Members Joe Kellejian, Chair Councilmember, Solana Beach (Representing North County Coastal) Jim Madaffer, Vice Chair Councilmember, City of San Diego Lori Holt Pfeiler Mayor, Escondido (Representing North County Inland) Jack Dale Councilmember, Santee TRANSPORTATION (Representing East County) Phil Monroe COMMITTEE Councilmember, Coronado (Representing South County) AGENDA Bill Horn Chairman, County of San Diego Bob Emery, Chair Pro Tem Metropolitan Transit System Friday, December 8, 2006 Jerome Stocks, Chairman North County Transit District 9 a.m. to 12 noon SANDAG Board Room Mary Teresa Sessom th San Diego County Regional 401 B Street, 7 Floor Airport Authority San Diego Alternates Dave Druker Councilmember, Del Mar (Representing North County Coastal) Toni Atkins, Councilmember AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS City of San Diego Jerry Sanders, Mayor City of San Diego • 2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN: Bob Campbell PROPOSED TRANSIT STRATEGY Councilmember, Vista (Representing North County Inland) • FY 2008 TDA/TransNet BICYCLE AND Art Madrid Mayor, La Mesa PEDESTRIAN PROJECT SELECTION EVALUATION (Representing East County) CRITERIA Jerry Rindone Councilmember, Chula Vista (Representing South County)

Ron Roberts, Vice Chairman County of San Diego Greg Cox, Chairman Pro Tem PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING County of San Diego Harry Mathis, Chairman Metropolitan Transit System Lesa Heebner YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE North County Transit District MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG Norine Sigafoose North County Transit District Xema Jacobsen San Diego County Regional MISSION STATEMENT Airport Authority The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. Advisory Members SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, plans, engineers, and builds public transit, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the Pedro Orso-Delgado District 11 Director, Caltrans region's quality of life.

Sandor Shapery Regional Planning San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 Stakeholders Working Group (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ www.sandag.org

Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG

Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Transportation Committee on any item at the time the Committee is considering the item. Please complete a Speaker’s Slip, which is located in the rear of the room, and then present the slip to Committee staff. Also, members of the public are invited to address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Speakers are limited to three minutes. The Transportation Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.

This agenda and related staff reports can be accessed at www.sandag.org under meetings on SANDAG’s Web site. Public comments regarding the agenda can be forwarded to SANDAG via the e-mail comment form also available on the Web site. E-mail comments should be received no later than noon, two working days prior to the Transportation Committee meeting.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.

SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 1-800-COMMUTE or see www.sdcommute.com for route information.

2 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Friday, December 8, 2006

ITEM # RECOMMENDATION

+1. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 3, 2006, MEETING MINUTES APPROVE

+2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS

Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Transportation Committee on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee. Speakers are limited to three minutes each and shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the Clerk prior to speaking. Committee members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item. At the October 20, 2006, Transportation Committee meeting, committee members requested information regarding use of TransNet funds for street lights, and about Goods Movement in the I-15 corridor and bus rapid transit operations in the I-15 and I-805 corridors. Responses to the issues raised at the meeting are included in two memos that are attached to the agenda.

CONSENT ITEM (3)

+3. 2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHITE PAPER: CROSSBORDER INFORMATION TRANSPORTATION (Elisa Arias)

Several white papers are being developed for use in the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. This paper describes current crossborder travel patterns, discusses projected growth in the border region and implications for crossborder travel, and identifies issues and potential solutions for evaluation. The information in this report will be used in the development of the 2007 RTP.

REPORTS (4 through 9)

+4. 2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN: PROPOSED TRANSIT STRATEGY APPROVE FOR 2030 UNCONSTRAINED NETWORK (Dave Schumacher)

Following completion of the Independent Transit Planning Review, staff developed a number of initial transit scenarios to explore how to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of transit in the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Staff will present the results of the evaluation of these transit scenarios in terms of developing a transit strategy for the 2007 RTP. The Transportation Committee is asked to approve the proposed transit strategy.

+5. AMENDMENT TO CLIFF STREET BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE APPROVE FUNDING AGREEMENT (Stephan Vance)

The Transportation Committee is asked to authorize the Executive Director to execute an amendment to a 2004 agreement between SANDAG and the City of Solana Beach concerning funding for the Cliff Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge, in substantially the same form as attached to the report, and to program $250,000 in additional TransNet Bicycle Program funds for the project to fulfill the terms of the amended agreement.

3 +6. FY 2008 TDA/TransNet BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECT EVALUATION APPROVE CRITERIA (Chris Kluth)

As the Regional Transportation Agency, SANDAG is responsible for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) and TransNet funds to its member agencies for bicycle and pedestrian projects. In May 2006, the Transportation Committee approved project selection criteria for the FY 2007 funding cycle and directed staff to return with revised criteria for the FY 2008 funding cycle that placed more emphasis on the importance of regional bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Transportation Committee is asked to approve the project application and evaluation criteria for the FY 2008 funding cycle.

+7. SPRINTER PROJECT STATUS REPORT AND SANDAG INDEPENDENT INFORMATION ASSESSMENT (Jim Linthicum)

This report will provide an update on the status of the North County Transit District SPRINTER Project and SANDAG staff's oversight and independent analysis.

+8. STATUS REPORT ON THE FOOTHILL-SOUTH CORRIDOR/STATE ROUTE 241 INFORMATION TOLL ROAD (Heather Werdick, SANDAG; Peter Herzog, Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency Board Member and City of Lake Forest Councilman)

The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) is proposing to construct the Foothill-South Corridor as a limited access toll road from Interstate 5 in San Diego County to the existing State Route (SR) 241 in Orange County. TCA will provide a status report on the SR 241 toll road. The Borders Committee referred this information report to the Transportation Committee.

+9. OLDER ADULT TRANSPORTATION NEEDS SURVEY (Danielle Kochman) INFORMATION

In 2006, SANDAG conducted a regionwide survey of older adults to obtain information on their current travel patterns and requirements. Staff will present the major survey results including the implications for the region as the population ages.

10. UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION

The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for Friday, January 5, 2007, at 9 a.m.

11. ADJOURNMENT

+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment

4 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

December 8, 2006 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1

Action Requested: APPROVE

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2006

The meeting of the Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Joe Kellejian (North County Coastal) at 9:04 a.m. See the attached attendance sheet for Transportation Committee member attendance.

Chair Kellejian announced that this would be Mary Sessom’s last meeting as the Airport Authority representative to the Transportation Committee.

1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

Chair Kellejian noted one change on the minutes. On page 2, second paragraph, last line, the sentence should read “…and include the updated RAS in the 2007 RTP.”

Action: Upon a motion by Second Vice Chair Lori Holt Pfeiler (North County Inland) and a second by Supervisor Bill Horn (County of San Diego), the Transportation Committee approved the minutes from the October 20, 2006, meeting, as corrected.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS

Don Stillwell, a member of the public, provided comments related to timing connections between the Green Line trolley and bus routes in Mission Valley. He requested that the bus schedules be delayed by 5 minutes to allow transfer time between the trolley and the bus. This would reduce the wait time from 30 minutes to either 5 minutes or 20 minutes between the 15-minute fixed frequency of the trolleys and the 30-minute variable frequency of the buses. It would also allow time for riders from other bus routes to make connections to the Route 14 bus. He said that it is time to provide good service to bus users. This is the only mode of transportation for a large number of people.

Chuck Lungerhausen, a member of the public, distributed a recent letter he wrote to the editor of the San Diego Union-Tribune regarding the relocation of the Chargers football team. He thought that SANDAG should have some input on where the new stadium is going to be located because it will be responsible for the transportation infrastructure no matter who pays for it. He added that the Chargers are interested in what makes economic sense for them, not for the taxpayers. He has been connected with transportation over the past 15 years and is interested in seeing trolley service continue to Qualcomm Stadium. He thought it was awful timing for the Chargers to be looking for a stadium in another location when this organization worked to get the trolley service to Qualcomm Stadium. He wondered who will reimburse SANDAG if the Chargers move to another location.

Pedro Orso-Delgado, Caltrans District 11 Director, noted that last Wednesday they turned on changeable message signs at several freeway locations. One location on State Route (SR) 52 coming westbound from Santee proved to be a little challenging as it created a bit of a traffic backup from drivers reading the sign. We know about this situation and are dealing with it. He wanted to review the situation in a week to see if the situation has been resolved.

Councilmember Jim Madaffer (City of San Diego) commented that this is a beneficial taxpayer investment, and Caltrans shouldn’t be swayed by a few complaints.

Chair Kellejian mentioned that last Saturday he and several other SANDAG Board members attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the extension of SR 52. This event was widely covered by the press, and it was a good ceremony. This project is in our Early Action Program (EAP) and shows that we are keeping our promise to the people of San Diego County by moving these projects ahead.

CONSENT ITEMS (3 through 4)

3. CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM QUARTERLY UPDATE (INFORMATION)

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is the state agency responsible for planning, constructing, and operating a high-speed train system serving California's major metropolitan areas. The proposed system stretches over 800 miles and would connect San Diego, Los Angeles, the Central Valley, San Francisco, and Sacramento using a state-of- the-art, electrified system capable of speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour. SANDAG continues to monitor the work of the CHSRA. This report is the regular quarterly update to the Transportation Committee.

Sandor Shapery thought this study should include both freight and passengers on this line. Chair Kellejian agreed that would be an interesting subject to broach with the Interregional Partnership Policy Committee.

4. LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING REPORT (INFORMATION)

The Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency seeks to increase ridership, revenue, capacity, reliability, and safety on the coastal rail line from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo. Known as Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner corridor, it is the second busiest intercity passenger rail corridor nationwide and Amtrak’s fastest growing. This report summarizes the actions from the LOSSAN Board meeting on September 13, 2006.

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Bob Emery (Metropolitan Transit System [MTS]) and a second by Councilmember Phil Monroe (South County), the Transportation Committee approved Consent Items 3 and 4.

2

REPORTS (5 through 10)

5. DRAFT 2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN PERFORMANCE MEASURES (APPROVE)

Chair Kellejian pointed out a change on page 5 of this item under “Livability;” it should read, “Percentage of peak-period trips within ¼-mile of a transit stop.”

Rachel Kennedy, Transportation Planner, explained that the purpose of the performance measures are to evaluate the performance of the network, provide information on a regionwide basis, and benchmark progress toward meeting the plan’s policy goals and objectives. She said that the performance measures were updated for the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) by the Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria Ad Hoc Working Group (TPEC). She identified the members of this group and noted that TPEC has recommended modifications to a number of performance measures from absolute to per capita measures such as: daily vehicular crashes, smog-forming pollutants, on-road fuel consumption, daily vehicle miles traveled, and daily transit passenger miles. She stated that TPEC also recommended the addition of three new performance measures: daily hours of delay per 1,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the regional freight network, percentage of daily trips within ¼-mile of a transit stop, and average trip distance. Two additional modifications to the MOBILITY 2030 performance measures are: percentage of peak-period trips within ¼-mile of a transit stop and the percentage of homes within ½-mile of a transit stop (which was moved from the ‘Livability’ category to the ‘Equity’ category).

Councilmember Jerome Stocks (North County Transit District [NCTD]) asked for clarification on the measure related to the percentage of homes within ½-mile of a transit stop. He wondered if the percentage of homes means the number of homes that exist or homes that are created from 2006 on. Ms. Kennedy replied that it is the percentage of homes in the region in the year 2030 within ½-mile of a transit stop.

Councilmember Monroe suggested that another measure be considered and that is having a map that shows congestion on our highways in different timing segments; for example, from two hours per day, 2-4 hours, 4-6 hours, and greater than 6 hours. We ought to look at that number in the future and see if that has gone up or down. We sold TransNet to the public on reducing congestion. One straightforward way to show results of that regional investment is to show we have fewer miles of congestion. He suggested that we use miles of congestion instead of ratios.

Jack Boda, Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation, said that we have the Congestion Management Program (CMP) where we identify the deficiencies and then take the RTP planned projects and superimpose them over the deficient areas. This is a program that is updated every two years and should be better integrated into the RTP.

Councilmember Monroe suggested that we move that CMP information into this effort. Mr. Gallegos explained that these two plans show different levels of congestion; one is a broader look, and the other is more detailed.

3 Chair Kellejian noted that staff will bring back the measures that Councilmember Monroe is talking about as we get into the projects. Mr. Gallegos said that this is the long-range plan you update every four years, but you have the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and the CMP that are updated more frequently. Staff will take Councilmember Monroe's suggestion into account.

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Monroe and a second by First Vice Chair Mary Sessom (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority [SDCRAA]), the Transportation Committee approved the draft Performance Measures for use in the 2007 RTP.

6. FY 2007 TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT (APPROVE)

Kim York, Financial Project Control Manager, reported that the Transportation Committee has authority to approve budget transfers in amounts between $100,000 and $500,000. The proposed action would transfer $200,216 from the closed MTS capital projects to cover the funding shortfall in the MTS FY 2007 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). She noted that the MTS Board approved these transfers on October 19, 2006.

Action: Upon a motion by First Vice Chair Sessom and a second by Councilmember Madaffer, the Transportation Committee approved the transfer of $200,216 from the indicated capital projects to the MTS FY 2007 CIP to cover the funding shortfall.

7. SPRINTER PROJECT STATUS REPORT AND SANDAG INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT (INFORMATION)

Tom Lichterman, NCTD Director of Rail Services, provided a SPRINTER project description, operating plan, and service levels. He reviewed the current status of construction contracts; construction progress, including the contract percent completion; and net change order percent to date. He showed slides of construction progress to date including mainline status, California State University San Marcos (CSUSM) loop progress, and the vehicle maintenance facility (VMF). He also presented information related to the Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) contract.

Mr. Lichterman provided information on the project budget and funding sources, the budget status as of September 30, 2006, and the recent project budget actions. He noted that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) released funding in October thereby postponing the need to use the SANDAG Commercial Paper program. NCTD will continue to work with the SANDAG Board regarding any needed budget adjustments later this year. The NCTD Amended Recovery Plan, developed last August, identified risks to the NCTD final project budget. The FTA assigned a higher level of risk to certain categories in the project and, as a result, forecasted increased costs could be much higher than estimated. The FTA asked NCTD to show how these risks would be controlled. He reviewed several control measure efforts underway and reviewed added project control measures, as well as the cash flow status. Mr. Lichterman provided a schedule assessment for the mainline contract, CSUSM loop, VMF, and the DMUs.

Jim Linthicum, Director of Engineering, stated that at the September 22, 2006, SANDAG Board meeting staff was directed to oversee progress on this project and provide an

4 independent assessment to the Transportation Committee on the project schedule, cost, and quality. This oversight effort would examine the effectiveness of the project team in the following areas: technical abilities, overall organizational structure, communication and reporting of issues, and working relationships. With regard to schedule, the Construction Manager’s role has been expanded to create a master project schedule of all activities, and there are now sufficient measures in place to accurately predict project completion, which are tied to mainline construction and start-up activities. The current master schedule forecasts completion by January 2008. Completion of the target date of December 2007 is still possible conditioned upon several aspects including selective acceleration of the mainline contractor, additional overlap of work between the mainline contractor and start- up activities, development of “work arounds” to mitigate construction or regulatory delays, and no substantial weather delays or other major setbacks. Construction cost controls are in place to monitor and predict construction costs, but other controls are not in place and are still under development. Once these are done, we will have a “Living” cost to complete. This should occur this month.

Mr. Linthicum reviewed the SPRINTER’s Amended Recovery Plan and the following were identified as the biggest risks to the project: claims: cleanup work, additional construction management and design, communications systems, change orders, and startup and systems training. NCTD has developed mitigation measures to reduce these budget and schedule risks. He noted that none of these risks have come to fruition.

Mr. Linthicum stated that the FTA has established a “not to exceed” final cost of $484.2 million and a “not to exceed” completion date of July 2008. The target service date is December 2007, but the current forecast service date is January 2008, and the FTA Amended Recovery Plan date is July 2008. The current FTA approved budget (2005) is $385.6 million, the NCTD Adopted Budget (June 2006) is $440.6 million, and the FTA Amended Recovery Plan budget based on FTA-identified risks is $484.2 million.

Mr. Linthicum said that we want to ensure that the quality of the work is not being impacted by budget pressures. He reviewed the quality measures in place and thought that the organizational structure is adequate to manage a project of this size. The NCTD communication and reporting process is adequate, and it has a productive partnership relationship with the construction contractor.

Mr. Linthicum indicated that there were four major issues of immediate concern: railroad signaling and communication design construction, which could delay pre-revenue training by the operator; city traffic signal preemption at grade crossings, which needs to be expedited; management controls to ensure quality and timely redesigns that are within budget; and cost/schedule impacts from change orders. The next steps will implement additional cost control measures and develop a living cost to complete, develop project metrics that will measure the overall health of the project, develop an accelerated project schedule that meets the December 2007 completion date, and investigate any regulatory issues that may impact the cost and schedule.

Chair Kellejian thanked NCTD and SANDAG staffs and FTA staff for moving this project along and making it a reality. He said that we have come a long way since July, and this partnership has made progress in addressing the concerns.

5

Councilmember Jerry Rindone (South County) expressed appreciation for Mr. Linthicum’s report and said he puts a lot of credence in it. He asked what the FTA’s “not to exceed” completion date means. Mr. Linthicum replied that during this recovery process, the top risks were identified. If these risks happen, the schedule will be pushed from January 2008 to July 2008. The goal is to develop mitigation so that these risks don’t come true. The FTA wants a guaranteed completion date.

Councilmember Stocks added that the FTA has to report back to Congress on the project budget, scope, and schedule whenever there is a change.

Councilmember Rindone asked if there is a penalty for not meeting the schedule date or is it just a reporting date. Mr. Linthicum said that the significant cost impacts from a schedule extension are the soft costs of construction management, which would continue every month the project continues.

Councilmember Madaffer asked if there were liquidated damages from the FTA. Mr. Linthicum replied that there will not be any.

Councilmember Rindone asked what “Living” cost to complete means. Mr. Linthicum replied that things happen during the life of the project, and if the original budget amount remains static, there would not be a realistic cost.

Councilmember Stocks thanked staff for a great report. He also personally thanked Chair Kellejian and Gary Gallegos for partnering in negotiations and coming up with plans and strategies. FTA now has a higher level of confidence in the project and, as a result, has released funding. We also now have better controls in place and another set of eyes on the project.

Mr. Shapery asked about the original contingency amount. Mr. Lichterman responded that the contingency was originally at $30 million; however, in the revised budget there will be a significant new contingency allocated as well as unallocated contingency.

Councilmember Madaffer said that the third project concern listed relating to the designer troubles him. He asked what is being done to rectify this concern. Mr. Linthicum stated that NCTD is working very hard on this. There are always redesigns due to actual field conditions. Mr. Lichterman added that they have requested the design firm provide a recovery plan of its own. A lot of the design staff members are not locally based, and the design firm has brought on a new project manager.

Councilmember Madaffer said that a “red flag” should be sent to the project designer. Mr. Gallegos noted that one piece we left out is that while we want to use the designer of record to make the changes we need, we have to be able to procure over $200 million in on-call consultant services. If we have an incompetent designer, we can fire the firm and bring on another. That’s a tool that is in place. The long-term plan is to develop enough in- house expertise so if outside consultants can’t do the job, we can do it for them.

6 Mayor Art Madrid (East County) asked about a lawsuit brought by an individual on this project. He asked if this issue has been resolved. Mr. Lichterman said that it was a right-of- way acquisition issue, and it has been resolved and settled. The final settlement of 30 different parcels totaled about $1 million.

Mayor Madrid asked about the second project concern listed related to city traffic signal preemption at grade crossings. Mr. Lichterman stated that all four of the cities and the County along the right-of-way have intersections near the grade crossings. The controllers at these intersections have to be adjusted. We are working with the cities/County and our own consultants along the line from east to west.

Mayor Madrid asked who pays for the adjustments. Mr. Lichterman answered that NCTD does.

Mayor Madrid asked what happens if the project exceeds the $54 million contingency amount. Mr. Gallegos replied that we will have to show FTA a budget of $484 million. Staff shows that there may be an additional $98 million needed; however, we are confident that it will cost less than that. The difference is about risk. That’s why in terms of our assessment we are working hard to manage the risk so that the $98 million number gets as close to zero as possible. We want to discipline ourselves to report back on a monthly basis so that you are informed about problems. Over the past few months, we have done a pretty good job at mitigating those risks and to date none of them have come true. Over time, we will get closer to meeting the timeframe.

Mr. Shapery pointed out that when you have a project with 400 change orders, the project designer can get backed up. The fact there is extra support with on-call consultants is the best solution when the designer is overworked.

Councilmember Monroe asked if the major changes in the pipeline are covered. Mr. Lichterman said that we are still finalizing two significant changes: a slope failure in Oceanside for which we will have to put in a system to prevent a threat to the track; and a freight derailment in August that will cost $750,000 to repair. These two items are covered in the revised budget contingency.

Councilmember Monroe asked why the item related to working with the cities on grade crossing controller adjustments is a concern. Mr. Linthicum said that it is something that needs to be done in the critical path activities. The signals have to be coordinated and preemption has to be in place. It’s a communication issue, and you have to get the right people out in the field at the right time.

Councilmember Stocks stated that we are looking at all of the risks. Some of these are not wholly within control of the construction project. We must rely on staff from other agencies to do something. It doesn’t mean it is not being worked on, but it is a risk. Councilmember Monroe asked how many people will be standing each day on the SPRINTER line. Mr. Lichterman replied that they don’t anticipate anyone standing. The seats will turn over two to three times during each trip.

7 Mr. Gallegos commented that we lost some credibility with the FTA regarding completion of this project. FTA Deputy Administrator Sandy Bushue had a chance to come to San Diego and meet with people here, and Mr. Gallegos had a chance to meet with her in Washington, D.C. Ms. Bushue told him that she was impressed with the political leadership and capability of the agencies in San Diego, and while she originally had some reservations about the project, she now felt we were taking the steps to correct the problems.

Action: This item was presented for information only.

8. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO TransNet EARLY ACTION PROGRAM (DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION)

Craig Scott, TransNet Project Manager, said that this item relates to the financial plan for completing the SPRINTER, a proposed amendment to the TransNet Ordinance, and related financial analysis work. He reviewed two options for fully funding the SPRINTER project. The goal is to come up with a funding plan for the FTA. The difference between the two options is whether Proposition 1B passes. Mr. Scott mentioned that both of these options rely on revenues from the TransNet Extension and would require an amendment to the TransNet Ordinance. He explained the way the Ordinance is currently worded. The SPRINTER was not included in the TransNet Extension because it was assumed to be fully funded. With the current language, staff feels this project is eligible for TransNet Extension funds, but to be clear the Ordinance should be amended to add the completion of the initial SPRINTER project. The TransNet Ordinance does allow for amendment with two-thirds approval by the SANDAG Board after the first and second readings of an Ordinance amendment. If the Ordinance is to be amended, the first reading would be held at the November Board meeting, and the second reading and adoption would occur at the December meeting. Mr. Scott indicated that ITOC discussed this but wanted to wait for the results of the November election and further review of the financial impacts of the change.

Mr. Scott stated that the SANDAG Board approved the Plan of Finance for the Early Action Program (EAP) in December 2005. Updates to the EAP would occur at a minimum annually in the fall of each year to reflect prior fiscal year actual data. Staff has been working on the annual update of the Plan of Finance to replace estimates with actual data and adding in cash flow for the SPRINTER. With potential new funding from the infrastructure bond measure, staff is also exploring the possibility of adding more projects to the EAP. Matching funds provided by the bond measure could allow some key transit projects to be accelerated. Additional Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) expenditures could allow us to accelerate the delivery of additional major corridor projects and put SANDAG in a better position to complete for additional bond funds. As a result, staff is suggesting that several components be included as part of an update to the Plan of Finance for the EAP over the next two months: (1) update the approved Plan of Finance for the EAP to replace the estimated revenues and expenditures for FY 2006 with actual revenue and expenditure data now that the fiscal year has been completed, (2) include the additional TransNet funds needed to fully fund the SPRINTER based on the SPRINTER financial plan options, (3) include additional EMP mitigation cost estimates to reflect the total mitigation costs for the corridors included in the EAP and to meet the Board-approved guidelines for implementing the EMP, and (4) include trolley capital improvements. He asked for the Transportation Committee’s feedback on these topics.

8

Chair Kellejian asked Mr. Gallegos to describe the trolley capital improvements. Mr. Gallegos said that we have been working with MTS on transit improvements to be added to the EAP including: (1) extending the Green Line to downtown San Diego; (2) the rehabilitation and improvement of the Blue line; and (3) Orange Line rehabilitation. He added that the additional EAP expenditures would give San Diego a competitive advantage. We have been working on projects such as I-5 and I-805, which need to have the mitigation completed before they can go to construction. The advance mitigation will allow San Diego to compete well for infrastructure bond dollars for construction.

Councilmember Emery agreed that the Ordinance changes for the SPRINTER are a must. The recommendation for the MTS trolley improvements are also necessary. We need to move forward on these projects.

Councilmember Rindone expressed appreciation for Mr. Gallegos’ clarification. Trolley improvements are an issue that he has been focusing on for 2½ years. He asked if the Blue Line improvements include the retrofit of trolley stations to the border. Mr. Gallegos responded affirmatively. Mr. Gallegos said that one key component is that there is a lot of development going on at the Chula Vista Bayfront. This is a good time to bring that into the discussion.

Councilmember Rindone said that Chula Vista has already paid its fair share of trolley improvements.

Supervisor Horn said that we have been dealing with the SPRINTER project for a long time. We are on schedule and our goal is to stay that way. We have had to go through a lot of redesign work to resolve unforeseen issues. He thanked SANDAG for its help on this project.

Harry Mathis, MTS Chair, said that the trolley improvements also include the rehabilitation of the U2 cars to extend their operating life.

Paul Jablonski, MTS Chief Executive Officer, commented that we have spent a lot of time working with SANDAG to understand what is in the TransNet Extension. There is $135 million in real dollars for transit for the Blue and Orange Lines. We are still about $100 million short for all of the needed improvements. We will be looking for partnerships along the Blue Line to help pay for those improvements.

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Emery and a second by First Vice Chair Sessom, the Transportation Committee supported the proposed amendment to the TransNet Ordinance and directed staff to add the SPRINTER project to the TransNet EAP, along with the additional funding for the EMP and capital improvements to the Trolley.

9 9. COST IMPLICATIONS OF NEW EMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-ROAD DIESEL ENGINES (INFORMATION)

Dean Hiatt, Senior Engineer, provided some historic events related to air quality. He said that much has been accomplished to clean vehicle emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is producing strategies for reducing the level of airborne particulate matter (PM). PM has been linked to a variety of respiratory health concerns in both adults and children. To address this health concern, CARB will be implementing new regulations designed to reduce PM from off-road diesel engines. The goal is to reduce PM emissions by 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. It is estimated that the cost of the new regulations to San Diego regional transportation programs will be approximately $200 million. The plan developed by CARB outlines new diesel fuel regulations, more stringent standards for new equipment, and a program to retrofit the existing off-road engines. The Plan also outlines a schedule for phasing out older, high-emission engines. CARB has already put in place new regulations for diesel fuel. As of September 1, 2006, diesel fuel sold in California is required to be Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel. These regulations have reduced the sulfur content by 97 percent. Regulations focusing on equipment are expected to be approved in January 2007.

Mr. Hiatt stated that the construction industry is concerned that it will be difficult and costly to meet the reduction requirements. Retrofit devices are still being developed and to date only one has been approved for use. Replacing existing engines and equipment will be expensive and may cause supply issues and construction equipment manufacturers may not be able to keep up with the demand for newer, cleaner equipment. Fleet averaging will be a method used by CARB to monitor the construction industry; however, this will require the owner of a fleet to meet average emission targets for the entire fleet rather than for an individual piece of equipment. If the owner cannot meet these requirements, he/she must show that “off-ramp” requirements are being met. Off-ramp requirements define a schedule for retrofitting and retiring equipment until emission targets are met. This would phase out existing fleet equipment starting in the year 2013 at a rate of 10 percent each year.

Mr. Hiatt said that a significant number of construction vehicles have long lives and were manufactured prior to these emission standards. The Engineers and General Contractors Association (EGCA) brought this matter to our attention. There will be CARB workshops in December and January to receive additional input from various groups.

Chair Kellejian asked if CARB has already approved these new regulations. Mr. Hiatt said that they are not approved and the implementation date has been pushed back to spring 2007.

Mr. Gallegos said the purpose of this report was to advise the Committee of this new regulation and the fact that it will impact costs. These additional costs will be imposed on our construction industry. He asked for direction from the Committee.

Chair Kellejian noted that there were two requests to speak on this item.

10 Dan Fauchier, EGCA, said that he has asthma and wants clean air, and our equipment operators and our children and grandchildren need clean air. That is not the issue. He said that the cost of the retrofit program could be close if the new technology on which it is based is available. Unfortunately few are yet approved by CARB. Some are in testing phases but don’t reduce the carbons to the 75 percent target and don’t reduce the NOX emissions. There is no new technology being introduced by manufacturers that achieves the Tier 4 standard. In addition, the equipment manufacturers will not be able to meet the production standards. Construction companies cannot replace 10 percent of their equipment every year. The equipment retrofit cost does not include financing and fines. Fines have to be part of the construction costs. He said that much of a contractor’s assets and net worth are invested in equipment and these regulations could virtually wipe out as much as half that value when pre-1996 equipment is no longer permitted to be used or sold in California. This will affect bonding ability and costs and will result in fewer bidders.

Scott Molloy, Building Industry Association (BIA), urged the Committee to take this matter very seriously. A bigger issue for small contractors is that they will not be able to financially meet these standards and will be forced to move out of state. This will reduce competition and increase costs. He recommended that SANDAG take an official position on this.

Councilmember Monroe stated that reducing the number of hours to run the equipment will extend project schedules; however, he didn’t understand the logic for these regulations.

Mr. Fauchier noted that you will still have to pay the operator for 8 hours. He didn’t understand the logic either.

Chair Kellejian suggested that staff report back to the Transportation Committee as more information is developed and available. Mr. Gallegos said that CARB’s official position is that it will implement these actions, and it is now discussing the possibility of delaying implementation of the regulations. Mr. Hiatt added that there will be additional hearings for input.

Supervisor Horn said that he sits on the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Board and has a colleague on CARB. He stated that our air is now the cleanest it has ever been. He thought that the State of California through CARB should put up the money to help retrofit this equipment. At some point, we should oppose this or come up with recommendations for the State to consider.

Julie Wiley, General Counsel, said that the Transportation Committee may take action on this item today.

Chair Kellejian stated that he didn’t think the Transportation Committee was prepared to act on this matter. He would prefer that staff report back with more information.

Mr. Gallegos said that staff can bring a report back. He thought the Committee should hear from all parties before taking a position on this matter.

Councilmember Emery suggested that staff be directed to attend the CARB workshops and audit what happens, and report back to the Committee.

11 Mr. Mathis asked staff to address the fact that technology needed to retrofit equipment to meet the CARB standards is not yet available.

Action: The Transportation Committee directed staff to attend CARB workshops, audit the meetings, and report back with information on those meetings and retrofit technology.

10. STATE ROUTE 163/FRIARS ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE (INFORMATION)

Richard Chavez, Principal Engineer, said that the Transportation Committee allocated $2.2 million to study congestion improvements at the intersection of SR 163/Friars Road. The City of San Diego provided a $300,000 match to complete this study. Mr. Chavez introduced Patti Boekamp and Dave Zumaris with the City of San Diego.

Ms. Boekamp identified the issues with this intersection.

Mr. Zumaris said that the project scope would modify the interchange to include the following project features: widening of Friars Road, widening of SR 163, improving connections with I-8, including a new bridge crossing over the San Diego River, a new on- ramp flyover bridge, and improving pedestrian and bicycle crossings. These improvements would be built in three phases. Mr. Zumaris described the work and project costs for each phase and noted that the total cost of the improvement is estimated at $136 million. He said that we are currently 75 percent complete on the environmental phase. The funding strategies under consideration include: local TransNet, developer impact fees, Proposition 1B, and potential federal appropriations. He said the project schedule indicates completion by 2014; however, the schedule is funding-dependent.

Ms. Boekamp stated that these improvements will simplify traffic moves, separate moves into separate lanes, and will correct some of the spacing issues.

Chair Kellejian indicated that there were two requests to speak on this item.

Janay Kruger, representing the Quarry Falls Sudberry Property, had to leave and did not present comments.

Mark Silverman, representing property owners affected in Phase 2, agreed that these improvements are needed and they are in favor of the project but don’t want it to impact their properties

Councilmember Emery asked if these improvements were in the RTP. Mr. Gallegos responded affirmatively, but he said that this piece is not part of the TransNet program. This project includes improvements for local roads as well as to the state highway system.

Mr. Orso-Delgado said that Caltrans supports the need for this project. He thanked Councilmember Madaffer for his assistance with this project. He said that since there is not sufficient money to do everything, a priority list of improvements should be developed.

Councilmember Madaffer said that we will have to come up with $38 million, possibly through TransNet. The rest of the phases are clearly areas that are eligible for state money

12 and regional money. He hoped this is a project that could be funded if Proposition 1B passes. He asked about the requirements for state funding. Mr. Gallegos replied that the legislative mandate is that projects have to be under construction by 2012. The schedule for this project shows a range from 2010 to 2014 so it could compete for these state funds.

Action: This item was presented for information only.

11. UPCOMING MEETINGS

The next meeting of the Transportation Committee is scheduled for December 8, 2006, at 9 a.m. Please note that the December Transportation Committee meeting will be held on the second Friday of the month and will meet once due to the Christmas holiday schedule.

12. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Kellejian adjourned the meeting at 11:16 a.m.

Attachment: Attendance Sheet

13 CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE SANDAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 2006

MEMBER/ GEOGRAPHICAL JURISDICTION NAME ATTENDING ALTERNATE AREA/ ORGANIZATION

North County City of Solana Beach Joe Kellejian (Chair) Member Yes Coastal City of Del Mar David Druker Alternate Yes

North County City of Escondido Lori Holt Pfeiler Member Yes Inland City of Vista Bob Campbell Alternate No

East County City of Santee Jack Dale Member No

City of La Mesa Art Madrid Alternate Yes

South County City of Coronado Phil Monroe Member Yes

City of Chula Vista Jerry Rindone Alternate Yes

---- Jim Madaffer Member Yes ---- Toni Atkins Alternate Yes City of San Diego ---- Jerry Sanders Alternate No

---- Bill Horn Member Yes

County of San ---- Ron Roberts Alternate No Diego ---- Greg Cox Alternate No

Metropolitan City of Poway Bob Emery Member Yes Transit System MTS Harry Mathis Alternate Yes

North County City of Encinitas Jerome Stocks Member Yes Transit District City of Carlsbad Norine Sigafoose Alternate No

City of Solana Beach Lesa Heebner Alternate No

San Diego County City of Lemon Grove Mary Sessom Member Yes Regional Airport Governor’s Appointee Xema Jacobson Alternate No Authority

ADVISORY/LIAISO ---- Pedro Orso-Delgado Member Yes N Caltrans ___ Bill Figge Alternate Yes

Regional Planning ___ Sandor Shapery Member Yes Stakeholders Working Group Kathy Keehan (Alternate Alternate No

14 Agenda Item #2

December 8, 2006 File Number 3000500

TO: Transportation Committee

FROM: SANDAG Staff

SUBJECT: Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program Use of Funds for Regional Arterials

The Regional Arterial System (RAS) Screening Criteria was approved by the Transportation Committee on October 20, 2006. A question was raised by San Diego Councilmember Madaffer regarding the use of the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) funds for street light improvements to regional arterials. Staff responded that they would verify the allowable uses for these funds.

The use of funds under the RTCIP should follow the same basic eligibility requirements for the use of TransNet funds. The use of TransNet funds for local street and road projects has been defined in the “70-30” guidelines approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors at its June 23, 2006, meeting. Expenditures for street lighting are considered part of the Congestion Relief (70 percent) portion of the TransNet local street and road formula program if the street lights are part of a new roadway or widened roadway project or if they are part of a “smart growth” project. Otherwise, street lights are considered part of the Maintenance (30 percent) portion of the local street and road program. Light bulb replacement is always considered maintenance. Since RTCIP funds are intended to address congestion impacts resulting from new development, the use of these funds should be consistent with the “70 percent” Congestion Relief definitions.

HW/dd

December 8, 2006 File Number 3000400

TO: Transportation Committee

FROM: SANDAG Staff

SUBJECT: Goods Movement on I-15 through Mid-City and Bus Rapid Transit in the I-15 and I-805 Corridors

On October 20, 2006, Councilmember Toni Atkins raised several questions related to Interstate 15 (I-15) through the Mid-City area. There is concern regarding the available freeway right-of-way for uses such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, transit lanes and stations, and freight movements. As background, in 1993 the City of San Diego and Caltrans amended their Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Mitigation for State Route 15 to include language that states the following:

“The State having previously provided the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) with a similar statement, also assures the City that, should MTDB adopt a future Light Rail Transit (LRT) or express bus system along SR-15, it shall be accommodated in the median, including the areas beneath Wightman Street and Adams Avenue structures, without reducing the number of freeway lanes. This assurance is based on the LRT design criteria supplied to the State by MTDB staff and confirmed for its adequacy by State in coordination with City staff. Conditions to accommodate the LRT include the potential re-striping of lanes and/or shoulders and an upgrading of equipment to operate on the 6.3% grade north of Adams Avenue or else the construction of elevated structures approaching Mission Valley. In the design of University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard overcrossings State will construct the structures to provide for the future need of elevators and/or escalators and/or stairs for light rail or bus transit access and will ensure they are not precluded from future construction including provisions for future utilities on widened structures.”

Caltrans is conducting a Project Study Report to analyze the options for HOV lanes and transit facilities on I-15 through Mid-City. The draft report is due by the end of December. A related question from Councilmember Atkins asked about the interconnectivity of I-15 and I-805 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services. Based on the recently completed I-15 BRT Operations Plan and discussions with MTS staff, connectivity between the two BRT services would occur at the I-15 transit plaza stations at El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue, and in Kearny Mesa. Staff is currently preparing an initial I-805 BRT Operations Concept that will specifically address this matter in more detail.

2

Regarding Goods Movement, on September 22 the SANDAG Board adopted the regional Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP). The GMAP includes the remaining improvements to I-15 listed in the Regional Transportation Plan from Interstate 5 north to the Riverside County line. The RTP does not include any widening or loss of lanes on I-15 through Mid-City. The Freight Working Group simply identified I-15 as the direct route for trucks that are headed to/from Riverside, with either the border or the consolidated Port access at 32nd Street (now under study) as the other end of the trip.

MH/dd

3 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

December 8, 2006 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3

Action Requested: INFORMATION

2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHITE PAPER: File Number 3000400 CROSSBORDER TRANSPORTATION

Introduction

SANDAG has identified several key issue areas to be addressed in the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. For each of these areas, staff is preparing a white paper to generate discussion and gather input from SANDAG policy committees and working groups. The Crossborder Transportation white paper describes current travel conditions at the San Diego-Baja California Ports of Entry (POE), identifies problems, and outlines potential solutions or alternatives. Recommendations from this paper will help guide the evaluation of projected crossborder travel demand and the assessment of needs related to border transportation infrastructure and services.

Discussion

Border regions face the challenge of balancing security and the efficient movement of people and goods through the international POEs. Over time, delays at the border have increased and become more unpredictable.

The Crossborder Transportation white paper describes several projects that would improve crossborder travel capacity and enhance security at the San Diego-Baja California border region. However, most of these projects have limited funding available for implementation, share challenges for timely implementation, and compete with development pressure and rapid growth along the border.

These challenges can lead to opportunities to work with policy makers to advance transportation projects with the goal of reducing congestion and crossborder delays, while enhancing security and improving the economy. It will be important for the San Diego region to be an active participant as enabling state or federal legislation is drafted to implement public-private partnerships (PPPs) or public-tolled facilities.

To ensure that the most important areas of focus have been included in this white paper, SANDAG staff solicited input from the Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group at its July 18, 2006 meeting and from the Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO) at its September 5, 2006 meeting. In addition the Borders Committee discussed this white paper at its meeting on October 27, 2006. Comments received were incorporated in the white paper (Attachment 1) as appropriate.

The Crossborder Transportation white paper has been translated to Spanish to facilitate information sharing with stakeholders in Baja California (Attachment 2). This white paper will be used in developing the Draft 2007 RTP, which is expected to be released for public comment in May/June 2007.

BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Attachments: 1. Crossborder Transportation White Paper 2. Crossborder Transportation White Paper (Spanish translation)

Key Staff Contact: Elisa Arias, (619) 699-1936, [email protected]

2 Attachment 1

CROSSBORDER TRANSPORTATION WHITE PAPER

INTRODUCTION

For many years, radio and television stations have been broadcasting traffic reports for major highways in the San Diego region. But it was not until the past few years that those traffic reports also began transmitting information on the number of vehicles and pedestrians waiting to cross at the Tijuana-San Diego border crossings.

Every day, about 68,000 passenger vehicles and 30,000 pedestrians travel from Mexico through the San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Tecate ports of entry (POEs). More than 2,500 northbound trucks also cross the border at Otay Mesa and Tecate on a daily basis. A similar number of border crossings are estimated to take place in the southbound direction.

Border regions face the challenge of balancing security and the efficient movement of people and goods through the international POEs. Over time, delays at the border have increased and become more unpredictable. These delays—especially in the northbound direction—are a result of growth in crossborder travel, transportation infrastructure that has failed to keep pace with this growth, and the implementation of stricter security screenings.

Objectives for 2007 RTP

The objectives of this white paper for the 2007 RTP are threefold. They include:

1. Assessing current crossborder travel conditions. 2. Identifying current and future multimodal transportation needs to facilitate crossborder travel, based on an evaluation of projected growth in the San Diego-Baja California border region. 3. Evaluating potential traditional and innovative funding sources to advance implementation of transportation and port of entry infrastructure.

Background

San Diego Region-Baja California Ports of Entry: Current Conditions

Three POEs link the San Diego region and Baja California. The San Ysidro-Puerta México border crossing serves passenger vehicles and pedestrians while the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay and the Tecate-Tecate POEs handles passenger vehicles, pedestrians, and commercial vehicles. Freight rail inspections are conducted at the San Ysidro rail yard. Figure 1 illustrates the border region and the three POEs.

November 2006 3 Figure 1 San Diego-Baja California Ports of Entry

November 2006 4 San Ysidro-Puerta México

The San Ysidro POE is the busiest passenger border crossing along the United States-Mexico border. In fact, it is reported to be the busiest land port of entry in the world. It operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and handles about 70 percent of the vehicle crossings and more than 80 percent of people traveling on foot into the San Diego region.

Up to four of the 24 primary vehicle inspection lanes at the San Ysidro POE are dedicated commuter or SENTRI1 lanes, where travelers and vehicles that have passed background checks and inspections are processed more quickly. The SENTRI vehicle lanes operate between 4 a.m. and midnight, seven days a week. A separate pedestrian facility serves people crossing on foot. Since September 2004, a pedestrian SENTRI lane has been operating as a trial program during peak crossing hours (5 to 9 a.m. and 3 to 7 p.m.) on weekdays.

Processing of bicyclists is handled at the pedestrian facility. Following a significant increase in travelers crossing the border on bicycles after 9/11, CPB allowed cyclists to be processed ahead of other pedestrians in line. However, this expedited process was terminated in May 2006 because, according to CBP, some crossborder travelers rented bicycles just before crossing the border to get ahead in the pedestrian line.2

To accommodate crossborder cyclists who continue their trip by other modes, Caltrans has installed a small bicycle parking facility with racks for about 15 bicycles west of Interstate 5 (I-5) (on Camiones Way). A second bicycle parking facility will be located east of I-5 (on San Ysidro Boulevard adjacent to the I-5/San Ysidro Boulevard on-ramp). This facility will accommodate parking for about 110 bikes and is expected to be completed in spring 2007.

Completed in 2005 and adjacent to the San Ysidro POE, the San Ysidro Intermodal Transportation Center improved pedestrian access to the Blue Line Trolley, intercity buses, taxis, and shuttles. More than 28,000 people are estimated to access transit services at this location daily.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay

The Otay Mesa POE is the busiest commercial border crossing on the California-Mexico border. Among all United States-Mexico commercial POEs, Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay ranks third in terms of trade value, after the Laredo and El Paso POEs in Texas. In 2005, the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay border station handled $24.4 billion in merchandise in both directions, which were moved in more than 1.4 million trucks. Loaded trucks crossing into San Diego are processed from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays.

In 2005, the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) program began operating at the Otay Mesa POE. FAST is a commercial process offered to pre-approved importers, carriers, and registered drivers that results in quicker clearance across the border.

1 SENTRI is the acronym for Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection. This program began operating at the Otay Mesa POE in 1995 and at the San Ysidro POE in 2000. In June 2005, two additional lanes were converted for optional SENTRI use at San Ysidro depending on traffic conditions. 2 Before 9/11, bicyclists were inspected at the primary inspection booths for the current SENTRI lanes. However, since then, CBP has moved all bicyclists to the pedestrian facility for safety reasons.

November 2006 5 Since 2003, the passenger inspection facility operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and serves about one-fourth of the northbound passenger vehicle and bus crossings. There is a total of 14 inspection lanes at this facility. One is a SENTRI lane that operates between 5 a.m. and 8 p.m. during weekdays. On November 18, 2006, the SENTRI lane expanded its hours of operation on weekends as well as U.S. and Mexico’s holidays to midnight. People crossing on foot are processed at a separate pedestrian facility.

The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) operates bus Route 905 between the Otay Mesa POE, the Iris Trolley Station, and the San Ysidro Trolley Station. In 2005, nearly 441,000 passengers traveled on MTS Route 905.

Tecate-Tecate

The Tecate POE is the smallest of the three land border crossings in the San Diego-Baja California region. The passenger inspection facility operates seven days a week between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m., with two inspection lanes. This border station also handles commercial vehicles. Northbound loaded trucks are processed from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays.

Figures 2 and 3 show historical northbound border crossing data at the three POEs for pedestrians and personal vehicles, including buses. Figure 4 illustrates northbound truck crossings as well as U.S.-Mexico trade by truck via the Otay Mesa and Tecate commercial POEs.

Figure 2 Northbound Pedestrian Crossings

16

14

12

10

8 (in millions) (in

6 Number of Pedestrians

4

2

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

San Ysidro Otay Mesa Tecate

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Field Operations Office. Data represent federal fiscal year.

November 2006 6 Figure 3 Northbound Passenger Vehicle and Bus Crossings

30

25

20

15 (in millions) (in

10 Number of Passenger Vehicles and Buses Vehicles Number of Passenger

5

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

San Ysidro Otay Mesa Tecate

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Field Operations Office. Data represent federal fiscal year.

Figure 4 Northbound Truck Crossings and Two-Way Truck Trade via the Otay Mesa and Tecate POEs

800,000 $30,000

700,000 $25,000

600,000

$20,000 500,000

400,000 $15,000

Number of Trucks of Number 300,000 $10,000 Two-Way Trade (in millions) Trade Two-Way

200,000

$5,000 100,000

0 $0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Otay Mesa Tecate Total Trade

Sources: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Field Operations Office. Data represent federal fiscal year. U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Freight Data.

November 2006 7 Identification of Problems

Despite significant growth in bilateral trade moving across the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay and Tecate- Tecate POEs and established social and economic ties between the San Diego-Baja California border region, few improvements to border crossing infrastructure have been implemented in the San Diego-Baja California border during the past 20 years. Projected population increases and continued growth in international trade will result in greater demands on the existing infrastructure.

On a typical day, approximately 160,000 people cross the border from Mexico into the San Diego region in private vehicles, buses, and on foot. By 2030, crossborder vehicle traffic is projected to double from current volumes (2005).

Congestion and delays for freight movements and crossborder personal travel at the San Diego-Baja California POEs have increased and have become more unpredictable. These delays were estimated to cost the San Diego-Baja California economies nearly $4.2 billion in lost output and a loss of more than 35,000 jobs in 2005. Both output and job losses are projected to more than double in the next ten years if steps are not taken to improve border crossing and transportation infrastructure and management.3 Air quality at the border also is affected by excessive idling from trucks and private vehicles.

While the priority mission of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is homeland security, one of CBP’s strategic goals is to “facilitate the more efficient movement of legitimate cargo and people.”4 CBP has implemented programs such as SENTRI and FAST to expedite border crossings for pre- screened participants. Up to four vehicle SENTRI lanes and one pedestrian SENTRI lane operate at San Ysidro and one vehicle SENTRI lane functions at Otay Mesa, but even these lanes experience congestion at peak periods. Innovative approaches to manage current POE infrastructure as well as to develop and operate new, smart border crossings will be needed to accomplish CBP’s goals.

Better intermodal access for travelers who cross on foot also is needed. Pedestrians crossing from Mexico are unable to be picked up conveniently since there are no short-term parking lots in the vicinity of the San Ysidro or Otay Mesa POEs. Unlike the Blue Line Trolley in San Ysidro, the stop for MTS Route 905 is not adjacent to the Otay Mesa inspection facility.

Improving or developing new border crossings and connecting roads is more complex than implementing transportation projects within the San Diego region. In addition to sharing similar funding shortfalls, POE projects involve close coordination and collaboration with governmental agencies on both sides of the international border at the federal, state, regional, and municipal levels. Project development includes the border stations in each country and roads connecting those border stations to the regional transportation network. Various entities are responsible for different planning, approval, and implementation activities in the United States and Mexico, which results in long lead times for project completion.

There are community concerns regarding the impact that the upcoming implementation of the US- VISIT program may have on southbound vehicular traffic, including backups on Interstates 5 and 805 and local interchanges in San Ysidro. In addition, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative will

3 SANDAG, Estimating Economic Impacts of Border Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border Region, 2006. 4 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2005-2010 Strategic Plan, 2006.

November 2006 8 require U.S., Mexican, and Canadian citizens entering or re-entering the United States through land POEs to carry a valid passport by January 1, 2008.5

Both land POEs and connecting regional highways are an integral component of international and domestic trade corridors. Since benefits from trade expand well beyond the San Diego region to California and the United States, it is vital to secure scarce state and federal resources to improve this trade corridor infrastructure.

DISCUSSION

Potential Solutions/Alternatives

As described in this section, several projects to improve crossborder travel capacity and security are under various planning and execution stages. However, most of these projects have limited funding available for implementation. In addition, Caltrans, in collaboration with stakeholders in the U.S. and Mexico, has identified short-term operational improvements at the POEs to relieve current congestion.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has begun to implement the US-VISIT program, which will lead to an automated entry/exit system for crossborder travelers at the land POEs. Incorporating smart border technologies to optimize security screenings of people, vehicles, and trade at the POEs will be crucial to facilitate crossborder travel while enhancing security at the border.

Land POEs, Highways, and Transit

San Ysidro POE Realignment

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) is leading a project to upgrade and expand the San Ysidro border station to increase efficiency, security, and safety for federal agencies and crossborder travelers. In 2002, GSA prepared a Feasibility Study that developed four expansion options, including facility layouts and north-south traffic routes. Three of the four options were devised to align with a southbound crossing point at the proposed Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral facility in Tijuana, located west of the current crossing. The fourth option would maintain the current routing of southbound and northbound traffic via I-5.

In 2003, GSA initiated the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in cooperation with Caltrans. A draft EIS/EIR is scheduled to be completed in fall 2006. Construction of this project is anticipated to begin in 2009 and be completed in 2013, pending the allocation of additional funding.

A concept currently under discussion by private transit operators and CBP is the implementation of Advanced Bus Manifests. This program would allow enrolled transit operators to transmit passenger travel information to CBP in advance to expedite the identification process at the POE.

5 For land border crossings, SENTRI and FAST program cards as well border crossings cards (i.e. laser visas) also are anticipated to be acceptable under this Initiative.

November 2006 9 More frequent service for the Blue Line Trolley is planned for phased implementation in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In the off-peak, frequencies would increase to 10 minutes from the current 15 minutes in 2010, and to 7.5 minutes by 2020. Peak frequencies will remain at 7.5 minutes.

Las Americas Pedestrian Bridge6

In 1998, the City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency received a proposal from a private developer for the construction of a tolled crossborder pedestrian bridge west of the San Ysidro POE. The bridge is part of the International Gateway of the Americas project. It would span the Tijuana River and connect the Las Americas site (west of the southern terminus of Virginia Avenue) and an area of commercial development in north Tijuana.

The goals of the project are to decrease traffic congestion at the San Ysidro-Puerta México POE, increase pedestrian crossings through the Las Americas shopping center to promote economic growth, and establish a world-class gateway.

Two Presidential Permit applications for this project have been submitted to the U.S. Department of State (DOS) since 1999, but no approvals have been granted. A new application to U.S. DOS is anticipated in late 2006.

Transportation Improvements Serving the Otay Mesa POE

Interim State Route (SR) 905 (SR 905/Otay Mesa Road) links the Otay Mesa POE to the regional highway system. The first segment of the SR 905 extension, from the Otay Mesa POE to Airway Road, opened to traffic in September 2005. Construction of the second segment, from east of I-805 to Airway Road, is scheduled to begin in early 2007 and would take three to four years to complete. The City of San Diego is working on improvements to the southbound truck route serving the Otay Mesa Commercial POE, which are anticipated to be finalized in 2010. Cost increases, especially related to right-of-way acquisition, and funding shortfalls have delayed the completion of these projects.

Scheduled to open in early 2007, the Southbay Expressway (SR 125 Toll Road) will provide a new north-south corridor linking the border area and eastern Chula Vista to the rest of the San Diego region. This toll road is being funded through a public-private partnership.

As a result of the MTS Comprehensive Operational Analysis, improvements to bus Route 905 were implemented in September 2006. Route 905 now operates with 30-minute frequencies (instead of only morning and afternoon peak periods) until 8:25 p.m. During peak periods, additional service is provided to Otay Mesa business parks (Route 905A). Also, there is new transit service on weekends every 30 minutes. The end point of bus Route 905 is at the Iris Avenue Trolley Station, while Route 929 provides service between the Iris Avenue Trolley Station and the San Ysidro Trolley Station. Route 929 increased its services to 15-minute frequencies all day on weekdays and 30- minute service on weekends.

6 City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, Las Americas Pedestrian Bridge Fact Sheet, 2005.

November 2006 10 The planned South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) will provide direct service between the Otay Mesa POE and downtown San Diego. This BRT route would travel on the South Bay Expressway, I-805, and SR 94, and would serve the developing communities in eastern Chula Vista. Service between eastern Chula Vista and downtown San Diego would be implemented in 2010, and the extension to the Otay Mesa POE is anticipated to begin operations in 2015.

Tecate POE

Upgrades to the Tecate POE were completed in 2005. Planning is underway for a new Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility, which is anticipated to be built by late 2008.

Federal agencies in Mexico and the United States are investigating ways to better connect the Tecate POE with the proposed Mexican Commercial Vehicle Customs Facility (700 meters to the east of the existing POE). One proposal is a 700-meter sterile corridor (fenced truck route) between both border stations, while the other is construction of a U.S. Commercial Vehicle POE directly across from the proposed Mexican facility.

Proposed East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE

Caltrans is sponsoring the development of a new border crossing at East Otay Mesa. The East Otay Mesa POE will be linked to SR 905 and the South Bay Expressway via the future SR 11. In Mexico, the Otay II border station will connect to the Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road and the Tijuana–Rosarito corridor.

In January 2006, the U.S. DOS sent the Embassy of Mexico a diplomatic note stating the interest of the U.S. federal government in the construction of a new border crossing at East Otay Mesa. A response from the Embassy of Mexico was forwarded to U.S. DOS in May 2006 indicating the Mexican government’s interest in conducting the necessary feasibility studies on both sides of the border.

The proposed East Otay Mesa POE and SR 11 are currently in the environmental phase. Caltrans will prepare a Tiered or Programmatic environmental document. The first phase will consist of a preliminary environmental document that will cover the footprint for both the POE and SR 11. This will allow for protection of the corridor and will improve the ability to compete for capital funding. The second phase would include project-level environmental documents developed separately for each portion of the project.

The cost of SR 11 is estimated to range between $230 million and $280 million. While approximately $9 million is programmed for SR 11, no additional funding sources have been identified. As noted in the Transportation Funding Revenues White Paper, certain transportation corridors—such as SR 11—may be candidates for Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), pending findings of financial feasibility studies.

In Mexico, Tijuana’s Municipal Planning Institute (Instituto Municipal de Planeación or IMPlan) coordinated the preparation of a Partial Program for the Improvement of Mesa de Otay Este (Programa Parcial de Mejoramiento de la Mesa de Otay Este), which covers the period from 2004 to 2025. This document considered the location of the future Otay II POE in Mesa de Otay Este. It also developed a circulation study to analyze three alternatives to link the proposed POE to Tijuana’s

November 2006 11 regional transportation network.7 Concurrently with the preparation of the Partial Program, in August 2005, the Municipality of Tijuana issued a resolution that restricts the use of a 37-hectare parcel adjacent to the international border in Mesa de Otay Este for the future Otay II POE.8

Binational coordination of planning and implementation activities for the proposed East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE and connecting roads will be accomplished through the East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE Technical Commission under the San Diego-Tijuana Border Liaison Mechanism. This Technical Commission was established in June 2006 and held its first meeting in July 2006. Staffs from U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the Mexican Secretariat of Communications and Transportation are co-chairs of this Technical Commission.

Proposed Jacumba-Jacumé POE

An additional port of entry is being considered as a long-term project east of Tecate. In 2000, SANDAG and Caltrans evaluated a future border crossing linking Jacumba, in southeastern San Diego County, and Jacumé, in the Municipality of Tecate, Mexico. The State of Baja California Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development (SIDUE) also has considered this location for a future port of entry in its long-range planning work.

Representing the state governments, both Caltrans and SIDUE have made presentations on this future POE to the United States-Mexico Binational Group on Bridges and Border Crossings for the past several years. Currently, no additional planning activities are being conducted to advance the implementation of the Jacumba-Jacumé POE.

Freight Rail and Maritime Transportation

The San Diego & Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railway connects the San Diego region to the north via the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railways. The SD&AE also links San Diego to the Imperial Valley via the Tijuana-Tecate Railway, which is owned by Mexico, and the SD&AE Desert Line. The Desert Line was reopened to limited service in 2005. Further rehabilitation of both the Desert and Tijuana-Tecate Lines and restoration to modern service is necessary to improve the market potential of this route for international and interstate movement of goods in, out, and through the Southern California-Baja California region.

Rehabilitation of the Desert Line to modern service would likely attract companies with east-west shipping interests to locate in northern Baja California. In addition, proposals to expand facilities at the Ports of San Diego and Ensenada (Mexico) and a proposal for a new Baja California seaport and rail line at Punta Colonet (south of Ensenada) are likely to affect crossborder freight transportation. No evaluation of those potential impacts has been conducted at this time.

Crossborder Airport Terminal

Since the late 1990s, the concept of a crossborder passenger terminal has been discussed to improve access for travelers from the United States to the Tijuana International Airport. Travelers would park at a terminal to be located in the community of Otay Mesa and proceed to the Tijuana Airport via a secured walkway. This airport serves passenger and cargo with routes to major cities in Mexico.

7 Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano and IMPlan, Programa Parcial de Mejoramiento de la Mesa de Otay Este, en la ciudad de Tijuana, Baja California, 2005 8 XVIII Ayuntamiento de Tijuana, Declaratoria de Destino para la Localización del Puerto Fronterizo Otay II, 2005

November 2006 12

In 1998, the South County Economic Development Council conducted a study that concluded that a crossborder terminal would reduce vehicular congestion at the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa POEs by as much as three percent.9 According to the study, direct foreign flights would increase the economic activity along the Otay Mesa-Tijuana corridor and extend the operational life of the San Diego International Airport. Surveys conducted at the Tijuana airport for this study estimated that 1.09 million annual passengers originate from Southern California.

In December 2005, the possibility of the crossborder terminal was discussed with Mexican government officials during a trade mission to Mexico City arranged by the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce's Mexico Business Center. In July 2006, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority’s Board accepted its Strategic Planning Committee recommendation to develop a scope of work for a crossborder terminal development with participation from other stakeholder agencies, including the operator of the Tijuana International Airport. In October 2006, the Authority’s Board directed staff to proceed with one task of the market demand study for a crossborder airport connection to identify feasibility issues, including legal and regulatory.10

Issues and Policy Implications

As described earlier in this paper, several projects to add crossborder travel capacity or improve operations are under development or have been proposed as future solutions. The following are the primary challenges for timely project implementation:

• Shortfalls of traditional funding sources for POE infrastructure and operations as well as for transportation facilities serving POEs.

• Binational coordination and collaboration is required with a myriad of local, regional, state, and federal agencies in the United States and Mexico.

• Lack of clear understanding among governmental agencies on how each agency’s project priorities are established.

In addition, development pressure and rapid growth in border communities conflict with the long lead-time for project implementation and can preclude crossborder transportation improvements as land develops for other uses. For example, vacant land available in Tijuana for the future Otay II border crossing has been urbanized over the years. Understanding this situation, the Municipality of Tijuana has taken steps to restrict the use of the only vacant area adjacent to the international border for the proposed Otay II POE.

The challenges outlined above can lead to opportunities to work with policymakers to advance transportation projects, with the goal of reducing congestion and crossborder delay while enhancing security and improving the economy. It will be important for the San Diego region to be an active participant as enabling state or federal legislation is drafted to implement PPPs or public tolled facilities.

9 South County Economic Development Council, Crossborder Air Passenger Terminal Facility, Phase I Report, 1998. 10 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, Authority Board Meeting; July 24, 2006, September 7, 2006, and October 2, 2006.

November 2006 13 RECOMMENDATIONS

For RTP Update

It is recommended that the RTP consider projected growth in northern Baja California and the San Diego region, in conjunction with the crossborder projects described in this paper, to evaluate future crossborder travel demand.

Also, it is recommended that a financial feasibility assessment of SR 11 and the East Otay Mesa POE be conducted to evaluate the viability of using tolls and/or fees to establish a revenue stream that would cover the overall project costs, including the ability of the project to attract capital (debt or private equity) at a reasonable cost.

For Future Analysis

As proposals for maritime and freight rail projects move forward in the Southern California-Baja California region, an evaluation of the implications for crossborder freight movements at the California-Baja California POEs is recommended to be undertaken, as well as an analysis of the potential use of rail for crossborder passenger service.

It is recommended that SANDAG monitor developments related to the proposed crossborder airport terminal, in the context of airport planning activities in the region.

Also, it is recommended that DHS explore and implement state-of-the-art technologies and processes at the POEs to achieve the dual goals of facilitating the crossborder movement of people and goods, while securing the international border (e.g., stacked booths, all lanes SENTRI- compatible, and electronic seals for cargo containers). These processes should include contingency plans developed in partnership with agencies in Mexico in case of emergency situations at the POEs. Expansion of effective programs such as FAST and SENTRI to include additional lanes for trucks, buses, and private vehicles, as well as dedicated lanes for pedestrians and bicycles also should be considered.

In addition, it is recommended that economic impacts due to delays at the San Diego-Baja California region POEs be estimated periodically as new border crossing and wait time data becomes available.

November 2006 14 Attachment 2

DOCUMENTO DE TRANSPORTE TRANSFRONTERIZO

ANTECEDENTES

Durante años, las estaciones de radio y televisión han transmitido informes de tránsito sobre las vialidades importantes en la región de San Diego. Sin embargo, fue hasta años recientes que dichos informes de tránsito comenzaron a transmitir información sobre el número de vehículos y peatones en espera para cruzar en los cruces fronterizos de Tijuana-San Diego.

Todos los días, aproximadamente 68,000 vehículos de pasajeros y 30,000 peatones viajan desde México a través de las garitas de entrada (GsDE) de San Ysidro, Otay Mesa y Tecate. Más de 2,500 tractocamiones en dirección hacia el norte también cruzan la frontera en Otay Mesa y Tecate de manera cotidiana. Se estima que una cantidad similar de cruces fronterizos se dirigen hacia el sur.

Las regiones fronterizas enfrentan el reto de equilibrar la seguridad con el movimiento eficiente de personas y bienes a través de las GDE internacionales. Con el paso del tiempo, las demoras en la frontera han aumentado y se han tornado impredecibles. Dichas demoras – particularmente en dirección hacia el norte – son el resultado del crecimiento en el número de viajes transfronterizos, a que la infraestructura de transporte no se ha mantenido a la par con dicho crecimiento y a la implementación de revisiones de seguridad más estrictas.

Objetivos para el Plan Regional de Transporte (RTP, por sus siglas en inglés) 2007

Los objetivos del Documento de Transporte Transfronterizo del RTP 2007 son tres:

1. Evaluar las condiciones actuales de los viajes transfronterizos.

2. Identificar las necesidades actuales y futuras de transporte multimodal que agilicen los viajes transfronterizos, con base en una evaluación del crecimiento proyectado para la región fronteriza San Diego-Tijuana.

3. Evaluar potenciales fuentes de financiamiento, tradicionales e innovadoras, para facilitar la implementación de infraestructura de transporte y de garitas de entrada.

Antecedentes

Garitas de Entrada en la Región San Diego-Baja California: Condiciones Actuales

Son tres las GsDE que conectan la región de San Diego y Baja California. El cruce fronterizo San Ysidro- Puerta México da servicio a vehículos de pasajeros y peatones, mientras que las GDE Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay y Tecate-Tecate dan servicio a vehículos de pasajeros, peatones y vehículos comerciales. Las inspecciones ferroviarias se realizan en el patio ferroviario de San Ysidro. La Figura 1 muestra la región fronteriza y las tres GDE.

San Ysidro-Puerta México

La GDE de San Ysidro es el cruce fronterizo de pasajeros más transitado en la frontera México-Estados Unidos. De hecho, se le considera como la garita de entrada terrestre más transitada en el mundo. Opera las 24 horas del día, siete días de la semana, representado aproximadamente el 70 por ciento de los cruces vehiculares y más del 80 por ciento de las personas que cruzan a pie a la región de San Diego.

Noviembre 2006 15 Figura 1 Garitas de Entrada San Diego-Baja California

Noviembre 2006 16 Cuatro de los 24 carriles de inspección primaria vehicular en la GDE de San Ysidro pueden ser usados como carriles exclusivos para viajeros SENTRI1 , en donde los viajeros y vehículos que han sido aprobados, después de la verificación de antecedentes e inspecciones, cruzan la frontera en forma más rápida. Los carriles vehiculares SENTRI operan de las 4 a.m. a la medianoche siete días de la semana. Una instalación peatonal independiente da servicio a las personas que cruzan a pie. Desde septiembre de 2004 existe también un carril peatonal SENTRI como programa piloto, que opera durante las horas pico de cruce (de las 5 a las 9 a.m. y de las 3 a las 7 p.m.) entre semana.

Las instalaciones para cruce peatonal dan servicio también a ciclistas. Después de un aumento importante en viajeros que cruzan la frontera en bicicleta, posterior al 11/9, CPB permitió que los ciclistas fueran procesados con prioridad a los demás peatones en la línea. Sin embargo, este proceso agilizado se concluyó en mayo de 2006, porque de acuerdo a CBP, algunos viajeros transfronterizos rentaban bicicletas justo antes del cruce solo para adelantarse en la línea peatonal.2

Para atender a los ciclistas transfronterizos que continúan su viaje en otros modos, Caltrans construyó una pequeña instalación que cuenta con anaqueles para colocar unas 15 bicicletas al oeste de la Interestatal 5 (I-5) (en Camiones Way). Una segunda instalación para colocar bicicletas se localizará al este de la I-5 (en San Ysidro Boulevard adjunto a la entrada a la carretera I-5/San Ysidro Boulevard), la cual permitirá estacionar aproximadamente 115 bicicletas y se espera que se haya construido en la primavera de 2007.

El Centro de Transporte Intermodal de San Ysidro, concluido en el 2005 y adyacente a la GDE de San Ysidro, mejora el acceso peatonal a la Línea Azul del Trolley, a camiones suburbanos, taxis, autobuses y otras unidades de transporte (shuttles). Se estima que más de 28,000 personas tienen acceso diario a los servicios de transporte público en este lugar.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay

La GDE de Otay Mesa es el cruce comercial fronterizo más transitado en la frontera México-California. De todas las GsDE comerciales México-Estados Unidos, Mesa de Otay-Otay Mesa es la tercera más importante en cuanto al valor comercial, después de las GsDE de Laredo y El Paso, Texas. En el 2005, la estación fronteriza Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay procesó $24.4 mil millones de dólares de mercancía en ambos sentidos, transportados en más de 1.4 millones de camiones. El horario de operación de cruce comercial hacia San Diego (camiones cargados) es de las 6 a.m. a las 8 p.m. únicamente en días de semana.

En el 2005, el programa Free and Secure Trade (FAST) empezó a operar en la GDE de Otay Mesa. FAST es un proceso comercial que se ofrece a importadores, transportistas y conductores registrados, previamente aprobados, que resulta en un cruce de la frontera más ágil.

Desde el 2003, las instalaciones para revisión de pasajeros operan las 24 horas del día, los siete días de la semana y procesan aproximadamente una cuarta parte del total de cruces de vehículos de pasajeros y camiones en dirección hacia el norte. Otay Mesa cuenta con un total de 14 líneas para revisión de vehículos de pasajeros. Un carril es dedicado a SENTRI, el cual que opera de las 5 a.m. a las 8 p.m., los días entre semana. El 18 de noviembre de 2006, la línea SENTRI amplió su horario de operación hasta la media noche durante los fines de semana y días festivos de EE.UU. y México. Las personas que cruzan a pie se procesan en una instalación peatonal independiente.

1 SENTRI es la sigla para Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection. Dicho programa empezó́ a operar en la GDE de Otay Mesa en 1995, y en la GDE de San Ysidro en e 2000. En junio de 2005 se incorporaron dos carriles adicionales para uso opcional SENTRI en San Ysidro según las condiciones de transito. 2 Antes de 9/11 (11/9), se hace la revision de los ciclistas en las casetas de inspeccion primarias para los carriles SENTRI actuales. Sin embargo, a partir de esa fecha, la CBP has cambiado a todos los ciclistas a la instalacion peatonal por cuestion de seguridad.

Noviembre 2006 17 El Sistema Metropolitano de Tránsito (MTS) opera la Ruta de Autobús 905 entre la GDE de Otay Mesa y las Estaciones Iris y San Ysidro del Trolley. En el 2005, casi 44,100 pasajeros viajaron en la Ruta MTS 905.

Tecate-Tecate

La GDE de Tecate es la más pequeña de los tres cruces terrestres fronterizos en la región San Diego-Baja California. La instalación de revisión de pasajeros opera siete días a la semana entre las 5 a.m. y las 11 p.m. con dos carriles de revisión Para vehículos de pasajeros. La estación fronteriza también maneja vehículos comerciales. Los camiones con carga que se dirigen hacia el norte se procesan de las 8 a.m. a las 4 p.m. todos los días entre semana.

Las figuras 2 y 3 muestran los datos del cruce fronterizo en sentido norte en las tres GsDE para peatones y vehículos de pasajeros, incluyendo autobuses. La figura 4 muestra los cruces de tractocamiones hacia el norte, así como el comercio México – EE.UU. por camión a través las GsDE comerciales de Otay Mesa y Tecate.

Figura 2 Cruces Peatonales Hacia el Norte

16

14

12

10 ans ns) 8 (in millio (in

(en millones) 6 Number of Pedestri

Número de Peatones Peatones Número de 4

2

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

San Ysidro Otay Mesa Tecate

Fuentes: Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza de EE.UU., Oficina de Operaciones de Campo. Datos representan el año fiscal federal.

Noviembre 2006 18 Figura 3 Cruces de Vehículos de Pasajero y de Camión hacia el Norte

30

25

20 and Buses and

15 (in millions) (in senger Vehicles senger (en millones)

10 Number of Pas Number

5 Número de Vehículos de Pasajero y Camión de Pasajero Número de Vehículos

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

San Ysidro Otay Mesa Tecate

Fuente: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Field Operations Office. Datos representan año fiscal federal.

Figura 4 Cruces de Camión hacia el Norte e Intercambio Comercial de Camiones en ambos sentidos por las GDE de Otay Mesa y Tecate

800,000 $30,000

700,000 $25,000

600,000

$20,000 500,000

400,000 $15,000

Number of Trucks Number 300,000

$10,000 de dólares) (en millones Two-Way Trade (in millions) Trade Two-Way Número de Tractocamiones Número de Tractocamiones

200,000

$5,000

100,000 ambos sentidos Comercial en Intercambio

0 $0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Otay Mesa Tecate Total Trade

Fuentes: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Field Operations Office. Datos representan el año fiscal federal. Estadísticas del U.S. Bureau of Transportation, Datos de Carga Transfronteriza.

Noviembre 2006 19 Identificación de Problemas

A pesar del importante crecimiento de las operaciones comerciales en las GsDE de Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay y Tecate-Tecate y de los vínculos sociales y económicos que existen entre la región de San Diego y Baja California, pocas son las mejoras a la infraestructura de cruces fronterizos que se han implementado en la frontera durante los últimos 20 años. El proyectado aumento poblacional y el crecimiento continuo en el intercambio comercial resultarán en mayores demandas sobre la infraestructura existente.

En un día típico, aproximadamente 160,000 personas cruzan por la frontera de México hacia la región de San Diego usando vehículos privados, camiones o a pie. Se anticipa que los volúmenes actuales (2005) del tránsito vehicular transfronterizo se duplicarán para el año 2030.

El aumento en el congestionamiento y las demoras de los movimientos de carga y viajes personales transfronterizos se han tornado más impredecibles. Se estima que dichas demoras representaron un costo a las economías de San Diego y Baja California de casi $4.2 mil millones de dólares en pérdida de productividad y una pérdida de más de 35,000 empleos en el año 2005. Se proyecta que tanto la pérdida de productividad como la de empleos, por lo menos se duplique en los próximos diez años, si no se toman las medidas necesarias para mejorar los cruces fronterizos, la infraestructura y el manejo del transporte.3 La calidad del aire en la frontera también es impactada por los tractocamiones y vehículos privados cuyos motores operan sin desplazarse.

Mientras que la misión de U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) es la seguridad nacional, una de las metas estratégicas de CPB es “agilizar el movimiento eficiente de carga legitimo y de personas.”4 CBP ha implementado programas tales como SENTRI y FAST para agilizar los cruces fronterizos a participantes previamente evaluados. Operan un máximo de cuatro carriles vehiculares y uno peatonal SENTRI en San Ysidro y funciona un carril vehicular SENTRI en Otay Mesa, pero hasta dichos carriles padecen de congestionamiento durante horas pico. Para lograr las metas de CBP se requerirá de enfoques innovadores en el manejo de la infraestructura actual de las GsDE, así como del desarrollo y operación de nuevos cruces fronterizos.

También se requiere mejor acceso intermodal para peatones. No hay forma de recoger a peatones que cruzan de México hacia EE.UU. de manera conveniente, ya que no existen espacios para estacionamiento de corto tiempo en el área de las GsDE de San Ysidro y Otay Mesa. Por otro lado, a diferencia de la Línea Azul del Trolley en San Ysidro, la parada de la Ruta MTS 905 no se encuentra adyacente a las instalaciones de revisión de la GDE de Otay Mesa.

El desarrollo de nuevos cruces fronterizos y las vialidades de acceso o mejoras a los mismos, es más complejo que implementar proyectos de transporte dentro de la región de San Diego. Además de compartir rezagos presupuestales similares, los proyectos de las GsDE requieren coordinación estrecha y colaboración con dependencias de gobierno en ambos lados de la frontera internacional a niveles federal, estatal, regional y municipal. El desarrollo de estos proyectos incluye las estaciones fronterizas en cada país, así como las vialidades que conectan dichas estaciones fronterizas con la red de transporte regional. Varias entidades son responsables de distintas actividades de planificación, aprobación e implementación en los Estados Unidos y México, lo cual resulta en tiempos más largos para terminación de dichos los proyectos.

Cabe mencionar que también existe inquietud en la comunidad en relación a los posibles impactos de la implementación del programa US-VISIT en el tránsito vehicular con dirección hacia el sur, y que provoque congestionamientos en las Interestatales 5 y 805 y conectores locales en San Ysidro. Además, la Iniciativa de

3 SANDAG, Estimating Economic Impacts of Border Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border Region, 2006. 4 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2005-2010 Strategic Plan, 2006.

Noviembre 2006 20 Viaje en el Hemisferio Occidental (WHTI, por sus siglas en inglés) requerirá que los ciudadanos estadounidenses, mexicanos y canadienses que ingresen o regresen a los Estados Unidos por medio de GsDE terrestres porten un pasaporte válido partir del 1 de enero de 2008.5

Tanto las GsDE terrestres como las carreteras regionales de acceso son un componente integral de corredores de intercambio comercial internacional y nacional. En virtud de que los beneficios del intercambio comercial se reflejan más allá de la región de San Diego, a todo el estado de California y EE.UU., es vital garantizar los recursos estatales y federales necesarios para mejorar dicha infraestructura de los corredores comerciales.

DIALOGO

Potenciales Soluciones/Alternativas

Como se describe en esta sección, existen varios proyectos para mejorar la capacidad y seguridad de viaje que están en diversas etapas de planificación e implementación, sin embargo, la mayoría de estos solo cuentan con fondos limitados para su implementación. Adicionalmente Caltrans, en colaboración con partes interesadas de los EE.UU. y México, ha identificado mejoras operativas a corto plazo en las GsDE para aliviar el actual congestionamiento.

El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de EE.UU. empezó la implementación del programa US-VISIT, el cual resultará en un sistema automatizado de entradas y salidas para viajeros transfronterizos en las GsDE terrestre. Para su operación y para optimizar las revisiones de seguridad de personas, vehículos e intercambio comercial en las GDE, será esencial incorporar tecnologías inteligentes en la frontera, de forma que se agilicen los viajes transfronterizos y se fortalezca la seguridad en la frontera.

GDE Terrestres, Carreteras y Tránsito

Realineamiento de la GDE de San Ysidro

La Administración General de Servicios de EE.UU. (U.S. General Services Administration, GSA) está a cargo de un proyecto para mejorar y ampliar la estación fronteriza de San Ysidro y fortalecer la eficiencia, integridad y seguridad de las dependencias federales y los viajeros transfronterizos. En el 2002 la GSA preparó un Estudio de Factibilidad, mismo que consideró cuatro opciones de ampliación, incluyendo la redistribución de instalaciones y de las rutas de tránsito norte-sur. Tres de las cuatro opciones se diseñaron de forma tal que el punto de cruce hacia el sur pueda ser por las instalaciones propuestas en la Ave. Virginia -El Chaparral, situadas al oeste del cruce actual. La cuarta opción mantiene las rutas actuales de tránsito hacia el norte y hacia el sur por la carretera I-5.

En el 2003 la GSA inició la elaboración de una Declaración de Impacto Ambiental (EIS)/Reporte de Impacto Ambiental (IER) en colaboración con Caltrans. Se tiene programado contar con el borrador del EIS/EIR en otoño de 2006. La construcción de dicho proyecto se tiene programada iniciar en el 2009 y concluir en el 2013, a reserva de que se consiga financiamiento adicional.

Un concepto actualmente bajo discusión por parte de operadores privados de transporte público y CBP es la implementación de Manifiestos Avanzados de Autobuses. Dicho programa permitiría a los operadores de

5 Para cruces fronterizos terrestres, se prevé que las credenciales de los programas SENTRI y FAST así como micas (i.e. visas laser) también sean aceptables bajo esta iniciativa.

Noviembre 2006 21 tránsito transmitir información sobre el viaje de los pasajeros a CBP por adelantado, para de esta forma agilizar el proceso de identificación en la GDE.

El Plan de Transportación Regional (RTP) contempla la implementación en fases de un servicio más frecuente para la Línea Azul del Trolley fuera de horarios pico, la frecuencia aumentaría en el 2010 de los actuales 15 minutos a cada 10 minutos y a cada 7.5 minutos en el 2020. La frecuencia durante el periodo pico continuaría siendo cada 7.5 minutos.

Puente Peatonal Las Américas6

En 1998, la Agencia de Re-desarrollo de la Ciudad de San Diego recibió una propuesta de parte de un desarrollador privado para la construcción de un puente peatonal transfronterizo de cuota al oeste de la GDE de San Ysidro. El puente es parte del proyecto Internacional Gateway of the Americas, que cruzaría la canalización del Río Tijuana y conectaría los terrenos de Las Américas (al extremo oeste de la Ave. Virginia) con el área de desarrollo comercial al norte de Tijuana.

De acuerdo al proyecto, las metas de éste son reducir el congestionamiento vial en la GDE San Ysidro- Puerta México, incrementar los cruces fronterizos vía el centro comercial de Las Américas para promover crecimiento económico y establecer un cruce de clase mundial.

Desde 1999 se han entregado dos solicitudes para Permisos Presidenciales para este proyecto al Departamento de Estado de EE.UU. (DOS), aunque aún no se ha otorgado aprobación alguna. Se prevé una nueva solicitud al DOS a finales de 2006.

Mejoras al Sistema de Transporte que da servicio a la GDE de Otay Mesa

La Ruta Estatal interina (SR) 905 (SR 905/Otay Mesa Road) vincula a la GDE de Otay Mesa con el sistema regional de carreteras. El primer segmento de la extensión SR 905, que comprende de la GDE de Otay Mesa a Airway Road, se abrió al tránsito en septiembre de 2005. Se tiene programado iniciar la construcción del segundo segmento, desde el este de la I-805 hasta Airway Road, a inicios de 2007 y se tardaría de tres a cuatro años en concluir. La Ciudad de San Diego está trabajando en mejoras a la ruta para camiones de exportación hacia el sur misma que da servicio a la GDE Comercial de Otay Mesa y que se espera finalizarse en e 2010. El aumento en costos, particularmente los de adquisición de derechos de vía, así como los rezagos presupuestales, han demorado la terminación de dichos proyectos.

El Southbay Expressway (SR 125 Toll Road), cuya apertura está programada a principios de 2007, será otro corredor norte-sur que conectará al área fronteriza y la parte este de Chula Vista con el resto de la región de San Diego. Esta nueva carretera de cuota es financiada a través de una alianza pública-privada.

Como resultado del Análisis Operativo Completo de MTS (MTS Comprehensive Operational Analysis), se programaron mejoras a la Ruta de Autobús 905 a partir de septiembre de 2006. Ahora la Ruta 905 opera durante el día con frecuencia de cada 30 minutos (en vez de limitarse solo a períodos pico durante la mañana y tarde), ampliando el servicio hasta las 8:25 p.m. Durante períodos pico, se ofrece un servicio adicional a los parques industriales del área de Otay Mesa (Ruta 905A). También hay un nuevo servicio de transporte público cada 30 minutos los fines de semana. El punto final de la Ruta de Autobús 905 es la Estación de Trolley de Iris Avenue, mientras que la Ruta 929 ofrece servicio entre la Estación de Trolley de Iris Avenue y la Estación de Trolley de San Ysidro. La Ruta 929 aumentó la frecuencia del servicio a cada 15 minutos durante todo el día entre semana y a 30 minutos los fines de semana.

6 City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, Las Americas Pedestrian Bridge Fact Sheet, 2005.

Noviembre 2006 22 El Transporte Rápido de Autobuses de South Bay (South Bay Bus Rapid Transit, BRT) brindará servicio directo entre la GDE de Otay Mesa y el centro de San Diego. Esta Ruta BRT viajaría por la carretera South Bay Expressway, la I-805 y la SR 94, dando servicio a los desarrollos y comunidades del este de Chula Vista. El servicio desde el este de Chula Vista al centro de San Diego iniciará en e 2010 y la extensión a la GDE de Otay Mesa se prevé para el 2015.

GDE de Tecate

Las mejoras a la GDE de Tecate se completaron en el 2005. Se hacen planes para una nueva Instalación de Revisión para Vehículos Comerciales, cuya construcción se prevé finalice en el 2008.

Las dependencias federales en México y los Estados Unidos están explorando formas para mejorar la conexión de la GDE de Tecate con la instalación aduanal de vehículos comerciales en México (700 metros al este de la actual GDE). Una de las propuestas es un corredor fiscal de 700 metros (ruta bardeada para camiones) entre ambas estaciones fronterizas, mientras que otra propone la construcción de una nueva GDE para vehículos comerciales de EE.UU. directamente al frente de la instalación mexicana en proyecto.

Propuesta de la GDE East Otay Mesa-Otay II

Caltrans encabeza los trabajos para el desarrollo de un nuevo cruce fronterizo al este de Otay Mesa. La GDE de East Otay Mesa estará conectada a la SR 905 y al South Bay Expressway por medio de la SR 11. En México, la estación fronteriza Otay II tendrá acceso por la Carretera de Cuota Tijuana-Tecate y el corredor Tijuana-Rosarito.

La propuesta GDE East Otay Mesa y la SR 11 actualmente están en la fase de análisis ecológico. Caltrans prepara un documento ambiental en fases o programático. La primera fase consistirá en un documento preliminar de medio ambiente que comprenderá el espacio de la ruta SR 11 y la propuesta GDE. Con ello se protegerá el corredor y mejorará la capacidad para competir por financiamiento federal. La segunda fase incluiría documentos ambientales a nivel proyecto, desarrollados independientemente para cada una de las partes del mismo.

Se estima que el costo de la SR 11 será entre $230 millones y $280 millones de dólares. Aunque ya se tienen programados aproximadamente $9 millones de dólares para la SR 11, no se han identificado fuentes adicionales de financiamiento. El documento de investigación sobre Ingresos para Financiar al Transporte, identifica a ciertos corredores – tales como la SR 11 – que podrán ser candidatos para ser financiados por Alianzas Público-Privadas (Public Private Partnerships, PPPs), a reserva de los resultados que arrojen los estudios de factibilidad financiera.

En México, el Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Tijuana, IMPlan, coordinó la elaboración de un Programa Parcial para de Mejoramiento de la Mesa de Otay Este que cubre el período de 2004 a 2025. Dicho documento consideró la ubicación de la futura GDE Otay II en la Mesa de Otay Este. También desarrolló un estudio de circulación para analizar las tres alternativas para conectar la propuesta GDE a la red de transporte regional de Tijuana.7 A la par de la preparación del Programa Parcial, en agosto de 2005, el Municipio de Tijuana otorgó una resolución que restringe el uso de una parcela de 37 hectáreas adyacente a la frontera internacional en Mesa de Otay Este para la futura GDE Otay II.8

7 Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano e IMPlan, Programa Parcial de Mejoramiento de la Mesa de Otay Este, en la ciudad de Tijuana, Baja California, 2005. 8 XVIII Ayuntamiento de Tijuana, Declaratoria de Destino para la Localización del Puerto Fronterizo Otay II, 2005.

Noviembre 2006 23 La coordinación binacional de actividades de planificación e implementación para la GDE Otay Mesa East – Otay II y las vialidades de acceso se logrará a través de la Comisión Técnica de la propuesta GDE Otay Mesa East – Otay II en el marco del Mecanismo de Enlace Fronterizo San Diego-Tijuana. La Comisión Técnica fue establecida en junio de 2006 y llevó a cabo su primera reunión en julio de 2006. Personal de la Administración Federal de Carreteras de EE.UU. y de la Secretaría de Comunicación y Transportación de México copresiden de esta Comisión Técnica.

GDE Propuesta para Jacumba-Jacumé

Está en consideración una garita de entrada adicional, como proyecto a largo plazo, al este de Tecate. En el 2000, SANDAG y Caltrans evaluaron un futuro cruce fronterizo que conecta Jacumba, al sudeste del Condado de San Diego, con Jacumé, en el Municipio de Tecate, México. La Secretaría de Infraestructura y de Desarrollo Urbano (SIDUE) del Estado de Baja California también ha considerado este sitio para una futura garita de entrada un su trabajo de planificación a largo plazo.

Representando a los gobiernos estatales, tanto Caltrans como SIDUE han realizado presentaciones sobre dicha propuesta al Grupo Binacional de Puentes y Cruces Fronterizos México-Estados Unidos durante los últimos años. Actualmente, no se están realizando actividades de planificación adicional para promover la implementación de la GDE Jacumba-Jacumé.

Transportación Marítima y Ferroviaria de Carga

El ferrocarril San Diego & Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railway conecta a la región de San Diego hacia el norte, a través de las ferrovías de Burlington Northern Santa Fe y de Union Pacific. El SD&AE también conecta a San Diego con el Valle Imperial por medio de la Ruta Corta Tijuana-Tecate, propiedad de México y la Línea del Desierto (SD&AE Desert Line). La Línea del Desierto fue reinaugurada para dar servicio limitado en el 2005. Sin embargo, para mejorar el potencial de mercado de esta ruta es necesario hacer mejoras adicionales, tanto la Línea del Desierto, como al segmento Tijuana-Tecate y así proporcionar un servicio moderno, necesario para el movimiento de bienes internacional e interestatal entrando, saliendo y atravesando la región del Sur de California-Baja California.

La rehabilitación de la Línea del Desierto, con un nivel de servicio moderno, muy probablemente atraería a empresas con interés en el transporte de carga marítima este-oeste, para que se ubiquen en el norte de Baja California. Adicionalmente, existen propuestas para ampliar las instalaciones en los Puertos de San Diego y Ensenada (México), además de una propuesta para un nuevo puerto marítimo en Baja California y una ruta de ferrocarril en Punta Colonet (al sur de Ensenada) que probablemente tendrán un impacto en el transporte de carga transfronteriza. Actualmente no se han evaluado dichos impactos potenciales.

Terminal de Aeropuerto Transfronteriza

Desde finales de 1990s, el concepto de una terminal de pasajeros transfronteriza se ha considerado para mejorar el acceso de viajeros de los Estados Unidos al Aeropuerto Internacional de Tijuana. Los viajeros se estacionarían en una terminal de pasajeros situada en la comunidad de Otay Mesa (Estados Unidos) y procederían al Aeropuerto de Tijuana a través de un conducto peatonal seguro. Dicho aeropuerto da servicio a pasajeros y carga con rutas a las principales ciudades de México.

En 1998, el Consejo de Desarrollo Económico del Sur del Condado de San Diego llevó a cabo un estudio que concluyó que una terminal transfronteriza reduciría el congestionamiento vehicular en las GDE en San Ysidro y Otay Mesa en cerca del tres por ciento.9 Según el estudio, la existencia de vuelos del extranjero

9 South County Economic Development Council, Crossborder Air Passenger Terminal Facility, Phase I Report, 1998.

Noviembre 2006 24 directos incrementaría la actividad económica a lo largo del corredor Otay Mesa-Tijuana, al tiempo que ampliaría la vida operativa del Aeropuerto Internacional de San Diego. Las encuestas realizadas en el aeropuerto de Tijuana para dicho estudio estimaron que 1.09 millones de pasajeros anuales se originan en el sur de California.

En diciembre de 2005, una delegación comercial coordinada por la Cámara de Comercio Regional de San Diego y su Centro de Negocios con México, en visita a la ciudad de México, discutió la posibilidad de una terminal de pasajeros transfronteriza con funcionarios de gobierno mexicanote ese país. En julio de 2006, el Consejo del San Diego County Regional Airport Authority aceptó la recomendación de su Comité de Planeación Estratégica para elaborar un programa de trabajo tendiente a desarrollar una terminal de pasajeros transfronteriza con la participación de otras dependencias interesadas, incluyendo al operador del Aeropuerto Internacional de Tijuana. En octubre de 2006 el Consejo de la Autoridad giró instrucciones para que se prepare una tarea del estudio de mercado de la demanda que tendrían las conexiones de la terminal transfronteriza de pasajeros para identificar preliminarmente asuntos relacionados con la factibilidad, incluyendo aspectos legales y normativos.10

Temas e Implicaciones de Políticas

Como fue descrito anteriormente en este documento, varios proyectos que mejorarían o ampliarían la capacidad para viajes transfronterizos se encuentran ya en desarrollo o han sido propuestos como posibles soluciones. A continuación se especifican los principales retos para la implementación oportuna de dichos proyectos:

• Rezagos en cuanto a fuentes tradicionales de financiamiento para la infraestructura y operación de GsDE, Así como para instalaciones de transporte que dan servicio a las GsDE.

• Se requiere la coordinación y colaboración binacional entre diversas dependencias locales, regionales, estatales y federales en EE.UU. y México.

• Falta un entendimiento claro entre dependencias de gobierno sobre la forma en que éstas establecen sus prioridades de proyectos.

Adicionalmente, la presión del desarrollo y el rápido crecimiento de las comunidades fronterizas se contraponen al prolongado tiempo que se requiere para implementar los proyectos. Esto puede evitar que se hagan mejoras en el transporte transfronterizo, pues permite que algunos terrenos cambien su uso de suelo, como es el caso de los terrenos vacantes disponibles en Tijuana para el cruce fronterizo futuro Otay II, que se han urbanizado con el paso de los años. Entendiendo dicha situación, el Municipio de Tijuana llevó a cabo las medidas para restringir el uso de suelo de la única área vacante adyacente a la frontera internacional para la GDE propuesta Otay II.

Los retos señalados con anterioridad pueden generar oportunidades para colaborar con quienes están a cargo de la formulación de políticas que permitan avanzar en proyectos de transporte, con la meta de reducir el congestionamiento y las demoras en la frontera, al tiempo que se mejoran las condiciones de seguridad y de la economía. Será importante que la región de San Diego sea un participante activo en los trabajos tendientes a redactar una legislación federal o estatal que permita las Alianzas Público-Privado o implementar instalaciones públicas de cuota.

10 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, Reuniones de la Mesa Directiva del 24 de julio, 7 de septiembre y 2 de octubre de 2006.

Noviembre 2006 25 RECOMENDACIONES

Para la Actualización del Plan Regional de Transporte (PRT)

Se recomienda que el PRT considere el crecimiento proyectado para el norte de Baja California y la región de San Diego, en conjunto con los proyectos transfronterizos descritos en este documento, para evaluar la futura demanda de viajes transfronterizos.

También, se recomienda que se efectúe una evaluación de factibilidad financiera de la SR 11 y la GDE de East Otay Mesa, para evaluar la viabilidad de utilizar cuotas y/o cobros como fuente de ingresos que cubra el costo general del proyecto, incluyendo la capacidad para atraer capital (deuda o inversión privada) a un costo razonable.

Para Análisis Futuro

Se recomienda que conforme avancen las propuestas de proyectos ferroviarios de carga y marítimos en la región del Sur de California – Baja California, se realice una evaluación de las implicaciones para movimientos de carga transfronteriza en las GDE de California-Baja California, así como un análisis del uso potencial del ferrocarril para dar servicio a viajeros transfronterizos.

Se recomienda que, en el contexto de las actividades de planeación aeroportuaria en la región, SANDAG monitoree el desarrollo relativo a la propuesta de una terminal de pasajeros aeroportuaria transfronteriza.

Además, se recomienda que DHS explore e implemente el uso de tecnologías y procesos vanguardistas en las GDE para que logren la doble meta de agilizar el movimiento transfronterizo de personas y bienes, al tiempo que se mantiene la seguridad en la frontera internacional (por ejemplo, implementar unidades de inspección dobles, que todas las líneas sean compatible con SENTRI y sellos electrónicos para los contenedores de carga). Dichos procesos deberán incluir planes de contingencia desarrollados en conjunto con dependencias en México para situaciones de emergencias en las GsDE. También debe ser considerada la posibilidad de ampliar programas que han resultado efectivos, como el FAST y SENTRI, para incluir carriles adicionales para camiones, autobuses y vehículos privados, así como carriles exclusivos para peatones y bicicletas.

Además, se recomienda que los impactos económicos debidos a las demoras en las GsDE en la región de San Diego-Baja California, sean estimados periódicamente conforme nuevos datos sobre cruce fronterizos o tiempos espera estén disponibles.

Noviembre 2006 26 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

December 8, 2006 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4

Action Requested: APPROVE

2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN: PROPOSED TRANSIT STRATEGY FOR 2030 UNCONSTRAINED NETWORK File Numbers 3005200, 3000400

Introduction Recommendation

On July 21, 2006, the Transportation Committee The Transportation Committee is asked to reviewed several initial transit scenario concepts approve the proposed transit strategy to be under consideration for the 2007 Regional used in the development of the 2007 RTP Transportation Plan (RTP). Four alternative Transit Network as discussed in the report. transit scenario concepts were evaluated, including: an update to the current Unconstrained Plan in MOBILITY 2030, two alternative Managed Lanes strategies, and a transit corridor guideway network (detailed in Attachment 1). This effort provided a sketch planning exercise testing how differing strategies affect the regional transportation system, with the specific aim of maximizing the effectiveness of the regional transit network in addressing regional mobility needs.

This agenda item provides a discussion and comparison of the transit scenario concepts evaluated. Several conclusions are drawn from the results that form the basis of the recommended transit strategy:

• Focusing transit improvements within the urban core areas that contain transit supportive land uses, including development of a system of arterial rapid bus services (limited-stop service with transit priority measures);

• Emphasizing peak commute period mobility to key regional employment centers;

• Continuing the current multimodal Managed Lanes strategy; and

• Further study of possible transit guideways in several corridors.

The next step will be to use the transit strategy to develop the transit network and services in the Unconstrained Plan for the 2007 RTP. The Unconstrained Plan will define the region’s vision of the cost-effective highway and transit improvements necessary to serve regional travel demand in 2030. The 2007 RTP will strive to implement as much of the Unconstrained Plan as possible given available resources. The draft Unconstrained Network for the 2007 RTP is scheduled for presentation at the January 19, 2007, Transportation Committee meeting.

Discussion

The regional transit system is an integral part of the multimodal approach of MOBILITY 2030, the RTP adopted in 2003. Having an effective system of commuter rail, light rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), arterial rapid bus, local bus, and shuttle services that complements the local road and freeway

system is critical to the goal of maximizing the person-carrying capacity of the overall transportation network. The benefits gained are not just to transit users, but to auto users as well. An improved transit system provides more travel choices for everyone, and the resulting increase in transit usage in key travel corridors translates into less demand on the highway network.

The recently completed Independent Transit Planning Review (ITPR) report included recommendations on possible strategies for improving the role of public transportation. These recommendations were used to develop the various transit scenarios designed to explore how best to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the regional transit system. As such, this effort was a “sketch planning exercise” to provide useful input on potential revisions to the transit network for the 2007 RTP.

Results from Transit Scenario Concept Evaluation

Staff developed a set of transit scenario concepts to test how different strategic approaches to the design and operation of the transit network compare with one another. While the focus of these scenario concepts is on the regional transit network, it is important to note that each scenario assumed a concurrent investment in roadway improvements, most notably in the current Managed Lanes/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes strategy contained in the MOBILITY 2030. A detailed discussion of the evaluation results is provided in Attachment 1, with a comparison of the key transit and highway volumes numbers provided in Attachment 2. A comparison of travel times in several freeway corridors is currently being finalized and will be presented at the Transportation Committee meeting. Below is a summary of key highlights:

Scenario Concept #1 – MOBILITY 2030: Updated Unconstrained Plan

This scenario represented an updated version of the Unconstrained Plan in MOBILITY 2030 and served as a benchmark for comparison with the other scenarios. • Focus on high-frequency service in urban core areas results in nearly a doubling of transit ridership over current levels.

• Introduction of a network of arterial rapid services (limited-stops with low-cost transit priority measures) strengthens ridership in key arterial corridors.

• Success of these transit improvements dependent on Regional Comprehensive Plan strategic initiatives on smart growth, urban design, and parking management.

Scenario Concept #2 – Alternative Managed Lanes Strategy: Very High Occupancy Vehicles

This scenario represented an alternative Managed Lanes strategy of increasing the carpool/vanpool vehicle occupancy requirement from 2+ to 3+ persons and creation of in-line BRT station designs.

• Changing the vehicle occupancy requirement leads to minimal increase in transit ridership, while likely having a negative impact on carpool usage in Managed Lanes and congestion/travel times in the general purpose lanes.

• Introduction of in-line station design is expected to increase BRT ridership.

2

Scenario Concept #3 – Alternative Managed Lanes Strategy: Freeway Transitways

This scenario represents an alternative Managed Lanes strategy of dedicating two of the four lanes on the I-15 and I-805 facilities to “transit only” lanes. • Introduction of transit only lanes leads to minimal increase in transit ridership.

• Reduced Managed Lanes capacity likely to have negative impact on both carpool/vanpool usage and congestion/travel times in general purpose lanes.

Scenario Concept #4 – Transit Corridor Guideways

This scenario evaluated a dedicated transit corridor guideway network in both freeway and nonfreeway corridors (see Attachment 3).

• Creation of guideway network leads to modest increase in regional transit ridership; most of guideway BRT ridership is diverted from rail and arterial rapid bus services.

• Implementation of transit guideways in non-Managed Lanes corridors (Downtown-Kearny Mesa and University City/UCSD/Sorrento Mesa) show strong ridership potential.

Scenario Concept #5 – Downtown/Urban Core Focus

The original aim of this deleted scenario was a focus transit service in the urban core areas. In developing the networks for the scenarios, a strong focus on the urban core areas was already built into the other four scenarios. Results from the other four scenarios show strong peak, home-to- work transit mode shares for downtown San Diego and moderate mode shares for other downtown and regional employment areas.

Transportation Model Accuracy

The Transportation Committee had previously requested information on the accuracy of the SANDAG transportation model in forecasting transit ridership. Attachment 4 presents a short report outlining how observed data has compared with past forecasts. Overall, the model has done a good job in forecasting transit patronage, with error rates well below those often associated with long range forecasts.

Conclusions and Recommendation

The results of the analysis show that the MOBILITY 2030: Updated Unconstrained Plan scenario shows a significant growth in future transit ridership over today’s ridership levels. A key reason is the addition of the two new elements to the Unconstrained Plan: a focus of transit improvements within the urban core areas and the addition of arterial rapid bus services. In addition, selected transit guideway facilities also show promise for benefiting Bus Rapid Transit, arterial rapid bus, and local bus services in key travel corridors. On the other hand, the analysis of two alternative Managed Lanes scenario concepts shows little benefit to transit and negative impacts to the highway system. The end result is an affirmation of the current multimodal Managed Lanes strategy that provides benefits to BRT services along with carpool/vanpools and FasTrak users. Finally, improvements to services during the peak commute period can result in transit playing an increased role in serving mobility needs to key employment areas.

3

Based on these conclusions, the table below summarizes the various concepts from each scenario both recommended and not recommended for inclusion in the 2007 RTP transit strategy.

Recommended for Not Recommended for Transit Scenario RTP Transit Strategy RTP Transit Strategy MOBILITY 2030: • High frequency urban core services Updated • Arterial rapid services Unconstrained Plan • Maximize peak mode split to downtowns & employment centers through additional services Alternative Managed • Retain Managed Lanes/HOV facilities • Do not pursue Managed Lanes/HOV Lanes – Very High 2+ carpool/vanpool requirement facilities 3+ carpool/vanpool Occupancy Vehicles • Evaluate in-line station design for requirement Managed Lane facilities Alternative Managed • Retain multimodal use of Managed • Do not pursue dedicated lanes for Lanes - Freeway Lanes facilities transit separated from lanes for Transitways HOV/FasTrak users Transit Corridor • Guideways for Downtown-Kearny Guideways Mesa & UTC-Sorrento Mesa areas

The recommended action today is to approve a transit strategy for development of the transit network for the 2007 RTP. This strategy represents a hybrid of the MOBILITY 2030: Updated Unconstrained Plan and Transit Guideway scenario concepts. More specifically, this strategy would encompass the following six key elements:

1. A rich network of transit services focused on the region’s urban core areas where transit- supportive land uses create the potential for attracting strong transit usage, including:

a. High frequency all-day service (10 minutes or better) on local bus services, and

b. The addition of an arterial rapid bus system in key corridors aimed at creating higher-speed, limited-stop services;

2. A network of local and selected arterial rapid bus services in suburban areas that emphasize connectivity between regional destinations, but with service levels determined by demand;

3. An emphasis on maximizing transit mode share to key regional employment areas for peak commute tripmaking;

4. An investment in transit priority capital improvements and station designs needed to provide high-speed, reliable transit services:

a. Continuation of the multimodal Managed Lanes strategy that provides priority treatment for freeway bus rapid transit services (along with carpools);

b. Further evaluation of in-line BRT station design for Managed Lanes facilities;

c. Extensive use of low-cost arterial transit priority treatments (signal priority, queue jump lanes) for local and arterial rapid bus services;

4

5. Further evaluation of dedicated transit guideways in the 4th/5th/6th Avenue/SR 163 corridor between downtown and Kearny Mesa, and in the University City/Sorrento Mesa areas.

6. Pursue the strategic initiatives outlined in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (e.g. smart growth development patterns, urban design, parking management strategies) that are integral components for the success of the RTP transit plan.

Next Steps

Based on the Transportation Committee’s recommendation on the 2007 RTP transit strategy, the next step is to create a Preliminary Unconstrained Transit Network that incorporates the results of the transit scenario evaluation. We will continue to work with Metropolitan Transit System and North County Transit District staff in this effort. This preliminary transit network will then be combined with an updated highway network to evaluate any transit routes or services that do not merit further consideration in the overall RTP Unconstrained Network. As we develop the unconstrained transit and highway networks, we will compare it with the MOBILITY 2030 networks to understand where changes are proposed. The resulting draft Unconstrained Network for the 2007 RTP is scheduled for presentation to the Transportation Committee at its January 19, 2007, meeting.

BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Attachments: 1. Transit Scenario Concepts Evaluation Results 2. Transit Scenario Results Table 3. Transit Guideway Scenario Map 4. Transportation Model Accuracy Report

Key Staff Contact: Dave Schumacher, (619) 699-6906, [email protected]

5 Attachment 1

Transit Scenario Concepts Evaluation Results

The following initial transit scenario concepts were evaluated for use in the development of a transit strategy for the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

Scenario Concept #1 – MOBILITY 2030: Updated Unconstrained Plan

This scenario represents an updated version of the current unconstrained plan in MOBILITY 2030 and served as a benchmark for comparison with the alternative scenarios outlined below. This alternative included both the highway and transit networks in the MOBILITY 2030 Unconstrained Plan, updated to reflect changes in the transit systems of the two transit agencies, including the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) that is now being implemented and the Fast Forward plan implemented by the North County Transit District (NCTD). This update included evaluation of a network of limited-stop, arterial rapid bus services (using transit priority measures such as signal priority treatments and queue jump lanes) in addition to the freeway-based Bus Rapid Transit contained in MOBILITY 2030.

The focus of increased transit service (10 minute all-day frequencies on most routes) in the urban core areas that have stronger transit-supportive land uses than suburban areas results in a regional daily ridership of nearly 600,000, nearly doubling current levels (317,000). The introduction of arterial rapid services (limited-stop routes utilizing low-capital cost transit priority treatments) as an overlay to local bus service show the potential for strong ridership increases in key arterial corridors. Tested in 13 corridors throughout the region, these routes generated a five percent increase in ridership versus a network without rapid bus services. Several individual corridors show increases exceeding 50 percent. This focus on the urban core areas and the introduction of arterial rapid services are consistent with the recent COA conducted by MTS and the NCTD Fast Forward plan.

The Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) strategic initiatives promote smart growth strategies, pedestrian-oriented urban designs, and parking management strategies. These will play an important role in ensuring the success of transit improvements outlined in this scenario.

Scenario Concept #2 – Alternative Managed Lanes Strategy: Very High Occupancy Vehicles

The MOBILITY 2030 Managed Lanes strategy is based on a multimodal approach to maximize person throughput by giving priority to higher-occupancy carpool/vanpool (2+ person requirement), and BRT vehicles. Any excess capacity is assumed to be available to solo drivers for a fee through the FasTrak program. Using the revised unconstrained highway and transit network plan above, this alternative scenario tested a strategy that emphasized very high occupancy vehicles (3+ person carpools/vanpools, and BRT) to determine if it offers the potential to achieve a higher person- throughput. This scenario also developed an in-line station design to minimize transit travel times. The arterial rapid bus services and arterial priority measures developed in Scenario #1 are also included.

6

The results show minimal increases in transit ridership. Peak ridership regionally increases three percent in the peak over Scenario Concept #1, with ridership on routes within the Managed Lanes corridors increasing only three percent during the peak. These small increases, combined with the expected decline in carpools able to use the Managed Lanes (nationally, only about one-third of carpools are 3+ persons), indicate that the Managed Lanes would not show a significant increase in alternative mode usage (transit and carpools/vanpools) versus the current 2+ person occupancy requirement (Scenario Concept #1). Conversely, while some two-person carpools may shift to the general purpose lanes, many would likely shift to driving alone since they no longer would have the travel time savings afforded in the Managed Lanes. The resultant increase in general purpose traffic also would be expected to increase peak travel times. A comparison of travel times in several freeway corridors is currently being finalized and will be presented at the Transportation Committee meeting. This alternative also included evaluation of in-line BRT station designs for Managed Lanes facilities that minimizes the out-of-direction travel associated with the I-15 Managed Lane facility. While the results did not allow us to directly attribute any ridership gains specifically to this in-line station design, the reduced travel times for BRT routes should have a positive impact.

Scenario Concept #3 – Alternative Managed Lanes Strategy: Freeway Transitways

This scenario is similar to Scenario Concept #2 in terms of testing an alternative strategy for the Managed Lanes facilities to maximize person-throughput; however, in this case, the strategy involved dedicating two of the four Managed Lanes to transit only. A dedicated transitway provides a facility design that maximizes transit speeds and access. The remaining lanes would be priority access for 2+ carpools/vanpools.

This scenario shows similar results to Scenario Concept #2. Transit ridership increases only three percent in the peak regionally over Scenario Concept #1, with ridership somewhat higher on routes that would benefit directly from the dedicated transit lanes (five percent in the peak). Dedicating two of the four managed lanes would likely have a negative impact on carpool/vanpool usage (and FasTrak® usage as well) since there would be only 50 percent as much capacity to handle demand. As with Scenario Concept #2, the result would be increased traffic in the general purpose lanes. A comparison of travel times in several freeway corridors is currently being finalized and will be presented at the Transportation Committee meeting.

Scenario Concept #4 – Transit Corridor Guideways

This alternative built off the approach in Scenario Concept #3 regarding dedicated transit lanes in Managed Lanes corridors by expanding the concept of dedicated transit facilities to areas outside the freeway corridors where warranted based on travel demand and opportunities for land use integration. Transit investment would be focused in guideways that can best connect major demand origins and destinations in a way that maximizes transit system connectivity, community access to the system, and transit travel speeds. Transit guideways, either fully grade-separated or with at- grade crossings, offer the flexibility to operate an array of BRT services and facilitate operations of local bus services as well. The network is based on travel demand and input from the Independent Transit Peer Review panel.

Several of the guideways are in corridors where Managed Lanes facilities are planned. Since the Managed Lanes facilities are designed for carpools/vanpools and FasTrak users, they are included in this scenario, while all BRT routes that used the Managed Lanes facilities in the previous scenarios have been re-routed to the transit guideways. In addition to transit guideways in the I-15 and I-805

7

Managed Lanes corridors, transit guideways were also tested in the 4th/5th Avenue/SR 163 corridor between downtown and Kearny Mesa and the University City/UCSD/Sorrento Mesa areas. Since the Managed Lanes facilities are designed for carpools/vanpools and FasTrak users, they are included in this scenario; all BRT routes that used the Managed Lanes facilities in the previous scenarios have been re-routed to the transit guideways.

The results from this scenario indicate that the BRT routes using the transit guideways show a 115 percent daily ridership increase, indicating that the guideways do attract strong usage. However, on a regional basis, the transit guideways only result in a seven percent ridership increase. The reason for this difference is the fact that non-BRT transit modes (light rail, commuter rail, arterial rapid) show ridership decreases, implying that most of the BRT ridership comes from a shift of existing riders rather than from new riders to transit. A look at individual transit guideway segments reveals that the Downtown-Kearny Mesa and University City-Sorrento Mesa segments do show sizeable ridership increases (58 percent and 21 percent, respectively, for routes along those segments). While grade-separated transitways represent major capital investments, such an investment in these corridors offer the potential of significant benefits to the transit system.

Scenario Concept #5 – Downtown/Urban Core Focus

The original aim of this deleted scenario was a focus transit service in the urban core areas. In developing the networks for the scenarios, a strong focus on the urban core areas and the various downtowns and key employment areas in the region (downtown San Diego, University City/UCSD, Sorrento Mesa, Kearny Mesa, Escondido, and Chula Vista) was already built into the other four scenarios. Thus, while a specific downtown/urban core scenario was not modeled, it was possible to evaluate how well these areas were served by each of the other four scenario concepts.

The results show that peak, home-to-work transit mode splits would range from 38 percent to 41 percent for downtown San Diego, representing a significant increase over the 30 percent in MOBILITY 2030. Peak, home-to-work transit mode splits for other areas range from 4.2-7.9 percent for Sorrento Mesa to 13.2-17.9 percent for University City. Regionally, the peak, home-to-work mode share for transit ranges from 8.6-9.6 percent, nearly achieving the 10 percent goal of MOBILITY 2030.

As noted in the July 16, 2006, agenda item, the downtown/urban core focus may address concerns raised by Save Our Forests and Ranchlands (SOFAR). With the adoption of MOBILITY 2030, SOFAR challenged the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified by the SANDAG Board. To address the concerns raised by SOFAR, SANDAG entered into a settlement agreement that requires SANDAG to analyze an alternative in the EIR of the 2007 RTP that addresses increased transit in the region. SOFAR has subsequently requested that SANDAG analyze a different alternative than what was outlined in the settlement agreement that would focus additional transit in the downtown San Diego core. While no action is recommended today regarding SOFAR’s concerns, discussions are continuing regarding these scenarios.

8 Attachment 2

Transit Scenario Evaluation Results

2006 Daily Scenario #1 Mobility Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Scenario #4 Regional 2030: Updated Alternative ML - Alternative ML - Transit Corridor Ridership* Unconstrained Plan 3+ Carpool Transit Lanes Guideways

Person Trips --- 21,830,000 21,830,000 21,830,000 21,830,000

Transit Trips** - Total 317,000 598,000 611,000 612,000 639,000 - Light/Commuter Rail 112,000 222,000 228,000 228,000 209,000 - Bus Rapid Transit --- 59,000 60,000 60,000 128,000 - Arterial Rapid Bus --- 83,000 84,000 84,000 63,000 - Local Bus 205,000 234,000 239,000 240,000 239,000

Transit Mode Shares (All Day, Peak Home-Work) - Downtown San Diego --- 11.9%, 38.4% 12.0%, 39.3% 12.0%, 39.5% 12.6%, 41.2% - Chula Vista Downtown --- 2.1%, 8.8% 2.1%, 10.2% 2.1%, 10.2% 2.1%, 10.2% - Kearny Mesa --- 2.6%, 7.9% 2.7%, 8.7% 2.7%, 8.8% 3.6%, 11.3% - University City/UCSD --- 4.3%, 13.2% 4.5%, 15.0% 4.5%, 15.2% 4.9%, 16.7% - Sorrento Mesa --- 1.6%, 4.2% 1.7%, 5.3% 1.7%, 5.5% 2.3%, 7.9% - Escondido: All Day --- 1.6%, 8.3% 1.6%, 9.1% 1.6%, 9.0% 1.6%, 9.2% - Regional --- 1.8%, 8.6% 1.8%, 8.8% 1.8%, 8.8% 1.9%, 9.6%

Peak Travel Time Comparisons South Bay to UTC To be provided at Transportation Committee meeting Escondido to Downtown To be provided at Transportation Committee meeting El Cajon to Kearny Mesa To be provided at Transportation Committee meeting

* - Source: SANDAG Passenger Counting Program ** - Unlinked trips

9 AttachmentAttachment X 3

San Diego Region Poway

56 Del Mar 5

MAP AREA 67

15

SorrentoSorrento MMesaesa

UCSDUCSD MiraMira MesaMesa

UTCUTC

52 67

52 Santee

5 125 KearnyKearny MesaMesa

805 El MissionMission 8 Cajon ValleyValley La 15 Mesa

HillcrestHillcrest Lemon 163 San Grove Diego 94 125

DowntownDowntown 282 P County A C of I I F San Diego II C

O Coronado 54 125 C National

E City A

N

75 SouthSouth BayBay

Transit Scenario #4 Transit Corridor Guideways 805 Chula Vista November 2006

Transit Corridor Guideways Imperial 5 MILES 905 03 Beach 11

0 4.83 UNITED STATES KILOMETERS MEXICO

1-D Tijuana, B.C.

Page10 X Attachment 4

Transportation Model Accuracy Report (prepared by SANDAG’s Technical Services Department)

This agenda item presents 2030 transit ridership forecasts that could be expected under different transit scenarios. These forecasts were produced by SANDAG’s transportation models, which are made up of complex relationships between demographic factors and the quality of service offered by highway and public transportation systems. The question often arises as to how accurate the models have been in forecasting transit usage.

One way to assess model accuracy is to look at past Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs). Since 1980 SANDAG has produced a new RTP every three to five years. Base year, near term, and long term regional transit trip forecasts are published at the end of each RTP. By now some of these forecast years have been reached, so that forecasted transit ridership can be compared with observed transit ridership collected through SANDAG’s Passenger Counting Program.

The following table shows that four of the five RTP transit forecasts have been very accurate. The most significant difference between actual and model-estimated ridership occurred with the 1989 RTP. This error can be primarily traced to overly optimistic assumptions about construction schedules for light rail extensions made shortly after the first TransNet Ordinance was passed.

Comparison of Observed and Forecasted Daily Regional Transit Trips 1980 to 2000 Regional Transportation Plans

RTP Forecast Year Observed Trips Forecasted Trips Difference 1980 2000 242,400 225,400 -7% 1986 2005 225,000 274,500 22% 1989 2005 225,000 339,700 51% 1994 2005 225,000 254,600 13% 2000 2005 225,000 231,900 3%

Another method of assessing model accuracy is to evaluate the project-specific ridership forecasts that were used to justify the construction of transit improvements. Only a limited number of these studies have been done. The following summary shows close agreement between projected and actual ridership for most studies.

• Blue Line The first light rail forecast was a 1978 projection of 11,000 daily boardings on the Blue Line between San Yisdro and Downtown San Diego for the year 1981. Actual 1981 boardings were 10,000 and currently there are over 50,000 boardings on this light rail segment.

• Orange Line The next study, conducted in 1985, forecasted 14,800 daily boardings would occur on the Orange Line extension between the Twelfth/Imperial Station and Santee in the year 2000. In 2000 the 16,000 actual boardings on this segment were within 8% of the forecast.

• Coaster A 1989 study of proposed Coaster service forecasted 4,000 daily boardings in the 1995 opening year. Actual opening year ridership came in lower than expected with 2,200 boardings, but quickly grew to expected levels by 1999. Current Coaster usage of 6,000 daily riders exceeds projections.

11

• Mission Valley West. A 1991 study of the Blue Line extension from Old Town to Mission San Diego was most problematic. This study projected 16,300 boardings on the Mission Valley West extension in 1995 but 5,600 actually materialized. Factors contributing to the overestimated ridership include the assumed redevelopment of the Riverwalk Golf Course that has been delayed and feeder bus service that was provided at lower levels than anticipated.

• Mission Valley East. A 1995 study of the Blue Line extension from Mission San Diego to Grossmont was the last study of a proposed rail project that has since come online. A long range 2015 forecast of 7,400 daily riders was produced for this light rail segment. Current usage for the four new stations stands at 4,900 daily boardings. Given expected ridership increases over the next 10 years, actual ridership by 2015 should agree closely with the 1995 forecast.

Overall, the model has done a good job in forecasting transit patronage, with error rates well below those often associated with long range forecasts. In those cases where model forecasts have been most problematic, model inputs are usually at fault rather than the model structure itself.

Key Staff Contact: Bill McFarlane, (619) 699-1976, [email protected]

12 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

December 8, 2006 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5

Action Requested: APPROVE

AMENDMENT TO CLIFF STREET BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

FUNDING AGREEMENTT File Number 3000800

Introduction Recommendation

In 2004, SANDAG and the City of Solana Beach entered The Transportation Committee is asked into an agreement to identify $900,000 in funding for a to authorize the Executive Director to bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the COASTER grade execute an amendment to the 2004 separation at Cliff Street. The City of Solana Beach has agreement with the City of Solana completed the design and received construction bids for Beach regarding the Cliff Street Bicycle this bridge, but the original agreement does not provide and Pedestrian Bridge in substantially adequate funding to cover the cost of the low bid. In the same form as shown in order to complete the project, the City of Solana Beach Attachment 2, and to program is requesting that SANDAG agree to increase the additional TransNet Bicycle Program existing agreement by $250,000 to $1,150,000, and funds for the project to fulfill the program those additional funds so the project can move terms of the amended agreement. forward.

Discussion

SANDAG and the City of Solana Beach have an agreement that requires SANDAG to assist the City in identifying $900,000 in funding for a bridge over the railroad tracks at Cliff Street. The bridge is needed to reconnect the residential community east of the bridge to the commercial district along Highway 101 via the Coastal Rail Trail. To date, SANDAG has allocated and programmed $750,000 in Transportation Development Act Bicycle and Pedestrian funds for this purpose. The City of Solana Beach has designed the bridge and solicited bids to construct the project. Based on the low bid and estimated construction management costs, the total cost of the bridge is now $1.9 million.

To complete funding at this time, the City has agreed to provide $750,000 toward the project and has asked SANDAG to provide an additional $400,000 through the TransNet Bicycle Program1. The current estimated balance of unprogrammed funds in the TransNet Bicycle program is $185,400. Therefore, to make the allocation SANDAG would have to advance an additional $214,600 from future years’ revenues. This action would authorize staff to include the allocation in the TransNet Program of Projects and amend the Solana Beach Cliff Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge agreement to reflect the higher project cost. The TransNet Bicycle Program of Projects will be included into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program amendment scheduled for the January 19, 2007, Transportation Committee meeting.

BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Attachments: 1. Letter from the City of Solana Beach 2. Amendment to Solana Beach Cliff Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Agreement

Key Staff Contact: Stephan Vance, (619) 699-1924. [email protected]

1 $150,000 unallocated funds from the original agreement and the additional $250,000 being requested. This Item Refers to Item #5, Transportation Committee Meeting, 12-08-06, Attachment 1

2 Attachment 2

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH REGARDING SOLANA BEACH CLIFF STREET BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

SANDAG Contract No. 5000777

THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into effective as of this ______day of ______, 2006, by and between the San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”) and the City of Solana Beach (“CITY”).

RECITALS

The following recitals are a substantive part of this Amendment:

WHEREAS, SANDAG and the CITY (the parties), entered into an Agreement in March 2004 concerning funding for a bicycle and pedestrian bridge across the San Diego Northern Railway at Cliff Street in the City of Solana Beach, referred to herein as “PROJECT;” and

WHEREAS, at the time the Agreement was executed the parties contemplated a $900,000 budget for construction of the PROJECT; and

WHEREAS, the CITY has completed the design and received construction bids for the PROJECT, but the Agreement does not include adequate funding to cover the cost of the low bid; and

WHEREAS, the parties now believe the PROJECT construction budget should be $1.9 million; and

WHEREAS, to date SANDAG has allocated and programmed $750,000 in Transportation Development Act Bicycle and Pedestrian funds for the PROJECT; and

WHEREAS, the CITY has agreed to provide $750,000 toward the PROJECT and has asked SANDAG to provide $150,000 to complete the original $900,000 commitment, plus an additional $250,000 from the TransNet Bicycle Program to cover the construction funding shortfall;

NOW THEREFORE,

IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

SECTION I

SANDAG AGREES:

1. To program a total of up to $400,000 from the TransNet Bicycle Program for construction of the PROJECT.

3

2. Within the limits of its funding authority, policies and procedures, to program or allocate appropriate eligible funds, as they become available, to reimburse the CITY for costs incurred on the PROJECT consistent with the Agreement and this Amendment.

SECTION II

CITY AGREES:

1. To pursue construction of the PROJECT to completion.

2. To contribute an additional $750,000 toward construction of the PROJECT.

3. To utilize any funds provided by SANDAG under this Amendment for construction of the PROJECT.

SECTION III

IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:

1. All provisions of the Agreement not amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment effective on the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

DAVID OTT GARY L. GALLEGOS

City Manager Executive Director

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:

City Attorney Office of General Counsel

4 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

December 8, 2006 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 6

Action Requested: APPROVE

FY 2008 TDA/TransNet BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA File Number 3000800

Introduction Recommendation

Each year, the SANDAG Board of Directors allocates The Transportation Committee is asked to funds under the Transportation Development Act approve the FY 2008 TDA/TransNet Bicycle (TDA) and the TransNet local sales tax program to and Pedestrian project application and support bicycle and pedestrian transportation evaluation criteria. projects in the San Diego region. For FY 2008, approximately $3.6 million is available for allocation.

At its May 19, 2006, meeting, the Transportation Committee was asked to approve the FY 2007 project evaluation criteria that are used by SANDAG staff and the Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group (BPWG) to recommend projects for funding. The Committee discussed scoring and the relative weight assigned to different categories within the selection criteria and suggested that more emphasis be given to regionally significant projects and to closing gaps in the existing regional bicycle or pedestrian network. The project selection criteria (Attachments 4 and 5) have been changed to reflect the Committee’s direction and are presented as part of the application packet (Attachments 1 thru 5) for review and approval.

Discussion

Development of Criteria

The proposed FY 2008 project evaluation criteria and application materials for TDA and TransNet bicycle and pedestrian projects have been developed through an iterative process with the BPWG and the Transportation Committee using criteria that support regional transportation goals consistent with the SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Regional Transportation Plan. Project readiness, land use-transportation connectivity, cost-effectiveness, public safety, and innovation in design are criteria used to prioritize projects. Each project is also evaluated on its potential to serve key population, employment, and activity centers through a geographic information system analysis.

The proposed project selection criteria matrix is shown in Attachments 4 and 5. In response to Transportation Committee input, point allocations for categories 3 and 4 have been increased to give additional weight to regional projects with direct connections to local and regional transit facilities (Category 3 – 20 points maximum) and gap closure in the existing regional network (Category 4 – 20 points maximum).

Leveraging Regional Funding for Regional Bicycle Facilities

In order to further Transportation Committee interests toward closing gaps in the existing regional network, in the FY 2008 funding cycle TDA/TransNet funds could be used to match available Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for regional bicycle projects such as the Inland Rail Trail, Coastal Rail Trail, and Bayshore Bikeway. The Transportation Committee will have an opportunity to consider this approach as part of the funding allocation approval process anticipated in May 2007.

Developing Long-Term Funding Strategies

The current estimate to construct a regional bicycle network (Attachment 6) is $120 million. This fall, SANDAG received a Caltrans Community Based Planning Grant for $200,000 to create a Regional Bicycle Plan that will provide a comprehensive regional bicycle network with an updated cost estimate and funding strategy. Staff expects the consultant selection process to be completed spring of 2007. The plan should take 15 months to complete and could result in future recommended changes to the project evaluation criteria.

Next Steps

Upon Transportation Committee approval of the FY 2008 TDA/TransNet Bicycle and Pedestrian project application and evaluation criteria, SANDAG will issue letters of funding availability to member agencies and other eligible agencies. It is anticipated that a draft funding allocation will be presented to the Transportation Committee for consideration in May 2007.

BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Attachments: 1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Claim Guidelines 2. FY 2008 Annual Grant Application 3. FY 2008 TDA/TransNet Bicycle and Pedestrian Application Checklist 4. FY 2008 Bicycle Project Selection Criteria Matrix 5. FY 2008 Pedestrian Project Selection Criteria Matrix 6. Regional Bikeway Corridor Map

Key Staff Contact: Chris Kluth, (619) 699-1952, [email protected]

2 Attachment 1

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CLAIM GUIDELINES

Introduction

The following describes the claim process for Transportation Development Act (TDA) bicycle and pedestrian projects and TransNet bicycle projects.

Project Eligibility and the Regional Housing Needs Incentives Program

On April 28, 2006, the SANDAG Board of Directors adopted Board Policy No. 033 entitled: Implementation Guidelines for SANDAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment Memorandum. This policy sets forth guidelines for incentives related to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 2005-2010 housing element cycle, which was adopted by the SANDAG Board on February 25, 2005. As part of the approval of the Final RHNA for the San Diego region, the Board agreed to grant certain financial incentives to jurisdictions that provide a greater share of affordable housing now and in the future.

Board Policy No. 033 identifies the funding programs that will be subject to the RHNA policy, the housing element-related eligibility requirements for the funding programs affected by the policy, and how incentive points will be allocated based on lower income housing production.

In order to be eligible for TDA/TransNet bicycle and pedestrian funds for the FY 2008 funding cycle, prior to the application due date jurisdictions must:

1. have adopted a housing element that has been found in compliance with state law by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) (Section 2.4.2 of Policy No. 033);

2. have submitted information to SANDAG regarding the actual production of housing units in all four income categories (very low, low, moderate, and above moderate) (Sections 2.4.3 and 2.4.3.1); and

3. have (if applicable) provided information to SANDAG regarding progress toward complying with any rezoning programs contained in its housing element that are required to meet the adequate site identification requirements of state law (Sections 2.4.3 and 2.4.3.1).

TDA Project Eligibility

The law specifies that the money should be allocated according to the regulations adopted by SANDAG as the regional transportation planning agency. It also identifies certain categories of eligible projects. These specific project types represent neither an exhaustive list, nor are they listed as priorities (Public Utilities Code Sections 99233.3 and 99234). They are summarized below for reference. Project selection criteria, established by SANDAG Board policy, are discussed later.

ƒ Construction, including related engineering expenses, of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

3 ƒ Maintenance of bicycle trails provided they are closed to motorized traffic.

ƒ Projects serving the needs of commuting bicyclists, including but not limited to, new paths serving major transportation corridors, secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park- and-ride lots, and transit centers where other funds are not available.

ƒ A comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian facilities plan (no more than once every five years), with an emphasis on bicycle projects intended to primarily accommodate nonrecreational bicycle trips.

ƒ Up to 20 percent of the cost to restripe Class II bicycle lanes.

ƒ Up to 5 percent of the amount available to a city or the county may be expended in conjunction with other funds to support bicycle safety education programs, so long as the funds are not used to fully fund the salary of any one person.

TransNet Project Eligibility

TransNet bicycle funds may be expended for all purposes necessary and convenient to the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of facilities intended for use by bicyclists. These funds also may be used for programs that help to encourage the use of bicycles, such as secure parking facilities, bicycle promotion programs, and safety programs. Pedestrian projects are not eligible under the TransNet program.

Certain costs at times associated with bicycle and pedestrian projects are not eligible when the benefit provided is not the exclusive use of bicyclists or pedestrians. These instances are listed below.

ƒ Curb and gutter are part of the roadway drainage system. As such, newly installed curb and gutter cannot be considered an improvement exclusively for the benefit of the sidewalk or bike lane and are not an eligible expense.

ƒ Driveway ramps installed across sidewalks are not for the benefit of pedestrians, and in fact, degrade the pedestrian environment. Claimants may not include the cost of driveway ramps in applications for sidewalk projects. However, the distance across the driveway may be included when computing the per-square-foot cost of the sidewalk.

ƒ Where roadway design standards require a roadway shoulder width at least as wide as would be required for a standard bike lane, the cost of the shoulder construction will not be eligible. Appropriate bikeway signage is eligible.

Under some circumstances, it may be necessary to remove and replace curb and gutter, driveway ramps, drainage facilities and other existing improvements in order to construct a bikeway or sidewalk. In such cases the cost of this work is most likely eligible, but claimants should carefully document why this is so in the claim submittal.

4 SANDAG Claim Requirements

SANDAG has the authority to establish criteria applicable to analyzing and evaluating claims for non-motorized transportation facilities (Public Utilities Code Section 99401). To be considered for funding, a claim must be consistent with SANDAG’s adopted non-motorized plans and meet the requirements for community support and geometric design standards as described in Categories 1 and 2 of the Project Selection Criteria. In addition, the following requirements must be met, if applicable:

ƒ If the project abuts other jurisdictions, it must be shown on the adopted plans of the adjacent jurisdictions, or a letter must be submitted from the abutting jurisdiction showing that cooperative efforts are underway.

ƒ Other sources of funding for cooperative projects must be identified. Please attach supporting documentation that shows matching funds have been secured. Matching funds that have not been secured will not be considered in the matching funds section of the project scoring matrix.

ƒ Projects which are a required element of a larger capital improvement project are not eligible for funding.

ƒ No single agency may submit an application, or applications, that are greater than the total available allocation for that fiscal year.

Application Process

Applications for TDA and TransNet non-motorized claims must be received by SANDAG by February 5, 2007. To be considered for funding, the Annual Grant Application must be fully completed. In addition, please consider the following, if applicable:

ƒ All claims, including those supporting educational or promotional programs and claims for planning projects, must include a project budget, work program, and project schedule.

ƒ No later than April 3, 2007, include a certified copy of a resolution or minute order in which the planning group, planning commission, or governing body of the claimant authorizes the claim.

ƒ Review Panel - A review panel of six to eight working group members will conduct a full preliminary review of the project applications to identify significant issues and request clarification from the project applicants if necessary. Participation on the review panel is open to any active working group member. Applicants must submit multiple hard copies of their applications for distribution to the review panel.

ƒ Completed applications to be available online - Applicants must submit their application in PDF format as well as hard copy. Electronic version of the applications will be posted to the internet to give any working group member the opportunity to review the applications.

5 Evaluation Process

The evaluation process for TDA bicycle and pedestrian projects and TransNet bicycle projects is consistent with the way SANDAG evaluates and prioritizes other components of the transportation system such as arterial, highway, and transit projects. Transportation project priorities are established in planning documents like the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), MOBILITY 2030. Priorities also are used for funding decisions that are programmed in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). In addition, the selection criteria supports the overall goals and objectives SANDAG has for improving the regional transportation system and promoting smart growth in the region by giving priority to projects that enhance the existing transportation network as a whole. The criteria to be used in the evaluation process are specified in the Project Selection Criteria matrix.

Claimants for TDA bicycle and pedestrian projects and TransNet bicycle projects will be responsible for accurately filling out the Annual Grant Application and the accompanying Project Selection Criteria matrix. SANDAG will be responsible for performing the GIS Analysis in Category 6 and the Cost Benefit Analysis in Category 11 of the Project Selection Criteria based on the process outlined below. SANDAG will compile the results from the Grant Applications and produce a prioritized list of projects that will be reviewed by the Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group (BPWG). The committee will then recommend a final priority list of projects to the SANDAG Transportation Committee, which will then be approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors.

ƒ Regional Housing Needs Incentive – Project eligibility and incentive points will be based on the formula adopted in SANDAG Board of Directors adopted Board Policy No. 033 entitled: Implementation Guidelines for SANDAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment Memorandum.

ƒ The GIS Analysis will be based on the following five factors: total population, total employment, population density, employment density, and number of activity centers. Using the project limits provided by the claimant, SANDAG will perform the GIS Analysis using data for population and employment forecasts for 2010. A buffer will be created around each project area. Pedestrian projects will be given a half-mile buffer and bicycle projects will be given a one-mile buffer. The buffered areas will be used along with the population and employment data to generate population and employment densities. The number of Activity Centers, as identified by SANDAG’s data warehouse, will be identified and tallied. Each factor will be scored from 1 to 4 points, for a possible total of 20 points for the GIS Analysis category. Projects will be scored in each category relative to each other by taking the raw scores and distributing them from highest to lowest. The highest 25 percent will receive 4 points, the second highest quartile will receive 3 points, the third highest quartile will receive 2 points, and the lowest quartile will receive 1 point.

ƒ The Cost Benefit Analysis will be computed by taking the subtotal score from categories 1 through 8 on the Project Selection Criteria matrix and dividing that subtotal by the grant application amount. Projects will be scored relative to each other by taking the raw scores and distributing them from highest to lowest, with the project with the highest cost benefit ratio receiving 15 points and the project with the lowest cost benefit ratio receiving 1 point.

6 Attachment 2

FY 2008 Annual Grant Application Transportation Development Act/TransNet Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects

Applicant (Agency):

Project Name:

Application Amount:

Project Type:

Project Limits:

Project Description:

Summary of Cost Estimates: Category Cost Feasibility Study Preliminary Engineering Environmental Design Construction Total Cost $

Funding Sources: Revenue Source Amount TDA/TransNet Claim Amount

Total $ -

Project Location Map:

7 Contact Person:

Title:

Address

Phone: Fax:

E-mail:

Person Authorized to Submit Application: I certify that I have reviewed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Claims Guidelines and the information submitted in this application is accurate and in accordance with these guidelines.

______Name Title

______Signature Date

8 Project Funding:

Total Estimated Project Cost (Please attach a detailed project estimate based on best available engineering) $______

Revenues (Source and Amount): Matching Funds (Category 9 of Project Selection Criteria)

Revenue Source Amount

$

$

Total $

TDA/TransNet (Application Amount as shown in Category 10 of Project Selection Criteria) $______

Total Revenues $______

Project Cost Estimates – On a separate sheet provide an itemized cost estimate for all eligible expenses. Be as accurate as possible to avoid future cost overruns. Projects with cost overruns have three options for moving the project forward depending on what percentage over the original grant amount the revised project cost will be. Applicants may ask for a recommendation from the BPWG to amend original allocation for up to five percent of the original cost estimate (up to the amount available in the reserve). Projects that require more than five percent additional funding can resubmit the project in a subsequent funding cycle with the adjusted project amount. Lastly, the applicant can choose to complete the project with their own funding.

Supporting Materials

A. Community Support/Consistency with Community Plan (Category 1) – The council or governing board of the applicant must authorize this grant application. Please attach a copy of the resolution or minute order documenting that action. Or, if the project is part of an approved Bicycle Plan, please attach a copy of the section that includes the project.

B. Minimum Design Standards (Category 2) – Projects applying for construction funds must provide actual drawings or cross-sections from the project itself, not generic standard drawings. If the applicant is seeking funding for the design and construction of a project, proposed cross-sections may be used in lieu of the actual plan drawings. If any part of a project is substandard, clearly illustrate that (provide photographs, if applicable) and provide an explanation as to why the minimum design standard is not being met.

9 C. Connect to Regional Transportation Corridor or Transit Linkage or Regional Bikeway Map (Category 3) – Provide a map which clearly illustrates the projects relationship to existing facilities. Show the project’s direct linkages to any regional bikeway (for bicycle projects) or direct continuous link to a local bus stop or direct link to an LRT/regional transit station. A direct link for a bicycle project is defined as connecting immediately to a regional bikeway with no gaps. A direct link between a pedestrian project and a transit facility is defined as one in which some part of the facility comes within 200 feet of a local bus stop or LRT/regional transit station.

D. Completes Connection/Linkage in Existing Bicycle/Pedestrian Network (Category 4) – List and briefly describe the linkages or connections to existing bicycle or pedestrian network. Provide a map which clearly illustrates the projects relationship to existing facilities.

E. Project Readiness (Category 5)

Phase Begin Complete Feasibility Study ______Preliminary Engineering ______Environmental Document/Certification ______Final Design ______Advertise for Construction ______Begin Construction ______Project Completion ______

F. Geographic Factors/GIS Analysis (Category 6) – SANDAG will perform a GIS analysis as described in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Claims Guidelines based upon a project map provided by the applicant. Briefly describe project limits and provide a location map clearly showing the project alignment. In addition, clearly show and label the following elements: a. major traffic generators within the project area (within ½-mile for pedestrian projects and within 1-mile for bicycle projects) b. linkage or connections to existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities c. linkage to any regional bikeway or public transit stop

G. Geographic Factors/GIS Analysis (Category 6) – List and briefly describe major traffic generators served by the project.

H. Safety Improvements (Category 7) – Describe the safety issues addressed by the project. Please attach support documentation for safety and accident history. If collision data is provided, it must be specific in pointing out which collisions are applicable to the project and why it is relevant.

10 I. Innovation and Design (Category 8) – Describe any design innovations for bicycle/pedestrian priority measures that are included within the project limits.

Is this project in your agency’s adopted capital improvement program (Y/N) ____

If the project is part of a larger capital improvement project, briefly discuss how the bicycle or pedestrian project costs were identified and a description of the other sources of funds for the overall project.

Briefly describe any other aspects of the project that is relevant to its evaluation.

Bicycle Master Plans, Pedestrian Master Plans, Education/Safety Programs and Bicycle Parking

Bicycle Master Plans, Education/Safety Programs and Bicycle Parking projects will each be considered in a separate category. These types of projects are encouraged and will be evaluated by SANDAG staff.

Basic Guidelines

Bicycle Master Plans – Cities with population up to 75,000 will be eligible for a maximum of $75,000. Cities with population greater than 75,000 will be eligible for a maximum of

11 $150,000. Beginning with the 2008 project application cycle, all cities will need to have a SANDAG-approved Bicycle Plan to be eligible for TDA/TransNet funds for individual projects.

Pedestrian Master Plans – An agency may submit an application for a pedestrian master plan no more frequently than once every five years. Jurisdictions with a population over 150,000 may submit applications for up to $150,000, and jurisdictions with a population under 150,000 may submit applications up to $100,000. In either case, the amount of the application must be substantiated by providing a scope of work and project budget to SANDAG.

Education/Safety Programs – An agency must submit a scope of work and a proposed schedule to be evaluated by SANDAG staff.

Bicycle Parking – Projects that conform to SANDAG’s Bicycle Parking Guidelines and have a projected cost up to $50,000 will be eligible.

All claims, including those supporting educational or promotional programs and claims for planning projects, must include a project budget, work program, and project schedule.

12 Attachment 3

FY 2008 TDA/TransNet Bicycle and Pedestrian Application Checklist

Eligibility

Community Support Documentation

Meets Minimum Design Standards

Regional Housing Needs Incentives Adopted Housing Element Submitted housing production information Provided rezoning information if applicable

Project Summary Sheet

Project name

Project type

Project description

Project location

Summary of cost estimate and funding

Project location map

Contact information

Approval signatures

Detailed Funding Sheet

Matching Fund Documentation

Community Support Documentation

Capital Projects

Routine Accommodation - Project is not part of a larger project which requires this type of bicycle or pedestrian facility improvement

Meets Minimum Design Standards

Project Readiness (Schedule)

GIS/Traffic Generators

Map – Network Linkages/Connections

Safety Improvements/Crash Data

Innovation in Design

13

Map – Regional Transit Linkage or Regional Bike Network Linkage

Plans, Studies, and Safety and Education Programs

Scope of Work

Budget

Schedule

14 Attachment 4

Applicant (Agency): Project Name:

FY 2008 Bicycle Project Selection Criteria Matrix

Potential Category Criteria Score Points 1. Community Support/ Must have at least one of the following to Pass/Fail Consistency with qualify. Please attach supporting Community Plan documentation. 1. Resolution or minutes from City Council, County Board of Supervisors, local planning group, or Planning Commission. Or 2. Project is part of a Bicycle Plan that has been approved within the last five years. 2. Minimum Design Standards Must meet the minimum geometric standards Pass/Fail set forth in the Caltrans Highway Design manual. Design exceptions may be presented for consideration by the Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group with the understanding that initial project proposals must also include a design that meets minimum standards.

3. Connect to Regional Project is a part of, or connects to, a regional 10 Transportation Corridor or bikeway corridor as identified in the Regional Transit Linkage or Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) . Bikeway Map - 20 Points Maximum Project provides a direct connection to local 14 transit stop. Project provides a direct connection to regional 20 transit station. (LRT, Transit Center) 4. Completes Connection/ Provides segment of an identified and approved 4 Linkage in Existing bicycle facility. Bicycle Network - Completes connection in existing network or 20 20 Points Maximum upgrades existing facility. 5. Project Readiness * Projects are eligible for points following completion of each phase. 20 Points Maximum Feasibility Study 4 Preliminary Engineering ** 4 Environmental Clearance 4 Right-of-way Acquisition 4 Final Design ** 4 6. Geographic Factors/ Factors contributing to score are: proximity to 0 to 20 GIS Analysis - population and employment, population and 20 Points Maximum employment densities, and activity centers.

15 Applicant (Agency): Project Name:

FY 2008 Bicycle Project Selection Criteria Matrix

Potential Category Criteria Score Points 7. Safety Improvements - Completes connection in existing network at location with documented safety or accident history. 20 Points Maximum A. One to two correctable crashes 10 involving non-motorized users within the last three years. B. Three to four correctable crashes 15 involving non-motorized users within the last three years. C. Five or more correctable crashes 20 involving non-motorized users within the last three years. 8. Innovation and Design - Bicycle priority measures. Dedicated bicycle 10 10 Points Maximum signal heads, queue jumpers, bike box, colored lanes, cul-de-sac connector, bike boulevard, and bike station. Subtotal 9. Regional Housing Score is based on the number of affordable 0 to 25 Needs Incentive - housing units provided by the jurisdiction as a 25 Points Maximum portion of the cumulative total designated in their approved housing element. 10. Matching Funds - Matching funds can be from any of the (Matching 25 Points Maximum following sources: Funds) / 1. Identified and approved capital (Project funding from identified source. Cost) x 25 Please provide proof in the form of a resolution or letter of approval. 2. Approved match grant. 3. In-kind services. Please provide adequate support documentation. 11. Cost Benefit - Subtotal Score / Grant Application Amount 0 to 15 15 Points Maximum Total Score * Previous project milestones must be met before qualifying for subsequent funding. ** Preliminary Engineering and Final Designs will be subject to design review by SANDAG

16 Attachment 5

Applicant (Agency): Project Name:

FY 2008 Pedestrian Project Selection Criteria Matrix

Potential Category Criteria Score Points 1. Community Support/ Must have at least one of the following to Pass/Fail Consistency with qualify. Please attach supporting Community Plan documentation. 1. Resolution or minutes from City Council, County Board of Supervisors, local planning group, or Planning Commission. Or 2. Project is part of a Non-Motorized Plan that has been approved within the last five years. 2. Minimum Design Standards Must meet the minimum geometric standards Pass/Fail set forth in the SANDAG Planning and Designing for Pedestrians manual and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Design exceptions may be presented for consideration by the Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group with the understanding that initial project proposals must also include a design that meets minimum standards. 3. Connect to Regional Project is within 1/4 mile of a local transit stop 10 Transportation Corridor/ or regional transit station. Transit Linkage - 20 Points Maximum Project is within 600 feet of, and provides a 14 direct continuous connection to local transit stop. Project is within 600 feet of, and provides a 20 direct continuous connection to regional transit station. 4. Completes Connection/ Completes or improves connection in existing 20 Linkage in Existing pedestrian network Pedestrian Network - 20 Points Maximum 5. Project Readiness * Projects are eligible for points following completion of each phase. 20 Points Maximum Feasibility Study 4 Preliminary Engineering ** 4 Environmental Clearance 4 Right-of-way Acquisition 4 Final Design ** 4 6. Geographic Factors/ Factors contributing to score are: proximity to 0 to 20 GIS Analysis - population and employment, population and 20 Points Maximum employment densities, and activity centers.

17 Applicant (Agency): Project Name:

FY 2008 Pedestrian Project Selection Criteria Matrix

Potential Category Criteria Score Points 7. Safety Improvements - Completes connection in existing network at location with documented safety or accident history. 20 Points Maximum A. One to two correctable crashes 10 involving non-motorized users within the last three years. B. Three to four correctable crashes 15 involving non-motorized users within the last three years. C. Five to six correctable crashes 20 involving non-motorized users within the last three years. 8 Innovation and Design - Pedestrian priority measures such as pedestrian- 10 Points Maximum controlled signals, bulb-outs, raised crosswalks, signal lead time, etc. A. Animated eye indicators, countdown 4 pedestrian signal, accessible push- button signal, flashing crosswalk B. Early pedestrian release interval, 6 passive pedestrian detection, audible pedestrian signal C. Raised crosswalk, speed table, raised 8 intersection, pedestrian refuge island D. Pedestrian bulb-out, cul-de-sac 10 connector Subtotal 9. Regional Housing Score is based on the number of affordable 0 to 25 Needs Incentive - housing units provided by the jurisdiction as a 25 Points Maximum portion of the cumulative total designated in their approved housing element. 10. Matching Funds Matching funds can be from any of the 25 Points Maximum following sources: 1. Identified and approved capital (Matching funding from identified source. Funds) / Please provide proof in the form of (Project a resolution or letter of approval. Cost) x 25 2. Approved match grant. 3. In-kind services. Please provide adequate support documentation. 11. Cost Benefit Subtotal Score / Grant Application Amount 0 to 15 15 Points Maximum Total Score * Previous project milestones must be met before qualifying for subsequent funding. ** Preliminary Engineering and Final Designs will be subject to design review by SANDAG

18 Attachment 6

19 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

December 8, 2006 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 7

Action Requested: INFORMATION

SPRINTER PROJECT STATUS REPORT AND SANDAG INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT File Number 1115200

Introduction

The North County Transit District (NCTD) SPRINTER Rail Project converts an existing 22-mile freight rail corridor into a Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) transit system connecting Oceanside, Vista, unincorporated County areas, San Marcos, and Escondido. The SPRINTER is a TransNet 1 funded project. In response to requests from NCTD and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), SANDAG staff is currently providing support and oversight of the project, and has been asked by the SANDAG Board of Directors to report on its progress monthly to the Transportation Committee.

Discussion

Current Progress

The SPRINTER project continues to make steady progress on multiple fronts. On the Mainline contract, 19 of the 32 miles of new track have been placed and 32 of 36 grade crossings have been rebuilt. The first platform gangway has been installed and is manually operable1. The redesign to stabilize the slope at Rancho del Oro is nearly complete and the contractor has been directed to order materials so work on this $2 million to $2.5 million change can proceed. On the California State University San Marcos (CSSM) Loop contract, work should be substantially complete in late February/March 2007, where the only significant issue remaining is the redesign of the elevator at the CSSM station. Finish work, such as dry wall, carpeting, and site paving, is proceeding at the Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) in Escondido, with completion expected in late January/February 2007. All twelve DMU vehicles are now on site. Initial dynamic testing of the vehicles has begun with brake testing commencing this month.

Overall, these four contracts are 70 percent complete, based on billings to date. Cumulatively, for all four contracts, approved change orders stand at 5.2 percent of completed work.

Schedule

Only Mainline and start-up work control the completion of the overall project; work on the Loop, VMF, and DMU vehicles should not impact completion. The current Mainline completion date is late December 2007, with a Revenue Operation Date (ROD) of January 2008. However, the Mainline schedule includes all work required under the contract, including revegetation work. Some of this work can be done during pre-revenue testing and training and other work after the start of

1 The gangway bridges the gap between the platform and DMU. It will be raised every evening to let freight trains pass and lowered again each morning for passenger service. revenue operations. Over the next 3 months NCTD should begin working with the contractor and the contract operator to resequence work that will preserve the December 2007 ROD.

NCTD now has adequate controls in place to monitor and predict schedules of the individual contracts and the overall project. These controls have identified a potential problem where the Mainline contractor may not be able to stay on schedule because of an inadequate workforce. NCTD is performing a simulated schedule test on the remaining critical work to forecast completion based on past production rates. This process should help identify and control potential delays in the project schedule.

Cost

NCTD has produced draft desktop procedures that will be used to generate the monthly estimate at completion (EAC). This estimate is meant to be dynamic and represents the cost at that particular moment in time. From it, project decisions can be made to mitigate costs or adjust the budget. The current EAC is $445 million2. The EAC includes $10.6 million of unallocated contingency; at a similar point of time, Mission Valley East had unallocated contingencies of $12 million. With the procedures now in place and the data available, SANDAG initiated the independent assessment of budget.

Staffing

The SANDAG Board approved an MOU with NCTD at its meeting of November 17, 2006, that allows for additional staff and on-call consultant assistance for the SPRINTER Project. This, along with other staffing changes has been the impetus for NCTD to make minor changes to the field office organization. These changes should result in better distribution of work and quicker response times to critical issues on the Mainline contract and on the start-up work.

Previous Project Concerns

Last month we listed four areas of particular concern.

1. Understaffing by the railroad signaling and communication subcontractor on the Mainline. This still remains a concern. NCTD’s simulated schedule test described above will quantify this concern and we will continue to track.

2. City traffic signal preemption at railroad crossings. The signals in eastern San Marcos and Escondido have all been modified so running of trains on the test track may proceed. New staff is working with each City and the County to modify the remaining signals and identify/mitigate concerns for traffic flow on the city streets.

3. Quality, cost control, and timeliness of redesign work. The designer has developed and NCTD has tentatively accepted a plan that addresses each of these issues and includes performance measures to track success. The designer has hired a program manager to oversee this effort. Even with these new controls, the designer’s ability to keep up with the construction contractors is still a concern.

2 The “not to exceed” budget included in the Amended Recovery Plan for the FTA is $484.2 million.

2 4. Time impacts of change orders. This is still a concern; however, NCTD continues to meet with the Mainline contractor to try to reach resolution.

New Project Concerns

1. The design of the project has been an area of on-going concern. There is a strong possibility the quantities on which the contractor based his bid were under estimated. NCTD has begun to calculate quantities that will have the biggest impact on the final cost. However, until this is done, the EAC should include a conservative amount of funds in order to reflect the unknown quantities.

2. Stabilizing and repairing the slope at Rancho del Oro could be a risk to budget and schedule and will be closely monitored.

3. How the desktop procedures described above are implemented and maintained will allow NCTD to control and predict the project’s final cost. This is critical and we will continue to closely monitor this effort.

4. Regulators and other third parties are always a concern on a major project like this. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is an active participant in all project decisions over which they have regulatory authority. Next January, NCTD will host a DMU workshop with the Federal Railroad Administration, the CPUC, and the FTA to address any remaining regulatory issues concerning the DMU.

Next Steps

In addition to monitoring the above listed project concerns, during the coming weeks SANDAG will closely examine the top risks identified in the Amended Recovery Plan, delve more deeply into the start-up plan and continue to work with NCTD on the EAC.

JACK BODA Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation

Attachment: 1. SPRINTER Rail Project Monthly Project Status Report (Cost Data for October 2006)

Key Staff Contact: Jim Linthicum, (619) 699-1970, [email protected]

3 Attachment 1

SPRINTER RAIL PROJECT MONTHLY PROJECT STATUS REPORT (Cost Data for October 2006) Description: The SPRINTER Rail Project is converting an existing 22-mile freight rail corridor into a Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU), single-track line transit system running east from Oceanside, through Vista, San Marcos, and unincorporated portions of San Diego County, to Escondido. The alignment also includes 1.7 miles of new right-of-way to serve the campus of California State University San Marcos. The project alignment will include three new 3.5-mile passing tracks, 15 stations; and procurement of 12 DMU vehicles. A new Vehicle Maintenance Facility is being built in Escondido. Current Status Mainline Contract Value: $182.4 million net of insurance Mainline Contract: • 19 miles of ballasted track, out of 32 miles total, has been reconstructed. • 32 of 36 grade crossings have been reconstructed. • Station platform construction is underway at multiple stations. • Contract is 63.1% complete. • Net Change orders as percent of construction value to date: 5.4% Current Status CSUSM Loop Contract Value: $23.5 million net of insurance CSUSM Loop • Construction on all five concrete bridges substantially complete. Contract: • San Marcos Civic Ctr paving, parking reconfiguration 90% complete. • Contract is 81.1% complete. Completion is expected in late February 2007. • Net Change orders as percent of construction value to date: 6.5% Current Status Vehicle Maintenance Facility Contract Value: $23.6 million net of insurance Vehicle Maintenance • Plumbing, HVAC systems, interior finishes continue. Facility Contract • Storage tracks completed sufficient to store all 12 DMU’s. (VMF): • Contract is 84.6% complete, early substantial completion expected in December 2006. • Net Change orders as percent of construction value to date: 3.2% Current Status DMU Contract Value: $50.6 million. DMU Contract: • All Twelve (12) DMU’s are delivered and on-site at the VMF. • DMU static testing, dynamic testing continues for delivered units. • Contract is 84.2% complete, completion expected in November 2006. • Net Change orders as percent of manufacture value to date: 5.2%

Percent Complete Change Order Value 10.0% 100.0% 81.1% 84.6% 84.2% 10.0% 70.2% 80.0% 63.1% 57.5% 8.0% 6.5% 60.0% 5.4% 5.2% 6.0% 5.2% 40.0% 4.0% 3.2% 20.0% 0.0% 2.0% Mainline Loop VMF DMU Total - Total - Sep Nov 0.0% Mainline Loop VMF DMU Total Industry Contract Contract

Cost: The current NCTD-adopted budget is $440 million. NCTD provided an updated cost-to-complete estimate to the FTA in May, 2006. The Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC) and the FTA evaluated NCTD’s cost-to-complete estimate and identified additional potential cost risks. NCTD has submitted the final Amended Recovery Plan which accounts for these additional risks, with the FFGA-project budget estimated at up to $460.3 million, and the total project, including locally-funded project components, up to $484.2 million. We anticipate FTA approval of the Amended Recovery Plan shortly. 4 Funding: In recognition of NCTD’s efforts in submitting the Amended Recovery Plan, on September 21, 2006, FTA released $5.6 million of the $66.7 million in FY 05 and FY 06 Full-Funding Grant Agreement funds being held. FTA released an additional $14.4 million on October 20 to meet NCTD’s cash flow needs on the project. These FTA funds releases have postponed NCTD’s need to make use of SANDAG’s commercial paper program. On-Going NCTD has employed a number of project and cost control measures from the beginning of Cost Control construction. These include: Measures: • Co-location of NCTD, CM, and designer at field site office; • On-going formal Partnering Sessions and weekly senior management meetings with Contractor; • Staff up field engineering in field office; • Use VECP clauses of contracts where feasible to reduce costs; • Assign separate Construction Management firm Contract Manager and NCTD Project Officer for each contract; • Use Change Order Review Board for large C/O's; • All proposed changes to include a change order evaluation and negotiation of cost and profit rate. Cost Control As part of the Amended Recovery Plan, NCTD identified the top cost risks to the project and Measures – provided a “Risk Mitigation and Management Plan” to address these risks and reduce their Additional: likely impact. Progress on those Plan elements include: • Program-level start-up, cost engineering, office engineering, and project accounting staff positions have been added to improve schedule and cost forecasting and construction management. SANDAG is providing a Project Controls oversight role; • An integrated schedule based on all known project activities and durations leading to start-up has been developed, which is more comprehensive than stand-alone construction schedules; • The Construction Management scheduling team is providing updated schedule forecast reports using Critical Path Method, earned-value analysis, manpower analysis, and payment application analysis as project control techniques; • Detailed sub-schedules for all critical activities on train control/signaling and communications systems have been developed and are being used by the CM team to closely track and manage progress in those key areas; • A monthly update on projected “Estimate at Completion” for final project cost is now being developed, with the first report submitted to FTA in November. • A monthly Risk Mitigation and Management Plan reporting system has been established with milestones for on-going assessment of risks and accomplishment vs. schedules for the overall project; • Monthly resource level reporting against budget by the design consultant has been established to control costs in that area. Further controls are being implemented; • Risks are being reevaluated at key milestone achievements. Schedule Mainline Contract – Schedule still viable to meet December 2007 date. The longest critical Assessment: path is currently the Communications Equipment cabinets for the stations. Loop Contract – Schedule anticipates a late February 2007 completion. VMF Contract – Substantial Completion anticipated in December 2006, contract completion in April 2007. DMU’s – On schedule, with all 12 cars delivered to the VMF in November. Testing and acceptance under way. Anticipated • Continued grade crossing and station platform work in multiple locations. Activity Next • Continued systems installation and final interior finishing at the Vehicle Maintenance Month: Facility. • Continue vehicle and system testing on test track. • Fill remaining engineering and project officer positions. • Provide on-going monthly reporting on project controls to FTA.

5 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

December 8, 2006 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 8

Action Requested: INFORMATION

STATUS REPORT ON THE FOOTHILL-SOUTH CORRIDOR/ File Number 3003900 STATE ROUTE 241 TOLL ROAD

Introduction

At the August 4, 2006, SANDAG Board of Directors meeting, Board members raised questions regarding the inclusion of the Foothill-South/State Route (SR) 241 toll road project in the SANDAG 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Several Board members asked staff to work with Borders Committee to provide more information on the Foothill-South/SR 241 toll road and to document SANDAG involvement with the project. An informational status report was presented to the Borders Committee at its October 27, 2006, meeting. Borders Committee members suggested that this informational report be referred to the Transportation Committee (the minutes from this portion of the Borders Committee meeting are included as Attachment 1).

Discussion

Background

Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) is proposing to construct the Foothill-South Corridor as a limited access toll road from Interstate 5 (I-5) in San Diego County to the existing SR 241 in Orange County. Eleven miles of the 16-mile facility are located within Orange County and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, while the segment of the road within the San Diego region will have an approximate length of five miles. Because the project travels through two regions, it must be included in both the SANDAG and SCAG Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and RTIPs.

Foothill-South is the last segment of the Foothill Toll Road, or SR 241. The project has been on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways since 1981 and would extend SR 241 south from its current end at Oso Parkway to I-5 near San Clemente. Foothill-South would complete the Orange County 67-mile toll road system, which comprises of the Foothill (SR 241), Eastern (SR 241, 261, and 133), and San Joaquin Hills (SR 73) Toll Roads. The Toll Roads are part of the California state highway system but operated as toll facilities by TCA.

The project was initially included in the SANDAG 1996 RTP and is currently included as a six-lane toll road in the 2006 Revenue Constrained RTP, adopted in February 2006. The project was first added to the SANDAG RTIP in 2004.

Foothill-South Corridor Project History and Environmental Review Process

Foothill-South, the proposed southern extension of SR 241 toll road to I-5, has been subject to planning efforts for more than 20 years by a wide range of local, regional, state, and federal agencies. Foothill-South is the final segment of a public toll road system that consists of SR 73, 133, 241, and 261. Today the 51-mile public toll road system operated by TCA is the largest network of toll roads in California.

On February 23, 2006, TCA certified the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and selected the 'Green' alignment as the locally preferred alternative for Foothill-South as shown in Attachment 2. The Green alignment was one of the ten project alternatives equally analyzed in the draft environmental document released in May 2004. The Green alignment extends the toll road from Oso Parkway to I-5 near the San Diego County Line through the U.S. Marines Corp Base at Camp Pendleton. The project alternatives are shown in Attachment 3. The SEIR evaluated the potential environmental, socio-economic, and traffic impacts of:

• Six toll road alignments;

• The widening of I-5 by two general purpose lanes from the I-405/I-5 interchange to the San Diego County line;

• The widening of arterial streets in South Orange County beyond what is currently planned; and

• Two “no action” alternatives under four different land use scenarios.

The alternatives were selected in November 2000 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Caltrans, and TCA.

SANDAG did not submit comments on the draft SEIR because the project was consistent with the RTP and it did not impact the habitat preserve areas where SANDAG has had input or participation. Many projects have significant biological impacts in the region and SANDAG has not taken a position on any of those projects.

The public comment period for the draft SEIR ended in August 2004 with nearly 7,000 comments received. In December 2005, the Final SEIR and response to comments were released. Following the certification of the Final EIR and selection of the preferred alternative, three lawsuits were filed to challenge the project.

The Foothill-South project is required to follow strict federal and state environmental guidelines and must get permits and approval from a multiple of government agencies before the project can be built. These agencies include Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Marine Corps Camp Pendleton, Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Coastal Commission, Caltrans, California Transportation Commission, and various cities.

2

Currently, TCA is completing the environmental process and obtaining the necessary permits. FHWA also is required to certify the SEIR by issuing a Record of Decision. All these steps must be in place before the final project can be financed and construction can begin. TCA staff will provide an overview of the project, including the alternatives analyzed as part of environmental process and discuss project impacts.

Additionally, SANDAG staff received correspondence from the Endangered Habitats League regarding the Foothill South/SR 241 toll road. The correspondence will be included in the agenda electronically (Attachment 4). Hard copies will be provided upon request.

BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Attachments: 1. Excerpt from Minutes of Borders Committee Meeting, October 27, 2006 2. Foothill-South: Designed to Relieve Traffic in an Environmentally Sensitive Way 3. Alignments of the Build Alternatives 4. Endangered Habitats League Letter and Attachments (electronic copy only)

Key Staff Contact: Heather Werdick, (619) 699-6967, [email protected]

3 Attachment 1

Excerpt from Minutes of Borders Committee Meeting of October 27, 2006

7. STATUS REPORT ON THE FOOTHILL-SOUTH CORRIDOR/STATE ROUTE (SR) 241 TOLL ROAD (INFORMATION)

Heather Werdick, Senior Planner (SANDAG), reported that at the August 4, 2006, Board of Directors meeting, Board members raised questions regarding the inclusion of the Foothill- South SR 241 toll road project in SANDAG’s 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Board members asked staff to work with the Borders Committee to provide information on the toll road and to document SANDAG’s involvement with the project.

Ms. Werdick explained that the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) is proposing to construct the Foothill-South as a limited access toll road from I-5 in San Diego, to the existing SR 241 in Orange County. As the project passes through two regions, it must be included in both SANDAG and SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan and RTIP.

Borders Committee members had raised concerns about the environmental impacts of this project, particularly to the San Mateo Campground, San Mateo Creek, and the Trestles surf area.

Councilman Peter Herzog (City of Lake Forest) from TCA presented an overview of the project, including the alternatives analyzed as part of the environmental process, and discussed the project impacts. He explained that the TCA is a governmental agency, a joint powers authority that is entered into by twelve cities in Orange County along with Supervisors. TCA has worked with the Federal Highway Administration, the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Caltrans, and Camp Pendleton to develop the chosen alignment.

The toll road system is 51 miles presently and is expected to grow to 67 miles. The entire system is funded through municipal bonds. Mr. Herzog explained the toll road will not affect San Onofre State Beach, nor will it affect the campsites at San Mateo. The alignment will impact .2 percent of the San Mateo Creek watershed and the bridge will not impact the sediment flow into the beach. Retention basins located in the watershed will improve water quality before it reaches San Mateo Creek. The toll road will connect with I-5 to improve goods movement and transportation and the alignment is the least environmentally damaging and most practical to expand the I-5.

Mr. Allan commented that the toll road would bring jobs to San Diego County and was beneficial to public safety as it provides another route out of the area and acts as a natural firebreak. He asked if funds would be given to the state parks.

Mr. Herzog responded that the San Diego labor unions are aware of the jobs coming to the area and that public safety is a key issue, in that the extra entrance/exit to and from San Diego is of benefit. State parks are always a priority and the TCA continues to work with them in order to work out an equitable arrangement.

4 Mr. Allan asked Mr. Gallegos what position SANDAG was taking in regard to the issue.

Mr. Gallegos answered that the Board asked that it be brought back for an educational piece to the Borders Committee.

Chair McCoy then asked for speakers from the public to address the Committee.

Dan Silver, Endangered Habitats League, stated that the toll road would harm San Onofre State Beach and the campground. He asked for more alternatives and improving the existing infrastructure. He reported that Smart Mobility had reviewed the environmental documentation and concluded that using TCA’s own data, a balanced set of arterial improvements and I-5 lane improvements, called the AIP Alternative, will likely provide traffic benefits superior to the toll road alignment. He said TCA rejected the AIP Alternative because of claimed displacement of hundreds of homes and businesses. Another interchange study was conducted by the City of San Clemente which rejected the clover leaf style of interchange designs that TCA has proposed as they caused too much displacement and they substituted more modern urban types of interchange designs. He felt that TCA is a single purpose agency that is fixated on building just one particular route and they have deceived the public as to the alternatives.

Stefanie Sekich, Vice Chair of the San Diego Chapter of the Surfrider Foundations, spoke regarding her doubts that certain environmental laws and policies such as those in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), California Environmental Quality Act CEQA), and the Endangered Species Act aren’t being circumvented. She said there is too much uncertainty that surrounds the project and too many California voters that oppose the project. Ms. Sekich asked that all San Diegans reject the toll road and try to stop it from happening, as it is one of the last open spaces on the coastline.

Larry Rannals, representing Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, explained that the Marine Corps and the Department of the Navy would have some authority and say on any part of the project as it passes through the base. When the final EIS is completed, the Marine Corps, Department of the Navy, and possibly the Secretary of the Navy will have an opportunity to review and comment on the EIS and the Record of Decision.

Mr. Rannals reported that the Marine Corps has concurred that this particular alignment is acceptable and could be supported, but that decision will not be made until they review the complete final EIS and Record of Decision. He stated that the Marine Corps is neither a proponent nor an opponent. They are neither advocating nor objecting to the project – they are neutral.

Supervisor Cox commented that he understood that the Marine Corps in essence is going to have a final veto authority at the end of the process contingent upon making sure it is consistent with the Corps’ mission and obligations.

Mr. Rannals responded that their veto process only applies to the last 4 ½ miles that pass through Camp Pendleton.

Supervisor Cox asked if San Onofre State Beach is owned by Camp Pendleton.

5

Mr. Rannals answered that yes, the property is owned by the Department of the Navy, which has leased the land for the San Mateo Campground to the California State Parks and the lease expires in 2021.

Supervisor Cox asked if it will be renegotiated.

Mr. Rannals replied that most likely yes; however, he was uncertain at this time.

Bill Hickman, Chapter Coordinator for the San Diego County Surfrider Foundation, spoke regarding the importance of reviewing the area involved and taking into account the far reaching environmental and recreational impacts.

Councilmember Crawford expressed concern about the alignment and the considerable impacts it will have on San Diego County resources. Ms. Crawford stated that the City of Del Mar wrote a letter agreeing with the State Park’s resolution expressing concerns about the project. She said there have been a number of issues raised with regard to some of the alternative alignments, in particular the I-5 alignment. Ms Crawford asked that the I-5 alignment be carefully studied due to the impacts to resources, as there have been enough issues raised that it merits additional reviews.

Supervisor Slater-Price added that she also has great concerns about the project especially since it has two lawsuits initiated by the State of California.

Mr. Herzog stated that they are proceeding ahead with the planning, as it is normal to have lawsuits when involved in any major transportation project.

Supervisor Slater-Price cited that the State of California was opposing the project on the grounds that it will have a very negative impact on the State Parks system. She then asked if the land was set aside as open space when it was originally dedicated.

Mr. Herzog replied that no, the property is owned by Camp Pendleton. The State has leased it and is aware of the right-of-way.

Chair McCoy stated that as it has an effect on San Diego State parks, she would like this item to be sent to the Transportation Committee as an informational item and then back to the main Board, should the Committee agree with her.

Supervisor Slater-Price agreed, and Mr. Hueso seconded. It was then unanimously agreed upon.

Mr. Allan asked how much of the toll road would be in San Diego.

Mr. Herzog replied that the only part in San Diego was to be located on Camp Pendleton. Councilmember Monroe said he was impressed to see that the TCA had been working with the environmental groups and that it was his understanding that this alignment has the concurrence of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He again requested the Marine Corps’ point of view because he felt they were encouraging the project.

6

Mr. Rannals reiterated that the Marine Corps is not encouraging it. They will not take a position for or against the toll road at this point, however, this particular alignment has been evaluated by the Marine Corps and has been determined to have no effect on our mission, our training flexibility and it is the only alignment that we could accept should this project come through Camp Pendleton.

Mr. Orso-Delgado asked what the timeline is in the environmental process in order to finalize the document and have a Record of Decision.

James Brown, Chief Engineer for TCA said they are in the final process of finalizing the EIS. There are several internal reviews that still have to take place prior to its public circulation. The Marine Corps will have a separate review process. They will have to review the document and approve it prior to its public circulation. They are almost done with the final reviews with the FHWA and will then pass that document on to Camp Pendleton. Public circulation of the final EIS could be sometime in the spring of next year, with a Record of Decision to follow.

Chair McCoy thanked Mr. Brown and noted that she was remiss in acknowledging Bob Ham, Executive Director of IVAG.

7 Attachment 2

Upper Chiquita Conservation Area THE STATS Foothill-South: Designed to relieve traffic A 1,182-acre area purchased and managed by TCA (since 1996) to protect coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, wetlands and 4 Four mixed-flow lanes (two in native grasslands as compensation for construction impacts on native habitat. each direction) in an environmentally sensitive way 4 Maximum of two additional Avoids Tesoro Wetland lanes (one in each direction) in Ramps for the Oso Parkway Interchange were shifted to the the future * The general location of the alignment is depicted on this map. The exact location of this alignment will be known after the environmental process is complete and design is final. east to avoid the Tesoro Wetlands. The 5-acre wetland was developed in conjunction with construction of Tesoro High 4 16.9 miles long School. For the entire 16-mile project, less than one acre of wetlands will be impacted. 4 Five interchanges: Oso Parkway, Cow Camp Road (to Chiquita Woods Wildlife Ortega Highway), Avenida Pico, Undercrossing and Cristianitos Road. One A bridge will be built to allow animals to safely cross under the 241 Toll Road. This is one of 15 wildlife crossings along additional interchange planned the alignment. in the future 4 Fifteen wildlife undercrossings Avoids California Gnatcatchers The alignment was shifted to the east side of Middle 4 One mainline toll plaza Chiquita, an area known to have the highest population of between Oso Parkway and Cow OSO PARKWAY California gnatcatchers in Southern California. The area will INTERCHANGE be set aside as permanent open space and will be included in Camp Road the Natural Communities Conservation Program for Southern Orange County (southern NCCP). 4 Twelve water treatment detention basins Minimal Lighting at the Toll Plaza Lighting will be shielded to focus light directly towards the roadway to minimize impact to nocturnal animals. Lighting will be limited to toll plazas and interchanges. Balancing Act The Foothill/Eastern Access to Ortega Highway To reach the toll road from Ortega Highway drivers will use Transportation Corridor Agency Antonio Parkway to access a new street called Cow Camp Road. (TCA) has spent six years The interchange is planned at Cow Camp Road to keep traffic on Ortega Highway flowing and to serve future development and $17 million working in planned north of San Juan Creek and east of Antonio Parkway. partnership with federal and Bridge Over San Juan Creek state resource agencies like the This bridge will be 2,100 feet long and 60 feet high to provide clearance for the creek and wildlife movement. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife San Mateo Watershed Service, U.S. Army Corps of The toll road alignment is adjacent to the western boundary of the watershed and comprises only 0.2% of the entire 85,300 Engineers and Caltrans in an acre watershed. effort to find a way to balance the need for local and regional Animal Movement Preserved Moving the alignment west, closer to proposed and existing traffic relief with the desire to development, allows for safe wildlife movement in the 13,500 COW CAMP ROAD acres to be set aside by Rancho Mission Viejo as open space. protect the natural resources of INTERCHANGE our environment. Minimize Homeowner Views of Toll Road Extensive design effort went into locating the alignment Foothill-South will effectively behind ridges to minimize the view of the road by homeowners as much as possible. The natural ridges also provide traffic relief by help to reduce noise from the roadway. providing an alternate route to Avoids Blind/Gabino Wetlands the congested I-5 freeway while Complex completing the 67-mile toll road The alignment avoids the Blind/Gabino Wetlands, which is located at the fork of Blind Canyon and Gabino Canyon. system through South Orange Because of the arid South Orange County climate, this 5.9- acre wetland is an important resource for several federal County. endangered species including the arroyo toad, least Bell’s vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher. Additionally, the Green Arroyo Toad Habitat Alignment, which is supported The alignment avoids habitat for the endangered arroyo toad by staying west of Cristianitos Creek and the Blind/Gabino by the federal resource Wetlands complex. agencies, has been carefully San Onofre State Park Leasehold designed around high value In order to accommodate the requirements of the Department wetlands and sensitive plant of the Navy, the preferred toll road alignment passes through the inland portion of San Onofre State Park leasehold and will species while staying away from not interfere with the operations and training of the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton. the habitats of endangered species like the Pacific pocket Avoids San Mateo Campground The 161 campsites in the San Mateo Campground are avoided mouse. and a soundwall will be built to reduce the noise from the toll road in the area. The Foothill-South green Toll Road Goes Under Cristianitos alignment avoids interfering Road There will be an interchange with Cristianitos Road that will with military training on AVENIDA PICO provide northbound access to the residents in south San Camp Pendleton to the south, INTERCHANGE Clemente. The toll road will pass under Cristianitos Road to avoid view impacts for residents living inland of the I-5 along and connects to the I-5 the Orange County line. without taking any homes or Avoids Pacific Pocket Mouse Habitat businesses. The roadway was moved to avoid an area where endangered Pacific pocket mice have been identified. Foothill-South: Providing traffic Avoids two Native American sacred relief in an environmentally sites The alignment was modified to avoid two Native American sensitive way. 13 sacred sites.

Bridge over San Mateo Creek Bridging over the creek and area wetlands will keep the No Change to Trestles Surf water in San Mateo Creek free flowing and will not interrupt Break the migration of fish or other animals living in the creek. The toll road will bridge over San Mateo Creek The northbound bridge will be 2,800 feet long and the and connect to I-5 at Basilone Road one-half mile southbound bridge will be 3,200 feet long. At its highest from Trestles Beach. The road will not noticeably point the southbound bridge will be 30 feet above I-5. The change the sediment flow in San Mateo Creek. In bridges are designed to be as low profile as possible with the fact, studies of the surf break show that the world- minimum number of columns. renowned waves are created by the rocks that are under the surf. Secondly, the sand that replenishes Trestles beach primarily comes from the beaches to Treating Water Runoff from I-5 the north, not from San Mateo Creek. A two-mile stretch of I-5 between the Orange County line and one mile south of Basilone Road will be upgraded to include facilities that will collect water runoff from I-5 before 21 Smooth Transition it goes into San Mateo Creek and San Onofre Creek, and The Foothill-South connector ramps to and from eventually the ocean. All water runoff from the toll road will Interstate 5 are designed to ensure a smooth Legend also be collected in extended detention basins that will allow transition without traffic backups by bypassing pollutants to settle to the bottom of the basin before water is the Basilone Road interchange. The southbound interchanges CRISTIANITOS ROAD INTERCHANGE released back into natural creeks. connector ramp will connect to I-5 about a quarter of a mile south of Basilone Road and a fifth lane will be wildlife undercrossing added to I-5 for one-half mile to accommodate the merging traffic. detention basins 21 Rancho Mission Viejo What Happens Next? future development areas The locally preferred alignment decision is the first of a series of approvals required before Source: Eagle Aerial (3/2004); Initial UDLs (11/2003); City Boundaries (1/2004) construction begins. Permits will be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Coastal Commission. The project also requires 8 approval from the Federal Highway Administration. Attachment 3

Irvine Blvd.

Irvine Center Dr. NORTH 5 Sand Canyon Ave.

Jeffrey Rd.

y a kw r Tr a ab P u 405 n c to o Al . d R t R o res a Fo d Bake Parkwaye k a y L h rt w o O k N

- C l P ll y i h o m t o o t i o p o n

F d i El Toro Road a o t e d

n C

a A R M z

133 a a d

Alicia Pkwy D rg 241 M r o u i

u e

lt r o i

n t 73 e P

k

w P

y d k a w o R y O z so ay a 5 P kw n ar P General Thomas F. o a rive y L k D Riley Wilderness n ar Park a P C Pacific a

n u ey Pkwy g Vall a y n

L w row k 73 C P 74

a

i y

c i

l w k

A P y

CC-ALPV a o

w i

h n

g

i o t

H

n A a

g

e t Arterial r O y kw P y le al A7C-FEC-M n V Arterial row I-5 Widening C FEC-W y 74 w H ga e rt . O CentralRd n ek A7C-ALPV er rCorridore nt C a n L a . Ju e n n v FEC-M e a A d S P l ia a v c o o Donna O’Neill if G N Prima ic La Land C e Deshecha o h s Conservancy a t Landfill s la

t f b a

H t o m

ig a a . h s

t R P w s e a r a S L y mino a a Ca M L os . 1 Arterial L d

De v A o osa n erm 1 i H Avd. m ta Pico a is C V A . vd d . L Orange County v a E A P San Diego County l C ata am San Onofre i no Arterial State Beach R e d a l a o Camp R

s Pendleton

o

t

i

n

ia t is r Orange County C

San Diego County

Arterial

Basilone Road

Not to Scale San Onofre State Beach 5 Note: This figure is for general information purposes only. For more detailed information, refer to the figures of the SOCTIIP Alternatives in Appendix A.1 of this EIS/SEIR.

Source: P&D Consultants (2003). Alignments of the Build Alternatives

SOCTIIP EIS/SEIR Figure ES.1-2

9 Attachment 4

CALIFORNIA

VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL

November 9, 2006

Attn: Rob Rundle Principal Regional Planner San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Email: [email protected]

Re: December 8 Transportation Committee Meeting – Action to Protect California State Parks and San Onofre State Beach

Dear Transportation Committee Members:

On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Endangered Habitats League, California State Parks Foundation, Surfrider Foundation, Laguna Greenbelt, Inc., and Audubon California, we would like to express our appreciation to you for considering the proposed Foothill-South Toll Road and the destruction it would cause to the state park at San Onofre State Beach. This letter is written to provide you with some background that will inform your consideration and, in particular, contribute to your understanding of how important this issue is not only state-wide but to San Diego specifically. There are alternative traffic solutions that will protect our park lands, and we urge the San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”) to take action to oppose this destructive toll road scheme.

The Foothill-South Toll Road is being proposed by an Orange County local agency for construction in southern California. Briefly summarized, the major reasons to oppose this particular toll road route include:

www.nrdc.org 1314 Second Street NEW YORK ⋅ WASHINGTON D.C. · SAN FRANCISCO Santa Monica, CA 90401 TEL 310-434-2300 FAX 310-434-2399 10 Transportation Committee Members November 9, 2006 Page 2

• The Toll Road Destroys a State Park. Of the many problems with the toll road, its most serious is the impact it would have on the state park at San Onofre State Beach. San Onofre is a unique coastal gem and the fifth most popular state park in California.1 Cherished by swimmers, campers, kayakers, birders, fishermen, bicyclists and sunbathers, the park includes world-famous Trestles Beach, San Mateo Campground, seven archeological sites, and habitat for eleven threatened or endangered species under federal law. See Toll Road Fact Sheet. The toll road would put a massive swath of pavement right through the center of the park, bisecting the inland portion from top to bottom. See Map of Toll Road Impacts. It would occupy approximately four miles and over 320 acres of the park, and fragment what is left. According to the Parks Department, San Mateo Campground – the most popular campsite in the entire park, with over 100,000 visitors last year alone – would need to be abandoned due to a hopelessly degraded visitor experience. See Picture of San Onofre Campers. Simply stated, the toll road would destroy the state park at San Onofre. Because there are no lands to replace the low-cost coastal camping, social justice would be irretrievably sacrificed.

• Better Traffic Solutions Exist. The problem of traffic congestion in Orange County can be addressed just as well or better by alternative solutions that have been unexamined. The most obvious of these alternatives center on improvements to the County’s existing transportation and roadway system. These options include improving mass transit options, strategic double-decking on I-5, adding high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on I-5, using congestion fees to alleviate traffic in peak hours, and combination solutions such as selectively widening I-5 along with expanding selective arterial routes. These strategies reflect the most current trends in traffic solutions and are being employed throughout the nation with great success.

• The Project is Bad for Our Economy. The Toll Road project was originally proposed in 1981, but since that time traffic solutions have advanced considerably and the initial proposal is now outdated and economically suspect. The Toll Road will be built in lieu of alternative solutions with the potential to provide greater traffic benefits to southern California. Moreover, the proposed road would recklessly destroy San Onofre State Beach, which draws over 2.5 million visitors a year and is a valuable part of the State's multi-billion dollar coastal tourism and recreational economies.2 If this road is built, the financial benefits to the local and state economy that result from providing sporting, fishing, camping, surfing, and other recreational activities, as well as drawing tourists from around the world, would forever be lost.

• The Toll Road Threatens Our Entire California Park System. The toll road would have ramifications well beyond the immediate impacts on San Onofre. The project would set a dangerous state-wide precedent for allowing state parks to be

1 San Onofre was originally designated a state park in 1971 by then-Governor Ronald Reagan in cooperation with then-President Richard Nixon. See “They’d Pave Over Reagan’s Park,” L.A. Times Op Ed, May 8, 2005. 2 California state parks provide a significant economic benefit to the people of California, generating about 80 million visitors from around the world who spend approximately $2.6 billion directly with an additional $4 billion in indirect contributions.

11 Transportation Committee Members November 9, 2006 Page 3

gradually wiped out by local governments seeking low-cost land for major infrastructure projects. See L.A. Times and Orange County Register Op Eds. Protecting our park lands is a matter of paramount interest for the State of California, and we must enforce this principle by protecting San Onofre.

• The Toll Road Agency will Take and Destroy San Diego Lands. The Toll Road Agency (“TCA”) is composed entirely of Orange County cities and county representatives and has no jurisdiction over San Onofre State Beach, which lies almost entirely in San Diego County. The TCA plans to ram the toll road through San Diego County without any participation by San Diego residents or officials. It’s an unspeakable land grab from another jurisdiction. If Orange County wants to build toll roads, they should keep them in Orange County, and it is critical that SANDAG, with constituents that use San Onofre State Beach on a regular basis, register its opposition.

The TCA is a single purpose agency created in 1988 for the sole purpose of building toll roads in Orange County. Today, however, there are better alternatives for managing our traffic. It is simply unacceptable, therefore, to build a road that would ruin one of California’s most popular state parks, destroy some of our treasured natural resources, and rob working class families of affordable coastal camping – particularly when the TCA’s jurisdiction is limited to Orange County.

The State of California has already filed two lawsuits opposing this project. The first was filed by the California Attorney General on behalf of the People of California and the State Parks Commission; the second was filed by the Attorney general on behalf of the Native American Heritage Commission to protect Native American resources in the park. See “State Sues to Block Toll Road Through Park,” L.A. Times, March 24, 2006. In addition, our organizations have filed a third lawsuit to protect environmental resources and save San Onofre.

We believe that a permanent end to this project can only be achieved through a statewide effort involving government entities, like SANDAG, that are willing to stand up for the protection of our state parks. Last year, the California State Parks Commission unanimously passed a resolution opposing the Foothill-South Toll Road. See State Parks Commission Resolution, Nov. 18, 2005. Opposition to this project also includes other state agencies/departments, business leaders, and legislators. See Support for Protecting San Onofre from the Foothill-South Toll Road. Additionally, a growing number of cities and counties across the state have now taken action supporting the Parks Commission and opposing the project, including the cities of Los Angeles, Oceanside, Laguna Beach, Aliso Viejo, Del Mar, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, Malibu, San Luis Obispo, Berkeley, and Imperial Beach, the City and County of San Francisco, and the counties of Ventura and Santa Cruz. For example, see City of L.A. Resolution attached.

As an association of San Diego governments tasked with addressing transportation and quality of life issues, your leadership can play an important role in saving San Onofre State Beach. We therefore urge SANDAG to join this growing opposition, reassess the projects’ inclusion in your Regional Transportation Plan, and

12 Transportation Committee Members November 9, 2006 Page 4

agendize this issue for future action, via a formal resolution, to support the protection of San Onofre and our state park lands throughout California.

Very Truly Yours,

James Birkelund Brittany McKee Senior Project Attorney Association Regional Representative Natural Resources Defense Council Sierra Club

Mark Rauscher Dan Silver Interim Environmental Director Executive Director Surfrider Foundation Endangered Habitats League

Elizabeth Goldstein Elisabeth M. Brown President President California State Parks Foundation Laguna Greenbelt, Inc.

Pete DeSimone Director of Sanctuaries and Stewardship Audubon California

Encl.: Toll Road Fact Sheet Map of Toll Road Impacts Picture of San Onofre Campers L.A. Times and Orange County Register Op Eds “State Sues to Block Toll Road Through Park,” L.A. Times, March 24, 2006 State Parks Commission Resolution, Nov. 18, 2005 Support for Protecting San Onofre from the Foothill-South Toll Road City of L.A. Resolution

13 Foothill-South Toll Road Fact Sheet

• In recent years, the Foothill-South has been downsized demonstrating weakness of demand for the project. In 2002, “A controversial proposal to build a tollway through environmentally sensitive areas in south Orange County was cut in half after updated traffic studies showed ridership would be far less than originally predicted.” [“Tollway Board Cuts Lanes for the Foothill Extension,” Los Angeles Times.]

• Despite years of telling the public that no public funds would be used for the toll roads, the Toll Road Agency (TCA) is in such a precarious financial situation that they asked for $100 million in federal handouts. In 2003, “Board members for the TCA said they are applying for the six-year federal authorization to strengthen finance plans for the highway, which has been scaled back from eight to four lanes. The estimated cost is about $800 million…The federal authorization is, ‘just in case, because we don’t know how much the road is going to cost or how much we are going to need,’ TCA spokeswoman Clare Climaco said.” [“US Funds Sought for Foothill Toll Road,” Los Angeles Times.]

• TCA demonstrated gross financial irresponsibility in building the San Joaquin Hills (73) Toll Road. Due to inflated traffic and revenue projections, this toll road has been plagued by financial difficulties. To alleviate these problems, TCA attempted to merge the two toll road boards, but the dubious proposal failed when, amid accusations of inflated fees to Wall Street and concerns over the existing Foothill/Eastern toll road (241) subsidizing the 73, the agencies could not agree on a deal. “Opponents say the deal, which will cost $160 million in professional fees, amounts to a bailout of the San Joaquin bondholders…the merger is controversial because some Foothill/Eastern drivers don’t think it’s fair that they should essentially subsidize a road they don’t use.” [“Toll-road merger cost may exceed $4 billion,” Orange County Register; “Toll directors kill $4 billion merger plan,” Orange County Register.]

• In lieu of the failed merger, the Foothill TCA entered into a sweetheart deal to dole out more than $1 billion in loans and $120 million in direct payments to prop up the financially failing San Joaquin Hills (73) Toll Road. This legally questionable transaction perpetuates the gross financial irresponsibility of the toll road agencies. The $120 million is in mitigation for projected traffic diversion from the Foothill-South, raising questions as to why TCA would build a new toll road that diverts traffic from an already failing toll road, only to subsidize the failing toll road with the proceeds.

• “Non-competition” agreements harm the public interest and public purse. Over a broad area, Caltrans cannot undertake necessary improvements to relieve highway congestion unless payments are made to the toll road for any potential lost revenues. Similar non-competition agreements caused major problems when Caltrans wanted to improve highway safety on State Route 91. “Caltrans is powerless to ease congestion on adjoining freeways because of agreements that promote gridlock…‘What we now have is a two-tiered system: a road system for the wealthy and a deteriorating one for the rest of us,’ said attorney general Lockyer, ‘The toll road is just a polite form of highway robbery.’" [“Tollway Owners in Driver's Seat,”Los Angeles Times.]

• The Los Angeles Times has run at least SIX editorials questioning TCA’s faulty traffic and revenue projections, unseemly political moves, non-competition agreements, and

14 environmental implications. “As with the financially disastrous San Joaquin Hills project, demand for the Foothill South has been questioned. The tollway agency eventually cut it by half, acknowledging the ridership wasn’t there…Let [the state and federal agencies working on the project] do their work based on the merits of the project, minus the ham-fisted interference from political interests with tunnel vision – and without these continued, improper efforts by the toll road agencies to take a detour around larger public interests…The last thing Orange County needs is another river of underutilized asphalt ruining rare wild lands.” [“Merging Safely on Toll Lanes, Take High Road to Tollway, Second Thoughts on Tollway, The Rosy Path Takes Its Toll, Toll Increase Right Road to Take?, Toll Road Miscalculations.” Los Angeles Times.]

• The Foothill-South Toll Road would bisect the inland portion of San Onofre State Beach – one of the top five most visited state parks in California – and force the abandonment of the beloved San Mateo Campground. Since the 161-site San Mateo was built 16 years ago, the State Parks Department has been unable to add a single campground along California’s coast. “Furthermore, the affordability of this coastal resource for middle and low income visitors makes it even more important that it be kept intact and undiminished.” [Mitigation Assessment of FTC- South Impacts on San Onofre State Beach, Cal. Dept. Parks & Rec., (Aug. 1997).]

• The Foothill-South Toll Road would destroy habitat for eleven threatened or endangered species under federal law. The road would fragment and degrade habitat within the park at San Onofre for the steelhead trout, arroyo toad, California gnatcatcher, Least Bell’s vireo, Southwestern willow flycatcher, Riverside fairy shrimp, San Diego fairy shrimp, snowy plover, Pacific pocket mouse, thread-leaved brodiaea, and tidewater goby.

• The Foothill-South environmental documentation contains extensive flaws, glaring errors and omissions, and is legally inadequate. “TCA’s self-interest in the ultimate selection of a toll road alternative appears to have trumped CEQA and NEPA’s requirements for a full and impartial analysis…The Far East Corridor (FEC) alignments are by far the most environmentally damaging. The FEC alignments would pass through vast amounts of open space and habitat of critically endangered species, and would bifurcate the Donna O’Neill Land Conservancy and San Onofre State Beach, two unique and irreplaceable resources…The DEIS/R fails to even identify many of the resources these alternatives would affect, much less analyze their impacts or propose mitigation…The impacts that are addressed in the DEIS/R are presented in such a biased and skewed format so as to undermine the efforts by the public and decision-makers to understand and assess the differences among alternatives…” [Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP comments on TCA’s and Federal Highway Administration’s Joint Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Foothill-South Toll Road, April 2004.]

• In 2002, then Commandant of the Marine Corps, General J.L. Jones submitted a letter to the US EPA expressing his preference that the Foothill-South not be constructed on or near Camp Pendleton. “Frankly, my preference is that the proposed toll road not be constructed on or near Camp Pendleton. If constructed on Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps loses land needed for training to ensure readiness. If constructed near Camp Pendleton, the road facilitates increased urbanization adjacent to the base, which in turn will lead to noise complaints from new residents…it will also result in additional losses of natural areas that support endangered species, thus placing an even greater burden on Camp Pendleton to protect the region’s biodiversity.” [Department of the Navy letter to US EPA, Feb. 9, 2002.]

• The toll roads have cost taxpayers millions of dollars in maintenance fees for faulty filters and resurfacing of dangerous roads. “Caltrans estimates it will cost at least $13.3 million to

15 repair or replace 38 storm drain filters along the San Joaquin Hills toll road that the agency has conceded are faulty and should never have been installed in the first place…The state spent $2 million to repave 10 miles of the San Joaquin Hills tollway after a rash of rain-related incidents resulting in 13 injuries and one death.” [“Cost of Fixing Tollway Drains is $13.3 Million,” Los Angeles Times; “Deadly Roadway Would Be Improved to Tune of $250,000” Los Angeles Times.]

• The Foothill-South Toll Road would degrade water quality at world-famous Trestles Beach. Trestles Beach is located at the base of the undeveloped San Mateo Creek Watershed. Yet the TCA refuses to acknowledge that running a six-lane highway the length of this watershed could result in severe water quality impacts to Trestles. The toll road would accommodate thousands of automobiles every day releasing oil, grease, heavy metals, and other toxins, and the resulting stormwater runoff would inevitably affect water quality on the beaches at the base of the watershed. The State Water Board has found highways to be a leading source of stormwater pollution across the State, and TCA’s claims that they will filter these pollutants are belied by the history of storm water pollution associated with its sister road, the San Joaquin (73) Toll Road, where TCA’s remediation system has repeatedly failed and cost the state millions of dollars in repairs [see bullet point above].

• Surfers and beach goers will have severely diminished access to Trestles Beach. According to the California Parks Department, the toll road would cause the abandonment of nearly 60% of the state park, including the entire inland subunit, its most popular campsite, and trails that lead to Trestles Beach. The loss of these areas, which are heavily frequented by surfers and beach lovers, will significantly reduce the public’s access to, and enjoyment of, Trestles Beach. San Onofre State Beach is the fifth most popular state park and the premier coastal recreational area along the southern coast of California. There is no substitute for the beach-related resources that the Toll Road would destroy, and there is nothing that TCA’s proposed soundwall can do to mitigate that impact.

• The internationally renowned surfing conditions at Trestles Beach may be affected by the Toll Road. The superior wave formations at Trestles are produced by, and depend on, coastal topography and natural sediment flows from the San Mateo Creek Watershed. Because the Toll Road will require substantial grading and pave over 320 acres of the park, sedimentation patterns may be altered ultimately affecting the associated formation of waves. According to hydrology experts, TCA failed to adequately consider changes to sediment conditions that could have “significant impacts at various local and regional scales, and possibly alter the morphology of Trestles (and its surfing characteristics), as well as result in water quality impacts.” [Potential Toll Road Impacts on San Mateo Creek Watershed Processes, Mouth Morphology and Trestles Surfing Area, Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd., Jan. 2006.]

• TCA violated the public trust by lobbying for riders that exempt the Foothill-South from bedrock environmental laws. TCA has over the years repeatedly sought to obtain waivers and exceptions from state and federal laws, including successfully exempting the project, via a rider in a 2000 military appropriations bill, from Section 4(f) of the 1966 Transportation Act that would otherwise prohibit the construction of a highway through San Onofre.

• California Attorney General Bill Lockyer submitted official comments to the TCA stating that any proposed toll road through San Onofre State Beach is unacceptable and questioned the environmental documentation’s legal compliance. “It is the Attorney General’s belief that the [environmental documentation] does not comply with either law [NEPA & CEQA], as it fails

16 to adequately discuss all impacts flowing from the project. In particular, it does not adequately discuss the impacts to the San Onofre State Beach campground area… [T]he Attorney General cannot state strongly enough the inappropriateness of any alternatives that would allow a multi- lane freeway to run the length of the inland [Christianitos Subunit] portion of San Onofre State Beach.” [“Attorney General Favors Freeways,” Sun Post News; Official comment letter from Attorney General Lockyer, Aug. 2004.]

• The Foothill Toll Road (241) has had more animals killed on it that all other Orange County roads combined. “Drivers have killed twice as many animals on the often-rugged 241 (Foothill) toll road than on all other Orange County roads combined.” [“Highways Taking Toll on Wildlife,” Los Angeles Times.]

• California Department of Parks and Recreation submitted comments to the TCA that the proposed toll road is unacceptable and would gut the state park at San Onofre. “We are extremely disappointed… It does not take an expert to understand that locating a multi-lane, limited access highway within a few hundred feet of a secluded campground will so destroy the recreational value of the campground and sense of place as to render it valueless… San Onofre State Beach presents the last large coastal open space recreational and habitat opportunity in Southern California… [the] availability of such an increasingly rare resource and experience to the large Southern California population serves an important societal function which once lost cannot be replicated in whole elsewhere in this region.” [Official Comment Letter from Cal. Parks Dept., Jan. 10, 2006.]

17 State of California The Resources Agency Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Ruth Coleman, Director

Resolution 66-2005 adopted by the CALIFORNIA STATE PARK and RECREATION COMMISSION at its regular meeting in Tahoe City, California November 18, 2005

Opposing a Proposed Tollroad Alignment AND Request for Action to Protect San Onofre State Beach

WHEREAS, lands of California’s State Park System are designated for their protection and preservation on behalf of this and future generations and should not be used in a manner inconsistent with state park purposes; and

WHEREAS, California State Parks provide a significant economic benefit to the people of California, attracting millions of visitors from around the world; and

WHEREAS, San Onofre State Beach is located on property leased for fifty years from the United States of America and was established in 1971 by Executive Order of President Nixon and at the urging of Governor Ronald Reagan; and

WHEREAS, San Onofre State Beach is one of the five most-visited of California’s 278 state parks and provides valuable and rare upland and wetland habitats (including unique habitat for eleven protected species listed as threatened or endangered under federal laws), wilderness, coastal beaches, affordable camping, nationally recognized historic and archeological sites; and

WHEREAS, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (Foothill Toll Road Agency) has proposed construction of a multi-lane toll road of over four miles in length through the heart of the nearly 1,200 acre inland Cristianitos Subunit portion of San Onofre State Beach; and

WHEREAS, the loss of over 320 acres or 27% of this portion of San Onofre State Beach for a toll road right-of-way would result in the park’s fragmentation, adversely affecting the remaining acreage in the park, including the potential for additional recreational opportunities, such as hiking, equestrian use and camping; and

WHEREAS, all the sites in the popular year-round San Mateo Campground are reserved six months in advance and receive more overnight use than any other of San Onofre State Beach’s two campgrounds and would be severely impacted by the noise, vibration, and visual intrusion of a major roadway if it were built; and

WHEREAS, San Onofre State Beach includes Trestles Beach, the only surfing World Championship Tour stop in the continental United States, so chosen because of the unique conditions that exist in the undeveloped San Mateo Creek watershed, conditions that provide

CONTINUED ON PAGE 2

18 CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 the natural processes of erosion and sediment flows through the creek to the ocean, creating a clean, unique beach and surf, processes that would be altered and blocked by a multi-lane toll road through the watershed; and

WHEREAS, critical protection provided by section 4(f) of the Federal Transportation Act of 1966 designed to protect and preserve public park and recreation lands has, by language contained in a year 2000 appropriations bill, been waived; and

WHEREAS, viable alternative routes and traffic improvements exist which do not depend upon San Onofre State Beach including, but not limited to, the Interstate-5 corridor; and

WHEREAS, on November 3, 2005 the California State Park and Recreation Commission meeting in the City of San Clemente and in a hearing held before a crowd exceeding 1,000, took public testimony which was overwhelmingly in opposition to the use of San Onofre State Beach as a toll road route;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the record of the hearing of the California State Park and Recreation Commission for the meetings of November 3 and 18, 2005 be transmitted to the Transportation Corridor Agencies for their records; and be it

RESOLVED that the Transportation Corridor Agencies reconsider and abandon a toll road route through San Onofre State Beach; and be it

RESOLVED that the California Department of Transportation be requested to review, investigate and report on alternatives to a toll road route through San Onofre State Beach including, but not limited to, Interstate-5 improvements; and be it

RESOLVED that the Commission requests that the State of California and its agencies take all appropriate and necessary actions within their power to protect the natural, cultural, recreational, and aesthetic resources of San Onofre State Beach; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission re spectfully requests that the Governor, in concert with the Attorney General’s office, oppose any major transportation arterial through San Onofre State Beach using all appropriate methods, including litigation if necessary, to defend this valuable and irreplaceable public resource.

Attest: This Resolution was duly adopted by the California State Park and Recreation Commission on November 18, 2005, at its duly noticed public meeting in Tahoe City, California. By: ______ORIGINAL SIGNED______BY Date:______11-18-05 Louis Nastro Assistant to the Commission For Ruth Coleman, Director California State Parks Secretary to the Commission

19 Support for Protecting the State Park at San Onofre State Beach From the Foothill-South Toll Road1

State Departments Responsible for Preserving California’s Natural and Cultural Heritage California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer California State Park and Recreation Commission Native American Heritage Commission California State Park Rangers Association

Four Former State Park Directors Donald Murphy (1993-1997) Henry Agonia (1987-1992) William S. Briner (1983-1987) Peter Dangermond Jr.(1980-1982)

The California Democratic Party Environmental Caucus

Growing List of Cities and Counties from throughout California City of Aliso Viejo City of Del Mar City of Imperial Beach City of Laguna Beach City of Los Angeles City of Oceanside City and County of San Francisco City of Santa Monica City of Malibu City of Santa Cruz County of Santa Cruz City of San Luis Obispo

50 State Legislators from throughout California

1. Senator Don Perata 2. Senator Sheila Keuhl 3. Senator Joseph Dunn 4. Senator Joe Simitian 5. Senator Alan Lowenthal 6. Senator Gloria Romero 7. Senator Christine Kehoe 8. Senator Debra Bowen

1 The supporters listed herein are not opposed to finding alternative traffic solutions that avoid taking our park lands and conservation areas.

20 9. Senator Martha Escutia 10. Senator Gil Cedillo 11. Senator Kevin Murray 12. Senator Elaine Alquist 13. Senator Richard Alarcon 14. Senator Deborah Ortiz 15. Senator Nell Soto 16. Assemblymember John Laird 17. Assemblymember Jenny Oropeza 18. Assemblymember Simon Salinas 19. Assemblymember Pedro Nava 20. Assemblymember Loni Hancock 21. Assemblymember Mervyn Dymally 22. Assemblymember Leland Yee 23. Assemblymember Carol Liu 24. Assemblymember Lori Saldana 25. Assemblymember Ronald Calderon 26. Assemblymember Ira Ruskin 27. Assemblymember Fran Pavley 28. Assemblymember Paul Koretz 29. Assemblymember Patty Berg 30. Assemblymember Gene Mullin 31. Assemblymember Joe Baca, Jr. 32. Assemblymember Judy Chu 33. Assemblymember Noreen Evans 34. Assemblymember Betty Karnette 35. Assemblymember Dave Jones 36. Assemblymember Lois Wolk 37. Assemblymember Sally Lieber 38. Assemblymember Joe Nation 39. Assemblymember Leland Yee 40. Assemblymember Johan Klehs 41. Assemblymember Rudy Bermudez 42. Assemblymember Juan Vargas 43. Assemblymember Tom Harman 44. Assemblyman Mark Leno 45. Assemblymember Mark Ridley-Thomas 46. Assemblymember Lloyd Levine 47. Assemblymember Hector De La Torre 48. Assemblymember Cindy Montanez 49. Assemblymember Ted Lieu 50. Assemblymember Karen Bass

National Environmental Organizations Audubon Society Defenders of Wildlife

21 Natural Resources Defense Council Sierra Club Surfrider Foundation WildCoast

State Cultural and Environmental Organizations California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance California League of Park Associations California Native Plants Society California State Parks Foundation California Trails and Greenways Foundation California Trout Endangered Habitats League Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Save the Redwoods League

Local Cultural and Environmental Organizations Anza Borrego Foundation Chino Hills State Park Interpretive Association Crystal Cove Alliance Ecology Center of Southern California Environmental Health Coalition Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks Hills for Everyone Laguna Greenbelt Laguna Canyon Conservancy Orange County Coastkeeper Richardson Grove Interpretive Association San Diego Baykeeper San Diego Coalition for Transportation Choices Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods Tamalpais Conservation Club Mt. Tamalpais Interpretive Association

Business Leaders

Curtis Abbott CEO, Lucesco Lighting Inc Andrew Beebe President, Energy Innovations Laura Berland-Shane COO, Permacity Corp Maureen Blanc VP Marketing , International Museum of Women Hale Boggs Manatt, Phelps & Phillips

22 Eric Bowen VP, Energy & Director, Biofuels, Sigma Capital Group Evan Brooks Founder, DigiDesign Alan Buder Chief Operating Officer and CFO, Alligator Planet Selcuk Cakir MSD Capital Matt Cheney CEO, Renewable Ventures LLC Ronald Cohn Commissioner, California State World Trade Commission Tom Cole General Partner, Trinity Ventures Stephen Colwell The Ocean Foundation Holly Corn Holly Corn, MD, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles Jean Davidson Managing Director, VantagePoint Venture Partners Peter Davis Chairman, Appellate Department, Reed Smith Crosby Heafey Andrew Deitz Director, Symphony Technology Group Ted Driscoll Venture Partner, Claremont Creek Ventures Dave Edwards Research Analyst, American Technology Research Bob Epstein Co-founder, Sybase, GetActive Software, Environmental Entrepreneurs Christina Erickson Founder, Green by Design Rob Erlichman President, Sunlight Electric, LLC Anne Feldhusen Marketing Program Manager, Hewlett Packard Steve Fioretti Senior Director Product Marketing, Siebel Systems Matthew Fisher Nixon Peabody LLP Peter Fortenbaugh Executive Director, Boy and Girls Club of the Peninsula Cole Frates Renewable Resources Group Tushar Gheewala CEO & Chairman, Inventions Outsource

23 Nancy Gail Goebner Nancy Goebner Designs Mark Goldstein CEO, InStorecard Inc. Marianna Grossman Keller Partner, Minerva Consulting Joseph Guth Executive Director, California League for Environmental Enforcement Now Tom Haggin Co-Founder, Sybase and Tilden Park Software Anna Halpern-Lande Founder, Cyrnel Bob Hambrecht Managing Director, Equity Capital Markets Arno Harris CEO, Prevalent Power James Higgins Partner, Lakeside Enterprises Jill Tate Higgins General Partner, Lakeside Enterprises Tom Jacoby Vice Chairman, Klipsch Inc Wendy James President, Better World Group Kristine Johnson Director, Kingfisher Foundation Jonathan Kaufelt Board Member, Equity Marketing Inc Robert Keith Beartooth Capital Arthur Keller CEO, Globallinx Network Stephen Koch Real Estate Consultant, AIG Global Real Estate Nicole Lederer Co-Founder, Environmental Entrepreneurs Ross Levy Principal, Levy Art & Architecture Inc. Glen Lindenstadt Founder, The Lindenstadt Company Peter Liu Principal, LM Investment Consulting Madelyn Mallory President/CEO, Catalyst Financial Planning & Investment Management Corp. Drew Maran President, Drew Maran Construction/Design

24 John Mayerhofer Chairman, CEO, VoiceIndigo Inc. Jim McDermott CEO, US Renewables Group Carol Moné President, Our Earth Music, Inc. John Montgomery Montgomery Law Group Jeffrey Mora Chef Kathy Murphy CFO and Administrative Partner, Trinity Ventures Gib Myers Partner Emeritus, Mayfield Fund and Founder/board of the Entrepreneurs Foundation Alex Osadzinski Venture Partner, Trinity Ventures Jiali Osadzinski Controller, Applied Biosystems Mark Parnes Attorney, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Sam Perry President, Ascendance Ventures Eric Ramberg Atrium Capital David Rome Self Employed - Investing David Rosenstein President, Intex Solutions Guy Saperstein Saperstein Goldstein Demchak & Baller Wendy Schmidt Interior Designer, Allied Member ASID Tim Sexton SVP, Strategic Marketing, EMI Reid Shane Executive VP, Paramount Pictures Ann Shulman President, Philanthropy Associates Aimee Silver Project Manager, Kintera Barbara Simons Retired, IBM Research Bob Smith Co-founder, Nellcor, Incorporated Kristen Steck Greenhouse gas manager, Large Oil and Gas Concern

25 Lee Stein Chairman and CEO, Virtual Group, LLC Sally Supplee Former Chief Financial Officer, various Gary Swart CEO, Odesk Bill Unger Partner Emeritus, Mayfield Kathleen Unger Communications Consultant, KSMU, LLC Stephen Unger KSMU, LLC Mark Vander Ploeg Vice Chairman, Investment Banking, Merrill Lynch & Co. Nancy Wakeman Vp, Engineering, Tapstone, Inc. Mal Warwick Mal Warwick & Associates Dave Welch Chief Technology Officer, Infinera Corporation Marian Woodard Managing Partner, The Quantum Shift Stephanie Yulga Deitz Founder, Verde Clean Homes (Greening the world one home at a time.) Paul Zorner Senior Director Business Development, Diversa Paul Naude CEO, Billabong Bob McKnight CEO, Quiksilver Dick Baker President, Ocean Pacific Richard Wolcott CEO, Volcom Bob Rief CEO, Sanuk Footwear Bruce Beach President, Electric Visual Evolution Tom Ruiz Vice President of Sales, Volcom Clothing CJ Oliveres Senior Vice President/Assistant GM, Fuel Network Jimmy Olmes President, REACTOR Mark Crowther Group Publisher, The Surfer’s Path

26 Scott Dickey President, TransWorld Media Phil DeAngelo President, Surfing Artists International Scott Daley Vice President of Marketing, Body Glove International Toshi Corbet VP Marketing, SponsorHouse Bob Mignogna President, Mignogna Consulting Drew Kampion Editor of The Surfer's Path and author of The Book of Waves, The Way of the Surfer, and Stoked: A History of Surf Culture Adam C. Borrello Director, International Licensing/Marketing, T&C Surf Designs Hawaii Nikki Houston SIMA Board Member, Surf Expo Account Manager, Surf Expo Gary Ward President, Ocean Minded Tyler Callaway Director of Business Development, Surf Hardware International USA Matt Till Co-founders, Olukai Bill Worthington Co-founders, Olukai Shawn Taylor Product Line / Marketing Manager, Santa Cruz Surfboards Maria Broph Vice-President Marketing/Licensing, Son of the Sea, Inc. John Dahl President, Wax Research, Inc. Greg Tomlinson VonZipper , Sales & Marketing Dir. Andy Tompkins Group Show Director, ASR Chad DiNenna Founder, Nixon Watches Guy Motil Owner, Longboard Magazine

27

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tollway14nov14,0,3836769.story?coll=la-home- headlines

Studies contradict forecast for O.C. tollway benefits

The controversial Foothill South route proposed through a state park would not greatly ease congestion on Interstate 5, according to new figures.

By Dan Weikel and David Reyes, Times Staff Writers November 14, 2006

New traffic studies contradict optimistic predictions that a proposed tollway through San Onofre State Beach would eliminate much of the congestion on Interstate 5 in South County.

Most of I-5 in South County will be "consistently congested" at rush hour by 2030 even if the controversial Foothill South toll road extension is built, according to the Orange County Transportation Authority's long-range transportation plan for 2006.

The forecasts assume construction of the tollway, a carpool lane each way on the I- 5 and some interchange improvements. If only the tollway is built, the study suggests, the situation will be even worse, with motorists on the interstate seeing "severely congested" conditions.

Environmentalists and other tollway opponents have seized on the long-range plan as a sign that the benefits of the proposed six-lane tollway do not justify sacrificing one of the state's most popular parks.

The Irvine-based Transportation Corridor Agencies, which operates a 51-mile network of tollways in Orange County, plans to build the Foothill South through the northern half of San Onofre. The park's campgrounds, wildlife areas, panoramic views and world-renowned surf spots attract about 2.7 million visitors a year.

The controversy has raged for more a decade and is unlikely to end soon. Environmentalists and the state attorney general are pursuing lawsuits to halt construction of the tollway, and it still requires state and federal approval.

"Why are we building a project with a stated purpose that won't be achieved, at the expense of our parkland?" said James Birkelund, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group.

Opponents say the toll agency's forecasts have been unreliable in the past, leading to financial problems for the San Joaquin Hills tollway and a downsizing of the Foothill South project from eight lanes to six.

28 The toll agency, which is planning to build the Foothill South by 2011, has predicted that the road would help create congestion-free driving conditions on much of southern Interstate 5 by 2025. Traffic relief has been one of the project's main selling points.

Without the Foothill South, tollway officials say, travel times on I-5 from the San Diego County line to Oso Parkway ˜ roughly 16 miles ˜ would be an hour during peak periods in 2025 instead of 25 minutes.

"We know there's going to be more traffic on the 5 Freeway in the future," said Lisa Telles, a tollway spokeswoman. "If you don't build the toll road, there will just be more congestion."

TCA officials say that although most of their assumptions are the same, the two agencies' studies are different and thus can't be compared directly.

Now estimated to cost $875 million, the tollway extension would run from Interstate 5 at Basilone Road south of San Clemente to Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita. It would connect with the Foothill toll road after coursing through San Onofre State Beach and the Donna O'Neill Land Conservancy, a 1,200-acre open- space preserve set aside as mitigation for housing development.

Tollway officials have concluded that the route ˜ one of eight options studied ˜ would do the least harm to the environment and avoid the cost of condemning hundreds of homes and businesses in South County.

Dubbed the "green alignment" by the agency, the Foothill South would handle 24,000 to 52,000 daily trips by motorists in 2025 depending on the section of highway, the toll agency predicts.

"Green means Go!" the agency's promotional materials state. "Foothill-South: Your road map to traffic relief."

Like OCTA's, the corridor agency's own forecasts assume the tollway will be built as well as other improvements made to Interstate 5, including a carpool lane each way.

Tollway officials estimate that vehicle trips on I-5 would be reduced from 290,000 a day to 267,000 in the Dana Point-San Clemente area. The least benefit would occur in the Lake Forest area, where traffic would be reduced from 413,000 trips to 406,000.

The agency's studies predict that the number of congested I-5 segments would be reduced 70% during the evening rush hour, usually the busiest time of day.

The agency's environmental impact statement shows that if the Foothill South is not built, much of Interstate 5 in South County will be heavily congested by 2025.

With the tollway, the agency's environmental documents show that I-5 from Alicia Parkway to the San Diego County line would be uncongested at rush hour except for two short sections between Avenida Pico and El Camino Real in San Clemente and between Ortega Highway and Camino Capistrano in San Juan Capistrano. Those would be lightly to moderately congested at peak times.

29 "Will the south extension alleviate traffic in Orange County? Absolutely," said Lake Forest City Councilman Peter Herzog, an agency board member. "By way of analysis, we have congestion on the I-5 now and we have 51 miles of toll roads. The point is that we are taking many daily trips off the freeway."

But OCTA's long-range transportation plan, which was completed in July, predicts a far more congested future for I-5 than the toll agency envisions.

OCTA studies indicate that daily vehicle trips on south I-5 between Avenida Pico and the San Joaquin Hills interchange will increase from about 250,000 to 364,000 by 2030.

Between the tollway and the El Toro Y, vehicle trips are expected to increase from 342,000 to 460,000, a level that easily exceeds the daily flow on the 405 Freeway around Los Angeles International Airport.

Assuming the tollway and I-5 improvements are completed, OCTA's study indicates that the interstate will go from "moderately" to "consistently" congested during rush hour along much of its path through southern Orange County.

"Even with a fully functional Foothill South, I-5 will still be bad. The tollway is not as advertised," said Laguna Niguel Mayor Cathryn DeYoung, a former OCTA board member who unsuccessfully challenged Patricia Bates for county supervisor in last week's election.

DeYoung questioned the Foothill South proposal during her election campaign. While at OCTA, she requested a major study of south I-5, now underway, to find ways to reduce future congestion.

"Both agencies should sit down, look at the data and determine what they are going to do," DeYoung said.

OCTA spokesman Michael Litschi said he did not want to comment on which study might be more valid.

Tollway foes say that before any tollway extension is built, I-5 should be widened and improved to see if it alone can accommodate future traffic growth.

The OCTA study "really proves that the way to fix congestion on I-5 is to fix I-5," said Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks Foundation.

"It's become imperative that the TCA reconsider their choice here."

Tollway opponents note that traffic forecasts by the tollway agency indicate that widening I-5, instead of building the Foothill South, produced some of the best results for reducing congestion on the interstate.

During the environmental review process, however, the tollway agency ruled out that option as too costly and difficult to fund.

Toll road officials say that widening I-5 by one and two lanes each way could cost more than $1 billion and $2.4 billion, respectively, because hundreds of homes and business would have to be purchased for right of way.

30

But two studies by Smart Mobility Inc., a Vermont-based transportation consultant hired by opponents of toll road extension, state that traffic growth in South County could be accommodated by improving I-5 and major streets.

Condemnations of private property could be greatly reduced, researchers said, using innovative interchange designs ˜ "measures never considered by TCA."

*

[email protected] [email protected]

31

FRIDAY, MARCH 24, 2006

State Sues to Block Toll Road in Park

Attorney general calls Orange County failed to adequately explore more sensible coastal land and the effect the road would officials' plan to cut through San Onofre State alternatives or assess what environmental have on the beach, campground and people in Beach 'disgraceful.' Two other suits are also harm the 16-mile toll road might cause, in "what really is the last coastal valley that is filed. violation of the California Environmental undeveloped south of Laguna Beach," the Quality Act. attorney general said. By PETER NICHOLAS and DAVID REYES Lockyer said the plan to push the toll road If built, the thoroughfare will be by far the Times Staff Writers through the parkland was arrogant and largest project of its kind that cuts through a "disgraceful." state park. Park officials fear it could open the SACRAMENTO — Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer "It seems to me that building a six-lane door to other encroachments statewide. filed a lawsuit Thursday to block a proposed highway through the San Onofre State Beach Lockyer's suit was one of three filed six-lane tollway through San Onofre State misses an opportunity to meet transportation Thursday in Superior Court in San Diego Beach, a popular coastal park he described as needs of this growing region without seeking to stop the project. The other "a state treasure." sacrificing public parklands that should be plaintiffs are a coalition of environmental The suit alleges that the Foothill/Eastern protected for future generations," Lockyer groups and the Native American Heritage Transportation Corridor Agency in Orange said. Commission, which says the road would be County Orange County officials had chosen to built next to a "sacred religious and ignore the significance of the protected

32 ceremonial site for the Juaneño/Acjachemen people." Ken Ryan, chairman of the toll road ‘We’re drawing a line agency, called the legal challenges a "delay tactic." He defended last month's decision to in the sand.’ approve construction, saying the road was needed to relieve congestion on Interstate 5, Joel Reynolds, attorney for an whose traffic is projected to increase 60% by environmental coalition plaintiff 2025. "It's the only option that significantly reduces traffic without removing homes or Club, the Surfrider Foundation, Natural business," Ryan said. "The only other option Resources Defense Council, and Sea and is to widen the I-5 freeway, take out 800 Sage Audubon Society. homes, 300 businesses and eliminate 5,000 Larry Myers, executive secretary of the jobs at a cost of $2 billion — funding the state Native American Heritage Commission, said doesn't have." LITIGATION: Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer says the toll road would pass "within feet" of a Ryan said he was confident the the transit agency violated the California cemetery still used by Native Americans. It environmental documentation "more than Environmental Quality Act. filed the lawsuit "to protect this sacred place adequately addresses the impacts." from severe and irreparable damage," he said. The tollway would complete Orange Joel Reynolds, senior attorney for the San Onofre State Beach is visited by 2.7 County's 65-mile network of toll roads. The Natural Resources Defense Council — which million people a year and is the fifth most highway would begin at Oso Parkway in is part of the environmentalist coalition — popular state park. Rancho Santa Margarita and connect with described the project as the "poster child for Lockyer said about 320 acres of parkland Interstate 5 at Basilone Road south of San bad transportation policy." would be gobbled up by the highway and that Clemente. The project would cost an "This project makes no sense, the toll road would run alongside a popular estimated $875 million. economically, environmentally, spiritually, campground. The lawsuit, an agency spokeswoman said, morally, legally, and it ought to be "I hope these concerted actions will wash will not delay planning efforts. abandoned," Reynolds said. "So make no away the destructive arrogance of this toll The proposed highway would require mistake, this is a project we intend to stop. road proposal," Lockyer said. "It's approval from several federal agencies, the We're drawing a line in the sand around San disgraceful, and we're going to fight it." Navy and the California Coastal Commission, Onofre, because if we can't save this state a process that could take at least two years. park, if we can't prevent the TCA from paving Construction is slated for 2007-08. over this coastal gem, then it's only a matter The lawsuits highlight the years-long toll of time before a project just like it comes to a road extension debate that has pitted two state park near you.'' major interests of the state — easing traffic The environmental coalition includes the and protecting the environment. California State Parks Foundation, the Sierra

33

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2006

34 35 Park lands threatened by Toll Road construction

San Onofre State Beach

San Mateo Campground

36

Cristianitos Subunit #1

San Mateo Campground

Trestles Subunit #2

FOOTHILL SOUTH TOLL ROAD PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ROUTE

SAN ONOFRE STATE BEACH BOUNDARY Subunit #3 AREA IMPACTED BY PROPOSED TOLLROAD

This map, which is based upon Figures 2.2-5 & 2.5-6 of the SOCTIIP draft FSEIR, illustrates the total area impacted by the proposed project’s construction area, not just the roadway centerline.

37 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

December 8, 2006 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 9

Action Requested: INFORMATION

OLDER ADULT TRANSPORTATION NEEDS SURVEY File Number 3001100

Introduction

SANDAG conducted a survey in 2006 to learn more about the transportation needs of older adult transportation agency clients in the San Diego region. The information collected through the survey will be used by regional social service and transportation agencies to improve transportation services for older adults in the region, to help shape the TransNet Senior Mini-Grant Program, and to help develop a Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan, which is a new federal SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users) planning requirement. The survey is only intended to represent older adults who currently use agency services. It is not intended to represent all older adults in the San Diego region.

The survey was sent by mail to over 24,000 agency service clients aged 60 years and older throughout the County. The mailing garnered 2,354 completed surveys for a 9.6 percent response rate. Due to the relatively low response rate, some caution should be used when interpreting these results.

The 2006 Older Adult Transportation Needs Survey report is included as Attachment 1. The Summary of Results section describes the responses to the survey questions. A summary of relevant cross-tabulations is included in Appendix A. A copy of the survey form is included in Appendix B.

Discussion

The 2006 Older Adult Transportation Needs Survey form contained eleven questions, most of which had multiple parts. The questions fell into three broad categories: questions about the respondent, questions about typical transportation needs, and questions about specific transportation services.

Summary of Results

A summary of key results from the survey are provided below:

• The majority of survey respondents (61 percent) are between the ages of 60 to 79 years old.

• Most of the respondents have a driver’s license (68 percent). One-third of those that do not have a license indicated that they “do not feel safe driving.”

• While most of the respondents are able to walk without help, a large percentage (27 percent) need some type of assistance. Of those, half (51 percent) use a cane to walk and nearly half of the survey participants (42 percent) said they have other limitations that affect their ability to travel. Of those, the most common response was “cannot walk more than one quarter of a mile.” • Travel among the respondents occurs mainly between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Additionally, they travel more during the week than on weekends.

• The most common transportation trip needs are medical and shopping trips, which together account for nearly half (46 percent) of all tripmaking. The survey also revealed that transportation to medical services is needed mostly on a monthly basis, while transportation for shopping is needed on a weekly basis.

• The most common responses for respondent’s trip origins were in the zip codes from Oceanside, La Mesa, El Cajon, Poway, Encinitas, and parts of San Diego including the Golden Triangle area. These results are generally consistent with census data on concentrations of seniors in the County. The most commonly reported zip codes for trip destinations were the zip codes that include hospitals and concentrations of medical and dental offices.

• Public transit (both bus and trolley) ranked highest of the alternative transportation options among respondents (36 percent), with the usage highest among those 60 to 69 years old (54 percent), and declining to 15 percent for those 90 years and older.

• The vast majority of survey participants (87 percent) do not regularly use taxi service due to its high cost.

• Nearly nine out of ten respondents (89 percent) do not use ADA Paratransit Services, mainly due to the fact that they “don’t know about the service” (16 percent). Those that are aware of these services and are ADA certified do use the service (70 percent).

• Most respondents (87 percent) do not regularly use supplemental transportation services, such as free community-based car or van services.

Conclusion

The issues and demands highlighted in the survey results will intensify in the future as the number of older adults in the region increase in both number and percentage of the population. How best to meet these travel needs underscores the importance of the SANDAG smart growth policies. The task will be easier if seniors reside in communities where shopping and medical facilities are nearby and well served by public transportation, versus suburban communities that are difficult to serve with transit and require the use of expensive paratransit services.

The information received from this survey will be used as SANDAG begins the process to define the rules and criteria for the Senior Mini-Grant Program to be funded by TransNet beginning in 2009. The survey results highlight key areas such as the need for improved and expanded travel training, and enhanced transportation services oriented to basic mobility needs, such as shopping and medical appointments outside of traditional peak travel periods.

BOB LEITER Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Attachment: 1. Draft 2006 Older Adult Transportation Needs Survey, December 2006

Key Staff Contact: Danielle Kochman, (619) 699-1921, [email protected]

2 Attachment 1

DRAFT 2006 OLDER ADULT TRANSPORTATION NEEDS SURVEY

DECEMBER 2006

401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 595-5300

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus; plans, engineers, and builds public transit; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates resources; and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life. CHAIR: Hon. Mickey Cafagna FIRST VICE CHAIR: Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom SECOND VICE CHAIR: Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Gary L. Gallegos CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Matt Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. Pia Harris-Ebert, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Martin, Councilmember (A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Councilmember (A) Hon. Corky Smith, Mayor

CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Steve Padilla, Mayor Hon. Jack Dale, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Councilmember (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember (A) Hon. John McCann, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Randy Voepel, Mayor

CITY OF CORONADO CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon. Phil Monroe, Councilmember Hon Joe Kellejian, Councilmember (A) Hon. Frank Tierney, Councilmember (A) Hon. Lesa Heebner, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Carrie Downey, Councilmember (A) Hon. David Powell, Mayor

CITY OF DEL MAR CITY OF VISTA Hon. Crystal Crawford, Mayor Hon. Judy Ritter, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. David Druker, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bob Campbell, Councilmember (A) Hon. Henry Abarbanel, Councilmember (A) Hon. Steve Gronke, Councilmember

CITY OF EL CAJON COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Mark Lewis, Mayor Hon. Bill Horn, Chairman (A) Hon. Jillian Hanson-Cox, Councilmember (A) Hon. Ron Roberts, Vice Chairman

CITY OF ENCINITAS IMPERIAL COUNTY Hon. Christy Guerin, Mayor (Advisory Member) (A) Hon. Jerome Stocks, Councilmember Hon. Victor Carrillo, Chairman (A) Hon. David Ouzan, Councilmember CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Mayor CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (A) Hon. Ed Gallo, Mayor Pro Tem (Advisory Member) (A) Hon. Ron Newman, Councilmember Will Kempton, Director (A) Pedro Orso-Delgado, District 11 Director CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Hon. Patricia McCoy, Councilmember METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM (A) Hon. Diane Rose, Mayor (Advisory Member) (A) Hon. Mayda Winter, Councilmember Harry Mathis, Chairman (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Vice Chairman CITY OF LA MESA (A) Hon. Bob Emery, Board Member Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor (A) Hon. Barry Jantz, Councilmember NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (A) Hon. David Allan, Vice Mayor (Advisory Member) Hon. Jerome Stocks, Chairman CITY OF LEMON GROVE (A) Hon. Lesa Heebner, Planning Committee Chair Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom, Mayor (A) Hon. Norine Sigafoose, Monitoring Committee Chair (A) Hon. Jerry Jones, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jerry Selby, Councilmember U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Advisory Member) CITY OF NATIONAL CITY CAPT Michael Giorgione, USN, CEC Hon. Ron Morrison, Vice Mayor Commanding Officer, Southwest Division (A) Hon. Frank Parra, Councilmember Naval Facilities Engineering Command (A) Hon. Louie Natividad, Councilmember (A) CAPT Steve Wirsching, USN, CEC Executive Officer, Southwest Division CITY OF OCEANSIDE Naval Facilities Engineering Command Hon. Shari Mackin, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Esther Sanchez, Councilmember SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (A) Hon. Jim Wood, Mayor (Advisory Member) Vacant CITY OF POWAY (A) Michael Bixler, Commissioner Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Mayor (A) Hon. Robert Emery, Councilmember SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (A) Hon. Don Higginson, Councilmember (Advisory Member) Marilyn Dailey, Commissioner CITY OF SAN DIEGO (A) Mark Muir, Commissioner Hon. Jerry Sanders, Mayor Hon. Jim Madaffer, Councilmember MEXICO (A) Hon. Scott Peters, Council President (Advisory Member) Hon. Luis Cabrera C. Consulate General of Mexico

As of September 22, 2006 ii

ABSTRACT

TITLE: 2006 Older Adult Transportation Needs Survey

AUTHOR: San Diego Association of Governments

DATE: December 2006

SOURCE OF San Diego Association of Governments COPIES: 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 699-1900

NUMBER OF PAGES: 52

ABSTRACT: The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) conducted a survey to learn more about the transportation needs of older adult transportation agency clients in the San Diego region. The results of the survey are included in this report.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 Introduction...... 3 Summary of Results...... 3 About the Respondents...... 3 Typical Transportation Needs ...... 3 Specific Transportation Services...... 4 INTRODUCTION...... 7 SUMMARY OF RESULTS...... 11 About the Respondents ...... 11 Insurance Providers...... 12 Driver’s License...... 13 Mobility Limitations...... 15 Typical Transportation Needs...... 16 Specific Transportation Services ...... 27 Private Taxi Service ...... 28 ADA Paratransit Services ...... 29 Supplemental Transportation Services...... 31 Public Transit ...... 32 CONCLUSIONS ...... 37 APPENDICES A. Cross-Tabulations...... 41 B. Survey Form

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 What Is Your Age? (Question 1)...... 11 Figure 2 Age Distributions of Survey Respondents and County Residents...... 12 Figure 3 Possession of Driver’s License by Age (Question 4)...... 13 Figure 4 If You Don’t Have a Driver’s License, Why? (Question 4a)...... 14 Figure 5 If You Need Assistance to Walk, Do You Use Any of the Following? (Question 5a)...... 15 Figure 6 If You Have Other Limitations, Please Check All That Apply. (Question 6a)...... 16 Figure 7 Older Adult Trip Origin Map...... 17 Figure 8 Older Adult Trip Destination Map ...... 18 Figure 9 What Times Do You Usually Travel? Check All That Apply. (Question 3b)...... 19 Figure 10 Times Typically Traveled by Age (Question 3b) ...... 20 Figure 11 What Days Do You Usually Travel? Check All That Apply (Question 3c) ...... 21 Figure 12 Days Typically Traveled by Age (Question 3c)...... 21 Figure 13 Typical Needs for Transportation (Question 7)...... 22 Figure 14 Frequency of Medical Needs Trips by Age ...... 24 Figure 15 Frequency of School-Related Trips by Age...... 24 Figure 16 Frequency of Trips for Entertainment by Age ...... 25 Figure 17 Frequency of Work-Related Trips by Age...... 25 Figure 18 Frequency of Shopping Trips by Age...... 26 Figure 19 Frequency of Trips to Church by Age ...... 26 Figure 20 Frequency of Trips for Social Visits by Age...... 27 Figure 21 Frequency of Trips for Other Purposes by Age ...... 27 Figure 22 Use of Private Taxi Service by Age ...... 28 Figure 23 Use of ADA Paratransit Services by Age ...... 29 Figure 24 Being ADA Certified by Age...... 30 Figure 25 Use of STPs by Age ...... 31

vii

Figure 26 If You Regularly Used STP in the Past Year, Which Type Did You Use? Check All That Apply. (Question 10a) ...... 31 Figure 27 Receiving Transportation from Other People by Age ...... 32 Figure 28 Using Public Transportation by Age ...... 33

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Who Is Your Health Insurance Carrier? (Question 2)...... 13 Table 2 Reasons for Not Having a Driver’s License by Age (Percent of Respondents) ...... 14 Table 3 Times Typically Traveled by Age (Percent of Responses) ...... 19 Table 4 Typical Needs for Transportation by Frequency of Trips (Question 7)...... 23 Table 5 Typical Needs for Transportation by Age (Percent of Responses) ...... 23 Table 6 If You Do Not Regularly Use Private Taxis, Why Not? Check All That Apply. (Question 8b) ...... 28 Table 7 If You Don’t Use Paratransit Services, Why? (Question 9b) ...... 30 Table 8 If You Don’t Use Transit, Why? Check All That Apply. (Question 11a) ...... 33 Table 9 Have You Regularly Used Private Taxis In The Past Year?” by Age Group (Question 8 by Question 1)...... 41 Table 10 Are You ADA Certified? by Age Group (Question 9 by Question 1)...... 41 Table 11 Have You Regularly Used A STP In The Past Year? by Age Group (Question 10 by Question 1)...... 41 Table 12 Do You Use Public Transit? by Age Group (Question 11 by Question 1) ...... 42 Table 13 Have You Regularly Used Private Taxis In The Past Year? by What Times Do You Usually Travel? (Question 8 by Question 3b) ...... 42 Table 14 Are You ADA Certified? by What Times Do You Usually Travel? (Question 9 by Question 3b) ...... 42 Table 15 Have You Regularly Used Private Taxis In The Past Year? by “Do You Have a Driver’s License?” (Question 8 by Question 4)...... 43 Table 16 Are You ADA Certified? by Do You Have A Driver’s License? (Question 9 by Question 4) ...... 43 Table 17 Have You Regularly Used A STP In The Past Year? by Do You Have A Driver’s License? (Question 10 by Question 4) ...... 43 Table 18 Do You Use Public Transit? by Do You Have A Driver’s License? (Question 11 by Question 4) ...... 43 Table 19 Have You Regularly Used A STP In The Past Year? by Selected ZIP Codes (Question 10 by Question 3) ...... 44 Table 20 Do You Use Public Transit? by Selected ZIP Codes (Question 11 by Question 3) ...... 44

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) conducted a survey to learn more about the transportation needs of older adult transportation agency clients in the San Diego region. The information collected in the survey will be used by regional social service and transportation agencies to improve transportation services for older adults in the region and to help develop the TransNet Senior Mini-Grant Program. The survey is only intended to represent older adults who currently use agency services. It is not intended to represent all older adults in the San Diego region.

The survey was sent by mail to 24,578 clients, age 60 years and older, throughout the County. The sampling frame was composed of addresses provided by various social service and transportation agencies which work with seniors within the region. SANDAG distributed the survey to these agencies which in turn sent one survey to each address on their lists. The mailing garnered 2,354 completed surveys for a 9.6 percent response rate. Due to the low response rate, some caution should be used when interpreting these results. Low response rates are often subject to bias.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The 2006 Older Adult Transportation Needs Survey form contained eleven questions, most of which had multiple parts. The questions fell into three broad categories: questions about the respondent, questions about typical transportation needs, and questions about specific transportation services.

About the Respondents

The majority of survey respondents (61 percent) are between the ages of 60 to 79 years old. They use a variety of health insurance companies, with Kaiser having the largest percentage (23 percent). Most of the respondents have a driver’s license (68 percent). One-third of those that do not have a license indicated that they “do not feel safe driving.” Even though most of the respondents are able to walk without help, a large percentage need assistance (27 percent). Of those, half (51 percent) use a cane to walk and nearly half of the survey participants (42 percent) said they have other limitations that affect their ability to travel. Of those, the most common response was “cannot walk more than one quarter of a mile.”

Typical Transportation Needs

According to the survey, seniors travel the most between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Additionally, they travel more during the week than on weekends. The most common transportation trip needs are medical and shopping trips, both of which garnered a 23 percent response rate. The survey also revealed that transportation to medical services is needed mostly on a monthly basis, while shopping trips are needed on a weekly basis.

3

Specific Transportation Services

The vast majority of survey participants (87 percent) do not regularly use taxi service. Most respondents indicated that taxi service is too expensive. Almost nine out of ten respondents (89 percent) do not use ADA Paratransit Services. Furthermore, many of those who do not ride do not know about the service (16 percent). Similarly, most respondents (87 percent) do not regularly use supplemental transportation services, such as free community-based car or van services. Public transit is used more by respondents than any of the services with over a third of the older adults surveyed using public transit (36 percent), including the bus or trolley.

4

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) conducted a survey to learn more about the transportation needs of older adult transportation agency clients in the San Diego region. The information collected in the survey will be used by regional social service and transportation agencies to improve transportation services for older adults in the region and to develop the TransNet Senior Mini-Grant Program. The survey is only intended to represent older adults who currently use agency services. It is not intended to represent all older adults in the San Diego region.

The survey was sent by mail to 24,578 clients, age 60 years and older, throughout the County. The sampling frame was composed of addresses provided by various social service and transportation agencies which work with seniors within the region. SANDAG distributed the survey to these agencies which in turn sent one survey to each address on their lists. The mailing garnered 2,354 completed surveys for a 9.6 percent response rate. Due to the low response rate, some caution should be used when interpreting these results. Low response rates are often subject to bias.

This report presents the findings of the 2006 Older Adult Transportation Needs Survey. The Summary of Results section describes the responses to the survey questions. A summary of relevant cross-tabulations is included in Appendix A. A copy of the survey form is included in Appendix B.

7

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The 2006 Older Adult Transportation Needs Survey form contained eleven questions, most of which had multiple parts. The questions fell into three broad categories: questions about the respondent, questions about typical transportation needs, and questions about specific transportation services. The following section describes participant responses and highlights significant findings.

ABOUT THE RESPONDENTS

Most of the survey respondents are under 79 years old (61 percent), as shown in Figure 1. Those 75 to 79 years old make up the largest single five-year age group (21 percent). There is a sharp decline in survey respondents beginning at age 90, with respondents 90 or older making up only 5.4 percent of all the survey respondents.

Figure 1 What Is Your Age? (Question 1)

25% 20.8% 20.5% 20% 17.1%

15% 13.9% 13.1%

9.2% 10%

4.5% 5% 0.8% 0.1% 0% 60 -64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-94 95-99 100+ Age (years)

11

However, the age distribution of survey respondents does not correspond to the age distribution of older adults in the County of San Diego, as shown in Figure 2. The difference between the age distribution of County residents and survey respondents may be because the members of the lower age groups have a lower propensity to use agency services, and therefore, may not be well represented on the agency lists used to distribute this survey.

Figure 2 Age Distributions of Survey Respondents and County Residents

30% 24.8% 25% 20.8% 19.4% 20.5% 18.4% 20% 17.1% 17.0% 15.4% 13.9% 15% 12.5% 10.9% 9.2% 10%

5%

0% 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

Age (years) Survey respondents 2005 Population Estimates

Because of the difference between the age distribution of survey respondents and the age distribution of older adult residents of San Diego County, much of the analysis in this report will be separated into 4 age groups: 60 to 69, 70 to 79, 80 to 89, and 90 to 100-plus so they can be analyzed separately and trends can be observed.

Insurance Providers

More respondents (23 percent) are insured by Kaiser than any other health insurance carrier. Table 1 shows the region’s most common health insurance carriers and the percentage of respondents insured by each of them. After Kaiser, the next most common carriers are Secure Horizons and Medicare, with 22 percent each.

12

Table 1 Who Is Your Health Insurance Carrier? (Question 2) Percent of Health Insurance Carrier Respondents Kaiser 23.1% Secure Horizons 22.0% Medicare 21.7% Medi-Cal 11.0% Blue Cross 8.1% Pacificare 3.4% Aetna 1.8% Health Net 1.8% Tri-Care 1.3% Other 5.8% Total 100.0%

Driver’s License

Survey participants were asked additional questions to gauge their need for transportation services. Across all age groups, the majority of respondents (68 percent) have a driver’s license, but a significant percentage does not (32 percent). As shown in Figure 3, as age increases, the percentage of respondents reporting having a driver’s license decreased.

Figure 3 Possession of Driver’s License by Age (Question 4)

100% Yes No

27.1% 25.9% 36.4% 80% 62.8% 60%

40% 72.9 % 74.1% 63.6%

20% 37.2% Percent ofRespondents

0% 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 100+ Age (years)

13

Across all age groups, a third of the respondents that do not have a license also do not feel safe driving. As shown in Figure 4, additional reasons were given for not having a license: use public transit (17 percent), license was revoked or restricted (13 percent), and problems with eyesight (9 percent).

Figure 4 If You Don’t Have a Driver’s License, Why? (Question 4a)

Other Medical condition Do not feel safe 17.3% 3.3% driving License was restricted 33.3% 4.0%

Don't have a car 7.0% Problems with Use public transit eyesight 16.8% 8.9% License was revoked 9.4%

When examining the data for the reasons for not having a driver’s license by 10-year age groups, there were no clear trends, as shown in Table 2. However, when analyzing the data by 20-year age groups, it is apparent that respondents 80 years of age or older were more likely to have had their license revoked and were less likely to use public transit.

Table 2 Reasons for Not Having a Driver’s License by Age (Percent of Respondents) Do not License License feel Use Age was was safe public Groups restricted revoked driving transit Other* Total 60 to 69 3.9% 4.7% 26.0% 23.6% 41.7% 100.0% 70 to 79 3.6% 7.3% 25.9% 26.9% 36.3% 100.0% 80 to 89 5.4% 11.6% 43.6% 8.3% 31.1% 100.0% 90 to 100+ 1.4% 10.1% 30.4% 8.7% 49.3% 100.0% * A medical condition was the most common "other" response.

14

Mobility Limitations

As shown in Figure 5, most of the respondents are able to walk without assistance (74 percent), but again, a large percentage of them need assistance (27 percent).1 Over half of those that need assistance use a cane to walk (51 percent). More than one out of four that need assistance use a walker (28 percent), and 17 percent use a wheelchair.

Figure 5 If You Need Assistance to Walk, Do You Use Any of the Following? (Question 5a)

Wheelchair, 17.1 Other, 4.1%

Cane, 50.8%

Walker, 28.1%

Additionally, survey participants were asked if they had any other limitations that might affect their ability to travel, as shown in Figure 6. Almost half of them answered “yes” (42 percent). Of those who answered “yes,” not being able to walk more than one quarter of a mile (42 percent) was the most common answer given. The next most common response was poor vision (21 percent). Arthritis and heart problems were the most prevalent write-in responses in the “other” category.

1 Total does not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

15

Figure 6 If You Have Other Limitations, Please Check All That Apply. (Question 6a)

Cannot walk more than 1/4 mile 42.0%

Poor vision 21.4%

Cannot 18.1% balance/dizzy spells

Dementia or 3.3% Limitations to Travel to Limitations Alzheimers

Other 15.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Responses

TYPICAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

The survey instruments asked questions about typical transportation needs, such as where are you traveling to and from, what times and days do you usually travel, and what are your typical trip purposes.

The respondents were asked to report the zip codes that they usually travel to and from, as shown in Figure 7. The following maps detail the origins and destinations reported by the survey respondents for their typical trips.

16

Figure 7 Older Adult Trip Origin Map

The most common responses for respondent’s trip origins were in the zip codes from Oceanside, La Mesa, El Cajon, Poway, Encinitas, and parts of San Diego including the Golden Triangle area. These results are generally consistent with census data on concentrations of seniors in the County. The most commonly reported zip code for trip destinations were the zip codes that include hospitals and concentrations of medical and dental offices, as shown in Figure 8.

17

Figure 8 Older Adult Trip Destination Map

Survey participants across all age groups travel in the middle of the day more than any other time of the day. As shown in Figure 9, there is little travel before 6 a.m. Travel increases during the morning and peaks between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. (41 percent). Between 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. (26 percent) is the next most popular time to travel, while travel tapers off during the evening.

18

Figure 9 What Times Do You Usually Travel? Check All That Apply. (Question 3b)

50%

40% 40.5%

30% 26.0% 23.8% 20%

10% 8.0%

0% 1.7% Before 6 a.m. 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. to After 6 p.m. 10 a.m. 2 p.m. 6 p.m.

Time of Day

Older survey respondents showed an increased propensity to travel midday, as shown in Table 3. Also, as age increases, the percentage of respondents reporting traveling after 6 p.m. or before 6 a.m. decreased, as shown in Figure 10.

Table 3 Times Typically Traveled by Age (Percent of Responses) Before 6 6 a.m. to 10 10 a.m. to 2 2 p.m. to 6 Age Groups a.m. a.m. p.m. p.m. After 6 p.m. Total 60 to 69 2.0% 26.2% 32.7% 27.2% 12.1% 100.0% 70 to 79 2.3% 24.8% 39.6% 24.8% 8.6% 100.0% 80 to 89 1.1% 21.1% 47.4% 25.9% 4.4% 100.0% 90 to 100+ 0.0% 18.6% 50.0% 28.7% 2.7% 100.0%

19

Figure 10 Times Typically Traveled by Age (Question 3b)

60% 60 to 69 70 to 79 50% 80 to 89 90 to 100+ 40%

30%

20% Percent of Responses Percent of 10%

0% Before 6 a.m. 6 a.m. to 10 10 a.m. to 2 2 p.m. to 6 After 6 p.m. a.m. p.m. p.m. Time of Day

When respondents were asked which day of the week they usually travel, they indicated the tendency of traveling more during the week than on the weekdays. Figure 11 shows the percent of responses given for each day of the week. While the Monday through Friday responses are relatively evenly distributed, ranging from 15 percent to 17 percent, the response rate from traveling on Saturday and Sunday is much lower at approximately 10 percent.

20

Figure 11 What Days Do You Usually Travel? Check All That Apply. (Question 3c)

20%

16.6% 16.7% 16.3% 15.4% 15.6% 15%

10% 9.6% 9.7%

Percent of Responses of Percent 5%

0% Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Day of the Week

Respondents in the older age groups tended to report traveling more on the weekdays and less on the weekends, as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12 Days Typically Traveled by Age (Question 3c)

Weekday Weekend 100% 13 . 8 % 21.2% 19 . 6 % 18 . 0 % 80%

60%

86.2% 40% 78.8% 80.4% 82.0%

20% Percent of Responses Percent of

0% 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 100+ Age (years)

21

Respondents were also asked about their typical transportation needs by the frequency of those trips. The most common transportation needs are medical trips and shopping trips (23 percent each), as shown in Figure 13. The next most frequent transportation need is social visits (15 percent), followed by entertainment (14 percent), church (12 percent), and school and work (4 percent).

Figure 13 Typical Needs for Transportation (Question 7)

Medical 23.1%

Shopping 22.6%

Social Visits 14.6%

Entertainiment 14.3%

Church 12.3%

Work 4.1% Transportation Needs Transportation School 4.1%

Other 4.9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Percent of Responses

Responses also were tallied within the trip purpose type by the frequency of its need. Table 4 shows these results. As can be expected for those 60 years and older, school and work have the most “never” responses (59 percent each), indicating less need to go to those places. Transportation needs to medical services is needed mostly on a monthly basis for older adults (67 percent). Survey participants tend to need transportation to church, shopping, social visits, and entertainment on a weekly basis.

22

Table 4 Typical Needs for Transportation by Frequency of Trips (Question 7)

Transportation Needs Daily Weekly Monthly Never **Total Medical 7.2% 21.8% 67.0% 3.9% 100.0% School 11.1% 24.5% 5.9% 58.5% 100.0% Entertainment 13.6% 45.3% 30.2% 10.9% 100.0% Work 20.4% 15.7% 5.4% 58.5% 100.0% Shopping 19.9% 63.4% 13.6% 3.1% 100.0% Church 8.6% 64.9% 7.8% 18.7% 100.0% Social Visits 17.3% 50.3% 21.6% 10.8% 100.0% *Other 46.0% 35.3% 10.2% 8.6% 100.0% *Senior & recreation centers, fitness activites, and volunteer activities are the **Total may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Increased medical trips and decreased social, entertainment, and work trips were apparent in higher age groups, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Typical Needs for Transportation by Age (Percent of Responses) Social Total Age Groups Medical School Entertain. Work Shopping Church Visits Other Responses 60 to 69 19.1% 5.2% 15.8% 6.9% 20.4% 12.5% 15.5% 4.7% 100.0% 70 to 79 22.8% 4.0% 14.5% 3.8% 22.6% 12.4% 15.1% 4.7% 100.0% 80 to 89 26.0% 3.3% 13.0% 2.4% 24.3% 12.0% 13.9% 5.3% 100.0% 90 to 100+ 28.6% 3.1% 11.6% 0.8% 26.3% 12.7% 10.4% 6.6% 100.0%

23

The following figures indicate the percentage of responses for the frequency of trips (“Daily,” “Weekly,” “Monthly,” or “Never”) for each individual transportation need, split up by 10-year age categories. As age increased, the number of respondents who required medical needs trips weekly and monthly increased, the respondents indicating they never required medical trips decreased, while the percentage reporting daily trips remained about the same, as shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14 Frequency of Medical Needs Trips by Age

2.6% 3.2% 1. 3 % 100% 7.4%

80% 64.0% 60% 62.5% 69.1% 69.1%

40%

20% 22.3% 21.4% 20.8% 29.3%

7.7% 6.3% 7.5% Percent ofResponses 0% 5.3% 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 100+ Age (years) Daily Weekly Monthly Never

As age increased, the percentage of respondents reporting monthly school-related trips increased, the percentage reporting daily school-related trips decreased, and the percentage reporting “Weekly” and “Never” fluctuated, as shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15 Frequency of School-Related Trips by Age

100%

80% 62.4% 57.2% 55.2% 61.9% 60%

3.8% 40% 8.6% 6.1% 9.5% 27.1% 21.5% 23.7% 20% 28.6% 13 . 8 % 10 . 0 % 10 . 5 % Percent ofResponses 0% 0.0% 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 100+ Age (years) Daily Weekly Monthly Never

As age increased, the percentage of respondents reporting never needing trips for entertainment increased, and the percentages reporting “Daily,” “Weekly,” and “Monthly” fluctuated, as shown in Figure 16. In the 90 to 100-plus age group a substantial increase in daily and weekly trips were noted, with a dramatic decrease in monthly entertainment trips.

24

Figure 16 Frequency of Trips for Entertainment by Age

100% 12 . 6% 10 . 4 % 8.6% 16 . 7 %

80% 29.6% 11. 1% 29.1% 34.9% 60% 47.2% 40% 48.7% 44.2% 42.6% 20% 25.0% 13.1% 14.2% 12 . 1% 0% 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 100+ Age (years) Daily Weekly Monthly Never

As age increased, the percentage of respondents reporting daily trips for work-related activities decreased, while the percentage reporting “Never” increased, as shown in Figure 17. Those reporting “Weekly” and “Monthly” fluctuated with age. Respondents in the 90 to 100-plus age category reported a dramatic drop in weekly transportation needs for work-related trips going from 16.7 percent to 6.3 percent, and the percentage requiring daily work trips dropped from 12.5 percent to 0 percent.

Figure 17 Frequency of Work-Related Trips by Age

100%

80% 46.1% 63.6% 67.4%

60% 87.5% 4.3% 40% 15 . 9 % 6.2% 3.5% 14 . 5 % 16 . 7 % 20% 33.6% 15 . 6 % 6.3% 12 . 5 % 6.3% Percent of Responses 0% 0.0% 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 100+ Age (years) Daily Weekly Monthly Never

As age increased, the percentage of respondents taking daily shopping trips and reporting never taking shopping trips decreased, the percentage reporting taking monthly shopping trips increased, and those reporting weekly shopping trips fluctuated, as shown in Figure 18.

25

Figure 18 Frequency of Shopping Trips by Age

3.1% 2.8% 100% 3.4% 1. 4 % 10 . 4 % 11. 6 % 16.6% 18.8% 80%

60% 64.2% 64.3% 62.1% 68.1% 40%

20% 22.1% 21.0% 18 . 4 % 11. 6 %

Percent of Responses Percent of 0% 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 100+ Age (years) Daily Weekly Monthly Never

As the age of respondents increased, the percentage reporting weekly trips to church increased, while those reporting daily trips decreased, as shown in Figure 19. Those reporting “Monthly” and “Never” fluctuated.

Figure 19 Frequency of Trips to Church by Age

100% 14 . 0 % 20.5% 19 . 5 % 22.0% 9.4% 80% 6.5% 7.3% 7.3% 60%

68.0% 40% 60.8% 64.6% 70.7%

20% 10 . 7 % 8.6% 0% 7.6% 2.4% 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 100+ Daily Weekly Age (years) Monthly Never

As the age of respondents increased, the percentage reporting weekly trips for social visits decreased, while those indicating monthly trips increased until age 90, at which point the percentage dropped from 24.9 percent to 20.6 percent, as shown in Figure 20. The percentage of respondents reporting daily social trips varied between 16.2 percent and 18.2 percent, and those reporting “Never” had a dramatic increase at age 90, from 10.0 percent to 20.6 percent.

26

Figure 20 Frequency of Trips for Social Visits by Age

100% 10 . 0 % 10 . 0 % 11. 3 % 20.6%

80% 19 . 2 % 2 1. 7 % 24.9% 20.6% 60%

51.3% 50.9% 40% 48.9% 41.2% 20% 18.2% 17.4% 16 . 2 % 17 . 6 %

Percent of Responses 0% 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 100+ Age (years) Daily Weekly Monthly Never

None of the responses for trips for other purposes showed any clear trends; however, “Daily” had by far the largest percentage across all age groups, as shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21 Frequency of Trips for Other Purposes by Age

10 . 1% 6.3% 100% 7.5% 10 . 5 % 8.6% 11. 6 % 10 . 9 % 5.3 % 80% 26.3% 34.4% 33.9% 60% 38.4%

40% 57.9 % 49.5% 48.2% 20% 40.6% Percent of Responses 0% 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 100+ Age (years) Daily Weekly Monthly Never

SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

The third broad category of survey questions focused on specific transportation services for older adults. These services include private taxi services, ADA Paratransit Services, and supplemental transportation services.

27

Private Taxi Service

The vast majority of survey participants do not regularly use private taxi services. More than eight out of ten respondents replied that they had not regularly used taxis within the last year (87 percent), while only 13 percent indicated they had, as shown in Figure 22. The percentage of respondents that reported using private taxi service fluctuated with age; however, those respondents falling in the 90 to 100-plus age category were the most likely to use this service at 19 percent.

Figure 22 Use of Private Taxi Service by Age

100% Yes No

80%

81% 60% 86% 89% 87%

40%

20%

Percent of Respondents 19 % 14 % 11% 13 % 0% 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100+ Age (years)

The survey followed up to this question by asking why respondents did not use taxi service. Table 6 shows the results for that question. Most people indicated that taxi service was too expensive, with 40 percent of the responses.

Table 6 If You Do Not Regularly Use Private Taxis, Why Not? Check All That Apply. (Question 8b) Percent of Reasons for not using private taxis Responses Too expensive 39.8% Use other services 19.5% Drive myself 14.7% Unreliable 9.1% No access for wheelchairs 3.5% Family or friend gives me ride 3.0% Other 10.3% Total Responses 100.0%

28

Additionally, a follow-up question was asked of those who had regularly used taxis regarding their experiences. Of those, the largest proportion revealed that it was a good experience (44 percent). Thirty-one percent said it was an average experience, while 25 percent indicated it was a poor experience.

ADA Paratransit Services

While most of the survey participants do not use ADA Paratransit Services (89 percent), such as Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Access, MTS Suburban, and North County Transit District LIFT, the majority of those who are ADA certified to ride the service do use it, as shown in Figure 23. As the age of survey respondents increased, so did the percentage reporting using ADA Paratransit Services.

Figure 23 Use of ADA Paratransit Services by Age

100% Yes No

80%

60% 82.3% 87.6% 91.8% 88.9%

40%

20%

Percent ofRespondents 17 . 7 % 12 . 4 % 8.2% 11. 1% 0% 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 100+ Age (years)

Seventy percent of ADA certified respondents ride paratransit services, as shown in Figure 24. However, many of the respondents were not ADA certified, which is required in order to use the services. Three out of four respondents indicated that they were not certified, while 12 percent indicated they were. Thirteen percent did not know if they were certified or not. In the older age groups, the percentage of respondents reporting being ADA certified or not knowing if they were certified increased.

29

Figure 24 Being ADA Certified by Age

100% 10 % 11% 17 % 19 % 80%

60% 78% 56% 80% 70 % 40%

20% 25% Percent of Responses 12 % 10 % 13 % 0% 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100+

Age (years) Yes No Don't Know

When all respondents, regardless of whether they were ADA certified or not, were asked why they did not use the service, the most common response given is that they “do not know about the service” (16 percent), as shown in Table 7. The next most common response was that they have “no need for the service,” with 12 percent.

Table 7 If You Don’t Use Paratransit Services, Why? (Question 9b) Reasons for not using ADA Paratransit Percent of Services Responses Don't know about the service 15.7% No need for service 11.8% Live outside of service area 8.5% Able to drive myself 8.4% Cannot transfer between services 6.2% Cannot get to the curb 2.9% Limited to one trip/errand per day 2.9% Pending certification 2.9% Denied certification 1.3% Other 39.4% Total Responses 100.0%

30

Supplemental Transportation Services

The survey also revealed that respondents do not regularly use supplemental transportation services (STP), as shown in Figure 25. More than eight out of ten respondents (87 percent) indicated that they had not regularly used STP in the past year, while only 13 percent had, as shown in Figure 26. Volunteer service was the most commonly used service with a quarter of the responses. The free car or van service was the next most commonly used service (23 percent). The trend of a slight increase between age and those individuals regularly using STPs suggests a positive relationship between the use of STPs and older age groups.

Figure 25 Use of STPs by Age

100% Yes No

80%

81.6% 60% 87.2% 87.4% 87.7%

40%

20% Percent of Respondents 18 . 4 % 12.8% 12.6% 12.3% 0% 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100+ Age (years)

Figure 26 If You Regularly Used STP in the Past Year, Which Type Did You Use? Check All That Apply. (Question 10a)

30%

24.7% 24.4% 25% 22.6%

20%

15.2% 15%

10% 7.9% 5.2% 5%

0% Volunteer Free car or Local Taxi Church Other van service shuttle voucher

31

Participants also were asked if they regularly receive transportation from other people, such as friends or family. Forty percent of respondents regularly receive rides from family and 38 percent regularly receive rides from friends, as shown in Figure 27. A small portion of respondents (12 percent) also receive transportation from neighbors. The trend of increased reporting of receiving rides from family members as age increases suggests a positive relationship between receiving rides from family members and older age groups. A negative relationship between age and receiving rides from friends also seems to be suggested by the survey respondents. There is no distinct trend visible for receiving rides from neighbors.

Figure 27 Receiving Transportation from Other People by Age

Friends 100% Neighbor

Family32.2% 80% 38.2% 37.9% 37.6%

60% 14 . 9 % 15 . 4 % 15 . 1% 13 . 6 %

40%

52.9% 46.5% 47.0% 48.8% 20% Percent of Responses Percent of

0% 60 to 69 70 to 79 80 to 89 90 to 100+ Age (years)

Public Transit

Public transit is used more by respondents than any of the services listed above. Over a third of the older adults surveyed use public transit (36 percent), such as the bus or trolley, as shown in Figure 28. Of the 64 percent that have not used it, “have never used it” is the most common reason for not riding it (16 percent). That was followed by “waiting time is too long” with 14 percent, as shown in Table 8.

Additionally, the greatest proportion of respondents indicated that transit training would not make them more likely to ride transit (46 percent). Twenty-three percent said it would make them more likely to ride transit, while almost a third (31 percent) are not sure. As age increases, the percentage of respondents reporting using public transit decreased dramatically, and this coupled with the percentage older respondents having a license decreasing, would seem to indicate and overall decrease in mobility for older seniors.

32

Figure 28 Using Public Transportation by Age

100% Yes No

80% 47.6% 61.6% 74.3% 60% 84.6%

40%

52.4% 20% 38.4%

Percent ofRespondents 25.7% 15 . 4 % 0% 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100+ Age (years)

Table 8 If You Don’t Use Transit, Why? Check All That Apply. (Question 11a) Percent of Reasons given for not riding transit Responses Have never used public transit 16.4% Waiting time is too long 13.5% Drive myself 11.1% More buses/routes needed 10.6% Service is too far away 8.4% Safety or security issues 6.6% Bus stops unfriendly 6.6% Fare 5.2% Not reliable 5.0% Don't need it 4.2% Medical reasons 2.5% Pedestrian accident is a concern 2.2% Bus driver issues 1.2% Other 6.6% Total responses 100.0%

33

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

The issues and demands highlighted in the survey results will intensify in the future as the number of older adults in the region increase, in both number and percentage of the population. How best to meet these travel needs underscores the importance of the SANDAG smart growth policies. The task will be easier if seniors reside in communities where shopping and medical facilities are nearby and well served by public transportation, versus suburban communities that are difficult to serve with transit and require the use of expensive paratransit services.

The information received from this survey will be used as SANDAG begins the process to define the rules and criteria for the Senior Mini-Grant Program to be funded by TransNet beginning in 2009. The survey results highlight key areas, such as the need for improved and expanded travel training, and enhanced transportation services oriented to basic mobility needs, such as shopping and medical appointments outside of traditional peak travel periods.

37

APPENDIX A

CROSS-TABULATIONS2

In addition to the standard tabulations, various cross-tabulations were requested. The results are in this section.

Table 9 Have You Regularly Used Private Taxis In The Past Year?” by Age Group (Question 8 by Question 1)

Age Groups Yes No Total 60-69 14.1% 85.9% 100.0% 70-79 11.3% 88.7% 100.0% 80-89 13.1% 86.9% 100.0% 90-100+ 18.8% 81.3% 100.0%

Table 10 Are You ADA Certified? by Age Group (Question 9 by Question 1)

Don't Age Groups Yes No Know Total 60-69 11.9% 78.4% 9.7% 100.0% 70-79 9.8% 79.6% 10.6% 100.0% 80-89 12.9% 70.5% 16.7% 100.0% 90-100+ 25.3% 55.6% 19.2% 100.0%

Table 11 Have You Regularly Used A STP In The Past Year? by Age Group (Question 10 by Question 1)

Age Groups Yes No Total 60-69 12.8% 87.2% 100.0% 70-79 12.6% 87.4% 100.0% 80-89 12.3% 87.7% 100.0% 90-100+ 18.4% 81.6% 100.0%

2 Please note caution should be used when interpreting these small sample results.

41

Table 12 Do You Use Public Transit? by Age Group (Question 11 by Question 1)

Age Groups Yes No Total 60-69 52.4% 47.6% 100.0% 70-79 38.4% 61.6% 100.0% 80-89 25.7% 74.3% 100.0% 90-100+ 15.4% 84.6% 100.0%

Table 13 Have You Regularly Used Private Taxis In The Past Year? by What Times Do You Usually Travel? (Question 8 by Question 3b)

Total Usual Travel Times Yes No Responses Before 6 a.m. 17.3% 82.7% 100.0% 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. 13.2% 86.8% 100.0% 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. 12.8% 87.2% 100.0% 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. 12.0% 88.0% 100.0% After 6 p.m. 13.7% 86.3% 100.0%

Table 14 Are You ADA Certified? by What Times Do You Usually Travel? (Question 9 by Question 3b)

Don't Total Usual Travel Times Yes No Know Responses Before 6 a.m. 15.4% 72.3% 12.3% 100.0% 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. 15.1% 72.3% 12.7% 100.0% 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. 12.8% 74.7% 12.5% 100.0% 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. 12.9% 73.9% 13.2% 100.0% After 6 p.m. 7.5% 80.8% 11.7% 100.0%

42

Table 15 Have You Regularly Used Private Taxis In The Past Year? by “Do You Have a Driver’s License?” (Question 8 by Question 4)

Driver's License Yes No Total Yes 9.0% 91.0% 100.0% No 20.1% 79.9% 100.0%

Table 16 Are You ADA Certified? by Do You Have A Driver’s License? (Question 9 by Question 4)

Don't Driver's License Yes No Know Total Yes 5.0% 84.6% 10.4% 100.0% No 27.5% 54.2% 18.3% 100.0%

Table 17 Have You Regularly Used A STP In The Past Year? by Do You Have A Driver’s License? (Question 10 by Question 4)

Driver's License Yes No Total Yes 8.1% 91.9% 100.0% No 21.9% 78.1% 100.0%

Table 18 Do You Use Public Transit? by Do You Have A Driver’s License? (Question 11 by Question 4)

Driver's License Yes No Total Yes 33.4% 66.6% 100.0% No 41.3% 58.7% 100.0%

43

Table 19 Have You Regularly Used A STP In The Past Year? by Selected ZIP Codes (Question 10 by Question 3)

ZIP Code Usually Travel From Yes No Total 91910 19.0% 81.0% 100.0% 91915 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 92024 27.9% 72.1% 100.0% 92054 5.9% 94.1% 100.0% 92056 2.7% 97.3% 100.0% 92057 4.5% 95.5% 100.0% 92124 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 92127 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 92128 37.8% 62.2% 100.0% Total 10.8% 89.2% 100.0%

Table 20 Do You Use Public Transit? by Selected ZIP Codes (Question 11 by Question 3)

ZIP Code Usually Travel From Yes No Total 91910 65.2% 34.8% 100.0% 91915 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 92024 41.3% 58.7% 100.0% 92054 33.5% 66.5% 100.0% 92056 19.7% 80.3% 100.0% 92057 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% 92124 20.0% 80.0% 100.0% 92127 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% 92128 9.1% 90.9% 100.0% Total 29.5% 70.5% 100.0%

44

45

APPENDIX B

Survey Form How can we improve transportation for Older Adults?

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is currently working to improve transportation for older adults within the San Diego region. If you are a senior, age 60 or over, please take a moment and complete this questionnaire. The results will provide us with some insight on the travel needs of older adults. All responses will remain confidential. When you are finished, please drop the questionnaire in the mail using the enclosed pre- paid return envelope by October 31, 2005. Please call (619) 699-7330 with questions. Thank you for your time! About You 1. If you are under age 60, please do not 4. Do you have a driver’s license? complete this survey. Thank you. □ 1. Yes □ 2. No What is your age? (Please write in) 4a. If not, why? □ ______□ 1. License was restricted □ 2. License was revoked 2. Who is your Health Insurance Carrier? □ 3. Do not feel safe driving □ 1. Aetna □ 5. Medicare □ 4. Use public transit □ 2. Blue Cross □ 6. Pacificare □ 5. Other: ______□ 3. Kaiser □ 7. Secure Horizons □ 4. Medi-Cal □ 8. Other: ______3. Which area do you usually travel from: 5. Are you able to walk without assistance? □ 1. Yes ______□ 2. No (Zip Code- or community if zip code not known) 5a. If no, do you use any of the following: 3a. Which area do you usually travel to: □ 1. Cane □ 2. Walker ______□ 3. Wheelchair (Zip Code- or community if zip code not known) □ 4. Other: ______

3b. What times do you usually travel? (All that apply) 6. Do you have any other limitations that might □ 1. Before 6:00 AM affect your ability to travel? □ 2. 6:00 AM – 10:00 AM □ 1. Yes □ 3. 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM □ 2. No □ 4. 2:00 PM – 6:00 PM □ 5. After 6:00 PM 6a. If yes, please check all that apply: □ 1. Dementia or Alzheimer’s 3c. What days do you usually travel? (All that apply) □ 2. Cannot walk more than ¼ of mile □ 1. Monday □ 4. Thursday □ 6. Saturday □ 3. Poor vision □ 2. Tuesday □ 5. Friday □ 7. Sunday □ 4. Cannot balance/Dizzy spells □ 3. Wednesday □ 5. Other: ______

7. Please mark Daily (A) Weekly (B) Monthly (C) Never (D) your typical 1. Medical need(s) for 2. School transportation. 3. Entertainment (Check all that 4. Work apply) 5. Shopping 6. Church 7. Social Visits 8. Other: (please write in) 49

About Specific Services Private Taxi Services are available throughout Supplemental Transportation Services (STP) offer a the San Diego Region. variety of community-type services throughout the San Diego region. 8. Have you regularly used private taxis in the past year? 10. Have you regularly used an STP in the past year? □ 1. Yes □ 2. No □ 1. Yes □ 2. No

8a. If yes, what was your experience like? 10a. If yes, which type? (check all that apply) □ 1. Good □ 1. Free car or van service □ 2. Poor □ 2. Taxi Voucher □ 3. Average □ 3. Church 8b. If no, why? (check all that apply) □ 4. Local Shuttle 5. Volunteer □ 1. Too expensive □ 6. Other:______□ 2. No access for wheelchairs □ □ 3. Unreliable 7. Program Name (if known):______□ 4. Use other services □ 5. Other______OR, do you regularly receive transportation from: □ 1. Family □ 3. Friends □ 2. Neighbor □ 4. Not applicable ADA Paratransit Services (MTS Access, MTS 11. Do you use public transit (bus, trolley)? Suburban, and LIFT) are available for □ 1. Yes □ 2. No individuals functionally unable to use public transit. You must be “ADA Certified” to ride paratransit services. 11a. If not, why? (please check all that apply) □ 1. Have never used public transit 9. Are you ADA Certified? □ 2. More buses/routes needed □ 1. Yes □ 2. No □ 3. Don’t Know □ 3. Not reliable (not on time, etc.) □ 4. Fare (too costly, can’t afford, etc.) 9a. Do you use ADA Paratransit Services? □ 5. Waiting time for bus/travel is too long □ 1. Yes □ 2. No □ 6. Bus driver issues (driver is rude, passes by, etc.) □ 7. Safety or security issues 9b. If not, why? □ 8. Bus stops unfriendly (no benches, restrooms, etc.) □ 1. Cannot transfer between services □ 9. Pedestrian accidents is a concern □ 2. Cannot get to the curb □ 10. Other: ______□ 3. Live outside of service area □ 4. Limited to one trip/errand per day 11b. Would Transit Travel Training with a group of □ 5. Denied certification seasoned instructor make you more likely to use the bus, □ 6. Pending certification trolley and/or other public transit? □ 7. Other______□ 1. Yes □ 2. No □ 3. Maybe Additional comments or thoughts: ______Optional: If you would like to receive publications such as our quarterly newsletters, fact sheets and workshop flyers about public and specialized transportation, please complete the information below. Name E-mail Address Phone City, State, ZIP

Thank you for your participation! 50

2007 Regional Transportation Plan: Transit Strategy for 2030 Unconstrained Plan

December 2006

Role of Transit in RTP • Regional transit system an integral part of the RTP multimodal approach • An effective transit system: – Provides More Travel Choices – Maximizes Person-Carrying Capacity – Reduces Demand on Highway Network – Focuses Transit Infrastructure in Smart Growth Areas

2

1 Initial Transit Scenarios - Purpose

• Designed as “sketch” planning exercise to test different strategies to: – Explore how best to maximize transit’s effectiveness – Assess benefits to overall highway/transit network – Provide input on potential RTP transit network revisions • Assumed a concurrent investment in roadways, including Managed Lanes/BRT/FasTrak strategy

3

Scenario Evaluation Results MOBILITY 2030: Updated Unconstrained Plan • Updated based on travel demand & COA/Fast Forward Plan • High frequency service in urban core doubles regional ridership (to 600,000 daily) • Arterial rapid bus network effective in key corridors

4

2 Scenario Evaluation Results Alternative Managed Lanes Strategies

• Two alternatives tested: 3+ carpool requirement, transit only lanes, in-line stations • Minimal increase in transit ridership (3-5%) • Negative impact on carpool usage and GP travel times • MTS would like to further assess I-805 corridor • In-line station design should increase BRT ridership

5

Scenario Evaluation Results Transit Corridor Guideways

• Developed grade-separated guideway network

6

3 Scenario Evaluation Results Transit Corridor Guideways and HOV/ Managed Lanes Network

7

Scenario Evaluation Results Transit Corridor Guideways • Developed grade-separated guideway network • Modest regional ridership increase (7%) • Most BRT increase (115%) diverted from rail and arterial rapid bus services • Guideways in Downtown-Kearny Mesa and UTC/Sorrento Mesa show potential • MTS would like to further assess I-805 corridor

8

4 Scenario Evaluation Results Downtown/Urban Core Focus • Strong downtown/urban core focus in four scenario concepts • Peak, home-work transit mode shares: – Downtown: 38-41% – UTC/UCSD: 13-17% – Kearny Mesa: 8-11% – Chula Vista: 9-10% – Escondido: 8-9% – Sorrento Mesa: 4-8%

9

Next Steps

• Create RTP Transit Network Vision based on recommended transit strategy • Combine with updated highway network to determine effective transit services • Bring progress report on Transit & Highway Network at 1/19/07 Transportation Committee meeting

10

5 Transit Strategy Option #1 • Develop network of urban core routes – 10-minute all day service – Arterial rapid bus network • Suburban services geared to demand • Peak services to key employment areas • Investment in transit priority measures • Further evaluation of selected guideways • Pursue RCP strategic initiatives

11

Transit Strategy - Option #2 • Develop network of urban core routes – 10-minute all day service/arterial rapid bus network • Suburban services geared to demand • Peak services to key employment areas • Investment in transit priority measures • Further evaluation of alternate ML strategy in I-805 corridor • Further evaluation of selected guideways, including I-805 corridor • Pursue RCP strategic initiatives 12

6 Recommendation • Approve a 2007 RTP Transit Strategy that includes both Options #1 and #2

13

2007 Regional Transportation Plan: Transit Strategy for 2030 Unconstrained Plan

December 2006

7

This Item Relates to Agenda Item #6 Transportation Committee December 8, 2006

**Revised** Applicant (Agency): Attachment 4 Project Name:

FY 2008 Bicycle Project Selection Criteria Matrix

Potential Category Criteria Score Points 1. Community Support/ Must have at least one of the following to Pass/Fail Consistency with qualify. Please attach supporting Community Plan documentation. 1. Resolution or minutes from City Council, County Board of Supervisors, local planning group, or Planning Commission. Or 2. Project is part of a Bicycle Plan that has been approved within the last five years. 2. Minimum Design Standards Must meet the minimum geometric standards Pass/Fail set forth in the Caltrans Highway Design manual. Design exceptions may be presented for consideration by the Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group with the understanding that initial project proposals must also include a design that meets minimum standards.

3. Connect to Regional Project is a part of, or connects to, a regional 10 Transportation Corridor or bikeway corridor as identified in the Regional Transit Linkage or Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Bikeway Map - 20 Points Maximum Project provides a direct connection to local 14 transit stop. Project provides a direct connection to regional 20 transit station. (LRT, Transit Center) 4. Completes Connection/ Provides segment of an identified and approved 4 Linkage in Existing bicycle facility. Bicycle Network - Completes connection in existing network or 20 20 Points Maximum upgrades existing facility. 5. Project Readiness * Projects are eligible for points following completion of each phase. 20 Points Maximum Feasibility Study 4 Preliminary Engineering ** 4 Environmental Clearance 4 Right-of-way Acquisition 4 Final Design ** 4 6. Geographic Factors/ Factors contributing to score are: proximity to 0 to 20 GIS Analysis - population and employment, population and 20 Points Maximum employment densities, and activity centers.

15 Applicant (Agency): Project Name:

FY 2008 Bicycle Project Selection Criteria Matrix

Potential Category Criteria Score Points 7. Safety Improvements - Completes connection in existing network at location with documented safety or accident history. 20 Points Maximum A. One to two correctable crashes 10 involving non-motorized users within the last three years. B. Three to four correctable crashes 15 involving non-motorized users within the last three years. C. Five or more correctable crashes 20 involving non-motorized users within the last three years. 8. Innovation and Design - Bicycle priority measures. Dedicated bicycle 10 10 Points Maximum signal heads, queue jumpers, bike box, colored lanes, cul-de-sac connector, bike boulevard, and bike station. Subtotal 9. Regional Housing Score is based on the number of affordable 0 to 25 Needs Incentive - housing units provided by the jurisdiction as a 50 25 50 Points Maximum portion of the cumulative total designated in their approved housing element. 10. Matching Funds - Matching funds can be from any of the (Matching 25 Points Maximum following sources: Funds) / 1. Identified and approved capital (Project funding from identified source. Cost) x 25 Please provide proof in the form of a resolution or letter of approval. 2. Approved match grant. 3. In-kind services. Please provide adequate support documentation. 11. Cost Benefit - Subtotal Score / Grant Application Amount 0 to 15 15 Points Maximum Total Score * Previous project milestones must be met before qualifying for subsequent funding. ** Preliminary Engineering and Final Designs will be subject to design review by SANDAG

16 **REVISED** Attachment 5

Applicant (Agency): Project Name:

FY 2008 Pedestrian Project Selection Criteria Matrix

Potential Category Criteria Score Points 1. Community Support/ Must have at least one of the following to Pass/Fail Consistency with qualify. Please attach supporting Community Plan documentation. 1. Resolution or minutes from City Council, County Board of Supervisors, local planning group, or Planning Commission. Or 2. Project is part of a Non-Motorized Plan that has been approved within the last five years. 2. Minimum Design Standards Must meet the minimum geometric standards Pass/Fail set forth in the SANDAG Planning and Designing for Pedestrians manual and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Design exceptions may be presented for consideration by the Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group with the understanding that initial project proposals must also include a design that meets minimum standards. 3. Connect to Regional Project is within 1/4 mile of a local transit stop 10 Transportation Corridor/ or regional transit station. Transit Linkage - 20 Points Maximum Project is within 600 feet of, and provides a 14 direct continuous connection to local transit stop. Project is within 600 feet of, and provides a 20 direct continuous connection to regional transit station. 4. Completes Connection/ Completes or improves connection in existing 20 Linkage in Existing pedestrian network Pedestrian Network - 20 Points Maximum 5. Project Readiness * Projects are eligible for points following completion of each phase. 20 Points Maximum Feasibility Study 4 Preliminary Engineering ** 4 Environmental Clearance 4 Right-of-way Acquisition 4 Final Design ** 4 6. Geographic Factors/ Factors contributing to score are: proximity to 0 to 20 GIS Analysis - population and employment, population and 20 Points Maximum employment densities, and activity centers.

17 Applicant (Agency): Project Name:

FY 2008 Pedestrian Project Selection Criteria Matrix

Potential Category Criteria Score Points 7. Safety Improvements - Completes connection in existing network at location with documented safety or accident history. 20 Points Maximum A. One to two correctable crashes 10 involving non-motorized users within the last three years. B. Three to four correctable crashes 15 involving non-motorized users within the last three years. C. Five to six correctable crashes 20 involving non-motorized users within the last three years. 8 Innovation and Design - Pedestrian priority measures such as pedestrian- 10 Points Maximum controlled signals, bulb-outs, raised crosswalks, signal lead time, etc. A. Animated eye indicators, countdown 4 pedestrian signal, accessible push- button signal, flashing crosswalk B. Early pedestrian release interval, 6 passive pedestrian detection, audible pedestrian signal C. Raised crosswalk, speed table, raised 8 intersection, pedestrian refuge island D. Pedestrian bulb-out, cul-de-sac 10 connector Subtotal 9. Regional Housing Score is based on the number of affordable 0 to 25 Needs Incentive - housing units provided by the jurisdiction as a 50 25 50 Points Maximum portion of the cumulative total designated in their approved housing element. 10. Matching Funds Matching funds can be from any of the 25 Points Maximum following sources: 1. Identified and approved capital (Matching funding from identified source. Funds) / Please provide proof in the form of (Project a resolution or letter of approval. Cost) x 25 2. Approved match grant. 3. In-kind services. Please provide adequate support documentation. 11. Cost Benefit Subtotal Score / Grant Application Amount 0 to 15 15 Points Maximum Total Score * Previous project milestones must be met before qualifying for subsequent funding. ** Preliminary Engineering and Final Designs will be subject to design review by SANDAG

18 TDA/TransNet Bicycle and Pedestrian Program

Proposed Project Evaluation Criteria for FY 2008

Overview

• Development of criteria

• Changes to the FY 2008 proposed evaluation criteria

• FY 2008 allocation of $3.5-4 million

2

1 Evaluation Criteria

Category Potential Points

• Community Support Pass/Fail

• Minimum Design Standards Pass/Fail

• Connection to Regional 20 Transportation Network

• Completes Connection in 20 Existing Network

3

Evaluation Criteria

Category Potential Points

• Project Readiness 20 • Land Use Connection – GIS 20 Analysis • Safety Improvements 20 • Innovation and Design 10

4

2 Evaluation Criteria

Category Potential Points

• Regional Housing Needs 50 Incentive

• Matching Funds 25

• Cost Benefit 15

5

Next Steps

• Leveraging Regional Funding

• FY 2008 Funding Allocation in May 2007

• San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan

6

3 Recommendation

The Transportation Committee is asked to approve the FY 2008 TDA/TransNet Bicycle and Pedestrian project application and evaluation criteria.

7

TDA/TransNet Bicycle and Pedestrian Program

Proposed Project Evaluation Criteria for FY 2008

4 SPRINTER Status Report

December 8, 2006

Current Progress

• Track: 19 of 32 miles placed

• Grade Crossings: 32 of 36 rebuilt

• Station platform work has begun (risk item in the Amended Recovery Plan)

2

1 Schedule

• Overall construction 70% complete

• Mainline - December 2007

• San Marcos Loop - Feb/Mar 2007

• Vehicle Maintenance Facility - Jan/Feb 2007

• DMU vehicles all on site

3

Schedule Issues • Does Mainline contractor have an adequate workforce to stay on schedule?

• NCTD performing a “simulated schedule test” of critical items of work in order to mitigate this risk.

• Master schedule still calculates revenue service in January 2008.

• NCTD needs to work with the contractor and contract operator to ensure all work critical to revenue service is completed first to ensure a December 2007 opening.

4

2 Cost • Draft cost control procedures have been developed and are being implemented.

• Each budget line item has a responsible party and procedures on how cost is to be calculated.

• Current estimate at completion: $445m includes an unallocated contingency of $10.6m.

5

Project Concerns • Designer is implementing a new plan that will help control and predict redesign costs. • Final construction quantities still to be determined. • Landslide at Rancho del Oro: $2 - $2.5m repair with potential schedule risks.

6

3 Project Concerns • Cost control procedures now must be implemented and maintained.

• Regulators: DMU workshop with CPUC, FRA, and FTA next month to flesh out any remaining issues with the vehicles.

7

SPRINTER Status Report

December 8, 2006

4 241 Toll Road Extension Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency

Presentation to the San Diego Association of Governments Transportation Committee

December 8, 2006

Pres_12_01_06

Joint Powers Authority

• Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency – A Government Agency – Anaheim - Councilwoman Lorri Galloway – Dana Point - Councilwoman Lara Anderson – Irvine - Councilman Larry Agran – Lake Forest - Councilman Peter Herzog – Mission Viejo - Mayor Lance MacLean – Orange - Councilman Mark Murphy – San Clemente - Councilman Jim Dahl – San Juan Capistrano - Councilman Dave Swerdlin – Santa Ana - Councilwoman Lisa Bist – Rancho Santa Margarita - Mayor Jim Thor – Tustin - Councilman Jerry Amante – Yorba Linda - Councilman Ken Ryan – Orange County Supervisor - Tom Wilson – Orange County Supervisor - Bill Campbell – Orange County Supervisor - Chris Norby

2 Pres_12_01_06

1 3 Pres_12_01_06

Environmental Program

Pres_12_01_06

2 Purpose

1981 • Alignment was placed on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways

1999 • Purpose Statement: “To provide improvements to the transportation infrastructure system that would help alleviate future traffic congestion and accommodate the need for mobility, access, goods movement and future demand on I-5.”

5 Pres_12_01_06

Federal Resource Agency Involvement

• A collaboration of agencies developed the purpose statement and the alternatives that would be analyzed:

•FHWA • EPA • Army Corps of Engineers • US Fish and Wildlife Service • Caltrans, and • Camp Pendleton

6 Pres_12_01_06

3 Alternative Analysis

1991 2000 2004

7 Pres_12_01_06

February 2006: Green Alignment Chosen

• Relieves traffic on I-5 and arterial intersections • Least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (preliminary determination) • Located along the eastern boundary of Camp Pendleton – to not impact military operations • Does not displace homes or businesses

8 Pres_12_01_06

4 Highlights

• San Onofre State Beach – Inland Subunit • Sediment flow - Trestles surf break

• Water quality

• County to county traffic transition

• Camp Pendleton

9 Pres_12_01_06

San Onofre State Beach

• Toll Road is inland of I-5 • It does not impact coastal units of the park • 95% of the visitors use the coastal units • Committed to working with the State Parks Department to identify improvements • San Onofre State Beach is leased from the Department of the Navy – San Mateo Campground built in 1989 – Lease expires in 15 years

10 Pres_12_01_06

5 San Onofre Inland Subunit

Pres_12_01_06

Sediment Flow San Mateo Creek Watershed

12 Pres_12_01_06

6 Shoreline Sediment Movement

Rivers and Streams

13 Pres_12_01_06

Trestles Hard Rock Shore Break

– “The surfing resources in the vicinity of San Mateo Creek are not sensitive to very small changes in littoral sediments delivered either along the shore or from the creek. The SOCTIIP will have an insignificant impact on the transport of sediment to the shoreline. The SOCTIIP will have no measurable impact on surfing resources.”

— Skelly Engineering/GeoSoils, Inc. (Oct. 2004)

14 Pres_12_01_06

7 Water Quality

15 Pres_12_01_06

Extended Detention Basin

TCA will monitor the Caltrans maintenance of the basins for 5 years

16 Pres_12_01_06

8 Water Quality Benefit

Stormwater runoff features in compliance with Caltrans and State Board standards 17 Pres_12_01_06

241 Toll Road Connection to I-5

• FHWA approval of the access report for the 241 Toll Road connection to I-5

• Conceptual geometric approval from Caltrans

• Connection accommodates the I-5 improvements in SANDAG’s 2030 Regional Transportation Plan

18 Pres_12_01_06

9 Camp Pendleton

• Entire 4.5-mile segment of toll road in San Diego County is in Camp Pendleton • TCA has worked with the Camp Pendleton Marines for 15 years and has complied with their requirements • The final project will include training enhancements, improvements to gate security, and anti-terrorist measures

Pres_12_01_06

Status of Approval Process

• EIR was certified in February 2006

• Next steps – Finalize EIS – Camp Pendleton review/approval of EIS – Final EIS notice period – Obtain final permits from resource agencies

Pres_12_01_06

10 241 Toll Road Extension Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency

Presentation to the San Diego Association of Governments Transportation Committee

December 8, 2006

Pres_12_01_06

11 UNDENIABLE IMPACTS Devastation of Park and Open Space

•5thmost visited State park— 2.5 million visitors a year. • Park officials estimate 60% of park will be lost. • San Mateo Camp site—100,000 visitor a year. • Bifurcate Donna O’Neil Land Conservancy

1 PAVING OF A WATERSHED

• One of the last untouched watersheds in Southern California.

Water Quality will be impacted • thousands of automobiles releasing air pollution particulates, motor oil, antifreeze, brake pad residue will impact water quality.

Water Quality Cont… • TCA’s run off treatment is inadequate

• Faulty Filter system on San Joaquin 73.

“Caltrans estimates it will cost at least $13.3 million to repair or replace 38 storm drain filters along the San Joaquin Hills toll road that the agency has conceded are faulty and should never have been installed in the first place....

In some cases the tests have shown the water going into the drains came out more tainted than when it went in.”

LA Times – Orange County Edition, California, Part 2, Metro Desk; Pg. 1, September 10, 2001,

2 Habitat of Endangered Species

11 Federally Listed Species

Directly Affected Species: Southern steelhead trout, arroyo toad, coastal California gnatcatcher, and thread-leaved brodiaea, Tidewater goby,Braunton’s milk-vetch, Nevin’s barberry, spreading navarretia, Orcutt’s grass, and Gambel’s watercress.

Loss of Potential Habitat: Vernal pool fairy shrimp, San Diego fairy shrimp, Riverside fairy shrimp, Quino checkerspot butterfly, California red-legged frog, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Pacific pocket mouse.

Endangered Wildlife

3 Disruption of Sediment Flow

• Cutting a watershed in half will compromise the waves.

• Trestles—the only Continental US area for WCT competitions.

• Sediment disruption will change the wave structure forever.

Circumvention of Laws

• Two Lawsuits filed by the Attorney General » People of CA and State Parks and Recreation Commission. » The Native American Heritage Commission • Environmentalist Lawsuit • All suits claim TCA failed to identify: » Impacts, mitigation and alternatives. • NEPA, CEQA, ESA, and other State Laws

4 ORIGINAL INTENTIONS • In 1971, the lease was intended for park purposes.

• California law intends for San Onofre to be preserved as a park in perpetuity in Public Resources Code section 5096.

• Government Code section 11011 says “…shall be used solely for park and recreation purposes and no part shall be declared surplus or disposed of.”

PRECEDENTS

• More development. • Dangerous precedent set for other State parks. • Allowing a financially struggling entity to undertake an expensive project. • Dismissal of the Public Interest.

5 6 San Onofre State Beach Historical Quotes • “I firmly believe one of the greatest legacies we can leave to future generations is the heritage of our land, but unless we can preserve and protect the unspoiled areas which God has given us, we will have nothing to leave them. This expanse of acreage, San Onofre Bluffs State Beach, now has its future guaranteed as an official state park.” --Governor Ronald Reagan, Press Statement, April 3, 1971.

• “As soon as it becomes possible formally to declare that the entire six miles of beach front are in excess of Federal Government needs, the lease will be terminated and the six miles beachfront area – with exception of the site of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station – will be deeded to the State of California for park purposes.” --President Richard Nixon, Press Statement, March 31, 1971.

Polls show voters oppose building roads through parks The results show that voters clearly oppose building highways or toll roads through state park land, including San Onofre State Park. • Voters were read the following question: Some people have suggested building toll roads through state park land to reduce traffic congestion in growing areas of the state. In general, does this sound like something you would support or oppose? In response, 69 percent said they oppose building toll roads through state park land, while just 22 percent support it. In fact, half of voters (49%) strongly oppose it.

Strongly support 10% TOTAL Somewhat support 12% SUPPORT 22%

Somewhat oppose 20% TOTAL Strongly oppose 49% OPPOSE 69%

Need more information 6%

DK/NA 3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

7 Opposition increases when asked specifically about San

Opposition increases furtherOnofre when voters are asked to consider the toll road proposed through San Onofre State Park. Nearly three out of four voters (73%) statewide specifically oppose building a toll road through San Onofre State Park when they hear it will impact the park’s natural areas, including the campground and hiking and biking trails. Fifty-six percent (56%) strongly oppose it. Just 14 percent support it (see Figure 3).

Strongly support 8% TOTAL Somewhat support 6% SUPPORT 14%

Somewhat oppose 17% TOTAL Strongly oppose 56% OPPOSE 73%

Need more information 8%

DK/NA 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

8 Studies contradict toll road benefits

• Toll road will not greatly ease traffic congestion on I-5

• It’s an outdated 1980s proposal

• Better transportation solutions exist

9 Support for Protecting the State Park at San Onofre State Beach from the Foothill-South Toll Road

• State Departments Responsible for • Growing List of Cities and Counties Preserving California’s Natural and from throughout California Cultural Heritage -Aliso Viejo -Del Mar - CA Attorney General, Bill Lockyer -Imperial Beach -Laguna Beach -CA State Park and Recreation Commission -Los Angeles -Oceanside -Native American Heritage Commission -San Francisco City and County -California State Park Rangers Association -Santa Monica -Malibu • Four Former State Park Directors -Santa Cruz City and County -Donald Murphy (1993-1997) -San Luis obispo -Henry Agonia (1987-1992) • National, State, and Local Cultural and -William S. Briner (1983-1987) Environmental Organizations -Peter Dangermond Jr. (1980-1982) -Audubon Society -Defenders of Wildlife • The California Democratic Party -Natural Resources Defense Council Environmental Caucus -Sierra Club -Surfrider Foundation -California Cultural Resources Preservation • 50 State Legislators from throughout California -California State Park Associations -Juaneno Band of Mission Indians • Business Leaders

10 Please join us in promoting transportation solutions that don’t ruin our state parks • The toll road will NOT fix traffic on I-5 • Better transportation solutions exist • San Diego does not have representation on the toll road board • Yet it will ruin California’s 5th most popular state park located in San Diego County and depended on by San Diegans

11

Older Adult Transportation Needs Survey Transportation Committee December 8, 2006

Introduction Purpose: To learn about needs of older adult transportation agency clients over 60 years of age – Sampling Frame: clients of social service and transportation agencies

2

1 Survey • Eleven Questions: – About the respondents – About typical transportation needs – About specific transportation services • Distributed to 24,000+ agency clients • Garnered 2,354 completed surveys (9.6% response rate)

3

Age Most respondents are 60-79 years old (61%)

30%

25% 24.8% 20.8% 20.5% 18.4% 20% 19.4% 17.1% 17.0% 15.4% 13.9% 15% 12.5% 10.9% 9.2% 10%

5%

0% 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

Age (years) Survey respondents 2005 Population Estimates

4

2 Driver’s License 32% do not have a driver’s license

Reasons for Not Having a Driver’s License

Do not feel safe driving Other 33.3% Medical Condition 17.3% 3.3% License was restricted 4.0%

Don’t have a car 7.0%

Problems with eyesight 8.9% License was revoked Use public transit 9.4% 16.8%

5

Mobility Limitations • 27% need assistance walking – Of these 51% use a cane • 42% have other mobility limitations – e.g. “cannot walk more than ¼ mile;” poor vision

Type of Walking Assistance Used

Other 4.1% Wheelchair 17.1 Cane 50.8% Walker 28.1%

6

3 Transportation Needs • 41% of trips occur between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. • Most common travel days are weekdays • Most common trip needs are medical and shopping – Medical trips needed monthly – Shopping trips needed weekly

7

Trip Origins and Destinations • Most frequently reported trip origins – Oceanside – La Mesa – El Cajon – Poway – Encinitas – San Diego • Most frequently reported trip destinations near hospitals

8

4 9

Alternative Transportation

% Regularly Using Service Public Transit 36% (bus and trolley) Taxi service 13%

ADA Paratransit service 11%

Supplemental 13% transportation services

10

5 Conclusions Senior transportation issues and demands will intensify in the future, which points to: • Importance of smart growth policies • Need for expanded travel training • Need for enhanced transportation services for basic mobility needs outside of peak periods

11

Next Steps • Develop the Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan • Develop the TransNet Senior Mini-Grant Program

12

6 Older Adult Transportation Needs Survey Transportation Committee December 8, 2006

7