transportation committee art madrid agenda

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Friday, September 19, 2003

9:00 a.m. – 12 Noon SANDAG Board Room 401 B Street, 7th Floor

San Diego, CA 92101-4231

Members

Joe Kellejian, Chair Deputy Mayor, Solana Beach (Representing North County Coastal)

Dick Murphy, Vice Chair Mayor, City of San Diego

Mickey Cafagna Mayor, Poway (Representing North County Inland)

Art Madrid Mayor, La Mesa (Representing East County)

Jerry Rindone Deputy Mayor, Chula Vista (Representing South Bay)

Ron Roberts Supervisor, County of San Diego

Bob Emery Metropolitan Transit Development Board

Judy Ritter, Chair North San Diego County Transit Development Board

Terry Johnson San Diego County Regional Airport Authority

Alternates

Christy Guerin Councilmember, Encinitas (Representing North County Coastal)

Jim Madaffer Councilmember, City of San Diego

Corky Smith Mayor, San Marcos (Representing North County Inland)

Jack Dale Councilmember, City of Santee (Representing East County)

Phil Monroe Mayor Pro Tem, City of Coronado (Representing South Bay)

Dianne Jacob/Bill Horn Supervisor, County of San Diego

Leon Williams, Chair Metropolitan Transit Development Board

Ann Kulchin/Jack Feller North San Diego County Transit Development Board

Mary Sessom San Diego County Regional Airport Authority

Advisory Member

Pedro Orso-Delgado District Director, District 11 California Department of Transportation

Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG

AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS

• SR 75/282 CONGESTION RELIEF • I-15 INTERREGIONAL LONG-RANGE STRATEGIES

• TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FUNDING

PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING

YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG

MISSION STATEMENT The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making.

SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, and provides

information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.

San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231

(619) 595-5300 ⋅ Fax (619) 595-5305 ⋅ www.sandag.org

Welcome to SANDAG! Members of the public may speak to the Transportation Committee on any item at the time the Committee is considering the item. Please complete a Speaker’s Slip which is located in the rear of the room and then present the slip to Committee staff. Also, members of the public are invited to address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Speakers are limited to three minutes. The Transportation Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda. This agenda and related staff reports can be accessed at www.sandag.org under meetings on SANDAG’s Web site. Public comments regarding the agenda can be forwarded to SANDAG via the e-mail comment form also available on the Web site. E-mail comments should be received no later than 12:00 p.m., two working days prior to the Transportation Committee meeting. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 595-5300 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 595-5300, (619) 595-5393 (TTY), or fax (619) 595-5305.

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

2

3

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AGENDA Friday, September 19, 2003

Staff Contact: Toni Bates (619) 557-4538 or [email protected]

ITEM # RECOMMENDATION

+ 1. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 15, 2003 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES (pp. 6-11)

APPROVE

Action would approve the minutes of the August 15, 2003, Transportation

Committee meeting.

CONSENT ITEMS (2 to 6) The Transportation Committee will take action on the consent agenda without further

discussion and with one vote unless an item is pulled by a Committee member or by a member of the public for comment.

+ 2. 2002 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) QUARTERLY AMENDMENT (Resolution 2004-04) (Sookyung Kim) (pp. 12-22)

APPROVE

The 2002 RTIP, approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors in June 2002, is a

five-year program of major transportation projects in the San Diego region covering the period from FY 2003 to FY 2007. Various agencies have requested project additions and changes to the 2002 RTIP as part of this quarterly amendment. The Transportation Committee is asked to adopt Resolution 2004-04 approving Amendment No. 14 to the 2002 RTIP.

+ 3. UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS (Nan Valerio) (p. 23) INFORMATION

The Subcommittee for Accessible Transportation (SCAT), as SANDAG’s Social

Services Transportation Advisory Council, will hold the required unmet transit needs hearings in October.

+ 4. INTERSTATE 15 (I-15) MANAGED LANES/BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

PROJECT: QUARTERLY UPDATE (Kathy Donnelly) (pp. 24-27) INFORMATION

The I-15 ML/BRT project is jointly being managed by Caltrans and SANDAG. This

item provides a status report on Phase 1 of the project between SR 56 and Centre City Parkway, including progress to date on the development of BRT stations and services and Managed Lanes project development activities.

4


+ 5. CONSTRUCTION POLICIES (Julie Wiley/Jack Boda) (pp. 28-39) REVIEW/COMMENT

Staff has determined that several construction-related policies are needed to

address SANDAG’s expanded responsibilities. Four new policies are proposed for the Committee’s review and comment.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/ MEMBER COMMENTS INFORMATION Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Transportation

Committee on any issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. Committee members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.

REPORTS

7. RECENT AMTRAK RIDERSHIP GAINS AND UPCOMING RECOGNITION EVENT (Tyrone Bland, Amtrak)

INFORMATION

Amtrak has provided intercity passenger rail service in our coastal rail corridor since

1971. One of three state-supported rail corridors in California, our Pacific Surfliner Corridor stretches 351 miles from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo generally along the highly congested Interstate 5 and Highway 101 corridors. This month, Amtrak expects to top the two million ridership mark for the year, the culmination of 12 consecutive record months, making the Pacific Surfliner Corridor Amtrak’s fastest growing in the nation and second only to the Northeast Corridor in total ridership. Amtrak plans to recognize the two-millionth passenger on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 beginning with an event at the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego at 7:30 a.m. Amtrak staff will briefly update the Transportation Committee on these recent trends.

+ 8. STATE ROUTE (SR) 75/282 CONGESTION RELIEF MEASURES (Richard

Chavez) (pp. 40-43) APPROVE

In cooperation with the City of Coronado and SANDAG, Caltrans has developed a

Project Study Report (PSR) for operational improvements to SR 75 and SR 282 (3rd and 4th Streets) recommended by the SR 75/282 Corridor Relief Working Group. Coronado has committed to fronting the entire $2.1 million with matching funds transferred at a future date. The City of Coronado has requested $700,000 in matching funds from both Caltrans and SANDAG to implement select congestion relief measures totaling $2.1 million. The Transportation Committee is asked to approve Coronado’s request.

5


+ 9. INTERSTATE 15 (I-15) INTERREGIONAL PARTNERSHIP – LONG-RANGE

TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES (Jeff Martin) (pp. 44-48) REVIEW/ COMMENT

The I-15 Interregional Partnership (IRP) is a collaborative effort between SANDAG, the

Western Riverside Council of Governments, and various agencies from both counties to address common land use, transportation, and economic development issues in the San Diego and western Riverside regions. As part of the I-15 IRP, transportation strategies have been developed to address the impacts from the growing number of long-distance interregional commuters. The Transportation Committee is asked to review and comment on preliminary transportation strategies.

+10. TRANSPORTATION PROJECT BUDGET DEFICITS AND POTENTIAL

STRATEGIES (JOSE NUNCIO/JACK BODA) (pp. 49-59) INFORMATION

Several transportation projects of regional significance are facing near-term budget

shortfalls. This report details and summarizes these budget gaps and outlines potential strategies for addressing the shortfalls, including re-programming existing funds, re-prioritizing delivery of projects, and delaying certain projects.

+11. AIR TRANSPORTATION ACTION PROGRAM (ATAP) UPDATE

(Michael Hix) (pp. 60-64) INFORMATION

The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority is concluding the first phase of

the ATAP. Now called the San Diego Airport Site Selection Program (ASSP), the ASSP Working Group will meet again on September 8, 2003, to complete its application of criteria and thresholds to narrow the list of potential airport sites. Recommendations from the Working Group and the project team will be considered by the Airport Authority’s Board of Directors at its October 2, 3003 meeting.

12. ADJOURNMENT AND UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION

The next Transportation Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, October 17,

2003 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.

This agenda is sent to all members of the SANDAG/RTC Board of Directors and alternates for informational purposes.

+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment

San Diego Association of Governments


6

September 19, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 1Action Requested: APPROVE

APPROVAL OF AUGUST 15, 2003 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES The meeting of the Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Joe Kellejian (North County Coastal). Other voting members in attendance were Vice Chair Dick Murphy (City of San Diego), Mickey Cafagna (North County Inland), Art Madrid (East County), Jerry Rindone (South County), Ron Roberts (County of San Diego), Bob Emery (San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board – MTDB), Judy Ritter (North San Diego County Transit Development Board – NCTD), and Mary Sessom (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority). Also in attendance were alternates Corky Smith (North County Inland), Phil Monroe (South County), Jack Feller (NCTD), Leon Williams (MTDB), as well as ex-officio member Pedro Orso-Delgado (Caltrans). Chair Kellejian asked staff to call roll for the benefit of those listening to the live audio broadcast through the Web site. 1. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS (APPROVE)

None.

CONSENT ITEMS (2 through 4) 2. DRAFT DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS FROM SPECIAL AUGUST 1, 2003 (APPROVE) 3. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) QUARTERLY REPORT (INFORMATION) 4. FALL 2003 TRANSIT SERVICE CHANGES (INFORMATION) Action: The Transportation Committee approved Consent Items 2 through 4.

REPORTS 6. INTERSTATE 15 (I-15) EXPRESS LANES WEEKEND OPERATIONS (INFORMATION)

Joe Hull (Caltrans) reported that I-15 Express Lanes will be opened on the weekend of August 23 in the northbound direction from 1-7 p.m. or as traffic dictates. The same will occur for the Labor Day weekend. The Express Lanes will open full time on September 5. Chair Kellejian expressed his appreciation to Caltrans for opening the I-15 Express Lanes early.

7

7. REGIONAL CAR SHARING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT – MOBILITY PASS PILOT PROGRAM (APPROVE) Staff explained that car sharing is a system of shared autos that are placed at strategic locations, accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week, through a membership program. Members reserve vehicles on an as-needed basis. Car sharing offers all of the freedom of a car without the hassles of ownership and the fixed costs. The car sharing concept was described, and two pilot project locations, one in Centre City San Diego and the other in Sorrento Valley, were identified. Car sharing programs in Europe and the United States have been studied. Staff is proposing to link car sharing and transit in these demonstration projects with a mobility pass. The car sharing program provides the following benefits to the region: reduces congestion, increases transit usage, reduces the number of vehicle miles traveled, enhances revenues, and diversifies transportation options. Demonstration project milestones were reviewed, with completion in December 2005. Vice Chair Cafagna asked about the cost of this program. Staff replied that there would be a $25- $35 one-time user cost and a per trip usage fee. The actual rate varies depending on the cost of parking. Motorists who use their car for less than 8,000-10,000 miles, this car sharing program would be of benefit. Vice Chair Cafagna asked about the cost to SANDAG. Staff replied that the demonstration program received a grant from Caltrans. There are no costs to SANDAG. Judy Ritter (NCTD) stated that if this program is successful then transit agencies would need to provide parking at transit stations. She asked about the arranging for the use of a car as well as the responsibility for car maintenance and repair. Staff replied that the car sharing management company would handle contracts with service providers, who would routinely evaluate the vehicles for maintenance and repair. Phil Monroe (South County) asked that staff provide information on the number of these vehicles being used in other areas and the benefits other areas have obtained from this program. Staff agreed to provide that information. Staff clarified that this is a totally private sector venture, and there are no public subsidies other than the state grant for this demonstration project. Leon Williams (MTDB) asked if this program can be used by people who commute by transit but would need a vehicle during the day for doctor appointments. Staff replied that the car sharing program becomes mobility insurance for the exact situation described. In addition, a number of large employers have added car sharing as an employee benefit or to reduce their company car fleets. Chair Kellejian commented that this is a good example of public/private partnerships, with the private partner providing the funding. Mayor Murphy (City of San Diego) asked how many American cities have this type of program. Staff replied that 18 U.S. cities have this type of a program. The car sharing concept started in Europe in the late 1940s and in the United States in the 1980s.

8

Mayor Murphy asked if a program had been abandoned by any city. Staff replied that the only car sharing program that has been discontinued was a program related to a university. Supervisor Roberts (County of San Diego) stated that the long term benefit of this program seems marginal. He thought the money being used for this program could make a significant impact if it was used to improve existing transit service. He wondered why we are involved in a demonstration project when it has been implemented in other areas. Vice Chair Cafagna asked if the funding for this project could be used elsewhere. Staff responded that those funds have been earmarked specifically for this project. Mayor Madrid (East County) said that SANDAG needs to risk implementing various programs to determine if they will be successful here in San Diego. Chair Kellejian thought that this program could be of benefit in the Sorrento Valley area. He recognized that this program won’t solve all of our transportation problems, but efforts such as these can help. Vice Chair Cafagna asked what happens after the demonstration project is over. Staff answered that the car sharing organization will continue to expand and provide those services. Mayor Murphy asked how the marketing of this project is coordinated with that of other transportation demand management (TDM) programs. Staff replied that this program is sponsored by the SANDAG TDM program and is presented as another option to commuters and employers. Action: The Transportation Committee approved the concept of the Mobility Pass and directed staff to work with the transit agencies and the selected car-sharing organization on its development as part of the Car Sharing Demonstration Project.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS (INFORMATION) Ralph Leyva, President of the California Border Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), stated that they have initiated a program of recognizing a transportation professional for the year. He introduced Bill Darnell, the Border Section evaluation committee chair, to award this recognition. Mr. Darnell presented the ITE California Border Section Transportation Professional of the Year award to SANDAG’s Executive Director, Gary Gallegos, for his notable transportation enhancements. The Executive Director accepted the award on behalf of the SANDAG team.

8. FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TEA) COST INCREASE – SILVER STRAND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (APPROVE) Staff reported that to date the TEA committee has allocated funds to three projects, and there is a remaining balance of $68,000. The Silver Strand Enhancement Project has a $140,000 project deficit due to costs associated with additional environmental and permit

9

processes and the development of wetland mitigation plans and monitoring. The Cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach have asked that the balance of the TEA account be used for this project and have agreed to pay the $72,000 remainder of the project deficit . No other TEA project sponsors have identified cost increases on their projects. Councilmember Patricia McCoy (Imperial Beach) stated that due to the importance of this project, the Imperial Beach City Council has approved additional funding for it. Action: The Transportation Committee approved the request for additional funding, subject to the concurrence of the SANDAG Board of Directors through approval of the Transportation Committee actions, and pending formal action by the Coronado and Imperial Beach City Councils committing to completing the project and fully funding any remaining costs.

9. TRANSIT FIRST SHOWCASE PROJECT (INFORMATION) Staff provided a status report on the Transit First Showcase Project. She explained that the Transit First program is based on four service concepts: community-based shuttles, basic systemwide mobility, intercommunity travel, and regional travel. The MTD Board determined that it would be helpful to develop a Showcase project to demonstrate the red-car type of service to the public and to gain some experience in operating this type of service. The Downtown San Diego to San Diego State University (SDSU) project met all of the Showcase Project objectives. Staff reported on the activities in these major areas: public outreach, goals, ridership projections, traffic study, pedestrian access plan, transit signal priority, conceptual station design, and coordination. The top three goals obtained from public input were: reducing transit travel times, attracting new ridership, and enhancing the customer experience. Jerry Rindone (South County) commented that from a TransNet perspective, the evaluation of the success of the regional agency is tied in with the success of this project. The two primary elements important for the success of this project are frequency and dependability. He asked staff to consider express service every half hour rather than every hour. He also suggested that staff develop a system that covers any service breakdown. Public comment:

Robert Hoffman, a member of the public, suggested that Committee members look on the following Internet site www.americandreamcoalition.org/adguide.pdf for a wealth of information on transit activities around the country. Clive Richard, a member of the public, indicated that he did not need to speak but wanted to notify the Committee of his support for this project.

Mayor Murphy asked if a loop routing was considered. Staff replied that a loop was considered but it was eliminated due to the expense of additional station locations. In addition, a loop system is confusing to passengers.

10

Mayor Murphy asked about the vehicles for this service. Staff answered that this is a funding decision. She added that the stations will be designed to accommodate both existing and anticipated vehicle needs. Vehicles would have to be branded separately to identify them as a Showcase service vehicle. Staff will report back on the status of vehicle technology. Vice Chair Cafagna asked how implementation of this project can be accelerated. Staff replied that if funding were available implementation could be sped up somewhat. The Staff noted that there is a lot of flux related to vehicle availability, and we need to ensure that this will be a quality service. Mayor Madrid asked staff to transmit the response to the letter received from the El Cajon Business Improvement Association dated June 30, 2003. Mayor Madrid inquired about the advertising for the open house. Staff explained that local newspapers were contacted, information was mailed to area community planning groups, and an e-mail was sent to a list of interested parties. In addition, there was an article in The San Diego Union-Tribune about the open house. Mayor Madrid expressed concern about the elimination of Route 15. Staff said that the goal was to maintain the same level of service for the eastern portions of Routes 15 and 115. Both of these routes are very long and have trouble maintaining their schedules. Chair Kellejian called a break at 10:35 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:45 a.m. Mayor Pro Tem Monroe asked about the people who attended the open house. Staff replied that they were a mix of transit riders and business owners. Mayor Pro Tem Monroe suggested that measurement criteria such as ridership, reduced time, and reduced congestion be added as well as the level of service at key intersections. Supervisor Roberts questioned the ridership figures and asked for clarification. Staff agreed to provide that clarification. Jack Feller (NCTD) expressed concern about how the operation of this project will be funded. Staff stated that this Showcase project is market driven and will provide really good service. Experience has shown that people are willing to pay for good service. Mayor Smith (North County Inland) asked how many riders for this route would be existing riders. Staff replied that about half will be existing riders. Mayor Smith suggested that the service operate with alternate trips in the opposite direction. Staff agreed to look at this suggestion. Judy Ritter (NCTD) asked how removing parking spaces will impact businesses. Staff responded that there would be a transit-only lane from Park Boulevard to 43rd Street. The transit lane would be in the median so that some parking would remain. They are also trying to mitigate parking loss that will occur due to the addition of stations.

11

10. SAN DIEGO DOWNTOWN COMPREHENSIVE TRANSIT STUDY (INFORMATION) Staff stated that the Downtown Comprehensive Transit Study (DCTS) is a joint venture between SANDAG and the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC). Downtown San Diego continues as the major focus for transit in the region with a mode split in the peak period of 20 percent. CCDC is projecting population in the downtown San Diego area to double in the next 20 years. The vision is to accommodate this growth. The following key land use alternatives are guiding the transit strategies being evaluated in the DCTS: office core, multiple-use core, and a mixed-use core. Staff described the actions to rectify the transit deficiencies: expand regional and internal services, implement priority measures, state-of-the-art facilities, and funding partnerships. He reviewed the study elements: define an increased role for transit, evaluate alternative operating strategies, recommend a preferred operating strategy, develop a phasing plan for the preferred plan, and develop strategies to enhance the vibrancy of transit. Staff indicated that eight case studies were selected to assist in approaching the problems in downtown San Diego. Baltimore, MD; Denver, CO; Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA; San Francisco, CA; Portland, OR; Vancouver, British Columbia; London, England; and Melbourne, Australia. The following factors will be used to evaluate the case studies: applicability to the downtown San Diego area, innovation, supportive land uses, transit system capacity, system connectivity, and consistency with SANDAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Transit First strategies, and the Downtown Community Plan Update land use strategies. Staff reviewed the next steps culminating with CCDC’s adoption of the Downtown Community Plan Update in May 2004. Mayor Madrid wondered whether it would be appropriate to invite CCDC to be an ex officio member of the Transportation Committee. Public comment:

Clive Richard, a member of the public, asked if there is a need to have 33 routes serving downtown San Diego and wondered if there is a way to reduce that number and increase circulation.

11. ADJOURNMENT AND UPCOMING MEETING

The next Transportation Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 19, 2003, from 9 a.m. to 12 Noon. Staff reminded Committee members that there will be an State Route 125 ribbon-cutting event on Friday, September 12, 2003, at 2 p.m. Invitations will be mailed out. Jerry Rindone requested that members of the Transportation Committee attend this ribbon-cutting ceremony. Chair Kellejian adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.


TRANSPORTATION COMMITEE

12

September 19, 2003 AGENDA REPORT NO.: 2Action Requested: APPROVE

2002 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) QUARTERLY AMENDMENT

Introduction

The SANDAG Board, at its meeting on June 28, 2002, adopted the 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), the five-year program of major transportation projects in the San Diego region covering the period from FY 2003 to FY 2007. During the course of the two-year RTIP cycle, SANDAG processes amendments on a quarterly basis. Amendment No. 14 includes requests for changes submitted by local agencies for various projects.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Transportation Committee adopt Resolution 2004-04 approving Amendment No. 14 to the 2002 RTIP, as shown in Table 1. Discussion This quarterly amendment includes minor changes to existing projects and the addition of new projects funded with TransNet. Each of the projects is briefly described by agency below (Table 1 provides further details). Caltrans Elderly and Disabled Program (CAL53): The California Transportation Commission (CTC) annually allocates Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 Elderly & Disabled Program funds to various nonprofit agencies to purchase vehicles and equipment needed to meet the specialized needs of the elderly and disabled persons for whom mass transportation services are unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate. The FTA Section 5310 funds expected to be awarded to the San Diego region at the September 24, 2003, CTC meeting for FY 2004 total $532,000. The total project cost for this program is $4,493,000. The SR 78 Truck Climbing Lane project shared the same project identification number with another project (I-15 Auxiliary Lane, CAL30). This amendment proposes to create a new identification number for the SR 78 Truck Climbing Lane project (CAL30A).

13

City of Chula Vista I-805 Olympic Parkway Interchange Improvement (CHV01): The cost of the construction phase has increased. This amendment increases local TransNet funds to fully fund the construction phase and shifts funds between phases. The total project cost increases to $22,631,000. Pavement Rehabilitation Program (CHV06): Eliminates local TransNet funds in FY 2005. The total project cost is reduced to $3,551,000. North Broadway Reconstruction (CHV19): The project was scheduled over fiscal years 2004 and 2005. This amendment completes the project in FY 2004. The total project cost increases to $1,300,000 in local TransNet funds. City of Encinitas Santa Fe Drive (ENC11): Reduce local TransNet funds in FY 2003 and increase other local funds in FY 2004. The total project cost increases to $960,000. Street Overlay Program (ENC14): Increase local TransNet funds and reduce other local funds. The total project is reduced to $3,600,000. Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Program (ENC17): Add other local funds and increase local TransNet funds. The total project cost increases to $1,745,000. City of Poway Street Maintenance Program (POW1): New project funded with $6,812,000 in local TransNet funds. SANDAG Freeway Service Patrol (SAN03): Reduce the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) funds based on the actual allocation from the State for FY 2003 and FY 2004, and revise the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds to reflect the appropriate level of matching funds. The total project cost is reduced to $14,202,000. Regional Rideshare Program (SAN11): Revise Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds and appropriate (Highway-78) TransNet match to reflect funds needed for FY 2003 and FY 2004. Also, increase AB 2766 funds based on anticipated allocation for FY 2004 and FY 2005. The total project cost increases to $20,957,000. City of San Diego Lisbon-Imperial Avenue (SD43): This new project, funded with $727,000 in local TransNet funds, adds a left turn pocket to improve traffic flow. Otay Truck Route (SD102): This new project would widen the existing two-lane truck route between La Media Road and the Point of Entry to three lanes, and extend the truck route to

14

Britannia Boulevard by constructing a new two-lane road segment. The $360,000 in local funds is for design only. I-5/Genesse Avenue Interchange (SD103): This new project would replace the existing four-lane bridge with a six-lane bridge with dual turn lanes. The design phase is funded with $15,540,000 in local funds. There are two projects with duplicate project identification numbers (Traffic Signals and Sorrento Creek Mitigation [both SD16], and Guard Rails and Tia Juana River [both SD17]). This amendment proposes to create new identification numbers for Sorrento Creek Mitigation (SD16A) and Tia Juana River (SD 17A). City of San Marcos West Barham Bike Lanes (SM21): New project funded with $169,000 in TransNet bike funds. City of Santee Forester Creek Channelization (SNT02): Include carryover RSTP funds from prior year. The total project cost remains $13,919,000.

Air Quality Analysis

On March 28, 2003, SANDAG adopted the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), including the air quality conformity finding, and re-determined conformity of the 2002 RTIP in conformance with the Regional Air Quality Strategy/ State Implementation Plan for the San Diego region. Projects in Amendment No. 14 have been demonstrated to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 93.118 and 93.119 without a new regional emissions analysis in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 93.122(e)(2)(ii). The capacity increasing projects in Amendment No. 14 were included in the regional emission analysis of the 2030 RTP with design, concept, and scope adequately detailed to determine their contribution to the RTP’s regional emissions at the time of conformity determination. The design concept, scope, and implementation schedule of the projects are not significantly different from that described in the 2030 RTP. Other projects identified in Amendment No. 14 are either noncapacity increasing or exempt from the requirement to determine conformity according to §93.126 of the Transportation Conformity Rule. SANDAG followed interagency consultation procedures to determine that these projects were exempt. The funding for the projects in Amendment No. 14 will not delay the implementation of the RTIP. The 2002 RTIP, including Amendment No. 14, remains in conformance with the air quality program.

401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 595-5300 • Fax (619) 595-5305 www.sandag.org

RESOLUTION NO. 2004-04

APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 14 TO THE

2002 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

WHEREAS, on June 28, 2002, SANDAG adopted the 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), including the air quality conformity finding with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality; and

WHEREAS, on March 28, 2003, SANDAG made a finding of conformity of the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and re-determined conformity of the 2002 RTIP with the SIP and the 1998 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS); and

WHEREAS, various agencies have requested project revisions for inclusion into the 2002 RTIP as shown in Table 1; and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the 2030 RTP; and

WHEREAS, the regionally significant capacity increasing projects have been incorporated into the quantitative air quality emissions analysis and conformity findings conducted for the 2030 RTP and the 2002 RTIP Amendment No. 14; and

WHEREAS, projects in Amendment No. 14 have been demonstrated to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 93.118 and 93.119 without a new regional emissions analysis in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 93.122(e)(2)(ii); and

WHEREAS, the capacity increasing projects in Amendment No. 14 were included in the

regional emission analysis of the 2030 RTP with design, concept, and scope adequately detailed to determine their contribution to the RTP’s regional emissions at the time of conformity determination; and the design concept, scope, and implementation schedule of these projects are not significantly different from that described in the 2030 RTP.

WHEREAS, all other projects included in Amendment No. 14 are either noncapacity

increasing or exempt from the requirements to determine conformity; and WHEREAS, the SANDAG Board of Directors delegated the authority for RTIP amendments

including findings of air quality conformity, to the Transportation Committee; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Transportation Committee does hereby approve the attached Table 1

as Amendment No. 14 to the 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that SANDAG finds the 2002 RTIP, including Amendment No. 14, in conformance with the SIP and RAQS for the San Diego region.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Amendment No. 14 to the 2002 RTIP is consistent with SANDAG Intergovernmental Review Procedures.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Amendment No. 14 to the 2002 RTIP is consistent with SANDAG Public Participation Policy. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of September, 2003.

________________________________________ ATTEST: ________________________________________ CHAIRPERSON SECRETARY

MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego.

ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit Development Board, North San Diego County Transit Development Board, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, S.D. Unified Port District, S.D. County Water Authority, and

Baja California/Mexico.

Resolution 2004-04 Page 2 of 2

Attachment

CaltransMPO ID: CAL53 CAPACITY STATUS: ExemptTITLE: Section 5310 Elderly & Disabled ProgramDESCRIPTION: Purchase of vehicles (5 expansion, 5 replacement) and various capital equipment (computers, radios, etc.) for the provision of

transit service to the elderly & disabledChange Reason: Add FY 2004 funds

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONFTA Funds (Sec. 5310) $3,595 $1,873 $1,190 $532 $3,595Local $898 $468 $297 $133 $898

TOTAL: $4,493 $2,341 $1,487 $665 $4,493

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENTFUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONFTA Funds (Sec. 5310) $3,063 $1,873 $1,190 $3,063Local $765 $468 $297 $765

TOTAL: $3,828 $2,341 $1,487 $3,828

City of Chula VistaMPO ID: CHV01 CAPACITY STATUS: CITITLE: I-805 Olympic Parkway Interchange ImprovementDESCRIPTION: From Orange Ave. to Palomar St. - Construct soundwalls; widen bridge deck, ramp, add auxiliary lanes &

utility relocationChange Reason: Increase TransNet funds, revise phases

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONDEMO $5,132 $5,132 $5,132City Funds $3,686 $2,581 $1,105 $2,581 $1,105TransNet-L $3,300 $50 $3,250 $50 $240 $3,010TransNet-H* $626 $626 $626STIP-RIP $1,441 $1,441 $1,441RSTP $8,446 $8,446 $1,500 $6,946

TOTAL: $22,631 $2,631 $20,000 $2,631 $1,740 $18,260*from 76 Highway funds (CAL29)

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENTFUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONDEMO $5,132 $5,132 $5,132City Funds $3,686 $2,150 $1,536 $2,150 $1,536TransNet-L $2,500 $50 $2,450 $50 $300 $2,150TransNet-H* $626 $626 $626STIP-RIP* $1,441 $1,441 $1,441RSTP $8,446 $8,446 $1,800 $6,646

TOTAL: $21,831 $2,200 $19,631 $2,200 $2,100 $17,531

MPO ID: CHV06 CAPACITY STATUS: NCITITLE: Pavement Rehabilitation ProgramDESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate city streetsChange Reason: Eliminate TransNet funding in FY 05

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-L $3,551 $3,551 $90 $3,461

TOTAL: $3,551 $3,551 $90 $3,461

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENTFUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-L $6,751 $3,251 $3,500 $180 $6,571

TOTAL: $6,751 $3,251 $3,500 $180 $6,571

Table 12002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program

Amendment No. 14San Diego Region (in $000s)

CI= Capacity IncreasingNCI=Non-capacity Increasing 17

AttachmentTable 12002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program


City of Chula Vista (contin.)MPO ID: CHV19 CAPACITY STATUS: NCITITLE: North Broadway ReconstructionDESCRIPTION: Reconstruct street to meet City requirements, coordinated with drainage projectChange Reason: Revise fiscal year

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-L $1,300 $1,300 $300 $1,000

TOTAL: $1,300 $1,300 $300 $1,000

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENTFUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-L $1,100 $100 $1,000 $100 $1,000

TOTAL: $1,100 $100 $1,000 $100 $1,000

City of EncinitasMPO ID: ENC11 CAPACITY STATUS: NCITITLE: Santa Fe DriveDESCRIPTION: From I-5 to Vulcan Avenue - complete pedestrian and bicycle improvementsChange Reason: Reduce TransNet, increase local funds

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-L $250 $250 $250Local Funds $710 $175 $535 $710

TOTAL: $960 $425 $535 $960

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENTFUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-L $425 $425 $100Local Funds $175 $175 $1,800

TOTAL: $600 $600 $1,900

MPO ID: ENC14 CAPACITY STATUS: NCITITLE: Street Overlay ProgramDESCRIPTION: Overlay and pavement treatment of streetsChange Reason: Increase TransNet, reduce local funds

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-L $2,700 $900 $600 $600 $600 $2,700Local Funds $900 $300 $300 $300 $900

TOTAL: $3,600 $900 $900 $900 $900 $3,600

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENTFUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-L $500 $500 $500Local Funds $5,880 $1,170 $1,170 $1,170 $1,270 $1,100 $5,880

TOTAL: $6,380 $1,670 $1,170 $1,170 $1,270 $1,100 $6,380




City of Encinitas (contin.)

MPO ID: ENC17 CAPACITY STATUS: NCITITLE: Safe Routes to School Sidewalk ProgramDESCRIPTION: Provide sidewalks in vicinity of schoolsChange Reason: Increase TransNet funds, add local funds

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-L $1,625 $200 $750 $225 $225 $225 $1,625Local Funds $120 $70 $50 $120

TOTAL: $1,745 $70 $200 $800 $225 $225 $225 $1,745

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENTFUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-L $1,250 $200 $300 $250 $250 $250 $1,250

TOTAL: $1,250 $200 $300 $250 $250 $250 $1,250

City of PowayMPO ID: POW1 CAPACITY STATUS: NCITITLE: Street Maintenance ProgramDESCRIPTION: Pothole patching, crack sealing, seal coasting, striping, etc.Change Reason: New Project

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-L $6,812 $1,194 $1,302 $1,367 $1,437 $1,512 $6,812

TOTAL: $6,812 $1,194 $1,302 $1,367 $1,437 $1,512 $6,812

SANDAGMPO ID: SAN03 CAPACITY STATUS: NCITITLE: Freeway Service PatrolDESCRIPTION: Regionwide - alleviate traffic congestion associated with non-recurring incidentsChange Reason: Reduce FSP funds based on actual allocation, revise RSTP funds to reflect appropriate match

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONRSTP $2,368 $1,068 $491 $502 $307 $2,368FSP $11,834 $4,826 $2,000 $2,000 $3,008 $11,834

TOTAL: $14,202 $5,894 $2,491 $2,502 $3,315 $14,202

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENTFUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONRSTP $2,242 $1,206 $752 $142 $142 $2,242FSP $13,850 $4,826 $3,008 $3,008 $3,008 $13,850

TOTAL: $16,092 $6,032 $3,760 $3,150 $3,150 $16,092




SANDAG (contin.)

MPO ID: SAN11 CAPACITY STATUS: ExemptTITLE: Regional Rideshare ProgramDESCRIPTION: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ProgramChange Reason: Revise CMAQ funds and appropriate TransNet funds to reflect obligation needs in FY 2003 and FY 2004; increase AB2766

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONFTA Funds (5307) $4,200 $700 $700 $700 $700 $700 $700 $4,200RSTP $1,100 $700 $400 $1,100AB2766 $686 $165 $166 $232 $123 $686TDA $544 $10 $9 $175 $175 $175 $544STIP-RIP $10,706 $2,020 $1,644 $1,688 $1,738 $1,792 $1,824 $10,706CMAQ $3,257 $900 $2,357 $3,257TransNet-H (78) $464 $177 $287 $464

TOTAL: $20,957 $3,595 $3,987 $5,273 $2,736 $2,667 $2,699 $20,957

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENTFUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONFTA Funds (5307) $4,200 $700 $700 $700 $700 $700 $700 $4,200RSTP $700 $700 $700AB2766 $342 $165 $166 $11 $342TDA $544 $10 $9 $175 $175 $175 $544STIP-RIP $10,706 $2,020 $1,644 $1,688 $1,738 $1,792 $1,824 $10,706CMAQ $3,657 $3,657 $3,657TransNet-H (78) $464 $464 $464

TOTAL: $20,613 $3,595 $2,510 $6,529 $2,613 $2,667 $2,699 $20,613

City of San DiegoMPO ID: SD43 CAPACITY STATUS: NCITITLE: Lisbon-ImperialDESCRIPTION: 217' east of 71st Street - improve traffic flow by adding left turn pocketChange Reason: New Project - Carryover from 2000 RTIP

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-L $727 $427 $300 $727

TOTAL: $727 $427 $300 $727

MPO ID: SD102 CAPACITY STATUS: NCITITLE: Otay Truck RouteDESCRIPTION: Between Britannia Blvd. And Port of Entry - widen existing truck route from 2 to 3 lanes PE onlyChange Reason: New Project

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONLocal Funds $360 $360 $360

TOTAL: $360 $360 $360

MPO ID: SD103 CAPACITY STATUS: CITITLE: I-5/Genesee Avenue InterchangeDESCRIPTION: Replace 4-lane bridge with 6-lane bridge PE onlyChange Reason: New project

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONLocal Funds $15,540 $5,000 $5,000 $5,540 $15,540

TOTAL: $15,540 $5,000 $5,000 $5,540 $15,540




City of San MarcosMPO ID: SM21 CAPACITY STATUS: EXEMPTTITLE: W. Barham Drive Bike LanesDESCRIPTION: From Woodland Parkway to La Moree RoadChange Reason: New Project

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONTransNet-B $169 $107 $62 $169

TOTAL: $169 $107 $62 $169

City of SanteeMPO ID: SNT02 CAPACITY STATUS: CITITLE: Forester Creek ChannelizationDESCRIPTION: Construct new flood control channel along Forester Creek (in coordination with SR-52 New Freeway project)Change Reason: Include RSTP funds from prior year

FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONRSTP $966 $966 $966Local Funds $7,375 $4,077 $2,616 $682 $2,844 $267 $4,264TransNet-L $810 $200 $275 $335 $200 $610Water Bond $4,768 $4,768 $4,768

TOTAL: $13,919 $9,045 $2,891 $1,983 $3,044 $1,233 $9,642

PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENTFUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CONLocal Funds $8,041 $4,077 $3,582 $382 $2,844 $1,233 $4,264TransNet-L $810 $200 $275 $335 $200 $610Water Bond $4,768 $4,768 $4,768

TOTAL: $13,619 $9,045 $3,857 $717 $3,044 $1,233 $9,642


RTIPFund Types

BTA = Bicycle Transportation Account (State)

CMAQ = Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (Federal)

CBI = Corridors and Borders Infrastructure Program (Federal)

CDBG = Community Development Block Grants (Local)

DEMO = Demonstration (Federal)

HBRR = Highway Bridge Repair & Replacement (Federal)

IBRC = Innovative Bridge Research & Construction (Federal)

JARC = Jobs Access Reverse Commute (Federal)

PLH = Public Lands Highway (Federal)

RSTP = Regional Surface Transportation Program (Federal, administered regionally)

RTP = Recreational Trails Program (Federal)

SHOPP = State Highway Operation & Protection Program (for Caltrans use only)

STIP-IIP = State Transportation Improvement Program - Interregional Program (State)

STIP-RIP = State Transportation Improvement Program - Regional Improvement Program (State)

STP= Surface Transportation Program under FHWA Administrative Program (congressionally

directed FY 2003 appropriations)

TCI = Transit Capital Improvement Program (State, no longer exists)

TCRP = Traffic Congestion Relief Program (State)

TCSP = Transportation & Community & System Preservation (Federal)

TSM = Transportation Systems Management (State)

TDA = Transportation Development Act (State)

TDA-B = Transportation Development Act-Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities (State)

TEA = Transportation Enhancement Activities Program (Federal, administered regionally)

TransNet -H = Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Highway (Local)

TransNet -L = Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Local Streets & Roads (Local)

TransNet -T = Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Transit (Local)

Section 5307 = Federal Transit Administration Urbanized Area Formula Program

Section 5309 = Federal Transit Administration Discretionary Program

Section 5309 NS = Federal Transit Administration Discretionary - New Starts Program

Section 5309 FG = Federal Transit Administration Discretionary - Fixed Guideway Modernization (Rail)

Section 5311 = Federal Transit Administration Rural Program

Section 5310 = Federal Transit Administration Elderly & Disabled Program

22



23

September 19, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3Action Requested: INFORMATION

UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS Introduction SANDAG’s Subcommittee for Accessible Transportation (SCAT), acting as the region’s Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, will hold hearings to receive public comments on unmet transit needs in San Diego County, as required under Section 99238.5 of the California Public Utilities Code. Comments will be solicited to assist SANDAG and the region’s transit operators in identifying unmet transit needs of transit dependent and transit-disadvantaged persons. Location of Hearings The meetings will be held at the following locations: • Monday, October 6, 2003, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Administrative Board Room,

Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, 751 Medical Center Court, Chula Vista

• Wednesday, October 8, 2003, beginning at 2:00 p.m., in the Meeting Room, Wells Senior Center, 1153 East Madison Avenue, El Cajon

• Friday, October 10, 2003, beginning at 2:00 p.m., in the 7th Floor Conference Room, SANDAG, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego

• Thursday, October 16, 2003, beginning at 10:00 a.m., at North County Lifeline, 200 Michigan Avenue, Vista

Discussion SCAT will conduct the hearings to solicit comments on the need for transit services throughout the region, or for improvements in these services. The comments will be reported to the Transportation Committee at its November 14, 2003, meeting. The comments will be used by SANDAG in preparation of transportation plans and programs. They also will be transmitted to the transit and paratransit operators for their incorporation into service plans. Additionally, the comments will be shared with other organizations that provide transportation services to transit dependent populations, such as the County Aging and Independence Services Department.



24


INTERSTATE 15 (I-15) MANAGED LANES/BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) PROJECT: QUARTERLY UPDATE Introduction Caltrans and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) have been jointly managing implementation of the I-15 Managed Lanes/BRT project in the north I-15 corridor. The planning, development, and implementation of the BRT project components will be the responsibility of SANDAG, as the consolidated agency, effective October 2003. Caltrans is responsible for all activities within its right-of-way, including construction of the four-lane, bi-directional managed lanes facility with a movable barrier and direct access ramps at the five BRT station locations along the 20-mile project area. MTDB has had responsibility for development of the three BRT stations that will be built as part of the Middle Segment (Phase 1) Managed Lanes Project between State Route (SR) 56 and Centre City Parkway (see Attachment 1). Future phases would extend the I-15 Managed Lanes south to SR 163 (reconfiguring the existing Express Lanes) and north to SR 78. We last brought a status report to the Transportation Committee on June 20, 2003 (Agenda Item 20). This report provides a quarterly progress update and a discussion of current issues related to project implementation. Discussion To date, our work efforts have focused almost entirely on the Middle Segment (Phase 1) Managed Lanes/BRT project. Little work is being done or is currently planned for the future project phases until funding for additional planning and engineering studies is identified. Middle Segment (Phase 1) BRT Stations (Del Lago, Rancho Bernardo, and Sabre Springs/Penasquitos) As shown in Attachment 2, environmental work for the three Middle Segment BRT stations is approximately 90 percent complete. For the Rancho Bernardo station, right-of-way acquisition and preliminary engineering/design work is complete. For the Sabre Springs/Penasquitos station, right-of-way acquisition is approximately 70 percent complete. (No right-of-way is required for the Del Lago BRT station in south Escondido.) Much of the environmental, right-of-way acquisition, and design work on the BRT stations was put on hold earlier this year when the California Transportation Commission (CTC) suspended

25

allocations of Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funding. To help ensure that the environmental, preliminary engineering, final design, and right-of-way acquisition for the BRT stations could be completed as soon as possible, the MTD Board of Directors (April 24, 2003) and the SANDAG Transportation Committee (June 20, 2003) directed staff to use federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) vehicle acquisition funds for the BRT Station Projects. The remaining CMAQ funds are expected to be sufficient to carry the project through construction. The current schedule calls for environmental/planning activities to be completed by December 2003, Sabre Springs/Penasquitos right-of-way acquisition by July 2004, and final design by October 2004. Middle Segment (Phase 1) Managed Lanes In late March 2003, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved the environmental document for the I-15 Managed Lanes. This environmental document covers the full project from SR 163 to SR 78. Final design of the Middle Segment between SR 56 and Centre City Parkway is underway, and construction of the first unit of this phase is scheduled to start in November 2003. The current schedule calls for completion of the Middle Segment, including the three direct access ramps to the BRT stations, in December 2007. Caltrans intends to have an interim single northbound high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane across Lake Hodges open by late 2006. Future Phases of the Managed Lanes/BRT Project As noted above, little work effort is planned on either the southern segment or the northern segment of the Managed Lanes/BRT project until funding for advanced planning/environmental/engineering studies is identified, with two exceptions: • Mira Mesa Transit Center – Development of the Mira Mesa Transit Center BRT station is

being pursued as a short-range project given the need for an off-street transit center to serve existing transit services in the Mira Mesa/Scripps Ranch communities. Environmental and preliminary engineering studies are currently underway. The transit center could be completed in the 2005-2006 timeframe, assuming funding availability.

• Mira Mesa/Scripps Ranch Direct Access Ramps – As part of the southern segment of the

Managed Lanes project, a direct access ramp is proposed to connect the managed lanes with the Mira Mesa Transit Center. Questions have been raised by the community groups in the area on the possible need for a second direct access ramp connection to serve the Scripps Ranch community as well. Caltrans and SANDAG have agreed to conduct a feasibility study on a second direct access ramp in FY 2005.

26

Attachment 1

I-15 Managed Lanes/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations Project

I-15 Managed Lanes/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations Project

I-15 Bus Rapid Transit Stations Budget and Schedule September 2003

27

PHASE OF WORK

SCOPE START COMPLETION PERCENT COMPLETE

NOTES BUDGET

Environmental and Planning

Conduct conceptual engineering, environmental studies, and public/input reviews

9/98

12/03

90%

$ 0.2 million

Right-of-Way Acquisition

Acquire ROW and utility relocations for: A) Rancho Bernardo B) Sabre Springs/Penasquitos C) Del Lago (no right of way required)

12/00

7/04

A) 100% B) 70% C) N/A

$13.3 million A) $5.5 million B) $7.8 million C) $0

Final Design

Prepare plans, specs, and estimate (PS&E); advertise and award contract for Del Lago, Sabre Springs/Penasquitos, and Del Lago.

12/02

10/04

10%

$1.2 million

Construction

Construct projects; administer construction contract for: A) Rancho Bernardo B) Sabre Springs C) Del Lago

A) 6/05 B) 12/06 C) 6/05

A) 5/06 B) 11/07 C) 5/06

0%

Early opening dates were delayed due to TCRP funding impacts. Rancho Bernardo construction schedule also impacted by Legacy easements, which restricts MTDB construction start to June 1, 2005.

$11.1 million A) $5.0 B) $4.0 C) $1.1

Vehicles

Procure highway coach vehicles

2/02

7/05

30%

Vehicle acquisition is indefinitely on hold until TCRP funding becomes available again.

$25.0 million

Total

$50.8 million

Attachment 2



28

September 19, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5Action Requested: REVIEW/COMMENT

CONSTRUCTION POLICIES Introduction SANDAG’s legal staff has continued the process of reviewing existing policies to determine whether they need to be supplemented to address SANDAG’s expanded responsibilities. Staff has determined that some additional policies are needed to provide board direction on SANDAG’s new construction-related responsibilities. Four new policies have been prepared for review and comment by the Transportation Committee. Any changes requested during the next month will be incorporated into these proposed policies and brought back to the Transportation Committee in October. At the October meeting, the Transportation Committee will be asked to recommend approval of the policies to the SANDAG Board of Directors. The policies will be brought to the Board for approval at its October 24, 2003 meeting. Recommendation It is recommended that the Transportation Committee review the attached proposed policies. Discussion Project Plans, Specifications, and Estimates This policy provides the Board’s direction concerning the design of major transit projects, including preparing and approving contract plans, specifications, and cost estimates. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) For Capital Improvement Projects This policy is intended to provide clear, concise quality assurance and control recommendations that will ensure that capital improvement projects constructed by SANDAG meet or exceed requirements and expectations, and to provide for a Quality Plan as mandated by the Federal Transit Administration. Acquisition of Real Property Interests and Relocation Assistance This policy provides Board guidance on the acquisition of real property by agreements with owners. It also covers relocation assistance provided by SANDAG to individuals, families, businesses, farm operations, and nonprofit organizations that are required to relocate as a result of projects constructed by SANDAG for the benefit of the public.

29

Utility Agreements and Relocation This policy concerns relocations or adjustments and placement of public and privately owned utilities, for which SANDAG is legally obligated, and that may be made necessary by proposed construction of a SANDAG project either within SANDAG right-of-way or in other public agencies' rights-of-way.

30

BOARD POLICY NO. 019

PROJECT PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES This policy provides direction concerning the design of major transit projects and for preparing and approving contract plans, specifications, and cost estimates. Section 14085 et seq. of the State Government Code states that whenever any public entity is to receive state or federal funds for the purposes of project planning, design, rights-of-way, construction, acquisition, or improvement of exclusive public mass transit guideways (and their related fixed facilities, power systems, passenger facilities, vehicles, and equipment), it shall prepare plans for the complete project that are applicable to the type of project, and transmit them to the Department of Transportation for its review and approval of policies, procedures, and performance standards, prior to the implementation of the project or the project phases affected. This policy is intended to cover the following components of Section 14085: preliminary engineering investigations; plans, specifications, and cost estimates. Procedures 1. Plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&Es) for SANDAG projects shall be prepared in the

most functional and timely manner possible, by competent engineers in any combination of public agency staff, consultants, or SANDAG staff as appropriate.

2. PS&Es shall generally be prepared in accordance with SANDAG’s practices and standards

and/or accepted practices as defined by major project administrators, such as Caltrans. 3. Design criteria shall be as adopted by the Board of Directors and in compliance with other

accepted engineering standards and practices used for transportation systems. In the case of projects to be constructed on the NCTD/MTDB-owned railroad right-of-way, such design standards shall include but not be limited to:

3.1 NCTD’s/MTDB’s adopted System Safety Program Plan

3.2 49 CFR Part 213: Track Safety Standards

3.3 49 CFR Part 236: Installation, Inspection Maintenance and Repair of Signal and Train

Control Systems, Devices, and Appliances

3.4 Amtrak MW 1000 Limits and Specifications for the Safety, Maintenance, and Construction of Track

31

3.5 SDNR Bridge Inspection and SDNR Signal Maintenance, Inspection, and Testing Manuals

3.6 American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)

standards

3.7 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) general orders and standards as applicable

4. As a guideline, PS&E packages should generally contain the following:

4.1 Plans -- The official project plans and Standard Plans and Profiles, typical cross sections, general cross sections, working drawings and supplemental drawings, or reproductions thereof, approved by the responsible Engineer licensed in California, which show the location, character, dimensions and details of the work to be performed.

4.2 Specifications -- Special provisions shall contain specific clauses setting forth

conditions or requirements peculiar to the work and supplementary to the standard specifications. Standard Specifications shall provide the directions, provisions and requirements contained in published documents setting forth conditions and requirements that are reoccurring in like work.

4.3 Estimate -- The engineer's estimate shall list the estimated quantities of work to be

performed and estimated costs of each item and for the total project construction.

32


QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS This policy provides clear, concise quality assurance and control recommendations that will ensure that capital improvement projects constructed by SANDAG meet or exceed requirements and expectations, and to provide for a Quality Plan as mandated by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). In order to protect the public interest and safety, public works projects have historically implemented quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) management. QA/QC utilizes specific techniques that ensure conformance to specifications and requirements with respect to design, procurement, construction, and functional performance. The FTA requires that grantees undertaking major capital improvement projects (over $5 million) prepare, submit, and administer an approved Quality Plan. An approved Quality Plan defines a series of planned, systematic activities to ensure that the design, procurement, and construction meet the specified requirements at each stage of the project. Procedures 1. SANDAG shall establish a Quality Plan for the design, procurement, and construction of

major capital improvement projects. The Quality Plan shall be prepared in accordance with FTA and Caltrans guidelines. In addition, project-specific Quality Plans may be developed for other very large or complex projects, or if required by a funding agency.

2. The Quality Plan should be utilized by SANDAG staff, consultants, agency contractors,

subcontractors, and suppliers to assure adequate quality verification of the project design, procurement, and construction activities.

3. The Quality Plan should describe the quality oversight activities that will be utilized by the

project oversight team. 4. The Quality Plan should provide adequate project quality guidance for design, procurement,

and construction. It should include details of the quality system requirements to be applied during the design and construction processes, including requirements placed on subconsultants or subcontractors.

33


ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE The purpose of this policy is to encourage and expedite the acquisition of real property by agreements with owners, to avoid litigation and relieve congestion in the courts, to assure consistent treatment for owners in the public programs, and to promote public confidence in public land acquisition programs carried out by SANDAG. This policy also covers relocation assistance provided by SANDAG to individuals, families, businesses, farm operations, and nonprofit organizations that are required to relocate as a result of projects constructed by SANDAG for the benefit of the public. Section 14085 et seq. of the California Government Code states that whenever any public entity is to receive state or federal funds for the purposes of project planning, design, rights-of-way, construction, acquisition, or improvement of exclusive public mass transit guideways (and their related fixed facilities, power systems, passenger facilities, vehicles, and equipment), it shall prepare plans for the complete project that are applicable to the type of project, and transmit them to the Department of Transportation for its review and approval of policies, procedures, and performance standards, prior to the implementation of the project or the project phases affected. This policy is intended to cover the following components of Section 14085: acquisition of rights-of-way and other related real properties; and relocation assistance. Additionally, Government Code sections 7260-7276, require public entities such as SANDAG to provide relocation assistance to displaced persons and to implement a relocation assistance program. Procedures 1. Acquisition of rights-of-way and other related real properties will be prosecuted within the

following policy parameters:

1.1 All property owners will be dealt with fairly and equitably in the acquisition of lands or interests therein required by SANDAG.

1.2 Settlements will be based on estimates of fair market value as supported by current appraisal practices.

1.3 SANDAG shall pay for expenses which the owner(s) must incur for title and escrow fees incidental to conveying real property to SANDAG.

34

1.4 SANDAG shall make reasonable efforts to acquire expeditiously by negotiation the required property interests.

1.5 Condemnation will be utilized where negotiations have reached an impasse or there is a requirement to meet time restraints imposed by funding sources or construction schedules.

1.6 The Relocation Assistance Program will be fairly administered to ensure that all owners receive any and all benefits to which they are legally entitled.

2. The following guidelines shall be utilized by SANDAG or its agents to ensure fair and

equitable treatment of all property owners affected by SANDAG acquisitions as set out in Government Code Section 7267 et seq., as it may be amended from time to time:

2.1 The real property interests to be acquired shall be appraised and the fair market

value established before the initiation of negotiations and the property owner shall be given the opportunity to accompany the appraiser during his inspection on the property. (Government Code Section 7267.1 and 7267.2)

2.2 SANDAG or its agents shall make a prompt offer to the property owner for the full

estimate of market value established by the Board. SANDAG or its agents shall also provide the property owner with a written statement of, and summary of the basis for, the amount established as just compensation. The summary shall contain the following elements:

2.2.1 The owner's name and address. 2.2.2 Zoning and present use of the property.

2.2.3 Highest and best use of the property.

2.2.4 Consideration to be paid by SANDAG.

2.2.5 Total property area and amount to be acquired.

2.2.6 Market value of the property to be acquired and a statement as to

how the value was established, i.e., market data approach, income approach, or cost approach.

2.2.7 Amount of damages or a statement indicating that there are no

compensable damages. (Government Code Section 7267.2)

2.3 SANDAG shall make reasonable efforts to acquire by negotiation the real property interests required so as to reduce the need for litigation. SANDAG shall strive at all times to assure consistent treatment of property owners involved in public improvement projects and to promote public confidence in SANDAG's acquisition practices. (Government Code Sections 7267 and 7267.1a)

35

2.4 SANDAG shall schedule the construction or development of a public improvement, insofar as it is practicable, so that no person lawfully occupying real property shall be required to move from a dwelling or business, assuming a replacement dwelling is available, without at least 90 days written notice from the SANDAG. (Government Code Section 7267.3)

2.5 Should rental property become vacant, SANDAG may rent the vacated premises

prior to acquisition.

2.6 The threat of condemnation shall not be used to coerce a property owner into agreement. (Government Code Section 7267.5 and 7267.6)

2.7 SANDAG will offer to acquire the entire property if the owner so desires where the

acquisition of a portion of the property would leave the remaining portion in such shape or condition as to constitute an uneconomic remnant. (Government Code Section 7267.7)

3. Relocation assistance is a program that has been established by federal and state law to

provide help to individuals, families, businesses, farm operations, and nonprofit organizations required to relocate as a result of a public improvement project. Its primary objective is to assist all project displacees to the end that they do not suffer disproportionate injury as a result of projects constructed for the benefit of the public as a whole.

3.1 Relocation assistance shall be in accordance with Section 7260-7276 of the State

Government Code, as it may be amended from time to time.

3.2 No person will be required to relocate due to a proposed construction project until a replacement facility has been made available which meets the following standards:

3.2.1 Decent, safe, and sanitary.

3.2.2 Fair housing. 3.2.3 In areas not generally less desirable than the property to be acquired in

regard to public utilities or public and commercial facilities. 3.2.4 Within the financial means of the displacee. 3.2.5 Reasonably accessible to the displacee's place of employment, public

services, and commercial facilities. 3.2.6 Adequate to accommodate the displacee. 3.2.7 In an equal or better neighborhood. 3.2.8 Available on the market to the displacee.

36

3.3 In lieu of a replacement facility, the eligible owner or occupant may agree to accept a cash settlement as provided by state law.

3.4 Moving and related payments will be paid as provided by state law.

3.4.1 Individuals, businesses, and nonprofit organizations occupying the property

to be acquired at the time of the first written offer to purchase and move as a result of SANDAG's acquisition, will be eligible for reimbursement of moving expenses.

3.4.2 Residential occupants will receive either the actual reasonable costs involved

in moving family and personal property up to a maximum of 50 miles, or a payment based on a schedule relating to the size of their present dwelling, not to exceed $500.

3.4.3 Businesses, farms, and nonprofit organizations will be entitled to

reimbursement for (1) actual reasonable costs involved in moving the operation and personal property up to a maximum of 50 miles, (2) actual reasonable expenses incurred in searching for a replacement property, and (3) actual direct losses of tangible property.

3.5 Instead of accepting an actual moving expense payment, a business owner may be

paid an amount equal to the average annual net earnings of the farm or business for the last two years prior to relocation. The payment may not be less than $2,500 or more than $10,000. A business may qualify for an In Lieu Payment if the agency determines that the business cannot be relocated without a substantial loss of the existing dollar volume of business and it is not a part of a business having an additional establishment. A part-time individual or family occupation in the home that does not contribute materially to the income of the displaced owner is ineligible for an In Lieu Payment.

3.6 The Board hereby adopts the Department of Housing and Community Development

relocation assistance regulations set forth in Title 25, Division 1, Chapter 6, Subchapter 1 of the California Administrative Code, except as supplemented herein, as SANDAG's Relocation Assistance Program for all projects that must have such regulations apply pursuant to Government Code section 7267.8.

3.7 Pursuant to section 6152 of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, the

provisions for review commencing with section 6150 shall be supplemented as follows:

3.7.1 In the case of complaints dismissed for untimeliness or for any other reason

not based on the merits of the claim, SANDAG shall furnish a written statement to the complainant stating the reason for the dismissal of the claim as soon as possible but no later than two (2) weeks from receipt of the last material submitted by the complainant or the date of the hearing, whichever is later.

37

3.7.2 Except to the extent the confidentiality of material is protected by law or its disclosure is prohibited by law, the Board shall permit the complainant to inspect all files and records bearing upon his claim or the prosecution of the complainant's grievance. If a complainant is improperly denied access to any relevant material bearing on the claim, such material may not be relied upon in reviewing the initial determination.

3.7.3 The principles established in all determinations by SANDAG shall be

considered as precedent for all eligible persons in similar situations regardless of whether or not a person has filed a written request for review. All written determinations shall be kept on file and available for public review.

3.7.4 Any aggrieved party has a right to representation by legal or other counsel

at his expense at any and all stages of the proceedings set forth in these sections.

3.7.5 If a complainant, other than the owner of a displaced advertising sign, seeks

to prevent displacement, SANDAG shall not require the complainant to move until at least twenty (20) days after it has made a determination and the complainant has had an opportunity to seek judicial review. In all cases, SANDAG shall notify the complainant in writing twenty (20) days prior to the proposed new date of displacement.

3.7.6 Where more than one person is aggrieved by the failure of SANDAG to refer

them to comparable permanent or adequate temporary replacement housing, the complainants may join in filing a single written request for review. A determination shall be made by SANDAG for each of the complainants.

3.8 Before any project may be undertaken which involves the displacement of people,

SANDAG or its agents shall complete a Replacement Housing Study to determine the needs of the relocatees and the availability of replacement housing. The SANDAG studies shall serve to assure that orderly relocation can be accomplished and that realistic and adequate plans are developed for relocating all displaced persons.

3.9 Comparable replacement dwellings will be available or provided for each displaced

person within a reasonable amount of time. Such assurance is a part of the SANDAG Relocation Assistance Program study process and must be specifically given on every project requiring displacement.

3.10 Relocation advisory services will be provided to assist persons in relocating into safe,

decent, and sanitary housing that meets their needs and is within their financial means. The same will be provided for displaced business and farm operators to aid them in finding suitable replacement locations to continue operations. Assistance is required throughout the acquisition phase of the project and starts at the time SANDAG begins acquiring properties on a project.

38

3.11 No person lawfully occupying real property shall be required to move from a dwelling, assuming a decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwelling is available, or to move a business or farm operation, without at least 90 days written notice from SANDAG, prior to the date the move is required.

3.12 SANDAG shall follow generally the procedures outlined in the following Caltrans

guides: Right-of-Way; Relocation Assistance Handbook; and How to Make Relocation Studies and Plans

3.13 All cash payments to owners or occupants for any purpose shall be formally reported

to the Board as to amount, rationale, and applicable code or statute.

39


UTILITY AGREEMENTS AND RELOCATION The purpose of this policy is to define and clarify matters relating to utility agreements and utility relocations. Relocations or adjustments and placement of public and privately owned utilities, for which SANDAG is legally obligated, may be made necessary by proposed construction of a SANDAG project. These utility placements and relocations may take place within SANDAG right-of-way or in other public agencies' rights-of-way. Procedures 1. For the purpose of this policy, the term “utility” shall include water systems, gas lines,

electrical systems, and other public facilities, as well as those normally used to deliver, or dispose of, products utilized by the general public.

2. Utility agreements will be negotiated with each major utility owner affected, or likely to be

affected, by a SANDAG project. These agreements shall establish the general basis for determining costs, salvage and betterment credits, liabilities, methods of payment, encroachments and easements, and procedures for effecting specific and discrete elements of work. Utilities that must be replaced or rearranged shall be replaced or rearranged in-kind to the current code or standard. Board approval is required to improve utilities beyond the code or standard of the utilities being replaced.

3. Design and construction relative to SANDAG-required utility relocations shall generally be

performed by, or under contract to, the utility owner. Where the utility agrees to have such work performed by a SANDAG contractor, however, the utility should be assigned final responsibility for accepting that portion of the contractor's work.

4. SANDAG shall exercise reasonable discretion in acting on applications of utilities for permits

to occupy SANDAG's right-of-way. SANDAG may, however, refuse to grant any applications for any crossings which would be inconsistent with public safety or the continued unobstructed use of the right-of-way for freight or transit purposes.

5. With the necessary modifications for the type of right-of-way and ownership thereof,

SANDAG shall be guided by the California Streets and Highway Code, Section 680 and on any applicable case law, in carrying out this policy.

6. Nothing in this policy is intended to apply to relocations or adjustments and placement of

public and privately owned utilities within NCTD or MTDB owned right-of-way. Any such relocations or adjustments and placements shall be governed by the policies of NCTD or MTDB, or governed by separate agreements established on a case-by-case basis.



40

September 19, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 8Action Requested: APPROVE

STATE ROUTE (SR) 75/282 CONGESTION RELIEF MEASURES Introduction At its October 2001 meeting, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the elimination of the toll collected on the San Diego-Coronado Bridge, effective June 27, 2002. In November 2001, the Board established the State Route 75 Congestion Relief Working Group (CRWG) to make recommendations regarding traffic management in the State Routes 75/282 corridor. The CRWG presented recommendations for short-, mid-, and long-term congestion relief measures to the Transportation Committee and the Board of Directors at their April 2002 meetings. Coronado has taken the lead for long-term measures and continues to make progress on that effort. By December 2002, the majority of the short-term measures had been implemented. Caltrans recently completed the Project Study Report (PSR) detailing a number of mid-term congestion relief measures. The City of Coronado is proposing to fund some of these mid-term measures with an estimated cost of $2.1 million. Coronado is requesting an equal share contribution from Caltrans and SANDAG to be paid back at a later date. Caltrans has agreed to contribute an equal share when funds are available. Recommendation The Transportation Committee is asked to approve an equal share contribution, not to exceed $700,000, for SR 75/282 mid-term congestion relief measures outlined in the Discussion section below. The contribution would be allocated from a future fund source administered by SANDAG. Potential SANDAG administered sources include funds from the future Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) after reauthorization of the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) or a future State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Discussion The mid-term congestion relief measures proposed in the PSR which the City of Coronado wants to pursue now are designed to better regulate traffic along the SR 75/282 corridor. This will lead to improved safety conditions for pedestrian and bicyclists and improved flow for cross-traffic. The proposed measures total $2.1 million and include: (1) a metering system for traffic entering Coronado from the bridge, (2) traffic signals at five locations, and (3) sidewalk bulbouts for facilitating pedestrian traffic at the five traffic signal locations. The five locations include Third Street and Fourth Street at B Avenue, Third Street and Fourth Street at F Avenue, and Fourth Street and Alameda Boulevard. The locations of the bridge meter and traffic signals are shown in Attachment 1. The cost estimate for the mid-term measures is shown below in Table 1.

41

TABLE 1.—SR 75/282 MID-TERM CONGESTION RELIEF MEASURES COST ESTIMATE

Bridge Metering System $350,000

Five Traffic Signals $650,000

Sidewalk Bulbouts $450,000

Engineering $400,000

Contingency $250,000

Total $2,1000,000

These mid-term congestion relief measures will be delivered in phases, including the following major work elements: (1) consultant procurement, (2) environmental analysis, (3) design, and (4) construction. For the first phase, Coronado will hire a consultant to begin environmental and detailed engineering studies. This phase is expected to take four months. The second phase includes the completion of the environmental document and engineering studies for the Caltrans required Project Report. This phase will take approximately nine months if the state-only California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental process can be followed. However, it is likely that SANDAG (and potentially Caltrans) would use federal funds for its equal share contribution. In addition, there may be a federal nexus due to the potential traffic impacts to the Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI). Therefore, the more lengthy federal National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) environmental process will probably have to be followed. The second phase is, therefore, expected to last 18 months. The third phase includes the design of the project by Caltrans and is expected to take nine months. Two options exist for the fourth and final phase. If construction occurs concurrently at all locations, the construction timeframe could be condensed to six months. If construction occurs in a more traditional staged manner, construction is estimated at 12 months. The decision to utilize a concurrent or staged construction strategy will be decided during the environmental phase through the public outreach process. The project schedule is shown below in Table 2.

TABLE 2.—SR 75/282 MID-TERM CONGESTION RELIEF MEASURES PROJECT SCHEDULE

Consultant Procurement

Environmental/ Project Report

Design Construction Total

4 months 18 months 9 months 6-12 months 37-43 months

42

Fund Agreement Due to the transportation budget crisis, SANDAG is not able to allocate its equal share contribution at this time. Two potential fund sources administered by SANDAG that could be used include future federal Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds or future State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds. The preferred strategy is for SANDAG to provide its equal share contribution up to $700,000 prior to the commencement of construction. Based on the schedule detailed above, there will be two years before the beginning of construction. It is hoped that either RSTP funds or STIP funds will be available for this purpose by that time. If not, the equal share contribution will have to be allocated toward another transportation project in the City of Coronado since RSTP and STIP funds cannot be programmed retroactively to a project as repayment for expenses already incurred.

The attachment to this Agenda Item may be obtained by contacting SANDAG’s Public Information Office at (619) 595-5347.



44

September 19, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 9Action Requested: REVIEW/COMMENT

INTERSTATE 15 (I-15) INTERREGIONAL PARTNERSHIP – LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES Introduction The I-15 Interregional Partnership (I-15 IRP) is a voluntary compact between the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) to address issues of common concern. The Policy Committee of the IRP includes local elected officials representing western Riverside County and the SANDAG Borders Committee; the IRP Technical Working Group (TWG) includes representatives of economic development organizations, environmental groups, local jurisdictions, transit agencies, Caltrans, and other interested agencies from both the public and private sectors. The perceived imbalance of jobs and housing between the two areas provided the impetus for the formation of the I-15 IRP in 2001. This imbalance, with a surplus of jobs in the San Diego region and a surplus of housing in western Riverside County, was believed to be a major reason for increasing freeway congestion on I-15, primarily south of Escondido. To be able to assess the scale and impacts of the imbalance between jobs and housing along this interregional corridor, an Existing Conditions Report was developed, which includes a description of existing and forecast transportation conditions along the I-15 corridor. Also included in the Existing Conditions Report are the results of a survey of western Riverside County residents which reveal that approximately 29,000 individuals are currently commuting into the San Diego region to work on a daily basis. Over the last few months the IRP has focused on designing a preliminary set of strategies to reduce the demand for interregional commuting and to mitigate congestion impacts resulting from this commute. These long-range strategies address three areas of interregional action: transportation, economic development, and housing. The strategies under evaluation are listed in Attachment 1. At the direction of the Policy Committee, the I-15 IRP TWG developed a set of short-range strategies as well. Approved by the IRP Policy Committee in February 2003, these strategies primarily focus on coordinating existing government programs, such as ridesharing, in the two regions. These strategies are also listed in Attachment 1. Of special note, the Commuter Link service identified in Strategy SR4 started this month. Recommendation It is requested that the SANDAG Transportation Committee review and comment on the five long-range transportation strategies drafted by the I-15 IRP Policy Committee.

45

Discussion At its June 20, 2003 meeting, the I-15 IRP Policy Committee identified five long-range transportation strategies for more detailed analysis and refinement. A refined set of long-range transportation strategies will be integrated with economic development, jobs-housing balance, and housing strategies into an I-15 Implementation Plan for consideration by SANDAG and WRCOG in early 2004. Strategy T1 Support High Speed Rail Transit Service in the I-15 Corridor The State legislature created the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) to design, finance, build, and operate a high-speed passenger rail system to connect California’s major urban areas. Based on studies completed by the CHSRA, the preferred route for high-speed rail service from Los Angeles to San Diego would be east through Riverside County and then south on I-15. The CHSRA system would serve stations near Temecula, Escondido, Miramar (North City San Diego), and central San Diego. Conventional rail service would continue through Orange County along the coastal rail corridor. The CHSRA service would be scheduled to meet the total interregional demand for travel. Although the trip to work is a relatively small part of interregional travel, a high-speed rail system could schedule additional service during commute hours. In addition, the CHSRA has discussed the option of allowing regional transit providers to use its transportation rights-of-way to provide regional transit and freight services. These regional services would be designed to stop more frequently. The Authority took an action in 2001 to drop Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) from further study as a technology. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) continues to support the use of Maglev technology in the I-15 corridor. Strategy T2 Implement Transit Shuttle Services to Interregional Transit The implementation of Interregional Commuter Transit Service (Strategy SR4, Attachment 1) will operate primarily on the freeway system, connecting relatively distant residential areas with employment centers. In most cases, local transit shuttle services may be needed to collect interregional commuters from their residences and deliver them to work. While limited shuttle services exist in the I-15 corridor, more shuttles are planned to be implemented in the near term. Strategy T2 is proposed for the time period following the refinement of interregional routes. Shuttle services under this strategy would be specifically designed to serve the interregional commute and will be cost-effective only in communities where residential and employment densities are reasonably high. In addition, the design of these areas must support transit service, with buildings located relatively close to the street and with adequate pedestrian access. In areas that lack these characteristics, other ways to distribute interregional transit passengers may be possible. Currently, SANDAG is evaluating the “car sharing” concept, where vehicles can be rented for short periods of time at major transit centers. Once this concept has been evaluated, it could be considered as a strategy for access to interregional transit services.

46

In addition to the vehicle, capital cost for shuttle services can include special access lanes to transit centers and traffic signal changes to provide priority for buses. Depending on the service demands in the residential or employment areas, shuttle service may be provided all day or only during peak commuting hours.

Strategy T3 Preserve Transportation Rights-of-Way and Implement Priority Measures through the Development Process

Both land use and transportation agencies routinely prepare long-range facility plans to serve their jurisdiction. Even if precise locations of facilities are not identified, appropriate rights-of-way can be preserved through a development process that includes an environmental analysis. Transit-related measures could improve the speed and convenience of bus service. For example, the installation of “queue-jumpers,” transit-only lanes which allow buses to by-pass a line of cars stopped at red signals, can speed transit travel times. Transit centers and transit stop improvements such as shelters can improve the comfort of the transit patron. Strategy T4 Reduce Parking Requirements in Transit Nodes and Mixed-Use Centers Free employee parking is a hidden cost of doing business. Required off-street parking facilities must be built, maintained, and insured against injury or loss. If a reasonable level of existing transit serves an employment site, or ridesharing facilities and the opportunity for ridesharing exists, the number of parking spaces per employee can be reduced. A reduction in the amount of parking provided would encourage employees to rideshare to work. Some cities have had difficulty with programs to reduce parking in both residential and employment areas. The City of San Diego allows a reduction of required parking in areas served by a high level of transit service. Residents complain that this reduction causes a shortage of on-street parking in these areas. The fear of insufficient parking can be minimized by requiring the developer to retain land within the development to accommodate the full number of required parking spaces. If the reduced number of parking spaces proves to be adequate, this area could later be converted to other uses or retained as open space. In addition, financial institutions which loan money for the construction of new employment sites or housing often require a minimal level of parking before they will finance a new development. Similarly, some tenants demand a high level of parking as a condition of renting a business site. The benefits and limitations of this strategy should be discussed further. Strategy T5 Implement the I-15 High-Occupancy-Vehicle (HOV) System In the summer of 2002, approximately 29,000 individuals commuted to work in the San Diego region from Riverside County on a daily basis. Approximately 85 percent of those workers drive alone. A significant percentage of those commuting into the San Diego region indicate that they are interested in ridesharing. Strategy T5 would take advantage of the interest in alternative transportation by developing a High-Occupancy-Vehicle (HOV) system right-of-way along I-15 from southwest Riverside County into San Diego.

47

Current plans show I-15 expanding by one or two lanes in each direction in southern Riverside County. In the San Diego region, the addition of one HOV lane in each direction north of Escondido has been identified in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), but only under the most optimistic funding scenario. Because I-15 congestion currently only exists from Escondido south, the addition of more flexible “managed lanes” have been programmed. Given projected funding levels and more urgent highway improvement projects, the funding needed to add HOV lanes on I-15 north of Escondido is anticipated only under the most optimistic funding scenarios.

48

I-15 INTERREGIONAL PARTNERSHIP STRATEGIES

September 4, 2003 SHORT RANGE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES – APPROVED FOR IMPLEMENTATION BY THE IRP POLICY COMMITTEE IN FEBRUARY 2003 SR1: Interregional Coordination of Vanpool and Carpool Programs SR2: Expand Park-and-Ride Lots and Improve Rideshare Information Signage SR3: Joint Outreach and Marketing for Transit, Vanpool, and Ridesharing Programs SR4: Implement Interregional Public Transit Commuter Services SR5: Collaboration among Transit Providers SR6: Advocate for Employer-Subsidized Transit Passes SR7: Encourage the Adoption of Alternative Work Schedules SR8: Encourage Tele-work LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES – APPROVED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION BY THE IRP POLICY COMMITTEE IN JUNE 2003 T1: Support High Speed Rail Transit Service in the I-15 Corridor T2: Implement Transit Shuttle Services to Interregional Transit T3: Preserve Transportation Rights-of-Way and Implement Priority Measures through the

Development Process T4: Reduce Parking Requirements in Transit Nodes and Mixed-Use Centers T5: Implement the I-15 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) System ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES – APPROVED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION BY THE IRP POLICY COMMITTEE IN JUNE 2003 ED1: Facilitate Greater Collaboration between Regional Economic Development Entities ED2: Create Web Site to Link I-15 Commuters with Local Jobs and Promote Businesses in Housing-

Rich Areas ED3: Map the Broadband Service Coverage Area in southwest Riverside County JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE STRATEGIES – APPROVED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION BY THE IRP POLICY COMMITTEE IN JUNE 2003 JHB1: Support/Sponsor Legislation that Provides Incentives for Jobs/Housing Balance Programs JHB2: Actively Engage in Community Outreach JHB3: Establish a “Coordinated Funding Group” to Support the Strategy Implementation Efforts of

the Interregional Partnership HOUSING STRATEGIES – IN DRAFT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE IRP POLICY COMMITTEE IN SEPTEMBER 2003 H1: Revitalize Older Residential Neighborhoods H2: Provide a range of Housing Types & Costs in All Communities H3: Provide Incentives for the Construction of Moderate-Cost Family Housing near major

Employment Centers

Attachment 1



49


TRANSPORTATION PROJECT BUDGET DEFICITS AND POTENTIAL STRATEGIES Introduction Several projects of regional importance are facing significant budget shortfalls in the current fiscal year totaling approximately $309 million. Most of the shortfalls are the result of the inability to access previously programmed Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) or State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds. These project deficits were initially presented to the Transportation Committee at its December 12, 2002, meeting. A few projects have also recently experienced cost increases. A schematic showing the relative size of the funds needed is shown in Attachment 1. A list of projects with a description of the amount of the shortfall, the cause of the shortfall, and the state of readiness for each project is included in Attachment 2. It should be stressed that the $309 million shortfall shown for these projects in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003/04 represents the most current snapshot in the state of the programming. As the economy’s recovery remains uncertain, additional deficits are likely to continue in FY 2004/05 and perhaps even FY 2005/06 as projects that are not funded this fiscal year roll over to next year. Attachment 2 also lists potential shortfalls for FY 2004/05 and 2005/06, which total approximately $137 million. Potential strategies to bridge only the FY 2003/04 gap are presented in this report.

Potential Strategies • Apply unexpended and unobligated funds to projects with FY 2003/04 budget deficits • Transfer funds to higher priority projects • Apply for Letters of No Prejudice for reimbursement of TCRP funds • Apply for AB 3090 reimbursement for STIP funds • Apply for additional GARVEE bonds • Delay lower priority projects

Program Budget Shortfalls Nearly 20 projects, including major regional transit and highway projects, are or will be ready to go to construction within the current fiscal year (see Attachment 2). The total value of these projects is approximately $1.7 billion dollars. These projects include the Sprinter rail line between Oceanside and Escondido as well as State Routes 52 in the East County and 905 in the South Bay. These projects, however, are experiencing budget shortfalls primarily due to the TCRP and STIP program deficits. The state budget included approximately $200 million statewide in TCRP funds for projects that had received an allocation by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) as of October 2002. These $200 million are intended to be used for the entire statewide TCRP program. Some of the projects in question do not have allocated TCRP funds, making them ineligible for this

50

statewide $200 million pot. The shortfall on TCRP funds for regional projects that are ready to go to construction totals approximately $109 million. In addition, the state budget included approximately $100 million statewide to help shore up the STIP program. As with the TCRP, this $100 million is intended as a source of funds for STIP projects throughout the state. The CTC, however, has unofficially indicated that, due to remaining financial uncertainties, it is very unlikely that any STIP allocations will occur during FY 2003/04. This includes both the regional and interregional components of the STIP. This apparent freeze on STIP allocations during the current year would result in budget shortfalls for regional projects that are ready to go to construction totaling approximately $164 million in FY 2003/04. Additionally, the CTC plans on deprogramming projects to pay for statewide cost overruns. Project Cost Increases While most of the shortfalls can be attributed to program budget deficits, a few projects have experienced recent cost increases. During FY 2003/04, there is $36 million in identified cost increases, including a $24 million cost increase in the right-of-way acquisition phase of SR 56 “Middle” and $12 million for SR 52 and related Forester Creek channelization improvements. An additional $24 million in cost increases for right-of-way acquisition for SR 52 will need to be addressed in FY 2004/05. While this report is not intended to be a thorough review and discussion of the project cost increases, it is intended to provide the Transportation Committee with information of the potential demands on the regional funding capacity as it considers how to bridge the current deficit. Additional information and analysis will be provided for the Committee’s review prior to an approval request on these cost increases. Available Tools As the region considers its transportation project priorities, there are a number of tools and potential sources which may provide additional flexibility to the region. These tools are briefly described below. Programmed but Unexpended funds Savings and unexpended funds totaling approximately $149 million have been identified that can be used to keep some of these projects moving forward. The sources are described below. Staff has identified unexpended funds totaling $4.2 million on completed projects throughout the region that can be de-obligated and shifted to other projects with funding shortfalls. These are listed in Attachment 3. Staff has also identified $95.5 million in unexpended funds that are not affected by the STIP or TCRP funds that could be shifted to cover the budget shortfall on some of the projects. These projects are identified in Attachment 3. These funds are currently programmed on active projects. While staff will attempt to identify projects where a fund re-allocation will not result in schedule delays, delays will happen. TransNet has $25 million in available funds from the highway programs, which includes $10 million in unexpended SR 78 Corridor funds. Additionally, there is $18 million of TransNet NCTD transit funds available. These two TransNet pots total $43 million. Lastly, the Regional Roadway

51

Maintenance program has nearly $6.7 million in unexpended funds that can also be used to bridge part of the gap. AB 3090 AB 3090 allows regions to substitute other funding on STIP-funded projects and to be reimbursed at a future date either in cash or by programming a replacement project. Under the reimbursement scenario, the project sponsor secures an AB 3090 agreement with the CTC, advances its own funds, and is then reimbursed with STIP funds at a later agreed upon date. The CTC limits this practice as future funds are tied up more quickly on reimbursement of these AB 3090 agreements. The replacement project scenario allows the CTC to program future STIP funds on a project of the sponsor’s choice. This practice is the preferred option for the CTC under the AB 3090 provisions. Staff will continue to work with project sponsors and the CTC to apply for AB 3090 agreements as appropriate. Letters of No Prejudice A Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) is a tool available for projects with unallocated TCRP funds. Similar to an AB 3090 agreement, the LONP allows the project sponsor to proceed with its own funds. Once the phase for which an LONP was approved is complete, the CTC would then reimburse the project sponsor, subject to availability of funds. This alternative is less attractive than an AB 3090 in that the entire phase has to be complete before the project is eligible for reimbursement. Projects such as the Sprinter would have to complete the construction phase prior to becoming eligible for reimbursement of the $80 million in TCRP funds programmed for the Sprinter. Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle Bonds Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds allow the region to advance future STIP revenues for highway projects that are ready to go. This tool makes possible the acceleration of larger projects, as is the case of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Managed Lanes. The region’s future STIP shares, however, are reduced by the yearly amount of debt service. Additional GARVEE programming may be an option available to the region to resolve part of the regional budget shortfall. While there is no specific limit in the guidelines as to how much debt service a region can assume, in practical terms, it is limited by the level of its future STIP shares and by how much of its future revenues the region would want to tie up on debt service. The 2004 STIP is not anticipated to add STIP shares to the region beyond what is currently programmed. The use of GARVEE bonds to cover part of the current budget deficits would likely require unprogramming STIP funds from a currently programmed STIP project and reprogramming them to cover the debt service payments, at least for the first few years of the debt service. Although GARVEE bonds imply financing costs, staff is concerned about the cost of delaying projects at a time that borrowing costs are at an all-time low. Potential Action Strategies in Response to the Budget Deficits A number of potential strategies were presented to the Transportation Committee at the December 12, 2002, meeting shortly after the state announced the suspension of the TCRP program. Some of these strategies have been and continue to be implemented, ranging from slowing the pace of progress on certain projects to working with our local congressional delegation for additional funding. As discussed above, additional information is now available to determine the

52

extent of the project shortfalls. While staff will continue to work on some of the longer-term strategies, the region will likely need to “go back to the drawing board” and establish a revised set of priorities and allow only the higher priority projects to proceed. As part of the proposed strategies presented earlier, some projects will be able to continue on their current schedule, while others would be subject to delay. The table below summarizes the potential schedule impacts:

PROCEED UNDER CURRENT SCHEDULE PROJECTS SUBJECT TO DELAY

SR 56 Construction SR 52 from SR 125 to Cuyamaca Sprinter Freeway Speed Monitoring Stations Project SR 52 from Cuyamaca to SR 67 Ramp Meters Project on I-805 in South Bay Forester Creek Channelization Changeable Message Signs Project SR 905 North County Transit District Bus Acquisition I-15 Managed Lanes South Santa Fe Avenue (Co. of San Diego) Oceanside Transit Center Parking Structure Bear Valley/East Valley Parkway (Escondido) I-5/Via de la Valle Auxiliary Lane Plaza Boulevard (National City) Encinitas Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossing SR 163/Friars Rd Interchange (San Diego) Fare Technology Project Division Street (San Diego) SANDAG Planning, Programming and Monitoring National Avenue (San Diego)

Following is a discussion of how a strategy or combination of strategies is being proposed for each project. SR 56 Right of Way Cost Increase: $24 million • SANDAG re-allocates San Diego’s unexpended share of the Regional Roadway Maintenance

towards the SR 56 “Middle” cost increase. Provides $5.7 million • City of San Diego commits unprogrammed local TransNet funds to cover part of the SR 56

“Middle” right-of-way cost increase. Provides $4 million • City of San Diego re-allocates funds from other City of San Diego projects (Division Street,

National Avenue, 163/Friars Road Interchange) to cover part of the SR 56 “Middle” cost increase. Provides $11.6 million

• Transfer SR 52 construction TransNet funds to cover the remaining $2.7 million dollars.

Some of the re-allocated funds may need to be exchanged with a TransNet-funded project to provide non-federal funds as the SR 56 project was not cleared through the federal National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process, making it ineligible for federal funds. Sprinter: $80 million The strategy would temporarily replace the $80 million in TCRP funds with a combination of TransNet, Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP), and Congestion Mitigation and Air

53

Quality (CMAQ) funds. The cash flow needs of the project allow for funds to be spread over three years, easing pressure on programming capacity. • Transfer NCTD’s TransNet Transit program reserves to cover a part of the shortfall.

Provides $18 million • Transfer TransNet Highway program reserves to cover a part of the shortfall. Per the

TransNet ordinance, these funds would need to be restored back to the highway program within five years. Provides $ 13.9 million

• Transfer SR 52 TransNet construction funds to cover part of the shortfall. Per the TransNet

ordinance, these funds would need to be restored back to the SR 52 project within five years. Provides $20.3 million

• The use of RSTP funds would require unprogramming of several Regional Arterial System

projects, potentially resulting in delays to those projects. These projects include: South Santa Fe Avenue Widening (County of San Diego) ($9.2 million), Bear Valley/East Valley Parkway (Escondido) ($6.1 million), Plaza Boulevard (National City) ($1.3 million) and transferring City of San Diego RSTP funds previously exchanged to cover the SR 56 cost increase funds ($8 million). Provides $ 24.6 million

• Regional Roadway Maintenance funds would be reallocated towards the Sprinter. The

funds that would be reallocated are currently programmed for the Cities of Coronado, Lemon Grove, National City, and Oceanside. Provides $1.0 million

• Re-allocate Inland Rail trail unobligated funds to the Sprinter. Provides $0.8 million

• Re-allocate savings from completed I-5/Via de la Valle auxiliary lane ($1 million). Program

I-15 Bus Rapid Transit Project Study Reserve ($0.4 million). Provides $1.4 million

In addition, the option of borrowing against the future federal funds committed in the Full Funding Grant Agreement should be explored. The use of GARVEE may be a challenge as GARVEE guidelines require projects to be eligible under Title 23 (highway projects). Transit projects fall under Title 49. There may be some flexibility that should be further explored. A finance charge would apply to any GARVEE option that is implemented. A Letter of No Prejudice would be pursued for eventual reimbursement of $80 million in TCRP funds. This strategy provides $80 million to cover the unallocated TCRP funds. However, the project’s Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC) has identified certain risks in the project funding. SR 52: $37 million in FY 2003/04 • Transfer TransNet funds from construction and backfill FY 2003/04 right of way acquisition

shortfall to allow acquisition to proceed. This minimizes further cost increases due to real estate inflation. Funding for FY 2004/05 and 2005/06 right-of-way shortfalls would come from GARVEE bond proceeds. Provides $17 million

54

• Delay construction of the segment between SR 125 and Cuyamaca to FY 2006/07 and combine with construction of the segment between Cuyamaca and SR 67. This will delay the need to program the $20 million shortfall from TCRP. Delays $20 million

In addition, staff will be meeting with Caltrans to identify potential strategies and schedule efficiencies to complete the overall corridor ahead of current schedule. Attachment 4 shows the impact to the corridor schedule as it currently stands. Due to the exchange of some TransNet funds from this project to other projects, mainly to Sprinter, a detailed accounting would need to be implemented to maintain the one-third split for transit and highway projects. Due to the funds being transferred to help cover the shortfall on other projects, this project would have a deficit in the construction phase of $57.3 million starting in FY 2006/07. A Letter of No Prejudice would be pursued for eventual reimbursement of $20 million in TCRP funds. SR 905: $101.4 million in FY 2003/04 • Negotiate with Caltrans to issue GARVEE bonds in same proportion as the current split of

regional and interregional STIP funds programmed on the project. Currently, the state has programmed $78.9 million or nearly 80 percent of the STIP funds versus $22.5 million in regional STIP funds on this project of state and national significance. Provides $101.4 million

The region should pursue additional federal funds to fully fund the last stage, which is currently unprogrammed, to extend SR 905 to the California Highway Patrol inspection station. Without this last segment, access will continue to be through local City of San Diego streets. The programming shortfall on the last stage is $51.2 million. I-15 Managed Lanes: $17.5 million The strategy would be to advance existing GARVEE to cover the FY 2003/04 STIP shortfall on the freeway elements and rollover the unallocated STIP to FY 2004/05. The current strategy assumes that debt service programmed for FY 2004/05 and FY 2005/06 will be allocated as a top state priority. Debt service for these two years totals $34 million. The region would apply for AB 3090 replacement funds to cover the unallocated STIP funds. With respect to the transit elements, CMAQ funds would be advanced to cover the cost of environmental, design, and right-of-way acquisition for the Bus Rapid Transit stations and rolling stock. A Letter of No Prejudice would be pursued for eventual reimbursement of $22.6 million in TCRP funds. • Transfer I-15 Bus Rapid Transit construction funds and PSR Reserve funds to cover the rolled

over FY 2004/05 shortfall. Provides $17.5 million Other projects: $49.2 million in FY 2003/04 • Fare Technology Debt Service: Transfer CMAQ funds from I-15 Bus Rapit Transit (BRT) Project

Study Report reserve funds to cover FY 2003/04 needs. Delay programming of FY 2004/05 and 2005/06 needs to program with future year CMAQ funds. Provides $700,000

55

• SANDAG Planning, Programming, and Monitoring: Exchange TransNet funds from TransNet Highway program with RSTP funds and transfer TransNet to cover the FY 2003/04 need on this SANDAG program. Delay programming action on FY 2004/05 and 2005/06 shortfalls. Provides $473,000

• Oceanside Transit Center Parking Structure: Re-allocate Rancho del Oro/SR 78 interchange unobligated funds ($895,000). Program part of SR 76 “West” savings from right-of-way acquisition ($3.1 million). Apply for AB 3090 replacement funds. Provides $4 million

• Forester Creek: Santee has enough funds to build the initial section of the Forester Creek channel that is necessary to build SR 52. Provides $16 million

• I-5/Via de la Valle Auxiliary Lane: Re-allocate CMAQ funds from the Coastal Rail Trail

($5.2 million). Transfer I-15 BRT Project Study Reserve Funds ($300,000). Apply for AB 3090 replacement funds. Provides $5.5 million

• Encinitas Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossing: The City of Encinitas is working with

SANDAG to advance the funds. SANDAG will pursue a Letter of No Prejudice. Provides $1.2 million

• Freeway Speed Monitoring Stations on I-5, I-805, SR 52 and SR 94: Delay this project to a

future year. Delays $6 million • Ramp meters on I-805: Delay this project to a future year. Delays $6.5 million

• Changeable message signs: Delay this project to a future year. Delays $1.1 million

• North County Transit District (NCTD) buses: Delay this project to a future year.

Delays $7.7 million • Rideshare Program: Replace FY 2004/05 and 2005/06 STIP funds with future year CMAQ

funds. Delay programming action of FY 2004/05 and FY 2005/06 funds until FY 2004/05. Next Steps Staff will further develop these programming strategies to allow the highest priority projects to continue on to completion. This exercise will rely on existing prioritization guidelines as well as direction received from the Transportation Committee. Staff will present a more complete set of strategies to the Transportation Committee at its October 2003 meeting.

56

Attachment 1

RELATIVE SIZE OF BUDGET DEFICIT THROUGH FY 2005/06 AS PART OF TOTAL PROJECT COST

$309

$137

$1,221

Funds Needed in FY 2003/04Funds Needed in FY 2004/05 and FY 2005/06Secured Funding

Projects with FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06 Budget Shortfalls($1,000's)

Attachment 2

A B C D E F G

Ref # Project Issue Unallocated FY 2003/04 Cost Increase

Total FY 2003/04 Shortfall

(Columns C+D)

Shortfalls in FY 2004/05 and FY

2005/06*

Total Project Cost**

Awarded/Under Construction

1 SR 56 Right of WayCost increase based on initial indications from City of San Diego. Cost increase is offset by city proposal as shown in Attachment 2.

24,000 24,000 142,331

2 Fare Technology Debt Service No STIP allocations in FY 2004. Project has been awarded 700 700 8,400 35,402

3 Planning, Programming and Monitoring No STIP allocations in 2004. Proposed backfill funds shown in Attachment 2. 473 473 948 1,419

4 I-15 Managed Lanes No STIP Allocations in 2004. GARVEE debt service programmed beginning in FY 2005 17,500 17,500 324,200

Subtotal 18,673 24,000 42,673 9,348 503,352

Award Construction Contract by December 2003 or need funds to acquire Right of Way in FY 2004

5 Sprinter TCRP shortfall=$80M. 80,000 80,000 351,500

6 Oceanside Transit Center Parking Structure STIP RIP=$1.3M; STIP IIP=$2.7M; $590k in TCRP will be covered by City of Oceanside 4,000 4,000 9,100

7 Forester Creek STIP=$6.0M, cost inc.=$10.0M 6,000 10,000 16,000 29,000

8 SR 52 (Cuyamaca to SR 67) Right of WayNo STIP allocations in 2004=$15 million. Potentially noSTIP allocations in 2005 or 2006: $26.1 million. Cost increase: $24 million

15,000 15,000 50,110 192,590

Subtotal 105,000 10,000 115,000 50,110 582,190

Award Construction Contract by June 2004

9 SR 52 (SR 125 to Cuyamaca) Right of Way and Construction TCRP shortfall=$20M; RW cost increase=$2M 20,000 2,000 22,000 155,210

10 SR 905 Construction STIP-R=$22.5M; STIP-I=$78.9M; Project cost does not include extension to CHP inspection station. 101,386 101,386 51,200 292,300

11 I-5/Via de la Valle Aux No STIP allocations in 2004 5,485 5,485 6,100

12Freeway Speed Monitoring Stations on I-5, I-805, SR 52, SR 94 No STIP allocations in 2004 6,050 6,050 6,500

13 Ramp Meters on I-805 No STIP allocations in 2004. Construction need in FY '04 is $6.5M. 6,500 6,500 7,200

14 Changeable Message Signs No STIP allocations in 2004 1,060 1,060 1,200Subtotal 140,481 2,000 142,481 51,200 468,510

Award Contract after June 2004 but need funds advanced15 NCTD Buses TCRP shortfall 7,700 7,700 41,00016 Encinitas Grade-Sep Ped Crossing TCRP shortfall 1,248 1,248 n/a17 Rideshare Program STIP Programming in 2005 and 2006 3,530 20,61318 I-15 Bus Rapid Transit TCRP shortfall 22,600 50,800

Subtotal 8,948 0 8,948 26,130 112,413

GRAND TOTAL 273,102 36,000 309,102 136,788 1,666,465Notes: *Shortfalls in FY 2005 and 2006 assume a low level of confidence of additional STIP allocations as project schedules may be pushed out to future.**Total Project Cost includes previously spent funds for engineering and right of way acquisition.TCRP=Traffic Congestion Relief ProgramSTIP-R=Regional State Transportation Improvement ProgramSTIP-I=Interregional State Transportation Improvement Program

Attachment 3

Ref # TransNet RSTP* CMAQ* Total

City of San Diego Potential Sources for 56 Right of Way Cost Increase

1 a. Division Street Not started No 4,378 4,378

2 b. National Avenue Not started No 4,998 4,998

3 c. 163/Friars Rd IC Enviro Document May 05 No 2,252 2,252

4 d. Unprogrammed Local T-Net funds (City of SD) n/a 4,000 4,000

5 TransNet Program (Highway) Available funds in FY '04 n/a 25,000 25,000

6 TransNet Program (NCTD Transit) Available funds in FY '05 n/a 18,000 18,000

Regional Roadway Maintenance Program

7 Coronado Unexpended funds n/a 649 649

8 Lemon Grove Unexpended funds n/a 69 69

9 National City Unexpended funds n/a 292 292

10 Oceanside Unexpended funds n/a 22 22

11 San Diego Unexpended funds n/a 5,703 5,703

12 SR 76 West Right of Way Savings Completed Yes 3,169 3,169

13 I-5/HOV Lane at Del Mar Hghts Rd Savings Completed Yes 1,048 1,048

14 SR 52 Unit 4 Construction Final Design May 04 No 37,260 37,260

Regional Arterial System

15 Rancho del Oro Drive/SR 78 IC (Oceanside) Enviro Document Jun 05 No 895 895

16 Plaza Blvd (National City) Enviro Document Nov 04 No 1,292 1,292

17 South Santa Fe Avenue (Co. of SD) Enviro Document Jun 04 No 9,200 9,200

18 Bear Valley/East Valley Pkwy (Escondido) Enviro Document Apr 04 No 6,118 6,118

Trails

19 Coastal Rail Trail No 5,193 5,193

20 78 Rail Trail No 870 870

21 I-15 BRT Project Study Report Reserve No 3,000

22 I-15 BRT Construction pushed out to '05 Construction Award Jul 04 No 16,000 16,000

Total 93,636 29,661 26,111 149,408*Unobligated funds. Obligated/un-expended funds may remain as well.**Fully funded criteria assumes that unallocated TCRP funds are not available in near term.

Fiscal Year 2003/04 Potential Sources($1,000's)

Project or Program Project Readiness Fully funded?**

Type of Funds

Attachment 4

SR 52, SR 125 to CuyamacaStage 4

Environmental/Design/Contract Award

Right of Way Acquisition

Construction

SR 52, Cuyamaca to SR 67Stage 5



Construction

SR 52, SR 125 to SR 67Combined Stages 4/5



Construction

Impacts to SR 52 Schedule of combining remaining two stages.

Fiscal Year2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

59


TRANSPORTATION COMMITEE

60


AIR TRANSPORTATION ACTION PROGRAM (ATAP) UPDATE On October 2, 2003, the San Diego Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) will consider final recommendations for the ATAP. Begun in December 2001, the ATAP is the first two of three phases of a comprehensive program to meet the 2030 air passenger and air cargo demands of the San Diego region. The ATAP has evaluated all potential possibilities for serving the future aviation demand, using an objective set of criteria to compare alternative airport sites. It is expected that the list of potential solutions will be reduced to a handful after the October Airport Authority Board meeting. Tier 2, the final phase of analysis, will then begin. According to state legislation, signed in September 2002, a recommended option(s) from Tier 2 must be placed on a countywide ballot by the Airport Authority in 2004 or 2006. ATAP Phase 1 - Initial Screening The first phase of the ATAP was the Initial Screening, which was completed in October 2002. It entailed a general evaluation of major factors that any possible airport solution must meet. This step was designed to answer the question “What, from a broad technical level, might work for San Diego?” The process started with a list of potential airport sites that could work as a replacement site or in combination/connection with the existing Lindbergh Field. There was a matrix of 320 scenarios: 32 potential sites and 10 potential services roles for each. A service role relates to the types of aviation that a site would provide: from all services to cargo only, short-haul only, international only, etc. The Initial Screening established an extensive database for each potential airport site, with extensive outreach and public participation, stakeholder forums, and monthly ATAP Working Group meetings. Based on the realities of the aviation marketplace and/or comparative geographic location of individual sites, the Initial Screening process reduced the matrix of scenarios from 320 to 23. ATAP Phase 2 -Tier 1 Analysis The Tier 1 analysis is the second phase of the ATAP, with a draft report released in August 2003. This step is designed to answer the question “What would work for San Diego?” Sixteen sites and seven combination/connection alternatives were carried forward from the Initial Screening process. The sites considered in Tier 1 are shown on Attachment 1 and listed below. The Tier 1 analysis provided additional information for the 16 sites, including an initial assessment of each site’s operational, environmental, ground access, and development issues. The Tier 1 process hopes to provide enough information that some criteria could be considered exclusionary, with agreed-upon critical thresholds. Exceeding those thresholds would eliminate sites from further consideration.

61

Sites Evaluated in ATAP - Tier 1

1. McClellan-Palomar Airport Area 2. Oceanside Area 3. Ramona Area 4. MCAS Miramar 5. NAS North Island 6. March AFB 7. Tijuana Rodriguez International Airport 8. National City Bayfront Area 9. Off-Shore Floating Airport 10. Salt Marsh Naval Communications Station Area 11. Silver Strand Area 12. MCB Camp Pendleton 13. East Miramar 14. Otay Mesa Area 15. Warner Springs Area 16. Desert Site Tier 1 Evaluation Criteria The Public Working Group discussed the Tier 1 criteria and the project team’s analysis at its August 28 and September 8, 2003, meetings. The consultant developed the following criteria for each site: 1. Operational Criteria: Terrain Obstructions, off-site earthwork, expansion potential.

2. Ground Access Criteria: Travel time to population and employment, road capacity, transit

infrastructure.

3. Environmental Criteria: Existing population to be relocated, noise impacts.

4. Mitigation Acreage Criteria: Sensitive habitat, endangered plants and animals.

5. Site Development Criteria: Types of acquisition acres, on-site cut/fill, access improvements. In its discussions, the Working Group agreed that six criteria were important enough at this level of analysis to qualify as fatal flaws for potential airport sites. The table below lists those criteria and the recommended thresholds for each. Any site that met or exceeded a threshold would not be included in the final phase of analysis.

62

Public Working Group Recommendations Tier 1 Exclusionary Criteria and Thresholds

Exclusionary Criteria Threshold Description

Terrain Obstructions – Topography (Mountains)

Significant Excludes sites that have significant terrain obstructions.

Existing Residential Population to be Relocated

5,000 people Excludes sites causing the relocation of 5,000 or more residents.

Noise Impacted Existing Population (65+ CNEL)

10,000 people Excludes sites resulting in more than 10,000 people being impacted by noise.

Mitigation Acreage for Coastal Wetlands/Vernal Tide Pools 1,000 acres

Excludes sites requiring more than 1,000 acres to be acquired elsewhere to mitigate.

Mitigation Acreage for Wetlands/Marine areas 1,000 acres

Excludes sites requiring more than 1,000 acres to be acquired elsewhere to mitigate.

Fill required for developing the site 100 million cu/yards

Excludes sites requiring more than 100 million cubic yards of fill to develop the site.

While many of the other criteria are very important in evaluating a potential airport site, the Working Group felt those criteria should be used in the next phase to generate costs and a way to compare the impacts of each remaining site. A suggested threshold in this vein was travel time to a site exceeding 45 minutes for a majority of the San Diego County population. The group strongly supports a solution inside San Diego County, but was evenly divided on removing more distant sites at this time. Some members of the Working Group suggested that the list of sites carried forward for analysis after Tier 1 should retain a nonmilitary site and possibly a site outside San Diego County. To date, the ATAP has been strictly a technical analysis of potential solutions to the region’s air service needs. There was concern that the political realities of having all military sites or San Diego County sites could result in no solution at all. A backup option, even though it might not be the optimal solution, should be considered somewhere in the process. Working Group Recommendations to the Airport Authority Board The criteria and threshold recommendations of the Working Group would result in seven replacement sites remaining on the list for Tier 2 analysis. In addition, March AFB, Camp Pendleton, and North Island would be evaluated as a combination site with the existing Lindbergh Field. Finally, North Island and Tijuana Rodriguez International would be evaluated as the location for airport operations while passenger terminals, etc., would remain at Lindbergh Field.

63

Remaining Sites Based on Working Group Criteria/Threshold Recommendations 1. MCAS Miramar 2. NAS North Island 3. March AFB 4. Tijuana Rodriguez International Airport 5. Off-Shore Floating Airport 6. MCB Camp Pendleton 7. Desert Site In addition to the recommendations from the Public Working Group, the Airport Authority staff will provide its own set of recommendations to the Airport Authority Board. The Airport Authority Board will consider both of these recommendations at its October 2, 2003, board meeting. A decision at that time will narrow the list of potential airport sites and solutions for the final Tier 2 analysis.

The attachment to this Agenda Item may be obtained by contacting SANDAG’s Public Information Office at (619) 595-5347.

transportation committee art madrid agenda

Documents