HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1987-13254 Revised 9/19/87
RESOLUTION NO. 13254
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ENDORSING THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSALS, "FREEWAY
DEVELOPMENT TO THE YEAR 2000"
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Southern California's lifestyle and economy are
based upon mobility made possible by our freeway network, and
WHEREAS, this present mobility is jeopardized and
congestion on our streets, highways and freeways continues to
increase, and
WHEREAS, Southern California's population is anticipated
to increase by at least three million to some 19 million people
by the year 2000, and
WHEREAS, the number of daily vehicle trips made by
Southern Californians will increase from 50 million to 65 million
bY the year 2000, and
WHEREAS, freeways carry nearly 50 percent of the
region's personal, commercial and recreational traffic, and
WHEREAS, maximum efficiency of existing traffic systems
must be achieved by improved highway management, and
WHEREAS, public transit service must be improved, and
WHEREAS, new freeways are needed to close gaps, provide
access to areas not currently served, and connect the region's
various activity centers, and
WHEREAS, our economy, quality of life and mobility are
dependent upon good highway transportation, and
WHEREAS, the Automobile Club of Southern California has
prepared a proposal for future mobility, "Freeway Development to
the Year 2000"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does that the City of Chula Vista hereby
endorses the concept of the Automobile Club of Southern
California's proposal "Freeway Development to the Year 2000"
-1-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby
rected to forward a certified copy of this resolution to
~overnor George Deukmejian, Senate President Pro Tempore David
Roberti and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.
Presented by Approved as to form by
P~lic Works/City Engineer Thomas J. Harro~i~yIAttdrney
3338a
-2-
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 22nd day Of Septemb~
19 .. 87 , by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Malcolm, McCandliss, Cox, Moore, Nader
NAYES: Counci 1 members None
ABSTAIN: Counci]members None
ABSENT: Counci 1 members None
~Chula Vista
STA, c OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss,
SITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, JENNIE M, FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chula Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY thor the obove ond foregoing is o full, true ond correct copy of
RESOLUTION N0. 13254 ,and thor the same has not been omendad or repealed
DATED
City Clerk
cnY oF
CHULA VISTA
SC-660
RESOLUTION I
WHEREAS, Southern Cal~fornia's lifestyle and economy are based upon mobility
made possible by our freeway network; and
WHEREAS, this present mobility is jeopardized and congestion on our streets,
highways and freeways continues to increase; and
WHEREAS Southern California's population is anticipated to increase by at least
three million to some 19 million people by the year 2000; and
WHEREAS the number of daily vehicle trips made by Southern Californians will
increase from 50 million to 65 million by the year 2000; and
WHEREAS freeways carry nearly 50 percent of the region~s personal, commercial
and recreational traffic; and
WHEREAS, maximum efficiency of existing traffic systems must be achieved by
improved highway management; and
WHEREAS, public transit service must be improved; and
WHEREAS, new freeways are needed to close gaps, provide access to areas not
currently served, and connect the region's various activity centers; and
WHEREAS, our economy, quality of life and mobility are dependent upon good
highway transportation; and
WHEREAS, the Automobile Club of Southern California has prepared a proposal
for future mobility, "Freeway Development to the Year 2000";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: the
(name of organization)
endorses ~he Automobile Club of Southern California's proposal, "Freeway
Development to the Year 2000";
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: this resolution be transmitted to Governor George Deukmejian,
Senate President pro Tempore David Roberti and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.
SIGNED this day of , 1987.
Freeway Development to the Year 2000
., Proposal for Future Mobility
Summary of a special report by the Automobile Club of Southern California
We're Growing. By the year 2000, 19 million people will call Southern California their
home--three million more than today. How will we preserve a quality lifestyle in the face
of this rapid growth?
Every day, Southern Californians make 50 million vehicle trips. But in less than 15 years
that number will soar to over 65 million daily trips! While transit and other vehicles will
carry some of the load, people will still do most of their traveling in automobiles.
The Southland's lifestyle is based on mobility. Hallmarks of this lifestyle are low-and
medium-density residential neighborhoods and an economy composed of dispersed
business, industrial, and retail activity centers. This multi-centered urban lifestyle is made
possible by the freeway networks.
Southern California feels like one large "city." We consider the beaches, mountains,
deserts, museums, sports arenas and entertainment centers all to be part of our larger
community. But this sense of expanded community may be jeopardized by the projected
population and travel growth.
Already, we see the impact of heavy commercial and residential development in urban
areas. Increased traffic is clogging local streets because commuters and trucks don't all
have access to needed freeways. Travel times and pollution from stop-and-go traffic
increase, and quality of life suffers.
Inadequate freeways jeopardize our economy as well. Insufficient freeway access restricts
economic opportunities, raises the cost of doing business and, ultimately, makes the region
less competitive.
Balanced Transportation Is Needed. To preserve our mobility into the year
2000 will require a multifaceted approach. We must maximize the efficiency of existing
freeways throuBh improved ramp metering and accident (incident) response. And,
participation in ridesharing and staggered work hours should be more widespread. Existing
streets and roads require better maintenance to work more efficiently.
Enhancing public transit will also help. However, even with all current and planned
transit projects in place, transit would handle only six percent of all travel. The majority
of travel--including bus transit--will take place on the roads, with freeways carrying
nearly 50 percent. The inescapable conclusion of our study is more freeways are needed.
Needed New Freeways. Southern California's freeway system currently comprises
about 2200 miles. Our analysis finds about 400 additional urban freeway miles are needed
by the year 2000. These proposed extensions to the present system are based on
California's master freeway and expressway plan and regional agency plans. They will close
- over -
~2~
gaps and add routes to the existing network, and relieve congestion on both freeways
local roadways.
Investing in Mobility. Cost of this freeway development plan is estimated at $20.5
billion. Spread over a 15-year period, that comes to $1.5 billion a year. While this cost
may seem formidable, it must be placed in perspective. California ranks 50th among the
states in per capita spending for all streets and highway programs. With the necessary
additional funding, California's ranking would only rise to about 32nd place--still low for
a state that wishes to remain preeminent in economic growth and opportunity.
Financing of the magnitude necessary to fund these improvements will require a concerted
effort and support by government, business and public groups to develop a consensus on
needs and sources of revenue.
Some of these sources will be traditional, such as highway user fees, existing taxes, etc.;
and some noratraditional, such as locallylgenerated funds, state bonds, and state, local and
private partnerships.
Getting the Job Done. Local communities should have maximum participation in
freeway development affecting them. To achieve this, community leaders would take the
lead in promoting freeways that will fulfill their community's development and
redevelopment goals.
Caltrans' role would be to support these goals by building and managing freeways that -
mesh with community desires. Overall project implementation would be guided by a i'
development authority representing the corridor cities, the county and Caltrans.
These new freeways also must be aesthetically designed and environmentally sensitive to
preserve and enhance the communities they wfil serve.
It's Our Choice! To assure future mobility for Southern California's 19 million people,
a new commitment must be made to freeway development. What we do today will
determine whether we have the mobility we need to preserve our lifestyle and ensure
economic prosperity in the future.
This special summary was developed to encourage public discussion of this critical transportation issue.
For a copy of the full report on "Freeway Development to the Year 2000", write:
Automobile Club of Southern California
Highway Engineering Department H200
P.O. Box 2890, Terminal Annex
Los Angeles, California 90051 9/86
Freeway Development
to the Year 2000
A proposal for future mobility
Automobile Club of Southern California
Z
"Daily travel in Southern
California will increase
from the present 50 million
daily trips to about
65 million."
Three million more people will call Southern California their home
by the turn of the century. Already 16 million people are living and
working here, with most of the population concentrated along the
coastal basins from Santa Barbara to San Diego. Substantial gro~vth is
also taking place in the San Bernardino/Riverside area. For all these
communities, the challenge is one of preserving a quality lifestyle in the
face of ongoing urbanization.
Southern California's typical urban shape is comprised of many
dispersed activity centers. Rather than having one "downtown," we are
multi-centered. From mega-complexes like South Coast Plaza in Costa
Mesa to thriving smaller commercial enclaves in many Southland cities,
our region's strength comes from a diffuse economy.
The Southern California preference for low and medium density
garden-style housing and for home ownership is accommodated by the
diversity and dispersal of business and industry throughout the region.
Today, the average employee commutes less than 10 miles to work, the
same as 15 years ago.
But this lifestyle is threatened. We believe the most critical issue
challenging this region today is providing for our future mobility in the
face of projected growth. Consider conditions on the roads today. What
will the impact be of three million more people using the roads? We must
begin discussions in public forums so that a consensus can be achieved
soon on what should be done to meet the transportation demand.
Are We Ready for 65 Million Daily Trips?
Projections for the year 2000 indicate daily travel in Southern
California will increase from the present 50 million daily trips to over
65 million.
~/ On a more personal level, the average motorist makes 3.5 trips daily.
Three million more people will be making this many daily trips! Also,
consider that 97 percent of all travel occurs on the roads, with freeways
accounting for nearly 50 percent of this travel.
,0. ,r,p, Community Life
Already we see the impact of heavy commercial and residential
65 million lril~s development in urban areas. "In-filling" is generating ever-increasing
traffic on local streets and roads. Heavy through travel is invading local
Daily Travel communities because commuters and trucks do not have access to the
needed freeways that would free up local streets.
Urban planners have developed guidelines for appropriate road
systems for various levels of land use. We need streets and collector
roads to navigate our local neighborhoods. High-capacity arterials and
freeways are needed for longer, through travel. But if population growth
or economic activity occurs where freeways aren't available, the traffic
this activity generates will use lower capacity community road networks.
As a result, accidents, noise, travel time and pollution increase and
community life deteriorates.
3
"Lack of freeway access also
restricts our economic
opportunities, raises the cost of
doing business and, ultimately,
makes us less competitive."
I [ Regional Vitality
- / Inadequate freeway access hurts the region as well as local
communities. While most people will choose to live near where they
! work, access to :the enormous opportunities the region offers
~' contributes to Southern California's desirability. But if there are
~ m insufficient freeways to serve the population, then future economic,
~ ~ ~ social and lifestyle opportunities will be decreased because people will
__ m I I I __ no longer have easy access to other parts of the region. Lack of freeway
~ ,~ access also restricts our economic opportunities, raises the cost of doing
m business, and, tiltimately, makes us less competitive.
,, , , Urban planners describe this scenario of insufficient highway service
in terms of freeway spacing. There is an optimum level of freeway
[ [ ] [ service needed to serve different population densities. Applying the
spacing concept to Southern California, many urban areas currently are
Majo, Comme,cia~ C..,e, F,.e~.aV or will soon be inadequately served by freeways for the population they
Levels of Road Systems Southern California's freeway network currently comprises about
2200 miles. Based on our analysis of current and future needs, about
400 additional freeway miles must be built by the year 2000.
Certainly, these new freeways alone will not solve our mobility
problem. We must improve our public transportation system. According
to transit planners, with all current and planned transit projects in
Freeway Spacing for Large place, transit will be capable of handling about six percent of all regional
Urban Areas travel. Still, the vast majority of all travel--including bus translt--will
take place on the road networks, with freeways carrying the workhorse
15 share of nearly 50 percent.
--$ l 3 let: Inltilule of rran,portaSon We must also obtain maximum efficiency from our existing freeway
~ 12 E~si...,, network. This can be accomplished through better freeway
.~g 11 management, such as improved ramp metering and incident
10
& 9 management. Also, needed operational improvements, such as spot
~ 8 widenings, can increase freeway capacity and safety. Local road
~ 7 improvements, including better arterial system management, are also
~ 6 needed to improve travel.
~ 5 However, even with optimizing use of transit, carpooling and current
~ 4 road networks, we still ~vill have areas unserved or inadequately served
3
2 by freeways.
o Critical Links
012468~012141618202224
Needed new freeways were identified using California's master
Population Densily of Enclosed Area freeway plan and regional agency plans. These freeways address most of
Thousands Vet Square Mile the deficiencies in service in the region's urbanized and peripheral areas
that were identified through applying the spacing concept. Propose '
projects are listed on page 8.
4
Why Freeways Are the Mode of Choice
--Dallas Freeways are the backbone of our transportation system because they
best meet regional travel needs both for people and the delivery of
goods and services. Over 95 percent of all materials, food, etc., are
delivered at least part way over our road networks.
Freeways are the mode of choice because they are designed for travel
safety and convenience. With their high safety design standards and the
absence of cross traffic, freeways boast a fatality rate one-third that of all
~; other state roads combined.
Contemporary freeways are also designed to be environmentally
sound and sensitive to community aesthetics. Indeed, the most attractive
greenery in some urban areas is the landscaping along freeways. Well-
designed freeway sound walls reduce noise intrusion in local
San Diego-- communities. Modern freeway routes also are chosen to minimize
adverse impacts on the community while providing welcome access to
_Minneapolis the regional network.
~'Seattle Freeways also stimulate the economy both directly and indirectly. In
the construction phase, freeways create new jobs and spending in the
surrounding communities. Development and redevelopment of both
-. --Cleveland commercial and residential property occurs along the freeway route as
communities become more desirable places to live and do business.
_Baltimore During construction, the ripple effect of each dollar spent on freeway
San Francisco --St. Louis development is estimated at 32 dollars in community economic growth.
_Pittsburgh And, long after the freeways are in place, the economic boost they
--Denver - provide continues to pay off.
Myth of the Freeway City
_Houston A new era of freeway development will not "bury" the region in
'Washington, D.C.
concrere as some would have us believe. Contrary to popular belief, Los
__Miami: Angeles is not the freeway capital of the United States. The chart at left
_goston shows Los Angeles ranks only 17th among 20 major U.S. cities in
'Detroit
LOS ANGELES- freeway mileage.
_New York Even if we build the additional miles of freeway, the Los Angeles area
'Philadelphia will still have far fewer freeways per capita than many other major cities.
-chicago Brief History of Freeway Development
Southern California has had a master freeway plan since the 1950s,
but only a portion of it has been completed. Why? Both political and
social pressures virtually killed the highway program in the late 1960s
through the 1970s. The optimistic plans for an integrated freeway/
highway network were dashed by a decade of lowered expectations.
Freeway Miles and Population Instead of enhanced mobility, we experienced increased congestion.
Even though planned highways were not built, the population and
economy they were designed to serve continued to grow. Today, to
remedy the gaps of the past and to prepare for the future, we need to
build again.
5
Freeway Development Is Essential
A paramount regional goal must be to provide a future environment
that is conducive to continued economic and social vitality. This
freeway development plan will maximize our region's potential and
opportunities for the future by assuring all of Southern California's
19 million citizens access to the backbone freeway network.
$20.5 Billion for Mobility
The cost of this fleeway development plan is estimated at $20.5
billion over a 15-year period. While this price tag may seem formidable,
it must be viewed in perspective. California's current spending for
highways is actually disproportionately low. In per capita spending for
aH street and highway purposes, California ranks 50th of the 50 states.
With the proposed additional funding, California's ranking would rise
only to about 32nd place. Even this is low for a state that is--and
wishes to remain--preeminent in economic growth and opportunity.
Who Will Pay the Tab? '
The $20.5 billion, 15-year freeway development plan will require
annual funding of about $1.5 billion for Southern California. Existing
state and federal revenue sources would provide only $250 million
annually. Clearly, new revenue sources are needed.
Financing of the magnitude necessary to fund these improvements
will require a concerted effort and support by government, business and
public groups to develop a consensus on needs and sources of revenue.
Some of these sources will be traditional, such as highway user fees,
existing taxes, etc.; and some non-traditional, such as locally-generated
funds, state bonds, state, local and private partnerships, etc.
The objective must be to demonstrate to the general public the need
for these improvements and to obtain their support for a fair and
equitable method of financing.
Forging a New Partnership
Since the fevered state-led highway building years of the 1950's and
60's, a more sensitive approach to urban development and
redevelopment including transportation development has evolved.
Communities, recognizing the essential role of freeways in facilitating
urban revitalization, must become advocates for projects. Caltrans would
play a supporting role in cooperating with community desires.
Under this new relationship, freeway development would be
undertaken on a project-by-project basis. While new freeways would be
built to state standards as part of the State Freeway system, each project
would be guided by a joint development authority representing the
corridor cities, the county and Caltrans.
Present roles of the State Legislature, regional agencies, county
transportation commissions and the California Transportation
6
"To assure future mobility
for Southern California's
19 million people, a new
commitment must be made to
freeway development."
Commission would remain the same. Caltrans' responsibilities for
project planning and programming also would be the same. The critical
difference is imp, lementation of each freeway project would depend on
local initiative and support. Communities which take the lead in
promoting construction of priority freeways will be the ones to receive
Caltrans' support in fulfilling their community aspirations.
Choosing Our Future
The continued growth of population and employment in Southern
California is inevitable. Growth has followed trends predicted earlier
and these patterns are continuing. Freeway development simply has not
kept pace. To assure future mobility for Southern California's
19 million people, a new commitment must be made to freeway
development. What we do today will determine whether we have the
mobility we will need for tomorrow or whether we will just be spinning
our wheels on yesterday's transportation system.
This special report was developed by the Automobile Club of
Southern California to encourage public discussion and action on one
of the most pressing regional issues of our time--preserving our
mobility. We believe an informed public is critical to setting a
transportation agenda that will keep Southern California strong and
vibrant. If you would like more information about this important
subject, please contact us. We welcome your comments.
Automobile Club of Southern California
P.O. Box 2890, Terminal Annex
Los Angeles, California 90051
7
"Implementation of each
freeway project would depend
on local initiative and
support."
Freeway Development Project List
$ Millions
Route 2 (Glendale Freeway)--between Glendale Freeway and
Interstate l0 (Santa Monica Freeway). Complete freeway
8 lanes (4 miles) ............................................. 460
Route 7 {Long Beach Freeway)--between Interstates l0 and 210.
Complete freeway gap--8 lanes (6 miles) ........................... 480
Route 15--between Interstates 8 and 805. Complete freeway gap--
8 lanes (2 miles) ............................................. 140
Route 19 (Rosemead Freeway}--between Interstate 605 (San
Gabriel River Freeway) and Interstate 210 (Foothill Freeway).
Construct 8-lane freeway {9 miles) ............................. 1,000
Route 27--between Route 101 (Ventura Freeway) and Route 118
(San Fernando Valley Freeway). Construct &lane freeway {8 miles) ...... 500
Route 30 (Foothill Freeway)--between San Dimas and San Bernardino.
Construct 6-lane freeway (29 miles) ............................. 1,390
Route 39 (Beach Boulevard Freeway}--between Route 1 (Pacific
Coast Highway) and Interstate 210 (Foothill Freeway). Construct 8-lane
freeway (34 miles) .......................................... 3,160
Route 52--between Santo Road and Route 67 in Santee. Construct
6-lane freeway (8 miles) ........................................ 230
Route 54 (South Bay Freeway)--between Interstates 8 and 805.
freeway to Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) (2 miles) ............... 50
Route 56--between Interstate 5 and Route 125. Construct 4-lane
freeway (11 miles) ............................................ 580
Route 57 (Orange Freeway)--between Interstate 5 (Santa Ana
Freeway) and Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway). Construct 8-lane
freeway {8 miles) ............................................. 790
Route 58~between Kern County Line and Barstow. Construct 4-lane
freeway (33 miles} ............................................ 70
Route 58--between Cameron Creek and Edwards Air Force Base.
Construct 4-lane freeway {22 miles) ............................... 100
Route 64 {Whirnail Freeway)--between Route 27 and Interstate 5
(Golden State Freeway). Construct 8-lane freeway (12 miles) .......... 1,120
Route 71--between Route 91 (Riverside Freeway) and Mission Boulevard.
Construct 6-lane freeway (14 miles) ............................... 240
Route 73 (San Joaquin Hills Freeway)--extend 6-lane freeway to
Interstate 5 (San Diego Freeway) {15 miles} ......................... 480
Route 90 (Slauson Freeway}--between Interstate 405 (San Diego
Freeway) and Route 91 (Riverside Freeway). Construct 8-lane
freeway (37 miles) .......................................... 3,170
Route 117--between Interstate 805 and Route 125. Construct 6-lane
freeway (4 miles) ............................................. 250
Route 118--between Route 126 and Route 23. Construct 6-lane
freeway (25 miles) .......................................... 1,130
Route 125--between the Mexican border and Interstate 15.
Construct 4- & 6-lane freeway (33 miles) ........................ 1,340
Route 126--between Interstate 5 (Golden State Freeway} and Route 14
(Antelope Valley Freeway). Construct 6-lane freeway (12 miles) ......... 6~0
Route 170~between Los Angeles Airport and Route 101 (Ventura
Freeway}. Construct 8-lane freeway {15 miles} ..................... t,520
Route 252 between Interstates 5 and 805. Construct 8-lane freeway
(1 mile) ..................................................... 50
Eastern Freeway~between Interstate 5 (Santa Ana Freeway) and Route
91 (Riverside Freeway). Construct 6-lane freeway(17 miles) ..........
Foothill Freeway--between Interstate 5 (San Diego Freeway) and Route
(Newport Freeway). Construct 6-lane freeway (31 miles} ..............
TOTAL $20,470
8
~Automobile Club of Southern California
Board of Directors: Norman Barker, Jr., Ross M. Blakely, Waldo H.
Burnside, Harry V. Cheshire, Jr., James F. Dickason, Walter B. Getken,
Walter W. Hoffman, Marilyn W. Hudson, Albert C. Martin, Donn B.
Miller, Joseph B. Platt, Roger S. Woolley
Honorary Directors: J. Leland Atwood, Arnold O. Beckman, Knox
Farrand, Ruth H. Kodani, Thomas L. Lowe, Nell Petree, Maynard J.
Toil
Officers: Joseph B. Platt, Chairman of the Board, Roger S. Woolley,
Vice Chairman of the Board
Staff Officers: Harry V. Cheshire, Jr., President; Lawrence C. Baker,
Jr., Vice President; Thomas V. McKernan, Jr., Vice President; Richard
U. Robison, Vice President and General Counsel; Terrence E. Sullivan,
Vice President; Linda C. Diamond, Secretary