ROUTES 67/125 CORRIDOR STUDY...• Widen Route 67 between Mapleview Street and Vigilante Road from a...

ROUTES 67/125

CORRIDOR STUDY

JUNE 2002

This report was financed with federal funds from the

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,

and local funds from SANDAG member jurisdictions.

The contents of this report reflect the views of the San Diego Association of Governments

which is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The

contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of

Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 595-5300

ii

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. The Association builds consensus, makes

strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.

CHAIR: Hon. Ramona Finnila VICE CHAIR: Hon. Ron Morrison

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Gary L. Gallegos

CITY OF CARLSBAD Hon. Ramona Finnila, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Matt Hall, Councilmember CITY OF CHULA VISTA Hon. Shirley Horton, Mayor (A) Hon. Patty Davis, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mary Salas, Councilmember CITY OF CORONADO Hon. Chuck Marks, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Thomas Smisek, Mayor (A) Hon. Phil Monroe, Councilmember CITY OF DEL MAR Hon. Richard Earnest, Councilmember (A) Hon. Crystal Crawford, Councilmember CITY OF EL CAJON Hon. Richard Ramos, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mark Lewis, Mayor CITY OF ENCINITAS Hon. Dennis Holz, Councilmember (A) Hon. Maggie Houlihan, Councilmember CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Lori Pfeiler, Mayor (A) Hon. June Rady, Mayor Pro Tem CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Hon. Diane Rose, Mayor (A) Hon. Mayda Winter, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Patricia McCoy, Councilmember CITY OF LA MESA Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor (A) Hon. Barry Jantz, Councilmember (A) Hon. Rick Knepper, Councilmember CITY OF LEMON GROVE Hon. Mary Sessom, Mayor (A) Hon. Jill Greer, Councilmember CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Hon. Ron Morrison, Councilmember (A) Hon. George H. Waters, Mayor CITY OF OCEANSIDE Hon. Betty Harding, Councilmember (A) Hon. Esther Sanchez, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jack Feller, Deputy Mayor CITY OF POWAY Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Mayor (A) Hon. Don Higginson, Councilmember

(A) Hon. Robert Emery, Councilmember

CITY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Dick Murphy, Mayor (A) Hon. Jim Madaffer, Councilmember

CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Hal Martin, Councilmember (A) Hon. Pia Harris-Ebert, Vice Mayor CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jim Bartell, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jack Dale, Councilmember CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon Joe Kellejian, Councilmember (A) Hon. Marcia Smerican, Mayor (A) Hon. Doug Sheres, Deputy Mayor CITY OF VISTA Hon. Judy Ritter, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Steve Gronke, Councilmember COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Ron Roberts, Supervisor (A) Hon. Bill Horn, Supervisor CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Advisory Member) Jeff Morales, Director (A) Pedro Orso-Delgado, District 11 Director METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (Advisory Member) Leon Williams, Chairman (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Vice Chairman

NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT

DEVELOPMENT BOARD (Advisory Member) Hon. Julianne Nygaard, Chair (A) Hon. Christy Guerin, Board Member U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Liaison Member) CAPT Gary Engle, USN, CEC Commander, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (A) CAPT Ken Butrym, USN, CEC SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (Advisory Member) Jess Van Deventer, Commissioner (A) Frank Urtasun, Commissioner SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (Advisory Member) Hon. Bud Lewis, Director TIJUANA/BAJA CALIFORNIA/MEXICO (Advisory Member) Hon. Rodulfo Figueroa Aramoni Consul General of Mexico

Revised June 25, 2002

iii

ABSTRACT

TITLE: Routes 67/125 Corridor Study

AUTHOR: San Diego Association of Governments

DATE: June 2002

SOURCE OF COPIES:

San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 595-5300

NUMBER OF PAGES:

99

ABSTRACT: The first phase of this study focused on the evaluation ofState Route 67. The study recommendations include thewidening of Route 67 to a four-lane conventional highway between Vigilante Road and Mussey GradeRoad/Dye Road. In addition, the extension of Dye Road, a County road, to connect with San Vicente Road as a two-lane collector is recommended.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Routes 67/125 Corridor Study was prepared with the guidance and assistance of a Policy Advisory Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee.

Members of the Policy Advisory Committee

County of San Diego Hon. Dianne Jacob, Chair

City of Poway Hon. Betty Rexford, Vice-Chair (A) Hon. Jay Goldby (A) Hon. Robert Emery

City of Escondido Hon. Louri Holt Pfeiler (A) Hon. June Rady

City of Santee Hon. Jack Dale Hon. Hal Ryan

Metropolitan Transit Development Board Hon. Lori Howard

City of San Diego Hon. Jim Madaffer

COMCABWEST Lt. Colonel T.J. O’Leary (A) C. Laura Thornton

City of El Cajon Hon. Charles Santos (A) Hon. Bob McClellan

North County Transit District Hon. Marie Waldron (A) Hon. Ed Gallo

Caltrans Pedro Orso-Delgado (A) Gene Pound

Agencies and Organizations of the Technical Advisory Committee

Air Pollution Control District Barona Tribal Office Building Industry Association California Department of Fish & Game California Highway Patrol California Trucking Association Caltrans District 11 City of El Cajon City of Escondido City of Poway City of San Diego City of Santee COMCABWEST, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar

vi

County of San Diego East County Economic Development Council Endangered Habitats League Lakeside Planning Group Metropolitan Transit Development Board Miramar Ranch North Planning Group North County Transit District Ramona Community Planning Group Rancho Bernardo Community Planning Group Sabre Spring Planning Group Scripps Miramar Ranch Planning Group Twin Oaks Valley Sponsor Group U.S. Environmental Protection agency U.S. Federal Highway Administration U.S. Federal Transit Administration U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Navy SANDAG wishes to acknowledge the contribution of the following individuals from Caltrans, District 11, in the preparation of this study:

Chris Thomas, Daniel Ramirez, Advanced Planning Pat Landrum, Chad Lambirth, GIS / Travel Forecasting Branch Mike Brewster, Environmental Branch The following staff of the San Diego Association of Governments contributed to the preparation of this report:

Elisa Arias, Project Manager Gary L. Gallegos, Executive Director Bob Parrott, Deputy Executive Director Eric Pahlke, Director of Transportation Kim Kawada, Manager of Long Range Planning Sookyung Kim, Associate Transportation Planner Ziying Ouyang, Senior Research Technician Tom King, Senior Research Technician

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 3

Improvements to Route 67 ....................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Findings for State Route 67 ...................................................................................... 4

Current Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................ 4 Long-Range Traffic Outlook..................................................................................................... 7 Alternative 1b............................................................................................................................ 7 Level of Service Projections....................................................................................................... 8 Regional Transit Vision ............................................................................................................. 9 Preliminary Cost Estimates........................................................................................................ 9 Environmental Constraints Analysis......................................................................................... 10 Phasing of Proposed Improvements ........................................................................................ 11

PROBLEM STATEMENT Background..................................................................................................................................... 15

Issue 12 – SR 125 North/SR 67 ................................................................................................... 15 Discussion................................................................................................................................... 15

Current Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 17 State Route 67 ........................................................................................................................... 17 Public Transit ............................................................................................................................. 20

Identification of Problems ............................................................................................................. 21 Route 67 Issues and Needs........................................................................................................ 21 Route 125 Issues and Needs...................................................................................................... 22

LONG RANGE TRAFFIC FORECASTS Description of Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 27

Traffic Forecasts......................................................................................................................... 33 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................... 33

Alternatives Retained for Further Study....................................................................................... 33 No Build or Baseline Alternatives............................................................................................. 41 Build Alternatives: State Route 67 ........................................................................................... 41 Build Alternatives: State Route 125 North .............................................................................. 42

Alternatives Considered and Eliminated From Further Study..................................................... 43 Route 125 North Freeway Alternatives......................................................................................... 50 Traffic Forecasts: Summary of Findings......................................................................................... 61

STATE ROUTE 67: ALTERNATIVE 1B Long-Range Traffic Outlook .......................................................................................................... 69 Level of Service Projections............................................................................................................ 73 Regional Transit Vision................................................................................................................... 74 Preliminary Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................. 74

viii

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 79 Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 79 Alternatives..................................................................................................................................... 80 Constraints Analysis by Environmental Issue................................................................................ 80

Sensitive Species and Habitats.................................................................................................. 83 Community Plans and General Plans ....................................................................................... 87 Visual Resources and Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 88 Noise Impact .............................................................................................................................. 89 Socioeconomic Characteristics .................................................................................................. 92 Paleontology.............................................................................................................................. 98 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................. 99

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Route 67 Traffic Volumes (Average Weekday Traffic) ................................................. 7

Table 2 Level of Service (LOS) for Route 67................................................................................ 8

Table 3 Summary of Constraints by Environmental Issue ......................................................... 10

Table 4 Projected Population Growth From 1995 to 2020 Within the Study Area ................. 18

Table 5 Projected Employment Growth From 1995 to 2020 Within the Study Area .............. 19

Table 6 Peak Period Traffic Level of Service (LOS) ..................................................................... 20

Table 7 Alternatives Evaluated.................................................................................................... 28

Table 8 2020 Preliminary Traffic Forecasts (Average Weekday Traffic) ................................... 34

Table 9 2020 Traffic Forecasts (Average Weekday Traffic) ....................................................... 37

Table 10 Route 67 Level of Service Analysis ................................................................................. 40

Table 11 Route 125 North Freeway Alternatives Evaluated ....................................................... 50

Table 12 2020 Traffic Forecasts for Route 125 North Freeway Alternatives (Average Weekday Traffic) ............................................................................................ 63

Table 13 Route 67 Traffic Volumes (Average Weekday Traffic) ................................................. 69

Table 14 Level of Service (LOS) for Route 67................................................................................ 73

Table 15 Summary of Constraints by Environmental Issue ......................................................... 83

Table 16 Traffic Volumes and Modeled Noise Levels .................................................................. 90

Table 17 Minority Population........................................................................................................ 95

Table 18 Median Household Income ............................................................................................ 96

Table 19 Owner/Renter Occupancy............................................................................................... 97

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Proposed Transportation Improvements ...................................................................... 5

Figure 2 Routes 67/125 Corridor Study Area ............................................................................... 16

Figure 3 Route 125 Alignments .................................................................................................... 23

Figure 4 Alignment Alternatives Proposed for Further Evaluation ........................................... 31

Figure 5 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated From Further Study ..................................... 45

Figure 6 Potential Transportation Alternatives: Alternative 16A .............................................. 51

Figure 7 Potential Transportation Alternatives: Alternative 16B............................................... 53

Figure 8 Potential Transportation Alternatives: Alternative 17A .............................................. 55

Figure 9 Potential Transportation Alternatives: Alternative 17B............................................... 57

Figure 10 Potential Transportation Alternatives: Alternative 18................................................. 59

Figure 11 Proposed Transportation Improvements ...................................................................... 71

Figure 12 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 81

Figure 13 Census Tracts ................................................................................................................... 93

RECOMMENDATIONS

3

RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

SANDAG conducted the first phase of the Routes 67/125 Corridor Study during fiscal year 2002. This phase focused on the State Route (SR) 67 corridor, between SR 52 in the City of Santee and SR 78 in the community of Ramona. Policy and Technical Advisory Committees established for this study provided input and direction to SANDAG staff. In January 2002, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved recommendations for the Route 67 corridor and directed staff to consider them in the development of the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). These recommendations, which are described below, have been transmitted to Caltrans,, District 11, and to the County of San Diego.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Initially, the Routes 67/125 Corridor Study set out to evaluate options for accommodating future north-south travel demand east of Interstate 15 (I-15). A few months into the study, the Policy Advisory Committee directed staff to focus the study on improvements to Route 67 and, after completing this evaluation, to examine alternative alignments for a future facility either east or west of I-15. Figure 1 illustrates the Route 67 corridor. A study to evaluate a new and/or expanded north-south transportation corridor is included in SANDAG’s FY 2003 Overall Work Program.

Improvements to Route 67

The 2020 RTP recommended several improvements to Route 67 between its junction with Interstate 8 (I-8) and Vigilante Road, as follows:

• Widen Route 67 between I-8 and State Route 52 from a six-lane to an eight-lane freeway • Widen Route 67 between SR 52 and Mapleview Street from a four-lane to a six-lane freeway • Widen Route 67 between Mapleview Street and Vigilante Road from a two-lane to a four-lane

conventional highway.

The Routes 67/125 Corridor Study recommended the following transportation strategies for Route 67:

a) Widen Route 67 between Vigilante Road and Mussey Grade Road – Dye Road to a four-lane conventional highway with median barriers at selected locations.

b) Provide a southern bypass of Ramona by extending Dye Road east to San Vicente Road as a two-lane collector road. Two possible variations to this extension were considered, as shown in the inset on Figure 1.

4

c) Add a truck climbing lane between Poway Road (post mile 15.2) and Rockhouse Road (post mile 17.7) in the northbound direction to provide an adequate level of service for this segment of Route 67. Addition of a passing lane would improve the projected level of service (LOS) from LOS ”E” to LOS “D.”

d) Add a truck climbing lane from Vigilante Road (post mile 9.25) to the top of the grade (post mile 12.6) in the northbound direction. (Scripps Poway Road is at post mile 13.5.)

e) Retain in the Regional Transportation Plan the widening of Route 67 from a four-lane to a six-lane freeway between the future Route 52 and Mapleview Street. Coordinate improvements to this segment of Route 67 with upcoming changes to the Community of Lakeside’s circulation element.

f) The Regional Transit Vision includes expanded public transit services within the study area and shows Route 67 as a candidate for future high-level transit service between Ramona and Santee. Include strategies for bypass and passing lanes to circumvent potential congestion points in order to maintain the speed required for future transit service.

g) Consider the recommendations from this study in the development of the 2030 RTP. h) Based upon the regional priorities adopted in the 2030 RTP, coordinate with Caltrans, District

11, to continue planning, environmental, engineering, and design studies to implement the RTP recommendations for Route 67.

i) Finally, coordinate with Caltrans, District 11, to continue the District’s planning activities to identify operational and safety improvements for Route 67 that may be implemented in the shorter term.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR STATE ROUTE 67

The Routes 67/125 Corridor Study focused most of its work on evaluating improvements to Route 67 north of Vigilante Road. A total of six alternatives were evaluated for Route 67. Under the recommended Alternative 1b, Route 67 would be widened to a four-lane conventional highway from Vigilante Road to Mussey Grade Road/Dye Road. Dye Road would be extended east, as a two-lane collector road, to connect with San Vicente Road. Figure 1 highlights the improvements proposed under Alternative 1b.

SANDAG evaluated current traffic conditions in the corridor, developed long-range traffic forecasts taking into account proposed transit service, and prepared level of service analyses, preliminary cost estimates, and an environmental constraints analysis.

Current Traffic Conditions

East of Interstate 15 (I-15), Route 67 is the main road that serves north-south travel. Route 67 is a six-lane freeway between Interstate 8 (I-8) and Prospect Avenue. It then transitions to a four-lane freeway north to Mapleview Street. Between Mapleview Street and SR 78, Route 67 is a conventional highway with two to four lanes, including passing lanes.

Currently, Route 67 operates at LOS ”E” and ”F” at peak periods between Mapleview Street - in the community of Lakeside - and Highland Valley Road - in the community of Ramona.

5

Figure 1 - Proposed Transportation Improvements (Please contact SANDAG for a copy of this figure)

7

Long-Range Traffic Outlook

SANDAG prepared long-range regional traffic forecasts for this study. Future population and employment assumptions reflect the 2020 Cities/County forecast, which includes the population targets proposed by the County unincorporated communities. Table 1 shows average weekday traffic for the year 2000 and traffic projections for Route 67 for the year 2020.

Table 1 Route 67 Traffic Volumes

(Average Weekday Traffic)

Route 67 Between 2000

(000s) 2020

(000s)

Route 52 and Riverford Road ---- 86 Woodside Avenue and Riverford Road 64 91 Riverford Road and Winter Gardens Boulevard 50 73 Winter Gardens Boulevard and Mapleview Street 32 59 Mapleview Street and Lakeside Avenue 30 42 Lakeside Avenue and Willow Road 30 38 Willow Road and Vigilante Road 24 29 Vigilante Road and Scripps Poway Parkway 21 31 Scripps Poway Parkway and Poway Road 19 25 Poway Road and Archie Moore Road 25 35 Archie Moore Road and Dye Road/Mussey Grade Road 24 33 Dye Road and Highland Valley Road ---- 32 Highland Valley Road and Montecito Road 27 25 Montecito Road and 10th Street/Route 78 30 32

Sources: SANDAG, San Diego Region Average Weekday Traffic Volumes, 2001

SANDAG, 2020 Traffic Forecasts for Alternative 1b, 2001

Alternative 1b

The Routes 67/125 Corridor study focused most of its work on evaluating improvements to Route 67 north of Vigilante Road. Initially, improvements to Wildcat Canyon Road and widening of Ramona’s Main Street up to Pala Street were considered but were eliminated from further study.

Under Alternative 1b, Route 67 would be widened to four lanes from Vigilante Road to Mussey Grade Road/Dye Road. Dye Road would be extended east to connect with San Vicente Road.

Two potential facility configurations for Route 67 were analyzed: expressway and conventional highway with barriers at selected locations. The evaluation concluded that a four-lane conventional highway between Vigilante Road and the Dye Road extension would meet travel demand on Route 67 and provide an adequate level of service through 2020. An expressway was eliminated from consideration because it would require nearly twice as much right-of-way as a conventional highway, is likely to present more substantial environmental impacts (natural and social), and its cost is estimated at more than double the conventional highway cost.

8

Level of Service Projections

Based upon 2020 traffic forecasts, the future level of service (LOS) of Route 67 was projected. Variables such as speed, lane and shoulder widths, terrain, morning peak directional split, percent of traffic in the peak hour, and percent of truck traffic were considered in the LOS projections for each highway segment. Table 2 shows the existing and projected 2020 LOS for Route 67.

Table 2 Level of Service (LOS) for Route 67

Route 67 Between

Current Facility Type (a)

2000 Projected

LOS

Proposed Facility Type (a)

2020 Projected

LOS

Woodside Avenue to Riverford Road 4F C 6F C Riverford Road to Winter Gardens Boulevard 4F B 4F (b) D

Winter Gardens Boulevard to Mapleview Street 4F B 4F (b) C

Mapleview Street to Willow Road 2C F 4C C

Willow Road to Vigilante Road 2C F 4C C

Vigilante Road to Scripps Poway Parkway 2C F 4C D

Scripps Poway Parkway to Poway Road 2C E 4C C

Poway Road to Archie Moore Road 2C F 4C E

Archie Moore Road to Highland Valley Road 2C F 4C C

Highland Valley Road Dye Road to Pala Street 2C E 2C (c) E

Pala Street to 10th Street/Route 78 4A C 4A C

Sources: SANDAG, 2020 Traffic Forecasts, 2001,

Highway Capacity Software 2000, version 4.1

(a) Facility Type

2C = two-lane conventional highway

4A = four-lane arterial

4C = four-lane conventional highway

4F = four-lane freeway

6F = six-lane freeway

(b) The 2020 RTP includes widening SR 67 between SR 52 and Mapleview Street from a 4-lane to a 6-lane

freeway. Projected 2020 traffic volumes and LOS analysis indicate that the existing 4-lane freeway

segment from Riverford Road to Mapleview Street widening would be able to accommodate the

forecast volumes at LOS”C” and “D.” The study recommended coordinating the proposed improvements

to the segment between Riverford Road and Mapleview Street with upcoming changes to the

Community of Lakeside’s circulation element.

(c) Under Alternative 1b, Route 67 from Highland Valley Road to the junction with Route 78 is assumed to

maintain the existing configuration in 2020.

9

As a four-lane conventional highway, Route 67 would operate at LOS ”C” or “D,” except for two segments, as follows:

• The section from Poway Road to Archie Moore Road would operate at LOS “E.” A passing lane in the northbound direction would improve this section to LOS “D.”

• The segment between Highland Valley Road and Pala Street would remain as a two-lane road, with a center lane under Alternative 1b, and would operate at LOS “E.”

Regional Transit Vision

Future transit service along the Route 67 corridor also was considered in preparing traffic projections. The Regional Transit Vision (RTV), which intends to include a larger role for public transit in the San Diego region, is a collaborative planning effort among the Metropolitan Transit Development Board, the North County Transit District, and SANDAG, among other agencies.

For this study, Regional Transit Vision proposes higher frequency and more attractive transit services. Two “Yellow Car” (regional express) routes were evaluated for service on Route 67. One route would operate from the Routes 67/78 junction in Ramona, south to Scripps Poway Parkway, terminating at the Mira Mesa Bus Rapid Transit station. The other route also would operate from the SR 67/SR 78 junction, south to SR 52, terminating at the El Cajon Transit Center. Additional service from Escondido Transit Center to Ramona also is being considered as well as a local circulator route within Ramona.

For this study, two preliminary scenarios were tested for the Yellow Car routes servicing Route 67. One scenario assumed operations every ten minutes from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. and the other one assumed service every 15 minutes for peak morning and afternoon periods only. Under the more frequent service, the volume of transit ridership is projected at about 1,000 passengers per day in 2020. Under the peak period service only, about 500 daily transit passengers are projected.

Providing four travel lanes on Route 67, as proposed under Alternative 1b, would allow the transit service to operate at speeds of 35 to 40 mph.

Preliminary Cost Estimates

Caltrans, District 11, prepared cost estimates for Alternative 1b. Preliminary estimates indicate that the widening of Route 67 to a four-lane conventional highway from Vigilante Road to Mussey Grade-Dye Road and the extension of Dye Road to San Vicente Road as a two-lane collector road would cost $200 million.

Preliminary cost estimates include construction, support, environmental mitigation, and right-of-way in 2001 dollars. Costs for right-of-way were determined using typical values for land use along general alignments being considered since exact alignments have not yet been identified.

10

Environmental Constraints Analysis

A constraints analysis was conducted to identify potential environmental impacts of the transportation improvements proposed for Route 67. Table 3 summarizes the constraints by environmental issue. The Environmental Constraints Analysis report prepared by EDAW, Inc. documents the analysis and findings.

Table 3 Summary of Constraints by Environmental Issue

Build

Environmental Issue Dye Street Alternative

Dye Road Alternative No Build

Sensitive Species and Habitats ⊗ ⊗ ! Cultural Resources ⊕ ⊕ ! Section 4(f) Resources ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ Existing Land Uses ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ Community Plans and General Plans ! ! ⊕ Growth Inducement ⊕ ⊕ ! Visual Resources and Aesthetics ⊗ ⊗ ! Increase in Traffic ⊕ ⊕ ⊗ Noise Impact ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ Water Quality ⊕ ⊕ ! Socioeconomic Characteristics ! ! ⊕ Paleontology ! ! !

Soils and Geology ⊕ ⊕ ! Air Quality ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ Public Services and Utilities ⊕ ⊕ ! Hazardous Materials ! ! !

Source: Routes 67/125 Corridor Study: Environmental Constraints Analysis, prepared by EDAW, Inc. for

SANDAG, 2001.

! = Minor or No Constraint ⊕ = Moderate Constraint ⊗ = Significant Constraint

11

Phasing of Proposed Improvements

As discussed above, overall improvements to Route 67 from Vigilante Road to the Dye Road extension are estimated to cost $200 million. The approximately 15-mile project could be divided into four segments for future implementation.

Based upon discussions with Caltrans staff from Highway Operations and Advanced Planning, analysis of data on current operations, and on projections of future travel by segment, the following priorities are proposed for Alternative 1b:

Priority Number Route 67 Segment.

1 Vigilante Road to Scripps Poway Parkway 2 Archie Moore Road to Dye Road-San Vicente Road Extension 3 Poway Road to Archie Moore Road 4 Scripps Poway Parkway to Poway Road

Recommendations regarding phasing of improvements for Route 67 proposed under Alternative 1b may be superseded when the evaluation of regional highway projects is conducted as part of the development of the 2030 RTP, which would take into account available funding as well as regional goals and priorities.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

15

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The Routes 67/125 Corridor Study set out to identify existing and projected transportation issues for north-south travel in the corridor east of Interstate 15. The study identified existing and anticipated transportation problems with the objective of recommending possible solutions to solve those problems and needs.

Figure 2 illustrates the study area. Its boundaries are as follows:

• West boundary: Interstate 15 • North boundary: Deer Springs Road • East boundary: Wildcat Canyon Road • South boundary: State Route 52

The following sections in this chapter review the background, and the current conditions, as well as issues and needs identified by the Policy and Technical Advisory Committees.

BACKGROUND

During the development of the 2020 RTP, SANDAG identified several issue areas to assist in the preparation of the RTP. One of the RTP papers summarized issues associated with the SR 125 North/SR 67 Corridor and recommended that SANDAG conduct a transportation corridor study. This paper is included below.

Issue 12 - SR 125 North/SR 67

How should the north-south travel demand be accommodated in the corridor east of Interstate 15?

12. A transportation corridor study should be undertaken to evaluate the need for transportation improvements in the corridor encompassing State Route 67 to the east. This effort would evaluate the potential expansion of SR 67, the deletion of, or alternative alignments for SR 125, and other potential routes.

Discussion

State Route 125 North was included in SANDAG's first RTP in 1975 as a freeway extending north and west from Route 52 to Interstate 15. The proposed alignment crossed the San Diego River at what is now the City of Santee and continued north along Fanita Parkway around the east of MCAS Miramar to the then unincorporated community of Poway, where it became SR 56. The route then turned to the northwest and interchanged with I-15 at what is now Camino Del Norte. The primary purpose of SR 125 North was to help relieve forecast congestion on I-15.

16

Figure 2 - Study Area

(Please contact SANDAG for a copy of this figure)

17

One of the early actions taken by the City of Poway following its incorporation in 1980 was the deletion of SR 125 through most of its jurisdiction. Based upon this action, and the lower forecast traffic volumes, subsequent RTPs downgraded SR 125 from a freeway to an expressway connecting to Poway's existing road system at the intersection of Espola and Poway Roads. With the completion of Scripps Poway Parkway, the City of Poway has indicated that the northern terminus of SR 125 should be Scripps Poway Parkway.

As part of the proposed Fanita Ranch development, the City of Santee deleted SR 125 from its jurisdiction, leaving the route without a southern connection. Although the development proposal subsequently was overturned by a referendum, it is likely that SR 125 will be truncated within Santee. The City of San Diego has indicated a willingness to terminate SR 125 at the Mast Boulevard interchange with SR 52 and route it north through East Elliott, thus avoiding the City of Santee. However, the lack of route continuity with SR 125 to the south and the "T" intersections at both SR 52 and Scripps Poway Parkway create a somewhat non-functional route alignment.

Initial twenty-year forecasts for SR 125 as a full freeway connecting to I-15 were over 60,000 average daily trips. The current 2020 traffic forecast for SR 125 in its truncated form is only 25,000 average daily trips. This traffic volume could be accommodated on a four-lane arterial street and would not require a six-lane expressway. Additionally, with forecast traffic volumes of 25,000 trips, SR 125's impact on relieving congestion on I-15 is minimal.

The changes made to SR 125 over the past 25 years have significantly compromised its effectiveness as a potential regional transportation route. As a consequence, it is proposed that SANDAG undertake a transportation corridor study to evaluate other options for accommodating north-south travel east of I-15. This effort would evaluate the potential expansion of State Route 67, the deletion of, or alternative alignments of SR 125, other potential routes in this corridor, and other transportation modes. All alternatives would be evaluated for consistency with regional growth management objectives.

CURRENT CONDITIONS

State Route 67

Route 67 currently is experiencing high levels of traffic congestion and delay at peak periods. The 2020 RTP recommended several long-range improvements for Route 67 between Interstate 8 and Vigilante Road. However, with the expected population and employment growth in the San Diego region, transportation alternatives that would accommodate future traffic in areas east of I-15 need to be considered, taking into account potential impacts to growth management, the environment, engineering feasibility, and funding. Table 4 shows the projected population growth to 2020 within the study area, while Table 5 depicts projected employment growth.

East of I-15, Route 67 is the main road that serves north-south travel. Route 67 is a six-lane freeway between I-8 and Prospect Avenue; it then transitions to a four-lane freeway up to Mapleview Street. The 2020 RTP identified additional expansion of the segment between Mapleview Street and Vigilante Road, which would be widened to four lanes.

18

Table 4 Projected Population Growth From 1995 to 2020 Within the Study Area

Jurisdiction/Community PlanningArea (CPA)/Sponsor Group

1995 Population

2020 Population

Numeric Increase

1995-2020 % Increase1995-2020

City of Escondido 117,525 143,228 25,703 22%

City of Poway 45,161 52,031 8,177 18%

City of Santee 53,593 74,856 21,263 40%

City of San Diego Carmel Mountain Ranch CPA 10,377 12,157 1,780 17% East Elliott CPA 0 0 1,033 ---- Miramar Air Station 4,562 4,310 252 6% Miramar Ranch North CPA 1,615 14,227 12,612 781% Rancho Bernardo CPA 39,277 43,787 4,510 11% Sabre Springs CPA 4,618 15,274 10,656 231% San Pasqual CPA 419 425 6 1% Scripps Miramar Ranch CPA 19,031 22,124 3,130 16%

County of San Diego Barona Planning Area 409 521 112 27% Hidden Meadows Sponsor Group 7,106 10,004 2,898 41% North County Metro (remainder) 40,328 65,442 25,114 62% Lakeside Planning Group 55,392 70,023 14,631 26% Ramona Planning Group 30,918 52,060 21,142 68%

Source: SANDAG, 2020 Cities/County Forecast for the San Diego Region, 1999

19

Table 5 Projected Employment Growth From 1995 to 2020 Within the Study Area

Jurisdiction/Community Planning

Area (CPA)/Sponsor Group

1995

Employment

2020

Employment

Numeric Increase

1995-2020 % Increase

1995-2020

City of Escondido 45,809 63,431 17,622 38%

City of Poway 14,432 38,776 24,344 169%

City of Santee 14,738 22,570 7,832 53%

City of San Diego

Carmel Mountain Ranch CPA 7,384 11,256 3,872 52%

East Elliott CPA 0 0 0 ----

Miramar Air Station 6,094 5,507 -587 10%

Miramar Ranch North CPA 112 3,033 2,921 2,608%

Rancho Bernardo CPA 20,400 28,814 8,414 41%

Sabre Springs CPA 1,132 3,157 2,025 179%

San Pasqual CPA 760 760 0 0%

Scripps Miramar Ranch CPA 8,740 11,728 2,988 34%

County of San Diego

Barona Planning Area 804 804 0 0%

Hidden Meadows Sponsor Group 1,358 1,423 65 5%

North County Metro (remainder) 7,052 11,006 3,954 56%

Lakeside CPA 8,839 15,772 6,933 78%

Ramona CPA 6,595 11,376 4,781 72%

Source: SANDAG, 2020 Cities/County Forecast for the San Diego Region, 1999

By the year 2020, the RTP travel analysis projects a 34 percent increase in total trips and a 47 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled in the San Diego region. One of the most congested freeways is I-15, which runs north-south in the eastern portion of the region. Major improvements to I-15 are planned, such as the construction of managed lanes in the median of the freeway for use by high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), buses (Bus Rapid Transit) and possibly FasTrak customers. These improvements will help relieve congestion along I-15; however, segments of I-15 north of Route 52 still are expected to experience traffic volumes between 360,000 and 410,000 vehicles per day, leading to Level of Service (LOS) “F.”

To the east of I-15 and north of Route 52, Route 67 is the principal road that accommodates north-south travel. It traverses the community of Lakeside, the eastern section of the City of Poway, and the community of Ramona. Currently, segments north of Mapleview Street experience LOS “E” to “F” during the AM peak and LOS of “F” in the PM peak periods. A list of selected segments is presented in Table 6.

20

Table 6 Peak Period Traffic Level of Service (LOS)

Location Length (miles) Peak

2000 Estimated

LOS

AM E-F Mapleview Street to Vigilante Road 7.54

PM F AM E

Vigilante Road to Scripps Poway Road 3.55 PM F AM E

Scripps Poway Road to Poway Road 2.40 PM F AM E-F

Poway Road to Highland Valley Road/Dye Road 6.15 PM F AM F

Highland Valley Road/Dye Road to Day Street 8.71 PM F AM D-E

Day Street to SR 78 3.50 PM F

Source: Caltrans, 2000 Peak Period Traffic Report

Public Transit

Currently, there are many public transit services within the study area, including fixed route express and local as well as demand response or Dial-A-Ride (DAR) service for both general purpose and specialized ADA services. Express routes include routes that run north-south along Interstate 15 and east-west along State Route 78.

In addition to serving commuters along the north-south corridor, the North County Transit District (NCTD) also provides service along the east-west corridor. Route 302 is a major route serving Oceanside on the coast to Vista, San Marcos and Escondido. With approximately 6,533 passengers daily, this route carries the highest number of passengers of all NCTD routes. Route 320 (Highway 78 Express) is an express route that runs east-west connecting Oceanside at the Oceanside Transit Center with Escondido at the North County Fair Transit Center. Daily ridership in FY 2001 reached 2,611 passengers.

CTS Poway Transit Service provides service within the City of Poway, and also to the communities of Rancho Penasquitos and Rancho Bernardo in the City of San Diego. Route 844 operates in the counter-clockwise direction, and Route 845 operates in the clockwise direction. The routes carried approximately 1,030 daily riders in FY 2001.

21

Santee Local Service is provided by the County Transit System (CTS) as part of the East County Suburban fixed route service. Routes 831, 832, 833, and 834 operate within the City, with the Santee Town Center serving as the central point. All of the routes operate every 30 minutes during weekday peak periods and every 60 minutes during off peak and weekends. Daily ridership ranged from 177 to 593 passengers per day in FY 2001.

In addition to fixed route bus service, the Orange Line Trolley provides transit service between downtown San Diego and the Santee Transit Center.

In the unincorporated areas of the County, specialized service is provided. CTS operates the Rural Service Routes 878 and 879, which provide ‘lifeline’ transportation service to rural area residents. Service area population is approximately 82,000 people spread out over 2,800 square miles in the eastern portion of the County. The rural service is utilized mainly by elderly and transit-dependent residents for medical, business, and social trips to the metropolitan area.

Rural service consists of one round trip per day on each route inbound from the back country to El Cajon and Escondido in the morning, and one outbound trip on each route in the afternoon. The Southeast Rural Bus operates two trips into the El Cajon/La Mesa area seven days a week. The Northeast Rural Bus operates one trip per day, seven days per week into the El Cajon/La Mesa areas. Additionally, the Northeast Rural operates one trip per day, Tuesday through Saturday, into the Escondido area.

Another specialized service provided by NCTD is the Ramona FAST (Fast And Simple Transportation), which is a local curb-to-curb service within Ramona where passengers phone in service requests at least one hour before they wish to travel. Annual ridership on this route was approximately 84,306 passengers in FY 2001.

IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS

The following issues and needs related to the Routes 67/125 corridor were identified by the Advisory Committees.

Route 67 Issues and Needs

• As shown in Table 6, the current roadway’s LOS ranges from “E” to “F” in certain segments of Route 67 north of Route 52.

• The communities of Lakeside and Ramona have expressed concerns about the safety of Route 67. Though Route 67 starts at the southern end as a six-lane freeway (between I-8 and Prospect Avenue), it transitions into variations of a four-lane freeway to a two-lane conventional highway with passing lanes in some segments. Rolling terrain and numerous ingress/egress points contribute to potentially hazardous conditions, especially in areas where vehicles are travelling at high speeds.

22

• There are only two major accessways in and out of Ramona: Routes 67 and 78. Route 67 connects Ramona to I-8 at the southern end to El Cajon and connects with Route 78 at the northern end to Escondido. Wildcat Canyon Road also provides access to the Barona Indian Reservation and the community of Ramona.

• The communities of Lakeside and Ramona have expressed concerns that Route 67 is being used by non-area residents as an alternative to I-15.

• Route 67 is surrounded by sensitive vegetation. There are areas east of Route 67 that are identified as “pre-approved mitigation areas,” which means that developments can take place but impacts must be mitigated.

Route 125 Issues and Needs

In the mid-1970s, Route 125 North was envisioned as a freeway running north and west from Route 52 to I-15. The proposed alignment at the time crossed the San Diego River, ran parallel to Santee Lakes, and continued north along Fanita Parkway around the eastern edge of MCAS Miramar to the unincorporated community of Poway, where it became Route 56. The route then turned to the northwest and joined I-15 at what is now the Camino del Norte interchange. Figure 3 illustrates previous proposed alignments for Route 125 North.

Issues impairing the potential development of Route 125 North include:

• Both the Cities of Santee and Poway incorporated in 1980 and deleted portions of Route 125 North from their respective jurisdiction‘s circulation elements. The City of Poway deleted the segment north of Scripps Poway Parkway.

• The potential impact of Route 125 North on relieving congestion off I-15 is minimal in its current conceptual alignment. As a full freeway connecting to I-15 (initial 1975 RTP), over 60,000 average daily trips were forecast. In the current truncated form, only 25,000 average daily trips are projected.

• Potential alignments of Route 125 North would traverse environmentally sensitive lands. Major vegetation types and sensitive species inhabit the areas north of Route 52 between I-15 and Route 67. Some of the area has been designated as ‘Conserved’ by the individual jurisdictions and others have been identified as areas proposed for conservation.

• The Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar is located in an ecologically sensitive area and prepared the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) in May 2000 (subject to annual review). The INRMP’s purpose is to integrate the Station’s land use needs, in support of the military mission, with the management and conservation of natural resources. The INRMP is a guide to achieve the Marine Corps’ natural resources management goals to support military operational requirements of the Station; and complies with the regulatory and planning processes of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Marine Corps has stated its opposition to encroachments of its Miramar Air Station but the Community Plans and Liaison office has participated in this study.

23

Figure 3 - Route 125 Alignments


LONG RANGE TRAFFIC FORECASTS

27

LONG RANGE TRAFFIC FORECASTS

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

In addition to two No Build or baseline scenarios, eighteen potential transportation alternatives were considered, which can be grouped into two main categories: (a) improvements to SR 67 as a four-lane conventional highway, and (b) various alignments for SR 125 North as a four-lane expressway.

The SR 67 improvements included widening SR 67 to a four-lane conventional highway, widening Wildcat Canyon Road, extending SR 67 to connect to I-15 at the West Bernardo Drive-Pomerado Road, or at SR 78, or at Deer Springs Road.

The potential alignments of SR 125 North included an expressway from SR 52 to Scripps Poway Parkway (with a southern terminus either west of Mast Boulevard or a continuous facility along Fanita Parkway); new alignments of SR 125 North from SR 52 connecting to I-15 at several locations, such as Camino del Norte, or West Bernardo Drive-Pomerado Road, or SR 78, or Deer Springs Road; and new alignments of SR 125 North with an east-west connection to SR 67.

The initial set of alternatives is outlined in Table 7. Of the 18 build alternatives, six were retained after the preliminary evaluation (shown in bold) and 12 were eliminated from further study. The alternatives that were maintained included two options for widening Route 67, the widening of Wildcat Canyon Road, two expressway alignments of Route 125 North from Route 52 to Scripps Poway Parkway, and an expressway alignment of Route 125 North from the I-15/Miramar Way interchange to Scripps Poway Parkway-Pomerado Road. Figure 4 illustrates these six alternatives.

All alternatives included the transportation improvements proposed for Route 67 in the 2020 RTP 1, except for No Build, Alternative 1. As mentioned above, the improvements to SR 67 assume widening to a four-lane conventional highway, and the alignments for SR 125 North represent a four-lane expressway.

1 The 2020 RTP includes the following improvements on Route 67:

- Widening SR 67 between I-8 and SR 52 from six to eight lanes

- Widening SR 67 between SR 52 and Mapleview Street from four to six lanes

- Widening SR 67 between Mapleview Street and Vigilante Road from two to four lanes conventional

highway

28

Table 7 Alternatives Evaluated

Description of Alternative Notes

No Build or Baseline

Alternative 1 Existing Route 67 network (year 2000)

No 2020 RTP improvements to Route 67. No SR 125 North.

Alternative 2 Routes 67 network with 2020 RTP improvements

No SR 125 North.

Widen Route 67 between I-8 and Vigilante Road

Build 2

Alternative 1a Widen Route 67 from Vigilante Road to SR 78

No SR 125 North.

Alternative 1b Widen Route 67 from Vigilante Road to Mussey Grade Road

No SR 125 North. Dye Road extension to San Vicente Road as a two-lane collector road.

Alternative 2 Route 67 extension to the I-15/Route 78 junction in Escondido

No SR 125 North.

Widen Route 67 between Vigilante Road and Archie Moore Road Route 67 extension (Archie Moore Road, new alignment to Route 78/Broadway via Cloverdale).

Alternative 3 Route 67 extension to the I-15/Deer Springs Road interchange north of Escondido

No SR 125 North.

Widen Route 67 between Vigilante Road and Archie Moore Road. Route 67 extension (Archie Moore Road, new alignment to Deer Springs Road via Route 78, Cloverdale).

Alternative 4 Route 67 extension to the I-15/West Bernardo Drive-Pomerado Road interchange

No SR 125 North.

Widen Route 67 between Vigilante Road and Archie Moore Road Route 67 extension (Archie Moore Road, Highland Valley Road, to Pomerado Road).

Alternative 5 Widen Wildcat Canyon Road to a four-lane road

No SR 125 North. Widen Willow Road between Route 67 and Wildcat Canyon Road. Widen and extend Wildcat Canyon Road to San Vicente Road. Widen San Vicente Road/10th Street to Route 67/Main Street.

2 Alternative 6 (Widening Route 67 from Vigilante Road to SR 78, with increased transit service) was not

evaluated separately. Enhanced transit service was analyzed for Alternative 1b.

Alternative 14 (increased transit service on Route 125 North) was not evaluated.

29

Table 7

Alternatives Evaluated (Continued)


Alternative7a Route 125 North to Scripps Poway Parkway

Route 125 North along Sycamore Canyon to Scripps Poway Parkway Southern terminus connecting to Route 125 Fanita section.

Alternative 7b Route 125 North to Scripps Poway Parkway

Route 125 North along Sycamore Canyon to Scripps Poway Parkway Southern terminus connecting at Route 52 west of Mast Boulevard interchange.

Alternative 8 Route 125 North to I-15/ Camino del Norte interchange

Route 125 North from Route 52 via Espola Road, Twin Peaks Road, Camino del Norte to I-15.

Alternative 9 Route 125 North via Espola Road to I-15/ West Bernardo Drive-Pomerado Road interchange

Route 125 North from Route 52 via Espola Road, new alignment to Highland Valley Road, Pomerado Road to I-15.

Alternative 10a Route 125 North and east-west connection to Route 67

Route 125 North from Route 52 via Sycamore Canyon Road to Espola Road east-west alignment south of Ramona Lake to Route 67. Widen Route 67 from Archie Moore Road to SR 78.

Alternative 10b Route 125 North and east-west connection to Route 67

Route 125 expressway from Route 52 via Sycamore Canyon Road to Espola Road, east-west alignment south of Mt. Woodson (High Valley Road-Mina de Oro Road to Route 67). Widen Route 67 from Archie Moore Road to SR 78.

Alternative 11 Route 125 North to the I-15/Route 78 junction in Escondido

Route 125 North from Route 52 to Route 67 extension (Alternative 2).

Alternative 12 Route 125 North to the I-15/Deer Springs Road interchange north of Escondido

Route 125 North from Route 52 to Route 67 extension (Alternative 3).

Alternative 13a Route 125 North to Scripps Poway Parkway/Pomerado

Route 125 North from Route 52 via Pomerado Road (North of Spring Canyon Road) to Scripps Poway Parkway.

30

Table 7 Alternatives Evaluated (Continued)


Alternative 13b Route 125 North to Scripps Poway Parkway/Pomerado

Route 125 North from I-15/SR 163 via Pomerado Road (North of Spring Canyon Road) to Scripps Poway Parkway.

Alternative 13c Route 125 North to Scripps Poway Parkway/Pomerado

Route 125 North from I-15/Miramar Way via Pomerado Road (North of Spring Canyon Road) to Scripps Poway Parkway.

Alternative 15 Route 125 North from I-15/ SR 163 interchange to I-15-Route 78 interchange in Escondido

Route 125 North from I-15/SR 163 via Pomerado Road(north of Spring Canyon Road), east-west alignment connecting to Scripps Poway Parkway. Widen Route 67 between Vigilante Road and Route 67 extension south of Archie Moore Road. Route 67 extension (new north-south alignment south of Archie Moore Road to Route 78/Broadway via Cloverdale).

31

Figure 4 - Alignment Alternatives Proposed for Further Evaluation


33

Traffic Forecasts

SANDAG’s regional transportation model was used to prepare traffic projections to the year 2020. The land use inputs represent the 2020 Cities/County Forecast with revised County targets (June 2000) used in the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

The road network reflects the improvements included in the 2020 RTP. Future roads planned for in the Cities and County circulation elements also are reflected in the network. Table 8 shows forecast volumes for selected highway and arterial segments for the No Build alternatives and Build Alternatives 1 through 5. Table 9 presents similar data for the No Build alternatives and for Build Alternatives 7 through 15. These volumes reflect the initial traffic forecasting conducted in December 2000 and January 2001.

Summary of Findings

The 2020 traffic forecasts prepared for this study considered the planned improvements to the I-15 corridor, which would increase capacity substantially between Route 163 and Route 78 with the construction of auxiliary lanes and three to four High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Managed Lanes.

All the alignments analyzed would have a minor effect in reducing volumes on the I-15 corridor. The segments from Miramar Way to Mira Mesa Boulevard would experience the largest expected reduction in volumes. Daily traffic would decrease by 9,000 to 10,000 vehicles out of a total ADT ranging between 350,000 and 405,000 vehicles, or up to three percent reduction. Results from the Route 125 North alignment evaluated under Alternative 13c indicate possible relief on arterials leading to the I-15 corridor south of Scripps Poway Parkway.

Analyses of the Route 67 traffic projections indicate a fairly set travel demand to and from the community of Ramona. Projected traffic volumes ranging from 25,000 to nearly 40,000 daily trips remain basically constant across the alternatives evaluated.

However, the level of future improvements to Route 67 may vary depending upon whether additional capacity is built on other routes (i.e., Route 125 North, Wildcat Canyon Road). Level of service analyses for Route 67 were performed under various scenarios to aid in establishing the future capacity requirements of this highway. These results are shown in Table 10, on page 40.

ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Based upon the analysis of the traffic projections and preliminary cost estimates, No Build Alternative 2 and Build Alternatives 1a, 1b, 5, 7a, 7b, and 13c were retained for further evaluation. Table 10 shows the projected average daily traffic (ADT) in 2020 for SR 67 and corresponding Level of Service (LOS).

Table 8Routes 67/125 Corridor Study

2020 Preliminary Traffic Forecasts (Average Weekday Traffic in thousands)

No Build

AlternativesBuild Alternatives

Road Segment between Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 1a Alt. 1b Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5

Interstate 15 Route 52 Route 163 257 260 259 259 258 259 257 256Route 163 Miramar Way 405 408 408 408 407 407 407 404Miramar Way Miramar/Pomerado Rd. 401 403 402 402 401 402 402 399Miramar/Pomerado Rd. Carroll Canyon Rd. 364 366 365 365 364 365 364 362Carroll Canyon Rd. Mira Mesa Blvd. 352 353 352 352 352 353 352 350Mira Mesa Blvd. Mercy Rd./Scripps Poway Pkwy. 342 343 342 343 342 343 342 340Mercy Rd./Scripps Poway Pkwy. Poway Rd. 324 325 325 325 325 324 325 322Poway Rd. Ted Williams Pkwy./Route 56 270 272 272 272 272 271 272 269Ted Williams Pkwy./Route 56 Carmel Mountain Rd. 336 337 336 336 335 334 336 334Carmel Mountain Rd. Camino del Norte 316 317 316 316 315 314 316 314Camino del Norte Bernardo Center Dr. 305 307 305 305 304 303 305 304Bernardo Center Dr. Rancho Bernardo Rd. 267 268 266 266 264 264 266 266Rancho Bernardo Rd. Pomerado Dr./W Bernardo Dr. 276 277 276 276 274 274 276 276Pomerado Dr./W Bernardo Dr. Via Rancho Pkwy./Bear Vly. 298 299 299 299 293 293 300 298Via Rancho Pkwy./Bear Vly. Centre City Pkwy. 291 290 291 291 285 285 293 290Centre City Pkwy. Citracado Pkwy. 242 242 243 243 241 241 244 242Citracado Pkwy. 9th Ave. 223 224 224 224 222 221 225 2239th Ave. Bear Valley Pkwy. 217 219 219 219 217 217 220 217Bear Valley Pkwy. Route 78 186 191 191 191 190 190 191 187Route 78 El Norte Pkwy. 164 163 166 166 166 165 166 161El Norte Pkwy. Centre City Pkwy. 145 147 148 148 148 147 148 145Centre City Pkwy. Deer Springs Rd. 125 127 127 127 127 125 127 124

Route 67 Route 52 Riverford Rd. 84 89 88 88 88 88 88 89Woodside Ave. Riverford Rd. 90 94 94 94 94 94 94 94Riverford Rd. Winter Gardens Blvd. 72 76 76 76 76 76 76 76Winter Gardens Blvd. Mapleview St. 58 63 62 62 62 62 62 63Mapleview St. Lakeside Ave. 35 44 44 44 45 45 44 46Lakeside Ave. Willow Rd. 32 39 40 40 40 40 39 41Willow Rd. Vigilante Rd. 24 30 33 33 33 33 32 29Vigilante Rd. Scripps Poway Pkwy 30 31 32 32 33 33 32 29Scripps Poway Pkwy. Poway Rd. 23 24 26 26 26 26 26 21Poway Rd. Archie Moore Rd. 34 35 38 38 38 38 37 31

Source: SANDAG, Preliminary 2020 Traffic Forecasts, December 2000.



No Build



Route 67 Archie Moore Rd. Dye Rd./Mussey Grade 31 33 36 35 35 35 35 28Dye Rd. Highland Valley Rd. 25 23 26 24 25 25 25 23Highland Valley Rd. Montecito Rd. 25 24 25 25 24 24 25 24Montecito Rd. 10th St./Route 78 31 32 33 33 32 32 33 31

Route 125 North I-15/Miramar Way Pomerado Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----I-15/Route 163 Pomerado Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----Route 52 Pomerado Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----Route 52 Scripps Poway Pkwy. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----Scripps Poway Pkwy. Poway Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----N/Espola Rd. Highland Valley Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----Highland Valley Rd. Via Rancho Pkwy. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

North-South Route 67 Extension Highland Valley Rd. Cloverdale ---- ---- ---- ---- 25 25 ---- ----

Cloverdale Valley ---- ---- ---- ---- 15 15 ---- ----North Broadway Mountain Meadow ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 12 ---- ----

East-West Route 67 Extension South of Ramona Lake Route 67 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

South of Mt. Woodson Route 67 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Route 52 I-15 Santo Road 134 133 133 133 133 132 133 132Santo Road Mast Blvd. 119 117 118 118 118 117 118 117Mast Blvd. Mission Gorge Rd./Route 125 115 114 114 114 114 113 115 114Route 125 Cuyamaca St 125 127 124 124 123 123 124 124Cuyamaca St Route 67 109 110 108 108 108 107 108 108

Archie Moore Rd. Route 67 Highland Valley Rd. 6 6 6 6 12 12 9 6

Dye Rd. Route 67 Ramona St. 8 12 11 12 11 11 10 7

Espola Road Poway Rd. Twin Peaks Rd. 14 14 17 17 16 16 16 15Twin Peaks Rd. Pomerado Rd. 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21




No Build



Highland Valley Rd. Pomerado Rd. Route 125 North ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----Route 125 North Bandy Canyon Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----Pomerado Rd. Bandy Canyon Rd. 9 12 10 10 6 6 14 8Bandy Canyon Rd. SA 603 10 14 12 12 5 5 15 9SA 603 Archie Moore Rd. 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 3Archie Moore Rd. Route 67 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3

Moreno Ave. Willow Rd. Vigilante Rd. 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Mountain Meadow I-15 N. Centre City 20 21 21 21 20 23 21 19

Pomerado Road I-15 Scripps Ranch Blvd. 38 39 39 39 39 39 39 39Scripps Ranch Blvd. Spring Canyon Rd. 25 27 26 26 25 25 26 27Spring Canyon Rd. Scripps Poway Pkwy. 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17Scripps Poway Pkwy. Poway Rd. 24 24 25 25 25 24 24 24Poway Rd. Ted Williams Pkwy. 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29Ted Williams Pkwy. Camino del Norte/Twin Peaks 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29Camino del Norte/Twin Peaks Rancho Bernardo Rd. 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24Rancho Bernardo Rd. Highland Valley Rd. 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19Highland Valley Rd. I-15 30 33 32 32 28 28 34 30

Poway Rd. Espola Rd. Route 67 24 24 26 26 24 25 25 24

Rancho Bernardo Rd. I-15 Pomerado Rd. 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 41

SA 603 Highland Valley Rd. Rangeland Rd. 6 9 7 7 16 16 10 5Rangeland Rd. Pine St. 3 4 4 4 9 9 5 3

Scripps Poway Pkwy. Stowe Dr. Route 67 30 31 32 32 31 31 31 30Stowe Dr. Route 125 North --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----Route 125 North Route 67 --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Wildcat Canyon Rd. Willow Rd. Old Barona Rd. 19 19 18 18 18 18 19 24Old Barona Rd. San Vicente Rd. 14 15 14 14 14 14 14 19

Willow Rd. Route 67 Wildcat Canyon Rd. 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 16



2020 Traffic Forecasts (Average Weekday Traffic in thousands)

No Build

Build Alternatives

Road Segment between Alt. 2 Alt. 7a Alt. 7b Alt. 8 Alt. 9 Alt. 10aAlt. 10b Alt. 11 Alt. 12 Alt. 13aAlt. 13bAlt. 13c Alt. 15

Interstate 15 Route 52 Route 163 260 251 252 250 250 250 250 251 251 254 260 255 259Route 163 Miramar Way 408 399 398 397 397 397 397 397 397 401 394 411 391Miramar Way Miramar/Pomerado Rd. 403 393 392 392 391 391 392 391 391 396 388 388 385Miramar/Pomerado Rd. Carroll Canyon Rd. 366 357 356 354 354 354 354 354 354 358 353 353 350Carroll Canyon Rd. Mira Mesa Blvd. 353 345 345 342 342 343 342 342 342 346 342 341 339Mira Mesa Blvd. Mercy Rd./Scripps Poway Pkwy. 343 337 336 335 334 335 335 334 334 339 336 335 332Mercy Rd./Scripps Poway Pkwy. Poway Rd. 325 320 320 318 317 318 318 317 317 323 321 324 318Poway Rd. Ted Williams Pkwy./Route 56 272 268 268 267 266 268 267 266 266 271 272 273 269Ted Williams Pkwy./Route 56 Carmel Mountain Rd. 337 335 335 334 332 335 333 331 331 337 338 337 335Carmel Mountain Rd. Camino del Norte 317 315 315 314 313 316 314 312 311 317 318 318 315Camino del Norte Bernardo Center Dr. 307 305 305 305 301 307 304 299 299 307 307 307 303Bernardo Center Dr. Rancho Bernardo Rd. 268 266 266 267 263 266 266 261 261 267 268 268 264Rancho Bernardo Rd. Pomerado Dr./W Bernardo Dr. 277 276 276 277 273 277 276 271 270 277 277 277 274Pomerado Dr./W Bernardo Dr. Via Rancho Pkwy./Bear Vly. 299 298 298 299 300 301 298 293 292 299 299 299 293Via Rancho Pkwy./Bear Vly. Centre City Pkwy. 290 291 290 291 291 292 291 286 285 289 290 290 285Centre City Pkwy. Citracado Pkwy. 242 242 242 243 244 245 243 241 240 243 243 243 240Citracado Pkwy. 9th Ave. 224 223 223 223 225 225 223 222 222 223 223 223 2229th Ave. Bear Valley Pkwy. 219 217 217 218 219 220 218 218 217 218 219 218 217Bear Valley Pkwy. Route 78 191 188 188 191 192 192 191 189 189 192 190 190 189Route 78 El Norte Pkwy. 163 162 161 166 166 167 166 166 165 166 166 166 165El Norte Pkwy. Centre City Pkwy. 147 145 145 148 148 148 148 148 147 148 148 148 148Centre City Pkwy. Deer Springs Rd. 127 124 124 127 127 127 127 127 125 127 127 127 127

Route 67 Route 52 Riverford Rd. 89 79 79 80 80 79 80 80 80 87 87 88 87Woodside Ave. Riverford Rd. 94 84 84 85 85 84 85 85 85 92 93 93 92Riverford Rd. Winter Gardens Blvd. 76 67 66 67 67 66 67 67 67 74 74 75 74Winter Gardens Blvd. Mapleview St. 63 54 53 54 54 54 54 54 54 60 61 62 61Mapleview St. Lakeside Ave. 44 35 35 31 31 31 31 31 31 35 35 35 45Lakeside Ave. Willow Rd. 39 32 32 30 30 30 30 30 30 32 32 32 40Willow Rd. Vigilante Rd. 30 24 24 22 22 21 21 21 21 21 24 24 31Vigilante Rd. Scripps Poway Pkwy 31 20 23 25 25 25 25 25 25 28 30 30 33Scripps Poway Pkwy. Poway Rd. 24 24 26 20 19 18 19 19 19 23 26 25 31Poway Rd. Archie Moore Rd. 35 35 35 37 36 29 39 36 36 35 36 36 38Archie Moore Rd. Dye Rd./Mussey Grade 33 31 32 33 33 43 36 33 33 32 33 33 33Dye Rd. Highland Valley Rd. 23 26 26 26 25 29 26 26 26 23 23 23 24Highland Valley Rd. Montecito Rd. 24 25 25 25 24 27 26 25 25 24 24 24 25Montecito Rd. 10th St./Route 78 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 32 32 32 32 32 33

Source: SANDAG, Preliminary 2020 Traffic Forecasts, January 2001.



No Build

Build Alternatives


Route 125 North I-15/Miramar Way Pomerado Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 21 ---- ----I-15/Route 163 Pomerado Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 23 24Route 52 Pomerado Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 20 ---- ---- ----Route 52 Scripps Poway Pkwy. ---- 25 25 30 30 30 30 31 31 ---- ---- ---- ----Scripps Poway Pkwy. Poway Rd. ---- ---- ---- 23 23 23 23 24 24 ---- ---- ---- ----N/Espola Rd. Highland Valley Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- 8 ---- ---- 11 12 ---- ---- ---- ----Highland Valley Rd. Via Rancho Pkwy. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 14 14 ---- ---- ---- ----Pomerado Rd. Scripps Poway Pkwy. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 9Scripps Poway Pkwy. Route 67 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 30

North-South Route 67 Extension Highland Valley Rd. Cloverdale ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 24

Cloverdale Valley ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 16 ---- ---- ---- 15North Broadway Mountain Meadow ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 12 ---- ---- ---- ----

East-West Route 67 Extension South of Ramona Lake Route 67 ---- ---- ---- --- --- 19 --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

South of Mt. Woodson Route 67 ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- 14 --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Route 52 I-15 Santo Road 133 129 132 131 130 131 131 131 130 130 134 134 132Santo Road Mast Blvd. 117 114 117 116 115 116 116 116 116 119 119 119 117Mast Blvd. Mission Gorge Rd./Route 125 114 112 126 130 129 130 130 130 129 123 115 115 114Route 125 Cuyamaca St 127 122 124 125 125 125 125 126 125 127 124 124 123Cuyamaca St Route 67 110 106 106 107 107 107 107 107 107 110 108 108 107

Archie Moore Rd. Route 67 Highland Valley Rd. 6 6 7 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 1

Dye Rd. Route 67 Ramona St. 12 8 8 9 9 13 11 10 10 12 12 12 13

Espola Road Poway Rd. Twin Peaks Rd. 14 14 14 24 25 19 16 27 27 15 15 15 14Twin Peaks Rd. Pomerado Rd. 21 21 21 22 24 36 28 27 27 21 21 21 21

Highland Valley Rd. Pomerado Rd. Route 125 North ---- ---- ---- ---- 20 ---- ---- 16 16 ---- ---- ----Route 125 North Bandy Canyon Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- 14 ---- ---- 15 15 ---- ---- ----Pomerado Rd. Bandy Canyon Rd. 12 8 8 11 8 11 12 12 12 6Bandy Canyon Rd. SA 603 14 10 10 13 14 8 12 16 16 13 13 13 23SA 603 Archie Moore Rd. 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 9Archie Moore Rd. Route 67 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 6

Moreno Ave. Willow Rd. Vigilante Rd. 4 4 3 7 6 6 6 7 6 10 9 9 4

Mountain Meadow I-15 N. Centre City 21 19 19 21 21 21 21 20 23 21 21 21 20




No Build

Build Alternatives


Pomerado Road I-15 Scripps Ranch Blvd. 39 38 38 39 39 38 39 38 38 37 37 37 37Scripps Ranch Blvd. Spring Canyon Rd. 27 26 26 26 26 26 27 26 26 24 23 23 24Spring Canyon Rd. Scripps Poway Pkwy. 16 16 15 15 16 15 16 15 15 29 29 33 26Scripps Poway Pkwy. Poway Rd. 24 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 29 25 24 25Poway Rd. Ted Williams Pkwy. 29 29 28 29 29 29 28 28 28 30 28 28 28Ted Williams Pkwy. Camino del Norte/Twin Peaks 29 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 28 30 28 28 28Camino del Norte/Twin Peaks Rancho Bernardo Rd. 24 24 24 25 24 25 24 24 24 30 25 24 24Rancho Bernardo Rd. Highland Valley Rd. 19 19 19 19 17 19 19 18 18 19 20 20 20Highland Valley Rd. I-15 33 30 30 32 38 32 32 34 34 19 33 33 28

Poway Rd. Espola Rd. Route 67 24 23 22 16 16 10 9 16 16 24 23 24 23

Rancho Bernardo Rd. I-15 Pomerado Rd. 42 42 42 41 41 43 42 40 40 42 42 42 42

SA 603 Highland Valley Rd. Rangeland Rd. 9 6 6 8 9 5 8 11 11 9 9 9 16Rangeland Rd. Pine St. 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 4 4 7

Scripps Poway Pkwy. Stowe Dr. Route 67 31 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 29 32 32 ---Stowe Dr. Route 125 North ---- 42 38 33 33 32 32 33 33 --- --- --- 28Route 125 North Route 67 ---- 22 25 33 34 32 33 34 34 --- --- --- 30

Wildcat Canyon Rd. Willow Rd. Old Barona Rd. 19 18 18 19 19 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 18Old Barona Rd. San Vicente Rd. 15 14 14 15 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 14

Willow Rd. Route 67 Wildcat Canyon Rd. 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 15 12 12 12



Route 67 Level of Service Analysis

Existing NB Alt. 2 Alt. 1a Alt. 1b

Segment # Segment Description

Facility Type LOS ADT

Facility Type

Projected LOS

Projected ADT

Facility Type

Projected LOS

Projected ADT

Facility Type

Projected LOS

Projected ADT

1 Mission Gorge Rd./Woodside Av. to Riverford Rd. 4F C 56,000 6F C 92,000 6F C 94,000 6F C 94,0002 Riverford Rd. to Winter Gardens Blvd. 4F B 50,000 4F C 74,000 4F C 76,000 4F C 76,0003 Wintergardens Blvd. to Mapleview St. 4C B 32,000 4F C 61,000 4F C 62,000 4F C 62,0004 Mapleview St. to Willow Rd. 2C F 30,000 4C C 43,000 4C C 44,000 4C C 44,0005 Willow Rd. to Vigilante Rd. 2C F 24,000 4C B 31,000 4C C 33,000 4C C 33,0006 Vigilante Road to Scripps Poway Parkway 2C F 21,000 2C F 31,000 4C C 32,000 4C C 32,0007 Scripps Poway Parkway to Poway Rd. 2C E 19,000 2C E 23,000 4C B 26,000 4C B 26,0008 Poway Rd. to Archie Moore Road 2C F 25,000 2C F 34,000 4C C 38,000 4C C 38,0009 Archie Moore Road to Highland Valley Rd. 2C F 24,000 2C F 31,000 4C C 36,000 4C C 35,00010 Highland Valley Rd.-Dye Rd. to Pala (1) 2C E 23,000 2C E 23,000 4C B 24,000 2C E 24,00011 Pala to Jct. SR 78 4A C 30,000 4A C 32,000 4A C 33,000 4A C 33,000

Alt. 5 Alt. 7a Alt. 7b Alt. 13c

Segment # Segment Description

Facility Type

Projected LOS

Projected ADT

Facility Type

Projected LOS

Projected ADT

Facility Type

Projected LOS

Projected ADT

Facility Type

Projected LOS

Projected ADT

1 Mission Gorge Rd./Woodside Av. to Riverford Rd. 6F C 94,000 6F C 84,000 6F C 84,000 6F C 93,0002 Riverford Rd. to Winter Gardens Blvd. 4F C 76,000 4F C 67,000 4F C 66,000 4F C 75,0003 Wintergardens Blvd. to Mapleview St. 4F C 63,000 4F C 54,000 4F C 53,000 4F C 62,0004 Mapleview St. to Willow Rd. 4C D 46,000 4C C 35,000 4C C 35,000 4C C 35,0005 Willow Rd. to Vigilante Rd. 4C B 29,000 4C B 24,000 4C B 24,000 4C B 24,0006 Vigilante Road to Scripps Poway Parkway 2C F 29,000 2C F 20,000 2C F 23,000 2C F 30,0007 Scripps Poway Parkway to Poway Rd. 2C E 21,000 2C E 24,000 2C F 26,000 2C F 25,0008 Poway Rd. to Archie Moore Road 2C F 31,000 2C F 35,000 2C F 35,000 2C F 36,0009 Archie Moore Road to Highland Valley Rd. 2C F 28,000 2C F 31,000 2C F 32,000 2C F 33,00010 Highland Valley Rd.-Dye Rd. to Pala (1) 2C E 22,000 2C E 23,000 2C E 23,000 2C E 23,00011 Pala to Jct. SR 78 4A C 31,000 4A C 32,000 4A C 32,000 4A C 32,000

(1) The end segment includes Day St (no data available for segment ending at Pala Street)

2000 2020

2020

Source: SANDAG, February 2001. (Analyses based on traffic forecasts prepared in December 2000 and January 2001.)

41

No Build or Baseline Alternatives

No Build Alternative 2: Route 67 with 2020 RTP Improvements

No Build Alternative 2 represents the improvements planned for Route 67 in the 2020 RTP. Compared to No Build Alternative 1 (Route 67 in its current configuration), future widening of Route 67 between I-8 and Vigilante Road would result in a reduction of 2,000 to 3,000 daily vehicle trips on I-15 between Route 52 and Mira Mesa Boulevard and a traffic increase of the same magnitude on Route 67 between Route 52 and Mapleview Street. Between Mapleview Street and Vigilante Road, traffic volumes on Route 67 would be higher by 7,000 to 8,000 daily trips under the RTP scenario. This is offset by a decrease of 5,000 trips on Moreno Avenue, which parallels Route 67 between Willow Road and Vigilante Road on the east.

The planned RTP improvements would adequately serve Route 67 traffic between Route 52 and Mapleview Road. However, projected volumes ranging from 23,000 ADT to 43,000 ADT north of Mapleview Road would require additional road capacity.

No Build Alternative 2 is used as a baseline for evaluating the Build alternatives.

Build Alternatives: State Route 67

Alternative 1a: Widen Route 67 from Vigilante Road to SR 78

Alternative 1b: Widen Route 67 from Vigilante Road to Mussey Grade Road to a four-lane conventional highway. Extension of Dye Road to San Vicente Road as a two-lane collector road.

Both Alternative 1a and Alternative 1b assume widening of Route 67 to a four-lane conventional highway north of Vigilante Road. However, under Alternative 1b, the road would be widened up to Mussey Grade Road only. Dye Road would be extended east to San Vicente Road as a two-lane collector road to provide a southern bypass. This road extension is included in the Circulation Element of the County of San Diego. On the other hand, Alternative 1a assumes Route 67 as a four-lane conventional highway north to the junction with Route 78.

Compared to Alternative 1a, the southern bypass would provide some relief to Route 67 between Dye Road and Highland Valley Road. A reduction of 2,000 ADT is projected on Route 67/Main Street between Mussey Grade Road and Etcheverry Street. In 2020, volumes on this segment of Route 67 would average 24,000 ADT between Mussey Grade Road and Highland Valley Road/Dye Road, and 20,000 ADT north to Etcheverry Street. The section of Route 67 north of Etcheverry Road to Pala Street is projected to carry between 15,000 and 16,000 daily trips. This segment of Route 67 currently is a two-lane facility (one lane in each direction) with a center lane. Traffic volumes north of Pala Street up to Pine Street/10th Street would range between 23,000 and 33,000 ADT. This four-lane segment with a center turn lane could accommodate the forecast volumes with an adequate level of service under its current configuration.

42

However, projected volumes on Route 67 between Mapleview Street and Mussey Grade Road would require consideration of passing lanes in some segments of the highway, in addition to the two travel lanes in each direction. Daily traffic would average between 26,000 and 44,000 ADT on that section of Route 67.

Alternative 5: Widen Wildcat Canyon Road

This alternative would widen Willow Road from Route 67 to Wildcat Canyon Road to four lanes and also would widen and extend Wildcat Canyon Road to San Vicente Road as a four-lane road. San Vicente Road/10Th Street also would be widened to four lanes to Route 67/Main Street.

In 2020, traffic volumes on Route 67 would be higher by 1,000 to 3,000 ADT between Route 52 and Willow Road when compared to the No Build alternative. North of Willow Road to Route 78, Route 67 would experience a 2,000 to 3,000 reduction in daily traffic. Volumes on Wildcat Canyon would increase by approximately 5,000 vehicles per day.

With traffic volumes projected to range between 21,000 and 31,000 ADT north of Vigilante Road, widening of Route 67 still would be needed. However, addition of passing lanes on Route 67 may be avoided if Wildcat Canyon Road were to be widened.

Build Alternatives: State Route 125 North

Alternative 7: Route 125 North to Scripps Poway Parkway Alternative 7a: Southern terminus connecting to Route 125 Fanita section Alternative 7b: Southern terminus connecting at Route 52 west of Mast Boulevard interchange

Both Alternative 7a and Alternative 7b assumed Route 125 north between Route 52 and Scripps Poway Parkway. Under Alternative 7a, Route 125 North would have a continuous alignment connecting to the Route 125 Fanita section. Under Alternative 7b, the southern terminus of Route 125 North would be west of Mast Boulevard. Alternative 7b reflects the alignment included in the 2020 RTP.

Both alignments of Route 125 North are projected to carry 25,000 daily vehicles. South of Scripps Poway Parkway, volumes on Route 67 would decrease by 7,000 to 11,000 ADT. Volumes on I-15 south of Poway Road would drop between 2,000 and 8,000 ADT.

Under Alternative 7a, traffic volumes on Route 52 would decrease by 3,000 to 5,000 ADT. Under Alternative 7b, the segment from Mast Boulevard to Route 125 would experience an increase of 10,000 ADT; daily traffic on the other segments of Route 52 would be reduced by 1,000 to 3,000 ADT.

Traffic volumes on Poway Road east of Espola Road would decrease only by 1,000 to 2,000 ADT. However, volumes on Scripps Poway Parkway are projected to increase between 8,000 and 12,000 ADT between Stowe Drive and Route 125 North, and decrease by 5,000 to 8,000 on the segment from Route 125 North and Route 67.

43

Traffic relief on I-15 south of Route 56 would be small relative to the volumes projected on this facility, which would range between 256,000 and 405,000 ADT. The decrease in volumes compared to the No Build alternative is projected at 2,000 to 8,000 ADT.

With forecast volumes on Route 67 ranging from 20,000 to 35,000 ADT north of Vigilante Road, widening of Route 67 still would be needed. However, the projected reduction in traffic on Route 67 south of Scripps Poway Parkway, as a result of the assumed construction of Route 125 North, may prevent the need for passing lanes on that section of Route 67.

Alternative 13c: Route 125 North to Scripps Poway Parkway/Pomerado

Under Alternative 13c, Route 125 North would connect to I-15 at the Miramar Way interchange and continue to Scripps Poway Parkway via Pomerado Road (north of Spring Canyon Road). Traffic projections indicate that in 2020, Route 125 North would carry between 20,000 and 23,000 ADT. Alternative 13c would yield the highest volumes on Route 125 North, when compared to Alternatives 13a and 13b, which are described in the section below.

Compared to the No Build alternative, volumes on Route 67 would experience a decrease of 7,000 to 8,000 ADT only between Mapleview Street and Vigilante Road. This is the same projected reduction in trips as in Alternative 7b. Forecast volumes on Route 67 north of Mapleview Street, ranging from 23,000 to 36,000 ADT, would indicate the need for widening Route 67.

Regarding I-15, Alternative 13c would result in a decrease of 5,000 to 12,000 ADT between Miramar Way and Mercy Road/Scripps Poway Parkway. Additionally, it would provide some relief (from 2,000 to 10,000 ADT) on the arterials feeding onto I-15, such as Miramar/Pomerado Road, Carroll Canyon Road, Mira Mesa Boulevard, and Mercy Road/Scripps Poway Parkway. Even though the projected relief on I-15 would be minor compared to the projected volumes on this facility, further evaluation of Alternative 13c was recommended to understand its potential beneficial impact on the above I-15 interchanges.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY

Traffic projections for 2020 were prepared for the following alternatives: No Build Alternative 1, Build Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10a, 10b, 11, 12, 13a, 13b, and 15, which are shown in Figure 5. Based upon the analysis of the traffic forecasts, these alternatives were eliminated from additional evaluation since they failed to offer substantial traffic relief either to I-15 or to Route 67.

Build Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

These three alternatives assumed northern extensions of Route 67. Alternative 2 tested a Route 67 extension from Archie Moore Road to the I-15/Route 78 junction in Escondido. Alternative 3 assumed a further extension to the I-15/Deer Springs Road interchange. Alternative 4 considered an extension of Route 67 from Archie Moore Road to the I-15/West Bernardo Drive-Pomerado Road interchange. Widening of Route 67 is assumed from Vigilante Road to Archie Moore Road only.

45

Figure 5 - Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study


47

Compared to the No Build alternative, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in a shift of 2,000 to 5,000 daily vehicles from I-15 between Camino del Norte and Centre City Parkway to the new Route 67 extension. Further extending Route 67 to the I-15/Deer Springs Road interchange (Alternative 3) shows a minimal impact on I-15 north of Route 78, with reductions of 1,000 to 2,000 ADT, compared to Alternative 2.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce traffic by 3,000 to 5,000 ADT on Highland Valley Road between Pomerado Road and SA 603, compared to the No Build alternative. On the other hand, under Alternative 4, which would widen Highland Valley Road, volumes on the same segment would increase by 5,000 ADT.

Alternative 4 would result in an increase of 2,000 to 4,000 ADT on I-15 north of the West Bernardo Drive-Pomerado Road interchange.

Under all three alternatives, projected volumes on the two-lane segment of Route 67 between Archie Moore Road and Dye Road, which would range between 35,000 and 37,000 daily vehicles, still would point to the need for widening this section of Route 67.

Since projected traffic relief on I-15 would be minimal and widening of Route 67 would be needed, these three alternatives were abandoned from further evaluation.

Build Alternatives 8 and 9

Under Alternative 8, it is assumed that Route 125 North is extended north of Scripps Poway Parkway via Espola Road, Twin Peaks Road to the I-15/Camino del Norte interchange. Alternative 9 assumes that Route 125 North is further extended north of Espola Road to Highland Valley Road.

Both these extensions north of Scripps Poway Parkway would attract only an additional 5,000 daily trips to the segment of Route 125 North between Route 52 and Scripps Poway Parkway. Volumes on this section of Route 125 North would average 30,000 ADT.

The added projected volumes on Route 125 North would be diverted from both Routes 67 and I-15. Under both Alternatives 8 and 9, volumes on Route 67 from Mapleview Street to Scripps Poway Parkway would go down further by 2,000 to 4,000 ADT, compared to Alternative 7b.

In addition, compared to Alternative 7b, traffic on I-15 south of Camino del Norte would decrease by an additional 1,000 to 2,000 ADT. Total volumes would drop between 3,000 and 9,000 ADT on I-15 south of Route 56, compared to the No Build alternative.

Under both alternatives, traffic volumes are projected to increase 3,000 to 4,000 trips on Scripps Poway Parkway east of Stowe Drive, and decrease by 8,0

Date post:	09-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Author:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ROUTES 67/125 CORRIDOR STUDY...• Widen Route 67 between Mapleview Street and Vigilante Road from a...

Documents

CONTEXT: VICINITY OF THE PRESERVE...Poway I-15 SR 78 SR 78 SR 67 SR 67 SR 56 Ramona Grasslands Preserve (3,490 acres) Interstate Highways State Routes Major Roads LEGEND oway Road

1 2 34 5 67 8 9* 0 - GO Transit · Milton MI 21 GO Train and Bus Schedule/ Horaire des trains et des autobus GO Daily / Quotidiennement Includes GO Bus routes 21 / Inclut les routes

Study Location Map - ftp.dot.state.tx.usftp.dot.state.tx.us/.../get-involved/elp/us-67/study-location-map.pdf · Jeff Davis County Marfa ... County Presidio Ojinaga Corridor Texas

Corridors Habitat Corridor Transportation Corridor – Utility Corridor – 2013 Farr 2008.

Limerick City Green Routes Corridor Selection Study Presentation to Limerick City Council 14 th February 2008.

Working Paper 67 - World Customs Organization · 2018-07-13 · ICTD Working Paper 67 ... 2 Brief presentation of case studies 9 3 The impact of violence on trade routes 12 4 The

Corridor Purpose and Rationale · 2019-05-14 · Corridor 15-17 Section 368 Energy Corridor Regional Reviews -Region 5 May 2019. 1 . Corridor 15-17 . Reno Connector Corridor . Corridor

KENYA: ISSUES IN TRADE LOGISTICS - World Banksiteresources.worldbank.org/INTTLF/Resources/Kenya_Final_Report... · LIST OF FIGURES Main Routes of the Northern Corridor 16 Simple Supply

publications (selection): ilnius VIA REGIA€¦ · corridor to use the award „Cultural Route of the Council of Europe“ for marketing material. The entry to the Cultural Routes

s/hok.si.la.tap...Examples of Such plans include: StateyRegional or MPO Transportation Plan, Safe Routes to School Plan, Scenic Byway Corridor Managcmcnt Plan, ADA Transition Plan,

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: India’s …...2015/06/03 · implementing the first phase of the route (Shahzad 2015). Elaborating further, he mentioned three routes within

Potential Wildlife Crossings€¦ · Cartography: Miranda Gray July 10, 2008 25 40 10 Locator Map 25 Potential Wildlife Crossings Galisteo Basin, NM Main Corridor Routes Priority

US 67 CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN CSJ# 5000-00-116ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/elp/us-67/012318... · mobility and safety along the corridor Study Limits: I-10 west of Fort

G r a n t L i n e R d - WAPASan Luis Transmission Project Preliminary Routes 0 25 50 Map 1 Miles. 1:31,025 Proposed Corridor Alternate Corridor ") Substation Counties City Boundary

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT HOME IS A TREASURE€¦ · lds chapel mt. view corridor mt. view corridor mt. view corridor mt. view corridor mt. view corridor mt. view corridor soda row village

30 Street Industrial Corridor Greenway Corridor … · 30th Street Industrial Corridor Greenway Corridor Report ... Bioswales (Greenfield, ... Louisiana) ...

Corridor Rationale · 2018-05-18 · Corridor 81-272 Section 368 Energy Corridor Regional Reviews -Region 2 May 2018. 1 . Corridor 81-272 . Rio Grande Corridor . Corridor Rationale

#67 Community Engagement Models for Transportation and Pedestrian Corridor Improvements - Pullman