— You want to construct an addition to your house that requires a building permit. Wouldn’t it be wise to get the permit before buying a detailed architectural plan? The San Diego City Council is proceeding with the Regents Road bridge over Rose Canyon the other way around. The council admits that, after one failed environmental impact report, a new one is required. Yet last October 16, councilmembers approved spending $4.8 million for “full engineering and design of the bridge.” They say planners will look at the next environmental impact report later.

Proponents argue that the new bridge would be the best solution to relieving north/south traffic on Genesee Avenue, which already crosses Rose Canyon on a bridge. The reason? Regents Road runs parallel to Genesee about a half mile to the west. But Rose Canyon now divides Regents in two, so that motorists cannot use the road to drive back and forth between the southern and northern ends of the community. As far back as the mid-1980s, University City’s community plan called for both widening Genesee and connecting the two sections of Regents with the bridge. But the City soon realized that paying for both would be too expensive. Local residents then began vying over which one to choose.

Former District One councilmember Harry Mathis was a proponent of the bridge, and in the mid-1990s, he created a 15-member citizens’ committee to evaluate it. As part of its work, the committee studied an opinion written by Frank Belock, then the City’s assistant director of engineering and capital projects. Belock argued, largely on the basis of traffic studies, that the bridge should not be built. So the committee voted 12 to 3 against the bridge and in favor of the Genesee widening. But it also asked Mathis not to do anything further about solving Genesee’s traffic problems until improvements on and near I-805 near Nobel Drive were completed.

When Mathis termed out in 2000, his replacement, Scott Peters, created another public committee to study alternatives to solving Genesee Avenue traffic. I speak with two members of that committee, UCSD physics professor Dan Arovas and Debbie Knight, president of Friends of Rose Canyon.

“The committee divided sharply over which project to choose,” remembers Arovas. “But we reached strong consensus on the criteria by which to evaluate them. From a dozen or two criteria, we voted three as having the highest priority: to relieve Genesee traffic, to minimize impacts to the natural environment, and to minimize cost. And by all three of these criteria, the bridge turns out to be a lousy project.”

Nevertheless, plans for the bridge moved forward, including a contract the City awarded to Project Design Consultants to write an environmental impact report. That report took three years to complete, cost $1.8 million, and now sits on the shelf. In late 2006, Friends of Rose Canyon filed a lawsuit declaring that the document downplayed the impact to the canyon. Last spring, the city council brought the lawsuit to an end when it admitted that the contractor’s effort was flawed. The city council promised to require a new environmental impact report. Only in the last several months has the City put out a request for proposals to write the new environmental impact report.

Should the City widen Genesee Avenue instead? The latest estimates indicate that the widening would cost the City $24 million as opposed to $46 million for the Regents Road bridge over Rose Canyon. The difference might be worth it if the bridge will divert significant amounts of Genesee traffic onto Regents. Dan Arovas says it won’t.

“In the interests of full disclosure, however,” Arovas continues, “I first want to admit that I live close to where the bridge would be built. Most bridge proponents live along the Genesee corridor. There is NIMBYism on both sides. So I decided to study the numbers for a more objective picture.”

The first environmental impact report contained a 2003 traffic study that examined University City intersections and Genesee road segments under five situations: the current state of Genesee traffic; and projected traffic in 2030 with the Rose Canyon bridge, with the Genesee widening, with no project, and with both projects.

Arovas shows me a group of tables from the traffic study. For road segments, such as Genesee between Nobel and Decoro Street, he says, “dividing the average daily trips by the number of lanes gives you a figure, which is translated into a letter grade, much like we used to get in school.” An A grade means the traffic is smooth sailing, while E is too congested, and F is practically intolerable. “Traffic engineers say that D or better is acceptable. It’s E and F that they want to avoid,” according to Arovas.

The 2003 traffic study showed that the bridge would give four segments of Genesee two Ds, an E, and an F, while the widening would give them all Cs. In a more detailed breakdown, the bridge would create on Genesee one better situation and the widening ten better situations.

The intersection studies focused not on average daily trips but on delay times at peak hours, once in the morning and once in the evening. The studies had to consider 12 possible movements at each intersection: turning right, turning left, and going straight, from four possible directions. The results were not as dramatic, though similar to the segment studies. In studies of 24 intersections in University City, the Genesee widening did better than the Rose Canyon bridge 13 times, while the bridge did better than the widening 4 times. A table for the total stretch along Genesee from State Route 52 to Eastgate Mall shows the widening producing a 13.9-minute delay with the bridge yielding a 16.1-minute delay.

Of all the tables Arovas displays, my favorite is called “seconds commute time saved per million dollars spent.” It shows that the widening would save drivers 17.1 seconds per million dollars to the bridge’s 7.9.

“There are lots of ways you can slice the numbers,” says Arovas. “Looking at all of them, I don’t see how anyone could say that the bridge would be a superior project to the widening. But during the city council’s first discussion of the bridge in August 2006, there was embarrassingly little discussion of the traffic information.” The council’s eventual decision to go ahead with the bridge “was really justified on the basis of so-called overriding considerations, which are supposed to allow them to skirt [the California Environmental Quality Act] and choose a less effective project.”

More from SDReader

More from the web

Comments

railhead Feb. 21, 2008 @ 7:29 p.m.

My back yard overlooks Regents Rd. and I want a bridge over rose canyon. I've been waiting 35 years and I guess I will be dead before it's built. over thirty trains a day, a major sewer line a access road and bike trails already go up the canyon,what damage could three or four bridge pilings do, GET REAL. It's like all the nitwits who bought condos next to the railroad tracks downtown and complain about the noise. Gordon

0

darovas Feb. 25, 2008 @ 1:56 p.m.

Mr. Deegan did an excellent job distilling a large amount of information I presented him into a readable account. Invariably some things wind up on the cutting room floor, so I'd like to use this comment to address some untouched issues and to make some minor corrections and clarifications.

(1) I strongly believe that the first thing that the City should do vis-a-vis University City infrastructure is to build a fire station in South University City and two more in North UC. Fire stations should leapfrog either of the bridge or widening projects in the FBA phasing. For the cost of the bridge, we could build and equip more than six new fire stations. It's easy for the city to forego hiring the necessary additional firefighters when there's no money to build the actual stations. The University Community Planning Group should try to force the city's hand by recommending tearly phasing of additional fire stations.

(2) I am not eager to see Genesee Avenue widened. This project would result in a six-lane prime arterial slicing through the center of South UC. There are also several residential complexes along Genesee, and of course UC High School. That being said, the traffic studies rather unambiguously show the widening to be a more effective project in terms of congestion relief on Genesee. The reason is rather easy to apprehend: the widening would provide additional capacity where the demand is greatest. Much of Genesee congestion is due to commuters who use it as an alternate route to the overcrowded 805 freeway, particularly southbound during the PM peak. Regents lies even further to the west, so it would serve as a bypass of a bypass. This is why it is a poor congestion reliever for Genesee; it would do more to attract freeway trips from I-5 onto Regents.

(3) Anyone familiar with North UC would understand why the trip demands are greatest for Genesee Avenue: there is a large density of business and commercial centers along or east of Genesee: Costa Verde, UTC, Renaissance, Executive Office, etc. Regents Rd, on the other hand, is just one condominium complex after another. Well, aside from Doyle Elementary School and Doyle Park and Recreation Center, that is.

(4) 25 year traffic projections are fraught with uncertainty, and previous projections have been off by as much as 100%. If one looks at the City's machine count tables, the actual traffic volume on Genesee (between UCHS and Governor Dr, say) has hardly changed since 1987. The actual numbers: 32,500 ADT in 1987 and 33,750 ADT in 2004. This was a period of enormous growth in North UC, yet the volume on Genesee remained essentially constant. Given this record, I think it premature that we would commit to any large road-building project, given the negative impact to the community of both the bridge and widening projects, and especially when it could serve to facilitate further plan-busting overdevelopment in North UC.

(end of part I)

0

darovas Feb. 25, 2008 @ 1:57 p.m.

(continued)

(5) Frank Belock's 1995 recommendation to pursue the Genesee widening and hold off on the Regents bridge was based on two facts. One, as Deegan reports, was that the 1994-5 traffic study projected the widening to provide better service levels. The second was that there was insufficient money in the FBA at the time to pay for the bridge. Had the City gone forward with the Mathis Committee's recommendation for the widening back in 1995, there would be no need for an additional project today.

(6) The "detailed breakdown" for street segment service levels which showed the bridge better in one case and the widening better in 10 cases includes all segments in the study area (31 of them). The data are straight from the city's EIR.

(7) Cases where the bridge has a projected level-of-service C and the widening LOS B are irrelevant, because D or better is acceptable. If one focuses exclusively on failing (E,F) LOS cases, one finds that the bridge does better than the widening at three intersections and zero segments, while the widening does better than the bridge at four intersections and two segments. In addition, among the acceptable LOS rankings, the bridge would result in a degradation to LOS D (just above threshold) at five intersections and three segments; in each of these cases the widening would result in LOS C or better. Bridge proponents have consistently been unwilling to engage the record of the traffic studies, and with results like these, it isn't hard to understand why.(8) Jarman's "factor of three" error was in the average distance savings for her three selected response scenarios via the Regents bridge. Her July 19, 2006 memo reported an average distance savings of 0.95 miles on three routes, whereas the correct figure is 0.37 miles. I first checked the route distances using the Google Earth geocoder, then checked them on my car's odometer, and then had my friend Larry Hogue do the same with his car.

0

darovas Feb. 25, 2008 @ 1:57 p.m.

(continued)

(8) Jarman's "factor of three" error was in the average distance savings for her three selected response scenarios via the Regents bridge. Her July 19, 2006 memo reported an average distance savings of 0.95 miles on three routes, whereas the correct figure is 0.37 miles. I first checked the route distances using the Google Earth geocoder, then checked them on my car's odometer, and then had my friend Larry Hogue do the same with his car.

(9) To this day I don't understand how it is that Jarman arrived at her numbers. When she retracted her report during her second appearance before the City Council on August 1, 2006, she claimed that a "segment was left out." But she was wrong on each of three different routes, and by different amounts in each case. Was a different segment left out every time? And why did the errors always significantly favor the bridge alternative?

(10) My colleagues and I did not wish to embarrass Chief Jarman before the Council, and so we had requested a meeting with her beforehand to discuss her findings. Alas, she refused to meet with us. Mayor Sanders had also told us that he was "hard" on this issue and was unwilling to reconsider his position in support of the bridge. I suspect that the mayor unfairly forced Jarman in a very awkward position.

Once again, thanks to Mr. Deegan for such an excellent and informative article.

0

Geoffrey March 22, 2008 @ 1:48 p.m.

Kudos to the Friends of Rose Canyon team! Generations from now, the efforts of Debbie and her team may well be forgotten, but their legacy will remain: A beautiful, un-interrupted open space canyon preserve serving as a natural treasure in a city that is defined by its canyon systems. Rose Canyon is part of the paradise that will always be 'temporary' -- if not for the leadership of visionaries like Debbie who understand that paradise is not for paving. May the Rose and Los Penasquitos canyon open space preserves remain just that: Open!

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close