The 2008 Baja California Border Master Plan Disaster

California-Baja California
Border Master Plan

Plan Maestro Fronterizo
Final Report
Informe Final
SEPTEMBER 2008
SEPTIEMBRE 2008
SEPTEMBER 2008
SEPTIEMBRE 2008
Border Master Plan
Final Report
Informe Final
Submitted to
Caltrans, District 11
4050 Taylor Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Submitted by
SANDAG Service Bureau
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101-4231
Phone 619.699.1900
Fax 619.699.1905
www.sandag.org/servicebureau
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan was commissioned by the U.S./Mexico Joint
Working Committee to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Secretariat
of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano del
Estado de Baja California or SIDUE) for the California-Baja California border region.
El Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California fue comisionado por el Comité Conjunto de
Trabajo de los Estados Unidos y México a Caltrans y a SIDUE para la región fronteriza de
California-Baja California.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... ES-1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... ES-1
Study Purpose and Objectives ......................................................................................................... ES-1
Study Area ........................................................................................................................................ ES-2
Decision-Making Structure................................................................................................................ ES-3
Study Approach ................................................................................................................................ ES-4
Summary of Findings and Recommendations.................................................................................. ES-4
POE and Transportation Facilities Projects – Evaluation Criteria and Rankings ............................. ES-6
Suggestions for Consideration in Future California-Baja California
Border Master Planning Activities..................................................................................................... ES-14
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ ES-15
RESUMEN EJECUTIVO...................................................................................................................... RE-1

Introducción ...................................................................................................................................... RE-1
Propósito y Objetivos del Estudio ..................................................................................................... RE-1
Zona de Estudio................................................................................................................................ RE-2
Estructura de Toma de Decisiones................................................................................................... RE-3
Enfoque del Estudio.......................................................................................................................... RE-4
Resumen de Resultados y Recomendaciones................................................................................. RE-4
Sugerencias a Considerar en Actividades Futuras de Planeación Fronteriza
California- Baja California ................................................................................................................. RE-15
Conclusiones .................................................................................................................................... RE-16
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of Study ................................................................................................................................. 1
Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Decision-Making Structure................................................................................................................... 3
Approach for Completing the Tasks .................................................................................................... 4
Organization of the Report................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: STATE OF THE PRACTICE FOR PORT OF ENTRY AND

RELATED TRANSPORTATION FACILITY PLANNING ................................................ 7
Definition of Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 7
Study Horizon Year.............................................................................................................................. 7
Current Planning Practices .................................................................................................................. 7
Transportation Planning Processes ................................................................................................ 8
SANDAG Service Bureau i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
CHAPTER 2: STATE OF THE PRACTICE FOR PORT OF ENTRY AND

RELATED TRANSPORTATION FACILITY PLANNING (CONT’D)
POE Planning.................................................................................................................................. 9
Project Prioritization ........................................................................................................................ 10
Funding Transportation and POE Projects ..................................................................................... 11
Public Participation and Interagency Coordination ......................................................................... 13
Planning Document Updates and Horizons.................................................................................... 14
Interagency Participation in Planning Processes............................................................................ 16
Integration of Plans ......................................................................................................................... 16
Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 17
CHAPTER 3: CURRENT AND PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE............. 19

California Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics ............................................................ 19
Population ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Employment .................................................................................................................................... 20
Income ............................................................................................................................................ 20
Land Use......................................................................................................................................... 21
Baja California Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics.................................................... 22
Population ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Employment .................................................................................................................................... 23
Income ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Land Use......................................................................................................................................... 25
Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics
Combined California-Baja California Area of Influence ....................................................................... 26
Population ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Employment .................................................................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 4: CURRENT AND PROJECTED PORT OF ENTRY CONDITIONS

AND RELATED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ........................................................ 31
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 31
California POE Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 31
Northbound Average Wait Times.................................................................................................... 33
Staffing ............................................................................................................................................ 35
Current and Projected Northbound Crossborder Travel Demand .................................................. 36
Baja California POE Facilities.............................................................................................................. 47
Southbound Average Wait Times ................................................................................................... 48
ii SANDAG Service Bureau

CHAPTER 4: CURRENT AND PROJECTED PORT OF ENTRY CONDITIONS AND

RELATED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES (CONT’D)
Staffing ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Current Southbound Crossborder Travel Demand ......................................................................... 48
Evaluation of Transportation Facilities................................................................................................. 50
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................................... 50
Transportation Facilities Serving POEs .......................................................................................... 52
Short-Term Transportation and POE Projects..................................................................................... 61
Short-Term Projects ........................................................................................................................ 62
CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PORT OF ENTRY AND

RELATED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES................................................................. 75
Criteria Development ........................................................................................................................... 75
POE Projects: Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................... 76
Transportation Projects: Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................... 79
CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF MID- AND LONG-TERM

TRANSPORTATION AND PORT OF ENTRY PROJECTS ............................................ 83
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 83
Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE ................................................................................................ 84
Proposed POE Projects for the Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE......................................... 84
Proposed Transportation Projects for the Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE......................... 84
Assessment of Projects .................................................................................................................. 87
San Ysidro-Puerta México POE .......................................................................................................... 88
Proposed POE Projects for the San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE ... 89
Proposed Transportation Projects for the San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia Avenue-
El Chaparral POE............................................................................................................................ 90
Calexico-Mexicali POE ........................................................................................................................ 94
Proposed POE Projects for the Calexico-Mexicali POE ................................................................. 94
Proposed Transportation Projects for the Calexico-Mexicali POE ................................................. 95
Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE ........................................................................................................... 99
Proposed POE Projects for the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE.................................................... 99
Proposed Transportation Projects for the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE .................................... 100
SANDAG Service Bureau iii

CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF MID- AND LONG-TERM

TRANSPORTATION AND PORT OF ENTRY PROJECTS (CONT’D)
Tecate-Tecate POE ............................................................................................................................. 103
Proposed POE Projects for the Tecate-Tecate POE...................................................................... 104
Proposed Transportation Projects for the Tecate-Tecate POE ...................................................... 104
Calexico East-Mexicali II POE ............................................................................................................. 106
Proposed POE Projects for the Calexico East-Mexicali II POE...................................................... 107
Proposed Transportation Projects for the Calexico East-Mexicali II POE ...................................... 107
Andrade-Los Algodones POE.............................................................................................................. 109
Proposed POE Projects for the Andrade-Los Algodones POE ...................................................... 109
Proposed Transportation Projects for the Andrade-Los Algodones POE....................................... 110
CHAPTER 7: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A BINATIONAL MASTER PLANNING PROCESS ......... 125

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 125
California-Baja California Border Master Plan: Recommendations
for a Binational Master Planning Process............................................................................................ 125
Understanding the POE and Transportation Planning Processes.................................................. 126
Significance of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan Process ................................... 126
Institutionalizing the California-Baja California Border Master Plan Process ................................. 127
Suggestions for Consideration in Future California-Baja California
Border Master Planning Activities........................................................................................................ 129
Study Administration ....................................................................................................................... 130
Data Needs ..................................................................................................................................... 130
APPENDICES (bound under separate cover)

A Project Specific Documentation
B Agency Planning Processes
C Transportation Facilities and Short-term Projects
D Evaluation Criteria and Mid- and Long-term Projects
E Comments and Responses
G Glossary
iv SANDAG Service Bureau

LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 2: STATE OF THE PRACTICE FOR PORT OF ENTRY AND RELATED TRANSPORTATION
FACILITY PLANNING
2-1 Planning Documents ..................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 3: CURRENT AND PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
3-1 Total Population, 2000-2030 – California and San Diego and Imperial Counties ........................ 20
3-2 Employment, 2005-2030 – California and San Diego and Imperial Counties .............................. 20
3-3 Land Use, 2005-2030 – San Diego and Imperial Counties .......................................................... 21
3-4 Total Population, 2000-2030 – Baja California Municipalities....................................................... 23
3-5 Employment, 2000-2030 – Baja California Municipalities............................................................. 23
3-6 Regional Product, 2005-2030 – Baja California Municipalities ..................................................... 24
3-7 Land Use, 2005-2030 – Baja California Municipalities ................................................................. 25
CHAPTER 4: CURRENT AND PROJECTED PORT OF ENTRY CONDITIONS AND RELATED TRANS-
PORTATION FACILITIES
4-1 Current and Projected Number of Northbound Lanes, 2005-2030 – California POEs ................. 32
4-2 Average Daily Northbound Wait Times, 2005 – California-Baja California POEs ........................ 33
4-3 Weekday Vehicle Wait Times – Northbound Travel (August 21-28, 2007) .................................. 34
4-4 2007 Total Estimated Economic Impacts Due to Border Wait Times
and Constrained Border Infrastructure by Geographic Area ........................................................ 35
4-5 Northbound Passenger and Commercial Vehicle Border Crossing Estimates by POE,
2005 and 2030 – CPB, SANDAG, SIDUE, and Caltrans .............................................................. 41
4-6 Northbound Pedestrian Border Crossing Estimates by POE, 2005 and 2030 –
CPB, SANDAG, and SIDUE.......................................................................................................... 42
4-7 Northbound Pedestrian Crossings, Fiscal Years 1994 - 2005 –
California-Baja California POEs .................................................................................................... 43
4-8 Northbound Rail Crossings and Rail Cars, 2000-2030 – California-Baja California POEs .......... 44
4-9 Current and Projected Number of Southbound Lanes, 2005-2030 –
Baja California-Baja California POEs............................................................................................ 47
4-10 Southbound Passenger Vehicle Crossings, 2005 – California-Baja California POEs .................. 48
4-11 Southbound Truck Crossings, 2005 – California-Baja California POEs ....................................... 49
CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PORT OF ENTRY AND RELATED TRANSPORTATION

FACILITIES
5-1 POE Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................ 77

5-2 POE Project Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................................... 78
5-3 Roadway and Interchange Evaluation Criteria by Type................................................................ 79
5-4 Rail Evaluation Criteria by Type.................................................................................................... 80
SANDAG Service Bureau v

LIST OF TABLES (CONT’D)
CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF MID- AND LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION

AND PORT OF ENTRY PROJECTS
6-1 POE Projects – Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE................................................................ 84

6-2 Roadway Projects – Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE ........................................................ 85
6-3 Interchange Projects – Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE .................................................... 87
6-4 POE Projects – San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia Avenue/El Chaparral POE .......................... 89
6-5 Roadway Projects – San Ysidro-Puerta México/El Chaparral POE ............................................. 90
6-6 Interchange Projects – San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia Avenue/El Chaparral POE ............... 91
6-7 Rail Projects – San Ysidro-Puerta México /El Chaparral POE ..................................................... 92
6-8 POE Projects – Calexico-Mexicali POE........................................................................................ 94
6-9 Roadway Projects – Calexico-Mexicali POE ................................................................................ 95
6-10 Interchange Projects – Calexico-Mexicali POE ............................................................................ 96
6-11 Rail Projects – Calexico-Mexicali POE ......................................................................................... 97
6-12 POE Projects – Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE........................................................................... 99
6-13 Roadway Projects – Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE ................................................................... 100
6-14 Interchange Projects – Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE ............................................................... 101
6-15 Rail Projects – Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE ............................................................................ 102
6-16 POE Projects – Tecate-Tecate POE............................................................................................. 104
6-17 Roadway Projects – Tecate-Tecate POE ..................................................................................... 105
6-18 Interchange Projects – Tecate-Tecate POE ................................................................................. 105
6-19 Rail Projects – Tecate-Tecate POE .............................................................................................. 105
6-20 POE Projects – Calexico East-Mexicali II POE............................................................................. 107
6-21 Roadway Projects – Calexico East-Mexicali II POE ..................................................................... 107
6-22 POE Projects – Andrade-Los Algodones POE ............................................................................. 109
vi SANDAG Service Bureau

LIST OF FIGURES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-1 San Diego County – Municipality of Tijuana Projects (2007-2030) ....................................... ES-16
ES-2 San Diego County – Municipality of Tijuana Projects (2007-2030) – Inset Map ................... ES-17
ES-3 Tecate Projects (2007-2030).................................................................................................. ES-18
ES-4 Desert Rail Line Projects (2007-2030).................................................................................. ES-19
ES-5 San Diego County – Municipalities of Tijuana and Tecate Project Lists (2007-2030)........... ES-20
ES-6 Imperial County – Municipality of Mexicali Projects (2007-2030) .......................................... ES-25
ES-7 Andrade - Algodones Projects (2007-2030)........................................................................... ES-26
ES-8 Imperial County – Municipality of Mexicali Projects (2007-2030) .......................................... ES-27
RESUMEN EJECUTIVO
RE-1 Proyectos del Condado de San Diego – Municipio de Tijuana (2007-2030)......................... RE-17
RE-2 Proyectos del Condado de San Diego – Municipio de Tijuana (2007-2030) –
Mapa Enfocado ...................................................................................................................... RE-18
RE-3 Proyectos de Tecate (2007-2030).......................................................................................... RE-19
RE-4 Proyectos de Ferrocarril – Ruta del Desierto (2007-2030) .................................................... RE-20
RE-5 Lista de Proyectos del Condado de San Diego –
Municipios de Tijuana y Tecate (2007-2030)......................................................................... RE-21
RE-6 Proyectos del Condado de Imperial – Municipio de Mexicali (2007-2030)............................ RE-26
RE-7 Proyectos Andrade - Algodones (2007-2030)........................................................................ RE-27
RE-8 Lista de Proyectos del Condado de Imperial – Municipio de Mexicali (2007-2030) .............. RE-28
CHAPTER 2: STATE OF THE PRACTICE FOR PORT OF ENTRY AND RELATED TRANSPORTATION
FACILITY PLANNING
2-1 California-Baja California Border Master Plan Study Area ........................................................... 18
CHAPTER 3: CURRENT AND PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
3-1 Distribution of Population, 2005-2030 – San Diego and Imperial Counties and
Baja California Municipalities ........................................................................................................ 26
3-2 Annual Average Population Growth Rates, 2005-2030 – San Diego and Imperial Counties
and Baja California Municipalities ................................................................................................. 27
3-3 Distribution of Employment, 2005-2030 – San Diego and Imperial Counties
3-4 Annual Average Employment Growth Rates, 2005-2030 – San Diego and Imperial Counties
SANDAG Service Bureau vii

LIST OF FIGURES (CONT’D)
CHAPTER 4: CURRENT AND PROJECTED PORT OF ENTRY CONDITIONS AND RELATED TRANS-
PORTATION FACILITIES
4-1 Northbound Passenger Vehicle Crossings, 2000-2030 –

California-Baja California POEs .................................................................................................... 36
4-2 Northbound Pedestrian Crossings, 2005-2030 – California-Baja California POEs ...................... 38
4-3 Northbound Truck Crossings, 2000-2030 – California-Baja California POEs .............................. 39
4-4 Northbound Value of Goods by Truck, 2000-2005 – California-Baja California POEs................. 45
4-5 Northbound Volume of Goods by Truck, 2000-2005 – California-Baja California POEs.............. 46
4-6 San Diego County – Municipality of Tijuana Projects (2007-2012) .............................................. 65
4-7 San Diego County – Municipality of Tijuana Projects (2007-2012) – Inset Map .......................... 66
4-8 Tecate Projects (2007-2012)......................................................................................................... 67
4-9 San Diego County – Municipalities of Tijuana and Tecate Project Lists (2007-2012).................. 68
4-10 Imperial County – Municipality of Mexicali Projects (2007-2012) ................................................. 71
4-11 Andrade - Algodones Projects (2007-2012).................................................................................. 72
4-12 Imperial County – Municipality of Mexicali Project Lists (2007-2012)........................................... 73
CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF MID- AND LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION

AND PORT OF ENTRY PROJECTS
6-1 San Diego County – Municipality of Tijuana Projects (2013-2030) ............................................. 113
6-2 San Diego County – Municipality of Tijuana Projects (2013-2030) – Inset Map .......................... 114
6-3 Tecate Projects (2013-2030)......................................................................................................... 115
6-4 Desert Line Projects (2013-2030) ................................................................................................. 116
6-5 San Diego County – Municipalities of Tijuana and Tecate Project Lists (2013-2030).................. 117
6-6 Imperial County – Municipality of Mexicali Projects (2013-2030) ................................................. 121
6-7 Andrade - Algodones Projects (2013-2030).................................................................................. 122
6-8 Imperial County – Municipality of Mexicali Project Lists (2013-2030)........................................... 123
viii SANDAG Service Bureau

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Crossborder travel at the six land ports of entry (POEs) in the California-Baja California region has grown
significantly over the years. The San Diego County-Tijuana/Tecate region is home to the San Ysidro-
Puerta México, the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay, and the Tecate-Tecate POEs while the Imperial County-
Mexicali region hosts the Calexico-Mexicali, Calexico East-Mexicali II, and Andrade-Los Algodones
POEs. Travel demand is expected to increase at all POEs in the region between 2005 and 2030. Total
population in the California-Baja California study area was estimated at more than six million in 2005 and
is projected to grow to almost 9.5 million by 2030.1 Growth in population and economic activity will
increase crossborder travel demand and continue to add pressure to the POE facilities and connecting
roads.
Given the current and projected travel demand at the existing POEs, improving the capacity and
operations of the current infrastructure is critical to decrease traffic congestion and delays, facilitate
international trade, and improve the quality of life for residents in the border region. Federal, state,
regional, and local agencies responsible for planning and implementation of POEs and related
transportation facilities in the California-Baja California region agree that a master planning process is
needed to evaluate and integrate POE and transportation infrastructure development on a coordinated
basis.
STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan is a binational comprehensive approach to coordinate
planning and delivery of projects at land POEs and transportation infrastructure serving those POEs in
the California-Baja California region. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in
partnership with the Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (Secretaría de
Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano del Estado de Baja California or SIDUE) and the U.S./Mexico Joint
Working Committee (JWC), retained the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Service
Bureau to assist in the development of this Plan.
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan was envisioned by the JWC as a pilot project between
border states. Based on the outcomes of this pilot binational planning process, the California-Baja
California approach could be expanded to other border states and customized to address their needs,
resulting in a master planning process for the entire U.S.-Mexico border.
1
Source: Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development (SIDUE); San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG); and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); compiled by SANDAG Service Bureau.
SANDAG Service Bureau ES-1

Executive Summary
CALIFORNIA-BAJA CALIFORNIA
BORDER MASTER PLAN
The primary objectives of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan are:
State of the Practice: Increase the understanding of POE and transportation planning on both sides of
the border and create a plan for prioritizing and advancing POE and related transportation projects.
POE and Transportation Facilities Projects – Evaluation Criteria and Rankings: Develop criteria for
prioritizing projects related to existing and new POEs, as well as transportation facilities leading to the
California-Baja California POEs; rank mid- and long-term projects and services (e.g., roads, public
transit, and railways).
Institutionalizing the California-Baja California Master Plan Process: Establish a process to

institutionalize dialogue among federal, state, regional, and local stakeholders in the United States
and Mexico to identify future POE and connecting transportation infrastructure needs and coordinate
projects.
Ideally the approach and methodologies identified in the California-Baja California Border Master Plan will
be incorporated into the respective planning and programming processes of the individual participating
agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local levels in the United States and Mexico.
STUDY AREA
The San Diego County-Tijuana region is home to three POEs—San Ysidro-Puerta México, Otay Mesa-
Mesa de Otay, and Tecate-Tecate. In addition, the Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE is a new
passenger and commercial port that has been proposed to facilitate crossborder travel demand in the
region. The Imperial County-Mexicali region also includes three POEs—Calexico-Mexicali, Calexico East-
Mexicali II, and Andrade-Los Algodones.
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan study area includes an “Area of Influence” and a
“Focused Study Area.” The “Area of Influence” is the geographic area 60 miles, or 100 km., north and
south of the California-Baja California International Border. In California, it includes the counties of
San Diego and Imperial. In Baja California, it includes the municipalities of Tijuana, Tecate, Playas de
Rosarito, parts of Mexicali, and the urban area of Ensenada.
The “Focused Study Area” is the area ten miles north and south of the California-Baja California Inter-
national Border. The short-, mid-, and long-term POE and transportation projects analyzed in the
California-Baja California Border Master Plan were limited to this bandwidth.
ES-2 SANDAG Service Bureau

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE
Under the direction of the U.S./Mexico JWC, Caltrans, and SIDUE, a California-Baja California Border
Master Plan Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) and a Technical Working Group (TWG) were established.
The agencies listed on page ES-3 were invited to participate in the Border Master Plan. Each agency was
asked to designate executive-level managers to serve on the PAC and senior staff to serve on the TWG.
United States
U.S. Department of State (DOS)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)
U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG)
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
County of Imperial
City of Calexico
County of San Diego
City of Chula Vista
City of San Diego
Mexico
Secretariat of Foreign Relations (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, SRE)

Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (Secretaría de Comunicaciones y
Transportes, SCT)
General Customs Administration (Administración General de Aduanas)
Secretariat of Social Development (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social, SEDESOL)
Institute of Administration and Estimates of National Real Estate (Instituto de Administración y
Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales, INDAABIN)
Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (Secretaría de
Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano del Estado de Baja California, SIDUE)
Municipal Planning Institute of Tijuana (Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Tijuana, IMPLAN)
Municipal Planning Institute of Mexicali (Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Mexicali, IMIP)
Municipality of Mexicali (Municipio de Mexicali)
Municipality of Tecate (Municipio de Tecate)
Municipality of Tijuana (Municipio de Tijuana)

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
In addition, other agencies were invited to participate on specific tasks as work progressed. They include:
National Immigration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migración)
Secretariat of Economic Development of Baja California (Secretaría de Desarrollo Económico)
Secretariat of Tourism of Baja California (Secretaría de Turismo)
The PAC was responsible for providing direction, approving the study parameters, establishing criteria for
evaluation of projects, and approving the project rankings. The TWG was responsible for supporting the
SANDAG Service Bureau to implement the direction of the PAC by providing requested information in a
timely manner and for making recommendations to the PAC.
STUDY APPROACH
To accomplish the tasks outlined in the Scope of Work, the Service Bureau prepared questionnaires
requesting pertinent data from the TWG. A summary of the data received and the analyses conducted by
the Service Bureau were then presented to the TWG for discussion. Following the TWG meetings, the
same information and analysis, updated according to the input received from the TWG, was presented at
the PAC meetings. The TWG also made recommendations to the PAC on certain tasks, such as definition
of the study area, planning horizon for the study, evaluation criteria, and project rankings.
Over the course of the study, six PAC meetings and seven TWG meetings were held. Throughout the
process, the Service Bureau worked closely with the JWC, Caltrans, SIDUE, and the California-Baja
California Border Master Plan PAC and TWG to ensure the Plan met its objectives and resulted in a
model that could be used and adapted in other border areas for similar binational infrastructure planning
and coordination.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following section describes the main findings and recommendations for each of the primary
objectives of the study.
State of the Practice
One of the primary objectives of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan was to increase the
understanding of POE and transportation planning on both sides of the California-Baja California border.
In order to understand the planning practices followed by the different stakeholder agencies, a
questionnaire was prepared to solicit information from the TWG. The findings and recommendations
outlined below are based on responses from the stakeholder agencies.
Findings
Planning for POEs and related transportation facilities is a complex process that involves multiple
agencies at all levels of government in both the United States and Mexico. POE planning relies on a

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
five-year planning horizon while planning for transportation facilities uses a longer planning horizon.
Not all planning documents include both the POE and associated transportation network projects.
Federal, state, regional, and municipal agencies on both sides of the border follow a diversity of
project evaluation processes in the preparation of POE and transportation planning documents.
These processes range from overall qualitative assessments to the formulation and application of
detailed quantitative and qualitative criteria.
Coordination and communication among federal, state, regional, and local agencies are occurring at
some level, but there are opportunities for a more systematic process to align implementation
activities, including funding as well as schedules for POEs and connecting transportation facilities.
Opportunities for greater coordination with municipal governments in the development of POE
facilities exist. More direct coordination is sought with state and federal agencies to develop a
comprehensive strategy for border crossings and allow for effective integration of POEs into the
municipal environment. In addition to the POE facility itself, complementary actions related to
transportation, security, urban image, infrastructure, and land use should be considered.
Opportunities for increased public outreach and coordination with local and state agencies could
occur through CBP’s Strategic Resource Assessment (SRA) process. The SRA process focuses on
improvements to existing POEs and does not appear to identify needs for new POE facilities.
However, POE proposals made by other agencies are described in the SRA and selected POE
proposals are included under options for improvements. The U.S. GSA follows through with requests
from CBP to contract for and administer POE feasibility studies to identify and evaluate alternative
POE designs and estimate costs.
Additional coordination between GSA and state, regional, and local agencies is needed to recognize
programming processes and to align implementation schedules and funding of proposed POE
improvements and improvements to roads serving those POEs.
Recommendations
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan methodology is a valuable tool to inform the POE and
transportation planning practices of the stakeholder agencies. Therefore, it is recommended that
stakeholder agencies:
Consider the California-Baja California Border Master Plan project evaluation criteria to guide
their individual project ranking processes. In some instances, the California-Baja California
Border Master Plan criteria would enhance the agency’s methodology with elements or metrics
not currently assessed. In other situations, it could lead to new data collection or monitoring
efforts.
Use outcomes from the California-Baja California Border Master Plan as inputs in federal, state,
regional, and local planning documents, such as Strategic Resource Assessments (prepared by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection); Statewide Transportation Plans (California and Baja
California); Statewide Urban Development Plans (Baja California); Regional Transportation Plans

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
(San Diego and Imperial Counties); General Plans (cities and counties in San Diego and Imperial
Counties); and Municipal Development Plans (municipalities in Baja California). In turn, outcomes
of these planning documents would feed into updates of the California-Baja California Border
Master Plan.
POE AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES PROJECTS –

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RANKINGS
Another important objective of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan is to develop criteria for
prioritizing POE and related transportation projects and rank the mid- and long-term projects. The
California-Baja California Border Master Plan developed a methodology and criteria to evaluate and rank
POE projects as well as roadway, interchange, and rail projects serving the POEs. These four sets of
criteria were crafted taking into account previous corridor evaluation efforts [e.g. Binational Border
Transportation Infrastructure Needs Assessment Study (BINS) project] and the available transportation
data from stakeholder agencies at all levels of government in both California and Baja California. Criteria
include quantitative and qualitative indicators that measure current and projected POE travel demand,
crossborder trade, congestion at POEs and transportation facilities, as well as cost effectiveness, project
performance, project readiness, and regional benefit.
The TWG submitted a list of the short-term (2007-2012) and mid- and long-term (2013-2030) POE and
transportation facility projects planned for the “Focused Study Area.” The short-, mid-, and long-term POE
and transportation projects were limited to this bandwidth and the criteria were applied to rank the mid-
and long-term projects.
The development of criteria for ranking POE and transportation projects has allowed the California-Baja
California Border Master Plan to create, maybe for the first time, a list of prioritized projects within a
binational study area. Projects in early conceptual stages of development, for which quantitative and or
qualitative information was not available, were inventoried without a priority ranking. Future updates of the
Plan can incorporate additional data for these projects as more information becomes available from
planning and implementation activities. The ranked lists serve as a guideline to identify projects of
importance within the California-Baja California border region.

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
A total of 11 POE projects submitted by the TWG were ranked individually and then grouped by POE.2
The individual project rankings were then used to establish the following priority order for the POEs.
Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II (new proponed POE)
San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE3
Calexico-Mexicali POE
Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE
Tecate-Tecate POE
Calexico East-Mexicali II POE
Andrade-Los Algodones POE
In addition, a total of 68 roadway, 16 interchange, and nine railway projects serving the POEs were
ranked. Figures ES-1 through ES-8 illustrate the mid- and long-term POE and transportation facility
projects planned in the California-Baja California region. The main findings are summarized in POE
priority order.
Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II (New POE)
The Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE is a proposed new POE that will be located approximately
two miles east of the existing Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE and will serve both passenger and
commercial vehicles. A presidential permit is in process in the United States. In Mexico, this project is
in the advanced planning phase. Two projects were submitted for the construction of the POE; one in
the United States and one in Mexico. The projects ranked 1st and 2nd out of 11 POE projects
evaluated.
The schedules for completion of the United States and Mexico’s projects at the new POE do not
appear to be fully coordinated since the project in Mexico is planned for completion in 2013 while the
project in the United States is scheduled for completion in 2014. In terms of roadway connections,
State Route (SR) 11, which is a direct connector to the POE, is tied to the construction of the POE
and therefore is scheduled for completion in 2014. In Mexico, two new roads are planned to provide
access to the proposed POE: International Otay II Blvd. and Las Torres Blvd. The roadways are
scheduled for completion in 2013 and 2014, respectively.
2
The projects were submitted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), with concurrence from U.S. General
Services Administration (GSA); Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development (SIDUE), with concurrence
from the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (SCT) and the Institute of Administration and
Appraisals of National Real Estate (INDAABIN); and by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
3
The Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral gate is currently closed. However, projects for its reuse were submitted for
evaluation in this California-Baja California Border Master Plan.

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE
The San Ysidro-Puerta México POE serves pedestrians and passenger vehicles (including buses). It
does not serve commercial vehicles; however, a rail line crosses at this POE. The POE is open seven
days a week and 24 hours a day.
One POE project in the United States was submitted. The counterpart to this POE project in Mexico
was proposed as a short-term project. Short-term projects were not ranked.
The redesign of the San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia-El Chaparral POE is being coordinated with
Mexico to convert the existing southbound vehicle lanes into northbound lanes4 to help facilitate
northbound traffic into the United States. Some of these lanes could be double-stacked (i.e., two
inspection booths per passenger vehicle lane). When double-stacking is taken into account, San
Ysidro is expected to have 50 regular passenger vehicle inspection booths as well as six SENTRI5
lanes, two bus lanes, and 12 pedestrian lanes or inspection booths. Part of this project includes the
associated roadway improvements to access the POE, including southbound access from Interstate 5
(I-5) through the federal facility at Virginia Avenue. This project ranked 3rd out of all 11 POE projects
ranked by the TWG.
Although the counterpart to this project in Mexico was submitted as a short-term project, a brief
description is useful to understand the entire POE redesign. In Mexico, southbound passenger-
vehicle traffic (including buses) is currently processed through nine lanes at Puerta México. As
described above, these lanes will be converted to northbound lanes. Southbound traffic will be
accommodated through the Virginia Avenue/El Chaparral gate, located just west of the existing San
Ysidro/Puerta México POE. El Chaparral will have 15 southbound passenger vehicle lanes (including
three bus lanes) and one return-to-the-U.S. lane. The project also includes the construction of
covered areas for bus and auto inspections.
The schedules for completion of the U.S. and Mexico’s projects at the San Ysidro-Puerta
México/Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE appear not to be fully coordinated since the project in the
United States has an anticipated completion date of 2014, while the project in Mexico is planned for
completion in 2012. However, it is understood that the GSA could advance the reconfiguration of the
southbound lanes to Virginia Avenue/El Chaparral to meet Mexico’s planned schedule of 2012 if
funding became available. The expansion of several roads and construction on new bridges and
ramps are planned in Tijuana to facilitate traffic via the POE reconfiguration. These projects are timed
to be completed in 2013 and 2014, one to two years after Mexico plans to complete its work on the
reconfiguration of the POE, but in line with the planned POE completion date in the United States.
4
The term “lane” as in passenger vehicle lane or pedestrian lane is used interchangeably with “inspection booth” in
this report.
5
SENTRI or Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection is a land border crossing program that
provides expedited Customs and Border Protection processing for pre-approved, low-risk travelers.

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
The Calexico-Mexicali POE provides service for pedestrians and passenger vehicles. The POE
operates seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Commercial trucks have not crossed at this facility
since the Calexico East-Mexicali II POE opened in 1997; however, there is freight rail service that
operates regularly.
Two projects were proposed to alleviate current congestion at the border crossing. In Calexico, plans
are to construct a new facility on the vacated commercial site (west of the railroad tracks) to process
north and southbound passenger vehicles. Pedestrians and buses would be processed at the existing
facility. The Calexico border station currently has ten passenger vehicle, one SENTRI, one bus, and
four pedestrian lanes in the northbound direction. The project would expand to 16 passenger vehicle
lanes with possible double-stacking (includes two SENTRI and one bus lane) and six pedestrian
lanes. This project ranked 5th out of all 11 POE projects that were evaluated.
In Mexico, detailed plans of the lane configurations and proposed changes were not provided, but it is
understood that the federal government will make improvements to the federal inspection facilities
located in Mexicali and reconfigure the roadways within the Mexican federal compound to connect to
the new passenger-vehicle facility in Calexico. The POE improvement project ranked 4th out of the 11
POE projects.
Planning for completion of the U.S. and Mexico’s projects at the Calexico-Mexicali POE appears to be
well coordinated. The project completion dates are aligned as projects in both the United States and
in Mexico are planned for completion in 2013. The associated roadway improvements in the United
States are designed to serve crossborder traffic as well as population growth in the local
communities. In Mexico, the construction of new roadways and improvements on existing arterials are
geared toward capacity improvements connecting the Mexicali I and the Mexicali II border stations.
The Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE opened in 1985 for northbound passenger and commercial
vehicle traffic and southbound passenger vehicles. In 1994, it began processing southbound
commercial vehicles when the Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral gate ceased operations. It provides
service for pedestrians, passenger vehicles (including bus), and commercial vehicles. The POE
includes separate operations for cargo and passenger vehicles. The passenger crossing facility is
open seven days a week and 24 hours per day. Cargo facilities operate reduced hours.
Two projects in the United States were submitted to improve passenger and commercial throughput
by expanding the number of lanes. The commercial facility currently has 12 commercial vehicle lanes,
while the passenger facility has 13 passenger vehicle lanes. The additional number of lanes to be
operational in 2030 is pending the outcome of a feasibility study. The commercial facility project
ranked 6th out of 11 POE projects evaluated, while the passenger facility project ranked 8th. These
projects are in the conceptual planning phase. The anticipated completion dates and cost estimates
were not provided. (Note that although these POE projects were evaluated separately due to
technical reasons in the design of the evaluation criteria, CBP considers the lane expansions at the
commercial and passenger facilities to be one project.)

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Improvements to the passenger and cargo facilities at Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE will help
increase operational efficiencies. Details about the timing of these projects and specifics on the future
number of lanes and/or other improvements were not provided as the efforts are pending the
completion of a feasibility study. (At the time projects were submitted the feasibility study had not
been completed.) Opportunities exist for additional coordination and alignment as more project details
are determined. The associated roadway improvements in the United States are designed to serve
crossborder traffic as well as population growth in the local communities. They include the expansion
of SR 905 and SR 125, improvements on local bridges and arterials, and a new Bus Rapid Transit
project with service between the Otay Mesa area and the northern part of the City of San Diego. In
Mexico, the construction of new roadways and improvements on existing arterials are designed to
improve connectivity between the Mesa de Otay and the proposed Mesa de Otay II POEs. These
projects will help build capacity for future population growth of the local community, as well as
facilitate crossborder traffic.
Tecate-Tecate POE
The Tecate-Tecate POE opened in 1932. It provides service for pedestrians, passenger vehicles,
commercial vehicles, and rail (the rail line crosses at Campo, located east of the POE). The
passenger vehicle facility is open to northbound traffic from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m., while the POE is open
to southbound traffic from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. Cargo facilities operate reduced hours.
A project to construct a commercial facility at the Tecate, Baja California border station was submitted
to improve the flow of commercial vehicle traffic. Long-term potential projects, such as additional
development of the Ensenada seaport, could potentially affect cargo traffic at the Tecate-Tecate
POE. The expansion of the cargo facility in Mexico is scheduled for completion in 2013. No mid- or
long-term counterpart project was submitted for the border station in the United States as major
modernization and expansion of the U.S. border station was completed in 2005 and the new
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility is scheduled for completion in 2008.
Two rail projects (both in the conceptual planning stage) to modernize and double-track the Desert
Line were proposed to increase the market potential of this route for international and interstate
movement of goods. In Mexico, one new road and two roadway improvements are planned to
facilitate traffic to and from the POE. The new road, Defensores Blvd., is planned for completion in
2015. However, SIDUE anticipates that it could open much sooner to be more closely aligned with the
POE improvement.
The Calexico East-Mexicali II POE was completed in 1997. It serves pedestrians, passenger vehicles,
and commercial vehicles. Northbound passenger vehicle inspections take place from 6 a.m. to
10 p.m., but open at 4 a.m. during the fall and winter to accommodate the agricultural industry.
Southbound passenger vehicle inspections take place from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m.
A POE project in the United States was submitted to improve passenger throughput at the Calexico
East-Mexicali II POE by expanding the number of passenger lanes at the existing facility. In Imperial

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
County, the passenger facility currently has eight passenger vehicle lanes, one SENTRI lane, one
bus lane, and four pedestrian lanes. The project would expand the number of northbound passenger
vehicle lanes to 12. No changes are proposed to increase the number of bus lanes. The project is in
the conceptual planning phase, and the cost estimate and anticipated completion date were not
provided.6 The passenger facility project ranked 9th out of 11 projects evaluated. No POE projects
were submitted for the border station in Mexico.
The lane expansion project is in the conceptual planning stage and a completion date was not
provided. The associated roadway improvements submitted in the United States are planned to
increase overall capacity for future population growth and development in the border region. In
Mexico, the construction of new roadways and improvements on existing arterials are designed for
capacity improvements connecting the Mexicali I and the Mexicali II border stations and are planned
for 2015.
The Andrade-Los Algodones POE was built in 1970 and serves pedestrians, passenger vehicles, and
to a lesser extent, commercial vehicles. The POE, which is located in Imperial County and eastern
Mexicali, is open from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. in both directions.
Two projects were submitted for this POE. The Andrade border station in Imperial County has two
passenger vehicle and two pedestrian lanes and one informal commercial vehicle lane. The U.S.
project is to move vehicle lanes to the Arizona border. Detailed information on the project in Mexico
was not provided. This POE is important for tourism, especially with winter visitors to the area who
typically cross on foot. The projects were ranked 10th and 11th.
The Andrade-Los Algodones POE projects are in the conceptual planning phase. No detailed
information, cost estimates, or completion dates were provided. No transportation facility projects
were submitted for this POE. Opportunities exist for additional coordination and alignment as more
project details are determined.
Recommendations
Consider the California-Baja California Border Master Plan as a framework to prioritize

infrastructure projects and enhance coordination of planning and implementation of POE and
related transportation facilities on both sides of the California-Baja California border.
Consider using prioritized California-Baja California project lists to compete for transportation
funding sources, such as the reauthorization of U.S. federal transportation act, Mexico’s federal
funding sources, future bond or state funding programs, and private and local funds.
Use prioritized California-Baja California project lists to follow a systematic and orderly approach
toward the implementation of binational projects.
6
Since the technical analysis conducted for the California-Baja California Border Master Plan was completed,
Caltrans/IVAG released a comprehensive report on the future expansion of this POE. New information can be
incorporated in future updates.

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Institutionalizing the California-Baja California Border Master Plan Process
An important objective of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan is to establish a process to
institutionalize dialogue among federal, state, regional, and local stakeholders in the United States and
Mexico to identify future POE and connecting transportation infrastructure needs and coordinate projects.
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan PAC discussed how to accomplish this objective on a
regular basis to establish a binational California-Baja California border master planning process.
Recommendations
Periodic Updates: Who will conduct the Border Master Plan updates?
Caltrans and SIDUE lead efforts to establish a schedule or cycle for periodic California-Baja
California Border Master Plan updates, seek funding, and take the lead on conducting these
updates, in collaboration with the U.S./Mexico JWC and the California-Baja California Border
Master Plan stakeholders.
California-Baja California Border Master Plan PAC members expressed a preference for a consultant
team to coordinate future updates, similar to the framework followed for the development of the current
California-Baja California Border Master Plan.
Frequency and Content of Update: When will the Border Master Plan updates be conducted and
what elements of the Plan will be updated?
The schedule for California-Baja California Border Master Plan updates should consider U.S. and
Mexico’s administration cycles.
Depending on funding, comprehensive California-Baja California Border Master Plan revisions

would take place every three to four years to:
` Establish new base year and update base year data, including border wait times (currently
2005)
` Establish new planning horizon (currently 2030)
` Revise study area boundaries to incorporate significant planned POE or transportation
projects
` Incorporate updated horizon year projections, such as socio-economic data, crossborder
travel demand, etc.
` Incorporate updated POE plans
` Incorporate updated transportation plans
` Make use of binational GIS mapping (under development)

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Caltrans and SIDUE would lead the efforts to conduct an annual technical update of the
California-Baja California Border Master Plan to provide an opportunity for stakeholder agencies
to incorporate information on new planned projects, transmit changes to projects already
submitted, and report on completed projects.
Institutionalizing the Dialogue – How will the Border Master Planning Process Continue?
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan PAC would meet once a year, or more
frequently if needed, to provide direction on annual California-Baja California Border Master Plan
technical updates and on future comprehensive updates.
Borderwide, rely on the U.S./Mexico JWC and the U.S.-Mexico Binational Group on Bridges and
Border Crossings to share information on the status of the California-Baja California Border
Master Plan.
In California-Baja California, rely on Border Liaison Mechanism (BLM) Technical Commissions to

maintain open lines of communication among federal, state, and local agencies responsible for
planning and implementing POEs and connecting transportation facilities.
SIDUE and Caltrans would report on California-Baja California Border Master Plan monitoring
and implementation at meetings of the U.S./Mexico JWC, the U.S.-Mexico Binational Group on
Bridges and Border Crossings, and the BLM Technical Commissions.
The United States-Mexico Border Governors Conference also could provide a forum to
institutionalize the California-Baja California Border Master Plan. The Border Governors
Conference is a forum for cooperation and deliberation among the ten states of the United States
and Mexico’s border (Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, Baja California, Chihuahua,
Coahuila, Nuevo León, Sonora, and Tamaulipas). SIDUE and Caltrans could report on the
California-Baja California Border Master Plan at the annual conferences.
Representatives from each of the ten member states participate in work tables to develop solutions
to mutual goals through a consensus approach. The Logistics and International Crossings Work
Table “supports enhanced communications, coordination and consensus building among the ten
Border States encouraging investment in modern and efficient infrastructure at ports of entry and to
increase security and strengthen commercial exchange.”
In August 2008, in its Joint Declaration, the XXVI Border Governors Conference adopted the
following recommendation in the Logistics and International Crossings area:
“Substantially reduce cross border wait times by 2013 and complete bi-national state to
state regional border master plans amongst the 10 border states within three years.
Request both federal governments to incorporate these plans into a U.S.-Mexico Border
Master Plan by the XXXI Border Governors Conference in 2013.”

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
At future conferences, representatives from California and Baja California could present a
recommendation to the Logistics and International Crossings Work Table to take action to update
the California-Baja California Border Master Plan as the remaining State to State Regional Border
Master Plans are developed.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION IN FUTURE CALIFORNIA-

BAJA CALIFORNIA BORDER MASTER PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Based on the primary objectives of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan, the SANDAG
Service Bureau offers the following thoughts for consideration in future California-Baja California border
master planning activities based on lessons learned throughout the development of this pilot project.
Study Development
Consider U.S. and Mexico’s administration cycles at the federal, state, and local levels when
establishing the California-Baja California Border Master Plan annual technical updates and
comprehensive updates. Leadership and staff transitions at the various agencies result in
unanticipated delays due to changes in personnel and changes in priorities.
Reaffirm the participation of executive-level managers as decision makers at the California-Baja

California Border Master Plan PAC and the effective communication practices between PAC and
TWG members which allowed for an efficient flow of information and decision making throughout
the development of this pilot project.
Consider obtaining commitments from the California-Baja California Border Master Plan PAC to
devote sufficient staff resources for technical work to ensure the plan updates are conducted in a
timely manner (e.g. providing data and conducting review of draft documents).
Provide consistent participation of PAC members at key decision-making milestones to obtain

policy consistency throughout the binational planning process.
For future annual technical updates, convene the California-Baja California Border Master Plan
TWG to discuss needs for re-evaluating projects and rankings and, if warranted, to review and
comment on the result of the updated project rankings prior to presenting the updates to the
California-Baja California Border Master Plan PAC for approval.
For future updates, consider adequate budget for document translation and simultaneous
interpretation services at TWG and PAC meetings.
Include professionals from both California and Baja California in the consultant team responsible
for conducting updates to facilitate coordination and data collection with agencies on both sides of
the California-Baja California border.

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Data Needs
When formulating and conducting data collection activities, consider the inclusion of indicators
that are part of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan evaluation criteria to ensure
information is readily available on both sides of the border and can be delivered in a timely
fashion.
Continue to collaborate through the U.S.-Mexico Border Forecasting Peer Exchange, created as
a byproduct of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan and sponsored by the U.S.
Federal Highway Administration, to harmonize and share information on data collection and
forecasting methodologies for crossborder travel demand by mode, and other crossborder-related
transportation data, such as border wait times.
CONCLUSION
Development of a new POE or improvement to an existing POE and related transportation facilities is a
complex and lengthy undertaking that requires close coordination and collaboration with governmental
agencies on both sides of the border. The California-Baja California Border Master Plan process is a new
tool that can be used to help prioritize infrastructure projects and enhance coordination of planning and
implementation of POE and transportation projects in both the United States and Mexico. A comprehen-
sive approach helps agencies in both California and Baja California complete needed projects to
efficiently facilitate international trade and improve the quality of life for residents in the border region. The
California-Baja California approach could be expanded and adapted to other border states and
customized to address their needs, resulting in a coordinated master planning process for the entire U.S.-
Mexico border.

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure ES-1
California-Baja California Border Master Plan
San Diego County – Municipality of Tijuana Projects (2007-2030)

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure ES-2
San Diego County – Municipality of Tijuana Projects (2007-2030) – Inset Map

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure ES-3
Tecate Projects (2007-2030)

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure ES-4
Desert Rail Line Projects (2007-2030)

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure ES-5
San Diego County – Municipalities of Tijuana and Tecate Project Lists (2007-2030)
2007 – 2012 ROADWAY PROJECTS
San Diego County Projects

Project ID Description
20115: I-5/I-805. Modify Access to POE from Willow Road

20120: SR 188 Truck Bypass Lanes
20122: I-805 Ramp Meters and HOV Bypass Lanes from Telegraph Canyon to Bonita Road
20123: SR 905 Freeway from I-805 to Mexico
20124: Otay Mesa Road Widening from SR 125 to Enrico Fermi Drive
20125: Lone Star Road from Alta Rd. to 0.5 Miles West
20129: Otay Truck Route from Otay Mesa POE to Drucker Lane
20130: Otay Truck Route Widening from Drucker Lane to La Media
20131: SR 125 Toll, Gap, and Connector from SR 905 to SR 54
20164: SR 94 Operational Improvements from Melody Road to SR 188
Tijuana / Tecate Projects

70156: Tijuana-Tecate Road Widening from El Florido to Toyota

70160: Widening of Mexicali-Tecate Freeway

1020001: Heritage Road Bridge from Main Street to South of the Otay River
1020002: Willow Street Bridge from Sweetwater Road to Bonita Road
1020003: I-5. 2 HOV Lanes from SR 905 to SR 54
1020004: I-5. 2 HOV Lanes from SR 54 to I-8
1020005: SR 11. 4 Toll Lanes from SR 905 to Mexico
1020007: SR 125. 4 Toll Lanes from Telegraph Canyon to San Miguel Road
1020008: SR 125. 4 Toll Lanes from San Miguel Road to SR 54
1020009: I-805. 4 Managed Lanes from SR 905 to Palomar Street
1020010: I-805. 4 Managed Lanes from Palomar Street to SR 94
1020012: SR 905. 2 General Lanes from I-805 to Mexico
1020013: Otay Mesa Southbound Truck Route. Widening and Realignment from Britannia Boulevard to Otay Mesa
POE
1020014: Airway Road Arterial from City of San Diego to Enrico Fermi Drive
1020015: Airway Road Arterial from Enrico Fermi Dr. to Alta Road
1020016: Airway Road Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road
1020017: Alta Road Arterial from Old Otay Mesa Road to Donovan State Prison
1020018: Alta Road Arterial from Lone Star Road to Otay Mesa Road
1020019: Alta Road Arterial from Otay Mesa Road Airway Road
1020020: Alta Road Arterial from Airway Road to Siempre Viva Road
1020021: Enrico Fermi Drive Arterial from Lone Star Road to Otay Mesa Road

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure ES-5 (cont’d)

2013 – 2030 ROADWAY PROJECTS (CONT’D)
San Diego County Projects (cont’d)

1020022: Enrico Fermi Drive Enhanced Arterial from Otay Mesa Road to SR 11
1020023: Enrico Fermi Drive Enhanced Arterial from SR 11 to Airway Road
1020024: Enrico Fermi Drive Arterial from Airway Road to Siempre Viva Road
1020025: Lone Star Road Arterial from Piper Ranch to Sunroad Boulevard
1020026: Lone Star Road Arterial from Sunroad Boulevard to Vann Center Boulevard
1020027: Lone Star Road Arterial from Vann Center Boulevard to Enrico Fermi Drive
1020028: Lone Star Road Arterial from Enrico Fermi Drive to Alta Road
1020029: Lone Star Road Arterial from Otay Mesa Road to Siempre Viva Road
1020030: Otay Mesa Road Arterial from Sanyo Road to Enrico Fermi Drive
1020031: Otay Mesa Road Arterial from Enrico Fermi Drive to Alta Road
1020032: Otay Mesa Road Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road
1020033: Siempre Viva Road Arterial from City of San Diego to Alta Road
1020034: Siempre Viva Road Arterial from Altar Road to Loop Road
1020035: Siempre Viva Road Arterial from Loop Road to Rogue Road
1020038: Via de la Amistad. Collector from City of San Diego/Enrico Fermi Drive to Alta Road

1070003: Single Lane Bridge over Tijuana River Channel from Vía Rápida East to Vía Rápida West
1070004: Two Lane Bridge over Tijuana River Channel from Vía Rápida East to Vía Rápida West
1070005: Expansion of Vía Rápida East from the Pedestrian Bridge to Bridge México
1070006: Ramp on Eastern Crest of the Tijuana River Channel
1070007: Ramp on Western Crest of the Tijuana River Channel
1070008: Avenue International East from Silvestre Revueltas Street to Calle 12 Norte
1070009: Double Deck International Avenue West from Vía Rápida East to access Playas de Tijuana
1070010: Incorporation of International Avenue West to Vía Rápida
1070011: Las Torres Boulevard from Highway Tijuana-Tecate to International Otay II Boulevard
1070012: International Otay II Boulevard from Otay II POE to Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road
1070014: Industrial Boulevard from Airport Access Rd. to Terán Boulevard
1070020: Alamar Vía Rápida from Central Bus Station to Tijuana - Rosarito 2000 Boulevard
1070021: International Otay II Boulevard from Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road to Alamar
1060001: Defensores Boulevard from Mixcoac Street to Tecate -Tijuana Freeway
1060002: Tecate - Tijuana Freeway from Rancho La Puerta to Paso el Águila node
1060003: Tecate - Mexicali Freeway from Rancho Santa Lucia to San José

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN

2013 – 2030 RAIL PROJECTS

3020001: South Line -- Sidings, Passings, Mexico Connectivity, Coronado Line Rehab,
San Ysidro Rail Yard
3020004: Desert Line -- Basic Service

3020005: Desert Line -- Modernization
3020017: Desert Line -- Double Tracking
3020018: Blue Line Trolley Service -- Increase Frequency of Blue Line Service
3020003: Amtrak Intercity Rail Yard
2007 – 2012 INTERCHANGE PROJECTS

20135: I-5 and E Street Split Grade Intersection

20136: I-5 and H Street Split Grade Intersection
20138: I-5 and E Street Interchange Improvements
20139: I-5 and H Street Interchange Improvements
20140: I-805 and SR 54 Interchange Improvements
20165: SR 905 and I-805 Interchange Improvements
20166: SR 905 and SR 125 Interchange Construction

2020001: I-5 from North of SR 54 to J St. Overcrossing -- Interchange Improvements, Local Road Improvements
and New Structures (Not Shown)
2020002: I-805 / Palm Avenue Overcrossing -- Revise Interchange
2020003: I-805 - Main Street / Auto Park Drive Undercrossing -- Revise Interchange
2020006: SR 905 / Heritage Road Interchange (Phase 4) -- Construct Interchange

2070001: Bridge and Node over the Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road with Access to Boulevard de las Torres --
Construction of 40 Meter Bridge with a 200 Meter Intersection
2070002: Airport Node-Bellas Artes -- Construction of Airport -Bellas Artes Node with Access to the Otay I Border
Crossing

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN

2013 – 2030 INTERCHANGE PROJECTS (CONT’D)
Tijuana / Tecate Projects (cont’d)

2070003: Cuauhtemoc-Padre Kino Node -- Construction of the Cuauhtemoc-Padre Kino Node

2070004: Bellas Artes-Magisterial Node -- Construction of the Bellas Artes-Magisterial Node with Access to the
Otay II Border Crossing
2070005: Industrial Avenue-Terán Terán Node -- Optimization of Intersection
2070006: International Otay II Bloulevard --Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road Node
2070007: International Otay II Boulevard and Alamar Node -- Construction of node at International Otay II
Boulevard and Alamar
2060001: Tecate-Mexicali Freeway and Las Torres Boulevard -- Highway Node
2060002: Freeway Node and the Tecate-Tijuana Toll Road -- Completion of the Roadway Intersection
2007 – 2012 BRT PROJECTS

20127: South Bay BRT Route 628 -- Otay Ranch to Downtown San Diego

3020002: BRT Route 680 -- Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa
2007 – 2012 POE PROJECTS

20126: San Ysidro POE -- Border Bicycle Parking

20176: San Ysidro POE -- Stacked Booth Pilot
20177: San Ysidro POE -- SENTRI Lane Expansion
20178: San Ysidro POE -- Secondary Inspection Upgrades
20179: San Ysidro POE -- Signage Upgrade
20180: San Ysidro POE -- Bus Passenger Inspection
20181: Otay Mesa POE -- SENTRI Lane Expansion
20182: Otay Mesa POE -- FAST Lane Expansion
20183: Otay Mesa POE -- Otay Mesa Feasibility Study

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN

2007 – 2012 POE PROJECTS (CONT’D)
San Diego County Projects (cont’d)

20185: Otay Mesa POE -- Otay Mesa POE Master Site Plan
20184: Otay Mesa East POE -- Otay Mesa East Feasibility Study
20119: Tecate POE -- CHP Truck Inspection Facility
20186: Tecate POE -- Rail Inspection Facilities
20187: Tecate POE -- New Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility (CVEF)

70157: Mesa de Otay POE -- Commercial Lane Extension

70158: Mesa de Otay II POE -- Feasibility Study
70196/197: Puerta México-El Chaparral POE -- Reconfiguration
70159: Tecate POE -- Acquisition of Land

4020001: Otay Mesa East POE -- Construct New POE Facility

4020003: San Ysidro POE -- POE Re-design
4020004: Otay Mesa POE -- Modernization. Additional Passenger Lanes
4020005: Otay Mesa POE -- Modernization. Additional Commercial Lanes

4070002: Mesa de Otay II POE -- Construct New POE Facility

4060001: Tecate POE -- Cargo Expansion and Improvement

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure ES-6
Imperial County – Municipality of Mexicali Projects (2007-2030)

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure ES-7
Andrade - Algodones Projects (2007-2030)

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure ES-8
Imperial County – Municipalities of Mexicali Project Lists (2007-2030)

Imperial County Projects
10102: SR 98 from Navarro Road to SR 111

10104: SR 186 at Andrade CVEF
10110: Cole Road from Bowker Road to SR 98
10111: Cole Road from Kloke Road to the railroad
10112: Second Street Expansion from SR 111 to Dogwood Road
10113: Cesar Chavez Boulevard Expansion from SR 111 to SR 98/Birch Street
10167: SR 98 West from Dogwood to SR 111
Mexicali Projects
40145: Rio Nuevo Extension from Lazaro Cárdenas to Blvd. Héctor Terán Terán
40148: Mexicali-Algodones Road Widening from Calle Novena to Islas Agrarias
40150: Beltway Around Eastern Periphery from Lazaro Cárdenas to Islas Agrarias
40151/152/153: Mexicali-San Luis Rio Colorado Road

1010001: I-8 from Forrester Road to SR 111

1010005: SR 111 from I-8 to SR 78
1010008: SR 115 from Evan Hewes Highway to SR 78
1010009: Imperial Avenue from McCabe Road to I-8
1010011: Dogwood from SR 98 to Mead Road
1010015: Imperial Avenue from I-8 to Aten Road
1010016: 8th Street Overpass from Wake Avenue to Centinela
1010017: SR 98 East from SR 111 to SR 7
1010018: SR 111 from SR 98 to I-8
1010019: SR 98 from SR 98 to Cesar Chavez Boulevard
Mexicali Projects
1040001: Colon Avenue West from Leyes de Reforma Bridge and Proposed Roadway on Western Periphery
1040002: Western Periphery from Intersection with the Proposed International Roadway West. to Tijuana Highway
1040003: Extension of the Central Axis from Lázaro Cárdenas Boulevard to Gómez Morin Road
1040004: Terán-Terán Boulevard from San Felipe Highway to Tijuana Highway
1040005: Gómez Morin Road from Cetys Road to Mexicali -San Felipe Highway
1040006: Gómez Morin Road from Capitan Carrillo Avenue to Rep. de Argentina Street
1040007: Beltway Around Eastern Periphery from Lázaro Cárdenas Blvd. to San Felipe Highway
1040008: Beltway Around Eastern Periphery from Islas Agrarias Highway to Highway to the Airport

Executive Summary
BORDER MASTER PLAN

Imperial County – Municipalities of Mexicali Project Lists (2007-2030)

10100: Imperial Avenue and I-8 Interchange

10101: Dogwood Avenue and I-8 Interchange
10105: SR 186 and I-8 Interchange

2010001: Austin Road and I-8 Interchange

2010002: Bowker Road and I-8 Interchange
2010004: Jasper Road and SR 111

3010083: Grade Separation at McCabe Road and Dogwood Avenue
3010084: City of El Centro Grade Separations at Various Locations

10190: Calexico West POE -- Repair Sink Hole at Primary Inspection

10191: Calexico East POE -- SENTRI Lane Expansion
10192: Andrade POE -- Upgrades to Pedestrian Crossing and Facilities Renovations
10193: Andrade POE -- Traffic Control Barriers
10194: Andrade POE -- Site Expansion

4010003: Andrade POE -- Move Vehicle Lanes to Arizona Border

4010004: Calexico POE -- Reconfigure POE
4010005: Calexico East POE -- Expansion of Primary Vehicle Lanes
Mexicali Projects
4040001: Mexicali I-Calexico West POE -- Expansion and Improvement of the Customs Facilities
4040004: Los Algodones-Andrade POE -- Tourist-Commercial Crossing Modernization
RESUMEN EJECUTIVO
INTRODUCCIÓN
Con el pasar de los años, los cruces transfronterizos en las seis garitas de la región Baja California-
California han ido aumentando de manera importante. La región de Tijuana/Tecate- Condado de San
Diego alberga las garitas de Puerta México-San Ysidro, Mesa de Otay-Otay Mesa y Tecate-Tecate,
mientras que en la región de Mexicali-Condado de Imperial se encuentran las garitas de Mexicali-
Calexico, Mexicali II-Calexico East, y Los Algodones-Andrade. Se anticipa que la demanda de uso en
todas las garitas de la región aumentará entre 2005 y 2030. En 2005 la estimación de la población total
en la zona que abarca el estudio en Baja California-California, rebasaba los seis millones de habitantes,
y se proyecta su crecimiento a casi 9.5 millones para el año 2030.1 El crecimiento de la población y de la
actividad económica ocasionará un aumento en la demanda de uso de las garitas y ejercerá una mayor
presión sobre sus instalaciones y las vialidades que conectan con las mismas.
En virtud de la demanda actual y proyectada en las garitas existentes, es de suma importancia mejorar la
capacidad y operaciones de la infraestructura actual para disminuir la congestión vehicular y las
demoras, facilitar el comercio internacional y mejorar la calidad de vida de los habitantes de la región
fronteriza. Dependencias federales, estatales, regionales y locales, con responsabilidad de planeación e
instrumentación de garitas e instalaciones relacionadas de transporte en la región de Baja California-
California, coinciden en que es necesario un proceso de planeación maestra con el fin de evaluar e
integrar el desarrollo de infraestructura de garitas y transporte de manera coordinada.
PROPÓSITO Y OBJETIVOS DEL ESTUDIO
El Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California consiste en una metodología exhaustiva y

binacional para coordinar la planeación y entrega de proyectos en garitas terrestres, y la infraestructura
de transporte correspondiente, en la región de Baja California-California. El Departamento de Transporte
del Estado de California (Caltrans), en conjunto con la Secretaría de Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano
del Estado de Baja California (SIDUE) y el Comité Conjunto de Trabajo de los Estados Unidos y México
(CCT), contrataron al Buró de Servicio de SANDAG para asistirles en el desarrollo de dicho Plan.
El CCT concibió el Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California como un proyecto piloto entre
estados fronterizos. En función de los resultados que brinde este proceso piloto de planeación
binacional, la metodología utilizada en California-Baja California podría ampliarse a otros estados
1
Fuente: Secretaría de Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano (SIDUE); Asociación de Gobiernos de San Diego
(SANDAG); y la Asociación de Gobiernos del Sur de California (SCAG); compilado por el Buró de Servicio de
SANDAG.
RE-1
Resumen Ejecutivo
PLAN MAESTRO FRONTERIZO
fronterizos y adaptarse a sus necesidades, redundando en un proceso de planeación maestra para toda
la frontera entre México y EE.UU.
Los objetivos principales del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California son:
Prácticas Actuales: Mejorar la comprensión de los procesos de planeación de garitas y transporte en

ambos lados de la frontera, y crear un plan para establecer prioridades y avances en proyectos de
garitas y sus correspondientes necesidades en materia de transporte.
Proyectos de Garitas y de Instalaciones de Transporte – Criterios de Evaluación y Jerarquización:

Desarrollar criterios para establecer las prioridades en proyectos relacionados con garitas existentes
y futuras, así como las vialidades que conducen a las garitas entre Baja California y California;
jerarquizar proyectos a mediano y largo plazo.
Institucionalización del Proceso de Planeación Maestra California-Baja California: Establecer un

proceso que institucionalice el diálogo entre dependencias y actores interesados federales, estatales,
y locales en los EE.UU. y México, para identificar necesidades futuras de garitas y de infraestructura
de transporte y coordinar proyectos.
Idealmente, se incorporarán el enfoque y las metodologías identificadas en el Plan Maestro Fronterizo

California-Baja California a los procesos respectivos de planeación y programación de cada una de las
dependencias participantes en los tres niveles de gobierno de ambos países.
ZONA DE ESTUDIO
La región de Tijuana-Condado de San Diego alberga tres garitas —Puerta México-San Ysidro, Mesa de
Otay-Otay Mesa, y Tecate-Tecate. Adicionalmente, se ha propuesto un nuevo cruce fronterizo para
vehículos comerciales y ligeros en Mesa de Otay II-Otay Mesa East, para atender la demanda de cruces
transfronterizos en la región. La región de Mexicali-Condado de Imperial también incluye tres garitas —
Mexicali-Calexico, Mexicali II-Calexico East, y Los Algodones-Andrade.
La zona de estudio del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California incluye un “Área de Influencia”
y un “Área de Estudio Enfocado”. El “Área de Influencia” es la franja geográfica a 60 millas, o 100
kilómetros, al norte y al sur de la Frontera Internacional entre Baja California y California. En California,
esta franja incluye los Condados de San Diego y de Imperial. En Baja California, abarca los Municipios
de Tijuana, Tecate, Playas de Rosarito, parte del de Mexicali, y la zona urbana de Ensenada.
El “Área de Estudio Enfocado” es la zona geográfica que abarca diez millas [16 kilómetros] al norte y al
sur de la Frontera Internacional entre Baja California y Baja California. Los proyectos de garitas y de
transporte a corto, mediano y largo plazo analizados en el Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja
California se limitaron a esta franja.
RE-2 Buró de Servicio de SANDAG

Resumen Ejecutivo
ESTRUCTURA DE TOMA DE DECISIONES
Bajo la dirección del CCT, Caltrans y SIDUE, se establecieron un Comité Consejero de

Reglamentos/Políticas (PAC por sus siglas en inglés) y un Grupo Técnico de Trabajo (TWG, idem) del
Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California. Se invitó la participación en el Plan Maestro Fronterizo
de las dependencias listadas a continuación. Se solicitó a cada dependencia que designara
representantes de nivel ejecutivo en el PAC, y de nivel de funcionario superior (“senior staff”) para el
TWG.
Estados Unidos
Departamento de Estado (DOS)

Buró de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP)
Administración de Servicios Generales (GSA)
Administración Federal de Carreteras (FHWA)
Departamento de Transporte del Estado de California (Caltrans)
Asociación de Gobiernos del Valle Imperial (IVAG)
Asociación de Gobiernos del Sur de California (SCAG)
Asociación de Gobiernos de San Diego (SANDAG)
Condado de Imperial
Ciudad de Calexico
Condado de San Diego
Ciudad de Chula Vista
Ciudad de San Diego
México
Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores (SRE)

Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT)
Administración General de Aduanas
Secretaría de Desarrollo Social (SEDESOL)
Instituto de Administración y Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales (INDAABIN)
Secretaría de Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano del Estado de Baja California (SIDUE)
Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Tijuana (IMPLAN)
Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Mexicali (IMIP)
Municipio de Mexicali
Municipio de Tecate
Municipio de Tijuana
Buró de Servicio de SANDAG RE-3

Resumen Ejecutivo
Además, se invitó a otras dependencias a participar en tareas específicas en la medida que avanzaba el
trabajo. Estas incluyen:
Instituto Nacional de Migración de México
Secretaría de Desarrollo Económico del Estado de Baja California
Secretaría de Turismo del Estado de Baja California
Fue responsabilidad del PAC proporcionar la dirección, aprobar los parámetros de estudio, establecer los
criterios de evaluación de proyectos, y aprobar las jerarquizaciones de los proyectos. Por su parte, el
TWG apoyó al Buró de Servicio de SANDAG en la instrumentación de la dirección proporcionada por el
PAC, aportando la información solicitada oportunamente y presentando recomendaciones al PAC.
ENFOQUE DEL ESTUDIO
Para cumplir con las tareas señaladas en el Alcance de Trabajo, el Buró de Servicio preparó
cuestionarios solicitando información relevante al TWG. Posteriormente se presentó al TWG un resumen
de la información recibida y los análisis efectuados por el Buró de Servicio para su análisis. Tras las
reuniones con el TWG, se presentó dicha información y análisis, actualizados con retroalimentación
proporcionada por el TWG, en reuniones con el PAC. El TWG también hizo recomendaciones al PAC en
cuanto a ciertas tareas, tales como la definición de la zona de estudio, el horizonte de planeación del
estudio, criterios de evaluación y jerarquizaciones de proyectos.
Se llevaron a cabo seis reuniones del PAC y siete del TWG durante el transcurso del estudio. A todo lo
largo del proceso, el Buró de Servicio trabajó de cerca con el CCT, Caltrans, SIDUE, y el PAC y el TWG
del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California para asegurar que el Plan cumpliera con sus
metas, y diera como resultado un modelo que pudiera adaptarse y utilizarse en otras regiones fronterizas
en sus esfuerzos similares de planeación y coordinación binacional de infraestructura.
RESUMEN DE RESULTADOS Y RECOMENDACIONES
La siguiente sección describe los resultados y recomendaciones principales para cada una de los
objetivos primordiales del estudio.
Prácticas Actuales
Una de los objetivos primordiales del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California consiste en
mejorar la comprensión de la planeación de garitas y transporte en ambos lados de la frontera entre Baja
California y California. Para comprender los procesos de planeación de las diferentes dependencias
involucradas, se preparó un cuestionario solicitando información al TWG. Los resultados y
recomendaciones que se describen a continuación parten de las respuestas obtenidas de las
dependencias involucradas.

Resumen Ejecutivo
Resultados
La planeación de garitas e infraestructura de transporte relacionada es un proceso complejo que

involucra a múltiples dependencias en todos los niveles de gobierno, tanto en México como en los
EE.UU. La planeación de garitas utiliza un horizonte de planeación de cinco años, mientras que la
planeación de infraestructura de transporte utiliza un horizonte de planeación más largo. No todos los
documentos de planeación incluyen tanto los proyectos de garitas como los de la red de transporte
correspondiente.
Dependencias municipales, regionales, estatales y federales en ambos lados de la frontera utilizan

diferentes procesos de evaluación en la preparación de documentos de planeación de garitas y de
transporte. Estos procesos abarcan una gama que va desde evaluaciones cuantitativas globales,
hasta la formulación y aplicación de criterios cuantitativos y cualitativos a detalle.
Existe un cierto nivel de coordinación y comunicación entre dependencias federales, estatales,

regionales y locales, pero también existen oportunidades para crear un proceso más sistemático que
alinee actividades de instrumentación, incluyendo el financiamiento y la calendarización de garitas e
instalaciones de transporte que los unan.
Existen asimismo oportunidades para una mayor coordinación con gobiernos municipales en el
desarrollo de instalaciones de garitas. Se busca una coordinación más directa con dependencias
estatales y federales para desarrollar una estrategia exhaustiva en materia de garitas, que permita
una integración efectiva de las garitas al entorno municipal. Además de las instalaciones mismas de
la garita, deben considerarse acciones complementarias relacionadas con transporte, seguridad,
imagen urbana, infraestructura y uso de suelos.
Podrían darse oportunidades de una mayor divulgación pública y coordinación con dependencias
locales y estatales mediante el proceso de Evaluación de Recursos Estratégicos (SRA por sus siglas
en inglés) del Buró de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP). El proceso de la SRA se enfoca en
mejoras a instalaciones existentes de garitas y no parece identificar necesidades de nuevas
instalaciones. Sin embargo, se describen en la SRA propuestas formuladas por otras dependencias
de garitas nuevas, y se incluyen propuestas selectas bajo las opciones de mejoras. La
Administración de Servicios Generales (GSA) de los EE.UU. da seguimiento a solicitudes del CBP de
contratar y administrar estudios de factibilidad para identificar y evaluar alternativas de diseños de
garitas, y estimar sus costos.
Se requiere una mayor coordinación entre la GSA y dependencias locales, regionales y estatales
para reconocer los procesos de programación, y alinear la calendarización de instrumentación y
financiamiento de mejoras propuestas a garitas con las mejoras a las vialidades correspondientes a
las mismas.

Resumen Ejecutivo
Recomendaciones
La metodología del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California es una herramienta valiosa para
aportar información a las prácticas de planeación de garitas y de transporte de las dependencias
involucradas. Por lo tanto, se recomienda que dichas dependencias:
Consideren los criterios de evaluación de proyectos del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja
California para guiar sus procesos individuales de jerarquización de proyectos. En algunos casos
los criterios del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California pueden mejorar la metodología
de la dependencia con elementos o unidades de medición que no se estén evaluando en la
actualidad. En otras situaciones, podría llevar a incorporar nuevas medidas de monitoreo o de
recopilación de datos.
Utilicen los resultados obtenidos del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California en
documentos de planeación federales, estatales, regionales y locales, tales como la Evaluación
de Recursos Estratégicos o SRA (preparada por el Buró de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza);
Planes Estatales de Transportación (California y Baja California); Planes Estatales de Desarrollo
Urbano (Baja California); Planes Regionales de Transportación (Condados de San Diego y de
Imperial); Planes Generales (ciudades y condados en los Condados de San Diego y de Imperial);
y Planes Municipales de Desarrollo (municipios en Baja California). A su vez, los resultados de
estos documentos de planeación se retroalimentarían al Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja
California para su actualización.
Proyectos de Garitas y de Instalaciones de Transporte – Criterios de

Evaluación y Jerarquizaciones
Otro objetivo importante del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California consiste en desarrollar
criterios para jerarquizar proyectos de garitas y transporte, y jerarquizar los proyectos a mediano y largo
plazo. El Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California desarrolló una metodología y criterios para
evaluar y jerarquizar proyectos de garitas así como proyectos de vialidades, accesos y ferrocarril
correspondientes a las garitas. Se elaboraron estos cuatro conjuntos de criterios tomando en cuenta
evaluaciones previas de corredores [Vg., la Evaluación Binacional de Necesidades de Infraestructura de
Transporte Fronteriza o Binational Border Transportation Infrastructure Needs Assessment Study (BINS)]
y datos disponibles en materia de transporte por parte de dependencias involucradas de todos los
niveles de gobierno, tanto en Baja California como en California. Los criterios incluyen indicadores
cuantitativos y cualitativos que miden la demanda actual y proyectada de cruces en las garitas, comercio
transfronterizo, congestión vehicular en las garitas y en instalaciones de transporte, efectividad en
términos de costos, desempeño del proyecto, disponibilidad del proyecto y beneficios a la región.
El TWG presentó una lista de los proyectos de garitas y de instalaciones de transporte planeados a corto
plazo (2007-2012) y a mediano y largo plazo (2013-2030) para el “Área de Estudio Enfocada”. Se
limitaron dichos proyectos de corto, mediano y largo plazo a esta franja, y se jerarquizaron los proyectos
de mediano y largo plazo aplicando dichos criterios.

Resumen Ejecutivo
La creación de criterios de jerarquización de proyectos de garitas y de transporte permite al Plan Maestro

Fronterizo California-Baja California generar, quizás por primera vez, una lista de proyectos con
prioridades dentro de una zona binacional de estudio. Aquellos proyectos en etapas tempranas de
desarrollo conceptual, para los cuales no hay información cuantitativa o cualitativa disponible, fueron
inventariados sin jerarquizar. Actualizaciones futuras del Plan pueden incorporar datos adicionales de
estos proyectos en la medida que las actividades de planeación y de instrumentación generen más
información disponible. Las listas jerarquizadas sirven como pauta para identificar proyectos de
importancia en la región fronteriza California-Baja California.
Se jerarquizaron individualmente un total de 11 proyectos de garitas presentados por el TWG, y se

agruparon por garita.2 Se utilizaron entonces las jerarquizaciones de los proyectos individuales para
establecer el siguiente orden de prioridades para las garitas.
Mesa de Otay II-Otay Mesa East (garita nueva propuesta)

Garita de Puerta México-San Ysidro/El Chaparral-Virginia Avenue3
Garita de Mexicali-Calexico
Garita de Mesa de Otay-Otay Mesa
Garita de Tecate-Tecate
Garita de Mexicali II-Calexico East
Garita de Los Algodones-Andrade
También se jerarquizaron un total de 68 proyectos de vialidades, 16 de accesos, y nueve de ferrocarril

relacionados con las garitas. Las ilustraciones RE-1 – RE-8 muestran los proyectos de garitas y de
transporte a mediano y largo plazo planeados para la región de Baja California-California. Se resumen
los resultados principales en orden de prioridad de garita.
Mesa de Otay II-Otay Mesa East (Garita Nueva)
Mesa de Otay II-Otay Mesa East es una garita nueva propuesta a ubicarse aproximadamente a dos
millas [tres kilómetros] al oriente del cruce existente de Mesa de Otay-Otay Mesa, y atenderá a
vehículos ligeros y comerciales. En los Estados Unidos se está procesando el permiso presidencial
requerido; en México, este proyecto ya se encuentra en la fase de planeación avanzada. Se
presentaron dos proyectos para la construcción de la garita, uno en los EE.UU. y el otro en México.
Estos proyectos se jerarquizaron en primer y segundo lugar de los 11 proyectos de garita evaluados.
2
Se presentaron proyectos de parte del Buró de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP), con la anuencia de la
Administración de Servicios Generales (GSA); la Secretaría de Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano (SIDUE) con la
anuencia de la Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transporte (SCT) y el Instituto de Administración y Avalúos de
Bienes Nacionales (INDAABIN); y por el Departamento de Transportación del Estado de California (Caltrans).
3
La puerta de El Chaparral-Avenida Virginia está clausurada actualmente. Sin embargo, los proyectos para su
reutilización fueron sometidos a evaluación en este Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California.

Resumen Ejecutivo
Las calendarizaciones de los proyectos de los EE.UU. y de México en la garita nueva no parecen
estar completamente coordinados, ya que el proyecto mexicano tiene fecha planeada de terminación
en 2013, mientras que el de los EE.UU. en el 2014. En cuanto a vialidades, la Ruta Estatal 11 (SR
11), que conecta directamente a la garita, está ligada a la construcción de la garita y, por tanto, está
programada para terminarse en 2014. En México, están planeadas dos vialidades nuevas de acceso
a la garita: el Blvd. Internacional Otay II y el Blvd. Las Torres. Estas vialidades están programadas
para estar listas en 2013 y 2014, respectivamente.
Garita de Puerta México-San Ysidro/El Chaparral/Virginia Avenue
La garita de Puerta México-San Ysidro atiende a peatones y vehículos ligeros (incluyendo

autobuses). No da servicio a tráfico comercial; sin embargo, una línea de ferrocarril cruza la frontera
en este punto. La garita está abierta las 24 horas del día.
Se presentó un proyecto para esta garita en los EE.UU. Se presentó como contraparte mexicana a
este proyecto una propuesta de corto plazo, y no se jerarquizaron proyectos de corto plazo.
El rediseño de la garita Puerta México-San Ysidro/Virginia-El Chaparral se está coordinando con

México para invertir la dirección de los carriles4 que actualmente salen de EE.UU. hacia el norte
ayudando a agilizar el tráfico entrante a los EE.UU. Algunos de estos carriles podrían equiparse con
casetas de inspección doble; al tomar esto en cuenta, se espera que San Ysidro cuente con 50
carriles (o casetas de inspección) para vehículos ligeros, seis carriles SENTRI5, dos carriles para
autobuses, y 12 peatonales. Parte de este proyecto incluye las obras viales necesarias para tener
acceso al cruce fronterizo, incluyendo acceso de la Interestatal 5 (I-5) que pase por las instalaciones
federales en Virginia Avenue. De los 11 proyectos jerarquizados por el TWG, este proyecto quedó en
tercer lugar.
Aun cuando la contraparte mexicana de este proyecto se presentó como proyecto de corto plazo,
conviene una breve descripción para comprender plenamente la totalidad del rediseño de la garita.
En la actualidad, vehículos ligeros entran a México por nueve carriles en la Puerta México. Como se
describe anteriormente, estos carriles se reorientarán con dirección hacia los EE.UU. El tráfico
vehicular entrante a México será procesado en El Chaparral/Virginia Avenue, ubicado justo al
occidente de la garita existente de San Ysidro/Puerta México. El Chaparral contará con 15 carriles
vehiculares (incluyendo tres para autobuses) entrando a México, y un carril de retorno a los EE.UU.
El proyecto también contempla la construcción de áreas cubiertas para inspecciones vehiculares y
de autobuses.
4
El término carril (Vg. carril para vehículos ligeros o carril peatonal) se utiliza alternativamente con caseta de
inspección en este informe.
5
SENTRI, sigla para Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection, es un programa para cruces
fronterizos que permite el procesamiento acelerado por parte de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza de EE.UU. de
viajeros pre-aprobados y de bajo riesgo.

Resumen Ejecutivo
Las calendarizaciones de los proyectos estadounidense y mexicano en la garita de Puerta México-

San Ysidro/El Chaparral/Virginia Avenue no parecen estar completamente coordinadas, ya que la
fecha anticipada de terminación del proyecto de EE.UU. es 2014, mientras que en México se anticipa
para 2012. Sin embargo, queda entendido que la GSA podría adelantar la reconfiguración de las
vialidades hacia El Chaparral/Virginia Avenue para empatar con la fecha prevista mexicana de 2012,
sujeto a disponibilidad de fondos. Estos proyectos están calendarizados para terminarse en 2013 y
2014, uno a dos años después de la fecha programada de terminación de las obras mexicanas de la
reconfiguración, pero coincidiendo con la fecha planeada de terminación de obra en EE.UU. En
Tijuana se planea ampliar varias vialidades y construir puentes y rampas nuevas para atender el
tráfico por la garita reconfigurada.
Garita de Mexicali-Calexico
La garita de Mexicali-Calexico atiende tráfico peatonal y de vehículos ligeros. Opera las 24 horas del
día. Desde que abrió la garita de Mexicali II-Calexico East en 1997, no ha habido tráfico comercial
por este cruce; sin embargo, existe servicio ferroviario de carga que opera con regularidad.
No se proporcionaron planes detallados de las configuraciones de carriles vehiculares y cambios

propuestos por el lado mexicano, pero queda entendido que el gobierno federal hará mejoras a las
instalaciones federales de inspección ubicadas en Mexicali y reconfigurará las vialidades en los
terrenos federales para conectarlos a las instalaciones nuevas para vehículos ligeros en Calexico. Se
jerarquizó en cuarto lugar el proyecto de mejoras a esta garita, de los 11 proyectos estudiados.
Se propusieron dos proyectos para agilizar la congestión actual en la garita. En Calexico, se planea
construir instalaciones nuevas en los terrenos comerciales vacantes (al occidente de las vías de
ferrocarril) para procesar vehículos ligeros entrando a y saliendo de los EE.UU. Peatones y
autobuses se procesarían en las instalaciones existentes. En la actualidad la garita de Calexico
cuenta con diez carriles para vehículos ligeros, un carril SENTRI, uno para autobuses, y cuatro
peatonales entrando a los EE.UU. El proyecto ampliaría la capacidad a 16 carriles para vehículos
ligeros con la posibilidad de casetas de inspección doble (incluye dos SENTRI y uno para
autobuses), y seis carriles peatonales. Este proyecto se jerarquizó quinto de los 11 evaluados.
La planeación de la terminación de los proyectos estadounidense y mexicano en la garita de

Mexicali-Calexico parece encontrarse debidamente coordinada. Las fechas de terminación de los
proyectos empatan ya que se planea terminar los proyectos en ambos países en 2013. Las obras
viales asociadas en los EE.UU. están diseñadas para atender el tráfico transfronterizo así como el
crecimiento poblacional en las comunidades locales. En México, la construcción de nuevas
vialidades y obras de mejoramiento de arterias existentes se enfocan a mejorar el flujo entre las
garitas de Mexicali I y Mexicali II.
Garita de Mesa de Otay-Otay Mesa
La garita de Mesa de Otay-Otay Mesa se inauguró en 1985 para tráfico vehicular ligero y comercial
entrando a EE.UU., y vehicular ligero entrando a México. En 1994 comenzó a procesar tráfico

Resumen Ejecutivo
comercial saliendo de los EE.UU. al clausurarse las operaciones en El Chaparral/Virginia Avenue. Se

atiende tráfico peatonal, vehicular ligero (incluyendo autobuses) y comercial. Existen instalaciones
separadas para vehículos ligeros y comerciales. El cruce para vehículos ligeros está abierto las 24
horas del día. Los patios para carga operan con horario reducido.
Se presentaron dos proyectos del lado estadounidense para agilizar el tráfico vehicular ligero y
comercial mediante un aumento en el número de carriles de inspección. En la actualidad hay 12
carriles de inspección comercial y 13 para vehículos ligeros. El número de carriles adicionales
operando para el 2030 depende del resultado de un estudio de factibilidad. Se jerarquizó en sexto
lugar el proyecto correspondiente a las instalaciones comerciales, y el proyecto para vehículos
ligeros octavo. Estos proyectos se encuentran en la fase conceptual de planeación. No se
proporcionaron costos ni fechas estimadas de terminación. (Nótese que, aunque estos proyectos se
evaluaron por separado por razones técnicas en el diseño de los criterios de evaluación, el CBP
considera el aumento en el número de carriles para vehículos ligeros y comerciales como un solo
proyecto.)
Las mejoras a las instalaciones de vehículos ligeros y comerciales en la garita de Mesa de Otay-Otay
Mesa ayudarán a mejorar las eficiencias operativas. No se proporcionaron detalles específicos de
fechas, número de carriles y/o otras mejoras ya que está pendiente de concluir el estudio de
factibilidad. (No se había completado el estudio de factibilidad al momento de presentar los
proyectos.) Existen oportunidades para una mayor coordinación y alineamiento en la medida que se
determinen más detalles de los proyectos. Las obras viales asociadas en los EE.UU. están
diseñadas para atender el tráfico transfronterizo, así como el crecimiento poblacional en las
comunidades locales. Incluyen la ampliación de las Rutas Estatales SR 905 y SR 125, mejoras a
puentes y arterias locales, y un proyecto nuevo de transporte urbano (Bus Rapid Transit) para
pasajeros entre la zona de Otay Mesa y el norte de la Ciudad de San Diego. En México, la
construcción de nuevas vialidades y obras de mejoramiento de arterias existentes se enfocan a
mejorar el flujo entre la garita de Mesa de Otay y la garita propuesta de Mesa de Otay II. Estos
proyectos contribuirán capacidad para atender el crecimiento poblacional futuro de la comunidad
local, además de agilizar el tráfico transfronterizo.
Garita de Tecate-Tecate
La garita de Tecate-Tecate abrió en 1932. Maneja tráfico peatonal, vehicular ligero y comercial, y
ferroviario (el ferrocarril cruza en Campo, al oriente del cruce fronterizo). La garita para vehículos
ligeros está abierta de 6:00 a 24:00 horas para tráfico entrando a EE.UU., y de 5:00 a 23:00 horas
para tráfico con rumbo a México. Los patios para carga operan con horario reducido.
Se presentó un proyecto para construir instalaciones para vehículos de carga en la garita de Tecate,
Baja California, con el fin de mejorar el flujo de tráfico comercial. Proyectos potenciales a largo plazo,
como por ejemplo un desarrollo adicional del puerto marítimo de Ensenada, tienen el potencial de
afectar el tráfico de carga en el cruce fronterizo Tecate-Tecate. La ampliación de las instalaciones de
carga mexicanas está programada para terminarse en 2013. No se presentó ningún proyecto a
mediano o a largo plazo del lado estadounidense, ya que en 2005 se completó una modernización y
ampliación mayor de la estación fronteriza estadounidense, y están programadas para terminarse en

Resumen Ejecutivo
2008 las nuevas instalaciones de inspección de vehículos comerciales de la Patrulla de Carreteras

de California (California Highway Patrol’s Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility).
Se propusieron dos proyectos ferroviarios (ambos en etapa de planeación conceptual) para

modernizar e incorporar vía doble en la Línea del Desierto (Desert Line) para incrementar el
potencial de mercado de esta ruta para el movimiento internacional e interestatal de bienes. En
México se planean una vialidad nueva y dos obras de mejoramiento para facilitar el tráfico hacia y
desde la garita. La vialidad nueva, el Blvd. Defensores, está programada para terminarse en 2015.
Sin embargo, SIDUE anticipa que podría inaugurarse mucho antes para alinearlo mejor con las obras
de la garita.
Garita de Mexicali II-Calexico East
La garita de Mexicali II-Calexico East se terminó de construir en 1997. Atiende tráfico peatonal,
vehicular ligero y comercial. La garita para vehículos ligeros está abierta de 6:00 a 22:00 horas para
tráfico entrando a EE.UU., y de 4:00 a 22:00 horas para tráfico con rumbo a México. En otoño e
invierno, la garita comienza a operar a las 4:00 para atender a la industria agrícola.
Se presentó un proyecto para mejorar el flujo vehicular en la garita de Mexicali II-Calexico East del
lado estadounidense mediante un aumento en el número de carriles para vehículos ligeros en las
instalaciones existentes. En estos momentos, en el Condado de Imperial se cuenta con ocho carriles
de vehículos ligeros, un carril SENTRI, uno para autobuses, y cuatro peatonales. El proyecto
aumentaría el número de carriles vehiculares ligeros a 12. No se proponen cambios en el número de
carriles para autobuses. Este proyecto se encuentra en la fase de planeación conceptual, y no se
proporcionaron estimaciones de costos ni de fecha de terminación de obra. Se jerarquizó este
proyecto noveno de los once evaluados.6 No se presentaron proyectos para la garita del lado
mexicano.
El proyecto de aumento de carriles se encuentra en la fase de planeación conceptual y no se

proporcionó fecha de terminación de obra. Las obras viales correspondientes del lado
estadounidense están concebidas para incrementar la capacidad global y atender el desarrollo y
crecimiento poblacional de la región fronteriza a futuro. En México, la construcción de nuevas
vialidades y obras de mejoramiento de arterias existentes se enfocan a mejorar el flujo entre las
garitas de Mexicali I y Mexicali II, y se estima terminar las obras en 2015.
Garita de Los Algodones-Andrade
La garita de Los Algodones-Andrade se terminó de construir en 1970 y atiende a peatones, vehículos

ligeros y, en menor grado, vehículos comerciales. Ubicada en el Condado de Imperial y al oriente de
Mexicali, la garita está abierta de 6:00 a 22:00 en ambas direcciones.
6
Desde que el análisis técnico conducido para el Plan Maestro Fronterizo Baja California-California, Caltrans/IVAG
lanzaron un informe comprensivo sobre la ampliación futura de esta garita. Esta nueva información se podrá
incorporar en actualizaciones futuras.

Resumen Ejecutivo
Se presentaron dos proyectos para esta garita. La garita de Andrade en el Condado de Imperial
cuenta con dos carriles para vehículos ligeros, dos peatonales, y uno comercial de manera informal.
Los planes para esta garita consisten en dirigir el tráfico vehicular a la garita en Arizona y convertir la
garita de Andrade-Algodones en peatonal exclusivamente. No se proporcionó información detallada
del proyecto del lado mexicano. Esta garita es de importancia turística, especialmente para visitantes
en invierno quienes visitan la zona y típicamente cruzan a pie. Se jerarquizaron estos proyectos en
10º y 11º lugar.
Los proyectos de la garita de Los Algodones-Andrade se encuentran en la fase de planeación

conceptual. No se proporcionó información detallada ni estimaciones de costos o fechas. Tampoco
se presentaron proyectos de infraestructura de transporte para esta garita. Existen oportunidades
para una mayor coordinación y alineamiento en la medida que se definan detalles de los proyectos.
Recomendaciones
Se recomienda tomar en cuenta el Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California como un

marco conceptual para jerarquizar proyectos de infraestructura, y mejorar la coordinación de
planeación e instrumentación de garitas y la correspondiente infraestructura de transporte en
ambos lados de la frontera entre Baja California y California.
Asimismo, considerar el uso de las listas jerarquizadas de proyectos Baja California-California

para competir por fuentes de financiamiento tales como la reautorización de la ley federal de
transporte de los EE.UU., fuentes federales de financiamiento en México, programas futuros de
financiamiento estatal o mediante obligaciones, y fondos locales y del sector privado.
Por último, usar las listas jerarquizadas de proyectos Baja California-California para seguir un
enfoque sistemático y ordenado en la instrumentación de proyectos binacionales.
Institucionalización del Proceso del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja

California
Un objetivo importante del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California consiste en establecer un
proceso que institucionalice el diálogo entre actores locales, estatales, regionales y federales en los
EE.UU. y México, para identificar necesidades futuras de garitas y la infraestructura de transporte
correspondiente, y coordinar proyectos. En el PAC del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California
se analizó como lograr este objetivo de manera constante para establecer un proceso de planeación
maestra binacional en la frontera entre Baja California y California.

Resumen Ejecutivo
Recomendaciones
Actualizaciones Periódicas: ¿Quién actualizará el Plan Maestro Fronterizo?
Caltrans y SIDUE lideran los esfuerzos para establecer un calendario o ciclo de actualizaciones
periódicas del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California, para solicitar financiamientos y
para marcar la pauta en cuanto a las actualizaciones, conjuntamente con el CCT EE.UU/México
y los actores interesados en el Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California.
Los integrantes del PAC del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California expresaron su preferencia
por tener un equipo de consultores que coordine las actualizaciones futuras, de manera similar al marco
que se utilizó al desarrollar el Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California actual.
Frecuencia y Contenido de las Actualizaciones: ¿Cuándo se llevarán a cabo las actualizaciones

del Plan Maestro Fronterizo, y cuáles elementos del Plan se actualizarán?
La calendarización de las actualizaciones del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California

deberá tomar en cuenta los ciclos de las administraciones de los EE.UU. y de México.
Dependiendo de la disponibilidad de fondos, se llevarían a cabo revisiones a fondo del Plan

Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California cada tres o cuatro años para:
` Establecer un año base nuevo y actualizar los datos del año base, incluyendo tiempos de
demora en el cruce transfronterizo (en la actualidad se tienen datos del 2005)
` Establecer un nuevo horizonte de planeación (en la actualidad se maneja el 2030)
` Revisar los límites del área de estudio para incorporar proyectos planeados de importancia de
garitas o transporte
` Incorporar proyecciones actualizadas de año horizonte, como son datos socioeconómicos,
demanda de tráfico transfronterizo, etc.
` Incorporar planes actualizados de garitas
` Incorporar planes actualizados de transporte
` Utilizar mapas en base a sistemas de información geográfica (GIS) binacionales (en
desarrollo)
Caltrans y SIDUE liderarían los esfuerzos para llevar a cabo una actualización técnica anual del
Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California, para permitir a las dependencias involucradas
incorporar información sobre nuevos proyectos planeados, cambios a proyectos previamente
presentados, y reportar sobre proyectos terminados.
Institucionalización del Diálogo – ¿Cómo continuará el Proceso de Planeación Maestra

Fronteriza?
El Comité Consejero de Reglamentos/Políticas del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja

California se reuniría una vez al año, o con mayor frecuencia de ser necesario, para aportar

Resumen Ejecutivo
dirección sobre la actualización anual del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California y
también de actualizaciones a fondo en el futuro.
Apoyarse a todo lo largo de la frontera en el CCT EE.UU./México y el Grupo Binacional México-

EE.UU. de Puentes y Cruces Fronterizos, para compartir información sobre el estado que guarda
el Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California.
En Baja California-California, apoyarse en las Comisiones Técnicas del Mecanismo de Enlace

Fronterizo (BLM) para mantener abiertas las líneas de comunicación entre dependencias
federales, estatales y locales que tienen la responsabilidad de planear e instrumentar las garitas
y las correspondientes instalaciones de transporte.
SIDUE y Caltrans reportarían sobre el monitoreo y la instrumentación del Plan Maestro

Fronterizo California-Baja California en reuniones del CCT EE.UU./México, el Grupo Binacional
México-EE.UU. de Puentes y Cruces Fronterizos y las Comisiones Técnicas del BLM.
La Conferencia de Gobernadores Fronterizos de los Estados Unidos y México también podría ser
un foro para institucionalizar el Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California. La Conferencia
de Gobernadores Fronterizos es un foro de cooperación y deliberación entre los diez estados
fronterizos de los Estados Unidos y México (Arizona, California, Nuevo México, Texas, Baja
California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, Sonora, y Tamaulipas). SIDUE y Caltrans podrían
reportar sobre el Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California en las conferencias anuales.
Representantes de cada uno de los diez estados mencionados participan en mesas de trabajo para
desarrollar soluciones a objetivos comunes mediante un enfoque de consenso. La Mesa de
Trabajo de Logística y Cruces Internacionales “apoya una comunicación, coordinación y la
construcción de consensos más amplios entre los diez estados Fronterizos, promoviendo la
inversión en infraestructura moderna y eficiente en las garitas, para mejorar la seguridad y
fortalecer el intercambio comercial.”
En agosto del 2008, en su Declaratoria Conjunta, la XXVI Conferencia de Gobernadores

Fronterizos adoptó la siguiente recomendación en materia de Logística y Cruces Internacionales:
“Reducir substancialmente los tiempos de espera en cruces fronterizos para el año

2013, y completar los planes maestros binacionales entre los diez estados fronterizos en
un plazo no mayor a tres años. Solicitar a ambos gobiernos federales incorporar estos
planes en un Plan Maestro Fronterizo EE.UU.-México para la XXXI Conferencia de
Gobernadores Fronterizos en 2013.”
En conferencia futuras, representantes de California y Baja California podrían presentar una

recomendación a la Mesa de Trabajo de Logística y Cruces Internacionales de apoyar
actualizaciones al Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California en la medida que se
desarrollan los demás Planes Maestros Fronterizos Regionales.

Resumen Ejecutivo
SUGERENCIAS A CONSIDERAR EN ACTIVIDADES FUTURAS DE

PLANEACIÓN MAESTRA FRONTERIZA CALIFORNIA- BAJA CALIFORNIA
Basados en los objetivos primordiales del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California, el Buró de
Servicio de SANDAG ofrece las siguientes ideas para consideración en actividades futuras de
Planeación Maestra Fronteriza California-Baja California, a raíz de lo aprendido en el desarrollo de este
proyecto piloto.
Desarrollo del Estudio
Tomar en cuenta los ciclos de las administraciones de los EE.UU. y de México en los tres niveles
de gobierno al establecer las actualizaciones técnicas anuales y las actualizaciones a fondo del
Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California. Transiciones en el liderazgo y personal en las
diferentes dependencias resultan en demoras no anticipadas debido a cambios de personal y
prioridades.
Reafirmar la participación de administradores de nivel ejecutivo en la toma de decisiones en el

PAC del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California, así como las prácticas efectivas de
comunicación entre integrantes del PAC y del TWG que permitieron un flujo eficiente de
información y toma de decisiones durante el desarrollo de este proyecto piloto.
Considerar la posibilidad de lograr compromisos por parte del PAC del Plan Maestro Fronterizo
California-Baja California de dedicar suficientes recursos de personal para el trabajo técnico, de
tal forma que se asegure que las actualizaciones del plan se lleven a cabo de manera oportuna
(Vg., proporcionando información y revisando borradores de documentos).
Proporcionar la participación consistente de los integrantes del PAC en momentos claves de

toma de decisiones, para lograr consistencia a todo lo largo del proceso binacional de
planeación.
En el caso de las actualizaciones técnicas anuales en el futuro, convenir el TWG del Plan
Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California para considerar la necesidad de reevaluar
proyectos y jerarquizaciones y, en su caso, revisar y comentar sobre los resultados de las
jerarquizaciones actualizadas de proyectos, antes de presentar las actualizaciones al PAC del
Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California para su aprobación.
En el caso de actualizaciones futuras, considerar un presupuesto adecuado para la traducción de

documentos e interpretación simultanea en reuniones del TWG y del PAC.
Incluir profesionales tanto de Baja California como de California en el equipo consultivo

responsabilizado de las actualizaciones, para facilitar la coordinación y recopilación de datos con
dependencias de ambos lados de la frontera California-Baja California.

Resumen Ejecutivo
Información Requerida
Al formular y llevar a cabo actividades de recopilación de información, considerar la inclusión de

indicadores que forman parte de los criterios de evaluación del Plan Maestro Fronterizo
California-Baja California, para asegurar que la información sea fácilmente disponible en ambos
lados de la frontera y que se pueda acceder a ella de manera oportuna.
Continuar la colaboración mediante el Intercambio entre Pronosticadores Fronterizos EE.UU.-

México, subproducto del Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California y patrocinado por la
Administración Federal de Carreteras de los EE.UU., para armonizar y compartir información
sobre metodologías de recopilación de datos y de pronosticación de los cruces transfronterizos
(por medio de transporte), así como de cualquier otra información relacionada con el transporte
transfronterizo, como por ejemplo tiempos de espera.
CONCLUSIONES
El desarrollo de una nueva garita, o mejoras a una garita existente y las instalaciones de transporte
correspondientes, es una tarea compleja y tardada que requiere de coordinación y colaboración
estrechas con dependencias gubernamentales en ambos lados de la frontera. El proceso del Plan
Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California es una herramienta nueva que puede utilizarse para
jerarquizar proyectos de infraestructura y mejorar la coordinación de planeación e instrumentación de
proyectos de garitas y de transporte tanto en los EE.UU. como en México. Un enfoque integral ayuda a
dependencias tanto en Baja California como California terminar los proyectos necesarios de manera que
eficientemente facilite el comercio internacional y mejore la calidad de vida de los habitantes de la región
fronteriza. El enfoque California-Baja California podría ampliarse y adaptarse a otros estados fronterizos
atendiendo sus necesidades, dando como resultado un proceso de planeación maestra coordinado para
toda la frontera México-EE.UU.

Resumen Ejecutivo
Ilustración RE-1
Plan Maestro Fronterizo California-Baja California
Proyectos del Condado de San Diego – Municipio de Tijuana (2007-2030)

Resumen Ejecutivo
Ilustración RE-2
Proyectos del Condado de San Diego – Municipio de Tijuana (2007-2030) – Mapa Enfocado

Resumen Ejecutivo
Ilustración RE-3
Proyectos de Tecate (2007-2030)

Resumen Ejecutivo
Ilustración RE-4
Proyectos de Ferrocarril – Ruta del Dieserto (2007-2030)

Resumen Ejecutivo
Ilustración RE-5
Lista de Proyectos del Condado de San Diego – Municipios de Tijuana y Tecate (2007-2030)
2007 – 2012 PROYECTOS CARRETEROS

Proyectos del Condado de San Diego
No. de
Proyecto Descripción
20115: I-5/I-805: Modificar acceso a la garita desde Willow Road

20120: SR 188: Carriles de desfogue para camiones
20122: I-805: Dispositivos de señales de trafico y carriles de desfogue para vehículos de alta ocupación de
Telegraph Canyon a Bonita Road
20123: Autopista SR 905: del I-805 a México
20124: Ensanchar de Otay Mesa Road: de SR 125 a Enrico Fermi Drive
20125: Lone Star Road: de Alta Road a 0.5 millas al Oeste
20129: Ruta de camiones de Otay: de la Garita de Otay Mesa a Drucker Lane
20130: Ampliación de ruta de camiones de Otay: de Drucker Lane a La Media
20131: SR 125 Peaje: Conector de SR 905 a SR 54
20164: SR 94: Mejoras de operación de Melody Road a SR 188
Proyectos de Tijuana/Tecate
No. de
70156: Carretera Tijuana-Tecate: Ampliación de El Florido a Toyota

70160: Carretera Mexicali-Tecate: Ampliación

No. de
1020001: Puente Heritage Road: de Main Street al Sur del Rió de Otay
1020002: Puente Willow Street: de Sweetwater Road a Bonita Road
1020003: I-5: 2 Carriles para vehículos de alta ocupación de SR 905 a SR 54
1020004: I-5: 2 Carriles para vehículos de alta ocupación SR 54 a I-8
1020005: SR 11: 4 Carriles de peaje de SR 905 a México.
1020007: SR 125: 4 Carriles de peaje de Telegraph Canyon a San Miguel Road
1020008: SR 125: 4 Carriles de peaje de San Miguel Road a SR 54
1020009: I-805: 4 Carriles Controlados de SR 905 a Palomar Street
1020010: I-805: 4 Carriles Controlados de Palomar Street a SR 54
1020012: SR 905: 2 Carriles generales de I-805 a México
1020013: Otay Mesa ruta de camiones hacia el Sur: Ampliación y realineamiento de Britannia Blvd. a la Garita de
Otay Mesa
1020014: Arteria Airway Road: de la Ciudad de San Diego a Enrico Fermi Drive
1020015: Arteria Airway Road: de Enrico Fermi Drive a Alta Road
1020016: Arteria Airway Road: de Alta Road a Loop Road
1020017: Arteria Alta Road: de Old Otay Mesa Road a Prisión Estatal Donovan
1020018: Arteria Alta Road: de Lone Star Road a Otay Mesa Road

Resumen Ejecutivo
Ilustración RE-5 (Continuación)

2013 – 2030 PROYECTOS CARRETEROS (CONTINUACIÓN)

No. de
1020019: Arteria Alta Road: de Otay Mesa Road a Airway Road

1020020: Arteria Alta Road: de Airway Road a Siempre Viva Road
1020021: Enrico Fermi Drive: Mejorar arteria de Lone Star Road a Otay Mesa Road
1020022: Enrico Fermi Drive: Mejorar arteria de SR 11 a Airway Road
1020024: Enrico Fermi Drive: Arteria de Airway Road a Siempre Viva Road
1020025: Arteria Lone Star Road: de Piper Ranch a Sunroad Boulevard
1020026: Arteria Lone Star Road: de Sunroad Boulevard a Vann Center Boulevard
1020027: Arteria Lone Star Road: de Vann Center Boulevard a Enrico Fermi Drive
1020028: Arteria Lone Star Road: de Enrico Fermi Drive a Alta Road
1020029: Arteria Lone Star Road: de Otay Mesa Road a Siempre Viva Road
1020030: Arteria Otay Mesa Road: de Sanyo Road a Enrico Fermi Drive
1020031: Arteria Otay Mesa Road: de Enrico Fermi Drive a Alta Road
1020032: Arteria Otay Mesa Road: de Alta Road a Loop Road
1020033: Arteria Siempre Viva Road: de la Ciudad de San Diego a Alta Road
1020034: Arteria Siempre Viva Road: de Alta Road a Loop Road
1020035: Arteria Siempre Viva Road: de Loop Road a Rogue Road
1020038: Colector Vía de la Amistad: de la Ciudad de San Diego/Enrico Fermi Drive a Alta Road
Proyectos de Tijuana/Tecate
No. de
1070003: Puente un solo carril sobre canalización del Río Tijuana: de Vía Rápida Oriente a Vía Rápida Poniente
1070004: Dos carriles del puente sobre canalización del Río Tijuana: de Vía Rápida Oriente a Vía Rápida Poniente
1070005: Ampliación de Vía Rápida Oriente: del puente peatonal al puente México
1070006: Rampa en la corona oriental del canalización del Río Tijuana
1070007: Rampa en la corona poniente del canalización del Río Tijuana
1070008: Avenida Internacional Oriente: de Calle Silvestre Revueltas a Calle 12 Norte
1070009: Double nivel de Avenida Internacional Poniente: de Vía Rápida Oriente a acceso para Playas de Tijuana
1070010: Incorporación de Avenida Internacional Poniente de la Vía Rápida
1070011: Boulevard Las Torres: de la autopista Tijuana-Tecate a Boulevard Internacional Otay II
1070012: Boulevard Internacional Otay II: de la Garita de Otay II a la autopista de peaje Tijuana-Tecate
1070014: Boulevard Industrial: de camino de acceso a aeropuerto a Boulevard Terán
1070020: Vía Rápida Alamar: de estación central de autobuses a Boulevard Tijuana-Rosarito 2000
1070021: Boulevard Internacional Otay II: de autopista de peaje Tijuana-Tecate a Alamar
1060001: Boulevard Defensores: de Mixcoac Street a la autopista Tecate-Tijuana
1060002: Autopista Tecate-Tijuana: de Rancho La Puerta a nodo Paso el Aguila
1060003: Autopista Tecate-Tijuana: de Rancho Santa Lucia a San José

Resumen Ejecutivo

2013 – 2030 PROYECTOS DE FERROCARRIL

No. de
3020001: Ruta Sur de Carga: Apartadores, pases, conexión con México, rehabilitación
de ruta Coronado, estación de ferrocarril San Ysidro
3020004: Ruta Desierto: Servicios Básicos (carga)

3020005: Ruta Desierto: Modernización (carga)
3020017: Ruta Desierto: Carril doble (carga)
3020018: Servicio de tren ligero ruta azul: Incrementar frecuencia del servicio de ruta
azul
3020003: Estación de ferrocarril interurbano de Amtrak
2007 – 2012 PROYECTOS NODALES

No. de
20135: I-5 y “E” Street. Mejores a intersección

20136: I-5 y “H” Street. Mejores a intersección
20138: I-5 y “E” Street. Mejoras a nodo
20139: I-5 y “H” Street. Mejoras a nodo
20165: SR 905 y I-805. Mejoras a nodo
20166: SR 905 y SR 125. Construcción de nodo
2013 – 2030 PROYECTOS NODALES

No. de
2020001: I-5 del Norte de SR 54 a puente “J” Street. Mejoras de nodo nuevas estructuras (no mostrado)
2020002: Puente I-805/Palm Ave. Modificar nodo
2020003: Paso a desnivel I-805-Main Street/Auto Park Dr. Modificar nodo
2020006: Nodo (Fase 4) SR 905/ Heritage Rd. Construcción de nodo

Resumen Ejecutivo

2013 – 2030 PROYECTOS NODALES (CONTINUACIÓN)

Proyectos de Tijuana/ Tecate
No. de
2070001: Puente y nodo sobre la autopista de peaje Tijuana -- Tecate con acceso a Blvd. Las Torres
2070002: Nodo Aeropuerto -Bellas Artes -- Construcción de nodo Aeropuerto-Bellas Artes con acceso a la Garita
de Otay
2070003: Nodo Cuauhtemoc-Padre Kino -- Construcción de nodo Cuauhtemoc-Padre Kino
2070004: Nodo Bellas Artes-Magisterial -- Construcción de nodo Bellas Artes--Magisterial con acceso a la Garita de
Otay II
2070005: Nodo Avenida Industrial-Terán Terán -- Optimización de intersección-Terán Terán
2070006: Nodo Boulevard Internacional Otay II -- autopista de peaje Tijuana-Tecate
2070007: Nodo Boulevard Internacional Otay II y Alamar -- Construcción de nodo en Blvd. Internacional Otay II y
Alamar
2060001: Nodo Autopista Tecate-Mexicali y Boulevard Las Torres -- Nodo de autopista
2060002: Nodo de autopista y la autopista de peaje Tecate-Tijuana -- Terminación de intersección y carretera
2007 – 2012 PROYECTOS DE AUTOBÚS DE TRANSITO RÁPIDO

No. de
20127: South Bay autobús de transito rápido ruta 628 -- Otay Ranch a centro de San Diego
2013 – 2030 PROYECTOS DE AUTOBÚS DE TRANSITO RÁPIDO

No. de
3020002: Autobús de transito rápido ruta 680: Otay Mesa a Sorrento Mesa
2007 – 2012 PROYECTOS DE GARITAS

No. de
20126: Garita de San Ysidro: Estacionamiento de bicicletas en la frontera

20176: Garita de San Ysidro: Proyecto piloto de casetas de inspección Tandem
20177: Garita de San Ysidro: Expansión del carril SENTRI
20178: Garita de San Ysidro: Mejoras a inspección secundaria

Resumen Ejecutivo

2007 – 2012 PROYECTOS DE GARITAS (CONTINUACIÓN)
Proyectos del Condado de San Diego (Continuación)

20179: Garita de San Ysidro: Mejoras a señalamientos
20180: Garita de San Ysidro: Inspección de pasajeros de autobús
20181: Garita de Otay Mesa: Expansión del carril SENTRI
20182: Garita de Otay Mesa: Expansión del carril FAST
20183: Garita de Otay Mesa: Estudio de Factibilidad Otay Mesa
20185: Garita de Otay Mesa: Plan Maestro de la Garita de Otay Mesa
20184: Garita de Otay Mesa Este: Plan Maestro de la Garita de Otay Mesa Este
20119: Garita de Tecate: Instalaciones de inspección para CHP
20186: Garita de Tecate: Instalaciones de inspección de ferrocarril
20187: Garita de Tecate: Nuevas instalaciones de CHP
Proyectos del Municipio Tijuana/ Tecate
No. de
70157: Garita Mesa de Otay: Expansión de carriles para tractocamiones

70158: Garita Mesa de Otay II : Estudio de factibilidad
70196/197: Garita Puerta México-El Chaparral: Reconfiguración
70159: Garita de Tecate: Adquisición de terrenos

No. de
4020001: Garita de Otay Mesa Este: Construcción de la nueva garita

4020003: Garita de San Ysidro: Rediseño de la garita
4020004: Modernización de la garita de Otay Mesa: Carriles adicionales de peatones
4020005: Modernización de la garita de Otay Mesa: Carriles adicionales de tractocamiones
Proyectos del Municipio Tijuana/ Tecate
No. de
4070002: Garita Mesa de Otay II: Construcción de la nueva garita

4060001: Garita de Tecate: Expansión y mejoras de área comercial

Resumen Ejecutivo
Ilustración RE-6
Proyectos del Condado de Imperial – Municipio de Mexicali (2007-2030)

Resumen Ejecutivo
Ilustración RE-7
Proyectos Andrade - Algodones (2007-2030)

Resumen Ejecutivo
Ilustración RE-8
Lista de Proyectos del Condado de Imperial – Municipio de Mexicali (2007-2030)

Proyectos del Condado Imperial
No. de
10102: SR 98: de Navarro Road a SR 111

10104: SR186 en Andrade Instalaciones de Inspección de CHP
10110: Cole Road: de Bowker Road a SR 98
10111: Cole Road: de Kloke Road hasta el ferrocarril
10112: Expansión de Second Street: de SR 111 a Dogwood Road
10113: Expansión de Cesar Chavez Boulevard: de SR 111 a SR 98/Birch Street
10167: SR 98 West: de Dogwood Road a SR 111
Proyectos de Mexicali
No. de
40145: Extensión Río Nuevo: de Lázaro Cárdenas a Boulevard Héctor Terán Terán
40148: Ampliación de Carretera Mexicali-Algodones: de Calle Novena a Islas Agrarias
40150: Periférico en zona este: de Lázaro Cárdenas a Islas Agrarias
40151/152/153: Mexicali-San Luís Río Colorado

No. de
1010001: I-8: de Forrester Road a SR 111

1010005: SR 111: de I-8 a SR 78
1010008: SR 115: de Evan Hewes Highway a SR 78
1010009: Imperial Avenue: de McCabe Road a I-8
1010011: Dogwood Road: de SR 98 a Mead Road
1010015: Imperial Avenue: de I-8 a Aten Road
1010016: Puente: de 8th St. de Wake Avenue a Centinela
1010017: SR 98: de este de SR 111 a SR 7
1010018: SR 111: de SR 98 a I-8
1010019: SR 98: de SR 98 a Cesar Chavez Boulevard
No. de
1040001: Avenida Colon Poniente: del puente Leyes de Reforma y la vialidad propuesta en la periférica poniente
1040002: Periférico Poniente: de la intersección con Avenida Colon Poniente (propuesta) a la carretera Tijuana
1040003: Prolongación del Eje Central: de Blvd. Lázaro Cárdenas a Calz. Gómez Morin
1040004: Boulevard Terán-Terán: de la carretera San Felipe a la carretera Tijuana
1040005: Calz. Gómez Morin: de Calle Cetys a la carretera Mexicali-San Felipe
1040006: Calz. Gómez Morin: de Avenida Capitán Carrillo a Calle Rep. de Argentina
1040007: Tramo Anillo Periférico Oriente: de Blvd. Lázaro Cárdenas a la carretera San Felipe
1040008: Tramo Anillo Periférico Oriente: de la carretera Islas Agrarias a la carretera al aeropuerto

Resumen Ejecutivo

Lista de Proyectos del Condado de Imperial – Municipio de Mexicali (2007-2030)
2007 – 2012 PROYECTOS DE NODO

No. de
10100: Nodo de Imperial Avenue - I-8

10101: Nodo de Dogwood Avenue - I-8
10105: Nodo de SR 186 - I-8
2013 – 2030 PROYECTOS DE NODO

No. de
2010001: Nodo del Austin Road - I-8

2010002: Nodo del Bowker Road - I-8
2010004: Nodo del Jasper Road - SR 111
2013 – 2030 PROYECTOS DE FERROCARRIL

No. de
3010083: Paso a desnivel en McCabe Road y Dogwood Avenue

3010084: Cuidad de El Centro: Pasos a desnivel en varios lugares

No. de
10188: Garita Calexico West: Expansión de las instalaciones de la garita y áreas de inspección
10189: Garita Calexico West: Reubicación de caseta peatonal Sur
10190: Garita Calexico West: Reparar pozo en inspección primaria
10191: Garita Calexico Oeste: Expansión del carril SENTRI
10192: Garita Andrade: Mejoras a puente peatonal y renovación de instalaciones
10193: Garita Andrade: Barreras de control de tráfico
10194: Garita Andrade: Expansión de instalaciones

Resumen Ejecutivo

Lista de proyectos del Condado de Imperial – Municipio de Mexicali (2007-2030)

No. de
4010003: Expansión de Garita de Andrade: Mover carriles vehiculares a la frontera de Arizona

4010004: Rediseñar la Garita de Calexico: Reconfigurar la garita
4010005: Expansión de la Garita Calexico Este: Expansión de carriles primarios vehiculares
No. de
4040001: Garita de Mexicali I – Calexico West: Expansión y mejoramiento de las instalaciones de Aduanas
4040004: Garita de Los Algodones - Andrade: Modernización de cruce turístico

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan is a binational comprehensive approach to coordinate
planning and delivery of land ports of entry (POEs) and transportation infrastructure projects serving
those POEs in the California-Baja California region. The California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), in partnership with the Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California
(SIDUE) and the U.S./Mexico Joint Working Committee (JWC), retained the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) Service Bureau to assist in the development of this California-Baja California
Border Master Plan. The primary objectives of the Plan were to:
Increase the understanding of POE and transportation planning on both sides of the border and
create a process for prioritizing and advancing POE and related transportation projects;
Develop criteria for prioritizing projects related to existing and new POEs, as well as
transportation facilities leading to the California-Baja California POEs and rank mid- and long-
term projects and services (e.g., roads, public transit, and railways); and
Establish a process to institutionalize dialogue among federal, state, regional, and local
stakeholders in the United States and Mexico to identify future POE and connecting
transportation infrastructure needs and coordinate projects.
Ideally, the approach and methodologies identified in the California-Baja California Border Master Plan
will be incorporated into the respective planning and programming processes of the individual
participating agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local levels in both the United States and
Mexico.
SCOPE OF WORK
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan scope of work identified seven key tasks, which are
described below. All tasks have been completed.
Task 1: Stakeholder Participation
To facilitate the study’s direction, a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), composed of government and
quasi-governmental stakeholders will be established. By invitation, the PAC will include top-level
executive managers of federal, state, regional, and local entities responsible for land use, transportation,
POE facilities, and security operations from the United States and Mexico. In addition, a Technical
SANDAG Service Bureau 1

Chapter 1
Introduction
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Working Group (TWG) composed of senior staff from the agencies participating in the PAC will be
established to provide support and guidance to the Consultant throughout the study in collecting and
providing the requested information.
Task 2: Document “State of the Practice” to Determine Transportation and POE

Infrastructure Needs
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan will document current planning practices that each
participating agency follows to determine and prioritize transportation and POE infrastructure needs.
Task 3: Assess Existing Capacity and Demand and Identify Short-Term Trans-
portation and POE Infrastructure Needs
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan will gather current and projected population and socio-
economic data in the border area. Other data to be collected include existing crossing and transportation
volumes, existing POE and transportation facility configurations, current staffing levels and patterns, and
POE and transportation capacities, as available. This information is critical for determining existing
capacity and demand through the POEs and transportation facilities.
Task 4: Estimate Growth of Demand
Projections for future demand for border facilities will be estimated using appropriate tools, published
studies and reports, as well as the information collected in Task 3.
Task 5: Define and Approve Criteria for Prioritization of Needs
Criteria for evaluating and ranking POE and transportation facility projects will be developed. The PAC
will be responsible for defining and adopting the criteria for establishing project needs and time frames.
Task 6: Analyze Data and Identify Short-, Mid- and Long-Term Transportation and
POE Operational and Infrastructure Needs; Rank POE and Transport-
ation Projects
Short-term operational and capital improvement needs and projects will be identified by evaluating
existing capacity and demand. Mid- and long-term needs will be determined by analyzing projected
demand and capacities. The needs analysis will identify proposals for expansion and the location of new
POE/transportation infrastructure, examine whether they concur with the analysis of growth in demand,
and determine if other sites or projects should be evaluated. The mid- and long-term POE and
transportation projects will be prioritized according to the approved evaluation criteria.
Task 7: Draft and Final Reports
Prepare a draft California-Baja California Border Master Plan report for review and comment by the TWG.
The technical memoranda prepared throughout the study will be the basis for this report. After addressing
comments from the TWG, the TWG will be asked to recommend approval of the study findings to the
PAC. The final report will be presented to the PAC for approval and transmittal to Caltrans and the
U.S./Mexico JWC.
2 SANDAG Service Bureau

Chapter 1
Introduction
BORDER MASTER PLAN
DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE
Under the direction of the U.S./Mexico JWC, Caltrans, and SIDUE, a California-Baja California Border
Master Plan PAC and TWG were established. The agencies listed below were invited to participate in the
development of the Plan. Each agency was asked to designate executive-level managers to serve on the
PAC and senior staff to serve on the TWG. The participating agencies are listed below.
United States
U.S. Department of State (DOS)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)
U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG)
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
County of Imperial
City of Calexico
County of San Diego
City of Chula Vista
City of San Diego
Mexico
Secretariat of Foreign Relations (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, SRE)

Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (Secretaría de Comunicaciones y
Transportes, SCT)
General Customs Administration (Administración General de Aduanas)
Secretariat of Social Development (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social, SEDESOL)
Institute of Administration and Estimates of National Real Estate (Instituto de Administración y
Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (Secretaría de
Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano del Estado de Baja California, SIDUE)
Municipal Planning Institute of Tijuana (Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Tijuana, IMPLAN)
Municipal Planning Institute of Mexicali (Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Mexicali, IMIP)
Municipality of Mexicali (Municipio de Mexicali)
Municipality of Tecate (Municipio de Tecate)
Municipality of Tijuana (Municipio de Tijuana)

Chapter 1
Introduction
BORDER MASTER PLAN
In addition, other agencies were invited to participate on specific tasks as work progressed. They
included:
National Immigration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migración)
Secretariat of Economic Development Baja California (Secretaría de Desarrollo Económico)
Secretariat of Tourism de Baja California (Secretaría de Turismo)
The PAC was responsible for providing direction, approving the study parameters, and establishing
criteria for future evaluation of projects. The TWG was responsible for supporting the consultant to
implement the direction of the PAC by providing requested information in a timely manner and for making
recommendations to the PAC. Specific roles of PAC and TWG are outlined in the charter included in
Appendix A-1. The agency membership list and contact information are located in Appendix A-2.
APPROACH FOR COMPLETING THE TASKS
To accomplish the tasks outlined in the scope of work, the Service Bureau prepared questionnaires
requesting pertinent data from the TWG by task. A summary of the data received and the analyses
conducted by the Service Bureau then were presented to the TWG for discussion. Following the TWG
meetings, the same information and analyses, updated according to the input received from the TWG,
were presented at the PAC meetings. The TWG made recommendations to the PAC on tasks, such as
definition of the study area and planning horizon for the study.
Over the course of the study, six PAC meetings and seven TWG meetings were held. The schedule of
meetings is provided in Appendix A-3. The attendance and agreements for the PAC and TWG meetings
are shown in Appendix A-4 and A-5, respectively.
Throughout the process, the Service Bureau worked closely with the U.S./Mexico JWC, Caltrans, SIDUE,
and the binational PAC and TWG to ensure the Border Master Plan met the above objectives and
resulted in a model that could be used in other border areas for similar binational infrastructure planning
and coordination.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
Chapter 2 of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan report documents the State of the Practice
followed by federal, state, regional, and local agencies to determine transportation and POE infrastructure
needs and establish priorities for project implementation. Chapter 3 presents a profile of the communities
within the binational study area and includes data on income as well as current and projected data on
population, employment, and land use. Chapter 4 examines the current and projected capacity and
demand of transportation facilities and POEs along the California-Baja California International Border,
identifies short-term transportation and POE needs and projects, and analyzes the growth of travel
demand. Chapter 5 describes the development of the evaluation criteria for ranking the POE and
transportation projects. Chapter 6 analyzes the mid- and long-term POE and transportation projects by
POE. The analysis identified whether planning and implementation of POE and connecting transportation

Chapter 1
Introduction
BORDER MASTER PLAN
facilities are taking place in a coordinated manner or whether there are any gaps or inconsistencies in the
projects and or project schedules. Chapter 7 provides lessons learned and recommendations to maintain
and enhance the binational planning process, including suggestions for institutionalizing the California-
Baja California Border Master Plan process. In addition, the Appendix includes agency responses to the
questionnaires, the POE and transportation facility projects and project rankings, and other documents
pertinent to the study.

CHAPTER 2
STATE OF THE PRACTICE FOR PORT OF ENTRY
AND RELATED TRANSPORTATION FACILITY PLANNING
This chapter documents current planning practices followed by federal, state, regional, and local agencies
to determine transportation and port of entry (POE) infrastructure needs and how priorities for project
implementation are established.
DEFINITION OF STUDY AREA
Figure 2-1 on page 18 illustrates the study area, which was approved by the Policy Advisory Committee
(PAC) on January 25, 2007. The study area includes an “Area of Influence” and a “Focused Study Area.”
The “Area of Influence” is the geographic area 60 miles (or 100 km.) north and south of the California-
Baja California International Border. In California, it includes the counties of San Diego and Imperial. In
Baja California, it includes the municipalities of Tijuana, Tecate, Playas de Rosarito, parts of Mexicali, and
the urban area of Ensenada. POE data, as well as current and projected data on population, employment,
land use, and income were gathered for the “Area of Influence.”
The “Focused Study Area” is the area ten miles north and ten miles south of the California-Baja California
International Border. The short-, mid-, and long-term POE and transportation projects were limited to this
bandwidth.
STUDY HORIZON YEAR
In the United States, planning documents tend to have a long-term planning horizon of 20 to 30 years,
while some, such as the Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG), have an even longer
planning horizon of 30 to 50 years. In Mexico, federal, state, and regional plans have a planning horizon
of 20 to 25 years. The PAC discussed the planning horizon for the California-Baja California Border
Master Plan and, on January 25, 2007, approved 2030 as the horizon year to allow for a long-range
planning vision.
CURRENT PLANNING PRACTICES
To better understand the current planning practices followed by federal, state, regional, and local
agencies to determine transportation and POE infrastructure needs and priorities, a seven-part
questionnaire (Appendix B) was distributed to the technical working group members. Responses were
received from the: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), U.S. Department of State (DOS), California

Chapter 2
State of the Practice for Port of Entry
and Related Transportation Facility Planning
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG), San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),
County of San Diego, City of Calexico, City of Chula Vista, Mexico’s General Customs Administration
(Administración General de Aduanas or Aduanas), Mexico’s Secretariat of Social Development
(Secretaría de Desarrollo Social or SEDESOL), Mexico’s Secretariat of Communications and
Transportation (Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transporte or SCT), Mexico’s Secretariat of Foreign
Relations (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores or SRE), Mexico’s Institute of Administration and
Estimates of National Real Estate (Instituto de Administración y Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales or
INDAABIN), State of Baja California’s Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development (Secretaría de
Desarrollo Urbano del Estado or SIDUE), Municipal Research and Planning Institute of Mexicali (Instituto
Municipal de Investigación y Planeación de Mexicali or IMIP), and Municipal Planning Institute of Tijuana
(Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Tijuana or IMPLAN). The information summarized in this chapter
reflects the data received from participating agencies. A summary of the questionnaire responses can be
seen in Appendix B.
Transportation Planning Processes
In California, Caltrans prepares a statewide policy plan while the Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) are responsible for the more detailed Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs)
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/osp/ctp.html). The planning horizon for the RTPs is at least 20 years
(SCAG, IVAG and SANDAG currently use up to a 30-year horizon). Caltrans works in concert with these
agencies to select projects and to plan for the long term.
At the regional level, MPOs, such as SCAG and SANDAG develop the RTPs with participation from cities,
counties, Caltrans, transportation commissions, transit agencies, and other stakeholders. SANDAG
prepares the RTP for the County of San Diego (www.sandag.org\2030rtp). Imperial County is part of the
SCAG region (www.scag.ca.gov/rtp2008/). IVAG is an association of city, county, and local governments
created to address regional transportation issues. IVAG, Caltrans, and a technical review committee
prepare the Imperial County Transportation Plan, which provides input into SCAG’s RTP development.
RTPs include major transportation projects identified by the cities and the county in their General Plan
circulation element, highway projects identified by Caltrans, and other multimodal projects identified by
the MPOs and other stakeholders. Caltrans initiates development of projects through feasibility studies.
These agencies also prepare traffic impact studies as well as corridor, subregional, and other
transportation studies.
In Mexico, the federal government is responsible for leading national development planning (Plan
Nacional de Desarrollo or PND) with public participation. Based on the PND
(http://pnd.calderon.presidencia.gob.mx/), a series of sectorial, institutional, and regional programs are
elaborated, including a sectorial plan of communications and transportation and a program of regional
development for the northern border. Based on the sectorial plan, the SCT has a regional planning
process in which state governments and working groups participate (e.g., National Infrastructure Council,
U.S./Mexico Joint Working Committee (JWC), U.S.-Mexico Binational Group on Bridges and Border
Crossings) to identify infrastructure needs. SEDESOL is responsible for preparing the National Program

Chapter 2
BORDER MASTER PLAN
of Urban Development and coordinates planning activities with state and municipal governments. It also
is responsible for the Borders Cities Program (cities within 100 kilometers of the border).
In Baja California, the Municipality of Mexicali’s IMIP prepares the Municipal Urban Development Plan
and participates in the development of partial or specific plans. SIDUE prepares the State Urban
Development Plan, Regional Programs of Urban Development, and Interregional Programs of Urban
Development (Conurbación), where it identifies transportation or POE needs, proposes new
transportation facilities or POEs or improvements to existing highways or ports, and prioritizes the
proposed projects in Baja California. It also participates in the development of municipal plans and
programs.
POE Planning
In the United States, GSA responds to requests from CBP to initiate POE projects. The U.S. DOS has the
authority to issue Presidential permits for the construction, operation, and maintenance for all new border
crossings at the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders and for substantial modifications of existing
international POEs.
POE needs are identified by CBP through a Strategic Resource Assessment (SRA) report prepared for
each field office. The San Diego field office includes land POEs in San Diego and Imperial Counties. CBP
prepares a capital improvement plan for land POEs. CBP’s SRA process does not appear to identify
needs for new POE facilities and focuses on improvements to existing ones; however, POE proposals
made by other agencies are described in the SRA, and selected POE proposals are included under
options for improvements. The GSA follows through with requests from CBP to contract for and
administer POE feasibility studies to identify and evaluate alternative POE designs and estimate costs.
General Plans and Transportation Plans prepared by cities, counties, regional agencies, and Caltrans
simply describe current and planned POE projects. Planning and implementation of transportation
facilities serving POEs is conducted by state, regional, and local agencies.
GSA reported that POE feasibility studies refer to state and regional transportation plans and to municipal
plans to assess the adequacy of proposed POE facilities.
In Mexico, municipal and state plans include both POE projects and transportation facilities connecting to
the POEs. No detailed schedules for project implementation are included. Aduanas works with the Local
Customs Administration, Central Customs Planning Administration, and the General Customs
Administration to plan new POE projects and improvements. Proposed projects are ranked using quan-
titative and qualitative criteria based on their impact on foreign trade and ability to solve an existing
problem.
INDAABIN is in charge of the physical planning, maintenance, and conservation of the shared federal
buildings. With regard to existing POEs, INDAABIN carries out the issuance of conservation and
maintenance bonds for shared public buildings. For new border crossings, INDAABIN supports the
studies that are conducted by federal, state, and municipal agencies in change of transportation planning.

Chapter 2
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Project Prioritization
In the United States, several agencies use quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate transportation
facility projects. Some agencies use this information to also rank or prioritize those projects. For roads
and highways, common data or criteria include:
Project cost
Current and projected average daily traffic (ADT)
Current and projected level of service (LOS)
Serves/benefits goods movement
Connectivity or critical linkage
Existing traffic accident rate/accident history
Habitat/environmental and residential impacts
Social/community impacts
Cost-effectiveness
In addition, SANDAG recently adopted criteria to rank regional freight projects, which include cost-
effectiveness and other qualitative criteria.
For POEs, GSA’s ranking of POE projects reflect rankings provided by CBP. The overarching criteria that
CBP follows to prioritize projects includes:
Mission and operations

Space and site deficiencies
Security and life safety
Workload and personnel growth
The SRA prepared by CBP for the San Diego field office includes a description of geographic, demo-
graphic and economic features, workload trends (number of trucks, passenger vehicles, buses,
pedestrians, and trains inspected) and forecasts, and short-, mid-, and long-term improvement options for
each of the existing POEs in San Diego and Imperial Counties. The objective of forecasting in the SRA
process is to project the primary workload volume and number of personnel needed at 5-year intervals for
a 20-year horizon.
The San Diego field office SRA includes proposals for new POE facilities initiated by local and state
agencies, such as the pedestrian bridge crossing at San Ysidro, the Otay Mesa East-Otay II POE, the
Jacumba-Jacumé POE, and a new cargo inspection facility at Tecate, Baja California. Selected proposals
are included as improvement options for each POE.
In Mexico, SCT evaluates the conditions of the road network, LOS, and traffic volumes in its sectorial
plans and in market studies for specific projects. Aduanas evaluates project impacts at the POE –
improvements, reorganization, and expansion, and evaluates the ability of the project to address an

Chapter 2
BORDER MASTER PLAN
existing problem. IMPLAN utilizes state indicators to evaluate the institutional, natural, socio-economic,
and urban subsystems. SRE evaluates projects within the framework of the Intersecretarial Group for
Bridges and Border Crossings (Grupo Intersecretarial de Puentes y Cruces Fronterizos). SIDUE prepares
studies that evaluate historical traffic flow data, origin and destination, and capacity analyses. At the
municipal level, qualitative criteria are considered in the planning process to establish projects and
priorities.
INDAABIN utilizes evaluation criteria to prioritize federal building projects within the Mexican POE
property. The evaluation considers four areas of emphasis: economics, administrative roles, technical,
and socio-political parameters.
Funding Transportation and POE Projects
In the United States, most of the funding for transportation projects is allocated at the federal and state
levels, while most of the planning occurs at the regional level. The U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) receives funding from Congress. [The FHWA and other federal agencies, such as the Federal
Transit Administration and the Federal Railway Administration, are part of the U.S. DOT.] The FHWA
provides funding to the State Departments of Transportation (e.g., Caltrans in California).
In California, state law has established a cooperative planning process involving the California Transport-
ation Commission (CTC), Caltrans, and the MPOs. The CTC is a nine-member board that oversees
Caltrans. It provides a seven-year forecast of future available funding and adopts the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), which is California’s short-term transportation spending plan for state and
federal funding. Seventy-five percent of the STIP funds flow to the regions by formula. The regional share
is further divided 40 percent to Northern California and 60 percent to Southern California. The remaining
25 percent of the funds flow through the Interregional Improvement Program (IIP), which is a statewide
competitive program. Caltrans is responsible for nominating projects to be funded under the IIP.1
Regions identify projects for funding through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)
process. The RTIP is a multi-year program of proposed major highway, arterial, transit, and bikeway
projects and is developed every two years. MPOs across California prepare RTIPs. The projects included
in the RTIPs are submitted to Caltrans for inclusion in the Federal State Transportation Improvement
Program (FSTIP). All projects listed in the RTIP must be included in the RTP. Federal and state planning
regulations require the RTIP to be a revenue constrained program. This means that funding must be
available and committed to implement to projects listed in the RTIP.
Cities and counties work with the regional agencies (SCAG, IVAG, and SANDAG) to have their projects
included in the RTP and RTIP. In addition, cities and counties use their own funding to plan and construct
local streets. Funding sources include the publicized state and federal grants, gas tax, TransNet (local
sales tax), and traffic impact fee revenue as conditions of private development projects. Cities often
compute developer fees based on plans for future infrastructure needs.
1
SANDAG, 2006. “Regional Transportation Improvement Program-2006.” Retrieved January 12, 2006, from
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1240_5704.pdf

Chapter 2
BORDER MASTER PLAN
The RTIP/STIP process is an important source of short-term funding for transportation projects. Additional
sources of potential revenue are described in the RTP. For instance, in the SANDAG RTP, the capital,
operating, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs of the region's transportation systems over the life of the
plan are compared against forecasts of available revenues. Actions are recommended to obtain the
revenues necessary to implement the improvements recommended in the plan. The level of
improvements possible under three alternative revenue scenarios is included as part of the financial
analysis: Revenue Constrained Scenario, Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario, and Unconstrained
Revenue Scenario. Additional sources of revenue could include the an additional TransNet half-cent local
sales tax, local and state bond measures, higher levels of state and federal discretionary funds, and
increase in state and federal gas taxes.
In the United States, the federal government has jurisdiction over border crossings. The major source of
funding for POE projects is Congressional appropriations. GSA manages the funding for the construction
and maintenance of POE projects. Most POE projects require GSA to submit two funding requests or
prospectuses through the process. The first is for site and design funding and the second—usually two
years later—is for construction funding. GSA contracts for and administers port feasibility studies to
identify, estimate the cost of, and evaluate alternative designs for meeting CBP space requests. GSA
prepares a prospectus for the preferred design alternative, which requires approval from the GSA central
office and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). If approved, it is forwarded to the House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works. The House of Representatives appropriates the capital expenditure in the
federal budget, and funding becomes available to GSA. This process is later repeated for construction
funding.
GSA reported that although Congressional appropriations are the major source of funding for POE
projects, other POE stakeholders, such as state transportation departments and local port authorities,
frequently contribute significant resources, particularly development sites for new POEs.
In Mexico, at the municipal level, planning documents identify traditional funding sources for actions
included in the plans and programs; however, no specific funding sources for particular projects are
identified.
SIDUE prepares technical data sheets for strategic projects to seek federal and international funding
sources (SEDESOL, SCT), and for an annual operational program to seek state resources.
SCT identifies the most appropriate funding source based on specific project studies and analyses. The
studies include surveys to estimate value of time and stated preference. Main funding sources include
public resources identified in the federal budget, private financing through concessions, or a combination
of both types of resources.

Chapter 2
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Public Participation and Interagency Coordination
In the United States, state, regional, and local agencies are mandated to establish processes to receive
public comment and input. Some of these are formal guidelines included in the law, such as Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
At the federal level, GSA invites public comment on POE projects as required by NEPA and works closely
with CBP to coordinate the projects. CBP coordinates on multiple levels with GSA, FHWA, the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. DOS, state departments of transportation, local governments
and MPOs, and Mexico’s SRE and SCT. CBP holds partnering workshops during SRA process site visits.
GSA and CBP maintain community outreach sessions as a standard component of project planning and
execution.
At the state level, Caltrans follows the public hearing processes as prescribed in SAFETEA-LU, CEQA
and NEPA. In addition, Caltrans holds public scoping meetings to allow the public to provide verbal and
written input.
At the regional level, SCAG, IVAG and SANDAG follow a combination of the federal and state public
outreach guidelines in developing their approach to gather local input in developing the RTP and RTIP.
These efforts include participation through task force/committee structure, through public and community
outreach, and through the formal public hearing and public comment periods. In October 2007, SCAG
adopted a Public Participation Plan as mandated by SAFETEA-LU. For the 2030 RTP adopted in
November 2007, SANDAG also followed the new guidelines for public involvement programs included in
SAFETEA-LU, and created a comprehensive public involvement program. SANDAG’s public participation
plan implemented a community-based outreach program and distributed information via the Web,
brochures, newsletters and other publications, and at regularly-scheduled meetings. The plan also
included media outreach, subregional meetings/workshops, and public hearings. SANDAG awarded
seven mini-grants to community-based organizations to assist with the public outreach.
Cities (such as the City of Chula Vista) receive public comments during the public review period of the
CEQA process or during city council hearings. The County of San Diego obtains input from each
community planning group and also receives input from various agencies and interested groups, such as
the Bicycle Coalition, North County Transit District, Metropolitan Transit System, Caltrans, adjacent
jurisdictions, Endangered Habitats League, Sierra Club, etc. The City of Calexico primarily receives input
from public hearings held by the City Council.
In Mexico, during the development of the sectorial plan for transportation, SCT considers public
comments, input received from regional planning groups (federal-state), as well as from interdisciplinary
working groups, such as National Infrastructure Council, JWC, and Binational Group on Bridges and
Border Crossings.
SRE solicits interagency input within the framework of the Intersecretarial Group for Bridges and Border
Crossings (Grupo Intersecretarial de Puentes y Cruces Fronterizos), which includes federal

Chapter 2
BORDER MASTER PLAN
representatives. State and municipal representatives, as well as the private sector participate in proposals
for bridges and international border projects through the U.S.-Mexico Binational Group on Bridges and
Border Crossings.
For any POE project that INDAABIN develops, it seeks the advice of the federal operational departments;
the occupants of the facility; and the federal authorities and the municipalities charged with national,
regional, and local planning. Additionally, INDAABIN participates in meetings that the local governments
organize in an effort to present and promote POE projects and receive comments from different public
and private entities.
SIDUE follows a two-step process for public consultation, as described below:
At the state level, public consultation is the responsibility of the Development Planning Committee
(Comité de Planeación de Desarrollo del Estado or COPLADE), through the Subcommission of Urban
Development and Housing, which is chaired by SIDUE. This subcommission includes federal, state,
and municipal public agencies with responsiblities for human settlements, construction and building
industry, and representatives from professional organizations and community organizations.
Technical Opinion of Consistency (Dictamen Técnico de Congruencia) issued by the Coordinating

Commission for Urban Development (Comisión Coordinadora de Desarrollo Urbano del Estado),
which is published in the Official Gazette of the State of Baja California (Periódico Oficial del Estado
de Baja California). The Coordinating Commission is chaired by SIDUE and verfies the consistency of
documents with statewide planning documents.
IMIP comments that POE projects are not developed by the municipality, but by the federal government.
Not much consultation takes place at the local level. Similarly, in technical meetings that are held in
preparation for binational border crossing meetings, the municipal government does not participate.
Another example is the Silicon Border project, which is being promoted by the State of Baja California
Secretariat of Economic Development with very little municipal participation. IMIP seeks closer
coordination for POE projects, which are a municipal planning priority due to their impact on the economic
dynamic of the city. More direct coordination is sought with SIDUE and SEDECO at the state level and
with SCT and INDAABIN at the federal level in order to develop a comprehensive strategy for border
crossings. In addition to the POE facility itself, complementary actions related to transportation, security,
urban image, infrastructure, and land use should be considered.
Tijuana’s, IMPLAN follows the public involvement process outlined in the mandated state legislation on
urban development and coordinates with a working group made up of agencies at the federal, state, and
municipal levels, such as SCT, INDAABIN, SRE, Customs, and SIDUE.
Planning Document Updates and Horizons
Transportation facilities needs are identified in various plans. In the United States, these plans tend to
have a long-term planning horizon of 20 to 30 years, while some (such as IVAG) have an even longer
planning horizon of 30 to 50 years. In Mexico, federal, state, and regional plans have a planning horizon
of 20 to 25 years. The frequency of updates varies among the agencies as indicated in the Table 2-1.

Chapter 2
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 2-1
Planning Documents
Frequency Planning
Agency
of Updates Horizon
Port of Entry
U.S. Department of State n/a* n/a
U.S. General Services Administration

Port of Entry Feasibility Studies no regular schedule 30 years
U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Strategic Resource Assessments data elements** 3 years
Institute of Administration and Estimates of National Real Estate

POE Master Plans continually 20-25 years
Secretariat of Communications and Transportation

National Development Plan 6 years 25 years
Sectorial and Regional Plans 6 years 25 years
Federal Budget annually 6 years
Transportation
Federal Highway Administration International Border Program n/a n/a
California Department of Transportation 3 to 5 years 20 to 30 years
Southern California Association of Governments

Regional Transportation Plan 4 years 30 years (2030)
Regional Transportation Improvement Program 2 years 6 years
San Diego Association of Governments

Regional Transportation Plan 4 years 30 years (2030)
Regional Transportation Improvement Program 2 years 5 years
Imperial Valley Association of Governments

Corridor Studies 4 to 6 years 30 to 50 years
County of San Diego

Capital Improvement Plan 2 years 5 years
General Plan no set cycle 20 years (2020)
City of Calexico
General Plan 5 to 10 years 20 years
City of Chula Vista

General Plan 10 to 15 years 25-30 years (2030)
Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development

Operational Programs annually 6 years
Institutional Programs 6 years 20 years
Secretariat of Social Development

National Urban Development Plan 6 years
Municipal Planning Institute of Mexicali

Municipal Development Plan 3 years 25 years
* n/a = not available
**quarterly and annually

Chapter 2
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Interagency Participation in Planning Processes
Most of the U.S. and Mexican agencies that responded to the questionnaire are directly involved in
developing transportation or POE plans for their jurisdiction. For transportation projects in the United
States, participation in the RTP and RTIP processes is a primary vehicle for providing input into regional
plans. In Mexico, POE and connecting transportation facilities are included in some municipal and state
plans or programs, as well as in federal sectorial plans.
Cities and counties are interested parties in POE planning as they make land-use and local transportation
decisions needed due to new POEs or expansions of existing POEs. In the United States, local agencies,
as well as the regional planning agencies, coordinate with Caltrans and federal agencies on
transportation/POE planning. The FWHA International Border Program participates both by providing
information and technical assistance from dedicated border staff, and also, in its role as co-chair for the
U.S./Mexico JWC, develops tools so that agencies involved can make informed decisions. This includes
funding and overseeing various studies, such as the Binational Infrastructure Needs Assessment (BINS)
I, BINS II, and this Border Master Plan pilot study to assist in planning efforts.
SIDUE is responsible for participating in federal, state, and municipal public review and consultation
activities related to plans and programs dealing with transportation issues. At the state level, SIDUE also
issues a technical opinion of consistency that verifies the consistency of documents with statewide
planning documents.
IMIP participates in the Bi-State Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (BTTAC). According to
IMIP, the work of this committee focuses on information exchange and a common strategy to promote
projects has yet to be developed. Continued participation in the BTTAC by cities and counties in the
United States, as well as INDAABIN and SCT in Mexico, is needed.
Integration of Plans
In the United States, federal government agencies partner with the border and transportation
communities in program development. As CBP’s capital planning process matures, linkages to regional,
state, and other federal planning processes are anticipated to be strengthened. GSA submits POE
funding requests to the OMB and if approved, they are included in the President’s proposed budget. If
approved by the President and the responsible committees of Congress, then the project becomes part of
the federal budget as public law.
SANDAG and IVAG work in concert with Caltrans to select transportation projects and plan for the long
term, using the statewide transportation plan as well as the RTPs and RTIPs as a basis. Transportation
facility needs are identified by the cities and counties in their General Plans and Specific Plans. The city
and county plans per se do not get incorporated into the RTP, but their transportation projects do (e.g.,
improvements identified in the General or Community Plans’ circulation elements). The SANDAG RTP
and the SCAG RTP are submitted to FHWA and FTA for air quality conformity. A finding of conformity
allows funding to flow to the region.

Chapter 2
BORDER MASTER PLAN
In Mexico, SCT’s programs are incorporated in the national development plan and the regional and
federal planning processes. SRE coordinates the Intersecreterial Group of Ports and Border Services and
analyzes and evaluates the proposals for bridges and border crossings so that these proposals are
presented at the Binational Mexico- U.S. Group on Bridges and Border Crossings.
SIDUE’s planning responsibilities are conducted concurrently with federal and municipal agencies based
on the attributions determined in the Constitution. IMIP reported that POE projects are generally initiated
through the municipal or city urban development programs. Afterward, federal agencies develop only the
site of the POE and leave the integration of the POE to the community in the hands of local authorities
without allocating financial resources. IMIP’s perspective is that development of POEs should be
integrated more closely between the municipal and federal governments, since POEs are federal facilities
located within a municipal environment and not isolated projects.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
agencies at all levels of government in both the United States and Mexico. POE planning relies on a five-
year planning horizon while planning for transportation facilities uses a longer planning horizon (typically
20 years). Federal, state, regional, and municipal agencies on both sides of the border follow a diversity
of project evaluation processes in the preparation of POE and transportation planning documents, and
not all planning documents include both the POE and associated access or network projects. These
processes range from overall qualitative assessments to the formulation and application of detailed
quantitative and qualitative criteria.
Effective collaboration is critical to coordinated project implementation. Based on responses from

stakeholder agencies, coordination and communication among federal, state, regional, and local agencies
are occurring at some level, but there are opportunities for a more systematic process to align
implementation activities, including funding as well as schedules for POEs and connecting transportation
facilities. There are opportunities for greater coordination with municipal governments in the development
of POE facilities. More direct coordination is sought with federal and state agencies to develop a
comprehensive strategy for border crossings and allow for effective integration of POEs into the municipal
environment. In addition to the POE facility, complementary actions related to transportation, security,
urban image, infrastructure, and land use should be considered.
Additional opportunities for increased public outreach and coordination with local and state agencies
could occur through CBP’s Strategic Resource Assessment (SRA) process. The SRA process focuses on
improvements to existing POEs and does not appear to identify needs for new POE facilities. However,
POE proposals made by other agencies are described in the SRA and selected POE proposals are
included under options for improvements. The U.S. GSA follows through with requests from CBP to
contract for and administer POE feasibility studies to identify and evaluate alternative POE designs and
estimate costs. Additional coordination between GSA and state, regional, and local agencies also is
needed to recognize programming processes and to align implementation schedules and funding of
proposed POE improvements and improvements to roads serving those POEs.

Chapter 2
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 2-1
California-Baja California Border Master Plan Study Area

CHAPTER 3
CURRENT AND PROJECTED
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE
This chapter presents a profile of the communities within the California-Baja California binational study
area and includes current, as well as projected population, employment, income, and land use data. The
data are presented for the study area in the United States, followed by Mexico, and then for the combined
border region.
CALIFORNIA DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
The “Area of Influence” of the Border Study Area is defined as the geographic area 60 miles, or 100 km.,
north and south of the California-Baja California International Border. In California, it includes the counties
of San Diego and Imperial. San Diego and Imperial Counties are large in terms of area. San Diego
measures approximately 4,260 square miles while Imperial County measures 4,175 square miles.2 San
Diego is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the counties of Orange and Riverside to the north,
Imperial County to the east and Baja California to the south. Imperial County is bordered by San Diego
County to the west, Riverside County to the north, Yuma County, Arizona to the east, and Baja California
to the south.
The following demographic, socio-economic, and land use data were provided by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG).
Population
As shown in Table 3-1, approximately 2,960,800 people lived in the combined area of San Diego and
Imperial Counties in 2000. Population grew on average by 1.6 percent per year, reaching more than 3.2
million in 2005. Population is expected to grow at a slightly slower rate in both counties between 2005
and 2030. Nonetheless, the combined area is projected to reach 4,254,600 by 2030. The addition of more
than one million people is projected to increase crossborder travel demand and continue to add pressure
to the Port of Entry (POE) facilities and connecting roads.
2
National Association of Counties, available at:
http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Data_and_Demographics&Template=/cffiles/counties/state.cfm&STAT
ECODE=CA

Chapter 3
Current and Projected Demographic and Economic Profile
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 3-1
Total Population, 2000-2030
California and San Diego and Imperial Counties
AAGR (1)
2000 2005 2030 2000-2005 2005-2030
California 33,873,086 36,728,196 48,110,671 1.6% 1.1%
San Diego County 2,813,833 3,039,277 3,984,753 1.6% 1.1%
Imperial County 147,001 165,430 269,871 2.4% 2.0%
Total 2,960,834 3,204,707 4,254,624 1.6% 1.1%
Source: SANDAG, SCAG, California Department of Finance
(1) AAGR = Annual Average Growth Rate
Employment
As illustrated in Table 3-2, approximately 1,448,000 people were employed in San Diego and Imperial
Counties in 2005. Employment is expected to expand by 489,300, or at an average of 1.2 percent
annually, between 2005 and 2030. Most of the expansion will occur in San Diego County as its labor
market is much larger than Imperial County’s; however, in terms of the rate of growth, Imperial County is
expected to grow twice as fast as San Diego County. Employment in Imperial County is expected to grow
2.3 percent annually between 2005 and 2030, compared to 1.1 percent per year in San Diego County.
Table 3-2
Employment, 2005-2030
California and San Diego and Imperial Counties
AAGR (1)
2005 2030 Change 2005-2030
California 16,208,611 -- -- --
San Diego County 1,386,970 1,828,614 441,644 1.1%
Imperial County 61,051 108,687 47,636 2.3%
Total 1,448,021 1,937,301 489,280 1.2%
Source: SANDAG, SCAG

Income
The per capita income in San Diego County is one of the highest in the state. It was estimated at $37,960
in 2004, which is higher than California’s level of $35,220. Per capita income has increased since its 1995
level of $32,100 (adjusted for inflation), although the annual rate of growth slowed slightly between 2000

Chapter 3
BORDER MASTER PLAN
and 2004. In Imperial County, inflation-adjusted per capita income fell slightly from $20,510 in 1995 to
$19,600 in 2000 but then increased to $27,800 in 2004. Still, it has one of the lowest per capita income
levels out of all 58 counties in California.
Land Use
Table 3-3 illustrates existing and projected acres of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural
land in San Diego and Imperial Counties. Out of the 518,174 acres of developed land in San Diego
County in 2005, about 60 percent was developed for residential uses, 27 percent for agriculture,
8 percent for commercial uses, and 5 percent for industrial uses. Land developed for residential purposes
is projected to increase the fastest (3.1% per year) through 2030. Projections for agriculture were not
available.
In Imperial County, approximately 88 percent of acres of developed land was used for agriculture in 2005,
reflecting Imperial County’s importance as an agricultural region in the state. Approximately 9 percent of
developed acres was for industrial use, 3 percent for residential use, and less than 1 percent for
commercial use. Projections for 2030 were not available.
Table 3-3
Land Use (Acres), 2005-2030
San Diego and Imperial Counties
2005 (1) 2030 Change AAGR (2)
Residential
San Diego County 312,547 692,120 379,573 3.1%
Imperial County 14,894 -- -- --
Commercial
San Diego County 39,521 50,550 11,029 1.0%
Industrial
San Diego County 26,319 32,542 6,223 0.8%
Agriculture
San Diego County 139,760 -- -- --
Source: SANDAG, SCAG

(1) San Diego County estimates are for 2004

Chapter 3
BORDER MASTER PLAN
BAJA CALIFORNIA DEMOGRAPHIC

AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
The “Area of Influence" of the Border Zone Study Area in Baja California includes the municipalities of
Tijuana, Tecate, Playas de Rosarito, parts of Mexicali, and the urban area of Ensenada. The California-
Baja California International Border is the northern border of three municipalities: Tijuana, Tecate, and
Mexicali. Tijuana is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the municipalities of Playas de Rosarito
and Ensenada to the south, and the municipality of Tecate to the east. Tecate lies between Tijuana and
Mexicali. Mexicali is bordered by Tecate to its west, and its eastern border touches Yuma, Arizona, San
Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, and the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California). Although Playas de Rosarito and
Ensenada do not physically lie along the California-Baja California International boundary, they are
important urban centers with highway and road transportation networks that connect to the POEs.
The following demographic, socio-economic, and land use data were provided by the Secretariat of
Infrastructure and Urban Development (SIDUE) and the Municipality of Mexicali’s Institute of Investigation
and Planning (IMIP).
Population
Table 3-4 shows population estimates for the five municipalities in Baja California in 2000, 2005, and
2030. Approximately 2,487,400 people resided in Baja California in 2000. By 2005, the population had
reached 2,844,500, expanding at an average rate of 2.7 percent per year. Population is expected to reach
more than 5,209,000 residents in 2030. Within Baja California, population is concentrated in the
municipalities of Tijuana and Mexicali. Tijuana, the largest municipality, grew by 3.1 percent annually
between 2000 and 2005 and is expected to grow at a slightly slower rate of 2.6 percent annually between
2005 and 2030. Mexicali expanded by 2.3 percent annually on average between 2000 and 2005, and is
expected to grow at 2.0 percent annually between 2005 and 2030. The area projected to grow the fastest
is Playas de Rosarito, which is projected to almost triple its population by 2030. Although Playas de
Rosarito would grow the fastest, Tijuana is the municipality expected to add the most residents, and is
projected to exceed 2,690,000 residents by 2030, nearly doubling its 2005 level. Tijuana, Tecate, and
Playas de Rosarito all have projected annual average growth rates that are higher than the 2.5 percent
projected for all of the municipalities combined, which would result in additional local traffic using the
roads connecting to the POEs as well as crossborder travel.

Chapter 3
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 3-4
Total Population, 2000-2030
Baja California Municipalities (1)
AAGR (2)
2000 2005 2030 2000-2005 2005-2030
Tijuana 1,210,820 1,410,700 2,690,635 3.1% 2.6%

Tecate 77,795 91,021 185,987 3.2% 2.9%
Playas de Rosarito 63,420 73,305 210,952 2.9% 4.3%
Ensenada 370,730 413,481 711,251 2.2% 2.2%
Mexicali 764,602 855,962 1,410,754 2.3% 2.0%
Total 2,487,367 2,844,469 5,209,579 2.7% 2.5%
Source: SIDUE and IMIP

(1) Data represent the entire municipality, not just the 60-mile area of the Area of Influence
Employment
As shown in Table 3-5, approximately 1,120,300 people were employed in the five municipalities of Baja
California in 2005. Employment is expected to more than double by 2030, increasing by 1,315,230, or 3.2
percent annually on average. In terms of absolute change, the largest numerical growth would occur in
Tijuana, where the number of people employed is forecasted to increase by over 774,000. Ensenada and
Mexicali will also experience large increases in employment. The fastest growth is expected to occur in
Playas de Rosarito (5% annually), while the slowest growth would occur in Mexicali where a 1.9 percent
annual growth rate is expected.
Table 3-5
Employment, 2005-2030
AAGR (2)
2005 2030 Change 2005-2030
Tijuana 579,239 1,353,638 774,399 3.5%

Tecate 35,434 102,224 66,790 4.3%
Playas de Rosarito 30,815 104,046 73,231 5.0%
Ensenada 159,414 369,699 210,285 3.4%
Mexicali 315,421 505,947 190,526 1.9%
Total 1,120,323 2,435,554 1,315,231 3.2%
Source: SIDUE
(1) Data represent the entire municipality, not just the 60-mile area of the Area of Influence

Chapter 3
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Income
Estimates for per capita income were estimated for the State of Baja California, Tijuana (combined with
Playas de Rosarito), and Mexicali. The 2005 per capita income was estimated at $8,544 ($93,040 in
pesos) for Baja California; $8,161 ($88,871 in pesos) for Tijuana; and $7,838 ($85,360 in pesos) for
Mexicali.3
Another measure of income is regional product (Producto Interno Bruto, PIB).4 Table 3-6 shows the
regional product for Baja California and for its municipalities for 2005 and 2030. Regional product stood at
$274,265 MDP (millones de pesos or millions of pesos) in 2005 for Baja California. Tijuana represented
more than half of the state’s regional product in 2005. Regional product is expected to grow to $539,550
MDP in 2030. Tijuana’s share of regional product is estimated to remain constant representing
52.5 percent share of the Baja California total.
Table 3-6
Regional Product (Millions of Pesos), 2005-2030
Baja California Municipalities
AAGR
2005 2030 2005-2030 **
Baja California $274,265 $539,550 2.7%

Tijuana $143,989 $283,264 2.7%
Tecate $9,599 $18,884 2.7%
Playas de Rosarito * * *
Ensenada $32,912 $64,746 2.7%
Mexicali $87,765 $172,656 2.7%
Source: SEDECO; compiled by SIDUE

* Considered part of Tijuana
** SIDUE applied a 2.7 percent growth rate to all areas to produce the 2030 estimate
3
Sources: SIDUE and Secretariat of Economic Development (SEDECO). The 2005 annual average exchange rate
of 10.89 was used to convert pesos to U.S. dollars as reported by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board.
4
Source: SEDECO. Estimates for both PIB and per capita income were estimated using data from the Department
of Economic Studies of BANAMEX Municipal. The distribution by municipality and projection was estimated by
SEDECO. Data compiled by SIDUE.

Chapter 3
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Land Use
Table 3-7 illustrates existing and projected acres of residential, commercial, and industrial land use in
Baja California municipalities. (Data were converted from hectares to acres for the analysis. Estimates for
agricultural land use were not available.) Similar to the San Diego County, the biggest portion of land use
for the population centers of the municipalities was for residential lands. Approximately 80 percent of
existing acres is developed for residential land uses in four of the five municipalities. The percentage of
commercial land use is similar for the four municipalities as well, accounting for about 9 to 10 percent of
the land acres. Tecate is the exception as only 56 percent of the acres are developed for residential uses
and a much larger portion (37%) is developed for commercial uses.
Tijuana residential lands are expected to increase by 4.3 percent per year. A new development in Valle
de Las Palmas is anticipated to contribute to this fast rate of growth in residential lands.
Table 3-7
Land Use (Acres), 2005-2030
2005 2030 Change AAGR (2)
Residential
Tijuana 30,783 87,369 56,585 4.3%
Tecate 1,869 4,351 2,482 3.4%
Playas de Rosarito 6,193 19,029 12,836 4.6%
Ensenada 10,888 20,185 9,296 2.5%
Mexicali 30,996 56,405 25,409 2.4%
Commercial
Tijuana 3,809 10,105 6,296 4.0%
Tecate 1,230 2,864 1,634 3.4%
Playas de Rosarito 679 2,087 1,408 4.6%
Ensenada 1,274 2,362 1,088 2.5%
Mexicali 2,996 5,185 2,188 2.2%
Industrial
Tijuana 4,502 13,444 8,942 4.5%
Tecate 248 577 329 3.4%
Playas de Rosarito 779 2,392 1,614 4.6%
Ensenada 1,541 2,842 1,301 2.5%
Mexicali 3,206 6,266 3,060 2.7%
Source: SIDUE and IMIP

(1) Data represent the population centers not the entire municipalities. The Mexicali residential land use estimates
includes Mexicali and the urban areas in the Mexicali Valley (excluding San Felipe). The boundary of the land use
zoning polygons will be defined with accuracy through the results of the regional environmental impact and GPS
field work.

Chapter 3
BORDER MASTER PLAN
DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

COMBINED CALIFORNIA-BAJA CALIFORNIA AREA OF INFLUENCE
The following section analyzes population and employment data for the combined California-Baja
California study area.
Population
As shown in Figure 3-1, total population in the combined California-Baja California study area is
estimated at more than six million in 2005 and is expected to grow to almost 9.5 million by 2030. Together
the Counties of San Diego and Imperial comprised 53 percent of the total population in the California-Baja
California study area in 2005, while the combined municipalities of Baja California comprised 47 percent.
However, by 2030, the Baja California municipalities are expected to comprise 55 percent of the area’s
population. San Diego County is expected to add more than 945,000 residents, while Tijuana is expected
to add about 1,280,000 residents. Rapid growth projected in Tijuana is the major cause of the shift in
population distribution in 2030.
Figure 3-1
Distribution of Population, 2005-2030
San Diego and Imperial Counties and Baja California Municipalities
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
2005 2030
San Diego/Imperial Municipalities in Baja California
Source: SANDAG, SCAG, SIDUE, IMIP

Chapter 3
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 3-2 shows the annual average growth rates between 2005 and 2030 for the counties and
municipalities in the study area. The fastest population growth is forecasted for Playas de Rosarito, with a
4.3 percent average annual growth rate, while the slowest growth is forecasted for San Diego County,
with a 1.1 percent average annual growth rate. In terms of absolute change, the largest increase in
population is expected to occur in Tijuana (over 1.2 million) and the smallest increase would be in Tecate
(95,000).
Figure 3-2
Annual Average Population Growth Rates, 2005-2030
5%
4.3%
4%
2.9%
3%
2.6%
2.2%
2.0% 2.0%
2%
1.1%
1%
0%
San Diego Imperial Tijuana Tecate Playas de Ensenada Mexicali

County County Rosarito

Chapter 3
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Employment
As shown in Figure 3-3, the total number of people employed in the combined California-Baja California
study area was estimated at 2,568,300 in 2005. It is expected to expand to almost 4,373,000, an increase
of more than 1,804,000, or 2.2 percent annually, between 2005 and 2030. As with projected population,
the estimates indicate a shift in the composition of employment. The combined municipalities of Baja
California comprised 44 percent of the total employment in the California-Baja California study area in
2005, while the counties of San Diego and Imperial comprised 56 percent. By 2030, the distribution of
employment is projected to reverse and the combined municipalities of Baja California will comprise 56
percent of the area’s employed. The number of employed residents in San Diego County is expected to
expand by more than 442,000 employed residents, while in Tijuana the number is anticipated to grow by
744,000.
Figure 3-3
Distribution of Employment, 2005-2030
(in thousands)
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2005 2030
San Diego/Imperial Municipalities in Baja California
As shown in Figure 3-4, out of the counties and municipalities in the study area, the fastest employment
growth is forecasted for Playas de Rosarito, with a 5.0 percent annual growth rate, or 73,000 employees.
The slowest growth is forecasted for San Diego County. While it will only expand at an average rate of 1.1
percent per year, that translates into an increase in employment of more than 441,000. In terms of
absolute change, the largest increase in the number of persons employed is expected to occur in Tijuana
(up 774,400) and the smallest increase will be in Imperial County (up 47,600).

Chapter 3
BORDER MASTER PLAN
The areas with the fastest growth rates are expected in Baja California. Tijuana and Mexicali are well
known for large employment bases in the maquiladora industry. As employment, especially in export-
oriented manufacturing industries, increases, it could impact the volume of passenger vehicle and truck
crossings at the POEs.
Figure 3-4
Annual Average Employment Growth Rates, 2005-2030
6%
5.0%
5%
4.3%
4%
3.5% 3.4%
3%
2.3%
2% 1.9%
1.1%
1%
0%
San Diego Imperial Tijuana Tecate Playas de Ensenada Mexicali

County County Rosarito
Total population in the combined California-Baja California study area was estimated at more than six
million in 2005 and is expected to grow to almost 9.5 million by 2030. At the same time, the total number
of people employed in the combined California-Baja California study area is estimated to expand by
approximately 1,804,000 persons from 2,568,300 in 2005 to almost 4,373,000 by 2030. The expansion of
residents in the region will increase crossborder travel demand and continue to add pressure to the POE
facilities and connecting roads. Adequate infrastructure capacity is critical to decrease traffic congestion
and facilitate international trade and improve the quality of life for residents in the border region.

CHAPTER 4
CURRENT AND PROJECTED PORT OF ENTRY
CONDITIONS AND RELATED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the current and projected conditions of the Ports of Entry (POEs) along the
California-Baja California International Border and the related transportation facilities. It is organized into
three sections. The first section describes the current and projected configuration and capacity and
demand of the POEs along the California-Baja California International Border. The second section
documents the connecting transportation facilities serving the POEs within the Focused Study Area.5 It
includes a discussion of the current and projected capacity of the transportation facilities. The third
section presents the short-term POE and transportation projects.
CALIFORNIA POE FACILITIES
There are six existing POEs along the California and Baja California International Border. They are: San
Ysidro-Puerta México, Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay, Tecate-Tecate, Calexico-Mexicali, Calexico East-
Mexicali II, and Andrade-Los Algodones.6
In California, the San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Tecate border stations are located in San Diego County
and the Calexico, Calexico East, and Andrade border stations are located in Imperial County. This section
presents lane configuration, hours of operation, staffing levels, wait times, and border crossings by type
for each California POE.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) provided information on the current and projected hours
of operation and number of inspection lanes for all California POEs. Table 4-1 shows the northbound lane
configuration by POE. This information will be referred to throughout this section to relate projected
border crossing data with planned lane configurations.7
5
The “Focused Study Area” is the area ten miles north and ten miles south of the California-Baja California
International Border.
6
The Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral gate, located west of the San Ysidro-Puerta México POE, is currently closed;
however, plans exist to reopen this gate to southbound passenger vehicle traffic. Subsequent sections of the report
refer to the POE as the San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE."
7
The term “lane” as in passenger vehicle lane or pedestrian lane is used interchangeably with ‘inspection booth” in
this report.

Chapter 4
Current and Projected Port of Entry
Conditions and Related Transportation Facilities
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 4-1
Current and Projected Number of Northbound Lanes, 2005-2030
California-Baja California POEs
San Ysidro Otay Mesa Tecate Calexico Calexico East Andrade
2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030
Number of Northbound Lanes

Passenger Vehicle and Bus (1) 24 38 13 17 2 5 10 13 8 10 2 4
Pedestrian (2) 16 16 6 6 2 2 4 8 6 6 2 4
Truck (3) n/a n/a 8 10 1 2 n/a n/a 3 5 n/a n/a
Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Note: n/a = not applicable
Note: Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) is a land border-crossing program that provides
expedited Customs and Border Protection processing for pre-approved low-risk travelers. Free and Secure Trade (FAST)
is a land border-crossing commercial program offering expedited clearance to pre-approved carriers and importers.
Notes for 2005:
(1) San Ysidro: Includes 4 SENTRI lanes and 1 bus lane.
Otay Mesa: Includes 1 SENTRI lane and 1 bus lane.
Calexico: Includes 1 SENTRI lane and 1 bus lane.
(2) San Ysidro: 16 double stacked inspection booths; includes 1 SENTRI lane.
(3) Otay Mesa: 1 Free and Secure Trade (FAST) lane is a dedicated lane.
Calexico East: Includes 1 FAST lane.
According to CBP, lane projections shown in Table 4-1 were calculated for planning purposes by
evaluating port size, location, and general capacity ratios. As projects move forward, exact lane needs will
be reevaluated.
In 2005, the San Ysidro, Otay Mesa Passenger, and Calexico POEs operated 24 hours a day, seven
days a week and CBP anticipates no changes in 2030. The Tecate Passenger facility operates from
6 a.m. to 12 a.m. and is expected to maintain the same hours of operation in 2030.8 Passenger
inspections at Calexico East and Andrade take place between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. and would keep the
same hours in 2030. (The Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG) reported that the Calexico
East POE opens at 4 a.m. during the fall and winter to accommodate the agricultural industry.)
Cargo facilities at Otay Mesa, Tecate, and Calexico East operate reduced hours. Generally, freight is
processed from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays with limited hours on weekends. Hours of operation also
are adjusted seasonally. Planned hours of operation are not available for 2030.
8
Note: The Tecate passenger-vehicle facility is open to northbound traffic from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m., while the POE is
open to southbound traffic from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Northbound Average Wait Times
Estimates for northbound border wait times were provided by CBP and the Secretariat of Infrastructure
and Urban Development of Baja California (SIDUE).
CBP provided average daily northbound wait times for passenger vehicles and trucks for 2005, as shown
in Table 4-2. According to CBP, both passenger vehicle and truck wait times reflect the average wait to
arrive to a primary inspection booth.
Table 4-2
Average Daily Northbound Wait Times (in Minutes), 2005
California-Baja California POEs (1)
San Otay Calexico

Lane Type Tecate Calexico Andrade
Ysidro Mesa East
Regular Passenger Vehicle 34 27 18 30 15 7
SENTRI 5 0 n/a -- n/a n/a
Regular Truck n/a 13 3 n/a 4 n/a
FAST n/a 2 n/a n/a 0 n/a

(1) Bus and Pedestrian wait times are not available. n/a = not applicable
For passenger vehicles, in relative terms, the highest delays are experienced at San Ysidro and at the
Calexico POEs. On average, waits at Otay Mesa are approximately 20 percent lower than at San Ysidro
while at Tecate they are about half those at San Ysidro. Delays at Calexico East also are 50 percent
lower than at Calexico and at Andrade they are about one-fourth the delays at the Calexico POE.
The Technical Working Group (TWG) and the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) expressed concerns that
the average daily wait times provided by CBP did not reflect observed waits for all lane types. One
concern mentioned was that low average daily wait times could be interpreted as little or no congestion at
the California-Baja California POEs. Since peak border wait times are substantially higher than average
daily wait times, the TWG representatives requested the study include peak border wait time data. SIDUE
retrieved hourly border wait time data from the CBP Web site from August 21 through August 28 for
selected hours. The data were not available for all hours of operation for each POE.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
The data collected by SIDUE are shown in Table 4-3. The TWG approved the use of the weekday
Average Peak Wait Time collected by SIDUE from the CBP Border Wait Time Web site in the POE
evaluation criteria (see Chapter 5).
Table 4-3
Weekday Vehicle Wait Times
Northbound Travel (August 21-28, 2007)
Passenger Vehicles
STANDARD LANES SENTRI
Avg Max Max # Avg Max Max #
Peak Max Wait Wait Peak Max Wait Wait
Total Wait Wait Time Lanes Wait Wait Time Lanes
Port of Entry Lanes Time Time of Day Open Time Time of Day Open
San Ysidro 24 58 65 7 am 19 14 20 7-8 am, 4 pm 4-5
Otay Mesa Passenger 12 43 65 7 am 11 11 35 2 pm, 4 pm 1
Tecate 2 43 60 8-11am 2 -- -- -- --
Calexico West 10 49 75 7-9 am, 3 pm 8-9 35 60 8 am 1
Calexico East 8 39 45 7 am, 9 am 6-7 -- -- -- --
Andrade 2 27 45 11 am-1 pm 1-2 -- -- -- --
Commercial Vehicles
STANDARD LANES FAST
Avg Max Max # Avg Max Max #
Peak Max Wait Wait Peak Max Wait Wait
Total Wait Wait Time Lanes Wait Wait Time Lanes
Port of Entry Lanes Time Time of Day Open Time Time of Day Open
Otay Mesa Commercial 8 94 110 1 pm, 2 pm 6 56 115 1 pm 1
Tecate 1 12 20 1 pm, 2 pm 1 -- -- -- --
Calexico East 3 26 60 2 pm 2 15 45 2 pm 2
Andrade 1 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- --
Source: Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (SIDUE), U.S. Customs and Border
Protection
Notes: Data was not available for all hours of operation for each crossing. Average peak wait time was calculated
using the highest wait time from each day. Maximum wait time was determined by selecting the single highest
wait time for each crossing for the entire period of study.
Although the peak hour data included in this dataset represents only one week of data, the TWG felt that
the average peak wait times were more aligned with observed wait times, and therefore, approved its use
in the evaluation criteria. However, it is recognized that on a typical weekday or weekend, observed waits
for all lane types during peak periods are reported to be higher than the delays shown on the CBP Border
Wait Times Web page.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Congestion and delays for freight movements and crossborder personal travel at the California-Baja
California POEs have increased and have become more unpredictable. The San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG); Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG); and California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) conducted studies to estimate the economic impacts of border wait times.
Table 4-4 illustrates the 2007 total estimated economic losses due to border wait times and constrained
border infrastructure. Current delays at the border were estimated to cost the California-Baja California
economies $6.78 billion in lost output and a loss of more than 62,400 jobs in 2007. At the national level,
for the U.S.-Mexico economies, the output losses were estimated at $8.63 billion and more than 73,900
jobs in 2007. Both output and job losses are projected to more than double in the next ten years if steps
are not taken to improve border crossing and transportation infrastructure and management.
Table 4-4
2007 Total Estimated Economic Impacts Due to Border Wait Times
and Constrained Border Infrastructure by Geographic Area
Area Total Output (1) Total Jobs
San Diego County -3.32 -41,678

Imperial County -0.35 -3,935
Tijuana/Tecate/Playas de Rosarito/Ensenada -1.77 -9,892
Mexicali -0.45 -2,690
Statewide
California -4.56 -49,830
Baja California -2.22 -12,582
Total California-Baja California -6.78 -62,412
Nationwide
United States -5.35 -55,675
Mexico -3.28 -18,258
Total U.S.-Mexico -8.63 -73,933
Sources:SANDAG and Caltrans, Estimating Economic Impacts of Border Wait Times at the San
Diego-Baja California Border Region (January 2006) and 2007 Update (September 2008).
IVAG and Caltrans, Imperial Valley-Mexicali Economic Delay Study (February 2008)
(1) In billions of 2007 U.S. dollars
Staffing
In 2005, approximately 1,400 inspection positions in California were filled, while according to CBP, the
optimum level needed is closer to 2,000 positions. (Optimum level of staffing includes onboard personnel,
vacancies, and additional staff needed.)

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Current and Projected Northbound Crossborder Travel Demand
The following section describes current and projected northbound crossborder travel at the San Ysidro,
Otay Mesa, Tecate, Calexico, Calexico East, and Andrade POEs. The analysis includes data on
northbound passenger vehicle, truck, and rail crossings. Data for northbound pedestrian crossings
include the years 2005 and projections for 2030. Data for passenger vehicle, truck, and rail crossings
include the years 2000, 2005, and projections for 2030. The current and forecast data were provided by
CBP. The analysis provided in the following sections is based on data provided by CBP.
Northbound Passenger Vehicles
Figure 4-1 shows the number of northbound vehicle crossings for 2000, 2005, and projections for 2030
(excluding bus crossings). In 2000, there were more than 31 million northbound passenger vehicle
crossings with the San Ysidro POE processing almost half of the total (48.7%). The number of vehicle
crossings grew to more than 35 million in 2005 and is expected to reach 47.2 million vehicles in 2030.
Figure 4-1
Northbound Passenger Vehicle Crossings, 2000-2030
50,000,000
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
-
2000 2005 2030
San Ysidro Otay Mesa Tecate Calexico Calexico East Andrade
The San Ysidro POE is expected to continue to accommodate about half of those crossings in 2030
(22,843,400 crossings, or 48.4% of total crossings). The Otay Mesa POE would continue to capture an
increasing share of vehicle crossings among California-Baja California POEs from about 4,845,400, or
15.6 percent, in 2000 to 9,774,400, or 20.7 percent, in 2030. At the Calexico POE, passenger vehicle
crossings are projected to grow from 6,745,000 in 2000 to 7,290,000 in 2030. Although this is an
increase, it is growing slower than other POEs, therefore, its share of passenger vehicle traffic this POE

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
would handle in 2030 is expected to decline from 21.7 percent in 2000 to 15.5 percent in 2030.
Passenger vehicle crossings at the Calexico East POE are anticipated to expand from 2,550,600 in 2000
to 4,355,200 in 2030, increasing its share of passenger vehicle crossings from 8.2 percent to 9.2 percent
in 2030. The Tecate and Andrade POEs are anticipated to continue to handle a fairly constant share of
passenger vehicles and buses through 2030 (3.4% and 2.8%, respectively).
As shown previously in Table 4-1, CBP reported expansions in the number of northbound lanes at all
California POEs. The largest expansion would take place at the San Ysidro POE with an increase of 14
northbound passenger vehicle lanes.9 Some of these lanes could be double-stacked (i.e., two inspection
booths per passenger-vehicle lane) increasing capacity even more. The other California POEs would be
expanded by two to four lanes each.
Northbound Pedestrian Crossings
Figure 4-2 on the following page illustrates northbound pedestrian crossings for 2005 and 2030. Overall,
the number of people crossing on foot is anticipated to increase from about 16.5 million in 2005 to almost
19.1 million people in 2030, an increase of nearly 2.6 million people, or 15.7 percent.
In 2005, the San Ysidro POE accommodated the largest share of pedestrian traffic (8,156,350, or
49.5 percent of all pedestrian crossings), while Calexico accommodated 4,481,000, or 27.2 percent. In
2030, CBP anticipates that San Ysidro POE share would decline slightly to 48.6 percent and the Calexico
POE share would decline to 22.9 percent of total pedestrian crossings as faster rates of growth are
anticipated at other POEs.
The Andrade POE accommodated the next largest share of pedestrian crossings. In 2005 approximately
1,856,300 pedestrians crossed northbound through this POE, representing 11.3 percent of total
crossings. It is expected to experience the largest gain in pedestrian crossings between 2005 and 2030,
an increase of more than 987,000 people, or 53 percent. It should exceed 2.8 million crossings by 2030,
representing 14.9 percent of total pedestrian crossings and would continue to be the third busiest POE for
pedestrian crossings.
The Otay Mesa POE processed approximately 1,496,200 pedestrians or 9.1 percent of the total in 2005,
while the Tecate POE processed 471,000, or 2.9 percent of the total. By 2030, the Otay Mesa POE share
would increase slightly to 10.1 percent (1,915,800 pedestrian crossings), while the Tecate POE would
increase to 3.5 percent (662,900 crossings.)
9
According to CBP, 2030 lane projections displayed in Table 4-1 were calculated for planning purposes by
evaluating port size, location, and general capacity ratios. As projects move forward, exact lane needs are
reevaluated.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 4-2
Northbound Pedestrian Crossings, 2005-2030
20,000,000
16,000,000
12,000,000
8,000,000
4,000,000
0
2005 2030
San Ysidro Otay Mesa Tecate Calexico Andrade

(1) An estimated 1,456 pedestrians crossed northbound at Calexico East POE in
2005. This number is projected to increase to 14,107 in 2030. The estimates
are too small to be reflected in the figure.
In 2005, the Calexico East POE handled the lowest volume of pedestrian crossings. Although CBP
projects pedestrian crossings at this border station to increase dramatically from approximately 1,460 in
2005 to 14,100 in 2030, it would still represent less than 1 percent of total pedestrian traffic. This is not
unexpected as the POE is located on the outskirts of the urban portion of the City of Calexico where
services for pedestrians are limited.
Expansion in the number of Northbound pedestrian inspection booths are reported for both Calexico and
Andrade POEs. No additional expansions were reported at the other California POEs, however, CBP will
reevaluate exact number of inspection booths needed as project details are developed.
Northbound Truck Crossings
Northbound trucks cross at the Otay Mesa, Tecate, and Calexico East POEs. In addition, a few thousand
trucks cross annually at the Andrade POE. Figure 4-3 illustrates the share of northbound truck crossings
at the Otay Mesa, Tecate, and Calexico East POEs in 2000, 2005, and projected 2030. The figure shows
that northbound truck crossings at the California-Baja California POEs have increased by over 90,000
vehicles, from 1.03 million to about 1.12 million vehicles between 2000 and 2005, and are expected to

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
reach more than 1.5 million trucks in 2030. The overall increase in truck crossings between 2005 and
2030 represents a growth of 36.4 percent, which is comparable to the 34.3 percent increase projected for
passenger vehicle traffic.
In 2005, Otay Mesa POE processed 65.2 percent of the commercial vehicles (730,300) and CBP expects
it to accommodate 1,024,300 by 2030, increasing its share of total northbound truck crossings from 65.2
percent to 67.0 percent. Tecate POE processed 69,600 trucks in 2005 or 6.1 percent of the total and is
projected to accommodate about 80,200 truck crossings or about 5.2 percent of the truck traffic in 2030.
Truck crossings at the Calexico East POE are projected to increase from 320,200 in 2005 to 423,800 in
2030 and essentially accommodate the same share of truck traffic among the three commercial POEs
(from 27 to 28 percent in each time period). No truck projections were provided for the Andrade POE;
therefore, the POE was not included in the analysis.
Figure 4-3
Northbound Truck Crossings, 2000-2030
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
-
2000 2005 2030
Otay Mesa Tecate Calexico East

(1) No trucks cross at the San Ysidro and Calexico POEs. Fewer than 3,000 trucks crossed
at the Andrade POE and no 2030 projections were provided; therefore it is not shown in
the figure.
CBP anticipates expansion of truck lanes at the three commercial POEs in California. Otay Mesa POE
would be expanded from eight to ten lanes and the Calexico East POE from three to five lanes. The
configuration at Tecate POE would change from one to two truck lanes.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Additional Northbound Crossing Data
The Service Bureau received 2005 and 2030 estimates of northbound border crossings by mode
(passenger vehicle, trucks, and pedestrian crossings) from CBP in January 2007. In addition, current and
projected estimates for northbound border crossing by mode were provided by SIDUE; SANDAG; and
Caltrans. These estimates are shown in Tables 4-5 and 4-6 and were provided to the U.S. Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and Mexico’s Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (SCT)
for use in the Border Traffic Forecasting Peer Exchange group.10 In addition, the TWG approved the use
of Caltrans’ 2030 northbound border crossing projections (passenger and commercial vehicles) and
SIDUE’s 2030 northbound pedestrian crossing projections for use in the POE evaluation criteria.
At the June 21, 2007 TWG meeting, the participants requested CBP provide historical northbound
pedestrian crossing data by POE. These data have been summarized and presented in Table 4-7.
10
At the January 2007 PAC meeting, the U.S. FHWA volunteered to lead the coordination of a Peer Exchange
Process aimed at increasing the understanding of agencies’ projection methodologies and possibly study the
eventual harmonization of traffic projections between CBP, FHWA, General Services Administration (GSA),
Caltrans, and SANDAG. Other agencies such as SIDUE also expressed interest in participating in this effort. The
project has been funded and the effort has been included in the 2008-2010 Work Plan for the U.S./Mexico Joint
Working Committee.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 4-5
Northbound Passenger and Commercial Vehicle Border Crossing Estimates by POE (1)
2005 and 2030 — CBP, SANDAG, SIDUE, and Caltrans
PASSENGER VEHICLES COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

(2)
CBP SANDAG SIDUE Caltrans CBP SANDAG SIDUE(2) Caltrans
San Ysidro / Puerta Mexico

2005 17,208,106 16,938,835 17,208,106 17,208,106 -- -- -- --
2030 22,843,397 24,930,391 31,611,136 24,930,391 -- -- -- --
Change 5,635,291 7,991,556 14,403,030 7,722,285 -- -- -- --
% Change 32.7% 47.2% 83.7% 44.9% -- -- -- --
Otay Mesa / Mesa de Otay

2005 6,672,994 6,151,715 6,672,994 6,672,994 730,253 506,273 730,253 730,253
2030 9,774,397 11,918,959 33,059,748 11,918,959 1,024,270 980,904 981,353 899,000
Change 3,101,403 5,767,244 26,386,754 5,245,965 294,017 474,631 251,100 168,747
% Change 46.5% 93.8% 395.4% 78.6% 40.3% 93.8% 34.4% 23.1%
Otay Mesa East / Mesa de Otay II

2005 -- -- -- N/A -- -- -- N/A
2030 -- 6,983,119 -- 6,983,119 -- 827,117 -- 598,000
Change -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
% Change -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Tecate / Tecate
2005 1,023,854 -- 1,028,854 1,028,854 69,586 -- 69,586 69,586
2030 1,617,990 -- 556,346 1,550,000 80,179 -- 115,515 113,000
Change 594,136 -- -472,508 521,146 10,593 -- 45,929 43,414
% Change 58.0% -- -45.9% 50.7% 15.2% -- 66.0% 62.4%
Calexico / Mexicali
2005 6,234,602 -- 6,234,602 6,234,602 -- -- -- --
2030 7,289,991 -- 4,206,804 7,560,000 -- -- -- --
Change 1,055,389 -- -2,027,798 1,325,398 -- -- -- --
% Change 16.9% -- -32.5% 21.3% -- -- -- --
Calexico East / Mexicali Oriente

2005 3,271,961 -- 3,271,961 3,271,961 320,212 -- 320,212 320,212
2030 4,355,239 -- 11,366,209 9,855,000 423,790 -- 639,847 603,000
Change 1,083,278 -- 8,094,248 6,583,039 103,578 -- 319,635 282,788
% Change 33.1% -- 247.4% 201.2% 32.3% -- 99.8% 88.3%
Andrade / Algodones
2005 729,637 -- 729,637 729,637 2,733 -- 2,733 2,733
2030 1,303,316 -- 1,833,107 988,000 -- -- 51,869 4,900
Change 573,679 -- 1,103,470 258,363 -- -- 49,136 2,167
% Change 78.6% -- 151.2% 35.4% -- -- 1797.9% 79.3%
Source: CBP, SIDUE, SANDAG, and Caltrans

(1) Data do not include buses.
(2) The SANDAG Service Bureau received combined northbound and southbound estimates from SANDAG. The Service
Bureau assumed a 50-50 split in order to calculate northbound-only estimates and compare the data with other sources. For
Tecate POE, SANDAG provided total number of vehicles only (not broken down into passenger vehicle, bus, and truck.)
SANDAG does not produce estimates for Imperial County.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 4-6
Northbound Pedestrian Border Crossing Estimates
by POE, 2005 and 2030
CBP, SANDAG, and SIDUE
PEDESTRIANS
CBP SANDAG
(1) SIDUE
San Ysidro / Puerta Mexico

2005 8,156,350 8,156,350 8,156,350
2030 9,258,689 16,514,012 11,986,675
Change 1,102,339 8,357,662 3,830,325
% Change 13.5% 102.5% 47.0%
Otay Mesa / Mesa de Otay

2005 1,496,196 1,496,196 1,496,196
2030 1,915,839 2,189,813 2,198,829
Change 419,643 693,617 702,633
% Change 28.0% 46.4% 47.0%
Otay Mesa East / Mesa de Otay II
2005 -- -- --
2030 -- 1,288,549 --
Change -- -- --
% Change -- -- --
Tecate / Tecate
2005 471,046 -- 471,046
2030 662,873 -- 931,680
Change 191,827 -- 460,634
% Change 40.7% -- 97.8%
Calexico / Mexicali
2005 4,481,014 -- 4,481,014
2030 4,353,620 -- 7,266,937
Change -127,394 -- 2,785,923
% Change -2.8% -- 62.2%
Calexico East / Mexicali Oriente

2005 1,456 -- 1,456
2030 14,107 -- 2,361
Change 12,651 -- 905
% Change 868.9% -- 62.2%
Andrade / Algodones
2005 1,856,273 -- 1,856,273
2030 2,843,533 -- 2,776,792
Change 987,260 -- 920,519
% Change 53.2% -- 49.6%
Source: CBP, SANDAG, and SIDUE

(1) The SANDAG Service Bureau received combined northbound and southbound
estimates from SANDAG. The Service Bureau assumed a 50-50 split in order to
calculate northbound only estimates and compare the data with other sources.
SANDAG does not produce estimates for Imperial County.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 4-7
Northbound Pedestrian Crossings, Fiscal Years 1994 - 2005
Fiscal Calexico
San Ysidro Otay Mesa Tecate Calexico (1) Andrade
Year East (2)
1994 9,267,088 377,435 322,831 7,113,785 -- 994,372

1995 8,191,607 364,325 273,125 6,727,378 -- 1,113,538
1996 8,747,231 566,737 264,698 8,299,710 -- 1,300,042
1997 8,698,852 629,487 288,728 7,870,491 18,514 1,350,200
1998 7,010,967 604,333 282,886 8,527,568 28,572 1,417,601
1999 7,406,921 697,791 280,897 8,425,394 19,769 1,596,552
2000 7,660,168 640,026 291,212 7,924,282 3,004 1,733,806
2001 7,913,415 666,042 294,181 7,783,272 2,696 1,817,308
2002 7,577,569 1,830,903 472,061 6,619,797 2,640 1,669,011
2003 7,874,109 1,442,874 424,030 7,192,067 1,643 1,823,165
2004 9,811,395 1,499,949 430,572 5,339,244 3,195 1,953,513
2005 8,773,167 1,540,469 469,032 4,609,385 1,659 1,871,982

(1) Decline in pedestrian crossings since FY 2003 is primarily due to a change in inspection counting.
(2) Pedestrian traffic peaked in FY 1997 – FY 1999 when CBP redirected a large percentage of bus traffic from
Calexico POE to Calexico East POE upon the opening of the Calexico East POE. CBP stopped redirecting
bus traffic to Calexico East in FY 2000.
Northbound Rail Crossings and Rail Cars
The San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railway originates in San Diego and terminates in Plaster
City, Imperial County. The Main Line of the SD&AE Railway runs from downtown San Diego south to the
San Ysidro-Tijuana border and connects to the Desert Line via the Tijuana-Tecate line. The Desert Line
of the SD&AE Railway joins the north-south Union Pacific (UP) Railroad line between Niland and
Calexico. South of Calexico, Ferrocarril Mexicano, S.A. de C.V. (Ferromex) operates the rail line providing
service between Mexicali and several points in Mexico.
Northbound rail inspections are reported for the San Ysidro, Tecate, and Calexico POEs, as shown on
Table 4-8. In order to be consistent with data received from agencies in Mexico, the table shows the POE
where the crossing actually occurs. For instance, rail inspections are reported at Calexico East POE, but
actual rail crossing occurs at Calexico POE. Likewise inspections are reported at Otay Mesa POE, but
actual rail crossing occurs at San Ysidro POE. In addition, the Tecate POE has the responsibility for
inspecting trains that cross the border via the SD&AE rail line in the town on Campo, which is located 13
miles east of the port.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 4-8
Northbound Rail Crossings and Rail Cars, 2000-2030
Train Crossings Rail Cars

2000 2005 2030 2000 2005 2030
San Ysidro 204 239 315 1,462 5,891 7,118
Tecate 77 73 580 - 64 380
Calexico 241 415 478 5,716 12,358 13,980

(1) No rail crossings at Otay Mesa, Calexico East, and Andrade POEs.
In 2005, there were 727 trains that crossed northbound. Of the 18,303 rail cars that crossed northbound,
the Calexico POEs processed about two-thirds of the rail cars. Tecate handled less than one percent of
the rail cars. The number of rail car crossings is projected to increase dramatically at Tecate POE by
2030, primarily due to the refurbishing of the Desert Line, which could provide an alternative for moving
freight, as well as the expansion of seaport capacity at locations such as Ensenada, Mexico.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Goods Movement from Mexico to the United States
Freight movements by truck dominate the overall crossborder trade across California-Baja California
POEs. As shown in Figure 4-4, the value of the goods transported by trucks crossing from Mexico into the
United States was $17.8 billion dollars in 2000 and it reached $23.7 billion dollars in 2005. The Otay
Mesa POE handled about two-thirds of the northbound value of freight ($16.4 billion) while the Calexico
East POE processed about 30 percent ($6.6 billion). The Tecate POE inspected nearly 3 percent of the
value of goods ($665 million). Data for the Andrade POE was not provided.
Figure 4-4
Northbound Value of Goods by Truck, 2000-2005
$25,000
$20,000
Value of Trade (in millions)
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
2000 2005

(1) No truck crossings at San Ysidro and Calexico. Although there are limited
numbers of truck crossings at Andrade POEs, no estimates of trade value were
available.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
The volume of goods transported by northbound trucks has increased from 3.6 million tons in 2000 to 4.8
million tons in 2005, as illustrated in Figure 4-5. In the five-year period, the overall increase in tonnage is
comparable to the overall growth in the northbound value of goods, or about 33 percent. However, the
Otay Mesa POE appears to be handling an increasing volume of higher value and lower weight goods. In
2000, Otay Mesa processed 63 percent of the volume in tons while in 2005 that share dropped to 58
percent. Tecate’s share has remained at about 7 percent, while the Calexico East POE has increased the
tonnage processed from 30 percent in 2000 to 36 percent in 2005.
Figure 4-5
Northbound Volume of Goods by Truck, 2000-2005
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
Volume of Goods (in tons)
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
2000 2005

(1) No truck crossings at San Ysidro and Calexico. Although there are limited numbers of
truck crossings at Andrade POEs, no estimates of trade volume were available.
Projections for value or volume of goods crossing at California-Baja California POEs in 2030 were not
provided.
In 2000, the value of the goods transported by rail from Mexico into the United States represented $23.9
million dollars. The Calexico POE processed nearly all this trade value or about 96 percent while
San Ysidro handled the remaining 4 percent. In 2005, the value of freight moving northbound by rail
increased to $39.1 million dollars. In 2000, San Ysidro handled heavier and lower value goods, inspecting
about 11 percent of the volume in tons. Calexico processed about 89 percent of the tonnage moving by
rail.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
BAJA CALIFORNIA POE FACILITIES
Two border stations in Baja California—Puerta México and Mesa de Otay—are located in the Municipality
of Tijuana, while the Tecate POE is located in the Municipality of Tecate. The El Chaparral POE is
currently closed; however, plans exist to reopen the border station to accommodate southbound
passenger vehicle traffic. This POE is located just west of the existing Puerta México POE in the
Municipality of Tijuana. The Mexicali, Mexicali II, and Los Algodones POEs are located in the Municipality
of Mexicali. This section examines data about these POEs including lane configuration, hours of
operation, and border crossings by type.
Mexico’s General Customs Administration (Aduanas) provided information on the current and projected
hours of operation and the Institute of Administration and Estimates of National Real Estate (INDAABIN)
provided the number of inspection lanes for the Baja California POEs. Table 4-9, shows the southbound
lane configuration by POE. This information will be referred to throughout this section to relate projected
border crossing data with planned lane configurations. The number of bus and passenger vehicle lanes at
Puerta México is projected to decrease from nine to zero by 2030. These estimates reflect existing plans
to convert all vehicle lanes at Puerta México to northbound lanes only and reopen El Chaparral POE to
southbound traffic. INDAABIN anticipates 15 passenger vehicle lanes (includes three bus lanes) at El
Chaparral by 2030.
Table 4-9
Current and Projected Number of Southbound Lanes, 2005-2030 (1)
co
l
ta
ra
i
ex
es
O
r
iI
pa
M
on
de
li
l
ca
ca
te
ta
ha
od
a
ca
er
C
ex
es
ex
lg
Pu
Te
El
M
2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030 2005 2030
2
Number of Southbound Lanes
Regular Passenger Vehicle 7 0 4 6 2 3 9 14 3 3 2 2 0 12
Bus 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 3
Pedestrian 6 6 2 2 2 4 2 4 1 1 2 4 n/a n/a
Truck n/a n/a 4 8 2 4 n/a n/a 2 2 1 0 n/a n/a
FAST n/a n/a 1 1 0 1 n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Source: INDAABIN
(1) n/a = not applicable
(2) No SENTRI lanes reported in Baja California
In 2005, the Puerta México, Mesa de Otay Passenger, and Mexicali POEs operated 24 hours a day,
seven days a week and Aduanas anticipates no changes in 2030. The Mexicali II POE is open for
passenger crossings from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m., while Algodones POE operates from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. the

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
hours of operation should remain the same in 2030. The Tecate POE is open for passenger crossing from
5 a.m. to 11 p.m.11
Cargo facilities at Tecate POE are open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday and closed on the
weekends. Cargo facilities at the Mesa de Otay and Mexicali II POEs operate at reduced hours.
Southbound Average Wait Times
Average wait times data were not available for the POEs in Baja California.
Staffing
Staffing data were not provided for all POEs in Baja California.
Current Southbound Crossborder Travel Demand
Aduanas provided data for southbound passenger vehicles, trucks, and rail cars crossing at the Puerta
México, Mesa de Otay, Tecate, Mexicali, Mexicali II, and Los Algodones POEs for 2005. Data for 2000
and projected 2030 were not available for all POEs.
Southbound Passenger Vehicles
Table 4-10 shows the number of southbound passenger vehicle crossings for 2005. In 2005, there were
over 33 million southbound passenger vehicles crossings, with the Puerta México POE processing more
than half of the total. Mexicali POE processed 19.4 percent and Mesa de Otay processed 14.2 percent.
Table 4-10
Southbound Passenger Vehicle Crossings, 2005
2005 % Share
Puerta Mexico 19,000,000 57.0%

Mesa de Otay 4,745,000 14.2%
Tecate 978,017 2.9%
Mexicali 6,487,654 19.4%
Mexicali II 1,593,343 4.8%
Algodones 546,736 1.6%
Total 33,350,750
Source: Aduanas
11
Note that the northbound hours of operation for passenger vehicle traffic are from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
As shown previously in Table 4-9, INDAABIN reported projected expansions in the number of southbound
lanes at Baja California POEs. Currently Puerta México POE has seven passenger vehicle lanes and two
bus lanes. Once El Chaparral POE is completed, 12 passenger lanes and three bus lanes will be
available for southbound border crossers. Although no 2030 border crossing projections are available, it
seems reasonable that the additional lanes will help accommodate the projected population growth in the
area and keep southbound wait times to a minimum.
At the Mesa de Otay POE, the number of passenger vehicle lanes is expect to increase by two lanes by
2030 to accommodate the anticipated population growth. The Tecate POE is expected to expand the
number of passenger lanes by one.
By 2030, the Mexicali POE is expected to have five additional passenger vehicle lanes and one additional
bus lane to accommodate the projected growth in passenger vehicle crossings. One bus lane and no
passenger vehicle lane expansions are projected for Mexicali II suggesting the POE may face challenges
accommodating the additional growth anticipated in the Imperial-Mexicali Valley.
Southbound Pedestrian Crossings
According to Aduanas, southbound pedestrian crossings at POEs are not recorded.
Southbound Truck Crossings
Table 4-11 shows that southbound truck crossings are concentrated at the Mesa de Otay POE. Mesa de
Otay processed almost two-thirds of all southbound truck crossings in 2005.
Table 4-11
Southbound Truck Crossings, 2005
2005 % Share
Mesa de Otay 632,000 65.9%

Tecate 36,540 3.8%
Mexicali II 291,059 30.3%
Total 959,599 100.0%
Source: Aduanas
(1) No truck crossings were reported for the Puerta
México, Mexicali, and Algodones POEs
The INDAABIN anticipates doubling the number of truck lanes at Mesa de Otay POE from four to eight
and at Tecate POE from two to four. No changes are anticipated at the Mexicali II POE.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Southbound Rail Crossings and Rail Cars
Southbound rail inspections were reported for the Puerta México and the Mexicali POEs. In 2005, almost
14,000 rail car crossings occurred, with the number of crossings split almost 50-50 between the two
POEs (53% at Mexicali). The number of rail car crossings at the Mexicali POE is expected to increase
from 7,451 car crossings in 2005 to 19,685 in 2030, a rate of 164 percent. No projections were reported
for the Puerta México POE.
EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan Scope of Work calls for examining the current capacity
and demand of transportation facilities and POEs, identifying short-term transportation and POE needs,
and analyzing the growth of travel demand. To accomplish these tasks, the SANDAG Service Bureau
prepared a series of questionnaires that were completed by the TWG.
One of the questionnaires requested an inventory of transportation facilities serving international POEs
within the Focused Study Area. Descriptive and performance data such as number of lanes, Average
Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and peak period traffic volumes, share of truck traffic, and Level of Service
(LOS) were solicited for current conditions (2005) and for the forecast year 2030. Appendix C-1
summarizes the transportation facility information submitted by TWG members and traffic growth rates
calculated by the SANDAG Service Bureau.12
Summary of Findings
This section summarizes highlights of the evaluation of the transportation facilities.

Highways and arterials that operated at LOS E and LOS F in 2005:
` I-805 between Telegraph Canyon Road and State Route (SR) 54: LOS F (p.m. peak)
` SR 94 between SR 54 and Otay Lakes Road: LOS F (selected segments in p.m. peak)
` Willow Street Bridge over the Sweetwater River (County of San Diego): LOS F
` SR 98/Birch Street between Dogwood Road and Barbara Worth Road: LOS F (p.m. peak)
` SR 111 between the Calexico-Mexicali POE and SR 98: LOS E (p.m. peak)
` SR 98 between Navarro Avenue and SR 111: LOS E (two-lane segment in p.m. peak)
` SR 98 between SR 111 and Cole Road: LOS E (two-lane segment in p.m. peak)
12
Information was provided by Mexico’s Secretariat of Communications and Transportation, California Department of
Transportation, Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California, Southern California
Association of Governments, San Diego Association of Governments, City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego,
and the Municipality of Mexicali’s Institute of Investigation and Planning.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Highways and arterials projected to operate at LOS E and LOS F in 2030:

` I-805 between Telegraph Canyon Road and SR 54: LOS E (p.m. peak)
` SR 94 between SR 54 and Otay Lakes Road: LOS F (selected segments in p.m. peak)
` SR 111 between the Calexico-Mexicali POE and SR 98: LOS F (p.m. peak)
` SR 111 between SR 98 and I-8: LOS F (selected segments in p.m. peak)
Highways and arterials projected to improve LOS in 2030:

` I-805 between Telegraph Canyon Road and SR 54: from LOS F to LOS E (p.m. peak)
` Tijuana-Mexicali Highway (Route 2): from LOS D to LOS B
` SR 98 between SR 111 and Cole Road: from LOS E to LOS C (p.m. peak)
` Second Street between SR 111 and Dogwood Road: from LOS D to LOS B (p.m. peak)
` Cesar Chavez Blvd. between SR 111 and SR 98/Birch Street: from LOS D to LOS C (p.m. peak)
` SR 98/Birch Street from Dogwood Rd. to Barbara Worth Rd.: from LOS F to LOS C (p.m. peak)
Highways and arterials projected to worsen LOS in 2030:

` I-805 between Palm Avenue and Telegraph Canyon Road: from LOS C to LOS D (p.m. peak)
` SR 905 between I-5 and Beyer Boulevard: from LOS B to LOS C (p.m. peak)
` SR 905 between I-805 and Otay Mesa Road: from LOS B to LOS D (p.m. peak)
` SR 94 between SR 188 and Otay Lakes Road: from LOS B to LOS C-D (p.m. peak)
` SR 111 between the Calexico-Mexicali POE and SR 98: from LOS E to LOS F (p.m. peak)
` SR 111 between SR 98 and I-8: from LOS B to LOS D and LOS F (selected segments in p.m.
peak)
` SR 98 between Cole Road and SR 7: from LOS C to LOS E (p.m. peak)
` I-8 between Forrester Road and SR 86: from LOS A-B to LOS C (p.m. peak)
` Cole Road: Bowker Road-SR 98 and railroad tracks-Kloke Road: from LOS A to LOS B
` Route 2 (Mexicali-Progreso): from LOS B to LOS C
` SR 7 at the Calexico East-Mexicali II POE and SR 98: from LOS B to LOS D (p.m. peak)
` SR 7 between SR 98 and I-8: from LOS A to LOS C (p.m. peak)
` Truck shares are significantly higher in Imperial County than in San Diego County
Overall, truck shares on Baja California highways are higher than in California highways
Overall, traffic volumes on California highways are significantly higher than in Baja California
highways
Transportation facilities that would serve proposed POEs at Otay Mesa East in San Diego County
and El Centinela in the Municipality of Mexicali were reported. However, highway or rail connections
for Otay II and Mount Signal POEs were not.
Data Issues:
` In California, no projected truck share data are available for highways
` In Baja California, LOS data are available mostly for long segments of highways only
` In California, LOS data sometimes are not comparable due to reporting different peak periods in
2005 and 2030

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Transportation Facilities Serving POEs
This chapter presents the California-Baja California transportation facility information grouped by POE.
Some short-term projects submitted by the TWG have been completed.
San Ysidro-Puerta México: Current Conditions (2005)
In the San Diego region, I-5 directly serves as the north-south connector highway to the San Ysidro-
Puerta México POE. Interstate 5 is an eight-lane freeway that accommodated between 69,000 and
175,000 AADT in 2005 in the nearly ten-mile segment between the international border and SR 54.
The share of truck traffic ranged between 6 percent and 8 percent. Also in 2005, I-5 operated at a
LOS between LOS A and LOS D in the morning peak period.
The San Diego & Imperial Valley railroad provides freight service between San Diego and Tijuana-
Tecate and crosses the border east of I-5. The San Diego Trolley provides transit service along the I-
5 corridor. Stations within the focused study area are in San Ysidro adjacent to the international
border crossing, Beyer Blvd., Iris Ave., Palm Ave., Palomar St., H Street, and Bayfront/E St.
About half a mile north of the San Ysidro border station, I-805 also serves as a north-south connector
to this POE via I-5. On average, between 68,000 and 222,000 vehicles traveled on this eight-lane
freeway between I-5 and SR 54 in 2005. Trucks represented 4 percent to 7 percent of the total traffic.
In the afternoon peak period, I-805 operated at LOS C in the six-mile segment south of Telegraph
Canyon Road and at LOS F north of Telegraph Canyon Road.
In Tijuana, the Tijuana-Ensenada highway (Route 1) is one of the principal access corridors to the
Puerta México-San Ysidro POE. In 2005, this two-lane facility accommodated an AADT of about
11,800 vehicles in the ten-mile segment beginning at Blvd. Díaz Ordaz. Trucks represented 20
percent of the traffic volume. When considering the 68-mile (110-km.) segment of Route 1 between
Tijuana and Ensenada, AADT was about 8,500 vehicles in 2005, with a 16 percent truck share. The
Tijuana-Ensenada segment operated at LOS B.
The Tijuana-Ensenada Toll Road (Route 1D) is the other facility that provides principal access to the
Puerta México border station. Nearly 6,000 vehicles traveled on average on this four-lane highway in
2005 and 9 percent of those vehicles were trucks. The 61-mile (98.2-km) segment of Route 1D
between Tijuana and the San Miguel toll booth accommodated 6,250 AADT and a 10 percent truck
share. It operated at LOS B.
San Ysidro-Puerta México: Projected Conditions (2030)
This section presents information on projected road expansions, forecast traffic data to 2030, and
comparisons of anticipated traffic growth and operations between 2005 and 2030.13
13
SCT used an annual average growth rate of three percent for its traffic projections. The same growth rate was
applied by the SANDAG Service Bureau to the 2005 AADT data provided by SIDUE.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
By 2030, the eight-lane segment of I-5 between the San Ysidro-Puerta México POE and SR 905
would carry 96,800 AADT (39% increase from 2005). In the afternoon peak period, LOS C is
projected. Two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes would be constructed on I-5 between SR 905
and SR 54. This capacity expansion would provide operations at LOS D in the afternoon peak period
and accommodate an increase in traffic that would range from 28 percent to 52 percent.
Interstate 805 would be able to maintain LOS C in the afternoon peak along the eight-lane segment
between the I-5 near the border and SR 905, while accommodating a 54 percent increase in traffic.
The four-lane HOV/Managed Lane (ML) expansion of I-805 north of SR 905 would result in LOS
ranging from LOS C to LOS E. The highest increase in volumes (48%) is projected in the segment
between Palm Avenue and Telegraph Canyon Road, where LOS would worsen from LOS C to
LOS D in the p.m. peak. The segment between Telegraph Canyon Road and SR 54 would
experience an improvement in operations from LOS F to LOS E also in the afternoon peak.
No projections of truck shares are available for I-5 and I-805.
In 2030, the Tijuana-Ensenada highway (Route 1) is projected to carry an AADT of about 23,950
vehicles in the 10-mile segment from Blvd. Diaz Ordaz. Expansion of some segments of this highway
from two- to four-lanes is anticipated. The 68-mile (110-km) segment of Route 1 between Tijuana and
Ensenada would accommodate an AADT of 17,350 vehicles and maintain operations at LOS B. Truck
share would increase from 16 percent to 20 percent.
Forecasts for the Tijuana-Ensenada Toll Road (Route 1D) show that about 12,100 vehicles would
travel on this highway in the segment beginning at the Playas de Tijuana toll booth. The 61-mile
(98.2-km) segment of Route 1D between Tijuana and the San Miguel toll booth would carry about
12,700 AADT and truck share is expected to growth substantially from 10 percent to 30 percent. An
expansion from four to six lanes is anticipated to maintain projected operations at LOS B.
Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE: Current Conditions (2005)
In San Diego, SR 905/Otay Mesa Road is the direct connector to the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE.
Between I-5 and I-805, SR 905 is a four-lane freeway. In 2005, it carried between 48,500 and 62,000
AADT. Truck volumes represented 7 percent of the total traffic. The LOS of this segment of SR 905
ranged from LOS B to LOS C.
East of I-805, Otay Mesa Road accommodated 57,000 vehicles. The SR 905 extension between
Airway Road and the Otay Mesa border station opened to traffic in late 2005. Trucks represent about
15 percent of the traffic. The freeway segments operated at LOS B; however, no LOS data were
provided for the six-lane arterial segment.
Both I-805 and I-5, which were described previously, provide north-south linkages from and to the
Otay Mesa border station.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Siempre Viva Road between La Media Road and SR 905 provides commercial vehicle access to the
Otay Mesa border station. This two-lane arterial carried about 5,400 average daily vehicles in 2005.
Trucks represented 5 percent of the total traffic. It operated at LOS D in the morning peak period.
In Tijuana, the Tijuana-Tecate highway (Route 2) provides access to the Mesa de Otay border station
for both passenger and commercial vehicle traffic. In 2005, east of Libramiento Los Insurgentes, this
two-lane highway carried nearly 9,500 AADT and trucks represented 17 percent of the total traffic.
When considering the 113-mile (182.6-km) section of Route 2 between Tijuana and Mexicali, AADT
was estimated at 4,250 vehicles with a truck share of 19 percent. Route 2 from Tijuana to Mexicali
operated at LOS D.
Also, the four-lane Tijuana-Tecate toll road (Route 2D) serves the Mesa de Otay border station. The
segment that begins at the toll booth in Ciudad Industrial carried about 3,200 average daily vehicles
in 2005. Trucks represented 18 percent of the traffic. The 86-mile (138-km) segment between Tijuana
and Mexicali accommodated an AADT of about 3,250 vehicles with a truck share of 21 percent. This
segment operated at LOS B.
The Tijuana-Rosarito Corridor is a new four-lane expressway that also provides access to the Otay
Mesa border station commercial and passenger facilities. It was inaugurated in late 2006.
In the unincorporated area of the County of San Diego, several arterials indirectly serve the Otay
Mesa border station. North-south arterials include Enrico Fermi Drive between Siempre Viva Road
and Paseo de la Amistad (two lanes, 3,400-6,600 AADT, LOS B-C) and Alta Road north of Lone Star
Road (two lanes, 5,000 AADT, LOS C). East-west arterials include Airway Road between the City of
San Diego limits and Enrico Fermi Drive (two lanes, 2,000 AADT, LOS B) and Otay Mesa Road
between Michael Faraday Road and Enrico Fermi Drive (two lanes, 8,000 AADT, LOS D).
Other local arterials that indirectly serve the Otay-Mesa POE include roads that parallel state or
interstate highways. East of I-805, the Heritage Road Bridge spans the Otay River between the cities
of Chula Vista and San Diego. This three-lane north-south arterial carries about 11,600 daily vehicles
and operates at LOS A. Also east of I-805, the Willow Street Bridge over the Sweetwater River is a
two-lane north-south facility that accommodated an AADT of 17,500 vehicles at LOS F.
Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE – Projected Conditions (2030)
By 2030, SR 905 would be completed as a six-lane freeway between I-5 and the Otay Mesa-Mesa de
Otay POE. West of I-805, it is anticipated to carry 88,800 and 100,800 AADT. The expansion from
four-lanes to six-lanes would allow this freeway to maintain LOS C in the afternoon peak period. East
of I -805, volumes on SR 905 would range from nearly 149,000 to 173,000 vehicles west of Airway
Road. LOS D is projected. The segment of SR 905 between Airway Road and the Otay Mesa POE
would double its volumes to about 72,500 vehicles and maintain LOS B.
In addition, SR 125, a four-lane toll road that would connect to SR 905, opened in 2007 and additional
toll lanes are planned by 2030. By 2030, traffic volumes could be up to 106,500 vehicles annually.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
East of Libramiento Los Insurgentes, the Tijuana-Tecate highway (Route 2) is projected to carry
nearly 19,300 AADT. The 113-mile (182.6-km.) section of Route 2 between Tijuana and Mexicali
would accommodate an AADT of 8,640 vehicles and maintain a truck share of 19 percent. This
highway would be widened to four-lanes and improve its LOS from LOS D to LOS B.
The Tijuana-Tecate toll road (Route 2D) east of the toll booth in Ciudad Industrial is projected to carry
about 6,450 average daily vehicles in 2030. The 86-mile (138-km) segment between Tijuana and
Mexicali would accommodate an AADT of about 6,600 vehicles and its truck share would remain at
21 percent. This highway would maintain a four-lane configuration and continue to operate at LOS B.
Traffic and LOS projections for the Tijuana-Rosarito Corridor are not available.
In unincorporated San Diego County, existing arterials that provide service to the Otay Mesa-Mesa de
Otay indirectly are planned to be widened. North-south arterials such as Enrico Fermi Drive and Alta
Road would be expanded from two- to four-lanes to accommodate projected Average Annual Growth
Rates (AAGR) above 4.5 percent. These projects would result in improvements to LOS. East-west
arterials also would be widened. Airway Road between the City of San Diego limits and Enrico Fermi
Drive would be expanded to four lanes. It is projected to carry 13,000 AADT (8.1 percent AAGR) and
operate at LOS A. Otay Mesa Road between Michael Faraday Road and Enrico Fermi Drive would be
widened to six lanes and carry about 18,800 daily vehicles (3.6 percent AAGR).
Heritage Road Bridge would be expanded from three- to six-lanes by 2030. It is projected to carry
about 33,000 average daily vehicles and continue to operate at LOS A. Willow Street Bridge would be
expanded from two- to four-lanes and is projected to accommodate 22,400 average daily vehicles. Its
LOS would improve from LOS F in 2005 to LOS C in 2030.
Tecate-Tecate POE: Current Conditions (2005)
In the San Diego region, SR 188 serves as north-south connector to the Tecate-Tecate POE. It is a
two-lane highway that carried an AADT of 7,000 vehicles in 2005. Trucks represent 10 percent of the
total traffic volume. It operated at LOS B in the afternoon peak period. SR 188 connects to SR 94, an
east-west two-lane highway. Traffic volumes between the junction with SR 188 and Otay Lakes Road
averaged between 6,500 and 8,700 daily vehicles, with an 8 percent truck share. This segment of
SR 94 operated at LOS B in the afternoon peak period. The segment of SR 94 west of Otay Lakes
Road carried between 8,200 and 23,000 AADT. Trucks represented 7 percent of the total traffic. In
the afternoon peak period, LOS in this section of SR 94 ranged from LOS C to LOS F.
In Baja California, the four-lane Tijuana-Tecate highway (Route 2) connects to the passenger and
cargo facilities at the Tecate-Tecate POE. West of the POE, Route 2 carried an AADT of
approximately 4,250 vehicles in 2005, with a truck share of 17.9 percent. Nearly 4,400 daily vehicles
traveled on the segment of Route 2 east of the Tecate POE. Trucks represented 26 percent of the
total traffic. No LOS data is available for these two segments of Route 2. However, as described
previously, Route 2 between Tijuana and Mexicali operated at LOS D in 2005.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
The Tijuana-Tecate toll road (Route 2D) also provides access to the Tecate border station. West of
this POE, Route 2D carried nearly 3,200 daily vehicles. The truck share was 18 percent. East of the
Tecate border station, Route 2D accommodated an average of 2,875 daily vehicles, of which 24
percent were trucks. In 2005, this toll road operated at LOS B between Tijuana and Mexicali. No LOS
data is available for the segments east and west of the Tecate POE.
In addition to connecting with the east-west corridors, the Tecate-El Sauzal highway (Route 3) links
the Tecate border station with the coastal Routes 1 and 1D (Tijuana-Ensenada). Route 3 is a two-
lane facility that carried approximately 4,100 daily vehicles southwest of Avenida Hidalgo in Tecate.
Truck traffic represented 21 percent of the total volumes. Overall, the 65-mile (105-km) highway
accommodated nearly 3,250 daily vehicles in 2005, with a truck share of 17 percent. No LOS data is
available for Route 3.
Tecate-Tecate POE: Projected Conditions (2030)
SR 188 is projected to accommodate 16,000 AADT in 2030 (3.5 percent AAGR). No widening is
anticipated; however, LOS is expected to remain at LOS B in the afternoon peak period. SR 94 is
projected to carry between 12,300 and 15,800 daily vehicles between the junction of SR 188 and
Otay Lakes Road. No capacity expansion is planned and operations on this segment of SR 94 are
projected to worsen from LOS B to LOS C-D in the afternoon peak. SR 94 west of Otay Lakes Road
would be expanded to four lanes in selected segments. It is projected to carry between 12,300 and
39,700 AADT and would continue to operate at LOS C to LOS F in the afternoon peak period.
The Tijuana-Tecate highway (Route 2) is projected to be widened from two to four lanes. West of the
Tecate-Tecate POE, Route 2 is anticipated to accommodate an AADT of approximately 8,600
vehicles. East of the POE, an AADT of about 8,900 daily vehicles is projected. Overall, Route 2
between Tijuana and Mexicali is forecast to carry 8,640 vehicles and improve its operations from LOS
D to LOS B by 2030. Its truck share would be 19 percent.
West of the Tecate POE, the Tijuana-Tecate toll road (Route 2D) is projected to carry nearly 6,500
daily vehicles. East of the POE, Route 2D would accommodate an average of 5,800 daily vehicles.
As described previously, by 2030, about 6,600 daily vehicles would travel on the Route 2D Tijuana-
Mexicali segment, and its truck share would be 21 percent. This toll road would maintain a four-lane
configuration and continue to operate at LOS B.
The Tecate-El Sauzal highway (Route 3) would remain as a two-lane facility. It is projected to carry
nearly 8,400 daily vehicles southwest of Avenida Hidalgo in Tecate. The entire 65-mile (105-km)
highway would accommodate nearly 7,800 daily vehicles by 2030. Its truck share would remain at 17
percent. No LOS projections are available for Route 3.
Calexico-Mexicali: Current Conditions (2005)
In Imperial County, SR 111 is a north-south four-lane freeway that provides direct connection to the
Calexico-Mexicali POE. In 2005, SR 111 between the POE and SR 98 carried from 43,000 to 50,000
AADT and operated at LOS E in the afternoon peak period. Daily traffic volumes on the segment

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
between SR 98 and I-8 ranged from 33,500 to 37,000 vehicles and operated at LOS B in the p.m.
peak period. Trucks represented 8 percent of the total traffic.
The east-west SR 98 has two to four lanes and indirectly serves both the Calexico POE and the
Calexico East POE (via SR 7). Between Dogwood Road and Navarro Avenue, SR 98 carried 9,800
AADT and operated at LOS B in the p.m. peak period in 2005. The share of truck traffic was
5 percent. Daily volumes on the two- to four-lane segment of SR 98 between Navarro Avenue and SR
111 averaged 24,200 vehicles, of which 7 percent were trucks. The two-lane segment operated at
LOS E and the four-lane segment at LOS C. Between SR 111 and Cole Road, SR 98 accommodated
daily volumes that ranged from 6,900 vehicles (two-lane segment at LOS E) to 26,000 vehicles (four-
lane segment at LOS B). Truck shares were 11 percent of the total volumes.
Interstate 8 is a four-lane freeway that also provides indirect access to the Calexico-Mexicali POE via
SR 86 and SR 111. Between Forrester Road and Imperial Avenue, I-8 carried 19,300 daily vehicles
and operated at LOS B in the p.m. peak period. The segment of I-8 between Imperial Avenue and SR
86 accommodated 32,000 daily vehicles at LOS A in the p.m. peak period. Truck volumes
represented 11 percent of the total traffic in these two segments of I-8.
Cole Road is a four-lane east-west arterial just north of SR 98. Between Bowker Road and SR 98,
Cole Road carried an AADT of approximately 11,200 vehicles. Between the railroad tracks and Kloke
Road, daily volumes were about 2,850 vehicles. Both these segments of Cole Road operated at
LOS A.
West of the POE, Second Street between SR 111 and Dogwood Road serves as an alternate exit
from the Calexico border station to I-8. This two-lane arterial carried nearly 13,200 vehicles, of which
20 percent were trucks, and operated at LOS D in the p.m. peak period. Cesar Chavez Blvd. between
SR 111 and SR 98/Birch Street serves as an alternate arterial to SR 111 from the POE to I-8 via Cole
Road and Dogwood Road. It is also a two-lane arterial that accommodated 13,500 daily vehicles at
LOS D in the peak period. Trucks represented 20 percent of the total traffic. State Route 98/Birch
Street from Dogwood Road to Barbara Worth Road is a four-lane east west connector that directs
traffic to primary and alternate POE access roads. Daily volumes reached 26,000 vehicles, with a 25
percent truck share. It operated at LOS F in the afternoon peak period.
In Baja California, direct north-south access to the Mexicali POE is provided by the eight-lane Blvd.
Lopez Mateos. In 2005, this primary arterial carried about 1,000 vehicles in the afternoon peak period
between the POE and Glorieta Sanchez Taboada. Avenida Colón is an east-west primary arterial that
parallels the border. It also provides access to the Mexicali POE. The eight-lane segment between
the POE and Glorieta Sanchez Taboada accommodated about 1,800 vehicles in the p.m. peak
period. The four-lane segment between Calle Astros and the POE carried about 400 vehicles in the
morning peak. Avenida Francisco Madero also serves as an egress route from the POE as well as
the eight-lane Blvd. Rio Nuevo, south to Blvd. Anahuac.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
The Tijuana-Mexicali Highway (Route 2) provides indirect access to the Mexicali border station via
Blvd. Lázaro Cárdenas. West of Glorieta Francisco Zarco, this two-lane highway carried nearly 5,000
daily vehicles in 2005. Truck shares were 17 percent of the total traffic.
West of the Mexicali POE, the two-lane Mexicali-Progreso segment of Route 2 carried nearly 1,500
daily vehicles and operated at LOS B. Truck share was 20 percent of the total traffic.
The Mexicali-San Felipe Highway (Route 5) is a north-south facility that also provides indirect access
to the Mexicali POE via Blvd. Lázaro Cárdenas. This four-lane highway accommodated nearly 18,000
daily vehicles south of Glorieta Sanchez Taboada. Sixteen percent of the total volumes were trucks.
The 118-mile (190-km) segment between Mexicali and San Felipe carried about 6,800 daily vehicles
at LOS B. Trucks represented 15 percent of the total traffic.
Other primary arterials that serve the POE indirectly include Calzada Vildosola Castro between
Glorieta Sanchez Taboada and Blvd. Lázaro Cárdenas via Blvd. Lopez Mateos and the Rio Nuevo
extension that links directly to the Blvd. Rio Nuevo to access the POE. An internal loop (Anillo
Interior) also serves the Mexicali POE via Blvd. Abelardo Rodríguez and Avenida Internacional.
Calexico-Mexicali: Projected Conditions (2030)
SR 111 between the POE and SR 98 is projected to carry an AADT of 63,500 vehicles. Its LOS would
worsen from LOS E to LOS F in the afternoon peak period. Between SR 98 and I-8, daily traffic is
forecasted to reach from 72,300 to 100,500 and operate between LOS D and LOS F in the p.m. peak
period.
The current two-lane segments of SR 98 would be widened to four lanes. Between Dogwood Road
and Navarro Avenue, SR 98 is projected to carry 24,000 AADT and maintain LOS B in the p.m. peak
period in 2030. Volumes on SR 98 between Navarro Avenue and SR 111 would average 32,000
vehicles and either maintain or improve operations to LOS C. Between SR 111 and Cole Road, SR
98 is projected to increase volumes substantially to 39,000 daily vehicles and operate at LOS C.
Interstate 8 is projected to carry an AADT of 39,500 vehicles between Forrester Road and Imperial
Avenue. The segment between Imperial Avenue and SR 86 would accommodate 73,600 daily
vehicles. Both segments would operate at LOS C in the p.m. peak period.
Cole Road between Bowker Road and SR 98 is projected to carry an AADT of 22,000 vehicles.
Between the railroad tracks and Kloke Road, daily volumes would reach 25,000 vehicles. Operations
on both these segments of Cole Road would deteriorate from LOS A to LOS B.
West of the POE, Second Street between SR 111 and Dogwood Road would carry 21,500 vehicles. It
would be widened to four lanes and improve its LOS from LOS D to LOS B in the afternoon peak
period. Cesar Chavez Blvd. between SR 111 and SR 98/Birch Street also would be expanded to four
lanes. It would accommodate 33,000 AADT and its LOS would improve from LOS D to LOS C. State
Route 98/Birch Street from Dogwood Road to Barbara Worth Road would be widened to six lanes

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
and is projected to carry 47,500 daily vehicles. Its operations would improve from LOS F to LOS C in
the p.m. peak period.
Traffic or LOS projections for arterials that serve the Mexicali POE in Baja California are not available.
The Tijuana-Mexicali Highway (Route 2) west of Glorieta Francisco Zarco is projected to carry about
10,000 daily vehicles in 2030. West of the Mexicali POE, the Mexicali-Progreso segment of Route 2
would accommodate about 3,000 daily vehicles and maintain its truck share at 20 percent of the total
traffic. Its operations would deteriorate from LOS B to LOS C.
The Mexicali-San Felipe Highway (Route 5) is projected to carry approximately 36,500 daily vehicles
south of Glorieta Sanchez Taboada. The 118-mile (190-km) segment Mexicali and San Felipe would
accommodate nearly 14,000 daily vehicles and maintain operations at LOS B. Truck shares would
remain unchanged at 15 percent of the total traffic.
Calexico East-Mexicali II: Current Conditions (2005)
In Imperial County, SR 7 directly serves as the north-south connector to the Calexico East-Mexicali II
POE. In 2005, traffic volumes on this four-lane freeway averaged 15,600 daily vehicles between the
POE and SR 98. This segment of SR 7 operated at LOS B in the afternoon peak period. Between SR
98 and I-8, SR 7 carried an AADT of 6,200 vehicles and operated at LOS A in the p.m. peak period.
Truck traffic represented 12 percent of the total traffic on these two segments of SR 7.
As described previously, SR 98 is an east-west highway that indirectly serves both the Calexico POE
and the Calexico East POE. On the two-lane segment between Cole Road and SR 7, SR 98
accommodated 15,000 daily vehicles at LOS C in the afternoon peak period. Truck shares were 27
percent of the total volumes.
In Mexicali, the Mexicali-San Luis Highway (Route 2) provides indirect access to the cargo facility at
Mexicali II POE. East of Blvd. Lázaro Cárdenas, this four-lane highway carried about 7,400 daily
vehicles in 2005. Truck shares were 16 percent of the total traffic. The Mexicali-La Rosita road also
provides access to the Mexicali II cargo facility for trucks with origins in Tijuana and the interior of
Mexico.
The 60-mile (97-km.) Mexicali-Estación Coahuila road is a two lane facility that provides indirect
access to the Mexicali II POE. In 2005, it carried about 3,900 daily vehicles at LOS B. Truck volumes
represented 11 percent of the total traffic.
The Aeropuerto de Mexicali branch road also serves the Mexicali II POE indirectly. This four-lane
road accommodated nearly 3,500 daily vehicles and the share of trucks was 6 percent. It operated at
LOS B.
The Mexicali-San Felipe Highway (Route 5), which was described previously, also provides indirect
access to the Mexicali II POE via Blvd. Lázaro Cárdenas.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Primary arterials that also provide indirect access to the Mexicali II POE include Avenida Republica
de Argentina between Calzada Justo Sierra and Blvd. Abelardo L. Rodríguez, Blvd. Abelardo L.
Rodríguez between Calle Astros and Calzada Cetys, Calle Novena between Calzada Cetys and
Calzada Vildosola Castro, and the Internal loop (Anillo Interior) via Blvd. Abelardo Rodríguez and
Avenida Internacional.
Calexico East-Mexicali II: Projected Conditions (2030)
Traffic volumes on SR 7 are projected at 58,000 daily vehicles between the POE and SR 98.
Operations on this segment would worsen from LOS B to LOS D in the p.m. peak period. Between
SR 98 and I-8, SR 7 would experience a substantial increase in traffic to 52,000 AADT. Its LOS would
deteriorate from LOS A to LOS C in the p.m. peak period.
State Route 98 between Cole Road and SR 7 would experience a significant increase in traffic to
59,000 daily vehicles and, despite a widening to four lanes, its LOS would worsen from LOS C to
LOS E in the p.m. peak period.
The Mexicali-San Luis Highway (Route 2) east of Blvd. Lázaro Cárdenas is projected to
accommodate approximately 15,100 daily vehicles in 2030.
Volumes on the Mexicali-Estación Coahuila road are projected at nearly 7,900 daily vehicles in 2030.
Truck shares would remain constant at 11 percent of the total traffic and it would maintain LOS B.
The Aeropuerto de Mexicali branch road would accommodate nearly 7,100 daily vehicles and also
maintain its share of truck traffic at 6 percent. It would continue to operate at LOS B.
Traffic or LOS projections for arterials that provide indirect access to the Mexicali II POE are not
available.
Andrade-Los Algodones POE: Current Conditions (2005)
In Imperial County, SR 186 is a north-south two-lane highway that serves as direct connection to the
Andrade-Los Algodones POE. In 2005, SR 186 between the POE and I-8 carried an AADT of 7,100
vehicles and operated at LOS B in the afternoon peak period. Trucks represented 7 percent of the
total traffic. Interstate 8 provides east-west access to this POE.
In Baja California, the four-lane Sonoyta-Mexicali highway provides the main access to the Los
Algodones POE. It carried about 6,500 daily vehicles at LOS C. Truck traffic represented 16 percent
of the total volumes.
The two-lane Carretera Islas Agrarias-Los Algodones (Route 8) between the Los Algodones POE and
Carretera Mexicali-Abasolo serves the POE via 6th and 1st streets.
Traffic volumes on the 63-mile (101-km.) Mexicali-Algodones highway, which provides indirect access
to the POE, averaged 3,600 daily vehicles, with a truck share of 11 percent. It operated at LOS B.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
The 34-mile (55-km.) road between Islas Agrarias and Los Algodones carried nearly 2,700 daily
vehicles at LOS B. Trucks represented 9 percent of the total traffic.
Andrade-Los Algodones POE: Projected Conditions (2030)
State Route 186 between the POE and I-8 is projected to carry 11,000 daily vehicles and maintain
LOS B in the p.m. peak period.
Traffic volumes on the Sonoyta-Mexicali highway would reach nearly 13,200 daily vehicles and would
continue to operate at LOS C. The Mexicali-Algodones highway would carry about 7,400 vehicles.
Truck shares would remain constant at 11 percent and its LOS would be unchanged at LOS B.
The road between Islas Agrarias and Los Algodones is projected to carry about 5,400 daily vehicles
and maintain its operations at LOS B. Truck shares would continue at 9 percent of the total volumes.
Proposed Otay Mesa East-Otay II POE: Current Conditions (2030)
Planning for SR 11 is underway as a four-lane highway that would connect to the proposed Otay
Mesa East-Otay II POE. This 2.7-mile highway is projected to carry an AADT of 45,300 vehicles in
2030 and operate at LOS A.
In the unincorporated area of the County of San Diego, several arterials are being planned in the
community of East Otay Mesa, which would serve the new POE indirectly. Planned east-west
facilities include Otay Mesa Road from Piper Ranch Road to Loop Road (4-6 lanes), Lone Star Road
from City of San Diego limits to Loop Road (4-6 lanes), Siempre Viva Road from the City of San
Diego limits to Loop Road (4 lanes), and Via de la Amistad from the City of San Diego limits to Alta
Road (2 lanes). North-south arterials include Alta Road from Lone Star Road to Siempre Viva Road
and Enrico Fermi Drive from Lone Star Road to SR 11.
Proposed El Centinela Border Station: Projected Conditions (2030)
Direct access to the proposed POE at El Centinela would be provided by a new road connecting the
border station and the Tijuana-Mexicali highway. In addition, a new primary arterial would link the
proposed POE to Blvd. Rio Nuevo as well as a new rail line that would connect the POE to the Punta
Colonet seaport south of Ensenada.
SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION AND POE PROJECTS
In order to identify the short-term POE and transportation projects called for in the Scope of Work, the
SANDAG Service Bureau created two questionnaires to request project information (1-5 year timeframe
or 2007-2012) from the TWG. Only those transportation projects that serve a POE and are located within
the “Focused Study Area” were requested.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figures 4-6 through 4-9 illustrate the location of projects submitted in the San Diego County/Tijuana-
Tecate region and Figure 4-10 through 4-12 illustrate the projects located in the Imperial County/Mexicali-
Algodones region.14 Some short-term projects submitted by the TWG have been completed.
Short-Term Projects
Transportation Facility Projects
Data requested from the TWG for transportation improvement projects included: project location,
description of the current facility configuration and planned improvements, Level of Service (LOS) and
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) before and after project completion (2030), accident rate, direct
or indirect linkage to POE, truck volumes or share, year the project becomes operational, current
phase of the project, cost data and funding status, and a qualitative assessment of environmental,
community and economic benefits of the project.
Appendix C-2 includes the listing of submitted transportation facility projects.
POE Projects
Data requested for POE projects included the project description, the anticipated throughput by type
of inspection lane after project completion, year of project completion, current phase of the project,
cost data and funding status, and a qualitative assessment of environmental, community and
economic benefits of the project.
Appendix C-3 includes the listing of submitted POE projects. Partial data was received for short-term
border station projects.
As described earlier, the San Ysidro border station handles about half of the northbound passenger
vehicle and bus crossings in California-Baja California and experiences the longest waits. Short-term
projects include the San Ysidro border station modernization (San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia
Avenue-El Chaparral) and expansion project with some phases of this project anticipated to open to
traffic in 2010. Phasing of this POE project needs to be harmonized with the I-5/I-805 highway
modifications that would be required to accommodate the POE expansion project.
A short-term capital project also is planned at El Chaparral POE to accommodate passenger vehicle
traffic from the United States into Mexico. Fifteen lanes are anticipated. At Puerta México, the border
station would be reconfigured to allow crossings from Mexico into the United States only. Completion
of these projects is expected in 2012.
14
Information was provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. General Services Administration, Mexico’s
Secretariat of Communications and Transportation, Institute of Administration and Estimates of National Real
Estate, California Department of Transportation, Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja
California, Southern California Association of Governments, San Diego Association of Governments, City of Chula
Vista, County of San Diego, and the Municipality of Mexicali’s Institute of Investigation and Planning.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Operational improvements at the San Ysidro border station include a pilot project to operate stacked
booths, expansion of SENTRI lanes (four lanes), upgrades to the primary bus passenger and
secondary inspection areas, and signage upgrades at the POE approach from Mexico and within the
inspection facility.
At the Otay Mesa Passenger POE, expansion of two Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid
Inspection (SENTRI) lanes is planned in 2008. This facility experiences the third highest wait times.
At the Otay Mesa Commercial facility, a project to expand the FAST lanes is anticipated to be
completed in 2007. A study to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the import lot facilities is planned.
At the Mesa de Otay POE, a new fiscal corridor to provide commercial vehicle access for empty
trucks to the Mexican export facility is planned to be completed in 2007.
At the Tecate POE (U.S.), construction of rail inspection facilities is planned. These facilities would be
able to serve the increase in rail crossings projected by 2030. While in 2005 there were 73 rail
crossings, nearly 600 crossings are anticipated in 2030.
Land acquisition for relocating the commercial inspection facilities in Tecate, Mexico, is planned for
2008. The project to build the new commercial POE is anticipated to be completed in 2010.
Coordination on access from Mexico’s new Customs facility to the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement
Facility (CVEF) in the U.S. import lot also is proposed by CBP.
At the Calexico East POE, CBP reported the addition of a SENTRI lane as a planned project.
According to SIDUE, the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (SCT) and SIDUE also
plan a complementary SENTRI lane expansion at the Mexicali II border station.
At the Andrade POE, projects include renovations of the facility and upgrades to pedestrian
processing and traffic control improvements. This POE is the third busiest in terms of pedestrian
crossings.
Feasibility studies for the proposed Otay Mesa East-Otay II POE are planned both in the United
States and Mexico. These studies were completed in 2008. In the United States, in conjunction with
the feasibility study, a master site and space plan of the existing Otay Mesa border station also was
conducted.
No completion dates were reported for most of the short-term projects.

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 4-6

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 4-7

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 4-8

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 4-9

20115: I-5/I-805. Modify Access to POE from Willow Road

20120: SR 188 Truck Bypass Lanes
20122: I-805 Ramp Meters and HOV Bypass Lanes from Telegraph Canyon to Bonita Road
20123: SR 905 Freeway from I-805 to Mexico
20124: Otay Mesa Road Widening from SR 125 to Enrico Fermi Drive
20125: Lone Star Road from Alta Rd. to 0.5 Miles West
20129: Otay Truck Route from Otay Mesa POE to Drucker Lane
20130: Otay Truck Route Widening from Drucker Lane to La Media
20131: SR 125 Toll, Gap, and Connector from SR 905 to SR 54
20164: SR 94 Operational Improvements from Melody Road to SR 188

70156: Tijuana-Tecate Road Widening from del Florido to Toyota

70160: Widening of Mexicali-Tecate Freeway
20135: I-5 and E Street Split Grade Intersection

20136: I-5 and H Street Split Grade Intersection
20138: I-5 and E Street Interchange Improvements
20139: I-5 and H Street Interchange Improvements
20140: I-805 and SR 54 Interchange Improvements
20165: SR 905 and I-805 Interchange Improvements
20166: SR 905 and SR 125 Interchange Construction
20127: South Bay BRT Route 628 -- Otay Ranch to Downtown San Diego

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 4-9 (cont’d)

20126: San Ysidro POE -- Border Bicycle Parking

20176: San Ysidro POE -- Stacked Booth Pilot
20177: San Ysidro POE -- SENTRI Lane Expansion
20178: San Ysidro POE -- Secondary Inspection Upgrades
20179: San Ysidro POE -- Signage Upgrade
20180: San Ysidro POE -- Bus Passenger Inspection
20181: Otay Mesa POE -- SENTRI Lane Expansion
20182: Otay Mesa POE -- FAST Lane Expansion
20183: Otay Mesa POE -- Otay Mesa Feasibility Study
20185: Otay Mesa POE -- Otay Mesa POE Master Site Plan
20184: Otay Mesa East POE -- Otay Mesa East Feasibility Study
20119: Tecate POE -- CHP Truck Inspection Facility
20186: Tecate POE -- Rail Inspection Facilities
20187: Tecate POE -- New CVEF Facility
70157: Mesa de Otay POE -- Commercial Lane Extension

70158: Mesa de Otay II POE -- Feasibility Study
70196/197: Puerta México-El Chaparral POE -- Reconfiguration
70159: Tecate POE -- Acquisition of Land

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 4-10

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 4-11

Chapter 4
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 4-12
Imperial County – Municipality of Mexicali Project Lists (2007-2012)

10102: SR 98 from Navarro Road to SR 111

10104: SR 186 at Andrade CVEF
10110: Cole Road from Bowker Road to SR 98
10111: Cole Road from Kloke Road to the railroad
10112: Second Street Expansion from SR 111 to Dogwood Road
10113: Cesar Chavez Boulevard Expansion from SR 111 to SR 98/Birch Street
10167: SR 98 West from Dogwood to SR 111
Mexicali Projects
40145: Rio Nuevo Extension from Lazaro Cárdenas to Blvd. Héctor Terán Terán
40148: Mexicali-Algodones Road Widening from Calle Novena to Islas Agrarias
40150: Beltway Around Eastern Periphery from Lazaro Cárdenas to Islas Agrarias
40151/152/153: Mexicali-San Luis Rio Colorado Road
10100: Imperial Avenue and I-8 Interchange

10101: Dogwood Avenue and I-8 Interchange
10105: SR 186 and I-8 Interchange
10190: Calexico West POE -- Repair Sink Hole at Primary Inspection

10191: Calexico East POE -- SENTRI Lane Expansion
10192: Andrade POE -- Upgrades to Pedestrian Crossing and Facilities Renovations
10193: Andrade POE -- Traffic Control Barriers
10194: Andrade POE -- Site Expansion

CHAPTER 5
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PORT OF ENTRY
AND RELATED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
This chapter presents the development of the criteria utilized to rank port of entry (POE) projects and
transportation facility projects and includes the methodology for ranking submitted projects featured in
Appendix D.
CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan identified mid- and long-term transportation and POE
operational and infrastructure needs and applied evaluation criteria to prioritize projects. The SANDAG
Service Bureau and the Technical Working Group (TWG) developed criteria for ranking POE and
Transportation projects, which were approved by the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC).
Regional transportation plans and the Binational Transportation Border Infrastructure Needs Assessment
Study (BINS) project, approved by the U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee (JWC), were utilized as
reference materials. Features of various methodologies were incorporated to create transportation facility
criteria that fit within the framework of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan and available
data from stakeholders.
Evaluation criteria were developed to prioritize POE projects and three types of transportation projects:
roadways, interchanges, and rail. Data was gathered for mid- and long-term (operational between 2013
and 2030) transportation facilities and POE projects specific to the focused study area.
Project submissions were received from eight agencies: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans); State of Baja California Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban
Development of Baja California (Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano del Estado or SIDUE); San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG); County of San Diego; City of Chula Vista; City of El Centro; and
Municipal Planning Institute of Tijuana (Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Tijuana or IMPlan). The
remaining agencies did not have projects to submit or coordinated with another submitting agency: U.S.
Department of State; U.S. General Services Administration; U.S. Federal Highway Administration;
Southern California Association of Governments; Imperial Valley Association of Governments; City of
Calexico; Mexico’s Secretariat of Foreign Relations (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores or SRE);
Mexico’s Institute of Administration and Estimates of National Real Estate (Administration and Estimates
of National Real Estate (Instituto de Administración y Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales or INDAABIN);
Mexico’s General Customs Administration (Aduanas); Mexico’s Secretariat of Communications and
Transportation (Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transporte or SCT); Mexico’s Secretariat of Social

Chapter 5
Evaluation Criteria for Port of Entry
and Related Transportation Facilities
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Development (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social or SEDESOL); Direction of Urban Administration of the

Municipality of Mexicali; and the Municipality of Tecate.
POE Projects: Evaluation Criteria
Two sets of criteria and scores were developed to evaluate POE projects. The first set, POE Criteria,
(shown in Table 5-1 on the following page) is based on current POE travel and trade demand, current
POE congestion, and projected change in POE travel demand. The applicable criteria differ by POE
project type, but the maximum possible score by type was normalized to 100 points. This approach
allowed for a level playing field for all project types while highlighting the differences between POE
projects of the same type. The second set, Project Criteria (shown in Table 5-2 on the following page)
pertains specifically to each project, and the same number of criterion is scored for all projects. Each
individual criterion is weighted.
Each POE criterion received a maximum of three points, with the exception of the cost-effectiveness
criterion, which received a maximum score of five points due to the wide range of project costs between
projects types. Score ranges were created to correlate with a score distribution of one to three or one to
five points for the measures of cost-effectiveness, truck percentage share, and average annual daily
traffic improvement. A full description of all POE criteria is included in Appendix D-1.
As shown in Table 5-2, the Project Criteria were weighted with project performance receiving up to 70
percent of the total score, with two main components: project cost-effectiveness (up to 40 percent of the
score) and environmental/community and economic benefits (up to 30 percent of the score). Project
readiness receives up to 30 percent of the total score.
A total of 20 POE projects were submitted by CBP, Caltrans, and SIDUE. Of the submitted POE projects,
seven contained sufficient data for ranking. The approved POE criteria were applied to rank these
projects. A missing data element received zero points for the relevant criterion. The POE project with the
highest overall score is listed first. The POE project rankings are discussed in Chapter 6 and also listed in
Appendix D-2. The detailed POE scores and submitted data can be seen in Appendices D-3 and D-4.
POE projects in early conceptual stages of development, for which quantitative and or qualitative
information was not available, were inventoried without a priority ranking and are listed in Appendix D-16.

Chapter 5
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 5-1
POE Evaluation Criteria
Criteria to be Scored by POE Project Type
Existing Existing
Existing New New Pax
Cargo Cargo New Pax New Rail
Focus Criteria Description Score Pax Truck & Cargo
POE - POE - POE POE
POE POE POE
Truck Rail
1. Crossborder Truck Traffic Number of Trucks that crossed the POE in 2005 NB & SB 1-3
S
2. Crossborder Tonnage of Goods by Truck Volume of Goods in tons transported by truck in 2005 NB 1-3
S
3. Crossborder Value of Goods by Truck Value of Goods in tons transported by truck in 2005 NB 1-3
S
Current
POE 4. Crossborder Passenger Vehicle Traffic Number of Passenger Vehicles and Buses that NB & SB 1-3
S
Demand crossed the POE in 2005
(Travel 5. Crossborder Pedestrian Traffic Number of Pedestrians that crossed the POE in 2005 NB 1-3
S
CURRENT
and
Trade) 6. Crossborder Rail Traffic Number of Rail Cars that crossed the POE in 2005 NB & SB 1-3
S
7. Crossborder Tonnage of Goods by Rail Volume of Goods in tons transported by rail in 2005 NB 1-3
S
8. Crossborder Value of Goods by Rail Value of Goods in tons transported by rail in 2005 NB 1-3
S
9. Truck Wait Times at POE Truck wait times in minutes in 2007 or wait times at NB 1-3
S S S
Current nearest POE in 2007 (for new POEs)
Conges- 10. Passenger Vehicle Wait Times at POE Passenger Vehicle Wait times in minutes in 2007 or NB 1-3
S S S
tion wait times at nearest POE in 2007 (for new POEs)
CURRENT
at POE 11. Pedestrian Wait Times at POE Pedestrian Wait times in minutes in 2005 or wait times at SB 1-3
S S S
nearest POE in 2005 (for new POEs)
12. Change in Crossborder Truck Traffic a. Numerical Change in Number of Trucks between NB 1-3
S S S
2005 and 2030
b. Percent Change in Number of Trucks between NB 1-3
S
2005 and 2030
13. Change in Crossborder a. Numerical Change in Number of Passenger Vehicles NB 1-3
S S S
Projected Passenger Vehicle Traffic and Buses between 2005 and 2030
Change b. Percent Change in Number of Passenger Vehicles NB 1-3
S
in and Buses between 2005 and 2030
POE 14. Change in Crossborder Pedestrian a. Numerical Change in Number of Pedestrians NB 1-3
S S S
Demand Traffic between 2005 and 2030
PROJECTED
(Travel) b. Percent Change in Number of Pedestrians NB 1-3
S
between 2005 and 2030
15. Change in Crossborder Rail Traffic a. Numerical Change in Number of Rail Cars NB 1-3
S S
b. Percent Change in Number of Rail Cars NB 1-3
S
Total Number of Variables to be Scored by POE Project Type 8 6 5 4 2 1 6
Maximum Points by POE Project Type (to be normalized to 100 points by POE project type) 24 18 15 12 6 3 18

Chapter 5
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 5-2
POE Project Evaluation Criteria
Criteria to be Scored by POE Project Type
Existing Existing
Existing New New Pax
Cargo Cargo New Pax New Rail Maximum
Focus Description Score Pax Truck & Cargo Weight
POE - POE - POE POE Points
POE POE POE
Truck Rail
16. Project Cost-Effective- Cost of POE project divided by daily number of projected new
Cost-
ness users (trucks and rail cars for commercial POEs, passenger
Effective- 1-5 S S S S S S S 6 30
vehicles and pedestrians for passenger or tourist POEs)
ness
17. Environmental Project Environmental benefit of the POE project (air quality, habitat
Benefit mitigation) 1-3 S S S S S S S 5 15
Projected
18. Community and Community and economic benefit of the POE project (safety,
Project
Economic access, job and output creation) 1-3 S S S S S S S 5 15
Perform-
Project Benefit
ance
19. Impact on Other Modes Positive impact on other modes of transportation or inspection
procedures at the subject or adjacent POEs 0-2 S S S S S S S 5 10
Project 20. Current Phase of Project Conceptual Planning, Advanced Planning (Plans and
Readi- Specifications), Presidential Permit 1-3 S S S S S S S 10 30
ness
Total Maximum Points 100

Chapter 5
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Transportation Projects: Evaluation Criteria
The approved transportation facility criteria include one set of criteria for roadways and interchanges
(containing slight differences in calculations) and another set of criteria for rail projects.
Roadways and Interchange Criteria
Eleven criteria were developed for ranking roadway and interchange projects. The criteria were grouped
into three criteria types totaling 100 possible points: Congestion/capacity (up to 39 percent of the score);
cost-effectiveness (up to 33 percent of the score); and project readiness, POE connectivity, and regional
benefits (up to 28 percent of the score), as shown in Table 5-3 below. A full description of the criteria is
included in Appendix D-6.
Table 5-3
Roadway and Interchange Evaluation Criteria by Type
Total
Criteria Type Criteria Weighted
Points
1. Level of Service
2. Average Annual Daily Traffic Improvement
Congestion/Capacity 3. Accident Rate 39
4. Truck Percent Share
5. POE Congestion
Cost-Effectiveness 6. Cost-Effectiveness 33
7. Current Phase of Project

8. POE Connection
Project Readiness,
POE Connectivity, 9. Multimodal Benefit 28
Regional Benefit
10. Environmental Benefit
11. Community and Economic Benefit
Total 100
Each criterion was scored separately, weighted by criteria type, and then an overall score for each project
was calculated. The project with the highest overall score was listed first and is considered to have the
highest need. A missing data element received zero points for the relevant criterion.

Chapter 5
BORDER MASTER PLAN
The SANDAG Service Bureau received submissions of 73 roadway and 20 interchange projects from
Caltrans, County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of El Centro, SIDUE, and IMPlan. Of the projects
submitted, 68 roadway projects and 16 interchange projects contained sufficient data for ranking. The
ranked roadway and interchange projects are discussed in Chapter 6 and can be seen in Appendix D-7
and D-10. The detailed roadway and interchange scores and submitted data can be seen in Appendices
D-8 and D-9 and D-11 and D-12, respectively. Roadway and interchange projects in early conceptual
stages of development, for which quantitative and or qualitative information was not available, were
inventoried without a priority ranking and are listed in Appendix D-16.
Rail Criteria
Eight criteria were developed to rank rail projects. The criteria are grouped into three criteria types:
Congestion/capacity (up to 42 percent of the score); cost-effectiveness (up to 36 percent of the score);
and project readiness, POE connectivity, and regional benefits (up to 22 percent of the score), as shown
in Table 5-4. A detailed description of the individual criterion, points, and weighting is included in
Appendix D-6.
Table 5-4
Rail Evaluation Criteria by Type
Total
Criteria Type Criteria Weighted
Points
1. Capacity Improvement
Congestion/Capacity 2. POE Congestion 42
3. Local Circulation Congestion
Cost Effectiveness 4. Cost Effectiveness 36

Project Readiness, 6. POE Connection
POE Connectivity, 22
Regional Benefit 7. Environmental Benefit
Total 100
Each criterion was scored separately, weighted by criteria type, and then an overall score for each project
was calculated. A missing data element received zero points for the relevant criterion. The project with
the highest overall score was listed first and is considered to have the highest need.
The SANDAG Service Bureau received submissions of 100 rail projects from Caltrans, SANDAG, and the
City of El Centro. Of the projects submitted nine contained sufficient data for ranking. The list of ranked

Chapter 5
BORDER MASTER PLAN
rail projects is discussed in Chapter 6 and is also included in Appendix D-13. The detailed rail scores and
submitted data can be seen in Appendices D-14 and D-15. Ninety-one rail projects in early conceptual
stages of development, for which quantitative and or qualitative information was not available were
inventoried without a priority ranking and are listed in Appendix D-16.
The development of criteria for ranking POE and transportation projects has allowed the Border Master
Plan to create, maybe for the first time, a list of prioritized projects within a binational study area. This
methodology was applied to prioritize projects in both California and Baja California. Not all projects
submitted contained sufficient data for ranking. Future updates of the Border Master Plan can incorporate
additional data for these projects as more information becomes available from planning and
implementation activities. The ranked lists serve as a guideline to identify projects of importance within
the California-Baja California border region.

CHAPTER 6
ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF MID-
AND LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION AND
PORT OF ENTRY PROJECTS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan examines mid- and long-term (2013-
2030) port of entry (POE), roadway, rail, and interchange projects serving the POEs, which were
submitted by the California-Baja California Technical Working Group (TWG). The projects are organized
by POE and include project rankings. The analysis intends to identify whether planning and
implementation of POE and connecting transportation facilities are taking place in a coordinated manner
or whether there are any gaps or inconsistencies in the projects and/or project schedules.
The following analysis highlights existing and future conditions of each POE along the California-Baja
California International Border including the connecting transportation facilities. The section is organized
according to the results of POE rankings. For each POE, the section summarizes the POE and related
transportation projects and discusses consistencies or gaps in the planning and implementation
processes. (Refer to Appendix D for detailed data on the projects and rankings.)
Figures 6-1 through 6-5 show the location of the mid- and long-term projects in the San Diego-
Tijuana/Tecate vicinity, while Figures 6-6 through 6-8 illustrate the location of the projects in the Imperial
County-Mexicali vicinity.
A total of 11 POE projects submitted by the TWG were ranked. The projects were submitted by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), with concurrence from U.S. General Services Administration
(GSA); Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development (SIDUE), with concurrence from the
Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (SCT), and the Institute of Administration and
Appraisals of National Real Estate (INDAABIN); and by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). The projects were individually ranked and then grouped by POE. The individual project
rankings were then used to establish a priority order for the POEs. The projects are presented in the
following POE ranked order:
Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II (new POE)
Tecate-Tecate POE

Chapter 6
Analysis and Prioritization of Mid- and Long-Term
Transportation and Port of Entry Projects
BORDER MASTER PLAN
OTAY MESA EAST-MESA DE OTAY II POE
Caltrans, in partnership with SIDUE, as well as federal agencies on both sides of the border, is
sponsoring the development of a new border crossing—the Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE. This
POE will be located approximately two miles east of the existing Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE and will
serve both passengers and commercial vehicles.
Proposed POE Projects for the Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE
Table 6-1
POE Projects
Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE
Project Project Cost Completion

Description Type Phase Rank
No. Name (in U.S. $) Year
4020001 Otay Mesa Construct new POE New passenger $350,000,000 Presidential 2014 1
East – new facility and commercial Permit
POE POE
4070002 Mesa de Construction of a new New passenger $109,990,800 Advanced 2013 2
Otay II – tourist and commercial and commercial Planning
new POE border crossing POE
As shown in Table 6-1, the Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE is a proposed new POE that would
accommodate passengers and commercial traffic. A presidential permit is in process in the United States.
In Mexico, this project is in the advanced planning phase. The proposed projects are ranked 1st and 2nd
out of 11 POE projects evaluated.
Proposed Transportation Projects for the Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II

POE
The TWG was asked to submit mid- and long-term (2013-2030) transportation projects and to designate
the POE primarily served by the project. Planned arterial and highway projects are shown in Table 6-2,
while interchange projects are shown in Table 6-3 according to the ranking results following the approved
evaluation criteria.15
15
The City of Chula Vista did not submit the La Media Road Bridge for evaluation because its completion would likely
occur after 2030. The La Media Road Bridge is included in the City of Chula Vista’s Circulation Element.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 6-2
Roadway Projects
Year
Project Cost
No. Limits Description Phase Open to Rank
Name (in U.S. $)
Traffic
1070012 International Mesa de Otay II Construction of an 8-km $8,249,300 Conceptual 2013 8

Otay II Blvd. POE to Tijuana- roadway for northbound Planning
Tecate Toll Rd. trucks for access to the Mesa
de Otay II border crossing
1070021 International Tijuana-Tecate Construction of a 1.5-km $916,590 Conceptual 2013 8
Otay II Blvd. Toll Rd. to arterial for northbound trucks Planning
Alamar from Tijuana-Tecate Toll
Road to Alamar Blvd.
1070011 Las Highway Construction of a 2-km $2,749,770 Conceptual 2014 15
Torres Blvd. Tijuana - Tecate roadway with a 38-meter Planning
to Mesa de right-of-way
Otay II POE
1070008 Ave. Silvestre Extension of 4-lane roadway $1,833,180 Conceptual 2014 18
International Revueltas for truck circulation and 500 Planning
East Street to 12 meters of additional access
Norte St. to Mesa de Otay II
1020022 Enrico Otay Mesa Rd. Enhanced arterial from Otay $7,000,000 Conceptual 2030 24
Fermi Dr. to SR 11 Mesa Rd. to SR 11 Planning
1020021 Enrico Lone Star Rd. Arterial from Lone Star Rd. to $6,000,000 Conceptual 2030 27
Fermi Dr. to Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Rd. Planning
Rd.
1020034 Siempre Alta Rd. to Loop Arterial from Alta Rd. to Loop $9,000,000 Conceptual 2030 27
Viva Rd. Rd. Rd. Planning
1020035 Siempre Loop Rd. to Arterial from Loop Rd. to $3,000,000 Conceptual 2030 27
Viva Rd. Roque Rd Roque Rd. Planning
1020014 Airway Rd. City of SD to Arterial from City of SD to $3,000,000 Conceptual 2030 31
Enrico Fermi Enrico Fermi Dr. Planning
Drive
1020025 Lone Star Rd. Piper Ranch to Arterial from Piper Ranch to $12,000,000 Conceptual 2030 31
Sunroad Blvd. Sunroad Blvd. Planning
1020033 Siempre City of SD to Arterial from City of SD to $6,000,000 Conceptual 2030 33

Viva Rd. Alta Rd. Alta Rd. Planning
1020030 Otay Mesa Rd. Sanyo Rd to Arterial from Sanyo Rd. to $9,000,000 Conceptual 2030 34
Enrico Fermi Enrico Fermi Planning
1020028 Lone Star Rd. Enrico Fermi Arterial from Enrico Fermi $6,000,000 Conceptual 2030 35
Rd. to Alta Rd. Rd. to Alta Rd. Planning
1020023 Enrico SR 11 to Airway Enhanced Arterial from $7,000,000 Conceptual 2030 44

Fermi Dr. Rd. SR 11 to Airway Rd. Planning
1020026 Lone Star Rd. Sunroad Blvd. Arterial from Sunroad Blvd. $3,000,000 Conceptual 2030 44
to Vann Center to Vann Center Blvd. Planning
Blvd.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 6-2 (cont’d)

Roadway Projects
Year
Project Cost
No. Limits Description Phase Open to Rank
Name (in U.S. $)
Traffic
1020027 Lone Star Vann Center Arterial from Vann Center $6,000,000 Conceptual 2030 44
Road Blvd to Enrico Blvd to Enrico Fermi D. Planning
Fermi Dr.
1020029 Otay Mesa Rd. Arterial from Otay Mesa Rd.
Conceptual
Lone Star Rd. to Siempre Viva to Siempre Viva Rd. $12,000,000 2030 48
Planning
Rd.
1020017 Alta Rd. Old Otay Mesa Arterial from Old Otay Mesa $8,000,000 Conceptual 2030 48
Rd. To Rd. to Donovan State Prison Planning
Donovan State
Prison
1020019 Alta Rd. Otay Mesa Rd. Arterial from Otay Mesa Rd. $6,000,000 Conceptual 2030 51
to Airway Rd. to Airway Rd. Planning
1020038 Via de la City of Collector $3,000,000 Conceptual 2030 54
Amistad SD/Enrico Planning
Fermi to Alta
Rd.
1020005 SR 11 SR 905 to Construct 4 toll lanes $377,850,000 Advanced 2014 59
Mexico Planning
1020015 Airway Rd. Enrico Fermi Arterial from Enrico Fermi $6,000,000 Conceptual 2030 61
Rd. to Alta Rd. Rd. to Alta Rd. Planning
1020016 Airway Rd. Alta Rd. to Loop Arterial from Alta Rd. to Loop $6,000,000 Conceptual 2030 61
Rd. Rd. Planning
1020018 Alta Rd. Lone Star Rd. Arterial from Lone Star Rd. to $6,000,000 Conceptual 2030 61
to Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Rd. Planning
Rd.
1020032 Otay Mesa Rd. Alta Rd. to Loop Arterial from Alta Rd. to Loop $9,000,000 Conceptual 2030 61
Rd. Rd. Planning
1020020 Alta Rd. Airway Rd. to Arterial from Airway Rd.to $6,000,000 Conceptual 2030 65
Siempre Viva Siempre Viva Rd. Planning
Rd.
1020024 Airway Rd. to
Enrico Fermi Arterial from Airway Rd. to Conceptual
Siempre Viva $1,500,000 2030 66
Dr. Siempre Viva Rd. Planning
Rd.
1020031 Enrico Fermi Arterial from Enrico Fermi Conceptual
Otay Mesa Rd. $6,000,000 2030 67
Rd to Alta Rd. Rd. to Alta Rd. Planning

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 6-3
Interchange Projects
Year
Cost
No. Project Name Description Phase Open to Rank
(in U.S. $)
Traffic
2070001 Bridge and node over Construction of 40-meter bridge with a $7,332,720 Conceptual 2014 4
the toll road from 200-meter intersection over the toll Planning
Tijuana - Tecate with road from Tijuana - Tecate with
access to Blvd. de las access to the Blvd. de las Torres
Torres
2060002 Freeway node at the Completion of the roadway inter- $3,809,520 Advanced 2013 4
Tecate-Tijuana toll section Planning
road
2070006 International Otay II Construction of interchange to $7,332,720 Conceptual 2014 8
Blvd. - Tijuana- connect Mesa de Otay II POE Planning
Tecate toll road
node
2070007 International Otay II Construction of International Otay II $7,332,720 Conceptual 2014 10
Blvd. - Alamar node Blvd. - Alamar node Planning
Assessment of Projects
Binational coordination of planning and implementation activities for the proposed Otay Mesa East-Mesa
de Otay II POE and the connecting roads is ongoing through the Technical Commission for the
Infrastructure and Ports of Entry Committee of the San Diego-Tijuana Border Liaison Mechanism. Both
countries are conducting required studies to implement the new POE.
The schedules for completion of the U.S. and Mexico’s projects at the Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II
POE appear not to be fully coordinated since the project in Mexico is planned for completion in 2013
while the POE in the United States is scheduled for completion in 2014.
In terms of roadway connections in San Diego County, the new POE would be linked to SR 905 and
SR 125 toll road via the future SR 11, which would be a direct connector to the POE. This project is tied
to the construction of the POE, and therefore, scheduled for completion in 2014. This project ranked 59
out of 68 roadway projects evaluated, primarily due to a low-cost efficiency score.
Many new local roads in the County of San Diego are planned to provide parallel routes to SR 11 and
primary connections serving the local community. Virtually all of these local roads are planned to be
constructed by 2030.
In Mexico, two new roads are planned to provide access to the proposed POE: the first road, International
Otay II Boulevard, is designed to serve northbound trucks from Mexico to the POE. This roadway project
was submitted in two segments to connect the POE to the Tijuana-Tecate toll road and from the toll road
to Alamar Vía Rápida. (Alamar is a new roadway that is described later in this chapter under the Otay

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE section.) Both segments are planned for completion in 2013 (ranked 8th). The
next new roadway is the six-lane Las Torres Boulevard, which will directly connect to the POE and is
planned for completion in 2014 (ranked 15th). This road will carry primarily southbound truck traffic from
the POE into Mexico. (Depending on the final configuration of the Mexican federal compound, some
passenger vehicles may be allowed to share this roadway, but the primary passenger-vehicle access to
and from the POE will be Bellas Artes.)
Another project directly serving the proposed Mesa de Otay II POE is the extension of Avenue
International East. This roadway currently exists from Mesa de Otay POE to the east, ending just short of
the proposed POE. It will be extended to facilitate truck traffic between the two POEs. This project ranked
18th and is scheduled for completion in 2014.
A few interchanges are planned in Mexico to facilitate traffic and connect the roadways from the Mesa de
Otay II border station with other roads that carry traffic locally and between the new POE and the Tecate-
Tecate POE. One new interchange (bridge and node over the Tijuana-Tecate toll road with access to Las
Torres Boulevard) will connect directly with Las Torres Boulevard and is timed to be completed at the
same time as Las Torres Boulevard (2014). It ranked 4th out of all 16 interchange projects ranked.
The new interchange project at International Otay II Boulevard and Tijuana Tecate toll road connects
International Otay II Boulevard to the toll road and is scheduled for completion in 2014. It ranked 8th.
Another new intersection is planned at International Otay II Boulevard and the new roadway Alamar Vía
Rápida. It is timed to be completed in 2013, the same time as both new roadways are finished. It ranked
10th.
The freeway node and the Tecate-Tijuana toll road is an improvement to an existing interchange to
facilitate passenger-vehicle and truck traffic between the Mesa de Otay II POE and the Tecate POE.
(Approximately 40 percent of the annual average daily traffic on this interchange is used by trucks.) The
project is scheduled for completion in 2013 and appears to be timed with the opening of Mesa de Otay II
border station. In terms of ranking, it is tied for 4th.
SAN YSIDRO-PUERTA MÉXICO POE
The San Ysidro-Puerta México POE serves pedestrians and passenger vehicles (including buses). It
does not serve commercial vehicles; however, a rail line crosses at this POE. The POE is open seven
days a week and 24 hours a day.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Proposed POE Projects for the San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia Avenue-

El Chaparral POE
Table 6-4
POE Projects
San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia Avenue/El Chaparral POE
Project Project Cost Completion

Description Type Phase Rank
No. Name (in U.S. $) Year
4020003 San Ysidro POE expansion improvements, Existing $565,000,000 Advanced 2014 3
POE re- increase number of passenger Passenger Planning
design lanes, associated roadway POE
improvements to access I-5 at
the POE
As shown in Table 6-4, one POE project was submitted for the POE for ranking. It is important to note
that the counterpart to this POE project in Mexico was proposed as a short-term project earlier in the
study and a brief description is included in the discussion below.
The redesign the San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia-El Chaparral POE is proposed to alleviate
congestion at the POE. This project is being coordinated with Mexico to convert the existing southbound
lanes into northbound lanes to help facilitate northbound traffic into the United States. Some of these
lanes could be double-stacked (i.e., two inspection booths per passenger-vehicle lane). When double-
stacking is taken into account, San Ysidro is expected to have 50 regular passenger-vehicle inspection
booths, 6 SENTRI lanes, 2 bus lanes, and 12 pedestrian lanes. Part of this project includes the
associated roadway improvements to access the POE, including southbound access from Interstate 5 (I-
5) through the federal facility at Virginia Avenue. This project ranked 3rd out of all 11 POE projects ranked
by the TWG.
In Mexico, southbound passenger-vehicle traffic is currently processed through nine lanes (includes two
bus lanes) at Puerta México. As described above, these lanes will be converted to northbound lanes.
Southbound traffic will be accommodated through the Virginia Avenue/El Chaparral gate, located just
west of the existing San Ysidro/Puerta México POE. El Chaparral will have 15 southbound passenger-
vehicle lanes (including three bus lanes) and one return to the U.S. lane. It also includes the construction
of covered areas for bus and auto inspections. This project is expected to be completed in 2012, and,
therefore, it was not ranked as part of this process as the project falls within the short-term time frame.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Proposed Transportation Projects for the San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia

Avenue-El Chaparral POE
the POE primarily served by the project. Table 6-5 lists the planned arterial and highway projects that
serve the San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE. Table 6-6 presents interchange
projects while Table 6-7 shows rail projects. All projects are shown according to the ranking results
following the approved evaluation criteria.
Table 6-5
Roadway Projects
San Ysidro-Puerta México/El Chaparral POE
Year
Project Cost
Project Name Limits Description Phase Open to Rank
No. (in U.S. $)
Traffic
1070010 Incorporation of International Construction of a .7-km $2,291,480 Conceptual 2014 2

International Blvd. to Centro roadway section to Planning
Ave. West to vía de Gobierno – incorporate International
Rápida Civic Center Ave. West to the Vía
Rápida
1070007 Ramp on Pedestrian Construction of a ramp $2,291,480 Conceptual 2013 6
western crest of Bridge to and retaining wall 600 Planning
the Tijuana Bridge Mexico meters in length from
River channel slope to crest west of the
Tijuana River channel in
order to connect the
Chaparral border
crossing with Tijuana
1020003 I-5 SR 905 to Construct 2 high occu- $202,000,000 Conceptual 2020 14
SR 54 pancy vehicle (HOV) Planning
lanes
1070006 Ramp in eastern Pedestrian Construction of a ramp $2,291,480 Conceptual 2013 18
crest of the bridge to bridge and retaining wall 600 Planning
Tijuana River Mexico meters in length from
Channel slope to crest east of the
Tijuana river channel in
order to connect the
“Chaparral” border
crossing to Tijuana
1070003 Vehicular bridge Vía Rápida Construction of a 1-lane $3,666,360 Conceptual 2013 22
over the channel East to vía bridge adjacent existing Planning
of the Tijuana Rápida West bridge in the Tijuana
River River channel
1070004 Vehicular bridge Vía Rápida Construction of a 2-lane $7,332,720 Conceptual 2013 22
over the channel East, at the (same direction) vehicular Planning
of the Tijuana same elevation bridge over the Tijuana
River as calle River channel in order to
Frontera to vía connect the “El
Rápida West Chaparral” border
crossing to Tijuana

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN

Roadway Projects
Year
Project Cost
No. (in U.S. $)
Traffic
1070005 Expansion of the Pedestrian Construction (expansion) $1,833,180 Conceptual 2013 24

via Rápida East bridge to bridge of 2 lanes 600 meters in Planning
Tijuana Mexico length in the via Rápida
east to connect the El
Chaparral border
crossing to Tijuana
1070009 Double deck Intersection of Construction of a double $146,654,450 Conceptual 2014 26
International via Rápida East deck for International Planning
Ave. West to access to Ave. West with a length
Playas de of 10 km. for access to El
Tijuana Chaparral
1020010 I-805 Palomar St. to Construct 4 managed $884,000,000 Advanced 2030 39
SR 94 lanes from Palomar St. to Planning
SR 94
1020004 I-5 SR 54 to I-8 Construct 2 HOV lanes $934,000,000 Conceptual 2020 40

Planning
1020009 I-805 SR 905 to Construct 4 managed $288,000,000 Conceptual 2030 42
Palomar St. lanes from SR 905 to Planning
Palomar St.
Table 6-6
Year
Project Cost
Project Name Description Phase Open to Rank
No. (in U.S. $)
Traffic
2070003 Cuauhtemoc- Construction of the Cuauhtemoc- $4,582,950 Conceptual 2018 3

Padre Kino node Padre Kino node Planning
2020003 I-805 – Main St./ Revise interchange $20,000,000 Conceptual 2015 7
Auto Park Dr. Planning
undercrossing
2020002 I-805 / Palm Ave. Revise interchange $60,000,000 Advanced 2014 8
overcrossing Planning
2020001 I-5 from north of Interchange improvements, local $375,000,000 Conceptual N/A 15
SR 54 to J St. road improvements, & new Planning
overcrossing structures

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 6-7
Rail Projects
Year
Project Cost
No. (in U.S. $)
Traffic
3020018 Blue Line San Ysidro to Increase in Blue Line $165,625,000 Conceptual 2014 2
Trolley service Downtown San Trolley service Planning
Diego (headways: peak 7.5, off-
peak 7.5 mins.)
3020001 South Line International Sidings, passing, Mexico $92,187,500 Advanced 2015 3
Border to connectivity, Coronado Planning
Broadway Line rehab
3020004 Desert Line Division to Basic service $15,800,000 Conceptual -- 4
Plaster City Planning
3020003 Amtrak Intercity San Diego Construction of a $33,000,000 Conceptual -- 5

Rail Yard maintenance facility Planning
Binational coordination of planning and implementation activities for the San Ysidro-Puerta México POE
reconfiguration and expansion is accomplished through the San Ysidro-Puerta México Technical
Commission for the Infrastructure and Ports of Entry Committee of the San Diego-Tijuana Border Liaison
Mechanism. The schedules for completion of the U.S. and Mexico’s projects at the San Ysidro-Puerta
México/Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE appear not to be fully coordinated since the project in the
United States, and the associated freeway improvements are anticipated to open to traffic in 2014, while
the project in Mexico is planned for completion in 2012. The Service Bureau understands that the U.S.
GSA could advance the reconfiguration of the southbound lanes to Virginia Avenue/El Chaparral to meet
Mexico’s planned schedule (2012) if funding became available.
The Service Bureau understands that part of the POE proposal at the San Ysidro border station is the
transfer of the I-5 right-of-way south of Camino de la Plaza from Caltrans to GSA. Thus, the realignment
of the I-5 to access the Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE would occur on the federal compound. Thus,
no separate project to realign I-5 was provided by Caltrans.
In San Diego, two projects on I-5 were submitted to construct high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. The
first segment is from SR 905 to SR 54, and the second segment is from SR 54 to I-8. Both segments are
planned for completion in 2020. The SR 905 to SR 54 project ranked 14th out of 68 projects evaluated,
while the SR 54 to I-8 segment ranked 40th.
The two projects on I-805 are for the construction of four managed lanes. One segment is from SR 905 to
Palomar Street (ranked 42nd) and the other is from Palomar Street to SR 94 (ranked 37th). Both
segments are planned for completion in 2030. However, the first phase of this project will add one HOV

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
lane in each direction and is scheduled to be completed in 2012. These projects on I-5 and I-805 are
designed to improve freeway capacity for crossborder travel, as well as to serve anticipated population
growth in the area. The interchange projects submitted on these freeways also are geared to improve
capacity through reconfigurations. The interchange projects on I-805 are scheduled for completion in
2014 and 2015. Completion dates for the I-5 interchange projects were not provided.
In San Diego, four rail projects were submitted. The first is the Blue Line Trolley service to increase
frequency of services from 7.5 minutes peak and 15 minutes off-peak to 7.5 minutes in both peak and off-
peak hours for travel between the San Ysidro border station and downtown San Diego.16 It ranked 2nd
out of nine rail projects and is planned for completion in 2014.
Three freight rail projects were submitted. The first is the South Line, which ranked 3rd and is planned to
be completed in 2015.17 The second is the Desert Line basic service. This project ranked 4th; no
completion date was submitted. The third is the Amtrak Intercity Rail Yard, which ranked 5th. No
completion date was submitted.
In Mexico, it appears that although the Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE would be opened to traffic in
2012, the local roads connecting the El Chaparral POE to the City of Tijuana will not be completed until
2013 or 2014.
In Mexico, the reconfiguration of the POE and the new location of the border crossing for southbound
passenger vehicles require improvements on several local roadways in order to move the traffic from
El Chaparral POE into the City of Tijuana or toward Playas de Tijuana and onto the Tijuana-Ensenada
Toll Road.
The construction of a new vehicular bridge is planned in order to carry the southbound traffic from
El Chaparral across the Tijuana River Channel to the City of Tijuana arterial network. This project, ranked
22, primarily carries the traffic from the POE to Playas de Tijuana and to the Tijuana-Ensenada Toll Road.
Another bridge project will allow motorists to cross the Tijuana River Channel and head south into the
Tijuana arterial network. This bridge project also ranked 22nd. Associated with these projects is the
construction of a ramp on the western crest of the Tijuana River channel (ranked 6th) and of another
ramp on the eastern crest of the channel (ranked 18th). Also, the expansion of the Vía Rápida East from
three to five lanes would facilitate circulation. It ranked 24th and connects El Chaparral crossing to the
City of Tijuana arterial network. All of these projects are timed to be opened to traffic in 2013. These
projects seem to be well coordinated.
16
The Blue Line Trolley project extends beyond the ten-mile focus study area of this study. The mile posts, costs,
and ridership numbers reflect only the portion of the route located within the ten-mile boundary.
17
The South Line project extends beyond the ten-mile focus study area of this study. The mile posts, costs, and
carload estimates reflect only the portion of the route located within the ten-mile boundary.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
An additional project related to the El Chaparral border station is the construction of a double deck for
International Ave. West from Vía Rápida East to access Playas de Tijuana. This project ranked 26th and
is scheduled for completion in 2014. Another new road segment is proposed to connect International Ave.
West to the Vía Rápida, which carries vehicles into the City of Tijuana. This new roadway ranked 2nd out
of all 68 roadway projects and is expected to be complete in 2014.
In Mexico, one interchange is planned at Cuauhtémoc and Padre Kino. Padre Kino is a northbound
roadway that connects to the Puerta México border station. It ranked 3rd and is scheduled for completion
in 2018.
CALEXICO-MEXICALI POE
The Calexico-Mexicali POE serves pedestrians, passenger vehicles and rail. The POE operates 7 days a
week and 24 hours a day. No commercial trucks cross at this facility since the Calexico East-Mexicali II
POE opened in 1997; however, there is freight rail service that operates regularly.
Proposed POE Projects for the Calexico-Mexicali POE
Table 6-8
POE Projects
Project Cost Completion

Project Name Description Type Phase Rank
No. (in U.S. $) Year
4040001 Mexicali -Calexico Improve and expand Existing $11,182,400 Conceptual 2013 4
west expansion and the Mexicali- Passenger Planning
improvement of the Calexico border POE
customs facilities crossing
4010004 Calexico redesign Move southbound Existing $225,000,000 Advanced 2013 5
traffic to vacated Passenger Planning
commercial facility; POE
and reconfigure
northbound traffic to
facilitate pedestrian
and bus movements
Two projects are shown in Table 6-8. The expansion projects at the Calexico-Mexicali POE are proposed
to alleviate current congestion at the border crossing. Prior to the opening of Calexico East-Mexicali II
POE in 1997, commercial vehicles crossed at the Calexico-Mexicali POE. Currently, the POE serves
passenger vehicles and pedestrians. In Calexico, plans are to construct a new facility on the vacated
commercial site (west of the railroad tracks) to process north and southbound passenger vehicles.
Pedestrian and buses would be processed at the existing facility. The Calexico border station currently
has ten passenger, one SENTRI, one bus, and four pedestrian northbound lanes. The project would
expand to 16 passenger-vehicle lanes/booths with possible double-stacking (includes two SENTRI and

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
one bus lane) and six pedestrian lanes. This project ranked 5th out of all 11 POE projects that were
evaluated.
In Mexico, detailed plans of the lane configurations and changes were not provided, but it is understood
that the federal government will make improvements to the federal inspection facilities located in Mexicali
and reconfigure the roadways within the Mexican federal compound to connect to the new passenger-
vehicle facility in Calexico. The POE improvement project ranked 4th out of the 11 POE projects.
Proposed Transportation Projects for the Calexico-Mexicali POE
the POE primarily served by the project. Projects are shown in Tables 6-9 through 6-11 according to the
ranking results following the approved evaluation criteria. Table 6-9 lists arterial and highway projects.
Table 6-10 presents interchange projects while Table 6-11 shows rail projects.
Table 6-9
Roadway Projects
Year
Project Cost Open to
No. Name Limits Description (in U.S. $) Phase Traffic Rank
1040003 Extension of Lázaro Construction of a 3.5- $5,545,370 Advanced 2014 12

the central Cárdenas Blvd. km. primary roadway Planning
axis to Gómez Morin like the extension of the
Road Rio Nuevo roadway
1040004 Terán-Terán San Felipe Improvement of the $7,607,700 Advanced 2013 12
Blvd. highway to existing 8-km. roadway Planning
Tijuana highway
1040002 Western Intersection with Construction of a 7-km. $10,724,110 Conceptual 2018 16
periphery the proposed primary roadway Planning
International
roadway west to
Tijuana highway
1040001 Colon Ave. Leyes de Construction of a 4-km., $3,849,680 Conceptual 2014 20
West Reforma Bridge primary roadway with 2 Planning
to a proposed lanes in both directions
roadway on the
western
periphery
1010015 Imperial Ave. I-8 to Aten Rd. Improve to 6-lane $26,200,000 Conceptual 2030 40
primary arterial Planning
1010011 Dogwood SR 98 to Mead Improve to 5-lane $182,400,000 Conceptual 2030 42

Rd. primary arterial Planning

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN

Roadway Projects
Year
Project Cost Open to
No. Name Limits Description (in U.S. $) Phase Traffic Rank
1010018 SR 111 SR 98 to I-8 Upgrade 4-lane express- $456,000,000 Advanced 2015 44

way to 6-lane freeway Planning
and interchanges at
Jasper Rd, McCabe Rd.,
and Heber Rd.
1010009 Imperial Ave. McCabe Rd. to Improve and construct a $28,200,000 Conceptual 2016 50
(McCabe I-8 6-lane primary arterial Planning
Rd. to I-8)
1010001 I-8 Forrester Rd. to Add 2 general purpose $188,700,000 Conceptual -- 51
SR 111 lanes Planning
1010016 8th St. Wake Ave. to Widen to 4 lanes $4,000,000 Advanced 2013 51
overpass Centinela Planning
1010005 SR 111 I-8 to SR 78 Add 2 general purpose $500,000,000 Conceptual -- 54

lanes and construct Planning
interchanges
1010019 SR 98 SR 98 to Cesar Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $50,000,000 Conceptual 2016 54

Chavez Blvd. at grade railroad Planning
crossing at SR 98 and
Cesar Chavez Blvd.
1010017 SR 98 East SR 111 to SR 7 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $150,000,00 Advanced 2016 57
0 Planning
Table 6-10
Year
Cost
(in U.S. $)
Traffic
2010004 Jasper Rd. / SR Construct new freeway interchange $43,000,000 Advanced 2015 10
111 planning
2010001 Austin Rd. /I -8 Construct interchange at Austin Rd. $30,000,000 Conceptual N/A 12
interchange / I-8 (LRTP No. 9) planning
2010002 Bowker Rd. / I-8 Construct interchange at Bowker $30,000,000 Conceptual N/A 13
interchange Rd. / I-8 (LRTP No. 19) planning

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 6-11
Rail Projects
Year
Cost
No. Project Name Limits Description Phase Open to Rank
(in U.S. $)
Traffic
3010083 McCabe Intersection Grade separation of rail- $45,000,000 Conceptual 2020 8

Dogwood grade McCabe road intersection with Planning
separation and McCabe Rd. and Dog-
Dogwood wood Ave.
3010084 City of City of El Grade separations at $160,000,000 Conceptual 2030 8
El Centro grade Centro various locations Planning
separations
Binational coordination of planning and implementation activities for the proposed Calexico-Mexicali POE
and the connecting roads is accomplished through the Calexico-Mexicali Technical Commission for the
Infrastructure and Ports of Entry Committee of the San Diego-Tijuana Border Liaison Mechanism. The
project completion dates are coordinated as projects in both the United States and in Mexico are planned
for completion in 2013.
In terms of transportation facilities, SR 111 is the direct connection to the POE in Calexico. The U.S. GSA
is studying the options for moving the south and northbound passenger-vehicle traffic through the vacated
federal compound. Details have not been made available to the Service Bureau whether the north and
southbound passenger vehicles would move through the federal facility and connect to SR 111 or to
Cesar Chavez Boulevard or both. According to Caltrans staff, expansion of SR 111 is unlikely due to
right-of-way constraints, as this four-lane state route is lined with businesses on both sides of the
roadway. However, operational improvements to SR 111 to accommodate additional passenger-vehicle
traffic would be possible. Another challenge with this option is that the roadway through the federal facility
to SR 111 would have to cross the railroad tracks. This could cause delays and backups for both north
and southbound traffic.
The Service Bureau understands that another option is to realign Cesar Chavez Boulevard to directly
connect to the Calexico border station. A short-term project was submitted (completion 2012) to expand
Cesar Chavez Boulevard from SR 111 to SR 98/Birch from two to four lanes. At this point a specific
project to realign Cesar Chavez Boulevard to the POE was not provided and may be pending the
outcome of the POE design.
A challenge to the efficient operation of the Calexico border station is the location of the railroad. Vehicles
already experience delays waiting for trains to pass as they travel southbound into Mexico. Currently, the
train crossing does not interfere with northbound passenger vehicles traveling into the United States from
Mexico, nor does it interfere with existing roadways that directly connect to the POE in Mexicali. However,

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
in order to reconfigure the northbound passenger vehicle lanes along Colon Avenue to connect with the
new passenger vehicle entrance, the railroad does come into play. The Service Bureau understands that
INDAABIN and SIDUE are examining alternatives for dealing with the railroad crossing so that passenger
vehicles can efficiently access the new northbound entrance.
Two projects were submitted for improvements on SR 111: an upgrade from four to six lanes between
SR 98 and I-8 and associated interchanges (planned completion date 2015) and addition of two general
purpose lanes between I-8 and SR 78 (no planned completion date provided). On I-8 the addition of two
general purpose lanes from Forrester Road to SR 111 is proposed, but no completion date was provided.
These projects provide highway access to the Calexico-Mexicali POE and increase capacity to
accommodate population growth in Imperial County. The projects are ranked 44, 54, and 51, respectively.
Two projects were submitted for SR 98. One is a widening from two to four lanes at the railroad crossing
at SR 98 and Cesar Chavez Boulevard. It also ranked 54th and is scheduled for completion in 2016. The
other project is the widening of SR 98 East from two to four lanes. This roadway will expand the capacity
between SR 111 and SR 7, which connects to Calexico East-Mexicali II POE. It ranked 57th out of 68
roadway projects evaluated and is scheduled to be open for traffic in 2016. (Note: SR 98 West widening
from Dogwood Road to SR 111 was submitted as a short-term project to be completed in 2012 and
therefore, was not ranked.)
Various other projects were submitted that will improve capacity to serve local population growth and
crossborder travel. These include improvements on two segments of Imperial Avenue (ranked 40th and
50th), Dogwood Road (ranked 42th), and 8th Overpass (ranked 51st).
In Imperial County, a few interchange projects were submitted to improve capacity of the roadway system
and generally serve population growth in the county. The new freeway interchange at Jasper Road and
SR 111 ranked 10th and is scheduled for completion in 2015. The other two interchange projects (Austin
Road and I-8 and Bowker Road and I-8) are in the conceptual planning phase, and no completion dates
were provided.
Table 6-11 lists two rail, grade separation projects proposed to alleviate congestion to local roads in the
City of El Centro. The two projects are scheduled for completion in 2020 and are tied in 8th place out of
nine rail projects evaluated.
Note: Two additional rail projects are grade separation improvements at SR 98 east of Cesar Chavez
Boulevard and at Cesar Chavez Boulevard at the Calexico-Mexicali POE. Due to insufficient data, these
projects are not ranked, but are included in the inventory of rail projects listed in Appendix D-16.
In Mexicali, the roadway improvement projects are geared at capacity improvements on arterials that
connect the Mexicali and Mexicali II border crossings. The extension of the Central axis is a new north-
south, four-lane road from Lázaro Cárdenas Boulevard to Gómez Morin Road that will intersect with
Terán Terán Blvd. It ranked 12th and is scheduled for completion in 2014. Improvements on Terán Terán
Blvd. from four to six lanes between the Tijuana-Mexicali and the Mexicali-San Felipe highways is
proposed to accommodate traffic more efficiently between Mexicali and Mexicali II border stations. This
project’s ranking tied for 12th and is planned for completion in 2013. Another new road being planned is

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
one on the western periphery. It runs north and south and will help facilitate border crossing traffic by
offering an alternative route from the Mexicali POE to the Tijuana-Mexicali highway. It ranked 16th and is
planned for completion in 2018. The Colon Avenue West is a new east-west road that will connect to the
proposed western periphery road previously mentioned. This roadway ranked 19th and is expected to be
opened to traffic in 2014.
Many of the projects planned for increasing capacity and improving the flow of traffic appear to be timed
with the opening of the new passenger vehicle crossing facility at the POE. The Service Bureau
understands that INDAABIN and SIDUE are examining alternatives for reconfiguring the northbound
passenger vehicle lanes to connect to the new northbound entrance.
No interchange or rail projects serving this POE in Mexico were submitted.
OTAY MESA-MESA DE OTAY POE
The Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE was opened in 1985 for northbound passenger and commercial
vehicle traffic and southbound passenger vehicles. In 1994, it began processing southbound commercial
vehicles when the Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral gate ceased operations. It provides service for
pedestrians, passenger vehicles (including bus), and commercial vehicles. The POE includes separate
operations for cargo and passenger vehicles. The passenger crossing facility is open seven days a week
and 24 hours per day. Cargo facilities operate reduced hours.
Proposed POE Projects for the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE
Table 6-12
POE Projects

4020005 Otay Mesa Improve commercial Existing -- Conceptual -- 6

expansion- throughput with Commercial Planning
commercial facility additional lanes POE-Truck
4020004 Otay Mesa Improve passenger Existing -- Conceptual -- 8

expansion- throughput with Passenger Planning
passenger facility additional lanes POE
As shown in Table 6-12, U.S. CBP proposes to improve passenger and commercial throughput by
expanding the number of lanes at the existing Otay Mesa POE. The commercial facility currently has 12
commercial lanes, while the passenger facility has 13 passenger vehicle lanes. The additional number of
lanes to be operational in 2030 is pending the outcome of a feasibility study. The commercial facility

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
project ranked 6th out of 11 POE projects evaluated, while the passenger facility project ranked 8th.
These projects are in the conceptual phase. The anticipated completion dates or cost estimates were not
provided.18
Proposed Transportation Projects for the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE
the POE primarily served by the project. Table 6-13 lists the roadway and projects that serve the POE.
Interchange and railway projects are shown in Tables 6-14 and 6-15, respectively.
Table 6-13
Roadway Projects
Year
Cost
(in U.S. $)
Traffic
1070020 Alamar vía Central bus Construction of the vía $36,663,610 Advanced 2013 1
Rápida station to Rápida Alamar with 3 Planning
Tijuana- lanes in both directions
Rosarito for 10 km. and side
2000 Blvd. roads
1070014 Industrial Blvd. Airport Improvement of the $1,833,180 Advanced 2014 2
access road primary, 6-km. road- Planning
to Terán way with access to the
Blvd. Otay I and II border
crossings
1020012 SR 905 I-805 to Add 2 general purpose $200,000,000 Conceptual 2030 16
border lanes Planning
1020007 SR 125 Telegraph Add 4 toll lanes from $130,000,000 Conceptual 2030 37
Cyn. to San Telegraph Cyn. to San Planning
Miguel Rd. Miguel Rd.
1020008 SR 125 San Miguel Add 4 toll lanes from $40,000,000 Conceptual 2030 37
Rd. to San Miguel Rd. to Planning
SR 54 SR 54
1020002 Willow Street Sweetwater Widen or replace $17,052,000 Advanced 2013 58
Bridge Rd. to bridge across Planning
Bonita Rd. Sweetwater River
18
Although these POE projects are evaluated separately for technical reasons, CBP considers the lane expansions
at the commercial and passenger facilities to be one project.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN

Roadway Projects
Year
Cost
(in U.S. $)
Traffic
1020001 Heritage Road Main Street Bridge across Otay $40,446,000 Conceptual 2023 59
Bridge to south of Valley Planning
the Otay
River
1020013 Otay Mesa Britannia Widening and realign- $23,000,000 Advanced 2014 68
southbound Blvd. to ment Planning
truck route Otay Mesa
POE
Table 6-14
Year
Cost
(in U.S. $)
Traffic
2070002 Airport node - Construction of airport - Bellas Artes $5,499,540 Conceptual 2018 1
Bellas Artes node with access to the Otay I border Planning
crossing
2070005 Industrial Avenue - Optimization of Industrial Ave. $7,332,720 Conceptual 2013 2
Terán Terán node intersection -Terán Terán, access to Planning
Otay I and II border crossing
2070004 Bellas Artes- Construction of the Bellas Artes- $7,332,720 Conceptual 2014 14
Magisterial node Magisterial node, access to the Mesa Planning
de Otay II border crossing
2020006 SR 905/Heritage Rd. Construct Heritage Rd. interchange $54,300,000 Conceptual 2018 16
interchange (Phase Planning
4)

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 6-15
Rail Projects
Year
Cost
(in U.S. $)
Traffic
3020002 Otay Mesa to Otay Mesa BRT service from Otay $65,274,100 Conceptual 2014 1
Sorrento Mesa to Sorrento Mesa to Sorrento Planning
bus rapid transit Mesa Mesa via I-805 /I-15 /
SR 52 (Rt. 680)
Improvements to the passenger and the cargo facilities at Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE will add
commercial and passenger lanes to increase operational efficiencies. Details about the timing of these
projects and specifics on the future number of lanes and/or other improvements were not provided as the
efforts are pending the completion of a feasibility study.
Development around the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE precludes major POE expansions at this
location in Mexico as the POE is located between the Tijuana International Airport and the industrial
complex for maquiladoras. As such, the mid- and long-term improvements proposed in this effort are
primarily improvements to increase efficiency rather than major capacity increases to the POE and the
connecting roads. No POE projects were submitted by TWG representatives in Mexico.
In terms of connecting roadways in San Diego County, the major roadway improvements are scheduled
for completion during the short-term period and therefore, are not included in this analysis. For instance,
SR 905/Otay Mesa Road is the principal east-west connector to the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE, and
it provides the only access to the Otay Mesa POE. A project is underway to construct a six-lane freeway
from I-805 to the Otay Mesa POE by 2010 (included on short-term list). Interstate 805 is the main north-
south corridor serving the POE. Also included on the short-term list is the recently opened SR 125 toll
road, also called the South Bay Expressway. It is a new north-south corridor linking the border area to
Chula Vista communities and the rest of the San Diego regional highway network.
The future expansion of SR 905, which will result in an eight-lane freeway, ranked 16 out of 68 roadway
projects. Two projects on SR 125 were submitted to also add lanes to the existing toll road. These tied
projects ranked 37th. All three highway projects are scheduled for completion in 2030. These projects will
help build capacity for future growth of the local community, as well as facilitate crossborder traffic.
Three local roadways projects were submitted. The Willow Street Bridge (ranked 58th with a 2013 com-
pletion date) and the Heritage Road Bridge (ranked 59th with a 2023 completion date) provide alternative
access to the POE through the City of Chula Vista to the City of San Diego. The Otay Mesa Southbound
Truck Route widening and realignment will help increase capacity for commercial vehicles at the border.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Some segments of this roadway were included on the short-term list. Primarily due to some missing data
elements, this project was ranked 68 out of 68 roadway projects. The planned completion date is 2014.
In terms of interchange projects in San Diego County, the construction of an interchange at SR 905 and
Heritage Road is planned for 2018 and ranked 16th.
A bus rapid transit project (BRT) was submitted and evaluated as a rail project. The BRT from Otay Mesa
to Sorrento Mesa is proposed to operate similar to light rail service and carry passengers between the
Otay Mesa area and Sorrento Mesa in the northern part of the City of San Diego. It ranked 1st out of the
nine railroad projects evaluated and is planned for completion in 2014.
In Tijuana, major expansions on roadways connecting to the Mesa de Otay POE are limited due to
existing industrial, commercial, and residential development near the POE. To increase connectivity
between Mesa de Otay and the proposed Mesa de Otay II border stations, the construction of Alamar Vía
Rápida, a new six-lane roadway, is planned. This roadway ranked 1st out of 68 roadway projects
evaluated and is planned for completion in 2013. In addition, improvements are planned for Industrial
Boulevard to facilitate access between Mesa de Otay and the proposed Mesa de Otay II POEs. This
project ranked 2nd and is scheduled to be opened to traffic in 2014.
A few interchanges are proposed in Mexico to facilitate access to the port. Bellas Artes is a roadway that
runs east-west between Mesa de Otay and the proposed Mesa de Otay II border stations. It serves as the
primary passenger-vehicle access to the POE. The construction of interchanges at Magisterial and Bellas
Artes and at Boulevard Aeropuerto and Bellas Artes will help facilitate the flow of traffic and serve both
POEs. The projects are scheduled for completion in 2014 and 2018, respectively. The Aeropuerto-Bellas
Artes interchange ranked 1st out of 16 interchange projects evaluated, while Bellas Artes-Magisterial
ranked 14th. A proposed interchange at Industrial Avenue and Terán Terán will optimize the intersection
of these two roadways and facilitate the traffic between Mesa de Otay and Mesa de Otay II border
stations. The project ranked 2nd and is scheduled for completion in 2013.
TECATE-TECATE POE
The Tecate-Tecate POE was initially opened in 1932. The facility in the United States was renovated and
expanded in 2004 and 2005. It provides service for pedestrians, passenger vehicles, commercial
vehicles, and rail (the rail line crosses at Campo, located east of the POE). The passenger-vehicle facility
is open to northbound traffic from 6 to 12 a.m., while the POE is open to southbound traffic from 5 a.m. to
11 p.m. Cargo facilities operate reduced hours.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Proposed POE Projects for the Tecate-Tecate POE
Table 6-16
POE Projects
Tecate-Tecate POE

4060001 Tecate POE cargo Cargo route inside Existing $9,165,900 Conceptual 2013 7
expansion and the United States to commercial Planning
improvement transport imports POE-truck
and exports and
expansion of the
cargo facility on the
Mexican side of the
border
Table 6-16 lists a commercial facility project at the Tecate-Tecate POE. The project is for the construction
of a commercial vehicle customs facility in Mexico (700 meters to the east of the existing POE) and
access roads to connect it to the POE. It ranked 7th out of 11 POE projects evaluated. Note that in
California, major upgrades to the Tecate border station were completed in 2005 and a new Commercial
Vehicle Enforcement Facility (CVEF) is currently under construction and is anticipated to open in late
2008.
Proposed Transportation Projects for the Tecate-Tecate POE
the POE primarily served by the project. Projects are shown according to the ranking results following the
approved evaluation criteria in Tables 6-17 through 6-19, including roadway projects and interchange and
railway projects.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Table 6-17
Roadway Projects
Tecate-Tecate POE
Year
Project Project Cost
Limits Description Phase Open to Rank
No. Name (in U.S. $)
Traffic
1060001 Defensores Mixcoac Construction of a .5-km. $384,970 Advanced 2015 6

Blvd. Street to primary road segment Planning
Tecate- and intersection with the
Tijuana Tecate-Tijuana freeway
freeway
1060002 Tecate-Tijuana Rancho La A 3-km expansion of $4,078,830 Advanced 2015 8
Freeway Puerta to the Tecate-Tijuana Planning
Paso el freeway
Águila node
1060003 Tecate-Mexicali Rancho A 0.7-km expansion of $834,100 Advanced 2015 8
Freeway Santa Lucia a Tecate-Mexicali Planning
to San José freeway segment
Table 6-18
Tecate-Tecate POE
Year
Project Cost
Project Name Description Phase Open to Rank
No. (in U.S. $)
Traffic
2060001 Tecate-Mexicali Tecate-Mexicali and Las Torres Blvd. $3,574,700 Conceptual 2015 4
freeway and Las highway node Planning
Torres Blvd.
highway node
Table 6-19
Rail Projects
Tecate-Tecate POE
Year
Project Cost
No. (in U.S. $)
Traffic
3020005 Desert Line Division to Modernization $166,100,000 Conceptual -- 5

3020017 Desert Line Division to Double-tracking $2,130,000,000 Conceptual -- 5

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
The POE project submitted is aimed at improving the flow of commercial vehicle traffic at this POE. Long-
term potential projects, such as additional development of the Ensenada seaport, could potentially affect
cargo traffic at the Tecate-Tecate POE. The expansion of the cargo facility in Mexico is scheduled for
completion in 2013. Improvements were made to the POE in the United States in 2005, so no mid- or
long-term POE projects were submitted.
In terms of connecting roadway projects, no mid- or long-term roadway projects were submitted in
San Diego County. (Note that a project to construct the California Highway Patrol CVEF and a project to
construct a truck bypass lane at SR 188 were submitted as short-term projects and therefore are not
included in this analysis.)
In Mexico, a new primary road segment, Defensores Boulevard, connecting the POE and the Tecate-
Tijuana freeway is planned. This project ranked 6th out of all 68 roadway projects evaluated. The project
proposes to construct a four-lane arterial to improve access to the POE. In addition, lane improvements
from two to four lanes are planned for the Tecate-Mexicali freeway (both ranked 8th out of 68). All three
projects are scheduled for completion in 2015; however, SIDUE anticipates that they will open much
sooner to be more closely aligned with the POE improvement. These projects are deemed necessary to
improve the access to the POE and will help facilitate traffic once the future cargo facility is completed in
Mexico.
In Mexico, an interchange project was submitted at Tecate-Mexicali (free road) and Las Torres Boulevard.
highway to facilitate traffic between the POE and Mexicali. Its planned completion date is coordinated with
the planned highway improvement (2015), and the project ranked 4th out of 16 interchange projects
evaluated.
In California, two projects to modernize and double-track the Desert Line are proposed. Improvements
are necessary in order to increase the market potential of this route for international and interstate
movement of goods. The projects both ranked 5th out of nine railroad projects evaluated.
CALEXICO EAST-MEXICALI II POE
The Calexico East-Mexicali II POE was completed in 1997 and provides service for pedestrians,
passenger vehicles, and commercial vehicles. Northbound passenger-vehicle inspections take place
between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. (The Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG) reported that the
Calexico East POE opens at 4 a.m. during the fall and winter to accommodate the agricultural industry.)
Southbound passenger-vehicle inspections take place from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Proposed POE Projects for the Calexico East-Mexicali II POE
Table 6-20
POE Projects

4010005 Calexico East Expand primary Existing -- Conceptual -- 9

expansion vehicle lanes Passenger Planning
POE
As shown in Table 6-20, a POE project is proposed to improve passenger throughput at the Calexico
East-Mexicali II POE by expanding the number of passenger lanes at the existing facility. In Imperial
County, the passenger facility currently has eight passenger lanes, one SENTRI lane, one bus lane, and
four pedestrian lanes. The project would expand the number of northbound, regular passenger lanes to
12. No changes are proposed to increase the number of bus lanes. The project is in the conceptual
phase, and the cost estimate and anticipated completion date were not provided. 19The passenger facility
project ranked 9th out of 11 projects evaluated. No POE projects were submitted for this POE in Mexico.
Proposed Transportation Projects for the Calexico East-Mexicali II POE
the POE primarily served by the project. Proposed roadway projects are shown according to the ranking
results following the approved evaluation criteria in Table 6-21 below. No interchange or railway projects
were submitted.
Table 6-21
Roadway Projects
Year
Project Cost
No. (in U.S. $)
Traffic
1040005 Gómez Morin Cetys Rd. Improvement of the $7,653,530 Advanced 2015 4
Rd. to Mexicali- existing 6.5-km. Planning
S.Felipe roadway
highway
19
Since the technical analysis conducted for the California-Baja California Border Master Plan was completed,
Caltrans/IVAG released a comprehensive report on the future expansion of this POE. New information can be
incorporated in future updates.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN

Roadway Projects

Project Name Limits Description Phase Rank
1040006 Gómez Morin Capitan Improvement of the $1,019,250 Advanced 2015 4

Rd. Carrillo Ave. existing 1.5-km. Planning
to Rep. de roadway
Argentina St.
1040008 Beltway around Islas Expansion of the $8,917,510 Advanced 2015 20
eastern Agrarias existing 7 km.-roadway Planning
periphery Highway to
Blvd. Aero-
puerto
1040007 Beltway around Lázaro Construction of a 7.5- $4,628,780 Conceptual 2015 27
eastern Cárdenas km primary roadway Planning
periphery Blvd. to San
Felipe high-
way
1010008 SR 115 Evan Hewes Add 2 general purpose $146,800,000 Conceptual -- 35
highway to lanes Planning
SR 78
Lane additions are proposed at the Calexico East border station in order to reduce congestion. No
completion dates were provided. The roadway enhancements discussed below are planned to increase
overall capacity for future population growth and development in the border region.
In terms of connecting roads in Imperial County, SR 7 is a four-lane highway that connects the Calexico
border station to SR 98 to I-8. This highway was opened in 2005 and is reported to be accommodating
the current traffic volumes at adequate levels of service, and, therefore, no project enhancements are
proposed for this facility within the ten-mile focus study area.
State Route 115 connects to SR 7. Caltrans is studying a potential project at SR 115 to increase capacity
of the highway which could provide an alternative route for commercial shipments processed through the
POE. No anticipated completion date was provided for this roadway project. It ranked 35th out of 68
roadway projects evaluated.
Future developments that could potentially increase crossborder traffic at the POE include housing
development and future commercial and industrial development near the border station in Imperial
County and future expansion of the maquiladora operations in Mexicali. (The Service Bureau understands
that major development anticipated in the vicinity of the POE in the County of Imperial (gateway
development) has not materialized as quickly as anticipated, but future development is possible.) Plans to

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
accommodate additional traffic are geared to future lane expansions to accommodate additional
crossborder traffic and no major reconfigurations are planned at this time.
In Mexico, several roadway projects are planned to facilitate access to the border crossing. Lane
expansions from four to six lanes are planned on two segments of Gómez Morin Road to improve the flow
of traffic from the Calexico East-Mexicali II POE to the San Felipe Highway. These tied projects ranked
4th and are expected to be completed in 2015. In addition, lane improvements on the existing beltway
around the eastern periphery (ranked 20th) plus the construction of a new, four-lane beltway will facilitate
traffic from the POE (ranked 27th). Both projects are expected to be completed by 2015.
ANDRADE-LOS ALGODONES POE
The Andrade-Los Algodones POE was built in 1970 and serves pedestrians, passenger vehicles, and to a
lesser extent, commercial vehicles. The POE, which is located in Imperial County and eastern Mexicali, is
open from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. in both directions.
Proposed POE Projects for the Andrade-Los Algodones POE
Table 6-22
POE Projects

4010003 Andrade POE Move vehicle lanes Existing -- Conceptual -- 10

expansion to Arizona border passenger Planning
POE
4040004 Los Algodones - Modernize the Existing -- Conceptual -- 11
Andrade tourist- tourist and commer- Passenger Planning
commercial crossing cial border crossing POE
modernization facilities
Two projects are shown in Table 6-22 to reconfigure and modernize the POE. The Andrade border station
in Imperial County has two passenger vehicle, two pedestrian, and one informal commercial vehicle
lanes. In the United States, Caltrans submitted a project for this POE to move vehicle lanes to the Arizona
border. This POE is important for tourism, especially with winter visitors who often cross on foot. Detailed
information on the project in Mexico was not provided.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Proposed Transportation Projects for the Andrade-Los Algodones POE
No transportation facility projects were submitted for this proposed POE.
The Andrade-Los Algodones POE projects are in the conceptual planning phase. No detailed information
was provided. No cost estimates or completion dates were provided. In the United States, expansion of
the POE is limited due to environmentally sensitive lands to the east. Expansion to the west would impact
existing, private parking facilities and would require access improvement to SR 186.20
In terms of roadway connections in Imperial County, SR 186 is a two-lane, conventional highway that
connects to the POE and provides access to I-8. No mid- and long-term projects were submitted for this
roadway; however, two short-term projects to widen the shoulder for inspections and reconstruct the
interchange at I-8 were submitted earlier in the study. The environmental studies for widening the
shoulder and preliminary engineering for the interchange are scheduled for completion in 2008 and 2009,
respectively.
In Algodones, local roadways connect traffic to Mexicali or the State of Sonora (MX-2). No roadway
projects were submitted in Mexico.
Binational coordination of planning and implementation activities for the Calexico-Mexicali POE, the San
Ysidro–Puerta México/Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE, and the proposed new Otay Mesa East–Mesa
de Otay II POE are accomplished through the Technical Commissions Infrastructure and Ports of Entry
Committee of the Border Liaison Mechanism.
Planning for the Calexico-Mexicali POE appears to be well-aligned. The project completion dates are
coordinated as projects in both the United States and in Mexico are planned for completion in 2013. The
associated roadway improvements in the United States are designed to serve crossborder as well as
population growth in the local communities. In Mexico, the construction of new roadways and
improvements on existing arterials are geared at capacity improvements connecting the Mexicali I and the
Mexicali II border stations.
The schedules for completion of the U.S. and Mexico’s projects at the San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia
Avenue-El Chaparral POE appear not to be fully coordinated since the project in the United States and
the associated freeway improvements are anticipated to open to traffic in 2014, while the project in
Mexico is planned for completion in 2012. However, it is understood that GSA could advance the
reconfiguration of the southbound lanes to Virginia Avenue/El Chaparral to meet Mexico’s planned
schedule of 2012 if funding became available. The expansion of several roads, construction on new
bridges and ramps are planned in Tijuana to facilitate traffic via the POE reconfiguration. These projects
20
Caltrans-District 11, California/Mexico Border Briefing, March 2006.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
are timed to be completed in 2013 and 2014, one to two years after Mexico plans to complete its work on
the reconfiguration of the POE.
Both countries are conducting the required studies to implement the proposed Otay Mesa East-Mesa de
Otay II POE. The schedules for completion of the U.S. and Mexico’s projects at the new POE do not
appear to be fully coordinated since the project in Mexico is planned for completion in 2013 while the
POE in the United States is scheduled for completion in 2014. In terms of roadway connections, SR 11,
which is a direct connector to the POE and would link to SR 905 and the SR 125 Toll Road, is tied to the
construction of the POE with a planned completion date of 2014. Thus, the principal access road and the
opening of the U.S. border station should be fully aligned.
In Mexico, two new roads are planned to provide access to the proposed POE: International Otay II Blvd.
(designed to serve northbound trucks from Mexico to the POE) is planned for completion in 2013 and Las
Torres Blvd. (designed to carry primarily southbound truck traffic from the POE into Mexico) is scheduled
for completion in 2014. Other improvements to facilitate traffic are also being planned.
The construction of a commercial facility is proposed at the Tecate, Baja California border station. Work is
planned for completion in 2013. There was no mid- or long-term counterpart project submitted as major
modernization and expansion of the Tecate, California border station was completed in 2005 and the new
CEVF facility should be completed in 2008. One new road and two roadway improvements are planned in
Mexico to facilitate traffic to and from the POE. The new road, Defensores Blvd. is planned for completion
in 2015; however, SIDUE anticipates that it will open much sooner to be more closely aligned with the
POE improvement.
The remaining three POEs—Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE, Calexico East-Mexicali II POE, and
Andrade-Los Algodones POE—all have projects that are in the conceptual planning stage and no
completion dates were provided. More detailed information is anticipated as feasibility studies are
completed and plans are finalized. Opportunities exist for additional coordination and alignment as more
project details are determined.
Development of a new POE or improvement to an existing POE is a complex and lengthy undertaking
that requires close coordination and collaboration with governmental agencies on both sides of the
border. Projects include POE projects in each country and roads connecting the border stations to the
regional transportation network. The California-Baja California Border Master Plan process can be used
to help prioritize infrastructure projects and enhance coordination of planning and implementation of POE
and transportation projects in both the United States and Mexico.

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 6-1

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 6-2

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 6-3

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 6-4
Desert Line Projects (2013-2030)

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 6-5

1020001: Heritage Road Bridge from Main Street to South of the Otay River
1020002: Willow Street Bridge from Sweetwater Road to Bonita Road
1020003: I-5. 2 HOV Lanes from SR 905 to SR 54
1020004: I-5. 2 HOV Lanes from SR 54 to I-8
1020005: SR 11. 4 Toll Lanes from SR 905 to Mexico
1020007: SR 125. 4 Toll Lanes from Telegraph Canyon to San Miguel Road
1020008: SR 125. 4 Toll Lanes from San Miguel Road to SR 54
1020009: I-805. 4 Managed Lanes from SR 905 to Palomar Street
1020010: I-805. 4 Managed Lanes from Palomar Street to SR 94
1020012: SR 905. 2 General Lanes from I-805 to Mexico
1020013: Otay Mesa Southbound Truck Route. Widening and Realignment from Britannia Boulevard to Otay Mesa
POE
1020014: Airway Road Arterial from City of San Diego to Enrico Fermi Drive
1020015: Airway Road Arterial from Enrico Fermi Dr. to Alta Road
1020016: Airway Road Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road
1020017: Alta Road Arterial from Old Otay Mesa Road to Donovan State Prison
1020018: Alta Road Arterial from Lone Star Road to Otay Mesa Road
1020019: Alta Road Arterial from Otay Mesa Road Airway Road
1020020: Alta Road Arterial from Airway Road to Siempre Viva Road
1020021: Enrico Fermi Drive Arterial from Lone Star Road to Otay Mesa Road
1020022: Enrico Fermi Drive Enhanced Arterial from Otay Mesa Road to SR 11
1020023: Enrico Fermi Drive Enhanced Arterial from SR 11 to Airway Road
1020024: Enrico Fermi Drive Arterial from Airway Road to Siempre Viva Road
1020025: Lone Star Road Arterial from Piper Ranch to Sunroad Boulevard
1020026: Lone Star Road Arterial from Sunroad Boulevard to Vann Center Boulevard
1020027: Lone Star Road Arterial from Vann Center Boulevard to Enrico Fermi Drive
1020028: Lone Star Road Arterial from Enrico Fermi Drive to Alta Road
1020029: Lone Star Road Arterial from Otay Mesa Road to Siempre Viva Road
1020030: Otay Mesa Road Arterial from Sanyo Road to Enrico Fermi Drive
1020031: Otay Mesa Road Arterial from Enrico Fermi Drive to Alta Road
1020032: Otay Mesa Road Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road
1020033: Siempre Viva Road Arterial from City of San Diego to Alta Road
1020034: Siempre Viva Road Arterial from Altar Road to Loop Road
1020035: Siempre Viva Road Arterial from Loop Road to Rogue Road
1020038: Via de la Amistad. Collector from City of San Diego/Enrico Fermi Drive to Alta Road

1070003: Single Lane Bridge over Tijuana River Channel from Vía Rápida East to Vía Rápida West
1070004: Two Lane Bridge over Tijuana River Channel from Vía Rápida East to Vía Rápida West
1070005: Expansion of Vía Rápida East from the Pedestrian Bridge to Bridge México

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN

2013 – 2030 ROADWAY PROJECTS (CONT’D)

1070006: Ramp on Eastern Crest of the Tijuana River Channel

1070007: Ramp on Western Crest of the Tijuana River Channel
1070008: Avenue International East from Silvestre Revueltas Street to Calle 12 Norte
1070009: Double Deck International Avenue West from Vía Rápida East to access Playas de Tijuana
1070010: Incorporation of International Avenue West to Vía Rápida
1070011: Las Torres Boulevard from Highway Tijuana-Tecate to International Otay II Boulevard
1070012: International Otay II Boulevard from Otay II POE to Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road
1070014: Industrial Boulevard from Airport Access Rd. to Terán Boulevard
1070020: Alamar Vía Rápida from Central Bus Station to Tijuana - Rosarito 2000 Boulevard
1070021: International Otay II Boulevard from Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road to Alamar
1060001: Defensores Boulevard from Mixcoac Street to Tecate -Tijuana Freeway
1060002: Tecate - Tijuana Freeway from Rancho La Puerta to Paso el Águila node
1060003: Tecate - Mexicali Freeway from Rancho Santa Lucia to San José

3020001: South Line -- Sidings, Passings, Mexico Connectivity, Coronado Line Rehab,
San Ysidro Rail Yard
3020004: Desert Line -- Basic Service

3020005: Desert Line -- Modernization
3020017: Desert Line -- Double Tracking
3020018: Blue Line Trolley Service -- Increase Frequency of Blue Line Service
3020003: Amtrak Intercity Rail Yard

2020001: I-5 from North of SR 54 to J St. Overcrossing -- Interchange Improvements, Local Road Improvements
and New Structures (Not Shown)
2020002: I-805 / Palm Avenue Overcrossing -- Revise Interchange
2020003: I-805 - Main Street / Auto Park Drive Undercrossing -- Revise Interchange
2020006: SR 905 / Heritage Road Interchange (Phase 4) -- Construct Interchange

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN

2013 – 2030 INTERCHANGE PROJECTS (CONT’D)

2070001: Bridge and Node over the Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road with Access to Boulevard de las Torres --
Construction of 40 Meter Bridge with a 200 Meter Intersection
2070002: Airport Node-Bellas Artes -- Construction of Airport -Bellas Artes Node with Access to the Otay I Border
Crossing
2070003: Cuauhtemoc-Padre Kino Node -- Construction of the Cuauhtemoc-Padre Kino Node
2070004: Bellas Artes-Magisterial Node -- Construction of the Bellas Artes-Magisterial Node with Access to the
Otay II Border Crossing
2070005: Industrial Avenue-Terán Terán Node -- Optimization of Intersection
2070006: International Otay II Bloulevard --Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road Node
2070007: International Otay II Boulevard and Alamar Node -- Construction of node at International Otay II
Boulevard and Alamar
2060001: Tecate-Mexicali Freeway and Las Torres Boulevard -- Highway Node
2060002: Freeway Node and the Tecate-Tijuana Toll Road -- Completion of the Roadway Intersection

3020002: BRT Route 680 -- Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa

4020001: Otay Mesa East POE -- Construct New POE Facility

4020003: San Ysidro POE -- POE Re-design
4020004: Otay Mesa POE -- Modernization. Additional Passenger Lanes
4020005: Otay Mesa POE -- Modernization. Additional Commercial Lanes

4070002: Mesa de Otay II POE -- Construct New POE Facility

4060001: Tecate POE -- Cargo Expansion and Improvement

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 6-6

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 6-7

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Figure 6-8

1010001: I-8 from Forrester Road to SR 111

1010005: SR 111 from I-8 to SR 78
1010008: SR 115 from Evan Hewes Highway to SR 78
1010009: Imperial Avenue from McCabe Road to I-8
1010011: Dogwood from SR 98 to Mead Road
1010015: Imperial Avenue from I-8 to Aten Road
1010016: 8th Street Overpass from Wake Avenue to Centinela
1010017: SR 98 East from SR 111 to SR 7
1010018: SR 111 from SR 98 to I-8
1010019: SR 98 from SR 98 to Cesar Chavez Boulevard
Mexicali Projects
1040001: Colon Avenue West from Leyes de Reforma Bridge and Proposed Roadway on Western Periphery
1040002: Western Periphery from Intersection with the Proposed International Roadway West. to Tijuana Highway
1040003: Extension of the Central Axis from Lázaro Cárdenas Boulevard to Gómez Morin Road
1040004: Terán-Terán Boulevard from San Felipe Highway to Tijuana Highway
1040005: Gómez Morin Road from Cetys Road to Mexicali -San Felipe Highway
1040006: Gómez Morin Road from Capitan Carrillo Avenue to Rep. de Argentina Street
1040007: Beltway Around Eastern Periphery from Lázaro Cárdenas Blvd. to San Felipe Highway
1040008: Beltway Around Eastern Periphery from Islas Agrarias Highway to Highway to the Airport

2010001: Austin Road and I-8 Interchange

2010002: Bowker Road and I-8 Interchange
2010004: Jasper Road and SR 111

Chapter 6
BORDER MASTER PLAN


3010083: Grade Separation at McCabe Road and Dogwood Avenue
3010084: City of El Centro Grade Separations at Various Locations

4010003: Andrade POE -- Move Vehicle Lanes to Arizona Border

4010004: Calexico POE -- Reconfigure POE
4010005: Calexico East POE -- Expansion of Primary Vehicle Lanes
Mexicali Projects
4040001: Mexicali I-Calexico West POE -- Expansion and Improvement of the Customs Facilities
4040004: Los Algodones-Andrade POE -- Tourist-Commercial Crossing Modernization

CHAPTER 7
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A BINATIONAL
BORDER MASTER PLANNING PROCESS
INTRODUCTION
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan was envisioned by the U.S./Mexico Joint Working
Committee (JWC) as a pilot project between U.S. and Mexico border states to coordinate planning and
delivery of land ports of entry (POEs) and transportation infrastructure projects serving those POEs.
Based on the outcomes of this pilot binational planning process, the California-Baja California approach
would be adapted and expanded to other border states and customized to address their individual needs
and circumstances. Eventually, a U.S.-Mexico borderwide master planning process would be in place.
This chapter reflects back on the objectives of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan and
provides recommendations to maintain and enhance this California-Baja California binational planning
process. In addition, based on lessons learned, suggestions for consideration in future work are outlined.
CALIFORNIA-BAJA CALIFORNIA BORDER MASTER PLAN:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A BINATIONAL MASTER PLANNING PROCESS
As described in Chapter 1, the primary objectives of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan are
to:
Increase the understanding of POE and transportation planning on both sides of the border and to
create a plan for prioritizing and advancing POE and related transportation projects.
Develop criteria for prioritizing projects related to existing and new POEs as well as transportation
facilities leading to the California-Baja California POEs; rank mid- and long-term projects and services
(e.g., roads, public transit, and railways).
Establish a process to institutionalize dialogue among local, state, and federal stakeholders in the
United States and Mexico to identify future POE and connecting transportation infrastructure needs
and coordinate projects.
The remainder of this chapter summarizes findings and presents recommendations for implementing the
main objectives of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan as a continuous and coordinated
binational planning process.

Chapter 7
Recommendations
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Understanding the POE and Transportation Planning Processes
The state of the planning practice for POE and related transportation facilities in California and Baja
California is described in Chapter 2. This evaluation found that municipal, regional, state, and federal
agencies on both sides of the border follow a diversity of project evaluation processes. These processes
range from qualitative assessments to the formulation and application of detailed quantitative and
qualitative criteria. The California-Baja California Border Master Plan developed a methodology and
criteria to evaluate and rank POE projects as well as roadway, interchange, and rail projects serving the
POEs. These four sets of criteria were crafted taking into account previous corridor evaluation efforts (e.g.
Binational Infrastructure Needs Assessment or BINS project), project evaluation criteria currently being
used by stakeholder agencies, and the available transportation data from stakeholder agencies at all
levels of government in both California and Baja California.
Recommendations
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan methodology is a valuable tool to inform the POE and
transportation planning practices of the stakeholder agencies. Therefore, it is recommended that
stakeholder agencies:
Consider the California-Baja California Border Master Plan project evaluation criteria to guide
their individual project ranking processes. In some instances, the California-Baja California
Border Master Plan criteria would enhance the agency’s methodology with elements or metrics
not currently assessed. In other situations, it could lead to new data collection or monitoring
efforts.
Use outcomes from the California-Baja California Border Master Plan as inputs in federal, state,
regional, and local planning documents, such as Strategic Resource Assessments (prepared by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection); Statewide Transportation Plans (California and Baja
California); Statewide Urban Development Plans (Baja California); Regional Transportation Plans
(San Diego and Imperial Counties); General Plans (cities and counties in San Diego and Imperial
Counties); and Municipal Development Plans (municipalities in Baja California). In turn, outcomes
of these planning documents would feed into updates of the California-Baja California Border
Master Plan.
Significance of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan Process
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) discussed how
stakeholder agencies would make use of the Plan. There was agreement that the outcome of the California-
Baja California Border Master Plan would help agencies prioritize POE and related transportation facility
projects, enhance coordination of planning and implementation of these projects on both sides of the border,
and provide a systematic approach and a disciplined process to advance projects.
Federal agencies also expressed an interest in the development of a borderwide compendium of regional
U.S.-Mexico Border Master Plans.

Chapter 7
Recommendations
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Recommendations
Consider the California-Baja California Border Master Plan as a framework to prioritize

infrastructure projects and enhance coordination of planning and implementation of POE and
related transportation facilities on both sides of the California-Baja California border.
Consider using prioritized California-Baja California project lists to compete for transportation
funding sources, such as the reauthorization of U.S. federal transportation act, Mexico’s federal
funding sources, future bond or state funding programs, and private and local funds.
Use prioritized California-Baja California project lists to follow a systematic and orderly approach
toward the implementation of binational projects.
Institutionalizing the California-Baja California Border Master Plan Process
agencies at all levels of government in both the U.S. and Mexico. Effective collaboration is critical to
successful national and binational project implementation. California-Baja California stakeholder agencies
reported that coordination and communication among federal, state, regional, and local agencies is
occurring at some level, but there are opportunities for a more systematic process to align implementation
activities, including funding, and schedules for POEs and connecting transportation facilities.
Municipal, regional, and state agencies would benefit from closer coordination with the federal agencies
on planning and implementation of POE projects to develop a mid- and long-term comprehensive strategy
that integrates the POE project with surrounding land uses, regional transportation facilities and transit
services, and other infrastructure.
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan PAC discussed how to accomplish the objective of
institutionalizing the dialogue among local, state, regional, and federal stakeholders in the United States and
Mexico to identify future POE and connecting transportation infrastructure needs and coordinate projects on
a regular basis to establish a binational California-Baja California border master planning process.
Recommendations
Periodic Updates: Who will conduct the Border Master Plan updates?
Caltrans and SIDUE lead efforts to establish a schedule or cycle for periodic California-Baja
California Border Master Plan updates, seek funding, and take the lead on conducting these
updates, in collaboration with the U.S./Mexico JWC and the California-Baja California Border
Master Plan stakeholders.
California-Baja California Border Master Plan PAC members expressed a preference for a
consultant team to coordinate future updates, similar to the framework followed for the
development of the current California-Baja California Border Master Plan.

Chapter 7
Recommendations
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Frequency and Content of Update: When will the Border Master Plan updates be conducted and
what elements of the Plan will be updated?
The schedule for California-Baja California Border Master Plan updates should consider U.S. and
Mexico’s administration cycles
Depending on funding, comprehensive California-Baja California Border Master Plan revisions

would take place every three to four years to:
` Establish new base year and update base year data, including border wait times (currently
2005)
` Establish new planning horizon (currently 2030)
` Revise study area boundaries to incorporate significant planned POE or transportation
projects
` Incorporate updated horizon year projections, such as socio-economic data, crossborder
travel demand, etc.
` Incorporate updated POE plans
` Incorporate updated transportation plans
` Make use of Binational GIS mapping (under development)
Caltrans and SIDUE would lead the efforts to conduct an annual technical update of the
California-Baja California Border Master Plan to provide an opportunity for stakeholder agencies
to incorporate information on new planned projects, transmit changes to projects already
submitted, and report on completed projects.
Institutionalizing the Dialogue – How will the Border Master Planning Process continue?
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan Policy Advisory Committee would meet once a
year, or more frequently if needed, to provide direction on the annual California-Baja California
Border Master Plan technical update and on future comprehensive updates.
Borderwide, rely on the U.S./Mexico JWC and the U.S.-Mexico Binational Group on Bridges and
Border Crossings to share information on the status of the California-Baja California Border
Master Plan.
In California-Baja California, rely on Border Liaison Mechanism (BLM) Technical Commissions to

maintain open lines of communication among federal, state, and local agencies responsible for
planning and implementing POEs and connecting transportation facilities .
SIDUE and Caltrans would report on California-Baja California Border Master Plan monitoring
and implementation at meetings of the BLM Technical Commissions, the U.S./Mexico JWC, the
U.S.-Mexico Binational Group on Bridges and Border Crossings, and the BLM Technical
Commissions .
In addition, the United States-Mexico Border Governors Conference also could provide a forum to
institutionalize the California-Baja California Border Master Plan. The Border Governors

Chapter 7
Recommendations
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Conference is a forum for cooperation and deliberation among the ten states of the United States
and Mexico’s border (Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, Baja California, Chihuahua,
Coahuila, Nuevo León, Sonora, and Tamaulipas). SIDUE and Caltrans could report on the
California-Baja California Border Master Plan at the annual conferences.
Representatives from each of the ten member states participate in worktables to develop solutions
to mutual goals through a consensus approach. The Logistics and International Crossings Work
Table “supports enhanced communications, coordination and consensus building among the ten
Border States encouraging investment in modern and efficient infrastructure at ports of entry to
increase security and strengthen commercial exchange.”21
In September 2007, the XXV Border Governors Conference (United States-Mexico) issued a Joint
Declaration that adopted several recommendations for the development of the border region. One
recommendation in the area of Logistics and International Crossings is highlighted below.
“Request that federal agencies and non-governmental organizations from both the
United States and Mexico work with border states to develop a Master Border Plan
(MBP), which will focus on transportation and ports of entry, similar to the California-Baja
California Master Border Plan, which is funded by the Joint Working Committee (JWC).”
In August 2008, in its Joint Declaration, the XXVI Border Governors Conference also adopted the
following recommendation in the Logistics and International Crossings area:
“Substantially reduce cross border wait times by 2013 and complete bi-national state to
state regional border master plans amongst the 10 border states within three years.
Request both federal governments to incorporate these plans into a U.S.-Mexico Border
Master Plan by the XXXI Border Governors Conference in 2013.”
At future conferences, representatives from California and Baja California could present a
recommendation to the Logistics and International Crossings Work Table to take action to update
the California-Baja California Border Master Plan as the remaining plans between border states are
developed.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION IN FUTURE CALIFORNIA-BAJA

CALIFORNIA BORDER MASTER PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Based on the primary objectives of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan, the SANDAG
Service Bureau offers the following thoughts for consideration in future California-Baja California border
master planning activities based on lessons learned throughout the development of this pilot project.
21
Borders Governors Conference <http://bordergovernors.ca.gov/worktables/logistics>

Chapter 7
Recommendations
BORDER MASTER PLAN
Study Development
Consider U.S. and Mexico’s administration cycles at the federal, state, and local levels when
establishing the California-Baja California Border Master Plan annual technical updates and
comprehensive updates. Leadership and staff transitions at the various agencies result in
unanticipated delays due to changes in personnel and priority changes.
Reaffirm the participation of executive-level managers as decision makers at the California-Baja

California Border Master Plan PAC and the effective communication practices between PAC and
TWG members which allowed for an efficient flow of information and decision making throughout
the development of this pilot project.
Consider obtaining commitments from the California-Baja California Border Master Plan PAC to
devote sufficient staff resources for technical work to ensure the plan updates are conducted in a
timely manner (e.g. providing data and conducting review of draft documents).
Provide consistent participation of PAC members at key decision-making milestones to ensure

policy consistency throughout the binational planning process.
For future annual technical updates, convene the California-Baja California Border Master Plan
TWG to discuss needs for re-evaluating projects and rankings and, if warranted, to review and
comment on the result of the updated project rankings prior to presenting the updates to the
California-Baja California Border Master Plan PAC for approval.
For future updates, consider adequate budget for document translation and simultaneous
interpretation services at TWG and PAC meetings.
Include professionals from both California and Baja California in the consultant team responsible
for conducting updates to facilitate coordination and data collection with agencies on both sides of
the California-Baja California border.
Data Needs
When formulating and conducting data collection activities, consider the inclusion of indicators
that are part of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan evaluation criteria to ensure
information is readily available on both sides of the border and can be delivered in a timely
fashion.
Continue to collaborate through the U.S.-Mexico Border Forecasting Peer Exchange, created as
a byproduct of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan and sponsored by the U.S.
Federal Highway Administration, to harmonize and share information on data collection and
forecasting methodologies for crossborder travel demand by mode, and other crossborder-related
transportation data, such as border wait times.

Border Master Plan
Technical
Appendix
SEPTEMBER 2008
SEPTEMBER 2008
Border Master Plan
Technical
Appendix
Submitted to
Caltrans, District 11
4050 Taylor Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Submitted by
SANDAG Service Bureau
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101-4231
Phone 619.699.1900
Fax 619.699.1905
www.sandag.org/servicebureau
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan was commissioned by the U.S./Mexico Joint
Working Committee to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Secretariat
of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano del
Estado de Baja California or SIDUE) for the California-Baja California border region.
Appendix A
Project-Specific Documentation
Policy Advisory Committee and Technical Working Group Charter
PURPOSE
Under the direction of the U.S. / Mexico Joint Working Committee, the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and the State of Baja California’s Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban
Development (SIDUE) hereby establish the California-Baja California Border Master Plan Policy
Advisory Committee and Technical Working Group. These groups will participate in the development
of a Border Master Plan—a comprehensive approach for coordinating planning and delivery of Port of
Entry (POE) and transportation infrastructure projects serving POEs in the California-Baja California
region. Ideally the approach and methodologies identified in the Border Master Plan would be
incorporated into the respective planning and programming processes of the individual participating
agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local levels in the U.S. and Mexico.
LINE OF REPORTING
The Policy Advisory Committee and the Technical Working Group will report to Caltrans and SIDUE
for the development of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan. Caltrans and SIDUE, in
turn, report to the U.S. / Mexico Joint Working Committee for this project.
RESPONSIBILITIES
The Policy Advisory Committee will be responsible for providing direction, approving the study
parameters, and establishing criteria for future evaluation of projects. Proposed objectives of Policy
Advisory Committee are outlined below:
Establish clear parameters for the Border Master Plan such as defining the “Border Region”
for the purposes of this study, as well as the time horizon for data analysis and other issues
needing definition as requested by the Technical Working Group.
Ensure that the Border Master Plan goals are comprehensive and consistent with all
stakeholder plans and strategies.
Review and approve criteria for prioritizing improvements to existing or new POEs and
connecting roads within the border region in future efforts.
Seek to incorporate the study’s findings and methodologies into their agencies’ own planning
and programming processes and into appropriate transportation and POE planning and
funding documents.
Commit resources and staff to the effort to ensure the timely exchange of information and
data needed to successfully complete the study.
Facilitate the exchange of information for ongoing and future planning and implementation
activities.
Participate in future Master Plan updates and/or other study recommendations as approved
by the Policy Advisory Committee.
The Technical Working Group will be responsible for supporting the Consultant to implement the
direction of the Policy Advisory Committee by providing requested information in a timely manner,
Appendix A-1 3
and for making recommendations to the Policy Advisory Committee. Some of the proposed objectives
of the Technical Working Group are outlined below:
Assist in plan development process by providing the Consultant data and information
requested on a timely schedule.
Review transportation and POE infrastructure assessments, proposals, and other pertinent
information as requested by the Consultant.
Endorse and forward to the Policy Advisory Committee criteria developed by the Consultant
to prioritize improvements to existing or new POEs as well as connecting roads within a bi-
state framework in future studies.
Make recommendations to the Policy Advisory Committee and serve as a resource to the
Consultant to maximize the opportunities to successfully complete this study.
MEMBERSHIP
The agencies listed below have been invited to participate in the Border Master Plan Policy Advisory
Committee. Each agency will be asked to designate executive level managers to serve on the Policy
Advisory Committee. Each agency will also designate senior staff to serve on the Technical Working
Group.
United States
• U.S. Department of State (DOS)
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
• U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)
• U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
• County of San Diego
• City of San Diego
• County of Imperial
• City of Calexico
• Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG)
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
• San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
Appendix A-1 4
Mexico
• Secretariat of Foreign Relations (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, SRE)
• Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (Secretaría de Comunicaciones y
Transportes, SCT)
• General Customs Administration (Administración General de Aduanas)
• Secretariat of Social Development (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social, SEDESOL)
• Institute of Administration and Estimates of National Real Estate (Instituto de Administración y
• Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (Secretaría de
Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano del Estado, SIDUE)
• Municipal Planning Institute of Tijuana (Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Tijuana, IMPLAN)
• Municipal Planning Institute of Mexicali (Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Mexicali, IMIP)
• Municipality of Tecate (Municipio de Tecate)
Other agencies may be invited to participate on specific tasks as work progresses.
MEETING TIME AND LOCATION

It is anticipated the Policy Advisory Committee and the Technical Working Group will hold six
meetings each. The term of the project is from October 2006 through March 2008. Meeting locations
will alternate between California and Baja California.
SELECTION OF THE CHAIR

Executive level staff from Caltrans and SIDUE will serve as co-chairs on the Policy Advisory
Committee. Senior level staff from Caltrans and SIDUE will serve as co-chairs on the Technical
Working Group.
DURATION OF EXISTENCE
The California-Baja California Border Master Plan Policy Advisory Committee and Technical Working
Group will exist until the termination of the Border Master Plan study.
Appendix A-1 5
United States
Agency Policy Advisory Committee Member Alternate PAC Member Technical Working Group Member
Name, Title and Address: Name, Title and Address: Name, Title and Address:
U.S. Department Robert Allison Amy Radetsky Amy Radetsky

of State U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs U.S. Consulate General - Tijuana U.S. Consulate General - Tijuana
(DOS) 2001 C. Street NW American Consulate General in Tijuana American Consulate General in Tijuana
WHA/MEX Rm 4258 P.O. Box 439039 P.O. Box 439039
U.S. Department of State San Diego, CA 92143-9039 San Diego, CA 92143-9039
Washington, D.C. 20520
Ph: 202-647-8529 Ph: 664-622-7400 Ph: 664-622-7400
Fax: 202-647-5752 Fax: 664-686-1168 Fax: 664-686-1168
Email: AllisonRS@state.gov Email:radetskya@state.gov Email:radetskya@state.gov
Customs and Border Gurdit Dhillon Paul Henning Andy Brinton

Protection (CBP) Customs and Border Protection Assistant Director, Border Security Assistant Director, Mission Support
610 W. Ash Street 610 W. Ash Street 610 W. Ash Street
Suite 1200 Suite 1200 Suite 1200
San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, CA 92101
Ph: 619-744-5203 Ph: 619-652-9966 x150 Ph: 619-652-9966 x141

Fax: 619-645-6644 Fax: 619-645-6644 Fax: (619) 645-6644
Email: gurdit.dhillon@dhs.gov Email: paul.henning@dhs.gov Email: walter.brinton@dhs.gov
Appendix A-2 6
United States
General Jim King Ramon D. Riesgo Dan Voll

Services Director Southern Border Station Center Border Station Program, R09 Deputy Assistant Regional Administrator
Administration General Services Administration General Services Administration Jon Ballard
(GSA) 819 Taylor Street 880 Front Street, Room 4236 GSA Portfolio Management Division
Fort Worth, TX 76102-0000 San Diego, CA 92101 450 Golden Gate Ave., 9P
San Francisco, CA 94102
Ph: 817-978-0346 Ph: 619-557-5092 Phone: 415-522-3442 / 415-522-3474

Fax: 817-978-4016 Fax: 619-557-7335 Fax: 415-522-3111 / 415-522-3215
Email: jim.king@gsa.gov Email: ramon.riesgo@gsa.gov Email: dan.voll@gsa.gov / jonathan.ballard@gsa.gov
Federal Highway Sylvia Grijalva Lisa Dye Lisa Dye

Administration US/Mexico Border Planning Coordinator FHWA FHWA
(FHWA) Office of Interstate and Border Planning Int'l. Transportation Program Engineer Int'l. Transportation Program Engineer
One Arizona Center 401 B Street
Street, Suite 800 401 B Street
Street, Suite 800
400E Van Buren St. San Diego, 92101 San Diego, 92101
Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Ph: 602-510-7986 Ph: 619-699-7332 Ph: 619-699-7332
Fax: Fax: Fax:
Email: Sylvia.grijalva@fhwa.dot.gov Email: Lisa.dye@fhwa.dot.gov Email: Lisa.dye@fhwa.dot.gov
California Pedro Orso-Delgado Bill Figge Sergio Pallares

Department Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans
of Transportation District 11 Director Deputy District Director International Border Studies Chief
(Caltrans) 4050 Taylor Street 4050 Taylor Street 4050 Taylor Street
Ph: 619-688-6668 Ph: 619-688-6681 Ph: 619-688-3610

Fax: 619-688-3122 Fax: 619-688-2511 Fax: 619-688-2511
Email: pedro.orso-delgado@dot.ca.gov Email: bill.figge@dot.ca.gov Email: sergio.pallares@dot.ca.gov
Appendix A-2 7
United States
City of San Diego

Alejandra Gavaldon Alejandra Gavaldon Alejandra Gavaldon
City of San Diego City of San Diego City of San Diego
202 "C" Street, 11th Floor 202 "C" Street, 11th Floor 202 "C" Street, 11th Floor
Ph: (619) 533-3983 Ph: (619) 533-3983 Ph: (619) 533-3983

Fax: Fax: Fax:
Email: agavaldon@sandiego.gov Email: agavaldon@sandiego.gov Email: agavaldon@sandiego.gov
County of San Diego Chandra Waller Megan Jones Nick Ortiz

Deputy Chief Administrative Officer CAO Staff Officer DPW Project Manager
of the Land Use and Environment Group County of San Diego County of San Diego
County of San Diego Highway Room 212
1600 Pacific Highway, 5469 Kearny Villa Rd
Rd., Suite 201
1600 Pacific Highway, Room 212 San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, CA 92123
San Diego, CA 92101
Ph: 619.531.6256 Ph: 619.531.5186 Ph: 858.874.4204

Fax: Fax: Fax:
Email: chandra.wallar@sdcounty.ca.gov Email: megan.jones@sdcounty.ca.gov Email: francisco.ortiz@sdcounty.ca.gov
Name, Title and Address: Name, Title and Address:
County of Imperial/ Bob Ham Rosa Lopez Solis Rosa Lopez Solis
Imperial County Executive Director Administrative Analyst Administrative Analyst
Association of IVAG IVAG IVAG
Governments 940 W. Main #208 940 W. Main #208 940 W. Main #208
(IVAG) El Centro, CA 92243 El Centro, CA 92243 El Centro, CA 92243
Ph: (760) 482-4282 Ph: (760) 482-4677 Ph: (760) 482-4677

Fax: (760) 352-7876 Fax: (760) 352-7876 Fax: (760) 352-7876
Email: bobham@co.imperial.ca.us Email: rosalopez@co.imperial.ca.us Email: rosalopez@co.imperial.ca.us
Appendix A-2 8
United States
San Diego Gary Gallegos Diane Eidam Heather Werdick

Association of Executive Director Chief Deputy Executive Director Senior Transportation Planner
Governments SANDAG SANDAG SANDAG
(SANDAG) 401 B Street, Suite 800 401 B Street, Suite 800 401 B Street, Suite 800
Ph: 619-699-1900 Ph: 619-699-1900 Ph: 619-699-6967

Fax: 619-699-1905 Fax: 619-699-1905 Fax: 619-699-1905
Email: gga@sandag.org Email: dei@sandag.org Email: hwe@sandag.org
Southern California Naresh Amatya Rich Macias Pablo Gutierrez

Association of Manager, Transportation Planning TP&P Manager Planning & Policy
Governments SCAG SCAG SCAG
(SCAG) 818 W
W. Seventh Street
Street, 12th Floor 818 W
W. Seventh Street
Street, 12th Floor 818 W
W. Seventh Street
Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Ph: 213-236-1885 Ph: 213-236-1805 Ph: 213-236-1929

Fax: 213-236-1825 Fax: 213-236-1825 Fax: 213-236-1825
Email: amatya@scag.ca.gov Email: macias@scag.ca.gov Email: gutierre@scag.ca.gov
City of Calexico Armando Villa Veronica Atondo Tony Wong

Development Services Director Interim Engineering Manager City Engineer
City of Calexico City of Calexico City of Calexico
608 Heber Avenue 608 Heber Avenue 608 Heber Avenue
Calexico, CA 92231 Calexico, CA 92231 Calexico, CA 92231
Ph: 760-768-2180 Ph: 760-768-2100 Ph: 760-768-2100

Fax: Fax: 760-768-0854 Fax:
Email: armandogv@calexico.ca.gov Email: vatondo@calexico.ca.gov Email: tkwong@designinc.com
Appendix A-2 9
United States
City of Chula Vista Scott Tulloch Scott Tulloch David E. Kaplan

Director of Engineering Director of Engineering Transportation Engineer
City of Chula Vista City of Chula Vista City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue 276 Fourth Avenue 276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910 Chula Vista, CA 91910
Ph: 619-691-5028 Ph: 619-691-5028 Ph: 619-691-5025

Fax: 619-691-5171 Fax: 619-691-5171 Fax: 619-691-5171
Email: stulloch@ci.chula-vista.ca.us Email: stulloch@ci.chula-vista.ca.us Email: dkaplan@ci.chula-vista.ca.us
Mexico
Secretariat of Sean Carlos Cazares Hon. Remedios Gomez Arnau Lydia Antonio
Exterior Relations Director for Border Affairs Consul General Economic, Political, and Border Affairs
(SRE) Secretariat of Exterior Relations Consulate General of Mexico San Diego Consulate General of Mexico San Diego
Plaza Juarez, #20, Colonia Centro, Piso 18 1549 India St 1549 India St
Deleg. Cuauhtemoc, C.P. 06010, San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, CA 92101
Mexico, D.F.
Ph: 55-3686-5836 Ph: 619-308-9913 Ph: -619-308-9949

Fax: 55-3686-5821 Fax: Fax:
Email: scazaresa@sre.gob.mx Email: rpineda@consulmexsd.org Email: lantonio@consulmexsd.org
Secretariat of Juan Jose Erazo Garcia Cano Francisco Calvario Manuel Cuan Chin Yu
Communications and Coordinador del Comite Conjunto de Trabajo Director General de Desarrollo Carretero Subdirector de Asuntos Internacionales e
Transportation Insurgentes Sur 1089 Col. Nochebuena Insurgentes Sur 1089, Col. Nochebuena, Intersecretariales
(SCT) Delegación Benito Juárez, Piso 10 Delegación Benito Juárez, Piso 10 Insurgentes Sur, 1089, Col. Nochebuena,
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 03720 Mexico, D.F. C.P. 03720 Delegación Benito Juárez, Piso 10
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 03720
Ph: 55-5482-4367 Ph: 55-5483-4373 Ph: 55-5483-4373

Fax: Fax: Fax:
Email: jerazog@sct.gob.mx Email: fcalvari@sct.gob.mx Email: mcuan@sct.gob.mx
Appendix A-2 10
Mexico
General Customs Lic. Eduardo Argote Michel Lic. Carlos Landeros Hijar Lic. Carlos Landeros Hijar
Administration Adminstrador de Aduana Subadministrador de Informatica, Subadministrador de Informatica,
(Administración Av. International Contabilidad, y Glosa Contabilidad, y Glosa
General de Aduanas) Fraccionamiento Mesa de Otay Av. Internacional Av. Internacional
Tijuana, B.C. Tijuana, B.C. C.P. 22509 Fraccionamiento Mesa de Otay Fraccionamiento Mesa de Otay
Tijuana, B.C. C.P. 22509 Tijuana, B.C. C.P. 22509
Ph: 664-624-2200 Ph: 664-624-2200 Ph: 664-624-2200

Fax: Fax: Fax:
Email: eduardo.argote@sat.gob.mx Email: carlos.landeros@sat.gob.mx Email: carlos.landeros@sat.gob.mx
General Customs Arq. Alejandro Zamudio Gomez Arq. Carlos Morales Tayavas Arq. Carlos Morales Tayavas
Administration Administrador de Politica, Infraestructura Subadministrador de Infraestructura Subadministrador de Infraestructura
(Administración y Control Aduanero Av. Hidalgo 77 Modulo 4 Primer Piso Av. Hidalgo 77 Modulo 4 Primer Piso
General de Aduanas) Av. Hidalgo 77 Modulo 4 Primer Piso Col. Guerrero, Del. Cuauhtemoc Col. Guerrero, Del. Cuauhtemoc
M i
Mexico, DF
D.F. C l G
Col. Guerrero, D l C
Del. ht
Cuauhtemoc M i
Mexico, D F C
D.F. P 06300
C.P M i
Mexico, D F C
D.F. P 06300
C.P
Mexico, D.F. C.P 06300
Ph: 55-5802-0826 Ph: 55-58-020492 / 82 Ph: 55-58-020492 / 82

Fax: Fax: Fax:
Email: alejandro.zamudio@sat.gob.mx Email: carlos.morales@sat.gob.mx Email: carlos.morales@sat.gob.mx
Secretariat of Lic. Jose Luis Llovera Abreu Arq. Salvador Gomez Rocha Arq. Salvador Gomez Rocha
Social Development Director General de Desarrollo Urbano Director de Operacion Urbana Director de Operacion Urbana
(SEDESOL) y Suelo Constituyentes Constituyentes
Av. Paseo de la Reforma #333-2 Av. Paseo de la Reforma #333-2 Av. Paseo de la Reforma #333-2
Col. Cuauhtemoc Col. Cuauhtemoc Col. Cuauhtemoc
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 06500 Mexico, D.F. C.P. 06500 Mexico, D.F. C.P. 06500
Ph: 55-5080-0940-5000 Ext. 57475 Ph: 55-5080940 Ext. 57427 Ph: 55-5080940 Ext. 57427
Fax: Fax: Fax:
Email: jgdelreal@sedesol.gob.mx Email: sgomez@sedesol.gob.mx Email: sgomez@sedesol.gob.mx
Appendix A-2 11
Mexico
Institute of Lic. Santiago Garcia Silva Arq. Fidel Castañeda Lugo Ing. Miguel Angel Mendez
Administration and Director General de Administración y Obras Jefe, Departamento de Aprovechamiento Administrador Unico de Puertos Fronterizos
Estimates of National en Inmuebles Federales de Espacios en Inmuebles Federales en Baja California
Real Estate INDAABIN Compartidos, INDAABIN INDAABIN
(INDAABIN) Calle Tuxpan No. 85. Col. Roma Calle Tuxpan 85, Col. Roma Sur, Linea Internacional, Edif. Puerta Mexico
Mexico, D.F. C.P. 06760 Mexico, D.F. C.P. 06760 Col. Federal Tijuana, B.C.
Ph: 55-55-84-4174 Ph: (55) 55-64-1405 EXT. 219 Ph: 664-682-4483

Fax: Fax: (55) 55-64-1405 EXT. 123 Fax: 664-682-8426
Email: aupfbc1@prodigy.com.mx,
Email: jsilva@funcionpublico.gob.mx Email: jcastaneda@funcionpublica.gob.mx migmendez@yahoo.com
Office of the Governor Lic. Raul Leggs Vasquez Arq. Sergio Montes Arq. Carlos Lopez
of Baja California Advisor to the Governor of Baja California Subsecretary of Infrastructure and Director de Ordenamiento Territorial
Edificio Poder Ejecutivo, Tercer Piso, Urban Development SIDUE
Centro Cívico
Cívico. SIDUE Calz Independencia
Calz.
Mexicali, B. C. 21000 Calz. Independencia Numero 994 Centro Cívico
Numero 994 Centro Cívico de Mexicali Mexicali, B.C.
Mexicali, B.C.
Ph: 686-558-1124 Ph: 686-558-1068 Ph: 686-558-1062
Fax: Fax: Fax:
Email: rleggs@baja.gob.mx Email: smontes@baja.gob.mx Email: clopezr@baja.gob.mx/BlRodriguez@baja.gob.mx

Secretariat of Ing. Juan Ramón Guerero Moreno Arq. Sergio Montes Arq. Carlos Lopez
Infrastructure and Secretary of Infrastructure and Subsecretary of Infrastructure and Director de Ordenamiento Territorial
Urban Development Urban Development Urban Development SIDUE
(SIDUE) SIDUE SIDUE Calz. Independencia
Calz. Independencia Calz. Independencia Numero 994 Centro Cívico
Numero 994 Centro Cívico Numero 994 Centro Cívico de Mexicali Mexicali, B.C.
Mexicali, B.C. Mexicali, B.C.
Ph: 686-558-1116 Ph: 686-558-1068 Ph:686-558-1062
Fax:686-558-1195 Fax:686-558-1195 Fax:686-558-1195
Email: jguerrero@baja.gob.mx Email: smontes@baja.gob.mx Email: clopezr@baja.gob.mx/BlRodriguez@baja.gob.mx
Appendix A-2 12
Mexico
Lic. Rodolfo Valdez Gutiérrez Arq. Ricardo Magaña Aviña Arq. Inocencio Cuellar Lopez
Direction of Urban Presidente Municipal de Mexicali B.C. Director Administracion Urbana Director General
Administration of the Calz. Independencia Municipal Municipal Planning Institute of Mexicali
Municipality of Mexicali Centro Civico C.P 21000 Calzada Independencia 998 Plaza Fiesta B-12
Mexicali, B.C. Centro Civico C.P 21000 Centro Civico C.P 21000
Mexicali, B.C. Mexicali, B.C.
Ph: 686-558-1606 Ph: 686-558-1619 Ph: 686-557-5303

Fax:686-558-1610 Fax:686-558-1600 X 1790 Fax:
Email:rvaldez@mexicali.gob.mx Email: rmagana@mexicali.gob.mx Email: icuellar@mexicali.gob.mx
Municipal Planning Arq. Luis Duarte Mora Arq. Alonso Hernandez Arq. Haydee Martinez
Institute of Tijuana Directora General Sub-Director Div. de Asesoramiento Institucional
(ImPlan) ImPlan ImPlan ImPlan
Cuauhtemoc No. 2340 Cuauhtemoc No. 2340 Cuauhtemoc No. 2340
C l R
Col. l i Tij
Revolucion Tijuana, B C
B.C. C l R
Col. l i Tij
B.C. C l R
Col. l i Tij
B.C.
C.P. 22400 C.P. 22400 C.P. 22400
Ph: 664-686-6248
Fax: 664-686-6245 Ph: 664-686-6421 Ph: 664-686-6421
Email:implan@tijuana.gob.mx, Fax: 664-686-6245 Fax: 664-686-6245
llduarte@tijuana.gob.mx, duarte_la@hotmail.com Email: alhernandez@tijuana.gob.mx Email: hymartinez@tijuana.gob.mx
Municipality of Lic. Donaldo Eduardo Peñalosa Avila Arq. Alberto Morghen Melero Arq. Alberto Morghen Melero
Tecate Presidente Municipal de Tecate B.C. Director de Administración Urbana Director de Administración Urbana
Calle Ortiz Rubio y Callejón Libertad 1310 Municipal Municipal
Zona Centro, C. P. 21400 Calle Ortiz Rubio y Callejón Libertad 1310 Calle Ortiz Rubio y Callejón Libertad 1310
Tecate, B. C. Zona Centro, C. P. 21400 Zona Centro, C. P. 21400
Tecate, B. C. Tecate, B. C.
Ph: 665-654-9200 Ph: 665-654-9245 Ph: 665-654-9245

Fax:
Email: donaldo.eduardo@tecate.gob.mx Email: amorghen@tecate.gob.mx Email: amorghen@tecate.gob.mx
Appendix A-2 13
Mexico
Municipality of Lic. Jorge Ramos Hernández Ing. Manuel Guevara Morales Ing. Marcos Sarabia Rodelo
Tijuana Presidente Municipal de Tijuana B.C. Administrador del Municipio Secretario de Desarrollo Urbano
Calz. Independencia y Paseo Centenario Calz. Independencia y Paseo Centenario Calz. Independencia y Paseo Centenario
Tijuana, B.C. C.P. 22320 Tijuana B.C. C.P. 22320 Tijuana B.C. C.P. 22320
Ph: 664-973-7025 Ph: 664-973-7030 Ph: 664-973-7034

Fax: 664-973-7132 Fax: Fax: 664-973-7263
Email: jramos@tijuana.gob.mx Email: mguevara@tijuana.gob.mx Email: msarabia@tijuana.gob.mx
Invited Parties
National Lic. Francisco Javier Reynoso Nuño Lic. Iveth Baltazar Quintana Pamela Alejandro Davila
Immigration Deledago Regional Subiretora de Regulacion Agente Federal de Migracion
Institute Blvd. Diamante s/n esq. con Cuarzo Puente Puerta Mexico s/n Puente Puerta Mexico s/n
(INM) Fracc. La Esmeralda Col. Federal Col. Federal
Tijuana, B.C. Zona Centro Zona Centro
Ph:664-636-6022 ext. 1 Ph:664-682-9862 Ph:664-682-9862

Fax: Fax:664-682-4952 Fax:664-682-4952
Email: freynoso@inami.gob Email: ibaltazar@inami.gob.mx Email: choco_pam@hotmail.com
Dr. Roberto Reyes Rivera Lic. Francisco Verduzco Ortiz Lic. Francisco Verduzco Ortiz
Secretariat of Subsecretario de Desarrollo Empresarial - Jefe del Departamento de Gestion Jefe del Departamento de Gestion
Economic SEDECO Tijuana Empresarial y Comercio Exterior - Empresarial y Comercio Exterior -
Development Edificio Juan Ruiz de Alarcon #1572 SEDECO Mexicali SEDECO Mexicali
Baja California Zona Rio; 2nd Piso Edificio del Poder Ejecutivo 4th Piso Edificio del Poder Ejecutivo 4th Piso
Tijuana, B.C. 22320 Calzada Independencia No. 994 Calzada Independencia No. 994
Centro Cívico - Mexicali B.C. 21000 Centro Cívico - Mexicali B.C. 21000
Ph: 664-682-9381 Ph: 686-558-10-00 Ext. 1568 Ph: 686-558-10-00 Ext. 1568
Fax: 664-682-9192 Fax: Fax:
Email: roreyes@baja.gob.mx Email: fverduzco@baja.gob.mx Email: fverduzco@baja.gob.mx
Appendix A-2 14
Invited Parties
Oscar Escobedo Carignan Lic. Ives Lelevier Ramos Héctor Mendiola Sáenz
Baja California Secretario de Turismo Subsecretario Director de Fomento a la Inversion
Secretariat of Tourism Edificio Juan Ruiz de Alarcon #1572 Tijuana Tijuana
Zona Rio; 3er Piso Edificio Juan Ruiz de Alarcon #1572 Edificio Juan Ruiz de Alarcon #1572
Tijuana, B.C. 22320 Zona Rio ; 3er Pizo Zona Rio ; 3er Pizo
Tijuana, Baja California, Mx. 22320 Tijuana, Baja California, Mx. 22320
Ph: 664-682-3367 Ph: 664-682-3367 Ph: 664-682-3367

Fax:664-682-9061 Fax: 664-682-9061 Fax: 664-682-9061
Email: oescobedo@baja.gob.mx Email: ilelevier@baja.gob.mx Email: hmendiola@baja.gob.mx
Secretariat of Tourism Ing. Jesús Manuel Sández Contreras

Municipal Economic Secretario de Desarrollo Económico - Tijuana
Development Palacio Municipal, 2do. Nivel
Tijuana Ave. Independencia No. 1350
Tijuana, Baja California, México CP 22320
Ph: 664-973-7036
Fax: 664-973-7037
Email: jmsandez@tijuana.gob.mx
Appendix A-2 15
Revised Schedule of Meetings
Revised Schedule
Task
No. TWG PAC
1 Stakeholders Participation 10/20/06

2 State of the Practice 12/7/06 1/25/07
3 Current Capacity and Demand; Short-Term Transportation and POE Needs 3/22/07 7/26/07
4 Estimate Growth of Travel Demand 6/21/07 7/26/07

5 Evaluation Criteria 10/3/07
5 Evaluation Criteria 11/8/07 12/13/07
6 Mid- and Long-Term Transportation and POE Needs; Prioritized List 4/24/08 5/22/08
7 Draft and Final Report--Presentations 7/17/08 9/18/08
Appendix A-3 16
Policy Advisory Committee
Friday, October 20, 2006
Summary of Agreements
Welcome and Introductions:

Pedro Orso-Delgado, Caltrans, welcomed the Policy Advisory Committee attendees. Self-
introductions were conducted as follows:
Sylvia Grijalva and Lisa M. Dye, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Gary Gallegos and
Rachel Kennedy, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); Jim King and Steve Baker,
General Services Administration (GSA); Ernesto Lavin and Nestor Valdez, Secretariat of
Communications and Transportation (SCT); Robert Goralka and Megan Jones, County of San Diego;
Bob Ham and Rosa Lopez, Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG); Adele Fasano and
Andy Brinton, Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Sergio Montes and Carlos Lopez, Secretariat of
Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (SIDUE); Office of the Governor of Baja
California; Jorge D’Garay, Julieta Sanchez, and Evangelina Ceballos, Office of the Governor of Baja
California; Carlos Landeros, Aduana Tijuana; Juan Flores, Aduana Mexico; Elisa Arias and Cheryl
Mason, SANDAG Service Bureau; Pedro Orso-Delgado, Bill Figge, Sergio Pallares, Exie Mascorro,
and Jessica Cessieux, Caltrans.
Summary of Agreements:
Jessica Cessieux presented the following agreements that were later approved by all PAC members
in attendance:
AGREEMENTS
• PAC members need to send a list of additional recommended agencies to Caltrans and
SIDUE by Friday, October 27, 2006.
• The TWG has been postponed from November 30, 2006 to December 7, 2006. The study
schedule will be reviewed at the first TWG meeting.
• Additional time was approved for the TWG to return the Task 2 questionnaire. The new date
was set for November 15, 2006. TWG representatives should contact Elisa Arias or Cheryl
Mason with any questions.
• PAC representatives are responsible for their own agency to meet a deadline for request for
information.
• In Mexico, the Office of the Governor of Baja California (Jorge D’Garay) will ensure that
agencies meet deadlines for requests for information.
• The BMP effort should feed into the Border Liaison Mechanism and then into Borders and
Bridges Group and other binational groups involved in binational U.S. and Mexico POE and
transportation planning efforts.
• The PAC’s next meeting will be held on January 25, 2007, in Tijuana or Mexicali, Mexico.
• Other Interested Agencies not included in the PAC can be invited to participate in specific
TWG tasks. Sergio Pallares encouraged the group to submit their recommendations as soon
as possible.
Appendix A-4 17
Policy Advisory Committee
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Attendees:
Gary Gallegos, Hector Vanegas, and Rachel Kennedy, San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG); Lisa Dye and Sylvia Grijalva, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA);
Ramon Riesgo, General Services Administration (GSA); Jorge D’Garay and Evangelina Ceballos,
Office of the Governor of Baja California; Sergio Montes, Carlos Lopez, and Octavio Galan,
Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (SIDUE); Dana Smith, City
of Chula Vista; Megan Jones, County of San Diego; Arnold San Miguel, Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG); Inocencio Cuellar Lopez and Elias Paez Frias, Municipal
Planning Institute of Mexicali (IMIP); Sergio Vales, Office of Direction of Urban Administration of
the Municipality of Tecate; Adele Fasano and Paul Henning, United States Customs and Border
Protection (CBP); David Buentello, United States Consulate in Tijuana; Arturo Barrios, Secretariat
of Exterior Relations (SRE); Lydia Antonio, Mexican Consulate in San Diego; Fernando Verduzco
Ortiz, Secretariat of Economic Development of Baja California; Armando Villa, City of Calexico;
Salvador Leon Madrigal and Jose Luis Rodriguez, Office of Direction of Urban Administration of
the Municipality of Mexicali; Delia Castellanos, Municipal Planning Institute of Tijuana (IMPlan);
Carlos Morales and Carlos Landeros, Aduanas; Elisa Arias and Cheryl Mason, SANDAG Service
Bureau; Pedro Orso-Delgado, Bill Figge, Sergio Pallares, and Jessica Cessieux, Caltrans.
Teleconference Participants:
Daniel Darrach, United States Department of State (DOS); Chad Gilchrist, United States Customs
and Border Protection (CBP).
Agreements:
1. The Policy Advisory Committee approved the Border Zone Study Area to include an
“Area of Influence” [60 miles (100 km) north and south of the California-Baja California
International Border] and a “Focus Study Area” [10 miles north and 10 miles south of
the California-Baja California International Border].
2. The office of the Direction of Urban Administration of the Municipality of Mexicali will
represent the Municipality of Mexicali on the Policy Advisory Committee and the
Municipal Planning Institute of Mexicali will represent the Municipality of Mexicali on the
Technical Working Group.
3. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will coordinate future actions aimed at
exchanging information on U.S. and Mexico transportation and port of entry (POE)
forecast modeling processes through a peer review panel.
4. One of the byproducts of the BMP will be a concept paper proposing a national and
binational model for international ports of entry approvals.
5. Project evaluation criteria will include economic impacts as an additional variable. If data
is not readily available, SANDAG Service Bureau will make a recommendation for future
data collection efforts.
6. The FHWA and the Secretariat of Exterior Relations (SRE) will convene a conference call
with appropriate agencies to discuss the purpose and use of information requested for
this study.
Appendix A-4 18
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Participants: Gary Gallegos, Hector Vanegas, Rachel Kennedy-San Diego Association of

Governments (SANDAG); Sylvia Grijalva, Lisa Dye-Federal Highway Adminsitration (FHWA);
Jorge D’Garay, Evangelina Ceballos-Office of the Governor of Baja California; Sergio E. Montes,
Carlos Lopez Rodiguez-Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development (SIDUE); Sean
Carlos Cazares-Secretariat of Exterior Relations (SRE); Lydia Antonio-Mexican Consulate, San
Diego; Miguel Angel Mendez-Institute of Administration and Estimates of National Real Estate
(INDAABIN); Rosa C. Lopez-Imperial Valley Association of Governments(IVAG); Carlos
Landeros-General Customs Administration of Tijuana (ADUANAS-Tijuana); Roberto Diaz, Jorge
Wismann-General Customs Administration (ADUANAS-Tecate); Carlos Morales Tayavas-
General Customs Administration (ADUANAS-Mexico D.F.); Elias Paez Frias, Carolina Diaz
Sanchez-Municipal Planning Institute of Mexicali(IMIP); Jose Luis Rodriguez-Municipality of
Mexicali ; Ana Elena Espinoza-Municipal Planning Institute of Tijuana (ImPlan); Scott Tulloch-City
of Chula Vista; Megan Jones-County of San Diego, Dan Voll-U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA); Armando Villa-City of Calexico; Elisa Arias, Cheryl Mason-San Diego
Association of Governments, Service Bureau; Rob Stott, Bill Figge, Sergio Pallares, Jessica
Cessieux, Jose Marquez, Alma Sanchez-Caltrans.
Teleconference Participants: Andy Brinton-CBP, Bob Ham-IVAG, Pablo Gutierrez-SCAG
1. Include all data projections sources, such as from CBP, Mexican Customs (Aduanas),
SIDUE, Caltrans and SANDAG in the BMP Study and refer all good ideas mentioned in the
PAC’s July 26, 2007 meeting to related to the “Data Projections Peer Review Exchange
Process” led by FHWA.
2. Caltrans will invite and host a conference call week of July 30, 2007, send an invitation to all
PAC members to participate in a conference call on Cross Border Wait Times Data and
Methodology at a date to be defined by the majority of the members.
3. The Policy Advisory Committee approved Option 2 Project Evaluation Criteria for mid- and
long term projects with a minimum of 3 months extension for the study as requested by the
consultants and with additional cost $33, 000.00. BMP calendar schedule will be modified
accordingly.
Appendix A-4 19
California – Baja California Border Master Plan
December 13, 2007
Attendance and Meeting Agreements
Policy Advisory Committee Attendees: Hector Vanegas - San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG); Carlos Lopez – Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development (SIDUE); Roberto
Gamez – Institute of Administration and Estimates of National Real Estate (INDAABIN); Alberto Porras
– General Customs Administration (Aduanas – Mexico); Carlos Morales Tayavas – (Aduanas –
Tijuana); Daniel Voll, Ramon Riesgo – General Services Administration (GSA); Dave Kaplan – City of
Chula Vista; Paul Henning – U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Sylvia Grijalva, Lisa Dye –
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Ricardo Pineda, Lydia Antonio – Consulate of Mexico San
Diego; Sean Carlos Cazares – Secretariat of Exterior Relations (SRE); Haydee Martinez – Municipality
Planning Institute of Tijuana (IMPLAN); Iveth Baltazar, Pamela Alejandro – National Institute of
Immigration (INM); Rosa Lopez – Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG); Elisa Arias,
Cheryl Mason – SANDAG Service Bureau; Bill Figge, Sergio Pallares, Jose Marquez, Alma Sanchez –
Caltrans.
Teleconference Participants: Dan Darrach, Rob Allison – U.S. Department of State (DOS); Sergio
Gutierrez – Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (SCT); Carolina Diaz – Municipality
Planning Institute of Mexicali (IMIP).
SUMMARY OF AGREEMENTS:
1. Sylvia Grijalva of FHWA made a motion to approve and it was seconded by Haydee Martinez of
IMPLAN, Tijuana, to approve the methodology as presented in the Proposed Port of Entry
Projects Evaluation Criteria, Scoring and Weighting.
2. CBP will present in writing its proposed comments to POE qualitative criteria by December 31,
2007. *
3. Sean Carlos Cazares, SRE, made a motion to approve and it was seconded by Ramon Riesgo,
GSA to approve the proposed Transportation Facility Evaluation Criteria, Scoring, and
Weighting.
NEXT MEETING DATES AND LOCATION **
The next TWG meeting is scheduled on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at Caltrans from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m. The next PAC meeting is scheduled on Thursday, April 24, 2008 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Editor’s Note:
* CBP proposed the addition of one criterion for evaluating POE projects. The criterion was
incorporated into the POE criteria.
** TWG meeting date was changed to April 24, 2008 and the PAC meeting date was changed to
May 22, 2008.
Appendix A-4 20
California – Baja California Border Master Plan
May 22, 2008
Policy Advisory Committee Attendees: Rosa Lopez-Solis-Imperial Valley Association of

Governments (IVAG); Dan Voll, Ramon Riesgo–General Services Administration (GSA); Carlos
Morales Tayavas–General Customs Administration (ADUANAS, D.F.); Carlos Landeros–General
Customs Administration (ADUANAS, Tijuana); Oscar Fernandez de Cordova-Secretariat of
Communications and Transportation (SCT); Gary Gallegos, Heather Werdick, Hector Vanegas-
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); Sean Carlos Cázares-Secretariat of Exterior
Relations (SRE); Juan M. Mondragon–Secretariat of Social Development (SEDESOL); Scott
Tulloch–City of Chula Vista; Ricardo Magana, Anatolio Felix Ayon-Municipality of Mexicali; Jose
Fidel Castaneda Lugo, Roberto Gamez Aguirre-Institute of Administration and Estimates of
National Real Estate (INDAABIN); Consul General Maria de los Remedios Gomez-Arnau, Lydia
Antonio-Consulate General of Mexico San Diego; Maria Pena-National Immigration Institute
(INM); Fausto Armenta-Municipal Planning Institute of Tijuana (ImPlan); Carlos Lopez, Karlo
Limon, Mario Castro-Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development(SIDUE); Cesar Ruiz-
Tourism Committee; Miguel A. Lopez-Ayuntamiento de Mexicali; Megan Jones-County of San
Diego; Elisa Arias, Cheryl Mason-SANDAG Service Bureau; Pedro Orso-Delgado, Bill Figge,
Sergio Pallares, Anthony Aguirre, Jose Marquez-Caltrans.
Teleconference participants:
Rob Allison-Department of State (DOS); Andy Brinton U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), Armando Villas-City of Calexico; Lisa Dye-Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
SUMMARY OF AGREEMENTS:
1. Upon a motion by Gary Gallegos (SANDAG) and a second by Sean Cázares (SRE), the
Policy Advisory Committee approved the Port of Entry (POE) and related transportation
facility project rankings as presented.
2. SRE, with agreement from the Mexican federal agency representatives, released
Caltrans and SIDUE from the Border Master Plan confidentiality clause.
3. The Policy Advisory Committee proposed that Caltrans and SIDUE update the POE and
transportation facility project rankings on an annual basis and conduct a comprehensive
update of the study every three to four years.
NEXT MEETING DATES AND LOCATION:
The next Technical Working Group meeting is scheduled on Thursday, July 17, 2008 from 11:00
a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The next Policy Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled on Thursday,
September 18, 2008 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Appendix A-4 21
Technical Working Group
December 7, 2006
Attendance and Agreements
Technical Working Group attendees:
Lisa M. Dye, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Rachel Kennedy, San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG); Ernesto Lavin and Oscar Ringenbach, Secretariat of Communications and
Transportation (SCT); Nick Ortiz County of San Diego; Rosa Lopez, Imperial Valley Association of
Governments (IVAG); James Snider, Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Carlos Lopez, Secretariat of
Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (SIDUE); Inocencio Cuellar, Elias Paez, and
Carolina Diaz, Municipal Planning Institute of Mexicali (IMIP); Elisa Arias and Cheryl Mason, SANDAG
Service Bureau; Pedro Orso-Delgado, Bill Figge, Sergio Pallares, and Jessica Cessieux, Caltrans.
Teleconference participants:
Chad Gilchrist, Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Tony Wong, City of Calexico; Dave Kaplan, City of
Chula Vista; Alejandra Gavaldon, City of San Diego; Lydia Antonio, Mexican Consulate in San Diego;
Pablo Gutierrez and Arnold San Miguel, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Agreements:
• Chad Gilchrist will send CBP’s Strategic Resource Assessment to Elisa Arias and Cheryl Mason
of the SANDAG Service Bureau.
• The Technical Working Group approved the Border Zone Study Area presented at the meeting:
Area of Influence [60 miles (100 km) north and south of the California-Baja California International
Border] and a Focus Study Area [five miles north and ten miles south of the California-Baja
California International Border].
• The Technical Working Group approved 2030 as the planning horizon for the Border Master Plan.
• The Technical Working Group agreed to request approval of the recommendations from PAC
members. PAC members will receive an email and will be requested to respond by December
15, 2006.
• The SANDAG Service Bureau will work with Caltrans and SIDUE to identify the appropriate
agencies for completing the data collection questionnaires for Tasks 3 and 4.
• TWG members will be asked to complete and return the data questionnaires for Tasks 3 and 4 by
January 22, 2007.
• The next meeting of the Technical Working Group will be held at the Caltrans District Office in the
Gallegos Room on February 22, 2007, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. [Note: This meeting was
subsequently rescheduled to March 22, 2007.]
Appendix A-5 22
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Attendees:
Carlos Lopez, Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (SIDUE); Andy
Brinton, Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Elias Paez, Eduardo Raya, and Carolina Sanchez,
Municipal Planning Institute of Mexicali (IMIP); Pablo Gutierrez, Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG); Jorge D’Garay, Julieta Sanchez, and Evangelina Ceballos, Office of the
Governor of Baja California; Lisa Dye, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Bob Ham, Imperial
Valley Association of Governments (IVAG); Nick Ortiz, County of San Diego; Rachel Kennedy, San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); Carlos Landeros, Aduanas Mexico; Lydia Antionio and
Roman Fernandez, Mexican Consulate; Elisa Arias and Cheryl Mason, SANDAG Service Bureau;
Pedro Orso-Delgado, Sergio Pallares, Bill Figge, Jose Marquez, Christine Antoine, Jessica Cessieux,
Caltrans.
Teleconference participants: Chad Gilchrist and Dennis Counihan, CBP; Jon Ballard, General
Services Administration (GSA); Tony Wong, City of Calexico.
Agreements:
• To increase participation in the Border Master Plan (BMP), Caltrans will send a letter to
agency heads to formally invite them to participate in the effort.
• Caltrans and SIDUE urge all members to respond to the questionnaires (Tasks 2, 3 and 4) as
soon as possible. The absolute deadline for submittal of questionnaire responses is
Wednesday, April 4, 2007. The Service Bureau will be able to incorporate information received
by April 4, 2007 into the analyses for the Policy Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for
April 26, 2007.
• The State of Baja California is arranging for a secure site on the State’s web site where BMP
representatives can access questionnaires and materials and provide responses. The site will be
secured with passwords. The site is anticipated to be up and ready by Friday, March 30, 2007.
• The SANDAG Service Bureau will change the current and forecast population and land use
data for Municipality of Mexicali to reflect the estimates from IMIP. IMIP will provide the
population and land use estimates to the Service Bureau. SIDUE agrees with these changes.
• The SANDAG Service Bureau will request SCT, GSA, Caltrans, SANDAG, SCAG, and other
relevant agencies to provide any available POE border crossing data for 2005 and any
intermediate forecasts through 2030 (for vehicle, bus, truck, pedestrian, rail, etc. crossings.) The
Service Bureau will email the request and ask for a response by April 4, 2007.
• The Service Bureau will summarize why transportation and POE cost info is important for the
context of the BMP on both sides of the border.
Reminder: The next Technical Working Group meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 24, 2007 at
Caltrans from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The next Policy Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for
Thursday, April 26, 2007 at Caltrans from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Appendix A-5 23
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Meeting Agreements
Technical Working Group Attendees:

Sergio Montes and Carlos Lopez, Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja
California (SIDUE); Rachel Kennedy, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); Lisa
Dye, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Rosa Lopez, Imperial Valley Association of
Governments (IVAG); Lydia Antonio, Mexican Consulate in San Diego; Carolina Diaz and
Eduardo Raya, Municipal Planning Institute of Mexicali (IMIP); Tony Wong, City of Calexico; Dave
Kaplan, City of Chula Vista; Francisco Luna, United States Customs and Border Protection
(CBP); Bill Figge, Sergio Pallares, Jose Marquez, Alma Sanchez, Exie Mascorro and Jessica
Cessieux, Caltrans; Elisa Arias and Cheryl Mason, SANDAG Service Bureau.
Daniel Darrach, United States Department of State (USDOS); Pablo Gutierrez, Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG); Dennis Counihan and Chad Gilchrist, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Jon Ballard, General Services Administration (GSA).
1. The Service Bureau will ask CBP to take a look into projections for Calexico and Otay
Mesa and see if the 2030 projections would change once the refurbished facility in
Calexico and the new facility at Otay II open.
2. Remove 2000 pedestrian crossing data from report due to the change in methodology, as
data is not comparable with 2005 and 2030 projections.
3. CBP (San Diego field office) will work with Service Bureau and CBP headquarters to see
if they will be able to share pedestrian crossing data for all POEs (northbound crossings)
from 1994 to current.
4. The State of Baja California will send their pedestrian crossing projections to the
SANDAG Service Bureau within one week. FHWA sponsored peer review will review
and harmonize all projection methodologies independently. FHWA will propose a date for
peer review meetings and inform participants.
5. The SANDAG Service Bureau will work with CBP to gather information for peak period
wait times for all POEs in 2005.
6. Single points of contact for project information to work out any inconsistencies: Rosa
Lopez, IVAG for Imperial County. Carlos Lopez, SIDUE for Baja California. Rachel
Kennedy, SANDAG for San Diego County. All will work with Exie Mascorro at Caltrans.
7. TWG discussed options 1 and 2 outlined in Agenda Item #7: Scope of Work: Upcoming
Tasks, and asked the Service Bureau to prepare a statement of pros and cons for each
option, to estimate the level of effort required for each, and to bring this item to the PAC
for action. In addition, the TWG will discuss this item with their PAC representative so
that he or she is fully briefed prior to the PAC meeting.
8. Projects that will be implemented during the 2007-2012 time period will be included in the
short-term project list. These projects must also be located within the Focused Study
Area (10 miles north and 10 miles south of the California-Baja California international
border) and must serve a port of entry directly or indirectly.
Appendix A-5 24
Next Meeting Dates and Location:
The next Policy Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled on Thursday, July 26, 2007 at Caltrans
from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The next Technical Working Group meeting is scheduled on
Thursday, September 27, 2007 at Caltrans from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
(Note: The TWG meeting was subsequently rescheduled from September 27, 2007 to October 3.)
Appendix A-4 25
California-Baja California Border Master Plan (BMP)
Technical Working Group (TWG)
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Technical Working Group Attendees:

Jon Ballard, Ramon Riesgo-General Services Administration (GSA); Rachel Kennedy-San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG); Nick Ortiz-County of San Diego; Lisa Dye-Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA); Roberto Gamez-Institute of Administration and Estimates of
National Real Estate (INDAABIN); Roman Fernandez-Consulate General of Mexico San Diego;
Dave Kaplan-City of Chula Vista; Rosa Lopez-Imperial Valley Association of Governments
(IVAG); Jorge D’Garay, Evangelina Ceballos-Office of the Governor of Baja California; Carlos
Lopez-Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (SIDUE); Elisa
Arias, Cheryl Mason, Gabriel Renteria -SANDAG Service Bureau; Bill Figge, Sergio Pallares,
Jose Marquez, Alfredo Medina, Alma Sanchez-Caltrans
Robert Allison-Department of State (DOS); Pablo Gutierrez-Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG); Andy Brinton-U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP);
Elias Paez- (IMIP)
Summary of BMP-TWG Agreements (Read By Alma Sanchez-Caltrans):
1. TWG Members will submit any comments in writing to SANDAG Service Bureau by
October 10, 2007 on the following methodologies, presented and discussed in today’s
BMP- TWG.
A) BMP- Proposed Project Evaluation Criteria for International Ports of Entry

B) BMP-Proposed Project Evaluation Criteria for Transportation Facilities
2. On October 24, 2007, Service Bureau will send to BMP-TWG members a summary of
comments received on items 1-A and 1-B above, together with their recommendations to
address them.
3. On October 31, 2007 Caltrans will send out the agenda along with any attachments to
TWG members for the next BMP-TWG meeting to be held on November 8, 2007.
4. The next meeting of the BMP-TWG is scheduled for November 8, 2007 at the SANDAG
offices in San Diego, California.
(Updated note: The November 8, 2007 TWG meeting will be held at SANDAG, 401 B Street, 7th
Floor Board Room, San Diego CA 92010.)
Appendix A-5 26
Appendix A-5 27
California - Baja California Border Master Plan
Technical Working Group Meeting
April 24, 2008
Participants:
Everett Hausser, Nick Ortiz-County of San Diego, Sergio Montes, Carlos Lopez, Sergio Soto, Mario
Castro, Karlo Limon -SIDUE, Lisa Dye-FHWA, Roberto Gamez, Fidel Castañeda-INDAABIN, Dave
Kaplan-City of Chula Vista, Sean Carlos Cazares-SRE, Rachel Kennedy-SANDAG, Carlos Landeros-
Aduanas - Mexico, Lydia Antonio - Consulado de Mexico San Diego, Pedro Orso-Delgado, Bill Figge,
Sergio Pallares, Barbara Kent, Deniz Ozakcay, Jose Marquez, Anthony Aguirre - Caltrans; and Elisa
Arias, Cheryl Mason - SANDAG Service Bureau,
Phone bridge participants:

Dan Darrach (Department of State), Pablo Gutierrez (SCAG)
Agreements:
1. Recommend that roadway and interchange projects with fewer than four data elements
submitted be moved to the inventory list:
a. Move McCabe Rd, Forrester Rd and Austin Rd from the Roadway Projects - U.S.
Arterial Projects ranking list to the inventory list.
b. Move SR-11 full diamond interchanges at Enrico Fermi and at Siempre Viva
Rd/Loop Rd, SR-125 full diamond interchange at Lone Star Rd, and Imperial
Valley’s airport interchange from the Roadway Projects - U.S. Interchange Projects
ranking list to the inventory list.
2. Recommend that POE, rail roadway and interchange inventory list be provided to the Policy
Advisory Committee (PAC) for information.
3. Recommend POE and transportation project rankings to the PAC for approval.
4. Carlos Lopez-SIDUE will request in writing the addition of Punta Colonet-Mexicali/Algodones

railroad POE project to the inventory list.
5. Sean Cazares-SRE requested information from SIDUE on the Punta Colonet-

Mexicali/Algodones railroad/POE project.
6. Recommend moving Silicon Border POE project from the Port of Entry project ranking list to
the inventory list.
7. Carlos Lopez-SIDUE requested a week to review and make comments on the roadway projects
list and to provide information such as completion dates and cost estimates for the POE
projects.
Next meetings:
1. BMP - PAC: May 22, 2008 (Caltrans)
2. BMP - TWG: July 17, 2008 (Caltrans)
3. BMP – PAC: September 18, 2008 (Caltrans)
4. Submit CA-BC BMP report to the JWC in December 2008 for approval.
Appendix A-5 28
July 17, 2008
Attendees:
Rosa Lopez-Solis-Imperial County Association of Governments (IVAG); Francisco Calvario-
Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (SCT); Olivia Maldonado-Secretariat of Economy;
Cesar Ruiz–Tourism Bureau, Mexicali; Nick Ortiz, Everett Hauser-County of San Diego; Sylvia
Grijalva, Lisa Dye-Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); Dave Kaplan-City of Chula Vista; Miguel
Angel Mendez, Roberto Gamez-Institute of Administration and Estimates of National Real Estate
(INDAABIN-Tijuana); Heather Werdick-San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); Maria
Fernanda Suarez-Secretariat of Exterior Relations (SRE); Ricardo Magana Avina, Anatolio Felix
Ayon-City of Mexicali; Cesar Ruiz Hernandez-Tourist and Convention Bureau (COTUCO) in
Mexicali; Lydia Antonio-Consulate of Mexico, San Diego; Anthony Kleppe-General Services
Administration (GSA); Carlos Morales-General Customs Administration (ADUANAS); Veronica
Atondo-City of Calexico; Mario Castro, Karlo Limon Gonzalez-Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban
Development (SIDUE); Pedro Orso-Delgado, Bill Figge, Sergio Pallares, Anthony Aguirre, Alma
Sanchez-California Department of Transportation (Caltrans-D11); Elisa Arias, Cheryl Mason, Rachel
Kennedy-SANDAG Service Bureau.
Pablo Gutierrez-Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Agreements:
1. The TWG recommends the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) approve the California-Baja
California Border Master Plan Draft Report (Motion by Federal Highway Administration; second
by City of Chula Vista).
2. The TWG will submit written comments on the Draft Report that was emailed on July 9, 2008
and distributed, presented, and discussed at today’s meeting to the Service Bureau by
August 1, 2008.
3. Each Border Master Plan (BMP) partner agency listed on page 22, Table 1-1 of the BMP Draft
Report will submit one or two sentences describing the agency’s role in binational planning or
transportation planning on the border to the SANDAG Service Bureau by August 1, 2008. The
Service Bureau will update Table 1-1 for the Final Draft Report.
4. Any additional data that does not impact BMP project rankings and methodology may be
submitted to the Service Bureau no later than August 1, 2008. This information will be placed, for
reference only, in the Appendix of the BMP Final Report.
5. The TWG recommended to the PAC that Caltrans and SIDUE lead the effort to establish a
schedule or cycle for periodic and comprehensive updates to the California-Baja California
Border Master Plan and take the lead on conducting these updates in collaboration with the
U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee to obtain funding sources for the California-Baja California
Border Master Plan. The Service Bureau will update the report and presentation to reflect this
agreement.
Appendix A-5 29
6. The SANDAG Service Bureau will develop and present cost estimates for BMP updates as
defined in the BMP Final Report to the PAC.
Next Meeting Date and Location:

The next PAC meeting is scheduled on Thursday, September 18, 2008 at Caltrans from 11 a.m. to
1:30 p.m.
Appendix A-5 30
Appendix B
Planning Processes
Current Planning Practices — Summary of Completed Questionnaires
LIST OF QUESTIONS
Current Planning Practices – List of Questions
Questions
Question 1 What planning processes does your agency follow and/or what document(s) does your agency prepare:1
a) To identify transportation or Port of Entry (POE) needs?
b) To propose new transportation facilities or POE projects or improvements to existing ones?
c) To rank proposed projects?
Question 2 Does your agency apply quantitative and/or qualitative evaluation criteria to prioritize projects? If, so please provide the evaluation
criteria and related methodology.
Question 3 What planning processes does your agency follow and/or what document(s) does your agency develop to identify potential sources
of funding for transportation or port of entry (POE) projects?
Question 4 What public input or participation process does your agency follow when developing transportation or POE plans? What other
governmental entities does your agency coordinate or consult with?
Question 5 How often are the documents referred to above updated? What is the planning horizon for these documents?
Question 6 If your agency is not responsible for developing transportation or POE plans/programs, does your agency provide input into the
preparation of local, municipal, state, or federal plans/programs?
Question 7 Do your agency’s transportation and/or POE planning documents get incorporated into overall regional, state, or federal planning
processes? Please explain.
1
Examples of Planning Documents: City/County General Plan Circulation Elements, City/County Community Plan Transportation Elements, Municipal Development Plans,
Municipal Partial Programs, Regional Transportation Plans, State or National Development Plans, State Transportation Plans, Capital Improvement Plans (local, state, federal),
Transportation Sector Programs, Border Crossing or Border Station Plans.
Appendix B-1 33
Task 2: Current Planning Practices — Summary of Completed Questionnaires
QUESTION 1
Question 1: What planning processes does your agency follow and/or what document(s) does your agency prepare . . . ?
a. to identify transportation or port of entry (POE) b. to propose new transportation or POE c. to rank proposed
Agency
needs? projects or improvements to existing ones. projects?
U.S. In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 11423

Department of (August 16, 1968), as amended by E.O. 13337 (April 30,
State (DOS) 2004), the President has delegated to the U.S. DOS the
authority to receive applications for, and to approve and
issue, Presidential Permits for the construction,
connection, operation, or maintenance of certain
facilities at the borders of the United States with
Canada and Mexico. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of E.O.
13337, Subsection 2(b) of E.O. 11423 and DOS Notice
of Interpretation (Public Notice 5149), 70 Fed. Reg.
45,748 (2005), the DOS determined that this authority
applied to all new border crossings and to all substantial
modifications of existing border crossings of the
international border.
Permits are required for “the full range of facilities” on

the border, including, inter alia, bridges, pipelines,
tunnels, conveyor belts and tramways. Permit applica-
tions for most facilities at the Mexican border are
processed by the DOS, although other agencies do
permit certain cross-border facilities under separate
legal authority. In processing permit applications, the
DOS is responsible for coordinating compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42
U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq.), the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 U.S.C. Section
470f), and Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994
(59 Fed. Reg. 7629), concerning environmental justice.
To issue a permit, the DOS must find that issuance
would serve the national interest.
Appendix B-1 34
QUESTION 1
Agency
U.S. General Based on space requests from the U.S. Department of See 1.a) response. GSA’s ranking of border
Services Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection station projects reflects the
Administra- (CBP) Bureau, GSA contracts for and administers third- ranking assigned by its
tion (GSA) party feasibility studies that identify, estimate the cost of, customer, CBP, in an annual
and evaluate alternative designs for meeting CBP’s list of regional priorities.
needs. In assessing the adequacy of proposed facilities,
the feasibility study contractor refers to state and
regional transportation plans and to municipal plans.
The estimated cost and development schedule for the

preferred design alternative is then included in a funding
request or prospectus that, if approved by both GSA’s
central office and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), is forwarded by GSA to the House of
Representatives’ Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the Senate’s Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works.
Those committees usually act on the prospectuses during

the summer preceding the fiscal year for which funding
is requested. Funding for approved prospectuses does
not become available to GSA, however, until the House
of Representatives has appropriated the approved
funding by passing the budget containing the proposed
capital expenditure. In recent years, the federal budget
has not been passed until well into the second quarter of
the fiscal year.
Appendix B-1 35
QUESTION 1
Agency
GSA Most projects require submittal of two prospectuses, the

(cont’d) first for site and design funding and, usually two years
later, a second for construction funding. Because
approval of prospectuses typically comes nearly two
years after they are drafted and because another year is
required to identify the CBP requirements and complete
the feasibility study, construction rarely begins earlier
than five years following project conception. Shortly
after completion of the feasibility study, GSA initiates
environmental analysis required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and initiates a third-
party program development study (PDS).
The purpose of the PDS is to elaborate on the preferred

design alternative identified by the feasibility study in
order to provide a more solid basis for: (1) design
proposals from architectural and engineering firms; and
(2) the estimated project cost presented in the
prospectus requesting construction funding. Upon
approval of the design prospectus, GSA’s selects the
project architect, whose design effort is usually
completed shortly before approval of the construction
prospectus.
Finally, upon approval of the construction prospectus,

GSA selects the general contractor.
Appendix B-1 36
QUESTION 1
Agency
U.S. Customs CBP’s capital improvement planning process includes CBP follows a facility investment planning process. Data collected through the
and Border strategic resource assessments (SRAs). The SRAs measure Once a need is identified through the SRA, a project SRA process allows CBP to
Protection the operational effectiveness of POE facilities and their outline is identified to cover short-, mid-, and long- prioritize projects based on
(CBP) ability to support CBP’s mission to secure the border term goals. quantified scores derived
while facilitating trade and travel. from the following
CBP prepares a capital improvement plan (CIP) for overarching criteria: mission
land POEs to ensure that facility and real property and operations; space and
funding is allocated in a systematic and objective site deficiencies; security and
manner. life safety; and workload
The CIP includes the following components: and personnel growth.
1. Project Prioritization Method – The prioritiza- Each project is scored

tion method ranks projects through an according to the project
objective and equitable process that determines prioritization method
the projects with the most critical needs. outlined above. The
2. Long-Range Strategic Resource Assessments – resulting list of prioritized
The assessments were used to gather data to projects comprises the five-
support the project prioritization method and year investment strategy,
to credibly identify projects. SSRAs include which is divided into annual
internal and external stakeholder input, assess- work plans for project
ments of existing facility conditions, predictions execution.
of future housing needs, space capacity
analyses, options to meet current and future
needs, and estimated costs for the
recommended options.
3. Five-Year Investment Strategy – Projects identi-
fied in the SRAs follow an annual approval
process to receive funding.
Appendix B-1 37
QUESTION 1
Agency
CBP 4. Planning Database and Portfolio Management

(cont’d) Tools – The database compiles and manages
the comprehensive data necessary for the
project prioritization method, long-range
resource assessments, and the five-year
investment strategy. Portfolio management
tools include future projections, trend analysis,
resource scenarios, and cost control.
5. Annual Update Process – The five-year
investment strategy is updated on an annual
basis. The process for updating the strategy
includes assessing the need for change to the
scoring criteria, scoring projects, circulating the
project list to key stakeholders, and approving
the annual five-year project list.
U.S. Federal FWHA’s International Border Program does not conduct Not applicable. Not Applicable.
Highway its own assessment of needs for land POEs or for trans-
Administra- portation facilities. The program provides information,
tion (FHWA) technical expertise, and in some instances, funding so
International that the agencies that do assess needs can make better
Border decisions.
Program
Appendix B-1 38
QUESTION 1
Agency
Caltrans The Caltrans’ project development process begins with Project initiation should involve an analysis of major
feasibility studies and ends with a completed project. In issues such as constructability and financing issues,
exploring POE project needs, Caltrans would consider railroad and utility involvement, traffic operations
many factors including the purpose of the port itself, considerations, transportation management plans,
existing and proposed infrastructure, the vehicle and environmental questions, and identification of
other modal trips to be served, transportation connect- individuals and institutions that are likely to be
ivity, and environmental and community concerns. The affected by the project. Generally, the origination of
intent of this process is to meld engineering require- any new project requires a project study report (PSR)
ments, public involvement, and federal and state for larger projects, or project scope and summary
approval steps and is governed by a host of laws and report (PSSR) for smaller ones. A PSR is a substantial
regulations pertaining to programming, environmental document that contains a report of preliminary
effects, right-of-way acquisition, and contracting for engineering efforts, a detailed alternatives analysis,
construction. and cost, schedule and scope information. A PSSR is
an abbreviated document that contains a very brief
Caltrans' project development may take as little as a few project description, cost, schedule and scope
weeks for an emergency project to restore interrupted information, for a project that is exempt from
transportation services, or decades in the case of highly detailed environmental study.
controversial projects involving relocation of large num-
bers of people and businesses or difficult environmental
issues.
Southern SCAG is responsible for identifying Southern California’s Specific projects or transportation needs, such as, at No additional response.
California transportation priorities through the development of a the port of entry (POE) could be identified and
Association Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and a Regional nominated by the County Transportation
of
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The Commission with the jurisdiction over the POE or
Governments
(SCAG) planning process SCAG uses in developing these the appropriate port authority or the local
documents is a comprehensive, collaborative, and government with the jurisdiction over the POE. In
continuous process that utilizes a bottoms-up process either case, the identified project will be considered
involving a multitude of task forces/subcommittees, for inclusion in the RTP based on its potential
policy committees, and the Regional Council. performance, funding availability, and political
consensus.
Appendix B-1 39
QUESTION 1
Agency
SCAG – Decisions are filtered through the layers of task forces

cont’d and policy committees leading to ultimate action by the
Regional Council, which is the ultimate decision-making
body within SCAG. In addition, input is received from
the stakeholders and interested parties through a
coordinated public participation plan.
Counties in the SCAG region include the following:

Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura.
2004 Regional Transportation Plan (Destination 2030)

Destination 2030 is multimodal plan representing our
vision for a better transportation system, integrated
with the best possible growth pattern for the region
over the plan horizon of 2030. The plan provides basic
policy and program framework for long-term
investment in our vast regional transportation system in
a coordinated, cooperative, and continuous manner.
Transportation investments in the SCAG region that
receive state and federal transportation funds must be
consistent with the RTP and must be included in the
RTIP when ready for funding.
Appendix B-1 40
QUESTION 1
Agency
SCAG Major Regional Corridor Planning

(cont’d) Transportation Planning and Programs also is respon-
sible for participating in a number of corridor studies
and other planning studies, many with subregional or
other partners. In each case, the study goals are unique,
but all are designed to better inform regional transport-
ation decision making. Following is just a few of the
many studies in progress or planned pending grant
approval:Major Regional Corridor Planning (cont’d)
Eastern Gateways Corridor (SR 60 Corridor)
Southwest Compact Corridor
I-405 (South Bay) Corridor Study
I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study
Ontario Ground Access Study
Four Corners Study
Regional Airspace Study
Imperial IVAG conducts or participates in economic studies, No additional response No additional response
Valley highway corridor studies, regional transportation
Association studies, and POE feasibility studies. Below is the list of
of Govern-
studies underway or completed since 2000.
ments (IVAG)
Imperial Valley – Mexicali Economic Delay Study (in
progress)
Imperial County Central North-South Traffic Study (in
progress)
Imperial Valley Regional Transportation Impact Fee
Study (in progress)
2006 South Imperial Valley Corridor Study
Appendix B-1 41
QUESTION 1
Agency
IVAG 2006 Imperial County General Plan – Circulation

(cont’d)
Element and Scenic Highway Element Update
2005 IVAG Greater Calexico Area Arterial Needs and
Circulation Analysis
2005 IVAG Northeast Corridor Feasibility Study –
SR 78 Study
2003 General Services Administration (GSA) Calexico
Border Station Expansion/Renovation
2003 General Services Administration (GSA) Andrade
Feasibility Study
2003 City of Calexico – Calexico West Border Station
Expansion – Circulation Analysis
2003 Imperial Valley, California: Economic Develop-
ment Highways Initiative
2002 Imperial County 2002 Year Transportation Plan
(currently being updated)
2000 Imperial Valley Cross Border Impacts Study
(currently being updated)
2000 Calexico/Mexicali Border Transportation Study
Appendix B-1 42
QUESTION 1
Agency
San Diego SANDAG prepares the RTP, which is the blueprint to In addition to the RTP, SANDAG conducts corridor SANDAG utilizes quantita-
Association address mobility in the San Diego region. and subregional studies to examine potential tive criteria to prioritize
of Govern- transportation projects or improvements. Two projects within the RTP.
ments examples of studies examining California-Baja
Some subregional or corri-
(SANDAG) California transportation are the Otay Mesa-Mesa
dor studies also prioritize
de Otay Binational Corridor Early Action Plan and
projects. The system for
the Feasibility of Opening an International Border
prioritizing projects within
Crossing and Jacumba-Jacumé study.
corridor/subregional studies
is done on an individual
study basis.
County of Participation in the preparation of the RTP through The County has prepared several road reviews to County prepares a five-year
San Diego SANDAG. identify operational improvements needed for capital improvement pro-
existing transportation facilities. Traffic impact gram. Proposed transport-
Preparation of General Plans and Specific Plans that
studies are prepared to assess potential impacts ation projects are ranked
designate land uses and transportation corridors within
associated with the implementation of proposed and compete countywide for
the border region. Review and approval of tentative
General Plan and/or Specific Plan amendments. funding/implementation.
maps for subdivisions and land development within the
These studies often assess and identify needed road
border region. Coordination with Caltrans, SANDAG,
improvements for the areas being studied. Review of
and adjacent jurisdictions on the above items.
traffic impact studies for private land development
project often identifies transportation needs in the
vicinity of their proposed projects.
City of The City’s general plan includes a traffic circulation The documents cited under question 1a), plus the Funding availability largely
Calexico element. Highway 98 widening study. determines priority regard-
ing which projects get built
The City’s service area plan identifies transportation first.
needs and plans. There is a specific traffic study for
border expansions.
Appendix B-1 43
QUESTION 1
Agency
City of Chula The City of Chula Vista utilizes a General Plan Circulation Through the environmental process that was The City does not have a
Vista Element to illustrate its long-term roadway needs. The accomplished for the General Plan and the UCSP, ranking procedure per se for
City’s General Plan recently was updated in December of the City reviewed its roadway needs. Some roads in proposed roads. Again,
2005. In undeveloped areas, generally located east of I- the City were reclassified to a higher classification through the use of the
805, the City has a Transportation Development Impact for greater capacity, while others were reduced. CEQA process, as impacts
Fee (TDIF) program in place which facilitates construction New arterial classifications were developed in from projects are
of those roadways listed in the General Plan by providing preparation for the increased land use densities determined, mitigation is
a funding source to ensure their completion. envisioned for the proposed transit-oriented-design proposed and funding
land use patterns. sources identified.
To identify roadway needs on the northwest side of
Chula Vista, the City is currently preparing an On a smaller scale, traffic impact studies are often The City also prepares a
environmental impact report and a Public Facilities prepared to assess potential impacts associated with two-year capital improve-
Financing Plan for the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) in the implementation of proposed projects. These ment program wherein pro-
order to determine public infrastructure needs and studies often assess and identify needed roadway posed transportation pro-
funding sources. improvements and operational improvements for the jects are ranked and
areas being studied. Review of traffic impact studies compete for city/regional/
for private land development projects often identify federal funding and imple-
transportation needs in the vicinity of the proposed mentation.
projects.
Additionally, the City has a TDIF program that is

reviewed every two to three years. The two
objectives of the TDIF program are to fund the
construction of facilities needed to reduce or
mitigate potential traffic impacts and secondly, to
spread the costs associated with construction of the
facilities equitably among the developing properties.
It is both a planning document and a funding
instrument.
Appendix B-1 44
QUESTION 1
Agency
SRE The agency identifies transportation and POE needs Within the framework of the Intersecretarial Group The ranking of the proposals
through studies related to vehicle and cargo flow of Ports and Border Services (Grupo de presented by the member
projections that are conducted by the Secretary of Intersecretarial de Puertos y Servicios Froterizos), the agencies of the Interse-
Communication and Transportation (SCT) and the member agencies present proposals for bridges and creterial Group of Ports and
General Border Administration (AdministracIón General border crossings for analysis and comments. The Border Services is accom-
de Aduanas). group also determines in a collegiate manner the plished in agreement with
projects that should be proposed. the feasibility criteria,
funding sources, level of
importance for the 3 levels
of government, necessities
of the region, etc.
Institute of INDAABIN’s authority over border ports of entry is INDAABIN is not responsible for proposing new INDAABIN carries out the
Administra- derived from the general law for national properties and transportation facilities. Agencies such as the federal evaluation of projects in
tion and the internal regulations of the institute. branch of SCT, the Secretaries of Public Works or the order to prioritize their
Estimates of
infrastructure of the states and municipalities, such execution times. This evalua-
National Real In this manner, INDAABIN is in charge of the physical
Estate as SIDUE and IMPLAN, are in charge of this. tion considers four impor-
planning, maintenance, and conservation, as well as the tant areas for each project:
(Instituto de
technical regulation and administration, of the shared With respect to the planning of POEs, INDAABIN the economic parameters,
Administr-
ción y federal buildings; therefore it is incumbent upon us to develops: the parameters of admin-
Avalúos de identify infrastructure needs exclusively in the interiors of istrative roles, the technical
our buildings. Master Plans: Those with the objective of analyzing
Bienes parameters, and the socio-
Nacionales the situation of the existing crossings and deter-
With regard to the existing border POEs, the agency mining the needs of restructuring or expanding a political parameters. The
(INDAABIN)
carries out the issuance of conservation and maintenance building, Establishing the principal directives of the projects receive points under
bonds for shared public buildings. project in agreement with the requirements of each area. The points for all
operation for the department and the possible the projects are totaled, and
For new border crossings, INDAABIN supports the studies stages of development and its integration into the a list of project rankings is
that are conducted by federal and state agencies and the urban context. produced.
municipalities in charge of transportation planning.
Appendix B-1 45
QUESTION 1
Agency
Aduanas This is accomplished through requests or applications New project or improvement proposals are jointly The projects are ranked
received from the diverse customs offices and/or federal, planned with the Local Customs Administration, the based on their impact on
state, and municipal agencies. In some cases site visits Central Customs Planning Administration, and the foreign trade operations
are required to identify these needs. General Customs Administration and are submitted (quantitative and qualita-
for approval to the various committees of the Tax tive), the improvement of
Administration Service. the facilities, and if they are
required for solving a
detected problem.
Secretaría de The planning process is based on the General Law of Based on the PND, a series of sectorial, special, insti-
Comunicacio Planning, which establishes the National Planning tutional, and regional programs are elaborated, that
nes y System. The federal government is responsible for address the plan of action of the federal Executive
Transporte
leading national development planning with public branch. Examples of these plans are:
(SCT)
participation. The process of development of the Sectorial Plan of Communication and Transport-
National Plan of Desarrollo (PND) includes citizen ation; and
consultations through a collaborative process. Program of Regional Development for the
Northern Border.
SCT The Sectorial Plan of Communications and Trans-

(cont’d) portation includes a chapter on highway infra-
structure, as well as objectives and strategies. Based
on the Sectorial Plan, the SCT has a regional
planning process in which state governments and
working groups participate (e.g., National Infra-
structure Council, Joint Working Committee, and
Bridges and Crossings Binational Group) to identify
infrastructure needs.
Appendix B-1 46
QUESTION 1
Agency
Secretariat of SEDESOL of the Mexican Federal Government is respon- Selected actions included in the Border Cities
Social sible for the development of the National Program of Program are:
Development Urban Development. Also, this program is based on the
1. Actions oriented to support the formulation or
(Secretaría de objectives of the National Development Plan. Also,
update of plans, programs, and regulations
Desarrollo SEDESOL is responsible for coordinating planning
that contribute to overcoming urban poverty;
Social or activities for regional development with the participation
(SEDESOL) of state and municipal governments. 2. Actions directed to support the creation and
strengthening of habitat development
The Border Cities Program, through the Habitat Program, agencies, as well as actions oriented to
includes cities and metropolitan zones in the north and promote community participation in strategic
south borders of the country (105 kilometers from the projects to overcome urban poverty;
border).
3. Actions directed at promoting the association
of governmental and private functions to make
viable the implementation of strategic projects
for local development;
4. Support to the development of studies to
strengthen actions in the following areas:
community improvements; prevention of risks
and environmental improvement; land for
social housing (i.e., low-income) and urban
development, and public facilities; and
5. Actions that encourage intersectorial and muni-
cipal coordination through the identification,
planning, promotion, diffusion, and manag-
ment of strategic, urban metropolitan, or
regional projects.
Appendix B-1 47
QUESTION 1
Agency
Secretariat of SIDUE, through the elaboration of the State Plan of SIDUE prepared the State Urban Development Plan
Infrastructure Urban Development, Regional Programs of Urban Devel- (2004) and participated in the preparation of the
and Urban opment, and Interregional Programs of Urban Develop- Tijuana Urban Development Program 2002-2025
Development
ment (Conurbación), identifies transportation or POE (2002); Partial Program of Improvement for
(SIDUE)
needs, proposes new transportation facilities or POEs or Downtown Tijuana 2004-05 (2005); Master Plan of
improvements to existing highways or ports, and prior- Transportation for the City of Tijuana; Partial
itizes the proposed projects. The strategies for the Program of Urban Improvement for Mesa de Otay
creation of POEs come from a vision of state develop- Este, Tijuana; and Program of Urban Development
ment with a binational connection. for the City of Tecate 2001-2022 (2003). In addition,
technical, economic, environmental, and financial
feasibility studies, and other projects are prepared.
Instituto IMIP is responsible for urban planning activities in the Proposals for new transportation facilities and/or
Municipal de municipality of Mexicali. The planning processes that are POEs are included in the various levels of planning;
Investigación followed fit with what is established in the State Law of recently, the document that identifies the overall
y Planeación
Urban Development, which assigns faculties to the strategy of regional connections and border
de Mexicali
(IMIP) municipality to elaborate the Municipal Plan of Urban crossings is the 2025 Program of Development of
Development, to participate in Regional Programs (when the Urban Center of Mexicali. There also is a 1997
another municipality is involved), Programs of partial program for the Mexicali East border
Development of Urban Centers (city projects), Partial crossing, which includes detailed land use and
Programs of Urban Development (zones within the city), zoning for areas adjacent to the border crossing and
and Municipal Sectorial Programs (such as transportation a strategy of actions. The Transportation Master Plan
and housing). for the city of Mexicali (2004) mainly focuses on the
city network and restructuring transit routes.
Appendix B-1 48
QUESTION 1
Agency
Instituto Through integral studies like the following developed for No, this is the responsibility of the municipality who A working group made up
Municipal de the transportation case: “Plan for the Restructuring of is the only authority for determining land use and of all the involved agencies
Planeación de
Public Transit Routes in the City of Tijuana B.C.” the integration of roadways in the city. at the federal, state, and
Tijuana
(IMPLAN) municipal levels (SCT,
INDAABIN, SER, Customs,
SIDUE, IMPLAN) analyze and
rank proposals.
Appendix B-1 49
QUESTION 2
Question 2: Does your agency apply quantitative and/or qualitative evaluation criteria to prioritize projects? If, so please provide the
evaluation criteria and related methodology.
Agency Response
U.S. General GSA’s ranking of its border station projects reflects rankings assigned by its customer, CBP, based primarily on mission urgency and effectiveness.
Services The principal financial criterion applicable to GSA projects other than border stations – internal rate of return at market rents – is not applicable to
Administra- border stations because there is no market for border stations.
tion (GSA)
U.S. Customs Data collected through the strategic resource assessments (SRA) process allows CBP to prioritize projects based on quantified scores derived from
and Border the following overarching criteria: mission and operations; space and site deficiencies; security and life safety; and workload and personnel growth.
Protection Each project is scored according to the project prioritization method outlined above. The resulting list of prioritized projects comprises the five-year
(CBP) investment strategy, which is divided into annual work plans for project execution.
Federal Not applicable.

Highway
Administra-
tion (FHWA)
Caltrans Caltrans considers and applies both quantitative and qualitative evaluation criteria to prioritize projects. In considering the criteria, Caltrans would
expect these evaluation criteria to address our five departmental goals (below) and to support our mission of "improving mobility across
California.” Performance measures would be identified and then used to assess quantitative and qualitative progress toward achieving these goals
and to establish a measurable benefit from implementation of a specific project.
Caltrans Goals:
SAFETY - Achieve the best safety record in the nation
RELIABILITY - Reduce traveler delays due to roadwork and incidents
PERFORMANCE - Deliver record levels of transportation system improvements
FLEXIBILITY - Make transit a more practical travel option
PRODUCTIVITY - Improve the efficiency of the transportation system.
Appendix B-1 50
QUESTION 2
Agency Response
Southern Each county has a county transportation commission (CTC) with the exception of Imperial County where the county COG serves the function of a
California CTC. Each CTC develops project priorities within their respective counties and submits them to SCAG. The projects submitted by counties reflect
Association of needs in the region without consideration of potential resource availability during the planning time frame.
Governments
(SCAG) Given that a regional transportation plan must be fiscally constrained, SCAG must further prioritize the projects in cooperation with the
stakeholders so that the ultimately adopted transportation plan is within the region's means. To that end, respecting the priorities submitted by the
counties to the extent possible, SCAG reviews the submitted projects and develops regional transportation investment alternatives consistent with
the regional land use vision and at the same time addresses regional transportation goals, such as improved mobility, safety, air quality, and other
quality-of-life parameters. The alternatives are evaluated using a set of performance measures agreed upon by the stakeholders, including CTCs
through a structure of task forces and committees. The preferred alternative selected through this process becomes the ultimate regional
priority. In the process of assessing the alternatives, SCAG may introduce regional improvement projects in addition to the county submittals that
are deemed necessary to achieve the transportation and air quality objectives.
Imperial Valley Evaluation criteria are included in the 2002 Imperial County Transportation Plan; however, it is currently being updated. IVAG established emphasis
Association of areas. These emphasis areas are qualitative and quantitative criteria that range from defining deficiencies to the existing transportation facilities to
Governments identifying possible environmental or other constraints associated with proposed projects. Transportation projects are rated against a matrix
(IVAG) consisting of the evaluation criteria. Emphasis areas are listed below.
Informational Emphasis Areas:

Project Cost
Plan or Program Status (RTP, STIP, other)
Environmental and Physical Constraints
Social and Community Equity
Consistent with Local Transportation, Community, and Land Use Priorities
Evaluation criteria are included in the 2002 Imperial County Transportation Plan; however, it is currently being updated. IVAG established emphasis
areas. These emphasis areas are qualitative and quantitative criteria that range from defining deficiencies to the existing transportation facilities to
identifying possible environmental or other constraints associated with proposed projects. Transportation projects are rated against a matrix
consisting of the evaluation criteria. Emphasis areas are listed below.
Appendix B-1 51
QUESTION 2
Agency Response
IVAG
(cont’d)
Measurable Emphasis Areas:
Existing Facility Conditions – Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and Level of Service (LOS)
Future Facility Conditions – ADT and LOS (with and without project improvements)
Existing Traffic Accident Rate
Benefit Regional and/or International Goods Movement
In the 2002 Transportation Plan, a project evaluation matrix summarized all projects that were considered; however, no priority is implied by the
order in which each project is presented.
San Diego SANDAG uses quantitative criteria to prioritize transportation projects for inclusion in the RTP. The criteria prioritize regional transit, highway, HOV
Association of connector, and freeway connector projects. Highway criteria is summarized below:
Governments
(SANDAG) 1. Located in a High Crash Is the project located in an area with a high vehicular crash rate?
Rate Area Score Description
5 Greater than 160 percent of the three-year average statewide crash rate
for a similar facility (i.e., 60% over the statewide average)
4 Greater than 150% “ “
Appendix B-1 52
QUESTION 2
Agency Response
SANDAG 2. Serves Goods Movement Does the project provide for goods movement?
(cont’d) A) Is the highway a major freight corridor as measured by truck AADT%
2 >7%
1 4%-7%
0 less than 3%
B) Is the highway part of a designated trade corridor as defined in the
Regional Truck Network - as part of the RTP Freight Strategy?
2 Yes
0 No
C) Does the highway serve a major freight center (within one mile of the
corridor) such as a port, international airport, port of entry, rail
intermodal/transload facility or industrial cluster/distribution center?
1 Yes
0 No
3. Serves Peak Period Trips What is the number of peak-period trips located within one mile of the highway corridor?
Score Description
5 Over 85,000 trips per mile
4 60,000 to 85,000 trips per mile
1 Less than 20,000 trips per mile
Appendix B-1 53
QUESTION 2
Agency Response
SANDAG 4. Provides Mobility What is the increase in person capacity resulting from the project? Calculated as change in person miles
(cont’d) traveled divided by project length (miles).
Score Description
5 More that 16,000 persons per lane-mile
4 14,000 to 16,000 persons per lane-mile
1 Less than 8,000 persons per lane-mile
5. Provides Congestion Relief What is the number of daily person-hours saved?

Score Description
5 Over 1,000 person-hours per mile
4 700 to 1,000 person-hours per mile
3 500 to 699 person-hours per mile
2 200 to 499 person-hours per mile
1 less than 200 person-hours per mile
* Total daily travel time is computed for a baseline condition that includes all current (2002) fully funded and/or
environmentally cleared projects. Travel time is again computed by adding each project, one by one, to the baseline
condition. The resulting travel time is then compared to the baseline travel time. The difference is the travel time savings
that can be attributed to each project. Higher-ranking projects have the largest number of person-hours saved.
Appendix B-1 54
QUESTION 2
Agency Response
SANDAG 6. Serves Regional Does the highway corridor serve existing/planned and/or potential RCP Smart Growth areas? Highway
(cont’d) Comprehensive Plan (RCP) corridors shall receive points for each place type they serve.
Smart Growth Centers Score Description
5 Serves existing/planned metropolitan center or urban center
3 Serves existing/planned special-use center
1 Serves potential urban center or special-use center
Scores are based on the total number of these points*

5 More than 15 points
4 10 to 15 points
3 5 to 10 points
2 3 to 4 points
1 1 to 2 points
7. Facilitates Carpool Does the project contain carpool/managed lane facilities and/or regional or corridor transit service?
and Transit Mobility Score Description
5 Includes carpool/managed lane facility and regional or corridor transit
services identified in the regionally significant transportation network
3 Includes carpool facility/managed lane or regional or corridor transit
services identified in the regionally significant transportation network
8. Minimizes Habitat and Does the project minimize negative habitat and residential impacts? Projects receive points for each of the
Residential Impacts descriptions they satisfy.
Points Description
2 Avoids preserve areas as defined by habitat preserve plans
1 Avoids natural areas as defined by habitat preserve plans
2 Avoids existing residential development
Appendix B-1 55
QUESTION 2
Agency Response
SANDAG 9. Critical Linkage Is the project located in a high-volume freeway corridor and/or lacking a continuous parallel arterial or
(cont’d) completes a missing link?
Score Description
5 High-volume freeway corridor and lacking a continuous parallel arterial
listed in the regional arterial system. (High volume is defined as greater
than 250,000 ADT using the 2030 Smart Growth forecast)
3 Completes a missing regional link
1 High-volume freeway corridor or lacking a continuous parallel arterial
listed in the regional arterial system
10. Cost-Effectiveness What is the annual capital and operating project lifecycle cost per project-mile divided by person-hours saved?
(Project Lifecycle)
Calculated as:
[((Capital project cost + operating-maintenance costs)/project mile) / Project life] / annual person hours saved
Higher ranking projects have a lower cost per person hour saved.
Score Description
5 Less than $0.12 per person-hour saved per mile
4 $0.12 to $0.20 per person-hour saved per mile
1 More than $1.00 per-person hour saved per mile
Appendix B-1 56
QUESTION 2
Agency Response
SANDAG Quantitative and qualitative criteria also have been developed to rank regional freight projects and is summarized below.
(cont’d)
N0. CRITERIA CRITERIA MEASUREMENT MAX. POINTS
1 Cost-Effectiveness Cost-Effectiveness Rank = (Increase in Freight Throughput) divided by (Total 30
Capital + Operating Costs/Project Life)
2 Relieves Freight System Bottlenecks, Increase in Freight Throughput relieves bottleneck or capacity constraint 15
Capacity Constraints (Y/N)
3 Improves Freight System Mobility/ Improves Average Travel Time per Freight Unit Throughput (Y/N) 10
Travel Time
4 Improves Mobility via Freight System Improves Freight Unit Throughput per day 10
Management/ Technology (Y/N)
5 Provides Critical Modal/Intermodal Link Provides Missing Link to restore Freight Throughput capacity (Y/N) 10
6 Supports Regional Economic Freight System Capacity identified in the Regional Economic Prosperity 5
Prosperity Strategy Strategy (Y/N)
7 Improves Freight System Mobility via Increase in Freight Throughput provided by shifting use to alternate 5
Use of Alternative Route, System route/system (Y/N)
8 Integrate Local Freight System to Integrates Local Freight System/Activity to the Regional Freight Network 5
Regional Freight Network (Y/N)
9 Avoids/ Minimizes Negative Community Avoids or Minimizes negative Community Impacts (i.e., air quality, noise, 5
Impacts safety) (Y/N)
10 Avoids/Minimizes Negative Environ- Avoids or Minimizes negative Environmental and Habitat Impacts 5
mental /Habitat Impacts (i.e., water, habitat) (Y/N)
County of Both qualitative and quantitative data is used to prioritize projects. Criteria often include the following: existing and future traffic volumes,
San Diego accident history, environmental impacts/concerns, connectivity, cost, community benefits/impacts, and level of service/capacity.
City of Not in a formal way.

Calexico
Appendix B-1 57
QUESTION 2
Agency Response
City of Both qualitative and quantitative data are used to prioritize projects. Criteria often include the following: existing and future traffic volumes,
Chula Vista accident history, environmental impacts/concerns, connectivity, cost, community benefits/impacts, and level of service/capacity.
In addition, the City of Chula Vista incorporates a Growth Management Ordinance and a Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC).
The commission is tasked with monitoring Chula Vista’s growth and examining the impact it has on the quality of life of local residents. Every year,
the GMOC is charged with conducting a review of growth and measure its effects on essential city services and long-term planning objectives,
including traffic.
Generally, the traffic measure of effectiveness citywide is to maintain level of service (LOS) C or better as measured by observed average travel
speed on many signalized arterial segments, except that during peak hours a LOS D can occur for no more than two hours of the day.
SRE Yes, within the framework of the Intersecreterial Group of Ports and Border Services, the projects are evaluated taking into consideration the
authority that each agency has over bridges and border crossings.
Institute of Both, but only the qualitative criteria are assessed under these parameters. There are criteria that measure cost benefit rations, the project’s role in
Administra- providing service to the public, and other technical criteria.
tion and
Estimates of
National Real
Estate
(Instituto de
Administra-
ción y
Avalúos de
Bienes
Nacionales
INDAABIN
Appendix B-1 58
QUESTION 2
Agency Response
Aduanas Yes. The criteria are: the impacts on the point of operation (improvement, reorganization, expansion, etc.), the improvement of facilities,
addressing a problem, etc.
Secretaría de Under the sectorial planning process, the state of the road network, level service, and traffic are monitored, and general and specific market
Comunicacio studies are generated to identify new projects or improvement needs, followed by the development of a portfolio or list of specific projects. From
nes y the project list, market studies, socioeconomic evaluations, and cost-benefit analyses are prepared. The evaluation criteria depend on the type of
Transporte project, and the main criteria are travel time savings and operation costs. This process allows for the programming of projects, which are recorded
(SCT) at the Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit.
Secretariat of Evaluations depend on the rules of operation of the Habitat Program or guidelines from the Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit.
Social
Development
(Secretaría de
Desarrollo
Social,
SEDESOL)
Secretariat of Yes, it promotes the elaboration and analysis of technical, economic, environmental, and financial feasibility studies: evaluation of cost benefit,
Infrastructure transportation studies at POEs (historical analysis of truck flows, origin and destination, capacity analysis of existing ports, truck demand and
and Urban capacity), and environmental impact studies.
Development
(SIDUE)
Instituto In the planning process, three elements (mostly qualitative) are considered to establish projects and priorities:
Municipal de 1) Projects included in other planning activities at the state or federal level, taking into account that the federal and state governments participate
Investigación actively in border crossing and regional infrastructure planning;
y Planeación
2) Input received at public outreach or consultation for programs;
de Mexicali
(IMIP) 3) technical recommendations based on phasing of development as established in various programs, following two basic criteria: first phase of
urban consolidation and second phase of expansion.
Appendix B-1 59
QUESTION 2
Agency Response
IMPLAN The state indicators are utilized:

Institutional System
Natural Subsystem
Socio-economic Subsystem
Urban Subsystem
Appendix B-1 60
QUESTION 3
Question 3: What planning processes does your agency follow and/or what document(s) does your agency develop to identify potential
sources of funding for transportation or port of entry (POE) projects?
Agency Response
U.S. Department of No response.

State (DOS)
U.S. General Services While the major source of funding for POE projects is congressional appropriations, other POE stakeholders, such as state transportation
Administration (GSA) departments and local port authorities, frequently contribute significant resources, particularly development sites for new POEs.
U.S. Customs and Information from CBP’s capital planning process and data collected through the strategic resources assessments (SRAs) supports larger
Border Protection (CBP) master planning efforts and gives rise to more targeted feasibility studies. POE facilities are mostly owned and recapitalized through GSA
and the federal buildings fund, with amortized costs borne by CBP. Some POEs are owned by CBP, and others are privately owned and
leased to the federal government. CBP and GSA pursue public-private partnerships and continue to consider innovative financing
methods.
Federal Highway Not applicable.

Administration (FHWA)
International Border
Program
Caltrans California Senate Bill 45, passed in 1997, placed 75 percent of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds under the
control of California’s regional transportation agencies. In the regions, projects are nominated by cities and counties for inclusion in
Regional Transportation Improvement Programs. Projects compete with one another through a process that is established by the region.
Caltrans districts assist the regional agencies, where requested to do so, in developing regional plans. Caltrans system and regional
planning documents (transportation concept reports) and the various management systems and master plans identify the need for
projects. In the first stages of project development, the planning concept and scope, including basic design features, are reviewed and
updated, if appropriate, to define the design concept and scope.
Each Caltrans district determines how it initiates projects, subject to various considerations including regional agency priorities. Before
committing funds and resources to a project initiation document, a district may prepare a one- or two-page decision document
discussing the feasibility of initiating the project. This document usually includes a strip map and feasibility planning estimate. All STIP
projects require a project study report or, in some cases, a preliminary scope and study report.
Appendix B-1 61
QUESTION 3
Agency Response
Caltrans Specially funded state highway projects (locally funded, sales tax funded, or privately funded projects affecting state highways), new
(cont’d) public road connections to freeways, or expressways requested by local agencies need studies that define the problem and identify basic
solutions before they can be reviewed and included in a project delivery schedule or programming document. For specially funded
projects, an executed cooperative agreement or highway improvement agreement is desirable before programming. Local agencies
program their specially funded projects in expenditure plans, strategic plans, plans of finance, or other documents that are similar to the
STIP. However, when their projects involve State highway work, funding may be based on a commitment of funds from developers or
establishment of an assessment district. Local agencies must prepare a project study report before a project can be approved in the STIP
by the California Transportation Commission.
Project development starts when a Caltrans project manager is named and secures an expenditure authorization, then begins a project
work plan to cover project initiation in detail. The project manger determines the disciplines needed to develop the project and forms
the project development team. At its first meeting, the team determines the project category to be used to prepare the project
management plan.
Southern California Both the Regional Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan must be fiscally constrained documents. As a
Association of result, SCAG must develop a revenue plan utilizing reasonable assumptions and based on known and available funding sources
Governments (SCAG)
designated for transportation purposes. All local, state, and federal funding sources available for transportation must be considered in
the revenue plan. In addition, public-private partnership opportunities and other new sources may be considered in the revenue plan if
they can be supported by adequate documentation demonstrating their viability and availability.
Imperial Valley IVAG uses the above studies to identify both projects and potential funding. In addition, IVAG used the SCAG RTP, which may be
Association of found at www.scag.ca.gov.
Governments (IVAG)
Appendix B-1 62
QUESTION 3
Agency Response
San Diego Association In order to be considered for regional funds, projects must be included in the RTP. Projects are programmed within RTIP, which is
of Governments developed every two years. The RTIP is a $6 billion multi-year program of proposed major highway, arterial, transit, and bikeway
(SANDAG) projects, including the TransNet Program of Projects. The 2006 RTIP covers fiscal years 2007 through 2011 and incrementally develops
the RTP, the long-range transportation plan for the San Diego region.
Within the RTP the financial analysis focuses on transit, highway, and local street and road improvements (Systems Development) as well
as the Land Use and Systems and Demand Management components. The capital, operating, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs of
the region's transportation systems over the life of the plan are compared against forecasts of available revenues. Actions are
recommended to obtain the revenues necessary to implement the improvements recommended in the plan. The level of improvements
possible under three alternative revenue scenarios is included as part of the financial analysis. The following paragraphs highlight the
financial assumptions used in MOBILITY 2030.
Revenue Constrained Scenario

State and federal planning regulations require the development of a revenue constrained plan. Such a plan is based only on current
sources and levels of federal, state, and local transportation revenue projected out to the year 2030. This scenario includes federal and
state formula funds, as well as federal and state discretionary funds for existing projects. However, future increases in federal and state
gas taxes, the extension of the TransNet sales tax program beyond its current 2008 expiration date, or the establishment of other new
revenue sources are not included in the revenue constrained scenario.
Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario

The Reasonably Expected Revenue scenario is a more optimistic forecast, which includes all the sources of funding in the revenue
constrained forecast, plus additional sources of transportation revenue that are reasonably expected to become available through 2030.
The additional sources include an extension of the TransNet ½ percent transportation local sales tax through 2030, higher levels of state
and federal discretionary funds, and increases in state and federal gas taxes based on historical trends. This more optimistic scenario is
the basis for MOBILITY 2030.
Appendix B-1 63
QUESTION 3
Agency Response
SANDAG Unconstrained Revenue Scenario

(cont’d)
Based on the analysis of travel demand in the region to 2030 and beyond, needs have been identified for transportation improvements
and associated operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation, requiring funding above and beyond the levels assumed for the Reasonably
Expected Revenue Scenario. This third unconstrained scenario includes additional revenue options to fully fund the desired list of
projects beyond 2030. This scenario identifies a set of potential revenue sources, the estimated revenue to be generated, and the imple-
mentation steps required.
The full details of the MOBILITY 2030 revenue assumptions can be seen at:
http://www.sandag.org/programs/transportation/comprehensive_transportation_projects/2030rtp/2030_final_rtp_4.pdf
County of San Diego Review of existing County sources such as gas tax, TransNet, traffic impact fee revenue, and conditions of private development projects.
Available state and federal grants that have been publicly noticed. Coordination with Caltrans, adjacent jurisdictions, and SANDAG.
City of Calexico Participation in IVAG to request projects for the regional and state transportation improvement project list. Developer fees are computed
based on plans for future infrastructure needs.
City of Chula Vista Review of existing local and federal sources such as gas tax, TransNet Fees, the city’s transportation development impact fee revenue,
and conditions of private development projects. Available state and federal grants that have been publicly noticed. Coordination with
Caltrans, adjacent jurisdictions and SANDAG.
Secretaría de Not applicable.

Relaciones Exteriores
Appendix B-1 64
QUESTION 3
Agency Response
Institute of INDAABIN only manages federal budgets authorized by the congress; however, it supports and participates jointly with the mechanisms
Administration and that the other departments have access to.
Estimates of National
Real Estate (Instituto de
Administración y
Avalúos de Bienes
Nacionales INDAABIN
Aduanas Not applicable.
Secretariat of Based on the study results and project evaluation, the most appropriate funding source can be identified. The studies should include
Communications and value surveys of time and of declared preference. The main sources of financing are public resources through the federal disbursement
Transportation budget, private resources through the granting of a concession, or a combination of both.
(Secretaría de
Comunicación y
Transportes, SCT)
Secretariat of Social No response.

Development (Secretaría
de Desarrollo Social,
SEDESOL)
Appendix B-1 65
QUESTION 3
Agency Response
Secretariat of Deriving from the Urban Development Plans and Programs at the state level, some short-, medium-, and long-term strategic projects
Infrastructure and Urban have been identified for urban and metropolitan zones (sector to which the project belongs, development phase that it’s in, population
Development (Secretaría benefited homes/people, project horizon, necessary resources), in order to access federal and international resources (SEDESOL, SCT),
de Infraestructura y annual operating program (state planning resources), drafts, and work programs.
Desarrollo Urbano de
Baja California, SIDUE)
Municipal Planning Every planning document includes a chapter on implementation in which funding sources are identified for projects. Normally, to be at
Institute of Mexicali a (global) comprehensive planning level, this chapter describes the traditional funding sources and does not specify the exact sources
(Instituto Municipal de required for a particular project.
Investigación y
Planeación de Mexicali,
IMIP)
Instituto Municipal de This falls under the state and federal domain.
Planeación de Tijuana
Appendix B-1 66
QUESTION 4
Question 4: What public input or participation process does your agency follow when developing transportation or port of entry (POE)
plans? What other governmental entities does your agency coordinate or consult with?
Agency Response
U.S. Department of DOS consults extensively with concerned federal and state agencies, and invites public comment in arriving at this determination.
State (DOS)
U.S. General Services GSA invites public comment on POE projects as required by NEPA. GSA also coordinates its development efforts with the Federal
Administration (GSA) Highway Administration (FHA), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), state transportation departments, and
municipal governments.
U.S. Customs and CBP coordinates on multiple levels with GSA, the FHWA, the FMCSA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of
Border Protection (CBP) Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Department of State, state departments of transportation, local governments and municipal planning
organizations, Mexico’s Departments of Foreign Relations (SRE) and Transportation and Communication (SCT), the Canada Border
Services Agency (CBSA), and Transport Canada. Partnering workshops are held during strategic resources assessment site visits. GSA
and CBP maintain community outreach sessions as a standard component of project planning and execution.
Federal Highway Not applicable.

Administration (FHWA)
International Border
Program
Caltrans Many projects, even those that are limited in scope, can represent an intrusion on individuals and/or communities or a sensitive
environment. The public participation components of the project development process have been designed through state and federal
statute and regulations as identified within the CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to provide many avenues for
citizens and agencies to comment on project issues. Consideration of these issues may lengthen the project development process
considerably. Caltrans works with the cities and counties that would be stakeholders in a given project, and also consults with the
FHWA, state and federal environmental resource agencies, and members of the public that have an interest in, or that may be affected
by the project. In addition to the more formalized public hearing processes as prescribed in CEQA and NEPA, Caltrans also utilizes
informal public scoping meetings to allow the public to provide verbal and written input.
Appendix B-1 67
QUESTION 4
Agency Response
Southern California Pursuant to the requirements of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), SCAG
Association of has developed a public participation plan utilizing a bottom-up process involving multitude of stakeholders and interest parties. Public
Governments (SCAG)
input and participation in developing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) will
be sought through the implementation of this public participation plan. Basically, there are three tiers or layers to SCAG’s public
participation plan. First, all stakeholders and interested parties are encouraged to provide input through SCAG’s task force/committee
structure. Second, public involvement or participation is sought through SCAG’s outreach or public participation plan as we go out to
the communities to present issues and ideas. In a typical plan update cycle, SCAG conducts over 100 outreach events throughout the
region covering every county in the association. Third, public input is sought through a formal public hearing, as well as public
comment period pursuant to the requirements of existing statutes. All task force/committee agendas, meeting notes, and relevant staff
reports are posted on SCAG’s Web site for ready access. Furthermore, information, and material utilized in workshops and other
outreach events also are posted on SCAG’s website to the extent possible.
Imperial Valley IVAG uses a combination of the federal and state public outreach processes for both transportation and POE projects. IVAG consults
Association of with the SCAG, Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and numerous local, state, and federal agencies
Governments (IVAG)
San Diego Association To obtain public input in the development of MOBILITY 2030, SANDAG secured a full-service advertising, marketing, and public
of Governments relations agency in San Diego to assist with the public outreach and involvement program. The agency developed a comprehensive
(SANDAG) strategic marketing and public outreach program that included radio, television, newspaper, outdoor, and bus advertising. Public
information materials included brochures, a Web site, and an online and printed survey. In addition, a “Road Show” program was
developed for the public outreach efforts. The public outreach and marketing program was implemented in close coordination with
Caltrans, Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), and North County Transit District (NCTD). The MOBILITY 2030 public participation
appendix can be accessed at:
http://www.sandag.org/programs/transportation/comprehensive_transportation_projects/2030rtp/2030_final_rtp_appb.pdf
In order to develop the 2007 RTP, SANDAG has created a comprehensive public involvement program which includes suggestions on
outreach methods and input from a number of committees, working groups, and other stakeholders. SANDAG also has followed
guidelines for public involvement programs included in the new SAFETEA-LU.
Appendix B-1 68
QUESTION 4
Agency Response
SANDAG (cont’d) The plan aims to solicit participation from a broad range of groups and individuals in the 2007 RTP development and decision-making
process. The plan also serves to stimulate dialogue about the transportation challenges facing the San Diego region and incorporate into
the RTP, realistic solutions that address the diverse mobility needs of the region’s residents, visitors and business people.
The public participation plan will implement a community-based outreach program and distribute information via the Web, brochures,
newsletters and other publications and at regularly scheduled meetings. The RTP also calls for implementation of a media outreach
program, subregional meetings/workshops, public hearings and promoting outreach through the SANDAG Speakers Bureau.
The SANDAG Board of Directors adopted the public participation plan for use in the 2007 RTP at their October 27, 2006, meeting. The
full Board report can be accessed at:
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/meetingid/meetingid_1365_6052.pdf
County of San Diego The County obtains input from each of the community planning groups regarding needed projects. The County also receives input from
various agencies and interest groups such as the Bicycle Coalition, NCTD, MTS, Caltrans, adjacent jurisdictions, Environmental Habitats
League, Sierra Club, etc.
City of Calexico All documents are approved following public hearings held by the city council. The city participates as a member of the IVAG, and staff
regularly meets with Caltrans staff on transportation issues.
City of Chula Vista The City receives and reviews public comments during the public review portion of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
process for larger projects, as well as smaller projects that ultimately end up in front of the city council for approval. The city works with
neighboring jurisdictions such as National City, the City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego, as appropriate. For regional
highway issues, the city works with Caltrans.
Secretaría de Relaciones Within the framework of the Intersecreterial Group of Ports and Border Services, federal, state and municipal representatives, as well as
Exteriores the private sector, put forward their observations regarding proposals for bridges and international borders.
Appendix B-1 69
QUESTION 4
Agency Response
Institute of INDAABIN does not manage a specific program for public participation; however, we have information open and available to the public
Administration and in agreement with the transparency law. Related to this, we participate in the meetings that the local governments organize in an effort
Estimates of National to present and promote the port projects and to receive observations and commentary from different public and private groups.
Real Estate (Instituto de
Administración y On the other hand, for any project it develops, the institute seeks the advice of the federal operational departments, the occupants of
Avalúos de Bienes the building (customs, INM, SAGARPA, PROFEPA, CAPUFE, BANJERCITO, ETC), as well as the federal authorities (ex. SEDESOL) and the
Nacionales INDAABIN municipalities (ex. IMPLAN) charged with local, regional, and national planning.
Secretariat of In the process of developing the communications and transportations division plan, civic consultations (public outreach) and feedback
Communications and from regional planning groups (federal and state) are taken into account. These include interdisciplinary working groups such as the
Transportation National Counsel on Infrastructure, the Joint Labor Committee, Binational Group on Bridges and Border Crossings, etc.
(Secretaría de
Comunicación y
Transportes, SCT)
Secretariat of Social No response.

Development (Secretaría
de Desarrollo Social,
SEDESOL)
Appendix B-1 70
QUESTION 4
Agency Response
Secretariat of According to the State of Baja California Planning Law and the State Urban Development Law, public consultation in the planning
Infrastructure and Urban process at any level for any urban matter in Baja California is carried out according to the following two steps:
Development (Secretaría 1. Public consultation at the state level falls under the State of Baja California Committee on Planning and Development (COPLADEM) through the
de Infraestructura y Subcommittee of Urban Development and Housing, whose responsiblity corresponds to SIDUE and meets with all of the federal, state and municipal
Desarrollo Urbano de dependents from the Sector on Human Settlements, private organizations dedicated to construction, social representatives such as professional
Baja California, SIDUE) schools and community organizations, all from the State of Baja California.
2. Technical ruling of congruency for publication in the official newspaper of the State of Baja California, whose responsibility falls under the State of
Baja California’s Coordinated Commission, an auxiliary constituent of the State Executive whose regulation corresponds to SIDUE, and verifies the
congruency of the documents with state planning, and soley meets with the dependencies of the Sector on Human Settlements in the State of Baja
California (around 15 dependencies).
Municipal Planning The municipal government does not develop POE projects. These projects are developed by the federal government, and it is unlikely
Institute of Mexicali that they consult with the local government. A similar process occurs with State government participation in the technical working
(Instituto Municipal de group that meets on border crossings, in which there are some sessions that the municipal government does not participate in. Another
Investigación y example is the Silicon Border, which is being promoted by the State Secretariat of Economic Development with very little municipal
Planeación de Mexicali, participation. At IMIP, we are seeking to generate a better approach to these types of projects, which should be a municipal priority
IMIP) given their importance to the city’s dynamic economy. Nevertheless, sometimes there is greater communication with U.S. agencies than
with the national ones in these types of projects.
We seek more direct coordination with state agencies such as SIDUE and SEDECO, and federal government such as SCT and INDABIN.
This is important in order to develop a fundamental strategy for border crossings in which not only POEs are addressed, but also their
urban impacts from the point of view of the roadways, security, urban image, infrastructure, and land use.
Instituto Municipal de The process is outlined in the mandated state legislation on urban development and is coordinated with the same working group made
Planeación de Tijuana up of the involved agencies at the federal, state and municipal levels (SCT, INDAABIN, SER,. Customs, SIDUE, IMPLAN).
Appendix B-1 71
QUESTION 5
Question 5: How often are the documents referred to above updated? What is the planning horizon for these documents?
Agency Response
U.S. Department of State (DOS) No response.
U.S. General Services The planning horizon for POE feasibility studies and prospectuses is typically 30 years. The documents are not updated on a
Administration (GSA) regular schedule.
U.S. Customs and Border CBP’s strategic resources assessment site assessments cover the POE portfolio every three years. Some data elements are
Protection (CBP) updated quarterly and annually.
Federal Highway Administration Not applicable.

(FHWA) International Border
Program
Caltrans Depending on the document, they can range from having continuous input until finalized (as would be the case for a project
study report or a project report/environmental document), or be updated on an identified schedule, which is typically every
three to five years. The planning horizons for these documents is 20 to 30 years in the future.
Southern California Association The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) allows SCAG to update
of Governments (SCAG) both the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), as well as the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) every four
years. However, because the RTIP is a short-term program (six-year), it requires frequent amendments to keep the document
current. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, SCAG anticipates continuing to update the RTIP every two years even though
statutorily (SAFETEA-LU), it is required to be updated only once every four years.
Imperial Valley Association of The above documents, if deemed necessary and the funding is available, are updated every four to six years, and the planning
Governments (IVAG) horizons tend to go from 30 to 50 years.
San Diego Association of The RTP will be updated every four years, as per new SAFETEA-LU requirements. The 2007 RTP will have a horizon year of
Governments (SANDAG) 2030. The RTIP is updated every two years and includes five years of project programming.
Appendix B-1 72
QUESTION 5
Agency Response
County of San Diego The five-year capital improvement plan was recently adopted and is targeted to be updated every two years. The County TIF
program also was recently adopted and is targeted to be updated every year. The County overall General Plan is currently in
the process of being updated. There is no set cycle for the plan to be updated on an established cycle. Specific plans, such as
the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan, are updated on an as-needed basis.
City of Calexico The General Plan has a 20-year or so horizon and is expected to be updated every five to ten years, depending on need.
City of Chula Vista The City’s General Plan is typically reviewed and updated every 10 to 15 years and has the same study horizon year that
SANDAG currently utilizes which is 2030. All other documents are updated on an as-needed basis.
SRE The documents are updated at each meeting of the Intersecreterial Group of Ports and Border Services. The meetings do not
have a regular recurrence established by statute; however, the group meets around 24 times per year.
Institute of Administration and The update of planning documents depends on the document and its relevance:
Estimates of National Real Estate
Evaluation of priorities - each fiscal year.
(Instituto de Administración y
Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales Master Plans are revised constantly in agreement with the requirements of the Intersecreterial border POE group (Grupo
INDAABIN Intersecreterial de Puertos Y Cruces Fronterizos).
The time horizon for planning master plans and executive projects is 20 to 25 years.
Aduanas The planning process is visited annually.
Appendix B-1 73
QUESTION 5
Agency Response
Secretariat of Communications
and Transportation (Secretaría de Document Update Planning Horizon
Comunicación y Transportes, National Development Plan 6 years 25 years
SCT)
Regional and Sector Plans 6 years 25 years
Federal Disbursement Budget 1 year 6 years
Secretariat of Social The National Urban Development Program is updated every six years.
Development (Secretaría de
Desarrollo Social, SEDESOL)
Secretariat of Infrastructure and According to the State of Baja California Planning Law and the State of Baja California Urban Development Law, SIDUE
Urban Development (Secretaría produces two types of planning documents
de Infraestructura y Desarrollo
The six-year operating programs derived from the Planning Law are updated every year with a planning horizon of six years.
Urbano de Baja California,
SIDUE) http://www.bajacalifornia.gob.mx/portal/gobierno/biblioteca.jsp
http://www.bajacalifornia.gob.mx/portal/programas.jsp
http://www.bajacalifornia.gob.mx/portal/programas_regp.jsp
The institutional programs derived from the Urban Development Law are updated every six years with a planning horizon of
generally of 20 years.
http: //www.bajacalifornia.gob.mx/sidue/
Municipal Planning Institute of Every three years (at the beginning of each municipal administration) documents are revised to see if they need to be updated.
Mexicali (Instituto Municipal de The program that is monitored most closely is the City of Mexicali’s planning program, which is updated every five years. The
Investigación y Planeación de most recent update to the City of Mexicali’s Urban Development Program is through the year 2025 and proposes for the first
Mexicali, IMIP) time to monitor annually, the projects defined as a priority by the advisory group. The advisory group has working tables by
program theme, one of which is referred to as projects for the Economic Positioning of Mexicali in the region. This includes the
expansion of Mexicali POE 1, the management of the Centinela POE and Technology Park, and the development of the city’s
logistical system.
Appendix B-1 74
QUESTION 5
Agency Response
Instituto Municipal de This is under the federal and state domain.

Planeación de Tijuana
Appendix B-1 75
QUESTION 6
Question 6: If your agency is not responsible for developing transportation or POE plans/programs, does your agency provide input into the
Agency Response
U.S. General Services Not applicable.

Administration (GSA)
U.S. Customs and Border No response.

Protection (CBP)
Federal Highway Administration Under the auspices of the Joint Working Committee on Planning and Programming we fund and oversee various studies to
(FHWA) International Border focus resources in the following “planning areas”. The idea is that other agencies will use these plans, products or tools to
Program come up with their own agreed to priorities.
1. Regional Border Master Plan (Caltrans/ Baja California Case Study)

The JWC proposes to create a compendium of border-wide regional master plans with a comprehensive and prioritized
assessment of transportation needs along the border including at the Ports of Entry beginning with a pilot project for the
San Diego/ Tijuana area. The Master Plan provides the next logical step in a comprehensive, binational transportation
planning process. The Border Master Plan will go beyond BINS II to gather land use, environment, population and socio-
economic data. This data will be used to adequately evaluate growth and future capacity needs at the border and to more
realistically forecast future conditions in the border region. Additionally, this data can be utilized to evaluate the existing
binational transportation and POE system, its current and future demand, and the infrastructure necessary to handle the
expected growth. The Master Plan would help foster consistency amongst the individual agency planning processes, which
creates a documentation that feeds back into the periodic updates of plan. The Master Plan must consider short-term, mid-
term and long-term needs.
The comprehensive list and prioritized assessment of the transportation and POE needs will support international trade as
well as improve cross-border travel and the quality of life for the residents and visitors of each region. Therefore, the Border
Master Plan should be incorporated as a component of federal, state and local strategic plans. Additionally, the outcome of
the Master Plan process must be accepted and embraced by stakeholders throughout the border region.
Appendix B-1 76
QUESTION 6
Agency Response
FHWA
(cont’d) Stakeholders should make the Master Plan part of their overall planning and forecasting process. The master plan would be
regularly updated (every 3-5 years) with new data, policy issues, economic and infrastructure changes as planned by the
stakeholders.
2. Border Infrastructure Needs Assessment II /GIS (BINSII).

The BINS II project would provide an update the BINS I information to include a complete project listing, including project
description, estimated cost, funding needs and other significant project data prior to further analysis, evaluation,
prioritization or assessment of the existing database, transportation projects or corridors. Second, BINS II will include
development of a framework and process by which corridor projects can be addressed across jurisdictional lines including
identifying corridor connectivity between adjacent states in the same country. The framework would identify the scope,
guidelines and timelines for updating each Bi-State Transportation Plan. The BINS II and the JWC Border GIS efforts will
become seamless and fully integrated. The BINS II modal database framework will be based upon the linear referencing
system and point locations in the BGIS. All BINS II mapping will be derived from the BGIS. GIS compatibility needs will be
identified early in the data collection effort; before database updates are provided. The corridor evaluation criteria will be
improved to incorporate such elements as “Major Terminal Corridors” (corridors directly serving international POEs, i.e., land
border crossings, airports and seaports), as well as “Feeder Corridors” (corridors that only connect with the Major Terminal
Corridors, i.e., regional corridors or intermodal facilities that serve the origins and destinations of trade and transport
through international POEs.
BINS I – The Binational Border Transportation Infrastructure Needs Assessment Study (BINS) followed the JWC’s vision of
developing and coordinating border transportation plans, and continued the work initiated in the 1998 U.S.-Mexico
Binational Transportation Planning and Programming (P&P) study. The purpose of BINS was to identify major transportation
corridors in the border region, to develop a quantitative procedure to evaluate the needs of these corridors, and then, with
input from the JWC, to identify transportation projects to meet the needs of the corridors as well as to identify possible
funding sources. The BINS project was conducted in close coordination with the BINS Technical Committee, which was
comprised of representatives from the ten border states as well as SCT and FHWA, under the guidance of the JWC.
Appendix B-1 77
QUESTION 6
Agency Response
FHWA
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BINS PROJECT:
(cont’d)
Developed a systematic approach for assessing transportation infrastructure needs in the U.S.-Mexico border region. This
framework will be useful for future transportation infrastructure assessments and can be enhanced or adapted to reflect
the JWC’s evolving areas of emphasis.
Identified 42 multimodal transportation corridors within the ten border states.HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BINS PROJECT (cont’d):
Created a border-wide database and evaluation tool, that was used to help prioritize each state’s transportation corridors,
based on multimodal quantifiable criteria for highways, land ports of entry, airports, maritime ports, and railroads.
Identified 311 significant transportation projects (258 in the U.S. and 53 in Mexico). The purpose of compiling
transportation project-level information was to summarize funded and unfunded planned infrastructure improvements for
the border region.Identified in the U.S., a shortfall of approximately $10.6 billion dollars (in 2003 constant dollars) for
transportation projects, corresponding mainly to highway projects ($10.5 billion dollars).
Identified in Mexico, a shortfall for transportation projects of $9,030 million pesos (in constant 2003 pesos) [or $860
million dollars], which also corresponds mainly to highway projects ($8,878 million pesos) [or $846 million dollars].
Mexican Pesos were converted to US dollars at 1 US $ = 10.5 Mexican pesos.
The section titled Summary of Findings by State illustrates the corridors (organized by priority), provides an example
of transportation projects, and identifies funding shortfalls, for each of the ten border states.
Future work of BINS could improve the process of corridor and project identification, such as establishing binational
and multi-state transportation corridors. Incorporating a broader set of criteria, such as security, environment, and
safety elements, could enhance the corridor evaluation process. The integration of the binational geographical
information system (BGIS) database with BINS would enhance the display and analysis of transportation corridors and
projects.
We provide technical expertise to GSA, CBP, and the Department of State in traffic forecasting and traffic distribution.
Lower Rio Grande Valley Traffic White Paper.
Review of Border Wizard Simulation Results
Appendix B-1 78
QUESTION 6
Agency Response
Caltrans Caltrans, in partnership with local, state and federal agencies is responsible for the development of a broad range of multi-
modal transportation plans and programs.
Southern California Association As described above, SCAG is required to develop RTP and RTIP through a collaborative process. Transportation/POE project
of Governments (SCAG) development, as such, can be viewed as part of this collaborative process. Furthermore, depending on the nature and scope of
POE projects, SCAG may weigh-in through its goods movement program or transportation corridor program as may be
appropriate to ensure integrity of regional transportation goals and objectives. For example, if the proposed POE project is
considered a regionally significant goods movement projects, SCAG’s Goods Movement Task force would have the purview to
review the project prior to consideration for inclusion in the RTP. Likewise, if it is considered a regionally significant
transportation corridor project, it must be reviewed through SCAG’s Regionally Significant Transportation Investment Studies
(RSTIS) process.
Imperial Valley Association of IVAG generally assists GSA in the POE planning.
Governments (IVAG)
San Diego Association of SANDAG is responsible for developing the RTP. SANDAG coordinates with Caltrans and other state and federal agencies on
Governments (SANDAG) additional transportation/POE planning efforts.
County of San Diego We provide input to Caltrans and SANDAG regarding the preparation and implementation of the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). The County also prepares and adopts land uses plans (General Plan and Specific Plans) in areas adjacent to the border.
The plans designate land uses and transportation corridors in these areas and can provide a mechanism for preserving right-of-
way for future transportation corridors such as for the future SR 11 in East Otay Mesa. The County entered into a Letter of
Intent with other jurisdictions and agencies to preserve right of way for a future POE in this area.
City of Calexico As a City government, we are directly involved in transportation planning.
Appendix B-1 79
QUESTION 6
Agency Response
City of Chula Vista The City of Chula Vista is directly involved with its own planning. The City is also involved as a member in all SANDAG
transportation committees and technical working groups.
Secretaría de The Secretary of Exterior Relations acts as coordinator of the Intersecreterial Group of Ports and Border Services, and analyzes
Relaciones Exteriores and evaluates the proposals for bridges and border crossings so that these proposals are presented at the Binational Mexico –
U.S. Group on bridges and border crossings.
Institute of Administration and INDAABIN provides input into plans and programs.
Estimates of National Real Estate
(Instituto de Administración y
Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales
INDAABIN
Secretariat of Communications Not applicable.

and Transportation (Secretaría de
Comunicación y Transportes,
SCT)
Secretariat of Social In addition 1) The Secretariat of Social Development grants technical assistance in terms of urban development to the states
Development (Secretaría de and municipalities when requested.
Desarrollo Social, SEDESOL)
Appendix B-1 80
QUESTION 6
Agency Response
Secretariat of Infrastructure and The State Secretariat of Infraestructure and Urban Development has the responsibility of participating in State, Federal and
Urban Development (Secretaría Municipal public consultations for Human Settlement Sector Plans and Programs where the Transportation Sub-sector is
de Infraestructura y Desarrollo present. At the State level ( as mentioned in point four) official validation is established when a technical ruling of congruency is
Urbano de Baja California, issued for publication in the State’s official newspaper.
SIDUE)
Municipal Planning Institute of IMIP participates in BITTAC as a binational transportation advisor, but the functions are limited to information exchange, and it
Mexicali (Instituto Municipal de lacks the development of a common strategy for the promotion of projects. This committee lacks participation from U.S.
Investigación y Planeación de municipalities, as well as INDAABIN and SCT from Mexico.
Mexicali, IMIP)
Instituto Municipal de The City is responsible for the development of programs that include municipal and urban localities as well as planning at the
Planeación de Tijuana neighborhood level.
Appendix B-1 81
QUESTION 7
Question 7: Do your agency’s transportation and/or POE planning documents get incorporated into overall regional, state, or federal planning processes?
Please explain
Agency Response
U.S. General Services Yes. As noted in the answer to questions 1a and 2a, above, the project funding requested by GSA for POE’s is, if approved by
Administration (GSA) OMB, included in the President’s proposed budget and, if approved by the responsible committees of Congress and
appropriated, included in the Federal Budget as public law.
U.S. Customs and Border CBP partners with GSA and the border and transportation communities in program development. As CBP’s capital planning
Protection (CBP) process matures, it is hoped that linkages to regional, state, and other federal planning processes are strengthened. (See
attached for more information.)
Federal Highway Administration N/A

(FHWA) International Border
Program
Caltrans In general Caltrans planning documents are used for reference to introduce a high-level, overall corridor and project vision and
corresponding guiding principles that would eventually be incorporated into a project specific document. The intent of
incorporating Caltrans' planning documents would be to compliment and build upon local, regional, and statewide level plans
and programs in the context of what could be accomplished by a collaborative effort at the project specific level.
With that perspective, the planning documents such as Caltrans' District level Transportation Concept Reports and the Regional
Transportation Plans (RTP) of their respective Metropolitan Planning Agencies, and statewide documents including the
California Transportation Plan 2025, Transportation Management Systems Master Plan, Draft Performance Measurement
Framework, and Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment Initiatives would be used as tools to help frame the planning
processes, design measurable outputs, and define desirable outcomes that work with and compliment both the state's brick-
and-mortar transportation infrastructure, and the current and future management systems needed to maximize the
performance of those investments
Appendix B-1 82
QUESTION 7
Please explain
Agency Response
Southern California Association As explained above, transportation projects and/or POE projects are incorporated, as appropriate, into SCAG’s RTP and RTIP,
of Governments (SCAG) which are the regional planning and programming documents. RTP and RTIP are further integrated into the State
Transportation Plan (STP) and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Imperial Valley Association of IVAG’s transportation plans are incorporated into the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan, Caltrans planning documents, and
Governments (IVAG) federal documents (i.e., SAFETEA LU).
San Diego Association of SANDAG’s RTP serves as the long range plan for the region. The air quality conformity for the RTP is approved by FHWA and
Governments (SANDAG) FTA. All transportation projects that require federal environmental approval must be included in the air quality conformity
analysis for the adopted RTP or RTIP.
County of San Diego Typically, the County’s documents do not get incorporated into overall regional, state or federal planning documents.
Designated Circulation Element roads and land uses are often depicted in each. Alignments of these roads shift as more
detailed studies are done. For example as SR 11 is undergoing the environmental and engineering studies to define the future
alignment the specific plan is altered to adjust and depict. Coordination efforts between the County, Caltrans and developers
in the region is being done to better fix the alignment so that the right-of-way is preserved and future development in the area
will not preclude the construction of the future facility.
City of Calexico The City general plans are intended to be consistent with county general plans. Transportation funding requests consistent with
those plans are made via regional transportation improvement programs (RTIP).
City of Chula Vista Yes, as an agency partner with SANDAG, the City is heavily involved in regional planning issues dealing with a broad range of
transportation issues, plans and programs including the update to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and the Interstate 5
and Interstate 805 corridor studies, all presently underway.
The City works with SANDAG in determining which City roads should be included in the Regional Arterial System.
Appendix B-1 83
QUESTION 7
Please explain
Agency Response
SRE The Secretary of Exterior Relations acts as coordinator of the Intersecreterial Group of Ports and Border Services, and analyzes
and evaluates the proposals for bridges and border crossings so that these proposals are presented at the Binational Mexico –
US Group on bridges and border crossings.
Institute of Administration and Yes, for any project it develops, the Institute seeks the advice of the federal operational departments, the occupants of the
Estimates of National Real Estate building (customs, INM, SAGARPA, PROFEPA, CAPUFE, BANJERCITO, ETC) as well as the federal authorities (ex. SEDESOL), and
(Instituto de Administración y the municipalities (ex. IMPLAN) charged with local, regional and national planning.
Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales
INDAABIN
Secretariat of Communications Yes, SCT programs are part of the federal and regional planning process.
and Transportation (Secretaría de
Comunicación y Transportes,
SCT)
Secretariat of Social According to Article 6 of the General Law on Human Settlements, zoning human settlements and the urban development of
Development (Secretaría de population centers shall be performed simultaneously by the Federation, the federal entities and municipalities as determined
Desarrollo Social, SEDESOL) by the Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico.
Secretariat of Infrastructure and As part of SIDUE’s development process, all federal, state and municipal urban development plans and programs are analyzed
Urban Development (Secretaría with the objective of integrating corresponding actions at the state level. Their incorporation and effect on the State is verified
de Infraestructura y Desarrollo as part of the analysis carried out through the technical ruling of Congruency.
Urbano de Baja California,
SIDUE)
Appendix B-1 84
QUESTION 7
Please explain
Agency Response
Municipal Planning Institute of Normally border crossing projects start with the local management and are supported by the city’s urban development
Mexicali (Instituto Municipal de programs. Subsequently, the federal government carries out the long term projects and is limited to developing the land for
Investigación y Planeación de the Port of Entry, leaving the integration of the POE to the local authorities.. IMIP’s perspective in this and other topics is
Mexicali, IMIP) essential in that the management of the border crossings should recognize the border crossing’s sphere of influence so it is
integrated adequately. Federal spaces within the municipal environment cannot be managed as isolated projects.
IMPLAN With regard to the development of the plans and programs described in the previous answer, the federal and state plans are
considered and their strategies and guidelines are incorporated into these programs to ensure congruency with national and
state plans.
Appendix B-1 85
Appendix C
Transportation Facilities
and Short-Term Projects
Appendix C-1
Transportation Facilities within Focus Study Area
Begin End Number of % Truck Within

Segment Post Post Lanes AADT AADT Level of Service Peak Period Traffic Volume Peak Period Traffic Capacity Railroad 2005-2030 Addition of 10 mi
% How the road serves an International (16 km)
Growth AAGR POE.
Facility 2005- 2005- a.m./ a.m./ a.m./ a.m./ a.m./ a.m./ HOV/ Ped. Bike Reporting
County Type Facility Name From To Mile/Km 2005 2030 2005 2030 2030 2030 2005 2030 2005 p.m. 2030 p.m. 2005 p.m. 2030 p.m. 2005 p.m. 2030 p.m. Y/N Name ML Walkway Path Agency
1 Imperial Expressway SR 7 Border SR 98 0.0 1.2 4 4 15,600 58,000 271.8% 5.39% 12.0% 0.0% B p.m. D p.m. 800 p.m. 2,683 p.m. 4,000 p.m. 4,000 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
to the Calexico East POE
2 Imperial Expressway SR 7 SR 98 I-8 1.2 6.7 4 4 6,200 52,000 738.7% 8.88% 12.0% 0.0% A p.m. C p.m. 300 p.m. 2,401 p.m. 4,000 p.m. 4,000 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
to the Calexico East POE
3 Imperial Freeway I-8 Forrester Road Imperial Avenue 34.0 37.0 4 4 19,300 39,500 104.7% 2.91% 11.0% 0.0% B p.m. A p.m. 703 p.m. 1,472 p.m. 4,000 p.m. 4,000 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans I-8 freeway provides interregional and Y
interstate access to /from highways
serving the Calexico and Calexico East
POEs
4 Imperial Freeway I-8 Imperial Avenue SR 86 37.0 38.0 4 4 32,000 73,600 130.0% 3.39% 11.0% 0.0% A p.m. C p.m. 2,564 p.m. 2,027 p.m. 4,000 p.m. 4,000 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans I-8 freeway provides interregional and Y
interstate access to /from highways
serving the Calexico and Calexico East
POEs
5 Imperial Highway SR 98 Dogwood Road Navarro Avenue 30.3 31.1 2 4 9,800 24,000 144.9% 3.65% 5.0% 0.0% B p.m. B p.m. 735 p.m. 928 p.m. 2,000 p.m. 2,400 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as E-W connector highway Y
via SR 7 to the Calexico East POE
6 Imperial Highway SR 98 Navarro Avenue SR 111 31.1 32.3 2/4 4 24,200 32,000 32.2% 1.12% 7.0% 0.0% E/C p.m. C p.m. 1,815 p.m. 1,225 p.m. 2,400 p.m. 2,400 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as E-W connector highway Y
via SR 7 to the Calexico East POE
7 Imperial Highway SR 98 SR 111 (0.6 KM Cole Road 32.3 35.2 2/4 4 6,900- 39,000 n/a n/a 11.0% 0.0% E/B p.m. C p.m. 1,950 p.m. 1,421 p.m. 2,400 p.m. 2,400 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as E-W connector highway Y
W of SR 111) 26,000 via SR 7 to the Calexico East POE
8 Imperial Highway SR 98 Cole Road SR 7 (Alamo 35.2 39.6 2 4 15,000 59,000 293.3% 5.63% 27.0% 0.0% C p.m. E p.m. 1,125 p.m. 2,328 p.m. 2,000 p.m. 2,400 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as E-W connector highway Y
River Bridge) via SR 7 to the Calexico East POE
9 Imperial Highway SR 111 Border SR 98 0.0 R1.2 4 4 43,000- 63,500 n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0% E p.m. F p.m. 1,800- p.m. 2,700 p.m. 2,400 p.m. 2,400 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
50,000 2,100 to the Calexico POE
10 Imperial Expressway SR 111 SR 98 I-8 R1.2 R7.7 4 4 33,500- 72,300- n/a n/a 8.0% 0.0% B p.m. D to p.m. 1,500- p.m. 3,200- p.m. 4,000 p.m. 4,000 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
37,000 100,500 F 1,700 4,500 to the Calexico POE
11 Imperial Highway SR 186 Border I-8 0.0 2.1 2 4 7,100 11,000 54.9% 1.77% 7.0% 0.0% B p.m. B p.m. 330 p.m. 511 p.m. 2,000 p.m. 2,400 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
to Andrade POE
12 Imperial Primary Second Street SR 111 Dogwood Rd n/a 2.1 2 4 13,195 21,500 62.9% 1.97% 20.0% 20.0% D p.m. B p.m. 1,715 p.m. 2,795 p.m. 2,000 p.m. 4,000 p.m. N N/A N Y Y Calexico Second Street Expansion serves as an Y
alternate exit from the POE to I-8 via
Dogwood Road.
13 Imperial Primary Cesar Chavez SR 111 SR 98/Birch St n/a 0.9 2 4 13,500 33,000 144.4% 3.64% 20.0% 20.0% D p.m. C p.m. 1,755 p.m. 2,970 p.m. 2,000 p.m. 4,000 p.m. N N/A N N Y Calexico Cesar Chavez Expansion serves as an Y
Blvd alternate to Hwy 111 from the POE to I-8
via Cole Blvd and Dogwood Road.
14 Imperial Primary SR98/Birch St Dogwood Rd Barbara Worth n/a 6.3 4 6 26,000 47,500 82.7% 2.44% 25.0% 20.0% F p.m. C p.m. 3,900 p.m. 4,750 p.m. 4,000 p.m. 6,000 p.m. N N/A N N Y Calexico SR98/Birch St serves as an east-west Y
Rd connector to funnel traffic to primary and
alternate access roads to the POE.
15 Imperial Local Cole Rd. Bowker Rd. SR 98 n/a n/a 4 4 11,230 22,000 95.9% 2.73% N/A n/a A n/a B n/a n/a n/a 820 p.m. n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N SCAG This road will provide more vehicle access Y
Arterial to SR 98 east.
16 Imperial Local Cole Rd. Railroad Tracks Kloke Rd. n/a 0.33 4 4 2,850 25,000 777.2% 9.07% n/a n/a A n/a B n/a n/a n/a 932 a.m. n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N SCAG This road will provide more vehicle access Y
Arterial West.
17 San Freeway I-5 Intl Line Jct. Rte. 905 R0.9 3.1 8 8 69,471 96,800 39.3% 1.34% 5.0% 0.0% A a.m. C p.m. 3,151 a.m. 4,670 p.m. 8,000 a.m. 8,600 p.m. Y SDIV N N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
Diego to the San Ysidro POE
18 San Freeway I-5 Jct. Rte. 905 Palm Ave. 3.1 4.7 8 8+2 112,097 170,700 52.3% 1.70% 8.0% 0.0% C a.m. D p.m. 5,297 a.m. 8,235 p.m. 8,600 a.m. 10,750 p.m. Y SDIV Y N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
Diego HOV to the San Ysidro POE
19 San Freeway I-5 Palm Ave. L St. 4.7 6.8 8 8+2 156,412 211,400 35.2% 1.21% 8.0% 0.0% D a.m. D p.m. 7,223 a.m. 9,386 p.m. 8,600 a.m. 10,750 p.m. Y SDIV Y N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
20 San Freeway I-5 L St. SR 54 6.8 9.4 8 8+2 175,000 224,200 28.1% 1.00% 5.0% 0.0% D p.m. D p.m. 7,560 p.m. 9,282 p.m. 8,600 p.m. 10,750 p.m. Y SDIV Y N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
21 San Highway SR 94 SR 54 Otay Lakes 14.9 24.7 2 2/4 8,200- 12,300- n/a n/a 7.0% 0.0% C to p.m. C to p.m. 442- p.m. 700- p.m. 2,000 p.m. 2000- p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
Diego Road 23,000 39,700 F F 1,240 2100 2400 via SR 188 to the Tecate POE
22 San Highway SR 94 Otay Lakes Road SR 188 24.7 39.0 2 2 6,500- 12,300- n/a n/a 8.0% 0.0% B p.m. C/D p.m. 300-400 p.m. 300-900 p.m. 2,000 p.m. 2,000 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
Diego 8,700 15,800 via SR 188 to the Tecate POE
23 San Arterial Siempre Viva Rd La Media Rd. SR 905 n/a n/a 2 0 5,400 0 N/A N/A 5.0% 0.0% D a.m. n/a n/a 653 a.m. n/a n/a 1,200 a.m. n/a n/a N N/A N N N Caltrans This road provides commercial vehicle Y
Diego access to the Otay Mesa POE
24 San Freeway SR 11 SR 905 Border 0.0 2.7 0 4 0 45,300 N/A N/A 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a A p.m. n/a n/a 1,859 p.m. n/a n/a 4,000 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as E-W connector highway Y
Diego to proposed Otay Mesa East POE
25 San Highway SR 188 Border SR 94 0.0 1.8 2 2 7,000 16,000 128.6% 3.36% 10.0% 0.0% B p.m. B p.m. 376 p.m. 900 p.m. 2,000 p.m. 2,000 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
Diego to the Tecate POE
26 San Freeway I-805 I-5 SR 905 0.5 1.8 8 8 68,000 104,600 53.8% 1.74% 4.0% 0.0% C p.m. C p.m. 3,084 p.m. 4,745 p.m. 8,600 p.m. 8,600 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
Diego via I-5 to the San Ysidro POE
27 San Freeway I-805 SR 905 Palm Ave. 1.8 2.9 8 8+ML/ 118,000 151,900 28.7% 1.02% 7.0% 0.0% C p.m. C p.m. 5,352 p.m. 6,890 p.m. 8,600 p.m. 10,750 p.m. N N/A Y N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
Diego HOV via I-5 to the San Ysidro POE
28 San Freeway I-805 Palm Ave. Telegraph 2.9 6.1 8 8+ML/ 146,000 215,700 47.7% 1.57% 7.0% 0.0% C p.m. D p.m. 5,262 p.m. 7,774 p.m. 8,600 p.m. 10,750 p.m. N N/A Y N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
Diego Canyon HOV via I-5 to the San Ysidro POE
Appendix C-1 89
Appendix C-1

Growth AAGR POE.
29 San Freeway I-805 Telegraph SR 54 6.1 8.9 8 8+ML/ 222,000 264,400 19.1% 0.70% 6.0% 0.0% F p.m. E p.m. 8,547 p.m. 9,809 p.m. 8,600 p.m. 10,750 p.m. N N/A Y N N Caltrans Directly serves as N-S connector highway Y
Diego Canyon HOV via I-5 to the San Ysidro POE
30 San Freeway I-905 I-5 Beyer Blvd 3.2 3.8 4 6 48,500 88,800 83.1% 2.45% 7.0% 0.0% B p.m. C p.m. 2,131 p.m. 3,902 p.m. 4,600 p.m. 6,900 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as E-W connector highway Y
Diego to the Otay Mesa POE
31 San Freeway I-905 Beyer Blvd Picador Blvd 3.8 4.4 4 6 55,000 94,200 71.3% 2.18% 7.0% 0.0% C p.m. C p.m. 2,360 p.m. 4,041 p.m. 4,600 p.m. 6,900 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as E-W connector highway Y
32 San Freeway I-905 Picador Blvd I-805 4.4 5.2 4 6 62,000 100,800 62.6% 1.96% 7.0% 0.0% C p.m. C p.m. 2,660 p.m. 4,324 p.m. 4,600 p.m. 6,900 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as E-W connector highway Y
33 San Freeway I-905 I-805 Otay Mesa Road 5.2 5.7 4 8 57,000 172,700 203.0% 4.53% 7.0% 0.0% B p.m. D p.m. 2,772 p.m. 6,649 p.m. 4,000 p.m. 8,000 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as E-W connector highway Y
34 San Freeway I-905 Otay Mesa Road 0.6 mi west of 5.7 10.3 0 8 0 148,700 N/A N/A 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a D p.m. n/a n/a 5,725 p.m. n/a n/a 8,000 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as E-W connector highway Y
Diego Airway to the Otay Mesa POE
35 San Freeway I-905 0.6 mi west of Border 10.3 11.9 4 8 36,000 72,500 101.4% 2.84% 15.0% 0.0% B p.m. B p.m. 1,788 p.m. 3,600 p.m. 4,000 p.m. 8,000 p.m. N N/A N N N Caltrans Directly serves as E-W connector highway Y
Diego Airway to the Otay Mesa POE
36 San Bridge Heritage Road Main Street South of the N/A N/A 3 6 11,613 33,000 184.2% 4.27% n/a n/a A ADT A ADT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N Chula Provides direct access to POE by way of Y
Diego Bridge Otay River Vista the City of Chula Vista through City of San
Diego by six lane prime arterial that is
listed in City of Chula Vista's Circulation
37 San Bridge Willow Street Sweetwater Bonita Road N/A N/A 2 4 17,490 22,400 28.1% 0.99% n/a n/a F ADT C ADT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N Chula El
Providest north/south access between City Y
Diego Bridge Road Vista of Chula Vista and County of San Diego,
thereby relieving traffic demand on I-805
and future SR 125 for inter-jurisdictional
vehiclular traffic.
38 San Blue Line MTS Blue Line Within City of N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A n/a N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N N/A N N N Chula n/a Y
Diego Trolley Chula Vista Vista
Limits
39 San Arterial Airway Road City of San Diego Enrico Fermi N/A N/A 2 4 2,000 13,000 550.0% 7.77% N/A N/A B 24 hr A 24 hr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N N N N Y San Diego Airway Road will provide parallel capacity Y
Diego Drive County to SR 11 and one of the primary routes in
the East Otay Mesa area serving traffic
movement to/from SR 11 and the
International POE.
40 San Arterial Alta Road North of Lone Lone Star Road N/A N/A 2 4 5,000 14,900 198.0% 4.46% N/A N/A C 24 hr B 24 hr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N N N N Y San Diego Alta Road will be one of the primary Y
Diego Star Road County routes in the East Otay Mesa area serving
traffic movement to/from SR 11 and the
International POE.
41 San Arterial Enrico Fermi Siempre Viva Via de la N/A N/A 2 2 6,600 6,600 0.0% 0.00% n/a N/A C 24 hr A 24 hr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N N N N N San Diego Enrico Fermi Drive will be a future Y
Diego Drive Road Amistad County connection to SR 11 ramp interchange
42 San Arterial Otay Mesa Road Michael Faraday Enrico Fermi N/A N/A 2 6 8,000 18,800 135.0% 3.48% N/A N/A D 24 hr A 24 hr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N N N N Y San Diego Otay Mesa Road will provide parallel Y
Diego Road Drive County capacity to SR 11 and a arterial
43 San Arterial Airway Road Enrico Fermi Alta Road N/A N/A 0 4 n/a 6,200 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a A 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Airway Road will provide parallel capacity Y
Diego Road County to SR 11 and one of the primary routes in
the East Otay Mesa area serving traffic
movement to/from SR 11 and the
International POE
44 San Arterial Alta Road Lone Star Road Otay Mesa Road N/A N/A 0 4 n/a 5,900 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a A 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Alta Road will be one of the primary Y
Diego County routes in the East Otay Mesa area serving
International POE
45 San Arterial Alta Road Otay Mesa Road Siempre Vive N/A N/A 0 4 n/a 11,300 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a A 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Alta Road will be one of the primary Y
Diego Road County routes in the East Otay Mesa area serving
International POE
46 San Arterial Enrico Fermi Lone Star Road Otay Mesa Road N/A N/A 0 4 n/a 21,300 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a B 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Enrico Fermi Drive will be a future Y
Diego Drive County connection to SR 11 ramp interchange
47 San Arterial Enrico Fermi Lone Star Road SR 11 N/A N/A 0 4 n/a 33,800 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a E 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Enrico Fermi Drive will be a future Y
Appendix C-1 90
Appendix C-1

Growth AAGR POE.
48 San Arterial Enrico Fermi SR 11 Airway Road N/A N/A 0 4 n/a 12,500 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a A 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Enrico Fermi Drive will be a future Y
49 San Arterial Lone Star Road City of SD Ellis Road N/A N/A 0 6 n/a 31,400 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a B 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Lone Star Road will provide parallel Y
Diego County capacity to SR 11 and a arterial
connection to SR 125
50 San Arterial Lone Star Road Ellis Road Enrico Fermi N/A N/A 0 4 n/a 14,600 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a A 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Lone Star Road will provide parallel Y
Diego Drive County capacity to SR 11 and a arterial
51 San Arterial Lone Star Road Enrico Fermi Loop Road N/A N/A 0 4 n/a 30,600 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a D 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Lone Star Road will provide parallel Y
52 San Arterial Otay Mesa Road Piper Ranch Eillis Road N/A N/A 0 6 n/a 26,400 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a B 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Otay Mesa Road will provide parallel Y
Diego Road County capacity to SR 11 and an arterial
53 San Arterial Otay Mesa Road Eillis Road Michael Faraday N/A N/A 0 6 n/a 22,600 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a B 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Otay Mesa Road will provide parallel Y
Diego Drive County capacity to SR 11 and an arterial
54 San Arterial Otay Mesa Road Enrico Fermi Loop Rd N/A N/A 0 4 n/a 6,700 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a A 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Otay Mesa Road will provide parallel Y
55 San Arterial Siempre Viva City of SD Loop Road N/A N/A 0 4 n/a 28,300 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a C 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Siempre Viva Road will provide parallel Y
Diego Road County capacity to SR 11and one of the primary
routes in the East Otay Mesa area serving
International POE
56 San Freeway SR 11 Intnl Border City of SD 0.0 2.6 0 6 n/a 49,700 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a B 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego SR 11 will directly serve the new East N
Diego County Otay Port of Entry
57 San Collector Via de la City of SD Alta Road N/A N/A 0 2 n/a 300 n/a n/a n/a N/A n/a n/a A 24 hr n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N/A N/A n/a n/a N N N San Diego Via de la Amistad is an N
Diego Amistad County industrial/commercial collector and non-
Circulation Element Specific Road
58 San Arterial Enrico Fermi Airway Road Siempre Viva N/A N/A 2 4 3,400 10,100 197.1% 4.45% N/A N/A B 24 hr A 24 hr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N N N N N San Diego Enrico Fermi Drive will a be future Y
Diego Drive Road County connection to SR 11 ramp interchange
59 Mexicali Regional Carretera Blv.Lazaro Area De 0.0 29.6 4 n/a 7,430 15,104 103.3% 2.88% 16.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico Turistico Y De Carga A Y
Mexicali-San Cardenas Aplicacion 16 Cruce Fronterizo Mexicali Ii.
Luis Km. A San Luis
60 Mexicali Regional Carretera Glorieta Sanchez Area De 0.0 6.8 4 n/a 17,966 36,521 103.3% 2.88% 16.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico Turistico Al Cruce Y
Mexicali-San Taboada Aplicacion 16 Fronterizo Mexicali I. (Conectandose Al
Felipe Km. A San Blv. Lazaro Cardenas)
61 Mexicali Regional Carretera Libre Glorieta Area De 0.0 9.1 2 n/a 4,947 10,056 103.3% 2.88% 17.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico Turistico Al Cruce Y
A Tijuana Francisco Zarco Aplicacion 16 Fronterizo Mexicali I. (Conectandose Al
Km. A Tijuana Blv. Lazaro Cardenas)
62 Mexicali Regional Libramiento Intersección Interseccion 228.10 14.800 0 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico De Carga Proviniente Y
Mexicali-La Carretera Mxl- Carretera 0 MXL- MXL- De Tijuana Y El Interior De La Republica
Rosita San Luis Mexicali-Tijuana SAN TIJUA Cruce Fronterizo Mexicali Ii.
63 Mexicali Primaria Blvr. Lopez Puerto Fronterizo Glorieta 0.0 8.0 8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,015 p.m. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Ferromex N N N IMIP Sirve de salida directa del Puerto Y
Mateos No. 1 Sanchez Fronterizo 1 Calexico (N-S) a Mexicali
Taboada (Corredor Blvr. Lopez Mateos)
64 Mexicali Primaria Blvr. Benito Puerto Fronterizo Glorieta 0.0 6.2 8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,827 p.m. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Unido a la Av. Colón sirve de acceso al Y
Juárez-Justo No. 1 Sanchez Puerto Fronterizo 1 (S-N)
Sierra Taboada
65 Mexicali Primaria Carr. Mexicali a Glorieta Sanchez Limite Area 0.0 6.8 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Unido al Corredor Blvr. Lopez Mateos Y
San Felipe Taboada Urbana 2010 sirve al Puerto Fronterizo 1(N-S), como
salida de Calexico a Mexicali
66 Mexicali Primaria Av. Cristobal Calle Astros Puerto 0.0 7.9 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 404 a.m. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Sirve de acceso directo (E-O) de entrada Y
Colon Fronterizo No. 1 de Mexicali a la Garita de Calexico
(Puerto Fronterizo 1)
67 Mexicali Primaria Av. Francisco I Puerto Fronterizo Calazada Justo 0.0 4.0 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Sirve de salida directa del Puerto Y
Madero N0.1 Sierra Fronterizo 1de Calexico (N-S) a Mexicali
(Corredor Blvr. Lopez Mateos)
68 Mexicali Primaria Av. Republica Calzada Justo Blvr. Abelardo L. 0.0 3.9 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Unido al corredor Blvr. Abelardo L. Y
de Argentina Sierra Rodriguez Rodriguez con direccion (O-E), sirve de
acceso de Mexicali a la Garita de
69 Mexicali Primaria Blvr. Rio Nuevo- Puerto Fronterizo Blvr. Anahuac 0.0 5.0 8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Sirve de salida directa del Puerto Y
Cjon Zorrilla No. 1 Fronterizo 1 Calexico (N-S) a Mexicali
(Corredor Blvr. Río Nuevo)
Appendix C-1 91
Appendix C-1

Growth AAGR POE.
70 Mexicali Primaria Blvr. Abelardo L Calle Astros Calzada Cetys 0.0 5.1 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Sirvre de acceso directo al Puerto Y
Rodriguez Fronterizo 3 (Mexicali-Calexico-Mexicali)
71 Mexicali Primaria Calle Novena Calzada Cetys Calz. Gvo. 0.0 11.1 8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Unida al Blvr. Abelardo L. Rodriguez, Y
Vildosola Castro sirve de acceso al Puerto Fronterizo 3
(Mexicali-Calexico-Mexicali) Sur-Norte
72 Mexicali Primaria Calz. Gvo. Glorieta Sanchez Blvr. Lazaro 0.0 9.9 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Ferromex N N N IMIP Unido este corredor al Blvr. Lopez Mateos Y
Vildosola Castro Taboada Cardenas sirve de acceso de la Garita de Calexico
en Puerto Fronterizo 1 a Mexicali ,(N-S)
73 Mexicali Regional Carr. Mexicali- Blvr. Lazaro Area de 0.0 29.6 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Unido este corredor al Blvr. Lopez Mateos Y
San Luis Cardenas Aplicación (16 sirve de acceso de la Garita de Calexico
Kilometros) en Puerto Fronterizo 1 a Mexicali ,(N-S)
74 Mexicali Suburbana Carr. Islas Carr. Mexicali Puerto 0.0 65.7 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Esta carretera unida a las vialidades 6ta y Y
Agrarias-Los Abasolo Fronterizo 2 (Los 1ra del Poblado Los Algodones sirven de
Algodones Algodones) acceso al Puerto Fronterizo No. 2, (Los
(Carr. Estatal Algodones-Andrade-Los Algodones)
No. 8)
75 Mexicali Primaria n/a Puerto Fronterizo Carr. A Tijuana 0 9.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y n/a N N N IMIP Acceso directo a Puerto Fronterizo n/a
4 (Centinela) propuesto en Centinela.
76 Mexicali Primaria Anillo interior Diferentes n/a 0 30.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Unido a con Abelardo L. Rodríguez (al n/a
Secciones este) y Av. Internacional oeste sirve de
acceso a Puertos Fronterizos 1 y 3
77 Mexicali Rio Nuevo n/a Prolongación n/a 0 3.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Conecta directamente con bulevar Ríi n/a
Nuevo que sirve de acceso fronterizo a
Mexicali por Garita 1
78 Mexicali Primaria n/a Puerto Fronterizo Blvr. Rio Nuevo 0 15.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N IMIP Conecta de oriente a poniente a los n/a
4 (Centinela) Puertos Fronterizos 1 y 4
79 Mexicali Via Ferrea n/a Puerto Fronterizo Area de 0 19.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N IMIP Conecta proyecto Punta Colonet en n/a
4 (Centinela) Aplicación (16 Ensenada y Puerto Fronterizo 4
Kilometros)
80 Mexicali Carretera Mexicali-San Mexicali San Felipe 0.0 189.6 4 4 6,841 13,906 103.3% 2.88% 14.5% 14.5% B a.m./ B a.m./ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Ferromex N N N SCT Vialidad secundaria de acceso Y
libre Felipe p.m. p.m.
81 Mexicali Carretera Mexicali- Mexicali Progreso 0.0 15.3 2 2 1,489 3,027 103.3% 2.88% 20.0% 20.0% B a.m./ C a.m./ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Ferromex N N N SCT Vialidad secundaria de acceso Y
libre Progreso p.m. p.m.
82 Mexicali Carretera Mexicali- Mexicali Estación 0.0 96.7 2 2 3,884 7,895 103.3% 2.88% 11.3% 11.3% B a.m./ B a.m./ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Ferromex N N N SCT Vialidad secundaria de acceso Y
libre Estación Coahuila p.m. p.m.
Coahuila
83 Mexicali Carretera Mexicali- Mexicali Algodones 0.0 101.5 2 2 3,625 7,369 103.3% 2.88% 10.6% 10.6% B a.m./ B a.m./ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Ferromex N N N SCT Vialidad secundaria de acceso Y
libre Algodones p.m. p.m.
84 Mexicali Carretera Ramal Mexicali Aeropuerto 0.0 12.1 4 4 3,487 7,088 103.3% 2.88% 6.0% 6.0% B a.m./ B a.m./ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Ferromex N N N SCT Vialidad secundaria de acceso Y
libre Aeropuerto de p.m. p.m.
Mexicali
85 Mexicali Carretera Algodones-Ent. Algodones Entronque Islas 0.0 55.5 2 2 2,658 5,403 103.3% 2.88% 9.4% 9.4% B a.m./ B a.m./ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N SCT Vialidad secundaria de acceso Y
libre Islas Agrarias Agrarias p.m. p.m.
86 Mexicali Carretera Sonoita- Sonoyta, Sonora Mexicali 0.0 265.0 4 4 6,469 13,150 103.3% 2.88% 16.4% 16.4% C a.m./ C a.m./ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Ferromex N N N SCT Corredor principal de acceso Y
libre Mexicali p.m. p.m.
87 Mexicali, Carretera Tijuana-Mexicali Tijuana Mexicali 0.0 182.6 2 4 4,250 8,639 103.3% 2.88% 19.0% 19.0% D a.m./ B a.m./ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Ferromex N N N SCT Corredor principal de acceso Y
Tijuana libre p.m. p.m.
88 Mexicali, Autopista de Autopista Tijuana Mexicali 0.0 138.0 4 4 3,250 6,607 103.3% 2.88% 21.0% 21.0% B a.m./ B a.m./ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y Ferromex N N N SCT Corredor principal de acceso Y
Tijuana cuota Tijuana-Mexicali p.m. p.m.
89 Tecate Regional Carretera Cuota Intersección Area De 0.0 18.2 4 n/a 3,173 6,450 103.3% 2.88% 18.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico Turistico Y Carga, Y
Tijuana Carretera Libre Aplicacion 16 Cruce Fronterizo Tecate (Conectandose
Ensenada Km. A Tijuana A La Vialidad Paseo Universidad Y Av.
90 Tecate Regional Carretera Cuota Intersección Area De 0.0 15.2 4 n/a 2,875 5,844 103.3% 2.88% 24.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico Turistico Y Carga, Y
Tijuana Carretera Libre Aplicacion 16 Cruce Fronterizo Tecate (Conectandose
Ensenada Km. A Mexicali A La Vialidad Paseo Universidad Y Av.
91 Tecate Regional Carretera Libre Intersección Con Area De 0.0 18.4 2 n/a 4,115 8,365 103.3% 2.88% 21.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico Turistico Y Carga, Y
A Ensenada Av. Hidalgo Aplicacion 16 Cruce Fronterizo Tecate (Conectandose
Appendix C-1 92
Appendix C-1

Growth AAGR POE.
92 Tecate Regional Carretera Libre Intersección Ortiz Area De 0.0 14.1 4 n/a 4,254 8,648 103.3% 2.88% 17.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico Turistico, Cruce Y
A Tijuana Rubio Aplicacion 16 Fronterizo Tecate (Conectandose Directo
Km. A Tijuana A Cruce Tecate)
93 Tecate Regional Carretera Libre Intersección Ortiz Area De 0.0 11.2 4 n/a 4,395 8,934 103.3% 2.88% 26.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico Turistico, Cruce Y
A Mexicali Rubio Aplicacion 16 Fronterizo Tecate (Conectandose Directo
Km. A Mexicali A Cruce Tecate)
94 Tecate Carretera Tecate-El Tecate El Sauzal 0.0 104.5 2 2 3,828 7,782 103.3% 2.88% 17.3% 17.3% n/a n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N SCT Vialidad secundaria de acceso Y
libre Sauzal
95 Tijuana Regional Carretera Cuota Caseta De Cobro Area De 0.0 14.2 4 n/a 3,173 6,450 103.3% 2.88% 18.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico De Carga y Turistico Al Y
Tecate (Km. Ciudad Aplicacion 16 Cruce Fronterizo Otay.
Industrial) Km. A Tecate
96 Tijuana Regional Carretera Cuota Caseta De Cobro Area De 0.0 9.9 4 n/a 5,956 12,107 103.3% 2.88% 9.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico Turistico Al Cruce Y
Ensenada (Km. 29.850 Aplicacion 16 Fronterizo Puerta Mexico.
Playas De Km. A Ensenada
97 Tijuana Regional Carretera Libre Intersección Blv. Area De 0.0 15.3 2 n/a 11,778 23,942 103.3% 2.88% 20.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico Turistico y Carga, Y
Ensenada Diaz Ordaz Aplicacion 16 Cruces Fronterizos Puerta Mexico y Otay.
Km. A Ensenada
98 Tijuana Regional Carretera Intersección Area De 0.0 8.0 2 n/a 9,485 19,281 103.3% 2.88% 17.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico Turistico y Carga, Cruce Y
Tijuana-Tecate Libramiento Los Aplicacion 16 Fronterizo Otay.(Conectandose a
Insurgentes Km. A Tecate Libramiento Los Insurgentes)
99 Tijuana Regional Libramiento Caseta De Cobro Area De 0.0 20.5 0 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N N SIDUE Acceso A Trafico Turistico y Carga, Cruce Y
Tijuana-Rosarito Entrada Tijuana Aplicacion 16 Fronterizo Otay.(Conectandose a
2000 (Km. 35.220) Km. Libramiento Los Insurgentes)
100 Tijuana Carretera Tijuana - Tijuana Ensenada 0.0 110.0 4 4 8,536 17,352 103.3% 2.88% 15.8% 20.0% B a.m./ B a.m./ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N SCT Corredor principal de acceso Y
libre Ensenada p.m. p.m.
101 Tijuana Autopista de Tijuana - San Tijuana San Miguel 0.0 98.2 4 6 6,250 12,705 103.3% 2.88% 10.0% 30.0% B a.m./ B a.m./ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N N/A N N N SCT Corredor principal de acceso Y
cuota Miguel Cuota p.m. p.m.
N/A = Not Applicable; n/a = data not available
Appendix C-1 93
Appendix C-2
Short-Term Transportation Projects
Limits of Project Existing Improvement Total Serves Goods Movement

Current (2005) Accident
Rate: Below or Above
LOS LOS After AADT AADT After statewide or citywide rate Connects to Year Project
Reporting No. of No. of Type of No. of Facility Before Project Before Project for similar facility Commercial POE Truck AADT or Becomes
proj_id Agency Jursidiction Project Name Project Description From To Lanes Facility Type Lanes Improvement Lanes Type Project (2030) Project (2030) (Below/Above) directly? (Y/N) Percent Share Operational
10100 Caltrans Imperial County I-8 Reconstruct Interchange Imperial N/A N/A Interchange N/A Interchange N/A Interchange -- -- -- -- -- N N/A 2012
Avenue
Interchange
10101 Caltrans Imperial County I8
I-8 Reconstruct Interchange Dogwood N/A N/A Interchange N/A Interchange N/A Interchange -- -- -- -- -- N N/A 2012 +
Avenue
Interchange
10102 Caltrans Imperial County SR-98 Widen to 4 lanes West of SR-111 2 Highway 4 Highway 4 Highway E D 24,000 29,300 n/a N 6% 2012
Navarro Road
10104 Caltrans Imperial County SR-186 Widen NB Shoulder for Inspections Andrade N/A 2 Highway 2 Highway Shoulder 2 Highway B C 7,100 11,000 n/a Y 7% 2008
CVEF Widening
10105 Caltrans Imperial County SR-186 Reconstruct interchange I-8/SR-186 N/A N/A Interchange N/A Interchange -- -- -- -- -- -- -- N N/A 2009
Interchange
10110 SCAG Imperial County Cole Road Cole Rd. Corridor Improvements; Bowker Rd. SR-98 2 Minor Arterial 4 Widen from 2 to 4 4 Principal Arterial A B 11,230 22,000 n/a n/a n/a 2010
expansion of 2 lane road into 4 lane lanes
principal arterial (.5 miles) from Bowker
Rd East to SR-98
10111 SCAG Imperial County Cole Road Reconstruction and Widening of Cole Railroad Kloke Rd. 2 Minor Arterial 4 Widen from 2 to 4 4 Principal Arterial A B 1,850 25,000 n/a n/a n/a 2007
Road from 2 lanes to 4 lanes; from Tracks lanes
Railroad Tracks east to Kloke Rd. (.33
Miles)
10112 Calexico Calexico Second Street Expand the existing Second Street from SR-111 Dogwood Rd 2 Primary 2 Widening 4 Primary D B 13,195 21,500 Above Y 20% 2012
Expansion 2 lanes to 4 lanes and include traffic Roadway Roadway
signals and bridge improvements
10113 Calexico Calexico p
Cesar Chavez Blvd Expand g Cesar Chavez Blvd SR-111
the existing SR-98/Birch y
2 Primary g
2 Widening y
4 Primary D C ,
13,500 ,
33,000 Above Y 20% 2012
Expansion from 2 lanes to 4 lanes and include St Roadway Roadway
traffic signal improvements
10167 Caltrans Imperial County SR 98 West Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Dogwood Rd. SR 111 2 Conventional 4 Widen from 2 to 4 4 Conventional E D 24000 29300 Above 0 2012
highway lanes highway
20115 Caltrans San Diego County I-5/I-805 Modify access to POE On I-5 - Willow Road -- -- -- POE -- POE -- -- -- -- -- Y -- 2012
Border
20119 Caltrans San Diego County SR-188 Construct CHP Truck Inspection Facility Border/SR- N/A -- Temp. Fac. -- CHP Facility -- POE -- -- -- -- -- Y 240 2009
188
20120 Caltrans San Diego County SR-188 Construct Truck Bypass lanes at POE Border/SR- N/A -- N/A -- Truck bypass lanes -- Truck bypass -- -- -- -- -- Y 240 2009
188 lanes
20122 Caltrans San Diego County I-805 Install NB Ramp Meters and HOV Telegraph Bonita Road -- -- -- Ramp Meters -- Freeway -- -- -- -- -- N -- 2010
Bypass Lanes Canyon Road Operational
20123 Caltrans San Diego County SR-905 I-805 to Otay Mesa Border Station - I-805 Mexico -- Freeway 6/8 Freeway Lanes 6/8 Freeway -- C -- 72,500- Below Y 15% 2010
Construct 6-lane Freeway 172,700
20124 San Diego San Diego County Otay Mesa Road Widening Otay Mesa Road SR-125 Enrico Fermi 2 Arterial 2 Arterial 4 Arterial C-F B 6,000 18,000- Below N N/A 2011
County Drive 26,000
20125 San Diego San Diego County Lone Star Road Construct new Lone Star Road Alta Road to 0.5 mile 0 Arterial 2 Arterial 2 Arterial N/A F N/A 30,600 N/A N N/A 2011
County west
20126 SANDAG San Diego County Border Bicycle Border bicycle parking- San Ysidro N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bicycle parking N/A Bicycle parking N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y N/A 2007?
Parking
20127 SANDAG San Diego County South Bay BRT Between Otay Ranch and downtown Otay Ranch Downtown N/A N/A N/A BRT Stations N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,906 N/A N N/A n/a
San Diego- plan, design, and construct San Diego
transit facilities, transitways, freeway
shoulder improvements, and freeway on-
ramp modifications
20129 SANDAG San Diego County Otay Truck Route Between Drucker Lane to POE add Drucker Lane Otay Mesa n/a n/a 1 Addition of n/a n/a N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y N/A 2007
emergency lane primarily for Border POE emergency lane
Patrol use and fire department access
Appendix C-2 95
Appendix C-2
Project
within
Based on planning/engineering and 10 miles
environmental documents: (16 km)
of the
US-
Current Phase of Project Fully Available Funding Needed Mexico
(Environmental, Design, Funded? for Project (RTIP Funding for Environmental Community Economic Border?
proj_id Construction) Cost ($2006) (Y/N) or CIP) Project Benefit Benefit Benefit Explain how this project serves an International POE. (Y/N)
10100 PS&E $38,400,000 N $7,100,000 $31,300,000 n/a n/a n/a I-8 and I-8 interchange projects provide interregional and interstate access to /from highways
serving the Calexico and Calexico East POEs
10101 PSR $25 000 000 N

$25,000,000 $0 $25 000 000 Medium
$25,000,000 High High I 8 and II-8
I-8 8 interchange projects provide interregional and interstate access to /from highways Y
serving the Calexico and Calexico East POEs
10102 Environmental $12,000,000 N $2,000,000 $8,000,000 n/a n/a n/a Provides highway access to the Calexico and Calexico East POEs via SR-111 and SR-7
10104 Environmental $621,000 Y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Improves cross border traffic flow to/from Andrade POE
10105 pre-PSR $10,000,000 N $0 $10,000,000 Medium High High Improves cross border traffic flow to/from Andrade POE Y
10110 Engineering n/a n/a $2,030,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y
10111 Construction n/a n/a $860,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y
10112 Planning $15,100,000 N $0 Yes Medium High High Second Street Expansion serves as an alternate exit from the POE to I-8 via Dogwood Road. Y
g
10113 Planning $ , ,
$7,800,000 N $
$0 Yes Medium g
High g
High p
Cesar Chavez Expansion y 111 from the POE to I-8 via Cole
serves as an alternate to Hwy Y
Road and Dogwood Road.
10167 Advanced $46,700,000 $46,700,000 Medium High High Provides highway access to the Calexico and Calexico East POEs via SR 111 and SR 7
Planning/Preliminary
Engineering/
Environmental
20115 Environmental $49,300,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Improves traffic flow at POE Y
20119 Construction $16,000,000 Y n/a n/a Medium High High Improves traffic flow at Tecate POE Y
20120 PSR $7,665,000 N N/A n/a Medium High High Improves traffic flow at Tecate POE Y
20122 PS&E $6,900,000 Y n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
20123 Construction $619,000,000 Y $180,000,000 Medium Medium High Extension of existing SR 905 highway that provides direct connection to Otay Mesa POE Y
20124 Environmental $13,025,000 N $50,000 $12,975,000 Medium High High Otay Mesa Road will provide parallel capacity to SR-11 and an arterial connection to SR-125 Y
20125 Environmental $6,500,000 N $0 $6,500,000 Medium High High Lone Star Road will provide parallel capacity to SR-11 and an arterial connection to SR-125 Y
20126 Construction n/a n/a $249,000 n/a High High Medium Provides bicycle parking at the San Ysidro POE, encouraging bicycle trips. Y
20127 Preliminary engineering n/a n/a $5,899,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a Provides for new BRT service in the study area. Y
20129 Construction n/a n/a $2,000,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a Provides emergency/Border Patrol facilities. Y
Appendix C-2 96
Appendix C-2

20130 SANDAG San Diego County Otay Truck Route From Drucker Lane to La Media- add Drucker Lane La Media 2 n/a 1 Addition of an 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y N/A n/a
Widening (Phase one lane (total 3 lanes for trucks; from emergency lane and
4) Britannia to La Media- add one lane for a truck lane.
trucks and one lane for emergency
vehicles (Border Patrol/fire department
access)
20131 SANDAG San Diego County SR 125 Toll, Gap, Construct 6 lane freeway with SR 905 SR-54 0 n/a 6 Toll expressway 6 Toll expressway n/a D n/a 49,000- n/a N n/a 2009
Connector interchange and HOV provisions lanes lanes 106,000
20164 Caltrans San Diego County SR 94 Operational improvements Melody Rd. SR 188 2 Conventional 2 Conventional C D 8200 12300 Above 0 2011
highway highway
20165 Caltrans San Diego County SR 905/805 Improvements to 805/905 interchange Interchange Interchange N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2011
Interchange (Phase
2)
20166 Caltrans San Diego County SR 905/125 Construct 125/905 Interchange Interchange Interchange N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2012
Interchange (Phase
3)
20135 Chula Vista Chula Vista I-5/E St. Split Project to have the MTS Trolley Blue N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A E D N/A N/A Above Y N/A 2011
Grade Intersection Line pass beneath E Street.
20136 Chula Vista Chula Vista I-5/H

I 5/H St.
St Split Project to have the MTS Trolley Blue N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A F E N/A N/A Above Y N/A 2011
Grade Intersection Line pass beneath H Street.
20138 Chula Vista Chula Vista I-5/ E Street I-5 SB Off-ramp- Add 2nd NB RT lane, N/A N/A N/A Interchange N/A N/A N/A N/A F D N/A N/A N/A Y N/A 2012
Interchange 2nd SB LT lane, 2nd SB RT lane.
Improvements
20139 Chula Vista Chula Vista I-5/ H Street At H Street and I-5 interchange- N/A N/A N/A Interchange N/A N/A N/A N/A E C N/A N/A N/A Y N/A n/a
Interchange preliminary engineering, environmental
Improvements analysis and project design for future
widening and improvement
20140 Chula Vista Chula Vista I-805/SR-54 North to west auxilary lanes to SR-54 N/A N/A N/A FWY to FWY N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y N/A 2012
Interchange ramp Interchange
Improvements
40145 SIDUE/IMIP Ciudad de Mexicali Prolongación del Construcción de 3.04 km. 3 carriles de Lazaro Blv. Héctor 0 n/a n/a n/a 6 Bulevar n/a B n/a 75,000 n/a N 5% 2008
Blv. Río Nuevo. circulación por sentido, camellón con Cárdenas Terán Terán
bóveda para el cauce del Río, carriles
de estacionamiento y banquetas.
40146 SIDUE Ciudad de Mexicali Carril de Construcción de carril de 1.5 km. para Aduana 1.5 km. al n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 Carril de n/a C n/a n/a Below Y 100% 2007
almacenamiento tractocamion en aduana de exportacion. exportación oriente garita almacenamiento
para
tractocamiones
40147 SIDUE Ciudad de Mexicali Nodo CETYS Construcción paso a desnivel . Intersección Intersección 4 Intersección a n/a n/a 6 Nodo vial D B 90,000 130,000 Above Y 35% 2008
vial calzada vial calzada nivel. primario.
CETYS y CETYS y
periferico periferico
Gómez Morin. Gómez
40148 SIDUE Ciudad de Mexicali Ampliación Ampliación de carretera a 2 carriles por Calle novena Islas 2 Carretera 2 Carriles en carretera 4 Carretera D B 10,000 25,000 Above N 20% 2008
carretera Mexicali- sentido tramo 5 km. Agrarias
Algodones
40149 SIDUE Ciudad de Mexicali Intersección La vuelta inglesa en todos los sentidos Intersección Intersección 6 Via primaria 2 Carriles en vuelta 8 Via primaria D B 95,000 135,000 Above N 40% 2008
Inglesa Lazaro de circulacion en la intersección Lazaro vial Lazaro vial Lazaro izquierda
Cardenas- Cardenas Venustiano Carranza. Cardenas- Cardenas-
Venustiano Venustiano Venustiano
Carranza Carranza Carranza
Appendix C-2 97
Appendix C-2
Project
within
of the
US-
20130 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Provides emergency/Border Patrol facilities.
20131 PE, ROW, Construction $680,000,000 N $477,244,000 n/a n/a High High Provides a new tollway between SR 905 and SR 54.This project improves access in Eastern Y
Chula Vista and important regional connections.
20164 Advanced N/A N/A N/A Low High High Improves safety and access to Tecate POE
Planning/Preliminary
Engineering/
Environmental
20165 Final Design $22,400,000 0 Medium High High Improves capacity.
20166 Conceptual Planning $76,700,000 0 Medium High High Improves capacity.
20135 Planning n/a N The RTP discusses n/a Low High Medium The Chula Vista transit project, in additon to I-5 corridor improvements, will make for a more Y
Split Grade efficient direct connection to San Ysidro POE. Removal of the at-grade crossing will restore
intersections but operations from congested LOS E or F conditions at I-5 northbound/E Street, I-5 northbound/H
not for any specific Street and I-5 southbound/ H Street to acceptable LOS D or better conditions during both peak
20136 Planning n/a N Same comment as n/a Low High Medium n/a Y
above.
20138 Planning $785,000 N Funding source not $785,000 Low High Medium Constructing improvements to these interchanges improves northbound and southbound Y
yet identified. border traffic flow by providing enhanced conductivity for POE vehicles travelling to and from
the border from points north. These improvements will provide better overall freight traffic
efficiency of the system in general.
20139 Planning $800,000 N Funding source not $800,000 Low High Medium n/a Y
yet identified.
20140 Planning n/a N Funding source not n/a Low High High n/a Y
yet identified.
40145 Construction $11,000,000 Y $11,000,000 n/a High High High Via alterna de conexión al cruce fronterizo-turistico Mexicali I. Y
40146 Construction $300,000 Y $300,000 n/a Medium Medium High Conexion directa a aduana comercial Mexicali II Y
40147 Construction $3,500,000 Y $3,500,000 n/a Medium High High Conexion directa a cruce fronterizo comercial Mexicali II Y
40148 Construction $3,000,000 Y $3,000,000 n/a Medium High High Facilitar el flujo vehiculara de nuevos asentamientos del oriente de Mexicali a el cruce Y
fronterizo Mexicali II y Los Algodones.
40149 Construction $4,000,000 Y $4,000,000 n/a Medium High High Vias alternas a cruces fronterizos Mexicali I y II. Y
Appendix C-2 98
Appendix C-2

40150 SIDUE Ciudad de Mexicali Anillo Periferico Construccion de vialidad de 3.09 km. de Lazaro Carretera n/a n/a n/a n/a 4 Libramiento n/a B n/a 60,000 n/a N 60% 2008
Lazaro Cardenas- longitud. Cardenas Islas carretero
caretera Islas Agrarias
Agrarias
40151 SCT Ciudad de Mexicali Modernización a 4 Mexicali-San Luis Rio Colorado 4 6 2 Carretera de 4 Ampliación a 4 4 Autopista C A 6,000 11,500 Above Y 20% 2007
carriles autopista bajas carriles
Mexicali-San Luis especificaciones
Río Colorado
40152 SCT Ciudad de Mexicali Modernización a 4 Puente Canal y PIMA Hermosillo 3.9 9.14 2 Carretera de 4 Ampliación a 4 4 Autopista C A 6,000 11,500 Above Y 20% 2007
Río Colorado
40153 SCT Ciudad de Mexicali Modernización a 4 Entronque “Algodones I” 3 3.9 2 Carretera de 4 Ampliación a 4 4 Autopista C A 6,000 11,500 Above Y 20% 2007
Río Colorado
70154 SIDUE j
Ciudad de Tijuana Nodo Monarcas Construcción p
paso a desnivel Intersección Intersección 2 Intersección a n/a n/a 6 Nodo vial D B 90,000 140,000 Above N 20% 2008
vial Gato vial Gato Nivel primario
Bronco- Bronco-
Monarcas Monarcas
70156 SIDUE Ciudad de Tijuana Ampliación Ampliación a 2 carriles por sentido en 15 Del Florido Toyota 2 Carretera 2 Carriles en la 2 D B 8,000 16,000 Above N 60% 2008
carretera libre km. carretera
Tijuana-Tecate
70157 SIDUE Ciudad de Tijuana Carril Nuevo Carril para tractocamiones vacios Aduana 1.5 km al 1 Carril fiscal 1 Carril para cruce de n/a n/a F D n/a n/a Below Y 100% 2007
tractocamiones en av. Internacional. De 1.5 km. exportación oriente sobre vacios
vacios av.
Internacional
70158 SIDUE Ciudad de Tijuana Estudio Estudio de factibilidad económica y Otay II Otay II N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Estudio nuevo N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y 50% 2008
financiera para el Nuevo Cruce propuesto propuesto cruce fronterizo
fronterizo Otay II.
70159 SIDUE Ciudad de Tecate Reubicación de Adquisición de terreno de 5 has. Aduana Aduana n/a n/a n/a Ampliación Patios n/a Aduana n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Y 100% 2008
patios fiscales de Tecate Tecate Fiscales Exportación
Aduana Tecate
70160 SIDUE Ciudad de Tecate Ampliación de Ampliación a 2 carriles de circulación de Acceso al Entronque 2 Carretera 2 Carriles en carretera 4 Carretera D B 7,000 15,000 Above Y 40% 2008
carretera Libre carretera Libre Mexicali-Tecate. En 5 cruce con carretera
Mexicali Tecate
Mexicali-Tecate. km
km. Fronterizo de cuota
TKT-MXL
NOTES: proj_id is comprised of County code and number

10=Imperial County
20=San Diego County
30=Ensenada Municipality
40=Mexicali Municipality
50=Playas de Rosarito Municipality
60=Tecate Municipality
70=Tijuana Municipality
80=Multiple Municipality
N/A = Not Applicable; n/a or -- = data not currently available
Appendix C-2 99
Appendix C-2
Project
within
of the
US-
40150 Design $4,500,000 Y $4,500,000 n/a High High High Via alterna de acceso a garita Mexicali II Y
40151 Construction $6,113,139 Y $6,113,139 n/a Medium High High Modernización de accesos y corredor principal de comunicación Y
g
70154 Design $5,000,000 Y $5,000,000 n/a Medium g
High g
High y
Blv. Gato Bronco via alterna de acceso cruce fronterizo de Otay. Y
70156 Construction $8,000,000 Y $8,000,000 n/a Medium Medium High Facilita flujo vehicular ligero y de carga de los nuevos asentamientos del oriente de Tijuana a Y
Otay I.
70157 Construction $80,000 Y $80,000 n/a High Low High Conexión directa a cruce fronterizo comercial Otay I. Y
70158 Design $300,000 Y $300,000 n/a High High High Nuevo cruce fronterizo Otay II. Y
70159 Design $3,000,000 N n/a $3,000,000 High Medium High Adquisición de terreno y traspaso a INDAABIN para proyecto ejecutivo. Y
70160 Construction $3,000,000 Y $3,000,000 n/a Medium High High Conexión directa a cruce fronterizo. Y
NOTES:
N/A = Not
Appendix C-2 100

Appendix C-3
Short-Term Port of Entry Projects
Planned Planned
North-Bound Optimum
Projected Average Daily Vehicles Border Level of
Processed (Throughput) After Planned Hours of Planned Number of North-Bound Crossings Staffing
Improvement (xxxx) Operation (2030) Lanes into US (2030) (2030) (2030)
Regular Passenger
Empty Trucks only

Pedestrian Lanes
Other Personnel
SENTRI Lanes
Current Phase Environ-
Regular Truck
Vehicle Lanes
FAST Lanes
Commercial
Commercial
mental Community Economic
c ounty_code
of Project
Passenger
Passenger
Pedestrian
Pedestrian
Bus Lanes
Inspection
Personnel
Completio (Environmental, Benefit Benefit Benefit Type of POE
SENTRI
n Year Available Needed Mon
proj_no
Feasibility Study, (Rank Low, (Rank Low, (Rank Low, (commercial,

proj_id
FAST
Lanes
Existing (opened to Funding for Funding for Medium or passenger, thru
Bus
type
Design, Medium or Medium or

County Project Name Location of Project Project Description Situation Improvement traffic) Construction) Cost ($2006) Project Project High) High) High) combination) Fri Sat Sun
20176 20 176 4 CBP San Diego Stacked booth pilot San Ysidro POE Install pilot stacked booth configuration
20177 20 177 4 CBP San Diego SENTRI Lane San Ysidro POE Upgrade 4 lanes for SENTRI
Expansion
20178 20 178 4 CBP San Diego Secondary San Ysidro POE Upgrade fencing/barriers at secondary
Inspection
Upgrades
20179 20 179 4 CBP San Diego Signage Upgrade San Ysidro POE Upgrade signage on Mexican approaches and
throughout port to help facilitate POV and
pedestrian traffic flows and informational
postings
20180 20 180 4 CBP San Diego Bus passenger San Ysidro POE Upgrade bus passenger inspection area with
inspection dedicated baggage X-ray
20181 20 181 4 CBP San Diego SENTRI Lane Otay Mesa POE Expand number of POV SENTRI lanes 1 POV Construction of 2 2008 Construction $5,000,000 $4,500,000 $500,000 High High Medium
Expansion (Passenger) SENTRI lanes additional SENTRI lanes
20182 20 182 4 CBP San Diego FAST Lane Otay Mesa POE (Cargo) Expand number of FAST lanes 1 FAST lane Construction of 1 2007 Construction $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 High High High
Expansion additional FAST lane.
Includes two inbound
commercial lanes and
booths
20183 20 183 4 CBP San Diego Otay Mesa Otay Mesa POE (Cargo) Expansion of commercial import lot facilities
feasibility study
20184 20 184 4 CBP San Diego Otay Mesa East New POE Pursue feasibility study for new POE
feasibility study
20185 20 185 4 CBP San Diego Otay Mesa POE Otay Mesa POE In conjunction with the feasibility study, initiating
master site plan (passenger and cargo) a master site and space plan to determine the
best use of existing space and what operations
need to be relocated or expanded to
accommodate the growing needs at this port.
20186 20 186 4 CBP San Diego Rail Inspection Tecate POE Construct rail inspection facilities
Facilities
20187 20 187 4 CBP San Diego Caltrans CEVF and Tecate POE Coordinate any necessary infrastructure
new Mexican improvements with Caltrans on the new CEVF
commercial facility adjacent to the commercial lot - coordinate new
access roadway with new Mexican Customs
facility
10190 10 190 4 CBP Imperial Repair sink hole at Calexico West POE Repair sink hole at primary inspection
primary inspection
10191 10 191 4 CBP Imperial SENTRI Lane Calexico East POE Add SENTRI lane
Expansion
10192 10 192 4 CBP Imperial Renovations Andrade POE Upgrades to pedestrian processing and
renovations of port facilities
10193 10 193 4 CBP Imperial Traffic control Andrade POE Install continuous jersey barriers along the
barriers centerline of the public road to prevent U-turns
and direct traffic into primary; install speed
control devices and signage on roadway near
pedestrian crossing to parking lot
10194 10 194 4 CBP Imperial Site expansion Andrade POE Coordinate help between county governments, $216,000,000 $34,300,000 $182,000,000
GSA, CBP, and others to secure long-term
solution to site constraints at Andrade
70196 70 196 4 INDAABIN Tijuana New POE- El Predios de El Chaparral Construction of new POE with traffic flow from Predios sin New crossing with n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2012 Plan Maestro $12 million in $12 million in High High High Passenger 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs 12 n/a 3 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a
Chaparral. Nuevo North to South. Construcción del nuevo puerto de cruce necessary infrastructure. 100%, Estudio pesos pesos
Puerto Fronterizo entrada a Mexico, con flujos turísticos Norte-Sur. internacional Nuevo cruce fronterizo, de Impacto
El Chaparral actual y con infraestructura Ambiental
ocupados necesaria para recibir 100%,
para todo el flujo vehicular de Proyecto
Programa pasajeros (automoviles y Ejecutivo
Paisano autobuses) 15 carriles de (Diseño)100%
Norte a Sur.
70197 70 197 4 INDAABIN Tijuana Reconfigure Puerta Puerto Fronterizo Puerta Extension of the border crossing with traffic Funciona para Reconfiguration of POE. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2012 Plan Maestro $8 million in $8 million in High High High Passenger 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs n/a n/a n/a 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
México POE. México flows from South to North only. Ampliación del el cruce Reordenar el puerto para 100%, Estudio pesos pesos
Reordenamiento cruce fronterizo con flujos de Sur A Norte internacional que toda la de Impacto
del Puerto unicamente. turístico en infraestructura y espacio Ambiental
Fronterizo Puerta ambos se dedique para salida 100%,
Mexico sentidos de vehículos de Proyecto
pasajeros y flujo Ejecutivo
peatonal en ambos (Diseño)
sentidos. concluirá en
Diciembre
2007
n/a = Not Applicable; n/a or -- = data currently not available
Appendix C-3 101

Appendix D
Evaluation Criteria and
Mid- and Long-Term Projects
PORT OF ENTRY (POE) CRITERIA
Methodology
Two sets of criteria and scores were developed to evaluate POE projects. The first set or POE Criteria
are based on current POE travel and trade demand, current POE congestion, and projected change in
POE travel demand (i.e., Criteria 1 through 15).
Since there are a different number of variables that could be scored for each type of project, the criteria
are normalized to create a maximum possible score by type of project of 100 points. This approach
allows for a level playing field for all project types while at the same time highlights differences between
POE projects of the same type.
POE projects that pertain to a POE passenger facility only are scored based on criteria that relate to
passenger vehicles or pedestrians. POE projects related to a POE cargo facility are scored based on
freight and truck/rail related criteria.
The second set or Project Criteria pertains specifically to each project and the same number of criteria
could be scored for all projects (i.e., Criterion16 through 20).
Scoring for POE Criteria and Project Criteria

Each criterion can receive a maximum of three (3) points, with the exception of the cost effectiveness
criterion, which can receive a maximum score of five (5) points due to the wide range of project costs
between projects types.
Project Criteria are divided into three categories and weighted as follows: Project Cost Effectiveness
(up to 30 percent of the score) and Environmental/Community and Economic Benefits (up to 40 percent
of the score). Project Readiness (up to 30 percent of the total score).
Description of POE Criteria

Current POE Demand (Travel and Trade)
1. Current Crossborder Truck Traffic

Number of Trucks that crossed the POE in 2005 (northbound and southbound)
2. Current Crossborder Tonnage of Goods by Truck
Volume of Goods in tons transported by truck in 2005 (northbound)
3. Current Crossborder Value of Goods by Truck
Value of Goods in tons transported by truck in 2005 (northbound)
4. Current Crossborder Passenger Vehicle Traffic
Number of Passenger Vehicles and Buses that crossed the POE in 2005 (northbound and
southbound)
5. Current Crossborder Pedestrian Traffic
Number of pedestrians that crossed the POE in 2005 (northbound)
6. Current Crossborder Rail Traffic
Appendix D-1 105

Number of Rail Cars that crossed the POE in 2005 (northbound and southbound)
7. Current Crossborder Tonnage of Goods by Rail
Volume of Goods in tons transported by rail in 2005 (northbound)
8. Current Crossborder Value of Goods by Rail
Value of Goods in tons transported by rail in 2005 (northbound)
Current Congestion at POE
9. Current Truck Wait Times at POE
Truck wait times at POE in minutes in 2007 (northbound) or wait times at nearest POE in 2007
(for new POE proposals)
10. Current Passenger Vehicle Wait Times at POE
Passenger vehicle wait times at POE in minutes in 2007 (northbound) or wait times at nearest
POE in 2007 (for new POE proposals)
11. Current Pedestrian Wait Times at POE
Pedestrian wait times at POE in minutes in 2005 (southbound) or wait times at nearest POE in
2005 (for new POE proposals)
Projected Change in POE Demand (Travel)
12. Projected Change in Crossborder Truck Traffic (numerical and percent)
Numerical change in number of trucks between 2005 and 2030 (northbound)
Percent change in number of trucks between 2005 and 2030 (northbound)
13. Projected Change in Crossborder Passenger Vehicle Traffic (numerical and percent)
Numerical change in number of passenger vehicles and buses between 2005 and 2030
(northbound)
Percent change in number of passenger vehicles and buses between 2005 and 2030
(northbound)
14. Projected Change in Crossborder Pedestrian Traffic (numerical and percent)
Numerical change in number of pedestrians between 2005 and 2030 (northbound)
Percent change in number of pedestrians between 2005 and 2030 (northbound)
15. Projected Change in Crossborder Rail Traffic (numerical and percent)
Numerical change in number of rail cars between 2005 and 2030 (northbound)
Percent change in number of rail cars between 2005 and 2030 (northbound)
Description of Project Criteria

Project Performance
16. Project Cost Effectiveness
Cost of POE project divided by 2030 daily number of projected new users (trucks/rail cars for
commercial POEs, passenger vehicles/pedestrians for passenger or tourist POEs)
17. Environmental Project Benefit
Environmental benefit of the POE project based on existing planning/engineering and
environmental documents (e.g., air quality, habitat mitigation)
18. Community and Economic Project Benefit
Community and Economic benefit of the POE project based on existing planning/engineering
and environmental documents (e.g., safety, access, job and output creation)
Appendix D-1 106

19. Impact on Other Modes
Positive impact on other modes of transportation or inspection procedures at the subject or
adjacent POEs.
Project Readiness
Project Phase: Conceptual Planning, Advanced Planning (Plans and Specifications),
Presidential Permit
Project Numbers
Project identification numbers assigned to each project are the combination of mode type,
County/Municipality code, and number, whereby mode type and county code are as follows:
Mode Type: County/Municipality Code:

10=Roadway 10=Imperial County
20=Interchange 20=San Diego County
30=Rail
30= Municipality of Ensenada
40=POE
40= Municipality of Mexicali
50= Municipality of Playas de Rosarito
60= Municipality of Tecate
70= Municipality of Tijuana
Appendix D-1 107

Appendix D-2: Port of Entry Weighted Project Rankings
Project
Projected Project Performance Readiness
(70%) (30%)
Year
Open to
Project Key Project Location Project Name Project Description Project Type Traffic
POE Criteria Score

16. Project Cost
17. Environmental Project
18. Community and
Weighted Project Score
Weighted Total Score
Project Rank
(Normalized to 100)
Effectiveness Score
Benefit Score
Economic Project Benefit
Score
Score
Score
Maximum Possible Score 100 30 15 15 10 30 100 200 --
4020001 San Diego County Otay Mesa East--New POE Construct new POE facility New Passenger and 2014 67 24 15 15 10 30 94 161 1
Commercial POE
4070002 Tijuana Mesa de Otay II--New POE Construction of a new tourist and New Passenger and 2013 67 30 10 10 10 20 80 147 2
commercial border crossing, Otay II Commercial POE
4020003 San Diego County San Ysidro POE Re-design POE Expansion improvements, increase Existing Passenger POE 2014 75 24 5 15 5 20 69 144 3
number of passenger lanes, associated
roadway improvements to access I-5 at
the POE
4040001 Mexicali Mexicali I - Calexico West Integral project between both Binational Existing Passenger POE 2013 63 30 15 15 5 10 75 138 4
Expansion and authorities (Mexico - USA) to improve and
Improvement of the expand the Mexicali I -Calexico West
Customs Facilities border crossing. Includes necessary
alignments and reconfiguration for new
POV crossing.
4010004 Imperial County Calexico Re-design Move southbound traffic to vacated Existing Passenger POE 2013 63 24 5 15 5 20 69 132 5
commercial facility - reconfigure
northbound to facilitate pedestrian and bus
movements
4020005 San Diego County Otay Mesa Expansion- Improve commercial throughput with Existing Commercial POE - -- 78 0 5 15 0 10 30 108 6
Commercial additional lanes Truck
4060001 Tecate, Baja California Tecate POE Cargo Cargo route inside the US to transport Existing Commercial POE - 2013 39 6 15 15 10 10 56 95 7
Expansion and imports and exports. Expansion of the Truck
Improvement cargo facility on the Mexican side of the
border.
Appendix D-2 108

Appendix D-2: Port of Entry Weighted Project Rankings
Project
Projected Project Performance Readiness
(70%) (30%)
Year
Open to
Project Key Project Location Project Name Project Description Project Type Traffic
POE Criteria Score

16. Project Cost
17. Environmental Project
18. Community and
Weighted Project Score
Weighted Total Score
Project Rank
(Normalized to 100)
Effectiveness Score
Benefit Score
Economic Project Benefit
Score
Score
Score
4020004 San Diego County Otay Mesa Expansion- Improve passenger throughput with Existing Passenger POE -- 50 0 5 15 5 10 35 85 8
Passenger additional lanes
4010005 Imperial County Calexico East Expansion Expand primary vehicle lanes Existing Passenger POE -- 63 0 0 0 5 10 15 78 9
4010003 Imperial County Andrade POE Expansion Move vehicle lanes to Arizona Border Existing Passenger POE -- 42 0 5 5 10 10 30 72 10
4040004 Mexicali Los Algodones - Andrade Modernize the tourist and commercial Existing Passenger POE -- 42 0 0 0 0 10 10 52 11
Tourist-Commercial border crossing facilities at Los Algodones
Crossing Modernization - Andrade
Appendix D-2 109

Appendix D-3: Port of Entry Scoresheet
Current Congestion at e Mode Project
Project Identifiers Current Port of Entry Annual Demand (Travel and Trade) Port of Entry Projected Change in Port of Entry Annual Demand (Travel) Projected Project Performance Impact Readiness
Passenger Vehicles and Buses 2005-2030
18. Community and Economic Project Benefit

Passenger Vehicles and Buses 2005-2030
10. Current Passenger Vehicle Wait Times at
12a. Numerical Change in Number of Trucks
15b. Percent Change in Number of Rail Cars

4. Current Crossborder Passenger Vehicle
2. Current Crossborder Tonnage of Goods

3. Current Crossborder Value of Goods by
12b. Percent Change in Number of Trucks

15a. Numerical Change in Number of Rail

11. Current Southbound Pedestrian Wait
19. Impact on Other Modes (Truck) - Y/N

Projected Increase in New Users (Daily
19. Impact on Other Modes (POV) - Y/N

13a. Numerical Change in Number of
14a. Numerical Change in Number of

13b. Percent Change in Number of
14b. Percent Change in Number of

6.Current Crossborder Rail Traffic
17. Environmental Project Benefit

Times at POE (in minutes)
PROJECT SPECIFIC SCORE

Pedestrians 2005-2030
Pedestrians 2005-2030
New User Classifications*

Port of Entry Data Source
Project Description
16. Cost Effectiveness

Truck (in millions)
POE (in minutes)
POE BASED SCORE

Cars 2005-2030
Rail (in millions)
Submitting Agency
Type of Project
TOTAL SCORE
2005-2030
2005-2030
2005-2030
(in minutes)
Project Name
Project Cost
12b. SCORE
13b. SCORE
14b. SCORE
13a. SCORE
14a. SCORE
15a. SCORE
Jurisdiction
by Truck
15b SCORE
12a SCORE
Project Key
10. SCORE
11. SCORE
16. SCORE
17. SCORE
18. SCORE
19. SCORE
20. SCORE
by Rail
1. SCORE
2. SCORE
3. SCORE
4. SCORE
6. SCORE
7. SCORE
8. SCORE
9. SCORE
Traffic
5.SCORE
16. Rank
Average)
4010003 Imperial Andrade POE Andrade Move vehicle lanes to Arizona Existing n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 729,637 1 1,856,273 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 27 1 10 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 258,363 1 35% 1 920,519 1 50% 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 n/a 3,230 POV, -- -- 0 Lo 1 Lo 1 Y Y 2 Conceptual 1 5 15 Caltrans
Cty Expansion Border Passenger Ped Planning
POE
4010004 Imperial Calexico Re- Calexico Move southbound traffic to Existing n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6,234,602 2 4,481,014 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 49 3 5 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,325,398 1 21% 1 ####### 3 62% 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 $225,000,000 11,264 POV, $19,975 5 4 Lo 1 Hi 3 N Y 1 Advanced 2 11 26 CBPSD
Cty design vacated commercial facility - Passenger Ped Planning
reconfigure northbound to facilitate POE
pedestrian and bus movements
4010005 Imperial Calexico East Calexico East Expand primary vehicle lanes Existing n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3,271,961 1 1,456 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 39 2 10 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 6,583,039 3 201% 3 905 1 62% 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 $0 18,038 POV, -- -- 0 0 0 0 0 N Y 1 Conceptual 1 2 17 CBPSD
Cty Expansion Passenger Ped Planning
POE
4020001 San Otay Mesa Otay Mesa East Construct new POE facility New n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 94 3 43 2 0 1 598,000 3 n/a n/a 6,983,119 3 n/a n/a -- 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 12 $350,000,000 21,432 POV, T $16,331 3 4 Hi 3 Hi 3 Y Y 2 Presidential 3 15 27 Caltrans
Diego East--New Passenger & Permit
Cty POE Commercial
POE
4020003 San San Ysidro San Ysidro POE Expansion improvements, Existing n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 17,208,106 3 8,156,350 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 58 3 0 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 7,722,285 3 45% 1 ####### 3 47% 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 18 $565,000,000 31,651 POV, $17,851 4 4 Lo 1 Hi 3 N Y 1 Advanced 2 11 29 CBPSD
Diego POE Re- increase number of passenger Passenger Ped Planning
Cty design lanes, associated roadway POE
improvements to access I-5 at the
POE
4020004 San Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Improve passenger throughput Existing n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6,672,994 2 1,496,196 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 43 2 0 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5,245,965 3 79% 1 702,633 1 47% 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12 $0 16,298 POV, -- -- 0 Lo 1 Hi 3 N Y 1 Conceptual 1 6 18 CBPSD
Diego Expansion- with additional lanes Passenger Ped Planning
Cty Passenger POE
4020005 San Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Improve commercial throughput Existing 730,253 3 2,739,386 3 $16,388 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 94 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 168,747 1 23% 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 14 $0 649 T -- -- 0 Lo 1 Hi 3 N N 0 Conceptual 1 5 19 CBPSD
Diego Expansion- with additional lanes Commercial Planning
Cty Commercial POE - Truck
4040001 Mexicali Mexicali I - Mexicali I Integral project between both Existing n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6,234,602 2 4,481,014 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 49 3 5 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,325,398 1 21% 1 ####### 3 62% 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 $11,182,400 11,264 POV, $993 1 5 Hi 3 Hi 3 N Y 1 Conceptual 1 13 28 SIDUE
Calexico Binational authorities (Mexico - Passenger Ped Planning
West USA) to improve and expand the POE
Expansion Mexicali I -Calexico West border
and Improve- crossing. Includes necessary
ment of the alignments and reconfiguration for
Customs new POV crossing.
F iliti
4040004 Mexicali Los Los Algodones Modernize the tourist and Existing n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 729,637 1 1,856,273 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 27 1 10 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 258,363 1 35% 1 920,519 1 50% 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 $0 8,341 POV, -- -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conceptual 1 1 11 SIDUE
Algodones - commercial border crossing Passenger Ped Planning
Andrade facilities at Los Algodones - POE
Tourist- Andrade
Commercial
Crossing
Modernization
4060001 Tecate, Tecate POE Tecate Cargo route inside the US to Existing 69,586 1 313,169 1 $655 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 12 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 43,414 1 62% 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 7 $9,165,900 167 T $54,893 6 1 Hi 3 Hi 3 Y Y 2 Conceptual 1 10 17 SIDUE
BC Cargo transport imports and exports. Commercial Planning
Expansion & Expansion of the cargo facility on POE - Truck
Improvement the Mexican side of the border.
4070002 Tijuana Mesa de Otay Mesa de Otay II Construction of a new tourist and New n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 94 3 43 2 0 1 598,000 3 n/a n/a 6,983,119 3 n/a n/a -- 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 12 $109,990,800 21,432 POV, T $5,132 2 5 Me 2 Me 2 Y Y 2 Advanced 2 13 25 SIDUE
II--New POE commercial border crossing, Otay Passenger & d d Planning
II Commercial
POE
Notes:
* POV=Passenger Vehicle, Ped=Pedestrian, T=Truck
Daily Values are calculated as Annual/365 for POV and Ped; Annual/260 for T
Projected increase in New Users is calculated by converting the 2005 and 2030 border traffic from annual estimates into average daily estimates
and then subtracting 2005 average daily traffic from the projected 2030 average.
Cost effectiveness is calculated as Project Cost/Projected Increase in New Users (2030-2005)
Cost Effectiveness
Range Score Frequency
$993-$11,773 5 2
$11,774-$22,553 4 3
$22,554-$33,334 3 0
$33,335-$44,115 2 0
$44,116-$54,893 1 1
Appendix D-3 111

Appendix D-4: Port of Entry Project List
2030 Projected Average Daily Processed Based on
Passenger POE Commercial POE
2030 Projected Total (Throughput) by Type
Answer planning/engineer-
Number of Answer all 3 for both for ing and environmental
documents, assess Planned Hours of Planned Hours of Operation
Northbound Lanes passenger vehicle truck Operation (2030) (2030)
Completion Year (opened to traffic)

into US projects projects project benefits.
Community / Economic Benefit

Total Project Cost (2006 $USD)
Funds Still Needed for Project
Positive Impact Other Modes
Positive Impact Other Modes

Regular Passenger Vehicle
Regular Passenger Vehicle
Current Phase of Project
of Passenger Crossings
Environmental Benefit
of Cargo Crossings
Mon Mon
Empty Trucks Only
Agency Submitting
Type of POE
thru Sat Sun thru Sat Sun
Project
Regular Truck
Regular Truck
Fri Fri
Pedestrian
Pedestrian
Condition after
Rail Cars
SENTRI
SENTRI
Cty/ Loca- Project
FAST
FAST
Proj. Juris- Project tion of Completion
Bus
Bus
ID diction Name Project Project Description Existing Condition (2030)
4010003 Imperial Andrade Andrade Move vehicle lanes to Arizona 2 passenger lanes, 2 2 pedestrian only 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2,707 N/A 7,986 18 N/A 0 Conceptual N/A N/A Low Low Existing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Caltrans
Cty POE Border pedestrian lanes, 1 informal lanes planning Passenger
Expansion commercial lane POE
4010004 Imperial Calexico Re- Calexico Move southbound traffic to 10 passenger lanes, 1 16 passenger 13 2 1 6 0 0 0 15,969 3,992 8 23,555 0 0 0 2013 Advanced $225,000,000 $225,000,000 Low High Existing 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs No Yes CBPSD
Cty design vacated commercial facility - SENTRI lane, 1 bus lane, 4 lanes, possible planning Passenger
reconfigure northbound to pedestrian lanes stacked booths, 6 POE
facilitate pedestrian and bus pedestrian lanes
movements
4010005 Imperial Calexico Calexico Expand primary vehicle lanes 8 passenger lanes, 1 Up to 14 12 1 1 4 3 10,543 1 6 Conceptual Existing 0600- 0600- 0600- 0600- 0600-2000 0600-2000 No Yes CBPSD
Cty East East SENTRI, 1 bus, 4 pedestrian, passenger lanes planning Passenger 2200 2200 2200 2000
Expansion 4 commercial, 1 FAST lanes POE
4020001 San Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Construct new POE facility N/A New POE for 15,306 3,826 375 3,619 1,934 2014 Presidential $350,000,000 $337,000,000 High High New 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs 0600- 0600-2000 0600-2000 Yes Yes Caltrans
Diego East--New Pedestrians, permit Passenger 2000
Cty POE Passenger and
Vehicles, and Commercial
Trucks POE
4020003 San San Ysidro San Ysidro POE Expansion 24 passenger lanes, 4 30+ primary 50 6 2 12 0 0 0 50,077 12,519 386 31,970 0 0 0 2014 Advanced $565,000,000 $400,000,000 Low High Existing 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs No Yes CBPSD
Diego POE Re- improvements, increase SENTRI lanes, 1 bus lane, 8 vehicle lanes. All planning Passenger
Cty design number of passenger lanes, pedestrian lanes, 1 pedestrian lanes, except for POE
associated roadway SENTRI lane bus, may have
improvements to access I-5 at stacked booths
the POE
4020004 San Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Improve passenger 13 pax lanes Pending 21,442 5,361 162 Conceptual Low High Existing 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs 0600- 0600-2000 0600-2000 No Yes CBPSD
Diego Expansion- throughput with additional Feasibility Study planning Passenger 2000
Cty Passenger lanes POE
4020005 San Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Improve commercial 12 commercial lanes Pending 5,247 2,245 561 Conceptual Low High Existing 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs 0600- 0600-2000 0600-2000 No No CBPSD
Diego Expansion- throughput with additional Feasibility Study planning Commercial 2000
Cty Commercial lanes POE - Truck
4040001 Mexicali Mexicali I - Mexicali I Expansion of the Mexicali I - The existing facilities operate 2013 Conceptual 11182400 11182400 High High Existing 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs N/A N/A N/A No Yes SIDUE
Calexico Calexico West border at maximum capacity with 10 planning Passenger
West crossing including necessary lanes for passenger vehicles POE
Expansion / alignments and and 1 lane for SENTRI.
Improve- reconfiguration for new POV
ment crossing.
4040004 Mexicali Los Los Modernize the tourist and Inadequate lanes for Conceptual Existing 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs 6am- 6am-2pm Closed for SIDUE
Algodones - Algodones commercial border crossing inspecting pedestrians and planning Passenger 10pm cargo
Andrade facilities at Los Algodones - vehicles, no definition POE
Tourist- Andrade between the the pedestrian
Commercial and vehicular lanes. Currently
Crossing there is 1 commercial vehicle
Moderniza- lane and 1 passenger vehicle
tion lane.
4060001 Tecate, Tecate POE Tecate Cargo route inside the US; Dependent on cargo route in 2013 Conceptual 9165900 9165900 HIgh High Existing 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs 6am- 6am-2pm Closed for Yes Yes SIDUE
BC Cargo expansion of the cargo facility US in order to develop the planning Commercial 10pm cargo
Expansion in Mexico.The Mexican new Mexican facilities at 800 POE - Truck
and Improve- facilities cannot be expanded meters to the east of the
ment in their current location and existing crossing. Currently
are dependent on the this crossing has 1
construction of the cargo commercial lane and 2
route on the U.S. side. passenger vehicle lanes.
4070002 Tijuana Mesa de Mesa de Construction of a new tourist The Otay I crossing is New commercial 17,454 6,029 2013 Advanced $109,990,800 $109,990,800 Medium Medium New 24 hrs 24 hrs 24 hrs 6am- 6am-2pm Closed for Yes Yes SIDUE
Otay II--New Otay II and commercial border currently congested with tourist crossing planning Passenger 10pm cargo
POE crossing, Otay II commercial and passenger covering a 36.7 and
traffic. The crossing has 8 hectares area. Commercial
commercial lanes, 12 POE
passenger vehicle lanes and
1 SENTRI lane.
Appendix D-4 113

Appendix D-5: Port of Entry Specific Criteria and Scoring

4. Current Crossborder Passenger Vehicle

11. Current Pedestrian Wait Times at POE

10. Current Passenger Wait times at POE
6. Current Crossborder Rail Car Traffic
12 a. Projected Numerical Change in

12 b. Projected Percent Change in

Crossborder Pedestrian Traffic
Crossborder Pedestrian Traffic

Crossborder Truck Traffic
Crossborder Rail Traffic

Crossborder POV Traffic
Crossborder POV Traffic
Crossborder Rail Traffic

(Minutes) - Southbound
Crossborder Truck Traffic

(Minutes) - Northbound
Truck (in millions)
Rail (in millions)

by Truck
12b. Score
13b. Score
14b. Score
15b. Score
12a. Score
13a. Score
14a. Score
15a. Score
10. Score
11. Score
by Rail
Traffic
1. Score
2. Score
3. Score
4. Score
5. Score
6. Score
7. Score
8. Score
9. Score
POE
San Ysidro1 17,208,106 3 8,156,350 3 5,891 2 N/A 0 $1.6 1 58 3 0 1 7,722,285 3 44.9% 1 3,830,325 3 47.0% 1 1,227 3 20.8% 1
2
Otay Mesa 730,253 3 2,739,386 3 $16,388 3 6,672,994 2 1,496,196 1 94 3 43 2 0 1 168,747 1 23.1% 1 5,245,965 3 78.6% 1 702,633 1 47.0% 1
Tecate 69,586 1 313,169 1 $655 1 1,028,854 1 471,046 1 64 1 0 0 $0.2 1 12 1 43 2 0 1 43,414 1 62.4% 2 521,146 1 50.7% 1 460,634 1 97.8% 3 316 1 493.8% 3
3
Calexico 6,234,602 2 4,481,014 2 12,358 3 93,843 3 $37.5 3 49 3 5 2 1,325,398 1 21.3% 1 2,785,923 3 62.2% 1 1,622 3 13.1% 1
4
Calexico East 320,212 2 1,702,287 2 $6,631 2 3,271,961 1 1,456 1 26 1 39 2 10 3 282,788 2 88.3% 3 6,583,039 3 201.2% 3 905 1 62.2% 1
5
Andrade 2,733 1 729,637 1 1,856,273 1 0 1 27 1 10 3 2,167 1 79.3% 3 258,363 1 35.4% 1 920,519 1 49.6% 1
6
Otay Mesa East 94 3 43 2 0 1 598,000 3 6,983,119 3
Note: Several POE's are referred to with different names. U. S. and Mexico border stations used northbound data. Corresponding names are as follows--
1) San Ysidro: Puerta El Chaparral, Puerta México
2) Otay Mesa: Mesa de Otay, Otay I
3) Calexico: Mexicali I
4) Calexico East: Mexicali II
5) Andrade: Los Algodones
6) Otay Mesa East: East Otay, Otay II, Mesa de Otay II
Note: Scoring ranges were determined by dividing the range of the data set into three approximately equal parts.
Scores were assigned to each scoring range, where highest values received highest score.
Criteria Number 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12a. 12b. 13a. 13b. 14a. 14b. 15a. 15b.
Interval 242,507 808,739 $5,244.30 5,492,823 2,718,298 4,098 31,281 $12.44 31.39 10.28 3.33 198,611 21.73% 2,487,974 59.98% 1,276,473 16.94% 435 160.2%
Scoring Range Over 487,746 3 Over 1,930,647 3 Over $11,144 3 Over 11,715,283 3 Over 5,438,052 3 Over 8,260 3 Over 62,562 3 Over $25.03 3 Over 63 3 Over 47 3 Over 7 3 Over 399,389 3 Over 66.6% 3 Over 5,234,311 3 Over 141.2% 3 Over 2,553,852 3 Over 80.9% 3 Over 1,187 3 Over 333.5% 3
245,241 to 1,121,909 to $5,900 to 6,222,461 to 2,719,755 to 4,163 to 31,282 to $12.61 to 200,779 to 44.9% to 2,746,338 to 81.3% to 1,277,379 to 64.0% to 173.4% to
487,746 2 1,930,647 2 $11,144 2 11,715,283 2 5,438,052 2 8,260 2 62,562 2 $25.03 2 32 to 63 2 38 to 47 2 4 to 7 2 399,389 2 66.6% 2 5,234,311 2 141.2% 2 2,553,852 2 80.9% 2 752 to 1,187 2 333.5% 2
0 to 245,240 1 0 to 1,121,908 1 $0 to $5,899 1 0 to 6,222,460 1 0 to 2,719,754 1 0 to 4,162 1 0 to 31,281 1 $0 to $12.60 1 0 to 31 1 0 to 37 1 0 to 3 1 0 to 200,778 1 0% to 44.8% 1 0 to 2,746,337 1 0% to 81.2% 1 0 to 1,277,378 1 0% to 63.9% 1 0 to 751 1 0% to 173.3% 1
Appendix D-5 115

TRANSPORTATION PROJECT CRITERIA
Methodology
The SANDAG Service Bureau referred to regional transportation plans and the Binational Border
Transportation Infrastructure Needs Assessment Study (BINS) project, approved by the U.S.-Mexico
Joint Working Committee, to develop the transportation project criteria. Features of various
methodologies were incorporated, and the SANDAG Service Bureau created criteria that fit within the
framework of the California-Baja California Border Master Plan. This appendix provides the scoring
details for the criteria discussed in Chapter 5
Criteria for Roadways and Interchanges
The combined score of 11 criteria are used to rank road and interchange projects. The 11 criteria are
grouped into three criteria types: Congestion/Capacity; Cost-Effectiveness; and Project Readiness,
POE Connectivity, and Regional Benefits. The criteria details are explained below.
Description of Roadway Project Criteria
1. Level of Service (LOS)
The LOS is a measure of the congestion on roadways. LOS of E or F is considered congested, while a
LOS of A – D is considered acceptable. The LOS criterion measures if the project is expected to result
in LOS improvement from a congested level of traffic (E or F) to an acceptable level (D or better). No
points are awarded for projects that do not result in any improvement in LOS. If LOS data are not
provided, then the level of congestion cannot be determined, thus the project is scored with a zero (“0”).
(Note: for new roadways, the LOS for a parallel facility will be evaluated for 2005.)
Score Description
2 Project results in an improvement from a congested level (E or F) to an acceptable
level (D or better)
1 Project improves the LOS within the acceptable range of LOS A to LOS D. (However,
the project does not result in an improvement from a congested level (E or F) to an
acceptable level (D or better).)
(Note: guidelines for the volume to capacity (V/C) ratios for the LOS values were made available to the
TWG in preparation of the lists of mid- and long-term projects.)
2. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Improvement
This criterion provides an indication of roadways with high travel demand. It measures the increased
capacity or additional traffic per lane mile that the project is expected to accommodate in 2030. It is
calculated by subtracting 2005 AADT/lane mile from 2030 AADT/lane mile. The resulting figures are
sorted from highest to lowest and then grouped into three ranges containing (as much as possible)
Appendix D-6 117

equal number of observations. Projects grouped into the top range would receive a score of 3, projects
grouped in the middle range would receive a score of 2, and projects grouped into the low range would
receive a score of 1. Higher values indicate that after project completion, more traffic is served per lane
mile, which is an indication of the relative importance of the roadway and the project. (Note: new
roadways are evaluated with 2005 AADT/lane mile=0, and the traffic volume reported for 2030 is the
improvement). If 2005 or 2030 AADT data are not provided for existing facilities, then an estimate of
capacity and capacity improvement cannot be determined, thus the project is scored with a zero (“0”)
for this criterion.
Score Description
3 Projects with the highest AADT improvement per lane mile between 2005 and 2030
2 Projects with medium AADT improvement per lane mile between 2005 and 2030
1 Projects with the lowest AADT improvement per lane mile between 2005 and 2030
3. Accident Rate
This criterion measures if the project is on a road or in an area with an accident rate that is above or
below the statewide or citywide rate for a similar facility. Projects on roads with higher than average
accident rate imply high need. If data are not available, the project is scored with a zero (“0”). (Note: for
new roadways, the accident rate for a parallel facility will be evaluated for 2005.)
Score Description
2 Project is located on a road or in an area where the accident rate is above the
statewide or citywide rate for a similar facility
1 Project is located on a road in an area where the accident rate is below the statewide or
citywide rate for a similar facility
This criterion measures if the project occurs on a segment that serves goods movement. It is calculated
by sorting the truck percent share of AADT for each project from highest to lowest and then grouping
the projects into three ranges containing as much as possible equal number of observations. Projects
grouped into the top range would receive a score of 3, and projects grouped into the low range would
receive a score of 1. Scores are assigned so that those projects with the highest truck percent share
are assigned the highest score. Higher values point to the relative importance of the roadway for goods
movement. If truck share data are not available, the project is scored with a zero (“0”) for this criterion.
(Note: for new roadways, the truck percent share for a parallel facility will be evaluated for 2005.)
Score Description
3 Projects with the highest truck share
2 Projects with medium truck share
1 Projects with the lowest truck share
Appendix D-6 118

5. POE Congestion
This criterion measures if the current project occurs on a roadway that serves a “congested” POE.
Higher values are assigned to the project if the roadway serves a POE that is considered “congested.”
The congestion level at the POEs is based on 2007 weekday average peak border wait time in
minutes. If the roadway project serves passenger-only POE, then passenger vehicle wait time scores
will be used. If the POE is a commercial-only port, then truck wait time scores will be used. If the POE
is a combination port, then the passenger vehicle and commercial wait time scores will be averaged.
(Note: projects serving a new POE will use the average peak border wait time of an adjacent port.) The
maximum score for this criterion is 3.
Score Description
3 Projects occur on roadways that serve a highly congested POE
2 Projects occur on roadways that serve a medium congested POE
1 Projects occur on roadways that serve a less congested POE
This criterion measures the cost effectiveness of the project in terms of the cost per additional vehicle
miles traveled (VMT). It is calculated by dividing the cost of the project by the VMT growth between
2005 and 2030.
Total Cost
Additional VMT (2005 and 2030)
where Additional VMT = Change in AADT between 2005 and 2030 X Miles (length of project)
The results are sorted and then grouped into three ranges containing (as much as possible) equal
number of observations. Projects with the lowest cost per additional VMT, i.e., the most cost effective,
would receive a score of 3, and projects with the highest cost per additional VMT, i.e., the least cost
effective, would receive a score of 1. Scores are assigned so that those projects that are most cost
effective are assigned the highest score. If project length, cost, or AADT are not available, the project is
scored with a zero (“0”) for this criterion.
Score Description
3 Projects with the highest cost effectiveness scores
2 Projects with medium cost effectiveness scores
1 Projects with the lowest cost effectiveness scores
Appendix D-6 119

7. Current Phase of the Project
This criterion measures the current phase of the project and awards points based on the readiness of
the project. The current phase is reported as “final design,” or “advanced planning/preliminary
engineering/environmental;” or “conceptual planning”. For the purposes of this study, “final design”
includes pre-construction activities such as development of plans and specifications, and estimation of
quantities leading up to preparation of bid packages. “Advanced planning/preliminary
engineering/environmental” includes projects that are in the project study report (PSR) phase,
conducting preliminary engineering, including geometric design of specific projects, or preparing an
environmental document. “Conceptual planning” includes those projects that are undergoing a corridor
or feasibility study. In Baja California, “final design” is equivalent to “proyecto ejecutivo;” advanced
planning/preliminary engineering/environmental” equates to “plan maestro;” and conceptual planning is
equivalent to “esquema conceptual.” A project in the final design stage would receive a score of 3, and
a project in the conceptual planning stage would receive a score of 1. Criteria for which information is
unavailable are assigned a zero. Points will range from 0 to 3, with 3 being the maximum.
Score Description
3 Projects in the “final design” phase
2 Projects in the “advanced planning/preliminary engineering/environmental” phase
1 Projects in the “conceptual planning” phase
8. POE Connection
This criterion measures if the current project occurs on a segment that has a terminus at a POE. A
project on a roadway with a terminus at a POE, which we will call “terminus facility”, receives 2 points.
A project on a roadway that connects to a “terminus facility” receives 1 point. Roadways that are
located within the 10-mile focused study area but that do not connect to the “terminus facility” or to the
POE receive zero “0” points for this criterion.
Score Description
2 Project occurs on a “terminus facility,” i.e., a roadway that has a terminus at a POE
1 Project occurs on a roadway that connects to a “terminus facility”
0 Project that occurs on a roadway that does not have a terminus at a POE and does not
connect to a roadway that has a terminus at a POE
9. Multimodal Benefits
This criterion measures if the project provides multimodal benefits such as bicycle lanes/paths, high
occupancy vehicle (HOV)/transit lanes, and pedestrian walkways. Each of these three elements is
scored with a 1 or 0. For instance, a project receives 1 point if it accommodates bicycle travel and 0
points if it does not. Points for each element are summed to create a singe Multimodal Benefits score
for the project. The Multimodal Benefits score will range from 0 to 3, with the maximum score of 3 (1
point each for bicycle lanes/path, HOV/transit lanes, and pedestrian walkways).
Appendix D-6 120

Score Description
3 Project accommodates all three multimodal elements (bicycle lanes/path, HOV/transit
lane, and pedestrian walkway)
2 Project accommodates two of the multimodal elements (bicycle lanes/path, HOV/transit
lane, or pedestrian walkway)
1 Project accommodates one of the multimodal elements (bicycle lanes/path, HOV/transit
0 Project does not accommodate any of the multimodal elements
This criterion measures the environmental benefit of the project. It is a qualitative estimate based on
the TWG representatives’ assessment of information contained in existing planning and environmental
documents (air quality, habitat mitigation, etc.) The anticipated benefits are reported as high, medium,
and low. A project that reports high benefit would receive a score of 3, and a project with low benefit
would receive a score of 1. Criteria for which information is unavailable will be assigned a zero (“0”).
The Environmental Benefit score will range from 0 to 3, with the maximum score of 3.
Score Description
3 Projects with a high environmental benefit
2 Projects with medium environmental benefit
1 Projects with the low environmental benefit
This criterion measures the community and economic benefit of the project. It is a qualitative estimate
based on the TWG representatives’ assessment of information contained in existing
planning/engineering and other documents (e.g., safety, access, job and output creation). The
anticipated benefits are reported as high, medium, and low. A project that reports high benefit receives
a score of 3, and a project with low benefit receives a score of 1. Criteria for which information is
unavailable are assigned a zero (“0”). The Community and Economic Benefit score ranges from 0 to 3,
with the maximum score of 3.
Score Description
3 Projects with a high community and economic benefit
2 Projects with medium community and economic benefit
1 Projects with low community and economic benefit
Appendix D-6 121

Description of Interchange Project Criteria
1. Level of Service (LOS)
The LOS is a measure of the congestion. LOS of E or F is considered congested, while a LOS of A – D
is considered acceptable. The LOS Score measures if the project is expected to result in LOS
improvement from a congested level (E or F) to an acceptable level (D or better). No points are
awarded for projects that do not result in any improvement in LOS. If LOS data are not provided, then
the level of congestion cannot be determined, thus the project is scored with a zero (“0”). (Note: for a
new interchange, the LOS for a parallel facility will be evaluated for 2005.)
Score Description
2 Project results in an improvement from a congested level (E or F) to an acceptable
level (D or better)
1 Project improves the LOS within the acceptable range of LOS A to LOS D. (However,
the project does not result in an improvement from a congested level (E or F) to an
acceptable level (D or better).)
2. Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Improvement
This criterion provides an indication of interchanges with high travel demand. It measures if the project
is expected to accommodate increased capacity in 2030. This is calculated by subtracting the
interchange’s 2005 AADT from the projected 2030 AADT. The resulting figures are sorted from highest
to lowest and then grouped into three ranges containing as much as possible equal number of
observations. Projects grouped into the top range would receive a score of 3, projects grouped in the
middle range would receive a score of 2, and projects grouped into the low range would receive a score
of 1. Higher values indicate that after project completion, more traffic is served per interchange, which
is an indication of the relative importance of the interchange and the project. (Note: new interchanges
are evaluated with 2005 AADT/mile=0, and the traffic volume reported for 2030 is the improvement). If
2005 or 2030 AADT data are not provided for existing facilities, then an estimate of capacity and
capacity improvement cannot be determined, thus the project is scored with a zero (“0”) for this
criterion.
Score Description
3 Projects with the highest AADT improvement between 2005 and 2030
2 Projects with medium AADT improvement between 2005 and 2030
1 Projects with the lowest AADT improvement between 2005 and 2030
3. Accident Rate
This criterion measures if the project is on an interchange with an accident rate that is above or below
the statewide or citywide rate for a similar facility. Projects on roads with higher than average accident
Appendix D-6 122

rate imply high need. If data are not available, the project is scored with a zero (“0”). (Note: for a new
interchange, the accident rate for a parallel facility will be evaluated for 2005.)
Score Description
2 Project is located on an interchange where the accident rate is above the statewide or
1 Project is located on an interchange where the accident rate is below the statewide or
This criterion measures if the project occurs on an interchange that serves goods movement. It is
calculated by sorting the truck percent share of AADT for each project from highest to lowest and then
grouping the projects into three ranges containing as much as possible equal number of observations.
Projects grouped into the top range would receive a score of 3, and projects grouped into the low range
would receive a score of 1. Scores are assigned so that projects with the highest truck percent share
receive the highest score. Higher values point to the relative importance of the interchange for goods
movement. If truck share data are not available, the project is scored with a zero (“0”) for this criterion.
(Note: for new interchange, the truck percent share for a parallel facility will be evaluated for 2005.)
Score Description
3 Projects with the highest truck share
2 Projects with medium truck share
1 Projects with the lowest truck share
5. POE Congestion
This criterion measures if the project occurs on an interchange that serves a “congested” POE. Higher
values are assigned to the project if the interchange serves a POE that is considered “congested.” The
congestion level at the POEs is based on border wait times in minutes. If the project serves passenger-
only POE, then passenger vehicle wait time scores are used. If the POE is a commercial-only port, then
truck wait time scores are used. If the POE is a combination port, then the passenger vehicle and
commercial wait time scores are averaged. (Note: projects serving a new POE will use the average
peak border wait time of an adjacent port.) The maximum score for this criterion is 3.
Score Description
3 Project serves a highly congested POE
2 Project serves a medium congested POE
1 Project serves a less congested POE
Appendix D-6 123

This criterion measures the cost effectiveness of the project in terms of the cost per change in AADT. It
is calculated by dividing the cost of the project by the change in AADT growth between 2005 and 2030.
Total Cost
Change in AADT (2005 and 2030)
The results are sorted and then grouped into three ranges containing as much as possible equal
number of observations. Projects with the lowest cost per change in AADT, i.e., the most cost effective,
would receive a score of 3, and projects with the highest cost per change in AADT, i.e., the least cost
effective, would receive a score of 1. Scores are assigned so that those projects that are most cost
effective are assigned the highest score. If cost or AADT are not available, the project is scored with a
zero (“0”) for this criterion.
Score Description
3 Projects with the highest cost effectiveness
2 Projects with medium cost effectiveness
1 Projects with the lowest cost effectiveness
7. Project Readiness
This criterion measures the current phase of the project and awards points based on the readiness of
the project. The current phase will be reported as “final design,” or “advanced planning/preliminary
engineering/environmental;” or “conceptual planning”. For the purposes of this study, “final design”
includes pre-construction activities such as development of plans and specifications, and estimation of
quantities leading up to preparation of bid packages. “Advanced planning/preliminary
or feasibility study. In Baja California, “final design” is equivalent to “proyecto ejecutivo;” advanced
planning/preliminary engineering/environmental” equates to “plan maestro;” and conceptual planning is
equivalent to “esquema conceptual.” A project that is reported in the final design stage would receive a
score of 3, and a project in the conceptual planning stage would receive a score of 1. Criteria for which
information is unavailable will be assigned a zero. The Project Readiness Score will range from 0 to 3,
with the maximum score of 3.
Score Description
Appendix D-6 124

8. POE Connection
This criterion measures if the interchange project occurs on a roadway that has a terminus at a POE. A
project on a roadway with a terminus at a POE, which we will call “terminus facility”, receives 2 points.
A project on a roadway that connects to a “terminus facility” receives 1 point. Interchange projects that
occur on roadways that are located within the 10-mile focused study area but that do not connect to the
“terminus facility” or to the POE receive zero “0” points for this criterion.
Score Description
2 Project occurs on a “terminus facility,” i.e., a roadway that has a terminus at a POE
1 Project occurs on a roadway that connects to a “terminus facility”
0 Project that occurs a roadway that does not have a terminus at a POE and does not
connect to a roadway that has a terminus at a POE
9. Multimodal Benefit
This criterion measures if the project provides multimodal benefits such as bicycle lanes/paths; high
occupancy vehicle (HOV)/transit lanes and pedestrian walkways. Each of these three elements is
scored with a 1 or 0. For instance, a project receives 1 point if it accommodates bicycle travel and 0
points if it does not. Points for each element are summed to create a singe Multimodal Benefits Score
for the project. The Multimodal Benefits Score will range from 0 to 3, with the maximum score of 3 (1
point each for bicycle lanes/path, HOV/transit lanes, and pedestrian walkways).
Score Description
3 Project accommodates all three multimodal elements (bicycle lanes/path, HOV/transit
lane, and pedestrian walkway)
2 Project accommodates two of the multimodal elements (bicycle lanes/path, HOV/transit
1 Project accommodates one of the multimodal elements (bicycle lanes/path, HOV/transit
0 Project does not accommodate any of the multimodal elements
documents (e.g. air quality, habitat mitigation, etc.). The anticipated benefits are reported as high,
medium, and low. A project that reports high benefit received a score of 3, and a project with low
benefit received a score of 1. Criteria for which information is unavailable will be assigned a zero (“0”).
The Environmental Benefit score will range from 0 to 3, with the maximum score of 3.
Appendix D-6 125

Score Description
1 Projects with the low environmental benefit
anticipated benefits are reported as high, medium, and low. A project that reports high benefit would
receive a score of 3, and a project with low benefit would receive a score of 1. Criteria for which
information is unavailable will be assigned a zero (“0”). The Community and Economic Benefit score
will range from 0 to 3, with the maximum score of 3.
Score Description
Description of Rail Project Criteria
The combined score of eight criteria was used to rank rail projects. The criteria for evaluating rail
projects are described below.
This criterion measures the increased capacity (additional rail cars or passengers) the project is
expected to accommodate in 2030. It is calculated by subtracting the number of rail cars or passengers
in 2005 from the number of rail cars or passengers in 2030. The resulting figures are sorted from
highest to lowest and then grouped into three ranges containing (as much as possible) equal number of
observations. Projects grouped into the top range would receive a score of 3, projects grouped in the
middle range would receive a score of 2, and projects grouped into the low range would receive a score
of 1. Higher values indicate that after project completion, the railway has an increased capacity to
accommodate rail cars or passengers. (Note: projects on railways that do not currently exist are
evaluated with the 2005 number=0, and whatever is reported for 2030 is the improvement). If 2005 or
2030 data are not provided, then an estimate of capacity and capacity improvement cannot be
determined, thus the project is scored with a zero (“0”) for this criterion.
Appendix D-6 126

Score Description
3 Projects with the highest capacity improvement
2 Projects with medium capacity improvement
1 Projects with the lowest capacity improvement
2. POE Congestion
This criterion measures if the current project occurs on a rail line that serves a “congested” POE.
Higher values are assigned to the project if the railroad serves a POE that is considered “congested.”
The congestion level at the POEs is calculated in the POE criteria section and is based on 2007
weekday Average Peak Border Wait Time in minutes. In lieu of rail border wait time data, which is not
available, if the rail project serves a passenger-only POE, then passenger vehicle wait time scores will
be used. If the rail project serves a commercial-only port, then truck wait time scores will be used. If the
rail project serves a combination port, then the passenger vehicle and commercial wait time scores will
be averaged. The maximum score for this criterion is 3.
Score Description
3 Projects occur on a rail line that serves a highly congested POE
2 Projects occur on a rail line that serves a medium congested POE
1 Projects occur on a rail line that serves a less congested POE

This criterion measures if the rail project includes a grade separation to alleviate congestion on local
streets due to railroad operations. Projects that include a grade separation receive 1 point, while
projects that do not, receive a zero “0.” The maximum score for this criterion is 1 point.
Score Description
1 Project includes grade separation to alleviate congestion on local streets
0 Project does not include grade separation to alleviate congestion on local streets
This criterion measures the cost effectiveness of the project in terms of the change in the number of rail
cars or passengers between 2030 and 2005.
Total Cost
Change in Number of Rail Cars or Passengers
The results are sorted and then grouped into three ranges containing (as much as possible) equal
number of observations. Projects with the lowest cost per additional rail cars/passengers, i.e., the most
Appendix D-6 127

cost effective, would receive a score of 3, and projects with the highest cost per additional rail
cars/passengers, i.e., the least cost effective, would receive a score of 1. Scores are assigned so that
those projects that are most cost effective are assigned the highest score. If the number of rail cars or
passengers for 2005 or 2030 is not available, the project is scored with a zero (“0”) for this criterion.
Score Description
3 Projects with the highest cost effectiveness
2 Projects with medium cost effectiveness
1 Projects with the lowest cost effectiveness
This criterion measures the current phase of rail projects and awards points based on the readiness of
the project. The current phase will be reported as “final design,” or “advanced planning/preliminary
engineering/environmental;” or “conceptual planning”. For rail projects, “final design” includes pre-
construction activities such as completing the plans and specifications and other engineering work so
that the project will be ready for construction and can enter into a full-funding grant agreement. Projects
in this phase must have an approved environmental document. “Advanced planning/preliminary
or feasibility study including developing alternative analyses and costs. A project in the final design
stage would receive a score of 3, and a project in the conceptual planning stage would receive a score
of 1. Criteria for which information is unavailable will be assigned a zero. The Project Readiness score
Score Description
6. POE Connection
This criterion measures if the rail project is on a rail line that crosses or has a terminus at the
international border. A project on a rail line that crosses or has a terminus at the international border
receives 2 point. A project on a rail line that connects to a rail line that crosses or has a terminus at the
international border receives 1 point.
Score Description
2 Project occurs on a rail line that crosses or has a terminus at the international border
1 Project occurs on a rail line that connects to a rail line that crosses or has a terminus at
the international border
0 Project occurs on a rail line that does not cross or have a terminus at the international
border
Appendix D-6 128

documents (e.g., air quality, habitat mitigation, etc.) The anticipated benefits are reported as high,
medium, and low. A project that reports high benefit would receive a score of 3, and a project with low
benefit would receive a score of 1. Criteria for which information is unavailable will be assigned a zero
(“0”). The Environmental Benefit Score will range from 0 to 3, with the maximum score of 3.
Score Description
1 Projects with low environmental benefit
anticipated benefits are reported as high, medium, and low. A project that reports a high benefit would
receive a score of 3, and a project with a low benefit would receive a score of 1. Criteria for which
information is unavailable will be assigned a zero (“0”). The Community and Economic Benefit score
Score Description
Project Numbers
Project identification numbers assigned to each project are the combination of mode type,
County/Municipality code, and number, whereby mode type and county code are as follows:
Mode Type: County/Municipality Code:

10=Roadway 10=Imperial County
20=Interchange 20=San Diego County
30=Rail
30= Municipality of Ensenada
40=POE
40= Municipality of Mexicali
50= Municipality of Playas de Rosarito
60= Municipality of Tecate
70= Municipality of Tijuana
Appendix D-6 129

Appendix D-7: Roadway Weighted Project Rankings
Cost
Eff.
Congestion / Capacity (39%) (33%) Project Readiness (28%)
Benefits
Economic Benefit
AADT
Project
Project Key Jurisdiction Project Name Limits Project Description
1. LOS Improvement
2. AADT Improvement
3. Accident Rate
4. Truck Pct. Share of
5. POE Congestion
7. Current Phase of
8. POE Connection
10. Environmental
11. Community and
Weighted Score
Project Rank
Year Open to Traffic

Maximum Possible Score 6 9 6 9 9 33 6 4 6 6 6 100 --
1070020 Tijuana Alamar Via Rapida Central Bus Station to Construction of the via Rapida Alamar 2013 6 3 6 9 9 33 4 2 4 6 6 88 1
Tijuana-Rosarito 2000 Blvd. with 3 lanes in both directions for 10 km.
and side roads
1070010 Tijuana Incorporation of International Blvd. to Centro Construction of a .7 km roadway section 2014 6 9 6 6 9 33 2 2 0 4 6 83 2
International Ave. West to de Gobierno - Civic Center to incorporate International Ave west to
Vía Rápida the Via Rapida
1070014 Tijuana Industrial Blvd. Airport access road to Terán Improvement of the primary 6 km. 2014 6 3 6 6 9 33 4 2 4 4 6 83 2
Blvd. roadway with access to the Otay I and II
border crossings
1040005 Mexicali Gómez Morin Road Cetys Rd. to Mexicali-S.Felipe Improvement of the existing 6.5 km. 2015 6 0 6 9 6 33 4 2 4 6 6 82 4
Highway roadway
1040006 Mexicali Gómez Morin Road Capitan Carrillo Ave to Rep. Improvement of the existing 1.5 km. 2015 6 0 6 9 6 33 4 2 4 6 6 82 4
de Argentina Street. roadway
1060001 Tecate, Baja Defensores Blvd. Mixcoac Street to Tecate- Construction of a .5 km. primary road 2015 3 6 3 9 9 33 4 2 4 4 4 81 6
California Tijuana. Freeway segment and intersection with the Tecate-
Tijuana freeway
1070007 Tijuana Ramp on western crest of Pedestrian Bridge to Bridge Construction of a ramp and retaining wall 2013 6 9 6 0 9 33 2 2 2 6 6 81 6
the Tijuana River channel. México 600 meters in length from slope to crest
west of the Tijuana River channel, in
order to connect the Chaparral border
crossing with the City of Tijuana
1060002 Tecate, Baja Tecate-Tijuana Freeway Rancho La Puerta to Paso el A 3.0 km expansion of the Tecate- 2015 6 0 6 9 9 33 4 2 0 4 6 79 8
California Águila Node Tijuana freeway
1060003 Tecate, Baja Tecate-Mexicali Freeway Rancho Santa Lucia to San A 0.7 km expansion of a Tecate-Mexicali 2015 3 3 6 9 9 33 4 2 0 4 6 79 8
California José freeway segment
Appendix D-7 131

Cost
Eff.
Benefits
Economic Benefit
AADT
Project
1. LOS Improvement
2. AADT Improvement
3. Accident Rate
5. POE Congestion
7. Current Phase of
8. POE Connection
10. Environmental
11. Community and
Weighted Score
Project Rank

1070012 Tijuana International Otay II Blvd. Otay II to Tollroad from Construction of a 8 km roadway with 3 2013 6 3 6 0 9 33 2 4 4 6 6 79 8
Tijuana to Tecate lanes in each direction for access to the
Otay II border crossing
1070021 Tijuana International Otay II Blvd. Tijuana-Tecate Tollroad to Construction of 1.5 km arterial from 2013 6 3 6 0 9 33 2 4 4 6 6 79 8
Alamar Tijuana-Tecate Tollroad to Alamar
1040003 Mexicali Extension of the Central Lázaro Cárdenas Blvd. to Construction of a 3.5 km. primary 2014 6 3 6 6 6 33 4 2 4 4 4 78 12
axis Gómez Morin Road roadway like the extension of the Rio
Nuevo roadway
1040004 Mexicali Terán-Terán Blvd. San Felipe Highway to Improvement of the existing 8km 2013 6 0 6 9 6 33 4 2 4 4 4 78 12
Tijuana Highway roadway
1020003 San Diego County I-5 SR 905 to SR 54 Construct 2 HOV lanes 2020 6 3 3 3 9 33 2 4 2 4 6 75 14
1070011 Tijuana Las Torres Blvd. Highway Tijuana - Tecate to Construction of a 2 km roadway with a 38 2014 6 3 3 0 9 33 2 2 4 6 6 74 15
Otay II Blvd. meter right of way
1040002 Mexicali Western periphery Intersection with the proposed Construction of a 7 km. primary roadway 2018 3 3 6 6 6 33 2 2 4 4 4 73 16
International roadway west to
Tijuana Highway
1020012 San Diego County SR 905 I-805 to Border Add 2 general purpose lanes 2030 6 3 3 3 9 33 2 4 0 4 6 73 16
1070008 Tijuana Ave. International East Silvestre Revueltas Street to Extension of 4-lane roadway for 2014 6 3 3 9 9 22 2 4 2 6 6 72 18
12 Norte Street circulation and 500 meters of additional
access to the Otay II border crossing
1070006 Tijuana Ramp in eastern crest of Pedestrian Bridge to Bridge Construction of a ramp and retaining 2013 6 0 6 0 9 33 2 2 2 6 6 72 18
the Tijuana River Channel México wall, 600 meters in length from slope to
crest east of the Tijuana river channel, in
order to connect the "Chaparral" border
crossing to the City of Tijuana
Appendix D-7 132

Cost
Eff.
Benefits
Economic Benefit
AADT
Project
1. LOS Improvement
2. AADT Improvement
3. Accident Rate
5. POE Congestion
7. Current Phase of
8. POE Connection
10. Environmental
11. Community and
Weighted Score
Project Rank

1040001 Mexicali Colon Ave. West Leyes de Reforma Bridge to A Construction of a 4 km. primary roadway 2014 3 3 6 0 6 33 2 2 4 6 6 71 20
proposed roadway on the with 2 lanes in both directions
western periphery.
1040008 Mexicali Beltway around eastern Islas Agrarias Highway to Expansion of the existing 7 km roadway 2015 3 3 3 9 6 33 4 2 0 4 4 71 20
periphery Highway to the Airport
1070004 Tijuana Vehicular bridge over the vía Rápida East, at the same Construction of a two lane (same 2013 6 9 6 0 9 22 2 2 2 6 6 70 22
channel of the Tijuana elevation as calle Frontera to direction) vehicular bridge over the
River vía rápida West Tijuana River channel in order to connect
the "El Chaparral" border crossing to the
City of Tijuana
1070003 Tijuana Vehicular bridge over the vía Rápida East to vía rápida Construction of a single lane bridge and 2013 6 9 6 0 9 22 2 2 2 6 6 70 22
channel of the Tijuana West delineation of the adjacent existing bridge
River. in the Tijuana River channel
1020022 San Diego County Enrico Fermi Drive Otay Mesa Road to SR-11 Enhanced Arterial from Otay Mesa Road 2030 0 9 0 0 9 33 2 2 4 4 6 69 24
to SR 11
1070005 Tijuana Expansion of the Via Pedestrian Bridge to Bridge Construction (expansion) of 2 lanes, 600 2013 6 0 3 0 9 33 2 2 2 6 6 69 24
Rapida East Tijuana México meters in length, in the via rapida east to
connect the El Chaparral border crossing
to the City of Tijuana
1070009 Tijuana Double deck International Intersection of Via Rápida Construction of a double deck for 2014 0 0 6 0 9 33 2 2 4 6 6 68 26
Ave. West. East to Access to Playas de International Ave. west with a length of
Tijuana 10 km. for access to the Chaparral
border crossing
1020021 San Diego County Enrico Fermi Drive Lone Star Road to Otay Mesa Arterial from Lone Star Road to Otay 2030 3 3 0 0 9 33 2 2 4 4 6 66 27
Road Mesa Road
1020035 San Diego County Siempre Viva Road Loop Road to Roque Rd Arterial from Loop Road to Roque Rd 2030 3 3 0 0 9 33 2 2 4 4 6 66 27
1020034 San Diego County Siempre Viva Road Alta Road to Loop Road Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road 2030 3 3 0 0 9 33 2 2 4 4 6 66 27
Appendix D-7 133

Cost
Eff.
Benefits
Economic Benefit
AADT
Project
1. LOS Improvement
2. AADT Improvement
3. Accident Rate
5. POE Congestion
7. Current Phase of
8. POE Connection
10. Environmental
11. Community and
Weighted Score
Project Rank

1040007 Mexicali Beltway around eastern Lázaro Cárdenas Blvd. to San Construction of a 7.5 km primary 2015 0 3 6 0 6 33 2 2 2 6 6 66 27
periphery Felipe Highway roadway
1020014 San Diego County Airway Road City of SD to Enrico Fermi Arterial from City of SD to Enrico Fermi 2030 0 3 3 0 9 33 2 0 4 4 6 64 31
Drive Drive
1020025 San Diego County Lone Star Road Piper Ranch to Sunroad Blvd Arterial from Piper Ranch to Sunroad 2030 3 3 0 0 9 33 2 0 4 4 6 64 31
Blvd
1020033 San Diego County Siempre Viva Road City of SD to Alta Road Arterial from City of SD to Alta Road 2030 0 3 0 0 9 33 2 2 4 4 6 63 33
1020030 San Diego County Otay Mesa Road Sanyo Rd to Enrico Fermi Arterial from Sanyo Rd to Enrico Fermi 2030 3 3 0 0 9 33 2 0 2 4 6 62 34
1020028 San Diego County Lone Star Road Enrico Fermi Road to Alta Arterial from Enrico Fermi Road to Alta 2030 0 3 0 0 9 33 2 2 2 4 6 61 35
Road Road
1010008 Imperial County SR 115 Evan Hewes Highway to SR Add to 2 general purpose lanes -- 0 3 3 9 3 33 2 2 0 2 4 61 35
78
1020007 San Diego County SR 125 Telegraph Cyn to San Miguel Add 4 Toll lanes from Telegraph Cyn to 2030 0 3 0 3 9 33 2 2 0 4 4 60 37
Rd San Miguel Rd.
1020008 San Diego County SR 125 San Miguel Rd to SR 54 Add 4 Toll lanes from San Miguel Rd. to 2030 0 3 0 3 9 33 2 2 0 4 4 60 37
SR 54
1020010 San Diego County I-805 Palomar St to SR 94 Construct 4 Managed Lanes from 2030 0 0 3 3 9 22 4 4 4 4 6 59 39
Palomar St. to SR 94
Appendix D-7 134

Cost
Eff.
Benefits
Economic Benefit
AADT
Project
1. LOS Improvement
2. AADT Improvement
3. Accident Rate
5. POE Congestion
7. Current Phase of
8. POE Connection
10. Environmental
11. Community and
Weighted Score
Project Rank

1020004 San Diego County I-5 SR 54 to I-8 Construct 2 HOV lanes 2020 0 3 3 3 9 22 2 4 2 4 6 58 40
1010015 Imperial County Imperial Ave. I-8 to Aten Rd Improve to 6 lane primary arterial 2030 0 3 6 0 6 33 2 0 2 0 6 58 40
1020009 San Diego County I-805 SR 905 to Palomar St Construct 4 Managed Lanes from SR 2030 0 3 3 3 9 22 2 4 2 4 4 56 42
905 to Palomar St.
1010011 Imperial County Dogwood SR 98 to Mead Rd Improve to 5 lane primary arterial 2030 3 0 6 0 6 33 2 0 0 0 6 56 42
1020023 San Diego County Enrico Fermi Drive SR-11 to Airway Road Enhanced Arterial from SR 11 to Airway 2030 3 3 0 0 9 22 2 2 4 4 6 55 44
Road
1020026 San Diego County Lone Star Road Sunroad Blvd to Vann Center Arterial from Sunroad Blvd to Vann 2030 3 3 0 0 9 22 2 2 4 4 6 55 44
Blvd Center Blvd
1010018 Imperial County SR 111 SR 98 to I-8 Upgrade 4 lane expressway to 6 lane 2015 0 3 3 3 6 22 4 4 0 4 6 55 44
freeway and interchanges at Jasper Rd,
McCabe Rd, Heber Rd
1020027 San Diego County Lone Star Road Vann Center Blvd to Enrico Arterial from Vann Center Blvd to Enrico 2030 3 3 0 0 9 22 2 2 4 4 6 55 44
Fermi Drive Fermi Drive
1020017 San Diego County Alta Road Old Otay Mesa Rd to Arterial from Old Otay Mesa Rd to 2030 3 3 0 0 9 22 2 0 4 4 6 53 48
Donovan State Prison Donovan State Prison
1020029 San Diego County Lone Star Road Otay Mesa Road to Siempre Arterial from Otay Mesa Road to Siempre 2030 3 3 0 0 9 22 2 2 2 4 6 53 48
Viva Road Viva Road
Appendix D-7 135

Cost
Eff.
Benefits
Economic Benefit
AADT
Project
1. LOS Improvement
2. AADT Improvement
3. Accident Rate
5. POE Congestion
7. Current Phase of
8. POE Connection
10. Environmental
11. Community and
Weighted Score
Project Rank

1010009 Imperial County Imperial Av. (McCabe McCabe Rd to I-8 Improve and construct a 6 lane primary 2016 0 3 6 0 6 33 2 0 2 0 0 52 50
Road to I-8) arterial
1020019 San Diego County Alta Road Otay Mesa Road to Airway Arterial from Otay Mesa Road to Airway 2030 3 3 0 0 9 22 2 0 2 4 6 51 51
Road Road
1010016 Imperial County 8th St Overpass Wake Ave. to Centinela Widen to 4 lanes 2013 0 3 3 0 6 33 4 0 2 0 0 51 51
1010001 Imperial County I-8 Forrester Road to SR 111 Add 2 general purpose lanes -- 0 3 3 3 6 22 2 2 0 4 6 51 51
1010005 Imperial County SR 111 I-8 to SR 78 Add 2 general purpose lanes and -- 0 3 3 6 6 22 2 2 0 2 4 50 54
construct interchanges
1020038 San Diego County Via de la Amistad City of SD/Enrico Fermi to Collector 2030 0 3 0 0 9 22 2 0 4 4 6 50 54
Alta Road
1010019 Imperial County SR 98 SR 98 to Cesar Chavez Blvd At Grade Railroad Crossing at SR 98 2016 6 0 6 3 6 11 2 2 4 4 6 50 54
and Cesar Chavez Blvd. widen from 2 to
4 lanes
1010017 Imperial County SR 98 East SR 111 to SR 7 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2016 6 0 3 3 6 11 4 2 4 4 6 49 57
1020002 City of Chula Vista Willow Street Bridge Sweetwater Road to Bonita Widen or replace bridge across 2013 6 0 3 0 9 11 4 0 4 4 4 45 58
Road Sweetwater River
Appendix D-7 136

Cost
Eff.
Benefits
Economic Benefit
AADT
Project
1. LOS Improvement
2. AADT Improvement
3. Accident Rate
5. POE Congestion
7. Current Phase of
8. POE Connection
10. Environmental
11. Community and
Weighted Score
Project Rank

1020005 San Diego County SR 11 SR 905 to Mexico Construct 4 Toll Lanes 2015 0 3 0 3 9 11 4 4 0 4 6 44 59
1020001 City of Chula Vista Heritage Road Bridge Main Street to South of the Bridge across Otay Valley 2023 0 3 3 0 9 11 2 2 4 4 6 44 59
Otay River
1020015 San Diego County Airway Road Enrico Fermi Road to Alta Arterial from Enrico Fermi Road to Alta 2030 3 3 0 0 9 11 2 0 4 4 6 42 61
Road Road from Enrico Fermi Road to Alta
Road
1020016 San Diego County Airway Road Alta Road to Loop Road Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road 2030 3 3 0 0 9 11 2 0 4 4 6 42 61
1020018 San Diego County Alta Road Lone Star Road to Otay Mesa Arterial from Lone Star Road to Otay 2030 3 3 0 0 9 11 2 0 4 4 6 42 61
Road Mesa Road
1020032 San Diego County Otay Mesa Road Alta Road to Loop Road Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road 2030 3 3 0 0 9 11 2 0 4 4 6 42 61
1020020 San Diego County Alta Road Airway Road to Siempre Viva Arterial from Airway Road to Siempre 2030 3 3 0 0 9 11 2 0 2 4 6 40 65
Road Viva Road
1020024 San Diego County Enrico Fermi Drive Airway Road to Siempre Viva Arterial from Airway Road to Siempre 2030 0 0 0 0 9 11 2 2 4 4 6 38 66
Road Viva Road
1020031 San Diego County Otay Mesa Road Enrico Fermi Rd to Alta Road Arterial from Enrico Fermi Rd to Alta 2030 3 0 0 0 9 11 2 0 2 4 6 37 67
Road
1020013 San Diego County Otay Mesa Southbound Britannia Blvd to Otay Mesa Widening and Realignment 2014 0 0 0 9 9 0 4 4 0 4 6 36 68
Truck Route POE
Appendix D-7 137

Appendix D-8: Roadway Scoresheet
Length of Road (miles)
9. Pedestrian Walkway
Number of Lanes 2005
Vehicle (HOV) Lane
TOTAL INDEX SCORE

9. Bike Path (Y or N)?
Economic Benefit
6. Cost per Improve-
Summitting Agency
(Above or Below
2. AADT 2030-2005/
7. Current Phase of
Project Description
1. Level of Service:
9. High Occupancy
8. POE Connection
ment in Vehicle
Miles Travelled
10. Environmental
6. Cost (in 2006 $)
Average, 2005)
3. Accident Level
(Congestion)
11. Community/
4. Truck AADT
5. POE Served
2. AADT 2005/
2. AADT 2030/
Project Name
Lane-Mile
Lane-Mile
Lane-Mile
(% share)
Jurisdiction
(Y or N)?
(Y or N)?
Project Key
AADT 2005
AADT 2030
10. SCORE
11. SCORE
Project
Benefit
1. SCORE
2. SCORE
3. SCORE
4. SCORE
5. SCORE
6. SCORE
7. SCORE
8. SCORE
9. SCORE
2005
2030
2. Rank
4. Rank
6. Rank
1010001 Imperial Cty. I-8 Add 2 general purpose lanes 6.9 B C 0 37,500 66,700 4 6 1,359 1,611 252 49 1 Below 1 10% 16 1 Calexico 2 $188,700,000 $937 42 2 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 No No No 0 Medium 2 High 3 14 Caltrans
planning terminus facility
1010005 Imperial Cty. SR 111 Add 2 general purpose lanes and construct interchanges 16.2 C D 0 16,500 39,500 4 6 255 406 152 50 1 Below 1 24% 11 2 Calexico 2 $500,000,000 $1,342 51 2 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 N/A No No 0 Low 1 Medium 2 13 Caltrans
1010008 Imperial Cty. SR 115 Add to 2 general purpose lanes 17.8 B C 0 2,750 28,000 2 4 77 393 316 47 1 Below 1 32% 6 3 Calexico 1 $146,800,000 $327 23 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 N/A No No 0 Low 1 Medium 2 14 Caltrans
East planning terminus facility
1010009 Imperial Cty. Imperial Av. (McCabe Improve and construct a 6 lane primary arterial 1.5 F F 0 0 69,000 0 6 -- 7,667 7,667 15 1 Above 2 N/A -- 0 Calexico 2 $28,200,000 $272 22 3 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 N/A No Yes 1 N/A 0 N/A 0 10 Caltrans/
Road to I-8) planning El Centro
1010011 Imperial Cty. Dogwood Improve to 5 lane primary arterial 19.0 F F 0 17,800 69,000 2 5 488 726 238 48 1 Above 2 N/A -- 0 Calexico 2 $182,400,000 $188 18 3 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 -- -- -- 0 -- 0 High 3 13 Caltrans/
planning El Centro
1010015 Imperial Cty. Imperial Ave. Improve to 6 lane primary arterial 3.5 N/A F 0 27,800 58,000 4 6 1,986 2,762 776 42 1 Above 2 0% -- 0 Calexico 2 $26,200,000 $248 20 3 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 No No Yes 1 N/A 0 High 3 13 Caltrans/
planning El Centro
1010016 Imperial Cty. 8th St Overpass Widen to 4 lanes 0.5 N/A N/A 0 8,600 31,800 2 4 9,556 17,667 8,111 12 1 Below 1 N/A -- 0 Calexico 2 $4,000,000 $383 26 3 Advanced 2 Neither 0 No No Yes 1 N/A 0 N/A 0 10 Caltrans/
planning El Centro
1010017 Imperial Cty. SR 98 East Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 7.3 E D 2 25,000 34,000 2 4 1,712 1,164 -548 0 0 Below 1 13% 15 1 Calexico 2 $150,000,000 $2,283 62 1 Advanced 2 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 17 Caltrans
1010018 Imperial Cty. SR 111 Upgrade 4 lane expressway to 6 lane freeway and 6.5 B C 0 38,500 100,500 4 6 1,481 2,577 1,096 40 1 Below 1 8% 19 1 Calexico 2 $456,000,000 $1,132 48 2 Advanced 2 On a terminus 2 No No No 0 Medium 2 High 3 16 Caltrans
interchanges at Jasper Rd, McCabe Rd, Heber Rd planning facility
1010019 Imperial Cty. SR 98 At Grade Railroad Crossing at SR 98 and Cesar Chavez 1.1 E C 2 24,000 29,300 2 4 10,909 6,659 -4,250 0 0 Above 2 6% 22 1 Calexico 2 $50,000,000 $8,576 63 1 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 17 Caltrans
Blvd. widen from 2 to 4 lanes planning terminus facility
1020001 City of Chula Heritage Road Bridge Bridge across Otay Valley 0.2 A A 0 11,613 33,000 3 6 19,355 27,500 8,145 11 1 Below 1 -- -- 0 Otay Mesa 3 $40,446,000 $9,456 63 1 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 15 City of
Vista East planning terminus facility Chula
1020002 City of Chula Willow Street Bridge Widen or replace bridge across Sweetwater River 0.1 F C 2 17,490 22,400 2 4 72,875 46,667 -26,208 0 0 Below 1 -- -- 0 Otay Mesa 3 $17,052,000 $28,941 63 1 Advanced 2 Neither 0 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 Medium 2 14 City of
Vista planning Chula
1020003 San Diego Cty. I-5 Construct 2 HOV lanes 6.2 E D 2 187,000 257,000 8 10 3,770 4,145 375 45 1 Below 1 4% 26 1 San Ysidro 3 $202,000,000 $465 30 3 Conceptual 1 On a terminus 2 No Yes No 1 Medium 2 High 3 20 Caltrans
planning facility
1020004 San Diego Cty. I-5 Construct 2 HOV lanes 10.7 F E 0 191,000 274,000 8 10 2,231 2,561 329 46 1 Below 1 4% 25 1 San Ysidro 3 $934,000,000 $1,052 47 2 Conceptual 1 On a terminus 2 No Yes No 1 Medium 2 High 3 17 Caltrans
planning facility
1020005 San Diego Cty. SR 11 Construct 4 Toll Lanes 2.5 B C 0 0 90,000 0 4 -- 9,000 9,000 10 1 N/A 0 8% 17 1 Otay Mesa 3 $377,850,000 $1,679 56 1 Advanced 2 On a terminus 2 No No No 0 Medium 2 High 3 15 Caltrans
East planning facility
1020007 San Diego Cty. SR 125 Add 4 Toll lanes from Telegraph Cyn to San Miguel Rd. 2.5 N/A B 0 0 89,000 4 8 0 4,450 4,450 23 1 N/A 0 4% 23 1 Otay Mesa 3 $130,000,000 $584 33 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 No No No 0 Medium 2 Medium 2 14 Caltrans
1020008 San Diego Cty. SR 125 Add 4 Toll lanes from San Miguel Rd. to SR 54 4.7 N/A B 0 0 89,000 4 8 0 2,367 2,367 33 1 N/A 0 4% 24 1 Otay Mesa 3 $40,000,000 $96 15 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 No No No 0 Medium 2 Medium 2 14 Caltrans
1020009 San Diego Cty. I-805 Construct 4 Managed Lanes from SR 905 to Palomar St. 3.2 D D 0 164,000 250,000 8 12 6,406 6,510 104 51 1 Below 1 7% 21 1 San Ysidro 3 $288,000,000 $1,047 45 2 Conceptual 1 On a terminus 2 No Yes No 1 Medium 2 Medium 2 16 Caltrans
planning facility
1020010 San Diego Cty. I-805 Construct 4 Managed Lanes from Palomar St. to SR 94 8.5 F E 0 245,000 310,000 8 12 3,603 3,039 -564 0 0 Below 1 7% 20 1 San Ysidro 3 $884,000,000 $1,600 55 2 Advanced 2 On a terminus 2 No Yes Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 18 Caltrans
planning facility
1020012 San Diego Cty. SR 905 Add 2 general purpose lanes 6.9 E D 2 62,000 170,000 6 8 1,498 3,080 1,582 36 1 Below 1 8% 18 1 Otay Mesa 3 $200,000,000 $268 21 3 Conceptual 1 On a terminus 2 No No No 0 Medium 2 High 3 19 Caltrans
planning facility
1020013 San Diego Cty. Otay Mesa Widening and Realignment 2.6 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 1 2 -- -- -- 0 0 N/A 0 100% 1 3 Otay Mesa 3 $23,000,000 -- 0 0 Advanced 2 On a terminus 2 N/A N/A N/A 0 Medium 2 High 3 15 Caltrans
Southbound Truck planning facility
1020014 San Diego Cty. Airway Road Arterial from City of SD to Enrico Fermi Drive 0.5 A C 0 1,700 16,200 2 4 1,700 8,100 6,400 19 1 Below 1 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $3,000,000 $414 27 3 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 16 Cty. of SD
Mesa East planning
1020015 San Diego Cty. Airway Road Arterial from Enrico Fermi Road to Alta Road from Enrico 0.5 C A 1 0 6,000 0 4 -- 3,000 3,000 28 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $6,000,000 $2,000 59 1 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 14 Cty. of SD
Fermi Road to Alta Road Mesa East planning
1020016 San Diego Cty. Airway Road Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road 0.5 C A 1 0 6,400 0 4 -- 3,200 3,200 27 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $6,000,000 $1,875 58 1 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 14 Cty. of SD
Mesa East planning
1020017 San Diego Cty. Alta Road Arterial from Old Otay Mesa Rd to Donovan State Prison 0.8 C B 1 5,345 14,900 2 4 3,341 4,656 1,316 39 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $8,000,000 $1,047 46 2 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 15 Cty. of SD
Mesa East planning
1020018 San Diego Cty. Alta Road Arterial from Lone Star Road to Otay Mesa Road 0.5 C A 1 0 5,000 0 4 -- 2,500 2,500 32 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $6,000,000 $2,400 63 1 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 14 Cty. of SD
Mesa East planning
1020019 San Diego Cty. Alta Road Arterial from Otay Mesa Road to Airway Road 0.5 C A 1 0 10,400 0 4 -- 5,200 5,200 21 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $6,000,000 $1,154 49 2 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 No No Yes 1 Medium 2 High 3 14 Cty. of SD
Mesa East planning
p g
1020020 San Diego Cty. Alta Road Arterial from Airway Road to Siempre Viva Road 0.5 C A 1 0 5,700 0 4 -- 2,850 2,850 29 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $6,000,000 $2,105 60 1 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 No No Yes 1 Medium 2 High 3 13 Cty. of SD
Mesa East planning
1020021 San Diego Cty. Enrico Fermi Drive Arterial from Lone Star Road to Otay Mesa Road 0.5 C B 1 0 19,900 0 4 -- 9,950 9,950 9 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $6,000,000 $603 34 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 17 Cty. of SD
Mesa East planning terminus facility
1020022 San Diego Cty. Enrico Fermi Drive Enhanced Arterial from Otay Mesa Road to SR 11 0.3 C D 0 0 36,500 0 4 -- 36,500 36,500 2 3 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $7,000,000 $767 38 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 18 Cty. of SD
1020023 San Diego Cty. Enrico Fermi Drive Enhanced Arterial from SR 11 to Airway Road 0.3 C B 1 0 17,800 0 4 -- 17,800 17,800 4 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $7,000,000 $1,573 53 2 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 16 Cty. of SD
1020024 San Diego Cty. Enrico Fermi Drive Arterial from Airway Road to Siempre Viva Road 0.3 A A 0 10,000 13,500 2 4 20,000 13,500 -6,500 0 0 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $1,500,000 $1,714 57 1 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 13 Cty. of SD
1020025 San Diego Cty. Lone Star Road Arterial from Piper Ranch to Sunroad Blvd 0.7 C B 1 0 30,900 0 6 -- 7,687 7,687 14 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $12,000,000 $580 32 3 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 16 Cty. of SD
Mesa East planning
1020026 San Diego Cty. Lone Star Road Arterial from Sunroad Blvd to Vann Center Blvd 0.3 C A 1 0 13,800 0 4 -- 13,800 13,800 6 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $3,000,000 $870 40 2 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 16 Cty. of SD
1020027 San Diego Cty. Lone Star Road Arterial from Vann Center Blvd to Enrico Fermi Drive 0.5 C A 1 0 13,200 0 4 -- 6,600 6,600 18 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $6,000,000 $909 41 2 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 16 Cty. of SD
1020028 San Diego Cty. Lone Star Road Arterial from Enrico Fermi Road to Alta Road 0.5 C C 0 0 27,200 0 4 -- 13,600 13,600 7 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $6,000,000 $441 28 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 No No Yes 1 Medium 2 High 3 15 Cty. of SD
1020029 San Diego Cty. Lone Star Road Arterial from Otay Mesa Road to Siempre Viva Road 0.8 C B 1 0 15,300 0 4 -- 4,608 4,608 22 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $12,000,000 $945 43 2 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 No No Yes 1 Medium 2 High 3 15 Cty. of SD
1020030 San Diego Cty. Otay Mesa Road Arterial from Sanyo Rd to Enrico Fermi 0.8 C B 1 6,275 23,400 2 6 4,183 5,200 1,017 41 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $9,000,000 $701 36 3 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 No No Yes 1 Medium 2 High 3 15 Cty. of SD
Mesa East planning
Appendix D-8 139

Length of Road (miles)
9. Pedestrian Walkway
Vehicle (HOV) Lane
TOTAL INDEX SCORE

9. Bike Path (Y or N)?
Economic Benefit
6. Cost per Improve-
Summitting Agency
(Above or Below
2. AADT 2030-2005/
7. Current Phase of
Project Description
9. High Occupancy
8. POE Connection
ment in Vehicle
Miles Travelled
10. Environmental
6. Cost (in 2006 $)
Average, 2005)
3. Accident Level
(Congestion)
11. Community/
4. Truck AADT
5. POE Served
2. AADT 2005/
2. AADT 2030/
Project Name
Lane-Mile
Lane-Mile
Lane-Mile
(% share)
Jurisdiction
(Y or N)?
(Y or N)?
Project Key
AADT 2005
AADT 2030
10. SCORE
11. SCORE
Project
Benefit
1. SCORE
2. SCORE
3. SCORE
4. SCORE
5. SCORE
6. SCORE
7. SCORE
8. SCORE
9. SCORE
2005
2030
2. Rank
4. Rank
6. Rank
1020031 San Diego Cty. Otay Mesa Road Arterial from Enrico Fermi Rd to Alta Road 0.5 C A 1 5,925 6,600 2 4 5,925 3,300 -2,625 0 0 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $6,000,000 $17,778 63 1 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 No No Yes 1 Medium 2 High 3 12 Cty. of SD
Mesa East planning
1020032 San Diego Cty. Otay Mesa Road Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road 0.8 C A 1 0 5,500 0 4 -- 1,833 1,833 35 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $9,000,000 $2,182 61 1 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 14 Cty. of SD
Mesa East planning
1020033 San Diego Cty. Siempre Viva Road Arterial from City of SD to Alta Road 0.5 C C 0 0 26,200 0 4 -- 13,100 13,100 8 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $6,000,000 $458 29 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 16 Cty. of SD
1020034 San Diego Cty. Siempre Viva Road Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road 0.8 C B 1 0 21,600 0 4 -- 7,200 7,200 17 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $9,000,000 $556 31 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 17 Cty. of SD
1020035 San Diego Cty. Siempre Viva Road Arterial from Loop Road to Roque Rd 0.3 C B 1 0 16,800 0 4 -- 16,800 16,800 5 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $3,000,000 $714 37 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 17 Cty. of SD
1020038 San Diego Cty. Via de la Amistad Collector 0.5 C C 0 0 6,200 0 2 -- 6,200 6,200 20 1 -- 0 N/A -- 0 Otay 3 $3,000,000 $968 44 2 Conceptual 1 Neither 0 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 14 Cty. of SD
Mesa East planning
1040001 Mexicali Colon Ave. West Construction of a 4 km. primary roadway with 2 lanes in both 2.5 D B 1 0 80,000 0 4 -- 8,047 8,047 13 1 Above 2 0% -- 0 Mexicali I 2 $3,849,680 $19 3 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 High 3 High 3 19 SIDUE
directions planning terminus facility
1040002 Mexicali Western periphery Construction of a 7 km. primary roadway 4.3 D B 1 0 90,000 0 8 -- 2,586 2,586 31 1 Above 2 20% 13 2 Mexicali I 2 $10,724,110 $27 5 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 Medium 2 19 SIDUE
1040003 Mexicali Extension of the Construction of a 3.5 km. primary roadway like the extension 2.2 E C 2 0 65,000 0 4 -- 7,472 7,472 16 1 Above 2 20% 14 2 Mexicali I 2 $5,545,370 $39 7 3 Advanced 2 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 Medium 2 21 SIDUE
Central axis of the Rio Nuevo roadway planning terminus facility
1040004 Mexicali Terán-Terán Blvd. Improvement of the existing 8km roadway 5.0 E C 2 60,000 80,000 4 6 3,018 2,682 -335 0 0 Above 2 30% 9 3 Mexicali I 2 $7,607,700 $77 13 3 Advanced 2 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 Medium 2 21 SIDUE
1040005 Mexicali Gómez Morin Road Improvement of the existing 6.5 km. roadway 4.0 E C 2 90,000 130,000 4 6 5,571 5,364 -206 0 0 Above 2 35% 4 3 Mexicali II 2 $7,653,530 $47 9 3 Advanced 2 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 High 3 High 3 23 SIDUE
1040006 Mexicali Gómez Morin Road Improvement of the existing 1.5 km. roadway 0.9 E C 2 90,000 130,000 4 6 24,140 23,246 -894 0 0 Above 2 35% 5 3 Mexicali II 2 $1,019,250 $27 4 3 Advanced 2 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 High 3 High 3 23 SIDUE
1040007 Mexicali Beltway around Construction of a 7.5 km primary roadway 4.7 E F 0 0 70,000 0 4 -- 3,755 3,755 25 1 Above 2 0% -- 0 Mexicali II 2 $4,628,780 $14 1 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 No No Yes 1 High 3 High 3 17 SIDUE
eastern periphery planning terminus facility
1040008 Mexicali Beltway around Expansion of the existing 7 km roadway 4.3 D B 1 10,000 60,000 2 4 1,150 3,449 2,299 34 1 Below 1 35% 3 3 Mexicali II 2 $8,917,510 $41 8 3 Advanced 2 Connects to a 1 No No No 0 Medium 2 Medium 2 18 SIDUE
eastern periphery planning terminus facility
1060001 Tecate, Baja Defensores Blvd. Construction of a .5 km. primary road segment and 0.3 D B 1 0 35,000 0 4 -- 28,164 28,164 3 2 Below 1 30% 8 3 Tecate 3 $384,970 $35 6 3 Advanced 2 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 Medium 2 22 SIDUE
California intersection with the Tecate-Tijuana freeway planning terminus facility
1060002 Tecate, Baja Tecate-Tijuana A 3.0 km expansion of the Tecate-Tijuana freeway 1.9 E C 2 9,485 16,000 2 4 2,544 2,146 -398 0 0 Above 2 40% 2 3 Tecate 3 $4,078,830 $336 25 3 Advanced 2 Connects to a 1 No No No 0 Medium 2 High 3 21 SIDUE
California Freeway planning terminus facility
1060003 Tecate, Baja Tecate-Mexicali A 0.7 km expansion of a Tecate-Mexicali freeway segment 0.6 C B 1 7,000 15,000 2 4 5,633 6,035 402 44 1 Above 2 40% 1 3 Tecate 3 $834,100 $168 17 3 Advanced 2 Connects to a 1 No No No 0 Medium 2 High 3 21 SIDUE
California Freeway planning terminus facility
1070003 Tijuana Vehicular bridge over Construction of a single lane bridge and delineation of the 0.1 F B 2 0 30,000 0 1 -- 321,869 321,869 1 3 Above 2 0% -- 0 Puerta 3 $3,666,360 $1,311 51 2 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 No No Yes 1 High 3 High 3 18 SIDUE
the channel of the adjacent existing bridge in the Tijuana River channel México planning terminus facility
Tijuana River
1070004 Tijuana Vehicular bridge over Construction of a two lane (same direction) vehicular bridge 0.1 F B 2 0 50,000 0 2 -- 268,225 268,225 1 3 Above 2 0% -- 0 Puerta 3 $7,332,720 $1,573 54 2 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 No No Yes 1 High 3 High 3 18 SIDUE
the channel of the over the Tijuana River channel in order to connect the "El México planning terminus facility
Tijuana River Chaparral" border crossing to the City of Tijuana
1070005 Tijuana Expansion of the Via Construction (expansion) of 2 lanes, 600 meters in length, in 0.4 F B 2 95,000 110,000 3 5 84,938 59,009 -25,928 0 0 Below 1 0% -- 0 Puerta 3 $1,833,180 $328 24 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 No No Yes 1 High 3 High 3 18 SIDUE
Rapida East Tijuana the via rapida east to connect the El Chaparral border México planning terminus facility
crossing to the City of Tijuana
1070006 Tijuana Ramp in eastern crest Construction of a ramp and retaining wall, 600 meters in 0.4 F B 2 30,000 40,000 3 5 26,822 21,458 -5,364 0 0 Above 2 0% -- 0 Puerta 3 $2,291,480 $615 35 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 No No Yes 1 High 3 High 3 19 SIDUE
of the Tijuana River length from slope to crest east of the Tijuana river channel, in México planning terminus facility
Channel order to connect the "Chaparral" border crossing to the City
of Tijuana
1070007 Tijuana Ramp on western Construction of a ramp and retaining wall 600 meters in 0.4 F B 2 0 40,000 0 2 -- 53,645 53,645 1 3 Above 2 0% -- 0 Puerta 3 $2,291,480 $154 16 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 No No Yes 1 High 3 High 3 22 SIDUE
crest of the Tijuana length from slope to crest west of the Tijuana River channel, México planning terminus facility
River channel. in order to connect the Chaparral border crossing with the
City of Tijuana
1070008 Tijuana Ave. International Extension of 4-lane roadway for circulation and 500 meters of 0.3 E B 2 5,000 10,000 4 4 4,023 8,047 4,023 24 1 Below 1 90% 1 3 Mesa de 3 $1,833,180 $1,180 50 2 Conceptual 1 On a terminus 2 No No Yes 1 High 3 High 3 22 SIDUE
East additional access to the Otay II border crossing Otay II planning facility
1070009 Tijuana Double deck Construction of a double deck for International Ave. west with 6.2 D D 0 70,000 100,000 3 6 3,755 2,682 -1,073 0 0 Above 2 0% -- 0 El 3 $146,654,450 $787 39 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 High 3 High 3 18 SIDUE
International Ave. a length of 10 km. for access to the Chaparral border Chaparral planning terminus facility
West. crossing
1070010 Tijuana Incorporation of Construction of a .7 km roadway section to incorporate 0.4 E B 2 0 100,000 0 3 -- 76,636 76,636 1 3 Above 2 20% 12 2 El 3 $2,291,480 $53 11 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 No No No 0 Medium 2 High 3 19 SIDUE
International Ave. International Ave west to the Via Rapida Chaparral planning terminus facility
West to Vía Rápida
1070011 Tijuana Las Torres Blvd. Construction of a 2 km roadway with a 38 meter right of way 1.2 E B 2 0 10,000 0 6 -- 1,341 1,341 38 1 Below 1 0% -- 0 Mesa de 3 $2,749,770 $221 19 3 Conceptual 1 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 High 3 High 3 20 SIDUE
Otay II planning terminus facility
1070012 Tijuana International Otay II Construction of a 8 km roadway with 3 lanes in each direction 5.0 E A 2 0 20,000 0 6 -- 671 671 43 1 Above 2 0% -- 0 Mesa de 3 $8,249,300 $83 14 3 Conceptual 1 On a terminus 2 Yes No Yes 2 High 3 High 3 22 SIDUE
Blvd. for access to the Otay II border crossing Otay II planning facility
1070014 Tijuana Industrial Blvd. Improvement of the primary 6 km. roadway with access to the 3.7 E D 2 70,000 100,000 6 6 3,129 4,470 1,341 37 1 Above 2 25% 10 2 Mesa de 3 $1,833,180 $16 2 3 Advanced 2 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 Medium 2 High 3 23 SIDUE
Otay I and II border crossings Otay planning terminus facility
1070020 Tijuana Alamar Via Rapida Construction of the via Rapida Alamar with 3 lanes in both 6.2 E B 2 0 100,000 0 6 -- 2,682 2,682 30 1 Above 2 30% 7 3 Mesa de 3 $36,663,610 $59 12 3 Advanced 2 Connects to a 1 Yes No Yes 2 High 3 High 3 25 SIDUE
directions for 10 km. and side roads Otay planning terminus facility
1070021 Tijuana International Otay II Construction of 1.5 km arterial from Tijuana-Tecate Tollroad 0.9 E A 2 0 20,000 0 6 -- 3,704 3,704 26 1 Above 2 0% -- 0 Mesa de 3 $916,590 $51 10 3 Conceptual 1 On a terminus 2 Yes No Yes 2 High 3 High 3 22 SIDUE
Blvd. to Alamar Otay II planning facility
Notes: Data Ranges:
ADDT Improvement Truck ADDT (% of Share) Cost Effectiveness
Improvement in AADT/Lane-Mile is calculated as: (AADT 2030 / (Miles*2030 Lanes)) - (AADT 2005 / (Miles*2005 Lanes))
Range of Values Score Frequency Range of Values Score Frequency Range of Values Score Frequency
Cost Effectiveness calculated as: $Total Project Cost / ((AADT 2030-AADT 2005)*Length of Project)
Outliers: Where rankings are determined, outliers beyond two standard deviations from the mean are eliminated from that range/ranking scores 18,811 - 28,164 3 2 29 - 40% 3 9 $16 - $809 3 39
N ti and
Negative d non-numerical
i l values
l are nott rewarded
d d points
i t 9 457 - 18,810
9,457 18 810 2 1 17 - 28% 2 5 $810 - $1,604
$1 604 2 16
104 - 9,456 1 48 4 - 16% 1 12 $1,605 - $2,400 1 8
Appendix D-8 140

Appendix D-9: Roadway Project List
Condition after Multimodal Benefits - Does the Based on
Limits Project Completion project provide for alternative planning/engineering
of Project Existing Condition (2030) Level of Service modes of transportation? and environmental
Does the
Truck 2005 Accident Year Does the Does the Commu- Identify the Is the project on a
Begin End Current Future For new roads, LOS LOS AADT AADT Total Funds Still project
Cty./ Current Future % Rate: Below or Current Project project project Environ- nity/ POE "terminus facility"
Project Post Post No. No. please provide Before After Before After Project Needed to provide Submitting
Jurisdic- Project Name Project Description From To Facility Facility Share Above statewide Phase of Becomes include provide for mental Econo- primarily or does it connect Explain how this project serves an Int'l POE.
ID (Mile (Mile of of name of Project Project Project Project Cost Complete for Agency
tion Type Type of ADT or citywide rate Project Opera- HOV/tran- pedestrian Benefit mic served by to a "terminus
or Km) or Km) Lanes Lanes parallel facility. (2005) (2030) (2005) (2030) (2006 $USD) Project bicycle
(2005) for similar facility tional sit lanes? walkways? Benefit this project. facility"?
traffic?
1010001 Imperial I-8 Add 2 general purpose lanes Forrester SR 111 33.8 40.7 4 Freeway 6 Freeway N/A B C 37500 66700 10% Below Conceptual $188,700,000 $188,700,000 -- No No No Medium High Calexico Connects to a Improves capacity Caltrans
Cty. Road. planning terminus facility
1010005 Imperial SR 111 Add 2 general purpose lanes and construct I-8 SR 78 7.7 23.9 4 Express 6 Freeway N/A C D 16500 39500 24% Below Conceptual $500,000,000 $500,000,000 -- N/A No No Low Medium Calexico Connects to a Improves capacity Caltrans
Cty. interchanges way planning terminus facility
1010008 Imperial SR 115 Add to 2 general purpose lanes Evan Hewes SR 78 3.3 21.1 2 Conventi 4 Expressway N/A B C 2750 28000 32% Below Conceptual $146,800,000 $146,800,000 -- N/A No No Low Medium Calexico Connects to a Provides direct access to Calexico East from northeast Caltrans
Cty. Highway onal planning East terminus facility part of county.
1010009 Imperial Imperial Av. Mc- Improve and construct a 6-lane primary McCabe Rd. I-8 0 1.5 0 Unconstr 6 Arterial Dogwood Ave. F F 0 69000 N/A Above Conceptual $28,200,000 2016 N/A No Yes N/A N/A Calexico Neither Imperial Avenue will relieve traffic from I-8, a facility that Caltrans/
Cty. Cabe Rd. to I-8) arterial ucted planning connects to a terminus facility. El Centro
1010011 Imperial Dogwood Improve to 5-lane primary arterial SR 98 Mead Rd 0 19.0 2 Arterial 5 Arterial F F 17800 69000 N/A Above Conceptual $182,400,000 2030 High Calexico Neither Dogwood Avenue is a truck corridor. Truck traffic uses it Caltrans/
Cty. planning to access I-8 and SR 98, both of which connect to SR 111 El Centro
& SR 7 (terminus facilities)
1010015 Imperial Imperial Ave. Improve to 6-lane primary arterial I-8 Aten Rd 0 3.5 4 Arterial 6 Arterial N/A F 27800 58000 Above Conceptual $26,200,000 $26,200,000 2030 No No Yes N/A High Calexico Neither A portion of Imperial Avenue doubles as SR 86, a truck Caltrans/
Cty. planning route. Truck traffic will use Imperial Avenue once 4th El Centro
Street (SR 86) is relinquished to City. Imperial Avenue
connects to I-8, the main access to SR 111, a terminus
facility.
1010016 Imperial 8th St Overpass Widen to 4 lanes Wake Ave. Centinela 0 0.5 2 Arterial 4 Arterial N/A N/A 8600 31800 N/A Below Advanced $4,000,000 $4,000,000 2013 No No Yes N/A N/A Calexico Neither I-8 and I-8 interchange projects provide interregional and Caltrans/
Cty. planning interstate access to/from highways serving the Calexico El Centro
and Calexico East POEs. In addition, 8th street is a North-
South corridor that runs south to SR 98, which connects to
the POE.
1010017 Imperial SR 98 East Widen from 2 to 4 lanes SR 111 SR 7 32.3 39.6 2 Conven'l 4 Conven'l N/A E D 25000 34000 13% Below Advanced $150,000,000 $150,000,000 2016 Yes No Yes Medium High Calexico Connects to a Provides highway access to the Calexico and Calexico Caltrans
Cty. Hwy Hwy planning terminus facility East POEs via SR 111 and SR 7
1010018 Imperial SR 111 Upgrade 4 lane expressway to 6 lane SR 98 I-8 1.2 7.7 4 Express 6 Freeway N/A B C 38500 100500 8% Below Advanced $456,000,000 $456,000,000 2015 No No No Medium High Calexico On a terminus Provides highway access to the Calexico POE Caltrans
Cty. freeway and interchanges at Jasper Rd, way planning facility
McCabe Rd, Heber Rd
1010019 Imperial SR 98 At Grade Railroad Crossing at SR 98 and SR 98 Cesar Chavez 31.4 32.5 2 Conven'l 4 Conven'l n/a E C 24000 29300 6% Above Conceptual $50,000,000 $50,000,000 2016 Yes No Yes Medium High Calexico Connects to a Provides highway access to the Calexico and Calexico Caltrans
Cty. Cesar Chavez Blvd. widen from 2 to 4 Blvd. Hwy Hwy planning terminus facility East POEs via SR 111 and SR 7
lanes
1020001 Chula Heritage Road Bridge across Otay Valley Main St. South of Otay 0 0.2 3 Wooden 6 concrete A A 11613 33000 -- Below Conceptual $40,446,000 $40,446,000 2023 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Connects to a Provides direct access to POE by way of the City of CV City of CV
Vista Bridge River planning East terminus facility through City of San Diego by 6-lane prime arterial that is
listed in City of CV's Circulation Element
1020002 Chula Willow Street Bridge Widen or replace bridge across Sweetwater Bonita Road 0 0.1 2 Slab on 4 concrete F C 17490 22400 -- Below Advanced $17,052,000 $17,052,000 2013 Yes No Yes Medium Medium Otay Mesa Neither Provides access to POE by way of the City of CV through City of CV
Vista Sweetwater River Rd. piles planning City of San Diego by multiple arterials and is listed in City
of CV's Circulation Element
1020003 SD Cty. I-5 Construct 2 HOV lanes SR 905 SR 54 3.1 9.3 8 Freeway 10 8 Fwy + N/A E D ###### 257000 4% Below Conceptual $202,000,000 $202,000,000 2020 No Yes No Medium High San Ysidro On a terminus Provides access to San Ysidro POE Caltrans
2HOV planning facility
1020004 SD Cty. I-5 Construct 2 HOV lanes SR 54 I-8 9.3 20.0 8 Freeway 10 8 Fwy + N/A F E ###### 274000 4% Below Conceptual $934,000,000 $934,000,000 2020 No Yes No Medium High San Ysidro On a terminus Provides access to San Ysidro POE Caltrans
2HOV planning facility
1020005 SD Cty. SR 11 Construct 4 Toll Lanes SR 905 Mexico 0 2.5 0 Unconstr 4 Toll Lanes Otay Mesa B C 0 90000 8% N/A Advanced $377,850,000 $290,850,000 2015 No No No Medium High Otay Mesa On a terminus Facility will connect future Otay Mesa East POE Caltrans
ucted Rd. planning East facility
1020007 SD Cty. SR 125 Add 4 Toll lanes from Telegraph Cyn to Telegraph San Miguel Rd 4 6.5 4 Toll 8 Toll Lanes N/A N/A B 0 89000 4% N/A Conceptual $130,000,000 $130,000,000 2030 No No No Medium Medium Otay Mesa Connects to a Provides access to Otay Mesa and Future Otay Mesa Caltrans
San Miguel Rd. Cyn. Rd. lanes planning terminus facility East POE
1020008 SD Cty. SR 125 Add 4 Toll lanes from San Miguel Rd. to San Miguel Rd. SR 54 6.5 11.2 4 Toll 8 Toll Lanes N/A N/A B 0 89000 4% N/A Conceptual $40,000,000 $40,000,000 2030 No No No Medium Medium Otay Mesa Connects to a Provides access to Otay Mesa and Future Otay Mesa Caltrans
SR 54 lanes planning terminus facility East POE
1020009 SD Cty. I-805 Construct 4 Managed Lanes from SR 905 SR 905 Palomar St 1.8 5.0 8 Freeway 12 8 Fwy + 4 N/A D D ###### 250000 7% Below Conceptual $288,000,000 $288,000,000 2030 No Yes No Medium Medium San Ysidro On a terminus Provides access to San Ysidro POE Caltrans
to Palomar St. ML planning facility
1020010 SD Cty. I-805 Construct 4 Managed Lanes from Palomar Palomar St. SR 94 5 13.5 8 Freeway 12 8 Fwy + 4 N/A F E ###### 310000 7% Below Advanced $884,000,000 $872,000,000 2030 No Yes Yes Medium High San Ysidro On a terminus Provides access to San Ysidro POE Caltrans
St. to SR 94 ML planning facility
1020012 SD Cty. SR 905 Add 2 general purpose lanes I-805 Border 5.1 12.0 6 Freeway 8 Freeway N/A E D 62000 170000 8% Below Conceptual $200,000,000 $200,000,000 2030 No No No Medium High Otay Mesa On a terminus Provides access to Otay Mesa and Future Otay Mesa Caltrans
planning facility East POE
1020013 SD Cty. O-M Southbound Widening and Realignment Britannia Blvd. Otay Mesa 0 2.6 1 1-lane 2 2-lane city Otay Mesa N/A N/A N/A N/A 100% N/A Advanced $23,000,000 $5,000,000 2014 N/A N/A N/A Medium High Otay Mesa On a terminus Improves capacity Caltrans
Truck Route POE city street Rd. planning facility
street
1020014 SD Cty. Airway Road Arterial from City of SD to Enrico Fermi City of SD Enrico Fermi 0 0.5 2 Light 4 Major Otay Mesa A C 1700 16200 N/A Below Conceptual $3,000,000 $3,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Neither Airway Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 & is one Cty. of SD
Drive Dr. Collector Rd. planning East of the primary routes in the E. Otay Mesa area serving
traffic movement to/from SR 11 and the int'l POE
1020015 SD Cty. Airway Road Arterial from Enrico Fermi Road to Alta Enrico Fermi Alta Rd. 0 0.5 4 Major Otay Mesa C A 0 6000 N/A -- Conceptual $6,000,000 $6,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Neither Airway Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 & is one Cty. of SD
Road from Enrico Fermi Road to Alta Rd. Rd. planning East of the primary routes in the E. Otay Mesa area serving
Road traffic movement to/from SR 11 and the int'l POE
1020016 SD Cty. Airway Road Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road Alta Rd. Loop Rd. 0 0.5 4 Major Otay Mesa C A 0 6400 N/A -- Conceptual $6,000,000 $6,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Neither Airway Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 & is one Cty. of SD
Rd. planning East of the primary routes in the E. Otay Mesa area serving
traffic movement to/from SR 11 and the int'l POE
1020017 SD Cty. Alta Rd. Arterial from Old Otay Mesa Rd to Old Otay Mesa Donovan State 0 0.8 2 Light 4 Major Enrico Fermi C B 5345 14900 N/A -- Conceptual $8,000,000 $8,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Neither Alta Rd. will be one of the primary routes in the East Otay Cty. of SD
Donovan State Prison Rd. Prison Collector Rd. planning East Mesa area serving traffic movement to/from SR 11 and
the int'l POE
1020018 SD Cty. Alta Rd. Arterial from Lone Star Road to Otay Lone Star Rd. Otay Mesa Rd. 0 0.5 4 Major Enrico Fermi C A 0 5000 N/A -- Conceptual $6,000,000 $6,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Neither Alta Rd. will be one of the primary routes in the East Otay Cty. of SD
Mesa Road Rd. planning East Mesa area serving traffic movement to/from SR 11 and
the int'l POE
Appendix D-9 141

Does the
traffic?
1020019 SD Cty. Alta Rd. Arterial from Otay Mesa Road to Airway Otay Mesa Rd. Airway Rd. 0 0.5 4 Major Enrico Fermi C A 0 10400 N/A -- Conceptual $6,000,000 $6,000,000 2030 No No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Neither Alta Rd. will be one of the primary routes in the East Otay Cty. of SD
Road Rd. planning East Mesa area serving traffic movement to/from SR 11 and
the int'l POE
1020020 SD Cty. Alta Rd. Arterial from Airway Road to Siempre Viva Airway Rd. Siempre Viva 0 0.5 4 Major Enrico Fermi C A 0 5700 N/A -- Conceptual $6,000,000 $6,000,000 2030 No No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Neither Alta Rd. will be one of the primary routes in the East Otay Cty. of SD
Road Rd. Rd. planning East Mesa area serving traffic movement to/from SR 11 and
the int'l POE
1020021 SD Cty. Enrico Fermi Dr. Arterial from Lone Star Road to Otay Lone Star Rd. Otay Mesa Rd. 0 0.5 4 Major Alta Rd. C B 0 19900 N/A -- Conceptual $6,000,000 $6,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Connects to a Enrico Fermi Rd. will be a future connection to a SR 11 Cty. of SD
Mesa Road planning East terminus facility ramp interchange
1020022 SD Cty. Enrico Fermi Dr. Enhanced Arterial from Otay Mesa Road Otay Mesa Rd. SR 11 0 0.3 4 Major Alta Rd. C D 0 36500 N/A -- Conceptual $7,000,000 $7,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Connects to a Enrico Fermi Rd. will be a future connection to a SR 11 Cty. of SD
to SR 11 planning East terminus facility ramp interchange
1020023 SD Cty. Enrico Fermi Dr. Enhanced Arterial from SR 11 to Airway SR 11 Airway Rd. 0 0.3 4 Major Alta Rd. C B 17800 N/A -- Conceptual $7,000,000 $7,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Connects to a Enrico Fermi Rd. will be a future connection to a SR 11 Cty. of SD
Road planning East terminus facility ramp interchange
1020024 SD Cty. Enrico Fermi Dr. Arterial from Airway Road to Siempre Viva Airway Rd. Siempre Viva 0 0.3 2 Light 4 Major Alta Rd. A A 10000 13500 N/A -- Conceptual $1,500,000 $1,500,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Connects to a Enrico Fermi Rd. will be a future connection to a SR 11 Cty. of SD
Road Rd. Collector planning East terminus facility ramp interchange
1020025 SD Cty. Lone Star Rd. Arterial from Piper Ranch to Sunroad Blvd Piper Ranch SunRd. Blvd 0 0.7 6 Prime Otay Mesa C B 0 30900 N/A -- Conceptual $12,000,000 $12,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Neither Lone Star Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 and Cty. of SD
Rd. planning East an arterial connection to SR 125
1020026 SD Cty. Lone Star Rd. Arterial from Sunroad Blvd to Vann Center Sunroad Blvd. Vann Center 0 0.3 4 Major Otay Mesa C A 0 13800 N/A -- Conceptual $3,000,000 $3,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Connects to a Lone Star Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 and Cty. of SD
Blvd Blvd Rd. planning East terminus facility an arterial connection to SR 125
1020027 SD Cty. Lone Star Rd. Arterial from Vann Center Blvd to Enrico Vann Center Enrico Fermi 0 0.5 4 Major Otay Mesa C A 0 13200 N/A -- Conceptual $6,000,000 $6,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Connects to a Lone Star Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 and Cty. of SD
Fermi Drive Blvd. Drive Rd. planning East terminus facility an arterial connection to SR 125
1020028 SD Cty. Lone Star Rd. Arterial from Enrico Fermi Road to Alta Enrico Fermi Alta Rd. 0 0.5 4 Major Otay Mesa C C 0 27200 N/A -- Conceptual $6,000,000 $6,000,000 2030 No No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Connects to a Lone Star Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 and Cty. of SD
Road Rd. Rd. planning East terminus facility an arterial connection to SR 125
1020029 SD Cty. Lone Star Rd. Arterial from Otay Mesa Road to Siempre Otay Mesa Rd. Siempre Viva 0 0.8 4 Collector C B 0 15300 N/A -- Conceptual $12,000,000 $12,000,000 2030 No No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Connects to a Lone Star Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 and Cty. of SD
Viva Road Rd. planning East terminus facility an arterial connection to SR 125
1020030 SD Cty. Otay Mesa Rd. Arterial from Sanyo Rd to Enrico Fermi Sanyo Rd. Enrico Fermi 0 0.8 2 Light 6 Prime C B 6275 23400 N/A -- Conceptual $9,000,000 $9,000,000 2030 No No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Neither Otay Mesa Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 and Cty. of SD
Collector planning East an arterial connection to SR 125
1020031 SD Cty. Otay Mesa Rd. Arterial from Enrico Fermi Rd to Alta Road Enrico Fermi Alta Rd. 0 0.5 2 Light 4 Major C A 5925 6600 N/A -- Conceptual $6,000,000 $6,000,000 2030 No No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Neither Otay Mesa Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 and Cty. of SD
Rd. Collector planning East an arterial connection to SR 125
1020032 SD Cty. Otay Mesa Rd. Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road Alta Rd. Loop Rd. 0 0.8 4 Major SR 11 C A 0 5500 N/A -- Conceptual $9,000,000 $9,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Neither Otay Mesa Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 and Cty. of SD
planning East an arterial connection to SR 125
1020033 SD Cty. Siempre Viva Rd. Arterial from City of SD to Alta Road City of SD Alta Rd. 0 0.5 4 Major Airway Rd. C C 0 26200 N/A -- Conceptual $6,000,000 $6,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Connects to a Siempre Viva Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 & Cty. of SD
planning East terminus facility be one of the primary routes in the East Otay Mesa area
serving traffic to/from SR 11 and the int'l POE
1020034 SD Cty. Siempre Viva Rd. Arterial from Alta Road to Loop Road Alta Rd. Loop Rd. 0 0.8 4 Major Airway Rd. C B 0 21600 N/A -- Conceptual $9,000,000 $9,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Connects to a Siempre Viva Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 & Cty. of SD
1020035 SD Cty. Siempre Viva Rd. Arterial from Loop Road to Roque Rd Loop Rd. Roque Rd 0 0.3 4 Collector C B 0 16800 N/A -- Conceptual $3,000,000 $3,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Connects to a Siempre Viva Rd. will provide parallel capacity to SR 11 & Cty. of SD
1020038 SD Cty. Via de la Amistad Collector City of Alta Rd. 0 0.5 2 Light C C 0 6200 N/A -- Conceptual $3,000,000 $3,000,000 2030 Yes No Yes Medium High Otay Mesa Neither Via de la Amistad is an industrial/commercial collector and Cty. of SD
SD/Enrico Collector planning East non-Circulation Element Specific Road
Fermi
1040001 Mexicali Colon Ave. West Construction of a 4 km. primary roadway Leyes de A proposed 0 2.5 0 N/A 4 Independenci D B 0 80000 0% Above Conceptual $3,849,680 $3,849,680 2014 Yes No Yes High High Mexicali I Connects to a Connection terminates with the Mexicali I POE SIDUE
with 2 lanes in both directions Reforma rdwy on a Rd./Sinaloa planning terminus facility
Bridge the western Ave.
1040002 Mexicali Western periphery Construction of a 7 km. primary roadway Intersection Tijuana Hwy. 0 4.3 0 Collector 8 Arterial H.Colegio D B 0 90000 20% Above Conceptual $10,724,110 $10,724,110 2018 Yes No Yes Medium Medium Mexicali I Connects to a Connection to Mexicali I POE SIDUE
with the Militar St. planning terminus facility
proposed
1040003 Mexicali Extension of the Construction of a 3.5 km. primary roadway Lázaro Gómez Morin 0 2.2 0 N/A 4 Arterial Anahuac Blvd. E C 0 65000 20% Above Advanced $5,545,370 $5,545,370 2014 Yes No Yes Medium Medium Mexicali I Connects to a Connection to Mexicali I y Mexicali II POE's SIDUE
Central axis like the extension of the Rio Nuevo Cárdenas Rd. planning terminus facility
roadway Blvd.
1040004 Mexicali Terán-Terán Blvd. Improvement of the existing 8km roadway San Felipe Tijuana Hwy. 0 5.0 4 Arterial 6 Freeway N/A E C 60000 80000 30% Above Advanced $7,607,700 $7,607,700 2013 Yes No Yes Medium Medium Mexicali I Connects to a Connection to Mexicali I y Mexicali II POE's SIDUE
Highway planning terminus facility
1040005 Mexicali Gómez Morin Rd. Improvement of the existing 6.5 km. Cetys Rd. Mexicali- 0 4.0 4 Arterial 6 Arterial N/A E C 90000 130000 35% Above Advanced $7,653,530 $7,653,530 2015 Yes No Yes High High Mexicali II Connects to a Connection to Mexicali II POE SIDUE
roadway S.Felipe Hwy. planning terminus facility
1040006 Mexicali Gómez Morin Road Improvement of the existing 1.5 km. Capitan Rep. de 0 0.9 4 Arterial 6 Arterial N/A E C 90000 130000 35% Above Advanced $1,019,250 $1,019,250 2015 Yes No Yes High High Mexicali II Connects to a Connection to Mexicali II POE SIDUE
roadway Carrillo Ave. Argentina St. planning terminus facility
1040007 Mexicali Beltway around Construction of a 7.5 km primary roadway Lázaro San Felipe 0 4.7 0 N/A 4 Arterial Calle Novena E F 0 70000 0% Above Conceptual $4,628,780 $4,628,780 2015 No No Yes High High Mexicali II Connects to a Connection to Mexicali II POE SIDUE
eastern periphery Cárdenas Hwy. planning terminus facility
Blvd.
1040008 Mexicali Beltway around Expansion of the existing 7 km roadway Islas Agrarias Hwy. to the 0 4.3 2 Highway 4 Freeway N/A D B 10000 60000 35% Below Advanced $8,917,510 $8,917,510 2015 No No No Medium Medium Mexicali II Connects to a Connection to Mexicali II POE SIDUE
eastern periphery Highway Airport planning terminus facility
1060001 Tecate, Defensores Blvd. Construction of a .5 km. primary road Mixcoac St. Tecate- 0 0.3 0 N/A 4 Arterial TKT- D B 0 35000 30% Below Advanced $384,970 $384,970 2015 Yes No Yes Medium Medium Tecate Connects to a Connection to Tecate POE SIDUE
BC segment and intersection with the Tecate- Tijuana. Fwy. TIJ.Highway planning terminus facility
Tijuana freeway
1060002 Tecate, Tecate-Tijuana A 3.0 km expansion of the Tecate-Tijuana Rancho La Paso el Águila 0 1.9 2 Highway 4 Freeway N/A E C 9485 16000 40% Above Advanced $4,078,830 $4,078,830 2015 No No No Medium High Tecate Connects to a Connection to Tecate POE SIDUE
BC Frwy. freeway Puerta Node planning terminus facility
Appendix D-9 142

Does the
traffic?
1060003 Tecate, Tecate-Mexicali A 0.7 km expansion of a Tecate-Mexicali Rancho Santa San José 0 0.6 2 Highway 4 Highway TKT MXL C B 7000 15000 40% Above Advanced $834,100 $834,100 2015 No No No Medium High Tecate Connects to a Connection to Tecate POE SIDUE
BC Frwy. freeway segment Lucia Fwy. planning terminus facility
1070003 Tijuana Vehicular bridge Construction of a single lane bridge and vía Rápida vía rápida 0 0.1 0 arterial 1 Arterial Mexico Bridge F B 0 30000 0% Above Conceptual $3,666,360 $3,666,360 2013 No No Yes High High Puerta Connects to a Connection to the Chaparral (prop.) and Puerta México SIDUE
over the channel of delineation of the adjacent existing bridge East West planning México terminus facility Ports of Entry
the Tijuana River in the Tijuana River channel
1070004 Tijuana Vehicular bridge Construction of a two lane (same vía Rápida vía rápida 0 0.1 0 N/A 2 Arterial Mexico Bridge F B 0 50000 0% Above Conceptual $7,332,720 $7,332,720 2013 No No Yes High High Puerta Connects to a Connection to the Chaparral (prop.) and Puerta México SIDUE
over the channel of direction) vehicular bridge over the Tijuana East, at the West planning México terminus facility Ports of Entry
the Tijuana River River channel in order to connect the "El same eleva-
Chaparral" border crossing to the City of tion as calle
Tijuana Frontera
1070005 Tijuana Expansion of the Construction (expansion) of 2 lanes, 600 Pedestrian Bridge México 0 0.4 3 arterial 5 Freeway N/A F B 95000 110000 0% Below Conceptual $1,833,180 $1,833,180 2013 No No Yes High High Puerta Connects to a Connection to the Chaparral (prop.) and Puerta México SIDUE
Via Rapida East meters in length, in the via rapida east to Bridge planning México terminus facility Ports of Entry
Tijuana connect the El Chaparral border crossing
1070006 Tijuana Ramp in eastern Construction of a ramp and retaining wall, Pedestrian Bridge México 0 0.4 3 arterial 5 Freeway N/A F B 30000 40000 0% Above Conceptual $2,291,480 $2,291,480 2013 No No Yes High High Puerta Connects to a Connection to the Chaparral (prop.) and Puerta México SIDUE
crest of the Tijuana 600 meters in length from slope to crest Bridge planning México terminus facility Ports of Entry
River Channel east of the Tijuana river channel, in order
to connect the "Chaparral" border crossing
1070007 Tijuana Ramp on western Construction of a ramp and retaining wall Pedestrian Bridge México 0 0.4 0 N/A 2 Arterial Corona F B 0 40000 0% Above Conceptual $2,291,480 $2,291,480 2013 No No Yes High High Puerta Connects to a Connection to the Chaparral (prop.) and Puerta México SIDUE
crest of the Tijuana 600 meters in length from slope to crest Bridge Oriente planning México terminus facility Ports of Entry
River channel west of the Tijuana River channel, in order
to connect the Chaparral border crossing
with the City of Tijuana
1070008 Tijuana Ave. Int'l. East Extension of 4-lane roadway for circulation Silvestre 12 Norte 0 0.3 4 N/A 4 Roadway N/A E B 5000 10000 90% Below Conceptual $1,833,180 $1,833,180 2014 No No Yes High High Mesa de On a terminus Connection terminates at Otay II (prop.) SIDUE
and 500 meters of additional access to the Revueltas St. Street planning Otay II facility
Otay II border crossing
1070009 Tijuana Double deck Int'l. Construction of a double deck for Int'l. Ave Intersection of Access to 0 6.2 3 arterial 6 Primary N/A D D 70000 100000 0% Above Conceptual $146,654,450 $146,654,450 2014 Yes No Yes High High El Connects to a Connection terminates at puerto Chapparal (prop.) and SIDUE
Ave. W west with a length of 10 km. for access to Via Rápida Playas planning Chaparral terminus facility connects with Puerta México
the Chaparral border crossing East de Tijuana
1070010 Tijuana Incorporation of Int'l. Construction of a .7 km roadway section to International Centro de 0 0.4 0 arterial 3 Roadway vía Rápida E B 0 100000 20% Above Conceptual $2,291,480 $2,291,480 2014 No No No Medium High El Connects to a Connection to the Chaparral (prop.) and Puerta México SIDUE
Ave. West to Vía incorporate International Ave west to the Blvd. Gobierno Connection east planning Chaparral terminus facility Ports of Entry
Rápida Via Rapida - Civic Center
1070011 Tijuana Las Torres Blvd. Construction of a 2 km roadway with a 38 Highway Otay II Blvd. 0 1.2 0 N/A 6 Collector Mariano E B 0 10000 0% Below Conceptual $2,749,770 $2,749,770 2014 Yes No Yes High High Mesa de Connects to a Connection to Otay I y Otay II (Prop.) SIDUE
meter right of way Tijuana - Matamoros planning Otay II terminus facility
Tecate Route
1070012 Tijuana International Otay II Construction of a 8 km roadway with 3 Otay II Tollroad from 0 5.0 0 N/A 6 Arterial TIJ-TKT E A 0 20000 0% Above Conceptual $8,249,300 $8,249,300 2013 Yes No Yes High High Mesa de On a terminus Connection terminates with the Otay II POE SIDUE
Blvd. lanes in each direction for access to the Tijuana to Tollroad planning Otay II facility
Otay II border crossing Tecate
1070014 Tijuana Industrial Blvd. Improvement of the primary 6 km. roadway Airport access Terán Blvd. 0 3.7 6 Collector 6 Collector E D 70000 100000 25% Above Advanced $1,833,180 $1,833,180 2014 Yes No Yes Medium High Mesa de Connects to a Connection to Otay I y Otay II (Prop.) SIDUE
with access to the Otay I and II border road planning Otay terminus facility
crossings
1070020 Tijuana Alamar Via Rapida Construction of the via Rapida Alamar with Central Bus Tijuana- 0 6.2 0 N/A 6 Arterial Industrial Blvd. E B 0 100000 30% Above Advanced $36,663,610 $36,663,610 2013 Yes No Yes High High Mesa de Connects to a Connection terminates with Mexicali I POE SIDUE
3 lanes in both directions for 10 km. and Station Rosarito planning Otay terminus facility
side roads 2000 Blvd.
1070021 Tijuana International Otay II Construction of 1.5 km arterial from Tijuana-Tecate Alamar Blv. 0 0.9 0 N/A 6 Arterial TIJ-TKT E A 0 20000 0% Above Conceptual $916,590 $916,590 2013 Yes No Yes High High Mesa de On a terminus Connection terminates with the Otay II POE SIDUE
Blvd. Tijuana-Tecate Tollroad to Alamar Blvd. Tollroad Tollroad planning Otay II facility
Appendix D-9 143

Appendix D-10: Interchange Weighted Project Rankings
Cost
Eff.
Year
Open to
Project Key Jurisdiction Project Name Project Description Traffic
1. LOS Improvement
2. AADT Improvement
3. Accident Rate
5. POE Congestion
7. Current Phase of
8. POE Connection
10. Environmental
11. Community and
Weighted Score
Project Rank
AADT
Project
Benefits
Economic Benefit
Maximum Possible Score 6 9 6 9 9 33 6 4 6 6 6 100 --
2070002 Tijuana Airport Node -Bellas Artes Construction of Airport - Bellas Artes 2018 6 3 6 6 9 33 2 2 6 6 6 85 1
Node with access to the Otay I border
crossing.
2070005 Tijuana Industrial Avenue - Terán Terán Node Optimization of Industrial Ave. 2013 6 3 3 9 9 33 2 2 6 4 4 81 2
Intersection -Terán Terán, access to
Otay I and II border crossing
2070003 Tijuana Cuauhtemoc-Padre Kino Node Construction of the Cuauhtemoc-Padre 2018 6 6 3 3 9 33 2 2 6 6 4 80 3
Kino Node
2070001 Tijuana Bridge and node over the tollroad from Tijuana Construction of 40 meter bridge with a 2014 6 3 3 0 9 33 2 4 6 6 6 78 4
- Tecate with access to Blvd de las Torres 200 meter intersection over the tollroad
from Tijuana - Tecate with access to the
Blvd de las Torres.
2060001 Tecate, Baja Tecate-Mexicali Freeway and Las Torres Blvd. Tecate-Mexicali and Las Torres Blvd. 2015 3 3 3 9 9 33 2 2 4 4 6 78 4
California Highway Node Highway Node
2060002 Tecate, Baja Freeway Node and the Tecate-Tijuana tollroad Completion of the roadway intersection 2013 3 3 3 9 9 33 4 2 2 4 6 78 4
California
2020003 San Diego County I-805 - Main Street/ Auto Park Drive Revise Interchange 2015 0 9 3 3 9 33 2 4 6 2 4 75 7
Undercrossing
2070006 Tijuana International Otay II Blvd - Tijuana-Tecate Construction of interchange to connect 2014 6 3 3 0 9 33 2 4 6 4 4 74 8
Tollroad Node Otay II POE
2020002 San Diego County I-805 / Palm Ave Overcrossing Revise Interchange 2014 0 6 3 3 9 33 4 4 6 2 4 74 8
2070007 Tijuana International Otay II Blvd - Alamar Node Construction of interchange at 2014 6 3 3 0 9 33 2 2 6 4 4 72 10
International Otay II Blvd and Alamar
2010004 Imperial County Jasper Rd/SR 111 Construct new freeway interchange 2015 0 9 3 3 6 33 4 4 0 4 6 72 10
2010001 Imperial County Austin Rd/I-8 Interchange Construct Interchange at Austin Road/I-8 N/A 0 3 6 3 6 33 2 2 0 2 4 61 12
(LRTP No. 9)
2010002 Imperial County Bowker Road/I-8 Interchange Construct interchange at Bowker Road/I- N/A 0 3 3 3 6 33 2 2 0 2 4 58 13
8 (LRTP No. 19)
2070004 Tijuana Bellas Artes- Magisterial Node Construction of the Bellas Artes- 2014 3 0 6 9 9 0 2 4 6 4 4 47 14
Magisterial node, access to the Otay II
border crossing
2020001 San Diego County I-5 From North of SR 54 to J Street Interchange Improvements, Local Road N/A 0 6 3 3 9 11 2 2 0 0 0 36 15
Overcrossing Improvements & New Structures
2020006 San Diego County SR 905/Heritage Rd Interchange (Phase 4) Construct Heritage Rd Interchange 2018 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 4 0 4 6 25 16
Appendix D-10 145

Appendix D-11: Interchange Scoresheet
1. Community/Economic Benefit
9.. Pedestrian Walkway (Y or N)?
6.. Cost/Improvement in AADT
5.. POE Served (Congestion)
7.. Current Phase of Project
4.. Truck AADT (% share)
1.. Level of Service: 2005
1.. Level of Service: 2030
INDEX SCORE
2.. AADT Improvement
9.. HOV Lane (Y or N)?

9.. Bike Path (Y or N)?
Project Description
Agency
8.. POE Connection
6.. Cost (in 2006 $)
3.. Accident Rate
2.. AADT 2005
2.. AADT 2030

Prroject Name
urisdiction
0. SCORE
1. SCORE
Prroject Key
Submitting
1.. SCORE
2.. SCORE
3.. SCORE
4.. SCORE
5.. SCORE
6.. SCORE
7.. SCORE
8.. SCORE
9.. SCORE
2.. Rank
4.. Rank
6.. Rank
TOTAL
TO
Su
10
10
11
11
Ju
Austin Rd/I-8 Interchange Construct Interchange at Austin Road/I-8 (LRTP No. Conceptual Connects to
Imperial
2010001 9) N/A N/A 0 0 34,600 34,600 6 1 Above 2 10% 7 1 Calexico 2 $30,000,000 $867 8
3 planning 1 a terminus 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 Lo 1 Med 2 14 Caltrans
County
facility
Bowker Road/I-8 Interchange Construct interchange at Bowker Road/I-8 (LRTP No. Conceptual Connects to
Imperial
2010002 19) N/A N/A 0 16,600 49,200 32,600 7 1 Below 1 10% 8 1 Calexico 2 $30,000,000 $920 10 3 planning 1 a terminus 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 Lo 1 Med 2 13 Caltrans
County
facility
Jasper Rd/SR 111 Construct new freeway interchange Advanced On a
Imperial
2010004 N/A N/A 0 0 93,000 93,000 2 3 Below 1 8% 9 1 Calexico 2 $43,000,000 $462 4 3 planning 2 terminus 2 No No No 0 Med 2 Hi 3 19 Caltrans
County
facility
San I-5 From North of SR 54 to J Street Interchange Improvements, Local Road Improvements Conceptual Connects to
San $375,000,00
2020001 Diego Overcrossing & New Structures N/A N/A 0 174,000 225,000 51,000 5 2 Below 1 4% 12 1 3 $7,353 14 1 planning 1 a terminus 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 10 Caltrans
Ysidro 0
County facility
San I-805 / Palm Ave Overcrossing Revise Interchange Advanced On a
San
2020002 Diego N/A N/A 0 164,000 230,000 66,000 3 2 Below 1 7% 11 1 3 $60,000,000 $909 9 3 planning 2 terminus 2 Yes Yes Yes 3 Lo 1 Med 2 20 Caltrans
Ysidro
County facility
San I-805 - Main Street/ Auto Park Drive Revise Interchange Conceptual On a
San
2020003 Diego Undercrossing N/A N/A 0 161,000 270,000 109,000 1 3 Below 1 7% 10 1 3 $20,000,000 $183 2 3 planning 1 terminus 2 Yes Yes Yes 3 Lo 1 Med 2 20 Caltrans
Ysidro
County facility
San SR 905/Heritage Rd Interchange Construct Heritage Rd Interchange Conceptual On a
Otay
2020006 Di
Diego (Ph
(Phase 4) N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A -- 0 0 N/A 0 N/A -- 0 3 $54 300 000
$54,300,000 -- -- 0 planning
l i 1 terminus
t i 2 No
N No
N No
N 0 Med
M d 2 Hi 3 11 Caltrans
C lt
Mesa
County facility
Tecate, Tecate-Mexicali Freeway and Las Tecate-Mexicali and Las Torres Blvd. Highway Node Conceptual Connects to
2060001 Baja Torres Blvd. Highway Node C B 1 7,000 15,000 8,000 10 1 Below 1 40% 3 3 Tecate 3 $3,574,700 $447 3 3 planning 1 a terminus 1 Yes No Yes 2 Med 2 Hi 3 21 SIDUE
California facility
Tecate, Freeway Node and the Tecate- Completion of the roadway intersection Advanced Connects to
Mesa de
2060002 Baja Tijuana tollroad C B 1 7,000 15,000 8,000 11 1 Below 1 40% 4 3 3 $3,809,523 $476 5 3 planning 2 a terminus 1 No No Yes 1 Med 2 Hi 3 21 SIDUE
Otay II
California facility
Bridge and node over the tollroad Construction of 40 meter bridge with a 200 meter Conceptual
On a
from Tijuana - Tecate with access to intersection over the tollroad from Tijuana - Tecate Mesa de planning
2070001 Tijuana E B 2 0 5,000 5,000 13 1 Below 1 0% -- 0 3 $7,332,720 $1,467 13 3 1 terminus 2 Yes Yes Yes 3 Hi 3 Hi 3 22 SIDUE
Blvd de las Torres with access to the Blvd de las Torres. Otay II
facility
Airport Node -Bellas Artes Construction of Airport - Bellas Artes Node with access Conceptual Connects to
Mesa de
2070002 Tijuana to the Otay I border crossing. E B 2 10,000 15,000 5,000 14 1 Above 2 25% 5 2 3 $5,499,540 $1,100 11 3 planning 1 a terminus 1 Yes Yes Yes 3 Hi 3 Hi 3 24 SIDUE
Otay
facility
Cuauhtemoc-Padre Kino Node Construction of the Cuauhtemoc-Padre Kino Node Conceptual Connects to
Puerta
2070003 Tijuana F B 2 80,000 140,000 60,000 4 2 Below 1 15% 6 1 3 $4,582,950 $76 1 3 planning 1 a terminus 1 Yes Yes Yes 3 Hi 3 Med 2 22 SIDUE
México
facility
Bellas Artes- Magisterial Node Construction of the Bellas Artes- Magisterial node, Conceptual On a
Mesa de
2070004 Tijuana access to the Otay II border crossing D B 1 9,600 9,600 0 0 0 Above 2 60% 1 3 3 $7,332,720 -- -- 0 planning 1 terminus 2 Yes Yes Yes 3 Med 2 Med 2 19 SIDUE
Otay
f ilit
facility
Industrial Avenue - Terán Terán Optimization of Industrial Ave. Intersection -Terán Conceptual Connects to
Mesa de
2070005 Tijuana Node Terán, access to Otay I and II border crossing E B 2 9,485 16,000 6,515 12 1 Below 1 50% 2 3 3 $7,332,720 $1,126 12 3 planning 1 a terminus 1 Yes Yes Yes 3 Med 2 Med 2 22 SIDUE
Otay
facility
International Otay II Blvd - Tijuana- Construction of interchange to connect Otay II POE Conceptual On a
Mesa de
2070006 Tijuana Tecate Tollroad Node E B 2 0 15,000 15,000 8 1 Below 1 0% -- 0 3 $7,332,720 $489 6 3 planning 1 terminus 2 Yes Yes Yes 3 Med 2 Med 2 20 SIDUE
Otay II
facility
International Otay II Blvd - Alamar Construction of interchange at International Otay II Conceptual Connects to
Mesa de
2070007 Tijuana Node Blvd and Alamar E B 2 0 10,000 10,000 9 1 Below 1 0% -- 0 3 $7,332,720 $733 7 3 planning 1 a terminus 1 Yes Yes Yes 3 Med 2 Med 2 19 SIDUE
Otay II
facility
Notes: Data Ranges for Ranked Criteria
Improvement in Capacity is calculated as: AADT 2030-AADT 2005 ADDT Improvement ADDT Truck % Share Cost-Effectivenss
Cost Effectiveness calculated as: $Total Project Cost /Improvement in Capacity Range Score Frequency Range Score Frequency Range Score Frequency
Outliers do not exist in data sets that are 20 cases or smaller 74,345-109,000 3 2 42-60% 3 7 $76-$2,500 3 13
Negative and non-numerical values are not rewarded points 39,668-74,344 2 3 24-41% 2 1 $2,501-$4,927 2 0
5,000-39,6667 1 9 4-23% 1 4 $4,928-$7,353 1 1
Appendix D-11 147

Appendix D-12: Interchange Project List
Condition after Project

Based on
Existing Condition
Completion (2030)
Level of Service
planning/engi-
by Ramp (2005)
neering and
Multimodal Benefits - Does the project
environmental
provide for alternative modes of
documents,
transportation?
assess the
benefits of the
project.
Community/ Economic
Environmental Benefit
Submitting Agency
Is project on a
For new inter- Current (2005) Does the
Truck Does the Does the "terminus
No. of Lanes
No. of Lanes
changes, LOS LOS AADT AADT Accident Rate: Year Project project
County/ Percent Total Project Funds Still project project Identify the POE facility" or
Benefit
Project please provide Before After Before After Below or Above Current Phase Becomes provide for Explain how this project
Jurisdicti Project Name Project Description Ramp Share Cost (2006 Needed to provide for include primarily served does it
ID name of Project Project Project Project statewide or of Project Opera- pede- serves a POE.
on ADT $USD) Complete Project bicycle HOV/tran- by this project. connect to a
nearest (2005) (2030) (2005) (2030) citywide rate for tional strian walk-
(2005) traffic? sit lanes? "terminus
interchange. similar facility ways?
facility"?
2020001 San I-5 From North of SR 54 to J Interchange Improvements, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 174,000 225,000 0.04 Below Conceptual $375,000,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A San Ysidro Connects to Improves capacity Caltrans
Diego Street Overcrossing Local Road Improvements & planning a terminus
County New Structures facility
2020002 San I-805 / Palm Ave Overcrossing Revise Interchange SB/NB Off 4 8 N/A N/A N/A 164,000 230,000 0.07 Below Advanced $60,000,000 Locally funded 2014 Yes Yes Yes Lo Med San Ysidro On a Improves capacity Caltrans
Diego and SB/NB planning terminus
County On facility
2020003 San I-805 - Main Street/ Auto Park Revise Interchange SB/NB Off 7 8 N/A N/A N/A 161,000 270,000 0.07 Below Conceptual $20,000,000 Locally funded 2015 Yes Yes Yes Lo Med San Ysidro On a Improves capacity Caltrans
Diego Drive Undercrossing and SB/NB planning terminus
County On facility
2020006 San SR 905/Heritage Rd Construct Heritage Rd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Conceptual $54,300,000 $54,300,000 2018 No No No Med Hi Otay Mesa On a Improves capacity Caltrans
Diego Interchange (Phase 4) Interchange planning terminus
County facility
2010001 Imperial Austin Rd/I-8 Interchange Construct Interchange at new facility N/A 4 Forrester Rd. N/A N/A 0 34,600 0.1 Above Conceptual $30,000,000 $30,000,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A Lo Med Calexico Connects to Could serve a future Caltrans
County Austin Road/I-8 (LRTP No. 9) planning a terminus POE near Forrester
2010002 Imperial Bowker Road/I-8 Interchange Construct interchange at N/A 2 4 N/A N/A N/A 16,600 49,200 0.1 Below Conceptual $30,000,000 $30,000,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A Lo Med Calexico Connects to Could serve as Caltrans
County Bowker Road/I-8 (LRTP No. planning a terminus alternate to SR 7 &
19) facility Calexico East
2010004 Imperial Jasper Rd/SR 111 Construct new freeway All 0 4 I-8/SR 111 N/A N/A 0 93,000 0.08 Below Advanced $43,000,000 $43,000,000 2015 No No No Med Hi Calexico On a Provides highway Caltrans
County interchange planning terminus access to the
facility Calexico POE via SR
111
2070001 Tijuana Bridge and node over the Construction of 40 meter 0 4 Industrial E B 0 5,000 0.00 Below Conceptual $7,332,720 $7,332,720 2014 Yes Yes Yes Hi Hi Mesa de Otay II On a Connection to Otay I y SIDUE
tollroad from Tijuana - Tecate bridge with a 200 meter Avenue-Teran planning terminus Otay II (Prop.)
with access to Blvd de las intersection over the tollroad Teran node facility
Torres from Tijuana - Tecate with
access to the Blvd de las
Torres.
2070002 Tijuana Airport Node -Bellas Artes Construction of Airport - Bellas 3 4 N/A E B 10,000 15,000 0.25 Above Conceptual $5,499,540 $5,499,540 2018 Yes Yes Yes Hi Hi Mesa de Otay Connects to Connection to Otay I y SIDUE
Artes Node with access to the planning a terminus Otay II (Prop.)
Otay I border crossing. facility
2070003 Tijuana Cuauhtemoc-Padre Kino Node Construction of the 3 4 N/A F B 80,000 140,000 0.15 Below Conceptual $4,582,950 $4,582,950 2018 Yes Yes Yes Hi Med Puerta Mexico Connects to Connection to the SIDUE
Cuauhtemoc-Padre Kino Node planning a terminus Chaparral (prop.) and
facility Puerta México Ports
of Entry
2070004 Tijuana Bellas Artes- Magisterial Node Construction of the Bellas 3 6 N/A D B 9,600 9,600 0.60 Above Conceptual $7,332,720 $7,332,720 2014 Yes Yes Yes Med Med Mesa de Otay On a Connection to Otay I y SIDUE
Artes- Magisterial node, planning terminus Otay II (Prop.)
access to the Otay II border facility
crossing
2070005 Tijuana Industrial Avenue - Terán Optimization of Industrial Ave. 6 6 N/A E B 9,485 16,000 0.50 Below Conceptual $7,332,720 $7,332,720 2013 Yes Yes Yes Med Med Mesa de Otay Connects to Connection to Otay I y SIDUE
Terán Node Intersection -Terán Terán, planning a terminus Otay II (Prop.)
access to Otay I and II border facility
crossing
2070006 Tijuana International Otay II Blvd - Construction of node 0 4 Tijuana- E B 0 15,000 0.00 Below Conceptual $7,332,720 $7,332,720 2014 Yes Yes Yes Med Med Mesa de Otay II On a Connection to Mesa SIDUE
Tijuana-Tecate Tollroad Node connecting Otay II POE to Mexicali toll planning terminus de Otay II
Tijuana-Tecate Tollroad road node facility
2070007 Tijuana International Otay II Blvd and Construction of node at 0 4 Tijuana- E B 0 10,000 0.00 Below Conceptual $7,332,720 $7,332,720 2014 Yes Yes Yes Med Med Mesa de Otay II Connects to Connection to Otay I SIDUE
Alamar Node International Otay II Blvd. and Mexicali toll planning a terminus and Otay II
Alamar road node facility
2060001 Tecate, Tecate-Mexicali Freeway and Tecate-Mexicali and Las 2 4 N/A C B 7,000 15,000 0.40 Below Conceptual $3,574,700 $3,574,700 2015 Yes No Yes Med Hi Tecate Connects to Connection to Tecate SIDUE
Baja Las Torres Blvd. Highway Torres Blvd. Highway Node planning a terminus POE
Calif Node facility
2060002 Tecate, Freeway Node and the Tecate- Completion of the roadway 2 4 N/A C B 7,000 15,000 0.40 Below Advanced $3,809,523 $3,809,523 2013 No No Yes Med Hi Mesa de Otay II Connects to Connection to Otay II SIDUE
Baja Tijuana tollroad intersection planning a terminus and Tecate POE
Calif facility
Appendix D-12 149

Appendix D-13: Rail Weighted Project Rankings
Cost
Congestion / Capacity Eff.
(42%) (36%) Project Readiness (22%)
Year
Open to
Project Key Jurisdiction Project Name Limits Project Description Traffic
2. POE Congestion
3. Local Circulation
4.Cost Effectiveness
6. POE Connection
7. Environmental Benefits
8. Community and
Weighted Score
Project Rank
Congestion
Economic Benefit
Maximum Possible Score 18 18 6 36 6 4 6 6 100 --
3020002 San Diego County Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa BRT Otay Mesa to BRT service from Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa via I- 2014 18 18 6 36 2 4 6 6 96 1
Sorrento Mesa 805/I-15/SR 52 (Rt. 680)
3020018 San Diego County Blue Line Trolley Service San Ysidro to Increase in Blue Line Trolley Service (headways: 2014 6 18 6 36 2 4 6 6 84 2
Downtown San peak 7.5, off-peak 7.5 mins.)
Diego
3020001 San Diego County South Line International Border Sidings, Passing, Mexico Connectivity, Coronado 2015 18 18 6 12 4 4 4 6 72 3
to Broadway Line Rehab
3020004 San Diego County Desert Line Division to Plaster Basic Service -- 0 18 0 0 2 4 4 4 32 4
City
3020005 San Diego County Desert Line Division to Plaster Modernization -- 0 18 0 0 2 4 2 2 28 5

City
3020017 San Diego County Desert Line Division to Plaster Double Tracking -- 0 18 0 0 2 4 2 2 28 5
City
3020003 San Diego County Amtrak Intercity Rail Yard San Diego Construction of maintenance facility -- 0 18 0 0 2 4 2 2 28 5
3010083 Imperial County McCabe Dogwood Grade Separation Intersection Grade Separation of R.R intersection with McCabe 2020 0 12 6 0 2 4 0 0 24 8
McCabe and Rd and Dogwood Avenue
Dogwood
3010084 Imperial County City of El Centro Grade Separations City of El Centro Grade Separations at various locations 2030 0 12 6 0 2 4 0 0 24 8
Appendix D-13 151

Appendix D-14: Rail Scoresheet
1. Numerical Increase in Capacity
8. Community/Economic Benefit
Total Number of Passengers
2. POE Served (Congestion)

Number of Rail Cars (2030)
1. Percentage of Capacity
5. Current Project Phase
Annual Total Number of
Projected Annual Total
TOTAL INDEX SCORE

Projected Number of
Project Description
Submitting Agency
6. POE Connection
Passengers (2030)
Total Project Cost

Rail Cars 2005
Project Name
Jurisdiction
Project Key
Increase
1. SCORE
2. SCORE
3. SCORE
4. SCORE
5. SCORE
6. SCORE
7. SCORE
8. SCORE
1. Rank
4. Rank
From
To
3010083 Imperial McCabe Dogwood Grade Separation of R.R intersection with Inter- N/A -- -- N/A N/A -- 0% 0 Calexico 2 Yes 1 $45,000,000 -- 0 Conceptual 1 Rail line has a 2 -- 0 -- 0 6 City of
County Grade Separation McCabe Rd and Dogwood Avenue section planning terminus at the El Centro
McCabe border
and
Dogwood
3010084 Imperial City of El Centro Grade Separations at various locations City of N/A -- -- N/A N/A -- 0% 0 Calexico 2 Yes 1 $160,000,000 -- 0 Conceptual 1 Rail line has a 2 -- 0 -- 0 6 City of
County Grade Separations El Centro planning terminus at the El Centro
border
3020001 San Diego South Line Sidings, Passing, Mexico Connectivity, Int'l. Broadway 10,000 19,600 N/A N/A 9,600 96% 2 3 San 3 Yes 1 $92,187,500 $9,603 3 1 Advanced 2 Rail line has a 2 Medium 2 High 3 17 SANDAG
County Coronado Line Rehab Border Ysidro planning terminus at the
border
3020002 San Diego Otay Mesa to BRT service from Otay Mesa to Sorrento Otay Sorrento N/A N/A 0 739,840 739,840 100% 1 3 Otay 3 Yes 1 $65,274,100 $88 2 3 Conceptual 1 Rail line has a 2 High 3 High 3 19 SANDAG
County Sorrento Mesa BRT Mesa via I-805/I-15/SR 52 (Rt. 680) Mesa Mesa Mesa planning terminus at the
border
3020003 San Diego Amtrak Intercity Construction of maintenance facility San N/A -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 San 3 -- 0 $33,000,000 -- 0 Conceptual 1 Rail line has a 2 Low 1 Low 1 8 Caltrans
County Rail Yard Diego Ysidro planning terminus at the
border
3020004 San Diego Desert Line Basic Service Division Plaster City 260 N/A N/A N/A -- -- 0 San 3 -- 0 $15,800,000 -- 0 Conceptual 1 Rail line has a 2 Medium 2 Medium 2 10 Caltrans
County Ysidro planning terminus at the
border
3020005 San Diego Desert Line Modernization Division Plaster City 260 N/A N/A N/A -- -- 0 Tecate 3 -- 0 $166,100,000 -- 0 Conceptual 1 Rail line has a 2 Low 1 Low 1 8 Caltrans
County planning terminus at the
border
3020017 San Diego Desert Line Double Tracking Division Plaster City 260 N/A N/A N/A -- -- 0 Tecate 3 -- 0 $2,130,000,000 -- 0 Conceptual 1 Rail line has a 2 Low 1 Low 1 8 Caltrans
border
3020018 San Diego Blue Line Trolley Increase in Blue Line Trolley Service San Downtown N/A N/A 5,558,720 7,726,720 2,168,000 39% 3 1 San 3 Yes 1 $165,625,000 $76 1 3 Conceptual 1 Rail line has a 2 High 3 High 3 17 SANDAG
County Service (headways: peak 7.5, off-peak 7.5 mins.) Ysidro San Diego Ysidro planning terminus at the
border
Notes:
Improvement in Capacity is calculated as: Percentage increase over 2005 capacity
Cost Effectiveness calculated as: $Total Project Cost / Numerical Improvement in Capacity
Outliers do not exist in data sets that are 20 cases or smaller
Negative and non-numerical values are not rewarded points
Data Ranges:
Capacity Improvement
Range of Values Score Frequency
39-59% 1 1
60-80% 2 0
81-100% 3 2
Cost Effectiveness
Range of Values Score Frequency
$76-$3,252 3 2
$3,253-$6,428 2 0
$6,429-$9,603 1 1
Appendix D-14 153

Appendix D-15: Rail Project List
Based on
planning/engineering and
Limits of Project Freight Projects Passenger Projects Project Costs environmental documents,
assess the benefits of the
project.
Projected Is project on a rail line

Annual Annual Projected Will project
Begin End Annual Funds Still that terminates at the
Total Total Annual Total include grade Current Year Project Environ- Community/ Identify the POE
County/ Post Post Total Total Project Needed to international border or Submitting
Project ID Project Name Project Description From To* Number of Number of Number of separation to Phase of Becomes mental Economic primarily served Explain how this project serves a POE.
Jurisdiction (Mile or (Mile or Number of Cost (2006 $USD) Complete connects to a rail line Agency
Rail Cars Passenger Passengers alleviate local Project Operational Benefit Benefit by this project.
Km) Km) Rail Cars Project that terminates at the
(2005) s (2005) (2030) congestion?
(2030) international border?
3020001 San Diego South Line Sidings, Passing, International Broadway 0 10 10,000 19,600 N/A N/A Yes Advanced $92,187,500 $86,750,000 2015 Medium High San Ysidro Rail line has a Improve freight capacity/efficiency to SANDAG
County Mexico Connectivity, Border planning terminus at the absorb existing and future business volume
Coronado Line border and trade demand with Mexico.
Rehab
3020002 San Diego Otay Mesa to BRT service from Otay Mesa Sorrento 0 10 N/A N/A 0 739,840 Yes Conceptual $65,274,100 $27,937,300 2014 High High Otay Mesa Rail line has a Route will terminate with a station at the SANDAG
County Sorrento Mesa BRT Otay Mesa to Mesa planning terminus at the POE.
Sorrento Mesa via I- border
805/I-15/SR 52 (Rt.
680)
3020004 San Diego Desert Line Basic Service Division Plaster City 60 130 260 N/A N/A N/A -- Conceptual $15,800,000 -- -- Medium Medium San Ysidro Rail line has a Caltrans
border
3020005 San Diego Desert Line Modernization Division Plaster City 60 130 260 N/A N/A N/A -- Conceptual $166,100,000 -- -- Low Low Tecate Rail line has a Caltrans
border
3020017 San Diego Desert Line Double Tracking Division Plaster City 60 130 260 N/A N/A N/A -- Conceptual $2,130,000,000 -- -- Low Low Tecate Rail line has a Caltrans
border
3020018 San Diego Blue Line Trolley Increase in Blue Line San Ysidro Downtown 0 10 N/A N/A 5,558,720 7,726,720 Yes Conceptual $165,625,000 $82,812,500 2014 High High San Ysidro Rail line has a Route terminates with a station at the POE. SANDAG
County Service Trolley Service San Diego planning terminus at the
(headways: peak 7.5, border
off-peak 7.5 mins.)
3010083 Imperial McCabe Dogwood Grade Separation of Intersection N/A -- -- N/A N/A Yes Conceptual $45,000,000 $45,000,000 2020 -- -- Calexico Rail line has a Rail line terminates at POE, in addition, City of El
County Grade Separation R.R intersection with McCabe and planning terminus at the both McCabe Rd and Dogwood Avenue are Centro
McCabe Rd and Dogwood border used to access the POE. The intersection
Dogwood Avenue of the R.R. Dogwood Avenue, and McCabe
Avenue create traffic conflicts. McCabe Rd.
connects to SR-111, a terminus facility, and
Dogwood Avenue connects to SR-98,
another Terminus facility.
3010084 Imperial City of El Centro Grade Separations at City of El N/A -- -- N/A N/A Yes Conceptual $160,000,000 $160,000,000 2030 -- -- Calexico Rail line has a The main rail line serving Mexico traverses City of El
County Grade Separations various locations Centro planning terminus at the the City of El Centro through it's center, Centro
border crossing many of our arterial streets.
Relieving traffic congestion from the rail
line would improve rail operations
3020003 San Diego Amtrak Intercity Rail Construction of San Diego N/A -- -- -- -- -- Conceptual $33,000,000 -- -- Low Low San Ysidro Rail line has a Freight Rail could use facility for Caltrans
County Yard maintenance facility planning terminus at the maintenance as well as Intercity rail
border
Appendix D-15 155

Appendix D-16: Project Inventory List
Project Project
Key Jurisdiction Project Name Limits Project Description Type
- San Diego Canon Moctezuma Tijuana River Estuary POE
- San Diego Otay Mesa Conveyor Belt Otay Mesa POE
- San Diego Cross-Border Terminal Otay Mesa POE
- San Diego Valle Redondo Valle Redondo POE
- San Diego Jacumba - Jacume Jacumba POE
- Imperial Silicon Border Calexico POE
1020037 San Diego Auxiliary Truck Routes East Otay Mesa POE Auxiliary Truck Routes (new 2030 road) Roadway
To CHP CVEF
1010012 Imperial Cty McCabe Rd Austin Rd to SR 111 Improve to 6 lane primary arterial Roadway
1010010 Imperial Cty Forrester Rd SR 98 to SR78/86 Improve/construct north-south corridor Roadway
1010014 Imperial Cty Austin Rd McCabe Rd to SR 86 Improve to 6 lane primary arterial Roadway
2020008 San Diego Cty SR 11 - Full Diamond interchange at Enrico Fermi Interchange
2020009 San Diego Cty SR 11 - Full Diamond interchange at Siempre Viva/Loop Rd Interchange
2020007 San Diego Cty SR 125 - Full Diamond Interchange at Lone Star Rd Interchange
2010003 Imperial Cty Airport Interchange - Construct New Interchange Interchange
3020007 San Diego Cty Regional Rail Grade - Various locations, including w/in study area Rail
Separations
3020009 San Diego Cty Otay Mesa East - Rail Crossing Rail
3020010 San Diego Cty Logistics Center - Maquilla Area Rail
3020011 San Diego Cty Logistics Center - South County Rail
3020012 San Diego Cty Logistics Center - Southeast County, Otay Mesa (2x) Rail
3020015 San Diego Cty South Line - Otay Mesa Rail Spur/Inland Port Rail
3020016 San Diego Cty High Speed Rail/Inland - South County Rail
3020019 San Diego Cty Potential Inland Rail Line - Otay Mesa East POE to SR 54 (Note: the full length of the Rail
project is from Otay Mesa East POE to the Riverside County
Border)
3010001 Imperial Cty SR-98 - Grade Improvements: Calexico Rail
3010002 Imperial Cty Cole Rd. (Pruett) - Grade Improvements: Calexico Rail
3010003 Imperial Cty Pruett Rd. - Grade Improvements: Calexico Rail
3010004 Imperial Cty 5th St. - Grade Improvements: Calexico Rail
3010005 Imperial Cty Cole Rd. - Grade Improvements: Calexico Rail
3010006 Imperial Cty Grant St. - Grade Improvements: Calexico Rail
3010007 Imperial Cty Olive & Lincoln St. - Grade Improvements: Calexico Rail
3010008 Imperial Cty Imperial Ave. - Grade Improvements: Calexico Rail
3010009 Imperial Cty Paulin Ave. - Grade Improvements: Calexico Rail
3010010 Imperial Cty 2nd St. - Grade Improvements: Calexico Rail
3010011 Imperial Cty Xover N. to S. Ln. - Grade Improvements: Calexico Rail
3010012 Imperial Cty 2nd St. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010013 Imperial Cty 2nd St. (secondary) - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010014 Imperial Cty Brighton Ave - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010015 Imperial Cty 1st St. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010016 Imperial Cty 1st St. (secondary) - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010017 Imperial Cty Broadway - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010018 Imperial Cty Euclid Ave. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010019 Imperial Cty Commercial Ave. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010020 Imperial Cty Orange. Ave - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010021 Imperial Cty Main St. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010022 Imperial Cty Main St. (secondary) - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010023 Imperial Cty 3rd St. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010024 Imperial Cty 1st St. (terciary) - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010025 Imperial Cty Ross Ave. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010026 Imperial Cty Danenberg Ave. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010027 Imperial Cty Correll Rd. - Grade Improvements: Heber Rail
3010028 Imperial Cty SR-86 - Grade Improvements: Heber Rail
3010029 Imperial Cty Jasper Rd. - Grade Improvements: Heber Rail
3010030 Imperial Cty Dogwood Rd. - Grade Improvements: Heber Rail
3010031 Imperial Cty Fawcett Rd. - Grade Improvements: Heber Rail
3010032 Imperial Cty Forrester Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010033 Imperial Cty Bennett Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010034 Imperial Cty Nichols Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010035 Imperial Cty 6th St. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010037 Imperial Cty Austin Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010038 Imperial Cty SR-86 - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010039 Imperial Cty La Brucherie Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010041 Imperial Cty Dunaway Rd. - Grade Improvements: Plaster City Rail
3010042 Imperial Cty Drew Rd. - Grade Improvements: Seeley Rail
3010043 Imperial Cty Jessup Rd. - Grade Improvements: Seeley Rail
Appendix D-16 157

Project Project
Key Jurisdiction Project Name Limits Project Description Type
3010044 Imperial Cty Low Rd. - Grade Improvements: Seeley Rail
3010045 Imperial Cty Derrick Rd. - Grade Improvements: Seeley Rail
3010046 Imperial Cty Westside Rd. - Grade Improvements: Seeley Rail
3010047 Imperial Cty Westmoreland Rd. - Grade Improvements: Seeley Rail
3010048 Imperial Cty Evan Hewes Hwy. - Grade Improvements: Seeley Rail
3010049 Imperial Cty Jeffrey Rd. - Grade Improvements: Seeley Rail
3010050 Imperial Cty Silsbee Rd. - Grade Improvements: Seeley Rail
3010051 Imperial Cty Dogwood Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010052 Imperial Cty 3rd. St. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010053 Imperial Cty Bell Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010054 Imperial Cty Meloland Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010055 Imperial Cty James Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010056 Imperial Cty Parker Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010057 Imperial Cty Bowker Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010058 Imperial Cty McConnell Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010059 Imperial Cty SR-111 - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010060 Imperial Cty Cannon Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010061 Imperial Cty Holton Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010062 Imperial Cty Cooley Rd. - Grade Improvements: El Centro Rail
3010063 Imperial Cty SR-115 - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010064 Imperial Cty Zenos Rd. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010065 Imperial Cty O St. (SR-115) - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010066 Imperial Cty Orchard Rd. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010067 Imperial Cty Pine & Hartshorn - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010068 Imperial Cty Alamo Rd. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010069 Imperial Cty Kamm Rd. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010070 Imperial Cty Thiesen Rd. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010071 Imperial Cty 5th St. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010072 Imperial Cty Maple Ave. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010073 Imperial Cty Walnut Ave. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010074 Imperial Cty Holt Ave. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010075 Imperial Cty Pine Ave. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010076 Imperial Cty Palm Ave. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010077 Imperial Cty Barbara Worth Rd. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010078 Imperial Cty Anderholt Rd. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010079 Imperial Cty Cedar Ave. - Grade Improvements: Holtville Rail
3010080 Imperial Cty Sidewinder Rd. - Grade Improvements: Andrade Rail
3010081 Imperial Cty Ogilby Rd. - Grade Improvements: Winterhaven Rail
3010082 Imperial Cty SR 98 at CEsar Chavez Blvd - Grade Improvements: Calexico east of Caesar Chavez Blvd. Rail
301008 Imperial Cty Cesar Chavez Blvd near POE - Grade Improvements at Calexico POE Rail
Appendix D-16 158

Appendix D-17: Score Methodology
To create the score ranges for the measures of cost effectiveness, truck percentage share, and Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) improvement , the following methodology was utilized
to develop a set of data ranges that correlate with a score distribution of 1 to 3 or 1 to 5 points, for POE cost effectiveness:
1. The data was arranged sequentially from x1 (best) score, to xn (worst) score.
2. Where the sample size was greater than n=20, the data was plotted and the mean of the set determined.
3. Due to the small size of most data sets, data that was significantly different than the mean was eliminated from the range and scoring determination. Significant difference was defined
as more than one standard deviation from the mean of the data set among sets where n was greater than 20.
4. Scoring ranges of all sets were determined by dividing the range of the data set (xn- x1) into three approximately equal parts, rounding to the nearest whole number, where applicable.
5. Scores were assigned to each scoring range, based upon performance indicator type. (e.g. high performance and low cost received more points)
6. Data that were found to be significantly different from the data set were assigned the score of the nearest scoring range, but not included in the “frequency” tally reported.
Data submitted for the remaining quantitative evaluation criteria elements did not show significant difference from the mean and all data was in included in the scoring ranges.
Chart D-17a: Roadway-- Improvement in AADT per lane-mile data points and standard deviation plot
350,000 35,000
300,000 30,000
250,000
25,000
200,000
20,000
150,000
15,000
100,000
10,000
50,000
5,000
0
-50,000 0
-100,000 -5,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
120% Chart D-17b: Roadway-- Cost Effectiveness data points and standard deviation plot
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Chart D-17c: Roadway-- Truck AADT- Percentage of Total data points and standard deviation plot
Appendix D-17 159
Appendix E
Comments and Responses
Comments and Responses on July 2008 Draft Report California-Baja California Border Master Plan Draft Report
Name/
No. Date Ref. Comment Response
Agency
1 7/21/08 SIDUE Ch. 4 SIDUE submitted several observations on Border Wait This issue was resolved in subsequent discussions among
Times presented in Table 4-3. SIDUE, Caltrans and the Service Bureau. To address this
comment, a paragraph will be added as follows: "Congestion
and delays for freight movements and crossborder personal
travel at the California-Baja California POEs have increased and
have become more unpredictable. The San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG); Imperial Valley Association of
Governments (IVAG); and California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) conducted studies to estimate the
economic impacts of border wait times. Table 4-4 illustrates the
2007 total estimated economic losses due to border wait times
and constrained border infrastructure. Current delays at the
border were estimated to cost the California-Baja California
economies nearly $6.78 billion in lost output and a loss of more
than 62,400 jobs in 2007. At the national level, for the
U.S.-Mexico economies, the output losses were estimated at
$8.63 billion and nearly 73,900 jobs in 2007. Both output and
job losses are projected to more than double in the next ten
years if steps are not taken to improve border crossing and
transportation infrastructure and management." A table
showing economic impacts by geographic area will also be
added to Chapter 4.
2 7/23/08 IVAG Page 2 STUDY AREA: Add language on expansion/renovation of The intention of this section on page 2 is to list the existing
Calexico/Mexicali POE such as in page 80. POEs in the study area and note new POEs under development
(i.e. Otay Mesa East) . Complete descriptions of POE projects
are found later in the Executive Summary and in Chapter 6.
3 7/23/08 IVAG Page 10 Calexico East-Mexicali II POE: Since the distribution of the Comment noted. Future technical updates of the Border Master
report, Caltrans District 11 and lVAG have put together a Plan will allow for submissions of additional information. To
Comprehensive Report on future expansion of the POE that address this comment, a footnote will be added in the Executive
includes the number of proposed lanes, costs, anticipated Summary and in Chapter 6 as follows: "Since the technical
reduction of wait times, etc. analysis conducted for the California-Baja California Border
Master Plan was completed, Caltrans/IVAG released a
comprehensive report on the future expansion of this POE. New
information can be incorporated in future updates."
Appendix E-1 163

Name/
Agency
4 7/23/08 IVAG Page 10 Andrade -Los Algodones POE: "Plans for this POE are to Caltrans submitted the project to move vehicle lanes to Arizona
divert passenger-vehicle and truck traffic to the Arizona POE border (by 2030 only two pedestrian lanes remain). The Service
and make the Andrade-Algodones POE a pedestrian-only Bureau did not receive any communication from GSA about the
crossing." Does U.S. GSA concur with the statement? Are language used in the report. The report will be reworded to
all regions surrounding the POE confirming this proposal? reflect the wording used by Caltrans. In Chapter 6, Service
Add information on the said. Bureau will clarify that the project was submitted by Caltrans.
5 7/23/08 IVAG Page 22 - Table 1-1 / Participating Agencies and Roles: The Imperial IVAG's response is appreciated. However, based on Caltrans
Table 1-1 Valley Association of Governments, better known as IVAG, direction, Table 1-1 will not be included in the final report.
is an association of city, county, and local governments
created to address regional transportation issues. Its
Member Agencies include the County of Imperial, the seven
incorporated cities (Cities of Brawley, Calexico, Calipatria, El
Centro, Holtville, Imperial, Westmoreland), and the Imperial
Irrigation District within the Imperial Valley. IVAG Regional
Council is comprised of one elected official from each of the
seven incorporated cities in Imperial County, two Imperial
County Supervisors and one Imperial Irrigation District
Board of Director. Monthly board meetings provide the
public a forum for discussion and collaborative decision-
making on significant issues of regional transportation and
mobility. Meetings are held on the fourth Wednesday of
each month. As the state-designated Regional
Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Imperial County,
IVAG is responsible for developing and updating variety of
transportation plans and for allocating federal and state
funds to implement them.
6 7/23/08 IVAG Page 34 Integration of Plans: "SANDAG and SCAG work in concert Change will be made.
with Caltrans to select transportation projects and plan for
the long term." Replace SCAG with IVAG.
7 7/23/08 IVAG Page 37 "North Association of Counties" should read National The correction will be made.
Association of Counties (NACo)
Appendix E-1 164

Name/
Agency
8 7/23/08 IVAG Page 50 "Passenger inspections at Calexico East and Andrade take We will add information to explain the hours are adjusted during
place between 6:00a.m. and 10:00p.m. and would keep the the Fall and Winter seasons. Future technical updates of the
same hours in 2030," Calexico East should state, California-Baja California Border Master Plan will allow for
"Passenger inspections at Calexico East take place between submissions of additional information and project details.
4:00a.m. and 10:00p.m" adjusted during the Fall and Winter
Seasons adjusting to the agriculture and crop season. The
Calexico East facility is planned to become a twenty-four
hour facility. In addition, CPB is in the advanced planning
stages of permitting three (3) Commercial inspection lanes
to serve Passenger Vehicles during weekends. The
Municipal and Baja California agencies are reviewing the
plans to further assist and advance the project. The
passenger inspections at Andrade take place between
6:00a.m. and 10:00p.m. and is anticipated to keep the same
hours in the near future. "
9 7/23/08 IVAG Page 51 "Delays at Calexico East also are 50 percent lower than at This statement is only intended to describe the relative average
Calexico and at Andrade they are about one-fourth the daily wait times for 2005 provided by CBP. Using CBP's
delays at the Calexico POE." Fifty percent is not a constant estimates, Calexico East (average daily northbound wait time of
percent, rather varies from 20 to 50, depending on peak 15 minutes) is 50 percent less that the average wait time at
periods. Calexico of 30 minutes.
10 7/23/08 IVAG Page 55 Northbound Truck Crossings: "No truck projections are We will reword to state that "No truck projections were provided
available for the Andrade POE." Please provide information for the Andrade POE." We are unable to elaborate as CBP did
as to why CPB has not projections. not explain why they did not provide data for Andrade POE.
11 7/23/08 IVAG Page 61 Goods Movement from Mexico to the United States: "Data Comment noted. We are unable to elaborate as CBP did not
for the Andrade POE was not provided." Please provide explain why they did not provide data for Andrade POE.
information as to why no data.
Appendix E-1 165

Name/
Agency
12 7/23/08 IVAG Page 64 Average Wait Times: "Regular passenger vehicles wait an The table on southbound border wait times from Aduanas will be
overage of 30 minutes in Mexicali and 20 minutes in both removed from the final report as we were not able to verify data
Mexicali Oriente and Algodones POEs." The sentence accuracy for all POEs.
should be clarified to include: "...an average of 30 minutes in
Mexicali during late afternoon peak times when residents of
Mexicali that work in the U.S. drive back... " In addition, upon
reflection in relying on data from Aduanas is not completely
reliable. Aduanas does not have any control over the traffic
backed up in the City of Calexico, rather it is the City of
Calexico, Police Department. It is recommended that further
contact with local jurisdictions that directly have on impact
and a managed traffic system be requested of such
information. The 20 minutes for Mexicali Oriente and
Algodones, we have no data to reflect that there is any wait
time for southbound passenger vehicles for both off and
during peak hours.
13 7/23/08 IVAG Page 74 "The segment 011-8 between Imperial Avenue and SR 86 The data on the transportation facility including the LOS and
accommodated 32,000 daily vehicles at LOS A in the p.m. AADT data were provided by Caltrans.
peak." An LOS of A does not seem correct. Within this
segment there is plenty of intraregional activity. Please
check LOS with Caltrans District 11.
14 7/23/08 IVAG Page 116 Calexico east -Mexicali II Port of Entry: Same comment as The table on southbound border wait times from Aduanas will be
on page 64. removed from the report as we were not able to verify data
accuracy for all POEs.
15 7/24/08 City of Executive On page 3, the City of Chula Vista is missing as a We apologize for the oversight. The City of Chula will be added
Chula Vista Summary participant. to the participant list.
Appendix E-1 166

Name/
Agency
16 7/24/08 City of Chapter 1 The following should be included as Chula Vista's role for The City of Chula Vista's response is appreciated. However,
Chula Vista Table 1-1. “The City of Chula Vista is pleased to participate based on Caltrans direction, Table 1-1 will not be included in
in the Border Master Planning process and supports the the final report.
binational cooperation between the communities located in
Southern California and our neighbors to the south in Baja
California, Mexico. The city supports the purpose and
objectives of the plan and further proclaims that it will
institute internal policies and procedures to provide for the
recommendations as stated in report.”
17 7/24/08 City of Chapter 5 Page 91 of the document states that “Future updates of the Comment noted.
Chula Vista Border Master Plan can incorporate additional data for these
projects as more information becomes available from
planning and implementation activities”. In reviewing the
document, it’s important to remember, when the document
refers to Corridor improvements in Chula Vista, such as
those shown for I-5 and the I-805 that the conclusions from
future corridor studies can be added to future BMP updates.
18 7/24/08 City of Chapter 6 Page 102, last paragraph, states that the improvements on I- A sentence will be added as follows: "However, the first phase
Chula Vista 805 shall be completed by 2030. The report may also wish of this project will add one HOV lane in each direction and is
to add a statement that the first phase of the ultimate scheduled to be completed in 2012."
improvements along I-805 include adding one HOV lane out
of a total of two lanes in each direction, and is scheduled for
early finish by 2012.
Appendix E-1 167

Name/
Agency
19 7/24/08 City of Chapter 6 The report is silent on the La Media Road crossing of the Future updates of the California-Baja California Border Master
Chula Vista Otay River Basin. The TWG discussed the bridge and the Plan will allow for submissions of additional projects. In Chapter
potential for its completion by the BMP’s study horizon year 6, the following footnote will be added to address this comment:
of 2030. The La Media Road Bridge is in the City of Chula "The City of Chula Vista did not submit the La Media Road
Vista’s Circulation Element and typically, all circulation roads Bridge for evaluation because its completion would likely occur
are in the city’s Eastern Transportation Development Impact after 2030. The La Media Road Bridge is included in the City of
Fee (TDIF) program, but this bridge is not. The TWG and Chula Vista's Circulation Element."
City of Chula Vista staff determined that its completion
would probably occur after the BMP’s study horizon year of
2030 and should be excluded from discussion in the draft
BMP report. But it may be confusing to readers who are
familiar with Chula Vista's circulation element that the La
Media Road Bridge is not listed as one of the transportation
projects in the report. Therefore, due to its current exclusion
from the TDIF, and its assumed completion date subsequent
to 2030, a comment should be added to the current report
that an updated future BMP will include discussion of the
bridge, as set forth on page 91, and as stated above. This
should be included as an attachment/appendix to the BMP
report or these discussion points be added to final report.
20 7/28/08 SANDAG General SANDAG submitted editorial comments regarding spelling SANDAG's comments will be addressed in final document.
and grammar.
21 7/30/08 County of General The County supports the annual updates that would Comment noted.
San Diego consider moving projects from the Inventory list to the
ranked list projects or adding projects to the Inventory list.
The County’s East Otay Mesa area is a very dynamic area
and new information regarding proposed land use and
roadway network projects continually becomes available.
Potential changes to the project ranking evaluation criteria
should only be considered as part of the comprehensive
Master Plan update that would occur every 3-4 years.
Appendix E-1 168

Name/
Agency
22 7/30/08 County of Chapter 6 On page 97, the Plan report states in reference to The report will be revised to read as follows: "Virtually all of
San Diego future/planned County roads that virtually all of these roads these local roads are planned to be constructed by 2030."
are scheduled for completion in 2030. We would prefer that
report state that these future County roads are planned to be
constructed by 2030. The completion of the SR-11 tollway
and the new Otay Mesa East POE would likely result in
accelerating the rate of land use and roadway development
within the East Otay Mesa area. Many of the County’s
planned Circulation Element/Specific Plan roads could be
built prior to the year 2030.
23 7/30/08 County of Appendix A Please revise the mailing address for Nick Ortiz on page 6 of The revision will be made to the contact list included in
San Diego the Appendix report (A-2). The correct mailing address is Appendix A.
5469 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 201, San Diego, CA 92123-
1159. Megan Jones’ mailing address is correct.
24 7/30/08 County of Appendix D It might be useful for the Appendix to include the “inventory The inventory list is included in Appendix D-16.
San Diego list” so that we are reminded that these projects need the
extra data to be included and ranked. Also it would serve as
the placeholders for the next steps to complete the entire
roadway system. This would likely be a Caltrans initiated
inclusion, but important to our PAC member and road
network.
25 7/30/08 County of Appendix D We noticed a gap along Lone Star Road in the page 14 Unfortunately, no additional projects can be added to the
San Diego map. Nor is this Lone Star Road segment in the Roadway California-Baja California Border Master Plan at this time.
Project List Appendix D-9. It appears that we did not include Additional projects submitted by the stakeholder agencies will
the section of Lone Star Road from Alta Road to Otay Mesa be added in future updates.
Road in our project submittal. Please add this segment of
Lone Star Road to the inventory list.
Appendix E-1 169

Name/
Agency
26 7/30/08 County of Chapter 1 Large portions of the unincorporated area are located along The County of San Diego's response is appreciated. However,
San Diego the California/Baja California border. The County’s East based on Caltrans direction, Table 1-1 will not be included in
Otay Mesa area is an area with immense business the final report.
technology and industrial development potential. The
County’s role in the development of Master Plan is to
support SANDAG’s and Caltrans’ efforts to develop a
coordinated planning approach for the key United States
and Mexico governmental agencies and provide
information/data regarding planned land use and roadway
network developments within the unincorporated area.
27 8/1/08 SCAG Chapter 2 On Page 26 Paragraph 2 under Transportation Planning The revision will be made in Chapter 2.
Process: Please include Transportation Commissions as
participants to the RTP process in the SCAG region.
28 8/1/08 SCAG Chapter 2 Page 31, under Public Participation and Interagency The following sentence will be added: " In October 2007, SCAG
Coordination, please include a sentence stating that SCAG adopted a Public Participation Plan as mandated by SAFETEA-
also adopted a Public Participation Plan in October of 2007 LU."
as mandated by SAFETEA-LU.
29 8/4/08 FHWA General FHWA submitted editorial comments regarding spelling, FHWA's comments will be incorporated into the final document.
grammar, and wording and requested several language
clarifications. They identified areas of inconsistency and
requested the Service Bureau to rectify.
30 8/4/08 FHWA Executive Page 2 – Study Area - Since we discuss Virginia Ave/El A footnote will be added the first time we mention the San
Summary Chaparral throughout the rest of the document, would it not Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE as
be prudent to say there are 3 active POEs and one closed follows: "The Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral gate is currently
one? Also you use Calexico East – Mexicali II throughout the closed. However, projects for its reuse were submitted for
rest of the document, so perhaps we should use that here evaluation in this California-Baja California Border Master Plan."
too (instead of Mexicali Oriente) All references will be changed from Mexicali Oriente to Mexicali
II.
Appendix E-1 170

Name/
Agency
31 8/4/08 FHWA Executive Bullet 2 – “Two projects were proposed to alleviate current The bullets will be reordered to clarify that there are two projects
Summary congestion” then you only discuss one. I suggest you at the POE. A footnote will be added as follows: "SENTRI or
combine this bullet and the next bullet. Also in this bullet you Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection is a
refer to SENTRI without defining what it is. Please define. land border-crossing program that provides expedited
Customers and Border Protection processing for pre-approved
low-risk travelers."
32 8/4/08 FHWA Executive Page 13 Footnote 2 contains the entire text of the next two The paragraphs and footnote will be rewritten to eliminate the
Summary paragraphs. Is there a reason why it is repeated? duplicate information.
33 8/4/08 FHWA Executive Bullet 4 “Includes professionals from both California and The paragraph will be reworded to clarify that "professional"
Summary Baja California” I’m not sure what you mean by includes consultants.
professionals? Planners and engineers? Consultants?
34 8/4/08 FHWA Chapter 1 Table 1-1 – FHWA - Role “serves as the JWC co-chair, FHWA's response is appreciated. However, based on Caltrans
cooperates on land transportation planning and promotes direction, Table 1-1 will not be included in the final report.
the facilitation of safe, efficient and economical movement of
people and goods across the international border”
35 8/4/08 FHWA Chapter 2 Page 34 – Paragraph 2 - The FHWA International Border Paragraph 2: Language revision as requested will be made in
Program participates both by providing information and final report. Paragraph 5: The sentence will be reworded as
technical assistance from dedicated border staff, and also, follows: "As CBP’s capital planning process matures, linkages
in its role as co-chair for the U.S./Mexico JWC, develops to regional, state, and other federal planning processes are
tools so that agencies involved can make informed anticipated to be strengthened." Paragraph 6: The sentence will
decisions. This participation further extends to funding and be reworded as follows: "SANDAG and IVAG work in concert
overseeing various studies….efforts.” Paragraph 5 – second with Caltrans to select transportation projects and plan for the
sentence “As CBP’s capital planning process matures, one long term, using the statewide transportation plan as well as the
hopes it will strengthen…? “Or matures, linkages to regional, RTPs and RTIPs as a basis." First sentence will be deleted.
state and other federal planning processes will be
strengthened.” I prefer the latter. Paragraph 6 – since the
planning tools were discussed at length earlier, perhaps
“Using the RTP/RTIP/IIP (whatever they may be) Caltrans
works in concert with SANDAG and SCAG to select regional
transportation projects for the long term.” And eliminating
the first sentence. Or alternatively discuss what the “several
planning documents” are…
Appendix E-1 171

Name/
Agency
36 8/4/08 FHWA Chapter 4 Pg. 49 Since we discuss Virginia Ave/El Chaparral A footnote will be added as follows: "The Virginia Avenue-El
throughout the rest of the document, would it not be prudent Chaparral gate, located west of the San Ysidro-Puerta México
to say there are 3 active POEs and one closed one? Also POE, is currently closed; however, plans exist to reopen this
you use Calexico East – Mexicali II throughout the rest of the gate to southbound passenger vehicle traffic. Subsequent
document, so perhaps we should use that here too (instead sections of the report refer to the POE as the San Ysidro-Puerta
of Mexicali Oriente). Also can we use POE instead of border México/Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE." The reference to
station? In the 3rd paragraph. Also “Table 4-1 shows the the POE will be Mexicali II rather than Mexicali Oriente in the
existing and projected lane configuration by POE” final report. This reference will be changed from border station
to POE; however, other references to border stations will
remain. We will rename the table as follows: "Table 4-1,
Current and Projected Number of Northbound Lanes, 2005-
2030, California POEs." Table 4-8 will be renamed in a similar
manner.
37 8/4/08 FHWA Chapter 4 Page 54- second paragraph – “The largest expansion would Data presented in Table 4-1 reflect CBP's conceptual estimates
take place at the San Ysidro POE with an increase of 14 of projected 2030 lane configurations. More refined projections
northbound passenger vehicle lanes” This does not match of lane configurations were provided with project descriptions. A
info for project on pg. 7 (30 total lanes) an increase of 6 footnote will be added as follows: "According to CBP, 2030 lane
lanes, and a doubling of booths to 58. Please reconcile, and projections displayed in Table 4-1 were calculated for planning
also convert this to number of booths. Paragraph 4 – purposes by evaluating port size, location, and general capacity
northbound pedestrian lanes are to be expanded at San ratios. As projects move forward, exact lane needs are
Ysidro as well (as referenced on pg. 7) Paragraph 5 – a few reevaluated." The sentence in paragraph 5 (page 55) will be
thousand annually? rewritten as follows: "A few thousand trucks cross annually at
the Andrade POE."
38 8/4/08 FHWA Chapter 4 Several pages have Otay II--others Mesa de Otay II. Please We will use Mesa de Otay II POE throughout report.
use same reference everywhere.
39 8/4/08 FHWA Chapter 4 Pg 82 and 83 – it is impossible to read the text. Can we We will work with Caltrans to prepare separate maps for each
have these on 11x17 folded pages? area and to list the legend separately.
40 8/4/08 FHWA Chapter 6 Pg 122 and 123 – it is impossible to read the text. Can we We will work with Caltrans to prepare separate maps for each
have these on 11x17 folded pages? area and to list the legend separately.
Appendix E-1 172

Name/
Agency
41 8/4/08 FHWA Chapter 7 Page 126 – last sentence “development of a borderwide The sentence will be reworded as follows: "Federal agencies
U.S.-Mexico Border Master Plan” can this instead read also expressed an interest in the development of a borderwide
“development of a borderwide compendium of regional U.S.- compendium of regional U.S.-Mexico Border Master Plans."
Mexico Border Master Plans”’
Appendix E-1 173

Appendix F
Glossary
California‐Baja California Border Master Plan
Appendix F‐1 ‐ Glossary
Acronym Definition
A AADT average annual daily traffic
AAGR average annual growth rate
ADT average daily traffic
Aduanas Mexico's Customs Administration
B BINS Binational Infrastructure Needs Assessment
BRT bus rapid transit
BTTAC Bi‐State Transportation Technical Advisory Committee
C Caltrans California Department of Transporation
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
COPLADE Comité de Planeación de Desarrollo del Estado
CTC California Transportation Commission
CVEF commercial vehicle enforcement facility
D‐E DOS U.S. Department of State

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
F FDA Food and Drug Administration
Ferromex Ferrocarril Mexicano, S.A. de C.V. (Rail Line)
FHWA U.S. Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FSTIP Federal State Transportation Improvement Program
G‐I GSA U.S. General Services Administration

HOV high occupancy vehicle
IIP Interregional Improvement Program
IMIP Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Mexicali
IMPLAN Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Tijuana
INDAABIN Instituto de Administración y Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales
IVAG Imperial Valley Association of Governments
J‐L JWC joint working committee

LOS level of service
M‐N MDP millones de pesos
Appendix F-1 177

Acronym Definition
ML managed lanes
MPO metropolitan planning organization
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
O‐Q OMB Office of Management and Budget

PAC policy advisory committee
PIB producto interno bruto
PND Plan Nacional de Desarrollo
POE port of entry
R RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
S SAFETEA‐LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCT Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes
SD&AE San Diego and Arizona Eastern (Railway)
SEDESOL Secretaría de Desarrollo Social
SENTRI secure electronic network for travelers rapid inspection
SIDUE State of Baja California Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development
SIDUE Secretaría de Infraestructura y Desarrollo Uranbo del Estado
SRA strategic resource assessment
SRE Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
T‐Z TWG technical working group

UP Union Pacific (Railroad)
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
Appendix F-1 178

The 2008 Baja California Border Master Plan Disaster

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The 2008 Baja California Border Master Plan Disaster

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

California-Baja California

Border Master Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... ES-1

RESUMEN EJECUTIVO...................................................................................................................... RE-1

CHAPTER 2: STATE OF THE PRACTICE FOR PORT OF ENTRY AND

SANDAG Service Bureau i

CHAPTER 2: STATE OF THE PRACTICE FOR PORT OF ENTRY AND

CHAPTER 3: CURRENT AND PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE............. 19

CHAPTER 4: CURRENT AND PROJECTED PORT OF ENTRY CONDITIONS

ii SANDAG Service Bureau

CHAPTER 4: CURRENT AND PROJECTED PORT OF ENTRY CONDITIONS AND

CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PORT OF ENTRY AND

CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF MID- AND LONG-TERM

SANDAG Service Bureau iii

CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF MID- AND LONG-TERM

CHAPTER 7: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A BINATIONAL MASTER PLANNING PROCESS ......... 125

APPENDICES (bound under separate cover)

iv SANDAG Service Bureau

CHAPTER 3: CURRENT AND PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PORT OF ENTRY AND RELATED TRANSPORTATION

5-1 POE Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................ 77

SANDAG Service Bureau v

CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF MID- AND LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION

6-1 POE Projects – Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II POE................................................................ 84

vi SANDAG Service Bureau

2-1 California-Baja California Border Master Plan Study Area ........................................................... 18

CHAPTER 3: CURRENT AND PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE

SANDAG Service Bureau vii

4-1 Northbound Passenger Vehicle Crossings, 2000-2030 –

CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF MID- AND LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION

viii SANDAG Service Bureau

STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

SANDAG Service Bureau ES-1

 Institutionalizing the California-Baja California Master Plan Process: Establish a process to

ES-2 SANDAG Service Bureau

 U.S. Department of State (DOS)

 Secretariat of Foreign Relations (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, SRE)

SANDAG Service Bureau ES-3

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

State of the Practice

ES-4 SANDAG Service Bureau

SANDAG Service Bureau ES-5

POE AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES PROJECTS –

ES-6 SANDAG Service Bureau

Otay Mesa East-Mesa de Otay II (New POE)

SANDAG Service Bureau ES-7

San Ysidro-Puerta México/Virginia Avenue-El Chaparral POE

ES-8 SANDAG Service Bureau

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE

SANDAG Service Bureau ES-9

Calexico East-Mexicali II POE

ES-10 SANDAG Service Bureau

Andrade-Los Algodones POE

 Consider the California-Baja California Border Master Plan as a framework to prioritize

SANDAG Service Bureau ES-11

Institutionalizing the California-Baja California Border Master Plan Process

 Depending on funding, comprehensive California-Baja California Border Master Plan revisions

ES-12 SANDAG Service Bureau

 In California-Baja California, rely on Border Liaison Mechanism (BLM) Technical Commissions to

SANDAG Service Bureau ES-13

SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION IN FUTURE CALIFORNIA-

 Reaffirm the participation of executive-level managers as decision makers at the California-Baja

 Provide consistent participation of PAC members at key decision-making milestones to obtain

ES-14 SANDAG Service Bureau

Institutionalizing the California-Baja California Master Plan Process: Establish a process to

U.S. Department of State (DOS)

Secretariat of Foreign Relations (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, SRE)

Consider the California-Baja California Border Master Plan as a framework to prioritize

Depending on funding, comprehensive California-Baja California Border Master Plan revisions

In California-Baja California, rely on Border Liaison Mechanism (BLM) Technical Commissions to

Reaffirm the participation of executive-level managers as decision makers at the California-Baja

Provide consistent participation of PAC members at key decision-making milestones to obtain