None

That's quite an exaggeration, KMW. Genesee ADT is about 30,000 as of 2014. The ADT on I-805 is over 200,000. Draw your own conclusions about noise. Residents along Genesee certainly do experience road noise, and Regents, since it does not connect, is much quieter, as you say. One hears criticism that residents along Regents both north and south of the canyon oppose the bridge for NIMBY reasons. (I used to live at Regents and Lahitte - basically ground zero for any bridge project - but my family moved over to Wellesly Ave. in 2012.) That's certainly true to some extent. Then again, pretty much all of University City opposed the idea of an international airport at Miramar for similar reasons, so that comes with the territory. There's no doubt that a bridge on Regents would relieve Genesee Avenue of *some* peak hour congestion. The question is how much, is it worth it, and is there a better alternative? Based on the traffic studies, it doesn't appear to me that one can make a strong case for the bridge. I think a Regents bridge would draw more traffic from the 5 freeway than it would from Genesee. The problem with Genesee is that the 805 is severely congested during peak hours (NB during AM, SB during PM), and Genesee attracts some of those trips - people headed to the south and southeast who can get to SR-52 via Genesee and avoid the 805. Genesee will attract I-805 trips roughly until it provides no time advantage. But since, on the scale of Genesee ADT, the 805 is an effectively infinite source of trips, even if you draw some Genesee trips onto Regents, they'll just be replenished by trips from the 805. So in that sense I think peak hour Genesee congestion is self-limiting.
— October 25, 2015 4:58 p.m.

None

— October 25, 2015 4:57 p.m.

None

...continued from above Another figure of merit traffic engineers use to assess congestion is peak hour intersection LOS. Neither the bridge nor the widening project would save us from having many LOS F intersections at buildout. According to the 2004 EIR, with the bridge we'd have six LOS F segments and eight LOS F intersections, while with the widening we'd have five LOS F segments and six LOS F intersections in the study area. These numbers should be compared with the "no project" alternative, with which we'd get nine LOS F segments and ten LOS F intersections. LOS E is also deemed unacceptable by traffic planners, and if you include all unacceptable segments and intersections in the tally, you get a total of 23 with the bridge, 22 with the widening, and 29 with no project. At the time of the study, there were only 11 failing segments and intersections in the study area, so the projections looked troubling. But keep in mind that the forecasts for buildout traffic have been significantly overestimated. If the projected traffic doesn't materialize, the congestion won't be as bad as projected. Another figure of merit which can be calculated from the 2004 traffic study but was not reported is the total delay time along Genesee Avenue from SR-52 to Eastgate Mall. By adding up all the projected delays for through movements at all intersections along Genesee between these locations, during both AM and PM peak, one gets 16.5 minutes with the bridge, 13.6 minutes with the widening, and 21.0 minutes with neither. In view of the substantially greater cost of the bridge project as compared to the widening, and its overall weak congestion relief (in 2030, even with the bridge, the Governor-Genesee intersection would be at LOS E during AM peak and LOS F during PM peak, according to the 2004 study) and unimpressive performance relative to the widening, it seems to me that the bridge is a poor choice, especially if one considers the impacts on Rose Canyon. But maybe we don't need either project - at least not right now. Matters should clarify somewhat when the new traffic study is made public. If those numbers continue to look like they did in 2004, 1994, and 1987, why should we commit to any large project? The imminent I-805 widening should take some of the load off Genesee. Hope this helps!
— October 25, 2015 1:10 p.m.

None

I'll take a crack at answering for Peter. There have been multiple previous traffic studies of the University Community area, in 1987, 1994, 1997, and 2004. All have significantly overestimated the build-out traffic on Genesee within the "no project" scenario. The 1987 study, conducted prior to the adoption of the University Community Plan, projected 70,000 ADT on Genesee (average on segments north and south of Governor Drive) by 2005 buildout. The 1994 University Community Focused Transportation Study (http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/transpo…) projected 49,000 ADT for 2015 buildout. The 1997 study, which basically reworked the 1994 numbers, projected 45,000 ADT for 2015 buildout. The 2004 University City North/South Transportation Corridor study (http://www.worldcat.org/title/university-city-nor…) projected 42,000 ADT for 2030 buildout. The actual ADT in 2012-2014, according to the City's own machine count tables, is just below 30,000. So the studies have significantly overestimated the buildout volumes on Genesee. Indeed, according to the actual traffic counts, Genesee Avenue ADT has been approximately flat since 1987. This may be difficult to believe, but it is true. Here is a graph of Genesee ADT north of Governor from 1987 to 2012: http://imgur.com/n9Rpi87 . During this period, development in North UC did this: http://imgur.com/iZiC1cQ . As for the projected effectiveness of the bridge, the 2004 study projected segment level of service (LOS) F at buildout on each of the four sections of Genesee through South UC: Nobel to Decoro, Decoro to UCHS, North of Governor, and South of Governor, within the "no project" scenario. With the bridge, the segment LOSs were projected to be E, D, D, and F. The projected LOS grades with the Genesee Avenue widening project were C, C, C, and C. To be continued...
— October 25, 2015 1:09 p.m.

Regents Road bridge over Rose Canyon puts permitting last

(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.
— February 25, 2008 1:57 p.m.

Regents Road bridge over Rose Canyon puts permitting last

(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.
— February 25, 2008 1:57 p.m.

Regents Road bridge over Rose Canyon puts permitting last

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)
— February 25, 2008 1:56 p.m.