Impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement on Transportation

George E. Gray

a publication of the
Norman Y. Mineta
International Institute for
Surface Transportation Policy Studies
IISTPS

1. Report No.: FHWA/CA/OR-99/18	2. Government Accession No.:	3. Recipient Catalog No.:
4. Title and Subtitle: Impact of the North American free Trade Agreement on Transportation in the Border Areas of the United States
5. Report Date: August 1999	6. Performing Organization Code:	7. Authors: George E. Gray
8. Performing Organization Report No.: IISTPS 99-2
9. Performing Organization Name and Address: Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies College of Business BT550 San José State University San Jose, CA 95192-0219
10. Work Unit No.:	11. Contract or Grant No.: 65W136
12. Sponsoring Agencies Names and Addresses: California Department of Transportation Sacramento, CA 95819	U.S. Department of Transportation Research & Special Programs Administration 400 7 th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590-0001
13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Final Report	14. Sponsoring Agency Code	15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract: The Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies (IISTPS) at San José State University conducted this study to identify impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on transportation in the U.S. border areas, with emphasis on the California-Baja California border zone. Major focus was placed on the identification of recommendations to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to improve the ability of that organization to identify and accelerate short-term implementation of the needed infrastructure improvements. The subjects covered include a literature review, identification of issues in the form of questions, discussion of the questions, and categorization of the questions as: 1. Issues not appropriate for further consideration in this study, 2. Issues recommended for action at a later date, 3. Issues addressed by others, and 4 Issues recommended for short-term action. A summary of the categorization of all the questions appears in a matrix at the end of Chapter 4, with the details presented in the body of the report. Finally, Category 4 issues, those recommended for action, are further addressed with recommendations and a brief action plan, if appropriate. The appendices include a review of work in progress, and several reference documents. This research project was financially sponsored by the U. S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration and by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
17. Key Words: NAFTA, transportation planning, U.S.-Mexico border, binational planning, international borders, international trade, ports of entry policy, transportation policy, privatization
18. Distribution Statement: No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
19. Security Classif. (of this report) Unclassified	20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified	21. No. of Pages : 284
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)		22. Price $15.00

The author wishes to thank the many people who contributed to this study not only for their
substantial assistance but also for their patience. The study was done during a three-year period of dynamic changes in transportation along the U.S.-Mexico border. The changes were the result of NAFTA, the development and eventual approval of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), changes in political administrations on both sides of the border, several other transportation studies, and governmental actions such as U.S. southbound inspections and Mexican divestiture actions (especially in reference to railroads and airports). The resulting changes are not yet complete and Phase II will, therefore, not only address subsequent issues but also review and update the issues developed herein.

The participation of the following organizations was particularly significant.
· California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Headquarters and Districts 7, 11, and 12
· San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
· Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
· Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG)
· Secretario de Asentamientos, Humanos y Obras Pœblicas del Estado de Baja California (SAHOPE)
· Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) · City of San Diego
· City of Calexico · Municipalities of Tijuana and Mexicali
· University of California, San Diego -San Diego Dialogue · IISTPS Staff
· Research Associates Art Bauer, Norman Kelley, & John Vargo

INTRODUCTION
The Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy
Studies (IISTPS) has been fortunate to receive funding, through the federal
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) and the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to conduct policy-related activities in
the areas of research, education, and information-sharing to benefit the United
States (U.S.) surface transportation industry.

In recognition of identified and suspected border area transportation needs, in
late 1995 the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Norman
Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies
(IISTPS) agreed that a review of the NAFTA-induced surface transportation
policy issues along the U.S.-Mexico border was in order. Further, it was agreed
that such a study should emphasize the impacts of NAFTA on the transportation
systems in California, that NAFTA policy issues should be liberally interpreted,
and that emphasis should be given to recommendations that could be implemented
at Caltrans discretion.

This study finds that along the U.S.-Mexico border, the enactment of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has accelerated the growth of U.S.-
Mexico trade, and indications are that this growth will continue indefinitely.

RESEARCH
The first study task was to perform a literature review as background for the
study. The original product, an annotated bibliography, has been updated and is
included.

The second task was to identify policy issues. Using the literature review as a
base, a number of questions were raised and discussed with representatives of
key agencies. It soon became obvious that the study should focus on issues of
importance along the California-Baja California border since, with the resources
available, it was not possible to consider, in any detail, the issues peculiar to the
other U.S. border states. Consequently, only transportation and infrastructure
items relating to the California-Baja California border were considered.

The resulting 53 issues were assembled in a matrix, which identified the agencies
involved for each issue and their level of involvement. The matrix includes a
categorization of the issues based on the following:

1. Issues not appropriate for further consideration in this study
2. Issues recommended for action at a later date
3. Issues addressed by others
4. Issues recommended for implementation in the near future

Of the 53 issues considered in this study, the 21 issues were relegated to category
four based on the evaluation and were further analyzed. The publication includes
discussion of the 21 issues, recommendations, and suggested action plans from
the study. The issues and recommendations are as follows:

ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Issue 1
Regarding TEA-21, Section 1106(d): Should Caltrans undertake a similar study,
especially in relation to the BZ, so as to be in a strong position to react to federal
requests for input in a timely manner?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans undertake a statewide Intermodal Freight Connectors Study to obtain input for the pending federal TEA-21, Section 1106(d) study.

Issue 2
Regarding TEA-21, Sections 1118, 1119, and 1211(I): Should Caltrans review
the State route designations to maximize federal government participation in
providing highway service to existing and proposed border crossings?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans District 11 study the state highway route continuity on Otay Mesa, and, if found logical and feasible, recommend state legislation to simplify route descriptions.

Issue 3
Regarding TEA-21, Section 1213: Should Caltrans press for major involvement
in development of the Southwest Border Transportation Infrastructure Study
through the Binational Joint Working Committee (JWC) or by other means?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans take a strong, active position with the U.S. DOT regarding this study.

Issue 6
Should there be State legislation to establish the intent of the State Highway System vis-à-vis international ports of entry?

Recommendations
It is recommended that the Streets And Highways Code, Article 3, Section 300 be revised to stipulate legislative intent regarding state highway service to international ports of entry within the state and further that all state highway routes that originate at the California-Baja California border be legislatively established as beginning at the international border or the boundary of the federal port of entry.

Issue 8
Should the California Border Zone (BZ) be defined by state legislation?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans District 11 include in its submittal for statute update. The border zone is defined as the area between the California-Baja California international border and a parallel line 100 km north.

Issue 10
How can the California-Baja California border zone transportation planning be improved?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans work with the BBTAC to develop a bistate transportation planning process.

Issue 11
Should Caltrans become more involved in the EPA Border XXI Program?

Recommendation
To improve binational transportation coordination, it is recommended that Caltrans, in cooperation with SANDAG and SCAG, work with the GNEB to address the transportation issues raised in the EPA U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program and similar border region programs monitored by the GNEB.

Issue 12
Should the California Department of Transportation obtain a legal opinion of its role in dealing with Indian Nations while fulfilling its transportation responsibilities?

Recommendation
It is recommended that the California Department of Transportation request a legal opinion of the department's role and its responsibilities in regard to the Indian Nations directly affected by the department's projects.

Issue 13
Should the California Department of Transportation take an active role in the development of the SCAG proposed Southwest Passage, and work with the other U.S.-Mexico border states to extend the Southwest Passage to cover the total border area from the California coast to the Texas gulf?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans work with SCAG and others to encourage the development and extension of the Southwest Passage as established in TEA-21, Section 1211(I)(34).

Issue 14
Should Caltrans suggest legislation to strengthen the BTTAC organization?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans, in cooperation with SANDAG and SCAG, seriously review the present BTTAC and develop suggested improvements to strengthen the BTTAC organization to better accomplish its goals.

Issue 16
Should Caltrans pursue broader legislation to promote additional toll roads?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans encourage legislation to allow either public or private toll roads within the border zone.

Issue 22
Should Caltrans proceed with the environmental studies as soon as the present corridor preservation study for Route 11 is complete?

Recommendation
Considering the long lead time for project environmental clearance, it is recommended that Caltrans commence environmental studies for this route as soon as the corridor preservation study is completed and accepted. Caltrans should also request that the GSA begin the process to authorize the required new POE.

Issue 24
Is it reasonable to make Route 11 part of Route 125 and to include it in the existing privatization project as a toll road?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans determine if this route can be included within the existing privatization franchise.

Issue 29
Should a reassessment of the designations for Routes 11 and 125 be undertaken in the Otay Mesa area?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans reassess the route designations on Otay Mesa and, if found appropriate, request legislative changes.

Issue 30
Should the State encourage SANDAG and SCAG to undertake studies of the public transportation service connections within California at the U.S.-Mexico border (including van, taxi, airport limousine, and intercity bus service)?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans urge that SCAG, IVAG, and SANDAG undertake a coordinated binational public transportation study of the California-Baja California area, focusing on coordination of the U.S. and Mexican systems.

Issue 32
How can U.S. American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements be implemented for binational pedestrian trips? (Mexico has no comparable program for elderly/handicapped users.)

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans confirm with the GSA their plans for POE ADA conformance and determine standards, if any, for accommodating the disabled at border connection points within Mexico.

Issue 39
Should the state pursue legislation to provide that all international airports be served by the State Highway System, including state highway service to Lindbergh Field in San Diego and the Calexico International Airport?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans study the state highway access at Lindbergh Field and Calexico International to determine traffic service adequacy and to take appropriate action.

Issue 45
Can air quality degradation caused by queued automobiles at the Calexico non- commercial POE be mitigated at reasonable cost?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans investigate or request an investigation of the air quality at this POE.

Issue 46
Is immediate action needed to assure that the inactive Calexico commercial POE remains with the federal government or should Caltrans request that the property be transferred to the state?

Recommendation
It is recommended that:
1. Caltrans inform the GSA of interest in this property and request that the state have first refusal on its possible disposal.
2. Caltrans contact all appropriate parties to determine possible future transportation use of the property.

Issue 47
Is action needed to assure that the Virginia Avenue property in San Diego remains with the federal government or should Caltrans request that the property be transferred to the state?

Recommendation
It is recommended that the State of California inform the GSA of its desire to have first right of refusal for ownership of the federal Virginia Avenue property.

Issue 51
Can air quality degradation caused by queued automobiles at San Ysidro Port of Entry be mitigated?

Recommendation
It is recommended that Caltrans foster the undertaking of an air quality study at the San Ysidro vehicle POE.

CONCLUSION
Most of the issues recommended for near future implementation call for Caltrans to initiate the actions, which range from proposing legislation to clarifying existing State statutes, to undertaking extensive studies of a particular issue.

A follow-up study will reconsider the issues identified in this study as well as address additional issues and assist Caltrans with the development of action plans for the 21 Category 4 issues.

BACKGROUND
The settlement of the U.S.-Mexico war by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 created a boundary with Mexico that, with the exception of the 1854 Gadsden Purchase to expand Arizona and New Mexico has adequately served both nations' interests. The original legally established border-access points have multiplied slowly over the years. Although there were border violation problems, mostly related to political turmoil, the commercial demands for ports of entry into the U.S. from Mexico were not a major factor until the latter half of the twentieth century. Trade and tourism with Mexico began robust growth in the 1960s. This growth began to change the needs for ports of entry, especially in Texas and California. In California, for instance, the growth led to studies on relieving congestion at the major Port of Entry (POE) of San Ysidro south of San Diego. These studies ultimately resulted in the opening of the Otay Mesa POE about seven miles east of San Ysidro in 1984.

Meanwhile, restrictions to free trade between the U.S. and Mexico were being liberalized. In 1966 two Mexican cabinet officials agreed to relax Mexico's strict foreign investment requirements as well as to liberalize certain customs and immigration laws. In 1971 this agreement was formalized into Mexican law as the Border Industrialization Program. These changes led to the maquiladoras industry, whereby materials imported into Mexico from the United States are assembled or manufactured in Mexico for export back to the United States with custom fees charged only on the increased product value. Mexican trade growth accelerated even further with the Mexican acceptance of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1986. U.S. exports to the maquiladora in Mexico, as a percent of total exports, grew from 12 percent in 1980 to 41 percent in 1992. In the same period maquiladora imports to the United States grew from 20 percent to 52 percent of the import trade. ¹ Maquiladora trade has grown even more since the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by Canada, the United States, and Mexico on December 17, 1992.

Even prior to NAFTA, the growth of the maquiladora industries and tourism, especially in the last decade, had already exposed problems in the existing border transportation systems. However, most of the increased traffic from the maquiladoras was associated with goods that had to be inspected at the border.

Accommodating tourists was not considered as important. The need for increasing capacity, providing for equipment inspections, and improving inspection and processing procedures were therefore not deemed a major concern. The picture Study Origin changed rapidly with the passage of NAFTA. In retrospect, the normal pre-NAFTA growth of trade and tourism would have called for a reassessment of existing facilities, albeit at a more leisurely pace.

NAFTA, with its liberalization of trade regulation and the growth of the maquiladoras and tourism, over-taxed the transportation infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico border at many locations. Problems of adequate vehicle inspections, crossing delays caused by traffic congestion, automobile pollution, and out-of-direction travel became major concerns.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the growing discussions of a possible NAFTA, the transportation agencies of the U.S.-Mexico border states began to reassess the needs for transportation infrastructure. Because passage of NAFTA was uncertain, these studies moved slowly until the actual signing in late 1992. However, transportation planning during this period was furthered by the provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, specifically by the requirements of Sections 1089 and 6015, which called for, an assessment of transportation infrastruc-ture at the border. The resulting 1994 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study ² , as presented to Congress pointed out the need for improved port of entry (POE) performance and access.
Increased NAFTA-induced trade and continued growth of tourism and border-area population, attributed largely to the maquiladora industry, have exacerbated the need for transportation service improvements. If this is not adequately addressed, transportation experts in both the public and private sectors agree that the lack of adequate surface transportation infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico border will inhibit the continued trade growth between the two countries and, therefore, their economic well-being.

The implementation of border transportation facilities, especially binational facilities, is a long and complicated process that can easily consume ten years between identified need and project completion. This manifests the need for early future needs identification to allow implementation of desired infrastructure in a timely manner.

PURPOSE
In recognition of identified and suspected border area transportation needs, in late 1995 the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies (IISTPS) agreed that a review of the NAFTA-induced surface transportation policy issues along the U.S.-Mexico border was in order. Further, it was agreed that such a study should emphasize the impacts of NAFTA on the transportation systems in California, that NAFTA policy issues should be liberally interpreted, and that emphasis should be given to recommendations that could be implemented at Caltrans' discretion. This report culminates that study and identifies recommended short-term actions largely directed towards Caltrans.

SCOPE
The original study agreement called for performing five tasks:
TASK 1
A literature review, including popular press, works in progress and omissions in the documentation.
Product: a summary of current literature.

TASK 2
Identify policy-related issues (as distinguished from technical or operational issues).
Product: a description of the key issues, the agencies involved, and the implications.

TASK 3
Identify the opportunities and challenges for interstate and international collaboration.
Product: a refined description of the key issues, the agencies involved, and the implications.

TASK 4
Identify areas where State authority may be compromised or enhanced by NAFTA implementation, with recommendations for action.
Product: a description of the possible impacts on the State of California, with recommendations for action.

TASK 5
Draft and final reports.
Product: a draft report submitted to IISTPS for peer-review revision and publication.

All the above tasks, except for Task 5--the final report--were completed and submitted as interim reports by March 1998. The final report was delayed pending reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The reauthorization was accomplished with the President's signing of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) on June 9, 1998.

This study concentrates on issues which can be implemented by Caltrans in the short term (one to five years).

This report is a revision of a document released on March 30, 1998. It includes updated material on the implications and opportunities resulting from the enactment of TEA-21.

METHODOLOGY
The first order of work was to compile an annotated bibliography of documents related to the study. This was submitted to Caltrans. Then, using the bibliography as a springboard, many interviews were held with experts in the U.S.-Mexico transportation sector. These were representatives of the federal, state, county, and city levels of government as well as the private sector, including chambers of commerce and academia. More than 100 interview were made and numerous meetings of various organizations were attended.

Based on these interviews and meetings, a basic listing of topics, including both potential issues and current actions, was formulated and shared with Caltrans, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG), the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, the County of Imperial, and the San Diego Dialogue to obtain their comments and suggestions on the identified topics. The resultant material comprises the core of the study and was the basis of two interim reports. The interim reports categorized the major topics and identified the issues recommended for short-term implementation by Caltrans.

Subsequently, these recommendations were submitted as a draft final report to the key contacts in Caltrans, SANDAG, SCAG, City of San Diego, and San Diego Dialogue, for their review and comment. This final report incorporates their reviews, adds some new material, mostly concerning the new programs resulting from passage of TEA-21, and lays the groundwork for the future study.

TEAM
The study team was composed of IISTPS Research Associates, George Gray, team leader, and Arthur Bauer, with valuable input from the IISTPS Research Director, William Derrick. The following individuals contributed substantially to the study and could be considered as ad hoc team members; although, they are not responsible for the contents of this report.

California Department of Transportation, District 11
Gary Gallegos -Director
Carl West -Deputy Director
Gene Pound -Transportation Planning, now retired
Sergio Pallares -International Border Studies
Mark Baza -Transportation Planning
Benita Gray -Volunteer Librarian
City of San Diego
Larry Van Wey -Senior Caltrans Coordinator
San Diego Association of Governments
Nan Valerio -Senior Regional Planner
San Diego Dialogue
Dr. Charles Nathanson, Director
The staff involved in the completion of the Annotated Bibliography are as given
in the introduction to that section.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN CALIFORNIA
The status of the current transportation infrastructure in California is summarized in the following sections: designated road systems, highways, public transportation, rail service, seaports, goods movement, and ports of entry. This chapter also discusses several recently completed or on-going studies of the border area transportation systems.

Designated Road Systems
Over the years, the system of streets, roads, and highways within the State has been identified in a number of ways. Some of the categories are of little consequence or are mainly descriptive (e.g., Blue Star Memorial Highways and State Scenic Highways). Several categories, however, determine funding availability. A particular state route may be included in several of the different funding systems.

In general, local streets are under the jurisdiction of cities, rural roads under county government and highways under state control. Except for the Otay Mesa Port of Entry in the City of San Diego, all of the existing POEs in California are directly served by the State Highway System (SHS). The SHS was established by state legislation and it is intended that the routes of the State Highway System Reserve the state's heavily traveled rural and urban corridors, that they connect the communities and regions of the state, and that they serve the state's economy by connecting centers of commerce, industry, agriculture, mineral wealth, and recreation.³ Major highways serving the border area are shown in Exhibit 2.1a and b.

· Freeway and Expressway System
· National Highway System
· Interregional Road System
· Intermodal Corridors of Economic Significance
· NAFTA Network and International Border Trade Corridor Program
· Southwest Passage System

Freeway and Expressway System (F&E)
This system was established by California state legislation and includes most major state routes. In the border zone (BZ), the significant routes are Interstate routes I-5, I-8, and I-15, state routes SR-56 and SR-125, a portion of SR-94, and the portion of SR 905 from east of Interstate 5 to the international boundary south of Brown Field. It is the legislative intent that the routes in the F&E system be constructed as freeways or expressways.

National Highway System (NHS)
The NHS was authorized by the 1991 ISTEA and its designated routes include all the routes in the Interstate system and some urban and rural routes. This system was established by federal legislation in 1995. State routes in this system that affect the border are Interstate routes I-5, I-8, and I-15 and state routes SR- 7, SR-94, SR-125 (from SR-905 to Interstate 8), SR-186, SR-188, and the eastern portion of SR-905. SR-11 is not yet on the NHS system, but meets the criteria for inclusion. Priority federal funding of routes on the NHS system is provided by ISTEA reauthorization legislation.

Interregional Road System (IRRS)
This system is established by California state legislation and identifies "projects on which construction can be started not later than June 30, 2000, which will provide the most adequate interregional system to all economic centers of the state." ⁴ Routes on this system that affect the border are Interstate routes I-5, I-8 and I-15 and state routes SR-94, SR-188, and SR-905 outside the urban limits of San Diego.

Intermodal Corridors of Economic Significance (ICES) System
This network was established by California state legislation to emphasize the corridors that are most essential to the California economy in terms of national and international trade. (See Exhibits 2.1a and 2.1b.) Routes in this system are designed to provide access between major freight intermodal facilities and to serve freight traffic. Routes in this system include Interstate Routes I-5, I-8, I- 15, I-805, and I-905 and State Routes SR-7 and SR-111.

NAFTA Network and International Border Trade Corridor (IBTC)
The NAFTA network was identified by Caltrans in 1996 as routes of statewide significance to facilitate and increase trade, ensure safe cross-border trucking, and to improve the multimodal transportation network leading to the major international border crossings (Exhibit 2.2). The network consists of highways and rail services intended to provide for the movement of both goods and people.

The IBTC program has replaced the NAFTA Network. It is basically the same system and has the same goal of better service to the POEs. (See Exhibit 2.2 for a map of this system.)

Southwest Passage (SP) System
The Southwest Passage System was established by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and has been endorsed by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). This system is designated to improve goods movements between the Southern California coast and the Gulf coast of Texas. Interstate 8 is the major element of this network within the California BZ. This system is designated in the TEA-21 legislation for inclusion in the priority corridors program.

High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System
This program was established by Section 1105 of ISTEA to assure adequate service to meet regional travel and economic needs. It was felt that "the development of transportation corridors is the most efficient and effective way of integrating regions and improving efficiency and safety of commerce and travel and further promoting economic development."⁵ The original program included I-15. TEA-21 added the portion of Interstate 5 within the BZ and the portion of "State Route 905 between Interstate Route 5 and the Otay Mesa Port of Entry" and "I-8 from San Diego to the Arizona State line" to this system.⁶

Highways Described
With few exceptions, the highway system in the California BZ is mature and ubiquitous although continued growth of the area is putting increased pressure on the system and congestion continues to spread. The highway system within the BZ of Baja California is not as developed as it is on the U.S. side but is receiving increased attention from the Mexican government. Generally, highways in Mexico can be constructed in a much shorter time than in the U.S.

Status of the Highways
The following section describes the major routes and their status within the BZ that serve the California border POEs either directly or indirectly. (See Exhibit 2.2.)

Interstate 5
Legislative description: "Route 5 is from the international boundary near Tijuana to the Oregon state line via National City, San Diego, Los Angeles..."⁷

Status: This route is an existing full freeway on the Interstate and National Highway Systems. Through the border zone, the only major project contemplated in the near future is the major widening of I-5 at the I-805 Sorrento Valley junction, including the SR-56 interchange.

At the international border with Mexico, there is the possibility of modifications to the route to improve the binational traffic problems at the POE to provide for increased inspections of southbound traffic and especially to improve traffic conditions in Tijuana. The now abandoned Virginia Avenue General Services Administration (GSA) property could be used to accommodate rerouting of the southbound lanes of Interstate 5 to improve traffic handling in the City of Tijuana.

The Virginia Avenue Border Crossing Feasibility Study covers this possible project
and includes several alternatives.⁸ , and the Virginia Avenue Border Crossing Feasibility Study by SOHA Engineering for the GSA presents the federal proposal
for the project.⁹

The latter study recommends shifting the southbound lanes of Interstate 5 to accommodate requirements for identification of each alien leaving the country. This Congressional mandate requires a new set of facilities for southbound inspections, including primary inspection booths and secondary inspection areas, but these requirements may be changed by pending legislation. To complicate the situation, a private sector proposal called the "International Gateway of the Americas" project, which would include this area, is being developed. It is questionable whether this project, as proposed, will adequately accommodate traffic growth at this POE for more than a few years. Departments within the
City of San Diego and others, including Caltrans, are calling for a binational traffic study in order to assure the adequacy of this and other proposed developments.

State Route 7
Legislative description: "Route 7 is from the northerly boundary of the Federal Port of Entry, a new International Border crossing near Calexico, to Route 8 near El Centro." ¹⁰

Status: The portion of this route north of the East Calexico POE is a recently completed four-lane conventional highway between the POE and SR-98. The portion north of SR-98 to SR-8 is not constructed, but is now fully funded utilizing state and federal funding sources.

(a) Sunset Cliffs Boulevard to Route 5 in San Diego.
(b) Route 5 in San Diego to Yuma via El Centro."¹¹
Status: This route is fully developed as an Interstate freeway and is on the NHS system. No major projects on this route are contemplated in the foreseeable future.

However, a new POE near Jacumba in the U.S. and Jaquene, Mexico, with highway connections between this route and Mexico's Route 2 (presently being upgraded to a toll road between Tecate and Mexicali) may be feasible and warranted to improve traffic circulation and redundancy in this mountainous portion of the region. (See Exhibit 2.2.)

State Route 11
Legislative authority: "Route 11 is from the northerly border of the new Federal Port of Entry and east of the Otay Mesa Port of Entry to near the junction of Route 125 and Route 905." ¹²

Status: This route was added to the State Highway System in 1994 and is unconstructed, as is "the new Federal Port of Entry." It is intended as a future route to a POE to accommodate border traffic growth in the San Diego-Tijuana area. (See Exhibit 2.2.) Caltrans is currently developing a corridor preservation study to protect the route alignment from inordinate development. This is a needed first step for implementing the route.

State Route 15
Legislative description:
"Route 15 is from:
(a) Route 5 in San Diego to Route 8.
(b) Route 8 to the Nevada state line near Stateline, Nevada via the vicinity of Temecula, Corona, Ontario, Victorville, and Barstow."¹³

Status: The last freeway portion of this route is currently under construction in the City of San Diego. Existing freeway portions of the route, especially between SR-163 and SR-78 are heavily congested in peak hours. Caltrans is presently developing alternative plans to address this problem. The route is mentioned here in connection with possible extension of SR 125 north of SR-56, and it is included in the high-priority corridors on the National Highway System as established by ISTEA and perpetuated by TEA-21.

State Route 56
Legislative description: "Route 56 is from Route 5 north of La Jolla to Route
67."¹⁴

Status: The short segments from near SR-5 to two miles east and from Black Mountain Road to Route 15 exist as sections of freeway. The remainder of the route is unconstructed. There is considerable pressure to construct the portion of the route between I-5 and I-15 soon to provide congestion relief and to shorten many trips between the inland north San Diego area and the coast. The City of San Diego is progressing with environmental studies for this work, but complete funding is not in place, although TEA-21 provides some potential funding. Therefore, the City is considering staged development, with initial construction as a four-lane expressway. This route is the proposed northern terminus of SR- 125, which is projected to carry significant volumes of border-related traffic and, as such, is needed to tie I-5 and I-15 to future SR-125.

State Routes 94 and 188
Legislative descriptions: "Route 94 is from Route 5 near San Diego to Route 8 west of Jacumba via Campo, and Route 188 is from the international boundary near Tecate to Route 94."¹⁵

Status: Both routes are conventional two-lane highways outside the urban areas. SR-94 from I-5 to east of SR-125 is an existing freeway. The western portion of SR-94 and all of SR-188 are in mountainous terrain. The cost to provide four lanes for SR-188 and SR-94 west of the junction of SR-54 is estimated to be from $215 million to $320 million in current dollars. Heavy truck traffic on these two routes is growing, spurred by the growth of the number of maquiladora plants in the Tecate area. (See Exhibit 2.3.)

Recent legislation calls for Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol to study whether trucks hauling trailers are a safety hazard for school buses on parts of SR-94. ¹⁶

State Route 111
Legislative description: Route 11 has three legislative sections. The applicable section (a) is codified as follows:
"Route 11 is from:
(a) The international boundary south of Calexico to Route 78 near Brawley, passing east of Heber."

Status: This route is being updated as traffic growth occurs. It presents no significant problems at this time except, as discussed later, in connection with its point of origin being the actual border with Mexico and not the northerly boundary of the Calexico West POE.

(a) Route 905 near Brown Field to Route 54.
(b) Route 54 to Route 94 near La Mesa.
(c) Route 94 near La Mesa to Route 56."¹⁷

Status: Section (a) does not presently exist. The northern end of this segment is to be funded from the County of San Diego half-cent sales tax fund and federal funds, while the eleven-mile majority of this section is proposed as a privatized toll road under the authority of state legislation allowing a franchise agreement. The Environmental Impact Statement and the Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for this section are nearing federal approval.

Section (b) is currently being designed and will be constructed from San Diego County's half-cent sales tax fund and with state and federal highway funds.

Section (c) has been built, is being programmed, or is under construction to SR- 52. North of SR-52, it is not constructed and, at present, planning for this segment has not been funded.

State Route 125 is a major proposed highway connection that would directly link the Otay Mesa crossing with the San Diego region's interstate freeway network. The total cost of SR 125 improvements will be approximately $1 billion. Much of the rationale for the improvements to SR 125, especially the toll portion, is to open land for development in the South Bay area of San Diego County. Nevertheless, the improvements will provide border-oriented trucking with an efficient route to the international crossing, relieving traffic on adjacent highways.

State Route 186
Legislative description: "Route 186 is from the international boundary near lgodones to Route 8."¹⁸

Status: This route exists as a conventional highway within the Quechan Indian Nation. The use of this route is growing, especially in the winter when many vacationing people seek services in the Mexican border town of Algodones.

The municipal government of Mexicali is considering modification of the traffic routing in Algodones, including a new road on the east side of town along the Colorado River. They propose a new POE on this route, which would, on the U.S. side of the border, be between the Alamo and Colorado Rivers and necessitate a new road between this proposed POE and Route 186 through the Quechan Indian Nation.

(a) the International Boundary near Border Field northeasterly to Route 5.
(b) Route 5 near the south end of San Diego Bay to the International Boundary southerly of Brown Field."¹⁹

The (a) portion of this route as described is unconstructed and, as it would traverse the environmentally sensitive Tijuana River flood plain, its eventual construction is doubtful.

The other portion is partly constructed. From I-5 to east of Route 805, it is a freeway. From that point to about one mile north of the international border is unconstructed. The last mile of the route to the POE is an expressway. The unconstructed central portion of this route is currently under design and environmental studies. Partial funding for the proposed eventual six-lane full freeway is included in TEA-21. Upon completion, the route will be designated a part of the Interstate system and signed as I-905 and will link the POE to I-5 and I-05 as well as the proposed SR-125 private toll road. The (a) portion of the
legislative description of the route is included in the priority corridor program in Section 1105 of TEA-21.

Public Transportation
In general, urban areas within the border zone of California are well-served by public transportation. This study will confine itself to identification of public transportation issues regarding public services to the border POEs and coordination with similar services in Baja California.

Except for the San Ysidro-El Chaparral POE of the San Diego-Tijuana complex and the POE in Calexico, the POEs on the California-Baja California border are underserved by public transportation. Even the major POE at San Ysidro has poor connections between the public transportation services in the two countries. The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) provides light rail and bus services to this crossing and has proposed upgrading the area for better service.

The "International Gateway of the Americas" proposal by the private sector for San Ysidro shows promise to upgrade this major U.S.-Mexico border crossing. Such a development may preclude needed transportation improvements to upgrade the traffic and public transportation service.

A City of Tijuana proposed study of transportation in their center city is expected to address public transportation needs at length and to include an LRT system.

Public transit services to the Otay Mesa area, including the POE, have recently been upgraded by MTDB and future proposals for the area include light rail service.

With the possible exception of Calexico-Mexicali public transit service to the other POEs is relatively unimportant because there is low demand for public transit at those facilities.

Rail Service
At present, the California-Baja California border is served by two railroads: the Union Pacific (UP), which has a connection to the Mexican railroad system in downtown Calexico; and the MTDB-owned San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) within California, which is operated under contract by the San Diego and Imperial Valley (SDIV) railroad. The SDIV crisscrosses the border (Exhibit 2.5) but does not provide service east of Jacumba because of damaged track between that point and the connection to the UP system at Plaster City. The Mexican portion of the route is currently owned by the federal government of Mexico.

A study by Caltrans in 1995, Calexico/Coachella Valley/Los Angeles Rail Corridor Study, Final Draft ²⁰ , found that passenger rail service in this corridor should be pursued under certain conditions. (See the Annotated Bibliography.) After this study was written the UP purchased the Southern Pacific (SP) and, in collaboration with Mexican interests, was awarded a franchise by the Mexican Government to operate the newly created Pacific Northern rail system in Mexico. In February 1998 this system was joined to the UP tracks at Calexico. The privatization of this portion of the Mexican railways, known as Ferromex, bodes favorably for increased freight and passenger rail services through Calexico. Passenger service already exists from Mexicali to Mexico City, but may be modified with the privatization.

A 1996 SANDAG report titled, Economic Feasibility Study of the San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway ²¹ has recommended reopening the closed portion of this service and funding for this is being sought. This SANDAG report also investigated, but recommends against, possible rail service via spur track to Otay Mesa. (See the Annotated Bibliography.) This recommendation may need to be reevaluated if a suggested rail connection between the Mexican Port of Ensenada and the existing rail line is implemented. SANDAG has been recently funded to update and expand the marketing portion of this 1996 study.

The Mexican government previously requested bids for the purchase of the portion of this line located in Mexico but was unable to reach agreement with either of the two bidders. It is expected that a second bidding will be offered in early 1999.

TEA-21 provides funds for the construction of a multimodal terminal on the SD&AE.

At present, San Diego rail service to the Los Angeles area is provided only by Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF). This lack of rail competition has been cited by many as an impediment to the growth of commerce and industry and to the Port of San Diego.²²

Airports
A listing of the California airports which provide international service is given in Exhibit 2.5.

In very general terms, airports will be impacted by NAFTA mostly in the expected growth of air cargo.

Several of the state's international airports are experiencing severe growing pains, especially Los Angeles International and Ontario International. Opportunities for air cargo growth at some of the outlying facilities, such as Brown Field in San Diego and Calexico International, are apparent. A study of a possible cross-border air terminal on Otay Mesa is currently underway. This study considers the feasibility of a joint San Diego-Tijuana effort to create an airport network from San DiegoÕs Lindbergh Field to TijuanaÕs Rodriguez Field and increasing cargo and general aviation activities at Brown Field on Otay Mesa.

The issue of future airports for the San Diego area has been discussed for many years. In our judgment, the need for added passenger and cargo air service in the San Diego-Tijuana area should be addressed binationally to maximize investment, and to improve capacity, effectiveness and efficiency.

Seaports
The Los Angeles/Long Beach Seaport complex is a key node in the flow of imports and exports between the Far East and the U.S. Although these seaports are outside the BZ, their problems are influenced by trade between the U.S. and Mexico. An in-depth analysis of seaports is beyond the resources of this study but issues that involve seaports and the highway system are covered when appropriate.

Goods Movement
The Caltrans Division of Transportation Planning is working on a study entitled, Goods Movement Transportation System Issues ²³ . We did not include that element of NAFTA impact on the California BZ in this study.

However, it should be noted that the goals of Caltrans as presented in the State Transportation Plan, the decisions of local governments regarding land use, and the actions of other state and local governmental agencies are not adequately coordinated to provide complete solutions to goods transportation issues.

Section 1106(d) of TEA-21 calls for an Intermodal Freight Connectors Study to be completed by the Secretary of Transportation and presented to Congress within two years of the ActÕs passage. This study is to review the National Highway System (NHS) connections to serve seaports, airports, and other intermodal freight transportation facilities. The study is to identify highway connector impediments to the "efficient movement of freight, including movements of freight between modes" ²⁴ and to include recommendations.

Ports of Entry (POEs)
The POE complexes along the California-Baja California border are Andrade- Algodones, Calexico-Mexicali, Tecate-Tecate, and San Diego-Tijuana. Two of the complexes have more than one crossing.

Andrade-Algodones POE
This POE is served by Route 186, a conventional two-lane highway that runs through the Quechan Nation. This is a minor POE with limited service hours.
Only local commercial traffic is accommodated. In the last few years, pedestrian and auto use of this crossing has shown a healthy growth, especially in winter when vacationing U.S. and Canadian visitors seek services in the Mexican town of Algodones. The U.S. governmentÕs General Services Adminis-tration (GSA) has limited funding available for improving this facility.

Calexico-Mexicali POE
The Calexico-Mexicali POE complex includes two crossings, one in the central district of Calexico (Exhibit 2.6a) and one in the county area about seven miles easterly (Exhibit 2.6b). This second crossing is a new facility, which serves all the commercial traffic as well as auto crossings. Previously, commercial traffic was serviced adjacent to the crossing in central Calexico.

The complex in Calexico includes a rail connection between the Union Pacific and what was the Ferrocarriles Nacionales de Mexico (FNM) Pacific Northern line and is now the private railroad, Ferromex.

Tecate-Tecate POE
The Tecate-Tecate POE (Exhibit 2.3) currently consists of a single crossing near the center of the Mexican City of Tecate. A new U.S. inspection facility is expected to be under construction soon. There have been coordination problems in providing the road connection to this new facility, but these problems are near esolution. Hours of service and the StateÕs position of discouraging commercial use of this crossing because of safety concerns on State Routes 188 and 94 are the major issues related to this POE.

San Diego-Tijuana POE
The San Diego-Tijuana POE complex includes three major operating elements, one closed facility, and one proposed facility. The closed facility (Exhibit 2.7a) 3 is the commercial POE at Virginia Avenue, west of Highway I-5. This property remains in the GSA inventory. Caltrans, SANDAG, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), the City of San Diego, and the private sector, as well as the City of Tijuana, are involved in determining the best use of this property.

The San Ysidro-Puerto Mexico portion of this POE complex (Exhibit 2.7b) is said to be the busiest binational crossing in the world (based on person crossings). Waits of twenty minutes for northbound autos are the rule, but longer waits are common. Northbound traffic crossing into the U.S. from Mexico often backs up into the City of Tijuana street system at peak periods. This congestion causes heightened air pollution and noise. Agencies on both sides of the border have efforts underway to improve the situation.

The southbound traffic backup to cross into Mexico is an infrequent problem. However, recently enacted federal legislation which requires U.S. recording of identification of each alien leaving the country significantly changes the inspection facility needs for southbound traffic.

The Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay crossing (Exhibit 2.7c) operates with less backup and southbound lanes often experience no delay at all. The northbound facility is the site of several demonstration programs utilizing advanced technology to increase vehicle throughput.

The Otay Mesa Commercial POE completes the complex. It also is the site of several projects to improve operations., including a direct connection to the nearby California Highway Patrol vehicle inspection facility.

The entire complex is well-documented in the recently completed Binational Border Transportation Planning and Programming Study, specifically in Task 3: Most Significant Ports of Entry Case Study: San Diego-Tijuana Port of Entry System. ²⁵

SANDAG Border Planning Study
In 1994 SANDAG contracted with the consultant firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. (HR&A) to conduct a study entitled The International Border Transportation Case Study: Meeting the Challenges of Binational Highway Planning and Financing in the San Diego-Tijuana/Tecate Border Region. The study was significant and most of its findings are still germane. (See Annotated Bibliography.)

Among other things, the HR&A reports identified four institutional options for improving transportation planning coordination in the San Diego-Tijuana/Tecate area. They are as follows:
· establishing a binational border transportation working group,
· expanding SANDAGÕs role to more explicitly encompass cross-border policy planning and implementation,
· establishing a San Diego/Tijuana binational border transportation policy commission, and
· establishing a San Diego land port authority.²⁶
The first of these options has been implemented to some extent with the establishment of the Bistate Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (BTTAC).

These four options could also be applied to the remainder of the SANDAG portion of the border (San Diego County) and modified to apply to the SCAG portion of the border (Imperial County).

The federal government is a major source of funding for state transportation planning and for the implementation of specific projects. Although it does not take direct responsibility for transportation planning, federal legislation provides overall requirements that must be met for state and local governments to qualify for federal funds. However, the federal government does have primary responsibility for the POE facilities at the border crossings. These facilities often have direct impacts on nearby highways. The access routes are usually built and managed by state or local governments. This bifurcation of authority and responsibility has created significant problems along the U.S.-Mexico border, including the California-Baja California border crossings.

The General Services Administration
The (GSA), an independent federal agency, has prime responsibility for the physical port of entry facilities and considers the POE operating agencies as its major clients. This has often been to the detriment of adequate access to and from the facilities. The GSAÕs major planning tool for POEs is a ten-project nationwide priority list which is periodically updated. At present, the states are not part of the ten-project selection process, and since GSA does not usually include adequate off-property egress facilities in their project development, this has led to several significant traffic service problems.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, operates under U.S. Code 23. Its primary mission is to ensure that the nationÕs highway system is safe, meets defense needs, and provides for the movement of goods and services efficiently and economically, and that due consideration is given to the systemÕs impacts on the physical, social, and economic environment. Its principal responsibilities include

· administering federal-aid funding programs;
· promoting safety and environmental aspects;
· providing technical assistance;
· directing research and development programs;
· providing basic data, training, and technology information;
· administering a Motor Safety Assistance Program, which includes safety inspections of trucks and buses; and
· directly administering federal highways in national parks, monuments, forests, and Indian reservations.

Good Neighbor Environmental Board
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) was established by federal legislation and reports biannually to Congress. The GNEB recognizes that, "An interagency process is needed that provides more authority to agencies to coordinate and integrate their border program and project activities, to budget jointly for cooperative projects, to leverage appropriations, to develop interagency funding agreements, to provide multi-agency grants, and to permit utilization of federal funds in both countries to make projects truly binational and sustainable." ²⁷

An extensive program to coordinate environmental binational programs has been implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its Mexican counterpart. Its goals, as reported in the U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Program Executive Summary of October 1996, are "to achieve a clean environment, protect public health and natural resources, and encourage sustainable development." ²⁸

An overall description and background of this effort follows:
The Border XXI Program (Border XXI or Program) is an innovative binational effort which brings together the diverse U.S. and Mexican federal entities responsible for the border environment to work cooperatively toward sustainable development through protection of human health and the environment and proper management of natural resources in both countries.²⁹

In the Background portion of this document, it states:
In order to protect, improve, and conserve the environment of the border region, in 1983 both governments signed the Agreement for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area (La Paz Agreement) which provided a formal foundation for cooperative environmental efforts. The La Paz Agreement defined the border region as the area lying 100 kilometers to the north and south of the U.S.-Mexico boundary.

In February of 1992, the environmental authorities of both governments released the Integrated Environmental Plan for the Mexican-U.S. Border Area (IBEP). As the next phase of binational planning the Border XXI Program builds on the efforts of the IBEP and increases the scope to include environmental health and natural resource issues.

In 1993, U.S.-Mexico cooperative activities were further enhanced by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and related environmental agreements. In one such agreement, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADBank) were created to develop, certify, and finance environmental infrastructure projects in the border area between the U.S. and Mexico. ³⁰

The GNEB advises the Border XXI Program.
U.S.-Mexico Binational Bridges and Border Crossings Group The U.S.-Mexico Binational Bridges and Border Crossings Group (BBBCG), a U.S.-Mexico committee, formed in 1983, meets semi-annually to consider border crossing and facility problems. U.S. members are the State Department (which shares the chair with its Mexican counterpart), the General Services Administration, the Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, the International Boundary and Water Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture. The representatives of both nations comprise the voting membership with state representatives participating as observers only.

The first portion of their biannual meetings is open to the public and allows project sponsors, including state and local governments, to present information or proposals. The second part is not open to the public and considers technical issues. Prior to the meetings of this binational group, the U.S. participants meet as a U.S. Interagency Working Group on Bridges and Border Crossings (IWG), chaired by the Coordinator of U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs, Office of Mexican Affairs, U.S. Department of State. This group coordinates policy, fosters communications, and comments on proposed new or revised POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border. It also serves as staff to the Binational Bridges and Border Crossings Group. The IWG allows state participation as observers at some of
their deliberations.

Binational Transportation Planning Joint Working Committee
The Binational Transportation Planning Joint Working Committee (JWC) committee was formed to guide the Barton-Aschman, et. al. study (BBTPP Study). The membership includes the four U.S. and six Mexican states that abut the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S. Department of State, and the FHWA.

It is recognized that the BBTPP Study did not establish a joint U.S.-Mexico border transportation planning and programming process (the key objective of the study as envisioned in the Memorandum of Understanding on the Planning Process for Land Transport on Each Side of the Border as signed by the U.S. and Mexico April 29, 1994). The U.S. Joint Working Committee (JWC), which was formed to guide the study, is expected to formulate methods to encourage the U.S. and Mexican involved parties to exchange information, technical data, and improved planning methods, and to take other actions to improve transportation planning.

The future of the Joint Working Committee is not clear. Suggestions have ranged from its abolition to formation of a replacement binational oversight organization with strong federal representation of both nations to further the goals of the BBTPP Study. With the trend towards the delegation of transportation planning and development to lower levels of government or to the private sector in both the U.S. and Mexico, it becomes critical that the lower levels of both governments develop and maintain increased abilities in the field of transportation.

In Baja California there is evidence that this need is recognized at both the state and municipio levels. In California, the State has traditionally played a dominant role in planning, especially of highways, as authorized by state and federal legislation. However, recent state legislation, as discussed later in this report, has significantly altered their responsibilities and the private sector is increasingly involved in providing transportation infrastructure.

In our judgment, TEA-21 does not provide an adequate BZ program for border transportation infrastructure. The future of projects to strengthen trade between the U.S and Mexico remains clouded, and the piecemeal competitive practices between local governments and even state governments may continue. At present, the California State government as a whole is not a leader in providing for increased trade between the two Californias, and both SCAG and SANDAG have only recently identified the need for increased involvement.

Other Federal Agencies
Other federal agencies are involved in POE implementation, development, operation, and improvement but, with the exception of the Federal Transit Administration, none are directly involved in transportation serving the facilities, and each agency is concerned primarily with issues and problems unique to its statutory authorities. It is important to realize that no single federal agency has overall responsibility to coordinate the federal policies and procedures within a POE.

OTHER TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation, commonly known as Caltrans, has primary responsibility for the State's transportation program. Caltrans is authorized under California Government Code 14001 as part of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, which reports directly to the Governor.

Caltrans transportation planning activities are concentrated in the various districts with the headquarters planning group serving primarily as an analytical unit, working to assure the state meets federal requirements such as those established by ISTEA and TEA-21.

Within the twelve Districts of Caltrans, project planning and implementation procedures are essentially as stated in the Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. (HR&A) Technical Memorandum #1: Description of the U.S./California and Mexico/Baja California Highway Planning Procedures and Processes, of The International Border Transportation Case Study, and the Task 4 report (The U.S. Transportation Planning and Programming Process) of the Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. and La Empresa, S. de R.L. report. (See the Annotated Bibliography)

As a result of 1997 State legislation (SB 45) the transportation planning and programming process within California is under revision. This bill is a fundamental reform of the prioritization and programming process for state funded investment in new transportation facilities, including State highways. The intent of SB 45 is to simplify the programming process and assign primary responsibility for regional transportation systems to regional agencies such as the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG). It creates both opportunities and risks for the funding of border-related highway facilities. A review of the changes in funding and the prioritization and programming process as they affect the border follows.

Prior to SB 45 the following eight funding programs existed for Caltrans projects:
· Flexible Congestion Relief
· Interregional Roads
· Urban, Commuter, and Intercity Rail
· Transportation System Management
· Transit Capital Improvement
· State-Local Partnership
· Retrofit Soundwalls
· Grade Separation
With the enactment of SB 45, the eight program categories have been merged
into two categories,
· the Regional Improvement Program (RIP) and
· the Interregional Improvement Program (IIP).
The legislation also revamps certain aspects of the allocation formulas. Although the North-South split and county distribution formulas remain, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) no longer has a discretionary category of funding. This diminishes the ability of the CTC to influence the allocation of funds to projects.

The new programming process works as follows. First, deductions are made from the State Highway Account (SHA) for Caltrans' annual administrative costs, expenditure for State highway maintenance, operations, and rehabilitation, and highway safety. The remaining funds are then available for capital outlay. SB 45 designates that 75 percent of the remaining SHA funds be committed to the RIP and 25 percent to the IIP. The RIP funds are allocated on the basis of the North-South Split and a guarantee to each county based on a formula that takes into account population and miles of State highways. This latter calculation is referred to as the "County Share." In addition, federal funds that a county may receive for demonstration projects are required to be deducted from its county-share allocation. ³¹

The Regional Improvement funds are available for programming by regional
transportation planning agencies to the following types of projects:

· state highways;
· grade separations;
· transportation system management projects; · transportation demand management projects;
· soundwalls;
· rail transit projects, subject to the provisions of Article XIX of the State Constitution*;
· intermodal facilities;
· local streets and roads; and
· pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

* Article XIX generally defines the uses for motor vehicle fuel tax revenues. In regard to rail projects, the funds cannot be used for operating subsidies nor for rolling stock.

The Interregional Improvement Program expenditure priorities for 60 percent of the funds are determined by Caltrans for improvements to the Interregional Road network in the state's rural areas (counties with populations of less than 50,000 persons) and for intercity passenger rail projects. The revenues committed to this program are not constrained by allocation formulas. The interregional highway projects would have to be consistent with the regional plans in rural counties. Caltrans also determines the expenditure priorities for the remaining 40 percent of the funds. According to SB 45, these funds "shall be used for transportation improvement projects that are needed to facilitate interregional movement of people and goods. The projects may include state highway, intercity passenger rail, mass transit guideway, or grade separation projects." ³² The discretionary funds support economic development objectives and unusual projects that might not be funded from the other revenue categories. These funds are subject to the North-South allocation formula but not the county share allocations. Caltrans and a regional agency may propose to combine RIP funds with the discretionary funds to finance a particularly expensive project that meets the project criteria that Caltrans must follow. (See Exhibit 3.1.)

Prior to SB 45, the centerpiece of the programming process was the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a seven-year transportation capital outlay program. The STIP was essentially a state transportation investment program adopted every two years by the CTC. The regional agencies, including SANDAG and SCAG, throughout the state would propose projects from their Regional Transportation Improvement programs to the CTC. Similarly, Caltrans would propose projects to the CTC from the proposed STIP. The CTC would select the projects to be included in the STIP.

SB 45 significantly modifies this process. Under SB 45, the regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs), which in the urban areas are synonymous with the federally designated metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are entirely responsible for programming projects funded by RIP funds in their areas of jurisdiction. The expenditure programs developed by the RTPAs are no longer recommendations to the CTC for inclusion in the STIP. The program adopted by RTPAs must be included in the STIP by the CTC. If there is a project in a regional program with which the CTC is dissatisfied, the commission must reject the entire regional program. As a practical matter, this is unlikely to occur.

Until the enactment of SB 45, the STIP included the construction and right-of- way costs of projects. Now the STIP will include the cost of environmental studies; the securing of permits; preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates; the acquisition of rights of way; and construction management and engineering, including surveys and inspections. Although this increases overall project fiscal accountability from inception to construction, it also means that regional agencies will be required to be concerned with the overall cost of project development, not only construction costs. Except for Self-Help Counties * , project development and construction engineering costs have not been a concern of regional agencies.

For San Diego County, SANDAG, the metropolitan planning organization and regional transportation planning agency for the San Diego metropolitan area, has been programming both local and State funds for border-crossing highway improvements for several years. The primary transportation issue at the U.S.- Mexico border is to build highway infrastructure to accommodate traffic from Mexico. Approximately 1,600 trucks per day cross the border in San Diego County. ³³ According to SANDAG, 13 percent of the truck traffic entering the county from Mexico is destined for loading docks in the county. The remaining 87 percent of the trucks are destined for markets outside the county. SANDAG
further reports that 93 percent of the tonnage crossing the border is bound for communities outside the county. Clearly, the border issue from a local perspective is to find ways of alleviating traffic being generated by NAFTA trade. The direct economic benefit to San Diego is related mostly to the trade, and subsequent traffic, generated by the maquiladora industry located in the county.

Prior to the adoption of SB 45, SANDAG's region was scheduled to have a programming target for the seven-year 1998 STIP of $127 million. In addition, SANDAG could have proposed projects to be funded from a CTC discretionary fund for Southern California of $75 million. With the passage of SB 45, SANDAG will have available for the six-year period through 2004 approximately $243.2 million. However, unlike the amount made available prior to SB 45, SANDAG will have to pay for project development and construction management costs from the funds made available during the six-year 1998 STIP.

An important role of an MPO or an RTPA is to advocate for funding for its region. Within California, RIP funding is provided through the allocation formulas discussed previously. This leaves little room for advocacy, except as the result of a general increase in state revenue. However, the discretionary program managed by Caltrans or by the Business, Transportation & Housing Agency, of which Caltrans is a part, provides a venue for advocating additional funding.

* Self-Help Counties are a group of eighteen counties in California each of which has a local sales tax for transportation funding. The taxes range from 1/2 cent to one cent. Typically, the taxes expire after fifteen or twenty years. San Diego County is a Self-Help County.

Advocacy at the federal level carries with it a modest degree of risk. In past federal transportation reauthorization acts, localities frequently have included federal authorization for funds to construct specific projects. This is referred to as demonstration project funding. Usually this funding is included in the entire federal fund apportionment for the state in which the project is located. As a consequence, demonstration funding for a project results in less money for the conventional federal categorical programs. SB 45, as previously noted, in effect penalizes a region for receiving demonstration funding by deducting the revenue from its county share. SANDAG proposed inclusion of language in the reauthorization legislation of ISTEA to the effect that funding for border projects is not included in CaliforniaÕs apportionment of federal Highway Trust Funds. Although a similar exclusion was stipulated for the High Priority Corridors of the National Highway System (Section 1105) of ISTEA as the California Special Rule (Section 1105(g)(8), this exclusion was not included in TEA-21.

Should federal funding be provided from a source other than the Federal Highway Trust Fund, there is no risk of losing revenue. For example, should funds be made available to the San Diego region from the federal government through the U.S. General Services Administration for border transportation improvements, no penalty under current state law could be imposed that would result in the loss of RIP funding.

SANDAG, SCAG, and IVAG
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) have been established by state legislation in compliance with federal requirements. Imperial County is within the SCAG region, and the Imperial Valley Council of Governments (IVAG) has been designated a subregion by SCAG. This allows IVAG to exercise considerable latitude to develop its own expenditure plan. Imperial County is forecasted to receive $33.4 million for the six-year 1998 STIP.

Such MPO organizations are composed of a variety of county, city, transit authority, state Departments of Transportation (DOTs), and other representatives. They develop annual and multiyear Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), including all projects using federal highway and transit funds. They are also involved in transportation planning and financing and conduct a variety of transportation studies, usually in cooperation with others.

The previously cited Barton-Aschman report describes these organizations in considerable detail in the Task 4 (U.S.) report.

The Bistate Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (BTTAC)
The Bistate Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (BTTAC), which was established in May 1996, is composed of the following organizations: Caltrans, SANDAG, SCAG, IVAG, the City of San Diego, the City of Calexico, Secretario de Asentamientos, Humanos y Obras Pœblicas del Estado de Baja California (SAHOPE), and the Mexican municipalities of Mexicali, Tecate, Tijuana, Playa de Rosarito, and Ensenada. This organization has identified a work program that includes a full spectrum of activities to address border zone transportation issues. However, it has no direct funding or authority and its actions are not legally binding, so in actuality it basically is a means of exchanging information, providing technical advice, identifying issues and needs, and, hopefully,
coordinating actions. This organization, as presently constituted, is not adequate in our opinion to meet the development needs of the border area.

OTHER INVOLVED AGENCIES
Several other agencies are involved in border transportation. For example, recommended approval of U.S.-Mexico bridges and border crossings is vested in the U.S.-Mexico Binational Bridges and Border Crossings Group, which was formed in 1983. It is composed of representatives of the U.S. and Mexican governments and co-chaired by senior officials of the U.S. Department of State and the Mexican Secretariat of Foreign Relations. The group meets semiannually to discuss proposed and existing bridges and border crossing matters. Representatives of the federal agencies of both nations comprise the voting membership with state representatives participating as observers.

An Interagency Working Group on Bridges and Border Crossings (IWG) has been formed in the United States to act as the U.S. staff to the binational group and to coordinate the U.S. federal agencies responsible for bridge and border crossings and the international boundary.

The permit process for new and revised border crossings (also called ports of entry) involves these other agencies although the process of permit granting is different on each side of the border. On the U.S. side, a Presidential Permit is required as a prime step. The application process for such a permit requires thirteen items be included:

· Applicant identification; · A detailed description of proposed facility and approaches;
· An explanation of how the nation's interest will be served by the construction of the proposed facility;
· A schedule for permit acquisition, other approvals, funding, and construction;
· Costs and financing plan, including approach roads; · A plan to secure all approvals;
· Verification that Mexican authorities are aware of the proposal and will consider it;
· The identification of any impacts on properties on the "National Register of Historic Places";
· Minority and low-income populations likely to be affected;
· Commitments needed to ensure adequate support;
· Compatibility with Mexican plans and priorities;
· Viable plan for inspection facilities, inspection agency staffing, and bridge
operation; and
· Required National Environmental Protection Agency documentation.

These items are considered by the IWG prior to a recommendation for permit approval. The Presidential Permit is the first U.S. federal permit obtained. The process involves review of the application by several federal and state agencies to assess the viability and impact of the proposed bridge. Once this permit is issued, the sponsor may proceed to obtain permits from the International Boundary and Water Commission and the U.S. Coast Guard. Mexico's Secretariat of Foreign Relations has an analogous process. ³⁴

ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND CATEGORIZATION

INTRODUCTION
One of the primary objectives of this study was to identify policy-related issues arising from NAFTA that affect the transportation systems along the California-Baja California border. From the background information and the annotated bibliography, a list of potential issues was developed and are presented in this chapter.

After review, discussions, and comments by representatives of Caltrans, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), the Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG), the City of San Diego, and San Diego Dialogue, the issues were arrayed in a matrix. The matrix identifies the organizations with primary responsibility for addressing each issue and an indication of their level of involvement. Each issue was then assigned to one of four categories.

Category One:
Issues not appropriate for further consideration in this study.

Category Four:
Issues recommended for short-term action (three to five years).

Those issues which were assigned to Category 4 were then analyzed in more depth, and recommendations were developed for each. This analysis is presented in Chapter 5.

DISCUSSION OF GENERAL SUBJECTS
ISTEA Reauthorization/TEA-21
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 was scheduled to expire at the end of the federal fiscal year 1997 but was extended to provide funding until replacement legislation could be enacted. This occurred with the passage of new legislation known as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which was signed on June 9, 1998. This Act funds a six-year program that is the largest public works effort in the nation's history.

· Authorizes the federal highway, transit, safety, research, and motor carrier programs by the six-year transportation act ending in 2003;

· Provides $217 billion in total budget authority: $173 billion for highways, $41.4 billion for transit, $2.2 billion for highway safety, and $650 million for motor carrier safety;

· Provides guaranteed spending of $165 billion for highways and $35 billion for transit;

· Guarantees each state will receive at least 90.5% of contributions to the Highway Trust Fund through formula programs for the highway program;

· Ensures that tax revenues deposited into the Highway Trust Fund are spent on transportation on an annual basis;

· Allows the existing $25 billion balance and future interest earnings on new deposits in the Highway Trust Fund to be used for General Fund purposes. Among the components of TEA-21, the following sections are of particular importance to the transportation infrastructure features of the U.S.-Mexico border:

SEC. 1106(d). INTERMODAL FREIGHT CONNECTORS STUDY
(1) Report 'Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall'
(A) review the condition of and improvements made, since the designation of the National Highway System, to connectors on the National Highway System that serve seaports, airports, and other intermodal freight transportation facilities; and (B) report to Congress on the results of such review.

(2) Review 'In preparing the report, the Secretary shall review the connectors and identify projects carried out on those connectors that were intended to provide and improve service to an intermodal facility referred to in paragraph (1) and to facilitate the efficient movement of freight, including movements of freight between modes.

(3) Identification of impediments' If the Secretary determines on the basis of the review that there are impediments to improving the connectors serving intermodal facilities referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall identify such impediments and make any appropriate
recommendations as part of the Secretary's report to Congress under this subsection. ³⁵

SEC. 1118. NATIONAL CORRIDOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General, The Secretary shall establish and implement a program to make allocations to states and metropolitan planning organizations for coordinated planning, design, and construction of corridors of national significance, economic growth, and international or interregional trade. A state or metropolitan planning organization may apply to the Secretary for allocations under this section.

(b) Eligibility of Corridors 'The Secretary may make allocations under this section with respect to'

(1) high priority corridors identified in section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; and

(2) any other significant regional or multistate highway corridor not described in whole or in part in paragraph (1) selected by the Secretary after consideration of,
(A) the extent to which the annual volume of commercial vehicle traffic
at the border stations or ports of entry of each state
(i) has increased since the date of enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 103-182); and
(ii) is projected to increase in the future;
(B) the extent to which commercial vehicle traffic in each state
(i) has increased since the date of enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 103-182); and (ii) is projected to increase in the future;
(C) the extent to which international truck-borne commodities move through each state:
(D) the reduction in commercial and other travel time through a major international gateway or affected port of entry expected as a result of the proposed project including the level of traffic delays at at-grade highway crossings of major rail lines in trade corridors;
(E) the extent of leveraging of Federal funds provided under this subsection, including
(i) use of innovative financing;
(ii) combination with funding provided under other sections of this Act and title 23, United States Code; and (iii) combination with other sources of federal, state, local, or private funding including state, local, and private matching funds;
(F) the value of the cargo carried by commercial vehicle traffic, to the extent that the value of the cargo and congestion impose economic costs on the Nation's economy; and
(G) encourage or facilitate major multistate or regional mobility and economic growth and development in areas underserved by existing highway infrastructure.

(1) Feasibility studies.
(2) Comprehensive corridor planning and design activities.
(3) Location and routing studies.
(4) Multistate and intrastate coordination for corridors described in subsection (b)

(5) After review by the Secretary of a development and management plan for the corridor or a usable component there of under subsection
(b)--
(A) environmental review; and
(B) construction.

(d) Corridor Development and Management Plan--A state or metropolitan planning organization receiving an allocation under this section shall develop, and submit to the Secretary for review, a development and management plan for the corridor or a usable component thereof with respect to which the allocation is being made. Such plan
shall include, at a minimum, the following elements:

(1) A complete and comprehensive analysis of corridor costs and benefits.
(2) A coordinated corridor development plan and schedule, including a timetable for completion of all planning and development activities, environmental reviews and permits, and construction of all segments.

(3) A finance plan, including any innovative financing methods and, if the corridor is a multistate corridor, a state-by-state breakdown of corridor finances.

(4) The results of any environmental reviews and mitigation plans.
(5) The identification of any impediments to the development and construction of the corridor, including any environmental, social, political and economic objections.

In the case of a multistate corridor, the Secretary shall encourage all states having jurisdiction over any portion of such corridor to participate in the development of such plan.

(e) Applicability of Title 23ÑFunds made available by section 1101 of this Act to carry out this section and section 1119 shall be available for obligation in the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code.

(f) Coordination of Planning--Planning with respect to a corridor under this section shall be coordinated with transportation planning being carried out by the states and metropolitan planning organizations along the corridor and, to the extent appropriate, with transportation planning being carried out by federal land management agencies, by tribal governments, or by government agencies in Mexico or Canada.

(g) State Defined--In this section, the term "state" has the meaning such term has under section 101 of title 23, United States Code. ³⁶

(a) General Authority--The Secretary shall establish and implement a coordinated border infrastructure program under which the Secretary may make allocations to border states and metropolitan planning organizations for areas within the boundaries of 1 or more border states for projects to improve the safe movement of people and goods at or across the border between the United States and Canada and the border between the United States and Mexico.

(b) Eligible Uses--Allocations to states and metropolitan planning organizations under this section may only be used in a border region for--

(1) improvements to existing transportation and supporting infrastructure that facilitate cross-border vehicle and cargo movements;
(2) construction of highways and related safety and safety enforcement facilities that will facilitate vehicle and cargo movements related to international trade;
(3) operational improvements, including improvements relating to electronic data interchange and use of telecommunications, to expedite cross border vehicle and cargo movement;
(4) modifications to regulatory procedures to expedite cross border vehicle and cargo movements;
(5) international coordination of planning, programming, and border operation with Canada and Mexico relating to expediting cross border vehicle and cargo movements; and
(6) activities of federal inspection agencies.
(c) Selection CriteriaÑThe Secretary shall make allocations under this section on the basis of--

(1) expected reduction in commercial and other motor vehicle travel time through an international border crossing as a result of the project;
(2) improvements in vehicle and highway safety and cargo security related to motor vehicles crossing a border with Canada or Mexico;
(3) strategies to increase the use of existing, underutilized border crossing facilities and approaches;
(4) leveraging of federal funds provided under this section, including use of innovative financing, combination of such funds with funding provided under other sections of this Act, and combination with other sources of federal, state, local, or private funding;
(5) degree of multinational involvement in the project and demonstrated coordination with other federal agencies responsible for the inspection of vehicles, cargo, and persons crossing international borders and their counterpart agencies in Canada and Mexico;
(6) improvements in vehicle and highway safety and cargo security in and through the gateway or affected port of entry concerned;
(7) the degree of demonstrated coordination with federal inspection agencies;
(8) the extent to which the innovative and problem solving techniques of the proposed project would be applicable to other border stations or ports
of entry;
(9) demonstrated local commitment to implement and sustain continuing comprehensive border or affected port of entry planning processes and improvement programs; and
(10) such other factors as the Secretary determines are appropriate to promote border transportation efficiency and safety.

(d) Construction of Transportation Infrastructure for Law Enforcement Purposes--At the request of the Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary may transfer, during the period of fiscal years 1998 through 2001, not more than $10,000,000 of the amounts made available by section 1101 to carry out this section
and section 1118 to the Administrator of General Services for the construction of transportation infrastructure necessary for law enforcement in border states.

(e) Definitions--In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Border region--The term "border region" means the portion of aborder state in the vicinity of an international border with Canada or Mexico.

(2) Border state--The term "border state" means any state that has a boundary in common with Canada or Mexico. ³⁷

(30) Interstate Route 5 in the states of California, Oregon, and Washington, including California State Route 905 between Interstate Route 5 and the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.

(34) The Alameda Corridor East and Southwest Passage, California. The Alameda Corridor East is generally described as 52.8 miles from east Los Angeles (terminus of Alameda Corridor) through the San Gabriel Valley terminating at Colton Junction in San Bernardino. The Southwest Passage shall follow I-10 from San Bernardino to the Arizona state line and I-8 from San Diego to the Arizona state line. ³⁸

SEC. 1213. STUDIES AND REPORTS.
(d) Southwest Border Transportation Infrastructure--
(1) Assessment--The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive assessment of the state of the transportation infrastructure on the southwest border between the United States and Mexico (in this subsection referred to as the "border").

(2) Consultation--In carrying out the assessment, the Secretary shall consult with--
(A) the Secretary of State;
(B) the Attorney General;
(C) the Secretary of the Treasury;
(D) the Commandant of the Coast Guard;
(E) the Administrator of General Services:
(F) the American Commissioner on the International Boundary Commission, United States and Mexico;
(G) state agencies responsible for transportation and law enforcement in border states; and
(H) municipal governments and transportation authorities in sister cities in the border area.

(3) Requirements--In carrying out the assessment, the Secretary shall--
(A) assess the flow of commercial and private traffic through designated ports of entry on the border;
(B) assess the adequacy of transportation infrastructure in the border areas, including highways, bridges, railway lines, and border inspection facilities;
(C) assess the adequacy of law enforcement and narcotics abatement activities in the border area, as the activities relate to commercial and private traffic and infra-structure;
(D) assess future demands on transportation infrastructure in the border area; and
(E) make recommendations to facilitate legitimate cross-border traffic in the border area, while maintaining the integrity of the border.

(4) Report--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the assessment conducted under this subsection, including any related legislative and administrative recommendations. ³⁹

These provisions of TEA-21 as they pertain to the border infrastructure raise several questions.

The state representatives to this binational group are usually the same people who are on the Joint Working Committee (JWC). The future of the JWC is uncertain; although, present indications are that it will reconstitute its self as an organization to carry out the program proposed in the BBTPP Study. This may or may not be in the best interests of the state of California and Caltrans, largely because the JWC is a poor vehicle for MPO input. Under the recent changes in the California transportation planning process, the MPOs play a major role.

The Hamilton, Rabinovitz and Alschuler (HR&A) border transportation case study presents three approaches to provide better state and local input into this process:

a. Work indirectly through the Binational Transportation Planning Joint Working Committee, ⁴⁰b. Mobilize local business and political support, and
c. Seek direct participation by the affected region and/or state interagency
committee in deliberations. ⁴¹

These recommendations of the HR&A report have not been pursued by either SANDAG or Caltrans. This raises another question.

Assessment of Border Crossings and Transportation Corridors for North
American Trade ⁴²
In 1994, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) submitted a report to Congress, pursuant to Sections 1089 and 6015 of ISTEA, entitled Assessment of Border Crossings and Transportation Corridors for North American Trade, which called for a ". . . study of the advisability and feasibility of establishing an international border highway infrastructure discretionary program." (Section 1089) and the identification of "...existing and emerging trade corridors and transportation subsystems that facilitate trade between the United States, Canadaand Mexico." with transportation priorities and recommendations for border crossings (Section 6015). ⁴³ The DOT report stated that the department would."
. . support the creation of a task force or multi-task forces composed of federal,
state and local government agencies, and the private sector to address congestion
at border crossings..." ⁴⁴ The intent being "...to identify critical border initiatives and to aggressively promote the use of new technologies and techniques and other non-capital intensive methods of facilitating the movement of people, cargo, and vehicles through major border crossings." ⁴⁵ Many improvements to facilitate border port of entry operations have been and are being implemented, but on a piecemeal basis.

State Highway Routes to International Ports of Entry
At the present time, the legislative intent for the State Highway System to serve the international ports of entry is not clear.

Except for Otay Mesa, land ports on the California-Baja California border are served by existing state highways. At Otay Mesa, the auto and bus POE is served by State Route 905 but this short section of highway does not connect to the rest of the State Highway System (See Exhibits 4.1a, 4.1b, and 4.1c ) and through traffic must use Otay Mesa Road, a City of San Diego street.

The commercial POE of Otay Mesa is not directly connected to State Route 905 but discharges onto the City of San Diego street system. The California Vehicle Enforcement Facility (CVEF) is also located on a city street. Although Caltrans is currently working with the City of San Diego and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) to implement a "bypass" route between the Federal POE and the CVEF, trucks leaving the CVEF will still have to travel city streets to reach the State Highway System. Similarly, trucks going into Mexico must also use city of San Diego streets.

Some international airports in the state, such as San Francisco, are well-served by the State Highway System, but others, such as San Diego's Lindbergh Field, are not well-served. A list of international airports in California is given in Exhibit 2.5.

Seaports of entry are similar to the airports in the diversity of adequate service by the State Highway System.

In light of the requirements of TEA-21, Sections 1119, Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program, 1213(d), Southwest Border Transportation Infrastructure, and 1106(d), Intermodal Freight Connectors Study, which all can include the subject of adequate access to international POEs, it is apparent that the State Highway System should serve these facilities adequately. At present, this is not clear in state legislation.

The California Transportation Plan and the State's Dedication to Border Zone Improvements to Increase Commerce and Trade
As stated in the plan:
The 1993 California Transportation Plan (CTP) provides direction for planning, developing, operating and maintaining California's transportation system. Both the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, and the state's SB 1435 (Chapter 1177, Statutes of 1992) require the preparation of a state long-range transportation plan. SB 1435 required the initial plan to be submitted to the Governor December 1, 1993. The vision for this plan, which builds upon the "Legislature's Transportation Blueprint," was framed in Governor Pete Wilson's Executive Order W-36- 92, signed September 29, 1992. The Executive Order also directed Caltrans to prepare this plan in cooperation with other state and regional agencies. ⁴⁶

The CTP makes three recommendations for implementation requiring the Governor's authorization:

1. Convening a commission on California's transportation future,
2. Developing a goods movement strategy for California, and
3. Determining the state's transportation role beyond the highway element. ⁴⁷

These recommendations are being addressed as part of an in-house study by District 11 of Caltrans to develop a vision for the future as a guide to updating of the District's System Management Plan (SMP). The SMP is a key building block for the development of the California Transportation Plan.

Issue 7. Is the District 11 Visionary Plan an adequate vehicle for formalizing of the state's role in providing a BZ program to be included in the next California Transportation Plan?

Border Zone (BZ) Definition
HR&A's Discussion Paper #4: Defining a Binational Transportation Planning Zone for the San Diego-Tijuana/Tecate Region points out that "Neither Caltrans nor SANDAG has, to date, officially adopted a Ôborder zone" in their respective transportation planning models or official transportation plans. ⁴⁸

A 200 km wide border zone centered on the California-Baja California border will be used in this study. This zone conforms to that used not only by the Binational Transportation Planning Joint Working Committee but also by the United States-Mexico Border XXI Program, which is jointly administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Mexico's Secretaria de Mexico Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP). The designated zone also has the advantage in California of, for all practical purposes, conforming to existing county lines so that all of San Diego and Imperial Counties are within the zone. (See Exhibit 4.2.)

Further, as the HR&A report states, "On the U.S. side of the border, this boundary would be coincident with the boundaries of Caltrans District 11, and each county's Transportation Commission. On the Mexican side of the border, it would include all of the urbanized areas adjacent to the border, including the proposed Tijuana Loop Road. It would also reach to the Port of Ensenada, and include the Mexican portion of the San Diego & Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) railroad, and any future rail line from the Ensenada Port to Tijuana."⁴⁹

At the U.S. DOT Corridors & Borders ONE-DOT Conference held in San Diego, California, August 25, 1998, IISTPS presented testimony on this topic. IISTPS urged the U.S. DOT to adopt the La Paz Agreement definition for the BZ in the implementation of TEA-21. This testimony is Appendix F.

Issue 8. Should the California border zone be defined by state legislation?
DISCUSSION OF PLANNING SUBJECTS
Integrated Border Zone Transportation Planning
A number of efforts have been undertaken to address the issue of the need for a more direct role by federal, state, and local agencies in integrated border zone transportation planning. However, an impediment to coordinating regional transportation planning at the border is that none of the U.S. or Mexican federal agencies that make decisions about border crossings are directly involved in the planning and implementation of attendant transportation facilities. Local transportation planning efforts in both countries have been frustrated by the lack of coordination on local access to new or improved POEs. Local planning for added POEs has often been based solely on political desires.

The U.S. federal agencies involved in infrastructure development are primarily concerned with their statutory responsibilities and no single U.S. agency has responsibility for overall

Impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement on Transportation in the Border Areas of the United States: With Emphasis on the California-Mexico Border.