At the most recent meeting of the [San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of Directors, the Board voted to approve the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The plan passed with only one dissenting vote—cast by the City of Escondido.
As the region’s designated planning and transportation agency, SANDAG is responsible for developing and maintaining the RTP. This document is not merely aspirational. It determines which transportation projects are eligible for state and federal funding, establishes long-term project priorities, and serves as the region’s primary vehicle for demonstrating compliance with state transportation-related climate mandates.
Because alignment with the RTP is often required to access critical transportation funding, its assumptions and policies have direct consequences for local governments—affecting transportation options, infrastructure investments, and long-term mobility choices, even where cities retain nominal control over land use.
Escondido’s “no” vote reflects serious concerns that the adopted plan does not adequately reflect the transportation needs or travel patterns of much of San Diego County, particularly inland communities. Under state law, an RTP must demonstrate that a region’s growth and transportation decisions reduce per-capita greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. For the San Diego region, that requirement is a 19 percent reduction by 2035 compared to 2005 levels.
In practical terms, the RTP functions as a compliance document. It attempts to meet state climate requirements primarily by reducing how much people are projected to drive and by redirecting transportation spending toward transit and higher-density development. The underlying assumption is straightforward: if government builds enough transit, people will shift away from personal vehicles.
Whether that shift actually occurs is largely irrelevant under the current framework. The plan is judged a success on paper as long as its models show fewer vehicle miles traveled per person—not whether daily commutes become faster, more reliable, or more affordable for working families.
When I review the 2025 RTP, I do not see a plan grounded in the daily realities of the average resident—especially in a city like Escondido.
Escondido is a working-class community. Most households depend on reliable personal vehicles to get to work, take children to school, care for family members, and manage long commutes across a geographically large region. Transportation here is not a lifestyle preference; it is a necessity.
Needless to say, I fully recognize that there are Escondido residents who rely exclusively on public transportation. Those residents—along with others across the region—deserve to have their basic mobility needs reasonably met. I am not arguing that public transportation should not exist, nor am I opposed to meeting those needs. What is worth pointing out, however, is that many people who rely on public transportation today do so not by preference, but because private vehicle ownership is financially out of reach – As a thought experiment, for roughly $2 billion, the agency could provide 50,000 electric vehicles to riders who rely on transit and, at the same time, and theoretically achieve greater success in meeting GHG reduction requirements.
There is one major issue with that approach, and it’s worth stating plainly: electric vehicles do not count toward greenhouse-gas reduction targets under the Regional Transportation Plan. In other words, even if an approach meaningfully reduces emissions in the real world, it does not advance compliance with the state mandate if it falls outside the RTP’s accounting framework.
That highlights a broader concern. Our success is being measured not solely by actual emissions reductions or improved mobility, but by whether a project fits within a prescribed methodology. As a result, solutions that could deliver real environmental and quality-of-life benefits—such as enabling cleaner private vehicle ownership—are effectively excluded from consideration.
The RTP prioritizes long-term climate modeling over how people actually live today. It asks families who already have dependable transportation to change their behavior without clearly demonstrating that the alternatives will be more convenient, less expensive, or realistically viable for them.
At a proposed cost of approximately $160 billion, the standard for public commitment must be far higher. For context, SANDAG’s total budget for fiscal year 2025 is roughly $1.3 billion. At this scale, transparency cannot be optional—it must be central. Residents deserve to understand what they are being asked to fund, what assumptions the plan relies on, and what happens if those assumptions fail.
Decisions of this magnitude will shape quality of life for decades. Future generations will bear the cost through taxes, inflation, and reduced fiscal flexibility. That reality demands caution, accountability, and an honest assessment of risk—not simply mechanical compliance with statewide targets.
This brings me to a critical point.
California’s statewide climate targets are not derived from a scientific formula. Climate science identifies ranges of global risk, but the specific numeric targets and timelines are established through policy judgment by unelected appointees at the [California Air Resources Board] not by scientific necessity.
I want to be clear: I am not opposed to clean air or responsible environmental stewardship. Like most people, I want to leave a better Earth for my children than the one I inherited.
However, these targets increasingly function less as flexible goals and more as enforcement mechanisms—used to compel predetermined outcomes in housing, transportation, and energy use, often without meaningful consideration of local conditions or direct voter consent.
Environmental responsibility should not require surrendering local judgment, fiscal prudence, or democratic accountability. Cities should not be forced to choose between essential transportation funding and plans that do not reflect how their residents actually live and move.
Escondido’s vote was not a rejection of environmental progress. It was a call for realism, transparency, and respect for the people who will ultimately pay the price.
Dane White is the Mayor of Escondido, https://www.danemwhite.com/
