sequence of priorities to guide Department funding actions:

1. Operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of the state highway system; 2. Safety improvements; 3. Transportation capital improvements that expand capacity or reduce congestion; 4. Environmental enhancement and mitigation programs.

The 1998 Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP) supports statutory direction by providing additional program guidance for Caltrans Districts. The Interregional Road System was identified by statute in 1989 to assure a statewide trunk system was in place for interregional trip movement of people and goods throughout the State. The 1998 Plan described key principles, objectives and strategies that guide the District in implementing an improvement program for the State’s Interregional Road System and intercity rail system.

The ITSP determined that the designated interstate highway system is the backbone of the state’s transportation system for interregional, interstate and international goods movement, access to seaports, air cargo terminals and other intermodal transfer facilities. Other major facilities identified in the ITSP are

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 12 “Gateways,” which are key passageways into and out of the state or critical geographic centers. The plan identified 10 interregional road system corridors (termed Focus Routes) that are of the highest priority for completion to specified minimum facility standards. For District 5, Focus Routes include Route 101, Route 46, Route 156 and portions of Route 41.

The Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) supports existing statewide policies: completing focus routes, reducing congestion and promoting livable communities (ie, walkable communities with jobs and housing in balance), improving goods movement, and encouraging rural funding partnerships.

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) guidelines adopted by the California Transportation Commission in July 2001 re-enforce legislative mandate by establishing program objectives and project criteria that further strengthen the Department’s mandate to preserve and improve the statutorily defined Interregional Road System and the State sponsored inter-city passenger rail routes. The Commission has directed the interregional program to emphasize the completion of this trunk system supporting interregional commerce (“rather than interregional commuting”).

Ten-year State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) addresses maintenance and safety on the state highway system. It also contains policies and guidance, such as emphasizing safety, use of long life pavement, and corridor approaches to planning. Specific maintenance, safety and operational projects are addressed in the 4-year SHOPP, which is updated every two years.

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 13 1.3 Partners and Stakeholders

The array of goals and policy directives identified in the previous section suggests the breadth of the Department’s responsibilities and the necessity of partnerships. Stakeholder participation in transportation related decisions have provided key support for the development and management of California’s transportation system.

The Department’s primary and historic role in transportation has been as steward of the state highway system. Caltrans and its transportation partners plans and develops new highway projects in addition to operating and maintaining existing highways. Caltrans also has grown to incorporate responsibilities for rail, air, and transit as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Caltrans is responsible for delivering projects in the State's multibillion-dollar State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which includes highway projects sponsored by local and regional agencies in addition to those by Caltrans. Seventy-five percent of STIP funds go to local and regional planning agencies, with great latitude on use of these funds. For example, local roads can now be rehabilitated with these State funds. Caltrans is allocated the remaining twenty-five percent of STIP funds. As indicated in the previous section outlining Department policies, the majority of Caltrans' share is to be used for interregional highway and intercity rail projects; the remainder can be used for grade separations and mass transit guideway projects.

Caltrans also works in partnership with Amtrak to improve and increase intercity rail transportation within the State. Caltrans' role is to ensure that intercity rail is safe, efficient, and cost competitive with other modes of transporting people and goods. Caltrans is also responsible for the administration of State and federal programs that provide funding and technical assistance for specific types of mass transportation, airports, heliports, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

While Caltrans is to focus on projects that benefit interregional travel, the legislature has made clear that local, regional, and commute travel – including local travel on state highways – will be the purview of regional transportation

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 14 planning agencies. Since local jurisdictions are responsible for the type and amount of development-led growth that occurs within their boundaries, local agencies have been made responsible for managing the traffic that is generated by the development patterns they allow. Not only does this make the local jurisdictions responsible for the transportation-related impacts of their land use decisions, it allows them to deliver projects that are tailored to the needs of their communities.

The Intergovernmental Review branch of District 5 Planning works closely with jurisdictional partners and private sector developers daily. This branch is also known as Local Development Review (LDR), and has the responsibility of reviewing all local, state, and various federal projects, programs and plans that could potentially impact existing or proposed state transportation facilities. The LDR staff work cooperatively with local lead agencies and developers in determining the type and level of mitigation needed to offset other functional areas affected by the proposal, and coordinating functional review within the Department. They also insure that conditions of project approval proposed by the Department and/or adopted by the lead agency are forwarded to the District Permit Engineer.

The cost of large transportation projects is often more than a local or regional jurisdiction or Caltrans can pay with their share of STIP funds. As a result, contiguous jurisdictions may pool resources to fund a project that jointly benefits them. Caltrans may participate in jointly funding a project if the project serves Caltrans’ objectives in addition to those of the local or regional agency.

As will be seen in the District profile in the next section, District 5 is far less urbanized, industrialized, and burdened with traffic congestion than are its neighboring Districts to the North and South. District 5 has a concentration of environmental, historic and cultural resources that are valued both for their contribution to quality of life and as the foundation of a thriving tourist industry. Therefore, in addition to the Department’s goals, a unique set of emphases and priorities arises from the circumstances of District 5’s constituent counties, communities, interest groups and segments of the economy.

The District System Management Plan for District 5 presents a comprehensive multimodal strategy for addressing the Department’s goals while responding to the transportation-related issues that will face the District over the next 20

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 15 years. A comprehensive multi-modal strategy must of necessity also be multi- jurisdictional.

The Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) developed by the five counties (Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz) provide the framework for the DSMP. Each plan describes local transportation issues and problems, identifies goals and strategies, and outlines funding priorities. Taken separately each plan is a blueprint of transportation actions for that particular county. The DSMP ensures the combined thrust of the individual county plans is consistent with a District and Department perspective.

1.4 Development of the District System Management Plan

The DSMP is a Department document created to assist the various functional units to work together for long range consistency in system development. The DSMP is also developed to take into consideration the perspectives of transportation stakeholders from regional and local agencies in an effort to optimize the utility of the system for users and to maximize taxpayer's return on future transportation-related investments.

Consultation with the District’s Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA) and Metropolitan Planning Organzations (MPO) will be done through meetings held between Caltrans staff and agency staff. Any other stakeholders suggested by RTPA staff will also be given copies of the draft DSMP for review and comment.

1.5 Measuring System Performance

Transportation system performance measures assess progress towards goals for the transportation system. Measures that could be used to evaluate progress towards the DSMP goals and desired outcomes are identified on Table 1.

Occasionally the ideal indicators to measure performance are difficult to specify. More often, the data for indicators are difficult to obtain. The Department collects and analyzes certain data routinely. Examples include accident statistics, facility conditions, and adherence to project completion timelines. In the course of doing business, other transportation service providers collect and analyze data as well: ridership, farebox receipts, and use of intermodal facilities. District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 16 The Department and its regional partners also obtain valuable data episodically during the course of special studies or surveys.

To date it has been expensive and impractical to evaluate certain phenomena continuously. While this will change as the automated data collection potential of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) is realized, the need for special studies of complex transportation issues involving human behavior will remain. In the course of a special study, the Department and its partners gather data for an intersection, a corridor, or a network in order to evaluate system performance and identify appropriate solutions. A simple study may require only simple data such as observed turning movements. A major study may call for traffic data and in addition, survey data from system users: origin destination studies, trip diaries, user preferences or levels of satisfaction.

The following recent studies produced complex data and analyses:

101 In Motion. Analysis of current and forecast traffic patterns in South Coast area of Santa Barbara County. Focus is Highway 101, but local street traffic counts are included, as well as multi-modal travel data.

Prunedale Modeling. Model runs of traffic on US 101, SR 156, and local roads north of Salinas, showing current and projected Level of Service on selected segments.

Santa Clara County Southern Gateway Study. Analysis of various alternative concepts to address travel between San Benito and Santa Clara Counties.

Triennial Performance Audits (transit). Management audits of each transit provider in the District, with key performance indicators validated, and recommendations made to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

Traffic Impact Studies. The District and local agencies review studies performed for proposed private development projects on a regular basis. These studies are another source of data regarding current and future system performance in a localized area.

District 5 is committed to evaluating its progress towards meeting goals and addressing critical issues.

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 17 Table 1--System Performance Measures

DSMP Goal Strategic Outcome Measures Reduced Fatalities, Injuries, Property Loss Extent of Implemented Safe Routes to School Programs Safety Reduction in At-Grade Railroad Crossings Public Safety Reduced Incidents/Reports of Road Rage and Security Injuries to Transportation Workers Visibility and Lighting at Stations and Stops; Call Box Availability Security Bicycle Storage Facilities at Intermodal Transfer Sites Delay; Travel Time, Travel Cost Mobility LOS Improvements Attributable to ITS Improved ormance for Transit and Rail; Incident Clearance Times Mobility and Reliability Accessibility Condition of Bridges, Pavement, and Roadsides Multi-modal Travel Opportunities for Various User Populations; Inter- Accessibility modal Transfer Services and Facilities Efficient Goods Completed IRRS; LOS on IRRS Routes; Adequacy of Facilities for Truck Movement Climbing, Turning and Access; Appropriate Minor Route Relinquishments; Disposition of Excess Lands Support for Spending State Economy Selection of Projects that Maximize Current and Future Benefits Relative Cost-Effectiveness to Investments Project Delivery Preparation of Corridor Studies in Advance of PIDs; Deviation from Efficiency Project Timelines; Cost Over-runs

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 18 Chapter 1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………… 01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 19 System Performance Measures, cont’d DSMP Goal Strategic Outcome Measures Support for Measures to Enhance Views and Appearance of Facilities Environmental Quality Pro-Active Planning/Cooperation with Resource Agencies

Enhanced Solutions that maintain and enhance the natural and human Environment Sustainability environment

Coordinated Reduced Single Occupant Vehicle Trips as Percent of All Trips; Transportation & Minimized Points of Access to State Facilities; Transit-, Bicycle-, and Land Use Decisions Pedestrian-Friendly Projects

Reflective of Customer Satisfaction Reports/Surveys, Availability/Use of CSS Customer Community Processes; Transportation Options That Are Convenient, Affordable and Satisfaction Values Comfortable

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 19 Chapter 2. District 5 - Background and Issues

2.1 District 5 Overview

Caltrans District 5 is comprised of five counties lying along California’s central coast between the heavily urbanized Los Angeles Basin to the south, the San Francisco Bay Area to the north and the San Joaquin Valley lying across the Sierra Madre, Panza and Diablo Mountain Ranges to the east. The five District 5 counties, Monterey, San Benito, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Cruz, share more characteristics with each other than with any of their neighbors. They are largely rural, heavily agricultural counties with relatively small populations. None has a significant manufacturing base. The most populous of the five counties (Monterey and Santa Barbara) have just over 400,000 population each. Only one District 5 city, Salinas in Monterey County, exceeds 100,000 in population.

Tourism, based upon spectacular beaches and coastlines, abundant open space, historic and inviting built environments and a gentle Mediterranean climate, is a significant economic component of four of the five District 5 counties. The fifth County, inland San Benito, is home to both the rugged Pinnacles National Monument and the historic Mission San Juan Bautista.

While District 5 covers an area whose constituent counties are similar in culture, history, and geography; the District boundaries have become less successful than in the past in capturing activity patterns and spatial interactions. At the north and south ends of District 5, population growth and economic change in adjacent Districts have significantly reoriented travel patterns. In Santa Clara County to the north of District 5, a technology-based economy has driven local land values to such levels that a significant number of Santa Clara County workers have found it advantageous to reside in District 5’s relatively affordable Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz Counties.

At the south end of the District, a rather different jobs-housing imbalance has emerged as the high-cost, tourist-dependent City of Santa Barbara lacks sufficient affordable housing for its many service workers. In this case, the less expensive housing is available to the south in Ventura County. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) commissioned a Jobs/Housing study of the issue, which was completed in mid 2004. The recommendations stressed interregional cooperation, and suggested policy changes in the areas of housing, job creation, local permit District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 20 processing, congestion relief, public education and legislative advocacy. Each of the suggested policies would reduce the loading on the state highway system connecting Ventura County and Santa Barbara County.

As a result of these jobs-housing imbalances, growth and resulting traffic congestion have become major topics of serious public discourse. Residents throughout the District have expressed concern over the prospect of exchanging visual amenities, a rural way-of-life and human scale for asphalt and growth. This expression has been particularly notable in Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz Counties where Routes 101, 17 and 1 feed traffic into environmentally, culturally and aesthetically-sensitive cityscapes and in San Benito County where new suburban-type development has brought sudden changes to the City of Hollister.

2.2 Population Growth

Total District population in the year 2000 was 1,363,385. According to California Department of Finance (DOF), the District population will grow some 20% to 1,878,617 by the year 2020. By comparison, the population of the entire State is projected to grow by 29% over this period. More significance may be found in the variation within, ranging from San Benito (37% growth) to Santa Barbara (11% growth) Counties.

TABLE 2 TOTAL POPULATION ESTIMATES 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Change Percent 2000- Change 2020 2000- 2020 MONTEREY 403,636 453,292 505,359 556,962 605,963 654,847 101,723 25% SAN BENITO 53,770 62,530 73,547 84,727 94,994 105,032 19,777 37% SAN LUIS 248,327 277,437 305,274 330,949 337,247 343,548 56,947 23% OBISPO SANTA 400,778 440,337 464,019 467,292 477,658 481,840 63,241 16% BARBARA SANTA CRUZ 256,874 271,222 286,044 294,711 294,253 293,350 29,170 11%

TOTALS 1,363,385 1,504,818 1,634,243 1,734,641 1,810,115 1,878,617 270,858 20%

Source: State of California, Department of Finance, Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity for California and Its Counties 2000-2050, Sacramento CA, May 2004

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 21 Based on demographic trends and Department of Finance projections, the California Department of Housing and Community Affairs has determined that over the next 5-7 years the district as a whole may need approximately 63,000 housing units to accommodate projected growth.

Table 3--Department of Finance Housing Unit Estimates County Additional Housing Units needed Santa Barbara 17,531 San Luis Obispo 18,892 Monterey and Santa Cruz 23,130 San Benito 3,890 Total Housing Units needed 63,443

Population numbers or housing units alone do not accurately reflect vehicle usage. The 2000-2001 California Statewide Household Travel Survey indicates that households in California generally own 1.9 vehicles per unit. These additional housing units may then result in approximately 120,000 local vehicles traveling on roadways in District 5 over the next 5-7 years. If current District 5 trends continue, housing units and the resulting vehicles by 2020 using local and regional highways would be significantly higher.

Statistical information from the 2000 Census shows the District’s population over 65 years of age currently at 11.5% of the total population, however, the population over 65 is projected to become 14% of the total population by 2020. This has implications for safety, transit and mobility planning for the future.

2.3 Local Economies

Each of the five District 5 Counties has a strong agricultural base. The coastal portions of all four coastal counties produce a significant portion of the nation’s high value produce such as lettuce, strawberries, artichokes, broccoli and other fresh fruits and vegetables. Cut flowers, nursery stock, ornamentals, and seed crops also contribute to the agricultural economy. In recent decades thousands of acres of land throughout District 5 have been brought into production for the first time as vineyards for growing fine wine grapes. Wineries have become a source of agriculture-related

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 22 commerce and industry and a new focus for tourism as well. Cattle production is also a strong component in some areas of the District.

Tourism is the other major economic enterprise in District 5. All but San Benito County feature coastlines with beaches, scenic views and a well-developed tourist/recreational industry. Each of the five counties is home to at least one of the 21 missions, the religious and cultural centers established in California in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Ten of these historic missions, all major tourist attractions in their respective communities, are located in the District.

Each of the four coastal counties is home to a state-operated institution of higher learning. Campuses of the University of California are located in both Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz Counties. The highly urbanized District 4 with a population approaching seven million persons is the only other of the 12 Caltrans Districts with two University of California campuses. San Luis Obispo is home to California State Polytechnic University. A recent addition to the California State University system, California State University Monterey Bay, was established in Monterey County in 1995.

2.4 Environmental Factors

District 5 has a varied and rugged landscape and can be divided into a number of main physiographic regions. The Coastal portions of Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties are bounded by the Pacific Ocean to west, and by the often rugged coastal ranges the east. East of the Coastal Range lies the Salinas Valley, a 90-mile long valley carved by the Salinas River that northeast of San Luis Obispo, and flows northwestward to empty into Monterey Bay. The Santa Barbara Coastal plain is bounded to the south by the Pacific Ocean and to the north by the Santa Ynez Mountains.

Because of the rugged terrain that cover much of the district, and the high summer temperatures that are found in the inland valleys, the largest population centers in the district are found along the comparatively narrow coastal strips. Smaller towns are found along Highway 101 through the Salinas Valley largely in support of the widespread and varied agricultural businesses that flourish there because of the fertile soils and the climate.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 23 District 5’s diverse geology, topography, and climates support a wide range of habitat types, wildlife, and plants. The plant and animal communities of Southern California, the San Francisco Bay region, the Central Coast, and the San Joaquin Valley all converge in District 5. More than 355 special-status species and natural communities are known to occur here. It is one of the last strongholds for the once-common California red-legged frog and home to species that occur nowhere else, such as the San Luis Obispo mariposa lily. Many botanically unique areas are found here, including the coastal prairies of the San Simeon area, the serpentine hillsides around

San Luis Obispo, and the maritime chaparral communities that grow on extensive, ancient sand dune formations throughout the district. Pronghorn antelope, California condors, tule elk, coast redwood forests, oak woodlands, and rolling grasslands are just some of the prominent symbols of California’s great natural heritage that characterize District 5.

The great variation in topography of the District, from coastal outcroppings and level bottomland to steep slopes, also offers vistas of great contrast and beauty. These vistas range from lush landscaping and attractive built environments in defined urban areas to spectacular ocean views and long stretches of lightly populated open area including rangeland, orchards, vineyards, tree-lined riverbeds, hills and mountains. 01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 24 Unstable or highly erodible geologic formations influence urban and residential infrastructure by clustering development into structurally suitable locations. Inland, agricultural river valleys and hilly rangelands create a rural agrarian landscape. The result is an aesthetically pleasing environment luring visitors and residents alike.

Coastal sections of District 5 are blessed with a mild, Mediterranean climate largely because the district’s western and southern border is the Pacific Ocean. The mild climate and rich soils formed over time in river valleys allow for unusual crops and year-round cultivation. Altogether, agriculture in the district surpasses $4 billion in value according to the 2002 California Department of Food and Agriculture Resource Directory with the majority contributed by Monterey County. Of statewide importance, this fertile farmland should be protected as a valuable, economic resource.

Air Quality Federal and state ambient air quality standards have been developed for ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and other pollutants because of health effects. The state standards are typically more protective of human health than the national ambient air quality standards. The federal non-attainment status carries additional burdens for the air district regarding the kinds of projects they may build and the amount of federal funding they receive for those projects. To receive federal funds, transportation projects in federal non-attainment areas also have to be found to conform to the local clean air plan before they can be approved for construction.

The counties in District 5 are situated in 2 of the 15 air basins that have been designated in the state by California Air Resources Board. The North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB) is composed of Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District is responsible for regulating air quality in this basin. Currently, the basin is non-attainment for state Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and PM10.

The South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB) is composed of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. San Luis Obispo County is in attainment of all federal air quality standards, but is non-attainment for state ozone and PM10 standards. The county is exempt from the requirement to prepare an air quality attainment and /or maintenance plan under the federal Clean Air Act and from federal transportation conformity requirements. Santa Barbara County is non-attainment for state ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM10.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 25 On road mobile sources are responsible for about half of the local air pollutant burden of ozone precursors in the district. The remainder, generated by stationary sources, are generally industrial and being strongly mitigated. Ozone precursors are reactive organic gasses and oxides of nitrogen that combine in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. The gradual improvement in air quality in both air basins is largely attributed to the application of increasingly strict emissions standards through the Clean Air Act of 1970, and its subsequent amendments in 1977 and 1990. The two air basin boundaries and the three Air Quality Management District boundaries are shown on the attached map (Map 2).

The identity and character of local and regional environments in the District have been shaped and defined over time by the resources peculiar to this geographic area. Resources connected and influenced by state and local infrastructure sustain, and necessarily influence, an economy based on agriculture, tourism and human capital. Ultimately, the region must conserve and preserve its collective natural resources and development infrastructure if it is to continue to maintain the basis for a healthy environment, a sustainable economy, and the high quality of life that is preferred by both residents and visitors.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 26 Mariposa Mariposa

San Stanislaus Mateo 35 Santa Clara Air Quality 236

17 101 Santa 9

152 Cruz 152 1 Santa 129 Merced Cruz 1 156 Hollister Madera

183 25 Salinas Monterey 1 68 101 San Benito

146 146

1 Monterey 25 Soledad Fresno

King City 1 198 198

101

Kings Tulare 41 101 Paso 46 1 Robles 46 P a c 41 i 46 f i Atascadero c 229 Kern

O 41 c e Morro 58 a n Bay 1 San Luis Obispo 227 San Luis Obispo Air Basins Arroyo 101 North Central Coast Grande 166 1 33 South Central Coast 166 (Includes Ventura County) Santa Maria 33 Air Quality Management Districts 101 Monterey Bay Unified 1 135 San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Lompoc 154 Santa Barbara 246 Ventura 101 1 Santa 154 Barbara 101 101 217 192

0 10203040³ Miles Map 2 Chapter 3. The Existing Transportation System

3.1 Overview

Historically, the Department’s mission was focused narrowly on accommodating motor vehicles on routes between settlements and other destinations. In pursuit of that mission, the Department built, maintained, and expanded a first-class state highway system. Through the years, highway congestion began to outpace the ability to build highways. Also segments of the population with limited abilities to use the system came to be appreciated. The Department, local governments, and the population at large came to realize that the transportation system must be multimodal with inter-modal connections. Today, the Department’s mission is, “Caltrans improves mobility across California,” and the Department participates in the full range of transportation modes through funding, managing, or coordinating components of a multi-modal system. As the only transportation agency whose jurisdiction is the entire state of California, the Department’s perspectives and responsibilities are broad. The Department’s unique purview includes interregional travel, contributions of goods movement to the State’s economy, continuity of systems beyond local government boundaries, consistency of highway geometrics, signing and other features throughout the state, and development and deployment of technologies and programs to improve the operation of the entire transportation system.

District 5 is a unit of the Department of Transportation covering five traditionally rural counties and featuring a long coastline and cherished natural, visual and cultural amenities. District 5’s multi-modal transportation system relies heavily on the US 101 north-south corridor. The system also includes regional and local transit service, rail, and facilities for passenger air travel.

3.2 State Highway System

The state highway system in District 5 counties includes 30 routes with a total of 1,169 route miles of roadway. Table 4 shows federal and state classifications and other characteristics for each state route in the District. Of particular interest in the DSMP are routes on the Interregional Road System (IRRS), California’s statutorily defined system of highways for moving people and goods between regions.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 28 The matrix also shows a 2025 Concept for each route, based upon existing Route Concepts and Transportation Concept Reports. Some of the reports are very recent, while others are slated for update, as shown in the TCR Complete column. The Department initially identifies future demand, required capacities, desired operational improvements, and modal alternatives for each segment of every state highway route in a Transportation Concept Report (TCR). During the past five years, District 5 has completed TCRs for Highway 101 and other high-volume routes. TCRs for some routes have not been updated in more than a decade. An objective for the District 5’s System Planning Branch is to complete TCRs for all routes on the Interregional Route System by the end of 2005 and for the remaining routes by the end of the decade, with priority for routes in high growth areas. This schedule includes updating the TCR for the District’s backbone route, US 101 by the end of 2005.

In the Classification Matrix there is also a generalized 2025 concept for each route, derived from existing transportation concept reports. The concepts shown should be considered very broad and not comprehensive, as different segments sometimes vary widely in future traffic projections. They are useful as a future picture of the overall corridor system.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 29 Route Classifications/Concept DRAFT Table 4

246 SB 1 to 101 Jul-04 Maintain 2 lanes in rural, expand to 4 lanes where development occurs.

The Department of Transportation has a unique role in transit operations, being a principal funding agency (State Transportation Development Act Fund Administrator) with little legislative authority over the provision of transit. Authority has been delegated primarily to the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies by the Transportation Development Act (TDA).

A second major funding provider is the Federal government, through sections of the ISTEA legislation administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Cities over 50,000 receive formula funding restricted to transit uses.

Transit providers within District 5 are shown in the following table (Table 5) and map (Map 3). Most operate within a city or community, and those marked in red on the map offer regional services between cities.

The table shows 21 transit operators, providing a variety of services which have been simplified into Fixed Route (the usual transit bus with routes and bus stops), and Demand Response (Door to Door or Dial a Ride mode). Some basic statistics are shown as effectiveness indicators (passengers, miles, hours), and one indicator of efficiency is shown, the ratio of Passengers per Hour, which is shown abbreviated as Pax/Hr. The totals show 20 Million passengers rode the bus in FY2001/2002, a very substantial number and somewhat surprising for the amount of rural area covered. Dial a Ride passengers add nearly three-quarters of a million passengers, again substantial. The effectiveness and efficiency indicators show reasonable figures when compared with industry norms.

Transit operators that operate between cities or regions are shown in yellow highlight on the matrix. These services have more potential impact on the State highway system.

A significant portion of the population is under 17, and “transit dependent” as most are too young to legally drive. The percentage of this population varies from 22% (SLO County) to 32% (San Benito County).

Another trend affecting transit is the aging of Californians and the number of older drivers who choose or are forced to quit driving. The price of gasoline also is directly related to transit ridership, as shown clearly in ridership charts. Congestion and parking problems could also be a factors in modal choice in the future.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 31 The District has potential to be a very positive influence on transit, through technical assistance, grant funding and as a conduit of state leadership. Regional planners and others have a direct opportunity to review and comment on many plans, performance audits and work plans that will shape the growth of transit. Promotion of compact development around transit stops can be part of shaping future growth. This may take time to develop a familiarity with the information and the role itself, but could be a critical role to develop as congestion increases far beyond the resources available to add capacity.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 32 District 5 Transit Systems DRAFT Table 5 FIXED ROUTE DEMAND RESPONSE County Operator Passengers Miles Hours Pax/Hr PassengersMiles Hours Pax/Hr Monterey Greenfield 20,655 19,281 1,587 13.0 King City 10,895 20,095 1,885 5.8 Soledad 6,637 10,993 705 9.4 Monterey/Salinas Transit 4,689,135 2,823,087 192,880 24.3 63,747 194,366 11,936 5.3

San BenitoSB Local Transp. Authority 172,256 529,466 34,803 4.9

San Luis Obispo SLO County 19,329 28,105 1,821 10.6 26,555 41896 4,886 5.4 Atascadero 28,877 60,686 2,490 11.6 29,631 80,439 5,873 5.0 Paso Robles 88,335 99,437 7,226 12.2 8,739 34,849 2,868 3.0 Morro Bay 21,390 18,581 1,424 15.0 36,201 64,532 5,024 7.2 San Luis Obispo City 721,466 414,530 36,639 19.7 Ride On (CTSA) 300,855 1,277,818 42,221 7.1 SLO RTA 293,359 548,972 22,123 13.3 22,533 363,195 11,940 1.9 SCAT 123,807 146,297 9,732 12.7

Santa Barbara Santa Barbara County 2,337 15,957 818 2.9 Lompoc 165,746 259,965 20,301 8.2 Santa Maria 619,500 379,000 28,100 22.0 28,000 12,500 10,400 2.7 Solvang 31,023 98,130 6,542 4.7 9,645 64,800 4,320 2.2 Easy Lift (CTSA) 50,596 250,938 SB Metro Transit District 6,903,482 2,400,421 180,989 38.1

Santa Cruz Santa Cruz - Specialized Svc 200,276 1,324,877 121,921 1.6 5,881 47,585 0.1 Santa Cruz MTD 6,270,540 3,568,465 257,540 #DIV/0! 24.3 108,090 631,917 41,600 #DIV/0!2.6 TOTALS 20,348,521 12,700,019 924,531 22.0 730,997 3,083,576 193,648 3.8 Source: California State Controllers Report, Transit Operators, 2001-2002 Fiscal Year Transit Providers that offer inter-city or inter-county service Effectiveness performance measures Efficiency performance measures Note: comparisons across systems should examine all indicators, service areas and ratios to be valid. Mariposa

9 17 Mariposa Transit Routes San Stanislaus Mateo 1 p¤ 35 Santa Clara p¤ 152 236 Santa Cruz 17 101 p¤ 129 Santa 9 p¤

Cruz 152 152 p¤ 1 101 Santa p¤p¤ 129 Merced Cruz 1 156 156 Hollister Madera 1 183 25 183 Salinas Monterey p£¤ Monterey p£¤ p¤1 p¤p¤ 68 101 Salinas San Benito p¤ p¤ p¤ p¤ 68 146 p¤p¤ 146

1 p¤ p¤ Monterey 25 1 Soledad Fresno p¤ King City 1 198 198

101

Kings Tulare 41 101 Paso 46 46 p¤ Amtrak Bus Stations 1 Roblesp¤ P 41 a p£ Bus Terminals c 46 i Atascadero f Kern i p¤ 229 Bus Routes c 41

O CCAT c Morro 58 e 1 a Bay METRO n p¤p¤ San Luis p£ Obispo MST 227 San Luis Obispo MTD p¤ Arroyo 101 Grande 166 SLO 1 33 p¤166 SMAT p¤ Santa Maria 33 101

1 135 154 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 154 Lompoc p¤ 246 p¤ p¤p¤ Ventura p¤ 192 101 217 1 Santa p£ 101 154 Barbara p¤ 101 p¤ p¤ p£p¤ 101 217 p¤ 192

³ 0 10203040 Miles Map 3 3.4 Rail

The State of California supports three intercity rail passenger routes in California: the Capitols, the San Joaquins, and the Pacific Surfliners. The Surfliner corridor serves District 5, but only as far north as San Luis Obispo. Five trains come as far north as Santa Barbara with the majority of the trains serving the Los Angeles-San Diego leg of the route (out of the District). Consistent with the low-density, rural nature of the five District 5 counties, only two daily round-trip links San Luis Obispo with the large metropolitan areas to the south. The intercity Pacific Surfliner is supplemented by several bus feeder routes from Santa Barbara north to San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles, Salinas and others.

Currently the national Amtrak program operates one daily round-trip Coast Starlight train that connects Seattle with Los Angeles via the Central Coast with intermediate stops including Salinas, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara. The Coast Rail Coordinating Council has investigated providing additional Coast Route service, often called the “Coast Daylight” service.

The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) has conducted a number of studies on train service from San Francisco to Monterey. Daily service is proposed, southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening between San Francisco and Seaside, ultimately extending to downtown Monterey, to serve this important tourist destination. A second TAMC rail effort is seeking the extension of Caltrain commuter service to Monterey County. Both rail projects will connect with existing rail service in Santa Clara County and San Francisco. Stops are planned in Pajaro and Castroville before splitting, with the Caltrain service going to Salinas, and the Monterey Peninsula service extending to the former Fort Ord.

The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission is investigating acquisition of lines for an extension of the Capitol Corridor train service to Santa Cruz which is currently served by buses. A 32 mile rail segment stretches from Davenport (east of Santa Cruz) to Watsonville, and public ownership of the line would allow SCCRTC to develop passenger rail service as well as use the corridor for their Coastal Rail Trail adjacent to the rail line. Currently, the Santa Cruz branch line is owned by Union Pacific, which operates three freight round trips weekly.

Most rail lines in California are owned and operated by private freight railroad companies, such as Union Pacific Railroad in District 5. Upon request of Amtrak and 01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 35 local or regional entities these freight railroads enter into contracts to permit operation of rail passenger services on their lines. They are compensated by Amtrak and other public entities under the provisions of the applicable operating contracts. Amtrak currently operates all State-supported intercity rail service under the provisions of the Federal Rail Passenger Service Act (49 U.S.C. 24101).

In addition to freight and intercity rail service, local and regional governmental agencies may contract with railroads to provide commuter or urban rail service. The Department is primarily responsible for administering the State grant programs for commuter and urban rail services. The Department may also be able to increase rail capacity though grant funding for capital partnerships that add needed sidings or automate switching. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments is investigating an extension of commuter rail service from Ventura to Santa Barbara, using Amtrak or Metro Line services. Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties are currently studying extension of commuter services via Caltrain (the commuter rail system in the San Francisco Bay Area) from its current terminus in Gilroy to Salinas and Hollister.

District 5 Regional Planners also have the opportunity to shape the growth of rail through providing information, technical assistance and advocacy as regional plans mature. This may be particularly useful to encourage properly designed intermodal facilities (those that accommodate all transportation modes) at major rail destinations.

Map 4 shows the location of rail lines, airports and the single spaceport in District 5.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 36 Mariposa

San Stanislaus Rail Mateo 35 Santa Clara 236 Harbors

17 Santa 9 Airports Cruz p| 1 mÆ mÆ Space Ports Santa 129 mÆ Merced Cruz 1 156 Hollister Madera Moss p| Landing 183 25 Æ Salinas Monterey m p¤mÆ 1 p| 68 101 mÆ San Benito

146 146

1 Monterey 25 Soledad Fresno mÆ King City 1 198

101

Kings Tulare 41 P 101 a 46 c 1 i Paso f Æ i m 46 c Robles p| O San p¤ c 41 e Simeon a 46 n 229 Kern 41 Morro 58 Bay p| 1 p¤ San Luis mÆ Obispo San Luis Obispo p| 227 Port San Luis p¤ (Avila Beach) mÆ 101 166 1 p¤ 166 mÆ mÆ Santa Maria 33 Harbors 101 p| Santa Barbara 135 mÆ Airports Vandenberg AFB mÆ 1 p¤ Space Port mÆ 154

Æ 246 Ventura m (Vandenberg AFB) mÆ p Rail Stations 101 ¤ 1 Santa 154 Barbara Rail 101 p¤ 101 mÆ p¤p| 192 217 p¤

0 10203040³ Map 4 Miles 3.5 Air, Sea, and Space Facilities

Airports

Numerous small airports throughout the District provide interregional passenger and air cargo services (see Map 4, previous page). Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo, Monterey Peninsula Commercial Airports provide commercial services to other cities. The table below lists other airports in the District. Adequate ground access, space for future expansion, and incompatible land uses nearby are the primary concerns for District airports. There is growing recognition of the correlation between an efficient ground access system in and around airports for both passengers and cargo and the state’s economy. Caltrans recognizes the importance in funding and implementing ground access programs.

Table 6--Airports County Commercial Regional Community Limited Use Military Santa Santa Barbara, Lompoc, Santa New Cuyama Vandenburg Air Force Barbara Santa Maria Ynez Base San Luis San Luis Obispo Paso Robles Oceano County * O’Sullivan AAF Obispo Fort Hunter Liggitt Monterey Monterey Salinas Mesa Del Rey Carmel Valley, Marina * Camp Roberts AAF Peninsula San Benito Hollister Frasier Lake Santa Cruz Watsonville *AAF=Army Air Field

Caltrans Division of Aeronautics program has an oversight role with respect to airport ground access issues.

Harbors

While no seaports exist in District 5, a number of harbors are in daily use for recreation or commercial fishing. These are:

• Santa Barbara Harbor • Port San Luis (Avila Beach) • Morro Bay Harbor • San Simeon 01/24/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/24/05 Page 38 • Monterey Bay • Moss Landing • Santa Cruz Marina

Several of these have been mentioned as having potential for end points for commercial ferry service (Santa Barbara, Monterey and Santa Cruz). If such service occurs, it will presumably reduce congestion by removing cars from the parallel highway corridors.

Spaceport

The Western Space and Missile Center is housed at Vandenberg Air Force Base, which is operated by the Air Force Space Command’s 30th Space Wing and is located along the coast west of Lompoc in Northern Santa Barbara County. It is America’s second major spaceport after Cape Canaveral. Vandenberg AFB lies west of Lompoc and is The base itself was established in the late 1950s, and has been the launch site of many missile launches since 1958. Because of its location, with open water to the south it is American’s premier launch site for polar missions. The Challenger disaster halted plans to use the Spaceport as a launch center for polar Space Shuttle missions. Launches now are typically Intercontinental Ballistics Missile tests, commercial communication satellite and polar orbit satellite launches.

The California Spaceport Authority (CSA) has corporate offices in Santa Maria, and represents the interests of California’s space enterprise community in three domains: commercial, civil and national security. The economic development potential for spaceport usage is substantial, and over $12 million of State and Federal funding was used in 2003 to develop the infrastructure to create jobs, attract enterprises and plan for increasing the industry.

The ground access to Vandenberg Air Force Base is though State Routes 135 (connecting Santa Maria) and Highway 1, both serving the Main Gate. In addition, a transit operation will serve the base starting in 2005, connecting with both Santa Maria and Lompoc.

Though currently private space activity is limited, within the 20 year planning horizon it could be a strong growth area for the District. This would affect commuting routes, commodity movement, air/rail service, hazardous materials shipments and transit as well as other aspects of the area such as housing, employment and economic vitality. Continued monitoring of spaceport development will help District 5 be prepared for any such growth.

01/24/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/24/05 Page 39 3.6 Non-Motorized Travel

Deputy Directive Number DD-64 regards Accommodating Non-Motorized Travel, which includes pedestrian travel. The policy is summarized as:

The Department fully considers the needs of non-motorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicyclists and persons with disabilities) in all programming, planning, maintenance, construction, operations and project development activities and products.

Although bicycles are accommodated within or close to Caltrans’ right of way along most highways, the majority of bicycle use outside urban areas has historically been recreational rather than a modal alternative to conventional vehicular travel. One of the many benefits of bicycling to reduce demand to travel on the highway. From this perspective, the greatest potential contribution of bicycle use is likely to occur within urban areas where the mode can provide for travel to final destinations or to park and ride lots, transit stops or train stations if appropriate where intermodal facilities for storage have been provided

The District’s varied geography offers opportunities for recreational bicycle use; in addition, bicycles are the mode of choice for a growing number of commuters. Indeed, the importance of bicycle travel has received increasing attention in recent years by various levels of government as a serious alternative to driving, and funding opportunities for bikeways have increased.

All expressways and conventional highways are open to bicyclists in District 5. State law allows Caltrans to prohibit non-motorized vehicle travel on freeway shoulders only if a suitable alternate route exists. Where a section of freeway is prohibited to bicycles, Caltrans and local and regional planning agencies must ensure bicycles have an alternate route on parallel surface streets that are safe and convenient. Freeways that are open to bicyclists are usually in non-urban areas, where there is limited availability of local streets as alternative routes.

An adopted District 5 Bicycle Position Statement contains detailed guidance on facility design, operations and maintenance. It calls for consideration of bicycle and pedestrian needs,throughout the project development process. Safety, continuity and predictibility are emphasised.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 40 Some of the consumer issues in bicycle use have best been articulated by bicycle groups, as listed below.

1. Bicycle Education - safety information for both cyclists and drivers to better coexist 2. Bicycle Lanes (Class II) - Construction of on-street bicycle facilities 3. Bicycle Paths (Class I) - Construction of off-street bicycle facilities 4. Road Conditions - Proper maintenance on public roads 5. Bicycle Parking - Proper bicycle storage racks and lockers at essential locations 6. Other Bicycle Facilities - Bicycle-specific loop detectors, crossing lights, and lane striping, etc.

All of these should be considered by District staff, particularly Class II bikelane consideration in project design and maintenance of existing bike lanes. Staff can also support all of the issues in discussions with local partners and other functions within District 5.

Walking has many benefits, and trip reduction is one of them. However, the number of fatalities per mile makes this one of the least safe modes currently. The Department needs to consider the challenges of pedestrian safety, as an integrated part of promoting livable/walkable communities.

Over the past 30 years the level of walking and bicycling trips among children has fallen from nearly 50 percent of all trips by children in 1970, to only 10 percent in 1995. Much of this decline in level of walking among children is attributable to land use and transportation decisions, where more and more areas are developed with fewer and fewer sidewalks. Where one side of the street is undeveloped, especially for long expanses, there is a temptation to provide sidewalks only on the developed side of the street. However, for the ease of mobility of the pedestrian, the sidewalks should be continuous rather that “hop-scotch” from development to development.

Planners and designers need to be at least mindful of the importance of these land use and transportation connections, and the huge impact that these connections have in promoting (in cases inhibiting or denying) pedestrian activities (i.e., the importance of mixed use, traffic calming and good street design have on enhancing pedestrian as well as bicycle activities).

Ideally, planning for pedestrian facilities should consider these opportunities as early as possible during systems planning process to ensure optimum success and reduce

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 41 expenses for these facilities. Areas where these issues are left unresolved almost always result in low pedestrian volumes.

3.7 Goods Movement System

California is an economic powerhouse, fueled by the production, movement, and consumption of goods and services. The efficient movement of goods is essential to the prosperity of California. The state’s mature transportation system of highways, rail lines, pipelines, airports and seaports serves a diverse range of needs for the movement of goods. This system supports the economy by delivering raw materials, intermediate goods, and finished products to production, consumption, and disposition points. The transportation system and California’s economy are intricately linked. [Statewide Goods Movement Strategy]

Route 101 is the primary goods movement route in District 5. Freight volumes along this route, while less than those on the parallel Interstate 5 route through California’s Central Valley are nevertheless critical to the State’s economy and to national and international trade. This is especially true for fresh-packed produce grown in the District and increasingly for wines bottled in the District. These commodities are generally moved by truck to the Los Angeles or San Francisco areas where they meet final demand or continue towards final markets. In the case of fresh produce, time is critical. Trucks leave packinghouses as soon as they are loaded, regardless of roadway conditions in the area such as the heavily trafficked Santa Barbara urbanized area. Trucks also use Route 101 to carry local goods to out of District seaports.

While freight rail activity through District 5 is increasing, it does not approach the volumes carried on north-south routes through the Central Valley. The lack of intermodal facilities in the District means that local goods that are shipped out of California or the US by air must first be transported by trucks on Route 101 to an international airport in Los Angeles or the Bay Area. Each of the commercial airports handle air cargo currently, using truck transport to final destinations.

Route 46 East is also a primary route for goods movement, primarily for east-west transport to and from the Central Coast. Currently, about 20% of the traffic volume is comprised of trucks. Routes 183 and 156 also carry a significant volume of truck traffic. A high percentage of these trucks carry goods from local agricultural packing facilities to other parts of the county.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 42 The attached map (Map 5) shows truck networks in District 5. The red routes are the few that carry restrictions for truck usage.

Both freight trains and passenger trains use the same rail lines in District 5, which sometimes creates conflict. The on-time performance of passenger rail service is affected whenever passing happens on the single rail, as the passenger train typically is the one put on the siding due to train lengths.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 43 Mariposa

Stanislaus San Mateo 35 Santa Clara 236 Truck 101 17 Santa 9 System 152 Cruz 152 1 Santa 129 Merced Cruz 1 156 Hollister Madera

183 25 Salinas Monterey 1 68 101 San Benito

146 146

1 Monterey 25 Soledad Fresno

King City 1 198 198

101

P Kings a c Tulare i f i c 41 101 O c Paso 46 e 46 a 1 Robles n 41 46 Kern 229 41 Morro 58 Bay 1 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 227

Arroyo 101 Truck Network Grande 166 STAA Network 1 33 166 CA Legal Network Santa Maria CA Legal Advisory Route 33 101 Restricted Routes Santa Barbara 1 135

154 Lompoc 246 Ventura

101 1 Santa 154 101 Barbara 101 217 192

010203040 Miles ³ Map 5 3.8 Intelligent Transportation Systems

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) is a term used to describe advanced sensors, computer and communication techniques that interact to reduce transportation demand, increase safety and assist in modal choices. Over the next twenty years, the deployment of ITS is expected to proceed rapidly. Some of the technologies are tried and proven, others are in developmental stages, and more will be invented as technologies mature.

It is easiest to understand ITS through examples. Below is an illustrative excerpt for the Transportation Concept Report for Route 101:

APPLICABLE ITS COMPONENTS IN DISTRICT 5 • Traffic Management Center (TMC) – All ITS systems in District 5 will link to District TMC in San Luis Obispo. • Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) – CCTV is used to monitor road conditions visually, verify changeable message sign function, and detect/verify incidents for more effective response. CCTV coverage is proposed for segments 4, 5 and 6. • Surveillance Loops (Pavement Loops) – Loops are used to gather volume and speed information. Installation is proposed at select intervals in segments 4, 5 and 6. • Smart Call Boxes – Call boxes provide motorist aid by connecting caller with a dispatch facility. Smart Call Boxes can also gather real time information on traffic and weather conditions. Smart call boxes are proposed at intervals to be determined on segments 4, 5 and 6. • Ramp Metering – Merging flows onto the route are managed during peak periods to maximize flow/minimize congestion. Select on-ramp locations on Segments 4, 5 and 6 will be evaluated for ramp metering. • Changeable Message Signs (CMS) – Messages controlled from TMC are displayed on signs located in advance of route decision points to provide en-route traffic information. Proposed for junctions with Routes 1, 41 and 46 and north and south of Cuesta Grade. • Highway Advisory Radio – Special frequency complements CMS and provides motorists more detailed traffic information than can be displayed on CMS. Broadcasts provide advisory information regarding traffic conditions on Routes 1, 41 and 46 alternatives.

The Central Coast Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Deployment Plan (June, 2000) provides a systematic, comprehensive look at ITS opportunities within the District. It was developed with full stakeholder involvement, and provides a basis for shared ITS architecture, to facilitate integration of ITS applications across jurisdictional boundaries. The strategic use of technologies is expected to benefit a broad cross section of interests, such as tourism, movement of agricultural and other 01/24/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/24/05 Page 45 products, transit travelers and auto drivers. It will help District 5 manage congestion, improve mobility and improve air quality.

While ITS incorporates many new and emerging technologies, such systems are not completely new to the Central Coast. District 5 and transportation partners have already implemented technology-based solutions such as:

• Interconnected traffic signal control systems to improve traffic flow in larger downtown areas such as Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Cruz, as well as in smaller cities such as Hollister, Lompoc, Arroyo Grande, and approximately a dozen others.

• Roadside motorist aid call boxes along highways in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz counties to help in providing emergency and roadside assistance to motorists.

• Closed circuit TV (CCTV) cameras on State Route (SR) 17 and SR 1 in Santa Cruz, and at the US101/SR 156 interchange in Monterey County, to help monitor congestion and respond to incidents and blockages more quickly.

• Changeable message signs (CMS) on SR 17 and SR 1 that provide motorists with roadway condition information to aid in their travel decisions.

The Central Coast ITS Strategic Depoloyment Plan is entering the next phase in 2005, with AMBAG as lead agency, working with a District-wide ITS Coordinating Group. A contracted consultant will initiate action on the recommendations of the Strategic Deployment Plan.

01/24/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/24/05 Page 46 Chapter 4. District 5 Transportation Issues

The District’s transportation system exists in a context of many circumstances, some of which have been recognized as issues for local and regional transportation decision-making. Several of the issues described in this chapter are related to the perceived tension between growth and quality of life throughout the District. Multiple issues complicate operations on certain corridors requiring special emphasis and higher levels of resources. Thirteen of these “major emphasis areas” in District 5 are identified in this chapter.

The transportation issues covered in this chapter are:

Issue 1. Dependence on the US 101 Corridor Issue 2. Growth, Land Use, and Resulting Travel Patterns Issue 3. Inter-Jurisdictional Issues Issue 4. Diverse Transportation Perspectives Issue 5. Lack of Modal Choices Issue 6. Safety and Reliability of Roadways Issue 7. Resource Limitations and Environmental Constraints Issue 8. Quality of Life Concerns Issue 9. Goods Movement and Economics Issue 10: Relinquishing Roadways Issue11. Funding Limitations Issue 12. Major Transportation Emphasis Areas

These issues are descriptive of the transportation context and background, and are not presented as problems that the DSMP must resolve. They are factors to consider during the strategy formulation portion of the DSMP, Chapter 5.

Issue 1. Dependence on the US 101 Corridor

US Route 101 (Route 101) is the major and historic north/south thoroughfare through the central coast areas of California and the principal inter-city connection for numerous communities between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The District 5 portion

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 47 of the Route 101 corridor accommodates interregional, regional and urban traffic and the widest array of trip purposes. Common personal travel related to business, government, recreation, tourism and daily living, including the journey-to-work, account for a high percentage of trips. Route 101 also carries significant amounts of interregional traffic, including commercial and agricultural trucking, tourist, national defense-related and business traffic. Goods movement along this corridor is important to the economic vitality of the state especially for trucks moving agricultural products and livestock.

The geology and geography of the District concentrate development along the 101 corridor. The resulting urban and residential development limit interchange options and increase the cost of land for transportation needs.

A lack of local roadway options to US Route 101 through many communities pushes local trips onto the state facility.

Current land use patterns also create additional travel demand by locating housing away from job centers resulting in a rural/suburban to urban commute pattern on 101.

Lack of modal choices and connections reinforce automobile travel on Route 101 as the only means of inter- and intra-regional transportation.

The multiple uses of Route 101, the mixture of interregional, regional and local traffic and the beauty and environmental sensitivity of the areas through which it courses, in combination with projected population growth and new development all present challenges to solving transportation problems.

Issue 2. Growth, Land Use, and Resulting Travel Patterns

According to the 2000 census and the State Department of Finance, the District’s population is expected to increase by about 20% over the next 20 years, from 1.3 million to 1.8 million. Growth also results in the need for additional housing units and increased numbers of vehicles traveling on local and state roadways.

The pattern and type of land use has a direct effect on travel behavior. Historically, land use development throughout California has been decentralized supporting low- density urban sprawl. Within District 5 in particular, a jobs/housing imbalance has 01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 48 contributed to longer home to work commutes. Jobs are concentrated in central urban areas but housing is located in less expensive rural bedroom communities. Restrictive local land use regulations and typical residential developments limit access and impede circulation further limiting intermodal remedies.

The San Benito County Regional Transportation Plan (January, 2002) describes problems relating to the recent increased number of commuters (approximately 50% of the workforce) living in San Benito County and working in other counties. “Rural roads once safe for farm equipment are now crowded with commuters. Neighborhood streets once safe for children are now through routes for the journey north to San Jose or west to Salinas. Farmland once used for lettuce is now being converted for housing and business.”

The County of Santa Barbara has a particularly difficult task to deal with, as affordable housing is very scarce in the City of Santa Barbara, yet most of the jobs are in Santa Barbara and Goleta. The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) completed a Jobs, Housing and Mobility Study in mid 2004, and rightly portrayed the problem as a regional one, needing coordination between local land use entities and also between regional transportation planning entities. The report predicts that the South Coast (City of Santa Barbara and surrounds) will add one third of the new jobs between now and 2020, but supply only one-tenth of the housing units.

Low density, single use land use patterns are inherently unserviceable by transit. Long distances between local streets and service centers limit pedestrian movement. In suburbia, there is no central place to collect people and no central place to deliver them so all drive independently on the state highway.

These same land use patterns contribute to incompatible development around airports. This has resulted in operations restrictions and even airport closures in some areas of California.

Automobile trips are increasing. The same trips that were once feasible as a pedestrian- shopping, errands, taking kids to school-now constitute the vast majority, about 80% of vehicle trips in the District, according to the Caltrans 2001 Statewide Travel Survey. In contrast, only about 20% of weekday trips in the District are for commuting to and from work.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 49 The expected population growth will result in doubling of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on the state highways in the District over the next twenty years. Not only will there be more people on the highways, they will be driving longer distances, too.

Projected increases in vehicles on the road, number of trips and travel times will result in increased congestion and extended peak travel periods on state highways. Extended peak travel periods will reduce the window of time available to perform maintenance or construction activities.

Farm land conversion is a trend throughout the nation, and District 5 has much agricultural land that is being changed to accommodate development. This has transportation implications, particularly where sprawl is created, and when lower housing prices create long commutes.

In a typical two year period, the District saw 1,469 acres of prime agriculture land to urban and built-up land uses (California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 1998-2000 Land Use Conversion table). The same report notes that new prime agricultural land is being created, with a 6,221acre increase in the two year period, mostly due to development of new vineyards.

Local governments are reliant on sales tax revenues. When new developments are proposed, jurisdictions often hesitate to require developers to fully mitigate traffic impacts on an adjacent State Highway, for fear of losing development to another locale. This has contributed to operational degradation over time.

Issue 3. Inter-Jurisdictional Issues

Statewide Corridor Issues with Congruity across Districts Boundaries

Transportation systems never stop at political boundaries. While it is useful, and even important, to have clearly defined limits to responsibility and authority, systems by their nature interact across county lines, district lines, state boundaries and even national borders. District 5 has a limited number of state routes affected by jurisdictional boundaries, but it is important to list the issues they raise.

Highway 101 is clearly the most significant interdistrict route, in terms of vehicles, commerce and public mobility. Connections at each end of the District are areas that should mesh well with adjoining District concept planning. In addition, some 01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 50 attention should be given to the ability to marshal financial resources to match the concept, as this now requires full participation of regional partners.

The Highway 101 Route Concept is described in some detail in a following section. Two interfaces are critical, the boundary between Santa Barbara/Ventura County and the one between Monterey and Santa Clara County.

District 7 has long planned for expansion of the corridor capacity of Highway 101 within their district. Community opposition has recently shelved any current planning to significantly improve capacity through widening, but the traffic volumes have not been reduced, and eventually the concept for the corridor includes widening through the corridor to match the 6 lane facility that exists at the interface of Districts 5 and 7. The Ventura County Transportation Commission has indicated they are prepared to plan for lane widening if the ongoing “101 in Motion” effort produces a plan that includes a widening project to the current 6 lane/4 lane interface just north of the Ventura County line. Funding will be a challenge for any of the funding partners for this and other Highway 101 corridor projects.

The northern interface of Highway 101 is complicated by the difficulties of resolving safety and access issues around the Prunedale area. East/west traffic congestion through Highway 156 and Highway 25 offer increased complexity, some of which is outside of District 5 jurisdiction. The corresponding District 4 funding partners are generally united in the desire to resolve these issues, and coordination must continue for the benefit of the traveling public.

Each of these areas are expected to be a focus of Department planning and strategy as areas of emphasis for the next 20 years, as listed in Appendix A.

Some of District 5 TCRs coincide with other District’s concepts for specific shared state routes. SR 58 is an example, as the current D-5 concept report and the D-6 TCR each call for a two lane facility in the future.

It is important to coordinate District 5 TCR development with adjoining districts to assure that congruence occurs. The strategy needed is to coordinate and communicate with both the District involved, and with the major regional funding partner, to assure no significant differences occur in corridor concepts. This is especially relevant at the Ventura County/Santa Barbara County line, where Districts 5 and 7 interface as well as funding partners SBCAG and the Ventura County

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 51 Transportation Commission. A common vision is crucial to improving mobility along the corridor.

Route 101 Transportation Concept Report

Route 101 serves more than half of the cities in the District and is the main North/South corridor through the Central Coast. The Transportation Concept Report is current, and is summarized below.

The Transportation Concept Report for Route 101 in Caltrans District 5 evaluates current and projected conditions and recommends long-term improvements to achieve the concept.

Route 101 extends some 269 miles through four counties in Caltrans District 5: Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and San Benito. Route 101 does not pass through Santa Cruz County, which is the fifth County encompassed by District 5. The route has been developed to a four-lane freeway or expressway throughout District 5.

Only two of the 29 State Routes in Caltrans District 5 extend beyond a single county or two. While both Routes 1 and 101 course south to north through four of the District’s five counties, Route 101 dominates as the District’s lifeline highway. Within District 5, Route 101 links the seats of government of three counties, and, beyond the District, it is the historic route between California’s major metropolitan areas, the Los Angeles Basin and the Bay Area. The significance of Route 101 requires that Caltrans consider related issues and needs from an interregional perspective. In particular, Caltrans has identified concerns related to goods movement and the flow of interregional traffic through certain areas along Route 101 in District 5.

In Santa Barbara County the main concern is the need to provide for interregional travel through the Santa Barbara urbanized area. In Santa Barbara, Route 101 is currently inadequate to accommodate the heavy local, tourist related and interregional traffic that must use the facility. Local sentiment and environmental constraints are major factors when addressing this issue.

In San Luis Obispo County there are three areas of concern. First is the narrow Santa Maria River Bridge located just north of the Santa Barbara County line. Although the bridge lacks emergency parking areas and features non-standard facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, it is used by an increasing number of commuters and shoppers in

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 52 addition to through travelers and truckers. The bridge also links the west and east legs of Route 166.

The second area of concern is the segment from the south end of the urbanized South County areas at Arroyo Grande and continuing north through the City of San Luis Obispo. Here the challenge is to provide for acceptable traffic flows in and around the urbanized area. In this area, increasing volumes of tourist and commuter trips, combined with interchanges that are no longer adequate for current traffic volumes, are lowering the level of service for all traffic, interregional, regional and local.

The junction with State Route 46 in the City of Paso Robles is the site of heavy congestion, especially when major events are held at the nearby Mid-State Fairgrounds and on summer weekends when traffic between the San Joaquin Valley and coastal communities is heaviest. Recent development, including major residential expansion, a new community college campus and several new wineries along SR 46 has added significantly to the congestion at the Intersection.

Three areas of concern for the flow of interregional traffic exist on Route 101 in Monterey County. These areas cover significant portions of the route through the county. First along the segment between King City and Salinas, the flow of traffic is impaired by a number of at-grade crossings and uncontrolled access points. The second area of concern is the Salinas urban segment where peak monthly ADT ranges from 50,000 to over 70,000 and commuter related traffic has reduced peak hour LOS to E. The final issue of interregional concern in Monterey County is the heavily traveled Prunedale section of Route 101. Here an approximately 8 mile stretch of Route 101 carries not only interregional north-south traffic but also most of the traffic traveling east and west on SR 156 between I-5 or San Joaquin Valley locations and the Monterey Peninsula. Furthermore, it carries considerable local traffic associated with commercial and residential development in the unincorporated community of Prunedale.

The South Coast Highway 101 Deficiency Plan/101 In Motion

The congestion in and south of Santa Barbara led to two major planning efforts that have long term implications. In 2002, SBCAG and its South Coast Cities adopted a South Coast Highway 101 Deficiency Plan as part of their Congestion Management Program (CMP). The data gathered in the planning process have been a major source of a subsequent effort to provide a long term solution to the project, now called the

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 53 “101 In Motion” effort. Both are useful documents for long range planning for the corridor. They are described below, with the Deficiency Plan first.

Traffic trends on Highway 101 in Santa Barbara County indicate an increase in traffic growth overall as well as during the peak hours. These trends have led to a continuing decline in freeway peak hour level of service, which have been verified by speed surveys. Freeway ramp volumes within the South Coast have grown most within the City of Santa Barbara and the newly incorporated City of Goleta.

Two distinct continuous sections of Highway 101 operate below the level of service standard of D during the AM and PM peak hours. One section is between Evans Avenue and Milpas Street along the 4-lane section of freeway, and the other is between Castillo Street and La Cumbre Road along the six-lane section of freeway.

In June 2002, the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, in association with the City of Carpinteria, County of Santa Barbara, the City of Santa Barbara and Caltrans, prepared the South Coast Highway 101 Deficiency Plan, in response to findings in their adopted Congestion Management Program. This Plan identified and prioritized a list of improvements that can be pursued in the short term (5-10 years). The Plan did not address, however, the long-term freeway congestion issues of the South Coast. Within the 5-10 years that these projects will be implemented, traffic volumes are expected to increase. More freeway sections, if not all, within the study area are expected to experience congestion and delay (reach LOS F) during peak travel times (SBCAG Traffic Model).

The 101 In Motion effort began in July 2002, with Department commitment of a full time senior staff member for half a year to facilitate a long-term solution to corridor problems that would meet the test of community acceptance. The facilitation was done in close partnership with SBCAG, and successfully created agreement on how to plan for problem resolution. Funding was arranged for a multipurpose study, with full community participation, of the problems identified in the Deficiency Plan. All stakeholder jurisdictions contributed funds, a MOU and a scope of work was prepared, and a consultant hired to prepare and implement a massive outreach campaign, with the end result being a supportable program of projects that would alleviate near-term and future congestion problems in the South Coast area.

The project has completed the first round of outreach, and is currently assessing, with community input, thirty-three suggested solutions to identified problems. While the project is far from complete, for the purposes of the DSMP the Department should be

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 54 prepared for a package of solution alternatives to be generated. Funding will likely require creative packaging, as many of the Transportation Demand Management or alternative transportation solutions have no institutional funding mechanism.

The 101 In Motion project is scheduled to produce an approved program of projects by December 2005. In effect, this is a 20-30 year long range transportation plan for the corridor.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority analysis

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is currently evaluating the transportation and land use conditions in the southern Santa Clara county area including parts of Northern Monterey County, San Benito and Santa Cruz Counties. The modeling tools used in this study more thoroughly investigate the relationship between land use and transportation demand in the edge areas of District 4 and District 5. As part of their planning effort, the study will consider highway system safety, the jobs/housing imbalance, land use policy, agricultural land preservation, transit connectivity, rail freight access, highway system management, partnership opportunities and funding strategies. The study’s current focus on Transportation System capacity, peak hour commutes and truck travel has identified areas of congestion and accident concentrations.

The Study determined that:

• The wages of jobs available in the Southern Gateway will not allow home purchase at the ever-increasing cost of housing. • High job ratios in the SVMP will continue to attract southern gateway workers. • The creation of the new jobs projected in the Southern Gateway will be challenged by the lack of affordable housing and long commutes. • Workers in the Southern Gateway will be required to commute from affordable residential areas outside of the southern gateway. • The 101 corridor will be required to accommodate significant through commute traffic. • The long term viability of agriculture will be challenged.

The study suggests improvements to regional and sub-regional growth management in order to increase housing supply and affordability and preserve agricultural land and environmental resources.

01/24/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/24/05 Page 55 Issue 4. Diverse Transportation Perspectives

The transportation field is a complicated one. Many different agencies, each with their own perspective, have a stake in planning, funding and permitting transportation projects and services in each community. Sometimes the agency needs mesh, and sometimes they clash.

Multiple state and federal agencies, each with separate, and possibly, conflicting mandates review and sometimes revoke permits, operations, and planning processes for transportation projects.

Local governments are sometimes caught between providing for efficient interregional transportation options versus accommodating local traffic.

Lack of public consensus regarding transportation priorities makes it difficult for decision-makers to move forward with solutions acceptable to their diverse constituencies.

As a result of the adoption of State Senate Bill 45, California no longer has a centralized state transportation system. This change has shifted responsibility and accountability to regional transportation agencies. It has also resulted in a permanent shift in policy, as State Highway funding can now be spent on local street rehabilitation.

District 5 is primarily a collection of communities scattered over a wide area. In many of the counties, there is a philosophical difference in priorities shown by North and South county representatives. Low population density and considerable distances between population centers limit available transit, bike and walking options.

Land use decisions are made by entities with defined boundaries, yet commutesheds often extend beyond cities and beyond county borders. Land use and transportation are entwined, and a proper role of regional and state planning is to assure the decisionmaking accounts for this interdependence.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 56 Issue 5. Lack of Modal Choices

In one ideal vision of transportation systems, every traveler would have many different paths and modes to get to their destination on every trip taken. The choice of mode could be varied to accommodate preference, pocketbook and practicality. Caltrans works with transportation partners to improve this mobility as the overriding mission, yet barriers still exist.

Gaps exist in transit, intercity and commuter rail, bicycle and pedestrian systems. The gaps can be physical breaks or service area/time mismatches, but they inhibit full modal choice by travelers. Completing these systems could have a significant impact on preserving the highway system.

The various modes of travel do not always interconnect. Currently throughout the entire state of California, only two airports are within walking distance of a rail station (Burbank and San Francisco). Bus service within the District typically does not serve the airports, and rail stations are only partially covered during train arrival/departure times.

Transit-ridership is increasing but is underfunded in some counties and underused in others.

Travel to work patterns are now more complicated than ever due to the variety of workers and flexibility of the workday. The Santa Barbara County Regional Transportation Plan laments the dilemma facing transit authorities:

“A majority of workers have complex travel patterns involving multiple-use or destination trips. Working parents drop off and pick up children at day care centers, school and other activities on the way to and from work. Trips to or from work are also coupled with errands (banking, shopping, etc.). Staggered work and flexible work arrangements, instituted to reduce congestion, have actually contributed to solo driving as everyone arrives and leaves work at different times.”

Capacity is limited on some alternative transportation systems.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 57 Park and Ride lots are well used in many areas of the District, but there is a shortage of lots in the South Coast area. More dialog with jurisdictions is needed to incorporate Park and Ride lot expansion in general plans and development conditions.

Regulatory barriers exist that limit alternative transportation use. Jurisdictional boundaries also interfere with efficient transit use, in that commutesheds respect no city or county line, but transit rarely crosses them.

Growth is highest on the frontiers of suburbia where public transit and other options are the most expensive and least efficient. The scattered, low-density, single-use development that exists in many areas of the District hinders options for mobility. The lack of continuous sidewalks or adequate shoulders is restrictive to pedestrian or bicycle use. Restrictive land use regulations and typical residential development limits access and impedes circulation further limiting intermodal remedies. It is often difficult to live over your business, or operate an enterprise from your home.

“Chained trips” are those that are planned in advance and progress from origin to destination with one or more stops along the way. The ability to chain trips often effect modal choice in favor of cars over buses. According to surveys conducted at suburban work sites, more than 70 percent of workers make intermediate stops on a regular basis on their way to or from work and nearly 80 percent run errands during the midday break. The trip to and from school by automobile has become the predominant travel mode to school: only 13% of trips to and from school are by bicycle or on foot. (SBCAG Regional Transportation Plan)

Changes in society affect transportation mode choice. Flexible job schedules, less predictable daily routes, increased work shifts and the perceived need to conserve time reduce the perception of transit or ridesharing as an viable option, making the workers more dependent than ever before on the private automobile. (SBCAG Regional Transportation Plan)

Issue 6. Safety and Reliability of Roadways

During the past decade, concern has grown throughout the State of California and the nation over the continuing deterioration of our transportation infrastructure. In general, this has occurred as our transportation system has continued to age, with

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 58 funding for maintenance and rehabilitation declining and vehicle miles of travel increasing.

The combination of age and increased demand has resulted in faster rates of pavement deterioration, new accident concentration locations, and increased hours of traffic congestion. Safety improvements continue to be the highest priority, but currently, about one of every 5 lane-miles of highway pavement needs rehabilitation or major reconstruction. More than half the bridges on the system are over 30 years old and many need to be rehabilitated or replaced. Much of the vegetation along the highways has aged, is dying and needs to be replaced. Existing safety roadside rests need major rehabilitation and new rest areas are needed. System improvements are needed to maximize the efficiency of existing facilities and reduce congestion, which could save an estimated $13 million per day and up to 530 tons of less air pollutants per day (from 2002 Ten-Year State Highway Operation and Protection Program).

District 5 has maintenance and operational responsibilities for 1,169 overall (centerline) miles of highways. The transportation system connects 24 cities in the district, spread over 7,788,809 acres, with a total District population of 1.3 Million people. More than 6.9 Billion vehicle miles are traveled each year within the five county area. (Caltrans District 5 Profile, April 2003).

The approved SHOPP contains a 4-year look at current priorities for preservation and operational projects and the relative priorities of types of projects. The 2004 SHOPP was approved April 8, 2004 and shows the following project distribution.

Table 7--Approved 2004 SHOPP Projects by Type

Collision Reduction $ 46,042 Bridge Preservation $ 6,438 Roadway Preservation $ 116,388 Roadside Preservation $ 17,116 Mobility $ 5,454 Totals $ 191,438

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 59 District 5 2004 SHOPP Collision Reduction Bridge Preservation Roadway Preservation Roadside Preservation Mobility

The 4 year SHOPP is an indicator of current emphasis in maintenance, as it is clear that roadway preservation is a primary concern. The 10 Year SHOPP (currently the 2002 version) continues this emphasis, and adds emphasis to the use of long-lasting pavement as a cost-effective mechanism to upgrade roadways.

Below is a historic analysis of the SHOPP programs of projects for a ten year period, 1992 to 2002. It is useful to see again the major emphasis, which has been for roadway protection.

Table 8--Ten Year Funding Analysis-Historic

Category Total

Safety $74,534 Roadway $353,144 Roadside $28,688 Operations $29,590 TOTAL $485,956

Historic SHOPP Analysis

Safety Roadway Roadside Operations

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 60

State funds for SHOPP are determined on a Statewide perspective, not on a District assessment of need, but are given first call on available State Transportation Account funds. While resources are obviously limited, the priority of funds for rehabilitation and maintenance assures that existing system preservation is highlighted.

The California Transportation Plan describes some of the issues found on District 5 roads:

The integrity of existing road system is a significant concern in rural areas, like District 5. The sparse populations in this area provide a smaller tax base to support the maintenance of these roads, while harsh weather conditions (flooding, landslides, and snow can cause serious roadway damage.

Safety is a significant concern in rural areas. Nationally, over 58% of total vehicular fatalities occur in rural areas. The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled is more than twice that of urban areas.

Travel and tourism are important to local businesses. While the tourism industry and rural economies depend on a well-maintained roadway system, the roadways are often inadequate to meet the demand.

Issue 7. Resource Limitations and Environmental Constraints

District 5 is one of the larger districts geographically, with a wide diversity in environmental resources and constraints. The coast has unique qualities different than the inland plains, and sensitive environmental areas abound. The beautiful landscapes, cultural heritage areas and rich biological environs lead people to want to visit and move here.

Along with this rich heritage is a powerful drive to develop the area. The characteristics that attract people are the first impacted by increased population and economic activity. The resources available to mitigate these impacts, and to enhance the environment, are limited.

The 2004 Coast Highway Management Plan describes a proactive approach to managing transportation system development/maintenance within limits developed

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 61 by the impacted community. It provides a model of context sensitivity fully integrated in future planning for the coastal corridor.

One of the limitations that accompanies the environmental issues and sensitivities is the long lead time typically found in developing and constructing major projects in District 5. Several projects have stretched development time from a typical seven- year framework to twenty and even thirty years, as the project evolves through public comment and community acceptance. While not all communities are similar in the need for extensive environmental review, this long lead time is a factor in most major transportation projects in the District.

Many projects face challenges when addressing issues such as

• Loss of farmland • Environmentally Sensitive Areas • Air Quality Conformity • Impact on Cultural Resources

Issue 8. Quality of Life Concerns

Transportation system preservation and improvement projects can expect a significant amount of public input about any perceived loss of quality of life. Noise, congestion, inconvenience, lack of access and pollution are local concerns that can stall projects that do not mitigate or avoid such impacts.

The general public is more aware of the connection between land use and transportation and has grown to expect more walkable and more livable communities. This same population does not want the infrastructure that reminds them of major metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, San Jose or Fresno. Lane additions on freeways have triggered these sentiments, although in some District communities this has been acceptable due to increasing congestion. Many cities want to preserve their “main street” local character, and particularly dislike widening or other projects that increase speed in such areas.

Aging drivers will become a larger segment of the driving population. “California’s Strategic Plan for an Aging Population” notes that California currently has approximately 4 Million people over the age of 65, more than any state in the nation. This figure is expected to double over the next 25 years as baby boomers retire.

01/24/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/24/05 Page 62 Transportation systems planning needs to account for this with design changes and provision of alternatives for those who can no longer drive.

The quality of life for minority populations should be a consideration whenever a transportation project has adverse affects on such a community. Environmental Justice (EJ) is a term referring to the need to assure that the benefits of transportation, and the negative impacts, are equally shared by the entire population without regard to race, creed or color. The term has been extended to include the elderly, disabled and low-income populations through presidential policy action, Executive Order 12898 (Source: Department of Transportation Environmental Justice Desk Guide, January 2003). Consideration of these quality of life impacts should be a part of the environmental assessment in each project.

Issue 9. Goods Movement and Economics

California’s agricultural industry is first in the nation and contributes about $30 billion to the State’s annual economy. Moving crops, livestock and other commodities from California’s fertile rural areas requires heavy truck transport. These trucks have a particularly harsh impact on local roads. (California Transportation Plan).

Interregional commerce requires substantial traffic of goods through rural areas (mostly on large trucks) without corresponding local economic benefits.

District 5 is responsible for facilitating interregional traffic, which at times conflicts with local trucking. In south Salinas, Highway 101 has multiple entry points for field trucks, when smoother traffic flow would result from full freeway access restrictions. Local trucking issues also impact Highways 46 East, 183 and 156.

In other cases, however, local and interregional trucks can benefit equally by policies and strategies that promote efficient commodity movement.

Much of the existing commodity movement information is outdated, being 9 to 20 years old. It is clear that truck traffic to and through the county is high, and can increase as much as 50% seasonally due to the agricultural base for the economy. Tourist season coincides with the peak agricultural season, adding to congestion during the summer. 01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 63 Problems identified by past surveys of truckers include:

Inefficiencies in shipping practices and communications within the industry Lack of intermodal terminals (truck/rail).

Congestion problems at selected freeway interchanges and segments.

Hazardous materials/waste transport routes are designated for District 5, with Highways 101, 135, 166, 246 and 1 being major routes.

The Department does maintain annual traffic counts, with a percentage indicator for the amount of truck travel.

Goods movement also occurs by rail. Significant delays in freight rail can be due to insufficient track capacity to handle both passenger and freight rail services. To remain competitive, short line railroads must invest in track upgrades to support increasing rail car sizes.

Most of the recent rail improvements have been made to increase on-time reliability and running speed, with new sidings, centralized track control, and new rail replacement projects being typical. Improvements could be made in both rail/truck transfer facilities and air/truck facilities. A significant amount of air cargo is handled by Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo airports, but better access and large scale intermodal facilities would be beneficial. California is now recognizing a correlation between an efficient ground access system near airports and with the state’s economy.

Issue 10: Relinquishing Roadways

When the function of a State highway changes over time and the highway no longer provides the service it was originally created to fulfill, Caltrans may relinquish (or transfer) the highway, or a portion thereof, to a city or county provided the local jurisdiction is interested in the transaction. As authorized by Section 73 of the Streets and Highways Code, a relinquishment can occur in two ways: by relocation or by legislative action.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 64 Relinquishment by relocation is a means of turning a portion of State highway over to a local agency after the highway has been rerouted and constructed. If the relinquished portion is connected at both ends to the old or new highway, it may be designated a Business Route by the local entity.

Relinquishment by legislative action provides for the relinquishment of a highway or segment of highway to a local jurisdiction without being relocated. Such highways or segments of highways then to function as local streets, rather than highways with regional or interregional significance.

Factors Caltrans considers when contemplating a relinquishment include the statewide significance of a highway, its function in the local community setting, maintenance costs to the local jurisdiction, route continuity, and connectivity to the State highway system. The benefits to a community of a relinquishment include the ability to implement local standards that can, for example, create an atmosphere friendly to businesses and pedestrians (versus adhering to State standards designed to maximize vehicular throughout), and the ability to provide better or additional access to adjacent properties.

Routes that primarily serve local and regional transportation needs are good candidates for relinquishment, should the appropriate local or regional jurisdiction want to take them over. Currently, segments of 15 routes in the district have been identified as potential candidates for relinquishment. These routes are listed on the following table:

Table 9—Potential Candidates for Relinquishment ROUTE DESCRIPTION 9 From Route 1 near Santa Cruz to Route 17 near Los Gatos via Waterman Gap and Saratoga Gap and along the ridge between the San Lorenzo and Pescadero Creeks. 58 Route 101 near Santa Margarita to Route 33. 68 Asilomar State Beach to Route 1. 129 Route 1 near Watsonville to Route 101 in San Benito County. 135 (a) Route 101 near Los Alamos to Route 1 south of Orcutt. (b) Route 1 near Orcutt to Route 101 in Santa Maria. 144 Route 101 in Santa Barbara to Route 192 via Sycamore Canyon. 146 Pinnacles National Monument to Route 25 in Bear Valley. 152 Route 1 near Watsonville via Hecker Pass to Route 101 in Gilroy. 192 Route 154 near Santa Barbara to Route 150 near the Ventura-Santa Barbara County line via Foothill Boulevard. 217 (a) Route 101 near Ellwood to the campus of the University of California at Santa 01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 65 Barbara. (b) The campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara to Route 101 northwest of the City Santa Barbara. 218 Route 1 to Route 68 via Canyon del Rey. 225 Route 101 near Santa Barbara to Route 101 near the Santa Barbara Central Business District. 227 Route 1 south of Oceano to Route 101 in San Luis Obispo 229 Route 58 near Santa Margarita to Route 41 near Creston. 246 (a) Current west city limits of the City of Lompoc to Route 1. (b) Route 101 to Route 154 near Santa Ynez.

Issue11. Funding Limitations

Competition for state transportation dollars is always high in California, given the high lane miles involved and the relatively low sales tax on gasoline. The state of the economy directly impacts the amount of funding available, with large swings more typical than slow and steady growth. The principal source of transportation revenue is the state gasoline tax, 18 cents per gallon. There is no inflation factor built into this base, yet project costs escalate yearly at 3-4%.

The 2004 State Transportation Improvement Plan programs a large number of projects that were immediately placed on hold, pending adequate revenues. This backlog will significantly restrict any immediate funding of new projects, despite the increased interregional traffic in the district.

New transportation funding alternatives do not appear to be currently politically feasible. Local sales tax revenues have been passed in areas of the state that hold about 80% of the population, and have been instrumental in providing projects that have relieved the system for the past decade. These same tax measures must meet higher levels of community support in the future, with a 2/3 majority needed rather than a simple majority vote. Few have been able to be renewed at that level. Of the five counties in District 5, only Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz have current sales tax measures, but all have considered the potential of adopting such a potent revenue source.

The table shown below gives a capsule description of each county and their sales tax measure plans or existing efforts. All are based on a half-cent general sales tax,

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 66 which is a potent way to generate funding. As a rough comparison, a half-cent general sales tax creates about as much money annually as would a 35 cent tax increase per gallon of gasoline.

Future transportation funding will still flow, but the expected level of funding relative to need will require innovative solutions in order to fund Project Study Reports, corridor improvements or rail upgrades.

The matrix and charts shown in Appendix D lists the major funding sources for District 5 and its funding partners in meeting the challenges of the future. While there are over 30 programs listed, the major source of revenue is expected to continue to be the State Highway Account, funded by gas tax and linked closely with the general economy.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 67 Table 10 Sales Tax Measures in District 5

RTPA Existing Measure Start End Dollars Future Plans Comment Measure Title Available

SLOCOG No Opinion Poll Work Task will be heard by Board early 2005

SBCAG Yes Measure D 1989 2009 $300M through Will seek Population formula, 70% local 2004 reauthorization

TAMC No Proposing Mail 14 year timeline suggested Proposed Ballot 6/2004 or Amount Raised: ~352 Million, 20% to regular ballot 3/06 locals-5% Rail, 8% MST, 1% Administration, Rest to Major Projects

SCCRTC Yes Transit 1978 No Transit only District sunse (SCMTD) t On Ballot Measure J 11/2/200 2034 Proposing 2/3 $ for Hwy 1 Widening, 1/3 4 Local

SBtCOG Expired, Measure A 1989 1999 $15.5 M Total Funded Projects: Hwy 156 Bypass, San funding Benito St. Extension, Westside Blvd. still being Extension and Hwy 25 Bypass used

Note: All tax measures referenced are 1/2 - cent Sales Taxes

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 68 Issue 12. Major Transportation Emphasis Areas

The eleven issues described above are not entirely independent. Several transportation corridors in District 5 exhibit constellations of interdependent issues. The issues that attend three locations in District 5 – the US 101 corridor through the South Coast of Santa Barbara County and US 101 corridor through Prunedale in Monterey County, and SR 1 corridor north to the intersection with SR 17 in Santa Cruz County – have challenged decision-makers for decades. More recently operating levels on other corridors have fallen as issues such as rapid growth, inter-jurisdictional imbalances, environmental constraints, and funding limitations have converged to challenge those who would identify or implement appropriate solutions.

At present, thirteen locations in District 5 have been identified as “major emphasis areas” (See Map 6). Particularly difficult issues beset three of these areas where planning and decision-making are ongoing. At the other ten locations the need for one or more major, costly transportation projects has been identified.

These emphasis areas will consume significant levels of District 5 resources over the next twenty years. It is important to recognize that the responsibility for improvements extends beyond the District to transportation partners such as MPO/RTPAs, adjoining Districts, and local jurisdictions. All planning and implementation efforts must fully engage all stakeholders to be successful.

Characteristics of the thirteen emphasis areas are summarized in Table 11.

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 69 State Mariposa # Corridor Project Description Project Limits South Coast Corridor Goleta/Ventura Co. 1 101 Improvements Line Stanislaus Santa Maria Freeway/Bridge Orcutt/SLO County San 14 2 101 Improvements Line Mateo 35 Santa Clara Traffic Way to 236 3 101 5 Cities Corridor Improvements Spyglass 12 SLO 101/1 17 13 Santa 9 101 4 101/1 Interchange/Improvements SLO City Limits 5 46 E Four Lane Freeway 101/Chalome Y Cruz 152 152 1 Soledad/N. Salinas Merced 6 101 Salinas Corridor Improvements Limit Santa 129 Cruz Hollister 7 68 CorridorMadera Improvements Salinas to Hwy 1 1 156 Carmel/S. Cruz Co. 8 1 Capacity Improvements Line 9 11 9 156 W Capacity Improvements 101/Castroville 183 Salinas 10 Monterey 10 101 Prunedale Corridor Improvements Salinas/156 1 25 San 68 101 San Juan Batista to Benito 11 156 Capacity Improvements Hollister Bypass

8 146 Capacity Improvements, Improve 7 146 12 25 Don Pachecho Y Hollister to 101 6 Hwy 17 to State 1 25 13 1 Corridor Improvements Park Rd. Monterey Soledad 14 17 Corridor Improvements Hwy1 to Los Gatos

King City Fresno 1 198 198

101

Kings Tulare 41 101 P a c Paso 46 i 46 f 1 Robles i c 41 O 46 c 5 e a 229 Kern n 41 Morro 4 58 Bay 1 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 227

Arroyo 101 3 Grande 166 1 33 166 2

33 Santa Maria 101 Major Emphasis Areas Santa Barbara District 5, 2005-2025 1 135 Lompoc 154

246 Ventura

101 Santa 1 Barbara 154 101 1 101 217 192

010203040 Miles ³ Map 6 District 5 Major Emphasis Areas, 2025 DRAFT Table 11

Planning Level State Estimate

# Corridor Project Description Project Limits s ($M) SampleAADT Locations (1) Peak LOSNow /2025State fundabilityissues CapacIssuesity Safety Issues EnvironmentalSensitivityCommun Sensitivityity Key issuesCommen / ts South Coast Corridor Goleta/Ventura 105,000@ Congestion relief needed; Program of Projects 1 101 Improvements Co. Line 450 Cabrillo F/F b n b n n may result Santa Maria Freeway 6 Orcutt/SLO 61,000@ 2 101 Laning County Line 200 Hwy166 D/F a b b b a Safety issue, crossover crash reduction 5 Cities Corridor Traffic Way to 56,000@ Operational improvements for 10 years, 6 lane 3 101 Improvements SLO City Limits S.Hwy 1 F/F n b b b b may be needed then. SLO 101/1 Interchange/ 34,000 on 4 101/1 Improvements SLO City Limits Hwy 1 @101 F/F n b b b n Safety and congestion issues 101/Chalome 13,000@Hwy 5 46 E Four Lane Freeway Wye 200 41 b b n b b Safety issue, crossover crash reduction Salinas Corridor Soledad/N. 55,000@ Limit freeway access south of city, improve 6 101 Improvements Salinas Limit 190 Airport D/E n a b a a capacity through Salinas. 25,000@ Canyon Del 7 68 Corridor Improvements Salinas to Hwy 1 Rey b n b a a 41,000 @ Carmel/S. Cruz Moss Safety and congestion issues; Coastal permitting 8 1 Capacity Improvements Co. Line 200 Landing n n n n n sensitivities 156 30,500@Hwy 9 West Widen to 4 lane freeway 101/Castroville 200 183 b b b n b Prunedale Corridor 87,000@ 10 101 Improvements Salinas/156 700 San Miguel F/F n n n n n Safety issue, Bypass or major upgrade to Hollister 24,000 @ 11 156 E Widen to 4 lane Bypass 170 Alameda b b b b n Gap closure project; safety and congestion issues 24,000@ Co. Line, Widen to 4 lane, Improve S.Cruz/S. 12 25 Don Pachecho Wye Hollister to 101 Benito n n n b b Safety and congestion issues 114,000@ Hwy 17 to State Morrisey 13 1 Corridor Improvements Park Rd. Blvd. b n b n n Safety and congestion issues Hwy 1 to Los 14 17 Corridor Improvements Gatos b n n n n Safety and congestion issues NOTES: LEVEL OF CONCERN 1. Traffic Counts 2003 2. LOS assembled from various documents: RTPs, TCRs, PSRs LOW MEDIUMHIGH

3. Staff judgements have been the basis for scoring the issues, High, Medium and Low. a b n Chapter 5. Transportation System Management Strategies

5.1 Overview

The challenge for District 5 is to plan, design and construct, maintain and operate improvements in a manner that is both responsive and responsible. Responsiveness demands appropriate regard for the context in which the transportation system operates: historical setting, quality of life, and human development. Responsibility requires consideration of safety, appropriate technology, social equity, efficient access, the needs of the interregional traveler, and requirements of other systems such as air and water, agriculture, natural environment and economics. District 5 identifies the following strategies, and policies to efficiently manage the State’s transportation resources.

The Strategies and Policies listed below are the core guidance statements of the District System Management Plan for District 5. Most have been derived from the California Transportation Plan and the Goal Matrix of the Regional Transportation Plans from MPOs/RTPAs in District 5. Others have been suggested by State guidance documents, Director’s policies, California/Federal law and regulations, and experienced Caltrans personnel. Following each policy is an indication of the guiding document that helped develop the policy, although exact wording sometimes varies to fit a more general application, or to modify a goal/objective into a strategy/policy.

The strategies and policies should not be assumed to appear in prioritized order, as all strategies are important, and each policy supports equally its related strategy.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 72 RTP/STATE GOAL MATRIX Draft 1/20/2005 Matrix A

Notes: 1) Key to darkened blocks: None = no significant mention. Single block = concept is covered. Double block = exact words included.

2) Key to darkened circles: Large circle = issue handled as Strategy. Small Circle = issue handled as Policy

3) California Transportation Plan draft has been signed by the BT&H Secretary , awaiting Governor signature. Strategy 1: Improve Safety and Security, All Modes

The District as well as the State emphasize safety in construction, maintenance, and operations, as well as in project planning and design. Security of the systems is of heightened importance to preserve the traveling public from threat. Advances in information technology may provide new tools for improvement in this area.

Policy A. Identify, investigate and remedy when possible all safety/security concerns within the District. [Best Practices]

Policy B. Proactively employ safety-conscious planning attributes (comprehensive, system-wide, multimodal) when planning, programming or implementing transportation improvements. [Federal training trend, Best Practices]

Policy C. Promote safe and secure airport, rail and transit facilities and operations. [CTP/RTP Matrix]

Policy D. Design projects with fullest consideration given to reducing the number and severity of accidents, employing the latest technology available to save lives, reduce injuries and property damage, for the safety of the traveling public and highway workers. [CTP/RTP Matrix, Best Practices]

Policy E. Promote training for staff and transportation partners in safety and security. [CTP/RTP Matrix]

Policy F. Cooperate with partners seeking to establish safety corridors or alternative transportation networks that reduce accidents. [CTP/RTP Matrix, Caltrans/CHP Policy]

Policy G. Improve modal access, considering the most vulnerable pedestrian/bicyclist (youth, elderly, disabled) in developing transportation improvements that do not deny access to those desiring to walk or ride. [ CA Vehicle Code 21949]

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 74 Policy H. Design all state facilities to be brought to Department of Transportation design standards whenever possible. [State Highway Design Manual, Best Practices]

Strategy 2: Maintain and Preserve Transportation Systems

Preservation of the current highway, rail, transit and other existing transportation systems is a basic purpose of the Department of Transportation. It forms an efficient management tool, as an estimated 4 dollars of replacement need is deferred by each 1 dollar expended on maintenance (multimodal).

Policy A. Plan and program projects (repair, rehabilitate, replace) to maximize cost effectiveness with existing funding streams. [CA 10 Year SHOPP, CTP/RTP Matrix]

Policy B. Priority will be given to programming necessary safety, repair and rehabilitation projects that offer the highest benefit to the largest number of people, considering the following ranking:

• Focus Routes (Routes 101, 156, 46 and 41) • High Emphasis Routes (Routes 1, 17) • The remainder of the IRRS • Non-IRRS routes [ITIP Guidelines]

Policy C. Consider life cycle costs during project planning and design of all transportation projects. [Best Practices, SHOPP project guidelines]

Policy D. Make operational improvements to maximize the usability of existing infrastructure. [Best Practices]

Strategy 3: Improve Mobility through Improved Multimodal System

01/24/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/24/05 Page 75 Transit, intercity rail, improved bicycle/pedestrian systems and demand management strategies hold potential for increasing mobility while decreasing congestion. Proactive planning is key to this mobility and has the most impact when developed multimodally.

Policy A. Identify and plan for opportunities to integrate more than one mode in transportation improvement projects. [DD 64, “Accommodating Non-Motorized Transportation]

Policy B. Identify and fill gaps in connectivity between modal systems for both passengers and freight. [CTP/RTP Matrix, TEA 21]

Policy C. Expand opportunities to provide more direct influence in the growth of transit, biking, walking, teleworking, ridesharing and other TDM measures. [Best Practices]

Policy D. Connect all urbanized areas, major metropolitan centers to the freeway and expressway system to ensure a complete statewide system for the highest volume and most critical trip movements. [ITIP Guidelines]

Policy E. Connect urbanizing centers and high growth areas to the interregional trunk system to ensure future connectivity, mobility and access for the State's expanding population. [CTP, ITIP Guidelines, TEA 21]

Policy F. Improve the intercity passenger rail program (including interregional commuter rail) to improve service reliability, decrease running time, reduce operating subsidy while complying with State and Federal laws. [ITIP Guidelines, CA State Passenger Rail Plan]

Policy G. Support local efforts and partnerships that enhance multimodal solutions to mobility challenges. [Best Practices]

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 76 Policy H. Support institutional abilities for input to projects and development to mitigate traffic generated by each one. [Best Practices]

Strategy 4: Support Economic Vitality

Growth will occur at different rates within the District, and infrastructure must accommodate this or barriers will be created for continued economic prosperity. The key corridors of SR 101, 156, 41 and 46 are critical, but connections must be maintained and expanded as needed by various communities. Workers must get to jobs just as freight must be distributed, and basic mobility within communities should be maintained as growth occurs.

Policy A. Seek to complete an interregional trunk system of higher standard State highways ( expressways and freeways). [ITIP Guidelines]

Policy B. Coordinate land use and transportation system for economic competitiveness. [CTP/RTP Matrix]

Policy C. Enhance connectivity between and within all modes, for people and freight mobility. [CTP/RTP Matrix, TEA 21]

Policy D. Faciltiate safe and efficient commodity movement throughout the District. [CTP/RTP Matrix, TEA 21]

Policy E. Provide a comprehensive transportation system capable of meeting the travel and access needs of the general public. [CTP/RTP Matrix]

Policy F. Plan for future growth and subsequent transportation needs. [CTP/RTP Matrix]

Policy G. Promote innovation, Intelligent Transportation Systems and flexibility in planning and designing transportation solutions. [CTP/RTP Matrix, TEA 21]

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 77 Policy H. Priority will be given to programming capacity enhancing projects that offer the highest benefit to the largest number of people, following these rankings:

• Focus Routes (Routes 101, 156, 46 and 41) • High Emphasis Routes (Routes 1, 17) • The remainder of the IRRS • Non-IRRS routes [ITIP Guidelines]

Policy I. Support access and mobility improvements to Vandenburg Spaceport as needed for full development of economic potential. [CTP, Best Practices]

Strategy 5: Preserve and Enhance the Environment

The Department of Transportation has a variety of mechanisms that are institutional ways to protect the environment and enhance it. CEQA and NEPA are basic protective mechanisms, but Caltrans has the opportunity to establish funding programs (Transportation Enhancement Program, Safe Routes to Schools, Community Based Transportation Planning Grants, Environmental Justice grants) to augment and extend beyond environmental protective efforts. Policies are also established that encourage alternative transportation with important effects on air quality, health and quality of life. These include formal policies in on Non- Motorized Transportation, Context Sensitive Solutions, Mainstreet Flexibility Guidelines, Environmental Justice Desk Manual and sections within the Project Development Manual. Other mechanisms used are less formal, promoting transit and livable communities through review and comment on projects and programs planned by transportation partners.

Policy A. Ensure that the transportation system compliments the environment. [CTP/RTP Matrix, Best Practices]

01/24/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/24/05 Page 78 Policy B. Consider environmental justice practices that do not disproportionately effect minority, low income or elderly populations. [Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]

Policy C. Encourage environmental enhancement in all project development, using partnership assistance when Caltrans resources are limited. [CTP, RTP Matrix]

Policy D. Maximize the use of Development Review to obtain the fullest mitigation of traffic impacts, promote livable communities and decrease the load on the transportation system. [CEQA, Best Practices]

Strategy 6: Reflect Community Values

District transportation projects and programs will find community acceptance when the public is involved, engaged, and integrated in system development. Partnerships are emphasized as a way to implement community desires in infrastructure development, while delivering on the District responsibility to the traveling public to provide efficient, safe and effective transportation systems.

Policy A. Integrate a community input process early and throughout all projects and programs, and across all functional units within Caltrans District 5. [DP 22 “Context Sensitive Solutions”]

Policy B. Emphasize flexibility in designing improvements on state routes that serve as main streets; expand general knowledge of relinquishment as an option when state responsibilities preclude community accommodation. [DP 22 “Context Sensitive Solutions”]

Policy C. Promote funding partnerships with local/regional entities as a method of increasing community buy-in and funding leverage. [DP 22 “Context Sensitive Solutions”]

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 79 Policy D. Solicit broad public input, particularly with groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, but are strongly impacted by transportation decisions. [Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]

Policy E. Use such input to enhance equity in impact and benefits across all population groups. [Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] Policy F. Promote compact/livable urban development. [DP 22 “Context Sensitive Solutions”]

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 80 Chapter 6. Funding Priorities

Funding for transportation is unlikely to ever match the need, unless new funding mechanisms are created. The clear message in the following analysis is the continuing need to prioritize projects for maximum benefit from each available dollar. A number of the policies address priorities, which are somewhat dictated by the structure of the programming process used by each major funding program, as described below.

Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP)

The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a shared program between Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) and the Department. Since 1998 the RTPA’s have received 75% of the STIP funding with which to allocate toward improvements within their jurisdictional urbanized areas. The Department receives 25% of the STIP for statewide allocation toward improvement projects on designated interregional routes. The Department’s strategy identifies “focus routes” which connect regional centers and which lie outside urbanized areas. Since this is a statewide program, each District is in competition with one another (a total of 12 districts), each having needs that meet program policy guidelines. There is no certainty that any district will obtain a given percentage or is entitled to any portion of the 25% STIP allocation (also called the interregional transportation improvement program or ITIP) in any given funding cycle.

The SHA income stream derives mainly from various state and federal fuel taxes, truck weight fees and a small portion of the State’s general sales tax. Funding expectations and realities can vary year by year and are subject principally to the cyclic condition of the Federal and State economies and their effects upon public travel, goods movements and taxation revenues generally. Federal transportation allocations are based largely upon tax revenues. Revenues are apportioned to all States through federal budget acts.

The funding for District 5 varies year to year as briefly touched upon above. Previous funding cycles suggest that this district can successfully compete and obtain a 3 – 6% share of the statewide allocation.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 81 Table 12—STIP Allocations by Year STIP Cycle Total ITIP (millions) District 5 ITIP (millions) 1998 1,155 123.2 2000 432 12.3 2002 870 25

As shown in the table, funding for the District peaked in 1998. The economic cycle experienced historic growth and the Department was directed to program funds it had accrued without spending, over a period of years. 1998 would appear to be anomalous, while programming years 2000 and 2002 may be more typical.

The district may also receive Federal transportation funds within the context of Transportation Enhancement Acts (TEA). When the Department receives funds from the Federal government (which funds the SHA), a pre-determined percentage is placed into a “SHOPP TEA” account. When the Department announces plans for a TEA fund release, districts participate in a competitive, project specific application process to obtain them. There may be multiple release periods, commonly known as “rounds”. The TEA-21 program saw the release of 3 rounds over six years, providing approximately $5,200,000 to the district for eight projects.

Rail projects, because of their connection with interregional public transportation and smart growth priorities, receive funding from the statewide ITIP and Federal government. Although the district does not manage these projects directly, we acknowledge unmet needs and participate in regional planning to the extent that we can assist our regional and local partners. 2.25% of new ITIP is required to be programmed for inter-city rail projects. Additional (discretionary) ITIP is available, but not required. The Surface Transportation Program, TEA, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds; Federal Earmarks, Regional Shares, and the Transportation Development Act can also fund rail projects. All of these require partnering efforts within the District as well as beyond district boundaries. The Department’s Rail Plan includes many improvements, which will occur within District 5’s boundaries for regional and interregional travel.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 82 State Highway Operation and Protection Program

District 5 receives project funding primarily from two programs within the State Highway Account (SHA). The State Highway and Operations Protection Program (SHOPP) is a program administered wholly by the Department for safety, operational, maintenance and rehabilitation needs. SHA funds are allocated to the program based upon the Department’s 10-year SHOPP Plan. 100% of the funds are allocated for preserving the existing system and making relatively small refinements designed to improve system performance at very localized areas.

The purpose of the SHOPP is to preserve and protect the State highway system. The SHOPP is a four-year funding program and is renewed biennially on the even years.

The 2004 SHOPP includes $5.5 billion of funding statewide for major projects – those over $750,000 - over the four-year period 2004/05 through 2007/08, or approximately $1.4 billion annually. Projects are grouped into six categories: Collision Reduction, Mobility, Bridge Preservation, Roadway Preservation, Roadside Preservation, and Facilities. The District 5 portion of the SHOPP includes $191 million. Additionally, there exists a statewide list of 9 projects the Department has identified as high priority future SHOPP projects that involve a complex environmental or project selection process that requires more than four years lead time for delivery of construction contract documents. District 5 has one projects include in this list.

Minor Projects (Minor A’s are under $750,000, Minor B’s are under $120,000) are funded in addition to the 2002 SHOPP funds shown in the table below. For the 2003/04 FY, District 5 has been allocated $3,625,000 for Minor A projects and $3,500,000 for Minor B Projects for a total of $7,125,000. The statewide total allocation for 2003/04 is $99,000,000. In addition, there is approximately $7,000,000 more available for District 5 Minor A projects through SHOPP Reservation funds. This brings District 5’s Minor Program to approximately $14 Million annually.

The 10-Year State Highway Operation and Protection Plan (Plan) is also prepared on a biennial basis in even years. The plan is required to identify rehabilitation needs, schedules for meeting those needs, strategies for cost control and program

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 83 efficiencies. The current update of the 10-Year SHOPP will result in a 2005 plan, with the 2002 plan the only adopted document at this point.

The focus of the 2002 Plan is to refine the inventory of state highway system (SHS) rehabilitation and reconstruction needs and estimated costs, without making a funding recommendation. The 2002 Plan identifies potential statewide needs of over $22 billion, which will be further evaluated and prioritized. The District 5 portion of the 2002 Plan includes almost $1.3 billion.

Work has begun on a 2005 update to the Ten Year SHOPP. The following analysis has been done on a draft ten-year projection of needed SHOPP projects in District 5, covering the period 2005 through 2015. It is clear that the trends seen in the past will continue, with roadway preservation as the largest need, as the infrastructure ages.

Table 13—Ten Year SHOPP Analysis-Future District 5 2005 Ten - Year SHOPP Projects by Category (In Thousands) COLLISION REDUCTION CATEGORY $ 28,755 BRIDGE PRESERVATION CATEGORY $ 55,519 ROADWAY PRESERVATION $ 401,153 CATEGORY MOBILITY CATEGORY $ 18,694 ROADSIDE PRESERVATION $ 15,603 CATEGORY FACILITIES $ 1,300

EMERGENCY & MANDATED $ 25,000 CATEGORY

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 84 D5 Ten Year SHOPP COLLISION Projects by Category REDUCTION

BRIDGE PRESERVATION

ROADWAY PRESERVATION

MOBILITY

ROADSIDE PRESERVATION

FACILITIES

EMERGENCY & MANDATED

In previous SHOPP cycles, a percentage of the statewide funding was allocated to each district. The current method is for projects to compete on a statewide basis for each category. As a result, District 5 fares well in the Protective Betterments Program in the Roadway Preservation Category because of our high need due to mountainous terrain. However, District 5 does not compete well for funds in the Roadway Rehabilitation Program in the same Category due to our lower AADTs than the larger districts, such as Districts 4 and 7.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 85 Acronyms and Abbreviated Terms

AMBAG Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments CTP California Transportation Plan Caltrans California Department of Transportation Department, the California Department of Transportation DSMP District System Management Plan Km Kilometer(s) Kp kilometer post IRRS Interregional Road System ITSP Interregional Transportation Improvement Plan ITSP Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan LOS Level of Service Mi mile(s) MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan PM Post mile RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Ag ency RTP Regional Transportation Plan SBCAG Santa Barbara County Association of Governments SBtCOG San Benito Council of Governments SHOPP State Highway Operation and Protection Program SLOCOG San Luis Obispo Council of Governments SR State Route SRRA Safety Roadside Rest Areas STIP State Transportation Improvement Program TAMC Transportation Agency for Monterey County TCR Transportation Concept Report TSDP Transportation System Development Program

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 86 References

DOF 2001 California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. Interim County Population Projections, State of California. June 2001.

DOF 2001 California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. County Population Projections with Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnic Detail, State of California. June 2001.

DFA 2002 California Department of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture Statistics Division. California Agricultural Resource Directory 2002. Sacramento, CA.

DOT 2002 California Department of Transportation. Draft California Transportation Plan 2025. Sacramento, California. September 25, 2002.

DOT 2002 California Department of Transportation. Statewide Rail Transportation Assessment, Revised Draft Report. September 2002.

DOT 2003 California Department of Transportation, Division of Environme ntal Analysis. Statewide Environmental Business Process Review Project, Final Report . Sacramento, California. January 22, 2003.

DOT 1996 California Department of Transportation, District 5 Transportation Planning. Park and Ride Lot Final Program Report. San Luis Obispo, California. April 1996.

DOT 2002 California Department of Transportation. Main Streets: Flexibility in Design and Operations. Sacramento, California. July 2002.

DOT 2002 California Department of Transportation and NuStats. 2000-2001 California Statewide Household Travel Survey, Final Report. June 2002. DOT 2001 California Department of Transportation. California State Rail Plan. Sacramento, California.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 87 DOT 1998. California Department of Transportation. Statewide Goods Movement Strategy. Sacramento, California.

DOT 1998 California Department of Transportation. Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan. Sacramento, California. June 1998.

DOT, 2001 California Department of Transportation. Ground Access to Airport Study. Prepared by Landrum and Brown Team. August 24, 2001.

SBCOG 2000 Council of San Benito County Governments. Regional Transportation Plan. Prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in association with Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. California. 2000.

SLOCOG 2001San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Regional Transportation Planning Agency. 2001 Draft Regional Transportation Plan. California. October, 2001.

SBCAG 2001 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. Regional Transportation Plan, 2000-2020. Santa Barbara, California. Prepared by Lawler Consulting. October 18, 2001.

SBCAG 2002 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. The South Coast Highway 101 Deficiency Plan, Santa Barbara, California. June 2002.

SCCRTC 2001 Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission. 2001 Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Plan. California. December 2001.

TAMC 2002 Transportation Agency for Monterey County In Association with DKS Associates. 2002 Monterey County Regional Transportation Plan. February 27, 2002.

TransCore 2000 TransCore in Association with VRPA Assoc. Central Coast Intelligent Transportation System Strategic Plan. June 30, 2000.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 88 Appendix A: District 5 Major Emphasis Areas, 2025

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 89 State Mariposa # Corridor Project Description Project Limits South Coast Corridor Goleta/Ventura Co. 1 101 Improvements Line Stanislaus Santa Maria Freeway/Bridge Orcutt/SLO County San 14 2 101 Improvements Line Mateo 35 Santa Clara Traffic Way to 236 3 101 5 Cities Corridor Improvements Spyglass 12 SLO 101/1 17 13 Santa 9 101 4 101/1 Interchange/Improvements SLO City Limits 5 46 E Four Lane Freeway 101/Chalome Y Cruz 152 152 1 Soledad/N. Salinas Merced 6 101 Salinas Corridor Improvements Limit Santa 129 Cruz Hollister 7 68 CorridorMadera Improvements Salinas to Hwy 1 1 156 Carmel/S. Cruz Co. 8 1 Capacity Improvements Line 9 11 9 156 W Capacity Improvements 101/Castroville 183 Salinas 10 Monterey 10 101 Prunedale Corridor Improvements Salinas/156 1 25 San 68 101 San Juan Batista to Benito 11 156 Capacity Improvements Hollister Bypass

King City Fresno 1 198 198

101

Kings Tulare 41 101 P a c Paso 46 i 46 f 1 Robles i c 41 O 46 c 5 e a 229 Kern n 41 Morro 4 58 Bay 1 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 227

Arroyo 101 3 Grande 166 1 33 166 2

33 Santa Maria 101 Major Emphasis Areas Santa Barbara District 5, 2005-2025 1 135 Lompoc 154

246 Ventura

101 Santa 1 Barbara 154 101 1 101 217 192

010203040 Miles ³ Map 6 District 5 Major Emphasis Areas, 2025 DRAFT Table 11

Planning Level State Estimate

3. Staff judgements have been the basis for scoring the issues, High, Medium and Low. a b n Appendix B: County Descriptions

The following paragraphs provide an overview of the economic base, population distribution, geography, and transportation attributes in each District 5 county.

B.1 Santa Barbara County

Santa Barbara County, the southernmost in District 5, includes five distinct centers of development distributed over a varied topography (See Map 1). The two largest developed areas, the South Coast area and the Santa Maria area lie along Route 101at the southeast and northwest ends respectively of Santa Barbara County. In the South Coast, a narrow shelf of land bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the south and the Santa Ynez Mountains and canyons to the north features a Mediterranean climate and a splendid site for human habitation. Here, Route 101 links the dominant City of Santa Barbara with the Cities of Carpinteria and Goleta and the communities of Summerland, Montecito, and Isla Vista, site of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Owing to a combination of topography, local sentiment, and historic development patterns, the South Coast area offers no effective alternative to Route 101. Route 192 runs roughly parallel to Route 101 but some one to two miles north along the foothills through much of the South Coast area. Route 192 is developed as a two-lane local road. While the State Street/Hollister Avenue route lies considerably closer to Route 101, the downtown Santa Barbara portion of the route (State Street) does not offer an attractive alternative for either cross-town or through travelers.

The Santa Ynez Mountains and Los Padres National Forest separate the South Coast area from the other four centers of development in Santa Barbara County. Two State highways provide access north from the South Coast area. Route 101 continues north as a four-lane freeway and expressway, crossing the mountains via 900-foot high Nojoqui Pass before descending into the Santa Ynez Valley. State Route 154 offers an alternative that is shorter by 14 miles (30%), a savings that comes at the cost of a steeper, more winding drive on a two-lane road over 2,200-foot high San Marcos Pass. These factors combined with the vagaries of seasonal weather,

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 92 occasional forest fires and heavy recreational traffic can quickly eliminate the benefits of “taking the back way.”

Once over the mountains, the cities and unincorporated communities that comprise three of the County’s other four centers of development can be accessed via a network of state and local roads (See Map 2). The first is the constellation of Santa Ynez Valley communities. The City of Buellton at the junction of Route 101 and SR 246 is the gateway to several communities lying between Routes 101 and 154. These include the larger City of Solvang and the communities of Santa Ynez, Los Alamos, Los Olivos, and Ballard. Buellton is a crossroads community, mid-way (and the only city) between Santa Barbara to the south and Santa Maria to the north. Buellton is midway between Lompoc to the west and Solvang to the east. The Santa Ynez Valley is rich with vineyards and other agricultural activities and attractive communities, the largest of which is Solvang. Solvang is a regional tourist destination with both a historic Danish-themed downtown and the Santa Ynez Mission. Just east of Solvang on Route 246, the Chumash Indians have developed a popular casino complex that also attracts regional traffic.

The next development center is Lompoc to the west. Lompoc and the Vandenberg Air Force Base are accessed via three main routes: State Route 1 which diverges from US 101 near Gaviota, SR 246 from Buellton/Solvang, and SR 135/SR 1 from the Santa Maria area. The area includes the City of Lompoc and the communities of Vandenberg Village and Mission Hills, all of which are greatly affected by the Vandenberg Air Force Base to their west. Routes 101 and 1 are Strategic Highway Corridor Network routes that provide for the transport of Vandenberg personnel and material to and from the military base.

The Santa Maria center of development is located in the Santa Maria River Valley at the north end of the County. The center encompasses the City of Guadalupe some four miles to the west on SR 1 and the community of Orcutt contiguous to the south. Santa Maria lies on both sides of Route 101 just south of the San Luis Obispo County line. With a Year 2000 population of 77,423, Santa Maria offers regional shopping and services for all the County’s centers of development and agricultural operations north of the South Coast area and for much of San Luis Obispo County as well. Santa Maria is a regional center comparable to Bakersfield and Salinas for agricultural- related services such as equipment sales and service; chemicals; consulting services; produce processing, freezing, brokerage, storage and shipping; and irrigation

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 93 systems. Santa Maria is approachable by three state routes, US 101 from the south and north, SR 166 from Guadalupe and the rich farmlands to the west, and 135 from the Lompoc/Vandenberg area.

The fifth and final of Santa Barbara County’s development center is the Cuyama Valley, an agricultural area located in the extreme northeast part of the County, more than 50 miles from Route 101. In District 5, the Cuyama Valley with its unincorporated communities of Cuyama and New Cuyama is accessed via SR 166 east, which resumes from U.S. 101 north of the Santa Maria River Bridge in San Luis Obispo County.

The California Department of Finance projects that the Santa Barbara County population will increase overall from 40,778 in 2000 to 464,019 by 2020, an increase of 16 percent. In 2020, 52 percent of the population is expected to reside outside the South Coast in the northern portion of the county (an increase from 48 percent in 1990). The North County’s share of the employment base is projected to increase from 40 percent to 46 percent by 2020. This area is less constrained by geography and existing development than the South Coast, and growth will be more easily accommodated.

According to a 1991 Caltrans Statewide Travel Survey, vehicle trips per household and driver trips per vehicle were greater in Santa Barbara County than anywhere in the state. Given this pattern and the projected population growth, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments recognizes that there will continue to be substantial growth in the region’s vehicle miles traveled over the next 20 years.

B.2 San Luis Obispo County

San Luis Obispo County includes seven incorporated cities and numerous unincorporated communities located in distinct coastal and near-inland areas (See Map 1). Six of the County’s seven cities are located on Route 101, which extends south to north through the County. The San Luis Obispo County Regional Transportation Plan addresses transportation needs in four sub-regional areas in the County; South County, Central County, North Coast and North County.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 94 At the south end of the County an area known locally as “South County” includes the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Pismo Beach as well as the communities of Oceano, Shell Beach and Nipomo. The “Five Cities” portion of the South County is tourist-oriented, especially the City of Pismo Beach, which is a major destination for visitors throughout the state. Nipomo located near the south county line is the fastest growing community in the County. Nipomo is developing in a generally low- density rural residential pattern. It has strong economic and cultural ties to the City of Santa Maria at the north end of Santa Barbara County.

State Route 166 east diverges from Route 101 just north of the County line. The route follows the Santa Maria River towards Kern County. It does not provide access to settlements within San Luis Obispo County. Route 1 which headed west from Route 101 near Gaviota in Santa Barbara County, enters San Luis Obispo County just north of Guadalupe, rejoins Route 101 in the City of Pismo Beach and shares the Route 101 alignment north to central San Luis Obispo in Central County.

North of Shell Beach, Route 101 leaves the coast and crosses the San Luis Range into the Central County Planning Area. State Route 227 provides a two-lane alternative to the Route 101 freeway from the South County area (centering around Arroyo Grande) to the Central County area (San Luis Obispo). The Central County area includes the City of San Luis Obispo on Route 101 and the unincorporated community of Avila.

San Luis Obispo is the county seat and largest city, a cultural and commercial center, and the site of California State Polytechnic University. San Luis Obispo is the county’s center for highway, rail and air transportation as well as a gateway to the North Coast area communities of Morro Bay, Cayucos and Cambria along Route 1. Morro Bay is the only city in San Luis Obispo County that is not located on US 101.

In central San Luis Obispo, Route 1 diverges from Route 101 and heads northwest towards the Pacific Coast. Along this section of Route 1 lies several year-round major traffic generators such as Cuesta Community College and the California Men's Colony. Other large public facilities along this section of Route 1 include Camp San Luis Obispo National Guard Base, the SLO County Jail and Juvenile Hall facilities, El Chorro Regional Park and Dairy Creek Golf Course.

The North Coast corridor contains some of the county’s most scenic and pristine natural areas drawing tourists from around the state and country, including Estero

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 95 Bay and Morro Estuary, Montana de Oro State Park, and other state parks. The small, pleasant beach towns of Los Osos, Morro Bay, Cayucos, Cambria, and San Simeon support the regional visitors generated by natural and human attractions. North of Cambria, Route 1 continues towards the Hearst San Simeon State Historical Monument in San Luis Obispo County and on into Monterey County where it is designated as the Big Sur Coast Highway on the National Scenic Byway system.

Route 1 also provides transportation links to the North County Planning Area. Two State Routes originate from State Route 1 in San Luis Obispo County. Route 41 originates at Morro Bay and continues east to and through the North County City of Atascadero. Route 46 originates at SR 1 approximately 6 miles south of the unincorporated community of Cambria. Highway 46 continues to US 101 at the south end of the other North County City, Paso Robles. Highway 46 resumes its course east from Route 101 in central Paso Robles. The east segments of Routes 46 and 41 provide access for coast-bound tourists and goods movement from the San Joaquin Valley.

North of San Luis Obispo, Route 101 crosses the Santa Lucia Mountains via the 1,500-foot high Cuesta Grade heading into the North County area and the cities of Atascadero and Paso Robles. Camp Roberts; a California Army National Guard facility is located on both sides of Route 101, both south and north of the San Luis Obispo/Monterey County line. The unincorporated communities of Santa Margarita, Templeton, and San Miguel lie adjacent to the highway. Primarily serving agricultural economies, the community of Creston lies to the east of Atascadero; and Whitley Gardens and Shandon to the east of Paso Robles. These rural communities are accessed via three state highways that head east from Route 101 in the North County: SRs 58, 41 and 46.

The coastal and near-inland areas of South County and Central County enjoy gentle Mediterranean climates and conditions for growing multiple crops throughout the year. Farther inland, numerous vineyards have been planted. With the crossing of the Santa Lucia mountain range at the Cuesta Grade, Route 101 enters into a drier climatic zone with greater temperature extremes. The communities of the North County area are generally developed at considerably lower densities than south of the Cuesta Grade. Rural residential development and ranchettes characterize the outskirts of the North County communities. Irrigated agriculture is well established

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 96 in the North County, especially between Atascadero and Paso Robles where fruit and nut orchards and vineyards cover level sites and rolling hillsides. With the exceptions of the small communities of Creston, Whitley Gardens, Shandon and California Valley, the vast area of San Luis Obispo County to the east of the Route 101 corridor is virtually unsettled. In addition to the Santa Lucia Range, which lies east of Route 101south of the Cuesta Grade, numerous smaller mountain ranges, valleys, plains and a section of the Los Padres National Forest cover the east portion of the county. The Carrizo Plain National Monument, newly designated in 2001 for its grassland habitat and cultural resources, is located to the southeast of Atascadero accessible via Route 58. The San Andreas Fault also runs through the county near its eastern edge.

The California Department of Finance projects that the population of San Luis Obispo County will grow from an estimated 248,327 in 1999 to 305,274 in 2020, an increase of 23 percent. Most of the growth is projected to occur away from the San Luis Obispo area in North County communities such as Templeton and Paso Robles, the South County and the North Coast area. The County Planning Department projects that the small South County community of Nipomo will grow more than 75 % over the next 20 years. The cities of Atascadero and Arroyo Grande are both subject to build-out policies that limit their growth beyond the year 2010.

The Central County area, dominated by the City of San Luis Obispo, is projected to grow at a much slower rate than the county overall. The area’s population will increase by just 21% in the next 20 years. The City of San Luis Obispo, like the City of Santa Barbara, is a major employment center with a chronic shortage of affordable housing. Commuters from the North County, South County, and the City of Santa Maria in Santa Barbara County travel Route 101 to San Luis Obispo employment sites. Of the 15 urban regions surveyed for the 1991 Statewide Travel Survey, only two, those centered upon the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area, reported fewer driver trips per household than San Luis Obispo County. San Luis Obispo County results paralleled those of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments region.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 97 B.3 Monterey County

Monterey County is the only county in Caltrans District 5 with significant levels of development along two distinct north-south State highway corridors, US 101 and SR 1. In Monterey County, as in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties, the seat of government and largest city, Salinas, is located on US Route 101. Unlike the Cities of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo, however, the City of Salinas is not the historic center and County namesake. That distinction belongs to the City of Monterey lying to the west on State Route 1.

Local topography, soils and climatic features in Monterey County have created patterns of economic activity, land use and circulation that are recognized in the delineation of eight County planning areas. Historically, the centers of population and economic activity have been located in two of the planning areas. The first, Greater Salinas on Route 101, is the hub of agricultural activity for the rich Salinas Valley. The second, the Greater Monterey Peninsula, includes seven of the county’s twelve cities. Tourism, recreation and the arts largely support the cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove, and Carmel-by-the-Sea. Further growth in these cities is constrained by water supply and other environmental factors. To the north, the cities of Seaside, Marina, Del Rey Oaks and Sand City have undergone significant changes in response to the closure of the Fort Ord military facility and development of a new campus in the state university system. While Seaside and Marina both experienced major population losses related to the base closure in the last decade, each is projected to grow to the size of Monterey in the next decade and to exceed the population of the older city by some 10,000 by the year 2020.

In contrast with the Monterey Peninsula, the five cities along the Route 101 corridor (in the Greater Salinas and Central Salinas Valley planning areas) have experienced significant growth in recent years. Recent one-year (1998-1999) population estimates from the California Department of Finance show the City of Salinas to be tenth in the State in absolute population growth and among the top 50 cities in rate of growth as well. Growth rates in the other four corridor cities, Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield, and King City, all located in the Greater Salinas Valley planning area, have been among the highest of all cities in the State.

While there are no incorporated cities in the North County planning area, significant growth has occurred there as well. This is especially true in the unincorporated

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 98 communities of Prunedale and Royal Oaks. With rapid growth along the Route 101 corridor in the unincorporated North County and the five cities to the south, Monterey County was the fourth fastest growing county in the State according to the most recent one year population change estimates.

The growth pressure along Monterey County’s Route 101 corridor is largely attributable to growth in employment and lack of affordable housing in the Silicon Valley (Santa Clara County) to the north. Historically, the economies of the Monterey County cities on Route 101 have been based on agriculture. With the new residential growth and expansion of prison facilities in Soledad, the County and the five cities are being challenged in the areas of water quality, air quality, urban services and agricultural land as well as transportation.

Three of the remaining four planning areas in the County, Coast, Cachagua and Toro, are relatively unsettled, with rugged terrain and limited access. While the Coast planning area is largely undevelopable due to terrain and/or public ownership, the area’s attractiveness to tourists results in impacts to the inland Route 101. The Coast planning area includes the Monterey County portion of the spectacular Big Sur Coast accessed via Route 1 between Cambria in San Luis Obispo County and Carmel in the Greater Monterey Peninsula planning area. A sizable proportion of tourists bound for the world-renowned scenic drive depart Route 101 via Route 156 at Prunedale or Route 68 in Salinas in Monterey County. The Route 101 corridor passes through the final planning area, South County, located between the Greater Salinas Valley area and San Luis Obispo County. South County includes sizable units of Camp Roberts and the Fort Hunter-Liggett military bases. The area is generally unsuitable for agricultural use and remote from urban services. Although no cities are located in these four planning areas and their current populations are small; each has the potential for significant rates of growth in future years.

The California Department of Finance projects that Monterey County will grow from a 2000 population of 403,636 to 505,359 in the year 2020. This represents an increase of 25%, with the greatest growth projected to occur along the Route 101 corridor.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 99 B.4 San Benito County

San Benito County is the only inland county in the District 5. The County is lightly populated, ranking 43rd in population among the State’s 58 counties. San Benito’s total population, around 50,000, is approximately one-fifth that of the second smallest County in the District, San Luis Obispo County. Much of the County’s land area is in the rugged terrain of two parallel mountain ranges, the Gabilan and the Diablo. The County’s population is concentrated in the less rugged northwest area in cities and rural agricultural areas. San Benito County’s seat of government is the larger of its two cities, Hollister, located ten miles east of Route 101 at the junction of Routes 25 and Business 156. San Juan Bautista is located on SR 156 some 10 miles west of Hollister and just east of US 101.

San Benito County is known to outsiders as the site of Mission San Juan Bautista, located in its small namesake city, and as the main gateway to Pinnacles National Monument, located in the Gabilan Range some 35 miles south of Hollister. Area employment has been and remains dominated by agriculture and food processing. However, over the past two decades, San Benito County has experienced significant population growth in response to employment opportunities in adjacent Santa Clara County to the north and to a lesser degree, Monterey County to the southwest.

Route 101 is one of five state highways that cross San Benito County. All of these are used primarily for trips originating and/or ending outside the County. Route 101 passes through the northwest corner of the County. Although the San Benito County portion of Route 101 is just 7.5 miles long and located away from the main concentration of population in Hollister, this segment includes junctions with two other State Routes, 156 east and 129. Route 156 east provides access to Route 101 for interregional motorists and truckers traveling from the San Joaquin Valley and I-5, as well as County residents traveling to Monterey County destinations. Route 129 delivers traffic to Route 101 from Route 1 and Watsonville in Santa Cruz County. Route 25 runs parallel to Route 101 from the Monterey County/San Benito County line east of King City, through Hollister, and on to its junction with Route 101 just three miles inside Santa Clara County. Route 146 provides access to the Pinnacles National Monument from Route 25 and from Route 101 in Monterey County. Route 146 is not continuous through the National Monument.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 100 With its small current population base, the proximity of its relatively undeveloped northern reaches to the Silicon Valley, and its rich network of State highways, San Benito County is projected to experience annual rates of growth two to three times those of nearby Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. About 43% of residents commute to jobs outside of the county. The California Department of Finance projects that San Benito County’s population will grow some 37% over the next 20 years to a size of 73,547 in 2020, from a population of 53,770 in 2000.

B.5 Santa Cruz County

Santa Cruz County is located north of Monterey County and northwest of San Benito County. The western edge of Santa Cruz County completes the coastline of Monterey Bay and continues north along the Pacific Ocean to San Mateo County. Santa Cruz County shares its long eastern boundary with Santa Clara County. Both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties lie in Caltrans District 4. Santa Cruz County geographically is the smallest county in Caltrans District 5, and the second smallest in the State of California. Santa Cruz County is also the only District 5 County that is not traversed by U.S. 101, the major north-south route through the California’s western and coastal counties.

The population of Santa Cruz County and the majority of agricultural and related commercial and industrial activity are concentrated in the southwestern area upland from the Monterey Bay and in the Pajaro River Valley. The northern and eastern portions of the County are largely forested, mountainous; a significant portion of which is in public ownership. These latter lands include five State Parks: Wilder Ranch, Henry Cowell Redwoods, Big Basin Redwoods, Castle Rock and The Forest of the Nisene Marks, as well as numerous County and City Parks. There are parcels of irrigated agricultural land along Route 1 north of Santa Cruz as well as small orchards scattered throughout the County.

The City of Santa Cruz with a population of 54,593 , is the largest city, seat of government and the historic and cultural center of Santa Cruz County. The City of Santa Cruz is home to one of the 21 historic California missions and a campus of the University of California. Santa Cruz has historically functioned as an employment center for retailing, local government, tourist-related services and facilities and the

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 101 arts. The beaches and historic beachfront development in the City and its outskirts have long been attractive to tourists and locals alike. They are also home to major marine research facilities. The nearby cities of Capitola and Scotts Valley and communities of Soquel, Live Oak and Aptos, and smaller settlements have historically related to Santa Cruz as a central place for goods and services.

The second largest city in the County is fast-growing Watsonville located in the Pajaro Valley near the south end of the County. Watsonville is a major regional agricultural and food processing center and a true crossroads, as well. Two state routes, Routes 129 and 152, originate at State Route 1 in Watsonville. Route 129 is an important link for trucking agricultural product to Route 101. Trucks account for more than 20 % of daily traffic on Route 129 between Watsonville and U.S. Route 101.

Route 1 is the primary route through Santa Cruz County as it continues its course around Monterey Bay. Three State highways (SRs 1, 17 and 9) serve downtown Santa Cruz. State Route 1, known locally as Mission Street, forms the spine of the City and is the only continuous route through Santa Cruz County that is developed as a freeway from the Monterey County line to its junction with Route 17 in the City. The urban portion of Route 1 in Santa Cruz County is the most heavily traveled highway segment in District 5 and worsening freeway congestion, especially south of the fishhook intersection with Route 17, has dominated local public discourse for several years.

Route 17 connects Santa Cruz with the Silicon Valley. Route 17 originates at Route 1 and follows the course of Carbonera Creek north. It rises through Hatchen Pass in the Santa Cruz Mountains and continues to Los Gatos in Santa Clara County. Both traffic volumes and use patterns on Route 17 have changed dramatically since the technology boom in the Silicon Valley. The route has seen heavy weekend inflows from Santa Clara County for several decades. In recent years has come the rise of heavy daily outflows of commuters to Santa Clara County and even heavier weekend inflows of tourists and recreationists.

Route 9 also originates at Route 1 near downtown Santa Cruz. Unlike Route 17, however, Route 9 is a winding two-lane road that meanders along the San Lorenzo River towards parks, camping facilities, and rural homesites.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 102 The California Department of Finance projects that Santa Cruz County will grow from a 2000 population of 256,874 to 283,044 in the year 2020. This represents an increase of 11%, with the greatest growth projected to occur along the Route 101 corridor.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 103 Appendix C: Programmed and Planned Projects

Current STIP Program of Projects

The attached maps portray graphically the distribution of resources for the next 5- 12 years, as a selection of currently programmed projects are shown. The list is not comprehensive, as the District 5 Status of Projects currently shows 276 projects, but these are the significant ones.

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 104 Z$ Programmed 166 Operational STIP Projects Improvements PSR Underway Santa Barbara County or Completed Pre-PSR |ÿ Nipomo |ÿ Santa Maria River Bridge #0 Programmed STIP Projects |ÿ 101/135 IC Co Rte PM Description Phase SB 101 2.2/3.3 Carpenteria Interchanges PA&ED |ÿ Ortega Hill Auxiliary Lane Guadalupe Widening Santa Maria SB 101 R8.3/9.0 and Bikeway PS&E/RW 6-Lane Milpas - Hot Springs Santa Maria SB 101 11.4/12.7 Operational Improvements PS&E/RW #0 SB 101 R14.7 Widen Carillo St. NB Onramp PA&ED SB 101 16.4/65.1 Traffic Operation Systems PA&ED 135 Widening Union Valley Parkway IC 101/Union Valley Parkway SB 101 83.6 Interchange PA&ED SB 101 84.0/90.988 Santa Maria Widen to 6 Lanes Construction SB 101 90.75 101/135 Interchange PA&ED SLO 101 0.1/0.8 Santa Maria River Bridge Capacity PA&ED SB 154 R4.5/29.0 Group II Operational Improvements PA&ED Santa Barbara SB 166 0.0/7.0 Guadalupe Widening PA&ED SB 225 1.7 Las Positas/Cliff Dr. Intersection PA&ED |ÿ SB 246 9.6/R20.9 Lompoc Widening PA&ED |ÿ ut101 PSR Completed or Underway (New) Co Rte PM Description Phase Lompoc Widening SB 101 R15.73/16.6 SB Auxiliary Lane PSR Underway SB 101 16.6/17.8 NB Auxiliary Lane PSR Underway Lompoc SB 101 22.54/24.8 Goleta Widening PSR Complete Group II SB 135 10.8/13.6 135 Widening PSR Complete Operational SB 166 8.927/R70.14 Operational Improvements PSR Complete |ÿ Improvements Pre-PSR Co Rte PM Description Phase |ÿ SB 101 R0.0/12.8 101 In Motion Corridor Study |ÿ Intelligent Transportation Systems Intelligent Transportation Systems

Ortega Hill Goleta Widening Santa Barbara ut101 Auxiliary Lane Auxiliary Lanes 101 In Motion Widening Study |#ÿ0 #0

Las Positas / Cliff Drive Milpas - Hot Springs 02.5 5 10 15 20 Miles Carrillo Street IC Carpenteria ICs Published May 26, 2004 Programmed STIP Projects Co Rte PM Description Phase San Luis Obispo SLO 1 42.4/44.3 Harmony TCL PA&ED Cottonwood TCL SLO 1 30.4 Roundabout in MB at Route 1 & Main St. Construction STIP Projects SLO 1 11.0/11.1 Halcyon - Bridge and Intersection (Phase I) PS&E SLO 1 8.9/11.2 Halcyon TCL (Phase II) PA&ED Widen to SLO 101 0.1/0.8 Santa Maria River Bridge PA&ED Monterey 4 Lanes SLO 101 13.1/14.6 Brisco/Halcyon IC PS&E 41 |ÿ SLO 41 49.7/50.4 ¤£101 Widen to 4 Lanes Increase Construct 46/41 IC KER 41 0.0/1.2 Cottonwood TCL Construction Capacity 6 |ÿ46 SLO 41 10.5/11.5 Los Altos Turnouts Construction SLO 46 32.2/50.2 Widen to 4 Lanes Construction |ÿ1 Wellsona IC 6 Airport Rd. IC SLO 46 50.2/55.9 Widen to 4 Lanes & New IC PS&E Widen to 4 Lanes SLO 46 55.9/60.9 Widen to 4 Lanes PA&ED 66 |ÿ46 SLO 101 6.13 Willow Road IC PS&E Postmile 50.2 SLO 101 13.2/R21.5 Operational Improvements (Phase I) PA&ED 101/46 South IC Golden Hill Rd. IC (project separation) SLO 101 16.0/16.6 James Way/Price St. Construction Las Tablas IC 6 Paso Robles Widen to SLO 101 16.6/17.4 Price Street Extension Construction Cambria 4 Lanes SLO 101 45.5/45.6 101/41 IC Construction Vineyard OC 46 Traffic Way IC |ÿ41 SLO/ |ÿ 6 SB 166 9.5/74.8 Operational Improvements Construction Harmony TCL 66 101/41 IC PSR Completed or Underway Atascadero Co Rte PM Description Phase |ÿ229 SLO 101 11.8 El Campo IC PSR Underway SLO 101 13.2/R21.8 Oper. Imp. Group II PSR Underway Pacific Los Altos 58 |ÿ41 |ÿ SLO 101 25.9 Los Osos Valley IC PSR Underway Route 1 Roundabout Turnouts |ÿ58 6 SLO 101 29.0/29.3 101/1 IC (Santa Rosa St.) PSR Underway SLO 101 46 Traffic Way IC Completed 6/30/2001 SLO 101 50.6 Vineyard OC 2004 STIP candidate PSR Underway |ÿ1 ¤£101 SLO 101 51.5/51.8 Las Tablas PSR Underway Morro Bay 101/1 IC SLO 101 54.1 101/46 West IC PSR Underway Los Osos 6 227 Widening SLO 101 26 Prado Rd. IC Local Funding/On Hold Ocean Prado Rd. IC 6 SLO/ Los Osos 6 San Luis Obispo SB 166 8.93/R74.7 Operational Improvements PSR 6/30/01 Valley Rd. IC Price Street/ SLO 227 9.09/12.1 Widening/Oper. Imp. PSR Underway |ÿ227 James Way San Luis Obispo

¤£101 Brisco/Halcyon IC 166 Operational Price St. Ext. 6 Improvements 6 El Campo IC (PSR) Operational 6 Improvements 6 |ÿ166 Willow Rd. IC Halcyon Br. and In. 6 Nipomo Halcyon TCL |ÿ1 6 Southland IC 6 Programmed

6 PSR Underway 166 Operational or Completed Santa Maria Improvements River Bridge (Programmed) 6 Pre-PSR Santa Barbara 02.5 5 10 15 20 Miles

Published October 3, 2002 Monterey, San Benito & Santa Cruz Route 17 Improvements |ÿ ut101 STIP Projects $Z Santa Clara Granite Creek IC Santa Cruz |ÿ Gilroy SCL 152 Corridor 1/9 IC Santa Cruz Widening |ÿ $Z$Z Santa Cruz |ÿ 156/152 IC 1/17 Merge Lanes |ÿ 25/101 IC $Z 25 Holl. to Gil. $Z Watsonville Mission Street |ÿ

|ÿ North 156 Harkins Slough IC $Z ut101 Widening 101/156 IC 25 Hollister to $Z Gilroy 4-Lane 25/156 IC Salinas Rd. IC $Z San Juan Rd. IC $Z $Z Hollister Bypass Pacific Moss Landing Operational Las Aromitas |ÿ Hollister |ÿ Improvements $Z 101/Crazy Horse San Juan Bautista 25 Bypass 4-Lane 101/156 IC $Z Canyon Rd. IC |ÿ Ocean Prunedale Improvement Project 25 South |ÿ Hollister Castroville Widening 156 West Russel Rd. |ÿ Corridor $Z Espinosa Rd. IC

|ÿ Salinas Urban

Mon 1 Capacity Salinas San Benito Improvements $Z Airport Blvd IC Spreckles Rd. Monterey |ÿ Route 1 Sand City Monterey ut101 Holman Highway |ÿ Draft Mon 101 Carmel 1 Corridor 68 Corridor $Z Programmed Programmed STIP Projects Co Rte PM Description Phase $Z PSR Underway MON 1 72.3/75.2 Carmel 1 Corridor PA&ED or Completed MON 1 100.4/R101.5 Salinas Road Interchange PA&ED Pre-PSR MON 68 R3.95/15.0 68 Corridor PA&ED MON 68 3.8/L4.26 Holman Hwy. Intersection Improvements PS&E MON 101 84.6/86.6 Airport Blvd. Interchange PA&ED/PS&E MON 101 R91/R100.4 Prunedale Improvement Project Construction * Funded by Traffic Impact Developer Fees MON 101 95/95.8 101/156 Interchange Construction MON 101 91.9 Russel-Espinosa Rd. IC PA&ED PSR Completed or Underway MON 101 100/101.3 San Juan Rd. Interchange PA&ED Co Rte PM Description Phase MON 156 R1.8/R4.8 156 West Corridor Widening PS&E MON 1 T91.4/T101.4 Moss Landing Corridor Study PSR Complete SBt 25 47.2/49.7 South Hollister Widening PSR 2/26/02 MON 1 R79.3/R82.8 Sand City Study Rte. 1 Improvements PSR Complete SBt 25 R49.7/R52.4 25 Bypass PS&E MON 101 80.9/82.6 South Salinas Corridor PSR Underway SBt 25 51.5/60.08 25 Hollister to Gilroy PA&ED* MON 101 98.4/101.3 SBt 156 3.3/7.7 Gap Project R/W SBt 25 54.05 25/156 IC PSR on Shelf SBt 156 R13.2/R18.4 North 156 Widening PA&ED SBt 101 R3.474 101/156 IC PSR 12/31/2001 SCl 156 0.0/R0.6 North 156 Widening PA&ED SBt 101 0.0/R3.474 Las Aromitas PSR 12/31/2001 SCr 1 10.5/16.8 Santa Cruz Congestion Relief PA&ED SCl 25 0.0/2.5 25 Hollister to Gilroy PA&ED* SCr 1 18.2/19.7 Mission Street Construction SCl 101 2.2/4.2 25 Hollister to Gilroy PA&ED* SCr 1 15.8/17.6 1/17 Widen for Merge Lanes Construction SCr 1 9.2/16.8 Ramp Metering PSR Underway SCr 1 R2.3/R2.5 Harkins Slough IC PA&ED SCr 1 17.5 Hwy 9 Interchange PSR Complete SCl 25 0.0/2.5 25 Hollister to Gilroy PA&ED* SCr 17 5.5 Granite Creek Interchange PSR Complete SCl 25 3.2 25/101 IC PA&ED SCr 17 0.0/12.0 Hwy 17 ITS Improvements PSR Underway SCl 156 0.6 156/152 IC PA&ED 04812162 SCl 101 2.2/4.2 25 Hollister to Gilroy PA&ED* Miles Published October 10, 2003 Appendix D: List of Preparers

The District 5 System Management Plan was prepared by the Transportation Planning Division. The following Caltrans staff contributed to this document:

Rich Krumholz, Deputy District 5 Director for Planning and Local Assistance

Tim Rochte, Sr. Transportation Planner - Branch Chief, System Planning

Dan Herron, Associate Transportation Planner

Gina Kirk, Associate Transportation Planner

Vickie Traxler, Senior Environmental Planner

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 108 Appendix E: Transportation Funding Matrix

District 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 109 Grant Funding Information Matrix

Table 13 Administering Due % Match Eligible Program Agency Date Required Applicants Local St/RdState HwysBridge Transit CapitalTransit OperationTransp. PlanningMultimodalPark & RideAeronauticsEnvironmentalBicycles PedestrianRail

Surface Transportation RTPA/MPO, 11% - 20% Federally certified varies x x x x x x x x x x x Program (STP) Caltrans/FHWA non-fed jurisdictions

Transportation Enhancement RTPA , Caltrans, Federally certified Odd years 11.47% x x x x x x x Activities (TEA) CTC jurisdictions

Designated Scenic Scenic Byways FHWA, Caltrans June 20% Byways & Eligible x x x x x Candidates

Federal Transit Administration Caltrans Feb 20% RTPAs, MPOs x (FTA)/TPA Programs

State, regional, local MPOs, RTPAs, 10% non- FTA Section 5309 ongoing Jurisd., transit FTA federal x x x x operators and boards

FTA, applicant, May MPO, Transit FTA Section 5303 20% Caltrans typically Operators, RTPAs x

20% non- Mass Transit Formula Grants - federal, State, local agencies, FTA, MPO Sept. x x x Section 5307 varies 10- transit operators 50%

Local, CT, Bridge Replacement & Rehab Caltrans October 20% Parks/Recs, Air x x x Program Districts

State, Cities, County, Symms National Recreation 0%, but State Parks/Recs varies Special Dists. & Non- x x x Trails preferred Profits

Public Lands Hwy Program Local Jurisd., CT, (Forest Hwy & discretionary Caltrans Oct. 30 n/a federally funded x programs) programs (ie, BLM)

1 of 4 Caltrans Planning 1/20/2005 Grant Funding Information Matrix

FTA Section 5311 20% Cap; Transit Operators: Apportionment and Caltrans October 50% Op Rural x x x Discretionary

20% Cap; Transit Operators or FTA 5311 (f) Caltrans July 50% Op private agencies x x x

FTA Section 5313 (b) Transit Caltrans Oct/Mar 20% RTPAs, MPOs x Planning Assistance

FTA Statewide Planning Caltrans Oct/Mar 20% RTPAs, MPOs x Studies

Partnership Planning FHWA Caltrans Oct/Mar 20% RTPAs, MPOs x State Planning & Research

Congestion Mitigation and Air RTPA, CTC, 11.47% non- Federally certified varies x x x x x x x Quality (CMAQ) FHWA fed jurisdictions

Cities, County, Office of Traffic 0-25% non- Office of Traffic Safety Apr. 15 School, special Safety fed preferred x x x Districts

Schools & Roads Grants to US Forest Service Spring 10% States, territories x States

Federal Regional Planning Caltrans/FHWA w/ OWP n/a RTPAs, MPOs x Funds (PL Funds)

2 of 4 Caltrans Planning 1/20/2005 Grant Funding Information Matrix

Federal Earmark Regulation Congress Jan-Feb varies Local Jurisdictions x x x Funds Members

April, odd Regional Share, STIP (RTIP) CTC, RTPA 11.47% RTPAs, MPOs yrs x x x x x x x

Interregional Transportation April, odd CTC, Caltrans 11.47% RTPAs, MPOs x x x x x x x Improvement Program (ITIP) yrs

Bicycle Transportation Account Cities, Counties with Caltrans June 1 n/a x x (BTA) bike plan

July 1, State Highway Account (SHA) Caltrans, RTPA n/a Cities, Counties odd yrs x x x x

State Planning Funds Caltrans March varies RTPAs x

April, odd Local jurisd. & Minor A/B programs Caltrans n/a yrs special districts x x x

Habitat Conservation Fund 50% non- Local jurisd. & State Parks/Recs Oct. x x Grant Program state match special districts

Non-profit agencies, Environmental Enhancement & State Resource 0%, but Nov. local state, and x x x x Mitigation Program (EEM) Agency favored federal agencies

state agencies, local Environmental License Plate Resources Agency July n/a jurisdictions, private x x Fund (ELPF) non-profit

3 of 4 Caltrans Planning 1/20/2005 Grant Funding Information Matrix

Petroleum Violation Escrow Energy MPOs, Transit Oct. n/a x x Account (PEVA) Commission Districts

Land and Water Conservation 50% non- state and federal State Parks/Recs May x x Fund state match agencies

Transit Districts, State Transit Assistance (STA) RTPA, Caltrans varies 0% RTPAs x x

Transit Operators, Transportation Development RTPA varies 0% Specialized Transp. x x x x Act (TDA) Article 4 Providers

Transportation Development RTPA on going 0% Cities, County x x x x x x x x x x Act (TDA) Article 8

Vehicle Registration Surcharge 0%, but Private and Public APCD April x x x x x - AB 2766 preferred Agencies

National Bicycle and Bicycle Federation Bike and Pedestrian on going n/a x x Pedestrian Campaign of America Advocacy Groups

Community Based Oct Even Cities, Counties, Caltrans 20% x x x x x x x Transportation Planning Grants Years MPO's, RTPAs

Cities, Counties, Oct Even Environmental Justice Grants Caltrans 10-20% MPO's, RTPAs, x x x x x x x Years Tribes

4 of 4 Caltrans Planning 1/20/2005 Appendix F: Relationship of DSMP to Planning, Programming and Project Development

01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 Page 114 Simplified Statewide and Regional Planning and STIP Programming Cycle Figure 1 - Project Initiation Document Links Planning to Programming SYSTEM PLANNING District System ? Interregional C Planning Transportation A Strategic Plan ? L Route & - Focus Routes Transportation - High Emphasis T Corridor Concepts Routes R ? Transportation - Key Gateway A System Routes PROJECT INITIATION PHASE N Development - Priorities in TSDP Program (TSDP) ? Other State Routes S ? District System Management Plan

? Determine Assign Develop PSRs ? Complete ? ITIP PSRs for ITIP Project ? Scope PSRs Proposals Cooperative Proposals Manager ? Cost ? Approved by formalized ITIP and CTC Comprehensive ? Determine and ? Schedule District ? ______RTIPs to Adopts PSRs for RTIP Develop Project Teams Director ? RTIP CTC STIP Continuing Proposals Work (includes regions) Proposals ? Negotiate Programs finalized Resources

? Regional ? Regional R Transportation Plan Transportation Plan E ? Corridor Studies Priorities (Action G ? Major Investment Element) Studies ? Congestion I PROGRAMMING Management O Programs (CMP) N S REGIONAL PLANNING PARTNERSHIP STUDIES

May/June May/June July June Continuous July/Dec. Ongoing Yearly April 1 Biennial Yearly Yearly Yearly Biennial Odd Year Even Year PSRs are Dec. 15 Biennial continuously Odd Year approved, but Preparation of PSRs per The length of the STIP programming Continuous annual cycle to determine priorities and workload for each fiscal year. must be 01/20/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/20/05 developedPage 115 PID Work cycle is determined by Statute Includes new PSRs as well as PSR development/preparation continuing into the approved by Program next fiscal year Jan. Odd Years to meet next program 01/25/05 5 System Management Plan DRAFT 01/25/05 Page 116