CAUTION: This email originated from outside of SANDAG. Do
5
From: Dan Quirk To: Clerk of the Board Subject: Public Comment for 8/7/2020 Transportation, Regional Planning, and Borders Committees Joint Meeting Date: Monday, August 3, 2020 8:09:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of SANDAG. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are expecting the content. Please submit the following comment for the public record for this meeting. Thank you. To the Transportation, Regional Planning, and Borders Committees, SANDAG’s Big 5 Moves are deeply misguided, will cost billions, and fail to account for rapidly changing and improving technology transportation trends driven by the private sector. The two most important trends are the rise of zero-emission electric vehicles and autonomous vehicle technology. Notably, California-based Tesla, which is a leader in both trends, has quickly become the most valuable auto/mobility company in the world. There is a strong probability that the future of transportation and mobility is heavily dominated by transportation-as-a-service (TaaS), driven primarily by private companies. Rather than waste billions on the Big 5 Moves, SANDAG would be far better off pausing and waiting for the private sector to further advance these technologies, while looking for smart opportunities to amplify their efforts. Renowned speaker and Stanford lecturer Tony Seba has given many speeches on this future, including to the North Carolina Department of Transportation in early 2020. The fascinating video link can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y916mxoio0E In the debate of cars versus transit, SANDAG’s own data and reports clearly indicate that transit usage in San Diego County is very small and has seen significant declines over the past several years, as have most other cities in the United States. Specifically, in the north part of the county, where the population has much lower density, the ridership numbers of the Coaster train are shockingly low, accounting for just 1/20 th of 1% of overall commuter volume in the County. It is the least utilized line in the County by a significant margin. Given that the tracks run along the eroding coastal bluffs in Del Mar, this particular line has taken on a more urgent priority for many who live nearby. A group of us have put together a website that clearly lays out the data and low ridership numbers and poses the possibility of converting the train tracks into what one day could become the most popular trail in the country. Learn more at https://coaster-rail-to-trail.org/ . Respectfully, Dan Quirk
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of SANDAG. Do
From: Dan Quirk To: Clerk of the Board Subject: Public Comment for
8/7/2020 Transportation, Regional Planning, and Borders Committees
Joint Meeting Date: Monday, August 3, 2020 8:09:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of SANDAG. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you are expecting the
content.
Please submit the following comment for the public record for this
meeting. Thank you.
To the Transportation, Regional Planning, and Borders
Committees,
SANDAG’s Big 5 Moves are deeply misguided, will cost billions, and
fail to account for rapidly changing and improving technology
transportation trends driven by the private sector. The two most
important trends are the rise of zero-emission electric vehicles
and autonomous vehicle technology. Notably, California-based Tesla,
which is a leader in both trends, has quickly become the most
valuable auto/mobility company in the world. There is a strong
probability that the future of transportation and mobility is
heavily dominated by transportation-as-a-service (TaaS), driven
primarily by private companies. Rather than waste billions on the
Big 5 Moves, SANDAG would be far better off pausing and waiting for
the private sector to further advance these technologies, while
looking for smart opportunities to amplify their efforts. Renowned
speaker and Stanford lecturer Tony Seba has given many speeches on
this future, including to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation in early 2020. The fascinating video link can be
found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y916mxoio0E
In the debate of cars versus transit, SANDAG’s own data and reports
clearly indicate that transit usage in San Diego County is very
small and has seen significant declines over the past several
years, as have most other cities in the United States.
Specifically, in the north part of the county, where the population
has much lower density, the ridership numbers of the Coaster train
are shockingly low, accounting for just 1/20th of 1% of overall
commuter volume in the County. It is the least utilized line in the
County by a significant margin. Given that the tracks run along the
eroding coastal bluffs in Del Mar, this particular line has taken
on a more urgent priority for many who live nearby. A group of us
have put together a website that clearly lays out the data and low
ridership numbers and poses the possibility of converting the train
tracks into what one day could become the most popular trail in the
country. Learn more at https://coaster-rail-to-trail.org/.
Respectfully,
From: Craig Jones To: Clerk of the Board Cc: Clough, Jane Subject:
SANDAG Transportation/ Committees Aug. 7, 2020 - Agenda Item 2 -
submittal of comment and questions Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2020
2:33:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of SANDAG. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you are expecting the
content.
Please accept this submittal for this Friday's Transportation,
Regional Planning, and Borders Committees public meeting, Agenda
item 2:
ref. staff report Attachment 1, Figures 8 and 10; and text,
Attachment pages 11, 12 et. seq. - it looks like the complete
corridors to be developed are planned to use the existing
freeway/highway rights of way? Are there services and routes
(whether rail or true BRT) that would not follow existing
freeways/highways? If existing auto freeways and highways are
exclusively to be used, I see this as a significant barrier to an
effective system since automobile freeways do not interface
efficiently or effectively with either residential communities or
employment centers ref. staff report Attachment 1, Figure 13 and
related text - is there any really true BRT involved in this
proposal? What is "next gen rapid" bus - again, on the existing
freeways - not really exclusive BRT travel ways?
Thank you, I look forward to these questions being addressed.
Craig Jones
From: Rick Bates To: Clerk of the Board Cc: Duncan McFetridge
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT re August 7, Joint Meeting, Item number 2.
The Vision for the 2021 Regional Plan Date: Thursday, August 6,
2020 10:33:47 AM Attachments: Letter to SANDAG re Transportation
Scenarios for the 2021 RTP.PDF
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of SANDAG. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you are expecting the
content.
Public Comment from Duncan McFetridge (Cleveland National Forest
Foundation, Save Our Forest and Ranchlands) and Rick Bates
(Cleveland National Forest Foundation) on Item number 2. The Vision
for the 2021 Regional Plan of the August 7, Joint Meeting:
We have 2 questions for your committee today: 1) How does the
initial SANDAG plan quantitatively meet the State and local
benchmarks for housing and climate progress and 2) How does the
initial SANDAG plan compare to the Climate Housing and Transit
alternative submitted by SOFAR and CNFF?
Save Our Forest and Ranchlands (“SOFAR”) and the Cleveland National
Forest Foundation (“CNFF”), two organizations dedicated to
progressive land use planning and the protection of vital natural
resources, are submitting comments for the draft transportation
network scenarios for the 2021 Regional Transportation Plan
Update.
The purpose of this letter is to urge the SANDAG Board of Directors
to begin the RTP update dialogue with a Climate, Housing, Transit
Alternative in the 2021 RTP that is focused on meeting the housing
and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) reduction goals that have been set
collectively by the state of California, the City of San Diego, and
SANDAG:
• 40% reduction in GHG below 1990 levels by 2030 (California AB 32
and SB 32) • 80% reduction in GHG below 1990 levels by 2050
(Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown) • 25% reduction in per capita
GHG from passenger cars and trucks relative to 2005 by 2035
(California SB 375; California Air Resources Control Board1) •
14.3% reduction in total daily VMT per capita, and 16.8% reduction
in total light-duty VMT per
capita, relative to 2015-2018 average by 2050 (California Air
Resources Board2) • 50% transit, walk and bike mode share for
commuters within ½ mile of a major transit stop in
City of San Diego by 2035 (Climate Action Plan, City of San Diego)3
• 150% increase in transit mode share (SANDAG’s Urban Area Transit
Study4) • Adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in
the community (California5).
1https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-2017-scoping-plan-identified-vmt-reductions-and-
relationship-state-climate
2https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-01/2017_sp_vmt_reductions_jan19.pdf
3
https://www.climateactioncampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/CAP-Report-Card-2nd-Edition.pdf
42050 RTP/SCS Appendix U.17 Urban Transit Strategy, San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) and Parsons Brinckerhoff,
October 2011.
5http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml
Meeting these goals is not only reasonable, it is urgently required
if we are going to solve some of the unrelenting challenges faced
by residents of San Diego. Indeed, SANDAG’s prior RTP was found to
be deficient for failing to discuss an alternative which could
significantly reduce total vehicle miles traveled(“VMT”) (Cleveland
National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments.
(17 Cal.App. 5th 413, 435-437 (2017)). Heretofore, the San Diego
region has met these challenges with clever words, not deeds. These
goals are achievable only if land use and transportation are
addressed together.
These synergies are recognized in SANDAG’s Urban Area Transit
Strategy and the City of San Diego’s General Plan Housing Element
which includes this goal:
Ensure the provision of sufficient housing for all income groups to
accommodate San Diego’s anticipated share of regional growth …in a
manner consistent with the development pattern of the Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS), that will help meet regional GHG
targets by improving transportation and land use coordination and
jobs/housing balance, creating more transit-oriented, compact and
walkable communities, providing more housing capacity for all
income levels, and protecting resource areas.6
The Climate, Housing, Transit Alternative would pick up where
SANDAG’s Urban Area Transit Strategy left off in 2011. Housing +
Transportation Affordability (H+T) There is a huge amount of
attention on housing affordability but too little focus on housing
and transportation (“H+T”) affordability. Outlying housing may be
cheaper in the short run than housing in the region’s core because
of supply and demand – but any savings often are eaten up by
increased transportation costs. Dispersed housing requires more
cars per household and more VMT and GHG emissions per
household.
The Center for Neighborhood Technologies has modeled H+T costs
relative to income for the entire U.S. with support of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Figure 1 shows the H+T
affordability results for the San Diego region for households with
the regional typical household income of $64,309.
Figure 1: H+T Costs as a Percent of Income7
Figure 1 shows that, on average, transportation costs are about
two-thirds as large as housing costs. However, transportation costs
vary greatly across the region. Figure 2 maps H+T
affordability.
Figure 2: H+T Costs as a Percent of Income8
7 Center for Neighborhood Technologies.
https://htaindex.cnt.org/fact-sheets/?focus=cbsa&gid=42 8
Center for Neighborhood Technologies.
https://htaindex.cnt.org/
As shown in Figure 2, the most affordable areas are in the
light-colored areas primarily in the region’s core and along major
transit corridors. The housing affordability problem cannot be
solved by building new housing in the darker-colored areas because
high transportation costs make those areas inherently unaffordable.
The areas in the more remote locations in San Diego County (i.e.,
even further from the City center) are not shown in order to make
the map more readable, but these areas also tend to be more
unaffordable when taking into account H+T.
The answer to housing affordability is H+T affordability. It is
building more housing in the H+T affordable light-colored areas and
in expanding the supply of H+T affordable area through increased
transit service.
As shown in Figure 3, the San Diego region currently scores
extremely low on location efficient neighborhoods which are defined
as “compact, close to jobs and services, with a variety of
transportation choices.”
Figure 3: Location Efficiency Metrics for the San Diego
Region9
Increasing this score will require more housing and jobs in areas
served by transit today. It will also require a significant
expansion of transit infrastructure and a substantial increase in
service. The State of California, SANDAG and the County’s
municipalities are working towards increasing the supply of housing
in location efficient neighborhoods, but more can and should be
done.
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) Determination,
provided by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (“HCD”) in July 2018, requires the San Diego region to
plan for
9 Center for Neighborhood Technologies.
https://htaindex.cnt.org/fact-sheets/?focus=cbsa&gid=42
5
171,685 housing units in the 6th Housing Element Cycle (2021-2029).
This 6th Element Cycle gives significant weight to transit
availability. As shown in Figure 4, the 6th Element Cycle makes a
substantial shift relative to the previous 5th Element Cycle away
from the unincorporated areas and into the cities served by transit
including San Diego, Escondido, La Mesa, and National City.
Figure 4: RHNA Allocations 2020-2029 and 2010-201910
The City of San Diego’s share of the total has risen from 54% of
the total in the previous cycle to 63% in the new cycle. The City
has ample capacity for this housing. It has identified capacity to
construct 164,142 housing units or 56,241 more than required.11 A
large percentage of this capacity is in transit corridors.
These are positive changes. However, in the past, the housing
allocations have been aspirational but not enforced. The State has
signaled that it plans to be more aggressive about enforcement
during this cycle. SANDAG can help the municipalities achieve their
housing goals by shifting all transportation spending towards
transit and non-motorized (walk and bike) infrastructure. These
investments, which will facilitate getting people out of the cars,
will also help the region increase density without large impacts on
neighborhoods.
10 Center for Neighborhood Technologies. https://htaindex.cnt.org/
11 City of San Diego General Plan Housing Element 2021-2029 (March
2020 Draft), p. HE-38.
- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
180,000
Previous Cycle
2021-2029
Previous Cycle 2021-2029 San Diego 88,096 107,901 Escondido 4,175
9,607 La Mesa 1,722 3,797 National City 1,863 5,437 Unincorporated
22,412 7,000 Other 43,712 37,943
San Diego Escondido La Mesa National City Unincorporated
Other
In addition to personal savings on car ownership (e.g.,
acquisition, registration, and insurance) and costs associated with
driving (e.g., gasoline, replacement parts, and repairs),
municipalities are beginning to recognize that neighborhoods served
by transit require fewer parking spaces. Last year, the City of San
Diego passed a parking reform package that eliminated parking
requirements for sites located within 1/2-mile of a transit stop.
This is a tremendously important reform for housing affordability
because construction of parking can cost as much as $90,000 per
space in structures.12
Building a Real Regional Transit System - the Climate, Housing,
Transit Alternative SANDAG’s Executive Director Hasan Ikhata
said:
I don’t buy the debate that transit doesn’t work. Transit doesn’t
work now because it’s not designed to work. You know, if you come
from the border to downtown and it takes you, you know… it’s about
20 some miles… it takes you an hour in transit, that’s not real
transit, as far as I’m concerned.13
The San Diego region’s transit system performs much more poorly
than its west coast peers. As shown in Figure 5, a much smaller
share of the region’s workers commute by transit than other west
coast regions.
Figure 5: Transit Work Mode Share in Four West Coast Regions
12https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2019/03/04/san-diego-city-council-votes-to-repeal-minimum-parking-
requirements-for-new-housing/ 13San Diego Tribune, February 27,
2019.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-utbg-
sandag-ikhrata-transit-interview-20190227-story.html
M et
ro p
op ul
at io
Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey
Those who do commute by transit in the San Diego region suffer an
enormous travel time penalty relative to the other large regions in
California (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Ratio of Average Transit Commute Time to Average Auto
Commute Time
Source: California Household Travel Survey
Improving the regional transit system is not a new idea in the San
Diego region; there just has not been enough follow through. Almost
a decade ago, SANDAG prepared the Urban Area Transit
Strategy(“UATS”) as part of its 2011 RTP to connect regional
housing needs with transit infrastructure:
The overarching goal of the UATS was to create a world-class
transit system for the San Diego region in 2050, with the aim of
significantly increasing the attractiveness of transit, walking,
and biking in the most urbanized areas of the region.
The vision called for a network of fast, flexible, reliable, safe,
and convenient transit services that connect our homes to the
region’s major employment centers and destinations. Achievement of
this vision would make transit a more appealing option for many
trips, reducing the impact of vehicular travel on the environment
and on public health. Other key goals included:
• Making transit more time-competitive with automobile travel; •
Maximizing the role of transit within the broader transportation
system; and
2.40 2.35
8
• Reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions in
the region. (p. TA 7-5)14
The UATS showed a high potential for transit ridership in the
region’s urban core (Figure 7).
Figure 7: SANDAG Urban Area Transit Study Figure TA 7.8
14 SANDAG. Urban Area Transit Study.
http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=368&fuseaction=projects.detail
9
For transit to become time-competitive with the automobile, the
Climate, Housing, Transit Alternative will require much more than a
few isolated projects. It will require comprehensive investments at
each of the four levels shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Complete Transit System
At the top level, improving rail service in the Los Angeles to San
Diego (“LOSSAN”) corridor is a top priority. To this end, an
important study by Caltrans and CNFF has just been completed
regarding the potential transit ridership on the LOSSAN rail
corridor between San Diego and Los Angeles. This study arose as a
result of litigation filed by CNFF challenging the planned
expansion of the I-5 freeway between La Jolla and Oceanside as
inconsistent with California’s GHG emission targets. CNFF and
Caltrans reached a settlement that focused on the potential to
improve rail service on the LOSSAN corridor. In particular, the
parties agreed to study the feasibility of constructing a
double-track rail tunnel through Miramar Hill to facilitate transit
on the corridor. The parties believed that the Miramar tunnel could
reduce travel times and provide improved connections to local
transit services in the University Town Center (UTC) area.
The recently-completed study concludes that the Miramar tunnel and
rail line straightening would add a critical link to the LOSSAN
rail corridor. See Exhibit #1 (Miramar Tunnel Feasibility
Study).Critically, it finds that the feasibility criteria for the
Miramar tunnel have been satisfied. Its specific findings include
the following:
1. The project would increase discretionary passengers by 1,300 to
1,700 per day, thereby reducing annual VMT 200 million to 240
million miles and GHG by 70,000 to 84,000 tons.
2. The project would provide competitive travel times, including a
transit system average clock time that is approximately 3% faster
than the automobile.
3. The project would be cost competitive, with transit riders cost
at $180/month versus automobile costs of $507/month.
4. The project has no fatal engineering flaws.
Highest speed commuter/intercity rail
Local transit (bus or streetcar) and shared mobility
Walkable compact land use
10
The study further acknowledges a prior federal study that found
construction of the Miramar tunnel along with other corridor
improvements would reduce travel time between San Diego and Los
Angeles to two hours. In short, construction of the new tunnel,
which would provide enhanced access to downtown and the airport,
would be a key transportation improvement for the region and the
state. As the study notes, the LOSSAN rail corridor– together with
the I-5 freeway – is the second-most traveled route in North
America. The Miramar tunnel must be considered a key component of
the Climate, Housing, Transit Alternative.
At the next level is a network of higher-speed, high frequency
transit lines with separate rights of way and fewer stops. In many
regions, a light rail service fills this niche, but in the San
Diego region the Trolley has not filled this niche well. It
operates too slowly and service is not frequent enough.
Improvements are needed in both these dimensions. Achieving the
required level of service in this higher-speed tier will require a
rethinking of the system. As part of the Climate, Housing, Transit
Alternative, SANDAG should evaluate speeding up the existing lines
through grade separations and eliminating stops, as well as
creating new higher-speed lines.
Express buses on managed lanes currently do not serve this
higher-speed niche well because they connect freeway interchanges
instead of land uses. A typical trip using these express buses will
be unattractive because it also will involve connecting bus service
on one or more circuitous routes. Express buses and managed lanes
can work well for some park-and-ride travelers traveling to major
destinations but cannot serve a significant portion of the region’s
population well.
Both the regional rail and higher-speed high-frequency tiers need
to be well connected. The Climate, Housing, Transit Alternative
must include an inter-modal terminal (Grand Central) connecting San
Diego’s urban core, the Airport, the LOSSAN corridor, the Sprinter
corridor, and the Trolley system.
The Climate, Housing, Transit Alternative must also include
efficient connections with frequent local buses (which could
possibly be automated in the future).To this end, SANDAG must
grapple with the first mile/last mile issue as this reflects a
failure in land use and the existing transit system. While higher
income travelers may have a choice of Uber-type services to solve
this problem, this should not be viewed as a remedy for the average
traveler.
Finally, the goal of a functional transit system is to serve
compact bike and walkable land use because no trip begins or ends
on a transit vehicle. Most transit trips begin and end with a walk
trip. In regions with high transit use, there are generally about
twice as many walk trips as transit trips. Investments in walk and
bike infrastructure should be a top priority. Consistent with the
City’s Climate Action Plan, the Climate, Housing, Transit
Alternative must model a 50% transit, walk and bike mode share for
residents in the central core.
Stop Expanding Freeways Building a real regional transit network
will require all the region’s transportation investment dollars for
the foreseeable future. The Climate, Housing, Transit Alternative
must not include any freeway expansion.
The billions of dollars spent on freeway expansion the past 20
years have A) failed to reduce congestion, B) caused a substantial
increase in VMT and GHG emissions, and C) resulted in a severe
housing shortage. The transportation models used to justify these
freeway expansion projects have been wrong
11
on all counts. These models - both in the San Diego region and in
regions throughout the U.S. – forecast dire increases in travel
time if freeways are not widened, and substantial increases in
travel time even if they are widened. In fact, as shown in Figure
9, travel time has stayed remarkably constant in the U.S. for
decades.
Figure 9: Average Time Driving (minutes per day) 1990-2017 by MSA
Population (NHTS)
Source: National Household Travel Survey.
Figure 9 shows the “average time spent driving a private vehicle in
a typical day.” There was an increase during the 1990s, a time when
many women were joining the labor force, but since 2000 there has
been little change. Time spent driving also is very similar across
differently sized regions. There is evidence that people have a
“travel time budget”. If travel speeds drop, they (on average) will
adapt to travel a shorter distance.
In contrast, if travel speeds increase, people (on average) will
travel longer distances. This phenomenon is known as “induced
travel”. In work for the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”),
researchers at the University of California and the University of
Southern California reviewed the literature on induced travel and
concluded:
Thus, the best estimate for the long-run effect of highway capacity
on VMT is an elasticity close to 1.0, implying that in congested
metropolitan areas, adding new
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Rural, Not in MSA < 250,000 250,000 to 499,999
500,000 to 999,999 1 million to 2.9 million 3 million+
12
capacity to the existing system of limited-access highways is
unlikely to reduce congestion or associated GHG in the long-run.
15
The SANDAG regional transportation model fails to account properly
for induced travel although there now are newer algorithms that
could address this deficiency.16
Senate Bill 743 establishes VMT as the criteria for determining the
impacts of transportation projects. This has made properly
accounting for induced VMT critical in the regulatory process. The
Office of Planning and Research’s (“OPR”) Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA recommends:
Whenever employing a travel demand model to assess induced vehicle
travel, any limitation or known lack of sensitivity in the analysis
that might cause substantial errors in the VMT estimate (for
example, model insensitivity to one of the components of induced
VMT described above) should be disclosed and characterized, and a
description should be provided on how it could influence the
analysis results. A discussion of the potential error or bias
should be carried into analyses that rely on the VMT analysis, such
as greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, energy, and
noise.17
The National Center for Sustainable Transportation at the
University of California at Davis has produced an Induced Travel
Calculator18 to help address the deficiencies in the models.
Recently, Caltrans also has issued new draft guidance on accounting
for induced travel. It recommends following the OPR
recommendations:
Caltrans recommends using the VMT analysis approaches recommended
in OPR’s advisory when evaluating the transportation impacts of
projects on the State Highway System (SHS).19
Neither expanding freeways nor not expanding freeways will have any
effect on regional congestion or average travel times. However,
expanding freeways will cause significant increases in VMT and GHG
emissions, and will continue to starve the transit system of needed
investments.
15 Handy, Susan and Marlon G. Boarnet. “Impact of Highway Capacity
and Induced Travel on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Policy Brief” prepared for California Air Resources
Board, September 30, 2014. 16Marshall (2018). Forecasting the
impossible: The status quo of estimating traffic flows with static
traffic assignment and the future of dynamic traffic assignment.
Research in Transportation Business & Management. 29, 85-92
(2018) 17 California Office of Planning and Research. Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, p. 29,
December 2018.
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf
18https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/research-product/induced-travel-calculator
19 Caltrans. Draft Transportation Analysis Framework: Induced
Travel Analysis, March 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/-
/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb-743/2020-04-13-taf-a11y.pdf
Figure 10: StreetLight U.S. Transportation Climate Impact Index
Ranking
Given that transit in the San Diego region has been and continues
to be severely under-funded and under-built compared to roadway
projects, as discussed above, the Climate, Housing, Transit
Alternative must exclude roadway/freeway funding and expansion.
Heretofore, SANDAG’s planning has arbitrarily segmented freeway and
transit projects. This artificial segmentation is not only
irrational, it is fatal in achieving sustainable housing goals
because transit, bike, and walk mobility and auto-based mobility
serve contradictory land use purposes. SANDAG’s failure to
historically recognize this fundamental truth is the Achilles heel
of its planning and lies at the doorstep of the agency’s on-going
inability to deliver a plan that truly unites our community on an
ecologically sustainable foundation.
It is abundantly clear that SANDAG’s past planning efforts have not
only been deficient but have repeatedly failed to heed the ominous
warnings from the courts, the public, and the planet itself. With
California literally on fire due largely to climate change induced
drought and high temperatures, SANDAG has failed the public by not
aggressively pursuing a transportation scenario that would meet the
State’s GHG and VMT reduction goals.21 The Climate, Housing,
20https://www.streetlightdata.com/2020-u-s-transportation-climate-impact-index/
21
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/climate-change-make-wildfires-spread-factor/story?id=56937704
Transportation Alternative would help achieve targets set in
legislation, the California Air Resources Board’s Climate Change
Scoping Plan, and relevant Executive Orders.
Similarly, with regard to the local housing crisis, it is
inconceivable that SANDAG’s prior RTPs have not called for a 50%
transit, bike, and walk mode share alternative necessary to
activate infill housing, especially since the urban core is already
zoned for such housing. Here too, the Climate, Housing, Transit
Alternative would facilitate this infill housing and help the City
of San Diego achieve the targets set forth in its Climate Action
Plan.
Faced with these pressing social and environmental challenges,
SANDAG must follow established judicial, executive, and local
legislative guidelines designed to meet the housing and climate
crises. The public urgently deserves to see what it would take for
the region to build a world-class transit system and to develop
reasonably priced infill housing. Common sense dictates that the
Climate, Housing, Transit Alternative would necessarily begin with
a complete, first phase transit, bike, and walk system with an
inter-modal terminal connecting the Airport, the Central Core, the
LOSSAN Corridor, the Sprinter corridor, and the Trolley system. It
is important to note that the Climate, Housing, Transit Alternative
would not only be the “environmentally superior alternative,” it
would also be the socio-economically superior alternative because a
true transit, bike and walk system reduces both the cost and
shortage of housing and the cost of driving.
In conclusion, in the face of a severe, entrenched housing crisis
endangering the public welfare and the severe climate crisis
endangering the planet, SANDAG owes the public nothing less than a
transit alternative that immediately meets these life threatening
challenges rather than artificially prolonging them.
Duncan McFetridge
Director, CNFF
President, SOFAR
Building a Real Regional Transit System - the Climate, Housing,
Transit Alternative
Figure 5: Transit Work Mode Share in Four West Coast Regions
Figure 6: Ratio of Average Transit Commute Time to Average Auto
Commute Time
Figure 7: SANDAG Urban Area Transit Study Figure TA 7.8
Figure 8: Complete Transit System
Stop Expanding Freeways
*Benchmarks:
• 40% reduction in GHG below 1990 levels by 2030 (California AB 32
and SB 32)
• 80% reduction in GHG below 1990 levels by 2050 (Governors
Schwarzenegger and Brown)
• 25% reduction in per capita GHG from passenger cars and trucks
relative to 2005 by 2035 (California SB 375; California Air
Resources Control Board1)
• 14.3% reduction in total daily VMT per capita, and 16.8%
reduction in total light-duty VMT per capita, relative to 2015-2018
average by 2050 (California Air Resources Board2)
• 50% transit, walk and bike mode share for commuters within ½ mile
of a major transit stop in City of San Diego by 2035 (Climate
Action Plan, City of San Diego)3
• 150% increase in transit mode share (SANDAG’s Urban Area Transit
Study4)
• Adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the
community (California5).
From: Joan Rincon To: Clerk of the Board Subject: August 7, Joint
Meeting, Open Public Commentary Date: Thursday, August 6, 2020
3:00:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of SANDAG. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you are expecting the
content.
As a resident of National City, I would like to apologize to the
members of the Board whom our mayor insulted at the recent meeting
about the RHNA numbers. You will recall that when the choices of 14
leaders were about to be obliterated by yet another weighted vote,
Ms. Solis chimed in with comment implying that those who were
considering exiting the meeting were being petulant, using the
juvenile phrase, "....well frankly this just says something about
you!"
Some of us in National City understand that the whole point of
SANDAG is to be a collaborative regional body that respects each
jurisdiction.
Ironically, Ms. Solis has a history of trying to censure, accuse of
racism, and in some cases get restraining orders against anyone who
says things which displease her. In other words, as kids say on the
playground, she loves to dish it out but can't take it.
Additionally, we regret that Ms. Solis continues to open comments
to SANDAG with "Hola, buenos dias", or other phrases in Spanish. We
have tried explaining to Ms. Solis that the other elected officials
on the board are very intelligent, often hold masters or doctorate
degrees, and are not impressed by her knowledge of conversational
Spanish. Given that the Mexican consul addresses the Board in
English you would think that Ms. Solis could do likewise.
So, sorry about that. We'll try to do better in 2022.
-Joan Rincon, National City