Appendix B - RCTC Transportation SIP Report FINAL · This final task of the IRP Phase III is the...

PHASE III – FINAL DRAFT REPORT

APPENDIX B

Strategic Implementation Plan Final Report

Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

B-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

Purpose............................................................................................................................................................... 4 TASK 1: SUMMARY OF PROJECT STUDY REPORTS IN THE I-15 CORRIDOR................................................ 7

Project Study Reports ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Other Project Related Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 10

TASK 2: GOODS MOVEMENT DATA SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 12 Riverside County............................................................................................................................................... 12 San Diego County ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation .................................................................................. 15

TASK 3: TRANSIT PRIORITY TREATMENTS AND TRANSIT LANE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ..15 Smart Growth Legislation ……………………………………………………………………………………………….15 Existing Public Transportation........................................................................................................................... 17 Summary of Transportation Strategies and Improvements ............................................................................... 19 Summary of Transit Related Findings ............................................................................................................... 24 Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation .................................................................................. 26

TASK 4: COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS AND FUNDING STRATEGY..................................................... 28 Challenges and Constraints to Implementation................................................................................................. 31 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................................... 31

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 34 Task 1 – PSR Summary.................................................................................................................................... 34 Task 2 – Goods Movement ............................................................................................................................... 34 Task 3 -Transit .................................................................................................................................................. 34 Task 4 – Cost Effectiveness.............................................................................................................................. 35

Tables Table 1: Summary of PSRs for I-15 Corridor ................................................................................................ 9

Table 2: Total Through Freight Train Movements per Peak Day by Line Segment in Riverside County....................................................................................................................... 12 Table 3: Riverside County I-15 AADT and Truck Count............................................................................... 13 Table 4: San Diego County I-15 AADT and Truck Count............................................................................. 14 Table 5: Average I-15 Daily Traffic on Border between Riverside County and San Diego County Assuming No Improvements to Current Infrastructure..................................... 17 Table 6: Varied Planning Approaches and Agency Responsibilities…………………………………………...28


I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan

B-3

Table 7: Summary Evaluation of Alternatives .............................................................................................. 29 Table 8: Summary of Implementation Recommendations ........................................................................... 33

Figures Figure 1: I-15 IRP Phase III Study Area......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: I-15 IRP Phase III Smart Growth and Transportation Priority Area................................................. 6 Figure 3. Map of PSRs................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4: Existing Transit Routes in the Study Area..................................................................................... 19 Figure 5: Conceptual Implementation Expansion Options ........................................................................... 23


B-4

Introduction Purpose The primary goal of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interregional Partnership (IRP) is to address the jobs/housing imbalance that has developed between southwest Riverside County and San Diego County. The I-15 IRP was established to foster collaborative strategies in economic development, transportation, and housing that will improve the quality of life of residents in both counties. The partnership promotes a more sustainable land use pattern providing appropriate employment closer to where people live and more affordable housing closer to employment in jobs-rich areas throughout the study corridor. By doing so, workers would have more opportunities to live closer to work, reducing the need for long distance interregional commuting. Centered on I-15, this two county commute corridor extends from central San Diego to the cities of Lake Elsinore, Perris, and Hemet as shown in Figure 1. Transportation is one of the three elements included in the IRP. The transportation component of the IRP develops a Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) that will concentrate on short term strategies (5, 10 and 15 year horizon) for the I-15 corridor. The IRP Phase III consists of the following tasks:

1. Task 1: Compile and document existing Project Study Reports in the study corridor 2. Task 2: Goods movement data summary 3. Task 3: Analysis of transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure development 4. Task 4: Cost-effectiveness analysis and overall funding strategy

This final task of the IRP Phase III is the SIP which, summarizes the analyses conducted in the prior tasks and prioritizes the proposed strategies and projects, presenting an action plan for the implementation of short term projects. Whenever possible, the SIP will also incorporate the results of the Interregional, Transit, Buspool and Vanpool and the Cost Effectiveness Studies. Figure 1 shows the study area for the I-15 IRP Phase III effort and Figure 2 shows the I-15 IRP Phase III Smart Growth and Transportation Priority Area.



B-5

Figure 1: I-15 IRP Phase III Study

Source: IRP Phase II Report


B-6

Figure 2: I-15 IRP Phase III Smart Growth and Transportation Priority Area

Source: SANDAG, 2009



B-7

Summary of Project Study Reports in the I-15 Corridor Project Study Reports This task compiled and documented existing Project Study Reports (PSRs) in the study corridor (Figure 3). The seven PSRs assembled in the report span from Lake Elsinore in Riverside County down to State Route 52 (SR-52) on the northern border of the city of San Diego. The PSRs reviewed for this study are listed as follows: Riverside County

PSR for I-15 between State Route 79 (SR-79) to north of the I-15/Interstate 215 (I-215) Junction, April 2002

PSR for interchange improvements on I-15 at Railroad Canyon Road, September 2002 PSR for the I-15/SR-79 South interchange, February 2004 PSR to modify existing interchange at I-15/State Route 74 (SR-74) junction, January 2005 PSR to widen roadbeds and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-15, between the 15/215 split and

Riverside County line, October 2007 San Diego County

North I-15 Corridor PSR, between SR-52 and State Route 78 (SR-78), San Diego County, September 1998

I-15 Final Project Report, between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County, February 2003

However, as the Task 1 report detailed, there is a lack of planned improvement, or gap, in the middle of the corridor, as the PSR segments reported do not include the section situated between the 15/215 interchange in Riverside County south to Escondido in San Diego County, which is the area on either side of the border between the two counties. Data from the PSRs were reviewed including: average weekday peak period traffic, number of interregional vanpools, daily interregional transit ridership and peak period vehicle occupancy at the county line. The following has been identified as a result of reviewing the PSRs:

• If traffic increases at the rate projected in the PSRs, this area would see a continued reduction in level of service performance; and

• PSRs are an incomplete source of information regarding project planning that has been well underway on projects along the I-15 in Riverside County.

Significantly, if traffic increases at the rate projected in many of the collected PSRs, this border area would see a continual reduction in the Level of Service (LOS) performance. Table 1 summarizes PSRs conducted for the I-15 Corridor.


B-8

Figure 3. Map of PSRs



B-9

Table 1. Summary of PSRs for I-15 Corridor

Project Study Report Issue Date Study Purpose Impetus Sponsors Alternatives Analysis Outstanding Issues/Status Funding/Costs Recommendations

Riverside CountyI-15 between State Route 79 (SR-79) to north of the I-15/Interstate 215 (I-215) Junction

Apr-02 Evaluates the feasibility of constructing a new interchange on I-15 between the current SR-79 interchange and the I-15/I-215 Junction

It is projected that capacity and operation deficiencies will occur at the SR-79 interchange due to accelerated growth and development in the surrounding communities

RCTC and the cities of Murrieta and Temecula

1. No-Build, 2. Construct a braided partial cloverleaf interchange on I-15 between SR-79 and the I-15/I-215 junction, costing $63 million, and 3. Construct a modified braided diamond interchange on I-15 between SR-79 and the I-15/I-215 junction, costing $65 million.

The proposed projects are consistent with statewide, regional, and local planning goals, with no hazardous materials in the vicinity of the project. Off-peak lane closures and detours would be expected and ramp closures would be necessary during construction

Due to differences with RTP and FTP projects, revisions are required before the Project Report can be approved.

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)

None

Interchange Improvements on I-15 at Railroad Canyon Road

Sep-02 analyze alternatives to improve the capacity and operations of I-15 and Railroad Canyon Road Interchange in the city of Lake Elsinore

2002 design had close proximity signalized intersections at the ramps, which create recurrent congestion and reduction of circulation and safety. Future traffic demand at the interchange is not expected to be adequately handled by existing layout.

City of Lake Elsinore, Caltrans

1. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 2. Alternative 2: Widen and Reconstruct a Diamond Interchange3. Alternative 3B: Hook Ramps to Grape Street (City Center Site)4. Alternative 9: Hook Ramps to Summerhill Drive and Casino Road and Southbound Loop Exit Ramp5. Alternative 10: Hook Ramps to Summerhill Drive and Casino Road

The report analyzed the then current (2002) conditions, 2005 projections, and 2025 projections. Segment analysis, intersection analysis, ramp analysis, meter queuing analysis was completed for all alternatives.

System and regional planning must still take place, including further environmental studies, a transportation management plan, and right-of-way acquisition.

$19 Million Alternative 9 alleviates existing congestion while also accommodating forecasted volumes.

I-15/SR-79 South Interchange Feb-04 Interim interchange improvements were constructed in 1998, and are not expected to meet future capacity needs for 2025.

Caltrans District 8 1. Modified PSR Alternative 2: Southbound Loop Off-Ramp Directly to SR-79, Direct Southbound On-Ramp from SR-79; Eliminate Existing Southbound Ramps2. Southbound I-15 to Eastbound SR-79 Loop with Southbound I-15 Hook Off-Ramp to Old Town, and Southbound Hook On-Ramp3. Single Point interchange Under I-154.Split Southbound Off-Ramps and Southbound Hook On-Ramp5. Southbound Loop Off-Ramp with Southbound Hook On-Ramp6. Direct Connector Ramp from Southbound I-15 to Eastbound SR-79

The modified Alternative 2 was chosen based off its satisfactory LOS in the year 2025 and will provide access to the adjacent commercial development area.

Final resolution required to select alternative.

$8 million to $25 million, funded by the city of Temecula.

Modified Alternative 2: Eliminate the current southbound I-15 off-ramp and replace it with a southbound loop off-ramp with a southbound hook on-ramp connecting to the proposed extension of Front Street. It was chosen based off its satisfactory LOS in the year 2025 and will provide access to the adjacent commercial development area.

Modify Existing Interchange at I-15/State Route 74 (SR-74) Junction

Jan-05 Investigate operational improvement at the junction of I-15 and SR-74 in the city of Lake Elsinore

Addresses projected capacity and operational deficiencies at the junction due to projected growth and development in the area. The existing I-15/SR-74 IC configuration is expected to be operating at LOS F by 2030 traffic levels at all points along the interchange

City of Lake Elsinore

1. No-Build2. Type L-9 Partial Cloverleaf IC – priced at $24 million3. Type L-8 (Modified) Cloverleaf IC – priced at $22 million

Proposed alignments meet the system and regional planning goals. Both alternatives require the acquisition of right-of-way (ROW). The most significant difference between the operational characteristics of both alternatives is that merge/diverge areas are expected to operate more efficiently in Alternative 2, while ramp street intersections in Alternative 3 are expected to operate more efficiently.

Awaiting alternative selection resolution $22-$24 Million Lake Elsinore has indicated its preference for Alternative 3 (Type L-9 Partial Cloverleaf IC) because of its compatibility with the city’s land use plans for the area. However Alternative 2 (Type L-8 (Modified) Cloverleaf IC) is recommended to be used as a basis for programming and the final determination of the preferred alternative.

Widen Roadbeds and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes on I-15, Between I-15/I-215 Split and Riverside County

Oct-07 Capacity and operational improvements on I-15 from the I-15/I-215 Junction in Murrieta to the Riverside/San Bernardino County Line - Including paving the median to widen I-15 from six mixed-flow (MF) lanes to eight mixed-flow lanes and two HOV lanes.

These improvements are intended to ease projected capacity and operational deficiencies, and at the current rate of population and development growth, the existing infrastructure is expected to reach LOS F in the near future.

RCTC in cooperation with Caltrans District 8

1. No-Build scenario 2. The construction of one mixed-flow and one HOV lane in each direction in the study area.

The study documents traffic data for 2006, and projected 2035 operating conditions as well as accident data from 2003-2006.

Proposed amendment to the RTP:1. SR-74 to San Bernardino/Riverside County Line, add 2 HOV/HOT lanes and 1 MF lane each direction, 2008, to 20192. I-215 to SR-74, add 1 lane in each direction, start 2007, end 2019

The Build alternative has a proposed project cost of $912 million, and is divided across four phases extending from 2008 to 2018.

The final recommendation is for the HOV lane assessment to be used for program funding and scheduling of this project.

San Diego County North I-15 Corridor, Between State Route 52 (SR-52) and State Route 78 (SR-78), San Diego County

Sep-98 Compares various highway improvements for I-15 from 0.5 km south of the SR-163 to SR-78, a corridor length of 20 miles

Travelers could be subjected to 15 to 30 minute delays in their commute, and overall travel demand was expected to grow 20 to 80 percent along the corridor over the next 20 years

SANDAG, Caltrans The highway improvements being considered were:1. HOV Lanes (2+2 Buffer)2. HOV Lane (1+1 RTP Buffer)3. Managed Lanes (2+1)4. Managed Lanes (3+1).

Under Construction Funding will not likely be available for the entire corridor at once, so the critical Middle (SR-56 to Centre City Parkway), would be Stage One for construction

The final recommendation from this report is that further analysis be carried forth for all feasible alternatives, with the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) and Caltrans continuing to study a broad range of transit improvements.

I-15 Final Project Report, Between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County

Feb-03 Identifies improvements in the I-15 corridor from 1.5 miles south of SR-163 to 0.3 miles north of SR-78, approximately 21.1 miles, in order to improve mobility in the region.

Expands goals from 1998 PSR to enhancing goods movement and incorporating Smart Growth strategies into the decision process.

SANDAG, Caltrans Details the population and employment growth expected for the I-15 corridor, as well as completes traffic analysis, accident analysis, and weaving analysis for the No Build and Managed Lanes Alternative. Also examined are the region’s traffic management goals and how well the proposed alternatives improves transit operator planning.

North and middle segments under construction

SANDAG and Caltrans continue to pursue funding for the North and South segments.

Recommendation for approval of the Four Managed Lanes Alternative and proceeding to the design phase for the Middle Segment is suggested because it provides the greatest balance of regional benefits to traffic service and greatest consideration for BRT and HOV travelers.


B-10

Other Project Related Analysis PSRs tell only part of the story of what is happening along the corridor. For a comprehensive analysis of the planned work for the I-15 corridor, the following Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) and Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) were also reviewed for the adjacent counties and metropolitan areas: Long Range Transportation Plans

• Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 2006 LRTP • San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) 2005 I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study

RTP • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2008 RTP • SANDAG 2030 RTP (adopted in 2007)

Findings Focusing on only PSRs highlights a potential shortcoming in the Phase III Scope of Work. For example, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has launched a comprehensive effort to widen 43.5 miles of the I-15 from the San Bernardino County line all the way to the confluence of the 15/215 interchange. The overall effort will include a new toll road between State Routes 60 and 74, and additional lane widening throughout the entire length of the facility. Along with the I-15 Improvement Project, RCTC is pursuing improvements to State Route 91 (SR-91) which will also include an additional general purpose lane, new toll lanes, improved access to the freeway and a significant upgrade to the 91/15 interchange. The planned 91/15 improvements are so significant that it will include major investments on approximately six miles of the I-15 from the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in Norco all the way to the Cajalco interchange in Corona. Both of these projects have entered into the environmental analysis stage. An environmental document is expected to be approved for SR-91 in 2011 and in 2012 for the I-15 project. Construction on the SR-91 project will begin in 2011; construction on the I-15 project is scheduled for 2015. In both projects there is a large toll component which has added a level of information that far surpasses what is available in a PSR. For example, traffic modeling has been completed to a much higher level on these projects as part of traffic and revenue analyses. Also, improvements on the I-15 have been made due to legislation approved in 2008 (AB1954) authorizing RCTC to develop a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) facility. Furthermore, SBX4 (Cogdill) which was approved in 2009 as part of a state budget amendment, creates a pilot program for design build public/private partnerships. The I-15 in Riverside County is a potential candidate for this pilot program. In addition, Caltrans Districts 8 and 11 Interstate 15 County Line Study identifies I-15 transit related projects including managed lanes to help address the gap between the counties in the border area. Route 202 operated by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), currently operates between Temecula and Oceanside via I-15, SR-78, and I-5. The purpose of this service is to connect Riverside residents to the Coaster commuter rail service. Consideration is being given by RTA and SANDAG planning staff to determine whether this service route could be modified to take advantage of the I-15 Managed Lanes in San Diego County to deliver patrons to service the Sorrento Mesa (and Coaster rail service for trips on to Downtown San Diego) area more directly and efficiently. Also, under consideration is the funding from various sources for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) vehicles and operations for a commuter peak period enhanced bus service between Escondido and downtown San Diego beginning in 2012 with the opening of the 20 mile I-15 Managed Lane project. SANDAG’s RTP lists expansion of San Diego County’s northern-most segment of the I-15 from Escondido to the Riverside border in its “Reasonably



B-11

Expected” revenue scenario, to be built by 2020. With many separate sources of project information, it is difficult to estimate the level of traffic and congestion at any point during the construction and expansion in the study area. The formal PSR documentation provided a limited picture of the changes planned for the I-15 corridor.


B-12

Goods Movement Data Summary The Goods Movement Data Summary task investigated the importance of goods movement in planning for future transportation enhancements in the I-15 corridor. The Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP), which was part of a regional framework for goods movement initiatives, was used as a key resource for this work. This seven-county study looked at goods movement on Southern California’s regional infrastructure network through San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, Los Angeles, San Diego, Ventura and Imperial Counties. As part of the MCGMAP analysis and recommendations, reports outlining a Goods Movement Action Plan for Riverside County and San Diego County were also produced. Riverside County’s freight corridors mostly run in an east/west orientation, while San Diego’s major corridors run more north/south. This creates two completely different outlooks when trying to compare freight movements in the study area. Riverside County has two major rail lines, expected to more than double in volume by 2035. Neither of the rail lines are in the I-15 corridor. Traffic on San Diego’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line is also expected to double by 2030, showing strong growth in the rail industry. There are also two shortline freight railroads in San Diego County, but their annual haul is minimal. I-15 is a significant truck freight corridor. The daily average truck count on the I-15 corridor is 11,060 in San Diego County and 11,960 in Riverside County. While the focus of Phase III of the I-15 IRP effort is not on goods movement, I-15 is a key freight interstate route and a NAFTA corridor, and the future plans of this vital linkage between the two counties should take freight transport into consideration as part of the overall analysis of current plans and included as part of future plans. Riverside County Rail Riverside County has three rail mainlines owned by BNSF and Union Pacific (UP_. These include the BNSF Transcon, the UP Los Angeles Subdivision (UP LA Sub), and the UP El Paso Line. The BNSF Transcon is the artery linking the Los Angeles basin to all midwestern, southwestern and eastern markets on the BNSF rail system. UP LA Sub connects to the UP Sunset Corridor at Colton in the Los Angeles basin. The UP El Paso Line is part of the UP Sunset Corridor which extends to El Paso. This route is designated as the primary intermodal line between the Los Angeles basin and eastern markets traversing through Riverside County. From the 2005 report on the Inland Empire Railroad Mainlines, total freight train movements for lines in Riverside County are presented below in Table 2.

Table 2: Total Through Freight Train Movements per Peak Day

by Line Segment in Riverside County Line Segment 2000 2010 2035 BNSF Atwood – West Riverside 57 82 121 BNSF/UP West Riverside – Colton 92 132 194 UP Mira Loma – W. Riverside County plus UP West Colton – Colton UP El Paso Line 64 90 126

UP Yuma Line 42 60 87 Source: Inland Empire Railroad Mainline Study, Final Report, June 30, 2005.



B-13

Table 3 shows a doubling of through traffic on Riverside County rail lines by 2035. Rail freight passing through Riverside County is substantial and has implications on traffic congestion and safety issues at at-grade railroad crossings. Riverside County recently published the RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects in 2008 identifying key issues with goods movement and the critical need for additional funding. The movement of goods by rail in Riverside County is mostly in the east-west direction and does not overlap with goods movement along the I-15 corridor, and therefore at-grade crossings are less of an issue for this corridor. Truck Riverside County is a key freight corridor in Southern California. According to the 2006 goods movement study conducted by Cambridge Systematics1, in 2003, 104 million tons of goods were shipped through Riverside County with 35 percent (36 million tons) shipped via truck and 65 percent (68 million tons) handled by rail passing through Riverside County. Table 3 below shows the 2007 truck volumes on Riverside County’s I-15 freeway segments. The percentage of trucks on I-15 through the county vary from 5.6 to 11.5 percent, with a general lowering of the number of trucks towards the San Diego County border. As indicated in the table, truck percentage around Fourth Street in Norco shows an increase, but the overall number of trucks on this segment of I-15 decreases. This indicates that a high number of passenger vehicles are also exiting I-15 in this area of Norco.

Table 3: Riverside County I-15 AADT and Truck Count

Route Location AADT Total Trucks Truck % I-15 Jct. Route 60 225,000 18,450 8.20 I-15 Fourth St. Norco 157,000 17,992 11.46 I-15 Jct. Route 91 184,000 10,322 5.61 I-15 Jct. Route 74 120,000 11,825 9.89 I-15 Main St. 129,000 11,868 9.20 I-15 Baxter Rd. 131,000 11,397 8.70 I-15 Jct. Route 215 N 155,500 10,632 7.28 I-15 North Jct. Route 79 169,000 11,103 6.57 I-15 South Jct. Route 79 146,500 10,125 6.90 I-15 San Diego/ Riverside County Line 136,000 9,180 6.75

Source: Caltrans Traffic Data, 2007 Truck Traffic According to estimates using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Freight Analysis Framework data (2002 FAF2), approximately 19 percent of Riverside County’s Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) travels on the I-15 corridor.

1 Critical Goods Movement Issues for Riverside County, RCTC, September 2006


B-14

San Diego County Rail BNSF is the major carrier in San Diego County and its mainline extends from the border with Orange County down the coast to National City. BNSF trains operate on the Los Angles-San Diego Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) parallel to I-5 freeway. This 62-mile mainline is the only viable rail link between San Diego and the rest of the nation, with freight volumes exceeding 30,000 carloads annually. By 2030, the volume is estimated to be more than 60,000 carloads per year.2 San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad (SDIV) is a shortline operator on the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway track in the United States. The SDIV has been owned and operated by RailAmerica (now Fortress Holdings) since 2000 and previously owned by RailTex (which RailAmerica acquired) and operated with the SDIV. The SDIV operated at one time on two rail lines but today operates on only one (the San Diego to El Cajon Line), which interchanges with the BNSF railway operations in San Diego. On this 15-mile long route, over 7,000 railcars were transported in 2007.3 Today this line is operated by the Carrizo Gorge Railway (CZRY), which is the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway’s (SDAE's) operator in Mexico and the Imperial Valley. CZRY estimates between 5,000 and 6,000 railcars travelled into Mexico on the SDIV line in 2008.4 Truck San Diego County truck routes tend to be more north/south in orientation, and are centered in the downtown San Diego area. The interstate highways in San Diego County are I-5, I-8, I-15, and I-805 and the state routes are the State Route 52 (SR-52), State Route 54 (SR-54), State Route 56 (SR-56), State Route 67 (SR-67), State Route 78 (SR-78), State Route 94 (SR-94), State Route 125 (SR-125), State Route 163 (SR-163), and State Route 905 (SR-905). I-8 is the only feature with significant capacity that extends beyond the western third of the county. Table 4 below shows the 2007 truck volumes on San Diego County’s I-15 freeway segments and the levels of trucks at major junctions along the I-15 corridor. The percentage of trucks on I-15 through the county vary from 3.59 to 13.20 percent, with a general lowering of the number of trucks towards the Mexican border.

Table 4: San Diego County I-15 AADT and Truck Count Route Location AADT Total Trucks Truck % I-15 Jct. Route 76 123,500 11,307 9.19 I-15 Deer Springs Rd 124,000 16,368 13.20 I-15 Jct. Route 78 165,500 13,731 8.60 I-15 Valley Parkway 186,000 13,206 7.10 I-15 Escondido, South Junction of Centre City 189,000 13,419 7.10 I-15 San Diego, Poway Rd 234,000 16,614 7.10 I-15 San Diego, Miramar/ Pomerado Rd. 288,500 11,043 3.83 I-15 Jct. Route 163 302,000 11,265 3.73 I-15 Jct. Route 8 188,000 7,097 3.59

2 LOSSAN Rail Corridor Intermodal Improvements Fact Sheet, March 2009 3 Rail America <http://www.railamerica.com/shippingservices/railservices/SDIY.aspx> 4 Carrizo Gorge Railway Phone Interview with Maria Martinez, Head of U.S. Rail Traffic, May 22, 2009



B-15

Route Location AADT Total Trucks Truck % I-15 Jct. Route 805 128,500 4,248 3.65 I-15 Jct. Route 94 112,000 5,712 5.10

Source: Caltrans Traffic Data, 2007 Truck Traffic According to estimates using FHWA’s 2002 FAF2 data, approximately 14 percent of San Diego County’s average annual daily truck traffic travels on the I-15 corridor. Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation As the I-15 IRP seeks to take a comprehensive approach to interregional transportation planning, goods movement is an important element. Riverside County freight corridors mostly run in an east/west orientation, while San Diego’s major corridors run more north/south. Due to the economic slump in California and nationwide, truck volumes and rail traffic is on the short-term decline and may continue to slide for another year or more indicating ongoing economic fluctuations dictating future freight traffic. However, as the state and national economy eventually regain their health, an eventual increase in demand for goods will ensue, leading to an increase in truck and rail traffic in the region. Riverside and San Diego Counties will be impacted by this long-term trend of increased truck and rail traffic. It is recommended that future freight movement estimates be carried out periodically to address potential changes to freight demand resulting from changes in economic conditions. Transit Priority Treatments and Transit Lane Infrastructure Development This section of the report addresses the impact of the recently passed SB 375 legislation, develops and refines future BRT and commuter express transit plans in the I-15 and I-215 corridors, including analysis of transit priority treatments and a proposed phasing plan for transit infrastructure development and transit service in the study region. Smart Growth - SB 375 (Steinberg) – California State Legislation SB 375 is California state legislation that became law effective January 1, 2009. It requires the reduction of green house gas (GHG) emissions from light trucks and automobiles through land use and transportation efforts that will reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). SB 375’s goal is to reduce GHGs by improving the connection between land use and transportation planning, resulting in more walkable, compact communities served by good, reliable transit, thus reducing the need to drive. SB 375 requires “California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regional reduction targets for GHG emissions, and prompts the creation of regional plans to reduce emissions from vehicle use throughout the state. Under SB 375, California’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) have been tasked with creating Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS). The MPOs are required to develop the SCS through integrated land use and transportation planning and demonstrate an ability to attain the proposed reduction targets by 2020 and 2035.” 5 The SCS is a required new element of the RTP.

5 SCAG’s SB 375 Regional Implementation Plan. http:/www.scag.ca.gov/sb375/index.htm


B-16

SB 375 – Riverside County SCAG is the nation’s largest MPO, representing six counties - Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, Imperial and Ventura - and is responsible for a variety of planning and policy initiatives including SB 375. Unique to the SCAG region, SB 375 affords the opportunity for a Council of Governments (COG) along with the county transportation commission, to develop a subregional SCS for incorporation into the regional SCS. In Riverside County, there are two COGs: the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), which serves the eastern portion of the county and WRCOG serving the western portion of Riverside County. To assist the COGs in defining its role in the SB 375 process, SCAG identified the following three variations/options of involvement for subregionals to consider:

1) Full Delegation. For Riverside County, this option would require that CVAG and WRCOG, in collaboration with RCTC, complete a comprehensive analysis of planned and programmed transit and planning projects throughout the two subregions. The jurisdictions would then be required to review and refine growth patterns to recommend areas for densification and identify future transportation projects and policies required to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. The COGs and the CTC would be required to hold a series of scenario planning workshops together with a number of public hearings. In addition to the development of the SCS, the subregions would also be responsible for delegation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA);

2) Partial Delegation. This would require CVAG, WRCOG and RCTC to undertake the aforementioned planning and transit review and recommendation without accepting delegation of RHNA; and

3) Collaborative Planning Process. This planning process provides a flexible range of options in developing an SCS. Specifically, SCAG would oversee the process relying heavily on input from the subregions, local jurisdictions, and CTCs to identify planned and new transit projects, transportation plans and policies that will reduce GHG emissions, provide assistance with workshops and outreach programs, review and refine local data, and provide input into the development of additional regional policies to reduce GHG emissions.

In December 2009, both CVAG and WRCOG’s policy boards selected the Collaborative Planning Process for Riverside County’s involvement in SB 375. RCTC’s policy board has not taken any action related to SB 375 implementation. SB 375 – San Diego County In the San Diego region, SANDAG is undertaking implementation of SB 375 and preparation of the SCS. Although the SCS is a new requirement, its origin lies in the regional planning processes already underway at SANDAG and other MPOs/COGs in the state, which set forth plans for future growth that integrate the transportation, land use, housing, environmental, and economic needs of each region. The SCS also is a continuation of the state’s Regional Blueprint Planning Program that has been funded with state grants using federal transportation planning funds since the program was initiated in 2005. The development of SANDAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and Smart Growth Concept Map were partially funded from those grants, and will assist the region in its preparation of an SCS for the 2050 RTP.



B-17

SANDAG is the first major MPO in the state that is subject to SB 375. An SCS will be prepared as part of the region’s next RTP (2050 RTP), which is scheduled to be adopted in July 2011. The RHNA for the next housing element cycle is required to be consistent with the SCS, and also will be adopted by July 2011. Another major component of this work is the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast (Series 12), which will be used in the development of the RTP, SCS, and RHNA. (Reports about the relationship of SANDAG’s Overall Work Program to SB 375, the RTP schedule, and the Series 12 growth forecast have been prepared and can be found on SANDAG’s Web site.6 ) Existing Public Transportation The transit methods for reaching San Diego County from the southern area of Riverside County are rather limited. Bus/vanpools and three bus transit routes are the only public modes of transportation currently in place in the area. As indicated in the Interregional Transit, Vanpool and Buspool Study (Interregional Transit/Vanpool/Buspool Study conducted by SANDAG), there are 29,000 commuters per day that are traveling from Riverside County to San Diego County, with 60 percent of those trips generated from the greater Murrieta/Temecula area into San Diego County and 40 percent destined for jobs in either northern San Diego County, or closer to the downtown area. This draft study is an on-going effort commissioned by SANDAG to address commuting to San Diego from the communities of Riverside. In general, prior travel demand forecasts from the IRP Phase II County Line Study, contained in Appendix B of the IRP Phase II Final Report, have indicated, as shown in Table 5 below, that the I-15 current eight-lane facility will be over capacity by 2015.7 These forecasts show that the I-15 existing eight-lane freeway cross-section at the Riverside/San Diego county line will start to reach capacity approximately by the year 2012 and will be experiencing congestion by 2015 if improvements are not made.

Table 5: Average I-15 Daily Traffic on Border between Riverside County and San Diego County Assuming No Improvements to Current Infrastructure

Source: I-15 IRP Phase II County Line Study The 2006 WRCOG Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Demand Analysis indicates that based on 2000 data the use of public transportation to work in Riverside County was at 1.4 percent which is much less than San Diego County at 3.3 percent and Los Angeles County at 6.5 percent. However, as part of the survey conducted by 6 http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=360&fuseaction=projects.detail 7 It is notable that all of the prior projections were based on factors that have been impacted, at least in the short term, by the economic downturn. However, given the continued increase in population, it is logical to assume that demands for travel will continue to increase between the two counties in the coming decades.

Year Average Daily Traffic

2005 ADT (existing) 135,000 2010 ADT 150,000 2015 ADT 175,000 2020 ADT 200,000 2025 ADT 225,000 2030 ADT 250,000


B-18

WRCOG, it was noted that 48.2 percent of the respondents did indicate they would use public transportation “under the right circumstances.” From a San Diego County perspective, the Metropolitan Transit System’s (MTS) Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) indicated that 60 percent of the Riverside residents that have lived there for less than ten years came from San Diego and that there has been a dramatic increase in demand to San Diego County in the past five years. Further, the MTS COA noted in the Ridership Trends 2005 that the non-transit modes were becoming more attractive because of:

• Increased downtown San Diego parking; • Increased highway network capacity; • Increased use of I-15 HOT lanes created by solo drivers switching from mixed use lanes; and • Heavily subsidized vanpools originating from Riverside to San Diego. The SANDAG iCommute (formerly

Ridelink) program subsidizes 275 vanpools at $400 per month for commuters traveling from Riverside to San Diego.

A map of existing transit routes between Riverside and San Diego County inside the study area is shown in Figure 4 below.



B-19

Figure 4: Existing Transit Routes in the Study Area

Summary of Transportation Strategies and Improvements There are a number of transportation strategies and other improvements either previously implemented or planned for the I-15 IRP corridor area including the continuation of the vanpool program, express transit service, potential high-speed rail service, the I-15 Express Lanes Project, the tolled express lanes on I-15 and SR-91 as


B-20

well as HOV lanes. In addition, BRT and bus on shoulder strategies are planned for San Diego County in a small section between I-8 and SR-94. While the construction of the freeway improvements will take some time to complete, the vanpool program and RTA’s Route 217 provides an interim solution for commuters traveling through Temecula to Escondido. The IRP Phase II Final Report included background information and updates regarding a number of public transportation issues and alternatives that have been developed as part of the IRP planning process. The next step options are presented based on the latest activities with a focus on four areas:

• Information that can be included in long range transportation plans; • Preliminary ideas regarding transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure which will be more

fully explored in the SIP; • Input regarding phasing options for express bus and BRT services; and • Evaluating demand

Long Range Transportation Plans The transportation strategies identified in the Phase II Final Report are still relevant and can be further enhanced by ongoing activities between SANDAG and WRCOG in the area of Smart Growth, including TOD. Although public transportation will not be the primary mode of travel within the IRP corridor, it should be a growing market of opportunity that will be best developed through an ongoing and consistent process of programs and projects. Strategies regarding the LRTP process include:

1. To reaffirm that the prior findings of the Phase II process are still appropriate as shown below: i. Interregional coordination of vanpool and carpool programs; ii. Expand park and ride lots and improve rideshare information signage; iii. Joint outreach and marketing for transit, vanpool and ridesharing programs; iv. Implement interregional public transit commuter services; v. Support high speed rail transit services in the I-15 corridor; and vi. Implement the I-15 high-occupancy vehicle program.

2. To augment and update those findings as follows:

i. Reinforce the importance of Smart Growth, SB 375, and the coordination of land use planning processes with the public transportation planning process;

ii. Incorporate the preliminary findings of the Interregional Transit/Vanpool/Buspool Study into ongoing planning activities8;

iii. Pending full implementation of the proposed and potential high occupancy vehicle program along the I-15 corridor, consider intermediate actions to facilitate bus flow such as bus on shoulder operations (in San Diego County) in congested areas;

iv. Develop an inter-operator agreement process that defines the policy, planning, and financial roles and responsibilities of the agencies for operating and capital issues; and

8 The Interregional Transit/Vanpool study has been reviewed by RCTC staff but has not been presented to the RCTC Commission for policy board consideration.



B-21

v. Consistent with the overall strategy of the IRP, continue to support the progress of the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) Authority and work to incorporate future development and implementation of the HSR plans into the IRP process.

There are four issues of current interest for both San Diego and Riverside Counties which are as follows:

1. Maintaining consistency with current Smart Growth efforts by SANDAG and WRCOG and future projects pertaining to SB 375;

2. Implementation and phasing of transit and vanpool programs for the IRP corridor with particular emphasis on the transition phase from support of planning activities to potential commitment to participate in a joint program. Refer to Figure 4;

3. Bus on shoulder treatments in San Diego; and 4. Consideration and integration of HSR planning efforts along the IRP corridor.

Transit Priority Treatments and Transit Lane Infrastructure The primary recommendation affecting transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure would be for the affected parties to concur on a long-term goal including a facility comprised of four general purpose and two HOV/Managed/Toll Lanes in each direction throughout the IRP study area on the I-15 corridor. Preliminary Phasing Options for Express Bus and BRT SANDAG has committed significant policy, planning, operational and financial resources to the I-15 corridor BRT service concept and is focused on the 2012 implementation date for service from Escondido to the south. RTA, on the other hand, has taken the approach to explore demonstration project service to Oceanside and now Escondido in order to gauge demand for these inter-county trips. In addition, according to RTA’s COA, planning activities are more concentrated on existing higher demand corridors in the northern part of the county, with typically a 10-year planning horizon. Thus, in the short-term it would be consistent for RTA to continue to assess the demand perspective, while SANDAG works to explore options to extend the 15-minute frequency service to northern San Diego County. In the longer term, an inter-county operator plan and agreement, including operating and capital components would be an ideal approach to providing transit service in the I-15 corridor. Given the history from other locales regarding time delays and complications encountered, it is recommended that the plan and agreement be drafted in the near future. For discussion purposes, the transit phasing options presented in Figure 5 can be used as a starting point. Evaluating Demand The following are basic principles that determine the success of commuter services:

• When introducing service into a corridor without any existing service, it is difficult to estimate demand, model demand, etc.;

• Although each corridor is unique, if it is part of a consistent system that is favorably perceived, the potential to grow ridership is increased;

• Quality customer service is a requisite for attracting commuters, especially discretionary riders; • Once quality has been ensured, then marketing and communication can continue to attract riders;


B-22

• Lack of commitment to a sustainable program can readily be perceived by potential users and will inhibit ridership; and

• Ultimately, success is measured in many ways by many policy boards. Some adhere to strict ridership and subsidy thresholds; others include more flexible quantitative reviews tempered by qualitative evaluations.



B-23

Figure 5: Conceptual Implementation Expansion Options

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates, 2009


B-24

Summary of Transit Related Findings The transit treatment analysis assembled in the IRP Phase III Report, examines a range of various modes – BRT, express bus, buspools, vanpools, and high-speed rail. The report summarizes existing transit services in both Riverside and San Diego Counties, details the planned transit services in the near future based on adopted SCAG and SANDAG RTPs/RTIPs, and highlights possible options for future transit alternatives in the corridor, including phasing options for future service through the year 2025. These phased transit options (five, 10 and 15 years out) will be further examined below along with highway projects. Wilbur Smith Associates (consulting firm retained to develop the transportation component of Phase III) included the transit concepts and projects discussed in this report as it developed planning level cost estimates for transit alternatives (in addition to a No-Build and Transportation System Management alternatives) and prioritized a suite of potential projects for recommendation as detailed in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Overall Funding Strategy. Infrastructure The primary recommendation affecting transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure would be for the participating agencies to concur on a long-term goal of a facility comprised of four general purpose and two HOV/Managed/Toll Lanes in each direction throughout the IRP study area. Approval in concept to extend infrastructure for a consistent application would seem to be appropriate, given the traffic projections that have been used as part of the IRP planning process. Pending implementation of additional roadway capacity, the study of a bus on shoulder program called Transit Only Lanes in California is recommended for San Diego County, which is similar to the effective SR-52/I-805 operation SANDAG has used since December 2005. The operational criteria used in that project is to allow shoulder operation by transit if speeds decrease to 30 mph or below and that the bus speed be limited to 10 mph faster than traffic in the mixed flow lanes. Before implementing, Caltrans would need to study bus on shoulder for transit only lanes including capital costs as using the shoulders would require increased maintenance, pavement repair, signage, and enforcement costs. Another important infrastructure requirement would be to effectively plan for longer term availability of park-and- ride facilities particularly in Temecula. Park-and-ride demand is typically highest at the last service point before the transit vehicle enters the highway. Thus, it would be logical to expect potential travelers from both the I-15 and I-215 corridors to the north to park in Temecula. Park-and-ride facilities can also serve as coordination points with longer term facilities. They can act as the forerunners of the locations of larger transit facilities such as bus centers, HSR stations, or BRT transit stops. Transit Demand Commuter bus service builds in different ways in different corridors and no two corridors are exactly the same. In addition transit use as a percentage of trips is currently less in Riverside County than San Diego County. This is based on a number of factors, density, availability, etc. and is referenced to indicate it may be logical to anticipate a slower demand growth for transit in the I-15 corridor. The short-term option could be retaining the current practice of RTA’s Route 217 to operate through Temecula to Escondido where it would connect with expanded MTS service. This would give the RTA an opportunity to determine how demand for service is building within the corridor and then determine what level of longer term



B-25

investment and operating scenario might best serve Riverside County. From a SANDAG perspective, new commuter service from the park-and-ride/direct access ramp segment currently in service would also provide valuable data that could then be used as a basis for future service planning discussions. Operations Initial discussions have started between SANDAG, RTA, RCTC, MTS and North County Transit District regarding developing an operating plan for the corridor based on the implementation of managed lanes transit service to Escondido in 2012. Multi-jurisdictional planning is usually complicated by financial-related issues; as a result, the affected agencies should consider developing operational agreements. Current operation from Riverside County to Escondido and the current operation of MTS service to the middle segment of the I-15 express lanes are representative of the potential near term use of expanded services. These services should be monitored to assess customer input regarding frequency, travel time, transferring and other issues. Results of monitoring the various services can be included in future operating plans. A phased implementation within the corridor and a demonstration service from Temecula to downtown San Diego is recommended. This service would be valuable in testing the relationship between potential demand and real customer use and would provide feedback to decision makers regarding priorities for funding, and other phasing issues. In the longer term, a frequent peak period service scenario of 30 or even 15 minute headways would be most successful in attracting commute riders. Mid-day and weekend service should also be tested from a two-direction perspective, since this corridor will continue to build demand. An ultimate regional service plan in Riverside County would logically include connections further north of Temecula to Murrieta, Lake Elsinore and perhaps two-way service to/from the Corona Metrolink Station as well as I-215 service to the Perris Valley Metrolink Station. These regional services should also be supported by local feeder connections. As previously mentioned, capital costs in addition to operating costs must be taken into account when developing plans for new inter-county bus service. Operational issues to be considered include different county cost structures as well as union work rules. Phasing On-going work by SANDAG and WRCOG staff regarding smart growth also accentuates the importance of land use planning and public transportation. As with many IRP related concepts, continued communication and consistency of application are important aspects of the planning process. The SANDAG sponsored Interregional Transit/Vanpool/Buspool Study includes ideas for transit and buspool demonstration projects, which are of value since they combine these concepts into an overall approach to service alternatives for the IRP corridor. The study introduces a conceptual phasing plan for transit in the corridor through 2035 and indicates that at some juncture more specific implementation plans need to be developed.


B-26

Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation Analysis of transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure focused on potential transit improvements in the I-15 corridor. It involved the review and refinement of future BRT and/or commuter express transit plans in the I-15 and I-215 corridors. The review incorporated the results from WRCOG’s TOD Study and the Interregional Transit, Buspool, and Vanpool Study which was conducted by SANDAG. Additionally, this work was coordinated with the smart growth land use planning efforts also underway in the I-15 and I-215 corridors which looks to coordinate land use and transit planning. The work included an analysis of transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure. It also included the development of preliminary phasing options for express bus and BRT services given existing and proposed infrastructure. The WSA team reviewed a number of prior and current reports and documents, researched additional resources, provided comments regarding infrastructure, demand and operations, in order to make recommendations for next steps for the two counties. Often within the public transportation community individual agencies develop a “family of services” concept that reinforces that all services should be thought of in a holistic, seamless way. In this instance the two-county area has the potential to expand that family of services from a multi-county perspective. That perspective also has the potential to incorporate the principles of “mobility management” which focuses on the needs of the customers and multi-modal partnerships as opposed to management of assets. The counties could then move forward with transit, vanpool and buspool solutions that balance the needs with the resources and focus on efficiency and effectiveness. Continued coordination and partnering between the two counties is important to the implementation of these solutions. The suggested next steps for consideration are:

• Initiate bus on shoulder assessment and analysis for the I-15 corridor in San Diego County; • Develop an agreement in principle for operating plans – including vanpools and buspools and other

planning studies (e.g. TOD and other managed growth planning); • Monitor ridership and demand for current RTA and MTS services; • Consider phasing of a demonstration express bus line from Temecula to downtown San Diego; • Develop operating plans for capacity enhancing freeway projects; • Implement, if warranted and feasible, bus on shoulder operation in San Diego county; • Implement expanded inter-county services; • Construct additional HOV lanes; • Continue to aggressively plan and build park-and-ride lots; and • As resources become available and ridership warrants, continue to expand operations and connections

to the regional system and the local communities. As illustrated in Table 6, Riverside and San Diego counties are very different in some critical ways that will make integrating and sustaining intercounty service a challenge. First and foremost is the difference in planning philosophies between the two counties. In San Diego County the focus is led by SANDAG, which is a MPO, a COG, a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and is also responsible for long-range transportation planning. The focus in San Diego County on the I-15 has been on the managed lanes concept with transit as a core component of future plans. Expanded BRT operations will soon be a reality in the I-15 corridor; bus on shoulder plans are also being discussed. To a degree, making improvements to the I-15 freeway infrastructure in northern San Diego County has been to improve transit operations. Transit works well along the southern portion of I-15 IRP Study Corridor (from Escondido south to downtown San Diego) for many reasons: a relatively dense



B-27

spine of communities with many commuters headed to downtown San Diego; a dedicated funding source in TransNet with transit as an important focus; a well-established eight-mile HOT lane stretch on the I-15 utilized by buses, especially during peak hours; and a willingness as evidenced by the passage of TransNet to improve transit and look at options such as bus on shoulder. In short, SANDAG has partly focused on transit in the I-15 corridor in San Diego County because transit has been a successful, well used mode in the corridor. Farebox recovery on the MTS commuter services is approximately 46%. In comparison, RTA has a low bus farebox recovery ratio (less than 17% for blended rural/urban service) making it more difficult to establish new and expanded transit services such as intra-county BRT service. In Riverside County, there are seven public bus operators with each operator having its own planning authority and policy board. RCTC is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Riverside County and has transit oversight responsibility but does not plan transit services. On the I-15 corridor, RTA - a joint powers authority – has responsibility for transit planning and operation. Compared to San Diego, Riverside County has a relatively low land use density and a more spread out pattern of development, which is not easily served by transit. However, Riverside County has a highly successful vanpool program that is subsidized by SANDAG. Individuals using the vanpool program are not likely to switch to conventional bus transit services, which in effect, reduces the pool of riders for transit. In 1988 and again in 2002, more than two-thirds of Riverside County residents approved a half-cent sales tax initiative called Measure A to fund transportation projects. As a result, the focus on the I-15 in Riverside County has been more centered on freeway improvements including improving interchanges, and constructing/expanding HOV lanes (which will be utilized by transit buses). RCTC also has plans to implement the use of HOT lanes on the I-15 and SR-91. Although the Measure A Expenditure Plan includes the addition of one lane - in each direction from SR-60 to the San Diego County line - on the I-15, there are no short-term plans to add HOV/HOT lanes in the existing gap between the 15/215 split and the San Diego County line. It should be noted, however, that with the planned freeway improvements, there will be enhancements in transit operations in the I-15 corridor as buses will be able to utilize the HOT lanes once implemented. The Measure A Expenditure plan is primarily a freeway/highway funding mechanism with some dedicated funding for transit and Metrolink’s commuter rail system. Without a large amount of dedicated funding for transit it is difficult to increase services and gain transit mode share while meeting the state-mandated farebox recovery ratio. These issues – low density and dedicated funding for transit - are fundamental differences between the two counties in the provision of transit services. Lastly, from a transit operator perspective, the two transit systems (RTA in Riverside County and MTS9 in San Diego County) have different operating costs, different metrics for measuring service, vastly different service areas, and serve different population densities. For example, San Diego County’s density along the I-15 corridor makes it an ideal candidate for BRT and express bus service while Riverside County’s lower densities and dispersed activity centers make BRT and express bus service more difficult. It is understandable that Riverside County might view expanding vanpools as a key component for the solution to intracounty travel while San Diego County views BRT and express bus as the critical component. Each county’s perspective is logical and reasonable. The challenge will be to find the middle ground that makes sense financially, operationally, institutionally and politically. 9 Note that in addition to MTS, NCTD is also a transit operator in San Diego County. MTS, however, has taken the lead in terms of interregional transit.


B-28

Table 6: Varied Planning Approaches and Agency Responsibilities SANDAG RCTC

MPO & RTPA Long Range Transportation Planning Responsibility

RTPA

High density – many commuters traveling to downtown San Diego

Low density – more spread out pattern of development

SB 375 – 1st major MPO subject to SB 375/SCS will be part of RTP process

SB 375 WRCOG and CVAG: selected “collaborative” process

TransNet - $14 billion/40 years (transit, highway, local roads, etc.)

Measure A - $4.6 billion/30 years $390 million available in western Riverside County for commuter assistance, rail, bus and specialized transit services

Managed lane concept with transit as a core component (BRT, bus on shoulder)

HOV/HOT lanes (transit enhancement)

Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Funding Strategy Based upon the findings of the above tasks a series of multimodal alternatives were developed. The intent was that each of these alternatives would be reviewed in terms of cost-effectiveness and funding potential. The alternatives were developed to represent a range of options and a mix of projects. A No-Build alternative is described to identify those projects which are currently slated for implementation and to represent the baseline against which the other alternatives could be compared. The other alternatives represent a range of costs and implementation timeframes, with low-cost relatively easily implemented projects grouped in the TSM/TDM alternative, and the more cost intensive and complex projects grouped under the express bus and BRT alternatives. Table 7 on the following page presents the alternatives, which are also described below. Table 8 presents of summary evaluation of each of the alternatives. It is important to note that all the alternatives are compared relative to the no build option, and that the highway and transit improvements associated with each alternative have been combined. Each alternative was ranked in terms of performance compared to the no build opinion, using a three tiered ranking system: none or slight improvement, some improvement, or vast improvement. The results from Tables 2 and 3 in the CLEAT funding strategy report were used for the cost and ridership related criteria, and the other criteria were evaluated in a qualitative context. The results for each option are discussed below: No Build The No Build option involves significant expense for the highway projects which are currently in the RTIP. However, these projects serve significant demand and because they include HOV/HOT lanes, they provide true multi-modal mobility benefits. The transit projects in the no build scenario including the vanpool program and the express bus improvements perform well, but involve relatively small ridership or usage numbers. TSM/TDM Alternative



B-29

The projects included in the TSM/TDM are by definition low cost. Given the small investments involved these measures perform well in terms of usage and cost effectiveness. However, because the amount of usage is relatively small, the gains in mobility, environmental benefits, and operating efficiencies are also small, and there are no long term elements that would support positive, transit oriented land use development. Alternative 1 – Express Bus This alternative performs well overall, but does involve significant costs. However, having completed HOV lanes linking the two counties with an integrated express bus program would yield significant mobility and environmental benefits. Alternative 2 – BRT Of the three build alternatives, the BRT option involves the greatest costs. It also involves somewhat higher usage and mobility enhancement as compared with the express bus alternative. The fact that it involves the construction of dedicated BRT stations reflecting a long term commitment to transit means that it is more likely to stimulate transit supportive development along the I-15 corridor.

Table 7 – Summary Evaluation of the Alternatives

Evaluation Measures

No B

uild1

TSM/

TDM2

Alter

nativ

e 1 –

Expr

ess B

us3

Alter

nativ

e 2-B

R4

•Costs, Capital and Operating

•Cost Effectiveness

• Usage

• Mobility Improvement

• Environmental Benefits

•Operating Efficiencies

•Transit Supportive Land Use

Legend : Not applicable (N/A), none or slight improvement ( ), some improvement ( ), or vast improvement ( ).

1. Includes Projects H1-H3 and T1-T4 from Table 1


B-30

Evaluation Measures

No B

uild1

TSM/

TDM2

Alter

nativ

e 1 –

Expr

ess B

us3

Alter

nativ

e 2-B

R4

2. Includes Projects H4–H5 and T5-T7 from Table 1 3. Includes Projects H6 and T8 from Table 1 4. Includes Projects H7 and T9 form Table 1



B-31

Challenges and Constraints to Implementation There are certain challenges and constraints to the implementation of any of the alternatives identified above. These include:

• Funding – The most significant obstacle to implementing any of the alternatives is funding. The current economic crisis has stressed the available funding mechanisms to the extent where all existing federal, state, and county revenues are in serious jeopardy. The ability to fund the projects in the No Build alternative is in itself a major challenge for the counties. Projects which require major new funds are not likely to be implemented in the near or intermediate term. Transit operating funds are particularly difficult to come by, so major new transit services will be difficult to implement within the corridor. Phasing and incremental development of projects is probably the only way to implement larger projects.

• Land Use and Economic Characteristics - Along the portion of the I-15 corridor under consideration there are marked differences in the densities and the mix of land uses. Along the southern portion of the I-15 IRP Study Corridor (from Escondido south to downtown San Diego) most of the corridor is heavily developed with a mix of residential, commercial retail, and employment sites. While the densities are below that typically considered necessary to sustain rail transit, they are sufficient to support express bus or BRT type services. In Riverside County the land uses are generally less dense and in some places interspersed with agricultural uses. While there are significant retail developments, there are fewer employment centers compared to San Diego County. Residential development in Riverside County provides a lower cost housing resource for many who find jobs in San Diego County. The densities and mix of uses along I-15 in southern Riverside County are not clearly sufficient to sustain a significant investment in bus transit, although there is clearly a need to provide an alternative to auto travel.

• Institutional Barriers - There are various issues related to the provision of truly integrated transit services between the two counties. The two transit operators, MTS and the RTA have different cost structures and work rules making shared operation of services difficult. If one agency or the other operates the services, then a cost sharing agreement is necessary. There are also differing philosophies regarding the acceptability of various transportation improvements. For example, the bus on shoulder lanes have been successfully implemented in San Diego County, but are not considered as an option in Riverside County due to the extensive improvements planned on the I-15 and SR-91.

• Transportation Needs and Priorities – Both counties have pressing transportation infrastructure needs of their own which do not involve interregional concerns. This makes it difficult to place a high priority on interregional projects which may provide benefit to the adjacent county without potential for reimbursement.

Conclusions In the short term, the TSM/TDM alternative offers significant benefit and the ability to lay the groundwork for continued cooperation and sharing of resources for the two counties. For example, the bus on shoulder concept offers a low cost opportunity to provide improved bus transit operations in North San Diego County. RTA’s route 217 should provide an initial measure of the value of interregional bus services and should set the stage for ongoing discussions and agreements between the counties for the provision of future transit services. Until these agreements occur, transit users will have to cope with the need to transfer from one system to another. Strong evidence of interregional cooperation would be to improve the traveler information services (511) in both counties


B-32

so that travelers using transit to enter their neighboring county would have direct access to transit service and connectivity information in that county as well as their own county. An overall plan for transit integration needs to be in place by 2012 when SANDAG expects that the managed lane project will be complete to Escondido. In addition, the cost effectiveness indices used in this report can be used to monitor the performance of the individual projects as they are implemented as part of the Strategic Implementation Plan. In the mid term, SANDAG is planning to extend the HOV/HOT lanes to the county line by 2020. In Riverside County, there is currently no immediate plan in place to extend the lanes south of Murrieta to close the gap to the county line. The 30 year RCTC sales tax measure does call for one additional lane in each direction, but it is not clear when these lanes will be implemented. During this period before the gap is closed there should still be efforts to move forward with improved transit services in the corridor. This will help determine whether the longer term improvements take the form of express buses, BRT services, or a hybrid of both. The type of bus service which is ultimately selected may not be as important as the ability of the two counties to provide travelers with an integrated transit service that takes full advantage of the major investment in HOV/HOT facilities being made in both counties. In the long term, the completion of the interregional I-15 HOV/HOT managed lanes system which would span the entirety of Riverside County and most of San Diego County should be the goal. At the same time the opportunity of the use of this corridor as part of the statewide HSR network needs to fully considered and addressed. This corridor is included in the second tier of improvements identified in the HSR plan. While the development of HSR in the I-15 corridor is a long term proposal, there is a firm commitment to this element of the HSR system in the plan. Future transportation improvements in the corridor need to recognize the eventuality of HSR and avoid potential conflicts that would impede its implementation. The HSR rail stations will become important regional transportation hubs which will need to be integrate into the regional and local transit network. Table 8 – on the following page - summarizes the overall corridor implementation strategies and specific transit improvements discussed in the previous sections of this report as well as the recommended timeline for implementation.



B-33

Table 8. Summary of Implementation Recommendations Implementation Steps Budget/Cost

0-5 5-10 10-15Overall Corridor Implementation Recommendations

x Initiate the bus on shoulder assessment and analysis for the I-15 corridor x Develop an agreement in principle for operating plans – including vanpools and buspools and other planning studies (e.g. TOD and other x Monitor ridership and demand for current RTA and MTS servicesx Consider phasing of demonstration line from Temecula to downtown San Diego

x Develop operating plans for capacity enhancement freeway projects for both countiesx Implement bus on shoulder operation 5,000,000$

x Implement expanded inter-county servicesx Construct additional HOV lanes 117,000,000$

x Continue to aggressively plan and build park-n-ride lots that feed the BRT system 20,000,000$ x x x Continue to expand operations and connections to the regional system and the local communities using phasing options.

Total 142,000,000$

x Confirm Market Demandx Fleet Expansion: 13 busesx Driver Licensing:13-16 drivers

x x Running buspoolsTotal 2,600,000$

x x x Interregional Coordinationx Confirmation of Market Demand

x Station Construction: 2 stopsx Equipment Acquisition: 2 buses

x Extended OperationsTotal 3,400,000$



x New Express Route: Bus on Shoulders Total 3,900,000$



x New Express Route: Bus on Shoulders x New Express Route: HOV Lanes***

Total 22,000,000$


x Station Construction: 2 stopsx Equipment Acquisition: 8 busesx x New BRT Route: Bus on Shoulders x x BRT Dedicated Lanes Construction

x New BRT Route: Dedicated LanesTotal 386,000,000$

x Conduct future freight movement estimates periodically to address potential changes to freight demand resulting from changes in x Consider freight transport in the future plans of I-5 linkage between the two counties as part of the overall analysis of current plans and

Total -$ GRAND TOTAL 559,900,000$

Notes:* Riverside-San Diego County Interregional Transit Options: Option 1** Riverside-San Diego County Interregional Transit Options: Option 3*** By 2020 all of corridor will have HOV/Managed lanesexcept between I-15/I-215 split to county line**** Riverside-San Diego County Interregional Transit Options: Option 2

Bus Rapid Transit: Extension of BRT North from Escondido into Riverside County****

Multi-County Goods Movement

Timeline (years)

Express Bus: Riverside Downtown Terminal through Murietta, Temecula, Escondido, Mira Mesa, Keamy Mesa, to Downtown San Diego**

Buspool : Convert to vanpool pairs to 28 buspools

Transit Route Expansion: Expand RTA 208/RTA 206/MTS 810 between Temecula and Escondido

Express Bus: New Route comparable to RTA 202, but switch to Temecula to Downtown San Diego*


B-34

References Task 1 – PSR Summary Project Study Reports

Project Study Report for I-15 between SR-79 to north of the I-15/I-215 Junction, April 2002 Project Study Report for Interchange Improvements on I-15 at Railroad Canyon Road, September 2002 Project Study Report for the I-15/SR-79 South Interchange, February 2004 Project Study Report to Modify Existing Interchange at I-15/SR-74 Junction, January 2005 Project Study Report to Widen Roadbeds and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes on I-15, between I-15/I-215 Split and Riverside County Line, October 2007 North I-15 Corridor Project Study Report, between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County, September 1998 I-15 Final Project Report, between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County, February 2003

Related Documents

Orange County Transportation Authority, 2006 Long-Range Transportation Plan San Bernardino Associated Governments, I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study, December 2005 Southern California Association of Governments, 2008 Regional Transportation Plan, May 2008 San Diego Association of Governments, 2030 Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future, November 2007 San Diego Association of Governments, 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program, July 2008

Task 2 – Goods Movement

Critical Goods Movement Issues for Riverside County, RCTC, September 2006 Alameda Corridor East – Riverside County Impacts and Needs, www.rctc.org Honda North America discussions, 2005 Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan, 2008 Caltrans Traffic Data Branch 2007 Data San Diego Association of Governments 2007 RTP Port of Los Angeles Press Kit on Goods Movement Inland Empire Railroad Mainline Study, Final Report, June 30, 2005 IRP Phase II Final Draft Report, March 2007 LOSSAN Rail Corridor Intermodal Improvements Fact Sheet, March 2009 RailAmerica: San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad http://www.railamerica.com/shippingservices/railservices/SDIY.aspx Carrizo Gorge Railway Phone Interview with Maria Martinez, Head of U.S. Rail Traffic, May 22, 2009

Task 3 -Transit

I-15 IRP Phase II Final Report, March 2007 Southern California Association of Governments, 2008 Regional Transportation Plan, May 2008 San Diego Association of Governments, 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, November 2007 San Diego Association of Governments, 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program, July 2008



B-35

RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Service Enhancement Plan (COA), 2007 San Diego MTS COA Ridership Trends 2005 San Diego Association of Governments TransNet Brochure Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 64 Bus Use of Shoulders 2006 Western Riverside Council of Governments Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Demand Analysis San Diego Association of Governments I-15 Bus Rapid Transit Operations Plan, March 2007 I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study, December 2005 San Diego – Riverside Interregional Transit, Vanpool, & Buspool Study, September 17, 2009 Initial Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map, Summer 2009 2006 State of the Commute, Southern California Association of Governments

Task 4 – Cost Effectiveness

Project Study Report for I-15 between SR-79 to north of the I-15/I-215) Junction, April 2002 Project Study Report to Widen Roadbeds and HOV Lanes on I-15, between I-15/I-215 Split and Riverside County Line, October 2007 North I-15 Corridor Project Study Report, between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County, September 1998 I-15 Final Project Report, Between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County, February 2003 San Diego Association of Governments, 2030 Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future, November 2007 San Diego Association of Governments, 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program, July 2008 Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan, 2008 I-15 IRP Phase II Final Report, March 2007 San Diego – Riverside Interregional Transit, Vanpool, & Buspool Study, September 17, 2009 San Diego Association of Governments I-15 Bus Rapid Transit Operations Plan, March 2007

Appendix B - RCTC Transportation SIP Report FINAL · This final task of the IRP Phase III is the...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix B - RCTC Transportation SIP Report FINAL · This final task of the IRP Phase III is the...