Howiek wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:21 AM:I suppose reorganization might accomplish some improvements but what really needs to be done is eliminating an UNELECTED government entity that is accountable to no one! What is needed is an elected regional transportation agency—NOT SANDAG! Someday people will realize what a ripoff SANDAG really is!

bob wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:23 AM:Refreshing to read a fact-based opinion article here. Enough with the conjecture and scape goating of others (e.g. immigrants).

GFN wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:43 AM:Thank you, Mr. Crissman. Please keep us updated and let us know what we can do to help.

George wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:47 AM:That $8.88 billion is only about 15% of SANDAG's transportation budget, leaving lots of money to expand other freeways in the county such as 67 (Santee to Ramona), 8 (Ocean Beach to Alpine), 94 (La Mesa to San Diego), plus 5 & 805 (San Diego to San Ysidro). We have the need for expanded freeways. We have the money for expanded freeways. What we don't have is the plan from SANDAG to provide the promised congestion relief on those freeways.

Walt wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:54 PM:About six years ago SANDAG was assigned Integrated Transportation Planning responsibility, including what had been done by the Transit Agencies. Usually that means to measure, analyze and project forward objectively the most cost effective modes of travel, transit, roads etc, etc, to move people and goods and allocate fund requirements accordingly. SANDAG’s Staff has 2-3 decades of experience in such activity. It has presented several options for consideration, and SANDAG Directors have just recently approved a Regional Transportation Plan extending to 2030.
Unfortunately options that would actually reduce congestion have been turned down. The equal 1/3 funds to transit, highways and local roads Mr. Crissman mentions is still the magic formula. That distribution was lashed together over 20 years ago as part of the politics to get voter approval for the original sales tax based TransNet. There was no technical information supporting it then. There is 20 years information now that equal distribution is a serious mistake. The transit third has absorbed less than 2 percent of travelers, and daily road travel growth alone in about 2 years exceeds the total carried by transit. Low utilization has mostly cancelled transit’s energy saving potential. While the current “ $4.00/gal gas” 5 to 10 % increase in transit ridership sounds effective it is still a tiny 0.1% reduction in road savings, easily matched by fuel efficient cars already appearing.
Public surveys starting about 10 years ago recognized the mismatch and have consistently called for re-allocations to more roads. They have been ignored. In preparing the current 2030 transportation Plan, ample evidence for redistribution was presented but turned down. The public has not been shown the more effective options.
The disconnect is that the Integrated Transportation Plan responsibility is not being carried out, and is replaced by an obsession to continue to ask for State and Federal funds to expand ineffective transit. With energy and pollution reductions looming larger, San Diego cannot continue to be misled by an obsolete politically inspired plan.
Objectively managed, integrated transportation planning responsibility SANDAG already has is the right way to go but is not happening. Splitting into separate mode support units will only perpetuate a 20+ year’s mistake.

OCEANSIDER wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:34 PM:RE Howiek comments: This is from the SANDAG website: "SANDAG is governed by a Board of Directors composed of mayors, councilmembers, and county supervisors from each of the region's 19 local governments." Those are the only Directors who can VOTE, the advisory members cannot vote. It appears to me that the voting members of the Board ARE elected officials. Mayors, councilmembers and county supervisors are elected to office by the voters and those officials represent their constituents on the Board.

Bob wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:58 PM:Mr. Crissman - the coinscious of San Diego County. Unfortunately SANDAG is too busy developing eleborate and impractical projects to listen to reason. Try calling their public information office for answers - what used to be a fine, customer-oriented service has been void of assistance for well over a year now... Even is you disagreed with their politics, they were very pleasant and helpful... No longer the case.

Derek wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:58 PM:"$3.5 billion for toll roads and car-pool lanes that segregate the favored few from the rest of us taxpayers"

Just wait till electric cars hit the freeways. Their wealthy owners won't have to pay any gas taxes! Why do rich people get all the tax breaks?

And with the price of gas these days, you may actually save money paying the toll if it means you aren't stuck in stop-and-go traffic. Unless again you're wealthy enough to have an electric car or hybrid with regenerative braking.

Walt wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:08 PM:Fear not Derek. Ways will be found to tax electric cars. And as we shift into automated personal transport to reduce automobile dependency, low income travelers will enjoy the same higher level of service as those who now pay dearly for being "rich".
And we agree on the futility of tolls on HOT lanes. They add to total freeway congestion because the regular lanes have to pick up the HOT lanes underuse.

George wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:02 PM:If I remember correctly, the California Board of Equalization charges an in-lieu-of "use tax" that equals the taxes you would have paid if the alternative fuel vehicle actually used a petroleum fuel. Nice try, though.

George wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:08 PM:Hi, Walt! You're right that the equal sharing of money doesn't really match actual transportation requirements. However, in SANDAG's response to the public comments about the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan it was admitted by the professional planners that only 12% of the budget is being used for freeway congestion relief. Just getting up to the promised one-third would be an improvement! Then we could concentrate on rebalancing the budget to meet our actual needs. For now, just getting them to honor their promises would be a breakthrough of epic proportions.

Derek wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:42 AM:Walt wrote: "[HOT lanes] add to total freeway congestion because the regular lanes have to pick up the HOT lanes underuse."

You say underused, I say uncongested. When HOT lanes have congestion pricing, this gives people an incentive to carpool, take mass transit, and commute at non-peak hours. These all help increase the throughput of the lane, in people per day, over a regular freeway lane.

HOT lanes also help pay for themselves without having to rely so much on sales taxes.

George wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:59 PM:Hi, Derek! The US Census Bureau reported that carpooling in San Diego declined from 2000 to 2004. A second report in 2005 showed another decline in carpooling. The evidence clearly shows that carpool lanes do not encourage carpooling.

The fact that the reversible lanes in the center of I-15 are running at half the capacity of a regular freeway lanes indicates a lot of wasted capacity that directly contributes to gridlock on the freeway. According to the Executive Director of SANDAG, only 60% of the vehicles in those lanes are actually carpooling which means the regular freeway lanes have a greater throughput.

(You want numbers? 400 toll-paying cars plus 600 2-person carpools is 1600 people. A normal lane at full capacity handles 2,200 solo drivers, and that ignores the fact that carpoolers also use the normal lanes.)

We are already paying a Federal gas tax, a State gas tax, a State sales tax (which is calculated after the previous two taxes are added to the cost of the fuel, a tax on a tax), and income taxes to repay the infrastructure bonds. There is no need to charge a toll (a fifth tax) on top of that.

Derek wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:26 PM:George wrote: "The fact that the reversible lanes in the center of I-15 are running at half the capacity of a regular freeway lanes indicates a lot of wasted capacity that directly contributes to gridlock on the freeway. According to the Executive Director of SANDAG, only 60% of the vehicles in those lanes are actually carpooling which means the regular freeway lanes have a greater throughput."

According to Caltrans, California's HOV lanes are running at 2/3 capacity in terms of vehicles per hour, yet they move substantially more people during rush hour (2518 people per lane per hour vs. 1368 to 1938 in a regular lane).

"There is no need to charge a toll (a fifth tax) on top of that."

Which is why freeways shouldn't be paid for with sales taxes or income taxes in the first place. Once you've eliminated those two sources of funding and added the toll, then you're down to three taxes.

George wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:34 PM:Hi, Derek! I was providing statistics for the reversible lanes in the center of I-15, not for the entire state of California. The fact that the number of vehicles and number of passengers in those lanes is less than the statewide average as well as the normal lanes demonstrates fully that they are not working to encourage carpooling and they are not working to relieve congestion, either.

And I agree with your desire to reduce the number of taxes on us and disagree with your desire to add the fifth tax (the toll) to the roadways. The gas tax (Federal and State) provides sufficient money for world-class freeways. If that money wasn't being siphoned off into non-freeway projects, we would not have a congestion problem.

And if you're wondering who is mishandling the freeway money, that would be our regional planning agency, SANDAG.

George wrote on Jul 16, 2008 6:41 PM:One minor factoid: Caltrans defines the maximum capacity of a carpool lane at 1,600 vehicles per hour. A normal lane has a maximum capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour. A carpool lane running at 2/3rds of capacity would handle 1,066 vehicles per hour, which is slightly less than half the capacity of a normal lane. That's why I was careful to say the reversible lanes were running at "half the capacity of a regular freeway lanes". (Looking back, I'd take the "a" out of that quote).

Walt wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:29 PM:Some data from a year's worth of the peak hour performance from Caltrans in all the HOV lanes in LA and Orange Counties. HOV lanes indeed by them selves carry about 35% MORE people than ave for freeways w/o HOV lanes. Freeways with HOV lane attract an increase of about 10% in carpools. However, TOTAL FREEWAY PEOPLE THROUGHPUT, what counts to reduce congestion for HOV lane-equipped freeways is about 8% LOWER than a well established 2,000 vehicle/lane/hour average even at the typical peak hour vehicle occupancy. The HOT lanes on I-15 do no better, and went nearly broke financially when two GP lanes were added. Their "profit" was going to support mass transit as will all HOT lanes under TransNet II. SR-91 in Orange County performance is no better. HOT lanes established on I-75 North of Denver show similar lack of improvement for freeway throughput. Unfortunately leadership from USDOT on down only looks at the HOV/HOT lane flow and does not include the negative impact on the rest of the freeway. HOT lanes water down HOV lane average occupancy because the toll paying vehicles are single occupant. Gross conclusion; HOV/HOT lanes are a net waste of taxpayer money.