SANDAG - February 14, 2020 Board of Directors, Transportation Committee, and Regional Planning Committee General Comments

Jack Shu, President

1

Why is there a Crisis?

2

1 Source: NASA

3

Source: Chttps://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of- carbon-dioxide/

4

2 415 ppm

Source: Chttps://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of- carbon-dioxide/

5

After 40 more years of the current emissions rate 600 ppm

415 ppm

Source: Chttps://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of- carbon-dioxide/

6

3 Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change

7

97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.

8

4 If the thin atmosphere we live in was a coal mine, the Canary Has Died

• There are almost 3 billion fewer North American birds in 2019 than there were in 1970, accounting for a 29 percent decline • Fires in Australia, exacerbated by the climate crisis has killed an estimated one billion animals and torched over 15.6 Million acres • Coral reefs are dying around the world

9

San Diego Bay Flood Risk

Source: Climate Central

10

5 San Diego Bay Flood Risk

Source: Climate Central

11

San Diego Bay Flood Risk

Source: Climate Central

12

6 San Diego Bay Flood Risk

Source: Climate Central

13

San Diego Bay Flood Risk

Source: Climate Central

14

7 San Diego Bay Flood Risk

Source: Climate Central

15

San Diego Bay Flood Risk

Source: Climate Central

16

8 San Diego Bay Flood Risk

Source: Climate Central

17

San Diego Bay Flood Risk

Source: Climate Central

18

9 The largest source of GHGs is from Transportation, cars and trucks • We need to drastically reduce the emissions from the transportation sector starting now. •Even with the most optimistic conversion to electric vehicles, we have to reduce VMT 15 to 20% of current levels in the next 10 years. • There are many ways to do this, from addressing parking, increasing telecommuting, lane conversions, building an effective transit network to pricing road use.

19

If we do it right

• Our commute times will not go up. •The combined cost of transportation for users and government will go down. • We will have a vibrant economy. • Our communities will be safer and healthier.

20

10 From: Phil Birkhahn To: Clerk of the Board Subject: Agenda Comment, Item +4, for February 14, 2020 Joint Meeting Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 2:30:50 PM Attachments: SANDAG Agenda Comment Feb 14, 2020 Phil Birkhahn.pdf

Clerk of the Board, Please include my comment and report in the official record of the February 14, 2020 Joint Meeting of SANDAG’s Board of Directors, Transportation Committee, and Regional Planning Committee. Please let me know if I should provide separate pdf files for the Comment and Report, or if you have any other requirements. Thanks for any help and guidance you can provide.

Submitted February 12, 2020 to Clerk of the Board, [email protected] For the official public record. AGENDA COMMENT, Item +4 for February 14, 2020 Joint Meeting of SANDAG Board of Directors, Transportation Committee, and Regional Planning Committee Submitter: Phil Birkhahn, Member of the Public, Rancho Bernardo

Phil Birkhahn 858 472 5029

Submitted February 12, 2020 to Clerk of the Board, [email protected] For the official public record. AGENDA COMMENT, Item +4 for February 14, 2020 Joint Meeting of SANDAG Board of Directors, Transportation Committee, and Regional Planning Committee Submitter: Phil Birkhahn, Member of the Public, Rancho Bernardo MY RAIL VISION for SAN DIEGO FAST COMMUTER RAIL for VMT REDUCTION ONE PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION VISION DESIGNED TO LEVERAGE EXISITING TROLLEY, BRT, and BUS & BE LEVERAGED BY NEW TROLLEY, BRT & BUS We have an exciting year ahead as SANDAG comes to conclusions about our transportation future and makes recommendations to the San Diego community. I have confidence in their work. However, as a civil engineer, which includes transportation engineering, I could not resist developing my own vision. The first part is commuter and light rail in the report that follows. I propose Fast Commuter Rail as a new class of public transit for rush-hour trip speeds of 58 to 80 mph. Fast trainsets already run elsewhere but run slower even with grade separations. They have too many sharp curves in the wrong place and too many stations. Consequently, existing commuter rail provides rush hour trip speeds of just 31 to 48 miles per hour, like our own Coaster at 40 mph. Higher trip speed means lower travel times, the deciding factor for most commuters. What we have now is not fast enough to beat the rush-hour freeway. Transit riders spend an extra 45 minutes per day commuting. That motivates preference for cars and low transit ridership. Fast Commuter Rail can turn the tables, saving transit riders 45 minutes compared to driving. It would run from Chula Vista Center to Sorrento Valley in 24 minutes, with seven stations. It is inspired by the Purple Line. Transit riders save 45 minutes and more in New York and San Francisco, where 56% and 35% of commuters respectively use transit. Superior service by Fast Commuter Rail can increase San Diego ridership and weave other transit modes into a high- performance transit network. My report examines the likely Phase One, called the Job Train because it links the South County Residence Zone to the Mid-County Employer Zone. I believe the Job Train Phase 1 is the most important transportation project in San Diego County, providing the most benefit to the most people. My report shows why it is so important, prospective route and construction, the in- service timetable, benefits, costs, and comparison to massive freeway construction to serve mobility demand.

My question for the panel is: Can your new travel demand model consider differential travel time in estimating mode share in corridors? And accurately calculate long-term ridership, VMT and GHG reductions for each mode?

For updates, please contact me. [email protected]

MY RAIL VISION for SAN DIEGO

JOB TRAIN PHASE 1 FAST COMMUTER RAIL

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Registered Civil Engineer, California

January 2020

ii

Images here and previous page from Siemens Brochure, Desiro City – Evolution in Motion Siemens AG 2016 Mobility Division Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 81739 Munich, Germany

CONTENTS

Section page MY RAIL VISION FOR SAN DIEGO 1 with Schematic Map BIG COMMUTER TROUBLE 2 South County to Kearny Mesa & UTC/UCSD/Sorrento/Miramar with Google Traffic Map TRAVEL DEMAND INTERPRETED from CALTRANS TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA 4 with Table JOB TRAIN TO COMPETE WITH FREEWAY 6 with Graphs PHASE 1: FIRST CUT ROUTE 8 with Google Earth Image STATION-to-STATION TRAVEL-TIME MODEL 10 with Table BENEFITS 13 Mobility for a Connected San Diego Region Commuter Market, Rider Capacity, & Ridership VMT & GHG Reduction Mode Share of Existing Long-Route Transit COSTS 16 Construction, Operation TROLLEY AND FREEWAY ALTERNATIVES 17 Equivalent Freeway Upgrades Likely Cost More with Table

APPENDIX 19 ROUTE SEGMENTS BETWEEN STATIONS with Google Earth Close Ups

Chula Vista Blue Line to 47th St Orange Line 20 47th St. Orange Line to City Heights 22 City Heights to Stadium Green Line 24 Stadium Green Line to Kearny Mesa 26 Kearny Mesa to UTC Blue Line 28 UTC Blue Line to Sorrento Valley 30

iv

HIGHER SPEED RAIL (HrSR) HIGHER SPEED RAIL (HrSR) Anaheim, Los Angeles Temecula, SR 76 @ Pala Mesa SR 74 @ Lake Elsinore, Corona, Ontario Airport 82 miles

[Grab your reader’s attention with a great quote from the document or use this space to emphasize a key point. To place this text box anywhere on the page, just drag it.] MY RAIL VISION for the SAN DIEGO REGION

EXISTING LIGHT RAIL JOB TRAIN 18 mph trips, 55 mph max 64.5 miles, 64 stations Phase 1

NEW RAIL LINES LIGHT RAIL 35 mph trips, 55 max Likely: 90 miles, 25 stations GoodSpeculative

FAST COMMUTER RAIL 65 mph trips, 100 mph max 140 miles, 29 stations Original Work by P. Birkhahn, October 8, 2019

1

MY RAIL VISION for SAN DIEGO JOB TRAIN – Phase 1

ONE PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION VISION DESIGNED TO LEVERAGE EXISITING TROLLEY, BRT, and BUS & BE LEVERAGED BY NEW TROLLEY, BRT & BUS

My Transportation Vision for San Diego starts with the heavy rail part of My Rail Vision. Heavy rail is the only rival to freeways in capacity to move very large numbers of people. I believe the right type of heavy rail is Fast Commuter Rail. The focus of this pamphlet is the likely Phase 1. Review, comment, and improvement on any content in this report is welcome. The approximate methods used herein are introductory to start conversations. I look forward to definitive proposals by SANDAG for our next Regional Transportation Plan. What would our ride be like on Fast Commuter Rail? Siemens’ Desiro® City (Germany) (shown in front pages) has all the amenities, restroom options, and wide connections between cars. Riders could walk inside the train end to end. Similar layouts are available in commuter rail by Bombardier (Germany), and Kawasaki Rail Car (Japan). They all excel on route lengths of 20 to 50 miles and station intervals of 3 to 10 miles, providing trip speeds of 60 to 80 miles per hour. Phase 1 from Chula Vista to UTC and Sorrento Valley would be somewhat like BART in San Francisco but faster. BART rail cars can cruise at 80 mph, but average trip speeds are 35 mph. Our Phase 1 would most likely cruise at 100 mph and provide average trip speed of 59 mph. Trip speed would be 66 mph on North County extensions. Somewhat faster options are available for both. The overall Fast Commuter Rail and trolley vision schematically mapped to the left fits the distributed nature of our jobs and residences throughout San Diego County’s urbanized area. Past focus on getting more people downtown is a poor strategy for the future compared to getting them directly to job centers during rush hour. JOB TRAIN Phase 1 is the keystone project that sets the stage for transportation solutions throughout the San Diego region for many decades. By itself, it would solve many of our most pressing needs: 1. Connect residential communities south of Interstate 8, where transit’s best customers live, to jobs and education north of Interstate 8. 2. Commuter travel time half that of automobile, with capacity exceeding I-15. 3. Stabilize freeway traffic at existing or reduced levels. 4. Practical commuting to work over a wide area. 5. Leverage trolley and bus into a regional intermodal network. 6. Large gains in transportation equity, economic justice, and environmental justice. 7. Prevent lots of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Multiple connections to existing and future trolley and bus rapid transit lines enable a distributed “mini- grand-central effect” throughout the trolley service area: Each connection is a preferred place to go for intermodal connections. The unique value of SPAWAR for the terminus of regional trains, airport service, and our most important intermodal hub is undiminished.

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 2

BIG COMMUTER TROUBLE South County to Kearny Mesa & UTC/UCSD/Sorrento/Miramar

Kearny Mesa and UTC/UCSD/Sorrento/Miramar are our biggest job concentrations by far. Think of them as the Mid-County Employer Zone (MCEZ). It has three times more jobs than Downtown. Yet the MCEZ gets only 25% of our transit seats while downtown gets 75%. That’s upside down and must be set right if public transit is to reach its potential.

Each workday, commuters living between Interstate 8 and the border head north to earn their living, joined in substantial numbers by residents of Tijuana. Think of that area as the South County Residence Zone (SCRZ). At the end of the workday they head south back home.

Traffic jams twice a day result on all available routes. Travel times of 50 minutes are common. There is no transit alternative. Mid-Coast Trolley to UTC should help but travel time will be even longer. Nevertheless, deterioration of the freeway option in coming years could make the Blue Line a desperate option.

Traffic jams between SCRZ and MCEZ are the largest traffic problem faced by San Diego County today. Yet, I never heard it mentioned at a SANDAG board meeting. Traffic growth rate is high so this issue will probably burst onto center stage sometime soon.

The large numbers of moderate- to low-income commuters who live in the SCRZ deserve a solution. That demographic is known to be far more likely to use transit than middle- and high- income commuters. Mid-County employers will also benefit. Chula Vista could become a Tier 1 employment center. The El Cajon Boulevard corridor in Mid City could do the same.

Job Train Phase 1 would be a massive win for transit ridership, and more important, for each rider. Many more riders will be able to get by with one car or even no car. Each car avoided typically saves them about $5,000 per year, enough to make a difference in anyone’s life. Anyone trying to save and get ahead will be a big winner; like recent graduates with big student loans.

All of us will reap the benefits of reduced GHG emission. Job Train Phase 1 with its better service, could divert enough commuters to keep affected freeways moving.

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 3

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 4

TRAVEL DEMAND INTERPRETED from CALTRANS TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA

How many commuters might ride Job Train Phase 1? Detailed answers are due from SANDAG sometime next year.

Until SANDAG completes its new travel demand model, a preview can be estimated from Caltrans Traffic Volume data. CalTrans counts vehicles every year at numerous points along the freeways and highways. Summarized results for I-805 in 2017 from SR-54 to Mira Mesa Boulevard are shown in the adjacent table. Results for 2018 are not yet published.

For I-805 north of I-8, the left column in the table reports Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) to be 195,333 vehicles (below the third gray bar). So, annual traffic is 71,296,545. Other freeways connecting north and south are I-15, SR-163, and I-5 with AADTs of 194,250; 144,400; and 156,000, respectively. SR-52/SR125 contributes 75,000. SR-52 works with SR-125 as an alternate route from the South County Residence Zone into the Mid-County Employer Zone. I-805 is the most direct route; it might carry half the traffic if it was three times wider with 12 lanes each way.

Existing travel demand adds up to 279,218,795 vehicles per year. They carry 307,140,674 passengers per year at an average vehicle occupancy of 1.1 per vehicle. That is 14 times the 22,000,000-passenger traffic at San Diego Airport in 2017. Freeway commuters face problematic trips 255 workdays per year. Airport traffic is rarely a problem outside of 25 holidays. Hmmm, fourteen times more travelers affected ten times more often.

Differential growth will not change the situation. Recent estimates for the airport are 40 million passengers by 2043, 80% growth in 26 years at 2.3% annual rate. On I-805 from SR-54 to Mira Mesa Blvd, growth 2015 to 2017 averaged 2.4%. Hopefully, traffic census results for 2018 and future years will be lower but don’t count on it.

The airport has a plan for 2043, and SANDAG is working on airport access to meet that travel demand. We have no such plan for travel demand between the SCRZ and the MCEZ. Some projects are in our Regional Transportation Plan but their adequacy for future travel demand is unknown. The projects are mostly unfunded anyway.

We need to get moving or face a future with a transportation system that fails to get us to work. We could face freeway commuting at 10 miles per hour by 2050. The middle column called “Regular Lanes” starts my own analysis of the Caltrans data to the left. Colors in the columns indicate likely traffic conditions in 2030, 2040, and 2050 using a diminishing growth profile (p.18).

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 5

TRAVEL DEMAND INTERPRETED from CALTRANS TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA SOUTH COUNTY to KEARNY MESA and UTC/UCSD/SORRENTO/MIRAMAR

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 6

JOB TRAIN to COMPETE WITH FREEWAY South County to Kearny Mesa & UTC/UCSD/Sorrento/Miramar

Job Train must offer superior service to succeed. Luckily, freeways have no aspiration whatsoever to maintain fast commutes over the years. I use the following design goals:

• Travel time all day roughly matching freeways when they are not congested. That requires minimum trip speeds of 60 miles per hour. Cruising speed must be faster than freeway, at 100 mph, because of station stops. • Frequency of 5 minutes to eliminate rider’s scheduling concerns. Just show up and ride instead of trying to catch a specific train. • Train sets for operation in early years meet initial ridership with short trains for up to 450 passengers. Initial operation could be with 12 trainsets carrying 5400 passengers per hour. Long-term growth up to eight times initial ridership provided by long trains and 2.5-minute frequency, carrying up to 43,000 passengers per hour. • Locate stations where loading platforms eventually can be lengthened for long trains.

In practice, rush hour commutes by Job Train would be half the rush-hour freeway time. At other times of day, the freeway might be as fast as the Job Train. The schedule would look something like:

COMMUTER RUSH HOUR TRAVEL TIMES

Boarding Station Morning Destination in MCEZ, minutes from to Kearny Mesa to UTC / UCSD to Sorrento Valley Chula Vista Blue Line 15 21 24 47th St Orange Line 10 15 19 City Heights 7 12 15 Stadium 4 9 12

The shortest commute time would be 4 minutes and the longest 24 minutes. The average commute would be 14 minutes. How will Job Train leverage existing trolley? Transit between SDSU and UCSD would be about 30 minutes by adding two trolley transfers.

Unlike the trolley with its open track and impaired speeds, tracks for the Job Train would be for its exclusive use. No pedestrian trespassing, no crossings. Elevated and underground tracks inherently isolate the tracks and at-grade tracks would be securely fenced. Combined with continual observation by security cameras and sensors, some transit systems even run trains robotically with no operator.

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 7

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 8

PHASE 1: FIRST-CUT ROUTE

A likely route for Job Train - Phase 1 would mostly follow existing transportation rights-of-way, I-805 and I-15. Most curves are gentle enough for a modern electric passenger train moving at 100 mph. Distance between stations would average 3.9 miles.

Many variations are possible from this first cut route. Most of the way, tunnels can be deep enough to minimize concern about routes under buildings. If so, some stations could be relocated, such as crossing El Cajon Boulevard where future residence and employment density is expected to be highest. The station in Southeast San Diego could cross the Orange Line next to the larger Euclid Station instead of 47th Street.

Crossrail in London, UK is a real life example of commuter rail that is scheduled to open in 2021 http://www.crossrail.co.uk/. It is a 73-mile system with $24 billion total cost, including 26 miles of new twin tunnels Crossrail Tunnels. Train sets look similar but are from Bombardier instead of Siemens.

Job Train Phase 1 route segments between stations are shown in alternating green and red. Detailed maps of each segment and descriptions are in the Appendix, including tabulation of route miles likely to be At Surface, Elevated, or Underground, and the number of portals.

Altogether the six segments are 10% At Surface, 17% elevated, and 73% underground. The four separate underground sections, requiring 8 portals, sometimes incorporate underground stations.

At Surface Elevated Underground Total Route Miles 2.2 3.9 17.1 23.2 Track Miles 4.4 7.8 34.2 46.4 Portals - - - 8 Stations 2 1 4 7

Job Train is Fast Commuter Rail that is mostly underground. The underground segments would have two tunnels, one for each direction, and a smaller emergency tunnel in between.

It’s not a subway. Subways have short distances between stations to serve large areas of continuous high-density residence and work. For example, Los Angeles Metro Purple Line is being built with station intervals or about 1.3 miles. Metros in the eastern US have even shorter intervals.

It’s not high-speed rail, either. Those trains cruise at 140 mph and up.

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 9

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 10

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 11

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 12

STATION-to-STATION TRAVEL-TIME MODEL

Travel times in the table on page 6 are my own calculations using this Station-to-Station model. It works reasonably well for protected rail rights-of-way and higher speeds where track trespassing is prevented. It does not work for open systems like the trolley where speed limits are way below the cruising-speed capability of the train.

Progress from station to station is shown in the numerical model result on the previous two pages. It is simply a spread sheet that incorporates equations relating distance, speed, time and acceleration plus interaction between parts of the run between stations.

Manufacturers specification for rail-vehicle maximum cruising speed and acceleration are entered at the top. Distance between stations is entered at right, with calculated speed and time below.

Each run has up to nine parts:

1. Acceleration from the start station to 30 mph in 15.8 seconds, 2. Holding 30 mph up to 45 seconds if a low-speed curve is present, 3. Acceleration to 100 mph in 36.8 seconds, 4. Cruising at 100 mph in length remaining from parts 1 to 3 and 6 to 8, 5. Slowing somewhat for a mid-segment curve and re-accelerating, 6. Deceleration to 30 mph, 7. Holding 30 mph up to 45 seconds if a low-speed curve is present, 8. Deceleration to 0 mph at the end station, 9. Dwell time of 30 seconds for passenger entry and exit.

For the Desiro City by Siemens, maximum cruise is 100 mph and maximum acceleration/deceleration is 1.90 miles per hour per second. Cumulative results are at the lower right.

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 13

BENEFITS

MOBILITY for a CONNECTED SAN DIEGO REGION Mobility goals should first be defined by performance during the commuter rush hour. No job in urbanized San Diego County should be too far away, at least until you know it’s permanent and move closer. Employers call it “hiring range”. They benefit from access to large numbers of potential employees and consider that when picking a metropolitan area. Job Train Phase 1 offers 24-minute trips from Chula Vista to Sorrento Valley any time of day, including the commuter rush hour when freeways are clogged. The longest route in the potential future system of Fast Commuter Rail would be San Ysidro to Oceanside, 50 minutes for the 52-mile trip. The result will be a second kind of mobility: Economic Mobility. Economic Mobility is key to achieving transportation equity, economic justice, and environmental justice. Freeway’s record of mobility enhancement is episodic boom-bust, working well only after major expansion and becoming ineffective as the years go by. COMMUTER MARKET, RIDER CAPACITY, & RIDERSHIP Initial ridership of 20% of subparallel freeway routes between SCRZ and MCEZ is reasonable for sizing initial capacity. Our existing trolley lines are slower than the freeway but still achieve 11% to 18% mode share (see “Mode Share of Existing Long-Route Transit" below). Job Train will be twice as fast as the rush-hour freeway and a far better ride.

As of 2017, peak hour vehicle counts were 10,000 for I-805 and 8,000 for I-15 (columns 6 & 7, p. 5). Drawing some riders from I-5, SR-163, and SR125/SR-52 is also likely. Together the five routes probably serve about 20,000 commuters per hour whose shortest route to and from work is I-805. This is the currently addressable market. By 2030, it should grow 28% to 25,000 for typical ride lengths of about 14 minutes (see Freeway Alternative, p. 17 for growth profile).

Ridership comes from the achievable mode share. Competitive factors affecting mode share are the number and type of lanes added to freeways, the degree of success of electric multi- passenger autonomous vehicles and use of pricing strategies for express lanes.

At 20% mode share, the Job Train would carry 5,000 commuters per hour, about twice the Blue Line. With 12 trains per hour, each would need to carry 416 passengers. Desiro City cars accommodate 152 passengers, averaging 58 seated and 94 standing, so train sets of three cars can serve 20% mode share.

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 14

VMT REDUCTION The congested freeway commute lasts about 3 hours but there is only one peak hour and the other two are somewhat smaller. For calculation, I use 2.5 hours, indicating 12,500 commuters per rush hour. Each commuter would take two 14-minute rides per day, traveling 14 miles each way for a total of 28 miles per day. With ridership from 20% mode share, VMT would be reduced 350,000 miles per day (12,500x28).

The reduction is 89,250,000 miles per year over 255 workdays. About the same VMT reduction would be realized by non-rush hour trips. Call it 180 million miles of VMT reduction per year.

GHG REDUCTION The City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan uses an emission factor for 2035 of 278 grams CO2e per mile CO2e from VMT (p. A-12), which implies fleet average in 2035 of about 32 miles per gallon. Annual GHG reduction for the avoided 180 million VMT per year is 50,000,000 kilograms, and in metric tons is 50,000. To put that into perspective, it is 23% of the annual reduction listed for mass transit in the City of San Diego Climate Action Plan. The GHG reduction will grow in future decades. At full capacity, Job Train Phase 1 would reduce GHG by 400,000 metric tons per year, far more than the mature long-route transit below. It also exceeds the GHG reduction for Strategy 3: BICYCLING, WALKING, TRANSIT & LAND USE in City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan.

GHG Reduction by Existing Long-Route Transit

TRANSIT SERVICE VMT @ 14 miles CO2e Route Annual Riders per rider Metric Tons Coaster 1,463,663 20,491,282 5,692 Blue Line 18,246,797 255,455,158 70,960 Orange Line 8,350,180 116,902,520 32,473 Green Line 10,677,053 149,478,742 41,522 20,110,235,237,280,290* 2,617,787 36,649,018 10,180 225 Otay to Downtown 236,103 3,305,442 918 *Express & BRT from Escondido, Rancho Bernardo & Mira Mesa to Downtown

MODE SHARE OF EXISTING LONG-ROUTE TRANSIT SANDAG’s work on complete corridors could lead to routine reporting of mode shares within each corridor. The table below is at the annual level because ridership is reported or easily

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 15 derived from published data. More granular information like BART’s for time of day ridership, and entry-exit station performance would enable deeper understanding of our commute.

Transit Share of Corridor Passenger Traffic

TRANSIT SERVICE FREEWAY COMPETITOR TRANSIT Route Annual Riders Route Annual Riders SHARE Coaster 1,463,663 I-5 87,618,141 1.6% Blue Line 18,246,797 I-5 78,445,472 18.9% Orange Line 8,350,180 SR-94 61,396,176 12.0% Green Line 10,677,053 I-8 83,435,715 11.3% 20,110,235,237,280,290 2,617,787 I-15 89,727,622 2.8%

An unexpected insight is that the often-heard criticism of locating trolley lines along or near freeways is unfounded. The best performer is the Blue Line, which is closest to its sub-parallel freeway, with 18.9% mode share. What really counts is where the stations are. Tracks can follow any available route.

Proposed new commuter rail, bus rapid transit and freeway improvements should include explicit statements of transit share in its corridor, in addition to ridership, VMT reduction, and GHG reduction. For Job Train Phase 1 an early goal might be about 20%, with an ulimate goal of 50%. Fifty percent is high enough to carry all of the traffic growth that might occur by 2050 and make major contributions to regional and municipal GHG reduction goals.

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 16

COSTS

I believe Job Train Phase 1 can be built for $15-billion, and operated for less than $8 per passenger.

CONSTRUCTION CityLab summarized recent construction cost for At Surface, Elevated, and Underground rail, finding $205-, $500-, $804-million per mile, respectively. San Diego has favorable tunneling conditions compared to projects in the CityLab summary.

JOB TRAIN CONSTRUCTION COST

Construction Type Miles Cost per Mile Cost At Surface 2.2 $205,000,000 $ 451,000,000 Elevated 3.9 $500,000,000 $ 1,950,000,000 Underground 17.1 $750,000,000 $12,825,000,000 TOTAL 23.2 $640,000,000 $15,226,000,000

Construction might cost less, or more. The above Cost per Mile applied to Crossrail in London UK overestimates its cost by 20%. It is 2 years away from opening. In the other direction, the recent contract for LA Metro Purple Line Phase 3 was $1.8 billion for 2.6 route miles and two stations Tunnels and Stations, but other unspecified costs bring the total to $3.6 billion, or $1.4 billion per mile. LA has especially challenging tunneling conditions.

OPERATION The trains for initial service probably cost $10- to $15-million each, adding $120 to $180 milliion. Service improvements to meet additional demand are relatively low cost: more trains, lengthened stations, and upgrades to electrical capacity are required. However, no additions to the tunnels and other track structure are needed beyond train storage tracks, and maintenance.

Operating costs should be less than $8 per passenger. Two benchmarks are available. BART spends about $8 per passenger, shared by fares and subsidies. It is an aging system in challenging infrastructure conditions. Our MTS is an efficient operator that should benefit from better conditions, and new equipment.

For FY2019, MTS had overall operating costs of $3.54 per passenger. Rapid bus service to Downtown on long routes like Job Train cost from to $7.39 for Route 290 from Rancho Bernardo, to $11.43 per passenger for Route 225 from Otay Mesa. Coaster is $14.13 per passenger with a high subsidy of $10.07.

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 17

TROLLEY AND FREEWAY ALTERNATIVES

EXPENSIVE? COMPARED TO PURPLE LINE A $7 billion alternative project is the Purple Line Trolley, which has limited long-term potential. It’s route is from San Ysidro or Chula Vista to Kearny Mesa and UTC, mostly along I-805 and I-15 rights-of-way. At best, trip times would be about 45% longer than Job Train, not fast enough to compete head-to-head with freeway. No assessment of locations and costs of right-of-way addition is available.

Including the trains and upgrades, operation costs should be about $3 per passenger. Its maximum capacity for future growth would be half that of Job Train. As a less-attractive slow ride, it appears unlikely to need much expansion.

In future decades after electric vehicles dominate, limited additional lanes on I-805, I-15, I-5, SR-163, and SR-52/SR-125 might be welcome. Presence of Purple Line Trolley would complicate and increase cost to widen I-805, especially for right-of-way additions.

A new Purple Line version costing $8 billion is proposed by MTS for Chula Vista to Kearny Mesa. Its first segment could be very valuable. It would start as proposed, at the Blue Line E Street Station and run to the Orange Line 47th Street Station at the co-located Job Train station. Passengers would transfer to Fast Commuter Rail of the Job Train for the trip to points north.

EXPENSIVE? FREEWAY COSTS MORE We could try to maintain mobility by expanding freeways. My estimate for the 106 miles of north-south freeways in the SCRZ/MCEZ corridor is $24.6 billion to keep up through 2050. Winthin that we need 20% more capacity just to solve existing congestion. The rest would maintain the freeways in a limited congestion state.

By 2050, the average number of new lanes needed is 2.5 each way but it varies from zero to 6 lanes each way, because of localized rapid growth. I use my own custom model derived from Caltrans traffic volume data because no long-term estimate is available from government sources. Their focus has been on individual congestion relief projects instead of reliable fast service over the long term.

My estimate includes:

• $10.7 billion for 536 miles of new lanes at $20,000,000 per lane mile based on the cost for the North Coast Corridor project on I-5, • $4.7 billion for the seven viaducts and bridges along I-805 based on the cost of the Mission Valley Viaduct,

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 18

• $2.0 billion for bridges along other routes, and • $7.2 billion for right-of-way acquisition based on 15 feet of width per lane and a land cost of $170 per square foot.

North-South freeways in the SCRZ/MCEZ corridor grew at 2.4% annual rate from 2015 to 2017, which would increase traffic volume 220% by 2050. However, growth is expected to slow down. I used area-wide growth of 2.4% through 2020, then 1.9%, 1.4%, and 1.2% for the 2020s, 2030s, and 2040s, respectively. Individual routes are higher or lower.

Obviously, a comprehensive evaluation from Caltrans of all freeway rights-of-way is needed to guide planning our transportation future. We need to know the cost of adding each incremental new lane to the already crowded rights-of-way. Without that knowledge, alternatives like Fast Commuter Rail and conventional transit cannot be evaluated fairly.

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 19

APPENDIX

PROSPECTIVE ROUTE SEGMENTS BETWEEN STATIONS

Chula Vista Blue Line to 47th St. Orange Line 47th St. Orange Line to City Heights City Heights to Stadium Green Line Stadium Green Line to Kearny Mesa Kearny Mesa to UTC Blue Line UTC Blue Line to Sorrento Valley

SUMMARY:

At Surface Elevated Underground Total Route Miles 2.2 3.9 17.1 23.2 Track Miles 4.4 7.8 34.2 46.4 Portals - - - 8 Stations 2 1 4 7

Note: Route segments shown with alternating green and red lines. Stations are at ends of each segment.

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 20

CHULA VISTA BLUE LINE to 47TH St. ORANGE LINE 5.7 miles Phase 1 of the Job Train starts at Chula Vista Center Station one-half mile from the Blue Line. 1. This lilkely at-grade station would extend along H Street to the corner at Broadway. The Blue Line station might be relocated to parallel the Job Train station, or a people mover would connect to the existing station. 2. An elevated service track along H St. might connect to existing freight-rail right-of-way leading to train storage along the bay. 3. Upon departure, the job train would enter a cut-and-cover tunnel under H Street and make a low-speed curve to north on 4th Street. This construction type would continue to north of D Street, then enter a deeper tunnel built by tunnel boring machine (TBM), or traverse an elevated track over SR-54. 4. If 4th Street is not wide enough for twin tunnel plus service tunnel, 3rd Street might need to carry one track, or stacked geometry might be used. 5. The TBM tunnel or elevated track would continue through National City golf course to I-805 where TBM construction beneath the freeway would be the best option as far as the Orange Line 47th Street Station.

At Surface Elevated Underground Total Route Miles 0.3 0 1.2 +4.2 5.7 Track Miles 0.6 0 10.8 11.4 Portals 1

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 21

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 22

47TH St. ORANGE LINE to CITY HEIGHTS 3.7 miles 1. The Orange Line 47th St. Station deep under open land between freeway lanes and buildings and the trolley tracks. Walking distance to the existing trolley station would be 400 feet. However, extending the trolley station closer to the Job Tain would prepare it for eventual operation of 5-car train sets, instead of the current 3-car sets. 2. Deep tunnel construction by TBM would continue at least to Market Street where an option to pass SR-94 must be selected. 3. Passing SR-94 could be by aerial construction to near Home Avenue or alternately continuing the TBM tunnel deeper below soft soils filling the valley. 4. From Home Avenue, a typical tunnel depth of 150 feet is likely all the way to City Heights Station, or alternately with aerial construction as far as the I-805/I-15 interchange

At Surface Elevated Underground Total Route Miles 0 0.7 0.6 + 2.4 3.7 Track Miles 0 1.4 6.0 7.4 Portals 2

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 23

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 24

CITY HEIGHTS to STADIUM GREEN LINE 2.0 miles 1. City Heights Station would be under I-15 just north of El Cajon Blvd. Access would be by elevators located at both sides of the freeway. 2. Transition to aerial construction east of I-15 is likely about half- mile south of I-8. 3. Aerial construction would continue over I-8 to Stadium Green Line Station.

At Surface Elevated Underground Total Route Miles 0 0.8 1.2 2.0 Track Miles 0 1.6 2.4 4.0 Portals 1

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 25

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 26

STADIUM GREEN LINE to KEARNY MESA 4.0 miles 1. Stadium Green Line Station would be located along the west side of I-15, perhaps using some Stadium property. It would be aerial like the existing trolley station, which might be relocated to the same site. The owner of the Stadium property will strongly influence the final location. 2. Aerial construction would transition over southbound I-15 by about Friars Road, then follow the median to just south of Aero Drive. 3. At Aero Drive a large radius curve would enter a tunnel on the north side. 4. This tunnel is a candidate for efficient construction by TBM. 5. The tunnel would follow the north boundary of Montgomery Field Airport, then under Balboa. 6. Kearny Station is at Convoy and Balboa.

At Surface Elevated Underground Total Route Miles 0 2.0 2.0 4.0 Track Miles 0 4.0 4.0 8.0 Portals 1

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 27

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 28

KEARNY MESA to UTC BLUE LINE 5.4 miles 1. Kearny Mesa Station would be an underground accessed by elevator in parking lots north and south of Balboa. 2. Upon departure, the train would enter a moderate-speed curve and follow TBM tunnel to just south of SR-52. 3. Transition to aerial construction in the slopes east of I-805 lanes. 4. Aerial construction to continue as far as Nobel Drive to enter a TBM tunnel 5. TBM tunnel following La Jolla Village Drive to at-grade UTC Transit Center.

At Surface Elevated Underground Total Route Miles 1.6 + 0.3 0.4 1.9 +1.2 5.4 Track Miles 3.8 0.8 6.2 10.8 Portals 3

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 29

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 30

UTC BLUE LINE to SORRENTO VALLEY 2.4 miles 1. Job Train station at UTC could be underground or surface. 2. A low-speed curve to under Genesee, then as far as Eastgate Mall. 3. Continue as TBM under I-805/Mira Mesa Blvd interchange to underground Sorrento Station

At Surface Elevated Underground Route Miles 0 0 2.4 Track Miles 0 0 4.8 Portals 0

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020 31

Original Work by Phil Birkhahn, [email protected] Version: January 2020