Transportation / Infrastructure sections:
What's new | SANDAG | San Diego Union-Tribune
San Diego Daily Transcript | Move San Diego | Other
 
Transportation/Infrastructure:
San Diego Daily Transcript

Back

San Diego County infrastructure grades just passing, according to engineers

By ERIK PISOR, The Daily Transcript
October 28, 2005

While water supply, wastewater systems, and open space and parks are "meeting acceptable standards" regarding San Diego County's infrastructure, other areas such as storm water collection and treatment are just passing, according to a report released by the San Diego Chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

The infrastructure report card, complied for the second straight year, gave an individual letter grade to seven categories of infrastructure, with grading based on condition, capacity, operation and funding.

Gordon Lutes, chairman of the ASCE Report Card Committee and senior vice president for the engineering firm Project Design Consultants, said the grades this year mirror those of the previous year, with lack of funding for maintenance of existing systems being a primary concern.

Lutes said the majority of existing systems are operating adequately, but that without proper funding these systems will not meet operational standards.

Storm water collection and treatment, which received a C- compared to last year's D+, is an example. Lutes said while the county is doing a better job with funding for new development, there is no source of funding for existing facilities besides the general fund money.

"It'll take many years to get the funding up to the level it needs to be," said Cid Lasoro, storm water program manager for San Diego County.

School facilities K-12, which weren't included in last year's graded class, received a C+. Similar to storm water collection, school facilities were marked down because of the lack of commitment to maintaining existing facilities.

The passage of Proposition M has helped in the building of new facilities, but new construction defers people's attention away from existing facilities, Lutes said.

"The reality is the city has to be equally attentive to maintain what they already have," said Mitch Burner, president of Public Solutions, a consultant for the ASCE.

Surface transportation, which received a C compared to a D+ last year, considered highways, local streets and roads, transit and intelligent transportation systems in its ranking.

Similar to schools and storm water collection, surface transportation is experiencing a lack of funding to maintain what is already in place. According to the report, 40 percent to 50 percent of publicly maintained local streets and roads were judged to be in poor to fair condition, and trolleys, some of which are 25 years old, need to be replaced or maintained.

But the good news is with the passing of TransNet, funding for future projects has increased. Last year voters extended by 40 years the half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements, which was originally set to expire in 2008. However, this funding is not enough to close the gap between what is needed in the future and what is available.

Funding is also a problem with the land and sea ports, which included Otay Mesa, Tecate, San Ysidro, the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal, the National City Marine Terminal, and the B Street cruise ship terminal. The ports collectively received a C. According to the report, $798 million in funding will be needed from now until 2010.

The honor student of the class was once again water supply, which for the second year received a B. Frank Belock, director of the city of San Diego water department, said the water systems are currently in good shape, as treatment plants and condition of water were rated "good," and plans for future funding have been established.

Wastewater systems and open space and parks followed closely behind, both receiving a B-. According to Lutes the county has done a great job on open spaces and wastewater systems are generally in good shape, as pumps and pipes have excellent or good capacity.

An overall county grade was not given because the committee felt uncomfortable determining the overall value of each category and weighing it against the others.

Each category of infrastructure could have received up to 12 points, which determined its grade. However, the grading scale used for this report card was different than an academic grading scale. A 50 percent, or 6 out of 12 points, represented a C, and a 75 percent represented a B, according to Lutes.

"Would you be happy if these were the grades your children brought home?" Lutes said.

That the grades and concerns have remained the same from 2004 to 2005 is not necessarily a sign that progress has halted. To make any meaningful changes in the grades it takes several years, as securing funding and developing new systems can take up to five years or longer, those contacted agreed.

"My perspective is almost more geared to next year," Burner said. "The value of the report card is to explain to the policy makers what changes need to take place -- it's similar to a prescription."

Back