I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study

Appendix H

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements Project Initiation Document (October 29, 2010) Project Initiation Document

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Prepared By:

San Diego Association of Governments www.sandag.org

October 29, 2010 I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 4 Project Background ...... 5 Need and Purpose ...... 9 Planned Improvements ...... 10 Deficiencies ...... 10 Corridor and System Coordination ...... 12 Design Criteria ...... 13 Alternatives ...... 14 Alignment 4a ...... 15 Alignment 4b ...... 17 Alignment 4c ...... 20 Evaluation of Alignments ...... 23 Recommendation ...... 25 Grade Separations Only ...... 25 Palomar Street Grade Separation ...... 27 Palomar Street Alternatives ...... 28 Palomar Street Over Rail (Road Overcrossing) ...... 28 Rail Under Palomar Street (Rail Undercrossing) ...... 28 Rail Over Palomar Street (Rail Overcrossing) ...... 28 Alternatives Considered and Rejected ...... 29 Grade‐Separated Freight at Palomar Street ...... 29 Palomar Street Under Rail ...... 29 Potential Utility Conflicts ...... 30 Area of Potential Effect for Alternatives ...... 30 Possible Traffic Control and/or Staging Requirements ...... 31 Palomar Street Over Rail Alternative ...... 31 Rail Under Palomar Street Alternative ...... 32 Rail Over Palomar Street Alternative ...... 32 Potential Effects of Construction Activities ...... 32

i

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Community Involvement ...... 33 Environmental Determination/Documentation ...... 33 Funding ...... 33 Schedule ...... 34 Regulatory Coordination ...... 34 SANDAG Project Personnel ...... 34 Project Reviews ...... 35 PID Preparation ...... 35

Figure 1: Regional Vicinity Map ...... 6 Figure 2: Project Area ...... 7 Figure 3: Alignment 4a Typical Section (E & Palomar Streets) ...... 16 Figure 4: Alignment 4a Typical Section (H Street) ...... 17 Figure 5: Alignment 4b Typical Section (E & Palomar Streets) ...... 19 Figure 6: Alignment 4b Typical Section (H Street) ...... 20 Figure 7: Alignment 4c Typical Section (E & H Streets) ...... 22 Figure 8: Alignment 4c Typical Section (Palomar Street) ...... 23 Figure 9: Evaluation Criteria Summary Matrix ...... 25

Attachments

Attachment A Alignment 4a Conceptual Layout Alignment 4a Cost Estimate

Attachment B Alignment 4b Conceptual Layout Alignment 4b Cost Estimate

Attachment C Alignment 4c Conceptual Layout Alignment 4c Cost Estimate

Attachment D Third Track Alignments – Conceptual Layout Schematic Drawing

Attachment E Alignments 4a, 4b, and 4c Evaluation Matrix

Attachment F Palomar Street Over Rail Conceptual Layout Palomar Street Over Rail Cost Estimate

Attachment G Rail Under Palomar Street Conceptual Layout Rail Under Palomar Street Cost Estimate

ii

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Attachment H Rail Over Palomar Street Conceptual Layout Rail Over Palomar Street Cost Estimate

Attachment I SANDAG’s Regional Rail Grade Separations Prioritization List

iii

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements Executive Summary

This Project Initiation Document (PID) recommends a preferred rail alignment for the installation and operation of a third mainline track for shared light rail transit (LRT)/freight rail along Interstate 5 (I‐5) between State Route 54 (SR 54) and Main Street in the City of Chula Vista within the County of San Diego.

The existing rail alignment along this corridor is owned by the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), which operates the Blue Line Trolley LRT service from San Ysidro to downtown San Diego and Old Town. Currently, the line is heavily used by LRT passengers, and usage is projected to increase in the future. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), in preliminary studies, has identified that Express Trolley operations could be a potential benefit to ridership in this corridor. In addition to passenger operations, freight operations also use this corridor to interchange cargo with Mexico and serve local industries along the alignment. This PID evaluates alignment alternatives for adding a third mainline track for Express Trolley operations, as well maintaining or increasing currently planned and future freight operations.

There are three rail alternatives under consideration in this PID. The fourth alternative listed below, studied separately, consists of only adding grade‐separated crossings to the existing rail alignment. The proposed grade‐separated structures would be located at E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street. The grade separations at E Street and H Street have been studied previously, but because the Palomar Street grade separation has not, it is studied in this PID. At Palomar Street, three possible grade separation alternatives are discussed in this document.

The four rail alignment alternatives are:

1) Alignment 4a: Express Trolley Track between existing tracks, localized at stations with three grade‐separated crossings 2) Alignment 4b: Express Trolley Track as center track throughout the project limits with three grade‐separated crossings 3) Alignment 4c: Freight and Express Trolley located east of two western tracks with three grade‐ separated crossings 4) Grade Separations Only: Maintain existing alignment with three grade‐separated crossings

The three Palomar Street grade separation alternatives are:

1) Palomar Street Over Rail – Palomar Street would rise above grade on the east and west sides of the rail to cross over the rail corridor (Road Overcrossing). 2) Rail Under Palomar Street – The rail would drop below grade on the north and south sides of Palomar Street to cross under Palomar Street (Rail Undercrossing). 3) Rail Over Palomar Street – The rail would rise above grade on the north and south sides of Palomar Street to cross over Palomar Street (Rail Overcrossing).

1

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

This PID identifies a recommended alternative from the first three rail alternatives listed above: Alignments 4a, 4b, and 4c. Further evaluation of the recommended alternative will be conducted in a separate study phase where I‐5 South multimodal improvements that include Express Trolley service will be compared to multimodal improvements that do not include Express Trolley.

For Alignments 4a, 4b, and 4c, there are two variations for the proposed grade‐separated structures at E, H, and Palomar Streets. Variation 1 allows for LRT operation on the grade‐separated structures, but maintains freight at grade. Variation 2 proposes that LRT and freight both operate on the grade‐ separated structures at E, H, and Palomar Streets.

1) Variation 1: LRT only on grade‐separated structures (E, H, and Palomar Streets) with freight at grade including upgraded Palomar siding at freight bypass 2) Variation 2: LRT and freight on grade‐separated structures (E, F, H, and Palomar Streets)

The third mainline track and proposed grade separations are discussed in SANDAG’s 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP). The third mainline track is included in the Goods Movement section of the Reasonably Expected revenue scenario. The 2030 RTP also estimates $671 million for regional rail grade separations that are top priority projects as determined through regional evaluation. According to the 2030 RTP, regional rail grade separations are included in the Transit Facilities Reasonably Expected revenue scenario. The proposed grade separations at E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street will also be included on the regional priority list for rail grade separation projects in SANDAG’s Draft 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (2050 RTP). The priority list, which will show projects nominated by SANDAG member agencies, will be assembled in order to provide funding for construction of significant traffic congestion relief projects. Eliminating the three at‐grade rail crossings discussed in this report would be a practical alternative for improving traffic.

Estimated capital costs for the four rail alternatives along with the three Palomar Street grade separation alternatives, in 2010 dollars, are shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. These costs include construction costs for freight and LRT improvements, as well as right‐of‐way acquisition costs. Also included are trolley vehicle capital costs for Express Trolley operations within the study area for rail alignments 4a, 4b, and 4c.

Table 1: Rail Alternatives Estimated Capital Costs (2010) Variation 1 Variation 2 Alternative LRT Only LRT & Freight (millions of $) (millions of $) 1) Alignment 4a $135 $185 2) Alignment 4b $150 $200 3) Alignment 4c $140 $190 4) Grade Separations Only $77

2

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Table 2: Palomar Street Grade Separation Alternatives Estimated Capital Costs (2010) Estimated Alternative Capital Cost (millions of $) 1) Palomar Street Over Rail $45 2) Rail Under Palomar Street $32 3) Rail Over Palomar Street $27

To determine a recommended alignment for this PID, the Alignments 4a, 4b, and 4c were evaluated on each of the following criteria: right‐of‐way acquisition, cost, platform accessibility, environmental/community constraints, operations for Express Trolley, and freight benefits.

This PID recommends Alignment 4c, Variation 2 to be carried forward to the next phase of study. Alignment 4c Variation 2 consists of freight and Express Trolley located east of the two western tracks with LRT and freight on the grade‐separated structures at E, F, H, and Palomar Streets.

3

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements Introduction

Interstate 5 (I‐5) is an important goods movement corridor for the region, and the South Line rail plays a major role in moving freight cargo and passengers throughout this area. The segment of I‐5 between State Route (SR) 54 and Main Street lies within what is referred to as the I‐5 South Corridor, which consists of various transportation facilities adjacent to, and including, I‐5 between I‐15 and the San Ysidro Port of Entry. According to the South Line Rail Goods Movement Final Project Study Report (PSR) (SANDAG, June 2008), the region’s heavy freight rail systems exhibit delays, and some loss of existing and potential business because of capacity constraints associated with limited operations windows as a result of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations that require the time separation of freight and Blue Line Trolley when those two modes share track. Additionally, the Blue Line Trolley operates at or near capacity during peak periods. The current peak period headway is 7.5 minutes, but the headway in non‐peak periods is 15 minutes. Despite the 7.5‐minute all‐day headways planned per the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) Reasonably Expected revenue scenario, future capacity may be inadequate. The proposed improvements discussed in this Project Initiation Document (PID) seek to provide additional light rail transit (LRT) capacity and alleviate future freight congestion through the I‐5 South Corridor by adding a third mainline track for shared LRT and freight. LRT improvements may include implementation of Express Trolley service with northbound morning service and southbound afternoon service.

There are four rail alternatives under consideration within this PID:

1) Alignment 4a: Express Trolley Track between existing tracks, localized at stations with grade‐ separated crossings at E, H, and Palomar Streets 2) Alignment 4b: Express Trolley Track as center track throughout the project limits with grade‐ separated crossings at E, H, and Palomar Streets 3) Alignment 4c: Express Trolley and Freight located east of two western tracks with grade‐ separated crossings at E, H, and Palomar Streets 4) Grade Separations Only: Maintain existing tracks with grade‐separated crossings at E, H, and Palomar Streets

Layouts of the first three rail alternatives can be found in Attachments A through C, respectively, and a conceptual schematic diagram of the third mainline track for each alignment is shown in Attachment D. Since each of the first three alignments, 4a, 4b, and 4c, proposes grade‐separated structures at E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street, there are two possible variations for handling freight and LRT through these crossings.

1) Variation 1: LRT only on grade‐separated structures (E, H, and Palomar Streets) with freight at grade including an upgraded Palomar siding as a freight bypass 2) Variation 2: LRT and freight on grade‐separated structures (E, F, H, and Palomar Streets)

Variation 2 includes a grade separation at F Street due to the design constraints imposed on freight trains (1.5% maximum grade) and the inability to ‘return‐to‐grade’ between E and H Streets.

4

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

This PID will identify a recommended alternative from the first three rail alternatives listed above: Alignments 4a, 4b, and 4c. To determine a recommended alignment for this PID, the three alignments were evaluated on each of the following criteria: right‐of‐way acquisition, cost, platform accessibility, environmental/community constraints, operations for Express Trolley, and freight benefits. In a separate evaluation, the recommended alternative will be coupled with other multimodal improvements, including Arterial Rapid Transit (ART) and freeway improvements. The resulting concept alternative will be compared to other concept alternatives that do not include Express Trolley operations or ART. If the concept alternative that ranks highest does not include Express Trolley, a third mainline track and Express Trolley operations will not be recommended for further study. The Grade Separations Only alternative will be recommended for further study if Express Trolley operations are eliminated from future regional planning efforts.

Because the E Street and H Street grade separations have been previously studied, detailed evaluations at those locations are not included in this PID. However, at Palomar Street, three possible grade separation alternatives are discussed within this PID. The three grade separation alternatives are:

1) Palomar Street Over Rail – Palomar Street would rise above grade on the east and west sides of the rail to cross over the rail corridor (Road Overcrossing). 2) Rail Under Palomar Street – The rail would drop below grade on the north and south sides of Palomar Street to cross under Palomar Street (Rail Undercrossing). 3) Rail Over Palomar Street – The rail would rise above grade on the north and south sides of Palomar Street to cross over Palomar Street (Rail Overcrossing).

Layouts of the three Palomar Street grade separation alternatives can be found in Attachments F through H, respectively.

Project Background

The proposed project is located in the southwest portion of San Diego County within the City of Chula Vista. The project area encompasses the corridor along I‐5 between the SR 54/I‐5 freeway‐to‐freeway interchange and the I‐5/Main Street interchange. Included in this area of study are the existing South Line rail corridor serving freight rail and the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Blue Line Trolley on the east side of I‐5. Below, Figures 1 and 2 show the regional vicinity map and project area, respectively.

5

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Study Area

Figure 1: Regional Vicinity Map (I‐5 South Corridor Multimodal Study Initial Environmental Assessment, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc., March 29, 2010)

6

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Figure 2: Project Area

I‐5 is an important freeway carrying goods and people through the heavily populated coastal region of the San Diego metropolitan area. I‐5 and the MTS‐owned tracks paralleling the interstate are important components of a key goods movement corridor extending from Mexico to Canada. Freight cargo passes along this corridor coming from, or traveling to, the Port of San Diego as well as the San Diego and San Ysidro Rail Yards. The existing rail alignment along this corridor consists of double track, and is owned by MTS, which maintains and operates the Blue Line Trolley LRT service from San Ysidro to downtown San Diego and Old Town San Diego. The double track system to the east of I‐5 was originally owned by the San Diego & Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railway Company, but was bought by MTS in 1984. The tracks are

7

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements now owned by MTS and operated and controlled by San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI), an asset of MTS. Freight currently operates on the same tracks as the trolley from the San Diego Rail Yard to the San Ysidro Rail Yard. Freight rail service on the South Line, which runs from downtown San Diego to the international border, is provided by the San Diego and Imperial Valley Short Line Operator (SDIV), a subsidiary of Rail America, Inc. Due to FRA regulations, the freight service schedule is limited to a two and a half hour period from Monday through Saturday mornings between 1:31 am and 4:04 am when trolleys are not in service.

According to the South Line Rail Goods Movement Final PSR (SANDAG, June 2008), the region’s heavy freight rail systems exhibit substantial congestion and delays, as well as some loss of existing and potential business because of capacity constraints associated with limited operations windows. This operational constraint is a direct result of FRA regulations requiring time separation of freight and Blue Line Trolley when those two modes share track. Planned South Line improvements, exclusive of third mainline track considerations, will improve freight capacity. State of California Proposition 1B Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) funding will be used for signaling and communication improvements that will help alleviate congestion and delays. $98 million have been granted for South Line Rail Improvements/San Ysidro Yard – Mainline Improvements, with construction planned for 2011‐2012, and $25.9 million have been granted for the South Line Rail Improvements/San Ysidro Yard – Yard Expansion. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Identification (ID) number for the yard and mainline improvements is SAN27.1 Other funds, including TransNet, are also programmed for these projects.

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), working in conjunction with the City of Chula Vista, commissioned this PID to present the need, purpose, scope, and cost estimates for increasing rail capacity, safety, and reliability within the I‐5 South Corridor between SR 54 and Main Street. Several other agencies including the California Department of Transportation District 11 (Caltrans), MTS, City of National City, City of San Diego, City of Coronado, City of Imperial Beach, SDIV, and the Port of San Diego have been invited to participate in the development of this project. An Ad Hoc Working Group and a Rail Working Group were formed to coordinate the various aspects of this project, and meetings were held monthly since the beginning of the project. Various other meetings have been held to discuss the project including SANDAG’s Transportation Committee meeting on May 7, 2010 and SANDAG’s Board of Directors meeting on May 28, 2010.

This PID will serve as a component of the I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study, which will include a comprehensive strategy for implementation of future multimodal transportation improvements within the I‐5 South Corridor. A variety of conceptual alternatives for multimodal improvements will be considered in the I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study. Improvements to the Bayfront/E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street transit stations located within the corridor will also be discussed in this report.

1 Final 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program, SANDAG, July 2008

8

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements Need and Purpose

The I‐5 South Corridor involves a variety of conditions and factors that are anticipated to generate the need for multimodal improvements. The following is a description of those needs.

Anticipated Growth: Projected population and employment growth in the region will result in additional travel demand. The anticipated growth within the region will result in a corresponding increase in demand for the efficient movement of people and goods along the I‐5 South Corridor.

Increasing Demand for Trolley Service: The Blue Line Trolley experiences the highest ridership of any trolley line in the San Diego region, and projections indicate that ridership will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. The E Street and H Street transit stations also experience heavy demand during peak commute hours, and are popular park‐and‐ride and bus transfer destinations as they are located along two major east‐west arterial streets within Chula Vista.

Without grade separations, increased trolley service along the South Line would reduce capacity of E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street by increasing crossing‐gate delays at the trolley crossings on these major roadways. Increased trolley operations will also affect freeway interchanges located on these streets due to the proximity of the trolley crossings to the freeway access ramps.2

The Palomar Street grade separation is the highest priority of the proposed grade separations due to existing traffic congestion on this six‐lane roadway. While grade separations at E Street and H Street are priorities, the roadways currently have four lanes, or less capacity, than the six‐lane Palomar Street. Following Palomar Street, the H Street grade separation is the next highest priority and the E Street grade separation is the lowest priority of the three according to the City of Chula Vista. This priority ranking matches the ranking order of the Palomar, E, and H Street grade separations included on SANDAG’s regional priority list for rail grade separation projects. The draft regional priority list, which includes 27 regional rail grade separation projects, was revealed at the joint SANDAG Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC)/Transportation Working Group meeting on September 2, 2010 and is expected to be included in SANDAG’s Draft 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.

Goods Movement: Sustaining effective goods movement is essential for economic vitality of the nation, state, and region. The I‐5 South Corridor is a key north‐south goods movement corridor in the San Diego region, which faces the challenge of accommodating future growth of regional and interregional goods movement travel including cross‐border trade with Mexico. Currently, commercial vehicles experience the same congested travel conditions as other motorists. Additionally, the corridor’s heavy freight rail system exhibits delays and lower capacity constraints associated with limited operations windows. There is a need to increase the freight train capacity along this goods movement corridor, which provides an alternative to moving cargo by truck on the freeway system. Freight rail cargo along this corridor is generated by the San Ysidro Rail Yard at the U.S./Mexico border, local industries along the rail alignment, and the marine Port of San Diego to the north.

2 Final Concept Engineering Report for E Street and H Street Grade Separations, SANDAG, July 2004

9

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

The intended purpose of the improvements being considered is to:

• Provide consistency with the goals and objectives of the 2030 RTP, where feasible, and in compliance with federal and state regulations • Promote efficient movement of people and goods within and across the I‐5 South Corridor • Promote economic growth and minimize adverse socioeconomic effects upon the community • Accommodate existing and planned 2030 LRT and freight operations • Maintain or improve travel times within the I‐5 South Corridor for all users • Minimize adverse environmental effects associated with planned improvements • Minimize conflicts between the various transportation modes and land uses within the Corridor

Planned Improvements

There are several projects planned throughout the I‐5 South Corridor that are partially funded by the TCIF portion of the State Proposition 1B funding program. Planned improvements include the following:

• Port of San Diego National City Marine Terminal Improvements: truck access improvements and capacity expansion at the National City Marine Terminal, including an extension of the existing wharf by 1,500 feet (MPO ID: CAL110, CAL115) • South Line Rail Mainline Improvements/San Ysidro Yard (MPO ID: SAN27) o Mainline Improvements: improvements to the South Line, including improved rail sidings and signalization o Yard Expansion: grade crossing safety upgrades and expansion of the San Ysidro Yard, which will increase freight car storage capacity from 100 to 196 cars and increase mainline throughput from 10,000 cars per year to 19,600 cars per year • Port of San Diego Freeway Access Improvements: improvements that will improve truck access to the Tenth Avenue and National City Marine Terminals, as well as I‐5 and I‐15 at three freeway access points, thereby decreasing local roadway traffic congestion and improving freight and truck movement (MPO ID: CAL107, CAL110, CAL111, CAL115)

The TCIF South Line Rail Mainline Improvements and San Ysidro Yard Expansion projects listed above will increase freight capacity through the project area. Because freight capacity will be increased by these TCIF improvements, the primary benefit of the proposed third mainline track discussed in this PID will be to accommodate Express Trolley service through the I‐5 South Corridor.

Deficiencies

Dramatic increases in motorized travel, combined with limited financial capacity to improve roads and build more transit, have resulted in severe congestion of many of our region’s major roadways during peak commuting hours. This not only creates issues for drivers, but also hampers the region’s productivity and long‐term economic prosperity.3

3 Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region, SANDAG, July 2004

10

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

The following are deficiencies that exist for the I‐5 South Corridor in regards to transit, freight, and roadway operations:

Limited Travel Choices: Regional transit trips must currently be accomplished through the use of localized and corridor service, such as local bus service and the Blue Line Trolley. The Blue Line Trolley offers service from the U.S./Mexico border to Old Town San Diego, with 21 stops including Downtown San Diego. Regional destinations not served by the local bus or Blue Line Trolley may require multiple transfers. Many of the existing transit routes operate at or near capacity, and below the desired 15‐ minute all‐day service frequency goal identified in the 2030 RTP.

Increased Demand for Trolley Service and Associated Conflicts with Vehicle Traffic: The Blue Line Trolley experiences the highest ridership of any trolley line within the San Diego region, and projections indicate that ridership will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. The E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street transit stations experience heavy demands during peak commute hours. As ridership increases and the transit stations experience increasing user volumes, the existing infrastructure becomes inadequate for accommodating projected growth and demand, and improvements become necessary.

At‐Grade Rail Crossings: Current roadway conditions at the existing at‐grade rail crossings are shown in the table below.

Table 3: Existing Roadway Conditions Roadway Number Current Roadway Volume/Capacity Level of Level of Roadway Classification of Lanes ADT Capacity4 Ratio Service Service (2009) (AM)5 (PM)6 E Street Major 4 39,300 30,000 1.31 C D H Street Major 4 30,900 30,000 1.03 C E Palomar D (EB) D (EB) Major 6 47,600 40,000 1.19 Street C (WB) C (WB)

The vehicular traffic on E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street is projected to increase as more commuters utilize these streets to access transit stations and the northbound and southbound ramps to I‐5, and as Chula Vista’s Bayfront area to the west is developed. Additionally, the proximity of these crossings to I‐5 leads to greater access and congestion challenges. As the frequency of the Blue Line Trolley service increases, the level of service at these crossings decreases due to the increased frequency of the crossing arms being in the down position. The existing at‐grade rail crossings also pose safety risks to the rail workers during maintenance activities and to the general public during normal operations.7 The Final Concept Engineering Report for E Street and H Street Grade Separations (SANDAG 2004) recommended grade‐separated structures at E Street and H Street to improve LRT and vehicular traffic operations.

4 Chula Vista Vision 2020 General Plan, City of Chula Vista, December 13, 2005 5 Floating Car Travel Time Survey, City of Chula Vista, 2010 6 Floating Car Travel Time Survey, City of Chula Vista, 2010 7 Final Concept Engineering Report for E Street and H Street Grade Separations, SANDAG, July 2004

11

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Capacity Constraints for Goods Movement: The region’s heavy freight rail systems exhibit substantial congestion and delays, as well as some loss of existing and potential business because of capacity constraints associated with limited operations windows.8 Operating freight trains on the same tracks as the Blue Line Trolley subjects the line to FRA jurisdiction and must conform to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Parts 234, 235, and 236. Standard Operating Procedure for SDIV requires that before entering SDTI tracks, the SDIV crew must obtain permission from the SDTI controller and must report to the controller when clear of the main track. Freight currently operates during a two and a half hour window on Monday through Saturday mornings between 1:31 am and 4:04 am when trolleys are not in service, but is not permitted Saturday night into Sunday morning.9 As stated previously, there are several improvements planned for the I‐5 South Corridor that will address freight rail and goods movement: Port of San Diego National City Marine Terminal Improvements, South Line Rail Improvements/San Ysidro Yard – Mainline Improvements, and Port of San Diego Freeway Access Improvements.

Population Growth and Increased Travel Demand: Projected population and employment growth in the San Diego region will result in additional travel demand on the I‐5 South Corridor. By the year 2030, population in the area surrounding the corridor is expected to increase by 39 percent, and employment is anticipated to grow by 28 percent. In particular, growth in the South Bay subregion is expected to be higher than the San Diego regional average. For example, the population of Chula Vista, at 230,000 in 2010, is expected to increase by nearly 107,770 residents, or 52 percent, between the years 2004 and 2030 (from 208,675 in 2004 to 316,445 in 2030).10 As travel demands continue to increase along with the growing population, existing infrastructure becomes inadequate to accommodate future growth projections and demand.

Corridor and System Coordination

This project is consistent with SANDAG’s 2030 RTP, which was adopted in November 2007. The 2030 RTP is the transportation component of SANDAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), which was adopted in 2004 and serves as the region’s blueprint for meeting future needs with regards to land use, transportation systems, and infrastructure as well as for sustaining and improving the quality of life in the San Diego region.

The 2030 RTP aims to build upon existing transportation and transit infrastructure to improve mobility between the freeway, roadway, transit, and goods movement networks and the region’s activity, employment, and residential centers. Among other issues, the 2030 RTP addresses transit and transit station improvements, regional rail grade separations, and corridor improvements.

The 2030 RTP includes Blue Line Trolley improvements as part of the TransNet Early Action Program. The improvements propose vehicle and station upgrades to accommodate low‐floor vehicles on the Blue Line Trolley. Additionally, rail grade separations along the Blue Line Trolley are expected to rank high in

8 South Line Rail Goods Movement Final PSR, SANDAG, June 2008 9 South Line Rail Goods Movement Final PSR, SANDAG, June 2008 10 SANDAG Info: 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update, July 2008

12

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements regional evaluation and would be included in the $671 million shown in the Transit Facilities Reasonably Expected revenue scenario in the 2030 RTP. The proposed grade separations of E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street address the current deficiencies of the existing at‐grade rail crossings. The third mainline track is included in the Goods Movement section of the Reasonably Expected revenue scenario.

On December 31, 2009, the SANDAG Transportation Committee requested nominations from all agencies in the SANDAG jurisdictions for rail grade separation projects. The City of Chula Vista nominated the rail crossings at E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street. Rail Grade Separation Evaluation Criteria, approved by the Transportation Committee on October 16, 2009, was used to evaluate and rank each of the nominated rail crossings. The evaluation criteria, developed by the Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), consist of congestion relief, safety, and funding needs, as well as effects on pedestrian traffic, bus transit operations, emergency services, truck and freight operations, and noise. The intent of the regional rail grade separation program is to provide funding for construction of significant traffic congestion relief projects through the implementation of rail grade separations.11 After the nominated crossings were evaluated, a draft regional priority list was developed for rail grade separation projects to be included in the 2050 RTP. The complete list of regional prioritized grade separations is shown in Attachment I.

The project study area of I‐5 between SR 54 and Main Street is a small portion of the larger I‐5 South Corridor between I‐15 and the San Ysidro Port of Entry. Consequently, installation of a third mainline track along this segment of the Corridor could have implications for freight and Blue Line Trolley operations beyond the study limits of this project. These concerns would need to be examined and addressed as the project progresses and study limits are expanded.

Design Criteria

According to the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board’s LRT Design Criteria, adopted in March 1999, the maximum grade for LRT rail is 4.3 percent for the mainline, and 2 percent through LRT stations where no vehicle storage is allowed. However, a grade of 0.5 percent is usually desirable for the track through LRT stations. The minimum standard distance between the centerline of tracks is 14.76 feet for exclusive or semi‐exclusive LRT right‐of‐way with center poles and a center walkway, or 14 feet for LRT right‐of‐way with outside poles.12

The maximum grade for freight rail is 2 percent according to SANDAG’s Final Concept Engineering Report of E Street and H Street Grade Separations. However, in meetings with freight rail representatives, it was determined that the maximum grade would be limited to 1.5 percent. Therefore, for the alignments and variations where there is shared LRT/freight rail, the maximum grade is 1.5 percent.

11 Rail Grade Separation Nominations, SANDAG Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Meeting Agenda, May 6, 2010. 12 LRT Design Criteria, San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, March 25, 1999

13

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

The alignments are also subject to approval by the FRA, as well as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

Alternatives

The improvements discussed in this PID consist of installing a third mainline track adjacent and parallel to the existing tracks on the east of I‐5 that will be utilized by Express Trolley and, in some cases, shared with night‐time freight service. There are three rail alignment alternatives, Alignment 4a, Alignment 4b, and Alignment 4c, that propose three different layouts for the additional mainline track. For all three rail alignment alternatives, it is assumed that all Express Trolley services will pass non‐stop through the E Street and Palomar Street transit stations, and only stop at the H Street transit station. The Express Trolley would travel northbound during morning peak hours and southbound during afternoon peak hours. The fourth rail alternative, Grade Separations Only, maintains the existing rail alignment and installs three grade‐separated crossings for LRT at E, H, and Palomar Streets. Freight would remain at grade in this alternative. Because H Street is classified as a six‐lane roadway, according the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan, instead of the existing four‐lane roadway, the grade separation at H Street must be wide enough to accommodate two additional lanes of traffic. The grade separations at E Street and H Street have been studied previously in the Final Concept Engineering Report of E Street and H Street Grade Separations (SANDAG 2004). Therefore, the grade separation at Palomar Street will be discussed in further detail in subsequent sections of this report.

Additionally, Variation 2 for Alignments 4a, 4b, and 4c includes a grade separation at F Street due to the design constraints imposed on freight trains (1.5% maximum grade) and the inability to ‘return‐to‐grade’ between E and H Streets.

Improvements to the existing transit stations at E, H, and Palomar Streets are also part of this project. Each transit station would consist of either grade‐separated platforms or at‐grade platforms. Grade‐ separated platforms would include ramps and/or stairs and two elevators for patron access. At‐grade platforms would likely require the existing platform locations to shift north or south due to track profile changes resulting from grade separations.

Parking is a key issue at the E, H, and Palomar Street transit stations, so the potential improvements address parking. At E Street, there is an existing parcel to the south owned by the City of Chula Vista from which a portion could potentially be dedicated for additional transit parking. If a portion of the parcel is dedicated to the transit station, existing parking at E Street could potentially double in size. At the H Street transit station, there is a great need for additional parking because the Express Trolley (or a potential Bus Rapid Transit route) is planned to use that station in the future. Therefore, a parking structure could be constructed on the existing parking site to add more parking for the transit station. If, for example, a four‐level parking structure were constructed at H Street, there is the potential to triple the existing parking capacity. A parking structure is also proposed within the Bayfront area west of I‐5 and south of H Street. At the Palomar Street transit station, there is an existing undeveloped parcel of land west of Industrial Boulevard and south of Palomar Street that, if developed by the owner for

14

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements parking or acquired by MTS, could be an opportunity to increase parking near the Palomar Street transit station.

Alignment 4a Alignment 4a, shown in Attachment A, consists of the installation of a new third track for Express Trolley operations between the existing local northbound and southbound trolley tracks. The Express Trolley track would be localized at the existing transit stations within the project limits, providing the Express Trolley with a center bypass track to continue non‐stop service through the E Street and Palomar Street transit stations. At the H Street transit station, the Express Trolley would crossover from the center track to the northbound or southbound local track, depending on the time of day, in order to provide patron ingress and egress. The Express Trolley would travel northbound during the morning peak travel times and southbound during the afternoon peak travel times. The tracks would be constructed at a 15‐foot or 20‐foot offset, depending on the variation, between adjacent tracks, as measured from center of rail to center of rail. Alignment 4a would include some right‐of‐way acquisition.

Alignment 4a begins north of E Street. From north of E Street to south of H Street, a new track would be installed to the east of the two existing tracks, providing service to the northbound local trolley. The northbound and southbound Express Trolley would operate on the eastern existing track, and the southbound local trolley would operate on the existing western track. From south of H Street to south of I Street, the three tracks converge back to the two existing tracks via crossovers. Express Trolley services would merge with local services and operate on the existing tracks from this point southward to north of Palomar Street. At this point, the two existing tracks diverge to three new tracks through the Palomar Street intersection. South of Palomar Street, the three tracks again converge to two tracks via crossovers that connect with the existing tracks at Anita Street.

Beginning just north of Palomar Street, portions of the existing Palomar Street siding track would be removed and new siding track would be installed at grade just east of the existing siding track. The proposed track will connect with the existing siding track north of Anita Street. Additional track removal would be needed for the siding track, commonly referred to as the diamond, at F Street. Removal of the diamond has been proposed by previous studies.

Alignment 4a would also include improvement of the existing at‐grade rail crossing at Anita Street. The existing at‐grade crossing is three tracks wide: two trolley mainline tracks and the Palomar Street siding track. Industrial Boulevard parallels the rail line and intersects Anita Street in close proximity to the at‐grade crossing. The Anita Street/Industrial Boulevard intersection is currently signalized, but the width of Anita Street at the existing rail crossing is not the same as the rest of the roadway which is at the ultimate width of 52 feet. Therefore, modifications would need to be made to the rail signalization to accommodate the ultimate width of Anita Street through the crossing. For Alignment 4a, the proposed improvements would include traffic signal preemption at the Anita Street/Industrial Boulevard intersection, new curb and gutter nearest the tracks, new sidewalks, new grade crossing panels, and new grade crossing warning devices. Additionally, because the existing curb returns from Anita Street to Industrial Boulevard are too small for trucks to adequately

15

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

make the turning movement, the curb return radii would need to be increased to allow for safe movement of trucks turning from Anita Street to northbound Industrial Boulevard and from Industrial Boulevard to eastbound Anita Street. Currently, trucks are prohibited from making northbound to eastbound right turns because of the narrow crossing. This causes some trucks to make out‐of‐direction moves and travel east to the Broadway/Anita Street intersection where they can execute a turn.

There are three proposed grade‐separated structures for the tracks at E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street. Alignment 4a has two variations for handling freight at these intersections. Variation 1 proposes a separate at‐grade track constructed east of all existing and proposed tracks that will allow freight rail to bypass the grade‐separated structures at the E Street and H Street stations. Therefore, only light rail transit will operate on those proposed grade‐separated structures. Through the Palomar Street overcrossing, Variation 1 requires freight to use the at‐grade upgraded Palomar Street siding track instead of a separate bypass track. Alternately, Variation 2 does not add another at‐grade track for freight, and instead allows for freight and light rail transit to travel on the grade‐ separated structures. The typical sections of the overcrossing structures are shown below in Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3: Alignment 4a Typical Section (E & Palomar Streets)

16

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Figure 4: Alignment 4a Typical Section (H Street)

Alignment 4a could provide freight capacity of one additional train per night during off‐peak periods when trolley headway is 30 minutes or more. However, with the Blue Line’s reduced trolley all‐day headway of 7.5 minutes planned per the 2030 RTP, the freight benefits of this alignment would be negated.

The estimated capital cost for Variation 1 of Alignment 4a is $135 million, while the capital cost for Variation 2 is $185 million. Costs include freight and Express Trolley construction costs, as well as right‐of‐way acquisition. Also included is the cost of seven trolley vehicles for Express Trolley operations within the study area. The cost estimate can be found in Attachment A.

Alignment 4b Alignment 4b, shown in Attachment B, consists of the installation of a new third track for Express Trolley operations between the existing local northbound and southbound trolley tracks. The new track would allow for an Express Trolley to operate on the center track between the other two tracks throughout the project limits, from SR 54 to Main Street. The Express Trolley would travel northbound during the morning peak travel times and southbound during the afternoon peak travel times. The tracks would be constructed at a 15‐foot or 20‐foot offset, depending on the variation, between adjacent tracks, as measured from center of rail to center of rail. Alignment 4b would include some right‐of‐way acquisition.

The north end of Alignment 4b begins on the south side of the Sweetwater River Channel north of the southbound I‐5 to eastbound SR 54 connector. A new track would be installed 15 feet to the east of the two existing tracks and would carry the northbound local trolley. The northbound and

17

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

southbound Express Trolley would operate on the eastern existing track, and southbound local trains would operate on the existing western track. At the H Street transit station, the Express Trolley would crossover from the center track to the northbound or southbound local track, depending on the time of day, to provide patron ingress and egress. Once the Express Trolley has exited the H Street station, it would crossover back to the center track. Freight would operate on the easternmost track throughout the project area.

With Alignment 4b, all three tracks would shift 15 feet to the west beginning south of K Street. Consequently, the northbound local and northbound/southbound Express Trolley would operate on the easternmost and center tracks (both existing), respectively. The southbound local trolley would operate on the new westernmost track throughout the remainder of the project limits. Reversing curves on all three tracks would be required to make the transition, and as the tracks are shifted, removal/realignment of the existing tracks would be necessary. Generally, freight would operate on the easternmost track throughout the project area; however, because freight would operate after trolley operations cease, it would not be limited to any one track. Thus, Alignment 4b would neither diminish nor increase the additional freight capacity as provided by the TCIF improvements.

Beginning north of Palomar Street, portions of the existing Palomar Street siding track would be removed and new siding track would be installed at grade east of the existing siding track. The proposed track would connect with the existing Palomar Street siding track north of Main Street. Additional track removals would be needed for the freight spur track at L Street, as well as for the siding track, commonly referred to as the diamond, at F Street. Removal of the diamond at F Street has been slated for removal by previous studies.

Alignment 4b would also include the improvement of the existing at‐grade rail crossings at J Street, L Street, Anita Street, Moss Street, and Naples Street. At J and L Streets, the existing at‐grade crossings have two tracks crossing them. At Anita, Moss, and Naples Streets, the existing at‐grade crossings are three tracks wide: two shared trolley and freight mainline tracks, and the Palomar Street siding track. From L Street to Anita Street, Industrial Boulevard parallels the rail line and intersects these streets in close proximity to the at‐grade crossings. The intersections of L and Anita Streets with Industrial Boulevard are currently controlled with traffic signals, while the intersections of Industrial Boulevard with Moss Street and Naples Streets are stop sign‐controlled. The proposed third mainline track would be constructed west of the existing tracks, which would necessitate modification of the intersections at Anita, L, Moss, and Naples Streets. The modifications would likely add traffic signals at Moss and Naples Streets, signal preemptions at all four intersections, new curb and gutter nearest the tracks, new sidewalks from the intersection and across the tracks, and new grade crossing warning devices for all four rail crossings. Because the large elevation difference between the Moss Street and Naples Street intersections with Industrial Boulevard creates a hump, the new third track would require the raising of a portion of Industrial Boulevard to provide a smooth vertical transition. Additionally, because the existing curb returns from Anita Street to Industrial Boulevard are too small for trucks to make the turning movement, the curb return radii would need to be increased to allow for safe movement of trucks turning from Anita Street to northbound Industrial Boulevard and from Industrial Boulevard to eastbound Anita Street. At J

18

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Street, the proposed third mainline track would be constructed east of the existing tracks. Improvements at J Street include signal preemptions at the I‐5 northbound on‐ and off‐ramps, new curb and gutter nearest the tracks, re‐profiling of J Street at the east side approach, new sidewalks across the tracks, and new grade crossing warning devices.

Similar to Alignment 4a, there are three proposed grade‐separated structures for the tracks at E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street, and Alignment 4b has two variations for handling freight at these intersections. Variation 1 proposes a separate at‐grade track constructed east of all existing and proposed tracks that would allow freight rail to bypass the grade‐separated structures. Therefore, only light rail transit would use the proposed structures. Alternately, Variation 2 does not add an at‐grade track for freight bypass, and would instead allow for freight and light rail transit to travel on the grade‐separated structures. The typical sections of the overcrossing structures are shown in Figures 5 and 6 below.

Figure 5: Alignment 4b Typical Section (E & Palomar Streets)

19

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Figure 6: Alignment 4b Typical Section (H Street)

The estimated capital cost for Variation 1 of Alignment 4b is $150 million, while the capital cost for Variation 2 is $200 million. Costs include freight and Express Trolley construction costs, as well as right‐of‐way acquisition. Also included is the cost of seven trolley vehicles for Express Trolley operations within the study area. The cost estimate can be found in Attachment B.

Alignment 4c Alignment 4c, shown in Attachment C, consists of the installation of a new third track for Express Trolley operations to the east of the existing local northbound and southbound trolley tracks. The new track would allow Express Trolley and freight to operate on the easternmost track throughout the project limits from SR 54 to Main Street. The Express Trolley would travel non‐stop through the E Street and Palomar Street transit stations along the easternmost track. At the H Street transit station, the Express Trolley would stop at the station alongside a dedicated platform for Express Trolley service. Additionally, because all of the industries served by freight are east of the existing tracks, this new third mainline track would also function as a dedicated freight track. Alignment 4c would not diminish additional freight capacity planned for the TCIF improvements, but it has the potential to increase freight capacity because a dedicated track would theoretically allow freight operations to begin as soon as Express Trolley operations cease. The new track would be constructed at a 15‐foot or 20‐foot offset, depending on the variation, between adjacent tracks, as measured from center of rail to center of rail. Alignment 4c would include some right‐of‐way acquisition.

20

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

The north end of Alignment 4c begins on the south side of the Sweetwater River Channel north of the southbound I‐5 to eastbound SR 54 connector. A new track would be installed to the east of the two existing tracks, and would carry the northbound and southbound Express Trolley as well as freight rail. The northbound local trolley would operate on the eastern existing track, and the southbound local trolley would operate on the existing western track.

With Alignment 4c, beginning on the south side of K Street, the new third track would be installed to the west of the existing two tracks. Consequently, the northbound/southbound Express Trolley and freight rail and northbound local trolley would operate on the easternmost and center tracks (both existing), respectively. The southbound local trolley would operate on the proposed westernmost track throughout the remainder of the project limits. Reversing curves on all three tracks would be required to make the transition, and as the tracks are shifted, removal/realignment of the existing tracks would be necessary. Additional track removals would be needed for the freight spur track at L Street, as well as for the siding track, commonly referred to as the diamond, at F Street. Removal of the diamond at F Street has been slated by previous studies for removal.

Alignment 4c would also include the improvement of the existing at‐grade rail crossings at Anita Street, J Street, L Street, Moss Street, and Naples Street. At J and L Streets, the existing at‐grade crossings have two tracks crossing them. At Anita, Moss, and Naples Streets, the existing at‐grade crossings are three tracks wide: two shared trolley and freight mainline tracks, and the Palomar Street siding track. From L Street to Anita Street, Industrial Boulevard parallels the rail line and intersects these streets in close proximity to the at‐grade crossings. The intersections of L Street and Anita Street with Industrial Boulevard are currently controlled with traffic signals, while the intersections of Industrial Boulevard with Moss Street and Naples Streets are stop sign‐controlled. The proposed third mainline track would be constructed west of the existing tracks, which would necessitate the modification of the intersections at L, Anita, Moss, and Naples Streets. The modification would likely add traffic signals at Moss and Naples Streets, signal preemptions at all four intersections, new curb and gutter nearest the tracks, new sidewalks from the intersection and across the tracks, and new grade crossing warning devices for all four rail crossings. Because the large elevation difference between the Moss Street and Naples Street intersections with Industrial Boulevard creates a hump, the new third track would require the raising of a portion of Industrial Boulevard to provide a smooth vertical transition. Additionally, because the existing curb return from Anita Street to Industrial Boulevard are too small for trucks to make the turning movement, the curb returns radii would need to be increased to allow for safe movement of trucks turning from Anita Street to northbound Industrial Boulevard and from Industrial Boulevard to eastbound Anita Street. Anita Street requires a curb‐to‐curb width of 52 feet because of its Class III roadway designation. In addition, the sidewalks, or pedestrian facilities, must be added as well as new/relocated rail crossing equipment. At J Street, the proposed third mainline track would be constructed east of the existing tracks. Improvements at J Street include signal preemptions at the I‐ 5 northbound on‐ and off‐ramps, new curb and gutter nearest the tracks, re‐profiling of J Street at the east side approach, new sidewalks across the tracks, and new grade crossing warning devices.

21

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Similar to Alignments 4a and 4b, there are three proposed grade‐separated structures for the tracks at E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street. Each alignment has two variations for handling freight trains at these intersections. Variation 1 proposes a separate at‐grade track constructed east of all existing and proposed tracks that would allow freight rail to bypass the grade‐separated structures at the E Street and H Street Stations. Therefore, only light rail transit would use those proposed structures. Through the Palomar Street overcrossing, Variation 1 would require freight to use the at‐ grade upgraded Palomar Street siding track instead of a separate bypass track. Alternately, Variation 2 does not add a track for freight, and instead would allow for freight and light rail transit to travel on the grade‐separated structures. The typical sections of the overcrossing structure are shown in Figures 7 and 8 below.

Figure 7: Alignment 4c Typical Section (E & H Streets)

22

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Figure 8: Alignment 4c Typical Section (Palomar Street)

The estimated capital cost for Variation 1 of Alignment 4c is $140 million, while the capital cost for Variation 2 is $190 million. Costs include freight and Express Trolley construction costs, as well as right‐of‐way acquisition. Also included is the cost of seven trolley vehicles for Express Trolley operations within the study area. The cost estimate can be found in Attachment C.

Evaluation of Alignments

In order to choose a recommended alignment for a third mainline track for LRT/freight rail, Alignments 4a, 4b, and 4c were evaluated and compared to each other based on several categories. The following categories were used to evaluate each of the three alignments.

• Right‐of‐Way Acquisition • Cost • Platform Accessibility • Environmental/Community Constraints • Operations for Express Trolley • Freight Benefits

The Right‐of‐Way Acquisition category assesses the amount, in square feet, of total right‐of‐way needed to be acquired by each alternative, and is broken down into commercial, educational, publicly owned, and residential categories. The total number of relocations is also included in the right‐of‐way acquisition criteria. In order to determine which owners would be relocated, a 15‐foot buffer was used.

23

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

As such, if the rail line is proposed to be built within 15 feet of an existing building or residence, that property is considered to be a relocation.

The Cost category includes capital costs and total annual operational and maintenance costs.

The Platform Accessibility category examines each alternative on the basis of three statements: 1) Patrons do not have to cross any tracks to access their desired platform at the E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street transit stations; 2) Alignment does not provide a platform immediately adjacent to non‐ stopping Express Trolley track; and 3) At H Street, alignment allows each platform to serve one type of service exclusively. If an alignment agrees with those statements, it is given points; if it disagrees, the alignment receives zero points.

The Environmental/Community Constraints category assesses the extent to which each alignment impacts biological resources and visual aesthetics, as well as the proximity each alignment places the tracks to existing privately owned parcels. This category also considers potential noise impacts.

The Operations for Express Trolley rates each alignment on whether or not it requires mixing of local and Express Trolley operations on the same track. Mixing Express Trolley operations with freight has the potential to cause delay for both operations. Alignments that do not require the mixing of operations are given points, while alignments that do require mixing of operations receive zero points.

The Freight Benefits category examines each alignment on the basis of five statements: 1) Alignment maintains a freight operating window consistent with currently funded improvements; 2) Alignment potentially increases the freight operations window over currently funded improvements; 3) Alignment does not reduce access to freight for potential customers within the study area; 4) Alignment reduces exposure of freight to vehicles and pedestrians; and 5) Alignment does not potentially hinder service to customers utilizing the Palomar Street siding track. If an alignment agrees with those statements, it is given points; if it disagrees, the alignment receives zero points.

A conceptual schematic diagram of the third mainline track for each alignment is shown in Attachment D.

Each alignment along with the two design variations were evaluated using evaluation criteria within each category, and a matrix summarizing the results can be found in Attachment E. Each criterion was given a point value, and each alternative received a percentage of the total points possible depending on a defined range of values. Total points for each criterion were added together for all of the alternatives, and the alignment with the highest total points was determined to be the recommended alignment. The Summary Matrix for the evaluation is shown in the figure below.

24

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Figure 9: Evaluation Criteria Summary Matrix

Recommendation

Based on the analysis and evaluation of each alignment, this PID recommends Alignment 4c, Variation 2 to be carried forward to the next phase of study. Based on the evaluation criteria, this alternative has the best platform accessibility, operations for Express Trolley, and freight benefits. It also scored among the top two alternatives in the Environmental/Community Constraints category.

Grade Separations Only

The Grade Separations Only alternative consists of only grade‐separated improvements. The existing track alignment would be maintained through the project area while grade separations would be constructed for LRT at E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street. Freight would remain at grade in this alternative due to the design constraint for freight of 1.5 percent maximum grade. The need for grade

25

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements separations at E Street and H Street has been detailed in SANDAG’s Final Concept Engineering Report of E Street and H Street Grade Separations, July 2004. As demand on the Blue Line Trolley and traffic on local streets has increased, the increased crossing arm down‐time at the E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street rail crossings are causing longer delays for vehicles. Additionally, the 2030 RTP includes improving headway to 7.5 minutes along the Blue Line Trolley. This would increase the frequency of trolleys, which would further increase the crossing arms down‐time at the at‐grade rail crossings, thereby increasing traffic delays and decreasing the levels of service.

Similar to SANDAG’s 2004 report, E Street and H Street are currently projected to have failing levels of service in peak directions at the intersections with the I‐5 ramps. However, the ADT’s have changed since the 2004 study; E Street had approximately 30,000 trips per day in 2004 and H Street had 35,000 trips per day. Current ADT volumes, as stated previously, are 39,300 and 30,900 at E Street and H Street, respectively. Palomar Street’s current volume is 47,600 ADT. The 2004 grade separation study assumed the same headways as discussed in this PID: 7.5‐minute peak headways and projected 7.5‐minute all‐ day headways per SANDAG’s 2030 RTP.

Grade‐separating the Blue Line Trolley operations from these high volume major roads would enhance safety, reduce delays, and improve traffic circulation in the surrounding area. In a separate evaluation, this alternative will be coupled with other multimodal improvements that are exclusive of Express Trolley operations.

Improvements to the existing transit stations at E, H, and Palomar Streets would also be necessary to accommodate the grade separations. At‐grade platforms would likely require the existing platform locations to shift north or south due to track profile changes resulting from grade separations. Alternately, grade‐separated platforms could be utilized.

As stated previously, the proposed grade separations at E Street, H Street, and Palomar Street are expected to be included on the regional priority list for rail grade separation projects in SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. The draft priority list can be found in Attachment I to this report.

The estimated capital cost for the Grade Separations Only alternative is $77 million, as shown in the table below. Table 4: Grade Separations Only Estimated Capital Costs (2010) Estimated Item Capital Cost (millions of $) E Street Grade Separation $26 H Street Grade Separation $24 Palomar Street Grade Separation $27 Total Cost $77

The costs for the E Street and H Street grade separations, escalated to 2010 dollars, are from SANDAG’s 2004 grade separations study with the rail constructed over the cross street. The cost for H Street has been increased to account for H Street as a future six‐lane facility. The cost shown for the Palomar

26

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Street grade separation is the same cost shown in Attachment H for the Rail Over Palomar Street alternative. Cost estimates include capital and right‐of‐way costs only. Other costs such as project development costs have not been estimated.

Palomar Street Grade Separation

The grade separations at E Street and H Street have been studied previously in the Final Concept Engineering Report of E Street and H Street Grade Separations (SANDAG 2004). Therefore, the grade separation at Palomar Street will be discussed herein in further detail. There are three potential alternatives that will be discussed:

• Palomar Street Over Rail – Palomar Street would rise above grade on the east and west sides of the rail to cross over the rail corridor (Road Overcrossing). • Rail Under Palomar Street – The rail would drop below grade on the north and south sides of Palomar Street to cross under Palomar Street (Rail Undercrossing). • Rail Over Palomar Street – The rail would rise above grade on the north and south sides of Palomar Street to cross over Palomar Street (Rail Overcrossing).

Design criteria utilized for the rail overcrossing and undercrossing alternatives are from the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board’s LRT Design Criteria, adopted in March 1999, the Final Concept Engineering Report of E Street and H Street Grade Separations, July 2004, and project meetings with freight rail representatives. According to the LRT Design Criteria, the maximum grade for LRT rail is 4.3 percent for the mainline, and 2 percent through LRT stations where no vehicle storage is allowed. However, a grade of 0.5 percent is usually desirable for the track through LRT stations. The minimum standard distance between the centerline of tracks is 14.76 feet for exclusive or semi‐exclusive LRT right‐of‐way with center poles and a center walkway, or 14 feet for LRT right‐of‐way with outside poles. Additionally, despite the maximum grade for freight rail being shown as 2 percent in the report for the E Street and H Street grade separations, it was determined in meetings with freight rail representatives that the maximum grade would be limited to 1.5 percent.

The maximum allowable grade for Palomar Street in the road overcrossing alternative is 6 percent, according to Section 204.3 Standards for Grade of Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 6th edition. A structural depth of 6 feet is assumed for a roadway structure over the rail.

According to BNSF Railway – Union Pacific Railroad’s Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects, dated January 24, 2007, the minimum pavement vertical clearance for roadway structures over railroad shall be 23’‐4” measured from the top of the highest rail to the lowest obstruction on the structure. For railroad structures over roadway, the minimum pavement vertical clearance over the entire roadway width shall be 20 feet. Rail structure depths of 5 feet are assumed for LRT only, and 6.5 feet for shared LRT/freight rail.

For the Rail Under Palomar Street and Rail Over Palomar Street alternatives, freight is assumed to remain at grade due to the design constraints imposed on freight trains (1.5% maximum grade) and the inability to ‘return‐to‐grade’ in order to maintain service to the Palomar Street siding track.

27

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements Palomar Street Alternatives

Palomar Street Over Rail (Road Overcrossing) In this alternative, Palomar Street would rise and cross over the existing LRT and freight rail alignment. Palomar Street would break grade approximately 500 feet to the east and west of the existing rail, and slope upward at maximum 6 percent to its highest point of 29’‐4” over the rail (23’‐ 4” vertical clearance plus 6‐foot roadway structure depth). The existing transit station would remain at grade at its existing location. The existing siding track at Palomar Street currently used by freight is proposed for removal in the Draft Preliminary Engineering Plans, December 2009, for SANDAG’s South Line Freight Improvement Project. Removal of the siding track is compatible with this alternative.

This alternative would also require profile modifications of Industrial Boulevard, due to the close proximity of the Palomar Street/Industrial Boulevard intersection. Industrial Boulevard would have to rise above grade in order to meet Palomar Street where it crosses over the rail.

The estimated capital cost for this alternative in 2010 dollars is $45 million. The cost estimate and a conceptual layout of this alternative are shown in Attachment F.

Rail Under Palomar Street (Rail Undercrossing) In this alternative, the existing rail alignment would remain in approximately its current location, but the LRT rail would break grade approximately 700 feet to the north and south of Palomar Street. Freight rail would remain at grade on a bypass track in this alternative. The LRT rail would slope downward at 4.3 percent to its lowest point at 29’‐4” below the existing grade of Palomar Street (23’‐4” vertical clearance plus 6‐foot roadway structure depth). The rail undercrossing would remain as a double track system and accommodate only LRT. This alternative would likely require the transit station to be modified to include grade‐separated LRT platforms. The proposed removal of the existing siding track at Palomar Street, as planned in SANDAG’s South Line Freight Improvement Project, is not recommended under this alternative because the siding track would be used for the freight bypass track while the LRT would be grade‐separated. The estimated capital cost for this alternative in 2010 dollars is $32 million. The cost estimate and a conceptual layout of this alternative can be found Attachment G.

Rail Over Palomar Street (Rail Overcrossing) Similar to the Rail Under Palomar Street alternative, the Rail Over Palomar Street alternative consists of the existing rail alignment remaining in approximately its current location. However, the LRT rail would break grade approximately 600 feet to the north and south of Palomar Street in order to slope upward at 4.3 percent to its highest point of 25 feet over Palomar Street (20‐foot vertical clearance plus 5‐foot rail structure depth for LRT). The overcrossing would remain as a double track system and accommodate only LRT, while freight would remain at grade. This alternative would likely require the transit station to be modified to include grade‐separated LRT platforms. As stated in the Rail Under Palomar Street alternative discussion, the proposed removal of the existing siding track at Palomar Street, as planned in SANDAG’s South Line Freight Improvement Project, is not recommended under this alternative because the siding track would be used for the freight bypass

28

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

track while the LRT would be grade‐separated. The estimated capital cost for this alternative in 2010 dollars is $27 million. The cost estimate and a conceptual layout of this alternative can be found Attachment H.

Alternatives Considered and Rejected In addition to the three Palomar Street grade separation alternatives described previously, two others were also considered during the process of developing the proposed project alternatives analyzed in this PID. However, they have been eliminated from further consideration for reasons described below.

Grade-Separated Freight at Palomar Street As stated previously, for the Rail Under Palomar Street and Rail Over Palomar Street alternatives, the freight would not be recommended for grade‐separation along with the LRT. Freight service to the Palomar Street siding track would continue to be required for freight customers even with rail grade separations. Grade‐separating the freight rail is not recommended as the freight rail would not be able to adequately return to grade to maintain service to the siding track. In order for freight to grade‐separate along with LRT, the structure and approach lengths would be much longer due to freight rail’s flatter maximum slope, which would lead to operational difficulties and make grade‐ separation of freight not cost‐effective.

Palomar Street Under Rail An alternative to depress Palomar Street beneath the existing rail alignment, the Palomar Street Under Rail alternative, was considered for this PID, and has been rejected from further consideration due to infeasibility. In this alternative, the LRT and freight rail would remain at grade while Palomar Street would cross under the rail. Palomar Street would break grade approximately 450 feet to the east and west of the rail, and slope downward at maximum 6 percent to its lowest point at 26.5 feet below the existing grade of Palomar Street (20‐foot vertical clearance plus 6.5‐foot rail structure depth for freight). The existing transit station would remain at grade at its existing location.

To construct this alternative, staging would require Palomar Street to be detoured around the project area or to be closed completely during construction. Due to the existing transit station as well as existing industrial, commercial, and residential development being in close proximity to the project area, a temporary road or complete roadway closure would be considered infeasible and unreasonable. Additionally, a temporary rail detour shoofly track would be necessary to allow uninterrupted rail operations. The shoofly track would be located beyond improvements to Palomar Street. Due to the existing nearby developments and the proximity of the Palomar Street transit station, a shoofly track is considered infeasible. Therefore, the Palomar Street Under Rail alternative has been rejected from further consideration.

29

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements Potential Utility Conflicts There are existing wet and dry utilities within the project area of the proposed Palomar Street grade separation. A potential utility conflict for the rail grade‐separated alternatives is the overhead electric lines that cross over the existing tracks approximately 525 feet north of Palomar Street. If the Rail Over Palomar Street alternative is chosen, this potential conflict would need to be addressed.

For the Rail Under Palomar Street alternative, a potential utility conflict is the 15‐inch sewer line that flows from east to west along Oxford Street and connects to one of the 15‐inch sewer lines in Industrial Boulevard approximately 450 feet north of Palomar Street.

For the Palomar Street Over Rail alternative, a potential utility conflict is the overhead electric lines that cross over Palomar Street approximately 400 feet east of Industrial Boulevard. Additional potential conflicts include the following:

• One 8‐inch sewer line flowing west to east along Palomar Street and connecting to a 15‐inch sewer lines in Industrial Boulevard • One 8‐inch sewer line flowing north to south along Trenton Avenue and connecting to a 8‐ inch sewer line in Palomar Street • One 18‐inch and two 12‐inch storm drain pipes at the Palomar Street/Industrial Boulevard intersection • One 18‐inch and one 24‐inch storm drain pipes along Palomar Street connecting to a 30‐inch storm drain pipe at Trenton Avenue • One 48‐inch storm drain pipe crossing Palomar Street approximately 475 feet east of Industrial Boulevard

Other existing utilities within the project area include:

• Two parallel 15‐inch sewer lines flowing north to south along Industrial Boulevard • One 8‐inch sewer line flowing north to south along Walnut Avenue and connecting to the 8‐ inch sewer line in Palomar Street • One 8‐inch sewer line flowing west to east along Ada Street and connecting to one of the 15‐inch sewer lines in Industrial Boulevard • One 18‐inch storm drain pipe running parallel to Industrial Boulevard approximately 50 feet east of the existing LRT and freight rail • One 18‐inch storm drain pipe along Industrial Boulevard south of Ada Street

Area of Potential Effect for Alternatives The Area of Potential Effect for the Palomar Street grade separation alternatives extends north and south 700 feet, and east and west 650 feet from the existing at‐grade rail crossing at Palomar Street. Approximately 1,300 feet of Palomar Street would be directly affected if the Palomar Street Over Rail alternative is identified as the recommended alternative. Approximately 1,400 feet of Industrial

30

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Boulevard would be directly affected due to profile modifications necessary to allow Industrial Boulevard to rise above grade to meet the proposed Palomar Street grade. Surrounding businesses and residences would be affected during construction due to the required traffic control and construction staging.

If either the Rail Under Palomar Street or Rail Over Palomar Street alternatives are identified as the recommended alternative, the existing rail lines would be affected, but rail service would be unaffected because temporary LRT shoofly tracks and freight bypass tracks would be used during construction. Palomar Street and its surrounding businesses and residences would be affected during some night‐time construction activities.

Possible Traffic Control and/or Staging Requirements Palomar Street is currently a six‐lane roadway between Orange Avenue and I‐5, and is classified as a Major street in the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan. Palomar Street provides access to multiple businesses and residences in the project area as well as on‐ and off‐ramps to and from I‐5. The proposed rail grade separation at Palomar Street is approximately 0.2 mile from the I‐5 northbound ramps. Therefore, traffic control and staging is an important consideration when evaluating grade separation alternatives in order to avoid disruption to the flow of traffic as much as possible.

Depending on which of the three grade separation alternatives is chosen, temporary closures of Palomar Street could occur, which would require temporary detours or night‐time construction. Prior to start of construction, traffic management elements such as public information, construction strategies, alternate route strategies, contingency plans, motorist information strategies, and incident management must be considered. The goals of these elements should be to not increase traffic delay or time spent in the queue by a significant amount above normal recurring traffic delay, to maintain traffic flow throughout the Palomar Street corridor and surrounding areas, and to provide a safe environment for the work force and motoring public.

Construction staging requirements would vary depending on the rail alternative chosen for further study. A discussion regarding staging strategies for the different grade separation alternatives is presented below.

Palomar Street Over Rail Alternative For the Palomar Street Over Rail alternative, construction would likely be staged to first build one side of the road overcrossing, possibly utilizing mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls and a simple‐span precast box girder bridge. Either the east‐side or west‐side half of the Palomar Street overcrossing would be constructed, while traffic would be detoured to the opposite existing at‐grade side. One side of existing Palomar Street would be restriped to convey both directions of travel while the opposite side would be closed to traffic for construction of the retaining wall and bridge structures. After one‐half of the grade separation is constructed, both directions of traffic would be shifted to the structure while the remainder of the bridge would be constructed. A temporary retaining wall system along Palomar Street may be required during staging.

31

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements Rail Under Palomar Street Alternative For the Rail Under Palomar Street alternative, staging would likely begin by modifying the existing transit station to accommodate temporary tracks and platforms. Temporary LRT tracks (shoofly tracks) would be constructed along with catenaries and signals, and the grade crossing equipment would be relocated for the temporary crossing. Excavation would then begin, along with construction of tie‐back or soldier pile retaining walls and the foundation and abutments of a slab bridge for Palomar Street. Temporary night‐time closures of Palomar Street would be required to install precast bridge sections. The permanent LRT railbed, trackwork, and catenaries would be constructed below grade and station and platform improvements would be completed. After the new LRT rail is constructed, rail service would be shifted from the temporary tracks to the new permanent tracks.

Rail Over Palomar Street Alternative For the Rail Over Palomar Street alternative, construction staging would likely be similar to the Rail Under Palomar Street alternative. The existing transit station would be modified to accommodate temporary tracks and platforms, and temporary LRT tracks (shoofly tracks) would be constructed along with catenaries and signals. Grade crossing equipment would need to be relocated for the temporary rail crossing. Placing of fill would begin along with construction of MSE retaining walls and the foundation and abutments for the rail bridge structure, likely a cast‐in‐place box girder bridge. Temporary night‐time closures of Palomar Street would likely be required to complete the rail overcrossing. After the fill is placed for the approaches and the overcrossing is complete, the permanent LRT railbed, trackwork, catenaries, and signals would be constructed above grade. The station and platform improvements would be completed, and rail service would then be shifted back to the new tracks from the temporary tracks.

Potential Effects of Construction Activities The Palomar Street grade separation would impact the businesses surrounding the project vicinity, but impacts to schools, hospitals, fire stations, and other critical structures would be minimal. The nearest hospital is Scripps Mercy Hospital Chula Vista on H Street approximately 2 miles from the Palomar Street rail crossing. The nearest schools are Harborside Elementary on Naples Street approximately 0.3 mile away, Karl H Kellogg Elementary School on East Naples approximately 2.4 miles away, and Mueller Charter School on I Street approximately 2 miles from the Palomar Street crossing. The nearest fire station is the Chula Vista Fire Department on 4th Avenue approximately 2.5 miles from the Palomar Street rail crossing, and the nearest police station is the Chula Vista Police Department on 4th Avenue approximately 2.5 miles from the project site. Because these are outside of the project vicinity for the Palomar Street grade separation, impacts would be minimal.

Construction activities would impact transit operations due to modifications that would be made to either the rail itself or Palomar Street depending on the alternative chosen. If the Palomar Street Over Rail alternative is chosen, traffic would probably be reduced from a total of six lanes of travel to four lanes of travel to accommodate both directions of traffic. This could cause some delays through the project area. Freight and LRT would remain in place and service would likely be

32

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

unaffected. If either the Rail Under Palomar Street or Rail Over Palomar Street alternatives are chosen, LRT service would likely remain unaffected while LRT is moved to a temporary track during construction. Palomar Street would experience night‐time closures to install bridge structures, but traffic would be minimally affected due to presumed lower volumes at night. To access I‐5 during night‐time closures, traffic would travel either 0.8 mile north along Broadway toward the ramps on Industrial Boulevard south of L Street, or 0.6 mile south along Broadway toward the Main Street ramps.

Community Involvement

As of the writing of this PID, there have been two meetings in which community members have been invited to share their views and opinions of this project. On August 10, 2009, a community meeting was held at the Chula Vista City Hall to present the proposed implementation of Express Trolley along with multimodal improvements. Newspaper advertisements were used to inform the public about the meeting time and location. Attendees included members of the public in addition to representatives from SANDAG, Caltrans, and the City of Chula Vista.

On September 18, 2009, SANDAG’s Transportation Committee met to discuss this project. Public notice was provided to allow members of the general public to attend. At the meeting, a member of the public representing Save Our Forests and Ranchlands (SOFAR) spoke in support of enhancing transit, and alternatives that included the implementation of Express Trolley.

Environmental Determination/Documentation

As of May 2010, the following environmental technical studies have been completed for the I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study project:

1) Initial Environmental Assessment 2) Preliminary Biological Resource Constraint Analysis 3) Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment 4) Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 5) Cultural Resources Constraints Analysis

Funding

The third mainline track and proposed grade separations are discussed in SANDAG’s 2030 RTP, which estimates $671 million for regional rail grade separations that are top priority projects as determined through regional evaluation. According to the 2030 RTP, grade separations along the Blue Line Trolley in Chula Vista are included in the Transit Facilities Reasonably Expected revenue scenario. The third mainline track is included in the Goods Movement section of the Reasonably Expected revenue scenario. 13

13 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future, November 2007

33

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements

Specific funding sources will be identified as this project progresses to future project development phases.

Schedule

In a separate evaluation, the recommended alignment will be coupled with other multimodal improvements. The resulting Concept Alternative will be compared to other Concept Alternatives that do not include Express Trolley operations. If the Concept Alternative that ranks highest does not include Express Trolley, a third mainline track and Express Trolley operations will not be recommended for further study. The Grade Separations Only alternative will be recommended for further study if Express Trolley operations are eliminated from future regional planning efforts.

Based on the separate evaluation, an implementation plan will be prepared and a schedule will be developed. Regional planning efforts are underway for the development of the 2050 RTP that will lead to the adoption of the updated RTP in 2011. The schedule will be determined as prioritization of the projects included in the 2050 RTP is completed, and will be further refined as projects progress to their next phase of study.

Regulatory Coordination

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Review: On February 11, 2010, a meeting was held at SANDAG with representatives from SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, MTS, and the CPUC to discuss the current project status and review the proposed at‐grade crossing improvements and third mainline track alignments. Handouts were provided to the CPUC representative showing aerial photos with conceptual crossing improvements, and at‐grade versus grade‐separated facilities for freight.

Shared LRT/freight rail tracks must be inspected and maintained to FRA standards. Inspection and maintenance of at‐grade rail crossing equipment must also follow FRA regulations in order to protect both LRT and freight rail. All San Diego Trolley track and maintenance personnel are FRA‐compliant due to the large amount of trolley tracks shared with freight trains.14

SANDAG Project Personnel

Rachel Kennedy Senior Transportation Planner Jennifer Williamson Senior Transportation Planner Elisa Arias Principal Regional Planner John Dorow Senior Engineer Andrea Hoff Assistant Transportation Planner Pete d’Ablaing Senior Transportation Engineer Antoinette Meier Regional Transportation Planner

14 Shared Use Rail Corridors: A Survey of Current Practice with Recommendations for the Future, Resor & Hickory, July 2004

34

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT Shared Light Rail Transit/Freight Rail Improvements Project Reviews

Jennifer Williamson SANDAG Pete d’Ablaing SANDAG Frank Rivera City of Chula Vista Dave Kaplan City of Chula Vista Wally Clack MTS Matt Dorman SD&AE Donald Seil Rail America, Inc.

PID Preparation

Kirk Bradbury AECOM Andrea Fitzgerald AECOM Jim Swanson AECOM Alan Bosch AECOM Michael Rocco AECOM

35

ATTACHMENT A

Alignment 4a Conceptual Layout Alignment 4a Cost Estimate 4a.1

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4a.2

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4a.3

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4a.4

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4a.5

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES SANDAG I-5 LRT Rail Construction Cost Items ALIGNMENT 4A - VARIATION 1

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST ECONOMIC LIFE ANNUALIZATION ANNUAL DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE PER FTA (YEARS) FACTOR COSTS TRACK - FREIGHT (Variation 1) New Ballasted Track TF $210 10,650 $2,236,500 30 0.106 $237,246 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 9,550 $1,050,500 30 0.106 $111,436 New Trackway (fill) TF $350 1,100 $385,000 30 0.106 $40,841 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 5 $875,000 30 0.106 $92,819 Remove Track TF $20 2,535 $50,700 30 0.106 $5,378 Remove Turnout EA $20,000 1 $20,000 30 0.106 $2,122 Sub Total = $4,617,700 Sub Total = $489,842 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - FREIGHT (Variation 1) E Street Interlocking, No. 15 Turnout EA $1,100,000 2 $2,200,000 30 0.106 $233,374 H Street Interlocking, No. 15 Turnout EA $1,100,000 2 $2,200,000 30 0.106 $233,374 E Street LS $759,000 1 $759,000 30 0.106 $80,514 H Street LS $1,230,000 1 $1,230,000 30 0.106 $130,477 Palomar Street LS $1,420,000 1 $1,420,000 30 0.106 $150,633 Total = $7,809,000 Sub Total = $828,373 CIVIL - Freight (Variation 1) Drainage TF $75 10,650 $798,750 30 0.106 $84,731 Utilities TF $100 10,650 $1,065,000 30 0.106 $112,974 Sub Total = $1,863,750 Sub Total = $197,705 Freight Total = $14,290,450 Freight Total = $1,515,920

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST ECONOMIC LIFE ANNUALIZATION ANNUAL DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE PER FTA (YEARS) FACTOR COSTS TRACK - LRT (Variation 1) New Ballasted Track TF $210 5,615 $1,179,150 30 0.106 $125,083 Temporary Ballasted Track TF $210 5,485 $1,151,892 30 0.106 $122,192 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 5,615 $617,650 30 0.106 $65,520 Temporary New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 5,485 $603,372 30 0.106 $64,005 New Trackway (fill) TF $350 0 $0 30 0.106 $0 Direct Fixation Track TF $325 12,225 $3,973,125 30 0.106 $421,466 Temporary Direct Fixation Track TF $325 395 $128,310 30 0.106 $13,611 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 0 $0 30 0.106 $0 New No. 15 Equilateral Turnout EA $240,000 14 $3,360,000 30 0.106 $356,426 Overhead Contact System TF $200 17,840 $3,568,000 20 0.117 $419,096 Temporary Overhead Contact System TF $200 5,880 $1,176,000 20 0.117 $138,133 Remove Track TF $20 18,405 $368,102 30 0.106 $39,048 Remove Turnout EA $20,000 2 $40,000 30 0.106 $4,243 Sub Total = $16,165,601$, , Sub Total = $1,768,823$, , GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - LRT (Variation 1) E Street Interlocking, No. 15 Crossover EA $1,400,000 2 $2,800,000 30 0.106 $297,022 H Street Interlocking, No. 15 Crossover EA $1,400,000 2 $2,800,000 30 0.106 $297,022 Palomar Street Interlocking, No. 15 Crossover EA $1,400,000 2 $2,800,000 30 0.106 $297,022 F Street LS $723,000 1 $723,000 30 0.106 $76,695 Anita Street LS $986,000 1 $986,000 30 0.106 $104,594 Sub Total = $10,109,000 Sub Total = $1,072,355 STATION- LRT (Variation 1) E Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 H Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 Palomar Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 Sub Total = $12,000,000 Sub Total = $1,272,951 STRUCTURAL - LRT (Variation 1) Retaining Walls TF $1,500 10,800 $16,200,000 30 0.106 $1,718,484 Bridge TF $3,500 1,425 $4,987,500 30 0.106 $529,070 Sub Total = $21,187,500 Sub Total = $2,247,554 VEHICLES - LRT (Variation 1) LRT Vehicles EA $4,000,000 7 $28,000,000 25 0.110 $3,084,706 Sub Total = $28,000,000 Sub Total = $3,084,706 CIVIL - LRT (Variation 1) Drainage TF $75 17,840 $1,338,000 30 0.106 $141,934 Utilities TF $100 23,615 $2,361,500 30 0.106 $250,506 NOTE: Unit Costs are current to 2010. Sub Total = $3,699,500 Sub Total = $392,440 LRT Total = $91,161,601 LRT Total = $9,838,830 Right-of-Way Acquisition (Variation 1) Right-of-Way Acquisition (Variation 1) SF $8 31,344 $250,752 100 0.100 $25,077 Temporary Right-of-Way SF $1 277,830 $277,830 100 0.100 $27,785 Sub Total = $528,582 Sub Total = $52,862

Freight + LRT + ROW = $105,980,633 Freight + LRT + ROW = $11,407,612 Contingency Contingency LS 25% 1 $26,495,158 TOTAL = $132,475,791 RF = Route Feet EA = Each LS = Lump Sum TF = Track Feet SF = Square Feet

Calculated By:______AECOM Checked By:______Page 1 of 7 10/29/10 SANDAG I-5 LRT Rail Construction Cost Items ALIGNMENT 4A - VARIATION 2

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST ECONOMIC LIFE ANNUALIZATION ANNUAL DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE PER FTA (YEARS) FACTOR COSTS TRACK - FREIGHT (Variation 2) New Ballasted Track TF $210 3,700 $777,000 30 0.106 $82,424 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 2,600 $286,000 30 0.106 $30,339 New Trackway (fill) TF $350 1,100 $385,000 30 0.106 $40,841 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 1 $175,000 30 0.106 $18,564 Remove Track TF $20 2,535 $50,700 30 0.106 $5,378 Remove Turnout EA $20,000 1 $20,000 30 0.106 $2,122 Sub Total = $1,693,700 Sub Total = $179,666 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - FREIGHT (Variation 2) E Street Interlocking, No. 15 Turnout EA $1,100,000 2 $2,200,000 30 0.106 $233,374 H Street Interlocking, No. 15 Turnout EA $1,100,000 2 $2,200,000 30 0.106 $233,374 Sub Total = $4,400,000 Sub Total = $466,749 CIVIL - Freight (Variation 2) Drainage TF $75 3,700 $277,500 30 0.106 $29,437 Utilities TF $100 3,700 $370,000 30 0.106 $39,249 Sub Total = $647,500 Sub Total = $68,686 Freight Total = $6,741,200 Freight Total = $715,101

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST ECONOMIC LIFE ANNUALIZATION ANNUAL DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE PER FTA (YEARS) FACTOR COSTS TRACK - LRT (Variation 2) New Ballasted Track TF $210 1,640 $344,400 30 0.106 $36,534 Temporary Ballasted Track TF $210 8,215 $1,725,192 30 0.106 $183,007 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 1,640 $180,400 30 0.106 $19,137 Temporary New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 8,215 $903,672 30 0.106 $95,861 New Trackway (fill) TF $350 0 $0 30 0.106 $0 Direct Fixation Track TF $325 34,575 $11,236,875 30 0.106 $1,191,999 Temporary Direct Fixation Track TF $325 395 $128,310 30 0.106 $13,611 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 0 $0 30 0.106 $0 New No. 15 Equilateral Turnout EA $240,000 14 $3,360,000 30 0.106 $356,426 Overhead Contact System TF $200 36,215 $7,243,000 20 0.117 $850,760 Temporary Overhead Contact System TF $200 8,610 $1,722,000 20 0.117 $202,265 Remove Track TF $20 20,706 $414,120 30 0.106 $43,930 Remove Turnout EA $20,000 2 $40,000 30 0.106 $4,243 Sub Total = $27,297,969 Sub Total = $2,997,773 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - LRT (Variation 2) E Street Interlocking, No. 15 Crossover EA $1,400,000 2 $2,800,000 30 0.106 $297,022 H Street InterlockinInterlockingg,, NoNo.. 15 CrossoverEA $$11,400,000 2 $$22,800,000 300 0.106.106 $$297297,022 Palomar Street Interlocking, No. 15 Crossover EA $1,400,000 2 $2,800,000 30 0.106 $297,022 Anita Street LS $986,000 1 $986,000 30 0.106 $104,594 Sub Total = $9,386,000 Sub Total = $995,660 STATION - LRT (Variation 2) E Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 H Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 Palomar Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 Sub Total = $12,000,000 Sub Total = $1,272,951 STRUCTURAL - LRT (Variation 2) Retaining Walls TF $1,500 32,793 $49,189,500 30 0.106 $5,217,985 Bridge TF $5,000 1,782 $8,910,000 30 0.106 $945,166 Sub Total = $58,099,500 Sub Total = $6,163,151 VEHICLES - LRT (Variation 2) LRT Vehicles EA $4,000,000 7 $28,000,000 25 0.110 $3,084,706 Sub Total = $28,000,000 Sub Total = $3,084,706 CIVIL - LRT (Variation 2) Drainage TF $75 36,215 $2,716,125 30 0.106 $288,124 Utilities TF $100 26,225 $2,622,500 30 0.106 $278,193 NOTE: Unit Costs are current to 2010. Sub Total = $5,338,625 Sub Total = $566,317 LRT Total = $140,122,094 LRT Total = $15,080,559 Right-of-Way Acquisition (Variation 2) Right-of-Way Acquisition (Variation 2) SF $8 3,924 $31,392 100 0.100 $3,139 Temporary Right-of-Way SF $1 406,823 $406,823 100 0.100 $40,685 Sub Total = $438,215 Sub Total = $43,825

Freight + LRT + ROW = $147,301,509 Freight + LRT + ROW= $15,839,485 Contingency Contingency LS 25% 1 $36,825,377 TOTAL = $184,126,886 RF = Route Feet EA = Each LS = Lump Sum TF = Track Feet SF = Square Feet

Calculated By:______AECOM Checked By:______Page 2 of 7 10/29/10

ATTACHMENT B

Alignment 4b Conceptual Layout Alignment 4b Cost Estimate 4b.1

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4b.2

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4b.3

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4b.4

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4b.5

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4b.6

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4b.7

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4b.8

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES SANDAG I-5 LRT Rail Construction Cost Items ALIGNMENT 4B - VARIATION 1

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST ECONOMIC LIFE ANNUALIZATION ANNUAL DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE PER FTA (YEARS) FACTOR COSTS TRACK - FREIGHT (Variation 1) New Ballasted Track TF $210 9,933 $2,085,930 30 0.106 $221,274 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 7,037 $774,070 30 0.106 $82,113 New Trackway (fill) TF $350 2,896 $1,013,600 30 0.106 $107,522 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 5 $875,000 30 0.106 $92,819 Remove Track TF $20 3,885 $77,700 30 0.106 $8,242 Remove Turnout EA $20,000 1 $20,000 30 0.106 $2,121.58 Sub Total = $4,846,300 Sub Total = $514,092 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - FREIGHT (Variation 1) E Street Interlocking, No. 15 Turnout EA $1,100,000 2 $2,200,000 30 0.106 $233,374 H Street Interlocking, No. 15 Turnout EA $1,100,000 2 $2,200,000 30 0.106 $233,374 E Street LS $759,000 1 $759,000 30 0.106 $80,514 H Street LS $1,230,000 1 $1,230,000 30 0.106 $130,477 Palomar Street LS $1,420,000 1 $1,420,000 30 0.106 $150,633 Sub Total = $7,809,000 Sub Total = $828,373 CIVIL - Freight (Variation 1) Drainage TF $75 9,933 $744,975 30 0.106 $79,026 Utilities TF $100 9,933 $993,300 30 0.106 $105,369 Sub Total = $1,738,275 Sub Total = $184,395 Freight Total = $14,393,575 Freight Total = $1,342,465

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST ECONOMIC LIFE ANNUALIZATION ANNUAL DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE PER FTA (YEARS) FACTOR COSTS TRACK - LRT (Variation 1) New Ballasted Track TF $210 13,525 $2,840,250 30 0.106 $301,292 Temporary Ballasted Track TF $210 5,485 $1,151,892 30 0.106 $122,192 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 9,187 $1,010,570 30 0.106 $107,201 Temporary New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 5,485 $603,372 30 0.106 $64,005 New Trackway (fill) TF $350 4,338 $1,518,300 30 0.106 $161,060 Direct Fixation Track TF $325 12,417 $4,035,525 30 0.106 $428,085 Temporary Direct Fixation Track TF $325 395 $128,310 30 0.106 $13,611 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 0 $0 30 0.106 $0 New No. 15 Equilateral Turnout EA $240,000 14 $3,360,000 30 0.106 $356,426 Overhead Contact System TF $200 25,942 $5,188,400 20 0.117 $609,428 Temporary Overhead Contact System TF $200 5,880 $1,176,000 20 0.117 $138,133 Remove Track TF $20 20,355 $407,100 30 0.106 $43,185 Remove Turnout EA $20,000 2 $40,000 30 0.106 $4,243.17 Sub Total = $21,459,719 Sub Total = $2,348,860 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - LRT (Variation 1) H Street Interlocking, No. 15 Crossover EA $1,400,000 3 $4,200,000 30 0.106 $445,533 F Street LS $723,000 1 $723,000 30 0.106 $76,695 J Street LS $788,000 1 $788,000 30 0.106 $83,590 L Street LS $608,000 1 $608,000 30 0.106 $64,496 Moss Street LS $1,413,000 1 $1,413,000 30 0.106 $149,890 Naples Street LS $2,672,000 1 $2,672,000 30 0.106 $283,444 Anita Street LS $986,000 1 $986,000 30 0.106 $104,594 Sub Total = $11,390,000 Sub Total = $1,208,243 STATION - LRT (Variation 1) E Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 H Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 Palomar Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 Sub Total = $12,000,000 Sub Total = $1,272,951 STRUCTURAL - LRT (Variation 1) Retaining Walls TF $1,500 10,965 $16,447,500 30 0.106 $1,744,738 Bridges TF $3,500 1,452 $5,082,000 30 0.106 $539,095 Sub Total = $21,529,500 Sub Total = $1,744,738 VEHICLES - LRT (Variation 1) LRT Vehicles EA $4,000,000 7 $28,000,000 25 0.110 $3,084,706 Sub Total = $28,000,000 Sub Total = $3,084,706 CIVIL - LRT (Variation 1) Drainage TF $75 41,005 $3,075,375 30 0.106 $326,233 Utilities TF $100 41,005 $4,100,500 30 0.106 $434,978 NOTE: Unit Costs are current to 2010. Sub Total = $7,175,875 Sub Total = $761,211 LRT Total = $101,555,094 LRT Total = $10,420,710 Right-of-Way Acquisition (Variation 1) Right-of-Way Acquisition (Variation 1) SF $8 31,813 $254,504 100 0.100 $25,452 Temporary Right-of-Way SF $1 277,830 $277,830 100 0.100 $27,785 Sub Total = $532,334 Sub Total = $53,237

Freight + LRT +ROW = $116,481,003 Freight + LRT + ROW = $11,816,412 Contingency Contingency LS 25% 1 $29,120,251 TOTAL = $145,601,254 RF = Route Feet EA = Each LS = Lump Sum TF = Track Feet SF = Square Feet

Calculated By:______AECOM Checked By:______Page 3 of 7 10/29/10 SANDAG I-5 LRT Rail Construction Cost Items ALIGNMENT 4B - VARIATION 2

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST ECONOMIC LIFE ANNUALIZATION ANNUAL PER FTA DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE FACTOR COSTS TRACK - FREIGHT (Variation 2) (YEARS) New Ballasted Track TF $210 3,533 $741,930 30 0.106 $78,703 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 3,533 $388,630 30 0.106 $41,226 New Trackway (fill) TF $350 0 $0 30 0.106 $0 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 1 $175,000 30 0.106 $18,564 Remove Track TF $20 3,885 $77,700 30 0.106 $8,242 Remove Turnout EA $20,000 1 $20,000 30 0.106 $2,122 Sub Total = $1,403,260 Sub Total = $148,857 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - FREIGHT (Variation 2) E Street Interlocking, No. 15 Turnout EA $1,100,000 2 $2,200,000 30 0.106 $233,374 H Street Interlocking, No. 15 Turnout EA $1,100,000 2 $2,200,000 30 0.106 $233,374 Sub Total = $4,400,000 Sub Total = $466,749 CIVIL - Freight (Variation 2) Drainage TF $75 3,533 $264,975 30 0.106 $28,108 Utilities TF $100 3,533 $353,300 30 0.106 $37,478 Sub Total = $618,275 Sub Total = $65,586 Freight Total = $6,421,535 Freight Total = $681,192

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST ECONOMIC LIFE ANNUALIZATION ANNUAL PER FTA DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE FACTOR COSTS TRACK - LRT (Variation 2) (YEARS) New Ballasted Track TF $210 12,365 $2,596,545 30 0.106 $275,440 Temporary Ballasted Track TF $210 8,215 $1,725,192 30 0.106 $183,007 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 9,187 $1,010,550 30 0.106 $107,198 Temporary New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 8,215 $903,672 30 0.106 $95,861 New Trackway (fill) TF $350 3,178 $1,112,188 30 0.106 $117,980 Direct Fixation Track TF $325 34,737 $11,289,525 30 0.106 $1,197,584 Temporary Direct Fixation Track TF $325 395 $128,310 30 0.106 $13,611 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 0 $0 30 0.106 $0 New No. 15 Equilateral Turnout EA $240,000 14 $3,360,000 30 0.106 $356,426 Overhead Contact System TF $200 47,102 $9,420,300 20 0.117 $1,106,505 Temporary Overhead Contact System TF $200 8,610 $1,722,000 20 0.117 $202,265 Remove Track TF $20 20,355 $407,100 30 0.106 $43,185 Remove Turnout EA $20,000 2 $40,000 30 0.106 $4,243 Sub Total = $33,715,382 Sub Total = $3,703,306 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - LRT (Variation 2) HStH Street tI Interlocking, t l ki NNo. 15C15 Crossover EEAA $1$1,400,000 400 000 3 $4,200,000$4 200 000 30 0.1060 106 $445,533$445 533 J Street LS $788,000 1 $788,000 30 0.106 $83,590 L Street LS $608,000 1 $608,000 30 0.106 $64,496 Moss Street LS $1,413,000 1 $1,413,000 30 0.106 $149,890 Naples Street LS $2,672,000 1 $2,672,000 30 0.106 $283,444 Anita Street LS $986,000 1 $986,000 30 0.106 $104,594 Sub Total = $10,667,000 Sub Total = $1,131,547 STATION - LRT (Variation 2) E Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 H Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 Palomar Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 Sub Total = $12,000,000 Sub Total = $1,272,951 STRUCTURAL - LRT (Variation 2) Retaining Walls TF $1,500 32,994 $49,491,000 30 0.106 $5,249,968 Bridges TF $5,000 1,743 $8,715,000 30 0.106 $924,481 Sub Total = $58,206,000 Sub Total = $6,174,449 VEHICLES - LRT (Variation 2) LRT Vehicles EA $4,000,000 7 $28,000,000 25 0.110 $3,084,706 Sub Total = $28,000,000 Sub Total = $3,084,706 CIVIL - LRT (Variation 2) Drainage TF $75 43,595 $3,269,625 30 0.106 $346,839 Utilities TF $100 43,595 $4,359,500 30 0.106 $462,452 NOTE: Unit Costs are current to 2010. Sub Total = $7,629,125 Sub Total = $809,292 LRT Total = $150,217,507 LRT Total = $16,176,251 Right of Way Acquisition (Variation 2) Right of Way Acquisition (Variation 2) SF $8 6,343 $50,744 100 0.100 $5,075 Temporary Right-of-Way SF $1 406,823 $406,823 100 0.100 $40,685 Sub Total = $457,567 Sub Total = $45,760

Freight + LRT + ROW = $157,096,609 Freight + LRT + ROW = $16,903,202 Contingency Contingency LS 25% 1 $39,274,152 TOTAL = $196,370,761 RF = Route Feet EA = Each LS = Lump Sum TF = Track Feet SF = Square Feet

Calculated By:______AECOM Checked By:______Page 4 of 7 10/29/10

ATTACHMENT C

Alignment 4c Conceptual Layout Alignment 4c Cost Estimate 4c.1

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4c.2

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4c.3

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4c.4

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4c.5

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4c.6

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4c.7

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES 4c.8

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES SANDAG I-5 LRT Rail Construction Cost Items ALIGNMENT 4C - VARIATION 1

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST ECONOMIC LIFE ANNUALIZATION ANNUAL DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE PER FTA (YEARS) FACTOR COSTS TRACK - FREIGHT (Variation 1) New Ballasted Track TF $210 7,450 $1,564,500 30 0.106 $165,961 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 6,450 $709,500 30 0.106 $75,263 New Trackway (fill) TF $350 1,000 $350,000 30 0.106 $37,128 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 5 $875,000 30 0.106 $92,819 Remove Track TF $20 1,100 $22,000 30 0.106 $2,334 Remove Turnout EA $20,000 1 $20,000 30 0.106 $2,122 Sub Total = $3,541,000 Sub Total = $375,627 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - FREIGHT (Variation 1) E Street Interlocking, No. 15 Turnout EA $1,100,000 2 $2,200,000 30 0.106 $233,374 H Street Interlocking, No. 15 Turnout EA $1,100,000 2 $2,200,000 30 0.106 $233,374 E Street LS $759,000 1 $759,000 30 0.106 $80,514 H Street LS $1,230,000 1 $1,230,000 30 0.106 $130,477 Palomar Street LS $1,420,000 1 $1,420,000 30 0.106 $150,633 Sub Total = $7,809,000 Sub Total = $828,373 CIVIL - Freight (Variation 1) Drainage TF $75 7,450 $558,750 30 0.106 $59,272 Utilities TF $100 7,450 $745,000 30 0.106 $79,029 Sub Total = $1,303,750 Sub Total = $138,301 Freight Total = $12,653,750 Freight Total = $1,342,300

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST ECONOMIC LIFE ANNUALIZATION ANNUAL DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE PER FTA (YEARS) FACTOR COSTS TRACK - LRT (Variation 1) New Ballasted Track TF $210 13,625 $2,861,250 30 0.106 $303,519 Temporary Ballasted Track TF $210 5,485 $1,151,892 30 0.106 $122,192 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 13,625 $1,498,750 30 0.106 $158,986 Temporary New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 5,485 $603,372 30 0.106 $64,005 New Trackway (fill) TF $350 0 $0 30 0.106 $0 Direct Fixation Track TF $325 11,979 $3,893,175 30 0.106 $412,985 Temporary Direct Fixation Track TF $325 395 $128,310 30 0.106 $13,611 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 0 $0 30 0.106 $0 New No. 15 Equilateral Turnout EA $240,000 14 $3,360,000 30 0.106 $356,426 Overhead Contact System TF $200 25,604 $5,120,800 20 0.117 $601,487 Temporary Overhead Contact System TF $200 5,880 $1,176,000 20 0.117 $138,133 Remove Track TF $20 19,600 $392,000 30 0.106 $41,583 Remove Turnout EA $20,000 2 $40,000 30 0.106 $4,243 Sub Total = $20,225,549 Sub Total = $2,217,171 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - LRT (Variation 1) F Street LS $723,000 1 $723,000 30 0.106 $76,695 J Street LS $788,000 1 $788,000 30 0.106 $83,590 L Street LS $608,000 1 $608,000 30 0.106 $64,496 Moss Street LS $1,413,000 1 $1,413,000 30 0.106 $149,890 Naples Street LS $2,672,000 1 $2,672,000 30 0.106 $283,444 Anita Street LS $986,000 1 $986,000 30 0.106 $104,594 Sub Total = $7,190,000 Sub Total = $762,710 STATION- LRT (Variation 1) E Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 H Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 Palomar Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 Sub Total = $12,000,000 Sub Total = $1,272,951 STRUCTURAL - LRT (Variation 1) Retaining Walls TF $1,500 10,500 $15,750,000 30 0.106 $1,670,748 Bridges TF $3,500 1,479 $5,176,500 30 0.106 $549,119 Sub Total = $20,926,500 Sub Total = $2,219,867 VEHICLES - LRT (Variation 1) LRT Vehicles EA $4,000,000 7 $28,000,000 25 0.110 $3,084,706 Sub Total = $28,000,000 Sub Total = $3,084,706 CIVIL - LRT (Variation 1) Drainage TF $75 40,465 $3,034,875 30 0.106 $321,937 Utilities TF $100 40,465 $4,046,500 30 0.106 $429,250 NOTE: Unit Costs are current to 2010. Sub Total = $7,081,375 Sub Total = $751,187 LRT Total = $95,423,424 LRT Total = $10,308,592 Right-of-Way Acquisition (Variation 1) Right-of-Way Acquisition (Variation 1) SF $8 84,872 $678,976 100 0.100 $67,903 Temporary Right-of-Way SF $1 277,830 $277,830 100 0.100 $27,785 Sub Total = $956,806 Sub Total = $95,688

Freight + LRT + ROW = $109,033,980 Freight + LRT + ROW = $11,746,580 Contingency Contingency LS 25% 1 $27,258,495 TOTAL = $136,292,475 RF = Route Feet EA = Each LS = Lump Sum TF = Track Feet SF = Square Feet

Calculated By:______AECOM Checked By:______Page 5 of 7 10/29/10 SANDAG I-5 LRT Rail Construction Cost Items ALIGNMENT 4C - VARIATION 2

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST ECONOMIC LIFE ANNUALIZATION ANNUAL PER FTA DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE FACTOR COSTS TRACK - FREIGHT (Variation 2) (YEARS) New Ballasted Track TF $210 1,000 $210,000 30 0.106 $22,277 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 0 $0 30 0.106 $0 New Trackway (fill) TF $350 1,000 $350,000 30 0.106 $37,128 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 1 $175,000 30 0.106 $18,564 Remove Track TF $20 1,100 $22,000 30 0.106 $2,334 Remove Turnout EA $20,000 1 $20,000 30 0.106 $2,122 Sub Total = $777,000 Sub Total = $82,424 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - FREIGHT (Variation 2) E Street Interlocking, No. 15 Turnout EA $1,100,000 2 $2,200,000 30 0.106 $233,374 H Street Interlocking, No. 15 Turnout EA $1,100,000 2 $2,200,000 30 0.106 $233,374 Sub Total = $4,400,000 Sub Total = $466,749 CIVIL - Freight (Variation 2) Drainage TF $75 1,000 $75,000 30 0.106 $7,956 Utilities TF $100 1,000 $100,000 30 0.106 $10,608 Sub Total = $175,000 Sub Total = $18,564 Freight Total = $5,352,000 Freight Total = $567,736

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST ECONOMIC LIFE ANNUALIZATION ANNUAL PER FTA DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE FACTOR COSTS TRACK - LRT (Variation 2) (YEARS) New Ballasted Track TF $210 12,425 $2,609,250 30 0.106 $276,787 Temporary Ballasted Track TF $210 8,215 $1,725,192 30 0.106 $183,007 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 12,425 $1,366,750 30 0.106 $144,984 Temporary New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 8,215 $903,672 30 0.106 $95,861 New Trackway (fill) TF $350 0 $0 30 0.106 $0 Direct Fixation Track TF $325 34,629 $11,254,425 30 0.106 $1,193,861 Temporary Direct Fixation Track TF $325 395 $128,310 30 0.106 $13,611 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 0 $0 30 0.106 $0 New No. 15 Equilateral Turnout EA $240,000 14 $3,360,000 30 0.106 $356,426 Overhead Contact System TF $200 47,054 $9,410,800 20 0.117 $1,105,389 Temporary Overhead Contact System TF $200 8,610 $1,722,000 20 0.117 $202,265 Remove Track TF $20 22,200 $444,000 30 0.106 $47,099 Remove Turnout EA $20,000 2 $40,000 30 0.106 $4,243 Sub Total = $32,964,399 Sub Total = $3,623,534 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - LRT (Variation 2) JStJ Street t LS $788,000$788 000 1 $788,000$788 000 30 0.1060 106 $83$83,590 590 L Street LS $608,000 1 $608,000 30 0.106 $64,496 Moss Street LS $1,413,000 1 $1,413,000 30 0.106 $149,890 Naples Street LS $2,672,000 1 $2,672,000 30 0.106 $283,444 Anita Street LS $986,000 1 $986,000 30 0.106 $104,594 Sub Total = $6,467,000 Sub Total = $686,014 STATION- LRT (Variation 2) E Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 H Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 Palomar Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 30 0.106 $424,317 Sub Total = $12,000,000 Sub Total = $1,272,951 STRUCTURAL - LRT (Variation 2) Retaining Walls TF $1,500 32,865 $49,297,500 30 0.106 $5,229,442 Bridges TF $5,000 1,764 $8,820,000 30 0.106 $935,619 Sub Total = $58,117,500 Sub Total = $6,165,061 VEHICLES - LRT (Variation 2) LRT Vehicles EA $4,000,000 7 $28,000,000 25 0.110 $3,084,706 Sub Total = $28,000,000 Sub Total = $3,084,706 CIVIL - LRT (Variation 2) Drainage TF $75 42,865 $3,214,875 30 0.106 $341,032 Utilities TF $100 42,865 $4,286,500 30 0.106 $454,709 NOTE: Unit Costs are current to 2010. Sub Total = $7,501,375 Sub Total = $795,740 LRT Total = $145,050,274 LRT Total = $15,628,007 Right-of-Way Acquisition (Variation 2) Right-of-Way Acquisition (Variation 2) SF $8 38,237 $305,896 100 0.100 $30,592 Temporary Right-of-Way SF $1 406,823 $406,823 100 0.100 $40,685 Sub Total = $712,719 Sub Total = $71,277

Freight + LRT + ROW = $151,114,993 Freight + LRT + ROW = $16,267,020 Contingency Contingency LS 25% 1 $37,778,748 TOTAL = $188,893,741 RF = Route Feet EA = Each LS = Lump Sum TF = Track Feet SF = Square Feet

Calculated By:______AECOM Checked By:______Page 6 of 7 10/29/10

ATTACHMENT D

Third Track Alignments – Conceptual Layout Schematic Drawing

ATTACHMENT E

Alignments 4a, 4b, and 4c Evaluation Matrix

I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study SANDAG Third Mainline Track Alignment Evaluation ‐ DRAFT SUMMARY

EVALUATION CRITERIA Environmental / OVERALL Right‐of‐Way Platform Community Operations for RANK Alignment Acquisition Cost Accessibility Constraints Express Trolley Freight Benefits TOTAL (100 Points Possible) (100 Points Possible) (100 Points Possible) (100 Points Possible) (100 Points Possible) (25 Points Possible) (525 Points Possible)

Alignment 4c, Variation 2 ‐ Express 1 Trolley/Freight track 91 38 100 77 67 20 393 east of existing tracks throughout corridor.2

Alignment 4c, Variation 1 ‐ Express 2 Trolley/Freight track 65 90 67 77 67 15 381 east of existing tracks throughout corridor.2

Alignment 4b, Variation 2 ‐ Express Trolley track centered 96 26 67 68 33 15 305 3 between existing tracks throughout corridor.1

Alignment 4a, Variation 2 ‐ Express Trolley track centered 95.5 50 67 71 0 15 298.5 4 between existing tracks and localized at stations.1

Alignment 4b, Variation 1 ‐ Express Trolley track centered 72.5 78 33 68 33 10 294.5 5 between existing tracks throughout corridor.1 Alignment 4a, Variation 1 ‐ Express Trolley track centered 72.5 90 33 71 0 10 276.5 6 between existing tracks and localized at stations.1 BEST ALIGNMENT FOR 4a, Variation 1 & 4c, Variation 1 & 4c, Variation 1 & 4b, Variation 2 4c, Variation 2 4c, Variation 24c, Variation 2 EACH CRITERIA 4c, Variation 1 4c, Variation 2 4c, Variation 2 1. Freight operations window consistent with currently funded improvements. 2. Freight operations window is greater than currently funded improvements. NOTE: Variation 1 ‐ LRT only on grade separated structure (Palomar, H, and E Streets) with freight at‐grade including upgraded Palomar siding for freight by‐pass. Variation 2 ‐ LRT and freight on grade separated structure (Palomar, H, and E Streets).

Prepared By: AECOM 1 of 9 10/29/10 I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study SANDAG Third Mainline Track Alignment Evaluation ‐ DRAFT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY ACQUISITION

I. TOTAL AREA OF RIGHT‐OF‐WAY

Total Area of Right‐of‐Way Needed to be Total Points (30 Points Possible) Acquired (Square Feet)

Alignment 4a, Variation 1 31,344 24 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 3,924 27 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 31,813 24 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 6,343 27 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 84,872 21 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 38,237 24

Percentage of Total Points Range (Square Feet) (Decimal) No Right‐of‐Way Required 1 0.01 ‐ 25,000 0.9 25,001 ‐ 50,000 0.8 50,001 ‐ 100,000 0.7 100,001 ‐ 250,000 0.6 250,001+ 0.3

II. RIGHT‐OF‐WAY ACQUISITION (BY OWNER)

Total Area of Right‐of‐Way Needed to be Commercial Total Points (10 Points Possible) Acquired (Commercial, Square Feet) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 13,149 8 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 3,397 9 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 16,096 8 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 6,343 9 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 19,113 8 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 2,947 9

Total Area of Right‐of‐Way Needed to be Educational Total Points (10 Points Possible) Acquired (Educational, Square Feet) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 66 9 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 010 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 66 9 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 010 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 500 9 Alignment 4c,4c, Variation 2 001010

Total Area of Right‐of‐Way Needed to be Publicly Owned Total Points (5 Points Possible) Acquired (Publicly Owned, Square Feet) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 6,025 4.5 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 527 4.5 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 4,403 4.5 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 05 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 43,660 1.5 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 35,290 3

Total Area of Right‐of‐Way Needed to be Residential Total Points (15 Points Possible) Acquired (Residential, Square Feet) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 12,104 12 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 015 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 11,248 12 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 015 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 21,599 10.5 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 015

Percentage of Total Points Range (Square Feet) (Decimal) No Right‐of‐Way Required 1 0.01 ‐ 10,000 0.9 10,001 ‐ 20,000 0.8 20,001 ‐ 30,000 0.7 30,001 ‐ 40,000 0.6 40,001+ 0.3 NOTE: This range is used in determining the total points of each subsection under Section II.

Prepared By: AECOM 2 of 9 2/19/10 I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study SANDAG Third Mainline Track Alignment Evaluation ‐ DRAFT RIGHT‐OF‐WAY ACQUISITION

III. TOTAL NUMBER OF RELOCATIONS

Publicly Owned Total Number of Relocations (Each) Total Points (5 Points Possible) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 14 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 05 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 14 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 05 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 14 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 05

Residential Total Number of Relocations (Each) Total Points (15 Points Possible) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 29 3 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 015 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 27 3 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 015 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 27 3 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 015

Commercial Total Number of Relocations (Each) Total Points (10 Points Possible) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 28 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 010 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 28 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 010 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 28 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 010

Percentage of Total Points Range (Each) (Decimal) 0 1 1‐50.8 6‐10 0.5 11+ 0.2 NOTE: This range is used in determining the total points of each subsection under Section III. OVERALL TOTAL

Total Points (100 Points Possible) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 72.5 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 95.5 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 72.5 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 96 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 65 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 91

Prepared By: AECOM 3 of 9 2/19/10 I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study SANDAG Third Mainline Track Alignment Evaluation ‐ DRAFT COST

I. TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS

Total Capital Costs (Dollars) Total Points (60 Points Possible) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 $132,475,791 54 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 $184,126,886 30 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 $145,601,254 42 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 $196,370,761 18 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 $136,292,475 54 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 $188,893,471 30

Percentage of Total Points Range (Millions of Dollars) (Decimal) 120‐145 0.9 145‐170 0.7 170‐195 0.5 195+ 0.3

II. TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Total Annual Operational Costs (Dollars) Total Points (40 Points Possible) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 $11,407,612 36 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 $15,839,485 20 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 $11,816,412 36 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 $16,903,202 8 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 $11,746,580 36 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 $16,267,020 8

Percentage of Total Points Range (Millions of Dollars) (Decimal) 10‐12 0.9 12‐14 0.7 14‐16 0.5 16+ 0.2

OVERALL TOTAL

Total Points (100 Points Possible) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 90 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 50 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 78 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 26 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 90 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 38

Prepared By: AECOM 4 of 9 10/29/10 I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study SANDAG Third Mainline Track Alignment Evaluation ‐ DRAFT PLATFORM ACCESSIBILITY

Variation 1 ‐ LRT only on grade separated structure (Palomar, H, and E Streets) with freight at‐grade including upgraded Palomar siding for freight by‐pass. Alignment 4a, Var. 1 Alignment 4b, Var. 1 Alignment 4c, Var. 1

Statement Yes (+1) No (0) Yes (+1) No (0) Yes (+1) No (0) 1. Patrons do not have to cross any tracks to access their desired platform at the E, H, and Palomar Street 00 0 transit centers. 2. Alignment does not provide platform immediately 111 adjacent to non‐stopping express track. 3. At H Street, alignment allows each platform to serve 001 one type of service exclusively.

TOTAL (3 Points Possible) 112

Variation 2 ‐ LRT and freight on grade separated Alignment 4a, Var. 2 Alignment 4b, Var. 2 Alignment 4c, Var. 2 structure (Palomar, H, and E Streets). Statement Yes (+1) No (0) Yes (+1) No (0) Yes (+1) No (0) 1. Patrons do not have to cross any tracks to access their desired platform at the E, H, and Palomar Street 111 transit centers. 2. Alignment does not provide platform immediately 111 adjacent to non‐stopping express track. 3. At H Street, alignment allows each platform to serve 001 one type of service exclusively.

TOTAL (3 Points Possible) 223

OVERALL TOTAL

Total Points (100 Points Possible) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 33 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 67 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 33 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 67 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 67 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 100 Note: Formula to achieve Total Points = Points/Total Possible Points*100

Prepared By: AECOM 5 of 9 2/19/10 I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study SANDAG Third Mainline Track Alignment Evaluation ‐ DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL/COMMUNITY CONSTRAINTS

SENSITIVE HABITAT ‐ SOUTHERN COASTAL SALT MARSH

Total Track Length to be Constructed Within Total Points (30 Points Possible) Vegetation Community (TF) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 030 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 030 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 75 27 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 75 27 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 75 27 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 75 27 TOTAL (30 Points Possible)

SENSITIVE HABITAT ‐ NON‐NATIVE GRASSLAND

Total Track Length to be Constructed Within Total Points (30 Points Possible) Vegetation Community (TF) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 200 21 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 200 21 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 200 21 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 200 21 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 030 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 030 TOTAL (30 Points Possible) Range (TF) Percentage of Total Points (Decimal) 1‐100 0.9 101‐200 0.7 201‐300 0.5 301+ 0.3 NOTE: This range applies to all Sensetive Habitat areas evaluated above.

Prepared By: AECOM 6 of 9 2/19/10 I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study SANDAG Third Mainline Track Alignment Evaluation ‐ DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL/COMMUNITY CONSTRAINTS

TRACK PROXIMITY TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PARCELS (CONSIDERS POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS) Alignment Places 1 Track Alignment Places 2 Tracks Closer to Closer to Private Parcels (+20) Private Parcels (0) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 0 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 20 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 0 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 20 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 0 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 20 TOTAL (20 Points Possible)

POTENTIAL FOR VISUAL IMPACTS

Alignment Results in Lower Alignment Results in Higher Potential for Visual Impacts Potential for Visual Impacts (+20) (0) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 20 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 0 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 20 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 0 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 20 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 0 TOTAL (20 Points Possible)

OVERALL TOTAL

Total Points (100 Points Possible) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 71 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 71 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 68 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 68 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 77 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 77 Note: Formula to achieve Total Points = Points/Total Possible Points*100

Prepared By: AECOM 7 of 9 2/19/10 I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study SANDAG Third Mainline Track Alignment Evaluation ‐ DRAFT OPERATIONS FOR EXPRESS TROLLEY

Variation 1 ‐ LRT only on grade separated structure (Palomar, H, and E Streets) with freight at‐grade including upgraded Palomar siding for Alignment 4a, Var. 1 Alignment 4b, Var. 1 Alignment 4c, Var. 1 freight by‐pass. Statement Yes (+1) No (0) Yes (+1) No (0) Yes (+1) No (0) 1. Alignment does not require mixing of local and express LRT operations 001 on same track. 2. Alignment allows express trolley to board from center track for platform 01 0 use flexibility. 3. How many trains can be at a station at one time? (three trains = +1, two 001 trains = 0) TOTAL (3 Point Possible) 012

Variation 2 ‐ LRT and freight on grade separated structure (Palomar, H, Alignment 4a, Var. 2 Alignment 4b, Var. 2 Alignment 4c, Var. 2 and E Streets). Statement Yes (+1) No (0) Yes (+1) No (0) Yes (+1) No (0) 1. Alignment does not require mixing of local and express LRT operations 001 on same track. 2. Alignment allows express trolley to board from center track for platform 01 0 use flexibility. 3. How many trains can be at a station at one time? (three trains = +1, two 001 trains = 0) TOTAL (3 Point Possible) 012

OVERALL TOTAL

Total Points (100 Points Possible) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 0 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 0 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 33 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 33 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 67 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 67 Note: Formula to achieve Total Points = Points/Total Possible Points*100

Prepared By: AECOM 8 of 9 2/19/10 I‐5 South Multimodal Corridor Study SANDAG Third Mainline Track Alignment Evaluation ‐ DRAFT FREIGHT BENEFITS

Variation 1 ‐ LRT only on grade separated structure (Palomar, H, and E Streets) with freight at‐grade including upgraded Palomar siding for Alignment 4a, Var. 1 Alignment 4b, Var. 1 Alignment 4c, Var. 1 freight by‐pass. Statement Yes (+1) No (0) Yes (+1) No (0) Yes (+1) No (0) 1. Alignment maintains freight operating window consistent with currently 111 funded improvements. 2. Alignment potentially increases freight operations window over 001 currently funded improvements. 3. Alignment does not reduce access to freight for potential customers 111 within the study area. 4. Alignment reduces exposure of freight to vehicles and pedestrians. 0 0 0 5. Alignment does not potentially hinder service to customers utilizing 00 0 Palomar siding track.

TOTAL (5 Points Possible) 223

Variation 2 ‐ LRT and freight on grade separated structure (Palomar, H, and E Streets). Alignment 4a, Var. 2 Alignment 4b, Var. 2 Alignment 4c, Var. 2 Statement Yes (+1) No (0) Yes (+1) No (0) Yes (+1) No (0) 1. Alignment maintains freight operating window consistent with currently 111 funded improvements. 2. Alignment potentially increases freight operations window over 001 currently funded improvements. 3. Alignment does not reduce access to freight for potential customers 00 0 within the study area. 4. Alignment reduces exposure of freight to vehicles and pedestrians. 1 1 1 5. Alignment does not potentially hinder service to customers utilizing 111 Palomar siding track.

TOTAL (5 Points Possible) 334

OVERALL TOTAL

Total Points (25 Points Possible) Alignment 4a, Variation 1 10 Alignment 4a, Variation 2 15 Alignment 4b, Variation 1 10 Alignment 4b, Variation 2 15 Alignment 4c, Variation 1 15 Alignment 4c, Variation 2 20 Note: Formula to achieve Total Points = Points/Total Possible Points*25

Prepared By: AECOM 9 of 9 2/19/10

ATTACHMENT F

Palomar Street Over Rail Conceptual Layout Palomar Street Over Rail Cost Estimate

LEGEND: EXISTING RAIL RAIL TO BE REMOVED RAIL IMPROVEMENTS BRIDGE (PRECAST BOX GIRDER) RETAINING WALL EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM DRAIN

-

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES SANDAG I-5 SOUTH MULTIMODAL STUDY Grade Separation Construction Cost Items PALOMAR STREET OVER RAIL UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE TRACK - FREIGHT New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 2 $350,000 Remove Track TF $20 1,050 $21,000 Sub Total = $371,000 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - FREIGHT Palomar Street EA $1,420,000 1 $1,420,000 Sub Total = $1,420,000 Freight Total = $1,791,000

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE TRACK - LRT New Ballasted Track TF $210 0 $0 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 0 $0 Direct Fixation Track TF $325 0 $0 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 0 $0 Overhead Contact System TF $200 0 $0 Remove Track TF $20 0 $0 Sub Total = $0 STATION - LRT Palomar Street Station LS $4,000,000 0 $0 Sub Total = $0 STRUCTURAL Retaining Walls SF $100 96,144 $9,614,367 Bridge SF $250 8,690 $2,172,500 Sub Total = $11,786,867 CIVIL EarthworkEarthwork (I (Import)mport) CY $37 128, 812 $4, 766, 044 Curb & Gutter LF $66 6,856 $452,496 Sidewalk CY $385 423 $162,855 Asphalt & Base CY $310 15,062 $4,669,220 Traffic Signals EA $250,000 5 $1,250,000 Abandon Sewer LF $20 3,005 $60,100 Relocate Sewer LF $165 6,010 $991,650 Utility Removal (Overhead Electric) LS $100,000 2 $200,000 Utility Relocation (Overhead Electric) LF $500 3,000 $1,500,000 Abandon Storm Drain LF $24 1,465 $35,160 Relocation Storm Drain LF $200 2,930 $586,000 NOTE: Unit Costs are current to 2010. Sub Total = $14,673,525 Structural/Civil + LRT Total = $26,460,391

Freight + Structural/Civil + LRT = $28,251,391 Miscellaneous Drainage LS 10% 1 $2,825,139 Mobilization LS $1,265,000 1 $1,265,000 Traffic Control/Detours LS $200,000 1 $200,000 Stormwater Control BMPs LS $35,000 1 $35,000 Demolition, Clearing and Grubbing LS $320,000 1 $320,000 Pavement Marking and Traffic Signage LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Contingency LS 40% 1 $12,029,556 TOTAL = $44,928,587 CY = Cubic Yard EA = Each LF = Linear Feet LS = Lump Sum RF = Route Feet SF = Square Feet TF = Track Feet Calculated By:______AECOM Checked By:______7/26/10

ATTACHMENT G

Rail Under Palomar Street Conceptual Layout Rail Under Palomar Street Cost Estimate

LEGEND: EXISTING RAIL RAIL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS NO. 15 EQUILATERAL TURNOUT BRIDGE (SLAB BRIDGE) RETAINING WALL EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM DRAIN

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES SANDAG I-5 SOUTH MULTIMODAL STUDY Grade Separation Construction Cost Items RAIL UNDER PALOMAR STREET UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE TRACK - FREIGHT New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 0 $0 Remove Track TF $20 0 $0 Sub Total = $0 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - FREIGHT Palomar Street LS $1,420,000 1 $1,420,000 Sub Total = $1,420,000 Freight Total = $1,420,000

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE TRACK - LRT New Ballasted Track TF $210 4,460 $936,600 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 4,460 $490,600 Direct Fixation Track TF $325 0 $0 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 0 $0 New No. 15 Equilateral Turnout EA $240,000 3 $720,000 Overhead Contact System TF $200 4,460 $892,000 Remove Track TF $20 4,460 $89,200 Sub Total = $3,128,400 STATION - LRT Palomar Street Station LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 LRT Passenger Platform, Ramps, Elevators LS $2,000,000 1 $2,000,000 Sub Total = $6,000,000 STRUCTURAL Retaining Walls SF $100 58,520 $5,852,000 Bridge SF $250 4,400 $1,100,000 Sub Total = $6, 952, 000 CIVIL Earthwork (Export) CY $100 20,022 $2,002,173 Utility Removal (15" Sewer) LF $25 150 $3,750 Utility Relocation (15" Sewer) LF $165 700 $115,500 NOTE: Unit Costs are current to 2010. Sub Total = $2,121,423 Structural/Civil + LRT Total = $18,201,823

Freight + Structural/Civil + LRT = $19,621,823 Miscellaneous Drainage LS 10% 1 $1,962,182 Mobilization LS $1,265,000 1 $1,265,000 Traffic Control/Detours LS $200,000 1 $200,000 Stormwater Control BMPs LS $35,000 1 $35,000 Demolition, Clearing and Grubbing LS $320,000 1 $320,000 Pavement Marking and Traffic Signage LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Contingency LS 40% 1 $8,577,729 TOTAL = $31,984,235 CY = Cubic Yard EA = Each LF = Linear Feet LS = Lump Sum RF = Route Feet SF = Square Feet TF = Track Feet

Calculated By:______AECOM Checked By:______7/26/10

ATTACHMENT H

Rail Over Palomar Street Conceptual Layout

Rail Over Palomar Street Cost Estimate

LEGEND: EXISTING RAIL RAIL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS NO. 15 EQUILATERAL TURNOUT BRIDGE (CAST-IN-PLACE BOX GIRDER) RETAINING WALL EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM DRAIN

-

ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES SANDAG I-5 SOUTH MULTIMODAL STUDY Grade Separation Construction Cost Items RAIL OVER PALOMAR STREET UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE TRACK - FREIGHT New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 0 $0 Remove Track TF $20 0 $0 Sub Total = $0 GRADE CROSSING AND SIGNAL - FREIGHT Palomar Street EA $1,420,000 1 $1,420,000 Sub Total = $1,420,000 Freight Total = $1,420,000

UNIT COSTS ESTIMATED COST DESCRIPTION UNIT $/UNIT QUANTITY ESTIMATE TRACK - LRT New Ballasted Track TF $210 1,000 $210,000 New Trackway (at-grade) TF $110 1,000 $110,000 Direct Fixation Track TF $325 2,650 $861,250 New No. 10 Turnout EA $175,000 0 $0 New No. 15 Equilateral Turnout EA $240,000 3 $720,000 Overhead Contact System TF $200 4,650 $930,000 Remove Track TF $20 4,650 $93,000 Sub Total = $2,924,250 STATION - LRT Palomar Street Station Improvements LS $4,000,000 1 $4,000,000 LRT Passenger Platform, Ramps, Elevators LS $2,000,000 1 $2,000,000 Sub Total = $6,000,000 STRUCTURAL Retaining Walls SF $100 37,200 $3,720,000 Bridge SF $250 4,400 $1,100,000 Sub Total = $4, 820, 000 CIVIL Earthwork (Import) CY $37 11,022 $402,311 Utility Removal (Overhead Electric) LS $100,000 1 $100,000 Utility Relocation (Overhead Electric) LF $500 1,150 $575,000 NOTE: Unit Costs are current to 2010. Sub Total = $1,077,311 Structural/Civil + LRT Total = $14,821,561

Freight + Structural/Civil + LRT = $16,241,561 Miscellaneous Drainage LS 10% 1 $1,624,156 Mobilization LS $1,265,000 1 $1,265,000 Traffic Control/Detours LS $200,000 1 $200,000 Stormwater Control BMPs LS $35,000 1 $35,000 Demolition, Clearing and Grubbing LS $320,000 1 $320,000 Pavement Marking and Traffic Signage LS $2,500 1 $2,500 Contingency LS 40% 1 $7,225,624 TOTAL = $26,913,842 CY = Cubic Yard EA = Each LF = Linear Feet LS = Lump Sum RF = Route Feet SF = Square Feet TF = Track Feet

Calculated By:______AECOM Checked By:______7/26/10

ATTACHMENT I

SANDAG’s Regional Rail Grade Separations Prioritization List o

B"

B'

I

D 3