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 8,000 ADT on Poway Road east of Espola Road.

As discussed under Alternative 7b, projected traffic volumes on Route 67 north of Vigilante Road, which would average from 19,000 to 37,000 ADT, still would indicate the need for widening Route 67. Therefore, Alternative 8 and 9 would not provide a substantial traffic benefit compared to Alternative 7b. Thus, Alternatives 8 and 9 were dropped from further evaluation.

48

Build Alternative 10

This alternative assumed Route 125 North from Route 52 to Espola Road and east-west alignment connecting to Route 67. It has two variations: Alternative 10a evaluated an east-west alignment south of Ramona Lake, while Alternative 10b analyzed an east-west alignment south of Mt. Woodson. Both alternatives assumed the widening of Route 67 from Archie Moore Road into Ramona to a four-lane conventional highway.

Under both alternatives, Route 125 North would carry 30,000 daily trips. Both east-west connections to Route 67 would parallel Poway Road to the north. Under Alternative 10a, traffic on the new east-west alignment is projected at 19,000 ADT while, under Alternative 10b, daily trips are forecast at 14,000 ADT. Diversion from Poway Road to the new east-west alignments would amount to 14,000-15,000 daily trips.

Under Alternative 10a, linking Espola Road and Route 67 at Archie Moore Road is projected to increase volumes on Espola Road between Pomerado Road and the new east-west alignment substantially (from 21,000 ADT, under either Alternative 2 or Alternative 7b, to 36,000 ADT). Route 67 between Archie Moore Road and Highland Valley Road also would experience significant increases in traffic volumes (from 32,000 ADT to 43,000 daily trips). Route 67, as a four-lane facility, may not be able to accommodate the projected 43,000 ADT with an adequate level of service.

Under these two alternatives, forecast volumes on Route 67 north of Vigilante Road still would indicate widening of this highway. Under Alternative 10a, Route 67 would carry between 18,000 and 29,000 ADT between Vigilante Road and Archie Moore Road while, under Alternative 10b, Route 67 is projected to carry from 19,000 to 39,000 daily trips on the same highway section. In addition, these alternatives would yield higher volumes on Route 67 from Archie Moore Road to Mussey Grade Road. Based upon this analysis, these two alternatives were abandoned from further evaluation.

Build Alternatives 11 and 12

These two alternatives conceptually are similar to Build Alternatives 2 and 3. They assumed northern extensions of Route 125 North to the I-15/Route 78 junction in Escondido (Alternative 11) and to the I-15/Deer Springs Road interchange (Alternative 12).

Under both Alternatives 11 and 12, Route 125 North would carry 31,000 ADT between Route 52 and Scripps Poway Parkway. Traffic volumes would drop to 24,000 daily trips from Scripps Poway Parkway to Poway Road. Volumes on the extension north of Espola Road would range between 11,000 and 14,000 ADT.

Compared to Alternative 7b, which assumed the northern terminus of Route 125 North at Scripps Poway Parkway, further extending Route 125 North would result only in an additional 6,000 ADT.

Under both alternatives, traffic on I-15 would decrease by 4,000 to 9,000 ADT, compared to the No Build alternative. However, the additional decrease in daily trips compared to Alternative 7b would average only 1,000 to 4,000 vehicles.

49

The largest decrease in volumes on Route 67 would take place between Mapleview Street and Vigilante Road (between 10,000 and 12,000 ADT). North of Vigilante Road to Poway Road, daily traffic would be reduced by 4,000 to 6,000 ADT.

Under both alternatives, projected traffic on Route 67 north of Vigilante Road, which would range between 19,000 and 36,000 daily vehicles, still would indicate the need to widen Route 67.

Based upon the above discussion, these two alternatives were eliminated from further evaluation.

Build Alternatives 13a and 13b

These two Route 125 North alternatives share the northern terminus at Pomerado Road north of Spring Canyon Road. However, the southern terminus varies as follows: under Alternative 13a, the Route 125 North alignment would connect to Route 52 west of Mast Boulevard, while under Alternative 13b, it would join I-15 at the Route 163 interchange. Under both alternatives, Route 125 North would carry between 20,000 and 23,000 ADT.

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, which would range from 23,000 to 36,000 ADT, would point to the need for widening Route 67 under both Alternatives 13a and 13b. These two alternatives were abandoned for further analysis.

Build Alternative 15

Under Alternative 15, Route 125 North is assumed as a four-lane expressway from I-15/SR 163 via Pomerado Road (north of Spring Canyon Road). An east-west alignment would connect Route 125 North to Route 67 at Scripps Poway Parkway. Route 67 would be widened between Vigilante Road, and a Route 67 extension south of Archie Moore Road to a four-lane conventional highway. (Route 67 would be extended as a new north-south alignment south of Archie Moore Road to Route 78/Broadway via Cloverdale.)

Under Alternative 15, Route 125 North would carry between 24,000 and 30,000 ADT. Projected volumes on Route 67 south of Vigilante Road would not change compared to the No Build alternative. However, between Vigilante Road and Dye Road, forecast daily trips would be higher by 2,000 to 8,000 vehicles under this alternative.

The two-lane segment of Route 67 between the assumed extension and Mussey Grade Road is projected to carry between 31,000 and 33,000 ADT. These volumes would point to the need for widening this segment of Route 67 also.

Compared to the No Build Alternative, Alternative 15 would result in a decrease of 12,000 to 15,000 ADT on I-15 between Route 163 and Mira Mesa Boulevard. Between Mira Mesa Boulevard and Poway Road, the projected traffic relief would be lower, ranging from 5,000 to 8,000 ADT.

Under Alternative 15, projected volumes on Route 125 North fail to provide significant congestion relief to either Route 67 or I-15. This alternative was eliminated from additional study.

50

ROUTE 125 NORTH FREEWAY ALTERNATIVES

After the initial analysis of Route 125 North expressway scenarios described above, five freeway alternatives for SR 125 North connecting to I-15 at West Bernardo Drive-Pomerado Road, or SR 78, or Deer Springs Road, were developed. All these alternatives assumed Route 125 North as a six-lane freeway. The conceptual freeway alignments are outlined in Table 11 and illustrated in Figures 6 through 10.

Table 11 Route 125 North Freeway Alternatives Evaluated


Alternative 16a Route 125 North to the I-15/West Bernardo Drive-Pomerado Road interchange.

Southern terminus connecting to Route 125 Fanita section. Route 125 North from Route 52 via Espola Road, new alignment to Highland Valley Road, Pomerado Road. to I-15.

Alternative 16b Route 125 North to the I-15/West Bernardo Drive-Pomerado Road interchange.

Southern terminus at Route 52 west of Mast Boulevard interchange. Route 125 North from Route 52 via Espola Road, new alignment to Highland Valley Road, Pomerado Road. to I-15.

Alternative 17a Route125 North to the I-15/SR-78 junction in Escondido.

Route 125 North from Route 52 via Espola Road, new alignment to Highland Valley Road., new alignment to Via Rancho Parkway, Cloverdale Road to I-15/Route 78 interchange. Southern terminus connecting to Route 125 Fanita section.

Alternative 17b Route125 North to the I-15/SR-78 junction in Escondido.

Route 125 North from Route 52 via Espola Road, new alignment to Highland Valley Road, new alignment to Via Rancho Parkway, Cloverdale Road. to I-15/Route 78 interchange. Southern terminus at Route 52 west of Mast Boulevard. interchange.

Alternative 18 Route125 North to the I-15/Deer Springs Road interchange north of Escondido via Route 67.

Route 125 North from Route 52 west of Mast Boulevard interchange, new alignment from Scripps Poway Parkway to Route 67 at Poway Road, continuing west of Archie Moore Road. to San Pasqual Valley Road, Cloverdale Road, extension to East Valley Parkway, new alignment to I-15/Deer Springs Road interchange.

51

Figure 6 - Potential Transportation Alternatives


53



55



57



59

Figure 10 - Potential Transportation Alternatives(Please contact SANDAG for a copy of this figure)

61

TRAFFIC FORECASTS: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Table 12, on page 63, shows projected traffic volumes for selected highway and arterial segments for Alternatives 16a, 16b, 17a, 17b, and 18. Below is a summary of the traffic-forecast results.

Route 125 North

The alternatives evaluated assuming Route 125 North as a four-lane expressway projected daily traffic on Route 125 North to range between 25,000 and 31,000 vehicles. Both Alternatives 7a and 7b (alignments ending at Scripps Poway Parkway) would carry 25,000 vehicles daily. Similar traffic volumes were projected under either southern connection to Route 52 (Alternative 7a assumes a continuous Route 125 alignment along Fanita Parkway while Alternative 7b would connect to Route 52 west of Mast Boulevard).

Unlike the expressway forecasts, when considering Route 125 North as a six-lane freeway, the southern terminus of this freeway would make a significant difference in the traffic carried by Route 125 North. Projected volumes would be higher by up to 23,000 ADT south of Scripps Poway Parkway if Route 125 North were to follow a continuous alignment.

Route 125 North shows the highest projected volumes under Alternative 16a: between 92,000 and 102,000 ADT south of Scripps Poway Parkway. Traffic volumes through Poway would range between 62,000 and 91,000 ADT. Under Alternative 16b, Route 125 North would accommodate from 69,000 to 83,000 daily vehicles south of Scripps Poway Parkway. North of this point, traffic volumes would range between 56,000 and 72,000 ADT.

In summary, a continuous Route 125 North connecting to I-15 at Highland Valley Road-Pomerado Road would carry from one-tenth to one-third more traffic than a freeway joining Route 52 west of Mast Boulevard.

Under Alternative 17a, Route 125 North is projected to carry between 82,000 and 91,000 ADT south of Scripps Poway Parkway. Volumes through Poway are forecast to range from 38,000 to 72,000 ADT. Volumes north of Highland Valley Road and into Escondido would reach between 38,000 and 79,000 daily vehicles. Under Alternative 17b, traffic on Route 125 North south of Scripps Poway Parkway would reach between 61,000 and 74,000 ADT. Volumes through Poway are projected to range from 33,000 to 61,000 daily trips. North of Highland Valley Road, Route 125 North would carry between 34,000 and 76,000 vehicles daily.

Similarly to Alternative 16, a continuous Route 125 North would carry 12 percent to 34 percent more traffic than if the freeway were to connect to Route 52 west of Mast Boulevard.

Under Alternative 18, Route 125 North shows the lowest projected traffic: 56,000 ADT south of Scripps Poway Parkway. ADT would remain in the mid-50,000 vehicles up to the freeway extension west of Archie Moore Road. North of that point, volumes would drop into the 20,000 to 30,000 ADT range, and further decrease north of East Valley Parkway.

62

Route 67

Under all freeway alternatives, volumes on Route 67 would decrease by 7,000 to 14,000 ADT between Route 52 and Scripps Poway Parkway, with Alternative 18 providing the highest traffic relief. However, from Poway Road to Dye Road, traffic on Route 67 would increase by about 9,000 ADT under Alternative 18 only.

Interstate 15

Under Alternative 16a, volumes on I-15 would be reduced the most: between 31,000 and 41,000 ADT south of Highland Valley Road-Pomerado Road, but would increase by 12,000 to 22,000 ADT north of that point up to Via Rancho Parkway. This suggests that trips would be redirected but also that vehicle travel would increase on the north-south corridor.

Under Alternative 16b, ADT on I-15 would decrease by 26,000 to 37,000 vehicles south of the Highland Valley Road-Pomerado Road interchange. Similarly to Alternative 16a, traffic would go up by 11,000 to 19,000 trips between this interchange and Via Rancho Parkway.

Under Alternatives 17a and 17b, volumes on I-15 would be lower by 11,000 to 33,000 south of the Centre City Parkway interchange in Escondido. Traffic reductions on I-15 north of this interchange would be lower (2,000 to 8,000 ADT). Traffic relief resulting from Alternative 17a would be slightly higher than under Alternative 17b.

Under Alternative18, trip reductions on I-15 would be between 9,000 and 17,000 ADT south of Centre City Parkway, and about 5,000 to 8,000 ADT north of that point.

None of these alternatives was further evaluated due to the direction of the Policy Advisory Committee to focus the first phase of the study on improvements to Route 67.


2020 Traffic Forecasts for Route 125 North Freeway Alternatives(Average Weekday Traffic in thousands)

No Build Build Alternatives

Road Segment between Alt. 2 Alt. 16a Alt. 16b Alt. 17a Alt. 17b Alt. 18

Interstate 15 Route 52 Route 163 260 225 232 231 237 248Route 163 Miramar Way 408 370 376 376 380 393Miramar Way Miramar/Pomerado Rd. 403 363 369 370 374 386Miramar/Pomerado Rd. Carroll Canyon Rd. 366 327 332 333 337 349Carroll Canyon Rd. Mira Mesa Blvd. 353 315 320 320 325 337Mira Mesa Blvd. Mercy Rd./Scripps Poway Pkwy. 343 306 312 313 317 329Mercy Rd./Scripps Poway Pkwy. Poway Rd. 325 290 296 297 301 313Poway Rd. Ted Williams Pkwy./Route 56 272 241 246 249 251 262Ted Williams Pkwy./Route 56 Carmel Mountain Rd. 337 304 310 311 317 327Carmel Mountain Rd. Camino del Norte 317 286 291 294 298 308Camino del Norte Bernardo Center Dr. 307 266 270 281 284 294Bernardo Center Dr. Rancho Bernardo Rd. 268 235 238 248 249 257Rancho Bernardo Rd. Pomerado Dr./W Bernardo Dr. 277 244 247 258 259 267Pomerado Dr./W Bernardo Dr. Via Rancho Pkwy./Bear Vly. 299 320 318 282 283 286Via Rancho Pkwy./Bear Vly. Centre City Pkwy. 290 312 309 276 279 278Centre City Pkwy. Citracado Pkwy. 242 260 258 236 236 234Citracado Pkwy. 9th Ave. 224 239 237 219 219 2169th Ave. Bear Valley Pkwy. 219 231 230 215 215 212Bear Valley Pkwy. Route 78 191 193 193 183 186 184Route 78 El Norte Pkwy. 163 169 169 161 162 157El Norte Pkwy. Centre City Pkwy. 147 148 148 145 144 141Centre City Pkwy. Deer Springs Rd. 127 128 128 128 127 122

Route 67 Route 52 Riverford Rd. 89 79 77 78 77 76Woodside Ave. Riverford Rd. 94 84 82 83 82 80Riverford Rd. Winter Gardens Blvd. 76 66 65 66 65 63Winter Gardens Blvd. Mapleview St. 63 52 52 53 52 50Mapleview St. Lakeside Ave. 44 34 35 33 35 34Lakeside Ave. Willow Rd. 39 30 32 30 32 31Willow Rd. Vigilante Rd. 30 21 23 21 23 23Vigilante Rd. Scripps Poway Pkwy 31 19 22 19 21 20Scripps Poway Pkwy. Poway Rd. 24 22 22 22 22 14Poway Rd. Archie Moore Rd. 35 37 37 36 37 45Archie Moore Rd. Dye Rd./Mussey Grade 33 34 34 33 33 42Dye Rd. Highland Valley Rd. 23 24 24 24 24 27Highland Valley Rd. Montecito Rd. 24 24 24 24 24 26Montecito Rd. 10th St./Route 78 32 32 32 32 32 33

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





Route 125 North Route 52 Cuyamaca St. Extension ---- 92 69 82 61 50Cuyamaca St. Extension Scripps Poway Pkwy. ---- 102 83 91 74 56Scripps Poway Pkwy. Poway Rd. ---- 86 72 70 58 40Poway Rd. Twin Peaks Road ---- 91 78 72 61 ----Twin Peaks Road Espola/Rancho Bernardo Rd. ---- 70 61 48 41 ----Espola/Rancho Bernardo Rd. Highland Valley Road ---- 62 56 38 33 ----Highland Valley Road Pomerado Rd. ---- 80 73 ---- ---- ----Pomerado Rd. I-15 ---- 102 96 ---- ---- ----Poway Rd. South of Archie Moore Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 56South of Archie Moore Rd. Highland Valley Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 19Highland Valley Road San Pasqual Valley ---- ---- ---- 38 34 33San Pasqual Valley Valley/Washington ---- ---- ---- 29 26 20Valley/Washington El Norte/Citrus ---- ---- ---- 53 48 ----El Norte/Lincoln/Citrus Centre City Pkwy ---- ---- ---- 79 76 ----Centre City Pkwy I-15 ---- ---- ---- 97 88 ----Valley/Washington Deer Springs Rd. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 6

Route 52 I-15 Santo Road 133 119 124 121 126 134Santo Road Mast Blvd. 117 105 109 107 111 119Mast Blvd. Mission Gorge Rd./Route 125 114 108 141 111 137 132Route 125 Cuyamaca St 127 144 125 146 125 125Cuyamaca St Route 67 110 116 108 117 107 107

Archie Moore Rd. Route 67 Highland Valley Rd. 6 5 5 5 5 7

Dye Rd. Route 67 Ramona St. 12 12 12 12 12 17

Espola Road Pomerado Rd. Route 125 North 24 22 24 23 ----Poway Rd. Twin Peaks Rd. 14 ---- ---- ---- ---- 12Twin Peaks Rd. Pomerado Rd. 21 ---- ---- ---- ---- 20

Highland Valley Rd. Pomerado Rd. Route 125 North ---- ---- ---- 28 27 ----Route 125 North Bandy Canyon Rd. ---- 19 19 22 22 ----Pomerado Rd. Bandy Canyon Rd. 12 ---- ---- ---- ---- 6Bandy Canyon Rd. SA 603 14 19 19 20 20 4SA 603 Archie Moore Rd. 4 5 4 5 5 5Archie Moore Rd. Route 67 4 5 4 5 5 5

Moreno Ave. Willow Rd. Vigilante Rd. 4 3 3 3 3 3






Mountain Meadow I-15 N. Centre City 21 21 21 17 18 17

Pomerado Road I-15 Scripps Ranch Blvd. 39 38 38 38 38 38Scripps Ranch Blvd. Spring Canyon Rd. 27 25 25 25 25 26Spring Canyon Rd. Scripps Poway Pkwy. 16 15 15 16 15 16Scripps Poway Pkwy. Poway Rd. 24 23 23 24 24 25Poway Rd. Ted Williams Pkwy. 29 27 27 28 28 28Ted Williams Pkwy. Camino del Norte/Twin Peaks 29 27 27 28 28 28Camino del Norte/Twin Peaks Rancho Bernardo Rd. 24 24 23 24 24 24Rancho Bernardo Rd. Highland Valley Rd. 19 26 26 20 20 20Highland Valley Rd. I-15 33 ---- ---- 45 45 28

Poway Rd. Espola Rd. Route 67 24 17 17 16 16 22

Rancho Bernardo Rd. I-15 Pomerado Rd. 42 36 36 39 39 40

SA 603 Highland Valley Rd. Rangeland Rd. 9 13 13 14 14 19Rangeland Rd. Pine St. 4 6 6 6 6 10

Scripps Poway Pkwy. I-15 Spring Canyon Rd. 65 62 62 62 62 63Spring Canyon Rd. Pomerado Rd. 56 50 50 50 50 53Pomerado Rd. Community Rd. 55 49 48 50 50 53Community Rd. Stowe Dr. 47 44 42 45 43 53Stowe Dr. Route 67 31 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----Stowe Dr. Route 125 North ---- 45 42 43 39 50Route 125 North Route 67 ---- 34 35 33 34 11

Wildcat Canyon Rd. Willow Rd. Old Barona Rd. 19 19 19 18 18 17Old Barona Rd. San Vicente Rd. 15 14 14 14 14 12

Willow Rd. Route 67 Wildcat Canyon Rd. 11 13 13 13 13 12


STATE ROUTE 67: ALTERNATIVE 1B

69

STATE ROUTE 67: ALTERNATIVE 1B

Based upon direction from the Policy Advisory Committee, the first phase of this study focused on the proposed improvements to Route 67, as defined in Alternative 1b.

LONG-RANGE TRAFFIC OUTLOOK

As discussed earlier, the 2020 RTP recommended improvements to Route 67 between the junction with I-8 and Vigilante Road, as follows:

• Widen Route 67 between I-8 and SR 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.

Table 13 summarizes average weekday traffic for the year 2000 and traffic projections for Route 67 for the year 2020 for Alternative 1b.

Table 13 Route 67 Traffic Volumes

(Average Weekday Traffic)

Route 67 Between 2000

(000s) 2020

(000s)

Route 52 and Riverford Road ---- 85 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 41 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

70

The above traffic forecasts assume that planned County circulation element roads in the community of Ramona and surrounding vicinity will be constructed over time. These include extensions of Cedar Street, Montecito Road, Keyes Road, Montecito Way, and San Vicente Road. Future roads are shown in dashed lines in the map in Figure 11.

If those roads are not built, then 2020 traffic volumes on Route 67 would be higher than currently forecasted. From Poway Road to Mussey Grade/Dye Road, traffic on Route 67 would be higher by 3,000 to 4,000 daily trips. On the two-lane segment from Dye Road to Pala Street, Route 67 would carry 8,000 additional vehicles while, north of Pala Street, Main Street would need to accommodate an additional 5,000 vehicles or up to 35,000 daily trips.

Two potential facility configurations for Route 67 were analyzed: expressway and conventional highway with median barriers placed 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.

71

Figure 11 - Proposed Transportation Improvements(Please contact SANDAG for a copy of this figure)

73

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 14 shows the existing and projected 2020 LOS for Route 67.

Table 14 Level of Service (LOS) for Route 67

Route 67 Between

CurrentFacilityType (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

Notes:

(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 Plan includes widening SR 67 between SR 52 and Mapleview Street from a four-lane to a six-

lane freeway. Projected 2020 traffic volumes and LOS analysis suggest that the widening would be

needed only between Route 52 and Riverford Road. A four-lane freeway from Riverford Road to

Mapleview Street would be able to accommodate the forecast volumes at LOS ”C” and “D.”

(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.

74

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

The SANDAG Board of Directors adopted the Regional Transit Vision (RTV) in November 2001. The RTV proposes higher frequency and more attractive transit services throughout the San Diego region and it was prepared in cooperation with Metropolitan Transit Development Board, the North County Transit District, and the Citizens Advisory Committee for Transportation.

For this study, two “Yellow Car” (regional express) preliminary 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 is also being considered, as well as a local circulator route within Ramona.

Two levels of frequency were tested for the Yellow Car routes servicing Route 67. One scenario assumed operations every 10 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 prepared the cost estimates for the improvements to Route 67. The costs of the improvements outlined in the 2020 RTP are estimated at $85 million from I-8 to Mapleview and $35 million from Mapleview to Vigilante Road. The Alternative 1b improvements that would widen 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 is estimated to 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.

75

Proposed Phasing

The approximately 15-mile project is proposed to 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 also on projections of future travel by segment, the following priorities are proposed for Alternative 1b:

Proposed Phasing

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.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS

79

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS

This chapter presents a summary of the evaluation of Environmental Constraints for Alternative 1b. The complete report is included as Appendix A under separate cover.

METHODOLOGY

This Environmental Constraints Analysis evaluated the 2020 RTP-proposed improvements to SR 67 between a planned connection with SR 52 and Vigilante Road; and also considered potential impacts of widening SR 67 from Vigilante Road to Mussey Grade Road and extending Dye Street or Dye Road east to San Vicente Road, a total distance of approximately 20 miles.

Due to the preliminary nature of this study, research was generally limited to existing SANDAG and SANGIS geographic information system (GIS) data sources, general plans and community plans, and “windshield” surveys to confirm existing conditions. Caltrans also was consulted with regard to preliminary design plans and transportation issues.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

For purposes of this Environmental Constraints Analysis, the “build alternative” assumes widening of SR 67 to six lanes within the existing right of way from the Woodside Avenue interchange to Mapleview Street. A grade-separated interchange would be constructed at Mapleview Street to replace the existing at-grade intersection. North of Mapleview Street, the existing San Diego River bridge would be widened or replaced to provide four lanes, and SR 67 would be widened to Mussey Grade Road as a four-lane conventional highway with median, and including median barriers at selected locations. The extension from Mussey Grade Road to San Vicente Road would follow either Dye Road or Dye Street and would also include new right of way to provide a more direct route between SR 67 and San Vicente Road. For this portion of the project, a Town Collector classification is assumed, with two lanes and a 12-foot median to allow left turns.

The conventional highway classification would provide an overall paved width of approximately 78 feet, with an 8-foot paved combination shoulder/bike lane on both sides of the road, two 12-foot lanes in each direction, and a 14-foot wide paved median. A minimum 3-foot wide graded area also would be provided on both sides of the road, and cut and fill slopes would be established to transition to the existing terrain. Barriers would be provided in the median as needed for safety, and existing barriers would remain. Where barriers are provided, the median would be widened to approximately 18 feet.

80

Between SR 67 and San Vicente Road the Town Collector classification would have a right of way width of 74 feet, and a paved width of 54 feet, with 10-foot graded parkways on both sides. On-street parking would be permitted. The center 12-foot lane would permit left turns to existing driveways and intersections along the route, except where restrictions are needed for safety.

ALTERNATIVES

This evaluation assumes that SR 67 would be widened following the existing centerline and no alternative alignment is being evaluated except near the intersection of SR 67 and Mussey Grade Road (see Figure 12). The “Dye Street Alternative” would extend a new road directly east from the SR 67/ Mussey Grade Road intersection to San Vicente Road. It would generally follow Dye Street, which is an existing private road, continue east on Dye Road to Ramona Street, and acquire new right of way to extend Dye Road to connect with San Vicente Road. The “Dye Road Alternative” would follow SR 67 to the Highland Valley Road/Dye Road intersection, follow Dye Road to its intersection with Ramona Street, and continue east to San Vicente Road. The “No Build Alternative” is also evaluated and assumes continued growth in traffic volumes but no widening of the existing roads.

As shown on Table 15, both of the Build Alternatives have equal overall environmental constraints. However, the Dye Street Alternative would have increased localized impacts due to the greater right of way acquisition requirement and effects on existing land uses than would the Dye Road Alternative. While the No Build Alternative would have fewer direct impacts, increased traffic volumes would have indirect effects on environmental resources, and it would not provide adequate improvements to the circulation network to accommodate planned growth in Lakeside and Ramona. This also could potentially impact economic conditions in these communities.

CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS BY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE

The following analysis is organized by environmental issue and is based upon a review of existing data, regulations, standards, and policies that would be applicable to the proposed project. Limited field surveys were conducted to confirm existing conditions. No precise alignment for the SR 67 widening project has been delineated and, therefore, no design plans are yet available for evaluation of impacts and determination of mitigation measures. Therefore, this analysis is limited to a description of potential environmental resources that may be impacted, typical standards for avoidance or mitigation, and additional studies that may be needed. Further consultation will take place with responsible agencies and affected jurisdictions at such time as the project receives funding for more detailed environmental studies.

The three environmental issues that would present significant constraints are: sensitive species and habitats; visual resources and aesthetics; and noise impact. Community plans and general plans; socioeconomic characteristics; paleontology; and hazardous materials would present moderate constraints. These environmental issues are described in detail in the remainder of this chapter.

81

Figure 12 - Project Location


83

Table 15 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

Sensitive Species and Habitats

Vegetation and Habitat Types

According to SANDAG’s GIS database, 12 vegetation communities and cover types occur adjacent to SR 67: Diegan coastal sage scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, riparian forest, riparian woodland, oak riparian forest, riparian scrub, freshwater marsh, grasslands, disturbed land, agriculture, and urban/developed.

Of these vegetation types, Diegan coastal sage scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, riparian forest, riparian woodland, oak riparian forest, riparian scrub, freshwater marsh, and grasslands pose potential constraints because these communities are either sensitive or provide habitat for a variety of sensitive species. Almost all of the areas that support these habitats occur between the San Diego River and Ramona. Impacts to these communities are likely to be considered significant, depending upon the extent of impacts, and would require some form of mitigation (i.e., avoidance of impacts, minimization of impacts, and/or compensation for impacts).

84

Sensitive Species

The CDFG Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) identifies a variety of sensitive species occurring adjacent to SR 67.

The federal-threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) is known to inhabit the area immediately adjacent to SR 67 from just south of Vigilante Road, north to Poway Road. This species could potentially occur in the sage scrub habitat throughout the central segment of the corridor. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat for the gnatcatcher occurs approximately 2,000 feet east of the eastern terminus of the project, i.e., San Vicente Road; 6,500 feet northwest and west of the southern segment; and 8,000 feet east of the bridge over the San Diego River.

The Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) was recently found just west of SR 67 and north of San Vicente Reservoir. The area along SR 67, between Slaughterhouse Canyon and Platinum Place, had been designated as a potential survey area by the USFWS in its 2001 survey protocol. With this recent siting of the Quino, this designation is anticipated to be changed to a required survey area in the 2002 survey protocol for this species. The Quino checkerspot has the potential to occur at other locations in the sage scrub and chaparral communities along the highway.

Other sensitive species known from the project vicinity that occur in coastal sage scrub include: the San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), San Diego goldenstar (Muilla clevelandii), variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegata), San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei), orange-throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi), northern red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber ruber), and coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi). These species occur in the coastal sage scrub in the central segment of the corridor and are expected to occur elsewhere within appropriate habitat(s). Some of these species would also be expected to occur in chaparral habitats.

The federal-threatened Encinitas baccharis (Baccharis vanessae) is known from the chaparral on Mount Woodson. The federal-endangered San Diego thornmint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) is known from Sycamore and Slaughterhouse canyons on clay outcrops within chaparral habitats. The Lakeside ceanothus (Ceanothus cyaneus), Parry’s tetracoccus (Tetracoccus dioicus), summer holly (Comarostaphylis diversifolia), heart-leaved pitcher sage (Lepechinia cardiophylla), felt-leaved monardella (Monardella hypoleuca ssp. lanata), southern rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), coastal western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus) and coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea) are all known from chaparral habitats in the vicinity of the highway and have the potential to occur throughout the corridor in appropriate habitat. Some of these species also would be expected to occur in coastal sage scrub habitats.

The federal- and state-endangered willowy monardella (Monardella linoides ssp. viminea) is known from the intermittent streams within Sycamore and Clark canyons to the west of SR 67. This species potentially could occur in the intermittent streams adjacent to the highway.

Delicate clarkia (Clarkia delicata), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) are all known from oak woodlands in the vicinity of the highway and have the potential to occur throughout the corridor in appropriate habitat.

85

The federal-endangered and state-threatened Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) is known from the grasslands surrounding the Ramona Airport and potentially could occur in the grasslands and fallow agriculture fields along Main Street and Dye Road. Other sensitive species that could occur in these grasslands include the Coronado skink (Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis) and southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis).

Vernal pool species that could occur in areas of grasslands adjacent to Main Street and Dye Road include: the federal-endangered San Diego Fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), the federal-threatened spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), and little mousetails (Myosurus minimus). USFWS designated critical habitat for the fairy shrimp occurs in the grasslands along Santa Maria Creek, approximately 3,000 feet north of Dye Road.

The federal- and state-endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and the federal proposed endangered San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) are both known from the San Diego River at the existing SR 67 Bridge. The federal endangered arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) has the potential to occur along the riparian habitats of the San Diego River as well as the intermittent streams mentioned previously, as this species is known to occur in the upper San Vicente Creek. USFWS designated critical habitat for the arroyo toad occurs approximately 4,000 feet north of Dye Road and approximately 1,500 feet east of the intersection of SR 67 and Willow Street.

The Palmer’s goldenbush (Ericameria palmeri) and smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) are known to occur in the vicinity of the southern portion of the corridor. Palmer’s goldenbush occurs in intermittent streams and could also potentially occur along the floodplain of the San Diego River. Smooth tarplant occurs in wet, alkaline locales.

Focused surveys for sensitive species, especially listed species, would be required. Any impacts to listed species and their habitats, both direct and indirect impacts, would be significant and require mitigation. Impacts to federal listed species would also require issuance of a Biological Opinion from the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act. Impacts to state listed species would require issuance of a California Incidental Take Permit from the CDFG under the California Endangered Species Act. Impacts to non-listed sensitive species could be potentially significant, depending upon these species’ sensitivity status and the extent of impacts. Significant impacts would require mitigation. In addition, the wildlife agencies would require that the clearing and/or removal of native habitat be conducted outside the breeding periods of most sensitive species (generally from early February through late September).

Multiple Species Conservation Program

The entire corridor is located within the Multiple Species Conservation Program’s (MSCP) study area. SR 67 forms the boundary of this study area as it extends along its northern segment, from the northeastern Poway city boundary to San Vicente Road. The SR 67 study area is within or adjacent to three MSCP Subareas: the County of San Diego, the City of Poway, and the City of San Diego (for San Vicente Reservoir). Preservation and conservation goals within these subareas are being implemented within a designated core biological preserve area, the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHPA).

86

The MHPA was developed by the various jurisdictions in cooperation with the MSCP advisory committee, consisting of the wildlife agencies, property owners, land developers, and environmental groups. The MHPA delineates core biological resource areas and biological linkages and corridors targeted for conservation according to specific preserve design criteria contained in the MSCP. The County of San Diego generally defines MHPA lands as Pre-Approved Mitigation Areas (PAMA) lands established by the County’s MSCP division in discussions with the USFWS and CDFG. Limited development may occur within the MHPA according to the habitat value and the preservation rate computed for specific areas within the MHPA. However, any project approved by various jurisdictions must conform to their respective Subarea Plan, i.e., the County of San Diego’s Subarea Plan, the City of Poway’s Subarea Plan, and the City of San Diego’s Subarea Plan. Areas within the County’s MSCP are regulated under the Biological Mitigation Ordinance (BMO). The County Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO) also would be applicable within the project area. Consultation would take place with the County’s MSCP division during alignment and environmental studies for the project.

Wildlife Corridors

As noted in the MSCP discussion above, comprehensive habitat planning for the area includes core biological resource areas on both sides of SR 67 at the San Diego River and from Vigilante Road in Lakeside to just south of Mount Woodson Road in Ramona. Widening SR 67 in these areas could have significant impacts on wildlife movement, particularly in those areas where similar terrain and natural features such as stream courses and woodlands exist on both sides of the road. Placement of barriers in these locations would require focused evaluation of wildlife corridors, identification of potentially impacted species, and design measures to minimize adverse effects.

Potential Noise Effects

Construction of the project and eventual increased traffic noise could result in potential noise effects to sensitive wildlife, in particular, the least Bell’s vireo and the coastal California gnatcatcher. Generally, construction-related noise in excess of 60 decibels (dB) and affecting occupied habitat(s) of these species during their respective breeding seasons would be considered significant impacts by the resource agencies. The common mitigation measures are to avoid construction activities adjacent to occupied habitats during the breeding season. The breeding season for the coastal California gnatcatcher extends from February 15 through August 30. The breeding season for the least Bell’s vireo extends from March 15 through September 15. If construction activities adjacent to occupied habitats cannot be avoided during the breeding season, noise attenuation measures at the construction site would be required to reduce noise levels within occupied habitats to below the 60 dB threshold level. Monitoring usually would be required to assure that the noise threshold is not exceeded.

Increased traffic volumes, with or without the project, could result in potential noise effects if the 60 dB noise contour encroaches into occupied habitat during the breeding season. According to projected traffic volumes, the 60 dB contour is expected to extend up to approximately 775 feet from the SR 67 centerline between Vigilante Road and Archie Moore Road.

87

Community Plans and General Plans

Existing and Planned Uses

City of Santee

The proposed project crosses through the City of Santee from Woodside Avenue to Riverford Road. This area consists of a mixture of general and light industrial, neighborhood commercial, and residential uses. The City has been working on a comprehensive update of its general plan, but it is expected to be a year or more before this effort is complete.

Community of Lakeside

The Lakeside Community Plan covers the portion of the proposed project east of Riverford Road to approximately three-quarters of a mile north of Scripps Poway Parkway. Along the north side of SR 67 east of Riverford Road, and including the San Diego River, is a Specific Plan Area of existing and planned commercial and industrial development, and planned restoration of the river. South of SR 67 consists of Service Commercial and General Commercial areas, including the Lakeside townsite. High-density residential uses are also permitted in this area. North of Mapleview Street is designated for Service Commercial and General Industrial use; the San Diego River is in an Impact Sensitive Category.

The County is in the process of a general plan update known as GP2020 and County Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) staff have been meeting with community groups for input to this process. No precise land use plan changes have been identified at this time for Lakeside.

City of Poway

The Poway city limits begin approximately three-quarters of a mile north of Scripps Poway Parkway. This portion of Poway is designated Rural Residential A (1 dwelling unit per 4, 8, 20, or 40 acres) and also includes open space and parkland associated with Iron Mountain and conservation areas designated on the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan.

Community of Ramona

The remainder of the proposed project from Cloudy Moon Drive to San Vicente Road is in the unincorporated community of Ramona and is primarily designated #17 Estate (1 dwelling unit per 2 or 4 acres) and #18 Multiple Rural Use (1 dwelling unit per 4, 8, 20, or 40 acres). Within the Agricultural Preserve category, no property that is subject to a land conservation contract for agricultural use is located within approximately 2000 feet of the proposed corridor.

As noted above, as part of the County’s GP2020 update, DPLU staff has been meeting with community groups for input to this process. No precise land use plan changes have been identified for Ramona at this time.

88

County Circulation Element

The Circulation Element of the County General Plan designates SR 67 as a Freeway from Interstate 8 to Willow Road. North of Willow Road it is designated as a four-lane Major Road, and continues as a Major Road along Dye Road to San Vicente Road. The widening of SR 67 would conform to these designations. A bike route also is shown on the County Circulation Element from Mapleview Street to San Vicente Road. Bike travel can be accommodated on the paved shoulder of the road as proposed by preliminary design plans for SR 67 and Dye Road.

Resource Conservation Areas

The County General Plan Conservation Element identifies Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs) for “lands requiring special attention in order to conserve resources.” These areas are designated for a variety of reasons, including native wildlife habitats and unique geologic features. RCAs within the Lakeside Community Plan that are adjacent to the SR 67 corridor are San Vicente Reservoir, Iron Mountain, and Goat Rock-Upper Peñasquitos Creek (partially in the City of Poway). RCAs within the Ramona Community Plan are Old Coach Road,-Mount Woodson-Iron Mountain (also partially within the City of Poway and the Lakeside Community Plan), and the Mussey Grade, Irving Crest-Daney Canyon, and San Vicente Creek RCAs located nearby to the south of the SR 67/Dye Road corridor.

Multiple Species Conservation Program

The MSCP also affects land use and resource planning within the study area. Areas designated for conservation include the San Diego River in the City of Santee and the Poway Cornerstone Lands described above. Lands around San Vicente Reservoir are also designated for conservation.

Visual Resources and Aesthetics

SR 67 is eligible for, but not officially designated as, a State Scenic Highway (State of California 1996). This route is also classified as a third priority for scenic route designation in the Scenic Highway Element of the San Diego County General Plan. The purpose of this Element is to establish a program to protect and enhance the County's scenic, historic, and recreational resources within a network of scenic highway corridors.

On a local level of scenic highway determination, the Lakeside and Ramona Community Plans identify SR 67 as a Scenic Highway. These plans recommend protection of the scenic resources along the corridor. The City of Poway Comprehensive Plan identifies and designates a two and one-half mile segment of SR 67 as a Local Scenic Roadway. The Plan contains numerous policies to meet the objective of protecting significant open areas and scenic vistas along local scenic roadways.

The SR 67 corridor between Woodside Avenue and Vigilante Road is currently developed with mixed uses, including agricultural, industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The existing right-of-way is relatively flat and wide so minimal grading would be required to implement the improvements. The only potential significant visual impact might be the partial removal of riparian forest due to bridge widening over the San Diego River.

89

From north of the rock quarries near Slaughterhouse Canyon Road, the corridor proceeds up the grade toward Poway. This segment of road is characterized by slopes over 25 percent grade and vast areas of undisturbed open space, including the Sycamore Canyon County Open Space Preserve to the west and open space associated with San Vicente Reservoir and Iron Mountain to the east. There are few residences along this segment. The densely vegetated mountainous terrain is rugged and steep with expansive vistas, including views of the San Vicente Reservoir. The vegetation is largely a combination of Diegan coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Potentially significant impacts could result from extensive vegetation removal and grading of large cut and fill slopes in relatively steep topography.

Noise Impact

Traffic Noise

The proposed traffic improvements to SR 67 would not generate or induce a significant increase in traffic over the volumes that would result if the road is not widened. The forecast average daily trips (ADT) along SR 67 under the proposed project would be only slightly higher than under the No Build alternative.

A formal noise study according to Caltrans protocol (1998) will be required. Abatement must be considered at sensitive receptors where forecast noise approaches or exceeds the FHWA noise abatement criteria (NAC).

Future traffic noise levels were estimated for both the proposed project and the No Build alternative using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Model. The ADTs were provided by SANDAG (2001) for both alternatives. Vehicle mixes for four segments along SR 67 were obtained from Caltrans (2001). The ADTs, vehicle mixes, and results of the noise model are shown in Table 16.

To be conservative, traffic speeds along SR 67 were based upon the design speed of 65 mph for a four-lane Conventional Highway and 40 mph for a Town Collector. For purposes of worst case analysis, the intervening topography between roadway and receptor was modeled as a flat surface. SR 67 was modeled as level grade, which will result in an underestimate of the noise adjacent to steep grades. The noise model did not incorporate barriers where natural or man-made obstructions to attenuate noise between roadways and receptors. However, factors were included to account for the absorption of noise on the mostly soft (soil and vegetation) terrain between the roadway and potential offsite receptors.

The noise model was used to determine the distance from the roadway to the 60 dBA Leq noise contour to estimate potential impacts to sensitive residential receptors and sensitive wildlife species. Indirect noise impacts greater than 60 dBA Leq have been shown to affect certain types of bird species, in particular the riparian-dependent least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Coordination with the USFWS would be necessary to obtain a determination whether the proposed project would not result in significant indirect impacts to the potentially affected species.

Table 16 Traffic Volumes and Modeled Noise Levels

Sensitive Wildlife Sensitive Residential

Receptors

Road Segment

No Build Alternative

ADT(1)

Proposed Project

ADT(1) Vehicle MixA/MT/HT(2)

Proposed Project

Distance (feet)

to 60 dBA Leq

Contour


Distance

(feet) to 60 dBA Leq

Contour

Proposed Project

Distance


Contour


Distance


Contour

SR 67 between Woodside Avenue

and Riverford Road 91,000 91,000 90.3/5.0/4.7 1,620 1,620 650 650

SR 67 between Riverford Road

and Winter Gardens Boulevard 73,000 73,000 90.3/5.0/4.7 1,400 1,400 575 575

SR 67 between Winter Gardens

Boulevard and Mapleview Street 59,000 59,000 90.3/5.0/4.7 1,220 1,220 500 500

SR 67 between Mapleview Street

and Willow Road 36,000 37,000 90.3/5.0/4.7 900 870 350 350

SR 67 between Willow Road and

Vigilante Road 27,000 29,000 90.3/5.0/4.7 750 720 300 300

SR 67 between Vigilante Road

and Scripps Poway Parkway 30,000 31,000 91.4/4.7/3.9 775 750 300 300

SR 67 between Scripps Poway

Parkway and Poway Road 23,000 25,000 92.7/4.2/3.1 650 600 250 250

SR 67 between Poway Road and

Archie Moore Road 33,000 35,000 93.3/4.0/2.7 775 750 325 300

SR 67 between Archie Moore

Road and Main Street 31,000 33,000 93.3/4.0/2.7 750 720 300 300

Main Street between SR 67 and

Highland Valley Road 23,000 32,000 93.3/4.0/2.7 730 600 300 250

Dye Street between Dye Road

and Main Street 9,000 10,000 93.3/4.0/2.7 170 160 70 65

(1) ADT is based upon average weekday volume for SANDAG Alternative 1b. (2) A - autos, MT – two-axle trucks, HT - three-plus axle trucks

91

The results of the traffic noise modeling show that the 60 dBA Leq noise contour under worst-case analysis for SR 67 between Mapleview Street and Dye Street would be an average of 760 feet from SR 67. The distance to the 60 dBA Leq noise contour is approximately 170 feet from Dye Street due to significantly reduced ADTs and a traffic speed of 40 mph. The distance to the 60 dBA Leq noise contour for the area south of Mapleview Street ranges between 1,220 and 1,620 feet from SR 67 due to the significant increase in traffic volume with an average speed of 65 mph.

The results of the traffic noise modeling show that the 66 dBA Leq noise contour for SR 67 between Mapleview Street and Dye Road would be an average of 300 feet from SR 67. The distance to the 66 dBA Leq noise contour is approximately 70 feet from Dye Road. The distance to the 66 dBA Leq noise contour for the area south of Mapleview Street ranges between 500 and 650 feet from SR 67.

The distance from SR 67 to the 60 dBA Leq and 66 Leq noise contours does not account for intervening topographic barriers or man-made obstructions that could reduce the noise levels significantly at these distances. In addition to the effects of increased traffic volumes and speed, traffic noise levels at sensitive receptors may be changed due to the physical changes that accompany the realignment of the roadway. The movement of the traffic flow closer to a residential area would increase the noise level. Changes in roadway elevation relative to a receptor may create or remove a noise barrier, resulting in a decrease or increase in noise level. The design of the roadway should be accompanied by a noise analysis to identify changes near residential and sensitive wildlife areas. A more detailed noise analysis would be required prior to implementation of the proposed transportation improvements. Mitigation measures, if feasible, may include the construction of walls or berms as noise barriers.

Construction Noise

Construction of the proposed improvements along SR 67 would result in an increase in the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of construction activities. Short-term impacts to residential properties could occur during construction, with the noise levels based upon the type of activity and machinery used. In areas where the underlying geology consists of granitic and metamorphic rocks, which are generally hard rock, may require blasting for road improvements. If FHWA standards are applied to the project, a potential significant impact would occur for any hour where the noise level equals or exceeds 66 dBA Leq. This occurrence would not be unusual if construction is near a residence.

The design of the roadway should be accompanied by a noise analysis to identify changes near residences that may result in significant noise impacts requiring consideration of feasible and reasonable mitigation. One type of mitigation measure would include building a noise barrier prior to other construction if a permanent noise barrier is planned as part of the road improvements.

Construction noise also may cause noise levels to exceed 60 dBA Leq in areas inhabited, or potentially inhabited, by sensitive wildlife species. If a potential impact is identified, a common mitigation measure is limiting noisy construction to the non-breeding season for the species. If that is not feasible, then construction during the breeding season may require monitoring of the habitat for the presence of birds, or the construction of temporary noise barriers.

92

Socioeconomic Characteristics

Existing Conditions

The socioeconomic analysis in this section focuses on the project’s potential for significant impacts on population, median household income, and housing. This section also contains analysis required under Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice (59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (1994)). Data from census tracts within the proposed project area is analyzed for minority population and low-income population components, and the potential for disproportionate impacts to the above groups that could result from implementation of the project.

Population data presented in this section for local jurisdictions and the region as a whole is from the 2000 census. The socioeconomic information presented in this section includes data drawn from the immediately adjacent census tracts derived directly from the 2000 Census on Population and Ethnicity. Income level estimates were derived from data using the SANDAG Data Warehouse. Estimates have been used because 2000 census data has not yet been released for median household income based upon the 2000 census tracts. Therefore, the estimates are based upon 1990 census tracts and 2000 census data. This section also will describe renter/owner occupancy characteristics within the local area.

The project area is contained within eleven census tracts (166.07, 166.17, 167.01, 167.02, 168.04, 169.01, 169.02, 170.10, 170.21, 208.01, and 208.08). These census tract boundaries, as well as the areas they each encompass, are shown in Figure 13.

Population and Ethnicity

Table 17 shows population characteristics, including total population and minority population levels, for the census tracts within the proposed project site. The table also provides the same data at the regional level to facilitate comparison between the affected area and a broader context.

As shown in the table, the census tracts containing the proposed project area have a much lower total minority population percentage than the San Diego region as a whole. Therefore, the census tracts within the proposed project area cannot be considered a ‘high’ minority population area.

93

Figure 13 - Census Tracts


95

Table 17 Minority Population

Census Tract Population

2000

Total Minority

Population

Total Minority

Percentage Percentage +/-

County Average

166.07 6,564 1,107 17% -27% 166.17 3,122 644 21% -23% 167.01 7,153 1,312 18% -26% 167.02 7,141 1,488 21% -23% 168.04 7,553 1,562 21% -23% 169.01 6,892 1,309 19% -25% 169.02 2,067 648 31% -13% 170.10 3,261 682 21% -23% 170.21 3,161 400 13% -31% 208.01 4,742 776 16% -28% 208.08 9,874 1,294 13% -31% San Diego County 2,813,833 1,265,000 44% N/A

96

Median Household Income

Information on median household income in the census tracts adjacent to the project study area, as well as median household incomes of the San Diego region, are presented in Table 18. Census tracts within the study area had a median household income ranging from $38,952 (census tract 166.02) to $99,091 (census tract 170.21). In comparison to the San Diego region as a whole, the census tracts within the proposed project range from 16 percent lower than the median regional household income to 113 percent greater than the median regional household income.

Although the median household income within census tracts 166.02, 167.01, 167.02, and 168.04 have a lower median household income than other census tracts within the project area, the majority of the census tracts are more closely aligned with the San Diego region as a whole. Thus, in comparison to the San Diego region, the census tracts within the proposed project do not contain a disproportionately low-income population.

Table 18 Median Household Income

Census Tract/Area Median Household

Income 2000(1) Percentage +/-

County Average

166.02 $38,952 -16% 166.07 $56,242 +21% 167.01 $42,554 -8% 167.02 $39,521 -15% 168.04 $41,002 -12% 169.00 $57,682 +24% 170.10 $68,670 +48% 170.21 $99,091 +113% 208.01 $63,151 +36% 208.08 $72,344 +56% San Diego County $46,502 N/A

(1) Median Income is based upon estimates provided by SANDAG Data Warehouse

based upon 2000 census data and 1990 census tracts.

97

Housing

The information provided in Table 19 represents the total number of housing units in each census tract within the proposed project area, as well as for the San Diego region, by renter and owner-occupied categories. The majority of housing units with the project area are owner occupied.

Table 19 Owner/Renter Occupancy

Census Tract/Area Total Housing Units(1) Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

166.07 2,298 1,676 578 166.17 1,415 860 505 167.01 2,686 1,470 1,145 167.02 2,773 1,146 1,558 168.04 2,681 924 1,672 169.01 2,416 1,795 528 169.02 659 511 129 170.10 974 847 123 170.21 990 929 46 208.01 1,637 1,307 240 208.08 3,306 2,976 203 San Diego County 1,040,149 551,461 443,216

(1) Total includes vacant housing units

Potential Effects and Benefits

The proposed project could have potentially significant effects, unless mitigated, on population and housing if displacement of residents or loss of housing units were to occur, or if business closures or relocation were to occur that would cause an economic hardship to the community. Since the project mainly involves widening existing roads, potential impacts are expected to be localized and not disrupt or divide a community, neighborhood, or commercial district. Based upon the data provided above, the project would not disproportionately affect any area containing a substantial minority, low income, or rental population.

The proposed project may yield beneficial short-term economical impacts resulting from construction employment and material purchase.

Build Alternatives

The Dye Street Alternative would involve slightly greater need for purchase of right of way that might affect businesses or residences.

98


Under the No Build alternative, the SR 67 route would continue as it presently exists north of Vigilante Road and would not adequately meet future traffic demands. No employment, displacement, or other socioeconomic impacts are to be expected from this alternative; however, the proposed improved route is an integral part of planned improvements to the local area designed to foster growth and investment and thereby benefit the local economy. Residents also would benefit from improved accessibility and reduction in delays due to congested traffic conditions. As such, the No Build alternative could have an adverse socioeconomic effect in comparison to the build alternatives.

Paleontology

The SR 67 corridor is underlain by Jura-Triassic metavolcanic, Pre-Cenozoic granitic and metamorphic rocks, Mesozoic granitic rocks of the Peninsular Range Batholith, Eocene nonmarine rocks, Pleistocene marine and marine terrace deposits, and Quaternary alluvial deposits. The paleontological sensitivity ranges consist of high to zero for these rock types (Demere and Walsh, 1993).

The majority of the SR 67 corridor overlies granitic rock. No fossils are known from these batholithic rocks. Since plutonic rocks are formed by crystallization of magma several miles below the earth surface, these rocks are assigned a zero paleontological resource sensitivity (Demere and Walsh, 1993).

The Quaternary alluvial sediments found associated with the areas adjacent to the San Diego River and from Mussey Grade Road into Ramona are assigned a low sensitivity designation. This is due to their young age (Demere and Walsh, 1993).

Three areas of moderate sensitivity are located in the vicinity of Lakeside Avenue, Vigilante Road, and between Foster Truck Trail and Sycamore Park Drive. The first two areas are within Pre-Cretaceous metamorphic rocks, presumably of the Lusardi Formation. This formation has not revealed any identifiable fossils but small plant fragments have been collected. Its Cretaceous age coupled with its terrestrial depositional setting suggests the potential presence for dinosaur and other terrestrial vertebrates (Demere and Walsh, 1993). The moderate sensitivity is thus far largely based upon unproven potential. The third area of moderate sensitivity is within Jura-Triassic metavolcanic rocks, presumably Santiago Peak Volcanics. In general, the molten origin of this volcanic formation precludes fossil remains and is assigned a marginal sensitivity designation (Demere and Walsh, 1993).

There is an area stretching approximately 1.4 miles north from Slaughterhouse Canyon Road that has moderately high to high sensitivity designations. The Pleistocene marine and marine terrace deposits of moderately high to high sensitivity generally contain diverse and well-preserved assemblages of marine invertebrates, vertebrates, and sparse remains of terrestrial mammals. The Eocene non-marine rocks, presumably a member of the Poway Group, have a high sensitivity. This is due to the nonmarine conglomeratic units that have produced abundant fossil remains of terrestrial mammals (Demere and Walsh, 1993).

99

The zero, marginal, and low paleontological resource sensitivity areas should not pose restrictions on the project. The areas of moderately high to high sensitivity could pose constraints. Using a City of San Diego standard as an example, any cut greater than 10 feet in depth within areas of moderately high to high sensitivity would require a paleontologist to monitor grading in these areas.

Hazardous Materials

Hazardous materials would be used in the construction activities and equipment during the widening of the SR 67 corridor. Due to the hardness of the underlying rock formations, blasting may be required during project excavation. The project will comply with all County and any local blasting ordinances, in order to ensure public safety and property protection. Compliance may include pre-blasting and post-blasting inspections of all structures within 400 feet of the right-of-way to assess any blasting damage.

Potential contamination of surface water and groundwater could result from mishandling of fuel, oil, and other hazardous materials during construction. Compliance requires conformance with applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring program.

Hazardous waste sites could be located along the SR 67 corridor. A Phase I site assessment should be conducted to determine if any toxic waste sites might underlie the project footprint, as well as any staging areas, in particular, for any property that would be acquired for right of way. If any hazardous waste sites are identified, measures would be undertaken to avoid or remediate the sites.

Proper handling of hazardous materials through compliance with standard water pollution prevention and contingency spill plans, as well as blasting plans, should minimize any constraints on the project.

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

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

Documents