MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA · 2010-11-17 · India/Kettner couplet and the second is on Kearny Villa...

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA

BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN WORKING GROUP The Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group may take action on any item appearing on this agenda. Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:30 to 11:15 a.m. SANDAG, 7th Floor Board Room 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-4231

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

AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS

• SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL WHITE PAPER

• DRAFT 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN REVENUE CONSTRAINED NETWORK SCENARIOS

SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 1-800-COMMUTE or see www.sdcommute.com for route information. Secure Bicycle Parking is available in the building garage off 4th Avenue. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.

BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN WORKING GROUP Wednesday, November 17, 2010

2

ITEM # RECOMMENDATION

1. INTRODUCTIONS

+2. DISTRIBUTION OF OCTOBER 27, 2010, MEETING MINUTES APPROVE The Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group (BPWG) is asked to

approve the attached October 27, 2010, meeting minutes.

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS

Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the

BPWG on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Working Group.

+4. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL WHITE PAPER INFORMATION

The preliminary draft white paper, “Overview of Safe Routes to

School and the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP),” describes the role of Safe Routes to School strategies in regional planning and proposes a preliminary strategic framework for potential integration in the 2050 RTP. The draft strategic framework presented in the white paper will serve as the foundation for the San Diego Regional Safe Routes to School Strategy. The attached white paper is for BPWG members’ information.

+5. ANNUAL PROJECT STATUS REVIEW INFORMATION

The annual review of project status will begin with the

distribution of a list of currently active projects. Working Group members will be asked to review the list of projects and provide updates to SANDAG staff by December 15, 2010.

+6. DRAFT 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

REVENUE CONSTRAINED NETWORK SCENARIO INFORMATION

At the November 12 Transportation Committee meeting,

SANDAG staff will present four Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios. The Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios will attempt to build and operate as much of the Unconstrained Network as possible, given revenue availability and flexibility and project priorities. The BPWG will be given a brief overview of the RTP with a focus on the Active Transportation components and funding.

3

ITEM # RECOMMENDATION

7. UPDATE – REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION

Staff will provide an update on the Regional Bicycle Plan

implementation strategy and schedule.

+ next to an item indicates an attachment

San Diego Association of Governments

BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN WORKING GROUP

4

November 17, 2010 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2

Action Requested: APPROVE

DISTRIBUTION OF OCTOBER 27, 2010, MEETING MINUTES File Number 3300300

Agenda Item #1: Welcome and Introductions Chair Jim Baross, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, chaired the meeting. Self-introductions were conducted.

Agenda Item #2: Distribution of September 23, 2010, Meeting Minutes (Approved) Taylor Coffroth, City of El Cajon, made the motion to approve the minutes. Jim Lundquist, San Diego, seconded the motion.

Agenda Item #3: Public Comments and Communications Questions

• What level is appropriate for development of regional standards for reverse angle parking? Chris Kluth, SANDAG, suggested SANTEC.

Discussion Bridget Enderle, SANDAG, gave a brief presentation about grant funding that will be available through the Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) initiative. SANDAG staff are in the process of developing the evaluation criteria and guidelines for four grant programs funded through the CPPW project. These pass-through grant programs will provide a total of $1,150,000 to local jurisdictions and agencies for projects that promote public health principles in planning, active transportation planning, and safe routes to school. More information can be found at: www.sandag.org/uploads/meetingid/meetingid_2679_11979.pdf. Chris Kluth, SANDAG, noted that the deadline is tight because CPPW is a federal grant program. The call for projects is going out late December, there will be applicant workshops in January, and applications will be due in February. SANDAG is putting out a Request for Proposals for an on-call list of consultants. The whole grant program will be wrapped up by March 2012. Shahriar Ammi, City of San Diego, followed-up on an e-mail sent to the Working Group about two students from Copenhagen doing a master’s thesis about cycling culture. San Diego is part of the students’ case study and they will be presenting their findings at 10:30 a.m. on December 3 in the Glass Room in the Concourse Area, west of the Civic Theater.

5

Jim Lundquist, City of San Diego, sought feedback about Kearny Villa Road, specifically the thermoplast green pavement markings. City of Oceanside is co-sponsoring a bike ride on November 6. There will be a 7, 15, 25, and 50-mile ride. Check www.bikethecoast.eventmediainc.com/ for details. The City of Oceanside is also installing two blocks of reverse angle parking. Jim Lundquist said the City of San Diego is doing two bicycle studies. The first study is on the India/Kettner couplet and the second is on Kearny Villa Road. Both studies could use bicyclists speaking in favor of them. They will be discussed at the November 17 meeting of the North Bay Planning Group at 3 p.m. and the December 7 meeting of Uptown Planners at 6 p.m. The County of San Diego is securing funding for bicycle and pedestrian counters through the CPPW grant.

Agenda Item #4: Shared Lane Markings “Sharrows” Questions

• What is the best venue for developing regional guidelines for sharrows? Discussion Sharrows can be used on streets with on-street parking where the outside lane is narrow enough that bicyclists would be in the door-zone hazard area. City of Oceanside currently has “sharrows.” Jim Baross said the California Traffic Control Devices Committee will be meeting before the end of the year about updating the California Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Jim Baross lead a discussion about the placement of sharrows by sharing pictures that can be found at: www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=56977&id=1574017310&l=fdc45d654a. The photos were put together by a member of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations. Oceanside has put about 35 sharrows on a four-mile stretch of Pacific Street, which is a main north-south bike route that has parking on both sides and a street that is 40 feet, curb-to-curb. The sharrows are placed 11 feet toward the center and Steve Tisdale, Oceanside, said the markings are mostly to help motorists be aware that there are a lot of cyclists on the road. This was an information item only. SANDAG or this Working Group can not recommend or make comments on legislation, but local jurisdictions and organizations can make recommendations. Jim Baross suggested the possibility of a future action item regarding sharrows.

Agenda Item #5: Velo-City Global 2010 Copenhagen, Denmark Jim Baross showed a video and shared stories about the conference he attended in Copenhagen. A 10-minute video can be found at: www.welcomehome.dk/default.aspx?id=709.

6

Agenda Item #6: San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan Implementation Questions

• Maureen Gardiner, San Diego, asked how operation and maintenance expenses for bicycle and pedestrian projects will be included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Chris Kluth said operation expenses are not included, but said he will bring the question of maintenance back to this Working Group at the next meeting to get feedback.

Discussion For the RTP, this Working Group put together a list of bicycle and pedestrian needs. This encompasses the Regional Bicycle Plan and all the high priority local projects. Chris Kluth said there will be $419 million for the regional bike plan, $400 million for local bike projects, $860 million for pedestrian and traffic calming projects, $20 million for programs in education, and $90 million for Safe Routes to School. He said it is hard to say exactly what “fully-funded” means, but at the very least it means that bike and pedestrian programs are getting more money. Some of the assumptions made in the $1.8 billion are that all the of the Transportation Enhancement money will go to active transportation, in addition to any “flexible funding” that is not allocated to other parts of the overall transportation program.

SANDAG would normally allocate the rest of the money for a typical “call for projects” on an annual basis, but this process will most likely become biannual. Therefore, the next call for projects would be this spring and would include about $11 million for FY 2011 and 2012. Chris Kluth brought up a discussion topic from a previous meeting about SANDAG taking a more active role in implementation of these projects. The internal SANDAG meeting on this topic has been postponed, but Chris Kluth will be asking for official buy-in from the engineering staff at the rescheduled meeting. SANDAG is looking for a demonstration project to show some successes. This would come from a local jurisdiction that is ready and willing to implement something innovative, such as a bike boulevard. It should be a project from the Regional Bicycle Plan that is out of the ordinary. Martin Reeder, National City, mentioned a project in his jurisdiction. Roberto Solorzano, Chula Vista, brought up some questions about the 805 Corridor and Chris Kluth said he would follow-up with the corridor manager from Caltrans about the Bonita bypass on the 805 Corridor. Jim Lundquist, San Diego, mentioned issues with bringing Metropolitan Transit Systems and Centre City Development Corporation together to talk about a bike facility along C Street. He said these are regional issues that have to be dealt with regionally.

7

Agenda Item #7: Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. Next meeting is scheduled for November 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. Key Staff Contact: Chris Kluth, (619) 699-1952, [email protected]


REGIONAL PLANNING STAKEHOLDERS WORKING GROUP


Action Requested: INFORMATION

OVERVIEW OF SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL AND THE 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN File Number 3100000

Introduction The preliminary draft white paper, Overview of Safe Routes to School and the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, describes the role of Safe Routes to School strategies in regional planning and proposes a preliminary strategic framework for potential integration in the 2050 RTP. Model regional strategies are identified as well as implications for next steps.

Discussion SANDAG is in the process of developing a regional Safe Routes to School strategy that will establish regional policies and implementation actions to facilitate local, comprehensive Safe Routes to School programs throughout the region. The initial stage in this process includes developing the draft white paper to identify broad strategic focus areas and actions for possible integration into the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and to serve as the foundation for the Safe Routes to School strategy.

Conclusion SANDAG already is aggressively pursuing some of the actions presented in this white paper, whereas others may be more appropriately reserved for future analysis. SANDAG will work with its member agencies, key stakeholders, and professionals with expertise in Safe Routes to School, to expand upon and refine the proposed framework. Crucial to this process is identifying participating agencies and their respective roles in implementing the strategy. Anticipated in March 2012, the San Diego Regional Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan will present the complete regional Safe Routes to School strategy which will include detailed recommendations and responsible agencies required to effectively implement the strategy.

Input is being sought on the draft white paper from SANDAG working groups and committees. Attachment: 1. Overview of Safe Routes to School and the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Key Staff Contact: Bridget Enderle, (619) 595-5612, [email protected]

Agenda Item #4 BPWG November 17, 2010

8

mailto:[email protected]

OVERVIEW OF SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL AND THE 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN – DRAFT WHITE PAPER

INTRODUCTION

Safe Routes to School programs share the principal goals of increasing the number of children and adolescents walking and bicycling to school, improving pedestrian and bicycle safety, and decreasing school-related vehicle trips to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion in school zones. Many Safe Routes to School efforts also heighten awareness about the air quality, health, and quality of life benefits associated with these programs. To accomplish these goals, Safe Routes to School programs utilize five strategies: planning and evaluation, infrastructure improvements, traffic law enforcement, education, and activities that encourage children to walk and bicycle to school. Comprehensive Safe Routes to School programs encompass all of these components commonly referred to as the 5 E’s (engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation).

Safe Routes to School programs initially emerged in response to a precipitous decline in the numbers of children walking and biking to school and acknowledgement that this trend contributed to an overall decrease in physical activity amongst children. Largely correlated with physical inactivity, childhood obesity rates have risen exponentially over the last few decades and currently persist at critical levels, with approximately 32 percent of U.S. youths ages two to 19 classified as overweight and 17 percent considered obese.1 This trend is equally severe in the San Diego region, with approximately 31 percent of fifth, seventh, and ninth grade students categorized as overweight.2 Numerous studies have examined the impact of school mode choice on physical activity levels, finding that children who walk or bike to school tend to meet recommended physical activity levels and have a greater propensity to be active throughout the day.3 4 Further, physical activity has proven to have a significant impact on cognitive functioning and academic performance amongst youths.5 6

In addition to positive effects on youth’s health, Safe Routes to School programs have been shown to significantly reduce traffic congestion, and consequently, improve air quality. In Marin County, for example, school-related trips constitute 21 percent of morning peak period trips compared to 11

1 Ogden, C.L., et al. (2010) “Prevalence of High Body Mass Index in US Child and Adolescents, 2007-2008.”

Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(3): 242-249. 2 Community Health Improvement Partners (CHIP). “Overweight, Obesity, Physical Activity, and Nutrition.”

Accessed on November 1, 2010 from: http://www.sdchip.org/chip/publications/needs_assessment/pdfs/5k-

Overweight-and-obesity-profile.pdf. 3 Cooper, A.R., Page, A.S., Foster, L.J., & Qahwaji, D. (2003) “Commuting to School: Are Children Who Walk

More Physically Active?” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 25(4): 273-276. 4 McKenzie, T., & Kahan, D. (2008) “Physical Activity, Public Health, and Elementary Schools” The Elementary

School Journal, 108 (3): 171-180. 5 Stevens, T.A., To, Y., Stevenson, S.J., & Lochbaum, M.R. (2008) “The Importance of Physical Activity and

Physical Education in the Prediction of Academic Achievement.” Journal of Sport Behavior, 31 (4): 368-388. 6 Buck, S.M., Hillman, C.H., & Castelli, D.M. (2008) “The Relation of Aerobic Fitness to Stroop Task Performance

in Performance in Preadolescent Children.” Medicine and Science in Sports Exercise, 40 (1): 166-172.

Attachment 1

9

percent in most U.S. geographic areas.7 Responding to this challenge, Marin County’s robust Safe Routes to School program is credited with decreasing single-student automobile school trips by 15 percent.8 Studies examining the impact of California’s state-legislated Safe Routes to School (SR2S) grant program indicate that SR2S-funded infrastructure projects significantly influence mode choice in favor of walking and biking.9 The body of research that examines the impacts of Safe Routes to School programs on travel behaviors and safety is relatively diminutive, yet growing.10 In recent years, Safe Routes to School programs have generated significant attention among planners, policy-makers, and public health professionals; increasing the amount of research and funding devoted to Safe Routes to School.

Within the regional planning context, Safe Routes to School is gaining prominence as an effective transportation demand management (TDM) and greenhouse gas reduction strategy in addition to an essential component to regional active transportation planning. Accordingly, this paper provides an overview of model regional Safe Routes to School strategies and delineates a potential Safe Routes to School policy direction for the San Diego region.

Regarding the 2050 RTP, the objectives of this white paper are to:

• Provide contextual information about Safe Routes to School.

• Summarize Safe Routes to School strategies initiated by regional planning agencies throughout the United States that may prove applicable within the San Diego region.

• Propose preliminary strategic actions for potential inclusion in the 2050 RTP and to serve as a framework for developing a regional strategy to advance Safe Routes to School within the region.

BACKGROUND

In the United States, the proliferation of programs to facilitate safe walking and biking to school has occurred in response to a drastic decline in the numbers of children walking and biking to school, from approximately 50 percent in 1969 to 15 percent in 2001.11 The safety and health implications of this trend spurred several local efforts in New York, Florida, and Chicago beginning in the mid 1990’s and ultimately led to state and federal legislation to authorize Safe Routes to School programming and funding.

7 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (August 2007) National Household Travel

Survey Brief. 8 Transportation Authority of Marin County (2009) Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Measure Strategic Plan. 9 Boarnet, M.G., Day, K., Anderson, C. McMillan, T. & Alfonzo, M. (2005) “California’s Safe Routes to School

Program: Impacts on Walking, Bicycling, and Pedestrian Safety.” Journal of American Planning Association,

71(3): 301-317. 10 Weigand, L. (June 2008) “A Review of the Literature: the Effectiveness of Safe Routes to School and Other

Programs to Promote Active Transportation to School.” Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation, CUS-

CTS-0801. 11 Hubsmith, D.A. (2007) Safe Routes to School: 2007 State of the States Report: Safe Routes to School

National Partnership.

10

California’s pioneering Safe Routes to School program was established in October 1999 with the passing of California Assembly Bill 1475 (AB 1475). AB 1475 allocated one-third of California’s Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) safety funds toward Safe Routes to School, thus creating the first statewide Safe Routes to School construction program in the United States. A coalition of urban planning, engineering, public health, education, law enforcement, alternative transportation advocacy, and other professional organizations were instrumental in advancing the bill. The initial two-year program administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) restricted funding to infrastructure projects. However, succeeding program cycles have authorized funds to be used for education and encouragement programs. Under the current grant program guidelines (Cycle 9), incorporated cities and counties are eligible to apply for up to $450,000 toward construction projects that target grades K – 12 schools and may apply ten percent of project funding toward education, enforcement, and encouragement activities and/or school grounds improvements. A ten percent match of funds is required.

At the federal level, Safe Routes to School commenced in 2000 when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) awarded $50,000 to launch programs in Marin County, California and Boston, Massachusetts geared toward increasing walking and biking to school rates. The successes of these and other programs, particularly in Marin County, ultimately led to federal Safe Routes to School legislation. In 2005, the federal surface transportation bill, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), authorized $612 million in funding for Safe Routes to School programs through 2009. The funding is allotted to states based on their relative proportions of total enrollment in primary and middle schools. The transportation bill is currently operating under an extension through December 31, 2010 as Congress negotiates a new version of the bill.

Under the current federal Safe Routes to School grant program guidelines, state, regional, and local agencies, school districts, and non-traditional entities are all eligible to apply for funding toward infrastructure or non-infrastructure projects that impact children in grades K – 8. California’s approximate allocation of funds over this five-year period is $68 million, with a target of 70 percent of those funds provided to infrastructure projects and 30 percent toward education, encouragement, and enforcement activities.

While primary funding for Safe Routes to School programs has historically derived from the state and federal programs, the planning and implementation of Safe Routes to School programs is inherently local, relying on collaboration between local jurisdictions, school districts, schools, community-based, and non-profit organizations. A substantial number of cities and communities are working together to develop Safe Routes to School plans that include the following key components:

o Existing conditions and needs assessments;

o Priority infrastructure improvements to facilitate safe walking and biking to school routes;

o Education, encouragement, and enforcement strategies; and

o Monitoring and evaluation strategies.

11

Non-profit organizations, such as the National Center for Safe Routes to School, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, and California Active Communities also play a vital role in Safe Routes to School, providing extensive information and resources to communities interested in initiating programs.

The role of regional planning agencies in Safe Routes to School has been relatively peripheral except for in a few locations, although this tendency is changing. In California and throughout the United States, regional planning agencies are increasingly integrating Safe Routes to School initiatives into their work programs and planning efforts to advance Safe Routes to School programs regionally.

DISCUSSION

The emerging role of Safe Routes to School in regional planning has significant implications for the San Diego region. While several effective Safe Routes to School programs exist throughout the region, the influence of Safe Routes to School in San Diego is relatively minimal compared to other California regions. This section of the white paper first describes Safe Routes to School within the San Diego region and then summarizes other regions’ Safe Routes to School strategies with the purpose of identifying model approaches to a San Diego Regional Safe Routes to School Strategy.

Safe Routes to School in the San Diego Region

Multiple communities in the San Diego region have initiated successful Safe Routes to School programs; however, the region currently lacks an overall strategy to build on these successes.

The cities of Chula Vista, Lemon Grove, and La Mesa, and neighborhoods of City Heights and Southeastern San Diego are amongst the communities that have led Safe Routes to School programs within the region. In 2007, Chula Vista launched a two-faceted Safe Routes to School program, expanding upon two years of Safe Routes to School infrastructure improvements. The City of Chula Vista and Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) partnered to submit complementary SRTS grant applications for approximately $620,000 toward infrastructure improvements led by the City and about $500,000 in programmatic activities led by CVESD. The City of La Mesa’s Safe Routes to School program also consists of a combination of infrastructure improvements and programs and is a critical element to their citywide health and wellness policies. Both of these jurisdictions are continuing these programs with 2010 Caltrans SR2S grant awards. The cities of National City, Lakeside, Lemon Grove, and San Marcos also received SR2S funding through the current program cycle, generating a combined total of $1.6 million toward Safe Routes to School related infrastructure improvements.12

Some support is currently provided at the regional level to encourage and direct local Safe Routes to School programs. The TransNet Active Transportation Program funds bicycle, pedestrian, and neighborhood safety (traffic calming) projects and programs including projects that improve access and safety in school areas. Funding for the TransNet Active Transportation Program derives from the TransNet ½-cent transportation sales tax program and the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Non-motorized funds. Since the program’s inception in FY 1988, SANDAG has provided approximately $31.4 million in TransNet revenues to active transportation projects

12 California Department of Transportation, Cycle 9 SR2S Final Project List (October 14, 2010).

12

throughout the region, primarily through a local competitive grant process. Including TransNet and TDA, revenues for the Active Transportation Program between FY 2011 and FY 2048 are projected to be approximately $372.8 million in 2010 dollars.

Regional plans also note the importance Safe Routes to School programs. Riding to 2050: San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan provides a description of Safe Routes to School, emphasizing the process of launching new programs. Chapter 8 of the current 2030 RTP Demand Management: How can we Take the Pressure off the System, includes a very brief discussion of Safe Route to School, encouraging local jurisdictions to aggressively pursue state SR 2S and federal SRTS grant funding. In the 2030 RTP, Safe Routes to School is presented as one facet to promoting “Walkable Communities” which is one of six subsections to the demand management strategy, “Improving Non-Motorized Alternatives.”

To enhance support for local Safe Routes to School efforts, SANDAG is in the process of developing the San Diego Regional Safe Routes to School Strategy. The anticipated benefits of this strategy are substantial and include contributing to meeting SANDAG’s greenhouse gas reduction targets as part of the forthcoming 2050 RTP Sustainable Communities Strategy. Specifically, implementing the Safe Routes to School Strategy is anticipated to increase school walk/bike trips by 10 percent in 2020 and 20 percent by 2035, resulting in about 8,900 fewer pounds of CO2 being released into the atmosphere by 2020 and approximately 18,300 fewer pounds by 2035. Other benefits derived from implementing the strategy should be captured through a comprehensive evaluation process.

Model Strategies

This section of the white paper describes exemplary strategies employed by other regional planning agencies to advance Safe Routes to School within their jurisdiction. Emphasis is placed on agencies with comparable authority and responsibility as SANDAG; however, non-profit organizations and other public agencies also play vital roles in region-wide implementation of Safe Routes to School efforts. Common elements between model strategies include: • Institutionalizing Safe Routes to School in regional planning strategies;

• Utilizing partnerships to implement programs;

• Committing substantial funding;

• Providing technical planning and program development assistance; and

• Delivering select programs to participating communities.

This review is intended to assist in developing the San Diego Regional Safe Routes to School Strategy. Metropolitan Transportation Commission

The San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) recently committed to a substantial investment in Safe Routes to School programs within its nine-County jurisdiction. In 2009 MTC allocated $80 million over three years toward its Climate Initiatives Program. The funding for the Climate Initiatives Program derives from MTC’s anticipated $1.4 billion six-year (Cycle 1 and 2)

13

Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program revenues. A key component of the Climate Initiatives Program is the MTC Safe Routes to School Program, comprised of $17 million in funding to Bay Area counties. This $17 million investment is allocated in two ways: $2 million is awarded through a competitive grant program intended to advance innovative Safe Routes to School-related greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies; and $15 million is distributed directly to counties proportionate to their percentage of the region’s total school enrollment population. Leveraged with county, state, federal and other sources of funding, MTC’s support contributes to some of the most comprehensive and effective Safe Routes to School programs in the United States.13

Transportation Authority of Marin County

Marin County’s Safe Routes to School initiative is nationally recognized for its innovative and comprehensive approach, extensive participation levels, and effectiveness at shifting school travel modes from single-student vehicle trips to alternative modes. During the 2007-2008 school year 90 percent of students living within a half-mile of school walked or bicycled to school. The program continues to impact countywide mode choice, with a three percent shift from single-student automobile trips to active transportation modes between fall 2006 and spring 2007.14 The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) attributes the program with more than 15 percent mode shift since its inception.15

The Marin County Bicycle Coalition initiated the effort in 2000 as a pilot program funded principally with monies from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Since its inception, the scope and impact of the program has grown significantly particularly after TAM acquired administration of the program in 2005. Currently, the initiative consists of three main components: the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program, Crossing Guards, and Safe Pathways to School.

The SR2S program facet of the Marin’s County’s effort focuses on education and encouragement, program delivery, technical planning assistance, and program evaluation. TAM contracts with a consultant team to implement the program. The consultant team develops, facilitates, and recruits schools to participate in school teams and tasks forces, classroom curriculums, and events and contests such as SchoolPool, Pollution Punch Card, and Walk and Roll to School Days. The TAM SR2S website provides downloadable guidebooks for each of its major education and encouragement programs to assist schools in the implementation of these programs.16 In coordination with school teams, the contractor also develops Safe Routes to School Travel Plans. The plans include safe routes maps, capital improvement, and program recommendations. Another key element of the SR2S program is a two-fold annual evaluation that consists of participation level measurements and school-specific mode shift measurements.

13 Attachment A to MTC Resolution No. 3925, Revised, New Surface Transportation Authorization Act Cycle 1

STP/CMAQ Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy. 14 Transportation Authority of Marin County (June 2008) “Safe Routes to School Evaluation and

Recommendations for the School Years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008.” 15 Transportation Authority of Marin County (2009) Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Measure Strategic

Plan. 16 See: http://www.tam.ca.gov/index.aspx?page=95

14

The Crossing Guards component of the initiative provides up to 70 crossing guards (63 during the 2009/2010 school year) at high priority locations identified by criteria developed by TAM and the region’s Public Works Directors. Crossing Guards is implemented through a contract with a professional traffic safety company.

Safe Pathways is the capital improvement facet of TAM’s initiative. The program funds the design and construction of capital projects identified in Safe Routes to School Travel Plans developed through the SR2S program. Approximately $1.5 million will be available in FY 2010-11 to fund Safe Pathways projects.17

The Marin County initiative is funded by Measure A, the one-half percent transportation sales tax approved by voters in 2004 to span a 20-year period. Eleven percent (11%) of Measure A revenues are allotted for the SR2S initiative and distributed among the three efforts as follows: Crossing Guards (4.2%), Safe Pathways (3.5%), and SR2S Program (3.3%).18

Safe Routes to School Alameda County

Safe Routes to School Alameda County provides a variety of educational, encouragement, and planning resources to participating schools throughout the County. The program is coordinated through the Alameda County Safe Routes to School Partnership, a countywide collaborative effort among TransForm, the Alameda County Public Health Department, Cycles of Change, and several other agencies with smaller roles. TransForm, the lead agency, and Cycles of Change are non-profit organizations focused on advancing alternative transportation in the Bay Area. The Partnership works with school staff and parent volunteers to deliver programs such as pedestrian rodeos, bicycle physical education classes, family cycling clinics, walking school buses, parent workshops, and school assemblies. Safe Routes to School Alameda County is funded in part through the Bicycle and Pedestrian Grant Program of Measure B, Alameda County’s half cent transportation sales tax. Over a 20-year period, Measure B will generate over $3 billion for transportation improvements, including $80 million (five percent) allocated toward improving bicycle and pedestrian safety and access. This $80 million is distributed through two avenues: 75 percent is pass-through funding allocated to cities and the County based on population; and 25 percent funds countywide efforts including a Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator and the competitive grant program. Measure B is administered by Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA), which recently merged with Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) to form a new countywide transportation agency, Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). In 2009 the Safe Routes to School Alameda County program was awarded $820,000 through the Measure B grant program, which was matched with an additional $1,075,000 from foundations, Caltrans SR2S, Kaiser Permanente, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The current grant cycle spans two school years, 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. It builds on the successes of the first program cycle initiated in 2007, which supported the establishment of 50 comprehensive Safe Routes to School programs.19

17 TAM (2009) Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Strategic Plan Update. 18 TAM (September 2010) Public Notice: “2010 Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Strategic Plan Update” 19 ACTIA (2009) “Safe Routes to Schools Alameda County Partnership Fact Sheet”

15

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

The currently adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2035 (MTP 2035) for the Sacramento region commits Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) to strengthening its existing Safe Routes to School efforts. SACOG currently facilitates Safe Routes to School by providing technical assistance such as: consulting with local jurisdictions or schools that are initiating a program; providing input on outreach, educational, and other materials; assisting agencies with completing grant applications and reporting requirements; and suggesting general planning strategies. SACOG also maintains a Safe Routes to School list serve and offers related presentations by request through their Speakers Bureau.

As outlined in the current MTP 203520, SACOG will do the following: develop a regional policy to promote Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School; convene cities, counties, school districts, and transit operators in workshops to identify opportunities to collaborate on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including Safe Routes to School strategies; and launch a pilot Safe Routes to School mini-grant program. SACOG was recently awarded the mini-grant funding through Caltrans and plans to release a call for projects in late winter/early spring 2011.21

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on a review of model strategies and guidelines, this section presents a preliminary Safe Routes to School strategic framework for possible integration into the 2050 RTP and to guide the ongoing development of a Regional Safe Routes to School Strategy. First, general recommendations for the 2050 RTP are presented. Then, a preliminary framework is outlined that consists of strategic areas and potential actions intended to advance the region within those respective areas.

Considerations for the 2050 RTP

The chief recommendation for the 2050 RTP is to develop a more robust discussion of Safe Routes to School than is included in the current 2030 RTP. Consideration should be given to integrating the following elements into the 2050 RTP Safe Routes to School section.

• Contextual information such as Safe Routes to School programs’ overarching goals and key components, state and federal funding programs, and the role of Safe Routes to School programs in TDM.

• A summary of the Safe Routes to School strategic framework that consists of preliminary actions in the following areas: Regional Planning; Funding; Collaboration and Partnerships; Resource Center; Technical Training and Support; and Program Delivery. The subsequent section describes each of these categories.

20 Note: SACOG is in the process of updating the MTP 2035: Blueprint for Sustainable Communities. 21 Personal communication with SACOG staff (September 17, 2010)

16

Proposed Draft Safe Routes to School Strategy

The aim of the proposed Draft Safe Routes to School Strategy is to facilitate effective local Safe Routes to School programs and advance the following overarching goals:

1. Increase rates of children and adolescents walking and biking to school

2. Improve safety conditions for child and adolescent pedestrians and bicyclists

3. Continue to expand current Safe Routes to School programs by encouraging comprehensive planning, fostering collaboration and partnerships, boosting public support, and initiating institutional change.

4. Document and promote the health, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emission reduction, traffic management, and community benefits derived from Safe Routes to School through systematic monitoring, evaluation, and planning.

To accomplish these goals, the following strategic focus areas are proposed as vital components to the Regional Safe Routes to School Strategy:

Regional Planning: Integrating Safe Routes to School into regional planning efforts establishes a vision for Safe Routes to School throughout the region and ensures local jurisdictions, schools, and communities are afforded the resources required to administer effective programs. It also advances the region’s goals of monitoring, projecting, and promoting active transportation.

Funding: Strategically funding Safe Routes to School programs throughout the region is essential to broadening participation and leveraging existing funding sources, particularly as interest in Safe Routes to School and competition for resources increases.

Collaboration and Partnerships: Establishing partnerships and fostering collaboration with agencies and organizations that may play a vital role in advancing Safe Routes to School within the region is crucial to sustainable program implementation.

Resource Center: Serving as an information clearinghouse to local jurisdictions, schools districts, and schools facilitates local Safe Routes to School program development and maintenance.

Program Delivery: Identifying and administering select Safe Routes to School programs supports communities with access to beneficial tools that are too costly or onerous for local administration.

Technical Training and Support: Providing trainings and technical support to encourage local Safe Routes to School programs provides assurance that programs will be effective and comprehensive.

17

Table 1 proposes supportive actions within the strategic areas identified above.

Table 1: Preliminary Safe Routes to School Actions

Strategic Area Potential Actions

Regional Planning 1. Include a Safe Routes to School Strategy in all subsequent RTPs and Regional Comprehensive Plans (RCPs).

2. Capture active transportation demand, including journey to school, in regional transportation modeling by incorporating active transportation trip data, including journey to school data, into future transportation models.

3. Develop a Regional Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan to articulate the Regional Safe Routes to School Strategy and action plan.

4. As a component to an overall active transportation monitoring and evaluation program, establish a program to evaluate Safe Routes to School program participation levels, impact on mode shares, and potential program improvements.

Funding 1. To catalyze local Safe Routes to School programs, develop and administer a pass-through Safe Routes to School grant program with funding awarded to SANDAG through the County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency “Communities Putting Prevention to Work” (CPPW).22 The pass-through grant program consists of $250,000 toward comprehensive Safe Routes to School planning and capacity building efforts and $50,000 toward education, enforcement, and encouragement programming.

2. Identify a funding source and develop a continuous grant program to support local Safe Routes to School initiatives. Utilize CPPW grant program evaluation and input from SANDAG working groups and committees, and other potential future recipients to refine grant criteria and eligibility. Eligible projects may include:

o Infrastructure improvements;

o Education, encouragement, and enforcement activities; and/or

o Planning and capacity building efforts.

3. Seek resources to implement the Safe Routes to School Strategy.

22 Note: Communities Putting Prevention to Work is a program of County of San Diego Health and Human

Services Agency funded by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

18


Collaboration and Partnerships

1. Foster communication and cultivate partnerships by soliciting input on the Regional Safe Routes to School Strategy from SANDAG working groups, committees, non-profit organizations, school districts, and other Safe Routes to School implementers and experts.

2. Facilitate the convening of a Regional Safe Routes to School Coalition that will serve as a forum to connect implementing agencies and share relevant information.

3. Work with San Diego State University, University of California, San Diego, California State University, San Marcos, community colleges, and private universities departments; County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency; and other agencies and institutions to identify opportunities to collaborate on Safe Routes to School program development and implementation.

4. Work with school districts and schools to identify school-related institutional barriers to walking and biking to school and to support school transportation policies and school wellness policies that facilitate walking and biking to school.

Resource Center 1. Develop a San Diego region Safe Routes to School website that consists of the following possible elements:

o A summary of the key steps to developing a Safe Routes to School program.

o A toolkit or series of guidebooks to assist schools and communities launch education, encouragement, and enforcement programs. CPPW grant project outcomes and existing local programs should serve as the foundation of the toolkit/guidebooks.

o A page or section devoted to announcements regarding Safe Routes to School or related activities in the region.

o Links to Safe Routes to School resources and publications available throughout the United States.

o Integration with the iCommute Walking School Bus and Bike Buddies interfaces.

2. Raise awareness about Safe Routes to School resources and opportunities through public awareness campaign efforts.

19


Program Delivery 1. Continue to promote and administer the iCommute Walking School Bus and Bike Buddies programs.

2. Work with Safe Routes to School experts and implementers, including local jurisdictions and schools, to identify and develop one or more high priority programs that may be best administered at a regional level by SANDAG staff, a contractor to SANDAG, or through another countywide agency, institution, or organization.

Technical Training and Support

1. Review and provide input to local jurisdictions, school districts and non-profit organizations on planning efforts, including:

o Comprehensive plans; o Infrastructure improvement plans; o Suggested route maps; o Education, encouragement and enforcement program strategies and

materials; o Monitoring and evaluation plans.

2. Promote successful local grant-writing by reviewing, providing feedback, and technical assistance to grant applicants for regional, State SR2S, and Federal SRTS funds.

3. Provide the Safe Routes to School National Course by request to groups of local planners, policy-makers, school administrators and teachers, parent organizations, and other community members.

CONCLUSION

The proposed strategic framework presented in this white paper is intended to serve as a foundation for developing a Safe Routes to School strategy for the region. SANDAG already is aggressively pursuing some of the actions presented, whereas others may be more appropriately reserved for future analysis. SANDAG will work with its member agencies, key stakeholders, and professionals with expertise in Safe Routes to School, to expand upon and refine the proposed framework. Crucial to this process is identifying participating agencies and their respective roles in implementing the strategy. Anticipated in March 2012, the San Diego Regional Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan will present the complete regional Safe Routes to School strategy which will include detailed recommendations and responsible agencies required to effectively implement the strategy.

20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2009 Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority. Safe Routes to Schools Alameda County Partnership Fact Sheet.

2005 Boarnet, M.G., Day, K., Anderson, C. McMillan, T. & Alfonzo, M. “California’s Safe Routes to

School Program: Impacts on Walking, Bicycling, and Pedestrian Safety.” Journal of American Planning Association, 71(3): 301-317.

2008 Buck, S.M., Hillman, C.H., & Castelli, D.M. “The Relation of Aerobic Fitness to Stroop Task

Performance in Performance in Preadolescent Children.” Medicine and Science in Sports Exercise, 40 (1): 166-172.

2010 California Department of Transportation, Cycle 9 SR2S Final Project List (October 14, 2010). 2007 Community Health Improvement Partners (CHIP). “Overweight, Obesity, Physical Activity,

and Nutrition.” Accessed on November 1, 2010 from: http://www.sdchip.org/chip/publications/needs_assessment/pdfs/5k-Overweight-and-obesity-profile.pdf.

2003 Cooper, A.R., Page, A.S., Foster, L.J., & Qahwaji, D. “Commuting to School: Are Children

Who Walk More Physically Active?” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 25(4): 273-276.

2007 Hubsmith, D.A. Safe Routes to School: 2007 State of the States Report: Safe Routes to School National Partnership.

2008 McKenzie, T., & Kahan, D. “Physical Activity, Public Health, and Elementary Schools” The Elementary School Journal, 108 (3): 171-180.

2009 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution No. 3925, Attachment A Revised, New Surface Transportation Authorization Act Cycle 1 STP/CMAQ Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy.

2010 Ogden, C.L., et al. Prevalence of high body mass index in US child and adolescents, 2007-

2008. Journal of the American Medical Association, 303, (3), 242-249. 2008 Stevens, T.A., To, Y., Stevenson, S.J., & Lochbaum, M.R. “The Importance of Physical Activity

and Physical Education in the Prediction of Academic Achievement.” Journal of Sport Behavior, 31 (4): 368-388.

2008 Transportation Authority of Marin County. Safe Routes to School Evaluation and Recommendations for the School Years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008.

2009 Transportation Authority of Marin County Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Measure Strategic Plan.

21

2007 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (August 2007) National Household Travel Survey Brief.

2008 Weigand, L. “A Review of the Literature: the Effectiveness of Safe Routes to School and Other Programs to Promote Active Transportation to School.” Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation, CUS-CTS-0801.

22


BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN WORKING GROUP

23


Action Requested: INFORMATION

ANNUAL PROJECT STATUS REVIEW File Number 3300300

Discussion Each year, the Bicycle Pedestrian Working Group (BPWG) conducts an annual review of all active nonmotorized projects funded with either Transportation Development Act (TDA) or TransNet funds. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the available funding is allocated for viable projects that are currently being developed, or that will be in the near future. This process applies to those grants received from the 2009 call-for-projects or prior. The review is required by SANDAG Board of Directors TDA guidelines policy, which states:

If a capital project has not maintained the schedule for project development provided in the claim documents, the Committee will recommend that the Board rescind the allocation for all unexpended funds. Determination of unexpended funds will be based on the agency’s best estimate at the time, subject to adjustment based on the subsequent fiscal audit. Projects for which funding has been rescinded may be resubmitted for future funding in a subsequent year. The Committee may use its discretion to consider special circumstances that would warrant a recommendation to retain funding for projects that would otherwise be rescinded due to lack of progress. It will be the responsibility of the sponsoring agency to demonstrate that an exception is warranted.

The attached forms showing the active projects for each agency were prepared to assist the local agency staff with this review process. It shows the original project schedule for preliminary engineering (PE), environmental document certification (ED), design (Des), construction (Con), and project completion (Comp). Under the heading of “Status,” it also shows any updates to those milestone dates that have been provided by local agencies. Also included are the amount allocated and any funds remaining to be paid to the claimant. Local agency staff are required to update the project schedules where appropriate. Projects that have not maintained their current schedule will be reviewed by the Working Group at its January 19, 2011, meeting. In order to maintain funding for their delayed projects, local agency staff must update this list and return it to SANDAG no later than December 15, 2010, and attend the January 19 BPWG meeting to answer any questions that may come up about their projects. Consistent with SANDAG Board policy, projects that have not shown progress toward completion, and whose schedules continue to slip, are subject to having their funding rescinded. Attachment: 1. Project Status List Key Staff Contact: Chris Kluth, 619-699-1952, [email protected]

Claim ProjectFY Project Limits Comments PE ED Des. Con. Comp.

Original Schedule

PE ED Des. Con. Comp.

Prior Status

TDA/TransNet Project Status Review

Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


Chula Vista

TDA

349 "D" Street2003 at Third Ave. 9/02 11/02 1/03 1/03$10,635 $0 06/09

8E+06 12 Schools Pedestrian Improvements

2008 2/08 6/08 6/08 8/09 10/09$78,920 $78,920

County of San Diego

TDA

326 Olive Vista Drive / Jefferson Road

2000 Lyons Valley Road to Oak Grove Middle School

Currently budgeted for design and construction, completion FY 08-09. Part of a larger roadway project. Grouped with Claim 13. 9-25-09

7/97 4/97 3/99 7/99 12/99 4/02 4/07 9/07 9/08$172,300 $172,300 04/02 04/07 04/09 05/1111/09

6E+06 Julian Avenue Sidewalk

2006 Las Coches Rd. to Petite Ln.

Budgeted for construction FY 08-09.

9/99 12/06 4/07 9/07 3/08$261,000 $0

TransNet

13 Olive Vista Dr./Jefferson Rd.

1998 Oak Grove M.S. to Lyons Valley Rd.

Currently budgeted for design and construction. Completion FY 08-09. Part of larger roadway project. See claim 326.

4/02 4/07 9/07 9/08$225,000 $0 04/02 04/07 04/09 05/1111/09

10-Nov-10 Page 1 of 13

24



Original Schedule


Prior Status


Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


El Cajon

TDA

8E+06 Master Bicycle Plan

2008 30%complete on 6-25-09.

2/08 11/09$150,000 $32,167

TransNet

3 Jamacha Rd./2nd Ave.

2004 Oakdale Ave. to south city limits

As of 3-14-07 El Cajon agrees to withdraw the project. Funds will be unallocated. Project 'Closed', but not 'Complete'.

$0 $0

Escondido

TDA

372 Escondido Creek Bike Path Alignment Study

2005 Transit Center to Broadway

Project delayed in order to negotiate the incorporation of a key link in the bike path into a downtown mixed-use project located along the proposed alignment area

2/04 3/07 5/08 9/07$12,770 $0 12/09

6E+06 Escondido Creek Bikeway - Ash Street Undercrossing

2006 Update to be provided by December 2009.

$200,650 $166,401

7E+06 Escondido Creek Bikeway - Ash St Undercrossing

2007 $200,650 $200,650


25


Original Schedule


Prior Status


Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


8E+06 Escondido Creek Bike Path Undercrossing at Ash Street

2008 Additional $90,300 under TransNet Claim #13

1/08 1/09$1,106,450 $1,106,450

1E+07 West Bernardo Bike Path

2010 Lake Hodges Bridge to West Bernardo Road

Pass through to San Dieguito River Park

$1,425,000 $950,305

TransNet

Ash Street Undercrossing

2010 $457,357 $457,357

Escondido Creek Bike Path

2010 $524,100 $524,100

Escondido Creek Bike Path Lighting and Restriping

2010 $157,500 $157,500

8 Escondido Creek Bike Path Bridge Design

2004 Ash St./SR 78 Anticipated completion of engineering design and additional studies by 1-06. This project also will need coordination with Caltrans.

6/05 1/06 7/06$100,000 $0


26


Original Schedule


Prior Status


Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


10 Bicycle Facilities Master Plan Update

2005 Scope of work revised to better reflect necessary work required and to provide appropriate contingency funds if additional elements required during preparation of the plan.

9/04 6/05 8/08$56,274 $0 02/10

13 Escondido Creek Bike Path Undercrossing at Ash Street

2008 1/08 1/09$90,300 $90,300

La Mesa

TDA

363 Allison Ave. and Palm Ave.

2004 Intersection Improvements

Part of a larger project, delay in obtaining additional funding for the large project. Additional funding secured in late 2005. 3 phase project. Part of third phase.

6/07 9/07 3/08$161,600 $161,600 12/1003/10

TransNet

Spring St Trolley Station Pedestrian Access Improvements

2010 $88,000 $88,000


27


Original Schedule


Prior Status


Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


Spring St Trolley Station Pedestrian Access Improvements

2010 $88,000 $88,000

National City

TDA

322 L Avenue / 6th Street

2000 4th Street to 6th Street

Project completion delayed 5 months.

5/99 6/00 8/00 8/00 5/00 6/01 5/01$29,160 $0

1E+07 National City Bicycle Master Plan

2010 $35,000 $18,356

NCTD

TransNet

2 Coaster Station Bike Parking

1995 Budget: $44,000: Project Expenditures to date $21,235.37. Available: $22,764.23 Purchased and installed 11 bike racks for Sorrento Valley COASTER Connection vans.

$44,000 $0

3 Bicycle Lockers2004 Sorrento Valley Coaster Station

$30,000 $2,402


28


Original Schedule


Prior Status


Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


3 Transit Center Bike Parking

2003 Purchased and installed 52 bike racks at transit centers. Project funding at Oceanside Transit Center not complete due to construction delays. Anticipate closing grant later in year after project construction at Oceanside is completed.

7/02 11/02 1/03 10/05$65,000 $11,282

5 Oceanside Transit Center Bicycle Parking Plaza

2007 $49,909 $13,576

Oceanside

TDA

6E+06 Pedestrian Master Plan

2006 12/06 9/08 9/09$130,000 $0

Regional

TDA

8E+06 Coastal Rail Trail (CMAQ match)

2008 $57,350 to match $442,650 RSTP to Carlsbad for PE. $63,429 to match $489,571 RSTP to City of San Diego for PE.

$272,000 $151,221


29


Original Schedule


Prior Status


Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


San Diego City

TDA

354 Camino del Rio North

2003 Mission City Parkway to I-15

In design to be completed Sept 06. 3-14-2007 recommend rescinding allocation and return unused portion. As of 7-8-09 project will return funds.

3/02 12/02 4/03 1/03 12/03 9/06$86,000 $0

375 54th St and Euclid Ave Bike Lanes and Bike Route

2005 Trojan Ave to Market St

In design to be completed Sept 06. Original scope calls for 2.25 mi restripe for Class II on 54th (Trojan to Market) and bike route signing (Class III) on Euclid for 1 mi. 7-8-09 Consultant hired. To be completed in FY10.

6/10$130,000 $0

375 Fairmount Ave/Camino del Rio South Traffic Signal and Striping Modifications

2005 Camino del Rio South to Montezuma

In design to be completed Dec 06. 3-14-2007 recommend rescinding allocation and return of unused funds. 7-8-2009 return unused funds.

12/06$86,000 $0


30


Original Schedule


Prior Status


Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


6E+06 Pedestrian Master Plan: Phase II

2006 (See FY 2005 Claim 375) 7-2009 Combined the Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP) Phase 2 and PMP Phase 3 (FY07) efforts resulting in revised completion date of December 2009

6/06$150,000 $0

7E+06 University Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements

2007 East of Florida Street to west side of Mississippi Street

7-8-2009 Design 95% complete. Anticipated construction start is April 2010.

1/06 10/06 10/06 11/06 2/07 1/06 4/07 4/07 9/07$750,000 $630,000 04/10

7E+06 Kearny Villa Road Bike Lane Improvements

2007 Ruffin Road to Miramar Road

7-8-2009 Consultant hired. To be completed in FY10.

1/07 9/07 6/10$300,000 $0

7E+06 Pedestrian Master Plan - Phase 3

2007 10/06 12/07 12/09$150,000 $0

8E+06 Safety in Traffic Education Program (STEP) - Phase 2

2008 7-8-2009 Consultant hired. To be completed in FY10.

10/07 9/08 6/10$200,000 $0

8E+06 Bicycle Master Plan Update

2008 11/07 5/09 10/09$150,000 $0

8E+06 Kearny Villa Road Bike Path Study

2008 Feasibility to begin 10/2007. As of 7-8-2009 Processing consultant contract. To be completed in FY10.

12/08 6/10$100,000 $0


31


Original Schedule


Prior Status


Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


8E+06 India Street Improvement Study

2008 Laurel Street to Washington Street

Feasibility Study to begin 10-2007. As of 7-8 2009 Processing consultant contract. To be completed in FY10.

12/08 6/10$50,000 $0

8E+06 Bicycle Rings and Racks

2008 7-8-2009 Contractor hiring in process.

7/07 12/07$50,000 $0

TransNet

17 SR 15 Bikeway1998 Camino del Rio South to Landis Ave.

Part of local match for CMAQ grant. In design. As of 2/15/06 - Broken into two pieces: North of Adams to go to Caltrans for completion and South of Adams to be installed by City forces. 7-8-09 In design. CMAQ funing unprogramed.

12/96 12/98 12/98 5/00 8/04 2/05$275,000 $217,650


32


Original Schedule


Prior Status


Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


19 SR 56 Bike Path1999 Black Mtn. Rd. Interchange

As of 2/15/06 - Funds allocated by communtiy from FBA for design and construction at $1.75 M. Draft Study Report completed and expanded to include Darkwood Caynon and other alternatives. $4 M allocated for corridor acquired, need $7 M. 3-14-07 rescind $.

7/04$250,000 $250,000

19 SR 56 Bike Path2000 Interchange at Black Mtn. Rd.

As of 2/15/06 - Funds allocated by communtiy from FBA for design and construction at $1.75 M. Draft Study Report completed and expanded to include Darkwood Caynon and other alternatives. $4 M allocated for corridor acquired, need $7 M. 3-14-07 rescind $

7/04$483,334 $106,888

10-Nov-10 Page 10 of 13

33


Original Schedule


Prior Status


Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


19 SR 56 Bike Path2001 Black Mountain Road Interchange, prior year commitment

As of 2/15/06 - Funds allocated by communtiy from FBA for design and construction at $1.75 M. Draft Study Report completed and expanded to include Darkwood Caynon and other alternatives. $4 M allocated for corridor acquired, need $7 M. 3-14-07 rescind $.

7/04$466,666 $466,666

29 Carroll Canyon Road Bike Lane Design

2006 Design pending Caltrans review I-805 bridge alts. MND going ou this month. 3-14-2007 recommend rescind funding.

$0 ($30,000)

30 Adams Avenue Bikeway

2006 In design and scheduled for installation in Summer 06. 7-8-2009 return funds.

7/06$46,000 $39,100

31 Mira Mesa Boulevard Bikeway

2006 In design and scheduled for installation in Summer 06. 7-8-2009 return funds.

7/06$168,000 $142,800

10-Nov-10 Page 11 of 13

34


Original Schedule


Prior Status


Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


32 Hazard Center Road Bike Path Study at SR 163

2006 City has federal funds to design/construct the project. The project has been assigned to the Design section for completion. 7-8-2009 Project is in design.

$180,000 $0

33 Balboa Avenue/Tierrasanta Boulevard Bikeway

2006 In design and scheduled for installation in Summer 06. 7-8-2009 Consultant hired. To be completed in FY10.

7/06$250,000 $0 06/10

34 Poway Road Bike Path

2007 Existing I-15 Path to Sabre Springs Parkway

7-8-2009 In design. 6/07$500,000 $0

35 Ranch Bernardo Bikeway

2007 West Bernardo Dr from Rancho Bernardo Rd to Aguamiel Rd and Bernardo Dtr Rd from W Bernardo Dr to Rancho Bernardo Rd

7-8-2009 Consultant hired. To be completed in FY10.

6/08 12/06 7/07$250,000 $0 06/10

San Dieguito River Park/ Esc

TDA

362 Lake Hodges Bridge North Access Study

2004 Via Rancho Pkwy to future Lake Hodges Bike/Ped Bridge

3-14-2007 rescind funding. City to return allocation.

$0 $0

10-Nov-10 Page 12 of 13

35


Original Schedule


Prior Status


Allocated Unpaid

Current Status


San Marcos

TDA

355 E. Barham Dr. Phase II

2003 SR 78 On-ramp to city limit. 7-2009 SR 78 onramp to Woodland Pkwy.

Request remaining $115,000 be transferred to Barham Drive Street Widening project, which includes bike lanes. Plans at 90% level. 7-20009 in construction.

9/02 10/02 2/02 2/03 4/03 5/07 7/07 1/09$137,140 $0 03/1001/09

SANDAG

TransNet

10 RideLink Bike Locker Procurement and Retrofit Upgrade

2008 11/07 12/07$50,000 $16,000

54 Bayshore Bikeway Segments 7 and 8

2010 $1,000,078 $910,515

Solana Beach

TDA

369 Fletcher Cove Community Center Scenic View Point Pathway

2004 7/07 1/08 4/08 12/08$25,000 $25,000

10-Nov-10 Page 13 of 13

36

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE November 12, 2010

AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4Action Requested: DISCUSSION

2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN: REVENUE CONSTRAINED File Number 3100500 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK SCENARIO

Introduction

During the past few months, staff presented the draft 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Unconstrained Highway and Transit Networks to the Board of Directors, the Regional Planning, Transportation, and Borders Committees, various SANDAG working groups, and at other public meetings for input. At its July 23, 2010, meeting, the Board accepted the draft Unconstrained Transportation Network for use in the development of the draft 2050 RTP.

Based on revenue projections through 2050, four Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenarios (Scenarios) have been developed using prioritized project lists and other factors. The Scenarios attempt to build and operate as much of the Unconstrained Transportation Network as possible, given revenue availability and flexibility, and project priorities. These Scenarios were presented at the September and October Transportation Committee meetings. This report provides: (1) additional information on the Scenarios; (2) a summary of feedback received from several working groups, the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees , and at the October 22, 2010 and November 5, 2010, Board meetings; and (3) the draft results of the economic impact analysis conducted on the four Scenarios. The Transportation Committee is asked to discuss the four Scenarios and provide input. The Transportation Committee will be asked to recommend to the Board of Directors a preferred Revenue Constrained Network Scenario next month for use in the Draft 2050 RTP.

Discussion

Alternative Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenarios Based on revenue projections to 2050, four Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenarios with a range of modal emphases were developed using prioritized project lists and other factors. The Scenarios are: Transit Emphasis, Rail/Freight Emphasis, Highway Emphasis, and Fusion. Initial revenue estimates presented previously to the Board indicate that approximately $100 billion to $110 billion would be available through 2050, with $3 billion to $3.5 billion (or approximately three percent of the total projected revenues) available as flexible funding. Each Scenario allocates the flexible funding differently. The transit networks of each Scenario are illustrated in Attachment 1. The highway networks of each Scenario are illustrated in Attachment 2. For reference purposes, the associated transit and highway projects for each Scenario are listed in Attachments 3 and 4.


37

Transportation Demand Management, Transportation System Management, and Active Transportation Programs Based on input from the Board, Policy Advisory Committees, working groups, and the public, all of the Scenarios now propose to fully implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation System Management (TSM) programs and projects, as well as Active Transportation programs identified through 2050. Active Transportation refers to bicycling and walking modes of transportation as an alternative to the automobile. The proposed funding amounts for these programs, which are constant across all four Scenarios, are shown in Table 1. These programs provide flexible and cost-effective solutions to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short-term compared to longer-term capital improvements. TDM includes programs and projects such as incentives for vanpools, carpools, and telework. TSM includes programs such as traveler information services and freeway, arterial, and transit/Trolley management. Active transportation includes implementation of both regional and local bicycle networks as well as pedestrian and bicycle safety programs, among other programs. A more detailed description of program components is included in Attachment 5. Additionally, local street and road improvements, which use TransNet and other federal, state, and local funding sources are included in each Scenario. Total proposed transportation investments through 2050 range between $100 billion and $110 billion. Proposed investments in transit facilities and operations as well as highways, local streets and roads, and goods movement projects are estimated at $93 billion to $102 billion through 2050. Approximately 35 percent to 40 percent of the total investment is estimated to be required for maintaining and preserving the existing and proposed transportation infrastructure [transit, highway, and local streets and roads maintenance and rehabilitation as well as proposed operational improvements on major corridors, such as Interstate 5 (I-5) Central and I-8]. Table 1 lists proposed investments in TDM, TSM, and Active Transportation.

Table 1 2050 RTP Revenue Constrained Scenarios (All Scenarios)

Proposed Transportation Demand Management, Transportation System Management and Active Transportation Programs Expenditures (in $ millions)

Approximately 2.5 percent of the total proposed RTP funding through 2050 is dedicated to Active Transportation improvements and programs.

TDM Programs $700 TSM Programs $830 Active Transportation $2,580 Total $4,110

Rail Grade Separations To address questions from the Board of Directors, additional information on rail grade separations is provided in this section. All four Scenarios include 15 new rail grade separations on existing Trolley and SPRINTER corridors that would be funded as part of proposed frequency enhancement or double tracking projects and one rail grade separation that would be funded as part of the proposed COASTER corridor double tracking project. For these existing light rail transit (LRT) and commuter rail corridors, proposed grade separations include:

38

• SPRINTER: El Camino Real, Vista Village Drive, Melrose Drive, and Mission Road/San Marcos

• Blue Line Trolley: Taylor Street, Palomar Street, H Street, E Street, 32nd Street, 28th Street, Washington/Sassafras Street

• Orange Line Trolley: Allison Avenue/University Avenue, Severin Drive, Broadway/ Lemon Grove, and Euclid Avenue

• COASTER Corridor: Leucadia Boulevard In new LRT corridors proposed in the various Scenarios, various rail grade separation projects also are assumed in key locations and their estimated costs are included in the total estimated cost of each specific LRT route. As transit projects move forward in the development process, further evaluation and refinement of rail grade separations will be done at the project level. At the current planning level, the design concepts at proposed individual grade separations (such as whether the transit would cross above or below the local street) have not been developed. As shown in Table 2, additional regional funds have been proposed in each of the Scenarios for other regional grade separation projects that would be subject to a competitive funding process. A call for projects or a similar process could be used to identify funding for regional rail grade separation projects. In the Transit Emphasis, Rail/Freight Emphasis, and Highway Emphasis Scenarios, approximately $1.4 billion has been proposed as a set aside for additional rail grade separations. This proposed set aside is increased to nearly $2.5 billion in the Fusion Scenario.

Table 2

2050 RTP Revenue Constrained Scenarios Proposed Rail Grade Separations Expenditures (in $ millions)

Transit

Emphasis Rail/Freight Emphasis

Highway Emphasis

Fusion

Rail Grade Separations $2,277 $2,277 $2,277 $3,393 Transit Projects (Rail Grade Separations) $900 $900 $900 $900 Regional Rail Grade Separation

Funding $1,377 $1,377 $1,377 $2,493 Feedback Received on the Alternative Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenarios At several meetings with working groups and PACs, culminating with the November 5, 2010, Board of Directors meeting, initial feedback was provided on the alternative Scenarios and Performance Measures. The following summarizes the major input received. Scenarios

• Support for various projects that are included in the Transit Emphasis, Highway Emphasis, and Fusion Scenarios

• Evaluate possible changes to the project mix, such as including the UTC COASTER station and tunnel, removing the Kearny Mesa Guideway, and removing the I-5 North BRT

• Concern that specific transit routes were not included in all Scenarios

• Interest in including additional transit routes in certain communities

39

• Concern that BRT alone may not be sufficient to support the projected growth in South County in the long term

• Support for both BRT and LRT projects

• Support for removing redundant transit routes

• Recognition of expense associated with UTC COASTER Station and Tunnel, but support for providing access to the UTC area as a major employment area

• Recognition of the public opinion survey results indicating that the public favors transit investments

• Support for full funding of active transportation programs (bike/pedestrian programs) consistent with the region’s smart growth programs

• Support for Smart Growth Incentive Program

• Need for further inclusion of technology

• Support for including only Managed Lanes improvements in the I-5 North Coast corridor in all scenarios

Performance Measures

• Requests for clarification on performance measures and their interpretation (are the results/differences significant?)

• Importance of understanding economic impacts of investment choices

• Concern over bike/walk performance measure information This feedback will be used in developing a preferred Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenario.

Economic Analysis A key addition to the 2050 RTP is the inclusion of an economic analysis of alternative transportation strategies to determine the overall contribution to the economy from the proposed $100 billion to $110 billion transportation investment and the most economically effective Scenario over the long-term (40 years). To accomplish the analysis SANDAG used two separate and very different types of analytical techniques: a traditional Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) that estimate the value of the proposed RTP expenditures on the regional economy, and a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) that highlights the transportation choices and phasing of the planned improvements for each alternative and compares those values against a baseline alternative (in this case the No Build alternative). Preliminary results of the EIA are presented in this section. An evaluation of the CBA on the alternative Scenarios is underway and will be completed as the projects, services, and programs proposed in the Scenarios are phased for 2020 and 2035. This evaluation is anticipated to be available in December 2010. Economic Impact Analysis The economic impact analysis estimates how much of the regional economy is supported by the proposed RTP expenditures and uses a modeling tool called input-output analysis. The direct impacts from the proposed RTP expenditures come from both construction (one-time) expenditures

40

and annual operation and maintenance costs totaling about $100 billion to $110 billion over the next 40 years. These direct expenditures set in motion a sequence of indirect and induced expenditures that ripple through the economy creating additional economic activity. The sequence of the impacts, as the expenditures ripple through the economy, is tracked using the direct, indirect, and induced categories. These three categories together represent the ability of the region to respond to the direct expenditures. If some part of the product or service cannot be supplied from the regional economy, it (part of the expenditure) “leaks” out of the region and is spent in the location where the part of the product or service originates from (e.g. transit vehicles). The total value of the expenditures accommodated by the regional economy is measured in terms of output, jobs, and wages. The input-output (I-O) model that SANDAG uses is the IMPLAN model. Because there is a great deal of project overlap between the alternative Scenarios the results produced from the I-O model should be similar. In addition to project similarity, there are other characteristics of the I-O model that also would lead to similar results. First, the I-O model is not sensitive to project expenditure schedules, so the impact on the economy from a project completed in year 20 is the same as completing the project in year 1. Second, the model is not sensitive to changes that may occur after the project is complete and is not connected to fluctuations in the performance of the transportation system, so the model would not account for the value of improved travel times, or for the reduction in travel time benefits as congestion builds over time. Last, the I-O model is based on a set of linear relationships, so more expenditures in the same transportation area (roadways, busses, railcars) will result in a linear and proportional outcome or impact. These limitations of the I-O model are addressed and considered in the cost-benefit analysis. Together the EIA and the CBA present a more complete picture of the RTP’s contribution to the regional economy. A 2050 RTP Economic Analyses Ad Hoc Technical Working Group was convened to review the BCA and EIA methodologies, inputs and preliminary results. This group includes representatives from all regional economic development councils, regional universities and research organizations, the City of San Diego Planning and Community Investment Department, and the County Department of Health and Human Services. This group has met twice, with one meeting held at SANDAG and one convened via Webinar, and provided valuable suggestions to be incorporated into model refinements. The results from the draft EIA indicate that the Highway Emphasis Scenario would result in the greatest average annual jobs, payroll impacts, and output over the 40-year life of the RTP, followed by the Transit Scenario (Table 3). Total annual jobs in the Highway Emphasis Scenario are estimated at 36,700, which is comparable, for example, to the size of the Information industry (which includes telecommunications) in San Diego, and is larger than the Computer and Electronics Manufacturing, Architecture and Engineering, and Research and Development industries in San Diego. The Highway Emphasis scenario results in total annual average payroll impacts estimated at $1.9 billion (this includes direct, indirect and induced), and output impacts estimated at $4.8 billion. Given that Gross Regional Product was approximately $169 billion in 2008, the average annual output impact of the proposed RTP expenditures, which ranges from $4.6 billion to $4.8 billion, is equivalent to nearly three percent of the total regional economy. The economic impact measures for the highest and lowest ranked alternatives differ by about 6 percent. The draft analyses estimate that the Rail/Freight Emphasis Scenario could result in about 2,000 fewer total jobs annually, $100 million less in payroll impacts, and $200 million less output value when compared to the Highway Emphasis Scenario. The differences are relatively small, and reflect the effect of different expenditures across scenarios, particularly with respect to the mix of

41

infrastructure constructed, vehicles purchased, ongoing operations, and right-of-way acquired. For example, right-of-way acquisition is a land-transfer that does not generate any local jobs. Thus, Scenarios that require more right-of-way acquisition may have a lower overall job impact estimate. In addition, project design, construction, and operations generate different levels of jobs per dollar spent. Therefore, to the extent that the mix of projects varies across Scenarios (more right-of-way purchased in one, more light rail lines built in another) the results will differ. Also it is worth noting that nearly all other performance measures in the RTP blend existing conditions and future improvements into a single estimate to achieve a regionwide projection of the future. The economic impact analysis, on the other hand, measures only the future projections and thus will show more variation than most other performance measures, except the CBA.

Table 3 2050 RTP Revenue Constrained Scenarios

Economic Impact Analyses: Preliminary Results (in $ billions)

Transit

Emphasis Rail/Freight Emphasis

Highway Emphasis

Fusion

Average Annual Jobs 35,500 34,700 36,700 35,300Payroll impacts $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $1.8Output $4.7 $4.6 $4.8 $4.6

Next Steps The Transportation Committee will be asked to recommend to the Board of Directors a preferred Revenue Constrained Transportation Network/SCS Scenario at its December meeting. Once a preferred Revenue Constrained Network/SCS Scenario is selected, continued refinements to the transportation network, TDM, TSM, and Active Transportation programs and further performance evaluations will be made throughout the Draft 2050 RTP review period in 2011 to ensure the most effective and efficient transportation network is developed for final approval.

CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Department Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Attachments: 1. Draft 2050 RTP Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios: Transit Network Maps 2. Draft 2050 RTP Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios: Highway Network Maps 3. Draft 2050 RTP Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios: Transit Project List 4. Draft 2050 RTP Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios: Highway Project List 5. 2050 RTP Revenue Constrained Scenarios: Proposed Transportation Demand

Management, Transportation System Management, and Active Transportation Programs

Key Staff Contacts: Heather Werdick, (619) 699-6967, [email protected] Marney Cox, (619) 699-1930, [email protected]

42

Attachment 1

7

ITC ITC

ITCITC

UTC COASTERStation/Tunnel

DowntownTrolleyTunnel

DowntownTrolleyTunnel

Kearny Mesa Guideway



San Ysidro

Imperial Beach

ChulaVista Otay

Ranch

Otay Mesa

NationalCity

Coronado

Downtown

Santee

El Cajon

LaMesa

LemonGrove

Paci�cBeach

OldTown

Mid City

MissionValley

KearnyMesa

Mira Mesa

Escondido

Oceanside

UTC

ˆ Riverside County

Carlsbad

San Marcos

Ocean Beach

PointLoma

Encinitas

Carmel Valley

Camp Pendleton

Vista

Sorrento Mesa

SolanaBeach

Poway

La Jolla

Del Mar

10/22/2010

San Ysidro

Imperial Beach

ChulaVista Otay

Ranch

Otay Mesa

NationalCityCoronado

Downtown

Santee

El Cajon

LaMesa

LemonGrove

Paci�cBeach

OldTown

Mid City

MissionValley

KearnyMesa

Mira Mesa

Escondido

Oceanside

UTC

ˆ Riverside County

Carlsbad

San Marcos

Ocean Beach

PointLoma

Encinitas

Carmel Valley

Camp Pendleton

Vista

Sorrento Mesa

SolanaBeach

Poway

La Jolla

Del Mar

10/22/2010

San Ysidro

Imperial Beach

ChulaVista Otay

Ranch

Otay Mesa

NationalCity

Coronado

Downtown

Santee

El Cajon

LaMesa

LemonGrove

Paci�cBeach

OldTown

Mid City

MissionValley

KearnyMesa

Mira Mesa

Escondido

Oceanside

UTC

ˆ Riverside County

Carlsbad

San Marcos

Ocean Beach

PointLoma

Encinitas

Carmel Valley

Camp Pendleton

Vista

Sorrento Mesa

SolanaBeach

Poway

La Jolla

Del Mar

10/22/2010

San Ysidro

Imperial Beach

ChulaVista

OtayRanch

Otay Mesa

NationalCity

Coronado

Downtown

Santee

El Cajon

LaMesa

LemonGrove

Paci�cBeach

OldTown

Mid City

MissionValley

KearnyMesa

Mira Mesa

Escondido

Oceanside

UTC

ˆ Riverside County

Carlsbad

San Marcos

Ocean Beach

PointLoma

Encinitas

Carmel Valley

Camp Pendleton

Vista

Sorrento Mesa

SolanaBeach

Poway

La Jolla

Del Mar

10/22/2010

Transit Rail/Freight Highway FusionMajor Capital Investments

Downtown Trolley Tunnel


UTC COASTER Station/Tunnel

New RoutesLRT

BRT

Rapid Bus

Streetcars/Shuttles

Transit Rail/Freight Highway Fusion

Downtown Trolley Tunnel


UTC COASTER Station/Tunnel

LRT

BRT

Rapid Bus

Streetcars/Shuttles

= Smaller Investment

= Larger Investment

= Included

Peak Bus Rapid Transit

Rapid Bus

Streetcar/Shuttle-Circulator

High Frequency Local Bus Services

Major Capital Investments Projects

High Speed and Commuter Rail

COASTER Rail

Light Rail Transit

Express Light Rail Transit

Bus Rapid Transit

Fusion

HighwayEmphasis

Rail/FreightEmphasis

TransitEmphasis

Legend

Draft 2050 Revenue ConstrainedNetwork Scenarios

Transit Network MapsNovember 12, 2010

43

dsn

Text Box

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

Imperial Beach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

San Diego

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

Imperial Beach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

San Diego

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

Imperial Beach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

San Diego

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Encinitas

Del Mar

Solana Beach

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

Imperial Beach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

Escondido

Vista

SanMarcos

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

CampPendleton

County of San Diego

San Diego

6F+2HOV

10F+4ML/MB

4C

6F+2ML(R)

6F

8F+2HOV

8F/10F+

2HOV

8F+2HOV

10F+2HOV

6F

8F

4T

10F+2HOV

10F+2HOV

6F+2HOV

6C6F

6F

8F+2ML

8F+2HOV

8F

8F/10F+OPS

8F+OPS

8F/14F+

4ML

6F

6F+2HOV

6F+2HOV

6F/8F+OPS

8F+4ML

8F+OPS

8F+4ML

8F

8F/10F+2HOV

6F

8F+4ML

8F

8F+

2HOV

8F+4ML

8F+2HOV

4C

4C 4C+OPS

10F+4ML/MB

2C

8F+2ML

8F+4T6E

4C

6F+2HOV

10F+4ML/MB

10F+4ML/MB

4C

6F6F+3ML/MB

6F/8F

6F+2HOV

8F+4ML

8F+4ML

8F+4ML

8F/10F+

2HOV

8F+2HOV

10F+2HOV

6F

8F

4T

10F+2HOV

10F+2HOV

8F+4ML

6F/8F+2HOV

6C6F

6F+2HOV

8F+4T

2C

8F+4ML

8F+2HOV

8F

2C

8F/10F+OPS

8F+4ML

8F+4T

8F+OPS

8F/14F+4ML

8F

6F+2HOV

8F+2HOV

4C

6F/8F+OPS

8F+4ML

8F+4ML

8F+OPS

8F+4ML

6C

6F

8F

8F/10F+4ML

4F6F

8F+4ML

8F+2

HOV

4C

8F

8F+

2HOV

4C+OPS

8F+2HOV

4C

10F+4ML/MB

4C

6F+2ML(R)

6F

8F+2HOV

8F/10F+

2HOV

8F+2HOV

8F+2HOV

6F

8F

4T

8F+2HOV

6F+2HOV

6C6F

6F+2HOV

8F+2HOV

8F+2HOV

8F/14F+

4ML

8F

6F+2HOV

6F/8F+OPS

8F+4ML

8F+4ML

8F+OPS

8F+4ML

8F

8F/10F+4ML

6F

8F+4ML

8F+

2HOV

8F+4ML

8F+2HOV

6F+2HOV

10F+4ML/MB

6F/8F

8F

4C

2C

8F+2HOV

4C

6F+2HOV

10F+4ML/MB

4C

6F+2ML(R)

6F

8F+2HOV

8F/10F+

2HOV

8F+2HOV

8F+2HOV

6F

8F

4T

8F+2HOV

6F+2HOV

6C

6F+2HOV

8F+4ML

8F+2HOV

8F/14F+

4ML

6F

6F+2HOV

6F+2HOV

6F/8F+OPS

8F+4ML8F+4ML

8F/10F+2HOV

6F

8F+4ML

8F

8F+

2HOV

8F+4ML

8F+2HOV

8F/10F+OPS

8F+OPS

8F+OPS

8F/10F+4ML

10F+4ML/MB

2C

8F+4ML

6F

76

1-D

905 11

5

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

16394

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

7594

15

54

76

1-D

905 11

5

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

16394

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

7594

15

54

76

1-D

905 11

5

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

16394

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

7594

15

54

76

1-D

905 11

5

125

54

805

805

8055

5

5

282

16394

6752

52

15

56

78

78

78

76

67

8

8

15

125

125

7594

15

54

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

Managed/HOV Lanes

General Purpose Lanes

Toll Lanes

Operational Improvements

Freeway Connectors

HOV Connectors

Freeway & HOV Connectors

C =

E =

F =

HOV =

MB =

ML =

OPS =

T =

Conventional Highway

Expressway

Freeway

High Occupancy Vehicle

Movable Barrier

Managed Lanes

Operational Improvements

Toll Road

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Fusion

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

HighwayEmphasis

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

Rail/FreightEmphasis

0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6

MILES

KILOMETERS

TransitEmphasis

Legend

Draft 2050 Revenue ConstrainedNetwork Scenarios

Highway Network Maps

November 12, 2010

Attachment 2

844

dsn

Text Box

Attachment 3

Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Scenario #4

Transit Emphasis

Rail/Freight Emphasis

Highway Emphasis

Fusion

BASELINE PROJECTS1 TNET Trolley - Mid-Coast LRT Extension (Rte 510)2 TNET Trolley - Trolley System Rehabilitation3 TNET BRT - North I-15 (Sabre Springs/Mira Mesa PNRs, Mid-City Stations) (Rte 610)4 TNET BRT - Escondido-UTC via Mira Mesa Blvd (Rt 470 Project)5 TNET BRT - South Bay BRT (Otay Mesa-Downtown) (Rte 628)6 TNET Rapid - Mid-City Rapid - Phase 16 TNET South Bay Maintenance Facility7 TNET Downtown BRT stations/layovers

NEW/EXPANDED PROJECTS1 High Speed Rail (HSR) Commuter Rail Overlay - Temecula to Lindbergh ITC (Rte 598) 2 High Speed Rail (HSR) Intercity - Temecula to Lindbergh Field ITC3 High Speed Rail (HSR) Extension from Lindbergh Field ITC to International Border - - - -4 COASTER - Tunnel (Del Mar) (Rte 398)

5 TNETCOASTER - Double Tracking (including Fairgrounds and Convention Center Stations, and rail grade separation at Leucadia) (Rte 398) (partial TransNet funding)

6 COASTER - Tunnel (UTC) and UTC COASTER Station (Rte 398) - - -7 COASTER - Positive Train Control

8 TNETSPRINTER - Double Tracking (Oceanside-Escondido); rail grade separations assumed at El Camino Real, Vista Village, Melrose, and Mission/San Marcos Stations (Rte 399)

9 SPRINTER - Branch Extensions to North County Fair (Rte 399) -10 SPRINTER - Branch Extensions to East Escondido (Rte 399) - - - -11 SPRINTER Express (Rte 588) - -12 Trolley - Blue Line Frequency Enhancements (rail grade seps at: Taylor St) (Rte 510)

13Trolley - Blue Line Frequency Enhancements (rail grade seps at: Palomar St, H St, E St, 32nd St, 28th St, Washington St/Sassafras St) (Rte 510)

14Trolley - Orange Line Frequency Enhancements (rail grade seps at: Allison/University, Severin Dr, Broadway/Lemon Grove Ave, Euclid Ave) (Rte 520)

15 Trolley - Green Line Frequency Enhancements (Rte 530)

16Trolley - Downtown Trolley Tunnel betw. Park/Island and Ash St (facilitates frequency enhancements for Blue/Orange Lines and Blue/Orange Express) (Rtes 510 & 520)

- -

17 Trolley - Downtown Bus Tunnel and Hubs - - - -18 Trolley Express - Blue Line Express - UTC to San Ysidro via Downtown (Rte 540) - -

19 Trolley Express - Orange Line Express - El Cajon to Downtown San Diego via Euclid (Rte 522) - -

20Trolley Express - H St Trolley Station (formerly EUC) to UTC via Mid-City, Kearny Mesa (Rte 566)

- - -

21Trolley - SDSU to Downtown via El Cajon Blvd/Mid-City (transition of Mid-City Rapid to LRT) (Rte 560)

- - -

22 Trolley - Pacific Beach to El Cajon via Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, SDSU (Rte 563) - -23 Trolley - SDSU to San Ysidro via East San Diego, SE San Diego, National City (Rte 550) - -

24Trolley - UTC to H St Trolley Station via Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, Mid-City, National City (Rte 562)

- -

25 Trolley - UTC to Mira Mesa via Sorrento Mesa (Rte 561) - -

26Trolley - Otay Mesa East Border Crossing to western Chula Vista via Otay Ranch/Millenia (Rte 564)

- - - -

27Guideway- Kearny Mesa Guideway (facilitates direct access for BRT, Rapid Bus, and local bus - Rtes 120, 610, 640, 652)

-

28 TNET BRT - Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa via I-805, Kearny Mesa (TransNet Rt 680) - -

29BRT - I-5 - San Ysidro to Kearny Mesa via I-5 shoulder lanes/HOV lanes, Downtown, Kearny Mesa Guideway (Rte 640)

- -

30 BRT - Downtown to UTC via Kearny Mesa Guideway/I-805 (Rte 652) -31 BRT - El Cajon to UTC/Campus Pt via Santee, SR 52, I-805 (Rte 870) (Peak Only) - -32 BRT - Oceanside to Escondido via SR 78 HOV Lanes (Rte 430) - -33 BRT - Chula Vista to Palomar Airport Road Bus. Park via I-805/5 (Rte 650) (Peak Only) - - -34 BRT - El Cajon to Sorrento Mesa via SR 52, Kearny Mesa (Rte 890) - -35 BRT - El Cajon to Otay Mesa via Spring Valley, SR 125, Millenia (Rte 692) - -36 BRT - Mid City to Palomar Airport Road via Kearny Mesa/I-805/I-5 (Rte 653) (Peak Only) - -37 BRT - Oceanside to UTC via I-5, Carlsbad, Encinitas (Rte 940) (Peak Only) -38 BRT - Santee/El Cajon Transit Centers to Downtown via SR 94 (Rte 90) - -39 BRT - Millenia/Otay Ranch to Sorrento Mesa Express (Rte 688) (Peak Only) -

Draft 2050 RTP Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios Transit Project ListNovember 12, 2010

TRANSIT PROJECTS

45


Transit Emphasis


Highway Emphasis

FusionTRANSIT PROJECTS

40 BRT - Millenia/Otay Ranch to UTC/Torrey Pines Express (Rte 689) (Peak Only) -41 TNET Rapid - Mid-City Rapid – Phase 2 Balboa Park (Rte 15)42 Rapid - Oceanside to UTC via Hwy 101 Coastal Communities, Carmel Valley (Rte 473) -43 Rapid - Old Town to Sorrento Mesa via Pacific Beach, La Jolla, UTC (Rte 30) -44 Rapid - Carlsbad to San Marcos via Palomar Airport Road Corridor (Rte 440) - -45 Rapid - La Mesa to Ocean Beach via Mid-City, Hillcrest, Old Town (Rte 10) 46 Rapid - Coronado to Downtown via Coronado Bridge (Rte 910) - -47 Rapid - Point Loma to Kearny Mesa via Old Town, Linda Vista (Rte 28)48 Rapid - Spring Valley to SDSU via SE San Diego, Downtown, Hillcrest, Mid-City (Rte 11) -49 Rapid - Fashion Valley to UTC/UCSD via Linda Vista and Clairemont (Rte 41) - -50 Rapid - SDSU to Spring Valley via East San Diego, Lemon Grove, Skyline (Rte 636) -51 Rapid - North Park to 32nd Street Trolley via Golden Hill (Rte 637) - -52 Rapid - Downtown Escondido to East Escondido (Rte 471) - -53 Rapid - Eastlake/EUC to Palomar Trolley via Main Street Corridor (Rte 635) - -54 Rapid - San Ysidro to Otay Mesa via Otay, SR 905 Corridor (Rte 638) - -55 Rapid - Otay to North Island via Imperial Beach and Silver Strand, Coronado (Rte 639) - - -

56Rapid - H Street Trolley to Millenia via H Street Corridor, Southwestern College(Rte 709)

- -

57 Rapid - North Park to Downtown San Diego via 30th St (Rte 2) - -58 Rapid - Oceanside to Vista via Mission Ave/Santa Fe Road Corridor (Rte 474) - - -

59Rapid - Camp Pendleton to Carlsbad Village via College Blvd, Plaza Camino Real(Rte 477)

- - -

60 Rapid - Kearny Mesa to Downtown via KM Guideway (Rte 120)61 TNET Rapid - UTC Area Super Loop (Rte 180)62 Rapid - Escondido to Del Lago via Escondido Blvd & Bear Valley (Rte 350)63 Streetcar - Hillcrest/Balboa Park/Downtown San Diego Loop (Rte 554) -64 Streetcar - 30th St to Downtown San Diego via North Park/Golden Hill (Rte 555) - -65 Streetcar - Downtown San Diego: Little Italy to East Village (Rte 553) -66 Streetcar - El Cajon Downtown (Rte 557) - - -67 Streetcar - Chula Vista Downtown (Rte 551) - - -68 Streetcar - Escondido Downtown (Rte 558) - - -69 Streetcar - National City Downtown (Rte 552) - - - -70 Streetcar - Oceanside Downtown (Rte 559) - - - -71 Streetcar - Mission Beach to La Jolla via Pacific Beach (Rte 565) - - - -72 Shuttles - San Marcos 73 Local Bus Routes - 10 min in key corridors 74 Feeder Bus System

75Kearny Mesa Street Network Upgrades to Support Transit, Bike and Pedestrian, and SeaWorld Pedestrian Bridge

- - - -

76 Lindbergh Intermodal Transit Center (ITC)77 San Ysidro Intermodal Center - - - -78 Otay Mesa East Intermodal Transit Center - - - -79 Bike/Pedestrian Access Improvements 80 Other (Maintenance facilities, transit system rehab, park and ride, ITS)

46

Attachment 4


Transit Emphasis


Highway Emphasis

Fusion

BASELINE PROJECTSRoute From To Existing Improvement

1 TNET I-15 SR 163 SR 56 8F+2ML(R) 10F+4ML/MB

2 TNET I-15 Centre City Pkwy SR 78 8F 8F+4ML

3 TNET SR 76 Melrose Drive I-15 2C 4C4 SR 905 I-805 Mexico -- 6F

Route From To Existing Improvement1 TNET I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F+2HOV

2a I-5 SR 54 I-15 8F 10F+2HOV - -2b TNET I-5 SR 54 I-15 8F 8F+2HOV - -3 TNET I-5 I-15 I-8 8F 8F+Operational4 TNET I-5 I-8 La Jolla Village Dr 8F/10F 8F/10F+2HOV5 TNET I-5 La Jolla Village Dr I-5/I-805 Merge 8F/14F 8F/14F+2HOV6 TNET I-5 I-5/I-805 Merge Manchester Ave 8F/14F+ 2HOV 8F/14F+4ML

7b TNET I-5 Manchester Ave Palomar Airport Rd 8F 8F+4ML8b TNET I-5 Palomar Airport Rd Vandegrift Boulevard 8F 8F+4ML9 I-5 Vandegrift Boulevard Orange County 8F 8F+4T - - -

10 I-8 I-5 I-15 8F 8F+Operational -11 I-8 I-15 SR 125 8F/10F 8F/10F+Operational -12 I-8 SR 125 2nd Street 6F/8F 6F/8F+Operational13 TNET I-8 2nd Street Los Coches 4F/6F 6F14 I-8 Los Coches Dunbar Rd 4F/6F 6F - - -15 SR 11 SR 905 Mexico -- 4T

16a SR 15 I-5 SR 94 6F 8F+2HOV16b TNET SR 15 SR 94 I-8 8F 8F+2HOV17 TNET I-15 Viaduct 8F 8F+2HOV18 TNET I-15 I-8 SR 163 8F 8F+2HOV19 I-15 SR 78 Riverside County 8F 8F+4T - - -20 SR 52 I-5 I-805 4F 6F21 TNET SR 52 I-805 I-15 6F 6F+2HOV

22a SR 52 I-15 SR 125 4F 6F+3ML/MB - - -22b TNET SR 52 I-15 SR 125 4F 6F+2ML(R) -23 SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 4F 6F - - -

24a SR 54 I-5 SR 125 6F 6F/8F+2HOV - - -24b TNET SR 54 I-5 SR 125 6F 6F+2HOV -25a SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F+2HOV - - -25b TNET SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F -26 SR 67 I-8 Mapleview St 4F/6F 6F/8F - -27 TNET SR 67 Mapleview St Dye Rd 2C/4C 4C28 SR 76 I-5 Melrose Drive 4E 6E - - -

29 SR 76 Melrose Drive Mission Rd 4C 6C - - -

30 SR 76 I-15 Couser Canyon 2C 4C/6C + Ops - -31 TNET SR 78 I-5 I-15 6F 6F+2HOV/Ops32 TNET SR 94 I-5 I-805 8F 8F+2HOV

33a SR 94 I-805 College Ave 8F 10F+2HOV - -33b TNET SR 94 I-805 College Ave 8F 8F+2HOV - -34 TNET SR 94 College Ave SR 125 8F 8F+2HOV35 TNET SR 94 SR 125 Avocado Blvd 4F 6F36 TNET SR 94 Avocado Blvd Jamacha Rd 4C 6C37 Partial TNET SR 94 Jamacha Rd Steele Canyon Rd 4C 6C38 SR 94 Steele Canyon Rd Melody Rd 2C 4C - -39 SR 125 SR 905 San Miguel Rd 4T 8F40 SR 125 San Miguel Rd SR 54 4F 8F

41a SR 125 SR 54 SR 94 6F 8F+2HOV - - -41b TNET SR 125 SR 54 SR 94 6F 6F+2HOV -42a SR 125 SR 94 I-8 8F 10F+2HOV - -42b TNET SR 125 SR 94 I-8 8F 8F+2HOV - -

FREEWAY/HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Draft 2050 RTP Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios Highway Project List

November 12, 2010

HIGHWAY PROJECTS

47


Transit Emphasis


Highway Emphasis

FusionHIGHWAY PROJECTS

43 SR 125 I-8 SR 52 6F 6F+2HOV - -44 SR 163 I-805 I-15 8F 8F+2HOV - - -45 SR 241 Orange County I-5 -- 4T/6T

46a TNET I-805 SR 905 Telegraph Canyon Rd. 8F 8F+4ML - - -47a TNET I-805 Telegraph Canyon Rd. SR 54 8F 8F+4ML - - -48a TNET I-805 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F+4ML - - -49a TNET I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 8F+4ML - - -50a TNET I-805 I-8 La Jolla Village Dr 8F/10F 8F/10F+4ML - - -51a TNET I-805 La Jolla Village Dr I-5 (north) 8F 8F+2HOV - - -46b I-805 Palomar St SR 94 8F 8F+4ML - - -47b I-805 SR 94 SR 52 8F/10F 8F/10F+2HOV - - -48b I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 8F+2HOV - - -49b I-805 SR 52 Carroll Canyon Rd 8F/10F 8F/10F+4ML - - -50b I-805 Carroll Canyon Rd I-5 (north) 8F/10F 8F+2HOV - -46c I-805 SR 905 Carroll Canyon Rd 8F/10F 8F/10F+2HOV - - -46d I-805 Palomar St Carroll Canyon Rd 8F/10F 8F+2HOV - - -47d I-805 Carroll Canyon Rd I-5 (north) 8F/10F 8F+2ML - - -52 SR 905 I-5 I-805 4F 8F - -53 SR 905 I-805 Mexico 6F 8F - -

Fwy Intersecting Freeway1 I-5 I-8 - - -2 I-5 I-8 - - -3 TNET I-5 SR 564 TNET I-5 SR 565 TNET I-5 SR 786 TNET I-5 SR 787 I-5 SR 94 - - -8 I-15 SR 569 TNET SR 94 SR 125

10 TNET SR 94 SR 125

Route Intersecting Freeway1 I-5 SR 15 - - - -2 I-5 SR 54 - - - -3 I-5 SR 54 - - - -4 I-5 SR 56 - - - -5 I-5 SR 56 - - -6 I-5 SR 78 - -7 I-5 SR 78 - -8 TNET I-5 I-8059 I-15 SR 52 - -

10 I-15 SR 52 - - - -11 I-15 SR 56 - - - -12 TNET I-15 SR 7813 TNET I-15 SR 9414 I-15 SR 163 - - - -15 I-15 I-80516 SR 52 SR 125 - - - -17 SR 94 SR 125 - - - -18 I-805 SR 5219 I-805 SR 54 - - - -20 I-805 SR 9421 I-805 SR 94 - - - -22 I-805 SR 94 - - - -23 I-805 SR 163 - - - -

West to North

FREEWAY CONNECTORSMovement

East to NorthSouth to WestWest to North

South to EastWest to South

Note: Project labeled as a, b, c or d indicate different levels of investments. TransNet projects are included in all scenarios with the exception of the I-805 corridor where different improvements are being tested in some scenarios.

South to East and West to NorthSouth to East and West to NorthNorth to East and West to South

South to East

North to North and South to South

North to West

West to North and South to East

South to East

HOV CONNECTORSMovement

North to North and South to South

East to North and South to West

North to East and West to SouthNorth to North and South to South

North to East

East to North and South to WestNorth to North and South to South

West to South and North to East


North to West and East to SouthEast to North and South to WestWest to North and South to EastSouth to East and West to North

South to East and West to North


East to South and North to West

East to South and North to West

East to North and South to EastNorth to North and South to South

48

2050 RTP Revenue Constrained Scenarios Proposed Transportation Demand Management, Transportation System Management and Active

Transportation Programs

Proposed Transportation Demand Management, Transportation System Management, and Active Transportation Programs included in the 2050 Revenue Constrained Scenarios are described below:

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs The goals of the Regional TDM program, known as iCommute, are to manage and reduce traffic congestion during peak-times as well as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental pollutants that result from the solo commute. While capital improvements can take many years and significant resources to implement, TDM programs could provide flexible and cost-effective solutions for relieving traffic congestion in the short-term. The current TDM program provides commuters with the transportation choices, tools, and incentives to try an alternative to driving to work each day alone. These include:

Vanpool – This program provides long-distance commuters with a cost-effective alternative to driving alone. Currently SANDAG contracts with two vanpool vendors to provide the vehicles, maintenance, and insurance, and provides a $400 monthly subsidy per eligible van to reduce the vehicle lease costs. As of October 2010, the regional vanpool program accounts for: - 675 vanpools - approximately 5,400 daily passengers (8 passengers per van average occupancy) - 57-mile average, one-way commute distance - 538,650 average vehicle miles reduced each day To encourage additional growth in the vanpool program, iCommute would examine the feasibility of a tiered monthly subsidy that would provide a larger incentive to vanpools with higher vehicle occupancy rates. A tiered subsidy is expected to increase the average vehicle occupancy from eight to ten passengers and expand the overall vanpool program by 270 percent over the base year (2008) by 2050. Additionally, iCommute would support the Regional Energy Strategy and the Climate Action Strategy by introducing alternative fuel and electric vehicles into the regional vanpool fleet. Carpool – This program assumes implementation of a regional carpool incentive program per the iCommute Strategic Plan and the 2009 Ridelink Carpool Incentive Study. The regional carpool incentive program would provide $25 per new carpooler per month for six months (starting 2012). It is assumed that this new program would incentivize 5,300 new carpools per year. This program is expected to lead to a 233 percent increase in carpooling over the base year by 2050. Telework – This proposed TDM program would include a comprehensive grant program and technical assistance to support employers with developing telework policy and programs. Telework is a transportation alternative that allows employees to work at home, at a nearby satellite facility, or from a “virtual office.” Teleworking replaces travel to and from work with telecommunications technologies. The goal of telework is to bring work to the employees rather than bringing employees to work. In the San Diego region, approximately one-third of the workforce, or 519,000 jobs, are compatible with telework. It is expected that with the development of financial incentives, technical assistance, and a marketing campaign, 15 percent of the workforce would telework on any given week day by 2050. Bicycle Programs – The regional bike program facilitates bicycle commuting and supports the Regional Bicycle Plan by providing services, such as the regional bicycle locker program, events like Bike to Work Day, and resources such as the regional bike map. The bike program is proposed to be expanded to include implementation of bike sharing programs, on-demand bike lockers at transit stations, bike stations in areas with high bike locker demand, bicycle safety education and promotion, and continued updates and improvements to the print and on-line versions of the regional bike map. See Active Transportation summary below for further details.

49

Marketing & Outreach – Also proposed as part of the TDM program are comprehensive marketing and public outreach strategies; this would provide the resources needed to administer, market, and incentivize TDM programs and services, including the on-line iCommute system, the Guaranteed Ride Home Program, first and last mile solutions to transit, SchoolPool, TDM planning studies, employer outreach and services, special events that promote alternative modes like Rideshare Week and Dump the Pump, and marketing for a Navy buspool service described below. In 2010, SANDAG, the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), and the Navy collaborated to implement a pilot buspool service (Murph Express), which provides Premium Express bus service from Murphy Canyon military housing to Naval Base San Diego. If successful, it is assumed buspool services could be expanded to other military housing and bases. While the operation of the buspool service is funded through the Navy’s Transportation Incentive Program, SANDAG markets the program and provides technical planning assistance. It is expected that 40 percent of regional military personnel would participate in a buspool at least three days per week by 2050 if a military mandate requiring participation is enacted.

Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Programs TSM focuses on employing non-infrastructure related improvements to our systems. TSM applies advanced technologies, innovative solutions, and multijurisdictional agreements to operation of the transportation network as a means to enhance management capabilities, inform drivers, and improve traffic flows. The TSM Program includes the following key TSM focus areas:

Multimodal Integration/Management – Maximizing the throughput of the region’s transportation system is dependent on taking a comprehensive integrated approach to operating it. Managing our freeways, arterials and transit components as a whole improves system efficiency and mobility. The funding level identified for this investment area would continue the region’s adoption of performance-based management, enhance our measurement tools, and expand the I-15 Integrated Corridor Management System to all our regional travel freeway corridors, including the I-5, I-805, and I-8 corridors. Traveler Information Services – Keeping users informed of their choices on how and when to travel, enables them to be active participants in improving system efficiency and reducing demand during congested periods. The proposed in this investment area would provide for the ongoing operations of the region’s 511 traveler information system, which currently serves more than one million calls and roughly half a million Web site visitors per year. Arterial Management – Arterial management systems provide a key network component essential to improving system performance and reducing emissions due to idling. The proposed funding in this investment area would provide for improved data collection for the regional arterial network to improve performance monitoring; it also would provide improved signal timing for intersections within the regional arterial network. Improved performance monitoring and signal timing would allow for better operations and management of traffic flows to and from freeways. This proposed investment area also would include deployment of corresponding IntelliDrive roadside devices along approximately 2,000 lane miles of the regional arterial network. Freeway Management – The freeway system is the backbone of our regional transportation network and requires ongoing investments to ensure it is operated at maximum efficiency. This proposed investment area would provide for continued operation of the Freeway Service Patrol, which currently provides assistance to more than 50,000 motorists each year. Funding would be included to improve performance measurement by increasing detection at ramps and connectors along our major corridors. The increased measurement capabilities would enhance coordination of freeway ramps with arterials as well as allow a distributed approach to ramp metering using a corridor perspective. Similar to the regional arterial network, the deployment of IntelliDrive roadside equipment also is proposed along regional travel freeway corridors.

50

Transit/Trolley Management – The region has been successful in the recent implementation of central management systems for bus and trolley operations. These systems provide performance and safety monitoring capabilities that allow our partners the ability to dynamically manage the transit system and utilize signal priority systems and push real-time information to customers. This proposed investment area would provide for the life-cycle replacement of these essential systems and for the introduction of new technology. This proposed investment area also would include completion of the trolley fiber communication network, which supports the management system, closed-circuit television, customer information, and fare collection systems. Electronic Payment Services – Existing systems such as FasTrak® and Compass Card increase mobility and customer choice by providing seamless methods for the payment of tolls and transit fares. As the region moves forward, the ability to expand these systems to other transportation-related services, such as parking, would enhance customer convenience. This proposed investment area would provide for a convergence of the systems and enable the introduction of a “Universal Transportation Account.” This account could serve as a platform for the introduction of incentive-based programs that could provide transit rides, toll discounts, or other benefits as a means of promoting desired travel behavior. Intelligent Transportation System Support – Ongoing network communications, technical administration, and maintenance of the deployed systems are essential to ensuring that the systems work properly. The proposed funding would provide for the regional communications network, technical oversight, and vendor support contracts/services.

Active Transportation Active Transportation refers to bicycling and walking modes of transportation as an alternative to the automobile. At the beginning or end of every trip, even if primarily made by car, bike, or transit, every person is a pedestrian. Additionally, the region’s mild climate is optimal for trips by bicycle, if safe convenient facilities are available. Providing the region’s residents with the option of walking or bicycling for their everyday transportation needs would assist in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and could result in health and economic benefits as well. The Active Transportation Program aims to provide safe and convenient facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, in order to promote walking and bicycling as viable transportation options in the region. The program consists of the following components:

Regional Bike Network –Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan identifies a network of 516 miles of regionally significant bicycle routes that would link neighborhoods to work, transit, and major activity centers. The proposed funding would help complete top priorities the regional network, including the Coastal Rail Trail, Inland Rail Trail, and Bayshore Bikeway, as well as enable innovative demonstration projects.

Regional Programs – Riding to 2050 also identifies a range of programs to directly support the goals and policies of the plan. The proposed investment would fund programs such as education, public awareness programs, encouragement, enforcement, and monitoring, evaluation, and transportation modeling for bicycle and pedestrian modes.

Local Bike Network – An increasing number of cities in the region have prepared or are in the process of preparing bicycle master plans to identify bicycle infrastructure needs within their jurisdictions. At this point, approximately 900 miles of new bicycle facilities have been identified for the future local network. Completion of the local network is critical to reducing vehicle miles traveled by providing safe connections to and from home and everyday destinations such as shopping, schools, parks and other recreation, and work. The proposed investment would provide funding toward the implementation of local bicycle facilities.

Local Pedestrian/Neighborhood Safety/Traffic Calming/Safe Routes to Transit Projects and Smart Growth Incentive Program – Safe and inviting streets that provide residents with the option of walking to destinations and to transit are key to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fatalities associated with pedestrian-vehicle collisions. Funding for these projects would allow for the planning and construction of street improvements along local corridors and intersections, such as sidewalks,

51

crosswalks, streetscape enhancements, and other pedestrian upgrades, traffic calming, and safety countermeasures. Additional emphases would be to support compact, mixed use development, and provide more housing and transportation choices through the proposed smart growth incentive program funding.

Safe Routes to School – For the first time funding is proposed at the regional level for Safe Routes to School. Safe Routes to School is a nationally recognized program that aims to increase the number of children walking or bicycling to school by providing for safer conditions through infrastructure improvements, and education and enforcement programs to support those improvements. Funding is proposed for education, encouragement, evaluation, enforcement, planning, and infrastructure improvement projects that would be proposed by parents, schools, and local jurisdictions working together to identify solutions.

Bike and Pedestrian Access to Transit – This proposed program would provide improvements in and around transit stations to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access, such as pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, and bike lanes.

52

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA · 2010-11-17 · India/Kettner couplet and the second is on Kearny Villa...

Documents

Transcript of MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA · 2010-11-17 · India/Kettner couplet and the second is on Kearny Villa...